that the band of Marriage may be broke by reason of Adultery nevertheless 't is the Doctrine of Jesus Christ who formally declares in the Gospel That 't is only for Adultery that Marriage may be dissolv'd as well to the Bed as the Obligation I know St. Austin and some others have found difficulty in the explication of the Words of our Saviour and that they could not fully resolve to explain them in the manner I just now mention'd at least St. Austin confesses in several places of his Writings That the Question concerning the Dissolving of Marriages for cause of Adultery is very obscure and difficult and is what made him write on this matter things which would seem contradictory if one did not distinguish the times wherein he applied himself to write on this question For it is most certain in what he wrote before the 2d Council of Mileva which was held in the year of our Lord 416. he appear'd unresolv'd and undetermin'd finding great difficulties obstructions almost impassible and depths not easily to be fathomed those that will please to take the pains to see what he writes in the 3d Chapter of his Book against Adimentius in the 7th of the Book touching the Comfort of Marriage in the 8th and 25th Chapters of the 1st Book of Adulterous Marriages that is to say of Marriages dishonoured by Adultery and joyn to these Testimonies which are in the 6th Tome those others which are in the 4th to wit The 19th Chapter of the Book of Faith and Works the last Question of the Book of 83 Questions and the 16th Chapter of the first Book of the Sermon of our Lord on the Mount those I say which will take the pains to read all these places which I have instanc'd will agree to the irresolution and trouble St. Austin was in on the subject now spoke of and especially if they consider the sincere Confession which he makes in one of the places I have cited Having saith he Lib. 1. de Adult Conjug cap 25. Tom. 6. thus Treated and Examin'd these things according to my capacity I am not ignorant that the Question touching Marriages is very obscure and difficult and I do not dare to say that I have yet explained in this Work nor that I am able if you press me to resolve hereafter in any other all the difficulties which accompany it He confesses the same thing Lib. 2. Retract cap. 57. Tom. 1. although in terms a little different in recalling the Books wherein is found the Testimony which justifies what I have alledged of his doubtfulness and declares with his usual humility That he don't think to have given to this Matter all the clearness it requires After this Council of Mileva this Holy Doctor wrote several Treatises wherein he explains himself more fully than he had done in the others for instance In the 19th Chapter of the first Book of Retractaions he saith That 't is out of doubt that one may leave his Wife for the Fornication which is committed in Adultery In his 89th Letter to Hillarius Quest 4. He confesses That by the Laws of Jesus Christ Tom. 2. it is not permitted to leave one's Wife but for the cause of Adultery and that Jesus Christ forbid to put her away for any other Cause but for Adultery And in the 9th Treatise upon St. John It is permitted to put away the Wife for the cause of Adultery Tom. 9. because she has first refused to be a Wife in not keeping her vow of Wedlock to her Husband To judge of the mind of St. Austin by these latter Testimonies which are more formal and positive than the former it may be concluded That he believed having well examin'd the matter that the band of Marriage was broke by Adultery Nevertheless because that in the other writings he could not satisfy himself nor clear all their difficulties wherewith this question seem'd to be always incumbred I would not make use of His Authority for Establishing the Conformity of our Discipline with that of the Primitive Christians This Council of Mileva above-mention'd forbids in the 17th of its Canons which is the 102. in the African Code it forbids him that is repudiated by his Wife and to the Woman put off by the Husband to re-marry themselves to any one else and enjoyns them to live single or to be reconcil'd again threatning to put them into the number of Penitents if they disobey this Decree which the Fathers of the Synod pretend to be conformable to the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline But in the first place they do not declare whether they speak of a separation occasion'd by Adultery or by some other cause for the which Jesus Christ don't permit of Separation Secondly The Conduct of St. Austin who assisted at this Council makes me suppose that either the Fathers of Mileva spake of Divorces besides for the Cause of Adultery or at least if they regarded Divorces grounded