and abuse of recreation, if we answer the other way. But one thing I may, and will say; that the pursuit of pleasure is a crying sin of the age in which we live; and that we can much better spare some of the most fashionable amusements of the day, than we can dispense with a single help to piety and devotion, a single restraint upon morality.-Pp. 292, 293.

But our contracted space forbids us to prolong our sojourning in these delightful pages. We therefore entreat our readers to consult this truly apostolical volume for themselves, conscious that we shall be found to have delivered no partial verdict, and to be strictly within the line of severest truth, when we declare, that there is not one of the sermons, in the volume thus submitted to their favour, whence we could not have made many quotations of equal, if not of greater, merit with the extracts, which we have casually offered.

The Bishop is singularly happy in his perorations: not the least important, nor the least difficult part of this species of composition. But we have no room for further observation. We thank the learned Prelate for his labours; and we hope, for the cause of unadulterated religion, and the advancement of orthodox faith, that we may soon have an opportunity of reviewing another, and yet another of his admirable productions.

ART. II.-The Doctrine and Law of Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce: exhibiting a Theological and Practical View of the Divine Institution of Marriage; the Religious Ratification of Marriage; the Impediments which preclude and vitiate the Contract of Marriage; the Reciprocal Duties of Husbands and Wives; the Sinful and Criminal Character of Adultery; and the Difficulties which embarrass the Principle and Practice of Divorce: with an Appendix, containing an Essay on the Hellenistic and Ecclesiastical Meaning of the Word ПOPNEIA, ordinarily translated Fornication. By HECTOR DAVIES MORGAN, M.A. of Trinity College, Oxford; Minister of Castle Hedingham, Essex; Prebendary of Brecon; and Chaplain to the Right Hon. Lord Kenyon. Oxford: Parker. London: Rivingtons. 1826. 2 vols. 8vo. pp. xii. 552 & 617. Price 17. 10s.

Or this elaborate and learned work, equally creditable to the industry and the talent of its very respectable author, no incorrect judgment might be formed by a perusal only of the title-page. We utterly abominate the doctrines of phrenology; and we have little faith in the science of phisiognomy:-at the same time, we are free to confess that the mere title and appearance of a book are, to our critical eyes, in many cases, a safe criterion of its merits, and a sure indication of its principles. Who can read the title-page of Mr. Morgan's octavos, and not see at once the ample detail, the honest simplicity, the learned research, the indefatigable patience, and the pious zeal of their

author? These, however, are not the only virtues of Mr. Morgan; and we willingly testify that his learning and his zeal are tempered with a modesty and a meekness, which might disarm the severity of criticism, and are characteristic of " the wisdom which is from above."

Upon the subject of marriage, as upon most other topics which have been discussed warmly, the most contradictory hypotheses have been broached by their respective supporters. Whilst, on the one hand, it has been maintained that marriage is a sacrament, it has been insisted upon, on the other, that it is merely a civil contract; and whilst one party has zealously argued for its indissolubility under any circumstances, another sect has contended with equal zeal for the lawfulness of divorce, according to the mere fancy and caprice of the sated and fickle husband. Lawyers, canonists, and divines, have set the battle in array against each other, and the issue of the contest has displayed the ingenuity and the learning of the combatants in such multifold variety, that the theme might well be deemed exhausted, and incapable of further novelty or illustration. Yet Mr. Morgan has boldly taken the field, and struck out a new path for himself. It is the one purpose of his treatise to establish "the holiness and the indissolubility of marriage on the basis of its divine institution."

