The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-15 00:00:00

SAsloortherc introduces it by a reference,

that it_ was said by than of old time,

—The Christian Legislator expounds, or, per-
haps, extends this LaW to Chastity of Ileart as well as, of
But I say unto you, that whosoever 1061seth upon a
woman to lust after her, bath already committed adultery
frith her in his heart." Then (after shewing the necessity

mit adultery

of purity in. a Christian, by declaring it profitable that
one member should perish, rather than the Whole

body,) the Saviour continues, " It had been said, whosoever
Shall put away his wife, let hint give her a writing of
Divorcement." To this he applies a correction—" But I say
unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving fur

the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery."
Ani lastly we bare this clause. " Whosoever shall marry her
That is so absolved (C4itaXE)tiqi-E7riv)comatitteth adultery."

Front the saving clause, the legality of divorce, " for the

cause of fornication," may be inferred ; and, so far, it may
be retarded as restoring the law of divorce to its Mosaic
s►andard: From the last clause, it appears, that whosoever

shalt wed the adulteress offends against the Seventh Corn

;,ncinsent.

It k worthy of remark, that this is spoken when .our Lord
rats set (accarding to the custom of the Jewish 6,ctors, on

the brow ola mountain—a little to the north of Tabor", ac-

cording to Matt ntlrel)—to the multitudes which followed him
from Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and from beyond

,Tor 4 to

If we comparg this with what is recorded (in the l9th chap-
ter,of the same Evangelist) to have occurred in " the coasts
of ;Judea beyond Jordan," when the Pharisees came to him,
tempting him,"-with this question, "-Is it lawful for a mau
pot away his wife for every cause?" (:).in.sfv, fault) we 0,„11

find, that the answer ref rs them, not to their own polity, but

to the original marriage institution. " ilave ye not read tlrat

tLe Creator made the sexes, and said, for this cause shall a
m In le4ve father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,
a:141 they twain shall be one flesh." The conjugal bond is
here i.roved to he of Divine authority, and stronger than those
bb4l :arc/Tons wf►ich re,ide in every good heart. The next
sentence indicates the indissoluble character of the union—
St`;%at God, therefore, bath joined together, let no man
pot asunder."

Anyunprepithced auditor of this conference might deem

this a. concluse correction of the abuses introduced by the
School of Mlle!. But this was too grievous a correction for
that "adulterous and sinful gen'eration." The question is,
therefore, moulded into another form, and quoting a portion
only of Moses's permission (dexterously omitting the clause
which requires the husband to find " some uncleanneFs in
-her," whereon to found a claim of divorce), they make this
reninder,—" Then, why did Moses command to give a writ-
ing of di;orcement, and to put her away ?"—little expecting
tbr, obviously just reply,—" Because of the hardness of your
lieart,s !" Here is the key stone of the permission given by,
the 3.ewish Legislator. Onr Lord then refers-again to the
primitive institution, " From the beginning it was not so,"
arrd repeats what he himself had said in his sermon on time
mount.

. This account coincides so well, in the main points, with the
reta.tion given by Saint 11.1 ark, that, we may safely consider it
-as the sauie event, related by two historians. But from these,
and the account in the 16. c. Luke, it seems that our Lord
pre a similar inter pretation at three different times, and on
as many different occasions. On the last, the Pharisees are
said to (*Y-Yxr.rifik.oo have derided him by scornful

gestures, or contortions of visaze. Here the Saviour, in re-
ferring. to the Law, declares that " not one tittle of it shall
fail." Saint Luke records an interpretation of the Law of
Dirorcesimilar to that in St. Matthew, but without any saving
Clause.

Happily for us, mankind are not left to form opinions
upon this subject on their own conjectures. An Apostle has
given us an imperishable commentary on all the three pas-
sa►es contained in the Evangelists; which shews that the
Word of God is not confined to this or that place or nation,
but is unchangeable as himself:-
It-appears from Juvenal's 6th Satire (8), that St. Paill had

(1) "When a man bath taken a wife, and married her, and
it come to pass that she find no favour in hie eyes, because he
bath found some uncleanness io her, then let him write her
a Bill of Divorcement; and give it in her, hand, and send her
out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house,
she may go, and be another wife. And if the latter
husband hate ber,and welts her a Bill of Divorcement,et cetera,
or if he die, her former husband may not take her again."

