The Influence of the Bible upon the Social Institutions

By s6cial institutions, I mean those which form the basis, or grow out of the various relations of human society. Man is a social being. His physical, intellectual, and moral constitution, have a manifest reference to a state of social existence. Destitute of that strength which distinguishes many animals, unfurnished by nature either with weapons to resist, or speed to escape from their attacks, care for his safety alone would lead him to unite himself in close alHance with others of his species. The years of childhood and old age are conditions in which he must of necessity depend upon others; and in claiming during these periods of infirmity, sustenance and protection from his fellow men, he must consent in the days of his own strength to anticipate and deserve them.

Though well nigh the most helpless of all the animal creation, no longer a weak, isolated existence, he has been constituted the lord of this lower world. Instead of being the prey of ravenous beasts, he holds the brute creation in fear and servitude 5 instead of being exposed to the tempest, his dwelUng bids defiance to the winds 5 and when the hunger, want, and debility which he has succoured in others, become his own lot, his past services return to him at the hands of his fellows, though it be after many days. But not alone from his physical nature is he impelled to seek the society of his species. His moral and intellectual faculties determine him no less strongly to a social state, and pre-eminently fit him for it. Some of the noblest faculties of his soul, as well as some of the most amiable and exalted of his natural affections could be exercised only in such a condition. Benevolence, complacency, gratitude and heroism would all lie dormant, if he were an isolated being. Next to the pure fountains of spiritual joy, the most delightful sources of his enjoyment are those for the first time unlocked when he meets his fellow man. Isolated man can scarcely be said to have the capacity for lofty thought, or great atchievement. The noble efforts of human power and genius, of which there are so many monuments in our world, have been made under the strong encouragement, the powerful incentive of society. Led by these impulses, and guided by the light of nature alone, man has no doubt made vast progress in the arts of social life. He has founded empires, builded cities, collected armies, and has framed laws for their government and guidance. Literature and the arts have flourished in a greater or less degree of splendour, and a beneficial, though imperfect code of morality has crowned the work of his mind and hands, and raised it to the highest elevation which his own unaided powers have permitted.

Still however the structure is incomplete. It rests on no sure foundation, and is also imperfectly cemented and fitted together. The elements of which it is compounded are of such conflicting qualities, that they can be brought into harmony and perfect union, only by the all-pervading influence of a pure system of morality, founded on pure religion. To be sensible of this, it is necessary to take a glance at the various relations of human life where no supernatural revelation has ever been made. And here permit me to remark, this is the only method of ascertaining the appropriate influence of a supernatural revelation upon the social institutions. What was the state of human society before the Bible was given to men? What has been its condition since, and what is it now? There are evils in the social state; but had they no existence before a supernatural revelation was known? In what condition did the Scriptures find the social institutions? In what condition are these institutions found at the present day, where the Bible has never been known, or heard of? Infidels have charged not a few of the social calamities in the world on the introduction of Christianity. But I cannot help thinking, that if they did not feel an interest in rejecting the sacred Scriptures j if these holy oracles did not so severely reprove their wickedness and rebuke their pride; and if they were not either profoundly ignorant, or obstinately perverse; they would never resort to so dishonourable and disingenuous a mode of reasoning. The true questions in such a discussion are, has human society ever been well organized without the Bible? — Have the social rights and obligations been any where understood and respected, where the Scriptures have had no existence? — And where they have been best understood and respected, and their various relations have been peaceful and happy, has the Bible disturbed this organization, trampled on these rights and obligations, and rendered men contentious and miserable? We are bold to say, that an enlightened and honest answer to these inquiries will do honour to the Bible. Where the Scriptures have found men without any social bonds, there they have laid the foundations and reared the superstructure of institutions that have endured for ages. Where they have found society loose and disjointed, and formed upon principles that must ensure its overthrow; there, as fast as they could exert their influence, have they, without fail, reduced this chaos to order and beauty. And where they have found it unrefined and impure, gross and cruel 5 there have they, even m the most corrupted ages of Christianity, silently effected a change in the social relations which has gradually elevated the minds and habits of men to a visible and acknowledged superiority over all pagan lands.

