Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 27

ON THE GOOD OF MARRIAGE. Since every human being is a part of the human race, and human nature is something social and possesses a great and natural good, namely the power of friendship, for this reason God willed to create all men from one, that they might be held together in their society not only by likeness of kind but also by the bond of kinship. Thus the first natural bond of human society is husband and wife. And these too God did not create as separate individuals and join together as though strangers, but He made the one out of the other, marking also the power of their union in the side, whence she was formed when it was taken away. For those are joined to each other at the sides who walk together and together look toward the place whither they walk.

There follows the connection of society in the children, who are the one honourable fruit—not of the union of male and female, but of sexual intercourse. For in either sex, even without such commingling, there could have been a certain friendly and genuine union, the one ruling, the other obeying. Nor is there need now that we should investigate and, in that question, bring forth a settled opinion as to how the offspring of the first human beings could have come to be—those whom God had blessed, saying, 'Increase and multiply and fill the earth'—if they had not sinned, since their bodies earned the condition of death by sinning, and there can be no sexual intercourse except of mortal bodies. For many and divergent opinions have arisen on this matter;

and if it must be examined which of them best agrees with the truth of the divine Scriptures, it is a matter for lengthy discussion. Whether therefore, if they had not sinned, they would have had children without the embrace of sexual union, in some other way, by the gift of the most almighty Creator—who was able also to create the first ones themselves without parents, who was able to form the flesh of Christ in a virgin's womb, and (to speak now to unbelievers themselves) who was able to give offspring to bees without intercourse; or whether many things were there said mystically and figuratively, and are to be understood otherwise, namely what is written, 'Fill the earth and have dominion over it'—that is, that this should come to pass through the fullness and perfection of life and power, so that the very increase and multiplication whereby it was said,

'Increase and multiply,' should be understood as the advancement of the mind and the abundance of virtue—as it is set down in the Psalm: 'Thou shalt multiply me in my soul with strength'—and that this succession of offspring was not given to man except after the cause of sin was to bring about a departure in death; or whether a body not spiritual but at first animal was made for those men, so that by the merit of obedience it might afterwards become spiritual, in order to attain immortality not after death—which entered the world through the envy of the devil and became the punishment of sin—but through that change which the Apostle signifies where he says:

'Then we who are alive, who remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ in the air'—so that we may understand that those bodies of the first married pair were even mortal in their first fashioning, and yet not destined to die unless they had sinned, as God had threatened (just as if one should threaten a wound, because the body was capable of being wounded, which nevertheless would not have happened unless what He had forbidden were done); and thus generations could subsist even through the intercourse of such bodies, generations that would have growth up to a certain measure, yet would not incline into old age, or at least not unto old age, nor yet unto death, until by that multiplication of the blessing the earth should be filled.

For if God preserved the very state of the Israelites' garments for forty years without any wear, how much more would He grant to the bodies of those who obeyed His command a certain most blessed temperament of a fixed state, until they should be changed for the better—not by the death of a man, whereby the body is forsaken by the soul, but by a blessed change from mortality to immortality, from an animal to a spiritual quality! Which of these opinions is true, or whether yet others can be carved out of those words, is a long thing to inquire into and discuss. This much we now say: that according to this condition of being born and dying, which we know and in which we were created, the marriage of male and female is something good;

whose covenant divine Scripture so commends that it is not lawful for a woman put away by her husband to marry another so long as her husband lives, nor for a man put away by his wife to take another unless she who departed has died. The good therefore of marriage—which the Lord also confirmed in the Gospel, not only because He forbade a man to put away his wife except for the cause of fornication, but also because He came, when invited, to a wedding—is rightly asked, wherein it consists. This seems to me to be not only for the sake of the procreation of children, but also for the sake of the natural fellowship itself in the difference of sex; otherwise it would no longer be called marriage in the case of old people, especially if they had either lost their children or begotten none at all.

But as it is, in a good marriage, even though an aged one, even if the ardour of youthful age has withered between male and female, the order of charity nevertheless flourishes between husband and wife; and the better they are, the earlier they have begun by mutual consent to abstain from carnal commingling—not that it should thereafter be a matter of necessity to be unable to do what they wished, but that it should be a matter of praise first to have been unwilling to do what they were able. If therefore the faith of honour and of the services mutually owed is preserved by either sex, even though the members of both grow languid and well-nigh corpse-like, the chastity of souls duly wedded nevertheless perseveres, and the more sincere the more approved, and the more secure the more tranquil. Marriages have also this good,

namely that carnal or youthful incontinence, even though it be faulty, is turned to the honourable purpose of propagating offspring, so that from the evil of lust the conjugal union may make something good; and further, because the concupiscence of the flesh is restrained and in a certain way glows more modestly, being tempered by parental affection. For a certain gravity intervenes upon fervid pleasure, when in that very act by which man and woman cleave to each other they meditate on being father and mother. To this is added that in this very thing wherein they render to each other the debt, even if they demand it somewhat intemperately and incontinently, they nevertheless owe faith to each other equally. To which faith the Apostle attributes so great a right that he called it a 'power,' saying:

'The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.' Now the violation of this faith is called adultery, when, whether by the instigation of one's own lust or by consent to another's, one lies with a man or woman against the marriage compact. And thus is broken faith, which even in bodily and abject matters is a great good of the soul; and therefore it is certain that it ought to be preferred even to bodily welfare, whereby this present life also is maintained. For although a scanty straw compared with much gold is almost nothing, yet faith, when it is kept sincerely in the matter of straw as in that of gold, is not on that account the lesser because it is kept in the lesser matter.