upon Adultery St. Austin did not forbear Writing after the Convocation of this Assembly That 't is permitted to put away the Wife for the matter of Adultery Thirdly When the Council it self with some other Doctors should more fully explain themselves and that they should have formally condemn'd the second Marriage of those which had been put away for Adultery it would not from thence follow that I have not made appear that our Discipline does not suffer in this occasion only what the Ancient Christian Discipline of the Church suffered seeing I have proved it by the Canons of divers Councils by the Decrees of some Popes in their Synods and by the practice of all the Greek Church a practice which the Council of Trent dared not to condemn after the Remonstrances made by the Ambassador of Venice And yet farther It is what a famous Doctor of the Communion of Rome has fully justified without thinking of us nor the innocency of our Conduct on the point in Controversy in a Book which he published two or three years ago touching the power of Kings and Sovereigns over Marriages for in the 3d Part Art 1. Chap. 5. he hath at large represented to the Reader the Tradition of the Church on the matter of Marriages occasion'd by Adultery whereas I have contented my self to relate in my Work what is most definitive in the Tradition and least of all subject to Controversy and Contestation Whatever's the matter after so many explanations there is hope to believe That Men will not for the future cry so much against this Article of our Discipline which has given occasion to our Enemies to accuse us of favouring Vice and Libertinisme I could if it were needful mention other Cavils of some lesser Disputers against the Holiness of our Ecclesiastical Laws which they have spoke very injuriously of as if they were directly contrary to the Rules of the first Christians and as if those which made them had taken pleasure quite to forsake its use and
Consistory shall think fit Except those who shall have lived together during the time of their ignorance without contempt and slighting of the Ecclesiastical Order also those which shall have cohabited together when there was no Church setled at the place of their Habitations or in the Province All which shall only be cited to the Consistory to the end the Marriage may be Ratified and Blessed in the Church if the Consistory shall see it Expedient CONFORMITY St. Basil in his Third Canonical Epistle Can. 69. Tom. 7. pag. 33. had appointed something of this kind in these terms If a Reader has known his Sweetheart before Marriage he shall be suspended from his Office for a year at the Expiration whereof he shall do his Duty without being capable of advancement By this may be seen he would have decreed against Lay People which should have committed the like Offence the pains expressed in our Discipline The Frier Blastares which I have often cited especially on the XX. Article of this Chapter will Litt. G. c. 4. pag. 62. that the Punishment of Fornicators be given to those that have known each other before they have been lawfully Marryed Cardinal Borrome in the Second Council he caused to be held at Millan in the year 1569 Tom. 9. Conc. Dec. 27. pag. 500. Ibid. pag. 684. remits the Absolution of the Sin now treated of to the Bishop because 't is frequently committed and prescribes severe Pennance for those that are guilty of it which he repeats again in the Sixth Council Assembled at the same place Thirteen Years after the Second XXVI To prevent Inconveniences which arise by too long deferring Cellebration of Marriages the Parties and those in whose care they be shall be advertis'd not to delay the Cellebration of Maraiage above six Weeks if possible CONFORMITY It is an Establishment of Pollicie to prevent the inconveniencies conveniencies and ill consequencies as may happen in too long deferring the Solemnizing of Marriage And 't is with regard hereto that Cardinal Borrome prohibits in the place I but now cited I say he prohibits all manner of Familiarity and Commerce to contracted Persons XXVII Marriages shall be Register'd and carefully kept in the Church CONFORMITY This Rnle regards the Publick good therefore oftentimes recourse is had to Registers of Marriages which are kept in both Communions and the Copies taken many times serve to terminate great Law Suits The Council of Trent appointed in the year 1563 Session 24. chap. 1. of the Decree touching the Reformation of Marriage Tom. 9. Conc. pag. 412. it ordains Each Curate should have a Book wherein he should write the Names of the Marryed Folks and of the Witnesses with the Day and Place where the Marriage was contracted Ibid. p. 480 481 590. Cardinal Borrome renews this injunction in the First