r IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 121 125 1.1 ^ lii 12.2 1^ U£ 12.0 IL25 III 1.4 I «' Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WEBSTER, N.Y. 145S0 (716) 172-4503 w; \ -4v •SJ <^ • V f-M CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Inatitute for Hiatoricai Microraproductiuna / Inatitut Canadian da microraproductiona hiatoriquaa Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiquea The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checiced below. D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculte Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or blacic)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D Bound with other material/ ReM avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shfsdows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 fiimdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procjrer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. r~~| Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurtes et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dAcolortes, tachetAes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es I I Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualit6 in^gale de I'impression includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppltfmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponibia I I Quality of print varies/ I I includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmAes A noiiveau de fa9on A obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 18X 20X 28X D 32X MM mf^' s,-* i^mi. ,'if'.6V.. ire details les du modifier ler une filmage tos ' errata d to It o pelure, ;on i n 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanlcs to the generosity of: Library of Congress Photodupiication Service Thtf images appearing here are the best quality possible considuring the condition and legibility of the origina! copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. IMaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 2 3 L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce A la gAnArositA de: Library of Congress Photodupiication Service Les images suivantes ont MA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de l'exemplaire filmA, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont filmto en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'lKustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symboie ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmto A des taux de rAduction diff Arents. Lorsque !e document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA. il est filmA A partir de i'angie supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. lies diagrammes suivants lilustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 •'»a■ xuptia: sacr/E. 13 red by a scaled by jractice), is in this and that ,ch cause of some, plicity of en a wife pass, that ecause he tier; then lent, and out of his ; practice ►efore the :r to over- lie phrase vas of vo- iction. He d's official , whether with his approbation or without it, was vaHd in law. The judge could only take cognizance in questions concerning her marriage portion, which the woman, on cer- tain occasions, was made to forfeit, either entirely, or in part, as her conduct seemed to deserve. But in divorces, where no liti- gation of property occurred (for much was done by private arrangement), the practice was as has been described. Grotius has compared this application to the judge, with that of the Romans to the praetor, for the purpose of manumission. He knew the will of the master, and partook in the forms of the liberation ; but he had no controul over it, nor so much as the power of advice concerning it.* Such was the prescription of the Jewish * Adnot. in Serm. Dom. It is supposed here that the law was satisfied as to the age,&c. of the person who received manumission. I am speaking only of the will of him who resolved to grant the liberty. For the other qualifications, see Instit. Lib. i. tit. 5, 6. ^S ,-r 14 XUPTI;T. SAClliT,. i^ law. Let us now inquire wliat was the ob- ject of it. Generally speaking, it was the safeguard of the woman ; since an act, thus deliberately execu'.ed, must afford a longer time for reflection on its consequences, than a hasty rejection by a word pronounced un- der the influence of passion. ' Cum libellus iste/' says Spencer, who catches the true meaning of this part of the provision, " non nisi subductd ratione et animo sedatiore scribi potuerit, multis inde divortiia obsta- culofuit"* But there is a more particular reason still for the written record of this act. A woman, thus divorced, was at liberty to marry ano^ ther person. ** She may go and be another man's wife." Deut. xxiv. 2. But the bill, itself, of divorcement, might be for ever a bar in the hands of the wife (if she would so use it) against the resumption of her by the husband who had caused it ta be exe- * De Rit. Heb. p. 654. i ' -JI.JiJiWjJ-41,k'--Ji-^!"Ji ' ' l l "-'.'" ' '' ' i."-'^"' NUI'TIAi HACRyE. 15 ,s the ob- was the act, thus a longer ices, than meed un- n libellus \ the true )n, " non sedatiore is obsta- iason still L woman, urry ano* 3 another the biU, or ev&r a hie would jf her by be exe- cuted upon her. There was a legal interval to be observed between the time of her di- vorce and her marriage with another ; and within that period the husband and wife might, by the practice upon the law, be re- conciled, and come together again ; if he repented, and if she would wave her new privilege of a perpetual alienation from him. Maimonides fixes it at ninety days, that of the divorce not included. But liere ended her power of reunion-c for if she then al-r lowed another to possess her, the former husband could never renew his connection with her, whatever might be their mutual wishes, or mutual regret. " If the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his ht>wse;; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife ; her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled, for that is abomination -«'1 i 1 16 NUKTI.i: SACR^.. before the liord." Ueiit. xxiv. 3, 4. There was also one, and only one, restriction upon lier liberty of remarriage. On account of the sanctity of his situation and character, and through the force of an opinion which afterwards marked the apostolic age, and attached a blemish of immorality to eccle- siastics of an higher order in the Christian church, if they were at all implicated in second marriages, she could not be united with the high-priest. He was to marry only a virgin. " A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane (a gentile), or an harlot, these shall he not take ; but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife." Levit. xxi. 14. With this single exception, the woman en- joyed that full liberty of remarriage which her bill of divorcement expresses. I subjoin the form of the substantial part of it:* * This is quoted from Grotius, ibid. That given by Buxtorf is translated with a certain difference. The Hebrew form is to be found in Maimonides, De Div. iii\M^ wmmm m NUPTIA', 8ACR*. If 4. There tion upon ecount of character, ion which age, and ' to eccle- Christian licated in be united larry only d woman, lot, these Le a virgin t. xxi. 14. Oman en- ige which I subjoin t of it:* liat given by rence. The jes, De Div. (( Med sponte, nullius coactu, tc uxorciu hactenus meani diniittcre a me, deserere ac repudiare decrevi ; jamque adeo to dimitto, desero ac repudio, atque a nic ejicio, ut tu(c sis potestatis, tuoque arbitratu ac lubitu quo libet discedas ; neque id quisquam ullo tempore prohibessit. Atque ita dimissa esto, ut cuivit viro nubere iiln liceat." This I conceive to be the rationale of the Jewish law of marriage, and this is the sum of what I would observe to the noble Earl, on a subject concerning which he has al- lowed himself to talk so very imperfectly. And I will take the hbeity of observing, by the way, that the custom, which has too much prevailed, of going to Parliament with, some fragment of Scripture, in order to throw the highest of all sanctions over an unexamined or an untenable opinion, is p. 2. Buxtorf observes, upon it, that it was always written in twelve lines, neither more nor less. Synag. Jud. -•'1 ■ * * ■ mwti e iwf ^i > I j 18 IfUPTI* SACRA. equally disingenuous and irreverent. The only satisfaction arising from such an ap- peal is, that it finally leads to the overthrow of the argument which it would, at all ha- zards, stpport. A sounder view of the question, which will never fail to come from some person or other, impatient of the at- tempt to pervert Revelation from its pur- pose, corrects the inaccuracy of an hasty inference. Truth makes her way through the very provociation of the momentary error ; and the more largely the Divine in-» stitutions are surveyed* tiie more triumph* antly is " wisdom justified of het «Jhildpen/' But I return to the subject immediatdy under review. — ^Tiie noble Earl now sees the strange application he has made of one of the provisions of the Law of Moses. The adulterous parties were to be put to death* both the man and the woman. But the noble Earl is determined they shall inter- marry ; and how does he prove the com- :reverent. The im such an ap- o the overthrow irould, at all ha- er view of the ail to come from atieiit of the at* h from its pur- icy of an hasty ler way through l^e momentary y the Divine in-» i more triumpb* of hef vihildren/' ect immediatdy i Earl now sees has made of one ^v of Moses. The be put to deaths Oman. But the they shall inter- : prove the com- NUPTIJE SACUiE. 19 mand for it? By adducing this solitary text, '* If a man find a damsel, and lie with " her, she shall be his wife!"— But the slightest view of the fmssage to which he has appealed, must have convinced him, one should think, that it applied exclusively to the dishonour doi>e to a virgin not yet betrothed,* The offender must marry her; and, as a punishment, he was to lose for ever the comfQon power Qf divorce {against her. ** Because he hath humbled her, he *' may not put her away all his days.'- Deut. xxii. 29. If she were contracted to a mar- riage, not yet solemnized, and thus defiled, the violator suffered death ; pnd the only difference between the puni^ment of this crime, and ddGilement after marriage, was in the mode of executing the offender. In * There was, indeed, another case in which divorce was prohibited. H9 who falsely asserted that his wife was not " found a maid," by him, " ought not put her " away all his days." He also paid a fine of a " hundred " shekels of silver" to her father. Deut. xxii. 19. C 2 ',1 ■I v' 20 NUPTI^E SACIliE. i. ! the former case, death was given by ston- ing ; in the latter (as the Jews interpret,) by stranghng * Such, then, is the reverential manner in which we ought to view the Law of Moses, and such was the remedy applied by it to the licentiousness with which the Jewish divorces had been made ;— a licen- tiousness which seldom fails to be seen, where the power of repudiation is left to personal authority, and private passion, and not solemnly resolved upon with a cer- tain attention to outward character, and under the eye of public justice. And the same laxity, not corrected by the influence of Revelation, we find, so long afterwards, among the Romans, with whom a short formula pronounced by the husband, or indeed a message sent by a freedman (for Juvenal is legally correct,t) was sufficient • This is inferred from Deut. xxii. 22. Levit. xx. 10, Jic. The daughter of a priest, for the crime of fornica- tion, was to be burnt. Levi^ xxi. 9. t Collige8arcinulas,rficef /»6erftM,etexi. Sat. 6. The ■W\ NUPTIiE SACttiE. 21 I byston- interpret,) reverential \v the Law Ay applied which the •—a hcen- 3 be seen, n is left to te passion, with a cer- racter, and . And the le inflaence afterwards, om a short lusband, or sedman (for as sufficient , Levit. XX. 10, Time of fornica- xi. Sat. 6. The for the dismissal of the wife. Of the same nature, too, is the custom which prevails al this time in many parts of the East, where the sending home of the goods brought by the wife is a valid act of repudiation, with- out a word spoken by the husband. — And now, my Lords and Gentlemen, what is the result from this part of the inquiry, for your ajpproaching debate?— The Law of Moses, though the noble Earl should draw it once more from his pocket, for the pur- pose, contains nothing that will answer his wishes. The utmost that could be obtained from it, might be an inference from analogy ; but no such inference can be good against the express terms of a statute : and, in the last word was essential to one of the formuls announcing divorce ; and such is the allusion of Seneca, in his repre- hension of the frequent divorces brought about by the Roman women. Exeunt matrimonii cau8&,nubunt repudii. De Benef. Lib. iii. — From Maimonides we find that when the bill of divorcement was duly executed, the Jewish husband had the option of giving it to his wife io person, or of sending it by a deputy. De Div. C3 w m '-':.: ' wm ''' " f7 '-"i-^i^cww •,t-..^ 33 NUPTI* SACRA. present case, though the defiler of a virgin not yet betrothed, wvts compelled to marry her, the adulterer, it is obvious, could not follow the same rule : for both lumsdf and the companion of his crime were capitally punished. — ^The only thing to be observed by you (and it carries much irapoitance with it) is, that the principle of the second marriage of a divorced woman, during the Hfe of the first husband, is folly acknow- ledged. The only tiling to which ^orail tarpitude attached, was the reunion of tibe man and wife after niiViMroe^ and intermar^ riage with any otber. This is Called ** aboM minatioii before ^e Lord ;''^^ and Ike reason assigned for this pn^ibition, by Grotius, who delivers the sense of Christian antiquity upon it, was, doubtless, the true oiie ^ — ^it ^vas, isays he, nc, specie divortii, alii aliis uxores darent usurarias. I now leave the subject of the Jewish marriages. It was necessary, however, to NUPTl^ SACJlJi. 33 f a virgin td maity could not Disdf an4 capitally observed iportance tie second uring the acknow- ch moml ion of tiiQ inteimai^ 3d *« abo- and Ike itioB, by Christian , the true i divortii, le Jewish wever, to view it in this light, on account of the use I shall presently have for it. You have seen, that the bill of divorcement was not founded in that spirit of moral laxity, which so many have objected to it ; but that it was introduced, with its attendant solemnities, to correct, as far as it was permitted, the previous lioentiousness of marriage, and to prepare the minds of men for the yet stricter obligations of tkke Gospel. When, at length, by tiie progress of the Divine condescen- sion, the world w^ to receive that purity of life, botb private and social, which was more worthy to accompany the Christian dispensation, addition*! restrictions took place on the Mosaical I^w, which had been in itsejf no uniwportjanit cheek on ^ an- cient stat^ 9i wannera. - Jn the disQWirae of Qirist on the Mount, he had delivered to his disciple an imporr itant dodrine concerning marriage. " It *' hath h^m said, whosoever will put away c 4 «( « ({ 224 NUPTI-E SACRiE. " his wife, let him give her a writing of di- " vorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving " for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery ; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth " adultery." Matt. v. 31. The Pharisees, a learned and powerful sect, had doubtless heard of this restriction of their law ; they therefore resorted to him for the purpose of knowing the truth, and supporting their own authority. Matt. xix. 3. — ^The Saviour confirms his doctrine ; and in ansvrer to the plea tiiey urge of their former liberty of divorce ** for every cause " (though ano1;her of their schools had somewhat contracted this latitude, interpreting it, as the present Jew3 do, only of " many causes,") he de- clares at once the necessity of the old per- mission, and the present abridgment of it. He farther reminds them of the original marriage; by which (as it is generally in- 1 1. mmmmmam tl NUPTI.'E SACRiE. 35 ng of di- ou, that e, saving seth her ;ver shall nmitteth arisees, a ioubtless kw; they arpose of ipg their \ Saviour rer tothe iberty of 1 anol^her )ntracted e present ') he de- 1 old per- ent of it. ; original erally in- 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 • 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 alto- gether on the general declaration, " What God hath " 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 piarriage, and the perfect renewal of it by Christ, while they yet allow diivoi-(:e " a vinculo" on account of fornication. But either the original marrii^ had in it the tacit etxception 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 bebg renewed under that system, than our own. smm ssmmtmmtamam 36 NUPTIiE SACRA. circumstances would allow, to the indisso- lubility of the nuptial bond, and establishes adultery as the one and only cause to be heieafter admitted. But there is a difficulty which must be surmounted, ere I enter upon tliis part of the subject. Was it adultery, properly speaking, which the Saviour had in contem- plation, 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 fomication. In the Jewish law, fomica* tion and adultery had been regularly dis- tinguished 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 di^inctioiM, that the Sar viour now addressed himself. It has been concluded, therefore, by sGOQe,* that the only sufficient cause of divorce was fomi- * See Whitl^ in loco. .iS' 1*^ itli-'feiin NUPTliE SACBiE. 