THE frightful corruption in the legislation and practice respecting divorce which has spread so widely during the past few years in our country has at last aroused the attention of those who are interested in the preservation of the public morals. They are beginning to write on the subject, and are casting about for the means of protecting the endangered institution of marriage. We feel it to be our duty to exercise what little influence we may possess in the community at large, in the same direction. At present, we shall restrict our remarks to one single point, which is the theological question of the lawfulness of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, for the cause of adultery, under the law of Christ. In order to make our intent and meaning plain, we shall begin by stating the proposition we wish to maintain. The marriage of Christians, validly ratified and consummated, is absolutely indissoluble; and therefore there can be no legal and valid divorce of the parties to such a marriage a vinculo matrimonii. The best and ablest Protestant writers admit this with one exception, that is, of the innocent party in the case of a marriage which has been violated by adultery. We leave them, therefore, to defend the indissolubility of marriage in all other cases, and confine ourselves to the one case in which they permit divorce.

The sole argument for the lawfulness of divorce in this instance is derived from the following texts in St. Matthew's gospel. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." (v. 32.) "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry an

other, committeth adultery." (xix. 9.) The Catholic interpretation of these passages is, that our Lord permits a final separation a mensâ et thoro, for one cause, and one only, which is the grievous crime mentioned in these texts. In accordance with this interpretation, we explain these passages by the following paraphrase: "Whoever, for any lesser cause than the crime of adultery, separates himself finally from his wife, places both her and himself in the danger of sinning, and is guilty of creating a proximate occasion of adultery. If he separates himself from her on account of the grievous crime above mentioned, he is not responsible for her future crimes, nor is he guilty of plac ing himself without just cause in a condition in which the observance of his marriage vows becomes more difficult. Nevertheless, if he marries another, he commits adultery."

In order to sustain the truth of this interpretation, it is necessary to defend three propositions. First. That our Lord declared the bond of marriage indissoluble. Second. That he condemned all soi-disant marriages of persons who were divorced, as adulterous. Third. That he permitted a final divorce a mensâ et thoro simply, for the cause of adultery, and for no other.

The first proposition is established by all the texts of the New Testament which speak on the subject. We will first examine the text of St. Matthew, which includes the passage that is in dispute:

"And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? And he answered and said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man in the beginning, made them

male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they two shall be in one flesh. Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say to him: why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

It is evident from these words of our Lord that the reason for the marriage of one man with only one woman, and for the perpetuity of this union, is founded in the law of nature and the primitive revelation of God to the founders of the human race. Also, that our Lord intended to restore marriage to its primitive and perfect law, abrogating all temporary dispensations in favor of polygamy and divorce. His commandment not to put asunder what God hath joined is universal, and establishes the principle that marriage is not dissoluble by human law. In the gospel of St. Mark we are further informed that "in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. And he said to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." (x. 11.) St. Luke also relates the words of our Lord with the same explicitness: "Ev. ery one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery." (xvi. 18.) The same doctrine is established by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans: For the woman that hath a husband, whilst her husband liveth, is bound to the law: but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Wherefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress if she be with another man: but if her hus

66

66

band be dead, she is free from the law of her husband: so that she is not an adulteress if she be with another man.” (vii. 2, 3.) This passage lays down clearly and without exception the law that the bond of marriage can only be dissolved by death. It is confirmed by other texts in the first epistle to the Corinthians: "But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband: and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the busband put away his wife." "A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord." (vii. 10, 11, 39.)

There can be no question between us and that class of strict Protestant moralists who allow of divorce only in one case, and of re-marriage even in that one case only by the innocent party, that the passages we have cited lay down in general terms the indissolubility of Christian marriage. The only point to be discussed, therefore, is, whether they are right or wrong in so interpreting our Lord's words as to permit re-marriage in this one particu lar case. If it cannot be shown that our Lord distinctly and positively releases the innocent party in this case from the vinculum matrimonii, our proposition stands firm that this vinculum is in all cases indissoluble except by

death.

In regard to this point we remark, first, that obscure passages ought to be interpreted in conformity with those which are clear, and not the reverse. The passages we have cited which proclaim the indissolubility of the marri age-bond are clear. Those which are cited in proof of the exception are obscure. It is not clear on the face of them how far the permission to dismiss the guilty wife extends, and the conclusion that this permission includes the permission to marry another woman is a mere inference. The Catholic interpretation, that the permission extends

no further than a divorce a mensâ et thoro, harmonizes these passages with all others in the New Testament which speak on the subject, and is, therefore, in itself more probable.

