Answers from church history on today's questions
What Christian writers said, from about AD 100 to 1930.
37 passages · 25 writers · 11 centuries
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Origen, Tertullian, and Jerome say that marrying a divorced person, or marrying again while the former spouse lives, is adultery. Augustine says separation does not make the marriage void and that only the death of the husband or wife looses the bond, and Aquinas and the Council of Trent say adultery does not dissolve the marriage. Basil says a woman abandoned by her husband ought to remain as she is, the Council of Carthage says a man or woman put away should not be married to another but remain as they are or be reconciled, and the Apostolic Canons excommunicate a layman who puts away his wife and marries another. The Westminster Confession says it is lawful for the innocent party to marry another after a divorce for adultery, Robertson says Jesus by implication allows remarriage of the innocent party, and Hodge says a justifiable divorce dissolves the marriage tie. Aquinas says a believer may be united to another in marriage if the unbelieving spouse refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator, Basil says a woman who unwillingly marries a man deserted by his wife and is then repudiated is not prohibited from marriage, and Leo says the marriage of husbands carried off into captivity and their wives must be restored when the husbands return.
13 passages · 9 writers · 1st c. to 400s
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Basil, and Augustine say a person who marries again while the former spouse lives, or marries a divorced person, commits adultery. Hermas says the husband ought not to marry another when his wife has been put away, and Chrysostom asks how a man can join himself to another while his wife is yet alive.
c. 100–150 · Hermas, The Shepherd of Hermas mand4.1
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.
c. 155 · Justin Martyr, First Apology 15
And, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth 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.
c. 176–180 · Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians (Legatio) 33
Nay, 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 specious 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.
c. 210–217 · Tertullian, On Monogamy (De monogamia) 9
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.” 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;” whereas if she is not bound to him when dead, no more is she when living.
c. 210–217 · Tertullian, On Monogamy (De monogamia) 11
And thus he recalls his permission. So, then, in the very same passage in which he definitely rules that “each one ought permanently to remain in that calling in which he shall be called;” adding, “A woman is bound so long as her husband liveth; but if he shall have fallen asleep, she is free: whom she shall wish let her marry, only in the Lord,” he hence also demonstrates that such a woman is to be understood as has withal herself been “found” (by the faith) “loosed from a husband,” similarly as the husband “loosed from a wife”—the “loosing” having taken place through death, of course, not through divorce; inasmuch as to the divorced he would grant no permission to marry, in the teeth of the primary precept.
c. 246–248 · Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 14.24
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 culpable 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 Saviour.
c. 246–248 · Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 14.23
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 liveth, but if her husband be 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 liveth,” and “So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress,” not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law, and written.
c. 357–378 · Basil of Caesarea, Letters 199.48
The woman who has been abandoned by her husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. The Lord said, “If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causeth her to commit adultery;” thus, by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man. For how can the man being guilty, as having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame, when she is called adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another man?
c. 370–419 · Jerome, Letters 55.3
The apostle has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared that, if a woman marries again while her husband is living, she is an adulteress. You must not speak to me of the violence of a ravisher, a mother’s pleading, a father’s bidding, the influence of relatives, the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel: “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.” Mark what he says: “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer.
c. 370–419 · Jerome, Letters 77.3
The Lord has given commandment that a wife must not be put away “except it be for fornication, and that, if put away, she must remain unmarried.” Now a commandment which is given to men logically applies to women also. For it cannot be that, while an adulterous wife is to be put away, an incontinent husband is to be retained.
c. 391 · John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John 63.3
If there were no hell, if there were no punishment, yet, after those contracts, those marriage torches, the lawful bed, the procreation of children, the intercourse, how couldest thou bear to join thyself to another? How is it that thou art not ashamed nor blushest? Knowest thou not that they who after the death of their own wife, introduce another into their own house, are blamed by many? yet this action hath no penalty attached to it: but thou bringest in another while thy wife is yet alive.
c. 393–395 · Augustine of Hippo, Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount (De sermone Domini in monte) 1.16.48
But in reference to what He says, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery,” it may be asked whether she also who is married commits adultery in the same way as he does who marries her. For she also is commanded to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but this in the case of her departing from her husband. There is, however, a great difference whether she put away or be put away. For if she put away her husband, and marry another, she seems to have left her former husband from a desire of changing her marriage connection, which is, without doubt, an adulterous thought. But if she be put away by the husband, with whom she desired to be, he indeed who marries her commits adultery, according to the Lord’s declaration; but whether she also be involved in a like crime is uncertain,—although it is much less easy to discover how, when a man and woman have intercourse one with another with equal consent, one of them should be an adulterer, and the other not. To this is to be added the consideration, that if he commits adultery by marrying her who is divorced from her husband (although she does not put away, but is put away), she causes him to commit adultery, which nevertheless the Lord forbids. And hence we infer that, whether she has been put away, or has put away her husband, it is necessary for her to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.
c. 401 · Augustine of Hippo, On the Good of Marriage (De bono coniugali) 32
Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.
5 passages · 5 writers · 1200s to 1800s
Aquinas says adultery does not dissolve a marriage and that it is unlawful to marry again while the other lives, and the Council of Trent says the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of adultery and that neither party can contract another marriage during the other's lifetime. Calvin says marriage is not dissolved by divorces or dissensions and that those not received by their husbands remain bound so that they cannot take other husbands. Barnes says no one separated from her husband can marry again unless there is a regular divorce according to the law of Christ, and Fausset says a new marriage is not to be added to the sin of separation.
c. 1252–1256 · Thomas Aquinas, Supplement to the Third Part of the Summa Theologica Suppl., q. 62, a. 5, co.
I answer that, Nothing supervenient to marriage can dissolve it: wherefore adultery does not make a marriage cease to be valid. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i, 10), "as long as they live they are bound by the marriage tie, which neither divorce nor union with another can destroy." Therefore it is unlawful for one, while the other lives, to marry again.
1546 · John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, part 1 (chapters 1-14) 7.11
But if she depart That this is not to be understood of those who have been put away for adultery, is evident from the punishment that followed in that case; for it was a capital crime even by the Roman laws, and almost by the common law of nations. But as husbands frequently divorced their wives, either because their manners were not congenial, or because their personal appearance did not please them, or because of some offense; and as wives, too, sometimes deserted their husbands on account of their cruelty, or excessively harsh and dishonorable treatment, he says that marriage is not dissolved by divorces or dissensions of that nature. For it is an agreement that is consecrated by the name of God, which does not stand or fall according to the inclination of men, so as to be made void whenever we may choose. The sum is this: other contracts, as they depend on the mere inclination of men, are in like manner dissolved by that same inclination; but those who are connected by marriage are no longer free, so as to be at liberty, if they change their mind, to break in pieces the pledge, (as the expression is,) and go each of them elsewhere in quest of a new connection. For if the rights of nature cannot be dissolved, much less can this, which, as we have said already, is preferred before the principal tie of nature. But as to his commanding the wife, who is separated from her husband, to remain unmarried, he does not mean by this that separation is allowable, nor does he give permission to the wife to live apart from her husband; but if she has been expelled from the house, or has been put away, she must not think that even in that case she is set free from his power; for it is not in the power of a husband to dissolve marriage. He does not therefore give permission here to wives to withdraw, of their own accord, from their husbands, or to live away from their husband’s establishment, as if they were in a state of widowhood; but declares, that even those who are not received by their husbands, continue to be bound, so that they cannot take other husbands.
1546–1563 · Council of Trent, Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent s24.can
Canon VII.—If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony can not be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, can not contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband: let him be anathema. Canon VIII.—If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period: let him be anathema.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: 1 Corinthians 7.11
If not, she should not violate her vows to her husband so far as to marry another. It is evident that this rule is still binding, and that no one who has separated from her husband, whatever be the cause, unless there be a regular divorce, according to the law of Christ Mat 5:32, can be at liberty to marry again.
1871 · A. R. Fausset, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on 1 Corinthians 7.11
If the sin of separation has been committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Mt 5:32).
6 passages · 5 writers · 1500s to 1900s
The Westminster Confession says it is lawful for the innocent party to marry another after a divorce for adultery, and Robertson says Jesus by implication allows remarriage of the innocent party. Ryle says he does not see that Christ regards the remarriage of someone divorced because of fornication as adultery, and Hodge says a justifiable divorce dissolves the marriage tie. Knox says that unless adultery be committed, marriage, once lawfully contracted, may not be dissolved at man's pleasure.
1559–1566 · John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland Appendix, The Book of Discipline, XIII. Of Marriage
Unless adultery be committed, marriage, once lawfully contracted, may not be dissolved at man's pleasure, as our master Christ Jesus doth witness. If adultery be sufficiently proven in presence of the Civil Magistrate, the innocent, upon request, ought to be pronounced free, and the offender ought to suffer death, as God hath commanded. If the civil sword foolishly spare the life of the offender, yet may not the Church be negligent in their office. This is to excommunicate the wicked, to repute them as dead members, and to pronounce the innocent party to be at freedom, be the offender never so honourable before the world. If the life be spared to the offenders, as it ought not to be, if the fruits of repentance of long time appear in them, and if they earnestly desire to be reconciled with the Church, we judge that they may be received to participation of the Sacraments, and of the other benefits of the Church, for we would not that the Church should hold those excommunicate whom God has absolved, that is, the penitent. If any demand whether the offender, after reconciliation with the Church, may marry again, we answer, that, if they cannot live continent, and if the necessity be such as that they fear farther offence of God, we cannot forbid them to use the remedy ordained of God. If the party offended may be reconciled to the offender, then we judge that in nowise it shall be lawful to the offender to marry any other than the party that hath been offended. The solemnization of the latter marriage must be in the open face of the Church, like the former, but without proclamation of banns.
