47. But when He says, “saving for the cause of fornication,” He has not said of which of
them, whether the man or the woman.148 For not only is it allowed to put away a wife who
commits fornication; but whoever puts away that wife even by whom he is himself compelled
to commit fornication, puts her away undoubtedly for the cause of fornication. As, for in-
stance, if a wife should compel one to sacrifice to idols, the man who puts away such an one
puts her away for the cause of fornication, not only on her part, but on his own also: on her
part, because she commits fornication; on his own, that he may not commit fornication.
Nothing, however, is more unjust than for a man to put away his wife because of fornication,
if he himself also is convicted of committing fornication. For that passage occurs to one:
“For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest
the same things.”149 And for this reason, whosoever wishes to put away his wife because of
fornication, ought first to be cleared of fornication; and a like remark I would make respecting
the woman also.
48. But in reference to what He says, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced150
committeth adultery,” it may be asked whether she also who is married commits adultery
in the same way as he does who marries her. For she also is commanded to remain unmarried,
or be reconciled to her husband; but this in the case of her departing from her husband.
There is, however, a great difference whether she put away or be put away. For if she put
away her husband, and marry another, she seems to have left her former husband from a
desire of changing her marriage connection, which is, without doubt, an adulterous thought.
But if she be put away by the husband, with whom she desired to be, he indeed who marries
her commits adultery, according to the Lord’s declaration; but whether she also be involved
in a like crime is uncertain,—although it is much less easy to discover how, when a man
21
and woman have intercourse one with another with equal consent, one of them should be
an adulterer, and the other not. To this is to be added the consideration, that if he commits
adultery by marrying her who is divorced from her husband (although she does not put
away, but is put away), she causes him to commit adultery, which nevertheless the Lord
148 Modern commentators do not spring this question, agreeing that the fornication referred to is of the
wife. Paulus, Döllinger (in Christ. u. Kirche, to which Professor Conington replied in Cont. Rev., May, 1869)
think the fornication of the woman was committed before her marriage. Plumptre also prefers the reference to
ante-nuptial sin.
149 Rom. ii. 1.
150 ‡ἀολελυμένην; that is, one divorced unlawfully who has not been guilty of fornication (so Meyer very
positively, Stier et. al., Alford hesitatingly). This explanation might seem to limit re-marriage to such an one,
inasmuch as the essence of the marriage bond has not been touched (So Alford et. al.).
56
Chapter XVI