(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)
Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing initially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.
In this file, footnote numbers sometimes refer to following text instead
of to the preceeding.
ST. JEROME
AGAINST JOVINIANUS
[Translated by The Hon. W. H. Fremantle, M.A., Canon of Canterbury
Cathedral and Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford, with the
assistance of the Rev. G. Lewis, M.A., of Balliol College, Oxford, Vicar of
Dodderhill near Droitwick, and the Rev. W. G. Martley, M.A., of Balliol
College, Oxford.]
BOOK I.
1. Very few days have elapsed since the holy brethren of Rome sent to
me the treatises of a certain Jovinian with the request that I would reply
to the follies contained in them, and would crush with evangelical and
apostolic vigour the[1] Epicurus of Christianity. I read but could not in
the least comprehend them. I began therefore to give them closer attention,
and to thoroughly sift not only words and sentences, but almost every
single syllable; for I wished first to ascertain his meaning, and then to
approve, or refute what he had said. But the style is so barbarous, and the
language so vile and such a heap of blunders, that I could neither
understand what he was talking about, nor by what arguments he was trying
to prove his points. At one moment he is all bombast, at another he
grovels: from time to time he lifts himself up, and then like a wounded
snake finds his own effort too much for him. Not satisfied with the
language of men, he attempts something loftier.
[1]"The mountains labour; a poor mouse is born."
[2]"That he's gone mad ev'n mad Orestes swears."
Moreover he involves everything in such inextricable confusion that the
saying of[3] Plautus might be applied to him :--" This is what none but a
Sibyl will ever read."
To understand him we must be prophets. We read Apollo's[4] raving
prophetesses. We remember, too, what[5] Virgil says of senseless noise.[1]
Heraclitus, also, surnamed the Obscure, the philosophers find hard to
understand even with their utmost toil. But what are they compared with our
riddle-maker, whose books are much more difficult to comprehend than to
refute? Although (we must confess) the task of refuting them is no easy
one. For how can you overcome a man when you are quite in the dark as to
his meaning? But, not to be tedious to my reader, the introduction to his
second book, of which he has discharged himself like a sot after a night's
debauch, will show the character of his eloquence, and through what bright
flowers of rhetoric he takes his stately course.
2. "I respond to your invitation, not that I may go through life with a
high reputation, but may live free from idle rumour. I beseech the ground,
the young shoots of our plantations, the plants and trees of tenderness
snatched from the whirlpool of vice, to grant me audience and the support
of many listeners. We know that the Church through hope, faith, charity, is
inaccessible and impregnable. In it no one is immature: all are apt to
learn: none can force a way into it by violence, or deceive it by craft."
3. What, I ask, is the meaning of these portentous words and of this
grotesque description? Would you not think he was in a feverish dream, or
that he was seized with madness and ought to be put into the strait jacket
which Hippocrates prescribed? However often I read him, even till my heart
sinks within me, I am still in uncertainty of his meaning.[2] Everything
starts from, everything depends upon, something else. It is impossible to
make out any connection; and, excepting the proofs from Scripture which he
has not dared to exchange for his own lovely flowers of rhetoric, his words
suit all matter equally well, because they suit no matter at all. This
circumstance led me shrewdly to suspect that his object in proclaiming the
excellence of marriage was only to disparage virginity. For when the less
is put upon a level with the greater, the lower profits by comparison, but
the higher suffers wrong. For ourselves, we do not follow the views of [3]
Marcion and Manichaeus, and disparage marriage; nor, deceived by the error
of[4] Tatian, the leader of the Encratites, do we think all intercourse
impure; he condemns and rejects not only marriage but also food which God
created for the use of man. We know that in a great house, there are not
only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earthenware. And that
upon the foundation, Christ, which Paul the master-builder laid, some build
gold, silver, precious stones: others, on the contrary, hay, wood, straw.
We are not ignorant of the words,[1] "Marriage is honourable among all, and
the bed undefiled." We have read God's first command,[2] "Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth "; but while we honour marriage we prefer
virginity which is the offspring of marriage. Will silver cease to be
silver, if gold is more precious than silver? Or is despite done to tree
and corn, if we prefer the fruit to root and foliage, or the grain to stalk
and ear? Virginity is to marriage what fruit is to the tree, or grain to
the straw. Although the hundred-fold, the sixty-fold, and the thirty-fold
spring from one earth and from one sowing, yet there is a great difference
in respect of number. The thirty-fold has reference to marriage. The very
way the[3] fingers are combined--see how they seem to embrace, tenderly
kiss, and pledge their troth either to other--is a picture of husband and
wife. The sixty-fold applies to widows, because they are placed in a
position of difficulty and distress. Hence the upper finger signifies their
depression, and the greater the difficulty in resisting the allurements of
pleasure once experienced, the greater the reward. Moreover (give good
heed, my reader), to denote a hundred, the right hand is used instead of
the left: a circle is made with the same fingers which on the left hand
represented widowhood, and thus the crown of virginity is expressed. In
saying this I have followed my own impatient spirit rather than the course
of the argument. For I had scarcely left harbour, and had barely hoisted
sail, when a swelling tide of words suddenly swept me into the depths of
the discussion. I must stay my course, and take in canvas for a little
while; nor will I indulge my sword, anxious as it is to strike a blow for
virginity. The farther back the catapult is drawn, the greater the force of
the missile. To linger is not to lose, if by lingering victory is better
assured. I will briefly set forth our adversary's views, and will drag them
out from his books like snakes from the holes where they hide, and will
separate the venomous head from the writhing body. What is baneful shall be
discovered, that, when we have the power, it may be crushed.
He says that "virgins, widows, and married women, who have been once
passed through the layer of Christ, if they are on a par in other respects,
are of equal merit."
He endeavours to show that "they who with full assurance of faith have
been born again in baptism, cannot be overthrown by the devil."
His third point is "that there is no difference between abstinence from
food, and its reception with thanksgiving."
The fourth and last is "that there is one reward in the kingdom of
heaven for all who have kept their baptismal vow."
4. This is the hissing of the old serpent; by counsel such as this the
dragon drove man from Paradise. For he promised that if they would prefer
fulness to fasting they should be immortal, as though it were an
impossibility for them to fall; and while he promises they shall be as
Gods, he drives them from Paradise, with the result that they who, while
naked and unhampered, and as virgins unspotted enjoyed the fellowship of
the Lord were cast down into the vale of tears, and sewed skins together to
clothe themselves withal. But, not to detain the reader any longer, I will
keep to the division given above and taking his propositions one by one
will rely chiefly on the evidence of Scripture to refute them, for fear he
may chatter and complain that he was overcome by rhetorical skill rather
than by force of truth. If I succeed in this and with the aid of a cloud of
witnesses from both Testaments prove too strong for him, I will then accept
his challenge, and adduce illustrations from secular literature. I will
show that even among philosophers and distinguished statesmen, the virtuous
are wont to be preferred by all to the voluptuous, that is to say men
like[1] Pythagoras,[2] Plato and[3] Aristides, to[4] Aristippus,[5]
Epicurus and [1] Alcibiades. I entreat virgins of both sexes and all such
as are continent, the married also and the twice married, to assist my
efforts with their prayers. Jovinian is the common enemy For he who
maintains all to be of equal merit, does no less injury to virginity in
comparing it with marriage than he does to marriage, when he allows it to
be lawful, but to the same extent as second and third marriages. But to
digamists and trigamists also he does wrong, for he places on a level with
them whoremongers and the most licentious persons as soon as they have
repented; but perhaps those who have been married twice or thrice ought not
to complain, for the same whoremonger if penitent is made equal in the
kingdom of heaven even to virgins. I will therefore explain more clearly
and in proper sequence the arguments he employs and the illustrations he
adduces respecting marriage, and will treat them in the order in which he
states them. And I beg the reader not to be disturbed if he is compelled to
read Jovinian's nauseating trash. He will all the more gladly drink
Christ's antidote after the devil's poisonous concoction. Listen with
patience, ye virgins; listen, I pray you, to the voice of the most
voluptuous of preachers; nay rather close your ears, as you would to the
Syren's fabled songs, and pass on. For a little while endure the wrongs you
suffer: think you are crucified with Christ, and are listening to the
blasphemies of the Pharisees.
5. First of all, he says, God declares that[2] "therefore shall a man
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they
shall be one flesh." And lest we should say that this is a quotation from
the Old Testament, he asserts that it has been[3] confirmed by the Lord in
the Gospel--" What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder ": and
he immediately adds,[4] "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth." He next repeats the names of Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared,
Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and tells us that they all had wives and
in accordance with the will of God begot sons, as though there could be any
table of descent or any history of mankind without wives and children.
"There," says he, "is Enoch, who walked with God and was carried up to
heaven. There is Noah, the only person who, except his wife, and his sons
and their wives, was saved at the deluge, although there must have been
many persons not of marriageable age, and therefore presumably virgins.
Again, after the deluge, when the human race started as it were anew, men
and women were paired together and a fresh blessing was pronounced on
procreation, [1]"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."
Moreover, free permission was given to eat flesh,[2] "Every moving thing
that liveth shall be food for you; as the green herb have I given you all."
