按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ess relation to the general rectitude of morals than to the holiness of marriage； they had less regard to the union of the two sexes in a civil than in a spiritual state。
At first； by the Roman law； a husband； who brought back his wife into his house after she had been found guilty of adultery； was punished as an accomplice in her debauch。＇25＇ Justinian； from other principles； ordained that during the space of two years he might go and take her again out of the monastery。＇26＇
Formerly； when a woman； whose husband was gone to war； heard no longer any tidings of him； she might easily marry again； because she had in her hands the power of making a divorce。 The law of Constantine obliged the woman to wait four years； after which she might send the bill of divorce to the general； and； if her husband returned； he could not then charge her with adultery。＇27＇ But Justinian decreed that； let the time be never so long after the departure of her husband； she should not marry unless； by the deposition and oath of the general； she could prove the death of her husband。＇28＇ Justinian had in view the indissolubility of marriage； but we may safely say that he had it too much in view。 He demanded a positive proof when a negative one was sufficient； he required a thing extremely difficult to give； an account of the fate of a man at a great distance； and exposed to so many accidents； he presumed a crime； that is； a desertion of the husband； when it was so natural to presume his death。 He injured the commonwealth by obliging women to live out of marriage； he injured individuals by exposing them to a thousand dangers。
The law of Justinian； which ranked among the causes of divorce the consent of the husband and wife to enter into a monastery； was entirely opposite to the principles of the civil laws。＇29＇ It is natural that the causes of divorce should have their origin in certain impediments which could not be foreseen before marriage； but this desire of preserving chastity might be foreseen； since it is in ourselves。 This law favours inconstancy in a state which is by its very nature perpetual； it shook the fundamental principle of divorce； which permits the dissolution of one marriage only from the hope of another。 In short； if we view it in a religious light； it is no more than giving victims to God without a sacrifice。
10。 In what Case we ought to follow the civil Law which permits； and not the Law of Religion which forbids。 When a religion which prohibits polygamy is introduced into a country where it is permitted； we cannot believe （speaking only as a politician） that the laws of the country ought to suffer a man who has many wives to embrace this religion； unless the magistrate or the husband should indemnify them； by restoring them in some way or other to their civil state。 Without this their condition would be deplorable； no sooner would they obey the laws than they would find themselves deprived of the greatest advantages of society。
11。 That human Courts of Justice should not be regulated by the Maxims of those Tribunals which relate to the Other Life。 The tribunal of the inquisition； formed by the Christian monks on the idea of the tribunal of penitence； is contrary to all good policy。 It has everywhere met with a general dislike； and must have sunk under the oppositions it met with； if those who were resolved to establish it had not drawn advantages even from these oppositions。
This tribunal is insupportable in all governments。 In monarchies； it only makes informers and traitors； in republics； it only forms dishonest men； in a despotic state； it is as destructive as the government itself。
12。 The same Subject continued。 It is one abuse of this tribunal that； of two persons accused of the same crime； he who denies is condemned to die； and he who confesses avoids the punishment。 This has its source in monastic ideas； where he who denies seems in a state of impenitence and damnation； and he who confesses； in a state of repentance and salvation。 But a distinction of this kind can have no relation to human tribunals。 Human justice； which sees only the actions； has but one compact with men； namely； that of innocence； divine justice； which sees the thoughts； has two； that of innocence and repentance。
13。 In what Cases； with regard to Marriage； we ought to follow the Laws of Religion； and in what Cases we should follow the civil Laws。 It has happened in all ages and countries； that religion has been blended with marriages。 When certain things have been considered as impure or unlawful； and had nevertheless become necessary； they were obliged to call in religion to legitimate in the one case； and to reprove in others。
On the other hand； as marriage is of all human actions that in which society is most interested； it became proper that this should be regulated by the civil laws。
Everything which relates to the nature of marriage； its form； the manner of contracting it； the fruitfulness it occasions； which has made all nations consider it as the object of a particular benediction； a benediction which； not being always annexed to it； is supposed to depend on certain superior graces； all this is within the resort of religion。
The consequences of this union with regard to property； the reciprocal advantages； everything which has a relation to the new family； to that from which it sprang； and to that which is expected to arise； all this relates to the civil laws。
As one of the great objects of marriage is to take away that uncertainty which attends unlawful conjunctions； religion here stamps its seal； and the civil laws join theirs to it； to the end that it may be as authentic as possible。 Thus； besides the conditions required by religion to make a marriage valid； the civil laws may still exact others。
The civil laws receive this power from their being additional obligations； and not contradictory ones。 The law of religion insists upon certain ceremonies； the civil laws on the consent of fathers； in this case； they demand something more than that of religion； but they demand nothing contrary to it。
It follows hence； that the religious law must decide whether the bond be indissoluble or not； for if the laws of religion had made the bond indissoluble； and the civil laws had declared it might be broken； they would be contradictory to each other。
Sometimes the regulations made by the civil laws with respect to marriage are not absolutely necessary； such are those established by the laws； which； instead of annulling the marriage； only punish those who contract it。
Among the Romans； the Papian law declared those marriages illegal which had been prohibited； and yet only subjected them to a penalty；＇30＇ but a Senatus Consultum； made at the instance of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus； declared them void； there then no longer subsisted any such thing as a marriage； wife； dowry； or husband。＇31＇ The civil laws determine according to circumstances： sometimes they are most attentive to repair the evil； at others； to prevent it。
14。 In what instances Marriages between Relatives shall be regulated by the Laws of Nature： and in what instances by the civil Laws。 With regard to the prohibition of marriage between relatives； it