Marriage, Divorce, and Adultery

TATIAN: It was said that he that puts away his wife should give her a writing of divorce: but I say to you, that everyone that puts away his wife, except for the cause of adultery, has caused her to commit adultery: and whosoever takes one that is put away commits adultery.

TERTULLIAN: Christ prohibits divorce, saying, “Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her that is put away from her husband, also commits adultery.” In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: “When a man has taken a wife, and has lived with her, and it come to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and put it in her hand, and send her away out of his house.” You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the Gospel—between Moses and Christ? To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ. There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: “Moses,” He says, “because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so”—for this reason, indeed, because He who had “made them male and female” had likewise said, “The two shall become one flesh; what therefore God has joined together, do not let man separate.” Now, by this answer of His to the Pharisees, He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own servant, and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, when He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather absolved than abolished the enactment of Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them. I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. His words are: “Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her that is put away from her husband, also commits adultery,”—“put away,” that is, for the reason a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is not divorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved. Therefore, to marry while matrimony is undissolved is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. Indeed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commits adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.” Therefore, when justly deserved, divorce has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses from now on must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. In the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery.” He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thereafter not have it in his power to put away his wife. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “Do not forsake the wife of your youth.” Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You also find Him protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have now to show from where the Lord derived this decision of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John the Baptist. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her, a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless, when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife, seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband, and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother’s wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled by his lust, not by the prescription of the Levirate law—for, as his brother had left a daughter, the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account; and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death.

TERTULLIAN: We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, a heretic, more continent than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle Paul, although preferring the grace of self-restraint, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution thereof. Christ plainly forbids divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it. Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So Antipas, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; . . . But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod, Philip, the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod, Antipas, her husband's brother" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whiston, seventeen thirty-seven, emphasis mine). Eusebius recorded, “Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as is stated in the Gospels. Josephus also records the same fact, making mention of Herodias by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive.” intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? Even Christ, however, when he here commands “the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband,” both permitted divorce, which indeed he never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed the sanctity of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation.

ORIGEN: But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Savior will say, that when Jesus said, “Whoever shall put away his own wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress,” he also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, “Because he found in her an unseemly thing,” is to be reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favor in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; “but from the beginning it has not been so.”

HERMAS: And I said to him, “Sir, if anyone has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detects her in adultery, does the man sin if he continues to live with her?” And he said to me, “As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband knows that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.” And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continues in her foul practices?” And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he puts his wife away and marries another, he also commits adultery.” And I said to him, “What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?” And he said to me, “Assuredly. If the husband does not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. Moreover, adultery is committed not only by those who pollute their flesh, but by those who imitate the heathen in their actions. Therefore if anyone persists in such deeds, and does not repent, withdraw from him, and cease to live with him, otherwise you are a sharer in his sin. Therefore the injunction has been laid on you, that you should remain by yourselves, both man and woman, for in such persons repentance can take place. But I do not,” he said, “give opportunity for the doing of these deeds, but that he who has sinned may sin no more. But with regard to his previous transgressions, there is One who is able to provide a cure; for it is He, indeed, who has power over all.”

Justin Martyr: And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: . . . “Whoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, commits adultery.” And, “There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but all cannot receive this saying.” So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God. And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years; and I boast that I could produce such from every race of men. For what shall I say, too, of the countless multitude of those who have reformed intemperate habits, and learned these things? For Christ did not call the just nor the chaste to repentance, but the ungodly, and the licentious, and the unjust; His words being, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner.

Justin Martyr: But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently.

Justin Martyr: A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became sober-minded, and endeavored to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teaching of Christ, and assuring him that there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife from him by his actions. For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation of what is right, wished to be divorced from him. And when she was persuaded by her friends, who advised her still to continue with him, in the idea that some time or other her husband might give hope of amendment, she did violence to her own feeling and remained with him. But when her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself worse than ever, she—that she might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in his wickednesses and impieties—gave him what you call a bill of divorce, and was separated from him. But this noble husband of hers,—while he ought to have been rejoicing that those actions which formerly she unhesitatingly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she delighted in drunkenness and every vice, she had now given up, and desired that he too should give up the same,—when she had gone from him without his desire, brought an accusation against her, affirming that she was a Christian. And she presented a paper to you, the Emperor, requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs, and afterwards to make her defense against the accusation, when her affairs were set in order. And this you granted. And her former husband, since he was now no longer able to prosecute her, directed his assaults against a man, Ptolemaeus, whom Urbicus punished, and who had been her teacher in the Christian doctrines.