He then flies off to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of whom the first had three
wives, the second one, the third four, Leah, Rachel, Billah, and Zilpah,
and he declares that Abraham by his faith merited the blessing which he
received in begetting his son. Sarah, typifying the Church, when it had
ceased to be with her after the manner of women, exchanged the curse of
barrenness for the blessing of child-bearing. We are informed that Rebekah
went like a prophet to inquire of the Lord, and was told,[3] "Two nations
and two peoples are in thy womb." that Jacob served for his wife, and that
when Rachel, thinking it was in the power of her husband to give her
children, said,[4] "Give me children, or else I die," he replied,[5] "Am I
in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb ?" so
well aware was he that the fruit of marriage cometh from the Lord and not
from the husband. We next learn that Joseph, a holy man of spotless
chastity, and all the patriarchs, had wives, and that God blessed them all
alike through the lips of Moses. Judah also and Thamar are brought upon the
scene, and he censures Onan, slain by the Lord, because he, grudging to
raise up seed to his brother, marred the marriage rite. He refers to Moses
and the leprosy of Miriam, who, because she chided her brother on account
of his wife, was stricken by the avenging hand of God. He praises Samson, I
may even say extravagantly panegyrizes the uxorious Nazarite. Deborah also
and Barak are mentioned, because, although they had not the benefit of
virginity, they were victorious over the iron chariots of Sisera and Jabin.
He brings forward Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, and extols her for
arming herself with the[6] stake. He says there was no difference between
Jephthah and his virgin daughter, who was sacrificed to the Lord: nay, of
the two, he prefers the faith of the father to that of the daughter who met
death with grief and tears. He then comes to Samuel, another Nazarite of
the Lord, who from infancy was brought up in the tabernacle and was clad in
a linen ephod, or, as the words are rendered, in listen vestments: he, too,
we are told, begot sons without a stain upon his priestly purity. He places
Boaz and his wife Ruth side by side in his repository, and traces the
descent of Jesse and David from them. He then points out how David himself,
for the price of two hundred foreskins and at the peril of his life, was
bedded with the king's daughter. What shall I say of Solomon, whom he
includes in the list of husbands, and represents as a type of the Saviour,
maintaining that of him it was written,[1] "Give the king thy judgments, O
God, and thy righteousness unto the king's son "? And[2] "To him shall be
given of the gold of Sheba, and men shall pray for him continually." Then
all at once he makes a jump to Elijah and Elisha, and tells us as a great
secret that the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha. Why he mentioned this he
does not say. It can hardly be that he thinks Elijah and Elisha, like the
rest, were married men. The next step is to Hezekiah, upon whose praises he
dwells, and yet (I wonder why) forgets to mention that he said,[3]
"Henceforth I will beget children." He relates that Josiah, a righteous
man, in whose time the book of Deuteronomy was found in the temple, was
instructed by Huldah, wife of Shallum. Daniel also and the three youths are
classed by him with the married. Suddenly he betakes himself to the Gospel,
and adduces Zachariah and Elizabeth, Peter and his father-in-law, and the
rest of the Apostles. His inference is thus expressed: "If they idly urge
in defence of themselves the plea that the world in its early stage needed
to be replenished, let them listen to the words of Paul,[4] 'I desire
therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children.' And[5] 'Marriage
is honourable and the bed undefiled.' And[6] 'A wife is bound for so long
time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be
married to whom she will; only in the Lord.' And[7] Adam was not beguiled,
but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall
be saved through the child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and
sanctification with sobriety.' Surely we shall hear no more of the famous
Apostolic utterance,[8] 'And they who have wives as though they had them
not.' It can hardly be that you will say the reason why he wished them to
be married was that some widows had already turned back after Satan: as
though virgins never fell and their fall was not more ruinous. All this
makes it clear that in forbidding to marry, and to eat food which God
created for use, you have consciences seared as with a hot iron, and are
followers of the Manichaeans." Then comes much more which it would be
unprofitable to discuss. At last he dashes into rhetoric and apostrophizes
virginity thus: "I do you no wrong, Virgin: you have chosen a life of
chastity on account of the present distress: you determined on the course
in order to be holy in body and spirit: be not proud: you and your married
sisters are members of the same Church."
6. I have perhaps explained his position at too great a length, and
become tedious to my reader; but I thought it best to draw up in full array
against myself all his efforts, and to muster all the forces of the enemy
with their squadrons and generals, lest after an early victory there should
spring up a series of other engagements. I will not therefore do battle
with single foes, nor will I be satisfied with skirmishes in which I meet
small detachments of my opponents. The battle must be fought with the whole
army of the enemy, and the disorderly rabble, fighting more like brigands
than soldiers, must be repulsed by the skill and method of regular warfare.
In the front rank I will set the Apostle Paul, and, since he is the bravest
of generals, will arm him with his own weapons, that is to say, his own
statements. For the Corinthians asked many questions about this matter, and
the doctor of the Gentiles and master of the Church gave full replies. What
he decreed we may regard as the law of Christ speaking in him. At the same
time, when we begin to refute the several arguments, I trust the reader
will give me his attention even before the Apostle speaks, and will not, in
his eagerness to discuss the most weighty points, neglect the premises, and
rush at once to the conclusion.
7. Among other things the Corinthians asked in their letter whether
after embracing the faith of Christ they ought to be unmarried, and for the
sake of continence put away their wives, and whether believing virgins were
at liberty to marry. And again, supposing that one of two Gentiles believed
on Christ, whether the one that believed should leave the one that believed
not? And in case it were allowable to take wives, would the Apostle direct
that only Christian wives, or Gentiles also, should be taken? Let us then
consider Paul's replies to these inquiries.[1] "Now concerning the things
whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because
of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have
her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise
also the wife unto the husband. 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. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent
for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together
again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency. But this I
say by way of permission not of commandment. Yet I would that all men were
even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after
this manner, and another after that. But I say to the Unmarried and to
widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not
continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Let us
turn back to the chief point of the evidence: "It is good," he says, "for a
man not to touch a woman." If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to
touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be
bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent
worse evil. But surely a thing which is only allowed because there may be
something worse has only a slight degree of goodness. He would never have
added "let each man have his own wife," unless he had previously used the
words "but, because of fornications." Do away with fornication, and he will
not say "let each man have his own wife." Just as though one were to lay it
down: "It is good to feed on wheaten bread, and to eat the finest wheat
flour," and yet to prevent a person pressed by hunger from devouring cow-
dung, I may allow, him to eat barley. Does it follow that the wheat will
not have its peculiar purity, because such an one prefers barley to
excrement? That is naturally good which does not admit of comparison with
what is bad, and is not eclipsed because something else is preferred. At
the same time we must notice the Apostle's prudence. He did not say, it is
good not to have a wife: but, it is good not to touch a woman: as though
there were danger even in the touch: as though he who touched her, would
not escape from her who "hunteth for the precious life," who causeth the
young man's understanding to fly away.[1] "Can a man take fire in his
bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals. and
his feet not be scorched?" As then he who touches fire is instantly burned,
so by the mere touch the peculiar nature of man and woman is perceived, and
the difference of sex is understood, Heathen fables relate how[2] Mithras
and[3] Ericthonius were begotten of the soil, in stone or earth, by raging
lust. Hence it was that our Joseph, because the Egyptian woman wished to
touch him, fled from her hands, and, as if he had been bitten by a mad dog
and feared the spreading poison, threw away the cloak which she had
touched. "But, because of fornications let each man have his own wife, and
let each woman have her own husband." He did not say, because of
fornication let each man marry a wife: otherwise by this excuse he would
have thrown the reins to lust, and whenever a man's wife died, he would
have to marry another to prevent fornication, but "have his own wife." Let
him he says have and use his own wife, whom he had before he became a
believer, and whom it would have been good not to touch, and, when once he
became a follower of Christ, to know only as a sister, not as a wife unless
fornication should make it excusable to touch her. "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." The whole question here concerns
those who are married men. Is it lawful for them to do what our Lord
forbade in the Gospel, and to put away their wives? Whence it is that the
Apostle says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." But inasmuch as
he who is once married has no power to abstain except by mutual consent,
and may not reject an unoffending partner, let the husband render unto the
wife her due. He bound himself voluntarily that he might be under
compulsion to render it. "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by
consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer." What, I
pray you, is the quality of that good thing which hinders prayer? which
does not allow the body of Christ to be received? So long as I do the
husband's part, I fail in continency. The same Apostle in another place
commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we
must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife
her due, I cannot pray. The Apostle Peter had experience of the bonds of
marriage. See how he fashions the Church, and what lesson he teaches
Christians:[1] "Ye husbands in like manner dwell with your wives according
to knowledge, giving honour unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as
being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers
be not hindered." Observe that, as S. Paul before, because in both cases
the spirit is the same, so S. Peter now, says that prayers are hindered by
the performance of marriage duty. When he says "likewise," he challenges
the husbands to imitate their wives, because he has already given them
commandment:[2] "beholding your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and
of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel: but let it be the
hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet
spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." You see what kind of
wedlock he enjoins. Husbands and wives are to dwell together according to
knowledge, so that they may know what God wishes and desires, and give
honour to the weak vessel, woman. If we abstain from intercourse, we give
honour to our wives: if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the
opposite of honour. He also tells the wives to let their husbands "see
their chaste behaviour, and the hidden man of the heart, in the
incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit." Words truly worthy of an
apostle, and of Christ's rock! He lays down the law for husbands and wives,
condemns outward ornament, while he praises continence, which is the
ornament of the inner man, as seen in the incorruptible apparel of a meek
and quiet spirit. In effect he says this: Since your outer man is corrupt,
and you have ceased to possess the blessing of incorruption characteristic
of virgins, at least imitate the incorruption of the spirit by subsequent
abstinence, and what you cannot show in the body exhibit in the mind. For
these are the riches, and these the ornaments of your union, which Christ
seeks.
