« הקודםהמשך »
their real dependency on, or relation well-disposed and reflecting mind to it; is the only test which we would take. And, indeed, does not have left.
St. Paul himself direct men posiThus, a man who professes to act tively to this very test, namely, the from piety, if he be solicitous to test of their own consciences seridiscover whether his actions have in ously examining their dispositions or reality this character or not, asks motives, where, in speaking of the himself first: Is the principle which institution of the Eucharist, and the I profess a really active principle? manner in which it ought worthily Does it exert itself? If it does, is to be received, he says, « But let a it in some suitable acts? If so, man examine himself, and so let him how do I know that these acts are eat of that bread, and drink of that indicative of that character of true cup *. “ As if he had said," obpiety, from which I wish to satisfy serves Dean Stanhope, " before myself that they flow? Because every approach to this sacrament, it their effect is to promote the good is fit that a man see into, and be of man, one great province in which satisfied with, the disposition of his piety has to operate, or because own mind t." they are expressly commanded by This, assuredly, is to take for a God. But how shall I know that I test the tendency to the formation perform them from this principle, of religious character. But every and that there is not some inferior man who reasons thus in his own motive, perhaps only a mere worldly case, must reason similarly on the motive, at bottom? Because I sa- abstract question. As, therefore, tisfy myself, on a sincere examina- a religious character is the object to tion, that these acts do really tend which, in the last resort, we must to confirm, or that they are the study to conform, so the tendency real and correct expression of, a
to form that character must be the pure feeling of piety; because I test, by which, whether a vague persuade myself that my whole cha- test, or a precise one, our actions racter is so far consistent with that must, in the last resort, be weighed. púre feeling, that I have no just And I may add, finally, that the cause to distrust my sincerity. If mere vagueness of a test cannot, in the efforts which I make are suc all cases, be a just objection to it. cessful, I willingly refer the praise It may be vague because it is true; to God, and feel that it is not a because it is not justly liable to the selfish victory which I gain; or, if objection that it will apply only parI miss the personal ends which might tially: for it is of the very nature follow from them, I still preserve a of general tests to be vague: and truly religious satisfaction. Or, be- specific tests, when brought in comcause I endeavour, on a strict ana parison with them, will naturally be lysis of my motives, to give to all precise and particular. the moral claims and qualities their I fear I should encroach too much due weight and proportiont: I am on your next number, were I now to not conscious of any favouritism of proceed as I had originally intended; any one species of virtue, and feel to the two remaining positions which no regret that a benevolent object I have to prove, I will defer these; ought to be prosecuted only by just therefore, to your number for July. means t.
I was far from meaning to have Such, undoubtedly, would be the troubled you at so much length; natural method of ascertaining the but you must be well aware that real motives of conduct, which every almost all sorts of arguments grow
Human Motives, p. 183, 184. + Ibid. p. 18.
Ibid. p. 954.
1. Cor. xi. 28.
rinsensibly under the hand of the stances, many Papists were con
writer, even in spite of all efforts at tinued in office, whom it would have compression. I will not delay, how- been dangerous to remove, whilst ever, to return you my best thanks the opinions of the public were still for your obliging readiness to allow so unsettled and divided. But these s Toom for these letters in a journal, Papists, it is plain, were trusted no on which many subjects of pressing further than was absolutely neces
interest must necessarily have a very sary; the greatest jealousy and dispowerful claim.
trust was felt concerning them, and I am, Sir,
they were nicely watched by their Your most obedient humble servant, Protestant coadjutors.
JOHN PENROSE. During the insurrections which Bracebridge, May 10th 1821.