But when faith is employed for the committing of sin, it is a wonder if it should be called faith; yet however it may be, if anything is done even against it, worse is done—unless it be forsaken for this reason, that one may return to true and lawful faith, that is, that the sin may be amended, the perversity of the will being corrected. As if someone, since he cannot rob a man by himself, should find an accomplice in wickedness and make a pact with him, that they should do it together and share the spoil, and then, the crime having been committed, should carry off the whole alone. The other indeed grieves and complains that faith was not kept toward him;

but in his very complaint he ought rather to consider that faith should have been kept toward human society itself by a good life, lest an unjust plunder be made from a man—if he perceives how unjustly it was not kept toward him in the fellowship of sin. For he who was faithless on both sides is surely to be judged the more wicked. But if what they had done wickedly had displeased him, and for that reason he had been unwilling to divide the plunder with the partner of his crime, so that it might be restored to the man from whom it had been taken, not even the faithless man would call him faithless. So a woman, if, having violated conjugal faith, she keeps faith with an adulterer, is assuredly bad; but if she keeps it not even with the adulterer, she is worse.

Furthermore, if she repents of her disgraceful deed and, returning to conjugal chastity, rescinds her adulterous pacts and agreements, I should wonder if even the adulterer himself would think her a violator of faith. It is also wont to be asked, when a male and a female—he not being the husband, nor she the wife, of another—are joined together not for the propagation of children, but merely for the sake of incontinence, for the cause of sexual intercourse alone, with this faith intervening as a middle term, that neither he does it with another woman nor she with another man, whether they are to be called married.

And perhaps this might not absurdly be called wedlock, if it has been agreed between them to hold to it until the death of one of them, and if, though they were not joined for that cause, they nevertheless have not shunned the generation of offspring, so as either to be unwilling that children be born to them, or even by some evil work to act that they be not born. But if either both or one of these is lacking, I do not find how we may call this a marriage. For indeed if a man take a woman for a time, until he find another worthy of his rank or fortune, whom he may marry as an equal, he is in his very mind an adulterer—not with her whom he desires to find, but with this one, with whom he so lies that he has not with her the married partnership.

Whence she too, knowing and willing this, is joined to him unchastely, since she has no marriage covenant with him with whom she couples. Yet if she keeps faith of the bed to him and, when he has taken a wife, herself does not think of marrying, and prepares to abstain altogether from such work, I should perhaps not readily dare to call her an adulteress; yet who would say that she does not sin, when he knows that she couples with a man whose wife she is not?

But now if, from that intercourse, so far as pertains to her, she desires nothing but children, and whatever she endures beyond the cause of procreating she endures unwillingly, then she indeed is to be preferred to many matrons who, although they are not adulteresses, nevertheless for the most part compel even their husbands—who wish to be continent—to render the carnal debt, not from desire of offspring but from the ardour of concupiscence, using their own right intemperately; yet in whose marriages this very thing is good, that they are married.

For to this end they are married: that concupiscence, reduced to a lawful bond, should not float about deformed and dissolute, having of itself the unbridled infirmity of the flesh, but of marriage the indissoluble fellowship of faith; of itself the progress of immoderate coupling, but of marriage the measure of chaste procreation. For although it is base to use even one's husband lustfully, it is nevertheless honourable to be unwilling to couple except with a husband, and to bear offspring only from a husband. There are likewise husbands so incontinent that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Whatever therefore the married do between themselves that is immodest, shameless, sordid, is the vice of the persons, not the fault of marriage.

Now even in that more immoderate exaction of the carnal debt, which the Apostle enjoined upon them not according to command but conceded according to indulgence—namely, that they should couple even apart from the cause of procreating—although perverse habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage defends them from adultery or fornication. For that act is not committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage.

Married persons therefore owe each other not only the faith of coupling in their own sex for the sake of procreating children—which is the first fellowship of the human race in this mortality—but also a certain mutual servitude of receiving each other's infirmity, for the avoiding of unlawful intercourse; so that, even if perpetual continence should please one of them, it may not be possible except by the consent of the other. For to this end also 'the wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband';

'and likewise the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife'—so that what the one seeks from the marriage, or the other from the husband, not for the sake of begetting children but for the sake of infirmity and incontinence, they should not deny to each other, lest through this they fall into damnable corruptions, Satan tempting them because of the incontinence either of both or of either of them. For conjugal intercourse for the sake of begetting has no fault; but that of satisfying concupiscence, yet with a spouse, on account of the faith of the bed, has a venial fault; but adultery or fornication has a mortal fault. And through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better than even conjugal intercourse itself which takes place for the cause of begetting.

But since that continence is of ampler merit, while to render the conjugal debt is no crime, to exact it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, and further to fornicate or commit adultery is a crime to be punished, conjugal charity ought to beware lest, while seeking for itself whence it may be more highly honoured, it do to the spouse that whence he or she may be damned. For 'whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.' To such a degree is that entered marriage bond a matter of a certain sacrament, that not even by the separation itself is it made void, since so long as the husband lives, she who has been forsaken by him commits adultery if she marry another, and he who forsook her is the cause of this evil.