8. The words which follow, "that ye may give yourselves unto prayer,
and may be together again," might lead one to suppose that the Apostle was
expressing a wish and not making a concession because of the danger of a
greater fall. He therefore at once adds, "lest Satan tempt you for your
incontinency." It is a fine permission which is conveyed in the words "be
together again." What it was that he blushed to call by its own name, and
thought only better than a temptation of Satan and the effect of
incontinence, we take trouble to discuss as if it were obscure, although he
has explained his meaning by saying, "this I say by way of permission, not
by way of command." And do we still hesitate to speak of marriage as a
concession to weakness, not a thing commanded, as though second and third
marriages were not allowed on the same ground, as though the doors of the
Church were not opened by repentance even to fornicators, and what is more,
to the incestuous? Take the case of the man who outraged his step-mother.
Does not the Apostle, after delivering him, in his first Epistle to the
Corinthians, to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit
might be saved, in the second Epistle take the offender back and strive to
prevent a brother from being swallowed up by overmuch grief. The Apostle's
wish is one thing, his pardon another. If a wish be expressed, it confers a
right; if a thing is only called pardonable, we are wrong in using it. If
you wish to know the Apostle's real mind you must take in what follows:
"but I would that all men were as I am." Happy is the man who is like Paul!
Fortunate is he who attends to the Apostle's command, not to his
concession. This, says he, I wish, this I desire that ye be imitators of
me, as I also am of Christ, who was a Virgin born of a Virgin, uncorrupt of
her who was uncorrupt. We, because we are men, cannot imitate our Lord's
nativity; but we may at least imitate His life. The former was the blessed
prerogative of divinity, the latter belongs to our human condition and is
part of human effort. I would that all men were like me, that while they
are like me, they may also become like Christ, to whom I am like. For[1]
"he that believeth in Christ ought himself also to walk even as He
walked."[2] "Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this
manner, and another after that." What I wish, he says, is clear. But since
in the Church there is a diversity of gifts, I acquiesce in marriage, lest
I should seem to condemn nature. At the same time consider, that the gift
of virginity is one, that of marriage, another. For were the reward the
same for the married and for virgins, he would never after enjoining
continence have said:[3] " Each man hath his own gift from God, one after
this manner, and another after that." Where there is a distinction in one
particular, there is a diversity also in other points. I grant that even
marriage is a gift of God, but between gift and gift there is great
diversity. In fact the Apostle himself speaking of the same person who had
repented of his incestuous conduct, says:[3] " so that contrariwise ye
should rather forgive him and comfort him, and to whom ye forgive anything,
I forgive also." And that we might not think a man's gift contemptible, he
added,[4] "for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for
your sakes have I forgiven it, in the presence of Christ." There is
diversity in the gifts of Christ. Hence it is that by way of type Joseph
has a coat of many colours. And in the forty-fifth psalm we read,[5] " at
thy right hand doth Stand the queen in a vesture of gold wrought about with
divers colours." And the Apostle Peter says,[6] " as heirs together of the
manifold grace of God," where the more expressive Greek word poiki'lhs,
i.e., varied, is used.
9. Then come the words[7] "But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it
is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency,
let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Having conceded to
married persons the enjoyment of wedlock and pointed out his own wishes, he
passes on to the unmarried and to widows, sets before them his own practice
for imitation, and calls them happy if they so abide. "But if they have not
continency, let them marry," just as he said before "But because of
fornications," and "Lest Satan tempt you, because of your incontinency."
And he gives a reason for saying "If they have not continency, let them
marry," viz. "It is better to marry than to burn." The reason why it is
better to marry is that it is worse to burn. Let burning lust be absent,
and he will not say it is better to marry. The word better always implies a
comparison with something worse, not a thing absolutely good and incapable
of comparison. It is as though he said, it is better to have one eye than
neither, it is better to stand on one foot and to support the rest of the
body with a stick, than to crawl with broken legs. What do you say,
Apostle? I do not believe you when you say "Though I be rude in speech, yet
am I not in knowledge." As humility is the source of the sayings "For I am
not worthy to be called an Apostle," and "To me who am the least of the
Apostles," and "As to one born out of due time," so here also we have an
utterance of humility. You know the meaning of language, or you would not
quote Epimenides,[2] Menander, and[3] Aratus. When you are discussing
continence and virginity you say, "It is good for a man not to touch a
woman." And, "It is good for them if they abide even as I." And, "I think
that this is good by reason of the present distress." And, "That it is good
for a man so to be." When you come to marriage, you do not say it is good
to marry, because you cannot then add "than to burn;" but you say, "It is
better to marry than to burn." If marriage in itself be good, do not
compare it with fire, but simply say" It is good to marry." I suspect the
goodness of that thing which is forced into the position of being only the
lesser of two evils. What I want is not a smaller evil, but a thing
absolutely good.
10. So far the first section has been explained. Let us now come to
those which follow.[4] "But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but
the Lord. That the wife depart not from her husband (but and if she depart,
let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband): and that
the husband leave not his wife. But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any
brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let
him not leave her," and so on to the words "As God hath called each, so let
him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches." This passage has no bearing
on our present controversy. For he ordains, according to the mind of the
Lord, that excepting the cause of fornication, a wife must not be put away,
and that a wife who has been put away, may not, so long as her husband
lives, be married to another, or at all events that her duty is to be
reconciled to her husband. But in the case of those who are already married
at the time of conversion, that is to say, supposing one of the two were a
believer, he enjoins that the believer shall not put away the unbeliever.
And after stating his reason, viz., that the unbeliever who is unwilling to
leave the believer becomes thereby a candidate for the faith, he commands,
on the other hand, that if the unbeliever reject the faithful one on
account of the faith of Christ, the believer ought to depart, lest husband
or wife be preferred to Christ, in comparison with Whom we must hold even
life itself cheap. Yet at the present day many women despising the
Apostle's command, are joined to heathen husbands, and prostitute the
temples of Christ to idols. They do not understand that they are part of
His body though indeed they are His ribs. The Apostle is lenient to the
union of unbelievers, who having (believing) husbands, afterwards come to
believe in Christ. He does not extend his indulgence to those women who,
although Christians, have been married to heathen husbands. To these he
elsewhere says,[1] "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what
fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light
with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion
hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God
with idols? For we are a temple of the living God." Although I know that
crowds of matrons will be furious against me: although I know that just as
they have shamelessly despised the Lord, so they will rave at me who am but
a flea and the least of Christians: yet I will speak out what I think. I
will say what the Apostle has taught me, that they are not on the side of
righteousness, but of iniquity: not of light, but of darkness: that they do
not belong to Christ, but to Belial: that they are not temples of the
living God, but shrines and idols of the dead. And, if you wish to see more
clearly how utterly unlawful it is for a Christian woman to marry a
Gentile, consider what the same Apostle says,[2] "A wife is bound for so
long time as her husband liveth: but if the husband be dead, she is free to
be married to whom she will; only in the Lord," that is, to a Christian. He
who allows second and third marriages in the Lord, forbids first marriages
with a Gentile. Whence Abraham also makes his servant swear upon his thigh,
that is, on Christ, Who was to spring from his seed, that he would not
bring an alien-born as a wife for his son Isaac. And Ezra checked an
offence of this kind against God by making his countrymen put away their
wives. And the prophet Malachi thus speaks,[1] "Judah hath dealt
treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem;
for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loveth, and hath
married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord will cut off the man that
doeth this,[2] him that teacheth and him that learneth, out of the tents of
Jacob, and him that offers an offering unto the Lord of hosts." I have said
this that they who compare marriage with virginity, may at least know that
such marriages as these are on a lower level than digamy and trigamy.
11. In the above discussion the Apostle has taught that the believer
ought not to depart from the unbeliever, but remain in marriage as the
faith found them, and that each man whether married or single should
continue as he was when baptized into Christ; and then he suddenly
introduces the metaphors of circumcision and uncircumcision, of bond and
free, and under those metaphors treats of the married and unmarried.[3]
"Was any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the keeping of
the commandments of God. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was
called. Wast thou called being a bondservant? Care not for it: but even if
thou canst become free, use it rather. For he that was called in the Lord
being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he that was called,
being free, is Christ's bondservant. Ye were bought with a price; become
not bondservants of men. Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called,
therein abide with God." Some, I suppose, will find fault with the
Apostle's way of reasoning. I would therefore ask first, What we are to
infer from his suddenly passing in a discussion concerning husbands and
wives to a comparison of Jew and Gentile, bond and free, and then
returning, when this point is settled, to the question about virgins, and
telling us "Concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord "; what
has a comparison of Jew and Gentile, bond and free, to do with wedlock and
virginity? In the next place, how are we to understand the words "Hath any
been called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised" ?[1] Can a man
who has lost his foreskin restore it again at his pleasure? Then, in what
sense are we to explain "For he that was called in the Lord, being a
bondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called, being
free, is Christ's bondservant." Fourthly, how is it that he who commanded
servants to obey their masters according to the flesh, now says, "Become
net bondservants of men." Lastly, how are we to connect with slavery, or
with circumcision, his saying" Brethren, let each man, wherein he was
called, therein abide with God," which even contradicts his previous
opinion. We heard him say "Become not bondservants of men." How can we then
possibly abide in that vocation wherein we were called, when many at the
time they became believers had masters according to the flesh, whose
bondservants they are now forbidden to be? Moreover, what has the argument
about our abiding in the vocation wherein we were called, to do with
circumcision? for in another place the same Apostle cries aloud "Behold I
Paul tell you that, if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing
"? We must conclude, therefore, that a higher meaning should be given to
circumcision and uncircumcision, bond and free, and that these words must
be taken in close connection with what has gone before. "Was anyone called
being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised." If, he says, at the
time you were called and became a believer in Christ, if I say, you were
called being circumcised from a wife, that is, unmarried, do not marry a
wife, that is, do not become uncircumcised, lest you lay upon the freedom
of circumcision and chastity the burden of marriage. Again, if anyone was
called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised. You had a wife, he
says, when you believed: do not think the faith of Christ a reason for
disagreement, because God called us in peace.[2] " Circumcision is nothing,
and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God."