1647 · Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith 24.5
Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
1856–1869 · J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Luke 16.13-18
We must take care not to misinterpret the words about divorce and remarriage in this verse. It is perfectly clear from another passage that our Lord allowed divorce in cases of adultery (Matthew 5:32). The act of adultery dissolves the marriage tie and makes those who were one become two again. Neither here nor elsewhere can I see that our Lord regards the remarriage of someone who has been divorced because of fornication as adultery. It is divorce for frivolous reasons which he denounces and marriage after such frivolous divorce which he pronounces to be adultery.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.19.11
If he repudiates her on just grounds and marries another, he commits no offence. Our Lord makes the guilt of marrying after separation to depend on the ground of the separation. Saying, ‘that if a man puts away his wife for any cause save fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery’; is saying that ‘the offence is not committed if the specified ground of divorce exists.’ And this is saying that divorce, when justifiable, dissolves the marriage tie.
1930–1933 · A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: Matthew 19.9
Here, as in 5:31f. , a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in 5:31, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.
1930–1933 · A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 7.11
If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive), let her remain unmarried (μενετω αγαμος). Paul here makes no allowance for remarriage of the innocent party as Jesus does by implication.
13 passages · 10 writers · 300s to 1800s
The Council of Carthage says a man put away from his wife and a woman put away from her husband should not be married to another but remain as they are or be reconciled, and that those who spurn this are forced to do penance. The Apostolic Canons excommunicate a layman who puts away his wife and marries another. Aquinas, Basil, and Leo treat an unbelieving spouse who refuses to cohabit, a woman who unwillingly marries a deserted man, and returning captives, Jerome says a wife who remarried after leaving her husband may have acted from necessity, and Hodge says a person divorced on other than Scriptural grounds who marries again cannot consistently be received to the fellowship of the Church.
c. 357–378 · Basil of Caesarea, Letters 199.46
The woman who unwillingly marries a man deserted at the time by his wife, and is afterwards repudiated, because of the return of the former to him, commits fornication, but involuntarily. She will, therefore, not be prohibited from marriage; but it is better if she remain as she is.
c. 370–419 · Jerome, Letters 77.3
Fabiola then has put away—they are quite right—a husband that was a sinner, guilty of this and that crime, sins—I have almost mentioned their names—with which the whole neighbourhood resounded but which the wife alone refused to disclose. If however it is made a charge against her that after repudiating her husband she did not continue unmarried, I readily admit this to have been a fault, but at the same time declare that it may have been a case of necessity.
c. 370–419 · Jerome, Letters 55.4
Let her read the books of Moses and she will find that if violence is offered to a betrothed virgin in a city and she does not cry out, she is punished as an adulteress: but if she is forced in the field, she is innocent of sin and her ravisher alone is amenable to the laws. Therefore if your sister, who, as she says, has been forced into a second union, wishes to receive the body of Christ and not to be accounted an adulteress, let her do penance; so far at least as from the time she begins to repent to have no farther intercourse with that second husband who ought to be called not a husband but an adulterer. If this seems hard to her and if she cannot leave one whom she has once loved and will not prefer the Lord to sensual pleasure, let her hear the declaration of the apostle: “ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils,” and in another place: “what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial?”
c. 375–380 · Anonymous (compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions), The Apostolic Canons (85) 48
If any layman put away his wife and marry another, or one who has been divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated.
419 · Council of Carthage (419), The Code of Canons of the African Church (Council of Carthage, 419) 102
It seemed good that according to evangelical and apostolical discipline a man who had been put away from his wife, and a woman put away from her husband should not be married to another, but so should remain, or else be reconciled the one to the other; but if they spurn this law, they shall be forced to do penance, covering which case we must petition that an imperial law be promulgated.