. ,
(2; 22 c. Dent. v. 22. " If a' man he found lying with a
woman mat tied to an husband, then they shill both of them
dig—so ihalt thou put away evil from Israel !"

(3) Jnvenal (Sat. 6. line 222-230) describes the laxity
which prevailed among the Romans in divorce cases " Hoc
volo, sir jobeo, sit, pro ratione, voluntas," says the wife, and
accordingly " imperat, ergo viro." But mark what follows •
" Nott-limc regna reliquit, permotatque downs, et tlanimea•
cooterit inde Avolat, et sin eti repetit vestigia lecti," et
ese*era, to line 230. Having constituted her will as her rule
of life, she is at length divorced from one husband, plays
t tie same game with a second, and a third, to an
rig hth, the utmost extent of divorce cases allowed by the
Roman Law.

but two strong reatons for hiraddress to the notuans on ibis
point—" The woman Which harts an husband, is bound by
the law to her husband so bongos he Berth; but if the husband
be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then,
if, aline her husband liceth, she be warned to another man,
she shall be called an adulteress." Neither were the Greeks
left unguardedly to their vices, when converted to
Chris-
tianity. The Apostle (in the 10th verse of llis 7th Chapter
to the Corinthians) refers his Disciples to what the Chveis-
tian Legislator commands in the iffth Luke, and 19th Mat•
thew:—" Let not dre wife depart from her husband! But,
and if she depart, let her remain unmanied, or be reconciled

to her hosi) yid ; and let nut the husb,ind put away his wife."
To thi, command of God, he subjoins his own advice—" What
knowest thou, 0 wife, whether thou shalt sat•e thy husband ?
Or briw knowest thou, 0 mail, wjivther thou shalt save
wife ?" •

What motive for mutual forbearance, society, help, and
comfort, can an immortal being have greater that) this in the

connubial state!

From these various texts of Holy Writ, the Divine institu-
tion, the indissoluble character, and the purity of the conju
gal vow is apparent. And where it has been violated, mutual
forbearance is advised by an Apostle. A short view of the
form used by our church in the soletunization of matrimony

will shew how agreeable the Church of Eagl,u►4 ►►octrine is
to the word of God.

After it bath witnessed the mutual vow of pur;ty, fidelity,
love, honour, and protection, under every calamity, and of
mutual forbearance for better or worse as to the spiritual
mind, until the stroke of death shall sever the bond, the Mi
Mister of, God repeats the Christian Legislator's words,
"'Chose whom God bath joined together, let no wan put
asunder."

1 The formula of our Church coincides exactly with the doc-
trine of Clnist, and with the commentaly on it, delivered by
his Apostle. The tom is too clearly expressed to admit of
doubtful constrocthin of its spirit. As a religions !oleo,
trity, it admits of no exception, I% saving for the cause of for-
nicatio Divorce is fur that cause as expedient now a 5. it
bath been heretofore in ciril polity The reason for this
polity Ind Is good after a lapse of nineteen centuries—it is
'' Because of the hardness of men's hearts."

From the LONDON GAZETTE of Nov. 14.

NEW SI! DUFFS.

