Marriage and Virginity
Lord (1 Cor 7:39). This can be taken in two ways: either she remains a Christian, or she marries a Christian. I do not recall any unambiguous statement, either in the gospel or in any of the apostles' letters, as to whether the Lord forbade the faithful to marry unbelievers.
Blessed Cyprian has no doubt it is a sin, and not a slight one, "to enter the bond of matrimony with unbelievers," and he says that to do that is "to make the members of Christ's body prostitutes for the Gentiles."†13 Persons already married are another question, and on this one should listen to the apostle, who says: If one of the brethren has a wife who does not believe and she consents to stay living with him, let him not divorce her; and if a woman has a husband who does not believe and he consents to stay living with her, let her not divorce the husband (1 Cor 7:12-13). This should be understood as saying that, although it is not wrong, because this is not something the Lord said, nevertheless it should not be done, because it is not good to do it. As we have already shown above, the apostle teaches very clearly that something it is not wrong to do is not always something it is good to do.†14 Whatever kind of adultery is the reason, whether adultery of the flesh or adultery of the spirit (taking that to include unbelief), it is not right either for a woman to marry someone else after divorcing her husband or for a man to marry someone else after divorcing his wife. The Lord said, without making any exception, If a wife divorces her husband and marries someone else, she commits adultery (Mk 10:12), and, Everyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery (Lk 16:18).
32. After dealing with these points and discussing them in this way to the best of my ability, I am not unaware that the whole question of marriage is still very unclear and complex. I would not be so bold as to claim that I have yet unraveled it fully, either in this work or any other, or even that I could do so now if pressed. Nevertheless, if my views on it differed from yours, I would give attention to resolving that problem that you saw fit to seek my advice about in a separate note. Since, however, we do hold the same opinion about it, there is no need to prolong the discussion any further.
A New Question Regarding Catechumens
26, 33. When catechumens are at the last moments of this life, if they are so weakened by illness or from an accident that, although still alive, they are incapable of making their own request for baptism or making the responses to the interrogations, because their intentions are already evident in their Christian faith, they should be given the benefit of being baptized, in the same way that babies are baptized, who have yet to reveal any intention at all.†15 At the same time we should not condemn those who act more cautiously than seems right to us, for fear of being judged for wanting to be too extravagant rather than too careful in our judgment about money entrusted to a fellow slave. In such matters it is enough to recall that place where the apostle says, We will all answer to God for ourselves (Rom 14:12). So let us not judge each other anymore. There are those who think that in these and other matters we should respect what we read that the Lord said: Do not give holy things to the dogs, and do not cast your pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). In awe of those words of the savior, they do not dare to baptize those who are unable to answer for themselves, for fear that perhaps in their own minds they choose to reject it. This cannot be said about little children, as they do not have the use of reason yet. On the other hand, it is impossible to believe that even at the end of this life a catechumen does not want to be baptized. Moreover, if there is uncertainty about what is wanted, in a case like this it is much better to give it to those who do not want it than to withhold it from those who want it. Although it is not apparent whether they want it or do not want it, it is more likely that, if they could speak, they would say that they wanted to receive those sacraments, as they already believe they ought not to depart from the body without them.
The Meaning of Matthew 7:6
27, 34. If, when the Lord said, Do not give holy things to the dogs (Mt 7:6), he was referring to what those people think we should be careful not to do, then he himself would not have given to his betrayer, without any guilt for being the giver, the gift he received along with the other worthy ones, although he received it unworthily and for his ruination. Hence we have to believe that when the Lord said this he meant that unclean hearts do not carry the light of spiritual understanding. If a teacher presents them with truths that they do not accept in the right manner, because they fail to understand them, then they either tear them apart with the jaws of criticism or trample on them with contempt. The blessed apostle says that he gave milk, not solid food, to those who were still little children even though they were already born again in Christ, and he said, You were not capable of it, and you are still not capable of it (1 Cor 3:2); and the Lord himself said to his chosen apostles, I still have many things to say to you, but you are not yet able to bear them (Jn 16:12). How much more are the unclean minds of irreligious persons incapable of receiving anything said about the spiritual light?
