Of adulterous marriages

Sm. перевод на русский язык: About marriages defiled by adultery The first book Is It Possible for a Spouse to Divorce? The first question for Pollenius: whether it is permissible to leave one's spouse and for what reason; whether, if the spouse has left, a new marriage is permitted or not (1, 1 - 12, 13) The words of the Apostle about those who are in marriage 1. 1 The first question is, my dearest brother Pollenti, when you wrote to me, you treated as if you were consulting what the Apostle says: But I command those who are married, not I, but the Lord, that a woman should not divorce her husband; as if she had left, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband; and a man shall not divorce his wife 1 , is it to be taken in such a way that it is understood that he forbade her to marry, who has left her husband without the cause of fornication - for you know that - or, as I felt in those books which I wrote many years ago about the gospel sermon which according to Matthew the Savior gave on the mountain, he ordered those who had left their husbands for the only reason that was permitted, that of fornication, to remain unmarried. For it seems to you then that a woman divorced from her husband ought not to marry, if she did not leave because of the husband's fornication. And if her husband had no reason for fornication, he should not leave her unmarried, but should not leave her at all. For she who is commanded, if she has left her husband, to remain unmarried, is not deprived of the leave to leave, but to marry. If this is so, then permission is given to women who wish to be continous, not to expect any consent from their husbands, as what has been said: a woman should not divorce her husband 2 seems to be a commandment to them, who could choose not continence, but such a divorce as would allow them to marry into other people's marriages. Accordingly, those who have loved desire no cohabitation, no marriage, it is permissible for them to leave their husbands even without any reason for fornication, and to remain unmarried, according to the Apostle. And men likewise (since there is an equal form in both), if they wish to be continous, they will leave their wives even if they do not consent, and will continue without any marriage. For then, as you think, it would be lawful for them to seek other marriages, if a divorce were born on the grounds of fornication. However, since this is not the case, it remains, according to what you think, that either the spouse does not leave the spouse, or, if he has left, remains unmarried or returns to the former marriage. Therefore, if there is no existing cause of fornication, it is permissible for each spouse to choose one of three: either not to leave his spouse, or, if he has left, to remain so, or, if he has not remained so, not to seek the other, but to return to the former. What Pollentius thinks is refuted 2. 2 And where is it that the same apostle did not even for a time, so that he could devote himself to prayer, unless by agreement he wanted carnal spouses to cheat each other out of debt? How will it be saved when he says: But because of fornication, each one should have his own wife, and each one should have her own husband. The husband shall repay the debt to the wife, and likewise the wife to the husband. The wife has no power over her body, but the husband; Similarly, a man has no control over his body, but a woman 3? How can this be true, unless the spouse is not allowed to keep the spouse unwillingly? For if it is permissible for a woman to divorce her husband in this way, so that she may remain unmarried, it is not the husband who has power over her body, but herself; which is also understood of a man. Then when it was said: Whoever divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication makes her commit adultery, 4 how are we to understand what was said, except that it is forbidden for a man to divorce his wife if no cause of fornication exists? And it was said why, namely, that he might not cause her to commit adultery; certainly because, even if she did not divorce herself, but was divorced, she will be a harlot if she marries. 2. 3. Because of this, therefore, so great an evil, it is not lawful for a man to divorce his wife, except for the cause of fornication. For then he himself does not commit adultery by letting go, but he lets go of adultery. What? If, then, he says: I will indeed divorce my wife without any reason for fornication, but I will continue to be a virgin, shall we then say that he did what he did with impunity? Who will dare to say this, who understands the will of the Lord who says these things? Because he did not want to divorce the spouse for the reason of continence, who accepted the only reason for fornication. A wife should divorce her husband for the sole reason of fornication, but she should remain unmarried 3. 3. Let us return, then, to the very words of the Apostle who said: But to those who are married, I command, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not divorce her husband; if she had left, to remain unmarried 5 . And let us question him, as it were, and consult him as if he were present in a certain way: Why did you say, Apostle, that if she had departed, she should remain unmarried? Is it permissible to leave, or is it not permissible? If it is not lawful, why do you order the departed to remain unmarried? But if it is permitted, surely there is some reason why it is permitted. But this is not found when searched, except as the only one that the Savior accepted, that is, the cause of fornication. And by this means the apostle does not command a woman, if she has left, to remain unmarried, unless she leaves her husband for that reason, for which alone it is lawful for her to leave her husband. For where it is said: I command not to depart; as if she had departed, to remain unmarried; it is far from him to make a precept contrary to this, which departs in this way, so that she may remain unmarried. Unless, then, it is understood that it is lawful for him to leave (and it is not lawful except for a man who commits adultery), how is it commanded that an unmarried woman, if she has left, should continue? Who is it that says: If a woman divorces a man who does not commit adultery, she must remain unmarried, since it is not permissible for her to divorce at all except from a husband who commits adultery? So far as this sense of yours is opposed to the conjugal bond, where the Lord did not want to accept continence, except by equal concord and consent, I think you already understand. A woman should not divorce a man who does not commit adultery even because of a desire for continence 4. 4 But let us speak the matter itself a little more openly, and, as it were, set it before our eyes. Behold, continence is pleasing to a woman, but it is not pleasing to a man. The woman departed from him and began to live continually, that is to say, remaining chaste, but doing what the Lord does not want, an adulterous husband: who, when he did not continue himself, should seek another. What are we to say to a woman, except what the sound doctrine of the Church says? Pay the debt to the man, so that while you are seeking where you will be honored, he may not find where to be damned. For we would say this to him too, if he had wished to restrain you against his will. For you have no power over your body, but he: just as he has no power over his body, but you. Do not cheat each other except by agreement. When we have said these things and more things of this kind that pertain to this, may it please you that the woman should answer us from this reason of yours: I hear the Apostle saying: I command a woman not to leave her husband; if she had left, should she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband? Behold, I have left, I do not want to be reconciled to my husband, but I remain unmarried. For he does not say: If she has left, she must remain unmarried until she is reconciled to her husband, but: he says, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. He said, let him do this or that. He allowed one of the two to be chosen, but did not force him to choose the other. I choose to remain unmarried and thus fulfill the commandment. Rebuke, argue, rebuke, use whatever severity you will, if I marry. A woman who leaves her husband without committing fornication does not excuse herself by not marrying 5. 5 What can I say to this but: Do you not understand the apostle well? For he would not have commanded a woman, if she had left her husband, to remain unmarried, unless he had permitted her to leave, namely, for that one cause, which is therefore silent there, because it is well known, that is, fornication. For this alone God the teacher received, when he spoke of the wife being let go, and gave it to be understood that such a form should also be kept for the man, since not only the woman has no power over her body, but the man; but likewise the man has no power over his body, but the woman. Since then you cannot accuse your husband of fornication, how do you think you can excuse your leaving him by not marrying him, from whom you are not allowed to leave at all? When the woman hears this from us, I think that you do not want her to answer in such a way that she says that she therefore remains unmarried, because she left without any fornication with a man; for if he had committed adultery, he would not only have left her, but also allowed her to marry. It is not lawful for a woman who has divorced her husband to marry another 6. 6. No way would she say this, since you yourself are ashamed to give this permission to women. For you have said: "If a man divorces an adulterous wife and marries another, the woman will only have reproach." But if a woman divorces her husband for the above-mentioned reason and marries another, not only the man, but also the woman will be reproached. Giving the reason for your opinion: "They will say, you say, that she left him for that reason, that she might join another man to her, even if he happened to be such as the one from whom she left him; for it is extremely easy for men to fall into the vice of this disease. But if she also divorced him and married others, they will say more and more that she desired a large number of men." to remain unmarried ". You have clearly given advice to women, so that when they know that it is permitted for them to marry adulterous men, they should not do so for the sake of reproach, but rather that they should not be seen to want to mix with many on this occasion, so that it is difficult for the woman to marry such as the one whom she has divorced, since men are very prone to this disease but you say that it is not permissible for the other to marry, but we say to both of them that she who divorces the adulterous man should not marry. It is not lawful for her to marry another because of the commandment, but if she has divorced a fornicator, it is not permissible for her to marry because of reproach. A woman guiltily leaves a man who does not commit adultery 7. 7 Moreover, the blessed apostle, indeed, through the apostle, the Lord, because he does not allow a woman to leave a man who is not an adulterer, remains to prevent her, if she has left, from marrying, as he allows her to leave an adulterer. For of which it is said: If she is divorced from her husband, she does not marry; she is allowed to leave on the condition that she does not marry. If, therefore, he chose not to marry, there is no reason why he should be forbidden to leave, as it is said of him: If he does not restrain himself, he marries. If, therefore, he chooses to marry, he cannot be forced to restrain himself. Just as, then, an incontinent woman is forced to marry, so that what she does not contain may not be blameworthy, so she who leaves her husband is forced to remain unmarried, so that what she leaves may not be blameworthy. Guiltfully, however, she leaves a husband who does not commit adultery, even though she remains unmarried. She, therefore, is commanded to remain unmarried, if she departs from a fornicator. And things being so, if we were to understand the apostle in this way, that we should say to women: Do not leave your husbands, even chaste ones, so that, if you choose to leave, you remain unmarried. We must, without a doubt, not permit it, as it was said: If she has left, she must remain unmarried 9 , we must teach what is said about her, as we have learned that it is permissible for her to leave the fornicator, lest, if we teach otherwise, we disturb Christian marriages by obtaining continence and, contrary to the most merciful commandment of the Lord, force incontinent men divorced by continous women, or incontinent women by continous men, into adultery. In marriage, let the form of husband and wife be equal 8. 8 Therefore, that which the Lord says not in the discourse itself, which was expounded by us, but yet elsewhere says: Whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. But if a man divorces his wife for the same reason and marries another, he does not commit adultery. But if there is an equal form in both, each commits adultery if he joins himself to the other, even when he separates himself from the fornicator. The apostle shows there that the form of man and woman is equal in this matter (which must often be mentioned), where, when he had said: The wife does not have power over her body, but the man, he added and said: Likewise, the man does not have power over his body, but the woman. Why did the Lord interpose the cause of fornication? 9. 9 "Why then, you say, did the Lord interpose the cause of fornication and not rather say generally: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, if he is also a fornicator who marries another woman who has divorced her fornicating?" It is not adultery, but when the other is divorced, the Apostle says, "Therefore, it is a sin for him to do good and not do it. But if he knows and does not do it, it is a sin." If he marries, he commits adultery. But just as it cannot be said here that he does not commit adultery, even though the sins of the ignorant are less than those of those who know, so it cannot be said that if he commits fornication, he does not commit adultery for as it is said: It is a sin for him who knows to do good and does not do it, 13 in the same way as it is said: He who divorces his wife without cause of fornication is adultery to her. Let us pronounce him who divorces his wife and marries another a fornicator, but we do not defend him who divorces and marries another from the evil of this sin. Therefore, when we say: Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced by her husband commits adultery, we say of one of them that he commits adultery, and yet we do not deny that he who marries her is committed adultery because of the cause of fornication. we read, we must not understand it so, as if from this the one sex was denied, because the other was expressed. The words of the Evangelists are compared about marriage 9. 10 But if the evangelist Matthew, because he expressed one aspect and kept silent about the other, makes it difficult to understand, are not others in general the same thing so complex that it can be understood about both? For according to Mark it is thus written: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery 14 . According to Luke thus: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries her divorced from her husband commits adultery 15 . Who are we, then, to say: There is one who commits adultery by putting away his wife and marrying another, and there is one who does this and does not commit adultery, when the Gospel says that everyone commits adultery who does this? Accordingly, if anyone does this, that is, everyone who does this, that he has divorced his wife and takes another, commits adultery, without doubt both are there, and he who divorces his wife apart from the cause of fornication and he who divorces his wife because of the cause of fornication. For this is: Whosoever hath forsaken; this is: Everyone who lets go. Some examples of Matthew's account of fornication have the same meaning in different words 10. 11. But not (as I do not know why it seemed to you), when I was pronouncing the words of the Gospel according to Matthew, I omitted what is written: and he married another woman, and thus I said: he commits adultery; but I have put those words which are read in that lengthy speech which the Lord had on the mountain. For I have undertaken to treat of this, which words are read there in such a way as I have put it, that is: Whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery 16 . Where, although some examples have the same meaning interpreted by different words, they do not differ from what is understood. For they have other things: Whosoever hath forsaken; another: Everyone who has let go; and also other things: except the cause of fornication; other: besides the cause of fornication; other: except for the cause of fornication; also another: she who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery; another: he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. Where I think that you see that there is no interest in the same opinion. Although the latter, that is, she who marries a woman divorced from her husband, commits adultery, in that speech which the Lord made on the mountain, some codices, both Greek and Latin, do not have. I believe therefore, because this sense could be thought to have been explained there, in what was said above: he makes her commit adultery. For how can a harlot be divorced, unless the one who married her becomes a harlot? What is less understood in Matthew is clear in others 11. 12. But the words which you yourself put forth, whence it seemed to you not to commit adultery against him who, on account of the cause of fornication, divorced his wife and married another, were indeed placed obscurely. Hence I do not wonder that the reader struggles to understand them; but they are not in that word of the Lord, which was then treated by me, when I wrote them, which moved you when you read them. For in another place the same Matthew relates that the Lord said these things, not when he was giving him a lengthy discourse on the mountain, but when he was asked by the Pharisees whether it was permissible for him to divorce his wife for any reason. But what is less understood in Matthew can be understood in the other Evangelists. Therefore, when we read in the Gospel according to Matthew: Whoever divorces his wife except for fornication, or, as it is read more in the Greek, marries for another reason besides fornication, commits adultery 17; we must not immediately think that he has not committed adultery, who, on account of the cause of fornication, has divorced and married another; but we must still wander about, until we consult the Gospel according to the other Evangelists, by whom this was told. What? For if, according to Matthew, not the whole of what pertains to this matter has been said, but a part has been said in such a way that the whole may be understood in part, why, as if explaining Mark and Luke, in order to make the full sentence clear, they preferred to say the whole? When, therefore, at first they did not doubt that what is read in Matthew is true: Whoever divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication and marries another commits adultery; we will ask whether he commits adultery only by marrying another wife, who has divorced the first wife, apart from the cause of fornication, or everyone who marries a second wife after he has been divorced, so that the one who divorced the adulterer may also be there, will we not be answered according to Mark: What do you ask, whether he is a fornicator and he is not? Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Will it not also be said to us according to Luke: What do you ask, whether he who divorces his wife for the cause of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery? Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. And by this, since it is not right to say that the Evangelists, although they speak in different words about the same thing, disagree from one sense and the same opinion, it remains that we understand that Matthew wanted to mean the whole on the one hand, and yet he held the same opinion, that someone who divorces his wife and marries another does not commit adultery, that is, he who divorces in addition to fornication, but someone does not commit adultery, that is, he who divorces his wife because of fornication, but everyone who divorces his wife and marries another. there is no doubt that the A woman, even if she is divorced for the reason of fornication, does not cease to be a wife 12. 13. For also that which also follows according to Luke: He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery, 19 how is that true? How can he commit adultery, unless she, whom he married, is still another man's wife while he is living, from whom she was divorced? For if he is now to marry his own, and not another's, he certainly does not commit adultery; but he is molested. It is therefore a stranger to whom it is mixed. Moreover, if she is a stranger, this is the one from whom she was put away, even if she was put away for the reason of fornication, she has not yet ceased to be the wife of the put away one. But if he ceased to be his, he is now of this, to whom he married another; and if it is of this kind, it is not the adulterer who is to be judged, but the husband. But since the Scripture does not say that he is a husband, but a fornicator, she is still his, from whom also the cause of fornication was rejected. And therefore, even if he divorces her and marries her, because she lies with another husband, she is an adulteress. But how is it possible that he is not also an adulterer, when he agrees to commit adultery with the one he married? The second question: about odd marriages, whether the Lord or the Apostle forbids the unbelieving spouse to leave (13, 14 - 25, 32) The words of the Apostle about odd marriages 13. 14. Let us now see what the apostle says: "But I speak of others, not the Lord, 20 to odd couples, that is, where they were not both Christians, he was going to speak." What I thought he said in warning. For since a faithful spouse could lawfully leave an unbelieving spouse, it is not the Lord but the Apostle who forbids this to happen. For what the Lord forbids, it is absolutely not allowed to be done. The apostle therefore warns that there may be an opportunity for many to gain, so that faithful spouses do not use the permission allowed in leaving unbelievers. But it seems to you that it is not lawful for unbelievers also to be released from the faithful, because the Apostle forbids this, when I say it is lawful, because the Lord does not forbid this, yet it is not expedient, because this should not be done, says the Apostle: who also gives a reason why it is not expedient to do it, although it is lawful. For what do you know, says the woman, if you will save a man? or how do you know, husband, if you will save your wife? 21. When he also said above: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in his wife, and the unbelieving woman is sanctified in her brother, that is, in the Christian, otherwise your children, he says, would be unclean; but now they are saints 22 . Thus he seems to have been exhorted to win spouses and children to Christ also by the examples which had already come. Why, then, it is not expedient even for unbelieving spouses to be divorced from the faithful, the reason is clearly expressed. For the apostle forbids that we should withdraw from unbelieving spouses, not for the sake of keeping the conjugal bond with such people, but that they may be brought to Christ. There are many things to be done, not by commanding the law, but by free charity 14. 15. Now there are many things to be done, not by commanding the law, but by free charity; and those are more acceptable in our duties, which, though it would be lawful for us not to spend, yet we spend for the sake of love. Wherefore the former Lord himself, when he showed that he did not owe tribute, nevertheless paid it, so as not to offend those with whom he was consulting a man leading to eternal salvation 23 . Now, as the apostle recommends these things, his words testify, where he says: For since I am free from all, I have made myself the servant of all, that I may profit many. When he said a little above: Have we not power to eat and drink? Do we not have permission to circumcise a sister woman, like the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Do not I alone and Barnabas have the power to do this? Who ever fights for his wages? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Who feeds the flock and does not receive the milk of the flock? 25. And a little later: If others, he says, share in your power, do we not more so? But we have not used this power, but endure all things, lest we give any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ 26 . Then after a little: What, then, he said, will be my reward? As an evangelist, I will preach the Gospel without expense, so that I do not abuse my power in the Gospel 27 . And then he adds what I mentioned a little before: For since I am free from all, I have made myself the slave of all, that I might make more profit 28 . Also, in another place, concerning certain things that pertain to food: All things, he says, are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient; All things are lawful to me, but I will not be under the power of any. You eat the food of the belly and the belly, but God will empty both this and these 29 . Also elsewhere on this very subject: All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient; All things are lawful, but not all things are edifying. Let no one seek what is his own, but what is another's. And in order to show whence he spoke: Eat, he says, whatever comes in the butcher's shop, asking nothing for the sake of conscience 31 . And yet elsewhere he says: I will not eat flesh forever, so as not to cause my brother to stumble. Also elsewhere: All things are indeed clean, but it is bad for the man who eats through offense 33 . Which is: All things are lawful; It is the same: All things are indeed clean; and that is: but not everything is expedient; but it is evil to the man who eats through offense. Thus he shows that those things which are lawful, that is, are forbidden by no commandment of the Lord, as it is expedient, should rather be dealt with, not by the precepts of the law, but by the counsel of charity. These are the things which are further dispensed to the sick man, who was brought to the Samaritan's stable to be cared for by compassion 34 . And for this reason they are said not to be commanded by the Lord, although they are admonished to be offered to the Lord, so that they are understood to be so much more acceptable, the more they are shown to be improper. Something can be permitted and not expedient. 