# On Adulterous Marriages - Author: [Augustine of Hippo](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/augustine-of-hippo/) - Latin title: *De adulterinis coniugiis* - Date: ca. 419–421 (approximate) - Source: Joseph Zycha, ed., Sancti Aureli Augustini De bono coniugali... De coniugiis adulterinis..., CSEL 41 (Vienna: Tempsky; Leipzig: Freytag, 1900) (Latin text: Joseph Zycha, De adulterinis coniugiis (CSEL 41, 1900), digitized by Open Greek and Latin (csel-dev, University of Leipzig), CC BY-SA 4.0) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/ - Passages: 56 ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-1 - Source: CSEL 41:347–348 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine states Pollentius's view that 1 Cor 7:11 forbids remarriage only to a wife who left without cause, and shows that it would let spouses leave each other freely for the sake of continence. ### Latin text Prima quaestio est, frater dilectissime Pollenti, earum quas ad me scribens tamquam consulendo tractasti, quod ait apostolus: his autem qui sunt in coniugio praecipio, non ego. sed dominus, mulierem a uiro non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam aut uiro suo reconciliari; et uir uxorem ne dimittat, utrum ita sit accipiendum, ut eam prohibuisse nubere intellegatur, quae sine causa fornicationis discessit a uiro — id enim sentis an, sicut ego sensi in eis libris, quos ante plurimos annos de sermone euangelico scripsi, quem secundum Matthaeum habuit saluator in monte, illas innuptas manere praeceperit, quae a uiris suis ea causa recesserint, quae sola permissa est, id est fornicationis. uidetur enim tibi tunc a uiro discedentem feminam nubere non debere, si nulla uiri fornicatione conpulsa discesserit; nec adtendis, si nullam uir eius causam fornicationis habuerit, non eam discedentem manere innuptam, sed omnino discedere non debere. nam utique cui praecipitur, ut, si a uiro discesserit, innupta permaneat, non discedendi aufertur licentia, sed nubendi. quod si ita est, datur ergo licentia feminis, quae continentes esse uoluerint, nullum maritorum exspectare consensum, ut, quod dictum est: mulierem a uiro non discedere, eis praeceptum esse uideatur, quae possunt eligere non continentiam, sed tale diuortium quo liceret eis in aliorum nuptias conuenire. proinde quae dilexerint nullum desiderare concubitum, nullum ferre conubium, licebit eis uiros suos etiam sine ulla fornicationis causa relinquere et innuptas secundum apostolum permanere. et uiri similiter — quoniam par forma est in utrisque — si continentes esse uoluerint, etiam uxoribus non consentientibus deserent eas et sine ullis nuptiis permanebunt. tunc enim eis, ut putas, alia coniugia liceret inquirere, si fornicationis causa diuortium nasceretur. cum uero ista causa non est, superest secundum id, quod existimas, ut aut coniux non discedat a coniuge aut, si discesserit, sine coniugio maneat aut ad pristinum coniugium reuertatur. nulla ergo existente causa fornicationis cuilibet coniugi licebit unum de tribus eligere: aut non discedere a coniuge aut, si discesserit, sic manere aut, si non sic manserit, non alterum quaerere, sed priori se reddere. ### English translation (Claude) The first of the questions, dearest brother Pollentius, which you treated in writing to me as if consulting me, concerns what the apostle says: “To those who are married I command, not I but the Lord, that the wife not depart from her husband; but if she departs, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; and the husband is not to put away his wife.” Is this to be taken to mean that he forbade to marry the woman who departed from her husband without the cause of sexual immorality (for that is your view), or, as I understood it in the books I wrote many years ago on the Savior's sermon on the mount according to Matthew, that he commanded those women to remain unmarried who had withdrawn from their husbands for the one cause that is permitted, namely sexual immorality? For it seems to you that a woman who then departs from her husband ought not to marry if she departed without being driven by any sexual immorality of her husband; and you do not notice that, if her husband has given no cause of sexual immorality, she is not to depart and remain unmarried, but is not to depart at all. For certainly, when a woman is commanded to remain unmarried if she departs from her husband, it is not freedom to depart that is taken away, but freedom to marry. If this is so, then permission is given to women who wish to be continent not to wait for any consent of their husbands, so that the words “that the wife not depart from her husband” would seem to be a command to those who can choose, not continence, but the kind of divorce by which they would be allowed to enter into marriage with others. Accordingly, women who have come to love wanting no intercourse and bearing no marriage will be allowed to leave their husbands even without any cause of sexual immorality and, according to the apostle, remain unmarried. And husbands likewise (since the rule is equal for both), if they wish to be continent, will abandon their wives even without their wives' consent and remain without any marriage. For then, as you think, they would be allowed to seek other marriages if the divorce arose from the cause of sexual immorality. But when this cause is absent, it remains, according to what you suppose, that either a spouse does not depart from a spouse, or, if he departs, remains without marriage, or returns to the former marriage. So, where no cause of sexual immorality exists, any spouse will be allowed to choose one of three things: either not to depart from the spouse, or, having departed, to remain so, or, if he does not remain so, not to seek another but to return to the former. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:11: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: 1 Cor 7:10–11. Pollentius held that a woman who separates without the cause of sexual immorality may not remarry, implying that one who separates for that cause may. Augustine had written in On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount (1.14.39–1.16.50) that 1 Cor 7:11 applies to a wife who separates for sexual immorality, and he defends that reading here. “Sexual immorality” renders fornicatio throughout, as the Latin rendering of πορνεία in the exception clause. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.1 (CSEL 41:347–348; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-1). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-2 - Source: CSEL 41:348–350 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul's teaching on the marital debt forbids one spouse to leave the other for continence without consent, and the Lord permits putting away a wife only for sexual immorality. ### Latin text Et ubi est, quod idem apostolus nec ad tempus, ut uacetur orationi, nisi ex consensu uoluit coniuges carnali fraudare inuicem debito? quomodo saluum erit quod ait: propter fornicationes autem unusquisque uxorem suam habeat, et unaquaeque suum uirum habeat. uxori uir debitum reddat, similiter autem et uxor uiro. uxor non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed uir; similiter et uir non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed mulier? hoc quomodo uerum erit, nisi quia nolente coniuge non licet coniugi continere? nam si licet mulieri sic dimittere uirum, ut maneat innupta, non uir habet, sed ipsa sui corporis potestatem: quod etiam de uiro intellegitur. deinde cum dictum est: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam excepta causa fornicationis, facit eam moechari, quomodo dictum intellecturi sumus, nisi prohibitum esse homini dimittere uxorem, si nulla causa fornicationis extiterit? et dictum est quare, ne scilicet faciat eam moechari; utique ideo, quia, etiamsi non ipsa dimiserit, sed dimissa fuerit, erit moecha, si nupserit. Propter hoc ergo tam magnum malum non licet homini dimittere uxorem nisi ex causa fornicationis. tunc enim non ipse dimittendo facit adulteram, sed dimittit adulteram. quid? si ergo dicat: dimitto quidem uxorem meam sine ulla causa fornicationis, sed continens permanebo, ideone dicemus eum inpune fecisse quod fecit? quis hoc dicere audebit, qui uoluntatem domini haec dicentis intellegit? quoniam nec continentiae causa dimitti coniugem uoluit, qui solam causam fornicationis excepit. ### English translation (Claude) And where then is what the same apostle said, that spouses should not deprive each other of the carnal debt, not even for a time to be free for prayer, except by consent? How will his words remain intact: “But because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have power over her own body, but the husband; likewise the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife”? How will this be true, unless it is not permitted for a spouse to be continent against the other spouse's will? For if a woman may leave her husband in such a way as to remain unmarried, it is not her husband but she herself who has power over her body; and the same is understood of the husband. Then, when it is said, “Whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery,” how are we to understand it, unless a man is forbidden to put away his wife if no cause of sexual immorality has arisen? And it is said why: namely, so that he does not make her commit adultery; certainly because, even if she did not put him away but was put away, she will be an adulteress if she marries. Because of so great an evil, then, a man may not put away his wife except for the cause of sexual immorality. For then he does not make her an adulteress by putting her away, but puts away an adulteress. What then? If he says, “I am putting away my wife without any cause of sexual immorality, but I will remain continent,” shall we therefore say he did what he did with impunity? Who would dare to say this, who understands the will of the Lord who said these things? For he who excepted only the cause of sexual immorality did not want a spouse to be put away even for the sake of continence. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:5: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:2: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:3: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:4: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:5 (paraphrased), 7:2–4; Matt 5:32 (the exception clause). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.2 (CSEL 41:348–350; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-2). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-3 - Source: CSEL 41:350 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that Paul's “let her remain unmarried” must refer to a wife who separated lawfully, that is, because of her husband's sexual immorality. ### Latin text Redeamus igitur ad ipsa apostoli uerba dicentis: his autem, qui sunt in coniugio, praecipio, non ego, sed dominus, uxorem a uiro non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam, et eum uelut interrogemus et tamquam praesentem quodam modo consulamus: cur dixisti, apostole, quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam? licetne discedere an non licet? si non licet, cur praecipis discedenti, ut maneat innupta? si autem licet, profecto est aliqua causa, qua liceat. haec autem inquisita non inuenitur, nisi quam solam saluator excepit, id est causa fornicationis. ac per hoc non praecipit apostolus mulierem, si discesserit, manere innuptam, nisi quae illa causa discedit a uiro, qua sola ei discedere licitum est a uiro. ubi enim dicitur: praecipio non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam. absit, ut contra hoc praeceptum faciat, quae sic discedit, ut innupta permaneat. nisi ergo illa intellegatur, cui licet discedere — non autem licet nisi uiro fornicante — quomodo iubetur innupta, si discesserit, permanere? quis est, qui dicat: si discesserit mulier a uiro non fornicante, innupta permaneat, cum ei nisi a uiro fornicante discedere omnino non liceat? sensus itaque iste tuus quantum aduersetur uinculo coniugali, ubi dominus nec continentiam uoluit suscipi nisi pari concordia atque consensu, puto quod iam intellegas. ### English translation (Claude) Let us return, then, to the very words of the apostle, who says, “But to those who are married I command, not I but the Lord, that the wife not depart from her husband; but if she departs, she is to remain unmarried,” and let us, as it were, question him and in a way consult him as if he were present: “Why did you say, apostle, ‘but if she departs, she is to remain unmarried’? Is it permitted to depart or not? If it is not permitted, why do you command the woman who departs to remain unmarried? But if it is permitted, there is surely some cause for which it is permitted.” When this is sought, none is found except the one the Savior excepted, namely the cause of sexual immorality. And therefore the apostle does not command a woman to remain unmarried if she departs, except the one who departs from her husband for that cause for which alone she is permitted to depart from her husband. For where it is said, “I command her not to depart; but if she departs, she is to remain unmarried,” far be it that a woman who departs so as to remain unmarried acts against this command. Unless, then, it is understood of the woman who is permitted to depart (and she is permitted only if her husband commits sexual immorality), how is she ordered to remain unmarried if she departs? Who is there who would say, “If a woman departs from a husband who does not commit sexual immorality, let her remain unmarried,” when she is not permitted to depart at all except from a husband who commits sexual immorality? How much this view of yours is opposed to the conjugal bond, where the Lord did not want even continence to be undertaken except by equal harmony and consent, I think you now understand. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:11: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence - Matt 19:9: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: 1 Cor 7:10–11. The Savior's exception: Matt 5:32; 19:9. Augustine's reading is that separation is lawful only for sexual immorality, and remarriage is excluded even then. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.3 (CSEL 41:350; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-3). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-4 - Source: CSEL 41:350–351 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine imagines a wife who leaves her unwilling husband for continence and cites 1 Cor 7:11 in her defense, showing where Pollentius's reading leads. ### Latin text Sed rem ipsam paulo apertius proloquamur et quasi constituamus ante oculos. ecce placuit continentia mulieri, uiro non placet. discessit ab eo mulier et coepit uiuere continenter, ipsa scilicet casta mansura, sed factura, quod dominus non uult, adulterum uirum: qui cum se non continuerit, alteram quaeret. quid sumus dicturi mulieri, nisi quod dicit ecclesiae sana doctrina? redde debitum uiro, ne, dum tu quaeris unde amplius honoreris, ille unde damnetur inueniat. hoc enim et illi diceremus, si te nolente continere uoluisset. non enim habes potestatem corporis tui, sed ille; sicut nec ille habet potestatem corporis sui, sed tu. nolite inuicem fraudare nisi ex consensu. cum haec atque huius modi plura, quae ad hoc pertineant, dixerimus, placetne tibi, ut nobis mulier ex ista tua ratione respondeat: (ego apostolum audio dicentem: praecipio mulierem a uiro non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam aut uiro suo reconciliari? ecce discessi, nolo reconciliari uiro, sed innupta permaneo. non enim ait: si discesserit, manere innuptam, donec uiro suo reconcilietur, sed, manere, inquit, innuptam aut uiro suo reconciliari. hoc, inquit, faciat aut illud. unum e duobus eligendum permisit, non autem in horum alterum conpulit. manere innupta eligo ac sic praeceptum inpleo. corripe. argue, increpa, utere qua uolueris seueritate, si nupsero). ### English translation (Claude) But let us state the matter itself a little more plainly and, as it were, set it before our eyes. Suppose continence has pleased a wife but does not please her husband. The wife has departed from him and begun to live in continence, she herself intending, of course, to remain chaste, but going to make her husband, what the Lord does not want, an adulterer; for since he does not contain himself, he will look for another woman. What shall we say to the wife, except what the sound teaching of the church says? “Render the debt to your husband, lest, while you seek the means of greater honor, he find the means of damnation.” We would say this to him too, if he had wished to be continent against your will. “For you do not have power over your own body, but he does; just as he does not have power over his body, but you do. Do not deprive one another except by consent.” When we have said these and many similar things that bear on this, would you like the wife to answer us according to this reasoning of yours: “I hear the apostle saying, ‘I command that the wife not depart from her husband; but if she departs, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.’ See, I have departed; I do not want to be reconciled to my husband, but I remain unmarried. For he does not say, ‘If she departs, she is to remain unmarried until she is reconciled to her husband,’ but ‘she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.’ Let her do this, he says, or that. He allowed one of the two to be chosen, but did not compel either of them. I choose to remain unmarried, and so I fulfill the command. Reprove, rebuke, censure, use whatever severity you like, if I marry”? ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:4: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:5: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:11: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:4–5, 10–11. The wife's speech is set in round brackets in the digital text; they mark direct speech, not an editorial addition. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.4 (CSEL 41:350–351; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-4). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-5 - Source: CSEL 41:351–352 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers that Paul's words apply only to a wife who may lawfully depart, and that a wife whose husband is faithful may not depart at all. ### Latin text Quid huic contradicam nisi: apostolum non bene intellegis? neque enim ille praecepisset, si a uiro discesserit, innuptam manere mulierem, nisi eam, cui discedere licuisset, illa una uidelicet causa, quae ibi propterea tacita est, quia notissima est, hoc est fornicationis. hanc enim solam deus magister excepit, cum de dimittenda loqueretur uxore, deditque intellegi talem formam etiam a uiro esse seruandam, quoniam non solum mulier non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed uir; sed similiter et uir non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed mulier. cum ergo tuum maritum arguere de fornicatione non possis, quomodo te putas quod ab eo discedis non nubendo excusare, a quo tibi non licet omnino discedere? cum haec a nobis mulier audierit, puto, quod nolis eam sic respondere, ut dicat propterea se manere innuptam, quia sine ulla uiri fornicatione discessit; nam si ille fornicatus esset, non solum sibi discedere, uerum etiam nubere licuisset. ### English translation (Claude) What shall I say against her, except: “You do not understand the apostle rightly”? For he would not have commanded a wife, if she departs from her husband, to remain unmarried, unless she were one who had been permitted to depart, namely for that one cause which is left unspoken there because it is very well known, that is, sexual immorality. For God the teacher excepted this alone when he spoke of putting away a wife, and he gave it to be understood that the same rule is to be kept by the husband too, since not only does the wife not have power over her own body, but the husband, but likewise also the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife. Since, then, you cannot accuse your husband of sexual immorality, how do you think you excuse your departing from him by not marrying, when you are not permitted to depart from him at all? When the woman hears this from us, I think you would not want her to answer that she remains unmarried because she departed without any sexual immorality of her husband; for if he had committed sexual immorality, she would have been permitted not only to depart but also to marry. ### Scripture references - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:4: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Exception: Matt 5:32; 19:9. Quotation: 1 Cor 7:4. The last sentence states the consequence of Pollentius's view (that separation for sexual immorality would permit remarriage), which Augustine rejects. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.5 (CSEL 41:351–352; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-5). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-6 - Source: CSEL 41:352–353 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine quotes Pollentius's advice that a wife who dismisses an adulterous husband should not remarry because of scandal, and contrasts it with his own view that she may not remarry at all. ### Latin text Nequaquam hoc illa diceret, cum ipse sis uerecundatus istam mulieribus dare licentiam. dixisti enim: (si uir uxorem adulteram dimiserit et alteram duxerit, mulier tantum obprobrium habebit. si autem mulier supra dicta causa uirum dimiserit et alterum duxerit, non uir tantum, sed et mulier obprobrium habebit. cuius sententiae tuae rationem reddens, dicent enim, inquis, eam ideo discessisse, ut alium uirum sibi coniungeret, etsi talis forte fuerit qualis a quo discessit; facile enim uiris perquam est in hoc morbi uitium inruere. si autem et ipsum dimiserit et alii nupserit, magis magisque dicent eam numerositatem uirorum adpetisse. hac reddita ratione concludis et dicis: his ergo pertractatis uel etiam discussis oportet mulierem uirum tolerare aut innuptam manere. bonum plane dedisti consilium mulieribus, ut, cum sciant sibi esse permissum, si adulteros uiros dimiserint, aliis coniugari, non tamen faciant propter obprobrium, sed potius tolerent etiam adulteros uiros, ne uideantur hac occasione multis uelle misceri, eo quod difficile sit, ut non talem inueniat mulier cui nubat, qualis fuerit quem dimisit, quoniam ualde in hunc morbum sunt procliues uiri. cum igitur nos dicimus etiam illi mulieri, quae uirum fornicantem dimiserit, alteri nubere non licere, tu autem dicis licere quidem, sed non expedire, utrique procul dubio dicimus eam, quae fornicantem uirum dimittit, nubere non debere. uerum hoc interest, quod nos, quando coniuges ambo christiani sunt, mulieri, si a uiro fornicante discesserit, dicimus non licere alteri nubere, a uiro autem non fornicante non licere omnino discedere; tu uero dicis, si mulier a uiro non fornicante discesserit, non ei licere alteri nubere propter praeceptum; si autem a fornicante discesserit, non ei expedire nubere propter obprobrium. mulierem itaque non nupturam discedere a uiro siue fornicante siue non fornicante permitti. ### English translation (Claude) She would by no means say this, since you yourself were ashamed to give this freedom to women. For you said: “If a husband puts away an adulterous wife and marries another, only the woman will bear the reproach. But if a woman puts away her husband for the aforesaid cause and takes another, not only the husband but also the woman will bear reproach.” And giving the reason for this view of yours, you say: “For people will say that she departed in order to join herself to another husband, even if he should perhaps be like the one from whom she departed; for it is very easy for men to fall into the vice of this disease. And if she puts him away too and marries another, they will say all the more that she has sought a multitude of husbands.” Having given this reason, you conclude and say: “These things having been treated or even discussed, the wife ought to bear with her husband or remain unmarried.” You have certainly given good advice to women: that, although they know they are permitted to marry others if they put away adulterous husbands, they should not do so because of reproach, but should rather bear with even adulterous husbands, lest they seem to want to be joined to many on this occasion; because it is hard for a woman not to find a man to marry like the one she put away, since men are very prone to this disease. When, therefore, we say that even the woman who has put away a husband who commits sexual immorality is not permitted to marry another, and you say that she is permitted but that it is not expedient, we both undoubtedly say that she who puts away a husband who commits sexual immorality ought not to marry. But there is this difference: we say that, when both spouses are Christians, a woman who has departed from a husband who commits sexual immorality is not permitted to marry another, and that she is not permitted to depart at all from a husband who does not commit sexual immorality; whereas you say that, if a woman has departed from a husband who does not commit sexual immorality, she is not permitted to marry another because of the command, and if she has departed from one who does, it is not expedient for her to marry because of the reproach. And so a woman who will not marry is permitted, on your view, to depart from her husband whether he commits sexual immorality or not. ### Translation notes - The passages in quotation marks are Augustine's quotations of Pollentius's letter (round brackets in the digital text). Augustine limits his ruling to marriages in which “both spouses are Christians.” ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.6 (CSEL 41:352–353; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-6). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-7 - Source: CSEL 41:353–355 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul's condition “let her remain unmarried” applies to the wife who separates lawfully from an unfaithful husband; any other reading would let continent spouses break up Christian marriages. ### Latin text Porro beatus apostolus, immo per apostolum dominus quia mulierem non permittit a uiro non fornicante discedere restat, ut eam prohibeat, si discesserit, nubere, quam permittit a fornicante discedere. de qua enim dicitur: si a uiro discesserit, non nubat, ea condicione discedere permittitur, ut non nubat. si ergo elegerit non nubere, non est, cur prohibeatur discedere, sicut illa, de qua dicitur: si se non continet, nubat, hac utique condicione non continere permittitur, ut tamen nubat. si ergo elegerit nubere, cogi non potest continere. sicut ergo ista incontinens conpellitur nubere, ut possit quod non continet non esse damnabile, sic a uiro illa discedens innupta conpellitur permanere, ut possit quod discedit non esse culpabile. culpabiliter autem a uiro non fornicante discedit, etiamsi innupta permanserit. illa ergo manere innupta praecipitur, si discesserit, quae a fornicante discedit. quae cum ita se habeant, si eo modo intellexerimus apostolum, ut mulieribus dicamus: ita nolite discedere a uiris uestris etiam pudicis, ut, si discedere uolueritis, innuptae maneatis, omnes, quibus placuerit continentia, etiam non consentientibus uiris existimabunt sibi licere discedere. quod procul dubio quia permittere non debemus, restat, ut quod dictum est: si discesserit, manere innuptam, de illa dictum docere debeamus, cui licere discedere utique a fornicante didicimus, ne, si aliter docuerimus, obtentu continentiae perturbemus christiana coniugia et contra misericordissimum domini praeceptum dimissos a continentibus mulieribus incontinentes uiros uel a continentibus uiris incontinentes mulieres in adulteria conpellamus. ### English translation (Claude) Moreover, since the blessed apostle, or rather the Lord through the apostle, does not permit a wife to depart from a husband who does not commit sexual immorality, it remains that he forbids to marry, if she departs, the one whom he permits to depart from a husband who does. For the woman of whom it is said, “If she departs from her husband, let her not marry,” is permitted to depart on this condition, that she not marry. If, then, she chooses not to marry, there is no reason why she should be forbidden to depart; just as the one of whom it is said, “If she does not contain herself, let her marry,” is certainly permitted not to be continent on this condition, that she marry. If, then, she chooses to marry, she cannot be forced to be continent. Just as, therefore, the incontinent woman is compelled to marry, so that her not being continent may not be damnable, so the woman who departs from her husband is compelled to remain unmarried, so that her departing may not be blameworthy. But she departs blamably from a husband who does not commit sexual immorality, even if she remains unmarried. So the woman commanded to remain unmarried, if she departs, is the one who departs from a husband who commits sexual immorality. Since this is so, if we understand the apostle in such a way as to say to women, “Do not leave your husbands, even chaste ones, except on condition that, if you wish to leave, you remain unmarried,” all women who are attracted by continence will think they are permitted to depart even when their husbands do not consent. Since we certainly must not allow this, it remains that we must teach that the words “if she departs, she is to remain unmarried” were said of the woman who, as we have learned, is permitted to depart, namely from a husband who commits sexual immorality; lest, if we teach otherwise, we disturb Christian marriages under the pretext of continence, and, against the Lord's most merciful command, drive into adultery incontinent husbands put away by continent wives, or incontinent wives put away by continent husbands. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:11: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:9: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:11, 9. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.7 (CSEL 41:353–355; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-7). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-8 - Source: CSEL 41:355 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If Matt 19:9 allowed a husband who dismisses an unfaithful wife to remarry, husband and wife would be under unequal rules, contrary to 1 Cor 7:4. ### Latin text Illud ergo, quod dominus non quidem in sermone ipso, qui exponebatur a nobis, sed tamen alibi ait: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ex causa fornicationis et aliam duxerit, moechatur, si hoc modo intellegendum est, ut quicumque causa fornicationis dimiserit et aliam duxerit, non moechetur, non uidetur in hac causa par forma esse mariti et uxoris, quandoquidem mulier, etiamsi causa fornicationis discesserit a uiro et alii nupserit, moechatur, uir autem, si eadem causa uxorem dimiserit et aliam duxerit, non moechatur. at si par forma est in utroque, uterque moechatur, si se alteri iunxerit, etiam cum se a fornicante disiunxerit. parem uero esse formam in hac causa uiri atque mulieris, ibi ostendit apostolus — quod saepe commemorandum est — ubi, cum dixisset: uxor non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed uir, adiecit atque ait: similiter et uir non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed mulier. ### English translation (Claude) As for what the Lord said, not indeed in the sermon itself that I was expounding, but elsewhere, “Whoever puts away his wife except for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery”: if it is to be understood in such a way that whoever puts her away for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another does not commit adultery, then in this matter the rule does not seem to be equal for husband and wife; since a wife, even if she departs from her husband for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another, commits adultery, but a husband, if he puts away his wife for the same cause and marries another, does not commit adultery. But if the rule is equal for both, both commit adultery if they join themselves to another, even when they have separated from a spouse who committed sexual immorality. That the rule is equal for husband and wife in this matter the apostle shows (as must often be recalled) where, having said, “The wife does not have power over her own body, but the husband,” he added, “likewise also the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife.” ### Scripture references - Matt 19:9: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 7:4: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: Matt 19:9 (the exception clause, Latin “nisi ex causa fornicationis”); 1 Cor 7:4. Augustine holds that a woman who remarries after separating even for sexual immorality commits adultery, and argues from the equality of spouses that the same holds for the husband. Many interpreters, ancient and modern, read Matt 19:9 as permitting the innocent husband to remarry; Augustine rejects that reading here. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.8 (CSEL 41:355; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-8). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-9 - Source: CSEL 41:355–357 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains the exception clause as naming the graver case: remarriage after dismissing an innocent wife is worse adultery, but remarriage after dismissing an unfaithful one is still adultery. ### Latin text Cur ergo, inquis, interposuit dominus causam fornicationis et non potius generaliter ait: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, moechatur, si et ille moechus est, qui dimissa fornicante muliere alteram ducit? credo, quia illud quod maius est, hoc dominus commendare uoluit. maius enim adulterium esse quis negat uxore non fornicante dimissa alteram ducere, quam si fornicantem quisque dimiserit et tunc alteram duxerit? non quia illud adulterium non est, sed quia minus est, ubi fornicante dimissa altera ducitur. nam simili locutione usus etiam apostolus Iacobus ait: scienti igitur bonum facere et non facienti peccatum est illi. numquid ideo non peccatum est etiam illi, qui nescit bonum facere et ideo non facit? utique peccatum est; sed hoc grauius, si etiam sciat et non faciat, nec illud ideo nullum, quia minus. ut ergo eodem modo utrumque dicamus: sicut quicumque dimiserit uxorem excepta causa fornicationis et aliam duxerit, moechatur, ita quicumque scit bonum facere et non facit, peccat. sed quemadmodum hic recte dici non potest: ergo si nescit, non peccat — sunt enim etiam peccata ignorantium, quamuis minora quam scientium — ita nec illic recte dici potest: ergo si causa fornicationis dimiserit et aliam duxerit, non moechatur; est enim moechatio etiam eorum, qui alias ducunt relictis propter fornicationem prioribus, sed utique minor quam eorum, qui non propter fornicationem dimittunt et alteras ducunt. potest quippe, sicut dictum est: scienti bonum facere et non facienti peccatum est illi, eodem modo et illud dici: dimittenti uxorem sine causa fornicationis et aliam ducenti moechatio est illi. quemadmodum igitur si dixerimus: quicumque mulierem a marito praeter causam fornicationis dimissam duxerit, moechatur, procul dubio uerum dicimus nec tamen ideo illum, qui propter causam fornicationis dimissam duxerit, ab hoc crimine absoluimus, sed utrosque moechos esse minime dubitamus: ita eum, qui praeter causam fornicationis uxorem dimiserit et aliam duxerit, moechum pronuntiamus nec ideo tamen eum, qui propter causam fornicationis dimiserit et alteram duxerit, ab huius peccati labe defendimus. ambos enim, licet alterum altero grauius, moechos tamen esse cognoscimus. neque enim quisquam ita est absurdus, ut moechum neget esse qui duxerit eam, quam maritus propter causam fornicationis abiecit, cum moechum dicat eum, qui duxerit eam, quae praeter causam fornicationis abiecta est. sicut ergo isti ambo sunt moechi — unde, cum dicimus: quicumque mulierem praeter causam fornicationis a uiro dimissam duxerit, moechatur, de uno quidem ipsorum dicimus nec tamen ideo moechari negamus eum, qui eam duxerit, quam propter causam fornicationis maritus dimiserit — ita, cum ambo sint moechi, et ille scilicet, qui dimiserit uxorem suam praeter causam fornicationis et aliam duxerit, et ille, qui propter causam fornicationis uxore dimissa se alteri copulauerit, profecto quando de uno eorum legimus, non ita intellegere debemus, quasi ex hoc alter moechus negatus sit, quod alter expressus sit. ### English translation (Claude) “Why, then,” you say, “did the Lord insert the cause of sexual immorality and not rather say generally, ‘Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery,’ if he too is an adulterer who puts away a wife who has committed sexual immorality and marries another?” I believe it is because the Lord wanted to stress what is greater. For who denies that it is a greater adultery to put away a wife who has not committed sexual immorality and marry another than if someone puts away one who has and then marries another? Not because the latter is not adultery, but because it is less, when another is married after one who has committed sexual immorality has been put away. For the apostle James too used a similar expression when he said, “To one who knows how to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Is it therefore not sin also to one who does not know how to do good and so does not do it? Certainly it is sin; but this is more serious, if one both knows and does not do it; nor is the other nothing because it is less. So let us say both in the same way: just as whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, so whoever knows how to do good and does not do it sins. But just as here it cannot rightly be said, “So if he does not know, he does not sin” (for there are also sins of the ignorant, though lesser than those of people who know), so neither can it rightly be said there, “So if he puts her away for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another, he does not commit adultery.” For there is also adultery of those who marry others after leaving their former wives because of sexual immorality, though certainly less than that of those who put away their wives not for sexual immorality and marry others. For just as it was said, “To one who knows how to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin,” so it could be said in the same way, “To one who puts away his wife without the cause of sexual immorality and marries another, to him it is adultery.” Just as, then, if we say, “Whoever marries a woman put away by her husband apart from the cause of sexual immorality commits adultery,” we undoubtedly speak the truth, and yet we do not thereby acquit of this crime the one who marries a woman put away for the cause of sexual immorality, but have no doubt at all that both are adulterers; so we declare an adulterer the one who puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality and marries another, and yet we do not thereby defend from the stain of this sin the one who puts her away for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another. For we recognize that both are adulterers, though one more grievously than the other. Nor is anyone so absurd as to deny that the man who marries a woman whom her husband cast off for the cause of sexual immorality is an adulterer, while calling the man who marries a woman cast off apart from that cause an adulterer. Just as, then, both of these are adulterers (so that when we say, “Whoever marries a woman put away by her husband apart from the cause of sexual immorality commits adultery,” we speak of one of them, and yet we do not therefore deny that the one commits adultery who marries a woman whom her husband put away for the cause of sexual immorality), so, since both are adulterers, both the one who puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality and marries another, and the one who, having put away his wife for the cause of sexual immorality, joins himself to another, surely when we read of one of them we should not understand it as if the other were declared not to be an adulterer because the one was expressly mentioned. ### Scripture references - Matt 19:9: quotation, high confidence - Jas 4:17: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence - Luke 16:18: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Matt 19:9; Jas 4:17. Augustine's reading of the exception clause (it marks the greater of two adulteries, not a permission) is his own and is disputed by those who take the clause to permit the innocent party to remarry. The digital text has a stray mark (■) before a dash in this section; it does not affect the reading. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.9 (CSEL 41:355–357; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-9). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-10 - Source: CSEL 41:357–358 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mark and Luke state without exception that everyone who dismisses his wife and marries another commits adultery, so Matthew must be read in harmony with them. ### Latin text Sed si hoc euangelista Matthaeus, quia expressa una specie alteram tacuit, fecit ad intellegendum difficile, numquid non alii generaliter id ipsum ita complexi sunt, ut de utroque possit intellegi? nam secundum Marcum sic scriptum est: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam et alteram duxerit, adulterium committit super eam; et si uxor dimiserit uirum suum et alii nupserit, moechatur; secundum Lucam sic: omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, moechatur; et qui dimissam a uiro ducit, moechatur. qui ergo nos sumus, ut dicamus: est, qui moechatur uxore sua dimissa alteram ducens, et est, qui hoc faciens non moechatur, cum euangelium dicat omnem moechari qui hoc facit? proinde si quicumque hoc fecerit, id est omnis, qui hoc fecerit, ut uxore sua dimissa alteram ducat, moechatur, sine dubitatione ibi sunt ambo, et qui praeter causam fornicationis et qui propter causam fornicationis dimittit uxorem; hoc est enim: quicumque dimiserit, hoc est: omnis qui dimittit. ### English translation (Claude) But if the evangelist Matthew made this hard to understand because, having expressed one case, he was silent about the other, have not the others embraced the same thing so generally that it can be understood of both? For according to Mark it is written thus: “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”; according to Luke thus: “Everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman put away by her husband commits adultery.” Who are we, then, to say, “There is one who commits adultery by putting away his wife and marrying another, and there is one who does this and does not commit adultery,” when the gospel says that everyone who does this commits adultery? Accordingly, if whoever does this, that is, everyone who does this, putting away his wife and marrying another, commits adultery, then without doubt both are included there, the one who puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality and the one who puts her away for that cause. For this is what “whoever puts away” means; this is what “everyone who puts away” means. ### Scripture references - Mark 10:11: quotation, high confidence - Mark 10:12: quotation, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 19:9: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18. Augustine resolves the difference between Matthew's exception clause and the unqualified sayings in Mark and Luke by reading Matthew through them. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.10 (CSEL 41:357–358; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-10). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-11 - Source: CSEL 41:358–359 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains that he quoted Matt 5:32 from the Sermon on the Mount, notes the variant Latin renderings, and observes that some manuscripts lack its final clause. ### Latin text Non autem — sicut nescio quare tibi uisum est — cum euangelii secundum Matthaeum uerba proferrem, praetermisi quod scriptum est: et aliam duxerit, et sic dixi: moechatur; sed haec uerba posui, quae in sermone illo prolixo leguntur, quem dominus habuit in monte; hunc enim tractandum susceperam. quae uerba illic ita leguntur, ut posui, id est: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam excepta causa fornicationis, facit eam moechari; et qui solutam a uiro duxerit, moechatur. ubi etsi nonnulla exemplaria uerbis diuersis eundem sensum habent interpretatum, non tamen ab eo quod intellegitur discrepant. alia quippe habent: quicumque dimiserit, alia: omnis qui dimiserit; itemque alia: excepta causa fornicationis, alia: praeter causam fornicationis, alia: nisi ob causam fornicationis; item alia: qui solutam a uiro duxerit, moechatur, alia: qui dimissam a uiro duxerit, moechatur. ubi puto quod uideas nihil interesse ad unam eandemque sententiam. quamuis illud ultimum, id est qui dimissam a uiro duxerit, moechatur, in eo sermone, quem dominus fecit in monte, nonnulli codices et graeci et latini non habeant. credo propterea, quia et ibi explicatus hic sensus putari potuit, quod superius dictum est: facit eam moechari; quomodo enim dimissa fit moecha, nisi fiat qui eam duxerit moechus? ### English translation (Claude) Nor did I (for some reason you thought so), when I quoted the words of the gospel according to Matthew, leave out what is written, “and marries another,” and so say, “commits adultery”; rather, I set down the words that are read in that long sermon which the Lord gave on the mountain, for that was what I had undertaken to treat. These words are read there as I set them down, namely: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and he who marries her when released from her husband commits adultery.” Although some copies there have rendered the same sense in different words, they do not differ in what is understood. For some have “whoever puts away,” others “everyone who puts away”; again some “except for the cause of sexual immorality,” others “apart from the cause of sexual immorality,” others “unless on account of the cause of sexual immorality”; again some “he who marries her when released from her husband commits adultery,” others “he who marries her when put away by her husband commits adultery.” I think you see that this makes no difference to one and the same meaning. However, some manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, do not have that last clause, that is, “he who marries her when put away by her husband commits adultery,” in the sermon the Lord gave on the mountain. I believe this is because this meaning could be thought to be made plain there by what was said above, “makes her commit adultery”; for how does a woman who has been put away become an adulteress unless the man who marries her becomes an adulterer? ### Scripture references - Matt 5:32: quotation, high confidence - Matt 19:9: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: Matt 5:32, with the variant Old Latin renderings of παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (“excepta causa fornicationis”, “praeter causam fornicationis”, “nisi ob causam fornicationis”). The last clause of Matt 5:32 is in fact lacking in some witnesses (e.g. Codex Bezae and some Old Latin copies). Augustine's earlier work is On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.11 (CSEL 41:358–359; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-11). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-12 - Source: CSEL 41:359–361 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The exception clause of Matt 19:9, spoken to the Pharisees, must be read in the light of Mark and Luke: everyone who dismisses his wife and remarries commits adultery. ### Latin text Verba uero, quae ipse posuisti, unde tibi uisum est non moechari eum, qui propter causam fornicationis uxorem dimiserit et aliam duxerit, obscure quidem posita sunt. unde non miror in eis intellegendis laborare lectorem; sed non sunt in eo sermone domini, qui tunc a me tractabatur, quando illa conscripsi, quae cum legeres te mouerunt. alibi quippe idem Matthaeus ea dominum dixisse narrauit, non cum illum prolixum faceret in monte sermonem, sed cum interrogatus esset a pharisaeis, utrum liceret ex quacumque causa dimittere uxorem. sed quod minus intellegitur apud Matthaeum, apud alios euangelistas intellegi potest. quapropter cum legerimus in euangelio secundum Matthaeum: quicumque dimiserit uxorem nisi ob fornicationem, aut, quod magis in graeco legitur, praeter causam fornicationis et aliam duxerit, moechatur, non debemus continuo putare illum non moechari, qui propter causam fornicationis dimiserit et aliam duxerit, sed adhuc ambigere, donec euangelium secundum alios euangelistas, a quibus hoc narratum est, consulamus. quid? si enim secundum Matthaeum non quidem quod ad hanc rem pertinet dictum est totum, sed ita pars dicta est, ut intellegeretur a parte totum, quod tamquam explanantes Marcus et Lucas, ut clareret plena sententia, totum dicere maluerunt? cum itaque primum non dubitantes uerum esse, quod apud Matthaeum legitur: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam praeter causam fornicationis et aliam duxerit, moechatur, quaesierimus, utrum tantum iste moechetur ducendo alteram uxorem, qui praeter causam fornicationis priorem dimiserit, an omnis, qui dimissa uxore alteram duxerit, ut ibi sit etiam ille qui fornicantem dimiserit, nonne secundum Marcum respondebitur nobis: quid quaeritis, utrum ille sit moechus et ille non sit? quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit. nonne etiam secundum Lucam dicetur nobis: quid ambigitis, utrum ille, qui propter causam fornicationis uxorem dimiserit et aliam duxerit, non moechetur? omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram moechatur. ac per hoc, quoniam fas non est, ut euangelistas quamuis diuersis uerbis de una re loquentes ab uno sensu eademque sententia dissentire dicamus, restat, ut Matthaeum intellegamus a parte totum significare uoluisse, eandem tamen tenuisse sententiam, ut dimittens uxorem et alteram ducens non quidam moechetur, id est qui praeter fornicationem dimiserit, quidam uero non moechetur, id est qui propter fornicationem dimiserit, sed omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, moechari minime dubitetur. ### English translation (Claude) The words that you yourself set down, from which it seemed to you that the one who puts away his wife for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another does not commit adultery, are indeed put obscurely. So I am not surprised that the reader struggles to understand them; but they are not in that sermon of the Lord which I was then treating when I wrote the things that troubled you when you read them. For the same Matthew relates elsewhere that the Lord said them, not when he gave that long sermon on the mountain, but when he was asked by the Pharisees whether it was lawful to put away a wife for any cause whatever. But what is less understood in Matthew can be understood in the other evangelists. Therefore, when we read in the gospel according to Matthew, “Whoever puts away his wife except for sexual immorality” (or, as is rather read in the Greek, “apart from the cause of sexual immorality”) “and marries another commits adultery,” we should not at once suppose that the one who puts her away for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another does not commit adultery, but should still be in doubt until we consult the gospel according to the other evangelists by whom this is related. For what if, in Matthew, not everything relating to this matter was said, but a part was said in such a way that the whole might be understood from the part, and Mark and Luke, as if explaining it, preferred to say the whole so that the full meaning might be clear? So, when, first of all not doubting that what is read in Matthew is true, “Whoever puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery,” we have asked whether only he commits adultery by marrying another wife who put away the first apart from the cause of sexual immorality, or everyone who puts away his wife and marries another, so that the one who puts away a wife who commits sexual immorality is also included there, will it not be answered us according to Mark: “Why do you ask whether this one is an adulterer and that one is not? Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery”? Will it not also be said to us according to Luke: “Why are you in doubt whether the one who puts away his wife for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another does not commit adultery? Everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery”? And so, since it is not right to say that the evangelists, speaking of one thing in different words, disagree in meaning and judgment, it remains for us to understand that Matthew wished to signify the whole by a part, yet held the same judgment: not that of those who put away a wife and marry another some commit adultery (those who put her away apart from sexual immorality) and some do not (those who put her away for sexual immorality), but that there should be no doubt at all that everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. ### Scripture references - Matt 19:3: allusion, high confidence - Matt 19:9: quotation, high confidence - Mark 10:11: quotation, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Matt 19:3, 9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18. Augustine notes that the Greek of Matt 19:9 reads more like “apart from the cause of sexual immorality.” His harmonizing reading, that Matthew states a part for the whole, is his own solution and is not shared by all interpreters. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.12 (CSEL 41:359–361; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-12). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-13 - Source: CSEL 41:361 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Since Luke calls the man who marries a dismissed woman an adulterer, she remains her first husband's wife, and so the husband who dismissed her also commits adultery if he remarries. ### Latin text Nam et illud, quod etiam secundum Lucam sequitur: qui dimissam a uiro ducit, moechatur, quomodo est uerum? quomodo moechatur, nisi quia illa, quam duxit, eo uiuente, a quo dimissa est, adhuc uxor aliena est? si enim iam suae, non alienae miscetur uxori, utique non moechatur; moechatur autem. aliena est ergo cui miscetur. porro si aliena est, hoc est eius, a quo dimissa est, etiamsi propter fornicationis causam dimissa est, nondum dimittentis uxor esse cessauit. si autem illius esse cessauit, iam huius est, cui alteri nupsit; et si huius est, non moechus iudicandus est, sed maritus. sed quia non eum maritum dicit scriptura, sed moechum, adhuc illa illius erit, a quo etiam causa fornicationis abiecta est. et ideo quamcumque etiam ipse illa dimissa ducit uxorem, quia cum alieno marito concumbit, adultera est. unde autem fieri potest, ut adulter etiam ipse non sit, quem constat adulterare quam duxit?. ### English translation (Claude) For how is what follows in Luke also true: “He who marries a woman put away by her husband commits adultery”? How does he commit adultery, unless because the woman he married is still another man's wife while the one who put her away is alive? For if he is having relations with his own wife, not another's, he certainly does not commit adultery; but he does commit adultery. So she with whom he has relations belongs to another. Moreover, if she belongs to another, that is, to the one who put her away, then even if she was put away for the cause of sexual immorality, she has not yet ceased to be the wife of the one who put her away. But if she has ceased to be his, she is now the wife of this other man whom she married; and if she is his, he is to be judged not an adulterer but a husband. But since Scripture calls him not a husband but an adulterer, she will still be the wife of the one by whom she was cast off, even for the cause of sexual immorality. And therefore whatever woman he himself marries after putting her away is an adulteress, because she lies with another woman's husband. And how can it be that he himself is not an adulterer, when it is clear that he commits adultery with the woman he has married? ### Scripture references - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: Luke 16:18b. Augustine's argument: if the dismissed wife is still her husband's wife, the bond binds him too, even if he dismissed her for sexual immorality. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.13 (CSEL 41:361; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-13). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-14 - Source: CSEL 41:361–362 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul's instruction not to leave an unbelieving spouse is his own advice, not the Lord's command; separation is permitted but not expedient, since the spouse may be won for Christ. ### Latin text Iam nunc illud uideamus, quod ait apostolus: ceteris autem ego dico, non dominus, ad inparia scilicet, hoc est, ubi non ambo christiani fuerant, coniugia locuturus. quod mihi uisum est eum monendo dixisse. quia enim coniux fidelis relinquere coniugem licite potuit infidelem, ideo fieri hoc non dominus, sed apostolus prohibet. quod enim dominus prohibet, fieri omnino non licet. monet ergo apostolus, quod possit esse multorum occasio lucrandorum, ut fideles coniuges in relinquendis infidelibus permissa licentia non utantur. tibi autem uidetur infideles quoque dimitti a fidelibus non licere, quia hoc uetat apostolus, cum ego dicam licere, quia hoc non uetat, non tamen expedire, quia hoc ne fiat, monet apostolus: qui reddit etiam rationem cur fieri non expediat, quamuis liceat. quid enim scis, inquit, mulier, si uirum saluum facies? aut unde scis, uir, si uxorem saluam facies? cum etiam superius dixisset: sanctificatus est enim uir infidelis in uxore, et sanctificata est mulier infidelis in fratre, hoc est in christiano, alioquin filii uestri, inquit, inmundi essent; nunc autem sancti sunt. sic ad lucrandos coniuges et filios Christo etiam exemplis, quae iam prouenerant, uidetur hortatus. cur ergo non expediat etiam infideles coniuges dimitti a fidelibus, causa euidenter expressa est. non enim propter uinculum cum talibus coniugale seruandum, sed ut adquirantur in Christo, recedi ab infidelibus coniugibus apostolus uetat. ### English translation (Claude) Now let us look at what the apostle says: “But to the rest I say, not the Lord,” about to speak, of course, of mixed marriages, that is, where the two had not both been Christians. It seemed to me that he said this by way of advice. For since a believing spouse could lawfully leave an unbelieving spouse, it is not the Lord but the apostle who forbids this to be done. For what the Lord forbids is not permitted to be done at all. The apostle therefore advises, because it could be an occasion of winning many, that believing spouses should not use the freedom granted them to leave unbelievers. But it seems to you that it is not permitted for unbelievers either to be put away by believers, because the apostle forbids it; whereas I say it is permitted, because the Lord does not forbid it, but that it is not expedient, because the apostle advises that it not be done. And he gives the reason why it is not expedient to do it, although it is permitted: “For how do you know, wife,” he says, “whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” Having said above, too, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother” (that is, in the Christian), “otherwise,” he says, “your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” So he seems to have urged them to win their spouses and children for Christ even by examples that had already occurred. Why, then, it is not expedient for even unbelieving spouses to be put away by believers is clearly stated as the reason. For the apostle forbids withdrawing from unbelieving spouses, not in order to keep the conjugal bond with such people, but so that they may be won in Christ. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:16: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:14: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:12, 14, 16. This is Augustine's distinctive reading of 1 Cor 7:12–16: in a mixed marriage the believer may lawfully separate, because unbelief is a “fornication of the mind” (see §1.19), but Paul advises against it. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.14 (CSEL 41:361–362; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-14). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-15 - Source: CSEL 41:362–364 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Many good acts are done not from command but from free charity, as Christ paid the tax and Paul gave up his rights; some lawful things are not expedient. ### Latin text Multa sunt autem facienda non iubente lege, sed libera caritate; et ea sunt in nostris officiis gratiora, quae cum liceret nobis etiam non inpendere, tamen causa dilectionis inpendimus. unde prior ipse dominus, cum se tributum non debere monstrasset, soluit tamen, ne scandalizaret eos, quibus ad aeternam salutem gerens hominem consulebat. iam uero apostolus quemadmodum ista commendet, eius uerba testantur, ubi dicit: cum enim liber sim ex omnibus, omnium me seruum feci, ut plures lucrifacerem, cum paulo superius dixisset: numquid non habemus licentiam manducandi et bibendi? numquid non habemus licentiam sororem mulierem circumducendi, sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres domini et Caephas? an ego solus et Barnabas non habemus potestatem hoc operandi? quis militat suis stipendiis umquam? quis plantat uineam et de fructu eius non edit? quis pascit gregem et de lacte gregis non percipit? et paulo post, si alii, inquit, potestatis uestrae participant, non magis nos? sed non sumus usi hac potestate, sed omnia toleramus, ne quod inpedimentum demus euangelio Christi. deinde post pauca, quae ergo, inquit, mihi merces erit? ut euangelizans sine sumptu ponam euangelium, ut non abutar potestate mea in euangelio. continuoque subiungit quod paulo ante commemoraui: cum enim liber sim ex omnibus, omnium me seruum feci, ut plures lucrifacerem. item alio loco de quibusdam quae ad escam pertinent, omnia, inquit, mihi licita sunt, sed non omnia expediunt; omnia mihi licita sunt, sed ego sub nullius redigar potestate. esca uentri et uenter escis, deus autem et hunc et has euacuabit. item alibi de hoc ipso: omnia licita sunt, sed non omnia expediunt; omnia licita sunt, sed non omnia aedificant. nemo quod suum est quaerat, sed id quod alterius est. atque ut ostenderet unde loqueretur, omne, inquit, quod in macello uenit, manducate, nihil interrogantes propter conscientiam. et tamen alibi dicit: non manducabo carnem in aeternum, ut non fratrem meum scandalizem, itemque alibi: omnia quidem munda, sed malum est homini qui per offensionem manducat. quod est omnia licita sunt, ipsum est omnia quidem munda; et quod est sed non omnia expediunt, ipsum est sed malum est homini qui per offensionem manducat. ita ostendit ea quae licita sunt, id est nullo praecepto domini prohibentur, sicut expedit, potius esse tractanda non praescripto legis, sed consilio caritatis. haec sunt, quae amplius erogantur saucio, qui curandus ad stabulum Samaritani illius miseratione perductus est. et ideo dicuntur non a domino praecipi, quamuis domino moneantur offerri, ut tanto intellegantur esse gratiora, quanto magis ostenduntur indebita. ### English translation (Claude) Many things are to be done, not because the law commands them, but from free charity; and those services of ours are more pleasing which, though we could have left them undone, we nevertheless perform for love's sake. So the Lord himself first, when he had shown that he did not owe the tax, still paid it, so as not to scandalize those whose eternal salvation he was caring for, as he bore our humanity. And how the apostle commends such things his words testify, where he says, “For though I am free from all, I have made myself the servant of all, that I might win the more,” having said a little earlier, “Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a sister as a wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have the right to do this? Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not get of the milk of the flock?” And a little later: “If others share in this right over you, do not we still more? But we have not used this right, but we endure all things, lest we put any obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.” Then, after a little: “What then will my reward be? That in preaching the gospel I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to abuse my right in the gospel.” And he at once adds what I mentioned a little before: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself the servant of all, that I might win the more.” Likewise in another place, concerning certain matters of food: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient; all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of anything. Food is for the belly and the belly for food, but God will destroy both the one and the other.” Likewise elsewhere on this very matter: “All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient; all things are lawful, but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but that of another.” And to show what he was speaking about, he says, “Eat whatever is sold in the market, asking no questions for conscience' sake.” And yet elsewhere he says, “I will never eat meat, lest I scandalize my brother,” and likewise elsewhere, “All things indeed are clean, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.” What “all things are lawful” means is the same as “all things indeed are clean”; and what “but not all things are expedient” means is the same as “but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.” So he shows that the things which are lawful, that is, are forbidden by no command of the Lord, are to be handled as is expedient, not by the prescription of law but by the counsel of charity. These are the things spent over and above on the wounded man who, by the mercy of that Samaritan, was brought to the inn to be cared for. And therefore they are said not to be commanded by the Lord, although they are advised to be offered to the Lord, so that they may be understood to be the more pleasing the more they are shown to be not owed. ### Scripture references - Matt 17:27: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 9:19: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 9:4: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 9:5: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 9:6: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 9:7: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 9:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 9:18: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:13: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:23: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:24: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:25: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 8:13: quotation, high confidence - Rom 14:20: quotation, high confidence - Luke 10:35: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The temple tax: Matt 17:24–27. Quotations: 1 Cor 9:19, 4–7, 12, 18; 6:12–13; 10:23–25; 8:13; Rom 14:20. The Samaritan's extra payment: Luke 10:34–35. The digital text's quotation marks are garbled here (“>”, “(”, and backslashes); they have been removed. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.15 (CSEL 41:362–364; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-15). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-16 - Source: CSEL 41:364–365 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine distinguishes what is lawful but not expedient (such as leaving an unbelieving spouse) from what is good and better (such as marriage and virginity). ### Latin text Sed ea, quae in his talia sunt, ut, quamuis sint licita, non expediant, non in eis dici potest: bonum est hoc, sed illud melius, sicut dictum est: qui dat nuptum, bene facit; et qui non dat nuptum, melius facit. ibi enim utrumque licet, et hoc aliquando, aliquando illud expedit. nam illis, quae se non continent, utique expedit nubere, et quod licet, expedit; quae autem uouerint continentiam, nec licet nec expedit. porro discedere ab infideli coniuge licet, sed non expedit; manere autem cum illo, si cohabitare consentit, et licet et expedit, quia, si non liceret, expedire non posset. potest ergo aliquid licere et non expedire; expedire autem quod non licet non potest. ac per hoc non omnia quae licita sunt, expediunt, omnia uero inlicita non expediunt. sicut enim omnis, qui Christi sanguine redemptus est, homo est, non tamen omnis, qui homo est, etiam sanguine Christi redemptus est, ita omne quod non licet non expedit nec tamen omne quod non expedit etiam non licet. sunt quippe licita, quae non expediunt, sicut apostolo teste didicimus. ### English translation (Claude) But of those things among these which are such that, though lawful, they are not expedient, it cannot be said, “This is good, but that is better,” as it was said, “He who gives her in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage does better.” For there both are lawful, and sometimes this, sometimes that is expedient. For those women who do not contain themselves it is certainly expedient to marry, and what is lawful is expedient; but for those who have vowed continence it is neither lawful nor expedient. Moreover, to depart from an unbelieving spouse is lawful but not expedient; but to remain with him, if he consents to live together, is both lawful and expedient, because, if it were not lawful, it could not be expedient. So something can be lawful and not expedient; but what is not lawful cannot be expedient. And therefore not all things that are lawful are expedient, but all things unlawful are not expedient. For just as everyone who has been redeemed by Christ's blood is a human being, yet not everyone who is a human being has also been redeemed by Christ's blood, so everything that is not lawful is not expedient, and yet not everything that is not expedient is also not lawful. For there are lawful things that are not expedient, as we have learned on the apostle's testimony. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:38: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:12: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 10:23: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: 1 Cor 7:38. “Lawful but not expedient”: 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23. Augustine holds that marriage is not lawful for those who have vowed continence. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.16 (CSEL 41:364–365; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-1/#p-1-16). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-17 - Source: CSEL 41:365–366 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that doing what is lawful but not expedient is not properly a sin, though it should not be done. ### Latin text Sed inter id, quod inlicitum est et ideo non expedit, atque id, quod licitum est nec tamen expedit, quid intersit, aliqua uniuersali regula definire difficile est. citius enim quisque dixerit: omne quod fieri non expedit, peccatum est; omne autem peccatum inlicitum est. omne ergo quod non expedit, inlicitum est. et ubi erunt illa, quae licita esse, sed non expedire apostolus dixit, si omne quod non expedit, licitum non est? quapropter quia uerum dixisse apostolum dubitare non possumus et aliqua peccata esse licita dicere non audemus, restat, ut dicamus fieri aliquid, quod non expediat, et tamen, si licitum est, non esse peccatum, quamuis quoniam non expedit, non sit utique faciendum. quodsi absurdum uidetur, ut aliquid fiat quod non expedit et dicatur peccasse qui fecerit, intellegendum est hoc ex consuetudine sermonis absurdum: quae ita late patet, ut etiam iumenta, quamuis sint rationis expertia, tamen plerumque dicamus debere uapulare cum peccant; peccare autem proprie non est nisi eius, qui utitur rationali uoluntatis arbitrio, quod in omnibus mortalibus animantibus nonnisi homini est diuinitus adtributum. sed aliud est, cum proprie loquimur, aliud, cum uerba ex aliis rebus transferendo uel abutendo mutuamur. ### English translation (Claude) But what the difference is between what is unlawful and therefore not expedient, and what is lawful and yet not expedient, is hard to define by any universal rule. For someone might quickly say: “Everything that is not expedient to do is a sin; and every sin is unlawful; therefore everything that is not expedient is unlawful.” And where will those things be which the apostle said are lawful but not expedient, if everything that is not expedient is not lawful? Therefore, since we cannot doubt that the apostle spoke the truth, and we dare not say that some sins are lawful, it remains for us to say that something is done which is not expedient and yet, if it is lawful, is not a sin, although, since it is not expedient, it certainly should not be done. But if it seems absurd that something should be done which is not expedient and yet the one who did it should not be said to have sinned, it must be understood that this is absurd by the custom of speech, which extends so widely that we often say that even beasts of burden, though they lack reason, ought to be beaten when they sin. But to sin properly belongs only to one who uses the rational choice of the will, which among all mortal living things has been given by God to man alone. But it is one thing when we speak properly, another when we borrow words by transferring them from other things or by misusing them. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.17 (CSEL 41:365–366; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-17). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-18 - Source: CSEL 41:366 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Lawful but inexpedient acts are those permitted before God but avoided so as not to hinder others' salvation; the Lord forbids only what is unlawful. ### Latin text Vt igitur, si possumus, enitamur inter id, quod licet et non expedit, et id, quod non licet atque ideo nec expedit, aliquo certo fine distinguere, ea mihi uidentur licere et non expedire, quae per iustitiam quidem, quae coram deo est, permittuntur, sed propter offensionem hominum, ne ob hoc inpediantur a salute, uitanda sunt; ea uero non licere et ideo non expedire, quae sic ipsa iustitia uetantur, ut facienda non sint, etiamsi ab eis, quibus in notitiam fuerint perlata, laudentur. quod si ita est, ideo nonnisi inlicita prohibentur a domino, ut ea, quae licita sunt et non expediunt, non legis uinculo, sed libera dilectionis beneficentia caueantur. ### English translation (Claude) So that, then, we may try, if we can, to distinguish by some definite boundary between what is lawful and not expedient and what is not lawful and therefore not expedient either: those things seem to me lawful and not expedient which are indeed permitted by the righteousness that is before God, but are to be avoided because of the offense of people, lest they be hindered from salvation by it; but those things are not lawful and therefore not expedient which are so forbidden by righteousness itself that they are not to be done even if those to whose knowledge they have been brought praise them. If this is so, the Lord forbids only unlawful things, so that the things which are lawful and not expedient may be avoided, not by the bond of law, but by the free kindness of love. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.18 (CSEL 41:366; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-18). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-19 - Source: CSEL 41:366–367 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Unbelief is a “fornication of the mind,” so leaving an unbelieving spouse is lawful, but Paul advises against it lest unbelievers be repelled from the faith. ### Latin text Quocirca si dimittere infidelem coniugem non liceret, hoc fieri dominus prohiberet neque id apostolus prohibens diceret: ego dico, non dominus. nam si propter fornicationem carnis permittitur homo a coniuge separari, quanto magis in coniuge mentis fornicatio detestanda est, id est infidelitatis, de qua scriptum est: quoniam ecce qui se longe faciunt a te, peribunt; perdidisti omnem qui fornicatur abs te! Sed quia ita licitum est, ut non expediat, ne propter coniugum separationes offensi homines ipsam doctrinam salutis, qua inlicita prohibentur, exhorreant ac sic peiores atque perituri in eadem infidelitate remaneant, intercedit apostolus et monendo fieri uetat, quod ita licitum est, ut non expediat. sic enim recedere ab infidelibus uxoribus uel maritis fideles uiri uel feminae non prohibentur a domino, ut neque iubeantur. nam si dimittere tales coniuges iuberentur, nullus locus esset consilio monentis apostoli, ne hoc fieret. nullo modo enim quod dominus iubet, seruus bonus fieri prohiberet. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore, if it were not lawful to put away an unbelieving spouse, the Lord would forbid this to be done, and the apostle, when forbidding it, would not say, “I say, not the Lord.” For if a person is permitted to separate from a spouse because of fornication of the flesh, how much more is fornication of the mind in a spouse to be detested, that is, unbelief, of which it is written, “For behold, those who put themselves far from you shall perish; you have destroyed everyone who commits fornication away from you”! But because it is lawful in such a way that it is not expedient, lest people, offended by the separations of spouses, recoil from the very teaching of salvation by which unlawful things are forbidden, and so remain in the same unbelief, worse and about to perish, the apostle intervenes and by advice forbids what is lawful in such a way that it is not expedient. For believing men or women are not forbidden by the Lord to withdraw from unbelieving wives or husbands, yet neither are they commanded to. For if they were commanded to put away such spouses, there would be no room for the advice of the apostle warning them not to do it. For in no way would a good servant forbid what the Lord commands to be done. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, high confidence - Ps 73:27 (72:27 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:12; Ps 73:27 (72:27 LXX). Augustine extends the exception of fornicatio to spiritual fornication (unbelief). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.19 (CSEL 41:366–367; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-19). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-20 - Source: CSEL 41:367–368 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Ezra's command to dismiss foreign wives applied to marriages made against God's law; converts already married to pagans are neither forbidden nor commanded to separate. ### Latin text Namque aliquando hoc dominus per Esdram prophetam iussit et factum est; dimiserunt Israhelitae uxores alienigenas, quicumque tunc habere potuerunt, per quas fiebat, ut et ipsi ad alienos seducerentur deos, non ut illae per maritos uero adquirerentur deo. nondum enim tanta gratia saluatoris inluxerat. et promissis temporalibus ueteris testamenti adhuc inhiabat illius populi multitudo. et propterea cum bona terrena, quae pro magno expetebant a domino, uiderent etiam his abundare, qui multos falsos colebant deos, blanditiis uxorum prius eos reuerebantur offendere, deinde inducebantur et colere. unde iusserat dominus per sanctum Moysen, ne quis uxorem alienigenam duceret. merito ergo quas duxerant domino prohibente, domino iubente dimiserunt. cum uero coepisset gentibus euangelium praedicari, iam coniunctos gentiles gentilibus comperit coniuges: ex quibus si non ambo crederent, sed unus aut una et infidelis cum fideli consentiret habitare, nec prohiberi a domino debuit fidelis infidelem dimittere nec iuberi: ideo scilicet non prohiberi, quia iustitia permittit a fornicante discedere et infidelis hominis fornicatio est maior in corde, nec uera eius pudicitia cum coniuge dici potest, quia omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est: quamuis ueram fidelis habeat pudicitiam etiam cum infideli coniuge, qui non habet ueram. ideo autem nec iuberi debuerunt fideles ab infidelibus separari, quia non contra iussionem domini gentiles fuerunt ambo coniuncti. ### English translation (Claude) For once the Lord commanded this through the prophet Ezra, and it was done: the Israelites put away their foreign wives, all who then had them, through whom it came about that they themselves were led astray to foreign gods, not that those women were won to the true God through their husbands. For so great a grace of the Savior had not yet shone forth, and the multitude of that people still gaped after the temporal promises of the Old Testament. And therefore, when they saw that the earthly goods which they sought from the Lord as something great also abounded for those who worshiped many false gods, through the blandishments of their wives they first feared to offend those gods, and then were led on to worship them too. That is why the Lord had commanded through holy Moses that no one should take a foreign wife. Rightly, then, they put away at the Lord's command those whom they had married against the Lord's prohibition. But when the gospel had begun to be preached to the gentiles, it found gentile spouses already joined to gentiles. Of these, if both did not believe, but one husband or one wife did, and the unbeliever consented to live with the believer, the believer ought neither to be forbidden by the Lord to put away the unbeliever nor to be commanded to: not forbidden, clearly, because righteousness permits departing from one who commits fornication, and the fornication of an unbelieving person is greater in the heart, nor can his chastity with his spouse be called true, since “everything that is not from faith is sin”; although the believer has true chastity even with an unbelieving spouse who does not have it. And believers ought not to have been commanded to separate from unbelievers because both gentiles were joined not against a command of the Lord. ### Scripture references - Ezra 10:3: allusion, high confidence - Ezra 10:11: allusion, high confidence - Ezra 10:44: allusion, medium confidence - Deut 7:3: allusion, high confidence - Exod 34:16: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 14:23: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ezra's reform: Ezra 10:3, 11, 44. The prohibition through Moses: Deut 7:3–4; Exod 34:16. Quotation: Rom 14:23. Augustine calls unbelief a greater “fornication in the heart”, which is why he treats separation from an unbelieving spouse as lawful. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.20 (CSEL 41:367–368; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-20). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-21 - Source: CSEL 41:368 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul's counsel is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so is from the Lord in a real sense, though it is not a command. ### Latin text Quoniam ergo ab infideli fidelem discedere nec prohibet nec iubet dominus, ideo ut non discedat apostolus dicit, non dominus, habens utique spiritum sanctum, in quo dare posset utile et fidele consilium. unde cum dixisset de muliere, cuius uir mortuus fuerit: beatior autem erit, si sic permanserit, secundum meum consilium, ne quis hoc consilium tamquam humanum et non diuinum contemnendum putaret, adiecit: puto autem, et ego spiritum dei habeo. proinde intellegendum est etiam ipsa, quae non a domino iubentur, sed a sancto eius famulo utiliter suadentur, eodem domino inspirante suaderi. absit enim, ut quisquam catholicus dixerit, quando suadet spiritus sanctus, non dominum suadere, cum et ipse dominus sit et inseparabilia sint opera trinitatis. dicit tamen: de uirginibus autem praeceptum domini non habeo, consilium autem do, non ut hoc consilium alienum existimemus a domino, cum continuo sequatur et dicat: tamquam misericordiam consecutus a deo, ut fidelis essem. secundum deum ergo dat fidele consilium in eo spiritu, de quo ait: puto autem, et ego spiritum dei habeo. ### English translation (Claude) Since, then, the Lord neither forbids nor commands a believer to depart from an unbeliever, the apostle says that the believer should not depart, “I, not the Lord”; he who of course had the Holy Spirit, in whom he could give useful and faithful counsel. Hence, when he had said of the woman whose husband has died, “But she will be happier if she remains as she is, according to my counsel,” so that no one would think this counsel was to be despised as human and not divine, he added, “And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” Accordingly, it must be understood that even those things which are not commanded by the Lord, but usefully urged by his holy servant, are urged by the inspiration of the same Lord. For far be it that any Catholic should say that when the Holy Spirit urges, the Lord does not urge, since he too is the Lord and the works of the Trinity are inseparable. Yet he says, “Concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give counsel,” not so that we should think this counsel foreign to the Lord, since he immediately goes on to say, “as one who has obtained mercy from God to be faithful.” So he gives faithful counsel according to God in that Spirit of whom he says, “And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:12: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:40: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:25: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:40, 25. “The works of the Trinity are inseparable” is a standard principle of Augustine's Trinitarian theology. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.21 (CSEL 41:368; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-21). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-22 - Source: CSEL 41:368–369 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: A command must be obeyed; counsel leaves freedom, but the lawful option may not be expedient, as when leaving an unbelieving spouse drives him into adulterous remarriage. ### Latin text Verum tamen aliud est domini iubentis imperium, aliud conserui secundum misericordiam caritatis, quae illi est a domino inspirata atque donata, fidele consilium. ibi aliud facere non licet, hic autem licet, ita sane, ut ipsum licitum partim quidem expediat, partim uero non expediat. expedit tunc, quando non solum per iustitiam, quae coram domino est, permittitur, sed etiam hominibus nullum ex hoc inpedimentum salutis infertur: uelut, cum dat consilium non nubendi apostolus uirginibus, unde praeceptum domini se non habere testatur, licet aliud facere, id est nubere et minus quam continentiae, bonum tamen tenere nuptiarum. ipsumque licitum etiam expedit, quoniam in uetita et inlicita ruituram carnis infirmitatem sic excepit honestate nubendi, ut neminem inpediat ad salutem, quamuis magis expediret magisque honestum esset, si uirgo consilium, quo praeceptum eam non conpellit, arriperet. tunc autem non expedit id quod licitum est, quando permittitur quidem, sed usus ipsius potestatis aliis affert inpedimentum salutis. sicut est, unde iam diu loquimur, discessio coniugis fidelis ab infideli, quam non prohibet dominus praecepto legis, quia coram illo iniusta non est, sed prohibet apostolus consilio caritatis, quia infidelibus affert inpedimentum salutis: non solum quia perniciosissime scandalizantur offensi, uerum etiam quia in alia coniugia cum ceciderint uiuentibus eis, a quibus dimittuntur, adulterinis nexibus colligati difficillime resoluuntur. ### English translation (Claude) Nevertheless, the command of the Lord who orders is one thing, and the faithful counsel of a fellow servant according to the mercy of charity, inspired and given to him by the Lord, is another. In the first case it is not permitted to do otherwise; in the second it is permitted, in such a way, to be sure, that what is permitted is sometimes expedient and sometimes not. It is expedient when it is not only permitted by the righteousness that is before the Lord but also puts no obstacle to salvation in anyone's way: as when the apostle gives virgins the counsel not to marry, for which he testifies that he has no command of the Lord, it is permitted to do otherwise, that is, to marry and hold the good of marriage, though less than that of continence. And this permitted thing is also expedient, since it has caught the weakness of the flesh, which would fall into forbidden and unlawful things, by the honorable state of marriage in such a way that it hinders no one from salvation; although it would be more expedient and more honorable if the virgin took up the counsel to which the command does not compel her. But what is permitted is not expedient when it is indeed allowed, but the use of that very right puts an obstacle to salvation in the way of others. Such is the matter we have long been discussing, the departure of a believing spouse from an unbelieving one, which the Lord does not forbid by a command of law, because it is not unjust before him, but which the apostle forbids by the counsel of charity, because it puts an obstacle to salvation in the way of unbelievers: not only because, offended, they are most harmfully scandalized, but also because, when they fall into other marriages while those who put them away are alive, they are bound in adulterous ties and are released only with great difficulty. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:25: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:12: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The counsel on virgins: 1 Cor 7:25. Augustine assumes that an unbeliever who remarries after being dismissed commits adultery, since the first spouse is still alive. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.22 (CSEL 41:368–369; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-22). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-23 - Source: CSEL 41:369–371 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine compares Paul's counsel on virginity with his counsel on mixed marriages: in the first both options are good, in the second one is lawful but not expedient. ### Latin text Ideo hic, ubi id quod licet non expedit, non potest dici: si dimiserit infidelem, bene facit; si non dimiserit, melius facit, sicut dictum est: qui dat nuptum, bene facit; et qui non dat nuptum, melius facit, quoniam illud non solum utrumque pariter licet — unde ad nihil horum praecepto domini quisque conpellitur — sed etiam utrumque expedit, aliud minus, aliud amplius, unde ad id, quod amplius expedit, consilio apostoli quicumque potest capere prouocatur. hoc autem ubi de dimittendo uel non dimittendo infideli coniugio quaeritur, utrumque quidem pariter licitum est per iustitiam, quae coram domino est, et ideo nihil horum dominus prohibet; sed non utrumque expedit propter infirmitates hominum, et ideo id quod non expedit apostolus prohibet dante sibi domino liberum prohibendi locum, quia neque id, quod monet apostolus, prohibet dominus neque id, quod prohibet apostolus, iubet dominus. quod nisi ita esset, neque contra prohibitionem domini apostolus aliquid moneret neque contra iussionem aliquid prohiberet. proinde in his duabus causis, una de nubendo uel non nubendo, altera de infideli coniuge dimittendo uel non dimittendo, aliquid simile est in uerbis apostoli, aliquid dissimile. simile quidem illud quod et ibi dicit: praeceptum domini non habeo, consilium autem do, et hic dicit: ego dico, non dominus. quale est enim praeceptum domini non habeo, tale est non dicit dominus; et quale est consilium do, tale est ego dico, illud autem dissimile est, quia de nubendo et non nubendo potest dici, hoc bene fieri, illud melius, quoniam utrumque expedit, minus aliud, magis aliud; at uero de coniuge infideli dimittendo uel non dimittendo, quoniam unum horum non expedit, aliud expedit, dici non oportet: qui dimittit, bene facit; et qui non dimittit, melius facit, sed dici oportet: non dimittat, quia etsi licet, non expedit. sic ergo possumus dicere melius esse infidelem coniugem non dimittere, quamuis liceat et dimittere, quemadmodum recte dicimus melius esse, quod et licet et expedit quam id, quod licet nec expedit. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore here, where what is permitted is not expedient, it cannot be said, “If he puts away the unbeliever, he does well; if he does not put her away, he does better,” as it was said, “He who gives her in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage does better”; because there not only are both equally permitted (so that no one is compelled to either by a command of the Lord), but both are also expedient, the one less, the other more; so that whoever can receive it is invited by the apostle's counsel to what is more expedient. But here, where the question is of putting away or not putting away an unbelieving spouse, both are indeed equally permitted by the righteousness that is before the Lord, and therefore the Lord forbids neither; but both are not expedient, because of people's weaknesses, and therefore the apostle forbids what is not expedient, the Lord giving him free room to forbid it, since the Lord neither forbids what the apostle advises nor commands what the apostle forbids. If this were not so, the apostle would neither advise anything against the Lord's prohibition nor forbid anything against his command. Accordingly, in these two cases, one about marrying or not marrying, the other about putting away or not putting away an unbelieving spouse, there is something similar and something dissimilar in the apostle's words. It is similar that there he says, “I have no command of the Lord, but I give counsel,” and here he says, “I say, not the Lord.” For “I have no command of the Lord” is like “not the Lord,” and “I give counsel” is like “I say.” But it is dissimilar in that of marrying and not marrying it can be said that this is done well and that better, since both are expedient, the one less, the other more; but of putting away or not putting away an unbelieving spouse, since one of these is not expedient and the other is, it ought not to be said, “He who puts her away does well, and he who does not put her away does better,” but it ought to be said, “Let him not put her away, because, although it is permitted, it is not expedient.” So we can say that it is better not to put away an unbelieving spouse, although it is also permitted to put her away, in the way that we rightly say that what is both permitted and expedient is better than what is permitted and not expedient. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:38: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:25: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, high confidence - Matt 19:12: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:38, 25, 12. The digital text has garbled quotation marks around “non dicit dominus” and “ego dico”; they have been removed, the words kept. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.23 (CSEL 41:369–371; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-23). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-24 - Source: CSEL 41:371–372 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine defends his earlier exposition: Paul's “I, not the Lord” shows that leaving an unbelieving spouse is lawful but should not be done out of love. ### Latin text His de causis factum est, ut exponens domini sermonem, quem prolixum in monte habuit, ubi uentum est ad quaestionem de coniugibus dimittendis uel non dimittendis, adhibitis apostolicis etiam testimoniis dicerem consilium esse apostoli, non praeceptum domini, ubi ait: ceteris autem ego dico, non dominus, monens eos, qui haberent coniuges infideles, ut consentientes habitare secum non dimitterent. quod utique ideo monendum, non iubendum fuit, quia non tanto pondere prohibendi sunt homines facere licita, quamuis non expediant, quanto pondere prohibentur inlicita. si autem alicubi apostolus etiam illa, quae iubenda sunt, monere dignatus est, hoc fecit parcendo infirmitati, non praeiudicando iussioni. unde si dixit: non ut confundam uos, haec scribo, sed ut filios meos carissimos moneo, quid habet quaestionis, ubi ait: ego dico, non dominus? item ubi ait: ecce ego Paulus dico uobis, quia si circumcidamini, Christus uobis nihil proderit, numquid etiam hic dixit: ego dico, non dominus? non sunt itaque ista similia, quia etiam illa, quae iubet dominus, non est indignum neque contrarium, si eadem monet apostolus. monemus enim, quos caros habemus, ut faciant domini praecepta uel iussa. cum uero ait: ego dico, non dominus, satis ostendit dominum non prohibere, quod ipse prohibebat; prohibuisset autem dominus, si esset inlicitum. ergo secundum ea, quae supra diu diximus multumque uersauimus, licitum erat per iustitiam, sed etiam licitum non erat faciendum propter liberam beneuolentiam. ### English translation (Claude) For these reasons it happened that, in expounding the long sermon which the Lord gave on the mountain, when I came to the question of putting away or not putting away spouses, I also brought in testimonies from the apostle and said that it was the apostle's counsel, not the Lord's command, where he says, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord,” advising those who had unbelieving spouses not to put them away if they consented to live with them. This certainly had to be advised, not commanded, because people are not to be forbidden to do lawful things, even though they are not expedient, with as much weight as unlawful things are forbidden. And if somewhere the apostle has deigned to advise even things that ought to be commanded, he did this to spare weakness, not to prejudice the command. So if he said, “I do not write these things to shame you, but I advise you as my dearest children,” what question does this raise about where he says, “I say, not the Lord”? Likewise, where he says, “Behold, I Paul say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing,” did he say here too, “I, not the Lord”? These cases, then, are not alike, since it is neither unworthy nor contrary if the apostle advises the very things the Lord commands. For we advise those dear to us to do the Lord's precepts or commands. But when he says, “I say, not the Lord,” he shows clearly enough that the Lord did not forbid what he himself forbade; and the Lord would have forbidden it if it were unlawful. So, according to what we have said at length and turned over a good deal above, it was lawful according to righteousness, but even though lawful it was not to be done, for the sake of free goodwill. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 4:14: quotation, high confidence - Gal 5:2: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:12; 4:14; Gal 5:2. The earlier work is On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount 1.16.44–45. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.24 (CSEL 41:371–372; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-24). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-25 - Source: CSEL 41:372–373 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine distinguishes the command not to contract marriages with unbelievers from Paul's advice about marriages already existing when one spouse converts. ### Latin text Tu autem, cui placet ita non licere quod non uetat dominus, sed apostolus, quemadmodum non licet quod uetat dominus, cum exponere uoluisses, quid sibi uellet, quod ait: ego dico, non dominus, cum alloqueretur fideles, quibus essent coniuges infideles, dixisti: (quia dominus iussit, ne coniugia sibimet diuersae religionis copularentur' et ipsum adhibuisti testimonium domini dicentis: non accipies uxorem filio tuo a filiabus alienigenarum, ne traducat eum post deos suos et pereat anima eius. addidisti etiam uerba apostoli, ubi dixit: mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit. quodsi mortuus fuerit uir eius, liberata est; cui uult nubat, tantum in domino. quod ita exposuisti, ut adiungeres id est christiano. deinde secutus es et aisti: hoc est ergo domini praeceptum tam in ueteri quam in nouo testamento, ut nonnisi unius religionis et fidei coniugia sibi maneant copulata. si hoc ergo est domini praeceptum tam in ueteri testamento quam in nouo et hoc iubet dominus, hoc docet apostolus, ut nonnisi unius religionis et fidei maneant copulata coniugia, quare contra hoc domini iussum, contra doctrinam suam, contra praeceptum testamenti ueteris et noui iubet apostolus, ut diuersae fidei coniugia maneant copulata? quia Paulus, inquis, gentium praedicator et apostolus, iam in coniugio positos non solum monet, sed etiam iubet, ut si unus aut una e coniugibus credidisset, alterum non credentem, secum tamen habitare consentientem non dimitteret. his uerbis tuis aliud hoc, aliud esse illud satis euidenter ostendis. illud enim de his coniugiis agitur, quae sibi primitus copulantur, ne nubat femina non suae religionis uiro uel uir talem ducat uxorem. id enim, ut dicis, iubet deus, docet apostolus, utrumque praecipit testamentum. hoc autem diuersum esse quis abnuat, ubi agitur non de coniungendis, sed de coniunctis? ambo quippe unius eiusdemque infidelitatis fuerunt, quando coniuncti sunt; sed euangelium cum uenisset, alter sine altera uel altera sine altero credidit. si ergo aliud est hoc, quod sine scrupulo ullius dubitationis apparet, cur fidelem cum infideli in coniugio permanere non et dominus sicut apostolus iubet? nisi forte isto loco uacat, quod tam fidenter ipse ait: an uultis experimentum accipere eius, qui in me loquitur Christus? et utique dominus est Christus. intellegisne quid dicam? an in hoc explanando aliquanto diligentius immorabor? ### English translation (Claude) But you, who hold that what the apostle, not the Lord, forbids is not permitted, in the same way that what the Lord forbids is not permitted, when you wished to explain what he meant by saying, “I say, not the Lord,” as he addressed believers who had unbelieving spouses, said: “Because the Lord commanded that marriages of different religion should not be contracted.” And you brought in the testimony of the Lord himself, saying, “You shall not take a wife for your son from the daughters of foreigners, lest she lead him away after her gods and his soul perish.” You also added the words of the apostle where he said, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if her husband dies, she is free; let her marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” You explained this by adding, “that is, to a Christian.” Then you went on and said: “This, then, is the Lord's command in the Old as well as in the New Testament, that only marriages of one religion and faith should remain joined.” If, then, this is the Lord's command in the Old Testament as well as in the New, and the Lord commands this and the apostle teaches it, that only marriages of one religion and faith should remain joined, why does the apostle command, against this command of the Lord, against his own teaching, against the precept of the Old and New Testaments, that marriages of different faith should remain joined? “Because Paul,” you say, “the preacher and apostle of the gentiles, not only advises but even commands those already married that, if one husband or one wife had believed, he or she should not put away the other who did not believe but consented to live with the believer.” By these words of yours you show plainly enough that the one thing is different from the other. For the one concerns marriages that are being contracted for the first time, that a woman should not marry a man not of her religion, nor a man take such a wife. For this, as you say, God commands, the apostle teaches, and both Testaments enjoin. But who would deny that the other is different, where the question is not of those to be joined but of those already joined? For both were of one and the same unbelief when they were joined; but when the gospel came, one husband believed without his wife, or one wife without her husband. If, then, this is a different thing, as appears without the scruple of any doubt, why does the Lord not command, as the apostle does, that a believer remain in marriage with an unbeliever? Unless perhaps in this place there is no force in what he says so confidently: “Or do you wish to have proof of Christ, who speaks in me?” And Christ is certainly the Lord. Do you understand what I am saying? Or shall I dwell somewhat more carefully on explaining it? ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, high confidence - Deut 7:3: quotation, high confidence - Deut 7:4: quotation, high confidence - Exod 34:16: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence - 2 Cor 13:3: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Pollentius quoted a text close to Deut 7:3–4 (cf. Exod 34:16) and 1 Cor 7:39, reading “only in the Lord” as “only to a Christian”. Quotations: 1 Cor 7:12; 2 Cor 13:3. A stray asterisk before “id est” in the digital text has been removed. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.25 (CSEL 41:372–373; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-25). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-26 - Source: CSEL 41:373–374 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine sets out the case of two pagan spouses of whom one converts, and argues that the Lord's silence leaves room for the apostle's counsel. ### Latin text Adtende, ut rem ipsam tamquam in conspectu considerandam planiore sermone ponamus. ecce coniuges duo unius infidelitatis; ita fuerunt quando iuncti sunt. nulla de his quaestio est, quae pertineat ad illam domini iussionem doctrinamque apostolicam et praeceptum testamenti ueteris et noui, quo prohibetur fidelis cum infideli copulare coniugium. iam sunt coniuges et adhuc ambo sunt infideles; adhuc tales sunt, quales fuerunt, antequam iungerentur, qualesque coniuncti sunt. uenit euangelii praedicator, credidit eorum aut unus aut una, sed ita ut infidelis cum fideli habitare consentiat. iubet fideli dominus, ne infidelem dimittat an non iubet? si dixeris iubet, reclamat apostolus; ego dico, non dominus; si dixeris non iubet, causam requiro. neque illam mihi responsurus es, quam tuis litteris indidisti: quia dominus prohibet fideles infidelibus iungi. hic enim nullo modo est ista causa; de iam iunctis loquimur, non de iungendis. si ergo tu causam non inuenisti, cur non uetet dominus quod uetat apostolus — cernis enim iam, ut existimo, non esse ipsam quam esse putaueras — uide, ne forte illa sit, quae mihi uisa est, et tunc proferenda et nunc defendenda, ut scilicet illud intellegamus dicere dominum, quod habet coram illo nullo modo transgredienda iustitia, id est quod ita iubet aut uetat, ut aliud facere omnino non liceat; quod autem uolentis potestati ita permittit, ut nec agatur nec praetermittatur inlicite, ipsi seruorum suorum consilio locum dare, ut id potius suadeant quod uiderint expedire. ### English translation (Claude) Pay attention, so that we may set the matter itself out in plainer language, as if to be examined before our eyes. Here are two spouses of one unbelief; they were so when they were joined. There is no question about them that relates to that command of the Lord, the apostolic teaching, and the precept of the Old and New Testaments by which a believer is forbidden to contract marriage with an unbeliever. They are already spouses, and both are still unbelievers; they are still what they were before they were joined and when they were joined. A preacher of the gospel comes; one of them, husband or wife, believes, but in such a way that the unbeliever consents to live with the believer. Does the Lord command the believer not to put away the unbeliever, or not? If you say he commands it, the apostle protests: “I say, not the Lord.” If you say he does not command it, I ask the reason. And you will not give me the one you put in your letter, that the Lord forbids believers to be joined to unbelievers. For here that reason does not apply at all; we are speaking of those already joined, not of those to be joined. If, then, you have not found the reason why the Lord does not forbid what the apostle forbids (for you now see, I think, that it is not the one you had supposed), consider whether it is not perhaps the one that seemed right to me, which I had to put forward then and must defend now: namely, that we should understand that the Lord speaks what involves a righteousness before him that may in no way be transgressed, that is, what he commands or forbids in such a way that it is not at all permitted to do otherwise; but that what he leaves to the power of one who wills, so that it is neither done nor left undone unlawfully, he gives room in it for the counsel of his servants, so that they may urge rather what they see to be expedient. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: 1 Cor 7:12. A stray asterisk in the digital text has been removed. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.26 (CSEL 41:373–374; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-26). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-27 - Source: CSEL 41:374–376 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Lord's commands on marriage admit no exception for expediency: a husband who dismisses an adulterous wife must remain unmarried, since everyone who dismisses his wife and remarries commits adultery. ### Latin text Teneatur hic ergo primitus ac maxime, ne committantur inlicita. ubi autem aliquid ita licitum est, ut aliud facere non sit inlicitum, fiat quod expedit [uel quod magis expedit]. illa igitur, quae dominus ita dicit ut dominus, id est non monentis consilio, sed dominantis imperio, non facere non licet et ideo nec expedit. dominus itaque praecepit mulierem a uiro non discedere; quodsi discesserit — ea utique causa, qua discedere licitum est — manere innuptam aut uiro suo reconciliari; mulier enim sub uiro uiuo marito iuncta est legi; et uiuente uiro uocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro, quoniam mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit. unde si uxor dimiserit uirum suum et alii nupserit, moechatur, et qui dimissam a uiro duxerit, moechatur. ideoque ex eodem praecepto domini et uir uxorem ne dimittat, quoniam qui dimiserit uxorem suam praeter causam fornicationis, facit eam moechari. sed si propter hanc causam dimiserit, etiam ipse sic maneat; omnis enim qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, moechatur. Haec constituta domini sine ulla retractatione seruanda sunt. habet enim haec iustitia, quae coram illo est, siue probent siue inprobent homines. et ideo dici non oportet propter offensiones hominum, aut ne inpediantur homines ab ea salute, quae in Christo est, non esse seruanda. quis enim christianus audeat dicere: ne homines offendam aut ut homines Christo adquiram, faciam moechari uxorem meam, ut ego ipse moechus fiam? ### English translation (Claude) Let this, then, be held here first and foremost: that unlawful things not be committed. But where something is lawful in such a way that doing otherwise is not unlawful, let what is expedient be done. Those things, then, which the Lord says as Lord, that is, not by the counsel of one who advises but by the command of one who rules, it is not lawful not to do, and therefore not expedient either. So the Lord commanded that a wife not depart from her husband; but if she departs (certainly for the cause for which departing is lawful), she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; for a woman under a husband is bound by the law while her husband lives, and while her husband lives she will be called an adulteress if she is with another man, since a wife is bound as long as her husband lives. Hence, if a wife puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery; and he who marries a woman put away by her husband commits adultery. And therefore, by the same command of the Lord, the husband too is not to put away his wife, since whoever puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery. But if he puts her away for this cause, let him also remain as he is; for everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. These decrees of the Lord are to be kept without any withdrawal. For they carry the righteousness that is before him, whether people approve or disapprove. And therefore it must not be said that they are not to be kept because of people's offense, or lest people be hindered from the salvation that is in Christ. For what Christian would dare to say, “So as not to offend people, or in order to win people for Christ, I will make my wife commit adultery, so that I myself become an adulterer”? ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:11: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:2: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:3: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence - Mark 10:12: quotation, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The editor deletes the words “or what is more expedient” (uel quod magis expedit). Quotations: 1 Cor 7:10–11; Rom 7:2–3; 1 Cor 7:39; Mark 10:12; Luke 16:18; Matt 5:32. Augustine's conclusion that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife “should also remain as he is” (unmarried) is the central thesis of this work. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.27 (CSEL 41:374–376; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-27). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-28 - Source: CSEL 41:376–377 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine tells a Christian who has dismissed an adulterous wife to refuse even a marriage that would bring a pagan woman to faith, since remarriage would still be adultery. ### Latin text Potest enim fieri, ut, cum adulteram uxorem quisque dimiserit christianus, ita temptetur, ut aliqua femina, quae nondum credidit, cupiens in eius nuptias conuenire, promittat se futuram esse christianam, non fallaciter, sed si ei nupserit hoc omnino factura. huic itaque iam conubium recusanti poterit suggerere ille temptator: dominus dixit: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam praeter causam fornicationis et aliam duxerit, moechatur; tu autem, qui dimisisti propter causam fornicationis uxorem, si aliam duxeris, non moechaberis. huic talia suggerenti erudito corde respondeat moechari quidem illum grauius, qui praeter causam fornicationis uxore dimissa alteram duxerit, sed etiam illum, qui uxore fornicante dimissa sibi aliam copulauit, non ideo non moechari, quia moechantem relinquit: sicut moechatur qui eam, quae praeter causam fornicationis dimittitur, duxerit; nec ideo non moechatur, qui eam ducit, quam dimissam praeter causam fornicationis inuenerit. et propterea quod subobscure apud Matthaeum positum est, quoniam totum a parte significatum est, expositum esse apud alios, qui totum generaliter expresserunt, sicut legitur apud Marcum: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit, et apud Lucam: omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, moechatur. non enim alios dixerunt moechari, alios non moechari, qui dimissis uxoribus suis duxerint alteras, sed: quicumque dimiserit, omnem prorsus, qui dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, moechari eum sine ulla exceptione dixerunt. ### English translation (Claude) For it can happen that, when a Christian has put away an adulterous wife, he is tempted in this way: some woman who does not yet believe, wishing to enter into marriage with him, promises that she will become a Christian, not deceitfully, but fully intending to do so if she marries him. The tempter will be able to suggest to him, while he still refuses marriage: “The Lord said, ‘Whoever puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery’; but you, who put away your wife for the cause of sexual immorality, will not commit adultery if you marry another.” To one suggesting such things let him answer with an instructed heart that the one who puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality and marries another does indeed commit adultery more gravely, but that the one who, having put away a wife who committed sexual immorality, has joined himself to another, does not for that reason not commit adultery because he left a woman committing adultery; just as he commits adultery who marries a woman put away apart from the cause of sexual immorality, and the one who marries a woman he has found put away for that cause does not for that reason not commit adultery. And for this reason what is put somewhat obscurely in Matthew, since the whole is signified by a part, is explained in the others, who expressed the whole generally, as is read in Mark, “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery,” and in Luke, “Everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery.” For they did not say that some who put away their wives and marry others commit adultery and others do not; but “whoever puts away”: they said without any exception that absolutely everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. ### Scripture references - Matt 19:9: quotation, high confidence - Mark 10:11: quotation, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Matt 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18. In the clause “the one who marries a woman he has found put away for that cause” the digital text reads “apart from the cause” (praeter causam) a second time; the argument requires “for the cause” (propter causam), and it is translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.28 (CSEL 41:376–377; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-28). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-29 - Source: CSEL 41:377 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Winning a soul for Christ does not justify committing adultery by remarriage, since one may not do evil that good may come. ### Latin text Sed si haec ille christianus responderit temptatori, intellegens licuisse quidem sibi dimittere adulteram, sed aliam ducere non licere, quid? si dicat ille temptator: committe hoc peccatum, ut adquiras animam Christo in morte infidelitatis positae feminae, quae parata est, si tibi nupserit, fieri christiana? quid aliud christianus ad ista respondere debet et dicere, nisi se non posse, Si hoc fecerit, euadere iudicium, quod commemorauit apostolus, ubi ait: et sicut dicunt nos quidam dicere: faciamus mala, ut ueniant bona? quorum iudicium iustum est? quomodo autem poterit esse salubriter christiana, quae cum illo a quo ducitur erit adultera? ### English translation (Claude) But if that Christian answers the tempter in this way, understanding that he was indeed permitted to put away an adulteress but is not permitted to marry another, what if the tempter says, “Commit this sin, so that you may win for Christ the soul of a woman set in the death of unbelief, who is ready to become a Christian if she marries you”? What else should the Christian answer to this, except that if he does this he cannot escape the judgment the apostle mentioned where he says, “And as some claim we say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’; their condemnation is just”? And how can she be a Christian to her salvation, when she will be an adulteress with the man who marries her? ### Scripture references - Rom 3:8: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: Rom 3:8. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.29 (CSEL 41:377; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-29). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-30 - Source: CSEL 41:377–378 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Neither remarriage after divorce nor breaking a vow of continence may be excused by the hope of converting a prospective spouse. ### Latin text Non solum autem moechandum non est, quod facit non quidam, sed omnis, qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, etsi propterea duxerit, ut faciat christianam, sed etiam quisquis non alligatus uxori continentiam deo uouerit, nullo modo debet ista conpensatione peccare, ut ideo credat uxorem sibi esse ducendam, quia promisit quae nuptias eius adpetit futuram se esse christianam. quod enim cuique, antequam uouisset, licebat, cum id se numquam facturum uouerit, non licebit; si tamen id uouerit quod uouendum fuit, sicuti est perpetua uirginitas uel continentia post experta conubia solutis a uinculo coniugali uel ex consensu uouentibus et carnalia debita sibi inuicem relaxantibus fidelibus castisque coniugibus, quod alterum sine altera uel alteram sine altero uouere fas non est. haec ergo et si qua alia sunt, quae rectissime uouentur, cum homines uouerint, nulla condicione rumpenda sunt, quae sine ulla condicione uouerunt, quia et hoc dominum praecepisse intellegendum est, ubi legitur: uouete et reddite domino deo uestro. unde apostolus de quibusdam, quae continentiam uouent et postea nubere uolunt, quod eis, antequam uouissent, utique licebat, habentes, inquit, damnationem, quoniam primam fidem inritam fecerunt. ### English translation (Claude) Not only must there be no adultery, which not some but everyone commits who puts away his wife and marries another, even if he marries her to make her a Christian; but also whoever, not bound to a wife, has vowed continence to God must in no way sin by such a compensation as to believe that he should marry because the woman who seeks marriage with him has promised to become a Christian. For what was permitted to anyone before he made a vow will not be permitted once he has vowed never to do it; provided that he vowed what ought to be vowed, such as perpetual virginity, or continence after experience of marriage by those released from the conjugal bond, or by faithful and chaste spouses who vow by consent and release each other from the carnal debt, which it is not right for husband or wife to vow without the other. These, then, and any others that are most rightly vowed, when people have vowed them, are not to be broken on any condition, since they vowed them without any condition; for it must be understood that the Lord commanded this too, where it is read, “Vow and pay to the Lord your God.” Hence the apostle says of certain women who vow continence and afterwards wish to marry, which was certainly permitted to them before they vowed, “incurring condemnation, because they have made void their first faith.” ### Scripture references - Ps 76:11 (75:12 LXX): quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 5:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:5: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Ps 76:11 (75:12 LXX); 1 Tim 5:12. Continence vowed by one spouse without the other's consent is excluded (1 Cor 7:5). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.30 (CSEL 41:377–378; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-30). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-31 - Source: CSEL 41:378–379 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Where the Lord gives no command, Paul's counsel guides; but for any kind of fornication, of flesh or spirit, dismissal never permits remarriage. ### Latin text Nihil ergo expedit, quod inlicitum est, et nihil, quod prohibet dominus, licitum est. Quae autem nullo domini constringente praecepto in potestate dimissa sunt, in his audiatur apostolus in spiritu sancto monens et consulens, ut uel meliora capiantur uel ea, quae non expediunt, caueantur. ibi audiatur dicens: praeceptum domini non habeo, consilium autem do, et: ego dico, non dominus. ibi si meliora elegerit, qui audit: solutus est ab uxore, non quaerat uxorem, quia et si acceperit uxorem, non peccat, ibi uirgo non nubat. qui enim non dat nuptum, melius facit; et qui dat nuptum, bene facit. ibi beatior sit mulier sic permanendo, quae mortuo uiro suo in potestate habet, cui uult nubere, tantum in domino. quod duobus modis accipi potest: aut christiana permanens aut christiano nubens. non enim tempore reuelati testamenti noui in euangelio uel ullis apostolicis litteris sine ambiguitate declaratum esse recolo, utrum dominus prohibuerit fideles infidelibus iungi, quamuis beatissimus Cyprianus inde non dubitet nec in leuibus peccatis constituat, iungere cum infidelibus uinculum matrimonii, atque id esse dicat prostituere gentilibus membra Christi. sed quia de his, qui iam coniuncti sunt, alia quaestio est, audiatur et hic apostolus dicens: si quis frater habet uxorem infidelem et haec consentit habitare cum illo, non dimittat illam; et qua mulier habet uirum infidelem et hic consentit habitare cum illa, non dimittat uirum, et sic audiatur, ut, quamuis fieri licitum sit, quia hoc non dicit dominus, non tamen fiat, quia non expedit. non enim omnia expedire, quae licita sunt, apertissime docet apostolus, sicut supra iam ostendimus. propter quodlibet tamen fornicationis genus, siue carnis siue spiritus, ubi et infidelitas intellegitur, et dimisso uiro non licet alteri nubere et dimissa uxore non licet alteram ducere, quoniam dominus nulla exceptione facta dicit: si uxor dimiserit uirum suum et alii nupserit, moechatur, et: omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, moechatur. ### English translation (Claude) Nothing, then, that is unlawful is expedient, and nothing that the Lord forbids is lawful. But in the things left to our power, with no command of the Lord binding us, let the apostle be heard advising and counseling in the Holy Spirit, so that either better things may be chosen or things that are not expedient may be avoided. There let him be heard saying, “I have no command of the Lord, but I give counsel,” and, “I say, not the Lord.” There, if the hearer chooses the better things, let one who is released from a wife not seek a wife, since even if he takes a wife he does not sin; there let the virgin not marry. For he who does not give her in marriage does better, and he who gives her in marriage does well. There let the woman be happier by remaining so, who, when her husband has died, has it in her power to marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord. This can be taken in two ways: either remaining a Christian or marrying a Christian. For I do not recall that, in the time of the revealed New Testament, it has been declared without ambiguity in the gospel or in any apostolic letters whether the Lord forbade believers to be joined to unbelievers; although the most blessed Cyprian has no doubt about it and does not place it among light sins to join the bond of marriage with unbelievers, and says that this is to prostitute the members of Christ to gentiles. But since there is another question about those already joined, let the apostle be heard here too, saying, “If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, let him not put her away; and if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, let her not put away her husband”; and let him be heard in such a way that, although it is lawful to do it, since the Lord does not say this, it should nevertheless not be done, because it is not expedient. For the apostle teaches most plainly that not all things that are lawful are expedient, as we have already shown above. Yet for any kind of fornication, whether of the flesh or of the spirit, under which unbelief also is understood, it is not permitted, when a husband has been put away, to marry another, nor, when a wife has been put away, to marry another; since the Lord, making no exception, says, “If a wife puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery,” and, “Everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery.” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:25: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:27: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:28: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:38: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:40: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:13: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 6:15: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 6:12: allusion, medium confidence - Mark 10:12: quotation, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Cyprian, Laps. 6 (On the Lapsed): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:25, 12, 27–28, 38, 40, 39; 7:12–13; Mark 10:12; Luke 16:18. Cyprian, On the Lapsed 6, condemns marrying unbelievers as “prostituting the members of Christ to gentiles” (cf. 1 Cor 6:15). Augustine holds that no form of fornicatio, physical or spiritual (unbelief), permits remarriage after separation. The digital text reads “et qua mulier”, translated as “and if any woman”. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.31 (CSEL 41:378–379; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-31). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-32 - Source: CSEL 41:379–380 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine admits that the question of marriage is very obscure and intricate and that he has not resolved every difficulty. ### Latin text His ita pro meo modulo pertractatis atque discussis quaestionem tamen de coniugiis obscurissimam et inplicatissimam esse non nescio. nec audeo profiteri omnes sinus eius uel in hoc opere uel in alio me adhuc explicasse uel iam posse, si urguear, explicare. illud autem, unde me idem in alia scheda consulendum existimatis, seorsum etiam ego enodare curarem, si mihi aliud, quam tibi uisum est, uideretur; cum uero eadem sit etiam nostra sententia, non hinc opus est diutius disputare. ### English translation (Claude) Having treated and discussed these matters according to my small ability, I am nevertheless well aware that the question of marriage is most obscure and most intricate. Nor do I dare to claim that I have so far unfolded all its windings, either in this work or in another, or that I can do so now if pressed. As for the matter on which you thought I should be consulted in another sheet, I would also take care to untie it separately if I held a different view from yours; but since our judgment is the same, there is no need to dispute at length on it. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.32 (CSEL 41:379–380; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-32). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-33 - Source: CSEL 41:380–381 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine advises that dying catechumens who can no longer ask for baptism should be baptized, as infants are, while not condemning more cautious clergy. ### Latin text Catechumenis ergo in huius uitae ultimo constitutis, seu morbo seu casu aliquo si conpressi sint, ut, quamuis adhuc uiuant, petere sibi tamen baptismum uel ad interrogata respondere non possint, prosit eis, quod eorum fide christiana iam nota uoluntas est, ut eo modo baptizentur, quo modo baptizantur infantes, quorum uoluntas adhuc nulla patuit. non tamen propterea damnare debemus eos, qui timidius agunt, quam nobis uidetur agi oportere, ne de pecunia conseruo credita inprouidius quam cautius iudicare uoluisse iudicemur. satis quippe in talibus respiciendum est illud apostoli, ubi ait: unusquisque nostrum pro se rationem reddet deo. non ergo amplius inuicem iudicemus. sunt enim, qui uel in his uel etiam in aliis obseruandum putant, quod dixisse dominum legimus: nolite dare sanctum canibus neque proieceritis margaritas uestras ante porcos. et ista saluatoris uerba reuerentes baptizare non audent eos, qui pro se respondere nequiuerint, ne forte contrarium gerant uoluntatis arbitrium. quod de paruulis dici non potest, in quibus adhuc rationis nullus est usus. sed non solum incredibile est nec in fine uitae huius baptizari catechumenum uelle, uerum etiam, si uoluntas eius incerta est, multo satius est nolenti dare quam uolenti negare, ubi uelit an nolit sic non apparet, ut tamen credibilius sit eum, si posset, uelle se potius fuisse dicturum ea sacramenta percipere, sine quibus iam credidit non se oportere de corpore exire. ### English translation (Claude) As for catechumens at the end of this life, if they are so overcome by illness or some accident that, although still alive, they cannot ask for baptism for themselves or answer the questions put to them, let it avail them that their will is already known to the Christian faithful, so that they may be baptized in the way infants are baptized, whose will has not yet appeared at all. Yet we ought not on that account to condemn those who act more timidly than seems right to us, lest we be judged to have wished to judge rashly rather than cautiously about the money entrusted to our fellow servant. For in such matters we must pay sufficient regard to that saying of the apostle, “Each of us will give account of himself to God. Let us therefore no longer judge one another.” For there are some who think that in these or other cases we should observe what we read the Lord said: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine.” And, revering these words of the Savior, they do not dare to baptize those who cannot answer for themselves, lest perhaps their will be set the other way. This cannot be said of little ones, in whom there is as yet no use of reason. But not only is it incredible that a catechumen should not want to be baptized at the end of this life; even if his will is uncertain, it is much better to give to one unwilling than to refuse one willing, where it is not clear whether he wills or not, yet it is more credible that, if he could, he would say he wished to receive those sacraments without which he already believed he ought not to leave the body. ### Scripture references - Rom 14:12: quotation, high confidence - Rom 14:13: quotation, high confidence - Matt 7:6: quotation, high confidence - Matt 25:14: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - This answers Pollentius's second question (see §1.32). Quotations: Rom 14:12–13; Matt 7:6. The money entrusted to a fellow servant: Matt 25:14–30. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.33 (CSEL 41:380–381; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-33). ## On Adulterous Marriages 1.34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-34 - Source: CSEL 41:381–382 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains “Do not give what is holy to dogs,” and rules that dying catechumens living in adulterous second marriages may be baptized, and dying penitents reconciled. ### Latin text Si autem dominus, ubi ait: nolite dare sanctum canibus, hoc, quod isti cauendum putant, uellet intellegi, non ipse suo traditori dedisset, quod in suam ille perniciem sine culpa dantis cum dignis indignus accepit. unde cum hoc diceret dominus, credendum est significare uoluisse, quod lucem intellegentiae spiritalis inmunda corda non portant. et si portanda doctor ingesserit, quae non recte accipiunt, quia non capiunt, uel reprehensionis morsibus lacerant uel contemnendo conculcant. si enim beatus apostolus quamuis in Christo iam renatis tamen adhuc paruulis lac dicit se dedisse, non escam — necdum enim poteratis, inquit, sed nec adhuc quidem potestis — si denique ipse dominus electis apostolis dixit: adhuc multa habeo uobis dicere, sed non potestis illa portare modo, quanto minus possunt ferre, quaecumque de incorporea luce dicuntur, inmundae mentes inpiorum! Sed ut sermo noster ad hoc potius claudatur, unde sumpsit exordium, ego non solum alios catechumenos uerum etiam ipsos, qui uiuentium coniugiis copulati retinent adulterina consortia, cum saluos corpore non admittamus ad baptismum, tamen, si desperati iacuerint nec pro se respondere potuerint, baptizandos puto, ut etiam hoc peccatum cum ceteris lauacro regenerationis abluatur. quis enim nouit, utrum fortassis adulterinae carnis inlecebra usque ad baptismum statuerant detineri? si autem ab illa desperatione recreati potuerint uiuere, aut facient, quod statuerant, aut edocti obtemperabunt aut de contemptoribus fiet, quod fieri etiam de baptizatis talibus debet. quae autem baptismatis, eadem reconciliationis est causa, si forte paenitentem finiendae uitae periculum praeoccupauerit. nec ipsos enim ex hac uita sine arra suae pacis exire uelle debet mater ecclesia. ### English translation (Claude) But if the Lord, when he said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs,” had wished what these people think must be guarded against to be understood, he would not himself have given to his betrayer what that unworthy man received among the worthy, to his own ruin, without fault in the giver. Hence, when the Lord said this, we must believe that he wished to signify that unclean hearts cannot bear the light of spiritual understanding; and if a teacher thrusts on them what they must bear, then, because they do not receive it rightly, since they do not grasp it, they either tear it with the bites of criticism or trample on it with contempt. For if the blessed apostle says he gave milk, not solid food, to those who had indeed been reborn in Christ but were still little ones (“for you were not yet able,” he says, “and even now you are not able”), and if, finally, the Lord himself said to the chosen apostles, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now,” how much less can the unclean minds of the ungodly bear whatever is said of the incorporeal light! But so that our discourse may rather close on the matter where it began: not only other catechumens, but even those who, joined in marriage to persons whose former spouses are living, keep up adulterous partnerships, although we do not admit them to baptism while they are in health, I think should be baptized if they lie in despair of life and cannot answer for themselves, so that this sin too may be washed away with the others by the washing of regeneration. For who knows whether they had perhaps resolved to be held by the allurement of adulterous flesh only until baptism? But if, restored from that despair, they are able to live, either they will do what they had resolved, or, when instructed, they will obey, or what must be done even with baptized persons of that kind will be done with them as despisers. The case of reconciliation is the same as that of baptism, if the danger of ending life should overtake a penitent. For mother church ought not to want them either to leave this life without the pledge of their peace. ### Scripture references - Matt 7:6: quotation, high confidence - John 13:26: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 3:2: quotation, high confidence - John 16:12: quotation, high confidence - Titus 3:5: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Matt 7:6; 1 Cor 3:2; John 16:12. Judas receiving from the Lord: John 13:26. “Washing of regeneration”: Titus 3:5. Augustine states that catechumens in a second marriage while a former spouse lives are not admitted to baptism in health, since he regards such unions as adulterous. “Reconciliation” is the church's readmission of a penitent to communion. A leaked chapter heading (“XXVIII. 35.”) has been removed from the digital text. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 1.34 (CSEL 41:381–382; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-1-34). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-2-1 - Source: CSEL 41:382–383 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine explains why he answers Pollentius's further questions in a second book: the first had been published before he could add to it. ### Latin text Ad ea, quae mihi scripseras, frater religiose Pollenti, iam rescripseram non paruum uolumen de his, qui uiuentibus coniugibus suis aliis copulantur. quod cum innotuisset dilectioni tuae, addidisti aliqua ad libellum tuum, etiam his me respondere desiderans. sed cum facere disponerem, addendo et ego ad meum, ita ut unus liber esset etiam responsionis meae, repente illud editum est, quod absolueram prius, flagitantibus fratribus et nescientibus, quod adhuc aliquid esset addendum. hinc factum est, ut altero seorsum opusculo ad ea, quae addidisti, respondere conpellerer. non autem quae addidisti, adiuncta sunt fini opusculi tui; sed ubi uisum est, eius interiecta sunt corpori. ### English translation (Claude) To what you had written to me, devout brother Pollentius, I had already written in reply a volume of some size about those who are joined to others while their spouses are living. When this became known to your Charity, you added some things to your treatise, wishing me to answer these too. But while I was planning to do so by adding to mine as well, so that my reply too would be a single book, what I had finished earlier was suddenly published, at the urgent request of brothers who did not know that something was still to be added. So it happened that I was compelled to answer your additions in another, separate little work. Your additions, however, were not attached to the end of your treatise but inserted into its body wherever it seemed fitting. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.1 (CSEL 41:382–383; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/1-17/#p-2-1). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-2 - Source: CSEL 41:383–384 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine restates Pollentius's position: 1 Cor 7:11 concerns a wife who left a faithful husband, and a spouse who commits sexual immorality is to be counted as dead, freeing the other to remarry. ### Latin text Horum primum illud est — cui quidem arbitror me respondere debere — quod in his apostoli uerbis, ubi ait: ceteris autem ego dico, non dominus, mulierem a uiro non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam aut uiro suo reconciliari, non putas ita dictum esse (si discesserit, ut a uiro fornicante discessisse intellegatur, qua sola causa discedere licitum est; sed potius existimas a pudico, et ideo iussam manere innuptam, ut possit ei reconciliari, si continere ille noluisset, ne uirum ad fornicandum, id est ad aliam se uiuente ducendam ipsa non reconciliata conpelleret. ceterum si a uiro fornicante discesserit, putas ei non praecipi, ut innupta permaneat, sed hoc eam facere, si continens esse uoluerit, non ut praecepti uiolatrix inueniatur esse, si nupserit. quae tibi uidetur forma et a uiro esse seruanda, ut uxorem non dimittat excepta causa fornicationis; si autem dimiserit, maneat sine coniugio, ut pudicae reconciliari possit uxori, nisi forte continentiam illa delegerit, ne uxoris castae reconciliationem refugiens ipse illam cogat moechari, si se non continens uiuente illo nupserit alteri; si autem fuerit ab uxore fornicante disiunctus, iam eum nullo praecepto ut se contineat detineri nec omnino moechari, si uiua illa alteram duxerit, quoniam id, quod ait apostolus idem: mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit; quodsi mortuus fuerit uir eius, liberata est; cui uult nubat, sic intellegendum existimas, ut, si uir fuerit fornicatus, pro mortuo deputetur et uxor pro mortua, et ideo liceat cuilibet eorum tamquam post mortem ita post fornicationem coniungi alteri. ### English translation (Claude) The first of these (and I think I ought to answer it) is that, in these words of the apostle, where he says, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that the wife not depart from her husband; but if she departs, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband,” you do not think “if she departs” was said so that it should be understood that she departed from a husband committing sexual immorality, the only cause for which departing is lawful; you think rather that she departed from a chaste husband, and was ordered to remain unmarried so that she could be reconciled to him if he did not wish to be continent, lest by not being reconciled she drive her husband to commit sexual immorality, that is, to marry another while she lived. But if she departed from a husband committing sexual immorality, you think she is not commanded to remain unmarried, but does so if she wishes to be continent, and is not found to be a violator of the command if she marries. You think the same rule should be kept by the husband too: that he should not put away his wife except for the cause of sexual immorality; but if he puts her away, he should remain without marriage so that he can be reconciled to his chaste wife, unless she has chosen continence, lest by shunning reconciliation with a chaste wife he himself force her to commit adultery, if, not containing herself, she marries another while he lives. But if he has been separated from a wife committing sexual immorality, you think he is now held by no command to be continent, and does not commit adultery at all if he marries another while she lives. For what the same apostle says, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free; let her marry whom she wishes,” you think should be understood in such a way that, if a husband has committed sexual immorality, he is to be counted as dead, and the wife likewise as dead, and therefore either of them may be joined to another after sexual immorality as after death. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:12: quotation, medium confidence - 1 Cor 7:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:11: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine's quotation joins 1 Cor 7:12a (“to the rest I say, not the Lord”) to 7:10–11; 7:10 has “I command, not I but the Lord”. Quotation: 1 Cor 7:39. Pollentius's view, that adultery counts as death and frees the innocent spouse to remarry, is rejected by Augustine in §§2.3–4. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.2 (CSEL 41:383–384; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-2). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-3 - Source: CSEL 41:384–386 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If adultery dissolved the bond like death, the adulterous wife herself would be free to remarry without sin, which contradicts Paul; the bond ends only with physical death. ### Latin text Quibus tuis sensibus consideratis abs te quaero, utrum quicumque duxerit mulierem, quae uiro alligata esse destiterit, adulter habendus sit. quod tibi existimo non uideri. ideo enim mulier uiuente uiro uocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro, quoniam mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit; hoc autem uinculum si ei cum uiro uiuente non esset, sine ullo adulteri crimine alteri nuberet. proinde si alligata est quamdiu uir eius uiuit, nullo modo nisi uiro mortuo soluta dicenda est ab hoc uinculo. porro si morte cuiuslibet eorum inter maritum et uxorem hoc uinculum soluitur et pro morte habenda est, sicut dicis, etiam fornicatio, procul dubio erit ab hoc et mulier soluta, quando fuerit fornicata. neque enim dici poterit haec alligata uiro, quando ab illa fuerit uir solutus. ac per hoc posteaquam fornicando alligata uiro esse destiterit, quisquis eam duxerit, adulter non erit. Et uide, quam sit absurdum, ut ideo non sit adulter, quia duxit adulteram. immo uero, quod est monstrosius, nec ipsa mulier erit adultera, quoniam non erit posteriori uiro uxor aliena, sed sua. soluto enim per adulterium priore coniugali uinculo cuicumque iam nupserit coniugem non habenti non adultera cum adultero, sed uxor erit potius cum marito. quomodo ergo erit uerum: mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit? ecce uir eius uiuit, quia nec de corpore excessit nec fornicatus est, quod pro morte uis deputare; et tamen ei mulier alligata iam non est. nonne adtendis, quam sit hoc contra apostolum dicentem: mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit? an forte dicturus es: uiuit quidem, sed uir eius iam non est, quoniam tunc esse destitit, quando illa per adulterium coniugale uinculum soluit? quomodo igitur uiuente uiro uocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro? quandoquidem uir eius ille iam non est coniugali uinculo per mulieris adulterium iam soluto. quo enim uiuente uiro nisi suo uocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro? at si uir eius esse ille iam destitit, non utique uiuente uiro uocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro, sed nullum habens uirum nubendo erit cum suo uiro. hoc qui sentit, nonne cernis quam contra apostolum sentiat? quod quidem non ipse sentis, sed hoc sequitur illa quae sentis. muta ergo antecedentia, si uis cauere sequentia, et noli dicere mortuum uirum uel mortuam uxorem hoc loco debere intellegi etiam fornicantem. quamobrem secundum doctrinam sanam mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit, id est nondum corpore abscessit; mulier enim sub uiro uiuo marito iuncta est legi, hoc est in corpore constituto. si autem mortuus fuerit, hoc est de corpore exierit, euacuata est a lege uiri. igitur uiuente uiro uocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro. si autem mortuus fuerit uir eius, liberata est a lege, ut non sit adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro. haec uerba apostoli totiens repetita, totiens inculcata uera sunt, uiua sunt, sana sunt, plana sunt. nullius uiri posterioris mulier uxor esse incipit, nisi prioris esse desiuerit. esse autem desinet uxor prioris, si moriatur uir eius, non si fornicetur. licite itaque dimittitur coniux ob causam fornicationis; sed manet uinculum pudoris, propter quod fit reus adulterii, qui dimissam duxerit etiam ob hanc causam fornicationis. ### English translation (Claude) Having considered these views of yours, I ask you whether whoever marries a woman who has ceased to be bound to her husband is to be held an adulterer. I think it does not seem so to you. For the reason a woman will be called an adulteress if she is with another man while her husband lives is that a wife is bound as long as her husband lives; and if she did not have this bond with her living husband, she would marry another without any charge of adultery. Accordingly, if she is bound as long as her husband lives, she is in no way to be said to be released from this bond except when her husband has died. Moreover, if this bond between husband and wife is dissolved by the death of either of them, and sexual immorality too, as you say, is to be counted as death, then without doubt the wife too will be released from this bond when she has committed sexual immorality. For it cannot be said that she is bound to her husband when her husband has been released from her. And so, after she has ceased by committing sexual immorality to be bound to her husband, whoever marries her will not be an adulterer. And see how absurd it is that he should not be an adulterer precisely because he has married an adulteress! Indeed, what is more monstrous, the woman herself will not be an adulteress either, since she will not be another man's wife to her later husband, but his own. For once the former conjugal bond has been dissolved by adultery, whomever she then marries who has no wife, she will not be an adulteress with an adulterer, but rather a wife with her husband. How then will it be true that “a wife is bound as long as her husband lives”? Look, her husband lives, since he has neither left the body nor committed sexual immorality, which you want to count as death; and yet the wife is no longer bound to him. Do you not notice how contrary this is to the apostle, who says, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives”? Or will you perhaps say, “He lives indeed, but he is no longer her husband, since he ceased to be so when she dissolved the conjugal bond by adultery”? How then “will she be called an adulteress if she is with another man while her husband lives,” since he is no longer her husband, the conjugal bond having already been dissolved by the woman's adultery? For while which husband lives, if not her own, will she be called an adulteress if she is with another man? But if he has already ceased to be her husband, she will certainly not be called an adulteress if she is with another man while her husband lives; rather, having no husband, by marrying she will be with her own husband. Do you not see how contrary to the apostle one who holds this holds? You yourself do not hold it, indeed, but it follows from what you do hold. Change the premises, then, if you want to avoid the consequences, and do not say that in this passage the dead husband or dead wife should be understood also of one who commits sexual immorality. Therefore, according to sound doctrine, “a wife is bound as long as her husband lives,” that is, has not yet departed from the body; for “a woman under a husband is bound by the law to her living husband,” that is, to one still in the body. “But if he dies,” that is, leaves the body, “she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then, while her husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she is with another man; but if her husband dies, she is freed from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she is with another man.” These words of the apostle, repeated so often, pressed home so often, are true, living, sound, and plain. A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of the former. And she will cease to be the wife of the former if her husband dies, not if he commits sexual immorality. A spouse is therefore lawfully put away for the cause of sexual immorality; but the bond of chastity remains, because of which the one who marries a woman put away even for this cause of sexual immorality becomes guilty of adultery. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:2: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:3: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2–3. Augustine holds that separation for sexual immorality is lawful but the marriage bond remains until death, so remarriage by either spouse is adultery. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.3 (CSEL 41:384–386; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-3). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-4 - Source: CSEL 41:386–387 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The marriage bond survives separation as baptism survives excommunication; adultery is a death of the soul, not the death that frees a spouse to remarry. ### Latin text Sicut enim manente in se sacramento regenerationis excommunicatur cuiusquam reus criminis nec illo sacramento caret, etiamsi numquam reconcilietur deo, ita manente in se uinculo foederis coniugalis uxor dimittitur ob causam fornicationis nec carebit illo uinculo, etiamsi numquam reconcilietur uiro; carebit autem, si mortuus fuerit uir eius. reus uero excommunicatus ideo numquam carebit regenerationis sacramento etiam non reconciliatus, quoniam numquam moritur deus. remanet itaque, ut, si sapere secundum apostolum uolumus, non dicamus uirum adulterum pro mortuo deputandum et ideo licere uxori eius alteri nubere. quamuis enim sit mors adulterium non corporis, sed, quod peius est, animae, non tamen et de ista morte loquebatur apostolus, cum dicebat: quodsi mortuus fuerit uir eius, cui uult nubat, sed de illa sola, qua de corpore exitur, quoniam, si per coniugis adulterium coniugale soluitur uinculum, sequitur illa peruersitas, quam cauendam esse monstraui, ut et mulier per inpudicitiam soluatur hoc uinculo, quae si soluitur, libera erit a lege uiri, et ideo, quod insipientissime dicitur, non erit adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro, quia per adulterium liberata est a priore uiro. quod si ita est a ueritate deuium, ut nullus id, non dico christianus, sed humanus sensus admittat, profecto mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit, quod ut apertius dicam, quamdiu uir eius in corpore est. pari ergo forma et uir alligatus est, quamdiu mulier eius in corpore est. unde si uult dimittere adulteram, non ducat alteram, ne quod in illa culpat, ipse committat. similiter et mulier, si dimittit adulterum, non sibi copulet alterum; alligata est enim, quamdiu uir eius uiuit nec a lege uiri nisi mortui liberatur, ut non sit adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro. ### English translation (Claude) For just as a person guilty of some crime is excommunicated while the sacrament of regeneration remains in him, and he does not lose that sacrament even if he is never reconciled to God, so a wife is put away for the cause of sexual immorality while the bond of the conjugal covenant remains in her, and she will not lose that bond even if she is never reconciled to her husband; but she will lose it if her husband dies. The excommunicated offender, however, will never lose the sacrament of regeneration, even unreconciled, because God never dies. It remains, then, if we want to be wise according to the apostle, that we should not say that an adulterous husband is to be counted as dead and that therefore his wife may marry another. For although adultery is a death, not of the body but, what is worse, of the soul, the apostle was not speaking of this death when he said, “But if her husband dies, let her marry whom she wishes,” but only of that by which one leaves the body. For if the conjugal bond is dissolved by a spouse's adultery, there follows that perversity which I have shown must be avoided: that the woman too is released from this bond by her unchastity; and if she is released, she will be free from the law of her husband, and therefore (a most foolish thing to say) she will not be an adulteress if she is with another man, because she has been freed from her former husband by adultery. But if this is so far from the truth that no sense, I do not say Christian, but human, admits it, then certainly “a wife is bound as long as her husband lives,” that is, to say it more plainly, as long as her husband is in the body. By the same rule, then, the husband too is bound as long as his wife is in the body. Hence, if he wishes to put away an adulteress, let him not marry another, lest he himself commit what he blames in her. Likewise the wife, if she puts away an adulterer, let her not join herself to another; for she is bound as long as her husband lives, and she is not freed from the law of her husband except when he is dead, so that she is not an adulteress if she is with another man. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence - Rom 7:3: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine compares the permanence of the marriage bond with the permanence of baptism in an excommunicated person. Quotations: 1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.4 (CSEL 41:386–387; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-4). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-5 - Source: CSEL 41:387 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Against Pollentius's objection, Augustine argues that a husband may and should be reconciled to a repentant adulterous wife, since Christ forgave the adulteress. ### Latin text Quod autem tibi durum uidetur, ut post adulterium reconcilietur coniugi coniux, si fides adsit, non erit durum. cur enim adhuc deputamus adulteros, quos uel baptismate ablutos uel paenitentia credimus esse sanatos? haec crimina in uetere dei lege nullis sacrificiis mundabantur, quae noui testamenti sanguine sine dubitatione mundantur; et ideo tunc omni modo prohibitum est ab alio contaminatam uiro recipere uxorem, quamuis Dauid Saulis filiam, quam pater eiusdem mulieris ab eo separatam dederat alteri, tamquam noui testamenti praefigurator sine cunctatione receperit. nunc autem posteaquam Christus ait adulterae: nec ego te damnabo; uade, deinceps iam noli peccare, quis non intellegat debere ignoscere maritum, quod uidet ignouisse dominum amborum nec se iam debere adulteram dicere, cuius paenitentis crimen diuina credit miseratione deletum? ### English translation (Claude) But what seems hard to you, that after adultery a spouse should be reconciled to a spouse, will not be hard if faith is present. For why do we still count as adulterers those whom we believe to have been washed by baptism or healed by repentance? These crimes were not cleansed by any sacrifices in the old law of God, but they are cleansed without doubt by the blood of the New Testament; and therefore it was then altogether forbidden to take back a wife defiled by another man, although David took back without hesitation, as one prefiguring the New Testament, Saul's daughter, whom her father had separated from him and given to another. But now, after Christ said to the adulteress, “Neither will I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more,” who does not understand that a husband ought to forgive what he sees the Lord of both has forgiven, and that he ought no longer to call her an adulteress whose crime, when she repented, he believes has been blotted out by divine mercy? ### Scripture references - Deut 24:4: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Sam 25:44: allusion, high confidence - 2 Sam 3:14: allusion, high confidence - 2 Sam 3:15: allusion, high confidence - John 8:11: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The old prohibition: Deut 24:1–4 (cf. Jer 3:1). David and Michal: 1 Sam 25:44; 2 Sam 3:13–16. Quotation: John 7:53–8:11 (8:11). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.5 (CSEL 41:387; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-5). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-6 - Source: CSEL 41:387–388 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine reports that some removed the story of the woman taken in adultery from their manuscripts, fearing it licensed sin, and rebukes husbands who condemn adulterous wives while committing adultery themselves. ### Latin text Sed hoc uidelicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicae fidei uel potius inimici uerae fidei, credo, metuentes peccandi inpunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud, quod de adulterae indulgentia dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit: iam deinceps noli peccare, aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico deo illius peccati remissione sanari, ne offenderentur insani. neque enim quibus illud factum domini displicet, ipsi pudici sunt et eos seueros castitas facit; sed potius ex illo sunt hominum numero, quibus dominus ait: qui sine peccato est uestrum, prior in eam lapidem iaciat. nisi quod illi conscientia territi recesserunt et temptare Christum atque adulteram persequi destiterunt, isti autem et aegroti medicum reprehendunt et in adulteras adulteri saeuiunt: quibus si diceretur, non quod illi audierunt: qui sine peccato est — quis enim sine peccato? — sed: qui sine isto peccato est, prior in illam lapidem mittat, tum uero forsitan cogitarent, qui indignabantur, quod adulteram non occiderant, quanta illis misericordia dei parceretur, ut adulteri uiuerent. ### English translation (Claude) But this, of course, the mind of unbelievers abhors, so much that some of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I believe, that impunity to sin was being given to their wives, removed from their copies what the Lord did in pardoning the adulteress; as if he who said, “From now on sin no more,” had granted permission to sin, or as if the woman should not have been healed by God the physician through the forgiveness of that sin, lest the unhealthy be offended. For those whom that deed of the Lord displeases are not themselves chaste, nor is it chastity that makes them severe; rather, they belong to the number of those to whom the Lord said, “Let him among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Except that those, terrified by their conscience, withdrew and ceased to tempt Christ and to pursue the adulteress; but these, though sick, both criticize the physician and, adulterers themselves, rage against adulteresses. If it were said to them, not what those men heard, “He who is without sin” (for who is without sin?), but, “He who is without this sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” then perhaps those who were indignant that the adulteress had not been killed would consider how great was the mercy of God that spared them, so that adulterers could live. ### Scripture references - John 8:11: quotation, high confidence - John 8:7: quotation, high confidence - John 8:9: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: John 8:11, 7. Augustine's remark is an early witness to the omission of the pericope of the adulteress (John 7:53–8:11) from some manuscripts; the passage is absent from the earliest Greek witnesses, and modern text critics generally judge that it was not originally part of John. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.6 (CSEL 41:387–388; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-6). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-7 - Source: CSEL 41:388–390 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine rejects the double standard that punishes adulterous wives but excuses husbands, citing even a pagan emperor's rescript, and calls adulterous men to repentance. ### Latin text Sed cum haec eis dicimus, non solum nihil uolunt detrahere seueritati, sed irascuntur insuper ueritati et loquuntur atque respondent: sed nos uiri sumus. an uero sexus nostri dignitas hanc sustinebit iniuriam, ut, cum aliis feminis praeter uxores nostras si quid admittimus, in luendis poenis mulieribus comparemur? quasi non propterea magis debeant inlicitas concupiscentias uiriliter frenare, quia uiri sunt; quasi non propterea magis debeant mulieribus suis ad uirtutis huius exemplum se praebere, quia uiri sunt; quasi non propterea minus debeant a libidine superari, quia uiri sunt; quasi non propterea minus debeant lasciuienti carni seruire, quia uiri sunt et tamen indignantur, si audiant adulteros uiros pendere similes adulteris feminis poenas, cum tanto grauius eos puniri oportuerit, quanto magis ad eos pertinet et uirtute uincere et exemplo regere feminas. christianis equidem loquor, qui fideliter audiunt: caput mulieris uir, ubi se agnoscunt duces, illas autem comites esse debere. et ideo cauendum uiro illac ire uiuendo, qua timet, ne uxor sequatur imitando. sed isti, quibus displicet, ut inter uirum et uxorem par pudicitiae forma seruetur, et potius eligunt, maximeque in hac causa, mundi legibus subditi esse quam Christi, quoniam iura forensia non eisdem quibus feminas pudicitiae nexibus uiros uidentur obstringere, legant, quid imperator Antoninus, non utique christianus, de hac re constituerit, ubi maritus uxorem de adulterii crimine accusare non sinitur, cui moribus suis non praebuit castitatis exemplum, ita ut ambo damnarentur, si ambos pariter inpudicos conflictus ipse conuinceret. nam supra dicti imperatoris haec uerba sunt, quae apud Gregorianum leguntur. sane, inquit, litterae meae nulla parte causae praeiudicabunt. neque enim, si penes te culpa fuit, ut matrimonium solueretur et secundum legem Iuliam Eupasia uxor tua nuberet, propter hoc rescripto meo adulterii damnata erit, nisi constet esse commissum. habebunt autem ante oculos hoc inquirere, an, cum tu pudice uiueres, illi quoque bonos mores colendi auctor fuisti. periniquum enim mihi uidetur esse, ut pudicitiam uir ab uxore exigat, quam ipse non exhibet. quae res potest et uirum damnare, non ob conpensationem mutui criminis rem inter utrumque conponere uel causam facti tollere. si haec obseruanda sunt propter decus terrenae ciuitatis, quanto castiores quaerit caelestis patria et societas angelorum! quae cum ita sint, numquid ideo minor est, ac non potius maior et peior uirorum inpudicitia quam inest illis superba et licentiosa iactantia? non igitur exhorreant uiri, quod adulterae Christus ignouit; sed potius agnoscant etiam periculum suum et simili morbo laborantes ad eundem saluatorem supplici pietate confugiant et quod in illa factum legunt etiam sibi necessarium esse fateantur, adulteriorum suorum medicinam suscipiant, adulterare iam desinant, laudent in se dei patientiam, agant paenitentiam, sumant indulgentiam, mutent de poena feminarum et de sua inpunitate sententiam. ### English translation (Claude) But when we say this to them, not only do they refuse to take anything away from their severity, but they are angry besides at the truth, and speak and answer: “But we are men. Shall the dignity of our sex bear this insult, that, if we commit anything with other women besides our wives, we should be put on a level with women in suffering penalties?” As if they ought not to curb unlawful desires the more manfully precisely because they are men; as if they ought not to offer themselves the more to their wives as an example of this virtue precisely because they are men; as if they ought not to be the less overcome by lust precisely because they are men; as if they ought not to serve wanton flesh the less precisely because they are men. And yet they are indignant if they hear that adulterous men pay penalties like adulterous women, when they ought to be punished the more severely, the more it belongs to them both to surpass women in virtue and to guide them by example. I am speaking, indeed, to Christians, who hear faithfully, “The head of the woman is the man,” where they recognize that they are to be leaders and the women their companions. And therefore a husband must beware of going, in his way of life, where he fears his wife may follow by imitating him. But let those who dislike that one and the same rule of chastity be kept between husband and wife, and who prefer, especially in this matter, to be subject to the laws of the world rather than to those of Christ, since the laws of the courts do not seem to bind men with the same bonds of chastity as women, read what the emperor Antoninus, certainly not a Christian, decreed on this matter, where a husband is not allowed to accuse his wife of the crime of adultery if he has not given her an example of chastity by his own conduct, so that both would be condemned if the trial itself proved both equally unchaste. For these are the words of the aforesaid emperor, which are read in the Gregorian Code: “My letter, to be sure, will in no respect prejudge the case. For if it was your fault that the marriage was dissolved and your wife Eupasia married again according to the Julian law, she will not be condemned for adultery by my rescript on that account, unless it is established that it was committed. The judges will have this before their eyes to inquire, whether, while you lived chastely, you also led her to cultivate good morals. For it seems to me most unjust that a husband should demand from his wife a chastity that he himself does not show. This can also condemn the husband, not settle the matter between both by setting off one crime against the other, or remove the cause of action.” If these things are to be observed for the honor of the earthly city, how much more chaste are those whom the heavenly homeland and the fellowship of the angels seek! This being so, is men's unchastity therefore less, and not rather greater and worse, because they have a proud and licentious boasting? Let men not, then, recoil from the fact that Christ pardoned the adulteress; but let them rather recognize their own danger too, and, suffering from a similar disease, flee with humble devotion to the same Savior; let them confess that what they read was done for her is necessary for themselves also; let them receive the remedy for their adulteries, cease now to commit adultery, praise God's patience in their regard, do penance, obtain pardon, and change their judgment about the punishment of women and their own impunity. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 11:3: quotation, high confidence - Eph 5:23: echo, medium confidence - John 8:11: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: 1 Cor 11:3 (cf. Eph 5:23). The rescript of an emperor Antoninus (which of the emperors of that name is uncertain) is quoted from the Gregorian Code; its key sentence is also cited in Justinian's Digest (48.5.14). The Julian law is Augustus's lex Iulia de adulteriis. The final clause of the rescript is obscure in the Latin and is translated by sense. No entry exists for the Gregorian Code. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.7 (CSEL 41:388–390; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-7). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-8 - Source: CSEL 41:390–392 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Reconciliation after a forgiven adultery is possible; if it does not happen, both spouses must remain continent, since remarriage would make four adulterers of two spouses. ### Latin text Quibus consideratis atque tractatis si communis condicio, commune malum, commune periculum, commune uulnus, communis salus fideliter et humiliter cogitetur, non erit turpis neque difficilis etiam post perpetrata atque purgata adulteria reconciliatio coniugum, ubi per claues regni caelorum non dubitatur fieri remissio peccatorum, non ut post uiri diuortium adultera reuocetur, sed ut post Christi consortium adultera non uocetur. uerum ecce non fiat, nemo conpellit, quia forte lex aliqua huius saeculi uetat secundum terrenae ciuitatis modum, ubi cogitata non est abolitio criminum per sanguinem sanctum. suscipiatur ergo continentia, quam nulla lex prohibet, in alia non eatur adulteria. et quid ad nos, si nec saltem diuina miseratione mundata marito reconcilietur adultera, dum tamen non reconciliatis adulteris non alia fiant quasi conubia, quae conuincuntur esse adulteria? mulier enim alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit. ergo consequenter et uir alligatus est, quamdiu mulier eius uiuit. haec alligatio facit, ut aliis, coniungi sine adulterina copulatione non possint. unde necesse est ex duobus coniugibus quattuor adulteros fieri, si et illa alteri nupserit et ille adulteram duxerit. quamuis enim sceleratius moechetur, qui non causa fornicationis uxore dimissa alteram ducit — quod genus adulterii commemorauit Matthaeus — tamen non solum ipse moechatur, sed, sicuti est apud Marcum, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit super eam; et si uxor dimiserit uirum suum et alii nupserit, moechatur et, sicuti est apud Lucam, omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, moechatur; et qui dimissam a uiro duxerit, moechatur. de quibus testimoniis satis in libro superiore disserui. ### English translation (Claude) When these things have been considered and treated, if the common condition, the common evil, the common danger, the common wound, and the common salvation are thought of faithfully and humbly, the reconciliation of spouses will be neither shameful nor difficult, even after adulteries committed and purged, where no one doubts that the forgiveness of sins takes place through the keys of the kingdom of heaven: not so that an adulteress may be called back after her husband's divorce, but so that after fellowship with Christ she may not be called an adulteress. But suppose it does not happen; no one compels it, since perhaps some law of this world forbids it, according to the measure of the earthly city, where the abolition of crimes through the holy blood has not been thought of. Let continence, then, be undertaken, which no law forbids; let there be no going into other adulteries. And what is it to us if the adulteress, even though cleansed by divine mercy, is not reconciled to her husband, provided that the unreconciled do not enter into other so-called marriages which are proved to be adulteries? For “a wife is bound as long as her husband lives.” Consequently, the husband too is bound as long as his wife lives. This binding means that they cannot be joined to others without an adulterous union. Hence it necessarily follows that from two spouses four adulterers come about, if she marries another and he marries an adulteress. For although he commits adultery more wickedly who, having put away his wife not for the cause of sexual immorality, marries another (the kind of adultery Matthew mentioned), yet not only he commits adultery, but, as in Mark, “whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery,” and, as in Luke, “everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman put away by her husband commits adultery.” I discussed these testimonies sufficiently in the previous book. ### Scripture references - Matt 16:19: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence - Matt 19:9: allusion, high confidence - Mark 10:11: quotation, high confidence - Mark 10:12: quotation, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The keys of the kingdom: Matt 16:19. Quotations: 1 Cor 7:39; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18. “The kind of adultery Matthew mentioned”: Matt 5:32; 19:9. Roman law (the lex Iulia) could penalize a husband who kept an adulterous wife, which is probably the “law of this world” Augustine has in mind. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.8 (CSEL 41:390–392; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-8). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-9 - Source: CSEL 41:392–393 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: To the objection that forbidding remarriage is inhuman to the incontinent, Augustine replies that the same complaint would justify adultery in cases of illness, captivity, or an unpleasant wife. ### Latin text Sed respondes mihi: continenter uiuere paucorum est; et ideo qui fornicantes coniuges dimiserunt, quoniam non possunt reconciliari, tantum se periclitari uident, ut legem Christi non humanam, sed feralem pronuntient). o frater, quantum ad incontinentes pertinet, multas querellas habere possunt, quibus, ut dicis, legem Christi feralem pronuntient, non humanam. et tamen non propter illos euangelium Christi peruertere uel mutare debemus. te quippe sola illorum querella permoueret, qui coniuges causa fornicationis intercedente dimittunt, si alias ducere non sinantur, quoniam continere paucorum est atque ad id debent laude adhortari, non lege conpelli. itaque si dimissa adultera non ducitur altera, iustam querellam, sicut putas, habebit hominum incontinentia. sed adtende, quam plura sint, ubi, si querellas incontinentium uelimus admittere, necesse nobis erit adulteria facienda permittere. quid? si enim aliquo diuturno et insanabili morbo corporis teneatur coniux, quo concubitus inpeditur? quid? si captiuitas uel uis aliqua separet, ita ut sciat uiuere maritus uxorem, cuius sibi copia denegatur, censesne admittenda incontinentium murmura et permittenda adulteria? quid in hoc ipso, unde interrogatus est dominus responditque fieri non debere, sed ad duritiam cordis illorum Moysen permisisse dari libellum repudii et quacumque causa dimittere coniugem? nonne lex Christi incontinentibus displicet, qui uxores litigiosas, iniuriosas, imperiosas, fastidiosas et ad reddendum debitum coniugale difficillimas repudio interposito abicere uolunt et alteras ducere? iam ergo quia istorum incontinentia legem Christi horruit, ad eorum lex Christi arbitrium commutanda est? ### English translation (Claude) But you answer me: “To live continently belongs to few; and therefore those who have put away spouses who committed sexual immorality, since they cannot be reconciled, see themselves in such danger that they declare the law of Christ not humane but savage.” O brother, as far as the incontinent are concerned, they can have many complaints on account of which, as you say, they may declare the law of Christ savage, not humane. And yet we must not pervert or change the gospel of Christ because of them. You are moved only by the complaint of those who put away their spouses for the intervening cause of sexual immorality, if they are not allowed to marry others, since continence belongs to few and they should be urged to it by praise, not compelled by law. So, if another is not married once the adulteress has been put away, human incontinence will have, as you think, a just complaint. But consider how many more cases there are in which, if we wished to admit the complaints of the incontinent, we should have to permit adulteries to be committed. What if a spouse is held by some long and incurable bodily illness by which intercourse is prevented? What if captivity or some force separates them, so that a husband knows that his wife is alive, while access to her is denied him? Do you think the murmurs of the incontinent should be admitted and adulteries permitted? What about the very matter on which the Lord was questioned, and answered that it ought not to be done, but that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, permitted a certificate of divorce to be given and a spouse to be put away for any cause? Does not the law of Christ displease the incontinent who wish to cast off, by giving a divorce, wives who are quarrelsome, abusive, domineering, disdainful, and most reluctant to render the conjugal debt, and marry others? Since, then, their incontinence has shuddered at the law of Christ, must the law of Christ be changed at their discretion? ### Scripture references - Matt 19:3: allusion, high confidence - Matt 19:8: allusion, high confidence - Deut 24:1: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Pharisees' question and Moses' concession: Matt 19:3–8; Deut 24:1. A stray closing bracket after Pollentius's words in the digital text marks the end of his quotation. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.9 (CSEL 41:392–393; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-9). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-10 - Source: CSEL 41:393–394 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Even a wife unjustly dismissed commits adultery if she remarries; the complaint of the incontinent cannot change Christ's law, and the bond remains while the spouse lives. ### Latin text Iam uero si maritum relinquat uxor uel maritus uxorem non causa fornicationis, sed potius continentiae sitque incontinens, cui repudium propter hoc datur, quaero utrum non erit adulter uel adultera, si alteri copuletur. si (non erit [ut] dicitur, domino contradicitur, cuius haec uerba sunt: dictum est autem: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det illi libellum repudii. ego autem dico, quia omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam excepta causa fornicationis, facit eam moechari; et qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat. ecce dimissa est, non dimisit et quia continere paucorum est, incontinentiae cessit et nupsit; et tamen adulter adulteram duxit. ambo rei, ambo damnandi sunt, et quae nupsit uiuo marito et qui duxit eam, cuius uiuit maritus. numquid hic legem Christi dicimus inhumanam, qua constituitur rea tanti criminis atque punitur, quam uir nulla eius praecedente fornicatione dimisit et, quia paucorum est continere, dimittendo conpulit nubere? cur non hic dicimus habendum esse pro mortuo, qui male dimittendo prior coniugale uinculum rupit? nam qua ratione dicturus es eum rupisse uinculum coniugale, qui, licet sit moechus, non dimisit uxorem, et eum non rupisse, qui etiam castam dimisit uxorem? ego autem dico in utroque manere hoc uinculum, quoniam mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit, siue continens siue moechus, et ideo moechari eam, quae dimissa nupserit, et moechari eum, qui dimissam duxerit, siue a moecho siue a continente dimissa sit, quoniam mulier alligata est, quamdiu uir eius uiuit sed nunc de querellis incontinentium disputamus. quid enim uidetur iustius huius mulieris querella, quae dicit: dimissa sum, non dimisi; et quoniam continere paucorum est, non me continui. ne fornicarer nupsi; et dicor moecha quia nupsi? numquid propter huius quasi iustam querellam legem censebimus mutandam esse diuinam, ut istam non iudicemus adulteram? absit. sed respondebis non eam debuisse dimitti, quia fornicationis nulla causa praecesserat. uerum dicis; nam peccatum mariti eius dominus expressit, ubi ait: qui dimiserit uxorem suam excepta causa fornicationis facit eam moechari. sed numquid ista ideo nubendo postea non peccauit, quia prius dimittendo ille peccauit? quid ergo ei prodest, quod de lege Christi mulier incontinens queritur, nisi ut murmurans puniatur? ### English translation (Claude) Now, if a wife leaves her husband, or a husband his wife, not because of sexual immorality but rather for the sake of continence, and the one to whom the divorce is given for this reason is incontinent, I ask whether he or she will not be an adulterer or adulteress if joined to another. If it is said that they will not be, the Lord is contradicted, whose words these are: “It was said, ‘Whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say that everyone who puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and he who marries a woman put away commits adultery.” Look, she was put away, she did not put away, and since continence belongs to few, she gave in to incontinence and married; and yet an adulterer married an adulteress. Both are guilty, both are to be condemned: she who married while her husband lived, and he who married her whose husband lives. Do we call the law of Christ inhumane here, by which she is declared guilty of so great a crime and punished, whom her husband put away with no prior sexual immorality on her part and, since continence belongs to few, by putting her away compelled to marry? Why do we not say here that he is to be counted as dead who first broke the conjugal bond by wrongly putting her away? For by what reasoning will you say that he broke the conjugal bond who, although an adulterer, did not put away his wife, and that he did not break it who put away even a chaste wife? But I say that this bond remains in both cases, since “a wife is bound as long as her husband lives,” whether he is continent or an adulterer; and therefore she commits adultery who marries after being put away, and he commits adultery who marries a woman put away, whether she was put away by an adulterer or by a continent man, since “a wife is bound as long as her husband lives.” But now we are discussing the complaints of the incontinent. For what complaint seems more just than that of this woman who says, “I was put away, I did not put away; and since continence belongs to few, I did not contain myself. So as not to commit sexual immorality I married; and I am called an adulteress because I married”? Shall we decide that the divine law must be changed because of her seemingly just complaint, so that we do not judge her an adulteress? Far from it. But you will answer that she ought not to have been put away, since no cause of sexual immorality had preceded. You speak the truth; for the Lord declared her husband's sin when he said, “Whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery.” But did she not sin by marrying afterwards because he sinned earlier by putting her away? What good does it do the incontinent woman, then, to complain about the law of Christ, except that she is punished while murmuring? ### Scripture references - Matt 5:31: quotation, high confidence - Matt 5:32: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:39: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:9: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Matt 5:31–32; 1 Cor 7:39. The editor deletes “ut” in “non erit [ut] dicitur”; the stray bracket before “non erit” marks a question in the digital text. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.10 (CSEL 41:393–394; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-10). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-11 - Source: CSEL 41:394–395 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The desire for children cannot excuse remarriage after dismissing an adulterous wife, any more than it could justify dismissing a barren one. ### Latin text Iam nunc etiam illa uideamus, quae alio loco interponens addidisti meque ad ea respondere uoluisti. ubi te mouet et miseraris hominem, qui cubare cum adultera, etiamsi non incontinentia, certe filiorum procreandorum necessitate conpellitur, si non ei licet sic eam dimittere, ut ea uiuente alteram ducat. unde recte mouereris, si adulterium non esset quamuis adultera uiua uxore alteram ducere. si autem adulterium est, ut ea quae sunt disputata docuerunt, quid obtenditur procreandorum causa filiorum? non enim propterea flagitiorum est permittenda licentia. aut uero tam cauendum est sine posteris mori quam eligendum in posterum uiuere? quod non sinentur adulteri, quos necesse est post primam mortem secundae mortis aeternitate damnari. nam procreandorum filiorum ista causatio etiam non adulteras, sed castissimas feminas, si forte sint steriles, cogit dimitti et alteras duci: quod tibi existimo non placere. ### English translation (Claude) Now let us also look at the things you inserted in another place and wanted me to answer. There you are troubled and feel pity for a man who is compelled, if not by incontinence then certainly by the necessity of begetting children, to sleep with an adulteress, if he is not permitted to put her away in such a way as to marry another while she lives. You would rightly be troubled on this point if it were not adultery to marry another while one's wife, although an adulteress, is alive. But if it is adultery, as what has been argued has shown, why is the begetting of children put forward as a pretext? For license for shameful deeds is not to be permitted on that account. Or is dying without descendants to be avoided as much as living into the hereafter is to be chosen? Adulterers will not be allowed this, since after the first death they must be condemned to the eternity of the second death. For this pretext of begetting children would compel even wives who are not adulteresses but most chaste, if they happen to be barren, to be put away and others married; which I think does not please you. ### Scripture references - Rev 20:14: allusion, high confidence - Rev 21:8: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “The second death”: Rev 20:14; 21:8. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.11 (CSEL 41:394–395; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-11). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-12 - Source: CSEL 41:395–397 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Paul allowed marriage as a remedy for incontinence, not for the sake of children; so neither motive can excuse adultery, and one who must avoid adultery must keep continence. ### Latin text Quapropter si causa incontinentiae non sunt excusanda adulteria, quanto minus excusantur procreandorum causa filiorum! Illi quippe infirmitati, hoc est incontinentiae uoluit apostolus subuenire honestate nuptiarum. non enim ait: si filios non habet, nubat, sed: si se non continet, nubat. filiorum quidem propagatione conpensatur, quod incontinentiae nubendo ceditur. nam utique incontinentia uitium est, coniugium autem non est uitium; et ideo fit per hoc bonum, ut illud ueniale sit malum. cum sint ergo nuptiae causa generandi institutae, ea causa fiebant a patribus, qui tantum officio generandi feminis, sed non inlicite, miscebantur. erat enim tunc quaedam propagandi necessitas, quae nunc non est, quoniam tempus amplectendi, sicut scriptum est, quod utique tunc fuit, et tempus continendi ab amplexu, quod nunc est. de quo tempore apostolus loquens ait: de cetero, fratres, tempus breue est; reliquum est, ut et qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. unde nunc certissime dicitur: quae potest capere, capiat; quae autem se non continet, nubat. tunc ergo etiam continentia propter propagationem filiorum in nuptias descendebat officio; nunc autem uinculum nuptiale incontinentiae subuenit uitio, ut ab eis, qui se non continent, non per turpitudinem stuprorum, sed per honestatem coniugiorum fiat propagatio filiorum. cur ergo non dixit apostolus: si filios non habet, nubat? quia scilicet hoc tempore continendi ab amplexu non est necesse filios propagare. et quare dixit: si se non continet, nubat? utique propterea, ne per incontinentiam cogatur adulterare. si ergo se continet, nec nubat nec generet; si autem se non continet, licite nubat, ne turpiter generet aut turpius concumbendo non generet. quamquam hoc, quod ultimum dixi, nonnulli faciant etiam licite coniugati. inlicite namque et turpiter etiam cum legitima uxore concumbitur, ubi prolis conceptio deuitatur. quod faciebat Aunan filius Iudae, et occidit illum propter hoc deus. propagatio itaque filiorum ipsa est prima et naturalis et legitima causa nuptiarum. ac per hoc qui propter incontinentiam coniunguntur, non sic debent temperare malum suum, ut bonum exterminent nuptiarum, id est propagationem filiorum. de incontinentibus quippe loquebatur apostolus, ubi ait: uolo igitur iuniores nubere, filios procreare, matres familias esse, nullam occasionem dare aduersario maledicti gratia. iam enim quaedam conuersae sunt retro post satanan. cum itaque dicebat: uolo iuniores nubere, hoc utique monebat propter ruinam continentiae fulciendam. sed ne forte ab eis sola carnalis concupiscentiae cogitaretur infirmitas, cui tantummodo esset opere conubii seruiendum, nuptiarum autem uel contemneretur uel neglegeretur bonum, continuo subiunxit: filios procreare, matres familias esse. qui uero eligunt continere, aliquid utique melius eligunt, quam est nuptiarum bonum; hoc est generatio filiorum. unde si eligitur continentia, ut bono nuptiarum melius aliquid capessatur, quanto potius custodienda est, ut adulterium caueatur! cum enim dixisset apostolus: quodsi se non continet, nubat, melius est enim, inquit, nubere quam uri, non dixit melius est moechari quam uri. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore, if adulteries are not to be excused on the ground of incontinence, how much less are they excused on the ground of begetting children! It was that weakness, that is, incontinence, which the apostle wished to relieve by the honorable state of marriage. For he does not say, “If she has no children, let her marry,” but, “If she does not contain herself, let her marry.” What is conceded to incontinence by marrying is indeed compensated by the propagation of children. For incontinence is certainly a vice, but marriage is not a vice; and so through this good that evil becomes venial. Since marriage, then, was instituted for the sake of begetting, it was for this reason that it was contracted by the fathers, who had relations with women only for the duty of begetting, but not unlawfully. For there was then a certain necessity of propagation that does not exist now, since there is “a time for embracing,” as it is written, which certainly was then, “and a time to refrain from embracing,” which is now. Speaking of this time the apostle says, “For the rest, brothers, the time is short; it remains that those who have wives be as though they had none.” Hence it is now said with complete certainty, “Let her who can receive it receive it; but let her who does not contain herself marry.” Then, therefore, even continence descended into marriage from the duty of propagating children; but now the nuptial bond relieves the vice of incontinence, so that the propagation of children may come about from those who do not contain themselves, not through the shamefulness of illicit intercourse but through the honorable state of marriage. Why, then, did the apostle not say, “If she has no children, let her marry”? Clearly because in this time of refraining from embracing it is not necessary to propagate children. And why did he say, “If she does not contain herself, let her marry”? Surely lest through incontinence she be driven to commit adultery. If, then, she contains herself, let her neither marry nor beget; but if she does not contain herself, let her marry lawfully, lest she beget shamefully or, more shamefully still, have intercourse without begetting. Although some, even lawfully married, do this last thing I mentioned. For intercourse even with one's lawful wife is unlawful and shameful where the conception of offspring is avoided. This is what Onan, the son of Judah, did, and God killed him for it. The propagation of children, then, is itself the first, natural, and lawful cause of marriage. And therefore those who are joined because of incontinence ought not to temper their evil in such a way as to destroy the good of marriage, that is, the propagation of children. For the apostle was speaking of the incontinent when he said, “I want, then, the younger women to marry, to bear children, to be mothers of families, to give the adversary no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside after Satan.” When, then, he said, “I want the younger women to marry,” he was certainly advising this to shore up the collapse of continence. But lest they think only of the weakness of carnal concupiscence, which they would merely serve by the act of marriage, while the good of marriage was either despised or neglected, he at once added, “to bear children, to be mothers of families.” Those who choose to be continent certainly choose something better than the good of marriage, that is, the begetting of children. Hence, if continence is chosen in order to take up something better than the good of marriage, how much more must it be kept in order to avoid adultery! For when the apostle had said, “But if she does not contain herself, let her marry,” he said, “for it is better to marry than to burn”; he did not say, “it is better to commit adultery than to burn.” ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:9: quotation, high confidence - Eccl 3:5: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:29: quotation, high confidence - Matt 19:12: quotation, high confidence - Gen 38:9: allusion, high confidence - Gen 38:10: allusion, high confidence - 1 Tim 5:14: quotation, high confidence - 1 Tim 5:15: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:9; Eccl 3:5; 1 Cor 7:29; Matt 19:12 (adapted to the feminine); 1 Tim 5:14–15. Onan: Gen 38:9–10, which Augustine reads as condemning the avoidance of conception within marriage. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.12 (CSEL 41:395–397; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-12). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-13 - Source: CSEL 41:397–398 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: A spouse unwilling to be reconciled to a repentant adulterer must remain continent, since only death dissolves the bond; fear, effort, and prayer can lead to love of continence. ### Latin text Non est igitur, ad quod exhortemur eos qui reconciliari timent coniugibus adulteris paenitendo sanatis nisi ad custodiendam continentiam, quoniam mulier alligata, quamdiu siue moechus siue castus uir eius uiuit, moechatur, si alteri nupserit, et uir alligatus, quamdiu siue moecha siue casta uxor eius uiuit, moechatur, si alteram duxerit. haec namque alligatio quandoquidem non soluitur, etiamsi per repudium coniux a casto coniuge separetur, multo minus soluitur, si non separata moechetur. ac per hoc non eam soluit nisi mors coniugis non in adulterium corruentis, sed de corpore exeuntis. quapropter si recesserit mulier ab adultero uiro et ei reconciliari non uult, maneat innupta; et si dimiserit uir adulteram mulierem et eam non uult recipere nec post paenitentiam, custodiat continentiam, etsi non ex uoluntate eligendi potioris boni, certe ex necessitate uitandi perniciosi mali. ad hoc exhortarer, etiamsi uxor esset in languore insanabili atque diuturno, etiamsi alicubi esset corpore separata, quo maritus non posset accedere; postremo ad hoc exhortarer, etiamsi mulier uolens uiuere continenter, quamuis contra disciplinam, quia non ex consensu, tamen pudicum pudica dimitteret. puto enim christianum neminem reluctari adulterum esse, qui uel diu languente uel diu absente uel continenter uiuere cupiente sua uxore alteri commixtus est feminae. sic ergo et dimissa adultera adulter est cum altera, quoniam non ille aut ille, sed omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram, moechatur. quapropter si a coniugali uinculo inmunis minus adpetitur uita sanctorum, exhorreatur poena moechorum et timore saltem frenetur concupiscentia, si amore non eligitur continentia. si enim, ubi est timor, operetur labor, ubi erat labor, erit et amor. non enim confidendum est de nostris uiribus; sed oratio adiungenda conatibus, ut inpleat bonis, qui deterret a malis. ### English translation (Claude) There is nothing, then, to which we may exhort those who fear to be reconciled to adulterous spouses healed by repentance except to keep continence; since a wife is bound as long as her husband lives, whether he is an adulterer or chaste, and commits adultery if she marries another; and a husband is bound as long as his wife lives, whether she is an adulteress or chaste, and commits adultery if he marries another. For since this binding is not dissolved even if a spouse is separated from a chaste spouse by divorce, much less is it dissolved if, without being separated, the spouse commits adultery. And therefore nothing dissolves it except the death of a spouse, not falling into adultery but leaving the body. So, if a wife has withdrawn from an adulterous husband and does not wish to be reconciled to him, let her remain unmarried; and if a husband has put away an adulterous wife and does not wish to take her back even after repentance, let him keep continence, if not from the will to choose a better good, then certainly from the necessity of avoiding a deadly evil. I would exhort to this even if a wife were in an incurable and long illness, even if she were bodily separated somewhere her husband could not reach; finally, I would exhort to this even if a wife who wished to live continently, though against discipline, since not by consent, still, chaste herself, put away a chaste husband. For I think no Christian will deny that he is an adulterer who has had relations with another woman while his own wife is long ill or long absent or desiring to live continently. So, too, when an adulteress has been put away, he is an adulterer with another woman, since not this man or that, but “everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Therefore, if the life of the saints, free from the conjugal bond, is too little desired, let the punishment of adulterers be dreaded, and let concupiscence at least be curbed by fear if continence is not chosen by love. For where there is fear, let labor work; where there was labor, there will also be love. For we must not trust in our own strength; but prayer must be joined to our efforts, so that he who deters us from evils may fill us with good things. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 7:39: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 7:11: allusion, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: 1 Cor 7:39 (applied to both spouses); 1 Cor 7:11; Luke 16:18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.13 (CSEL 41:397–398; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-13). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-14 - Source: CSEL 41:398–399 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Answering the fear that forbidding remarriage would lead husbands to have adulterous wives put to death, Augustine urges mercy grounded in awareness of one's own sin. ### Latin text Respondeamus etiam ad illud, ubi putas maritos ad puniendas adulteras sine ulla miseratione conpelli, cum uolunt eas mori, si eis uiuentibus non eis licet alteras ducere. quam crudelitatem uolens exaggerare dixisti: (non mihi uidetur, amantissime pater, hic diuinus esse sensus, ubi benignitas et pietas excluditur. ita istuc dicis, quasi propterea mariti parcere debeant adulteris feminis, quia licet eis alteras ducere, ut, si non licet, non parcant, ut liceat. quin immo propterea debent peccatricibus praebere misericordiam, ut et ipsi pro suis peccatis misericordiam consequantur. et multo magis hoc eis faciendum est, qui dimissis uxoribus adulteris cupiunt uiuere continenter. tanto quippe debent esse misericordiores, quanto uolunt esse sanctiores, ut castitate in se ipsis seruanda diuinitus adiuuentur, dum castitatem ab uxoribus uiolatam nec ipsi humanitus ulciscuntur. et maxime uox illa dominica eis est in memoriam reuocanda: qui sine peccato est, prior in illam lapidem iaciat. non qui sine ipso peccato est, quoniam loquimur de pudicis uiris, sed qui sine peccato est: quod si esse se dixerint, se ipsos seducunt, et ueritas in eis non est. porro si se non seducunt et est in eis ueritas, non erit in eis cruenta seueritas. scientes enim se non esse sine peccato, dimittunt, ut dimittatur eis, nec ab eis benignitas et pietas excluditur. magis enim haec excluduntur, si peccatis coniugum ab eis impetret ueniam licentia libidinis, non cura pietatis; id est ut propterea parcant, quia licet eis alteras ducere, et non potius propterea, quia uolunt et sibi dominum parcere. ### English translation (Claude) Let us also answer the point where you think husbands are driven to punish adulterous wives without any mercy, since they want them to die if they are not permitted to marry others while those wives live. Wishing to magnify this cruelty, you said, “It does not seem to me, most beloved father, that this is the divine meaning, where kindness and devotion are excluded.” You say this as if husbands ought to spare adulterous wives because they are permitted to marry others, so that, if it is not permitted, they would not spare them, in order that it might be permitted. On the contrary, they ought to show mercy to sinful women for this reason, that they themselves may obtain mercy for their own sins. And this is much more to be done by those who, having put away adulterous wives, wish to live continently. For the more holy they wish to be, the more merciful they ought to be, so that they may be divinely helped to keep chastity in themselves while they do not humanly avenge the chastity violated by their wives. And above all that word of the Lord should be recalled to their memory: “He who is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”; not “he who is without this sin,” since we are speaking of chaste husbands, but “he who is without sin.” If they say they are, they deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them. But if they do not deceive themselves and the truth is in them, there will be no bloody severity in them. For knowing that they are not without sin, they forgive, so that they may be forgiven, and kindness and devotion are not excluded by them. Rather, these are excluded if it is the license of lust, not the care of devotion, that obtains pardon from them for their wives' sins; that is, if they spare them because they are permitted to marry others, and not rather because they want the Lord to spare them too. ### Scripture references - John 8:7: quotation, high confidence - 1 John 1:8: quotation, high confidence - Luke 6:37: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Roman law allowed severe penalties, including death, for adultery. Quotations: John 8:7; 1 John 1:8. Forgive and be forgiven: Luke 6:37. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.14 (CSEL 41:398–399; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-2/#p-2-14). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-15 - Source: CSEL 41:399–401 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Christians should spare adulterous wives out of forgiveness, not because remarriage is allowed; a Christian may neither kill an adulterous wife nor remarry while she lives. ### Latin text Quanto itaque melius, honestius, christiana denique professione dignius, ut parcant adulterarum sanguini uxorum, quod scriptum est eis dicimus. dimitte iniustitiam proximo tuo, et tunc precanti tibi peccata soluentur. homo homini conseruat iram et a domino quaerit medellam? super hominem similem sibi non habet misericordiam et de peccatis suis deprecatur? cum ipse caro sit, conseruat iracundiam, quis propitiabitur peccatis illius? et de euangelio: dimittite, et dimittetur uobis — ut possimus dicere: dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris — et de apostolo: nulli malum pro malo reddentes et si qua sunt huius modi in scripturis sanctis, quibus ad ulciscendum quando humanus animus excitatur, quia christianus est, mitigatur. Quanto, inquam, ista melius dicimus, quam ut dicamus: tantum adulteras istas dimittite, et earum nolite sanguinem quaerere; quidquid doloris ex earum flagitiis habetis, consolabuntur uos aliae, quas duxeritis; merito enim uelletis istas de uiuentium numero auferre, si earum uita inpedimento esset, quominus alias duceretis. nunc uero etiam istis uiuentibus cum liceat alia uobis matrimonia prouidere, quid eas tantopere uultis occidere? haec si dicimus, nonne adtendis, quam nostra suasio longe sit a charactere christiano? qui et falsum dicimus eis licere, quod non licet, hoc est istis uiuentibus, ut aliis copulentur, et si propterea illis pepercerint, non parcunt propter pietatem, sed propter aliarum nuptiarum liberam potestatem. postremo quaero abs te, utrum marito christiano liceat uel secundum ueterem dei legem uel romanis legibus adulteram occidere. si licet, melius est, ut ab utroque se temperet, id est et a licito illa peccante supplicio et ab inlicito illa uiuente coniugio. quodsi alterutrum eligere perseuerat, satius est ei facere quod licet, ut adultera puniatur, quam id quod non licet, ut ipsa uiua ille moechetur. si autem, quod uerius dicitur, non licet homini christiano adulteram coniugem occidere, sed tantum dimittere, quis est tam demens, qui ei dicat: fac, quod non licet, ut tibi liceat quod non licet? cum enim utrumque secundum legem Christi inlicitum sit, siue adulteram occidere siue illa uiuente alteram ducere, ab utroque abstinendum est, non inlicitum pro inlicito faciendum. si enim facturus est, quod non licet, iam faciat adulterium et non faciat homicidium, ut uiuente uxore alteram ducat et non humanum sanguinem fundat. quodsi est utrumque nefarium, non debet alterum pro altero perpetrare, sed utrumque uitare. ### English translation (Claude) How much better, then, how much more honorable, how much more worthy of the Christian profession, that they should spare the blood of adulterous wives because we say to them what is written: “Forgive your neighbor his injustice, and then, when you pray, your sins will be loosed. Does a man keep anger against a man and seek healing from the Lord? Has he no mercy on a man like himself, and does he pray for his own sins? Though he is flesh, he keeps wrath; who will make atonement for his sins?” And from the gospel: “Forgive, and you will be forgiven,” so that we may be able to say, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”; and from the apostle: “Repaying no one evil for evil”; and whatever other such things there are in the holy Scriptures, by which the human mind, when it is roused to vengeance, is calmed because it is Christian. How much better, I say, that we say these things than that we should say: “Just put away these adulterous women and do not seek their blood; whatever grief you have from their shameful deeds, other women whom you marry will console you. You would rightly wish to remove these from the number of the living if their life were an obstacle to your marrying others. But now, since you are permitted to provide yourselves other marriages even while they live, why do you want so badly to kill them?” If we say this, do you not see how far our persuasion is from the Christian character? We both tell them falsely that what is not permitted is permitted, namely to be joined to others while those wives live; and if they spare them for this reason, they do not spare them out of devotion but for the free power of other marriages. Finally, I ask you whether a Christian husband is permitted, either by the old law of God or by Roman laws, to kill an adulteress. If it is permitted, it is better that he refrain from both, that is, both from the lawful punishment of the sinning woman and from an unlawful marriage while she lives. But if he insists on choosing one or the other, it is better for him to do what is permitted, so that the adulteress is punished, than what is not permitted, so that he commits adultery while she lives. But if, as is more truly said, a Christian is not permitted to kill an adulterous wife, but only to put her away, who is so mad as to say to him, “Do what is not permitted, so that what is not permitted may be permitted to you”? For since, according to the law of Christ, both are unlawful, whether to kill an adulteress or to marry another while she lives, one must abstain from both, not do the unlawful for the unlawful. For if he is going to do what is not permitted, let him rather commit adultery and not commit murder, marrying another while his wife lives rather than shedding human blood. But if both are wicked, he ought not to commit the one in place of the other, but to avoid both. ### Scripture references - Luke 6:37: quotation, high confidence - Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence - Rom 12:17: quotation, high confidence - Lev 20:10: allusion, medium confidence - Deut 22:22: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 28:2 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Sir 28:2–5; Luke 6:37; Matt 6:12; Rom 12:17. The old law's death penalty for adultery: Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22. Augustine concludes that for a Christian both killing an adulterous wife and remarrying while she lives are unlawful. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.15 (CSEL 41:399–401; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-15). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-16 - Source: CSEL 41:401–402 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine answers the objection that forbidding remarriage tempts men to murder: the same objection would apply to the undisputed adultery of marrying a wife unjustly divorced. ### Latin text Hic uideo, quid dici ab incontinentibus possit: quod uidelicet qui dimittit et uiuere permittit adulteram, si alteram duxerit, quamdiu illa prior uiuit, perpetuus adulter est nec agit paenitentiam fructuosam a flagitio non recedens; nec, si catechumenus est, ad baptismum admittitur, quoniam ab eo quod inpedit non mutatur; nec reconciliari paenitens potest in eadem nequitia perseuerans: si autem accusando adulteram occiderit, hoc peccatum, quoniam transactum est et in eo non permanetur, et, si a catechumeno factum est, baptismate abluitur et, si a baptizato, paenitentia et reconciliatione sanatur. sed numquid propterea dicturi sumus adulterium non esse adulterium, quod sine dubio committitur, si coniuge adultera uiuente altera ducitur? sed hoc adulterii genere excepto nempe non dubitas esse adulterium, si quisquam ducat uiuentis uxorem a uiro suo per libellum repudii sine ulla mulieris fornicatione dimissam. quid ergo? cum uiderit se nec ad baptismum admitti, si catechumenus est, nec utiliter agere paenitentiam, si baptizatus hoc fecit, non corrigendo et relinquendo quod fecit, si eum uoluerit et potuerit occidere, cuius duxit uxorem, ut hoc scelus uel baptismate diluatur uel paenitendo soluatur atque ita etiam illud adulterium non permaneat euacuata muliere a lege uiri post mortem uiri. sed de transacto quod factum est per paenitentiam satis fiat uel regeneratione deleatur: numquid propterea est accusanda lex Christi, tamquam conpulerit fieri homicidium, cum sine crimine fornicationis repudiatam ducere dicit esse adulterium? ### English translation (Claude) Here I see what could be said by the incontinent: namely, that one who puts away an adulteress and lets her live, if he marries another, is a perpetual adulterer as long as the first wife lives, and does not do fruitful penance, since he does not withdraw from the shameful deed; nor, if he is a catechumen, is he admitted to baptism, since he does not change from what hinders him; nor can he be reconciled as a penitent while persisting in the same wickedness. But if he has an adulteress killed by accusing her, this sin, since it is over and done and he does not remain in it, is washed away by baptism if committed by a catechumen, and, if by one baptized, is healed by penance and reconciliation. But shall we therefore say that adultery is not adultery, which is undoubtedly committed if another woman is married while an adulterous wife lives? Setting aside this kind of adultery, you surely do not doubt that it is adultery if someone marries the wife of a living man, put away by her husband with a certificate of divorce without any sexual immorality on the woman's part. What then? When he sees that he is neither admitted to baptism, if he is a catechumen, nor does penance usefully, if he did this when baptized, since he does not correct and abandon what he did, suppose he wishes and is able to kill the man whose wife he married, so that this crime may either be washed away by baptism or loosed by penance, and so that adultery too may not continue, the woman being discharged from the law of her husband after her husband's death. And suppose satisfaction is made by penance for what was done in the past, or it is blotted out by regeneration: is the law of Christ therefore to be accused, as if it compelled murder to be done, when it says that to marry a woman divorced without the charge of sexual immorality is adultery? ### Scripture references - Deut 24:1: echo, medium confidence - Rom 7:2: allusion, high confidence - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine treats a second marriage while the first spouse lives as continuing adultery, which bars a catechumen from baptism and a penitent from reconciliation until it is abandoned. Certificate of divorce: Deut 24:1. “Discharged from the law of her husband”: Rom 7:2. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.16 (CSEL 41:401–402; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-16). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-17 - Source: CSEL 41:402–404 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine argues that the risk of husbands resorting to murder cannot be a reason to deny that remarriage is adultery, since the same argument would overturn the Lord's teaching altogether. ### Latin text Hic enim, si parum quid loquamur adtendimus, multo grauiora dici possunt quam ipse dixisti. nam tu dum non uis esse adulteria, si aliae ducantur dimissis adulteris, hoc inuenisti: (quoniam si haec adulteria dixerimus, cogentur mariti occidere adulteras, quarum uita inpediuntur alteras ducere. atque, ut hoc exaggerares, dixisti: non mihi uidetur, amantissime pater, hic diuinus esse sensus, ubi benignitas et pietas excluditur. si ergo quispiam nolens credere esse adulterium, quando a marito sine fornicationis crimine repudiata ab altero ducitur, et hoc contra te inueniat, quia ista ratione suadetur hominibus homicidia perpetrare et earum maritos, quas eo modo repudiatas duxerint, uel insidiis, quibus potuerint, uel calumniis adpetere uel aliquibus ueris criminibus accusare et occidere, ut eis mortuis possint esse coniugia, quae uiuis fuerant adulteria, nonne id exaggerando tibi dicturus est: (non mihi uidetur, amantissime pater, hic diuinus esse sensus, ubi non solum benignitas et pietas excluditur, sed etiam ingens malignitas et inpietas excitatur? quandoquidem multo est leuius et tolerabilius, ut adulteras mariti, quam ut maritos adulteri occidant. placetne tibi, ut propter hanc uanissimam inuidiam dominicae defensionem sententiae deseramus uel eam insuper accusemus, dicentes non debere adulterium iudicari, etiamsi praeter causam fornicationis repudiata a uiro alteri coniugetur, ne maritum eius, a quo dimissa est, conpellatur occidere, dum adulterium in conubium cupit uiri prioris morte conuertere? scio tibi hoc non placere, ut propter hanc uanissimam inuidiam lex Christi, cum uera inueniatur et sana, dura et inhumana dicatur. sic itaque non tibi debet uideri ideo negandum esse adulterium, quando uxore adultera uiuente ducitur altera, quia potest maritus per hoc cogi adulteram occidere, dum cupit sibi licere illa extincta alteram ducere, si hoc ea uiuente non licet facere. quid? si enim et illud dicant christianae fidei detractores, cogi homines occidere uxores suas insidiarum sceleribus, quas molestas ferre non possunt, siue diuturno languore laborantes et pati concubitum non ualentes siue pauperes siue steriles siue deformes, aliarum spe ducendarum, sanarum, opulentarum, fecundarum, pulcherrimarum, quia eas, quas perpeti nolunt, praeter causam fornicationis repudiare non licet et alteras ducere, ne perpetuo deuincti adulterio nec baptizari possint nec paenitendo sanari, numquid propterea, ne ista homicidiorum scelera perpetrentur, dicturi sumus non esse adulteria repudiatis praeter causam fornicationis uxoribus sibi alteras copulare? ### English translation (Claude) For here, if we pay too little attention to what we are saying, much more serious things can be said than you yourself said. For you, not wanting it to be adultery when other women are married after adulterous wives have been put away, came up with this: “Since, if we call these adulteries, husbands will be driven to kill adulterous wives whose life prevents them from marrying others.” And to magnify this you said, “It does not seem to me, most beloved father, that this is the divine meaning, where kindness and devotion are excluded.” If, then, someone who is unwilling to believe that it is adultery when a woman divorced by her husband without the charge of sexual immorality is married by another should find this argument against you, that by this reasoning people are persuaded to commit murders, and to attack the husbands of women divorced in this way whom they have married, whether by any plots they can, or by false charges, or to accuse them of some true crimes and have them killed, so that after their death there may be marriages that were adulteries while they lived: will he not say to you, magnifying it, “It does not seem to me, most beloved father, that this is the divine meaning, where not only kindness and devotion are excluded, but also enormous malice and ungodliness are aroused”? Since it is much lighter and more tolerable that husbands should kill adulterous wives than that adulterers should kill husbands. Would you have us, because of this most empty ill will, abandon the defense of the Lord's saying, or even accuse it besides, saying that it should not be judged adultery even if a woman divorced by her husband apart from the cause of sexual immorality is joined to another, lest he be driven to kill the husband who put her away, while he desires to turn adultery into marriage by the death of the first husband? I know this does not please you, that because of this most empty ill will the law of Christ, when it is found true and sound, should be called harsh and inhuman. So, then, it ought not to seem to you that adultery must be denied when another is married while an adulterous wife lives, because a husband may thereby be driven to kill an adulteress, since he wishes to be allowed to marry another once she is dead, if he may not do so while she lives. What if the detractors of the Christian faith also say that men are driven to kill, by criminal plots, wives they cannot bear as troublesome, whether suffering long illness and unable to bear intercourse, or poor, or barren, or ugly, in the hope of marrying others who are healthy, wealthy, fruitful, and very beautiful, because it is not permitted to divorce those they do not want to bear with, apart from the cause of sexual immorality, and marry others, lest, bound in perpetual adultery, they can neither be baptized nor healed by penance? Shall we therefore, lest these crimes of murder be committed, say that it is not adultery to join other women to oneself after divorcing one's wives apart from the cause of sexual immorality? ### Scripture references - Matt 5:32: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine quotes Pollentius's objection and turns it against him. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.17 (CSEL 41:402–404; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-17). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-18 - Source: CSEL 41:404–405 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If remarriage after a spouse's adultery were allowed, husbands could engineer their wives' adultery by dismissing them and then claim freedom to remarry. ### Latin text Iam uero ex hoc, quod sapis non esse adulterium, si uir uxorem causa fornicationis abiecerit et alteram duxerit, nonne arbitraris cauendum, ne discant uiri uxores suas, quas propter alias innumerabiles causas ferre non possunt, moechari cogere, ut ab eis uinculo coniugali per fornicationem, sicut putas, soluto liceat eis alteras ducere, et ex eo, quod illas moechari coegerunt, aut baptismate ablui aut paenitendo sanari, quoniam illis et gratia et medicina negabitur, quamdiu cum adulteris uiuent, si prioribus praeter causam fornicationis repudiatis alteras duxerint? nisi forte quis dicat neminem posse uxorem suam moechari facere, si pudica est. et tamen dominus, omnis qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem suam praeter causam fornicationis facit eam moechari. utique propterea, quia cum esset pudica cum uiro, tamen dimissa cogitur per incontinentiam uiuo priore alteri copulari, et hoc est moechari. quodsi hoc ista non fecerit, tamen ille, quantum in ipso est, facere conpulit; et hoc ei deus peccatum, etiamsi illa casta permaneat, inputabit. sed quis nesciat, quam sint rarissimae, quae ita pudice uiuant cum uiris, ut, etiamsi ab eis dimittantur, alios non quaerant? incomparabiliter quippe numerus est amplior feminarum, quae cum pudice adhaereant maritis, tamen, si dimissae fuerint a maritis, non differunt nubere. cum ergo crediderint homines domino dicenti: omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam praeter causam fornicationis facit eam moechari, si crediderint et tibi dicenti muliere fornicante licere uiro eius alteram ducere, quisquis uoluerit propter alias quaslibet molestias carere uxore, cui iunctus est, prius eam moechari faciat sine fornicatione dimittendo, ut tunc ducat alteram, cum fuerit illa moecha nubendo, ac sic a priore peccato, quo eam moechari fecit, siue per baptismum siue per paenitentiam liberatus sine suo adulterio sibi habere uideatur, quam post prioris adulterium tamquam hinc soluto matrimonii uinculo alteram duxit. quod quidem si fuerit machinatus, et uxorem suam moecham faciet et ipse quamuis post adulterium coniugis aliam ducendo moechus erit nihilque illi proderit, quod tibi credidit et non ei potius, qui nullo excepto ait: omnis qui reliquerit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, moechatur. ### English translation (Claude) Now, from your opinion that it is not adultery if a man casts off his wife for the cause of sexual immorality and marries another, do you not think we must beware lest husbands learn to drive their wives, whom they cannot bear for innumerable other reasons, to commit adultery, so that, the conjugal bond being dissolved, as you think, by sexual immorality, they may be permitted to marry others, and may be either washed by baptism or healed by penance from having driven them to commit adultery; since both grace and remedy will be denied them as long as they live with adulteresses, if they marry others after divorcing the first apart from the cause of sexual immorality? Unless perhaps someone says that no one can make his wife commit adultery if she is chaste. And yet the Lord says, “Everyone who puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery”; surely because, although she was chaste with her husband, yet when put away she is driven by incontinence to join another while the first is alive, and this is to commit adultery. And if she does not do this, still he, as far as lies in him, compelled her to do it; and God will impute this to him as sin, even if she remains chaste. But who does not know how extremely rare are the women who live so chastely with their husbands that, even if put away by them, they do not seek others? For the number of women is incomparably greater who, although they cling chastely to their husbands, do not delay to marry if they are put away by their husbands. When, then, people have believed the Lord, who says, “Everyone who puts away his wife apart from the cause of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery,” if they also believe you, who say that when a wife commits sexual immorality her husband may marry another, then whoever wishes to be rid of the wife to whom he is joined, because of any other troubles whatever, will first make her commit adultery by putting her away without sexual immorality, so that he may then marry another when she has become an adulteress by marrying; and so, freed from the former sin by which he made her commit adultery, whether through baptism or through penance, he will seem to have without adultery of his own the woman he married after the former's adultery, as though the marriage bond had thereby been dissolved. But if he schemes this, he will both make his wife an adulteress and himself be an adulterer, even though he marries another after his spouse's adultery; and it will profit him nothing that he believed you and not rather him who, excepting no one, said, “Everyone who leaves his wife and marries another commits adultery.” ### Scripture references - Matt 5:32: quotation, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Matt 5:32; Luke 16:18. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.18 (CSEL 41:404–405; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-18). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-19 - Source: CSEL 41:405–407 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine applies Christ's saying on eunuchs for the kingdom to those who, after divorce, must remain continent to avoid adultery and so to enter the kingdom. ### Latin text Quibus omnibus consideratis atque tractatis restat, ut ab eis, qui haec fideliter audiunt, dicatur nobis, quod domino dictum est: si talis est causa cum uxore, non expedit nubere. quibus et nos quid respondeamus, nisi quod ipse respondit? non omnes capiunt uerbum hoc, sed quibus datum est. sunt enim eunuchi, qui de matris utero sic nati sunt; et sunt eunuchi, qui facti sunt ab hominibus; et sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castrauerunt propter regnum caelorum. qui potest capere, capiat. ergo qui potest capiat, quod non omnes capiunt. possunt autem capere quibus hoc praestat dei misericordia occulta, sed non iniusta. sed in his omnibus, qui se ipsos castrauerunt propter regnum caelorum, alii sunt, qui in utroque sexu concubitum nesciunt, alii, qui experti et auersi sunt, partim quidem inlicite, partim uero licite experti. porro in his, qui licite experti sunt, quidam sunt, qui nonnisi licite, quidam et licite et inlicite. sunt quippe in eis, qui coniugia sua tantum sciunt; sunt autem, qui et alias feminas ac stupra quaelibet. sed qui post concubitum coniugum se ipsos castrant propter regnum caelorum, aut morte amittunt coniuges aut ex consensu cum eis continentiam profitentur aut necessitate diuortiorum, ne uiuis coniugibus se aliis copulando adulteria perpetrent, castrant se ipsos propter regnum caelorum, non ut clariores ibi esse possint, sed quod aliter esse ibi non possunt nam qui non ista necessitate se continent, sed boni adpetitione melioris, possent ibi esse etiam seruata pudicitia coniugali, quamuis in praemiis minoribus, tamen intus; qui uero propterea se continent, quia prioribus coniugibus uiuis timent aliis coniugari, maiorem curam debent gerere pro salute, quam gesserunt illi, a quibus continentia pro munere dilecta est ampliore. tunc quippe ibi erunt, si adulteri non erunt; si autem non continent, adulteri erunt, quia uiuentibus coniugibus pristinis non coniugibus alteris, sed adulteris adhaerebunt. et si a regno caelorum aberunt, ubi erunt, nisi ubi salui non erunt? ### English translation (Claude) When all these things have been considered and treated, it remains that those who hear them faithfully may say to us what was said to the Lord: “If such is the case with a wife, it is not expedient to marry.” And what shall we answer them but what he himself answered? “Not all receive this word, but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who can receive it receive it.” Let him, then, who can receive what not all receive. And those can receive it to whom the mercy of God grants it, hidden but not unjust. But among all those who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, some, of either sex, do not know intercourse; others have experienced it and turned away, some having experienced it unlawfully, some lawfully. Among those who have experienced it lawfully, some have done so only lawfully, others both lawfully and unlawfully. For there are among them those who know only their marriages; and there are those who have also known other women and any kind of illicit intercourse. But those who castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven after intercourse with their spouses either lose their spouses by death, or profess continence with them by consent, or, by the necessity of divorces, lest they commit adultery by joining themselves to others while their spouses live, castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, not so that they may be more glorious there, but because they cannot be there otherwise. For those who contain themselves not from this necessity but from desire for a better good could have been there even if they had kept conjugal chastity, though with lesser rewards, yet inside; but those who contain themselves because they fear to marry others while their former spouses live ought to take greater care for their salvation than those did by whom continence was loved for a greater reward. For they will be there if they are not adulterers; but if they do not contain themselves, they will be adulterers, since, while their former spouses live, they will cling not to other spouses but to adulteresses. And if they are absent from the kingdom of heaven, where will they be, except where they will not be saved? ### Scripture references - Matt 19:10: quotation, high confidence - Matt 19:11: quotation, high confidence - Matt 19:12: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotation: Matt 19:10–12. “Castrated themselves” renders the Latin (castrauerunt) of Augustine's text; the meaning is voluntary celibacy, not physical mutilation. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.19 (CSEL 41:405–407; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-19). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-20 - Source: CSEL 41:407–408 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine encourages divorced spouses to accept continence, which by faith and grace can become willing and even be vowed, and so gain the reward of those who chose it freely. ### Latin text Hos igitur alloquor, ut quod facere deberent, si haberent coniuges diuturno languore marcentes uel loco sibi inaccessibili absentes uel animositate inlicita continentes, hoc faciant, si habuerint coniuges adulterina inquinatione sordentes et propter hoc a suo consortio diuortientes, non alia quaerant coniugia, quia non erunt coniugia sed adulteria. cum enim par forma sit in hoc uinculo uiri et uxoris, sicut uxor uiuente uiro uocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio uiro, ita et uir uiuente uxore uocabitur adulter, si fuerit cum alia muliere. etsi enim grauius, qui praeter causam fornicationis, omnis tamen, qui dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, moechatur. non eos terreat sarcina continentiae; lenis erit, si Christi erit; Christi erit, si fides aderit, quae impetrat a iubente quod iusserit. non eos frangat, quod uidetur eorum continentia necessitatis esse, non uoluntatis, quia et illi, qui eam uoluntate delegerunt, fecerunt eam esse necessitatis, quoniam iam sine damnatione ab illa deuiare non possunt, et qui in eam necessitate contrusi sunt, faciunt eam esse uoluntatis, si non de se ipsis, sed de illo, a quo est bonum omne, confidunt. illi ad eam conscenderunt causa maioris gloriae, ut amplius aliquid inuenirent; isti ad eam confugerunt cura salutis nouissimae, ne perirent; utrique permaneant, utrique in quod peruenerunt ambulent usque in finem, ferueant studiis, supplicent uotis, quia et illis salus cogitanda est, ut ab eo quod uoluntas arripuit cadere timeant, et istis gloria desperanda non est, si in eo quod necessitas intulit, persistere diligant. fieri enim potest, ut deo terrente et hortante, conuertente et inplente humanus in melius mutetur affectus, atque ita uoueant sine coniugiis et sine ullo concubitu atque inmunda libidinis attrectatione perseuerantissime uiuere, ut etiamsi separata coniugia locum ducendi alias moriendo aperuerint, claudatur ex uoto, quod patet ex licito et quod erat ex necessitate coeptum, fiat caritate perfectum. talibus profecto id retribuetur, quod illis, qui uel pari consensu cum coniugibus hoc uouerunt uel nullis coniugiis alligati propter maius bonum continentiam delegerunt. si autem ita se continent, ut, si moriantur quarum uita coniugari inpediuntur, alias ducere cogitent, profecto, etiamsi prius ipsi in tali continentia de corpore abscedant, non eis inputatur nisi ad pudicitiam coniugalem, propter quam non faciunt, quod facerent, si liceret. hac quippe intentione continenter uiuere parum est ad accipienda illius quae liberius eligitur continentiae praemia, sed sufficit ad cauenda adulteria. ### English translation (Claude) I address these, then, so that what they would have to do if they had spouses wasting away with long illness, or absent in a place they cannot reach, or practicing continence with unlawful stubbornness, this they should do if they have spouses soiled with adulterous defilement and divorced from their company for that reason: let them not seek other marriages, because they will not be marriages but adulteries. For since the rule of husband and wife is equal in this bond, just as a wife will be called an adulteress if she is with another man while her husband lives, so also a husband will be called an adulterer if he is with another woman while his wife lives. For even though the one who does so apart from the cause of sexual immorality does so more gravely, still everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. Let the burden of continence not frighten them; it will be light if it is Christ's; it will be Christ's if faith is present, which obtains from the one who commands what he has commanded. Let it not break them that their continence seems to be of necessity, not of will; for those too who chose it by will have made it a matter of necessity, since they can no longer turn from it without condemnation; and those who have been pushed into it by necessity make it a matter of will, if they trust not in themselves but in him from whom every good comes. The former climbed to it for the sake of greater glory, to find something more; the latter fled to it out of care for their final salvation, lest they perish. Let both persevere; let both walk in what they have reached to the end; let them be fervent in zeal and pray with desire; for the former too must think of salvation, fearing to fall from what their will has seized, and the latter must not despair of glory, if they love to persist in what necessity has brought upon them. For it can happen that, with God frightening and exhorting, converting and filling, the human disposition is changed for the better, so that they vow to live most perseveringly without marriage and without any intercourse or unclean touching of lust; so that, even if the separated spouses, by dying, should open the way to marrying others, what lies open by what is lawful is closed by the vow, and what was begun from necessity is made perfect by charity. To such, surely, will be given what is given to those who either vowed this with their spouses by mutual consent or, bound by no marriages, chose continence for the sake of a greater good. But if they contain themselves in such a way that they intend to marry others if those die whose life prevents them from marrying, then surely, even if they themselves leave the body first in such continence, it is credited to them only as conjugal chastity, for the sake of which they do not do what they would do if it were permitted. For to live continently with this intention is too little to receive the rewards of the continence that is more freely chosen, but it is enough to avoid adulteries. ### Scripture references - Rom 7:3: allusion, high confidence - Luke 16:18: quotation, high confidence - Matt 11:30: echo, medium confidence - Matt 24:13: echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Rom 7:3 (applied to both spouses); Luke 16:18. The light burden: Matt 11:30. “Grant what you command” is a characteristic theme of Augustine (cf. Confessions 10.29.40). Augustine assumes that a spouse may marry again after the death of the first spouse. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.20 (CSEL 41:407–408; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-20). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-21 - Source: CSEL 41:408–409 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Men who claim weakness as an excuse for adultery are refuted by the chastity they demand of women, such as the Syrian wives of long-absent merchants. ### Latin text Haec autem me de utroque sexu memineris dicere. sed maxime propter uiros, qui propterea se feminis superiores esse arbitrantur, ne pudicitia pares sese dignentur: in qua etiam praeire debuerunt, ut eos illae tamquam sua capita sequerentur. quando autem lex prohibet adulteria, si obtentu incontinentiae carnalis infirmitatis admittatur excusatio, multis sub nomine falsae inpunitatis pereundi aperitur occasio. neque enim carnem non habent feminae, quibus uiri aliquid tale nolunt licere, quasi eis, quia uiri sunt, liceat. sed absit, ut melioris sexus tamquam honori debeatur, quod pudori detrahitur, cum honor iustus uirtuti, non uitio debeatur. quin immo cum a feminis utique habentibus carnem tantam flagitant castitatem, ut, quando ab uxoribus diutissime peregrinantur, uelint eas ab adulterino concubitu incontaminatas feruorem transigere iuuentutis — et plurimae pudicissime transigunt, maxime Syrae, quarum mariti negotiandi quaestibus occupati iuuenes adulescentulas deserunt et uix aliquando senes ad aniculas reuertuntur — eo ipso euidentius conuincuntur non esse inpossibile, quod se non posse causantur. si enim hoc non posset infirmitas hominum, multo minus id posset sexus infirmior feminarum. ### English translation (Claude) Remember that I say these things of both sexes, but chiefly for the sake of men, who think themselves superior to women precisely so as not to deign to be their equals in chastity, in which they ought even to lead, so that the women might follow them as their heads. But when the law forbids adulteries, if the excuse of the weakness of the flesh is admitted under the pretext of incontinence, an occasion of perishing is opened to many under the name of a false impunity. For women too have flesh, and men do not want anything of the kind permitted to them, as if it were permitted to men because they are men. But far be it that what is taken away from modesty should be owed to the better sex as if to its honor, since just honor is owed to virtue, not to vice. Indeed, since they demand such great chastity from women, who certainly have flesh, that when they are away from their wives for a very long time they want them to pass the heat of youth undefiled by adulterous intercourse (and very many do pass it most chastely, especially Syrian women, whose husbands, occupied in the profits of trade, leave them as young girls and barely return as old men to old women), by this very fact they are more evidently proved wrong that what they claim they cannot do is impossible. For if human weakness could not do this, much less could the weaker sex of women. ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 11:3: allusion, high confidence - Eph 5:23: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Man as head: 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.21 (CSEL 41:408–409; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-21). ## On Adulterous Marriages 2.22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-22 - Source: CSEL 41:409–411 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine points to clergy who were ordained against their will and yet kept continence, urging those separated from spouses to do the same out of fear of judgment. ### Latin text Vnde istos, qui uirilem non putant excellentiam nisi peccandi licentiam, quando terremus, ne adulterinis coniugiis haerendo pereant in aeternum, solemus eis proponere etiam continentiam clericorum, qui plerumque ad eandem sarcinam subeundam capiuntur inuiti eamque susceptam usque ad debitum finem domino adiuuante perducunt. dicimus ergo eis: quid? si et uos ad hoc subeundum populorum uiolentia caperemini, nonne susceptum caste custodiretis officium, repente conuersi ad impetrandas uires a domino, de quibus numquam antea cogitastis? sed illos, inquiunt, honor plurimum consolatur. respondemus: et uos timor multo amplius moderetur. si enim hoc multi dei ministri repente atque inopinate inpositum susceperunt, sperantes se inlustrius in Christi hereditate fulgere, quanto magis uos adulteria cauendo uiuere continenter debetis, metuentes non in regno dei minus lucere, sed in gehenna ignis ardere! haec atque huius modi eis, ut possumus, dicimus, qui quoquo modo a se discedentibus uel propter adulterium dimissis coniugibus suis alias uolunt ducere et, cum prohibentur, infirmitatem nobis carnis obponunt. sed iam liber etiam iste claudendus est et rogandus deus, ut aut eos temptari non sinat separationibus coniugum aut ita sinat, ut timor periclitantis salutis fiat illis amplioris siue probatioris occasio castitatis. ### English translation (Claude) Hence, when we try to frighten those who think manly excellence is nothing but license to sin, lest they perish forever by clinging to adulterous marriages, we are accustomed to set before them also the continence of the clergy, who are often seized against their will to take up this same burden, and, having taken it up, carry it through with the Lord's help to the proper end. We say to them, then: “What if you too were seized by the violence of the people to take this up? Would you not chastely keep the office once taken up, turning suddenly to obtain from the Lord strength of which you had never thought before?” “But they,” they say, “are greatly consoled by the honor.” We answer: “And let fear govern you much more. For if many ministers of God have accepted this when it was laid on them suddenly and unexpectedly, hoping to shine more brightly in the inheritance of Christ, how much more ought you to live continently, avoiding adulteries, fearing not to shine less in the kingdom of God but to burn in the Gehenna of fire!” These and similar things we say, as best we can, to those who wish to marry others when their spouses have in some way left them or been put away for adultery, and who, when they are forbidden, set the weakness of the flesh against us. But now this book too must be closed, and God asked either not to allow them to be tempted by separations from their spouses, or to allow it in such a way that fear for their endangered salvation may become for them the occasion of a greater or more tested chastity. ### Scripture references - Matt 5:22: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - In Augustine's Africa, men were sometimes ordained under popular pressure, as he himself was at Hippo; married clergy in higher orders were expected to live in continence. “Gehenna of fire”: Matt 5:22. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Adult. conjug. 2.22 (CSEL 41:409–411; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-adulterinis-coniugiis/2-15/#p-2-22).