ther, judged it expedient not wholly to disallow it "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it comes to pass, that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it into her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; 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 before the Lord."2

It appears that, in the time of the prophet Malachi, this privilege of divorcement had been much abused, by the Jews not only putting away their own wives, but marrying idolaters. Against this practice the prophet inveighs, and expresses in sharp terms God's displeasure. He charges them with dealing treacherously with the wife of their youth, who was their companion; and the wife of their covenant, to which God himself was witness. And he refers to the union of Adam and Eve in the creation, one soul or spirit being given to both, and they together being made or formed one: adding that the Lord hated putting away, it "concealed violence under a garment," by which is to be understood to be meant the abuse of the liberty of divorcement, by making it a cover for cruelty-putting away their wives for no just or reasonable cause, but merely because they were tired of them, and getting rid of them to make way for their marrying strangers.

Such continued to be the state of things, till the appearance of Christ. The Law promulgated to or through Adam at the creation, declaring the marriage union to be indissoluble, could only be varied or dispensed with by the power that ordained it; consequently, it must retain all its original force, in so far as it has not been so varied or dispensed with. The liberty of putting away by bill of divorcement, formed part of the particular code of laws framed by the Almighty, for the government of his chosen people, the Jews, and them only. By that code, on the one hand, he guarded the sanctity of the marriage-bed, by subjecting all the parties to any violation of it to capital punishment, and on the other hand, he mitigated or compensated for that severity, by allowing the liberty of divorce, which was obviously intended to relieve the husband in cases where the union was productive of incurable unhappiness on either side. It was also a merciful

2

1 See 19th St. Matthew, where our Saviour declares this to have been the reason for the law. Deut. xxiv. 1, &c. 3 Chap. ii. 13, &c. NO. XXXIV.

VOL. XVII.

Pam.

Z

dispensation in the case of Adultery: without it, an husband could only get rid of an adulterous wife, by bringing her to capital punishment. From that necessity he was relieved by the alternative this law allowed him, of putting her away by bill of divorce. It was of this alternative Joseph meditated to avail himself, on his perceiving the pregnancy of Mary. The Mosaic code being of no force or application to any but the Israelites, it follows, that neither its penalties or privileges can extend to, or be availed of, by any other nation; and consequently, the original law declaring marriage indissoluble, with the exception of the dispensation or privilege of divorce granted to the Jews only, must unquestionably have remained in force towards all mankind, till the descent of Christ upon earth clothed with almighty power. It remains, therefore, to be examined, whether he made any, and what, alteration, either of the original law or the municipal law of the Jews.

It is evident that the abuse of the liberty of divorce had continued to the time of our Saviour, by the continuance of the habit of men putting away their wives under colorable pretexts.

It appears that different constructions had been put upon the law of divorce, by the Jewish Doctors, which had given rise to two opposite opinions, each of which had its train of followers. The school of Shammah taught that a man could not be lawfully * divorced from his wife, unless he had found her guilty of some action really infamous; but the school of Hillel, (who was Shammah's disciple) taught, on the contrary, that the least reason was sufficient to authorise a man to put away his wife; such as, if she did not dress his meat well, or if he saw any woman he liked better. He translated his text thus: "If he hath found any thing in her, or an uncleanness." Akiba, another famous Rabbi, was still more indulgent than Hillel; he affirmed, it was sufficient cause for a man to put away his wife, if she were not agreeable to her husband. He explained his text thus: "If she find no favor in his eyes," this was the first reason; the second was, "If he find any uncleanness in her." Josephus and Philo show that in their time the Jews believed divorce to be lawful upon trivial causes, and the Hebrews at this day hold the same doctrine. Leo of Modena says, that although a woman were to give her husband no occasion of complaint, he may put her away, if he be ever so little displeased at her.

The natural construction of the terms of the law seems to differ from all these interpretations. The words "When a man

When the above was written, it was taken for granted, that adultery was the ground of divorce; the subsequent observations, and addenda, appear to warrant a contrary conclusion.

hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her," appear to point and apply to the case of a man discovering some disease or infirmity (such as by the Levitical law was held to be unclean) in his wife, upon their coming together, which had `been concealed from him; in consequence whereof, instead of finding that favor in his eyes in which she stood when he was induced to marry her, she became an object of disgust and hatred to him; and this, added to his having been imposed upon by the concealment, was ground to consider the marriagecontract itself vitiated. It might, therefore, not be inconsistent with strict justice, to relieve the husband in such a case from his obligation, and the life of misery it must entail upon him. But the relief must be limited in point of time, as well as justified by fact. The words, "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass, that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her," plainly attribute the loss of favor to the having found some uncleanness in her. The time of the discovery must be after the marriage; it is, therefore, exclusive of the case of an espoused wife, although she was punishable by death for Adultery. The word find evidently means a personal discovery, such as the husband would make in the marriage-bed, and it would follow, that the putting away of the wife would be the immediate consequence of such discovery; to grant that liberty appears to have been the object of the law, and it is open to inference, that the provision for relief was to be availed of, at that season only; the word when points to it. It is as much as to say: if upon consummation of the marriage, the husband find some uncleanness (i. e. disease) in his wife, of which he was before unaware, which renders her an object of disgust, instead of favor to him, then let him write her a bill, &c. The word then equally pointing to the time of the discovery, as well as to the fact, not only strengthens the interpretation suggested, but is confirmatory of the conjecture, that the relief was intended to be limited to the season, as well as to the matter or circumstance, of the discovery. (See note or addenda, fo. 27. the parallel passage, noticed in which, had not been observed, when this remark was written.) It is true that the word uncleanness is used in scripture in a metaphorical, as well as a literal sense, transferring the idea of impurity from the body to the mind; and it is in one passage,' expressly used to signify adultery, and in one passage only. Still, however, the language of the law might admit of an interpretation, founded on that signification of the word; and the construction would then be, that the right of the husband to put away his wife, would arise upon his disco