and Third of the Councils he held at Millan XXVIII Believers whose Wives and Husbands shall be convicted of Adultery shall be admonished to be reconciled to each other but if they will not the Liberty they have by the Word of God shall be declar'd to them Nevertheless should this happen to one that is imployed in the Church he may not reassume his Wife and exercise his Office CONFORMITY St. Tom. 6â— p. 358. Austin has made Two Books on Adulterous Marriages that is of Marriages wherein Adultery does intervene and in the Second of these Books chap. 6 8 9. he requires the same Conduct should be held towards the Party convicted of Adultery as is Established by our Discipline that is to say that the Innocent Party should continue with him that violated their Marriage Vow and he alleages for a Reason That being a Believer we ought to believe that she has been washed from her Sin by Baptisme or by Repentance Nevertheless this is but an Advice or Council which he gives without imposing any necessity to do so on the Party unconcern'd which is just the Rule prescribed by the Article we examin unless it be that it declares that if such a thing should happen to any one that had an Office in the Church he could not take his Wife again and execute his Office because doubtless he would not be so much to Edification and the remembrance of his Wifes Adultery would be at least to the weak a Subject of Offence and Scandal So 't was the Council of Neosesaria order'd it in the Year 314 Can. 8. which enjoyns those that are Established in the Ministry of the Church whose Wifes have committed Adultery it enjoyns them to forsake them or if they will live with them it declares they can no longer Execute their Offices See Gratians Decree Caus 32. q. 1. can De Benedicto where the same Practice is Authorized although some of the Fathers forbid cohabiting with the Adulterous Party XXIX To regulate the Extravagance of Marriages by reason of Adultery the Party grieved may prosecuee at Law the Party that has offended before the Magistrate until that by definitive Sentonce and Judgment they be justly convicted the which Sentence the Party grieved shall produce in Consistory who shall let him understand the Liberty the Word of God allows in such cases But by reason of the difficulty of the times the Ministers of this Kingdom are advised not to re-marry the Parties who are at liberty to provide themselves elsewhere and as for the Party that has transgressed great deliberation and care shall be used before he be restor'd to Liberty CONFORMITY Those which accommodate the Cannons to the times and which judge of the Discipline of the Antient Christians by that which they follow at present do think that 't was never permitted in the Church that those should marry any other Person who were separated for Adultery Nevertheless with the least heed that is taken in reading what remains to us of the Writings of Ecclesiastical Antiquity it may therein be observ'd that for several Ages the Liberty of re-marrying was granted to those whose Marriage had been dissolved for Adultery I should be over-tedious to relate all I could alleage for Establishing this Truth I shall therefore content my self to prove it by some formal and positive Testimonies which shall be above the reach of any contentious Spirits to controul To do it with the better method First of all 't will be necessary to transcribe two passages of the Gospel where our Saviour Jesus Christ has fully explain'd himself on this matter The First is in the Fifth chap. of St. Matth ver 31 32. It hath been also said Whosoever shall put away his Wife let him give her a Writing of Divorcement But I say unto you That whosoever shall put away his Wife saving for the cause of Fornication causeth her to commit Adultery and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth Adultery These words as every one sees teach us two things one that there 's nothing but Adultery which is a lawful cause of breaking of Marriage and the other that here is to be an intire Separation both from Bed and as to Obligation The Second is in the 19th chap. of the same Gospel verse 3 c. The Pharisees also came unto him tempting him and saying unto him Is it lawful for a man to put away his Wife for