8T indisso- tablishes se to be must be s part of properly contem- aw? — In ages, the an&lators ; original, , fomica* larly dis- inname, ; and it itood and It the Sa- has been that the ^as forni- 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 tins is really a maxim of the Gospel. But, indeed, those who have produced the (pinion, do not insist exduMvely 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 lawfiidly dissolved* it is also lawful to marry again. And this defeats the former position : for, if jeven a casual union renders the persons uoalkn^ able from each other, far stronger is the inference from the fixed condition of mar- I • 38 NUPTIA: SACRiE. 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 opi- nion. . By the custom of the Jews, a certain interval took place, from the time of the betrothing to the completion of the mar- riage.* The liberty of divorce has, therefore, been thought to belong only to persons thus mutually pledged, for the dissolution of contracts hitherto imperfect : and forni- cation has been excepted from the full state of matrimony, and applied to the offences committed against the incipient obligation, during the continuance of the Spotisaiia, Hy * 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. Proxi- mo Octiduo, &c. De Jud. Nup. ji/i^feMpi NUPTIJE SACR/E. 39 the sure adultery ssolution rriage in this opi- a certain le of the the mar- herefore, persons issolution nd fomi. full state i offences ^ligation, msatia.' 1. xxiv. 55. I months ; — is expressed erm of eight rties. Proxi- 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 to- gether, and a bill for that purpose was ne- cessary to the voiding of the incomplete contract, though the terms of it were dif- ferent from those above quoted.f But, to wave all smaller reasons,^— it will be • The angel bids Joseph take unto him Mary his ioife, Mrhom he had thought of putting away, though as yet they were only betrothed. However, the common term for wives elect, was fiv»)j-«, the use of which is prefeired by the Christian Fathers. The equivalent er.ployed by Josephus is .^f, . I 3g NUPTIiE SACRiE. analogy with the true intent of that insti- tution. You, my Lord, are not to be informed by any man (and least of all men, by me,) that there was a gracious and a winning condescension in the doctrine of the Saviour towards the Jewish nation, whom he pri- marily and exclusively addressed; and this arose from the very nature of his Di- vine mission to a people, to whom had been committed that ancient covenant wliich was now to be brought to perfection. I will not dwell on the early submission paid by him to the system of Moses.* He was cir- cumcised, and grew up in obedience to the law, as the children of other Jewish parents. What is of more importance, his ministry shows this spirit of adaptation in a con- vincing manner :— he entered upon it about the age when the priests and levites as- » Eusebius calls him. perfect in the Law of Moses: TiXhoj xcdA M«xri«. Dem. Ev. Lib. i. C 7- t insti- iformed dy me,) kvinning Saviour he pri- l ; and his Di- lad been t wliich a. I will paid by was cir- ce to the i parents, ministry n a con- 1 it about ivites as- ' of Moses : N UPTIME SACBiE. 3f sumed their office ; and was baptised, as the high priest and others were prepared by water, for their holy functions. Levit. viii. 6. He selected his Apostles and Dia- ciples, with a view to the tribes of Israel and the Sanhedrim. He worshipped in the Synagogue and the Temple: and in his sacred instructions are to be found those arguments, and that train of imagery, which were most ^miliar to his Jewish hearers. — What is the result from hence to the ques- tion between us ? If your Lordship's inter- pretation is adopted, all this previous attention is lost. Those whose minds re- quired so much management with respect to their ancient institution, were suddenly to be shocked with the contempt and re- probation of it ; and he who taught with the dispensation of Moses perpetually in view, is made, at once, to deliver his rule of marriage " without any regard to Mo- " ses*s Law!" .J d3 m\\ 98 NUFTI£ SACRA. , It was the declaration of Christ himself, to the same persons who first heard him utter this doctrine, that he came " not to " destroy the Law, but to fulfil it." And it appears, on all sides, in what manner this was done : by vindicating the moral part of it, in which, was the institution of marriage, from the corrupt glosses of the Scribes; by excusing its necessary imper- fections, by adding to it those provisions which were essential to a better sanctity, and by enjoining it, thus purified and en- larged, to the observance of his followers^ as his own law, necessary to salvation. Vitringa refers this accomplishing of the Law to a Chaldee word, of which " illus^ tration " is the meaning. Le Clerc states it to be, an adoption of the fundamental purpose of that Law; and, at the same time, an amendment of it^ unavoidable defects.* And the learned Mede has made • Non veni ad funditus delendam Vet. Test, dispen- I i \f i -■r-»4»l(»«|lsBBUiiJJ^SiJft3Wi-rf.*--fe *! -".",::.,'- J. V ?!S,"P'-.-^:.?T£'^iKr?i:;-.-MS>i'*- NUFTIiK SACttJB. ^9 it consist in that fulness of exposition which it so much required ; in circumstantial ad- ditions, and that new modification of it, which a better order of things demanded.* The Law of Moses was, therefore, the ground-work of the Law of Christ. But your Lordship says, that he pays " no regard to it ! " My Lord, not so reasoned Chrysostom. We find him combating the same error in his age, which we are compelled to com- bat, after him, in our own. There were some, it seems, who, comparing the old Covenaut with the new, observing the dif- ference of sanctity possessed by each, and unable, or unwilling, to reconcile the ap- sationem ; sed ad earn emendandam, et perficiendara in quibusdam, in quibus perfectior esse potest. And pre- sently he adds, cujui generis fuerant onmes mutatimes Christi, id est, reformationes. * Christus legem perfecit, non t mtum earn plenius Interpretando, sed etiam novus circumstantias, novariiqUe modificationem addendo. Ap. Poli. Syn. D 4 »i- i'; '>.%v-i>T*^5««4' WJ 40 nuptia: sacra. parent contrariety, grew vehement in the partiahty of tlieir opinion, and pronounced the Law of Moses to be the work of the D^vil.* He employs himself in correcting this strange error ; and reasons at large, on the genius of the two Covenants. He re- peats and maintains the declaration of the Saviour, already quoted, and specifies three modes in which the Law of Moses was fulfilled by him. In the last of these, he asserts, not the contradiction of that Law by Christ, but the adoption of its mdioal intent, and the improvement of its imper- fect provisions. This is, indeed, the contrary of your position : but, what is not a little • 'Ex t5 iui€6Xn Xtyivrm iivcu t^v TteO^xv. Disc. 16. Vol. II. Ed. £t. This notion came, perhaps, from Marcion, who invented two Gods, for the satisfactory interpretation of the discordancies, which he imputed to the Scripture: the Old Testament came from the ma- lignant deity ; the New from the beneficent one. Ter- tullian's fourth book against that heretic, contains an answer to his Antitheseon ; in which this doctrine had been taught. '^ ^smsmmmmama.^ NUPTliE SACRJE. 4A t in the nounced rk of the arrecting large, on He re- >n of the Qes three OSes was these, he hat Law s mdioal s imper- contrary t a little Disc. 16. haps, from satisfactory imputed to 3m the ma- one. Ter- contains an octrine had extraordinary, it is to this he attributes the praise of superior precision, in ascertaining the accomplishment of the Jewish dispen- sation, by the Gospel. The Law, as he argues, is neither abolished nor reprobated, but is taken up, and invested by Christi- anity, with a greater degree of moral purity. Thus, the ancient precept, " thou shalt not " kill," which he adduces, as one instance, is not discredited, but heightened, by the new command, " not to give place unto ** wrath.*' And so, says he, are we to rea- son of all the rest.* The object of the Gospel was, therefore, not to show a disre- gard to the Law, but to carry it to a higher excellence ; not to condemn its obligations, but to point them anew ; to respect their primary intention, and to draw it still closer upon its own followers. ^twri; ^v r« Xtyifuvet. t3 yitq [ijii ^av(u»y, »x iadqwni ro fu) ^f//|«rdw, SiKka, xX^gotrts tui vXaiaiv aiO'^etXita* xet} nr) reSv t?AXa)V iwivrmi. Ibid. tM '^1 "I ri^^3^^i^*i ■if>Sti^^rf^Mlii^'ii'|iii^'^'**^^?-f^^V^ ii*"' 43 NUPTIiE 8ACRJ£. And these are the sentiments of Chry- sostom, while he is engaged in explaining the very discourse of Christ;, in which is the Law of marriage. But your Lordship saysi that " Christ laid down his Law, without " any regard to the Law of Moses, which " he abrogates ! " My Lord, not so reasoned Eusebius. He expressly treats the question, which had oc- casioned some difficulty in the early ages of the Church ; how Christ was, at the same time, so punctual an observer of the Law of Moses, and the author of a new system.* He solves it, by proving the Saviour to be the middle point, as it were, between the two dispensations ; the " corner-stone," connecting the Scriptural wall of Judaism and Christianity, on either side. In confirmation of what was just now advanced, he says, that the whole life -of Christ was without any infringement of the * Dem. Ev. Lib. i. C. 7. I'.. mmmmmmm .ir^rmm MHBrWi NUPTI£ SACHA. 43 3f Chry- Lplaining ch is the ihip says, , without IS, which bius. He 1 had oc- ar]y ages the same the Law system.* our to be ween the 2r-stone," Judaism just now ►le life of ent of the Law of Moses, any disregard to its doc* trine. He fulfilled every thing, and abro- gated nothing. For, as he argues, had Christ despised the Law, with what chance of attention could he have addressed him- self to those, who lived under it ? If he taught the destruction of it, how could he affirm, that, in his own person, he came to fulfil it ? If he abolished what Moses had appointed, with what propriety could he have claimed the character of that pro- phetic person, " who, Moses and the Pro- " phets did say, should come?* "—What, then, was the doctrine of Christ ? Not that of hostility, but of mere superiority. What was the change he made ? When that com- pletion of the Law had taken place, for the purpose of which he came, the larger sys- tem of Christianity extended itself beyond the range of Judaism ; the application of ini MaxriMj xeH 'tv U^fi/Tm x«n|y/(iAf regard" new Law (le to ap- Ad; and [lal senti- t already e ancient lall kill, lent/' he >e angry ;er of the mean by Not the the dis- tid meta- employs ce of his icauise he ►urposely Ell system irto been of adap- tation in the very verse just quoted. He had, elsewhere, represented the joys of Heaven under the received image of the " bodom of Abraham." Here the pains of Hell (whatever their nature may be) are threatened under the denommation of Ge- henna. And Erasmus and Beza have well observed, that the future punishment of the wicked, with Satan and his angels, is popu- larly represented urd-^r the material fire, which the superstition ^ he Israelites had kindled in the Valley oi iimnom. It would be easy, if it were necessary, to mention other passages from the same important chapter, in which there is an anxious ac- commodation of the terms of the old Imw to the doctrine of the new ; and this, not only in cases where the two institutions are least dissimilar, but where they recede farthest froin each other. But enough has been said to shew the relation so indus- triously maintained between them. Yet, 4 i H rl 60 NUPTI^. SACR-E. amid this general approach of their lan- guage and moral provisions, your Lordship asserts, that " Christ lays down his own law " without regard to the law of Moses I" This is what I would say to you on the subject of analogy between Judaism and Christianity : and, if my method of looking at the Scripture has not misled me, the proper answer concerning the novelty of doctrine taught by the Gospel, will be this : It is a novelty, not by coLtradiction, but religious superiority. And what is my ob- ject in applying this deduction to the law of marriage ? It is to point out the inference to which it so fairly leads, that the liberty of remarriage follows as a correspondent consequence from the power of divorce. For what is the question between Moses and Christ? It is not whether there shall be any power of divorce, since this is al- lowed by both ; but who shall have it. The Gospel does not take away the authority *>mm iheir lan- ' Lordship ,s own law [osesr ou on the laisin and of looking i me, the novelty of ill be this : ction, but t is my ob- to the law B inference the liberty respondent ►f divorce, sen Moses there shall this is al- ive it. The e authority HVFTtJE. SACttiE. ^51 itself, but limits the number of the persons acting under it, and at the same time exalts its principle. The old provisions of the law, which were of a larger indulgence, are succeeded by others of a closer obligation. But here ends the change ; for the power of divorce is substantially retained ; and because it is thus retained, it will have that consequence which it ever had, — the power of remarriage. Under the law of Moses, tliese actions were, amidst all circumstances, inseparably connected ; and the law of Christ, which must be viewed as a modifi> cation, and not as an utter subversion, of it, will allow the same inference in those few to which its limited permission extends. The Saviour evidently points out this con- junction of the two actions ; for, announcing his own law, he declares himself upon both of them at once. " Whosoever shall put dway his wife and shall marry another," ex- e2 u \ H iAf; 52 NUPTIiE SACRJE. cept under certain new circumstances, " is «* guilty of adultery." A recurrence to the object of the two systems will confirm this reasoning. For what was that of the law of Moses ? An amelioration of the old marriage system. And to this purpose it changed, as I have already shown, a vague and personal act into a fixed and public proceeding. What was aimed at by the corresponding part of Christ's Law? A farther amelioration of the marriage system. The license, there- fore, which, from the viciousness of the former practice, Moses had been still com- pelled to allow, was now not utterly taken away indeed, (for we are also in our sins,) but contracted, in order to serve a greater moral purpose. But it is only contracted. The principle of the dissolution of the first marriage is still continued ; and if so, the power of entering upon a second, attends it n NUPTIX SACRiE. 53 Qces, " is the two ng. For jes ? An I system, as I have sonal act g. What ig part of )ration of se, there- ss of the still com- 3rly taken our sins,) a greater ontracted. jf the first if so, the , attends it in an equal proportion. The diflference of thettvo laws, therefore, is not in the nature, but in the quantity, of the license granted. Under the former, it was great 'iy the lat- ter, it is brought within a small co*.. ss. But, notwithstanding this restriction, the indissolubility of marriage is no more a doctrine of the Gospel than it had been of the law of Moses. With a view to the better execution of the Divine purposes on society, the power of divorce is, indeed, encumbered with greater difficulties than before, and the chance of administering to vice, through too great a facility of remar- riage, is lessened ; but divorce is still allowed. And, where that allowance is justly taken, the complete liberty of remarriage will fol- low, as a consequence, in that one case, as it did by the law of Moses, in every case. Tliis single consideration, if there were no other, would induce me to suppose, that the clause, which you take to be entirely pro- e3 'V ^ « ^ M NUPTIiE SACRJEi f.. \ \ hibitory of the remarriage (while you admit the power of divorce), must have another meaning: for, by an analogical interpre- tation, the correspondence with the law of Moses, which is thus granted by yourself, in one instance, (notwithstanding your ge** ueral declaration,) is maintained in the Other also ; and the limited power of di^ vorce, still allowed by the Christian ipstitu-r tion, is illustrated by an equal one of re-^ marriage. And, what is a still faither inducement, by maintaining this corre-* spondence, between the two institutions, we see the gracious approach they make, in common, towards the standing demands of civil legislation ; the fundamental prin^- ciple of which is (as the soundest lawyers inform us,) never to permit the dissolutioa of one marriage, without the legal prospect of another, I cannot but think this reason- ing to be just. I will now leave it, and copsider the subject in a point of view mmm NUPTl* SACUiE. 