Scripture does not forbid" the innocent man "to marry a second wife, nor does it denounce him excluded from the Church or eternal life" (Hær. lix., 4. Quoted by Bingham xxii., ii., 12).

(ix.) S. BASIL (A.D. 370-378). In the Canonical Letters of this great Bishop to Amphilochius we have plain evidence of the growing corruption of Evangelical Law by evil custom and the laxity of imperial law. In Canon 9 he says that custom is at variance with the word of the Lord which puts husband and wife on an equality in this matter. He seems throughout to be laying down, not what the Divine Law ordains, but what custom had sanctioned; with which, though he might tolerate or even acquiesce in it, he can hardly be thought to agree, since he says expressly that the Lord's rule and custom are not at one. "Domini dictum ... ex æquo et viris et mulieribus convenit. consuetudo autem non ita habet." Then, explaining the "Consuetudo," he says that a husband may, perhaps ought to, depart from an adulterous wife, but that the wife may not put away the sinning husband. If she does so, and takes another husband, she is an adulteress. But if the repudiated husband takes another woman

"Est dignus venia [ovyyvworós kor] et quæ ei cohabitat, non ideo condemnatur [οὐ κατακρίνεται]. "" "Consuetudo etiam adulterantes viros et in fornicationibus versantes jubet a mulieribus retineri. Quare, quæ cum viro dimisso cohabitat nescio an possit adultera appellari." [!]

This, indeed, turns things upside down. The innocent wife is an adulteress if she "re-marries"; the guilty husband is "pardonable," and his partner in sin "not to be condemned" if he takes another [pseudo] wife. Bishop and "Saint " as Basil was, one really can hardly have patience with him and his "custom."

I must say, too, with all deference to Dr. Pusey, that in his Note he scarcely states the case accurately. He says, "S. Basil thinks the man pardonable, and the second wife not to be condemned; but that the woman is prohibited by the custom of the Church." Johnson's résumé is, I believe, more just. "Custom requires women to retain their husbands, though they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take another; and though he were deserted for fornication, yet S. Basil will not be positive that the other woman who afterwards takes him is guilty of adultery; but the wife is not allowed this liberty" (Vade Mecum, Vol. ii., pp. 230, 231, 3rd ed., 1723).

Again, in Canon 21 S. Basil declares that a married man sinning with an unmarried woman is not reckoned an adulterer.

"Eum fornicatorem judicamus

Canonem tamen non habemus, qui eum adulterii crimini subjiciat, si in solutam a matrimonio peccatum commissum sit."

Such a husband may continue to cohabit with his wife, if she will receive him.

"Vir autem eam quæ polluta est a suis ædibus amandabit."

Well may the perplexed Saint add,—

"Atque istorum quidem ratio minime est facilis. Consuetudo autem sic invaluit" (Balsamon, pp. 943, 944, 955; Ed. Paris, 1620).

We cannot have S. Basil's own judgment in these passages. Their chief value is in showing how soon evil custom adulterated Christian truth. And I cannot refrain from here hazarding the conjecture that it was partly

in consequence of this evil influence of "custom" and imperial law that the Church, half despairing of retaining any adequate hold on the passions of the laity, turned her attention mainly to the preservation of the morals of the clergy, and gradually increased the strictness of her rules as to their marriages, till she sadly overshot the mark on the other side to her own hurt. S. Basil's own judgment we must seek elsewhere. We find it, I think, in his “ Moralia."

"Quod vir ab uxore aut uxor a viro non debent separari, nisi alter deprehendatur in adulterio, aut pietatis sit impedimento."

For Scripture proof he gives “S. Matt. v. 31, 32; St. Luke xiv. 26 ; S. Matt. xix. 9; 1 Cor. vii. Io, II." Then

"Quod non licet viro, uxore dimissa, aliam ducere, neque fas est repudiatam a marito ab alio duci uxorem."

For Scripture proof, "S. Matt. xix. 9" (Moralia, Regula Ixxiii., CC. I, 2). S. Basil allows separation for certain causes, but after separation no "re-marriage."

