Page images
PDF
EPUB

soon as ever mutual love has quitted the breast of the wedded pair, there is a real divorce, whether the civil magistrate will ratify it or not. Marriage is a union, not of bodies, or of purses, but of souls. Whenever souls separate by mutual antipathies, there is a real divorce.

IV. THE OPTIONAL FORMATION OF THE MARRIAGE TIE. The disciples, hearing these words of Christ, which bore so strongly against divorce, said unto him: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." As if they said, if the bond be so indissoluble as this, it is such a hazardous thing, that we had better not venture on marriage at all; we may be caught in an inextricable snare, which may make us miserable all the days of our lives. To this our Saviour replies, "All men cannot receive this saying” (v. 11, 12). I cannot better express the meaning of these two verses diated wife back, in case she had not in the meanwhile been married to another person; but if she had been thus married, she could never afterwards become the wife of her first husband:-a law which the faith due to the second husband clearly required. Deuteronomy, xxiv. 1-4; compare Jer. iii. 1, and Matt. i. 19; xix. 8.

The inquiry, "What should be considered an adequate cause of divorce?" was left by Moses to be determined by the husband himself. He had liberty to divorce her if he saw in her the nakedness of a thing,-i e., anything displeasing or improper, as may be learnt by comparing the same expression in Deut. xxiii. 14, 15; anything so much at war with propriety, and a source of so much dissatisfaction, as to be, in the estimation of the husband, sufficient ground for separation. These expressions, however, were sharply contested as to their meaning in the later times of the Jewish nation. The school of Hillel contended that the husband might lawfully put away the wife for any cause, even the smallest. The mistake committed by the school of Hillel in taking this ground was, that they confounded moral and civil law. It is true as far as the Mosaic statute or the civil law was concerned, the husband had a right thus to do; but it is equally clear that the ground of legal separation must have been, not a trivial, but a prominent and important one, when it is considered that he was bound to consult the rights of the woman, and was amenable to his conscience and his God. The school of Shammai explained the phrase, NAKEDNESS OF A THING, to mean actual adul tery. This interpretation of the phrase gives to the law a moral aspect,

than by the paraphrase of Doddridge, who says: "But he said to them, all men cannot receive this saying of yours, that it is not expedient to marry; but only they to whom it is given, as a peculiar gift to conquer those inclinations towards that state which God, for wise reasons, has wrought into the common constitution of human nature. For there. are some eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb, and whose natural temper and inclination is in this respect peculiar; and there are some eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men's wickedness, who drive on that scandalous traffic which the luxury and effeminacy of the eastern world has rendered common. And there are some eunuchs who have, as it were, made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of heaven; that is, who, by a resolute guard on their appetites and passions, have conquered the propensities of nature, that, being free from the incumbrances of marand assigns a reason, as the ground of divorce, of the truest moral nature. But the truth is, that the phrase, in itself considered, will not bear this interpretation; and the law beyond question, was designed to be merely a civil, and not a moral one. Jesus, who did not so much explain as fill up the deficiencies of the Mosaic institutes, agreed with the school of Shammai as far as this, that the ground of divorce should be one of a moral nature, but he does not appear to have agreed with them in their opinion in respect to the Mosaic statute. On the contrary, he denied the equity, the moral correctness of that statute; and, in justification of Moses, maintained that he suffered it to be sanctioned by his authority only in consequence of the hardness of the people's hearts. Matthew v. 31, 32; xix. 1–9; Mark x. 2—12; Luke xvi. 18. Wives, who were considered the property of their husbands, did not enjoy by the Mosaic statutes a reciprocal right, and were not at liberty to dissolve the matrimonial alliance by giving a bill of divorce to that effect. In the later periods however, of the Jewish state, the Jewish matrons-the more powerful of them at least-appear to have imbibed the spirit of the ladies of Rome, and to have exercised in their own behalf the same power that was granted by the Mosaic law to their husbands. Josephus Antiq. xv. 7—10; Mark, vi. 17-29; x. 12. In case the wife felt herself injured and aggrieved, we may infer, from the fact of the concubine's possessing that right, who had previously been a maid-servant, that the wife also possessed the right of obtaining a bill of divorce from a judge. Exod. xxi. 10."

riage, and devoting themselves to a life of more sublime devotion, they might promote the interest of my gospel. Compare 1 Cor. vii. 7, 37. He therefore, on the whole, that finds he is able to receive this saying, let him receive it, or let him that is in his own conscience, persuaded that he can glorify God, most by a single life, choose it. Others may, and ought to marry, but let none lightly rush into that state, on the supposition that the bond of it may be broken through at pleasure." From this it would seem that man is not bound to marry. Heaven has left it an optional matter.*

Germs of Thought.