55 m admit another nterpre- e law of yourself, rOMT ge- in the jr of dif I ipstitu-r e of re-' faither I corre-. itutions, y make, lemands b\ prini> lawyers (solution prospect I reason- it, and of view which has no necessary dependence upon it. I will allow, for the sake of the dis- cussion, that the argument of analogy would not, in itself, be a conclusive one. The mode in which I shall proceed to ex- amine the question, will be capable of standing alone : and though its evidence may be heightened, by the previous dis- cussion, it will be sufficiently valid, without any assistance at all from the appUcation of it. Upon a case which involved so much of the happiness of mankind, and necessarily excited so great a degree of anxiety in hus- bands and wives, concerning their relative situations, it is most reasonable to suppose, that there would be as much accuracy as possible in the terms of the Law, and that it would describe the case of both parties : and the passage before us, if not turned out of its way, but interpreted in its usual unforced manner, is as complete and satis, E 4 I > i t!^ 56 NUPTIA SACRA. s ; i factory as can be desired. It describes the married persons, under the same penalties, for the commission of an equal crime, under equal circumstances. " Whosoever ** shall put away his wife, except for forni- ** cation, and shall marry another, com- ** mitteth adultery." Here is the case of the man. " And whoso marrieth her ** which is put away (except for fomica- ** tion,) doth commit adultery." And here is the parallel case of the woman, involved in that of him who marries her thus illegally put away,* The husband of the second wife commits adultery with her ; the wife of the second husband commits adultery with him. The description is complete; and the unity of sense preserved through both situations. And let it not be supposed* * Though the man is chiefly addressed, in both clauses, it is never to be forgotten, that the woman is compre- hended in the charge ; for, as Chrysostom well observes, Cbrisi means no partiality ; Swvri iuu^ii t) yiv^s. II -'''■'^'■■iiimHiiiiiff^'*''^ NUPTI£ 8ACRJK. 9fl cribes the penalties, d crime, Whosoever for forni- ler, com- e case of rieth her ' fomica- And here involved 8 illegally e second the wife adultery omplete; through upposed» loth clausea, is compre- ill observes. that this double charge is superfluous : it was peculiarly necessary to add this caution concerning the woman; and Chrysostom supports me in the observation. He dwells on the danger of that self-satidfaction which the woman might feel from comparing her innocence with her ejection ; and the Con- sequent necessity of shutting other mens' doors against her, lest, on that very account, she should hasten to a second marriage.* The precept, therefore, stops her. By such marriage she will commit adultery. And why ? Because the tic jf the first husband still continues. But how does it continue ? If she had committed fornication (£L just cause of divorce,) it would have been dis-^ solved \-\' but it now holds ; because she is '* Mi| TO SXoy int\ rl* tx^UkkavreL j(^, ioAeiifi fci» (fy^llTW T)]V yuvauxx. Vol. II. Dis. 17. t She is still the wife of the man who put her away, says Chrysostom. The Catholics, indeed, say the same, but they do not allow divorce : Chrysostom did ; and his opinion is valid. M xfincf jiovfffw/x'^pm ixSaXXfiy aurqy, hiqtf n 4hy). Ibid. I •11 58 NUPTIiE SACRJE. I;v innocent of that offence which alone could liberate her, and, therefore, is still his wife. And thus is proved, from the very reason of the thing, the necessity of applying the exception of fornication to her case, which had been before expressed in that of her husband. Besides — What is adultery? Fornica- tion during marriage. — -That a man may put away his wife, for such an offence, and marry another, is justly inferred from the words of Christ ; and you allow it. What, if he does so ? Can he be legally united to the second wife, and continue the unbroken tie of matrimony with the first ? And if not, for it is impossible, how can she, by any remarriage, continue to commit adul- tery against him, who has not only ceased to be her husband, but is now the proper husband of another ? My Lord, let us clear this question from the confusion which has obscured it. That; NUFTIA SACRA. 59 me could his wife. •y reason lying the le, which at of her Fornica- [lan may !nce, and from the . What, united to mbroken And if she, by nit adul- ly ceased le proper tion from it. TbaV is not adultery to God, which is not previ- ously so to man. — I will allow Cyprian, or any other writer, zealous in the cause of chas- tity, to use a strong figure, and to call her an adultress to Christ, who yet never had an husband.* But in an argument of this strict nature, it is never to be forgotten, that lie very possibility of adultery is created by society, and results solely from its ap- pointed connections. Take away these, and the very name and nature of the crime are gone. Marriage is, therefore, continu- ally necessary to the very notion of adultery. It must be committed against that institu- tion : for what would be nothing more than concubinage in a state of nature, or mere fornication in a single condition in society, is aggravated, and becomes adultery, in a state of matrimony. How then can the woman in question, if divorced, 's you • Non mariti, sed Christi adultera. Ep. 4, i it ^ )i lA f .*««««» ^ m NUPTIiE SACRJi. !. maintain, for a legal cause, any longer commit adai'ery ? She may be guilty of fornication, while she remains unmarried. It can be nothing more. But the passage involves her in adultery, if she marries again. And what is this but to say, in another shape, that as yet she is innocent ; that, by means of that innocence, her for- mer marriage is still undissolved ; and that, as was just now argued, the same exception must be attributed to her, which was as- serted of her husband ? I have endeavoured to prove, that your interpretation offends against right reason, because it supposes a perpetual adultery against a husbund no longer existing. I conceive it to be equally repugnant to the rules of sound criticism. You destroy the essential relation of the propositions : you read the first with a restriction ;. you under- stand the last with none : and thus, instead of filling up the chasm with a continuity of ffi l«? - ' I umae iB t N mm tm * £. NUPTT* SACRA. 61 le, any longer ly be guilty of ins unmarried, iut the passage if she marries but to say, in he is innocent ; cence, her for- ked ; and that, same exception which was as- rove, that your St right reason, petual adultery ;er existing. I ipugnant to the 'ou destroy the ipositions: you Mi ;. you under- id thus, instead a continuity of t( <( sense, give rise to two opposite meanings, under the hmits of the same declaration. For thus you interpret : " Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, committeth adultery ; and whoso marrieth ** her that is put away (on account of for- " nication,) committeth adultery.'' What is there to warrant this sudden and total change of the sense? What is there to jaake us suppose, that an opposite meaning was intended to be thus silently brought about ? My Lord, this is not usual inter- pretation ; for a marked exception, once established, will continue its influence, un- less it is done away by a subsequent decla- ration : unless circumstances evidently require the change ; or unless a new posi- tion of the terms expressed, demands a correspondent alteration in that part which the undersjtanding is to supply. Here, as is obvious, the continuance of the excep- tion would make every thing plain and ! -!Mmm^gms^ml!a•mm»mt )mkVmt lm\r wu frt^s mm m nm ^ m^m» «¥•rt:i A^" ^ 62 NUPTIiE SACRiE. consistent ; yet here you are determined to drop it. And not only so, but you call jp. an incongruous aid from an opposite quarter; and what you should be employed in reconciling, you set at variance, by a contrariety of meaning and of conse- quences. See the grammatical mischief of this. The term " put away" occurs twice in this passage. By the common interpre- tation, it is taken in the same sense in each place, and applied to causes short of for- nication. By your's, it changes its purport in the second clause, and describes a di- vorce, arising from fornication alone. If I complain of the aUeration of one of the terms, Doddridge . .d before objected to that of another. This admirable man, who gratifies alternately the saint and the scho- lar, who fortifies the piety of his Scriptural comment with the occasional paxims of sound criticism; Doddridge, embracing that meaning of the passage which you iU «i HNwwwm.JW»n i i Mw»»"' TSVVTim SACRiE. 6» rmined to you call opposite smployed race, by a (f conse- lischief of ;urs twice interpre- le in each rt of for- s purport bes a di- lone. If te of the jected to lan, who ^he scho- criptural ixims of nbracing lich you reject, says, " I prefer the sense here given, " because it makes this latter clause more " correspondent to the former, and prevents " the necessity of supposing the term * to " be used in two diflferent senses so near « together/* Perhaps it will be urged, that the former part of the passage is to be understood with a reserve, because that reserve is ex- pressed ; and the second generally, because it is generally stated. I answer, that such is not the method to be used on this occa- sion. — ^You, my Lord, who can feel with so much particularity the caution necessary to be observed by a scholar, in his inter- pretation of Scripture ; you, who can lay down rules, so numerous and exact, for the process of sacred criticism,-}- need not be informed by any man, of the appropriate restriction? which the mind must occa- * Moix(v»> t Epistle to Mr. King. *.-i=-..',.^.,*aaBa*ietrfa:i*&i.:^.- (jff ^it" 64 NUPTIiE SACR£. sionally allow, in consonance with the predominant demands of the question in hand. Not only will the gtiieral tendency of the argument affect the several partd which enter into its composition, and mak6 theiii exclusively subsei*vient to its own de- monstration ; not only will the several passages govern still more closely the mean- ing of the words within them, ahd restrain the apparent wideness which they assume; but, within the same limits, a particular and a general position will be coupled together, and the one compelled to forego the exten- siveness of its own nature, and, for the sake of some specific purpose, follow the private designation pointed out by the othet. I shall proceed to exemplify this maxim. I have already mentioned the necessity of a double description, in cases where the relative duties call for a correspondent ful- ness of precept ; and this I would call the rule of reciprocal p6sitions. But there are 1:1 NUPTIiE SACRA. m vith the estion in tendency ral partd ,nd mak6 own de- several tie mean- l restrain assume ; ;ular and together, le exten- the sake e private )thefr. I ixini. necessity rhere the dent ful- l call the there are two sorts of them. I Avill give an instance of each . In the first, which is of the stricter kind, not only are the mutual positions fully stated, but the terms are equally given under each. Of this nature is the following passage — " If any brother hath a wife that " believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell " with him, let him not put her away — And " the woman which hath an husband thai '* beheveth not, if he be pleased to dwell ** with her, let her not leave him." 1 Gor; vii. 12, 13. . i*"^* The other sort is of a less rigorous na- ture. But in this, too, the general positions are reciprocally stated : the deficiency is in the terms employed under them : these are mentioned with fulness, only in one part ; and some of them are left to be supplied by the understanding, as a necessary coiTe- spondencCj in the other. The example I will give of this second class, shall be drawn from the same St. Matthew, concerning I. V r^ m nuptijk sacra. I . I I whose mode of writing we now dispute. It represents a moral agent placed between two objects ; and states his conduct, with relation to both of them. " Whosoever will « save his life/' says Christ, " shall lose it: « and whosoever will lose his life, for my ♦* «flJfce, shall find it."— Here, with an inver- sion of tlie order of the propositions, is a passage similar, irt effect, to that in ques- tion. The first proposition is general. But is it to be so understood ? No : the pecu- liar provision of the second, affects even the former part, notwithstar^ding the claim arising from its position, narrows the appa- rent wideness of its meaning, and brings it within the reservation which itself contains, ** Whosoever will save his life," (not gene- rally, but through a particular preference of the world to me,) " shall lose it : apd who- ** soever will lose his life for my sake," (through a particular preference of me to the world,) " shall save it." In this pas- »SH?* 1 ispute. It I between duct, with ioever will all lose it : ■e, for mij \ an inver- itipns, is a t in ques- leral. But the pecu- ts even the the claim > the appa- ll brings it If contains, (not gene- eference of apd who- my sake," B of me to 1 this pas- NUPTI* SACR£. sage, on account of the position of thq moral agent between the opposite object* soliciting his attachment, there is a neces- sary change in the terms, in order to accom- modate his double choice. Yet, even thus, and with a greater appearance of force in the construction, the reservation in oiie part, must be allowed to opeifate in the other also, in a manner corresponding to, the change of choice, or it cannot be un- derstood at all. But the case is far easier in the passage immediately our own : fitim! . '' f NUPTIJE SACRf. 19 and the onveyed, icly. Is relapses liich you US which Lir inten- i defeat liile you ase, they t excep- i are so acknow- 8, which ticion. — guilty of already do you t of the Moses," a man " to put away his wife for another cause " than adultery, and marry another." Good. And therefore, by the restricting clause of Christ's Law, it was now declared to be adulterous. What follows ? " Neither " was it adultery, by the Mosaic Law, for " another man to marry a woman put " away." Put away for what, my Lord ? Certainly not for adultery ; for which, by the Mosaic Law, nobody was put away : and this you have yourself declared, in another part of your Speech.* It was, therefore, some cause short of it. And this again, which was not adultery by the Law of Moses, is, by parity of reasoning, now determined to be adultery. And thus, you see, that the exception of adultery, in the first situation of the woman, is necessary to the charge of it upon her second marriage. Your own position is proved to be erro- * " A large power of repudiation was given to the husband for inferior ofences." ft"'' ..^rJt/^ 74 NUPTIiE SACRA. neoiis, by the close pursuit of your own reasoning ; and the contrary of your inter- pretation of the Christian Law is obvious, from the adduction you have yourself made of the Law of Moses.* One word more. You illustrate your interpretation of St. Matthew, by a passage from St. Paul. " Unto the married I com- " mand, (not I, but the Lord,) let not the " wife be separated from her husband. But " if she be separated, let her remain un- " married, or be reconciled to her hus- *^ band.^f My Lord, will this passage answer your purpose, notwithstanding the exultation which it has afforded you ? Is it not manifest, that adultery is not sup- posed by St Paid ? And, if so, is it not equally manifest, that your application of it, to a case which you contend to be of an adulterous nature, cannot liold ? * Bishop of Rochester's Speech, p. 17. t 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11. KUPTIiK SACR^. 75 ; of your own of your inter- iw is obvious, yourself made illustrate your , by a passage larried I com- d,) let not the husband. But T remain un- i to her hus- this passage hstanding the ded you ? Is J is not sup- ' so, is it not r application 1 contend to cannot liold ? )€k, p. ]7' By the Law of Christ, thfe husband might marry again after his divorce of the first wife for her adultery. By the passage of the Apostle, he is supposed to remain fut ever free from such remarriage ; for, other- wise, the woman could not, after absence, be ordered to return to him. The separa* tion, therefore, was begun on the part of the woman, for oftences short of adultery. And in all such cases, she is properly com- manded to be temperate in her conduct : if she will not live with him, at all events, she must remain unmarried to any other ; otherwise she commits adultery against a previous contract, not dissolved by the terms of the Christian Law : but, if possible, on account of the promotioii of the faith which they both profess, it is better for her to be reconciled, and return to her hus- band. This reasoning is made conclusive by the latter part of the passage, which (from inadvertence, no doubtj) you have f s 1 nf' ;.