Whether adultery be malum in se, or malum prohibitum ;—whether a woman may commit adultery with the consent of her husband; or, whether either of the parties united in marriage may commit adultery, with consent of the other, for the sake of children, are questions with which our author has forborne to contaminate his pages. What is the distinction betwixt adultery occult, presumptive, interpretative, improper, single, figurative, and licit, he has wisely declined to state. Our readers will appreciate his learning and his labours on the question generally, when they learn the mass of matter, which he has collected in his inquiry; "in the prosecution of which, he first collected and weighed the several texts of Scripture, which speak of the doctrine of marriage, and proceeded to follow that doctrine through all the relics of the three first centuries, observing the diction as well as the opinions of the primitive writers, and taking advantage of the light of various learning which Selden and other authors have thrown upon the question." The Commentaries of Blackstone, the Parliamentary Debates, the Term Reports, and many other sources of legal information, which we cannot particularize, have been consulted with laudable diligence. Mr. Morgan has written eloquently, and with feelings at once of piety and zeal in all that he has said respecting the turpitude of adultery, and the mutual obligations of husbands and wives: and he has fixed the divine institution of marriage upon a basis as firm as adamant; and his illustration of the doctrine of divorce will entitle him to the first rank amongst those who have discussed the same interesting points.

The palpable disagreement between the ecclesiastical and municipal laws, in respect of the nuptial contract, is forcibly painted: and how the objections of Unitarians and Free-thinking Christians may be most easily satisfied, is a topic, upon which our author has manifested no common address and discretion. We feel, however, that Mr. Morgan had better be permitted to speak in propriâ personâ, as to the object of his valuable labours.

When there is such discrepancy between the ecclesiastical and municipal laws pervading the whole doctrine and law of marriage, it is not unnatural that the minds of men should be in doubt and perplexity on one of the most vital questions of moral duty: and for the correction of the disorder which prevails on the principle and rule of matrimony, and in the absence of more comprehensive treatises, it is proposed to collect, from the Scriptures, from the writings of primitive antiquity, and from the various authorities which throw light on the subject, a theological and practical view of the divine institution of marriage, of the religious ratification of marriage, of the impediments which preclude and vitiate the contract of marriage, of the reciprocal duties of husbands and wives, of the sinful and criminal character of adultery, and of the difficulties which embarrass the principle and practice of divorce. In this inquiry into the true doctrine of matrimony, it will be attempted to ascertain how far the tenets of the Church are true and worthy to be maintained, and in what respects the provisions of the Law are in need of revision. The appeal is confidently made to the authority of the Scriptures, on which the doctrine of the Church is founded, and with which the laws which regulate the social institutions of a Christian state ought in all things to correspond. The following passage of the Gospel of Saint Matthew compared with the parallel narrative of Saint Mark, comprehends the Christian doctrine and law of marriage, and is the basis of the proposed investigation.— Vol. I. pp. 16, 17.

We particularly beg our readers to consult the passage of the Evangelist (Matt. xix. 3—12), to which Mr. Morgan refers; for it is the main hinge upon which he has made his argument to turn with regard to the absolute indissolubility of the nuptial bond under any circumstances whatever. We confess ourselves unprepared to draw that inference from the passage just alluded to; and we are inclined to think that the question, with which the Pharisees tempted our blessed Redeemer, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for EVERY CAUSE?" is the proper key to unlock his reply; or, to write plainly, that the meaning of our Lord's answer must be gathered from the nature of the question put to him. "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife FOR EVERY CAUSE ?" To understand this query, we must remember the facility of divorce claimed by the Jews, among whom, besides incontinence and adultery, ugliness, or old age, or ill humour, in a wife, or mere caprice or distaste, with or without reason, in the husband, were deemed sufficient grounds for giving a bill of divorce.* The lawfulness of this dangerous laxity, is the point inquired after by the Pharisees; and to that point we would confine

*Selden de Uxore Hebr. lib. iii. c. 7.

the reply of our Lord in the negative, which he gave to their question; by which he restricts the lawfulness of divorce to the single case of adultery, in accordance with the interpretation of the Mosaic ȧoxñμov прãуμа, by Rabbi Shammai and his followers, and in opposition to the tenets of Hillel, and his licentious partisans. We contend with the same earnestness, would we could contend with the same talent! as Mr. Morgan, that marriage is not merely a civil contract, but one of divine institution; yet we hesitate to draw the indissolubility of that contract, from the circumstance of its divine institution; and we are of opinion, that the very fact of its being a CONTRACT, with mutual stipulations, implies that such bond may be void when those stipulations are disregarded. Marriage was instituted by God. Very true: does it thence follow that it is incapable of being dissolved? We think not. "Concubitu prohibere vago, dare jura maritis," is wisely ranked amongst the most salutary attempts of political sages; and though the multifold mischiefs of polygamy might have taught mankind the folly of such debasing practices, it needed the purifying power of Christianity to establish the rite of marriage on its proper principles, and to enforce a purer system, whereby to regulate the intercourse between the sexes. Arbitrary divorce, and libidinous polygamy, are alike destructive of conjugal love, and opposed to the great end for which the Almighty united the primeval pair in the meet alliance of holy wedlock. Still we contend that marriage,

