Chapter IX.—From Examples Tertullian Passes to Direct Dogmatic Teachings.  He Begins with the Lord’s Teaching.

But grant that these argumentations may be thought to be forced and founded on conjectures, if no dogmatic teachings have stood parallel with them which the Lord uttered in treating of divorce, which, permitted formerly, He now prohibits, first because “from the beginning it was not so,” like plurality of marriage; secondly, because “What God hath conjoined, man shall not separate,”75    See Matt. xix. 3–8, where, however, Tertullian’s order is reversed.  Comp. with this chapter, c. v. above.—for fear, namely, that he contravene the Lord:  for He alone shall “separate” who has “conjoined” (separate, moreover, not through the harshness of divorce, which (harshness) He censures and restrains, but through the debt of death) if, indeed, “one of two sparrows falleth not on the ground without the Father’s will.”76    See Matt. x. 29.  Comp. de Ex. Cast., c. i. ad fin.  Therefore if those whom God has conjoined man shall not separate by divorce, it is equally congruous that those whom God has separated by death man is not to conjoin by marriage; the joining of the separation will be just as contrary to God’s will as would have been the separation of the conjunction.

So far as regards the non-destruction of the will of God, and the restruction of the law of “the beginning.”  But another reason, too, conspires; nay, not another, but (one) which imposed the law of “the beginning,” and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce:  the fact that (he) who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a (woman) dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery.77    See Matt. v. 32.  A divorced woman cannot even marry legitimately; and if she commit any such act without the name of marriage, does it not fall under the category of adultery, in that adultery is crime in the way of marriage?  Such is God’s verdict, within straiter limits than men’s, that universally, whether through marriage or promiscuously, the admission of a second man (to intercourse) is pronounced adultery by Him.  For let us see what marriage is in the eye of God; and thus we shall learn what adultery equally is.  Marriage is (this):  when God joins “two into one flesh;” or else, finding (them already) joined in the same flesh, has given His seal to the conjunction.  Adultery is (this):  when, the two having been—in whatsoever way—disjoined, other—nay, rather alien—flesh is mingled (with either):  flesh concerning which it cannot be affirmed, “This is flesh out of my flesh, and this bone out of my bones.”78    Gen. ii. 23, in reversed order again.  For this, once for all done and pronounced, as from the beginning, so now too, cannot apply to “other” flesh.  Accordingly, it will be without cause that you will say that God wills not a divorced woman to be joined to another man “while her husband liveth,” as if He do will it “when he is dead;”79    Comp. Rom. vii. 1–3. whereas if she is not bound to him when dead, no more is she when living.  “Alike when divorce dissevers marriage as when death does, she will not be bound to him by whom the binding medium has been broken off.”  To whom, then, will she be bound?  In the eye of God, it matters nought whether she marry during her life or after his death.  For it is not against him that she sins, but against herself.  “Any sin which a man may have committed is external to the body; but (he) who commits adultery sins against his own body.”  But—as we have previously laid down above—whoever shall intermingle with himself “other” flesh, over and above that pristine flesh which God either conjoined into two or else found (already) conjoined, commits adultery.  And the reason why He has abolished divorce, which “was not from the beginning,” is, that He may strengthen that which “was from the beginning”—the permanent conjunction, (namely), of “two into one flesh:”  for fear that necessity or opportunity for a third union of flesh may make an irruption (into His dominion); permitting divorce to no cause but one—if, (that is), the (evil) against which precaution is taken chance to have occurred beforehand.  So true, moreover, is it that divorce “was not from the beginning,” that among the Romans it is not till after the six hundredth year from the building of the city that this kind of “hard-heartedness”80    Comp. Matt. xix. 8; Mark x. 5. is set down as having been committed.  But they indulge in promiscuous adulteries, even without divorcing (their partners):  to us, even if we do divorce them, even marriage will not be lawful.

CAPUT IX.

Sed hae argumentationes potius existimentur de conjecturis coactae, si non et sententiae adstiterint, quas Dominus emisit in repudii retractatu, quod permissum aliquando jam prohibet; in primis, quia ab initio non fuit sic, sicut matrimonii numerus; tum quia quos Deus conjunxit, homo non separabit (Matth. XIX, 6, 8); scilicet, ne contra Dominum faciat. Solus enim ille separabit, qui et conjunxit; separabit autem, non per duritiam repudii, quam exprobrat et compescit, sed per debitum mortis. Siquidem unus ex passeribus duobus non cadit in terram sine patris voluntate (Matth. X, 29). Igitur, si quos Deus 0940Dconjunxit, homo non separabit repudio; aeque consentaneum 0941A est, ut quos Deus separavit morte, homo non conjungat matrimonio; proinde contra Dei voluntatem juncturus separationem, atque si separasset conjunctionem. Hoc quantum ad Dei volutatem non destruendam, et initii formam restruendam. Caeterum, et alia ratio conspirat; imo non alia, sed quae initii formam imposuit, et voluntatem Dei movit ad prohibitionem repudii: Quoniam qui dimiserit uxorem suam, praeterquam ex caussa adulterii, facit eam adulterari; et: qui dimissam a viro a duxerit, adulterat utique (Matth. X, 22). Nam et nubere legitime non potest repudiata; et si quid tale commiserit sine matrimonii nomine, non capit elogium adulterii, qua adulterium in matrimonio crimen est? Deus aliter censuit, citra quam homines, ut in totum, sive per nuptias, sive 0941B vulgo, alterius viri admissio adulterium pronuntietur a Deo . Videamus enim quid sit matrimonium apud Deum, et ita cognoscemus quid sit aeque adulterium. Matrimonium est, cum Deus jungit duos in unam carnem, aut junctos deprehendens in eadem carne, conjunctionem signavit. Adulterium est, cum, quoquo modo disjunctis duobus, alia caro, imo aliena miscetur, de qua dici non possit: Haec est caro ex carne mea, et hoc os ex ossibus meis (Gen. II, 23). Semel enim hoc et factum, et pronuntiatum, sicut ab initio, ita et nunc in aliam carnem non potest convenire. Itaque sine caussa dices, Deum vivo marito nolle repudiatam alii viro jungi, quasi mortuo velit; quando si mortuo non tenetur, proinde nec vivo; tam repudio matrimonium dirimente quam morte, 0941C non tenebitur ei, cui per quod tenebatur, abruptum est; adeo non interest vivo an mortuo viro nubat. Neque enim in illum delinquit, sed in semetipsam. Omne delictum quod admiserit homo, extra corpus est; qui autem adulteratur, in corpus suum delinquit (I Cor. VI, 18). Adulteratur autem, sicut supra praestruximus, qui aliam carnem sibi immiscet super illam pristinam, quam Deus aut conjunxit in duos, aut conjunctam deprehendit. Ideoque abstulit repudium, quod ab initio non fuit; ut, quod ab initio fuit, muniat duorum in unam carnem perseverantiam, ne necessitas vel occasio tertiae concarnationis irrumpat, soli caussae permittens repudium, si forte praevenerit, cui praecavetur. Adeo autem repudium a primordio non fuit, ut apud Romanos post annum sexcentesimum 0942A Urbis conditae id genus duritiae commissum denotetur. Sed illi etiam non repudiantes adulteria commiscent; nobis, etsi repudiemus, ne nubere quidem licebit.