The reason, therefore, that the Apostle gave counsel for the young widows to marry, is clearly to avoid more distressing evils. It is also evident, that all who were in that day called believers, did not keep the faith in a full cross, as did the apostles and some others who were more properly the Church; and finally, that marrying or living in the works thereof, is inconsistent with the life of the true followers of Christ.

CHAPTER IX.

MARRIAGE, A CIVIL RIGHT AND CARNAL RELATION OF THE WORLD THEREFORE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

THAT the children of this world, distinctly from the followers of Christ, should marry, is quite natural. And this shows what marriage is, and to what class it belongs; that it is a civil right and a civil institution, properly belonging to the citizens of the world, and therefore the privilege of every man who chooses to use it.

That it properly belongs to the civil department, is not only proved by the doctrine of Christ, but acknowledged and confirmed by the usage of civil governments, who constantly assume the sole power of regulating marriage among all classes of people, determining who may perform the ceremony, and who may not, who may be married, and who may not, and annexing penalties on those who trangress the prescribed limitations. And this is the case, not only in those governments who usurp an authority over the conscience, but in those wiser and more happy governments, who declare, as being part of their constitution, or bill of rights, that no civil power hath, or can have, any right to control or at all to interfere with the rights of conscience.

Thus the civil department supports this position: That marriage is a civil right and a civil institution, and maintains its prerogative in it. And professors of Christianity also acknowledge this prerogative, being all careful to regulate their marriages according to the limitations prescribed by law.

The act also of marrying, which is only a ceremonial rite, is properly of a civil nature; for, notwithstanding the civil department, at least in free governments, leaves every class of people, or every individual, to his own choice, in what manner to perform it, it is nevertheless the confirming and guarantying of a civil right between the parties, and he or they who officiate therein, do it by the sanction of the civil department, and are thereby properly civil officers. Some of the ministerial order have had light to see into this so far, as to have serious reflections about giving up the business of marrying people, (thus far at least in one of my acquaintance ;) but the next

natural consequence is, that provided it is improper for a preacher of the Gospel to marry others, it is also improper for him to be married; but this is too crossing to the flesh, to be sanctioned by the example of those who prefer the flesh to the Spirit.

Marriage being the privilege of all people who choose to use it, no one man, or association of men, have any right to forbid or require any one to marry in this respect every man's faith is his law; if he marry, he shall deprive no other man or people of their equal civil rights, and if not, it remains the same. If, therefore, any man choose to marry, and so to be of the children of this world, none have any right to forbid him his faith is his law. And, on the other hand, if any one choose to abstain from marrying, that he may follow Christ in the regeneration, (every one knows this is not contrary to the example of Christ,) and be counted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, none have any right to interfere with or control him, or on that account to interrupt him in the use of any other civil right or privilege: his faith is his law. It is an evident truth, that no one, by omitting the use or enjoyment of any civil right, gives any just occasion to be deprived of another. For instance, the possessing of landed property is a civil right; but should any man or people believe it contrary to the spirit of Christianity to hold personal or private landed property, and so refuse to do it, for conscience' sake, would it be presumed that, on that account, he could justly be deprived of the liberty of worshipping God according to his own faith, which is a civil and natural right, or of buying and selling common property, which is a civil and natural right, or even of marrying, which is also a civil and natural right? Certainly not. But the unquestionable privilege of all men, according to the very nature of their civil rights, to marry and be of the children of this world, can never introduce a civil right or civil institution into the Church of Christ, or incorporate it with his law and order. Neither can that, or any other reason, make it criminal or unchristian, in the Church and ministers of Christ, who preach by commission from him, to maintain that marrying, or living in that order, according to the course of this world, is contrary to the faith and order of Christ, or to require, by the faith of Christ, not by civil authority, that all those who unite with them, and profess to be of the body of Christ, should conscientiously and scrupulously abstain from everything of that nature. It is just for a man to profess to be what he is. Each man is left to his own choice, whether he will follow Christ or the world, and at liberty to act his own faith; but no man's faith or choice can alter the faith and order of Christ; it may and must finally determine the man's own condition; but the faith of Christ must remain inviolable; and whoever possesses that faith, is. counted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, and those accounted worthy neither marry nor are given in marriage.

