About adulterous marriages

See also: De Coniugiis Adulterinis Book 1. Can one spouse divorce the other? 1. The first question, dear brother Pollentius, of those that you addressed to me in a letter, as if in search of advice, concerns the words of the Apostle: “But to those who are married, I do not command, but the Lord: a woman should not divorce her husband, but if she divorces, then remain celibate, or be united again with her husband, and a husband should not leave [his] wife” 1 (1 Cor. 7:10-11). Should this be understood in such a way that it is forbidden to marry one who, without a reason connected with adultery, separated from her husband (as you think), or - as I believed in those books that I wrote many years ago about the Gospel sermon, according to Matthew, preached by the Savior on the mountain - he ordered that those who divorced their husbands for the only permissible reason, that is, because of adultery, remain celibate? It seems to you that a woman who has separated from her husband should not marry if she separated from him without being forced to do so by his adultery. But don’t you think about the fact that if the husband has not committed any adultery, then the wife who leaves him should not remain celibate, but should not leave at all. After all, the one [you think] who is ordered to remain celibate in case of leaving her husband is deprived not of the right to leave [her husband], but the right to marry [again]. And if this is so, therefore, women who want to be abstinent are given the right not to expect the consent of their husbands. So what was said: “Let a woman not be separated from her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10), [you] see as a prescription for those [women] who could choose not abstinence, but such a divorce that would allow them to marry others. Therefore, those who chose not to desire [at all] any cohabitation, not to be in any marriage, will be allowed to leave their husbands even without any case of adultery [on their part] and remain celibate, according to the Apostle. And husbands in the same way (since what is said is the same for both), if they want to be abstinent, even without the consent of their wives, they will leave them and remain without any marriage. After all, if the divorce were due to adultery, they would be allowed, as you think, to seek another marriage. But when this reason does not exist, it remains, according to your opinion, that the spouse does not leave his wife or, if he leaves, remains unmarried or returns to his previous marriage. Thus, in the absence of a reason for adultery, any spouse will be allowed to choose one of three: either not to leave his spouse, or, if he leaves, to remain in that state, or, if he does not remain in that state, not to look for another, but to return to the previous one. 2. But where [then] is the desire of the same Apostle [Paul] that spouses should not deprive each other of carnal debt, except by mutual consent [and only] for a time in order to devote it to prayer? How will what he says be fulfilled: “To avoid fornication, each one have his own wife, and each one have his own husband.” The husband repays his wife's debt; in the same way a wife is to her husband. The wife has no power over her body, but the husband does; likewise, the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor. 7:2–4)? How can this be true, if not for the reason that without the consent of the spouse it is not permissible for the other spouse to abstain? For if a woman is allowed to leave her husband in such a way as to remain celibate, then it is not the husband who has power over her body, but she herself; the same thing is thought about the husband. Further, how are we going to understand what was said: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her cause to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32), if it is not so that a person is forbidden to divorce his wife when there is no fornication? And why is this said: of course, so that he does not make her an adulterer; obviously because, even if she was not divorced herself, but was abandoned, she would become an adulteress if she got married. 3. Because of this such great evil, a person is not allowed to divorce his wife, except on the grounds of adultery (for in this case, it is not he who, by divorcing, makes her an adulteress, but who divorces the adulteress). What then? If he says: “I am divorcing my wife without any cause of adultery [on her part], but I will remain abstinent,” are we really going to say that he did it with impunity? Who dares to say such a thing among those who understand the will of the Lord who speaks so? After all, He did not want spouses to divorce even for the sake of abstinence, and made an exception only for the guilt of adultery. So, let’s return to the same words of the Apostle: “But to those who are married, I do not command, but the Lord: a woman should not divorce her husband, but if she divorces, then remain single.” And as if we would ask him and consult with him, as if with someone present: “Why did you say, O Apostle, that if she leaves, let her remain celibate? Is it allowed to leave or not? If it is not permitted, why do you command the departed to remain celibate? If it is allowed, then, of course, there is some reason for this.” However, a detailed study does not reveal such a reason, except for the only one that the Savior cited as an exception, that is, the reason for adultery. And therefore the Apostle does not command a woman [in general], if she leaves, to remain celibate, but only that [woman] who leaves her husband for the only reason for which she is allowed to leave. For once it is said: “I command you not to leave; if she leaves, let her remain celibate,” - may she not act against this commandment if she leaves with the goal of remaining celibate! If this does not mean the one who is allowed to leave (and this is allowed only in the case of adultery of her husband), then why [then] would she be given the command to remain single if she leaves? Who would say, “If a woman leaves a husband who has not committed adultery, let her remain single,” when she is not allowed to leave at all, except from an adulterous husband?! So, to what extent your understanding contradicts the bonds of marriage, for which the Lord wished that abstinence be accepted only with mutual consent and unanimity, I think you already understand. 4. But let's look at this issue in a little more detail and sort of imagine it with our own eyes. Let’s say a woman wants to live in abstinence, but her husband doesn’t like it. The woman left him and began to live abstinently, intending to remain chaste herself, of course, but [at the same time] to do what the Lord does not want: [that is] to make her husband an adulterer, for if he does not abstain, he will look for another. What should we tell this woman, besides what the sound teaching of the Church says? Give your husband his due, so that while you are looking for how to gain greater honor, he does not find a reason to condemn you! And we would say the same to him if, against your will, he wanted to live in abstinence. For you have no power over your body, but a husband; just as he has no power over his body, but you. Do not refuse each other, only by agreement. But after we have said this and much more in the same spirit on this issue, perhaps you would like the woman to answer us in accordance with your understanding: “I hear the Apostle saying: “I command a woman not to divorce her husband, but if she does, then to remain single, or to be united again with her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10-11) Behold, I am divorced, I do not want to be reunited with my husband, but I remain celibate. After all, the Apostle did not say: “If she gets divorced, she must remain single until she is reunited with her husband,” but: “she must remain single or be united again with her husband.” He said: let him do either one or the other. He allowed him to choose one of the two, but did not force him to choose one of these options. I choose to remain celibate and thus fulfill [his] order. Reproach, rebuke, blame, apply any severity you like if I get married.” 5. What can I say to this other than: “You misunderstand the Apostle. After all, he would not have ordered another woman, if she separated from her husband, to remain celibate, except for the [only] one who was allowed to separate [and] only for one reason, which is not mentioned here, because it is well known, namely, because of fornication. Only this exception was made by God, our Teacher, when he spoke about divorcing his wife, and made it clear that such a rule should also be observed in relation to the husband, since not only the wife has no power over her body, but also the husband; in the same way, the husband has no power over his body, but the wife does. (1 Cor. 7:4) So, since you cannot accuse your husband of fornication, how are you going to justify yourself by not marrying him, even though you are not allowed to separate from him at all? After this woman hears such words from us, I believe that you will not want her to answer that she remains celibate [only] because she separated from her husband without any fornication on his part (and if he was guilty of fornication, she could not only separate from him, but also marry someone else). 6. There is no way she would have said that, since you yourself were ashamed to give women such freedom. After all, you said: “If a husband lets his adulterous wife go and takes another, then only the wife will bear the shame. If, for this reason, the wife lets her husband go and marries another, then not only the husband, but also the wife will suffer dishonor.” Substantiating this opinion of yours, you say: “They will say that she separated from her husband in order to unite with another, even if he may turn out to be the same as the one from whom she left; after all, it is very easy for men to fall into sin caused by this passion. If she leaves this too and marries a third, then they will say even more that she strives for many husbands.” Having given this reasoning, you conclude by saying: “So, based on this consideration and research, a woman should either tolerate her husband or remain celibate.” You gave women good advice: although they know that they [in your opinion] are allowed to leave adulterous husbands and marry others, let them not do this because of the shame [that awaits them], but rather tolerate even adulterous husbands, so that it does not seem that they want to unite with many under this pretext. For it is difficult to find a man for marriage who would not be the same as the one whom she left, because men are very prone to this vice. Thus, when we say that even a woman who has separated from an adulterous husband is not allowed to marry another, and you say that it is permitted but not beneficial, then we both, without a doubt, argue that a woman who has separated from an adulterous husband should not marry. However, the difference is that we, when both spouses are Christians, tell the woman that after divorcing her adulterous husband, she is not allowed to marry another, and if the husband is not guilty of fornication, then she is not allowed to divorce at all; You say that if a woman has separated from a husband who has not committed adultery, then she is not allowed to marry another because of the [Apostle’s] injunction, and if she has separated from an adulterous husband, then it is not good for her to marry because of the shame [that awaits her]. Thus [as you think], a woman who has no intention of getting married is allowed to separate from her husband, whether he is an adulterer or not. 7. Further, the blessed Apostle, and, indeed, through the Apostle [the] Lord Himself - since he does not allow a woman to leave her husband if he does not commit adultery - insists on the prohibition of marrying the one (if she leaves) who is allowed to leave the adulterer. About which it is said: “If she leaves her husband, let her not marry.” She is allowed to get a divorce on the condition that she does not marry. If she decides not to marry, there is no reason to forbid her to leave, like the one about whom it is said: “If she cannot abstain, let her marry” (1 Cor. 7:9) (of course, she is allowed not to abstain, provided that she marries). If such a [woman] decides to get married, she should not be forced to abstain. Consequently, just as this incontinent woman is forced into marriage so that her intemperance may not be condemned, so that divorced woman is forced to remain unmarried so that her departure from her husband may not deserve censure. But it is reprehensible for her to leave her husband who does not commit adultery, even if she remains unmarried. Therefore, one who leaves an adulterer is commanded to remain unmarried. And if so, it means that if we, [mis]understanding the Apostle, tell women: “Do not leave your husbands, even chaste ones, because if you want to leave, you will remain unmarried,” everyone who wants abstinence will consider that they are allowed to leave even without the consent of their husbands. Which, without a doubt, we should not allow. It remains for us to teach that the words “If she leaves, let her remain unmarried” (1 Cor. 7:9) are spoken about the one who, as we know, is allowed to leave an adulterer, so that, if we teach differently, under the pretext of abstinence, we do not upset Christian marriages and, contrary to the most merciful instruction of the Lord, do not induce intemperate husbands left by abstinence to commit adultery wives, or intemperate wives abandoned by their intemperate husbands. 8. Because if we understand the words of the Lord that He says, although not in the text that we were looking at, but in another place: “Whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9), so that anyone who divorces his wife because of adultery and marries another does not commit adultery, then in this case it seems that the rules for husband and wife not the same. After all, [it turns out that] a woman, even if she leaves her husband because of adultery and marries another, commits adultery; a husband, if for the same reason he leaves his wife and marries another, does not commit adultery. But, on the contrary, if the rule is the same for both, then both commit adultery when they unite with a new [spouse], even if they separated from the adulterer. However, the fact that in this case the rule for husband and wife is the same, the Apostle shows there (which should be often remembered), where, having said: “The wife has no power over her body, but the husband,” he adds: “Likewise, the husband has no power over his body, but the wife” (1 Cor. 7:4). 