CONSIDERATIONS 982 DIVOECE A VINCULO MATEIMONII, In connexion foitfj l^olg Scripture, A BAREISTER. LONDON: .1. STEWART, 11 KIXC WLUJAM STREET, I HAND. 1807. f LONDON : PRINTED BY LEVEY, ROBSOK, AND PRANKLYN, Great New Street and Fetter Lane. CONSIDERATIONS ON DIVORCE. HAVING recently had my attention called to the subject of Divorce, I was anxious to ascertain, whe- ther a divorce, dissolving- the marriage tie, and allow- ing the parties to marry again, or, as it is commonly called, a (( divorce a vinculo matrimonii" by reason of the adultery either of lha hnahonH ERRATA. Page 15, line 1, for former read latter. 15, 2, latter former. H 52, 1, after laws add of. 55 , 1 from bottom, for a tall read at all. tere, and to render such divorces generally legal and attainable. With the arguments which may be urged, either for or against such a measure, on grounds of public policy or expediency, I have nothing to do ; it is not my intention to consider them. My business is simply with the rule of Scripture; which, if it condemns such divorces, not only, is the strongest, but ought to be at once a conclusive argument against them, if the B 2OOG5U1 Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN r - ' PRINTED BY LEVEY, KOBSON, AND FRANKLYN, Great New Street and Fetter Lane. CONSIDERATIONS ON DIVORCE. HAVING recently had my attention called to the subject of Divorce, I was anxious to ascertain, whe- ther a divorce, dissolving 1 the marriage tie, and allow- ing- the parties to marry again, or, as it is commonly called, a " divorce a vinculo matrimonii" by reason of the adultery either of the husband or of the wife, the parties being 1 Christians, is, or is not, prohibited by the Scriptures of the New Testament; and being 1 now convinced that it is, I propose to state the reasons which have led me to this conclusion. The question is at any time interesting 1 and import- ant, but is particularly so at the present, when the legislature is called upon to interfere, and to render such divorces generally legal and attainable. With the arg-uments which may be urged, either for or against such a measure, on grounds of public policy or expediency, I have nothing to do ; it is not my intention to consider them. My business is simply with the rule of Scripture; which, if it condemns such divorces, not only, is the strongest, but ought to be at once a conclusive argument against them, if the B 2OOO5O1 profession of Christianity is any thing 1 more than a name. Now the passages of the New Testament which bear most directly upon this subject, and suffice to settle it, are those which occur in the three gospels "Trf St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke : that is to say, in the 5th and the 19th chapters of St. Matthew's gospel ; in the 10th chapter of St. Mark's ; and in the 10th chapter of St. Luke's: and in order that the reference to them may be more easy, and the construction of them more intelligible, I here place them both the original Greek and the authorised version side by side, in a tabular form. Those passages which may be found in the writings of St. Paul I reserve for subsequent consideration, as ex- planatory and corroborative of those in the gospels. Matt. \. 31, 32. 'E/5p<-'07j Se, '6-rt its Uv d- TroAwrjj r^v yvvaiKa av- rov, $6ru avrrj airoffrd- fflOV. 'Eyw 8e \(yo> vn'tf, tin f>s &v a.tro\vffp T-^V yv- I'aiKO. avrov, irapfKrbs \6- yov iropvfias, trote'i avr^v /j.otxs tav O.TTO- It hath been said, Whosoever shall put a- way his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce- ment : But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornica- tion,causeth her to com- mit adultery: and who- soever shall marry her Mark x. 2-1 2. Kal* plffOlOL I ft e^ecrriv avSgl yvvaiKa diroAucrot ; ireipd^ovrfs av- tn J\ J n \ * avrols' T/ vjj.1v fverel\aro 7TTpy plp\lOV CtTTOfTTCC- ffiov ypdtyai, Kal diroAt!- Kol airoKpidfls 6 "Irj- ffovs ejirtv avrols' Hpbs fypaibcv VLUV rbv fvro\iiv 'Atrb St apxrjs Kriaftas, apfftv Kal 0r)\v firoitjo'fi' avrovs 6 e6s. ' EveKsv rovrov Kara- \ftyfi avOpwwos rbv ira- repa avrov Kal rrjv /XT;T- Luke x\d. 18. TIus u CLiroXviav TTJV yv- voitKa avrov, Kal ya.ii.Siv trepav, /uoixy'' Kal TTO.S 6 airo\t\vfJ.fi>T)v o.irb av- Spbs ya/j.iai', fioixevei. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and mar- rieth another, commit- teth adultery : and who- soever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth a- dultery. Matt. v. 31, 32. that is divorced com- raitteth adultery. Matt. xix. 3-12. Kal irpo ovv 6 &tbs trvvf(vev, &v6p airo\vffTi TTJJ' ywaiica av- rov, fl fj.ii tirl iropvda, Kal yafi.'fiaT] &\\tji>, fiot^arai' Kal 6 airo\f\vfj.4vj]V TO5, fJ.OLXUTat. \iyovffiv avry ral avrov' El OUTWS rlv T] alria rov avBpuirov fj.(Ta TTJS yvvatKbs, oil fpei yafjLTivai. 