There seem to be two sources from which man might of himself arrive at a considerable degree of social culture and enjoyment. The first is from the invention of some system of religion, which, by superstitiously influencing his fears and his hopes, would restrain him from crime, and by its imposing ceremonies and dark mysteries, influence him to virtue. The second is by the careful cultivation of those intellectual faculties which God has given him, by the exercise of which his more base and degrading propensities may be subdued, and his intellectual and moral nature be improved and elevated. But to show how insufficient these are to produce the end in view, look at the two celebrated nations of antiquity, which have the most to boast of in these respects j Persia and Rome. The religion of the Persians was the purest of all uninspired religions, and the most calculated to elevate the soul. In the heavenly bodies, they worshipped their unknown author, and in the two presiding principles they sought an explanation of the mingling of good and evil upon the earth, — that problem which has so long perplexed and confounded unenlightened reason. But their creed, however ingenious, could only exercise the intellect, and amuse the curiosity of its followers. It was destitute of all salutary influence upon their social relations. The history of Persia is a compendium of crimes, suffering and intolerance. A despot ruled the state, and polygamy, that despotism in miniature, gave law to the private and domestic relations of the people. In all that philosophy and moral culture alone can do for the social institutions, ancient Rome stands pre-eminent among all nations. Their reHgion was indeed gross and peurile in the extreme, exercising an unhappy influence upon the lower orders, but disbelieved by the priests who taught it, and by the worshippers in secret, who ridiculed it. Yet so far as the most ingenious and sublime speculations of their sages could refine and improve them, they were favoured beyond example. Look then at their history. In proportion as their philosophy improved, the integrity, the purity, the happiness of their social relations declined 5 until the state became the legalized organ of oppression and cruelty, the marriage bond the pledge of encouraged hcentiousness, the domestic circle the scene of terror, and that love of country for which Rome was distinguished in the best days of the early republic, was extinguished in the blood which flowed indiscriminately from her friends and her enemies.

I have anticipated much that might be said in regard to the relation which exists between the state and its citizens as these relations are developed in pagan and antichristian countries, in the lectures on the influence of the Bible on human laws and government. If any man will examine the government of Rome from the institution of the regal government, to the expulsion of Tarquin; from the consulship established by Brutus, to the magistracy of the military tribunes 5 from the usurpation of Cinna, to the supreme power of Augustus 5 from the empire of Augustus, to that of Nero; from Nero, to Valerian, and from Valerian, to Constantine j he will see dissimulation, revolt, tumult, slaughter, revolution, despotism, servitude, peace and war, and where the evils of peace were not unfrequently the worst calamities. Often was that fair land deluged with blood from the ambition of rivals to the throne. And then again, new schemes of mutual ambition would carry fire and sword to the remote and peaceful nations, till the flames of civil war raged in almost every part of the world. The resources of some great mind, increased and irritated by his calamities, possessing all the vices and none of the virtues of his species, would develope itself in all its hideousness, and wreak its vengeance in atrocities that cannot be thought of without horror. While, as often, elated with success, and dazzled with the pomp and consequence of station, it would again seek repose in brutal indulgence; or sanguinary persecutions. And how much better was ancient Greece, or Gaul, or Germany, or Britain? How much better are the modern nations of paganism, where the power of Christian lands does not restrain their ferocity? Just in the measure in which the influence of the Bible has been extended to the nations, have these evils been diminished, or entirely removed. “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me,” says the anointed king of Israel, “and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me. He that ruleth over men must be just, ruhng in the fear of God: and he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds 5 as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.” The relation existing between the State and its citizens, the Bible recognizes as of divine appointment. The foundation of civil government is the will of God. Life, liberty, and property, peace and order, public morals and religion, have never been left by the benevolent author of our social existence, to chance, or anarchy, or the social compact. Government is an ordinance of heaven. “The powers that be, are ordained of God,” not for their own honour and aggrandizement, but for the good of their subjects — not to gratify the pride, minister to the lusts, and subserve the ambition of rulers, but for the tranquillity, virtue, and prosperity of those they govern. Where, in pagan, and Mahometan lands, are rulers taught this important and salutary lesson from any such sources as make them feel its authority, or constrain them to respect the rights of the people? Or where, except in lands illumined by the light of supernatural revelation, do the people, on the one hand, know and feel that they have rights, and are themselves clothed with the authority to see that they are respected 5 or on the other, know and feel that government is an institution of heaven? Christian princes, it is true, have not always exerted the happy influence which the God of nations requires them to exert. Nor have Christian nations always respected their rulers, or asserted their own rights with firmness, and with the meekness of wisdom. But where have antichristian and pagan princes done it? And where have pagan nations, in a