For neither celibacy nor marriage availeth anything without works, since
even faith, which is specially characteristic of Christians, if it have not
works, is said to be dead, and vestal virgins and Juno's widows might upon
these terms be numbered with the saints. "Let each man in the vocation
wherein he was called, therein abide." Whether he had, or had not, a wife
when he believed, let him remain in that condition in which he was when
called. Accordingly he does not so strongly urge virgins to be married, as
forbid divorce. And as he debars those who have wives from putting them
away, so he cuts off from virgins the power of being married. "Thou wast
called being a slave, heed it not; but even if thou canst become free, use
it rather." Even if you have, he says, a wife, and are bound to her, and
pay her due, and have not power over your own body; or if, to speak more
clearly, you are the bondservant of your wife, be not sad upon that
account, nor sigh for the loss of your virginity. But even if you can find
some causes of discord, do not, for the sake of thoroughly enjoying the
liberty of chastity, seek your own welfare by destroying another. Keep your
wife awhile, and do not go too fast for her lagging footsteps: wait till
she follows. If you are patient, your spouse will become a sister, "For he
that was called in the Lord, being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman:
likewise, he that was called being free, is Christ's bondservant." He gives
his reasons for not wishing wives to be forsaken. He therefore says, I
command that Gentiles who believe on Christ do not abandon the married
state in which they were before embracing the faith: for he who had a wife
when he became a believer, is not so strictly devoted to the service of God
as virgins and unmarried persons. But, in a manner, he has more freedom,
and the reins of his bondage are relaxed; and, while he is the bondservant
of a wife, he is, so to speak, the freedman of the Lord. Moreover, he who
when called by the Lord had not a wife and was free from the bondage of
wedlock, he is truly Christ's bondservant. What happiness to be the
bondservant, not of a wife but of Christ, to serve not the flesh, but the
spirit ![1] " For he who is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." There was
some fear that by saying "Wast thou called being a bondservant? Care not
for it: but, even if thou canst become free, use it rather," he might seem
to have flouted continence, and to have given us up to the slavery of
marriage. He therefore makes a remark which removes all cavil: "Ye were
bought with a price, become not servants of men." We have been redeemed
with the most precious blood of Christ: the Lamb was slain for us, and
having been sprinkled with hyssop and the warm drops of His blood, we have
rejected poisonous pleasure. Why do we at whose baptism Pharaoh died and
all his host was drowned, again turn back in our hearts to Egypt, and after
the manna, angels' food, sigh for the garlic and the onions and the
cucumbers, and Pharaoh's meat?
12. Having discussed marriage and continency he at length comes to
virginity and says[1] "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the
Lord: but I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord
to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the
present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is," Here
our opponent goes utterly wild with exultation: this is his strongest
battering-ram with which he shakes the wall of virginity. "See," says he,
"the Apostle confesses that as regards virgins he has no commandment of the
Lord, and he who had with authority laid down the law respecting husbands
and wives, does not dare to command what the Lord has not enjoined. And
rightly too. For what is enjoined is commanded, what is commanded must be
done, and that which must be done implies punishment if it be not done. For
it is useless to order a thing to be done and yet leave the individual free
to do it or not do it. If the Lord had commanded virginity He would have
seemed to condemn marriage, and to do away with the seed-plot of mankind,
of which virginity itself is a growth. If He had cut off the root, how was
He to expect fruit? If the foundations were not first laid, how was He to
build the edifice, and put on the roof to cover all! Excavators toil hard
to remove mountains; the bowels of the earth are pierced in the search for
gold. And, when the tiny particles, first by the blast of the furnace, then
by the hand of the cunning workman have been fashioned into an ornament,
men do not call him blessed who has separated the gold from the dross but
him who wears the beautiful gold. Do not marvel then if, placed as we are,
amid temptations of the flesh and incentives to vice, the angelic life be
not exacted of us, but merely recommended. If advice be given, a man is
free to proffer obedience; if there be a command, he is a servant bound to
compliance. "I have no commandment," he says, "of the Lord: but I give my
judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." If
you have no commandment of the Lord, how dare you give judgement without
orders? The Apostle will reply: Do you wish me to give orders where the
Lord has offered a favour rather than laid down a law? The great Creator
and Fashioner, knowing the weakness of the vessel which he made, left
virginity open to those whom He addressed; and shall I, the teacher of the
Gentiles, who have become all things to all men that I might gain all,
shall I lay upon the necks of weak believers from the very first the burden
of perpetual chastity? Let them[1] begin with short periods of release from
the marriage bond, and give themselves unto prayer, that when they have
tasted the sweets of chastity they may desire the perpetual possession of
that wherewith they were temporarily delighted. The Lord, when tempted by
the Pharisees, and asked whether according to the law of Moses it was
permitted to put away a wife, forbade the practice altogether. After
weighing His words the disciples said to Him:[2]" If the case of the man
is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry. But He said unto them,
all men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there
are eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are
eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, which made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to
receive it, let him receive it." The reason is plain why the Apostle said,
"concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord." Surely; because the
Lord had previously said "All men cannot receive the word, but they to whom
it is given," and "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."[3]
The Master of the Christian race offers the reward, invites candidates to
the course, holds in His hand the prize of virginity, points to the
fountain of purity, and cries aloud[4]" If any man thirst, let him come
unto me and drink." "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." He
does not say, you must drink, you must run, willing or unwilling: but
whoever is willing and able to run and to drink, he shall conquer, he shall
be satisfied. And therefore Christ loves virgins more than others, because
they willingly give what was not commanded them. And it indicates greater
grace to offer what you are not bound to give, than to render what is
exacted of you. The apostles, contemplating the burden of a wife,
exclaimed, "If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient
to marry." Our Lord thought well of their view. You rightly think, said He,
that it is not expedient for a man who is hastening to the kingdom of
heaven to take a wife: but it is a hard matter, and all men do not receive
the saying, but they to whom it has been given. Some are eunuchs by nature,
others by the violence of men. Those eunuchs please Me who are such not of
necessity, but of free choice. Willingly do I take them into my bosom who
have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, and in order
to worship Me have renounced the condition of their birth. We must now
explain the words, "Those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
of heaven's sake." If they who have made themselves eunuchs have the reward
of the kingdom of heaven, it follows that they who have not made themselves
such cannot be placed with those who have. He who is able, he says, to
receive it, let him receive it. It is a mark of great faith and of great
virtue, to be the pure temple of God, to offer oneself a whole burnt-
offering, and, according to the same apostle, to be holy both in body and
in spirit. These are the eunuchs, who thinking themselves dry trees because
of their impotence, hear by the mouth of[1] Isaiah that they have a place
prepared in heaven for sons and daughters. Their type is[2] Ebedmelech the
eunuch in Jeremiah, and the eunuch of Queen Candace in the[3] Acts of the
Apostles, who on account of the strength of his faith gained the name of a
man. These are they to whom Clement, who was the successor of the Apostle
Peter, and of whom the Apostle Paul makes mention, wrote letters, directing
almost the whole of his discourse to the subject of virgin purity. After
them there is a long series of apostolic men, martyrs, and men illustrious
no less for holiness than for eloquence, with whom we may very easily
become acquainted through their own writings.[4] "I think, therefore," he
says, "that this is good for the present distress." What is this distress
which, in contempt of the marriage tie, longs for the liberty of virginity
?[5] "Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those
days." We have not here a condemnation of harlots and brothels, of whose
damnation there is no doubt, but of the swelling womb, and wailing infancy,
the fruit as well as the work of marriage. "For it is good for a man so to
be." If it is good for a man so to be, it is bad for a man not so to be.[6]
"Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a
wife? Seek not a wife." Each one of us has his appointed bounds; let me
have what is mine, and keep your own. If thou art bound to a wife, give her
not a bill of divorce. If I am loosed from a wife, I will not seek a wife.
As I do not dissolve marriages once contracted: so you should not bind what
is loosed. And at the same time the meaning of the words must be taken into
account. He who has a wife is regarded as a debtor, and is said to be
uncircumcised, to be the servant of his wife, and like bad servants to be
bound. But he who has no wife, in the first place owes no man anything,
then is circumcised, thirdly is free, lastly, is loosed.
