the crime should precede that of the remedial enactment. The necessity of any inquiry into the origin and nature of the institution of marriage, or the dictates of the law of nature on the subjects under consideration, is precluded by the terms of the Thesis, and in passing at once to the subjects proposed, it may be premised, that throughout the Essay, as much effort as possible shall be made against any violation of refinement; but necessity will compel the introduction of many disgusting particulars which fidelity to the subject cannot omit.

The first thing which is necessary to a right apprehension of all reasoning, is a correct definition of the terms employed. A general definition of the two principal terms on which we have now to comment, may be given in the outset, but the more peculiar acceptation of them belongs to the several heads of the Essay.

Adultery, then, is that act by which the marriage bed of another is violated. It is an injury, "Ad alterius thorum," from which, or as some have rendered it, Ulterius," or short, " Adulter," it has derived its name of Adulterium or Adultery.

66

It is a crime which has this peculiar odium attached to it, that it has furnished a name to designate all foreign intermixtures, and when a departure from all purity and simplicity is

to be described by connexion with what is deteriorating and spurious, it is called adulteration. The crime of Adultery is repugnant to the very nature of matrimony, which of two makes one; whereas, the other of one makes two. Properly speaking, Adultery is a crime which can only be committed with a married person. Both by the Jewish and the Roman laws, this was necessary to its existence. By our law, it is Adultery if either party be married.

The meaning of the word Divorce, is separation; its derivation is sufficiently plain from divertere, to turn away. The two kinds of Divorce, the one which severs from cohabitation merely; the other, which dissolves the very vinculum or bond of marriage, shall be noticed more at large hereafter.

And now viewed thus, in connexion with each other, both cause and consequence compel a remark on the distressing appearances they present. Adultery does not appear a simple crime; it is lamentably complex, and generally in one form or other, besides the necessary attendants, lasciviousness and impurity; its other associates are seduction and cruelty to children; and, when viewed as committed against the obligation of a religious oath, it involves perjury also. Even the

remedy is an injury. A divorce cannot be effected without violating the ends of marriage, however much the cause may justify the measure; and the results of this crime are thus perceived to be, a total destruction of that union of hearts and interests which the conjugal state implies, a breach of the marriage compact, a blot upon domestic peace, an effectual impediment to the education of offspring, an alienation of affection, and a fruitful spring of bitter hatreds, raging jealousies, and deadly feuds.

But it is proper to hasten from these preliminary observations, to consider,

The regulations of the Mosaic Law, and the customs of the ancient Hebrews.

Before the giving of the Jewish Law, there was no instance of Adultery, (at least, on record,) and, therefore, no mention of Divorce. The patriarchal ages were distinguished by a simplicity and purity, which rendered unnecessary those strict regulations for which the progress of corruption afterwards imperatively called. Eusebius remarks, that their own piety was their unwritten law; so that, with respect to the subject of the present Essay, they were safely trusted with that liberty of marriage

and divorce, which it was certain they would not abuse.* The polygamy of some of the patriarchs is generally accounted for on the principles of necessity. The writers of the early church, and several modern writers of note, have justified and explained it in this manner: "Donec mundus repleretur," is an expression of Tertullian, and of Eusebius also. Another cause for it has been found in the desire so generally felt by them to become the parent of the promised seed. But there are instances among them of a voluntary restraint, even in this liberty. Noah, Isaac, and others, afford specimens of forbearance from repeated marriage, which strongly aid the suppositions just made. But the intercourse with Egypt succeeded to the time of these good men, and this led to the indulgence of that licentious liberty, which called for the restraints which the Mosaic code was afterwards to furnish.†

In considering that code, the first thing which requires to be observed, is, the distinc

Φυσικοις γαρ τοι λογισμοις και νομοις αγραφοις, την ορθήν της αρετης διευθύναντες πορείαν, και περαν των σαρκος ηδονων, επι τον πανσοφον και θεοσεβη Βιον διαβεβηκοτες αναγράφονται.

Præp. Evang. lib. vii. cap. 8. p. 309.

+ The eighth chapter of Eusebius contains some interesting remarks on this subject, and is well worthy the attention of the scholar.

The

tion which exists between the moral and the judicial law. By the latter, many things were, from the necessity of the case, and the peculiar circumstances of the people, connived at, which were not at all countenanced by the former. This would have maintained a strictness, which the other was, in a degree, compelled to relax. Perhaps it is to this source that we may trace the various mistakes which have occurred in the writings of many on this subject, who have otherwise reasoned well, but have failed to remark this distinction. judicial law of Moses was not to be regarded as the interpreter of the moral: the doctrines of Christianity afford the interpretation. These we shall afterwards consider, but we may now observe, that those imputations which would fasten on the Mosaic law the stigma of a moral laxity, not to say profaneness, when placed beside the stricter ethics of the New Testament, are most unjust. Doubtless, the difference of the outward provisions of the two systems was great, but certainly not such as to justify an aspersion of this kind, which seems to have originated in a loose view and confused apprehension of the varied nature of the two dispensations, and a forgetfulness of those customs imbibed from the soil of Egypt, which preceded the judaical economy, and on