the Eastern and Greek Churches, sanctioned, as we contend, by the Mosaic law, by the Saviour, the Apostles, and even the early Fathers of the Latin Church; and that of the Church of Rome, traced up in the first instance to the scrupulous notions of Hermas, and afterwards kept alive by the rigid affectation of austerity, imposed by monastic and ecclesiastical discipline.

It would be endless to enumerate all the variations of sentiment expressed by the different Fathers and Representatives of the Churches. Calmet has stated some of them in his Antiquities with minute detail. He particularly notices Lactantius and Tertullian, who both maintain that marriage is rendered null and void by Divorce; the latter observing it, as his conviction, that the Son of God had limited the separation to Adultery, as its exclusive cause. Lactantius has also some admirable remarks on the equality of the condition and privilege of the wife with that of the husband. He considers the Apostle Paul to have imbibed thoroughly the spirit of equity displayed by his Divine Master, in annihilating all invidious distinctions in the relative privileges of the two sexes; or, in the words of an elegant writer: "Fidèle interprète de la pensée de son Divin Maître, il ne se con

tente pas de donner au mari un droit sur le corps de son femme; il donne le meme droit à la femme à son tour sur le corps de son mari; etablissant ainsi une egalité de droits entre deux personnes qui font qu'un seul corps;" and then he adds ; "un mari doit par son exemple apprendre à sa femme la chastité qu'il a droit déxiger d'elle." But even Lactantius and Tertullian differ on parts of this subject. Tertullian thought it unlawful for divorced persons to marry again,* Lactantius did not.

Just as is the comment of this Father on the reciprocity of rights of the wife and the husband, yet it has not universally followed, that they have been placed on the same footing. St. Basil, in one of his canonical epistles, speaks of the laws as strict against the adulterous woman; yet adds, that custom forbids the woman to leave an adulterous husband; and the Greek commentators on the apostolical canons, say the same thing. There are instances to the contrary, however, in the

There appears a variation in the statement of Tertullian's opinion on this matter; but perhaps it may be reconciled, by supposing him to allude, in the first instance, to Divorce obtained for Adultery as its justifiable cause; in the latter for less serious reasons, and such Divorces he did not consider sanctioned by Christ.

Western Church; two cases are mentioned as having happened, by Justin Martyr, (in his Apology, written within fifty years after St. John died,) and St. Jerome, showing, that the women sometimes adopted this practice. The one was of a Christian woman, whose husband's vicious course of life at last compelled her, notwithstanding the intreaties of her relations and friends, fearful, perhaps, of this innovation on established usage, to send him a Bill of Divorcement, and to leave him; the other case was that of the celebrated Fabiola, who divorced her husband and married again. The man was a complete profligate; and Justin, in citing the case, commends it, saying, the measure was taken " όπως μη κοινωνος των αδικημάτων και ασεβηματων γενηται, μενουσα εν τη συζυγια και ομοδίαιτος και quoixoitos vivoμevy:" but St. Jerome, in stating his case, mentions the second marriage to have been contrary to the rules of the Church, and that penance was done for it afterwards. This is difficult to reconcile with some observations of St. Ambrose, who quotes several Councils, particularly of the early Gallican Church, wherein this liberty of remarriage appeared to be countenanced. That Father has some spirited remarks addressed to the men of his age, in deprecation of the

frequent use of this liberty of putting away their wives.

"To leave one's wife, except for Adultery, is not only to transgress the precept of Christ, but to destroy the work of God. Can you be so hard hearted as to commit your children to a step-mother, and that in their mother's life time? Suppose the wife does not marry another, how can you dislike a person who continues faithful to you, although you act unworthily to her? And if she does marry, does not the blame of her being an adulteress fall upon you, since, by your unjust dealing, you compel her thus to act?"*

The Apostolical Canons contain an express prohibition of a second marriage after Divorce. The Popes Siricius, Innocent, Leo, Stephen, and Zachary, in their Decretal Letters, strenuously condemn such marriages, and give them the name of Adultery.

But we must not pursue this part of the history at present, it more properly belongs to the next head of the Essay; and, under this, there yet remain to be noticed the Enactments of the Christian Emperors, to be col

Amb. in Luc. 1. 8.

lected from the Institutes, the Digests, and the miscellaneous Decrees.

By the Institutes, we find the definition of the crime much more restricted than that which is given by the Fathers. The latter is that which has been given of it throughout the Essay. The Institutes, however, limit the crime to the married woman. The terms are "Adulteria est alieni thori violatio, sive coitus cum alienâ uxore factus."

*

66

Distinguishing it from the crime stuprum, Quod cum virgine, vel viduâ fit," by saying, "Jure civili, Adulterium cum nuptâ tantum committitur.” But by the canon law, Vinnius adds, it is otherwise; "Jure autem canonico committi intelligitur, sive solutus cum conjugatâ, sive conjugatus cum solutâ, aut conjugatus cum conjugatâ." These widely differing opinions are attempted to be each supported by reference to the sacred writers. The Institute states, that, "Adulteri dicuntur alienarum nuptiarum temeratores;" and that this definition, "a sacrâ scripturâ veteris Testamenti non abhorret;" referring to Levit. xx. 10.; Deut. xxii. 22.; and Gen. xxiii. While the Canonists embrace the more extended interpretation of the crime; (hanc sententiam omnes fere Theologi

* Vid. Vinnii Com. Instit. Justin. Lib. iv. tit. 18. p. 903.