terpreted) no divorce was allowed. This, however, (if it was thus absolute,) he did not mean to insist upon;* since offences would come, and some escape must still be left for the sake of a social remedy. He makes the nearest approach which human

R

* The difference of opinion between Catholics and Protestants is this. We draw the liberty of divorce from the fornication clause. They wave this, and rest altogether on the general declaration, "What God hath

66

joined, let not man put asunder." Bellarmine, the universal antagonist of Protestantism, has expressly treated this subject, and made the text, just quoted, the foundation of his reasoning against us. De Matrim. But Protestants have sometimes been very careless in asserting the indissolubility of the first marriage, and the perfect renewal of it by Christ, while they yet allow divorce " a vinculo" on account of fornication. But either the original marriage had in it the tacit exception of fornication, or the Saviour did not completely restore it,—or the reformed Church is wrong in allowing any thing more than a separation of the married parties during life. I have rather leaned to the second supposition. Christ might in argument refer to the first institution, without meaning to re-establish all its obligation. A Jewish Prophet had made a similar reference. Malachi, ii. 16. But the marriage of Paradise was much farther from being renewed under that system, than our own.

circumstances would allow, to the indissolubility of the nuptial bond, and establishes adultery as the one and only cause to be hereafter admitted.

But there is a difficulty which must be surmounted, ere I enter upon this part of the subject. Was it adultery, properly speaking, which the Saviour had in contemplation, when he proposed his law?-In this, and the corresponding passages, the term for the offence, which our translators have used from the same unvarying original, is fornication. In the Jewish law, fornication and adultery had been regularly distinguished from each other, both in name, and in the mode of punishment; and it was to Jews who had long understood and acted upon these distinctions, that the Saviour now addressed himself. It has been concluded, therefore, by some,* that the only sufficient cause of divorce was forni* See Whitby in loco.

cation committed before matrimony, and discovered after cohabitation. But what is the principle of this new interpretation? That she who has previously united her person with one man, cannot become the wife of another. It is obvious to what an extremity of danger the marriage system among us must be exposed, and what an alarming extent of guilt must be involved. in the present operation of it, if this is really a maxim of the Gospel. But, indeed, those who have produced the opinion, do not insist exclusively upon it: they still allow that the usual meaning may be the true one; and, happily for the argument, they affirm that, under either interpretation, whenever a marriage is lawfully dissolved, it is also lawful to marry again. And this defeats the former position: for, if even a casual union renders the persons unalienable from each other, far stronger is the inference from the fixed condition of mar

riage; and, if fornication is to be the sure bond of connection in the first case, adultery can never be admitted for the dissolution of it, and for the liberty of remarriage in the second.

There is still another branch of this opinion. By the custom of the Jews, a certain interval took place, from the time of the betrothing to the completion of the marriage.* The liberty of divorce has, therefore, been thought to belong only to persons thus mutually pledged, for the dissolution of contracts hitherto imperfect: and fornication has been excepted from the full state of matrimony, and applied to the offences committed against the incipient obligation, during the continuance of the Sponsalia.

* From the instance of Rebecca-Gen. xxiv. 55. some have inferred that the interval was ten months ;days, in Scripture language, being sometimes expressed for months. However, Buxtorf gives the term of eight days, and describes the occupation of the parties. Proximo Octiduo, &c. De Jud. Nup.

It is true, a betrothed woman was, by anticipation, called a wife.* In case of misconduct, she was also to be divorced, though the parties had not yet come together, and a bill for that purpose was necessary to the voiding of the incomplete contract, though the terms of it were different from those above quoted. But, to wave all smaller reasons, -it will be

* The angel bids Joseph take unto him Mary his wife, whom he had thought of putting away, though as yet they were only betrothed. However, the common term for wives elect, was μs, the use of which is preferred by the Christian Fathers. The equivalent employed by Josephus is συνωμολογημέναι. Julius Pollux gives another term, which the Pagans sometimes used.

66

+ The substantial Clause of it was Conditione tuâ non utar." In certain cases a divorce was necessary, though the persons were not even betrothed. This happened when the brother of the deceased husband would not marry his widow. Maim. De Div.

Christians, whether Protestants or Catholics, have never applied divorce to any case but that of full marriage: -it is a hard supposition, too, that by putting away a person who has not yet fulfilled the characteristic description, "they two shall be one flesh," a man can cause her to commit adultery.