the danger of committing Adultery." And so Whitby states it: "A brother or sister is not enslaved after all means of peace have been in vain attempted, and the unbeliever hath entered into another marriage, or rather hath dissolved the former by Adultery, as may well be supposed of those Heathens who thus separated from their Christian mates. An interpretation which he seems to think confirmed from the former words relating to the case of the believers; if they depart, let them remain unmarried, it not being probable, that believers would dissolve the marriage by Adultery." So far the supposition may be allowed. But what, if no such adulterous act had followed the separation? What, if merely an interruption of the ordinary intercourse of married life had been the case contemplated by the Apostle; a desertion by the one party, of the society of the other, by reason of a change of religious opinions? Surely the Apostle cannot be supposed to have regarded the bond of matrimony as dissolved on grounds like these, and that a second marriage might be resorted to. Rather, the admonition to the separated Christian wife would, in such case, be considered applicable; "If she depart, let her remain unmarried;” the former contract is not dissolved, and nc

violation of it, of a criminal character, ought to be thought of.

And yet, this case has, by some of the ecclesiastics, been contended to have clearly allowed of a second marriage. They have regarded an ingressus in religionem, as a kind of mors civilis; and, "if the husband be dead, the wife is loosed from the law of her husband." In particular, a canon (the 118th) of Egbert, Archbishop of York, anno 750, states this second marriage to be lawful. "Si vir, sive mulier ex consensu religionem ceperit, licet alterum accipere novum conjugium." This is a fearful liberty. It would have been well had the sentiment remained exclusively appropriated to the darker ages of the Church; but it has descended too far into the comment of more modern writers.

To such remarks, three answers may be given :

1. That St. Paul has himself determined the point otherwise, in verse 11; "If she even be separated, let her remain unmarried." And therefore he could not be supposed, in so short a compass, to contradict himself.

2. He must, under this supposition, be regarded as designating a yoke imposed by his own Master, a grievous bondage, dedovλæra. Far more natural is that interpretation of the

term which would apply it to a release from the marital authority, as far as that would have urged the painful necessity of following the unbeliever to his false religion. This would be dovλea, deep servitude; to be compelled to the abandonment of the ordinances of the Church, and the Christian worship of the true God. But the obligation of the marriage vow does not extend to this. A brother or sister is not thus under bondage.

3. The same liberty would extend to the divorced as to the deserted wife; (i. e. divorced for causes less than adultery ;) the former being, in many cases, equally innocent with the latter: and yet the second marriage of such divorced wife is expressly forbidden by Christ; and thus a door would be opened to the most direct perversion of Scripture, and the most pernicious consequences in married life.

This is perhaps the true meaning of the Apostle's opinion; it must be confessed it was a nice case, and involved some intricacies; yet he concludes it, as he does all his arguments and discussions, with some fervent exhortations to christian unity and peace, as if the impression he wishes to leave on the minds of his hearers were, "if it be possible, as much as lieth in you," avoid these separations and

divisions; for," what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband, or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" and, "God hath called us to peace." Bear with christian fortitude and patience the burdens of your present painful lot, trusting that at length a divine influence may rest upon your kindness, your example, and your prayers; and he whose province it is to make men to be of one mind in an house," may at last reconcile your differing sentiments, and make you one in spirit, as you already are one in lot.'

In advancing now to the opinions of the Christian Fathers, it may be remarked as not a little strange, that clear as the doctrine of their great Leader was, so many differing opinions should have prevailed respecting it.

Before, however, entering on this part of the Essay, it may be well, in order of time, to notice the statement of that remarkable and celebrated work, the Pastor of Hermas; and this, because to it may be traced, as to its most probable source, all those opinions concerning the indissolubility of marriage, afterwards with so much eagerness adopted by the Latin, and with equal determination

rejected by the Greek Church; and which, with the exception of a few temporary changes, lay floating in the Western Church, till, what has been justly termed, "the improvident orthodoxy of the Council of Trent," fixed it for ever on the acceptance of the Catholic believer* But this doctrine did not remain exclusively in the creed of Rome; it is notorious, that after the Reformation, this country adopted the whole of its marriage rites from the canon law, and constructed therefrom its marriage laws, both as to their matter and form.

It is in consequence of these circumstances, that the work of Hermas is particularly noticed. Hermas was an ecclesiastical writer of the first century, and, by some of the early writers, is stated to be the same person whom St. Paul notices at the close of the Epistle to the Romans. His work was written in Greek, shortly after that Epistle, or at least, during Domitian's persecution, which hap

• Vide Ayliffe's Parergon, p. 48.

Ayliffe, however, states his own opinion to be otherwise. Speaking of the second punishment of Adultery, a thoral separation, or a dissolution of matrimony; he says, "For the bond of matrimony may be dissolved by Adultery.”

Rom. xvi. 14.