Of this truth complete proofs are found in the few historical accounts, which have reached us, of the Turkish and Persian royal families.

These considerations, if I mistake not, amply prove, that Polygamy is unlawful, and a direct violation of the Seventh Command.

I shall now proceed to consider the proper subject of the Text. This I shall introduce under the following General Observation, as directly expressing the principal doctrine in the Text;

That Divorces, for any other cause, except Incontinence, are unlawful.

This important Scriptural Truth I shall endeavour to support by arguments, derived both from Scripture, and Reason.

From the Scriptures, I allege,

I. That Marriage is a Divine Institution; and is, therefore, unalterable by Man.

That Marriage is a Divine Institution has, I apprehend, been made abundantly evident from several parts of this passage, examined in the Discourse on the Origin of Marriage. It was there proved, if I mistake not, that God has really joined together every lawfully married pair among the children of Adam. That what God hath thus joined by his Infinite Authority, man cannot lawfully put asunder, needs no illustration. God has made the twain one. Man cannot make them twain again, unless with the evident permission of God.

It is to be observed here, that the translation exactly expresses the meaning of the original in this part of the text: Let not man put asunder. The Greek word is aveguros, without the article: the most absolute, and unlimited, expression, in that language, to denote man universally, without any respect to age, sex, or condition. The prohibition, therefore, is not, that the husband, as among the Jews, Greeks, and others; nor that a judicial tribunal, as among ourselves; nor that a legislature, as in some other Communities; may not sunder this union; but that Man, in no condition, place, or time; Man, possessed of no authority whatever; may sunder this union, without an express permission from God.

2. Iallege as a decisive argument, the Guilt, which is directly charged by Christ upon all the parties in the Divorce, and the consequent Marriages.

In the Text, Christ declares, that the man, who divorces his wife, and marries another, and the man, who marries the divorced wife, are both guilty of adultery in this transaction. The same crime, in Matth. v. 32, is charged upon the divorced woman. will not be questioned, that the woman, who marries the divorced husband, is guilty in exactly the same manner. Neither of these Marriages, therefore, can possibly take place, without involving the crime of adultery in both the married parties. Consequently, a Divorce, except for Incontinence, is here for ever barred. A

Divorce professedly sets the parties free; so that they may lawfully marry again. But it is plain from these observations, that they cannot be thus set free, and can never lawfully marry again. Whatever husbands, judges, or legislators, may think, or declare, or do; all these parties will by their subsequent Marriages become guilty of adultery. Thus Christ has pronounced; and thus He certainly will pronounce at the final day.

It is here to be remarked, that this decision of Christ was totally contrary to the views, entertained by his Apostles. This they directly declare in the following words: If the case of the man be so with his wife; it is not good to marry. Christ, however, does not qualify, nor soften, the decision at all. On the contrary, he leaves it exactly where he had left it before. All men, he replies, cannot receive this saying; save they, to whom it is given; and again; He, that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

3. St. Paul has determined the same point anew; and in the most explicit manner conceivable.

Unto the married I command; yet not I, but the Lord; Let not the wife depart: xwidenvai, be separated; that is, by a divorce; voluntarily accomplished by herself; from her husband; this being the only command, which could be addressed to the wife with any meaning. But and if she depart; Eav de xas xwgioon; But even if she be separated; that is, by means of a divorce, accomplished by him; let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife ; και ανδρα γυναικα μη αφιέναι, and I also command the husband not to put away his wife. This also is a part of the Command, given by Christ in the Text; and is quoted, not as I apprehend from the Text itself, which it is very possible St. Paul, at this time, may not have seen; but from that immediate Revelation, which this Apostle received of the Gospel from the mouth of Christ.

We have here the decision of Christ concerning this subject recited, and declared to be his decision by St. Paul; and therefore know the manner in which this command of our Saviour was un

derstood by an inspired commentator. The same precept is here given in all its latitude. A Divorce, on both sides, is absolutely prohibited; and, in case of a Divorce, the injured party, the person divorced, is forbidden expressly, and absolutely, to marry again.

The Apostle then goes on, But to the rest: that is, to those whose cases were not contemplated by the command of Christ, because they had not existed, when that command was given; But to the rest I command, not the Lord. If any Brother, that is, a Christian, hath a wife, who is an infidel, and she be well pleased to dwell with him; let him not put her away: and, if any woman, that is, any Christian woman, hath an husband, who is an infidel, and he be well pleased to dwell with her; let her not put him away.

The case here mentioned by the Apostle was a new one. While Christ was on earth, there were no Christians, who had infidel, that is heathen, husbands, or wives. For the peculiar circumstances of persons, thus situated, Christ had, therefore, made no direct, explicit provision. Doubts concerning the proper conduct of such persons, with regard to the duties of the married state, appear, evidently, to have arisen in the Church of Corinth. The great evil, felt by these Christians, concerning which they clearly appear to me to have written to St. Paul for his directions, seems to have consisted in these two things: the difficulties, to which they were subjected by their infidel husbands and wives, with respect to their attendance on the Ordinances of the Gospel; and their fears, lest their children, having one infidel parent, should, on account of this fact, be excluded from the Christian Church, and denied the Ordinance of Baptism. The latter of these evils the Apostle removes, together with the apprehensions of it, in the following verse. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. That is, the unbelieving party in the marriage-state is, by means of this connexion with the believing party, sanctified, in such a sense, that the children are not put out of the covenant, but may be offered up to God in Baptism.