— 1>^"'''. 76 NUPTI;E SACRi£. 4 0:\ omitted : " And let not the husband put " away his wife/' Nothing can go beyond this proof. By the Law of Christ, the hus- band might put away his wife. The Apostle, we may be sure, did not mean to contradict him : yet he bids the husband not dismiss her. And what does this show, but that he is not speaking of adultery — that we must apply the restraining prin- ciple, already insisted upon — deprive the words of their apparent latitude of meaning, and give the passage that appropriate in- terpretation which the reasoning of the Apostle so evidently demands ? Besides, to whom does the Apostle ad- dress himself? To Gentiles ; whose Lavi'^s of Divorce were different from those of the Jews, and whose practice under them was, perhaps, still more licentious. Though a Jewish woman should separate herself from her husband, she could not marry again. The disniissal of her, by the husband, was (CliKKJMiilRWWiMir ;MMt«i3^ -■ ■ NUPTIift SACUjE. w iband put p beyond t, the hus- ife. The t mean to husband this show, dultery — ling prin- jprive the 'meaning, priate in- ig of the postle ad- lose LaM'^s ose of the them was, rhough a rself from ry again. }and, was absolutely necessary to her fulness of li- berty. And this is expressly told ks by Josephus.* Among the Gentiles, the fa- cility, allowed by the Laws, was equal to both parties, and ample use was made bf it* The man sait away the woman for shght offences, and the woman separated herself from the man if and both married* again at their pleasure. • Salome divorced Costobarus, » x«ri tbj 'IbWoos vilt,Bi. aviqi |*sv yj t5 ^rgoVegov «v8go; d^Kvroi. Antiq. Jud. Lib. XV. C. 7. Gelenius interprets, that the ^^asent of the husband is necessary to the remarriage of the woman whom he has divorced. For this he has been justly blamed by Selden and others. t This diflference in the terms, usually employed for their respective proceedings, did not preclude the woman from sending, on her part, a bUl of divorcement to the man. Justin Martyr, in the miserable case which he has so feelingly described, but which I am unwilling to repeat, couples the term of separation with the libel of divorce, issued by the offended wife.— Plutarch says, that, by the Law of Athens, the vvife presented her bill to the ma- gistrate, find summoned the husband before him. In Vit. Alcib. Perhaps the Law was similar at Corinth ; the *S^-' 78 nuptia: SACii*. It appears, then, that the charge of St. Paul to the woman, was directed against her ra»h abandonment of the husband for trivial causes, and her spontaneous remar- riage * But what is the case of the woman, described by the Saviour ? She is forcibly ejected from the house by the husband ; and. as you contend, too, on account of her adultery. Where is the parallel ? You try unequal propositions by each other; you attempt to prove an adulterous case by one that is not so ; and you apply a general laxity of custom to the illustration of a pe- culiarity of precept. — ^The consequence is in this, as it must be in all such cases, you? produce no conviction. converts of which place, St. Paul was labouring to reclaio* from all the laxities of Paganism. * " If she withdraw from her husband by her own " rash and foolish act," &c. This is the paraphrase of Doddridge. And " let not the husband dismiss his wife, " op any light account, or, indeed, for any thing short 0$ " adultery/' ■, fSMKHrK-^aVfUISfi-' NUPTIifc: SACIIJE. 79 ge of St. 1 against iband for IS remar- ; woman, forcibly lusband ; eount of ;1? You ti other; i case by I general of a pe- uence is ses, you to reclaim r her own aphrase of 38 his v/ife, ig shoi-t o^ But farther. Having reasoned in the ab- solute and exclusive manner which I have just pointed out, you suddenly stop, to allow an opening for one half of the doc- trine of the Reformation. In the case of Jiord Northampton, you applaud the ie- marriage of the innocent party.* But is it not obvious, that, if you are correct in re- presenting the sense of the Apostle, neither of the parties is at any time competent to a second marriage, during their joint lives? for the prohibition is mutual and general. You make it absolute against the woman, by that part of it which you have quoted ; and I, by adding what you have omitted, • equally prove the necessity of the same construction in the case of the man. And this is the Catholic sense of it, and the very doctrine of the Council of Trent. They strenuously maintain, and Bellarmine ar- gues in the same manner, that the passage * Bishop of Rochester's Speech, p. IS. n fi A . il- i' 80 NUPTIiE SACUiE: is conclusive against both parties, for ever, and in spite of all reasons of divorce. And this they connect with the original mar- riage : they illustrate the one case by the other, — urge the perfect renewal of the first institution, by the Law of Christ, with all sts incapacity of dissolution, and prove their assertion by the very passage of St Paul which you have adduced. Th jrt may J-'C consistent errors : and this of the Ca- tholics is one of them. We trace them in it, from Paradise to the town of Trent. But of your opinion,* I hardly know what to say. Homer tells us, of Diomede, that, at times, a spectator could scarcely determine on which side he fought. Now he was * It is but a small number of Protestants which has, at any time, maintained this opinion. Of the Church of England there have been very few indeed. — The late debate proved, that the Bishops did not agree with the learned Prelate on this point. The permission which one of the speakers from the ^^.nch ras willing to grant to the adaltress of intermarrying with any other t' !n her seducer, destroys, of itself, th opinion here combated. , for ever, rce. And inal mar- se by the 3f the first , with all nd prove ge of St. lure may f the Ca- s them in rent. But ■ what to e, that, at ietermine V he was s which has, e Church of .—The late ;ree with the ission which ling to gran^ her f ;n her combated. NUPTIiE SACRJK. 81 seen with his own Greeks, and now he was lost for a while in the throng of the Tror jans.* Diomede was a fervent warrior. And you, my Lord, in the zeal of argu- ment, are seen to mingle with the teachers of both Churches, by turns. You borrow a little liberty from Christ's Law, and allow the remarriage of one of the parties : and thus far you reason with Protestants. Pre-. sently, you adduce a broad argument from St. Paul, which, if fully interpreted in the sense you give to a part of it, comprehends both the man and the woman in its total prohibition. And here you agree with the Catholic doctors. You insist on the Chris- tian renewal of the marriage in Paradise, which you state to have been indissoluble ;•!♦ 'Hi ftrri Tgcuwcru' 6/x.tA,(oi, ^ ftrr' 'Ax^toii' ©Ov« yig, &c. II. Lib. V. V. 85.' j f I understand Athanasius as interpreting the originid Law of Marriage, ** they two shall be one flesh," ligainst polygamy only. It is true, the question to be answered, G .?■■»(' m NVPTIA SACRA. yet you break it, on one side, for the sake of Lord Northampton. And you prove, that the oflfending woman cannot le-nmrry^ after divorce, by the same Law from which it is equally concluded that she is incapa- bleof all divorce !— But either the marriage binds the husband and wife by a common tie, which cannot be broken, but by death, or the capacity of divorce, which the Sa- viour still allows, will give liberty to both. And, for seeing this doctrine with the steady eye of a Christian Reformer, and went to that point. But, on other occasions, he has no objection to widen his responses, for the sake of Scriptural illustration : indeed, he does it in this very case. Quest, ad Ant. 97. The Catholics add the pro- hibition of divorce, which they also attach to the Chris- tian Law. The Protestants must understand the latter with one reservation.— When Whitby gave that construc- tion of divorce, which has bten noticed, p. 26. he did so, in order to prove that the primitive institution of marriage was renewed by it. This shows the difficulty in the notion so commonly received, since he was obliged to invent a wrong hypothesis, in order to get rid of it. , . . I the sake u prove, le-niarry im which , incapa- marriage common by death, h the Sa- { to both, with the iiier, and ions, he has the sake of in this very add the pro- to the Chris- ind the latter that construc- p. 26. he did institution of 1 the difficulty since he was order to get NUPTIJE SACR*. teaching it boldly against the thunder of Popery, you unchain your censure, and set it at the memory of the venerable Cranmer;; and, by an unhappiness of language, which we cannot sufficiently lament, throw upon him the odium of that very name, the ap- plication of which, to yourself, you so properly disdain. " He reasoned more hke " a monk than a senator."* ^ But, my Lord, you will have to make your peace with others besides Cranmer. Are you aware, that, in the fervour of dis- pute, you equally encounter your friends and your enemies ? Do you not see, that you heap the same ignominious term on the original mover of the late Bill, to whose assistance, notwithstanding, in his correc- tion of our depravity, you so readily came from your " Cumae?" — With a rectitude of intention, which would not blind itself, in « * Bishop of Rochester's Speech, p. 12. G 2 Mlf' i U. '!(' 84 KUPTIiE SACRiB, order to favour the point in dispute, and with a proper openness, which led him fairly to express what he could not but see> he has confesst d, that he is unable to con- ceive how a divorce can take i)lace on one side c nly ! Hero is more monkish i c asoning : and, m this part of your argument, you throw upon the person who uttered it, that very opprobrium from which you so zea- lously defended him in another. But what- ever be your censure of Cramner, I will be a rnonk with him, and believe, that, by the Law of Christ, a, marriage once dissolved, sets boLh parties ui liberty. Whatever may be your inadvertent hostility against your felk)W-laboure'/, I believe with him, too, that, by the Law of Parliament, divorce bills effect a " complete dissolution of marriage ;"* and by consequence, that the • Lord Auckl .nd's Speech, p^ 20.— The difficulty raised by the wording of divorce bills is, as I conceive, no difficulty at all. The injured husband makes his NUPTIiE SACtt-?E. 85 ute, and led liim ; but see ; e to con- ;e on one asoning : lent, you d it, that 1 so zea- tiut vvhat- , I will be at, by the dissolved, tever naay inst your him, too, t, divorce )Iution of :, that the rhe difficulty IS I conceive, d makes his re-marriage of each party is good, upon legal principles also, without the help of any of that " connivance" which you would call in, for the merciful purpose of covering the inherent defects of such con- tracts. — But, my Lord, the mercy which you superfluously show, in one instance, to persons thus circumstanced, you most terribly deny them in another. You seem to think you have been amply kind, in allowing past marriages, of this nature, to be made lawful ; and that only those Mrhich shall be contracted hereafter, shall not be so.* — But what? Is it enough that the specific complaint to Parliament, and a specific redress is issued in his liberty of remarriage. Parliament, I believe, does not pronounce beyond the case in hand ; and hence the silence concerning the wom^in, which has been understood as a prohibition. But is it not obvious, that her liberty is complete, notwithstanding the silence i His divorce is plenary; and though nothing is said of her's, it is left to follow the other, as a necessary con- sequence. ■♦ * Bishop of Rochester's Speech, p. 12 — 18. G 3 86 NUFTIiF. SACRiE. estates of the parties shall descend to their children, as if legitimately born ? And is it not obvious, that, if your doctrine be true, the parents must instantly separate, not- withstanding your destructive offer of keep- ing them together? Or, do you mean to inform them, in that miserable consola- tion, that what is made valid in law, has an equal force in conscience? No; all such persons, whatever pardon may be extended by Heaven to their past sin, the sin of an adulterous marriage contracted in igno- rance, must live no long?r ir that fatal union. And, with the senUments you pro- fess, this ought, under all circumstances, to be your uniform language to them. Every such husband and wife must cease to be such ; and the common care of their families must be abandoned, on pain of the eternal torments, which you denounce against their continued and indefeasible adultery. I am persuaded, that, if the il .vi|U i inL, l1 to their And is it ; be true, ate, not- of keep- mean to consola- w, has an all such extended sin of an in igno- that fatal ( you pro- mstances, to them. lUst cease re of their lain of the denounce defeasible Lt, if the . -•,y?t,iSiSite*&*i>; IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 ^ : .^- *' ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical iVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Mi L, < i^ M:m. mm^ NUPTIA SACRA. word of God carries this meaning with it, no human inconveniences ought to stand, for a moment, against its sovereign autho- rity. Let God speak, and " let the earth " keep silence before him." But what I have to notice, in addition to the vehe- mence of your interpretation, is the sud- den contradictio-> of your own principles, in the satisfaction you so preposterously offer to the unhappy persons. You bid them be of good cheer; for their marriages will be made valid through a protecting Law! — But what of the Divine Law? — Whatever the Law of England may de- termine, all the terror of the Law of Hea- ven, if your interpretation of it is right, remains in force against their actual situa- tion. Yet, strange inconsistency ! this very situation you propose to legalise by statute; though the continuance of such an union is, upon your own declaration, necessarily productive of sin, and will infallibly damn G 4 ■' ?i !5 1!!^ii: ti IP 88 NUPTI^ SACRiE. the parties that remain in it ! You delibe- rately connive at the offence which you so vehemently condemn, and the heinousness of which, you yourself declare, no conni- vance can cover : and you scruple not to apply the sanction of public authority to that cohabitation, which, in spite of all human permission, you yet declare to be ** gross a^ultpry," in the eye of Heaven.* You favour the right of estates, and only promote the forfeiture of conscience; you triumphantly protect the descent of titles, and only involve the souls of the present possessors in everlasting perdition. This is dreadful tenderness, my Lord ! But Solo- mon, I think, had long since talked of " ten- der mercies" which were " cruel." Nor will it be very difir ; lo guess the feelings of those against wuo.n you point your relief. Their temporal good might be somewhat * Bishop of Rochester's Speech, p. 19 ou delibe- lich you so leinousness no conni- ple not to uthority to pite of all jlare to be Heaven.* , and only ence; you at of titles, ;he present tion. This ! But Solo- ed of " ten- " Nor will feelings of your relief. somewhat p. Iff NUPTIiE SACRA. 89 obliged to you, if it were in need of your legislative protection : their future welfare is a wretched sufferer from the partiality of your doctrine.* * It is in vain to argue, as the learned Prelate does, from the Mosaic permission of practices, inconsistent with the original institution of marriage, to the gross and abominable offences which he would himself legalise by statute. The Deity surely may enforce, or remit, something of his own institutions, and the penalties be- longing to them, as his government of mankind, under different circumstances, and in distant ages, may require: but we have no power of alteration ; and, having once discovered the will of Heaven, under the system in which it has placed us, we must abide by it, and our innocence or our guilt is "ixed. — Besides, the learned Prelate well knows, how strong has been the doubt concerning the sinfulness, imputed by some, to certain practices, tole- rated by the Mosaic Law. Men of the greatest name have shrunk from the idea, that any moral turpitude could be inherent in these cases ; and those who have gone so far as to admit the possibility of it, with what caution have they not expressed themselves! The judicious Bull scrupulously says of the very things in question, that they were barely, if at all, free from the nature of sin. Vix, ac ne vix quidem, a peccato excusari poterant. Harm. Apost. Diss. Post. c. 7, 8. But what is the language of the Bishop of Rochester f Legalise the pre- sent marriages of adultresses with their seducers* And jm^'^-m^. V NUPTIiE SACIl^. •fij This seems to me tolerably convincing: yet as if, in the common path of criticism, every other person " ran uncertainly," — as if, in the warfare of literature, Ave did no- thing but " beat the air in vain," you wind lip the whole of your argument with the assertion, that your exposition is the " only one which the words of Christ can bear !"