Justin Martyr: And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, that is, from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away.

Theophilus of Antioch: And Adam having been cast out of Paradise, in this condition knew Eve his wife, whom God had formed into a wife for him out of his rib. And this He did, not as if He were unable to make his wife separately, but God foreknew that man would call upon a number of gods. And having this foreknowledge, and knowing that through the serpent error would introduce a number of gods which had no existence,—for there being but one God, even then error was striving to disseminate a multitude of gods, saying, “You shall be as gods;”—in case, then, it would be supposed that one God made the man and another the woman, therefore He made them both; and God made the woman together with the man, not only that thus the mystery of God’s sole government might be exhibited, but also that their mutual affection might be greater. Therefore said Adam to Eve, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” And besides, he prophesied, saying, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they two shall be one flesh;” which also itself has its fulfillment in ourselves. For who that marries lawfully does not despise mother and father, and his whole family connection, and all his household, cleaving to and becoming one with his own wife, fondly preferring her? So that often, for the sake of their wives, some submit even to death.

Theophilus of Antioch: “And he that marries,” says the Gospel, “her that is divorced from her husband, commits adultery; and whosoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery.” Because Solomon says: “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goes in to a married woman shall not be innocent.”

ATHENAGORAS: Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite. Rather, you would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God. But if the remaining in virginity and in the state of an eunuch brings nearer to God, while the indulgence of carnal thought and desire leads away from Him, in those cases in which we shun the thoughts, much more do we reject the deeds. For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions,—that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a deceptive adultery. “For whosoever puts away his wife,” says He, “and marries another, commits adultery;” not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.

IRENAEUS: That erring Samaritan woman did not remain with one husband, but committed fornication by contracting many marriages.

TATIAN: And he arose from there, and came to the borders of Judaea beyond Jordan: and great multitudes went to him from there, and he healed them; and he taught them also, according to his custom. And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him, and asking him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” He said, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses made it allowable for us, saying, 'Whosoever will, let him write a writing of divorcement, and put away his wife.'” Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you not read, 'He that made them from the beginning made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason shall the man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they both shall be one body?' So then they are not two, but one body; the thing, then, which God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” And those Pharisees said to him, “Why did Moses consent that a man should give a writing of divorcement and put her away?” Jesus said to them, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts gave you permission to divorce your wives; but in the beginning it was not so. I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife without fornication, and marries another, has exposed her to adultery.” And his disciples, when he entered the house, asked him again about that. And he said to them, “Every one who puts away his wife, and marries another, has exposed her to adultery. And any woman that leaves her husband, and becomes another’s, has committed adultery. And whoever marries her that is divorced has committed adultery.” And his disciples said to him, “If there be between the man and the woman such a case as this, it is not good for a man to marry.” He said to them, “Not every man can endure this saying, except him to whom it is given. There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs which through men became eunuchs; and there are eunuchs which made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He that is able to be content, let him be content.”

Clement of Alexandria: Our view is that we welcome as blessed the state of abstinence from marriage in those to whom this has been granted by God. We admire monogamy and the high standing of single marriage, holding that we ought to share suffering with another and “bear one another's burdens,” lest anyone who thinks he stands securely should himself fall. It is of second marriage that the apostle says, “If you burn, marry.”

Clement of Alexandria: Is it not possible to remain continent even in the married state and not to seek to “put asunder what God has joined together.” For such is the teaching of those who divide the yoke of marriage, by reason of whom the Christian name is blasphemed. If it is the view of these people who themselves owe their existence to sexual relations that such relations are impure, must not they be impure? But I hold that even the seed of the sanctified is holy. In us it is not only the spirit which ought to be sanctified, but also our behavior, manner of life, and our body. What does the apostle Paul mean when he says that the wife is sanctified by the husband and the husband by the wife? And what is the meaning of the Lord's words to those who asked concerning divorce whether it is lawful to put away one's wife as Moses commanded? “Because of the hardness of your hearts,” he says, “Moses wrote this; but have you not read that God said to the first man, You two shall be one flesh? Therefore he who divorces his wife except for fornication makes her an adulteress.” On Marriage.

