In What Cases This Law Is Not Broken, Though Both the Parties Be Not Religious

We have thus endeavoured, by placing the subject in various points of light, to prove, that Christians in the business of marriage ought to confine their choice to pious characters only. But to relieve the minds of some who deserve pity rather than censure, let me remark two or three instances in which the rule laid down is not transgressed.

First. It sometimes happens that both parties are ignorant of divine things at the time of marriage, and one is called afterward. When this is the case, the blame does not attach. But the individual renewed by divine grace, now feels pains and anxieties, to which he was before a stranger. It is the nature of grace to excite, with a concern for our own welfare, a concern for the salvation of others, especially of those to whom we are tenderly connected by blood, friendship, or affinity.

How can I endure the thought of being severed forever from her in whom my happiness is so much bound up? ‘How can I bear,’ will such an Esther say, ’ to see the destruction of my kindred?’ She will therefore pray, and use every persuasive method to allure. She will endeavour to render her religion lovely and attractive. It is what the scripture enjoins. ‘Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also, may without the word, be won by the conversation of the wives: while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.’ And for the consolation of such, be it remembered, that after a trial, and perhaps a long one, of their faith and patience, God has frequently heard their petitions, and succeeded their endeavours. After performing religious exercises alone, they have gone to the house of God in company; and have walked together as heirs of the grace of life.

Secondly. Persons may be mistaken after due examination. Every thing admits of counterfeit. There is a specious imitation of every Christian grace as well as of every moral virtue. But we are not accountable for our inability to read the heart. This is the prerogative of God only. ‘By their fruits we are to know them.^ If the profession be fair, and the life blameless, there is no objection upon this ground to hinder choice.

Thirdly. There is another case which perhaps to some will not carry the same force of conviction. Yet we do not express ourselves without due deliberation and counsel. It is this. Two individuals, both, at the time of promise, destitute of religion, may solemnly pledge themselves to each other, and before the actual accomplishment of the covenant engagement, one of them may become pious. We will suppose it to be the man. In this case, we affirm that he would not be at liberty to violate his promise, under the pretence of looking out for a character congenial with his present views. If some contend that marriage be nothing more than a civil contract, all must allow that it is nothing less: and not to observe the coercion of the case — not to observe that the law could enforce the claim; the insufficiency of justifying a civil offence by a religious reason; and the ridiculousness of the attempt — what a dishonour would be done to the cause of the gospel by such prevaricating morality? For such it must appear to the world. Whereas we are to ’ have our conversation honest among the Gentiles:’ we are not to suffer our ’ good’ to be ’ evil spoken of:’ we are to ’ avoid the very appearance of evil.’ Such is the holy delicacy of the gospel!

This seems to be one of those cases in which a good man ’ sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not.’ And trying as the scene may be, if by the consent of the other party he be not honourably disengaged, we should advise him to a plain, straight-forward policy; and to expect that in a combination of circumstances so peculiarly providential, all will be overruled for good, either by way of usefulness or trial.

And if even this solemn consideration be not sufficient to discharge a man honourably from one to whom he has contracted himself, will any thing else? Can any thing else? What! is he to trifle with a sacred engagement, and to wound the affections, the respectability, the health, the peace of a female! — because another object comes in view subsequently, in his opinion, more eligible for person, for fortune, for address?!! If a man wished to sink the honour of religion, and to disgrace the value of the Christian — how much more should it ever be the ministerial character! he could not take a step that would more effectually accomplish his purpose.