9 . Why, you ask, did the Lord give adultery as a reason and not simply say: “Whoever divorces his wife and takes another commits adultery,” if [also] he is an adulterer who, having divorced an adulteress, marries another? I think because the Lord wanted to mention a stronger [circumstance]. Who will deny that adultery is more serious if a man who has separated from his non-adulterous wife takes another wife than if he remarries after divorcing an adulteress? The point is not that this latter is not adultery, but that adultery is [somewhat] weaker when one divorces an adulteress and marries another. After all, the Apostle James also used a similar way of expression, saying: “So if anyone knows to do good and does not do it, it is sin to him” (James 4:17). Is it therefore not a sinner who does not understand how to do good and therefore does not do it? Of course he sins; but if someone knows and does not do it, then this is a more serious sin; [however] that sin does not become non-existent because it is less. Therefore, we must speak about both equally: just as anyone who divorces his wife, except in the case of adultery, and takes another, commits adultery, so everyone who knows how to do good and does not do it sins. But just as here it is impossible to say in justice: “If he does not know, he does not sin” - after all, there are sins of those who do not know, although less than those who know - so there it is impossible to say in justice: “If he divorces because of adultery and takes another woman, he does not commit adultery”; After all, there is adultery among those who marry others, leaving their former ones because of adultery, but it is, of course, less than among those who divorce not because of adultery and take other wives. And as it is said: “Whoever knows to do good and does not do it, it is sin for him” (James 4:17), in the same way it can be said: “Whoever divorces his wife without the cause of adultery and takes another, it is adultery.” Therefore, if we say: “Whoever takes a woman left by her husband, not because of adultery, commits adultery,” - without a doubt, we are telling the truth, but, nevertheless, we do not exempt from this sin the one who took the woman left because of adultery, and we will not at all doubt that both of them are adulterers. In the same way, we declare an adulterer who divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and takes another; but we do not protect anyone who is divorced because of adultery and takes another woman from the shame of this sin. For we admit that both are adulterers, even if one of them is more guilty than the other. After all, there is no one so unreasonable who would deny that he who takes a woman left by her husband because of adultery is an adulterer, while he calls an adulterer who takes [for himself] a woman left not because of adultery. Thus, both of them are adulterers. Therefore, when we say: “Whoever takes a woman left by her husband for reasons other than adultery commits adultery,” we are talking about [only] one of them, but we do not deny that he who takes a woman left by her husband because of adultery also commits adultery. So, although both are adulterers - namely, the one who divorces his wife not because of adultery and marries another, and the one who, having divorced his wife because of adultery, unites with another - of course, when we read about one of them, we should not understand it in such a way that the second is not an adulterer just because one was mentioned and the other was not. But if the fact that the Evangelist Matthew, having expressed one side of the matter, was silent about the other, makes understanding difficult, have not others [the evangelists] stated the same thing in a general way so that it can be understood in relation to both? After all, Mark writes: “(Whoever) puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11–12). And, according to Luke, [it is expressed] like this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries one who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18). Who are we to say: “There is one who commits adultery by putting his wife away and marrying another, and there is one who, by doing this, does not commit adultery,” when the Gospel declares that everyone who does so commits adultery? Therefore, if anyone who does this (that is, anyone who, having let go of his wife, marries another) commits adultery, then, without a doubt, both are meant here: both the one who divorces his wife not because of adultery, and the one who is divorced because of adultery. After all, it is said: “(Whoever) lets go” 2 [in Mark]; and it is said: “Everyone who divorces” [in Luke]. 10. However (I don’t know why you thought so), when I quoted the words from the Gospel according to Matthew, I did not omit the words “and marries another” and did not say [simply] “commits adultery”; but he cited those words that can be read in that lengthy speech that the Lord delivered on the mountain. It was this that I undertook to analyze, and the words there are as I quoted, namely: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32) Although in some manuscripts these words are conveyed differently, the meaning does not change. Some say: “Whoever gets divorced”; in others: “Whoever gets divorced”; also in some: “except for the guilt of adultery”; in others: “except for the guilt of adultery”; thirdly: “if not because of adultery”; also in some: “whoever marries a woman who has divorced her husband commits adultery”; in others: “Whoever marries someone abandoned by her husband commits adultery.” I think you see: none of this changes the meaning [of what was said]. True, the last words from the speech that the Lord made on the mountain (“whoever marries a divorcee commits adultery”) are missing in some Greek and Latin manuscripts. I think because, one can assume, this idea has already been revealed in the previous words: “gives her a reason to commit adultery.” For how does a divorced woman become an adulteress if the one who marries her does not become an adulterer? 11. The words that you yourself cited, [and] because of which it seemed to you that the one who divorced his wife because of [her] adultery and married another, are indeed not used clearly [in that place in Matthew]; Therefore, I am not surprised that the reader has difficulty understanding them. True, these words are not in the speech of the Lord that I analyzed when I wrote what confused you. In another place, the same Matthew reports that the Lord did not say this during a long speech on the mountain, but when he was asked by the Pharisees whether it was permissible to divorce his wife for any reason. However, what is not entirely clear in Matthew can be [clearly] understood in the other evangelists. Therefore, when we read in the Gospel of Matthew: “Whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication” (or, as is more often read in the Greek text, “except for the guilt of fornication”) “and marries another commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9), we should not immediately think that the one who divorced for adultery and married another does not commit adultery, but we should remain in doubt until we turn to the Gospel as presented by other Evangelists who also talk about it. Why? Since, if Matthew does not say everything that relates to this question, but only a part, so that the whole can be understood from the part, then Mark and Luke, as if explaining [this question], preferred to say everything so that the meaning would become clearer. Therefore, [let us,] first, without doubting the truth of what we read in Matthew: “Whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery,” we ask: does only the one who marries another, divorcing his first wife for reasons other than adultery, commit adultery, or does anyone who divorces his wife and marries another (including the one who divorced an adulteress)? Will we not get the answer according to Mark: “Why are you asking whether one or the other commits adultery? (Whoever) divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Mark 10:11). Shall we not also be told, according to Luke: “Why do you doubt whether he who divorces his wife for adultery and marries another commits adultery? Anyone 4 who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18) And therefore, since it is not permissible for us to say that the Evangelists, although they talk about the same thing in different words, differ in meaning and opinion, it remains to be understood that Matthew wanted to express the whole through the part, but at the same time adhered to the same opinion. [Namely: it is not the case that] one (who is divorced not because of fornication) commits adultery, and another (who is divorced because of fornication) does not, but whoever divorces his wife and marries another undoubtedly commits adultery. 12. For those words that follow further in Luke: “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Luke 16:18), in what sense are they true? Why does he commit adultery, if not because the woman he took as his wife during the life of the one from whom she was divorced is still another man's wife? For if she were already his wife, and not a stranger, then, having united with her, he, of course, would not have committed adultery. But he commits adultery, therefore, the one with whom he unites is a stranger. Moreover, if she is a stranger, that is, belongs to the one who left her, then, even if she was left because of fornication, she still has not ceased to be the wife of the one who left her. If she ceased to belong to him, then she already belongs to the one she married; and if she belongs to him, he should not be considered an adulterer, but a husband. But since Scripture does not call him a husband, but an adulterer, it means that she still belongs to the one who left her, even if it was because of fornication. And therefore, no matter what wife [a person] takes, abandoned by another, since she unites with another husband, she is an adulteress. How can it be that he himself is not an adulterer, if it is known that the one he took commits adultery? 13. Now consider these words of the Apostle: “To the rest I speak, [but] not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12), that is, he is going to address [people in] unequal marriages, where not both spouses were Christians. It seems to me that he said this as an admonition. Since a believing spouse could legally leave an unbeliever, it is not the Lord, but the Apostle who prevents this. For what the Lord forbids is completely unacceptable. The apostle convinces us that if believing spouses did not exercise the right granted [to them] to leave unbelievers, this could become an opportunity to gain many. It seems to you that believers are just as not allowed to leave unbelievers [as well as believers], because the Apostle forbids this, although I say that it is permitted, since the Lord does not forbid it, but it is not useful, because the Apostle advises not to do it. He also explains the reason why it is not useful, although it is allowed. For he says: “Why do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or do you, husband, why do you know whether you will save your wife (1 Cor. 7:16)?” (1 Cor. 7:16). Earlier he also said: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (1 Cor. 7:14), that is, by the Christian, “otherwise,” he says, “your children would have been unclean, but now they are holy.” (1 Cor. 7:14) With these words, he seems to me to be calling for spouses and children to be won for Christ [based] on the example of cases that have already [previously] occurred. So the reason why it is not profitable to leave even unbelieving spouses is clearly stated: The Apostle prevents the abandonment of unbelieving spouses, not for the sake of preserving the marital bond [as such], but in order that they might be won to Christ. 14. There are many things that should be done not according to the dictates of the law, but according to free love; and among our good deeds 5 the more pleasant 6 are those which, although we are allowed not to do, we still do for the sake of love. Therefore, the Lord Himself was the first, although he showed that he was not obliged to pay the tax, but still paid so as not to tempt those whom he cared about, wishing for them, like all people, eternal salvation. (Matthew 17:24-27) And how the Apostle recommends this [the above] is evidenced by his [own] words: “For, being free from everyone, I made myself a slave to everyone, in order to gain more.” (1 Cor. 9:19) And a little earlier he said: “Or do we not have power to eat and drink? Or do we not have the power to have a woman sister as a companion, like the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or do I and Barnabas alone have no power to do this? 7 What kind of warrior ever serves on his own pay? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat from its fruit? Who feeds a flock and does not receive milk from the flock? " (1 Cor. 9:4-7) 8. And a little further: “If others,” he says, “have power over you, how much more so do we?” But we did not take advantage of this power, but endure everything, so that there would be no hindrance from us to the Gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12). Then a little lower: “What,” he says, “will be my reward? So that when I preach the Gospel, I proclaim it freely, so as not to abuse my authority in the gospel.” (1 Cor. 9:18) And then he adds what I mentioned a little earlier: “For, being free from everyone, I became a slave to everyone, in order to gain more.” (1 Cor. 9:19) Also in another place about what relates to food [he says]: “Everything is lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial; everything is allowed to me, but nothing should possess me. Food is for the belly, and the belly is for food; but God will destroy both. “(1 Cor. 6:12–13) Also in another place about the same thing: “Everything is permitted for me, but not everything is beneficial; everything is permitted, but not everything edifies. No one seeks his own, but everyone [the benefit] of the other.” (1 Cor. 10:23-24) And to demonstrate what he is talking about, [continues]: “Everything that is sold in a market, eat without any examination, for [peace of] conscience.” (1 Cor. 10:25) And yet in another place he says: “I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to stumble.” (1 Cor. 8:13) And in another place: “Everything is pure, but it is bad for the man who eats because he is tempted.” (Rom.10:14) That is, “All things are permitted” is the same as “All things are pure”; and “but not everything is good” is the same as “but it is bad for the man who eats when tempted.” Thus, he shows that what is permitted, that is, not prohibited by any commandment of the Lord, should rather be interpreted as useful not according to the prescription of the law, but according to the inspiration of love. This is what was paid in excess of [necessary] by the good Samaritan for the care of the wounded [man] whom he brought to the hotel. (Luke 10:33–35) And therefore they say that [such actions] are not prescribed by the Lord, although they are proposed by the Lord for execution, so that they are felt the more as pleasant 9 the more they are presented as optional. 