single instance, been influenced by any other motive than the restive, factious determination to put down one despot for the sake of elevating another? But look through Christian lands, and see how often the prerogative of the prince has been limited, and the rights of man asserted by a free and virtuous people. Witness the condition of England from the time of Alfred to the present hour. Witness the condition of France, though more often scourged by severe persecutions, from the reign of Clovis to the accession of Louis PhilHppe. Witness the triumph of Germany over Leo X. and the fifth Charles. And witness our own memorable revolution. What had been the condition of this brave and high-minded people in those days of peril, but for the Bible? And what had been our condition at many a fearful crisis of our public affairs, since that period, had these American States not been restrained and governed by the spirit of that holy book? Our obligations to the religion of the Bible, are not always, in this respect, duly appreciated. Why is it, that at every popular election, instead of some petty broil, we are not involved in oceans of blood? It is because there is found, through the blessing of Almighty God, a mass of public virtue, a weight of moral principle, — virtue and principle founded on the word of God, — that subdues and restrains the “wrath of man.” Why is it, that with every calamitous and disastrous measure of our government, we do not witness the scenes that were exhibited in Rome, under the reigns of Tiberius and Nero? It is because we have been taught from the lips of the divine Saviour himself, to “render unto Csesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” It is because his holy apostles have given us the injunctions, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” It is because we have been taught to respect, and reverence, and pray for our rulers, “that we may lead a quiet and peacable life, in all godliness and honesty 5 knowing that this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.” Such a spirit constitutes a virtuous community; and with such a spirit no people can promote discord and revolution, until “patience has had its perfect work,” and the last limits of Christian forbearance have been far exceeded. Who does not see with how much more benevolence the Scriptures control the relation between the state and its citizens, than any other book, or any other set of opinions, or any other maxims, however high their authority, or however extensively received? Who does not see that the crimes and sufferings so long attendant on the administration of human governments, would soon be unknown, and the contentions, revolutions and blood which have so long desolated the earth soon disappear, if the Scriptures were once duly honoured, and the voice of God regarded in preference to the seductive influence of aspiring, designing, and corrupting men? The most important of the all social institutions is marriage — the primoeval, parent source of all the other relations. Nor is there any expression of the divine wisdom in determining the condition of the human race, more significant and delightful than this sacred institution. It is by this relation, that the world we inhabit is constituted a collection of families 5 where the best natural affections are cherished, and the worst subdued 5 where there is a community of affections and interests; and where are the highest inducements to a reciprocal and virtuous influence, and especially in forming the character of the rising generation. The in habitants of this esarth are not brought into existence by a single act of creative power, such as gave existence to the

angelic creation. These unfallen existencies, with all their shining hosts, and in all the variety of their rank and excellence, were formed at once, and with no successive dependance of one generation upon that which preceded it. Nor has there probably been any increase, or diminution in their numbers, since that early dawn of the creation, when these “morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” And such will be the relation of the “spirits of just men made perfect,” after the resurrection. “They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God, in heaven.” The race of man, on the other hand, is perpetually increasing, and the current of human existencies flowing on, augmented by almost innumerable tributary streams to the end of time. It required more than finite wisdom so to arrange this perpetually augmenting population, as most effectually to consult its social interests, its honourable, virtuous character, its immortal destiny. And who does not see with what admirable efficiency these ends may be secured, and secured only by the nuptial bond? To test the verity and importance of this remark, let us bestow a few considerations on the methods by which human society may be supposed to be organized and continued

