the reafon of that Divine Law, which punished Adultery with death, has ceafed; and of course, under a new and more perfect difpenfation, its obligation alfo. It appears to me, particularly defigned, to prevent the corruption and uncertainty of the iffues of the feveral diftinct tribes and families, and above all, to render certain the descent and genealogy of the Meffiah; and in order to effect this, fo very material to that more rational system God had in view, no law could be too fevere. In the year of the Christian æra, 1650, adultery was made a capital offence in this kingdom; but what was the motive? I have by me a great authority which informs me, that “when "the ruling powers found it for their intereft to put on the semblance of a very extraordinary strictness and purity of morals, not only inceft and wilful adultery were made capital crimes; but also "the repeated act of keeping a brothel, or committing fornication, were, upon a "fecond conviction, made felony without "benefit of * clergy." And I have it from

Blackftone's Comment. B. IV. Ch. 4.

the

the fame authority, that there was at the Restoration an abhorrence of this hypocrify, and confequently the aforefaid rigorous law was not renewed.

NOTWITHSTANDING much depended upon the prevention of adultery among the Jews, much more than ever can again; yet, even in contemplation of their law, it was not the most malignant of crimes; which I attempt to prove thus: The Jews, in antient times, had four forts of capital punishment, ftoning, burning, beheading, and ftrangling. I have mentioned them in their order of magnitude, according to the Jewish notion; therefore strangling is the easiest of all, at least fo accounted. Now when the law only mentioned death as the punishment, by a favourable exposition, it was understood always to mean this last fort ;---Omnis mors quæ abfolutè in lege ufurpatur, ftrangulatio eft.---R. Solomen. Exod. xxi. 16. Then this is the death of an adulterer. Lev. xx. 10. Therefore adultery does not appear to be the greatest of crimes, even under the dispensation of Mofes. I am confcious, that in after

D 3

after times, when many mifreprefentations of the law prevailed through the ignorance or defign of the then rulers, adultery was fometimes punished by ftoning; for which reafon I pay no attention to the fuggestions of those men, who brought the woman taken in adultery, before our Saviour, that, agreeable to the law of Mofes, fhe fhould be ftoned. As that was not carried into exècution, we may conclude, that in a just estimate of things, exclufive of the peculiar circumftances of the Jews, it did not deferve that punishment; but that he was entirely pardoned, upon condition of finning no more in that way, we must attribute to the forgiving temper of the Lord of Life.

THE law in this cafe, at present in force, as it ftands in our books, is, that the injured husband may bring an action for damages indeed, our code confiders it but as a private wrong, (except in fome few inftances refpecting the royal family) a wrong done to the hufband, and fo gives him damages. The Ecclefiaftical Court also takes cognizance of the crime of adultery, but

the

may

the punishment is only penance, which be commuted for a sum of money. It is much to be wished, that this fum was a large one, that it might operate in the nature of a heavy fine, and not appear fo very like a Romish indulgence.

As

WHETHER or no it is expedient to punish adultery with greater severity than our statute law directs, whether that law ought to confider marriage in any other light than a civil contract, and whether the holiness of the marriage state is properly left to the Ecclefiaftical Court ;--are questions of importance, and deserve the attention of statesmen. to myself, I should vote but very little alteration in our system, except what I have before hinted; to which I humbly beg leave to add, that as I conceive adultery to diffolve the marriage-obligation to all intents and purposes, I would recommend a power to be vested in the Ecclefiaftical Court, upon due proof in that cafe, of pronouncing a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from that time,-not ab initio and alfo leave to the parties to marry again. As to the objection of its beD 4

ing

wrong,

ing left out of the number of our capital punishments, and confidered only as a private I look upon that as trifling; because I can fee no impropriety in fuch a proceeding. But enough of this :-we will proceed now to confider it in another point of view,

MADAN, inceffantly attempting to accommodate Scripture to his own system, says, "Ifin reading the Hebrew Bible, we restrain the word 8-adultery-to the married "woman only, and to the man who defiles her, we do not leave the man, who, having one wife, takes another, out of its * reach?" In answer to which, I fay, the idea is too confined, irrational, inconsistent, and unscriptural; for adultery is "a crime comImitted by married perfons, against the faith pledged to each other in marriage, by having carnal commerce with fome other; "or even by a perfon not married, who has the fame intercourfe with another that is." Chambers's Dict. Dr. Rees's Edit. Tit. Adultery. This is a true and scriptural definition, as will appear by confidering fome of the fpecies of adultery.

66

Vol. I. Page 69.