Conclusion: On the Baptism of Adulterers
28, 35. To conclude our discourse on this point with which it began, not only do I think that other catechumens should be baptized, if their condition is desperate and they are unable to answer for themselves, but so too should those who maintain an adulterous relationship with persons whose husbands or wives are still living, even though we do not admit them to baptism while they are in good health. In this way even this sin may be washed away with the rest in the cleansing waters of rebirth. Who knows whether perhaps they had decided to stay with the adulterous allurement of the flesh until they were baptized? If, however, they manage to recover from that desperate situation and go on living, either they will do what they had already decided to do, or they will take instruction and do what has to be done, or they will show contempt for it, and in this case they will be treated in the way baptized persons like that should be treated. If danger of death becomes imminent for a penitent, there is the same justification for reconciliation as there is for baptism. Our holy mother Church ought not to want them to depart from this life without the token of her peace.
Notes
Augustine refers to his two books, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, composed early in his presbyterate, around 393.
†2 See 1 Cor 7:4.
Augustine discusses such a case in his Letter 262 to Ecdicia. He strongly opposed the practice of a married person adopting celibacy without the agreement of his or her spouse.
†4 See 1 Cor 7:9.
Augustine here begins his discussion of 1 Cor 7:12-16, that is, the "Pauline Privilege."
Paul argues that if the non-Christian spouse desires to separate, in such a case the Christian is not bound (1 Cor 7:15). Nonetheless, as Augustine notes, Paul prefers that the couple remain married.
†6 See Mt 17:24-27.
†7 See Lk 10:33-35.
On lack of faith as a kind of spiritual adultery, see Augustine, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount I, 16, 43. Later, in Revisions I, 18, 6, Augustine expressed reservations about this interpretation.
†9 See Ezr 10:11-12.
†10 See Deut 7:3.
†11 The Lord's Sermon on the Mount I, 16, 45.
[Translator] The Latin text has praeter ("apart from"), but the propter ("because of") of other manuscripts makes better sense.
†13 Cyprian, Concerning the Lapsed 6: CSEL 3, 249.
†14 See 1 Cor 10:23.
In Confessions IV, 4, 8 Augustine describes a situation very much like this one, the deathbed baptism of a friend.
Book Two: A Reply to Further Objections from Pollentius
The Reason for the Second Book
1, 1. My dear brother in religion, Pollentius, in reply to what you wrote to me I had already written a sizable volume concerning those who marry again while their husbands or wives are still alive. After becoming acquainted with this, my dear friend, you have added some additional material to your book, and want my reply to this too. While, however, I was preparing to do this, by also adding to what I had written, so that my reply would also be a single book, unexpectedly what I had already written was published by impatient colleagues, unaware that there was more to be added. So it came about that I was forced to write a separate book to reply to your additional material. Your additions, however, were not added on at the end of your work, but were included where they best seemed to fit in the body of it.
Pollentius Argues That Adultery Dissolves a Marriage
2, 2. The first of those additional points, which indeed I believe I should answer, concerns that text of the apostle where he says, For the rest, I say, not the Lord, that a wife should not leave her husband, but if she does leave him she should either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband (1 Cor 7:10-11).†1 You do not think that the words if she does leave him should be understood as meaning that she leaves a husband who commits adultery, which is the only reason it is right to leave him. You think it refers rather to the one who leaves a husband who is chaste, and the reason she is commanded to stay unmarried is to enable her to be reconciled to him, if he refuses to be celibate; otherwise by not being reconciled to him she herself would drive him to commit adultery by marrying someone else while she is still alive. Moreover, you think that if she leaves a husband who commits adultery, she is not commanded to remain unmarried; she will do so if she wishes to be celibate, but if she does marry she will not be looked on as breaking any commandment. You see this as the rule to be followed by the husband as well. He may not divorce his wife unless it is for adultery; but if he does divorce a wife who is chaste, he must stay unmarried, so that he can be reunited with her if she happens not to prefer being celibate. Otherwise, by refusing to be reunited with a wife who is chaste, he will drive her to commit adultery by marrying someone else while he is still alive because she is unable to stay celibate. If, on the other hand, he is divorced from a wife who committed adultery, he is no longer bound by any commandment to stay celibate, and he does not commit adultery at all if he marries someone else while that wife is still alive. You say this because you think those words of the same apostle, A woman is bound to her husband, as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she becomes free, and she may marry as she chooses (1
Cor 7:39), should be taken to mean that a husband or wife who has committed adultery should