* — My Lord, this is a very positive and sweeping declaration ; and I have been but ill employed, if I have not shown, by this time, that the " words of Christ" are capa- ble of another and a better sense; that they are to be interpreted, as Eusebius, as Chrysostom, and so many other great names instruct me, on that principle of respect what is the nature of these connections? They are, « gross adulteries !" " flagrant adulteries!" nay, " adul- " teries," as he says, " of the most heinous kind !" Yet, amidst all this, he scruples not to say, that the Mosaic Law " went even farther" than he does ! — What an opinion of a Divine revelation ! * Bishop of Rochester's Speech, p. 17. lonvmcmg : )f criticism, ainly," — as Ave did no- ," you wind at with the s the " only jan bear!"* ositive and ve been but WDf by this ," are capa- sense; that i^usebius, as ^reat names of respect nsf They are. I" nay. adul- uskind!" Yet, hat the Mosaic tes! — What an NUPTIiC SACR£. 91 and analogy, which approximates the Law of Moses to that of Christ, and places the two institutions, not in the attitude of a mutual defiance, but under the friendly bonds of an intimate and necessary rela- tion. Lest this should not suffice, I have called the passage to an examination on its own merits; I have tried it by the standard of reason, by the rules of criticism, by the usual mode of Scriptural construction, and, finally, by the train of argument adopted by yourself. Need I say more? I will only add two or three interpretations of the passage, as they happen to occur. The first is the paraphrase of it, by the excel- lent Benson.* " Whosoever shall put away " his wife, except it be for adultery; and, " after such unlawful divorce, shall marry " again, he shall be guilty of adultery : " and whosoever shall marry the woman * Life of Christ. 92 ilUPTIiE SACR.H. " that is unlawfully divorced, shall also be " guilty of adultery; because the marriage " bond is not dissolved, and she is, legally, " still the wife of her former husband." This seems very reasonable: yet your ex- position is the ** only one the words of " Christ can bear !" — Hear next the learn- ed and acute Dr. Clarke, who had no temptation to warp his great sagacity on this point. " Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, except only when it be for the case of adultery that " the first is put away, shall be accounted " guilty of causing both her and him that " shall afterwards marry her, to commit " adultery.'* Still your Lordship's exposi- tion is the " only one which the words of " Christ can bear!" — Finally; hear the pa- raphrase which the accomplished Le Clerc has given of the " words of Christ." Itaque nunc pronuncio, quicunque usi fuerint ed licenti^, quae inter vos adeo usitata est, di- et (C hall also be he marriage e is, legally, husband." et your ex- e words of :tthe leam- ho had no sagacity on ►ut away his ;xcept only dultery that e accounted md him that to commit lip's exposi- the words of hear the pa- ed Le Clerc rist." Itaque si fuerint ed itata est, di- NUPTIJE SACll^E. 93 miserintque uxorem leviore de causA quam propter adulterium, et sibi alteras nuptias contrahere licere crediderint ; eos, ali^ do- muni ductA, dum vivent uxores, a quibus nee sunt nee possunt esse sejuncti, fore reos adulterii : eumque pariier, qui dimissam mu- lierem, quce viri alius uxor est, duxerit, adul- terum futurum. Here I close my reasoning with you, my Lord, and return to the general business of this Address. I only beg to assure you, first, of the high opinion I have long entertained of the general powers of your mind, and the extent of your scholastic acquirements. It is only on some mistaken or unguarded point, that you give to lesser men the op- portunity of contending with success ag rnst you. And, I say it without the smallest affectation, the present question I regard as one of these. Had you considered it as calmly as I have endeavoured to do, we should, perhaps, have received from your m vi\ ' i! ^KsaK; ■w4 ^' 94 NUCTIJl SACRA. hands an exposition, somewhat different from " the only one which the words of " Christ can bear." I should have had the pleasure of seeing my opinion illustrated, by you, with a variety of literature which I have not yet attained, and enforced by a power of reasoning beyond my own. "How hadst thou blest mankind, and rescued me!" And now, my Lords and Gentlemen, you have heard the disputation concerning the adultery imputed to the marriage of the divorced woman. I am happy in being enabled to throw off the air of controversy from what remains of this question. A curiosity will naturally arise concerning the origin of the opinion here combated. I will endeavour to gratify it, connecting the opinion with the doctrine of marriage from the Apostolical times. The first ages of Christianity were marked with an uncommon severity on the subject of marriage. And there were many reasons NUPTIJfi SACR^. 95 t different ! words of ve had the illustrated, ire which I reed by a own. scued me !" lentlemen, loncerning iage of the in being ontroversy !stion. A erning the ibated. I ecting the riage from re marked le subject ly reasons which conspired to produce it. The out- ward circumstances of the Cliurch were one powerful cause ; and St. Paul, himself, argues strongly from the dangers and persecutions to which the converts were subject, in order to dissuade from marriage all those who could possibly contain. 1 Cor. vii. 26. Ano- ther cause was the erroneous or premature interpretation which some affixed to the de- clarations of certain of the Apostles, " that « the time was short," and " the end of all " things was at hand."* They would not be eager to engage themselves in worldly connections, who were in constant expec- tation of that last hour which should dis- solve every earthly lie. The old writers supply still another cause: the mixture with Gentile families might violate the pu- rity of Christianity, or tend to throw the * Tertullian was so full of this notion, that on one occasion he called the last day, diem expeditionis. Ad. Uxor. 1. iv. He makes it serve also for readiness of obedience to the expected summons. "■'\ n 1. <. i^I. J' r; M. ..ii M NUFTIiL »ACUi£. * married believer back again to the pollu- tions of Paganism.* With such impres- sions as these on their minds, tliere were some who tbrLade all marriage as profane. St. Paul foretells this heresy which soon sprung up. 1 Tim. iv. 3. They were com- mqnly known by the name of " Mar- cionites;"-f' and by a figure drawn from that part of our Saviour's discourse, in which some were said to have made them- selves "Eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Hea- ven, were also called " Spadones.":}: St. * It was from the predominance of this fear, togetlier with the remembrance of the Jewish practice, that the first converts to Christianity looked upon their mar- riages as actually dissolved, if one of the parties still remained in infidelity. St. Paul gave some directions which went to check these precipitate divorces. t Iraen. Adv. Haer. Lib. i. 30, 3 1 . Dodwell says, that Tatian and the Encratitse held this opinion before Satur- ninus and Marcion. Dissert. Cyp. 3. I I am unwilling to mention some of the arguments used against marriage, after St. Paul's time. But if any reader will look into Greg. Naz. vol. II. in Laud. Virg. he will meet with some uncommon reasoning about it. — ' It is, indeed, poetical reasoning, and may, therefore, admit of some excuse. the pollu- d\ iinprcs- tlicre were as prolaiie. k'hich soon were com- )f " Mar- rawn froiii icoursc, ill lade theni- )m of Ilea- ties. St. fear, togetiier :tice, that the >n their mar- e parties still me directions rces. iwell says, that before Satur- the arguments !. But if any in Laud. Virg. iig about it. — ay, therefore. NfJPTI.'E SACRAL. 97 Matt. xix. 12. A sect whieh made far more noise than the former, was that of the Monogamists, known, also, by the name of Novatians and Montanists ; and their great tenet, as pronounced by him who has sup- ported it, with equal vehemence and want of his better judgment, was, one God and one marriage.* With them, the question was not concerning the legality of marry- ing again after divorce, but of marrying at all after the death of either party. St. Paul had given particular directions to the Bishops and others of the Church, that each of them should be the " husband of one wife."f The peculiarity of the Mo- * Novimus unum niatrimonium, sicut unum Deum. TertuUian de Monog. t It has been supposed by some serious people (for with the ribaldry of Madan I have nothing to do) that this was only a prohibition of marriages, contracted with others upon divorce ; and that second marriages, after the death of the first wife, were open to the Clergy as well as to others. Yet the Apostolical constitutions expressly H ^Jjll 98 NUPTIiE SACUiE. nogaiiiists consisted in extending this pre- cept to themselves. They saw the force of the Apostle's argument to the Clergy. They had nothing to do but to prove that they were on the same footing, all of them an " holy people unto the Lord i" and this being done, the prohibition against every second marriage, followed as a necessary consequence. On this point Tertullian has declare themselves on the single marriages of the Clergy, whether their wives lived or died; x$v ?«(r»v, x«v rtSvcirw. Lib. vi. c. 17. And we find the custom was, not to admit to a bishopric him who, on examination, proved to be in a second marriage. Origen. Homil. 17. And instances sometimes occurred of those who wished to decline bishoprics : who pleaded their second marriages, and were excused on that account. It will be observed, however, that I am speaking of the history of this opi- nion. Doubtless the circumstances of the church had an influence on this part of the doctrine of marriage, as well as on others ; and an extraordinary restraint might be necessary in the infancy of Christianity, which may be waved, with a sufficient preservation of conscience^ in the niore mature and settled state of it. However, St. Paul's precept must never be forgotten, whatever is done, must be " in the Lord." mm NUPTIiE SACR^. 99 ng this pre- the force of Clergy. They ►ve that they of them an I:" and this gainst every a necessary Certulhan has ges of the Clergy, fe3(r»v, x«v xihSurw. torn was, not to itnination, proved Homil. 17. And le who wished to second marriages, : will be observed, \story of this opi- >f the church had le of marriage, as iry restraint might ianity, which may on of conscience^ of it. However* [otten, whatever is a world of strange reasoning. He makes great use of the original marriage in Para- dise, pleads not its absolute indissolubility, but its eternal obligation:* and insists much on the one rib singled out from the many Adain carried about him, and which might have been taken for the making of more wives, if more had been allowable, &c. If their opponents objected to the novelty of their doctrines, they dwelt on the communications of the Paraclete, and his inspirations, subsidiary to the Gospel. On account of this holy connection, they, also, called themselves Spiritualists. Ano- ther of their names is derived by Jerom from " munditiae,'' the superior purity they affected. The Orthodox of those ages, who, by the * Seme! hoc factum et pronunciatum, sicut ab initio, ita et nunc in aliam carnem convenire non potest, ibid. And, again, Plures cpstae ip Adam, et manus infatiga- biles in Deoi Exhort, ad Cast. h2 -immmmmmmmmammi*:'.. m NUPTIJE SACR^. dition to these was plaihly indicative of gross and uncontroulable licentiousness. Gregory Nazianzen, into whose thirty-first oration I am sure our learned Prelate had been looking, before he went to Parliament with his speech on the bill for the preven- tion of adultery ; Gregoryj I say, had called the man of four wives, no longer a man, but, indeed, in the Bishop's own phrase, a "downright hog."* The chil- dren of such marriages were declared bas- tards. But some nnitigation was at length applied by the Roman penitential, which ordered a fasting of three weeks for a third * Here is Gregory's scale of marriages, to o-^wtov yifMi, TO Set/Tcgov. (ruy;(c»g«]o-t$, to t^ito ' viaqavoy-ia,. 'O Ss (mtq T»n, XOIPllAHS. How truly beautiful is the description, given by Eusebius, of the adulterers of Paganism ! Xa/Mt/ ti xo) start yctfegei vrtvivrts, eo$ decf r^ "HSovp irgo(r«xovi)o-av Tgijveiy re o-^oj ccuthV igweraiv S/x»jv xcnaMoik6vTii, 8cc. Prep. £v. lib. vii. c. 2. This is fine writing. The reader is made to feel in the same moment admiration of the imagery, and contempt of the vile object which it so loftily exposes. NUi'Ti^. sacii;e. 103 licatlve of itiousness. thirty-first relate had Parliament le preven- say, had lo longer a hop's own The chil- clared bas- is at length tial, which for a third ;es, TO cr^wTov ^avofulu. 'O 8e :autiful is the ! adulterers of ivreg, (OS ds^ r^ 'S i^tTtov S/x»jv This is fine e same moment ipt of the vile wife, and twenty-one for a fourth: after which, all was well again. But enough of this. I will now add to this primitive his- tory, what I promised on the disputed point of adultery, imputable to the second mar- riage of the divorced parties ; and will en- deavour to find out whence it came. A little after St. Paul had addressed his epistle to the Romans, or, at the latest, ere the persecution of the Christians had taken place in the age of Domitian, and when the canon of Scripture was not yet closed, Hermas is supposed to have written his ce- lebrated book called ** Pastor."* Of this * It has been disputed, in what manner Hermas's book was received in the early Church. It seems to have been regarded only as Ecclesiastical. It was not admitted into the Canon, and was read, perhaps, as one of our articles says of similar books, among ourselves, " for example of life, and instruction of manners." — There is, however, a considerable difference in the merit of the several parts of it. The " Mandates," have much excellence. The " Visions," are not to be compared with those sublime ones which St. John after- II 4 -ii. ,u ' -TiAfn "tiiT '^ '/^* M ijiniatrw^aiM*' 104 NUPTI^ SACKiE. work, and some others of the apostohcai fathers, there was an Enghsh translation, made somewhat less than a century ago. The then learned and excellent Bishop of Lincoln, the accomplished Dr. Wake, gra- tified the world with this version, and ac- companied it with a concise but compre- hensive dissertation on the character of the writings it contained. In the fourth man- date given to Hennas by the supposed angel, who has assumed the habit of a " Shepherd,'' there is an express opinion, involving the point which has been just disputed; and it is remarkable for the seve- rity of its doctrine on the adulterous nature of all re-marriage, during the life of both parties. " I said unto him," (it is Hermas wards saw, and divinely recorded, in the book of Reve- lations. However, such as their merit may be, the " Similitudes," are still far beneath them. In the plan of his imaginary conversations, and the profusion of his Christian imagery, Hermas reminds me, alternately, of Boethius and Bunyan. apostolical :ranslation, utury ago. Bishop of ^ake, gra- Q, and ac- it compre- cter of the >urth man- supposed labit of a ss opinion, been just r the seve- ous nature fe of both is Hermas •ook of Reve- may be, the In the plan of fusion of his Iternately, of it n NUPTIvE SACRiE. 105 who informs the reader what discourse he addressed to the angel shepherd,) " suffer me to speak a little to you : he bade me say on ; and, I answered, sir, if a man " shall have a wife that is faithful in the " Lord," (a Christian,) « and shall catch " her in adultery ; doth a man sin that " continues to live still with her ? And he " said unto me ; as long as he is ignorant " of her sin, he commits no fault in living " with her. But, if a man shall know his " wife to have offended, and she shall not ** repent of her sin, but go on still in her ''fornication,* and a man shall continue, " nevertheless, to live with her, he shall " become guilty of her sin, and partake " with her in her adultery. And, I said " unto him, what, therefore, is to be done, " if the woman continues on in her sin ? * See p. 30. for adultery involved in fornication. It was upon this point, that the Monogamists allowed repudiation, though no re-marriage. i," f \iM W j il. M i WH '1 iP ,^ loe nupti;e sacr^. ^k M " He answered, let her husband put lier " away, and let him continue by himself. " But if he shall put away his wife, and marry another, Ae aho doth commit adul- tery," — ^This passage is remarkable for the open and unquahfied manner in which it asserts an adultery resulting from the re- marriage of the innocent, as well as the guilty party.