c. 400 · Pseudo-Nicene Arabic canons (anonymous compiler), The Arabic Canons Attributed to the Council of Nicaea (captions) 66
Whatever presbyter or deacon shall put away his wife without the offence of fornication, or for any other cause of which we have spoken above, and shall cast her out of doors…such a person shall be cast out of the clergy, if he were a clergyman; if a layman he shall be forbidden the communion of the faithful.…But if that woman [untruly charged by her husband with adultery], that is to say his wife, spurns his society on account of the injury he has done her and the charge he has brought against her, of which she is innocent, let her freely be put away and let a bill of repudiation be written for her, noting the false accusation which had been brought against her. And then if she should wish to marry some other faithful man, it is right for her to do so, nor does the Church forbid it; and the same permission extends as well to men as to women, since there is equal reason for it for each.
c. 442–461 · Leo the Great, Letters 159.2
As then you say that through the disasters of war and through the grievous inroads of the enemy families have in certain cases been so broken up that the husbands have been carried off into captivity and their wives remain forsaken, and these latter thinking their own husbands either dead or never likely to be freed from their masters, have contracted another marriage under stress of loneliness, and as, now that the state of things has improved through the Lord’s help, some of those who were thought to have perished have returned, you seem, dear brother, naturally to be in doubt what ought to be settled by us about women thus joined to other husbands. But because we know it is written that “a woman is joined to a man by God,” and again, we are aware of the precept that “what God hath joined, man may not put asunder,” we are bound to hold that the compact of the lawful marriage must be renewed, and after the removal of the evils inflicted by the enemy, what each lawfully had must be restored to him; and we must take every pains that each should recover what is his own.
691–692 · Council in Trullo (Quinisext, 691-692), The Canons of the Council in Trullo (Quinisext) 87
She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: “If a woman has become another man’s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled;” and again, “He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious.” If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord.
691–692 · Council in Trullo (Quinisext, 691-692), The Canons of the Council in Trullo (Quinisext) 93
If the wife of a man who has gone away and does not appear, cohabit with another before she is assured of the death of the first, she is an adulteress. The wives of soldiers who have married husbands who do not appear are in the same case; as are also they who on account of the wanderings of their husbands do not wait for their return. But the circumstance here has some excuse, in that the suspicion of his death becomes very great. But she who in ignorance has married a man who at the time was deserted by his wife, and then is dismissed because his first wife returns to him, has indeed committed fornication, but through ignorance; therefore she is not prevented from marrying, but it is better if she remain as she is. If a soldier shall return after a long time, and find his wife on account of his long absence has been united to another man, if he so wishes, he may receive his own wife [back again], pardon being extended in consideration of their ignorance both to her and to the man who took her home in second marriage.
c. 1252–1256 · Thomas Aquinas, Supplement to the Third Part of the Summa Theologica Suppl., q. 59, a. 5, co.
I answer that, When either husband or wife is converted to the faith the other remaining in unbelief, a distinction must be made. For if the unbeliever be willing to cohabit without insult to the Creator---that is without drawing the other to unbelief---the believer is free to part from the other, but by parting is not permitted to marry again. But if the unbeliever refuse to cohabit without insult to the Creator, by making use of blasphemous words and refusing to hear Christ's name, then if she strive to draw him to unbelief, the believing husband after parting from her may be united to another in marriage. Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (A[2]), the marriage of unbelievers is imperfect, whereas the marriage of believers is perfect and consequently binds more firmly. Now the firmer tie always looses the weaker if it is contrary to it, and therefore the subsequent marriage contracted in the faith of Christ dissolves the marriage previously contracted in unbelief.
1673 · Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory Chapter Ix.the Special Duties of Wives to Husbands
Quest. XX. Who be they that may or may not marry again when they are parted? Answ. 1. They that are released by divorce upon the others' adultery, sodomy, &c. may marry again. 2. The case of all the rest is harder. They that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry again; nor the party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the preservation of estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of worship, as aforesaid; because it is but an intermission of conjugal fruition, and not a total dissolution of the relation; and the innocent party must wait to see whether there be any hope of a return. Yea, Christ seemeth to resolve it, Matt. v. 31, 32, that he is an adulterer that marrieth the innocent party that is put away; because the other living in adultery, their first contracted relation seemeth to be still in being.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.19.11
The action of the state in this matter is not merely negative. It does not simply overlook or refuse to punish the violation of the Scriptural law of divorce, but it intervenes by its positive action, and declares that certain parties are not man and wife, between whom, according to the law of God, the bond of marriage still subsists. It condemns bigamy, but it sanctions what the Bible pronounces bigamy. The law of the state and the law of God, in this regard, are so opposed to each other, that he who obeys the one violates the other.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.19.11
If a person be divorced on other than Scriptural grounds and marries again, such person cannot consistently be received to the fellowship of the Church. If a minister be called upon to solemnize the marriage of a person improperly divorced, he cannot, in consistency with his allegiance to Christ, perform the service.
Each morning, a few short passages on one topic from different writers, with sources. Free.