But I wonder whether, just as it is lawful to put away an adulterous wife, so it is lawful, she being put away, to marry another. For holy Scripture makes on this matter a difficult knot, the Apostle saying, from the Lord's command, that a wife ought not to depart from her husband; but that if she depart, she should remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: since surely she ought not to depart and remain unmarried except from an adulterous husband, lest by departing from him who is not an adulterer she cause him to commit adultery. But to be reconciled to her husband she can rightly do either by tolerating him, if she cannot herself be continent, or perhaps when he has been corrected. But how there could be liberty for a man to marry another if he has forsaken an adulterous wife, when there is not for a woman to marry another if she has forsaken an adulterous husband, I do not see.

If these things are so, so great is the force of that social bond of spouses that, although it is bound together for the cause of procreating, it is not loosed even for the cause of procreating itself. For a man could put away a barren wife and take one by whom he might have children; and yet it is not lawful, and indeed in our own times and by Roman custom it is not lawful even to take an additional wife, so as to have more than one living. And surely, an adulterous wife or an adulterous husband being forsaken, more human beings could be born, if either she should marry another or he should take another. If nevertheless this is not lawful, as the divine rule seems to prescribe, whom would it not make attentive to consider what this so great firmness of the conjugal bond means for itself?

Which I by no means think could have such force, unless a certain sacrament of some greater reality were applied to it from this frail mortality of men—a sacrament which, though men forsake it and desire to dissolve it, would remain unshaken for them unto punishment, since indeed, even when divorce has intervened, that nuptial covenant is not abolished, so that they are spouses to each other even when separated, and commit adultery with those to whom they have been joined even after their own repudiation, whether she with a man or he with a woman. Yet only in the city of our God, on His holy mountain, is such the case concerning a wife. For who does not know that the laws of the Gentiles are otherwise? Where, a repudiation being interposed, without any guilt,

through some human retribution, both she marries whom she wills, and he takes whom he wills. To which custom Moses seems to have permitted something similar, because of the hardness of the Israelites, concerning the bill of divorce. In which matter there appears rather a rebuke of divorce than an approval of it. 'Marriage therefore is honourable among all, and the bed undefiled.' Which we do not call good in such a way that it is good in comparison with fornication; otherwise there would be two evils, of which one is worse;

or else fornication too would be good, because adultery is worse—for it is worse to violate another's marriage than to cleave to a harlot—and adultery would be good, because incest is worse—for it is worse to lie with one's mother than with another's wife—and until one arrives at those things which, as the Apostle says, it is shameful even to mention, all things would be good in comparison with worse ones. But who doubts that this is false? Wedlock and fornication therefore are not two evils, of which one is worse; but wedlock and continence are two goods, of which one is better—just as this temporal health and weakness are not two evils, of which one is worse, but this health and immortality are two goods, of which one is better.

Likewise knowledge and vanity are not two evils, of which vanity is the worse, but knowledge and charity are two goods, of which charity is the better. For 'knowledge shall be destroyed,' says the Apostle, and yet it is necessary for this present time; but 'charity shall never fail.' So also this mortal generation, for the sake of which marriages take place, shall be destroyed; but immunity from all intercourse is here an angelic meditation, and abides for ever. And just as the meals of the righteous are better than the fasts of the sacrilegious, so the marriages of the faithful are to be preferred to the virginity of the impious. Yet neither there is the meal preferred to the fast, but righteousness to sacrilege; nor here is marriage preferred to virginity, but faith to impiety.

For to this end the righteous, when there is need, take their meals: that as good masters they may furnish to their servant-bodies what is just and equitable; but to this end the sacrilegious fast: that they may serve demons. So to this end the faithful marry: that they may be chastely joined to husbands; but to this end are the impious virgins: that they may fornicate away from the true God. As therefore that was good which Martha did, being busy about the ministry of the saints, but better what Mary her sister did, sitting at the Lord's feet and hearing His word: so we praise the good of Susanna in conjugal chastity, but nevertheless prefer to her the good of the widow Anna, and much more that of Mary the virgin. Good was that which those women did who ministered of their substance the necessities to Christ and His disciples;

but better did those do who left all their substance, that they might follow the same Lord the more unencumbered. Now in these two pairs of goods, whether those which the former women did or those which Martha and Mary did, that which is better could not be done unless the other were passed over or left. Whence it is to be understood that marriages are not therefore to be thought evil because, unless one abstain from them, one cannot have widowed chastity or virginal integrity. For neither was that which Martha did evil because, unless her sister abstained from it, she would not do that which was better; nor is it therefore evil to receive a righteous man or a prophet into one's house, because he ought not to have a house who, wishing to follow Christ unto perfection, would do that which is better.

Assuredly it is to be seen that God gives us some goods that are to be sought for their own sake, such as wisdom, health, friendship; others that are necessary for the sake of something else, such as instruction, food, drink, sleep, marriage, sexual intercourse. For of these some are necessary for the sake of wisdom, such as instruction; some for the sake of health, such as food and drink and sleep; some for the sake of friendship, such as marriage or sexual intercourse, for from this subsists the propagation of the human race, in which friendly society is a great good. He therefore who uses these goods, which are necessary for the sake of something else, not for that for which they were instituted, sins—in some cases venially, in others damnably. But whosoever uses them for this,

for which they were given, does well. To him therefore for whom they are not necessary, if he does not use them, he does better. Accordingly, these goods, when we have need of them, we rightly will; but we better will them not than will them, because we are then in a better state when we do not have need of them. And through this it is good to marry, because it is good to procreate children, to be the mother of a family; but it is better not to marry, because it is better not to need this work for the sake of human society itself.

