A TREATISE
ON THE
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
HUGH DAVEY EVANS, LL. D.
WITH A
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR,
AND AN APPENDIX CONTAINING BISHOP ANDREWES' " DISCOURSE
AGAINST SECOND MARRIAGE1" ETC., NOW PRINTED
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS COUNTRY.
NEW YORK:
BY HURD AND
eCambnrt'oe: Ufberofoe Dress.
1870.
I
BY
PUBLISHED
HOUGHTON. 
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1870, by
HURD AND HOUGHTON,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
RIVERSIDP, OAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED BY H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.
i
~ I
I iI i 
PREFACE.
Tis work is published in accordance with the express desire of its learned author, who died lamented
and beloved in the city of Baltimore, on the 16th of
July, 1868, at the good old age of seventy-six.
"It is divided," to use his own words in a letter
written a few months before his death, "into fifteen
chapters, of which the first two are introductory and
the last supplementary. The first chapter treats of the
relations between law, public opinion, and conscience,
asserting the supremacy of the Divine over all human
law. The second treats of the relation between the
sexes, which is maintained to be that of complements
to each other, by which they are fitted to be companions to each other.   This is proved  and its ethical
consequences enforced by an examination of the moral
and intellectual peculiarities of the two sexes.
"The next ten chapters treat strictly of the Christian
Doctrine of Marriage.  They teach that marriage is
not only a civil contract, but also a Divine institution,
the essence of which is the indissoluble union of one
man to one woman. To the formation of this union,
two things are necessary- the consent of the parties,
and the blessing of God. The consent must be to
live together in the Holy State of Matrimony according to God's Ordinance. When this consent and the
Divine. blessing concur, they produce a mysterious
356308
In
,y
4
I 
PREFACE.
unity between the parties and a mysterious sanctity
in their union.   From this unity and sanctity follow
three practical consequences, involving three moral
obligations, which, while they can be logically deduced
from the nature of marriage, are also plainly laid down
in the Holy Scriptures. They are the exclusiveness
of marriage as opposed to polygamy, its indissolubleness as opposed to divorce, and the obedience of the
wife to the husband.
"With respect to the rule of indissolubleness, it is
admitted that there is one  exception made  by our
blessed Saviour Himself. It is the adultery of the
wife. Except in that case, all separation of married
persons is forbidden and prima facie sinful, so that it
can only be excused by an overwhelming necessity.
When a legitimate divorce takes place in the excepted
case, both parties are held to be absolutely at liberty,
and may marry.
"The thirteenth and fourteenth chapters relate to
impediments to marriage   that is, to facts which will
render void an actual formal marriage.   These may
be all resolved into a want of consent. The want
may be of three kinds. No actual consent may have
been given, though an apparent one was obtained by
force or fraud. The consent may have been void for
want of intellectual capacity by reason of nonage or
unsound mind. It may have been void for want of
moral capacity to consent, in the case of a person
already married, or where the persons are so connected
as to render their union incestuous. The eighteenth
chapter of Leviticus is adopted as the law to determine what is incest.  The case of marriage with the
sister of a deceased wife is discussed, and such mar
iv
or
if
i 
PREFACE.
riages pronounced incestuous; not, however, on the
authority of the eighteenth verse, which is regarded as
a prohibition of polygamy. The authority relied on is
the sixteenth verse, combined with the obvious principle, that what is prohibited to one sex is prohibited to
the other. The supplementary chapter relates to the
choice of a partner."
The necessity of a work of this description had long
been present to the mind of Dr. Evans. Men called
to the responsible office of legislating for the well-being of society in the different States of the Republic,
seemed scarcely to dream that there was any Christian
doctrine of marriage at all, or to acknowledge its binrding force; while, on the other hand, Christians of all
persuasions allowed themselves to accept these loose
laws - framed without any reference to the Bible -  as
their guide in forming and dissolving marriage ties.
These facts being so notorious, and the results already
reached so disastrous, Dr. Evans thought that a calm
and patient investigation of the subject, such as his
reading and his legal experience would enable him
to make, might be of use not only to his fellowchurchmen, but also to his countrymen generally.
Though written from the stand-point of the Protestant
Episcopal Church (and the author could write from no
other point of view on such a theme), there is yet
nothing in this treatise to render it unacceptable to
any candid Christian who is willing to accept the
Bible as a Divine rule of life and conduct.
In strongly condemning the laxity of American legislation on marriage, the author is, of course, far from
maintaining that human law should attempt to cover
~
I
II
I 
PREFACE.
the whole field of Christian morality. "This," in
the language of Mr. Liddon, " has been from time to
time the dream, the aspiration, of noble souls, longing
to heighten the functions of law, and to give forcible
expression to the obligations of morality; longing, for
their country's sake, to make civic virtue, as nearly as
might be, a convertible term for absolute virtue, and
to see the good man, without further doubt or inquiry,
in the good citizen. It is to the honor of Puritanism
that, in its earlier days, when it was morally and intellectually stronger than it is now, it cherished this aspiration with a self-denying fervor. And if the legal
annals of the New England Colonies provoke the indignation or the amusement of the modern historian,
this should not prevent our doing justice to a sincere,
albeit a mistaken effort, to identify absolutely the interests of religious morality with those of law. Such
an effort, indeed, was only possible in a small community; and it has left, we may fear, the almost inevitable legacy of a reaction against the moral ideas which
prompted it; a reaction which has not yet died out." 1
Few will deny that our country is now suffering
from this reaction, nor will any thoughtful person fail to
sympathize with the desire of Dr. Evans to excite in the
public mind that high appreciation of the sacredness of
marriage which pervades every page of this treatise.
Moreover, as Mr. Liddon also points out, "every human
code must aim at enforcing more or less perfectly the
Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Commandments, if it is to
1 Christ and Huzman Law. A sermon preached before the University of
Oxford. Second edition, with a Note on Divorce. London: 1869, pp. 13, 14.
The reader who desires to see a very forcible statement of one of the views
which Dr. Evans opposes lucidly presented in the compass of a few pages,
will find precisely what he wants in this sermon of Mr. Liddon.
0
vi 
do its work of protecting society against dissolution;"
and civil laws concerning marriage and divorce, since
they touch the very foundation of society, ought, even
on the very lowest ground of expediency, to conformn
as far as possible to the rule laid down by our blessed
Lord in the gospel.
That rule itself, the reader needs not to be reminded,
has been the subject of grave dispute, and one of the
most remarkable parts of this volume is the authlor's
discussion of the well-known difficult texts in the New
Testament on divorce. It cannot be disguised that one
of the conclusions at which he arrives, which has been
already stated in his own language, will cause surprise
and regret to many (including some of his dearest
friends), who will highly approve the rest of the book.
Indeed, it has even been feared that positive harm
might result from the publication of the author's argument, since he advocates an interpretation which differs, as he acknowledges, from that of some of the highest authorities on this question. Such fears are, of
course, groundless if the author's conclusions be true,
and it is very certain that a full, honest discussion of
the matter, in all its bearings, is indispensable if Holy
Matrimony is to be restored to its proper place in our
theory and practice.  There are many indications that
the attention of the public is at last aroused, and it seems
to be just the time for a thorough investigation of the
whole subject of the Christian Doctrine of Marriage.
An  elaborate, reverent inquiry therefore, by a distinguished lawyer and theologian, who was ever more
anxious "to be on the side of truth than to have truth
on his side," cannot but be a valuable contribution to
the literature of the question, and an aid to those who
VII
PREFACE. 
PREFACE.
may be called upon to legislate on the matter whether
in Church or State. As to the other chapters of the
volume, no serious difference of opinion is likely to
arise, and those to whom the memory of the venerable
author is dear will greet with pleasure the appearance
of this his last and favorite work, in which they will
find further illustration of his fearless, yet reverent,
pursuit of truth, and which will enable them to examine in detail his reasons for a position to which he had
already, in other publications, given the sanction of his
name.1
The editor has taken pains to present the ipsissima
verba of the author's MS., with the exception of a few
manifest slips of the pen. He is responsible also for
the indexes, and for the biographical sketch, which he
hopes will prove acceptable not only to the friends of
Dr. Evans, but also to others into whose hands the
work may fall.
For kind assistance in the correction of the press,
his special thanks are due to his friend and Dr. Evans's
friend, the Rev. Joseph H. Coit, M. A., of St. Paul's
School.
Requesting the reader to remember that this book
had not the benefit of those finishing touches which
an author can give as his work passes through the
press, it is now submitted to the candid judgment of
the public as a memorial of the learning and piety of a
man who has left a name that will not soon be forgotten.                                HALL HARRISON.
ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL, CONCORD, N. H.,
March 22d, 1870.
1 See further on this subject in the Appendix to this volume.
viii 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF TiHE AUJTiOR.'1
I.
"I WAS born in the city, then town, of Baltimore, on
the 26th day of April, 1792. My father, whom I never
knew, was a merchant in a small way, and unfortunate in
business. His name was Joseph Evans; he was a native
of Wilmington, Delaware, of Welsh extraction through his
father, and English through his mother.   His paternal
great-grandfather came over with William Penn, and settled, under grants from him, in what is now Cecil County,
Maryland, where his descendants were long respectable.
The family in the male line is, I believe, except for me extinct.
"My grandfather, George Evans, was a deacon among
the Baptists.  His wife, my grandmother, was a Quakeress.
Her name was Rachel Gilpin. She could trace her descent from a brother of BERNARD GILPIN, the'Apostle
of the North,' and one of her lineal ancestors was an
officer under Cromwell at Worcester.
"My mother was a native of Philadelphia, and was descended from all the nations which inhabit Great Britain
1 Abridged from a book recently published by the editor, entitled:
Hugh Davey Evans, LL. D. A Memoir, founded upon Recollections written
by himself.  Hartford: Church Press Co.  The opening paragraphs of the
Recollections, which were condensed in the Memoir, are here given at
length, and one or two other passages from them have been added. The
Recollections were drawn up in 1862. Dr. Evans presented an autograph
copy to a dear friend of himself and the editor. These extracts are made
from that copy, by permission of that friend, to whom the editor tenders
his grateful acknowledgments. 
X     BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
and Ireland, except, perhaps, the Scotch Highlanders. Her
maiden name was Elizabeth Wilcox Davey. Her father,
Hugh Davey, after whom I was called, was a native of
Londonderry in Ireland. He was originally a Presbyte rian, and educated for the ministry, but became a merchant
and settled in Philadelphia. He died in the communion
of the Church, but I imagine, without embracing Church
principles. His wife, my grandmother, was a native of
Philadelphia, but her mother was a Londoner.1 It is only
through these ladies that I have any hereditary claim to be
a Churchman, and it was through them that my traditionary
religious teaching was derived. It was consequently some what tinged with that Puritanism which has always been
connected with London Churchmanship.
"In consequence of my father's connection with the
Baptists, I was not baptized until I was about three years
old. The sacrament was administered by the Rev. Joseph
G. J. Bend, the rector of St. Paul's Parish, Baltimore, in
the church building which was the immediate predecessor
of that which was burned a few years ago. In the same
building I was catechised, worshipped for many years, and
was confirmed. I received the sacred rite at the hands of
Bishop Claggett in 1809, having just completed my seventeenth year. My Confirmation was by my own entirely
free choice, but I doubt whether that choice was the con  1 "Having mentioned my great-grandmother I am tempted to say
something of her husband. His name was Alexander Woodsop. He was
born towards the close of the reign of Charles I., or perhaps a little later.
on the frontier of either New York or Connecticut. While an infant, his
father, working in his field, was surprised by the Indians. He returned to
his house. hopelessly wounded, and supporting his bowels in his hands,
and told his wife to save herself and leave him to die. She caught up the
child, fled, and begged her way to the city of New York. How she lived
there I know not, but she soon married a sea captain, who brought up her
child to his own profession. The youth profited by his instructions and
at one time commanded a ship out of the port of London, where he met
with his wife. The family tradition is that his life was full of vicissitudes:
that he was three times a beggar and three times very rich. He died in
the latter condition at Philadelphia in 1743." 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
sequence of any very profound religious feeling. The idea
of immediate Conmmunion was not brought before me, and
if it had, I suspect it would have-prevented my Confirmation. I did not become a communicant until about ten
years later.
"' My earliest instruction, of all sorts, I received from my
mother, who was a woman of a strong but uncultivated mind.
I could read so early that I cannot remember when books
were not my chief pleasure. Before I was eight years old,
I read books written for men,,and had acquired a stock of
general information very unusual at that age. The first
man's book which I read was an anonymous translation
of Livy, to which I was attracted by having met in a school
book with the story of the Horatii and Curiatii.
" This gave me a taste for history which has never left
me, and has had much to do with the formation of my intellectual character. In what is called school-learning, I
had studied English grammar very well for my age and
had learned a very little geography, but had gone no
further.
"The religious instruction which I had received was
sound but defective, and was, as I have said, somewhat
tinctured by Puritanism, though it did not include the selfconfidence and insubordination which are among the worst
portions of that system...  It was very much the
same with the affirmative teaching of our Low Church
brethren, but included no negations, though many things
were omitted. But after all the Church Catechism was
its basis.
"My moral education was a great deal better, the virtues of truth, fidelity, and integrity were impressed upon
me by constant precept and example. Submission to authority I was taught by a kind, but strict discipline. Frugality I learned from necessity. I have now completed
my seventieth year, and have never been in other than
very narrow circumstances.   My mother was poor, and I
xi 
xii   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
was made aware of the fact at a very early age. In that
and other matters I was her confidant, while I was still
only a child.
"At eight years old I went, for the first time, to school.
The expense of my education was defrayed by my mother's
brother, Alexander W. Davey, so long as he lived, which
was until March, 1803. I was first sent to what was really
a girls' school, although a very few little boys were admitted. I was sent there that I might be taught to write, a
thing which no one has yet been able to do for me. I remained at this school only two months, and I believe
learned nothing.   This was in the spring of 1800.  In
the fall of the same year, having spent the intervening time
in the country, I was put to school to Mr. Samuel Brown,
who kept one of the two best boys' schools in Baltimore.
I remained with him until I had received all the school
education which it was the will of Providence that I should
receive, with the exception of one interval of a few weeks.
"This time was spent in a country school, to which I
was sent in the summer of 1803, with the vain hope that
I might be taught to write. The master proposed to teach
nothing but spelling, reading, writing, and arithmetic.
The two first I understood as well or better than he did.
The third I seem to have been incapable of learning,
partly, I believe, from physical defects, and partly from an
early bad habit of seeking to do everything too fast. No
doubt the master knew much more of arithmetic than I
did, but he did not attempt to teach me anything of it
which I did not know. On the whole, the result was
that I learned nothing.   In the fall I returned to Mr.
Brown, and remained with him until July, 1805, when, at
the age of thirteen, I was withdrawn on account of the
state of my health. I never went to any school or college
afterwards, except attending to take lessons from several
celebrated writing masters at different times, who all failed
to teach me their art. When I left Mr. Brown I was read 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.   xiii
ing the Epistles of Horace and the Orations of Cicero, and
had read a good deal of Latin. In consequence of what
I now think very injudicious advice, I did not begin Greek
with my classmates, and taking it up alone many months
after them, I was not diligent for want of competition.
Moreover, I think it was at a time when my mind had been
much drawn off from study to play, by my having formed
new intimacies with boys who were not studious, and who
did not learn the languages.  These circumstances may
perhaps account for what would be otherwise strange,
that I never took any interest in Greek.   I never got
through the grammnar, and soon forgot the alphabet. This
defect in my education has been in after life a great disadvantage, and a subject of no little regret. The instruction which I received in Latin was very superficial, but
what I was taught I learned thoroughly. It was a great
surprise to me to find that after a disuse of thirty years, I
could still read Latin, although, of course, not easily.
" In April, 1806, my mother opened a small dry-goods
store, which, like everything in which my pecuniary interests have been involved, proved unsuccessful.   I was
her only assistant [then 14 years of age]. In February,
1810, I commenced the study of the law, under the direction of the late Judge Heath, then a very young practitioner. But during the whole of my studentship, and
even after I had begun to practice, I occasionally assisted
in the shop. In the spring of 1813 my legal studies were
interrupted by a failure of my health.  My mother re-.
moved to Martinsburg, Virginia, where wie lived about
twenty-two months. This was the only part of my life during which I was not a resident of Baltimore. On the
19th of April, 1815, I was admitted to practice law, and I
followed the profession with very indifferent success until
June, 1856.
"This want of success was the more remarkable, because I always had among my brethren the reputation of
li 
xiv   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
being a learned lawyer. But in the earlier part of my
career I could not speak. I was never an adroit man of
business. I had not that general acquaintance in the city
which is so great an assistance in both getting and doing
business, nor had I that sort of knowledge of human nature, which makes a man skillful in cross-examination. I
am inclined to think that the public were right and that I
was, although a pretty good lawyer, inefficient both as an
advocate and an agent." 1
It is very certain, both from the modest expressions in
these "Recollections" as well as from the universal testimony of those who knew him, that he was always an unusually upright, good boy, particularly remarkable for his obedience and devotion to his mother. None but those who
were privileged to be his intimate friends can form an
adequate conception of his integrity and spotless character
as he grew up to manhood.  The "Recollections " continue
as follows:  "During my boyhood, I was for the most part religiously
disposed, although there were intervals in which I was not
so. I have said that at my Confirmation the idea of immediate Communion was not presented to me, and I do
not remember that I ever thought of it. I was soon engaged in the study of the law, and fell in with young men
who had no religious impressions; their influence was very
unfortunate. I never became what the world calls an inmlmoral youth, but this period of my life is stained with
many great sins, chiefly of the heart and tongue.
"In 1819, it pleased God to call me to reflection, by the
death of a family connection. I then became a communicant, and, although unworthy, have been a regular one ever
since. One consequence of this change was that I studied
Hooker, and imbibed from him what are called High
Church principles; though I was not for some years so
decided upon the doctrines of the Holy Communion and
1 MS. Recollections, pp. 1-6.
Il 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
the Apostolic Succession as I now am. I learned these
doctrines from Bishop Seabury's "Sermons," 1 a copy of
which I bought at the sale of Bishop Kemp's books, in
1829. I read them immediately, and adopted all the doctrines taught in them which I had not previously held."
II.
"Haud facile emergunt quorum virtutibus obstant
Res anguste domi."
No one had ever more reason to feel the truth of
Juvenal's words than Hugh Davey Evans. His father's
death left his widowed mother to struggle against the privations which poverty entails, and almost. all the ordinary
opportunities which surround even a poor boy now, were
denied to him. How then did he become so learned and
useful as a man, who as a boy had so many obstacles to
surmount?  We will reply in his own words: —
"It is perhaps proper to say something, in this place, of
the formation of my intellectual character. My school
training, as I have already said, was confined to Latin. In
Greek I failed, and in Mathematics, beyond a little arithmetic, I was never tried. But before I left school, and indeed before I went there, I had become very fond of books,
and have always continued so. For science I never had
any taste and I read no language but English. But English books, not scientific, I read greedily and rapidly, chiefly
history and voyages and travels.
"The Baltimore Library was the source from which I
drew the books, which I devoured. It was a joint-stock
institution in which my uncle had left me a share. The
librarian was the Abbe de Persigny, a French emigrant,
with whom I believe I was rather a favorite. When I was
about twelve years old I asked my mother what History of
1 [May we be permitted to repeat the hope, which we have heard Dr.
Evans express, that Dr. Seabury will give the Church a new edition of his
grandfather's Sermons -- H.]
xv 
x2vi BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
England I might read. She told me to ask M. de Persigny, in her name, to recommend one. When I delivered
the message he was conversing with Dr. Bend, who was
not only our parish clergyman, but an intimate friend of
my mother.   The librarian referred to him; he suggested
Hume. The answer was a French shrug and the remark
' He is your parishioner, not mine.''You may trust him,'
said Dr. Bend. I did not understand the precise difficulty,
but I was not a little proud that I was thought trustworthy.
"My reading in works of fiction was in boyhood restrained by authority and very limited. As I approached
manhood the restraints were released and I became a
great reader of such things. There are none of long continued reputation in our language which I have not read.
The number of those of no value which I have also read,
is very great. I was in the strictest sense of the word a
desultory reader, for I read without guide or plan, but unlike most other desultory readers I read very attentively,
and had the habit of observing closely and gathering up
things which were introduced incidentally, without strictly
belonging to the main scope of the work. In this way I
acquired a tolerably extensive though superficial acquaintance with old-fashioned English literature.   American
literature could hardly be said to exist in my youth.   I
also picked up a considerable amount of what may be
called general information, and a pretty good knowledge
of history. Polemical theology had been a prohibited subject during my years of pupilage, and I never, until it became my duty, read much of it; but of sermons, and what
may be called practical theology, I always read much, and
thus learned more of theology than is usually known by
laymen.
"My professional studies were very differently conducted.   I read very little and  thought much  on the
subject. As I had not much practice, I had not the op 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.   xvii
portunity of learning much by the examination of particular questions, which is the way in which lawyers generally acquire most of their professional knowledge. The
consequence was that my learning was far less extensive
and minute than that of many others. But it was more
profound, and rested more upon principles. This was another great impediment in the way of my professional success. The best possible argunient from principles weighs
less with a jury than an authority decided by a respectable
court. This is in the main right, although I think that it
is carried too far.
"My mode of studying law strengthened my reasoning
faculty, and my mode of reading on other subjects my
memory, while my imagination, which was naturally the
weakest of the three, was left to starve. My memory was
much aided by another circumstance connected with my
mode of study. I never took notes. This plan was designed in part to produce that very effect; in fact, it was
fallen into because I wrote badly and with difficulty, - perhaps mere laziness had a good deal to do with it; a further
reason was my doing everything in as little time as possible. This habit was connected with, but did not entirely
grow out of, a sense of the value of time. I took very few
notes even in the trial of causes. This I found often inconvenient, as I had nothing to show in case of dispute. I
find, too, that in writing I am at a disadvantage for want
of reference to authorities. I know the fact or the quotation, but not where to find it. I may mention in this connection a curious fact: it is that, as I grow older, I am
more apt to quote, and seem thus to have developed a
familiarity with Shakespeare, for instance, which I took no
pains to acquire, and did not imagine myself to possess.
"Having mentioned my sense of the value of time, I
may as well speak of the habit of carelessness in dress,
amounting to slovenliness, by which I was distinguished in
early life, and of which strong traces still remain. The
b 
xviii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
two things were undoubtedly connected, for I valued time
chiefly because it might be employed in reading. The
same feeling was one of the causes of the awkwardness
which has prevented my learning to do the snmall duties of
life properly, though the peculiarity of my vision- my two
eyes having different focuses,- and my great nervousness
have, no doubt, been cooperating causes. Perhaps both
these peculiarities had something to do with the retirement from society in which I have, for the most part,
lived.
"Intercourse with cultivated society is a great means of
mental culture. In this I was sadly deficient. I mingled
little in society. This was partly the effect of poverty;
partly of the attention which I paid to my mother, who
had no other resource; partly of the consciousness of my
slovenliness and awkwardness. The society in which I did
move was not instructive. Eminent men were not common in Baltimore, and to those who were there I had no
access. Not being in society, I had few opportunities of
meeting them, and if I had, they would scarcely have
taken much notice of an awkward and slovenly boy. On
my side they would have had to encounter a vast amount
of shyness, compounded of pride, modesty, and awkwardness, and a consciousness of ignorance of the manners of
society. I have seen familiarly very few men of much culture and ability, and these chiefly when I was so far advanced in life that they were my juniors.
" It was perhaps owing to this seclusion, that I took little
or no interest in party politics and contemporary history.
There was a time when the first Napoleon was in the
height of his power and glory, that I did not know how he
was employed. Of the party history of nmy own country I
know much less than most intelligent men.
"In my youth, I considered myself to belong to the old
Federal party, - the only one for which I have ever felt
much respect. My mother and her immediate friends had 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.   xix
not been Tories during the Revolutionary War, but their
Whiggism was of a very mitigated type. They were
nevertheless great admirers of Washington; perhaps more
for his conscientious devotion to duty than as the leader
of the Revolution. They were, and they taught me to be,
willing to be governed in everything by a sense of duty
and of right.
"My mother's admiration of Washington, combined with
her strong conservative feelings, a horror of the excesses
of the French Revolution, and some Anglican feeling,
made her a Federalist; hence I considered myself from
boyhood as belonging to that party. Moreover my Anglicanism was much strengthened by the continual reading
of English books. But when I came fully into life, and
thought more for myself, I found that the position of the
Federal party was much changed. It had lost, by long
continuance in opposition, much of its conservative character. The rivalry between France and England had become less keen. the war in Europe was over, and there was
less scope for my Anglicanism. I confess that I adhered
to my party less from any deep conviction than from the
pride of not deserting it when it was down. But though I
refused to give up the name, I frequently said that, did
I live in a doubtful county, I would vote the Democratic
ticket, because I thought the party which bore its name
was the least democratic of the two. For democracy, in
the proper sense of the word, - government by the majority of the whole people told by the head,- I have always
had the greatest aversion. This feeling no doubt combined
with pride in making me reject the name of Democrat,- a
name, which I now more than ever rejoice I have never
borne. I dislike as much the narrow oligarchy, an attachment to which is now called democracy, as I do that which
the word properly signifies.
"When the Federal party was broken up, I adhered to
that party which seemed to have least of the democratic 
xx    BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
spirit, though I was aware that there was little to choose
between them in that respect. But in time I withdrew
from all parties, and do not consider myself a member of
any. I am, however, a decided Union man as a duty, because the United States is my country, and its constituted
authorities the power that be, which are ordained of God,
and to which I am bound to be subject not only for wrath
but for conscience sake..
"Although I avoided party politics, I have thought much
on the science of politics. I early discovered that the advantages, which we Americans attributed to our form of
government, were really the consequences of our extended
territory and comparatively small population. From this
it was an easy step to the conclusion, that the form of
government itself was an effect of the same causes.  This
led to the idea, that all forms of government grew out of
the forms of social organization, and they out of circumstances not to be controlled by man. A government must
be developed, not extemporized. Of course I could not
believe in the fancy of extemporizing an aristocracy in this
country.
"These ideas render it useless to consider much the
question, Which is, in the abstract, the best form of government? Yet I have spent time in thinking on the question. My early speculations tended toward absolute monarchy. But I have long settled in the opinion, that the
perfection of government would be a very widely extended
aristocracy. A society in which there should be several
strongly marked grades, each of which should be connected
with those above and below it by the bonds of mutual interest, and by the possibility - facility might be too much
-of passing from the lower to the higher.
"The higher classes should be sufficiently numerous to
furnish a body of men, liberally educated, from among
whom might be chosen governors of the country; men
1 MS. Recollections, p. 9. 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.    xxi
who should undertake that duty, not in the spirit of trading
politicians, but who should have influence enough with
their inferiors to guide them in the right direction upon
political questions. The class must be large enough to
furnish a supply of such men, which should leave room for
a choice of governors, after deducting those who may prefer other occupations, or pursuits, or amusements, or whom
nature may not have qualified for office.
"The choice of governors from among this superior
class, should be committed to those of the lower classes,
who possess sufficient knowledge to choose intelligently,
and sufficient independence of position to enable them to
choose honestly. It will be seen, that this is substantially
the organization of the British nation and government.
But, as might have been expected, the working reality is
not so perfect as the ideal model." 1..
Dr. Evans considered the troubles of the country at
the time he was writing (and the same may be said now)
to be due in large measure to the prevalence of a willful
spirit among our people.  He used to think the reading of
the "Declaration of Independence" on the Fourth of
July positively injurious, and calculated to increase this
willfulness.2 His remarks deserve to be quoted: -
1 MS. Recollections, pp. 14, 15.
2 [When he was at the College of St. James, Maryland, delivering his
lectures on History and Law, we have known him to take pains to avoid
.being present at the celebration of that day, which included a reading of
the Declaration. We would not have him misconceived on this important
subject, and will therefore add a few words more. His doctrine of passive
obedience - which the reader will find explained by himself in the 8th volume of The True Catholic, p. 493, note - made him adverse to all revolutions.
In the 6th volume of The True Catholic, in 1848, he reprinted a sermon
of Mr. Keble's On the Danger of Sympathizing with Rebellion, prefixing
this note: "The views of this discourse seem particularly suited to the
times and to the bias of our national character." He used to say that had
he lived during the American Revolution he could not have taken part in
it. When, however, he came to lecture on the reign of George III. he
modified these views considerably. He told his class that his particular
investigations into the subject had led him to believe that the Americans 
XXii  BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
"How has this willful spirit grown up?  It has its root,
where all evil has its root, in the corruption of human nature. Why has this corruption taken that particular form?
Perhaps because willfulness is the primary form of moral
evil. But it has among us received a special cultivation;
we have been taught that our wills are sufficient reasons
for anything. So far is this carried, that the Bible is no
longer regarded as the rule of life.
"There are several reasons for this. The great majority
of the people have no intention of submitting their wills
to any rule, and know little and care little about the Bible
in any way. An abolitionist may quote the prohibition of
giving up a refugee to the heathen, which is in the Mosaic
Law, against the Fugitive Slave Law. A slaveholder may
quote St. Paul in defense of slavery. But neither of them
have the slightest intention of compiling a slave code from
the Bible. Still less do they think of regulating their
whole life according to the Scriptures.
"Even religious men and women, who study the Bible
and accept it as a rule of faith, do not really accept it as a
were at first only agitating, lawfully, for their rights as British subjects,
which were denied them, and that, in the actual outbreak of hostilities on
the night between April 18 and 19, at Lexington, Massachusetts (the
accounts of which vary in details), the English were the aggressors. Selfdefense on the part of the Americans became necessary; one thing led to
another, and thus the War of the Revolution arose, for which the English
were responsible. But he regretted the Revolution, however necessary a
separation might have become, and he thought it a mistake to glory in it,
and to boast of our national qualities, in the style usually adopted by the
Fourth of July orators. In the lectures just mentioned, on the reign of
George III., he said the mysterious illness of Lord Chatham, in the spring
of 1767, was the occasion, and might almost be called the cause, of the
American Revolution. Lord Chatham was so prostrated that he refused to
see anybody or to attend to any business whatever. Meantime the Government went on as it could. During his absence, Charles Townshend,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in the celebrated Stamp-act. Had
Lord Chatham been at the helm of the Government that act would never
have been passed; had it not been passed, the American Revolution would
not have taken place when and as it did, and perhaps a separation might
have come in time without any Revolution at all. -H.] 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.  xxiii
rule of life. The whole Christian doctrine of marriage is
frequently rejected by such persons, and the law of the
land and a certain public opinion substituted for it.
"The reason of this is, that in the pulpit, religion is too
much divorced from morals. The doctrine of justification
by faith has been so perverted as to obscure the whole
code of Christian morality. The clergy are now afraid to
teach Christian morals rested upon the Bible as a rule
of life, lest they should be accused of preaching justification by works. It is much safer to expound the symbolism
of the Bible, or to extol free grace, than to touch upon
moral questions, which may interfere with the practice of
some of the congregation.   It is not wonderful that the
precepts which require obedience to every ordinance of
man for the Lord's sake, and submission to the powers that
be, because they are ordained of God, have been forgotten.  "It is now time to return from this long digression to
my proper subject of the formation of my intellectual
character. From a very early period I had a fancy of
writing for the public; of doing that, which, when done
by others, had given me so much pleasure. I did not indulge this fancy to any great extent. When I was young,
I thought it would be presumption in me to attempt to instruct the public. When I was older, I feared that my
professional prospects might be hurt if I became known as
a writer. I did, however, publish some articles, and wrote
some which were never published, though in form they appeared intended for publication. These last were, for the
most part, imitations of the' Spectator,' though rather as to
the form than the style. I do not know that anything that
1 [It is to be remembered, in applying these most true remarks, that the
question between the contending parties, in the late American civil war,
was precisely this: Are the powers that be, which are ordained of God, to
be found ultimately in the General Government at Washington, or in the
State to which each citizen belongs?-H.] 
XXiV BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
I published ever attracted much attention. But I acquired
some power of composition, at least some practice and facility in putting words together.
"Thus, by the time I had reached middle life, I had collected some aids for what may be called, though perhaps
with a too ambitious use of language, my public career. I
had acquired habits of thinking and reasoning, and of considering the precise meaning of language, a facility in
speaking, and a tolerable stock of knowledge upon which
to employ my powers.
"What I have ventured to call my public career, consists
of two parts, which, by a like liberty, may be called my literary and ecclesiastical careers. The ecclesiastical began
first, but made but little progress until it received an impetus from the literary. Both were preceded by some
professional works, which might possibly be considered as
belonging in some sense to the literary career.
"In the year 1817, I was appointed reading clerkl to one
of the branches of the City Council. This led to my
being employed in 1825, to revise the Ordinances of the
City, and, in 1826, to superintend a revised edition of them.
I have been employed in the same way twice since; but I
mention the first time, as it was my first connection with
the press.
"Having thus dipped in printer's ink, I conceived the
idea of writing a pamphlet on the' Law of Special Pleading,' and the means of improving it. It expanded under
my hands into a thin octavo volume, and was published. in
1827. I think that the title was,' An Essay on Pleading,
with a View to an Improved System.' It attracted no attention, and was in fact, a dead failure. But most of the
improvements which were suggested, having occurred about
the same time to Mr., now Lord, Brougham, he brought
them before Parliament, and they are now part of the law
of England.'
1 [It is singular that the work attracted so little attention. Its value 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.  XXV
"I was soon afterwards enmployed by a printer to give a
new edition of a Maryland law-book, entitled' Harris's
Entries.' The work which I produced was in fact a new
one, in which much use was made of the materials of its
predecessor, while it was really composed on different
principles. It had to contend with a strong prejudice in
favor of the original, and was long very unpopular. It
however gradually rose in public estimation, and has been
long out of print. It proved profitable to my employer,
but my compensation was very inadequate. Both'Harris's Entries, and' Evans's Harris' are now obsolete books,
in consequence of modern legislation.
"In the year 1836, I was induced to deliver a course of
lectures on the practice of the Maryland County Courts.
They were afterwards published in a changed form, and
with very considerable additions as a volume. It was entitled,'Maryland Common Law Practice: a Treatise on
the Course of Proceedings in the Common Law Courts of
was testified to by ex-President John Quincy Adams, Mr. Justice Story,
Chancellor Kent, Mr. William Johnson, Mr. Bushrod Washington, and
above all, by Chief Justice Marshall, who addressed to the author the following letter: -
"RICHMOND, December 27, 1827.
"SIR,- I have deferred making my acknowledgments for your Essay
on Pleading, and for the very flattering letter which accompanied it, until
the rising of the court should afford leisure for giving it an attentive reading. That is now accomplished, and I have derived much gratification
from the perusal.
"You have certainly examined the science of special pleading with the
eye of a critic, who looks through the subject, for the purpose of becoming
master of the object of its rules; and you have taken a just and truly
common sense view of the whole.
"The statutes of amendment have certainly accomplished much, and
have left not a great deal to be done; but you have shown that they have
left something. I confess I can perceive no reason why one thing should
be averred which is not essential and consequently traversable, unless it
were a narrative necessary to the understanding of the case.
"Be so good as to accept my thanks for this very polite mark of your
attention, and be assured that I am, with great respect,
"Your obedient servant,
"J. MARSHALL."- H.] 
XXVI  BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
the State of Maryland.' This work became popular, and
is the only one of my writings not published in a periodical
form which has afforded me an adequate compensation. It
was, I think, published in 1837. [A new edition, revised
by the author, appeared some thirty years afterward.]
"In January, 1835, I wrote my first theological article.
It appeared in the May number of the' Protestant Episco palian,' a monthly magazine, at that time published in
Philadelphia. My article was an honest attempt to obtain
a solution of certain difficulties which I felt as to the validity of Lay Baptism. This subject was, at that time, more
discussed than it has ever been since. I sincerely wanted
light, by which to form my own opinion. I was answered
by the late Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, who  undertook to
prove the validity of Lay Baptism. His article was an
able one, but notwithstanding its ability, it did not satisfy
me: on the contrary it convinced me of the invalidity of Lay
Baptism. I replied, which brought out a rejoinder from
the Bishop. From this I discovered, what I had not before suspected, that my antagonist was the Bishop of the
diocese in which the articles were published. Of course I
stopped the discussion, but my opinion against the validity
of Lay Baptism was fixed. From that time I was a frequent correspondent of the church papers, but without the
slightest expectation of ever being an editor.'
1 [In this first theological article, on Lay Baptism, there occurs a passage
which so excellently expresses the fairness of mind which was such an
eminent characteristic of Dr. Evans's career as an editor that we must lay
it before our readers.  It was signed H. Y. S., the last letters of his name: 
"GENTLEMEN: My attention has been much attracted by several articles which have appeared on the subject of Lay Baptism in your magazine
and in the Churchman. Oa this and on every other subject truth ought to
be our first object; yet our nature is so constituted that we can scarcely
avoid having a bias on one side or the other of every question, and wishing, as it has been well expressed,' to have the truth on our side;' our true
duty and interest being all the time that we should be on the side of truth.
I do not pretend to be free from this failing, to which I am very sensible
the habits of my profession, the bar, very much expose me, and I am accordingly sensible of a desire, that the validity of Lay Baptism should be 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. xxvii
"In 1843, Mr. Joseph Robinson, a bookseller in Baltimore, conceived the idea of a monthly magazine, to be
conducted on Church principles, and under the patronage
of Bishop Whittingham. He applied to the Bishop to
name an editor. The Bishop asked me to act in conjunction with the late Judge Alexander ConteeMagruder, and
Mr. Samuel Johnston Donaldson. I did not feel at liberty
to refuse, and therefore said that I would do so, expecting
to fill a very subordinate position. This short conversation
gave a new direction to the rest of my life.
"The two other gentlemen declined, and I undertook
the task of conducting' The True Catholic' as senior editor. The junior was the Rev. John W. Hoffman, who
was much younger than I was and had no experience of
the press. From the first, the burden of the editorship
rested upon me. Mr. Hoffman being, in truth, nothing
more than a stated contributor whose articles were regarded
as editorial..... Mr. Hoffman soon formally retired.
The work was continued under my sole direction until it
reached ten volumes.....
"Throughout the work I wrote the first article in each
number. I wrote also most of the Notices of Books.
Mr. Hoffman wrote about half of those in the first volume,
and a very few- not more I think than three or fourwere afterwards written by other friends. I also wrote the
papers headed' Church Affairs,' and not unfrequently one
or more' Original Papers,' besides the first in the number.
The contributions of correspondents became fewer and
established. Yet I am compelled to say that the papers alluded to have
induced me to doubt whether it can, and have fully convinced me that it
cannot be sustained on the principles of those of its advocates who have
borrowed from my profession the maximfieri non debet, sedfactum valet, as
the text of their discourses. That it may be sustained on other grounds I
hope, and partly believe, though not without doubting; but this ground is
untenable, and therefore the sooner it is abandoned, the better for the cause
of truth and for the advocates of Lay Baptism themselves."
He then demolishes this argument, as Bishop Onderdonk in his reply
virtually admitted. - H.] 
xxviii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
fewer, until I was left to depend upon myself and selec tions. There have been very few periodical works which
came so near being sustained by a single mind.
"When the work had completed ten volumes, the first
series closed,and a second commenced.....      The second
series only existed for four years. No doubt this was one
cause of the decline of my professional business, which
rendered it necessary for me to give up the pretense of
practice. Certainly the long illness of my mother, who
was a paralytic for three years and a half, was another
cause. She died on the tenth of October, 1846, in the
89th year of her age. The' True Catholic' finally closed
its career in December, 1856."
Such is the author's own account of this most important
work, " The True Catholic," the most useful Church periodical of its day and generation. Some of the readers of
this sketch will of course hear of it for the first time,
for its career was closed thirteen years ago. But to very
many others, and especially to those in the diocese of
Maryland, it will revive the most pleasing reminiscences.
We all know the pleasure which we experience in reading
an author from whom we think we derive real instruction.
We place his works upon our shelves to be referred to
again and again, and count him our friend. Few there
must be who cannot enter into Bishop Andrewes' meaning,
when he blesses God "for true friends; for all who have in
any way benefited me by their writings, sermons, discourses."
(Devotions for Thursday.) And when this author is one
whose writings come to us regularly, week by week, or
month by month, an acquaintance grows up scarcely less
real than that of personal intercourse. We get into the
habit of looking for his advice and watching eagerly for
his good words.
Such was the relation which the " True Catholic" filled
during a long and eventful period. It was the time of the
publication of the Oxford "Tracts."  The great stir pro 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. XXiX
duced by Tract No. 90 had been felt on this side of the
Atlantic; controversy on the vital doctrines of the Church
ran high, especially in Maryland, and people needed a
guide.  Just then the "True Catholic" began its career.
Those who looked up to Bishop Whittingham as their
leader, and who soon became the majority in the diocese,
found in the clear style and irresistible logic of the editor
a great help toward understanding the nature of the questions at issue. Many who read these lines will remember
when they used to say to themselves or others, " We must
wait and see what the'True Catholic' will have to say
about this"; as if it were certain that the difficulties would
seem less formidable after the editor had sifted and discussed them. And so wise and learned were the arguments in its pages that the periodical soon became'an
authority outside of the diocese in which it was published,
and established for its editor a reputation among Churchmen which no American layman has ever excelled.
For a more detailed account of the literary career of
Dr. Evans, the reader is referred to the " Memoir" already
mentioned. Some notion of the extent of his labors may
be had from perusing the list of his works appended to
this sketch.
III.
Our limited space forbids our entering into a detailed
history of the ecclesiastical career of Dr. Evans, an account
of which will also be found in the volume just referred to.
We must, however, remark that although he was for many
years one of the leaders of the High Church party, and although his periodical, "The True Catholic," was regarded
as a sort of standard of Churchmanship in other dioceses
besides Maryland, yet Dr. Evans was in no sense a party
man. He, if any one could, was able to see that a question
had more than one side. He recognized very distinctly
the existence of two or more schools of thought within the 
xxx   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
Church. Nor was he afraid to call them (for convenience
among other reasons) by their well known names. While
he would by no means have admitted that the doctrines of
his school were not in the truest sense " Evangelical," he
did not object that the principles he had "imbibed from
Hooker" (whom Keble also called his "Master") should
be marked by an appellation which brought out boldly the
high place assigned by the greatest names in English theology, and equally, as he conceived, by the Holy Scriptures,
to the Church or Body of Christ in the Christian system.
Yet he could do justice to the teaching of earnest men
among the "Evangelicals," so far as it was positive, and his
language about his early religious instruction is singularly
like that of Mr. Liddon with reference to Bishop Hamnilton,
who also was not brought up in childhood under the influence of those decided Church principles of which he afterward became such a fearless champion.1
All manceuvres and tricks, adopted in imitation of political parties, Dr. Evans detested, but "it is all nonsense,"
he would say, "to talk of ignoring parties in the Church.
As long as the different schools of thought exist it is better
there should be parties, whose conduct is, or may be, comparatively open and above-board. The moment you get rid
of parties you will find that you will have to deal with the
spirit of clique, which, being secret and underhand, is far
worse than the party spirit you were afraid of." It may
be said that he was a High Churchman because he was
a Churchman, and he found himself associated with that
party because he loved the Prayer Book; and only High
Churchmen it seemed were able to accept the Prayer
Book without reserve, qualifications, or explanations.
The following remarks on the questions between High and
Low Church are particularly valuable, and well illustrate
the writer's ability to see both sides of an argument:
"The questions between the two parties practically re  1 See Mr. Liddon's Sketch of Bishop Hamilton, p. 16. London, 1869. 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.  XXxi
solve themselves into three classes: those which relate
to the doctrine of Baptism; those which relate to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist; those which relate to the
doctrine of the Episcopate. All other questions seem to
be obsolete, except just so far as they are absorbed into
one of these classes.
"The questions in the first class grow chiefly out of a
misapprehension of the meaning of the word regeneration.
Low Churchmen taking that word in its modern sense,
and being very much afraid of attributing any efficacy to
an external rite, lest they should diminish the value of internal spiritual operations, seem, in controversy, to attribute less importance to Baptism than they really do. Although the controversy about Baptism has never been lost
sight of in Maryland, it has never been brought prominently forward.
"The questions connected with the Holy Eucharist do
not grow out of a misapprehension as to the meaning of a
word, but like that touching Baptism, they are connected
with a fear of over-valuing the outward and visible sign.
The Oxford Tracts had been mentioned in one of our Convocations, in which not a single member had seen them,
as a sort of test of orthodoxy, or perhaps, to speak more
accurately, of heterodoxy.   This gave keenness to the
sacramental controversy; for the Tracts were commonly
believed, by those who had not read them, to teach transubstantiation.   The  Zuinglian doctrine was apparently
adopted by Low Churchmen.  But they really all held a
much higher doctri than they were willing to acknowledge.
The heats growing out of these questions were really connected with the sermon of Mr. Johns.1   That sermon
really taught Zuinglianism. But they readily combined
with the third class of questions, which were those by which
the Diocese of Maryland was chiefly disturbed."
The fairness and breadth of view in these extracts must
commend themselves to every reader, especially when it is
1 See -,Vemoir of Hugh Davey Evans, etc., p. 28. 
xxxii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
remembered that the author had been for twenty years in
the fore-front of the controversy.
Dr. Evans served with distinction as a delegate from St.
Paul's Parish, Baltimore, in the Convention of the Diocese
of Maryland in 1828, and from 1836 to 1862, with the
exception of two or three years, when he refused to sit as a
member of the Convention, because he could not conscientiously vote for his friend the Rev. Dr. Wyatt for Bishop.
He did not believe that Dr. Wyatt, whom, however, he admired and loved, would be the best choice for the office.
Yet he could not represent Dr. Wyatt's parish (St. Paul's),
and vote against him when he was probably the only man
in it who did not desire to see Dr. Wyatt elected. Dr.
Evans therefore announced his determination not to sit
in any Convention until a Bishop should be chosen. In
1840, after an exciting contest of three years' duration,
the Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham, D. D., Professor
in the General Theological Seminary in New York, was
elected Bishop, to the great joy of the High Churchmen
of Maryland, and to the satisfaction of many of the Low
Church party also. Many serious controversies, however,
arose in which Dr. Evans took a very prominent part. Of
these no account can be given here.
In 1847, Dr. Evans was chosen lay deputy to the Triennial General Convention. The Editor of " The True Catholic" was warmly welcomed as a valuable addition to the
House of Deputies, and was at once placed on the important Committee on Canons, where h9 rendered very great
assistance in drawing up the DigigS of the Laws of the
Church. He continued to represent Maryland in the General Convention, as one of her most honored laymen, until
the unfortunate breaking out of the civil war. After grave
consideration, Dr. Evans determined to support the Union
cause, which he did with great ardor. He believed it to be
his duty to do so for the reason which he himself gives in
the passage already quoted from his " Recollections." 1 On
1 See supra, p. xx.
i 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. xxxiii
the other hand, the majority of the clergy and laity of the
Diocese of Maryland sympathized with the South, agreeing with the Southern view of the rights of the States. Dr.
Evans thought it his duty, in November, 1861, to address a
letter to the London " Guardian" on the subject of the
arrest of the Maryland political prisoners. His design
was to correct certain statements in a letter of a clergyman of Baltimore, which had been published in that journal, and which he (Dr. Evans) believed conveyed an erroneous impression. The main facts stated in the clergymani's letter could not be denied, whatever defense might
be set utip for those who did the acts complained of. This
letter, which was republished in Baltimore, and various reports that were circulated about the opinions and speeches
of Dr. Evans, some of them much exaggerated, gave rise
to an impression that, in case any political resolutions
should be introduced into the conventions, diocesan or
general, he would lend his support to them.   Accordingly, the vestry of St. Paul's parish refused to elect him,
as usual, as their delegate. It was as painful an act to
some of those who voted against him as the refusal to
vote for his friend Dr. Wyatt for Bishop, must have been
to Dr. Evans himself in 1837. The Convention of Maryland also refused to send her old and learned deputy
to the General Convention.   This was an unspeakable
blow to Dr. Evans. He delighted in the honorable position which he held; he loved the Church ardently, and
rejoiced to feel that he really was of use in her councils,
but he bore the disappointment with great patience and
without any ill-will toward his opponents. The writer believes that, while Dr. Evans was unquestionably a very
decided Union man, he was entirely misinterpreted with
respect to introducing politics into the conventions; he
believes that he would have been sound and conservative
in the General Convention of 1862, and would have acted
with the large and respectable minority in that body, who 
XXXiV BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
opposed, at the risk of misconstruction, the various political resolutions which were introduced at that exciting and
important crisis.   The reasons for this opinion will be
found, by those who are interested in the subject, in the
Memoir previously mentioned.
IV.
OUR plan in this sketch has been to follow Dr. Evans in
his "Recollections," transcribing some of the most interesting passages, and supplying such a narrative as might
serve to connect the extracts together. In doing this, we
necessarily brought into view his opinions on many important subjects which are still matters of controversy.
We have now finished with the "Recollections," and it remains to give some further notion of his character, and the
estimation in which his memory is held by his friends.
Before passing to this, however, we will mention some of
his opinions on topics not touched upon in the "Recollections," which were finished in the year 1862.
His intense interest in public affairs, especially his favorite subjects, the English Church and English Politics, continued to the very last. He was a constant reader and
subscriber to the London "Guardian," for a great many
years, and his initials H. D. E., were well known to many
readers of that journal.'  He greatly admired the "Guardian" (in which many of our readers will sympathize with
him), and he wished that the condition of things in our
country and Church admitted the publication of a news  1 " From across the Atlantic is announced by telegraph, the death of
Thaddeus Stevens.... A far different character has passed away,
whose death is recorded in the New York church papers. Hugh Davey
Evans, of Baltimore, was a lawyer of great reading and historical experience, whose counsel and example stood high in the American Church.
His initials will be familiar to those of our readers acquainted with the
inner life of the sister church, whether in her literature or in the more active life of the Convention. The body of H. D. E. was carried to its resting-place in a good old age, on the 17th ult." - From  he Guardian of
August 19, 1868. 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. XXXV
paper of similar character. In general, he agreed with the
political and ecclesiastical views of which that journal was
the exponent up to the time of his death in 1868. He
read many other English newspapers also, especially "The
English  Churchman,"  "The  Saturday Review,"  "The
Literary Churchman," and others.
Of English public men of the present day, he admired
Mr. Gladstone most of all, and his appreciation of that
statesman's genius in finance and politics dated very far
back. Of course he was delighted to see such a sound and
stanch churchman (as he believed Mr. Gladstone to be)
taking a leading rank among the statesmen of the day.
The writer remembers Dr. Evans saying to him some fifteen years ago or more, in answer to a question, "Gladstone! - he's the greatest man in England."
The "Register's" short-lived career 1 was in the days of
the Aberdeen Ministry, - one of the best administrations
England had had of late years, according to Dr. Evans,
who could never forgive Lord John Russell for breaking it
up. During this period Dr. Evans had of course much to
say of Mr. Gladstone in his "Thoughts on Current Events,"
contributed to that journal, one of the best church newspapers ever published in this country. The question came
up then in a very forcible shape which has so often since
that time been presented to the University of Oxford,
Whether Mr. Gladstone deserved the confidence of English
churchmen.  The Tory party had been much startled by
his great speech in answer to Mr. Disraeli on the 17th of
December, 1852.  Mr. Disraeli, "after four nights' criticism" of his Budget, delivered what was said to be one of
his greatest efforts. Mr. Gladstone, contrary to custom,
was allowed to deliver a long speech after the "reply" of
the leader of the House. He rose at two o'clock in the
morning, and for about two hours kept the excited and
weary House of Commons enchained. The division was
1 The Register was a newspaper published in Philadelphia, in the interest of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in 1852 and 1853. 
xxxvi BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
taken at four o'clock. Mr. Disraeli was defeated (and with
him Lord Derby's Ministry) by a majority of nineteen in a
full House. The Aberdeen Administration was then formed,
including Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston, and Mr.
Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thereupon,
Archdeacon Denison wrote a letter to Mr. Gladstone, in
which he told him, as one of his constituents, that since he
had taken his seat in a government in which Lord John
Russell sat, from that time he could place no confidence in
him as representative of Oxford, or as a public man. The
loss of the venerable archdeacon's confidence Mr. Gladstone seems to have survived, but this was the beginning of
that tremendous opposition to the present Prime Minister
which has been so frequently repeated. Dr. Evans says in
his "Recollections," that he by no means suspected himself
of a want of power of saying sharp things, though he could
keep it in check. That he had the power, he showed by
his ridicule of the Archdeacon's letter. He made up his
mind then, that he would continue to believe in Mr. Gladstone, and that the course of that statesman was right.
Mr. Gladstone has indeed changed greatly since Lord
MIacaulay, in his brilliant essay in the " Edinburgh Review,"
spoke of him as "the rising hope of those stern unbending
Tories who follow, reluctantly and mutinously, a leader
whose experience and eloquence are indispensable to them,
but whose cautious temper and moderate opinions they
abhor." But if Mr. Gladstone has changed considerably,
the times have changed still more. A man's opinions may
be modified, while the great principles of his life remain
the same. Dr. Evans agreed with Mr. Gladstone's own
statement, that while change of opinion in public men is
an evil to the country, it is "a much smaller evil than their
persistence in a course they know to be wrong." (" A
Chapter in Autobiography," 8th edition, p. 10.) So much
has been written on this subject, and Mr. Gladstone's opinions and conduct are of such deep interest to all American 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. xXXVii
churchmen -especially to those who would agree with Dr.
Evans and the present writer, in both of whom the feeling
of admiration almost blended with affection,- that it is
worth while to say that in all those important changes,
from the Jews' Disabilities Bill to the Disestablishment of
the Irish Church, Dr. HuGH DAVEY EVANS- by universal consent second to none in this country as an intelligent
observer of English affairs- was able to keep step with
Mr. Gladstone. On this last momentous subject we will
quote Dr. Evans's own words:  "As to English and Irish affairs, I think Gladstone is
right, though for reasons he does not assign, although they
are, no doubt, in his mind.  The Church of Ireland ought
to be a missionary church, and it cannot be useful as such
while it is the object of the hatred of the people, which it
always will be while it is established. To get rid of that
difficulty, and have the power of regulating its own affairs,
it may well give [up] the endowment. Gladstone very
properly proposes to leave untouched modern endowments.
I think the English are mad not to accept these terms, but
raise an outcry that the Church of England is in danger.
The Church of England is in danger, and will be disestablished in a few years, and everything confiscated. Her
true policy is to get a safe precedent set in Ireland. Disraeli's plan is to plunder the Irish Church and leave her
enslaved, and disabled as a mission church; but it saves
the Queen's supremacy, and the patronage. Nothing, I
think, gives stronger evidence that Gladstone is right than
the meeting at St. James's Hall.  Even the Bishop of Oxford could only declainm commonplaces, and all the arguments of the other speakers were mere Erastianism." I
The character of Dr. Evans can be judged, in great
measure, from his own writings and his long life of selfdenying labor-  and labor unrequited in this world- for
the Church and his fellow-men. Whatever else may be
1 MS. letter to the Rev. Hall Harrison, June 5, 1868. 
XXXViii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
desired in the way of drawing a portraiture of him as a
man, has been so well done by two of his friends that our
readers will thank us for presenting what they have written.
We print first an interesting and valuable communication from an old friend of Dr. Evans and ourselves, who
lived for many years in the Diocese of Maryland:
"WOOSTER, Ohio, January 15, 1870.
" REV. AND DEAR BROTHER,-I will most cheerfully comply with your request to furnish the substance of the remarks I had the honor to make in my brief address before
the' Church Brotherhood' of Baltimore, about the late
HUGH DAVEY EVANS, LL. D.
" Having been, for some years, the intimate personal
friend of the learned lay theologian and canonist, and the
transcriber of the MSS. of all the articles he wrote as
editor of the'True Catholic,' contributor to various periodicals, editor - and, in part, author - of'Theophilus
Americanus,' author of'Anglican Ordinations' (a work of
two series), and a number of smaller publications- I enjoyed almost daily intercourse with him for a period of
years, and perhaps saw as much of his daily life as any one
now living. For this reason, I confined my remarks before
the Brotherhood to his personal character, and mentioned
such facts only in his private life as I knew would illustrate
the lofty principles which constituted his invariable rule of
action under all circumstances, for it must be remembered
that Dr. Evans was in no sense a mere expediency-man.
Few men in our times have succeeded so well in defining
clearly the principles by which they chose to be governed
through life, and none, I will venture to say, have left
behind them a more beautiful and instructive record of
consistent and rigid adherence to thenm than our departed
friend.
" The first question that seemed to occur to his mind, in
view of anything proposed to him to do, was,' Is it right?'
I 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. XXXix
and his remarkably quick discernment of all the elements
involved, or consequences to be apprehended, enabled him
to decide immediately on the course to be pursued. But
if, from the nature of the case, it was necessary to adopt a
course of action at once, that his after-judgment, enlightened by the teaching of subsequent events, would be constrained to regard as a mistake, he would not rest until he
had made every possible effort to rectify the error; and if
the interests of others were involved, to repair any damage
that it might have caused to them.
"As an illustration of his conscientious adherence to this
principle, I will state that on one occasion, when I entered
his private office, I found him engaged over some business
papers. In a few momnents he tied them up in a bundle
and deposited them in his desk; when turning to me with
his countenance lighted up with unmingled gratification, he
remarked that he felt very thankful and comfortable, and
that he must tell me the cause. He then stated that, in
the course of his professional business, he had become executor upon an estate, which, on being settled, was found
to yield, for the benefit of a widow, some three thousand
dollars, and which constituted her entire resources for her
support.
"He consulted her respecting the investment of the
money, and was requested to use his own judgment in the
matter. At that time he kept an account with, and deposited his own funds in the Bank of, and believing it to
be in a prosperous and safe condition, he concluded to deposit there the funds of his widowed client. Subsequently
the bank failed. Mlany persons lost their money, among
them Dr. Evans and the widow whose legal adviser he was.
"Years passed away until the day above referred to,
when in his private office he stated the facts to me, adding
that, soon after his own loss and that of his client, he felt
that although he had acted according to the best judgment
he could form at the time,- his perfect confidence in 
XI    BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
which was evident from his having his own funds in the
same bank, and although he was aware that he was under
no obligation, either legal or moral, to repair the loss to
the widow, he could not feel at liberty to disregard the
pleadings of Christian charity, and at once determined to
do what he could. He mentioned the subject to several of
his brethren in the legal profession, and as he was not then
in full practice, asked a share of their excess of business,
which, in admiration of his motives, they readily granted.
'And,' said Dr. Evans in conclusion,'I have this morning
paid the widow the last cent of principal and interest, so
that she loses nothing.' I will only add that in accordance
with another of the Doctor's established principles (as I
have reason to believe and remember), he made a special
contribution to the work of the Church as a thank-offering to
God for enabling him to effect the object for which he had so
long labored and prayed.
"The above case was by no means the only one known
to me, in which that able and good man manifested the
power of Christian principle, and the constraining influence
of Christian charity. I know of another instance in which
several hundred dollars, the amount of professional fees
from a deceased husband, were returned to the widow and
orphan children on learning that they were left without
support. And I was myself the medium through which he
restored to another family in need a considerable sum of
money, received as fees from the deceased father and husband.
"Dr. Evans, moreover, was one of the few who kept a
regular tithe-account, obligating himself to pay into the
Lord's treasury at least one tenth of his income. He not
only faithfully complied with that Scriptural rule, but
greatly exceeded it. And yet he was not lavish of his
means, and was a stranger to every species of extravagance.
He was never known to purchase anything for which he
had no particular use. Had he had the wealth, he would 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
have shown the munificence of a Peabody; 1 but the Church
would have been the depository of his benefactions, as her
literature has been enriched by the contributions of his
powerful pen.
"As a Christian Dr. Evans was childlike in his faith, and
the fruit of this was an implicit, unquestioning obedience
to all the requirements of religion. The mysteries of the
faith were as welcome to his belief as were the plainest and
most easily understood truths; but only after he had perceived them in the light of Holy Scripture, and traced them
in the Church to primitive authority. Dr. Evans was also
a devout man.  He had his set times for closet exercises,
and delighted in devotional reading. [Dr. Pusey was a
very great favorite with him.2  His copy of the'Parochial
Sermons' was so worn from constant use that he was
obliged to have the volumes rebound. He always carried
the' Book of Common Prayer' in his pocket.] His place
1 [Some people will think it a startling thing to say, but if we are to be
guided in our judgment by the principle implied in St. Luke xxi. 1-4, it
can hardly be a question which of the two men here brought in contrast
was the more generous. Our valued correspondent would agree with us in
this we know. It is just as well to realize it and say it right out. All
honor to the good and generous man whose elaborate and costly funeral the
people of two countries - while we are writing these lines - are uniting in
celebrating. May he find as many to imitate him as he has had to come
to bury him and to praise him!
Dr. Evans gave of his penury; not indeed all his living like "a certain
poor widow," but it must have been very near it. He must have reduced
his expenses to the minimum. Out of his smnall income to give three thousand dollars with the interest! And perhaps at this very time he was paying tithes over and above this. What daily self-denial it must have involved! No wonder his library was but a small one and restricted to
books of great value absolutely necessary for the prosecution of his studies.
Here is a "beautiful deed "-a K)OV Epyov - which speaks volumes, and
further words seem quite out of place.- H.]
2 [From among many passages in the writings of Dr. Evans showing his
opinion of this saintly man, we select these few words which occur in a
review of The Entire Absolution of the Penitent. The sermon, he says,
"is pervaded throughout by that spirit of meekness and charity, by which
his writings are distinguished beyond those of any living man with whose
works we are acquainted." -True Catholic, vol. iv. p. 186. -H.]
xli 
xlii  BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
in the sanctuary was but rarely vacant. In the Liturgy of
the Church he found an ample provision of helps in spiritual communion with God, but it was in the Holy Supper
that he found the greatest enjoyment and renewal of his
spiritual strength. He was regular and systematic in selfexamination, and longed to experience more and more the
'love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost.'"
"With a powerfully argumentative mind, and a singular
capacity of understanding and analyzing evidence, Dr.
Evans was eminently qualified as a polemic. His style of
composition was remarkably clear, with no waste of words
for the sake of embellishment. His propositions were
1 [A clerical deputy from'Maryland to the General Convention of 1850
(now one of our Bishops), lately told us that he journeyed in Dr. Evans's
company to Cincinnati on that occasion. He was much with the Doctor,
occupying the same room with him, and he distinctly remembers how
much he was impressed by the glimpse, thus unavoidably afforded, of his
devotional habits. On this same journey a little incident occurred that
showed how great a reputation Dr. Evans had out of his own diocese. The
Maryland party passed a Sunday at Niagara, where they were joined by
others. A gentleman came up to our informant and said, "Who is this Mr.
Evans that seems to be such an important member of your company?"
"Well, sir, that is Mr. Hugh Davey Evans, a man of some note among us
in Maryland." -" -lugh Davey Evans!  Not the editor of The True Catholic?"  -" Yes, indeed, the same." -" O! why he's a very famous man; I
must go and get introduced to him." He then devoted himself to Dr.
Evans during his stay at Niagara, or on the journey, for we forget whether
the gentleman was himself a deputy to the Convention.
We add here another anecdote, because we have no better place for it.
One day, during one of his courses of lectures at the College of St. James
(we think it was in 1859, or 1860), Dr. Evans came into our study and
asked for a Horace.  "One of my young friends in the College," said-he,
"has requested me to write my name and a line in his Album, and I thought
I might get something out of Horace that would answer my purpose."
After finding the line,            "Nil desperandum Teucro duce et auspice Teucro,"he said; "I want you to tell me whether there would be any metrical objection to substituting Christo for Teucro in that line." We replied there
was none, and remarked what a beautiful verse it made. "Then," said he,
"that will do," and went and wrote the verse, with his signature appended,
thus, -
" Nil desperandum Christo duce et auspice Christo."1 - H.] 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.  xliii
always well stated, his positions distinctly taken, his analysis clear, and his illustrations striking. Among all the
authors in the Church's literature, the judicious Hooker was
his favorite. But his reading of that great writer was not
after the manner of some who are fond of citing him in
support of laxity of discipline or a latitudinarian interpretation of church doctrine. Dr. Evans read Hooker in the
light of Hooker; and when he cited his opinions, it was
not to extract a few lines, here and there, to present a view
contrary to the general tenor of his teachings. On the
contrary, he always exhibited the Master of the Temple as
consistent with himself.
"Our departed friend will also long be remembered for
his genial spirit. He was a great favorite with the young
of both sexes, and he loved them in return. Often have I
known him, after hours of study, to throw aside the manuscript over which he had been closely engaged in profound
thought, and take a part in the sports of a juvenile circle,
or amuse his friends with anecdotes drawn from the abundant store with which his mind was supplied. But even
then he was ready to instruct, and would spare no pains to
gratify any reasonable demand for information.
"In a word, it may be said that no layman of the American Church has exhibited a more laborious devotion to the
interests of the Church of Christ, or has given more convincing evidence of his deep devotion to her interests, than
has Dr. Evans.
"The' Treatise on the Christian Doctrine of Marriage'
was often the subject of conversation between the Doctor
and myself, and in my very last interview with him he expressed the hope that it would be published after his death,
if not before. With Christian regard,
"Your friend and brother,
"JAMES MOORE,
"Rector of St. James's Church, Wooster, Ohio." 
xliv   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
The very great Christian self-denial, of which the fore  going letter gives such touching examples, becomes the
more remarkable when we remember what Dr. Evans has
said incidentally of his narrow means in his "Recollec  tions."
The following extracts from a letter from one of the
ladies with whom he lived for many years, will enable the
reader still better to appreciate the great generosity of his
character, and his deep religious feeling: -
"The first year of-taxation upon incomes we were on our
way together to the tax-office. He remarked,'My income
is larger this year than it ever has been, or ever will be
again. I want to lay up enough for my funeral expenses,
and if possible, save a little to buy a small annuity.' In
December, 1867, he resigned his position as Justice of the
Peace. He told me his great object in accepting that posi tion was to make enough to purchase a tombstone for his
mother's grave. In this he succeeded. On the day of his
resignation he came home and said,' So closes my office life. I have now nothing to do but to work for the Church
and prepare to die.'
"For a man of his taste and attainments, it was wonderful to see the quiet contentment with which he bore the
pinch of narrow means. Upon several occasions he grew
a little desponding, fearing he might not be able to meet
his necessary expenses. He often had to give up articles
of dress really necessary for him to have. He once said
to me,'My whole life has been filled with self-denial.  I
have never been able to purchase books, and one great
cause of my shabby dress is that I am never able to lay
aside my clothes until they are thoroughly worn out.' Economy had become so habitual that even when his wants were
found out and supplied he would lay the things aside, fearing a tinme of greater need. And yet so easily contented
and satisfied was he that he often said,' I live in too much
luxury for a Christian man; my home is too comfortable, 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.    xlv
but I cannot give it up.' When I was one day in his library
he picked up a volume of Shakespeare, saying,'When I
bought these books I was like Charles Lamb; I had to
stand and reflect whether I was able to purchase them. I
was a young man, had my mother to support, and my
means were small.'
"Some months before his death there was a manifest
change when in the home circle. There was no abatement
of pleasantry, or readiness to engage in lively conversation,
but when all was quiet he was deeply engaged in pious
meditation, repeating aloud, unconsciously, portions of the
Prayer Book. On the Easter before his death, he went to
the early celebration of the Holy Communion at St. Paul's
Church (a distance of nearly a mile). That evening I
told him I wished to illuminate a sentence for his room,
and should like to know what he would prefer. He replied:
' I never come home from Holy Communion, but I enter
my room repeating, LORD, I BELIEVE, HELP THOU MINE
UNBELIEF. If this is too long give me FAITH, HOPE,
CHARITY.'
With respect to the rule of paying tithes, which Mr.
Moore says Dr. Evans laid down for his own practice,-it
may be remarked that he obeyed the precept of the Sermoil on the Mount (Matt. vi. 3), and observed such reticence about all these things that even one intimate with
him would scarcely know, except by accident, that such
was his rule. The following is an instance in point: he
had spoken with one of his friends of making an investment; we think it was about the purchase of an annuity,
that he might have something to depend upon in his old
age, but he had not quite the amount of money requisite.
Not long after, some money was paid him. His friend, who
knew of this, said to him:  "Now, Doctor, you can accomplish your purpose, and
buy that annuity."
"No.  I haven't got quite enough money to do it." 
Xlvi   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
"Why yes.  I think you must have; you know it only
requires so much."
"Yes, but I haven't got that much."
"That money lately paid you would buy it."
"0 but my tithes you know! I've got to take my tithes
out of that."
He was evidently a little annoyed at having to make the
explanation. It was in such ways as this that the strictness of his rule of life would be disclosed.
The meeting of the Church Brotherhood to which Mr.
Moore refers, was mainly devoted to a pleasant conversational review of Dr. Evans's life and character. It was
suggested to his friend Mr. J. G. Proud, of Baltimore, to
contribute some notes illustrative of his social qualities.
These MS. notes he has very kindly placed at our disposal, and we shall proceed to make large extracts from
them.
" After briefly adverting," says Mr. Proud, "to the request and its object, I said I could relate perhaps the earliest known anecdote of him, which I had heard from my
mother. It was but a trivial one, but going back to the
years of his early childhood, it furnished an indication of
character.
"A lady one day, rather thoughtlessly, taunted him playfilly with his homeliness.'Hugh,' she said,  you're certainly not a pretty boy.' -' I don't tare if I ain't' (was his answer in the imperfect accents of childhood), -' I don't tare
if I ain't, I'se dood; dood is better than pootty.' 1 All who
knew him will recognize in this reply the germ of what
became a leading trait in his character. He always preferred the'good' to the'pretty,' the practical to the merely
ornamental. His taste in this respect was perhaps too severely simple. He rejected the graces of manner with too
1 [Some persons have discovered a touch of vanity in this little speech of
the child; it is certain that there was the most marked absence of that
foible in the character of the man.- 11.] 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.  xlvii
sweeping a judgment. This sometimes gave an abruptness
to his style which may have occasionally detracted from its
effectiveuess. But it secured its simplicity and directness.
He always went straight to his purpose.
"Dr. Evans was eminently social in his habits and feelings; he enjoyed compauy, but not indiscriminately. He
preferred intimacy with a few to mingling in general society. How it may have been in earlier life, I know not,
but certainly in his later years he seemed to limit his intercourse chiefly to a few friends, with whom he could lay aside
ceremony and feel perfectly at home. With such he was a
most welcome companion, his spirits gushing out with a
genial flow, and delighting in playful humor. Sometimes
he would indulge in a strain of raillery, in which, in an
ironical way, he would say some sharp things; but his
friends understood his humor, and knew that no real bitter
ness lurked beneath his words. Especially did he delight
to affect the misogynist, and to make satirical remarks
to the ladies, pretending to depreciate the qualities of their
sex, his eyes, meanwhile, sparkling with fun and mischief. It is needless to say that their sex had no warmer
or more chivalrous admirer, and, bachelor as he was, he
had not among his own sex more earnest or devoted
friends than he had with them. His well-known devotion
to his mother would vindicate him from the charge of having for her sex any other sentiment than one of reverence
and esteem.'
1 [The never-failing devotion of Dr. Evans to his mother is one of the
most noble traits of his character.  It was this that prevented an engagement to be married from being carried into effect.
Some may perhaps think that this should not have been mentioned lest it
should prejudice the reader against some of the author's views in the following work, or make him think that we have here a case in which the
proverb applies, Ne sutor ultra crepidam. On the contrary, the fact that Dr.
Evans was unmarried is one of the remarkable points of his history necessary to be known in forming an estimate of this volume. An elaborate
treatise by a bachelor on the Christian Doctrine of Marriage, is in some
respects a curiosity, and while all the friends of Dr. Evans knew the fact
already, it is proper that the general reader should also be made acquainted
with it. -H.] 
Xlviii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
"Dr. Evans could not be called a great talker, he rarely
attempted to lead in conversation. He preferred to listen
to what was said by others, which he always did attentively,
however humble the speaker, throwing in occasionally
some pointed remark of his own. His friends had generally to draw him out by questions for information, or
by starting some favorite topic, and then, when you had
struck a genial vein, it was a real pleasure to listen to
him.
"He was remarkable for condensation of thought and
expression, and his words were always ready, going right
to the gist of the subject....  Sometimes when
opposed in argument on a subject in which he had a deep
interest, he would show a degree of warmth - almost of
excitement, -but the feeling, if any existed, always passed
away with the occasion, and left no bitterness behind.
"He had some strong prejudices, and would sometimes
amuse his friends by the earnestness with which he expressed them. He had no taste for music, and I have
heard him say that he would go a square out of his way to
avoid a band of players.  [He used to say, "' Music hath
charms to soothe the savage breast,' but my breast is not
savage."] He was as deficient in knowledge of tune as the
learned Dean Hook, who told an American clergyman of
my acquaintance that he had a short time before mistaken
' Old Hundred,' played as a compliment to him before his
own door, for' God save the Queen!'
" Dr. Evans loved to talk of our mother Church of England, and her leading men. Indeed, everything conneoted
with England was familiar to him, - its history, its politics,
its localities, its public men, and its ancient manners and
customs. He seemed to have a minute acquaintance with
the genealogies of the leading families, and could trace the
connections between them by intermarriage. Suggest the
name of some prominent man, and you would be likely to
obtain from him all you would desire to know. Ask from 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.   xlix
him an explanation of some phase in English politics, and
he would give you a clear and intelligent exposition of the
principle involved, and its bearing upon the interests of
Church and State. In fact, his knowledge of history,
both ancient and modern, was minute and accurate, and
his memory exceedingly retentive. I remember once
mentioning some obscure facts in Carthaginian history
which I had read a few days before in a rare old book,
when he immediately took up the subject, and showed not
only that he was familiar with them, but had forgotten no
material incident. I have known him also to show a minute recollection of facts in legal causes with which he had
been professionally connected many years before.
"Although he possessed such vast stores of knowledge,
there was never any ostentatious display of learning; his
conversation was marked by that unpretending simplicity
in manner and language, which was so conspicuous a trait
of his personal character.
"Notwithstanding the very great mental disparity between us, it was my high privilege to enjoy an intimacy
with him of many years' standing. For years it was his
custom to spend an evening of almost every week in our
family; and how we miss his pleasant converse we cannot
express.
"The last time I saw him alive was when taking leave
of him at his own door after a meeting of this Society, or
of the Missionary Committee, from which he had walked
home leaning upon my arm. How little I thought that it
was for the last time.
"At that meeting he had taken great interest in the discussion of the affairs of the Church Home in our city, and
had headed a subscription, suggested by himself, toward
the maintenance of free beds at that excellent institution.
With the exception, perhaps, of a meeting of the Missionary Committee a few days after, this was the last Church
work in which he publicly took part, and it seems now to
d 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
have a peculiar and beautiful fitness. His kindly heart was
then moved to aid in providing a bed for the sick and destitute, little knowing that he was so soon to be stretched in
mortal sickness upon his own. But doubtless in that trying
hour he fully realized the promised blessing. In the loving
hearts and gentle ministrations which were about him, and
in the tranquil submission of that closing scene, we seem to
read the fulfillment of the words,' Blessed be the man that
provideth for the sick and needy; The Lord shall deliver
him in the time of trouble. The Lord will strengthen him
upon the bed of languishing: Thou wilt make all his bed
in his sickness.'"
But little remains to be told. Dr. Evans kept up his
habits of untiring industry to the very last. He was constantly reading and writing.
"During the winter before his death he was very much
engaged in reading, collecting materials for the enlargement of some future edition of his work on the' Christian
Doctrine of Marriage,' which was then in the hands of
publishers in Chicago. Two valuable note-books, greatly
increased by the winter's reading, were left by him. These
books cost him much labor and covered an immense ground
of reading. He said to me one day when reading extracts,
' How tiresome it is to copy, but I must have notes to refer
to.' During the latter part of the winter he was greatly
interested in the early English writers, - Piers Ploughman,
and the publications of the early English Text Society,
Chaucer, and others.  It seemed to him truly a seasoi of
rest from all out-door work, and he gave himself to literary
pursuits,- the first time in his life, perhaps, that he was
ever able to gratify his taste." 1
Our own last interview with him was on Monday, July
13, 1868, three days before his death. We had called, not
knowing that he was ill. He was in bed, but he talked as
readily and as instructively as usual. Among other subjects
1 MS. letter from Miss M. B. to the Rev. Hall Harrison.
I
i 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
we spoke of Ritualism; of the approaching General Convention; of his work on Marriage, and, in particular, of
certain objections which had been taken to his views about
divorce. The propriety of the marriage of first cousins
was also discussed. He asked if we had ever read the
answer of Pope Gregory the Great, to the questions of
St. Augustine, of Canterbury, on the subject. On our replying we had not, he at once referred to a particular shelf
in his library, and told us to take down the first volume of
Johnson's "Laws and Canons of the Church of England"
(Oxford, 1850), and carry it home with us.
An attack of pain which came on brought our visit rather
abruptly to a close, but we left him fully expecting to see
him well in a few days. But this was not to be. His disease was an acute attack of dysentery, from which his physician and intimate friend (Dr. Samuel Chew) thought he
would, humanly speaking, have recovered beyond doubt,
had not one or two days of, perhaps, the hottest weather
ever known in Baltimore, set in just as he was getting
better. He was entirely prostrated, and sank rapidly. We
shall continue the account of his last hours in the simple
and unaffected language of one of the ladies, with whom
he found for so many years a comfortable and much-loved
home.
"The Doctor anticipated a long spell of illness, thinking
he would have the same disease of which his mother died.
He had made every preparation for this illness; often
spoke of it, saying what he wished done, whom he wished
sent for. It was evident that he dreaded falling into the
hands of a hired nurse. My sister and myself assured him
that such should never be the case; that we would take
care of him, and never permit him to be moved from our
house. I must think that he thought of that promise when
he was taken so much worse. He grasped my hand so
tightly, that I could not release myself. I leaned down to
listen, and heard him say,' Don't leave me.' When I told
him I must send for the doctor, he let me go.
ii 
lii    BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
"On the Monday after you left him, he told me what
a pleasant conversation he had had, adding,' Difference
of political opinion has never made any coolness between
H      and myself.  I am very fond of him, and believe
he is a strong friend of mine. I have always been sorry
that I had to express myself as I did in my letter to'The
Guardian' about W          H.  I did not agree with
him, but he is a good man. It was my opinion, and I think
the same now.' He then went on to tell me what a sore
trial it was to him, and how deeply his feelings had been
wounded by the coldness of some of his friends. That a
few days before, when at the library, he met an old friend,
who turned his back upon him.' The war has taken ten
years from my life.' We then had a long conversation in
which he expressed his sentiments at length. He had been
making preparations, even at that early day, for the approaching General Convention. [He had also drawn up
and published a canon,' which he intended to propose, on
the degrees of relationship within which marriage might
not lawfully be contracted, and on divorce.] Among other
things, he said,' Six years ago and three years ago, they
would not elect me, because they thought I was a violent
party man; they thought I would bring politics into the
Church. They never were nmore mistaken in their lives.
I was for keeping politics out of the Church; I was then
very anxious to go; I could have done much good, for they
knew my political sentiments. That time has passed; I
suppose, after next October, I shall never be at another
General Convention; I shall in three years more be too
old.'  His face brightened up as he added,'And W
H       told nme he would take me utinder his care next October.' Then he said,'I am quite sure I shall live to go
to the General Convention; this will not be my last illness; I shall be up to-morrow.'
" Though he was such a strong Union man, there was
1 See Appendix.
,-N tes 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
no bitterness in his feelings toward the people of the South,
though when excited he would say things that he afterwards told me he was very sorry for,' but I could not help
it,' he would say. He told me, too, that he had always
given as much as he could spare whenever a collection was
taken up for Southern orphans, or for any other charity
connected with the South.
*' On Wednesday I was at his bedside all day. He was
very talkative, in full possession of his intellect, constantly
making quotations from different authors.  I remarked, on
giving him some food, that there was but a trifle left. He
replied, with a smile,' Your trifle's no trifle I ween, to a
customer prudent as I am.' Several times during the day,
after waking from a short sleep, he would say,' I thought
you were my mother; I was dreaming of her.' A volume
of' Notes and Queries' lay upon the table, which he wanted
to read, but we objected to it. We did not then consider
him very ill; he was decidedly better; but there was danger lest the tropical heat of those few days, might cause a
relapse.
"At seven o'clock in the evening, the great change
came. We sent for his friends, Messrs. R. and J. Proud,
fearing he might become restless, but such was not the
case. All was calm, quiet peace. He continued perfectly
conscious up to twelve o'clock at night, when it became
evident that he was sinking. At five o'clock in the morning, we sent for an old colored woman who had been much
with his mother.  When she came she fell upon her knees
at his bedside, and prayed that the Lord would receive his
spirit, and that she might be permitted to see his face in
heaven. At six o'clock on Thursday morning, July 16,
1868, he fell asleep, as calmly and quietly as an infant
going to rest.
"The deep solemnity of that peaceful death-bed scene
is still before me. Living in such a constant state of
preparation, when the hour came there was no need for
more than to lie down and fall asleep.
-iii 
liV   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
"For seventeen years the Doctor had been the pleasant
comnpanion of our home circle. You can readily imagine,
as the long winter evenings come on, how much I miss the
literary conversation, the pleasant and instructive reading,
that filled up the spare moments of home life.
"I have now given you a faithful account of the last illness of our dear old friend. You must glean from it such
portions as may be suitable for publication. I have entered into these lengthy details that you may understand
how fully his private life accorded with his outward profession,- an humble, self-denying member of Christ." 1
On Friday afternoon, July 17, he was followed by his
friends, including many of the clergy, to his resting-place,
beside his mother, in St. Paul's Church-yard, Baltimore.
The fiuneral service was held in St. Paul's Church, of
which he had so long been a vestryman. It was immediately after the regular Evening Prayer, and one of those
beautifill and remarkable coincidences occurred which are
constantly happening in our services as prescribed in the
Prayer Book. The next to the last verse of the first lesson
appointed (Job v.) is as follows: -
"THOU SHALT CO5IE TO THY GRAVE  IN A FULL  AGE,
LIKE AS A SHOCK OF CORN COMETH IN IN HIS SEASON.'
Scarcely had these words been read when they seemed
to receive an illustration, for the doors of the church were
thrown open, and the funeral train entered bearing the
mortal remains of HUGH DAVEY EVANS, in the 77th year
of his age.
It is proper to subjoin the opening paragraphs of his
Will:
"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN.  I, Hugh Davey Evans, of the city of Baltimore, Counsellor and Attorney at
Law, do make, publish, and declare, this my last Will and
Testament, written with my own hand, I being in sound
1 MS. letter from Miss M. B. to the Rev. Hall Harrison. 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
health, both of body and mind, hereby.revoking all former
Wills, Testaments, and Codicils heretofore by me made.
"Imprimis: I commit my soul to the infinite mercy of
GOD, the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, its Creator,
Redeemer, and Sanctifier, praying that through the merits
of JEsus CHRIST our Lord, the only begotten Son, my
many sins may be forgiven, and that I may have the benefit of His Atonement in departing this life in the Commutnion of His Holy Catholic Church, and in a joyful
Resurrection. I make this declaration, not as a matter of
form, but because I think it becomes a Christian, in an act
which is always a solemn one, because it is done in contemplatioii of death, to confess those truths which are to
be his support in that awful hour.
"ltem. - I desire that my body may be buried in my
mother's grave, in St. Paul's Church-yard, in the city of
Baltimore, or in any other place to which her remains may
have been removed. But if I should die at such a distance from her grave that my body cannot be transported
thither without expense, or inconvenience greater than
usual, I desire that I should be buried at the most convenient place. In every case I direct that my funeral shall
be as plain and inexpensive as possible, conformable to my
circumstances, which are very narrow.
" Item.- I direct my executor, hereinafter named, to
erect over my mother's grave a plain, white, marble slab,
with the inscription of which the form will be found in the
trunk with this Will, filling up the blank left for the time.
of my death. Should I have erected such a slab, let as
much of the inscription as may not be already on it be
added, with the blank filled. This paragraph of my Will
is to be executed literally, wherever I may be buried." 1
Such a man was HUGH DAVEY EVANS. The facts that
have been related speak for themselves. From them -
1 The inscription will be found at the foot of the next page.
lv 
lvi   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
from his life and his works - his character is to be judged,
and not from any words or opinions of others.
It frequently happens that people who perhaps think
they are following the maxim, de mortuis nil nisi bonum,
write in an extravagant and unreal way of those who have
gone from us. They pervert that true maxim. It is great
injustice and wrong, when a good man dies - one who did
his work quietly, according to the light which he had, but
without displaying any remarkable ability, or really attaining any very high standard -to heap upon him flattery
and panegyric so overstrained that what there was of real
goodness and usefulness is hidden from our eyes.
We would fall into no such error in writing of one who
had " that chastity of honor which felt a stain like a
wound," and who never went beyond the bounds of what
he believed to be the truth in all his numerous writingsthereby laying himself open at times to the appearance of
IN MEMORY OF
tEl~abet   WtFlcocts  Beaus,
BORN
April 9, 1758,
DIED
October 10, 1846;
AND OF HER ONLY DAUGHTER,
UttlabetD Woobsop Ebans,
BORN
April 7, 1791,
DIED
July 19, 1791;
AND OF HER ONLY SON,
9ugab  3abev 3bans,
BORN
April 26, 1792,
DIED
July 16, 1868.
"As it is appointed unto mnen once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look/for Him, shall
He appear the second time without sin unto salvation."  Hebrews ix. 27, 28.
" For yet a little while and He that shall come will come and will not tarry. Now
the just shall live byfaith; but if any man hold back, my soul shall have no pleasure
in him.  But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition; but of them  that
believe to the saving of the soul." Hebrews x. 37-39. 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
having less deep feeling than he really possessed. But
facts are facts, and HUGH DAVEY EVANS, if any man ever
did, practiced the great rule of Christian life as laid down
by our blessed Lord Himself. That daily self-denial, that
hidden taking up of the cross, that bountiful almsgiving
out of his penury, that love for even the least of Christ's
brethren, - all these were, beyond any question, leading
traits in the noble character which we have so imperfectly
sketched.
