[Footnote 25: The evidence of the satirists, jurisconsults, and other writers regarding the abuses of divorce, with full citation, is collected by MARQUARDT, _Das Privatleben der Römer_, I, 66-80; and GLASSON, _op. cit._, 175 ff. See, for example, JUVENAL, _Sat._, XI, 229; VI, 230; PLAUTUS, _Mercat._, 805; QUINTILIAN, V, 11, 35.] [Footnote 26: LECKY, _Hist. of European Morals_, II, 307. _Cf._ SENECA, _De Benef._, III, 16; also PLUTARCH, _Lives_ (London, 1890), 526, 531, 532 (Cato of Utica).] [Footnote 27: On the depravation of Roman society see UNGER, _Die Ehe_, 80 ff.; COMBIER, _Du divorce_, 51 ff.; POPP, _Ehescheidung_, 23 ff.] [Footnote 28: LECKY, _op. cit._, II, 307, 308.] It is, however, not surprising that the founders of the Christian church should have regarded the laxity of the marriage bond as a sign, if not the primary cause, of the degradation of Roman society. From the beginning an earnest effort is made so far as possible to restrict the liberty of separation and to prohibit the persons separated on proper grounds from contracting further marriage. The various passages of the New Testament relating to the subject are disjointed and confusing in their details.[29] Many vital questions are either completely ignored or left in such obscurity as to open the way for wide divergence of doctrine and the bitter controversies of future ages, especially those of the Reformation period. According to the fundamental teaching of Jesus, as reported by Matthew, the husband is forbidden to put away the wife except for unfaithfulness.[30] Divinely created as male and female, "they twain shall be one flesh;" and "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."[31] Whether for the same reason the woman may put away the man, or whether either the innocent or the guilty party may contract a second marriage, we are here not expressly informed. Inferences may, of course, be drawn by assuming that Jesus had the principles of the Jewish law in mind; but this mode of procedure is scarcely satisfying.[32] Nor do the other sacred writers throw any clear light on these important questions. Rather do they deepen the obscurity; for both Mark and Luke appear absolutely to prohibit divorce, not expressly admitting even the one ground of separation granted on the authority of Matthew. Moreover, Mark sets up a new stumbling-block. In the presence of the Pharisees, who sought to tempt him, Jesus is made to put aside as morally wrong and born of hardness of heart the harsh freedom of divorce secured to the man alone by the Mosaic code; while "in the house" he tells his disciples that "whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her," and "if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery;" so leaving us in doubt whether legal separation _without_ the privilege of a further marriage