every cause and he answered and said unto them Have you not read that he which made them made them at the beginning Male and Female and said For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his Wife and they twain shall be one flesh wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh What therefore God has joyned together let no man put asunder They say unto him Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away He saith unto them Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffer'd you to put away your Wifes but from the beginning it was not so And I say unto you whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery And whosoever marryeth her which is put away doth commit Adultery As the Pharisees in their demand understood a total Separation it must not also be doubted but Jesus Christ meant it so also in the Answer he made them In effect amongst the Jews the term to repudiate comprehends an intire rupture with power to re-marry again Therefore in the Antient formulary of Divorces amongst the Jews the Husband spake thus to the Wife which he put away I send thee going and repudiate thee to the end thou mayest be at liberty to marry whom thou wilt Let us now see what the Witnesses do depose which I have ingaged to produce for establishing the matter in dispute I 'le begin by Chromatius Bishop of Aquilea one of the Holiest and most Learned Prelates of his time that is to say of the Fourth Century and the beginning of the Fifth This Learned Writer Interpreting the two verses of the Fifth chap. of St. Matthew above transcrib'd speaks in this manner Let them know how great the crime of condemnation is which those do incur in the sight of God Tom. 2. Biol Sal. p. 168. who being overcome with the unbridled pleasure of Lust and without cause of Adultery cast off their Wifes to pass on to another Marriage It appears by the reasoning of Chromatius that if they cast them off for Adultery they were permitted to re-marry and having shewn that though the Laws of Men suffer'd to repudiate ones Wife for other cause than Adultery those which did it were nevertheless inexcusable but their sins was so much the greater that they preferred the Laws of Men before the Law of God After this I say he adds As it is not permitted to cast off a woman that lives chastly and honestly so also 't is permitted to repudiate an Adulteress because such a one renders her self unworthy of her Husbands Company which in sinning against her own Body had the boldness to defile the Temple of God The Deacon Hillary a Writer of the Fourth Century in his Commentaries on St. Pauls Epistles in the Third Volume of St. Ambrose his Works Hillary Expounding these words of the 11th verse of the 7th chap. of the â— Ep. to the Cor. pag. 365. Neither let the Woman forsake her Husband he thus explains himself it must be understood except it be for the cause of Adultery because it is permitted for the Husband to marry after having repudiated his Wife for cause of Adultery St. Epiphanius is full in the case seeing he expresses himself in this manner Him who could not be content with one Wife whether she dyed or that he put her away for Adultery Fornication or some other Crime if he joyn himself to another Wife or if a Woman for the same cause takes a second Husband the Word of God condemns them not neither deprives them of the Communion of the Church nor of Eternal Life but it bears with them for infirmity sake not that he should have two Wifes at once the one being yet alive and in being but to the end that after having left one he may if he will take another lawfully The Jesuit Petau in his Notes on the words of St. Tom. 2. p. 255. Epiphanius does acknowledge this was the Opinion of this Antient Doctor but he adds That if at that time it was suffer'd to have it because the Church had not yet determin'd any thing in this matter it is not permitted at this time after the decision of the Council of Trent Sess 24. cap. 7. nevertheless he owns this Decree of Trent is not agreeable to some of those cited by Gratian causa 32. quaest 7. and also that Cardinal Cajetan and some other Doctors of his Communion have followed an Opinion contrary to the definition of the Fathers of Trent that is to say That they believed that 't is permitted to a Christian to put away his Wife for Adultery and to marry another in effect not only Cajetan on the 19th chap. of St. Matth. but also Ambrose Catharine in the Fifth Book of his Annotations and Erasmus on the 7th chap. of the 1 Ep. to the Corinth have been of this Judgment Auitus Bishop of Vienna at the end of the Fifth Century and beginning of the Sixth sufficiently manifests that in his time Divorcement was made for Adultery with liberty to re-marry Ep. 49. p. 110. observing in one of his Letters That 't is for that cause alone God permits a man to separate from his wife Upon which Father Sirmond who has Published the Works of Auilus makes this observation It from hence appears that in that time it was believed in France that the Husband might by the permission of Jesus Christ leave his Wife in case of Adultery and marry another Which he confirms by a Cannon of a Synod of Vannes which I will cite anon Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gattinois