allowed it for almost any cause; and Maimonides says, that Israelites were sometimes compelled, even by whipping, to put away their wives. It was appointed that a bill of divorce should contain, 1st, the names of the husband and wife; and of the father, grandfather, and great grandfather of each of them. 2d, It was to be written in large letters, and so that one letter should not touch another. 4th, If a drop of ink should fall on the paper, the bill would not be valid. In this case therefore, it must be written again. 5th, There should be no erasure. 6th, The substance on which it was written was to be longer than it was broad. 7th, The whole bill should contain neither more nor less than twelve lines. 8th, It should be subscribed by at least two witnesses. 9th, The witnesses should affix their seals. 10th, The husband himself, or some one deputed by him, was to give the bill to his wife; or the wife might depute some one to receive it for her. wife so divorced might, if she pleased, present this bill to the Sanhedrim, for enrolment among the records; and unless forbidden by some clause in the bill, she might marry again. A As we are willing in this number to dismiss this subject, we will give our readers a copy of a bill of divorce. "I A, the son of B, who was the son of C, who was the son of D, on the day of the month-, in the year of the world, do willingly, and without compulsion, dismiss and divorce thee, E, the daughter of F, who was the daughter of G, who was the daughter of H, and hitherto my wife. I now dismiss, and leave, and divorce you; so that you are now at your own disposal, and may marry whom you will. Nor let any one at any time prevent this. Thus I dismiss you, according to the precept of Moses,and of the Israelites." A wife might not be put away, unless a bill of divorce were given to her; but in a question of divorce, a wife was not asked whether she was willing that such a bill should be sought. A bill of divorce contained, we have said, neither more nor less than twelve lines. This was a decision of the wise men; but there is some uncertainty why the precise number of twelve lines was prescribed. One Rabbi thought, that it was because the value of the letters in the word was twelve; but another said that, it was because the books of the law were separated by twelve lines; four being placed between Genesis and Exodus, four between Exodus and Leviticus ; and four between Leviticus and Numbers; the four lines between Numbers and Deuteronomy not being counted, because Deuteronomy is considered only to be a repetition of the law. We would not repeat, we would not transcribe this pitiful trifling, this solemn nonsense, but to shew our readers how the Jewish people were taught by their Rabbies. Truly we are not surprised that the teaching of our Lord filled these people with astonishment. The right of obtaining a bill of divorce was wholly in the husband. Salome, the sister of Herod, Josephus says, was the first among Jewish women, who put away her husband, by obtaining a divorce from him. Her example, however, was followed by others. If any dispute arose concerning the restitution of the dowry received by a husband, the affair was decided by the judge. The exercise of the conjugal, the parental, and the filial virtues inculcated by our religion, with true piety, will secure to domestic life the best happiness to be obtained in this world. We are indeed indebted to our religion for an entirely new sentiment of home. Its powerful restraint of some of the worst passions of man, its elevation of woman to the rank which God at first assigned to her, its plain prescription of her duties, and its ample security of all her privileges, have given even a new character to society. Thanks be to God, that we scarcely hear of divorce; and may all our domestic, as well as personal enjoyments and consolations, lead us alike to the pure fountain of knowledge, and happiness, and hope, which Jesus has opened in the gospel. In heav en, he indeed tells us, we shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage. But we shall carry with us our affections to heaven; and there shall we renew every friendship, which has been founded in christian piety and virtue. Wherefore let us be excited to all duty, and comfort one another with these words. [Wobrogenius, and Lightfoot on the text. Wotton's Mis. Disc. vol. i. p. 106. Calmet on Divorce. Josephus, Lib. 15. cap. xi.] AN ATTEMPT TO REMOVE MISAPPREHENSIONS. To men of benevolent minds it must be a matter of joy that the spirit of party has in șo great a measure subsided in our country, and that the spirit of candor and conciliation so generally prevails. Still there is reason to fear that misapprehensions on some points are retained which prevent that degree of union among christians of different sentiments which ought to exist. To remove some of these misapprehehsions, and not to revive a spirit of controversy, will be P the object of the following remarks and inquiries : It will not be denied by any intelligent christian that, in the common use of language, the word Person means the same as Intelligent Being. Nor will it be pretended that the term is used in the Scriptures in any other sense than that which has now been mentioned. "It will, moreover, be admitted by all parties, that according to the known and acknowledged sense of the word, it is impossible that God should be three Persons, unless he is three Beings; and that it is as proper to say that God is one Person in three Persons, as that he is one Being in three Persons. Consequently, it must be granted that it is not in the proper or known sense of the term that God is said to be three Persons. Can it then be wonderful that Christians should disagree, when one class of them make use of a common and definite term in an unknown and unexplained sense? Suppose the case to be reversed, and that those who deny the propriety of saying that God is one Being in three Persons, should affirm that God is one Person in three Beings: would not this be likely to occasion some animosity and confusion? No one will doubt that such would be the case; yet this phraseology is as easy to understand as that which has been the occasion of so much clamor and bitterness among christians. And why may we not as safely give an allegorical or mysterious meaning to the word Being as to the term Person? All Christians will admit that there is but one Being who is "the living God," and that the Father is this God; nor will it be denied that Jesus Christ prayed to the Father, and taught his disciples so to do. The danger therefore of being chargeable with worshipping a Being as God, who is not the true God, is not on the side of those who worship the Father in spirit and tru but on the part of those who worship as God, Persons or objects distinct from the Father. These observations however have not been made to reproach either class of Christians, nor to accuse either of idolatry, as they have too frequently accused one another. The misapplication of names or titles is not the greatest fault to which men are liable in these controversies. If one man really believes that God and Jesus Christ are the same Being, or even the same Person, and imputes to this Being the attributes of Jehovah, and worships him in spirit and truth, it is the true God who is worshipped, whatever may be the mistake of the worshipper with regard to the nature of the union or oneness of the Father and Son. On the other hand-if a person really believes that the Father alone is the true God and worships him as such; it is the true God whom he worships, whatever mysterious or unknown union there may be between God and Jesus Christ. to be regarded as his friends, and as worshippers of the Holy One of Israel, whatever may be their misapprehensions as to the mode of his exist ence. As an illustration of the propriety of the foregoing conclusion, admit the following case: I have received correct information of the moral character of a worthy and benevolent Magistrate, of high rank; I have also been partaker of many benefits from him, although I never had the pleasure of seeing him face to face. My mind is impressed with a sense of my obligations; and by a respectful letter I attempt to express to him my regard for his character and my gratitude for the tokens of his benignity. But by some misapprehension respecting his names and titles, my letter has not the proper address, but has in fact a superscription which more properly belongs to another person-say to the Magistrate's son. My benefactor, however sees the letter and is correctly informed of my intention: Will he be pleased, or will he be offended with what I have done ? Suppose, moreover, that my neighbours, who possess more correct information respecting the names and titles of the Magistrate, should reproach me on the ground of my mis take, and treat me as an enemy to the Magistrate-imputing it to the hatred of my heart towards him that my letter had not the proper address : Would a wise and benevolent Magistrate approve this abusive treatment of one who really loved his character and was disposed to honour him? The principles of this illustration will apply to either side of the lamentable controversy which has for so many centuries agitated the christian world; and they may serve to show, that whichsoever of the parties may have been in error on the questions in dispute, there could be no just cause for the bloodshed which the contest occasioned in former ages, nor for the reproach and uncharitable censures of our own times. This article may be closed in borrowed language: "Consider further the bad effects of all discord and uncharitable contentions among Christian brethren. They injure the common cause and strengthen the hands of the common enemy. Should parties of the same army meet in the night, and by mistake fight against. one another, causing mutual destruction in their contention for victory, how would they sorrow when the light of the morning should discover their mistake!" OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. As the subject of Capital Punishments has been recently proposed by the Governor of this State for the consider ation of the Legislature, it may be useful to exhibit the most formidable objections to the abolition of such punishments, with proper answers. PHILANTHROPOS, the author of the "Report of God's treatment of the first Murderer," which was published in the Christian Disciple for March, collected thirteen objections, and gave such answers as he thought We have room in proper. this No. but for a part of the objections and answers, and these in an abridged form. The other objections and answers may probably appear in the next Number. Objection 1. "Civil rulers are of divine appointment, and vested with full power to execute justice among their subjects, as God's ministers or vicegerents." Rom. xiii. 1—8. "Answer. I agree that all civil rulers are vested with full power to execute justice among their subjects. They have full right, as well as power, to make good laws, and to execute them. But the question here discussed, relates merely to the demerits of crimes, and the suitableness of punishments." "The many unjust and oppressive laws which have been enacted by civil rulers, during the history of man, and the mal-practices in executing them, afford sad and incontestible proofs of the frailty and fallibility of these rulers of divine appointment! "It may not be amiss to add, that in our elective and representative governments, all offices and appointments originate in the people; and consequently, from them all of ficial right and powers are derived. We reverence and respect our good rulers; but we do not ascribe to the best of them the divine attribute of infallibility. We acknowledge the same superintendency of Divine Providence in the affairs of civil government, as in the other common affairs of life. Our civil rulers do not presume to plead any commission from God, or divine appointment to justify their mal-administration. They claim no divine right of doing wrong, either by long lineal succession, or by immediate inspiration!" Obj. 2. "Will not the clemency of the judges dispose them to give a murderer a fair, and an impartial trial? Will not the laws of self-preservation warrant a judiciary court to condemn him, and put him to death, for the preservation of the lives of others, that would be endangered by such an assassin ???... "Answ. God did not set a mark on Cain to prevent his committing a second murder; or in other words, "for the preservation of the lives of others;" but for the preservation of his life: Gen. iv. 15. "Lest any finding him should kill him." It seems that God considered the life of the murderer in most imminent danger. The strong arm of the community is abundantly able to protect itself against a weak and friendless convict for murder without shedding his blood; for every man's hand is against him. Perhaps it would not be amiss to add, that in common cases, "to condemn a man, and put |