Who can fail to be affected by his own simple story of
his early years? Born of parents of very limited means,
with the poorest schooling, and compelled to give up even
that at the early age of thirteen to aid his widowed mother
in making her living, he yet proved his commanding intellectual ability and indomitable strength of character, by
surmounting the most crushing obstacles, and attaining
real eminence in various branches of learning,- in Law,
in History, in Theology, three of the largest departments
of human knowledge.
Add to these mental accomplishments, his noble private
character, and all will admit that we have here a man
whose friends may, without any sense of unreality or extravagance, look up to his bright example as one of the
very salt of the earth,- a man to be admired, to be loved,
to be imitated. To be admired for his great mind devoted
to the service of the Catholic Church, and that branch of
it in which his lot was cast,- both of which he loved with
all his heart and soul, - as well as for his spotless character; to be loved for his affectionate, kindly, genial nature;
to be imitated in his child-like spirit, his Christian courage,
his perfect truthfulness, his unaffected piety. Forget for a
moment the vulgar standard of the world, and it must be
acknowledged that HUGH DAVEY EVANS had in him the
elements of real greatness. For in what does true greatness consist? We answer the question in the words of a
clear and philosophic writer: -
lvii 
lviii  BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
"A man's greatness lies not in his wealth or station, as
the vulgar believe; nor yet in his intellectual capacity,
which is often associated with the meanest moral character,
the most abject servility to those in high places, and arrogance to the poor and lowly; but a man's true greatness
lies in the consciousness of an honest purpose through
life, founded on a just estimate of himself and everything
else, on frequent self-examination, and a steady obedience
to the rule which he knows to be right, without troubling
himself as the emperor (M. Aurelius) says he should not,
about what others may think or say, or whether they do or
do not do that which he thinks and says and does." 1
The same thought essentially, only made beautiful by
the coloring of deep Christian feeling thrown over it, is
thus expressed by one of the most remarkable writers of
the day: -
"What we are outwardly in this world, what men think
or say of us, of our titles, of our incomes, or of the absence of them; all this matters but little; all these are
leveled by death.   But what we are in ourselves, in our
consciences, our hopes, our affections, and wills, before
God our Father in Heaven, and His blessed Son our Divine Redeemer; this is a matter of an importance that is
simply unspeakable, fraught to each one of us with consequences more lasting and more momentous than the mind
112
of man can conceive."2
In this light then, and not with eyes blinded by worldly
station or the dazzling show which in this age mere money
brings with it, let us form our estimate of this good man;
a man who, after doing valuable, and, in great measure,
unrequited service to the Church, lost his honorable seat
in her Councils from a misconception, on the part of others,
1 The Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus. Translated by
George Long. Introduction, p. 27: London, 1869.
2 Life in Death. A Sermon in Memory of Bishop Hamilton, by H. P.
Liddon, M. A., p. 28. 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.
of his principles and purposes, as we verily believe and
have tried to show; 1 and who, having borne this grievous
disappointment for many years, not only without repining,
but in a spirit of beautiful patience, has left to those who
knew him best a touching and never-to-be-forgotten example of that
"Calm old age which conscience pure
And self-commanding hearts insure;
Waiting his summons to the sky,
Content to live, but not afraid to die."
1 See the Memoir from which this account is abridged, pp. 63 et seq.
lix 
CATALOGUE OF THE PRINCIPAL PUBLISHED WRITINGS
OF HUGH DAVEY EVANS, LL. D.
1. An Essay on Pleading, with a View to an Improved System. 1
vol. Svo. Baltimore, 1827.
2. Harris's Entries. Revised by Hugh Davey Evans. (Year of pub      lication unknown.)
3. A Treatise on the Course of Proceedings in the Common Law
Courts of the State of Maryland. 1 vol. 8vo. Baltimore, 1837. A
new and revised edition was published some thirty years afterwards.
4. A Letter to the Rev. Henry V. D. Johns, occasioned by the Publi     cation of his Sermon entitled, "The Protestant Episcopal Pas     tor." Baltimore, 1842. (Pamphlet.)
5. Essays to Prove the Validity of Anglican Ordinations. 1 vol.
12mo. Baltimore: Robinson, 1844.
6. Essays to Prove the Validity of Anglican Ordinations. Second
series. 2 vols. 12mo. Baltimore: Robinson, 1851.
7. Remarks on the Correspondence between Bp. Whittingham and
the Rev. Mr. Trapnell, in a Letter to the Laity. Baltimore, 1846.
(Pamphlet.)
8. A Second Letter to the Laity of the Diocese of Maryland, by one
of their Number. Baltimore, 1846, or 1847. (Pamphlet.)
9. The Unholy Alliance of Church and State: By a Lay Communi     cant. Printed in New Hampshire, and published in Richmond,
Virginia, 1846. (Pamphlet.)
This pamphlet did not, as its title might lead one to suppose, discuss
the condition of the Church in England.  The writer of it "considers
that the Church in this country has not yet fully thrown off the domination of the State." He regards the admission of worldly men to a share
in the government of the Church, for worldly considerations, as a great
evil which had its origin in the Alliance of Church and State...
He concludes with recommending that Churchmen shall "determine not to
aid in sending to legislate for the Church, any man who is not a dutiful son
of the Church, as well in practice as in theory,- who has not ratified his
baptismal vows, and does not habitually seek for spiritual strength and grace
at the table of his Lord." Notice in the "True Catholic," vol. iii. p. 562.
10. Some Observations on some Remarkable Passages in Mr. Goode's
Work on Baptism. Baltimore: Robinson. (Pamphlet.)
I 
CATALOGUE OF DR. EVANS'S WRITINGS.
11. Theophilus Americanus; or, Instruction for the Young Student
concerning the Church and the American Branch of it. Chiefly
from the fifth edition of "Theophilus Anglicanus."  By Chr.
Woodsworth, D. D., Canon of Westminster; Late Head Master
of Harrow School.  Edited by Hugh Davey Evans, LL. D.  1 vol.
12mo. Philadelphia: Hooker, 1851. 2d edition, ibid., 1852. 3d
edition, Ibid., R. Macauley, 1870.
12. An Essay on the Episcopate of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States. 1 vol. 12mo. Philadelphia: Hooker, 1855.
13. The True Catholic: A Monthly Magazine. 14 vols. 8vo. 1843    1856.
14. A Treatise on the Christian Doctrine of Marriage. New York:
Hurd and Houghton, 1870.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO "THE TRUE CATHOLIC," VOLS. II.-VIII.1
VOL. II. (iMay, 1844- April, 1845.)
12. The  General  Convention of
1844.
13. The Truth.
14. German  Theology-a review
of Mr. Dewer's Work.
15. Non-essentials.
16. Romanizing.
17. The Unity of the Church.
18. The Proceedings against the
Bishop    of N ew York.
19. The Unity of the Church
(continued).
1. The Connection of Church
Principles.
2. The Authority of the Church.
3. Private Judgment.
4. The Rights of the Laity.
5. Episcopal Authority.
6. Dissent and Semi-dissent.
7. Defective Views.
8. Rationalism.
9. Importance of Words.
10. Rationalism               (continued).
11. Discipline.
1 No list of articles in Vol. I. is given, because it was impossible to distinguish
with certainty those of Dr. Evans from those of his coadjutor the Rev. Mr. Hoffman.
Nearly all however were written by Dr. Evans.  The catalogue which is given of the
leading articles in Vols. II.-VIII. (we regret that we had not the remaining six volumes at hand), presents a most inadequate idea of the vast amount of work which Dr.
Evans did in those days. No mention is made of the notices of books, which formed
an important feature of the periodical. They were written in a vigorous and spirited
style - often displaying considerable caustic humor,- and conveyed valuable theological teaching. The articles (begun in the 4th vol.) called " Church Affairs," are
also not included in this list. These were often very elaborate, and must have cost
immense labor. They discussed, in a style far more graphic and interesting than he
generally employed in his leading articles, all the important doings in the Church
both in this country and in England. For example, apropos of the Gorham controversy, these articles on Church Affairs contained valuable discussions of the Baptismal question now, unhappily, revived among us.
Ixi
q
l 
]xii    CATALOGUE OF DR. EVANS'S WRITINGS.
VOL. III. (May, 1845 -April, 1846.)
20. On the Respect due to Eccle      siastical Authority.
21. Our Common Christianity.
22-24. Church Law.
25. Necessity  (on  the  Apostolic
Succession).
26, 27. The  Principle of Protes      tantism. (Review of Dr.
Schaff's Work).
28. Th e  Diseases        of P rotestant      ism.
29. Christian Politics.
30. On Mr. Newman's Secession.
31-33. Lay-Baptism.
34. Development. (Review of Dr.
Newman's Work.)
VOL. IV. (Mlay, 1846-April, 1847.)
35. Schism.
36. Religious Symbols.
37. Faith and Opinion.
38-40. The  Mystical  Presence.
(Review  of  Dr.  Nevins'
Treatise,which is most high      ly commended as a most val
uable theological work, enti   tled to the confidence and
gratitude of a true Catholic.)
Conscience.
Episcopal Authority.
The Dangers of the Church.
Individuation.
VOL. V. (May, 1847-April, 1848.)
47. Aggregation.
48. Ought the Minister to Preside
in the Vestry?
49. Assimilation.
50. Church Law.
VOL. VI. (M~ay, 1848-April, 1849.
59, 60. The  Progress and  Pros      pects of the Church.
61. Church Finance.
62. The word "Catholic."
63. Duty and Authority.
64, 65. The Generative Principle
of  Political Constitutions.
A review of De Maistre's
Essay on the subject.
Development and the Papacy.
Church Unity.
Sectarianism.
VOL. VII. (May, 1849 -April, 1850.)
69. The World in the Church.
70. Sacrifice.
71-72. The American Epoch.
73. The Missionary Society.
74. The Philosophy  of Religion.
A review of Morrell's Work.
75. Rev elati on.
76. Inspiration.
77. Confession.
78. Development.
79. Regeneration. Apropos ofthe
Gorham Controversy.
41.
44.
45.
46.
51-53. The Episcopate.
54. Extremes.
55. Private Interpretation.
56, 57. Suffragan Bishops.
58. Romanism.
66.
67.
68. 
CATALOGUE OF DR. EVANS'S WRITINGS.   lxiii
VOL. VIII. (May, 1850 -April, 1851.)
80. The Articles.
81, 82. Bishops  in  the United
States.
83. The late Maryland  Conven      tion-Bishop Whittingham
and Dr. XL V. D. Johns.
The following articles were contributed to the first and second volumes of the "American Church Monthly" (in 1857), edited by the Rev.
Henry N. Hudson, M. A., who says of H. D. E.:  "Our most sound
and solid contributor of Baltimore, at whose feet the best of us may
sit, and that to learn theology as well as law." Vol. I. p. 396.
91. Ecclesiastical Polity.
92. Moral  Theology  and  Moral
Philosophy.
93. Providence.
94. Reverence.
95. Divorce.
96. Inter-dependence.
97. The Reformation.
98. City Amusements.
99. Christian Morals.
100. Marriage. —The  Choice of
an Associate.
101. Cities.
102. The Relations of Church and
State.
84, 85. Interpretation.
86, 87. The Visibility of the
Church.
88. Amusements.
89. The Pursuit of Wealth.
90. Education.  
CORRIGENDA.
P. 48. The first line of the secondparagraph.from the bottom should read:
Each of the others rests upon a merely false notion. One rests, etc.
P. 296, note. For others, Xread other States.
P. 321, ~ 7.  A reference should have been made here to Bp. Coxa's
3foral Reforms, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1869.  
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY - OF SOCIETY, LAW, PUBLIC OPINION, AND
PRIVATE CONSCIENCE......... 1
CHAPTER II.
OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL..  47
CHAPTER III.
OF THE NATURE OF MIARRIAGE............          83
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE FORMIATIVE ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.... 105
CHAPTER V.
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.... 118
CHAPTER VI.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARtRIAGE.- I. EXCLUSIVENESS  137
CHAPTER VII.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMIENTS OF MARRIAGE.- II. INDISSOLUBLE   NESS.  1. THE RULE.............. 162
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. -II. INDISSOLUBLE   NESS. 2. THE EXCEPTION............ 185
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.-II. INDlSSOLUBLE   NESS. 3. THE EFFECT OF THE EXCEPTION.... 223
CHAPTER X.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MIARRIIAGE. -II. INDISSOLUBLE   NESS. 4. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND THEIlt RELATIONS TO
TIHE CONSCIENCE............... 244 
.lxviii                  CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XI.
PAGE
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. -III. THE AUTHOR   ITY OF THE HUSBAND AND THE SUBORIDINATION OF THE
WIFE................. 251
CHAPTER XII.
A FEW GENERAL REMARKS ON MARRIAGE........268
CHAPTER XIII.
OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE..........271
CHAPTER XIV.
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST............ 299
CHAPTER XV.
SUPPLEMENTARY.-OF THE MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE, AND THE
CHOICE OF A PARTNER............. 327 
A TREATISE
ON THE
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY - OF SOCIETY, LAW, PUBLIC OPINION,
AND PRIVATE CONSCIENCE.
~ 1. Necessity of Society. - ~ 2. The Family. - ~ 3. Law of God. - ~ 4.
Customary or Traditional Law. - ~ 5. Necessity and Nature of Au thority and Law.- ~ 6. The Three divinely appointed Societies.- ~ 7.
The Church -~ 8 Comparison of the Family, the Church, and the
State.- ~ 9. Private Conscience.- ~ 10. Morality.- ~ 11. General So cietv and Public Opinion. - ~ 12. The three authoritative Societies
designed for different Purposes. - ~ 13. Constitution of the Family. ~ 14. Departments of Government. - ~ 15. Government of the Family. -
~ 16. Paternal Government in the State.- ~ 17. General Principles of
Civil Government. - ~ 18. General Principles of Church Government. -
~ 19. Relations of Church and State.- ~ 20. Conflicting Laws.- ~ 21.
Matrimonial Causes. - ~ 22. Civil Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Causes. -
~ 23. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Causes. - ~ 24. Four
Classes of Matrimonial Causes. - ~ 25. Proceedings for Divorce a Mensa
et Thoro and for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. - ~ 26. Proceedings
to obtain a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.- ~ 27. Jactitation of
Marriage. - ~ 28. The State of Things in America. - ~ 29. The Object
of the Work.
~ 1. SOCIETY is necessary to the well-being of man. God
has declared that " it is not good for man to be alone."
It is true in a much wider sense than that which is usually
given to it. The connection with the creation of woman,
of this declaration, shows that its application is in the first
place to the relation between the sexes, and especially to
1
4 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
marriage; but it also means that society is necessary to
the well-being of man. The broader sense includes the
narrower, for woman was created for marriage and marriage is the foundation of s)ciety.  Out of it arises the
family, which is at once the germ of all other societies and
the material of which they are made. The well-being of
every society depends upon the well-being of the families
of which it is composed, and that upon the laws and opinions by which marriage and the relations between the
sexes are governed. A right understanding upon these
subjects is of the highest importance, and is, unfortunately,
very rare in this country. Hence the need of some such
work as the present.
~ 2. The word family has several meanings, of which it
is only necessary to mention two. The primary sense is
that of a household composed of a man, his wife, children,
and dependents living together under his authority. It is
to such a family that what has been said is to be applied.
In the only other sense, which will be mentioned, a family
includes all persons who have a descent from a common
ancestor, which can be traced through males. This idea
may also be expressed by the word race.
The household, as appears by the Holy Scriptures, once
existed in a state of independence, and was not included
in any other society. It would in that state have whatever
is essential to a family. It would be a society for the worship of God and the preservation of religion, and so would
be a church. It would have the right of protecting its
members from injuries, whether offered by other members
of the same family or by members of other families.
These rights are the germs of judicial authority and of the
rights of war and peace.  Such a family is, therefore, the
germ of a state.
~ 3. As the members of such a family grew up and established themselves, they would frequently settle in the
neighborhood of the parent stock. There would thus arise
2 
INTRODUCTION.
a community formed of households.  The  necessity of
rules to regulate the conduct of men to each other would
then be felt. In a single household, the head might govern
without much regard to rule; but the chief of several
households would be liable to suspicions of partiality from
which he would gladly take refuge in rules and laws.
Law is well defined by Blackstone:" A rule of action
which is prescribed by soume superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey." 1 The superior must possess that
right to control the actions of the inferior, which is called
authority, or the inferior would not be bound to obey the
rule. God is the only being of whom mlan can conceive
as possessing underived power or authority. His law is
paramount to all other laws, which must derive their authority from it. No man and no number of men, unless
they have an authority given to them by God, can have
any right to control any other man, or to make any law
which shall bind him.
~ 4. In primitive societies, the rule of action is generally a revelation, real or pretended. In either case, it is
preserved by traditions, which grow into usages and customs.   These  are supposed to be conformable to the
Divine will, because they have been handed down to the
existing generation from their forefathers. They constitute customary law. This seems to exist everywhere, and
to be assumed and implied in all written law. It is enforced by those to whom Divine providence has given authority, and thus acquires, although not in a very strict
sense, the character of a rule prescribed by a superior,
which an inferior is bound to obey.
~ 5. Marriage produces a fanmily. Families expand into
races, which are sometimes called clans or tribes. These
break up and unite in various ways, and thus a community
is formed, which is not all of one race. New members are
added to it by birth and by aggregation.  The common
1 1 Comm. p. 38.
3 
4        CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
descent of the original members is forgotten, and thus it
appears to be a mere aggregation of human beings. Such
a community needs authority and law more than a family,
or even a clan or tribe.  Without them it could never have
been formed, and if they ceased to exist it must be dissolved.   They  are necessary for the protection of the
weaker and simnpler members of the society.
Laws must be made by persons who have authority, and
authority must be derived from God. There are but two
modes in which it can be shown to have been so derived.
It must rest on a direct revelation, or on the fact that
God, in his providential government of the world, has
permitted certain persons to have the power of enforcing
their decrees. It is not an exception to this rule, that authority sometimes rests on a combination of the two things.
In the case of the Church, authority was at first committed
by direct revelation to a body of men, with power to perpetuate themselves by a continual admission of new members. Still the new members are providentially designated.
Authority and human law are necessary to society, for
God does not, in this world, enforce his law by a direct
manifestation of his power. He leaves it to be enforced
by men, and that it may be so enforced it must be interpreted by men. Human laws are nothing more than rules
laid down to govern those to whom the enforcement of
the Divine law is committed. The law of God is his will
as to the conduct of men.   It is to be gathered from
three sources; his Word, his works, and his providence.
From the last, taken alone, his will in particular cases
may be learned, but it scarcely gives any general rules.
These must be found in the Revealed Word or gathered
from observation of the works of God in connection with
his providence. Those contained in the Word are called,
collectively, Moral Theology, Christian Law, or Christian
Ethics. The rules inferred from the observation of God's 
INTRODUCTION.
works are called, collectively, Moral Philosophy or Natural Law, as actions are viewed in connection with duties
or rights. It may be remarked that no system of moral
philosophy or natural law, which shall approach to completeness, can be framed without the aid of revelation.
~ 6. All laws require to be enforced and, therefore, to
be interpreted. For these purposes God has instituted
three classes of societies, to which it is his will that every
human being shall belong. As these societies have duties
to perform, they must be organized. The organs of an
animal are the parts by means of which it performs its
natural functions. The officers of a society, by means of
whom it performs its functions, may therefore be called its
organs. A society which has duties must have such functionaries, and must have rules by which their powers and
duties are defined, distributed, and limited. Those rules
are its organization and constitute it an organized society.
There are, as has been said, three classes or kinds of
organized societies, which have divinely given authority.
To some particular organization in each class, it seems to
be the will of God that every human being should belong.
Each has authority over its own members within its proper
sphere.
A particular society may take many forms without
losing its title to a place in its proper class. Each of the
three classes was instituted for a particular purpose
churches to take charge of the spiritual welfare of men;
states to take charge of their temporal welfare; families
to provide for the education and training of young persons,
so as to promote their welfare in both spiritual and temporal affairs.
~ 7. The Church is perhaps not so much a class of societies as a single society, extending in design, although
not yet in fact, throughout the world. But its very extent
involves the necessity of its including many lesser organizations. The general society is really a federation in
5 
6       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
which practical power is committed to lesser federations
included within the larger. It is, therefore, not improper
to speak of churches in the sense of such lesser federations,
and of the Church as a class of societies.
Organized societies differ very much in the number of
their members, in the extent of territory over which they
spread, and in the principles upon which membership rests.
The authority of the family extends, in each case, over a
few persons, mostly bound together by a common descent,
and living in a single house. Wherever it is attempted to
extend the authority of the family much beyond these
limits, the experiment fails. To give it even the appearance
of success, the society must be organized upon principles
which are not consistent with the character of the family.
The authority of the state extends over all persons living within a certain territory. It may be large or small,
populous or otherwise, but it is assumed that the persons
occupying it are a community, that is, have a body of interests and opinions in common. The constituted authorities of the state represent this community. They exercise
authority over its members, over the territory which it occupies, and over all persons and things within that territory.
The Church has, by Divine appointment, authority over all
mankind, all of whom ought to enter into the one Church
by connecting themselves with some one of her federated
societies. But as she has no means of enforcing her authority, except exclusion from her privileges, which is of no
avail against those who do not desire them, she has practically no members who have not joined her of their own will.
The federated societies which constitute the one Church
are really branches, which have grown out of one root and
therefore historically are not federated; yet they are so
practically. In fact, they are very loosely bound together
as to externals, though spiritually they are one, at least in
theory. The units of which the great society is composed
are collected into smaller societies. These are bound to 
INTRODUCTION.
gether in federations, which are much more closely united
than the great society. The lesser federations generally
have territorial boundaries, within which they have authority over all the members of the Church, and are missionary societies for the conversion of all who are not members. These boundaries not unfrequently coincide with
those of particular states.
There are several differences between the particular
churches, as the smaller federations are called, and the
particular states within whose territorial boundaries they
exist. They differ as to their organization, their objects,
and the nature of the matters about which they are occupied.
The identity of territory, and consequently of the persons who ought to be subject to the authority of particular
churches with those who are subjects of particular states,
has led to the notion that the Church and State are two
manifestations of one society. This notion is the basis of
the doctrine of the union or rather the unity of Church
and State. It has been said that the two organizations
are merely two manifestations of one society, because the
members of both are the same persons. If it were assumed that both organizations were created by the society
itself, this might be true; but if one of them be of Divine
institution, it is not a manifestation of the society.  It is
an instrument appointed by God, through which to instruct
and rule the members of the society.
~ 8. In some sense both Church and State are of Divine appointment. This is true also of the Family. But
it is true in each case in a different way. The organization
of the Family is settled by a Divine law, which has been
plainly revealed. In the Church, the general principles of
the organization have been revealed; but many things are
left to be regulated by the authority of the Church herself,
"according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's
manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word."
7 
8        CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
As to the State, very little more has been revealed than
that it is agreeable to the Divine will that there should be
such an organization and that it should be obeyed. Every thing else has been left to human law and the disposal of
Divine providence. The only rule seems to be: "Let every
soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." I
The Church and the State have their proper spheres,
and have authority each within its own sphere; but the
authority of both is limited, because it is a derived and
therefore a subordinate authority. They may, each within
its own sphere, interpret, apply, and enforce the law of
God. Neither ought to erect any rule inconsistent with
that law, for from it all human authority is derived.
~ 9. This is the foundation of the right and duty of private conscience, which is commonly confounded with private judgment. The two things are as different as judgment and conscience. Judgment may be occupied about
anything, may decide all questions as well those of mere expediency as those of right and wrong. The difference may
be illustrated by a case of very common occurrence. A man
in authority decides what is the true interpretation of a law.
Another man who is under his authority appeals to his own
private judgment, and says, "You are nmistaken in your
interpretation; I will disregard it and follow my own."
This is private judgment, and unwarranted. But if a man
appeals to his private conscience, and finds that he cannot comply with the law as interpreted by his superior, he
is bound to disobey. It is disputed whether conscience is
an independent faculty or a mere function of the reason,
while it is agreed that judgment is a mere function of the
reason. Whether they be functions of the same faculty or
not, it is clear that they operate in different spheres.
Judgment may decide any question; conscience can only
act upon questions of right and wrong.
1 Romans xiii. 1. 
INTRODUCTION.
A man may give up his judgment to authority, but not
his conscience. That which he is convinced is wrong in
the sight of God, he may not do upon man's authority.
But if that which he is required by human authority to do,
be not contrary to the law of God, his conscience has
nothing to do with the question of obedience, except that
it ought to tell him that it is his duty to obey the powers
that God has set over him. To such authority he should
submit his private judgment, except when it clearly contravenes the law of God. Moreover men should remember,
what they too often forget, that their private consciences
are strictly private, and that the conscience of one man is
no guide to another, nor is it any authority for him who
has never been subjected to it by Divine authority.
The office of private conscience with respect to human
laws, is to decide whether they are inconsistent with the
Divine law. Its office ascertains its limits; in this, as in
other cases, a right cannot extend beyond the principles
upon which it rests.  The finction of private conscience is
to inquire whether an inferior law is so inconsistent with
a superior one that one cannot be obeyed without disobeying the other. It is to do this only for the person whose
conscience it is. When both laws cannot be obeyed, because onie commands what the other forbids, men are
obliged to obey the higher authority.   When  the conscience of a private person instructs him that such is the
case, he has no choice but to obey the higher law; yet
every other person  has the same right of inquiring and
deciding for himself. No private man has the right of dictating to another. Nor has any private man a right to inquire further than into the lawfulness, so to speak, of the
inferior law. The charter of private conscience is [in] the
book of the Acts of the Apostles: "We ought to obey
God rather than man." 1 Where it is possible to obey
both, private conscience has no rights.  He is not the
1 Acts v. 29.
9 
10      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
handmaid of private will. Mlien are apt to forget this and
to confound her with private fancy and private caprice as
well as with private judgment.
Private judgment is usually applied to decide whether a
private man, or perhaps a public officer, is bound to obey
the law as interpreted by human authority, or, as it is
more usually put, to obey a human law or follow a human
decision. It is generally called into action when a person
is unwilling to obey a law or accept an interpretation of
a law. Her voice is willingly heard when, as under such
circumstances she generally does, she decides in favor of
private will. The liberality of her decisions has raised her
many friends under her false name of private judgment.
Almost every man is an advocate for private judgment.
The decisions of the private conscience ought to be made
with freedom from the bias of private inclination, after fair
inquiry and within its proper sphere. Above all they
should be made under a deep sense of responsibility to
God and his law. Under these conditions the conscience
of each man is for him the ultimate human judge.  Questions about its authority may generally be disposed of by
reniembering that its office, with respect to public law, is
only to prevent inferior authorities from overruling the decisions of their superiors. All questions of authority must
be settled by it. This function of the conscience men are
apt enough to maintain and enlarge, even till it is confounded with private judgment, and decides questions of
expediency and even of taste. This is because they can
thus contrive, under its protection, to evade obedience to
any authority.
Unfortunately it has another office, which is, at this time,
very important. It is perhaps only a form of the other.
It is to decide between rival claimants to be the Church.
The Church, having no right or power to apply external
force, cannot prevent the formation of other organizations
which assume her name and claim her authority. Private
l I 
INTRODUCTION.
conscience, from the necessity of the case, must decide between the contending claimants.   The law of God  has
made it the duty of every man to join the true Church.
Two organizations each claim to be that Church. The man
who proposes to join either, must then decide for himself
which is the true one; that is, which of them is obeying, and
which is disobeying the Divine law.
~ 10. The private conscience has another office which
men are less fond of calling into exercise. It is that of interpreting the Divine law, and applying it to one's own
conduct, in cases which have not been provided for by any
human law. Conscience is far less readily attended to
here, when it appears in its proper character of a restraint,
than when, under the name of private judgment, it acted
as a liberator from restraint. This function of conscience
is very important. For no human laws interpret or enforce
the whole of the Divine law, or even pretend so to do.
The law of the land only enforces those portions of
the Divine law which the State judges important to the
temporal welfare of her subjects or citizens. These she
reenacts and enforces by human sanctions. The Church
professes to enforce the Divine law in its entirety. But
she has not interpreted it in a legislative form, except to a
very small extent. She generally leaves the interpretation
to her judicial authorities, who interpret the law as cases
arise. She even allows them a wide discretion as to enforcing the law by human sanctions.
This has led some persons into an error; they suppose
that the Church has adopted the interpretation of the
State. But no church or pretended church has ever done
this. The interpretations of the State are made for her own
purposes, which are very different from those, which the
C!'Lturch is bound to keep in view. They are, therefore, entirely inadequate to the wants of the Church. Moreover,
there are many State laws, which are founded upon mnere
notions of expediency, without any reference to the Divine
11 
12       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
law.   Again, the State laws are only designed for the
security of men in temporal affairs. They take no notice
of anything simply as it is a sin. For all these reasons it
is impossible that any sound church should ever adopt the
principle, that it is bound by the State's exposition of the
Divine law.
A very large domain is left for private conscience, in
the interpretation and application to men's private conduct
of that portion of the Divine law which has received no
public interpretation. This portion of the Divine law is
generally known as morals or morality. It is so called
from the Latin word mores, which means customs, usages,
because men's opinions about it are very much governed
by the usages of society.
In English we have two words, which together are equiv alent to the Latin word mores, morals and manners. We
apply the first to those usages which have a direct effect
upon society at large, and which it is generally understood
ought to be regulated by some Divine law, either revealed
or natural.   The other is applied to usages which only
affect the comfort of particular circles which it is rightly
thought may well be regulated by the opinions of those
circles. MIorals and indeed manners ought to be governed by the Divine law, which it is the duty of private
conscience to apply and enforce. To relieve it from that
duty men  have set up public opinion.   This formally
governs in the region of manners and practically in that of
public opinion.
~ 11. Besides the three organizations which have been
mentioned, and which have each an object, functions, and
organs, every community may be considered under a fourth
phase. This is called simply Society. In this sense Society
has no functions and therefore no organs. It is not unfrequently spoken of as organized; in fact social organization is
a v(ry familiar phrase, but nothing more is meant by it than
se ial arrangement.  Society is arranged into classes, orders, 
INTRODUCTION.
grades, cliques, circles, coteries, professions, trades, and
into what are called worlds, which last are composed of
persons of similar tastes, habits, and modes of thinking.
These various divisions each include many members who
are also included in other divisions, so that men may be,
and most men are, members of several of them.   This arrangement has practically great effect on the political and
ecclesiastical organizations of the same community, which,
in their turn, react upon the social arrangement, which is
sometimes called the social organization. It is even said
that society, in the sense in which the word has just been
used, has organs, and that some at least of its divisions
have organs; but what are so called are not really organs.
They are only persons, or perhaps periodical publications,
who undertake without authority to pronounce and so to
make the opinion of society, perhaps to promote the interests or spread the opinions of some portion of society.
Public opinion is that which prevails in society and is a
matter of great importance. It undertakes to mould and
to overrule the law of the land and of the Church, and even
to supersede the Divine law. It is thus formed: each of
the many divisions of society, all of which it may be convenient to include under the general term of classes, has
its own manners, customs, and morals, which are adapted to
the promotion of its own interests and form its public
opinion. Each of these classes has taken morals under its
charge so far as they affect its interests, and in an informal
way has enacted a code of morals.   From these codes
general society has compiled one for itself, which is called
Public Opinion. It adopts and enforces the observance of
the special codes modifying them by the friction of one
against another. It indirectly professes to be an exposition
of the Divine law; but directly scarcely recognizes its existence, and practically pays little or no attention to its
precepts.
The codes of the different classes are all marked by a
13 
14       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
strong leaning to class interests. They therefore fall short
of, if they do not contravene the Christian law; yet they
are all admitted into the general code of public opinion,
when they are not grossly inconsistent with the public interest, and sometimes when they are. Every class is willing
to overlook the vices in the codes of other classes, that
those of its own may also be overlooked. To the particular codes are added some maxims and rules which are found
convenient in the general intercourse among men without
regard to other relations.
Thus is formed that code of morals which is called
Public Opinion. It is made by society in its unorganized
form, in which it is regarded without reference to any of
the three divinely appointed organizations. It is enforced
by that society by the penalty of social degradation or social excommunication.
The society by which it is made, being composed of men
who are corrupt in their nature, it cannot be otherwise than
imperfect and corrupt. Society has the power to enforce
its code, and is not slow to exercise its power.   Having
been permitted in the course of Divine providence to possess power, it has some right to exist, although it has no
no direct gift of authority in the Divine law.   It does not
claim any such right; it does not claim any legitimate authority whatever; it only claims power. Nevertheless Society has a right to be heard, subject to the claims of private
conscience to compare its laws with the Divine law, or
with the legitimate human laws of the Church and the State.
Yet in this matter, private conscience is as sluggish and
slow to act as private judgment is forward and determined
in ecclesiastical matters.   Men are also slow to appeal
from the law of the land to private judgment, or even to private conscience. The reason for both these things is the
same; civil and social penalties are more feared by common minds than the censures of the Church. The ultimum supplictum of the Church is exclusion. That is no 
INTRODUCTION.
penalty to those who are without her pale, or who do not
care to remain within it. But fines and imprisonment and
the scorn of those with whom they associate are feared by
all men.
Public Opinion has become very powerful. It sometimes
dictates the laws of the State, and sometimes forbids the
execution of them. In the Church it has an undue and
pernicious influence, which shows itself rather in preventing proper enactments than in procuring improper ones.
It affects very injuriously the enforcement of discipline.
Being itself unsound, and neither knowing nor regarding
the principles of the Church, it is scarcely possible that
public opinion can have a beneficial influence upon the
Church.
~ 12. There are three distinct organizations or classes
of organizations to which authority has been divinely committed. They are the Church, the State, and the Famlily.
Every human being ought to join himself to the Universal
Church, and to commune with it through the particular
church which exists in the place in which he lives. Every
human being owes obedience to the State, within the territory of which he or she lives; from the nature of the
State there is no choice, whether that obedience shall be
paid or not. Every human being is born into some family, and generally ought to be connected with one either
as head or members through life; though God in His
Providence sometimes releases a person from that obligation by rendering a compliance with it impossible.   These
three organizations have power to enact laws, and [appoint] governors, who make and administer their laws.
They have been instituted for three different  purposes.
The Church is to provide for the eternal well-being of all
mankind. The State is to provide for the temporal wellbeing of its members and of all who reside within the territory committed by Providence to the charge of each
particular state. The Family is to train up members for
15 
6        CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
both, with reference to the wants of both. It is divinely
appointed, as fully and clearly as either of the others; yet
it is a constituent part of both, and subject to the authority
of both, within the proper sphere of each. The Church
and the State are also divinely instituted organizations, to
which the families and persons of which they are respectively composed are united by other ties than those of a
voluntary aggregation.
~ 13. The internal organization of the family has been
made the subject of direct revelation; all authority is
vested in the head, that is, in the father if there be one,
and if not, then in the mother.  "Honor thy father and thy
mother."l "Children obey your parents in the Lord, for
this  is right."2  "Children  obey your parents in all
things, for this is well pleasing unto the Lord." 8 " Wives
submit yourselves to your husbands as it is fit in the
Lord." 4  "Let the wife see that she reverence her husband." 5  "Likewise ye wives be in subjection to your own
husbands." 6
Such texts leave no room for question as to the internal
constitution of the family. It is a monarchy, without any
checks uponii the authority of the monarch, except those
that are within the bosom of the monarch. Yet the constitution itself sets limits to his authority, although it provides no external means of confining him within those
limits. In close connection with the texts which have been
cited as giving authority to the head of the family, are
others, which regulate the exercise of that authority.
"' Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the
(Church and gave himself for it." 7  " So ought men to love
their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife
loveth himself." 8    Let every one of you in particular so
love his wife even as himself."9  "Husbands love your
2 Ephesians vi. 1.
5 Ephesians v. 33.
8 Ephesians v. 28.
1 Exodus xx. 12.
4 Colossians iii. 18.
7 Ephesians v. 25.
8 Colossians iii. 20.
6 1 Peter iii. 1.
9 Ephesians vi. 4. 
INTRODUCTION.
wives and be not bitter against them." 1 "Fathers provoke
not your children to wrath." 2 " Fathers provoke not your
children to anger lest they be discouraged." 8 " Ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving
honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being
heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers may
not be hindered." 4
This class of texts sufficiently indicates the check that
God has placed upon the authority conferred by the others.
It is that kindly affection which He, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, has decreed shall be the natural product of the family relations.   The smallness of the community, the identity of interest among its members, their
intimate connection and their constant interchange of benefits combine to produce strong feelings of affection. The
head participates in these feelings, and thus is provided a
check upon the abuse of power, which must always be
wanting in such organizations.  If in any case this check
should be wanting, or insufficient, another is to be found in
the authority of the Church and of the State. The family
is now always a subordinate society, so that its head, as
well as each of its members, is subject to the authority of
both the others. The external checks in the authority of
the monarch of the family are to be found in the higher
authority of the Church and the State.
~ 14. The heads of families do not exercise their authority in the same way with the rulers of the other two
organizations.   The  powers of government are usually
divided into three classes: the judicial, which decides controversies and punishes crimes; the administrative, sometimes called the executive, which disposes of the common
resources for the common benefit; the legislative, which
superintends, directs, and restrains both the others. In the
State, and in some degree in the Church, attention is paid
1 Colossians iii. 19.
3 Colossians iii. 21.
2
17
2 Ephesians vi. 4.
4 1 Peter iii. 7. 
18       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
to the distinctions between these classes of powers, but
in the family they are neglected.   Hence a government
which neglects them, and professes to do what is most for
the happiness of its subjects without regard to them, is
called a paternal government.
It is commonly said that it is the office of the legislature
to make laws, of the judiciary to expound them, and of the
executive, as the administrative power is generally called,
to execute them.   These notions are superficial and in
fact erroneous. The administrative power has very little to
do with the execution of the laws. The judiciary is the
department which is really charged with that duty. It
applies the laws to particular cases, and superintends the
execution of its own decrees. That is the real execution
of the laws. The decrees of the judges, when disobeyed
or resisted, are enforced by a class of officers called ministerial, who act under the authority of the judges. These
ministerial officers do not belong to the administrative
department. They are the hands of the judiciary department, and are as much a part of that department as the
hands of a man are a part of his body. The so-called executive department has really nothing to do with the execution of the laws, except in very extreme cases. If the resistance to the ministerial officers should be so strong that
they are unable to overcome it, with the local aid for which
they have authority to call, the administrative, or so-called
executive power must suppress the rebellion, as it must
any other rebellion. This, however, is not so much executing the laws as preserving the existence of the State.
The proper duty of the judiciary department is to apply
and enforce the laws, and the right and duty of expounding them is merely incidental. The power of expounding
would be of little use without the power of enforcing the
exposition. In the infancy of government the leading ideas
are to decide disputes and punish crimes, that is, to apply
and enforce the Divine law.   In all primitive societies 
INTRODUCTION.
these are the only offices of internal governments which
are known. When government comes to be divided into
departments these offices are allotted to the judicial depart ment. But laws to be applied must be interpreted. Thus
the interpretation or exposition of the laws comes to be a
secondary and incidental duty of the judges, growing out
of their primary duty of enforcing the law. This truth is
universally admitted in practice. No judge would promulgate any exposition of a law, unless in the act of applying it
to a particular case in which he had been called upon to
enforce the law. If a judge were to do so, his exposition
would be treated with so much respect as his private opinion might deserve and with no more. No one would regard his exposition as a judicial act, because it was not put
forth in the legitimate execution of his office.
The legislative department has the power of making
laws. Such laws are strictly only interpretations of the
Divine law, fitted to classes of cases, and intended for the
guidance of the judicial and administrative departments.
It also promulgates decrees, which, although called laws,
are not properly laws; they are rather rules of expediency,
which the administrative department is bound to obey. It
has a third power, that of taxation. This is really a very
important fiunction of the administrative department, which
experience has shown may be more safely intrusted to a
legislative body than to the ordinary heads of the administrative department.
~ 15. In the family monarchy, the monarch, whether
male or female, has administrative and judicial authority,
without the restraint of legislative supervision. He may
by his own authority lay down rules which his subjects
are bound to obey. These are or ought to be interpretations of God's law; but he can lay down no rules for the
administrative or judicial departments, for all administrative and judicial authority is exercised by himself. He
will very rarely lay down any rules, because as he is the
19 
20       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
only judge, his interpretations of the Divine law will be
extemporized as they are wanted. The principles upon
which he proceeds can only be gathered from the decisions
which he makes, and which will come in time to be regarded as a sort of usages or customs of the family. Besides his decisions, he will issue commands, directions, or
instructions to particular persons, for he is a teacher as
well as a judge and an administrator. These may also
enter into the customary or traditional law of the family.
This kind of government, it has been already remarked, is
called paternal government.
In interpreting the Divine Law, the head of a family is
subject to the authorities of the Church and State and
must take into view their human laws. He must follow
their interpretations within their respective spheres; but
in the outlying field, which is called morality, he must interpret for himself. Here, however, he will be apt to avail
himself, perhaps too much, of the aid of public opinion.
In his task of interpretation, the head of a family will
be little embarrassed by the opposition of private judgment,
because a large proportion of his subjects, having no power
of forming opinions, are incapable of private judgment,
and therefore of any private conscience, which would be
entitled to consideration. The combination of this fact,
with the narrowness of his jurisdiction, and the absence of
any legislative check, gives a peculiar character to his government.   His modes  of proceeding are all informal.
Having, if he choose so to do, consulted with such members of the family as he may select, he makes up his mind
and proceeds to declare or to execute his decision. Should
the case partake of a judicial character, he in his discretion either wholly neglects or very slightly uses the forensic forms. This is all rendered tolerable by the affection
which he generally feels for each person under his authority.
~ 16. In the family this paternal government answers 
INTRODUCTION.
very well; because it is there usually directed so as to promote the welfare of the governed. In the State it always
fails; because the paternal solicitude is not real.  The
exercise of power is not checked by the tenderness of parental affection, and there is not the sameness of interest
which binds together the head and members of a single
household.
~ 17. The State, like the Church and the family, is a
divinely appointed organization. Unlike themn, it has no
divinely appointed forin.   Government is needful to the
well-being of man. In this truth all are agreed, notwithstanding the assertion, still sometimes made, that it is a
necessary evil. The true meaning disguised under that
phrase is that it is a disagreeable good. The inference
which used to be drawn from it, that the best government
was that which governed the least, was once very popular.
Like many other popular doctrines, it was a gross exaggeration of a truth. That truth was, that government
ought not to subject private persons to any restraints without good reasons. Man cannot exist without government,
therefore government is an ordinance of God.  Thus much
may be gathered from the light of nature, that is, the exercise of the human intellect upon the works and the
providence of God.
The sure word of Revelation teaches the same doctrine.
The written charter of the State is to be found in the first
part of the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the
Romans: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be,
are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are
not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and
thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister
of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil
21 
22  CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is
the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake."
This passage, neglected as it is, is full of instruction, and
it is scarcely too much to say that it is the basis of the
whole science of politics. It contains no political theory,
and nothing about the form of organization. The Divine
right of kings of Sir Robert Filmer, and the natural
right of the majority of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, are both passed by. Neither of them have any foundation in Scripture. The right of governing is declared to
belong to the powers that be. It is in the men to whom
God in his providence has given the power of enforcing
order. They are to be obeyed, because to resist them is to
resist the ordinance of God.
St. Peter teaches the same doctrine: " Submit yourselves
to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to
the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that
are sent by Him for the punishment of evil doers, and for
the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God,
that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of
foolish men: as free, and yet not using your liberty for a
cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." 1
This is in some sense a digression. In this work there
is no need to discuss the question of resistance and nonresistance. It is, however, necessary to say something of
obedience and its limits, which are very different things.
The Apostles lay down a general principle, that every ordinance of government is to be respected. St. Peter proceeds to illustrate the principle, by applying it to the
government under which he and those to whom he was
directly writing lived. St. Paul follows out the principle
into some of its important consequences. He first tells his
readers that the authority of the State extends to all per                    1 1 Peter ii. 13, etc. 
INTRODUCTION.
sons, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."
Next that it extends to the infliction of capital punishment,
and by a parity of reason to making war, "If thou do
that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword
in vain; for he is the minister of wrath upon him that doeth
evil." Again, he tells us that the authority of government
extends to all actions, "Rulers are not a terror to good
works, but to the evil." This implies that they are to judge
which are good works and which are evil.
But from this power itself arises a limitation. Rulers
have a right to decide what works are evil; but they must
have some rule by which to decide the question. The rule
is the law of God; for the ruler is the minister of God and
must not counteract the will of Him who is the only giver
and source of his authority. All human laws are therefore only expositions of the Divine law. They may be
erroneous, and even contravene the Divine law. When
they do contravene it men are bound to disregard them,
which is a very different thing from resisting the authority
which enacts them.  "We  should obey God rather than
man." 1 To decide when such cases arise is the office of
private conscience, but that office should be exercised according to the rules which have been already laid down.
Again: the office of the State is to promote the temporal
welfare of those who are under its authority. With the
spiritual welfare of men it has nothing to do.  Its powers
are all external, and the spiritual well-being of man depends
on his internal condition, which cannot be reached by any
external power. Religious actions done fromn the fear of
human laws are not pleasing to God. Outward compliances with religious observances are not faith. Faith and
obedience constitute religion; but they must be faith in
Christ and obedience to God. Those the State cannot
command, and it has therefore no right to meddle with religion, and its acts about religion are not binding upon the
1 Acts v. 29.
23 
24      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
conscience. The great limitation upon the authority of the
State is, that the State cannot justify any man in commit ting a sin. What is a sin is a question for the private con science, and the rule by which it is to be decided is the law
of God.
~ 18. God has committed religious questions to the care
of another organization. The Church differs from the State
in this, that the form of its organization is partially pre scribed in the Divine Word, and from the family, in that
the form is not fully prescribed. It was called into existence for a purpose different from that which the State was
designed to serve. Its object is to promote the spiritual
welfare of mankind. The spiritual well-being of men depends upon faith and obedience, an obedience not merely
formal and external, but arising from a lively internal
faith. The Church has to deal altogether with that'which
is internal, and has, therefore, no right to use external
force. She cannot compel any person to unite with her.
She may divide the world into territories for particular
churches, which will be missionary bodies for the conversion of all the inhabitants of their respective territories,
and will have ecclesiastical jurisdiction over those who have
voluntarily become their members, or who while they were
incapable of acting for themselves were placed under their
authority by their parents. She has no right and no means
to compel submission, and the State, which has means, has
no right to act in the matter.
Every member of the Church must become such by his
own free choice. This appears from the nature of the
Church, which was instituted only for spiritual purposes,
and from the means by which only she can enforce her authority. A man, so long as he is a member of the Church,
is bound to respect her authority. But the only means
which she has to enforce obedience, is exclusion from her
pale. It is not here meant to deny the awful meaning of
the words upon which the power of excommunication rests. 
INTRODUCTION.
But to those who lack faith, whether they are formally in
connection with the Church or not, excommunication is
nothing more than an exclusion from church membership,
and a denial of church privileges. This to such men is
only expulsion from a voluntary society. Yet excommunication is the ultimum supplicium of the Church, as death is
of the State. The power of excommunication was given to
the Church in these words of our blessed Saviour: "Whose
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." 1
The duty of the Church is to watch for souls, and this is
in another text expressly made the foundation of her authority, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that
must give account, that they may do it with joy and not
with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." 2
~ 19. The Church and the State are two organizations
founded upon different principles, but both having divinely
given authority. The Church has authority over her own
members; the State over all persons found within her territories, including the members of the Church. Each has
jurisdiction over all actions, when circumstances bring
them within its sphere. For the two societies exist for different purposes, -one for the eternal, the other for the
temporal benefit of mankind. Each may have jurisdiction over any conceivable action. For there is no voluntary action which may not affect the spiritual welfare of
the agent or the temporal welfare of some person. Many
actions do both, and are thus at once within the jurisdiction
of the Church and that of the State.  There must then be
danger of collisions between the two societies. On two
points there is, however, no danger of collision.  The
Church has no jurisdiction over things or over persons who
are not her members.
Yet the Church has an independent authority which may
1 John xx. 23.                   2 Hebrews xiii. 17.
25 
26       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
be exercised without any regard to the decisions of the
State. She may enact the same laws with the State, and
so her authority will come in aid of that of the State; or
she may enact laws which contradict those of the State,
and so the two authorities will be antagonistic to each other.
The Primitive Church was antagonistic to the Roman Empire. This antagonism is possible, because the two societies are both independent; they are so, because such is the
will of the God who has appointed them both, and from
whom both derive their authority. But He has also confined each of them to its proper sphere.  Neither has any
right to interfere with the decisions of the other, or to restrain it from enforcing them.  It is possible that the two
authorities may come to decisions which clash with each
other, for both are administered by fallible men; one or
the other, or both may mistake the Divine law. Both are
administered by peccable men, and one or the other, or
both may neglect the Divine law.
The State never recognizes the law of the Church as a
reason for disobeying her laws, and she is not bound to do
so. Neither is the Church bound to recognize the law of
the State as a reason for disobeying her laws. Nor should
either, in making laws, attempt to conform them to those
of the other. Their laws are made for different purposes
and enforced by different penalties.   Every one who is
subject to both, is bound to obey both. When they clash,
each person must decide for himself which he will obey,
according to the dictates of his private conscience. The
question for his conscience to decide is this, Which of the
two is conformable to the Divine law? If private conscience cannot answer this question, then every one must
choose between church privileges and temporal advantages,
between church censures and temporal penalties.
The authority of the Church is given to her to promote
the spiritual welfare of mankind, and it is given to her as
an organized society. She is, in the Divine intention, 
INTRODUCTION.
Catholic and Universal. Her mission is to bring all men
within her pale. To do this she must be a city set on a
hill, which cannot be hid, and she must be so pure that
men may see her purity and be attracted by it. It is therefore necessary that unworthy members should be excluded
and unworthy officers degraded. The puritan notion of a
perfectly pare church is a chimera.  For every member of
every church, "although baptized and born again in Christ,
yet offends in many things, and if we say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1
Yet the purity of the Church must be vindicated by
removing from among her members, and especially from
among her officers, gross and notorious offenders. It is
right that censures should be passed upon offenders even
for the sake of the offenders. It was the theory of the
Church for several centuries, that all proceedings in ecclesiastical courts were for the benefit of the accused. The
memory of this theory has been preserved in the English
ecclesiastical courts, whose articles of accusation against a
man were, and perhaps still are, said to be for the good of
his soul, -pro saute anitne sue.
The Church is an organized society having authority.
She has officers who are pastors, whose duty it is both to
govern and to feed the flock, functions which imply the
teaching thenm by good example. The faith and morals of
these men are objects of peculiar solicitude to the Church,
which everywhere enacts special laws concerning them.
These provide for an inquiry into their fitness both in faith
and morals, before their admission to office, and for their
removal from office, when found deficient in either. They
can properly be removed only after a judicial inquiry.
There are thus two kinds of church discipline, which are
respectively known as clerical discipline and lay discipline.
In lay discipline the ultimunm supplicium is excommunication; in clerical degradation ecclesiastical law is composed
1 Article xx.
27 
28      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
of the rules which the Church lays down for the administration of these two kinds of discipline.
So long as church discipline is enforced only by the suspension and degradation of offending clergymen, and the
suspension or excommunication of offending laymen, there
can be no reasonable cause of complaint on the part of
the State and so no hazard of collision. The State can
only regard the Church as a voluntary society, excommunication as an exclusion from that society, and degradation
as the removal of one of its officers. She can do nothing
but acquiesce in the exclusions and removals. If the
offenses which led to them are also violations of her laws,
she is still free to punish them. If the exclusion or removal directly affects civil or material rights, she may inquire in her civil courts whether the ecclesiastical proceedings have been conducted according to the law of the
Church. Thus much can scarcely be denied to her, and
in this country she claims no more. While these principles are acted upon on both sides, there can be no collision.
The old collisions arose out of the old unions between the
Church and the State, in which each delegated some portion of its authority to the other. Each moreover claimed
an exclusive jurisdiction over some persons who it insisted should be exempted from the jurisdiction of the
other. The State even allowed the Church in some cases a
jurisdiction over things. The Church on her part allowed
the State a large share in the appointment of her chief
officers. The plain boundaries between the two jurisdictions, which are marked out by the different objects of the
two institutions and their different modes of enforcing
their authority, were forgotten. The ideas of men on the
subject became confused, and their interests and passions
excited them against each other. The ecclesiastical history of Europe for several centuries is little more than a
record of collisions with the State.
I 
INTRODUCTION.
This state of things was made worse by the theory that
the two societies were identical.   Of two organizations
governing one society, it was thought that one must be su perior to the other. The question which was the superior
must arise. Both had assumed a federative form, and each
was composed of lesser federations having each its own
head. These were all subject to the head of some larger
federation, all being at last subject to the head of one
great federation, of which all were members. The Church
federation was the largest and in moral and intellectual
force the strongest. The State was stronger in physical
force. Hence the long struggle between intellectual and
physical power.
The whole Church of Western Europe was combined
under the Pope. The clergy all acknowledged his authority, and they had influence everywhere. The largest of
the State federations was by no means so extensive. Hence
every temporal prince in Europe felt that it was his interest to be on good terms with the Pope, who was thus enabled to command that military force, which the Church
had not, and ought not to have, by playing off one temporal
prince against another. This emboldened him to claim a
superiority over the heads of the States. The claim was
everywhere resisted, and was the cause of many collisions
between the Church and the State. Happily this and all
the other causes of collision which have been mentioned
are now at an end in this country.
The struggle for superiority had a great effect in bringing about the Reformation, which decided it in favor of the
State. Where the Reformation prevailed, the authority of
the Pope was at an end. The local clergy having no
longer a protector beyond the limits of the State, were
brought entirely under the power of the State. In those
countries which did not throw off their allegiance to the
Pope his power was nevertheless much abridged, and that
of the temporal sovereigns advanced. The State has now
29 
30      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
become the great advocate for the union of Church and
State and the great enemy of the independence of the
Church.
In this country there has grown up a great aversion to the
union. A sound feeling, though scarcely resting upon the
true grounds. The union has produced many great evils, but
more to the Church than to the State or to private persons.
Popery itself is nothing but a recoil from it. The Church
had once a financial system, which was voluntary, although
based upon the idea of duty. When the alliance between
Church and State was formed the Church gave it up, and
undertook to live upon her endowments eked out by State
aid. The State soon ceased to give any aid, and falsely
took credit for having given the endowments. The wants
of the Church outgrew the endowments, and it became
necessary to return to the voluntary system. But the old
mode of conducting the business was forgotten, and men
had but the sense of duty and the habit of giving. Hence
the poverty of the Church.
People in this country profess to dread the union of
Church and State. What they really dread is the domination of the Church over the State and over themselves, things
of which there is no danger. In Europe the union has terminated in the domination of the State over the Church,
which is undoubtedly a great and unmixed evil. In former
times the English people looked to the State as their protector from the Pope. The State was the champion of
Protestantism. Englishmen now affect to do the same
thing; but there is reason to fear that too many of them
value the State as the champion of religious libertinism.
Many Englishmen profess a strong attachment to the Church,
who really dislike the idea of an independent ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; but they are sincerely attached to the existing
establishment, because they look upon it as a mere creature
of the State.
The American people have inherited from their English 
INTRODUCTION.
ancestors a great jealousy of the Church, meaning any religious organization which claims authority. They profess
a great dislike to any connection between the Church and
the State. But there is a covert willingness to subject the
Church to general society and public opinion. This feeling
may be detected by its effects. The secular newspapers,
the would-be organs of public opinion, are fond of meddling with church affairs and judging of them by their own
standard. Some Church papers and some members of!
ecclesiastical bodies are fond of appealing to public opinion,
because they are themselves under its influence. Sutch appeals and those who make them are always popular with
people outside of the Church.
Society is always ready to take the part of the State
against the Church. She is still more ready to press her
own notions upon the Church, and to dictate her laws,
as she does, to a great extent, those of the State. She
really prefers the State; temporal interests are better understood and more valued by the public at large than spiritual. The State too can enforce her laws by temporal
penalties, and so has a more tangible authority than the
Church. The authority of the Church is spiritual, her censures [are] only felt by those who have faith. It is disre garded by the great mass of mankind, who regard it as a
mere usurpation. The Church is moreover suspected of
seeking to impose a code of morals more strict than that
of society or that of the law of the land. Public opinion
is, therefore, adverse to the Church.
The Church is perhaps over careful to avoid collisions
with the State or with society; but it would be really unwise
for her to bring about a collision with either if it could
properly be avoided. Either the State or society can rally
a large portion of the Church's own sons against her. Yet
a case may arise in which it may be her duty not to decline
a conflict.
~ 20. If the State were to pass a law requiring anything
31 
32      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
to be done which is against the law of God, it would be
the duty of the Church to censure any of her mlenmbers
who should obey the law. Men must then choose, accord ing to their private consciences, which of the two authori ties they will obey. If they choose to obey the State, the
Church can do nothing but exclude them from her pale.
Such collisions are not very likely to occur. The laws
of the State which contravene the Divine law chiefly relate to
marriage and are not very numerous. They are practically
only permissive. The State leaves every person at liberty
to marry or not at his or her choice, and, with a few exceptions, to marry whomsoever he or she will. But it compels no person to marry, still less to marry any particular
person. When a person contracts a marriage which is
against the law of God and not against the law of the land,
he has offended and is liable to Church censures; but if he
do not contract such a marriage he offends neither the
Church nor the State, for the law of the State is only permissive. It is more correct to say that there is no State
law on the subject. When, therefore, the Church censures
a person for a marriage which the State does not forbid,
there is no collision between the Church and the State.
What one permits the other forbids, and a person who is
subject to both ought to obey the stricter law. There is
really no difficulty until a case shall arise in which one forbids what the other commands.
Thus the laws which allow the dissolution of a valid marriage, and the marriage of the parties to it to other persons
without waiting for the death of either, are really only
permissive. No person is obliged to apply for a divorce,
or having obtained one, or having been forced to submit to
one, is obliged to marry again. The State does not command either of these things, and the Church does not provoke a collision by forbidding them.
The legislation of the American Church is peculiar.
Its discipline is applied to offenses which are not defined
I 
INTRODUCTION.
in the canons otherwise than by the most general reference
to the Divine law. The effect is that the interpretation of
the Divine law is committed to the judges who administer
Church discipline. Public opinion requires that they shall
take the law of the land for their guide, or, as the framers
of public opinion prefer saying, that they should obey the
law of the land. They should obey the law of the land
when it is not in conflict with the law of God; but they
should not subject the law of God to the law of the
land.
When a question arises whether the law of the land conflicts with the law of God, it canfbt be decided by the law
of the land, which is of inferior authority to the law of
God. The law of God, which is the higher law, must be
the rule, and conscience the judge to apply that rule. Every
one who is called upon to act upon the question must decide it for himself, as every one who is called to act upon
any question must decide it for himself. The private man
must decide it according to his conscience. The officer
of the Church, who is called to advise, direct, or judge the
conduct of the private Christian, must decide according to
his private conscience, unless the Church has fuirnished
him with a rule. The Church herself, in her legislative
capacity, must be governed by what may be called her
aggregate, or public conscience.
If the two laws do not conflict, every one, including the
authorities of the Church, must obey both. If one permit
what the other forbids, men should respect the prohibition.
If one command what the other forbids, we must obey
God rather than man. Suppose a man should apply
to be received into the communion of the Church who had
married after a civil divorce which was contrary to God's
law. How ought the rector of the parish to act? Public
opinion would perhaps say that the twice-married man
should be received, because he had done nothing not
allowed by the law of the land. But the true question is,
3
33 
34      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Has he done an act contrary to the law of God? The law
of the land, which is, at best, an interpretation of the law
of God, made by temporal rulers  for temporal purposes,
has nothing to do with spiritual questions.
The State may interpret the law of God for her own
purposes; but she has no right to interpret it for those of
the Church. She may decide what actions are injurious to
the temporal interests of men, not what are injurious to
the spiritual welfare of the agent. Moreover, it is notorious
that the rulers of States do not now even pretend to interpret the law of God. They avow that they act only upon
their own notions of expediency. This is an abuse of
power, but the legitimate authority of the State is not impaired by it. To suppose that her authority could be forfeited by abuse, would render all government impossible.
The laws of the State, however they may conflict with the
law of God, are binding in the courts of the State. A
judge whose conscience will not permit him to execute a
law of the State should resign his position.
In the supposed case the second marriage is not legally
bigamy. The husband has the same legal control over his
defacto wife and her property as any other husband. The
so-called wife has a legal right to be supported by the
de facto husband according to his means and condition.
At his death she will be entitled to a wife's share of his
estate. The true wife has lost her right to a support and
to a share in the distribution of her husband's estate.
The children of the second marriage are legitimate. -All
these effects the act of the State can produce; but it cannot make a sin to be no sin.
The Church has neither the right nor the power to interfere with these civil matters; but she has a right to declare
that such an union is sinfuil and prejudicial to the spiritual
interests of those between whom it has been formed. It
is not necessary that the declaration should be a legislative
act, which would give no additional force to a Divine law,
I 
INTRODUCTION.
though such an act might be of great service to individual
clergymen as a defense against public opinion.
The true idea of a legislative act is that it is an exposition of the Divine law, of the meaning of which, or of its
application, there may be some doubt. St. Germain, an
old writer on the Common Law, states this truth thus:
"The law of man (the which sometimes is called the law
positive) is derived by reason as a thing which is necessary
and probably following of the law of reason and of the law
of God.  And that is called probable, in that it appeareth
to many, and especially to wise men, to be true. And
therefore in every law positive well made, there is somewhat
of the law of reason, and sonmewhat of the law of God." 1
A legislative act is binding upon all persons who are
providentially under the authority of those by whom it is
made, so far as their jurisdiction extends, but no10 fiurther.
The jurisdiction of the State does not extend to spiritual
matters, except just so far as it may be necessary to pro tect herself, or her citizens or subjects, from injuries at tempted to be cloaked under spiritual forms. Even then
it does not extend to the decision of what is, and is not sin.
Her exposition of the law of God for such a purpose is
without authority. The exposition of the Divine law for
spiritual purposes, belongs to the Church. But a legislative
interpretation of a plain Divine law is unnecessary. The
church may therefore leave such a Divine law to be inter preted by her judicial and administrative officers. It does
not follow, that they are to follow the interpretation of the
State, when it contradicts the true sense of the Divine law.
~ 21. Both the Church and the State have jurisdiction
over matrimonial causes, each in its own sphere and for its
own purposes. One acts with regard to the temporal welfare
of the community under its care; the other with regard to
the spiritual welfare of mankind. They enforce their decis  ions in different ways: one punishes that which it con           1 Doctor and Student, Chapter iv., at the beginning.
35 
36       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
siders as bigamy, by forced labor; the other censures that,
which in its judgment is the same offense, by suspension
from the Holy Communion.  The Church has no rilght to
complain of the State for punishing a man who has married again during the life of a former wife, although the
Church may regard the first marriage as against the Divine
law, and void because contracted with a brother's widow, or
for any other reason. So the State has no right to complain
if the Church censure a man who has married a second
time during the life of his wife, although the State has
released him from his civil obligations to her.
There seems, however, to be a notion, that questions
concerning matrimony are peculiarly within the jurisdiction
of the State. Like all other questions they are within her
jurisdiction, so far as the temporal welfare of the people
and the administration of the temporal laws are concerned;
but like all other questions, they are within the jurisdiction
of the Church, so far as they bear upon the spiritual welfare
of mankind. To suppose the contrary is to fall into the
old error, which grew out of the old union between Church
and State, that some questions are, in themselves, of spiritual, and others of temporal jurisdiction; whereas, in
truth, all questions of right and wrong belong to both;
though each is to treat all questions for its own purposes
and inii its own manner.
In former times many attempts were made to settle the
questions between the Church and the State, by allotting
certain causes and questions to one, and others to the other.
In the course of these attempts, matrimonial causes were
assigned to the ecclesiastical courts, to be decided according to church law. In England they remained in that
position until very lately. They are now held to be of
civil jurisdiction, as well in England as in France, Scotland, the Protestant portion of Germany, and some other
parts of Europe. They really belong to both, to each
within its own sphere, and for its own proper purposes,
I 
INTRODUCTION.
according to its nature, and the object for which it was
instituted.
~ 22. Marriage, which lies at the root of all society,
must concern the temporal welfare of the community.  It
is therefore impossible that the State should not have a
right to make laws about it. They, like all others, ought
to be true expositions of the Divine law. Yet if the State
err in her interpretation, or even make a law without
reference to the Divine law, there is no earthly power
which can set her right. Happily, she leaves every one at
liberty to abstain from marrying, or to marry whomsoever
he or she will, except in a very few cases. In these she
recognizes a few of the Christian impediments to marriage
between particular persons. At least in this country, she
requires no clergyman to solemnize any particular marriage. Her erroneous laws are then practically only permissive, and cannot interfere with the conscience of any
one. In the Middle Ages the State made no laws on the
subject, and her courts entertained no matrimonial causes.
The whole matter was remitted to the Church, which made
and administered the law. The State only accepted her
decisions as final.
~ 23. The Church had a right, for her own purposes, to
expound the law of marriage. This was not derived from
the State, and did not involve ally right to impose her decisioIns upon the State, or to affect, in any way, temporal
rights. The State, however, chose to accept for civil purposes the decisions which the Church made for spiritual
purposes. The State had always a right to withdraw the
power which she had thus delegated to the Church; but
not to withdraw the original right, which the Church had,
to legislate about marriage in a spiritual view. The cointracting an unlawful marriage, the living in one after it is
contracted, or living separate from a lawful husband or
wife, are sins, and, like other sins, damage the spiritual
state of those by whom they are committed. All sins are
within the jurisdiction of the Church.
87 
38       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
MAatrinmonial causes were, in the Middle Ages, regarded
as belonging to the canon law and the ecclesiastical courts.
According to English usage, they were of three classes:
proceedings for divorce, for restitution of conjugal rights,
and for jactitation of marriage. Under the first class were
included two kinds of proceedings, which were of very dif   ferent characters, and neither of them properly proceed   ings for divorce. A divorce is a dissolution of a valid mar   riage. But it is a principle of the canon law, that the dis   solution of a valid marriage is impossible.
~ 24. That law, however, recognizes two things, which it
calls divorce: one is a declaration that a supposed mar   riage is void. The form of a marriage may have been
gone through, but the persons were not married, because
a marriage between them is unlawftil. It was competent
for the ecclesiastical courts to declare such marriages void.
Such a declaration was called a divorce a vinculo matri   monii. The other thing, which was called a divorce, was
a permission or command to married persons to live sepa   rate from each other, while the bond of marriage remained
unbroken.  This was called a divorce a mensa et thoro.
MIatrimonial causes were then of four kinds: proceedings
for divorces a vinculo matrimonyi; for divorces a mensa et
thoro; for restitution of conjugal rights, and for jactitation
of marriage.
~ 25. Passing by, for the present, the first of these pro   ceedings, the second and third may be considered together.
They are correlatives to each other. The question in both
is the same, but it is raised in different modes, under differ ing circumstances.  In one, the person who is desirous of
living separate from  his or her companion, applies for per  mnission so to do, which implies protection in so doing. In
the other, the person who is desirous to separate has de  parted from his or her companion without permission, and
the person deserted seeks to compel a return. Both these
proceedings were, no doubt, in their origin, applications to
I
i
I
t
I
I 
INTRODUCTION.
the bishop of the diocese for his counsel and assistance.
The general principle is plainly laid down by St. Paul, that
it is the duty of married persons to live together as man and
wife   Yet particular circumstances may arise which may
render it difficult to perform that duty. The difficulties may
be so great as to render it impossible for one of the parties
to the marriage to live with the other. When such cases
arose, the bishop, who knew the Divine law, stood impartial
between the parties, and had authority over both, was the
fittest person to decide them. The question which he was to
decide was, Whether the peculiar circumstances of the case
were such as to make it an exception to the general rule?
In a conscientious age, persons who were in doubt as
to the course which it was their duty to pursue, naturally
applied to their bishop for instruction. His decision would
often settle the matter; if it did not, the primitive discipline
gave him the power of enforcing it by excommunication.
But excommunication was, after all, only an appeal to the
conscience. The conscience of the offender, called into
action by the decision of the bishop, and if necessary by
the excommunication, might so work as to produce a
thorough reconciliation.
When ecclesiastical proceedings took a forensic form,
the seeking for the bishop's advice became a direct application to his authority. It took one of two forms. When
the persons were still living together, the application was
for a separation which came to be called a divorce a mensa
et thoro. When one of them had left the other, it was open
for the person who had departed to make a similar application, in order to legalize the existing separation. This
came to be the usual mode of action, the dissatified person
departed and applied for a legal separation, or as it came to
be called, a divorce a mensa et thoro. But the person who
did not wish for a separation, milght apply for an order
on the person who had departed to return, which came to
be called a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights.
39 
40       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
In process of time ecclesiastical causes ceased to be
tried by the bishop in person.   They were tried under
episcopal authority by judges, who, whether in holy orders
or not, were practically lawyers, and decided questions
according to rules and precedents and in a lawyer-like
spirit. Now, another change has taken place; matrimonial
causes are tried by a mere lay judge acting under the au thority of the State. Under such circumstances the pro ceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights can be noth ing but a delusion.
Under the original system, the return of the person who
had departed, being either directly or indirectly the effect
of conscience, might have led to a reunion of feeling.
Under that which followed, the ecclesiastical court could
make its decree, but it was not likely to be attended with
any very beneficial effects. If it were against a recusant
wife, it would place her person in the custody of her husband. Formerly the law of the land and the usages of
society armed the husband with means to enforce outward
obedience. But it is impossible that the affections, the
most valuable conjugal rights, would be restored at the
mandate of a judge. Now, the law has been much changed,
and the usages of society more. The same court which
restored a recusant wife to the custody of her husband,
would grant her a judicial separation for cruelty, if she
were treated with harshness. It is not easy to see that a
decree ordering a husband to return to his deserted wife
could produce any good effect.
So in the case of a divorce a mensa et thoro, which the
late act of Parliament calls by its right name, -judicial
separation, a formal decree is seldom sought, until after a
separation by agreement or otherwise has taken place. It
is then sought for merely civil purposes. It will give the
separation a legal existence, be an answer to any proceeding for the restitution of conjugal rights, relieve the wife
from the shadow of legal authority, which the husband still
I 
INTRODUCTION.
retains, and be a foundation for an application for alimony,
or a provision for her support at the expense of her husband. But husbands and wives do not now live together,
because a judicial separation has been refused. The State
has a right to make provision for judicial separations for
the purposes to which they are actually applied.   But
whatever human laws may be made upon the subject, there
will still remain a grave question for the conscience of a
Christian. A person who thinks of asking for a judicial
separation, or, as it is still called in this country, a divorce
a mensa et thoro, has still to ask, Can I, under the circumstances in which I am placed, avail myself of the human law, without breaking the Divine law?
~ 26. The proceeding to obtain a declaration of the
nullity of a marriage in fact, which is commonly called a
divorce a vinculo matrimonii, had a different origin. It
was at first a proceeding instituted by the authority of the
Church, pro salute animnarum,- for the health of the souls
of the persons concerned. It was intended to put a stop
to the sin in which they were living. As the discipline
of the Church declined, it was left to the consciences of
the sinners themselves to apply the remedy.
In the mean time, the Latin Church had multiplied the
prohibitions to intermarry, until it was difficult for any person of any rank to find a person within reach and of
equal rank whom he or she might lawfully marry. This
multiplication of prohibitions was probably intended to
increase the revenue of the Popes, who had the power of.
granting dispensations and sold them at high prices.
They answered that purpose, but became a great moral
evil. The fact, that they could be purchased with money,
prevented the prohibitions from taking hold of the conscience. They were costly; marriages, for which they were
necessary, were solemnized without them, sometimes in
ignorance that the parties were related within the forbidden
degrees.   It was possible too that a dispensation might be
41 
42       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
defective in form, and forms were rigidly enforced when it
was profitable so to do. Such dispensations were set aside.
If a dispensation contained no formal defect, it was easy to
say, often with truth, that it had been obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation. Upon the whole, the effect of the sys tem was that the great men had such a facility in getting rid
of their wives, as almost amounted to a power of arbitrary
divorce. The women had in theory the same facility, but
not in practice.
~ 27. The proceeding for jactitation of marriage rested
on a still different set of principles.   Its object was to
restrain persons from falsely jactitating, or boasting that
they were mnarried to particular persons. It is not probable that such a practice was ever so common or so mischievous as to require a remedy. Yet one was provided.
In order to obtain a decree forbidding the person complained of from repeating the boast, it seems to have been
only necessary to show that he or she had made it, unless
he set up as a defense that the boast was well founded.
It would then be necessary to inquire, first, whether any
marriage in fact had been solemnized between the parties,
and next, whether the marriage solemnized was valid.
Both these inquiries were within the province of the
Church.   For the State had adopted the ecclesiastical
law of marriage, and had committed to the Church the
entire jurisdiction in matrimonial causes.  It is still the
law of England, -at least there has been no direct legislative change, - that when an issue is joined in the civil
courts directly upon the question of marriage, without involving any other question, the court refers it to the bishop
of the diocese. Such cases now scarcely ever occur. Where
the issue of married or not is, as it generally is, complicated with any other question, it must be tried by a jury
in the ordinary way. When, therefore, it was intended to
provide a remedy for such a wrong as jactitation of marriage, it was natural to give the jurisdiction to the ecclesiastical courts.
I
t
i
I
IIs 
INTRODUCTION.
The proceeding is of very rare occurrence; but there was
a very remarkable case in the last century. An ingenious
attempt was made to use it as a means of liberating married people from engagements of which they were weary.
A proceeding for jactitation of marriage was commenced
against a real husband. The marriage had been private,
and never publicly acknowledged. The evidence was suppressed by collusion, and the husband prohibited from
asserting the marriage.   The lady considered herself to
be legally unmarried, and of Mrs. Hervey, or Miss Chudleigh, her maiden name by which she had passed, became
Duchess of Kingston. She was afterwards tried for bigamy,
and it was decided, that the sentence of the Ecclesiastical
Court had produced no effect on her condition. The proceeding has since been once resorted to, for the purpose of
showing that the use of the marriage ceremony in sport
had not made two young persons man and wife.
In time a change in the policy of the State took place.
Instead of handing over to the Church any part of her
jurisdiction, she encroached on that of the Church, and at
length undertook to dictate the ecclesiastical law. Thus
marriage came to be considered in England as exclusively
of State jurisdiction. Yet matrimonial causes continued
to be tried in courts which were nominally ecclesiastical,
but which had become so secularized, as to have lost every
trace of their religious character. A very few years ago
the jurisdiction in matrimonial causes was transferred from
these courts to one which was avowedly civil.
~ 28. In this country there were never any ecclesiastical
courts, in the European sense of the words. Before the
Revolution, the law of marriage was the same in the colonies as in the mother country; but there were no courts to
administer it. Among a scattered population of comparatively pure morals, there was little occasion for them. At
the Revolution there was no provision made for the administration of justice in matrimonial causes. But in time
43 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
questions about divorce appeared.   The State legislatures,
with the honorable exception of South Carolina, assumed,
one after the other, the power of authorizing married
couples to live separately from each other, and even of
dissolving the bond of marriage. These assumed powers
they exercised according to their notions of expediency,
without reference to the Divine law.   They even came to
exercise them corruptly. Members sold their votes for
popularity, for assistance in carrying favorite measures, or
for the mere hope that the favor might be in some way
returned. Divorces could be obtained for any cause, and
without any inquiry into the truth of the matters alleged.
The whole law of marriage became daily more and more
relaxed.   No provision has ever been made for the restitution of conjugal rights or the jactitation of marriage. Such
cases are entirely unknown in America.
Soon after the Revolution, laws were made imposing
restraints upon the marriage of minors, and upon marriages within the degrees forbidden in Leviticus.  In most
of the States these laws have been modified, so as to legalize many incestuous marriages, although there is perhaps
none, in which the grosser kinds of incestuous mixture are
not forbidden and punishable in the civil courts.
The consequences of these repeals and of the legislative
divorces have been a general looseness of opinion on subjects connected with marriage. From this a few persons
are partially preserved by religious principle, and a few
more by a certain worldly refinement. This state of things
has even alarmed the legislattires, who have generally relinquished the power of divorce, which they had usurped
and abused. As a substitute for it, they have authorized
the civil courts to grant divorces, both a mensa et thoro and
a vinculo niatrimonii, in cases provided for by law.  The
laws are framed upon the loosest principles, often contravening the Divine law.    Every step which  has  been
taken, tends to strengthen the false notion that the State
44 
INTRODUCTION.
has sole jurisdiction in matrimonial causes. From this the
conclusion seems to have been hastily drawn, that she is an
infallible guide to the true interpretation of the Divine laws
about marriage. This is not true, and besides, she does
not even pretend to interpret it. She legislates upon her
own notions of expediency, which are often very crude.
It is therefore necessary that Christians should make use
of private conscience in the matter, and that private conscience should have some rule whereby to judge the questions which may come before it. The rule is that of the
Revealed Law, and is for the most part plain enough; although men have contrived to raise many questions about
the meaning. These questions Church authorities and private persons are left to settle for themselves.
Church authorities have done very little. The Romish
Church has her own laws, which are seemingly very strict,
and much more burdensome than the Divine law. But between her avowed system of dispensations, and her unavowed system of connivance,her laws are not very strict,
although, perhaps, more so than those of any other denomination.  The Protestant Episcopal Church has done
almost nothing. The Presbyterian Communion has gone
further than any body of Protestants; but even her steps
have been wavering and uncertain. The other denominations have done literally nothing. People, who have not
the moral courage to adhere to the Divine law and interpret it for themselves, have adopted tlie law of the land
and the conventional law of public opinion as their rules
of action.
~ 29. MIen are apt to consider themselves without blame
when they conform their actions to those rules. They do
not always think themselves bound to obey the law of the
land. They will often disobey it if they think that they
can escape disgraceful punishment, and that the conventional morality of society will excuse their conduct. But
both these codes are very insufficient guides. Neither of
45
9 
46       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
them has, practically, any reference to the relation of man
to God, or to the Revealed Law, which man is bound to obey.
Men  have consequently fallen into a very low tone of
morals, especially upon subjects connected with marriage.
The Divine Word contains rules upon these subjects, the
obligation of which all Christians acknowledge.   Those
rules constitute the Christian doctrine of marriage. Very
few of them are enforced either by the law of the land or
by public opinion; sonme of them are contradicted by both.
Hence there has arisen a great looseness of practice,
which can only be corrected by infusing a better tone into
the public opinion of general society.   The  only agent
which can be employed in that work, is the private conscience. There is no great hope that the thing can be
done, but it ought to be attempted. Perhaps all that is
left to Christians is to preserve, by the Divine aid in each
case, a conscience void of offense.   The object of this
work is to assist them in so doing, by enlightening the private conscience, which requires to be reminded of the rules
that are laid down in the Holy Scriptures.
I 
CHAPTER II.
OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.
~ 1. The Connection of the Subject of the Chapter with that of theW ork. -
~ 2. Five false Theories. - ~ 3. The Scriptural Doctrine. - ~ 4. Headship
of the Family. - ~ 5. Subordination of Woman. -  ~ 6. Qualified Equal ity. - ~ 7. The Combination of those Relations. - ~ 8. Safeguards pro vided for Women. - ~ 9. Five Relations of Woman to Man. - { 10. The
three Duties of Wives, and Correlative Duties of Husbands. - ~ 11.
The Effect of Subordination and Authority, with Relation to the Affec tions.- ~ 12. Cooperation of the Sexes. - ~ 13. Diversity in Unity. ~ 14. Amiability of Women.- ~ 15. The Image of God reflected in the
Union of the Sexes.- ~ 16. Woman the Complement of Man. - ~ 17.
Instincts. - ~ 18. Directing Instincts. - ~ 19. Inciting Instincts. - ~ 20.
Emotions. - ~ 21. General Description of the Diagram. - ~ 22. Lowest
Division of the Diagram. - ~ 23. Second Division of the Diagram. ~ 24. Third Division of the Diagram. - ~ 25. Highest Division of the
Diagram. - ~ 26. Intellectual and Moral Constitution of the Sexes. ~ 27.- Female Imagination and Impulsiveness.- ~ 28. Female Benev olence.- ~ 29. The Higher Reason.- ~ 30. Passions and Affections. ~ 31. Moral Nature.- ~ 32. Woman's Faith, Hope, and Charity. - ~ 33.
Woman as Mlan's Adviser. - ~ 34. Disadvantages of the Female Con stitution. - ~ 35. Woman as Man's Companion. - ~ 36. Woman as Man's
Help. - ~ 37. How Woman is fitted for Subordination. - ~ 38. The Dia gram.
~ 1. THE relation between the sexes is something different from the law of marriage, yet the two subjects are so
intimately connected, that one cannot be treated of without some reference to the other. It is, therefore, proper in
an inquiry into the Christian doctrine of marriage, to introduce some notice of the other subject. This is the design
of the present chapter, which will not treat directly of the
doctrine of marriage while it must speak of it incidentally,
and anticipate some ideas, which will be repeated in subsequent parts of the work. 
48       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
On the relation between the sexes as on most other moral
subjects, there is a Scriptural doctrine and several false
theories. These will be first stated, then the true doctrine,
and the greater portion of the chapter will be devoted to
some observations on the moral and mental constitutions
of the sexes, with reference to the relation between them,
and to the important fact that each of them is the complement or completion of the other.
~ 2. The relations between the sexes constitute the most
important element in the social arrangements. Where
sound ideas upon the subject prevail, society is generally
in a sound state. Where false notions about the sexes
are dominant, the social arrangements are generally bad.
There is a revealed doctrine upon the subject, which is of
course the only true one. There are also at least five false
theories, of which three are very ancient and two are very
modern.
The oldest of the five false theories has the advantage of
resting upon a conception as to the reason for the creation
of woman, which so far as it goes is true, and is only false,
as it is imperfect. It is, that the final cause of woman
is the continuation of the species.
Each of the other rests upon a merely false notion, and
rests on the notion that woman was designed for a diutidge.
It has been well said, that half truths are whole falsehoods,
but this is not even half of a truth. The truth, of which it is
a perversion, is that woman was created a sa help to man,
not as a mere servile worker, and she was created to be
something more than a mere help. If she were created to
be a mere drudge, the logical inference is that a wife is a
slave. These notions prevail wherever the intellect and the
affections are in a low state of development. They are
enforced by the superior strength and courage of man.
A third false notion is that woman was created to be an
instrument of sensual pleasure to man. According to this
theory a wife is a toy. It prevails among half civilized
I
I
I
II
I 
PRELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL. 49
nations, who have made some progress in sensual refine ment. Among them, it by no means excludes the second
theory. The third also exists in more highly advanced
communities. It is there seldom avowed, but it lurks in
every grade of society, and not least in the highest.  This
notion lies at the root of all sexual immorality.
The fourth notion is modern. It is that woman is
superior to man, and was created to be flattered, pampered,
and adorned. Man is to do all this, and is also to venerate her as of a higher nature than himself. On this
theory a wife is an idol. It cannot be really held by a man,
and can scarcely be seriously stated by a woman, yet it influences more or less the opinions of most women, and of
many young men. It has thus power to produce much
evil in society. It is only a reproduction and development
of the third theory in a more cultivated state of society.
Woman is still regarded as a means of sensual pleasure,
although not merely in the coarsest sense. She is to be
flattered, pampered, and adorned, that she may be more
able and more willing to give pleasure.
The last theory rests on the notion, that woman was
created for herself without any reference to man, except so
far as both sexes are necessary to the propagation of the
species. According to this theory a wife is a business
partner. It supposes that the sexes differ only as they do
in the lower animals, and that their occupations, rights, and
duties should be the same. These notions seem to be a reaction from the second and third theories. This fifth theory,
which is the most modern of all, is so unnatural, that it can
never be generally received. There are women, in whom
the characteristic qualities of their sex are not well developed. They have adopted this theory, and try to propagate it, not without much noise. They find abettors in a
few men, to whom it is a sufficient recommendation of any
theory that it is new, startling, unchristian, and unfavorable
to the idea of authority. It has also a great influence on
4 
50       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
the thoughts and conversation of a very numerous class of
people, who do not take the trouble of arranging their
thoughts into systems, and are content to talk of the Bible
without adopting it as the rule of life.  The members of
this class govern their opinions more by each other's idle
talk than by any settled convictions of their own. Few of
these people accept the fifth theory as a whole, but they all
take many notions from it. Much false doctrine and wicked
practice thus finds its way into society.
These false notions about women have led to evil practices with relation to marriage. Out of the three ancient
errors have grown the compulsory marriage of women,
polygamy, and divorce at the arbitrary will of the husband.
Out of the modern have grown domestic insubordination,
and separations by consent, which are really divorces.
~ 3. The Scriptural doctrine is first introduced in the
earlier chapters of Genesis, and is more fully developed in
other parts of the Bible; which it pervades throughout.
It is this: woman was created to be a wife and a mother,
and a wife is to be the companion, the adviser and the assistant of her husband, who has authority over her. The
proper position of a wife has not been left to be inferred
from any theory. It is expressly revealed that a wife is to
be the companion of her husband, and his help in the performance of his duties. It follows that she is his adviser,
especially as she is also the mother of his children. She is
not a dictator to rule, but she is an adviser to give counsel,
of the soundness of which he is to judge. She is the better
fitted for these functions, because her animal, intellectual,
emotional, and moral natures all differ from his. They so
differ, that each sex supplies that in which the other is
wanting. Each is the complement, or completion of the
other. The companionship of the woman is more delightful, and her advice and assistance the more valuable for that
reason.