Clement of Alexandria: Concerning the words, “Not all can receive this saying. There are some eunuchs who were born so, and some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; let him receive it who can receive it,” they do not realize the context. After his word about divorce some asked him whether, if that is the position in relation to woman, it is better not to marry; and it was then that the Lord said: “Not all can receive this saying, but those to whom it is granted.” What the questioners wanted to know was whether, when a man's wife has been condemned for fornication, it is allowable for him to marry another. Therefore there is nothing meritorious about abstinence from marriage unless it arises from love to God. At any rate the blessed Paul says of those who revile marriage: “In the last times some shall depart from the faith, turning to spirits of error and doctrines inspired by demons, forbidding to marry and commanding abstinence from food.” And again he says: “Let no one disqualify you by demanding self-imposed ascetic practices and severe treatment of the body.” And the same writer has this also: “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be separated from her? Are you free from any wife? Do not seek to find one.” And again: “Let every man have his own wife lest Satan tempt you.” On Marriage.

Clement of Alexandria: But it is the same man and Lord who makes the old new, by no longer allowing several marriages, for at that time God required it when men had to increase and multiply, and by teaching single marriage for the sake of begetting children and looking after domestic affairs, for which purpose woman was given as a “helpmeet.” And if from sympathy the apostle allows a man a second marriage because he cannot control himself and burns with passion, he also does not commit any sin according to the Old Testament, for it was not forbidden by the law, but he does not fulfill the heightened perfection of the gospel ethic. But he gains heavenly glory for himself if he remains as he is, and keeps undefiled the marriage yoke broken by death, and willingly accepts God's purpose for him, by which he has become free from distraction for the service of the Lord. How then can marriage be a state only intended for ancient times and an invention of the law, and marriage on Christian principles of a different nature, if we hold that the Old and the New Testaments proclaim the same God? “For what God has joined together no man may ever put asunder” for any good reason; if the Father commanded this, so much the more also will the Son keep it. On Marriage.

Clement of Alexandria: But to put to shame and to discourage those inclined to contract a second marriage the apostle appropriately uses strong language and says at once: “Every other sin is external to the body, but he who commits fornication sins against his own body.” But if anyone dares to call marriage fornication, he again falls into blasphemy against the law and the Lord. For as covetousness is called fornication because it is opposed to contentment with what one possesses, and as idolatry is an abandonment of the one God to embrace many gods, so fornication is apostasy from single marriage to several.

TERTULLIAN: Now, if any limitation is set to marrying—such as the spiritual rule, which prescribes but one marriage under the Christian obedience, maintained by the authority of the Paraclete—it will be His prerogative to fix the limit Who had once been diffuse in His permission; His to gather, Who once scattered; His to cut down the tree, Who planted it; His to reap the harvest, Who sowed the seed; His to declare, “It remains that they who have wives be as though they had none,” Who once said, “Be fruitful, and multiply;” His the end to Whom belonged the beginning. Nevertheless, the tree is not cut down as if it deserved blame; nor is the corn reaped, as if it were to be condemned,—but simply because their time is come. So likewise the state of matrimony does not require the hook and scythe of sanctity, as if it were evil; but as being ripe for its discharge, and in readiness for that sanctity which will in the long run bring it a plenteous crop by its reaping. For this leads me to remark of Marcion’s god, that in reproaching marriage as an evil and unchaste thing, he is really prejudicing the cause of that very sanctity which he seems to serve.

TERTULLIAN: The same who brings us into the world must of necessity take us out of it too. Therefore when, through the will of God, the husband is deceased, the marriage likewise, by the will of God, deceases. Why should you restore what God has put an end to? Why do you, by repeating the servitude of matrimony, spurn the liberty which is offered you? “You have been bound to a wife,” says the apostle; “do not seek loosing. You have been loosed from a wife; do not seek binding.” For even if you do not “sin” in re-marrying after death, he still says “pressure of the flesh ensues.” Therefore, so far as we can, let us love the opportunity of self-restraint; as soon as it offers itself, let us resolve to accept it, that what we have not had strength to follow in matrimony we may follow in widowhood. The occasion must be embraced which puts an end to that which necessity commanded. How detrimental to faith, how obstructive to holiness, second marriages are, the discipline of the Church and the prescription of the apostle declare, when he does not sanction twice married men to preside over a Church, when he would not grant a widow admittance into the order unless she had been “the wife of one man;” for it behooves God’s altar to be set forth pure.

