respecting the state of the offspring. One infidel parent, it might be apprehended, (and it must be remembered that the state of religious discipline, in those primitive times, was, like all their religious opinions, of a far more simple and rigid nature, than those of after ages,) one infidel parent might occasion for its child an exclusion from the Christian Church, and render it unfit for the initiatory ordinance of baptism. But the argument of the Apostle removes this serious inconvenience, the defective religious state of the one party is to this extent remedied by the faith of the other, and the benefits of a connexion with the Christian Church, are transmitted to the offspring unimpaired.

So far the case is clear, proceeding on the supposition that the parties were desirous of the continuance of the connexion; but this supposition removed, the whole complexion of the case is changed. If the yoke, he adds, is found too irksome on such a serious consideration as this, and a separation take place, it need not be resisted. "If the unbelieving depart, let him depart ;* a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." On this important passage, the opinions of the

.*

* 1 Cor. vii. 15. Ει δε απιστος χωρίζεται, χωρίζεσθω.

Fathers and Commentators have considerably differed; as they have severally regarded the Apostle as speaking of a perpetual or a partial desertion.

The passage in question evidently supposes the believer to have endeavoured all means of securing the continuance of the union, but without effect; that the separation has been the act of the other party, who has perhaps sought to annul the contract, and entered into a new engagement. If this had actually occurred, no further resistance need be made. The brother or sister is not enslaved; the remarriage of the unbeliever is an adulterous intercourse, and would, in consequence, open to the injured party the remedial resource specially permitted by Christ. It is on this supposition, that the comments which have been made on the term," is not under bondage," ou dedouλwra, and which would apply it to a relaxation of the restraint from re-marriage, can alone be justified. Poole declares, on this passage, that "Christians are not under bondage, by the laws of God, to keep themselves unmarried on account of the perverseness of parties who have broken the marriage bond." Macknight states, that he "sees no reason why the innocent party, through the fault of the guilty, should be exposed to

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 dovλeia, 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 innof 109 of cent with the latter: and yet the second Monis 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