Page images
PDF
EPUB

6

most important sanction to this custom. When he fed the multitude in the wilderness, he took the loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks a.' When he instituted the holy supper, in commemoration of his death, he took bread and blessed it: and he took the cup also, and gave thanks b.' And when he sat at meat with the disciples at Emmaus, he took bread and blessed it c.' Nothing more need be said, in general, to enforce this duty.

But the careless manner in which it is too often performed, deserves very severe reprehension. The saying grace, as it is usually called, is in most instances a mere form, as may be too sadly suspected from the negligent air on the countenances of most present. And, in some instances, the words are so hastily and irreverently spoken, that the form itself borders very nearly on profaneness. The offence which this has justly given to serious people, has driven some of them into an opposite extreme, which hath not failed to be sharply censured as savouring of pharisaicism. Prudence and piety plainly dictate the medium between the two extremes. Let us be serious and self-collected whilst, in two or three sentences, we are addressing ourselves to God. The importance of this is great. For it stands to reason that a heedless desultory manner of performing this duty must be very offensive to God, and not only defeat the salutary ends of the service, but tend to fix a habit of trifling with sacred things.

We shall close the whole, with submitting to the consideration of masters of families, a few thoughts on a service of an extraordinary kind, in which our pious ancestors, and some, I trust, now living, have found their account: I mean, the setting apart a day, on special occasions, for solemn prayer and thanksgiving to God. The reasonableness and utility of such services, in regard of nations and churches, have been generally admitted: and I know not why they should not be admitted in regard of private families. It is true, some families may be so circumstanced as to render the observation of a day of fasting and prayer absolutely impracticable: or, however, it would be difficult for them to fix on a time in which the business of the house would allow all of them to attend. But this surely is

a Matt. xv. 36.

b Matt. xxvi. 26, 27.

c Luke xxiv. 30.

not the case with every family. Nor is it to be doubted but most good people might, in the course of a year or two, or at certain periods of their lives, find a convenient season for this purpose, if they were really sensible of the importance of it. To fix upon your minds, therefore, a sense of its importance is my object; and then the time, and manner of conducting the service, may very well be submitted to discretion.

Events of a momentous kind do sometimes take place in families, such as births, deaths, change of habitation, and other extraordinary providences either adverse or prosperous. Now if on such occasions every family, to use the language of the prophet Zechariah, were to mourn, and pray, and offer praise apart a; would not such service be acceptable to God, and highly beneficial to themselves? A giddy world, who pay little attention to the providence of God in their temporal concerns, and less to the religious interests of their families, may treat what we are recommending with contempt. But will a wise, prudent, serious man, who has the welfare of his house at heart, say that this is an unmeaning unnecessary service? Figure to yourself such a little assembly, on a fixed day, convened, without noise or ostentation, in some retired part of the house, there seriously recollecting their past sins and mercies, there earnestly pleading with God for a blessing, there cheerfully acknowledg→ ing his goodness, and there cordially devoting themselves to his service; figure to yourself, I say, such a little assembly, consisting of parents, children and servants, all deeply impressed with the solemnity of this extraordinary act of domestic worship, and tell us, whether it is not a lovely sight. Can any one find it in his heart to sneer at the idea of such a service as trifling, nugatory, and unprofitable? Or will any one in his sober senses pronounce such a day a lost day? Be that as it may, they who have enjoyed the comfort of these solemnities, and felt the substantial benefit that results from them, will think and act otherwise. May the number of such assemblies increase in our land! and may they joyfully accept the salutation of an inspired apostle!-Greet the church that is in their house.

a Zech. xii. 14.

DISCOURSE IV.

RECIPROCAL DUTIES OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

EPH. V. 33.-Let every one of you in particular, so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

As all societies, civil and religious, originate from families; so families derive from that first and most important of all social connections, the conjugal relation. Upon the right discharge, therefore, of the duties of this relation, the welfare and happiness of mankind in general very much depend. To explain and enforce these duties is the object of the present discourse.

Previous to this, it will be necessary to consider what it is that constitutes the conjugal relation, or the true grounds and reasons of it. The conjugal or marriage relation is not the result merely of a connection of the sexes: for if that were the case, there would be no such thing as fornication. It is a rcsult of a solemn contract between one man and one woman, to live together as husband and wife, till death shall part them. This is what we call marriage, what we maintain was instituted by God in the beginning, and what our Saviour refers to in the following words, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder a.' To the same purpose the apostle speaks in the verse but one before our text.