For the human race is now in such a state that, since others who do not contain themselves are occupied not only in marriages but many also run riot in unlawful intercourse—the good Creator making out of their evils that which is good—there is no lack of a numerous offspring and an abundance of succession, whence holy friendships may be sought out. From which it is gathered that in the first ages of the human race, chiefly for the sake of propagating the people of God, through whom both should be prophesied and be born the Prince and Saviour of all peoples, the saints had to make use of that good of marriage—not seeking it for its own sake, but of necessity for the sake of something else;

but now, when on every side, out of all nations, an abundance of spiritual kinship overflows for entering into holy and sincere fellowship, even those who desire to unite in wedlock only for the sake of children are to be admonished rather to use the ampler good of continence. But I know what they mutter. 'What,' they say, 'if all men should wish to abstain from all intercourse, whence would the human race subsist?' Would that all wished this—only in charity, out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith! Much more quickly would the city of God be filled and the end of the age be hastened. For what else does the Apostle appear to exhort, where he says, when he was speaking of this: 'I would that all were as I myself'? Or in that place: 'But this I say, brethren:

the time is short; it remaineth that both they who have wives be as though they had none; and they who weep, as though they wept not; and they who rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they who buy, as though they possessed not; and they who use this world, as though they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. I would have you without anxiety.' Then he adds: 'He that is without a wife thinketh on the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is joined in matrimony thinketh on the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And the unmarried woman and the virgin is divided: she who is unmarried is anxious about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she who is married is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.'

Whence it seems to me that at this time only those who do not contain themselves ought to marry—according to that saying of the same Apostle: 'But if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.' Yet not even to these is marriage a sin, which, if it were chosen in comparison with fornication, would be a lesser sin than fornication, but would nevertheless be a sin. But now what shall we say against the most evident voice of the Apostle, who says: 'Let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let him marry,' and: 'If thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned'? Hence surely it is now not lawful to doubt that marriage is not a sin.

The Apostle therefore does not concede marriage according to indulgence—for who could doubt that it is most absurd to say that those to whom pardon is granted have not sinned?—but he concedes according to indulgence that intercourse which takes place through incontinence, not solely for the cause of procreating and sometimes for no cause of procreating; which intercourse marriage does not compel to take place, but obtains that it be pardoned—provided nevertheless it be not so excessive as to hinder the times which ought to be set apart for prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature, of which the Apostle could not keep silent, when he was speaking of the corruptions of exceedingly unclean and impious men. For the intercourse necessary for the cause of begetting is blameless, and it alone is proper to marriage.

But that intercourse which goes beyond this necessity now obeys not reason but lust. And yet not to exact this, but to render it to a spouse, lest by fornicating he sin damnably, pertains to the conjugal person. But if both are subjected to such concupiscence, they do a thing plainly not of marriage. Nevertheless, if in their union they love more that which is honourable than that which is dishonourable—that is, that which is of marriage than that which is not of marriage—this is conceded to them, on the Apostle's authority, according to indulgence:

of which fault they have marriage not as exhorting them but as interceding for them, if they turn not away from themselves God's mercy—either by abstaining on certain days, that they may be free for prayers, and through this abstinence commend their prayers as by fastings; or by not changing the natural use into that use which is against nature, which is done more damnably in a spouse. For whereas that natural use, when it slips beyond the marriage compacts—that is, beyond the necessity of propagating—is venial in a wife, damnable in a harlot; that which is against nature is done execrably in a harlot, but more execrably in a wife.

So great is the force of the Creator's ordinance and of the order of creation that, in things granted for our use, even when moderation is exceeded, it is far more tolerable than a single or rare excess in those things that are not granted. And therefore in a permitted matter the immoderation of a spouse is to be borne, lest lust burst forth into what is not permitted. Hence it also comes that a man sins far less, however assiduous he is toward his wife, than he would in even the rarest resort to fornication. But when a man wishes to use a member of a woman not granted for this purpose, the wife is more shameful if she permits it to be done upon herself than upon another. The dignity of marriage, then, is the chastity of begetting and the fidelity of rendering the carnal debt: this is the work of wedlock, this the Apostle defends from every fault when he says:

"And if you have taken a wife, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she does not sin," and, "Let her do what she will; she does not sin, let her marry." But the more immoderate advance in demanding the debt from either sex is granted to spouses as a concession, on account of those things he mentioned above. Therefore when he says, "She who is unmarried is concerned with the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit," this is not to be so understood that we should think a chaste Christian wife is not holy in body. For it is said to all the faithful: "Do you not know that your bodies are within you a temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have from God?" Holy, therefore, are also the bodies of married persons who keep faith with each other and with the Lord.

That to this holiness of any of them not even an unbelieving spouse is an obstacle, but rather that the holiness of the wife profits the unbelieving husband, or the holiness of the husband profits the unbelieving wife, the same Apostle is witness, saying: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving woman is sanctified in the brother." Accordingly that saying was made with reference to the fuller holiness of the unmarried than of the married, to whom a fuller reward is also owed, inasmuch as, by the measure by which that good is better than this good, the unmarried woman thinks of this alone, how she may please the Lord. For neither does a faithful woman who keeps conjugal chastity fail to think how she may please the Lord, but she does so less, because she also thinks of the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

For he wished to say this of them, that in a certain manner, out of the necessity of matrimony, they may have to think of the things of the world, how they may please their husbands. But whether he said this of all married women, or of such as are so numerous that almost all might be thought to be of that kind, is not without reason a matter of doubt. For neither does that which he says of the unmarried—"She who is unmarried is concerned with the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit"—pertain to all the unmarried, since there are certain widows who are dead, who live in pleasures.