The first is by a promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, unrestrained by any law, and uncontrolled except by the consent of the parties. Such has been the usage of a few barbarous lands; such is the doctrine of Robert Dale Owen and other modern reformers 5 and such are the habits of a few gregarious, anomalous communities, even in Christian countries at the present day. From the cradle, the sexes are taught that there is no barrier even in thought against the most universal indulgence. And what shall be said of such a society, but that it is polluted and poisoned at its fountain head, and a hideous mass of corruption and rottenness? There is no moral safe-guard in such a community to protect it against the most disastrous and desolating evils that can be commissioned to scourge its degraded and guilty inhabitants. Marriage is a term of reproach 5 the parental relation is unknown; and the unhappy offspring of such a concubinage are thrown out upon the world with no restraints of parental love and wisdom, and no obligations of filial affection and reverence 5 — monsters in crime, giants in iniquity, and in a little while, the fit objects of such sweeping judgments as desolated the old world by the waters of the deluge, and the cities of the plain by a tempest of fire out of heaven.

Look then for a moment at the system of polygamy under which a man has a plurality of wives. This evil was indeed tolerated among the ancient patriarchs and Hebrews. But’ it was a perversion of the original institution of marriage. “Moses suffered it for the hardness of their hearts; but from the beginning, it was not so.” All the evils of that early and idolatrous age of the world could not be remedied in a moment. And such was the state of society, that not even until the advent of the Saviour was the institution of marriage restored to its primoeval integrity by revoking the permission of polygamy and divorce. Experience has abundantly and painfully proved that polygamy debases and brutalizes both the body and the mind, and renders society incapable of those generous and refined affections, which, if duly cultivated would be found to be the inheritance even of our fallen nature. Where is an instance in which polygamy has not been the source of many and bitter calamities in the domestic circle and to the state? Where has it reared a virtuous, heaven-taught progeny? Where has it been distinguished for any of the moral virtues 5 or rather, where has it not been distinguished for the most fearful degeneracy of manners? Where has it even been found friendly to population? It has been reckoned that the number of male infants exceeds that of females, in the proportion of nineteen to eighteen, the excess of the males scarcely providing for their greater consumption by war, seafaring, and other dangerous and unhealthy occupations. It seems to have been the “order of nature that one woman should be assigned to one man.” And where has polygamy ever been friendly to the physical, and intellectual character of the population? The Turks are polygamistsj and so are the Asiatics 5 but how inferior a people to the ancient Greeks and Romans? I spoke of the domestic circle of the communities under the influence of polygamy J but is there any thing worthy of the name in such countries? Let the universal seclusion of females from the eye of man, and the unsleeping jealousy of their husbands furnish the answer. What is the domestic circle, or the society of friends, where the presence and all subduing influence of woman its brightest ornament and glory, is banished?

“Hail, woman, hail! last formed in Eden’s bowers, Midst humming streams and fragrant breathing flowers, Thou art, ‘mid light and gloom, through good and ill, Creator’s glory, man’s chief blessing still. Thou calm’st our thoughts, as halcyons calm the sea, Sooth’st in distress, when servile minions flee; And O without thy sun-bright smiles below, Life were a night, and earth a waste of wo.”

I am not extensively acquainted with the domestic condition either of Turkey, or Persia, nor have I been able to find access to those sources of information which I have desired; but if the few historical notices of some of the royal families of these countries, which have met my eye, are a faithful index to the evils of polygamy, it is among the most fruitful sources of misery and crime. What can be expected from a system, where woman fades at twenty, is decayed at thirty, and before five and thirty sinks to her grave?

Look now at that modification and combination of the two preceding systems which is found in those countries where the nuptial relation is only temporary, and where, while the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes and a plurality of wives is interdicted, the frequency of divorces opens the 198 SOCIAL INSTITTIIIONS.