No matter what any man professes, as belonging to the faith of Christ or worship of God, which does not interfere with the rights of others, so as to be any just cause of grievance, no civil or arbitrary power has any right to molest him; but to require the people or ministers of Christ, preaching under commission from him, to acknowledge, as belonging to the faith or work of Christ, any thing or

every thing which any man should propose, as agreeable to him, or to cede any part of the faith or doctrine of Christ, or which they preach as by commission from him, to accommodate the Gospel testimony to the feelings or choice of others, is in effect to give every man the preeminence over Christ, and subjugate the Gospel testimony to the will of man. Whatever therefore belongs to the Gospel of Christ, his Church not only have a right, but are under the most solemn obligation to God, to maintain; and if any man or people hold errors, and call them truth, arguments founded on Scripture and sound reason, or the gift and power of God, in the Spirit of the Gospel of Christ, are the only justifiable weapons with which to oppose such errors; and these the faithful have a right to ply with freedom.

No man can serve two masters. The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other. "He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption; and he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Thus every man must make choice for himself, and be rewarded accordingly.

if

If marriage be not a civil right, and free to all citizens, or if it be a Christian institution, none but Christians have any right to it. But on the contrary, if it be a civil right and a civil institution, which few any will deny, it is no part of the Christian faith or economy, unless introduced by the Author of Christianity, which has not been done, but expressly excluded, as has been shown. It may then be inquired, with the utmost propriety, What authority or pretence have any who profess Christianity, to introduce into the Church a civil institution, or ceremony, which Christ has not required at their hand? Who have any right to require any class of professed Christians to use any civil right, which they consider improper for them and inconsistent with their calling? What power has any right to assume the prerogative over the consciences of any class of professed Christians, to subject them to inconveniences or deprive them of their civil rights, because they choose to omit one or more, as being inconsistent with their calling, while at the same time, they leave all people to an equal freedom of choice, and neither usurp nor claim any authority or influence over any individuals, contrary to their own faith and choice?

If, therefore, any people, for the sake of following Christ more perfectly, choose not to marry, or if married, choose not to live after the flesh, because they believe such a life to be inconsistent with the faith and order of Christ; in the mean time considering and maintaining it a matter of free choice and faith with all others, according to their natural and civil rights, whether to be one with them or not; do such people violate any principle of a free government in so doing? Certainly not. On what foundation of justice, or according to the free and liberal principles of the American government, can they be accused or subjected to oppressions or grievances, by giving their opposers legal advantage against them? Yet this has been attempted by some, who savour the spirit, not of Christ, but of Antichristian tyranny.

An additional and very striking proof that marriage does not belong to the Church of Christ, but is entirely of the world, is contained in the measures taken by the apostates in the latter times to establish their reputation, and perhaps their hope as Christians. “Now the

Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times certain shall apostatize from the faith, yielding [podexoves] to seducing spirits [or Tvεúμaoi Thávois, erroneous spirits] and doctrines of demons, who speak lies in hypocrisy, [or through the hypocrisy of liars,] who have their own consciences seared as with a hot iron, who forbid to marry, [and require or command] to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of those who believe and know the truth." (1 Tim. iv. 1, &c.)

A material point in effecting a well-concerted plan of forgery is to retain all the most noted and conspicuous characters of the original. When, therefore, the Antichristian church prevailed, having lost the true Spirit of Christ, and having, for that reason, no longer any power over the spirit of the world, and their members being all carried away with the lust of concupiscence, so as to lose every appearance of the followers of Christ and the reputed Church, or rather chief bishop, now reigning with absolute power, nothing appeared more eligible, or better calculated to maintain some resemblance of the Christian Church than to forbid to marry, and to require to abstain from meats, or to keep fasts, which was also a practice of the ancient Church, that they might restrain, by the force or energy of law, those passions which they had no longer any power of the Spirit to crucify. But as the apostles bore with many in a certain degree, and acknowledged them as believers, though in a more distant relation, as the outer court; and as they only who lived in the first order abstained from marriage and the works of the flesh entirely, as did the apostles and others, who were the true Church in that day; so the law prohibiting marriage extended only to the foremost class of professors, and to the whole of the priesthood, all of whom are bound by law who undertake to live in that order, and also by oath, with all the rest of the monastic order.