Yet as regards a certain distinction and, as it were, characteristic property of the unmarried and the married: just as she is exceedingly to be detested who, abstaining from marriage—that is, from a permitted thing—does not abstain from the offenses of luxury, or pride, or curiosity, or garrulity, so rare is the married woman who, even in the conjugal compliance itself, thinks of nothing but how she may please God, adorning herself not with braided hair or gold and pearls and costly clothing, but with what befits women professing godliness through good conduct. Such marriages the Apostle Peter also describes in his commands.

"Likewise," he says, "you women, be obedient to your husbands, so that even if any do not believe the word, they may be won without a word through the conduct of the women, when they behold your fear and chaste conduct; that yours be not the outward adorning of the crimping of the hair, or of being decked with gold, or of comely clothing, but that hidden man of your heart, in that abiding of a quiet and modest spirit, which is also rich before the Lord. For thus of old certain holy women, who hoped in the Lord, adorned themselves, being subject to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you have become, doing good and fearing no vain fear."

"You husbands likewise, living in harmony and chastely with your wives, and as with the weaker and subject vessel, give honor as to fellow heirs of grace, and see that your prayers be not hindered." Do such marriages, then, not think of the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord? But they are very rare—who denies it?—and in that very rarity almost all who are of this kind were joined together not in order to be such, but, being already joined, were made such.

For which men of our own time, being Christians and free from the bond of marriage, being able to restrain themselves from all intercourse, when they perceived that it was now the time, as it is written, not for embracing but for abstaining from embrace, would not rather choose to preserve either virginal or widowed continence than the tribulation of the flesh, without which marriages cannot be—to say nothing of other things which the Apostle spares them, no office of human society now compelling them to endure it?

But when they have been coupled under the dominion of concupiscence, if they afterward conquer it, since it is not permitted to dissolve a marriage as it was permitted not to contract it, they become such as the form of marriage professes, so that either by equal consent they ascend to a loftier grade of holiness, or, if both are not such, there will be one who is such—not a demander but a renderer of the debt—preserving in all things a chaste and religious concord. But in those times, when the mystery of our salvation was still veiled under prophetic sacraments, even those who before marriage were such coupled themselves in marriage for the office of propagation, not overcome by lust, but led by piety; and if such a choice were given them as was given when the New Testament was revealed, the Lord saying:

"He who is able to receive it, let him receive it"—whoever reads attentively how they used their wives will not doubt that they would have embraced it even with joy, seeing that it was permitted even for one man to have several, whom he possessed more chastely than any one of these now possesses a single one, to whom we see what the Apostle grants by way of concession. For they had them for the work of begetting, not in the disease of desire, like the Gentiles who know not God. And this is so great a thing that many today would more easily abstain their whole life from all intercourse than observe moderation in not coming together except for the sake of offspring, if they be joined in matrimony. Assuredly we have many brothers and partners of the heavenly inheritance, of both sexes, who are continent, whether having experienced marriage or being whole from all such commingling;

assuredly they are innumerable. Whom, after all, have we ever heard in familiar conversations, whether of those who are married or of those who have been, telling us that he was never joined with his wife except in hope of conception? What the Apostles command married persons, then, is what belongs to marriage; but what they concede as a venial thing, or what hinders prayers, marriage does not compel, but bears with. And so if perhaps—whether this can happen I do not know, and rather judge that it cannot—but nevertheless, if perhaps a man employ a concubine for a time and seek only children from that commingling, not even so is this union to be preferred to the marriages of those women who work that venial thing.

For what belongs to marriage must be considered, not what belongs to those who marry and use marriage too immoderately. For if someone uses fields unjustly and wrongfully seized in such a way that from their fruits he gives generous alms, he does not thereby justify the robbery; nor if another greedily broods over an ancestral or justly acquired estate, is the rule of civil law thereby to be blamed, by which he was made lawful possessor; nor will the perversity of a tyrannical faction be praiseworthy if a tyrant treat his subjects with royal clemency; nor is the order of royal power to be reproached if a king rage with tyrannical cruelty. For it is one thing to wish to use an unjust power justly, and another to use a just power unjustly.

So neither do concubines employed for a time, if they lie together for the sake of children, make their concubinage just, nor do married women, if they wanton with their husbands, impose a fault upon the order of marriage. That marriages can indeed be made out of those ill-joined, an honorable resolution afterward following, is manifest. But once a marriage has been entered upon in the city of our God, where even from the first coupling of two human beings marriage bears a certain sacrament, it can in no way be dissolved except by the death of one of them. For the bond of marriage remains, even if the offspring for whose sake it was entered upon does not follow through manifest sterility, so that it is not lawful for spouses who now know they will not have children to separate on that very account of children and to couple with others.

And if they do this, they commit adultery with those to whom they have coupled themselves, while they themselves remain spouses. Plainly, to employ another woman with the wife's consent, so that common children may be born from the commingling and seed of the one, but by the right and power of the other, was lawful among the ancient patriarchs; whether it be lawful now also, I would not rashly say. For there is not that necessity of propagation which then existed, when it was permitted, while the wives were still bearing, to add others for the sake of a more copious posterity, which now certainly is not permitted.

For so much occasion for doing something justly or not doing it is brought by the hidden distinction of the times, that now he does better who has taken not even one wife, unless he cannot restrain himself, whereas then even those who could much more easily have restrained themselves took several without blame, had not piety at that time demanded otherwise. For just as a wise and just man who now desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ, and delights rather in this best thing, takes nourishment not now from a desire of living here, but from the duty of counsel, that he may remain in the flesh, which is necessary for the sake of others—so to be joined with women by the right of marriage was for holy men then a matter of duty, not of lust.