'O 5e five v avrois' Ov iravres xfopovfft rbv \6yov rovrov, aAA' oTs StSorat. Eiffl yap fvvovj(pi, o"- ricfy IK Koi\las fj.ijrpbs iyf:vvT\Qf\aa.v ovrta' KOI tlffiv (vvovxoi, olrtvts fvvovxtffO'na'av vtrb TUV avOptaTrtav' Kai tlaiv tu- Mark x. 2-12. pa, ical irpoffKo\\T]6-fio~eTai vpbs TV yvvaiKa auTou' Kol fffovrai oi Svo fls ffdpKa fj,iav' wffre ouKtri elcrl Svo, aAAa fj.ia ffap|. "O ovv 6 &fbs avvffv- ev, avQpwiros /j.ri xcapi^trta. Kal fv -rfj otKta iraXiv ol naOyral avrov irtpl rov avrov (in\purrjrrav a.vr6v. Kal \eyei awToZV fts tav airo\virri ri\v yvvaiKa av- rov, Kal "ya/uTjaj? a\\i]v, fj.oixa.Tat fir' avrriv. Kai fav yvvri diroAwp rbv &t>5pa OUTTJS, Kal 70- And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the begin- ning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined togctlirr. let not man putasnndn. And in the house his cliM-ijiles asked him a- '.'uln of Hit- same matter. Ami lie siiilli unto tliom, ^YIiosocv- The Pharisees also came unto him, tempt- ing him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the be- ginningmadethemmale and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh ? Wherefore they are no more twain, hut one flesh. "What therefore God hath joined toge- ther, let not man put asunder. They say \rnto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writ ing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put a- way his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man he so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Mark x. 2-13. put away his wife, and marry another, commit- teth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to ano- ther, she committeth a- dultery. Luke xvi. 18. Matt. xix. 3-12. Mark x. 2-12. Luke xvi. 18. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men : and there be eu- nuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him re- ceive it. Now the thing 1 which seems most important, in comparing- these passages, is the difference in the language of our Lord, as it is recorded by St. Mat- thew, and as it is found in the other two Evange- lists : the former containing what is alleged to be a qualification of the rule laid down, or an exception to it ; the latter containing no exception, but laying down the rule without any qualification. But it is impossible not to feel, that if this is more than a mere difference of expression, if it really in- volves such a difference as the one suggested, it is a difference of no trifling description. A rule, which does not admit an exception, is very different from one which does. A law which binds all persons, un- der all circumstances, is not the same as one which binds only particular classes, or which exempts, un- der certain circumstances, from its operation. The difference in such cases is one, not of form, but of substance ; it makes the rule or the law applicable, or inapplicable, according to particular circum- stances, and variable in its effects; and upon this applicability or inapplicability depends the responsi- bility or immunity, moral as well as legal, of those who are within the sphere of its authority ; the dif- ference being* of course more marked, as well as more important, if the consequences of an}' violation of the rule or law are made severely penal. Now, whatever may be the construction put upon the passages cited from St. Matthew's gospel, no person can deny, that, as the rule stands recorded by St. Mark and St. Luke, a divorce a vinculo ma- trimomi is absolutely prohibited in all cases ; and therefore even in those in which adultery has been committed by one of the parties. Were a statute passed in terms similar to those employed by St. Mark and St. Luke, no court could venture to con- strue it otherwise, than as an absolute and universal prohibition ; and were St. Matthew's gospel not in existence, no man would ever have dreamed, that a divorce by reason of adultery was an exempted case. If, then, St. Matthew introduces such an exception, he makes the rule essentially different from the rule which the others give, he allows what they pro- hibit : and the question, whether he does so or not, is one of awful moment; for whatever the rule really is, he who violates it is declared, by all the three Evangelists, to be guilty of nothing* less than adul- tery ; he commits a deadly sin, a crime of the great- est magnitude, one which perils his eternal salva- tion. The result, therefore, of this difference, if such a difference there be, is, that what, according to two Evangelists, is forbidden, and a sin of the highest enormity, is, according 1 to a third, permitted, and therefore no sin at all; and thus the teaching 1 of the New Testament is at variance with itself, and the sacred writers contradict each other, and that, too, upon one of the most important questions which can affect the moral and social welfare of mankind. But no man, who believes the Scriptures to be the Word of God, can for a moment admit a