* Nor can it be compared with other reasonings attending it, in order to show^ as in the doctrine of St. Paul, a la- tent conformity to the real decision of the Saviour. It stands alone, and narrows the permission both of him and his Apostles. Doubtless, the opinion proceeded, as some * The reason given for the necessity of this forbear- ance, on Ae part of the husband, is the chance of repentance in the wife, who may return to him, and whom he is ordered to receive. The peculiarity of the doctrine was this : if she frequently relapsed, he might refuse to take her again ; servis enim Dei, says Hermas, pflenitentia una est. Still he could not re-marry, without committing adultery, during her life. .w^ iii . ti I • mt^JimM amxim^^rv ttiwm^ya i ^ ii tJi' ' rt: NUPTIJE SACR*. Wf 1(1 put lier by himself. I wife, and immit adul- irkable for jr in which rom the re- vel! as the ! compared it, in order . Paul, a la- sion of the narrows the is Apostles, ed, as some af this forbear- the chance of n to him, and iculiarity of the psed, he might i, says Hermas, -marry, without Other erroneous ones of his, fVom an ex- cess of virtue in the writer. But, as it is I regard it as the origin and fountain of all that persuasion concerning the utter in- dissolubility of marriage, which was after* wards so zealously espoused by the Latins,* Avhich the Greeks and Armenians refused to receive ; and which, with a few temporary changes,'flay floating in theWestern Church, till the improvident orthodoxy of the Coun- cil of Trent fixed it for ever on the ac- • There seems to have been a Latin version of Her- mas, in the earliest age of the Church ', whether it were the same we now have, is somewhat doubtful. But the book soon acquired a great authority with the Latin Ec- clesiastics, who employed it in the dispute withMontanus, ad jugulandam Montani impietatem. Cot. Jud. de Her. Pas. — Hermas allowed re-marriage, after the death of one of the parties. This grievously ofiended the Mo- nogamists, who, indeed, show him no mercy. t One of these was the invention of the person, known in the Church by the name of Ambrosiaster, who did not allow the woman that privilege ofremarriage which, under equal circumstances, he gave to the man, quia mulier inferior est, vk autem potior et ca^utmulieris. — Ibid. -I ! .J« P ^* 108 NUPTi^. sacr;e. ceptance of the Catholic behever. Who- ever wishes to see the descent of this opi- nion, to which the Catholic commentators " cling adhesive," may consult the long and learned note of Cotelerius, in his edition of the Apostolical Fathers. He, himself, calls the .^ecision of Hermas " sententiam or- " thodoxam," and gives that correspondent decision of the Council of Trent, which I shall transcribe. " Si quis dixerit Eccle- " siam errare, cum docuit et docet, juxta " Evangelicam et Apostolicam doctrinam, " propter adulterium alterius conjugum, " matrimonii vinculum non posse dissolvi, " et utrumque, vel etiam innocentem, qui " causam adulterio non dedit, posse, altero " conjuge vivente, aliud matrimonium con- " trahere : moecharique eum qui dimissd " adulterd aliam duxerit, et cam quae di- " misso adultero ahi nupserit; anathema " sit." But Cotelerius has not told us how the terms of this decision were altered, to NUPTIiE SACRJE. 109 ver. Who- of this opi- mmentators he long and is edition of imself, calls tentiam or- rrespondent nt, which I ierit Eccle- ocet) juxta doctrinam, conjugum, sse dissolvi, :entem, qui posse, altero tonium con- :|ui dimiss^ im quae di- ; anathema told us how altered, to serve an urgent convenience. — Soave* shall tell it for him. The Venetian subjects of the Greek isles, whose doctrine and prac- tice were contrary to the impending deci- sion, made a hasty and earnest remon- strance against it, through the ambassador of the Republic, at Trent.f The Anathema had, at first, been directed against all who allowed the dissolution of marriage for adul- tery, and the liberty of second nuptials after divorce. And of this description were the terrified remonstrants. For their satis- faction, therefore, and partly too upon the credit of St. Ambrose, the curse was thrown into a new shape. It no longer condemned those who affirmed this doc- trine; but, as we see, it only devoted to * The name assumed by Fra. Paolo. •f In this remonstrance they state the immemorial practice of their people. — Li quali da antichissimo tempo costumano di ripudiar la moglie fornicaria, e pigliarne un' altra. They add, too, that no Council had ever told them they were wrong. Concii. di Trento, lib. viii. s)i H i iwwwiBiiWijMairifii iv Jm i^i 110 NUPTi;r. SACR^T,. destruction all who held, that the Church was wrong in teaching the contrary ! And thus, the sentence, which would have openly involved the whole Eastern Church in its malediction, suddenly veered about ; and, by a dexterous change of terms, though with no change at all of the sense, fell, in appearance, upon the Protestants only. With this ingenious accommodation, the Doctors were, in general, mightily satis- fied,* What is more strange, the Greeks were satisfied too ! I will only farther observe of this Council, that its deliberations took place, at a time when the state of the * Some of them, however, were not. They could not conceive the difference of th««e propovition*, sub- stantially considered. On other occasions too, there were many and strong objections made to the resolutions about to be taken. The deliberations were, indeed, re- markably free ; and if a discreet divine will carefully read the whole of this history, he will find, in the de- bates of the Council, a number of those arguments, on which the Protestant Church so triumphantly stands against the doctrines of Rome ; and, on some of the dis- puted points, learn to give them a new and peculiar force. U ! |hU I MWW IW W W IjWa*WWl l' li>'fc^-'^>« l NUI'TI* BACnS. Ill the Church itrory ! And v^ould have tern Cimrch ered about ; 3 of terms, if the sense, Protestants nimodation, ightily satis- the Greeks ther observe rations took tate of the :. They could >pofition«, sub- iona too, there I the resolutions ere, indeed, re- i will carefully find, in the de- arguments, on iphantly stands ome of the dis- i peculiar force. workl, both in I'j tempoiul and spiiitiial concerns, was very unf'iivorable to a dis- passionate examination of the subjects to be laid before it. The interests of the Christian Princes were njuch divided as to the convening of any assenkbly. New prin- ciples too, variously hostile to the doctrine and pretensions of Rome, were fast gain- ing ground,* and left it this alternative, either to take away some of that offensive opinion, which had grown up in the Church, through the gradual influence of ignorance and superstition, and which, not being yet sanctioned by any general authority, might have been prudentially dropt ; or, with the high hand of spiiitual power, to protect all its extravagancies, and give it a broad and conclusive sanction. The latter method was • In one of the orations of the French Deputies to the Council, fifty years are assigned for the age of the new doctrines. " Ecclesiain Dei, per hosce quinqua- " ginta annos, tot in earn invectis opinionibus sauciam/' 8lc. Memoires pour le Concile de Trent. .Ii I 'I |3 112 nupti;f: SACiiiE. adopted. The supremacy of such a decision was bUndly supposed to be capable of quell- ing all private objections.* In conformity with this resolution, all scattered errors were compelled to come together; all vagrant absurdities were laid hold of, and made for ever stationary. Fix'd as firm As Delos floating once.- * If not, there was a remedy. By the Bull of Con- firmation, all persons were prohibited from writing or speaking against" the decisions of the Council. What appears strange, they were equally prohibited from con- firming it by decrees, Suc. But, according to the prin- ciples of Rome, the doctrine could receive no accession of authority from any other power. Their own sanction was supreme and final. If any interpretation was wanted, nobody was at liberty to make it. For the so- lution of all doubts, application was to be made to Rome, which ought alone to declare its own meaning, " Essendovi biosgno d' interpretazione d' alcun luogo " oscuro, o di qualche decisione, andassero alia sede " Apostolica." Lib. viii. Con. Tr. In spite of the unanimity, so fondly hoped for, great differences were occasioned, aot only in the world at large, but among the Doctors themselves. Soave, not unhappily, calls the whole affair, the " modern Iliad." L* Iliade del secol nostro. NUPTIiE SACKiE. 113 h a decision ble of quell- conformity I errors were all vagrant id made for rm Bull of Con- rom writing or )ouncil. What )ited from con- ing to the prin- ce no accession ir own sanction rpretation was t. For the 80- ) be made to own meaning, d' alcun luogo isero alia sede I spite of the ifferences were 'e, but among uhappily, calls L' Iliade del « By a new effort of " art Pontifical" and wondrous," that enormous bridge of doc- trine was reared, which, stretching, " with " passage broad," through the intermediate ages, accommodated the carriers of all su- perstitions, in their way to Trent; and, Hermas at one end of it, and Pius IV. at the other, connected the primaeval error of Christianity, with a corrupt hierarchy of the sixteenth century ! Then, for the first time, was tradition declared to be eqUal, in value and obligation, with the written word of God. Then, for the first time, were the Sa- craments ordered, by the same ecumenical judgment, to be held in that number, (nei- ther mor'5 nor less,) which dark opinion had from time to time invented.* Then, * The Council of Florence had not been thus precise. The peculiarity of that of Trent, wa? in fixing the number at seven, neither more nor less. And, here, the Lutherans were aimed at in the lesser number, and the i 4' 'f 11 f iJlJ' .< 114 NUPTIiE SACR^. too, was the tyrannical decision made on the subject before us; a decision, which, while it declares its conformity with the doc- trine of the Evangelists and Apostles, per- verts it all ; abridges of their power the ex- press exceptions of the Saviour ; or, by insisting on the broad meaning of St. Paul's precept, instead of accommodating it to the predominant demands of Christ's own decision, builds up, at all hazards, an exag- gerated persuasion, and, preposterously, places the servant above his Lord. Such is the argument I have taken the liberty to offer to Parliament, on the much contested question of divorce and remar- riage. Having done this, I should close my too scrupulous readers of Augustin, Sec. in the greater. Some of the Fathers had used the word with great lati- tude. Bernard and Cyprian apply the sacramental term to the " Lavipedium" itself, to which, indeed, the Church of Rome pays much honour, though it does not regard it as a Sacrament. m made on sion, which, with the dbc- postles, per- lower the ex- our; or, by of St. Paul's )dating it to Christ's own rds, an exag- eposterously, iOrd. ^e taken th6 on the much ; and remar- )uld close my jc. in the greater, d with great lati- sacramental term lich, indeed, the hough it does not NUPTI* SACRA. 115 Address. But I will beg your indulgence, while I add a few considerations on the na- ture of the penalties, which have hitherto attached to the crime of adultery ; and urge the necessity of remedying the present de- ficiency of them. There are some among us, it seems, to whom the preservation of the old forms of justice is dearer than the effectual guardian- ship of virtue, through laws which have the guilt of novelty. There are others, who, from the manner in which adultery is at present punished, have hastily supposed that it has been, at all times, treated as a mere private offence. And both these arguments were heard in the late debates in either House. I am no lawyer. I can only exert somewhat of common sense on common history. And, from this, I also gather, that the punishment of this oflfence has been generally, if not always, of a public nature among us. I 2 ■'] !''■ 116 NUPTI.'E SACR*. V Before we were able to make good laws for ourselves, we received them from the Romans : — and what was their treatment of adultery ? Valerius Maximus loves to dwell on the ancient virtues of his nation. He informs us, that Rome had subsisted five or six hundred years without a divorce :* adultery, therefore, must be supposed to have been rare. But Rome was foted to an extension, equally rapid, of dominion and pinofligacy. By Augustus, this offence ' "^ Tertulliati, who sometimes upbraids his Christians with the virtue of the Pagans, says, it was full six hun- dred years. Montesquieu indeed, feels himself inclined to dispute the fact ; or, at ai! events, to account for it, through some "other cause than the mere force of virtue. The Law of the Twelve Tables enlarged the power of divorce, originally granted by Romulus; and whoever tbok advantage of the licence they gave, forfeited a cer- tain sum to the wife, and as much to the Gods. Hence the infrequency of divorce. Esprit des Loix. Liv. xvi. c. 16. But the point before us cannot be thus explained. Adultery was one of the three causes of divorce, allowed by Romulus ; and to obtain it, on that ground, no fine was necessary. i) ii«mnmmmsaxi^mmi»m)u i rmBrmimmm» ; good laws 11 from the leatment of vcs to dwell kation. He bsisted five a divorce :* supposed to ms foted to f dominion this offence 3 his Christians as full six huii- liimself inclined account for it« force of virtue, ed the power of i; and whoever forfeited a cer- I Gods. Hence i Loix. Liv. xvi. e thus explained, divorce, allowed ground, no fine mmm m NUPTIiE SACRiE. 117 began to be followed with banishment, and sometimes with death. And after an in- terval of impunity, Domitian felt such un- accountable compunction, for the cause of suffering virtue, that he thought no ven- geance top great to be inflicted on the violators of it.* From this time, we hear little of the punishment of adultery, till the age of Constantine ; but, from the Christian writers, a great deal, indeed, of the fre- quency of the crime. When, at length, the Gospel was connected with the throne, death became again the penalty, but upon a different principle. There was a great influence of Judaism on the early a^es of Christianity ; and, in the new settlement of the morals of the Empire, the professors of the faith looked earnestly into the ancient * Perhaps he meant no more than to make iiis adopted virtue subservient to his inbred cruelty. Nothing im- pure could have expected punishment from such hands. The. offenders were more easily discovered on that ac- count, and many were cut off. I 3 ■«MMai tuuuf^ M ■yTii«n<^~i:iirfin j "-1i- •'-•". r '."•^H'ffl'*?-"-^'''-*-- 118 NUPTI/E SACR^. part of Scripture, where imperial holiness had already prescribed the social duties of a nation, and the penalties due to the vio- lation of them. But, however inapplicable the principle of the Theocracy might be to common governments, adultery was once more declared capital . This was confirmed by Constans, as we see in Theodosius, who ordered the offenders to be " drowned in " sacks, or burnt."* However, it was not fully executed by Justinian ; with whose legislation, indeed, I am not now concerned, as it did not enter into our national affairs, • Insuere culleo vivos, vel exurere. Lib. ii. The former bad been the punishment, only, of parricides. We find, from Jerom, that death was inflicted, in his time, on the adulterer. His commentator remarks this, for the sake of throwing in an observation on his own times: — Palam apparet, says he, adhuc aetate Divi Hieronymi adulterium capite solere puniri : nunc magrut' turn lusus est. The Euxine is destined, at this time, to punish infidelity of a less kind, in the same manner. The Circassian females, who have incurred the displea- sure of the Seraglio, are taken out, in boats, by night, and drowned in sacks. i i i jjni ii m i pni.i i ]iiiT i« #!ii4miuumm ii as i^simmsim •ial holiness ial duties of ! to the vio- inapplicable might be to ry was once as confirmed )dosius, who drowned in r, it was not with whose V concerned, ional a'fikirs, Lib. ii. The y, of parricides, inflicted, in his tor remarks this, tion on his own hue setate Divi iri: nuncmagna- \, at this time, to le same manner, rred the displea- boats, by night. mvFiim. SACRA. till we had long since received the prin- ciples of Law from other quarters. What I would observe, from this statement, is, that the punishment of the violation of niar- riage, by the Roman Laws, whether Pagan or Christian,* was of a public nature : and such, doubtless, were they among ourselves, as long as the Romans remained with us, and in whatever extent they had power to apply them : nor was the authority of tho Civil Law an unimportant one, in our early history ; it lasted from Claudius to Hono- riu8^_somewhat above three centuries and an half. ■ ^ .: As to what our native savages thought of this matter, it is useless to inquire. The * After the invasion of the Empire, it was, for a time, the same. Cassiodorus gives us the formulae, employed by the Barbarick Sovereigns, in granting dispensations for marriages, within the prohibited degrees. — If the sanc- tions of marriage were in their liands, the punishment of the violation of it may well be supposed to be there too. i4 ^■ I ^.f ii ii tMi iBiwiiwiitaJW i i r i Wa i t i ini niiniiiiafMMffir 120 NUPTIvli 8ACR-/E. Anglo-Saxons afford some glimmering of legislation concerniug it. By the laws of Ethelbert, the adulterer paid a fine to the husband, and bought another wife for him ! Alfred fixed the fine at one-tenth of the offender's property.