[Footnote 43: Thus the strict view is taken by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian. They all declare, says FREISEN, that "whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery;" but he adds, "Dass dieser Ehebruch auch dann statthabe, wenn die erste Ehe wegen Ehebruch geschieden, sagt meines Erachtens keiner der genannten Kirchenväter, ebenso wenig wie sie sagen, dass in solchem Falle die Wiederverheiratung erlaubt sei."--_Op. cit._, 770, 771. _Cf._ LOENING, _op. cit._, 607; who is criticised by GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 19 n. 1; also ESMEIN, _op. cit._, II, 49 ff.; PERRONE, _op. cit._, III, 243 ff.; WOOLSEY, _op. cit._, 109, 110; ZHISHMAN, _op. cit._, 101.] [Footnote 44: TERTULLIAN, "On Monogamy," in DONALDSON'S _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, IV, 66, 67. See also GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 19-21.] [Footnote 45: ESMEIN, _op. cit._, II, 51. CHRYSOSTOM (_De libello repudii_, c. iii), Asterius of Amasea, Theodoret, and Hilarius of Poitiers all appear to hold that marriage is absolutely dissolved by adultery, from which the right of second marriage for both parties logically follows: _ibid._, II, 50, 51; ZHISHMAN, _op. cit._, 101, 102; GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 31.] [Footnote 46: FREISEN, _op. cit._, 771. _Cf._ also GREVE, _Ehescheidung_, 195, 208 ff. (second marriage in general); CIGOI, _Unauflösbarkeit_, 23 ff.; GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 22; LOENING, _op. cit._, II, 608.] [Footnote 47: The rubric of Canon 10 of the council runs: "Ut is, cujus uxor adulteravit, aliam illa vivente non accipiat."--FREISEN, _op. cit._, 771.] [Footnote 48: The canon itself provides: "De his, qui conjuges suas in adulterio deprehendunt, et iidem sunt adolescentes fideles et prohibentur nubere, placuit, ut, in quantum possit, consilium iis detur, ne viventibus uxoribus suis licet adulteris alias accipiant."] [Footnote 49: This disparity is variously explained. FREISEN, _op. cit._, 771, sees here the influence of the Roman law (c. 1, _Cod. ad leg. Jul._ [ix-9]), which he alleges judges the man more leniently than the woman; but GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 22, 23, explains it more reasonably as the result of a difference of local practice, since such a discrimination between man and woman "the church had thus far zealously opposed;" and, besides, he insists that the passage from the code is not in point. It should be remembered, also, that some of the early Fathers, as we have seen, followed the illiberal principles of the Mosaic law discriminating against the woman; this prejudice may have prevailed at the Council of Arles. On these councils see also ESMEIN, _op. cit._, II, 55, 56; LOENING, _op. cit._, II, 609 ff.]