the liberty of Divorce by mutual consent; and things remained in this state for nearly three hundred and forty years, about the end of the ninth century, in the reign of Leo the philosopher.

This Emperor made a collection of laws, which he termed Basilica, from which he excluded the edicts of Justin. One of his permissions of Divorce was for madness that had lasted three years.

This is about the period at which we are naturally conducted to the fourth division of this Essay.

SECTION IV.

WE proceed now to consider some of the laws and customs of various countries subsequently to the period of which we have last treated.

We speak, as before, of Adultery first.

The age of which we have now to treat, continued to insist, as far as the influence of the Church extended, that the matrimonial offence should be visited with rigour; and accordingly the Canonists marked their opinion of conjugal fidelity by severe proscriptions of this violation of it. One of the Canons has this passage: Let adulterers be stoned, that they may cease to increase who will not cease to be defiled."

66

L 2

Sometimes, as the punishment of this crime, Divorce has been rendered compulsory on the partner of the offender. The Council of Eliberis in Spain threatened with excommunication the husband who tolerated an adulterous wife. The Council of Neocasarea, in 314, decreed, that, if the wife of a laic were convicted of Adultery, the man could not be admitted into the ministry; and, if it happened after ordination, he was to divorce her; and if he did not, he could not retain his ministerial function. The Council of Nantz also condemned to a seven years' penance the husband who became reconciled to his wife; and Pope Sixtus Quintus, not content with the death of the offenders, ordained that such husbands as did not make public complaint of the infidelity of their wives should be liable to capital punishment also. But these severities ill accord with the lax morals of the priesthood at that time, and the conduct of the ecclesiastics was at utter variance with the Canons of the Church.

With regard to Divorce; the laws of the western nations have been far from uniform. Some have been extremely strict, and others altogether as relaxed. They have varied greatly also according to times

and circumstances, till at last, the Council of Trent, already noticed, fixed all those that belonged to the Church of Rome, while others that have separated from it have framed laws and edicts as fancy led them. We have before noticed the Decretal Letters of the Popes, condemning as Adultery a second marriage. To this sentiment the Church of Rome, with certain exceptions in the opinions of some of her functionaries to be noticed presently, has since always adhered, and never allowed of marriages, contracted after Divorce, while both parties remained alive. And ever since the eighth century, the Gallican Church has concurred with them upon this point. Pope Gregory II. when writing to the Bishop of Utrecht had said, that if a woman was afflicted with any natural weakness or indisposition, her husband might marry another, but so as to be ready to assist his former wife. But Gratian observes, that this Decree runs counter to the Canons, and even to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles; and says, it was the opinion of the Latin Church, that the bond of matrimony remains firm, notwithstanding the most lawful Divorce.

The Council of Arles, (Concil Arelatensi,)

held at the command of Constantine, under Pope Silvester in the first year of his papacy, had long before forbidden the men who found their wives guilty of Adultery, to marry again while they were alive. The words were;

Is cujus uxor adulteravit, aliam illâ vivente non accipiat." But Sir H. Spelman has given them otherwise; "De his qui conjuges suas in Adulterio deprehendunt et iidem sunt adolescentes fideles et prohibentur nubere : placuit ut in quantum possit, concilium iis detur, ne, viventibus uxoribus suis licet Adulterio, alias accipiant." This seems to exchange counsel for absolute prohibition.

At the Council of Florence, the Latin Bishops inquired of the Greek Bishops, why they allowed of re-marriage? And, although no answer was given satisfactory to them, the two churches agreed to retain their own peculiar notions, the latter having been fruitlessly counselled to correct their abuse.

By the Council of Nantz,, marriage was declared to be dissolved by Adultery, and yet with a strange inconsistency, that has not unfrequently characterized the decrees of councils, a second marriage was not allowed.

But the Council of Trent, held in 1563, in a Canon which they drew up on this point,