* After the Conquest, the benefit received by government, from these fines, is evident, from Domesday Book, where the levying of them is frequently mentioned. But though that foreign sub- jection was, in its own nature, productive of the Papal jurisdiction among us, and thotigh it occasioned that first separation of the spi- ritual and temporal courts, which was so hostile to the genius of our Saxon judica- ture, yet, it does not appear, that ecclesias- tical punishment, free from the controul of the Crown, was as yet applied to adultelry. The period usually stated for the final se- * This fine was know^ b}' the expressive name of " Lelcherwite." ''■ M im:UM^WJMWWl.l i aiHWMk»KiiMtJIJJWll»IAUllll. imering of the laws of fine to the ife for him ! nth of the Conquest, nent, from sday Book, frequently :)reign sub- oductive of and though I of the spi- lich was so ton judica- it ecclesias- controul of to adultety. he final se- issive name of NlIl'TI/Ii SACn;E. 121 piiration of the two authorities, was the reign of Henry 1. And the distinct exercise of thiji ecclesiastical judgment was, after an in- terval of great turbulence, and the most dangerous encroachment, settled by Ed- ward I. While he guarded the rights of his own crown, so lately violated, he surren- dered, to the Clergy, the cognizance of things, " that be mere spiritual," and gave his permission, that, in all cases of ** pe- " nance, enjoined by the Prelates, for deadly " sin, as fornication, adultery, and such " like, the spiritual judge shall have power " to take knowledge, notwithstanding the " king's prohibition/'* And this seems * This was the effect, not of the king's laxity, but of his vigour. The kingdom had been completely subjected to Rome, by his predecessors. His merit consisted in fixing again the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions' when it was no longer practicable to reunite the autho- rities upon the old plan. It was less dangerous to spe- cify the objects of the Christian courts, than to let them extend to too many. Ill I 122 NUPTIA SAClliE. to have continued in force till the Refor- mation. It is only necessary to observe upon it, that the original punishment, in- flicted by the Church, was corporal ; and that it soon came to be commuted for mo- ney. But, by an auxiliary provision of Edward II. it was ordered, that, if the Church decreed a fine, in the fi-rt instance, preferring the money to a proper punish- ment, the king's prohibition immediately took place. And this shews us the true intention of the legislature, in surrendering to the Christian con rto this branch of public punishment, which had formerly benefited the exchequer, by its impure produce : it was conceded for the sake of repressing personal licentiousness, by the characteris- tic punishment of personal exposure and disgrace. That this was its object, has been more fully proved since our renunciation of Po- pery, by the projected Reformatio kgum — ■ KW.LUU.m-^i'XJHilJ.JJ.iM4-..J i -l-J]U ■ BMS -!i t l 8 J » ,-'Ua i L SMW^ -««aa^5» the Refor- to observe ishment, in- rporai ; and ted for mo- ^rovision of that, if the rrX instance, per punish- immediately us the true iurrendering ich of public ly benefited produce : it f repressing characteris- tposure and s been more ation of Po- atio kgum — NUPTI.Ii 8ACUA. 123 by the Canons of 1640 — by the injunctions of King William, and the regulations under Queen Anne : for it was the declared in- tention of these provisions (though, indeed, they are not now in force), that no commu- tation should be allowed, except for very weighty reasons, and in very particular cases. The sudden and great alteration in the penal laws, against ^lultery, which the re- public produced among us, is commonly known. The saints of that day, affecting to revive all Scripture priuciples, once more looked into the Bible, for the Theocratic irisitation of the crime : and " wilful adul- tery'** was again avenged by death.-j* This * The rest of the act explains this phrase. Adultery was " wilful," when the offender knew that the woman was married. f There was a strange inconsistency, on this subject, which could only have arisen from an absurd resolution, to degrade the Clergy in every thing. They punished adultery with a high hand, as a heinous violation of a m 4 liili jl 124 NUI'TM". SACn^. sUitutc not being sanctioned by tlic Resto- ration, things returnctl to their former foot- ing. The Ecclesiastical courts, in pursu- ance of the authority, expressly reserved to them, at the Reformatio' , inflicted their punishments ; and the injured party has, besides, his private action against the offender, for the temporal damage he has sustained. In the above sketch, you have seen the Imperial and Ecclesiastical authorities suc- cessively employed in the guardianship of the rights of marriage. The question will naturally occur, how it first happened that the former were replaced by the latter ; and how the functions of the State came to be discharged by the Church ? To this, it will be sufficient to answer, in general, that after the destruction of the Western Empire, Divine institution ; and taking the celebration of mar- riage from a Divine order of men, entrusted it to the justices of thp peace ! »JI|l'.lJW i .l.-4gilL>,llllM!WIJtUUMULJUlJ»U.'ili ! «J«> 8 q yr the Rcsto- toriucr foot- *, in pursu- sly reserved •:, inflicted ijured party I against the lage he has ave seen the horitics siic- rdianship of question will ppened that 3 latter ; and came to be > this, it will al, that after ;rn Empire, bration of mar- rusted it to the i^ NUPTl-t SACU.T.. 12.1 th( re aroseacjreat confusion, from the mul- titiuU; and variety of the old and new laws ; and that the interpretation of difficult causes was, naturally, thrown into the hands of the best quafified among the ancient inha- bitants : the invaders, too, becoming Chris- tians, it was easy for the Ecclesiastics, from the fixure of their order, the standing means of subsistence, and study which they enjoyed, and the growing reverence, at- tached to their character, to make them- selves the confidential directors of the throne, as well as to regulate the opinions of the people. In the aftairs of marriage, therefore, ic Churchmen arrived at their first agency, by commission from the throne * from hence the di'>lance was small ♦ Parte per commissionc, et parte per neglige nza de' prem ipi e inagistrati. Hist. Tr. Lib. v. I'lie Twelftli Anathema of the Conncil of Trent is directed against the heresy of those who maintain, that causes matrimonial do not of right belong to the Ecclesiastical judge. The French Courts of Law were involved in this curse : for Ji ^":l • s:0Sd£iisi^ss^x'ma .ttf>y^j«i«w.tfV,«y»e>i»«»--J-'5>'''^-.ifeg'-aHHB«»MS 126 NUPTiiE sacr;e. to an exclusive management of a sacred in- stitution, by a sacred order of men. To give full effect to these impressions, now, too, began to appear the Papal authority. The Romish writers, particularly their Ec- clesiastical historians, are accustomed to return their thanks to Providence for that temporal power, which the see of St. Peter obtained in the eighth century ; and which, in their interpretation of it, divinely guarded the doctrine of their church from heretical or profane invasion. Soon after this, the code of the Canon Law began to be com- piled : and the skill of the Ecclesiastics was employed in adapting the Civil Law of the 'I r by an ordonnance of the fourteenth century, the cogni- zance of these causes was declared to belong to the secu- lar judge only. La connaissance du crime d'adult^re ap- partient au juge Seculier, et ne pent jamais appartenir au juge de I'Eglise. Diet, de Droit, Scc. That there is a reasonable analogy between a Divine institution, and Ecclesiastical cognizance of the violation of it, cannot, I think, be denied. But it is obvious that I am speaking of it as a matter of history. yjijusiaji^- bJ-tw.itiy!^tit'^A M.' w '..4 w,wi«-^-.? ' !^ p wiwtaawa NUPTI/E SACRiE. 127 f a sacred in- ►f men. To ssions, now, i\ authority. '\y their Ec- customed to ence for that ; of St. Peter ; and which, lely guarded om heretical fter this, the I to be com- esiastics was 1 Law of the itury, the cogni- ong to the secu- le d'adult^re ap- amais appartenir Cc. That there i institution, and n of it, cannot, t I am speaking West,* under which they had, invariably, chosen to hve, to its spiritual purposes : and its authority continued to increase, in a pe- riod highly favourable to its advancement, till, after so many other nations, it reached our own, in the twelfth century. About the time of the discovery of the Pandects, which was this very period, the great compilation of the Canon Law was also published, by Gratian ; and with the same address which had marked its appropriation of the older code, it now allied itself to the revived one ; and the earliest and most zealous studiers of Justinian were again the Ecclesiastics who had been best acquainted with Theodosius. • The Western Empire ceased between the times of Theodosius and Justinian. It is probable that the laws of the latter were not generally known in Italy, or beyond lUyricum, till the discovery of the Apulian copy. Those of the former, in the affairs of marriage, as well as in certain contracts, merely civil, were consulted by the Goths and Lombards. There is the testimony of Aga- thias for this. ■i ^;h !•' SBSaH«.s«3"" ,.JI ii^ -, (1|»Pn»?«j(g 128 NUPTIiT-- SACRJE. — Such seems to have been the process by which the Ecclesiastical courts obtained their cognizance of the crime of adultery. Du Cange gives us a list of such things as they had drawn within their own jurisdic-^ tion ; whether they were properly sacred and scriptural, or of a civil nature.* And, at a time when their power was established among ourselves, that high and reverential notion of a Sacrament had begun to pre- vail, concerning the institution of marriage, which the mist^ike of a term had at first suggested, and which the Council of Trent afterwards confirmed in all the fullness of doctrine and authority. If this is the history of adultery, and its punishment, what is to be concluded from it? Can we argue, as some do, that the Laws have always regarded this offence as f * 111 Voce, Curia Cliristiauitatis. 'MiWillliMIBlf maf NUPTIiE SACRiE. 129 process by ;s obtained if adultery. ;h things as m jurisdic-^ srly sacred re.* And, established reverential ;un to pre- f marriage, iiad at first III of Trent fullness of iry, and its luded from o, that the i offence as tis. only a private one, because it is now so con- sidered ; and that to inflict a penalty, on the part of the pubhc, would be to innovate on the principles of justice ? You have seen the contrary. For what if the Church substituted its punishment for that of the State ? Did the punishment cease, on that account, to be of a public nature ? No ; the principle was the same ; the adminis- tration was different. Ecclesiastical judg- ment did but take up that which either the disinclination of the throne had relinquish- ed, or its disabiUty could not retain ; and what had been dilapidated from the Impe- rial, went to the augmentation of the Ca- nonical, law. At present, however, it is notorious, that the public part of the punishment of adul- tery is mostly, if not altogether, dropt. The force of conscience, upon which the judgments of the Ecclesiastical Law de- pend, is decayed among us. The severi- Ti"r^rminii>i¥TTni iTirtfiii-iin -untf naw MiWrini '■ iMiut m- A .^' 130 NUPTIiE SACtt*. ties, which were once employed with so much effect upon the incontinent, have lost 9\\ their influence. It is obvious, that the exposure of the person is prevented by the refinement of modern manners ; and that it will always degenerate into what the Le- gislature never wished to see — a commu- tation. And the refusal of admission to the Holy Communion, till the adulterer should reform, has no longer any of the ancient terror for those, whose lives so fatally con- vince us, that they have never yet regarded |he Sacrament, as a Spiritual consolation. It would be equally useless to talk of that cognizance of adultery, which justices of the peace may take ; or to allege that there is something penf^l in the very damages, which the husband recovers, from the party who has injured hiiapj,^ Yes; at this late time, we are worse thain E^elbert's men. We do oot even buy other wives,, for the coDsoki^on of the sufferers ;, we, only take tiuj!U!W.wwu»t ' )iiWi : ',g^iMsgi ^ tfLW^«!a«mMa^ ■ -ja -r -r iT i i ^ NUPtIA SACRJE. ISl ed with so at, have lost us, that the nted by the s ; and that hat the Le- — a commu- lission to the terer should the ancient fatally con- ret regarded consolation, talk of that 1 justices of re that there ry damages, >m the part> at this late ilbert's men. ves,, for the rve only tftke away the first, and pay for them.* What remains then, but to renew the penalties in the most effectual manner, and invigorate the arm of the ancient authority ? It is true, you cannot, by an act of the Legis- lature, restore the conscience ; but you can punish the person : you cannot terrify the soul of the adulterer ; but you can seize his body. And at least imprisonment, the mildest specifes of corporal suffering, ought to be put in force against him. In the cjase of the abduction of a man's wife, pub- lic fine, and imprisonment for two years, are added to the rec6v6fjr of private da- mages ; and both th6 kittg and the husband «iay have this action. U the seduction of her, so much lighter in gdilt,- that the Crown shall have no plea agttJnsl it; and barba- rity be imputed to those, who would guard . * The lawlessness of the present gallantry, is exactly described in Seneca's words : Satis justam causain putat aniandi, quod aliena est ; (scil. uxor.) K 2 \ i-:-iSt.*i^i0yiixm- mMBfwanwn 132 NUPTIiE SACR^. !'■ the marriage vow, by a salutary increase of vigour against the invaders of it ? But, perhaps, there will be less disagree- ment on this point, than on another, which ought, notwithstanding, to accompany it. If such is to be the punishment of the adul- terer, what is to be that of the companion of his crime? Is the dissolution of her marriage, and the consequent loss of repu- tation, a sufficient inconvenience to her? This cannot be ; for, it is supposed, that, in some cases, such dissolution is the very object for which she commits adultery. Ought you to resign yourselves, as some have so pathetically exhorted you, to the force of sympathy, and suffer the criminal to escape your severity? This may be termed amiable; but it cannot be wise; and, on no account, ought the fleeting im- pulse of an ill-directed charity to be the substitute for the settled principles of a sound legislation. tu ' wn wiMBiaamgtfaiwgasji^). .",; a s sc. '.« !; .' t« 5 6 ' ^«.9iHCT ai NUPTIJli SACR;li. 133 increase of f IS disagree- her, which Dinpany it. »f the adul- companion ion of her ss of repu- ce to her? osed, that» is the very i adultery. s, as some iTou, to the le criminal is may be it be wise; fleeting ira- y to be the ciples of a By the Divine Laws, an equal obedience is due from all moral agents, and an equal punishment attaches to the violation of them. Human Laws come, as nearly as they can, to this principle : but as they are conversant, not in the primary and im- mytable duties, considered in themselves, but in our temporal situations as they are compounded with the duties, that modifi- cation of punishment is justly allowed by them, which the circumstances of society imperiously demand. The crime of the woman may, therefore, receive a chastise- ment, differing, in kind, from that of the man, but approaching it, in a quantity proportioned to her share of the guilt, and to the delicacy always due to her sex. The Catholic countries have found it easy to dispose of the adultress. They have con- vents, in which to hide her from the dan- gerous reproaches of the world, and to pro- mote a return of sobriety to her mind. K 3 . .•■•^.^/ -■'. I '■ I 'm0^- , ^.w;r***ti«(*»«li**-«« ^fcM^s-f-mtimaei^s itshtui*-*.**'***'* t. If??-"^'^"'"*'*^^ -.ifg-^lT^Wt^BaMW^. 194 NUPTIiE SACHJK. By the old law of France, adopted tVoni Justinian, who had also borrowed his prin- ciple from the Jews, there was an interval of two years from the proof of her offence ; at the end of which the husband might take her liome again. Tliis period she passed as a secular, witliin a convent. If the husband did not recall her, but applied for the full execution of the law, it could not be refused him. She was shorn, and took the veil for life. Our only convent is our country ; and the culprit must be at large in it ; for an imprisonment of her, on a parity of punishment with the adulterer, is not to be thought of for a moment. But is there nothing that may be adopted from the accompanying ordinances of France 1 By one of them, the crime of the woman occasioned the forfeiture of her fortune to the husband.