For what food is to the health of a man, intercourse is to the health of the race; and neither is without carnal pleasure, which nevertheless, when moderated and reduced by restraining temperance to natural use, cannot be lust. But what unlawful food is in sustaining life, that is fornicating or adulterous intercourse in seeking offspring; and what unlawful food is in the luxury of the belly and the gullet, that is unlawful intercourse in lust seeking no offspring; and what a more immoderate appetite for lawful food is in some, that is that venial intercourse in spouses. Just as, therefore, it is better to die of hunger than to eat things offered to idols;

so it is better to die without children than to seek offspring from unlawful intercourse. But wherever men are born, if they do not follow the vices of their parents and rightly worship God, they will be honorable and safe. For the seed of man, from whatever man, is a creature of God, and to those who use it ill, it will be ill; but it itself will never be evil. And just as good children of adulterers are no defense of adulteries, so bad children of married persons are no charge against marriage.

Accordingly, just as the fathers of the time of the New Testament, taking nourishment out of the duty of counsel, although they received it with the natural pleasure of the flesh, were nevertheless in no way to be compared to the pleasure of those who fed on things sacrificed, or of those who consumed even lawful foods too immoderately—so the fathers of the time of the Old Testament came together out of the duty of counsel, whose natural pleasure, in no way relaxed into irrational or wicked lust, is to be compared neither with the baseness of fornications nor with the intemperance of married persons. For it was by the same vein of charity, now spiritually, then carnally, that children were to be propagated on account of that mother Jerusalem;

but nothing made the works of the fathers diverse except the diversity of the times. And so it was necessary that even the non-carnal prophets should come together carnally, just as it was necessary that even the non-carnal apostles should eat carnally. However many, therefore, there now are to whom it is said, "If they do not contain themselves, let them marry," they are not to be compared to the holy men who married even then. Marriage itself, indeed, is in all nations the same for the sake of procreating children, who, whatever they later turn out to be, marriage was nevertheless instituted for this: that they might be born in an orderly and honorable way. But men who do not contain themselves, as it were, ascend into marriage by a step of honorableness;

whereas those who would without doubt contain themselves, had the reason of that time permitted it, in a certain manner descended into marriage by a step of piety. And on this account, although the marriages of both, insofar as they are marriages—because they are for the sake of procreating—are equally good, nevertheless these married men are not to be compared to those married men. For these have what is granted them by way of concession on account of the honorableness of marriage—although it does not pertain to marriage—that is, that advance which exceeds the necessity of begetting, which those do not have. But not even these men, if perchance any are now found who do not seek in marriage nor desire anything except that for which marriage was instituted, can be made equal to those men.

For in these men the very desire for children is carnal, but in those it was spiritual, because it accorded with the sacrament of that time. For now no one perfect in piety seeks to have children except spiritually; but then it was a work of piety itself to propagate children even carnally, because the begetting of that people was a herald of things to come and pertained to the prophetic dispensation. And therefore, just as it was lawful for one man to have even several wives, it was not so lawful for one woman to have several husbands—not even for the sake of that very offspring, if perhaps she could bear but he could not beget. For by a hidden law of nature, those things that hold rule love singularity;

but the things subject are subjected not only singly to single things, but also, if natural or social reason admits it, many to one, not without seemliness. For one servant does not have many masters in the way that many servants have one master. Thus we read of no holy woman having served two or more living husbands; but we read of many women serving one man, when the fellowship of that people allowed it and the reason of the time counseled it: for it is not against the nature of marriage. For many women can be made pregnant by one man, but one woman cannot by many—this is the force of ruling principles—just as many souls are rightly subjected to one God.

And therefore there is no true God of souls except one, but one soul can fornicate through many false gods, though not be made fruitful. But since out of many souls there will be one city of those having one soul and one heart toward God—which perfection of our unity will be after this pilgrimage, where the thoughts of all will neither be hidden from one another nor be in conflict among themselves in anything—therefore the sacrament of marriage of our time has been reduced to one husband and one wife, so that it is not lawful to ordain a dispenser of the Church except a man of one wife. This those understood more acutely who judged that not even one who, as a catechumen or a pagan, had had another wife, ought to be ordained. For it is a matter of the sacrament, not of sin.

For in baptism all sins are remitted. But he who said, "If you have taken a wife, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she does not sin," and, "Let her do what she will; she does not sin, let her marry," sufficiently declared that marriage is no sin. But on account of the holiness of the sacrament, just as a woman, even if she was corrupted as a catechumen, cannot after baptism be consecrated among the virgins of God, so it has not absurdly seemed that he who has exceeded the single number of wives has not committed any sin, but has lost a certain norm of the sacrament—necessary not for the merit of a good life, but for the seal of ecclesiastical ordination.

And on this account, just as the several wives of the ancient patriarchs signified our future churches out of all nations subject to one man, Christ, so our bishop, a man of one wife, signifies the unity out of all nations subject to one man, Christ, which will then be perfected, when he shall have revealed the hidden things of darkness and made manifest the hidden things of the heart, that then there may be praise to each one from God. But now there are manifest, there are latent, dissensions even between those who, with charity preserved, will be one and in one—which then will assuredly be none.

