to avail themselves of it, the introduction of the exception into those gospels, would only have tended to mislead those, whom they were intended to guide aright; and as they were strangers to the Law, the exception, had it been inserted, would to them have been purely arbitrary, nay, wholly unintelligible for without explanation, (which a reference to the Law supplies) fornication by married persons is an impossibility.

It is for this reason that St. Paul, in his epistle addressed to the heathen nations, (in which only he treats of the duties and obligations of marriage) throughout states it to be indissoluble. He does not once allude to the exception of the cause of fornication, or even make mention of divorce (see 6th and 7th Cor, and 5th Ephes. 31). It is manifest, therefore, that his construction of Christ's words must have been that of St. Mark and St. Luke. Thus have we in unison, three out of four of the Evangelists, and the great Apostle to the Gentiles, in their interpretation of our Lord's declaration; and as it is quite impossible that it should not harmonise with the true interpretation of the passages of St. Matthew, and as those passages appear to admit of no other reconciliation with the other passages and St. Paul's doctrine, than by the proposed construction of the word fornication, it seems clear to demonstration, that it must be the true one. All the circumstances supporting that construction, taken together, appear to converge, like rays of light bursting through the dense cloud, which has so long enveloped the subject and concealed the truth, and lay it open to the face of day.

Nature herself still responds to, and re-echoes the divine com mand on the creation of woman, and testifies her obedience to it in her beautiful arrangement for carrying it into effect, without confusion or disorder. She pairs the sexes, by secretly providing for and pointing out to each, by mutual attraction, a proper mate, with qualities on the one side, dovetailing, as it were, with those on the other; each supplying some want or deficiency in the other, so as to form of the two, a complete man; and with all the imperfections of our fallen state, the aptitude of the choice is visible: in all cases where the voice of Nature alone directs it, and through an union so constituted, (unstained by vice) the highest pitch of felicity, of which we are in this life capable, is alone attainable. In spite of all the obstructions of sin, and debased by it as is our nature, we still daily behold man, as he becomes adult, impelled by the irresistible force of this great law, quitting his father and mother, and cleaving to a wife, and both become one flesh; and but for the bitter infusion sin is ever pouring into it, Nature would present to the wedded pair, in her marriage cup, an unmingled draught of human happiness. It is still beyond the power of Sa

tan to rob it of all its flavor; and although the mysterious delights of the connubial state in their perfection, are alone to be found in the beautiful description by our immortal Bard, of those of our first parents in paradise-there still remains to be found, in this sacred union, the most pure and refined of human enjoyments and comforts. Nay, in such deep and indelible characters is engraven its law on the human heart-so penetrated by it is our whole frame, that vice itself cannot obliterate, however it may deface them. Not all the cruel wrongs the vile seducer heaps upon his betrayed and deserted victim, can recall her heart from the man to whom she first resigned it, with her virginity. She still loves him better than herself, and alas, too often better than her life. She became, by Nature's law, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone; and the agony of being rent asunder, is worse to her than death. Even the poor prostitute, cannot wholly expel from her heart the wicked author of all her miseries.

Thus it appears, that by the Law of Nature, the woman is united to the man with whom she first cohabits, whether the ceremony of marriage, (an human ordinance) has passed or not: they become one flesh, and that fornication or the promiscuous commerce of the sexes, any otherwise than under the bond of mutual fidelity, is no less a violation of the Law of Nature, than of the Law of God; so clearly do we recognise the same hand writing in his Word and Works. St. Paul, 1st Cor. vi. 16, carries the idea a step farther, in his argument against fornication. He says, "What, know ye not that which is joined to an harlot is one body, for two, (saith he, meaning Moses) shall be one flesh?

This is indeed a very bold figure by which to express the deep shade of the sin of fornication. He affirms the sexual conjunction of a man, even with an harlot, to be within the original law of marriage pronounced by the Creator, and that it constituted her his wife, and they became one flesh. The flesh of the man consequently contracts, or is infected with, all the impurity of the woman's; it becomes defiled, and the soul or spirit inhabiting a body so polluted, becomes disqualified for that union with the Holy Spirit, of which marriage is a type. St. Paul says, "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit, and the body is the temple of its habitation.

This is the clearest possible illustration of St. Paul's view of the indissolubility of the marriage contract.