15. However, about something that, although permitted, is not beneficial, one cannot say: “One is good, but another is better,” in the same way as it is said: “Whoever gives [his daughter] in marriage does well, and whoever does not marry does better” (1 Cor. 7:38), for in this case both are permitted, but sometimes one is beneficial, sometimes the other. After all, for those [girls] who cannot abstain, it is beneficial for them to marry, and what is permitted is beneficial [for them], but for those who have taken a vow of abstinence, it is neither permitted nor beneficial. Further, it is permissible to separate from an unbelieving spouse, but it is not beneficial; staying with him if he agrees to live together is both permitted and beneficial; because if it were not permitted, it could not be useful. Thus, something may be permissible but not beneficial; however, what is not permitted cannot be beneficial. And therefore, not everything that is permitted is beneficial; but everything that is not permitted is not useful. Just as everyone redeemed by the blood of Christ is a man, but not every person is redeemed by the blood of Christ, so everything that is unlawful is not useful, but not everything that is not useful is at the same time not permitted. There are, of course, permitted things that are not beneficial, as we learned from the testimony of the Apostle. 16. But it is difficult to determine by some universal rule what the difference is between what is not useful, because it is prohibited, and what is not useful, although it is permitted. After all, rather, everyone will say: “Everything that is not useful to do is sin; and every sin is prohibited. Therefore, everything that is not useful is prohibited.” But where then will those actions end up which, as the Apostle said, are permitted, but not useful, if everything that is not useful is not permitted? Therefore, since we cannot doubt the truth of the words of the Apostle and do not dare to assert that some sins are allowed, it remains to say that something unprofitable can be done, and yet, if it is allowed, it is not a sin, although, since it is not useful, of course, it should not be done. At the same time, if it seems absurd that when someone does something unhelpful they say that the person who did it sinned, then it should be understood that this is absurd only from the point of view of habitual usage of words. And it is so broad that we often say even about horses and donkeys, although they are devoid of reason, that they deserve punishment when they “sin”; however, only one who enjoys the freedom of rational will can sin in the proper sense, which, of all mortal beings, is bestowed by the Divine only on man. But it is one thing to speak in its own sense, and another to borrow words from other areas, transferring or using them in an inaccurate sense. 17. So, if we can, let us try to make a certain distinction between what is permitted, but not useful, and what is not permitted and for this reason not useful. It seems to me that what is permitted, but not beneficial, is what is allowed by some kind of justice that exists with God, but because it is a temptation for people, this should be avoided so that it does not become an obstacle to their salvation. And what is not permitted and therefore not useful is prohibited by justice itself in such a way that it should not be done, even if those to whom it became known approve [of it]. If this is so, then only illegal actions are prohibited by the Lord, so that what is permitted, but not useful, [people] avoid, not being bound by the law, but out of free good deeds of love. Therefore, if it were not allowed to leave unbelieving spouses, the Lord would have forbidden it, and the Apostle, preventing [this], would not have said: “I speak, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12). For if, because of the adultery of the flesh, people are allowed to divorce their spouses, how much more should we abhor the adultery of the mind among spouses, that is, unbelief, about which it is written: “For behold, those who separate themselves from You will perish; You have destroyed everyone who turns away from You in adultery.” (Ps.72:27) 18. But since this, although it is permissible, is not useful - so that people who are offended by the departure of another spouse do not fear the saving teaching itself, which [already] prohibits what is unlawful, and do not remain in the same destructive state of unbelief and perish - the apostle intervenes and with an admonition forbids doing what, although permissible, is not useful. For neither believing husbands nor wives are forbidden by the Lord to leave their unbelieving spouses, but it is not ordered [to do so]. For if they were commanded to leave such wives or husbands, there would be no room left for the admonition of the apostle advising them not to do so. There is no way a good servant can forbid what the Lord commands. The Lord once commanded through the prophet Ezra, and the Israelites fulfilled this: they left their foreign wives, whom they could previously have, (1 Ezra 10:10-12) - and by them, it happened that they themselves were seduced to foreign gods, and not [on the contrary,] wives through their husbands were acquired for the True God. For the grace of the Savior had not yet shone in all its fullness, and all that people still thirsted for the temporary promises of the Old Testament. And therefore, seeing that even those who worshiped the pagan false gods were endowed with earthly blessings, which they mainly expected from the Lord, 10 at first, out of pleasure to their wives, they were afraid of offending them, and then they themselves were drawn into their cult. Therefore, the Lord commanded through Saint Moses not to take wives from foreigners (Deut. 7:3). So, deservedly, by the command of the Lord, they left those whom they had taken in spite of His prohibition. When the preaching of the Gospel among the pagans began, marriages where both spouses [had previously] been pagans became noticeable. If not both of them came to faith, [but only one of them], but the unbelieving husband or wife agreed to live with the believer, then the Lord should not have forbidden the believer to leave the unbeliever, nor ordered it. Do not prohibit - because justice allows you to separate from an adulterer, but an unbeliever commits even greater adultery in his heart, and his marital fidelity cannot be called true, 11 for “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23) (at the same time, a believer maintains true chastity even with an unbelieving spouse for whom it is not true). But the believer should not have been ordered to separate from the unbeliever - because the pagans did not marry contrary to the command of the Lord. Since the Lord does not forbid or command a believer to divorce an unbeliever, the Apostle, and not the Lord, tells him not to divorce, [but speaks] as one who has the Holy Spirit, abiding in Whom, can give useful and true advice. Therefore, having said about a woman whose husband died: “But it will be more blessed if it remains so, according to my advice” (1 Cor. 7:40), so that no one would consider this advice not divine, but only human and therefore not worthy of attention, he added: “But I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40). From this it should be understood that even that which is not commanded by the Lord, but for the sake of benefit is recommended by His holy servant, is suggested by the inspiration of the same Lord. For let no one who belongs to the Catholic Church say that when the Holy Spirit inspires, it is not the Lord who inspires! - after all, He Himself is the Lord, and the works of the Trinity are inseparable. The Apostle says: “Concerning virgins, I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give advice.” But so that we do not consider this advice alien to the Lord, he immediately continues: “as one who has received grace from God to be faithful [to Him]” (1 Cor. 7:25). Thus, he gives faithful advice about God in that Spirit, about whom he said: “And I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40). However, the sovereign command of the Lord is one thing, and the faithful advice of a fellow servant [of the Lord], moved by merciful love inspired and bestowed upon him by the Lord, is another. In the first case it is impossible to do otherwise, in the second it is possible, but with the caveat that [this] permissible itself may or may not be useful. It is useful when it is not only permitted by the justice of the Lord 13, but also does not become an obstacle to the salvation of people. For example, when the Apostle gives advice to virgins not to marry, although he admits that this is not the commandment of the Lord. Yes, you can do otherwise - get married, and although this is a lesser good than chastity, marriage still remains good. Such permissible things are useful, because the weakness of the flesh, striving for the forbidden and unacceptable, is ennobled by marriage, so that it does not hinder anyone in salvation. Although, of course, it would be more useful and noble if the virgin accepted advice to which the commandment does not force her. But it happens that what is permitted is not useful: although something is permitted, the use of this [granted] freedom becomes an obstacle to the salvation of others, as in the case of the divorce of a believing spouse from an unbeliever, which we have long discussed. The Lord does not prohibit it by the prescription of the law, for before Him [such] divorce is not unjust, but the Apostle restrains it from it with the advice of love, for it hinders the salvation of unbelievers. Not only because, indignant because of him, they fall into an extremely harmful temptation, but also because, falling into new marriages during the life of their former spouses, they find themselves in the shackles of adultery, from which it is then extremely difficult to free themselves. 19. Therefore, in this case, where what is permitted is not beneficial, it is impossible to say: “If anyone leaves an unbeliever [spouse], he does well; and if she does not leave, she does better,” as it is said: “Whoever gives [his daughter] in marriage does well, and whoever does not give her away does better” (1 Cor. 7:38). For in this case, not only are both [actions] equally permissible (therefore no one is forced to choose one of them by the command of the Lord), but both are also useful (one less, the other more), and therefore the Apostle, with advice, encourages everyone who is able to accommodate [it] to what is more useful. Here, when it comes to dissolving or maintaining a marriage with an unbeliever, both [actions] are equally permissible according to the justice of the Lord, and therefore the Lord does not prohibit either of them. However, not both [of them] are useful because of human weakness, and therefore the Apostle forbids what is not useful, having received from the Lord the freedom to prohibit - after all, neither what the Apostle advises is forbidden by the Lord, nor what the Apostle forbids is prescribed by the Lord. If this were not so, then the Apostle could not advise anything contrary to the Lord’s prohibition and prohibit contrary to His command. Thus, in these two cases - marriage or abstinence from it and leaving or not leaving an unbelieving spouse - there is something similar and something different in the words of the Apostle. The similarity is that there he says: “I do not have a commandment from the Lord, but I give advice” (1 Cor. 7:25), and here: “... I speak, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12). For the words “I have not the commandment of the Lord” mean that “the Lord does not say [so],” and “I give advice” means “I speak.” The difference is that one can say about marriage and celibacy: “this is good, and that is better,” since both [paths] are useful (one less, the other more); but one should not say about leaving an unbelieving spouse: “Whoever leaves does well; and whoever does not leave is better”, for one of these is not useful, and the other is useful. But one must say: “Let him not leave [his spouse],” for although this is permitted, it is not beneficial. Thus, we can say [only] that it is better not to leave an unbelieving spouse (although it is permissible to leave), just as we rightly say that what is both permissible and useful is better than what is permissible but not useful. 20. For these reasons, interpreting the lengthy sermon of the Lord on the mountain, when it came to the dissolution or preservation of marriage, I, citing the evidence of the apostolic epistles, said that it is not the command of the Lord, but the advice of the Apostle, that is expressed where he writes: “To the rest I speak, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12), convincing those who have unbelieving spouses not to leave them if they agree to live together. Here, of course, [the Apostle] was required to exhort, and not to command, because people should not be restrained with the same severity from doing what is permitted, although not useful, with which they prohibit what is not permitted. If somewhere the Apostle deigned to give even what requires a command in the form of advice, then he did this out of condescension towards weakness, and not belittling the command. So, if he said: “I do not write this to shame you, but admonish you as my beloved children” (1 Cor. 4:14) without any doubt, where does he [here] mean: “I speak, not the Lord”? Likewise, where he writes: “Here I am, Paul, I say to you: if you are circumcised, Christ will not profit you at all” (Gal. 5:2), - did he also add here: “I speak, not the Lord”? So, these examples [and those given above] are not similar [to each other], for it is quite worthy and not contradictory when the same thing that the Lord commands is taught by the Apostle as advice. After all, we persuade those we love to fulfill the commandments or commandments of the Lord. When he uses the words: “I speak, not the Lord,” he clearly shows that the Lord does not forbid what he forbade. But the Lord would have forbidden it if it were prohibited. Consequently, in accordance with what we talked about at length and explained in detail above, this was permitted in fairness, but even what was permitted should not have been done out of a free good disposition. 