TERTULLIAN: One reason which imposed the law of “the beginning,” and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce is the fact that he who has dismissed his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her commit adultery; and he who has married a woman dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery. A divorced woman cannot even marry legitimately; and if she commits 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? . . . 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” 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, marriage will not be lawful.

TERTULLIAN: She must necessarily persevere in that peace with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Editor's note: The following quotation from Tertullian was written during his Montanist phase. The Montanists prohibited second marriages after the death of a spouse, thus going beyond the Scriptures. However, Tertullian made an exception for remarriage after death only if the death of the first wife occurred prior to the husband's believing.

TERTULLIAN: “You have been bound to a wife, do not seek loosing; you have been loosed from a wife, do not seek a wife.” “But if you shall have taken to yourself a wife, you have not sinned;” because to one who, before believing, had been “loosed from a wife,” she will not be counted a second wife who, subsequently to believing, is the first: for it is from the time of our believing that our life itself dates its origin.

Mark Minucius Felix: But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all.

ORIGEN: After this it is written that “there came to Him the Pharisees tempting Him and saying, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?'” Mark, also, has written to the like effect. Accordingly, of those who came to Jesus and inquired of Him, there were some who put questions to tempt Him; and if our Savior so transcendent was tempted, which of His disciples who is ordained to teach need be vexed, when he is tempted by some who inquire, not from the love of learning, but from the wish to tempt? And you might find many passages, if you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tempted our Jesus, and others, different from them, as a certain lawyer, and perhaps also a scribe, that by bringing together what is said about those who tempted Him, you might find by investigation what is useful for this kind of inquiries. Only, the Savior, in response to those who tempted Him, laid down dogmas; for they said, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his own wife for every cause?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” and so on. And I think that the Pharisees put forward this word for this reason, that they might attack Him whatever He might say; as, for example, if He had said, “It is lawful,” they would have accused Him of dissolving marriages for trifles; but, if He had said, “It is not lawful,” they would have accused Him of permitting a man to dwell with a woman, even with sins; so, likewise, in the case of the tribute money, if He had told them to give, they would have accused Him of making the people subject to the Romans, and not to the law of God, but if He had told them not to give, they would have accused Him of creating war and sedition, and of stirring up those who were not able to stand against so powerful an army. But they did not perceive in what way He answered blamelessly and wisely, in the first place, rejecting the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause, and, in the second place, giving answer to the question about the bill of divorce; for He saw that not every cause is a reasonable ground for the dissolution of marriage, and that the husband must dwell with the wife as the weaker vessel, giving honor, and bearing her burdens in sins; and by what is written in Genesis, He puts to shame the Pharisees who boasted in the Scriptures of Moses, by saying, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,” and so on, and, subjoining to these words, because of the saying, “And the two shall become one flesh,” teaching in harmony with one flesh, namely, “So that they are no more two, but one flesh.” And, as tending to convince them that they should not put away their wife for every cause, it is said, “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” . . . And it is God who has joined together the two in one so that they are no more two, from the time that the woman is married to the man. And, since God has joined them together, on this account in the case of those who are joined together by God, there is a “gift;” and Paul knowing this, that marriage according to the Word of God was a “gift,” like as holy celibacy was a gift, says, “But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man has his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.” And those who are joined together by God both mind and keep the precept, “Husbands love your wives, as Christ also the church.” The Savior then commanded, “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” but man wishes to put asunder what God has joined together, when, “falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding,” not only to commit fornication, but “to marry,” he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God. Let these things then be said, keeping in view what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and the man and the woman, as the Savior taught in the answer to the Pharisees.

ORIGEN: Some of the laws in the Old Testament were written not as excellent, but as by way of accommodation to the weakness of those to whom the law was given; for something of this kind is indicated in the words, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;” but that which is pre-eminent and superior to the law, which was written for their hardness of heart, is indicated in this, “But from the beginning it has not been so.” But in the new covenant also there are some legal injunctions of the same order as, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;” for example, because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our weakness, “But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband;” and this, “Let the husband render to the wife her due, and likewise also the wife to the husband.” To these sayings it is accordingly subjoined, “But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment.” But this also, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord,” was said by Paul in view of our hardness of heart and weakness, to those who do not wish to desire earnestly the greater gifts and become more blessed. But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband lives,” and, “So then if while her husband lives, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress.”