13. Let us run through the remaining points, for our author is so
voluminous that we cannot linger over every detail. "But and if thou marry,
thou hast not sinned." It is one thing not to sin, another to do good. "And
if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned." Not that virgin who has once for
all dedicated herself to the service of God: for, should one of these
marry, she will have damnation, because she has made of no account her
first faith. But, if our adversary objects that this saying relates to
widows, we reply that it applies with still greater force to virgins, since
marriage is forbidden even to widows whose previous marriage had been
lawful. For virgins who marry after consecration are rather incestuous than
adulterous. And, for fear he should by saying, "And if a virgin marry, she
hath not sinned," again stimulate the unmarried to be married, he
immediately checks himself, and by introducing another consideration,
invalidates his previous concession. "Yet," says he, "such shall have
tribulation in the flesh." Who are they who shall have tribulation in the
flesh? They to whom he had before indulgently said "But and if thou marry,
thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such
shall have tribulation in the flesh." We in our inexperience thought that
marriage had at least the joys of the flesh. But if they who are married
have tribulation even in the flesh, which is imagined to be the sole source
of their pleasure, what else is there to marry for, when in the spirit, and
in the mind, and in the flesh itself there is tribulation. "But I would
spare you." Thus, he says, I allege tribulation as a motive, as though
there were not greater obligations to refrain. "But this I say, brethren,
the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as
though they had none." I am by no means now discussing virgins, of whose
happiness no one entertains a doubt. I am coming to the married. The time
is short, the Lord is at hand. Even though we lived nine hundred years, as
did men of old, yet we ought to think that short which must one day have an
end, and cease to be. But, as things are, and it is not so much the joy as
the tribulation of marriage that is short, why do we take wives whom we
shall soon be compelled to lose ?[1] "And those that weep, and those that
rejoice, and those that buy, and those that use the world, as though they
wept not, as though they rejoiced not, as though they bought not, as though
they did not use the world: for the fashion of this world passeth away." If
the world, which comprehends all things, passes away, yea if the fashion
and intercourse of the world vanishes like the clouds, amongst the other
works of the world, marriage too will vanish away. For after the
resurrection there will be no wedlock. But if death be the end of marriage,
why do we not voluntarily embrace the inevitable? And why do we not,
encouraged by the hope of the reward, offer to God that which must be wrung
from us against our will. "He that is unmarried is careful for the things
of the Lord how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful
for the things of the world how he may please his wife, and is[1] divided."
Let us look at the difference between the cares of the virgin, and those of
the married man. The virgin longs to please the Lord, the husband to please
his wife, and that he may please her be is careful for the things of the
world, which will of course pass away with the world. "And he is divided,"
that is to say, is distracted with manifold cares and miseries. This is not
the place to describe the difficulties of marriage, and to revel in
rhetorical commonplaces. I think I delivered myself fully as regards this
point in my argument against[2] Helvidius, and in the book which I
addressed to[3] Eustochium. At all events[4] Tertullian while still a young
man, gave himself full play with this subject. And my teacher,[5] Gregory
of Nazianzus, discussed virginity and marriage in some Greek verses. I now
briefly beg my reader to note that in the Latin manuscripts we have the
reading "there is a difference also between the virgin and the wife." The
words, it is true, have a meaning of their own, and have by me, as well as
by others, been so explained as showing the bearing of the passage. Yet
they lack apostolic authority, since the Apostle's words are as we have
translated them- -" He is careful for the things of the world, how he may
please his wife,[6] and he is divided." Having laid down this, he passes to
the virgins and the continent, and says "The woman that is unmarried and a
virgin thinks of the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in body and
in spirit." Not every unmarried woman is also a virgin. But every virgin is
of course unmarried. It may be, that regard for elegance of expression led
him to repeat the same idea by means of another word and speak of "a woman
unmarried and a virgin"; or at least he may have wished to give to
"unmarried" the definite meaning of "virgin," so that we might not suppose
him to include harlots, united to no one by the fixed bonds of wedlock,
among the "unmarried." Of what, then, does she that is unmarried and a
virgin think? "The things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body
and in spirit." Supposing there were nothing else, and that no greater
reward followed virginity, this would be motive enough for her choice, to
think of the things of the Lord. But he immediately points out the contents
of her thought--that she may be holy both in body and spirit. For there are
virgins in the flesh, not in the spirit, whose body is intact, their soul
corrupt. But that virgin is a sacrifice to Christ, whose mind has not been
defiled by thought, nor her flesh by lust. On the other hand, she who is
married thinks of the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
Just as the man who has a wife is anxious for the things of the world, how
he may please his wife, so the married woman thinks of the things of the
world, how she may please her husband. But we are not of this world, which
lieth in wickedness, the fashion of which passeth away, and concerning
which the Lord said to the Apostles,[1] "If ye were of the world, the world
would love its own." And lest perchance someone might suppose that he was
laying the heavy burden of chastity on unwilling shoulders, he at once adds
his reasons for persuading to it, and says:[2] "And this I say for your
profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly,
and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction." The Latin words
do not convey the meaning of the Greek. What words shall we use to render
Pro`s to` eu'schhmon ka`i eupr'osedron tw^ Kuri'w aperispa'stws? The
difficulty of translation accounts for the fact that the clause is
completely wanting in Latin manuscripts. Let us, however, use the passage
as we have translated it. The Apostle does not lay a snare upon us, nor
does he compel us to be what we do not wish to be; but he gives his advice
as to what is fair and seemly, he would have us attend upon the Lord and
ever be anxious about that service, and await the Lord's will, so that like
active and well-armed soldiers we may obey orders, and may do so without
distraction, which, according to[3] Ecclesiastes, is given to the men of
this world that they may be exercised thereby. But if anyone considers that
his virgin, that is, his flesh, is wanton and boiling with lust, and cannot
be bridled, and he must do one of two things, either take a wife or fall,
let him do what he will, he does not sin if he marry. Let him do, he says,
what he will, not what he ought. He does not sin if he marry a wife; yet,
he does not well if he marry :[1] "But he that standeth stedfast in his
heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching his own will, and
hath determined this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin, shall do
well. So then both he that giveth his own virgin in marriage doeth well;
and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better." With marked
propriety he had previously said "He who marries a wife does not sin": here
he tells us "He that keepeth his own virgin doeth well." But it is one
thing not to sin, another to do well.[2] " Depart from evil," he says, "and
do good." The former we forsake, the latter we follow. In this last lies
perfection. But whereas he says "and he that giveth his virgin in marriage
doeth well," it might be supposed that our remark does not hold good; he
therefore forthwith detracts from this seeming good and puts it in the
shade by comparing it with another, and saying, "and he that giveth her not
in marriage shall do better." If he had not intended to draw the inference
of doing better, he would never have previously referred to doing well. But
where there is something good and something better, the reward is not in
both cases the same, and where the reward is not one and the same, there of
course the gifts are different. The difference, then, between marriage and
virginity is as great as that between not sinning and doing well; nay
rather, to speak less harshly, as great as between good and better.
14. He has ended his discussion of wedlock and virginity, and has
carefully steered between the two precepts without turning to the right
hand or to the left. He has followed the royal road and fulfilled the
command[3] not to be righteous over much. Now again he compares monogamy
with digamy, and as he had subordinated marriage to virginity, so he makes
second marriages inferior to first, and says,[4] "A wife is bound for so
long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to
be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she
abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit
of God." He allows second marriages, but to such persons as wish for them
and are not able to contain; lest,[3] having "waxed wanton against Christ,"
they desire to marry, "having condemnation, because they have rejected
their first faith;" and he makes the concession because many had already
turned aside after Satan. [1]" But," says he, "they will be happier if they
abide as they are," and he immediately adds the weight of Apostolic
authority, "after my judgement." And that an Apostle's authority might not,
like that of an ordinary man, be without weight, he added, "and I think
that I also have the Spirit of God." When he incites to continence, it is
not by the judgement or spirit of man, but by the judgement and Spirit of
God; when, however, he grants the indulgence of marriage, he does not
mention the Spirit of God, but weighs his judgement with wisdom, and adapts
the severity of the strain to the weakness of the individual. In this sense
we must take the whole of the following passage:[2] "For the woman that
hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the
husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if,
while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called
an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that
she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man." And similarly
the words to Timothy,[3] " I desire therefore that the younger widows
marry, bear children, rule the household, give none occasion to the
adversary for reviling: for already some are turned aside after Satan," and
so on. For as on account of the danger of fornication he allows virgins to
marry, and makes that excusable which in itself is not desirable, so to
avoid this same fornication, he allows second marriages to widows. For it
is better to know a single husband, though he be a second or third, than to
have many paramours: that is, it is more tolerable for a woman to
prostitute herself to one man than to many. At all events this is so if the
Samaritan woman in John's Gospel who said she had her sixth husband was
reproved by the Lord because he was not her husband. For where there are
more husbands than one the proper idea of a husband, who is a single
person, is destroyed. At the beginning one rib was turned into one wife.