15th Numb. 19.

very of her having been guilty of the crime of adultery.

The grounds in the one case and the other, are very different : in the first, the wrong lies in the concealment, which invalidates the contract; in the other, the crime is the breach or violation of the good faith of it, and the marriage vow. In the former case, the wife might be merely passive, the concealment being that of her father or her friends, who had the disposal of her, and the cause of divorce was her misfortune; in the latter, it was her fault or voluntary act of wickedness.

It was in this state of conflict of opinions, and misuse of the law, that our Saviour made his appearance as an heavenly, or inspired commentator upon the law; and his declaration differing from them all, overruled them, and set the law clear of all future doubt or question, by limiting its permission of divorce, to the single case of whatever was meant by the term fornication.

In his sermon on the mount, he first adverts to it. He then thus expresses himself: "It hath been said by them of old time, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of Divorcement."i

It may be inferred that, by the expression "it hath been said by them of old time," he was not referring to the law, but to the traditions of the Rabbins, which disfigured and misrepresented it. He goes on, "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."

It seems, that doubts have been raised on the meaning of the word fornication, some extending it to idolatry, or other great crimes; and the circumstance of the use of the word adultery, as well in this passage, as in the 19th chap. as the crime of the husband marrying another, or the person marrying the divorced wife, and the word fornication being in both passages made use of as applied to the wife, does give color to the supposition, that they were used to signify distinct species of crimes. As fornication in its confined or literal sense, when committed by a married woman, means an act of adultery, and nothing else; so, if it is made use of as applied to her, as descriptive of some crime, distinct from that of adultery, spoken of in the same sentence, it affords the inference, that it excluded the latter crime, and was intended to describe a crime or crimes of some other species, of which it was used as a figurative denomination; and it may thus correspond with the term uncleanness, in the law, each being used in a figu

'Matth. v. 31, 32.

2 The word uncleanness, or unclean, is in our translation substituted for different words in the original: it is also used to describe an involuntary pollution; and it may mean an issue of blood, such as that mentioned in Luke c. viii. v. 43, 44. or 15th. Levit.

rative sense. The word used in Deuteronomy, and translated "uncleanness," literally signifies "matter of nakedness;" in the Septuagint doxμov gayua, an indecent thing or work. But whatever was the latitude of the signification of the word fornication, it must have been descriptive of some heinous crime or crimes, or some incurable cause of unhappiness, and must have been well understood by those to whom the declaration was addressed, and the limits of the law were distinctly defined. By it, all minor causes of divorce, theretofore in practice, were excluded and put an end to.

It is clear that, as well on this occasion as on the subsequent one related in the 19th of St. Matthew, our Saviour was expounding the true meaning of the law of Moses. This is manifest from his previous declaration in his sermon, viz. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets; I come not to destroy, but to fulfil: for verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

In the 19th of St. Matthew, He is expressly called upon by the Pharisees to interpret the law.

There are strong reasons for thinking, that the term fornication in these discourses was used to signify some other offence, or cause of dissolution of the marriage-contract, than that of adultery.

1st. Because it is impossible to suppose that a husband would be allowed to fix on his wife, without trial, or evidence, the character of an adultress, rendering her an object of capital punishment, and necessarily an outcast from Society.

2nd. Because it is equally impossible to believe, that the law would allow, or sanction, the marriage of such a woman to any other man.

3rd. Because her life being forfeited by the adultery, the bond of marriage must be held to be broken, and, therefore, it would be an inconsistency for the husband to give her a bill of divorcement, which authorised her to become the wife of another man, and his taking her in marriage. The words of the law are," and when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." The bill of divorcement was neither more or less, than a deed of absolution from the first marriage, and qualification to enter into a second; it fixed no stigma of such a nature as to be a bar to a second marriage. The very terms of the law import the contrary; they suppose the cause of dislike to the first husband, might not be such to a second.

Dr. Wells, in his paraphrase, thus expresses the meaning of the passage: When a man has taken a wife, and married her,

1. Matth. v. 17.