was in the Ninth Century of the same Opinion with Auitus Ep. 29. pag. 54. for he says as well as him that 't is only Fornication can dissolve Marriage to which Monsieur Baluze who compleated the last Edition with Learned Notes applyes also the Jesuit Sirmond's Observation which I but now mention'd Isaac Bishop of Langres in the Third Title of his Cannons which treat of Adulterys saith plainly chap. 1. That the Husband whose Wife is an Adulteress has power to take another if he please This Prelate wrote and liv'd in the Ninth Century I now come to the Councils whose Authority may contribute to the Establishment of the matter I examin and I begin with the First Council of Arles which the Emperour Constantine assembled in the Year 314 a Council famous for the Decrees there made and for the number of Bishops which were there present for there was 600 if several Writers may be credited In effect there is in the Collection of Letters of Ireland by Bishop
Vsher a Letter of Cummin a Priest to the Abbot Seguinus touching the keeping Easter Ep. 11. p. 28. wherein he wrote to him above a 1000 years ago That the Council of Arles composed of 600 Bishops confirm'd in the First Cannon what had been concluded upon for the observing of Easter that is to say that it should be Celebrated all over the World at one time and one day Ado Bishop of Vienna in the Ninth Century writes in the Sixth Age of his Chronicle That in the time that Marin was Bishop of Arles there met a Council of 600 Bishops In the 10th Spicilegium of Dom Luke D' Achery and in the Additions there is to be seen an observation touching Synods which was taken from an Antient Collection writ above 800 years ago wherein mention is made of the Council we speak of Tom 10. p 633. and of the number of 600 Bishops there present and apparently it was in reference to this great number of Prelates Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. p. 105. Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. p. 6. that the Fathers of the Second Council assembled in the same City in the year 542 said in the Eighteenth Cannon That the first was assembled from all parts of the World However it be the Tenth Cannon of the First Council which concerns the business we treat of is expressed in these terms As to young Men that are Believers which surprize their Wifes in Adultery and who are forbidden to marry others It has seem'd good to us that they should be advis'd as much as may be not to marry again during their Wifes life time although Adulteresses I gather two things from this Cannon First Before the holding this Council there were those which prohibited them which left their Wifes for Adultery to marry again Secondly That the Fathers of the Council to the number of 600 amongst which there are Two Priests and Two Deacons of the Church of Rome which held the place of Silvester its Bishop these Prelates having maturely examined the business changed the Prohibition into an Advice which they desired might be followed but no farther than Mans weakness could bear which shews that they did not believe as now a days in the Romish Communion That the Band of Marriage is indissolvable though Adultery should intervene In the year of our Lord 465 there was held a Council at Vannes in Brittany see here its Second Cannon As for those who forsake their Wifes Tom. 1. Gall. p. 138. unless it be in case of Adultery as is expressed in the Gospel and do Marry others without having proved the Adultery we ordain they shall be deprived of the Lords Supper that is to say Excommunicated lest through our remissness Sins unpunished may incline others to licentiousness It appears by this Cannon that when the Adultery was proved it was permitted to conclude another Marriage it was so 't was understood by Father Sirmond on the Letter of Auitus above-mentioned wherein he was followed by his Nephew Mr. De la Lande Treasurer of the Church of St. Framburg of Senlis for in the Supplement of French Councils pag. 349. he explains this Cannon in the same manner as I have explained it and this ought not to be regarded as a private interpretation seeing this Supplement was approved by the Clergy of France assembled at Paris in the years 1655 and 56. The Synod of Agde in Languedoc in the year 506 Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. p. 166. marches in the same steps of that of Vannes in the 25th Cannon which Excommunicate those which put away their Wifes to marry themselves to others before they represent to the Bishops of the Province the causes of their Separation and before their Wifes have been condemn'd that is for Adultery for when they were once convicted Husbands were permitted to Marry others it is what is