"And they two, " he says, "shall be one flesh": not three, or four;
otherwise, how can they be any longer two, if they are several. Lamech, a
man of blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh between
two wives. Fratricide and digamy were abolished by the same punishment--
that of the deluge. The one was avenged seven times, the other seventy
times seven. The guilt is as widely different as are the numbers. What the
holiness of second marriage is, appears from this--that a person twice
married[1] cannot be enrolled in the ranks of the clergy, and so the
Apostle tells Timothy,[2] "Let none be enrolled as a widow under threescore
years old, having been the wife of one man." The whole command concerns
those widows who are supported on the alms of the Church. The age is
therefore limited, so that those only may receive the food of the poor who
can no longer work. And at the same time, consider that she who has had two
husbands, even though she be a widow, decrepit, and in want, is not a
worthy recipient of the Church's funds. But if she be deprived of the bread
of charity, how much more is she deprived of that bread which cometh down
from heaven, and of which if a man eat unworthily, he shall be guilty of
outrage offered to the body and the blood of Christ ?
15. The passages, however, which I have adduced in support of my
position and in which it is permitted to widows, if they so desire, to
marry again, are interpreted by some concerning those widows who had lost
their husbands and were found in that condition when they became
Christians. For, supposing a person baptized and her husband dead, it would
not be consistent if the Apostle were to bid her marry another, when he
enjoins even those who have wives to be as though they had them not. And
this is why the number of wives which a man may take is not defined,
because when Christian baptism has been received, even though a third or a
fourth wife has been taken, she is reckoned as the first. Otherwise, if,
after baptism and after the death of a first husband, a second is taken why
should not a sixth after the death of the second, third, fourth, and fifth,
and so on? For it is possible, that through some strange misfortune, or by
the judgement of God cutting short repeated marriages, a young woman may
have several husbands, while an old woman may be left a widow by her first
husband in extreme age. The first Adam was married once: the second was
unmarried. Let the supporters of second marriages shew us as their leader a
third Adam who was twice married. But granted that Paul allowed second
marriages: upon the same grounds it follows that he allows even third and
fourth marriages, or a woman may marry as often as her husband dies. The
Apostle was forced to choose many things which he did not like. He
circumcised Timothy, and shaved his own head, practised going barefoot, let
his hair grow long, and cut it at Cenchrea. And he had certainly chastised
the Galatians, and blamed Peter because for the sake of Jewish observances
he separated himself from the Gentiles. As then in other points connected
with the discipline of the Church he was a Jew to Jews, a Gentile to
Gentiles, and was made all things to all men, that he might gain all: so
too he allowed second marriages to incontinent persons, and did not limit
the number of marriages, in order that women, although they saw themselves
permitted to take a second husband, in the same way as a third or a fourth
was allowed, might blush to take a second, lest they should be compared to
those who were three or four times married. If more than one husband be
allowed, it makes no difference whether he be a second or a third, because
there is no longer a question of single marriage.[1] "All things are
lawful, but not all things are expedient." I do not condemn second, nor
third, nor, pardon the expression, eighth marriages: I will go still
further and say that I welcome even a penitent whoremonger. Things that are
equally lawful must be weighed in an even balance.
16. But he takes us to the Old Testament, and beginning with Adam goes
on to Zacharias and Elizabeth. He next confronts us with Peter and the rest
of the Apostles. We are therefore bound to traverse the same course of
argument and show that chastity was always preferred to the condition of
marriage. And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall
they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of
Paradise, they were immediately married. Then we have the passage,[2] "For
this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife, and the twain shall become one flesh," in explanation of which the
Apostle straightway adds,[3] "This mystery is great, but I speak in regard
of Christ, and of the Church." Christ in the flesh is a virgin, in the
spirit he is once married. For he has one Church, concerning which the same
Apostle says,[4] "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
Church." If Christ loves the Church holily, chastely, and without spot, let
husbands also love their wives in chastity. And let everyone know how to
possess his vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the lust of
concupiscence, as the Gentiles who know not God :[5] "For God called us not
for uncleanness, but in sanctification: seeing that ye have put off the old
man with his doings, and have put on the new man, which is being renewed
unto knowledge after the image of him that created him: where there cannot
be male and female, Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncumcision, barbarian,
Scythian, bondman, free man: but Christ is all, and in all." The link of
marriage is not found in the image of the Creator. When difference of sex
is done away, and we are putting off the old man, and putting on the new,
then we are being born again into Christ a virgin, who was both born of a
virgin, and is born again through[1] virginity. And whereas he says "Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," it was necessary first to
plant the wood and to let it grow, so that there might be an after-growth
for cutting down. And at the same time we must bear in mind the meaning of
the phrase, "replenish the earth." Marriage replenishes the earth,
virginity fills Paradise. This too we must observe, at least if we would
faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third,
fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of
each, "God saw that it was good," on the second day it omitted this
altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because
it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that
all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd
numbers denote cleanness. And yet by the double number is represented
another mystery: that not even in beasts and unclean birds is second
marriage approved. For unclean animals went in two and two, and clean ones
by sevens, so that Noah after the flood might be able to immediately offer
to God sacrifices from the latter.
17. But if Enoch was translated, and Noah was preserved at the deluge,
I do not think that Enoch was translated because he had a wife, but because
he was[2] the first to call upon God and to believe in the Creator; and the
Apostle Paul fully instructs us concerning him in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Noah, moreover, who was preserved as a kind of second root for the
human race, must of course be preserved together with his wife and sons,
although in this there is a Scripture mystery. The ark,[3] according to the
Apostle Peter, was a type of the Church, in which eight souls were saved.
When Noah entered into it, both he and his sons were separated from their
wives; but when he landed from it, they united in pairs, and what had been
separated in the ark, that is, in the Church, was joined together in the
intercourse of the world. And at the same time if the ark had many
compartments and little chambers, and was made with second and third
stories, and was filled with different beasts, and was furnished with
dwellings, great or small, according to the kind of animal, I think all
this diversity in the compartments was a figure of the manifold character
of the Church.
18. He raises the objection that when God gave his second blessing,
permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the first benediction
been allowed. He should know that just as divorce according to the
Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning, but on account of the
hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses to the human race, so too
the eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge,
like the quails given in the desert to the murmuring people, the poison of
flesh- meat was offered to our teeth. The Apostle writing to the
Ephesians[1] teaches that God had purposed in the fulness of time to sum up
and renew in Christ Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth.
Whence also the Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says,[2] "I am
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending." At the beginning of the
human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave bills of divorce, nor suffered
circumcision for a sign. Thus we reached the deluge. But after the deluge,
together with the giving of the law which no one could fulfil, flesh was
given for food, and divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife
of circumcision was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us
with something superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time,
and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are
no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, for
the Apostle says,[3] "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For
wine as well as flesh was consecrated after the deluge.
19. What shall I say of Abraham who had three wives, as Jovinianus
says, and received circumcision as a sign of his faith? If we follow him in
the number of his wives, let us also follow him in circumcision. We must
not partly follow, partly reject him. Isaac, moreover, the husband of one
wife, Rebecca, prefigures the Church of Christ, and reproves the wantonness
of second marriage. And if Jacob had two pairs of wives and concubines, and
our opponent will not admit that blear-eyed Leah, ugly and prolific, was a
type of the synagogue, but that Rachel, beautiful and long barren,
indicated the mystery of the Church, let me remind him that when Jacob did
this thing he was among the Assyrians, and in Mesopotamia in bondage to a
hard master. But when he wished to enter the holy land, he raised on Mount
Galeed[1] the heap of witness, in token that the lord of Mesopotamia had
failed to find anything among his baggage, and there swore that he would
never return to the place of his bondage; and when,[2] after wrestling with
the angel at the brook Jabbok, he began to limp, because the great muscle
of his thigh was withered, he at once gained the name of Israel.[3] Then
the wife whom he once loved, and for whom he had served, was slain by the
son of sorrow near Bethlehem which was destined to be the birthplace of our
Lord, the herald of virginity: and the intimacies of Mesopotamia died in
the land of the Gospel.
20. But I wonder why he set[4] Judah and Tamar before us for an
example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or[5] Onan who
was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we
approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?
As regards Moses, it is clear that he would have been in peril at the inn,
if[6] Sephora which is by interpretation a bird, had not circumcised her
son, and cut off the foreskin of marriage with the knife which prefigured
the Gospel. This is that Moses who when he saw a great vision and heard an
angel, or the Lord speaking in the bush,[7] could not by any means approach
to him without first loosing the latchet of his shoe, that is, putting off
the bonds of marriage. And we need not be surprised at this in the case of
one who was a prophet, lawgiver, and the friend of God, seeing that all the
people when about to draw nigh to Mount Sinai, and to hear the voice
speaking to them, were commanded to sanctify themselves in three days, I
and keep themselves from their wives. I am out of order in violating
historical sequence, but I may point out that the same thing was said by[8]
Ahimelech the priest to David when he fled to Nob: "If only the young men
have kept themselves from women." And David answered," of a truth about
these three days." For the shew- bread, like the body of Christ, might not
be eaten by those who rose from the marriage bed. And in passing we ought
to consider the words "if only the young men have kept themselves from
women." The truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all
sexual intercourse is unclean. In the law also it is enjoined that the[9]
high priest must not marry any but a virgin, nor must he take to wife a
widow. If a virgin and a widow are on the same level, how is it that one is
taken, the other rejected ?[1] And the widow of a priest is bidden abide in
the house of her father, and not to contract a second marriage.[2] If the
sister of a priest dies in virginity, just as the priest is commanded to go
to the funeral of his father and mother, so must he go to hers. But if she
be married, she is despised as though she belonged not to him. He who
has[3] married a wife, and he who has planted a vineyard, an image of the
propagation of children, is forbidden to go to the battle. For he who is
the slave of his wife cannot be the Lord's soldier. And the layer in the
tabernacle was cast from the mirrors of the women who[4] fasted, signifying
the bodies of pure virgins: And within,[5] in the sanctuary, both cherubim,
and mercy-seat, and the ark of the covenant, and the table of shew-bread,
and the candle-stick, and the censer, were made of the purest gold. For
silver might not be brought into the holy of holies.