A family, like all other societies, requires a head, which
I 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  51
implies subordination in all the other members. The man
is by Divine appointment the head.   The moral constitution of the woman fits her, in a very remarkable manner,
for the subordinate position thus assigned to her.
The earliest indications of the Scripture doctrine are to
be found in the following texts: "So God created man in
his own image, male and female, created He them. And
God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it." It is remarkable, that in this first mention of woman, there is an
intimation, that she is the complement, or completion of
man, without which the image of God is not complete.
It is first said, " in the image of God created He him," and
then immediately, " male and female created He them." 1
In the next chapter, it is recorded, "And the Lord God
said, It is not meet for man to be alone: I will make an
helpmeet for him." 2   With reference to this text it is
worthy of notice, that the word " meet," that is, fit, proper,
has passed out of the ordinary vocabulary. This has led to
a misunderstanding of the text, which has given rise to the
common use of the word "helpmate" for a wife.  It is not
impossible that, in this popular expression, and the mnisunderstanding connected with it, there may lurk some false
doctrine. The true meaning of the text is, that God would
furnish Adam with a help, who should be meet, that is fit,
for him; but no idea of equality is implied.
In these texts the reasons for the creation of woman seem
to be disclosed; from them the relation between the sexes
may be inferred. Woman was created for three purposes:
for the continuation of the species, to be a companion to
man, and to be a help to him.  As his companion and help
she would naturally be his adviser. For the performance
of these functions, it is necessary that her nature should be
the complement of his, supplying that wherein his is deficient. Such is found to be the case.
1 Genesis i. 27, 28.
2 Ibid. ii. 18. 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 4. The man and woman were to forln a society with
children, when born, which would require a head.  The
headship belongs to the man. But as the woman was created for his companion, there cannot be a very wide interval between them; yet her position as a help implies subordination.   The third relation, which is inferred from
these two, is, that woman is the counselor, or adviser of
man. She is not designed to govern him; one who helps
does not direct the work. It is not her office to overrule
his judgment by authority, by violence, or by persuasion;
but to present for his consideration that side of every question which the intellectual and moral constitution of her
sex enables her to see more clearly than he can. She was
designed to be his counselor, but in that, as in every other
relation, to be subordinate to him.
~ 5. Even in Paradise, woman was subordinate to man.
Subordination is inequality for the sake of order. A subordinate position is one which is under another in the established order of things. The inferior position of woman is
not the consequence of any want or defect in her physical,
intellectual, or moral constitution; but it implies a physical,
intellectual, and moral constitution, differing from that of
man, and adapted to a subordinate sphere of action.
If this subordination did not exist in Paradise, it was
established immediately after the Fall. "Unto the woman,
He said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee." 1
This law is fully recognized in the New Testament, in
which there are many texts bearing on the subject; some
of them have been quoted in the first chapter, and more
will be quoted hereafter. These texts, for the most part,
relate primarily to the duty of a wife to her husband; but
the relation between the sexes is very closely connected
1 Genesis iii. 16.
i
52
i 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  53
with that of husband and wife, which may be said to be its
final cause. Still there are not wanting texts which teach
the doctrine of the subordination of the female sex, not
merely that of the wife to the husband. This doctrine is
the foundation of the general exclusion of women from
political power.
St. Paul writes thus, "I would have you know, that the
head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman
is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man
praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for
that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the
woman be not covered let her also be shorn; but if it be a
shame for a woman to be shorn, or shaven, let her be
covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the
woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the
woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man
created for the woman, but the woman for the man." 1
In this passage there is no mention of the relation of
husband and wife; yet the doctrine of the inequality of the
sexes is plainly taught:  "Man is not of the woman, but
the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for
the woman, blut the woman for the man."
In another Epistle, the same Apostle again insists on the
inequality of the sexes, "Let the woman learn in silence
with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach,
nor to usurp authority over the man." 2
~ 6. The Scripture doctrine of the relation of the sexes
is, that woman is the equal companion and subordinate
help of man, and consequently his adviser. To fit her
for all these functions, her nature is made the complement,
or completion of his. These relations, according to the
sacred writers, exist in an inchoate state, independently of
1 1 Corinthians xi. 3-8.       2 1 Timothy ii. 11, 12. 
54       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
marriage, and are provided for in the very nature of the
sexes. When St. Paul, in a passage just quoted, teaches
the subordination of woman, he takes care lest too much
should be inferred from his words; he adds:  "i Neither is
the man without the woman, neither the woman without the
man in the Lord.   For as the woman is of the man, even
so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."'
Here again there seems to be a recognition of the fact,
that woman is the complement, or completion, of nman's
nature. Her subordination implies inequality; but a qualified inequality, which exists in some respects and not in
others, and which is nowhere very great.   God, in his infinite wisdom, has ordered these things with reference to
the holy state of matrimony.   The practical holiness of
that state depends very much upon the acknowledgment of
these truths.
~ 7. In these complicated relations each modifies and is
modified by the others. The subordination in one capacity modifies the equality in another; while the equality, in
its turn, modifies and softens the subordination. The two
ideas are so mingled that neither is absolute or unchecked
by the other. Such is the equality of the sexes and such
is the subordination of woman. An apt illustration may be
found in the usages of the military profession. It is well
understood that a subordinate officer, as a gentleman, is
the equal companion of his superior. He is, moreover, his
adviser upon proper occasions; yet, as an officer, he is
bound to obey his orders. The result is that the equality
of companionship is never felt to be perfect, while the duty
of subordination cannot, unless under very peculiar circumstances, be harshly enforced. This relation seems, in these
respects, to be an imperfect image of that of husband
and wife.
The relation of companion implies a near approach to
equality, while that of help involves the idea of subordina
1  Corinthians xi. 11, 12.
I
I
I
I 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  55
tion. It is not easy to preserve a just equilibrium between
these things. The most obvious danger, and the evil which
history shows to have occurred most frequently, is that
man has abused his position. He is physically stronger
than woman, and his intellectual and moral nature is of a
harder texture than hers. Not but that the modern theories
have actually produced evils of an opposite character.
~ 8. It has too often happened, that the equality of
woman has been forgotten, and her subordination exaggerated. It was, therefore, necessary to provide safeguards
for her. They have been provided by divine authority, in
the revealed laws of the exclusiveness and indissolubleness
of marriage. A third of great importance is not directly
revealed, although it seems to be implied in the general
tone of revelation. It is the freedom of a woman in choosing her husband. This ought to extend so far that no
woman should be compelled to accept of a man for her
husband against her will. Compulsory marriage, polygamy,
divorce, and the seclusion which the two first make necessary, have been great instruments in the degradation of
woman. As much may be said of the practice of taking
women captives and reducing them to slavery.
It was, therefore, provided by God himself, that a man
should have one female companion, and but one. She is
to be his help and his deputy in the government of his
family, as well as his companion and the possessor of his
undivided affections.   He is not to be separated from her
but by death. He is to rule her, but with an authority tempered by love.
Both the exclusiveness and the indissolubleness of marriage are plainly taught in the Book of Genesis. Indeed,
the exclusiveness was intimated in the creation of only
one woman.  The Prophet Malachi takes this view.'  But
both are taught in the account of the creation of woman:
"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and
[ 1 Chap. ii. 14, 15.]
I
I 
56      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
closed up the flesh instead thereof, and the rib, which the
Lord God had taken from man made he a woman,
and brought her to the man. And Adam said, This is
now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh she shall be
called woman, because she was taken out of man. There fore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall
cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." l
St. Paul makes use of this passage in pressing the
necessity of those kindly affections, without which there is
danger that the authority of the husband may become a
burdensome yoke. He writes thus: " Husbands, love your
wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself
for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to
Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.
He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever
yet hated his own body, but nourisheth it, and cherisheth
it, even as the Lord the Church; for we are members of
His body, of His flesh and of His bones. For this cause
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." 2
There is more doctrine in Ephesians than in Genesis, but
the allusion to the passage in Genesis, its adoption and
extension, are very evident. There is, in St. Paul, a plain
allusion to the "flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone" of
Adam. Moreover the words, which deliberately declare the
unity of nman and wife, are quoted in such a manner as to
furnish a commentary pointing [out] their meaning. Adam
says, "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."
St. Paul says, "They two shall be one flesh."  He thus
gives his readers to understand, that the unity cannot be
so extended as to admit more than two persons. It may
1 Genesis ii. 20-24.    2 Ephesians v. 25-31.
\~ 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  57
include one man and one woman, but not one man and
several women. In making this addition St. Paul has
done no more than our Blessed Lord himself. He quoted
the text in the same way, and the fact is recorded by two
Evangelists.1
It seems clear, both a priori and from history, that the
entire oneness does not admit of a plurality of wives. It
is hard to see how it can admit of the dissolution of the
marriage. The great causes of the degradation of women,
which history shows to have been so general, have been compulsory marriage; polygamy, including concubinage; seclusion, which was a consequence of the first two; the slavery
of captive women, which was intimately connected with concubinage, and divorce. Polygamy in any form deprives
woman of her proper position, and lessens her authority
in the household. It is very likely to put an end to the
affection of the husband. or rather to prevent its formation.
Arbitrary divorce, which is the most ancient form of divorce, reduces women to slavery, by placing them entirely
in the power of their husbands. A man may drive his wife
from her home with little or no provision for her support,
and thus separate her from her children. The power of
life and death could scarcely make him more absolute.
This is not the place to discuss the question of divorce
in its modern form, which calls in the authority of the
state to decide judicially the questions connected with the
separation.
~ 9. The relations of woman to man, passing by what
belongs to the continuation of the species, about which it is
not necessary to say much, are five in number. She is his
companion, his adviser, his help, and his subordinate. She
is all these, because her nature is the complement of his.
That circumstance fits her for and puts her in her other
relations. It also shows that she was never intended to be
his slave, a position which is inconsistent with at least two
of the other relations.
1 Matthew xix. 5; Mark x. 8.
I 
58       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Subordination is not slavery. The subordinate person
is placed under the authority of the superior for the bene fit of the whole community, and, therefore, of both parties.
The authority of the master over the slave is to be exer cised principally for the benefit of the master, although not
without some reference to that of the slave. In practice
the interests of the slave are generally forgotten, and men
act upon the idea which is expressed in some definitions
of slavery, that is, the absolute subjection of one person to
another for the exclusive benefit of that other. But no
human authority can be absolute; it must be always limited
by the Divine law. This is as true of authority over a slave
as of any other authority.  Still authority for the commnon good is very different from authority held for the
benefit of him who holds it.  To confound the two has always been the vice of those who had power, if it be not
nearer the truth to say that the last-mentioned kind of
authority is nothing more than the abuse of power.
~ 10. The Scripture doctrine of the relation of husband
and wife, as developed in the Book of Genesis, involves
three duties on the part of the wife: companionship, assistance, and obedience. Man has three rights correlative to
those duties or obligations. These rights, like all others,
involve correlative duties or obligations. If woman be the
companion of her husband, he is bound to be hers, and
must fulfill the obligation as well as claim the right. If she
be his help, she is entitled to a provision out of the proceeds of their common labor, as well as to the consideration
which belongs to her in her capacity of his companion. If he
has authority over her, it should be exercised with moderation and mildness and tempered with affection. All these
duties and rights resolve themselves into the unity of the
two persons, which enforces the duties and limits the rights.
The relation, consisting of three elements, which have a
certain connection with each other, is liable to be perverted
by the exaggeration or neglect of any one of them, or by
i 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  O9
the introduction of new principles. It has been perverted
in all three ways.
~ 11. The Holy Scriptures everywhere teach the authority of the man and the subordination of the woman. Subordination seems to be, in a relation so intimate as that
of marriage, necessary to the development of the kindly
affections. Authority kindly exercised, and subordination
quietly acknowledged, promote the development of the
affections, to which there is nothing more dangerous than
rivalry. A superior may have a strong affection for an
inferior, as a mother for her child. An inferior may have a
strong affection for a superior, as a child for its parent.
In neither case is affection lessened by the exercise of
authority; on the contrary, the kindly exercise of aiuthority seems to strengthen the attachment.   Affection
may exist among equals, when there is no rivalry and no
claim to authority or occasion for its exercise; but rivalry
and disputes about authority are fatal to affection. In the
family a supreme authority is necessary; it cannot be
divided or jointly held between the husband and the wife.
Under such circumstances, equals must be rivals. Thus
those who act upon the fifth of the false theories which
have been mentioned, take away from marriage the principle I;y which it is cemented, and expose the weakened
fabric to unnecessary storms.
~ 12. AIen and women were created to cooperate with
each other, by the performance of different functions. God
has assigned to the sexes different spheres, and different
physical, mental, and moral constitutions adapted to these
spheres. Both were designed to take part in the business
of life; each that part for which the other was less fitted.
This involves a diversity which affords greater play to the
affections. The two sexes form one species and live together in communities each of which is a unit, while particular men and women are united to each other in marriage, that is, made one. The result is diversity in unity. 
60      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
But diversity sometimes leads to disagreement; to settle
such disagreements the principle of the subordination of
the woman was introduced, by God himself.
~ 13. It is a general law in the physical and moral world
that diversity in unity is necessary to perfection. True
unity cannot be obtained by simple repetition without
subordination. This law is applicable to the relations be tween the sexes, as well to those between men and women
in general, as between particular men and women in the
state of matrimony. Woman repeats man subordinately,
and so is another and the same. Yet she is not, according
to the error of Pope, merely " a softer man." She has her
own peculiar constitution, the elements of which are the
same as those which enter into the male constitution, but
they are introduced in different proportions. This fits her
for her peculiar functions, while she is still a variety of
man, who is not fit for them. She has much in common
with him and much that is diverse from him. She is thus
fitted to be his companion, his help, and his adviser; But
the same circumstances which fit her to perform her proper
functions unfit her for those of the man.
~ 14. It is often said, that as woman is a more loving being than man, she reflects the Divine image more perfectly
than man, since God is love. The Scriptures teach that
God is love; but they do not teach that He is nothing but
Love. The phrase, like many others in the Holy Scriptures,
is not a full expression of the whole truth; but requires,
to be compared with other texts, which will limit and
modify its meaning. God is Love; but He is also a
consuming fire. Wisdom, and Justice, and Power as well
as Love enter into His nature, and none of them extinguish or override any of the others. Man excels woman in
some of these things. The image of God is not so fully
reflected in woman as in man.  St. Paul says, "He is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of
the man." 1
1 1 Corinthians xi. 7.
I
i 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  61
~ 15. But the image of God is not so perfectly reflected
in either as in the combination of their two natures. This
truth has been happily expressed by Mr. Gladstone in a
single sentence:  "When  Christianity wrought out for
woman, not a social identity, but a social equality, not a
rivalry with the functions of man, but an elevation of her
own functions as high as his, it made the world and human
life, in this respect also, a true image of God." 1
~ 16. The more perfect reflection of the image of God
in the combined natures of man and woman than in either
separately, implies that these two natures are complements
to each other. This is equally true, whether it be viewed
in connection with the combination of the two natures in
the persons of one married pair, or in the whole human
race, of which both sexes are portions. If neither of the
sexes can reflect the Divine image so perfectly as the union
of the two, each must have some qualities answering to
something in the Divine nature, which the other wants, or
has but imperfectly. Each must, therefore, be the complement of the other; so that, when joined, they constitute
one whole. This is the explanation of the unity and sanctity of marriage.
The Scripture doctrine of the relation between the sexes
may be summed up in a few words. Woman is the companion, the help, and the adviser of man, as he is her companion, maintainer, protector, and governor. The nature of
each has been made the complement, or completion of the
other. In order to show this it may be proper to take a
summary view of some of the elements of human nature,
and even of some of the elements of animal nature.
~ 17. Much has been written about the nature of the inferior animals, which has not been very well considered.
Their nature contains what may be considered the germs
of all the principles of human nature, except perhaps conscience. The outward manifestations which dogs sowe               1 Studies on Homer, vol. ii. p. 480. 
62       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
times exhibit, and which have been supposed to indicate
the presence of conscience, may more probably be referred
to fear. But dogs and elephants, and in a lesser degree
other animals, do manifest, at least the germni of the reason ing faculty. Some notice, although but little, has been
taken of this fact, as well as of others connected with what
may be regarded as the super-animal part of the merely
animal nature. These expressions seem strange, but they
will probably be understood.
Perhaps the most mysterious part of the animal nature,
as it is usually treated of, is that which is called instinct.
It seems to be taken for granted, that the distinction be tween men and animals consists in this, that men are gov erned by reason, brutes by instinct.   This seems to be a
mistake. The true distinction lies in the possession by
man of a moral nature, which is wanting in the brute.
They have not even its germ; but they have an undeveloped and imperfect reason. Still, it is true that they are,
in the main, governed by instinct.  But what is instinct?
Few subjects have been more carelessly handled. In
fact, three classes of things which are essentially distinct,
are generally grouped together under the general name of
instincts. One of these is sometimes distinguished from
other instincts by the name of appetites.   The other two
have been inextricably confounded under the name of instincts. It would be hopeless to attempt to introduce any
other name for either. Yet they are two distinct classes of
things, and may be distinguished into inciting instincts, or
those which incite to action, and directing instincts, or those
which regulate action. The first class is the germ of that
which has been most happily termed the emotional nature
of man. The other supplies to animals the place of reason; but it is not the germ of reason, as the other class is
the germ of the passions and affections. The appetites are
to be distinguished from the inciting instincts in that they
are really physical wants, which act upon the physical nature.
l
0 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  63
These appetites exist in man as in beasts, although modified by their coexistence with the higher parts of human
nature. They are three in men and three in beasts, and
are not to be confounded either with instincts or emotions.
In man or in beast they are merely animal, and directly
connected with merely animal sensations.
~ 18. Both in men and in other animals the appetites are
directly under the control of directing instincts, and it is
remarkable that the very few directing instincts which man
possesses are connected with the appetites. All the actions
of brutes are under the direction of such instincts. The
little reason which they possess is only occasionally called
in as an aid to the instinct, supplying its place a little way
beyond its limits. On the other hand, men are placed
under the dominion of reason as the ordinary guide of their
lives. It is more fallible than instinct, but is capable of
being applied in a much greater variety of cases, and is,
moreover, capable of being improved by exercise.  It is
therefore the fitter guide for a moral being. The directing
instincts operate each within a narrow compass, but direct
the animal to results at which reason could only arrive by
long and tedious processes. They are very useful to
animals incapable of reasoning, or only capable of reasoning imperfectly; they are unnecessary to a being who
possesses a faculty capable of being made to supply their
place by labor and industry.   Perhaps, also, they are
less suited to the condition of a being in a state of probation; where an infallible guide constantly at hand would
relieve one from a wholesome responsibility, which is enforced by the necessity of using the services of a fallible
guide, like reason, and of making exertions to improve
the quality of the guide.   This seems to be the difference between instinct and reason.
The bee, under the guidance of an infallible instinct,
forms its combs into hexagons, without knowing any reason
for so doing. The man, who desires to unite strength of
'I 
64      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
construction with economy of materials, adopts the same
form under the guidance of a fallible but instructed reason.
The one comes to the conclusion at once; the other after
long study, in which both his intellectual and moral natures
have been, or at least may have been improved. The
directing instinct might have been very convenient so far
as material interests were concerned, but would not have
been so advantageous to the moral nature. Hence, man
has no directing instincts except such as are connected
with the merely animal appetites; which it is not convenient should be made the subjects of much thought or attention. Even with respect to these, the directing instincts
are inferior to those of the beasts.   For man has no instinct which points him unerringly to food, medicine, or
poison; most beasts have.
~ 19. The inciting instincts are something very different
from the directing, and may undoubtedly be consid(lered as
the germs of our emotions. They differ from directing instincts in that they do not govern action, but only incite to
it. They differ from appetites, in that they are not merely
animal sensations, the results of certain physical processes
which have been going on in the animal system. In fact,
they testify very distinctly to the existence of that, which
the wise man calls "the spirit of the beast, which  goeth
downward to the earth." 1 By those words Solomon probably intended to intimate that the inferior creatures were
not merely material, but that there existed in their nature
a principle which, although mortal, was spiritual.
The proofs of the existence of such a principle, which
observation furnishes, are chiefly derived from the inciting
instincts. It is not easy to account for these things, so
different from mere appetites, upon any theory which does
not allow, to the beings by whom they are possessed, something more than a mere organization of matter. They are
not, like appetites, the results of known physical causes;
1 Eccles. iii. 21.
i 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  65
yet they are seen to affect the conduct of animals. They
differ from directing instincts in that they are not unerring, and seem only to incite, not to govern.
The inciting instincts may be reduced to three classes,
each of which is composed of the developments of a single
instinct.  These three instincts may, in a certain sense, be
called primary; although, in a certain other sense, only
one of them is primary. They are self-love, malevolence,
and benevolence. Of these, self-love is a primary instinct
in a different sense from the others, although also in the
same. For the malevolent and benevolent instincts alike
give pleasure by their gratification, which pleasure is a
gratification to self-love.   Hence  a school of moralists
have denied the existence of any other principle of action
than self-love, or, as they prefer to call it, selfishness.
But it is plain that there are principles in our nature,
and even in that of beasts, which derive gratification from.
the well-being or the suffering of other sentient beings.
These are sonmething different from the principle which
seeks and rejoices in our own well-being, without reference
to any being without us. This last principle is properly
self-love, and, when over indulged, selfishness. Selfishness
is the exaggeration and abuse of self-love. Self-love, then,
seeks simply the advantage and well-being of the self-lover.
Malevolence seeks the gratification of the malevolent being
through the sufferings of another being, which has become
the object of his ill-will. Benevolence seeks the gratification of the benevolent being through the well-being of
another being, which has become the object of his kindness. The existence of the first of these principles in
human nature is universally conceded. It is to be feared
that there are not many human beings who will not, upon
a strict self-examination, find the evidence of the second
in their own hearts. It is to be hoped, also, that there are
not many who need go further for the evidence of the third.
~ 20. Suffice it to say, that the three primary instincts of
5
i 
66       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
self-love, malevolence, or ill-will, and benevolence or goodwill, are all found in the nature of the inferior animals,
and are transferred, so to speak, into our human nature,
where they are developed into a vast variety of emotions.
These emotions are capable of being classed, and in fact
have been classed, under the three instincts out of which
they are developed. They differ from the secondary inciting instincts of animals, in that they are connected with
the intellectual faculties of memory and imagination. The
first of these faculties is certainly, and the other probably,
possessed by animals. But both, especially the imtnagination, in a degree very inferior to that which is exhibited in
man. When, therefore, the primary instincts are combined
with the stronger memory and enlarged imagination of
man, they produce emotions of greater intensity and longer
duration, as well as of greater variety, than the secondary
instincts of animals.
In men as in animals, the benevolent part of our nature
seems to be the weakest of the three. This is most probably an effect of our fallen condition. But, whatever be the
cause, the existence of the phenomenon is certain. Language bears a striking testimony to this. The selfish and
malevolent emotions are called passions, sufferings; they
are supposed to carry away the man with an irresistible
force. In fact, their power is irresistible, except by the aid
of Divine grace. The benevolent emotions are called
affections; things which affect us, but not with an irresistible, or overwhelming power. These feeble affections, feeble
by comparison with the passions, constitute one portion of
our emotional nature. The passions constitute others.
Those which are directly connected with self-love, have
been called the concupiscible passions, because, for the
most part, they relate to things which are desired. The
word is used for passions connected with desires of any
sort, not merely for passions or appetites of a particular
class.  In Johnson's "Dictionary" there is a quotation from
<~ 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL. 67
Dr. South, which is very apposite:" The schools reduce
all the passions to these two heads, the concupiscible and
the irascible appetites."   Richardson gives a quotation
from Bishop Beveridge, which is still more to the purpose:
"Now there being a double object for the will of man to
work upon, there is likewise a double faculty considerable
in it: the one we call a concupiscible, the other an irascible
faculty; by the one we follow that which is good, by the
other we run from that which is evil."
These quotations speak of but two classes of passions,
and Bishop Beveridge seems to include fear among the
irascible passions. It is certainly something different in
its nature from anger, and equally so from desire, though
it is as certainly connected with self-love. It has, too, a
large class of passions which are connected with it. It
then seems better to acknowledge three classes of passions:
the desires, which grow out of self-love; the fears, which
have the same root; and the irascible passions, which are
connected with nmalevolence. The two last-mentioned
classes combine to produce a third, which leads men to
contend with danger, not to shun it. This class of passions is connected with the instinct of self-defense, which
may be considered as a compound of fear and malevolence.
The affections, which grow out of benevolence, are a fifth
class. In order to illustrate these views a diagram has
been prepared and placed at pages 72 and 73, an explanation of which will now be inserted.
~ 21. The diagram is an attempt to exhibit to the eye.
the connection of the principal Virtues with the principal
Emotions, Faculties, and Instincts. It takes the form of
what architects call a section of a building; which may
be regarded as of four stories.
The lowest division, or story, represents the Animal
Nature, common to man and other animals. Here are Instincts without any government. This division corresponds
to that part of human nature, which the Apostle to the
Thessalonians calls Body.
}i 
68      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
The next represents the Intellectual Nature, in which
Emotions and Faculties are found under the dominion of
Intellectual Choice, that is, an exercise of the Intellect
without reference to moral considerations. This answers
to what the Apostle calls Soul.
The third represents the Moral Nature, which the Apostle calls Spirit. Here are the Emotions and Faculties, under
the government of the Conscience, assuming a moral
character and ripening into Virtues. 
The highest division represents the Sanctified Nature of
the regenerate and renewed man under the Influences
of the Holy Spirit. From these Influences descend the
Sanctified Conscience, the Sanctified Reason, and the Sanctified Will. The Virtues, by passing under these Influences, assume a different and higher character, and may be
called Saintly.
The lines drawn up and down show the connection of
particular Instincts with particular Emotions and Virtues,
and of the Faculties with each other. Sometimes particular Emotions, Faculties, or Virtues, are united by lines across
the page, which show a connection between them, a marriage as it were, from whence arises a new line of Emotions, Faculties, or Virtues, traceable to the combination
of those so united.
~ 22. In the lowest division are placed three Primary
Instincts: Self-Love, Benevolence, and Malevolence. All
of these, men have in common with other animals;
although Benevolence is not usually regarded as belonging
to them The word is not, however, used in a very high
sense, but only to express the power of kindly feeling;
neither is Malevolence used in the sense of malignity.
Both words are used in the primary sense indicated by
their etymology, for the willing, by one being, of good or
evil to another. They are thus distinguished from SelfLove, which has no reference to any other being than the
self-lover. It is, therefore, a Primary Instinct in a stricter
A; 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL. 69
sense than the others; because they are instruments by
which it receives gratification, but a gratification connected
with the well or ill-being of others, and therefore, where
moral responsibility exists, with virtue and vice.
These Instincts are all Primary, in that they are the
germs out of which are developed all other Inciting Instincts. Directing Instincts are of a separate and very
different class. All the Inciting Instincts, except the three
named - and they are very numerous - may be called Secondary; because they are only manifestations or developments of one or more of the three Primary Instincts.
Thus Benevolence, even in the inferior animals, is developed into several kindly Instincts; in many species into an
attachment to a mate, in many more into fondness for offspring, in a few into an attachment for human beings, in
some cases into kindly feeling for individual animals, sometimes of a different species.  Malevolence also manifests
itself in the form of many like Secondary Instincts. The
developments of Self-Love are even more numerous, and
may be regarded as divided into two classes: those which
are connected with Pleasure or Comfort, and may be collectively named Desires, and those which are connected
with Self-Preservation, which may be collectively named
Fears. Out of a combination of Self-Love and Malevolence arises the Secondary Instinct of Self-Defense.
~ 23. For the present purpose, the two classes of Secondary Instincts, which grow out of Self-Love, Desires and
Fears, have been treated as single Secondary Instincts, to
which there have been given the names of Pleasure and
Preservation. From these and from the Secondary Instinct of Self-Defense and the Primary Instincts of Benevolence and Malevolence, have been drawn five lines into
the second division of the diagram, which represents the
Intellectual Nature, or what St. Paul calls the Soul.
This is that part of human nature which includes Faculties, by which it acts, and Emotions by which it is in
i 
70       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
cited to action. The latter are developments of the Inciting Instincts, in connection with the Faculties. The
dawn of the Faculties may be perceived among some of the
lower animals; but they are there only subsidiary to certain
Instincts, which may be called Directing Instincts. These
do not pass, like the other class of Instincts, which may be
called Inciting Instincts, into the Intellectual Nature.  In
fact, man has very few of them, and the infant more than
the adult They relate chiefly to animal wants. Beyond
that sphere their place is supplied by the Faculties, which
differ from them in kind not in degree. In the Animal
Nature, the Instincts are the ruling power; in the Intellectual, the Faculties and Emotions are under that rule which
is called Intellectual Choice, because it decides without
reference to Moral Considerations. It is either a function
of the Higher Reason or closely connected with it. The
two names are placed in a line, at the top of this division.
The three Primary Faculties, Memory, Imagination, and
the Understanding, or Lower Reason, are introduced into
this division on the left hand side near the bottom. The
Lower Reason is the Faculty by which we understand or
judge of objects of sense. From the union of this Faculty
with that of Imagination springs the Higher Reason, by
means of which we consider things not patent to sense.
Intellectual Choice is very probably a function of this Faculty; where it is weak or neglected, the Emotions domineer over the Faculties.
The Inciting Instincts on passing into the Intellectual
part of our Nature become Passions or Affections, which
are designated by the general name of Emotions. The
five lines drawn from the lower division show their particular connections. Thus Benevolence becomes the Benevolent Affections; Pleasure, or the Desires, the Concupiscible Passions; Preservation, or the Fears, the Apprehensive
Passions; Self-Defense, Courage; and Malevolence, the
Irascible Passions. The Concupiscible Passions, or De
j\ 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL. 71
sires connected with Self-Love and the Instinct of Pleasure, cannot rise beyond this stage. They are incapable of
becoming the grounds of moral action, until they are connected with some other part of our Nature. But one very
important passion of this class, combining with a Benevolent Affection develops that mixed Emotion, which brings
the sexes together, and which may be called Amorous
Emotion.
~ 24. The third division shows the Emotions or Affeetions and Passions, transplanted into the region of Morals,
under the Dominion of Conscience, with which is associated, at the top of the Division, the Higher Reason, now
become Moral Reason, because judging of everything with
reference to Moral responsibility. It is not desirable to
enter upon the question whether Conscience be an independent Faculty or only a function of the Higher Reason. The Emotions passing into this sphere become
Moral Emotions, and pass on into Moral Virtues. Thus
the Benevolent Affections become Love and pass into the
Virtue of Kindness. Amorous Emotion becomes Conjugal Affection and the Virtue of Conjugal Fidelity; the Apprehensive Passions are represented by Moral Fear, or
Fear connected with Conscience. From this proceed the
virtues of Prudence, Temperance, and Chastity. Courage
becomes Confidence and Moral Courage, and the Irascible
Passions are reduced to Indignation, or a keen hatred of
wrong as such. Moral Fear combines on one side with
Love, and produces Reverence, which rises into the Virtue
of Docility; and on the other with Indignation and proeduces Remorse, which, until it passes into the highest division, is nothing but a painful Emotion.
~ 25. In the upper Division, the Virtues and Emotions
are connected with the Influences of the Holy Spirit.
From these Influences come the Sanctified Conscience, the
Sanctified Reason, and the Sanctified Will, which are all
his Instruments. From Him descend the three Evangel 
THE CONNECTION OF THE VII
INFLUENCE  OF  THE HOLY  SP'
THE SANCTIFI ED CONSCIENCE.
THE SANCTI FlED REASON.
THE SANCT IFIED WILL.
Evangelical Virtues.       Faith. Hope.
ence.  Self De  nial.  Repent
The Saintly Virtues.
erly.
ness.
Conj
Devote
SANCTIFIE
CONSCIE
MORAL REASON.
Kindne  ss. Conji ugal Do  cility. 
Fidel ity.
Cha stity.
Tempe rance.
Prud ence.
THE
Char ity.
Broth
Kind
Obedi
,ugal
dness.
THE
D NATURE
NCE.
Moral Virtues. 
Reveri ence.         ra
ve.              -        -Moral
Conjug al Affection.
TIlE MORAL
INTELLECTUA
Amoro Us.
Emo tion.
olent-  Concup is.ciple  Apre
ons.         Pas si        ons.  a
Moral Emotions.                                Lo
SPIRIT. — 1 Thess. v. 23.
IIIGHER REASON.
Emotions.                                   Benev
Affecti
Faculties.
Memory. Im agination.    Lower Reas on.
SOUL.-1 Thess. v. 23.
Desi res.          Fe ars.
Secondary Instincts.                                                   Pleas ure.       Preser vation.
Primnary Instincts.                                Benev olence.                  Self-Love.
BODY.-1 Thess. v. 23.                       THiE ANIMAL NATURE.
11
I
Rem
Fear.   -    -
NATURE.
L CHOICE.
ensive
ions.
THE INTE LLECTUAL
NATUR.E. 
74       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
ical Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Of these the
two first connect themselves with Human Reason, and the
third with Human Affections. Below the Evangelical
Virtues there are placed other iniiferior, but still Saintly
Virtues, which are Sanctified modifications of the Moral
Virtues. Thus Brotherly Kindness is a Sanctified modifi cation of Kindness, Conjugal Devotion of Conjugal Fidel ity, Obedience of Docility, Self-Denial of Prudence, Zeal
of Justice, Fortitude of Moral Courage. The two last
named combining, under the Influence of the Holy Spirit,
produce the still Higher Virtue of the Spirit of Martyrdom. Remorse, which, in the merely Moral Nature, is only
a painful Emotion, becomes the Saintly Virtue of Repentance, when brought under the Influence of the Holy
Spirit.
~ 26. The diagram, having been explained, may be used
to illustrate the intellectual and moral constitutions of the
sexes. Of the three primary instincts, one, self-love, seems
to be equally the property of both. Benevolence is stronger
in woman, and malevolence in nman. Of the secondary
instincts, desire predominates among  men, fear among
women; courage is a mnale quality. All the emotions of
the human heart spring from these six instincts. All
human beings have them all. Neither sex is destitute of
any one of them, or of any of the emotions, of which they
are the germs; although each has its peculiar instincts and
emotions, which are stronger in it than in the other. These
generally prevail in the sexes to which they belong, though
not in every man or woman.  Most women are more affectionate than most men. Yet all women are not equally
affectionate, and some may be found whose kindly feelings
are cold and slow. Most men are more given to hatred
than most women, while some men hate more heartily than
others, and some are not easily roused to hatred. Some
women, Fulvia and Herodias are instances, have hated as
bitterly as any man.
<~ 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  75
A similar difference exists in the distribution of the
intellectual faculties. The three leading faculties are memory, imagination, and reason, or the logical faculty. The
first is possessed equally by both sexes; in woman the
imagination predominates, in man, the reason. This does
not mean that man has no imagination. Or what should
we do with Shakespeare. Neither does it mean that woman
has no reasoning powers. Or what of the thousands of
women who have reasoned well upon many subjects. But,
as a general rule, imagination is stronger in women, and
the logical faculty in men. These differences in the instincts, emotions, and faculties color the whole character of
the sexes. It is owing to them that the nature of each
sex is the complement of the other.
~ 27. The  impulsiveness  of women  arises from the
strength of their imagination, and the delicacy of their
bodily organizations. It renders them unfit to have the
absolute decision of important questions, and thus makes
their subordinate position beneficial to themselves. When
a question is brought before a woman, the strength of her
imagination brings the materials for a decision rapidly and
vividly before her mind. The decision is soon made, and
is generally right. It is always as near right as the woman
could make it, after long examination. But imagination
sometimes introduces materials which do not belong to the
case, especially if it is disturbed by any emotion. It has
sometimes not produced all the materials. It has neglected
the dark side of a lover's character, or the advantages of
withdrawing from the gayeties of a city. The decision will
be erroneous, and the woman can never correct it.
The bringing forward the facts which imagination has
dropped, and setting aside those which it has improperly
introduced, are works of patient labor, for which woman's
impulsive nature unfits her. Women have more patience
than men, but it is of a different kind. A woman can endure anything but delay in deciding. Men decide more
*1 
76      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
slowly, because they decide by some logical process. A
man may thus often correct the hasty conclusions of a
woman; though he will seldom be able to convince her,
for she cannot follow the logical process, by which, consciously or unconsciously, he works. This is another reason for the authority of man, and the subordination of
woman. Yet her quickness of apprehension makes her invaluable as an adviser to slower man, especially as the facts
and the feelings, which she brings to the consultation, are
precisely those which a man is most likely to overlook or
to want.
~ 28. There are other modes in which the peculiar constitution of woman fits her to be the adviser of man. Her
greater benevolence, and her more vivid imagination, make
her feel for distress more readily and more keenly. She
is thus in a better condition to obey the great law: "All
things, whatsoever, ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them." But in some cases, something more
than benevolence and imagination is necessary to the
proper application of this text. When the question is a
simple one, between a person who is to decide and one
who is to suffer, the female character will generally make
the best decision. But there may be cases even of that
sort in which it may be proper to appeal from the hasty
decisions of a benevolent imagination. Where a question
is complicated by the number of the parties, and their
various interests, man with his feebler benevolence and
slower imagination, is better able to wait, until his cooler
and stronger reason has unraveled the intricacies. Woman
is the fairer decider between herself and others. Man is
the best judge. He is not less so, because he is able to
form judgments, from which the benevolence of woman
would shrink, and sternly to carry them into effect. The
male character is not amiable, but it is strong. Woman is
amiable in her very weaknesses, because they are connected with benevolence.
.4 
RELATION BETWEEN TIlE SEXES IN GENERAL. 77
~ 29. Instincts pass into the intellectual nature, and there
become emotions. In this state they are governed by intellectual choice, which decides without reference to the
rules of right and wrong; but which, nevertheless, deals
with matters, which are veiled from sense. It therefore
acts by the highest reason with which the whole emotional
nature is intimately connected. The higher reason is the
union of the imagination with the logical faculty. It is a
very different thing in the different sexes, because the
elements which compose it are present in different proportions. The peculiar character of the higher reason in
woman is reflected upon all her affections and passions, in
all which the imagination plays a great part. Her benevolent affections are the instinct of benevolence, which has
passed into the intellectual nature, come into contact with
the imagination, and passed under the jurisdiction of the
higher reason. But the higher reason imposes very little
restraint upon it, for in it, as well as in the affection, imagination is the larger ingredient.
In man the higher reason is sterner, because in him the
imagination is the feebler of the two elements of which it is
composed. In both sexes the emotions are nothing but
instincts coupled with imagination. Men govern them
more easily than women, because the sympathy between
the higher reason and the emotion growing out of the imagination which enters into both, is not so strong.
~ 30. The emotions are compounded of instincts and
imagination, and may derive strength from the strength of
either element; where the instinct is strong as benevolence
is in woman, the emotion will be strong. But even where
the instinct, as that of hatred, is weak in woman, the emotion may be strong, stronger even than in man, because her
imagination is stronger than his. A man's emotions are
strong because his instincts are strong; a woman's, because
her imagination is strong. The emotions are under the
government of the higher reason. In governing, the logical
I' 
78      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
faculty, which is one of its elements, is that which is chiefly
to be relied on. For the imaginative element in the higher
reason may combine with that in the emotion to be governed. Thus the higher reason of man is fitter for its
office than that of woman. It is, perhaps, on this account,
that the Holy Scriptures designate woman as the weaker
vessel. She is so, but it cannot be denied that, morally as
well as physically, she is the more beautiful.
Desire and malevolence, when they come in contact with
the imagination, are developed into the concupiscible and
irascible passions. These emotions are stronger in men
than in women, because the instincts, out of which they
grow, are so. They require the restraining influence of
the higher reason, which is also likely to receive valuable aid
from the influence of woman. Her benevolence will be
especially useful in softening the irascible passions, and her
prudence in checking the concupiscible. She is thus again,
by her peculiar constitution, fitted to be the adviser of man.
~ 31. The effects of the specific character of the feminine
higher reason do not stop here. The emotions pass on into
the moral nature, in which they are under the dominion of
conscience. The higher reason passes with them, and becomes the moral reason. It now takes into view the distinction between right and wrong, and is closely connected
with conscience. Conscience, according to some philosophers, is only a function of the moral reason; according to
others, it is a distinct faculty. This is not the proper place
to decide the dispute, which is perhaps only verbal. No
one doubts that the two things are closely connected.
Both are employed about ideas connected with responsibility, and with right and wrong.
The higher reason becomes the moral reason, but it is
still only a compound of imagination and the logical faculty. Without its aid, the problem of right and wrong
could never be worked; for without the imagination the
mind cannot receive any idea which does not come through 
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL. 79
the senses, or the internal consciousness. The judgments
of the moral reason may be the work of the element of
pure reason which it contains; but the evidence upon
which they are founded is collected and arranged by the
imagination. The more vivid the imagination the greater
is its influence upon the judgment. It is thus owing to
the larger infusion of imagination in the moral reason of
women that they have more tender consciences than men.
~ 32. Woman derives another advantage from the same
fact.  The higher reason is the faculty by which the gift
of faith is received, and chiefly through the imaginative
element. The imagination performs precisely the same
office in the moral world as in the intellectual, and it is
precisely the same with that which faith performs in the
spiritual nature. It is, in a lower sense, " the evidence of
things not seen." By means of it, the higher reason grasps
the subjects with which it deals, and with which the lower
reason cannot deal, because they are veiled from sense.
Thus is produced that human belief of Divine things, upon
which the Holy Spirit grafts the Divine Gift of Faith.
Hence it is that women have more Faith and Hope than
man. Their constitution is better fitted to receive the
Divine Graces. Their stronger instinct of benevolence is
the reason that they have more charity than men. They
are thus better fitted to receive all the three evangelical
virtues than men; they are, therefore, more religious than
men.
~ 33. The value of woman as an adviser to man rests
upon the faculty of imagination, both pure and as an element of the higher reason, and upon the instinct of benevolence. These render her more humane, more conscientious,
and more religious than he is, as well as of quicker comprehension. In consultation he will bring enough of the
wisdom of the serpent; it is for her to supply the harmlessness of the dove. She brings precisely those elements in
which he is probably deficient, - kindness, conscientiousness, and comprehension of the feelings of others.
11,
i 
80      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
This is not the only reason of the fitness of woman to
advise man. His instincts of desire and malevolence are
strong, and the passions developed from them are also
strong, and require a powerful check. The best is only to
be found in the sanctified nature. Those provided in the
intellectual nature are the instinct of fear, and the emotions developed from it. In the moral nature, the same
office is performed by the virtue of prudence, which is also
a development of the instinct of fear. In man that instinct
is conmparatively weak, while in woman it is strong. In the
moral nature her timidity grows into prudence. Hence
her counsels tend to check the passions of man.
~ 34. Yet the constitution of woman's nature is not perfect, but requires the aid of the masculine complement, as
much as the nature of man requires that of the feminine complement. The female imagination works readily, and produces a lively impression, but that impression is apt to be
one-sided. The ideas, which imagination presents, must be
examined by the slower operation of the reason, before the
mind can come to a safe conclusion. Passions in man derive
their power from the strength of his instincts; in woman,
from the vividness of her imagination, which draws a lively
picture of the good which she desires, of the wrong which
she has endured, or of the crime which has been committed. In the two last-named cases, her resentment or
her indignation is thus easily carried beyond due bounds.
Even her conscientiousness may then be enlisted on the
side of malevolence.
So the vividness of the female imagination shows the
object of desire in the most brilliant and attractive colors,
and thus makes up for the weakness of the instinct of desire. This is the cause of the female tendency to extravagance, which requires an external check, such as has been
provided in the authority of the husband. Female spite
and female extravagance grow out of the exuberance of the
female imagination, as well as female conscientiousness and
female piety.
l  
RELATION BETWEEN THE SEXES IN GENERAL.  81
~ 35. The peculiar constitution of woman makes her a
suitable companion for man, because her lively imagination
presents things under an aspect which he would never have
observed. He looks at everything through his reason, and
thus attains to views which are new to her. This diversity
of views makes the intellectual intercourse of persons of
different sexes agreeable and instructive. The natures of
the two sexes again appear as the complements to each
other. Each brings to the conversation as to the consultation, that which the other wants. Another effect of the
livelier imagination of woman is a quicker and keener sense
of the disagreeable qualities of everything. She is easily
shocked by whatever is coarse or impure, whether physically,
intellectually, or morally. This is what is called refinemenit; in which men are naturally far inferior to women.
Man's ruder contact with the world tends to diminish the
scanty stock of refinement with which he is endowed. It
is only by intercourse with women that the refinement of
men can be increased, or even preserved. Thus again the
peculiar constitution of woman fits her to be the companion
of man.
~ 36. Nor does it less fit her to be his help. It is a part
of the aid which she is to give him that she is to be his
assistant and deputy in the government of his household.
In this position, her kindness qualifies his sternness, and her
conscientiousness supplies his neglects. The same qualities, together with her patience, prudence, and affection for
her husband and children, render her eminently fit to have.
charge of the internal arrangements of the house. Her
refinement is also no small advantage in that office.
~ 37. The constitution of woman is such as to prepare
her for subordination. Many reasons why the subordinate
place was assigned to her have already been mentioned. It
remains to point out why it is less irksome to her than to
man. The emotion which becomes conjugal affection is
compounded of a passion and an affection. These are in
6
1i
1 
8   CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
troduced in different proportions in the two sexes. In man
the passion, which is a development of the instinct of desire
combined with the imagination, is the stronger element.
In woman the affection is the stronger element; it is an offshoot from the instinct of benevolence. Affection lasts
longer than passion. When passion is gone the attachment
is much stronger on the side of the woman, and renders
the obedience, which her subordinate position requires,
comparatively easy. Her timidity, the weakness of her
malevolence, and the strength of her conscientiousness, all
work in the same direction.
II 
CHAPTER III.
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 1. Marriage in the largest Sense.- ~ 2. Concubinage.- ~ 3. Morganatic
Marriages. - ~ 4. Polygamy. - ~ 5. Popular Notions of Marriage. - ~ 6.
Civil Laws of Marriage and Divorce.- ~ 7. How far Marriage is a Civil
Contract. - ~ 8. How Marriage differs from other Civil Contracts. - ~ 9.
American Views.- ~ 10. American State Law of Divorce.- ~ 11. Mar riage a Divine Institution. - ~ 12. Reasons for the Institution of Marriage.
~ 13. Continuation of the Species.- ~ 14. Help.- ~ 15. Distribution of
Labor.- ~ 16. Various Developments of the Principle.- ~ 17. General
Admission of the Principle.- ~ 18. Government of the Family.- ~ 19.
Training Children.- ~ 20. Mutual Duties.- ~ 21. Society.- ~ 22. Im portance of a True Idea of Marriage. -~ 23. Definition of Marriage. ~ 24. Its Laws.- ~ 25. Its Elements.- ~ 26. False Notions about Mar riage. -- ~ 27. False Notions about its Elements.- ~ 28. The Five Sides
of Marriage.- ~ 29. Christian Marriage.
~ 1. PROMISCUOUS sexual intercourse has always and
everywhere been held unlawful. No people has been found
so savage as not to consider the appropriation of particular
women to particular men an inmportant point of morals.
This appropriation is called marriage. In a narrower sense,
the equality of the parties in social position entered into
the notion of marriage. When the woman was of inferior
rank to the man, the appropriation was early called by-a
name which was equivalent to concubinage. Sometimes
the woman was a slave to the man and the appropriation
was slave concubinage. There were, thus, three kinds of
relation which fell within the meaning of the word marriage, taken in its largest sense.  All three were permanent. The largest sense which can be given to the word
"marriage," is the permanent appropriation of a woman to
a man.
I 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 2. The association was, nevertheless, considered by
most nations to be capable of dissolution; but at the time
of entering into it a dissolution was not expected.  It did
not come to an end without some action, by which it was
broken off, and but for which it would have continued during the lives of the persons concerned. A connection with
a slave was more easily dissolved than one with a free
woman; and one with a free concubine than one with an
equal wife.  Hence the meaning of the words "concubine"
and "concubinage" have changed. The idea of permanence
has disappeared from them. Concubinage now means cohabitation without the contract and the ceremonies which
the law or the religion of the country require as a security
for permanence.
~ 3. A woman who is, by such a contract and such ceremonies, appropriated to a man, who is her superior in rank
is generally considered an equal wife. But in some countries
such marriages were sometimes contracted with stipulations
that neither the woman nor her children should share the
rank of the husband and father. A woman so married was
called a morganatic, left-handed, or unequal wife, but never
a concubine. A concubine is now understood to be a
woman who cohabits with a man without any security for
the permanence of the union and without any religious or
legal ceremony.
~ 4. Among many nations a man is allowed to cohabit at
the same time with several women, either as equal wives
or as free or slave concubines. This is polygamy, and is
not allowed in any Christian country, either by religion,
law, or public opinion.
~ 5. The popular definition of marriage is different in
different countries and among the followers of different religions. In the East there are but two classes of people:
free persons and slaves. Concubinage with free women, in
the ancient sense, is therefore impossible. In the modern,
it is condemned by religion, law, and public opinion. But
i
84 
OF TIlE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
polygamy and arbitrary divorce are allowed, so that their
notion of marriage does not, practically, differ much from
our notion of free concubinage.   Slave  concubinage is
moreover legal, consistent with the morals of the Koran,
and extensively practiced; but it is not regarded as marriage. The popular Eastern definition of marriage is, the
cohabitation of a man with a free woman, who is appropriated to him permanently, unless he shall choose to dissolve
the connection. Such a marriage may subsist between a
man and any number of women not exceeding four.
The popular Western definition is, the cohabitation of
one man with one woman, who is permanently appropriated
to him by a tie, which can only be dissolved by a legisla-'
tive act or a judicial decision.
In these definitions, the word permanent is used to signify that the tie to which it is applied is designed to continue during the lives of the persons bound, though capable
of being dissolved. An indissoluble tie would be one which
was incapable of being dissolved. The phrase, however,
may be applied, a tie which cannot be' dissolved except
under peculiar and exceptional circumstances.
~ 6. This Western notion of marriage seems to prevail in
legislative bodies throughout Europe and America. Laws
are provided which prescribe certain modes of entering into
the married state, and also other laws regulating the mode
of dissolving such an union, which is regarded as permnanent but not indissoluble. The State, however, acting upon
motives of expediency, will not allow it to be dissolved,
except for causes approved by her, and shown to exist to
the satisfaction of her tribunals.
She has a clear right to regulate the mode of entering
into marriage. For it is important to the welfare of her
citizens that it should be known who are married persons
and to whom they are married. The law of the land regulating the modes of marrying is, therefore, to be obeyed,
because it is founded on that part of the popular definition
(,
85 
86      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
which is sound, and the observance of it is necessary to
the welfare of the community. Such laws are in no way
inconsistent with the Divine law.
The laws touching divorce stand upon a different ground.
They rest on the notion that marriage though permanent is
not indissoluble, which is involved in the popular definition,
or perhaps on the idea, that marriage is indissoluble only in
the modified sense which has been mentioned in the last
section. If the last notion be adopted, it must be coupled
with another that is absolutely false, that the State has a
right to decide what are the exceptional circumstances
which will justify the dissolution of a marriage. The first
notion is itself false. A Christian can only avail himself of
these laws in an exceptional case, in which the dissolving
the marriage is consistent with the Divine law. But in
such a case the State law must be obeyed as to the manner
of proceeding, for in that matter the State has a right to
prescribe.
It concerns the public to know whether a marriage has
been dissolved or not. It concerns moreover the temporal
welfare of the parties to the marriage, that it should not be
dissolved unless for proper reasons.   It concerns also the
public morals, that marriages should not be surreptitiously
dissolved. The State has, therefore, a right to see that the
allegations upon which the case depends are sufficiently
proved, and are in themselves sufficient to justify a dissolution of the marriage; although she has no right to dissolve a marriage for reasons which are not recognized. by
the Divine law, yet if she undertake to dissolve a marriage,
when according to the law of God it ought not to be dissolved, it must be considered as dissolved for all civil purposes; though it still continues to bind the consciences of the
parties and of all who are aware of its existence. It does
not take away the sin of one of the parties who may niarry,
or of any one who may intermarry with either of them.
States undertake to dissolve marriages which ought not
II't life 
I 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
to be dissolved under various circumstances. Divorces are
sometimes granted upon grounds, which, by the Divine law,
are insufficient. In such cases no Christian can avail him self of a decision which is in conflict with the law of God.
In other cases, a civil tribunal may have been mistaken
about the facts, and so have dissolved a marriage erro neously, which if the allegations of the party had been true,
might have been properly dissolved. The decision of a
competent tribunal ought to be presumed right, and to
satisfy all persons who are not so well acquainted with the
facts, as to know that the tribunal was deceived. No person,
however, has a right to act upon a decision, which rests
upon facts that he believes did not occur.
~ 7. The root of all the many errors respecting the
doctrine of marriage, which exist in this country, is Paley's
notion. that marriage is a civil contract and nothing more.
This proposition would be assented to by every lawyer in
the United States, except the very few who have examined
the subject upon Christian principles. It is the predominant notion among all classes of people, except the Roman
Catholics and a few religious Protestants.
It is true, that the State can only regard it as a civil contract.  Blackstone is right when he says, "Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract."
The State and the Law, which the State makes, can consider nothing but as it is civil, that is, as it affects the
cives and the civitas. They have nothing to do with the
consciences of men; though their laws, when not incon- 
sistent with the Divine law, bind the conscience. The law
of the land considers marriage only as it is a civil contract,
that is, as it falls within the jurisdiction of the State; but
it has qualities not within that jurisdiction which make it
more than a civil contract.  It is a civil contract, but it is
also a religious vow. The State cannot release the conscience from this vow, and cannot and does not declare
that marriage is a civil contract and nothing more. Paley,
87 
88      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
who professed to be a moralist not a lawyer, was very
wrong when he wrote, that "marriage is a civil contract
and nothing else." This is a totally different proposition
from that of Blackstone, and is not true.
~ 8. MIarriage contracted according to the civil law of the
land, is a civil contract, but it is also much more. If it
were merely a civil contract it would follow that it might
be dissolved by the consent of the parties agreeably to the
law maxim, "omnze ligamen dissolvitur eo ligamine quo
ligatur."  "Every obligation may be dissolved by the same
power by which it was created."
When any other civil contract has been broken, the law
allows the injured person to recover compensation; that
done, the contract is at an end. It is scarcely an exception
to this rule, that in some cases the injured person has the
right to compel performance of the contract. For marriage the law recognizes no compensation which shall be
a satisfaction for the injury and put an end to the contract.
It always continues until it has been dissolved by a legislative act or a judicial decision. In other cases the performniance or the damages may be released. It is not so in
the case of marriage. The law distinguishes between a
contract to marry and a marriage. The first is a mere
civil contract, for the breach of which the law will give
damages, and the damages or the contract itself may be
released. It is quite different where there has been an
actual marriage, of which the law knows no release. It
punishes certain gross violations of the contract, but gives
no compensation for any. It regards marriage as incapable of being dissolved by mutual consent, directly or
indirectly.
This is the rule among all Christian nations. A marriage once contracted can only be dissolved by a direct act
of the legislature, or for certain reasons which are prescribed
by law, and must be judicially established. The sentence
must be pronounced by a public tribunal, which has exam
I 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
ired the case, and is satisfied, both of the sufficiency and
the truth of the reasons alleged for the dissolution of the
IIna-riage. The only exception to this rule is when a legislatu-e chooses to interpose, by the use or abuse of its
supreme power. Both legislators and judges assume that
marriage is a civil contract. But the necessity for their
actionshows that it is not a mere civil contract.
Mostmen hold that marriage is a civil contract, but one
which c,nnot be dissolved on account of its peculiar nature.
They also hold, very correctly, that it is an entire contract,
which cainot be modified by the will of the persons
concerned,as all other civil contracts can. They perhaps
attribute tiese peculiarities to the law of the land. If
that were thir true origin, an act of the legislature might
change the l1w of marriage and make it as easy to dissolve
a marriage asa contract of hiring. Perhaps a majority of
the American people would assent to that proposition, although most ol them would regard such a change in the
law as inexpedient.
~ 9. The doctrqe that marriage is a mere civil contract,
so far prevails in his country, that in a large majority of
the States the unil may be formed in the presence of a
mere civil officer, ithoutit any religious rite. This is consistent with sound p,inciples, provided that religious rites
are not prohibited, wdch no American State has yet done.
Marriage being a civilcontract, although not merely a civil
contract, the State has right to insist that it shall be celebrated by her officer, an! even to require it, before she will
recognize the union.  Nqe of the U7nited States have gone
so far. They all recognizethe validity of marriages solemnized with such religious,eremonies as are confornmable
to the opinions of the persns married. bv any one whom
they may acknowledge as a minister of religion. If there
are any exceptions, they go io further than to provide
some means of assuring the civiauthority, that the minister
is recognized as such by some rligious body. The States
8.',)
i
I 
:'7
90       CHRISTIAN DOCTHINE OF MARRIAGE.
generally allow both religious marriages and  those ceebrated before civil officers, looking upon them with indiffrent eyes. In Maryland, however, every marriage must be
celebrated either by some ninister of the Christian religion,
or in the manner used among Quakers or Jews, unless the
persons to be married, or one of them, make oath that they
are conscientiously scrupulous of being so married.
The public opinion of the more educated classes looks
with disapprobation upoin marriages before a civil officer;
which does not seem, however, to be connected wth direct
religious feeling. A marriage without religious rites is
considered as ungenteel, not as irreligious. It is thought
bad taste not to connect so important a contact with an
outward ceremony of religion. It were well if all those
who hold that opinion acted consistently up)n it, and did
not desecrate the solemnities upon which thy insist. The
irreverent conduct of the company which is assembled,
perhaps in the house of God, for the sokmnization of a
marriage, is a consequence of the irreligious views generally
held on the subject, and tends to perpettrate them.
~ 10. Marriage is in the United Staes generally considered to be merely a civil contract; but the logical
conclusion, that it nmay be dissolved at pleasure, is not
drawn. It seems to be held that evi- consequences would
follow were that allowed.  The lav makes the interposition of a court of justice necessaryto the legal dissolving
of a marriage.  Rules have beenlaid down according to
which it nmust be done, and certal things declared to be
sufficient causes for the dissolutil.  The causes in many
of the States are so numerous, tie rules so little stringent,
and so little provision has ben made against collusion,
that if a miarried couple agre to dissolve their marriage,
they will find no practical ditculty in their way. The law
of the land, and the civil ribunals, will interpose none.
South Carolina is the only)ne of the United States which
has the honor of not alloiing any divorce.
I;
I-....,. 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 11. Marriage is a civil contract, and as such subject to
the jurisdiction of the State and the law of the land; but
it is also a Divine institution, and, as such, not under their
authority. God himself instituted the appropriation of one
woman to one man, and subjected it to certain laws, which
the State ought to enforce, but which she may, at her peril,
refuse to enforce. If she refuse, there are no means of
compelling her, for she has no human superior; but the
Divine laws are not less binding. The State ought to
enforce the Divine laws, because they would promote the
temporal welfare of her citizens; but if she be of a different
opinion, it only remains that Christians should obey them,
and endure whatever inconveniences may arise, from their
not being enforced upon others. In this country, the State
declines to enforce them, and it is the more necessary that
Christian men and women should be familiar with them.
~ 12. Christian marriage is, as has already been said, of
Divine appointment. For that appointment there were
reasons into which it may be well, reverently, to inquire.
They will be found to be substantially the sanme with
those for the creation of woman, which have been mentioned at the beginning of the second chapter. Some
moralists have supposed that St. Paul indicates another
when he writes, "It is good for a man not to touch a
woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife, and every woman her own husband."
From this text it has been inferred that one of the reasons
for the institution of marriage was the avoiding of fornica —
tion. The Apostle does not say so. He only directs that
particular persons should marry, as a means whereby they
may avoid fornication. But for the institution of marriage
fornication would be as impossible to the human race as to
the lower animals. Yet there is a sense in which marriage
may be said to have been instituted to prevent fornication,
since it was instituted to prevent promiscuous intercourse,
1 1 Corinthians vii. 1, 2.
A
91 
92      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
which is now fornication. But that idea is included in the
idea that it was instituted for the continuation of the
species. The other reasons were the same with those for
the creation of woman, as set forth in the beginning of the
Book of Genesis; that is to say, the continuation of the
species, and the furnishing man with a help and a companion: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will
make him a help meet for him." 1
The creation of the first woman supplied those three
wants of the first man. The existence of the femnale sex
supplies to the mnale sex the means of providing for the
same wants. But in order that particular women might
be appropriated to particular men, and become to them
what Eve was to Adam, marriage was instituted. Men became husbands, and women wives, that the ends of the
creation of woman might be answered in their particular
cases. Hence the intimate connection between the relation between the sexes, and the relation of husband and
wife. Hence, too, it is that the reasons for the creation of
woman and for the institution of marriage are the same, and
in the Bible are assigned together, " And the Lord God said:
It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him
a help meet for him." 2 " And the Lord God caused a deep
sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and He took one of
his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; and the rib which
the Lord God had taken from man made He a woman, and
brought her unto the man." 8
The creation of woman, and the institution of marriage,
took place at the same time. The reasons for both were
the continuation of the species, and the providing for man
help and companionship.
~ 13. It may, perhaps, be said, that the continuing of the
species was provided for by the creation of the sexes, as it
was in the case of the lower animals. But man is not a
1 Genesis ii. 18.
-1
2 ]bid.
8 ]bid. 22.
i 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
mere animal, governed by instinct. He is an immortal
being and nmust be trained for eternity. He has faculties
which must be cultivated, and emotions which must be sub jected to the conscience. Those things make a long course
of care and education necessary. This can only be pro vided by parents who are permanently united. Under
other circumstances, experience shows that the child either
perishes in infancy, or is brought up without the proper
traininig.  Without marriage the continuation of the human
race would be very imperfectly provided for. There would
be none of that moral and intellectual culture, which is
indispensable to the well-being of the race. For the protection and education of children, a family is necessary,
and marriage is an essential condition of a family.
~ 14. This leads to the second reason for the institution
of marriage, - the providing help for men. The continuation of the species makes it necessary that there should be
a household, in which the young may be provided for and
protected. It is the duty of the man to take care for all
this, as well as for the maintenance and protection of the
mother of his children. These duties he cannot perform
without help. The maintenance of the household involves
several operations, some of which would interfere with the
proper performance of others. It is then necessary that he
should have help, and that of a kind which he could scarcely
have without marriage. The necessaries for the fanily
must be provided, prepared for use, kept from waste, and
finally distributed.
~ 15. Necessaries must be either directly produced by
labor, or money to purchase them must be procured by
labor. In either case the labor must generally be performed out of the house, and must always absorb nearly all
the time and attention of the man.  The other offices must
be performed within the house. When the provisions for
the family are purchased with money, the making the purchases, and bringing home the provisions, is a third class of
93 
94      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
duties. This third class of duties is sometimes allotted to
the husband, and sometimes to the wife, and, perhaps, more
usually divided between them. But the first of the two
other classes is generally allotted to the husband, and the
second to the wife. This distribution of labor pervades
every form of society, from that in which the savage kills
in the forest the game, which his wife cooks in the wigwam, to that in which the wealthy merchant, or skillful
lawyer gathers utip in the counting-room, or office, the money,
which he hands to his wife that she may provide for the
wants of his household. It is not possible for the man to
perform both these classes of duties. One who has no
household, or who has left his home for a time, may, if he
be content or compelled so to do, both collect and administer the means of his own subsistence. But such a
system in a household would be incompatible with comfort.
It could only exist in the absence of any demand on the
man to provide for the wants of others.
It would be very inconvenient, if not impossible, for the
man and the woman to undertake both departments jointly.
One or the other would be neglected, while the other would
perhaps receive too much attention. Nor could the departmnients of foreign affairs and the interior be well filled by the
man and woman alternately. Each would be compelled to
hand over to the other unfinished operations, which could
only be advantageously finished by the head and hands by
which they were commenced.
It must not be overlooked that the mental and physical
constitutions of the two sexes qualify each of them more
especially for one of these two departments. The greater
physical strength, and rougher moral constitution of man,
fit him for the struggle with nature, or with other men, by
which only subsistence can be gathered. The more delicate organization of woman, and her capacity for patient
attention to little things, fit her for the superintendence, or
for the work of the internal department. Hence, ever
i 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
since "Adam delved and Eve'span," the external affairs
of the household have been committed to the man, and the
internal to the woman.
~ 16. The principle is universal, though it is developed
differently in different circumstances. An Esquimau takes
the seal, which he has speared, home to his wife, who extracts the oil and cooks the flesh.  Abraham, who was a
herdsman, ran to the herd and fetched a calf, which a
young man dressed, or, as we Americans would say,
butchered.  Sarah made ready two or three measures of
meal, and baked cakes upon the hearth.1
Andromache and Lucretia superintend the spinning
and weaving of their slaves, and, no doubt, household affairs
generally. Hector and Collatinus appear only as warriors, but in time of peace they probably cultivated the
soil, or tended flocks or herds, or in some way provided for
their families. What they provided was administered by
their wives.
In the present complex state of society, all women are
not, any more than all men, called upon to do the coarser
kinds of work. The principle is always the same, but it
is worked with more or less coarseness, according to the
various positions of different persons. One man lives by
his daily earnings, and it takes them all to provide for his
family. Were he to cook their food and make their clothes,
his earnings would be diminished, so that he would be unable to provide for them. Those offices are therefore performed by his wife with her own hands.
In another station the man has capital, and has it in his
power to purchase the assistance of others, whose labors he
superintends.  He  enjoys a large income, which he acquires with very little manual labor. Another man has
stored and disciplined his mind. He has studied the laws
of the land, and the arts of influencing men's minds, or he
has studied the constitution of the human frame and the
I Genesis xviii. 1-8.
95 
96      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
nmodes of treating its diseases. In either case his knowledge
and skill enable him to receive large rewards from those
who require his services. In all these cases the man would
suffer great loss were his attention diverted from his proper
business to domestic affairs. He cannot, more than the
laborer, afford to leave his occupation to take charge of the
home department.  He is not fit for it, and cannot become
so without unfitting him for his proper work, and it would
occupy time which might be more profitably employed.
It does not follow that the wives of these men are to do
what the wives of laborers do, still less that they are to do
nothing. They are to manage and superintend the household. The wife of a rich merchant, manufacturer, or planter
commits to the hands of others whatever is coarse, laborious,
or disagreeable in the affairs of her household, just as her
husband commits to the hands of others whatever is coarse,
laborious, or disagreeable in his business. He gives time
aud mental labor to the superintendence and direction of
his business, for it could not otherwise be successfully
carried on. So his wife must give time and thought to
the direction of the household affairs.   Both  husband
and wife are thus occupied in their respective departments, although in a different manner from  other persolns in a different position. It may happen that either
or both may require and obtain assistance even in superintendence and direction. But the supreme direction and
superintendence must still remain with the natural head,in the outward business with the husband, in the house
with the wife. The position of a woman as the help to her
husband may be modified by circumstances, but it exists
under all circumstances.
~ 17. The idea that the wife is the help of her husband,
and the particular distribution of labor between them, are
recognized in the two extremes of American society.
They have been recognized everywhere and always. The
work which is to be done out of the house is allotted to the 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
man, that which is to be done in the house to the woman.
The only exception to the rule is that the duty of purchasing some of the supplies for the family is often allotted to
the woman. As the family rises in wealth and social
position there is a change.   Both husband and wife call in
assistance, and labor rather with the head than the hands.
In Europe there is a class of persons who have inherited
large property, upon the income of which they can live,
without any effort to acquire more. Their duties, with
respect to providing for their families, are confined to
taking care of their possessions and collecting and administering their incomes, and they are able to command assistance even in the performance of these duties. Yet the
proper attention to their estates will consume time and require thought; still, they are men of large leisure: some of
them waste their leisure as other men abuse other blessings.
Others find employments by diligence in which, they may
advance the state of the world. They may take part in
public affairs without becoming the slaves of party for the
wages of office, or they may serve the public in religious, ecclesiastical, philanthropic, scientific, or literary occupations.
Must not similar obligations rest upon their wives, as
those which bind the wives of other men?  Such men require to be relieved from the cares of the household just as
much as the savage, the nomad, the laborer, the merchant,
or the planter. It is the office of their wives, as of those of
other men, "to guide the house," to rule in the domestic
departnment. The burden is lightened to them by the pos-.
session of wealth, just as the burden of their husbands' business is lightened to them, but the duties still remain,
though they may be neglected.  Both men and women are
under such circumstances exposed to great temptations.
]Iany of them abandon their duties and give themselves up
to pleasure and frivolity; yet many of both sexes perform
their duties nobly. It is thus that the wife is a help to her
husband, and thus is fulfilled in part the intention of the
7
97 
98       CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Lord God in creating woman and instituiting marriage. St.
Paul speaks of this portion of a womnan's duty, when he
says: "I will, therefore, that the younger women marry,
bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the
adversary to speak reproachfilly." 1
~ 18. Other duties of the man are the protection and government of his children.  These also are naturally divided
into two branches, as they are to be done within the house
or abroad. Children are exposed at home to many small
dangers, fronm which they can only be protected by one who
is at home.   They can only be effectually governed by one
who is generally with them. The other duties of the wife
are to be performed at home; these, then, fall more readily
into her department. Her patience in small matters, her
more tender and affectionate disposition, and her strong affection for the children, are peculiar qualifications for the
duties of protecting and governing the children. These
duties, so far as they are to be performed at home, thus fall
within the province of the wife. As in the other case, her
labors nmay be lightened, where the circumstances will admit
of it, by assistants.  The duties of direction and superintendence will still, however, be incumbent upon her.
~ 19. Another yet mlore important duty, in which man
requires female help, is the training of the children. This
includes the government of them in a hig,her sense of the
word than that in which it has been just used.  So far as
girls are concerned a man can hardly perform this duty
properly, certainly not without female advice and assistance.
The same thing is true of boys during their tender years.
When they are older, the deep religious convictions of
woman  render her aid most valuable in forming  their
religious and nmoral characters. These are also modes in
which she is to show herself a help meet for her husband.
~ 20. Duties are not all on the side of the wife. It is
her duty to be a help to her husband; but he is not to ex
1 1 Timothy v. 14.
tI 
OF TIHE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
pect her to be a drudge, unless his own position is that of
a drudge.  He should lighten her labors by procuring for
her assistance, and if necessary by such personal exertions
as will not interfere with his own occupations.  He is to
protect her as well as the children, and that from the petu lance and insubordination of the children themselves, as
wvell as from external dangers. On her part she is to re menmber that she is a help, and, therefore, in a subordinate
position.  She is to administer the affairs of the household
and govern and train the children in conformity with the
instructions of her husband.
~ 21. A wife is not only a help but a companion; in that
capacity she is her husband's equal, and he should remem ber that he is her companion as much as she is his. Com panionship is necessary to them both. It is one of the
offices of woman to refine and polish man by her society.
It is the business of man, by his society, to strengthen the
character of woman.  The state of marriage was instituted
for both these ends. It is a departure from the designs of
the Almighty, when men allow business, or women permit
amusements, to interfere with the duties of mutual society.
Closely connected with these duties are the position of
the man as the instructor and  mentor  of the woman,
and that of the woman as the adviser of the man. In this
form of companionship, it is more especially his part to take
care that their plans be such as will succeed, hers to see
that they are innocent. Yet he is never to lose sight of
innocence, nor she of prudence,  strength, and firmness.
Each has a proper place and function which the other is to
respect, and the decision is to be made by harmonizing
the ruling faculties and emotions of both. It may then be
hoped that it will be both wise and innocent.
~ 22. All these ideas enter into the more complex one of
marriag,e, an idea which lies at the root of all society.  For
all societies were developed from families, and are still only
aggregations of families.  The'family has its root in lmar
99
. I 
100      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
riage, from which sprung the first family, and from which
new households are continually springing to replace those
which death is continually breaking up.
It is not then wonderful that all communities have recognized marriage, or sometimes something so like it as to be
called by its name, which will answer some of its purposes,
though it does not conme up to the true idea. Hence the
words marriage, husband and wife, are used in speaking of
connections which have been formed according to the
notions, laws, and customs of any community, notwithstanding very defective notions about marriage may have prevailed in that community. It is very possible that many
such arrangements may have been true marriages where
the parties to them have entertained sound notions, and intended to act upon them. St. Paul, in the seventh chapter
of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, treats them as true
marriages, when one of the parties to one of them has been
converted to Christianity. Still it must not be forgotten
that Christians have a definite idea of marriage, to which
it is their duty to conform, because it is revealed and so
known to be true.
As the family is the root of society, and marriage is the
root of the family; so the root of the morals of every
society is to be found in the morals of the family, and those
morals grow out of the ideas entertained about marriage.
The notions about marriage, which prevail in any commnunity, have an important bearing upon the morals of the
people. It may be safely said that any community, which
shall have really and practically adopted the Christian idea
of marriage, will have made the first and greatest step
toward the adoption of the body of Christian morals. Unfortunately no such community exists or has ever existed.
In all parts of the world and of the Church, there is a
tendency in public opinion to throw off the Christian
idea and adopt much lower notions. This is at least as
true in the United States as in any other country.
I,
., 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 23. Marriage is a Divine institution, resting on Divine
appointment, governed by Divine laws. It is the voluntary
and indissoluble union of one woman with one man for the
purposes of procreation, help, and society. The union is so
complete as to produce unity between two persons, and is
sanctified by God Hinmself. Those who enter into this
union in the right spirit, are entitled to the Divine aid in
fulfilling its duties, provided it has been implored with due
faith and devotion.
~ 24. Marriage has its Divine laws, which seem to be
seven in nurmber. First, that it shall be contracted with
the free consent of both parties to live together agreeably
to the Divine law. Second, that the Divine blessing be
invoked upon the union. Third, it is declared that the
union so blessed makes the parties to the marriage "no
more twain but one flesh." Fourth, that the Divine blessing also sanctifies the union and makes it holy. Fifth, it is
provided that marriage shall be between two persons only,
neither of them being capable of being united to a third
during the life of the other.  Sixth, that marriage shall
be indissoluble, except in a certain case specially provided
for. Seventh, that the wife shall be subordinate to the
husband and subject to his authority.
~ 25. The things required by these laws are the elements
of marriage, and like the laws are seven in number.  The
consent of the parties, the Divine blessing, the mysterious
unity which grows out of the first two, and which is the
central idea of marriage, the sanctity or holiness which is
produced by the Divine blessing. From the unity and the
sanctity may be deduced, by strict logical deduction, the
exclusiveness of marriage, its indissolubleness, and the authority of the husband. The three last.named elements
are not only logical consequences of the others, but rest
upon distinct Divine precepts. The elements of Christian
marriage are then consent, the Divine blessing, sanctity,
unity, exclusiveness, indissolubleness, and the authority of
101
I 
102      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
the husband. An union in which any one of these seven
elements is wanting is not a Christian marriage.
They may be divided into three classes. The two first
may be called the formative elements, because they form
the union. Sanctity and unity are the mysterious parts of
marriage, and may be called the nmysterious elements.
The other three are practical rules to govern the conduct
of the married pair, and may be called the practical elements.
~ 26. The words marriage, husband and wife, are, as has
already been remarked, applied to unions which have been
formed according to the laws and customs of un-Christian
communities, although they do not contain the true elemnents of Christian marriage. Even in Christian countries,
the people, or large portions of them, entertain loose
notions of marriage, which are very different from those
taught in the Holy Scriptures. The word marriage is,
therefore, very often used in a large sense. Hence it becomes proper, when it is used in a strict sense, to prefix
the adjective Christian.
In the mouths of those who reject the Christian idea, the
word is used in various senses, so that it is impossible to
give a definition which will include them all. It is so used
by persons of various opinions and with reference to various laws and customs, as to exclude, on sonme occasions,
every element of Christian marriage. The definition, which
would perhaps include the greater number of these notions,
would be: The appropriation of a woman to a mail for the
purpose of procreation and help.
~ 27. Yet the fourth of the five false theories mentioned
in the second chapter, which nmay be called the romantic
theory, rejects the idea of help as well as that of authority.
The fifth, which may be called the Amazonian, rejects authority, and can scarcely be regarded as accepting help. In
other false theories the authority of the husband is accepted
and exaggerated, while every other element of marriage is
in one or other of them rejected.
I 
OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE.
The consent, which is an element of Christian marriage,
being a consent to live in marriage according to God's law,
cannot exist if any of the other elements is wanting. The
Divine blessing, unity and sanctity are so purely Christian
ideas, that it may be said that they never are accepted but
as a portion of the Christian system.  Exclusiveness is not
recognized by the Miohammedans, the MIormons, or the pagans of Asia, Africa, or America. Indissolubleness is generally rejected wherever exclusiveness is. In many Christian countries it is by no means generally accepted. Protestant Germany and the United States of America are exanmples.  The authority of the husband is generally recognized in false theories of marriage; yet it is rejected in the
ronmantic and Amazonian theories, and is not very heartily
received by many women who do riot exactly subscribe to
either of them.
~ 28. Before quitting the subject of false notions about
marriage, it may be well to say a few words about the sides
of miarriage. It is designed to answer certain purposes,
some of which are connected with the animal nature,
somne with the intellectual, some with the moral, and some
withI the spiritual.  It has, therefore, its animal, intellectual, moral, and spiritual sides, upon any one of which it
nmay be contemplated. It is also connected with men's
social position in such a way as to give it a fifth side, - the
prudential. It is a false notion of marriage, which is collected from looking at it on any one or more of these sides
neglecting the others.
~ 29. Amiidst all these various notions, there is no sure
foundation for domestic happiness, or for virtue, private or
public, save in the Christian idea of marriage, an union
founded on consent to live in the holy state of matrimony
according to God's law, sanctified by the Divine blessing,
recognizing the divinely decreed unity, and all the other
divinely appointed  elements.  Such  an union is a true
mnarriag,e. The Divine blessing, and the sanctity which it
103 
104     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
gives, confer upon it a peculiarly religious character. It is
not a sacrament, but it is as the Church has always called
it, -the holy state of matrimony. The rite by which persons enter into that state is a holy rite, though not a sacrament, for it has no "outward and visible sign ordained by
God himself," and is not, "generally, necessary to salvation." The rite is a holy rite and the state a holy state;
but if used in an unholy manner they may be sources of
great misery here and hereafter. The solemnization of
marriage is, therefore, a very serious occasion, and should
be marked by discretion, reverence, sobriety, and the fear
of God. 
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE FORMATIVE ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.
~ 1. Consent. - ~ 2. The Divine Blessing. - ~ 3. The Connection be tween Consent and the Divine Blessing. - ~ 4. Marriage Rites. - ~ 5.
The Church of England and her American Daughter.- ~ 6. The Protes tant Denominations. - ~ 7. The Church of Rome. - ~ 8. Evasion of
Forms. - ~ 9. Irreverence. - ~ 10. The True Marriage.
~ 1. THE formative elements of marriage are consent
and the Divine blessing. The consent, which is one of the
elements of marriage, includes much more than the acceptance of a particular person as a husband or wife, agreeably to the usages of society. It includes an acceptance
of the Christian ideas of marriage, and of the relation of
husband and wife. According to the Divine law, that relation involves certain duties and rights, to which both the
man and the woman are to consent. They do not merely
consent to live together and to enjoy the privileges and advantages which they desire, and to perform those duties
which they may find agreeable, and in all other matters to
do as they please.
MIarriage is a Divine ordinance, which the Divine law
does not permit to be modified; it must be accepted or
rejected as a whole. The consent is to live together according to God's ordinance as He hath made it, and to obey
entirely and without reserve God's laws of marriage. These
it is not easy to obey. On the announcement of one of
them the Apostles of our blessed Lord said,  "If the case
of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." 1
Our Saviour admitted the difficulty, and only said that all
men could not receive the saying. He did not soften the
law. It is therefore unaltered, and is what many men con                    1 Matthew xix. 10. 
106      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
sider rigorous in some of its provisions, and many women
in others. This may be a reason for not marrying; it is
very often a reason for not marrying a particular person. It
is always a reason why marriage "is not to be entered upon
unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, advisedly,
soberly, and in the fear of God."
This involves a real and sincere consent to enter into
the holy state of matrimony, and to live therein according
to God's ordinance. This is the more necessary, because
whether the internal consent exist or not, the external marriage has created an external union. The parties are thus
bound to all the duties of the state without the grace which,
under happier circumstances, would have assisted in the
performance of them. Such a state of things, it is highly
probable, involves sin, and is certainly exposed to great
temptations.
~ 2. The blessing of God is a necessary element of marriage. It is the means by which He joins the parties
together and makes them one, so that man cannot separate
them. In every Christian marriage it is God, not man,
who really marries the pair, just as it is God who really
administers every Christian sacrament, though He uses man
as his instrument.  It is to this that Christian sacraments
owe their efficacy, and Christian marriage its holiness.
This is too often forgotten, and marriages are lightly
considered and unadvisedly entered upon, to the ruin of
the temporal and eternal happiness of one or both of the
persons concerned. Such marriages have bound upon the
consciences of those who have entered into them, a burden which they have not intended to assume. It may be
feared that they have not entitled themselves to the Divine
aid. without which the burden cannot be borne. Marriage
is not a sacrament according to the received definition of
that word. Like the sacraments, however, it fails to convey the Divine blessing to those by whom it is treated with
levity as well as to those by whom it is rejected. All the 
OF TIlE FORMATIVE ELEMIENTS OF MARRIAGE.  107
Divine ordinances are hurtful to those who receive them
in an improper state of mind or heart. Their value depends upon two things, - the Divine institution, and the
faith of those by whom they are received.
The institution is Divine, but it was not intended to
operate by the mere exercise of the Divine power without
human cooperation. It is a mnere form unless it receives
life from the Divine blessing in each particular case. That
blessing is never withheld from those who seek it in a
proper frame of mind and heart. It is never granted to
those who are in a state of mind in which they are unworthy to receive it.  There is no such thing among the
Divine ordinances as an opus operatum, -a work wrought
by the Divine power, without the acceptance of man.
The graniting of the blessing depends upon the state of
mind and heart in which the ordinance is received. A man
nmay be baptized or confirmed or receive the Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ externally, when no
internal effect is produced, or worse, when none but injurious effects are produced. The salutary effect was lost
because it was not really sought or was sought without performning the conditions upon which only it will be granted.
In such cases there is an external Baptism, Confirmation,
or Communion without the internal benefits with which it
ought to be connected. There is, then, an external and an
internal Baptism, Confirmation and Communion.  The internal cannot exist without the external; but the external
may exist without the internal, and is then of no spiritual.
value or real validity.  Nevertheless, man may not dispute
the validity of the external rite, because he knows not the
heart and it is there that the defect lies.
So in the case of marriage, there may be an external,
formal marriage, without the real, internal marriage.  The
validity of such a marriage man may not dispute. It is, in
all respects of which man can take cognizance, a marriage
lawfiul according to Divine and human laws.  The State 
108      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
and society will respect it, and the Church is bound to respect it. For the Church, like the State and society, is composed of men, and men can only look upon the outward
appearance.  Yet God, who looketh upon the heart, may
see that there has been no consent to a real Christian
marriage, no Divine blessing, no unity of the persons, no
sanctity of the union.
The parties may have been joined together otherwise
than as God's law doth allow, and the marriage may therefore not be lawful. All this may be true, with whatever
rites it may have been attempted to consecrate the union.
None of the circumstances which render marriage a blessing may exist; but the indissoluble bond and the authority
of the husband will exist, and will be felt as intolerable
grievances.
~ 3. The Divine blessing is not tied to the blessing of a
priest or to any external symbol, or any particular form or
rule of celebration. Marriage, and the sanctity which is a
part of its essence, may exist independently of any forms;
but not without an internal consent manifested by external
action in conformity with existing laws. It is only upon
such a consent that the Divine blessing will descend. That
it will descend upon such a consent, if earnestly implored,
is certain. Such a consent and such a blessing constitute
marriage.
~ 4. This brings up the consideration of marriage rites, or
the external form of manifesting consent, and invoking
the blessing of God. There must be an external form
of marriage, which should involve an external expression
of the internal consent. It is right that the parties to the
marriage should be formally assured of the consent of each
other, which can only be by some such outward expression.
It is also right that each of them should be well assured of
his or her own consent, which can scarcely be, unless it is
brought out in an external shape, and reduced to a form
which will compel attention, and bring the matter distinctly 
OF THE FORMATIVE ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  109
before the mind. The external and formal consent has
other uses. The Church is the guardian of the spiritual
welfare of her members, and the superintendent of their
morals. The State has her own interest in the purity
of morals. Society, irrespective of both, assumes a right
of protecting itself from immoral intruders. Each claims
to be satisfied of the fact of the marriage by means of some
prescribed ceremony.
The State prescribes no form, but throws around the
contract of marriage such guards as she thinks sufficient to
prevent the violation of her laws. For this purpose, she
takes care that the consent which unites the persons shall
be pronounced in whatever form, before witnesses whom she
can trust. The witnesses whom she selects are, in very
many cases, the ministers of the Church. Society having
no right or power to dictate a form is satisfied whenever
either the Church or the State is satisfied.
Most churches have set forth a form for the solemnization of Mlatrinmony, and have therein introduced the minister
of God, and instructed him how to lead the devotions of the
persons to be married, and to bless their union in God's
name. These forms are so much alike, that they may be
spoken of as one. It sets forth the Christian doctrine
of marriage, and the duties of husbands and wives. It is
highly unbecoming the character of Christians, for persons
not to avail themselves of the advantages thus provided for
then, although some of them may not be of the essence
of marriage. Marriage, and the sanctity which is of its
essence, may exist independently of these forms, but not
independently of the Divine blessing, or of the sincere and
fervent prayer, by which that blessing should be sought.
