Scriptures, as I shall endeavour presently to shew, have left open and undecided? Had it been proposed to them," whether a person could divorce his wife for any other cause except adultery ?" or "whether private separations were not in their nature wrong, and dangerous in their tendency," I should have been surprised if any difference of opinion had existed among the spiritual lords; and have no doubt, whatever, that they would all have answered unanimously, and without hesitation, the former question in the negative, and the latter in the affirmative. But the question which the Bishops were to consider was neither of these; they were to consider and to decide according to their judgment, whether" if, after a separation had taken place between two parties, the wife should commit adultery, the husband was thereby precluded from an application for a divorce!" They were to decide whether such application was contrary to any express, or implied, command of Holy Writ. And those Bishops who decided that there was nothing to be found in Scripture contrary to such application, decided, in my judgment, accurately. There is nothing in the Bible from one end to the other that decides the question. It must be decided by the application of civil, not of religious principles. It belongs properly and solely to the ecclesiastical courts; and when the divines and canonists ceased to be the administrators of ecclesiastical law, they ceased also to have any special weight or jurisdiction in matters of this nature.

The scriptural passage on which your Lordship appears to ground your objection, is Matt. v. 32, a verse to which this important proceeding has given almost as much notoriety as it obtained in the controversy between the Romanists and the Reformers in the sixteenth century. The Bishop of London, in an explanation of this verse, which REMEMBRANCER.-No. 25.

appeared to me perfectly correct, had stated, that it had reference to the local circumstances and peculiar practices of the Jewish people. Your Lordship conceives it to be of universal and eternal obligation. But I beseech your Lordship to tell me what there is contradictory in these opinions. It may be surely true, that our Blessed Lord told the Jews that their bills of divorcement were no longer to be allowed, when he alluded to a local practice, and yet at the same time establish ed a rule which should be obligatory on all Christians, even to the end of the world.

But your Lordship thinks the explanation erroneous, and conceives that you have strong authorities in support of your opinion. What these authorities are, I know not: but I will endeavour to lay before your Lordship some authorities on the other side, and to shew that the explanation of the text given by the three learned prelates is unquestionably true.

I confess that I cannot see how any doubt can be entertained that the expression of our Lord, in its first application, had reference to the local circumstances of the Jews. The words of our Lord are these:

"It hath been said, whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery." It seems to me that no language can express more clearly the meaning of any proposition." It hath been the custom among you (our Lord may be supposed to say,) for various causes, whenever you wished to be divorced from your wives, to give them a bill of divorcement; but I would have you understand, that whoever hereafter shall give this bill of divorcement for any other cause except adultery, causeth her to

D

commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her, who has received this bill of divorcement, for any other cause but this, committeth adultery.' I will venture to lay before your Lordship one of these bills of divorcement, which will, I trust, take all doubt from your mind of the real meaning of this text. Ego M. cognominatus M. filius M. deliberata in cogitatione animæ meæ, nemine me cogente, et demisi et liberavi et repudiavi te tibi uxorem meam N. quæ fuisti uxor mea antehac: et nunc liberavi, et dimisi et repudiavi te tibi, ut sis tui juris, et domina animæ tuæ, ad abeundum, ut ducaris abs quolibet viro quem volueris, nec vir quisquam prohibeat, in manu tua ex hoc die et in æternum. Et ecce permissa es unicuique viro, et hic esto tibi à ine libellus repudii, et Epistola dimissoria, et instrumentum libertatis juxta legem Mosis et Israelis." Now your Lordship will observe that in this Bill of Divorcement no cause whatever is assigned: the husband had deliberated in his own mind, and, had divorced his wife-not separated himself from her (for this is the great distinction) but had divorced her, and had given her leave to go and marry whomsoever she would. Now, then, my Lord, I appeal to your sincerity, can there be a doubt concerning the meaning of our Lord's prohibition? Does he, not clearly say that, whosoever should hereafter give a bill of this kind to his wife, caused her to commit adultery, by enabling her to marry and does he not explain his own meaning when he adds, that whosoever should marry any one that is divorced, was also guilty of adultery? And why? Because the divorce was now decided to be contrary to the Divine Will. But there is no mention, no hint or intimation that the sin of the husband would consist in driving his wife to incontinence: the adultery and the only adultery which this Bill of Divorcement would lead her to commit, consisted in her marrying ano

ther man under the sanction of this Bill. "Whatever you may think, (says our Saviour,) the vinculum matrimonii is not broken, and no new marriage can be formed in consequence of this illegal separation.” But until your Lordship can shew that the separation in question was a Bill of Divorcement similar to that which I have produced, and that the adultery which may have been committed, has been committed by a second marriage, and not by inconti nence, I shall not be persuaded that this passage of St. Matthew, or any of the others in Mark and Luke, have the most remote connexion with the present question, And unless the interpretation which I have given be the true interpretation, I confess I should feel myself utterly unable hereafter to decide upon the meaning of any single passage in the holy volume which requires the smallest degree of critical investigation.