ORIGEN: Our Savior says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, “Whoever shall put away his own wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress.” But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Savior forbids any one to put away his own wife except for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Savior, every one would acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, “Let no one put away his own wife except for the cause of fornication,” but says, “Whoever shall put away his own wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress.” For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;” and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any defense of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a ground of defense or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more deserving of blame who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away,—for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Savior. Now after these things, having considered how many possible accidents may arise in marriages, which it was necessary for the man to endure and in this way suffer very great hardships, or if he did not endure, to transgress the word of Christ, the disciples say to him, taking refuge in celibacy as easier, and more expedient than marriage, though the latter appears to be expedient, “If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” And to this the Savior said, teaching us that absolute chastity is a gift given by God, and not merely the fruit of training, but given by God with prayer, “All men cannot receive the saying, but they to whom it is given.” Then seeing that some make a sophistical attack on the saying, “To whom it is given,” as if those who wished to remain pure in celibacy, but were mastered by their desires, had an excuse, we must say that, if we believe the Scriptures, why at all do we lay hold of the saying, “But they to whom it is given,” but no longer attend to this, “Ask and it shall be given you,” and to that which is added to it, “For every one that asks receives”? For if they “to whom it is given” can receive this saying about absolute purity, let him who wills ask, obeying and believing Him who said, “Ask and it will be given to you,” and not doubting about the saying, “Every one that asks receives.” But when you will inquire who it is that asks, for no one of those who do not receive has asked, even though he seems to have done so, since it is not lawful to say that the saying, “Every one that asks receives,” is a lie. Who then is he that asks, but he who has obeyed Jesus when He says, “If you stand praying, believe that you receive, and you will receive?” But he that asks must do everything in his power that he may pray “with the spirit” and pray also “with the understanding,” and pray “without ceasing,” keeping in mind also the saying, “And He spoke a parable to them to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge,” and so on. And it is useful to know what it is to ask, and what it is to receive, and what is meant by “Every one that asks, receives,” and by “I say to you though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity, he will arise and give him as many as he needs.” It is therefore added, “And I say to you, 'Ask, and it shall be given you,'” and so on. Further, let the saying, “All men cannot receive the saying but they to whom it is given,” be a stimulus to us to ask worthily of receiving; and this, “What son is there of you who shall ask his father for a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent,” and so on. God therefore will give the good gift, perfect purity in celibacy and chastity, to those who ask Him with the whole soul, and with faith, and in prayers without ceasing.

CYPRIAN: Hold fast, O virgins! Hold fast what you have begun to be; hold fast what you shall be. A great reward awaits you, a great recompense of virtue, the immense advantage of chastity. Do you wish to know what problems the virtue of self-restraint avoids, what good it possesses? “I will multiply,” says God to the woman, “your sorrows and your groanings; and in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” You are free from this sentence. You do not fear the sorrows and the groans of women. You have no fear of child-bearing; nor is your husband lord over you; but your Lord and Head is Christ, after the likeness and in the place of the man; with that of men your lot and your condition is equal. It is the word of the Lord which says, “The children of this world beget and are begotten; but they who are counted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage: neither shall they die any more: for they are equal to the angels of God, being the children of the resurrection.” That which we shall be, you have already begun to be. You already possess in this world the glory of the resurrection. You pass through the world without the disease of the world; in that you continue chaste and virgins, you are equal to the angels of God. Only let your virginity remain and endure substantial and uninjured; and as it began bravely, let it persevere continuously, and not seek the ornaments of necklaces nor garments, but of conduct. Let it look towards God and heaven, and not lower to the lust of the flesh and of the world, the eyes uplifted to things above, or set them upon earthly things. The first decree commanded to increase and to multiply; the second enjoined continency. While the world is still rough and void, we are propagated by the fruitful begetting of numbers, and we increase to the enlargement of the human race. Now, when the world is filled and the earth supplied, they who can receive continency, living after the manner of eunuchs, are made eunuchs unto the kingdom. Nor does the Lord command this, but He exhorts it; nor does He impose the yoke of necessity, since the free choice of the will is left. . . . As we have borne the image of him who is earthy, let us also bear the image of Him who is heavenly.” Virginity bears this image, integrity bears it, holiness bears it, and truth. Disciplines which are mindful of God bear it, retaining righteousness with religion, steadfast in faith, humble in fear, brave to all suffering, meek to sustain wrong, easy to show mercy, of one mind and one heart in fraternal peace.

