a drunkard, a swearer, or a slave to some vice or other; a Christian, and yet a wilful impenitent offender against God and man!

"Were an heathen to make a tour through England to learn the religion of the inhabitants, might he not conclude from their general conduct, that it consisted principally in a few Sunday formalities, and that the rest of the week they had nothing to do with God, or any religion, but were at liberty to live as they pleased? And were he told that these were the followers of one Christ, and of his religion, would he not conclude that Christ was certainly an impostor and the minister of sin! But when he came to find that notwithstanding all this licentiousness, they professed the pure and holy religion of the Bible, how would he be astonished, and pronounce them the most inconsistent barefaced hypocrites!

"A beggar that fancies himself a king, and trails his rags with the gait of majesty as though they were real robes, is not so ridiculous as one that usurps the Christian name without a Christian practice." It is reported that Alexander had a soldier in his army of his own name, but a mere coward. Either be like me, says the general, or lay aside my name. And it has been said by a greater than Alexander, If ye love me, keep my commandments: herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit. But he that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is equally preposterous with the man "that shall ridicule learning, and yet glory in the character of a scholar; or with him that shall laugh at bravery, and yet celebrate the praises of heroes."

That the remarkable words, IN THE LORD, before

mentioned, must refer to the true Christian only, will appear abundantly evident by consulting some passages where the same, or similar expressions, are so used by the same apostle. "Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are IN THE LORD-Salute Rufus chosen IN THE LORD, and his mother and mine-Greet Amplius, my beloved IN THE LORD-For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light IN THE LORD-Many of the brethren IN THE LORD, waxing confident by my bonds-Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and IN THE LORD." When speaking of the visions and revelations with which the apostle had himself been indulged, he says, "I knew a man IN CHRIST, about fourteen years ago, such an one caught up to the third heaven-If any man be IN CHRIST, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new-And was known by face to the churches of Judea which were IN CHRIST-For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are IN CHRIST JESUS Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were IN CHRIST before me;" or in modern language, who were converted to the faith of Christ before me.

Now in all these passages, and in many others to the same purpose, it is extremely evident the apostle refers to a state totally different from that in which all men naturally are, and different of course from that in which he himself and the churches and persons of whom he speaks were before conversion. His own character had been previously unblemished; his

manner of life from his youth was after the straitest sect of the Pharisees: he was, as he expresses it, touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless; but so far was he from asserting, in reference to that memorable period, that he was IN CHRIST, that he expressly declares he was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor-that what things were gain to him, those he counted loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord: for whom he suffered the loss of all things, and counted them but dung, that he might win Christ, and be found IN HIM, not having his own righteousness, which was of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. It is therefore abundantly evident, that by the phrase IN THE LORD, the apostle meant, and, in effect, said, That the pious widow was at liberty to marry whom she pleased, provided the object of her choice gave credible evidence of being a genuine disciple of his

master.

It may perhaps be suggested that, in complying with the apostolic command, it was not absolutely necessary the widow should marry a converted person; but that she was to retain her profession of Christ, and not to relinquish it for a husband. But this supposition inverts the natural arrangement of ideas in the question about which the Corinthians solicited advice: for the inquiry was not whether, in order to gratify their own inclinations, they might abandon their Christian profession, and marry those who were not only strangers, but enemies to the religion they had recently embraced; but whether, if married when both parties were in an unregenerate

state, it were lawful for the believing wife still to cohabit with her unbelieving husband.

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 with 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 believing 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 unbelieving 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 marriage, 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 at the same moment she was about giving her hand to one whom she must consider as an enemy to God and to the gospel of his son ! Experience must have taught her that the carnal mind is enmity against God; that those who are in the flesh, cannot please him; and a moment's reflection must have convinced her, 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 whose name she had openly avowed. It is therefore extremely 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, of any restriction, if it were a matter perfectly indifferent whether the Corinthian convert gave her hand to a believer in Jesus, or to a worshipper of Diana.

Permit me therefore to say, that I think the words on which I comment, and which, in reference to the present question, were graciously given as the standard of Christian obedience, 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