merciful and gentle kind; what was permitted to an uncircumcised heart among the Jews cannot be allowed among you.' It appears that the disciples themselves did not so clearly apprehend their Master's meaning, and were at that time not fully able to reconcile it to the precepts of Moses; when they were alone therefore with Christ, they asked him more particularly of this important subject; and he then gave them an ampler delineation of his intention. It is as follows: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery against her; and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery. And if a woman shall put away her husband,* and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

We now see that the Saviour makes the nearest approach to the indissolubility of the nuptial bond, which, circumstanced as human nature is, can be done. He declares the necessity for some permission, but the restriction of it to one cause, which is thenceforth to prevail. It would be impossible but that

* Instances of the use of this liberty, by the Jewish women, have already been given. The precedent of Salome followed by Herodias and others.

offences should come, and some avenue is left open to escape the inconveniences which the absolute indissolubility of this bond would occasion.

The clause of exception which has just been noticed as mentioned twice by Saint Matthew, has indeed been omitted in the Gospels of both Mark and Luke: but this must be considered as understood in the two latter cases, or the harmony of Scripture will be violated: it is impossible to rest the supposition the other way, since the terms are explicit, and repeated a second time, and therefore cannot be supposed to be mis-stated; whereas no injury is done to the text by the other hypothesis, which holds the excepted case to be clearly and avowedly understood. This is the only method of reconciling the Le statements of the respective Evangelists.

It must be now considered what this one cause really is; and the question resolves itself into the literal meaning of the terms employed. The word, in the original, is Пopvela: a term, on the interpretation of which, Selden remarks; 66 Difficultas, maximè quâ cruciari solent scriptores;" but which, when carefully investigated, does not appear so difficult to define. Ος αν απολυση την γυναίκα αυτού, EL μη επιπορνεια, και γαμησιν άλλην, μοιχαται,

και ο απολυμενην γαμησας, μοιχαται. Now, Пopvela, in its largest sense, implies general Act, XV 20%, whoredom; although, in the Sacred WriFudetings, it is frequently employed to express simple fornication between unmarried perCo2 sons, as distinguished from polya, Adultery;

ασελγεία, lasciviousness ; and ακαθαρσια, un

cleanness. But it also expresses whoredom Va in a married woman, incestuous whoredom,' and all kinds of lewdness committed by such; and, by a figure, has been applied to the idolatrous worship of apostate Christians.

2

The sense, however, in which it is employed by Christ, is to be sought.

That it could never be meant to express fornication committed in a single state, and before matrimony, is sufficiently clear. Several writers have diligently laboured to establish this position, but in vain.† Their arguments have chiefly rested on that expression in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "He that is joined to an harlot is one connecting it with the same

flesh;"

and,

+ See, particularly, Madan's Thelypthora, in three volumes; and Whitby.

1 Cor. vi. 16.

h

expression in the institution of the marriage rite, they contend that this passage ought to receive such an interpretation. But what would be the principle of such an interpretation? It would be, that every casual union, unhappily so frequent in wealthy and populous cities, would become a valid bond of matrimony, render the persons of the parties unalienable from each other, and for ever disqualify the individual who has accidentally united her person with one man, from ever becoming the wife of another. This is an alarming explication of the maxim, "Concubitus facit matrimonium." It would expose the matrimonial contract to an extremity of danger, and involve the operation of it in an extent of guilt that would be perfectly appalling. Besides, this "detestable inference," as it has been properly designated, of nothing more being necessary to marriage than carnal knowledge, would suppose that no such crime as fornication could exist: that no woman could be an harlot; for she must, before her crime, be a virgin; in consequence of it, a wife; and by a repetition of it, be made an adulteress; and where, then, would be the meaning of those terms by which the crimes of this wretched class of females are denominated and denounced in the Scriptures?

66

But this is not all; for such an interpretation appears to annihilate the prohibition of Divorce itself; because, if the marriage bond be not dissolvable by reason of the divine institution of marriage, (what God hath joined let not man sever;) and if this casual connexion be a valid bond of matrimony, it must follow that God hath been the author of this connexion; and what, then, becomes of his own denunciation, whoremongers and adulterers God will judge?" And, if fornication is to be the sure bond before marriage, Adultery could never be admitted for the dissolution of it, nor for the power of re-marriage afterwards. These consequences appear to have been partially foreseen by the supporters of the hypothesis under consideration, for they admit the power of re-marriage after a dissolution, and this destroys their whole argument; for, if the casual intercourse before alluded to, renders the persons unalienable, much more so would the fixed condition of marriage. But the hypothesis is utterly unsustainable. It has been well stated by the learned Ecclesiastical Judge, who presides in the Court of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, that "No ante-nuptial misconduct can be pleaded as a ground for a sentence of Divorce. The subsequent marriage is justly considered a