broke out in this reign, and which were occasioned by the Popish priests, it has been asserted, that
Catholic commanders were sent To the Editor of the Remembrancer, Lord Clifford, (or De Clifford) has
against the rebels, and the name of Sir,
been mentioned as amongst the num
ber. After the minutest enquiry, I DURING the late debates in Parlia can find no such nobleman employed ment respecting the Catholic ques on this occasion. The commanders tion, some important historical mis were the Marquis of Northampton, statemeuts were made concerning in Yorkshire; Lord Russel, and Sir then, which I shall now endeavour w. Herbert, in Devon; and the Earl to rectify, and place in their real of Warwick, in Norfolk. It would Jight. And first, Sir, it was at- not be easy to shew that any of these is tempted to be shown, that, because individuals were opposed to the prinsome Papists remained in high offices ciples of the Reformation, during the reigns of Edward VI. and The same remark will apply to the the earlier part of Queen Elizabeth, earlier years of Queen Elizabeth's that it would be prudent to render reign. After the great revulsion them eligible to tithe some offices which had taken place under Mary, in our times. This is a plain it would have been very rash to have sequitur,' even supposing the fact attempted any sudden and wholesale to be correct. But, if it is meant changes. Accordingly
, whilst she to be asserted that no jealousy was retained several of her sister's Caentertained of these Catholics either tholic councillors, she added to them in the reigns of Edward or Elizabeth, such men as Burleigh, Walsingham, every reader of Englislr history is and Knowles, &c. the tried friends able to contradict the statement. and advocates of the Reformation. During the former reign, indeed, the And on which side she placed her Reformation could not be said to confidence there can be no question. have been more than half finished. But the difficulties of her " situaWith all the difficulties attending the tion,” compelled her to these pruminority of the Sovereign, and after dent measures, and she might have the ebanges which had recently said with Dido, ou si osses mil 90 takes place with regard to religion, it would have been highly imprum
“ Res duræ et regni novitas me galia dentrif the councillors of the king
cogunte's saw auw 997:it di hud proceeded otherwise than in the But as she became more' fitmis most cautious and gradual manner seated on the throne, her real sento accomplish what was still remain-timents became the more apparent, jug to be done. Nor is it to be and these sentiments s were fully wondered, if, v under these circum- tified by the frequent insurrections
and conspiracies of the Catholic or voluntary separation, but legal party
and definitive divorce; divorce wbich At length, when the Spanish Ar- left the parties free to marry again, mada was preparing to invade these and only restricted them from being kingdoms for the express purpose of reunited with each other. I cannot destroying the Protestant religion, however admit, that any advantage she issued orders for the confinement would arise from superseding in the of all Popish recusants at Wisbeach authorized version, the words put Castle. Some were for more violent away, which Alethes judges to be measures, but her good sense and " of doubtful and equivocal meanprudence determined her only to ing,” and substituting the word dikeep a strict watch over them, vorce, which lie pronounces to be
Now, if under these circumstances, the “ uudoubted import” of the she had entrusted the defence of the text. Matt. v. 31, 32. Popular use kingdom to Papists, it might have in the present day has appropriated been urged indeed as a strong proof the word divorce, to a separation of of her love and confidence in them. the parties on proof and in punishAccordingly it has been told us in ment of adultery. This was cértery positive language, that Lord tainly not the sense of the Jews, Howard of Effingham, was a Papist, who neither punished adultery by bat the fact is quite otherwise, he divorce, nor admitted it anong the was a most determined Protestant. causes of divorce: and it would So again it has been said, the de- therefore confound the antient with fence of Dover Castle was given to the modern usage, and introduce a Catholic, but the assertion is to- rather than remove ambiguity, to tally false, it was given to Lord insert the word divorce in the text. Cobham, who was one of the High I am willing that Alethes should Commissioners for trying both Pa- assume, that the parallel passages pists and Puritans. These are stub. in St. Mark and St. Luke, are " the born facts, and we dare our anta same in import, though less explicit gonists to set them aside. We are in terms,” than the text of St. Matinformed by Neale, that during her thew, and that he should pass over Teigo 62 Popish priests were exe the consideration of these texts, and cuted, and 55 banished. I trust not enter the lists “ with those who that such gross blunders and mis- teach from these former Evangelists, statements will not again be heard the Roman Catholic doctrine, that within the walls of Parliament. marriage ought nut to be dissolved Yours, &c.
on any account, even for adultery A PLAIN ENGLISHMAN, itself. I am willing also that be
should assume, that fornication in Bath, May 3, 1821.
the clause of exception means adultery, and that adultery is a just cause of divorce. These points are
assumed by Alethes, as if they were To the Editor of the Remembrancer.
incontrovertible ; although there is Sir,
not one which is not beset with diffi In proceeding to argue with Alethes culties, which it is far more easy to the Christian doctrine of Divorce, I evade than to overcome. I am not have no besitation in admitting that however surprised, nor do I.com the divorce which was permitted by plain, that Alethes has not under the Law of Moses, and which was taken the investigation of these difcontemplated in our Lord's refe-. ficulties. The, disquisition would Fence to the established practice, necessarily be of an elaborate and and in the question proposed to him unpopular characters and in assan by the Pharisees, was not temporary ing the truth of his opinione, Aloe
the court of which it was demanded marrieth another, doth not comunit
theg has iat least diminished the nexion with the law of adultery, of controversy, and left me little to which the terms can only be ascera examine of the Christian doctrine of tained by the operation of the waters divorce, except bis leading position, of jealousy, and by the inefficacy of that Christ restricted the permission those waters, when the integrity of of divorce “ to the one case of the husband was wanting. The Aposadultery."
tles have said nothing of divorces for “Conscious of the baneful in- adultery, and consequently they have fuence, that a facility of divorces neither granted nor refused any right exerts over public morals, Christ to the woman suspected. The only made the adultery of the wife the question therefore relates to the judg. sole and indispensable condition of ment and decision of our Lord: did divorce. But be it ever observed, he, to use the offensive and unbethat when our Lord was occupied coming language of Alethes, did he in ameliorating the marriage law,
of divorce by any the power of divorce that he grants, demand of chastity on the part of the on the supposition of the wife's husband as the condition of its exeradultery, is not clogged by any de- cise? Or rather did he remove the mand of chastity on the part of the moral impediment which had been husband as the condition of its ex. imposed by the law of Moses, and ercise: nor is the adulteress allow- sanctioned for a long series of ages ed by the Gospel any right of com- by a divine and miraculous interpoplaint or recrimination. Moses sition? There is not the shadow of granted no such right in divorces for a proof, there is not even an asserinferior offences, and (however the tion from which it can be inferred civil institutions of different nations that our Lord rescinded the woman's may have added to these enact- right of recrimination, that right ments) Christ and his Apostles grant- which Alethes first studies to deny ed no such riglat in divorces for in the Law of Moses, and of which adultery.
