and in which their sacramental notions of the marriage tie are wrought to the highest point, anathamatized all those who held that matrimony was to be dissolved by Divorce, and that it was lawful to marry again. "Matrimonii perpetuum indissolubilemque nexum, primus humani generis parens, divini spiritûs instinctu, pronuntiavit cum dixit, hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne meâ quamobrem relinquit homo patrem suum et matrem, et adhærebit uxori suæ, et erunt duo in carne unâ.'" And then the inference drawn by the Council is expressed thus; "Si quis dixerit ecclesiam errare cum docuit et docet juxta evangelicam et apostolicam doctrinam, propter Adulterium alterius conjugum matrimonii vinculum non posse dissolvi, et utrumque, vel etiam innocentem qui causam Adulterio non dedit, non posse, altero conjuge vivente aliud matrimonium contrahere: mæcharique eum qui dimissâ adulterâ, aliam duxerit, et eam quæ dimisso adultero alium nupserit: anathema sit.*

But a curious circumstance occurred respecting this, of which, Cotelerius takes no notice. We have it from Soave. The Venetian ambassadors, who were present on this oc

* Cotelerius, Edit. Apostol. Fathers.

casion, represented, that as their Commonwealth was in possession of the Isles of Cyprus, Crete, Corcyra, Zante, and Cephalonia, which were all inhabited by Greeks, who had been used, for several ages, (according to the custom of the Greek Church before noticed,) to put away their wives in case of Adultery; it was hard and unjust to condemn those people in their absence, especially as they had not been called to the Council, and, therefore, they desired that the Canon should be so worded, as not to affect those persons.* For their satisfaction, therefore, and partly too upon the credit of Saint Ambrose, (whose sentiments have been previously noticed,) the case was thrown into a new shape. It no longer condemned those who affirmed this doctrine, but it only devoted to destruction all who held that the Church was wrong in teaching the contrary. Thus a sentence, which would have openly involved the whole Eastern Church in its malediction, fell in appearance only upon the Protestants, which it was the design of the Council to condemn,

* The language of the terrified remonstrants against this impending decision, is, "Li quali da antichissimo tempo costumano di ripudiar la moglie fornicaria, e pigliarne un' altra." They add too, that no Council ever told them they were wrong. Concil de Trento, lib. viii.

"was

rather than the practices of the Greek Church.* Still it remained sufficiently plain, how decidedly adverse the sentiments of the Romish were to those of the Greek Church, and more Eastern nations. And it was in this same Council of Trent, that that " enormous bridge of doctrine" (as Croke has termed it) reared, which, stretching with passage broad through the intermediate ages, and with Hermas at the one end of it, and Pope Pius IV. at the other, connected the primeval error of Christianity, with a corrupt hierarchy of the sixteenth century."

Still, however, there were some remarkable exceptions to the current of doctrine in the Romish Church, in the cases of Cajetan, Catherinus, Erasmus, and even some of the Cardinals. In a comment on the nineteenth chapter of Matthew, Cajetan saith, “Intelligo ex hâc Domini Jesu Christi lege licitum esse Christiano dimittere uxorem ob fornicationem carnalem ipsius uxoris, et posse aliam ducere.” And then he remarks his surprize at the opinions entertained by his Mother Church; "Non solum miror sed stupeo quod Christo clarè excipiente causam fornicationis, torrens doctorum non admittat illam mariti libertatem."

*Calmet Antiq. p. 217.

The Cardinal of Segutium, in his Summa Hostiensis, seems of the same opinion; he says, the judge who pronounces the sentence of Divorce, should give a written record of it, on the same principles which were noticed previously in the Bill of Jewish Divorce. "Debet judex sententiam Divortii partibus tradere in Scripturam publicam redactam, ne filiis susceptis ex secundo matrimonio, probatione deficiente, valeat præjudicium generari.

Cardinal Navarr also says, "Matrimonium contractum cum secundâ post sententiam Divortii, valet. †

But the most remarkable resistance to the tenets of his own church, is made by Sanchez the Jesuit, and one of the highest form; who, in an argument on this subject, confesses that,

66

ex ipsis Catholicis aliqui existimarunt omnium dissolvi matrimonium quoad vinculum, eo propter Adulterium alterius conjugis separato atque ita licere aliud matrimonium inire, priori conjuge superstite." And then referring to the opinions of others, to Sixtus Senensis, adopting the sentiment of Origen, asserentem sui temporis Episcopos permisisse alias nuptias uxoribus ob virorum Adul* Sum. Host. De Divort. lib. iii. n. 11.

Navar. lib. iv. Concil. 1. n. 3.

Sanch. de Matrim. Tom. iii. lib. 10. de Divort. Disp.

teriâ ab ipsis divertentibus." To St. Ambrose, Tertullian, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Catharinus, he adds, that this was also the judgment of the Greek Church, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists; and even of one of the Popes, (Zacharias the First ;) and, lastly, the Council of Worms, (Vermerias,) Maritus possit uxorem dimittere, et si voluerit aliam ducere, refertur."

66

The Catholic doctrine has, however, run in another direction, although it is remarkable, that, notwithstanding these notions of the indissolubility of the contract, the Pope, who, in other cases, was found to arrogate the power of trampling on the laws of both heaven and earth, readily enough granted Divorces to such as were able to pay for them, while (as it has been acutely remarked) the poor suitor could not gain so much as a hearing at the chair of him, who calls himself, servant of servants.

The ancient Franks had been accustomed to put away their wives by consent, and when married persons thus agreed to part, such Divorces were considered lawful. Of course, therefore, separations for serious causes were permitted.

Marculfus, who lived about the middle of the seventh century, has prescribed several forms of letters of this kind of Divorce; and