enters into an earthly relation, and performs not its duties, is guilty before God. Hence arises the necessity of a Christian being very scrupulous to whom he thus unites himself. For he may join in a relation with an individual to whom he will find it most difficult to perform those duties of the relation which devolve on him, and through whom he will have to encounter great difficulty in obeying the laws of Jesus. Thus, if he be united in commercial partnership with an individual of a treacherous and dishonest character, he will find it well nigh impossible to manifest that kindness and respect to him which is the spirit of the relation between them, and which Christianity in general precepts commands. Equally as difficult will it be for him to obey the Lord in peace and comfort, and eventually to obey him at all.

can,

Hence a wise and intelligent Christian before he enters into any relation with an individual, will first dissect and scrutinize his character in order to discern whether he be such an one to whom he with ease and delight, perform his duties resulting from their union, and whether, above all things, he should by him be impeded in his progress to glory. He will judge of the fitness of the person from two sources. 1st. From the circle in which he moves. 2nd. From his character in the sphere. If the circle be an intelligent and moral one, so far he is fit for an intelligent and moral relation; and if his character possess the same qualities, he is fully adapted. We shall now apply these reasonings to the case in hand. Marriage is an earthly relation, in fact it is a combination of the three orders of human alliance, being a natural, social, and civil relation. It is not, therefore, in the sphere of Christianity. But although the law-book of Jesus does not pronounce with whom his disciples shall form this life-connexion, yet it definitely and authoritatively defines the spirit of the state, and embodies it in precepts.

The spirit is, love, and its grand law given for the husband is, "Husbands love your wives, and be not bitter against them." To the wife the command is, "Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands." Every Christian man and woman, then, are to have a strong and deep affection for those to whom they are thus allied, whether or not they be believers, and this love is to be manifested by a fulfilment of their duties. And when the moral duties of the marriage state, imposed by the New Testament upon Christians, are scrutinizingly examined, they are seen to be of the most exalted and refined description. The Christian husband is to regard his wife as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh-as but himself in another form-his love to her, therefore, is to be of the same rank, strength, and fervour, as his love for himself. The Christian wife is to regard her husband as her head, and to reverence him in meek submission.

Now our love or reverence for a person is always proportioned to the number of amiable or reverential qualities which he manifests. Hence, in order that we may respect a man as a common friend, he must exhibit, in word and action, an ordinary share of qualities which we esteem, and he must possess a great amount of them, in order to secure, in reposing love, our friendly affections.

Now the marriage relation is a more intimate alliance than the closest friendship. Hence it requires that the parties should possess, in a higher and stronger degree, those qualities which they mutually esteem.

What are those held in estimation by Christians? They esteem a love to God, and an obedience to his institutions. They esteem a spiritual mindedness, and pious conversation. They admire the principles of righteous benevolence, sincerity, and justice. Those, therefore, to whom they are married must possess these qualities, in order that they may centre their affections on them without difficulty or obstruction.

If Christians are married to persons who have not these qualities, it is indeed an arduous task to perform their moral duties to them. A Christian husband will have to struggle hard with his own feelings ere he can regard a wife as one flesh with him, whose soul is dead to God and religion. And a Christian wife will find it most arduous to dearly love, and cheerfully obey, a husband, whose affections are centred upon the world and its vanities. But the mischief does not end here. A Christian, in consequence of being married to one whose disposition, words, and acts are grovelling and worldly, is in danger of falling into the same carnality, and so eventually of forsak ing God and his institutions. Thus their eternal happiness is in jeopardy. Indeed the eternal, as well as temporal, happiness or misery, of Christians, depends very much upon whom they choose for husbands and wives.

It will be seen, then, that although the Holy Spirit has not by a law affirmed with whom Christians are to marry; yet, having authoritatively laid down the duties of the marriage relation, and associated them with the spiritual, it exhorts Christians to unite with those with whom they can with ease and delight perform their moral and spiritual duties.

The all-important question then is, by what criteria can a Christian man or woman judge of the fitness of an individual to become one flesh with him or her? We unhesitatingly answer, they must judge from the same sources as they would of the adaptation of a person for any other relation.

1st. From the sphere in which the person moves.

2nd. From the manner in which he performed the duties of the sphere.

It is requisite that the same principles should exist in the sphere as in the relation. If the sphere contain the same principles as the relation, it can be argued that the person who performs the duties of the first, will perform those of the latter; for in both cases the duties are the embodiment of the principles.

Now the marriage relation requires the most refined moral qualities. Its spirit is love, and that the most pure and holy. And this must be possessed by those in the relation ere they can effectually perform its moral duties, for in these its spirit dwells. Now, in what sphere does the most holy and exalted love exist? Say, Christian, Worldling, Infidel? All reply, it dwells in the circle of the religion of Jesus, whether or not every individual in the sphere possess it. It is in this sphere, the Christian church, that the most exalted and dignified objects of love are presented to the mind. In it the Divine Being and Christ are displayed as love personified, and held up for the admiration and imitation of Christians.

The Christian church, then, in its objects, laws, and pursuits, has, in perfection, that principle which is the spirit of the marriage relation.

The disciple of Jesus ought, then, to look among the congregation of the Lord for a life-partner. And this he will, if he wishes to perform and have performed to him, the duties of the marriage state. For it is only to Christians, and by Christians, that these duties can he fully and joyfully performed. And a Christian will look for a Christian spouse if he desires to enjoy the pure delights of the relation, for these can spring only from love, and none can possess this principle, in its power and purity, but Christians.