15. 16. But the things in these things are such that, although they are lawful, they are not expedient; it cannot be said of them: This is good, but that is better, as it is said: He who gives a marriage, does well; and he who does not give in marriage does better 35 . For there both are permitted, and sometimes this is expedient, sometimes that. For those who do not control themselves, it is certainly expedient to marry, and what is permitted is expedient; but those who have vowed continence are neither lawful nor expedient. Furthermore, it is permissible to leave an unfaithful spouse, but it is not expedient; but to remain with him, if he consents to cohabit, is both lawful and expedient; because, if it were not permitted, it could not be expedient. It is therefore possible for something to be lawful and not expedient; but what is not permitted cannot be expedient. And by this means not everything that is lawful is expedient; But all things unlawful are not expedient. For just as everyone who is redeemed by the blood of Christ is a man, yet not everyone who is a man is also redeemed by the blood of Christ, so everything that is not lawful is not expedient, and yet everything that is not expedient is also not lawful. For there are lawful things which are not expedient, as we have learned from the witness of the Apostle. ...but this is difficult to define as a universal rule 16. 17. But it is difficult to define any universal rule between what is unlawful and therefore not expedient, and what is lawful and yet not expedient. For every one will sooner say: Everything that is not expedient to be done is a sin; but every sin is unlawful. Therefore, everything that is not expedient is illegal. And where will those things be that are lawful, but not expedient, said the Apostle, if all that is not expedient is not lawful? Therefore, because the Apostle spoke the truth, we cannot doubt, and we do not dare to say that some sins are permissible; it remains for us to say that something is done which is not expedient, and yet, if it is lawful, it is not a sin, although since it is not expedient, it certainly should not be done. If it seems absurd that something should be done which is not expedient and it is said that the one who did it has sinned, this absurdity must be understood from the custom of speech, which is so widely understood that even animals, although they have experience of reason, are still generally said to be flogged when they sin. But it is proper to sin only for him who uses the rational discretion of the will, which in all mortal animate beings is divinely attributed to man alone. But it is one thing when we speak properly, another thing when we borrow words from other things by transferring or abusing them. What is permissible and not expedient and what is not permissible and expedient 17. 18. So that, if we can, we may endeavor to distinguish between that which is lawful and not expedient, and that which is not lawful and therefore not expedient, by some definite end, those things seem to me to be lawful and not expedient, which are indeed permitted by the justice which is before God, but because of the offense of men, lest on this account they be hindered from salvation, they are to be avoided. But those things are not to be permitted, and therefore not to be expedient, which are so forbidden by justice itself, that they are not to be done, even if they are praised by those to whom they have been brought to notice. If this is so, then only unlawful things are prohibited by the Lord, so that those things which are lawful and not expedient may be guarded, not by the bond of the law, but by the free beneficence of love. It is permissible to divorce an unfaithful spouse, but it is not advisable 17. 19 Consequently, if it were not permissible to divorce an unbelieving spouse, the Lord would have prevented this from happening, and the apostle forbidding it would not have said: I say, not the Lord 36 . For if a man is permitted to be separated from his spouse because of fornication of the flesh, how much more is fornication of the mind in the spouse to be detested, that is, the infidelity of which it is written: For behold, those who make themselves far from you will perish; you have destroyed all who fornicate with you 37 ! 18. 19. But because it is so lawful, that it is not expedient, lest men, offended by the separation of spouses, shudder at the very doctrine of salvation, by which unlawful things are forbidden, and thus remain worse and perish in the same unbelief, the apostle intervenes and forbids the doing of what is so lawful, so that it is not expedient. For thus faithful men or women are not forbidden by the Lord, nor commanded, to withdraw from unbelieving wives or husbands. For if such spouses were ordered to divorce, there would be no room for the advice of the Apostle to prevent this from happening. For in no way would the Lord's command prevent the servant from becoming good. Regarding unfaithful spouses, the new law is different from the old one 18. 20 For once the Lord commanded this through the prophet Ezra, and it was done; The Israelites sent away foreign wives, whomever they could have at that time 38 , through whom he wept, that they too might be seduced by foreign gods, not that they might be acquired by their husbands to God. For the grace of the Savior had not yet dawned, and the multitude of that people was still inured to the temporal promises of the Old Testament. And therefore, when they saw that earthly goods, which they greatly expected from the Lord, abounded also in those who worshiped many false gods, they first feared to offend them by the flattery of their wives, and then were led to worship them. Wherefore the Lord had commanded through holy Moses, that no man should take a foreign wife 39 . They deservedly, therefore, let those whom they had taken away, the Lord forbidding, the Lord commanding. But when the gospel had begun to be preached to the Gentiles, he found the Gentiles joined to the Gentiles in fornication: of whom, if both did not believe, but one or both and an unbeliever agreed to live with a believer, neither should the Lord forbid the faithful to let go of the unbeliever nor be commanded: therefore it should not be forbidden, because justice allows him to depart from the fornicator, and the unbelieving man is greater in his heart, and his true chastity with his spouse cannot be said, because: Everything that is not of faith is a sin. : although a true believer has chastity even with an unbelieving spouse, who does not have the truth. For this reason, the believers should not have been commanded to be separated from the unbelievers, because the Gentiles were not both united against the commandment of the Lord. The apostle says, not the Lord, that the faithful should not depart 18. 21 Therefore, since the Lord neither forbids nor commands the faithful to depart from the unbeliever, therefore the apostle says that he should not depart, not the Lord, having of course the Holy Spirit in whom he could give useful and faithful advice. Hence when he said of a woman whose husband had died: But she will be happier if she remains thus, according to my counsel; Lest any one should think that this counsel should be despised as human and not divine, he added: But I think, and I have the Spirit of God 42 . Accordingly, it must be understood that even those who are not commanded by the Lord, but are profitably persuaded by his holy servant, are persuaded by the same Lord who inspires them. For it is far from any Catholic to say, when the Holy Spirit persuades, that he is not persuading the Lord, since he is also the Lord, and the works of the Trinity are inseparable. He says, however: "I have no commandment of the Lord concerning virgins, but I give counsel." Not that we should consider this a foreign counsel from the Lord, when he immediately follows it and says: as if I had obtained mercy from God, that I might be faithful 44 . According to God, therefore, he gives faithful counsel in that Spirit, of which he says: "I think, and I have the Spirit of God." The command of the Lord is one thing, the counsel of a faithful servant is another 18. 22 Nevertheless, the command of the Lord is one thing, and that of a fellow servant according to the mercy of charity, which is inspired and given to him by the Lord, is another, a faithful counsel. There it is not permitted to do anything else, but here it is permitted, so of course that the lawful itself is partly expedient, but partly not expedient. It is expedient then, when it is not only permitted by the justice which is before the Lord, but also that none of this impediment to salvation is imposed on men: as when the Apostle gives advice not to marry virgins, whence he testifies that he does not have the commandment of the Lord, although he may do something else, that is to marry and less than continence, yet to keep the good of marriage. And it is also expedient that it is lawful, because it accepts the infirmity of the flesh in the forbidden and unlawful falling into marriage in such a way as to hinder no one from salvation, although it would be more expedient and more honorable if the virgin took the counsel which the commandment does not compel her to take. But then it is not expedient to do what is lawful, when indeed it is permitted, but the use of the power itself brings an obstacle to the salvation of others. As we have been speaking for a long time now, the departure of a faithful spouse from an unbeliever, which the Lord does not prevent by the precept of the law, because before him it is not unjust, but the Apostle forbids it by the counsel of charity, because it brings to the unbelievers an obstacle to salvation: not only because the offended are most perniciously offended, but also because when they fall into another marriage, while they are living, those from whom they are divorced are with great difficulty dissolved by adulterous ties. It is better not to divorce an unfaithful spouse, even though it is permissible 19. 23 Therefore, here, where that which is not expedient, it cannot be said: If he has forsaken the unbeliever, he is doing well; if he has not divorced, he does better, as it has been said: He who gives in marriage does well; and he who does not give in marriage does better 46; for this is not only equally permissible for both - hence everyone is compelled to do none of these things by the Lord's command - but also both are expedient, some less, some more, so that whoever can take it is challenged to that which is more expedient, according to the counsel of the Apostle. And this, when it is asked about divorcing or not divorcing an unfaithful spouse, both are indeed equally permitted by the justice that is before the Lord, and therefore the Lord forbids none of these things; but both are not expedient because of the infirmities of men, and therefore the apostle forbids what is not expedient, giving the Lord free space to forbid, because neither what the apostle warns the Lord forbids nor what the apostle forbids the Lord commands. If it were not so, the apostle would not have warned anything against the prohibition of the Lord, nor would he have forbidden anything against the commandment. Accordingly, in these two cases, one concerning marrying or not marrying, the other concerning divorcing or not divorcing an unfaithful spouse, there is something similar in the words of the Apostle, something different. It is indeed similar to what he also says there: I do not have the commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel; and here he says: I say, not the Lord 48 . For it is like: I do not have the commandment of the Lord, it is like this: The Lord does not say; and what it is like: I give advice, it is like this: I say. But that is different, because it can be said of marrying and not marrying, that this is done well, that better, since both are expedient, less of one thing, more of another; but in truth concerning divorcing or not divorcing an unfaithful spouse, since one of these is not expedient, the other is expedient, it is not necessary to say: He who divorces does well; and he who does not let go does better; but it must be said: He does not let go, because even if it is possible, it is not expedient. In this way, then, we can say that it is better not to divorce an unfaithful spouse, even though it is permissible to divorce, just as we rightly say that it is better that which is both permissible and expedient than that which is both permissible and expedient. Divorcing an unfaithful spouse should not be done out of free will 20. 