The former of these difficulties the Apostle obviates in the verse, next succeeding. But if the unbelieving depart; let him depart. Ει δε απιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζεςθω. If the infidel separate himself, let him separate himself. A brother, or a sister, is not in bondage in such things. But God hath called us to peace. The Apostle, it is to be remembered, had no control over the Heathen. He says therefore, If the Infidel separate himself; let him separate himself. This is a case, over which I have no control; in which you can obtain no relief; and to which you are, therefore, bound to submit with patience and resignation. But a Brother, or Sister, is under no obligation to follow the Infidel Party; whatever may be thought concerning the extent of the marriage-vow; nor to forsake the Worship of God, or its Ordinances; nor to consent, that his or her children should be withdrawn from the privileges of religion. Such a case involves the deepest bondage; and to this bondage no Christian brother, or sister, is subjected. The Verb, here rendered is in bondage, is dedλwra; literally rendered hath been reduced to the deepest servitude. The servitude, intended by the Apostle, is, in my apprehension, unquestionably the submission of a Christian to an infidel husband, or wife, so hostile to the Christian Religion, as to refuse to continue in the marriage relation, and perform the duties involved in it, unless the Christian partner will consent to give up the privilege of the Gospel. This would, indeed, be a deplorable bondage; and

deserving of being expressed by the strong term, which St. Paul has selected.

Several very respectable Commentators, and among them Poole, Doddridge, and Macknight, have, I am aware, supposed this bondage to consist in the obligation, under which the Christian party might be imagined to lie, to continue still unmarried. I acknowl edge myself surprised at this explanation, and at the reasons, by which it is professedly supported. Dr. Macknight, after alleging that this is the Apostle's meaning, declares, that his decision is just; because there is no reason, why the innocent party, through the fault of the guilty party, should be exposed to the danger of committing adultery.

Poole says, "Such a person hath broken the bond of marriage; and Christians are not under bondage, by the laws of God, to keep themselves unmarried, on account of the perverseness of such parties to the marriage covenant."

To this opinion, and these reasons, I answer, that Christ has expressly forbidden the divorced wife, however innocent, to marry again; and has declared, that if she does marry, she will be an adulteress. Certainly, the divorced wife may be, and often is, as innocent, as the deserted wife; and in the nature of the case is as probably innocent. With equal justice, then, may it be said in this case, as in the case of the deserted wife, that there is no rea son, why the innocent party, through the foult of the guilty party, should be exposed to commit adultery.

Again. The divorced wife is more injured than the deserted wife, She is not only deprived of all the privileges, and blessings, lost by the deserted wife, but of many more. She is forced by violence from her husband, her children, and her home. She is turned out with disgrace; as a woman, with whom her husband could not continue to live; and usually with little provision, made for her subsistence. The wife, who is deserted, is on the contraгу, almost always left in the possession of her house, her children, her character, and tolerable means of subsistence for herself and her family. She may be, and most usually is, deserted for reasons, involving no disgrace to her. Her husband may have contracted an unwarrantable attachment for another object; indulged a spirit of roving, and adventure; disgraced himself by his previous conduct; or fled from some exposure to punishment for some crime, or from creditors, whom he cannot, or will not, pay. Accordingly, deserted wives are probably as generally persons of good reputation, as others of their sex. On all these accounts, the case of the divorced wife is incomparably harder, than that of the deserted wife. Can it be possible, that Christ has rescued the deserted wife from this deepest bondage; as these writers understand it; and have left the divorced wife, amid so many more, and severer, hardships, yet equally innocent, to suffer the whole extent of this thraldom?

Mr. Poole says, the deserter hath broken the bond of Marriage, and thus released the deserted party from the laws of God concerning it; so far as they require abstinence from Marriage.

I answer: The Divorcer has broken this bond still more violently; and made the infraction more complete. Of course, he has, according to this scheme, in a higher degree made it lawful for the divorced wife to marry again. This reasoning, therefore, equally with that of Dr. Macknight, makes the decision of Christ both unwise, and unjust.

Besides, this scheme renders the precept concerning Divorce entirely fruitless. The man, who wishes to divorce his wife, is by this scheme entirely released from all the trouble and expense, and generally also from the scandal, usually attendant upon this iniquitous proceeding. He cannot, indeed, free himself from the sin of deserting his wife, and all those sins which are involved in it. But he may give his wife the opportunity of marrying, innocently, another husband. When this is done; he himself may, for aught that appears, marry innocently another wife. Thus, by undergoing an absence of three years, the time here limited for this object, he may without any peculiar scandal, and without the sin of adultery, accomplish the very object, aimed at in cases of this nature by licentious men: viz. a second marriage.

Št. Paul in the mean time, has in this very chapter determined the point in question against these Commentators. Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord; Let not the wife be separated from her husband. But, even if she be separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. The word, here translated separated, is the same which is used in the 15th verse; the subject of this inquiry. Is it credible, that an inspired man should at all, or that any man of sober sense should within the compass of five sentences, give two contradictory precepts concerning any subject; especially a subject of this importance? Peculiarly it is incredible, that St. Paul, immediately after reciting a solemn command of Christ, and declaring it to be his, should subjoin a contradictory command.

To me it appears equally incredible, that an Apostle should designate the situation, in which Christ had placed an innocently divorced woman, innocently I mean, on her part, by the word JedsAura; and thus style it the deepest bondage. It is, I think, impossible, that the spirit of God should call any state produced by obedience to the commands of Christ, by the name of bondage; and still more evidently impossible, that he should denote it by a name, expressing the most suffering and disgraceful bondage. How can such an appellation consist with that phraseology, in which the whole situation of Christians is by the same Spirit styled the glorious liberty of the Sons of God? If the deserted wife is brought under this bondage, by being denied the liberty