21. It seems to you that what is forbidden not by the Lord, but by the Apostle is just as not permitted as what the Lord forbids. And when you wanted to explain what he meant by the words: “I speak, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12), addressing believers who had unbelieving spouses, you said: “For the Lord has commanded that spouses of different faiths should not unite with each other,” and added [to this] the very testimony of the Lord, saying: “Do not take a wife for your son from the daughters of foreigners, lest she seduce your son after him.” his gods, and his soul did not perish.” (cf. Deut. 7:3–4) You also added the words spoken by the Apostle: “A wife is bound [by the law] while her husband lives; if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants, only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39), - and, explaining them, he added [on his own]: "That is, [is free to marry] a Christian." Then, continuing, he said: “Consequently, it is the commandment of the Lord, both in the Old and in the New Testament, that marriages should be preserved only between people of the same religion and faith.” But if this is the commandment of the Lord both in the Old and New Testaments, and the Lord commands this, and the Apostle teaches that marriages should be preserved only between people of the same religion and faith, then why, contrary to this commandment of the Lord and his own teaching, contrary to the commandments of the Old and New Testaments, does the Apostle command that spouses with different faiths remain united? “Because Paul,” you say, “the preacher and apostle of the pagans, not only convinces those already married, but also commands them, so that if one of the spouses believes, and the other remains an unbeliever, but agrees to live with him, then the believer does not leave the unbeliever.” With these words of yours you clearly show that this is one thing, and that is another. For there we are talking about those marriages that are concluded for the first time - so that a woman does not marry a husband who is not of her faith, or the husband does not take such a wife. This, as you say, is commanded by God, this is what the Apostle teaches, this is what both Testaments prescribe. But who will object that things are different when we are talking not about a future union, but about those already united by marriage? Both spouses were equally unbelieving when they married; but when the Good News came, only one of the two believed. Look, we will state [below] the essence of the matter in clearer words, as if for consideration with your own eyes. Here are two spouses who are equally unbelievers; This is how they were when they got married. There is no question here regarding that command of the Lord, the apostolic teaching and the commandment of the Old and New Testaments, which prohibits a believer from marrying an unbeliever. They are already spouses, but both are still unbelievers; they remain the same as they were before they were combined [with each other], as they were combined. A preacher of the Gospel comes, and [here] he or she comes to faith alone, but at the same time the unbelieving [spouse] agrees to live with the believing one. Does the Lord command the believer not to leave the unbeliever, or does he not command? If you say: “He commands,” then the Apostle will object [to you]: “I speak, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12). If you say: “It does not command,” then I ask you to name the reason. And you, when answering, will not tell me the reason that you indicated in your letter: “Because the Lord forbids believers to marry non-believers.” This is not the case here at all: we are talking about those who have already been married, and not about those who just want to get together. If you have not found a reason why the Lord does not forbid what the Apostle forbids (for, it seems to me, you already see that the reason is not the one you assumed), then see if it is not the same as the one I found and [already] previously named, but now in need of protection. Namely, let us understand that the Lord says that justice must in no way be transgressed before Him, that is, when He commands or prohibits [something], then it is not at all permissible to do anything else. And in the fact that He leaves it to the will of the one who wants it, so that it is neither done nor rejected [by him] illegally, He Himself leaves room for the council of His servants, so that they offer [others] what they consider useful. So, first and foremost, one should be careful not to do anything forbidden. And if something is permitted in such a way that another action is not prohibited, let that which is useful, or what is more useful, be done. The same thing that the Lord speaks about as Master, that is, not advising and admonishing, but commanding and ruling, is not allowed not to be fulfilled, and therefore not useful. So, the Lord commanded: a woman should not divorce her husband, but if she divorces (of course, for the reason for which divorce is permitted), then remain single, or reunite with her husband (1 Cor. 7:10-11). For a wife is bound by the law while her husband lives (Rom. 7:2), and will be called an adulteress if she marries another (Rom. 7:3), because a wife is bound while her husband lives (1 Cor. 7:39). Hence: If a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:12), and whoever marries a divorcee commits adultery (Matthew 19:9). And therefore from the same commandment of the Lord [it follows]: And let not the husband leave his wife (1 Cor. 7:11), for whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). But if he divorces for this reason, let him remain single (cf. 1 Cor. 7:11), for everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Luke 16:18). 22. These ordinances of the Lord must be observed without any exception, for they are determined by His justice, whether people like it or not. And therefore it should not be said that because of the displeasure of people or in order not to turn them away from salvation in Christ, these regulations do not need to be observed. Which Christian would dare to say: “In order not to annoy people or to win them to Christ, I give my wife a reason to commit adultery and become an adulterer myself”? Of course, it may happen that when a Christian divorces his adulterous wife, he will be tempted: some woman who has not yet believed, wanting to marry him, will promise to become a Christian - not deceiving [him], but with the firm intention of fulfilling this if he marries her. And so, when he refuses this marriage, the Tempter can inspire him: “The Lord said: Anyone who divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; 15 But you, who have been divorced because of adultery, if you marry another woman, will not be an adulterer.” [Then] to the one who suggests this, let him answer with an enlightened heart that, of course, he commits adultery more seriously who divorces his wife not because of adultery and marries another; but even the one who, having divorced his adulterous wife, unites with another, does not avoid adultery only because he left the adulteress. Just as the one who marries a wife who has been abandoned because of adultery commits adultery, so the one who marries someone who has been abandoned for any other reason also commits adultery. And therefore, what is expressed somewhat unclearly in Matthew (since the whole is designated through a part), in others [the evangelists] is stated in a general form and clearly, as we read in Mark: “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Mark 10:11), and in Luke: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18). They did not say that of those who divorce their wives and marry others, some commit adultery and others do not, but: “Whoever divorces” - that is, anyone without exception who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. 23. But when this Christian gives such an answer to the Tempter, realizing that he, of course, is allowed to leave the adulteress, but is not allowed to marry another [woman], then what if the Tempter says: “Commit this sin in order to win for Christ the soul of a woman who is in the death of unbelief, who is ready to become a Christian if she marries you”? What other answer should a Christian give to this and what should he say than that he cannot escape judgment if he does this - the judgment about which the Apostle mentioned when he said: “And as some claim that we say: “Let us do evil that good may come,” whose condemnation is just” (Rom. 3:8)? And how could one who would be an adulteress with the man who marries her become a Christian with benefit for [her] salvation? 24. However, not only should a [married] person not commit adultery (and this is done by anyone who, having left his wife, marries another, even with the goal of converting her to Christianity), but also anyone who, without being bound by marriage, has taken a vow of abstinence to God, should in no case sin under the pretext that he should marry someone who promises to become a Christian by marrying him. For what was allowed to a person before the vow is no longer allowed if he has made a vow never to do it - of course, if the vow was made worthy, such as the vow of eternal virginity, as well as abstinence either after the dissolution of marriage, or by mutual consent of the spouses, who, being faithful and pure, release each other from carnal obligations (since neither he nor she has the right to make such a vow one by one). So, these and other [similar] vows, if they are given for a rightful motive, should under no circumstances be broken, for they were given without any reservations. For it should be understood that the Lord commanded this too, as it is said: “Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill [them]” (Ps. 75:12) 17. That is why the apostle says about those who, having taken a vow of abstinence, then want to marry (which, of course, was allowed to them before making the vow): “They are subject to condemnation, because they rejected the former faith” (1 Tim. 5:12). 25. However, in that which is left in our power and is not limited by any command of the Lord, we should listen to the Apostle, who in the Holy Spirit instructs [us] and takes care that either the best is chosen, or that which is not useful is avoided. In this case, we will hear his words: “I do not have a commandment from the Lord, but I give advice” (1 Cor. 7:25); and: “I speak, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12). Oh, if he who hears: “He who is left without a wife should not seek a wife, but even if he marries, he will not sin” (1 Cor. 7:27-28) would have chosen the best! The maiden would not have gotten married then! For “he who does not give [his daughter] in marriage does better; and the one who gives it out does well” (1 Cor. 7:38). Then a woman would be more blessed if she remains as she is, although after the death of her husband she has the right to marry whomever she wishes, only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39). And this can be understood in two ways: either by remaining a Christian, or by marrying a Christian. For I do not remember that after the New Testament was revealed to us, it was clearly and without ambiguity stated in the Gospel or any of the apostolic writings whether the Lord forbade the faithful to marry infidels, although the most blessed Cyprian does not doubt this and does not consider it a small sin to marry infidels, saying that this means providing the members of Christ for desecration by 18 pagans. 19 But since a different question arises about those who are already married, let the words of the Apostle be heard here too: “If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she agrees to live with him, let him not leave her; and if any wife has an unbelieving husband, and he agrees to live with her, let her not leave him” (1 Cor. 7:12-13). And let [all] this be heard in this way: although [something] is allowed, for the Lord does not forbid it, yet let it not be done, for it is not useful. After all, the Apostle teaches quite clearly that not everything that is permissible is beneficial, 20 as we have already shown above. However, even one who has left her husband because of any kind of fornication, carnal or spiritual (which also includes unbelief), is not allowed to marry another, and one who has left his wife is not allowed to take another wife; for the Lord says, without making any exception: “If a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:12); and: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). Having examined and discussed these questions to the best of my ability, I am still aware that the topic of marital relations remains extremely unclear and confusing, and I do not dare to claim that I have already been able to reveal all its depths - neither in this essay nor in any other - or that I would [at all] be able to do so if I were urged to do so. As for that [issue] on which you, [as I understand] from your other note, also expect clarification from me, I myself would have taken up a separate consideration of it if I had held a different opinion than you. But since our positions completely coincide, there is no need to discuss it any longer. 26. So, to the catechumens who find themselves at the end of this life due to illness or accident, if they are so weakened that, although they are still alive, they can neither ask for baptism for themselves, nor answer questions, let it serve their good that their desire for the Christian faith is already known. Let them be baptized in the same way as infants are baptized, whose will has not yet been revealed. However, we should not blame those who act more cautiously than we think is right, so as not to be condemned for our tendency to recklessly and hastily judge the saved money entrusted to the same slave [like us]. 