The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-08 00:00:00

764

they only have some guarantee for the
" scholarship, intelligence, and candour " of
their condescending instructor, might pos-
sibly concede as much attention to his re-
marks as to that of any other individual. Bat
anonymous writing loses every particle of its
weight when conducted on the ipse dixit prin-
ciple. And as HOMER sometimes sleeps, so
let us trust that the vigilant censor of Printing-
house-square had begun to dose over his du-
ties when this silly piece of swaggering was
permitted to appear in print.

We, on our part, must beg to recall our
readers' attention to the exact position of the
argument at the present moment. The
passage of St. Matthew upon which the ad-
vocates of this measure chiefly rely is as fol-
lows :

Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for forni•
cation, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and
whosoever marrieth her which is put away committeth
adultery.

Now, it is clear that the words, " her which is
put away," in the second clause of the sen-
tence, must refer either to the case mentioned
in the first clause—that is, the woman put
away for some cause except that of infidelity—
or to divorced women in general. If we accept
the first interpretation, which is that adopted
by the advocates of the Bill, we get into this
difficulty :—A married woman is permitted to
gratify her passions legally, only on the proviso
that she shall have done so illegally first—as if
we should say to a thief, it is wrong to steel
purses, but if you can prove that you have
already stolen one, the contents are your
lawful property. A much more probable
meaning is surely this: that our Saviour was
forbidding remarriage altogether. If a man
married a woman divorced for any other
reason than that of infidelity, he was commit-
ting adultery ; but a woman divorced for that
reason he could not marry, for the law con-
demned her to death—therefore he could
marry none.

But there is good reason to suppose that the
above ;nterpretation of the words " her which is
put away " is incorrect, and that they were in-
tended to apply to divorced women in general.
This, indeed, would follow simply from obedi-
ence to the good old rule of interpreting one am-
biguous passage by two that are perfectly clear.
To many minds the two passages in St. Luke
and St. Mark would be quite sufficient to
settle the meaning of that in St. Matthew.
But there is, if possitle, a still stronger argu•
ment. The Greek article required to connect
the woman spoken of in the second clause of
St Matthew's sentence with the woman in the
first—her, namely, that is put away except
for the cause of fornication—is wanting. We
should r•eluire, in this case, not merely the
word anoX,X✓Nceo'r, but 1-,, airor. The passage,
therefore, will stand thus :—Whoever divorces
his wife, unless she has been unfaithful,
commits adultery ; and whoever marries any
divorced woman commits adultery. One
cause, and one cause alone, can justify
divorce. None can justify the remarriage of
the guilty parties.
Ever since the question was first mooted
we have directed our arguments solely to one
end—that the clergy be not compelled to cele-
brate marriages which seem to them a direct
violation of Scripture. That this opinion is
not taken up upon frivolous grounds we trust
the above statement may be sufficient to show.
It may be right or wrong ; Mit where so much
is to be said in its favour, we stoutly maintain
that the minority are entitled to indulgence.
It is an indulgence that would defraud no one
of their rights, and in no degree impair the
efficacy of the measure. It would, on the other
hand, be to the Church herself rnor•e like bare
justice than indulgence. The State claims to
have a conscience of its own free from the
interference of the Church. Why is not the
Church to have a conscience of her own free
froin the interference of the State ? We repeat,
that if the obligations of support and protec-
tion between Church and State be not recipro-
cal, and if a remonstrance backed by clergy of
all parties be contemptuously disregarded, the
whole question of this relationship will have
to be seriously reconsidered.