But all in the Christian church do not possess its principles, hence, because an individual is a member of the church, he is not, as a consequence, morally quallified for the marriage relation. A disciple. must, therefore, judge of the fitness of a professing Christian for a spouse from the manner in which he performs the duties of religion. In one sentence, if he walks in all the commandments of the Lord, blameless, he is morally adapted for the honourable state.

We would as strenuously advise a Christian not to marry with a careless, carnal-minded, professor, as we would with a worldling. And, in fact, there are individuals in the church who have no more moral qualifications for the relation than many in the world. The all-important question, then, which a Christian man ought to ask respecting a woman, round whom his affections play, and a Christian woman respecting the man who professes regard is, Does she, and does he, love God and keep his commandments?

This question infolds both criteria before-mentioned. It is a criterion applicable to all, whether in the church or in the world. It must be answered in the negative respecting many in the first

state, and of all in the latter. Hence the answer to this question will decide that not all in the church, and none in the world, are morally qualified to be united with a Christian in marriage.

66

We would substitute this question for the one under notice. Hence, instead of asking · Ought a Christian to marry out of the church?" we would have it asked, "Ought a Christian to marry one who does not love God and keep his commandments?" And although the same answer would be given, namely, that the New Testament does not forbid it, yet the question states a thing at which true piety recoils. The idea of uniting, in the most intimate relation, with one who does not love God, is abhorrent to the pious soul; and the dangerous consequences which must ensue from such a union, forcibly strike the mind.

And a Christian ought, for his own sake, to enter the marriage state with one who loves God and keeps his commandments; because, then, he is united to one whose thoughts and affections are centred upon the same objects as his own. This causes their union to be compact and strong. It is ever necessary that two beings should have the same objects in their minds and souls, in order that they may have an imperishable and ever-glowing love for each other, such a love as ought to exist between husband and wife. But in a marriage in which the husband is a Christian, and the wife a worldling, the reverse is the case. He has his thoughts centred upon God, reflecting upon his character and deeds of love, and studying how he can glorify him. She has her cogitations fixed upon Mammon, reflecting upon its fashions, and pleasures, and planning for the worldly aggrandisement of herself and family. His affections are set upon things above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God; hers are fixed upon things beneath, where the devil rules and triumphs. His hopes are centred upon objects unseen, but eternal; hers upon those seen, but temporal. What an unhappy union! It has no true

cement.

Our sisters can easily reverse the parties, and discern the contrariety in thought and affection between a Christian wife and worldly husband. They will then see the difficulty which she will experience in fulfilling her moral and religious duties.

Let them judge, whether it is not best for the temporal and eternal interests of a Christian, to marry one who loves God and keeps his commandments, although their is no law commanding him.

In answer to the remaining part of the query, namely, What ought a man to do who promised marriage before he became a Christian? we remark, that if there was a law forbidding a Christian to marry out of the church, he would be released from his engagement. For a law of God must never be broken by the fulfilment of a promise. But as there is no law in this case, his obligation is permanent.

We would give the following advice in such cases. Let the man postpone the marriage, and, in the mean time, strive to convert the woman to whom he has vowed, by unfolding the character of God, the fallen state of man, the love of Christ, and the wise and benign ordinances of Christianity. She will listen to him. He being the centre of her affections will cause her to pay devout attention to the subjects he urges in love upon her attention. And the result will be, that either she will become obedient to the gospel, or else, discovering the contrariety of their dispositions, hopes, and pursuits, will desire to break off their intended union. And so let the Christian woman act with her unbelieving lover. EDITOR.

THINGS STRANGLED AND BLOOD.

MR. EDITOR.-Your answer to the query respecting the eating of things strangled, and blood, was most satisfactory. It is a great evil in the present day, and one so commonly practised, that many Christians eat of those articles without considering that they are breaking a law of God. The common practise of eating fowls as they are in the present day, prepared for the table, is a violation of the law. It is a well-known fact, that hens and ducks are all strangled. Now, the definition of strangle is to choke, to suffocate, to kill, by intercepting the breath. And this is the mode by which those fowls are usually killed. In Acts xv. 28, 29, it is said, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and the Apostles, that we, the Gentiles, should abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Now there is a reason for every law which the Holy Spirit enjoins upon us, and that for which things strangled are forbidden, is because they are choked, suffocated, or, as it were, hanged; and, as a consequence, they die with the blood in them. Animals of food when thus killed ought to be an abomination unto all who wish to live according to the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles. JAMES MURRAY.

Glasgow, March, 1850.

"IS NOT CHRIST TO SIT UPON THE THRONE

OF DAVID?"

[As Mr. Campbell's article has not appeared in the Banner, we felt a reluctance to printing the Dr.'s reply,-it being our aim and determination to give both sides of every question whenever we possibly can. On receiving it we had but one of two courses to take, either to reprint Mr. C.'s article alone with the Dr.'s, or to send the reply to the Harbinger for publication, in which the article had appeared; and, if not accepted, to publish it by itself. The first course we found, to our regret, to be impracticable. Our space being too limited. It would have been in accordance with our feelings and plan to have reprinted Mr. C.'s article side by side with the Dr.'s. We then took the second course, but the reply was not accepted: our denier resort, therefore, was to print it by itself.-En.]

MR. EDITOR. A reader of the British Millennial Harbinger has directed my attention to two articles which have appeared in its February number under the caption placed at the head of this communication. They purport to be from two of my acquaintances on the other side of the Atlantic; the one Mr. Henry