The names. of those who were nominated for
Sheriffs by the Lords'of the Council, at the Ex-
chequer, on the Morrow of Saint Martin, in, the
first year of the reign of King George the Fourth,
and in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and twenty :
Bedfordshire—sir Charles Payne, of Semsford Hall, Bart.;
John Thomas Brooks, of Flewick, Esq. ; John Lee, of Sham-
br,ok, Esq.
Berkshire—John MangleS, of Hurley, Esq. ; Atkins Edwin
Martin Atkins, of Kingston Lisle, Esq.; the Honourable
Frederick West, of ('olima.
Buckinghamshire—Benjamio Way, of Denham, Esq.; Sir
Codrington Edmund Carrim.Tton, of Chat fount Saint
Giles, Kitt. ; Charles Scott Murray, of .Hambledeo
House, Esq.
Cain. and Hunt.—John Pasheller, of Godnianchester, Esq. ;
John _Linton, of Stirtlur, Esq. ; William Lee, of Tose-
land, Esq
Cheshir4—Thomas Wilson, of Llandiflan, Esq. ; William
Lawton, of Lawton, Esq ; Uuwrilly Halsted Cudworth
Poole, of Marhury, Esq.
Cornwall—Sir Joseph. Copley, of Bake, Bart. ; Richard
yyvyan, of. Trewan, Esq. ; Charles Rastleigh, of St. ;
Atistle, Esq.
Cuoilierland—john Marshall, of I-I:instead, Esq. ; William
Crhchenthorpe. of Batik Hall, Esq. ; Edward Stanley, of
Porosonhy Hall, Esq.
I)eillNshire —Philip GO% of Hooton, Esq.; Sir Matthew
niatoi-stiot, of tiAoulybrook, Bait.; Sir Cieorge Crewe, of
caultie Abbey. Bait.
Devonshire—Robert Newton Incledon, of Xeo Town, Esq. ;
Sir John Davie, of Crer dy, Bart. ; Sir John kennaway, of
Escott, Bart.
Dorsetshire—John White, of Upeerne, Esq. ; Sir Edward
Baker Baker, of Ransteiu, Knt. ; Andrew Bahl, of Hefei-
ton, Esq.
Essex—Robert Westley Hall, the younger, of Great Ilford,
Esq. ; Sir George Henry Smyth, of Bereehnrch-ball, Bart.;
Henry John Conyers, of Copped hall, Esq.
Gloucestershire—William Miller, of Ozleworth, Esq. ; Thos.
John Lloyd Baker, of Hardwick-court, Esq. ; Sir Thomas
Crawley Boerey, of Flaxley Abbey, Bart.
Herefordshire—John Biddulph, of Ledbury, Esq. ; Thomas
Hampton Raymon, of the Meend, Esq.; John Johnstone,
of Mainstone, Esq.
Hertfordshire—Josel.h Timperon, of New Barns, Esq.; Thos.
Daniell, of Little Berkhampstead, Esq. ; Thomas Ham-
mond, of Wiggioton, Esq.
Kent—Sir John Shelley Sydney. of Pend:rust-Ira:tie, Bart. ;
Edward Rice, of Dane-court,' Esq. ; Thomas Austen, of
Kip-pittzton, Esq.
Leicestershire—Sir Charlei Thomas Palmer, of Wanlip, Bart.,
. George Moore, of' Appleby, Esq.; William French Major,
of Markel. Harborough, Esq.
Lincolnshire—Sir Richard Sutton, of Sudbrook, Bart.; Slr
.lobo Hayford Thorold, of Systun, Bart.; Sir Win. Earle
Welhy, of Denton. Bart.
Moomonthshire—Charles Morgan, of Tredvgat , Esq.; James
Jenkins, of Chepstow, Esq. ; Iltyd Nicholl, of Usk, Esq.
No: folk—Sir Jacob Astley, of Melton Constable. Bart ; John
Johnsiin Gay, of Albury, Esq.; Sir Richard Paul Joddrell,
of 'no', Bart.
Northamptonshire—Thomas Maunsell, of Thorpe Mal-
ear F,sq.; John Nethercoat, ortiaselbeach, Esq.; George
Ashby, of Ledgers Ashby, Esq.
Northumberland—Addison John Creswell -Baker, of Cres-.
well, Esq.: F,doortol Crostei, of Preston, Esq.; Gowen
Ainesley, of Little Harle Tower, Esq.
Nottinghamshire—Georgc Gregory Williams, of Kempston,
Esq. ; Sir Robert Shore Milnes, of Edwinstown, Bart.;
John Elliott, of .Plumptree, Esq.
Oxford•hire—Chailes Peers, of Chiselltamptot, Esq : Daniel
Stewart, of Wykhatu Park, Esq.; John Blockhall, of Great
Hoseley, Esq.
Rutlandshire—William Lawrence, of Preston, F.scf.; Thomas
Floor, of Whissendine, Esq. ; Thomas Thompson, of kel-

ton, Esq.'
Shropshire—Richard Lieber, of Modtvott, Esq. Thomas Bo-
rough, of Chetwynd End, Esq.; Benjamin -Flounkrs, of
Imington, Esq.
Somersetshire—William Mooning, of Dillitn Esq. Ger-
rard Martin Berkeley Napier, of East Peonvki, 'rhos
Kingstihl, of Faylima, Esq.
Staffordshire—Th,.mas Lister, of Armitage-park, Esq. ; Fran.
cis Eld, of Seighford, Esq. ; Phincas Hussey, of -Wyriey.

grove, Esq.
County of Southampton—" Thomas Dean gchute, of Burton
house, Eqq.; George Purvis, of Blackhrooli-house, E3q.

