this passage the reflection it deserves. It needs no comment, and scarcely admits any. The Lord preserve us from wilfully shutting our eyes, and drawing upon ourselves judicial blindness!" - pp. 68,

69.

Can Mr. Malcom be serious in talking in this wise about "judicial blindness"? Has he yet to learn that the apostolic counsels now under consideration, even if they were not expressly restricted to "the present distress," would nevertheless have received such a construction from all enlightened critics, according to a familiar and well established rule of interpretation as set forth by orthodox writers? "Instead of

adopting the sayings and actions recorded in Scripture, implicitly and absolutely," says Dr. Hey, in a passage from his Norrisian Lectures quoted and approved by Mr. Horne, "we ought to reason in some such manner as this: If such a person so situated, best answered the ends of such an institution, by acting in such a manner, how shall we, in our situation, best answer the ends of the same."* Also, in a recent article on Dr. Arnold's Sermons in "The British Critic," we find the same doctrine advanced with still greater distinctness by him, and conceded by his reviewers; to wit, "that the divine commandments, addressed to one man, or one generation of men, are binding on other men and other generations, only so far forth as their respective circumstances and conditions are similar." And what were the "circumstances and conditions" of the case in question? A widow, an unprotected female, belonging to a proscribed and persecuted sect, was advised not to put at risk her faith, her comfort, and her life, and those of her children, by becoming the wife, which in those days would have made her but little better than the slave, of an imperious idolater or Jew. Now will any body in his senses pretend, that there is any sort of analogy between the domestic circumstances of such a widow so connected and those of a believer married to an unbeliever at the present day, the unbeliever being of such a character in other respects, that a Christian minister entertains for him "no other sentiments than those of affectionate respect"? The Apostle's advice, though he is careful to say that he did not enjoin it as a "commandment of the Lord," was evidently

Horne's Introduction, Vol I. p. 675.

† No. 25.

judicious and important in reference to the peculiar times and circumstances for which it was intended, and to which it was limited. Yet who will say, that by any just parity of reason it can be applied as advice, and much less as a law, at the present day, to prevent the intermarriage of "apparent and professing Christians," of any age, or either sex, with those who do not claim to be so regarded, but who nevertheless are thoroughly amiable and respectable members of the same Christian community, and perhaps of the same congregation? Happily however, in this case, there is no necessity of resorting to general reasonings; because, as we have had occasion to intimate more than once already, the advice is restricted expressly, and in so many words, to the existing exigency of the first converts, "the present distress."

One other text is alleged by Mr. Malcom in justification of the step he has taken, somewhat "oblique" in its application, as he himself is constrained to admit. It is this: "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles?" 1 Cor. ix, 5. That is to say: Paul had as good a right to lead about a sister, a wife, in his missionary excursions, as any other Apostle. Therefore it is universally true at the present day, and should be recognised and obeyed as a positive law, that "believers are not at liberty to contract marriage with unbelievers." Such logic can hardly have a face to plead even "benefit of clergy."

Three or four objections drawn from reason, experience, and general expediency, but not very precisely stated nor logically arranged, are also urged in this work against the marriages in question. So far as they have any force or consistency they may be regarded as a feeble defence of a proposition, respecting which we suppose, however much it may be disregarded in practice, there can really be but one mind. We mean, that it is of paramount importance, in the choice of a husband or wife, to consider suitableness, not only of age, education, taste, and external condition, but also of moral and religious character. But what has this to do with the proposition which Mr. Malcom, in justification of the singular step he has taken, here proposes to verify and establish; namely, "that believers are not at liberty to contract marriage with unbelievers." We presume that he can perceive the distinction, now that it is pointed out, between

advice and a law, between the inculcation of a general rule of expediency, which every one is left "at liberty" to apply for himself, and the inculcation of a universal, express, and authoritative prohibition. Cases may occur, doubtless, like that of the Missionaries mentioned by Mr. Malcom,* in which to a sound and well-ordered mind there can be no more doubt about the impropriety of an ill assorted marriage, than if it were contracted in the face of an express interdict. From the following extract, however, it will appear, that he proposes to carry his "Christian rule" much further, and to an extent, which in this community would be alike unauthorized and odious.

Suppose the husband," says he, "to possess the highest degree of mere human excellence, in disposition and habits, and the utmost respect for religious forms. Suppose him honorable, benevolent, educated, judicious, useful. Suppose him to train his children with the utmost propriety, and even maintain family worship. Here is a strong case. But he is not pious, in the estimation of the judicious. A Christian female adventures marriage. What will be the probable effect? Will she not be likely, in her love and respect for him, after intimate and prolonged witness of his excellence, to ask whether he has not religion enough? Will she not doubt whether she herself be as good, because she finds her life less perfect? Will it not seem to her impossible that this kind, good, and apparently religious man, who seems to do the best he can, should be an heir of wrath, a candidate for infinite misery? Her heart will rise up against the discriminating doctrines of grace." p. 26.