21 In such cases, it is better to remember the words of the Apostle: “Each of us will give an account for himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Therefore, let's not judge each other. For there are those who believe - both in this and in other cases - that one should observe what the Lord said: “Do not give what is holy to dogs and do not throw your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). And, reverent before these words of the Savior, they do not dare to baptize those who are not able to answer for themselves, so as not to inadvertently do something that may be contrary to their will. This cannot be said about babies, because they do not yet use reason. However, it is incredible that a catechumen at the end of this life would not desire baptism; Moreover, if his will is not clear, it is much better to give [baptism] to someone who does not want it, than to refuse someone who wants it, when it is not obvious whether he wants it or not. After all, it is much more likely that, if he could, he would prefer to say 22 that he wants to receive those sacraments, without which, as he already believed [before], he should not leave his body. 27. If the Lord wanted the words “Do not give holy things to dogs” (Matthew 7:6) to mean exactly what these people are wary of, then He Himself would not have given to His betrayer what he, the unworthy, received along with those worthy for his own destruction (although the Giver [of this] is not guilty). Therefore, it should be assumed that, by uttering these words, the Lord wanted to show that unclean hearts do not accommodate the light of spiritual understanding. And if the teacher puts into them something that they incorrectly perceive, because they are not able to contain it, then they either torment it with the stings of censure, or trample on it in disdain. 23 After all, if the blessed Apostle says that he gave milk, and not solid food, even to those who had already been reborn in Christ, but were still infants - “For you were not yet able, and still are not able” (1 Cor. 3:2) - if, finally, the Lord Himself said to the chosen Apostles: “I still have much to say to you, but now you cannot bear it” (John 16:12), - then how much less capable perceive anything said about the disembodied light, the unclean minds of the wicked? 28. And so that our speech ends with the question with which it began, I will say that, in my opinion, not only the rest of the catechumens, if they find themselves in mortal danger and cannot answer on their own, should be baptized, but even those who, being married to living spouses, retain adulterous relations (although we do not allow them to be baptized while they are physically healthy), so that this sin, along with others, will be washed away in the font revival. For, who knows, perhaps they would have decided to succumb to the temptation of the adulterous flesh only before baptism? If, having recovered from this desperate state, they are able to live on, then either they will fulfill what they decided [themselves], or, having been taught [by others], they will submit, or they will be treated as despisers [of the commandments], as they should be treated even after baptism. The same reason for baptism applies to reconciliation [with the Church], if the danger of death accidentally overtakes the repentant. For the Mother Church should also want them not to leave this life without a pledge of their reconciliation [with her]. Book 2. Refutation of Pollentius's new arguments 1. To what you wrote to me, pious brother Pollentius, I have already responded with quite a small essay about those who, while their spouses are alive, unite with others. When it became known to your Grace, you added something to your little book, wanting me to answer this too. But when I was about to do this, supplementing my work on my part so that my answers would form a single book, suddenly what I had completed earlier was published at the insistence of the brothers, who did not know that there was still an addition to be made [to the text]. [Therefore] it turns out that I am forced to respond to your additions in a separate essay. However, your additions were not added to the end of your little book, but inserted into its main part, where it seemed appropriate to you. 2. The first of these provisions, to which I believe I must respond, concerns the words of the Apostle, where he says: “The rest 24 I command, not I, but the Lord: a woman should not divorce her husband, but if she divorces, then remain single, or be united again with her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10-11). You believe that the words “if she divorces” do not imply the case when a wife leaves her adulterous husband (the only reason for which it is allowed to leave), but rather refers to leaving her faithful husband. Therefore, in your opinion, she was ordered to remain celibate so that she could reunite with him if he does not want to abstain, so that she, not being reunited with her husband, would not force him to commit adultery, that is, to marry another during her lifetime. However, you think that if a wife leaves her adulterous husband, she is not ordered to remain celibate, but she can do so if she wishes to remain celibate; Moreover, she will not be a violator of the commandment if she enters into a [new] marriage. You think that this rule should also be observed by the husband: [in general] he should not leave his wife, except in the case of [her] adultery; [but] if he [still] leaves, let him remain unmarried, so that he can be reconciled with his 26 faithful wife, unless she chooses abstinence. Otherwise, avoiding reconciliation with his morally impeccable wife, he may force her to commit adultery if she, not intending to abstain, marries another during his lifetime. But if a husband is divorced from his adulterous wife, he, in your opinion, is not bound by any injunction of abstinence and will not be considered an adulterer at all if he marries another during her lifetime. For the words of the same Apostle [Paul]: “A wife is bound [by the law] while her husband lives; if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants” (1 Cor. 7:39), you understand this: if the husband has committed adultery, he is considered dead, and the [same] wife is considered dead. Therefore, both a man and a woman are allowed, both after death and after adultery [of the second spouse], to marry another [person]. 3. [And so,] having considered these considerations of yours, I ask you: should anyone be considered an adulterer who takes as his wife a woman whose relationship with her husband has ceased? I think you think not. After all, a woman “will be called an adulteress while her husband lives if she is with another man” (Rom. 7:3), because “a wife is bound [by the law] while her husband lives” (1 Cor. 7:39). But if she did not have this connection with her living husband, she could marry another without any accusation of adultery. Therefore, if she is bound [by law] while her husband lives, then in no way can she be said to be freed from this bond until her husband dies. Further, if this bond between husband and wife is dissolved by the death of one of them, and if, as you say, fornication is also equivalent to death, then, without a doubt, the woman will also be freed from this bond when she commits fornication. After all, it will not be possible to say that she is connected with her husband if he is freed from her. And therefore, after her relationship with her husband is interrupted due to [her] fornication, anyone who takes her as a wife will not be an adulterer. 4. Look how absurd it would be if [a man] were not considered an adulterer because he took an adulteress as his wife. Moreover, what is even more monstrous, even the woman herself will not be [in this case] an adulteress, since for the next husband she will not be someone else’s wife, but his own. After all, if [her] previous marriage was dissolved due to adultery, then by marrying anyone who is not married, she will not be an adulteress with an adulterer, but rather a wife with her husband. How then will [the saying] remain true: “A woman is bound [by the law] while her husband lives” (1 Cor. 7:39)? Behold, her husband is alive - after all, he did not leave [his soul] body and did not commit adultery, which you want to consider as death - and yet the wife is no longer connected with him. Don't you see how much this contradicts the words of the Apostle: “A woman is bound [by the law] while her husband lives”? Or maybe you will say: “He is alive, but he is no longer her husband, since he ceased to be when she broke the bonds of marriage through adultery”? But then how can she “be called an adulteress while her husband lives, if she is with another man” (Rom. 7:3), if he [the former] is no longer her husband due to the fact that the bonds of marriage are broken by her adultery? After all, with what other living husband, besides her own, will she be called an adulteress if she is with another man? But if he [the former] has already ceased to be her husband, then, of course, she will not be called an adulteress while her husband is alive, being with another, but [no longer] as having no husband and, having gotten married, will be with another man. Don't you notice how contrary to the Apostle is the one who thinks like this? Although you yourself don’t think so, it follows from your considerations. Therefore, change the premises if you want to avoid [such] consequences, and do not assert that by “dead husband” or “dead wife” in this place [St. Scripture] should also be understood as an adulterer. Therefore, according to sound doctrine, “a wife is bound [by the law] while her husband lives,” that is, while he has not yet left the body. For “a married woman is bound by law to her living husband,” that is, to one who is in the body. “And if the husband dies,” that is, leaves [his] body, “she is freed from the law of marriage.” Therefore, she will be called an adulteress if she is with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is freed from the law and will not be an adulteress if she is with another man.” ( Rom. 7:2-3 ) These words of the Apostle, so often repeated, so often inspired, are true, living, sound and clear. A woman does not become the wife of another man until she ceases to be the wife of the former. And she ceases to be the wife of her former husband only if her husband dies, but not if one of the spouses commits adultery. Thus, a spouse may rightfully be abandoned due to adultery, but the bonds of honor 27 [inherent in marriage] remain, because of which the one who takes the abandoned one becomes guilty of adultery, even because of [her] adultery. 5. After all, the sacrament of the New Birth remains in itself [immutable], and the one guilty of any crime is excommunicated from the Church, but is not deprived of this sacrament, even if he is never reunited with God. Likewise, the bonds of marriage remain in themselves [immutable], and a wife, when left due to the guilt of adultery, will not be freed from these bonds, even if she is never reunited with her husband. She will only be freed if her husband dies. And he who is guilty [of a crime] and excommunicated will never lose the sacrament of the New Birth, even without reunification [with God], for God does not die. Therefore, if we want to think like the Apostle, we will not argue that an adulterous husband should be considered dead and therefore his wife is allowed to marry another! Although adultery is not the death of the body, but, worse, the soul, the Apostle did not speak about such a death when he wrote: “if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants” (1 Cor. 7:39), but only about the departure from the body. After all, if the marital bond is dissolved due to the adultery of one of the spouses, then from this [may] arise that vicissitude [of behavior] that must be guarded against, as I have already shown [above]: then the wife, because of [her] debauchery, would be freed from these bonds, and having freed herself from them, she would be free from the law of marriage. And for this reason - which sounds most absurd - she would not be an adulteress if she united with another man, because due to adultery she freed herself from her former husband. But this is so contrary to the truth that not only Christian, but also [ordinary] human common sense does not allow such a thing, therefore, of course, “a wife is bound [by the law] while her husband lives” (1 Cor. 7:39), or, to put it more clearly, while he remains in the body. Likewise, the husband is bound [by the law]: he is bound while his wife remains in the body. Therefore, if he wants to leave an adulteress, let him not take another [woman] for himself, so that he himself does not fall into what he accuses her of. Likewise, a wife who leaves an adulterer should not unite with another [man]: after all, she is bound while her husband lives, and is not released from the law of marriage until his death, so that she does not become an adulteress while staying with another man. 6. However, what seems difficult to you - for a husband to reconcile with his wife after adultery - if you have faith, it will not be difficult. Why do we still continue to consider as adulterers those whom, according to our faith, were cleansed by baptism or healed by repentance? These crimes in the old law of God were not cleansed by any sacrifice, but in the New Testament they are, without a doubt, cleansed by the Blood [of Christ]. And therefore, before, it was strictly forbidden for a husband to take back a wife defiled by another, although David, transforming the New Testament, without hesitation accepted Saul’s daughter, whom her father, having taken from him, gave to another. Now, after Christ said to the adulteress: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (John 8:11), who will not understand that a husband must forgive [his wife] what he sees the Lord has forgiven them, and that he must no longer call her an adulteress whose offense after repentance, as he believes, has been blotted out by the mercy of God? 7. But, obviously, this brings fear into the thoughts of unbelievers, so that some of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, as I believe, that their wives would be given impunity for sin, removed from their books the description of the forgiveness that the Lord granted to the adulteress - as if permission to sin was given by the One who said: “Sin no more”! Or as if the woman should not have been healed by the doctor-God through the forgiveness of this sin, so as not to offend the foolish. After all, those who do not like this act of the Lord are not at all chaste themselves, and it is not moral purity that makes them [so] strict. On the contrary, they are from among those people to whom the Lord said: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Only those, frightened by [their] conscience, walked away and stopped tempting Christ and persecuting the adulteress (John 8:9), and these, being sick, blame the doctor, and [themselves] being adulterers, rage against adulteresses. If they were told not what they heard (“Who is without sin...” - for who is without sin?), but: “Whoever is without this sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” then perhaps those who were indignant that they did not kill the adulteress would think how great is God’s mercy that they, the adulterers, remain alive! 