lawfully inferr'd from this Cannon Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury held a Synod in the year 670 as Beda writes in his Ecclesiastical History of England wherein he made these Cannons relating to Marriage Lib. 4. c. 5. Let no Man forsake his Wife unless it be for Fornication as the Gospel does direct If any one puts away his Wife whom he has lawfully marryed let him not marry another if he will be a good Christian but let him continue as he is or let him be reconcil'd to his own Wife That is If he puts her away for any other cause than for Adultery And it can't be question'd but this is the true meaning of the words of Theodore especially if one considers that in Dom Luke D' Achery's Ninth Spicilegium There are a certain number of Cannons chosen out of all those of the said Theodores the 116th of which formally contains this Decree pag. 62. It is permitted to him whose Wife has committed Adultery to put her away and to take another Gratian attributes this Decree to Pope Zachary who liv'd in the Eighth Century ca. 32. c. 7. Conc. Concnbaiâ—ii You have layn with your Wifes Sister if it be so you cannot have to Wife neither the one nor the other but as for her that was your Wife if she consented not to this crime and that she cannot contain she may marry in the Lord to whom she thinks sit The Antient Copies Manuscripts and Old Editions of Gratian produce this Decree as being Pope Zachary's yet there are Compilers of Decrees which have cited it as having taken it out of the Roman Penitential Binchard lib. 19. c. 5. Enq. but 't is nothing the less considerable seeing 't was the Penitential whereof Zachary was the Compiler The Author of the Gloss explains the last words of the Cannon in this manner Let her marry to whom she will He explains them in adding these others after the Death of her Husband As if a Woman whose Husband was Dead was not in full liberty to re-marry without having any permission for so doing whereas here there is question of a Man convicted of Adultery whereby Marriage is dissolv'd therefore the Woman which is Innocent and has no share in the Husbands Crime she is permitted to re-marry Erasmus on the 7th chap. of the 1. Ep. to the Cor. where he examins the Question Whether Divorce is sometimes permitted amongst Christians Erasmus reproves and condemns the Gloss I but just now cited as being contrary to the words of the Decree and to the intention of Pope Zachary to whom 't is attributed and he does so against the Master of Sentences Lib. 4. dist 34. who had interpreted the Cannon with this addition that is to say after the Death of the Husband The Council of Verberie in Vallois assembled in the year 752 Tom. 2. Conc. Gall. p. 2. made several Decrees the Second whereof is compriz'd in these terms If any one carnally knows his Wifes Daughter he cannot have the Mother nor Daughter and neither she nor him cannot never after marry any others but as for the
Wife if she will and if she cannot contain if after she comes to know the Husband committed Adultery with her Daughter she has no farther carnal knowledge with him she may marry another Person unless she will voluntarily abstain and in the Tenth Cannon If a Son has committed Adultery with the Wife of his Father neither he nor she cannot marry but as for the Husband if he will he may marry another Wife yet it were better to abstain That of Compiegne made this Decree Seven years after Ib. Can. 8. p. 43. If a Man has a lawful Wife if his Brother commits Adultery with her let not the Brother nor Wife which have been guilty of Adultery never marry during life But as for the Husband of the Wife he is at his liberty to marry again if he please The Fourteen and Fifteen Cannons Establish also the same Discipline The Eighth Cannon is also found in the Fifth Book of Capitularies chap. 19. it is apparently the Eighth Cannon of the Council reported by Gratian though in something different terms Caus 32. q. 7. c. Quaedam under the Name of a Decree of a certain Council In the Roman Collection printed at Rome Fifteen years ago by Order of Cardinal Francis Barberin Vice-Chancellor and Dedicated by him to Pope Alexander the Seventh There is found Two Synods held at Rome in the Ninth Century One under Eugenius the Second the other under Leo the Fourth and by the constitutions of the one and the other one may separate for reason of Adultery with power to re-marry See here what is contained in the 36th Cannon of the former That it be not permitted to any one whatsoever to forsake his Wife and to joyn himself to another unless it be in case of Adultery otherwise the offender must take the former The same Cannon is repeated in the Second in the same Terms and under the same Number of 36. Ibid. pâ—g 