commission of Adultery, or the wanton use of Divorce, is a question that merits some attention.

It is, however, certain, that Divorces could not have been frequent among the ancient Jews, and this from two or three provisions of their law. Deuteronomy xxi. 15, 16. xxii. 13, 19. By one of these, a man, accusing his wife of not being a maid, was obliged to bring the matter to a kind of judicial investigation, and if innocent, she could not be sent away all her days. The other preserved the first-born from being deprived of his inheritance, although he was the son of a wife not beloved. If Divorces, under the new regulation, had not been considerably restrained, these laws would have been of little use, as the Israelite would not, in the possession of such a liberty, live with a wife he hated, but would have immediately put her away.†

It has indeed been even supposed, from the cases of the Levite, mentioned in Judges

Deut. xxi. 15, 16. xxii. 13, 19.

† According to the expression in the Book of the Ecclesiasticus; "If she go not as thou wouldst have her, cut her off from thy flesh, write her a Bill of Divorce, and let her go." xxv. 26.

xix.* and of Samson, in the same book, xv. ↑ as well as that of David, in 2 Samuel, xx. 3. ; that the nuptial breach was not considered a sufficient ground of Divorce. But this is absurd enough. These cases prove nothing of the kind. Indeed, we have already remarked on the punishment with which the nuptial breach was visited, and the inapplicability of a provision for Divorce in such cases, except as opening a path of lenience and mercy, by which the injured party might be content with the remedial, and not seek the infliction of the penal consequences.

David's was the case of concubines, never regarded with the same strictness as that of a wife; and from the monarch's treatment of them, viz. by condemning them to perpetual confinement, and a sort of widowhood, we may infer how much more severely he would have visited this offence in a wife. The conduct of Samson is a proof of strong feeling and revival of affection, rather than of the state of the law on these matters, and that of the Levite is nearly similar. She was his wife, and had been guilty of Adultery; the circumstance of her fleeing from him, proves

her apprehension of some punishment, and probably, it was from a fear of her being made a public example, that his still existing regard prompted him to seek a reconciliation. The indignation, however, and thirst of revenge, which were felt, are sufficiently evident the Israelites were instigated to take up arms and almost to destroy the whole tribe of Benjamin, because they refused to give up the adulterers. The case of David and Michal is somewhat stronger : Michal was certainly given by Saul to Phaltiel, and it is said, this could not have been done, unless a Bill of Divorce had been given. But the arbitrary character of Saul is a much more obvious explanation of this; and we find, that after his death, David claimed her again.

It is tolerably certain, that we do not find any instances in the whole of the Old Testament, of Divorces, either on this or any other ground, except that mentioned as occurring after the captivity, when the Jews, at the instance of their leader, put away the strange or idolatrous wives whom they had married in Babylon.* This, however, was from considerations peculiar to the Jews alone, and was a remarkable instance of the resolute

* Ezra x. Nehemiah xiii. 23.

decision of this great reformer, in removing abuses and evils, with whatever painful sacrifices attended, and restoring all things to their pristine rigidness.

Afterwards, as we have remarked, a great corruption of manners of manners was introduced, in which the utmost laxity prevailed; so much as even to allow, on the most trivial occasions, the liberty of Divorce to the wife.

It has been matter of dispute, whether the Jewish law allowed the women this privilege · at all. But the only case, indicating an approach to the grant of this freedom to her, was that of the virgin, betrothed by her parents during her minority, who might refuse to ratify the contract, when she attained her age, on the sole ground of dislike. But this was no liberty of Divorce; as no marriage had been solemnized.*

Josephus was of opinion, that Divorce was

* Selden gives the form of this Bill, which he terms libellus renunciationis. Lightfoot calls it, letters of forsaking, or, a Bill of Dismission. N. recusavit seu renunciavit coram nobis, M. ad hunc modum verba faciens. Mater mea aut frater meus errare me fecit et decepit me et desponsavit me. Nunc vero animi mei sententiam coram vobis aperio; illum mihi non placere neque ego cum illo mansuram. Et scripsimus hoc et subsignavimus et secundum jus ejus sic habetur.

far from being permitted to women; so that, if a husband even forsook his wife, she had not the power of re-marriage, till she had obtained from him a Bill of Divorce. The cases mentioned three pages back, do not evidence this privilege as belonging to the women. St. Ambrose imagined, that the Levite's wife had actually divorced him, "remisit claves." But the most common opinion is, that she only forsook him on occasion of domestic jars; and it is certain that she did not marry another; but when her husband claimed her again, her father did not deny his right.

Josephus records the first case of a wife who took upon her to repudiate her husband.* It was of a woman named Salome, the daughter of Herod, who gave a Bill of Divorcement to her husband Costobarus, Governor of Idumea; but, he says, it was only permitted to the men so to do; and this usurpation of his power, as he terms it, was afterwards imitated by many.

Among the eastern nations, the female sex has always had but little authority. The wife is regarded as little more than a necessary possession, and no regard is paid to them in the enacting of laws, or in public

*Antiquities, lib. xv. cap. 7.