But, my Lord, do I say that, the commandment of our Lord is not of universal and eternal obligation ?— Surely not. It is now established for ever, by the command of Jesus Christ, that, no man shall divorce his wife and give her leave to marry another, but for the cause of adul tery; or, in the language of the Canonists, that the vinculum matrimonii cannot be broken for any other cause. As far as this passage reaches, private separations are not even declared to be unchristian and improper: that they are so I am persuaded, upon Scriptural grounds, as I shall shew hereafter; but there is nothing in the Evangelists relating to that part of the subject, And now I will beg to lay before your Lordship some authorities in favour of the interpretation given by the Bishop of London, and which I have endeavoured to support,

I begin with Erasmus. Lex Mosaica permittit ut maritus offensus aliquo conjugis vitio dimittat eam suo arbitratu: modo dimissæ det libellum repudii per quem illa possit alteri nubere, et priori marito jus adimatur repetendi, quam abjecit.

society, and is a civil argument entirely independent of Scripture. But as your Lordship would not, I am sure, conclude that the impropriety of such separation justified adultery, or incontinence, in the wife, so neither can I infer per saltum, that it precludes the husband from any application for a divorce. On the principle, indeed, "that no man shall have advantage from his own wrong," the conclusion follows at once, when it has been shewn that the separation has taken place by the wrong of the husband: but if in any case, the wrong be originally in the wife, then even this con clusion fails. And which of these two may be the true state of the case, I cannot pretend to decide; I argue the case generally, and am unacquainted with any particulars which would lead me to form a positive decision either way.

But, my Lord, if in any case, as in the case of the Sovereign of this country, the marriage laws are fundamentally different in all their enactments with regard to one individual from what they are in every other: if the punishment affixed to adultery in the wife be much heavier; if the sentence decreeing that punishment passes without any inquiry into the conduct of the husband: if the husband himself by the law which compels him to marry a foreigner, is subjected to difficulties to which no subject is liable: if the state itself is concerned in the purity of the wife-then, my Lord, think any person would decide rashly who omitted to take all these points into consideration; he should not form his judgment on religious grounds alone, on a point in which Scripture is silent, and can, in no way, be adduced in support of his judgment, but by an inference of the most uncertain kind.

My Lord, I trust that I have said nothing which can in any way he conceived offensive or improper. I haveventured to controvert your argument, but I entertain not the smallest doubt, that your Lordship

ABSTRACT OF DR. ALLIX'S "REFLECTIONS ON GENESIS."

THE following paper, though it bears the title of an Abstract, for want of a more appropriate one, is rather an account of Allix's book, with an abstract of the important parts of it, than an analysis of the whole. This excellent work, which is less known than it deserves to be, was written as part of an attempt "" to prove the truth of the Christian religion," by a course of Reflections on the books of the Holy Scripture. In Allix's day, the superficial proofs of the truth of our religion (if we may so express ourselves) had been so much less investigated, that he is compelled to stop for the purpose of proving points which there can be now no want of fairness in assuming as generally admitted. These parts of his book it would be only tedious to present to our readers, even in an abridged form, and we shall, therefore, merely indicate them, doing so in order to present a complete view of the work.

Allix begins by observing, that if the truth of the facts of religion be proved, that is, if the Creation, the Fall, the promise of a Redeemer, the actual advent of that Redeemer, &c. be established as matters of fact, the remainder (that is, the fulfilment of the promises of Christianity, and the necessity of men's obeying its precepts) follows of course. The

great object, then, is to show (c. 2.) that Christianity is founded on proofs of matter of fact, and this is to be done on the authority of the writers of the Old and New Testament. The first object, then, is to show the truth of the historical books of the Old Testament; and this Allix does (c. 3.) by the ordinary arguments, and then proceeds (c. 4.) to consider the book of GENESIS in particular. Now, there are two facts related by Moses in this book, on which all the rest depend; and the main business, therefore, is to evince their truth:-they are the creation and the promise of a Redeemer. The important point to be observed here, is the use which Moses made of these facts, which was to lay them for the basis of a new system of laws; and he mentions them as things known to the whole world, and especially to the nation among which he lived. The importance of the facts is such, that every body must have thought of them, and satisfied themselves of their truth and the character of Moses was so conspicuous, that he never could have ventured to assert the general notoriety of facts which were not generally believed, without seeing himself exposed to public scorn; but strong as these arguments are, there is a yet stronger. The design of Moses in writing the book of Genesis, was to forward his system of establishing a new system of laws, which he professed to have received from God, and of leading the Jews into the land of Canaan, to which he told them they had a claim, ac cording to the intent of the Divine Wisdom, He assumes, then, the truth of the creation, and promise of a Redeemer, and goes on to remind them, that that Redeemer was to come of one particular family, the family of Abraham; and that the Oracles of God had declared that this family were to settle in the land of Canaan. By this reasoning, he hoped to convince them of the necessity of their taking possession of that country, and submitting to the

laws, which he asserted formed part of the same system of Providence, Now, is it conceivable that any one would hope to induce men to submit to the restraint of new, peculiar, and rigorous laws, by appealing to facts which they had never heard of, or which they did not universally believe? The answers which the ad. versaries of religion offer to this reasoning, are two, (1.) that Moses was not the author of Genesis; (2.) that it is absurd to credit facts on the single authority of a person who lived so long after the time at which they happened. The first of these answers, Allix exposes in c. 5. and c. 6. with the common arguments. In c. 7. he goes on to refute the second answer by shewing that there was a custom, which had existed from the earliest time to that of Moses, which authenticated the fact of the creation; viz. the observation of the Sabbath. And this will also help to show clearly how the memory of the promise of a Redeemer was kept up from the creation, to the time of Moses. .. Our business, then, is to show, (1.) that the Sabbath was ordained to commemorate the creation; (2.) that it was observed by mankind from the beginning.

The words of Moses, then, (Gen. ii. 3.) clearly show a solemn consecration of the seventh day to the service of God, in commemoration of his having, on that day, finished the creation of the heavens and earth. If it should be answered, that Moses only uses these words to show why God chose this day in particular, at the promulgation of the law; we may observe, that the order of narration refutes this answer; for Moses first narrates the formation of the heavens and earth, then the institution of the Sabbath, and after all, adds, "These are the generations," &c. Again, we know that the patriarchs, at least from the time of Seth, maintained a public worship, and for this there must have been some appointed day; and as, besides this, they distinguished