* If there were children, in- * Le mari qui a convaincu sa femme d'adult^re, gagne sa dot. Diet, de Droit Civil, &c. See the whole ar- ticle of " Adult^re." ! ii ii i awi4aimawtMmj*igMaew.ats^ a >\¥ tpted tVoni d his prin- m interval 3r offence; ind might )eriod she nvent. If >ut applied r, it could ihorn, and convent is [lust be at of her, on : adulterer, nent. But )pted from rf France? the woman fortune to lildren, in* idult^re, gagne the whole ar- NUTTlAi SACUJi. 135 deed, it belonged to them. But, in the mean time, the husband had the mufruct of the whole property, out of which he maintained the common family, and al- lowed to her an yearly sum which was barely competent to her support. Might not a regulation of this sort be attempted ? Might not a certain part of her fortune be retained for her decent maintenance, while the rest of it is forfeited ? Might not the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench be appointed the official Judge of her conduct ? If she continued vicious, or drew hnpure gains from other quarters, might not the portion first awarded to her, revert to her family ? If there were appearances of contrition and a better be- haviour, might not the Judge have power to command from the husband a certaiw discreet addition to the allowance originally made ? Here would be a sort of moral in- spection, equally discouraging to the pro- K 4 1 .' I (I III! 31 M in iM -,-.ri;''iimTiiriftftf»rtfiitiWi*fW''wii<^^ i 1 j 1 n 136 :«JUFTIiE SAClliJ:. gress of viciousness, and promotive of a returning sobriety. I can but mention this generally. If you approve the principle now suggested, your wisdom will easily dis- cover the particular modes in which it may best be carried into effect. This may be securely promised ; for never was Parlia- ment possessed of higher abilities, whether for debate or legislation. Much talent has been already called forth to the discussion of this question. Much yet remains be- hind. Among those who took no public part in it, when it was lately presented to you, there are persons (and I could name them) whose sage experience of life, whose extensive and solid knowlege of the prin- ciples of civil policy, whose setded attach- ment to the maintenance of public morals and whose happy exemption from the fal- lacious impulses of all light theories of le- gislation, make it of public importance that they should give the power of their minds !^^ |i- lotive of a nention this e principle 11 easily dis- bich it may his may be was Parlia- es, whether h talent has i discussion emains be- no public tresented to ;;ould name ■ life, whose >f the prin- tled attach- olic morals om the fal- iories of le- )rtance that their minds NUPTlili SACRili. 137 to the consideration of it. For their assist* ance I venture to express my hopes. Meanwhile there is one maxim on which I must dwell with all earnestness. Whatever correction you apply to the evil, let it be but just sufficient for the purpose required ; and, while you seek to repress offence, leave every possible opening to returning virtue. If the punishment goes beyond the necessity ; if, in the violence of reform, terror. is heaped upon terror, against the offenders (for morals too have their ex^ cesses, and virtue, sometimes, riots), it is easy to see the consequence. Society will grow universally depraved under a law su- pei*fluously rigorous. " Offences will come," and the passions will be more de- structive in another direction. Terrified, ftt first, with thundering statutes, we shall learn to shelter ourselves from them under forced covers of our own invention. Every man, by degrees, will unguard the virtue of jii y. »t. 138 nijptia: sac II it'.. his house, hitherto sacrcd ; and, through a corrupt agreement wliich will »wn\ conic to be generally understood, the husband will accommodate his neighbour, and be silently accomnK)dated in return. Sad Ktate of morals ! where Justice is completely dis* armed by private compact, and a dreadful stillness is spread over universal guilt ! I have now fulBlled my intention. Hav- ing rectified what apjieared to me to be erroneous, I have recommended that which strikes ine as likely to be salutary to the state. In the latter part, I have endeavoured to find a substitute for that provision of the late Bill, the disinclination to which occa- sioned the failure of the whole measure. I speak of the prohibition of intcrmariiage to the adulterous parties. That disinclina- tion stilt continues ; and, I am persuaded* it is of too strong a nature to be immedi- ately surmounted. Not that it solidly rests upon any dreaded violation of the word of S^I^^HISbr^^SS^pmSkS^S^S^S^^ NIJl'TliK VACHiK. 139 , througli a KMi conic to Qsbund will 1 be silently Lid Ktate of pletely dis- a dreadful guilt ! tion. Hav- > me to be that which itary to the rideavoured ision of the rhich occa- measure. I tcrinamage disinclina- persuaded) )e inimedi- jolidly rests ;he word of (iod, but upon strong moral fears for the dangerous situation of the unhappy woman whom nobody can receive with any ap- pearance of honour. A noble Viscount, indeed, whose share in this dispute does him credit, has expressed his persuasion, that the prohibition would offend against the Divine law. His cooler reflection will tcU him that a permission conceded to our infirmities, and of which wc may avail ourselves without sin, may, notwithstand- ing, be waved by us, if we are properly convinced that the public virtue is suffici- ently strong to bear the voluntary privation. But experience tells us, that the Legisla- ture has not yet admitted this conviction.* * It would grieve me to have been employed in the maintenance of an argument coatrary to the spirit of owr actual legislation. It is, therefore, with great satisfaction I learn, that although about eight years after the first publi- cation of this treatise, an order was made by the House of Lords, that, in every subsequent Bill of Divoree on account of Adultery, a clause should be inserted, pro- hibiting the intermarriage of the adultress with the pattr s»f ih :^^1 :m:m^- f^ i .^' 140 NUPTIjJi SACll-JE. I '' On this account, and from the wish I feel that something may, at all events, be done in so important a concern, I take the li- berty of suggesting to the Hon. Gentleman who will have to propose the question to the Lower House, whether it may not be most conducive to the public interest to relinquish the prohibitory part. If the candour of Mr. Pe> (;eval is equal to his talent, and I am persuaded it is, he will readily excuse me. It is only by such a discreet forbearance, that a just hope can be entertained of carrying the other points ; and these, perhaps, may well suffice for the present exigency. At least an experiment may be made with the alterations now pro- I , ! ner of her guilt, the order has not been enforced, and the clause has been generi^ay omitted. If I am rightly in- formed, it has been carried into effect only in one very obnoxious case, where the intermarriage of the offending parties was otherwise liable to prohibition, on account of its coming within the line of the forbidden degrees. — [1821.] . ,,; . ,.4Htf*»;<04ri.A;f i jlM.i i ;j<}j ! i ii j!iyiuMit^^ !Jty^VI!gJj!i^fe^!feri^»«ro'»»jB56i^ le wish I feel snts, be done [ take the li- 1. Gentleman ! question to may not be c interest to lart. If the equal to his t is, he will \y by such a ust hope can other points ; luffice for the a experiment 3ns now pro- enforced, and the ' 1 am rightly in- only in one very of the offending on, on account of dden degrees. — JJUPTI^ SACRiE. 141 posed. If it shall be found hereafter that they are not equal to the necessity of the case, an advantage will be drawn from their very incompetency ; and the minds of those who now refuse to listen to the proposal, will be impelled to the final reception of it by the moral demands of society. I have now finished my discussion. And what is the general result from it? Against the noble Earl it has been proved, that the intermarriage of the adulteress with her seducer is not commanded by Heaven. Nor was this a difficult task. He could be no formidable antagonist, whose whole artil- lery, in this Scriptural field, was a single text of Deuteronomy, hastily seized, and wrongly applied. Accordingly, I have paid him but a cursory attention, and have con- tented myself with giving that general state- ment of the Mosaic Law, which was neces- sary to the completeness of my plan. — Against the learned Prelate, it has been i. s»w-?!^>^';^«s»«® wv:.'H?'^ssws^^igwi^^ ■ 142 NUPTIiF, SACRiE. equally proved, (unless I flatter myself,) that, by the Divine Law, the divorced wo- man has not forfeited her general power of re-marriage. But, to accomplish this was not so easy : for, though his opinion was pronounced in a very summary manner, yet, his professional importance, and his Bifa^cal reputation, which is high among us, direw upon me the necessity of an inquiry, more extensive and more critical : and I was obliged to proceed with good circumspec- tion, and an appeal to the authority of greater names, ere I oouid prove hh posi- tion to be erroneous, and its consequences fiital to the liberty of the Reformed Church. I To tlm has been added, for the convic- tion of tiiose who wouid suppi^ead every at- tempt to legislate on this pointy the general hisitory of the punishment of adultery among us. The revival of the spirit of the ancient penalties has been urged against the seducer, and, instead of the dreaded prohibition of * * t^3i ! MMuaiaii,,.w • NUPTIiE SACR^.. 143 tier myself,) Jivorced wo- !ral power of ilish this was opinion was ary manner, ice, and his ;h among us, : an inquiry, il: andlwasi circumspec- authority of 3ve his posi- onsequences ned Church, r the convic- e$d every at- itbe general iltery among ' the ancient [; the seducer, rohibition of his intermarriage with tlie adulteress, that punishment of her has been recommended, which, while it may keep at a distance the enemies of her virtue, will, perhaps, impress a salutary caution on her own mind ; the loss of her fortune, and official inspection of her moral conduct. One word more concerning myself. If it should be inquired, what is the motive which has prompted me to step forward on ll is occasion? I will more fully avow it. — I^ext to the zeal (which is habitual and su» preme with me), for the right interpretation of Scripture, and the universal establish^ ment of its authority, has been the desire I. have fdt of vindicating the honour of Parliament. Yes, my Lords, and Gentle- men, the honour of Farliameut. It is pro- per you should, at length, be acquainted with an opinion wiuch has been maliciously propagated, that your late decision on this business was made with a wilful contempt of iL..t ■"»*>*J^ "•'*!:';'?*'.'-:"'^.?S?'?^'SS&"' .1! 144 NUPTI^ SACK*. the Divine command. That opinion chiefly rests on the authority of the learned Pre- late, whose doctrine of the perpetual adul- tery, inherent in those marriages, the pro- hibition of which you refused to sanction, has been adduced, to prove that your con- duct was careless, because your 'principles were Antichristian ! It is sufficient, per- haps, that ParUament should suffer from the standing malignity of its enemies : must it be assaulted through the unguarded side of its friends too ? — It is sufficient, that re- volutionary rage should be ever at hand to pervert your views, however patriotic, to calumniate your legislation, however bene- ficial. Must you be branded with the ad- ditional charge of Profaneness? And shall no attempt be made to repel so new a ca- lumny ? No ; it was impossible to allow, with impunity, another inlet to defamation. It was impossible to be easy, while, with a sanctimonious concern for your character. »^aiifeaiJi.v*afcajaj i Jj ! <;;i!wiv>ji>^.^>A&jj-, «;«■ ''^'«'' Inveatlon alone wooM entitle the auibor to Immortality ."-OrafW-iliflg- '""'•/«'• '• J" "* « He« 11 may not be .ml» to recommend to the attention of every »«*«»'«■ •J*"'"' work entitled a CV«/«r, of Inventions, b, the Marqul. of Worcter. which on account of Te .4" nglmp^babilUy of dUcove.lng many thing, mentioned therein, h" *«•» «o m«eh nlected: butwhcnitl. con.ldered that .ome of the contrivance.. apparenUy •'Ot'''ele«. .bla«.'b.ve.by clo.e application, been found to an.wer all '^jJ^l^^'l^y^^^^Zr^^t that the tot hint of that mo.t powerful machine, the •;*"• f'^^'j* «^!'"J;VlU r« i. unneccMary to enlarge on the uUlity of it."-Tr«»*. of the SocMg of Arts, vol. Ul. p. «.. 'rS ■t! WORKS PREFARIN(i 10 [jAN. HISTORY OF THE LATE WAR IN SPAIN AND I»ORTUGAL, Three Vol*. Quarto. : , By ROBERT SOUTHEY, K«q. 17 A NARRATIVE OF THE CAMPAIGNS OF THE BRITISH ARMY AT WASHINfJTON AND NEW ORLEANS, InieU-lS. 8vo. By an OFFICER. 18 AN ABRIDGMENT OF MATTHIJS'S GREEK GRAMMAR. For the use of Schools. Edited by The Rev. C. J. BLOMFIELO, D.D. 12ino. 19 THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ATHENS, With some Remarks on iU Antiquities. With Plates from the Drawings of C. CocKERELL, Esq. 8vo. By Lieut.-Col. LEAKE. ; 20 THE WORKS OF THE RIGHT HON. LORD BYRON. A new Edition, beautifully printed by Danson, and now comprised in S toIs,, small 8vo., and for S5«. •«• PLATES, including a PoRTr.AiT, to illnsUate this and former E^...oiu, engniTed by Heath, fh>m Drawings by Westall and Stothard, are s
» "'^•, 'f '''' Zr. which had .0 mLerably been fru.tra.ed, i.. of .11 book, relating ^ "v.Ke « *. '^'J^'^ e»rio«.,aud,m every re.pect, the mo.t interc.ling.-SouiBtv,i/.A<*^wf<'r»«/fAe*r««*. won KB I'UKI'AIIINU [jam. I 28 A NI'W SRRIES OF CURIDaiTIDS OF F-ITKHATUHK. I vol*. 8vo. Hy J. U'ISHAELI. £«q. 2U A TREATISE ON NAVAI. OUNNKRY. FublUhcd with thu approbation and permliiion ol' tho Lord* CommUsloneri of the Admiralty. U'ltli Platr*, 8vo. By Colonel Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS, Bart., K.S.C. C.B. F.RJS., &c. 30 THE BELVIDERE APOLLO. FAZIO, A TRAGEDY. AND OTHER POEMS. By tbe Rev. H. H. MILMAN. (Printed uniformly with the The Fall of Jkriisalem.) In Octavo. 31 THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY CONSIDERED, Villi a View to their Practical Application. Similar to the last Edition of Emay on Population. By T. H. MALTHUS, A.M. A New Edition, corrected and enlarged, 9 volt. 8vo., (like those of the laat Edition of Essay on Population.) 32 ON,THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND TAXATION. • ByDAVID RICARDO.M.P. A,Third Edition, corrected. In One Volume, Octavo. 33 A SERIES OF THIRTY-THREE PLATES, Including a Portrait, to Ulustrate the Works of Crabbe. Very beaatifully engraved by Heath, from the Drawings of Westall. In 8vo. and small 8vo., and Proofs, 4to. 34 WHISTLECRAFTS PROSPECTUS AND SPECIMEN OF AN INTENDED NATIONAL POEM. Cantos I, II, 111, and IV. A fourth Edition, in One Volume, small Octavo. [JAN. rKHATUHK. •MY. i» CommiMloneri of D.B. F.RJS., &o. TRAGEDY. M.) In Octavo. ' CONSIDERED, the iut Edition of like tlioie of the laat ONOMY AND t, Octavo. iTES, of Crabbe. ofWestall. InSvo. CIMEN OF AN [. ume, small Octavo. . w ^|| im Aw i'i ' 9 i -' iii'P'J JW I 18t2l.] fO% IMMKUIATF, HUBLirATtON. 85 RKJEtTin) ADUHES8!.H. Kourr^ENTH KDiTiON, corrected and revUed. In Snmll Octavo. 36 AN AUTUMN NEAR THE RHINE;- Or 8Km:HRS of COURTO, SOCICTY. and S'^ENERY in 0»«MANY „.;,! RHINE, second Edition. To which are added, an Arcoun of TTour in the Taunu. MonnUin-, in the Year > 'M,, and .omc Translation, from the Poemn o( Schiller and Ooi-the. 8vo. 37 NUPTU: SMMM; or. an ENQUIRY TNTO THE S^^^^^ TURAL DOCTRINE OP MARRIAOl. ^ND DIVORCI.. Addrewed to the Two Houae. .! » ..rliament. Flr.l publUhed In 1801, and now re-prinieU by de.ire. In Oct«.o. 38 THE POEMS OF CAIUS VALEIUUS CATUI.wJS Tranalated. With a Preface and Note*. By the Honourable GEORGE LAMB. Plu. Cilulle »( lnl.nlt.blc. plu. on . dft m«lllpll.r let .fforti POjjr^^":','''- ^„,, 39 THE WORKS OF THE REV. GEORGE CRABBE. Printed uniformly, aid very handaomely, by Datiion, in 8 vol.., .mall 8vo. 40 HISTORICAL MEMOIRS OF THE ENGLISH. TRISH. AND SCCyiTISH CATHOLICS. Vols. III. and IV. ■i^o. By CHARLES BUTLER, Esq. 41 THE LIFE OF WILLIAM SANCROFT. ARCHBISHOP OV CA RRBURY. Compiled principally from original and scar- ^v. .ments ; with an Appendix ronUiningt .e Siary of the learned HENIiV .VHARTON. Now firs pub- lished from a Manuscript in Lambeth Palace; also, the remaining ^\ ..rks. now scarce, of Archbishop Sancroft. By the Rev. GEORGE DOYLY, D.D., F.R.8., Domestic Chaplain to 'Ah 3r«ce the Archbishop of Canterbury. With a Portrait, from an originel Picture, by Lbttrell, in Lambeth Palace. 2 vols. 8vo. liy AulluirUy (ff lliv LatiU Commmiimiit of the Admiralty. 45 Juft Vublnhfd, NARRATIVE OF THE OPERATIONS AND RECENT DISCOVERIES WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS, TEMPLES. TOMBS, AND EXCAVATIONS IN EGYPT AND NUBIA, And or a Juurney tu the Coait of the KEI) SEA, in search of the ancient B«k- nice, and another to tliu Oasia of Jupitnr Animon. 4to. with a Purtrnit. 2/. 2«. By G. BFXZOM. FORTYFOUR LARGE PLATES, All coloured, to illuttrate the OPERATIONS OF BELZONI in Egypt and Niibia. Alias fulio, Gf. On. (ho1