against a previous contract as yet undissolved. It is this he reprehends. The wife must not leave her husband: or, if she had left him, she must not marry again. She should rather make every sacrifice to effect a reconciliation and a return. The same duties devolved on the husband. The exception, however, is necessarily implied of that breach of the nuptial contract which has been last considered; for, that the Apostle is not speaking of Adultery, is clear from the close of the passage; "Let not the husband put away his wife." Now, it was well known, that the husband was permitted to do this for Adultery; and the Apostle would hardly contradict his Master: yet, he says, the husband must not dismiss her. We must clearly, therefore, apply the restriction, as St. Paul intended it, to other and less causes than that of Adultery. Another circumstance, deserving of notice, is, that the Apostle is writing, not to Jews, but to Gentiles; to the Corinthians just recovering from the laxities of Paganism, some of whose licentious liberties on these subjects have been noticed in the second division of the Essay; and this may further account for the strength with which he expresses his admonition against the rash abandonment of either party for trivial causes, and a subsequent and spontaneous re-marriage.

The Apostle then states one more case; it is that of a marriage between a christian convert and an unbeliever;-a case not contemplated by the statement of Christ; and for this obvious reason, no such case existed; and therefore the Apostle's expression is, "to the rest," that is, to others, whose cases were not included in the former consideration; to such, "I command, not the Lord."

A contract between persons of such opposite principles and sentiments must have occasioned the sorest inconveniences; and all such connexions were greatly to be deprecated; but it is to the case as already existing, that the Apostle's remark applies. It was from a predominance of an apprehension that the mixture with Gentile families might violate the purity of Christianity, or tend to throw the married believer back again to the pollutions of Paganism, that the first converts looked upon their marriage as actually dissolved if one of the parties still remained in infidelity. The case was submitted to St. Paul; and, with the most cautious deliberation, he states his opinion on the matter, declaring it to be only his own, although as agreeable, as he could collect it, to the divine will. His first object is to check these precipitate Divorces. If any brother" (that is, a Christian)

66

66 hath

a wife that believeth not," (an infidel, or heathen,)" and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman" (a christian woman) "which hath an husband that believeth not," (an infidel or heathen,) "if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband."* That is, supposing such a marriage to have been formed, let it not hastily be dissolved, for fear of the scandal that might be brought upon the church thereby. Although the Saviour had given no express rule on the subject; for, while he remained on earth, there were no Christians who had heathen husbands or wives, yet the Apostle considered himself authorized to enjoin, that, notwithstanding this difference of religion, the union was honourable if maintained in fidelity and forbearance; and so would the issue of it be; "else were your children unclean; but now they are holy;" the root being holy, so are the branches.

Thus one of the great evils which those who submitted this case to the Apostle's consideration, had in contemplation, would be removed; viz. the fear of the Christian parent

* 1 Cor. vii. 12-14.

respecting the state of the offspring. One infidel parent, it might be apprehended, (and it must be remembered that the state of religious discipline, in those primitive times, was, like all their religious opinions, of a far more simple and rigid nature, than those of after ages,) one infidel parent might occasion for its child an exclusion from the Christian Church, and render it unfit for the initiatory ordinance of baptism. But the argument of the Apostle removes this serious inconvenience, the defective religious state of the one party is to this extent remedied by the faith of the other, and the benefits of a connexion with the Christian Church, are transmitted to the offspring unimpaired.

So far the case is clear, proceeding on the supposition that the parties were desirous of the continuance of the connexion; but this supposition removed, the whole complexion of the case is changed. If the yoke, he adds, is found too irksome on such a serious consideration as this, and a separation take place, it need not be resisted.

"If the unbelieving

depart, let him depart ;* a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." On this important passage, the opinions of the

* 1 Cor. vii. 15. Ει δε απιστος χωρίζεται, χωρίζεσθαι.

Fathers and Commentators have considerably differed; as they have severally regarded the Apostle as speaking of a perpetual or a partial desertion.

The passage in question evidently supposes the believer to have endeavoured all means of securing the continuance of the union, but without effect; that the separation has been the act of the other party, who has perhaps sought to annul the contract, and entered into a new engagement. If this had actually occurred, no further resistance need be made. The brother or sister is not enslaved; the remarriage of the unbeliever is an adulterous intercourse, and would, in consequence, open to the injured party the remedial resource specially permitted by Christ. It is on this supposition, that the comments which have been made on the term, "is not under bondage,” ou dedovλærα, and which would apply it to a relaxation of the restraint from re-marriage, can alone be justified. Poole declares, on this passage, that "Christians are not under bondage, by the laws of God, to keep themselves unmarried on account of the perverseness of parties who have broken the marriage bond." Macknight states, that he "sees no reason why the innocent party, through the fault of the guilty, should be exposed to