We remark, secondly, that the opposite interpretation is intrinsically improbable, because it contravenes the evident scope and intention of our Lord's words, which were to abrogate the special dispensations of the Mosaic law, and introduce a stricter law in conformity with the original institution of matrimony. Our opponents explain the law as giving the wife an equal privilege of divorcing her husband with that conceded to the husband. But, according to the law of Moses, the woman could not divorce her husband for any cause whatever. If, now, our Lord gave her this privilege, he relaxed the Mosaic law in an important respect. This is highly improbable, seeing that it is only by inference that we can apply the permission given the injured husband to dismiss his wife to the injured woman in similar circumstances. We admit fully that our Lord did intend to give woman an equal right in the premises with that which he conceded to man. But, if that right had been the one claimed by our opponents it is not to be supposed that he would have failed to express it in clear and distinct terms. We argue that, as his whole scope was to make the law of marriage stricter, and as the law of Moses gave women no right of divorce, our Lord did not concede to Christian women that right. Our opponents admit that no more was conceded to men than to women, therefore no right of divorce was conceded to men.

We remark, thirdly, that the divorce permitted by our Lord cannot have been a divorce a vinculo, from the concession of our opponents, who admit that the guilty party is not released from it so as to be capable of contracting a second marriage.

They admit that the guilty party commits adultery by attempting another marriage, and that the person marrying the one divorced commits

adultery.

Adultery is not possible where there is no vinculum matrimonii subsisting. But there can be no vinculum except between two parties. It is absurd that a woman should be bound to keep faith with the man who has another lawful wife. Therefore, on the principles of our opponents, since the guilty party is still in the bonds of the first marriage, the innocent party is so also.

Let us now examine the passage itself, which permits the disinissal of a guilty consort, to see if it can fairly be interpreted in accordance with the doc. trine we have endeavored to establish. Our opponents argue that the sense of the passage is as follows: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery, unless the cause of his putting her away was adultery on her part." Therefore, they say, if she was put away for the crime above mentioned, he does not commit adultery, though he marries another. The mere verbal construction admits of this interpretation, but does not positively require it. It may fairly be understood to mean this: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, commits adultery, and whosoever shall marry another commits adultery." That is, he who puts away his wife for any lesser cause, causes her to commit adultery, and exposes himself to the danger of committing the same sin, on account of the facility given by the civil law to both parties to contract second marriages, and also because of the danger in which a woman is placed, when cast off by her husband, of giving herself up to a bad life through want and desperation, especially in a state of society which is morally corrupt. And, much more, the one who actually does contract a second marriage during the lifetime of the wife whom he has repudiated commits adultery, by contracting an invalid marriage. Both acts are a violation of the marriage vows, the desertion of the wife, and the formation of a second, unlawful union with another; and, therefore, both are class

ed together, although it is only the latter which is strictly and technically called adultery.

Our opponents may justly say that the text does not require this interpretation, and that, if this really was the sense and meaning of our Lord, the apostle has expressed it in an elliptical and obscure manner. Very true. And if we had no other information than that which is furnished by St. Matthew, the real doctrine of our Lord would be doubtful. This is nothing strange or surprising. The sacred writers freqently speak in an obscure, inartificial, and elliptical manner, which obliges us to interpret their meaning from sources extraneous to the text. There is no evidence that all the words used by our Lord himself to explain his doctrine to the by-standers in public, or to his disciples in private, have been recorded with verbal accuracy or completeness. St. Matthew gave a brief summary of Christ's doctrine in his own language, which was intelligible to his readers at the time, because they already knew the law which had been promulgated in the Christian church. We hope to show hereafter what this law was, from evi

dence furnished by the early Christian writers and by the uniform canonical practice of the church. Meanwhile, we think we have proved that the general scope of the language of the New Testament sustains the doctrine of the indissolubility of Christian marriage.

Our second and third propositions have been established in the process of maintaining the first, and flow from it obviously. It is evident that, where the vinculum matrimonii subsists between two persons, either of them who attempts marriage with a third party violates the rights of the lawful consort, and makes an invalid contract, whatever the civil law may decide to the contrary. It is also evident that our Lord did permit a final dissolution of the connubium between married persons for one cause, and one only. If this dissolution is not a divorce a vinculo, it must be a mensû et thoro. We leave the subject here for the present, hoping to resume it again at a convenient opportunity; and we respectfully recommend to our learned readers, who are desirous of investigating it fully, the work of Perrone, De Matri monio Christiano, 3 vols. Rome, 1858.