24 For these reasons it happened that, explaining the Lord's discourse, which he had at length on the mountain, where it came to the question of divorcing or not divorcing spouses, I would also use apostolic testimonies to say that it was the counsel of the Apostle, not the commandment of the Lord, where he says: But I speak of the rest, not the Lord, 49 admonishing those who had unbelieving spouses not to divorce those who consented to live with him. For this reason, of course, it was to be admonished, not to be commanded, because it is not with so much weight that men are to be forbidden to do what is lawful, even though it may not be expedient, as with how much weight they are to forbid what is unlawful. But if the apostle in any place deigned to advise even those things which are to be commanded, he did this sparing weakness, not prejudicing the commandment. Hence if he said: I am not writing these things to confuse you, but to warn my dearest children; What is the question when he says: I say, not the Lord? And when he said: Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing, 51 did he also say here: I say, not the Lord? Therefore, these are not similar, because even what the Lord commands is not unworthy or contrary, if the apostle warns the same. For we exhort those whom we hold dear to do the Lord's precepts or commandments. When indeed he says: I say, not the Lord; He shows sufficiently that the Lord did not forbid what he himself forbade 52 . But the Lord would have forbidden it if it were unlawful. Therefore, according to what we have said above for a long time and we have discussed a lot, it was lawful through justice, but it was also not lawful to do it because of free benevolence. The opinion of Pollentius is wrong 21. 25 But you, to whom it pleases not to allow what the Lord does not forbid, but the apostle, just as it is not permissible for the Lord to forbid, when you wanted to explain what he meant for him, which he said: I say, not the Lord, 53 when he addressed the faithful, who had unbelieving spouses, you said: "Because the Lord commanded that couples of a different religion should not be joined to Him", and you used the same testimony of the Lord saying: You shall not take a wife for your son from the daughters of strangers, lest he take him as a wife After his gods, you added the words of the Apostle, "As long as her husband is alive, she is freed; that is how you added to the Christian." This is therefore the commandment of the Lord, both in the Old Testament and in the New, and the Lord commands this, the Apostle teaches, that married couples of one religion and faith should remain united, why does the Apostle command against this commandment of the Lord, against his teaching, against the commandment of the Old and New Testaments, that married couples of different faiths remain united? had believed, he would not let go the other who did not believe, yet agreed to live with him. By these words of yours you show quite clearly that this is one thing and that is another. For it is a matter of these couples, which are first united to each other, that a woman should not marry a man of a different religion, or that a man should take such a wife. "For this, as you say, God commands, the Apostle teaches, both command the Testament." But who denies that this is different, where it is not a question of joining, but of being joined? For both were of one and the same unbelief when they were joined; but when the Gospel came, one believed without the other, or the other without the other. If then this is different, which appears without any scruple of doubt, why does not the Lord also command, as the Apostle did, in marriage? He is free, because he says so confidently: "Do you want to accept the test of him who speaks in me? And surely the Lord is Christ. Do you understand what I am saying? Shall I dwell a little more carefully on this?" 21. 26 Observe that we may put the thing itself in plainer language, as if it were to be considered in sight. Behold the two spouses of one infidelity; so they were when they were united. Of these there is no question which pertains to that commandment of the Lord and the apostolic teaching and precept of the Old and New Testaments, by which it is forbidden for a believer to marry an unbeliever. Now they are married and both are still unfaithful; they are still such as they were before they were united, and as they are now united. The preacher of the Gospel came, either one or one of them believed; but in such a way that the unbeliever agrees to live with the faithful. Does the Lord command the faithful not to let the unbeliever go, or does He not command? If you say: "commands", the apostle protests: I say, not the Lord 57; if you say: "He does not command", I require a reason. Nor are you going to answer me that which you gave in your letter: "Because the Lord forbids the faithful to be joined to the unbelievers." For here there is no such cause; we are talking about those already joined, not about joining. If, then, you have not found a reason why the Lord does not forbid what the apostle forbids (for you now see, as I think, that it is not what you thought it to be), see that it may not be that which has appeared to me, and then be brought forward and now defended, so that we may understand it to be the Lord's saying that he has before him in no way transgressed justice, that is, he commands or forbids to do so, so that nothing else is permitted at all. but which allows the willing power in such a way that it is neither done nor passed over unlawfully; himself to give place to the advice of his servants, so that they may rather suggest what they see expedient. 21. 27 Here, then, first and foremost, let us be careful not to commit unlawful acts. But where something is so lawful that it is not unlawful to do anything else, let what is expedient, or what is more expedient, be done. Therefore, what the Lord says so as the Lord, that is, not with the advice of admonishing, but with the dominant command, it is not permissible not to do, and therefore it is not expedient. The Lord therefore commanded: A woman shall not leave her husband; if she had left (certainly the cause for which it is lawful to leave), she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband 58 . For a woman is united to the law under her husband, her living husband; and: A living man shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man 59 ; since a woman is bound as long as her husband lives 60 . Hence: If a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery 61; and: He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery 62 . And therefore from the same commandment of the Lord: And a man shall not divorce his wife 63; since he who divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery 64 . But if he divorced for this reason, let him also remain so: for everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery 65 . 22. 27 These decrees of the Lord are to be observed without any revision. For he has this justice, which is before him, whether men prove or disprove. And therefore it is not necessary to say that because of the offenses of men, or lest men should be hindered from that salvation which is in Christ, they are not to be preserved. For what Christian dares to say: Lest I offend men, or that I may win men to Christ, I will cause my wife to commit adultery, so that I myself may become an adulterer? The decrees of the Lord are to be observed without any revision 22. 28 For it may happen that, when every Christian has put away an adulterous wife, he may be so tempted, that some woman who has not yet believed, desiring to join in his marriage, promises that she will become a Christian, not deceitfully, but if she marries him she will do so at all. Therefore, the tempter can suggest this marriage to the one who refuses: The Lord said: Whoever divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication and marries another, commits adultery 66; but you, who have put away your wife for the cause of fornication, if you marry another, you shall not commit adultery. To this one who suggests such things, let him answer with a learned heart that adultery is indeed more serious for him who, apart from the cause of fornication, divorces his wife and marries another; but even he who, having divorced his adulterous wife, has married another, does not therefore commit adultery, because he leaves the adulterer: just as he who marries her, who is divorced except for the cause of fornication, commits adultery; and therefore he who marries her, whom he finds divorced except for the cause of fornication, does not commit adultery. And for that reason what is placed in obscurity in Matthew, since the whole is signified in part, is set forth in others, who have expressed the whole in general, as it is read in Mark: Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery; and in Luke: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery 68 . For they did not say that some commit adultery, and others do not commit adultery, who, having put away their wives, married others; but: Whoever divorces, absolutely everyone, who divorces his wife and marries another, they call him an adulterer without any exception. A Christian who commits an unlawful act cannot avoid condemnation 23. 29 But if that Christian replied these things to the tempter, understanding that it was indeed lawful for him to divorce an adulteress, but that it was not lawful for him to marry another, what? if that tempter should say: Commit this sin, that you may acquire the soul of a woman placed in the death of infidelity to Christ, who is ready, if she marries you, to become a Christian? What else should a Christian answer and say to these things, except that he cannot, if he does this, escape the judgment which the Apostle mentioned, where he says: And as some say we say: Let us do evil, that good may come, whose condemnation is just? But how can she be a healthy Christian who commits adultery with him by whom she is led? They are to be broken under no condition, which men have vowed without any condition 24. 30 And not only is it not adultery, which is not done by some, but by everyone who divorces his wife and marries another, even if he marries for that reason, that he may become a Christian, but even he who is not bound to his wife and vows to God continence, must in no way sin by this compensation, so that he therefore believes that he is a wife to be married to, because he has promised that he who seeks her marriage will be a Christian. For that which was lawful to every man before he had vowed, when he hath vowed never to do it, it shall not be lawful; if, however, he vows that which was to be vowed, such as perpetual virginity or continence after an experienced marriage having been dissolved from the conjugal bond, or faithful and chaste spouses who have vowed by consent and have relaxed their carnal debts to each other, that it is not right to vow one without the other, or one without the other. These, then, and if there are any others, which are most properly vowed, when men have vowed, they are not to be broken under any condition, which they have vowed without any condition. Because it is to be understood that the Lord commanded this, where it is read: Vow and render to the Lord your God 70 . Whence the apostle speaks of some who vow continence, and afterwards wish to marry, which was certainly lawful for them before they had vowed: Having, he says, condemnation, because they have made void their first faith 71 . 24. 31 Nothing therefore is expedient that is unlawful, and nothing that the Lord forbids is lawful. In those things which the Lord did not command, let the apostle be heard 25. 31 But those things which have been released from the power by no binding command of the Lord, in these the apostle is heard admonishing and advising in the Holy Spirit, that either the better things be taken, or those things which are not expedient be avoided. There he is heard saying: I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give advice; and: I say, not the Lord 73 . If he had chosen better things there, he who hears: He is divorced from his wife, let him not seek a wife, because even if he takes a wife, he does not sin, 74 there a virgin does not marry. For he who does not give in marriage does better; and he who gives in marriage does well 75 . There let the woman be happier by remaining thus, who has power over her dead husband, whom she wishes to marry, only in the Lord 76 . This can be taken in two ways: either remaining a Christian, or marrying a Christian. For I do not recall that at the time of the revelation of the New Testament it was declared without ambiguity in the Gospel or in any of the apostolic letters, whether the Lord forbade the faithful to be joined to unbelievers, although the most blessed Cyprian does not doubt from this, nor does he establish in light sins, to join the bond of marriage with infidels, and says that this is to prostitute the members of Christ to the Gentiles. But since there is another question concerning those who are already united, let this apostle also be heard saying: If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her; and if any woman has an unfaithful husband and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce the husband 78 . And so it should be heard that, although it is lawful to do, because the Lord does not say this, yet it should not be done, because it is not expedient. For the Apostle 79 very openly teaches us not to expedient all things which are lawful, as we have already shown above. However, because of any kind of fornication, whether of the flesh or of the spirit, where infidelity is also understood, and a divorced man is not allowed to marry another, and a divorced wife is not allowed to marry another; since the Lord says without exception: If a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery 80; and: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery 81 . The question of marriage is very dark and complicated 25. 