8. But when we tell them this, they not only do not want to moderate their severity in any way, but in addition they are also angry at the truth and answer: “But we are men! Will the dignity of our sex really suffer such an insult as equal punishment with that of women if we allow ourselves to do something with other women besides our wives?” But isn’t it because they are men that they must courageously curb their illicit lusts? Isn’t it all the more important for them to set an example of virtue to their wives because they are men? Is it not because they are men that they should succumb to lust all the less? Is it not because they are men that they should serve the unbridled flesh all the less? And yet they are indignant when they hear that adulterous husbands suffer the same punishment as adulterous wives, when they should be punished more severely and to the extent that it is more appropriate for them to win in virtue and lead women by example. I am speaking to Christians who hear with faith the words: “The head of a wife is the husband” (1 Cor. 11:3), in which they learn that they should be leaders, and wives should be companions. And therefore, the husband must beware of deviating in his life to where, as he is afraid, his wife may follow him, imitating him. But those who do not like equality in marital fidelity to be observed between husband and wife, 28 and who prefer, especially in this matter, to obey the laws of the world rather than Christ - after all, secular laws do not seem to them to bind men with the same bonds of fidelity as women - let them read what the Emperor Antoninus (of course, not a Christian) decreed on this matter: a husband is not allowed to accuse his wife of a crime adultery, if he himself did not set an example of purity for her with his life, so that both will be condemned if the proceedings prove that both are equally dissolute. Here are the words of the emperor mentioned above, which can be found in Gregorian: 29 “Of course, my letters do not prejudge matters in any way. For if the fault lay with you, so that the marriage was dissolved, and your wife Eupasia was married according to the law of Julia, then because of this decree of mine she will not be convicted of adultery, unless it is proven that it was committed. But first of all, you should find out whether you lived purely and whether you were an example of good morals for her. For it seems to me extremely unfair for a husband to demand fidelity from his wife that he himself does not observe. This circumstance may condemn the husband, but it will not extinguish their mutual crime against each other or eliminate the cause of what happened.” And if this [the above] is required to be observed for the sake of the virtue of the earthly city, then how much more moral purity do the heavenly homeland and the society of angels require?! And if so, then is male debauchery less, and not greater and worse [than women], especially when it is flaunted with pride and impunity? Therefore, let men not be horrified that Christ forgave the adulteress, but rather let them realize the danger [of this sin] for themselves 30 and, suffering from the same illness, resort piously with prayer to the same Savior. Let them, reading [about the harlot], recognize that what was done to her is also necessary for them: let them take the cure for their adultery and stop committing adultery, praise God’s forbearance within themselves, bring repentance, receive forgiveness and change their minds about the punishment of women and their impunity. 9 . After careful consideration of these issues, if with faith and humility one comprehends the common situation, the common evil, the common danger, the common damage and the common salvation, then the reunification of the spouses, even after adultery committed and redeemed, will not be shameful or difficult. Indeed, through entering the Kingdom of Heaven 31, forgiveness of sins is undoubtedly accomplished - not so that after a divorce from her husband the adulteress will be restored [to marriage?], 32 but so that after communion with Christ she will no longer be called an adulteress. However, even if this [reunion of spouses] does not happen, no one blames [them], for perhaps some law of this world prevents this, according to the rules of the earthly city, where there is no idea of ​​the cleansing of crimes by the Holy Blood. Let [then the spouses] adopt abstinence, which no law prohibits, and let them not fall into new adulteries! In our [opinion], even if the adulteress, purified by Divine mercy, is not reunited with her husband, as long as the non-reunited [former spouses] do not enter into new supposed marriages, which in fact turn out to be adultery. For “a woman is bound [by the law] while her husband lives” (1 Cor. 7:39). Accordingly, the husband is bound while his wife is alive. This connection makes it impossible for them to marry others without having an adulterous relationship [with them]. Hence, of necessity, two spouses will turn out to be four adulterers, if she marries another, and he takes an adulteress for himself. Although a more criminal adulterer is the one who, having divorced his wife not because of fornication, takes another wife - this type of adultery was mentioned by Matthew (Matthew 19:9) - however, not only he commits adultery, but, as Mark says: “(Whoever) divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against his wife, and if the wife divorces her husband and marries another, commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12) And, as Luke says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries one who has been divorced from her husband commits adultery. "(Luke 16:18). I have already discussed this evidence sufficiently in my previous book. 10. But you answer me: “Few can live in abstinence. Therefore, to those who are divorced from adulterous spouses and cannot be reunited with them, it seems that they are being subjected to such a [severe] test that they declare the law of Christ inhuman and painful.” O brother! As for the intemperate, they may have many complaints, because of which, as you say, they call the law of Christ cruel and inhuman. Yet we must not distort or change the Gospel of Christ because of them. For you are concerned only with the complaint of those who leave their spouses because of adultery, but do not have permission to marry others, since continence is the lot of the few, and they should be encouraged to do so by praise, and not forced by law. So, if a person, having divorced an adulteress, does not marry another, then, do you think, intemperate people will have a fair reason for grumbling. But notice how many situations there would be if we began to accept the complaints of intemperate people, when we would have to allow adultery too! What if one spouse has a long-term, incurable illness that prevents intimacy? What if captivity or other forced separation separates a couple and the husband knows his wife is alive but cannot be with her? Do you really think that [in such cases] we should listen to the murmurs of the intemperate and allow them to commit adultery? What about the case about which the Lord was asked, and He answered that it should not be so, but Moses, out of their hardness of heart, allowed them to give [the wife] a letter of divorce and to divorce his wife for any reason (Matthew 19:8)? Doesn’t the law of Christ seem harsh to those intemperate people who want to divorce their quarrelsome, impudent, despotic, arrogant wives who have trouble fulfilling their marital duty and marry others? Is it really because the law of Christ frightens such intemperate people that we must change it according to their will? And if a wife leaves her husband or a husband leaves his wife not because of adultery, but for the sake of abstinence, but the abandoned spouse turns out to be incontinent, I ask: will he (or she) be an adulterer if he enters into a new marriage? If they say: “It will not happen,” this contradicts the words of the Lord. “It is also said: whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a letter of divorce. But I say to you: everyone who divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31–32). Here is [a case when] the wife did not leave on her own, but was abandoned; and since abstinence is the lot of few, she yielded to intemperance and got married. And yet she is an adulteress, and the man who married her is also an adulterer. Both are guilty, both are subject to condemnation: the woman who married while her husband was alive, and the man who married the one whose husband is still alive. Do we here call the law of Christ inhuman, since it declares guilty of such a sin and punishes the one whom her husband left without previous adultery on her part and, since “abstinence is the lot of the few,” forced by his departure to enter into a new marriage? Why should we not consider as dead the one who first broke the marriage bond by an unfair divorce? For how can one say that an adulterer who did not divorce his wife broke the marriage bond, but one who left even his faithful wife did not? I affirm: in both cases, the bonds of marriage are preserved, “for the wife is bound [by the law] while her husband lives” (1 Cor. 7:39) - whether he is abstinent or an adulterer. Therefore, both the abandoned wife who enters into a new marriage and the man who took her in marriage commit adultery, regardless of whether the adulterer or the abstinent one left her, “for the wife is bound while her husband lives.” But now we are discussing the complaints of the intemperate. What complaint seems more just than that of this woman who says: “They left me, it was not I who left; and, since abstinence is available only to a few, I, unable to control myself, got married so as not to fall into fornication - and because of this they call me an adulteress! Would it be because of this supposedly just complaint that we would feel the need to change the Divine law in order to stop considering her an adulteress? No way! But you will object: “She should not have been left, because [on her part] there was no guilt of adultery.” Right! For the Lord directly spoke about the sin of her husband: “(Whoever) divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32). And yet, didn’t she sin later by marrying again, only because her first husband sinned by leaving her? What will this intemperate woman gain by murmuring against the law of Christ, except punishment for her discontent? 11. Now let’s consider what you added elsewhere, but did not want to answer [yourself]. You lament and sympathize with a man who is forced to cohabit with an adulteress - although not out of intemperance, but for the sake of having children - since he is not allowed to leave her while she is alive to take another wife. You would rightly be distressed if taking another wife while you were alive, even an adulteress, was not adultery. But if this is adultery (as the previous discussion taught us), then what justification can there be in having children? After all, under such a pretext it is impossible to provide freedom for [committing] shameful deeds! Moreover, should [a person] really [strive] to avoid death without future descendants as much as he needs to choose [for himself] a future life? 33 But it is impossible for adulterers, who after the first death will certainly be condemned to an eternal second death. According to this logic, under the pretext of childbearing, [men will be able] to leave not only adulterous wives, but also the most faithful women, if they turn out to be infertile, and marry others - and I don’t think you will like this. 12. Therefore, if adultery due to intemperance cannot be justified, how much less can it be justified by the birth of children! The Apostle wanted this weakness, that is, intemperance, to be helped by the dignity of marriage. After all, he did not say: “If he has no children, let him marry,” but: “If he cannot abstain, let him marry” (1 Cor. 7:9). The birth of children compensates for what is given up to intemperance through marriage. For intemperance, of course, is a sin, but marriage is not a sin; and therefore through him the good is achieved, so that that illness 34 becomes forgivable. Since marriage was established for the sake of procreation, the [Old Testament] fathers entered into it only because of the duty of procreation, dating women not contrary to the law. For then there was a need for childbearing, which does not exist now, since, according to Scripture, “the time to embrace” was then, and now is “the time to avoid embracing” (Eccl. 3:5). About this [present] time the Apostle writes: “About the rest (I say), brothers: the time is short; henceforth let those who have wives be as if they had none.” (1 Cor. 7:29). Therefore, it is now quite clearly said: “Whoever can contain, let him receive” (Matt. 19:12), and “whoever cannot [can] abstain, let him marry” (1 Cor. 7:9). Then even continence gave way to marriage for the sake of the birth of children, but now the bonds of marriage have come to the aid of the disease 35 of intemperance, so that those who do not restrain themselves will bear children not through the shame 36 of fornication, but through a dignified marriage. Why didn’t the Apostle say: “If he has no children, let him marry”? Of course, because in these days of avoiding hugs, there is no need to produce children. Why did he say: “If he [can’t] abstain, let him marry”? Precisely so that intemperance does not lead to adultery. Therefore, if [a person] restrains himself, let him not marry or give birth. If he does not hold back, let him enter into a legal marriage, so as not to give birth shamefully or, what is even more shameful, to come together without bearing children. Although some people do this last thing even in a legal marriage. For it is unlawful and shameful to marry even a lawful wife if the conception of children is avoided. This is what Onan, the son of Judah, did, and for this he was killed by God. (Cf. Gen. 38:8–10) So, the birth of children is the first, natural and legal reason for marriage. And therefore those who marry out of intemperance should not thus subdue the evil in themselves so as to eliminate the good inherent in marriage - procreation. Of course, the Apostle was talking about intemperate people when he said: “I desire therefore that young widows should marry, bear children, be mothers of families, 37 and not give the enemy any occasion for slander, for some have already turned aside after Satan” (1 Tim. 5:14-15). Saying "I wish that young widows should marry," he advised this, propping up [their] continence ready to fall. But so that they do not think only about carnal lust and do not submit to this illness, taking advantage of marriage, [but at the same time] neglecting its benefit or despising it, he immediately added: “they gave birth to children, they were mothers of families.” Those who choose abstinence choose something better than the good of marriage, that is, the birth of children. Therefore, if [a person] chooses abstinence in order to devote himself to something that surpasses the good of marriage, then all the more does [he] need to maintain abstinence in order to avoid adultery! For the Apostle said: “If he [cannot] abstain, let him marry; for it is better to marry than to be inflamed" (1 Cor. 7:9), but did not say: "It is better to commit adultery than to be inflamed." 