Sir John Cope, of Broutshili, Bart.
Suffolk—Philip Bennett, of Bury St. Edmunds, Esq. Richard
Newton, of Elden, Esq.-; Ambrose I-larboard Steward, of
Stoke-park, Esq.
Surrey—John Spicer, of Esher-place, Esq ; William Stanley
Clarke, of Leatherhead, Esq ; Charles Nicholas Polluter,

of Norbiton-house, Esq.
Sussex—Richard Hasler, of Bognor, Eso.; Richard Merrick
of Northniundhani, Esq. ; William (iourthorpe Mobbott

of VlAfield, Esq. -
Warwickshire--William Williams, of the Larches, Esq.;
Wm. ‘Vithering, of the Larches, Esq.; Abral.nu Spooner
Lillingstone, of Elmtlen, Esq.
Wiltshire—Ambrose Awdry, of Seend, Esq.; Edward Phil-
lips, of Melkshatn, Esq.; John Fuller, u, Neston Park,
Esq.
Worcestershire—Elias Isaac, of Boughton, Esq.; Samuel
Ryeland. of Northfield, Esq.; Thomas Phillips, of :slid-
Yowlsi,bire—Sir Henry Wilson, of Crofton, lint.; Sir Wil-
liam Ingilby, of Ripley, Batt.; Richard Beduin, of Rise,
Esq.
The names of the several persons nominated by the Chief
Justices of the respective Circuits in Wales, as proper per-
sons to serve the Odice of Sheriff fur the ensuing year, for the
respective Counties tollowin;

SOU'T'H WALES.
Carmarthen—Waiter Rice Howell Powell. of Masgyn, Esq.;
George Morgan, of AUercothy, Esq.; WilliAui de Buissoop
of Glyuhir, Esq.

