1. The present tendency of those who deny that Christ’s words, as repeated on two occasions in St. Matthew’s Gospel, allow the remarriage of the innocent party after divorce for adultery is――abandoning with good cause the older arguments (1) that πορνεία only applies to prenuptial sin: (2) that the words as quoted in St. Matthew were only intended to apply to the Jews――to lay stress upon the uncertainty of the text in St. Matt. xix where the words occur “and shall marry another.” To this it may be replied (i) that it is strange to find people not generally recognized as very advanced textual critics going, in this single case, further than even Dr. Hort ventured to go, in maintaining the textual authority of the Vatican manuscript, which alone among the great uncials omits the clause; (ii) that it would appear sufficiently obvious that the variation of the text in this passage is due to assimilation to the similar passage in chapter v; (iii) that it is not time to deprive people of the right to appeal to an accepted text until some trustworthy editors have been found to venture to remove it from its place; (iv) that the sense remains the same in any case. For the text, as given in chapter v, or in chapter xix with the words “and shall marry another” omitted, yet carries the liberty to do so, see text given above, pp. 72, 73. Divorce, as understood by the Jews, meant divorce _a vinculo_, i.e. divorce with liberty of remarriage. Is any sane man prepared to say that divorce, in the sense of separation of a wife from bed and board, without liberty of remarriage, is only permissible to a Christian when the wife has been adulterous? I do not think then that the obvious force of the passages in St. Matthew can be dissolved. 2. On the other hand, admitting all that can be said as to the difficulty, which is due to the historical relation of Church and State in England, of saying what is Church law pure and simple, it does seem to me that the Western law of divorce, as distinct from the Eastern, was accepted by the English Church and not only never repudiated, but at least assumed to be permanent in the Post-Reformation Canons. What has happened since then is (1) that the opinion of a great number of the best English divines and commentators on St. Matthew has been expressed in favour of allowing the remarriage of the “innocent party” after a divorce for adultery; (2) that the Lambeth Conference of 1888 allowed such remarriage; (3) that statute law in England has recently allowed the remarriage of both innocent and guilty party.