32 After these have been discussed and discussed in this way for my own benefit, I do not know that the question of marriage is the most obscure and complicated. Nor do I venture to confess that I have yet explained all its ins and outs, either in this work or in another, or that I can now, if pressed, explain it. And that, whence you thought me to consult the same on another sheet, I would also take care to enter it separately, if it should appear to me otherwise than you thought; but since our opinion is also the same, there is no need to discuss it any longer. Third question: If the catechumens, lying in despair of life, cannot ask for baptism, should they be baptized or not (26, 33 - 28, 35) Catechumens in despair of life, even if they cannot ask for baptism, are baptized 26. 33 Therefore, when catechumens are at the end of this life, or if they are pressed by disease or some accident, so that, although they are still alive, they are not able to ask for baptism or to answer the questions, it is good for them that their will is already known in the Christian faith, to be baptized in the same way as infants are baptized, whose will is not yet clear 82 . However, we must not therefore condemn those who act more timidly than it seems to us necessary to act, lest we be judged to have wished to judge more imprudently than cautiously about the money entrusted to our fellow-servants. Indeed, in such cases, the words of the Apostle must be considered enough, where he says: Each one of us will give an account to God for himself 83 . So let us no longer judge one another. For there are those who think that it is necessary to observe, either in these or in others, what we read that the Lord said: Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine. And reverencing these words of the Saviour, they dare not baptize those who are unable to answer for themselves, lest they should perhaps act contrary to the will of their will. This cannot be said of little children, in whom reason has not yet been used. But it is not only incredible that a catechumen would not want to be baptized at the end of this life; but also, if his will is uncertain, it is much better to give to the unwilling than to deny it to the willing, where it does not appear whether he wills it or not, so that it is more credible that, if he could, he would rather say that he was willing to receive those sacraments, without which he already believed that it was not necessary for him to leave the body. Matthew's words do not mean the opposite 27. 34 But if the Lord, when he says: Do not give what is holy to dogs, 85 wanted this to be understood, which they think to be guarded against, he would not have himself given it to his betrayer, because he took his own destruction without fault and was unworthy of those who gave it. Therefore, when the Lord said this, we must believe that he wanted to signify that impure hearts do not carry the light of spiritual understanding. And if the teacher eats things to be borne, which they do not receive properly, because they do not take them, they either tear them with the bites of rebuke, or trample them down with contempt. For if the blessed apostle, though already reborn in Christ, still says that he gave milk to the little ones, not meat. For you were not yet able, he says, but you are not even yet able 86 ; Finally, if the Lord himself said to the chosen apostles: I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them alone, how much less can the impure minds of the wicked bear whatever is said about the incorporeal light? Even adulterous catechumens, if they have fallen into despair, are to be baptized 28. 35 But in order that our speech may rather be closed to this, from whence it took its beginning, I think that not only other catechumens, but also those who retain adulterous unions with the spouses of the living, since we do not admit to baptism those who are saved in the body, nevertheless, if they lie in despair and cannot answer for themselves, I think that they should baptize, so that even this sin may be washed away with the rest of the washing of regeneration. For who knows whether, perhaps, the enticements of the adulterous flesh had determined to be withheld until baptism? But if, having been revived by that despair, they were able to live, either they will do what they had decided, or they will obey what they have been taught, or it will be done to the despisers, as must also be done to such baptized ones. But baptism is the same reason for reconciliation, if the penitent is in danger of ending his life. Nor should Mother Church want them to depart from this life without the altar of her peace. The Second Book The New Objections of Pollentius Are Refuted Why should we add another book? 1. 1 To what you had written to me, religious brother Pollentis, I had already written back a not small volume about those who are joined to their living spouses. When he knew your love, you added some things to your letter, desiring me to answer them also. But when I was about to do it, by adding to my own, so that there was also one book of my answer, suddenly that which I had completed before was published, at the request of the brothers and without knowing that there was still something to be added. Hence it happened, that I was forced to reply in a separate essay to those which you have added. But the things which you have added are appended to the end of your essay; but where it was seen, they were thrown into his body. Sentence of Pollentius on adultery leading to death (2, 2 – 13, 13) The opinion of Pollentius: a wife, descended from a fornicator, is not found to be a violator of the precept... 2. 2 The first of these is that to which I think I ought to answer, that in these words of the Apostle, where he says: But I say to the rest, not the Lord, that a woman should not divorce her husband; as if she had left, to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband, 88 do you not think that it was said that if she left, it should be understood that she had left her husband fornicating, for which reason alone it is lawful to leave; but rather you think that she was commanded by a chaste man to remain unmarried, that she might be reconciled to him, if he would not restrain her, lest she should compel her husband to commit fornication, that is to say, to marry another while she was still unreconciled. Moreover, if she has left an adulterous husband, do you think that she is not commanded to remain unmarried, but to do this if she chooses to be continous, not to be found to be a violator of the commandment if she marries. Which seems to you to be a form to be observed by the husband, so that he does not divorce his wife, except for the cause of fornication; but if he has divorced, let him remain unmarried, so that he may be reconciled to the chaste wife, unless perhaps she chooses continence, lest, rejecting the reconciliation of the chaste wife, he himself compels her to commit adultery, if, not continously living with him, he marries another. But if he has been separated from his adulterous wife, he is now under no precept to restrain himself, nor to commit adultery at all, if she marries another while alive, because what the Apostle says is the same: A woman is bound as long as her husband lives; if her husband died, she was freed; he marries whom he wills 89 , you think it should be understood in this way, that if a man commits fornication, he is considered as dead and the wife as dead, and therefore it is permissible for each of them to be united to the other as after death so after fornication c. ...that fornication is to be considered as death 3. 3. Considering your feelings, I ask you whether anyone who marries a woman who has ceased to be bound to her husband is considered an adulterer. I don't think you can see that. For this reason a woman will be called an adulteress by her living husband if she has been with another man 90 ; since a woman is bound as long as her husband lives 91 ; but if this bond were not with her living husband, she would marry another without any crime of adultery. Accordingly, if she is bound as long as her husband lives, she can in no way be said to be freed from this bond unless her husband is dead. Moreover, if by the death of any one of them this bond between husband and wife is dissolved, and for death, as you say, also fornication is to be considered, beyond doubt the woman will also be freed from this when she has committed adultery. For these things cannot be said to be bound to the man, when the man has been freed from her. And by this means, after she has ceased to be bound to her husband by fornication, whoever marries her shall not be an adulterer. 4. 3. And see how absurd it is, that he should not therefore be an adulterer, because he married an adulteress. Indeed, and what is more monstrous, neither will the woman herself be an adulteress, since she will not be a stranger's wife to the latter husband, but his own. For if by adultery the previous conjugal bond has been dissolved to whomsoever she has already married, having no spouse, she shall not commit adultery with the adulterer, but shall rather be a wife with her husband. How then will it be true: A woman is bound as long as her husband lives 92 ? Behold, her husband lives, because he neither departed from the body nor committed fornication, which you want to depute for death. and yet the woman is no longer bound to him. Do you not consider how this is contrary to the Apostle who said: A woman is bound as long as her husband lives? Or perhaps you are going to say: She lives indeed, but her husband is no longer, since he ceased to be then, when she broke the conjugal bond through adultery? How, then, can a living man be called an adulteress if she has been with another man 93 ? Since her husband is no longer the conjugal bond that has been dissolved by the woman's adultery. For what living man shall she call an adulteress, if she be with another man? But if he has already ceased to be her husband, she will certainly not be called an adulteress while her husband is alive, if she has been with another husband, but if she has no husband she will be married to her own husband. He who feels this, do you not see how he feels against the Apostle? You do not feel this yourself, but this follows from what you feel. Change therefore the preceding, if you wish to avoid the following, and do not say that a dead husband or a dead wife is to be understood in this place also as an adulterer. A woman is freed from her husband only if her husband dies 4. 4 Therefore, according to sound doctrine, a woman is bound as long as her husband lives 94 ; that is, it has not yet departed from the body; For a woman is united to the law under a living husband; this is in the organized body. But if he is dead, that is, he has gone out of the body, he is void of the law of man. Therefore she will be called an adulteress while her husband is alive, if she has been with another man. But if her husband died, she was freed from the law, so that she would not be an adulteress if she had been with another man 95 . These words of the Apostle, so often repeated, so often emphasized, are true, they are alive, they are sound, they are plain. A woman does not begin to be the wife of a later man unless she has ceased to be of the former. But she ceases to be the wife of the former, if her husband dies, not if he commits adultery. A spouse is therefore lawfully divorced on the ground of fornication; but the bond of shame remains f, because of which he becomes guilty of adultery, who marries a divorced woman also for this g cause of fornication. The apostle speaks of that death by which he leaves the body 5. 