13. So, we have nothing to call on those who are afraid to be reunited with spouses who were [previously] adulterers, but healed by repentance, except to maintain abstinence. For the wife is bound while her husband lives, whether he is an adulterer or faithful (cf. Rom. 7:2-3), and she commits adultery if she marries another. [Equally] the husband is bound while his wife lives, whether she is an adulteress or faithful [to him], and he commits adultery if he marries another. Since this relationship is not dissolved, even if during a divorce the spouse separates from his pure spouse, it is even more so not dissolved if the non-divorced woman indulges in fornication. Consequently, it is dissolved only by the death of one of the spouses - [namely,] not falling into adultery, but leaving the body. Therefore, if a wife has left her adulterous husband and does not want to reconcile with him, let her remain celibate. And the husband, if he has left his adulterous wife and does not want to accept her even after repentance, let him remain abstinent, even if not voluntarily choosing a greater good, but [at least] because of the need to avoid destructive evil. I would call for the same thing if the wife was in an incurable and long-term illness, or if she was far from her husband and out of his reach; Finally, I would call for the same thing if a wife, wanting to live in abstinence (albeit against church regulations, because without the consent of her husband), left her faithful husband. For, I believe, no Christian will deny that an adulterer is one who, while his wife is sick for a long time, or absent for a long time, or wants to live in abstinence, marries another woman. In the same way, he who leaves an adulteress becomes an adulterer with another [woman], for it is not one or the other, but “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). Therefore, if the life of saints, free from the bonds of marriage, has little attraction for [a person], let [him] be horrified by the punishment of adulterers, and let at least fear curb lust, if abstinence is not chosen out of love. For where there is fear, there will probably be work, and where there is work, there will be love. You should not rely on your own strength; but we must add prayer to our efforts, so that He who turns away from evil will also fill us with good. 14. Let us also respond to your conviction that husbands are forced to punish adulteresses without any mercy, wishing for their death, if during their lifetime they are not allowed to marry others. Wanting to exaggerate this cruelty, you said: “It does not seem to me, beloved father, that this is a divine disposition [of the soul] 38 if kindness and mercy are excluded here.” You talk about this as if husbands would have to spare adulterous wives just because they were allowed to marry others, and if it were not allowed, they would not spare them in order to receive such permission. Why not the other way around: [husbands] must show mercy to their wives who have sinned in order to earn a merciful attitude towards their sins themselves? And to a much greater extent, those who, having left their adulterous wives, want to live in abstinence should do this. After all, the more holy they want to be, the more merciful they must be, so that, while keeping themselves pure, they can receive divine help, without taking human revenge for the purity violated by their wives. [Here] we should especially remember the words of the Lord: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Not “who is without this sin” (after all, we are talking about faithful husbands), but “who is without sin.” [After all] if they say that they are without sin, they deceive themselves, and there is no truth in them (cf. 1 John 1:8). If they do not deceive themselves, and there is truth in them, then there will be no bloodthirsty ferocity in them. Knowing that they are not without sin, they forgive so that they too may be forgiven, and kindness and mercy do not depart from them. These [virtues] are more likely to be removed if [husbands] are prompted to forgive sinned wives not by concern for piety, but by the power of lust, that is, when they are spared because it is permissible to marry others, and not out of a desire for the Lord to spare them themselves. How much better [for such men] is it better, nobler and, finally, more worthy of the Christian title to spare the lives of adulterous wives, 39 about which we tell them in the words of Scripture: “Forgive the injustice of your neighbor, and then through your prayer your sins will be forgiven. Does a person hold anger against a person and seek healing from the Lord? Has no mercy for a person just like him, but asks for his sins? He remains angry, although he himself is flesh: who will appease [God] for his sins? » 40 (Sir.28:2–5). And [in words] from the Gospel: “Forgive, and you will be forgiven” (Luke 6:37), so that we can say: “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” (Matthew 6:12) And from the Apostle: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Rom.12:17) And other similar passages from the Holy Scriptures, by which, if aroused to vengeance, the spirit of a Christian man is pacified. 15. How much better, I argue, is it to say this than to say: “Just leave these adulteresses and don’t ask for their blood; all the sadness caused to you by their shameful actions will be consoled by the new women you marry. After all, you would rightly want to remove them from the list of the living if preserving their lives prevented you from marrying again. But since even during their lifetime you are allowed to enter into new marriages, why are you so willing to kill them? If we say this, don’t you see how far these persuasions will be from the Christian spirit? [That is to say,] we lie when we claim that they are allowed to do what is in fact prohibited, namely, to have relations with others while their first wives are alive. And if for this reason they spared them, they would not do it out of mercy, but only for the sake of freedom to marry again. Finally, I ask you: is it permissible for a Christian husband - either according to the ancient law of God, or according to Roman laws - to kill his adulterous wife? If this is permissible, then it is better to refrain from both the permitted punishment of the sinner and the unlawful marriage during her lifetime. But if he persists in choosing one of the two, it is better to let him do what is permitted - punish the adulteress - than what is unlawful: marry another while the first is alive. If (and this is true!) a Christian is not allowed to kill his adulterous wife, but is only allowed to leave her, then who is so crazy as to say to him: “Do what is forbidden so that what is forbidden will be allowed to you”? For if, according to the law of Christ, both [acts] are unacceptable - both the murder of an adulteress and marriage with another [woman] during her life - then one must refrain from both, and not do one unacceptable thing for the sake of the other. But if he has already decided to commit the unacceptable, let him commit adultery, but not murder, marrying while his [former] wife is alive, but not shedding human blood. However, since both are evil deeds, one should not commit one instead of the other, but avoid both. 16. [However,] here I foresee what the incontinent may say: if someone leaves an adulteress alive and marries another, then while the former wife is alive, he always remains an adulterer. [Such a person] does not bring fruitful repentance, because he does not retreat from dishonor; if he is a catechumen, he is not allowed to be baptized, since he does not refuse what hinders [him]; and the repentant cannot be reunited [with the Church], persisting in the same dissipation. But if he, having accused, kills the adulteress, then this sin, being completed, and not lasting in time, is washed away by baptism (for the catechumen) or healed by repentance and reunion [with the Church] (for the baptized). But does this make us argue that adultery is not adultery (which, undoubtedly, is committed when another wife is taken in marriage while the adulterous spouse is alive)? And - leaving this type of adultery aside [for now] - you yourself, of course, have no doubt that it would be adultery if someone took for himself a wife during the life of her husband, abandoned by him through a letter of divorce without the guilt of her adultery. So what? When [such a person] sees that he is not allowed to be baptized (if he is a catechumen), or that his repentance is fruitless (if he is baptized), until he corrects himself and remains [in a state of sin], would he not want and would he try to kill the husband of the woman he married, so that this sin could be washed away by baptism or atone for repentance, and so that his adultery itself would also cease (for after the death of the husband, the woman is freed from "husband's law")? But is it because of this that the law of Christ should be accused as if it compels murder when it calls marrying a woman rejected [by one’s former husband] without the sin of adultery adultery? Here, in addition to what we have already said, much more serious examples can be given than your own. You, not wanting to consider marrying other [women] after divorcing adulteresses as adultery, came up with this: “If we call the above mentioned adultery, it will force husbands to kill adulteresses whose lives prevent them from marrying again.” And for emphasis he added: “It does not seem to me, beloved father, that this is a divine disposition [of the soul] if kindness and mercy are excluded here.” But what if someone [else] who does not want to recognize as adultery the marriage of a woman rejected by her husband without the guilt of adultery, objects to you that such logic inclines men to kill the husbands of those women whom they have thus married - either using any successful intrigues or slander, or identifying their actual crimes, accusing them and killing them - so that after their death, marriages that were adulterous during their lifetime become legal? Will he not tell you for emphasis: “It does not seem to me, beloved father, that this is a divine disposition [of the soul], if here not only kindness and mercy are excluded, but also great malice and wickedness are aroused”? After all, one can tolerate the murder of adulteresses by their husbands much more calmly than the murder of their husbands by adulterers 41 . Do you wish that because of this empty reproach we should reject the defense of the Lord’s teaching or even begin to condemn it, saying that it should not be considered adultery to marry someone who was rejected without guilt for fornication, so long as we are not forced to kill her previous husband out of a desire, thanks to his death, to turn adultery into a legal marriage? I know that you will not want the law of Christ, sound and true, to be called cruel and inhuman because of this insignificant reproach. Likewise, you should not deny that marrying while an adulterous wife is alive is adultery, only because it may prompt the husband to kill her if he wants to gain the right to marry again after her death, since this is not allowed during her life. What then? Suppose the detractors of the Christian faith begin to say that men are forced to kill their wives, using deceit and intrigue - those whom they find it difficult to tolerate: either those suffering from a long illness and incapable of marital intimacy, or poor, or barren, or ugly, hoping to marry others who are healthy, rich, fertile, and more beautiful. After all, they are not allowed to divorce without the guilt of adultery from those whom they do not want to tolerate, and to marry others, without remaining in constant adultery, without being able to be baptized or healed by repentance. So, in order to prevent such criminal murders from being committed, we will begin to assert that divorcing wives who are not guilty of adultery and marrying other [women] is not adultery? 