This, to be sure, is a pretty "strong case. Human excellence can be nothing more than human excellence; that is to say, it must be "mere human excellence." Here, then, is one who possesses all the excellence attaina

*He tells us, in a note, p. 24, that, "at the Society Islands, some who had gone forth to convert the heathen to God, and had resolution enough to leave all to do this service, on losing their companions, sought second marriages among the unconverted natives. But they were like Samson before Delilah! They soon abandoned the society of their brethren, at length renounced Christianity, sunk into shocking vices, and went down apostates from God, to untimely graves!" Mr. Malcom ought not to have retailed this startling anecdote, to us, and we presume to many others, entirely new, without giving the names, or at least the necessary references. We hope and trust that such cases have not been of frequent occurrence.

ble by man, both "in disposition and habits," and in "the highest degree." He is not only "honorable, benevolent, educated, judicious, useful" but "kind, good, and apparently religious," manifesting "the utmost respect for religious forms," training up his children "with the utmost propriety," and even maintaining "family worship." Now where is the "Christian female" in this community, not utterly besotted by a debasing fanaticism, who would hesitate to encourage the proposals of such a man, on the ground that she must first go and consult her minister, or the church, (for they, we suppose, are to be understood by "the judicious,") and ascertain whether in the cabalistic phrase of her party he is "pious," or not? At the same time we entirely agree with Mr. Malcom in the opinion which he intimates, that a sensible and observing female, connected with such a husband, will be very likely, "after intimate and prolonged witness of his excellence," and finding that his "life" is better than hers, to begin to suspect that he may have something of the Christian about him. Certain we are, that Mr. Malcom is right in saying, that in process of time "her heart will rise up against any doctrines, however misnamed, which assert or imply the horrible idea that such a person "who seems to do the best he can, should be an heir of wrath, a candidate for infinite misery." The "rule of marriage" here advocated would carry the worst features. of the Exclusive System into our social and domestic, as well as religious relations. We do not say that this was intended by its author, for he does not appear to be aware, in all cases, of the tendency of his own arguments, nor of what they would really prove, if they proved any thing. But we do say that this would follow in fact, provided his loose and inconsequential suggestions were carried out to their legitimate results, and acted on generally and consistently. Why not say then, in so many words, that a female brought up in an Orthodox family, and herself Orthodox and pious, is "not at liberty to contract marriage with" one who is not Orthodox, though possessing "the highest degree of mere human excellence, "a "kind, good, and apparently religious man," - because forsooth, becoming impressed with his better sense, and, if Mr. Malcom will have it so, his better "life," she may be led at last to renounce or suspect some of the "discriminating doctrines" of Orthodoxy?

Again Mr. Malcom says:

"A living, devoted Christian may be forced into the company of the ungodly, but he cannot be happy there. He can be friendly and obliging to all, but he cannot be familiar and at ease with all. Nor would the sinner be fond of his company, if, under an awful sense of future realities, he took care on all proper occasions, to set forth the claims of his Divine Master, the vices and dangers of sinful associates, and the superiority of spiritual pleasures.

"Such alliances, then, are essentially rebellious. Whoever contracts them in spite of reason, and Scripture, and fair remonstrance, can have little claim to true discipleship. How can the dutiful servant marry his Master's declared enemy? It was an awful question to Jehoshaphat-Shouldst thou love them that hate the Lord?' How can a good child marry the natural enemy of his father, and of his father's principles? The quesoion comes closer. Can any one marry his own personal enemy?" p 13.

"He," our author had said immediately before, "who is sincere in allegiance takes his Lord's enemies as his own"; and the tendency of the remarks just quoted seems to be to stir up such a person to treat them accordingly. We submit, however, whether a minister of the gospel would be well employed who should go round and instruct the godly wives of his flock to look upon their husbands, when "not pious in the estimation of the judicious", as personal enemies. If actually married, Mr. Malcom admits, that they are not at liberty to separate; still, according to his principles, the godly wife must live with her (so called) ungodly husband, though, as we have seen, he may be a "kind, good, and apparently religious man, as with her " own personal enemy." Nay, if we understand what is meant, it is gravely argued against the unequal matches complained of, that a godly wife thus connected may perchance be so far carried away by a sense of her husband's acknowledged "excellence" and better "life", as to forget in her unguarded moments that he is her own personal enemy," and not take care, under an awful sense of future realities," to make herself sufficiently disagreeable to him. A few such cases may have come under Mr. Malcom's notice, but we bid him be comforted; for generally speaking we believe that the sort of "godly wives," here had particularly in view, do not think much