[Footnote 37: GEFFCKEN, _Ehescheidung_, 18-20. In general on the views of the early Fathers see also FREISEN, _Geschichte des can. Eherechts_, 770 ff.; ESMEIN, _Le mariage en droit canonique_, II, 48-55; MEYRICK, in _Dict. Christ. Ant._, II, 1110; WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 86 ff., 107 ff.; POPP, _Ehescheidung_, 54 ff.; GREVE, _Ehescheidung_, 190 ff.; _Observations on Mar. Laws_, 330 ff.; MOY, _Eherecht der Christen_, 10-45; ZHISHMAN, _Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche_, 99-102; LUCKOCK, _Hist. of Marriage_, 80-153; TEBBS, _Essay_, 125 ff.; MILTON, "Tetrachordon," _Prose Works_, III, 414 ff.; BURNET, _Hist. of the Reformation_, I, 26-133, 330 ff., who discusses Henry VIII.'s divorce from Queen Katherine and summarizes the results of Cranmer's examination of the Fathers and early canons in connection with the Northampton case. Burnet's summary is also given by GEARY, _Marriage and Family Relations_, 577, 578.
For the Roman Catholic view see particularly CIGOI, _Unauflösbarkeit der ch. Ehe_, 1 ff.; ROSKOVÁNY, _De mat. in ecc. cath._, II, 1 ff., 187 ff., 198 ff.; PERRONE, _De mat. christ._, III, 221 ff.]
[Footnote 38: _Cf._ GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 18.]
[Footnote 39: ESMEIN, _op. cit._, I, 220 ff.; II, 268 ff.]
[Footnote 40: Or "fornication," the _porneia_ of Matthew.]
[Footnote 41: _Cf._ the sources cited by FREISEN, _Geschichte des can. Eherechts_, 770; MEYRICK, in _Dict. Christ. Ant._, II, 1110. This view is taken by AUGUSTINE, _De serm. dom. in monte_, c. xvi; but he doubts its correctness in the "Retractions;" MEYRICK, _loc. cit._ Tertullian shows also that mishandling and insult, as well as adultery, are considered sufficient grounds of separation: GEFFCKEN, _Ehescheidung_, 20, 21. See however, PERRONE, _De mat. christ._, III, 231 ff.]
The case is similar with respect to second marriage. Apparently there is a strong tendency from the beginning to treat marriage as indissoluble, but, "intentionally or unintentionally," the utterances of the Fathers on this vital question are unclear. Frequently they content themselves, as Geffcken observes, with a "paraphrase of the scriptural texts relating to the matter."[42] Seemingly, according to the common or prevailing opinion, neither party whether innocent or guilty is allowed to form a new marriage during the lifetime of the other; but there is on this point a great lack of precision.[43] Tertullian, after yielding to Montanism, even goes so far as to reject all second marriage as un-Christian; and the same position is taken by Minutius Felix.[44] There are, however, less rigid constructions. By some Fathers the right of remarriage is conceded to the man repudiating a guilty wife, while they deny it to the woman under like conditions. Others, actuated by a livelier sense of justice, like Epiphanius, concede it to both consorts alike; but these opinions are rejected by the majority.[45] More and more, in theory if not always in practice, the antagonism of the church to the second marriage of a divorced man or woman becomes apparent as we approach the close of the period under consideration. This is proved even by the action of the provincial assemblies. Thus the Spanish Council of Elvira of the year 306 decrees that the woman who puts away a guilty husband and marries another shall be excommunicated; and, save in case of mortal sickness, she shall not be admitted again to communion until after her first husband's death. If, however, she have left her husband without cause and contracted another marriage, she shall not be admitted to communion even on the death-bed; but nothing is said concerning a dissolution of the later marriage.[46] Similar in spirit are the canons of the Council of Arles held in the year 314. The general principle of the indissolubility of the matrimonial relation is positively asserted,[47] but in connection with a concession which illustrates the practical difficulty of consistently enforcing the new doctrine in all parts of the Roman world. The youthful husband[48] who puts away a guilty wife is to be "advised" not to marry again during her lifetime; thus dealing far more gently with the man than did the Council of Elvira with the woman for the same offense.[49]