17. Further, since you believe that it will not be adultery if a husband leaves his wife because of fornication and marries another, do you not think that you should beware lest husbands learn to force their wives into adultery, whom they cannot tolerate for countless different reasons? And after - because you think so! – marriage bonds will be dissolved due to female adultery, they will be allowed to marry others. And from the fact that they forced their wives to commit adultery, they can either be washed by baptism or cleansed by repentance. After all, they will not be given either grace or healing while they live adulterously - in the event that, having left their previous wives without the guilt of fornication, they married others. Unless they say that no one can force his wife to commit adultery if she is chaste. However, the Lord [said]: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her cause to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32). That is why, although she was [previously] faithful to her husband, being abandoned by him, due to incontinence she is forced to unite with another [man] while her husband is alive, and this is adultery. Even if she does not do this, her husband, for his part, forced her to do this, and God will impute this sin to him, even if she remains clean. But who does not know how rare [women] are who are so chaste that, even being abandoned by their husbands, they do not look for others? The number of women who, although faithful and attached to their husbands, however, having been abandoned by them, do not hesitate to enter into a new marriage, is incomparably greater. So, if people who believed the Lord, who said: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery,” believe you, who says that it is permissible for a husband to marry another if the wife has committed fornication, then anyone who wants to get rid of the wife with whom he is united, for any other reasons [except adultery], can first force her to commit adultery, leaving [for a time] not because of [her] fornication, so that later, when she becomes an adulteress because of a new marriage, [he himself] marries another. Thus, it may seem that through baptism or repentance, freed from his previous sin (compulsion to commit adultery), he will be able to marry without falling into adultery himself, since the marriage bond was dissolved due to the adultery of the first wife. But if he does this with cunning intent, then he will make his wife an adulteress, and he himself will become an adulterer, marrying another, albeit after his wife’s adultery. And it will not bring him any benefit that he believed you, and not the One who said without any exception: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). 18. After considering and discussing all this, it remains for those who listened with faith to what was said to say to us the same thing that the Lord heard: “If this is a man’s duty [toward] his wife, then it is better not to marry.” (Matthew 19:10). What should we answer them, except what He Himself answered? “Not everyone can receive this word, but to those who have it it is given. For there are eunuchs who were thus born from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated by people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it.” (Matthew 19:11–12). So, let him who can contain what not everyone can contain. And those who are given it by the hidden but fair 42 mercy of God can accommodate it. Among all those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, some, no matter what their gender, do not know intercourse, 43 while others, having known it, rejected it - some after an illegal, and others after a legal experience. In turn, among those who knew it legally, there are those who knew only legal cohabitation, and there are those who knew both legal and illegal. Among them there are those who knew only their wives, and there are also those who knew other women, and any kind of shameful relationships. 44 But those who, after conjugal cohabitation, make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, [do this] either by losing their spouses due to [their] death, or by indulging in abstinence by consent with them, or by necessity after divorce, so that while their spouses are alive they do not fall into adultery by uniting with others. They make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, not in order to be there in greater glory, but because they cannot find themselves there otherwise. And those who abstain not out of this necessity, but out of a desire for the highest good, may find themselves there while maintaining marital purity, although [receiving] lesser rewards, but still within the [Kingdom]. Those who abstain because they are afraid to enter into a new marriage while their former spouses are alive should be more concerned about their salvation than those who chose abstinence for the sake of the highest gift. For they will only be there if they do not become adulterers. If they do not abstain, they will be adulterers, because during the life of the former spouses they will unite not with new spouses, but with adulterers. And if they do not find themselves in the Kingdom of Heaven, then where should they be if not where there is no salvation? 19. So, I appeal to those who should do this if their spouses are weak from a long illness, or are absent from a place inaccessible to them, or are unlawfully persistent [in refusing the marital relationship]. Let them do the same if their spouses have stained themselves with the filth of adultery and thereby removed themselves from the community [of spouses in the family]. Let them not look for other marriages, for these will not be marriages, but adulteries! Since in this union the husband and wife are equal, then just as “a wife while her husband is living will be called an adulteress if she is with another man” (Rom. 7:3), so a husband while his wife is living will be called an adulterer if he is with another woman. And although the one who [divorces] not because of adultery sins more seriously, “everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). Let such people not be frightened by the burden of abstinence - it will be light if it is Christ’s, and it will be Christ’s with faith, which can beg from the Commander [the strength to fulfill] His command. Let them not be dismayed that their abstinence seems not voluntary, but a matter of necessity. After all, those who chose it voluntarily made it necessary, since they can no longer evade it without condemnation. And those who were forced to it by necessity make it voluntary if they rely not on themselves, but on Him from Whom all good comes. Some rose to abstinence for the sake of higher glory in order to gain [for themselves] something greater, while others resorted to it, caring for final salvation, so as not to perish. Let both of them hold on to what they have come to and follow to the end, let them burn with zeal, ask in prayers, for both the former need to remember about salvation in order to beware of falling from the [height] to which their will has reached, and the latter should not despair of [receiving] glory if they lovingly establish themselves in what necessity has led them to. For it may happen that as a result of God's intimidation and inducement, conversion and replenishment, the human disposition will change for the better, and then they will vow to live without marriage, without any carnal relations and unclean touches of lust so firmly that even if the death of the divorced spouses opens the opportunity for a new marriage, they will voluntarily close what is legally open, and what began out of necessity will be brought to perfection by love. Such, undoubtedly, will be rewarded the same as those who made this vow by mutual consent with their spouse or, without being bound by marriage, chose abstinence for the sake of the highest good. But if they abstain only as long as the spouses who prevent them from entering into a new marriage are alive, and are ready to do this after their death, then even if they themselves die earlier in this kind of abstinence, this will be imputed to them only as marital fidelity, 45 observing which, 46 they do not do what they would have done if it had been allowed to them. Living a temperate life with such a disposition [of the soul] is not enough to receive the rewards of one who freely chooses abstinence, but it is enough to avoid adultery. 20. Remember that I say this about [representatives of] both sexes, but mainly because of men who consider themselves superior to women and therefore do not want to be equal to them in purity, although in this they should even be superior to women in order for them to follow them as their leaders. The law prohibits adultery, but if, under the pretext of intemperance due to the weakness of the flesh, indulgence is allowed, then for many, under the guise of false impunity, the opportunity arises to perish. For even women are not deprived of flesh, but men do not want to be allowed anything similar to what is allowed to them because they are men. But let it not be that the dignity of the better sex 47 is paid for by the loss of shame, because true dignity belongs to virtue, and not to vice! Moreover, if such purity is demanded from women, who also have flesh, that when their husbands leave for a long time, they remain untainted by fornication, restraining the heat of youth (and many live in extreme purity, especially Syrian women, whose husbands, busy with trade, leave very young girls [at home] and only return to old women as old men), then it is all the more obvious that it is not impossible that [men] justify themselves by their weakness. After all, if this were impossible due to human weakness, then even more so for the weaker female sex. Therefore, when we fear to restrain those who see male superiority only in the freedom to sin, so that they, striving for adulterous relationships, do not perish forever, we usually give them as an example the abstinence of the clergy. They are often forced to take on this burden against their will and, once they have taken it, with the help of the Lord they bear it with dignity until the very end. We say [to such people]: “What if, at the request of the people, you were forced to the same [lot as theirs]? Wouldn’t you keep the vow you have taken in purity, in this case 48 turning to the Lord with prayer for those powers that you had never thought of before?” “But they,” they object, “are consoled by the honor of being first.” We answer: “Let fear curb you, and much more so! After all, if many of God’s servants accepted what was entrusted to them completely unexpectedly, hoping [after this] to shine brighter in the lot of Christ, then how much more do you need to avoid adultery and live abstinently, fearing no less radiance in the Kingdom of God, but burning in fiery hell? This, or something similar to this, as far as possible, we say to those who, having somehow separated from their spouses (or abandoned them due to adultery), want to marry others, and when they are forbidden to do so, plead the weakness of the flesh. But we should already complete this book and ask God that He either would not allow them to experience separation from their spouses, or would allow them so that fear for [their] salvation would become for them a reason for glorious and excellent purity. The title of this work is Blessed. Augustine's De conjugiis adulterinis is usually translated “On Adulterous Marriages”, including into foreign languages: English. On Adulterous Marriages, Italian. I connubi adulterini, etc. However, such a translation seems to us not entirely successful, primarily due to the fact that the expression “adulterous marriage” in itself, even without familiarity with the text of the work, is incomprehensible and very ambiguous. But the word conjugium has not only the meaning of “marriage,” but also “relationship,” including “love affair,” as well as the meaning of “spouse.” It is worth noting that in the text of the work the phrase conjugia adulterina, with which it was entitled, is used only once, as well as the fact that the author himself resolutely refuses to consider marriages unacceptable from the evangelical point of view, and that the title of the work most likely does not belong to the blessed one himself. Augustine, and was given to him subsequently. In our opinion, the title “On adulterous relations” or “On the adultery of spouses” would be more consistent with the content of the work. However, when translating, we decided to preserve the name, which, despite its inaccuracy, has already become familiar. Bl. Augustine quotes close to the Gospel text, but not literally. The word quicumque in the Latin translation of Mark 10:11, which is used by the blessed one. Augustine, has the general meaning of “anyone who; whoever" as opposed to the original Greek ὅς "who; (one) who.” The Greek text of Matthew 5:32 contains the word “everyone” (πᾶς), as does the Latin translation (omnis), but it is omitted in the Synodal Version. As narrated by St. Evangelist Luke the word “everyone” is present both in the original and in both translations. gratiora It is also possible to translate “the rewarders are.” In the quotation from Blessed. Augustine uses the word hoc “this” instead of non “not”. Quotable blessed. Augustine's Gospel text has minor differences from the generally known translations, in particular the (New) Vulgate. A translation is also possible: “understood as bringing reward.” Literally: many false gods (multos falsos deos). per iustitiam, quae coram Domino est. Here words from Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are combined in one sentence. We read here propter instead of praeter, otherwise it turns out that blessed. Augustine repeats the same thing twice. One of the possible understandings of this verse according to the text of the Septuagint, along with the well-known ts.-slav. “Pray and give thanks to the Lord our God.” (Pray and give [praise/gratitude] to the Lord our God!) Yours/ours – various textual options. Cyprian of Carthage, On the Fallen, 6 That is, confirm in your own words. This refers to the continuation of Matthew 7:6 “... lest they trample it under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces.” Inaccurate beginning of quotation: this verse (10) should begin with the words “To those who have married,” and the word “To others” appears at the beginning of verse 12. or fidelity; vinculum pudoris. Blazh. Augustine here mentions the lawyer Gregorian, but in the Migne edition (t. 40, footnote to col. 475) it is said that these words are not found in his surviving fragments, and a reference is made to op. Ulpian, On adultery, 13, 3 possible lane “let them realize their disastrous state” – agnoscant etiam periculum suum literally: “through the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” (per claves regni caelorum) An unclear place for us; perhaps the thought is blessed. Augustine was different. Latin text: non ut post viri divortium adultera revocetur. Pun: sine posteris mori – in posterum vivere. or: ugliness, obscenity turpitudo Augustine says here matres familiae esse, in contrast to the biblical dominas domus esse. ut parcant adulterarum sanguini uxorum Quandoquidem multo est levius et tolerabilius, ut adulteras mariti, quam ut maritos adulteri occidant. Literally: not unjust, non iniusta. in utroque sexu concubitum nesciunt Apparently, for bl. Augustine is male. Literally: repente - suddenly.