92. The Council of Tribur whereof I have already spoke on the 13th Article confirms the same practise in the 41. Cannon where the Fathers require that Bishops having regard to human frailty should comfort those who have been separated for Adultery and which cannot contain in suffering them to re-marry after having fulfill'd the time of their pennance The Frier Blastares whom I have already cited several times Let. G. c. 13. pag. 73 74. testifies that the Greek Church used so in his time that is in the 14th Century for amongst the several reasons for dissolving Marriage he reckons Adultery for the which he declares Marriage may lawfully be dissolved and contract another after sentence of the Judges It was in regard to this practise of the Eastern Nations Hist of the Council of Trent by P. Saovo lib. 8. pag. 920 921. that the Ambassadors of Venice caused to be read in the Council of Trent a demand they made on the Anathema of divorces which contain'd in substance that their Republick held the Islands and Kingdoms of Cyprus Candy Corfou Zante and Cephalony inhabited by Greeks who time out of mind have been wont to put away the wife guilty of Adultery and to Marry another and that this Custom known to the whole Church Was never condemned nor blamed by any Council and therefore that the Fathers would be pleased to dispose the Cannon that treated thereof in such a way as should not be prejudicial to them to which the Council had some regard for the Opinion of the Greeks was not there directly condemn'd It appears clearly by what has been hitherto said that the Establishment of our Discipline is very judicious and very conformable to the use and practise of the Ancient Church and also to that of the present Greek Church so that the innovation is in those which have forsaken the ways of their Fathers and have taken a quite contrary course in teaching that the band of Marriage is not to be broke not even for cause of Adultery yet I cannot think Pope Vrban the second was so severe nor that he would absolutely have forbidden Marriage to a man that had left his wife after having convicted her of Adultery and what makes me think so is for that in a Synod he held An Apud Marcam de conc li. 4. c. 14. pag. 282. 1093. At Troys in Poulle it was resolved in the first Cannon to dissolve the Marriage of two persons that were nearly related on this condition however That if they separated according to the Judgment of the Bishops they were permitted to contract other Marriages because they were young what likelihood that Vrban with his Synod composed of 70 Bishops and 12 Abbots should not have judged the band of Matrimony indissoluble in regard of those and that he would have thought it so after the Adultery of one of the parties I am confident if occasion had offer'd this Pope would not have done otherwise in regard of persons which separated by reason of Adultery then the two Roman Synods I but now cited in the 9th Century and the Councils of Verbery and Compeign in the 8th who permitted as has been shewn to the innocent party to re-marry when the band of the former Marrirge is quite broke by Adultery certainly the Fathers of these two Councils intended not to forbid Marriage to those which Adultery had separated seeing they allowed separation for things of much less moment than is that of Adultery and that at the same time they grant power and liberty to re-marry anew for Example the 3d. Tom. 1. conc Gal. pag. 3. Cannon of the Synod of Verbery is conceiv'd in these terms If a Priest has Marry'd his Neece let him leave her and be deposed If another takes her to wife let him put her away also because 't is a thing blame worthy that another Man should marry her which was put away by a Priest but if the man cannot contain let him marry some other The 5th cannon contains this Decree If a Woman has contriv'd the Death of her Husband with other Men and that the Husband in his own defence kills him that comes to murder him and that he can prove it he may repudiate his Wife and marry another if he please The 9th permits him that is forced to quit his Country to go to live in another and that his Wife will not follow him it permits him to Marry another In the 6th it is permitted to a free Man that shall have Marry'd a slave thinking her to be of a free condition he is permitted to take another if the first be put again under servitude and that she cannot be ransomed the same power is given to a free woman that shall marry a slave not knowing he was so unless he had been forced by famine to sell himself by consent of his Wife and that the price of the sale of the Husband had served to preserve the Wife from Want and perishing by famine besides this the Woman might put away her Husband