Thoughts on Marriage

How wonderful is it, that two persons, who perhaps never met before, should by a train of circumstances be brought together, obtain a peculiar propriety in each other, and form one absolute communion of wishes, joys and sorrows!

If we compare this relation with other connexions, we shall find it surpasses them all. Are other unions They may be limited in their continuance, or terminated at pleasure. But this is permanent, and indissoluble. You cannot marry for a given period. It is for life. Are other unions natural’ Intimate indeed is the relation between brother and sister: tender is the relation between parents and children, especially between the mother and ’ the son of her womb.” But for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be on.e flesh. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’

The marriage connexion therefore is the most singular, and the most important. Hence it can never be viewed with indifference. It cannot be carelessly contemplated by legislators, by politicians, by moralists, by divines. And can it be slightingly regarded by the individuals themselves? The effects extend to families and communities; but how much more powerfully must the consequences affect the parties immediately concerned? Can the scripture, always alive to the welfare of man, Can the scripture pass by such a relation? Impossible. It shows us its divine institution and benediction in Paradise. It shows us our

Saviour gracing with his presence the celebration- of a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and displaying ’ his glory’ by working a miracle to preserve the new-married couple from embarrassment and mortification. It shows us in this condition, characters the most eminent and distinguished for piety and usefulness; witness Enoch, and Peter, and James, and John. It brands with infamy the doctrine that ’ forbids to marry.’ It often employs the connexion as the image of the union subsisting between Christ and the church. It assures us that ‘Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.’

It is obvious therefore that the scripture is far from discouraging marriage. But what it does not condemn, it is careful to regulate. Let us then, my Christian friends, look after the will of God in this momentous and interesting subject.

If ever we err, it is not from any defect in the scripture, but because there is some * occasion of stumbling in us:’ some inattention that hinders examination, or some prejudice that perverts it. His word is ’ a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our paths.’ There is a sufficiency in it for all the useful purposes of Mife and godhness.’ Can a man ask at these ’ lively oracles,’ how he is to conduct himself in prosperity or adversity; can he inquire how he is to govern his family, and train up his children; and be at a loss for an answer?” He may run that readeth.’ So it is in the case before us. If Christians are really desirous of knowing with whom, in marriage alliance, they are to unite themselves, we make no scruple to say, the revealed will of God is decisive and clear: It restricts

THEIR CHOICE TO RELIGIOUS CHARACTER
ONLY.

If nothing express had been said on this subject, the conclusion might fairly have been drawn, from these general commands which forbid all chosen and needless association with the irreligious, founded on the danger of contamination.

The case may be confirmed in no inconsiderable degree from the state of the Jews. It is scarcely necessary to mention, that the Jews were forbidden to marry with the surrounding nations. But it may be proper to state two objections.

First. It may be said that the prohibition was confined to the seven accursed nations of Canaan. But this was not the case. Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians are reckoned by Ezra among those from whom the returned Israelites were to be separated; and none of these belonged to the race thus devoted to extermination.

Secondly. It may be supposed that this law was political, and regarded this people only in their civil and national capacity. But the futility of this will be demonstrated by remarking, first, that they were allowed to marry with individuals of any of the neighbouring countries when they became proselytes. This shows that the interdiction regarded 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 * 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.

Keep reading