proposition so monstrous j he assuredly must maintain, that these sacred oracles are consistent, and that what is pro- hibited by one is not permitted by another ; and if certain premises lead inevitably to an opposite con- clusion, then those premises must themselves be false. How, then, is the present difficulty to be met ? How are we to construe these different texts of Scripture, so as to save them from the objection of being- con- tradictory or inconsistent? That the lang-uagfe of the Evang-elists varies, is indisputable ; and that this variation is such, as to lead many persons to assert, that St. Matthew's authorises divorce a vinculo ma- trimonii in cases of adultery, although they admit that neither St. Mark's nor St. Luke's allows any exception, is notorious. The question therefore is, whether this can be satisfactorily explained ; whether those, who claim the authority of St. Matthew's g'ospel for these divorces, are entitled to do so ; or whether the fair interpretation of Scripture, of the one g'ospel as of the others, does not require us to hold, that they are absolutely unlawful ? Now taking* Scripture as the only test, being 1 that alone by which Protestants profess to abide, I see but two modes of reconciling* the Evangelists : either to blend, as it were, the three gospels tog-ether, and then, if St. Matthew's really contains the exception which it is said to do, to carry the same exception by implication into St. Mark's and St. Luke's, so as to include it as part of their meaning-, althoug-h inconsistent with their expressions ; or to maintain, that St. Matthew's g-ospel really contains no such exception, that the words, which have been sup- posed to warrant it, need not be, and ought not to be, so understood, and that there is no inconsist- ency at all between this and the other two gospels. Of these two modes of meeting the difficulty, the former is that which has generally been adopted ; as is said by Selden, in his Uxor Hebraica, chap. xxii. : u Cum hac distinctione (the exception in the case of adultery), ea quse simpliciter de uxore non dirnit- tenda habentur apud Marcum, Lucam, et Paulum sumenda, quod et interpretibus optimis plane con- souum." And the same is asserted by Bishop Cozens, in his argument in the Duke of Norfolk's case (State Trials , vol. xiii. p. 1332) ; an argument which is cited in the First Report of the Commissioners on the Law of Divorce, with an encomium which seems to me singularly undeserved. The view, however, thus taken, is undoubtedly popular, whatever may be thought of Bishop Cozens, and though Selden ven- tured rather too far when he said, that it was (C op- timis interpretibus consonum." The view, however, is inadmissible, be its sup- porters who they may ; and this for a very plain rea- son. Each of these narratives was written, not only by different authors, and in different countries, but at different times, and for the immediate use of different churches and converts. Each was alto- gether independent of the others ; and there is no evidence to show, that any one of the three Evange- lists, whose gospels we are considering-, had, when he wrote his own, seen either of the others. St. Mark's gospel has indeed been called, I believe by St. Au- gustine, an epitome of St. Matthew's ; but it is very doubtful whether more was meant by this, than that it related many of the same events in a more con- densed or compendious form, not that it was really an abridgment. The probability seems to be, that neither St. Mark nor St. Luke had seen or known any thing of St. Matthew's ; and there certainly is no reason to suppose, that any one of the three ima- gined, that the particular converts, for whom he wrote, would ever have access to any other authentic history of our Saviour's life and death. It was not till long after the age of these writers, that the Scrip- tures of the New Testament were collected together, and placed side by side in a single volume ; and the difficulties which then existed, in multiplying copies of any work, and transmitting them to distant coun- tries, would naturally prevent any author from mak- ing the true sense, or meaning, of his own composition dependent upon the chance of some other beinw cir- 10 culated, and placed in the hands of his readers ; and certainly, if the work contained no reference to any other, and gave its readers no hint that they were to look elsewhere for any further information, it never could be presumed to have been intentionally thus left imperfect. In each of these three gospels, there are abundant proofs, that the writer regarded it as complete in itself, and that it was not in any respect a supplement to any other ; and if the facts are so, it is evident that we are not entitled to say, that any two, or even one of them, must have meant some- thing* very different from what they have