The Church for many ages insisted upon what she called
a marriage in the face of the Church, as being the most
perfect form of marriage. The phrase suggests the idea,
that at one period the marriage took place in the face of
the ordinary congregation, assembled for their ordinary 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
worship.  This is the principle of the form of marriage
anmong the Quakers.  But the ascetic notions of the Middle
Ages, which much obscured the idea of the sanctity of miarriage, drove the celebration of the rite out of the church
into the porch.  The phrase, ad ostiutnt ecclesie, was substituted for, in the face of the Church. For a long time
the last phrase has only meant, in the presence of a mninister of the Church. In the Church of Rome it is understood
that the persons who are to be married are the ministers of
the sacrament, and the blessing of the priest is not of its
essence. His function, which is, however, essential, is that
of a witness, which he performs not so much in the chlaracter of priest as in that of parochus, in which he symbolizes
the Church.
The duties of marriage have been prescribed by God
himself, and though He has never reduced them into the
form of a precise promise, it has been done by His servants.
The forms of marriage used by all churches and denominations in this country are substantially the same. They
are really the same with those of other churches throughout
the world, and contain the judgment of an inmmense majority of Christians, as to the nature and elements of Christian
marriage. There can be no doubt that they are an exposition, by the authority of the Church, of the Divine law as
to marriage.
~ 5. The marriage service of the Church of England
retains traces of those ideas. The solemnization is to be in
the church, not in the porch. It was not intended that it
should be in the chancel, although such is the present
practice. In the offices in the earlier Prayer-books, it is
implied that there may be a sermon and a communion.  It
may be then inferred that the marriage took place in the
presence of the congregation. It is historically known
that it was sometimes so celebrated.  It was, probably,
always celebrated in the presence of a congregation; if not
the ordinary one, a special one assembled for the occasion.
110 
OF THE FORMATIVE ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  111
In fact marriages are still solemnized in the presence of a
congregation, which is sometimes not a small one, although
often very indevout.
The Church of England insists that, unless by special
license from the Archbishop of the Province, the ceremony
shall take place in a consecrated building. It must always
be solemnized by one of her own ministers, who witnesses
the consent, and pronounces her blessing. Her American
daughter found it impossible, in the former state of the
country, to insist on these things.  She is, therefore, satisfied with the presence and agency of her minister. The
feeling of her members is, however, growing in the direction of celebration in a Church edifice. This probably arises
from a combination of the ideas of the solemnity of the
occasion, and the sacredness of the building. It is to be
wished that these ideas were more widely diffused and
more deeply felt. They would then check conduct, by
which they are now set at defiance, and which cannot but
lead to a suspicion that the Church is sometimes used in
compliance with fashion, from  motives of fanily convenience, or, perhaps, merely for display. Neither Church
regards any of the things just mentioned as essential to the
validity of a marriage. They both recoignize as a valid
marriage one celebrated in any form which the State regards
as sufficient.
~ 6. The same is true of all the Protestant denomninations in this country.  They are all agreed that no particular
form or ceremony is necessary to the validity of mnarriage.
This is true, because every fornm involves a consent to the
Divine law, unless it contain an express repudiation of
that law, or one is implied because polygamy, or arbitrary
divorce, are prevalent practices in the community.  But a
contract, which repudiates any part of the Divine law of
marriage, is not a marriage.  It must also be remembered
that a marriage by any formi may be only formal, because
the internal consent may be absent. 
112      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
The Protestant denominations, except the Quakers, require the solemnization of marriage to be by a minister.
The Quakers, who reject a ministry; and yet hold, in a very
decided manner, the Christian doctrine of marriage, have
thus been driven back upon the old notion of a marriage in
the face of the Church, and have substituted the congregation for the minister as the witness of the transaction.
~ 7. The Church of Rome recognizes no clergy but her
own, but regards marriages, not solemnized by thenm, as so
far valid, that she does not require the re-marriage of persons who join her communion, already mnarried.  When her
own people marry, she requires that a priest shall pronounce
the nuptial benediction. She does this, even after a civil
marriage, or a marriage by a minister not ordained in her
communion, which she probably regards merely as a civil
marriage.
~ 8. A legal marriage cannot be entered into without
some form of consent. Every consent implies a consent to
the whole Divine law, and that idea is embodied in most
or all of the ecclesiastical forms. Yet people always find
some way of evading the most stringent forms. Sometimes they use the prescribed form, and delude themselves
by saying, "it is only a form." It is assumed that the
words of a form have no meaning, and bind to nothing.
But every formi is intended to bind to something, and means
whatever that something is. The form used at a marriage
ceremony is meant to bind those who pronounce it to a
consent to live together according to the law of God. Too
many persons suppose that it binds them only to that to
which they in their secret minds intended to be bound. If
the plain words of the form import anything else, it is only
a form, and they have repeated it without any intention
of being bound by its words. The form only means what
they please, and they are at liberty to give it any interpretation they please, no matter how nonnatural.
Sometimes they neglect the form altogether, or substitute
i 
OF THE FORM.IATIVE ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  113
one of their own, which expresses the terms by which they
are willing to be bound. When this is done, with the con sent of the authority by which the form is imposed, and
that authority is competent to alter the substance which
the form is intended to express, there can be no objection.
But people alter forms, which express the substance, dic tated even by Divine authority, so as to alter the substance,
and then maintain that they are only bound by the words
of the fornm which they have pronounced or subscribed.
They forget that they are bound by the law, of which the
form is an expression, not merely by the words of the form.
The form expresses the mind of the legislator or framer,
which he has reduced to a precise and stringent form, in
order that it nmay be understood, and produce a deep
impression. Whether it be used or not, it settles that
which the legislator requires of the person upon whom it is
inmposed.   It nmay be  omitted, mutilated, or explained
away, but it is still binding, in its full and natural sense,
upon those who have accepted the rights and privileges
which the law confers on condition of entering into its obligations. It is astonishing how much these plain principles
are neglected, and that not merely with reference to the
marriage rites; though they are much neglected with reference to these rites, and the neglect is the occasion of
much misery.
~ 9. It is the common judgment of all Christians, who are
worthy of the name, and of many who are not, that so
important a step as marriage should not be taken without.
seeking the Divine blessing. The public opinion of the
educated classes in this country enforces this as a form.
Yet, with singular inconsistency, the very same persons, who
would be shocked at a marriage not solemnized with religious rites, throw around these rites such accessories as
render it almost impossible that they should be anything
more than mere forms.
It has been remarked by a distinguished clergyman, that
8
I 
114      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
the bride at a fashionable wedding has no time for reflectiIon, except the five minutes occupied by the rite. Of late
years an attempt has been made to introduce the English
practice of celebrating marriages in houses of worship, and
assembling a select congregation to join in the devotions.
The natural effect would be, to add greatly to the solemnity of the occasion. It is to be regretted that means have
been found to neutralize those measures and defeat that
effect. The special congregation sometimes come to the
church arrayed in the dresses in which they are to appear
at the evening entertainment, and with the thoughts and
feelings connected with that style of dress. On other
occasions, perhaps on the same, the doors are thrown open
to a crowd, who rush in as to a spectacle. They treat the
house of God as a place of exhibition, just as the invited
and dressed guests treat it as an extension of their friends'
drawing-room. In both cases all reverence and all decorum disappears. At the conclusion of the ceremony, a
scene of disorderly congratulations and struggles to get a
sight of the bride, or to get into the street, ensues, which
is utterly inconsistent with the proprieties of the place and
the occasion.
Our ancestors brought the animal side of marriage too
much into the light.  We affect to veil it; but we bring forward in its place the lust of the eye and the pride of life, and
a mirth which may well be likened to the crackling of thorns
under a pot. The modern mode of celebrating marriages
may include nothing so indelicate as the sack posset, or
throwing the stocking; but it includes many things which
are quite as inconsistent as those practices with the idea of
a religious office. The marriage office is the invocation of
God's blessing upon one of the most momentous transactions in the lives of two Christians. The object of the
practices, which have been mentioned or alluded to, seems
to be to divert attention from the solemnity of the occasion.
It is one of rejoicing; but it should be a solemn, Christianlike rejoicing.
I 
OF THE FORMATIVE ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 115
The five minutes of the ceremony are scarcely excepted
from the prevailing frivolity. The rite is treated as a
mere form, which has no other effect than to license the
new married pair to live together according to the usages
of the world so long as they shall both choose so to do.
The promises, the vows, the pronouncing of God's blessing
by his minister, are all regarded as only forms signifying
nothing, or, at least, not signifying what they express.  The
service is hurried over, if not nimutilated, and receives no
attention fromn the parties to the marriage, who have no
distinct intention of being bound by it.  By these means it
is practically degraded to a level with those marriages in
which an irreligious lay magistrate pronounces a couple
man and wife without any religious rite, and with about as
much ceremony as he bestows upon a deed for an acre of
land. In both cases there may be a Christian marriage,
for in both there may be a sincere consent to God's ordinance, and in both the blessing of God may have been invoked and granted. Yet in both the external marriage is
a legal, not a religious ceremony.
Nevertheless, the Divine blessing may be present, or it
may be granted after the external marriage is over. Thus
the real miarriage with its unity and sanctity may be superinduced.   For the Divine blessing may always be given
when it is duly implored, and the proper consent has been
given. There is reason for believing that this has sometimes occurred. Yet in any particular case, it is only a
possible event, the occurrence of which it is not safe to.
anticipate. For probability is against it, and until it occurs
the married couple are living in a state of sin. Hence the
great importance of making sure of the Divine blessing, by
coming to the marriage ceremony with the thoughts and
feelings appropriate to the occasion.
~ 10. The actual consent and the actual Divine blessing
form the unity and confer the sanctity, and thus constitute
the true marriage. There is no reason to believe that 
116      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
either is tied down to the moment of the formal marriage.
That is only the means of publicly expressing the consent
which may and ought to have been internally given at an
earlier time.  [As] the Divine blessing may also have been
already invoked and granted, so both the consent and the Divine blessing may follow the formal marriage, if the consent
has not been given, or the conditions on which the blessing
depends have not been performed until after the ceremony.
The objects of the rite are several. One is to notify the
public of the fact of the marriage. Another is to comply
with the legal forms exacted by the law, whether civil or
ecclesiastical. A third is to call the attention of the
parties to the nature of the transaction. A fourth to add
to its solemnity by bringing forward its religious element.
The fifth is to impress, by all these means, the minds and
memories of the married pair. All these objects, except
two, demand a solemn and religious state of mind. This
it is designed that the rite should produce, and, therefore,
such accessories should be thrown around it as will promote that design.
The blessing of God is one of the formative elements of
marriage, without which there can be neither unity nor sanctity.  It is best symbolized by the blessing of the Church
pronounced by her minister, who is also God's ambassador; but the two things are not connected by any Divine
decree. The priest, or the minister, does not pronounce
the blessing in virtue of any special authorization, as in
the case of the sacraments. He pronounces it in virtue of
his general authority as an ambassador of God. It may,
therefore, be allowable to apply to marriage, with a slight
alteration, that which King James, at the Hampton Court
Conference, said of Baptism, "Though the minister be not
of the essence of the'rite,' yet he is of the essence of the
right and lawful administration." Marriages upon which
no minister pronounces a blessing come fairly within the
meaning of the old phrase, " Fieri non debet, factum valet." 
OF THE FORMATIVE EI,EMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  117
This phrase properly applies to cases in which people have
acted irregularly, though without assuming an authority
which does not properly belong to them.
Although the blessing of a priest, or minister, is not
essential to the validity of a marriage, the blessing of God
is necessary to its internal and spiritual validity. That
blessing is always given when it is sought in a proper frame
of mind and heart, and with proper intentions, and upon
an union which is not forbidden by the Divine law. 
CHAPTER V.
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.
~ 1. The Mysterious Unity.- ~ 2. Sanctity.- ~ 3. In what the Holiness
of Marriage consists. - ~ 4. New Testament Doctrine. - ~ 5. Unholy
Marriages made Holy.- ~ 6. Marriages with Unbelievers.- ~ 7. Mar riage a Mystery. - ~ 8. Connection between Sanctity and Unity.- ~ 9.
Marriage as a Duty. - ~ 10. Remarks on 1 Corinthians vi. 14, 16. -
~ 11. Amorous Emotion does not produce the Unity.- ~ 12. Incompat ibility of Temper. - ~ 13. Conjugal Affection does not produce the
Unity. - ~ 14. Marriage the Cause of Conjugal Affection. - ~ 15. Com plex Nature of Man and of Marriage. - ~ 16. The Indwelling of the
Holy Spirit.- ~ 17. Motives to Marriage.
~ 1. TIRE mysterious elements of marriage are unity and
sanctity, which are so closely allied that it is possible they
may be only two aspects of the same thing. They both, at
any rate, grow out of consent, when God has given it his
blessing, and are inseparably joined together, and constitute the mystery of marriage. St. Paul in the Epistle to
the Ephesians, says, "For this cause shall a man leave his
father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and
they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but
I speak concerning Christ and the Church." 1
The remark of the Apostle is sometimes understood to
refer to Christ, and the Church, but it seems rather to refer
to the whole passage, and perhaps more directly to the unity
of the married pair, which is a great mystery. They are seen
to be two persons, having two wills, each capable of performing all the functions of life. It is known that they have
separate responsibilities, and that their final destinies may
be different. After the death of either it is agreed that
1 Ephesians v. 31, 32. 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 119
they are no longer one. Yet it is many times said in the
Holy Scriptures that they are one flesh, and the assertion
is more than once made by the Incarnate Son. It would
not be easy to find anything better entitled to the name
of mystery. There is plainly a discrepancy between what
nlen know, partly from observation and partly from revelation, on one side, and that which is explicitly revealed, on
the other. This clearly is a mystery.
The unity of married persons is often taught in the Holy
Bible.  In the second chapter of Genesis, Adam says,
"A mian shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave
unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." At the very close
of the Old Testanment the same doctrine is taught: " Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the
wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion and the wife of thy covenant. And did not He make one? Yet had he the residue
of the Spirit.  And wherefore one? That He might seek
a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let
none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth." 1
In the New Testament the doctrine of Adam's speech is
fully adopted. Our Lord adopted it on several occasions,
and the fact is recorded by two Evangelists. In one it is
thus expressed: "And He answered and said unto them:
Have ye not read that He, which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave
to his wife, and they twain shall become one flesh? Where,
fore, they are no more twain but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined let not man put asunder." 2
In another Evangelist it is thus written: "And He answered and said unto them: What did Moses command you?
And they said: Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away.  And Jesus answered and said
unto them: For the hardness of your hearts, he wrote you
1 Malachi ii. 14. 15.           2 Matthew xix. 4-6. 
120      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female. For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and
they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more
twain but one flesh. What, then, God hath joined let not
man put asunder.' 1
~ 2. The sanctity of the married state is a real thing and
is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, yet the idea is well-nigh
lost out of the minds of men. The Church has always regarded marriage as a holy state, and most, if not all forms
for the solemnization of the union speak of it as Holy Matrimony. But this is popularly understood as meaning only
that it has a sort of negative holiness, a mere innocence.
Holiness is merely taken as a negation of unholiness. Unholiness is the equivalent of sin; it has thus a sort of positive
signification of which holiness is made the negation.  It is
thus brought about that holy matrimony means no more
than that marriage is not fornication. This is not the full
meaning of the Church or of the Holy Scriptures.
The writer to the Hebrews says, " Marriage is honorable
in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." 2 This text contains three clauses.
In the first, marriage is declared honorable; in the second,
the marriage bed is pronounced undefiled; in the third,
judgment is threatened against sensuality. The third has
1no direct connection with the present subject. The two
first, if they have any meaning, bear strongly upon the
argument.   Popular opinion seems to reduce the  first
clause to a mere assertion of a consequence of the second;
it is more natural and more true to consider the second as
an inference from the first. If it had been written, the
marriage-bed is sinless, and therefore marriage is honorable, the words would have conveyed the ordinarily received
meaning that marriage is sinless, but the then second clause,
now the first, would have been superfluous. But it is written,
1 Mark x. 3-9.                2 Hebrews xiii. 4. 
OF THE MYSTEIRIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 121
"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." The
proposition in the first clause is the cause, not the effect, of
the truth stated in the second. The word honorable has a
positive and affirmative meaning, importing some substantial
quality which produces effects and changes the character
of actions, making sinless that which otherwise would be
sinful. This can be nothing short of sanctity. There is
a passage in Isaiah, which countenances this view: "If,"
says the prophet, "thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call
the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable,"
etc.'
The sanctity of marriage, if it rested solely upon the
passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, must be considered
as something more than the mere absence of sin. But it
is implied in the Divine institution that it should be something more. It is the divinely appointed means for man
to fulfill a direct injunction. Milton is right when he speaks
of marriage as that "which God commands to some, leaves
free to all."
~ 3. The sanctity of marriage is not a mere innocence
arising out of a permission, like that granted after the flood
to eat the flesh of beasts. It is a sanctity which sanctifies,
conveying holiness to persons and actions. It is closely
connected with the other elements of marriage. It proceeds from the blessing of God, which is only bestowed
upon a marriage founded upon a consent to all the elements
of a Christian marriage, and which at the same time imparts
unity and sanctity. From these mysterious elements arise
the practical elements. This appears in the first passage
in Holy Writ, in which marriage is mentioned; it has been
already referred to, when the objects for which marriage
was instituted were discussed.  It is this: "For Adam
there was not found a help meet for him. And the Lord
God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept.
1 Isaiah lviii. 13. 
122     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
And He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead
thereof; and the rib which the Lord God had taken fronm
man made He a woman, and brought her to the man. And
Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father
and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they
shall be one flesh." 1
The same ideas are reiterated by the prophet Malachi,
who thus connects the sanctity of marriage with its inidissoluble unity: "Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou
hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion and the
wife of thy covenant. And did not He make one? Yet
had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one?
That he might seek a godly seed." 2
This text refers to the relation between God and the
Church. But the analogy between that relation and marriage is very strongly brought out, so as to show that both
were in the mind of the prophet. This is also true of a
passage ill the Epistle to the Ephesians, which has been
already referred to.  The prophet in one case and the
Apostle in the other looked upon marriage as an apt type
of the relation between God and the Church, and spoke of
both at once. Both prophet and apostle wrote under the
influence of Divine inspiration. The doctrine about marriage is therefore stronger, not weaker, for its connection
with yet more sacred ideas. Moreover, the different sides
upon which they approach the subject, add force to their
teaching.
The prophet is speaking of the relation between God
and his Church, and introduces the relation of husband
and wife as an illustration. He passes from one to the
other in such a way as to leave it almost doubtful which he
regarded as his leading subject. St. Paul is treating of the
1 Genesis ii. 21-24.            2 Malachi ii. 14, 15. 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 123
married state, and introduces the relation of Christ and the
Church as an illustration. He, too, writes of both together,
as if what was true of one was true of the other.
~'4. It is in the New Testament that the doctrine of the
sanctity of marriage is most distinctly announced. The
passage just mentioned is an instance. It is as follows:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the Head of the Church; and He is the Saviour of
the body. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ,
so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
Church, and gave himself for it, that He might sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word; that He
might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having
spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be
holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their
wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth
himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but
nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall
be one flesh.  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning, Christ and the Church. Nevertheless, let every
one of you in particular love his wife even as himself, and
let the wife see that she reverence her husband." 1
In another Epistle the same Apostle teaches directly the
sanctifying power of marriage, without any special reference
to the unity of the married pair.  The passage is this:  " If
any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And
the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and
if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and
1 Ephesians v. 22-33. 
124      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
the unbelieving wife by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." 1
This passage seems to teach two doctrines: The first is
that for which it has been cited, the sanctifying power of
marriage, which produces the effect of sanctifying the unbelieving partner and the children. This is not, as some
persons think, the prospect of winning the unbelieving husband or wife to the truth, as is elsewhere said: "Likewise
ye wives be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any
obey not the Word they also may, without the Word, be won
by the conversation of their wives, while they behold your
chaste conversation coupled with fear." 2 So St. Paul, a
verse or two after the passage just cited fromn him, says:
"For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save
thy husband? or, how knowest thou, O man, whether thou
shalt save thy wife?" The conversion of the unbeliever is
spoken of as future and contingent. The sanctification is
spoken of as present, and producing present effects.  "The
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the (believing) wife;
and the unbelieving wife by the (believing) husband, else
were your children unclean, but now are they holy."
~ 5. Another doctrine involved in this text is that a
marriage, which was originally unholy, may become holy
through the faith of a believing husband or wife, even
though the other party to the marriage may continue in
unbelief. The persons of whom the Apostle is speaking
were converts, who had been married while still heathens.
There had been no Christian marriage, no consent to one,
no Divine blessing sought or received. The original marriage was not holy, it only became so when one of the
parties to it became a believer. The faith, which worked
this change, must have been a lively faith, which worked
by love, produced a desire for the Divine blessing, and a
consent to the Christian doctrine of marriage. The mnarriage then became holy, both parties were, for the purposes
11 Corinthians vii. 12, etc.  -    2 1 Peter iii. 1, 2. 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 125
of marriage, sanctified, and the children became holy. Such
cases cannot occur in Christian lands, but many analogous
cases do occur when people have entered into marriage
unadvisedly or lightly. Persons in such circumstances
may derive comfort fiom this Apostolic doctrine.
~ 6. It may be well, in this age and country, to say that
neither of these doctrines will justify the intermarriage of
believers and unbelievers. Such a marriage may, like other
unlawfil marriages, become lawful by the subsequent faith
and repentance of one of the parties to it, but in its inception it was sinful.  What St. Paul, in the same Epistle,
writes of widows, is true of all Christians.  "The wife,"
says he, "is bound by the law as long as her husband
livethl, but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be
married to whom she will; only in the Lord." 1 The liberty
of a virgin or of a man cannot be larger than that of a
widow.
Marriage with an unbeliever is directly condemned by
another text; it is: " Be ye not unequally yoked together
with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness
with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light
with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  "2
A marriage with an unbeliever is, therefore, sinful, and
even if not directly sinful, it exposes the unequally yoked
Christian  to great  tenmptations.   Those who  rush into
temptation can scarcely hope to share the blessing which
is promised to those who only continued a contract into
which they had entered ill ignorance of the Christian law.
Such persons the Apostle commands to respect the rights
which the other party had acquired, while the newly converted Christian was still in a state of ignorance.  The
usual pretext of marrying in order to convert the unbeliever, receives no countenance from St. Paul or St.
Peter. They are speaking of continuing in marriages, not
of entering into them.
1 1 Corinthians vii. 39.  2 2 Corinthians vi. 14, 15. 
126     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 7. The texts which have been cited prove that there is
in marriage a mysterious sanctity. It will not be contended
that it is a sacrament "ordained of Christ" as " a sure witness and effectual sign of God's good will towards us, by
the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only
quicken, but also strengthen [and confirm] our faith in
Him." 1 Still less will it be contended that marriage is "an
outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace
given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself as a means
whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us
thereof."  Least of all will it be asserted that it is "generally necessary to salvation." It is not then a sacrament.
But it is impossible to deny that it is a mystery, since it
produces holiness or sanctity. Everything which relates
to sanctity is mysterious. St. Paul, in the passage cited
from his Epistle to the Ephesians, says: "For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a
great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the
Church." 2
It has been sometimes contended, that the last mnember
of the last sentence refers the former part of the sentence
to Christ and the Church. The relation between the
Lord and the Church, not that between husband and wife
is, upon this view, that which the Apostle pronounces a
mystery.  But the clause seems rather to refer to the
whole passage, of the subject of which mnarriage is at least
a great part. It is treated as a type of the union between
Christ and his Church. At the same time, the conduct
of the Lord towards his spouse the Church is held up as
the example of husbands, and the conduct of the Church
is held up as an example to wives. Such is the relation
between type and antitype, that it is hard to suppose anything said of the one that is not true of the other, in its
measure. Moreover, it could scarcely be necessary to
1 [Art. xxv. Of the Sacraments.]   2 Ephliesians v. 31, 32. 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 127
state so distinctly the obvious truth, that the relation between Christ and the Church is a mystery.
~ 8. The sanctity of marriage seems to consist in the
sanctification imparted by the Divine blessing to the
unity. This may constitute its element of indissolubleness: " Whom God hath joined together let not man put
asunder." There is no prohibition to put asunder those
whom God hath not joined.  Perhaps it may be proper
to repeat here the caution, that man who can only look
upon the outward appearance, cannot separate those who
in outward appearance have been joined by God.
The two mysterious elements of unity and sanctity may
be regarded as the essence of marriage, or rather, perhaps,
as the centre with which all the other elements are connected either as causes or effects. The consent may be
considered as the root, out of which, when watered by the
Divine blessing, grow the unity and the sanctity. The practical elements - exclusiveness, indissolubleness, and the
authority of the husband- are the effects *of the unity
and sanctity. It has been already shown that the indissolubleness of marriage is traced to the unity by the highest
authority. It is plain to the merely human intellect, that
polygamy is inconsistent with unity, which is, therefore,
the source of exclusiveness. It will hereafter be shown
that the authority of the husband is also closely connected
with unity.
~ 9. Marriage is not a thing merely tolerated or licensed.
It is a duty under the ordinary circumstances of mankind
This is implied in the Divine declaration, that "it is not
good for man to be alone," which was the assignment of
the Divine motive for creating woman and instituting marriage.
St. Paul has been supposed to contradict this Divine
declaration, in the seventh chapter of his first Epistle to
the Corinthians. This whole chapter may be taken as an
instruction to be prudent in contracting marriage. In the 
128      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
twenty-sixth verse, the Apostle expressly says that he was
speaking for the present distress. His doctrine may be
reconciled with the passage in Genesis, by supposing that
the two taken together mean something like this: It is
not good for mlan to be alone; it is better that he should(
have a help which is meet for him; but it is better that
he should be alone than that he should have a companion
who is not a help, or who is not nmeet for him, whether
firom defects in her character or front other causes, which
render it unmeet for him to marry.
That this is substantially the meaning of St. Paul, appears from two other passages, in which he treats marriage
as the duty of women under ordinary circumrstances. If
it be the duty of women, it can hardly be other than a duty
for men.  In the first of these passages, he is giving directions about the widows who were to be "taken into the
number," whether of those who were to be relieved by the
alms of the Church or of official persons, is not clear. He
requires that they shall not be under threescore years of
age. After giving some directions about them, he goes on
to speak of others who were not to be "taken into the
number," and adds: "I will, therefore, that the younger
women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none
occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." 1
In the other passage he implies that marriage is the
ordinary and proper condition of woman.  He says: "The
aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine,
teachers of good things; that they may teach the young
women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their
children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good,
obedient to their own husbands; that the Word of God be
not blasphemed." 2
Upon the whole it may be considered that marriage is
a Divine institution, into which it is the will of God that
I 1 Timothy v. 14.                 2 Titus ii. 3-5. 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 129
men and women should generally enter.  The rule is open
to many exceptions, and in some conditions of society and
stations of life to more than in others. But marriage is
the appointed state of man, and is not only not sinful,
but possesses one great element of holiness, perhaps the
chief element, conformity to the Divine will. This renders the state so agreeable to God, that He has bestowed
upon it the power of sanctifying whatever is connected
with it. Yet this and all other effects of the Divine blessing are withheld from unions which are not in accordance
with the Divine law.
~ 10. Various theories have been found to account for
the unity of married persons. One is, that there is some
mysterious connection between sexual intercourse and the
unity of man and wife, or the making of twain one flesh.
The idea that it is necessary to the completion of a marriage has been formerly recognized by human laws, and
has still some hold upon the public mind. This might
lead to other considerations for which this is not the
proper place. These ideas are perhaps connected with a
remarkable passage in the writings of St. Paul, which
might have been cited as an additional proof that Adam,
on the introduction of his wife, spoke by inspiration, but
which has been reserved to this place on account of its
other teaching.  It is this: "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot?
God forbid.  What! know ye not that he which is joined
to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one
flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." 1
In this passage St. Paul seems to attribute the power of
making two one flesh to sexual intercourse even when Uinlawful. The Reverend Hector Davies Morgan, a learned
clergyman of the Church of England, published, in 1826,
a work on "Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce."  In it he
1 1 Corinthians vi. 15-17.
9 
130     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
attempts to give another turn to this text. According to
him, the word which is translated harlot means a person
who is an alien from the Church of God. The meaning
of the text would then be that marriages between believers
and unbelievers are unlawful. This doctrine is taught
elsewhere by the same Apostle, but not in this place. Mr.
Morgan perhaps adopted this interpretation because it
favors a notion of his, that the exception in our Lord's
prohibition of divorce relates only to such marriages.I
He supposes that marriages with persons not members
of the Church are only fornications, and that such a marriage is the fornication mentioned by our Blessed Lord
in St. Matthew, as a sufficient cause of divorce. It is unfortunate for this notion, that if the passage refer to such
mixed marriages, they are valid, for it attributes to them
the power of making two persons one flesh. If the Apostle is speaking of mixed marriages, he treats them as sinful but valid. He regards them as among the things of
which it may be said: Fieri non debet, sed facturn valet.
They ought not to be done, but being done are valid.
This is a true doctrine, but almost all commentators,
ancient and modern, are agreed that it is not taught in
this passage, which they think relates to simple fornication. Dr. Pusey adopts the authorized translation, and
quotes St. Chrysostomn, who cites the text in that sense.2
The text is a difficult one; it clearly teaches that fornication in some sense unites the fornicators into one flesh;
but it is, perhaps, not necessary to believe that the union
is indissoluble. If it be, then the world is full of polygamy
and polyandry. Many men have each a great number of
wives, each of whom has a great number of husbands, and
all these unions are indissoluble marriages. They cannot
be so; God has not joined the fornicators, and therefore
they may be put asunder. Yet it has been gravely as
1 See Morgan  On ]larriage, etc., vol. ii. p. 134, et seq.
2 Paiochial Sermonis, vol. i. Preface, p. xxv.
I 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 131
serted that he who has been joined to a harlot, is married
to her, and cannot during her life marry another woman.
This is a fearful doctrine, for it would annul a very large
proportion of existing marriages. It would involve thou sands if not millions of persons in sins which they have
committed in ignorance of the facts which made them sins.
It is more to the purpose to remark that it would be diffi cult to reconcile either this doctrine or Mr. Morgan's with
the respect which the Apostle, in the next chapter, pays
to heathen marriages, most of which would be void accord ing to this doctrine, and all according to Mr. Morgan's.
There can scarcely be a marriage where there was no
intention to marry, no consent to live together according
to God's law, and no Divine blessing asked, expected, de sired, or received. No Divine blessing can have been
given to an act of sin, and without the Divine blessing,
there can be no unity or sanctity in marriage. The sin
may, nevertheless, have its own mysterious power of unit ing the sinners in a mysterious unity of guilt, although not
in an indissoluble Christian marriage. The guilt is disgraceful to a Christian and insulting to his Divine Head.
The Divine blessing mnay, by the sin of those who neglected to seek it, be transformed into a curse.
~ 11. Another theory is that it is love which produces
the unity in marriage. By love is meant the anmorous
emotion which incites to marriage, and which often but
not always develops into conjugal affection. This emotion
is compounded of a benevolent affection and a passion derived from the instinct of self-love, as is shown in the diagram in the second chapter. In the married state the
passion fades, and the affection develops into conjugal
love. But this emotion, however desirable it may be as
a preparation for marriage, has no power of giving unity
to a marriage. It is impossible to concede to it such a
power. It is the germ of conjugal affection; but the germ
may not develop into the fruit or the fruit may perish. 
132     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
In either case the marriage would, on that theory, be at
an end.
~ 12. The notion involves that of divorce for incompatibility of temper, that is, of marriage so long as both parties
please. Frequent disagreements would arise because the
parties could be relieved from their relation to each other.
There would be much cruelty on the part of the man, and
much petulance on that of the woman, which would be resorted to in order that the incompatibility of temper might
be mnanifest. The end would be, that marriage would be
regarded as only a temporary arrangement, and woman as
merely an instrument of sensuality.
~ 13. Another theory is that conjugal affection is the
uniting power in marriage. In a merely human mode of
looking at things in the order of nature, it is very likely
to be so considered; but in the order of grace it is not.
There is an intimate connection between conjugal affection
and the unity of man and wife. Conjugal affection is not
an element of marriage, although it is closely connected
with both the formative and the mysterious elements. In
some popular theories of marriage, which are connected
with the romantic theory of the relation between  the
sexes, conjugal affection is made the essence of marriage.
In these theories, it precedes the marriage in the state of
a germ, prompts the consent, joins the parties, and sanctifies in some sense the union. After marriage it develops
into its full dimensions, and is itself the unity. This unity
has nothing mysterious about it; it consists in a conscious
affection, which combines the wills of the married persons.
This is conjugal affection, but it is not the mysterious
unity which makes of twain one flesh.
Conjugal affection is very important to the temporal and
indeed to the eternal happiness of the married couple;
but it is not the essence of marriage. Such a notion
would be inconsistent with the indissoluble character of
marriage, for conjugal affection does not always endure to 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 133
the end. Its absence, whether it has ceased to exist or
has never existed, is fatal to the temporal and hazardous
to the eternal happiness of the married pair. Without it
the duties of the holy state are very likely to be neglected,
or carelessly and insufficiently performed. In such a state
of things, hatred may take the place of love. This is
highly sinful; but it does not dissolve the marriage, as it
would were conjugal love the essence of marriage.
But conjugal love is necessary to the happiness and
safety of the married state. Thus much must be conceded
to the advocates of the romantic theory. But it is impossible to concede to them that proper conjugal affection or
its germ, for conjugal affection cannot exist before mnarriage, can constitute Christian marriage.
~ 14. The unity and sanctity of marriage are the causes,
not the effects of conjugal love. It may be urged that
there are many cases of married persons who have no conjugal affection, and that, therefore, marriage cannot be the
cause of that affection. The truth of the assertion cannot
be denied; but the inference does not follow. There are
many marriages which are external only; the forms of
marriage have been gone through, but not in the right
spirit. There has been no Divine blessing, no mysterious
unity, no sanctity. In such cases it is not surprising that
there is no conjugal affection. If marriage be, or be regarded as a mere civil contract, it cannot produce any
such affection.  Neither can the mere living together produce it.  It may aid in its development by giving opportunities of observing the amiable qualities of the object of
affection. But where it can only expose unamiable qualities, it cannot aid the development. The truth is that
conjugal affection, at least in its highest perfection, belongs
to the order of grace, and is connected with the Divine
institution of marriage.
It has been already said that marriage is not a sacrament in which a special Divine grace, tending to the sal 
134     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
vation of tile recipient, is given. But it is a Divine insti tution, the blessing of which is to be sought by prayer, and
will be given to those who seek it in the right frame of
mind and heart. This blessing unites the persons and
sanctifies the state. All this is very mysterious; but so
are all the operations of Divine grace. The unity and
sanctity of the marriage state are then the true causes of
conjugal love, it is not the cause of them.
The unity and sanctity of marriage are so closely connected, that it is not possible for one to exist without the
other. Where they are, conjugal love will scarcely be
wanting; where they are not, it will scarcely be found.
~ 15. Men, according to St. Paul, are composed of
three parts, body, soul, and spirit. "The very God of
peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole
spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 There is in the regenerate and sanctified man a still higher element, which is
derived from his union with Christ and the indwelling of
the Holy Ghost. In every man and woman there are
thus, as it were, three natures: the animal, answering to
the body in the text just quoted; the intellectual, there
called the soul, which includes the faculties by which the
intellect works, and the emotions by which it is stirred;
the moral, which is the spirit of the Apostle, in which the
emotions and faculties are subjected to the dominion of
conscience, and compelled to acknowledge the distinction
between right and wrong. Over all these, there is, in the
regenerate and sanctified man, the new nature superinduced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies the other three.
Marriage is designed for men and women thus constituted, and may, as has been intimated in a preceding
chapter, be considered as having several sides adapted to
the various portions of this complex nature. Each of
I 1 Thessalonians v. 23. 
OF THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 135
these presents a true, though inadequate and imperfect
view of the subject. Marriage has its animal side, adapted
to the wants of the animal nature. It has also its intellectual side, or rather two sides connected with the intellect.
One of these may be called the emotional side, and is
adapted to the demands of the kind affections. The other
is connected with the faculties, for which it provides occupation and assistance.  It has also its moral side, as it
provides for the improvement of the moral nature. Marriage has therefore four sides, which are connected with
as many different sides of human nature.  Christian marriage has a fifth, the spiritual side, which is to the spiritual nature what the moral side is to the moral nature. It
has also something, which without great impropriety may
be called a sixth side. This is connected with the relations of man to society, and so far is intellectual, and also
with the necessary provision for the animal wants, and so
far is aninmal. It may not very improperly be called the
prudential side of marriage.
The unity of marriage, which is its essence, has relations to the first five of these, and in a qualified sense to
the sixth. The sanctity of marriage has, in a sense, relations to the first four sides; but its especial relation is to
the fifth. In its highest sense, it belongs to the higher
nature which has been superinduced upon the others by
Divine power operating upon the cooperating human will.
~ 16. The sanctity of marriage consists in the sanctification by the Divine blessing of the consent, the unity,
and all their effects, and of all the faculties, emotions,
instincts, and functions with which marriage is connected.
Thus it is that the unity and sanctity of every Christian
marriage are inseparably joined and constitute its essence.
Yet there is a higher sanctity which is wrought by the
indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of the married
persons, and is the same with their sanctification. This
raises conjugal love into a sanctified virtue. Both this 
136     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
and the ordinary sanctity are the work of the Holy Ghost,
and it should be borne in mind that He does not act without the cooperation of the human will.
~ 17. Those who desire to understand the doctrine of
marriage, must not be content to look at it upon only one
of its sides, but must examine it upon all. It ought not
to be entered into with only the feelings connected with
any one of them. This is generally acknowledged to be
true, especially with respect to the animal and prudential
sides; but the acknowledgment is more theoretical than
practical. Mien and women often marry for prudential
reasons only; and men, at least, for animal motives.
Such marriages are wrong. Those which are commonly
called love-matches and grow out of emotional impulses,
are no better; although young ladies are apt to fancy that
they are the only right marriages. None of these things
should be despised or neglected. No one should enter
into a marriage which he or she has not considered on all
sides. Every reason for marrying, or for marrying any
particular person, is to be kept in subordination to moral
and religious considerations, if the marriage is to be sanctified. 
CHAPTER VI.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. - I. EX                        CLUSIVENESS.
~ 1. The Practical Elements of Marriage. - ~ 2. Monogamy of Civilized
Nations. - ~ 3. Bigamy and Adultery.- ~ 4. Unanimity among Chris  tians on the Subject of Polygamy. - ~ 5. The Creation of Woman, and
Institution of Marriage. - ~ 6. Polygamy before the Flood. - ~ 7. Polyg  amy not permitted to Noah. - ~ 8. Polygamy in the time of Abraham.
- ~ 9. Polygamy among the Descendants of Abraham. - ~ 10. Polyg  amy in the 1st Book of Chronicles. - ~ 11. Polygamy under the Mosaic
Law. - ~ 12. Exodus xxi. 7-11. - ~ 13. Exodus xxii. 16, 17. - ~ 14.
Deuteronomy xvii. 17.- ~ 15. Deuteronomy xxi. 10-14.- ~ 16. Deu  teronomy xxi. 15-17. - ~ 17. Deuteronomy xxii. 28. - ~ 18. Leviticus
xviii. 18. - ~ 19. The Marginal Translation. - ~ 20. The Case of Jacob.
- ~ 21. Modern Interpretations. - ~ 22. The Book of Judges.- ~23.
The Case of Elkanah. - ~ 24. The Kings.- ~ 25. Saul.- ~ 26. Other
Kings. - ~ 27. Polygamy unusual among the Israelites.- ~ 28. Doctrine
of St. Paul.- ~ 29. Doctrine of our Blessed Saviour.
~ 1. SOMIE idea has been given in the last chapter of the
mysterious elements of marriage, -  unity and sanctity.  It
is now proper to pass to the practical elements which flow
from them. These are three: exclusiveness, indissolubleness, and the authority of the husband, or, which is the
same thing, the subordination of the wife.
~ 2. The exclusiveness of marriage is violated by polygamy, in any of its forms. The Christian rule is announced
by St. Paul, "Let every man have his own wife, and every
woman her own husband." I This rule is disregarded by
the AIohamnmedans, the Mormons, and most pagan nations.
But the more civilized of the ancient heathen generally
allowed but one wife to each man. The same rule prevailed
among the barbarians who overthrew the Roman Empire,
1 1 Corinthians vii. 2. 
138     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
and of those who invaded, and partially subdued the conquerors. Modern Europe, in addition to the Christian
law, received the tradition of monogamy, through all the
channels through which it derived its civilization. Moreover, in civilized communities, the expense of polygamy will
prevent it from becoming general. The expense would
be greatly increased by the complicated arrangements of
modern civilization. Even among the semi-civilized Mohammedans, the expense has confined the practice to the very
rich, who can meet any expense, and men of a low class,
who regard wives as profitable slaves.  Moreover, polygamy
is sustained upon the last-mentioned principle. For all
these reasons, polygamy is not likely to become a recognized
institution among any civilized people.
~ 3. It is not likely, therefore, that the Mohammedan or
Mormon forms of polygamy will spread among us.  Many
causes will work together to prevent the growth of a system
which is so contrary to the genius of the age, and bears so
hardly on the whole of one sex, and the larger part of the
other, that its existence anywhere is a problem very difficult
of solutionT. No doubt an a priori observer would have pronounced Mormon polygamy impossible; yet its existence
is a melancholy fact.
The loose ideas entertained of the marriage tie have,
unhappily, made two other forms of polygamy not uncommnon among us. One of these is that to which the law
gives the name of bigamy. It consists in marrying several
wives, who, although all living at the same time, do riot
know of each other's existence. This formi of polygamy is
rather inconsistent with the Christian idea of the indissolubility of the marriage tie, than with that of exclusiveness.  The migratory character of our population, with many
advantages, involves, among other moral evils, a great facility for committing this crime; for so the laws designate it.
A man who finds himself linked to an ill-assorted partner,
or to one with whom for any cause he is unwilling to live, 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 139
divorces himself from her, and makes the divorce effectual
by remnoving to a distance.  In his new abode he passes for
a single man, and has neither scruple nor difficulty in
marrying a new wife. This is made the more easy by the
lamentable levity with which marriage is regarded by the
larger portion of the female sex in this country. This
levity is again connected with the forgetfulness of the indissoluble nature of marriage, which is so very common
among us.
The third kind of polygamy is also, it is to be feared, not
uncommon. It is when a married man lives with his wife,
and yet keeps up an adulterous intercourse with one or
more other women. This is everywhere in the United
States contrary to law, although not everywhere to the
penal law, and also to public opinion. It is, nevertheless,
extensively practiced, and involves many of the evils of
polygamy.
~ 4. Upon the subject of polygamy there has been great
unanimity among Christians of all ages and countries.
There are few doctrines which could better stand the famous test of Vincent of Lerins, than the unlawfulness of
polygamy. There were some practical violations of the
rule of monogamy, chiefly by powerful men in the Middle
Ages, which were perhaps connived at by the clergy, not
approved by the Church. There have been some doubtful
stories, perhaps only one, of dispensations granted by popes,
in particular cases. There is the unfortunate case of
Philip Landgrave of Hesse. He was married to a second
wife, in the lifetime of the first, with the consent of Luther,
Melancthon, Bucer, and other leaders of the German Reformation. They decided the case on the authority of
the text in the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy, which
forbids the preference of the son of a beloved wife, which
they held to show that polygamy was lawful among the
Jews. They inferred that it might be allowed among
Christians by dispensation, although it was still generally 
140      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
unlawvful. There could not have been much worse logic;
but they carried their strange doctrine into effect by giving
the Landgrave a dispensation to marry a second wife during the life of the first, upon certain conditions. He was
accordingly married in the presence of some of the principal Reformers. The transaction has often been referred
to, by the enemies of the German Reformation, as a great
scandal. Yet though the fact cannot be denied, no one
has ever attempted to defend it. There is no other instance
of the practical allowance of polygamy by any number
of Christian ministers, and it must be observed that the
dispensation did not even pretend to be a synodical act.
Moreover, it is apparent on the face of the papers that
Luther, and those who acted with him, did not really believe that polygamy was lawful; they acted on motives of
worldly expediency. There is a full account of the transaction, with translations of the documents, in Dr. Hook's
"Ecclesiastical Biography," article Bucer.
There has never been, in truth, any instance of polygamy having been approved by any respectable Christian
body. The German Anabaptists upheld, and the American
Mormons now uphold, polygamy; but neither of these
bodies have much claim either to the epithet respectable,
or to the name of Christian. A few eccentric writers have
advocated the institution, but their works have never had
any influence, and are now only known to the curious.
These are the only exceptions to the unanimity of Christians.
~ 5. It is easily shown that there is a sufficient basis for
this unanimity in the Holy Scriptures.  A strong presumption against polygamy arises from the fact that only one
woman was created. The facts connected with her creation make the case stronger: "The Lord God said: It is
not good for the man to be alone; 1 will make him a help
meet for him." 1 Not two helps, one was all that was
1 Genesis ii. 18. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  141
requisite.  It is further said: "And the Lord God caused
a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took
one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and
the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He
a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam
said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be
one flesh." 1
This speech of Adam may be called the marriage ceremony of Paradise. It is certain that he spake by inspiration, for our Blessed Lord attributes his words to God.
"Have ye not heard," says He, "that He, which made
them in the beginning, made them male and female, and
said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother
and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?" 2
There is no doubt of the inconsistency of polygamy with
the primitive institution of marriage, and consequently none
that it was from the first unlawful. The place in Genesis
just cited, establishes a unity between man and wife, which
precludes the introduction of a third person. That the
Jews so understood it appears from the Septuagint, a translation made by Jews, and adopted by all the Greek-speaking Jews. In that translation the word two is introduced,
"And they two shall be one flesh."
The Prophet Malachi, referring to the creation, says:
"And did not He make one?  Yet had He the residue of
the Spirit. And wherefore one? That He might seek a
godly seed." 8 It thus sufficiently appears by the Old Testament, that polygamy is inconsistent with the original law
of marriage. The doctrine of the New Testament is, as
shall be shown hereafter, even more explicit. There are,
then, abundant reasons for the unanimity of the Church
upon the question of polygamy.
2 MIatthew xix. 4, 5.
8 Malachi ii. 15.
1 Genesis ii. 21-24. 
142      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 6. It would rather seem from the antediluvian history that the meaning of the original institution was then
understood. Only one instance of polygamy is mentioned,
and that among the descendants of Cain.  Among the
descendants of Seth there is no evidence that it existed,
unless, as has been asserted, it is to be found in the statement that "the sons of God saw the daughters of men
that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which
they chose." 1 It is by no means to be inferred that any
of them took more than one wife. Noah and his sons had
each but one wife, for it is said:" In the same day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the three
sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his
sons with them, into the ark." 
~ 7. Polygamy was then contrary to the original law of
marriage, and there is no record of any license on account
of hardness of heart, as in the case of divorce. It has
been suggested that the law was relaxed at the flood. It
is a sufficient answer to this, that there is no trace of such
relaxation in the Sacred Record. History does not show
that polygamy reappeared until long after the flood. The
new law given to Noah, contains nothing on the subject,
although two things are mentioned with either of which it
might naturally have been connected.   The  command
given to Adam to increase and multiply is repeated. Yet
there is no allusion to polygamy as a means of obeying it.
Permission to eat the flesh of animals, which was not
allowed at the creation, was then given. Here the extension of privilege in one direction would have made it natural to speak of an extension in another.
The whole passage is this: "And  God blessed Noah
and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth; and the fear of you and the dread
of you shall be upon every beast of the field, and upon
every fowl of the air, and all that moveth upon the earth,
1 Genesis vi. 2.                   2 Genesis vii. 13. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 143
and all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are
delivered.  Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat
for you; even as the green herb have I given you all
things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your
lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I
require it, and at the hand of every man; at the hand
of every mnan's brother will I require the life of man.
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed: for in the image of God made he man. And be ye
fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth
and multiply therein."1
~ 8. The postdiluvian history in the Book of Genesis,
and the earlier part of that of Exodus, mention instances
of polygamy, but they seem to have been exceptional. In
a large majority of the cases in which a wife is mentioned,
it appears that she was the only wife of her husband.
Apart fromn the exceptional cases which are mentioned,
the impression produced upon the mind is that of a people among whom monogamy was the rule. No instance
of polyganmy occurs before the time of Abraham. The
first recorded is in the twelfth chapter of Genesis, and
that is not a very clear one. It is there related that
Sarai was taken into Pharaoh's house to be his wife or
concubine; but it does not distinctly appear that he was
already married.
The same remark cannot be made of Abimelech, mentioned in the twentieth chapter to have treated Sarah in the
same manner. It appears from the seventeenth and eighteenth verses, that he had slave concubines; and it is mentioned in the seventeenth that he had a wife, but only one
in the sense in which the word was then understood. All
that can be gathered from the twentieth chapter about
polygamy is that a king had slave concubines, and was not
scrupulous about the mode of increasing the number. In
1 Genesis ix. 1-7. 
144      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
modern times, kings have indulged in concubinage. For
aught that appears, the concubinage of the married king
Abimelech may have been as irregular as that of the married King Charles. The arrangement may not have been
more legitimate than that by which Charles II. had, notwithstanding his marriage, the Duchesses of Cleveland
and Portsmouth, Mistress Nelly Gwyn, and other women
as concubines at the same time. It is true that Abimelech says he fears God, and God himself says that Abimelech had done it in the integrity of his heart. This only
means that he did not know that the woman was married,
and did not mean to commit adultery against her husband.
Of that sort of adultery which is committed with another
n)an's wife, both he and his son or descendants mentioned
in the twenty-sixth chapter, as well as the Pharaoh of the
twelfth, had a great horror.
Between the occurrences mentioned in the twelfth and
twentieth chapters, Abraham had taken Hagar as his slave
concubine, which shows the existence of that institution.
The circumstances out of which the arrangement grew
were very peculiar.1 It was made for a particular purpose,
and there is no evidence that it continued longer than that
purpose required. Moreover, that part of Abraham's conduct is never mentioned in the Scriptures with approbation. Its consequences were very undesirable, and the
allegory in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians places it in an unfavorable light.
Bethuel, the father of Rebekah, had four sons by a concubine, who was not taken only for the purpose of having
issue, for he had eight sons by his wife.2  There is, perhaps, no other instance of polygamy than these, mentioned
in the Scriptures as occurring during the life of Abraham.
In the sixth verse of the twenty-fifth chapter of Genesis,
mention is made of "the sons of the concubines which
Abraham had." These were probably the sons of Hagar
1 Genesis xvi.                 2 ibid. xxii. 23, 24. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 145
and of Keturah, another wife whom he took after the death
of Sarah. She was probably of inferior birth, and therefore here called a concubine; while she rather resembled
the left-handed wives of modern German princes. In the
first verse she is expressly called a wife. There is no evidence that he had any other wife or concubine at the same
time with her. The history imports that he had no concubine but Hagar, and no sons but Ishmael and Isaac
during the life of Sarah.
~ 9. During the life of Isaac, and after his father's death,
polygamy made great progress, though Isaac himself had
but one wife and no concubine. Ishmael also seems to
have had but one wife, whom Hagar his mother took for
him out of the land of Egypt. But both of the sons of
Isaac were polygamists. Esau had three equal wives, and
Jacob two, besides two slave concubines. Yet polygamy
does not seem to have continued its advance in the next
generation.
Among the descendants of Esau, Amalek is the only
one who is said to have been the son of a concubine. He
was a grandson of Esau. Timnah, his mother, was of the
race of the Horites, whom the children of Esau subdued.
In the fall of her race, she probably became a slave and a
concubine. There is no conclusive evidence that any of
the sons of Jacob were polygamists. Shaul, the son of
Simeon, was the son of a Canaanitish woman, and therefore not by the same mother with his brethren. He may
have been the son of a second wife, married after the
death of the first. But from the mnanner in which lie is
spoken of, it is not unlikely that he was the offspring of
a passing amour, as were the twin sons of Judah.'
Throughout the earlier chapters of Exodus the whole
history is that of a people whose custom it was to have
only one wife at a time. No case of polygamy is mentioned, and women are spoken of as the wife of such a man,
I See Genesis xxxviii. and xlvi. 10.
10 
146      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
just as they now would be. It would seem that then, as
well as during the time of which the history is recounted
in Genesis, polygamy existed, but that the cases were
very few.  Two of them, those of Abraham and Jacob,
are so prominent that they fill the imagination, and lead to
the notion that polygamy was common. A close examnination will show that it was by no means common, at least
among the chosen people.  Nor does it seem to have been
common among any of the nations which are mentioned in
the Book of Genesis, except in the form of slave-concubinage. Such was the case in Egypt, according to Sir Gardner
Wilkinson.'
A continuation of the history of polyganmy through the
Books of Chronicles, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, shows a
similar state of things to that which appears in Genesis.
Cases of polygamy are recorded; but monogamy seems to
have been the rule.
~ 10. In the genealogies which occupy the first nine
chapters of the First Book of Chronicles, care seems to
have been taken to mention every case of polygamy.
There are only seven, besides those mentioned in Genesis.
One of them, however, includes many individual cases,
being stated as the custom of a family, or tribe. It is not
perfectly clear that polygamy is meant; though that is
probably the meaning. The passage is the fourth verse of
the seventh chapter:' And with them after their generations, after the house of their fathers, were bands of soldiers for war, six-and-thirty thousand meln, for they had
many wives and sons." The other six cases are each of
a single mall. There is besides mention made in the
fourth chapter, of Shimei, who had sixteen sons and six
daughters. This number is not large enough to prove that
he was a polygamist, although it is quite probable that
he may have been one. Ill the narrative there are very
few cases of polygamy, except those of kings and great
1 Ptulav Account of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. ii. p. 224. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  147
men; while the wives of men of all ranks are so spoken of
as to imply that they were the only wives of their husbands.
~ 11. It has been sometimes asserted that under the
Mosaic law polygamy was lawfiil.  The Mosaic law does
not contain any direct permission of it, and it was unlawfil
according to the original institution of marriage.  Yet it
has been said by high authority, that it is'"supposed as
allowable in distinct enactments." Seven of these are
enumerated, and it is added, "perhaps in some other
places." The author has searched in vain for the other
places, and believes that the seven enumerated passages
are all that exist. An examination will show that some of
them only suppose that polygamy will exist, not that it is
allowable, while others do not imply it at all. They are,
Exodus xxi. 7-11; xxii. 16; Deuteronomy xvii. 17; xxi. 11;
xxi. 15; xxii. 28; Leviticus xviii. 18.
~ 12. The first of these texts is this: "If a man shall
sell his daughter for a maid-servant, she shall not go out
as the men-servants do. If she please not her master who
hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be
redeemed; to sell her to a strange nation he shall have no
power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if
he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her
after the manner of daughters. If he take him another
wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage he
shall not diminish; if he do not these three unto her, then
shall she go free without money." 1
The betrothment mentioned in the eighth verse does not
imply polygamy, for the master might be a bachelor, or a
widower. The tenth verse certainly implies that a man
who had betrothed his slave to himself would sometimes
take another wife. But it does not say that he might lawfully do so. It gives no countenance to such a step, but
clogs it with an impossible condition. If the master does not
comply with the condition the slave is to go out free, which
1 Exodus xxi. 7-11. 
148      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
is the same thing to her as a divorce to a free woman.
The polygamy is then at an end. The meaning of the law
seems to be, that the master may divorce his slave-wife,
but, if he does, he shall not retain her as a slave; he shall
not keep her under the authority of his new wife, nor shall
he sell her for money, for a reason assigned in the second
text from Deuteronomy. The permission was probably a
concession to men's hardness of heart, as in the case of
the other law of divorce.
~ 13. The second of the seven texts is this: "If a man
entice a woman which is not betrothed, and lie with her, he
shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly
refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dower of virgins." 1 It is not easy to see what
this law has to do with polygamy. It is only a provision,
that a man who had seduced a young woman should marry
her. Surely such a provision does not involve the lawfulness of polygamy. Such laws have actually existed in
countries where it was unlawful. It might happen that the
seducer was a married man, and could not comply with the
law, but that involves no absurdity in the law itself. If
polygamy were allowed, it might happen that the man
could not comply with the law because the woman was
related to him within the forbidden degrees.
~ 14. In the third of the seven texts the lawgiver is giving instructions about the kings, who would be set up at
some future time. Among other rules is this: "Neither
shall he multiply wives to himself." 2 This forbids that
exorbitant polygamy, which was common among eastern
kings, and was afterwards practiced by David, Solomon, and
Rehoboam. It is addressed to kings, and is supposed to
be directed against a particular vice, to which they, and
they only, were tempted. But the prohibition to the king
to multiply wives, cannot imply that every private man
might have two or three. The text might more fairly be
1 Exodus xxii. 16, 17.        2 Deuteronomy xvii. 17. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.
interpreted as restraining kings to one wife, than as allowing polygamy to other men.
~ 15. The fourth of the seven texts is this: "When thou
goest forth against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God
hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken
them captive; and seest among them a beautiful woman,
and hast a desire unto her that thou wouldst have her for
a wife, then thou shalt bring her into thine house, and she
shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put
off the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall
remain in thine house and bewail her father and nmother a
full month, and after that thou shalt go in unto her and be
her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be,
if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go
whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for
money; thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because
thou hast humbled her." 1 Here there is no allusion to
polygamy. A man is allowed to marry his captive after
certain delays, probably intended to act as checks upon his
lust, and regulations are made for her protection. There is
nothing from which it can be fairly inferred that the privilege
of marrying a captive extended to married men. If polyg amy be, and it certainly is, forbidden by the law in Genesis,
the prohibition would control the permission, unless it were
clear that the permission was intended to dispense with the
prohibition. It is a rule that a law which forbids overrules
one which permits, if the permission is only general, and
the prohibitory law is not mentioned. It is another, that
laws must be so construed that they shall not clash with
each other. Both rules require that this privilege shall be
confined to single men. If it had been expressly extended
to married men, it would have been an argument in favor
of polygamy; in its present shape it is not.
~ 16. The fifth of the seven texts imniediately follows
the one just cited; it is: "If a man have two wives, one
1 Deuteronomy xxi. 10-14.
149 
150     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
beloved, and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the first-born
son be her's that was hated; then it shall be when  he
maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he
may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the
son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born, but he
shall acknowlege the son of the hated for the first-born, by
giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is
the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is
his." 1 It has been said that this text does not necessarily
imnply that the man had two wives at the same time. It
does not; but it is the more obvious and fair interpretation
that he had. The passage inmplies polygamy, but it does
not follow that it allows it. It assumes that there will be
polygamists, and regulates their conduct. It forbids a man
who has committed an injustice to his wife from committing another to his first-born son.
~ 17. The sixth of the seven texts is this: "If a man
find a virgin which is not betrothed, in a field, and lay hold
on her and lie with her, and they be found, then the man
that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty
shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he
hath humbled her he may not put her away all his days." 2
Here again there is no mention of polygamy. The true
meaning is that she shall be his wife, if she may be so lawfully. The case of the ravished damsel is like that of the
seduced one.  The seducer or the ravisher must marry her
if he can do so lawfully. But he could not lawfully marry her
if she were his sister or his half-sister, or his aunt, or his
niece, or on the supposition that polygamy was allowed, his
his wife's sister.3 In all these cases the law could not be
acted upon without breaking another law. If polygamy
were unlawful, it could not be acted upon if the man had a
wife. If the law had provided that the damsel should be
1 Deuteronomy xxi. 15-17.
8 Leviticus xviii.
2 Ibid. xxii. 28,29.
I 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MIARRIAGE. 151
the man's wife, notwithstanding he already had one, there
would have been an end of the question. Polygamy would
have been lawful, at least in that case. But there is nothing
of the kind. It would be as reasonable to infer that the
laws in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus had been abrogated by this law as that in the second chapter of Genesis.
The same principles govern both cases. This law, like all
others, could only take effect when it did not involve the
breaking of any other law.  Polygamy is contrary to the
primary law of marriage. The two laws can be reconciled
by applying that in Deuteronomy to single men. It will
then furnish no evidence of the lawfulness of polygamy.
~ 18. One of the seven texts, which have been cited as
giving countenance to polygamy, has not been considered
in the place in which its position would seem to call for
its consideration.   It was reserved to be examined last,
because of its importance and difficulty.  It is:" Neither
shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover
her nakledness beside the other in her lifetime." 1 The
most obvious meaning of this verse is that it forbids a man
to marry the sister of his wife during her life. Two inferences have been drawn from it: one, that polyganmy was
allowed to the Israelites; the other, that a man ulay marry
two sisters successively. Attempts have been made to
escape fromt both these inferences by technical construetions, but they have not been very successfil. With the
second inference this is not the place to deal; it belongs to
a subsequent chapter.
~ 19. It is agreed that the translation in the authorized
version is the literal one, but the translators have introduced into the margin another rendering.   It is: "Thou
shalt not take a wife to another, to vex her, to uncover her
nakedness beside the other in her lifetime." This merely
forbids polygamy. The marginal translation has the advantage of being consistent with the primitive law of mar
1 Leviticus xviii. 18. 
152     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
riag,e, which the other assumes to have been repealed or
suspended, although the repealing or suspending law is not
to be found. Still this will not be a sufficient ground for
rejecting the literal translation, unless it can be shown that
there is good reason for preferring another.
The argument upon which the marginal translation rests
is this. It is an idiom of the Hebrew language to express
the adding of one thing to another of the same sort, by the
phrase of adding it to its brother or sister. It is said that
this idiom occurs about forty times in the Old Testament.
It is also said, and it is very probable, that in most of those
cases it is impossible to understand the phrase literally, but
no one has denied that in some of them it is possible to
understand it literally. In reply, it has been said that the
idiom is only used when the words are in the plural, but
this looks very like an argument got up for the occasion.
The passage has been literally translated by Jews into
Syriac and Greek, but it is easy to see that the literal sense
would be attractive to other translators as well as to their
own.  The fact that the Jews practiced polygamy is urged
in favor of the literal translation; but it 1no more proves
that to be the true meaning of the passage, than it proves
that polygamy is not contrary to the original institution of
marriage, which was binding upon the Jews. Polygamy is
inconsistent with the primary institution of marriage; the
marriage of two sisters is inconsistent with the whole tenor
of the same chapter; yet the literal translation allows both.
This is a strong reason for preferring the idiomatic traislation, which forbids one and says nothing about the other.
The words "to vex her," are an important part of the
text, and must be taken into account in any sound interpretation. It seems certain that they imply that the forbidden
action is forbidden during the life of the first wife alnd for
her sake. In order to give these words a reasonable weaning it is necessary to adopt the idiomatic interpretation of
the words "her sister."  The literal translation leaves the 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  153
nian at liberty to marry any woman but his wife's sister,
which would vex the first wife at least as much as if he
married her sister. The text is then a direct prohibition
of polygamy, in addition to the primary institution of marriage between one man and one woman.
~ 20. In answer to the argument that a woman would not
be more vexed by the marriage of her husband to her
sister than to a stranger, it has been supposed that the text
in Leviticus owes its origin to the marriage of Jacob with
two sisters. It is certain that Jacob was not happy in his
domestic relations; but there is no reason for believing
that the relation of sisters between his wives had any direct
connection with that fact. The only way in which the two
things can be said to be indirectly connected is, that the
common parentage of the women led to the fraud, which
was the cause of the polygamy.  The fraud was perhaps
felt as a grievance by Rachel. which she perhaps resented.
Leah retaliated by taunts on the barrenness of Rachel,
of whom she was jealous as the favorite wife. There is
little or no reason to believe that Jacob's family was more
disturbed than that of any other polygamist.
~ 21. Two interpretations of the text have been recently
proposed. One of them, although in a somewhat different
form, is really the same which has been already disposed of.
In a debate in the Convocation of Canterbury,1 Dr. Jelf
said, with reference to this text, "If they took the words in
their literal sense he would ask whether it must not be
obvious that it related to a state of things not now existing,
and was therefore not now applicable? It implied the
prevalence of polygamy under the sort of half sanction
given to it by the law of Moses, and prohibited the practice
under particular circumstances."' That is, it forbade marriage with a second sister in the lifetinme of the first. In
the same debate, Mr. Mayow said, " He thought they ran
into a mistake if they took the marginal reading as an
1 March 15, 1861. 
154     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
absolute prohibition of polygamy.  This, however, did not
seem necessary to that reading, for it was very possible
that the words' to vex her' were more emphatic  than was
often supposed; so that the prohibition, taking the marginal
reading, would then remain, that a man should take a wife
to another in her lifetime to vex her, and this became
aln)ost a command that in the practice of polygamy a man
should have reference to the wishes of a first wife, when he
took the second. This would give a very good sense to
the marginal reading, and would not clash with the law
of Moses in which polygamy was winked at." The last
proposition remains to be proved; and there are three other
objections to this interpretation. It is quite new, it is very
fanciful; and, what is of more importance than either, it
clashes with the primitive law of marriage.
~ 22. In all discussions about polygan)y in connection
with the Mosaic law it is usual to assume that it was a very
common practice among the Israelites who lived utnder that
law. This seems to be a nmistake. There were certainly
some cases, chiefly anong, kings and great men.  In the
Book of Judges it is said that Gideon had threescore and
ten sons, for he had many wives and concubines. Abimelech, one of his sons, was by a concubine, who was a maidservant or slave.  Jephthah seems to have sprung from the
casual amour of a man who had but one wife.2 Jephthah
himself had but one child, and probably only one wife.
Jair, Ibzan, and Abdon had each so many children that it
is probable they were polygainists. But it is remarkable
that lbzan had thirty sons, for whom he took in thirty
daughters from abroad.  He took no more than one wife
for each son.8
~ 23. These are all the cases of polygamy mentioned in
the Book of Judges. In the Books of Samuel there is no
instance of polygamy among private persons, except those
1 Judges viii. 30, 31; ix. 18.'2 Ibid. xi. 1, 2.
3 Ibid. x. 3, and xii. 8, et seq. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 155
of Elkanah the father of Samuel, and David, who while still
a private person had three wives. In fact there is no other
instance, after the giving of the law, in any of the historical
books. Elkanah "had two wives: the namie of the one was
Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah, and Peninnah
had children and Hannah had no children." 1 From the
arrangement of the names it is probable that Hannah was
the wife first taken, and that she proving barren, Elkanah
took another for the sake of issue.
~ 24. The kings used polygamy freely, but it ought to
be remembered that whether polygamy in other men were
lawfill or not, such polygamy as they practiced was specially
unlawfiul for them.  It cannot, therefore, be used as an
argument for the lawfulness of polygamy.  The prohibition
follows: 1"When thou shalt come into the land which the
Lord thy God giveth thee, and shall possess it, and shalt
dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like
as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in any wise
set him a king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall
choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king
over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which
is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to
himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end
that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath
said unto you, ye shall henceforth return no more that
way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himiiself, that his
heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to
himself gold and silver." 2
~ 25. There are some things in this passage which seem
to refer to the election of Saul; but the precepts certainly
were binding on all kings. It is not certain that Saul was
a polygamist, although there is a Rabbinical tradition that
he had six wives. In the Holy Scriptures there is no trace
of them. It is said that the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz.8  The forni of expression
1 Samuel i. 1, 2.                     2 Deuteronomy xvii. 14, et seq.
8 1 Samuel xiv. 50. 
156     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
seems to imply that she was his only wife. No other equal
wife of his is anywhere mentioned. He had three sons
who were slain with him, and a fourth, Ishboslieth, who
attempted to succeed him. He had also two daughters,
Merab and Michal.  This is not an unusual number of
children for one woman. Saul had also a concubine, Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah; no other is mentioned, and he
may have taken her after the death of Ahinoani. He had
by her two more sons. A family of only eight children is
not very consistent with the Rabbinical tradition of six
wives. When David was called upon to put to death seven
of Saul's posterity, to expiate the crime which Saul had
committed against the Gibeonites, he could find none of
his descendants in the male line, but the two sons of Rizpah, and Mlephibosheth the son of his friend Jonathan. He
therefore hanged, with the sons of Rizpah, five grandsons
of Saul, by his daughter Merab, " whom she brought up for
Barzillai, the Meholathite." 1
It has been supposed that Saul must have had several
wives, because Nathan reproached David that the Lord
had given him his master's wives into his bosom.2  Perhaps this is not to be understood literally. It seems to be
a periphrasis for giving him the kingdom. It was a prerogative of an Eastern king to marry the wives of his predecessor, which no other person might do. Herodotus isientions instances of this among the Persians. The false
Smerdis married the wives of Cambyses, and they were
married a third time to Darius Hystaspes. That similar
ideas prevailed among the Israelites, appears from two pas
1 2 Samuel xxi. 7-9.   The name of the unfortunate mother is Michal
in our translation; but it was Merab who was married to Adriel the Mleholathite, probably the same person with Barzillai.* Michlial was the wife of
David himself, and had lived for some time in adultery with Phaltiel the
son of Laish, who was called her husband, until her return was demanded
by David while he reigned in Hebron.  She had no children.t
2 2 Samuel xii. 8.
t 2 Samuel iii. 13-16.
* 1 Samuel xviii. 19. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 157
sages in the Holy Scriptures. One is the anger of Ishbosheth, because Abner had gone in unto Rizpah.1 The
other, which is more decisive, is the reply of Solomon to his
mother when she asked Abishag for Adonijah, "Why dost
thou ask Abishag the Shunamite for Adonijah? Ask for
him the kingdom also." 2  Solomon considered the request
so presumptuous that he put Adonijah to death for it.8
David does not appear to have actually taken any woman
who had been the wife of Saul; there is no mention of
bringing the wives of Saul into David's house, nor is it
said of any of his wives that she had been the wife of Saul.
He could not have married Ahinoam, for he was married
to -Iichal her daughter.4 It seems certain that he did not
take Rizpah. Upon the whole this passage does not prove
that Saul was a polygamist.
~ 26. AIany of his successors were certainly such. Those
who carried the practice to the greatest extent were David,
Solomon, and Rehoboam. After the death of Rehoboam
there seems to have been comparatively little royal polygamy in Judah, although Joash is said to have had two
wives.5   The wives of some of the other kings are also
spoken of in the plural number. Among the kings of
Israel, Ahab is shown, by the number of his children, to
have been a polygamist, in the sense of keeping concubines,
though Jezebel seems to have been his only equal wife.
There is little if any evidence of polygamy among the
other kings of the ten tribes. It was the wife, not one
of the wives of Jeroboam, who was sent to Abijah the'
Prophet.6
~ 27. It may then be concluded that although polygamy
existed among the Israelites it was rather exceptional, especially after the irregular period of the Judges. It became
an indulgence taken by kings, though directly against the
1 2 Samuel iii. 7.
3 1 Kings ii. 23-25.
5 2 Chronicles xxiv. 3.
I
2 1 Kins ii. 22.
4 Leviticus xviii. 7.
6 1 Kings xiv. 
158      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
law, and was sometimes adopted by the husbands of barren
women.
~ 28. Whether polygamy were or were not common
among the Jews, and whether it were or were not lawful
for them, it is now, as has been already said, universally
agreed among Christians that it is unlawful for them.
The Scriptures furnish an abundant foundation for that
opinion. Reference has been already made to the primary institution of nlarriage, and the commentaries upon
it by the translators of the Septuagint and the inspired
Prophet Malachi. It has been also mentioned, that our
Blessed Saviour declared the primitive law to be Divine,
and adopted the commentary of the Septuagint. It is
thus sufficiently proved to be unlawful for a Christian man
to have two wives at one time; but it may be well to say
something more of the New Testament teaching upon the
subject.
There are several passages bearing upon the question
in the writings of St. Paul. One of them would by itself
prove the unlawfulness of polygamy.  It is: "Let every
man have his own wife and every woman her own husband."  "The wife hath not power over her own body,
but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not
power over his own body, but the wife."2  In the second
verse the Apostle expressly directs that each man shall
have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
The sexes are put upon an equality. It has never been
supposed that it was lawful for a woman to have two htusbands at once. Moreover, it is declared in the fourth
verse, that she has the same power over, or interest in her
husband, that he has in her. That interest is inconsistent
with her having two husbands, and of course with his having two wives.
There are, notwithstanding, those who have cited other
texts in St. Paul's writings, to show that polygamy is law        1 1 Corinthians vii. 2.            2 ]bid. 4. 
OF THIE PRACTICAL ELEMENT'S OF MARRIAGE.  159
ful for lay Christians.  The texts are these: "A bishop
must be blameless, the husband of one wife; "1  Let the
deacons be the husbands of one wife."2  Instructing Titus
as to the qualifications of an elder, he writes: "If any be
blameless, the husband of one wife." 8 These texts nearly
repeat each other. The result of the whole is that a
clergyman may have only one wife. From this it has
been hastily inferred that a lay Christian may have more.
This can hardly be the true meaning. There is no mention in any writer, sacred or profane, of polygamy among
the Jews after the Captivity. There is no reason to believe that it was either lawful or common  among the
Greeks. To the Romans it was utterly unknown throughout their whole history. The Christian converts at Ephesus belonged to one of those three nations.  It would
have been difficult to find among themn, or indeed in the
civilized world, candidates for orders who were polygamists.  That interpretation is clearly wrong which regards
those texts as imposing monogamy upon the clergy only.
Another interpretation is that they forbid the ordaining
of a man who, having divorced his wife for adultery, has
married another in her lifetime. This, however, seems
scarcely satisfactory.
The Eastern Church, from a very early period, if niot
from the first, has interpreted these texts as directing that
a clergyman should have only one wife during his whole
lifetime, although a lay widower might marry again. Perhaps this interpretation, though not without difficulties, is
the true one. It has not, however, been received by the
Anglican or any other Western Communion, and is practically disregarded by modern clergymen. It does not
seem to be necessary to attempt a solution of the difficulty
in the present treatise. It is sufficient to say that the nonexistence of polygamy in the nations among  whom the
1 1 Timothy iii. 2.      2 ]bid. 12.         8 Titus i. 6. 
160      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Gospel was first promulged, shows that the texts cannot
be so interpreted as to give countenance to that sin.
~ 29. It may be well to conclude the chapter with bringing together the teaching of our Blessed Lord upon its
subject.  On one occasion He said: "Have ye not heard
that He which made them at the beginning made them
male and female, and said: For this cause shall a man
leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and
they twain shall be one flesh." 1
Another Evangelist reports Him as saying: "But from
the beginning of the creation God created them male and
female.  For this cause shall a man  leave fitther and
mother and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one
flesh; so they are no more twain but one flesh." 2
This is sufficient proof that marriage cannot exist between more than two persons, but it is not all that can be
adduced. There are four places in the Gospels, in which
our blessed Lord speaks of marriage, and every one of
them is conclusive against polygamy. Two of them have
been just cited, but their whole force has not been brought
out. In connection with the text just quoted from St.
Matthew, our Lord said: "Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery." 8
So in connection with the passage quoted from St. Mark
will be found the following words of our Lord: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her; and if a woman shall put away
her husband and be married to another, she committeth
adultery." 4
In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord says: "Whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornicationI, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever
shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery." 5
1 Matthew xix. 4-6.
4 Mark x. 11, 12.
2 Mark x. 6-8.
5 Matthew v. 32.
8 latthew xix. 9. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 161
In St. Luke's Gospel there is only one verse on the
subject of marriage. Like the other passages, it is in the
words of our Saviour: "Whosoever putteth away his wife
and marriethl another conmmitteth adultery: and whosoever
marrieth her that is put away from her husband comlmnitteth
adultery." 1
In all four passages it is assumed that having two wives
or two husbands at the same time is adultery; and it is
declared that the putting away makes no difference in the
sin. He who puts away his wife and marries, and she
who is put away and married, and he who marries her that
is put away, are all declared to be guilty of adultery.
This can only be because the putting away does not dissolve the marriage. But if the old marriage, nlotwithstanding the attempt to dissolve it, rendered a second
unlawful and adulterous, it must have had the same effect
if there had been no attempt at divorce. The divorce
could make no change in the original nature of the marriage. If it be adultery to marry a second wife in the
lifetime of a first who has been put away, it must be adultery to marry a second woman without putting away the
first.
This argument scarcely requires to be strengthened,
but it does strengthen it to observe that it was never held
lawful for a woman to have two husbands at once; and
that in the passage in St. lIark's Gospel, the husband and
wife are put upon the same footing.  The strength of the
argument against polygamy is this. It is four times de-'
clared by our Blessed Lord, that to marry a second wife
in the lifetime of the first is adultery. The inference that
polygamniy is unlawful is irresistible.
1 Luke xvi. 18.
11 
CHAPTER VII.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. - II. INDIS               SOLUBLENESS.  1. THE RULE.
~ 1. The Indissolubleness of Marriage. - ~ 2. Sanction of the Laws of
Nature. - ~ 3. Analogy of the Law of IndissolLtbleness to Physical Laws.
-~ 4. Human Feelings.- ~ 5. Divine Institution. - ~ 6. No  Divorces
in the Book of Genesis. - ~ 7. Tile Commentary  of Mi,lachi. - ~ 8. The
Sermion on the Mount. - ~ 9. Matthew xix. 3-9. - ~ 10. Mlark x. 2-12. ~ 11. Comparison of the two Passages.- ~ 12. Differences between them.
- ~ 13. Luke xvi. 18. -~ 14. Romans vii. 2, 3. - ~ 15. 1 Corinthians vii.
10, 11, and 39.- ~ 16. Ephesians v. 25-32. - ~ 17. The Unlawfulness
of Separation.- ~ 18. E vils of Separation. - ~ 19. Separation the same
Thing with Divorce. -~ 20. Advantages of Indissolubleness. - ~ 21.
Separation considered with reference to Adultery.- ~ 22. 1 Corinthians
vii. 2-5. - ~ 23. 1 Corinthians vii. 10, 11.- ~ 24. 1 Corinthians vii. 12 15.- ~ 25. The Mosaic Law of Divorce.- ~ 26. Hardness of Heart. ~ 27. Our Lord's Law against Divorce.
~ 1. ANOTHER of the practical elements of mnarriage is
indissolubleness. It entered into the primary institution
of marriage, and it remained for a long time one of the
customs of many nations. Divorce seems to have been
unknown to the Greeks in the time of Homer. Among
many other nations, however, the idea of indissolubleness
was early lost. The law given by Moses does not very
strictly enforce it, and it does not seenm to have been much
regarded among the Jews. It is now scarcely acknowledged by any non-Christian nation. It is losing ground
among those Christian nations which claim to have made
hte most progress in civilization, in the United States as
well as in others. There is the nmore need of pressing
upon the public the great fact that God has decreed that
marriage shall be indissoluble. 
OF TIIE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.   163
Indissoluble means  something  more than permanent.
Permanent means that the thing spoken of will endutre
tinder ordinary circumstances, but not that it may not be
brought to an end. Indissoluble generally means that
the thing spoken of cannot be dissolved or brought to an
end.   The marriage tie is divinely instituted, and  can
only be dissolved by Divine authority, and so is in a sufficient sense indissoluble. It cannot be dissolved by any hluman authority. It is not inconsistent with this that there
should be a particular case, in which the Divine Law authorizes the dissolution of a marriage.
~ 2. The principle of the indissolubleness of marriage
has becomne very unpopular. It is easy to account for this.
There are two modes in which evils may  be dealt with.
One is to prevent their occurrence by suLffering people to
feel their consequences; the other is to mitigate their consequences at the risk of increasing the number of cases.
The one looks to the general diminution of evil; the other
to the comfort of unfortunate persons. The first seems
to be the Divine, the second the human mode.   God provides that suffering shall follow evil doing. SIan seeks
only to diminish human suffering.
The laws by which the world is governed annex stiffering to evil-doing as its natural consequence, not merely as
judicial punishment. The suffering grows naturally out
of the conduct of the sufferer; sometimes out of con)duct
which men admit to be wicked; sometimes out of conduct
which they regard as imprudent; sometimes out of con-'
duct which they consider only mistaken.  Where it arises
fronm imprudence or mistakes, and even when it arises
from nmisconduct, it often bears such a proportion to its
cause as is very startling to the minitds of men. Disease
and death are sometimes incurred by actions or omissions
which would scarcely be called ill-advised. Such are the
laws of God, which men call the laws of nature; but which
are really ordained of God. It is not enough to say care 
164      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
lessly, as men sometimes will, that they are ordained for
wise purposes; it must be felt that they are ordained for
good and wise purposes which man is utterly unable to
conmprehend.
God  sees that those laws produce good, while they
seem to nman only to work evil. God at once sees and
comprehends the whole universe and everything in it, and
the connections and relations among themin throughout all
duration. Man is confined to a partial and one-sided view
of a very few things, and to a very slender knowledge of
their relations to each other, while he has absolutely no
knowledge of their relations to the whole. It is therefore
impossible for him to learn the reasons of the inflexibility
of the laws of nature and the uniformity with which effects
follow -their causes, although they may crush sentient
beings in their way. But it may be reverently conjectured that one motive of the Framer of these laws is to
make nmen careful how they act.
~ 3. The Divine law, which decrees that a marriage once
formed shall not be dissolved, has an analogy to the physical laws which have been just mentioned. It fixes upon
those who enter into the marriage state the consequences
of their irrevocable choice. It thus warns them that they
must be careful how and with whom they form connections, which are at once close and indissoluble; but the
lesson is not always learned. Some persons marry from
improper motives, and  some  marry  carelessly, without
knowing anything of those to whom they commit their hppiness in this world, and perhaps in the next. They thus
unite themselves to persons who are unfit to be husbands
or wives. The laws of nature follow their settled course.
Misery ensues. Nothing, not even the dissolution of the
marriage, can prevent or undo the evil. Yet it is supposed that in particular cases some mitigation may  be
found in a separation.
~ 4. Man i3 generally willing to relieve distress, espe 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.   165
cially in particular cases which touch his feelings; for he
sees things only in their relation to the particular case.
He can neither see nor understand the relations of anything to the whole. He would never enforce any inflexible
law, because he could not see the beneficial effects of
the rule, and would be moved by the sufferings of particular persons. He would never have ordained that marriage
should be indissoluble. He sees the evils of ill-assorted
marriages in particular cases, and in each case he desires
to relieve the sufferers. He cannot see the effect of the
inflexible rule upon the whole amount of happiness in
the world; to measure that is beyond the compass of the
human intellect.  Men and women suffer from the consequences of their own guilty imprudence.  They earnestly
desire to be relieved, and other men desire to relieve them.
Human law-makers sympathize with them, and laws are
passed providing for the dissolution of marriages.
~ 5. The framers of such laws forget or deny the Divine
instittution of marriage, and reason on grounds of human
knowledge and experience. They come to the conclusion,
that ill-assorted marriages ought to be dissolved, because
they see that there are many unhappy marriages. They do
not know how many unhappy matches are prevented  by
the caution which the rule of indissolubleness enforces, or
rather, how many would be prevented if the rule were not
interfered with. If they did, they could not strike the
balance; because 1no human mind could receive at one
time all the particulars and compare thenm. All human
reasoning must be inconclusive onl such subjects, for all the
facts cannot be collected; and if they could, they would be
too many and too various to be dealt with by the human
mind. There remains nothing but to rest in faith upon the
Divine wisdom, as revealed in God's holy Word. Modern
law-makers prefer their own, and so immoral laws will be
made.  This work is addressed to those who profess to
receive God's revelation with faith, and to govern them 
166      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
selves by its precepts. It remains to show to such persons
that the revealed Will of God declares marriage indis soluble.
In doing this, there will be occasion to do little more than
to transcribe the very words of Holy Scripture. The passages will be very much the same as those which have been
used to establish the exclusiveness of marriage. They
will be taken in the order in which they occur in the Bible.
The first will be the account of the primary institution of
marriage which has so often been quoted in this work:
" And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh instead thereof; and the rib which the Lord God
had taken from man made He a woman, and brought her
unto the mnan. And Adam said: This is now bone of my
bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man; therefore shall a man
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto
his wife, and they shall be one flesh." 1 It has been already
observed that on this occasion Adam spoke by inspiration,
and that our Blessed Saviour recognizes his words as those
of God. The highest sanction is thus given to the doctrine
of unity in marriage, which is so strongly expressed in the
words, " they two shall be one flesh." Such an unity cannot, in the nature of things, be dissoluble.
~ 6. It is probable that this text was so understood from
the first, and the idea prevailed for a long time that marriage was indissoluble.  Throughout the whole Book of
Genesis there is no allusion to divorce. Both Abraham
and Isaac passed their wives for their sisters, lest they
should be put to death by those who might desire them.
The idea that the Gentile kings might compel them to
divorce their wives does not seem to have occurred to
them. Divorce was known and practiced among the Israelites soon after the Exodus, and was perhaps learned by
1 Genesis ii. 21-24. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  167
them in Egypt. Very little is known of other nations at
that time.
~ 7. The words spoken by Adam received an inspired
commentary from the Prophet Malachi.  He  says: "Yet
ve say; Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness
between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou
hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion and
the wife of thy covenant. And did not He make one? Yet
had He the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one?
That He might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the
wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith,
that He hateth putting away: for one coverethl violence
with his garment, saith the Lord of Hosts: therefore take
heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." 1
The prophet introduces God himself as saying that
"the Lord God of Israel hatethl putting away."'  This is to
be connected with the creation of only one woman, and the
oneness of the flesh, which Adam declared as between himself and his wife, and prophesied, or commanded, between all future men and their wives.  Moreover, putting
away is pronounced to be dealing treacherously. Perhaps
the passage may receive emphasis from looking back to the
verses which immediately precede it. The passage which
has been transcribed is a kind of dialogue, in which the
prophet supposes questions to be asked, to which he gives
answers.  It begins: "Yet ye say,' Wherefore?'"  To
what does the wherefore refer? To the preceding verses;
they are these: "Judah hath dealt treacherotusly, and
an abomination is commnitted in Israel and Jerusalem;
for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which
He loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange
god. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the
iaster and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob,
nd hiiii that offereth an offering utinto the Lord of hIosts.