door to the most unbridled licentiousness. In ancient Rome, the matrimonial institution was regarded as a mere civil contract, established for purposes of convenience and expediency, protected during its continuance by the civil magistrate because it was deemed a blessing to society, and by the law of the Twelve Tables, continued only during the pleasure of the husband. The sober and well attested fact in relation to this arrangement is, that in all those countries where polygamy was not tolerated, the frequent and rapid succession of divorces and marriages took the place of polygamy and introduced all its evils. Especially was this the case in Rome. A glance at the history of that nation will render us sensible of this. Such was the facility of obtaining divorces among the Romans, that the nuptial tie offered not the slightest resistance to motives of ambition, avarice, or irregulated passion. The private history of women of the first rank is but a succession of marriages and divorces j each new marriage yielding to one more recent, with the same readiness with which itself had displaced a former union. Perhaps it may be thought out of place to enumerate examples of this nature j and yet nothing else can give us a just conception of the extent of the evil. Octavia, the daughter of the emperor Claudius, married Nero, and was repudiated by him for the sake of Poppaea. Poppsea herself was first married to Rufus Crispinus 5 then to Otho 5 and at length to Nero, by whom she was killed by a violent blow and at a period when the trials of her sex shotild have been her protection. For his third wife, Nero married Thessahna, and to possess her person, murdered her husband. Juha, the daughter of Augustus, was married first to Marcellus, then to Agrippa, and then to Tiberius. Livia Oristella was on the eve of a marriage with Caius Piso, when Cahgula, enamoured of her beauty, carried her off by force, and in a few days after, repudiated her. Marc Antony, who was married to Octavia, the sister of Augustus, repudiated Octavia, because he was in love with Cleopatra. Such examples you will find almost endlessly diversified in the Annals of Tacitus. The extent to which this licence was carried may be also learned from the poet Martial, who tells us, that when the Julian law against adultery was revived as a preventive to the corruption of the age, within thirty days Thessalina married her tenth husband, thus legally evading those restraints which the laws had imposed upon her Hcentiousness. What is the marriage bond worth in such a state of society? And where is the state of society essentially better than this without the Bible? It can hardly be said there is any such thing as social institutions where the nuptial vow is the sport of every caprice and passion, and where it is violated without penalty, and even without remorse and shame.

And now let us turn, as from a dry and parched desert to a fruitful land, from this disgusting survey, and see in how different a light the Bible considers the matrimonial relation from that in which it is viewed by Pagan and Mahometan lands, and by unbelievers in divine revelation in lands that are Christian. This sacred Book regards it as a religious institution 5 as owing its origin, not to earth, but to heaven, not to the light of nature, but to a divine command 5 as an institution established by the Creator himself immediately after the formation of man, and subsequently put under the protection of his law. It inscribes in deep legible characters on every nuptial altar, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder!” It explicitly defines marriage to be the act of uniting two persons in wedlock and only two. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.” The degrees of consanguinity within which this union is lawful are not left to the judgment of fallible men, but in the institutions of the inspired legislator of the Hebrews, are marked with perfect definiteness. And when once formed, the Bible pronounces this connection a perpetual union, and to be dissolved only by crime, or death. “The woman that hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth j but if her husband be dead, she is losed from the law of her husband.” And with what tenderness, does it prescribe the reciprocal duties of this relation! “Husbands love your wives,” — not according to the maxims of a cold and changing philosophy — not after the fashion of this world, — but ‘’ as Christ loved the Church. Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord 5 for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church.” Who that has seen heedless and frequent infringements upon these precepts, has not seen the wisdom of them in the disastrous consequences of their own folly, — not merely upon the peace, and harmony, and mutual confidence that ought always to distinguish this happy relation — not merely upon their own respectability and influence in the Church and in the world — but upon the character and conduct of their children? Rarely can you find affectionate children, where there is an unkind husband 5 or dutiful children, where there is an undutiful wife. And how solemnly do the Scriptures protect the sanctity of the marriage vow! God required that the adulterer and adultress should be punished with death. He aflSrms before the world, ^’ Whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge.” With an emphasis never to be forgotten, he demands, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy?” Nothing but the Bible can set bounds to human licentiousness. There is a place of which the unerring voice of inspiration has said, “He knoweth not that the dead are there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell.” There is a character of which the same unerring voice declares,” None that go

W2 SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life.” There is a sin of which this Book of God often speaks, but on which it rarely expatiates — a sin which the pure and holy Author of the Bible does no more than significantly indicate with the one hand, while with the other he opens to its obdurate and groveUing perpetrator the doors of the eternal prison, and points to the “lake which burns with fire.”

