"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: