7. But I marvel, if, as it is
allowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed,
having put her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a
hard knot in this matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by
commandment of the Lord, the wife ought not to depart from her
husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried,
or to be reconciled to her husband;
1950
whereas surely she ought not to
depart and remain unmarried, save from an husband that is an
adulterer, lest by withdrawing from him, who is not an adulterer,
she cause him to commit adultery. But perhaps she may justly be
reconciled to her husband, either he being to be borne with, if she
cannot contain herself, or being now corrected. But I see not how
the man can have permission to marry another, in case he have left
an adulteress, when a woman has not to be married to another, in
case she have left an adulterer. And, this being the case, so
strong is that bond of fellowship in married persons, that,
although it be tied for the sake f begetting children, not even for
the sake of begetting children is it loosed. For it is in a man’s
power to put away a wife that is barren, and marry one of whom to
have children. And yet it is not allowed; and now indeed in our
times, and after the usage of Rome, neither to marry in addition,
so as to have more than one wife living: and, surely, in case of an
adulteress or adulterer being left, it would be possible that more
men should be born, if either the woman were married to another, or
the man should marry another. And yet, if this be not lawful, as
the Divine Rule seems to prescribe, who is there but it must make
him attentive to learn, what is the meaning of this so great
strength of the marriage bond? Which I by no means think could have
been of so great avail, were it not that there were taken a certain
sacrament of some greater matter from out this weak mortal state of
men, so that, men deserting it, and seeking to dissolve it, it
should remain unshaken for their punishment. Seeing that the
compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so
that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after
separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be
joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man,
or the man with a woman. And yet, save in the City of our God, in
His Holy Mount, the case is not such with the wife.
1951
But, that
the laws of the Gentiles are otherwise, who is there that knows
not; where, by the interposition of divorce, without any offense of
which man takes cognizance, both the woman is married to whom she
will, and the man marries whom he will. And something like this
custom, on account of the hardness of the Israelites, Moses seems
to have allowed, concerning a bill of divorcement.
1952
In which
matter there appears rather a rebuke, than an approval, of
divorce.
1953
1950
1 Cor. vii. 10, 11
1951
Ps. xlviii. 1
1952
Deut. xxiv. 1
1953
Matt. xix. 8