he then insinuates, that it was not " I further conceive, that the imposed by our Lord. That right early scheme of Christianity then our Lord found already operating only required of the husband to among the Jews, and according to prove his wife's guilt by a judicial the comment of Lightfoot, he con i process, when he designed to aban. firmed and approved it; and I am don her to the penalty of such proof, mistaken if there is not another test, i which was death. Of this crime, from which, if its sense be' fully an example occurs in the eighth drawn out, the same doctrine may chapter of St. John, in the case of be inferred. the woman taken in adultery."
It is one of the cases which is In a former letter, I exhibited the put by our Lord himself: "Whosubstance of a commentary on the
soever shall put away his wife, ex, case of the woman taken in adul- cept it be for fornication, and shall tery, from the Horæ Hebraicæ, in marry another, committeth adulwhich it was shewn, that something tery. Let this rule be adapted to more than judicial proof of the the excepted case of an adulterous wife's guilt, was required of the wife, and let the consequences, husband by the existing lay, and which under other circumstances that that law had the sanction of would attach to the divorce be reour Lord himself. In divorces for moved; the law will then be to this inferior offences, it was free for the effect : « Whosoever putteth "away husband to demand a divorce, which his wife, being an adulteress, had no power to refuse, but these adultery.". Under the received and divorces have not the remotest come ordinary interpretation of the clause
of exception, I am not aware that The law of Christian divorce dethis accommodation of the Chris- 'pends altogether upon the abolition tian law of divorce is liable to any of those consequences in a certain objection, or offers any violence to excepted case, and not on any direct the Scriptures. I proceed with dif- permission or prescription : and if i. fidence, and with the humblest de- Alethes had attended to this diga tia ference to the high authority which tinction be would not have affirmed, I am endeavouring to explain, to that “ the text cannot mean that for propose another case, that of an his wife's adultery, he may divorce adulterous husband divorcing an her, and at the same time that beadulterous wife, and I ask the ques. cause he has committed adultery tion: If an adulterous husband puts himself he may not divorce her. No. away his wife, being an adulteress, sophistry of charity can extract from and marries another, does he not the same words ideas so distant and commit adultery? Alethes will pro- incongruous." The alleged inconbably contend, that he does not gruity pervades the whole Scriptural commit adultery in respect of his system of divorce. second marriage: and I am ready I have thus endeavoured to invato concede, that, on the hypothesis lidate the principal position of Aleof the lawfulness of divorce, a se. thes, and to shew, that in its ordi. cond marriage neither constitutes nary interpretation the Christian law ' aer aggravates the guilt of adultery. of divorce does require proof of the But the proposition for which I am fidelity and integrity of the accusing contending is general, and not re- husband, and does secure to the stricted by the involved conditions woman the right of recrimination, of divorce and bigamy, or a second of such recrimination as consists marriage consequent upon divorce, not in the palliation of her guilt, unless it shall be conceived, that an which is beyond all apology, but in adulterer, not divorcing his adul. the allegation of proof, that the terous wife, nor marrying another, guilt of the husband is such as to does commit adultery in the plain deprive him of rights to whicli he sense of the words ; but that an would otherwise be entitled. - This adulterer divorcing his wife, and is, I am persuaded, the law of the marrying another does not commit Seriptures, and I am happy to add adultery in the Scriptural sense of from Professor Christian's notes apthe words. It is of importance to on Blackstone's Commentaries, that observe the method of our Lord in it is the law of England. restricting the facilities of divorce, “ A husband cannot obtain a diwhich obtained under the Jewish vorce in the ecclesiastical courts for jostitution, and in permitting in one the adultery of his wife, if she reexcepted case the right of divorce criminates and can prove that he under the Christian scheme. He also has been unfaithful to the mardid not directly authorize or pre riage vow: this seems to be founded seribe the right, but he invalidated on the following rational precept of and abolished the consequences,
the civil law: judex ante oculos which puder other circumstances habere dabet et inquirere an maritus would attach to divorce: and these pudice vivens, mulieri quoque bonos consequences are of such a nature, mores colendi autor fuerit. Purinias cannot be separated from the quam enim videtur esse, ut pudicondition of the adulterer, who is citiam vir ab uxore exigat, quam therefore excluded from the right of ipse 'non exhibeat.”. Blackstone's divorce, and necessarily liable to Commentaries, B. I. c. xv, note 13. the consequences from which, if he
:) A. M. were innocent, he would be exempt.
111 yatoire :