garded not their nation but their religion. And secondly, that the reason always assigned as the ground of the prohibition is not political, but moral, and therefore universally and constantly binding. Thus we find Moses saying, "Neither shalt thou make 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.'

But to come nearer.

Have we not in the New Testament a prohibition the most explicit? Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.' We are aware that some are disposed to take this scripture in a larger sense, as forbidding to join with such persons in church communion. But in answer to this, not to remark, what we think cannot be denied, that the expression of yoke-fellow is more used in reference to marriage than to church communion; the former application of it being the natural and original, the latter of course only the borrowed and secondary; I say, not to

avail ourselves of this circumstance, we observe, that we have nothing to fear from admitting the explanation proposed. For if Christians are forbidden to join with unbelievers in church communion, surely they are equally enjoined not to enter with them into marriage contract. What! were the converted Corinthians commanded to 6 come out from among them and yet be permitted to enter into the closest affinity with them? Were they ordered to be separate and not to 'touch the unclean thing' and yet be allowed to become one body? Was there to be no 'fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness, between light and darkness:' and yet were these to be united forever? Was 'he that believeth to have no part with an infidel,' and yet suffer them to be partners for life? Was 'the temple of God to have nothing to do with idols,' and yet were idols to be set up within its walls?

But if this be not deemed sufficient to establish our doctrine, let us attend to the language of the apostle when speaking expressly of marriage. The wife,' says he, 'is bound by the law, as long as her husband

liveth but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord.' Now though this be stated, as the occasion of the words required, in reference to a widow, the limitation unquestionably extends to all Christians in the same relative circumstances. This then is the law of the house. This is the indispensable consideration ONLY IN THE LORD. Thus the will of God is fully made known, and there are two things we ought to remark with regard to it.

First, He cannot err in his decision. His 'judgment is always according to truth. His understanding is infinite.' He views a subject in all its bearings, in all its consequences, in all the possibilities of its operation. He sees effects in their causes. He knows the end from the beginning. He perceives how we should think, feel, and act in every untried state of being. How qualified therefore is he to undertake to direct us! And to what implicit respect and absolute compliance is the determination of such an adviser entitled !

But secondly, we should remember that his counsel is not advice, but command. Consid

ered indeed as speaking from a regard to our welfare, a love to our souls, he is the friendly monitor: but as to our obligation to obey, and the danger we incur by trangression, there he is nothing less than a Sovereign. It is at your peril to cast any of his words behind your back. 'See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh.'

CHAPTER III.

THE EVILS OF TRANSGRESSING THE INJUNCTION

VARIOUSLY VIEWED.

Ir people were as easily satisfied in receiving truth as they are in opposing it; if no more was needful to influence the practice than to produce conviction; it might be unnecessary to enlarge after the adduction of the preceding arguments. But alas! in spiritual concerns men venture their souls on such trifling evidence, as, were it to govern them in their temporal affairs, would lead their fellow crea

tures to conclude that they were either madmen or idiots. Here we need 'line upon line ; precept upon precept.' Let us then specify some of the disadvantages and injuries that arise from an infraction of this law among professors of religion. And here we may observe,

That it scandalizes others. It counteracts, discourages, and confounds ministers. It injures the minds of your fellow Christians. It proves a distress to the strong, and 'a stumbling-block to the weak.' It turns that which is lame out of the way.' To your pious relations, it occasions the most painful regret and anxiety. 'And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, who were a grief of mind unto Isaac and Rebekah. And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these who are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?'

It excites suspicion of your own religion. At least it shows that you are not alive to its