nudus," are to be wished for again and then, as to the early penances, they likewise are obsolete. Excommunication is now no longer dreaded. The fellowship of the church is no object of envy with the licentious; and as to the denial of the holy communion till the adulterer should reform, can it be thought of much terror to those, whatever ancient effect it had, who never yet regarded that ordinance as a spiritual consolation, or any thing else than an unmeaning and superstitious rite? The punishment, then, which his demoralizing habits render nugatory, as respecting his soul, (salutem animæ,) the adulterer ought to suffer in his person, and some species of corporal suffering, imprisonment, the mildest, at least, ought to be put in force against him. In the case of the abduction of a man's wife, public fine, and imprisonment for two years, are added to the recovery of private damages; and both the King and the husband may maintain the action. Surely the seduction of the woman is not such an extenuation of the crime as to justify the loss of any remedy but that which is open to a sufferer for the most trivial loss.

As to the punishment of the adulteress, more difficulty may perhaps be felt; but surely no affected amiable sympathy towards her

R

sex should screen one who has, by an act like this, torn from herself that quality, without which that sex would merit, and would receive no sympathy. The necessity for some legislative provision is strongly felt here. The denial of the liberty of re-marriage would do something, but a more severe measure is wanted. In the Catholic countries, convents hide the adulteress from the reproaches of the world. But we have none. By the old law of France, she was shorn, and took the veil for life; but, as an elegant writer observes, our only convent is our country, and the culprit is at large in it.

There was, however, another provision of the old ordinances of France, and which was common to the early laws of our own country, as noticed in the fourth section of the Essay, which may furnish a useful suggestion on this matter. The crime of the woman occasioned the forfeiture of her fortune to her husband.* And not only did our earlier English laws inflict the loss of the wife's dower and paraphernalia; but cases have occurred where the Adultery of the wife has been adjudged a sufficient cause of enmity for a donor or testator to have been considered to have

* Dict. de Droit. Civil.

revoked a legacy, or gift mortis causâ, in her favour.

ness.

This suggestion has been noticed by Paley in his " Moral Philosophy," with great acuteHe thinks such a law might be framed, directing the fortune of the offender to descend, as in the case of her natural death, reserving a certain limited portion of the produce as an annuity for her life, and suspending the reversion in the hands of the heir. Others think the husband, in all cases, should have the whole usufruct of the property to maintain his motherless children; but, if the necessity for such a provision could once be recognized, the minutiae of its adjustment would soon be settled; and, as a taste for expensive, as well as vicious pleasures, and a fondness for extravagance, are the customary accompaniments of the disposition to commit this crime, it appears that the tendency of such a law would be very beneficial in checking the urgency of the criminal suitor, as also the disposition of the heedless wife to listen to his arts. The crime is hateful enough. We have remarked already how it is viewed by God, and contended that it should be regarded in the same light by man. The observation is repeated in order to rebut the slanderous and gross misinterpretation of

the words of Jesus Christ towards one poor offender of this kind, which should not be unnoticed in an Essay on this subject. The incident of the Woman taken in Adultery is recorded in the eighth chapter of St. John's Gospel. As Christ told the woman, say they, "Neither do I condemn thee;" it must be considered that he either regarded her conduct as not criminal, or as considerably less so than we would characterize such conduct to be.

But whoever will carefully examine the narrative of the Evangelist, and notice the cold and stern reception which the Saviour gave to these accusers, who came tempting him, as usual hoping to lead him to commit himself to the Roman authority; the keen and pointed rebuke with which he dismissed them all, and then, adverting to the absence of all witnesses necessary to a legal and judicial conviction, asked, "Hath no man condemned thee?" will not be at a loss to understand the sense in which the term condemnation is here employed, nor confound his compassion for the offender with complacency at the crime. Condemnation of blame, reproof, censure, many had given her: yet she says, "No man, Lord:" and the Saviour replied, " Neither do I," judicially. Thou hast sinned in

this matter: in this I agree with thine accusers; but,' "Go; and sin no more.

• This view of the subject may find ample and interesting corroboration in the Hora Judaicæ of Lightfoot, who has gleaned more plentifully, perhaps, than any other writer, from the Rabbies and Masters of traditions.

In one part of his elaborate folio he remarks on the words, "Moses commanded, that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou?' as if to inquire of Christ whether the offender might not have the benefit of Divorce, and escape the penalty of death." In another part he remarks the mode of reply adopted by Christ, which he contends was strictly formed upon the favourite notions adhered to by them of the trial by bitter waters. "In that manner will be brought to trial the accusers first. Ye have brought this woman to me. I will govern myself according to the rule of trying by the waters of jealousy. You say, if the husband be guilty of the same crime, that trial loses all its effect, and the accused cannot be hurt. If the divine judgment proceeded in this manner, so will I. Are you, that accuseth this woman, wholly guiltless in the like kind of sin? Whosoever is, let him cast the first stone; but if you, yourselves, stand chargeable with the same crime, then your applauded tradition, the opinion of your nation, may determine this case, and acquit me from all blame, if I condemn not this woman when her accusers themselves are to be condemned.'"

The idea of judicial condemnation is supported by the supposition that these scribes and pharisees were some of the members of the Sanhedrim, the Jewish bench of judicature, who thus themselves convicted, could not judicially convict the woman.

"The office of the priest, when trying the suspected wife,