The Magnetic Polarity of Rifles.Mr. J. Spiller has lately made some very interesting observations respecting the magnetic power assumed by rifles. He finds that all the long Enfield barrels of the arms in the possession of the volunteers of his company exhibit magnetic polarity as the result of the violent and repeated concussions attending their discharge in a direction parallel to the magnetic meridian. The Royal Arsenal range runs nearly north and south, and the rifles, when in use, are always pointed either due north or a few degrees toward the west-in fact, nearly in the di

rection indicated by a compass-needleso that the repeated shocks brought about by the explosion of the powder may, Mr. Spiller thinks, be considered equivalent to so many hard blows from a hammer, which, as is well known, have a similar effect. Mr. Spiller goes on to say that the magnetic character appears to be permanent, which would not be the case if the gun-barrels were of the softest description of malleable iron; and the region of the breech is, in every instance, possessed of north polarity, since it strongly attracts the south pole of the compass needle. These effects should not be no

ticed at all, or only to an inferior degree, in arms ordinarily fired in directions east and west; and it is supposed that by reversing the usual practice, if it were possible, and firing towards the south, the indications of polarity would be changed.

-

Mont Cenis Railway. - In a paper read before the Institute of Civil Engineers, Capt. H. W. Tyler has fully described the results of experiments with Mr. Fell's locomotive, which has been adopted for surmounting the steep gradients and sharp curves of the Mont Cenis route. On Mr. Fell's system an intermediate or centre rail is adopted, against which horizontal wheels worked by the engine are pressed by springs, so as to yield any requisite amount of adhesion. The engine constructed for the Mont Cenis line is partly of steel; its weight fully loaded does not exceed 17 tons. There are two 15-inch cylinders working both the four coupled horizontal and the four coupled bearing wheels. The pressure on the additional horizontal wheels can be varied by the enginedriver at pleasure; during the experiments it amounted to from 2 to 3 tons on each wheel, or 10 tons altogether, but provision was made for increasing this pressure to 24 tons if necessary. During the official trials, with a load of 24 tons exclusive of the engine, on an average gradient of 1 in 13, with curves of 2 to 4 chains radius, the speed of 6.65 miles to 7:46 miles per hour was attained in ascending. With a load of 16 tons the speed was 10 miles.

In

Fossil Man in the Rhine Valley. the Lehm of the valley of the Rhine, near Colmar, there is a marly deposit composed of a mixture of clay, fine sand, and carbonate of lime. It forms part of the diluvial beds, and in it M. Faudel has found a number of human and other remains. These consisted of shells, bones of a huge stag, teeth of Elephas primigenuis, and a human frontal and right parietal bone of a man of middle size. Faudel concludes that man was contemporaneous with the mammoth fossil stag and bison.

once, on learning the habits of the patients, induced them to smoke a much smaller quantity of tobacco than usual, and the result was a complete restoration of vision in a few weeks from the date of their application.

Intermittent Fevers produced by Vegetable Organisms.-Some time since, we called attention to Dr. Salisbury's observations, tending to support the theory expressed above. More recently these ideas have been, in some measure, confirmed by Professor Hannon, of the University of Brussels. In 1843, says M. Hannon, "I studied at the University of Liege; Professor Charles Morsen had created in me such an enthusiasm in the study of the fresh-water algae that the windows and mantel-piece of my chamber were encumbered with plates filled with vaucheria, oscillatoria, and confervæ. My preceptor said to me: 'Take care at the period of their fructification, for the spores of the alga give intermittent fever. I have had it every time I have studied them too closely.' As I cultivated my algae in pure water, and not in the water of the marsh where I had gathered them, I did not attach any importance to his remark. I suffered for my carelessness a month later, at the period of their fructification. I was taken with shivering; my teeth chattered; I had the fever, which lasted six weeks."

-

Tobacco Smoking Injurious to the Eyes. In a recent number (February 15) of the Bulletin de Thérapeutique, M. Viardin deseribes two cases of serious eye affection (amblyopia) resulting from the habit of smoking. M. Viardin at