SUBJECT: Simeon ;-his Moral History.

:

"And behold there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel."-Luke ii. 25-32.

Analysis of Homily the Four Hundred and Sixty-third.

NOWHERE else can we find any information concerning Simeon. The text is an epitome of his life. It is a miniature portrait. There are four things here recorded concerning him worthy of note. His personal character, His public spirit, His divine tuition, and His happy end.

* A considerable portion of this article is a reprint from the Marriage Ceremony in the Biblical Liturgy.

was

I. HIS PERSONAL CHARACTER. He was "just and devout." The one expression describes him in his social, and the other in his divine relation ;-he was "just" in relation to man, he "devout" in relation to God. It is true that the word "just" in its complete sense would comprehend devoutness and every other excellence of character. Universal holiness is but justice,-justice to self, to the universe and to God. But here the word is used undoubtedly in its more limited and popular sense, to denote mere social rectitude; the recognition and discharge of varied obligations that spring out of our relationships to mankind. In one word it may mean the right development of our social nature. The word "devout" has a special application to the development of the religious nature; it means reverence, gratitude, worship. The two words are here used undoubtedly to designate universal excellence. The one denotes the rectitude of our conduct man-ward, and the other the rectitude of our conduct God-ward. The practical mistakes of society on this subject require us to make two remarks.

First: That counterfeits of the “just” and“ devout” are often found existing among men separately. You often see what is conventionally regarded as social morality existing where there is no devotion, where, in fact, there may be a practical disregard of all religious observances; and on the other hand, you as often see what is conventionally regarded as “devout” or religious, where there is social meanness and dishonesty. Some of the greatest social rogues are the greatest sticklers for religious observances, the greatest psalm-singers and infidel-denouncers. The old Pharisees were a striking example of this. For a pretence they made long prayers, whilst they "devoured widow's houses."

Secondly: That the truly "just" and "devout" are inseparably associated. There is no real social morality where there is no religion; there can be no right feeling and conduct towards man where there is no right feeling and conduct towards God. The man who does not feel rightly towards God can have no virtuous feeling towards any man. Godli

ness is the spring of all that is morally just or virtuous in human conduct. Saying then that Simeon was "just" and "devout" is saying that he was thoroughly good.

II. HIS PUBLIC SPIRIT. This "just" and "devout" man did not live within the narrow circle of his own interests; his sympathies went forth over his country and the world. He looked upon the Messiah in philanthropic aspects; in His special relation to his own country, and in His universal relation to humanity :

First In His special relation to his own country. He regarded Him as at once the "Consolation" and "the glory" of Israel. He knew, he appreciated, he deeply felt, the troubles of his country, social, political, and religious, troubles arising from domestic tyrannies, foreign invasions, moral remorse, secular disappointments, and providential bereavements. He saw the black swelling tide of trouble surging through every part of his country, and he waited, looked out for, with intense solicitude, the true "Consolation"; -the only one that could deliver and comfort. From the lofty mount of prophecy, with the sea of national distress rolling at his feet, he looked forth and saw approaching in the distance the "Consolation "; One mighty to save. Verily He is the Consolation. His doctrines break forth on the troubled soul of humanity, as stars upon the mariner in the midnight storm. His spirit falls upon the agitated spirit of the race as oil upon the troubled waters. But not only did he regard the Messiah as the "Consolation,” but as "the Glory" of Israel. Christ not only comforts but ennobles, glorifies, &c. He not only looked upon the Messiah as in this special relation to his country, but :

:

He re

Secondly In His universal relation to the race. garded Him as the "salvation," "prepared before the face of all people;" the light "to lighten the gentiles." Here then is his public spirit; he waited for the Messiah, not merely for himself, but for his country and the world. The coming Christ was the grand object of his anticipation, the breath of his prayer, the theme of his talk, the bright ray

« PreviousContinue »