(x.) THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (of uncertain, various, but very early dates) have an obscure passage which Dr. Pusey refers to as follows:-They "speak of one who has lost her husband by death or any other occasion [διὰ τελευτῆς ἢ δι ̓ ἀφορμῆς TIVOS ETέgas] having the gift of widowhood, and declares her blest if she abide by herself, implying plainly that if she had not the gift she might marry." For my own part I do not well understand the passage, but am not quite satisfied with this explanation. If by "any other occasion," only "divorce for adultery" had been meant, it would surely have been easier to say so. The words imply more than one such · occasion," and I cannot see what warrant we have for so rigid a limitation. Yet, except for one occasion," our Lord's express words most indubitably forbid all divorce, and à fortiori all “ re-marriage." These words of the Constitution, therefore, intimating a plurality of “occasions," point to some at least in which "re-marriage" must be prohibited by the Lord. We cannot prove that they point to even one in which it would be lawful. But, in fact, I am not at all convinced that they allow of it in any. Dr. Pusey says, "If she had not the gift [of widowhood] she might marry." But does not the Constitution say distinctly that she has the gift, and that by the very fact of her position? It does not say, "if she has the gift of continence,” but μείνη ἐφ ̓ ἑαυτῆς, δῶρον ἔχουσα χηρείας, μακαρία Uptonσrral. She has the gift of widowhood already (actual or virtual widowhood, which latter might arise from many "other occasions" besides death or divorce); if she abide in it she shall be blessed. The estate of "widowhood" is regarded as being in itself a dapov. Of those who have not that gift it says nothing, nor of those who, having it, do not "abide in it." The actual possession is assumed. I do not see, speaking with diffidence, that we can make more of this than a general discountenancing of second marriages and sensual sin.

(xi.) S. AMBROSE (A.D. 374-397), in his exposition of S. Luke xix. 18, though he seems to have immediately in view divorces for other causes than the one expressly allowed, and makes no mention of that exception, still writes as if every marriage made "by God" were indissoluble.

"Quidam putant omne conjugium a Deo esse, maxime quia scriptum est, Quæ Deus conjunxit homo non separet.' Ergo si omne conjugium a Deo est, omne conjugium non licet solvi. Et quomodo Apostolus dixit,

Quod si infidelis discedit, discedat'? In quo et mirabiliter noluit apud
Christianos causam residere divortii, et ostendit non a Deo omne conjugium,
neque enim Christianæ gentilibus Dei judicio copulantur'
lib. viii., s. 2).

(In Luc.

(xii.) HILARY, THE DEACON, alias AMBROSIASTER (A.D. 355-384 about) expressly denies the liberty of “re-marriage” to the innocent wife, but grants it to the husband. The Council of Aix (A.D. 862) relied much on the authority of this writer, whom they took to be S. Ambrose, although, as already mentioned, they eventually treated the case before them as one of nullity of marriage.

The Council thus quoted this author :—

"Hinc quoque Sancti Ambrosii in expositione Epistolæ Beati Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, capite xxxiii. Hos alloquitur qui matrimonio juncti sunt ore Dominico. Uxorem a viro non discedere; quod si discesserit, manere innuptam.' Hoc Apostoli consilium est, ut si discesserit propter malam conversationem viri jam innupta maneat

Non enim permittitur. 10,11

mulieri ut nubat si virum suum causa fornicationis dimiserit, aut apostasiæ, aut quia inferior non omnino hac lege utitur qua potior. Si tamen apostatet vir, aut nec alteri potest nubere mulier, nec reverti ad illum. 'Et virum uxorem non dimittere.' Subauditur autem excepta causa fornicationis. Et ideo non subjecit, sicut de muliere, dicens, Quod si disir cesserit, manere sic; quia viro licet ducere uxorem, si dimiserit uxorem peccantem. Non enim ea lege constringitur vir, sicut mulier. Caput enim mulieris vir est" (Hard. V., cols. 540-1).

In this passage the wife is forbidden to "re-marry if she departs from her husband for his apostacy or for monstrous sin, nor is she allowed to return to him. Dr. Pusey, however, says, "Ambrosiaster (in I Cor. vii. 15) allows re-marriage when the heathen party departed, as being a sin against the Author of Marriage, but he thinks that in the case of adultery 1 Cor. vii. 11 permits it to the man only. Bingham quotes the passage, which contains these words:

"Si infidelis discesserit liberum habebit arbitrium, si voluerit, nubere Legis suæ viro . . . Non est peccatum ei qui dimittitur propter Deum si alii se junxerit. Contumelia enim Creatoris solvit jus matrimonii” (Bingh., B. xxii., c. ii., s. 12).