In speaking of the social institutions, we may not forget how much the Bible has done for woman. The condition of woman was more exalted in Rome than it ever has been to my knowledge in any land where the day spring from on high has not visited her. The nations of the east have kept her in a state of ignorance and slavery. Among the Greeks, she occupied a very inferior sphere j so that if she was restrained from evil, she was helpless to do good. While the laws of Rome, on the other hand, allowed her greater liberty and consideration than she had heretofore enjoyed, still was the sex without those restraints of morality and purity which alone can preserve her from degradation. No happy influence did she exert upon the public, or private welfare of the state. Her influence ascended to ambition; politicians intrigued with her 5 and her liberty degenerated into licentiousness. The former deluged the streets of the capital with its best blood 5 and to such an extent was the latter carried, that among the several decrees which passed the senate, under the reign of Tiberius, against the licentiousness of female manners, it was ordained “that no woman whose grandfather, or father, or husband was a Roman Knight, should be allowed to make her person venal!” The laws of a nation are a faithful and instructive history of its manners. And what must have been the corruption of female manners in Rome, when such a law was necessary to suppress female Hcentiousness in the highest ranks of society? If such was the character of a Roman baronness, what must have been that of the subordinate classes? There can scarcely be a more degrading view of woman than this, unless it be the condition which she now presents in pagan lands. And what is that condition, now, in the nineteenth century of the Christian era? Hated and despised from her birth, and her birth itself esteemed a calamity — in some countries not even allowed the rank of a moral and responsible agent — so tenderly alive to her own degradation, that she acquiesces in the murder of her female offspring — immured from infancy — without education — married without her consent — in a multitude of instances, sold by her parents — refused the confidence of her husband, and banished from his table — on her husband’s death, doomed to the funeral pile, or to contempt that renders life a burden: — such is her degraded and pitiable condition, in almost all except Christian lands. The Bible has an appropriate place for woman, a place for which she is fitted and in which she shines. It elevates her, but assigns her her proper sphere. It does indeed exclude her from the corruption of the camp and the debates of the forum. It does not invite her to the professor’s chair, nor conduct her to the bar, nor make her welcome to the pulpit, nor admit her to the place of magistracy. It bids her beware how she overleaps the delicacy of her sex, and listens to the doctrines of effeminate debaters, or becomes the dupe of modern reformers and fashionable journalists. It asks not to hear her gentle voice in the popular assembly, and even ‘•’’suffers her not to sjyeak in the Church of God.’’“‘It claims not for her the right of suffrage, nor any immunity by which she may “usurp authority over the man.” And yet it gives her her throne 5 for she is the queen of the domestic circle. It is the bosom of her family. It is the heart of her husband and children. It is the supremacy in all that interesting domain, where love, and tenderness, and refinement of thought and feeling preside. It is the privilege of making her husband happy and honoured, and her sons and her daughters the ornaments of human society. It is the sphere of piety, prudence, diligence in the domestic station, and a holy and devout life. It is the

sphere that was occupied by Hannah, the mother of Samuel 5 by Ehzabeth, the mother of John 5 and by Mary, the mother of Jesus. It is “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which, in the sight of God, is of great price.” It is the respect and esteem of mankind. It is that silent, unobserved, unobtrusive influence by which she accomplishes more for her race than many whose names occupy a broad space on the page of history. More than this, too, does the Bible do for woman. It opens to her the stores of knowledge. It proscribes her no intellectual advancement. It commits to her intelligent culture the minds of the rising generation. It tells her that her peculiar province is to embellish and adorn. It opens before her the loveliest spheres of active benevolence. And while it tells her to be a “keeper at home,” it at the same time points her to the poor, the afflicted, the widow, the orphan, the sick and the dying, and says, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions, and to keep herself unspotted from the world.” It does more for her than for the stronger sex, because it gives her more piety than it gives to pious men 5 more ardency and devotion in her religious affections 5 more numerous, as well as more illustrious examples of converting grace; a greater reward, and a brighter crown. Nor can she ever know what she owes to the Bible, until she is presented by her great Lord and husband, faultless before the throne.