5 For just as anyone who is guilty of a crime is excommunicated by the sacrament of regeneration remaining in himself, he does not lack that sacrament, even if he is never reconciled to God; Thus, while the bond of the covenant remains in her, the conjugal wife is divorced for the cause of fornication, and will not be freed from that bond, even if she is never reconciled to her husband. but she will be destitute if her husband is dead. But the guilty excommunicated person will therefore never lack the sacrament of regeneration, even if he is not reconciled, since God never dies. It remains, therefore, that, if we wish to be wise according to the Apostle, we should not say that an adulterous man should be deputed as dead, and therefore it is lawful for his wife to marry another. For although death is adultery not of the body, but, what is worse, of the soul; but the apostle did not speak of that death either, when he said: But if her husband is dead, she marries whom she wills 96 ; but only of that which comes out of the body. For if the conjugal bond is dissolved by the adultery of the spouses, that perversity follows, which I have pointed out to be guarded against, as the woman is also dissolved by this bond through fornication. which, if paid, shall be free from the law of the husband; and for that reason, which is most foolishly said, she will not be an adulteress if she has been with another man, because she was freed from her former husband through adultery. But if it is so deviant from the truth that no one, I do not say Christian, but human sense admits it, surely a woman is bound as long as her husband lives 97 , which, to put it more plainly, as long as her husband is in the body. Therefore the man is bound in the same form as long as his woman is in the body. Therefore, if he wants to put away the adulteress, he must not lead another, lest he himself commit what he blames in her. Similarly, if a woman divorces an adulterer, she must not marry another; for she is bound as long as her husband lives, and is not freed from the husband's law unless he is dead, so that she may not be an adulteress if she has been with another man. After adultery, the spouses will be reconciled 6. 5 But what seems hard to you, so that after adultery the husband and wife are reconciled, if there is faith, it will not be hard. For why do we still depute adulterers, whom we believe to have been healed either by baptism or by repentance? These crimes in the old law of God were cleansed by no sacrifices, which are cleansed without doubt by the blood of the New Testament; and therefore at that time it was forbidden in every way to receive a wife contaminated by another man; although David received Saul's daughter, whom the father of the same woman separated from him had given to another, as a prefigurer of the New Testament, without hesitation 98 . But now after Christ said to the adulteress: Neither will I condemn thee; go, henceforth do not sin 99 ; who does not understand that he must forgive his husband, because he sees that he has forgiven the Lord of both, and that he must no longer call himself an adulteress, whose penitent crime he believes to be wiped out by divine mercy? The Lord forgave adultery 7. 6 But this obviously shocks the sense of unbelievers, so that some of the modest faith, or rather the enemies of the true faith, I believe, fearing that impunity for sinning would be given to their women, took away from their codes what the Lord has done about the indulgence of adultery, as if he had given permission to sin who said: From now on do not sin, or therefore a woman should not be healed by the physician God for the remission of that sin, lest the madmen be offended. For those who do not disapprove of that deed of the Lord are themselves chaste, and chastity makes them severe; but rather they are of that number of men, to whom the Lord said: He that is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. Except that they had withdrawn, terrified by conscience, and had ceased to tempt Christ and to persecute adultery 101 ; But these and the sick reproach the doctor and lash out at the adulterers. But then perhaps those who were indignant because they had not killed the adulteress would think how great the mercy of God would spare them, that the adulterers might live. Between husband and wife, the form of chastity shall be preserved 8. 7 But when we say these things to them, not only do they not want to detract from severity, but they are also enraged at the truth, and they say and answer: But we are men. Or will the dignity of our sex withstand this wrong, so that, if we admit anything with other women besides our wives, we should be compared to women in playing punishments? As if that is not why they should more manfully restrain illicit lusts, because they are men? as if they ought not therefore to set themselves an example of this virtue to their wives, because they are men? as if they should not therefore be less overcome by lust, because they are men? as if, because they are men, they ought not to serve less to lustful flesh? And yet they are indignant if they hear that adulterous men are subject to the same punishments as adulterous women, when they ought to be punished so much more severely, the more it belongs to them both to conquer women by virtue and to rule by example. I speak indeed to Christians, who faithfully hear: The head of the woman is the man, 102 where they recognize themselves as leaders, but they must be companions. And therefore a man must be careful to live in that way, which he fears lest his wife should follow in imitation. But those who do not like that an equality of chastity should be preserved between husband and wife, and choose rather, especially in this case, to be subject to the laws of the world rather than to Christ, since judicial rights do not seem to bind men by the same bonds of chastity as women. let them read what the emperor Antoninus, certainly not a Christian, decided on this matter, where a husband is not allowed to accuse his wife of the crime of adultery, to whom he has not set an example of chastity by his behavior, so that both are condemned if he himself convinces both of them to be equally unchaste by conflict (n. For these are the words of the above-mentioned emperor, which are read by Gregorianus. Of course, said he, my letter will not prejudice any part of the cause. For if it was your fault that the marriage was dissolved and your wife Eupasia married Julia according to the law, she will be condemned by my written account of adultery, unless it is established that it was committed. But they will have to inquire before their eyes whether, when you lived modestly, you were also the author of cultivating good manners. For it seems to me perverse that a husband should demand chastity from his wife, which he himself does not exhibit. This thing can also condemn the husband, not for the compensation of the mutual crime, to settle the matter between them, or to remove the cause of the deed 103 . If these things are to be observed for the sake of the virtues of the earthly state, how much more fast does the heavenly country and the company of angels seek? Since these things are so, is the impudence of men less, and not rather greater and worse, than their proud and licentious boasting? Let not men, therefore, be shocked that Christ forbade adultery; but rather let them also recognize their own danger, and let those suffering from a similar disease take refuge in the same Savior with the mercy of the executed, and admit that what they read in it is also necessary for them, take the medicine of their adulterers, stop adultery, praise the patience of God in them, do penance, receive indulgence, change their opinion about the punishment of women and about their own impunity. If the reconciliation is rejected, let the continence be undertaken 9. 8 When these are considered and dealt with, if the common situation, the common evil, the common danger, the common wound, the common salvation are faithfully and humbly thought of, the reconciliation of the spouses, even after the adultery committed and purged, will not be shameful or difficult, where by the keys of the kingdom of heaven there is no doubt that the sinner will be forgiven, not that after the divorce of the husband adultery is revoked, but that adultery is not called after the union of Christ. The truth is that it should not be done, no one compels it, because perhaps some law of this world forbids it according to the manner of the earthly state, where the remission of crimes by holy blood is not contemplated. Let continence, therefore, which no law forbids, be adopted, and adultery should not be resorted to in other ways. And what about us, if the adulteress is not at least reconciled to her husband, cleansed by divine mercy, while the unreconciled adulterers are not made into other marriages, which are convinced that they are adulteries? For a woman is bound as long as her husband lives 104 . Consequently, the husband is also bound as long as his wife lives. This attachment causes them to be unable to be joined to others without adulterous coupling. Hence it is necessary that out of two spouses four adulteresses should be made, if she also marries the other and he marries the adulteress r. For although a more criminal commits adultery, he who divorces his wife, not because of fornication, marries another - which is the kind of adultery mentioned by Matthew - yet not only does he commit adultery, but, as it is in Mark: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery on her; and if the wife has put away her virus and married another, she commits adultery 105 ; and, as it is in Luke: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery 106 . Of which evidence I have already sufficiently discussed in the preceding book. If we admit complaints of incontinence, most adulteries will be allowed 10. 9 But you answer me: "It is for the few to live continously; and therefore those who have divorced adulterous spouses, since they cannot be reconciled, see themselves in danger so much as to pronounce the law of Christ, not human, but wild." t, those who divorce for the sake of fornication, if they are not allowed to marry, because they should be encouraged to do so, do not be compelled by the law. Therefore, if the adulteress is not led, as you think, incontinence will have a lot of complaints. If we want to admit adultery, then what? the spouse is restrained by what means? If the husband is separated by some force, so that he knows that the wife is denied, do you think that the incontinent should be allowed, and the Lord answered that it should not be done, but for the hardness of their hearts, and for whatever reason, does not the law of Christ displease the incontinent? Do they want to throw away quarrelsome, abusive, imperious, fastidious wives by filing a divorce and marry others? A woman is bound as long as her husband lives, whether he is a virgin or a fornicator. 10. 10 But now, if the wife leaves her husband, or the husband leaves his wife, not because of fornication, but rather because of continence and is incontinent, to whom divorce is granted for this reason, I ask whether he will not be an adulterer or an adulteress if he marries another? If: It shall not be [as] it is said, it is contradicted by the Lord, whose words are these: And it is said: Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery 109 . Behold, it was released, it was not released; and because it is to be restrained by a few, he yielded to incontinence and married; and yet he married an adulteress. Both of them are condemned, and she who married a living husband, and he who married her, whose husband is alive. Do we here say that the law of Christ is inhumane, by which the crime of so great a crime is established and punished, which a man has forgiven without any previous fornication, and because it is few to restrain, by letting go he is forced to marry? Why do we not say here that he is to be regarded as dead, who, by wrongly divorcing, has broken the conjugal bond before? For on what grounds are you going to say that he has broken the conjugal bond, who, although he is a fornicator, has not divorced his wife, and that he has not broken it, who has also divorced a chaste wife? But I say that this bond remains in both, since a woman is bound as long as her husband lives, whether she is a virgin or a fornicator, and therefore she who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman, whether she is divorced from a fornicator or a prostitute, commits adultery, since a woman is bound as long as her husband lives. But now we are discussing complaints about incontinence. For what seems more just the complaint of this woman who says: I was released, I did not release; and since it is to be restrained by a few, I did not continue myself, lest I marry adulterously; and am I called a prostitute because I am married? Shall we consider the divine law to be changed because of this seemingly just complaint, so that we may not judge it as adulterous? He is away. But you will answer that he ought not to have let her go, because there was no preceding cause of fornication. You speak the truth; for the Lord expressed the sin of her husband, when he said: He who divorces his wife for the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery 111 . But did she not then sin by marrying her, because he sinned by first divorcing her? What, then, does it profit her, that an incontinent woman complains of the law of Christ, except that she be punished for murmuring? It is not permissible to lie with an adulteress even for the sake of procreating children 11. 