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;17    1 Cor. vii. 10, 11 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.18    Ps. xlviii. 1 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.19    Deut. xxiv. 1 In which matter there appears rather a rebuke, than an approval, of divorce.20    Matt. xix. 8

7. Miror autem si quemadmodum licet dimittere adulteram uxorem, ita liceat ea dimissa alteram ducere. Facit enim de hac re sancta Scriptura difficilem nodum, dicente Apostolo, ex praecepto Domini mulierem a viro non debere discedere; quod si discesserit, manere innuptam, aut viro suo reconciliari (I Cor. VII, 10, 11): cum recedere utique et manere innupta, nisi ab adultero viro non debeat, ne recedendo ab eo qui adulter non est, faciat eum moechari. Reconciliari autem viro vel tolerando, si se ipsa continere non potest, vel correcto, forsitan juste potest. Quomodo autem viro possit esse licentia ducendae alterius, si adulteram reliquerit, cum mulieri non sit nubendi alteri, si adulterum reliquerit, non video. Quae si ita sunt, tantum valet illud sociale vinculum conjugum, ut cum causa procreandi colligetur, nec ipsa causa procreandi solvatur. Possit enim homo dimittere sterilem uxorem, et ducere de qua filios habeat: et tamen non licet; et nostris quidem jam temporibus ac more Romano, nec superducere, ut amplius habeat quam unam vivam: et utique relicta adultera vel relicto adultero possent plures nasci homines, si vel illa alteri nuberet, vel ille alteram duceret. Quod tamen si non licet, sicut divina regula praescribere videtur; quem non faciat intentum, quid sibi velit tanta firmitas vinculi conjugalis? Quod nequaquam puto tantum valere potuisse, nisi alicujus rei majoris ex hac infirma mortalitate hominum quoddam sacramentum adhiberetur, quod deserentibus hominibus atque id dissolvere cupientibus, inconcussum illis maneret ad poenam. Siquidem interveniente divortio non aboletur illa confoederatio nuptialis: ita ut sibi conjuges sint, etiam separati; cum illis autem adulterium committant, quibus fuerint etiam post 0379 suum repudium copulati, vel illa viro, vel ille mulieri. Nec tamen nisi in civitate Dei nostri, in monte sancto ejus (Psal. XLVII, 2), talis est causa cum uxore.

CAPUT VIII.

Repudii usus qualis apud Gentiles, et qualis apud Judaeos. Conjugium bonum est prorsus, non autem sola comparatione fornicationis. Caeterum aliter se habere jura Gentilium, quis ignorat; ubi interposito repudio, sine reatu aliquo ultionis humanae, et illa cui voluerit nubit, et ille quam voluerit ducit? Cui consuetudini simile aliquid, propter Israelitarum duritiam, videtur permisisse Moyses de libello repudii (Deut. XXIV, 1; Matth. XIX, 8). Qua in re exprobratio quam approbatio divortii magis apparet.