Thesis XIX

The same truth is demonstrated by the authority of the Apostle.

I. Let us make the step from Tradition to Scripture, that is, to the doctrine of the Apostle and of Christ, from which Tradition has been derived. Now we consider the doctrine handed down by the Apostle. The words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. VII, 10, 11: But to those who are joined in matrimony, I command, not I but the Lord, that the wife not depart from the husband: but if she has departed, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let the husband not dismiss his wife. It must be presupposed what we have already admonished elsewhere: that according to the Apostle (ibid., 4) the right of each spouse over the other is equal with regard to this matter; whence what is said concerning the woman will also have to be accepted concerning the man. Moreover it must be noted that here the speech is about a separation whose author is the spouse, male or female, who withdraws from the other. Now when Paul says, but if she has departed, he speaks of a woman who departs from a just cause, of which sort certainly is the adultery of the man. This is proved, because if she departed without cause, the Apostle would not permit her the option of either of the two, either to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to the man, but would command her to be reconciled; the reason is evident, because it is a precept of the Lord, as is said here, that she not depart. But since the man has power over the body of the woman, he cannot without a just cause be deprived of using his right. Therefore the Apostle, giving the option of each, supposes that the woman departs from a just cause; and since he speaks indefinitely, he supposes any just cause, among which certainly is the adultery of the man. Therefore the sense is: if the woman, on account of fornication of the man or some other legitimate cause, has departed, let her remain in the departure, that is, separated, yet unmarried, or return again to her own husband. Therefore the precept of the Lord is of this sort: first, that the woman not depart from the man; then, if a just cause is present, departure is permitted, but with the condition that the woman not marry another man. Therefore it is commanded absolutely to the woman that she not contract other nuptials while the man is living, and departure is prohibited per se; but per accidens, that is, when a just cause exists, it is permitted, yet so that it be only separation of bed and board. "Therefore the Lord," says Augustine (de Adult. coniug., L. I, c. 21), "commanded that a woman not depart from the man; but if she shall have departed, certainly for that cause for which it is lawful to depart, to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband." Read the whole book. But this, as we have already noted, also has force for men. Therefore even in the case of adultery, which is the most just reason for departure, the dissolution of matrimony is prohibited. But it is so prohibited that that departing woman still remains bound by the bond of marriage; for he from whom she departed is still her husband, to whom she can be reconciled: or let her be reconciled to her husband. Moreover this precept of the Lord cannot be accepted only of the illicitness of other nuptials; for when the wife departs from a just cause, if the bond of matrimony is dissolved or can be dissolved with God consenting, there is no reason why other nuptials should be illicit, since God has obligated no one to virginity and has permitted second and further nuptials. Notice in passing that by these words of the Apostle the distinction is already indicated between divorce which is simple separation of bed and common life, and divorce by which the bond is dissolved.

II. This is also the doctrine handed down by the same Apostle, Rom. VII, 2, 3: the woman who is under a husband is bound to the law while the husband lives; but if her husband shall have died, she is loosed from the law of the husband. Therefore, while the husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she has been with another man; but if her husband shall have died, she is freed from the law of the husband, so that she is not an adulteress if she has been with another man. Cf. the things said in Th. XVI. But it is certain that in these words there is contained a certain doctrine not only in the old law but in the new; for the Apostle hands down the same doctrine to the Christians of Corinth, 1 Cor. VII, 39. Pollentius (de Adult. coniug., L. II, c. 2 seq.) thought these words of the Apostle were to be understood thus: "that if the man has fornicated, he is counted as dead, and the wife who has fornicated as dead, and therefore it is lawful for either of them, just as after death, so after the fornication of the spouse, to be joined to another." Augustine attacks this interpretation thus: "I ask you whether anyone who has married a woman who has ceased to be bound to a husband is to be held an adulterer? I think this does not seem so to you; for therefore a woman, while the husband lives, shall be called an adulteress if she has been with another man, because she is bound so long as her husband lives.... Moreover, if by the death of either of them this bond between husband and wife is dissolved, and fornication also, as you say, must be held for death, beyond doubt his woman will be loosed from this man when she has fornicated. For she will not be able to be called bound to her husband when the man has been loosed from her. And by this, after she has ceased by fornicating to be bound to her husband, whoever marries her will not be an adulterer. And see how absurd it is that he is not an adulterer for this reason, because he marries an adulteress. Indeed, what is more monstrous, neither will the woman herself be an adulteress, because she will not be the wife of another to the later man, but his own. For when the prior conjugal bond has been dissolved by adultery, to whomever she has now been married, if he does not have a spouse, she will not be an adulteress with an adulterer, but rather a wife with a husband. How then will this be true: A woman is bound so long as her husband lives? Behold, her husband lives, because he has neither departed from the body nor fornicated, which you wish to be counted for death; and nevertheless the woman is now not bound to him. Do you not attend how much this is against the Apostle saying: A woman is bound so long as her husband lives? Or perhaps you will say: he indeed lives, but he is no longer her husband, because he then ceased to be when she dissolved the conjugal bond by adultery. How therefore, while the husband lives, shall she be called an adulteress if she has been with another man, since indeed that man is no longer her husband, the conjugal bond having already been dissolved by the woman's adultery? Wherefore according to sound doctrine a woman is bound so long as her husband lives, that is, has not yet departed from the body." This argumentation of Augustine certainly shows that 1. by the very fact of the adultery of either one, the conjugal bond is not dissolved; 2. the words of the Apostle, for as long a time as her husband lives, cannot be accepted concerning that life which is said to consist in conjugal fidelity. For from this it would follow that just as, with either spouse dead, by that very fact the bond is dissolved, Paul being witness, so also it is dissolved by that very fact that either one violates fidelity; which nevertheless we have said in the first place to be false, and Augustine demonstrated. Wherefore the life of the husband must be accepted only in the immediate literal sense. To this pertains the argumentation of Augustine. But if, as long as the husband lives, the woman is bound to the law of matrimony, not only is the bond not dissolved by the very fact of the adultery of either party, but neither is there a right for the innocent spouse, suppose the woman, of dissolving the bond on account of the adultery of the other. For as long as her husband lives, she is so obligated by the law of matrimony that she is an adulteress if she is united to another. Therefore, even if she repudiates an adulterous husband, if she marries another, since it is verified that while the husband lives she is with another man, the consequent also will be true, namely that she is an adulteress, that is, that the other marriage is null while the prior one remains. Therefore while the husband lives there is no power for the wife of dissolving the marriage, even if the man breaks fidelity. And the man likewise, "because the form is equal in both" (ibid., L. I, c. 1), cannot dissolve the conjugal bond, even if the woman is an adulteress.