CYPRIAN: Marriage is not to be contracted with Gentiles. In Tobias: “Take a wife from the seed of your parents, and do not take a strange woman who is not of the tribe of your parents.” Also in Genesis, Abraham sends his servant to take from his seed Rebecca, for his son Isaac. Also in Ezra, it was not sufficient for God when the Jews were laid waste, unless they forsook their foreign wives, with the children also whom they had begotten of them. Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “The woman is bound so long as her husband lives; but if he dies, she is freed to marry whom she will, only in the Lord. But she will be happier if she abide thus.” And again: “Do not you know that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? Far be it from me. Or do not you know that he who is joined together with a harlot is one body? For two shall be in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” Also in the second to the Corinthians: “Do not be joined together with unbelievers. For what participation is there between righteousness and unrighteousness? Or what communication does light have with darkness?” Also concerning Solomon in the third book of Kings: “And foreign wives turned away his heart after their gods.”

CYPRIAN: A wife must not depart from her husband; or if she should depart, she must remain unmarried. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “But to them that are married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not be separated from her husband; but if she should depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and that the husband should not put away his wife.”

NOVATIAN: The precepts of chastity, brothers and sisters, are ancient. For what reason do I say ancient? Because they were ordained at the same time as men themselves. For both her own husband belongs to the woman, for the reason that besides him she may know no other; and the woman is given to the man for the purpose that, when that which had been his own had been yielded to him, he should seek for nothing belonging to another. And in such manner it is said, “Two shall be in one flesh,” that what had been made one should return together, that a separation without return should not afford any occasion to a stranger. Consequently the apostle declares that the man is the head of the woman, that he might commend chastity in the conjunction of the two. For as the head cannot be suited to the limbs of another, so also one’s limbs cannot be suited to the head of another: for one’s head matches one’s limbs, and one’s limbs one’s head; and both of them are associated by a natural link in mutual concord, lest, by any discord arising from the separation of the members, the compact of the divine covenant should be broken. Yet he adds, and says: “Because he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ the Church.” From this passage there is great authority for charity with chastity, if wives are to be loved by their husbands even as Christ loved the Church and wives ought so to love their husbands also as the Church loves Christ. Christ gave this judgment when, being inquired of, He said that a wife must not be put away, except for the cause of fornication; such honor did He put upon chastity. Hence arose the decree: “Do not allow an adulteress to live.” Hence the apostle says: “This is the will of God, that you abstain from fornication.” Hence also he says the same thing: “That the members of Christ must not be joined with the members of an harlot.” Hence the man is delivered over unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, who, treading under foot the law of chastity, practices the vices of the flesh. Hence with reason adulterers do not attain the kingdom of heaven. Hence it is that every sin is without the body, but that the adulterer alone sins against his own body. Hence other authoritative utterances of the instructor, all of which it is not necessary at this time to collect, especially among you, who for the most part know and do them; and you cannot find cause for complaint concerning these things, even though they are not described. For the adulterer has no excuse, nor could he, because he might take a wife. . . . Laws are prescribed to married women, who are so bound that they cannot as a consequence be separated.

LACTANTIUS: Lest anyone think that he can circumscribe the divine precepts, there are added those that take away all calumny and occasion of fraud; he is an adulterer who marries a divorced spouse, and he who dismisses his wife commits adultery for God is unwilling to dissociate the body.

LACTANTIUS: Therefore let it be observed in all the duties of life, let it be observed in marriage. For it is not sufficient if you abstain from another’s bed, or from the brothel. Let him who has a wife seek nothing further, but, content with her alone, let him guard the mysteries of the marriage-bed chaste and undefiled. For he is equally an adulterer in the sight of God and impure, who, having thrown off the yoke, behaves promiscuously in strange pleasure either with a free woman or a slave. But as a woman is bound by the bonds of chastity not to desire any other man, so let the husband be bound by the same law, since God has joined together the husband and the wife in the union of one body. On this account He has commanded that the wife shall not be put away unless convicted of adultery, and that the bond of the conjugal compact shall never be dissolved, unless unfaithfulness has broken it.