S. Cyprian. The Greek It is certain, therefore, that in those passages where Tertullian speaks expressly on the liberty of marrying after a divorce, his language is as definite as possible in disproving its allowance in the African Church. Half a century later, S. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, gave to his son, Quirinus, a succinct course of Divine precepts, and amongst them decided testimony on the indissolubility of marriage.1 He stated expressly "that a wife must not depart from her husband; or if she should depart, she must remain unmarried," and he quoted in proof of this doctrine from the First Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians: "But to them that are married I command, yet not I but the Lord, that the wife be not separated from her husband; but if she should be separated, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not put away his wife." 2 The Apostolical Canons 3 supply distinct information touching the existing law when they were compiled. The date, however, of the compilation 1 Testim. contra Judæos, lib. iii. 90. 2 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11. 3 A portion of these eighty-five Canons was accepted as authentic by the Council in Trullo which is regarded as œcumenical by the Greek Church. Hefele, 451. is wrapt in uncertainty. It was for a long time generally believed that they must be placed in the third century, and the arguments for this date are The Apostolical exceedingly strong; but certain German writers, Canons. among whom Von Drey and Bickell 2 are most prominent, have assigned them to a period subsequent to the Council of Antioch, which was held in 341 A.D., on the ground mainly that the materials for the Canons were apparently borrowed from the decrees of the Council. It has been argued, on the other hand, with equal force, that they were the source from which the Antiochene doctors drew up their Canons, and to this view Hefele inclines. It is hardly worth while to in- Their dates vestigate the evidence, for it is universally agreed tively speakthat the Canons belong to the Eastern rather than the Western Church; if, therefore, one of them distinctly prohibiting the remarriage of divorced persons, was accepted in the fifth century, when it is notorious that the Eastern Church was growing lax in its discipline, it is a fair assumption that it obtained also in the third. We are justified, then, 1 Beveridge considered them as a collection of Canons made by Synods in the second and third centuries. 2 Cf. Von Drey, Neue Untersuch. über die Konstit. und Kanonen der Apost. and Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, vol. i. compara ing unimpor tant. The Church of Spain. in availing ourselves of this authority as evidence of the rule of the East before the Council of Nicæa. It is worthy of notice that the advocates of the later date are constrained to allow that this particular Canon was one of the oldest in the collection.1 It is as follows: "If a layman should put away his own wife and take another, or one divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated." 2 In 313 A.D. a council was held at Iliberis in Andalusia, now known as that of Elvira. It may be regarded as a representative Synod of the whole 1 Hefele, p. 478. 2 εἴ τις λαϊκὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐκβάλλων, ἑτέραν λάβῃ ἤ παρ' ἄλλου ἀπολελυμένην ἀφοριζέσθω. Can. xlviii. Mr. J. W. Lea, in his pamphlet, p. 7, has called attention to the interpretation put upon this Canon in Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, where it is said to refer only to illegal divorces, and he very properly exposes the principle of thus wresting a Canon, which is "itself unqualified and without exception," to suit preconceived views. Balsamon is appealed to as the authority for the above interpretation but he stands alone; not one of the great Canonists support him; and it is difficult to believe that, living as he did, nearly nine centuries after the Council, he was better able to understand its Acts than any one else. He was an Eastern bishop, and wished to support the laxer views of his branch of the Church by a Western Council. We have dwelt upon it because it affords yet one more illustration of the reckless way in which we complain that the early evidence on this subject has been perverted. husband a writ of divorce in consequence of his depraved lust, for such a cause as she can make out—e.g. for drunkenness, or gambling, or consorting with women; nor may husbands put away their wives for whatever reason they please. But, in sending a writ of divorce, the wife may investigate these charges only, whether she can prove her husband guilty of murder or sorcery, or the robbing of graves, so that, if she make good her case, she should receive back the whole of her dowry. For, if she has sent a writ on any other than these three counts, she is bound to deposit all her property, even to a pin's head, in her husband's house, and, for her over-boldness, to be banished to an island. "In the case of men, also, if they send a writ, it will be proper for these three charges to be investigated, whether he wished to put her away for adultery or sorcery, or as a procuress. For, if he put away a wife who is free from these charges, he must restore the whole of her dowry, and he may not marry another." 1 1 Placet mulieri non licere propter suas pravas cupiditates marito repudium mittere exquisita causa, velut ebrioso, aut aleatoris, aut mulierculario: nec vero maritis per quascunque occasiones uxores suas dimittere. Sed in repudio mittendo a fœmina hæc sola crimina inquiri, si Homicidam, vel Medicamentarium vel Sepulchrorum Dissolutorem maritum suum esse probaverit, ut ita H The Church of Spain. in availing ourselves of this authority as evidence of the rule of the East before the Council of Nicæa. It is worthy of notice that the advocates of the later date are constrained to allow that this particular Canon was one of the oldest in the collection. It is as follows: "If a layman should put away his own wife and take another, or one divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated." 2 In 313 A.D. a council was held at Iliberis in Andalusia, now known as that of Elvira. It may be regarded as a representative Synod of the whole 1 Hefele, p. 478. 2 εἴ τις λαϊκὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐκβάλλων, ἑτέραν λάβῃ ἤ παρ' ἄλλου ἀπολελυμένην ἀφοριζέσθω. Can. xlviii. Mr. J. W. Lea, in his pamphlet, p. 7, has called attention to the interpretation put upon this Canon in Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, where it is said to refer only to illegal divorces, and he very properly exposes the principle of thus wresting a Canon, which is "itself unqualified and without exception," to suit preconceived views. Balsamon is appealed to as the authority for the above interpretation but he stands alone; not one of the great Canonists support him; and it is difficult to believe that, living as he did, nearly nine centuries after the Council, he was better able to understand its Acts than any one else. He was an Eastern bishop, and wished to support the laxer views of his branch of the Church by a Western Council. We have dwelt upon it because it affords yet one more illustration of the reckless way in which we complain that the early evidence on this subject has been perverted. |