written, when their words are perfectly clear and exclude any such meaning, simply because the third has said something to that effect, or which may perhaps be so understood. We can have no right, if St. Mark and St. Luke really differ from St. Matthew, to contend, that they must have contemplated the introduction of something- inconsistent with their own narratives, because St. Matthew has introduced it, when they never refer to St. Matthew, and probably knew no- thing of what he had written. If the narratives are inconsistent, and we are bound to choose between conflicting testimony, the more natural course would be, to make the one witness yield to the two, (all the three being equally trustworthy,) than to make the two yield to the one; and unquestionably, if the one is at all obscure, if his meaning is not quite so clear as that of the others, if, by any interpretation not absolutely absurd, we can construe his doubtful ex- 11 pressions, so as not to be repugnant to their plain ones, we are bound, upon every principle of fairness and of common sense, to adopt that course, and not the converse of it. It is far more probable, even humanly speaking-, that we should have mistaken the sense of St. Matthew's gospel, in two passages not in themselves free from difficulty, than that both St. Mark and St. Luke should have mistaken our Lord's meaning, and supposed that He intended to forbid all divorces a vinculo matrimonii, when He only meant to forbid those which were not on ac- count of adultery. If any body could construe their words, so as to show an ambiguity in them, or raise any doubt as to their obvious meaning, the case would be different, there would then be some rea- son for taking another course j but if this cannot be, it is flying in the face of all the rules of criticism, to deal with these writers as the advocates of divorce claim to do. But further ; if St. Matthew's g'ospel contains an exception in favour of divorce, where adultery has been committed, then I should be glad to know, why it is that neither St. Mark's nor St. Luke's contains the same? Each, as I have said, was written in- dependently of the others, and each was evidently intended to give the rule propounded by our Lord ; each, too, was dictated by Divine inspiration, so that it should be an infallible guide to those for whose use it was clesig'ned. Why, then, have these two suppressed so material a proviso ? What object 12 can they have had in doing- so ? Whether either of them had seen St. Matthew's g-ospel or not, (and if he had; his omission of such an exception con- tained in it is still more remarkable) , there could be no difficulty in stating the rule as fully, and so pre- venting 1 any misunderstanding" on the subject; and yet this is not done. And if St. Matthew's g-ospel was not at hand to supply the omission, as it clearly was not expected to be, and was not for many years afterwards, what was the condition, in the mean time, of those who had only St. Mark's and St. Luke's to direct them ? They must have been misled, and compelled to submit to a hardship, from which the more fortunate possessors of St. Matthew's g-ospel were altogether free. They were taught to reg-ard that as sin, which in truth was no sin at all. Those who are for blending- the three g-ospels to- g-ether, and putting- a forced and unnatural inter- pretation upon two of them, because they think that the other requires a different interpretation, forg-et the difficulties in which this involves them, its in- consistency with the history of the g-ospels them- selves, and with the circumstances under which they were written, as well as the position in which it leaves those, who never had the means of comparing- one sacred writer with another, as we have at the present day. If it be sug-gested, that the oral teach- ing- of the first preachers of Christianity supplied what was wanting-, and prevented the early con- verts from making- such mistakes, the answer seems 13 to be any thing- but satisfactory. The rule recorded by the two Evangelists, as given by our Lord, is still imperfectly and incorrectly stated, and I am utterly at a loss to understand why it should have been so stated, when it inig'ht just as easily have been given fully and correctly ; why St. Mark and St. Luke, any more than St. Matthew, should have trusted to the oral teaching*, either of themselves or others, not merely to amplify, to paraphrase, or to illustrate their writing's, but to give those writing's a very different meaning-, to show our Lord's rule to be, not what their writing's stated that it was, but something quite distinct, not an absolute and universal pro- hibition, but a prohibition inapplicable to perhaps the majority of cases, in which divorce would be wanted at all. (f Litera scripta manet ;" and many of those who would have the opportunity of reading- the