1 MIalachi ii. 14-16. 
168      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the
Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insoniuch that He regardeth not the offering any more, or
receiveth it with good-will at your hand." 1
What is the treachery with which Judah is charged?
Profaning the holiness of the Lord, which Hie loved, and
marrying the daughter of a strange god. This has been
supposed to have been a mode of speaking of idolatry.
But idolatry did not prevail among the Jews after the Captivity. If they had been in the habit of committing idolatry they would not have asked the prophet wherefore he
charged them with that sin. The offense was not merely
marrying the daughter of a strange god; it involved cruelty.  It covered the altar of the Lord "with tears, with
weeping, and with crying out."  This was the altar of the
Lord, and not that of the strange god. The cruelty was
not then the offering of human sacrifices, which, moreover,
were not usual at that period. The offense also involved
treachery, "Jiudah hath dealt treacherously."
After these statements, the prophet introduces the Jews as
asking, "Wherefore?"  This may mean:  Wherefore do
you bring these charges against us? or, wherefore will the
Lord not regard our offering or receive it at our hands?
The  answer is, Because "the Lord hath been  witness
between thee and the wife of thy youth, with whom thou
hast dealt treacherously." This treachery is explained to
have been putting away a person, who is described as the
wife of thy youth, "who was thy companion and the wife of
thy covenant." Whatever may be the precise point of
the (iqlestion, it is clear that the Lord will not regard the
offering of him that putteth away his wife.  With this
testimony to the indissoluble character of marriage the
Old Testament leaves the subject.
~ 8. The Old Testament leaves it at its very close. The
New Testament takes it up at its very beginning, in a man                     1 Malachi ii. 11-13. 
OF TIHE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.   169
ner whichl is decisive of the question.  Our Blessed Lord,
in his Sermon on the Mount, says: " 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 fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced committeth adultery." 1
The man who puts away his wife is said by our Blessed
Lord to cause her to commit adultery. But in what sense
are the words to be taken? The man does not compel, or
even solicit the woman to commit adultery. He can only
be said to cause her to commit the sin because he exposes
her to great temptation. But how is it possible that she
can commit adultery?  The man has done what he could
to dissolve the marriage. If it be dissolved, she is no
longer a married woman, and can only comnmit adultery with
a married man, to which she is in no greater temptation
than other women. Btut our Lord had specially in view
a second marriage, for He says:' Whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced committeth adultery." A second marriag,e, then, is for her adultery. The first has not been dissolved. The attempt of the husband to dissolve it failed,
because it was indissoluble.  If it were dissoluble she would
be a single woman, and she might marry whom she pleased.
It may perhaps be said, that the word adultery is used
for fornication, and that the divorced woman is placed in a
situation in which she is liable to faill into fornication. But
if she could marry, she would be no more liable to comnmit
fornication than another woman; yet for her, marriage is declared to be adultery, or fornication, if that word is preferred.
Why is this?  Because she is under a bond of marriage,
which has created that unity which cannot be dissolved.
~ 9. In another part of the same Gospel there is recorded
a conversation between our Lord and certain Pharisees.
The Pharisees," says the Evangelist, "also came unto
1 Matthew v. 31, 32. 
170      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him: Is it lawfiul for
a man to put away his wife for every cause? And He
answered and said unto them: Have ye not read that He
which made them at the beginning, made themn male and
femnale, and said: For this cause shall a man leave father
and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain
shall be one flesh...... What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder.  They say unto Hinm:
Why did'Moses then comniand to give a writing of divorcemnent, and to put her away? He saith unto them: Mbioses,
because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put
away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commnittethl adultery, and whoso mnarrieth her which is put away
dothl commit adultery." 1
Our Blessed Lord here answers the insidious question of
the Pharisees by recalling to their minds the primary institutitioi of marriage, insisting on the unity involved in that
institution, and thus showing that marriage is in its nature
indissoluble. He draws the inference, that God hath united
the married couple, and winds up with the solemn precept:
"What God hath joined let not man put asunder."  The
whole taken together is perhaps as strong an assertion
of the doctrine, that marriage cannot be dissolved, as could
be framed.
The Pharisees so understood it and objected the authority
of Moses. Our Lord replied, that Moses permitted divorce
on accotunt of the hardness of their hearts, but that it was
not consistent with the primary institution. He then repeats, with some alteration, what He had said in the Sermon
on the Mount: "And I say unto you: Whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for the cause of fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso
marrieth her which is put away, commnitteth adultery." The
1 Matthew xix. 3-9. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 171
husband who puts away his wife cannot marry again without coimmitting adultery, and none can marry her which is
put away without committing adultery; because the first
marriage has not been dissolved. He who put the woman
away, and she who was put away, are still man and wife;
for the nmarriage could not be dissolved.
The divorced persons cannot marry without committing
adultery, and none can intermarry with either of them
without committing adultery.  There are many persons in
American society who have been divorced according to the
State laws. They are divorced for all civil purposes, but
they are still married in the sight of God.  It is for men
and women to consider before they put themselves in such
a situation; and it is for other men and women to remember
that they cannot marry without committing adultery, and
that none can marry them without committing adultery.
~ 10. Another Evangelist gives an account of a conversation, which is often supposed to be the same, although
there are strong reasons for believing that it is a different
one.  St. Mark says: "And the Pharisees came to Him
and asked Himn: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?
tempting Him. And He answered and said unto them:
What did Moses conmmand you?  And they said: Moses
suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them: For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept, but from the
beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and'
cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh; so
then they are no more twain, but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together let not man )put asunder.
And in the house His disciples asked him again of the same
matter.  And  Ie saith unto them: Whosoever shall put
away his wife, and  marry another, coimmitteth adultery
against her; and if a woman shall put away her husband,
and be married to another, she comnitteth adultery." 
1 Mark x. 2-12. 
172      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 11. This passage is sometimes supposed to be another
report of the conversation reported by St. Matthew. It is
possible that it may be so, althoiugh there are great differences between the two reports; in fact they are absolutely
unlike; so much so, that it is very improbable that they relate
to the same conversation.  The doctrine, with one remarkable exception, is the same, and it is not important whether
it was promulgated once or twice. The forms of the two
conversations are, however, very different. In one, what
relates to the Law of Moses precedes, and in the other follows that which relates to the primary institution of mnarriage. But in both, our Saviour refers to the primary
institution as conclusive of the question, and adds the
precept, that man should not put asunder what God hath
joined. Here St. Mark closes his account of the conversation with the Pharisees. St. Matthew adds the statement,
that it is adultery for divorced persons to marry.
St. Mark introduces this doctrine into a private conversation with the disciples, which occurred after the more public
discussion with the Pharisees.  But the words are not the
same as in St. Matthew, and the important exception to the
rule is omitted.  St. Matthew says: "Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery; and whoso marriethl her which
is put away doth commit adultery."  St. Mark says: " Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.  And if a woman shall pilt away
her husband, and be married to another, she committoth
adultery."
~ 12. There are three differences between those two statements, besides those relating to the persons to whom, and
the place in which the words were spoken. One is the
omission of the exception. This is the doctrinal difference, of which nmention has been made. It is a niatter
requiring a good deal of consideration, which it will secure
in another chapter. The second is, that the husband who 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 173
puts away his wife and marries another is said, in St. Mark,
to commit adultery against her. This is a stronger and
more pointed affirmation of the continuance of the marriag,e, notwithstanding the divorce, than that in St. Matthew.
The third is, that St. Mark says nothing of the case of a
woman who has been put away, which is mentioned by St.
MIatthew. Instead of it, there is introduced the case of a
woman who has put away her husband, and has been married again.  Such a woman is declared guilty of adultery;
which is a new illustration of the doctrine, that the marriage
tie cannot be loosened.
The most remarkable differences between the Evangelists relate to the conversation with the disciples. They
both give an account of such a conversation having taken
place after that with the Phlarisees, but they give it in very
different forms. It has been just quoted fromn St. Mark.
St. Matthew reports it as follows: "His disciples say unto
Him: If the case of a man be so with his wife, it is not
good to marry. But He said unto them: All men cannot
receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For
there are some eunuchs which were so born from their
mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs which were
made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have
made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
He that is able to receive it let him receive it." 1
In St. Matthew the disciples begin by objecting to the
doctrine of indissoluble marriage. In St. Mark they merely
ask Him again of the same matter. In St. Matthew ourLord admits the difficulty with which His doctrine besets
the entrance into marriage; but adds, that to a large part
of mankind it is a necessity. There are those, He intimates,
who either from natural constitution, or the effects of violence, or by the aid of Divine grace, are freed from that
necessity. Such men can receive the saying, that it is not
good to marry. Other men, who cannot receive that
1 Matthew xix. 10-12. 
174     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
saying, and to whom it seems good to marry, must take
the Divine law, as He has laid it down. If they must, or
will marry, they must marry indissolubly. According to
St. Mark, our Lord merely delivered to the disciples the
doctrine which, according to St. Matthew, He had delivered
to the Pharisees, a little expanded. The marked differences in the accounts of the two Evangelists seeim to prove
that there were two different conversations. It would follow that there were two different conversations with the
Pharisees. Both Evangelists, however, teach with one exception the same doctrine in nearly the same words.
~ 13. There is only one other verse in the four Gospels
which touches upon this matter. It is part of a public discourse delivered by our Lord, and is in these words: "Whosoever putteth away his wife and mnarrieth another committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her that is put away
from her husband committeth adultery." 1  This text does
not require that anything more should be said of it, than
that it is a repetition of the ninth verse of the nineteenth
chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, only
omitting the exception therein contained.
~ 14. There are two or three passages in the writings of
St. Paul which teach the indissoluble nature of marriage.
One of thenm is this:" The woman which hath an husband
is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth;
but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
her husband. So then if while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress;
but if her husband be dead, she is free from the law, so that
she is no adulteress though she be married to another man." 2
~ 15. The greater part of the seventh chapter of the first
Epistle to the Corinthians is a kind of treatise on marriage.
Portions of this chapter may be passed over in this place,
although they must be examined in another.   But there
are two which must be mentioned here. One of them is:
1 Luke xvi. 18.                    2 Romals vii. 2, 3. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMIENTS OF MARRI[AGE. 175
"Unto the married I comnimand, yet not I, but the Lord; let
not the wife depart from her husband, but and if she depart,
let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband,
and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 The other is:
"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband
liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be
married to whom she will, only in the Lord." 2
~ 16. There remains the remarkable passage in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, in which the unity of the married
pair is likened to that which exists between our Blessed
Lord and his Church; it is a fair inference, that as one of
those unities is indissoluble so is the other: "Husbands, love
your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave
Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with
the washing of water by the Word, that He might present
it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle,
or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own
bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no
man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church; for we are members
of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great
mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church." 3
The Apostle, in speaking of Christ atnd the Church,
adopts the language of Adam when speaking of the relation
between himself and his wife.  "This," said Adam,  "is
now bone of my bone and flesh of nmy flesh." The Apostle
says: "We," that is the  members of the Church, "are
members of His body, His flesh, and of His bones."
Both then proceed to the precept which involves a doctrine, that a man shall leave his father and his mother and
shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
~ 17. These are the principal, if not all the texts in the
1 1 Corinthians vii. 10, 11.    2 Ibid. 39.    3 Ephesians v. 25-32. 
176      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Bible, which teach that a marriage once entered into cannot be dissolved.  It seems to be established by them as
fully as any other doctrine of our holy religion can be established by any texts whatever.  They all agree in forbidding man to put asunder what God has joined, and apply
the precept to the case of a man and his wife. Our Blessed
Lord utters the direct precept more than once. The context contains a prohibition of iuniting either of the parties
to another. But notwithstanding the common opinion, that
is not the whole meaning of the text. What is directly
forbidden is the separation; the unlawfulness of marrying
again is the consequence of the unlawfulness of separation.
The common notion that it is allowable for married persons
to separate whenever they think fit, provided they do not
marry again, is contradicted by the very words of our
Saviour,' What God hath joined let not man put asunder."
This is not generally observed, and it seems to be almost a
universal opinion that the thing forbidden is the marrying
another person after separation, and that the separation
itself is lawful. Yet the separation alone is a direct breach
of the precept.
~ 18. It involves moreover all the evils but one, which
are involved in the permission to marry again.  A  man or
woman who separates from his or her husband or wife and
does not marry again, does not commit adultery; that is,
does not add a second sin to the first. This is the only
difference between separation and that which is called a
divorce from the bond of marriage. The true bond of
marriage is severed when the married couple begin to live
separately. The separated couple do not cleave to each
other. Neither has the comfort of the other's society. The
wife does not help or advise the husband. The husband
does not govern or protect the wife. The reason assigned
by St. Paul, why men should have wives and women  husbands, is disregarded.1 The children lose all the benefits
1 1 Corinthians vii. 2. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 177
to which they are entitled from one of their parents, and
many of those to which they are entitled from the other.
To restrain, therefore, as the public opinion of this country
does, the text which forbids mian from putting asunder
what God hath joined, to such a putting asunder as will
allow the separated persons to marry again, is to take an
unwarrantable liberty with Holy Writ.
~ 19. Miarriage involves an obligation not to marry again
during the life of the person with whom it has been contractedc; but it also involves a great deal more. When a
married couple live separately, the marriage is, for all
practical purposes, dissolved.  This is not less true because they are restrained from marrying. The effect of
the restriction is merely negative. All the positive duties
of mlarriage are abandoned. Both the married persons are
obliged to live in celibacy; they are married only in name.
Such a condition involves great evils, which are, in this
country, too little regarded. The great mass of the people
do not know or do not regard the Divine prohibition to
separate man and wife. Those who do, generally consider
it as only a prohibition of marriage to the separated persons, a merely non-natural interpretation, which both formally disregards the words of Holy Scripture and renders
them practically of none effect.
~ 20. It is frequently said that if people cannot agree
they had better separate; but that is not the principle of
Christian marriage. The Christian doctrine is that marriage cannot be dissolved, and that the parties must cleave
to each other. Experience shows that people are less like
to disagree when they must live and act together.  When
they have no other resource they will think of curbing
their passions and of mutual concessions. The possibility
of separation is an encouragement to obstinacy. It is the
nature of man to exaggerate the present inconvenience,
and to look with less dislike upon that which is not actually
felt.  It is therefore important that when married persons
12 
178      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
find it difficult to agree, it should be present to their minds
that separation is sinful, and therefore impossible. The
power of flying from the ills we have to others that we
know not of, is a dangerous power. Some persons may
object to this reasoning, that it is hardly within the compass
of the human mind to measure the good and evil which arise
from a rule of morals, and still less to measure those which
may arise from changing one rule for another. This is
true, but the rule which forbids the separation of man and
wife is prescribed by Infinite Wisdom.
~ 21. The true intent of forbidding man to separate
what God hath joined, is to prevent the separation of married persons, not merely to prevent them from marrying
other persons after a separation. This may be proved by
several texts. In the Sermon on the Mount, our blessed
Lord said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." 1
How does he cause her to commit adultery?  By exposing
her to temptation.  Temptation to what, to mrarry?  No,
to commit adultery. True marriage is, in her case, a form
of adultery; but it is not the only form. She who is separated from her husband is exposed to tenmptation to adultery in those other forms, and more, not less, if she
cannot marry. To this temptation she is exposed by her
husband who has put her away. She is living practically
in an unmarried state, and thus she is exposed to temnptations to the sins of the flesh, which in her are adultery.
From those temptations she cannot escape like other
women by marrying.  It is the judgment of our Saviour,
that to these temptations she is peculiarly liable. She cannot marry, but she can commit adultery. Her temptations
to do so are so strong, that our Lord declares that he who
exposes her to them "causeth her to commit adultery."
~ 22. It will be better, on several accounts, to give an
exposition of this passage in the words of St. Paul, who
1 Matthew v. 32. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 1 79
writes thus: " Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every
man have his own wife and let every woman have her own
husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The
wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband;
and likewise the husband hath not power of his own body,
but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be
by consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt
ye not for your incontinency." 1 Here is a direct prohibition of separation, without any reference to marrying again.
The reason assigned for it seems to be the same with that
which is given by our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount.
~ 23. In the same chapter is this passage:" Unto the
married I command, yet not I but the Lord: let not the
wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let
her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife." 2  The
Apostle says: "I command, yet not I but the Lord:" by
which he seems to mean that the words he is about to
write are an inspired comment on somne words of the Lord.
The words commented on seem to be some of those recorded in the tenth chapter of St. Mark's Gospel: " What
God hath joined together let not man put asunder." And
again, "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if a woman shall
put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery." The text last quoted seems to contain
rather the revelation of a doctrine than a precept. The
prohibition to put asunder what God had joined had been
already delivered, and our blessed Lord now reveals the
truth, that putting asunder a man and his wife, does not
release them from the guilt of adultery, should they marry
again. St. Paul puts this doctrine into the form of a precept. He first delivers two precepts, which taken together
1 I Corinthians vii. 2-5.             2 Ibid. vii. 10, 11. 
180      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
repeat our Lord's precept:'" Let not the woman depart from
her husband."  "Let not the man put away his wife."  He
then puts our Lord's doctrine into a third precept: "But
and if she depart let her remain unmarried." This is in substance the same with, " If a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery."
St. Paul's arrangement throws light upon the words of our
Lord, by showing them in a different point of view, and
treating them all as precepts. It thus appears that there
are two separate and distinct precepts involved in the
words of our Lord. A woman must not depart from her
husband; but if she be so ill-advised as to do so, she is met
by another precept, which forbids her to marry. Marrying
is forbidden in a distinct and separate precept. She is forbidden to leave her husband, and if she has done so, she
is commnanded to be reconciled to him. If she choose to
disobey both of those precepts, she is still to remain unmarried.
~ 24. The verses which immediately follow those transcribed into the last section from St. Paul are these: "But
to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a
wife, that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with
him, let him not put her away. And the woman which
hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased
to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the iunbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving
depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in suLch cases; but God hath called us to peace." 
Here the Apostle says:" To  the rest speak  I, not the
Lord." It is not to be supposed that by this he meant to
admit that he was not writing by inspiration. Hle had before said, "I command, yet not I but the Lord."  The two
expressions are to be taken together. In the first instance
1 1 Corinthians vii. 12-15. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMIENTS OF MARRIAGE. 181
he was repeating a precept, which had issued from the lips
of our Lord; but what he is now about to say is nothing
more than an application of our Lord's doctrine to a particular case, - that of a Christian unequally yoked with an
unbeliever. Even in this case, the Apostle decides that
the law which forbids separation applies. The Christian
woman is not to leave her heathen husband; the Christian
man is not to put away his heathen wife. They have been
joined by the God, whom then they knew not, and the bond
is not dissolved because one of them has learned to know
Him. They were joined, althotugh they were heathens.
They are not to be put asunder because one of them has
become a Christian. All that the Apostle allows is that, if
the heathen insist upon a separation, the Christian may
acquiesce without sin; he or she is not under bondage.
Such and so strict is the Christian Law which forbids the
separation of man and wife. So far is it from countenancing the popular notion, that married persons may agree to
separate, if they do not marry again.
~ 25. Such separations were not known in ancient times.
The marriage tie seems never to have been left as a mere
negative restraint. Whenever a woman was separated from
her husband, she was regarded as at liberty to marry.
In the words of the Book of Deuteronomy: "' She may
go and be another man's wife."  It is quite clear from an
examination of the Mosaic Law, that the Divine lawgiver
preferred an entire dissolution of the marriage tie permitting, the parties to marry, to such a half dissolution as left.
a mnere negative restriction, while all its positive obligations were taken away or disregarded.
The precept given by Ioses, of which our Lord several
times spoke, is this: "When a man hath taken a wife, and
married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in
his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her;
then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it
in her lhand, and send her out of his house; and when she 
182     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
is departed out of his house, she may go and be another
man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write
her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it into her hand and
sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die,
which took her to be his wife, her former husband, which
sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after
that she hath been defiled, for that is an abomination before
the Lord; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which
the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." 1
Any separation except one which involves the power
of marrying is here forbidden. If a man have a wife who
finds no favor in his eyes, and from whom he desires to
separate, he must pursue a particular course, which is
very precisely detailed twice in the compass of four verses.
He may not send her out of his house without a bill of
divorcement, and when he does send her out with such a
bill, she nmay go and be another man's wife. In practice,
the bill of divorcement was always written in a prescribed
form which contains an express permission to the divorced
woman to marry. The bill of divorcement was called in
Hebrew, Get. The essential part of it, says the Mishna,
is the following words: "Thou art herewith permitted to
be married to any other man." The Rabbi Jehudah says
the following is the essential part: "Thou hast here firom
me a writing of separation and a document of dismissal,
that thou mnayest go and be married to any man thou mayest like." 2 Whatever was the form of the writing, the law
was express that the divorced woman might marry. When
the husband had given it to his wife, he might send her
out of his house. "And when she is departed out of his
house, she may go and be another man's wife." If the
latter husband divorce her, she may be married to any
man except her former husband.
~ 26. This law is said by our Saviour, to have been
1 Deuteronomy xxiv. 1-4.
2 Robinson's Evangelists and -7fishna, p. 33. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 183
given by Moses to the children of Israel for the hardness
of their hearts. Some writers have supposed that our
Lord's meaning was that the hardness of their hearts was
such that they would kill or ill-treat wives who had found
no favor in their sight. If the cruelty of the husband
during the marriage was the evil to be dreaded, a more
obvious mode of protection would have been to give to
the wife power to divorce her husband. It seems more
likely that the grievance against which the law was directed, was that of sending a woman out of the house into
the world, subject to all the temptations and hardships of
single life, without the power of seeking protection fronm a
husband. The Divine Lawgiver foresaw that the hardness of their hearts would be such that they would turn
their wives out-of-doors.   He  preferred that women  in
that condition should have the power of marrying, althoug,h it was not so from the beginning. This was a
departure from the Divine law of marriage which He only
could authorize, and which He did authorize because men,
in the hardness of their hearts, would not submit to the
primitive law. The care which was taken to secure to the
divorced woman the privilege of marrying, shows this.
~ 27. Our blessed Saviour does not authorize the cruelty which the law of Moses forbade.  He  recalls marriage to its primitive institution, when no separation of
any sort was allowed. He renews the command that a
man shall cleave to his wife, repeats the doctrine that they
are one flesh, and introduces the precept that because of
that doctrine men should not put them asunder. He thus
forbids altogether any kind of separation. He further declares that if any one, disregarding his prohibition, shall
put away his wife and marry another, he will be guilty of
adultery.
In the Sermon on the Mount, he does not refer to the
primitive institution, or deliver the precept which he elsewhere pronounces to be an inference from it. He there 
184      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
says: "It liath 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 fornication, causeth her to commit adultery;
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery." 1
Moses forbade all putting away without a bill of divorcement; that is, all putting away unless with the power of
marrying. The bill of divorcement was a permission to
take another husband. Our Lord forbids all putting away
with or without a bill of divorcement, that is, with or without permission to take another husband. Hlie abrogates
the indulgence allowed by Moses, of putting away a wife,
provided she were permitted to marry again, and declares
that whoever puts away his wife, even in the way prescribed by Moses, causes her to commit adultery; and that
whoever marries her comnmits adultery. He callses her to
commit adultery, because he places her in a situation in
which she is strongly tempted to commit adultery. This
is all of the Sermon on the MAount which bears upon this
part of the subl)ject. The clause "saving for the cause of
fornication," will be considered in the next chapter.
Subject to that saving, our Lord  abrogates the  law
which allows a bill of divorcement; but He does not abro
gate the law which forbade men from putting away their
wives without one.  That was an original part of the doctrine of marriage, and is reenacted in the words: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, causeth her to commnit adul.
tery."  The temptations to commit adultery to which she
will be exposed are the reasons why she is not to be put
away. These temptations are greater, not less, if she be
not allowed to marry.
1 Miatthew v. 31, 32. 
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELE.NIENTS OF MARRIAGE. - II. INDIS             SOLUBLENESS. 2. THE EXCEPTION.
~ 1. Our Lord's Exception out of the Rule that Marriage is indissoluble. ~ 2. Exceptions attempted to be introduced by Civil Laws.- ~ 3. Cru elty. - ~ 4. Desertion. - ~ 5. It is nlecessary to understand the Exception
in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke.- ~ 6. The Exception is not to
be rejected because it is recorded by only one Evangelist.- ~ 7. It is not
Local or Temporary. - ~ 8. The four Passages must be construed like
Laws it Petri lMate-ia. - ~ 9. The Rule that the more rigorous Law is to
be obeyed does not apply. - ~ 10. Plainness of our Lord's Words in St.
MAattlhewv.- ~ 11. There is only one Way of giving effect to them. ~ 12. The Word rendered Fornication is not erroneously translated. -
~ 13. Five Objections of the Rev. Hector Davies Morgan. - ~ 14. The
Word translated Fornication means, in those Places, Adultery. - ~ 15.
A Rhetorical Objection against the received Translation answered ~ 16. It is not a Good Reason against the received Translation, that an
Adulteress was to be put to Death. -~ 17. Answer to the Objection, that
Adultery was not a Cause of Divorce under the Mosaic Law.- ~ 18. The
W,ord translated Fornication does not mean the Sin of Living in a Void
Marriage.- ~ 19. It does not mean Antenuptial Fornication. - ~ 20. It
does not mean Marriage with an Unbeliever.-  ~ 21. It does not mean
Incest.- ~ 22. The Exception cannot relate to Void Marriages.- ~ 23.
It can be reconciled with the Tenor of our Lord's Discourse. - ~ 24. It can
be reconciled with the Doctrine of St. Paul.- ~ 25. Mr. Keble's Opinion.
-~ 26. Analysis of 1 Corinthians vii. - ~ 27. Romans vii. 1-4. -~ 28.
The Exception is not inconsistent with the Drift of St. Paul's Argu ments. - ~ 29. Pamphlet by an English Barrister.- ~ 30. The Mosaic
Law for putting an Adulteress to Death. - ~ 31. Causing to commit
Adultery. - ~ 32. Alleged Mistranslation of the Word rendered bv " Sav ing."- ~ 33. Illustration from Acts xxviii. 19.- ~ 34. Illustration fromn
2 Corinthians xi. 28. - ~ 35. Alleged Mistranslation of the Word ren dered by "Cause." - ~ 36. New Translations.- ~ 37. Paraphrases. ~ 38. Analysis of Part of Matthew v. - ~ 39. Analysis of part of Mat thllew xix. - ~ 40. Alleged Corruption in the Textus Receptuts of the Greek 
186     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Testament.- ~ 41. Conversation in St. Mark x.- ~ 42. The Exception
is not a Declaration that our Lord was not speaking of Fornication.~ 43. Conclusion of the Chapter.
~ 1. OUR blessed Lord four times promulgated with His
own lips the rule, that the bond of marriage cannot be
dissolved. Upon two of the four occasions he introduced
an exception to the rule. The passages have already been
several times quoted in this work, but it is proper again to
transcribe them here, so far as to introduce the exception.
The first is: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." 
Another is: "Whosoever shall put away his wife except it
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery." 2 It seems clear that the rule of indissolubleness is laid down, and equally so that there is one exception, and but one to that rule. That exception is fornication. The word fornication is now understood, whatever
may have been the case formerly, to mean sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.  But it is agreed that
the Greek word, which in these two places is translated by
that English word, includes any kind of sexual sin. The
plain literal and grammatical meaning then is, that a man
may put away his wife if she commit sexual sin, but for no
other cause. Various questions have been raised about the
meaning of the word translated fornication, of putting away,
and about other matters connected with the exception, all
of which will be hereafter considered. It is however clear,
that putting away a wife except for fornication, whatever
that may mean, is forbidden, and that there is no other exceptioni to the rule of indissolubleness.  There is but one
exception, the very form of the exception, or saving clause,
excludes the idea that there can be more.
~ 2. It has been attempted to introduce other causes
for putting away, by means of civil laws; and there are
respectable writers who have attempted to shelter one of
1 Matthew v. 32.                  2 Ibid. xix. 9. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 187
them under a perverted interpretation of Holy Writ.  The
two cases which most frequently occur, and in favor of
which the most specious arguments are urged, are cruelty
and desertion. These are not sufficient reasons for dissolving, the bond of marriage; although they may be sufficient
reasons why a person should be excused from performing
the duties of a husband or a wife, because they may render
it impossible to perform them. A real impossibility is a
sufficient reason for not doing anything.
~ 3. There may be cases of cruelty which may render it
impossible for married persons to live together. But the
cases of technical cruelty which are sometimes heard of in
courts of justice are not such cases.  The cruelty must be
real, and so great as to render it unsafe for the weaker
party to live with the other. When such a case occurs, a
wonman has a sufficient excuse for not living with her husband, and may refuise to do so, and apply for protection to
the courts. This is granted in the form which in England
is called a sentence of judicial separation, and in this
country a divorce a mensa et thoro.
~ 4. No person can live with one who refuses to live
with them; so that obstinate desertion renders a performance of the marriage duties impossible, and the sin of the
separation rests with the deserter. This idea receives the
sanctionii of St. Paul, when he says: "If any brother have
a wife which believeth not, and she be minded to dwell with
him, let him not put her away.  And the woman which hath
a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell.
with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean,
but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart,
let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage
in such cases; but God hath called us to peace." 1
Some writers, as has been hinted, have interpreted this
11 Corinthians vii. 12-15. 
188     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
passage as authorizing a dissolution of marriage on account
of desertion. The view is not without plausibility if it be
confined to such cases of desertion as those mentioned by
the Apostle; but such cases can now scarcely occur. The
Apostle implies that the marriages were heathen marriages
between heathens, which when formed were not supposed
by any one to be indissoluble. He also implies that the
desertion is by a heathen, and that it occurs because the
other party has become a Christian. The Christian is forbidden to separate from the heathen if the heathen be
willing to continue the relation, because his or her faith
sanctifies the other party, and the marriage. " But if the
unbelieving depart let him depart; a brother or a sister is
not under bondage in such cases." It may be asked: bondage to what? It may be said that the Apostle could not
mean merely that the Christian was not bound to do an
impossibility, and it was impossible for two persons to live
together, if one were determined not to live with the other.
Another interpretation is possible. It may be said that the
Apostle meant that under such circumstances the Christian
might marry. When the fact is taken into view, that at
that time separations which left the bond of marriage uinbroken were unknown, it does not seem impossible that
St. Paul intended that the deserted Christian might marry.
Not that he believed the bond of marriage dissoluble, but
that he did not believe that in such cases it had ever been
formed.
Whether this be so or not, the text has no application to
modern cases of desertion, in which there has been a
Christian marriage between those who were at least nominally Christians. In such marriages the unity of marriage
has been formed. It cannot be broken by desertion, or by
anything which does not fall within our Lord's exception.
Desertion of a wife by her husband may render it probable
that he has committed adultery; but it does not prove it.
Moreover, it is at least doubtfiul whether the adultery of the
husband is within the exception. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 189
~ 5. To return to the one exception. It is denied that
there is any exception, because St. Mark and St. Luke do
not mention it in the accounts which they give of two other
promulg,ations of the general rule.  There is no contradictioni about facts among the Evangelists; but there is a discrepancy in doctrine which must be reconciled. On the
occasions mentioned by St. Mark and St. Luke, our Lord
omitted to speak of the exception. He thus promulgated
two rules, which can only be reconciled by understanding,
as grammnarians say, the exception in the places in which
it is omitted.  If this be not done, all force and operation
are taken away from the exception. This is contrary to
the rule of interpretation, that in any writing every word
must have its meaning tt res magis valeat quam pereat.
It is as certain as Scripture can make it that our Saviour
spoke the words which make the exception, and some
meaning must be found for them.  They have been written
for the edification of the Church, and preserved that mnen
may read thenm, and be governed by them.  This is as true
of them as of any other portion of Scripture. It is imnpossible to disregard them. The only alternative is to consider them as understood in the narratives of St. Mark and
St. Luke.
~ 6. In order to escape from this alternative some persons have insinuated, rather than maintained, that because
St. Mark and St. Luke are two, and St. Matthew is only
one, the majority of the witnesses is to be followed. Were
the Evangelists mere uninspired writers, this would be very
bad reasoning. If one credible person report a fact which
he has seen, or words which he has heard, all men will
believe him, although other persons who were present may
not have seen the occurrence or heard the words. If the
rules of evidence which apply to uninspired witnesses are
to be applied to the Evangelists, it is also proper to remark
that St. LMatthew was present, and St. Mark and St. Luke
were not.  These preferences of the testimony of original
!1 i, 
190      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
witnesses over that of secondary witnesses, and of affirmative
testimony over negative, are founded upon sound principles.
But when witnesses are, like the Evangelists, speaking of
different events, neither they nor the doctrine of preferring
the testimony of two witnesses to that of one are applicable.
But the Evangelists are not mere uninspired witnesses.
The Holy Spirit guided them to all truth, and did not suffer
any of them to write any falsehood. It is perfectly certain that our blessed Lord did on two occasions make the
exception. It is part of the revelation intended for our
guidance.
~ 7. Great efforts have been made to show that, admitting St. Matthew's statement to be true, it is not important.
Very ingenious reasons have been found why our Lord
should have introduced the exception, and why St. Matthew
should have recorded it, although it is no part of the Chlristian Law. It is said that it was a mere local and temporary
permission to the Jews.  St. Matthew, who wrote for the
Jews of Palestine, therefore preserved it. St. Mark, who
wrote for the Hellenizing Jews, and St. Luke, who wrote
for the Gentiles, did not mention it, because the permission
did not extend to their readers.
It is also said that if the exception is allowed any force,
those who read only the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke
would be led into a grievous error, and be subjected to a
more rigorous law, than those who had access to that of St.
Matthew.  It may be answered that those who read only
St. Matthew, would, if the exception were not a part of the
Christian Law, be led into a grievous error, and would be
exposed to a dangerous laxity of practice. This would be
a worse evil than the strictness imposed upon those who
read St. Mark and St. Luke, and did not read St. Matthew.
All the Gospels were written for the guidance of the Church
in all ages. She has theni all, and is bound to use them
all. There is not a word in the Bible to show that St.
Matthew's Gospel, or any part of it, is local or temporary, 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 191
or addressed exclusively to the Jews of Palestine. LNo man
has a right to set aside any part of it, or of any of the
others.  For "all Scripture is written by the inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God
may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 1
~ 8. The whole Christian Law of divorce is contained in
five passages; four of them are to be found in three of the
Gospels, two in that of St. Matthew, one each in those of
St. Mark and St. Luke. The other is the seventh chapter
of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. These passages must be regarded as laws iZ pari materia, that is, laws
upon the same subject, proceeding from the same authority.
The rule is, that such laws are to be all taken together and
read as one law, of which no part is to be rejected. The
statements of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Lutke, are all
plain. In two places the exception is introduced, and in
two it is omitted. It must be either understood where it is
omitted, or erased where it is introduced. There is no middle
course. It must be read as a part of the law, or not. If it
be read, every word is made available; if it be not, the exception perishes, and some of the words of our blessed Lord
are made of none effect.
~ 9. It has been said, that this course is not allowable,
because when there are two laws, men ought to obey that
one which is more strict, and less indulgent to human frailty.
When two lawss accidentally cross each other in a particular
case, so that both cannot be obeyed, it is the duty of a conscientious man to obey that which is the less indulgent
of the two to human frailty, lest he should make a mnistake through following his own inclinations. But as a rule
o    f      interpretation, a means of finding out the meaning of
one single written law, such a principle was never heard of.
It would be still more absurd to use it as a reason for strik                    12 Timothy iii. 16, 17.
0'I7ll  I 
192      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
ing out of a Divine law an exception which Divine wisdom
has inserted.
~ 10. Our Saviour uttered the words, "Whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth  adultery." 1  The meaning of
these words seems to be very clear.  If this were the only
text on the subject, every one would agree that a man might
put away his wife in the excepted case. For there is no
other prohibition of putting away except that which must
be inferred from the declaration, that marrying after putting away, is adultery.  It can only be adultery because
the putting away was unlawfiul, and so did not dissolve the
unity of the married pair. But it is declared that in the
excepted case the second marriage is not adultery. This
can only be because in the excepted case the putting away
does dissolve the unity.
But our Lord flirther said, "And whoso marrieth her
which is put away doth commnit adultery."   Why?   Because he has married the wife of another man. If the
woman were not the wife of another man it could not be
adultery to marry her. The second clause is then a reiteration of the rule, that a man cannot put away his wife
and dissolve the bond of marriage.  But does it contradict
the first clause, which contains the exception? MIust they
not be made to agree? There is but one way to do this.
The exception must be virtually incorporated, or, in the
languag,e of grammarians, understood, in the second clause.
This reasoning is equally strong in favor of understanding
it in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke.
The passage in the fifth chapter shows the same thing,
although perhaps less clearly: "Whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
commit adultery."  How?  By exposing her to temptation.
How is it possible that, being put away, she could still conmmnit adultery. Because the bond of marriage being undissolved she is still a wife.  But if she be put away for the
1 Matthew xix. 9. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 193
cause of fornication, she is not caused to commit adultery.
Such is the plain meaning of our Lord's words. Why is it
so?  Because, like any other unmarried woman, she may
marry. The bond of marriage has been dissolved by her
being put away for that cause.
~ 11. If there were no Gospel but that of St. Matthew,
there would be a plain law forbidding divorce except in one
case, while in that case it would be allowable. But in the
Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke the prohibition of divorce
is repeated ill almost the same words, but without the exception. How are the two laws to be reconciled? If the
words of St. MAlark and St. Luke be without the qualification in St. Matthew, his peculiar teaching is, as it were,
erased from the Holy Scriptures. It would be as if that
which has been written had never been written, and the
words which he records our Lord to have spoken had never
been spoken.   Some of our Lord's words would be made of
none effect. Can nmen be justified in adopting such an interpretation? There is no alternative but to understand the
exception in the two Gospels in which it is omitted.'
~ 12. But there are writers who contend that the exception does not mean that a man Imay put away his wife for
adultery. They admit that the Greek word which has been
translated fornication includes all sexual sins; yet they insist that in these places it does not mean adultery. Some
of them think that it means that kind of fornication which
is committed by persons who live together in a supposed
1 It may be well to introduce in this place and way the following very
neat argument, which is taken from a speech delivered in the British House
of Lords, in 1820, by Archbishop Manners Sutton, of Canterbury. The
Archbishop said: "I admit that the passages in Matthew are not in Mark
nor in Luke; but in Matthew the exception is given, and Mark and Luke
have the general institution without the exception. Now, I conceive that
the passages in which the exception is omitted ought to be measured by the
passage in which it is expressed; for it is impossible to believe that that was
not intended, which was expressed, though that which was not actually expressed might yet be intended." *
* Tebbs On Adultery and Divorce, London, 1822, pp. 111,112.
13 
194     CtIRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
marriage, which is void, so that the exception only authorizes the nominal husband to declare that he will no longer
respect a void marriage. One of these writers is the Rev.
Hector Davies Morgan, an English clergyman who published a work on "Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce," in the
year 1826. He admits that the Greek word which has been
translated fornication is applicable to any sexual Siln, but
objects to its being applied to adultery.   He  maintains
that in this place it means the fornication which is committed between a couple whose marriage is void. Other
views have been taken by other writers, and in fact by Mr.
Morgan himself.
~ 13. IMr. Morgan says: "In  assuming the right of
divorce upon proof of adultery, it is conceived that five
capital objections have been overlooked. These objections
cannlot be removed, unless it is shown, - (1) that the word
translated fornication does mean adultery; (2) that the
clause of exception ought indeed and of necessity to be
understood in the texts in which it is not inserted; (3) that
the right and privilege of divorce can be fully collected firom
the clause of exception; (4) that the doctrine can be reconciled to the tenor of our Lord's discourse; and (5) that it
can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of St. Paul, in
arguing with the Corinthians upon marriage and divorce." 1
These objections seem to include all those which have
been made to the exception, though they are not very
clearly put. It may be proper to interpret them. They
are, - (1) that the word translated fornication does not
mean adultery; (2) that the clause of exception ought not
to be understood, where it is not expressed; (3) that the
power of divorce cannot be collected from the exception;
(4) that the doctrine cannot be reconciled with the tenor
of our Lord's discourse; (5) that it cannot be reconciled
with the teaching of St. Paul in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians.   The  second objection in fact includes the
fourth and fifth. It has been already disposed of in this
1 Morgan On Mfarriage, Adlultery, and Divorce, vol. ii. p. 87.
P-
I  
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 195
chapter, section five to section eleven both inclusive, but
some remarks will, nevertheless, be made on the tburth
and fifth objections. The third objection is really to the
effect of the exception, and belongs to the next chapter.
~ 14. The first objection is, that the word translated for  nication does not mean adultery. It is conceded that it is
a large word, and may mean any fleshly sin, and adultery as
well as any other. So interpreted it yields in these pas sages what is called a good sense, in fact a more natural
sense than can be found in any other way.  Thqse con siderations make it incumbent on Mr. Morgan to assign
reasons why the word does not mean adultery, and to point
out what it really does mean. He gives three reasons why
it does not mean adultery; and says that its true meaning
is that kind of fornication which is committed by persons
who live together in a void marriage.
~ 15. One of his reasons for believing that the word does
not mean adultery is that our Lord would not have used
two words for the same thing in the same sentence. He
would not have called it both fornication and adultery.
This is a mere rhetorical reason, and is not entitled to much
weight. It cannot outweigh the rhetorical or grammatical
difficulty, which is inherent in the meaning which  Mr.
Morgan suggests. That difficulty is this: to put away for
a thing, does not mean to put away to prevent a thing, but
because it has been done.
~ 16. Another of the reasons which he assigns for not
believing that the word means adultery is that by the
Mosaic Law, an adulteress was to be put to death, and
therefore could not be put away. But a man might not
wish his adulterous wife to be put to death, and yet might
not choose to live with her. He might then use the power
which was supposed to be given him in the Book of Deuteronomy, and put her away without assigning any cause.'
This is the view taken by Bishop Jeremy Taylor.  He
1 See Matthew i. 17.
. II, 
196     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
says: "As for the case of lapidation, it is true that the woman
if she were legally convicted was to die; but the husband
was not bound to accuse her; he might pardon her if he
pleased, and conceal the fact. He might pardon her for
his share, as Christ did the woman taken in adultery, or
put her away privily, as Joseph, upon a mistake, intended
to do to the blessed Virgin Mother." 1
There is another answer to this argument. Our blessed
Lord was not obliged to take any notice of the law which
punished adultery with death. It was a judicial, or civil
law which was not to be introduced into the Christian system. Our Lord was providing a rule to direct the consciences of men who were to live where there was no such
law. His words were to bind the consciences of men in
America, and in the nineteenth century, as well as in Judaea,
and in the first. He forbids all divorces, except in the case
of fornication.   Men now say that the word translated
fornication cannot mean adultery, because by the Law of
Moses an adulteress was to be punished with death.
Here and now she is not so punished, and the reason fails.
Our blessed Lord knew that it would be so when He made
the exception. It is astonishing how completely his Omniscience is forgotten, and how much he is treated as a
mere human law-maker, who deals with the subject by the
light of the age in which he lives.
~ 17. A third reason has been assigned why the word
translated fornication cannot, in this place, mean adultery.
It is, that adultery was not by the Mosaic Law a causer of
divorce. It is said that our blessed Lord, when He was
abolishing the Mosaic causes of divorce, could not properly have excepted that which was not one of them.
Where is the evidence that He was abolishing the Mosaic
causes of divorce?  He was establishing the Christian law
of marriage. In the Sermon on the Mount he announces
a distinct law, which he contrasts with that of Moses, in
1 Ductor Dubitantium, book i. chapter v., rule 8, ~ 8. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 197
the particular of divorce as the Jews understood it. According to the prevailing opinion among them, the power
of divorce was arbitrary, and rested in the will of the husband. There were no causes of divorce. Only one is
mentioned in the law, that the woman found no favor in
her husband's eyes, on account of some uncleanness.
There was a question as to the meaning of the word uncleanness. One set of Rabbis held that it meant anything
which the husband disliked, and the great body of the
Jews held with them. Another held, that it meant adultery; and our Saviour seems practically to have agreed
with these. He declared that the permission for men to
divorce their wives because they found no favor in their
eyes, was inconsistent with the primitive institution of
marriage which He restored. That allowed of no divorce;
but He as God could and did introduce an exception.
~ 18. Those who deny that the word translated fornication means adultery, are bound to assign some other meaning to it. Most of them, - and Mr. Morgan among the
rest,- resort to the notion that it means that kind of fornication which is committed by those who live together in a
void marriage. To this notion there are two objections. One
that which has been set forth in the fourteenth section of
this chapter. The other is that the exception cannot relate to void marriages. This will be more fully pressed
hereafter. At present it will be sufficient to say that the
rule relates to valid marriages, and therefore this exception
cannot relate to void marriages.
~ 19. The notion about void marriages takes two forms.
Perhaps the most common is to take the word fornication
in its usual sense of antenuptial sin, which is supposed to
nullify the marriage.  In order to account for this, it is
asserted that fornication works a marriage between the fornicators. The authority given for this notion is this: "Know
ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall
I then take the members of Christ and make them the 
198     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
members of an harlot? God forbid. What! know ye not
that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two,
saith He, shall be one flesh." 1
This is an awfiil text and full of difficulty; but it can
scarcely be necessary to consider it as making every act
of fornication a marriage. The consequences of such an
interpretation would be terrible. There would be many
void marriages which are now supposed to be valid. Many
innocent women would be living in unconscious adultery,
and on making the discovery would be bound to leave
their husbands. The Apostle is not treating of marriage
in this place, but of fornication both spiritual and carnal,
which he mixes together, using each as an illustration of
the other. It seems more reasonable to suppose that he
was merely putting in a strong light the sin of a Christian
who was spiritually a member of Christ beconing even
transiently one with a harlot. It is not likely that he
would have announced in so indirect a manner the important doctrine that fornication is marriage. This doctrine
would form the unity of marriage, without the consent of
the parties to live together according to God's Word, without God's blessing, and consequently without sanctity.
This can hardly be conceived. Such a marriage would
be without the formative elements, and without their nmysterious effects. It would be no Christian marriage.
The context does not favor the notion that fornication
is marriage.  Immediately after the words just transcribed,
the Apostle says: "But he that is joined unto the Lord
is one Spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man
doeth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. What! know ye not
that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is
in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 2
1 1 Corinthians vi. 15, 16.            2 ]bid. 17-20. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 199
~ 20. In this text Mr. Morgan  finds another kind of
void marriages to which he thinks the exception may
apply. He suggests that the word harlot mneans alien in
the sense of unbeliever, and that the word fornication
means "spiritual fornication," that is, such  unbelief as
makes a person an alien from the Church of God.  Marriage with such a person, he holds to be unlawful and void.
A Christian, he thinks, may put away a woman who is such
an alien, because she is not his wife, notwithstandcling a
form of marriage may have passed between them.  According to this theory, St. Paul prohibits such marriages
and thus makes them void. Unfortunately for the theory,
the text does not make thenm void, if it forbids them; for
it recognizes the unity which grows out of them. The
reco,gnition is the only foundation of the opinion that the
passage has anything to do with marriage.  In the next
chapter, the Apostle recognizes the sanctity of marriages
contracted between heathens, after one of the partics has
become a Christian. This seemns to be inconsistent with
the notion that marriage with a heathen is merely void.
This interpretation embarrasses Mr. MAorgan's argument
not a little. It precludes him from interpreting the word
fornication to mean antenuptial sin, because instead of the
text making fornication marriage, it will forbid marriage
for want of faith in one of the parties. If he take the
ground that the text means a marriage with an unbeliever,
he is met by his own translation of the text. If the word
harlot there means an unbeliever, and the joining, to which
the text refers be mnarriage, that marriage is sinfll but not
void.  " He that is joined to an harlot is one body; for
two, saith Hle, shall be one flesh."
~ 21. Mr. MIorgan's real theory seems to be that the
word in the exception means incest.  It follows, as he
supposes, that a woman who had passed through the form
of mnarriage with a man to whom she could not lawfully
be married on account of consanguinity or affinity, may 
200      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
be put away to avoid continuing in the sin of incest.  He
does not assert that the only meaning of that word is
incest, but admits that its classical meaning includes all
sexual sins. It means incest, but it also means adultery.
St. Paul uses it where it cannot possibly mean incest. He
says: "To avoid fornication let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 The
Greek word here translated fornication is the same which
is so translated in the two passages in St. Matthew's
Gospel. It is very clear from the words which have been
transcribed, that it does not mean incest. The context
makes it still clearer.
The word is applicable to any sexual sin, to incest as
well as to others, but also to adultery.  There is nothing
in the construction of the sentence or in the context
which would induce a belief that the meaning in this place
is incest, but there is to induce a belief that it is adultery.
If the word could only nmean incest, the passage would be
intelligible, though  strangely worded.  If it may  mean
adultery, that is the natural sense.  If the putting away
were to avoid living in incest, it would have been most
natural to have said so directly. The exception might
have been, except to avoid incest, in the nineteenth chapter; and in the fifth, saving to avoid incest. To put a
woman away for adultery means to put her away because
she has committed adultery; but to put her away for incest scarcely means to put her away lest she should cointinue in incest. If that were the idea to be conveyed, the
natural form would have been saving or except to avoid
incest.
~ 22. Before leaving this part of the subject it may be
well to remark that no explanation of the exception which
proceeds upon the idea that [it] relates to void marriages is
admissible, for twvo reasons. One is that such an exception
is no exception at all. Our Saviour was speaking of valid
1 1 Corinthians vii. 2. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 201
marriages in which the parties had been joined together by
God; void marriages in which they had not been so joined
were not within the purview of his remarks. The rule applied to valid marriages; the exception cannot apply to void
marriages, which, independent of the exception, are not
within the rule. The other reason is, that as in void marriages there was no occasion for a divorce, there could be
no occasion to speak of them.
It would be very singular that our blessed Lord should
introduce the subject of unlawful marriages into a discussion about dissolving lawfil marriages.  The  Pharisees
ask: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
cause?" Our Lord refers to the primitive institution of
marriage, declares that divorce for every cause is inconsistent with it, and promulgates His rule that man must not
put asunder what God hath joined. Mr. Morgan makes
him say, that a man who shall put away his wife and marry
another, commits adultery, unless the original marriage
were void. This is a new matter, entirely foreign to the
question of the Pharisees, who seem to have desired a
decision of the controversy whether divorce were lawful
for any cause but adultery. They ask, is it lawful for a
man to put away his wife for every cause, assuming that
for some cause or causes it was lawful. They wanted an
opinion from our Lord about the right of arbitrary divorceTo this inquiry He gave a precise answer: that it was not
lawful to put away a wife except -for fornication, that is,
adultery. Anything about void marriages would have beet
new matter, unconnected with the question, unconnected
with the permission of Moses, and unconnected with our
Lord's own declaration, that man might not separate those
whom God had joined. The whole context relates to lawful miarriages only.
There is not such a context in the fifth chapter to show
the incongruity of the notion about void marriages with
the matter of the discourse. But there is no context
i 
202     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
which countenances the notion that the exception relates
to void marriages.  Our Lord introduces his doctrine into
the midst of a discourse, in which He treats of almost
everything belonging to Christian mnorals. The doctrine
is that marriage is indissoluble. This He shows by declaring that, notwithstanding any putting away, the woman
could commit adultery and could not marry without involving her new husband in adultery, that is, she was still a
wife. To this rule He makes an exception, and announces
it at the same time with the rule. It is, that the woman
ceases to be a wife when she is put away for the cause of
fornication. If this mean that a husband may dissolve a
valid marriage if his wife have committed adultery, the
whole passage is intelligible and consistent. There is an
intelligible rule, and an intelligible exception, which make
together a clear and consistent sense. This is not the case
upon MIr. Morgan's interpretation, that if a man put away
his wife saving when she is not his wife, he causeth her to
commit adultery.  Such an interpretation can hardly be
maintained. None of the recent writers against the exception to the rule of the indissolubleness of marriage
have taken this ground.  It may be considered to be given
up.
~ 23. The fourth objection is that the doctrine cannot
be reconciled with the tenor of our Saviour's discourse,
that is, that the exception is to be rejected because it conflicts with the general rule.  This would be  fatal to all
exceptions.  Every exception is inconsistent with the universality of the rule.  But this does not affect this exception more than others. It does not reduce it to a seeming
exception. It cannot be shown that it is inconsistent with
the Divine nature to make an exception out of a Divine
rule.  If it had been asserted that the exception had been
made by a General Council, or any other hul))an authority,
the case would not admit of doubt. The exception would
be seen to be null, so soon as it was shown to be incon 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 203
sistent with a DiAne rule.  But in this case the rule and
the exception rest upon the same authority. Marriages
might have been dissolved for any cause, or at the will of
the parties, had it not pleased God to declare that a man
and his wife are indissolubly one flesh. The rule rests on
Divine authority, and the exception on the same authority.
Mr. MIorgan says that the exception, in the sense of an
allowance of divorce for adultery, is not authorized by the
context, that is, it is an exception.  An exception is never
authorized by the context, except that the context makes
it intelligible as an exception. In that sense this exception is authorized by the context. His own interpretation
is far more within the scope of his objection.   For an
exception nmust be of matter, which without it would fall
within the rule. But though an exception thus limits the
operation of the rule, it is not inconsistent with it. If the
rule were, that no tame animal should be shot, an exception
of sheep would limit the rule; but it would not be inconsistent with the context. But if a law forbade the shooting
of any tame animals except wolves, the exception would
be inconsistent with the context, because wolves are not
tame animals  It would also be nugatory, because it would
make no change in the effect of the law. Suppose a lawmaker were to enact that a manl should not put away his
wife, unless when she was not his wife, would not all men
see that the exception was both inconsistent with the context and nugatory?  Does it make any difference, if the
exception should be, unless when the marriage is void?
Suppose the exception were so ambiguously expressed that
it milght include void marriages with others, would it not be
clear that it would be nugatory as to the void marriages,
and operative on the others. In this ease, MIr. Morgan
attempted to show that there is such an ambiguity, and has
not been very successful; yet he decides in favor of that
interpretation which makes our blessed Lord's exception
nugattory. 
204      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 24. Mr. Morgan's fifth objection is thlt the doctrine of
divorce for adultery cannot be reconciled with the teaching
of St. Paul. It is a very short and satisfactory answer,
that the doctrine of St. Paul must be reconciled with that
of the Saviour. Our Lord's teaching contains nmore than
St. Paul's, and the reconciliation must be effected not by
rejecting the surplus, but by using it to modify, or qualify
the teaching of the Apostle. For no portion of Scripture
is to be accounted inoperative, or without meaning, because
it is not repeated in another place.
The teaching of St. Paul, to which Mr. Morgan refers,
is to be found in the seventh chapter of the First Epistle to
the Corinthians. The Apostle had no occasion to refer to
the excepted case in that chapter. He was replying to certain questions which had been asked by the Corinthians.
The chapter begins, " Now concerning the things whereof
ye wrote unto me." The question about divorce for adultery was not one of those things, for he says nothing about
it. Hle does not treat of any case within the exception,
and does not mention it in any way. The general rule
covered all the cases about which his advice was asked.
About that rule there is really no difference of opinion
among  Christians.   All the controversies relate to the
meaning of the exception.
Mr. Morgan thinks that there can be no exception to
the rule because St. Paul does not mention one, and that
therefore the exception made by our blessed Lord must
be treated as if it had never been made. He does this
because to introduce an exception would contradict St.
Paul, who mentions none when he was applying the general rule to cases outside of the exception.
~ 25. Mr. Keble, who  takes  the same general  view
with Mr. Morgan, also relies much upon the doctrine of
St. Paul. He thinks it probable that St. Paul, writing to
Corinth, a city remarkable for the prevalence of the sins
of the flesh, would have said something about the excep
10 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 205
tion had he regarded it as operative. This is at best but
a conjecture, and one in which all will not agree. It is
much more probable that he would have confined himself, as he professed to do, to the questions, a decision of
which had been asked. These were, according to Mr. Keble
himself, mixed marriages, second marriages, and some
others.   The  question of divorce for adultery was not
among them; had it been, the Apostle would have treated
of it, which he has not.'
~ 26. The earlier portion of the chapter under consideration is occupied with the lawfulness and expediency of
marriage, and the rights which married persons have over
each other. These subjects are so treated as to show the
unlawfulness of divorces a mensa et thoro, and of voluntary
separations.   This part of the chapter relates  directly
rather to marriage than divorce. It shows however that
the mutual rights of married persons are such as to render permanent separations unlawful. Of divorce there is
no direct mention; there was therefore no necessity for referring to the exception by which it is permitted in certain
cases. This portion of the chapter occupies six verses.
The next three speak of the inexpediency of marriage,
which is afterwards explained to be connected with "the
present distress."
In the tenth and eleventh verses, the Apostle lays down
the doctrine, that it is the duty of married persons to live
together, as a foundation for the teaching in the following
verses to the sixteenth inclusive.   These treat of mixed
marriages, in which one of the parties was a Christian and
the other a heathen. There again there was no occasion
to speak of the exception.
One of MIr. Morganl's theories is, that it is to mixed marriages - which he thinks were void - that the exception
applies. The scope of St. Paul's argument was to show that
1 See Keble's Argument against Repealing the Laws which treat Marriage as Indissoluble. Oxford, 1857, p. 23 et seq. 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
they were not excepted from the rule of indissolubleness.
The Christian converts who were married to heathens, were
expressly forbidden to separate from  their husbands or
wives.  Christians might innocently live in such marriages,
and were bound to live in them if the heathen did not
choose to dissolve them. Yet St. Paul says very plainly
that they ought not to be contracted.
In the seventeenth verse, the Apostle leaves, for a time,
the subject of marriage, and takes up that of accepting the
dispensations of Providence. This seems to grow out of
the mention of the duty of continuing in a mixed marriage;
although it is spoken of in connection with other cases
that have nothing to do with marriage. The subject is
continued to the twenty-fourth verse inclusive.
The twenty-fourth verse, which in a certain sense closes
the subject of submitting to the dispensations of Providence,
is this: "Brethren, let every man wherein he is called
therein abide with God." In the twenty-fifth verse, the
Apostle speaks of virgins, whom he advises to continue such.
He then glides into the subject of the inexpediency of marriage. He first speaks of the case of virgins, concluding
the subject by saying, in the thirty-eighth verse, that he
that giveth his daughter in marriage doeth well, but he
that giveth her not doeth better.  He then passes to the
case of widows, in the thirty-ninth and fortieth verses.
These SIr. Keble regards, perhaps rightly, as the answer
to one of the questions which the Corinthians had asked
about second marriages. They are certainly a continuation of the discourse on the inexpediency of marriage.
The Apostle had discussed that subject in the case of virgins, and now treats of it in that of widows.
It may be observed that in the case of virgins St. Paul
had been careful to exclude all idea of the unlawfilness
of marriage.  He thought virginity better for "the present
distress," and more consistent with a highly devotional life;
but he still taught thus: " If any man think that he behaveth
206 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 207
himself tllicomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of
her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he
sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth
steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power
over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he
will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth
her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in
marriage doeth better. " 1
In the two last verses of the chapter the same principles
are applied to widows.  The verses follow: "The wife is
bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her
husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom
she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so
abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have
the Spirit of God." 2
The leading idea in the Apostle's mind seems to have
been that in the fortieth verse:  "She is happier if she so
abide." One of the questions which the Corinthians asked
was, perhaps, whether a widow might marry. The Apostle only answers it in this incidental way, in the course of
his remarks on the temporary inexpediency of marriage.
He considers her as on the same footing with a virgin; it
is lawftill but inexpedient for her to marry. Marriage binds
only during the joint lives of the married persons. The
law which bound her to her husband ceased to operate at
his death.
But it is said: "The wife is bound by the law so long
as her husband liveth;" and therefore there can be no
divorce. Such is the general rule; but the question is
about the exception which the Lord hath made. No manl,
whatever might be his opinions about divorce, would hesitate to lay down the general rule, that a woman could not
marry during her husband's lifetime, and might after his
death.  The question about divorce was not before the
Apostle, and this passage proves nothing for or against the
exception.
1 1 Corinthians vii. 36-38.       2 Ibid. 39, 40. 
208     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 27. There is a parallel passage in the Epistle to the
Romans. St. Paul is there using the condition of a widow
and her right of marrying again, as an illustration of the
condition of the converted Jews, who were under the
dominion of the law until the death of Christ, but by their
death to the law, at the time of His death, had been released
from that dominion. He illustrates this by the case of a
woman, who is released from the bond of marriage by the
death of her husband; being freed from his dominion, she
might be married to another. So the Jews being themselves dead to the law might be married to another, even to
Christ.  The passage is this: "Know ye not, brethren,
for I speak to them that know the law, how that the law
hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?  For the
woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her
husband as long as he liveth; but if her husband be dead,
she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if,
while her husband liveth, she be married to another man,
she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be
dead she is freed from the law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore,
my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the
Body of Christ; that ye should be married to another,
even to Him that is raised from the dead, that we should
bring forth fruit unto God." 1
This passage does not at first sight seem very clear.
The general meaning seems to be this: The Church.
under the old dispensation, is regarded as the spouse of the
law, as, uinder the new, she is of Christ. The law died
with the human nature of Christ. This truth is taught
under another figure in another place: "Blotting out the
handwriting of ordinances, which was contrary to us, and
took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross." 2  The law
died, and so the Church, and each Jew as a part of it, was
free from the law, and the Church became the B3ride of
1 Romans vii. 14.                2 Colossians ii. 14. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELE.NIENTS OF MARRIAGE. 209
Christ. This paraphrase, it must be admitted, is a little
embarrassed by the expression, " ye also are become dead
to the law by the Body of Christ." But that expression
equally disturbs the illustration of the Apostle, which requires the sense of the paraphrase to keep up the analogy
between the illustration and the thing illustrated.
To show that the passage is not inconsistent with the
exception, it is sufficient to recollect that the Apostle
wanted an illustration, for the transition of the Jews from
their original condition in which they were under the law
to that of Christians, members of the Body of Christ. The
Church, which is thile Body of Christ, is also his spouse, and
as such bound to bring forth fruits unto God. He found
what he wanted in the case of a widow, who, by thie death
of her husband, was left at liberty to marry another man.
This principle was acknowledged by all nations. It was
enough for his purpose, and it was unnecessary to advert to
any exceptions to the rule, that "a woman is bound by the
law to her husband as long as he liveth." It was the principle, that the woman was released from the bond of marriage by her husband's death, which was the point of the
illustration. It was foreign to the purpose in hand, to
inquire whether a woman might during her husband's life
be released from the marriage tie by an exceptional permission extending only to a single class of cases.
~ 28. Upon the whole, there is no reason to believe that
the exception is inconsistent with the drift of St. Paul's
argument.  It may not, therefore, be disregarded upon that.
account. It is no trifling matter to set aside an exception,
which has been made on two occasions, by our blessed
Saviour.  If such an exception appeared to clash with the
teaching of St. Paul, it would be necessary to seek some
means of reconciling the two doctrines. But there is not
even an apparent clashing. St. Paul is speaking of matters which did not bring the exception before his mind, and
he had no occasion to say anything about it. This silence
14 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
is no reason for blotting the exception out of the Scriptures, and thus mutilating our Lord's own teaching.
If a lawyer were asked whether a contract for the payment of an annuity during the life of a man were binding,
he would answer yes, or no. He would not say it is binding if it be not released. If the question were whether it
were binding after the death of the annuitant, it would be
still more irrelevant to speak of a release. If the question
related to the validity or the effect of a release, the lawyer
would turn his attention to the law on that subject; but he
would never think of bringing it into an inquiry into the
effect of the contract itself. Marriage is binding for life,
and cannot be dissolved unless under peculiar circunistances, and must therefore, for all ordinary purposes, be
treated as continuing through life.  St. Paul did so, even
when writing to Jews who knew the law, and who consequently knew that by the Mosaic Law it might be dissolved.
It was not necessary for him, in treating of the duration of
marriage for life, to refer either to the Mosaic  divorces or
to our Lord's exception of the rule of indissolubleness.
Mr. Morgan's five objections have now been examined;
and it appears that, so far as they are concerned, the exception made by our Saviour to the rule that marriage is
indissoluble, is operative. The five objections cover the
whole ground, but there are other writers who urge them
with different arguments, of which it be may proper to
take some notice.
~ 29. An English Barrister has published a pamphlet
entitled, "Considerations oni Divorce a vinculo matrimonii,
in connection with Holy Scripture." l He contends that
the parenthesis, which looks like an exception, is not
really one, but has a quite different meaning. This theory
is not new, but as old as Bellarmine. The Barrister who
now revives it, is understood to be of high professional
standing. His work is entitled to notice, because he is the
latest advocate of these views; and his general ability, his
1 London, 1857.
I I
210 
OF THIE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 211
learning, and his professional habits enable him to bring
out the whole strength of his cause. Although perhaps
not the equal of Bellarmine, he has the advantage of seeing
the latest phase of the controversy.
His argument is of the class which is called ingenious,
but is not very convincing. He sets out with a conviction
-probably founded on a decision of the Latin Church, to
which he is a convert - that the dissolution of a marriage
for any cause is unlawful. This idea underlies his whole
argument, as the niotion of the papal supremacy underlies
most Roman Catholic arguments upon any subject. It is
assumed as indisputable. This granted, the argument is
unanswerable, and they so regard it. Yet it produces no
effect on the mind of a Protestant, who does not accept
the idea of the papal supremacy.  That idea is the coneealed foundation of the whole superstructure. Of this sort
of begging the question the Barrister-is clearly guilty.
~ 30. It so blinds him that he falls into gross fallacies.
He supposes that the exception in the thirty-second verse
of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew cannot apply to the
second clause of the verse, because a woman guilty of
adultery was, by the Mosaic Law, to be put to death. The
same remark might be extended to the first clause, for if
the woman were put to death, how could she be caused to
commit adultery.  Yet the exception must be applicable
to the first clause, for it is contained in it. If it be applicable to one it must be applicable to both, for the second
is only an application of the first. If it be not applicable
to the clause, why was it inserted in it, and what is its use?
To give it some meaning, the Barrister intimates that a
wonman guilty of adultery was to be put away before she
was put to death. No ancient writer, sacred or profane, is
produced to give countenance to this strange fancy.
~ 31. Another fancy, still stranger and founded uponI a
transparent fallacy, is that the exception meant, that a
woman who was guilty of adultery might put be away with 
212     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
out danger of causing her to commit adultery, because she
had already committed it, as though it were a sin incapable
of repetition. Yet she is not to be put away. The exception means nothing more than to intimate the impossibility
of causing her to commit adultery.
~ 32. The Barrister's strong ground is, that the exception in the Sermon on the Mount is not really one, but is
made to appear such by a ntistranslation of two wordsthose which have been translated "saving" and "cause." 1
In treating of the first, he refers to dictionaries and other
authorities, to show that the word translated " saving" will
bear other meanings; but he makes no attempt to show
that it will not bear the meaning of saving.  He produces
from dictionaries several English equivalents for the Greek
word.  Among them are "out of," "without," "besides,"
"except," "exclusive of." It is obvious that almost any
one, if not any one, of these might be substituted for the
word "saving," without affecting the meaning.
~ 33. He calls in the aid of two illustrations. The first
is St. Paul's reference to his bonds, in the twenty-sixth
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In the authorized
version it reads thus: "I would to God, that not only thou
but all who hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds." 2  It is clear that
the sense of this passage requires some word equivalent to
saving or except.   Yet  St. Luke used the same word
which is translated "'saving" in St. Matthew. That is,
therefore, probably its legitimate meaning. Every one of
the renderings, which the Barrister has selected from his
1 Page 16, et seq. In the Vulgate the exception is thus translated: ~xcepta
fornzicationis causa.  Literally, "the cause of fornication excepted."  The
Rhemish translation is, "excepting for the cause of fornication."
2 Page 29.  The Vulgate has:  Opto apud Deum, et in modico et in magno,
non tanturn te, sed etiam omnes qti audiunt, hodiefieri tales qualis et ego stm,
exceptis vinculis his. The Rhemish translation is: "I would to God that both
in little and in much, not only thou but all who hear me this day, should
become such as I am, except these chains." 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  213
dictionaries, would mean exactly the same thing with that
chosen by the translators, although some of them would
have expressed the meaning awkwardly. This text, then,
furnishes no argument against translating the word by
saving."
But the Barrister says, that it ought to have been
translated,' apart from  these bonds," or " exclusively of
these bonds," or " without reference to these bonds."
What meaning is there in the last five words? The translation is very harsh, and does not give the idea which was
in the mind of St. Paul. It is not easy to see what idea it
does give: "I would to God that not only thou but all who
hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as
I am, without reference to these bonds." What change
do the last five words make in the meaning of the text,
unless they are understood to mean saving or except? The
other two proposed translations plainly do not change the
meaning from that of the authorized version.  "Apart from
these bonds," "exclusively of these bonds," and "saving
these bonds," all mean exactly the same thing.
If, the same words were inserted in the parenthesis under
consideration, in place of the word  "saving," the sense
would not be changed.  " Saving for the cause of fornication," "apart from the cause of fornication,"" exclusively of
the cause of fornication," are equivalent expressions, although the last two are somewhat awkward.   The text will
be very obscure if the parenthesis be made to read without
reference to the cause of fornication. The Barrister thinks
that that is the true translation, and that it means not saying anything about fornication. This might possibly mean
the sanme thing as "saving for the cause of fornication."
But the Barrister's idea is that our Saviour only intended to
intimate that He was not speaking of fornication, and
meant to exclude it from consideration. A question would
then arise, Why should our Lord exclude all reference
to fornication? Nothing had previously been said about 
214     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
it.  It is much more natural to suppose that He meant to
except putting away for the cause of fornication out of the
general prohibition of putting away.
~ 34. The other illustration is from the writings of St.
Paul.  After enumerating  his sufferings, he says: "Besides these things which are without, that which cometh
upon me daily, the care of all the churches." 1 It seemls
that the word rendered "without" in this place, is the
same which is rendered "saving" in St. Matthew.   The
Barrister thinks that it should not have been so translated,
and that it might have been better rendered in one of several ways. It should have been either besides or independently of the things, "which are extraordinary or apart from
any daily or constant care." He adds, that Dr. Burton, in
his note to the passage, renders it," Beside the things, which
I have  omIitted."  It is then proposed  that the word
which is rendered saving should be rendered by apart, or
extraordinary, or independently, or which I have omnitted.
What is the context? St. Paul has been enumerating various external evils, which he has suffered, and then winds
up by saying that, besides those things which are without,
he had to sustain the care of all the churches. Beside
external evils, he had to endure inward anxiety. This
idea seems well expressed by the authorized version.
That of Dr. Burton seems much looser, and less consistent
with the context. The Barrister's would not much alter
the meaning of the passage.  If his first rendering, "apart,"
were introduced into the clause of exception in St. Iatthew, it would not change the meaning; "'extraordinary"
could not well be made to give any sense.
~ 35. All his proposed changes in the rendering of this
word will avail him nothing, unless he can also establish a
mistranslation of that which is rendered "cause."   Of this
1 2 Corinthians xi. 28. The Rhemish translation is scarcely intelligible
English, but the word under consideration, " without," is precisely the same
with that in the authorized translation. The Vulgate has, eaJtrinsecus,
"from without," "from abroad." 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 215
word he only says: "It is scarcely necessary for me to
assert that it means a subject, a proposition, a question, a
matter which is discussed or spoken of, as any reader of
Greek must be aware of this, and any Lexicon will furnish authorities to prove it."   He does not deny that it
may also mean a cause in the sense in which that word is
used in the place under consideration, nor does he assert
that the context is inconsistent with that sense.
It would take some twisting of the context to make
either of the new renderings tenable. Fornication is not
a matter which has been discussed or spoken of; the word
only occurs in the saving clause. Adultery, the thing
meant, had not been previously spoken of in connection
with divorce. To speak of the proposition of fornication
would be at least to use very strange language. Fornication had not been nmade the subject of any proposition.
Nothing had been said about it.
The design of all the Barrister's criticism upon these two
words is to make our Saviour say, "apart from the question of fornication," thus disclaiming that He was speaking of fornication. Why should any person suppose that
He was speaking of that which had not been mentioned?
Why should He have disclaimed that of which no one
would have suspected Him? Besides, does not the express
exclusion of the subject of fornication from his discourse,
except that case from the rule which He was laying down
as effectually as the word "saving?" Suppose that He
had said, If any man put away his wife, -I am not now
speaking of the cause of fornication, - he causeth her to
commit adultery. What would that have meant?
~ 36. The Barrister introduces three new versions of
the saving clause. He says: "It may be more correctly
rendered,'Apart from the question of fornication, without reference to the subject of fornication, or independently of a case of fornication.'" 2
1 Consider'ations on Divorce, etc. p. 18, et seq.
2 Ibid. p. 17. 
216     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
The last of these versions is identical in meaning with
the old one, and admits that the word translated cause
means case, which in the present connection is the same
thing.  But what is to be understood by "apart from the
question of fornication, or without reference to the subject
of fornication?" Do they not all mean very much the
same thing? There had been no question about fornicationi; it had not been mentioned. Why, then, should it be
referred to? In order, the Barrister would reply, to exclude it from consideration. Who would have taken it
into consideration? If our Lord had omitted the parenthesis, the passage would have been plain. It is plain now,
if the parenthesis be an exception. If it be not, it is very
far from plain.
If our Lord had intended nothing more than to declare
that he who put away his wife caused her to commit adultery, his object would have been fully attained without
the parenthesis. If He proposed to make an exception,
the parenthesis is fully accounted for; if He did not, it is
a niere incumbrance. It is not easy to imagine anything
less likely than that He should insert the saving clause,
only lest He should be understood to be speaking of something which had no connection with His subject, and of
which there had been no previous mention.  This would
seem to be a sufficient reason for preferring the authorized version.  While there does not seem to be anything
that can be said in favor of the new one, except that it
suits the Barrister's argument, and falls in with his preconceived ideas.
~ 37. Perhaps it has not even these recommendations.
In order to make the assertion, that it does support his
notion, plausible, he finds it necessary to resort to this
paraphrase: "Whoever shall put away his wife (saving
for the cause of fornication, for which the law orders him
to put her away in a particular manner, and for a particular purpose, which is, of course, independent of what I am 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 217
saying), causeth her to commit adultery." I If this be a
paraphrase it is an exceedingly loose one, introducing several ideas not to be found in the original. One of these
is that the law ordered a man to put away his wife for
adultery, in order that she might be put to death. This
proposition is not true. The law orders that an adulterous woman shall be put to death, not that she shall be
put away for that purpose. This whole so-called paraphrase is without the slightest warrant from the context.
~ 38. The subject of adultery was introduced in the
twenty-seventh verse, by a recital of the seventh commandment.  In the twenty-eighth our Lord explains the spiritual nature of that commandment. In both adultery is
considered as a sin against God; it is not spoken of as an
injury to man, or as a civil offense liable to civil punishment. In the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses, our Lord,
leaving the former subject, teaches the necessity of men's
parting with their sins, even though they should be as
dear to them as their right hands or right eyes. He
then, in the thirty-first verse, introduces the subject of
divorce, and says: "It hath been said: Whosoever shall
put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement."  Then follows the verse under consideration: "But
I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced,
committeth adultery." In the next verse He passes to a
different subject.
The idea of adultery in connection with divorce is introduced for the first time in the thirty-second verse. If the
word fornication does not mean adultery, then adultery is
not introduced until after the saving clause, and is only
mentioned as a consequence of unlawful divorce. If the
word translated fornication means, as is the better opinion,
adultery, the sin is treated of in a new view as an injury
1 Considerations on Divorce, etc. p. 23. 
218     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
to man. Neither adultery nor fornication in any sense
has been spoken of as connected with divorce in any part
of our Lord's discourse, previous to the introduction of
the saving clause.  Yet that clause is said to be nothing
more than a protest against the notion that the prohibition
of divorce, with which it was connected, was intended to
affect the civil punishment of adultery. It is difficult to
understand how any one could suppose this. There seems
to be no such connection between putting away and putting to death, as would make the forbidding of one a prohibition of the other. There is no allusion to the punishment of adultery in the whole Sermon on the Mount, except it be found in the alleged disclaimer - a disclaimer
of meddling with a subject which had nothing to do with
the discourse, and had never been mentioned, made in
words, which will bear another and a much more natural
signification.
~ 39. The Barrister finds the passage in the nineteenth
chapter of St. MIatthew harder to deal with than that in
the fifth. He begins by showing that in the first part of
his conversation with the Pharisees, our Lord laid down
the broad rule that marriage is indissoluble.1 It is not
improbable that there should be an exception to a broad
rule, and therefore it is not unlikely that a teacher should
qualify a rule by admitting an exception. Yet this unlikelihood is used as an argument for virtually striking out
the exception. The unlikelihood, if it exists, must yield
to the fact. Our Lord uttered the words of the saving
clause; if they import an exception, He made an exception.
It must therefore be shown that they do not clearly mean
an exception before the unlikelihood will be of much
value.
The Pharisees ask, "' Is it lawftil for a man to put away
his wife for every cause?"  They assume that it was lawfuil to put her away for some cause. Our Lord answers
1 Considerations on Divorce, etc. p. 24, et seq. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARIRIAGE.
by referring to the original institution of marriage, and
laying down the Divine law, that man may not separate
what God hath joined. They retort the provision of the
Mosaic Law.  Our Lord tells them that Moses gave them
that permission because of the hardness of their hearts,
and adds: " I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and  whoso marrieth her which is
put away, doth commit adultery."1   The  Pharisees ask
whether a man might put away his wife for every cause,
that is at his pleasure. Our Saviour gives a very emphatic answer in the negative. They quote Moses. Conmpare our Lord's answer with their original question. It
will then mean: You ask whether a man may put away
his wife for every cause. Certainly not; there is but one
cause for which he may put her away. Everything is thus
clear and consistent.
In the authorized translation, the saving clause in this
place is: "Except it be for fornication."  The translators
have put the words "it be" in italics, thus showing that
the literal translation is, "' except for fornication." There
is here no such word as that, which in the fifth chapter
is rendered "cause," and which the Barrister translates
"question" or "subject."  There is, therefore, no room
for his paraphrase. All the little strength of his argument
as to the other passages, was in that word. In the discourse of which it made a part, adultery had been mentioned, although not in a way which would have called for
a reference to it. But here there has been literally no
mention of adultery or fornication, and no allusion to
either of them, until they are mentioned in the saving
clause itself. Here then it seems clear that the clause
contains an exception.2
1 Matthew xix. 3, 9.
2 In this place the Rhemish version of the exception is word for word
the same with the authorized version. The Vulgate is nisi ob fornicationem,
219 
220     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 40. The Barrister also attacks the Textus Receptus of
the Greek Testament, and produces some commentators,
who have changed the Greek word which is translated
"except" for one which can only mean "though not." 1 It is a
sufficient answer to this suggestion, that the words "though
not" do not make sense of the passage. The word" though"
has nothing to which it can refer Other commentators, he
says, have held that the passage is altogether corrupt, and
ought to be a mere repetition of that in the fifth chapter.
~ 41. In order to show that our Lord meant only to
exclude the idea that He was speaking of fornication in a
discourse in which it had not been mentioned, and on all
occasion on which neither the word, nor any equivalent for
it had been used by any one, the conversation on the same
subject, recorded by St. Mark, is brought in. It is assumed
that St. Mark is giving an account of the same conversation with the Pharisees which is recorded by St. Matthew.
But St. Mark does not mention as a part of that conversation either the clause of exception, or the statement of
doctrine in which it is included. In a private conversation
with his disciples which St. Mark records, our Lord delivered the doctrine without the exception. This the Barrister supposes to have been done in order to convey the
idea that the parenthesis was not an exception. This is
purely a conjecture, and a very strange one. Supposing
it true, it would still leave the fact that our blessed Lord
used words which might bear the sense of an exception,
and left them unexplained to those to whom He.had
addressed them. He afterwards repeated the sentence in
which they had occurred, omitting them, but without explaining himself, even then. If the conversation with the
literally, " unless on account of fornication" or for fornication. There is appended to the exception, in a copy of the Rhemish translation, approved
by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, this note: "In the case
of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away; but even then
the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living."
1 Considerations on Divorce, etc. p. 31. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENrTS OF MARIRIAGE. 22t
Pharisees be the same that is recorded by St. Matthew,
which is more than doubtful, the explanation is, perhaps,
that the disciples had just heard the exception made in
public. They had difficulties about our Lord's doctrine,
that marriage is indissoluble, for " they asked him again
about the same matter," that is, about the unlawfulness of
divorce, which they, like other Jews, were unwilling to
receive. It does not appear that they then, or at any other
time, had any difficulty about the exception.
~ 42. The Barrister again and again presses his notion
that the parenthesis is nothing but a declaration that our
Lord was not speaking of fornication. Suppose it to be so.
Suppose that the true translation is: "Whosoever shall put
away his wsife and marry another, I am not now speaking
of fornication, comnlitteth adultery." What would it mean?
Would it not mean  that the declaration which I am now
making does not apply to putting away for fornication? In
this case there is no word which can be changed into "question "or "subject," and so give countenance to the notion that
the clause is an exclusion of the subject of fornication. All
that can be done is to propose a new meaning for the word
translated "except."  The writer asserts that the common
translation, " except it be for fornication," is by no means
free fromt objection, the passage may just as well, if not better, be translated, " if not for fornication," or, "though not
for fornication." 1  This is in part true, "except for fornication," and "if not for fornication," mean exactly the same
thing. If one is a good translation, the other must be so too.
Whosoever putteth away his wife, if not for fornication, and
marrieth another, committeth adultery, would be a fill
equivalent for the authorized translation. It would certainly not be a declaration, that our Lord was not speaking
of fornication. Both the old and the new translation mean
the sanme thing, that if the woman were put away for fornication, the case would not fall within the declaration, that
1 Considerations on Divorce, etc. p. 31. 
222     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
if her husband married again, he committed adultery. The
other proposed translation is: " Though not for fornication."
This is not admissible, because it has no meaning. There
is nothing to which the word " though" can refer. Suppose
there had been a previous prohibition of putting away a
wife for fornication, and it had been added: Whosoever
shall put away his wife, though not for fornication, and
marry another, comnitteth adultery.  What  would that
have meant?  It would have meant, that putting away for
any other cause was as much forbidden as for fornication.
But there is no previous prohibition of putting away for
fornication. That being the case, what does the new translation mean? It would not be an exception. What would
it be? The Barrister thinks that both this translation, and that by "if not," "will only have the force of
putting the case of adultery by way of exemplification or
illustration, not by way of exception." 1 This seems a very
strang,e idea, not founded upon the natural force of the
words. What need was there to exemplify a general prohibition, and what need had it of illustration? If it had
needed exemplification, neither of these forms would supply
it.  Whosoever putteth away his wife, though for fornication, and marrieth another, comnmitteth adultery. This is
intelligible, and an exemplification.  But the word "not"
takes away that character.  It is neither, when that word is
introduced, exception, exemplification, nor illustration. It
is a mere incumbrance upon the passage. It has already
been shown, that'if not," is nothing but an exception,
and cannot be regarded as either exemplification or illus tration.
~ 43. The whole matter may be thus summed up. Our
blessed Lord used, on two occasions, words of which the
literal and grammatical sense is, that the adultery of the
wife is an exception to the general rule, that marriage is
indissoluble, and that He has left no commentary upon
them.
1 Consideratiois on Divorce, etc. p. 31. 
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELE-MEINTS OF MARRIAGE.- II. INDIS   SOLUBLENESS.  3. THE EFFECT OF THE EXCEPTION.
~ 1. Two Opinions on the Effect of the Exception. -~ 2. The Exception is
from the Declaration that Marrying again is Adultery.- ~ 3. Doctrine
of the Church of Rome. - ~ 4. The Church of England, Refosmatio
Legant. - ~ 5. Two Opinions among the English Clergy. - ~ 6. Adultery
does not dissolve a MalTiage. - ~ 7. The Exception not a Partial One. -
~ 8. Ecclesiastical Law of Rome and England. - ~ 9. English Parlia mentary Divorces. - ~ 10. Persons who had been so divorced had no
Difficulty ill finding Clergymen to marry them. - ~ 11. The American
Church. - ~ 12. Two Opinions among the Jews.-  ~ 13. The Mosaic
Law. - ~ 14. The Exception must apply to the Rule. - ~ 15. Causing
to commit Adultery. -~ 16. Matthew xix. 9.- ~ 17. Divorces a Mensa
et Thoro forbidden in the New  Testament. - ~ 18. 1 Corinthians vii.
10, 11.- ~ 19. Mixed Mlarr'iges. - ~ 20. Does the Right to Marry ex tend to the Guilty Person? - ~ 21. Moral Arguments against it. - ~ 22.
English Parliamentary Practice. - ~ 23. The Practice of the English
Clergy. - ~ 24. The Bishop of Oxford and Lord Palmerston. - ~ 25.
Scriptural Authorities against Separation without the Power of Marrying.- ~ 26. Our Lord's Words. - ~ 27. No Human Law should vacate
such a Marriage.- ~ 28. Can a Woman divorce her Husband? - ~ 29.
Such a Power would not promote the Happiness of Women. - ~ 30.
The Sin is not equal in the Two Sexes. - ~ 31. The Equality of the
Sin would not affect the Question. - ~ 32. Mark x. 11,12.
~ 1. IT has been said that the effect of our Lord's exceptionI to the rtile, that a man cannot put away his wife, is
that he may put her away for adultery, but that the bond
of miarriage still continues unbroken.  He may put her out
of his house without authorizing her to marry again. This
would be directly contrary to the Mosaic Law. The divorce
is supposed to be of that kind which modern lawyers, who
have invented it, call a divorce a mensa et thoro.  Other
writers maintain that the effect is to allow the bond of 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
matrimony to be dissolved in cases of adultery. If the
structure of the sentences in which the exception occurs be
examined, it will appear that the latter is the true doctrine.