Perhaps Hilary distinguished between a heathen and an apostate husband, or between the wife's voluntary departure and that of the husband.

(xiii.) S. JEROME (A.D. 378-420) in one place says that in the excepted case the wife may be dismissed, but that the husband must not re-marry," giving as his reason, not the absolute indissolubility of the union, but the danger of false accusation of the innocent for private ends. 'Quia potest accidere, ut aliquis calumniam faceret innocenti, et ob secundam copulam nuptiarum veteri crimen impingeret, sic priorem dimittere jubetur uxorem, ut secundam, prima vivente, non habeat. Necnon, quia poterat evenire ut juxta eandem legem uxor quoque marito daret repudium, eadem cautela præcipitur ne secundam accipiat virum " (Comment. in S. Matt. xix. 9).

Elsewhere he speaks more strongly :—

...

"Omnes igitur causationes Apostolus amputans apertissime definivit vivente viro adulteram esse mulierem si alteri nupserit Quamdiu vivit vir, licet adulter sit, licet. licet flagitiis omnibus coopertus, et ab uxore propter hæc scelera derelictus, maritus ejus reputatur, cui alterum

virum accipere non licet" (On Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 39. Ep. lv., Amandum, s. 3).

ad

The case mentioned by him (De Morte Fabiol.) of the woman who voluntarily did public penance at Rome after the death of one whom she had "married" after divorce from a guilty husband, seems well summed up by Bingham. "The Church did not impose this penance on her while her husband was living, nor yet when he was dead, but she chose it of her own accord and submitted to it without compulsion. Had there been any general law then in the Church, either to dissolve such marriages or bring the parties to public penance, no doubt the Bishop of Rome would have called upon them both while the husband was living to have complied with the rule and discipline of the Church. But this not being done seems to be an argument that then it was not the custom of the Roman Church to inflict any public censure upon such as married again after lawful divorce, but only to dissuade men and women from such marriages till the former husband or wife were dead, or else, if they did engage in them, to exhort them to repent of such engagements as crimes prohibited by the Apostle (Bing., B. xxii., c. ii., s. 12). Which last clause sufficiently explains the fact that the woman was allowed to do public penance, which would hardly have been the case had not her action been considered criminal.

(xiv.) S. AUGUSTINE (A.D. 388-430). Of him Dr. Pusey says-— "S. Augustine dissuades from it, but thinks it a venial error.” Canon Meyrick says " S. Augustine speaks with hesitation." Bingham says— "S. Austin was fully persuaded in his own mind that such marriages after divorce were unlawful." He "thought men were forbidden to marry again after divorce whilst the wife was living; but [he] did not think this so clearly revealed as to make it a high crime and just matter of excommunication like other plain cases of adultery" (B. xxii., c. ii., S. 12.) Nevertheless he both thought it and called it adultery, though of a less grave kind. He writes::

'Quisquis etiam uxorem adulterio deprehensam dimiserit, et aliam duxerit, non videtur æquandus eis qui, excepta causa adulterii, dimittunt et ducunt. Et in ipsis divinis sententiis ita obscurum est, utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adulteram licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxerit, ut, quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur." (De Fide et Oper., c. xix.

More decidedly elsewhere :—

"Propter quodlibet tamen fornicationis genus, sive carnis, sive spiritus, ubi et infidelitas intelligitur, et dimisso viro non licet alteri nubere, et dimissa uxore non licet alteram ducere; quoniam Dominus nulla exceptione facta dicit 'Si uxor dimiserit virum suum et alii nupserit mochatur. Et omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alterau mochatur.' (De Adult. Conj., lib. i., c. xxv.)

