either in the canons of the Established Church, or in the common law of the land. And why? Because marriage lies at the very foundation of civil society, and, therefore, it has been the anxious wish of all countries to protect it, by every means in their power, from dissolution. Yet instances of Divorce have occurred in this country, not only subsequently to the Reformation, but antecedently to that period. And in the Mosaic law, there is also mention made of Divorce, though I am aware, that some commentators say it was for general purposes, and others, for special. The words of our Saviour, however, are explicit on the subject; for they state, that where a dissolution of marriage takes place from any other cause than Adultery, such dissolution may be followed by the party so dissolving it, causing the other party to commit Adultery. I admit," added his Grace, "that the passages in Matthew are not in Mark nor in Luke: but in Matthew the exception is given, and Mark and Luke have the general institution, without the exception. Now I conceive that the passages in which the exception is omitted, ought to be measured by the passage in which it is expressed; for, it is impossible to believe that that was not intended, which was expressed, though that which was not actually

expressed, might yet be intended. The result therefore is, in my opinion, that the Scriptures have left a special case excepted, for which a Divorce may be obtained."†

• It is observable, that St. Luke himself suppresses the exception in each case; thus evidently understanding it tacitly in both; for he cannot be supposed to have opposed the statement of his Master's doctrine, as delivered by St. Matthew, the admission of the exception in the one clause; and, therefore, he makes the two cases perfectly parallel, and proves, that the reservation belongs equally to each section of the passage: and thus St. Matthew himself is to be understood, in stating the sin of a second marriage in the woman, to arise from the circumstance of her being put away for a less cause than fornication. "Whoso doeth this, causeth her to commit Adultery." Here her second marriage was adulterous, precisely because her first offence was not fornication, and her prior marriage was still good.

In these sentiments the Bishops of London, of Landaff, and others of the Episcopal Bench fully concurred. The former expressed himself, as "entertaining no doubt whatever of the power of dissolving the matrimonial bond." The latter stated, that," according to the law of the land, he knew no other cause of Divorce, than Adultery; and no other punishment of Adultery than Divorce. As to the Christian law, it certainly provides that dissolution of marriage may take place in any case of Adultery, for there is no qualifying clause in our Saviour's injunction."

These then are the chief features in the doctrines, promulgated by the Saviour of men, on the subjects of Adultery and Divorce.

We proceed to remark, now, on the sentiments of the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Christian Church, at least, as far as they can be collected from such records as have descended to us.

All the Apostles are strong in their condemnation of the crime of Adultery. They say nothing, however, of the secular and temporal consequences of it. On these we shall have occasion to comment presently; but they all concur in denouncing the future judgments and wrath of God against "the seed of the adulterer and the whore." St. Paul's Epistles, however, contain a few remarks more to the point of the present Essay. They are to be found in those written to the Church of Corinth, and appear to have been drawn from him as replies to certain questions, which, on this subject, like many more on other matters, were proposed for the solution of his experienced and enlightened casuistry. The chief passages alluded to, are the 4th and 10th to the 14th verses of the 7th chapter of the 1st

*

Epistle. The fourth verse is a very strong declaration of the power and authority, which, in marriage, are reciprocally conferred by the wife and the husband over each other's persons. The words are these: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." This also confirms the explanation of an identity of rights possessed by each party in reference to the other; and, when compared with the Saviour's law, restricting the liberty of Divorce, and the dissolution of this sacred contract to an act which, depriving one of the parties of this right, would vitiate the obligation on the other side, it exhibits the beauty and reasonableness of the law with great effect.

The Apostle then proceeds to comment on the law of Divorce itself: "Unto the married, I command, yet not I, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart" (xwpionai, be separated, i. e. by Divorce voluntarily obtained by herself,) "from her husband." Here, again, is a recognition of the sacredness of the obligation, and a prohibition conclusive against separation on frivolous pretences. "But, and if she depart," (sav de xas xwpion; i. e. but

* 1 Cor. vii. 4. 10-14.

even if she be separated, or divorced by him; "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife;" (or, I also command the husband not to put away his wife; xa avopa γυναικα με αφιέναι.) This passage of the Apostle's writings has been thought by some to clash with the permission of re-marriage, as afforded by Christ, and to sanction the opinion of the perpetuity of the rite as entertained by the Romanists. But the opinions of the disciple and his Master are perfectly reconcileable. Indeed, the Apostle expressly states it is his Lord's command that he is expounding. Christ gives the liberty of a second marriage after Divorce for Adultery. St. Paul states, that the liberty is withheld from such as separate for inferior causes. It is obviously not of Adultery that he is writing. It is of a separation begun on the part of the woman for offences short of Adultery; and in such cases she is properly admonished to be temperate in her conduct. The Apostle had observed that frivolous pretences for separation were frequent among both Jews and Gentiles, and he takes occasion to remark, that as they did not justify the separation, so neither did they dissolve the bond of marriage, and therefore any re-marriage would be Adultery