Marriage and Virginity
that she did not sin afterward by marrying, because he sinned first by divorcing her? What will the unchaste woman achieve by complaining about Christ's law, except to be punished for complaining?
Remarriage Is Not Allowed, Even for Procreation
11, 11. Let us look now at the additional material you inserted in another place, to which you wanted me to give a reply.†9 There you are concerned and feel pity for the man who is forced to live with an adulteress, if not by his inability to be celibate, certainly by the need to have children, as happens if he is not allowed to divorce her and marry someone else while she is still alive. It would be right for you to be concerned about this if it were not adultery to marry someone else while one's wife, adulteress though she may be, is still alive. If, however, this is adultery, as we have learned from the discussion so far, why is the motive of having children brought up? This is no reason for condoning wickedness. Is it that taking steps not to die without posterity is as necessary as choosing to live in the next life? This will not be granted to adulterers, but after their first death they will inevitably be condemned to a second death for eternity. That motive of having children would drive husbands not only to divorce adulteresses, but even to divorce women of great chastity, if they happen to be sterile, and afterward marry someone else; and I do not think you would approve of that.
12. So, if adultery cannot be excused because of inability to be celibate, still less is it excused for the purpose of having children!
Procreation Is No Longer a Necessity for Christians
12. The apostle wanted this weakness, the inability to stay celibate, to find relief in the respectability of marriage. He did not say, "If they have no children, they should marry," but If they are unable to be continent, they should marry; for it is better to marry than to burn (1 Cor 7:9). The bearing of children makes up for giving in to the inability to be chaste and marrying. Unchastity is a sin, but marriage is not a sin; hence by means of this good thing, that bad thing becomes pardonable. Because marriage was instituted for the purpose of having children, it was entered into by the fathers for that purpose. They had intercourse only because of that duty to have children, and never unlawfully. At that time there was the need to propagate the race, but this need no longer exists, because, as scripture says, There is a time for embracing, which was certainly the case then, and a time for refraining from all embrace (Eccl 3:5), which is the case now. Speaking about the present age the apostle says, For the rest, my brothers and sisters, time is short; it is left for those who have wives to be as though they do not (1 Cor 7:29). Accordingly it is said with great assurance, Let anyone who is able to accept this accept it (Mt 19:12); but whoever is unable to be continent should marry (1 Cor 7:9). At that time even celibacy lowered itself by marrying, because of the duty of having children and propagating the race, whereas now the marriage bond rescues the weakness of incontinence by enabling the propagation of children to take place, not in the degradation of adultery, but with the respectability of marriage. Why did the apostle not say, "If they have no children, they should marry"? Because in this time of refraining from all embrace there is no need to have children and propagate. And why did he say, If they are unable to be continent, they should marry? Undoubtedly so that they would not be driven to commit adultery because of the inability to be celibate.
If, therefore, they are capable of celibacy, they should neither procreate nor marry. If, on the other hand, they are not capable of celibacy, they should marry lawfully, so as not to propagate shamefully, or even more shamefully sleep with someone without propagating. No doubt, even some lawfully married couples do this last mentioned thing; but just the same, when the conception of offspring is precluded, it is wrong and shameful even to sleep with one's lawful wife. Onan, the son of Judah did this, and God killed him for it.†10 Propagation of children, therefore, is in fact the primary, natural and legitimate purpose of marriage. For this reason those who marry because of their inability to be celibate ought not to remedy their own defect in this way while at the same time eliminating the thing that makes marriage good, namely, the propagation of children.†11 The apostle was speaking about those who are incapable of celibacy, when he said: Therefore, I should like the younger ones to marry, and have children, and be mothers of families, and not give our adversary any opportunity to speak evil about them. Already some have turned back to follow Satan (1 Tm 5:14-15).
Therefore, when he said: I should like the younger ones to marry, he was undoubtedly giving this advice to ward off the collapse of celibacy. Lest, however, they should think only of the weakness of carnal feelings, and that this was all that needed to be attended to in marriage, while the thing that gave marriage its value was either despised or neglected, he immediately added: have children, and be mothers of families. Those who choose to stay celibate certainly choose something better than the thing that gives marriage its value, namely, the procreation of children. Hence, if celibacy is chosen, in order to secure something better than the thing that gives marriage its value, how much greater is the need to protect it to ward off adultery! Although the apostle said, If they are unable to be continent, they should marry; for it is better to marry than to burn (1 Cor 7:9), he did not say, "It is better to commit adultery than to burn."
If the Couple Does Not Reconcile, Celibacy Is Required
13, 13. All we can recommend, therefore, to those who are afraid to take back partners who have committed adultery, even though they have been healed by repentance, is to stay celibate. For, whether he is an adulterer or chaste, a woman is bound to her husband, as long as he lives (1 Cor 7:29), and she commits adultery if she marries anyone else; and the man, since he is tied to his wife as long as she lives, whether she is an adulteress or chaste, commits adultery if he marries another woman. As this bond is not broken, even when the wife is separated after being divorced by an innocent husband, even less is it broken if she commits adultery when they are still together. Accordingly, it is not broken except by the death of the husband, not when he commits adultery but when he leaves the body. Hence, if a woman leaves a husband who commits adultery, and she does not choose to be reunited with him, she must remain unmarried; and if a man divorces a wife who commits adultery, and he does not choose to take her back, even after she has repented, then he must stay celibate. If they do not do this out of desire to choose the greater good, then certainly they must do it to avoid deadly evil. I would urge this, even if the wife had an incurable and long-lasting disease, even if she was living somewhere else physically separated from her husband and he could not go to her; and finally, I would urge it even if a woman of chastity, wanting to live a life of celibacy, divorced a husband who was innocent of any unchastity, even though what she does is out of order because not done by mutual consent. I do not think any Christian would dispute that anyone who goes with another woman, because his wife is ill or is away for a long time or wants to live celibately, is an adulterer. So then, even after divorcing a wife who is an adulteress, with any other woman he is an adulterer, since not just this particular one or that particular one, but everyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery (Lk 16:18). Consequently if there is little desire for the life of the saints free from the bond of marriage, let there be dread of the punishment of adulterers, and if celibacy is not