~ 2. It has been asserted that if the parenthesis, in two
places in St. Matthew, be an exception at all, it is only
from the prohibition to put away, and not from the declaration that whoever puts away his wife and marries another,
commits adultery. Upon this interpretation the clause
permits that which is now called a divorce a mensa et thoro,
but not a divorce a vinculo matrimoniL It has been
shown already that divorces a mensa et thoro are contrary
to both the MIosaic and the Christian laws.  There is no
reason to believe that our Lord intended to authorize a
partial dissolution of the bond of marriage, leaving it in
force as a restriction, while all its uses were taken away.
The man and woman would thus be married persons as to
the rest of the world, but not as between themselves. But
apart from this reasoning, the notion is inconsistent with
the literal and grammatical interpretation of the passage.
In one place the words are: "' Whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery." In the other place, they are:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and
whoso marrieth her which is put away committeth adultery." 1
The exception in both cases must apply to the declaration that the women put away, and those who marry them,
are guilty of adultery. There is nothing else to which it
can apply. There is no prohibition of putting away but
that. The whole sentence in one case is nothing more
than a declaration, that putting away one wife and marrying
another is adultery. In the other it is a declaration, that
putting away a woman exposes her to temptations to commit
2 Matthew v. 32, and xix. 9.
224
I 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  225
adultery. In both it is added, that he who marries a divorced
woman commits adultery.  In the midst of each of the two
sentences, there is introduced an exception, which can be
to nothing but the whole sentence.
It has thus been shown, that the exception must, from the
form of words used, apply as well to the prohibition of mar rying again, as to the prohibition of putting away a wife.
But it may be said, that the prohibition to which it is an
exception, is that against putting asunder those  whomi
God hath joined.  In the fifth chaptel, this cannot be, for
that precept does not appear there. It does appear in the
nineteenth chapter, in the sixth verse, upon which the ninth
may be regarded as a commentary. The exception occurs
in, and is part of, the explanation. But a parenthesis included in a commentary can hardly be an exception from
the rule in the text and not from the commentary.
~ 3. The Latin Church has practically taken up the
opinion, that the exception is to the prohibition to put
away a wife, and not to the declarations which amount to
prohibitions of marrying again. Probably no stranger or
more forced interpretation of our Lord's words could have
been devised. Yet, if it be not the doctrine of the Latin
Church, it has for ages governed the practice of her courts.
~ 4. The Church of England has retained in her courts
the practice which she inherited from the Latin Church.
The English Reformers in their private judgments rejected
the Latin notion, and held that adultery was a suficient
cause for dissolving a marriage.  They embodied this idea
in the code called Reformnatio Legum.   They, however,
held loose notions about the indissoluble character of nmarriage, which they also embodied in that code. It was happily never ratified by the authorities of either Church or
State. The Church of England has never formally decided the question.
~ 5. A body of English clergymen, respectable for learning and numbers, has always - except perhaps immediately
15 
226     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
after the Reformation - adhered to the Latin rule. There
has always been another set of clergymen, who have regarded the exception as a permission to dissolve the bond
of marriage, when the wife had been guilty of adultery.
~ 6. It has been said, that adultery dissolves a marriage.
MIuch has been written for and against that proposition.
If it be meant that adultery of itself dissolves the tie of
marriage, the proposition has nothing to do with the question of divorce. If adultery of itself annuls the marriage,
there is no room for divorce. If it be established, as it
easily may, that it does not of itself dissolve a marriage, it
is still possible to maintain that it is a cause for which
the injured person may dissolve it. This is the position
of those who assert that our blessed Lord made an exception to the general prohibition of divorce. Their doctrine is, that our blessed Lord, while He republished the
primitive law of marriage, according to which it cannot
be dissolved, permitted the husband to dissolve it in case
the wife had committed adultery.
~ 7. This doctrine can only be set aside in one of two
ways. By showing either that the words of our Lord do
not formally make an exception, or that the exception is
not a real one. Neither of these positions is tenable. The
notion now under discussion is not more untenable than
they are; but it is stranger, although it is the prevalent
doctrine among these who now deny the right of divorce
for adultery. It admits a real exception, but mutilates it.
It is that the exception only authorizes a divorce a mensa et
thoro, that is, a separation, which leaves the bond of marriage unbroken, so far as it is an obstacle to another marriage, but no farther.
~ 8. It has been already remarked, that this was the doctrine of the ecclesiastical courts in the churches of Rome
and England, and of a large body of English clergymen,
while the doctrine, that adultery is a cause for which the
marriage bond may be dissolved, has been always held by
another body of English clergymen. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 227
~ 9. The existence of the last-mentioned body of clergy men is proved in this way. A practice grew up, in the
British Parliament, of dissolving marriages for adultery,
by a legislative act. This practice continued until very recently, when it was put an end to by an Act of Parliament,
which instituted a court to do the same thing judicially.
~ 10. These legislative divorces fuirnished means of ascertaining the opinions of the English clergy upon this
question. If the Latin doctrine were true, they were only
licenses to commit adultery; and any clergyman, who married a person who had been thus divorced, was an accomplice in adultery. Yet there was no difficulty in finding
clergymen to officiate at such marriages.  It has been attempted to weaken the force of this fact, by asserting that
the clergymen who officiated on such occasions did not
know the situations of the persons before them. This is
very improbable. The cases of divorce were not numerous,
and the expense of the proceedings confined them to the
higher classes of society.  Each case was notorious.  The
proceedings had to pass through several stages, at each of
which they were mentioned in the newspapers, and the
whole affair was eagerly discussed in society. English
clergymen were not hermits, but moved in the very class
of society to which the divorced persons belonged. The
marriages were not numerous, for the divorces were but
few, but the marriages bore a large proportion to the
divorces. If the divorced husband had no children, he was
almost certain to marry, in order that he might have heirs.
If he were not passed the prime of life, he would probably
marry, although he had children. Public opinion almost
compelled the paramour of the divorced woman to marry
her.   A  considerable  number  of such marriages took
place.
When one happened it was always generally known that
one of the parties to it had been divorced, perhaps for
adultery with the other. It was very unlikely that a clergy 
'22-8    CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
man so well known to them as to be asked to marry them,
should be ignorant of so remarkable a fact in the history of
one or both of them. If he were not known to them, the
application was enough to put him upon an inquiry, coming
from persons prominent in society, who, strangers to him,
must have had clerical acquaintances. It is exceedingly
improbable, that any clergyman ever officiated at such a
marriage in ignorance of the facts. There is no known
case in which a clergyman hesitated to solemnize such a
marriage. The inference is, that a large number of the
clergy of the Church of England held that persons divorced
for adultery might marry.    In the year  1820,  the  then
Archbishop of Canterbury, Manners Sutton, and several
other Bishops, maintained the same opinion in the  House
of Lords.l
~ 11. The American General Convention, in 1808, passed
a resolution which involved the same principle. It is in
these words:  " Resolted, That it is the sense of this Church, that it is
inconsistent with the law of God; and the ministers of this
Church therefore shall not unite in matrimony any person
who is divorced, unless it be on account of the other party
having been guilty of adultery." 2
This resolution implies that the exception made by our
blessed Lord related to adultery; and it authorized the dissolution of a niarriage for that cause, or at least the setting
1 Tebbs On Adultery and Divorce, p. 110. London, 1822. It was on this'
occasion that Archbishop Manners Sutton delivered the speech, an extract
of which is given in a note on the eleventh section of the eighth chapter.
On the same occasion, Bishop Howley, of London, afterwards Archbishop
of Canterbury, said, that he entertained "no doubt whatever of the power
of dissolving the matrimonial bond."  Bishop Van Mlildert, of Llandaff,
afterwards of Durham, said: "' According to the law of the land, he knew
no other cause of divorce than adultery, and no other punishment of adul
tery than divorce. As to the Christian Law, it certainly provides that dissolution of marriage may take place in any case of adultery, for there is no
qualifying clause in our Saviour's injunction." Tebbs, p. 112, note.
2 Journals of General Convention, Hawks &  Perry's edition, vol. i. p.
348. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 229
at liberty of the innocent person. There are very few of
the clergy of the American Church who dissent from its
doctrine. The last clause involves some other principles,
which do not bear upon this part of the subject.
~ 12. To return to the words of our Lord.  He twice
made an exception from the general rule, that marriage is
indissoluble. In the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew,
the Pharisees ask, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his
wife for every cause?" They assunme that for some causes
he might put her away, and only inquire whether he might
do so for any cause. By putting away, they meant such
putting away as dissolved the marriage, for the Law of
MIoses allowed of no other. There were two opinions anmong
the learned Jews about putting away. Some of the Rabbis
held that the text in Deuteronomy allowed the husband to
put away his wife whenever she had found no favor in his
eyes; that is, whenever he wished to do so. Others interpreted the passage so as to give effect to every word, and
insisted that a wife could only be put away when she found
no favor in her husband's eyes, because he had found some
uncleanness in her. Uncleanness they interpreted to mean
adultery. The Pharisees desired to compel our Lord to
adopt one of these two opinions. Both of them related to
such putting away as dissolved the bond of marriage. The
Pharisees were not thinking of that modern mode of putting away, which leaves the bond of marriage, and excuses
the married persons from performing the duties to which
that bond obliges them.  Of such a mode of putting away
they had never heard. Our Saviour did adopt the construction of the stricter Rabbis. This accounts for his introduction of the exception, explains and adds to its force.
The Pharisees must have understood Him to speak of the
dissolution of marriage.  His discourse would then be perfectly intelligible to them, and the grammatical construction of the sentence would fall in exactly with the ideas
which were present in their mninds. The Romnan doctrine 
230      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
would have involved new ideas, and required explanations
which our blessed Lord did not think proper to make.
The inference is, that He intended to be understood as permitting a putting away " for fornication," which would dissolve the bond of marriage.
~ 13. Moses seems to have been anxious to exclude the
notion of such a divorce.  For he says: "When a man hath
taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that
she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some
uncleanness in her, then let him write her a writing of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of
his lhouse.  And when she is departed out of his house she
may go and be another man's wife." 1 This was the only
kind of putting away of which the Jews had any experience.
There was no such thing allowed among them as a separation between a man and his wife, who continued to be man
and wife.  The man must not send the woman out of his
house until he had given her a writing of divorcement.
When he had done so, she was at liberty to become another
mani's wife. In practice the permission to marry was expressed in every writing of divorcement. One in which it
was not contained was not regarded as valid. To this it may
be added that no ancient nation seems to have recognized a
divorce which did not allow the divorced persons to marry.
Such an idea was unknown to Jew and Gentile alike.
~ 14. Our blessed Lord made the exception under consideration twice. On both occasions it is included in the
bodies of sentences, which contain no direct prohibition of
putting away a wife, but only a warning of the consequences of so doing.  The warning, however, involves the
strongest prohibition. Yet it is said that the exception
does not apply to the declaration of consequences, but only
to the prohibition. How can it apply to one and not to the
other, when both are included in the same words, into the
midst of which it is introduced? -" Whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth
1 Deuteronomy xxiv. 1, 2. 
OF TIlE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  231
her to commnit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her
that is divorced, committeth adultery." 1
How can the exception apply to anything but the rule?
What is the rule? That he who puts away his wife causes
her to commit adultery, and that he who marries her that
is divorced commits adultery.  There is no other rule to
which the exception can be applied. The same argument
may be put in a slightly different form. The rule that a
man shall not put away his wife, is involved in a declaration
that putting away does not dissolve the bond of marriage,
which is implied in a certain doctrine about adultery. But
there is an exception introduced into the declaration.
Can that exception be applied to the implied rule, and not
to the expressed declaration in which the rule is implied?
Suppose that the text had been: No man shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, and if any put
away his wife, he causeth her to commit adultery. It might
then have been contended that the exception applied to
the rule and not to the declaration of consequences. Such
a proposition would scarcely have been tenable. But as
the passage stands, there is nothing to which the exception
can be applied but the declaration of consequences.  There
is no prohibition out of which the exception can be taken
but that which is implied in the declaration of consequences. If the exception be taken out of that, it must
also be taken out of the declaration in which it is implied.
~ 15. How does he who puts away his wife cause her to
commit adultery?  By exposing her to temptation.  The
temptation is not less when the woman has been put away
for adultery, perhaps it may be greater.   The excepted
case does not, at first, appear to have much connection
with the reason given why men should not put away their
wives. The reason seems to be a good one for forbidding
all separations of married persons.
What has the exception to do with the reason for for                     1 Matthew v. 32.
s 
232      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
bidding separations? He who puts away his wife exposes
her to the temptation of comnmitting adultery, by depriving
her of that, which St. Paul regards as a safeguard against
fornication, and fornication is for her adultery. There is
only one way in which she, who is put away can "have her
own husband," that is, by marrying. But this, too, is for
her adultery; for it is written:  " Whoso  marrieth her
that is put away, committeth adultery." By a parity of
reason, a woman put away by her husband and married to
another commits adultery; all the cases rest upon one
princifle, - that the putting away has not dissolved the
marriage, the woman is still the wife of the first husband.
But if her husband put her away for fornication, he does
not cause her to commit adultery. There is here no need
of reasoning; our Lord says so expressly: " Whosoever
shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery, and he that marrieth her
that is divorced committeth adultery." The use of this language compels the belief, that if the woman be put away
"for the cause of fornication," neither does her husband
cause her to commnit adultery, nor does he that marries her
commit adultery. Why is this? It can only be, because
in that case the marriage is dissolved. It is lawful for her
to marry, and so having her own husband, she may have
the Apostolic refuge against temptation. There can be no
other answer. Marriage is then lawful for her as for other
women. If it be so, the bond of marriage with her first
husband must have been dissolved, when he put her away
for the cause af fornication. The woman has ceased to be
one flesh with her husband; the unity between them has
been destroyed.
~ 16. In the nineteenth chapter the case is still plainer.
The text there is: "Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." Here again there is no other prohlibition of putting away a wife than that which is implied in 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 233
the declaration that he who does so, and marries again
connmmits adultery. There is nothing to which the exception can apply, if it do not apply to that declaration, for
there is no other rule. Out of that rule the case of putting away for fornication is excepted. It is impossible to
believe that if, in the excepted case, the man should marry
again he would commit adultery.  That must be because
the marriage is dissolved.  While he has still a wife who
is one flesh with him, he cannot marry without committing
adultery against her. The general drift of the passage,
and of all the passages in the New Testament which relate to the subject, is that a marriage which takes place
while either of the parties to it is joined in marriage to
another person, is adultery.
If in the excepted case the putting away did not dissolve the marriage, our Lord would surely have explained
his language. He would have said something like this:
"Even in the excepted case, in which it is allowed to put
away a wife, it is not to be understood that she may be put
away, in the only sense in which you understand the
phrase; even in that case the separated couple are still
man and wife, and cannot marry." He gave no such explanation, although He was addressing men who had never
heard of a separation which did not dissolve the marriage.
They must have understood him to mean that in the excepted case, the divorced persons might marry. He took
no steps to undeceive them. The irresistible inference is
that they were not deceived.
~ 17. The New Testament filly agrees with the Law of
Moses in the matter of separations without breaking the
bond of marriage. It contains nothing which treats as
lawfiil the permanent separation of man and wife while
they continue one flesh. On the contrary, it can be shown
that it is utterly unlawful.
~ 18. A single passage has been found in the writings
of St. Paul which some persons have supposed to give 
234      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
countenance to such separations. The Apostle has just
been treating of the duties of the married state, in a manner which cannot be reconciled to such separations. He
then takes up the then present inexpediency of marriage.
Having devoted some verses to that subject, he resumes
the duties of married life, and says:'Let not the wife
depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, and
let not the husband put away his wife." 1
There are three distinct prohibitions. The wife is forbidden to leave her husband; if she do leave him, she is
forbidden to marry; the husband is forbidden to put away
his wife. The woman is also exhorted to be reconciled to
her husband. It is to be observed that the two prohibitions addressed to the woman are distinct. She is not to
leave her husband, but if she be so ill advised as to do so,
she is not to marry. If she leave her husband, she disobeys one precept. If she marry, she disobeys another
precept and is guilty of another sill. This is the plain
meaning of the words. They give no countenance to the
idea that it is ever lawful for a man and his wife to live
separately.
Yet they are used as an argument to prove that in the
excepted case, the putting away does not work a dissolution of the marriage; but is only a separation which, while
it releases both the parties from the duties of marriage,
leaves them restrained from new marriages. But the
woman is not forbidden to leave her husband and marry.
She is first forbidden to leave her husband, and then forbidden, if she have left him, to marry. The first clause
forbids all separation; the third, which is addressed to the
husband, prohibits all putting away without reference to
marrying again. The two prohibitions seenm to cover all
cases of separation.  St. Paul was treating of the subject
generally, and cannot be supposed to have had any reference to the excepted case.
1 1 Corinthians vii. 10, 11. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMIENTS OF MARRIAGE. 235
Yet the advocates of the Roman doctrine insist that the
twice repeated exception is inoperative because St. Paul
did not repeat it in this place, or which is still stranger,
that the omission gives countenance to their non-natural
interpretation of our Lord's words. They need something
which will countenance the interpretation, that these words
only permit a putting away not a subsequent marriage.
They seize on this text, and apply the first clause to leaving a husband who has been guilty of adultery, as if it
were: Let not the wife depart from her husband except
he be guilty of adultery; but and if she depart, let her not
marry. The exception made by our blessed Lord, which
is repudiated where He inserted it, is here interpolated
without a shadow of authority. They do not propose to
read the last clause with the exception understood so that
it should mean: Let not the husband put away his wife
except for fornication.
~ 19. In the next verse the Apostle enters upon the
case of persons who had been converted after marriage,
and whose husbands or wives remained heathens, and continues the subject through several verses; they are pervaded by the same ideas. He forbids a Christian husband
from putting away his wife, and a Christian wife from
leaving her husband under sucli circumstances. In speaking of the case of a heathen husband or wife who will not
live with the convert, he says: "A  brother or a sister is
not under bondage in such cases."l 1 A Christian must
not separate from his wife or her husband, although she.
or he may be an unbeliever. If the unbeliever will separate, the believer has no choice, and is, therefore, not to
blame; but the Christian must do what can be done to
keep the peace.
~ 20. Another question connected with the effect of the
savi    ng     clause, is whether the guilty person who has been
put away is at liberty to marry. If it be true that put                   1 1 Corinthians vii. 15. 
236      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
ting away for fornication dissolves the mniarriage, it will
follow as a logical deduction, that the person so put away
may marry. This logical deduction can only be overruled
by revelation, and revelation is silent. One strong argu ment to show that such putting away dissolves a marriage,
was found in the hardship which a woman would suffer if
she were deprived of one husband and not allowed to take
another. According to our Lord's words, to place her in
that situation is to cause her to commit adultery. For
this reason any putting away in any case but one is unlawful. Our Lord excepted that case, but the same objection lies to putting away in that case as in others, unless
the putting away dissolve the marriage, and allow her that
is put away to marry. It seems that by these two independent lines of arguments, the right of the person put
away to marry, is sustained.
~ 21. The right has been much disputed on grounds
connected with public morals. This has been particularly
the case in England. In Anmerica, the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church assumed in 1808,
the unlawfulness of such marriages.'  But public opinion
in this country takes a different view of the subject, in
which very many religious people concur.
~ 22. While the English law refused to allow any dissolution of marriage, a practice arose of dissolving particular marriages by the supreme power of Parliament. It
was not done except in cases of adultery by the wife, and
then as a general rule only after the fact had been established by judicial proceedings. Bills for divorces were
considered to partake of a judicial character. The facts
were  recited in the preamble, and required to be proved
either by the decisions of the courts, or where, from peculiar       circumstances, that could not be done, before a committee of the House of Lords. The bill always originated
in that House, which is a court of justice as well as a legis        1 Joturnals, Hawks & Perry's edition, vol. i. p. 348. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 237
lative assembly, was attended by the judges, and had always some members who had been eminent lawyers. The
practice was perhaps also connected with the presence of
the Bishops in that House, which had thus access to theological knowledge. The House of Lords had the whole
control of the framing the bills and of all the preliminary
steps in the proceeding,. It made a set of standing orders
by which the whole matter was to be regulated. One of
these was, that every bill for dissolving a marriage should
contain a clause disabling the person who had been,guilty
of adutltery firom marrying, notwithstanding the dissolution.
This order grew out of a notion that women would be less
easily seduced if they could not be married to their seducers. The result was curious. The officers of the House
continued to obey the standing order, and inserted the
clause in every bill for a divorce. The House of Lords
passed the bills, if at all, with the clause; the House of
Commons invariably struck it out; the House of Lords
invariably yielded. This continued until the passage of
the law which authorized judicial divorces a vinculo matrinio? ~i.
~ 23. It became a usage which was held to bind the
honor of the seducer, that he should marry the divorced
woman. Such marriages were constantly celebrated by
clergymen of the Church of England, and no instance of
a refuisal is known. The inference is that the body of the
English clergy held that such marriages were consistent
with the Christian Law. It has been attempted to weaken
this inference by dwelling on the fewness of such marriages, and the probability that the clergymen who solemnized them were ignorant of the divorces by which they
had been preceded.   The value of this argument has
been examined in the tenth section of this chapter.
~ 24. When the Act of Parliament, authorizing judicial
divorces a vinculo matrimonii, was pending in the House
of Lords, the Bishop of Oxford moved and carried a clause 
238     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
forbidding a person, who had been divorced on account of
his or her own guilt, from marrying. The clause was
stricken out by the House of Commons, and the Lords
yielded. Lord Palmerston denounced the clause in the
House of Commons as immoral. On a question of morals,
especially of Christian morals, between these persons, there
must be a strong prejudice in favor of the Bishop. In
this case, it is scarcely doubtful that such a prejudice
would mislead him who was led by it.
The Bishop's view was that a woman would be less easily seduced if her seducer could not marry her. He
looked at the case prospectively. Lord Palmerston looked
at it retrospectively. He held the rule to be immoral because it left the woman exposed to temptation. Each was
clearly right from his own point of view. The question
is, Which is the true point of view? Perhaps that question cannot be decided by the human intellect. The general analogy of the Divine Law, which rather seeks to
deter from sin than to allow an escape from its consequences, must be conceded to be with the Bishop of Oxford.
~ 25. On the particular question, Divine authority seems
to be rather on the side of Lord Palmerston. Moses did
not allow of any putting away in which the woman put
away could not be married. Our blessed Lord assigns
the temptations to which a divorced woman is exposed, as
a reason against divorces. St. Paul assigns the same reason against separations of married persons, although Qnly
designed as temporary. The question seems thus to be
decided by the highest authority, that a woman put away
for fornication may marry.
~ 26. If a marriage cannot be dissolved for adultery,
the guilty person cannot marry; but neither can the innocent person. If a marriage may be dissolved for adultery,
both parties must be at liberty to marry. It cannot be
dissolved as to one of the parties and not as to the other. 
OF TIIE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.   239
They twain were one flesh, and while they continue such,
neither of them can marry. Had our Lord seen fit to
direct that the guilty person should not marry, notwithstaniding the dissolution of the marriage, it would be unlawful for such person to do so; but He has not given
such a direction. It may be inferred that He did not
intend that there should be any such restriction. His own
words imply this:" Whosoever  shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery." 1
How does he cause her to commit adultery? By exposing her to temptation. Is the temptation less because she
has committed adultery?  No; but she nmay be presumed
less able to resist it. The reason why she is not caused
to commit adultery when she is put away for the cause
of fornication, must be that she is at liberty to avoid
temptation by marrying. If the saving clause mean that
a man may so put away his wife for adultery, as to dissolve
the marriage, it is a direct inference from our Lord's
words, that the guilty woman may marry.
~ 27. If there be no Divine law against such marriages,
no human law can vacate them. A man and woman who
are joined in a marriage not divinely forbidden, are joined
together by God, and man may not separate them. Any
attempt, by any human authority, to vacate a marriage
which is religiously binding, is a usurpation of Divine
authority. If the civil authority were to declare such
marriages void, the civil courts would be bound to respect'
the civil law, and the marriages would produce no civil
effects; but they would be binding on the consciences of
Christians. No one could intermarry with either of the
parties to such a marriage, without being guilty of adultery. Still those who, by the civil laws, were placed under
such a disability, would be bound to obey the law of the
land, and the state would have a right to restrain them by
1 Matthew v. 32.
I 
240     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
civil punishments, if it were thought that it would contribute to the purity of public morals.
~ 28. The next question is, Whether the privilege allowed to the husband in the saving clause, extends to the
wife. Can a wife under any circumstances put away her
husband? This question has also been much discussed
of late, in England. The form which it has there taken
is a discussion, whether a marriage can be dissolved for
the adultery of the husband. English divines have generally taken the negative side of the question; in this couintry their view is sometimes spoken of as absurd. It may
be erroneous, but it is not absurd. It may not be easy
to show that it is erroneous.
~ 29. Those who maintain that it is, take ground which
seems rather sentimental. They say that our Lord must
have intended to put the sexes upon an equality. It does
not appear that He has expressed that intention. Nevertheless, it is certain that He did intend to put them upon
an equality in everything in which equality would promote
their true happiness. Whether a power in women to divorce their husbands for adultery, would promote their
happiness, is another question. It will not be easily settled by the human intellect, and is, therefore, a very insecure basis for an argument.
In no age or nation have men been as chaste as women;
nor has chastity ever been a point of honor among men
as it is among women. A man who desired to get rid of
his wife would seldom scruple to commit adultery to effect
his object. A woman would rarely comnit adultery merely
to get rid of her husband.  It is true that a man who
committed adultery in order that his marriage might be
dissolved, could not succeed without the aid of his wife.
But suppose that she were willing to get rid of him,
although not willing to commit adultery for the purpose.
In such cases, to allow a divorce for the adultery of the
husband, would be to allow a divorce by mutual consent.
4 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMIENTS OF MARRIAGE. 241
There may also be cases in which a brutal husband who
desired to be clear of his wife, would find means to compel
her to give her aid. To allow divorce under such circumstances would be to allow divorce at the will of any
husband who might be brute enough to add cruelty to
adultery. The modern English law allows a divorce a
vincutlo icttrimoitii for the adultery of the husband, when
joined with cruelty to the wife. This law of divorce will
scarcely improve the condition of women.
~ 30. Another argument for giving the power of divorce
for adultery to wonmen, is that the sin is equal in the two
sexes. This is not true; and if it were true, would not be
relevant. Adultery is equally a sin in both sexes; but it
is not an equal sin. Murder is equally a sin with parricide, and lying with perjury; but they are not equally
great sins.  So adultery in a woman is complicated with
circumstances which do not exist in the case of a man,
which enhances its guilt, just as parricide and perjury are
complicated with circumstances which enhance their guilt
above that of mere murder or mere lying.
~ 31. But if it be admitted that the guilt of adultery is
the          sam e  in both sexes, it has nothing to do with the question as to the right of a woman to divorce her husband.
Our Lord did not direct that a man should put away his
wife as a punishment for the sin of adultery. He permitted him to put her away as a means of redressing the
wrong done to himself, perhaps as a means of protecting
himself against future wrongs. The wrong done to the
husband by the adultery of the wife, is greater than that
which is done to the wife by the adultery of the husband.
Aggravate the wrong done to the wife as much as you will,
it will still contain no element which is not also found in
the wrong done to the husband. But the wrong done to
the husband contains an element which is wanting in the
other, -the danger of spurious children. It is quite prob               16 
242     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
able that this danger may be the reason of the permission
to a man to put away an adulterous wife.
Neither of the general arguments which have been ad duced to show that our Lord must have intended to give
to the woman the same power of divorce for adultery
which He allowed to the man, is at all conclusive, though
it must be admitted that there is no conclusive argument
on the other side. Indeed, in the nature of things, there
cannot be a conclusive argument on either side. Recourse
must be had to our Lord's words.
~ 32. There is but one place in the Holy Scriptures in
which any mention is made of a woman's putting away her
husband. There are one or two places in which mention
is made of a woman's leaving her husband, but it is only
to forbid such a step. The only place in which a woman
separating from her husband is mentioned without a direct
prohibition, is in St. Mark's Gospel, and our Lord is the
speaker.  His words are:" Whosoever shall put away his
wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery." 1
It should be remembered that the Mosaic Law gave no
power to a wife to divorce her husband, as it did to a man
to divorce his wife. In our Saviour's day, some women
had undertaken to put away their husbands, and our
Lord's words seem to be an affirmative publication of a
rule which was implied in the omission of Moses. This
seems to imply that it was an absolute prohibition. Men
were to have less power of divorce than they had under
the common interpretation of the Law of Moses, and the
saving clause was needed to show what power was to be
left to them. Women had no power under the Mosaic
Law, and none was to be given to them. So the prohibition was made without exception.
Those who deny that a woman may put away her husband for adultery, rely on the omission of the saving
1 Mark x. 11, 12. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE.  243
clause in this passage. If it had been inserted in the
eleventh verse, the omission in the twelfth would have
been conclusive; but it has not been inserted, and the
omission has been regarded as an abrogation of the saving
clause ill St. Matthew. The lawfulness of divorce in any
case can only be supported by supposing the saving clause
to be understood in the eleventh verse. It will then be
virtually incorporated in that verse. But for the present
purpose, virtual incorporation is very different from actual
insertion. If the words were actually inserted in one
verse, the omission in the other would seem to have been
designed, and to signify that the cases were not parallel to
each other. A virtual incorporation does not preclude
the idea that it was intended to be incorporated in both
verses. In this view the facts stated in the last paragraph
are important.
Those who advocate divorce for the adultery of the hus band, insist that if the words be virtually incorporated in
one verse, they must be virtually incorporated in the other.
Their chief arguments are the equality of the sin, which
is neither true nor relevant, and the intention of our
blessed Saviour to put the sexes upon an equality, which
is the very thing to be proved. The absolute equality of
the sexes is a modern idea, and like all other absolute
equality, receives no countenance from the Holy Scriptures. There does not seem to be any very strong argument either for or against incorporating the saving clause
in the twelfth verse. But it may be remarked in addition
to what has been said, that the saving clause in the letter
relates only to the adultery of the wife, and is an exception from a rule which does not apply to the adultery of
the husband. Upon the whole it may be said that the
text is plain against a woman's putting away her husband
and being married to another. The exception is not
plain. It is therefore safest for all Christians to act as
though divorces for the adultery of the husband were not
lawfull. 
CHAPTER X.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEM.IENTS OF MARRIAGE. -II. INDIS  SOLUBLENESS. 4. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND THEIR
RELATIONS TO THE CONSCIENCE.
~ 1. Subject of the Chapter. - ~ 2. Judicial Proceedings for Divorce. - ~ 3.
Void  Marriages.-  ~ 4. Divorces a  Vinculo Matrinonii.- ~ 5. Di vorces a  ifensa et Thoro.- ~ 6. Effect of Judicial Decisions upon the
Consciences of Laymen. - ~ 7. Effect of Judicial Decisions upon the
Consciences of the Clergy.
~ 1. THERE remains a subject connected with the indissoluble character of marriage which must be treated of in
a short chapter of its own, because it does not fall within
the scope of any of the preceding chapters. It is the relation of judicial divorces to the conscience. Without something on this question this work would be incomplete,
although it does not grow directly out of our Saviour's rule
or exception.
~ 2. There is a very remarkable difference between the
modes of divorce in ancient times, and since Christianity
has been the acknowledged religion of civilized communities. Anciently divorces were arbitrary, depending upon
the will of one of the parties,- generally the husband,or at most upon an agreement between the parties to the
marriage. In modern times they are judicially pronounced
by a tribunal which acts by public authority, and has examined the subject. So soon as it was understood that
divorces could only be allowed for certain causes, it became
necessary that the community should be satisfied of the
existence of those causes. The Church first, and afterwards the State, provided tribunals to inquire into all 
OF T'HE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 245
questions connected with divorce. In ancient times there
was nothing of the kind. The idea of an application to a
court of justice to examine into the truth of the facts upon
which a claim for a divorce is founded is entirely modern.
At Rome, among the early patricians, marriages were
celebrated by a peculiar religious ceremony called confarreation.   Such marriages could only be dissolved by
another religious ceremony called diffarreation. But the
priest who presided upon such occasions did not inquire
into the causes of the divorce. It was sufficient that the
man and his wife were both willing to go through the cereniony. The plebeians were married by other forms, and
the husband might divorce his wife when he pleased,
without any cause, and with very little ceremony. It was
sufficient to demand the keys, and put her out of the
house in the presence of witnesses. In time the patricians adopted the practice of the plebeians, both as to marriage and divorce. But there was no such thing as a court
to try matrimonial causes.
The Mosaic Law made no provision for such a tribunal.
It only prescribed the formalities by which the husband
was to signify his will that the marriage should cease to
exist, and gave effect to that will when the formalities had
been duly observed. It became customary to produce the
writing of divorcement in a court of justice; and although
it was not required by the law, it came to be considered a
necessary formality. But the writing was only produced
for the purpose of authentication, like the acknowledgment
of a fine in England, or of a deed in the United States.
A sinmilar practice prevails among the Athenians, and
probably among other ancient people.   But that a divorce should be the subject of litigation was an idea never
received by any heathen nation.
~ 3. Matrimonial causes are of several kinds.   One
which was, until lately, called, in England, a divorce a vinculo matrimnonii- and is still so called in this country., 
246      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
is not a divorce at all. It is really a declaration that there
has been no marriage, - the ceremony having produced
no effect on account of some impediment. Where the
impediment is a subsisting marriage by which one of the
parties to the new one is bound, it has not been considered
necessary to have a judicial decision of the invalidity of the
second marriage, which is regarded as merely void. The
same rule is applied ill the English courts to all marriages
forbidden by act of Parliament. But in other cases of
void marriages, which they distinguish as voidable, it is
necessary that the impediment should be ascertained by a
judicial sentence.
These ideas probably arose among the early Christians.
Their consciences were tender, and they lived under a
strict ecclesiastical discipline. When marriages occurred,
which were forbidden by the Christian Law, the authorities of the Church would enforce separation by excommunicating the persons who had broken the law. They
were not absolved until they ceased to cohabit. Should
the Church see fit to restore lay-discipline, a similar course
would be open to her, although it would meet with difficulties unknown to the ancient Church. At that time
the civil law regarded divorce as arbitrary; and if the
offenders thought fit to submit it to the decree of the
church tribunal, it could produce no collision with the
civil courts. The same thing is true now as to marriages
forbidden in England by act of Parliament, and probably
as to those forbidden by State laws in this country. As to
the mere voidable marriages, so-called, it is possible that
the ecclesiastical and civil tribunals might come to different conclusions in particular cases.  In this country, too,
the State laws do not recognize all the Christian imnpediments.  In practice, the State has everywhere  assumed
and exercised the whole jurisdiction in matrimonial causes,
which is in itself right. But the discrepancies between
Divine and human laws may give rise to many cases of
conscience. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MIARRIAGE.  247
In the primitive Church, if persons discovered or supposed that they were living in an invalid marriage, they
would apply to the Bishop for his advice. Some such
course would be necessary; for they would sin if they continued to live together in a void marriage, or if they separated when their marriage was lawful. The Bishops thus
acquired a jurisdiction which they delegated to church
courts, and which the courts exercised either at the instance of the ecclesiastical authorities, or at that of the persons interested. But after the jurisdiction had passed over
to the courts it could only be exercised with forensic
forms.
The State has now taken possession of the jurisdiction,
and professes to exercise it through her courts. But no
public authorities are appointed to invoke its exercise. It
is scarcely an exception that some very gross cases of
incest are puniiished as crimes. Persons who are living in
void marriages are not likely to bring their cases before
the courts, or to separate without troubling them, unless in
the case of a quarrel. Hence it is very unusual to find
American courts employed about such matters. Besides,
the State, in many countries, does not regard, as impediments to marriage, many things which the Divine law has
made impediments.
~ 4. That which is properly a divorce a vinculo matrimonoii -a dissolution of a marriage which was once binding-is a very different thing.  According to the Christian law, it can be allowed only for adultery. In the
Western Church it was, for many ages, not allowed at all.
In most countries the State has now revived it, applies it
in cases of adultery and in some other cases, and administers the jurisdiction in her own courts.
The discipline of the primitive Church did not allow a
married couple to separate at their own discretion. If a
husband charged his wife with adultery, he was bound to
prove it to the Bishop. In later times the Bishops exer 
248     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
cised this, like all other jurisdiction, by deputy; but it was
still the Bishop's jurisdiction. When the Bishop or the
judge was convinced of the fact, he pronounced sentence
of divorce. In the Western Church this was, as has been
said, for many ages, only a divorce a mensa et thoro.
~ 5. This kind of divorce, which is a permission to one
of the parties to a marriage to live separately from the
other, is not very ancient. It was at first allowed only in
the case of cruelty, by which was meant such cruelty as
endangered life or limb. The Christian Law requires that
men  and their wives must  live together.   But it was
thought that this rule could not always be enforced, and
that some exceptions must be allowed.  It seemed hard
that a woman should be obliged to endanger her life by
living with a brutal husband. The same rule prevailed, as
in other matrimonial causes. The person desiring to separate must act under the advice of the Bishop. The proceeding was, at first, really before the Bishop; then before
an ecclesiastical judge who was appointed by the Bishop,
and who was at one time a clergyman, and afterwards a
lawyer.   The jurisdiction has now passed  to the civil
courts. Now, however, husbands and wives separate when
they please, and come together again when they please.
But divorces a mensa et thoro are frequently sought as a
means of separating the pecuniary interests of men and
their wives, for the protection of the latter.  The civil
courts look upon them very much in that light. In the
United States, in England, and in most Protestant countries, the civil courts are in quiet possession of the jurisdiction, in matrimonial causes, and administer it according
to the laws of the land.
~ 6. Questions still remain to be decided by private conscience. It is still necessary for a Christian to decide how
far he may act upon the decisions of these courts. The
general rule is that they may be acted upon just so far as
is possible, without disobeying the Divine law. This is 
OF THfE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 249
the rule as to questions of doctrine or law. As to questions of fact, the safest rule is to adopt the decisions of the
courts as final. They have better means of ascertaining
the truth than any private person can have. As to questions of law, the decisions of the courts are authoritative
expositions of the law of the land. That law is to be
obeyed whenever it can be obeyed, without disobeying the
law of God.
This rule can be applied without much practical difficulty to all cases in which it is supposed that a marriage
is void on account of some impediment. As yet the American States have not attempted to create any impediments
to marriage.  When any of them do so, it will be the duty
of Christians to obey the law so far as not to marry where
such artificial impediments exist. No Christian ought to
form an union which is forbidden by the law of the land.
But as such marriages would be valid in the sight of God,
no Christian should intermarry with any person, who, having entered into such a marriage, has been released from
it by the authority of the State.
With respect to marriages which the law of the land
allows, but which the law of God forbids, no one ought to
enter into them or to continue in them. The parties to
them have not been joined by God, and man ought to put
them asunder.
In some cases the civil courts undertake to dissolve
marriages which were originally valid, for causes for which
the law of God does not allow them to be dissolved. No
Christian can consider a marriage which was once valid
as dissolved by any power whatever, except only in the
case in which our Lord has permitted such dissolution.
.No Christian can intermarry with any one who has been
released from a valid marriage for a reason which was
Scripturally insufficient, -for any cause "saving the cause
of fornication," - without being guilty of adultery.
By following these few rules, a private Christian may 
250      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
avoid being mixed up with the unchristian laws which
have been adopted in America.  He can thus keep a con
science void of offense in this matter before God and man.
~ 7. But the clergy may sometimes meet with embarrassing cases. They will come in one of two forms. A
clergyman may be called on to solemnize a marriage
which the law of the land allows, and the law of God forbids. There is no reason for believing that such a marriage can receive the Divine blessing, or possess the
sanctity and unity of marriage. A clergyman should refuse to solemnize such a marriage, at whatever cost or
risk to himself. Happily, an American clergyman can
incur no danger from the State; for there is no law of
the land which requires him to solemnize any marriage
whatever. The only danger is that of giving offense to
the public and to his parishioners. This is sometimes an
important consideration; but we ought to obey God rather
than men.1
At other times the question may present itself in the
shape of a case of lay discipline, when a person who is
living in a sinful marriage desires to be admitted to the
Holy Commnunion. In the primitive Church, such a person would have been rejected until he or she separated
from his or her partner in guilt. Whether a modern
clergyman is called upon to revive this discipline by his
own authority and upon his own responsibility, is a grave
and difficult question which every clergyman must decide
for himself, with the aid and counsel of his Bishop.  It
may be observed that the power of rejecting or suspending
a communicant is very much limited by the first rubric of
the Communion Service. It seems to require that the evil
life for which a comniunicant may be suspended or rejected should be such as to give offense to the congregation.
1 Acts v. 29. 
CHAPTER XI.
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMIENTS OF MARRIAGE. -III. THE
AUTHORITY OF THE HUSBAND AND THE SUBORDINATION
OF THE WIFE.
~ 1. Unpopularity of Authority. - ~ 2. Unpopularity of Marital Authority.
- ~ 3. Necessity of Authority. - ~ 4. Indissolubleness of Marriage.~ 5. Mutual Concession.- ~ 6. External Interference impracticable.~ 7. There must be some Rule as to who is to have Authority.- ~ 8.
Submission must grow out of Principle.- ~ 9. The Romantic School. ~ 10. The Amazonian School.- ~ 11. The Sentimental School.- ~ 12.
There is a Divinely appointed Rule. - ~ 13. Primary Institution of Marriage. - ~ 14. Effect of the Fall. - ~ 15. Solomon. - ~ 16. St. Paul. -
~ 17. St. Peter. - ~ 18. The Bible the Rule of Life. - ~ 19. Conscience
and Judgment. - ~ 20. Limits of Human Authority. - ~ 21. Limits of
Marital Authority.- ~ 22. Mode in which the Husband should exercise
his Authority.- ~ 23. Duty of the Wife.
~ 1. THE authority of the husband and the subordination of the wife, which are two names for the same thing,
constitute the remaining element of Christian marriage.
It seems to be the most unpopular of the seven. All authority in this age is looked upon with dislike and apprehension. It is never forgotten that all authority is liable
to abuse, and will be occasionally abused. It must always
be that more persons are under authority than are entitled
to exercise it. There will thus always be a majority
against authority, who will forget that all liberty is also
liable to abuse and will frequently be abused.
~ 2. The last remark does not specially apply to the
authority of the husband; which, however, suaffers front
the unpopularity of authority in general, while it labors
under special disadvantages of its own. The romantic
and Amrazonian theories of the relation between the sexes
I 
252      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
work against it. So does the idea that women are better
than men. It rests upon revelation, and revelation has
come to be thought a rule of doctrine, not a rule of life.
The doctrine of marital authority has thus to contend with
a large amount of prejudice, which is the greater because
the authority of husbands has often been much abused.
~ 3. If men were left to the light of nature, it would not
be easy to prove the authority of the husband, although it
would be easy to prove the necessity that one of each married couple should have authority which would involve the
subordination of the other. There nmight, however, be
some difficulty in deciding which of the two should have
the authority. Among non-Christian nations the knot has
generally been cut by force. Among Christian people
this rude solution of the difficulty does not satisfy public
opinion. Yet the necessity that one of the married couple
should have authority is very much increased by the Christian doctrine of the indissolubleness of marriage. The
Prophet Amos asks, " Can two walk together except they
be agreed?" 1  The common sense of mankind answers in
the negative.
Mlen all admit that if two persons cannot agree, they
must cease to act together. Two partners in business who
can agree in nothing else, must agree to separate. If a
master and his servant cannot agree, the relation between
them must be dissolved. It is the same in nearly all the
relations of life. There are but two exceptions. The relation of parent and child cannot be dissolved, and the difficulty is provided for by the Divinely given authority of
the parent. The relation of husband and wife cannot be
dissolved, and the difficulty is provided for by the Divinely
given authority of the husband. In all other relations, the
remedy for a serious disagreement is a separation.  Just
as if two friends set out for a walk, to use the Prophet's
illustration, if they cannot agree as to the direction which
they shall take, they must separate.
I Amos iii. 3. 
OF THE PRACTICAL EI,EMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 253
~ 4. From this analogy is derived one of the strongest
arguments in favor of the dissolution of marriage. It is
frequently used in defense of absolute divorce, and still
more frequently in justification of those separations in
which the marriage formally continues, but which practically dissolve it, for they reduce it to a mere restraint
from marrying again. Such a relation contains no blessing, and in fact nothing affirmative. It is only a negation
of the power to marry.
People often say: If persons cannot agree it is better
that they should separate. Religious people mean by this
that the married persons who cannot agree, should live
separately from each other, while they nominally retain a
tie which has no reality. Another class nmore logically
draw the inference that the marriage tie may be absolutely
dissolved. But a Christian marriage is indissoluble in the
highest sense, only subject to one Divinely appointed exception. It cannot be dissolved so that things shall be as
if it had never been, and the parties to it be at liberty to
marry new partners. Neither can it be practically dissolved so that there shall remain  a merely nominal tie
which has no reality, except as it is an impediment to
mnarriage.  Our  blessed Lord said: "A man shall leave
his father and mother and cleave to his wife; and they
twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain
but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder." 1
The obligation of a wife to cleave to her husband must
be the same as that of a husband to cleave to his wife.
They twain are one flesh. Both are so joined by God
that man is forbidden to put them asunder. Our blessed
Saviour did not say, What God hath joined, let not nman
join to others; but He said, "What God hath joined, let
not man put asunder."
~ 5. Married persons cannot then separate. It follows
1,Iark x. 7-9.
-- -.l 
254     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
that  they must agree.   How  is the agreement to be
brought about?  Much may be done by mutual concession.
Much is every day done by it in other relations. A master
who has a good servant grants him many privileges, and
allows him his own way in many things. A servant who
has a good master does not oppose his will, although he
may think it unreasonable in a particular case, because he
is unwilling to lose the advantages of his place. When
partners in business find their connection usefuil they mutually concede much.
Married persons have advantages over all these persons.
They are supposed to be, and very frequently are, united
by a warm  affection for each other.  They enjoy the
benefits of the mysterious sanctity and unity of the mnarried state. Under such circumstances very much may be
done by mutual concession, so much that there may be
little or no occasion for the use of authority. Where each
of two persons is desirous of gratifying the other, mutual
concession will have scarcely any limits. This is the secret
which enables married persons to live together, without a
wish to separate, and with little necessity for the use of
authority.
But the principle of mutual concession may cease to
work. The servant is discharged; the master is left; the
partnership is dissolved; the time has come when two are
no longer agreed, and can no longer walk together. Where
the alternative of separation is impossible, mutual concession may be expected to hold out longer than when that
door of escape is open. It will do so if it be fully understood that separation is impossible.   Parents and children seldom come to the point of separation; although
they often come to that at which authority must interpose.
In the case of married persons, mutual concession must
for reasons already mentioned, be a very enduring principle. But even between them it is possible that the spirit
of mutual concession may be exhausted. There must be 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 255
some remedy in such cases. God has forbidden the obvious course of separation. What shall supply its place?
~ 6. Shall it be arbitration or external authority invoked
in any other way? It would be impossible to find any person who would possess so much of the confidence of the
disputants as to be trusted with such an office. They
would never be willing to impart to a third person the
knowledge of the delicate questions which are involved in
their disputes. If they could, the selection of the arbiter
would be the last thing about which they could agree.
Every one sees that the notion of deciding disputes between man and wife by external authority is absurd.
~ 7. There remains, then, no mode by which those who
cannot be separated, can settle their controversies. They
must have no controversies. They may be prevented by
mutual concession. But cases may occur in which neither
side is willing to give way. One of the parties must be
bound to yield. Such yielding implies the authority of the
other. Which is to have that authority? This question
can only be answered by some definite rule, which shall
give to one of the parties the right of deciding, and impose
upon the other the duty of obeying. Very good reasons
may be assigned why it is the duty of the wife to obey,
although it can scarcely be expected that women should
feel their force. In most ages and countries their submission has been compelled by brute force, or by the authority
of human laws and social usages, or by the ultima ratio of
arbitrary divorce. The man who had the power to drive a.
woman from her home and her children could extort an
external submission to almost anything.
~ 8. But what is necessary for the happiness of married
life is a submission which shall grow out of principle, not
out of fear. Submission, to be valuable, must rest upon the
idea of duty, and that upon the Divine Law. Women are
to yield, but it should be to the Divine authority, delegated
to the husband. If they do not, they will only yield to the 
256      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
fear of overwhelming evils. As it is they do not generally
accept the idea of submission at all.
~ 9. Those of them who have adopted the romantic
theory,-  who are in this country the majority of the upper
classes,- maintain that the man should always yield to the
goddess.   Some  fortify this notion, by supposing that
women ought to rule, because they are better and more
conscientious than men.  The fact may be admitted, but
with some qualification, for it is certain that the consciences
of women are easily swayed by their interests and feelings,
so that a woman is very oftenl practically very unjust, while
she supposes herself to be very conscientious.   Lawyers,
who have had many female clients, know this well. But
admitting the fact of their conscientiousness as fully as
nmay be asked, the premises do not warrant the conclusion.
Looking at the question practically, it will be seen that as
a general rule, the dominion of the wife does not work
well.
~ 10. The women of the Amazonian school do not formally claim dominion, though practically they do.   Their
theory is that there is to be no acknowledged superiority
on either side, but that in each case the strongest intellect
is to govern. In the opinion of each Amazon, her own intellect will be the strongest. The application of the rule
thus gives dominion to the woman in every case, at least
in the judgment of the particular wonman who is interested.
It is unfortunate that in each particular case the man will
dissent from the judgment of his wife. He may concede
the major proposition, that the strongest intellect should
rule; but it is nearly certain that he will deny the minor,
that his wife's intellect is stronger than his own. This
rule cannot work. Every man and his wife would have a
new question to settle instead of settling the old one, and
that perhaps the most difficult of all questions to be decided, and one the decision of which is more likely to
irritate than to calm.  Both would decide it, and "by de 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 257
cision miore embroil the fray." They would be less likely
to work together than before.   Such a rule is practically
inconsistent with the Christian doctrine, that marriage is
indissoluble; one or the other must be given up. Unless the
question of authority is settled, there can be no termination
of the strife but separation. In fact the principle of sepa ration is accepted by the Amazonian women.
~ 11. The ladies who receive the Christian theory gen erally receive it with some modification. They acknowl edge the Christian principle, that marriage cannot be dis solved, but only in a qualified sense. They believe that it
cannot be so dissolved as to make another marriage law ful. But they also believe that it can be so far dissolved
as to make it lawful for the married couple to live apart
from each other.   They believe that this may be done by
consent in every case, and, where a lady has been harshly
treated, without [consent], -the lady herself being always
the judge of what is harsh treatment.  They forget the precept, that the married pair should cleave to each other, and
read the prohibition to separate what God has joined, as
if it only forbade persons who had been separated from
being joined to others.
They do not accept the moral impossibility of separation, and therefore they do not apprehend the moral necessity that there shall be a rule binding one party always
to yield.   Such a rule settles every question and closes
every altercation, effects which nothing else can produce.
Some of these ladies adopt, to some extent, the romantic
theory, and combine with it some facts of Christian history. Out of the two they form a theory, the holders of
which may be called the sentimental school. It rests on
the theory that women are better than men, and therefore
ought to govern.  On one of these theories, or on the Amazonian, or on some theory made up out of some or all of
them, a lady is easily persuaded that at least in her own
case, the wife ought to govern. Her husband, however,
17 
258      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
may be neither romantic nor sentimental, nor easily persuaded that his wife's judgmenet is better than his own, even
if the fact should be so. Then comes the conflict, and
sometimes the separation.
~ 12. A rule which will reach every case, is necessary.
Human iingenuity could not invent a rule, which would be
agreeable to both parties. Human authority could not,
without recourse to physical force, enforce one which was
disagreeable to either. Under rules of human invention
woman has generally been a slave. No means of relieving
her have been found, except making marriage dissoluble at
her pleasure, which is as much contrary to the Divine law
as the power of arbitrary divorce in the hands of man.
W'herever the Divine rule has been neglected, men have
ruled by the right of the strongest, or women have escaped
by that craft which is the natural defense of the weak.
Force is almost sure to be both abused and evaded. Ilence
in all non-Christian countries, women are in a state of
slavery, while in those which are nominally Christian, they
are often allowed a liberty, which is not good. There is a
divinely appointed rule, which does not rest upon force, and
has other limits than the will of the strongest. It is, that
authority belongs to the husband, and submission is the
duty of the wife.
~ 13. This is perhaps involved in the very primitive institution of marriage.   It is recorded that woman was
created to be the help of man, as well as his companion:
"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him." 1
The idea of a companion includes that of equality;
that of a help includes subordination. Even in Paradise,
both equality and subordination existed.  The subordination could not have been slavish; the equality could not
have been absolute. Perhaps the equality was nearer absolute, and the subordination less marked than after the
Fall.
1 Genesis ii. 18. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 259
~ 14. Immediately after the Fall, the ideas of authority
and subordination were largely developed, and that agree ably to the Divine  will.  When  the  Lord was passing
sentence upon the offenders, He said unto the woman:  "I
will greatly multiply thy sorrow and  thy conception; in
sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 
This sentence has four members, of which the two first do
not relate to the present subject. The third contains a
prophecy, of the meaning of which, and of its very remark able fulfillment, it is not expedient to speak. The fourth
contains a law which is very plain: "He" that is, thy hus band, "shall rule over thee."  It is then the duty of the
wife to obey, - a duty which is abundantly enforced by
many texts in the New Testament.
~ 15. Before considering them, it may be remarked that
Solomon, in speaking of the contentions of married life,
invariably lays the blame upon the wonman, thus assuming
that submission is her duty.  "A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping." 2  Here he couples a contentious wife
with a foolish, that is a rebellious son, implying that they
are in the same position. A little further on, he remarks
that: " It is better to dwell in a corner of the house-top,
than with a brawling woman in a wide house." I And
again: "It is better to dwell in the wilderness than with a
contentious and an angry woman." 4 He nowhere speaks
of the contentions or the brawling of a husband.
~ 16. In the New Testament, the doctrine of subordination and authority is yet more distinctly brought out. St.
Paul writes to the Corinthians: " I would have you know,
that the Head of every man is Christ; and the head of the
woman is the man; and the Head of Christ is God." 5
To St. Titus the same Apostle says:" Speak thou the
2 Proverbs xix. 13.
5 1 Corinthians xi. 3.
3 Ibid. xxi..9.
1 Genesis iii. 16.
4 Ibi(l. 19. 
260     CHIIRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
things which become sound doctrine: that the aged nmen
be sober, grave, tenmperate, sound in faith, in charity, in
patience; the aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness; not false accusers, not given
to much wine, teachers of good things; that they may
teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, keepers at
home, good obedient to their own husbands, that the
Word of God be not blasphemed." 1
To St. Timothy he writes: " Let the woman  learn in
silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And
Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived
was in the transgression." 2
To the Colossians he writes thus: "Wives submit your.selves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."'
He treats the subject more filly in the Epistle to the
Ephesians than in any other part of his writings. The
latter part of the fifth chapter is a brief treatise on the
duties of the married state. It begins and ends with the
subordination of the wife, as if that were the foundation of
the whole superstructure.  He says: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For
the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the
Head of the Church: and He is the Saviour of the body.
Therefore) as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the
wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church,
and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that
He migiht present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should
be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their
own wives, as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife
1 Titus ii. 1-5.  2 1 Timothy ii. 11-14.  3 Colossians iii. 18. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMIENTS OF MARRIAGE. 261
loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh;
but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the
Church: for we are members of His body, of His flesh,
and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave
his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery:
but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife
even as himself: and the wife see that she reverence her
husband." 1
It would not be easy to frame a stronger statement of
the doctrine of marital authority and wifely obedience,
than that which is found in this passage. It is strengthened by the manner in which it runs into, and is, as it
were, confounded with the statement of the authority of
the Saviour over the Church. Whether the direct precepts, the illustrations, or the motives proposed be coi)sidered, they are strong, - so strong that nothing stronger
can be conceived.
~ 17. St. Peter falls not behind St. Paul in the stress
which he lays upon this doctrine. He writes thus: "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that,
if any obey not the Word, they also may without the Word
be -won by the conversation of the wives, while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose
adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting
the hair, or of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
but let it be the hidden man of the heart, ill that which is
not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet
spirit which is in the sight of God of great price. For
after this manner in the old time the holy wonmen also,
who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sarah obeved Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as
ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 2
1 Ephesians v. 22, et seq.             2 1 Peter iii. 1-6. 
262      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
This place is much more frequently quoted against
what is called gay dressing, than as commanding the subordination of wives. The last is its true scope. Accordingly, the Church of England introduces it into that admirable summary of the duties of married life, which is
the concluding exhortation in her marriage service. The
outward adorning is only mentioned incidentally, and is
not forbidden, but only disparaged in comparison with a
meek and quiet spirit. The general drift of the passage
is to instruct women in their wifely duties. The meek
and quiet spirit is to be manifested, after the manner of
the holy women of old, by being in subjection to their own
husbands.
~ 18. This collection of texts establishes the doctrine of
the authority of the husband and the subordination of the
wife, not to use St. Peter's less courtly expression of subjection. They seem to be little regarded by public opinion. This proceeds in part, from the manner in which
the Holy Bible is now regarded. It is no longer considered as the revealed rule of life. It is used as a supply
of devotion, or as a store-house of doctrine, sometimes as a
mere arsenal of polemic weapons. It is all these, but it
is also a rule of morals. The popular theology ignores
this, and thus separates morality from religion to an extent which its votaries do not perceive. The Bible is neglected as a moral guide, and public opinion has to seek
another. So far as relates to the present subject, it is
sought in speculations about the equality of the sexes and
the best mode of producing happiness.  This men  fancy
they find in associations without a head, in which each of
the persons concerned does as he or she pleases; when
they do not please to do the same thing, the association
must be dissolved.  Still the authority of the husband and
the subordination of the wife continue to be fundamnental
principles of Christian morals, and are binding on the consciences of all Christian women. 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 263
~ 19. The authority of the husband is a part of Christian doctrine; but Christianity acknowledges no absolute
human authority. All human authority is at an end when
it conies in conflict with the Divine authority, from which
it is derived. The. province of the private conscience
must be always respected. Yet the distinction between
private conscience and private judgment must not be forgotten. The concern of the conscience is only with quiestions of right and wrong; while the judgmnient deals also
with questions of expediency. Conscience belongs to the
moral nature, and on all subjects inquires only what is
right or wrong; judgment belongs to the intellectual nature, and may deal with any subject without reference to
the distinction between right and wrong.
If any one deny this distinction, and assert that judgment
deals with questions of right and wrong, or that conscience
is only a function of the judgment, it may be conceded for
the sake of argument.  But the substance of the distinction will return upon him. There will still be judgment
exercising its function of conscience, and dealing with the
distinction between right and wrong, and judgment not
exercising that function, neglecting that distinction, and
exercising its other functions. The two phases of judgment will, practically, be two faculties. It is more convenient to distinguish them as judgment and conscience.
There is a wide distinction between the judgment which
deals with expediency, and the conscience which deals
with right and wrong. This is so, whether they be two
faculties or two functions of the same facutlty. The distinction pervades the whole field of ethics. The reason
for respecting the private conscience, is that it appeals to
a law which it is bound to obey.  When it ceases to do so,
no matter by what name it may be called, it must submit
to authority. In the family it must submit to the divinely
appointed head of the family.
~ 20. Everywhere the question arises as to the limits of 
264      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
human authority. Everywhere the answer is that human
authority can have no dominion over the conscience. But
the private conscience of one under human authority can
have nothing to do with that authority, except to inquire
whether its commands conflict with a law of higher authority, especially with the Divine law, from which all human
authority is derived.  When human authority forbids what
God commands, or commands what He forbids, it is
usurped and must be disobeyed. But it must be obeyed
until it actually clashes with the Divine law in some particular case. It may forbid anything which God doth not
commland, or command anything which He does not forbid, and will be entitled to obedience. Within those limits
it nmay be governed by its own views of expediency, otherwise it would not be authority. This is true of all human
authority, and of that of the husband as well as of other
human authority.
~ 21. Whether any human authority has transcended its
limits is a question for the private conscience of those
whom it calls upon to obey.  It always resolves itself into
another question, Is it possible to obey the human authority without breaking the Divine law?  In the case of
the marital authority, this question involves another. Can
the husband be obeyed without breaking the law of the
land or the law of the Church?  Like every other Christian
and citizen the husband is bound, as well as the wife, to
obey both those laws, which are to them authoritative expositions of the Divine law. These questions are for the
private conscience. If they are answered in the negative,
we must obey God rather than man.  If they are answered
in the affirmative, the function of private conscience is at
an end. The authority must be obeyed.
Conscience has nothing to do with questions of expediency, for about them the law says nothing; but it does
say, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers."
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the 
OF THE PRACTICAL ELEMENT'S OF MARRIAGE. 265
Lord's sake." Questions as to whether a particular course
is agreeable, rank even lower than questions of expediency.
They cannot appeal even to private judgment, but belong
to the province of taste. Conscience has nothing to do
with then), and it is only conscience which may oppose
itself to authority.
~ 22. This view of the subject seems to be all that is
necessary to guide the conscience of a married woman;
but it is proper to speak of the duties of husbands as well
as of their rights. Abundant instruction upon this subject
is given in the texts of Scripture, on which the authority of
the husband is founded. The long passage, which has been
transcribed from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians (see ~ 16), dwells as much upon the love which is to
temper the authority of the husband as upon the submission of the wife. They are urged upon parallel motives,
and with the same illustrations.
Thie primary institution of marriage speaks more directly
of the duty of the man than of that of the woman: "A man
shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto
his wife, and they shall be one flesh." 1  Solomono  and MIalachi repeat the lesson.  The first says:" Let thy fountain
be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her
be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts
satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with
her love."2' Malachi reminds the husband, that his wife
is his "companion and the wife of his covenant." 8
In the New Testament, precepts of affection for the
wife addressed to the husband, continually occur in close
connection with those which enforce the submission of the
wife. This is the case in the passage which has been
transcribed from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the
Ephesians. (See ~ 16.) It has already been observed,
that that passage may almost be regarded as a summniary of
the Christian doctrine about married persons.
1 Genesis ii. 24.  2 Proverbs v. 18, 19.  8 Malachi ii. 14. 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
To the Colossians, St. Paul writes: "Wives, submit
yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the
Lord.   Husbands  love  your wives, and  be  not bitter
against them." 1
Again, in discussing the expediency of marriage, he declares that, " He that is married careth for the things that
are of the world, how he may please his wife." 2
St. Peter, after dwelling on the subjection and obedience
of the wife, addresses husbands thus:  "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving
honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers
be not hindered." 3
These texts sufficiently instruct the husband how he is
to administer his authority.  He is to remember that although as his wife she is bound to obey him, she is his
companion, and therefore in a certain sense his equal, and
is to be treated with respect. She is entitled to honor as
the weaker vessel, and is the proper object of tender affection-of that love, which "sufferethl long and is kind, is not
easily provoked, thinketh no evil, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." 4
~ 23. These are the principles upon which the husband
is to administer his authority, so that it may not be more
burdensome than is necessary. But it still exists, and may
be exercised in restraining extravagance and other follies.
If the husband be imbued with the spirit of the texts
which have been cited, and governed by the feelings wlich
they inculcate, it will not be used harshly or without necessity. The wife will be allowed all liberty, which will not
interfere with the welfare of the family. She will probably
say and think that she desires no more. Yet there nmay be
differences of opinion between her and her husband as to
what will interfere with the welfare of the family.  She
2 1 Corinthians vii. 33.
4 1 Corinthians xiii. 4, 5, 7.
266
1 Colossians iii. 18, 19.
3 1 Peter iii. 7. 
OF THE PRACTICAL' ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE. 267
has a right to present and explain her own views; but
those of the husband have authority, and must be submitted
to if she cannot change them. If she do not submit, she
does not walk after the manner of the holy women of old,
who were in subjection to their own husbands. 
CHAPTER XII.
A FEW GENERAL REMIARKS UPON MARRIAGE.
~ 1. Introduction.- ~ 2. The Elements of Marriage. - ~ 3. Consent. ~ 4. Popular Notion of Marriage.- ~ 5. The Practice of Separation.
~ 1. HAVING gone through the Christian doctrine of
marriage, except with respect to impediments to marriage,
it may be well to devote a very short chapter to a few general remarks, chiefly intended to recall to the mind things
which have already been said.
~ 2. The elements of Christian marriage are seven,
consent, the Divine blessing, sanctity, unity, exclusiveness,
indissolubleness, and the authority of the husband and subordination of the wife.  The first two form the union by
creating the two next, which are the mysterious essence of
marriage. The three remaining are the logical and practical results of that essence.
~ 3. Consent is the first element; it is a necessary prerequisite for the Divine blessing, which creates the sanctity and the unity of the marriage. The true consent
is to live with a particular person as a husband or wife,
in the holy state of matrimony, according to God's hdlv
ordinance.  This implies an acceptance of all the seven
elements of a Christian marriage. There is reason to fear
that such a consent is rarely given. The greater number
of those who come to be married, think little, or not at all,
of God's blessing upon their union. The sanctity and
unity of marriage are not believed in by great numbers.
Many men have no idea of consenting to the exclusiveness of marriage, and have no scruple in indulging them 
A FEW GENERAL REMARKS UPON MARRIAGE. 269
selves in that which is practical polygamy. Few women
give a hearty consent to the authority of the husband.
They accept it, if at all, with a secret reservation,- that
in their own case it shall never be exercised.   The indissolubleness of marriage is a doctrine, which many of both
sexes reject or at least accept in a very qualified sense.
It is to this want of a sincere consent that many unhappy
marriages are owing.
What is necessary, is a sincere consent to live together
in God's holy ordinance of marriage. That people may
give such a consent, it is necessary that they should understand the nature of Christian marriage, and how it is distinguished from that civil marriage, which is only a civil
contract to live together according to the law of the land.
The last may be marriage in the eye of the law; in the
sight of God it is only concubinage.
~ 4. The  true idea of marriage is not popular.   The
popular notion of marriage is that of a mnere consent
to cohabit, until something shall occur which shall make it
unpleasant to do so any longer. Few persons, especially
among women, look forward to an actual separation, because they do not expect anything unpleasant to occur.
But great numbers have no notion of living together in
case it shall become disagreeable to do so. This popular
notion of marriage is at the bottonm of many and great social
evils. It leads to much misery, which it is in vain at
tempted to remedy by what are called voluntary separations.
These are indeed putting asunder what God hath joined.'
~ 5. The Apostles thought that the principle that niarriage is indissoluble rendered it not good to marry.  Our
blessed Lord seems to admit that it so far renders it
not good, that it is only good for those who are prepared
for it.  If any man cannot receive the saying, that a man
and his wife are one flesh, so joined together by God that
man cannot put them asunder, no person ought to marry
unless he or she can accept this principle.1
1 See MIatthew xix. 
270     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARR'IAGE.
The departure from this principle often leads to great
hardships, which bear sometimes upon the man and sometimes upon the woman. A poor man can generally part
with his wife without any intolerable inconvenience. He
carries with him his means of subsistence, and perhaps
finds his expenses lessened by the change. The case of
the woman is very different; she loses that which the Scotch
expressively call her bread-winner. If she has children
she may either be deprived of them or find it difficult to
support them. In every way her condition is pitiable. In
a higher social position, where the lady has friends who
can provide for her and her children, or compel her husband to provide her a separate maintenance, the separation
is most frequently sought by the wife; while among the
lower classes it is a rare occurrence for a woman to leave
her husband.   In the higher classes a hardship is often
imposed upon the man, who is obliged to provide a separate establishment for his wife and children, while he is
deprived of their assistance and of the comfort of their
society. His expenses are increased, while his comforts
are diminished. In every way these separations produce
evil, but after all the greatest evil connected with them is
that they are violations of the Divine law. 
CHAPTER XIII.
OF THE IMPEDI.MENTS TO MARRIAGE
~ 1. The NTature of Impediments to Marriage. - ~ 2. Two Classes of Im pediments to Marriage.- ~ 3. The Necessity of an outward Consent.
~ 4. Force.- ~ 5. Fraud. - ~ 6. Incapacity to Contract.- ~ 7. Un soundness of Mind.- ~ 8. Practice of Civil Courts.- ~ 9. The Connec tionI of Conscience with Judicial Decisions. - ~ 10. The Difficulty of
finding a Rule.- ~ 11. The Rule for Christians. - ~ 12. Nonage. ~ 1:3. Necessity for fixing an Age at which Capacity shall be presumed.
-~ 14. The Laws of England. - ~ 15. The Age of Consent. -~ 16. Defect in the American Laws. - ~ 17. The Consent of Parents cannot sapplk the place of the Consent of the Persons to be Married. - ~ 18. Duty
of Y-oung Persous.- ~ 19. Imnpediments created by the Revealed Law.~ 20. An existing Marriage.- ~ 21. Incest. - ~ 22. Of Mixed Marriages.
-~ 23. Impediments attempted to be created by Human Laws. - ~ 24.
Canonical Impediments; Consanguinity.- ~ 25. Affinity. - ~ 26. Spiritual Affinitr. - ~ 27. Effects of these Prohibitions.- ~ 28. Of Dispensations.- ~ 29. State Prohibitions.- ~ 30. Marriage Act of George II.~ 31. Of Voidability of Marriage. - ~ 32. The True Rule. - ~ 33. The
Royal Marriage Act. - ~ 34. Of the Marriage of First Cousins.- ~ 35.
Duty of Christians.- ~ 36. Conclusion of the Chapter.
~ 1. ALL the elements of marriage gather about the
unity to which some of them lead, while others spring
fronm it. The unity, that is, the union of the twain into
one flesh, is the central idea of marriage, and the basis of
the precept against separation. Our blessed Lord, after
stating the doctrine of the unity of the married pair, declares the unlawfulness of separation, which He expressly
derives from that doctrine.' The consent of the parties
and the blessing of God are the formative elements of
marriage, the two factors, so to speak, by which it is
made. Out of them arise the sanctity and the unity, which
1 See Matthew xix. 5, 6; Mark x. 6-9. 
272      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
are the parents of the other elements. God's blessing is
the immnediate cause of the sanctity and the unity.  That
blessing is not given when there has been no hearty consent, or when the consent, although given, is contrary to
the Divine law.  When there has been no Divine blessing,
God hath not joined the twain so that they have become
one flesh.  The unity of marriage depends upon that junction which can be the work of no power but God.   When
it has not taken place there is no marriage, and man is
not forbidden from putting asunder those whom God hath
not joined. Persons who live together in such pretended
marriages, live in sin. They not only may, but must separate.
This principle does not extend to marriages which have
been entered into without the inward consent of one or
both of the parties, to the elements of Christian marriage.
If an external and formal consent has been given, man,
who can only look upon the outward appearance,  must
inquire no further.   All human laws, whether ecclesiastical or civil, must treat the marriage as binding. Nay, as
between the parties themselves it is binding. The person
who has withheld the consent has sinned, and has drawn
the other party into a situation in which he or she would
not have been but for the simulated consent. The sinner
cannot, according to any law, Divine or human, take advantage of his or her own sin, but must submit to all the
inconveniences of which it may be the cause. The deceiver should repent and amend, and give the consent
which was improperly withheld. The blessing of God
may then descend and supply what was wanting in the
formal marriage. In the mean time the marriage is sinful,
so far as the guilty person is concerned. But man has no
warrant for treating it as other than a valid marriage.
~ 2. In this way, and perhaps in other ways, those may
be sinfuil marriages which are displeasing to God, but
which man cannot treat as void. But where no consent 
OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
has been given, or where the marriage is in direct violation of a Divine law, and the absence of the consent or
the unlawfulness can be shown by outward provable facts,
man may separate those whom God hath not joined. It
is plain that God hath not joined the parties, and that
they are not married. There are then some things which
make an outward marriage unlawful and void. They are
called impediments to marriage, and are of two classes.
The first are facts which prove that there has been no consent. The others are facts which prove that the marriage
is of a class not allowed "by God's Word."
~ 3. Consent is the first element of Christian marriage;
without it there can be no Divine blessing, and conseqiiently no marriage. The case of an outward consent
without an inward has been just considered. At present,
the subject is the absence of an outward consent. Where
there is an outward consent, men are bound to presume
an inward one; but where there is no outward consent,
there is no marriage. This truth is so clear to unassisted
reason, that it has not been revealed. It is a logical inference from it, that where consent, although formally given,
can be shown to have been only formal, the marriage is
void. The cases to which this rule is applicable are those
in which the consent has been obtained by force or fraud,
or one of the parties has been incapable of giving an intelligent assent. Persons of unsound mind and children are
under such an incapacity.
~ 4. Marriages have been sometimes brought about by
force. In such cases there is no inward consent.'I'he
outward consent can be shown to have been extorted, and
not to have been the index of an inward consent. Such
marriages can be shown to be void, because it can be
proven by evidence, of which man can judge, that there
has been no consent.
~ 5. In other cases, persons have been induced to marry
without knowing the facts about which they ought to have
18
273 
274     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
inquired. Here there is no internal consent, and in fact
no external consent to the thing which has been done.
When such a person has acted heedlessly, there has been
sin, but not such sin as will annul the mnarriage. It is
like any other marriage in which the outward consent has
been given without the internal. The imprudent person
has no remniedy, and must give the internal consent whenever the facts are disclosed. But if a person has been deceived by the fraud and contrivance of the other party to
the pretended marriage, it is a different case. It can then
be proved that the formal external consent was obtained
while the internal was withheld. The marriage can then
be shown to be void. But the fraud must relate to the
person, or at least to something which enters into the
essence of the marriage. A fraud which relates to property, or to anything which is merely circumstantial to the
marriage, will not affect its validity.
Under this head nmay be mentioned - although perhaps
not with strict accuracy- the nullity of marriages in which
one of the persons married labors under certain physical
disabilities which unfit persons for some of the duties of
marriage.  On this subject it is perhaps best to say nothing more.
~ 6. It follows from the necessity of consent, that a provable incapacity to consent is an impediment to marriage.
It is an impediment interposed by God himself, who requires consent by his unwritten law, and has, in the course
of his providence, withheld from a particular person the
power of consenting. All the writers on the subject of
marriage, including those of the strictest principles, are
agreed that an evident incapacity to consent is such an
impediment as renders the outward consent ineffectual
and the marriage void. Lawyers speak of three classes
of persons who have not capacity to consent to a contract:
idiots, lunatics, and infants. The progress of science is
fast effacing the distinction between idiots and lunatics. 
OF THE IMPEDiMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
They may be included in one class, and called persons
of unsound mind. The impediments to marriage arising
out of incapacity are then two,-unsoundness of mind and
nonage.
~ 7. Unsoundness of mind is the effect of a disease, or
perhaps of several diseases, which interrupt in various
ways the intercourse between the intellectual soul and the
brain. Those who are thus affected are in a greater or
less degree incapable of understanding the various rela tions of life, and consequently of governing themselves
and taking care of their own interests. The law of the
land interposes for their protection, and declares that they
are not bound by any contracts which they may attempt
to make; the rule applies to marriage as well as to other
contracts.  Its application is a very nice operation.  AIost
persons have so much capacity as to understand, although
perhaps imperfectly, something of the relations of life and
the effect of contracts. But there are persons who are
incapable of doing either. These are persons of unsound
mind. The other class are persons of dull or slow or
weak minds, and in some cases even of unsound mind.
These are all figurative expressions.  They all designate
a certain, or rather uncertain amount of deficiency in the
mind.  The deficiency is very different in different persons. Whether the difference is in kind or degree is a
very difficult question. If it be in kind, what is it? If it
be in degree, where and how are lines to be drawn?
The nature and extent of these deficiencies cannot be
ascertained, and rules deduced which can be applied to
particular cases. Where the deficiency is very great, all
men agree that the person is of unsound mind, while there
are other cases in which all men agree that the person is
of sound mind. But there is an interval in which it is
difficult to decide whether the mind is sound or not. One
man would pronounce a person of unsound mind, whom
another would regard as only slow or weak.
275 
276      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 8. Civil courts are seldom inclined to annul contracts
upon the mere ground of unsoundness of mind. Where
there is an inequality in the bargain, which gives reason
to suspect that undue advantage has been taken of the
person alleged to be of unsound mind, they lean against
the contract. They acknowledge no difference between
marriage and a mere civil contract, and apply the same
principles and rules to both. Few marriages would, therefore, be pronounced void upon the ground of unsoundness
of mind. The courts would be unwilling to annul a marriage unless fraud were proved, and they could judicially
see some inequality in the circumstances of the marriage.
Moreover they would be unconsciously influenced by the
sanctity of marriage, and consciously by the fact that the
woman could never be restored to the condition in which
she was before she was married. The question, however,
seldom arises in the form of an application to have a marriage declared void. It generally comes up after the
death of one or both of the parties to the marriage, in the
form of a question as to the legitimacy of the children.
In such cases, the courts lean in favor of the rights of the
children and of the validity of the marriage.
The rule that marriage is void where there is an incapacity to consent, is never applied willingly by the civil
courts, because they consider it as a civil contract. If a
person has that amount of intellect which would qualify
hinm to buy or sell a barrel of flour, the courts will hold
him to be capable of contracting marriage. For all these
reasons it is that there are not many marriages declared
void for want of capacity to consent.
~ 9. The question, whether a Christian may lawfully
intermarry with the sound-minded party to such a pseudomarriage, is not likely to occur in practice. When it does
arise, a presumption will arise out of the reluctance of the
courts to set aside marriages, that one which they have
set aside was really invalid. At the same time, it is prob 
OF TItE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
able that the transaction involved a defect in the morals
of the sound-mninded party to it. A conscientious Christian would not willingly intermarry with a person who had
gone through the marriage ceremony with a person whom
a court of justice had pronounced to have been at the
time of unsound mind. No Christian, or person of right
moral feeling, would think of entering into a marriage
with a person who had been engaged in so doubtftil a
transaction.
On  the other hand, the same tendency of the courts
renders it certain that one who has been released from a
pretended marriage on the grounds of his or her incapacity to consent is incapable of marrying. The decision
should be received by the conscience of every one, as
proving that it is unlawful to marry such person.
~ 10. Unsoundness of mind is a shadowy thing, and has
no precise ascertainable limits, which can be reduced to
definite rules. This is, in part, because the mind may be
applied to subjects of unequal difficulty, some  miore and
others less complicated. A mind nmay be competent to
deal with one subject and not with another. Buying and
selling is a very simple affair, to which an intelligent consent may be given by a very moderate capacity. A Christian marriage involves many considerations, to understand
which requires much more intellect than will suffice to buy
or sell. It would therefore seem reasonable that greater
strength and clearness of mind should be required in marriage than in other less complicated contracts. There are.
many persons capable of buying and selling, who can only
look upon marriage on its animal side. It is in the nature
of law to deal in unbending rules and strict definitions.
These are unattainable with respect to unsoundness of
mind. The courts naturally lean to the idea that it is an
absolute thing, and take no notice of degrees of unsoundniiess. They have abstained from laying down rules as to
the degree of unsoundness, which will vacate a contract,
277 
278     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
and put all contracts on the same footing. They lean to
the validity of all marriages, which have been solemnized
with legal forms. For the purposes for which they exist,
and from the point of view which they are obliged to take,
they are right.
~ 11. In the court of conscience, the subject should be
looked at in another way. A conscientious person, that is,
one who exercises himself to have " a conscience void of
offense towards God, and towards man," must "abstain
from all appearance of evil." Such persons are bound to
abstain from everything which is evil, no matter how slight
the degree of evil may be, and to decide all questions
about their own conduct by the strictest rule. Wherever
there is any doubt of the soundness of any person's mind,
it would seem to be inconsistent with the high tone of
Christian morals to intermarry with such person.   This
rule, which  is in part a rule of expediency, though of
Christian expediency, can only be applied before marriage,
as a reason for not mnarrying one who may be incapable
of forming a Christian marriage.  After marriage no such
idea must be entertained for the purpose of escaping from
obligations already assumed.
~ 12. The other class of persons who are unable to contract marriage, because incapable of understanding its nature and consenting to its obligations, are children, or, as
they are called by the common law, infants. As to these
the courts have adopted the same policy as in the case of
persons of unsound mind. Their marriages are held valid,
when their capacity to contract is only doubtful.  Looking
at the matter by the light of reason, it is clear that where
there is an incapacity to give an intelligent consent, there
can be no marriage.  Here, as in the case of persons of
unsound mind, the difficulty is to find a proper test of
capacity.
~ 13. A child of a few months old, who has but just
learned to speak, has certainly no such capacity. A young 
OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
man or woman, whose mind has just attained maturity,
certainly has. During, the whole interval which has passed
between these two periods, the intellect has been expanding. The capacity for understanding the nature of marriage, and of the consent by which it is constituted, has
been continually developing.  The germ, from which it has
been developed, if it existed at the first period, could not
be discerned.    The development proceeds with greater
rapidity in some cases than in others.
In different cases the development is complete at different ages; but for practical purposes it is necessary that
there should be a definite rule. Definite rules are of the
essence of law. One great function of human law-makers
is to reduce the vague, because affirmative, precepts of the
Divine laws to definite precepts by introducing negations
to limit them. It is an analogous function to fix arbitrary
periods at which capacity shall be presumed and before
which incapacity shall be presumed.   This is the only
mode of escaping inquiries into the capacity of particular
persons, which would be endless, and could never be satisfactory. Yet this course has its own insuperable difficulties. No period can be found which will apply to all cases;
and that which is fixed upon will always appear, and in
fact be, arbitrary. One young person is as competent to
perform the duties of life at twenty as another is at twentyone. A third at twenty-two may be less competent than
either. The law, in order that there may be a definite rule,
has fixed upon twenty-one, as the period upon which a'
young man enters upon his full rights and responsibilities.
Yet it would be impossible to show that twenty-one is the
average period of maturity. If the law had fixed upon
twenty or twenty-two, it would have been equally impossible to show that either of those ages was or was not the
proper period.
~ 14. The law of England fixes the time, at which young
persons are allowed to act for themselves, at different ages
2'i 9 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
for different transactions. It seems strange that children
were allowed to consent to a marriage before they could
bind themselves by any other obligation. This was probably connected with the medieval notion, that parents had
a right to dispose of their children in marriage, which was
itself connected with the mediaeval custom of early marriages. The mediaeval laws assumed that a young lady
ought to be married before she had completed her fourteenth year. In the time of the Tudors, and even later, there
were cases of boys of fifteen and younger who married.
In fact, there was no age at which children might not be
and were not married, although a marriage before what
was called the age of consent was considered only inchoate.
~ 15. In England the age of consent was and still is fourteen for boys and twelve for girls. It is strange that this
law has never been changed in England, and still stranger
that it has not been changed in this country. Early as the
age of consent was fixed, marriages frequently took place
at earlier ages. They were regarded as lawful but inchoate. The person who was under the age of consent
might, on arriving at that age, disaffirm the marriage. The
law was that, if it were not immediately and formally disaffirmed the marriage stood. If the husband died before
the wife had reached the age of consent, she was, if she
were nine years old, entitled to her dower.
The practice, however, was to affirm such marriages in
the most solemn manner, by repeating the marriage ceremony. This has been done within less than two hundred
years.  Evelyn relates in his "Diary," that he was present
at the marriage of the Duke of Grafton, a natural son of
Charles II., with the only daughter of the Earl of Arlington, when the bride was about five years old and the bridegroom about nine. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Sancroft, officiated.  Some years later Evelyn was present at
280 
OF THE  IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
their re-marriage, "the bride being now twelve years
old." 1
In these marriages of children, they were known to act
under the direction of their parents, and to give no internal consent, although it is probable that there was no
conscious dissent. Such marriages could not have been
Christian marriages when they were celebrated, whatever
they may have become afterwards. There is reason to believe that many of them turned out well. Evelyn's own
marriage was a very happy one, although it took place before the bride was thirteen, the husband being about twice
that age. The time for such things has passed. Little
children are no longer married. At every marriage an
outward consent is given and an inward one presumed.
The outward consent is not now given under the pressure
of paternal authority, though it may sometimes be yielded
to maternal persuasion.
~ 16. In America, the age at which young persons are
capable of marriage is not practically settled by law. It
is not creditable to American law-makers that things are
in such a state. The old notion of the age of consent,
although forgotten, is still theoretically law. Boys and girls
do not attempt to marry so early. If they did the marriages would be valid, although in some States the law
attempts to prevent them by more or less stringent regulations. A marriage contracted by a young person who
is incapable of giving an intelligent consent, is no marriage. What young persons are in that situation cannot be ascertained in each case. There is then a necessity for a rule which shall fix an age before which incapacity shall be presumed.  The age actually fixed-  the
old age of consent- is absurdly early.
The Church and the State have each a right to establish
such a rule for its own purposes; but if they adopted different rules, the consequences might be very awkward.
1 Evelyn's Diary, August, 1672, and November 6, 1679.
281 
282     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
There would be civil marriages which the Church did not
acknowledge, and ecclesiastical marriages which the State
did not acknowledge. Moreover, a rule adopted by the
Church would, practically, be binding onIL none but her members, and would be disregarded by many of them. She
has therefore wisely abstained from acting upon the subject.
Were the State to make a rule, it would be the duty of
the Church to accept it. The State, however, can scarcely
be regarded as doing her duty while she gives no rule but
one which is obsolete. Few things can be more absurd
than that while a young man of twenty cannot contract a
debt for five dollars, a boy of fourteen or a female child of
twelve may enter into the marriage state without the least
notion of its duties.
