ADULTERY is a criminal connection between persons who are engaged to keep themselves wholly to others ; and in this it differs from, and exceeds the guilt of, fornication, which is the same intercourse between unmarried persons. Fornication may be, in some sense, covered by a subsequent marriage of the parties ; but adultery cannot be so healed ; and hence it is used by God to signify the departing of his own people (that is, of those who were under engagements to him) from his worship to that of other gods, to associate with strangers. — Hence God com pares himself to a husband jealous of his honor ; and hence the adoption of vile opinions and practices is compared to the worst kind of prostitution. It is an argument ad hominem, not merely to the Jews, but to human nature at large, against the flagitious wickedness of forsaking God and his worship for false gods.

By the law of Moses, adultery was punished with death, both in the man and the woman who were guilty of it, (Lev. xx. 10.) and a most extraordinary ordeal was prescribed for the trial of a woman whose husband suspected her of this crime. After having been duly admonished in private, to induce her to confess her infidelity, she was brought before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, where various expedients, of a very solemn and imposing nature, were resorted to for the same purpose. If she still maintained her innocence of the charge, and her husband continued to press it, she was then compelled to drink the waters of jealousy, as prescribed in Numb. v. 14, seq.

This mode of trial or proof, which is described by- Moses in so exact and circumstantial a manner, is one of the most extraordinary things that can be imagined, and could not be practiced without a constant and perpetual miracle. It cannot be doubted, but that the wiser men of the nation must have dis approved of it, and that Moses allowed it to the Jews only because of the hardness of their hearts; having probably been used to see such kinds of trials among the Egyptians, or other nations, and fearing worse, or greater violence, if this had not been permitted.

It is worthy of notice, that if a husband loved his wife too well to part with her on suspicion, or if a woman loved her husband so well as to risk this exposure, to satisfy him, then the rite might take place ; but if either did not choose to hazard this experiment, the way of divorce was open, was much easier, much less hazardous, more private, more honorable, and perhaps more satisfactory.

Michaelis has well remarked, on this ceremony, that to have given so accurate a definition of the punishment that God intended to inflict, and still more, one that consisted of such a rare disease, would have been a step of incomprehensible boldness in a legislator, who pretended to have a divine mission, if he was not, with the most assured conviction, conscious of its reality. If in any case the oath of purgation had been taken, and the accused remained unaffected by the punishment, and yet afterwards had been legally convicted of the crime, all the world would have noticed the fraud of the pretended prophet, and looked upon his religion and laws as mere falsehood. Even the adulteress her self, who at first trembled at taking such on oath, would, in the event of not experiencing the threatened punishment, soon look upon religion as an imposture, and, in process of time, become impudent enough to avow her crimes publicly, and to state particulars, merely with a view to prostitute religion, and bring it into disgrace. At any rate, she would be very apt, in private, with her paramours, to make merty at the expense of Moses, and his divine laws, and thus a contempt of religion would spread more and more widely every day.

The Jews, having surprised a woman in adultery, brought her to our Savior, (John viii. 3.) and asked him what they should do with her, Moses having ordered women guilty of this crime to be stoned. This they said, tempting him, to find accusation against him. Jesus, stooping down, as though he heard them not, wrote with his finger on the ground, and then, somewhat raising himself, he said, " Let him who is without sin cast the first stone ;" and, stooping again, resumed his writing on the ground, seeming to take no notice of those around him, but leaving them to the operations of their own reflections and consciences. Her accusers, self-convicted, retired one after another, beginning with the eldest. Jesus, raising himself up, and seeing himself left alone with the woman, said, " Woman, where are thy accusers ? Has no one condemned thee?" She said, " No, Lord." Jesus answered her, " Neither do I (now) condemn thee ; go, and sin no more."

From this narrative, many have supposed, that the woman's accusers were themselves guilty of the crime which they alleged against her ; and as it was not just to receive the accusations of those who are guilty of the evil of which they accuse others, our Lord dismissed them with the most obvious propriety. But it seems enough to suppose, that the con sciences of these witnesses accused them of such crimes as restrained their hands from punishing the adulteress, who, perhaps, was guilty, in this instance, of a less enormous sin than they were conscious of, though of another kind. It may be, too, that their malevolent design to entrap our Lord, was appealed to by him, and was no slight cause of their confusion, if they wished to found a charge which might affect his life. Their intended murder was worse than the woman's adultery ; especially if, as there is reason to believe, the woman had suffered some violence.

Selden and Fagius consider this case as that sup posed by Moses in Deut. xxii. 23 : " If a damsel, a virgin, be betrothed to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her, then ye shall bring them both unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die ; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife." The genuineness of this narrative has been much disputed, in consequence of its having been omitted in many ancient MSS., and being much varied, in its position, in others. The arguments in its favor, however, are generally admitted to preponderate. It is found in the greater part of the MSS. extant, of all the recensions or families ; and Tatian and Ammonius (A. D. 172, and 220) inserted it in their Harmonies. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions, (lib. ii. cap. 24.) and the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, have it. Jerome, Justin, Ambrose, and the Latin fathers received it, though they were not unacquainted with the differences among the Greek copies. Justin conjectures, that some Christian of weak judgment expunged it, lest our Savior should be thought to authorize the crime of adultery by for giving it so easily. Many Syriac manuscript of good antiquity, read it ; and it is found in all printed copies, Greek and Latin. Griesbach and Knapp print the passage between [ ] as dubious ; yet, on the whole, admit it. For a review of all the arguments on both sides, see Kuinoel, Comm. in loc.