As, therefore, the sacrament of plural marriages of that time signified the future multitude subject to God among all earthly nations, so the sacrament of single marriages of our time signifies the unity of us all, to be subject to God in the one heavenly city. And so, just as to serve two or more masters, so to pass from a living husband into the marriage of another, was neither lawful then nor is it lawful now nor will it ever be lawful. For to apostatize from the one God and to go into the adulterous superstition of another is always an evil. Nor, then, did our holy men do for the sake of more numerous offspring what Cato the Roman is said to have done—that he handed over his wife alive even to fill another's house with children.

For in our marriages the holiness of the sacrament avails more than the fruitfulness of the womb. If, therefore, even those who are joined only for the sake of begetting, for which marriages were instituted, are not to be compared to the fathers, who sought those very children far otherwise than these do—since Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his son, undaunted and devoted, did not spare his only son, whom he had received from such great despair, except that he laid down his hand at the command of Him at whose command he had raised it—it remains for us to see whether at least our continent men are to be compared to those married fathers; unless perhaps these are already to be preferred to them, for whom we have not yet found any whom we might compare with them.

For there was a greater good in their marriages than is the proper good of marriage—to which the good of continence is without doubt to be preferred—because they sought children from marriage not with such an office as that by which these are led, out of a certain sense of mortal nature seeking a succession to replace what passes away. Whoever denies this to be a good is ignorant that God is the creator of all good things, from heavenly to earthly, from immortal to mortal. But of this sense of begetting not even the beasts are wholly devoid, and most of all the birds, whose care of nest-building is evident, and a certain likeness of marriages for procreating and nourishing together.

But those men far surpassed, with a mind much holier, this affection of mortal nature—whose chastity in its own kind, with the worship of God being added, is, as some have understood, placed in the thirtyfold fruit—men who sought children from their marriages for the sake of Christ, in order to distinguish His race according to the flesh from all nations, as it pleased God to dispose, so that this above all others might avail for prophesying about Him: from what race and from what people He would come in the flesh, as was foretold. Far greater, therefore, than the chaste marriages of our faithful was that good which father Abraham knew in his own thigh, under which he commanded his servant to place his hand, that he might swear concerning the wife who was to be taken by his son.

For placing his hand under the man's thigh and swearing by the God of heaven, what else did he signify but that in that flesh, which would draw its origin from that thigh, the God of heaven was to come? Marriage, therefore, is a good, in which spouses are the better the more chastely and faithfully they fear God, especially if they also nourish spiritually the children whom they carnally desire. Nor does the fact that the law commands a man to be purified even after conjugal intercourse declare it to be a sin, if it is not that which is granted by way of concession, which also, being excessive, hinders prayers.

But just as the law places many things in sacraments and shadows of things to come, so a certain, as it were, material formlessness in the seed, which, being formed, is to render the body of a man, is placed as a signification of a formless and untaught life: from which formlessness, since a man must be cleansed by the form of doctrine and by instruction, that purification was commanded as a sign of this thing, after the emission of seed. For it comes about even in sleep without sin; and yet even there purification was commanded. Or if anyone thinks this too to be a sin, judging that it does not happen except from some desire of this kind—which is without doubt false—are then the accustomed monthly courses of women also sins?

From which, nevertheless, the same ancient law commanded them to be cleansed, only on account of that very material formlessness, which, once conception has taken place, is added, as it were, for the building of the body. And on this account, when it flows out formlessly, the law wished the mind to be signified through it, unseemly fluid and dissolute without the form of discipline, which it signifies ought to be formed, when it commands such a flow of the body to be purified. Finally, is it also a sin to die, or is not to bury the dead even a good work of humanity? And yet purification was commanded from that too, because the dead body also, when life deserts it, is not a sin, but signifies the sin of a soul deserted by justice.

Marriage, I say, is a good, and can be defended by sound reason against all calumnies. Yet with the marriages of the holy fathers I seek to compare, not what marriages, but what continence—nay, not marriages with marriages, for the gift given to the mortal nature of men is equal in all—but the men who use marriages, with those men who used marriages far otherwise; and since I do not find whom I might compare, it must be inquired which continent men are to be compared with those married ones. Unless perhaps Abraham could not have restrained himself from marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven—he who was able, undaunted, to sacrifice the sole pledge of his offspring, on account of which marriages are dear, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. For continence is a virtue not of the body but of the mind.

But the virtues of the mind are sometimes manifested in act, sometimes lie hidden in disposition, as the virtue of martyrdom stood out and appeared in the enduring of sufferings. But how many are there of the same virtue of mind, to whom the temptation is lacking by which that which is within, in the sight of God, might also go forth in the sight of men—and it does not then begin to be, but then becomes known! For patience was already in Job, which God knew and to which He bore witness, but it became known to men through the trial of temptation; and what lay hidden within was, through the things brought upon him from without, not born but made manifest.

Timothy assuredly also had the virtue of abstaining from wine, which Paul did not take from him by admonishing him to use a little wine on account of his stomach and his frequent infirmities—otherwise he would have taught perniciously, that for the sake of the body's health there should be in the mind a loss of virtue—but because that which he admonished could be done with the virtue kept safe, the usefulness of drinking was so relaxed to the body that the disposition of continence remained in the mind. For it is the disposition itself by which something is done when there is need; but when it is not done, it can be done, but there is no need. This disposition regarding the continence that is from intercourse those men do not have to whom it is said, "If they do not contain themselves, let them marry." But those have it to whom it is said, "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Thus men of perfect mind used earthly goods necessary for some other purpose through this disposition of continence, by which they were not bound to them, and by which they could even not use them, if there were no need. Nor does anyone use them well except he who is also able not to use them. Many indeed more easily abstain, so as not to use, than they exercise temperance, so as to use well; yet no one can use wisely except he who can also continently not use. From this disposition Paul also said: "I know both how to abound and to suffer want." For to suffer want belongs to whatever men; but to know how to suffer want belongs to the great. So also, who cannot abound? But to know how to abound belongs only to those whom abundance does not corrupt.