though a religious, is also a civil contract, "regulated and prescribed by law," according to the judgment of Sir William Scott, in Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, “ and endowed with civil consequences;" and whilst we express our unqualified reprobation of the maxim, that marriage is a merely civil contract, and nothing more, we see no reason to deny that it is, in some respects, a civil contract, and we confess ourselves unable to assent to Mr. Morgan's doctrine, when he tells us, that “ no restriction can be properly laid upon a divine institution without the authority of a divine revelation."- Vol. I. p. 67. The nuptial contract, first appointed by God, and then enforced and regulated by human laws, differs undoubtedly from other contracts; for it is not, like them, dependent upon the will of the parties for its endurance, and "its rights and consequences are more lasting, more general, and more important;" and we marvel greatly at the strange judgment which Paley has given upon this important question. (Mor. Philos. Book III. chap. 7.) But we are unable to assign any reason why the marriage contract should be exempt from the control of human legislation, with the proviso, that such interference shall not be in opposition to the revealed will of the Most High.

It is more than time, however, that we introduce our readers to Mr. Morgan himself, by a partial analysis of his able volumes; partial

it must necessarily be in our limited space. The work is divided into eight chapters; and these are subdivided into sections. The first chapter-(the different doctrines of the Church and of the law of England having been powerfully illustrated in the Introduction)treats upon the divine institution of marriage; of which we forbear to say more, than that we thank Mr. Morgan for his valuable statement; and we proceed to the second chapter, which treats of the religious ratification of marriage, in two sections; the first of which explains "the expedience and antiquity" of the religious ratification, whilst the second shows how it has ever been so ratified " in England.”

The first condition (of marriage) is the mutual agreement, contract, or espousals of the parties; and to this agreement must be added such a ratification as shall render the agreement irrevocable and the contract indissoluble; and the interest of the parties, the interest of the offspring, the interest of their kindred, the interest of society, all agree in requiring that the consent shall be pledged under such circumstances, that the obligation shall not be retracted. A private engagement of the parties upon arbitrary terms, which they themselves shall settle and interpret, and which they shall be at liberty to alter or rescind, is not sufficient to constitute a marriage contemplated by the light of Scripture, which insists upon the permanence of the conjugal union, and authorizes the inference of the necessity of a public ratification, in the presence of witnesses who may certify the terms of the consent, and by their testimony enforce the fulfilment of the obligation. The publicity of marriage does not infringe the simplicity of the primary institution.—Vol. I. p. 73.

Waving our opinion touching the absolute indissolubility of the nuptial bond, we agree perfectly with Mr. Morgan, upon the propriety and the necessity of the public solemnization of the marriage rite, for we are persuaded that clandestinity is, above all things, to be deprecated, and that the well-being of the community, as well as the interests of the parties, imperiously demand the most public ratification of this important alliance. Considering, moreover, the divine institution of marriage, and the sanctity with which it is invested in Holy Writ, and the reverence generally attached to it in the feelings and opinions of men; we advocate the propriety and expedience of its religious ratification, and we shall think ourselves indeed fallen upon evil times, should the sacerdotal benediction, in deference to the clamour of atheistical republicans, or in compliment to the charitable designs of freethinking Dissenters, be again, as in the days of Cromwell, severed from the ratification of marriage. We thank God, that its religious ratification is now by law necessary; and the man, who would form a contract, by which he becomes, as it were, amalgamated with the partner of his bed, and corporally consubstantive with her, without supplicating the blessing of the Almighty, has a fond confidence in his own strength, or a very imperfect notion of the duties, the dangers, the difficulties, the anxieties, the responsibilities, and the chances of a union, which only death, he hopes, may dissolve. What the law was, we are neither