Of those who came to Jesus and interrogated him, some put questions to him simply to trick him. If our glorious Savior was tested in this way, should any of his disciples called to teach be annoyed when questioned by some who probe, not from the desire to know, but from the intent to trip up?

I will call your attention to the law of monogamy. The very origin of the human race sanctions it.^[1] It is abundantly clear that God ordained it at the beginning as a pattern for posterity. For after he had made Adam, and had foreseen the necessity of providing a helpmate for him, he borrowed from his loins one alone.^[2] One woman only did he design for man.

Where are we to find language adequately to express the happiness of that marriage which the church cements, the oblation confirms, the benediction signs and seals, the angels celebrate, and the Father holds as approved? For all around the earth young people do not rightly and lawfully wed without their parents’ consent.^[1] What kind of yoke is that of two believers who share one hope, one desire, one discipline, one service?^[2] They enjoy kinship in spirit and in flesh. They are mutual servants with no discrepancy of interests. Truly they are two in one flesh.^[3] Where the flesh is one, the spirit is one as well. Together they pray, together bow down, together perform their fasts, mutually teaching, mutually entreating, mutually upholding. In the church of God they hold an equal place.^[4] They stand equally at the banquet of God, equally in crises, equally facing persecutions, and equally in refreshments. Neither hides anything from the other. Neither neglects the other. Neither is troublesome to the other.^[5]

For the Word of God is to be considered as being more in one flesh with the soul than a man is one flesh with his wife.^[1] But to whom is it more becoming to be also one spirit with God, than to this human soul which has so joined itself to God by love as that it may justly be said to be one spirit with God?^[2]

In his mysterious plans the Father had destined a bride for his only Son and presented her to him under the guise of prophetic images. Moses appeared and with deft hand sketched a picture of bridegroom and bride but immediately drew a veil over it. In his book he wrote that a man should leave father and mother so as to be joined to his wife, that the two might in very truth become one. The prophet Moses spoke of man and woman in this way in order to foretell Christ and his church. With a prophet’s penetrating gaze he contemplated Christ becoming one with the church through the mystery of water.^[1] He saw Christ even from the virgin’s womb drawing the church to himself, and the church in the water of baptism drawing Christ to herself. Bridegroom and bride were thus wholly united in a mystical manner, which is why Moses wrote that the two should become one. . . . Wives are not united to their husbands as closely as the church is to the Son of God. What husband but our Lord ever died for his wife, and what bride ever chose a crucified man as her husband? Who ever gave his blood as a gift to his wife except the one who died on the cross and sealed the marriage bond with his wounds? Who was ever seen lying dead at his own wedding banquet with his wife at his side seeking to console herself by embracing him? At what other celebration, at what other feast is the bridegroom’s body distributed to the guests in the form of bread? Death separates wives from their husbands, but in this case it is death that unites the bride to her beloved.

Guilt in this does not attach merely to the man who divorces her. It attaches also to the man who takes her on, since he provides the starting point for the woman’s sin.

We hold that a man should either remain as he is born or else marry only once. For a second marriage is a veiled adultery.

This declaration of the Lord applies equally to man and woman. It prohibits departing from marriage except in the case of fornication.^[1]

For a woman is bound, as long as her husband is alive.^[1] As a consequence, therefore, the husband is also bound, as long as his wife is alive. This bond renders any further union impossible without the implication of adultery. Hence, four adulterers are produced of necessity from the two marriages, if the wife remarries and the husband marries an adulteress. However, a more infamous adultery is imputed to the one who remarries after the dismissal of his wife for other than the cause of fornication. Matthew spoke of this type of adultery.^[2] Such a one is not the only one who commits adultery, but, as we read in Mark: Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if the wife puts away her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.^[3]

God created marriage. As the union is from God, so divorce is from the devil. But one is allowed to divorce a wife in case of fornication for the precise reason that one never originally wished to have a wife who has not preserved conjugal fidelity to her husband.

What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery.

That he who, having another man’s wife or spouse taken away from him, marries another is guilty of adultery with the first, not with the second.

When any people, you see, who are already of an age to make free decisions of will, approach the sacraments of the faithful, they cannot begin the new life unless they repent of the old. It’s only babies that are exempt from this kind of repentance when they are baptized; after all they are not yet capable of making free choices.

However, the faith of those who present them for baptism can avail them for sanctification and the remission of original sin; thus whatever defilement of wrongdoing they may have contracted through others, of whom they have been born, they can be purged of it through the interrogation of these others and the replies they give.

Even to the foulest offenders, when they afterward believe, remission of sin is granted.^[1] On this premise no one is prohibited from baptism and grace.^[2] How much more should an infant be admitted, who, just born, has not sinned in any respect, except that, being born of the flesh according to Adam, has in his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient deadly nature.^[3] Would not such a child obtain remission of sins with the less difficulty, because not his own actual guilt, but that of another, is to be remitted? Our sentence therefore, dearest brother, in the Council^[4] was that none by us should be prohibited from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to all.^[5]

The apostle praised one [Timothy] who had known the holy Scripture from infancy.^[1] He also instructed that children be reared in the discipline and correction of the Lord.^[2] So we consider every time of life, even the very earliest, suitable for receiving persons into the community of faith.