11 Now let us also look at those things which you added in another place and did not want to answer them. Where it moves you and you pity the man who lies with an adulteress, even if he is not incontinent, he is certainly compelled by the necessity of procreating children, if it is not permissible for him to let her go in this way, so that while she is alive he leads another. Wherefore you would be rightly moved, if it were not adultery to take another wife, although an adulteress is alive. But if it is adultery, as the things which have been discussed have taught, what is obtained for the sake of begetting children? For it is not for that reason that the license is permitted. Or should we be as careful to die without posterity as to choose to live for posterity? That adulterers must not be permitted, who must be condemned after the first death to the eternity of the second death. For this cause of begetting children does not even commit adultery, but compels the most chaste women, if they happen to be barren, to let them go and to marry others: which I think will not please you. If incontinence does not excuse adultery, much less the procreation of children 12. 11 Wherefore, if adulteries are not to be excused for the cause of incontinence, how much less are they to be excused for the sake of begetting children! 12. 12 Indeed, the apostle wished to be helped by the honor of marriage to that infirmity, that is, of incontinence. For he does not say: If he has no children, he marries; but: If he does not control himself, he marries 112 . Indeed, the propagation of children is compensated for by giving way to incontinence by marrying. For certainly incontinence is a vice, but marriage is not a vice; and therefore good is done by this, so that it is venial evil. Since, therefore, marriages are instituted for the purpose of procreation, they were performed by the Fathers, who only for the purpose of procreating women, but not unlawfully, intermingled. For there was then a certain necessity of propagation, which is not now, since there was a time to embrace, as it is written, which certainly was then, and a time to refrain from embracing, which is now. Of which time the Apostle speaking says: As for the rest, brethren, the time is short; the rest is that those who have wives are as if they had none 114 . Hence it is now most certainly said: He who can take, let him take 115; but he who does not control himself marries 116 . At that time, therefore, continence, because of the proliferation of children, descended into a duty; but now the conjugal bond of incontinence helps the vice, so that by those who do not control themselves, children may be propagated, not through the indecency of fornication, but through the honesty of the spouses. Why then did not the Apostle say: If he has no children, he marries? Because, of course, at this time of refraining from embracing, it is not necessary to propagate children. And why did he say: If he does not control himself, he marries? For this reason, of course, that he should not be forced to commit adultery through incontinence. If, therefore, he restrains himself, he neither marries nor begets. But if he does not restrain himself, he marries lawfully, so that he does not procreate in an indecent manner, or in a more indecent act of intercourse. However, what I said last, some do even legally married. For he lies unlawfully and shamefully even with his legitimate wife, where the conception of a child is avoided. What Onan the son of Judah was doing and God killed him because of this 117 . Therefore the propagation of children itself is the first and natural and legitimate cause of marriage. And by this means those who are united because of incontinence should not so moderate their evil as to destroy the good of marriage, that is, the propagation of children. For the apostle spoke of the incontinent, when he said: I therefore want to marry younger people, to beget children, to be the mothers of families, to give no opportunity to the adversary of the cursed grace. For some have already turned back after Satan 118 . When, therefore, he said: I want to marry younger people, he certainly warned this because of the fall of continence. But lest by any chance they should think of the weakness of carnal concupiscence, which was only to be served by the work of marriage, and the good of marriage should either be despised or neglected, he immediately added: to beget children, to be the mothers of families. But those who choose to abstain certainly choose something better than the good of marriage. this is the generation of children. Hence, if continence is chosen, so that something better may be obtained from the good of marriage, how much more must it be guarded against adultery! for when the apostle had said: If he does not control himself, he marries; For it is better, he says, to marry than to burn; he did not say: It is better to commit adultery than to burn. Let those who fear to be reconciled keep their temper 13. 13 There is nothing, therefore, to which we exhort those who are afraid of reconciling adulterous spouses healed by repentance, except to guard continence, since a bound woman, as long as her husband lives, whether a prostitute or chaste, commits adultery if she marries another, and a bound man, as long as his wife lives, whether a prostitute or chaste, commits adultery, if he marries another. For since this bond is not discharged, even if the spouse is separated from the chaste spouse by divorce, it is much less discharged if he does not commit adultery separately. And by this means it is not released, except by the death of the spouse, not by falling into adultery, but by leaving the body. Therefore, if a woman has withdrawn from an adulterous husband and does not want to be reconciled to him, let her remain unmarried; and if a man has put away an adulterous woman and does not want to take her back even after repentance, let him keep continence, even if not from the will to choose a better good, certainly from the necessity of avoiding a pernicious evil. I would exhort him to do this, even if the wife were in an incurable and long-lasting illness, even if she were physically separated somewhere, to which the husband could not approach; Finally, I would exhort him to this, even if a woman desiring to live continually, although contrary to discipline, because it was not by consent, should nevertheless let go of the chastity of the chastity. For I think that no Christian should refuse to be an adulterer, who, either by being long sick or long absent, or continually desiring to live, has mingled with his wife another woman. So, therefore, a divorced adulteress commits adultery with another, because it is not this or that, but everyone who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery 121 . Therefore, if the life of the saints is less sought after by those who are immune from the conjugal bond, let the punishment of adulterers be horrifying, and at least lust is restrained by fear, if continence is not chosen by love. For if, where there is fear, work will be done, where there was work, there will also be love. For our strength is not to be trusted; but prayer must be joined to efforts, that it may be filled with good things, which deters from evil things. The absurd objections which follow from the opinion of Pollentius are refuted (14, 14 - 17, 18) The new objection of Pollentius is refuted 14. 14 Let us also answer that, where you think that husbands are compelled to punish adulteresses without any mercy, when they want them to die, if they are not permitted to marry others while they are alive. Wanting to exaggerate what cruelty you said: "It does not seem to me, most loving father, that this is a divine sense, where kindness and piety are excluded." 122. Thus you say, as if that is why husbands should spare adulterous women, because it is permissible for them to marry others, so that, if it is not permissible, they should not spare, so that it may be permitted. Nay, for this reason they should show mercy to sinners, so that they too may obtain mercy for their sins. they desire to live continually with their adulterous wives, as much as they wish to be more holy, so that chastity is preserved in themselves, while they do not avenge themselves of chastity. And the Lord's word is to be recalled to their memory: He who is without sin should throw a stone at her. No: He who is without sin himself; they deceive themselves, and there is no truth in them. For if they do not deceive themselves, and there is no truth in them, they let them know that they are not without sin, nor are they excluded from them rather, because they want to spare the Lord for themselves. Husbands spare the blood of adulterous wives 14. 15. How much better, and more honorable, finally, worthy of the Christian profession, that they spare the blood of the wives of adulterers, as it is written, we say to them: Forgive the injustice of your neighbor, and then the sins of those who pray to you will be forgiven. Does man keep his anger against man and seek healing from the Lord? Does he not have mercy on a man like himself, and pleads for his sins? Since he himself is flesh, he keeps his anger, who will be propitiated for his sins? 125 and of the Gospel: Forgive, and it will be forgiven you 126 so that we may say: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors 127; and of the Apostle: Returning evil for evil to no one 128; and if there are any of this kind in the holy Scriptures, by which when the human mind is roused to revenge, because it is a Christian, it is moderated. It is not lawful for a Christian man to kill his adulterous wife, nor to marry another 15. 15 How much better, I say, do we say these things, than to say: Only let these adulterers go, and seek not their blood; Whatever pain you have from their crimes, you will be comforted by the others whom you have married. for you would justly wish to remove these from the number of the living, if their lives were an obstacle, from which you would lead others. But now, since it is permissible for you to provide other marriages even for these living ones, why are you so willing to kill them? If we say these things, do you not notice how far our counsel is from the Christian character? and we falsely say that it is lawful for them, which is not lawful, that is for these living, that they may copulate with others; and if on that account they spare them, they do not spare them out of piety, but because of the free power of other marriages. Finally, I ask you whether it is permissible for a Christian husband to kill an adulteress either according to the old law of God or according to the Roman laws? If it is permissible, it is better that he restrain himself from both, that is, both from the lawful punishment of sinning, and from the unlawful life of a married couple. But if he continues to choose one or the other, it is better for him to do what is lawful, that the adulteress may be punished, than what is not lawful, that he may commit adultery while alive. But if, as is more truly said, it is not lawful for a Christian man to kill an adulterous spouse, but only to let him go, who is so mad as to say to him: Do what is not lawful, that you may be permitted what is not lawful? For since both are unlawful according to the law of Christ, whether to kill an adulteress or to marry another while she is alive, it is necessary to abstain from both, not to make unlawful for unlawful. For if he is going to do what is not lawful, let him commit adultery and not murder, so that he may take another wife while he is still alive and not establish human blood. But if both are evil, he ought not to commit the one for the other, but to avoid both. From the objection of Pollentius which follows 16. 16 Here I see what can be said by those who are incontinent: namely, that he who lets an adulteress live, if he marries another, as long as the former lives, is a perpetual adulterer, and does not do fruitful penance without departing from the fornication; nor, if he is a catechumen, is he admitted to baptism, since he is not changed by what hinders him; nor can a repentant person be reconciled while continuing in the same wickedness: but if he kills an adulteress by accusing him, this sin, since it has been passed and does not continue in him, is washed away by baptism if it was committed by a catechumen. and if he is baptized, he is healed by repentance and reconciliation. But are we therefore to say that adultery is not adultery, which is committed without doubt, if the adulterous spouse is led by the other? But with the exception of this kind of adultery, you have no doubt that it is adultery, if a man marries a living wife who has been divorced from her husband by a certificate of divorce, without any fornication of the woman. What then? When he sees that he is neither admitted to baptism, if he is a catechumen, nor can he profitably do penance, if the baptized has done this, not by correcting and forsaking what he has done, if he wills and is able to kill him, whose wife he married, so that this crime may be diluted either by baptism or resolved by repentance, and thus also that adultery may not continue, emptied by the law of the man after the death of the man, but for what has been done, it may be satisfied by repentance, or be erased by regeneration; Is it for this reason that the law of Christ is to be accused, as if it compelled murder to take place, when it says that marrying a divorced woman without the crime of fornication is adultery? From the opinion of Pollentius they can be said to be much more serious than he himself said 16. 