book, would have none of hearing 1 the expositor, who was to tell them, that it was not intended to convey the meaning- which they would see that it did ; and it appears to be giving- a much wider ef- fect to the oral teaching- of the first ag-es, than any Protestant would be willing- to allow, thus to call in its aid, to account for the anomaly which I have noticed. The case, therefore, comes to this : either our blessed Lord g-ave a rule, prohibiting- all divorce a vinculo matrimoniij even in cases of adultery, or He did not. If He did, St. Mark and St. Luke have reported that rule correctly; if He did not, their se- 14 veral reports of it are incorrect : and to endeavour to make them correct, by saying-, that they must have intended to report it as if it excepted cases of adul- tery, as if it was really a different rule, and this simply because another report, of which they pro- bably never heard, is understood to contain such an exception, is to do what would not be permitted in dealing' with any other authors. Suppose two his- torians of the reign of Henry VI. reported a royal proclamation, prohibiting- the subjects of the realm, under very heavy penalties, from going abroad with- out a license from the crown ; but one of these his- torians reported it, as if it wholly exempted all per- sons from its operation who were possessed of a yearly income of 50/., while the other set it forth, as if it contained no such exemption, but applied equally to all persons, what conclusion should we draw? Clearly, that one of them had reported it wrongly. We should not say, that the latter historian meant it to be read otherwise than as he has given it, that in his version the exemption is to be implied, although nothing- of the sort appears, and the lan- guage obviously excludes it j and this, because the other historian contains, or rather is supposed to contain, it. We should then elect between the two ; we should adopt the one which seemed correct, and reject the other. If the exemption which the one report contained was expressed in such a manner, as to leave some doubt about its meaning-, while the other which omitted it was plain and unambiguous, 15 this would naturally lead us to abide by tbe former, rather than the latter; and if, in addition to this, we found another contemporary historian setting- forth the same ordinance, also without the exemption, we should probably not hesitate to say, that it was as these two gave it. Why, then, are we to act so very differently with the sacred historians ? We may be quite sure, that there can be no real discrepancy between them, when they are fairly interpreted. One may record one event, another may record another ; one may mention certain incidents, which another may omit ; but in the doctrine which they relate as delivered by our Lord, in the morals inculcated, we need not fear that there will be any variance, when the just rules of criticism are applied to their narra- tives. But we are not fairly interpreting- them, we are not applying' a just rule, when we try to recon- cile the sacred writers by forcing- two of them to say what they have not said, merely because the sense which we put upon another, in a passage of some ambiguity, is inconsistent with their language : this is nothing but a Procrustean system, a clumsy, as well as an improper and arbitrary, attempt ; one, moreover, of most dangerous and alarming tendency, as it shakes the certainty of Scripture itself. From these reasons I conclude, that the first of the two methods which I have mentioned, of meeting- r O the difficulty, arising from a comparison of the narra- tives of the three Evangelists, is untenable ; that the mode of reconciling them, generally adopted, is er- 16 roneous and absurd, and therefore that it must be discarded. We are consequently driven to the second ; and thus are led to conclude, that the supposed ex- ception of cases of adultery from the prohibition of divorce, which has been inferred from St. Matthew's gospel, is really no exception at all ; that the words need not be, and ought not to be, so understood ; and that there is no inconsistency between St. Matthew and the other two Evang*elists, in recording our Lord's prohibition. Let us see, then, whether this is so ; and accord- ingly, I now proceed to the consideration of the two passages in St. Matthew's gospel, upon which the question really turns. Now it is evident, on looking at them, that if the words wagszrog Xoyov vogvsiKSj which occur in the 32d verse of the 5th chapter, and which are translated, " saving for the cause of for- nication;" and the words si ^ tvi vogvstu, which occur in the 9th verse of the 1 9th chapter, and which are translated, u except it be for fornication," were omitted, there would be no difference in the sense, and little even in the language, of St. Matthew and the other Evangelists. The question, therefore, re- solves itself into this : what is the meaning of these two expressions ? and in order to determine it, we must consider them, not only in their strict and literal acceptation, but also in their connection with the context ; having also a due regard to the circum- stances which probably led to their introduction, and to the persons to whom they were addressed. 