6

Now upon these words, together with the further light which Scripture in concert with the law of nature hath thrown upon them, these four important positions are founded-that the conjugal relation can lawfully subsist between one man and one woman only that the parties must be competent to the entering

a Matt. xix. 4-6.

into such contract-that the contract ought to be duly attestedand that adultery and death only can dissolve it. The particular discussion of all these questions, would carry us to too great a length. We shall therefore insist chiefly on the first of them; and say little more even on this than is necessary to open the way for an explanation of the duties of the marriage state, which it is the object of this discourse to recommend.

We affirm then, that "the conjugal relation can lawfully subsist between one man and one woman only." It is generally admitted with respect to the woman, for reasons obvious at first view, that she cannot marry any other man during the life of her husband. But it has been doubted respecting the man. We shall therefore prove that he can only lawfully marry one woman. And this we insist is the language of Nature and of Christ, I. As to the Law of Nature.

man.

God created man male and female, that is, one woman to a The conjugal relation, therefore, in the primitive and perfect state of human nature, did, and could only subsist ber tween two persons. Since that, a nearly equal proportion of the sexes hath generally prevailed throughout the world. Indeed it hath been thought, that the number of male-children born exceeds that of females. But this fact, considering the more numerous accidents men are exposed to than women, confirms the notion, that it is the wise intention of Providence that such an equality should prevail as naturally leads to the primitive idea, of one man's having one wife and no more. The ends of marriage, too, can only, in their full extent, be answered by its being confined to one man and one woman. These ends are two, the conservation and increase of the human species, and the mutual comfort and assistance of the parties united in this relation. As to the first, it would in all probability be better attained by an honourable and permanent connection between two persons, agreeable to the original dictate of nature, than by a multiplication of wives. But as to the latter, it is evident to a demonstration, that a departure from the primitive institution, in that idea of it for which we are contending, hath in innumerable instances totally defeated it.

Nothing can be more degrading to the female part of mankind, than to consider them as created merely for the purpose

first mentioned. He that can admit the idea dishonours himself as well as them. The powers with which nature hath li berally endowed them, render them capable both of enjoying, and of contributing very largely to the refined pleasures of friendship and society. Agreeably to this idea, if we may be allowed to advert to Scripture when we are reasoning from the law of nature, we hear the blessed God saying, when he had created our first progenitor, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help-meet for him a. As if he had said, It is fit that man whom I have made for society, should have one for his companion, with whom he may intimately converse, and who may assist him in the duties and be a sharer with him in the joys of life. Nothing therefore can be clearer than that the woman was created, and given to man in marriage, not merely for the purpose of propagating the species, but for that of promoting his and her own felicity. And from hence it as clearly follows, that what tends to defeat this great end, is contrary to the original law of nature.

And who can doubt that considers human nature, and the history of domestic society, that Polygamy is subversive of the real interest and happiness of both parties? The woman who is married to a man, has as much right to his love, confidence, and support, as he has to hers. Their interest in each other is mutual, and since God has made man male and female, why not equal? But can it be imagined, that where others are admitted to a copartnership with her in the marriage relation, she can have that entire interest in his affections to which she possesses this natural claim b? Or if that were possible, the painful jealousy that she hath not such interest in his affections, is an evil to which, upon the common grounds of equity, she ought

a Gen. ii. 18.

"Polygamy is not only inconsistent with our forms and the very letter of the marriage-contract, but with the essence of marriage, which lies in such a union and love as can only be between two. Aristotle doth not allow there can be even perfect friendship between more than two: much less, therefore, perfect love. Πολλοις είναι φιλον, κατα την τελειαν φιλίαν, ουκ ενδεχεται, ωσπερ ad εραν πολλων αμα It is impossible to be a friend to a great many, I mean, to be in perfect friendship with them, as it is impossible to have a love for a great many at the same time.'-Eth. Ετι γαρ φιλος αλλος αυτος. For a friend is a second self." "—Ibid.-WOLLASTON's Relig. of Nat. delin. Sect. VIII.

« PreviousContinue »