But let us turn a moment to another of the social relations: I mean that which exists between parents and children. I have often wondered why there are so few scenes of domestic joy painted in pagan history 5 and whence it is that we never find access lo the bosom of a well regulated and happy family in pagan lands. May not the reason be that the materials for the picture never existed? Pagan historians there were, of a high standard of excellence 5 and pagan poets, whose classical sublimity and beauty it would be treason to the cause of a polished and elegant literature to question. But their themes are conflict and revolution 5 deified heroes and heroines 5 a base and corrupting mythology 5 the beauties and tranquillity of pastoral life; or the passion of a shepherd for some beautiful boy. Though many of the pagan poets maintain the first rank of excellence, and abound with imagery that might naturally have found culture and ahment amid the more virtuous and lovely scenes of domestic joy, yet do these scenes seem, even to their poHshed minds, to be almost interdicted themes. Before the introduction of Christianity, there was a strong tendency to sacrifice the domestic to a more public life. The citizen of Rome and Athens was distinguished, not for his domestic virtues, but for his literary attainments and his public valor. He employed his life in the field, in the academy, or in the forum, but found little to interest him at home. He lived abroad amid the alluring example of a licentious world; he threw himself into the current of its seductive temptations 5 but rarely found interest and happiness in the society of his children. Home was a word dissevered from all those high and holy associations, inseparable from it in a Christian family.

He was known rather as a citizen, than as a father, a son, a friend. He had indeed his household gods, his altar and his fireside; but he had no voice of supplication and praise — no bond of God’s eternal covenant sealing blessing to him and to his for a great while to Come. In ancient Rome, under the emperors, it was even considered an advantage to be without children 5 and fathers often renounced them for the estimation and flattery which were showered upon them by those who might be expectants of their inheritance. More than once has an affluent citizen proved too powerful for his accusers, simply because he was childless. And it was no strange occurrence for children as frequently to become the accusers, as the advocates of a father, and as ready to destroy, as to protect him against his enemies. A father pleading for his life, while his son stands forth his accuser — what a scene were this in Christian lands! Nero poisoned his mother *, and Seneca, one of the wisest and best of the heathen philosophers was accessory to the base transaction. Where in all the annals of Christendom, is registered so foul a deed! Men never sin so obstinately, as when they sin from principle. And even at the present day, it is deemed a reHgious duty in pagan lands, for parents to destroy their children 5 and, as though God had with awful severity inflicted the legem talionis in return, for children to destroy their parents.

But see how the Scriptures speak of this relation. Mark how they honour and protect it, and how they define and enforce its corresponding rights and duties. To the parent they say, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” To the child they say, “Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” To the parent they say, “And ye fathers provoke not your your children to wrath, lest they be discouraged.” To the child they say, and in language never to be forgotten, “The eye that mocketh at his father, and refuseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.” Under the Mosaic law, the man that cursed his parent was surely to he put to death j the men of his city “should stone him with stones, that he die.” The whole scope and spirit of the Bible consider the appropriate performance of the relative duties which result from the relation of parent and child as laying the foundation of every private and public virtue. They recoil from the arbitrary power and cruel tyranny of a parent, and from the hardened impiety and obstinate stubbornness of a child. The Spartans venerated age 5 but how much more energetic and authoritative is the Ian guage of the Jewish lawgiver when he says, “Thou shalt rise up before the face of the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God.” Have my youthful readers been instructed by example, by precept, by unsleeping vigilance and unwearied effort, and by a discipline equitable and kind, in habits of virtue 5 have their minds been enlightened and their wants supphed 5 and are they conscious that it has been the united aim of their parents by their self-denial, their counsels and prayers to render them religious, useful and happy 5 permit me to remind them, they owe this distinction to the Bible. And where is the parent who is surrounded with the tokens of filial piety, and whose heart has been habitually comforted by all that is tender and grateful in the affections, and respectful and dutiful in the deportment of his children, but feels that for all this he is indebted to the same divine source? There is a beautiful incident in the life of Christ, which illustrates the influence of the gospel upon domestic life. It was among those last sublime and tender exhibitions of his nature which took place upon the cross. Forgiveness, love, and resignation had already beamed divinely through the horrors of that scene, and attracted the eye of the believer to a picture where otherwise all was so sad and revolting. The Saviour was in his bitterest agony. The guilt of dying men was weighing upon his soul 5 interests incalculably vast were absorbing his attention, and he might well be supposed to have lost sight of those by whom he was surrounded. In such an hour, and amid the depths of his own sorrow, who would wonder had he overlooked the claims of earthly kindred! But at a little distance stood his mother. Near her, he beheld the youngest and best beloved of his disciples. Those earthly ties were about to be sundered, and he would not leave her without a support to her advancing years, nor the young disciple without a guide for his inexperienced youth. “Woman,” said he to the first, ‘^ behold thy son!” To the latter, “Son, behold thy mother! And from that hour, that disciple took her to his own home.”