Thus arbitrary measures became substitutes for the faith and Spirit of Christ since these have been lost, to preserve as much as possible the resemblance of the Christian Church. These things having taken place early in the apostacy, while the order of the Church of Christ was yet known, are a striking proof that marriage has no part in that Church, but is of the world.

The following extract from an Epistolary Discussion on Religion, between a Protestant and a Catholic, which fell into my hands a few days after I had written the above statement, elucidates and confirms it, by the Catholic's own words. In his reply to the Protestant, who complained that the law of the monastic orders was arbitrary and cruel, he says: "The promoters of the disciplinary law that prescribes it, had undoubtedly a commendable intention: they wished them to be angels-like who angelical functions exercise; but considering its inconveniences, they had better perhaps been ruled by St. Paul's doctrine, satisfied with giving it as a counsel, not as a command."

But a proper understanding of this subject at one stroke exonerates the people who refuse to marry for the sake of Christ and his cross from the charge of forbidding to marry, inasmuch as what they teach and practise amounts to this: That every thing ought to be kept in its proper place, and treated according to its own order, so as to stand or fall therewith. Can any suppose that this is to depart from the faith

Or

of Christ, to do as he did, for the purpose of obedience to him? is a man guilty of speaking lies in hypocrisy for living up to what he believes and testifies is right? and not rather he who testifies one thing and practises another? as all those do who profess to be of the family of Christ and to follow him in the Spirit while they live after the flesh, according to the first Adam, marrying and giving in marriage, as it is written of that order: They twain shall be one flesh.

Can any people be justly charged with forbidding to marry, or of intruding on the rights of others, by testifying that marriage does not belong to the followers of Christ, and living according to that testimony, declaring all the time that it is a matter of pure faith, without force or commandment, in every one who chooses to walk in that order? If this be the case, by parity of reason, whatever any people profess, be it false or true, and maintain it to be necessary to Christianity, living accordingly, such people, by so doing, forbid all others to practise contrary to that profession, and thus the faith of Christ is turned into a law of commandments, contrary to the whole nature and plan of Gospel invitation-Whosoever will, let him. For let truth be what it may, those who are Christians indeed must have it, not only in profession but possession, holding the truth in righteousness; and according to the aforesaid conception of forbidding, they necessarily forbid all others to deviate from them, even those who make no pretensions to Christianity as well as those who differ from them in the profession

of it.

It will be granted, on the principle of equal rights, that all orders of professed Christians have a right to institute their own order of worship, or, to speak more consistently with giving Christ the preeminence, to learn of him what is the true worship of God, and to require all who undertake to be of that body, and of the same faith with them, to live according to that faith, otherwise not pretend to be of them. Those, therefore, whose faith is not to marry, or live after the course of this world, because of its being contrary to the faith and order of Christ, have an indisputable right to require all those who profess their faith, and desire to be joined with them, to live according to that faith, and to abstain from every thing contrary thereto, or else not pretend to be of that people. And this is perfectly consistent with the faith and law of Christ, as well as the utmost natural freedom of every man's conscience. Neither has it any relation to forbidding others to do what they in substance practised themselves, or enjoining on others that abstinence and self-denial which they themselves did not keep; to which may be added, as contained in that forbidding, the subverting of the Spirit and faith of the Gospel, by undertaking to effect by arbitrary measures what they were unable to do by the faith of the Gospel, in consequence of their having lost the Spirit and power by apostatizing from the faith of Christ. "Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry.' But when people live according to what they teach and profess, bearing a living testimony against the flesh, and all evil, they neither speak lies in hypocrisy nor have their conscience seared.*

*The foregoing explanation is given in conformity with our common translation of this text; but, for the better understanding of those who wish to come