1 Firft double, where both the parties are married, and about which there can be no doubt. Secondly, where one only is married; because there exifts the natural baseness and turpitude of the thing, and a violation of conjugal faith. Thirdly, where the woman only was efpoufed, and not actually married, as a modern would express himself: here we see at one view, what constitutes marriage in the fight of GOD" plighted faith;" a defection from which, by either party, muft, in the reafon and nature of things, be adulterous. If Scripture be confidered in a liberal and confiftent way, the violation of the marriage-obligation must be equally criminal in the man as the woman, because equally a direct violation of the command -they fhall be one flesh; but if either or both of them have criminal conversation with another, they ceafe to be fo, become adulterers, and their marriage is virtually diffolved. The calling the man, who married, has carnal commerce with an unmarried woman, only a fornicator; and the fingle man, an adulterer, who is in this predicament with a married woman, is a distinction which a plain man cannot fee the reason of Some of the Fathers were led away with this felf contradictory idea, without being able to affign any one reafon :-Eàv áp zvratné Ἐὰν ἀνήρ γυναικί συνοικῶν, ἐπειδὰν μή ἀρεσθείς τῷ γάμω εἰς πορνείαν ἐμπέση, πόρνον κρίνομεν τὸν τοιῦτον.ον μέντοι ἔχομεν κανόνα τῷ τῆς μοιχείας αυτόν ὑπαγαγειν ἐγκλήματι, ἐάν εἰς ἐλευθέραν γάμον ἡ ἁμαρτία.—ὁ μέντοι πορνεύσας ἐκ ἀποκλεισθήσεται τῆς πρός τὴν γυναῖκα αυτό συνοικήσεως· ὥσε ἡ μέν γυνὴ ἐπανιόντα ἀπό πορνείας τον ἄνδρα αυτῆς παραδέξεται, ὁ δὲ ἀνὴρ τὴν μιανθεῖσαν τῶν οἴκων αυτῷ ἀποπέμψει, και τούτων δέ ὁ λόγος - ράδιος ἡ δί συνήθεια οὕτω κεκράτηκε. -BASIL. CAN. 21*. "If a husband cohabiting with a wife, af"terwards not pleased with marriage, should fall into fornication, we judge fuch an "one a fornicator. We have not indeed any canon to bring him under an accufation "of adultery, if the fin fhould be with a કંડ woman free from marriage ;-nor indeed "fhall he that committeth fornication, be "excluded from cohabitation with his wife "fo that the wife fhall receive the man re"turning from fornication to herself, but "the man fhall fend away from his houfe a "defiled wife. The reason of these things "is not eafy to conceive, but thus hath the *The Canons of Bafil are now owned only by the Eaftern Church. " custom « custom prevailed." Here is no reason affigned for this moft unaccountable dif tinction, nor can any be thought of, but the prevalence of cuftom. If it had been fcriptural, it would have been eafy to have brought proof from the facred Volumes. In fhort, it is a diftinction founded on those nar row ideas which characterize uncivilized and prejudiced minds. For if you reason a priori---from the natural bafenefs and turpitude of the thing, and violation of facred obligations, no difference can occur; nor indeed a pofteriori, except in fome very few local inconveniences. That there was fome material diftinction under the Mofaic difpenfation, may be admitted on rational grounds. It was neceffary in the economy of the redemption, that the genealogy, parentage, place of birth, &c. of our Saviour, fhould be moft certainly afcertained; now this could not be done without the most rigorous laws against Adultery, as I have observed before, and particularly against the woman. But as this great reafon has ceased, all diftinctions should ceafe, and alfo the magnitude of the crime in a civil light IT It is fuggefted, that the only means of getting rid of the crime of adultery, is to punish it with death. In order to shew the folly of this notion, I only wish for a moment to call the attention of my readers to the History of Ceylon. Adultery is faid to be fo frequent at Ceylon, that there is not a woman but what practices it, notwithstanding their laws punish it with death. Bibl. Univ. tom. 23. P. 237. Among the antients it was variously punished. In most ages and nations, punishments have been inflicted for the commiffion of this crime, which fhews, that though they differ in the quantity of the punishment, yet they all agree that it really deserves fome; and hence we may conclude from this general fuffrage of mankind, that it is an offence against reason, and inconvenient to society. Of these punishments, fome were capital, others cruel, others flight pecuniary mulcts, fome whipping, others cutting off noses, &c. In the great Commonwealth of Rome we find it vary in different ages: Justinian mitigated the Julian law in favour of the female fex, by changing banishment into whipping, whipping, and shutting up in a convent two years, and for life, if the husband did not take his wife back in that time; in regard to the men, he made no alteration that I have heard of. But from the wisdom of antiquity, little in this cafe is to be collected worth our attention: if there was much, it would not be useless to recite the different punishments of the antients, with their caufes and effects. I fhall only beg my reader's patience, on the subject of antient wisdom, while I say a few words more about that difcerning and virtuous people, the RoUnder the Roman laws, the wifeft which antiquity boafts, adultery was a private injury, and might be avenged as fuch by the injured party in various ways: but where the husband made a trade of his wife's infamy, or, having feen her shame with his own eyes, patiently fuffered the affront: then adultery became a crime of public concern; and the Julian Law provided a punishment for such husbands as well as for their wives. Among fome the women only are punishable for adultery, as the Japanese; among others only the men, and severely mans. too, |