17 Now the first of these expressions, fagexros "koyov which is translated in the authorised version, " saving- for the cause of fornication," may be more correctly rendered " apart from the question of forni- cation, without reference to the subject of fornication, or, independently of a case of fornication." The word vug sxros is interpreted in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon as " out of, without, besides ;" in Hederic's Lexicon, and Stephens's Thesaurus, as " foris, forinsecus, ex- trinsecus, extra, prseter, prseterquam ;" in the Lexi- con Constantini, as ee foris, forinsecus, prseter j" the same as vag 1%, which Scapula renders " extra, foris," and which is explained by Hesychius as equivalent to cc xpgky seorsim, sine," a word which Liddell and Scott render as " besides, except, exclusive of." Con- stantinus adds, under the word vugsxrosj " vagsxrot Xoyov Trogveicts, praeter vel extra causam adulterii." Schleusner gives only ff praeter, extra," as his expla- nation of vagweof. The word occurs more than once afterwards in the New Testament, as in St. Paul's address to King 1 Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 29), irug&xrds TOJV IbfffASv rovruvy meaning* e( apart from, or exclu- sively of, these bonds, without reference to these bonds j" and ag-ain, in the 28th verse of the llth chapter of the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, %&>}$ ruv Kotgszrog, which the authorised version translates, " besides those thing-s which are without," but which rather seem to mean, from the words which follow, " besides, or independently of, the thing's which are extraordinary, or apart from my daily or constant c 18 care;" but Dr. Burton renders them, in his note to the passage, "beside the thing's which I have omitted." As to the word \6yog, it is scarcely ne- cessary for me to assert, that it means " a subject, a proposition, a question, a matter which is discussed or spoken of," as any reader of Greek must be aware of this, and any lexicon will furnish authorities to prove it. It is evident, therefore, that my translation is neither forced nor unnatural j but one which is not only perfectly legitimate, but more strictly accurate than the one in the authorised version. Let us look now to the position which these words hold in the sentence, and we shall find that they are evidently a mere parenthesis at least, there is nothing- to prevent their being- so reg-arded ; and it seems most natural that they should be, in- asmuch as they obviously refer to a portion of the Mosaic law, with which our Saviour was not then dealing-: they refer to the case of adultery; for Kogvi'a, or fornication, committed by a married wo- man, is undoubtedly that crime. Now for that the law had specially provided, by making- it a ca- pital offence, and positively requiring- that both the offending* parties should be put to death. The law is thus laid down in the 20th chapter of Leviticus, verse 10 : " The man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adul- tery with his neig-hbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" And 19 it is repeated as strongly in the 22d chapter of Deuteronomy, verse 22 : " If a man be found lying- with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman : so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." Of this law, therefore, there could be no doubt it was positive and peremptory; and there is no reason to suppose that it was not then g-enerally enforced ; for, notwithstanding 1 the notion which some writers have entertained, that the Jews had not the power of inflicting 1 capital punishment in our Saviour's time, I think it perfectly clear that they had, both from various passag-es in the New Testament itself, and from other evidence.* The narrative, contained in the 8th chapter of St. John's Gospel, of the woman taken in adultery, implies that the law not only was in force, but mig-ht, and probably would, have been carried into execution. With this law, then, it was no part of our Saviour's purpose to interfere ; it did not come in question at all. He was dealing 1 only with the a-ro, or writing- of divorcement, which had been permitted by another part of the law; or rather, with the abuses which had been founded upon it. The a-ro- ffrutriov, or writing- of divorcement, was not properly applicable to the case of adultery, but intended, as its original institution shows, to meet cases of a * Those who doubt the point, may see the arguments on the other side, if arguments they can be called, satisfactorily an- swered in Mr. Biscoe's work on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. i. 20 different character; and it was in these that the mischief had arisen, which called for immediate cor- rection. As the case of adultery was thus quite independent of what our Lord was then considering*, He was likely, if He noticed it at all, to do so only parenthetical!