The history of pagan nations is an instructive study, though it is little else than a narrative of crime. It teaches us how helpless man is to guide himself in the path of virtue and happiness by his own unaided powers. It teaches us how much we are indebted to the Bible 5 how much of our social advantages we owe to its pure spirit which has breathed over the chaos of nations, and brought order, light, beauty and fruitfulness from the shapeless void. It teaches us to be thankful that “the lines are fallen to us in pleasant places,” where the endeared names of husband, wife, parent, child, speak with a tenderness to our hearts which we cannot appreciate, unless we have traced in the history of the past, how little these ties have been valued. No author sets this in a stronger light, than Tacitus in his Annals of the Roman Empire. The hand of that masterly historian must have trembled as he delineated the picture. There you will find a narrative of all that can shock the tenderest sensibilities of our nature j all that man can perpetrate in crime 5 all that the arch enemy can bring up from his dark kingdom to disturb and ruin. Suspicion, massacre, and licentiousness — the conspiracy of wives against their husbands, and husbands against their wives — men every where falling upon their own sword — families whose peace is disturbed by violence and ruined by intrigue — children sacrificed by the machinations of a mother — the wife murdering her husband for the purpose of wedding her paramour — women “practised in the trade of poisoning” — this is paganism and in the most enlightened age of Rome. But it is not Christianity. Let a man compare the present state of society in Protestant countries with the state of society under the dynasty of the Ceesars, and he cannot fail to see what the Bible has done for the social institutions. Let him go into the interior of the first and most polished famiUes in Rome, and he will bless God for a supernatural revelation. Let him mark the diflference with which the social relations are regarded by the wisest and most virtuous of pagan moralists, and a well instructed Christian teacher j let him see how in Christian lands, they bear the test of experience, and endure the proof of trials — how the spirit that sustains them grows cold only in death, and is extinguished only in the grave 5 and then let him go into lands unenlightened by the gospel, and observe how the sweetest charities of life are destroyed by the suspicions of envy, the jealousies of love, the violence of ambition, the thirst for power, and at best decay when the flower of beauty and the graces of youth are gone 5 and he will adore the Father of mercies for that blessed Book” more to be desired than gold, yea than much fine gold.

And yet are there those who would have us believe that the religion of the Bible is a morose and unsocial religion. If to have no sympathy with wickedness is to be unsocial, then is it an unsocial religion j but if to promote all that is kind and virtuous, and pure and true, — if to take pleasure in all that subdues what is malignant and ferocious, what is ambitious and cruel — if to sympathize with all that elevates and transforms the human character and makes it the ornament of human society here, and the glory of angelic society hereafter, be social; then is it truly and in the highest degree friendly to social institutions. There cannot be a more gross misconception than that the religion of the Scriptures is an unsocial religion. Every where it inculcates the gentle and kind affections. If there be softness, sweetness, cheerfulness and honour in the intercourse between man and man, to what are they to be attributed, if not to the power of that heaven-born “charity, which suffereth long and is kind, which envieth not, which vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed up;” which “doth not behave itself unseemly, and seeketh not her own 5” which “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things 5” without which we “are become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal!” We see not how an unsocial spirit can spring from such a source. And yet so it is, that the Bible is made to answer for all the moroseness and severity in the world, when it is known to enjoin all that is benevolent and cheerful in the social affections. Let every Christian man therefore bear in mind, that the Bible, with wonderful wisdom, adjusts its claims to the relations which men sustain to time as well as eternity 5 to this world, as well as the world to comej and that it is one of the distinguished glories of its religion, that while it lives above the world, and walks with God, instead of retiring from earth and renouncing the intercourse of social life, it carries its disciples into the midst of human society to purify, reform, and elevate it, and there “let their light so shine before men, that they seeing their good works, may glorify their Father which is in heaven.”