It would scarcely be right to postpone the age of consent until twenty-one. There are very few cases in which
it is prudent for persons of either sex to marry before
twenty-one. Yet most persons are as competent to uinderstand the relation of marriage before they attain that age
as they will ever be. But it is proper that some general
rule should be laid down. Nothing short of this will prevent young persons from involving themselves in misery
and perhaps in sin. In Europe the evil has been felt, and
attempts have been made to remedy it, by making the consent of parents a condition of the validity of a mnarriage,
if either of the parties to it were less than twenty-one. The
British Parliament, moved by the strong objections to tliis
law, have repealed it. In some other countries, still later
periods have been fixed within which young persons could
not marry without the consent of their parents.
~ 17. There is a religious objection to all this.  The
young person was or was not capable of giving an  intelligent consent. If an intelligent consent has been given,
there has been a Christian marriage, which cannot be dissolved by any human authority. The young couple have, 
OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
so far as man can know, been joined by God, and man
may not separate them for want of the consent of a parent.
If the young person is not capable of giving an intelligent consent, the marriage cannot be made a Christian
one by the consent of the parents.  The consent of another
person cannot be substituted for that of the person who is
to be married. Such laws proceed upon the old error, that
parents have a right to dispose of their children in niarriage. It is scarcely necessary to repeat that parents
have no such right; it is of the very essence of marriage
that it should be free. Shakespeare spoke a deeper truth
than hle supposed, when he said, " Marriage is a matter of
more worth than to be dealt in by attorneyship." It is also
a matter of more worth than to be dealt with under compulsion. The rule of making the consent of parents
necessary to the validity of the marriage of young persons
has been laid aside in England. The experiment was not
found to answer, and after the law had been in force for
sixty-eight years it was repealed.
~ 18. It must not be supposed that, because young persons have the power of contracting marriage without the
consent of their parents, it is right that they should do so.
Piety and prudence both require that the parent should
be consulted, though the power of acting is still in the
child; but that power ought not to be exercised without
the consent of the parents. A marriage contracted against
the advice of a parent ought not to have been contracted,
but being contracted it is valid, for there is no Divine
law which makes the parent's consent one of the formnative elements of marriage.  The want of such consent is
not such an impediment as can affect the religious validity of a marriage.  Yet it is probable that few marriages, contracted by young persons without it, are really
valid internally, for they are contracted in a state of mind
not consistent with giving a really Christian consent to the
union, and not very likely to call down the Divine blessing.
283 
284      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
Marriages without parental consent involve young persons in sin. But the sin is a transient one, beginning and
ending in the act of disobedience. It is not a continuing
sin, like that of living in a marriage forbidden by the law
of God, where the sin is continually repeated and renewed.
It is, therefore, no reason for separating those whom God
may have joined, although He has not approved all the
circumstances of their union. This question will be further considered in another part of this chapter.
~ 19. In all the cases of void marriage which have been
considered, the nullity has been connected with the want
of consent. It is now proper to inquire into the other class
of impediments, which arise out of the direct prohibitions
of the revealed law. Of these there are two, - an existing
marriage of either of the persons who desire to marry,
and the sin which is called incest. It is of them that the
Anglican Churches speak, in that solemn charge which
they give to all candidates for matrimony: "I require and
charge you both, as you will answer at the dreadful day of
judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed,
that if either of you know any impediment why you should
not be lawfully joined together in matrimony, ye do now
confess it; for be ye well assured, that if any persons are
joined together otherwise than as God's law doth allow,
their marriage is not lawful."
~ 20. The first of these two impediments is connected
with the element of exclusiveness.   Our blessed Lord
said: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry
another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman
put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." 1
Our Lord assumes that it is impossible for a man to
have two wives, or a woman two husbands, at one time,
without committing adultery, and decides that the putting
away a wife or husband does not alter the case. He uses
1 Mark x. 11, 12. 
OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
the exclusiveness of marriage as a means of enforcing the
doctrine that it cannot be dissolved. There is thus a revealed condemnation of both polygamy and polyandry.  A
living husband or wife is then an impediment, which arrests the Divine blessing on a marriage and deprives it of
the elements of sanctity and unity. Such a marriage is
adultery, although it may be connived at or licensed by the
State.
~ 21. The other impediment growing out of revealed
prohibitions is incest.  It consists in sexual intercourse
between persons whose relation to each other renders it
especially sinful.   Such relations are either of consanguinity or affinity. Consanguinity is the descent, within
certain limits, from a common ancestor. Affinity grows out
of marriage, and exists between each of a married pair,
and those who are related to the other by consanguinity.
The doctrine of incest rests chiefly upon the revealed
law; but it may, to some extent, be discovered by the light
of nature, for all nations have acknowledged that there is
such a sin as incest. Marriage cannot make incest lawful, for an incestuous marriage is void, although connived at
or licensed by the State. It always continues to be incest,
just as an adulterous marriage always continues to be
adultery. In both cases God refuses to bless that which
He has forbidden, and the two persons are not joined by
Him. This is an extensive subject, and will be reserved
for further consideration in the next chapter.
~ 22. Some persons have supposed that there is another
impediment to marriage growing out of a Divine prohibition. It may be proper to say something of it. It is
the case of mixed marriages, as they are called, in which
one of the parties is a Christian and the other is not.
The general rule is that marriage is indissoluble, because
those whom God hath joined man may not put asunder.
The unlawful marriages which have been just mentioned,
are not marriages, because of impediments growing out
285 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
of the Divine prohibition.   God has not joined  those
whom He has forbidden to be joined. Where the consent
is a sin, the Divine blessing is withheld, and the marriage
is void. This is the general rule; but there are exceptions.
It is not every kind of unlawfulness which will render a
marriage void.   In this, as in other departments of the
Divine law, there are cases within the law maxim:  Fieri
non debet,factum valet.  It ought not to be done, but is valid
when done.
The most prominent case of this sort is that of mixed
mnarriages.  It is not lawful for a Christian to marry one
who is not in the Lord. The unlawfulness of such marriages rests mainly upon a single text.  It is this, "The
wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but
if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to
whom she will; only in the Lord." 1 This text does not
take the form of a prohibition, and there is nowhere any
definition of what is meant by the words "in the Lord."
There are many nominal Christians, of whoml it can scarcely
be said that they are in the Lord. Yet no one has asserted
that such marriages are not religiously valid. It cannot
be supposed that the full benefit of the Divine blessing is
received, but they are so far blessed as to be binding.
They are not continuing sins, and man cannot put asunder
those whom God has joined. It is quite possible that the
text may be only a counsel, and that may be the reason
why a marriage is not void because one of the parties to it
is not in the Lord. Whether it be law or counsel, there can
be no doubt that it applies to all Christians, although in
form it is only addressed to widows. If it be a counsel,
counsel from such a quarter will be considered by conscientious Christians as equivalent to a law.
St. Paul elsewhere says, " Know ye not, that your bodies
are the members of Christ?  Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot?
1  Corinthians vii. 39.
286 
OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
God forbid! What! know ye not that he which is joined
to an harlot, is one body?  For two, saith He, shall be one
flesh." 1 Sonme divines have been of opinion, that the
word which is here translated "harlot," ought to have been
translated" alien," in the sense of one who is a stranger
to the Church and commonwealth of Christ. This translation solves some difficulties, for which the authorized one
leaves room. But there is not a sufficient weight of either
argument or authority to make it safe to admit it. If it be
admitted, it will follow that although intermarriage with
Jews and Pagans was forbidden, yet such marriages, when
they had taken place, were valid.   The marriage of the
Christian with the Pagan made them one flesh, by virtue
of the primitive law of marriage. Yet, if the new translation be right, such marriages are forbidden.
There is a passage in Deuteronomy which has been
applied to such marriages; but it is only a prohibition to
intermarry with the Canaanites, and is closely connected
with the command to extirpate them.  It cannot be regarded as a portion of the permanent moral law. It is this:
"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land
whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many
nations before thee....  And when the Lord thy God
shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them and
utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with
them, nor show mercy unto them.   Neither shalt thou
make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not
give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto
thy son." 2 The same remarks may be applied to the parallel passage in Joshua xxiii. 12.
~ 23. It is an important question, whether a mere human
law of either the Church or the State can make void a
marriage which has been solemnized with such outward
forms, as involve an outward consent from which an inward may be presumed, and which does not contravene
1 1 Corinthians vi. 15, 16.     2 Deuterononmy vii. 1-3.
287 
288     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
any Divine law. If it could, a merely human law would
prevent the operation of a Divine ordinance. This can
scarcely be supposed. It follows that neither the Church
nor the State can create an impediment to Christian marriage.
The State may forbid certain persons from intermarrying, and the law would bind the consciences of her subjects
or citizens, as much as any other civil law, that is, they
would be bound not to intermarry. This obligation might
be enforced by penalties; but if a marriage took place, the
State could not make it void, except so far as relates to the
civil effects of marriage. The persons have sinned in contracting a marriage forbidden by the State. But the sin
was transient, not continuing. It does not vacate the marriage; the parties to it cannot intermarry with other persons without both the parties to the new marriage conmmitting adultery.   They may not even separate, unless
compelled to do so. A continuing sin renders a separation
a duty, for God could not have blessed a marriage which
involves continuing sin; but it has never been supposed
that a transient sin, in the mere circumstances of a marriage, could prevent its being a valid marriage. Disobedience to a parental injunction and to a civil law are both
sins; but neither will vacate a marriage because they
relate only to circumstances. A marriage forbidden by
a State law, is still binding on the conscience of a Christian.
~ 94. No human law, ecclesiastical or civil, can render a
marriage so invalid as not to be binding on the conlscieince.
Yet both the Church and the State have made laws, which
attempt to annul marriages, thereby separating those whom
God  hath joined.   The  Church set the example, and
created many merely canonical impediments to marriage.
These generally related to persons connected by consanguinity or affinity. These terms have been explained in
the twenty-first section of this chapter. The Levitical law 
OF THE IMPEDIMIENTS TO MARRIAGE.
forbade intermarriage in certain enumerated cases of con sanguinity.   From  these enumerated  cases, a rule has
been deduced, that all persons more nearly related than
first cousins are forbidden to intermarry. The Latin Church
went farther. She forbade first cousins from intermarry ing, and thus introduced a merely human inmpediment.
The new principle was not allowed to stop here. It was at
one time asserted that the words " near of kin," in Levit icus xviii. 6, included all persons who had a traceable
descent from a common ancestor. Practically this would
be a very vague rule, and would operate very unequally.
It was at last settled that no two persons could inter marry who were descended from a common ancestor
through less than seven generations.  The effect of this
may be made plainer by observing that a nian's son is removed from him by one generation, his girandson by two,
his great-grandson by three, the son of his great-grandson
by four, the grandson of his great-grandson by five, the
great-grandson of his great-grandson by six, and the son
of that very remote descendant by seven.   Before  the
seventh generation is reached, the ordinary names of relationship in the descending line are exhausted, repeated, and
exhausted again. Very few persons in this country, and
not many in any country, can trace back nmore than four or
five generations.
~ 25. The canonical impediments to marriage were extended yet more widely in the Latin Church. The Scriptural principle, that a man and his wife are one flesh, has
been considered to make marriages between persons connected by affinity, unlawful to the same extent as those between persons related by consanguinity. This idea is very
fully borne out by the special prohibitions in the eighteenth
chapter of Leviticus. The Latin Church having extended
the impediments of consanguinity to the seventh generation, which she calls the seventh degree, applied the Scriptural principle, that a man and his wife are one flesh, to
19
289 
290     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF' MARRIAGE.
thenm all. The blood-relations of a man were the kin of
his wife, and hers were his.   The number of cases in
which marriage was forbidden, was thus greatly increased.
It was still further increased by a logical deduction. If
a man and his wife are one flesh and her relations are his,
it was inferred that the wives of her minale relations must
also be of kin to him. The same notion was applied to the
husbands of the female relations of the husband.   Thus
arose the doctrine of a second degree of affinity, which had
no foundation whatever in Scripture. It meant the connection which was supposed to exist between a man and
woman, one of whom had affinity with a person who had
affinity with the other. It was even attempted to introduce a third degree of affinity, between two persons, one
of whom had affinity with a person who had affinity with
the other in the second degree. This was seen to be absurd, affinity in the third degree was given up, and prohibitions on account of the second degree were reduced within
narrower limits than in the cases of consanguinity and
affinity proper.
~ 26. A third class of canonical impediments grew out
of what was called spiritual affinity. By the law of Pagan
Rome, a man might adopt a son. The adoption made the
adopted person the son of him who adopted him, for all
civil purposes and for all purposes connected with the
heathen superstition.  As the Romans regarded marriage
as a civil contract, matters connected with it were no exceptions. It followed that the adopted son was the kivsman of all the kindred of the adopter. The Church borrowed these principles, and applied them to sponsors and
those for whom they answered in baptisnm.  ]Iarriage between a god-parent and his or her godchild was considered
unlawful.   So was  marriage between  persons who had
been sponsors for the same persons, and who were regarded
as spiritual brothers and sisters. The connections thus
growing oult of baptism were called spiritual affinity, and 
OF THE IMPED)IMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
it was held to make marriage unlawfil among those thus
connected, and also that of any of them with the near
blood-relations of any of the others.
~ 27. The practical evil of these canonical prohibitions
was enormous. In a small community, in which, as was
usual in the middle ages, families remained stationary from
generation to generation, all the persons who composed it
would probably be descended from common ancestors
within seven generations, and could not intermarry. Even
if there were a few exceptions, they would be connected
with their neighbors by affinity or spiritual affinity. It was
inmpossible for the commnon people to find, within their
reach, persons with whom they could intermarry. Persons
of rank were subjected to the same inconvenience. The
lesser nobility of each province, the higher nobility of each
kingdom, and the royal and princely families of all Europe,
were, each class within itself, connected within the prohibited degrees. This is apparent when one reflects that each
person has in the seventh generation one hundred and
twenty-eight ancestors. It may be further illustrated by
recollecting that Queen Victoria is only in the eighth generation from James I.
Several great mischiefs arose from this state of things.
Persons who wished to marry did not know whom they
might canonically nmarry, while it was certain that they
could not canonically marry within the circle in which they
would naturally seek companions.   Those who were married, very often did not know whether their marriages were
valid. The Divine law, that marriage cannot be dissolved,
was virtually made of none effect, as the Jews nmade the
commandments of God of none effect by their traditions.
Almnost every marriage might be annulled.  These consequences of the notion that impediments to marriage can
be created by human laws, seem to show that the doctrine
is a pernicious one, and that in policy, as well as upon
principle, there should be no impediments to marriage
which are not created by a Divine law.
291 
292      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 28. The Western Church endeavored to lessen these
evils by means of dispensations.  It was not a very effectual remedy; but it increased the revenue and the influence of the Popes.  Much money and many other advantag,es could be obtained, when the passions or policy of a
powerfill prince, or even of a great noble, pointed to a
marriage with a particular lady.  When policy or domestic
troubles, or a passion for another woman, inclined such a
person to rid himself of his wife, even more money and
greater advantages could be gotten. Much might also be
had fronm those whose interests would be injuriously affected
by such transactions. The system of dispensations began
early, but was for a time confined to the merely canonical
impediments. The prohibitions in the eighteenth chapter
of Leviticus were called prohibitions by God's law, and
were held not to be capable of dispensation.
Pope Alexander III., Roderic Borgia, is said to have
been the first who broke through this rule. Julius II.,
who, although not such a moral monster as Borgia, was a
very wicked man, granted the dispensation for the marriag,e of Henry VIII. to Catharine of Aragon, who had
been the wife of his brother. This is said to have been
only the second dispensation from an impediment created
by the law of God. It was afterwards assailed upon the
strong ground that the Pope could not dispense with the
Divine law. But Clement VII. was induced by fear of the
Emperor Charles V. to sustain the dispensation. The momentous consequences of this decision have compelled the
Church of Rome to abide by the doctrine on which it rests.
It may rest on either of two erroneous notions: one that the
Pope can dispense with the law of God; the other that
the sixteenth verse of the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus is
not a part of the moral law of God. Unless one of these
propositions is true, it is clear that a dispensation to marry
the widow of a brother is void. The Council of Trent
anathematized those who denied the efficacy of such papal 
OF THE IMIPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
dispensations; but did not entertain ally question as to the
ground on which they could be maintained.
~ 29. The State has also ventured upon creating impedi ments to marriage; although few or no laws of the kind
have yet been passed in the United States. They have
generally been connected with the maintenance and exten sion of parental authority.  Some of the most remarkable
cases of this usurped power have occurred in England, of
which country only it will be convenient here to speak.
Two remarkable laws of this sort were, during the last
century, passed in England.  They are known as the Mar riage Act of George II., and the Royal Marriage Act.
~ 30. The first made void all marriages which might be
contracted by persons who should be less than twenty-one
years old at the time of the marriage, without the consent
of their parents or guardians. The courts construed this
to mean lawful parents or lawful guardians. An illegitimate child had no parents, and no person could consent to
his or her marriage. If there were no parents, either in
consequence of illegitimacy or death, the lawful guardian
might consent to the marriage of his ward; if he did not,
the marriage was void. It sometimes happened that the
person who was supposed to be the guardian, and had consented to a marriage, had not been legally appointed. It
also sometimes happened that the father or mother of an
illegitimate child consented to a marriage, supposing that
the law meant natural parents. In either case, the mar-.
riage was void. To obviate some of these difficulties, it
was provided that marriages should be valid, although one
of the parties was under age, if the bans, or notice of an
intention to marry, were regularly published in the proper
parish church. But the courts held that a fraud, or even
a nmistake as to names or residence of the parties, rendered
a marriage by bans null.
The greatest hardship of all remains to be told. In all
these cases of void marriages, the courts held that the
293 
294     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
children were illegitimate, and that their parents could not
consent to their marriage. Thus the incapacity for marriage was transmitted from generation to generation. Persons who were believed by themselves and every one else
to be lawfiully married, were living in what the law regarded
as fornication, and had no power to consent to the marriage
of their children. The mnarriages of such of their children
as were married before they attained the age of twenty-one,
were void. This would lead to another set of void marriages. The result was that no one who had been mnarried under twenty-one, or to a husband or wife who, at the
time, was under twenty-one, could know whether he or she
was married or not. For the marriage might be vitiated
by the invalidity of that of some ancestor of one of the
parties. An irregularity which was unknown and unsuspected at the time, might be discovered and used to
vacate the marriage of some descendant a generation or
two afterwards.  Sometimes the defect, where it was discovered before the birth of a child, might be cured by a
remarriage. But it was sometimes not discovered until it
was too late, and persons were deprived of their inheritance by the legal, though unconscientious claims of their
relations. Sometimes men took advantage of such defects,
to get rid of their wives. But the great evil was the same
as in the case of the canonical impediments, the breaking
in upon the Divine law, that marriage is indissoluble.
These evils led to a repeal of the act, after it had been in
force nearly three fourths of a century.
~ 31. At the time of the repeal of this act, another expedient was proposed.  It was that of making the marriage
of minors what was called voidable.  This consisted in giving a power to a parent to vacate the marriage of his or
her minor child, by a suit in an ecclesiastical court, to be
commenced within a limited time. If no such suit were
commenced within the limited time, the marriage would
become valid. This would have put an end to the treat 
OF THE IAIPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
ing as void, marriages in which there had been an actual
consent given by persons who had not legal power to give
it. All persons, except those who had been married uinder
twenty-one without the actual consent of parents or guardians, would know whether they were married or not. But
there would still have been a class who must live in
doubt, and that of a very peculiar character. Their marriages would have been inchoate, and liable to be set aside
by the parents of one of the parties. They would have
borne a strong resemblance to the Roman marriages by
Usuccipio, which might be dissolved at the pleasure of the
lady's father. Such an arrangement would have been absurd, as well as inconsistent with the Divine law. Happily
the notion of voidability was never incorporated into the
law of England. In lieu of it, it was provided that the
marriages of minors should be void under certain circumstances, which are not likely to occur. The law, however,
still conflicts with the Divine rule of the indissolubleness
of marriage.
~ 32. The marriage of children, who are incapable of
understanding the nature of the relation, is a great evil.
Such marriages are void in a religious view, for want of an
intelligent consent. They should be treated as what they
are, void marriages, which the consent of parents cannot
make valid. Thus the inmbecility of the child is protected
against both himself and his parents. This is the rule ill
all other contracts. A boy or girl cannot sell his or her
estate; the disability is absolute, and is not removed by
consent of parents. By the existing law, a boy of fourteen
or a girl of twelve may marry without the consent of any
one. This is clearly wrong, but it would be no improvement, if the marriage were valid with the consent of
parents and void  without it.  It would  universally be
thought absurd, if children were allowed to alienate their
property with the consent of their parents. The true
course is to make the age of consent later. If boys of
295 
2 4(6   CIhRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
fourteen and girls of twelve understand the nature of mar  riage, they have a right to marry. If they do not, the con sent of parents cannot qualify them to enter into engage ments which they cannot comprehend.
~ 33. What  is called the  Royal Marriage Act  was
passed in the reign of George III., and is still in force. It
makes void all marriages entered into by any of the royal
family, under the age of twenty-five, without the consent of
the sovereign. After that age they may marry without the
consent of the sovereign, if they have the virtual consent
of Parliament; but this is in practice only nominal. Two
violations of this law have been publicly avowed, and others
have been suspected. The late Duke of Sussex, a son of
George II., was twice married. Both his wives were of
high position and respectable character.  They lived with
him openly, and were regarded by him, by themselves, and
by the public as his wives, only they were not received at
court, and were not publicly called by his title.  After his
death Queen Victoria created his widow a duchess by one
of his titles; but the House of Lords decided that his
dukedom did not descend to his son, because his mother's
marriage was void. From these facts it may be inferred
that public opinion in England had settled upon the true
doctrine. The civil authority can vacate a marriage for
civil purposes, but in a religious and moral view it still
remains a marriage.
~ 34. The claims of the State to create impediments
to marriage is a proper subject of attention, on account
of a movement in this country to forbid the marriage of
first cousins.1 Plausible arguments against such unions
are derived from  the science of Physiology.   There is
little doubt that marriages between near relations tend to
the deterioration of the species. The effect of such mnarriages, repeated in several successive generations, is very
1 [Such marriages are now forbidden by the State of New Hampshire,
and by some others.- ED.] 
OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE.
observable.  This is a very good reason why such mar riages should be considered inexpedient and indeed sin ful.  It is a good reason why Christians should  avoid
them. It may also be a good reason that the State should
forbid and punish them.   But all this is very different
from an impediment, which will prevent a marriage from
taking effect.  It is now acknowledged  by every one
that such marriages are valid.  The only nominal dissen tients are the Romian Catholics, and they consider them
valid when contracted under a dispensation. If any leg islature should undertake to declare them void, it would
be a usurpation like those of the Church of Rome  and
the British Parliament. It would be creating an inipedi mnent which God had not ordained, and undertaking to
separate those whom He had joined.
~ 35. This work is addressed to the consciences of Chris tians, and it is proper to say a word as to their duty
with respect to such laws.  It is to obey them.  God has
nowhere commanded that minors should  marry, or that
first cousins should intermarry.   No  Christian  man is
justified in contracting a marriage which is forbidden by
the law of the land.   The evils which such a marriage
might produce to his wife and his children are sufficient reasons why he should not contract it, even if there were no
other. The same reasons apply with even more force to
Christian women. Yet the marriages, once contracted, are
valid. No person is at liberty to treat them as void, either
in his own case or that of another person.  No  Christian
who has been involved in such a  marriage can  marry
again. Nor can any Christian intermarry with a person
who has been so involved.
~ 36. The whole doctrine of impediments, which render
marriage impossible and marriage ceremonies of no effect,
rests upon the idea that such impediments intercept the
blessing of God. They divide themselves into two classes;
one in whichl no blessing was given because there was no
297 
298      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
consent.   This may be because the outward consent was
extorted by force, or obtained by fraud, or was void through
the imbecility of disease or childhood. In the other class,
the blessing does not descend, because it is invoked upon
a Divinely forbidden marriage. This class comprises only
the cases of polygamy and incest. The Divine law of
incest is contained in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus.
This law no human legislature, ecclesiastical or civil, is
competent to  change. It will be the subject of the next
chapter. 
CHAPTER XIV.
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
~ 1. Of Incest in General.- ~ 2. Of the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus.
- ~ 3. The Mosaic Precepts are either Ceremonial. Civil, or Moral. ~ 4. The Moral Precepts are of Perpetual Obligation.- ~ 5. The Precepts
in the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus are not merely Ceremonial. - ~ 6.
They are not merely Civil.- ~ 7. They are Moral.- ~ 8. Consanguinity
and Affinity. - ~ 9. The Degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity. -~ 10.
Impediments to Marriage growing out of Lineal Consanguinity. - ~ 11.
Impediments growing out of Collateral Consanguinity. - ~ 12. Affinity
is Kindred.- ~ 13. Impediments growing out of Lineal Affinity. - ~ 14.
Impediments growing out of Collateral Affinity. - ~ 15. The Second De gree of Collateral Affinity. - ~ 16. Marriage with a Brother's Widow.
The Sixteenth Verse of the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus does not
merely forbid Adultery.-~ 17. It is not a merely Civil Precept.- ~ 18.
The Case of Ruth. -~ 19. Deuteronomy xxv. 5, 6.- ~ 20. The Argu ment from that Law examined.- ~ 21. It is Civil and Exceptional. ~ 22. The Prohibition to marry a Brother's Widow is a Mloral Precept.
-~ 23. The Canon of Neo-Coesarea.- ~ 24. Remarks upon it.- ~ 25.
Marriage with a Sister of a Deceased Wife is forbidden. - ~ 26. Modern
Notions.- ~ 27. The Eighteenth Verse does not touch the Question.  ~ 28. The Third Degree of Collateral Affinity.
~ 1. INCEST is the sin of sexual intercourse between persons whose relation to each other is such as to make it
especially sinful. Such relations are impediments to mnarriage.   The law or doctrine of incest determines what
relations are such. Most nations have accepted the general idea of incest, although they have not agreed upon
the particular relations which make marriage incestuous.
Marriages between persons one of whom is lineally descended from the other, as a granddaughter with a grandfather, have been rarely allowed, - never except perhaps
among the Canaanites. But there is no other relation
which has been universally held to make marriage unlaw 
300      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
ful. All collateral kindred have, in some nations, been
allowed to intermarry.
The Holy Scriptures do not mention the creation of
wives for the sons of Adam. They probably mnarried
their sisters, especially as Adam had daughters who could
have no other husbands without a new creation.- Such
unions must then have been permitted, perhaps specially
for that necessity only. They were allowed by the laws
of some ancient nations. But they were held in abhorrence by the more civilized races, althloughl heathens, and
are now so held by all Christians, and all nations which,
although not Christians  are accounted civilized.   The
Christian law of incest is contained in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, which was also the law of the Israelites.
~ 2. It begins with a very solemn form of enactment,
which occupies the first five verses. It is this: "And the
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children
of Israel, and say unto thenm, I am the Lord your God.
After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt,
shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan,
whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk
in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments and keep
mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments:
which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord."
Then follow seventeen verses which contain twenty-two
prohibitions.  Of these, nineteen relate to sexual intercourse, seventeen of them to incest, two to unnatural lusts,
and one to idolatry. Among them there is but one which
speaks directly of marriage. Sexual intercourse is forbidden between persons who bear certain relations to each
other. It is inferred that persons so related cannot intermarry. For all sexual intercourse out of marriage is unlawffil; unless, therefore, these prohibitions extended to
marriage, they would be nugatory.
1 Genesis v. 4. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
After these seventeen verses the chapter concludes
with a general prohibition of the actions forbidden in
them, and certain reasons for the prohibitions.  This con  clusion, which begins at the twenty-fourth verse, is as fol  lows: "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for
in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before
you. And the land is defiled; therefore I do visit the
iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomniteth out
her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and
nmy jutdgmnents, and shall not commit any of these abom inations, neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger
that sojourieth among you: (for all these abominations
have the men of the land done, which were before you,
and the land is defiled;) that the land spew not you out
also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that
were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these
abonminations, even the souls that commit them shall be
cut off from  among  their people.   Therefore  shall ye
keep mine ordinances, that ye commit not any one of these
abominable customs which  were committed before you,
and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord
your God."
This solemn conclusion and the equally solemn commencement impart to the chapter a very decided unity,
cutting it off from what goes before and from what follows.
It may well be considered as an entire context, which
governs a particular class of subjects. It very much resembles a modern law, having, as is common with modern
laws a preamble. It has also a conclusion, repeating and
enforcing the preamble.
~ 3. The precepts of the Mosaic Law have been divided
into cerenmonial, civil, and moral. A ceremonial precept is
one which relates to the outward forms of religion. It seldom takes the form of a prohibition, except in the case of
those legal defilements which, according to the law of MIoses, excluded the defiled person from public worship. Even
301 
302      CHRISTIAN DOCTRPINE OF MARRIAGE.
in those cases, it generally takes the form of directions as
to the ceremonies by which the defilement may  be removed, and the time during which it must continue.
Civil precepts are those which relate to the duties of
the civis, or citizen; as well those which he owes to his
fellow-citizens as to the State itself. A great part of the
Mosaic Law is the civil law of the nation of Israelites.
Laws prescribing the punishment of offenses, or carrying
into effect the policy which God had appointed for his
chosen people, or regulating their polity or mode of government, are merely civil.  Those which prohibit particular actions may be both civil and moral. They cannot
safely be said to be one to the exclusion of the other, unless, like the law against usury, they plainly have reference
to the policy of the nation.
AIoral precepts are those which regulate human conduct,
prescribing the duties of man as man.1 Such precepts,
being in no way connected with the ceremonies, the policy,
or the polity of the Israelites, cannot come to an end with
their religion and government.
~ 4. The seventh article of the Anglican Church declares that "Although the laws given from God by  Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity
to be received in any commonwealth, yet, notwithstanding,
no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of
the commandments, which are called moral."  This declaration of the Anglican Church is the assertion of a Catholic
principle which is acknowledged by all churches and all
sects, and has been acknowledged in all ages of Christianity.  It can bear the test of Vincentius Lirinensis:  Quod
semi?per, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. That which has
been believed always, everywhere, and by all churches,
is Catholic truth. The next step is to inquire whether the
precepts in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus are ceremonial, civil, or moral.
1 [Cf. Bp. Butler's Analogy, part ii. chap. 1.- ED.] 
OF TIE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
~ 5. They are not ceremonial. They are all direct prohibitions, and there is no intimation of any defilement or
of any mode of removing defilement.  There is but one
allusion to worship in the whole chapter, and that not to
the worship of the true God. The twenty-sixth verse is:
"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments,
and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither
any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth
among you." The prohibitions were not addressed to the
children of Israel only, but were expressly extended to
others, who had nothing to do with the worship of the
tabernacle or temple.
It has been asserted that the prohibition in the nineteenth verse is merely ceremonial, and therefore that the
others must be taken to be of the same character. Even
if this prohibition were merely ceremonial, it does not follow that the others are also ceremonial. Paley has furnished an argument against such a conclusion. It is true
that he puts it in the shape of an argument, that the presence of moral precepts in a context must not be regarded
as proving that the whole context is moral; but the argument, if it be worth anything, must be applicable for either
purpose. His immediate object was to show that the
presence of the fourth commandment in the Decalogue
did not prove it to be moral. His reasoning is not very
strong, but some of his examples are.
They are three; two of thenm being included in one text
of Scripture.' In this text obedience to the prohibition.
in the nineteeth verse of the chapter under consideration,
is classed with obedience to precepts and prohibitions
which are undoubtedly moral. Obedience to the prohibition of usury is mentioned in the same connection.  Paley
assumes that one of these prohibitions is ceremonial, and
it is agreed that the other is civil. From these premises
he infers that the fourth commandment may not be moral.
1 Ezekiel xviii. 5-9.
~
803 
304      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
The context of the five verses just referred to is contin ued for nine verses more, in which the prophet continues
to treat of the same subject, but without further mention
of the offense against the text in Leviticus, although he
speaks again of usury. The case of usury and the other
case too, if Paley be right in supposing that the prohibition is only ceremonial, are instances of precepts and prohibitions of different natures found in the Holy Scriptures
in close connection with each other. It follows that the
character of a precept cannot safely be inferred firom that
of its neighbors.
Paley's other instance is also very apposite. It is the
Apostolic decree. "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and
to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from nieats offered to idols,
and from blood, and from things strangled, and fronm fornication." 1
These instances are sufficient to prove that the presence
of a ceremonial precept among others does not show that
the others are also ceremonial. Whether it be so or not,
it seems to be the better opinion, that the prohibitions in
the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus are moral, and that the
nineteenth verse is no exception. The same action which
is forbidden in that verse, is mentioned in the thirty-second
and thirty-third verses of the fifteenth chapter of the same
book. It is there treated only as a ceremonial defilement,
and a ceremonial purification is prescribed. It has been
reasonably supposed that the passage in the fifteenth
chapter relates to an accidental and unintentional occurrence, that in the eighteenth to a willful offense. The subject is again mentioned in the twentieth chapter, at the
eighteenth verse, among other prohibitions of the eighteenth chapter, which are there repeated and enforced by
penalties.  The penalty denounced is to be "cut off from
1 Acts xv. 28, 29. See Paley's ilioral Philosophy, book v. chap. vii.
p. 291, et seq.: Boston, 1810. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
among the people." It is the same, which is denounced
in the eighteenth chapter against disobedience to any of
the precepts which it contains. The expression may mean
put to death.   It certainly means something more than
a liability to undergo a ceremonial purification.   That
against which it is denounced, must therefore be more
than a mere ceremonial pollution.'
The same argument is applicable to all the other actions
forbidden in the eighteenth chapter. For that reason, as
well as for those stated in the beginning of this section, it
seems that the precepts in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticuts are not merely ceremonial.
~ 6. It has been said that some of the prohibitions in
the chapter under consideration are of a civil nature.
Some of them may truly be said to have their civil side,
but it has never been denied that those very precepts are
also moral. There is nothing to prevent a law from being
both civil and moral. The sixth commandment is both;
the seventh is a yet more apposite illustration, for a virtual
repetition of it in the twentieth verse of this chapter, has
been selected as especially a civil precept. Several of the
precepts are repeated in the twentieth chapter, and death
denounced against them. This passage may, perhaps, contain the civil precepts, which enforce by civil penalties the
moral precepts of the eighteenth chapter.1
From the third verse it might be plausibly argued, that
the law was intended as one of the means of separating
the Israelites from their neighbors. For it is there said2
"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt,
shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of
Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither
shall ye walk in their ordinances." This, taken without the
context, forbids adopting the laws and manners of the
Egyptians and Canaanites, and might show that the design
of the laws - of the introduction to which the verse is a
1 See Leviticus xx. 10-17.
20
305 
306      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
part -was to separate the Israelites from those nations.
That design once established, it might be contended that
it was the sole reason of the prohibitions which follow. It
might be answered, that there was nothing in any of the
forbidden things, except one, which had any tendency to
bring the Israelites into contact with the neighboring nations. The exception'is the passing of children through
the fire to MIoloch. That is plainly a moral prohibition,
whatever other purposes it may have been intended to
serve. But the latter part of the chapter sets the question
at rest; for the things forbidden are there declared to be
'evil in themselves and abominations.
~ 7. It is quite possible that some of the precepts in
this chapter are ceremonial and some civil, but that they
are all moral is shown in the chapter itself. The fifth
verse -  which, from the manner in which this chapter is
cut off from what precedes and follows it, must be taken to
have special reference to its contents- is as follows: "Ye
shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments;
which if a man do he shall live in them." The incestuous
actions forbidden in the seventeenth verse are declared to
be wickedness.   In the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and
twenty-ninth verses, all the forbidden actions are declared
to be abominations, and in the thirtieth abominable customs. It is said in the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth
verses, that they defile the land, and were the causes for
which the Canaanites were cut off. The prohibitions were
not then merely intended to separate the Israelites from
their neighbors, but must be taken to be moral and of
perpetual obligation. Those of them which relate to incest are the Divine law upon that subject, and are binding
upon Christians.
~ 8. The first of them is in the sixth verse, and is very
general.  It is: "None of you shall approach to any that
is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." This
rule cannot be applied without knowing what persons are 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
of kin to each other. Twelve verses follow, which contain
particular prohibitions, and form a commentary upon the
sixth verse.
These particular prohibitions relate to cases of consanguinity and affinity, and to both whether lineal or collateral.   Consanguinity is the relation which subsists between two persons, who within certain limits are descended
from a common ancestor. Lineal consanguinity is the relation which subsists between two persons, one of whom is
descended from the other. Collateral consanguinity is the
relation which subsists between two persons who are descended from common ancestors, but not one from the
other. Affinity grows out of marriage, and exists between
each of a married pair, and those who are related to the
other by consanguinity. It is lineal or collateral, according to the nature of that consanguinity.
Thus lineal consanguinity exists, in the ascending line,
between a woman and her father and grandfather, and
in the descending line between them and her. Brothers
and sisters are related by collateral consanguinity, for they
have common ancestors in their father and mother. The
same thing is true of first cousins, because they have common ancestors in their grandfather and grandmother. A
child is connected with its stepmother, and she with it, by
lineal affinity. A man is related by collateral affinity to
his wife's sister, and by lineal to her mother or her daughter.
~ 9. Lawyers have arranged consanguinity and affinity.
under what they call degrees. This is done in two ways:
one of which is according to the Civil or Roman Law, and
the other according to the Ecclesiastical or Canon Law.
A degree is a step, and two persons cannot be nearer to
each other than one step apart. There is one step between
father and son, and they are related to each other in the
first degree. In the ascending and descending line, there
are as many degrees, lacking one, as generations between
307 
308     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
any two persons. The father and the son are related in
the first degree, the grandfather and the grandson in the
second, the great grandfather and the great grandson in the
third.  In this the Civilians and the Canonists are agreed,
though when they come to collateral consanguinity they
have different modes of computing. MIr. Morgan illustrates the subject thus: "In the direct line of ascent and
descent, they," the Civilians and the Canonists, " are agreed,
counting so many degrees as there are generations, or as
there are persons exclusive of the forefather. Thus Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Dinah,- Dinah is in thq third degree
from Abraham, being the third person besides Abraham, or
in the third generation from Abraham exclusively." 1
In ascertaining the degrees of collateral consanguinity,
the Canonists count the degrees from the comnmon ancestor
down to the more remote of the two descendants, whose
degiee of relationship is to be ascertained, and that gives
the degree in which they are related. The rule seems to
be that a man is related to all the descendants of his
ancestor in the same degree in which he is related to his
ancestor himself. Thus, two brothers are both in the first
degree from their father, and therefore related to each other
in the first degree. A granddaughter is two degrees from
her father, and therefore related to her uncle in the second
degree, and to her first cousin in the same. If the family
be carried on, the grandchildren of one of the brothers are
related in the third degree to the other brother and all his
descendants.
The Civilians count the degrees from one of the two
persons, the degree of whose relationship it is desired to
ascertain, back to the common ancestor and then down to
the other. Thus two brothers are each removed one step
from the common ancestor, the father, which make two
steps. They are therefore related to each other in the
second degree, for there is one step from either of them
1 Law of ~llarriage, Adultery, and Divorce, vol. i. p. 258. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
up to the father, and another from the father down to the
other. It follows that according to the Civilians there is
no such thing as collateral relation in the first degree. An
uncle and his niece are in the third degree, for there is one
step from the uncle up to his father, the common ancestor,
a second down to the other brother, the father of the niece,
and a third down to the niece herself. First cousins are in
the fourth degree, there being two steps up to the common
ancestor and two down to the other cousin.
The degrees of affinity are counted in precisely the same
way as those of consanguinity, the husband or wife taking
the place of the wife or husband. Thus, step-parents and
children are related in the first degree; a manil or woman,
and the husband or wife of his or her brother or sister, in
the second degree.
There is not much practical use made of the doctrine
of degrees, except as it furnishes a convenient way of designating the relationship of persons who may not intermarry.
When degrees of consanguinity or affinity are hereafter
mentioned in this work, it is to be understood that they are
computed according to the method of the Civilians.
There is no prohibition of mnarriage in the Levitical law
between any two persons more distantly related than a
nephew and his aunt. They are in the third degree, according to the computation of the Civilians. This has furnished
a rule for the law of England. Statute and common law
forbid marriages within the third degree, and allow them
beyond it.
~ 10. In the case of lineal consanguinity, the Levitical
prohibitions do not go beyond the second degree. Yet
there seems to be no reason for doubting that all marriages
between persons, one of whom is lineally descended from
the other, are incestuous. They have been so considered
by almost all nations. A man is forbidden to marry his
mother in the seventh verse, his son's daughter and his
daughter's daughter in the tenth. Marriage with a daughter
309 
310      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
is clearly although not directly forbidden in the seventeenth
verse. It is an obvious rule of interpretation, that what is
forbidden to one sex is forbidden to the other; thus when
a man is forbidden to marry his granddaughter, it is a
necessary inference that it is unlawful for a woman to
marry her grandson.   By the application of this rule,
these prohibitions will include all cases of lineal consanguinity in the first and second degrees.   The only bloodrelations in the third degree, who are not forbidden to
intermarry, are great grandparents and their great grandchildren.  It seems to be agreed that the cases in which
marriage is forbidden are put as instances, and that marriage is forbidden in all similar cases. Perhaps no other
instances of marriage between lineal ascendants and descendants are forbidden in the Levitical law, because there
is little temptation, or indeed opportunity to commit the
sin beyond the second degree.
~ 11. There are no collateral relations in the first degree.
In the second there are none but brothers and sisters. In
the third there are none but uncles and aunts and nephews
and nieces.  The relations mentioned in the last sentence
are collateral ancestors and  descendants.  A  collateral
ancestor is the brother or sister of a lineal ancestor, however remote. A collateral descendant is the descendant of
a brother or sister, however remote. But all collateral ancestors and descendants beyond uncles and nieces, and all
other collateral relations except brothers and sisters, are in
the fourth or some more remote degree.  Marriage between brothers and sisters is forbidden in the ninth verse,
and the marriage of a nephew with his aunt, in the twelfth
and thirteenth verses. There is no direct prohibition of
the marriage of an uncle to his niece; but it is shown to
be unlawful by the rule that what is forbidden to one sex
is forbidden to the other.  Moreover the reason assigned
for the prohibitions in the twelfth and thirteenth verses
apply also to this case. Those are all the cases of collateral consanguinity within the third degree. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
There is little or no difference of opinion among Christians as to marriages between persons related to each other
within the third degree of consanguinity. They are regarded in the words of Holy Writ as abominations. Even
the laxity of American legislation has not permitted them.
There is perhaps one exception: it is the marriage of an
uncle with a niece. Such marriages are defended because
there is no direct written prohibition of them, although
they are forbidden by the strongest implication, and fall
within the reason of the prohibition to marry an aunt.
They are also defended by some fanciful arguments which
are supposed to apply to this case and not to that of the
nephew and aunt. The principal one is that the authority
of a husband cannot be exercised consistently with the respect due to an aunt, while there is no similar anomaly in
the case of a marriage between an uncle and a niece. Some
German communities have taken these views; and the
Church of Rome grants dispensations for such marriages,
but not for marriages between nephews and aunts.
Nothing is said in the Levitical law of the marriage of
collateral ancestors and descendants beyond the third degree. It may be said of more remote collateral ancestors
and descendants, - as in the case of remote lineal ancestors
and descendants,-  that the cases are few in which such
marriages are possible, and fewer still in which they are probable. Some writers have laid it down that as there is no
express prohibition beyond the third degree, marriages
between collateral ancestors and descendants, in the fourth
and more remote degrees, are lawful. Although a man
may not marry his aunt, he may marry his great aunt.
There is no written law forbidding their intermarriage;
but if the twelfth and thirteenth verses are examined, it
will be found that the case is within the assigned reason
of the rule. That reason is, that the aunt is the near kinswonman of the father or mother of the nephew. It is a case
not likely to occur, but there may be a great aunt younger
311 
312     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
than her great nephew. There now is, or lately was, in
the city of Baltimore, a young lady who has a great uncle
younger than herself.
Upon the whole, it may be concluded that all marriages
between blood relations within the third degree inclusive
are unlawful and void; and that it is doubtful whether marriages between collateral ancestors and their collateral descendants, even beyond the third degree, are valid.
~ 12. Affinity is the relation between a man and the
blood relations of his wife, or a woman and the blood relations of her husband. It is inferred from the unity of
marriage that persons who are related to one of a married
couple are related to the other. Those who are one flesh
must also have in some sense one blood. It follows that
the prohibition in the sixth verse of the eighteenth chapter
of Leviticus, - " None of you shall approach to any that is
near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness," - applies as
well to those who are related to a man's wife or woman's
husband, as to those who are directly related to the man or
woman. The principle upon which all prohibitions of
marriages between persons connected by affinity rests, is
that a man and his wife are one flesh, and that whoever is
of kin to the one is of kin to the other. This principle was
first delivered by Adamn, speaking by inspiration, in the
second chapter of Genesis. It was fully adopted by our
blessed Lord, when He said, "For this cause shall a man
leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and
they twain shall be one flesh." 1 And again, when He said,
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and motlher,
and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh;
so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." 2
The unity of the husband and wife being thus established, the prohibition in the sixth verse comes in to forbid marriages with persons near of kin to a husband or
wife. If it be said that the meaning of our Lord is not that
1 Matthew xix. 5.
2 Mark x. 7, 8.
4t 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
because a man and his wife are one flesh they have the
same relations, there is a sufficient answer. Among the
cases enumerated as instances which fall within the rule
are cases of affinity. The principle is directly recognized
in the fourteenth verse:  "Thou  shalt not uncover the
nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach
to his wife: she is thine aunt."
~ 13. It may be inferred from what has been said, that
all the lineal ancestors and descendants of the wife are forbidden to the husband, and those of the husband are forbidden to the wife. The inference is generally accepted.
There are eight cases of marriages between persons connected by lineal affinity, which are expressly forbidden in
the chapter under consideration. A man is forbidden to
marry his father's wife in the eighth verse, his daughter-inlaw in the fifteenth, his wife's daughter, her son's daughter,
and her daughter's daughter in the seventeenth. The
same verse forbids marriage with the mother or grandmother of a wife. If to these prohibitions, the principle
that what is forbidden to one sex is forbidden to the other
be applied, it will be found that all possible marriages
within the third degree of lineal affinity are forbidden.
~ 14. Another inference from the same premises is
that marriages between persons connected by collateral
affinity, within the third degree inclusive, are also unlawfuil
and void; but this second inference does not meet with
the same universal acceptance as the first. It is involved
in the canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. It is
the law of the Church of England, and as yet of the British nation. It was recognized by the House of Bishops of
the American Church in 1808, as a law derived by her
from her English mother; but the law of the land in most
of the American States regulates marriages without any
reference to collateral affinity, and their laws are in perfect accordance with the prevailing, although erroneous,
public opinion.
313 
314      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
There are no collateral relations in the first degree; in
the second, there are only brothers and sisters; in the third,
only uncles and aunts and nephews and nieces. Consequently the only relations by collateral affinity in the second degree are husbands' and wives' brothers and sisters;
and in the third, husbands' and wives' uncles and aunts
and nieces and nephews. There is one Levitical prohibition applicable to the second degree and one to the third.
The sixteenth verse forbids marriage with a brother's
widow, the fourteenth with an uncle's widow.
If the rule that what is forbidden to one sex is forbidden
to the other, be applied to the sixteenth verse, it will not
be lawful for a woman to marry a sister's husband. The
prohibition will then cover every possible marriage between persons related in the second degree of affinity.
~ 15. It has been already said that there are but two
classes of persons connected by affinity in the second degree, and that both are forbidden to intermarry by the
sixteenth verse; one by its letter and the other by necessary implication. Great efforts have been made to get
rid of this text. As to one class of these marriages, those
between a man and his deceased wife's sister, other arguments have been used to establish their validity. The
remainder of this chapter will be occupied with the inquiry
into these cases, which is not capable of being compressed
into a single section.
~ 16. The case of marriage with a brother's widow will
be first considered. It may be proper to begin by a transcript of the law by which such marriages are forbidden:
"Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's
wife; it is thy brother's nakedness." 1 The prohibition is
clear and definite. It seems to put the case beyond doubt.
Those who maintain the lawfulness of such marriages must
get rid of it. This has been attempted in two ways.
The first is to assert that the text does not apply to
1 Leviticus xviii. 16. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
marriage with the widow of a deceased brother, but to
adultery with the wife of a living brother. To this interpretation there are several objections. First, all adultery
is directly forbidden in the twentieth verse, as well as ill
the seventh commandment.   Next, there is upon  that
supposition no need for assigning the reason which is assigned.   Again, the language is the same as is used
throughout the chapter, when it is intended to forbid all
intercourse whether within or without the pale of marriage.
It is: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness."  In the
twentieth verse, which forbids adultery, very different language is used. That verse is: "Moreover thou shalt not
lie carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with
her." Moreover, if this interpretation be adopted in the
sixteenth verse, it must also be adopted ill the eighth,
which is almost in the same words: "The nakedness of
thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy father's
nakedness." This would take away the prohibition to
marry a mother-in-law. Lastly, it is said in another place:
"If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean
thing; they shall be childless." 1 This text plainly relates
to the marriage of a man with his brother's widow, and
not to an adulterous intercourse with his wife, for he is
forbidden from taking her, that is, from taking her to wife,
not merely from having sexual intercourse with her. The
penalty implies that the guilty pair expected to have
children.
~ 17. The other mnode of getting rid of the sixteenth
verse is to treat it as a merely civil precept. To prove
this, recourse is had to the law by which a man was obliged
to marry the childless widow of his brother, and raise up
seed unto his brother. Such a law or custom prevailed
among the Hebrews before the giving of the law, as appears from the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis.  I-Iad
1 Leviticus xx. 21.
315 
316      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
there been nothing more than this, the custom would have
been abolished by the text under consideration, which
taken together with the thirtieth verse of the same chapter, would have classed it with abominable customs. But
the rule is republished in Deuteronomy. The passage is
this: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die
and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry
without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go
in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the
duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be,
that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the
name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not
put out in Israel." 1
~ 18. It appears in the Book of Ruth, that there was
another similar custom, not exactly the same with that
mentioned in Genesis, and not founded upon the law in
Deuteronomy. It was probably an old Hebrew custom
which is not mentioned in the written law. By this custom Boaz was bound to marry Ruth when the nearer
kinsmen had refused, although he was neither the brother
of her first husband, nor had dwelt with him.
In the second chapter Naomi tells Ruth that Boaz is
a near kinsman, without alluding to the custom, which
nevertheless she seems to have had in her mind. In the
third chapter she develops her plan of calling upon Boaz
to fulfill the obligation which she supposed rested upon
him.  He admits the principle, but denies the obligation,
because there was a nearer kinsman. He then introduces
a new idea, that if the nearest kinsman declined to perform his duty, or exercise his privilege, - for it seems to
have been regarded in both lights,- it devolved on the
kinsman who was next to him in blood. This position on
this occasion, belonged to Boaz, and he was willing, if the
proper person declined the duty, to take it upon himself.
In the next chapter he offers the option to the next of kin,
1 Deuteronomy xxv. 5, 6. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
who declines to marry Ruth, whereupon Boaz marries her.
Here another new feature appears. The kinsman was
bound to purchase the land, and with it Ruth for a wife.
He declines to do this, and thereupon Boaz does it.l
This is not according to the law in Deuteronomy, nor
does it agree with the custom mentioned in the thirtyeighth chapter of Genesis. Tamar, in that chapter, seems
to have had no claim upon any one but Shelab.  Naomi,
in the first chapter of Ruth, when she was thinking of the
law, seems to have supposed that her daughters-in-law had
no claim upon any one who was not the brother of their
husbands. The transaction does not seem to have been
under the law in Deuteronomy for another reason. The
punishment there prescribed for a man who refused to
perform the duty of a husband's brother, was not inflicted
on the man who refused Ruth.
The custom in Ruth differed from the law ill Deuteronomy in four particulars. It extended to all kinsmen,
not merely to brothers who dwelt together. The kinsman might refuse without incurring any penalty. If he
refused, the right or obligation devolved on the next kinsman in order. The kinsman was to purchase the property
of the deceased, and with it the widow to be his wife.
The custom in Ruth was independent of the law in Deuteronomy, and perhaps existed before it.
~ 19. If this custom existed before the time of Moses,
the law in Leviticus rendered it unlawful for a brother to
comply with it, but left it untouched in such cases as that.
of Boaz and Ruth. The law in Deuteronomy restored his
obligation to its old footing, but only in cases where the
brothers had dwelt together. Such cases were regulated
by the law, other cases by the custom. In such cases only
a man might marry his brother's widow. It has been
denied that even in that case the woman was in a strict
sense his wife, because she was taken for a special purpose
1 Ruth iii. 10-13; iv. 5, 6, 10.
81T 
318      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
to raise up seed to his brother. It has even been supposed
that after that purpose was answered the marriage was at
an end. But that cannot have been so. Such a temporary
association would be inconsistent with the Divine idea of
marriage.  It is directed that the first-born which she shall
bear shall succeed in the name of her first husband, implying that there may be others who shall belong to the
second. Moreover, the text in Deuteronomy expressly says
that the surviving brother shall take her to wife. The
question which the Sadducees asked of our blessed Lord,
in the twelfth chapter of St. MIark's Gospel and the twentieth of St. Luke's, implies that the woman was equally the
wife of each of the seven brethren. But the marriage was
designed for a special purpose, and except for that purpose
was clearly unlawful.
~ 20. The only argument from the law in Deuteronomy,
which is of any value, is this: God cannot conmmand what
is in itself wrong, and therefore that which He commands
under special circumstances cannot be wrong under any
circumstances. This supposes a rule of right and wrong
for man, which is independent of the will of God. If there
be such a rule, it must be in the Divine nature of which
man can know nothing but by revelation. For man, that
is right which is consistent with the revealed will of God,
that is wrong which is inconsistent with the same revealed
will. God lays down general rules for our government,
and no human authority call dispense with them, but God
himself may dispense with them.  He forbids killing human beings. Yet He commanded Abraham to sacrifice
his son, and the Israelites to extirpate the Canaanites. No
one has ever contended that these exceptional commands
made human sacrifices or the indiscriminate slaughter of
men, women, and children lawfil.  On the contrary, infidels have said that these particular commands could not
come from God, because they clashed with his general
law. But when He, by a general rule, forbids marriage 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
with a brother's widow, and by a particular precept com mnands certain men, under certain circumstances, to marry
the widows of their brothers, the argument is reversed. It
is then said that the particular precept must stand, and the
general rule be disregarded, or at least reduced to a teinporary regulation.
~ 21. This is stranger, as the particular precept appears
upon its face to be a local and temporary regulation, promulgated with reference to the civil state of the Israelites.
It is beyond controversy a merely civil precept, which no
human being supposes now to bind any one. If the prohibition in Leviticus be also civil, there are two civil laws,
one of which is an exception to the other. An Israelite
was not permitted to marry his brother's widow except in
a particular case, in which he was obliged to marry her.
There is no inconsistency, because the two laws fit into
each other as rule and exception. Suppose the prohibition
moral, do not the two laws still fit as rule and exception?
But can a civil law make an exception ouLt of a moral one?
A human civil law cannot, but the civil precepts of the
Mosaic Law rest on the same Divine authority as the moral.
The exception may then be valid, but its existence will
neither nullify the rule nor change its character. So long
as the Israelites remained a nation, having a national
polity, both were in force. When their polity fell. the exception, being only civil or political, fell with it, and is not
now binding on any one. It does not follow that the rule,
to which it was an exception, must fall with it.
~ 22. It is said that it is not morally wrong to marry a
brother's widow, because it was once enjoined upon the
Israelites, under certain circumstances, to do so, which injunction is not now binding upon Christians. Yet such
marriages are plainly forbidden in the law of God. It is
replied that the prohibition is not a part of the moral law.
What then is it? It is not ceremonial, it has no connection with public worship or ceremonial defilement. It is
319 
320     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
not civil, it has no connection with the civil or political
state of the Israelites. It certainly relates to the conduct
of men. It must then be a moral precept. There are
other proofs that it is so. The inspired Lawgiver includes
the marrying a brother's widow, among the things which he
twice calls abominations and once abominable customs,
and which he says were among the sins for which the Canaanites were to be extirpated.   Moreover, he says in
another place: "If a man shall take his brother's wife it is
an unclean thing; he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." 1
~ 23. It may be then safely concluded that it is unlawful
for a Christian to marry his brother's widow. That this was
the sense of the early Christians appears from the second
Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea. This council was
held in the year three hundred and fourteen, and is one of
the earliest of which any records remain. It is also one of
those, the canons of which were confirmed by the General
Council of Chalcedon, in the year four hundred and fifty-one.
The second Canon is this: " If a woman marry two brothers
let her be cast out even unto death, if she will not be persuaded to dissolve the marriage; but for lenity's sake she
shall be admitted to repentance at the time of death, if she
says that in the event of her recovery she will dissolve the
marriage. If, however, a woman or her husband die in
such a marriage, penance is not to be easily allowed to the
survivor." 2
~ 24. Several remarks may be made on this Canon. The
Levitical law forbids marriage with a brother's widow.
The Canon provides for the punishment of a woman who
marries two brothers. The punishment is excommunica tion, which is not to be removed even upon a death-bed,
without what the Canon calls a dissolution of the marriage.
This would have been proper, only because the marriage
1 Leviticus xx. 21.
2 Hammcnd's Canons, p. 159. New York edition. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
was void and a continuing sin. It may be asked, How
can a void marriage be dissolved?  But technical accuracy
is not to be looked for in the ancient canons. If it had
been a valid marriage it could not have been dissolved;
but being void, the connection between the parties, such as
it was, could be dissolved by separation.
This proves that the fathers of Neo-Coesarea believed
that the Levitical prohibition of marrying a brother's
widow was in force and binding upon Christians. It also
proves that they did not understand the sixteenth verse of
the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, as merely forbidding
an adulterous intercourse with the wife of a living brother.
They thought that it forbade marriage with a brother's
widow; for the Canon forbids marrying with two brothers,
and also speaks of the sin which was to be repented and
abandoned as, in some sense, a marriage.
The last clause of the Canon proves three things. First,
the marriage was a continuing sin, for the parties were
not to be admitted to repentance while it continued, but
when it was dissolved by death the obstacle was removed.
Again, the sin was a great one, for the survivor was not to
be easily admitted to penance or repentance. Lastly, the
man was equally guilty with the woman.
The Canon cannot be well understood without some
knowledge of the practice of the Primitive Church as to
excommunication and penance. When persons were excommnunicated, the Church did not readmit them to the
Holy Communion without something more than a mere ver-.
bal assurance of their repentance. They must prove the
sincerity and earnestness of their desire for communion with
the Church, by submitting to great humiliations in order to
recover it. These were called penance, as being the evidence of repentance. If, however, a penitent died before
his or her penance was completed, he or she might be restored to communion on a death-bed. But if the sin were
21
321 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
a continuing one, the Church would never be convinced of
the sincerity of the penitent until the sin was discontinued.
~ 25. The law in the sixteenth verse of the eighteenth
chapter of Leviticus, and that in the twentieth verse of the
twentieth chapter, being binding upon Christians and not
being mere prohibitions of adultery, it follows that marriage with a brother's widow is incestuous. The two cases
of marriage with a brother's widow and with the widower
of a sister cannot be distinguished from each other. If
one be unlawful so is the other; for that cannot be lawful
for a woman which is unlawful for a man. A woman,
then, cannot marry the widower of her sister, and it must
be equally unlawful for him to marry her. The reason assigned for the prohibition is just as applicable to one case
as the other. If it be unlawful for a man to marry his
brother's wife, because the deceased brother and his wife
were one flesh, it must be unlawful for a woman to marry
the husband of her sister, because the deceased sister and
her husband were one flesh. Thus it is shown that marriage with the sister of a deceased wife is unlawful.
~ 26. In most parts of this country, marriages with the
sister of a deceased wife often occur. Public opinion does
not recognize the Divine prohibition, although more or less
respect is paid to it by religious persons. The late Judge
Story asserted that such marriages are in this country
regarded as especially praiseworthy. This may be so in
Massachusetts; but in Maryland, and probably in most of
the States, it is not true. They are not considered praiseworthy by any one; most persons let them pass without a
thought, while some regard them as lawful, some as unlawful.1
1 I am indebted for the following note to a very distinguished clergyman, whose name I do not feel at liberty to mention: " I am inclined to
think the feeling against these marriages is very strong, but in each particular case, relatives and others who object are silenced by the silence of
the Church, and by the complicity of the clergy. I have known clergymen,
with the strongest repugnance against such marriages, to officiate in them,
322 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
It is in connection with such marriages, that the doctrine of collateral affinity has been most discussed, probably because the temptation to disregard the Divine law
is stronger among persons filling that relation than in any
other case of affinity. In most or all the States of the
Union, the law of the land has been so altered as to allow
such  seeming  marriages, and  an attempt  is making to
bring about the same result in England. Those who desire the success of that attempt have felt the necessity of
getting rid of the prohibition of marriage with a brother's
widow, and, therefore, adopt one of the two untenable
notions which  have  just  been  discussed.   They  assert
either that the texts which contain that prohibition forbid
only a particular kind of adultery, or that they are merely
ceremonial  or civil precepts.    In maintaining  the last
opinion, they do not hesitate to use the passage in the
twenty-fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, although that law is
clearly exceptional, the case of the wife's sister clearly not
within the reason for the exception, and the law itself is no
longer in force. It is said that because a man was, among
the Israelites, bound to marry his childless brother's wife,
in order that his brother's name might not be lost, another
man is, among Christians, to be allowed to marry his wife's
sister, when the deceased wife was not childless, because
she is the most proper person to take care of her sister's
children. When they suppose that they have gotten rid of
the prohibition to marry the widow of a deceased brother,
under various weak pretexts, and so give them a certain warrant in the
eyes of the community. Public opinion depends much upon women, and
women look for guidance to the clergy; when the clergy, therefore, give
way, public opinion is debauched. In two cases that I have known in
Baltimore, several ladies who knew nothing of the law, but had a strong
instinctive feeling that the thing was wrong, yet desired to think otherwise,
came to me in hopes that I could give them ground for a more lenient
judgment,- in which, of course, it was not in my power to gratify them.
In all such instances, I found it very easy to convert the vague feeling into
a definite and grounded aversion. Instruction on the subject is very much
needed."
328 
324      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
they fancy that the whole strength of the case against
them is in the eighteenth verse of the eighteenth chapter of
Leviticus, which does not really touch the case. It will,
however, be proper to examine it.
~ 27. That verse is thus rendered in the text of the Authorized Version: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her
sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the
other in her lifetime." In the margin there is a different
translation of the words, so that the whole verse would
read thus: "Neither shalt thou take one wife to another,
to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other in
her lifetime." The last translation makes the verse to
forbid polygamy, and so removes it altogether from the
present subject.  The passage has been examined in the
eighteenth section of the sixth chapter, where it was shown
that such was its true meaning. Whether it be so or not,
those who maintain the unlawfulness of marrying a wife's
sister need not quote this verse.
They rely upon the general prohibition in the sixth
verse of marrying any one's near kindred, the sixteenth
verse of the eighteenth, and the twenty-first of the twentieth chapter, the principle that a man and his wife are
one flesh, the principle that what is forbidden to a man is
forbidden to a woman, and the application of those two
principles to those three verses. They also rely upon the
idea, that all the prohibitions in the eighteenth chapter,
which relate to incest, are examples intended to show how
far the words "near of kin" in the sixth verse extend.
If that be so, the prohibitions show that nearness of kin
extends to the third degree of both consanguinity and
affinity, while the sixteenth verse shows that the relation
in question, which is only in the second degree, comes
within the meaning of those words.
Those who contend for the lawfulness of such marriages
generally stand upon the translation in the text, which
they say, not without reason, is an authority on their side. 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF INCEST.
They say that it only forbids marriage with the sister of
a living wife, and implies the lawfulness of polygamy and
of marrying a second sister after the death of the first.
If this were, as they assume, the only law upon the subject,
the argument would be strong. But it has been shown,
without reference to this verse, that such marriages are
unlawful. If they be forbidden by other laws, this verse
cannot take away the force of those other laws, and make
the marriages lawful. If they were right in supposing
that the sixteenth verse forbids adultery with a brother's
wife, it would not, so long as the twentieth verse and the
seventh commandment  remain, make adultery with any
other woman lawful.  The fact, that marriage with a wife's
sister is otherwise forbidden, is an argument that the eighteenth verse does not merely forbid polygamy with two
sisters. But supposing that adultery and mniarriage with a
wife's sister are otherwise forbidden, no one would say
that forbidding adultery with a brother's wife, or polygany
with sisters, would make that which was otherwise forbiddenr lawful. If the eighteenth verse forbids polygamy with
two sisters and not marrying the sister of a deceased wife,
then he who marries two sisters, one after the death of the
other, does not sin against the eighteenth verse, but he
nevertheless sins against the sixteenth verse and the sixth,
and against the twentieth verse of the twentieth chapter.
The eighteenth verse, about which so much has been
written, may be left out of the controversy.  If, as seems
most likely, it only forbid polygamy, it has nothing to do
with the question. The unlawfilness of marrying the sister
of a deceased wife rests, whatever may be the meaning of
the eighteenth verse, upon the sixth verse, the general drift
'of the chapter, the sixteenth verse, and the twenty-first of
the twentieth chapter. It is also worthy of remark, that the
marriage of a deceased wife's sister is within the reason of
the prohibition in the sixteenth verse, and is not within
the reason of the law in the fifth and sixth verses of the
twenty-fifth chapter of Deuteronomy.
325
I 
326     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
~ 28. If the rule, that what is forbidden to one sex is
forbidden to the other, be applied to the fourteenth verse
of the chapter under consideration, it will forbid all marriages between persons connected by affinity in the third
degree, where the affinity is through the father of the
younger. But in order to apply the prohibition to cases
in which the affinity is through the mother of the younger
person, it will be necessary to look to the reason for the
prohibition which is assigned in the fourteenth verse.
That reason applies to relations on both sides, and with
the rule, that what is forbidden to one sex is forbidden
to the other, will make the fourteenth verse forbid every
possible marriage between persons related in the third
degree of collateral affinity.
In the twentieth verse of the twentieth chapter of Leviticus, there is a direct prohibition, which, in the English
translation, extends the prohibition of marrying the father's
brother's wife to the mother's brother's wife.  It is this:
"' If a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin, they
shall die childless."  The word uncle in English means
as well a mother's brother as a father's brother, but the
Latin language has a separate name for each. This enables the Vulgate to be more explicit by using both words.
It says: " Quii coierat cum uxore patrui vel avunculi sui, et
revelaverit ignominiam cognationis sue, portabunt ambo
peccatum suuni; absque liberis morientur."
This verse may be regarded as a commentary on.the
sixth and fourteenth verses of the eighteenth chapter. It
strengthens the argument for that interpretation of the
sixth, which regards the doctrine, that a man and his wife
are one flesh, as involving the idea that they have the
same kindred.   It so expounds the fourteenth, that with
the aid of the principle, that what is forbidden to one sex
is forbidden to the other, it forbids every case of marriage
between persons related in the third degree of collateral
affinity.
41 
CHAPTER XV.
SUPPLEMENTARY:- OF THE MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND
THE CHOICE OF A PARTNER.
~ 1. Introductory. - ~ 2. Motives to Marriage.- ~ 3. Companionship.~ 4. Help and Protection. - ~ 5. Another Motive mentioned by St.
Paul.- ~ 6. An Affection for a Particular Person.- ~ 7. The Continuation of the Species. - ~ 8. Marriage sometimes Sinful. - ~ 9. How far
Wealth is necessary to a Prudent Marriage.- ~ 10. When Marriage is a
Duty.- ~ 11. Choice of an Associate.- ~ 12. Nature of Christian Marriage. - ~ 13. Careless Marriages. - ~ 14. Nature's Damnatory Clauses.
- ~ 15. Indissoluble Character of Marriage. - ~ 16. Duties of Husbands
and Wives. - ~ 17. Love. - ~ 18. The Emotional Nature. - ~ 19.
Spirit, Soul, and Body. - ~ 20. - Passions and Affections. - ~ 21. The
Affection of Love. - ~ 22. The Passion of Love. - ~ 23. It is not irresistible.- ~ 24. Its Connection with Malevolence.- ~ 25. Medieval No tions about Love and Marriage.- ~ 26. Early Marriages necessary for
Ladies in the Middle Ages. - ~ 27. Notions in the Sixteenth and Seven teenth Centuries.- ~ 28. Romantic and Unromantic Marriages.- ~ 29.
Sir Walter Scott's Opinion. - ~ 30. Importance of Character - ~ 31.
Wealth not a Proper Motive to Marriage.- ~ 32. Nor the Passion of
Love. - ~ 33. Marriages, Wicked, Tolerable, or Right. - ~ 34. Love, the
Lower Affection. - ~ 35. Love, the Higher Affection. - ~ 36. Moral
Worth. - ~ 37. Religious Principle. - ~ 38. Agreement in Religious
Doctrine.- ~ 39. Difficulties.- ~ 40. The Prudent Course.- ~ 41. Chris tian Conjugal Love.
~ 1. IT seems to be a prevalent notion among young persons, especially among young women, that marriage is to
be a fixed and uniform state. There is no better reason
for this than that is the usual catastrophe of a novel. It is
really a new phase of ever-changing human life, which, like
every other, brings new duties, new cares, new anxieties,
new labors, and new  pains.   It also brings new enjoyments. Whether the pleasant or the unpleasant circumstances preponderate, is a question which cannot be de 
328     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
cided. Every one would answer it according to the
circumstances of the moment, and the mood of his mind.
It is as impossible to settle the question, as it is to settle
the same question with respect to human life. Marriage
is a phase of life, and like every other and like life itself,
is continually changing its aspect. All its aspects with all
that relates to them cannot be taken in at any one moment, by any human mind, so as to compare the good and
evil of the state.
In the economy of the world, marriage is the formation
of a new family, which is to endure for a time and then be
dissolved. It will make way for others, which have perhaps grown out of it. In the economy of grace, it is a
new sphere of duty, in which the faith and obedience of
the young couple are to be tried, and which is to produce
good or evil in time and in eternity, according to the result
of the trial. It is a serious thing to enter upon it, and
perhaps few persons would do so, except under the influence of some strong emotion.
But marriage is a Divine institution, and God has provided inducements to overcome the natural hesitation.
He has declared that it is not good for man to be alone.
Marriage is therefore, in itself, better than celibacy. Yet
there is abundant evidence that it sometimes produces
great evils. It will always do so unless it be entered into
upon proper motives and with proper caution. The present chapter will be devoted to considering the motives to
marriage, and the principles upon which a partner should
be chosen.
~ 2. Marriage is a Divine institution designed to promote the happiness of the human race, which it is expressly revealed would be incomplete without it.  Still
there may be particular cases in which it is inexpedient to
marry. Such dispensations of Providence, like all His
dispensations, must be submissively received; but the general rule that it is not good for man to be alone is still true. 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 329
The conviction of this truth is one legitimate motive to
marriage. There are others, which generally correspond
with the Divine reasons for the creation of woman and the
institution of marriage.
~ 3. One of the reasons for the institution of marriage,
and of course, a legitimate motive for marrying, is the supplying the natural desire of companionship: "It is not good
for nman to be alone." He or she who desires a companion
has a sufficient motive for marrying. But he or she would
not desire to marry a person who could not be a companion. Sutch a person has no business to marry. A man who
is immersed in business, may well require the comforts of
companionship, and may properly seek them in marriage.
But if he be so absorbed in his business as not to be able
or willing to be the companion of his wife, he ought not
to marry.   A woman, who is so devoted to [what] she
calls the pleasures of society, that she will not be willing
to,be the companion of her husband, has no business to
marry. If such persons do marry, it will be their duty to
overcome the taste for business or pleasure, and fulfill the
obligations of their new position. The wisest course is to
overcome the taste and to marry. But if the taste cannot
be overcome, or the person be unwilling to encounter the
struggle, such a person ought not to marry.
~ 4. Another motive to marry, which is connected with
one of the reasons for the institution of marriage, is the
providing a help meet for the man. The correlative motive is providing a protector for the wonman who shall defend and maintain her. These are legitimate inducements
to marry, when the want of help, protection, or support is
felt. But they are not inducements to marry a person, who
is incapable of furnishing the help, protection, or support.
On the contrary, such incapacity is a reason why one who
labors under it should not marry.
~ 5. There is another motive mentioned by St. Paul, of
which nothing need be said, beyond referring to the second 
330      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
verse of the seventh chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians.
~ 6. An affection for a particular person is also a legiti mate motive for marriage. Romantic young ladies believe
that it is the only one. In this they are mistaken, although
no other motive can be sufficient unless a suitable person,
a proper object of affection, can be found. All motives
must be restrained if there be circumstances which render the act to which they prompt improper.
~ 7. The continuation of the species was one of the
reasons for the creation of woman and the institution of
marriage. It is perhaps never the motive for a particular
marriage. The continuation of a particular family has
often been the motive. Among the old Romans no doubt
men married upon such motives. A Valerius Publicola, or
a Cornelius Scipio, felt an interest in the continuation of
the Valerian or Cornelian gens, and in that of the race of
Publicola or Scipio. Kings and nobles now marry that they
may have heirs, but not lest the human race should become
extinct.
Thlere have been states of society in which the best, or
only means of protection consisted in a numerous family.
In such a state of society it was said: "As arrows are in
the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them; they
shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies
in the gate." 1 Under such circumstances men married to
strengthen themselves, as in modern times they marry to
provide heirs to their titles and estates. In neither case
is there any care for the continuance of the species as such.
In the present state of civilization, men look to the law and
the State for protection. Children, except in particular
cases, are not desired. On the contrary, they are regarded,
at least until they are born, as causes of trouble and expense,
which most men would rather be without. Men accept the
1 Psalm cxxvii. 4, 5. 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER.  331
possibility of children as incident to a marriage desired
upon other grounds, but they rarely marry in order that
they may have children.
~ 8. It may perhaps be well to repeat, that none of
these motives, or indeed any motives, should induce any
person to marry one who did not possess the qualifications
for a happy marriage. All motives must be restrained, as
has just been said, if there are circumstances which render
the action to which they prompt improper. Marriage is
honorable in all men, but there may be circumstances surrounding particular persons which may render it inexpedient for them, and the inexpediency may be so great as
to render marriage sinful.
~ 9. Poverty is such a circumstance.   Children will
come into the world, and will have claims upon their parents for maintenance and education. So far as education
consists in home training, this is only an inducement to be
careful in the choice of an associate. But the maintenauce of a family, and the instruction which children in the
ordinary course of things must receive from paid teachers,
require the expenditure of money. People have no right
to marry who have not a reasonable prospect of being able
to meet that expenditure. A reasonable prospect is not an
absolute certainty. There are no absolute certainties in
human life.  It is not necessary, to make a marriage a
proper one, that either of the parties to it should possess
accumulated wealth. Nor is it necessary that the intended
husband should have a large business income.   But it is
necessary that there should be such an income as will provide for the present wants of the family, and a reasonable
prospect that it will increase as the family  increases.
There should be on the part of the man, at the very least,
industry and the capacity to labor. In all situations in
life, except the very humblest, there should be some capital to render labor profitable. There must be no tastes or
habits, in either the man or the woman, which lead to such 
33~.     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
a consumption of time as will interfere with business, or of
money as will render needfuil a larger income than there
is good reason for believing can be provided.
~ 10. Where the necessary qualifications for marriage ex ist, and a suitable associate can be found, it may be consid ered that it is generally a duty to marry, for marriage con duces to the virtue and happiness of the community, as well
as of the married persons thenmselves. It is a duty which
men and women are generally willing enough to perform,
so far at least as entering into matrimony and assuming its
obligations performs it. But there is danger that they may
do it without proper precautions, and without properly considering the responsibility which they are assuming.
~ 11. It is scarcely necessary [to say] that in the choice
of an associate, one must be selected who is at liberty to
marry, and to marry the person who has the matter under
consideration. No man or won)an, who has been divorced,
except for the cause of fornication, is at liberty to marry.
Our blessed Lord has said that whoever marries such a
person commits  adultery:  "Whoso  marrieth her that
is put away doth commit adultery."  " Whosoever shall
put away his wife and marry alnother, cominitteth adultery
against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband
and be mniarried to another, she commiitteth adultery." 1
No marriage valid in the sight of God can be contracted
between persons who are connected by consanguinity or
affinity, in the degrees which are forbidden to intermarry
ill the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. Such pretended
marriages are not marriages, and no human authority can
make them marriages.
There are cases in which the choice of a particular person for a husband or wife is a direct breach of the law of
God, and Christian marriage with him or her impossible.
In other cases there is room for much deliberation, in
which the necessity of conforming to the laws of Christian
1 Matthew xix. 9; Mark x. 11, 12. 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER.  333
marriage must never be lost sight of. The question to be
asked is, always, Can I live with this man (or this woman),
as my husband (or wife), after God's ordinance in the holy
state of matrimony? It is to be feared that this question
is too often neglected.
~ 12. Many unions take place, in every country, of which
it can scarcely be hoped that there is an intention of carrying out those ideas which enter into the true notion of a
Christian,narriage, and which cannot be enforced by human
laws. It was this which led to the remark of Dr. Johnson:
that the marriage service of the Church of England was
only intended for the best sort of marriages, and that there
ought to be another provided for ordinary marriages. The
Church in this, as in other cases, has chosen to set before
her children the highest form of virtue, to which, if they
cannot attain, they must labor to approach. The office
recognizes, in a very impressive mnanner, the nature of a
Christian marriage. In the promises made to the Church,
before the minister proceeds to the marriage, there is notice
taken not only of the general idea of love, but of its fruits,
of honor, comfort, and fidelity on both sides, and of obedience on that of the woman. Moreover, the unity of marriage is recognized on both sides, by the promise to forsake
all others and keep only to the person at the altar, and its
indissolubility by the continuance of the promise so long as
they both shall live. In the troth-plight the same promises,
with sonme variations of expression, are made by each of
the parties to the other.
Those who have been thus joined are truly said to have
been joined by God, and men are forewarned against putting themn asunder. They have assented to the conditions
of a Christian marriage, and are entitled to the Divine
blessing, which has been promised to the holy state; they
have become " one flesh" according to the law of God in
both Testaments. God has enjoined these laws of inarriage, and the Church has recognized them as the means of 
334      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
constituting the marriage state holy, and therefore happy.
It would be so, were all marriages entered into in strict
conformity with the laws and requirements of God and
the Church, and did all persons, when once united as hus bands and wives, live in obedience to those laws and re quirements. But it is too notorious that the best sort of
marriages, as Dr. Johnson called them, are very rare, and
that ordinary marriages are very common. In consequence
there has arisen a proverbial saying, that marriage is a lot tery. The provision made by God himself, to secure the virtue and happiness of His creatures, is, after all, only a game
of chance, in which happiness and virtue are the stakes, and
are at least as likely to be lost as won. This can only be
because the Divine idea is not followed out, and the union
is formed in the same careless manner in which lotterytickets are purchased. Under such circumstances, it is too
true that marriage is a lottery, and one in which no prudent man or woman would be willing to take a ticket. The
inference is, that there must be a reform in the mode of
selecting husbands and wives, or the propagation of the
human race must be left to the imprudent and the vicious;
the better portion of the race remaining in that condition,
concerning which the Divine wisdom pronounced that it
was not good, even in Eden.
~ 13. It is feared that in practice marriages are not contracted upon Christian principles, or so as to entitle them
to the Divine blessing. The service is gone through as a
form required by law and public opinion; but no hearty
assent is given to its promises, and no reverent attention
to its lessons. It is undoubtedly true, that marriages entered into without due deliberation and a proper knowledge
of the character of the party with whom they are about to
be contracted, are not likely to be happy. They are almost
certain to draw the blanks in the lottery. It is also true,
that the requisite knowledge of the character of the
other party is not of easy acquisition. But this only ren 
MIOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 335
ders the obligation more stringent, to take great care to
obtain the information.
The American Church declares in the address with
which her office opens, that marriage is " honorable among
all men, and therefore is not by any to be entered into
unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly,
soberly, and in the fear of God." The Mother Church of
England, whose service was set forth in a less fastidious
age than that which saw our revision, is yet more explicit.
She says, that marriage "is commended of St. Paul to be
honorable among all men; and therefore is not by any to
be enterprised or taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or
wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like
brute beasts which have no understanding, but reverently,
discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God, duly
considering the causes for which matrimony was ordained."
Such is the Church's doctrine of holy matrimony.
~ 14. It has been said, not unhappily, that nature has
her damnatory clauses as well as the Athanasian Creed.1
By this remark it was meant, that whoever violates the
physical laws of nature, whether willfully or through ignorance, will be met by certain penal consequences, from
which he will scarcely be able to escape. Whoever habitually exceeds the laws of temperance in eating or drinking, will, when his excesses have been numerous enough
and long enoughl continued, be met by dyspepsia or delirium
tremens. The moral law, even when it does not so directly
connect itself with the physical laws of nature, has its own
damnatory clauses; which are as sure to be enforced against
the violators of that law, as dyspepsia is to punish the glutton, or delirizum trenens the drunkard.
But this is a benevolent age, and one in which men are
wiser than their Creator. The damnatory clauses, whether
in faith, morals, or physics, are unpopular. It is thought
very hard that people should suffer on any account. It is
1 [Compare Bp. Butler's Analogy, Pt. I. ch. 2, towards the end.] 
336      CItRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
forgotten that those damnatory clauses are made and promulgated by Divine wisdom and goodness, and that they
are designed as guards and cautions to prevent men from
violating his laws. The intention of the Almighty is,
that men should be, by those penalties, induced to avoid
doing the things against which they are denounced. But
in this age, it is thought that they ought to stand "like
forfeits in a barber's shop, as much in mock as nmark."
It must be an understood thing that the penalties shall
not be enforced.  Everything which is wrong is an imprudence, and everybody must be, so far as it is possible,
relieved from the consequences of imprudence.   There
must always be a  locus penitentife, even  after the evil
action has been fully committed. The evils of imprudence
are to be met and obviated, not by caution, the only mode
recognized by the Governor of the world, but by taking
away the natural consequences of imprudence.
~ 15. Thus God has decreed that marriage shall be indissoluble. His Church has taken care to call the attention of every person who enters into the state to this
law, and, moreover, cautions them that they should not
enter into their new condition  unadvisedly.   But  many
persons reject her cautions, disregard her warnings, turn
her solemn office into an occasion of jesting, and then
find themselves unhappy. It is held to be a great pity
that they should suffer for their folly. So modern philanthropy undertakes to reverse the law of God, by what
are falsely called human laws, but which are in truth,
nothing more than abuses of human power. Marriage is
thus pronounced, but not made, a dissoluble contract,
and human tribunals undertake to dissolve the ill-assorted
union, which God has not blessed, because His blessing
has not been truly sought. Nevertheless, the Divine law
is, that "'a man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall
be one flesh." And again: "They twain shall be one flesh:
so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 337
therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." 1
But the laws of Heaven are not so easily evaded. The
separation, so far as human laws are concerned, puts an
end to the union; yet its consequences remain. The parties have been man and wife; and that fact influences the
rest of their lives, in a way not conducive to their happiness. This alone would seem to import a necessity for
more caution than is usually exercised in contracting marriages. We fear, however, that it is true, that by much the
larger portion of the marriages which take place in this
country, are entered into with very little care or deliberation. One continually sees, in the newspapers, accounts
of marriages concluded, or narrowly escaped, by young
women, with men who already have one or more wives.
The women are undoubtedly objects of commiseration;
they would be more so had they given evidence of more
Christian and lady-like principles and feelings. But it
generally appears, that the engagement, and perhaps the
marriage, has been contracted, after an acquaintance of a
very few weeks, with a man of whom neither the woman nor
any of her friends or relations knew anything. No doubt
many other matches take place under similar circumstances
in which no prior wife appears, or perhaps exists. But the
marriages may nevertheless be very unhappy. In some
cases the husband disappears, and perhaps goes to deceive
some other incautious woman. In others, the marriage is
an unhappy one, because the man is a very unfit person to
be a husband. In all such cases, it may be added that the
woman is a very unfit person to be a wife.
~ 16. What then are the qualities to be sought for in a
husband or a wife? This question may best be answered
by ascertaining what are the duties of a husband or a wife.
Those of the husband may be all summed up in one word,
- love. Those of the wife in two, - love and obedience.
1 Mark x. 8, 9.
22 
338     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
The difference is of Divine appointment, and pervades the
whole both of the Old Testament and the New. If one
may reverently conjecture the reason of the difference, it
may be supposed to be that in the fallen state of our race,
there is a necessity for an authority to decide questions,
which might otherwise lead to interminable disputes. In
Paradise there was, perhaps, no danger of disputes, and
consequently no need of authority. This theory is sup ported by the fact, that it is not until after the Fall that
there is any direct mention of the husband's authority. It
was after the Fall that God said unto the woman:" Thy
desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee." The first part of this remarkable sentence seems to
be designed as the means of bringing about the other. It
accounts for the extraordinary phenomenon, that women
will bear the most cruel usage from unworthy husbands,
and still retain aii affection for them. Such affection, no
doubt, sweetens an otherwise bitter lot. But it is better
not to put one's self in a position where such a compensation will be required. MIoreover, this sort of affection does
not come until after marriage.
~ 17. What are the proper inducements by which young
persons should be governed in the choice of a husband or
a wife? Should this question be put to a young lady, the
answer would of course be, love. Many young gentlemen
would answer,- if there were no young lady within hearing, -money.  The ladies are right, although they may not
have very accurate ideas as to what love is, or the kind of
love which is requisite as a good reason for entering into
the married state. They are generally possessed with a peculiar notion of love, which is learned from the sentimental
novel writers. This emotion, which they allow to be called
a passion, is supposed to be irresistible, undying, incapable
of being felt more than once, and to be the evidence of
the possession of every other good quality. Men know
very well that this is entirely erroneous, and that there is 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 359
nothing answering to it in the human heart.  Marriage
soon reveals to the woman that there is nothing like it in
the male heart; and it is well if it does not also reveal its
absence from her own. The idea is in fact made up of
exaggerated notions taken fromI various emotions, which
are confounded under the name of love. The largest portion of them are derived from that attachment of the wife
to the husband, which has been already mentioned as a
beneficent provision of the Almighty, intended at once to
secure and to compensate her subordination.  But  this
does not and cannot exist before marriage. Moreover, it
is a female attribute, and does not belong to the male.