}^ or incidentally, so as to prevent His meaning 1 from being* misunderstood ; and hence, in regarding the words ^ru^sxrog Xoyoy irogveiug as a mere parenthesis, we are but taking 1 them as the sense and scope of the whole passag-e require that they should be taken. The sentence, therefore, may thus be paraphrased : c( Whosoever shall put away his wife (I am not now speaking- of fornication ; for a question of that sort is quite distinct from what I am considering", that case being 1 provided for by a separate law), causeth her to commit adultery." Thus understood, the words cannot possibly be held to furnish any argument whatever for making 1 the case of adultery an exception to what our Lord was declaring 1 ; for whether the words were in the sen- tence, or whether they were not, as the law then stood there would be no difference. By that law, the woman guilty of adultery would be put to death; and therefore there could be no danger of her com- mitting- adultery afterwards, or of her being im- properly married to another man. There was, there- fore, no need to make an exception of such a case, which would not come within the rule, even though not excepted ; it would not occur at all if the law was obeyed ; and it can scarcely be contended, that 21 our Lord would provide for a case, which implied a breach of the law, and which would only exist by its violation. To say that He meant, by using- the words wocgsxrog \dyov wogvsiag (however rendered), that, when a woman had committed adultery, her husband mig-ht simply put her away, and she might afterwards be married to another man, is really to sug-g-est a connivance on the part of the Lawgiver Himself at the transgression of His own law; for if the husband mig-ht put her away, otherwise than by means of her execution, and she mig-ht then become another man's wife, what would be the force of the law which said that " the adulterer and the adul- teress should surely be put to death," and that " so should evil be put away from Israel"? Such a recognition of the infring-ement of this positive in- junction would have been, virtually, a repeal of the injunction itself; and, strang-e as it would have been at any time, so long- as the Jewish polity subsisted, it would have been peculiarly strange at such a moment, when our Lord had just before declared to His hearers, that He was " not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it " and that " whosoever should break one of those least commandments, and should teach men so, he should be called the least in the king-dom of heaven" (St. Matt. v. 17, 19). But this would not have been the only inconsistency; for as the man, as well as the woman, who had com- mitted adultery, was to be put to death, and nothing- was here said about him, he would still have re- 22 mained liable to the capital punishment which the law required, while the woman might have lived, and become another man's wife ! Looking 1 , there- fore, at the words themselves, considering* their strict meaning', regarding- their position in the pass- ag*e in which they are introduced, the state of the law, and other circumstances, it seems to me impos- sible, with any shadow of reason, to give to the expression, irugx,ro$ \dyov KOJV&IKS, any greater ef- fect, or any wider application, than what I have suggested. To carry them further than this to make them an exception to any g-eneral prohibition of divorce is little, if any thing-, short of an ab- surdity; particularly when it is remembered, that our Lord, in this whole passage in the Sermon on the Mount, was evidently not dealing 1 with the sub- ject of divorce generally, but simply with the case of the woman put away by the writing* of divorce- ment. The condition of the husband who has put her away, by that or any other means, is not ex- pressly mentioned, and is matter of inference only ; and it may not unfairly be contended, that if the words which conclude the passage (oV luv asroXgAt^g- vqv yupfoyi (jjOfxprai, g/a, a reading- which has the sanction of the best biblical critics and commentators, Protest- ant as well as Catholic. It is the one which is given by Griesbach, and in the celebrated Complutensian edition. It is also adopted by Lucas Brugensis, one of the best and most learned writers upon the gospels ; of whom Dr. Mill, in his Prolegomena to his edition of the New Testament, says (among-st many testimonials in his favour),