biographer extracts from the Bishop's note book the following suggestive passage, which will serve to illustrate the present argument:
"The 'putting away' which Christ condemned was not the equivalent of our present divorce system; it was purely arbitrary, with no trial or opportunity of defence, the man's right only, while the woman had no corresponding power; it was originally for some cause which includes more than adultery, and it allowed remarriage (Deut. xxiv. 2). Our divorce is a different matter, involving different necessities. The Mosaic institution which Christ modified had reference to inheritance and preservation of purity of descent. There are strong objections to using the Holy Communion for enforcing a position on this subject, especially in the matter of its administration to the dying, in view of the perfect conscience with which divorces are obtained. It would be more consistent to deny divorce altogether. But the whole question is not a clear one, in view of the fact that Christian nations have so differed regarding it, and so differ still. Circumstances have changed since the time of Christ. The spirit is more than the letter."[1]
Without question there is much force in such contentions. The existence of a careful and legal regulation of marriage in all its bearings is a fact which bears plainly on the practical application of Christ's words, and
- ↑ See "Life of Phillips Brooks," vol. ii. p. 720.
