depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace *.”

I entirely concur with Dr. Dwight, in opposition to the greater number of commentators, in thinking that the deserted husband or wife, supposed in this passage, was bound to remain unmarried; or, rather, it was not lawful for her or him to marry another person. I consider the Apostle as reiterating the very doctrine which had been previously taught by his Divine Master regarding marriage.

II. Reason goes a great way in establishing the same doctrine, by shewing its importance to the usefulness and stability of the marriage institution. This is indeed so evident, that all allow that the Scriptures forbid a divorce, except for incontinence, or something equivalent. Among the things which are considered as equivalent to adultery are, obstinate desertion, attempts upon life, outrageous cruelty, incurable madness, and perhaps personal imbecility.

As no such things are mentioned by the Divine Lawgiver, we are not warranted to make any such additions to the law which he has given us. The evils just mentioned are, indeed, great; but since Christ takes no notice of them, when declaring what it is that constitutes a cause of divorce, they cannot justly be allowed to have the same effect, in this respect, as adultery. They are good grounds for a separation à menså et thoro, in which the parties, though not released from the bonds of marriage, are not bound to live with one another.

* 1 Cor. vii. 6-16.

The perpetuity of the marriage-contract, except in the single case specified by the Divine Lawgiver, appears to me to be productive of the following advantages.

I. An union of interests is by this means complete. Could the union be terminated earlier, of course every married pair would begin their connexion with the perfect knowledge of this circumstance; and in many cases they would lay their plans accordingly. Can it be doubted that woman, the weaker vessel, would thus feel herself driven to the necessity of providing a fund of reserve when she might not have access to the same resources? The husband, aware of this temptation, would have his confidence in his wife diminished, and his character also impaired by suspicions often excited. Would not such a possible separation of interests be productive of a separation of affections, and beget coldness, alienation, and jealousy? Would it not be felt that where in other circumstances there was a suitableness of dispositions and temper, there were now incompatibility, variance, unkindness, and even personal violence?

II. The perpetuity of the marriage-contract induces a necessity of mutual compliance. "It necessarily happens," as Dr. Paley remarks, "that adverse tempers, habits, and tastes, oftentimes meet in marriage. In which case, each party must take pains to give up what offends, and practise what may gratify the other. A man and woman in love with each other do this insensibly; but love is neither general nor durable; and where that is wanting, no lessons of duty, no delicacy of sentiment, will go half so far with the

generality of mankind and womankind, as this one intelligible reflection, that they must each make the best of their bargain; and that seeing they must either both be miserable, or both share in the same happiness, neither can find their own comfort, but in promoting the pleasure of the other."

III. The impossibility of release from the marriagecontract is conducive to chastity of speech and behaviour. Had the case been otherwise, that love of novelty and variety which is natural to man, would here be productive of mischievous effects. In the probability of a divorce, the spirit of licentiousness would roam abroad, and soon, for the purpose of making way for another, would the wife be repudiated. As it is, the perpetuity of matrimonial engagements precludes the desire of release from them; and tends essentially to render the marriage union a permanent source of enjoyment.

IV. The perpetuity of the marriage-contract is peculiarly important to the interests of the children. This position, so palpably obvious, requires no elucidation. The close, indissoluble union of parents is essential to the moral and religious education of their offspring. But were divorce attainable, this union, in a multitude of cases, would neither be close nor lasting.

Perhaps the care and attentions of the mother are still more necessary to the training of children than those of the other parent. What mother does not feel much for her children, when she has the prospect of being soon called away from them by death, and of leaving them to the charge of a person who may

be afterwards invited to occupy her place in the family? What would be the situation of children in countries where divorce prevailed? "The father, having released himself from one wife, and married another, would soon forsake the second for a third; this for a fourth; and thus onward, without any known limit. Who does not see with a glance, that even where humanity and principle reigned, these friendless beings would soon be neglected by the stepmother in favour of her own offspring. What must be their fate, where lewdness had succeeded to principle, and humanity had already been frozen out of the heart?"

Such is the importance of the perpetuity of the marriage-contract to the usefulness and even to the stability of this institution.