17. For here, if we pay attention to what we are talking about, much more serious things can be said than you yourself have said. For while you do not want adulteries to be adulteries, if other adulterers are married to divorced adulterers, you have found this: "For if we declare these adulteries, the husbands will be forced to kill the adulteresses, whose lives are prevented from marrying others." And in order to emphasize this, you said: "It does not seem to me, most loving father, that this is a divine sense, where kindness and piety are excluded". to desire, or to accuse and kill with some true crimes, so that they may be dead spouses who were adulterous, is he not going to exaggerate this: "Doesn't it seem to me, most loving father, that this is a divine sense, where not only kindness and piety are excluded, but also great malice and impiety are aroused?" to you, that because of this most vain envy of the Lord we should abandon the defense of the sentence, or accuse her in addition, saying that adultery should not be judged, even if she is divorced by another man, lest she be called upon to kill her husband, from whom she was divorced, while she wishes to convert adultery into a marriage by the death of the former husband? Therefore it should not be seen that adultery is to be denied when the other is taken by an adulterous wife, because the husband may by this force kill the adulteress, while he wishes to marry the other while she is still alive. What if the detractors of the Christian faith say that, men are forced to kill their wives by means of intrigues, which they are unable to bear because of long-term languor and are unable to endure cohabitation? poor or barren or deformed, to be led by the hope of others, healthy, wealthy, fertile, beautiful, because those whom they do not want to be married, it is not permissible to divorce them, except for the cause of fornication, and marry others, lest they be permanently bound by adultery, neither can they be baptized, nor be healed by repentance. Another very absurd consequence of the opinion of Pollentius 17. 18. Now, since you know that it is not adultery, if a man puts away his wife for the reason of fornication and marries another, don't you think that we should be careful, lest men should learn to force their wives, whom they cannot bear for other innumerable reasons, to commit adultery, so that the conjugal bond through fornication, as you think, being dissolved by them, may be allowed to marry others, and from the fact that they forced them to commit adultery, I either wash them away by baptism, or they are healed by repentance, since for them both grace and medicine will it be denied, as long as they live with adulterers, if they have married others, having divorced the former, apart from the cause of fornication? Unless perhaps someone says that no one can commit adultery with his wife if she is chaste; and yet the Lord says: Everyone who divorces his wife, apart from the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery 130 . Of course, because when she was chaste with her husband, she was nevertheless forced by incontinence to live with the other before, and this is to commit adultery. But if he did not do these things, yet he was compelled to do them, as far as it was in him; and God will impute this sin to her, even if she remains chaste. But who does not know how rare are those who live so modestly with men, that, even if they are dismissed by them, they do not seek others? For there is an incomparably greater number of women, who with modesty cling to their husbands, yet, if they have been put away by their husbands, they do not hesitate to marry. When, therefore, men believed the Lord who said: Everyone who divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication commits her to adultery 131; If they believe that you say that it is permissible for a woman who commits adultery to marry another woman, then whoever wishes to be free from the wife to whom he is engaged because of any other troubles, must first cause her to commit adultery without renouncing the fornication, so that then he may marry the other woman when she has become an adulteress. and thus from the former sin with which he made her commit adultery, whether by baptism or by penance, being freed, he seems to have, without his own adultery, which after the former adultery he married the other, as if from here on he had dissolved the bond of marriage. And if he is deceived, he will make his wife a fornicator, and even though after adultery the spouses marry another, he will be an adulterer, and it will do him no good that he believed in you, and not him rather, who says without any exception: Everyone who leaves his wife and marries another commits adultery 132 . When restraint is necessary (18, 19 – 20, 22) There are those who undertake continence out of necessity and those for a greater purpose 18. 19. After all these things have been considered and dealt with, it remains for us to be told by those who faithfully hear these things that it was said to the Lord: If such is the case with a wife, it is not expedient to marry. What should we answer to them, except what he himself answered? Not all receive this word, but to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were thus born from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who have been made by men; and there are eunuchs who castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who can take it, let him take it 133 . Therefore let him who can take it, which not all take. But they can take it, to whom God's hidden mercy guarantees this, but not unjustly. But among all these who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, there are some who do not know intercourse in either sex, others who have experienced it and are averse to it, partly illegally and partly lawfully. Moreover, among those who have experienced lawfully, there are some who only lawfully, and some both lawfully and unlawfully. Indeed, there are among them those who know only their spouses; and there are those who also rape other women and all kinds of rape. But those who, after intercourse with their spouses, castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, or lose their spouses by death, or profess continence with them by agreement, or from the necessity of divorces, lest they commit adultery with their living spouses by joining themselves to others, castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, not that they may be more glorious there, but that they cannot be there otherwise: for those who do not restrain themselves from this necessity, but from the desire of a better good, might there also be preserved conjugal chastity, although in with lesser rewards, however, within. But those who abstain for that reason, because they are afraid of being married to others while alive to their former spouses, ought to take greater care for their safety than they did to whom abstinence was chosen as a greater duty. For then they will be there, if they are not adulterers; but if they do not contain, they will be adulterers; because they will adhere to their former spouses while living, not to the spouses of the other, but to the adulterers. And if they are absent from the kingdom of heaven, where will they be, except where they will not be saved? With God's help, what was begun by necessity will be completed by charity 19. 20 I therefore address them as to what they ought to do if they had spouses dying of prolonged illness, or absent from a place inaccessible to them, or restrained by illicit animosity; let them do this if they have had spouses defiled by adulterous pollution and for this reason they divorce their union; let them not seek other marriages, because they will not be marriages but adulteries. For since there is an equal form in this bond of husband and wife, just as a wife living with her husband will be called an adulteress if she has been with another husband 134 ; so also a man will be called an adulterer while his wife is alive, if he has been with another woman. For although it is more serious, who apart from the cause of fornication, yet everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery 135 . They should not be intimidated by the package of restraint; it will be light if it is Christ's; It will be Christ's, if faith is present, which obtains from the one who commands what he has commanded. Let it not break them, that their restraint seems to be of necessity, not of will, because even those who have chosen it by will have made it to be of necessity, since they can no longer deviate from it without condemnation, and those who are built in that necessity make it to be of the will, if not of themselves, but of Him from whom all good is, they trust. They ascended to it for the sake of greater glory, that they might find something more; these fled to her for the last care of salvation, that they might not perish; let both persevere, let both walk to the end in what they have arrived at, be fervent in their studies, supplicate with their vows, because salvation must be thought of for them too, so that they may not fear falling from what the will has seized, and glory is not to be despaired of for these, if they love to persevere in what necessity has brought. For it is possible that, by fearing and exhorting, converting and fulfilling God, the human affections are changed for the better, and so they vow to live most perseveringly without marriage and without any cohabitation and the abhorrence of impure lust, so that even if a separated marriage has opened the place of leading others by dying, it is closed by the vow, which is evidently lawful and what was begun by necessity, may be perfected in charity. Such will certainly be repaid, as those who either vowed this by equal agreement with their spouses, or who, bound by no marriage, chose continence for the greater good. But if they restrain themselves in such a way that, if they die whose life they are prevented from marrying, they think of marrying others; indeed, even if they first descend from the body in such continence, it is not imputed to them except for conjugal chastity, because of which they do not do what they would do if it were permitted. For to live continually with this intention is not enough for him who chooses more freely to receive the rewards of continence, but it is sufficient to avoid adultery. Men should be equal in chastity with women 20. 21. But remember me to say these things concerning both sexes, but chiefly for the sake of men, who on that account think themselves superior to women, lest they should deign to be equals in chastity; But when the law forbids adultery, if the excuse of intemperance of carnal weakness is admitted, an opportunity is opened for many to perish under the name of false impunity. For women have no flesh, to whom men do not want to permit such a thing, as if it were permitted to them, because they are men. But it is far from the case that honor is owed to the better sex, which is detracted from modesty, since honor is due to virtue, not to vice. Nay, when indeed they demand so much chastity from women who have flesh, that when they have been away from their wives for a long time, they wish them to pass the fervor of youth uncontaminated by adulterous intercourse (and most of them pass very modestly, and especially the Syrians, whose husbands are occupied with the gains of trade, leave the young young, and hardly ever return to the old women) the more evidently are they convinced that it is not impossible that they cannot be caused. For if the weakness of men could not do this, much less could the weaker sex of women. An example of clerical restraint is proposed 20. 22. Hence, when we fear that men who do not consider manly excellence to be anything other than a license to sin, lest they perish forever by clinging to adulterous marriages, we usually also propose to them the restraint of clerics, who are usually forced to undergo the same burden unwillingly, and carry it through to its due end, with the help of the Lord. So we say to them: What? If you also were to undergo the violence of the people, would you not keep the duty of keeping the caste, suddenly turned to obtain strength from the Lord, of which you had never thought before? But for them, they say, honor comforts them greatly. We answer: And you will be controlled by fear much more. For if many ministers of God accepted this suddenly and unexpectedly, hoping to shine more brightly in the inheritance of Christ, how much more should you avoid adulteries, live constantly, fearing not to shine less in the kingdom of God, but to burn in hell fire? These and similar things we say to them, as best we can, who, by any means divorcing themselves or having divorced their spouses on account of adultery, want to marry others, and when they are forbidden, they oppose to us the infirmity of the flesh. But now even this book must be closed, and God must be asked, either not to allow them to be tempted by the separation of the spouses, or to permit it in such a way that the fear of endangering their salvation becomes for them a greater or more proof of chastity. 1Cor 7, 4; cf. Of the speech Dom. on the mountain 1, 16, 45; PL 34, 1251; Question. in Heptat 4, 4. 59: PL 34, 718. 745. Cf. AUG., Confess. 4, 4, 8: NBA 1, 88ff. Ulpianus, De adult. 13, 3