But that it may be more openly understood how a virtue may be in disposition, even if it is not in act, I speak of an example about which no catholic Christian doubts. For that our Lord Jesus Christ in the truth of the flesh hungered and thirsted, ate and drank, none of those who are faithful from His gospel doubt. Was there not, then, in Him the virtue of continence from food and drink, as great as it was in John the Baptist? For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, "He has a demon." The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they said, "Behold a glutton and a wine-drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners."

Are not such things said against His household, our fathers, from another manner of using earthly things, as regards intercourse: "Behold, lustful and unclean men, lovers of women and of wanton pleasures"? And yet, just as in Him that was not true—although it was true that He did not, like John, abstain from eating and drinking; for He Himself most openly and most truly says, "John came neither eating nor drinking; the Son of man came eating and drinking"—so neither is this true in those fathers, although now there has come an apostle of Christ, unmarried and not begetting, whom the pagans call a magician, while then there came a prophet of Christ, contracting marriage and procreating children, whom the Manichees call:

"a womanizer." "And wisdom was justified by her children"—which the Lord there added, when He had said those things about John and about Himself; "wisdom," He says, "was justified by her children," who see that the virtue of continence ought always to be in the disposition of the mind, but in act to be manifested according to the opportunity of circumstances and times, just as the virtue of patience of the holy martyrs appeared in act, but of the others, equally holy, was in disposition. Wherefore, just as the merit of patience is not unequal in Peter, who suffered, and in John, who did not suffer, so the merit of continence is not unequal in John, who experienced no marriage, and in Abraham, who begot children.

For both the celibacy of the one and the marriage of the other warred for Christ according to the distribution of the times; but John had continence both in act, whereas Abraham had it in disposition alone. And so in that time, when the law, following the days of the patriarchs, pronounced a curse on him who did not raise up seed in Israel, even he who was able did not bring it forth, but nevertheless had it; but from the time when the fullness of the times came, that it might be said, "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it," from that time until now and thenceforth until the end, he who has it works it, and let him who has been unwilling to work not falsely claim that he does not have it. And on this account, by those who corrupt good morals with evil conversations, with empty and vain cunning it is said to a Christian man who is continent and refuses marriage:

Are you, then, better than Abraham? When he hears this, let him not be disturbed, nor dare to say 'I am better,' nor be shaken from his purpose — for the one thing he would not be saying truly, and the other he would not be doing rightly — but let him say: 'I indeed am not better than Abraham, yet the chastity of the celibate is better than the chastity of marriage; and of these Abraham had the one in practice and both in disposition. For he lived chastely in the married state; yet he could have been chaste without marriage, though at that time it was not fitting. I, for my part, more easily do not use the marriage that Abraham used, than I would use marriage in the way that Abraham used it; and therefore I am better than those who through incontinence of soul cannot do what I do — not better than those who, because of the difference of the times, did not do what I do.'

For what I now do, they would have done better, had it then been the time to do it; but what they did, I would not do in that manner, even if it were now the time to do it. Or if such a man perceives and knows himself to be such that, with the virtue of continence remaining whole and abiding in the disposition of his soul, if from some duty of religion he should descend to the use of marriage, he would be such a husband and such a father as Abraham was — let him plainly dare to answer that captious questioner and say: 'I am indeed not better than Abraham in this particular kind of continence, which he did not lack, even though it did not appear; but I am such a man, not possessing another thing, but doing another thing.' Let him say these things plainly, for even if he should wish to glory, he will not be foolish; for he speaks the truth.

But if he refrains, lest anyone should think of him anything beyond what he sees or hears from him, let him remove the knot of the question from his own person, and answer not concerning the man but concerning the matter itself, and say: 'He who is capable of so much is such as Abraham was. Yet it may happen that the virtue of continence is less in the soul of him who does not use the marriage that Abraham used, and yet is greater than in the soul of him who held to the chastity of wedlock only because he could not attain a fuller one.' So too an unmarried woman, who considers the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit, when she hears that imprudent inquirer saying, 'Are you then better than Sarah?' — let her answer:

'I am better, but than those who lack the virtue of this continence — which I do not believe of Sarah. She then, with this same virtue, did what befitted her time, from which I am exempt, so that even in my body there might appear what she preserved in her soul.' If therefore we compare the matters themselves, it is in no way to be doubted that the chastity of continence is better than the chastity of marriage, though both are goods; but when we compare persons, that one is the better who possesses the greater good more than another. Moreover, he who possesses the greater of the same kind possesses also that which is less; but he who possesses only the lesser certainly does not possess the greater. For in sixty there are also thirty, but in thirty there are not sixty.

But not to act upon that which one possesses lies in the distribution of duties, not in the poverty of virtues; for neither does he lack the good of mercy who finds no wretched persons whom he might mercifully relieve. To this is added that men are not rightly compared to men on the basis of some one good. For it can happen that one man does not have something which another has, yet has another thing which is to be more highly esteemed. For the good of obedience is greater than that of continence. For marriage is nowhere condemned by the authority of our Scriptures, whereas disobedience is nowhere absolved. If, then, there be set before us a virgin who will so remain, yet is disobedient, and a married woman who could not remain a virgin, yet is obedient — which shall we call the better?