21. I must not linger over Moses when my purpose is at full speed to
lightly touch on each topic and to sketch the outline of a proper knowledge
of my subject. I will pass to Joshua the son of Nun, who was previously
called Ause, or better, as in the Hebrew, Osee, that is, Saviour. For
he,[6] according to the epistle of Jude, saved the people of Israel and led
them forth out of Egypt, and brought them into the land of promise. As soon
as this Joshua[7] reached the Jordan, the waters of marriage, which had
ever flowed in the land, dried up and stood in one heap; and the whole
people, barefooted and on dry ground, crossed over, and came to Gilgal, and
there was a second time circumcised. If we take this literally, it cannot
possibly stand. For if we had two foreskins, or if another could grow after
the first was cut off, there would be room for speaking of a second
circumcision. But the meaning is that Joshua circumcised the people who had
crossed the desert, with the Gospel knife, and he circumcised them with a
stone knife, that what in the case of Moses' son was prefigured in a few
might under Joshua be fulfilled in all. Moreover, the very foreskins were
heaped together and buried, and covered with earth, and the fact that the
reproach of Egypt was taken away, and the name of the place, Gilgal, which
is by interpretation[1] revelation show that while the people wandered in
the desert uncircumcised their eyes were blinded Let us see what follows.
After this Gospel circumcision and the consecration of twelve stones at the
place of revelation, the Passover was immediately celebrated, a lamb was
slain for them, and they ate the food of the Holy Land. Joshua went forth,
and was met by the Prince of the host, sword in hand, that is either to
shew that he was ready to fight for the circumcised people, or to sever the
tie of marriage. And in the same way that Moses was commanded, so was
he:[2] " loose thy shoe, for the place whereon thou standest is holy
ground." For if the armed host of the Lord was represented by the trumpets
of the priests, we may see in Jericho a type of the overthrow of the world
by the preaching of the Gospel. And to pass over endless details (for it is
not my purpose now to unfold all the mysteries of the Old Testament),[3]
five kings who previously reigned in the land of promise, and opposed the
Gospel army, were overcome in battle with Joshua. I think it is clearly to
be understood that before the Lord led his people from Egypt and
circumcised them, sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch had the dominion,
and that to these, as to five princes, everything was subject. And when
they[4] took refuge in the cave of the body and in a place of darkness,
Jesus entered the body itself and slew them, that the source of their power
might be the instrument of their death.
22. But it is now time for us to raise the standard of Joshua's
chastity. It is written that Moses had a wife. Now Moses is interpreted
both by our Lord and by the Apostle to mean the law:[5] "They have Moses
and the prophets." And[6] " Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over
them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression." And
no one doubts that in both passages Moses signifies the law. We read that
Moses, that is the law, had a wife: shew me then in the same way that
Joshua the son of Nun had either wife or children, and if you can do so, I
will confess that I am beaten. He certainly received the fairest spot in
the division of the land of Judah, and died, not in the twenties, which are
ever unlucky in Scripture--by them are reckoned the years of[1] Jacob's
service,[2] the price of Joseph, and[3] sundry presents which Esau who was
fond of them received-but in the[4] tens, whose praises we have often sung;
and he was buried in[5] Thamnath Sore, that is, most perfect sovereignty,
or among those of a new covering, to signify the crowds of virgins, covered
by the Saviour's aid on Mount Ephraim, that is, the fruitful mountain; on
the north of the Mountain of Gaash, which is, being interpreted,
disturbance: for[6] " Mount Sion is on the sides of the north, the city of
the Great King," is ever exposed to hatred, and in every trial says[7] "But
my feet had well nigh slipped." The book which bears the name of Joshua
ends with his burial. Again in the book of Judges we read of him as though
he had risen and come to life again, and by way of summary his works are
extolled. We read too[8] "So Joshua sent the people away, every man unto
his inheritance. that they might possess the land." And "Israel served the
Lord all the days of Joshua," and so on. There immediately follows: "And
Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being an hundred and
ten years old." Moses, moreover, only saw the land of promise; he could not
enter: and[9] "he died in the land of Moab, and the Lord buried him in the
valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of
his sepulchre unto this day." Let us compare the burial of the two: Moses
died in the land of Moab, Joshua in the land of Judaea. The former was
buried in a valley over against the house of Phogor, which is, being
interpreted, reproach (for the Hebrew Phogor corresponds to Priapus[10]);
the latter in Mount Ephraim on the north of Mount Gaash. And in the simple
expressions of the sacred Scriptures there is always a more subtle meaning.
The Jews gloried in children and child-bearing; and the barren woman, who
had not offspring in Israel, was accursed; but blessed was he whose seed
was in Sion, and his family in Jerusalem; and part of the highest blessing
was,[11] "Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine, in the innermost parts of
thy house, thy children like olive plants, round about thy table."
Therefore his grave is described as placed in a valley over against the
house of an idol which was in a special sense consecrated to lust. But we
who fight under Joshua our leader, even to the present day know not where
Moses was buried. For we despise Phogor, and all his shame, knowing that
they who are in the flesh cannot please God. And the Lord before the flood
had said[1] ' My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also
is flesh." Wherefore, when Moses died, the people of Israel mourned for him
but Joshua like one on his way to victory was unmourned. For marriage ends
at death; virginity thereafter begins to wear the crown.
23. Next he brings forward Samson, and does not consider that the
Lord's Nazarite was once shaven bald by a woman. And although Samson
continues to be a type of the Saviour because he loved a harlot from among
the Gentiles, which harlot corresponds to the Church, and because he slew
more enemies in his death than he did in his life, yet he does not set an
example of conjugal chastity. And he surely reminds us[2] of Jacob's
prophecy--he was shaken by his runaway steed, bitten by an adder and fell
backwards. But why he enumerated Deborah, and Barak, and the wife. of Heber
the Kenite, I am at a loss to understand. For it is one thing to draw up a
list of military commanders in historical sequence, another to indicate
certain figures of marriage which cannot be found in them. And whereas he
prefers the fidelity of the father Jephthah to the tears of the virgin
daughter, that makes for us. For we are not commending virgins of the world
so much as those who are virgins for Christ's sake, and most Hebrews blame
the father for the rash vow he made,[3] "If thou wilt indeed deliver the
children of Ammon into mine hand, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh
forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the
children of Ammon, it shall be for the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a
burnt offering." Supposing (they say) a dog or an ass had met him, what
would he have done? Their meaning is that God so ordered events that he who
had improvidently made a vow, should learn his error by the death of his
daughter. And if Samuel who was brought up in the tabernacle married a
wife, how does that prejudice virginity? As if at the present day also
there were not many married priests, and as though the Apostle did not[4]
describe a bishop as the husband of one wife, having children with all
purity. At the same time we must not forget that Samuel was a Levite, not a
priest or high-priest. Hence it was that his mother made for him a linen
ephod, that is, a linen garment to go over the shoulders, which was the
proper dress of the Levites and of the inferior order. And so he is not
named in the Psalms among the priests, but among those who call upon the
name of the Lord:[1] "Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among
those who call upon his name." For[2] Levi begat Kohath, Kohath begat
Amminadab, Amminadab begat Korah, Korah begat Assir, Assir begat Elkanah,
Elkanah begat Zuph, Zuph begat Tahath, Tahath begat Eliel, Eliel begat
Jeroham, Jeroham begat Elkanah, Elkanah begat Samuel. And no one doubts
that the priests sprang from the stock of Aaron, Eleazar, and Phinees. And
seeing that they had wives, they would be rightly brought against us, if,
led away by the error of the Encratites, we were to maintain that marriage
deserved censure, and our high priest were not after the order of
Melchizedek, without father, without mother,[3] Agenealo'ghtos, that is,
unmarried. And much fruit truly did Samuel reap from his children! he
himself pleased God, but[4] begat such children as displeased the Lord. But
if in support of second marriage, he urges the instance of Boaz and Ruth,
let him know that in the Gospel (S. Matt. i. 6) to typify the Church even
Rahab the harlot is reckoned among our Lord's ancestors.
24. He boasts that David bought his wife for two hundred foreskins. But
he should remember that David had numerous other wives, and afterwards
received Michal, Saul's daughter, whom her father had delivered to another,
and when he was old got heat from the embrace of the Shunammite maiden. And
I do not say this because I am bold enough to disparage holy men, but
because it is one thing to live under the law, another to live under the
Gospel. David slew Uriah the Hittite and committed adultery with Bathsheba.