Pembroke-The tton. Robert Polke Greville, of Milford ;
Orlando Lloyd Harris, of Ivy Tower, Esq.; Joseph Harris,
of Vanunwas, Esq.
Cardigan-Phillip John Miles, of the Priory, Esq.; Thomas
Hugh Jones, of Noyadd, Esq.; John Vaughan Lloyd, of-1
Mixing, Esq. .
Glamorgan-William Forman,of Penydarran, Esq.; William
Williams, of Anerpeigwur, Fsq.; Sir John Morrh, of
Bryn, Bart.
Brecon-Edw)kd Jones, of Battle End, .Esq.; James Watt,
of Tetrad, ifar!qa.N.Williatti•Augustus Gott, of Penn.Narth,
Esq. ".
Radnor-Alamet Watt, it Strinehonse, ,sEls,qls; Robert Peel,
of Cwmelau, ESq.; Peter Rickards Mynors, of Even.
job, Esq.
NORTH WALES.
Merioneth-John Myr' on, of Plas y Denas, Esq. ; James
Gill, of Pont Glas, Esq.; John Edwards, of Brauch y Can-
nata, Esq.
CarnavvonJoseph Huddart, of Brynker, Esq.; Hugh Davies
Griffith, of Caerhuni Esq.; ‘Vißiam 'Turner, of Plas Brere-
. ton, Esq.
Anglesey-Boll:der Hatchett, of Croulanna, Esq.; James
Websttr, of Dei ry,Esq.; Richard Williams, of Treban,Esq..
Montgomery-Valentine Vickers, of Criggion, Esq..; Joseph
Hayes Lion, of Celliblwarch, Esq.; Philip Morris, of 'Fre-
halig, Esq. ,
Denbigh-John Madocks, of Vroulw, Esq. ; Samuel Heaton,
Pichltil, Esq. ; -.John Jones, of Dynbryn.E•q.
Flint-John Douglas, of Gyrne, Esq. ; Thomas Harrison,
of Saithaelyd, Esq.; Tievor Owen Junes, of IVepree-hall,
Esq.
BANKRUP I.
T. C. Appleby, Canterbury, hatter, Nov. 21, 25, and Dec.
9.6, at ten, at Guildhall. Solicitor,•Mr. T. Bennett, Token-
!souse-yard.
T. Jeot, Piccadilly, cltinamart, Nov. IS, 25, and Dec. 26, ;it
ten, at Guildhall. Solicitor, Mr. Wood house, King's Bench-
walk, Temple,
J. Arinstrong, Bristol. mill-Wright, Nov. 28, 29, and Dee.
26, at twelve, at the Whire Lion Inn; Bristol. Solicitors,
Messrs. Osborne and Co. Bristol ; and Mr. S. N. Meredith,
Lincoln's iun.
T. W. 'Turner. Brentford, potter, Nov. IR, 48, and Dec.
26. at ten, at
.Guildhall. Solicitors, Messrs. Bishop and Co.
Token house-yard, Lothbury.
J. Peachey, Oxford-street, linen-draper, Nov. 18. ,25, urn]
Dec. .26, at ten, at Guildhall. Solicitors, Messrs. Courteen
and Co. Walltrook.
J. Gordon, Tolfenhouse-yard, and J. Gordon. of Thanet
place, Strand', merchants, Nov. 18, 25, and Pee. 26, at twelve,
at Guildhall. Solicitor, Mr. Wlsite, Tbroginorton-street.
J. Sprigens, Chesil:rm. Buckinghamshire, draper, Nov. 21,
45, and Dec. .26, at twelve, at Guildhall. Solicitor, Mr.
S.:evens, Sion College gardens,. Aldermanbory.
W. Johnson, Hrybt idge, Essex, salt-manufacturer, Nov. 24,
Dee.- 2, 26, al our, at Guildhall. Solicitors, Messrs. Bridges
and Co. Red LP:Li-square.
J. Knowles, Liverpool. inn-keeper, Dec. 5,6, and 26, at
(me, .at. the George-inn, Liverpool Solicitors, Messrs. Orred
and Co'. Excleatige.alky, Liverpool; and Messrs. Lowe and
Co. Southampton- buildings, Chancery-lane.
G. !Haywood, liirmingliaiu, spirit. merchant, Dec. 11, 12,
and 26, al eleven, at the Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Solici-
tors, Mr. Lowe, Birmingham ; and Mr. Chilton, Exchequer-
office, Lincoln's Inn.
' T. Barnett, Kendal, Westmorland, corn-merchant, Nov.
30, and Dec. 1, 26, at eleven., at 11 , King% Arms, Kendal.
Solicitors, Mr. Heelis, Staple Inn ; and Mr. T. Heelis,
Kendal.
A. Parker, Cheltenham, builder, Dec. I, ct seven, 2, and
26, at ten, at the Plough Hotel, Cheltenham. Solicitors,
Messrs. .Wizard and Co., Liricolir's Inn fields; and Messrs.
Proem and Co. Cheltenham.
T. Wood, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, clothier, Nov. 17, Dec. 9.
and 26, at one, at the Rummer Tavern, Bristol. Solicitors,
Messrs; Hord and Co. King's Bench-walk, ; stud Mr.
J. Wigan, Stephen-street, Bristol.
T. Little, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, linen draper, Dec. 5,8,
and 26, at eleven, at rite George Inn, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Solicitors, Messrs. Bell and Co. •Bow Church-yard, Cheap-
side; and Mr. Seymour, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
E. Smith and .1. Sanderson, Howden, Yorkshire, tailors,
Nor. 24, at seven, 25, at the George Inn, Selby, and Dec. 46,
at eleven, at the Half Moon bin, Howdy's. Solicitors,
Mr. E. Parker, Selby; and Mr. Wigles'ivorth, Gray's lint -
square.
It. Ralph and W. King, Ipswich, maltsters, Nor. 23, at
seven, 24, and Dec. 26, at eleven, at the Sea Horse Inn, Ips'
wick. Solicitors, Messrs. Pearson and Co. Ipswich; and Mr.
S. Taylor, John-street, Bedford-row.
R. Mossenton, Great Marlow, Buckinghamshire, horse-
' dealer, Nov, 13, 25, and Dec. 26, at ten, at Guildhall. So-
licitors, • Mr. Harrison, Bucklerstiury ; stud Mr. Goldsmith,
Great Marlow.