In reply to this inquiry, the Apostle says, If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away: which, as one remarks, must imply the unlawfulness of marrying such a woman for were it supposed lawful to marry, there could be no dispute about living with her afterwards; because it is a less matter to hinder the contracting of marriage than to dissolve it when contracted.

If therefore it were a question whether the christian brother ought not to divorce his idolatrous wife, it is certain beyond a doubt that, had they been both single, he would have thought it unlawful to marry her.

This argument will appear still more forcible, if it be remembered, that the Apostle gives a latitude for parting when the unbelieving partner is refractory: for he says, If the unbeliever depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. From whence we may fairly conclude, that what is urged to justify separation in such a mar

riage, must operate more strongly against contracting it.

:

Nor is it more plausible to say that the widow was to enter into the marriage state in the fear of the Lord, consulting his glory in an affair of such importance; because it could never be a question, as the objection supposes, whether this was a branch of religious duty for it is at once apparent, that to reverence the Divine character, and to promote the Divine glory, are obligations from which no rational creature can ever be released. But admit the objection in its full force, and it may be asked, How could the pious widow enter into the marriage state with a view to the glory of her Divine Lord, when she was giving her hand to one whom she must consider as a stranger to God and to the gospel of his Son ?-Experience, as well as scripture, must have taught her that the carnal mind is enmity against God; that he that is in the flesh cannot please him; and that to form an alliance with such a character, would be an impeachment of her attachment to him whose cause she had recently

espoused, and whom she had avouched to be the Lord her God. It is therefore evident, that when the apostle says, The widow is at liberty to marry whom she will, ONLY IN THE LORD; he intended to assert, and has in effect asserted, as a law to believers in every age, That they are at liberty to marry those, and only those, whom they have reason to consider as true christians. If this be not his meaning, it will be difficult to show that his words have any meaning at all; for what need was there of any qualifying clause, or of any restriction, if it were a matter perfectly indiffe rent whether the Corinthian convert gave her hand to a believer in Jesus, or to a worshipper of Diana?

Permit me therefore to say, That the words on which I comment, and which, in reference to the present question, were graciously given as a rule of christian duty, will bear no other interpretation: they are at once irrefragable and plain, such as well-meaning simplicity may readily conceive; and of which we cannot mistake the meaning, but when we are afraid to

find it.' She, therefore, who, to gratify a passion impatient of restraint, marries an unconverted man, forgets her allegiance to the best of sovereigns, violates a divine precept, and joins affinity with one who is an enemy to both his people and his government.

To avoid the force of the apostolic injunction, it has been objected, That marriage is a civil institution intended for civil purposes; that religion is a matter totally distinct, and should therefore have nothing to do in forming such connexions. Now suppose, for a moment,

that

the descendants of Abraham had argued thus when Jehovah said concerning the Canaanitish 'nations, and urged the worship of himself as the ground of the prohibition, Thou shalt make no marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.' What answer might the captious objector have reasonably expected? Surely no

other than that which was afterwards given by a zealous reformer- Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?— Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.'

It is cheerfully granted, however, that marriage, simply considered, is an appointment purely civil: nor does this concession in the least affect the argument in question; because whatever civil ends were to be answered by the institution, are surely as fully accomplished by the union of two believers, as by that of the real with the nominal christian.

Every man is induced by some motive to marry this woman in preference to that. Some men are influenced by the love of gain; some by other motives equally detestable; and some it is hoped, though perhaps but comparatively few, by the dictates of affection. In a man of true piety, religion becomes a motive that urges him to seek for a woman whose views and ex