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
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