~ 18. What is the love which is the prerequisite to marriage? For the soundness of the theory of the ladies is not
to be doubted. To answer this question, it may be proper
to refer to the diagram in the second chapter of this work
(pp. 72, 73). It is there shown that the inciting instincts,
of the merely animal nature, are the developments of three
primary instincts,- self-love, benevolence, and malevolence.
These primary instincts, when transplanted, as it were, into
the human nature, and combined with the intellectual faculties of memory and imagination, become the germs out
of which are developed all human emotions. The emniotions, considered together, constitute what is sometimes
called the emotional nature, and, both theologically and
popularly, the heart. The emotions are divided into three
classes, as they are developed from the three primary instiucts. Those which are developed from the selfish or
malevolent instincts, are known as passions, sufferings, on
account of their violence. Those which are developed from
the benevolent instincts, are called affections, and are, in
the present depraved state of human nature, far inferior in
strength to the passions. The affections are also known by
the generic name of love. Most of them have no other specific name than a specific epithet added to the generic name,
as parental love, filial love, conjugal love. There are exceptions to this rule, such as gratitude, friendship, pity. But 
340     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
it is common to the whole of both classes, that they are
kindly feelings, seeking their gratification in the well-being
of objects without ourselves. The principle which is common to all, is kindness. This word is more commnonly
applied to the outward manifestation of the feeling, which
in itself is called love. The love which prevails between
young persons who have chosen, or are choosing each
other to fill the relation of husband or wife, has no specific
epithet, or name. It is designated absolutely as love; and
it differs from friendship by its combination with the passion of love.
There is another matter connected with the emotions
which requires some notice. In the mere animal nature,
the instincts which answer to them are occupied solely
about the immediate and present interests of the animal.
In the human nature, when the primary instincts are combined with the intellectual faculties, the emotions acquire
breadth, depth, and permanence. It is by those qualities
that passions and affections are distinguished from mere
animal instincts. But they are still conversant about the
interests, so to speak, of the individual.
~ 19. There are, however, in human nature elements
which have a still higher character than the intellectual and
the emotional possess. St. Paul speaks of the spirit as
well as the soul and the body. In this loftier region are to
be found the faculties of the higher reason and the conscience. The soul may be considered as consisting of the
mind and heart, of the intellectual and emotional portions
of our nature. The spirit is the seat of conscience, or the
moral nature. This faculty draws to it the higher reason,
which is distinguished fromn the lower reason, sometimes
called the understanding, by its power of dealing with
spiritual matters, which the lower faculty wants. But this
higher reason is itself, after all, only the handmaid of conscience, the queen of all the faculties, and the highest part
of our nature. 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 341
The emotional nature is as capable of being elevated
into this moral region as the intellectual; at least the
affections and the passions connected with the malevolent
instinct are so; for the selfish or concupiscible passions do
not seem capable of any such connection. It is not to be
supposed that conscience has no authority over or connection with the selfish passions; they are clearly subject to
her dominion.  But they do not seem to be capable of
being dignified in such a way, that they are to seek their
proper objects under the direction of conscience. Her
authority over them is merely restrictive. They are the
pariahs of the emotions, incapable of being ennobled. The
philosophical reason of this is, that they can by their nature
have no other objects than self: while the affections and
the irascible passions, although having an ultimate object
ihti self, have other intermediate objects, in whose well or
ill being the self is interested, and of whose sentient existence the affection or passion, from its very nature, takes
cognizance.
The same idea may be further illustrated, by remarking
that the affections and the irascible passions regard their
objects as persons, even although they may be only things;
while the conctupiscible passions regard their objects
merely as things, although they may be really persons.
The affections and the irascible passions always involve
the notion of good or bad desert. The concupiscible passions look at everything only as it may contribute to the
gratification of the desires of him who is under their influence.
The irascible passions and the affections always regard
their objects as persons, and as capable of good or bad
desert. This quality enables them to associate with coInscience. Without that association, they look only at the
good or bad deserts of their objects, with reference to the
interests of the individual. He who has treated me kindly
is a proper object of my affections. He who has treated
me unkindly is a proper object of my malevolence. But 
342     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
both are so, without any reference to the distinction be  tween right and wrong. But when the passions and af  fections are elevated into the moral region, then they
are excited and appeased with reference to the right and
wrong doing of the persons who are their objects. In the
first case, the good or bad desert of such persons is re garded with reference to the interests of an individual; in
the other with reference to the great principles of right
and wrong as administered by conscience.
~ 20. The emotional nature, or heart, is thus divided
into three regions, by different lines from those which have
been already spoken of.   These lines may be metaphor ically considered as horizontal, while the former division
is vertical. The selfish or concupiscible passions are inca pable of rising above the first and lowest line of demarca tion. The second stratum is occupied by the irascible
passions and the affections, which are in their own nature
higher than the merely selfish feelings, and are capable of
rising above even the second line of demarcation.   The
third stratum is composed of the affections and the malevolent feelings which have actually risen above the third
line of demarcation. In this elevated region, it may be
observed that the irascible emotions lose the violent character which entitles them to the name of passions, and
assume the character of affections, emotions, that is, which
affect us without carrying us away by their force. No
man is ever excited to that vehemence of emotion which
we call passion by moral motives only. But he is affected
with feelings towards the wrong-doers akin to the passions
which he would have felt, had the wrong been done to
himself. The term irascible or malevolent passions has
ceased to be applicable; but there are now iunkind 1 as
well as benevolent affections. The heart is thus divided
into three strata.
1 Perhaps this expression requires some explanation. The word affection is now most commonly used for a benevolent emotion. The coupling
it with the word "unkind" will seem strange to most readers. But in the
text the word "affection" is used in another sense. An affection may be 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 343
~ 21. The present business relates to all these three
strata. The distinction is commonly enough taken between the passion of love and the affection of love, when
we are speaking of those emotions which are introductory
to the marriage state. It is to the affection that the
honor belongs of bearing as its specific designation the
generic name of the affections, without a specific epithet.
It is a true affection, which, like other benevolent affections, has its natural place in the second stratum.  In or
considered as an emotion which is not a passion, because it is not extremely violent. It affects us, but not to the point of suffering. It is precisely because the benevolent affections are of this sort, not violent, that
they are called affections. The name may therefore be properly applied to
any emotions which do not transcend the same grade of moderation. But
the emotions connected with the malevolent instinct, when excited merely
by the sense of wrong in the abstract, not connected with a sense of personal injury, do not advance beyond the same grade of moderation, which
is reached by the benevolent emotions. They can, therefore, hardly be
called passions, and the term "affection" may properly be applied to them.
The  older writers used  the word "affection" in a sense sufficiently
broad to justifv this application of it. Johnson's second definition is,
passion of any kind;" and he cites as authorities the following passages
from Spenser and Hooker:          "Then'gan the Palmer thus: Most wretched man,
That to affections does the bridle lend;
In their beginning they are weak and wan,
But soon through sufferance grow to fearful end."
Faery Queen.
"Affections (as joy, grief, fear, and anger, with such like), being (as it were), the
sundry fashions and forms of appetite, can neither rise at the conceit of a thing
indifferent, nor yet choose but rise at the sight of some things." - Hooker.
But the malevolent emotions, however moderated and elevated, are not
benevolent; they involve no good-will to their object.  They are connected
with the malevolent instinct; yet the word malevolent seems too harsh a
one to be applied to them. Some milder epithet is wanted which may distinguish them from the benevolent affections, and intimate that they are
not benevolent. The last two words form one of Johnson's definitions of
the word "unkind."  It has therefore been adopted, and the emotions in
question called "unkind affections."  The substantive indicating the moderation, and the adjective the character of the emotions. By whatever
name they may be called, they are a very important part of human nature.
They are intimately connected with conscience and the higher reason,
which deals with abstract ideas.  Moreover, they lie at the roots of the
sterner virtues, as the kindly affections do at those of the milder. Without
them, a man might be amiable, but could never overcome evil. 
344     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
dinary minds it regards, as all affections do, the person
who is its object as a person having good or bad desert;
but it considers the good or bad desert solely with refer ence to the individual who loves his or her person and
interests. But like all the other lower affections, it is
capable of being brought into connection with the higher
reason and conscience, and so elevated into the moral re gion, in which good and bad desert is judged of by moral
rules, with reference to the great principles of right and
wrong, and not to the person and interests of the loving
person. Thus there may be said to be a higher and a
lower affection of love, which may coexist in the same
mind towards the same person, and which unite in form ing the highest kind of conjugal love. The union of these
two grades, rather than kinds of love, is therefore the best
preparation for entering into the marriage state.
~ 22. But besides the affection of love in its two grades,
there is also a passion of love. What sort of a passion is
it? To which of the three classes of emotions does it belong? It is conceded to be a passion; therefore it cannot
be an affection, and belong to the benevolent class of emotions. It is called love, and so if its name at all expresses
its nature, it can hardly belong to the malevolent class of
passions. It follows that it must be one of the concupiscible passions which grow out of the instinct of self-love.
As such a passion, it must belong to the lowest of the
three grades of emotions, and be incapable of regarding
its object, although really a person, as other than a thiig
only to be considered as it may contribute to the gratification of the self-lover, incapable of good or bad desert,
either with respect to the self-lover or with respect to
moral worth. The person so regarded is, of course, not
reduced to such a condition, even in the imagination of
the self-lover; but that is his or her condition looked at
exclusively with regard to the passion called love. This
passion is, in truth, only the sexual appetite determined 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 345
by the imagination to a certain object, and dwelt upon
until it becomes habitual. The sarcastic account which a
poet has given of it is a just one: -
"Lust, through some certain strainers well refined,
Is gentle love, and charms all womankind."
Such is the passion of love in its nakedness;  but like
most other passions it has a power of combining itself with
other feelings. It readily combines with other concupiscible passions, such as vanity, the love of admiration, and
the desire of success. The last emotion is not to be confounded with the desire of the fruits of success. Mysterious as it seems, it is also capable of being combined with
affection. In very affectionate natures it produces affection, although this may be accounted for by a process
which will presently be explained. Where the affection
exists between persons of opposite sexes, the passion is
very apt to be its consequence. This is so generally understood, that the idea of Platonic love, that is, of an affection subsisting between persons of different sexes, without
passion, where the parties are not so connected by blood
as to render the passion unlawfiul, is regarded as only a
subject of ridicule.
It is out of the confusion of this passion with the mysterious attachment, which, as has been already mentioned, a
woman conceives for her husband after marriage, that
poets, whether writing in verse or prose, have franmed the
idea of that sentimental or romantic love which has misled so many young people to their ruin. From one of
these elements its violence has been taken, from the other
its undying nature, for the passion of love seldom long
survives marriage. Its blindness is found in both.
~ 23. The notion that the passion of love is irresistible,
has led to many unhappy marriages. It is as false as it
is mischievous.  Love is no more irresistible than hatred.
It is, as has been very well said, a very manageable passion. What is the reason that it is held disgraceful for a 
346      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
lady to fall in love with a married man? Why is it that
no one falls in love with his sister or her brother?  It is
because love is a manageable passion. Anger and fear
take people by surprise, and hurry them from their propriety.  There is a passion which is sometimes called love,
that does the same.  That kind of love receives little
favor. It is universally agreed that it is to be kept out
of the heart, or if it make its appearance there, that it
should be instantly stifled. It rarely looks to marriage,
for it is as transient as it is violent. The love which, like
hatred, produces permanent effects, is of slow growth. It
is the offspring of the imagination, and may be controlled
by controlling the imagination. Until it has become thoroughly rooted, it can be kept from growing, and in time
destroyed by resolutely turning the thoughts in another
direction. Of this truth tens of thousands of persons have
had experience. Yet women who would be shocked to
hear any one say that he could not help hating a particular person, will fancy that they cannot help loving a man
whom they ought not to love.
Nothing can be more absurd. It is not possible to love
that which does not present itself in an agreeable light;
but it is very possible to withdraw the thoughts from that
upon which they ought not to dwell, unless the wrong
direction has become habitual.  Young persons, especially
young women, should never suffer any person of the opposite sex to become habitually present to their thoughts,
unless they are well assured of the fitness of such person
for a husband or wife.
~ 24. It is one of the mysteries of our nature, that the
passion of love is always accompanied by a feeling allied
to the malevolent instinct. This feeling is kept in check
by the desire to conciliate, which the passion of love itself
induces, and still more by the affection, which in some
degree generally coexists with the passion.   It exists,
nevertheless, and shows itself in various ways. It is con 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 347
nected with some forms of dalliance, and with the proverbial tendency of lovers to quarrel. Their quarrels are
sometimes sportive, sometimes semi-sportive, and sometimes in earnest, although not permanent; but in one form
or other they have a strange disposition to jangle. When
their jangling is in earnest they are easily reconciled, a
fact which is as proverbial as the other. Those alternate
ruptures and reconciliations are the alternate triumphs of
two antagonistic yet inseparable principles. But when the
passion of love has been gratified or crushed, if there has
been no affection, or if that also has disappeared, the malevolent feeling is apt to survive, and manifests itself in
some way, sometimes in acts of gross cruelty. There are
many facts which bear out these views; but from their
nature they cannot be here detailed. A very remarkable
one is, however, recorded in Holy Scripture, in the thirteenth chapter of the second book of Samuel. It is obviouis that this malevolent accompaniment of the passion of
love, and the transitory nature of that passion itself, combine to render the passion a very insecure basis on which
to erect the fabric of domestic happiness.
~ 25. Until within a few generations, our ancestors did
not regard love as the gate of marriage. In the Middle
Ages, the state of society was such as to leave a young
lady no choice but between marriage and a nunnery. It
was only by the power of a husband, or by the authority of
the Church, that she could be protected from lawless violence.
There were also great difficulties about her subsistence,
for an income could not be provided for her. Interest,
which was then called usury, was proscribed by the laws
both civil and ecclesiastical, and by public opinion. It was
practiced by the Jews and Lonmbards. In their hands, it
was a hazardous business, returning great profits at uncertain intervals, but was liable to great losses. It could not
be made the source of a regular and punctually paid in 
348     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
come, such as a single woman requires. Joint stock companies were not invented, and could not have existed; for
many of them depend more or less upon interest, and all
upon a confidence in the integrity and punctuality of men,
for which there were no grounds. Small parcels of land
could not be bought, and would have yielded very uncertain returns. Ladies had no means of investing money;
whatever a father could give to his daughter, he could only
employ as a marriage portion, or in buying for her a place
in a nunnery. If she married, her husband would protect
and support her during his life, and at his death she would
be entitled to dower in his lands.
~ 26. In most cases, marriage was a necessity for a lady,
and it was generally important that it should take place
early in life. She was not in a situation to live single or
to choose her own husband. It was therefore held to be
her duty to accept one chosen by her friends. This duty
almost every young lady was ready to perform cheerfully.
She was generally called upon while still a child. Two
things combined to lead to frequent marriages of children.
Fathers were anxious to see their daughters married, since
that was their only security. If the young ladies were
heiresses, their fathers had an additional motive for marryimg them early, that they might not fall into the hands of a
guardian in chivalry, that is, into those of the king, the interniediate feudal lord, or any person to whonm the king or
the lord might give or sell the guardianship. Guardians
were anxious to receive the value of the marriage, lest they
might lose it by the death of the ward, or by her attaining
the age of sixteen, and also because she generally wanted
money.   Guardians, and, it is to be feared, fathers paid
little or no attention to anything but their own interests.
This was the great defect of the system, and no doubt had
much to do with the deplorable unchastity which prevailed
during the ages of chivalry. Nevertheless, there is reason
to believe that medieval marriages not unfrequently turned
out well. 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CIhOICE OF PARTNER. 349
~ 27. The Reformation took away the alternative of a
nunnery, before the modern means of providing for single
women were developed. This made marriage still more
necessary to women. It seems to have been so regarded
in England for a long time. The usage of marrying children still continued. Fathers had still nearly the same
motives for marrying their daughters early as in the Middle Ages. The legal right of a guardian in chivalry to dispose of the hand of his ward, remained until the Civil War;
and almost to the close of the seventeenth century, parents continued to provide husbands for their daughters
while still very young.
Even when the young people were grown up, the passion
of love had little to do with bringing them together. The
choice of a husband or wife was rarely made for any reason which was not connected with property or political influence. A young man in choosing a wife rarely thought
of love. He was much guided by the advice of his parents
and friends. The strongest recommendations of a young
lady were wealth, position, birth, that is, descent from ancestors of high position, and a careful mother. If she
possessed these four things, especially if she added to them
beauty, she might be married to any man whom her friends
might select. If any of them were wanting, her choice of
a husband was more limited, although she might still hope
for an advantageous marriage, unless she was poor. Public opinion, immediately after the Reformation, allowed
a young lady no right of refusing the man whom  her
friends had chosen; but in the course of the seventeenth
century such a right gradually grew up, though it was not
thoroughly established until some time in the eighteenth.
Ideas about marriage similar to those of the Middle Ages
long prevailed in the Roman Catholic countries of Europe,
and are perhaps not yet quite extinct. Royal and princely
houses, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, still arrange their marriages upon the same principles. 
350      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
It is the fashion to speak very harshly of our ancestors
for their mode of match-making. It is true that young
persons were not much consulted in the matter, and it is
generally supposed that their feelings were often rudely
treated. Such cases no doubt occurred; but the arrangement was generally made before they had any feelings
upon the subject, perhaps before they were old enough to
have any. In the last case they acquiesced, grew up together, and entered upon the married state without passion,
but perhaps not without a certain habitual affection. When
the young persons were grown up our ancestors acted upon
an unromantic theory. It was, that any man and woman,
who are married, will in time become so assimilated to
each other that a liking will grow up, perhaps a strong affection. According to the then notions, it was not very
important, when a person was to be married, to whom he
or she was joined.
~ 28. Such was the theory of our ancestors, which is not
yet extinct either as a theory or as influencing practice,
although it is vehemently disowned. Many marriages are
still entered into upon these principles. The result of
a marriage, whether formed on the romantic or the unromantic theory, really depends upon the character of the
parties to it; for it depends upon the state of feeling
into which they may finally settle. This in marriages of
passion, is something very different from the passion which
led to the union. It may be true affection, or it may be the
same kind of liking which often supplies its place in other
marriages. It may, for a reason which has been already
given, be hatred. Marriages on the other principle may
lead to a true affection, if the persons married are capable
and worthy of such a feeling, or they may produce in less
amiable and affectionate natures the contented liking
which grows out of habit, and which is the usual substitute for happiness, happiness itself being a rare blessing.
Perhaps comfort and happiness may be as attainable in 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 351
such marriages as in marriages of passion. The chance of
this was, however, better before the romantic theory had
taken root in the imaginations of wonmen.
~ 29. These ideas have been well expressed by Sir Walter Scott. He says: "Let not those who enter into a
union for life without the embarrassments of an enthusiastic passion, augur worse of their future happiness, because their alliance is formed under calmer auspices.
Mutual esteem, an intimate knowledge of each other's
characters, seen as in their case undisguised by the mists
of partial passion, a suitable proportion of parties in rank
and fortune, in tastes and pursuits, are more frequently
found in a marriage of reason, than in the unions of romantic attachment, where the imagination, which probably
created the virtues and accomplishments with which it
invested the beloved object, is frequently afterwards employed in magnifying the mortifying consequences of its
own delusion, and exasperating all the stings of disappointment." 1
~ 30. The true objection to the old system is that the
parents were too much influenced by considerations of
property or other external advantages, which are not
proper inducements to enter into the holy state of mnatrimony. The true objection to the romantic system is that
the young people are too much influenced by personal appearance, accomplishments, manners, and other personal
advantages, which are not proper inducements to enter
into the holy state of matrimony. In both it is forgotten
that the first thing to be considered in choosing a husband
or wife is character.
~ 31. A return to the old system is by no means to be
recommnended; but it may be as well not to be too sure that
our own is so very superior to it. There are still a good
many marriages which are merely or chiefly the result of
pecuniary motives. Most men are willing to admit that the
1 Redgauntlet, vol. ii. ch. 18. 
352     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
idea enters into their calculations, until they have fixed on
the person whom they design to marry; and then to be sure
their only motive is pure love, sentimental, romantic love.
Nor is it to be supposed that the ladies are all insensible
to the charms of wealth. Not a few of them are believed
annually to sacrifice themselves to the splendor in which
their intended husbands are able to maintain them. The
goodness of the match is, on both sides, generally estimated by the wealth of the spouse. There is reason to
believe, that even where that which can be regarded as
wealth is out of the question, there are many ladies who
become wives with reference to the support to which a
wife is entitled.
~ 32. But passing from the pecuniary part of the subject, is the love, which is now regarded as the proper incentive to marriage, a more proper or a safer inducement
than the desire of wealth, or of a maintenance? This
question can scarcely be answered in the affirmative.
What is the history and nature of a modern love-match,
from which pecuniary motives have been  carefilly excluded?  It begins on the man's side with the passion of
love. This becomes so strong that he determines to attempt its gratification by marriage.  Taken alone, it is
scarcely the proper inducement to marry; although, were
it not for the existence of the passion, probably very few
matches would take place. Whether proper or not, it is
very often the sole inducement on the part of the mniale,
and sometimes onil that of the female. It would be absurd
to deny that females are liable to this passion; although
the proprieties of life compel them to conceal it, and it is,
in an overwhelming majority of cases, weaker than in men.
But it is only in exceptional cases that it is the primary
inducement by which a lady is governed in the choice of a
husband. Its place is supplied by an affection which is
very apt to produce the passion.
This affection has not itself, however, a very elevated
i
1. 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 853
origin.  It grows out of that which is sometimes called the
instinct of coquetry, and more generally, in society, the
love of admiration.  This is one of the concupiscible or
selfish passions, the object of which is the good opinion or
kind feelings of other persons, more especially those of
the opposite sex. It exists in both sexes, but is stronger
among females. When the nature is hard and selfish, it
produces that odious character, a coquette; where the nature is more affectionate, it furnishes a motive for kind
feelings. The very fact that a man has fallen in love with
a woman, that is, has experienced the passion of love for
her, is a tribute to this passion, and has a tendency to excite a feeling of kindness. The attentions and flatteries
of the man under the influence of the passion of love,
tend in the same direction, and the lady soon feels an affection for her admirer; which is not very noble in its
origin, and is not, according to the ordinary laws of human
nature, likely to remain altogether Platonic.
Whether it do or not, it gives rise to a kindliness of deportment on her part, which tends to strengthen the feeling
of affection on the part of the man, where it exists, and to
originate it where it does not.   The  manifestation of affection on the part of the man, in turn, strengthens the
affection on the part of the woman.  Thus the parties are
indefinitely acted upon and act. It is by such means that
an affection grows up between a man and a woman.   But
this affection is without any reference to the moral worth
of either. It is grounded on the notion of good desert;
but that good desert consists in deserving well of the other
party, not in deserving well of the Almighty. It is kindness to the individual, not obedience to the laws of God.
It is not the higher affection which is connected with conscience and with the higher reason. The lower affection
is the highest motive, upon which marriages are usually
founded.
~ 33. But too many are founded upon yet lower bases.
23
0 
354      CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
It may be on the mere passion of love on the man's side,
and on a feeling of kindness, growing out of a gratified
love of admiration, on the woman's. It nmay be on the
passion of love on the man's part, and on the desire of
support, or of wealth and splendor, on  the woman's.  It
mnay be on the passion of love on both sides. That this
passion is not a proper foundation for marriage, the Church
of England very distinctly teaches in her office for the
solemnization of matrimony. She there declares, that that
holy state is not "by any to be enterprised, nor taken in
hand  unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly; to satisfy men's
carnal lusts and appetites like brute beasts that have no
understanding."   That  pecuniary motives  are  not  the
proper ones all are agreed, and entering into marriage
upon them would be clamorously censured, even by those
who have done so or are on the point of so doing. The
affection which is the consequence of gratified vanity is
not much better. Its basis will soon fall from under it. The
attentions out of which it grew will cease to be paid so soon
as the desires which prompted them are gratified,- whether
those desires were for wealth or for anything else.   No
marriage which has for its basis any of the four which have
been mentioned in this paragraph, is likely to be happy.
They may turn out well; because it is within the conmpass
of possibility that an affection may grow up after marriage,
if the man be of an affectionate disposition; that is a forlorn hope. Yet it is to be feared that by far the greater
part of the marriages which take place in this age and
country rest on one or other of these four bases. Such
marriages oulght not to be contracted.
Others may be divided into two classes, those which may
be allowed, or are tolerable, and those which are right in a
Christian view. These last are what Dr. Johnson nmeant
by the best marriages; the tolerable class are what he
meant by ordinary marriages.  The several species which
have been spoken of in the last paragraph, may be classed
I
I
0 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 355
together as wicked marriages; although it is to be feared
that they are, in one sense of the word, ordinary marriages.
~ 34. Those, however, to which that term has been above
applied, and which may be called allowable mnarriages, being
those which grow out of that lower kind of affection, which
springs from reciprocal kindnesses, have their dangers.
So long as the affection continues, they will, so far as tern.
poral matters are concerned, be very happy. But the affection which sp)rings from mutual kindnesses requires to be
sustained by the same nutriment. So long as the passion
of love continues this will probably be the case, and even
after that is worn out, the affection itself will produce the
kindnesses upon which it feeds.  But there will arise cases
in which the irascible passions will be more or less excited,
and thus there may occur words and actions of an unpleasant nature, the recollection of which tends to counterbalance that of the kindnesses which have produced and
sustain the affection.   The cares of life, too, call off the
attention from the affection itself, and interfere with the
showing such kindnesses as involve the expenditure of
time. Under the pressure of poverty, all these evils are
increased and aggravated, and the affection is apt to be
severely tried.  It has long been a proverb, that, "when
poverty comnes in at the door love goes out of the window."
"Love and a cottage" is a phrase which sounds very well;
but it is an idea hard to realize, unless both parties are prepared, by habit or character, to put up with the cottage
without reference to love.
~ 35. There is a higher kind of affection which is based
on the moral qualities of the beloved object. This may,
and probably often does arise after marriage. It is not
incompatible with the lower affection, which looks only to
the relative desert of the object, that is, to the kindly relations between the parties. In fact, it can hardly exist separated from it. For in a worthy character, the affections
must be strong and will manifest themselves in kindly 
356     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
actions. A good man must be more or less an amiable
man, and so the food of the lower affection will be abundantly supplied. The existence of this higher affection is
not incompatible with that of the passion of love. In fact,
it has the same tendency to excite it, with the lower affection, although, perhaps, in a lesser degree. Even this kind
of affection can only in exceptional cases exist between
young persons of opposite sexes ill the Platonic form;
unless where there are impediments to marriage, which are
well understood to be insuperable.
~ 36. The higher affection has, then, so many possible
helps that it is not easy to be sure that it is the  moving
principle. Still the person who desires to contract a mnarriage should first be sure that he or she believes in the
moral worth of him or her with whom the union is designed.  It is true that, on this point, there may be selfdeception. The virtues may be the effect of the attachmnent, not its cause.  This may  be true in two senses.
They may be assumed for the purpose of deceiving the
inquirer; and they may exist only in the imagination of
that inquirer.  It is, therefore, better in such cases to rely
on the judgment of others than on our own.  Parents,
friends, and even the public have better nmeans of judging
in such cases than the person immediately interested. But
where the inquiry is omnitted altogether, and a lady, for instance, marries a man known to be immoral, in the hope of
correcting his vices by her post-matrimonial influence, this
rule is grossly violated, and the marriage is, to say the
least, highly imprudent. Not only is the proper basis of
marriage wanting, but it is an absolute certainty, that the
attempt to exercise such influence will put an end to even
the lower affection, the only one of which such a man is
capable.
~ 37. The only sure basis of a good moral character is a
sound religious belief, and that involves a public religious
profession.  Such a profession may be hypocrisy, or it may
I
i
I 
MIOTIVES TO MIARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 357
be self-deceit. The ladies have this advantage, that in the
case of a young man, the state of public feeling is not such
as to render a hypocritical profession pf religion a likely
occurrence.  It must be conceded that a religious professioIn gives no absolute certainty of a religious character;
but it is certain, that he who makes no religious profession
gives no guarantee of a religious character, and in an immense majority of cases does not possess it.  No Christian
man or woman is then justified in entering into the marrilage state with one who does not profess to be guided by
religious principle.
~ 3,. This involves another rule.  There is really no religious principle that does not grow out of some definite
faith.  It is necessary to the perfection of a Christian marriage that both parties should profess Christianity ill the
same sense.  It would be very difficult, if inot impossible,
to perform the hilghest duty of the marriage state, the religiots education of the children, under other circumstances.
Ladies somnetimes depart from this rule in the hope of being able to bring their intended husbands over to their
way of thinking, and they even extend this notion so far as
to try a similar experiment upon mlen who make no religious profession at all.  Such conduct is like to that of her
who marries an inimoral man in the hope of reforming
himn. He who makes no religiouts profession has not given
any evidence of his religious character, upon which a prudent woman can rely.  She will, if she tries the experiment,
find that her influence is much more likely to be outwardly
successfill before marriage than after it. Moreover, she
mav find that if it succeed before marriage, the spell will
be dissolved very soon after the new state is entered into.
He who makes a religious profession which is not founded'
upon a definite faith, is not a suitable husband for one
whose faith is definite. His foundation is too insecure to
be trusted.  He  who  makes  such a profession, upon  a
definite faith, will scarcely change that faith under the influence of his wife.
I 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
This principle applies to all persons who have any definite
faith, whether it be the true faith or not. It has nothing
to do with soundness of doctrine, but depends exclusively
upon the sincerity and earnestness with which it is held.
Two persons holding irreconcilable doctrines, which are
both false, are as liable to all the inconveniences indicated
in the last paragraph, as if one of them held the truth.
Two persons holding the same doctrine, although a false
one, would not be liable to them. The substance of this
rule is that husbands and wives should be of one mind.
~ 39. It will be readily seen that upon the principles
which have been laid down, it is not very easy for Christian
men or women to find husbands or wives.  The difficulty
on the part of the women is undoubtedly the greater of
the two.  For there are more women than men who make
public profession of a conformity to religious principles.
But it nmust be remembered on the other hand, that there
is much more certainty that the religion of a young man
is sincere and deep than that of a young woman; because
he has fewer inducements to make a profession upon light
grounds, and more difficulties to overcome.
The conclusion of the whole matter is, that those who desire to enter into the marriage state upon Christian principles, and will not depart from those principles, will find it
very difficult to marry at all. This is one of the difficulties
which in our age and country besets the Christian course.
It is, however, no reason for joining in the light and unseemly view, which is generally taken of the holy state of nmatrimnony.  Nothing is nmore certain, than that it should be
thought of reverently and entered into cautiously. Everything which may lead to it should be carefilly watched, and
a guard set upon the thoughts, until the most careftil imeasutires have been taken to learn the true character of the sutiggested person. Such a course is by no means romantic or
sentimental. But if it were adopted, and carried on even
upon worldly principles, there would be fewer bigamies and
358
ik
I 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER. 359
fewer unhappy marriages. At present marriage is a lottery;
because niothing is done to make it otherwise. The plan said
to have been adopted by some Christian sects, of marrying
by the actual lot, is not more hazardous than a system
which brings couples together without any other knowledge of each other than can be gained by the frivolous
battle of fashionable society, or in the more intimate intercourse of what is called courtship, when mercenary views,
or a fancy, which may be a passing one, or the love of admiration or flattery, may produce a deception not always
quite involuntary.
~ 40. No person ought to select an associate in marriage
without sufficient reason for believing that the person selected has good principles, is pious and amiable, and
agrees with the person who is about to choose as to the
great doctrines of religion. The greatest care should be
taken to ascertain the truth upon these points.  For that
end it is desirable and a duty to take the advice of parents
and prudent friends, and to be governed by it. Such advisers are in less danger than the person immediately concerned of being blinded by passion or flattery. In order
that there may be parents and friends who are capable of
advising, it is very desirable that a long acquaintance betweeln the parties to a proposed marriage and their respective families should precede the very first movement towards the union.
~ 41. Above all it is important that persons who are
about to marry should bear in mind the sacred nature of
the engagements which they are about to assume.  This
work will now conclude with a statement of this, in the
words of Dr. Pusey. He says:  "Since marriage is this higch and wondrous image of
the union of the soul with Christ, how holily ought it to
be comnpassed, entered upon, lived in!
"What is the pattern, and measure, and model of the
mutual love of the husband and the wife? What but the 
360     CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
love of Christ himself, and of his redeemed Church for
Him  its Head?'Husbands, love your wives even as
Christ also loved the Church.'  St. Paul stops short in no
created being; he lifts us to Him who is God and Man,
the All-Holy, the All-Loving. And how then did Christ
love the Church?  More than Himself, more than his own
life;'He gave Himself for her.' In what condition did
Christ love the Church? For her beauty, her goodness,
her holiness, her graces?  Nay, ye know well what this
our human nature was before Christ came; how defiled, how
full of all evil and deformity. And to what end did He
love her?  That He might array her with all beauty, that
He might do away with every spot and wrinkle, and make
her like a bride ordained for her husband, holy and without blemish.
"This plainly cannot belong to us. Christ is the pattern to us, not as to power or gifts of grace, but in His
love.' Love your wives,' he saith,'as Christ loved the
Church.' The love of Christ was with power; we cannot
imitate the power; but we can, through His grace, imitate
the love. Christ loved in the Church an undying beauty
which Ile would give her. He loved all souls, not for
what they were, but for what He would make them. We
love after the pattern of Christ when we love in one another that deathless beauty of the soul which Christ gives;
when we love in despite of defects which Christ will by his
grace remove; when we are patient and forbearing with
what Christ has not yet removed, looking and longing for
His transforming grace now, yet onward still to that mighty
working whereby He shall subdue all things unto Himself.
To love the beauty of the body, save as the soul shines
through it, is not to love like Christ.  Poor, fading, a
shadow only of that which shall never fade, is any beauty
of the body. Beautiful above the stars of heaven, more
piercing than their lustre, and undying, is the beauty of
the soul in grace. Look then to that in one another
I
I 
MOTIVES TO MARRIAGE AND CHOICE OF PARTNER.  361
which shall live on and shine on in the heavenly courts,
when all which is of this earth shall be dissolved, yea,
when what is now of this earth, but from our Mlaker's
hands, not from our marring of His work, shall be transformed into the glory of Christ.
"'Live then, day by day, for that day; love day by day
with that day before you; love as ye shall wish that ye
had loved in that day; love that which shall abide in that
searching day, when wood, hay, stubble shall be burned
up.  But love meanwhile with a tender, forbearing love,
as Christ is tender and compassionate with  us, bearing
with our decay, and beholding us as what, by his grace,
we shall one day be; cherishing one another, encouraging
one another, helping one another along the narrow road
which leadeth unto Him; denying, each, self for the other,
as Christ loved our souls more than Himself, in that He
poured out His own soul to death for us. T'his love shall
grow with years, as the love of Christ and the grace of
Christ, which is the beauty of the soul, grows and is enlarged in each.  This love shall be refined and purified by
sickness and the wasting of the body, as the soul shall,
throt,ugh God's chastening purifying Hand, lay aside its
dross and glow the nmore with the beauty of the grace of
Christ.  This love shall not decay, much less die, even
after the body's death.  For souls which  are united in
Christ shall not be separated from Christ; they shall live
on still, one in the one love of Christ." 1
I Thle S(ciedflzess of Ifai-iaqe.  Parochial Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 391-393,
English edition.
I  
APPENDIX.
IT has been thought advisable by friends of the author
of this volunme, whose judgment is entitled to respectful
deference, that a few words should be added about the ques   tion of the remarriage of divorced persons. The object
of Dr. Evans, in the ninth chapter of this Treatise, was to
ascertain the true meaning of the disputed texts in Holy
Scripture on this subject. This object will, perhaps, be
furthered by reprinting (for the first time in this country)
the comparatively rare tract of Bishop Andrewes on this
topic, and by giving some references to other books which
may assist the general reader in pursuing the investigation
of this question, which is too momentous to admit of any
one's forming a hasty opinion upon it.
A word first in explanation of the interpretation of Dr.
Evans. In a letter to the editor dated June 5, 1868, he
says:  "The difference between the Editor of' The
and myself about divorce, is precisely the same as that be   tween Bishop        and myself.  The  view of the Bishop
and the Editor rests upon human notions of expediency,
not upon any fair interpretation of the  Saviour's words.
They have been interpreted by an overwhelniing weight of
authority to mean that neither party can marry, but I think
it clear that both can marry. At any rate the marriage
must either continue or be dissolved.  It cannot be bind   ing on one and not on the other."
In 1857 Dr. Evans wrote thus of the Resolution of the
House of Bishops in 1808: -
"Very strong reasons may undoubtedly be urged in fa
0 
APPENDIX.
vor of the rule as it stands, and the present writer is not
prepared to urge a change. But if it be true that the
danger of incontinence is the reason why divorces are pro hibited, it would seem that they who had already shown an
inherent tendency to that vice ought not to be placed in a
situation which the highest authority has declared to be
one of peculiar danger. Logically, too, it is not easy to
see how a marriage can exist as to one party and not as to
the other. If the adulteress is still the wife of her injured
husband, after he has put her away, he must be still her
husband, and so unable to take a second wife. If she be
not his wife, it is not easy to see why she should not marry,
unless a direct Divine prohibition could be found, which is
not pretended.
" Yet the danger of inducing the commission of adultery
as a means of dissolving a hated marriage, and bringing
about an union with a new and preferred partner, is very
obvious. The proper remedy for that is, however, the infliction of penalties by the State upon the adulterers, not
the treating a marriage not divinely prohibited as a nullity.
If the Church had any lay discipline, it would be a very
proper occasion for its exercise, if parties committed
adultery, and the censure might not improperly be made
more severe if the object of the adultery appeared to be
to procure a divorce, with a view to a second marriage.
But it does not seem clear that the Church has a right to
pronounce such second marriage void." 1
About the time of the passage of the present English
Divorce Law, in 1857, Dr. Christopher Wordsworth (now
Bishop of Lincoln), so well known on this side the water
for his "Commentaries on Holy Scripture," published a sermon on " Marriage with a Divorced Person," with learned
notes, in which he argues against the position of MIr. Keble
and the English barrister, which is that mnarriage is absolutely indissoluble, but also differs as decidedly from the
1 A mer7ican Church JIonthly, May, 1857, pp. 334, 335.
I
364
i
i
I
II
i 
APPENDIX.
doctrine which Dr. Evans holds to be the logical conse   qutence, that both parties, after a proper divorce, may
marry. His words are: -
"On the whole it is respectfully submitted to the con    sideration of the reader, whether the great cause of Holy
Matrimony can be safely grounded  and successfuilly de   fended on the plea of iidissolubility.
"Our appeal must be to the original text of Holy Scrip   ture. And, to say the least, it is very doubtful whether
Holy Scripture, understood in its plain grammatical sense,
will bear any one out in urging the plea of [absolute] indis   solubility.
"If it does not, let not I-Ioly Scripture be invoked as if it
did sanction it.
"If the cord is strained too tightly, it will break in our
hands. If, in dealing with this grave and solemn question,
we endeavor to apply Holy Scripture where it is not fairly
applicable, we shall not be able to apply it where it otight
to be applied.  WVe shall strengthen the hands of our ene   nmies. The ground of Holy Scripture will be cut away from
under us, and then where shall we have any footing left?
"We cannot find it in a few sentences from somte Latin
fathers. And we shall find no benefit, but rather the con   trary, from finding ourselves in the company of the Council
of Trent.  [This style of argument is (with due deference
to the respected writer) surely questionable, and it is diffi   cult to see what force it can have except to one who would
rather be in the wrong than hold the truth, if so be, with
the Council of Trent.]
"Rather let it be humbly suggested, that all who desire
to maintain the sanctity of matrimony should unite in de   fending that common ground whereon they can all stand
together as allies and brethren, and that they should com   bine in maintaining the two following propositions:      "1. That it is necessary to restrain the present prevail   ing recklessness in contracting marriage; and it is inexpe
365 
APPENDIX.
dient to give facilities to divorce; and that Christian hus bands and Christian wives should endeavor to bear one
another's burdens; and that even if the one be separated
from the other, a new marriage should not hastily be con tracted; but that time be allowed for repentanlce, and, if
possible, for restoration.
"' 2. That marriage with a person divorced for adultery is
adulterous." 1
The reader will find a valuable collection of authorities
and quotations in the notes to Bishop Wordsworth's Ser mon.2 He quotes, in support of his view that marriage
may be dissolved for adultery so as to leave the innocent
party free to marry, besides many of the Fathers, Bishop
Hall, Dr. Hammond, "Of Divorces," vol. i. p. 595, chap.
ii.; Herbert Thorndike, "On  the Laws of the Church,"
book 3, chap. xiii., 29; Bishop Jeremy Taylor, "Ductor
Dubitantitim," chap. v. rule viii., and others.
MIr. Liddon, on the other hand, maintains, in the sermnon
quoted in the preface to this volume, the opinion of Mir.
Keble and the English barrister which Dr. Evans discusses
in the ninth chapter of this work. It coincides with the
doctrine of the Council of Trent, that there can be no divorce
except in cases where the marriage was void ab initio, which
are not, properly speaking, divorces. He quotes largely
from the tract of Bishop Andrewes, which is herewith reprinted, and from D611inger's "First Age of the Church,"
translated by MIr. Oxeniham, p. 424 (2d edition). IIe holds
that in the texts in St. Matthew our blessed Lord "prpclaims the indissolubility of the marriage tie. Allutdiing to
the Jewish law [Deut. xxii. 20, 21], He rules that if an unacknowledged act of fornication on the part of the woman
had preceded the contract, the apparent tie may be dissolved. I say the apparent tie, because in reality the con 1 Sermon, pp. 12, 13, note.
2 There are two other sermons on this subject by the same author in his
Occasional Sermons in IIestmiister Abbey: No. XL., On Divorce, and No.
XLI., The Restoration of tIoly Mlatzrimnony.
366
k
I
k
I
II
i 
APPENDIX.
tract was vitiated from the first; one of the contracting parties was deceived as to its real terms. Yet, even here, to
marry the woman is adulterous, for she knew the ternms on
which she had bound herself. But when a contract is perfect it is altogether beyond recall, at least before God. A
separation from bed and board may subsequently become
necessary, but no suspension of the enjoyments of married
life can cancel the indissoluble bond itself; and therefore
much more than in the Jewish sense referred to,'Whoso
marrieth her that is' in this sense' divorced, comnuitteth
adultery.' "1
The tract of Bishop Andrewes, which follows, was first
published at Oxford in 1854, in the last volume of his
works, - pp. 106-110. It is selected for reprint here because of its comparative rarity, and the great celebrity of
its author. The notes (with the exception of those in
i bhrackeLts) are by the OxfordA edlitor.
"A DISCOURSE,
WRITTEN  BY DR. ANDREWES, BISIiOP OF ELY, AGAINST SECOND
M[ARRIAIGE, AFTER SENTENCE OF DIVORCE WITH A FORMER MATCH,
THE PARTY THEN LIVING.
In Anno 1601.
"THE question is, whether upon adultery proved, or sentence recorded, a man be set at liberty, that he may proceed to contract with another.
" First. I take the act of adultery doth not dissolve the
bond of marriage; for then it would follow, that the party
offending would not, upon reconciliation, be received again
by the innocent to former society of life, without a new
solemnizing of marriage, insomuchl as the fornmer marriage
is quite dissolved, which is never heard of, and contrary to
the practice of all churches.
"Secondly. The sentence, as I take it, doth not relieve,
for there is no lawful sentence of any court in case of di               1 Christ and Humnan Law, pp. 15-18.
367
II
I
i 
APPENDIX.
vorce, but it ever containeth an express inhibition to either
party to marry with another, with intimation ill flat terms,
that from the time that either of them shall go about any
other marriage, q?od ex tune prout ex nut?c, et ex nunc profit
ex tunc (it is the style of the court), that present sentence
shall be void to all purposes, and they in the same case as
if it had never been given.
"These both failing, the word of God is sought to; where
let me tell you first, that during the Primitive Church, ever
till now of late, the judgment of the divines and the present
practice of the law ecclesiastical were both one; and great
reason why; for well-known it is, that the authority of the
fathers was the ground of the ancient canons, by which the
law in this case is ruled. So that but for the conceit of
some latter divines, there need not be sought any opposition between law and divinity in this question, nor that
pitiflil distraction happen, which we daily see, Divines to
give their hands for licence to that, for which law will convent men and censure them too.
"But in my opinion second marriages (where either party
is living) are not warranted by the word of God. The
ground of which opinion is, that one may not in any wise
have two wives at once; for by the original institution
there can be but two in one flesh. But a man having one
wife already, which  notwithstanding she hath  profained
marriage with another, is not thereby beconme the wife of
him with whom she now liveth, but remaineth his wife
whose first she was, and whose only she can be while she
liveth.
"The word of God is plain for this in St. Paul, Romans
vii. 2: The woman is boztnd to the man so long as she liveth,
so that if while she liveth she become another man's, she shall
be holden an adulteress; from which words the vow of marriage seemeth to have been framed, which is solemnly
made  in the congregation by either party, forsaking all
other to keep only to her so long as both shall live. And again,
I
368
I
I
I
IV 
APPENDIX.
to have and to hold, for better for worse, till death: these
plainly show the band is only broken by death, and that
though she become another man's, yet is she not become
his wife.
"Now upon this dependeth the next rule of the word of
God (1 Cor. vii. 11), that a woman of herself departing,
or put away by her husband, is commanded either to be
reconciled, or to remain unmarried: which commandment
of the Apostle's must be understood of the case of adultery;
for were it any other cause but that wherein Christ hath
given leave to depart or to put away, the Apostle would not
have put it upon either, or upon one, but would simply and
absolutely have commanded her to be reconciled, Ias indeed
in all other cases she is bound to seek it, and is not less at
liberty. You may imagine that favorers of those kind of
marriages will say somewhat to these places, by way of
evasion; for what is so plain, but by man's wit somewhat
may be said to it?  But that his meaning is the direct
meaning of the ancient writers, and that these in this sense
understand these places, and that both when they were met
together in councils, and in their several writings, I refer
you to the Council of Eliberis (which is as ancient as the
first General Council of Nice), the 9th Canon;I and to
the Council of Milevitumn, where St. Augustine and Optatus
were present, and subscribed  the 17th Canon; 2 and to
Origen's 7th Homiily upon Matthew; 3 and to St. Ilieromne's
1  i Item  foemina fidelis, quTn  adulterum maritum reliquerit fidelem, et
alterutm ducit, prohibeatur, ne ducat; si duxerit, non prius accipiat comnmunionem, nisi quem reliquerit, prius de sTculo exierit; nisi forte necessitas infirrnitatis dare comnpulerit." - Conc. Elib. Can. ix.-  Conc., tom. i.
col. 971. D.
2 " Placuit, ut secundum Evangelicam'et Apostolicam'discipliniamni, neque
dimissus ab uxore, neque dimissa a mnarito alteri conjungantur." -  Conc.
Alilev. Can. xvii.- Conc., tom. ii. col. 1541. E.
3'H8'e tap  yeypaxelv-a Kt T     7&eq  T    yOvZv Tg EKKAqoaC'Tpe'dE'  TVaY
1irTe ~yroq?o V avgpoe yateZoat yvvaca, K. T. A. -  Orig.  Comm. in  We(tt. xix.
Op., tom. iii. p. 647.  Paris, 1740.  It is called l'actaotus in St.  2[att. vii.
in Editt. Vett. Latt. Erasmi, torn. ii. p. 67.  Basil, 1571.
24
369 
APPENDIX.
Epistle to Amandus; 1 St. Ambrose upon the 1 Cor. vii.; 2
to Innocentius the First (who lived a little before St. Augustine), in his Epistle to Ereusitis, 9th section; 8 to St.
Aug,ustine's book,' De Adulterinis Conjugiis ad Colentium' [leg. Pollentium], lib. ii. cap. 4,4 whose meaning and
interpretations I prefer, and wish all (I may prevail with)
to lean to, rather than opposite ones of latter times.
"Likewise, it cannot be denied, but that the Fathers do
allege and understand these two places, the one in Mark x.
11, the other in Luke xvi. 18, as they stand in plain and
full terms, that a man having put away his wife cannot
marry again. For as for the place in Matt. xix. 9, where
it seemeth to be qualified with (unless it befor adultery),
which place is all the show that can be made for these
marriages, they follow the rules both of divinity and reason
(which is) when there is any diversity in places, first to
expound the lesser number by the greater, and not contrary; that is, one evangelist by two, and not two by one;
It
1  Quamdiu vivit vir, licet adulter sit, licet sodomita, licet flagitiis omnibus co(,pertus, et ab uxore propter hec scelera derelictus, maritus ejus
reputatur, cui alterum virum accipere non licet.1 "- S. Hier. Ep. lv. (al.
cxlvii.), ad Amandum, ~ 3. Op., tom. i. col. 296. A.
2 " Non.... permittitur mulieri, ut nubat, si virum suum causa fornicationis dimiserit." - S. Ambr. (seu potius Hilar. Diacon.) in 1 Cor. vii. 10,11.
Op., tom. ii. Append. Col. 133.
8 " Qui ergo vel (quee viro vel, in marg.) uxore vivente, quamvis dissociatum videatur esse conjugium, ad aliam copulam festinarunt, neque possunt adulteri non videri." - Innoc. I.  Epist. iii. ad Exuperium (sic), ~ 6.
- Conc., tom. ii. col. 1256. C.
4 " Nullius viri posterioris mulier uxor esse incipit, nisi prioris esse desiverit. Esse autem desinet uxor prioris, si moriatur vir ejus, non si fornicetur." -S. Aug. de Conj. Adult. lib. ii. cap. 4. Op., tom. vi. col. 686,
B. C.
[When S. Augustine is appealed to on this question, it is fair to add what
he himself says in his Retractations (lib. ii. c. lvii. tom. i. col. 653, ed. Migne,
quoted by Bishop Wordsworth, I. c. p. 6): " Scripsi duos libros de Conjugiis
Adulterinis, quantum potui secundum Scripturas cupiens solvere difficillimam qucestionem.  Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim, nescio; imo vero non
me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectioner sentio, quamvis multos sinus ejus
aperuerim, quod j udicare poterit quisquis intelligenter legit." -H.]
I
370
I 
APPENDIX.
secondly, to expound the former writer (which it is granted
Matthew was) by the latter, as both Mark and Luke were,
and not contrary, especially where both may stand, as
here, they interpreting it thus: He that putteth away his
wife (which but for adultery is not lawful) and miarrieth
another, conimitteth adultery himself.
" Now, if you ask why that exception might not have been
left out in Matthew (seeing it maketh the matter ambigu ous), they answer, that in Matthew it was necessary that
our Saviour Christ should add it, for that these very words
(he that putteth away his wife, except it be for adultery) contain the direct answer to the Pharisees' question, Whether
a man for any cause might put away his wife? whereunto
but for this clause no answer had been made.  But in the
other two Evangelists, where no such question is moved,
nor like occasion offered, there it is left out, both in St.
Mark, where the disciples asked him about it, and in St.
Luke, where He simply delivereth the doctrine, no man
moving any doubt about it to Him.
Some of the reasons why the ancient writers cannot
favor this exposition, which giveth liberty to second marriages, be these: -
" First, our Saviour Christ meant plainly in that place to
restrain the commonness of divorces among the Jews; but
divorces are not restrained, this exposition holding, inasmuch as He hath left it still in the pleasure of every lewd
man or light woman, who conmmitting the sin with another,
may dissolve as many former marriages as they like: for
being weary of the first, it is but to be lewd of her body,
and presently the bond is broken, and liberty given to make
a new choice of another, and being weary of that, of a third,
and fourth. Jerome in Matt. xix.1
1 " Ubiquumque est igitur fornicatio, et fornicationis suspicio, libere uxor
dimittitur. Et quia poterat accidere, ut aliquis calumniam faceret innocenti,
et, ob secundam copulam nuptiarum veteri crimen impingeret, sic priorem
dimittere jubetur uxorem, ut secundam, prima vivente, non habeat." -S.
Hier. Coizm. in S. Matt. xix. 9 (lib. iii.).  U., torn. vii. p. 146.
371 
APPENDIX.
"Secondly, it is not our Saviour Christ's will to make the
conmmitting of sin gainful or beneficial to any offender.
But this exposition holding, the guilty person must gain
thereby; for so the connmmitting of adultery do dissolve marriag,e, then maketh it the persons in the same case they
were before they were married; and so may either, as well
the guilty as the innocent, marry, which is the very benefit
the adulterer propounds to himself. Ambrose.'
" Thirdly, this exposition holding, and adultery dissolving
mnarriage, not only that absurdity would follow (which 1 in
the beginning mentioned), that no Christian might receive
his wife, having been faulty, except a new marriage were
celebrated between them  (a thing never heard of); but
that which is more gross, that the innocent  party, if he
could have knowledge of his wife's body, having been false
this way, should in so doing commit adultery himself, inasmuch as he hath had the use of her that now is none of his.
None of his (I say), because their marriage was utterly
dissolved by the act precedent of his wife. Augustine.2
Now, to conclude: there be two divers things in that
place of St. Matthew: the putting away of his wife, and the
taking of another.  And in the midst of these standeth the
exception (if it be not for adultery).3  To speak truth, it
I'
c
1 The reference seems to be to S. Ambr. Exlos. S. Luc. (cap. xvi.) lib.
viii. ~ 4. 0p., tom. i. col. 1471. B., though the meaning appears to be mnistaken.
2 S. Aug. (le Coiuj. Aduilt. lib. i. cap. xii. (~ 13). ( Op., tom. vi. col. 668.
B. C.), is probably the passage intended.  Compare  de'tlq)t. et Conchs).
lib. i. cap. x. (~ 11). O/)., tom. x. col. 615. B.
3 [Ir. Liddon and Dr. Di;llinger press the use of ropve& instead of ~oexeia
in this text; the former, they contend, must mean unchastity before marriage and not adultery.  (See  Chlrist anr  Iutuman Law, pp. 15, 34, etc.)
Those w ho may be inclined to make too much of Dr. Evans's ignlorance of
Greek, in judging of his argument on this head, may be reminded that on
this point he is supported by the high aulthority of Bishop Andrewves, who
does not hesitate to translate the word by (attlttesy (the authorized version
of Icing James was not yet published).  It appears from a note to Mir. Liddon's sermon that one of the first of modern English scholars, the late Prof.
Couilugton, has also maintained in some strictures on Mr. Liddon's argu
372
t
i
k " 
APPENDIX.
conmeth a little too soon, for if it had been stayed till the
end of the sentence, thus: HIe that putteth away his wife,
and taketh another, committeth adultery himself, except it
be for adultery, it had sounded for them.  But now it cometh ill thus: He that putteth away his wife, except for adueltery, acd marrieth a?iothe?, etc.; that is, the exception standing behind the first, and going before the second.  Sure it
is not clear and plain; for as it may by some be understood
to limit the former only (and so the old writers do generally restrain it, as before it hath been said). Therefore,
here it is doubtful at least, since divines differ about it.
"LANCELOT ANDREWES.
" Azno 1601."
The following Canon was drawn up by Dr. Evans a few
months before his death, and sent to the Church newspapers with the following note:
ient, in the  Cointemlpoi-ay Review for May, 1869, that 7ropvea is a large
word and may include txoxeta.  Other Greek schlolars confirm the interpretation of Bishop Andrewes and Dr. Evans.  D)ean Alford says: "opva
must be taken to mean sin, not only before marriage, but after it also, in a
wider sense, as including I,o.Xela likewise."   (Gr. Test. in loc.)
Bishop Wlordsworth also has no doubt that the word means adultery; he
says  further: "It is generally supposed by divines of Roiie that a&rohAvo
does not here signify to divorvce, in its strict sense of severing the vizcululn
mats iimonii (which they suppose to be in all cases indissoluble), but means
only to separate a niensa et tio?ro, and that matrimony is in all cases pronlounced indissoluble by our Lord in Mark x. 11: Luke xvi. 18.  ]lut the
conversation here with the Pharisees is concernilng divorce a vbnceh; and
TroAito is used in the natural sense of dissolttio vinctculi, as expressed in the'
bill of divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1),.... and  the exception contained in
7rapeKtoS Xyoav rropveiae is repeated by our Lord in Mlatt. xix. 9.  And it cannot be supposed that anything taught by our Lord in the'Sermon on  the
Mount' has been repealeel."....  (Gr. Test. on St. Matt. v. 32).
Kuinoel is no great authority as a philologist, but his collection of examples is worth examination: " Iopveta latissime patet, et omnis generis impudicitiamn indicat; h. 1. intelligi (lebet adultesium, quo vinculumll matrimonii
dissolvituLr, v 1 Cor. vi. 16;  latt. xix. 6-9, nam est de uxore sermo....
etiam Hesych. atque Auctor Etymol. M.  bV yoLxav dicit r6pvov, et de uxore,
quip Hos. iii. 1, vocatur  otx,  lb. iii. 3, adhibetur verbum -opVevEv. Amos
vii. 17, X   v  o7oV.V,   lr.A- 6,opve47."...-Kuinoel, Comm.  in
loc. -H.]
I
373
i
I
i 
APPENDIX.
"The minid of the Church is now much occupied about
some important questions touching the sanctity of marriage,
and there seems to be a wide-spread opinion, that the coming General Convention ought to deal with the subject.
These questions have occupied much of my thoughts for
about eleven years. I have, therefore, ventured to prepare
a project of a Canon, which I shall (D. V.) offer in my place
in the Convention. I will thank you to insert it in your
paper, in order that the members of the Convention may
have an opportunity of examining it beforehand.
" It will be observed that the section which treats of
divorce, merely repeats, as it were, the words of our blessed
Lord, without meddling with any question of interpretation.                            HUGH  DAVEY  EVANS.
I~
TITLE II. CANON 13.-OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
"~ 1. (1.) Whereas, Alnighty God hath in the Holy
Scriptures forbidden all intermarriages between persons
near of kin to each other, and hath explained that nearness of kin exists between persons who are connected with
each other in certain relations of consanguinity and affinity.
And whereas, our mother Church of England hath, ever
since the Reformation, held that the persons so forbidden
to intermarry are those nmentioned in a table, which was
set forth by authority in the year 1563, and is still in force
in the Church of England.  And whereas, it.was declared
by the House of Bishops in the year 1808, that the said
table was obligatory upon this Church, and would remain
in force, unless there should thereafter appear reason to
alter it, without departing from the Word of God or endangering the peace and good order of this Church.   And
whereas, the said table is in the words following:  "' A man may not marry his grandmother, grandfather's
wife, wife's grandmother, father's sister, mother's sister,
father's brothler's wife, niother's brother's wife, wife's father's
I
I
t
374 
APPENDIX.
sister, wife's mother's sister, mother, stepmother, wife's
mother, daughter, wife's daughter, son's wife, sister, wife's
sister, brother's wife, son's daughter, daughter's daughter,
son's son's wife, daughter's son's wife, wife's son's daughter,
wife's daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, sister's
daughter, brother's son's wife, sister's son's wife, wife's
brother's daughter, wife's sister's daughter.
"'A woman may not marry her grandfather, grandmother's husband, husband's grandfather, father's brother,
mother's brother, father's sister's husband, mother's sister's
husband, husband's  father's brother,  husband's  mother's
brother, father, stepfather, husband's father, son, husband's
son, daughter's husband, brother, husband's brother, sister's
husband, son's son, daughter's son), son's daughter's husband, daughter's daughter's husband, husband's son's son,
husbland's daughter's son, brother's son, sister's son,
brother's daughter's husband, sister's daughter's husband,
hutsband's brother's son, husband's sister's son.'
" Therefore, any communicant of this Church, who shall
hereafter intermarry with any person connected with him
or her in any of the relations mentioned in the above table,
shall be suspended from the reception of the Holy Communion in this Church, until he or she shall separate from
the person with whom he or she shall have intermarried
contrary to the divine prohibition.
" (2.) No  person, not already a communicant of this
Church, who shall be living as husband or wife with any
person connected with him or her in any of the relations'
mentioned in the above table, under pretense of any marriage ceremony hereafter performed, shall be received to
the Holy Communion in this Church, until he or she shall
separate from the person with whom he or she shall be so
living contrary to the divine prohibition.
"~ II. (1.) Whereas our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, hath declared that whosoever shall put away his
wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, com
375 
APPENDIX.
mnitteth adultery, and whosoever mnarrieth her that is put
away comnmitteth adultery, and also that if a woman put
away her husband and is married to another, she committeth adultery.   Therefore, any communicant of this
Church who shall, hereafter, intermarry with any person
who has been divorced from any person still living, except
for fornication, or who having been himself or herself divorced from any person still living, except for fornication,
shall, hereafter, intermarry with any person whatever, shall
be suspended from the reception of the Holy Communion
in this Church, until he or she shall separate from the person with whom he or she shall have intermarried contrary
to the divine prohibition.
"(2.) No person not already a communicant of this
Church, who shall be living as husband or wife, under pretense of any marriage ceremony which may be hereafter
performed, with any person who shall have been divorced,
except for fornication, from any husband or wife still living,
or who having been himself or herself divorced from any
husband or wife still living, except for fornication, shall,
under pretense of any marriage ceremony hereafter performed, be living as husband or wife with any person whatever, shall be received to the Holy Communion in this
Churchl, until he or she shall separate from the persoin with
whom he or she shall be so living contrary to the divine
prohibition.
" ~ II. (1.) No minister of this Church shall hereafter
solemnize matrimony between persons, either of whom
shall have been divorced from any person then living,
except for fornication, or between persons who shall be
connected with each other in any of the degrees of consanguinity or affinity mentioned in the table above set forth
in the Canon.
"(2.) If any minister of this Church shall be called upon
to solemnize matrimony in any case in which he may think
that the contemplated marriage is forbidden by any of the
i
t
376
I
i 
APPENDIX.
provisions of this Canon or by the Divine Law, he may lay
the case before the Bishop or Ecclesiastical Authority of the
diocese, who shall forthwith issue a commission of two clergymien and one lay communicant, to examine into the case.
The commissioners shall inquire into all the facts and circumstances, and shall as soon as may be convenient, report
to the said Bishop or Ecclesiastical Authority all the facts
and circumstances which have come to their knowledge,
and also their opinion or opinions whether the contemplated marriage can or cannot be solemnized consistently
with this Canon and the Divine Law, and the reasons for
such opinion or opinions. The Bishop or Ecclesiastical
Authority having considered the report, may forbid or permit the solemnization of the said contemplated marriages
as to such Bishop or Ecclesiastical Authority may seem
right."
, The death of Dr. Evans having occurred before the
nieeting of the General Convention, his Canon was not discussed. The Canon passed by the Convention, which is
now the law of the Church, is as follows: —
" No minister of this Church shall solemnize matrimony in
any case where there is a divorced wife or husband of either
party still living; but this Canon shall not be held to apply
to the innocent party in a divorce for the cause of adultery,
or to parties once divorced seeking to be united again."
For some friendly criticisms upon this Canon, see President Woolsey's "Essay on Divorce," etc., pp. 249, et seq.
New York: Scribner & Co.  1869.
377
,-III  
Ii
INDEX.
[The Roman numbers refer to the chapters, the figures to sections of chapters; where
no Roman number is given, the preceding one is to be understood.]
Abimelech, vi. 8.
Abraham, polygamy among the de  scenidants of, vi. 9.
Adultery, a violation of the element
of marriage called exclusiveness,
vi. 3; considered with reference to
separation, vii. 21; does not of it  self dissolve a  marriage, ix. 6;
meaning of the expression " caus  eth her to commit adultery," 15;
may the guiltv person marry? 20,
et seq.; may a woman  divorce her
husband for adultery? 28, et seq.;
divorce for, allowed to a wife by
English law when joined with cru  elty on the part of the husband,
29.
Affinity, xiii. 25, 26, xiv. 8, 12;
linieal affinity, 13; collateral, 14;
second degree of collateral, 15;
third degree of, 28.
Age, marriageable. not  practicallvy
settled by law in America,  xiii.
16.
Alexander III., Pope, the first to give
dispensations for marriages prohib  ited in Leviticus, xiii. 20.
Amazonian school of wonmen, x. 10
xi. 10,
America, state of things in, as re  gards marriage, i. 28; the Protes  tant Episcopal Church in, on  di  vorce, ix. 11.
Americans have inherited a jealousy
of the church, i. 9.
Andrewes, Bishop.  See Appendix.
Andromache, iii. 16.
Animals, nature of the inferior, ii.
17.
Augustine, St.  See Appendix.
Authority, unpopularity of, in gen
eral, xi. 1; unpopularity of mari  tal, 2; its necessity, 3; must be
some rule as to who is to have it,
7; limits of human, 20; limits of
marital, 21; mode  in which  the
husband should exercise it, 22.
Barrister's, an English,  considera  tions on divorce examined, viii. 29,
et seq
Bellarmine, viii. 29.
Benevolence, ii. 22.
Beveridge, Bishop, ii. 20.
Bible, the Christian's rule of life, xi.
18.
Bigamy, vi. 3.
Bill  of divorcement,  what  Moses
meant by it, vii. 25.
Bishops, House of, resolution on di  vorce in 1808, xiv. 14.
Blackstone, on the definition of law,
i. 3.
Blessing, the Divine, a necessary ele  ment of Christian marriage, iv. 2.
Borgia (Pope Alexander lII.), xiii.
28.
Bucer, vi. 4.
Causes, matrimonial. i. 21: civil ju  risdiction in matrimonial, 22; ec  clesiastical jurisdiction in do., 23;
four classes of matrimonial, 24.
Chalcedon, Council of, xiv. 23.
Charles II., vi. 8.
Children marriage of, void for want
of     an    intelligent consent, xiii. 32.
Church, the, a single  society ex  tending in design throughout the
world, i. 7; has bv Divine app,)int  ment authority over all mankind,
ibid.; Church and State, errone
0
I
I
-ii 
INDEX.
ously considered two manifesta   tions of one society, ibid.; Church,
State, and Familv, of Divine ap   pointmnent but in different wais,
8; Church and State have author   itv each in its own sphere, ibid.. 19;
her ultiiazum sopplicium is exclu   sion, 11; has no right to use ex   ternal force, 18; of England, iv 5:
ix. 4; of Rome, see Rome; Eas   tern, vi. 28.
Civilian method of computing con   sanguinity, xiv. 9.
Clement VII., xiii. 28.
Cleveland, Duchless of, vi. 8.
Communionr service, the first rubric
in the, x. 7.
Compulsory   marriage,   degrades
woman, ii. 8.
Concession mutual, of husband and
wife, xi. 5.
Concubinage, iii. 2.
Conjugal affection not the essence of
marriage, v. 13.
Conjugal rights, suits for restoration
of, i. 25.
Consanguinity, xiii. 24, xiv. 8, 9.
Conscience and judgment, i. 9, xi.
19; with reference to judicial de  cisions, x. 6, 7, xiii. 9.
Consent, one of the formative ele  ments of marriage, iv. 1, xii. 3;
necessitv of an outward, xiii  3;
necessitv of fixing an  age when
capacity to consent shall be pre  sumed, 13; consent of parents can  not take the place of that of the
persons to be married, 17.
Cousins, first, marriage of, xiii 34.
Denominations, the Protestant, iv. 6.
Desertion of husband or wife, viii. 4.
Diagram illustrating the faculties of
human nature, ii. 21, et seq.
Divorce, a meusa et thoro, i. 25, ix.
17, x. 5; American State law of,
iii  10;  unknowvn  to Greeks in
time of Homier, vii. 1; no divorces
in the book  of Genesis, 6; our
Lord's law against, 27; permitted
by our Lord for adultery, viii. pas  simz, ix. passimi; two opinions of
the English Clergy on, 5, 10; by
English Parliament, 9, 22; a via-I
culo?izatt imzonii, x. 4.
Divorcement, bill of, vii. 25.
Discipline, lay, x. 7.
Dispensations by Popes, xiii. 28.
Eastern Church, vi. 28.
Elkanah and his two wives, vi. 23.
England, Church of, iv. 5, ix. 4, 8;
law  of,  on  age  when   marriage
may be contracted, xiii. 14, 15.
English clergy  two opinions of, on
divorce, ix. 5. 10.
English parliamientar, divorces, ix.
9, 22.
Evelyn, quoted, xiii. 15.
Excommunication. the ultim?m sup  plicium of the Church, i. 18.
Executive  department  of govern   ment, so-called, has really very lit   tle to do with the execution of the
laws, i. 14.
Faculties, the intellectual, ii. 26.
Faith, ii. 32.
Fall, effect of the, on the position of
wvomnani, xi. 14.
Fanily, the, i. 2; its constitution, 13;
its government, 15; headship of,
ii. 4.
Force, marriage brought  about by,
void, xiii. 4.
Forms, evasion of, iv. 8
Fornication, the  word so rendered
in St. Watt. v. 32, not erroneously
translated, viii. 12, et seq. See also
Appendix.
Fraud ini inducing persons to marry,
xiii. 5.
Fulvia, ii. 26.
George II., M1arriage Act of, xiii. 29,
30.
Gladstone, Mr., on what Christianity
has done for woman, ii. 15.
Government, its powers divided into
three classes, i. 14; paternal gov  ernment  in the  State,  16; gen  eral principles of civil, 17.
Grafton, Duke  of, his  marriage at
nin e  years of age, xiii. 15.
"Hardness of Heart," vii. 26.
Hatred in womanl,  ii. 26.
Herodias, ii. 26.
Hope,  ii. 25.
HDwclley, Archbishop,  ix. 10, n ote.
Husband should rule  w   ith    authority
tempered by love, ii. 8, xi. 22.
Tdiots, marriage of, xiii. 6.
Impedim eats to marriage, xiii. pas  sinm; their nature, 1; two classes
of, 2; two kinds created by re  vealed law, 19; an existing mar
380 
INDEX.
Levirate  marriage   commanded,
Deut. xxv. 5, 6, xiv. 19, et seq.
Liddon, Rev. H. P. on St. Matt. v.
32.  S    e     e App endix.
Lucretia, iii. 16.
Lunatics, xiii. 6.
Luther, his consent to the second
marriage of Philip Landgrave of
Hesse, vi. 4.
riage, 20; incest, 21; " mixed mar  riages"  not a real impediment,
22; impediments attempted to be
created by human  laws, 23; ca  nonica', 24; those which grow out
of lineal affinity, xiv. 13; of col  lateral affinity, 14.
Incapacity to consent, a proper im  pediment to marriage, xiii. 6.
Incest, the Divine law of, found in
the 18th chap. of Leviticus, and
no human legislation can change
it, xiii. 36; defined, xiv. 1.
Indisso!ubleness  of  marriage,  vii.
passiiIm;            i           ts advantages, 20; the
one exception to the rule, viii. pas  simia; the exception must be un  der-stood  in  St.  Mlark  and  St.
Luke, 5; xi. 4.
Infants, marriage of, xiii. 6.
Instinct, what it is, ii. 17, et seq.
Interference, external, between hu s  b          and and rvite, impracticabl e, xi. 6.
Irreverence at the marriage cere  mony, iv. 9.
Marriage,  proceedings to obtain a
declaiation of nullity of, i. 26; jac  titation of, 27; largest sense of the
word, iii. 1; morganatic, 3; popu  lar notions of, 5, xi. 4; how far a
civil contract,  iii. 7, 8; a divine
institution, 11; reasons for the in  stitution of, 12-21; importance of
a true idea of,  22; marriage de  fined, 23; its seven D)ivine laws,
24; false notions of, 26; its fiv,e
sides, 28; a holy state, 29; its for  mative elements, iv.p),tsili; mar  riage rites, 4, et seq; mlust take
place in a consecrated building ill
England, 5; marriage among  the
Protestant  denomninations, 6; in
the Church of Rome,; a true
marriage described, 10; in what its
holiness consibts, v. 3, et seq, 16;
marriage as a duty, v. 9, xv. 10;
motives to marriage, 17, xv. 2;
its practical elements, vi. 1; ex  clusiveness,  vi. paissimi;z  indisso  lubleness, vii.passii;   xn-. 15; hu  man feelings no guide in consid  ering the rule of indissoltubleness
vii. 4; mixed marriages, ix. 19;
primary institution  of marriage,
xi. 13; seven elements of Chris  tian marriage, xii. 2; consent the
first element, 3; impodiments to,
xiii. passimii; a marriage forbidden
by a State law may y et be bind  ing on the conscience, 23; voida  bility of, 31; marriage of children,
void, 32; Roval Marriage Act, 33;
of first cousins, 34; ot all iuncle
and niece, allowed by  the laxit, of
American legislation xiv. 11, and
allowed also bv dispens.ttioi-i in the
Church  of  Rome   ibidi; with a
brother's widow,  16, et seq.; with
a sister of a deceased wvife forbid  den, 25, et seq.;  marriage some  times  sinful, xv. 8;  marriages,
wicked,  tolerable, or right, 33.
Marriage Act of George I1., xiii. 20.
Jacob, the case of, considered with
reference to polygamyi+-, vi. 20.
Jelf, Rev. Dr., on Leviticus  xviii.
18, vi. 21.
Jerome, St.  See Appendix.
Jews, two opinions among, on di  v(orce, ix. 22.
Judicial decisions and the conscience
of clergyl;len and laymen, x. 6, 7.
Judiciary, the, is really the executive
departIment of govsernment,  i. 14.
Julius II. granted dispensation for
tile marriage of Henrv VIII. to
Catherine of' Arragon, xiii. 28.
Keble, Rev. John, his argument on
the absolute indissolubleness of,
marriage, v iii. 25.
Latin Ciurch.  See Rome.
Law, defined, i. 3; law of God para  mnounlt,  tibi.;       n         o man can make
ally law to bind another unless he
has authority given to him bv
God, ibid.;, human law necessary
to society, 4; the law of God is
his wiil as to the conduct of men,
5; to  be  gathered from  three
sources, ibid.; laws require to be
interpreted, 6; humlani laws are
only expositions of the  Div-ine,
17; conflicting laws, 20.
381 
INDEX.
Pope, how the authority of the, in   flueniced the relations of Church
and State, i. 19.
I[Iop.ai may include teotxEra in St.
Matt. v. 32, viii. 14, et seq.  See
also Appendix.
Portsmouth, Duchess of, vi. 8.
Pusey, Rev. Dr., on 1 Cor. vi. 15-17,
v. 10; on the sacredness of mar   riage, xv. 41.
Quakers, the, hold in a decided man   ner the Christian doctrine of mar   ri     age, iv. 6.
Reason, the higher, ii. 29, 31, 32.
Refinement in  m a n inferior to the
same  quality in wo man,  ii. 35.
Reformatio Legum, ix. 4.
Religious doctrine, agreement in,
necess a ry     to a   happy Christian
marriage,  xv. 38.
Remors e,       how it passes into repent   anc           e, ii. 25.
Robinson's "Evangelists and Mish  nha," quoted, vii. 25.
Ron9imantic  arriages, xv. 28.
Romantic scho,1l, the, xi. 9.
Rome, Chu rch of, iv. 7; ix. 3-8, xiii.
25.
Ruth, case of, xiv. 18.
Sancroft, Archbishop, officiates at
the marriage o.' Duke of Grafton,
who was only nine years old, xiii.
15.
Sanctity of the married state, v. 2.
Saul, not proved to have been a
polygamist, vi. 25.
Scott, Sir Walter, on  unromantic
marriages, xv. 29.
Sentimental school, the, xi. 11.
Separation a mnt,,s(a et thoro, unlaw  fulness of, vii. 17; evils of, 18; the
same thing with divorce, 19; the
practice leads to great hardships,
xi. 3, et seq.; xii. 5.
Sexes, relation between the, ii. 1, et
seq.; five false theories, 2; Scrip  tural doctrine, 3; cooperation of,
12;  diversity in unity, 13; the
image of God reflected in the union
of the, 15; intellectual and moral
constitution of the, 26.
Shakespeare quoted, xiii. 17.
Society, necessary to the well-being
of man, i. 1, 6, 11.
South Carolina has the honor of be
Mavow, Mr., vi. 21.
Melancthon, vi. 4.
Middle Ages, the ascetic notions of,
obscured the sanctity of marriage,
iv. 4; notions about love and inar   riage in, xv. 25; early marriages
necessary for ladies in, 26.
Moral precepts ot Levit. xviii. are of
perpetual obligation, xiv. 4, et seq.
Nature's damnatory clauses, xv. 14.
Nelly Gwvn, vi. 8.
Neo-Coesarea, canon of, xiv. 23, 24.
Nephew and auniit, marriage of; not
permitted even by the laxity of
American legislation, xiv. 11.
Niece and uncle, marriage of, xiv. 11.
Noah, polygamy not permitted to,
vi. 7.
Nonage. xiii. 12.
Object of this work stated, i. 29.
Opinion, public, i. 10, 11.
Origen, on St. Matt. v. 32.  See Ap   pendix.
Oxford,  Bishop  (Wilberforce)  of,
moves and carries in the House of
Lords a clause forbidding a per  son divorced for his or her adul  tery to marry again, ix. 24.
Paley, his notion that marriage is a
civil contract and nothing more,
iii. 7; on moral and ceremonial
precepts, xiv. 5.
Palmerston, Lord, ix 24, 25.
Passions, thile, ii. 23; in man  and
woman, 34; the passion of love
not irresistible, xv. 23; not a prop  er ml otive to marriage, 32.
Patience, w omen hav e more than
men but of a ditfferent kind, ii. 27.
Paul, St., his teacliiiig on polygamy,
vi. 28; or the subordination of the
wife, xi. 16.
Persians, among the, a king married
the wives of his predecessor, vi.
25.
Peter, St., on the subordination of
the wife, xi. 17.
Philip Landgrave of Hesse, case of,
vi. 9.
Polygamy, degrades woman, ii. 8;
defined, iii. 4; the subject treated
generally, vi. 4-29; not common
among thte Jews, 9, et seq.;  n or
among the Greeks, 28; utterly un known to the Romans, ibid.
382
I
I 
INDEX.
Van  Mildert, Bishop, on divorce, ix.
10, note.
Victoria, Queen, is only in the 8th
generation from James I., xiii. 27.
Vincent of Lerins, St., vi. 4, xiv. 4.
Virtues, the three Evangelical, ii. 25.
Void marriages, viii. 22.
ing the only State which does not
allow divorce for any cause, iii. 10.
South, Dr. Robert, ii. 20.
State, the, a divinely appointed in  stitution, i. 17: has nothing to do
with the spiritual welfare of man,
ibid.; relations of church and, i.
19, 22; collision between, 20; has
a right to regulate the mode of en  tering into marriage, iii. 6.
St. Germa-n, on law, i. 20.
Subordination of wonian, ii. 5.
Sutton, Archbishop, on divorce, viii.
11, note; ix. 10, note.
Wealth, not a proper motive to mar  riage, xv. 31.
Wedding, a fashionable, iv. 9.
Wife, three duties of a, ii. 10; may
she divorce her husband? ix. 28.
Wilkinson,  Sir Gardner, on polyg  amiy in Egypt, vi. 9.
Woman, reasons for her creation, ii.
3; her subordination not the con psequence of any defect in her, 5;
qualified equality with man, 6; her
"relations with man five in number,
9; not as Pope said, "a softer
man," 13; amiability of, 14; coinm  plement of man, 16; more affection  ate than man, 26, 37; her imagi  nation and impulsiveness, 27; can
endure anything but delay in de  ciding, ibid.; amiable in her weak  nesses because they are combined
with benevolence,  28; man's ad  viser, ibid., and 33; disadvantages
of her constitution, 34; man's com  panion and help, 35, 36; how fit  ted for subordination, 37.
Uncle and                      niece, marriage of, xiv. 11.
United States. See America.
Unity, the mvsterious, in marriage,
v. 1; not produced by amorous
emotion, 11; nor by conjugal af  fectioni, 13.
Unsoundness of mind. See Mind.
383
II
Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, on the power
of a husband amon- the Jews to
pardon and conceal the adultery
of his wife, viii. 16.
Tebbs, on " Adultery,and Divorce,"
viii. ll,,note.
Textus -Pecej-)tus, alleged corruption
of, in St. Nlatt. xix. 9, viii. 40.
Trent, Council of, xiii. 28. See also
Appendix. 
TEXTS SPECIALLY REFERRED TO.
[The references in this Index are to pages.]
PAGE
xi. 1, 2...................... 154
xii. 8, et seq................... 154
PAGE
GENESIS.
i. 27, 28....................... 51
ii. 18...............51, 92, 140, 258
ii. 20-24..........56, 122, 141, 166
ii. 22.......................... 92
ii. 24....................... 265
iii. 16..................... 51, 259
v. 4....................... 300
vi. 2........................ 142
vii. 13...................... 142
ix. 1-7..................... 14-3
xvi......................... 144
xviii. 1-8................... 95
xxii. 23, 24................. 144
xxxviii...................... 145
xlvi. 10...................... 145
i. 1, 2........................ 155
xiv. 50......................   155
xviii. 19.....................   156
iii. 7.........................
iii. 13-16.....................
xxi. 7....................156.
xxi. 7-9.....................
EXODUS.
xx. 12.                      16             1 KINGS.
xxi. 7-11.................. 147  ii 22........................
xxii. 16, 17.................. 148 ii. 23-25.....................
xiv..........................
LEVITICUS.
xviii............... 150, 300 et seq.
xviii. 6................. 289, 312
xviii. 7..................... 157
xviii. 16.................... 314
xviii. 18.......................    51
xviii. 24....................300
xx. 10-17................... 305
xx. 21.................. 315, 320
ECCLESIASTES.
iii. 21.......................'64
vii. 1-3.................... 257
xvii. 14 et se............... 155
xxi. 10-14................... 149
xxi. 15-17................... 150
xxii. 28, 29.................. 150
xxiv. 1-4................... 182
xxi-. 1, 2................... 230
xxv. 5, 6.............. 316
AMOS.
iii. 3......................... 252
JUDGES.
viii. 30, 31..................   154
ix. 18...................... 154
x. 3......................... 154
i
i
k,
RUI'H.
-13.................
iii. 10.... 317
iv. 5, 6, 10................... 317
1 SAMUEL.
2 SAIUEL.
157
156
347
156
157
157
157
2 CHRONICLES.
xxiv. 3...................... 157
PROVERBS.
V. 18,19.....................
xix. 13......................
xxi. 9.......................
xxi. 19......................
265
259
259
259
DEUTERO'.\'O.AIY.
JSATAH.
Iviii. 13...................... 121
EZEKIEL.
xviii. 5-9.....                         - 303
MALACHI.
ii. 14,15.:.... 55,119,141,167, 265
I
i 
TEXTS SPECIALLY REFERRED TO.
PAGE
xi. 11, 12.................... 54
xiii. 4, 5, 7................... 266
ST. MIATTHEW.    PAGE
i. 17....................... 195
v. 31.................. 169, 184
v. 32....160, 169, 178,184, 186, 224,
231, 239
xix. 3, 9........ 170, 219, 229, 269
xix. 4, 5.................... 141
xix. 4-6.............. 119, 160, 271
xix. 5................... 57, 312
xix. 9...... 160, 186, 192, 224, 232
xix. 10......................   105
xix. 10-12...................        25 173
2 CORINTHIANS.
vi. 14, 15.................... 125
xi. 28........................ 214
v. 22-33..................123, 261
v. 25-31................... 56, 175
v. 25....................... 16
v. 28....................... 16
v. 31, 32................ 118, 126
v. 32........................ 16
v. 33...................... 16
vi. 1.......16
vi. 4....................... 16, 17
ST. MIARK.
x. 2-12...................... 120
x. 3-9.......................    120
x. 6-8....................... 169
x. 8......................... 57
x. 11, 12............. 160, 242, 284
x. 7 —9............... 23, 271, 312
ii. 14....................... 208
iii. 18................ 16, 260, 266
iii. 19....................... 17
Hiii. 20....................... 16
iii. 21........................ 17
xx.23....................... 25
v. 23........................ 73
v. 29........................ 134
ACTS.
v. 29................... 9, 23, 250
xv. 28, 29................... 304
ROMANS.
vii. 1-4..................... 208
xiii 1.................. 8, 21, 23
ii. 11, 12..................... 53
ii. 11-14.................... 260
iii. 2....................... 159
v. 14.......................98, 128
1 CORINTHIANS.
vi. 15-17..................... 129
vi. 15, 16................ 198, 287
vi. 17-20..................... 198
vi. 1,2...................... 91
vii. 1-4...................... 208
vii. 2........... 137, 158, 176, 200
vii. 2-5...................... 179
vii. 4........................ 158
vii. 10, 11............... 179,234
vii. 12..................... 124
vii. 12-15................ 180, 187
vii. 15....................... 235
vii. 33..................... 266
vii. 36-38.................... 207
vii. 39......125, 286
vii. 39, 40.................... 207
xi.3...................... 259
xi. 3-8...................... 53
xi.7........................ 60
TITUS.
i. 6.......................... 159
ii. 1-5...................... 260
ii. 3-5...................... 128
HEBREWS.
xiii. 4...................... 120
xiii. 17...................... 25
ii. 13, et seq.................. 22
iii. 1........................ 16
iii. 1, 2...................... 124
iii. 6........................ 261
iii. 7....................... 17, 266
25
I
1
385
EPHESIANS.
COLOSSIANS.
ST. LUKI',.
xvi. 18................... 161, 174
ST. JOHN.
1 THESSALONIANS.
I Tl',%IOTHY.
2 TIMOTHY.
iii. 16,17.................... 191
1 PETER.
i Q? i