It was the introduction of the exception into the gospel of St. Matthew, (the reason of it not having been adverted to) which has through so many ages puzzled the Christian world, and been an hotbed of inventions and conjectures of commentators to account for it. Was not that stumbling block alone the cause of the strange

appearance of the difference of opinion (at this day) among the Right Reverend Bench, and the delivery of doctrine at variance with that of the Church itself, inculcated in the marriage service? Appearances rejoiced at by her enemies, and deplored by her friends. Do not such evil consequences of the doubts of the true interpretation of so important a passage in the gospel, imperiously call for every effort for their removal?

It was the concern such a scene awakened in the mind of the writer of these remarks, which excited him to the investigation which gave rise to them. They were committed to paper as they occurred, for his own assistance and retrospection during the progress of his researches, and to keep alive his future recollections; without any thought of the publication of them. It is in compli ance with the recommendation, and in deference to the judgment of a much respected and esteemed friend, that they are offered to the public eye; with the view of provoking discussion, and stimulating some abler hand to complete that elucidation the writer has aimed at, and rescue our Holy Church from the opprobrium such a scene could not fail to cast upon it; and dispel from before the Holy Word, the cloud which human error, and the blindness of human interpreters, have raised to obscure its radiance.

But there are other, and more cogent reasons, which imperiously call for such an investigation. Parliament, which is, or ought to be, the guardian of the religion and morals, as well as of the rights of the nation, has, for a long course of years, been in the habit of passing Acts of Divorce, declaring the dissolution of marriages, on the application of individuals, on proof of the crime of adultery, and enabling the parties to marry again. If the construction resulting from these remarks is sound, can such acts be justifiable? Are they not highly criminal, as well as invalid? Are they not a direct violation and contempt of God's Law, in affecting the assumption of a power to dispense with, and release parties from its obligation? Do not they pronounce those to be put asunder whom God has joined together, and declared that man shall not put asunder? And do they not authorise, and affect to enable the parties to contract other marriages, which our Lord has in such emphatic terms forbidden, with the declaration that all who shall contract. them shall become adulterers? But not only is the act itself a defiance of the Deity, in assuming a power to set at nought his Law; but by holding out the temptation to the parties to enter into other marriages, and drawing in those with whom they are contracted, to become partners in the adulteries committed thereby; does it not accumulate, on its own head, the complicated guilt of. all those adulteries? Parliament, represents the nation, and all its enactments are national acts; and who can say that they are not

sufficient (if knowingly committed, or persisted in) to expose the nation to become the subject of the tremendous denunciation in Jeremiah: "Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord; shall not my soul be avenged of such a nation as this?

Is it fit that parties, who have, in compliance with the ritual of our Church, sworn and mutually pledged themselves to each other at the holy altar, and in God's presence," to have and to hold each to the other till death do them part," should be allowed to admit into their minds the idea of the possibility of the dissolution of such an engagement, by human authority?

After listening with deep interest and reverence, to the solemn admonition of the priest, declaring marriage to be an Holy Ordinance, instituted by God, and a type of the mystical union of Christ with his Church; after the symbolic pledge given by the passing and receiving the ring, and the junction of their hands by the priest, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and having from his lips the awful sentence, in the very words of Christ, "Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder"-What, on returning from this impressive scene, must the parties think of it, and feel, on being told, that (notwithstanding these awful admonitions and injunctions, and in the very teeth of those words, still sounding in their ears and penetrating their souls,) marriage is not indissoluble, but that its sacred bond, witnessed by God himself, and recorded in heaven, is cancellable by an earthly power, and that a release from it is purchasable by crime.

Is it not saying to them-Strong and unqualified as are the terms of your mutual oath, to adhere to each other till separated by death, Parliament can interpose between you and your Creator, and absolve you from its obligation. If you grow tired of each other, you, the wife, have only to be faithless to your husband's bed; or if you do not like that, you may feign it, and furnish (by placing yourself in highly suspicious circumstances,) presumptive evidence that you have been so; and, (as was observed by the Chancellor) it need not be so strong in the case of private persons, as that adduced against the Queen, (though many of the Peers and a large portion of the nation were not convinced by it) and the fact (if you keep your counsel,) will be taken for granted. Parliament will, on the ground of it, put you asunder, and enable each of ye to please yourselves in other marriages, without subjecting you to the charge of adultery.

Is this the wisdom, the truth, the sincerity of the doctrine of our Church-or the contrary interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, to be relied upon? May not the contradiction of the one, by

the other, shake the faith of the weak and ignorant in both, and thus the purity of the bridal robe of the Church itself, be called in question? Can the granting of such Acts (if the construction deduced be the true one) be too soon put an end to? or must we not expect the stroke of a bolt from heaven, red with uncommon wrath, as the just judgment of the Almighty, for such daring impiety, and rebellious contempt of his sacred Law?