Again :

'Usque adeo fœdus illud initum nuptiale cujusdam Sacramenti res est, ut nec ipsa separatione irritum fiat, quandoquidem, vivente viro a quo relicta est, mochatur si alteri nupserit, et ille hujus mali causa est qui reliquit. Miror autem si quemadmodum licet dimittere adulteram uxorem, ita liceat ea dimissa alteram ducere. Facit enim de hac re Sancta Scriptura difficilem nodum, dicente Apostolo ex præcepto Domini, 'mulierem a viro non debet discedere; quod si discesserit, manere innuptam aut viro suo reconciliari;' cum recedere utique et manere innupta, nisi ab adultero viro, non debeat quomodo autem viro possit esse

licentia ducendæ alterius si adulteram reliquerit, cum mulieri non sit nubendi alteri si adulterum reliquerit, non video."

Conjug., c. vii.)

Again :

(De Bono

"Si dixerimus Quicunque mulierem a marito præter causam fornicationis dimissam duxerit mœchatur, procul dubio verum dicimus: nec tamen ideo illum qui propter causam fornicationis dimissam duxerit ab hoc crimine absolvimus, sed utrosque moechos esse minime dubitamus; ita enim qui præter causam fornicationis uxorem dimiserit et alteram duxerit mochum pronuntiamus; nec ideo tamen eum qui propter causam fornicationis dimiserit et alteram duxerit ab hujus peccati labe defendimus. Ambos enim, licet alterum gravius, mochos tamen esse cognovimus. Proinde sic quicumque hoc fecerit, ut uxore sua dimissa alteram ducat, mochatur: sine dubio ibi sunt ambo, et qui præter et qui propter causam fornicationis dimittit uxorem. Hoc est enim quicunque dimiserit, hoc est omnis qui dimittit" (Dẹ Adult., Conj. Lib. i., c. 9).

The true reason of this is given in the following passage :—

...

"Licite, itaque, dimittitur conjux ob causam fornicationis, sed manet vinculum prioris, propter quod fit reus adulterii qui dimissam duxerit etiam ob causam fornicationis. Sicut enim, manente in se Sacramento regenerationis, excommunicatur cujusquam reus criminis, nec illo Sacramento caret, etiamsi nunquam reconcilietur Deo, ita, manente in se vinculo fœderis conjugalis, uxor dimittitur ob causam fornicationis, nec carebit illo vinculo etiamsi nunquam reconcilietur viro, carebit autem si mortuus fuerit vir ejus. Reus vero excommunicatus ideo nunquam carebit regenerationis Sacramento, etiam non reconciliatus, quoniam nunquam moritur Deus" (De Adult. Conj., lib. ii., chap. 4, 5).

Once more :

"... Dicit Apostolus, Viri, diligete uxores vestras, sicut et Christus dilexit ecclesiam', hujus proculdubio Sacramenti res est, ut mas et fœmina connubio copulati quamdiu vivunt inseparabiliter perseverent, nec liceat excepta causa fornicationis a conjuge conjugem dirimi. Hoc enim custoditur in Christo et Ecclesia, ut vivens cum vivente in æternum nullo divortio separetur Denique mortuo viro cum quo verum connubium fuit, fieri verum connubium potest cum quo prius adulterium fuit. Ita inter viventes manet quoddam vinculum conjugale quod nec separatio nec cum altero copulatio possit auferre. Manet autem ad noxam criminis, non ad vinculum fœderis; sicut apostatæ anima velut de conjugio Christi recedens etiam fide perdita Sacramentum fidei non amittit, quod lavacro regenerationis accepit; redderetur enim proculdubio redeunti si amississet abscedens. Habet autem hoc qui recesserit ad cumulum supplicii, non ad meritum præmii" (De Nuptiis, 1. i., c. 10).

(xv.) S. CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 386-407) is alleged by Meyrick as enforcing the prohibitory rule in "Hom. in Matt. xvii.," where he says:

"Qui dimittit,' inquit, 'uxorem suam facit eam mochari, et qui dimissam ducit moechatur.' Ille enim, et si alteram non duxerit, hoc ipso se criminis reum constituit, quod eam adulteram faciat; hic vero quod alienam ducat, machus et ipse fit. Ne mihi enim dicas, 'Ille ejecit,' nam ejecta adhuc manet ejicientis uxor."

But this refers to causeless divorce. S. Chrysostom proceeds :

"Relinquit ei unum repudii modum '(τpótov čva àQéσews) dicens, 'Excepta causa fornicationis' ... uno tantum modo nec alioquovis permittens illam repudiare (Hom. xvii. c. 4, in Matt. v., 27-33).