two sorts of them. I will give an instance of each. In the first, which is of the stricter kind, not only are the mutual positions fully stated, but the terms are equally given under each. Of this nature is the following passage-" If any brother hath a wife that “believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell "with him, let him not put her away-And "the woman which hath an husband that "believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell "with her, let her not leave him." 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13.

The other sort is of a less rigorous nature. But in this, too, the general positions are reciprocally stated: the deficiency is in the terms employed under them: these are mentioned with fulness, only in one part; and some of them are left to be supplied by the understanding, as a necessary correspondence, in the other. The example I will give of this second class, shall be drawn from the same St. Matthew, concerning

F

whose mode of writing we now dispute. It represents a moral agent placed between two objects; and states his conduct, with relation to both of them. "Whosoever will

66

save his life," says Christ," shall lose it: "and whosoever will lose his life, for my “sake, shall find it."-Here, with an inversion of the order of the propositions, is a passage similar, in effect, to that in question. The first proposition is general. But is it to be so understood? No: the peculiar provision of the second, affects even the former part, notwithstanding the claim arising from its position, narrows the apparent wideness of its meaning, and brings it within the reservation which itself contains. "Whosoever will save his life," (not generally, but through a particular preference of the world to me,) "shall lose it: and who

soever will lose his life for my sake," (through a particular preference of me to the world,)" shall save it." In this pas

sage, on account of the position of the moral agent between the opposite objects soliciting his attachment, there is a necessary change in the terms, in order to accommodate his double choice. Yet, even thus, and with a greater appearance of force in the construction, the reservation in one part, must be allowed to operate in the other also, in a manner corresponding to the change of choice, or it cannot be un derstood at all. But the case is far easier in the passage immediately our own: for there, the parties remaining under the same circumstances, the exception expressed in one place is only to be supplied, word for word, in the other. "Whosoever putteth

66

away his wife, and marrieth another, "committeth adultery: and whoso mar"rieth her that is put away, committeth "adultery." These are the general posi tions, of which I spoke; and they are re

F 2

66

ciprocally stated. But there is not the same completeness in the terms employed under each of them. The first is attended with the particular clause, except for "fornication:" this once expressed, is dropped in the second. The mind is now prepared by the previous mention of it, and calls it in again, as a necessary and consequential part, to supply that fulness of meaning which the divine writer manifestly intended, and of which he had already given a leading indication.-If my authority will not prevail with you for this interpretation, so contrary to your own, take that of Chrysostom. He is so struck with the necessity of applying the exception to both clauses, if to either, that, in his account of the corresponding text, in Matt. v. he sometimes leaves it out altogether. He makes the two cases perfectly parallel, and proves, that, in his mind, the reservation

belonged either to the whole of the passage, or to no part of it.* If the authority of Chrysostom is disallowed, take yet a higher. St. Luke himself, who represents the Saviour pronouncing the law of marriage to the Pharisees, makes the very same statement of it. He suppresses the exception in each case, tacitly understanding it in both, and shows us that the clauses stood, both of them, on precisely the same footing. "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and "marrieth another, committeth adultery: "and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth

66

adultery." c. xvi. 18. If St. Luke did not afford so apt an explanation of St. Matthew, St. Matthew would sufficiently explain himself. Where the substance of this passage is first given, in his fifth chapter,

* Ο γὰρ ἀπολύων, φησὶ, τὴν γυναῖκα αυτε, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι· καὶ ὁ γαμῶν ἀπολελυμένην, μοιχάται. Disc. 17. vol. 2.