Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

nothing of that maudlin sensitiveness which engenders scruples pernicious to the public peace, or that would render inseparable the bond of union between a state criminal and convict, and the wearer of a Crown. Viewing the question of Divorce in a public light, had the King even caused his wife to commit adultery by putting her away, still the Nation would justly and of necessity insist upon that relief in which in this supposed case the individual would undeservedly share.

[ocr errors]

If, however, trying this question by the test of Scripture, we have the authority of Scripture to shew that the King did not cause his Consort to commit adultery; what must we think of the talents or intentions of those who, in the first instance, misinterpreted, and then misapplied, as intelligible an injunction as ever issued from the lips of the Saviour of mankind? The words of our Lord

are these; "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say

unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, SAVING for the cause of forni cation, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery." The putting away here reprobated did not consist in a mere separation, buta dissolution of the vinculum matrimonii for other cause than that of fornication, by a bill of divorce, which empowered either party to marry again.

In a very able letter, addressed to Lord Kenyon during the agitation of the Queen's business, by a writer signing himself CLERICUS, I find a specimen of one of these bills, which I subjoin, as an incontestible proof that our Saviour, in his reprimand, simply alluded to the peculiar and local practices of the Jews, It runs thus:--

"Ego M

1

cognominatus M. filius

M. delib. in cogitatione animæ meæ, nemine me cogente, et dimisi et liberavi et repudiavi te tibi, te uxorem meam N- quæ fuisti uxor mea antehac, et nunc liberavi et dimisi et repudiavi, te tibi, ut sis tui juris, et domina animæ tuæ, ad abeundum, ut ducaris abs quolibet viro quem volueris. Et ecce permissa et unicuique viro, et hic esto tibi a me libellus repudii et epistola dimissoria et instrumentum libertatis juxtam legem Mosis et Israelis."

The putting away which an instrument of this kind authorised, was the only putting away which could bring down on the husband's head the guilt of his wife's adultery; and that adultery would consist in nothing short of marrying again.

Had the text not been too explicit to allow of misconstruction, who would

have had the hardihood to maintain, that our Saviour could preach a doctrine so fatal to virtue, as one which should inculcate that a separation "a thoro" a sufficient cause of, and excuse for, a wife's incontinence? The supposition is absolutely profane.

[ocr errors]

In the Sermon on the Mount, the right of putting away is distinctly recognized in the event of incontinence, and as distinctly restricted to that peculiar and solitary case; since every breaking of the vinculum matrimonii, SAVING for the cause of fornication, was contrary to the divine will. The essence of a bill of divorce among the Jews consisted in rendering the parties as free to marry again as before they met; and that, moreover, without any reason being assigned, or any cause existing for the divorce, but mutual dislike, or more wanton caprice.

This body of argument, however, I conceive to bear exclusively on the question whether, if in ORDINARY life a separation had taken place between two parties, the wife's subsequent incontinence should entitle the husband to a divorce; and I have only to point to the New Testament for an answer in the affirmative. Were the answer, however, in the negative, still its meaning and intention would by no means affect the extraordinary case of a Plaintiff that represented the interests and tranquillity of an Empire.

Thus it is evident that those who argued against the Divorce clause, not only went to work on a fatal assumption, but drew conclusions from that assumption which were not deducible from it. They assumed that the King had put away his wife, and consequently caused her to commit adultery: a reference to St. Matthew renders the fact in

« AnteriorContinuar »