And because he was a man of blood--the reference is not, as some think, to
his wars, but to the[5] murder--he was not permitted to build a temple of
the Lord. But as for us,[6] if we cause one of the least to stumble, and if
we say to a brother[7] Raca, or[8] use our eyes improperly, it were good
that a millstone were hanged about our neck, we shall be in danger of
Gehenna, and a mere glance will be reckoned to us for adultery. He passes
on to Solomon, through whom wisdom itself sang its own praises. Seeing that
not content with dwelling upon his praises, he calls him uxorious, I am
surprised that he did not add the words of the Canticles:[1] "There are
threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and maidens without number,"
and those of the First Book of Kings;[2] And he had seven hundred wives,
princesses, and three hundred concubines, and others without number." These
are they who turned away his heart from the Lord: and yet before he had
many wives, and fell into sins of the flesh, at the beginning of his reign
and in his early years he built a temple to the Lord. For every one is
judged not for what he will be, but for what he is. But if Jovinianus
approves the example of Solomon, he will no longer be in favour of second
and third marriages only, but unless he has seven hundred wives and three
hundred concubines, he cannot be the king's antitype or attain to his
merit. I earnestly again and again remind you, my reader, that I am
compelled to speak as I do, and that I do not disparage our predecessors
under the law, but am well aware that they served their generation
according to their circumstances, and fulfilled the Lord's command to
increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And what is more they were
figures of those that were to come. But we to whom it is said,[3] "The time
is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they
had none," have a different command, and for us virginity is consecrated by
the Virgin Saviour.
25. What folly it was to include Elijah and Elisha in a list of married
men, is plain without a word from me. For, since John Baptist came in the
spirit and power of Elijah, and John was a virgin, it is clear that he came
not only in Elijah's spirit, but also in his bodily chastity. Then the
passage relating to Hezekiah might be adduced (though Jovinianus with his
wonted stupidity did not notice it), in which after his recovery and the
addition of fifteen years to his life he said, "Now will I beget children."
It must be remembered, however, that in the Hebrew texts the passage is not
so, but runs thus:[4] "The father to the children shall make known thy
faithfulness." Nor need we wonder that Huldah, the prophetess, and wife of
Shallum, was[5] consulted by Josiah, King of Judah, when the captivity was
approaching and the wrath of the Lord was falling upon Jerusalem: since it
is the rule of Scripture when holy men fail, to praise women to the
reproach of men. And it is superfluous to speak of Daniel, for the Hebrews
to the present day affirm that the three youths were eunuchs, in accordance
with the declaration of God which Isaiah utters to Hezekiah:[1] "And of
thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they
take away: and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon."
And again in Daniel we read:[2] "And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the
master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of
Israel, even of the seed royal and of the nobles: youth in whom was no
blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in
knowledge, and understanding science." The conclusion is that if Daniel and
the three youths were chosen from the seed royal, and if Scripture foretold
that that there should be eunuchs of the seed royal, these men were those
who were made eunuchs. If he meets us with the argument that in Ezekiel[3]
it is said that Noah, Daniel and Job in a sinful land could not free their
sons and daughters, we reply that the words are used hypothetically. Noah
and Job were not in existence at that time: we know that they lived many
ages before. And the meaning is this: if there were such and such men in a
sinful land, they shall not be able to save their own sons and daughters:
because the righteousness of the father shall not save the son, nor shall
the sin of one be imputed to another.[4] " For the soul that sinneth, it
shall die." This, too, must be said, that Daniel, as the history of his
book shows, was taken captive with King Jehoiakim at the same time that
Ezekiel was also led into captivity. How then could he have sons who was
still a youth? And only three years had elapsed when he was brought in to
wait upon the king. Let no one suppose that Ezekiel at this time remembers
Daniel as a man, not as a youth; for "It came to pass," he says,[5] "in the
sixth year," that is of King Jehoiakim, "in the sixth month, in the fifth
day of the month :" and, "as I sat in my house, and the eiders of Judah sat
before me." Yet on that same day it was said to him,[6] " Though these
three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it." Daniel was therefore a youth,
and known to the people, either on account of his interpretation of the
king's dreams,[7] or on account of the release of Susannah, and the slaying
of the elders. And it is clearly proved that at the time these things were
spoken of Noah, Daniel, and Job, Daniel was still a youth and could not
have had sons and daughters, whom he might save by his righteousness. So
far concerning the Law.
26. Coming to the Gospel he sets before us Zacharias and Elizabeth,
Peter and his mother-in-law, and, with a shamelessness to which we have now
grown accustomed, fails to understand that they, too, ought to have been
reckoned among those who served the Law. For the Gospel had no being before
the crucifixion of Christ--it was consecrated by His passion and by His
blood. In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must
give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed
wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once
they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of
marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord:[1]
"Lo we have left all and followed thee," the Lord answered him,[2] "Verily
I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house or wife, or brethren,
or parents, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not
receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life."
But if, in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with
the words[3] "Have we no right to lead about women or wives" (for gunh' in
Greek has both meanings) "even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and
the brethren of the Lord ?" let him add what is found in the Greek copies,
"Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives ?" This
makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in
accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their
substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where
there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of
money, and mention is afterwards made of women that are sisters, it is
quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those
women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in
the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to
put for him a table, and bread, and a candlestick, and the rest. At all
events if we take gunai^kas to mean wives, not women, the addition of the
word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shews that they
were related in spirit, not by wedlock. Nevertheless, with the exception of
the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and
since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we
must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had
no wives. Yet Jovinianus, who has arrayed against us Zacharias and
Elizabeth, Peter and his wife's mother, should know, that John was the son
of Zacharias and Elizabeth, that is, a virgin was the offspring of
marriage, the Gospel of the law, chastity of matrimony; so that by a virgin
prophet the virgin Lord might be both announced and baptized. But we might
say concerning Peter, that he had a mother-in- law when he believed, and no
longer had a wife, although in the[1] "Sentences" we read of both his wife
and daughter. But for the present our argument must be based wholly on
Scripture. He has made his appeal to the Apostles, because he thinks that
they, who hold the chief authority in our moral system and are the typical
Christian teachers, were not virgins. If, then, we allow that they were not
virgins (and, with the exception of Peter, the point cannot be proved), yet
I must tell him that it is to the Apostles that the words of Isaiah
relate:[2] "Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a small remnant, we
should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah." So,
then, they who were by birth Jews could not under the Gospel recover the
virginity which they had lost in Judaism. And yet John, one of the
disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and
who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on
that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of
Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask,[3] he
requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told
them that the Lord had risen,[4] they both ran to the sepulchre, but John
outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of
Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it
was they saw;[5] the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter,
"It is the Lord." Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound
by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross.
Peter said, "Lord what shall this man do ?" being unwilling to desert John,
with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, "What is that to
thee if I wish him so to be ?" Whence the saying went abroad among the
brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that
virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed
away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its
sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus
should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have
maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord
bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he
was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say,[1] the Church was
rounded upon Peter: although[2] elsewhere the same is attributed to all the
Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the
strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the
twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no
occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin?
Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the eider: one who was a
youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age;
and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among
his disciples, and who had said to them,[3] "Peace I leave with you, my
peace I give unto you," and, "He that is the greater among you, let him be
the least of all," would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the
youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because
ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of
Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's
passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men.[5]
Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle--the one a married man, the
other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and
an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches
as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no
other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the
island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as
a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of
the future Tertullian, moreover, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that
having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more
active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from
the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: "The book
of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ;"
Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the
prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of
the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the
priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one
crying in the desert,[1] "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths
straight." But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father
Himself, and says,[2] " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God,"
and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could
not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of
John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother[3] was entrusted by
the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.
27. But we toil to no purpose. For our opponent urges against us the
Apostolic sentence and says,[4] "Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam
was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into
transgression: but she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they
continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." Let us
consider what led the Apostle to make this declaration:[5] "I desire
therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without
wrath and disputing." So in due course he lays down rules of life for the
women and says "In like manner that women adorn themselves in modest
apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold
or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing
godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all
subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a
man, but to be in quietness." And that the lot of a woman might not seem a
hard one, reducing her to the condition of a slave to her husband, the
Apostle recalls the ancient law and goes back to the first example: that
Adam was first made, then the woman out of his rib; and that the Devil
could not seduce Adam, but did seduce Eve; and that after displeasing God
she was immediately subjected to the man, and began to turn to her husband;
and he points out that she who was once tied with the bonds of marriage and
was reduced to the condition of Eve, might blot out the" old transgression
by the[1] procreation of children: provided, however, that she bring up the
children themselves in the faith and love of Christ, and in sanctification
and chastity; for we must not adopt the faulty reading of the Latin texts,
sobrietas, but castitas, that is,[2] swphrosu'nh. You see how you are
mastered by the witness of this passage also, and cannot but be driven to
admit that what you thought was on the side of marriage tells in favour of
virginity. For if the woman is saved in child-bearing, and the more the
children the greater the safety of the mothers, why did he add "if they
continue in faith and love and sanctification with chastity"? The woman
will then be saved, if she bear not children who will remain virgins: if
what she has herself lost, she attains in her children, and makes up for
the loss and decay, of the root by the excellence of the flower and fruit.
28. Above, in passing, when our opponent adduced Solomon, who, although
he had many wives, nevertheless built the temple, I briefly replied that it
was my intention to run over the remaining points. Now that he may not cry
out that both Solomon and others under the law, prophets and holy men, have
been dishonoured by us, let us show what this very man with his many wives
and concubines thought of marriage. For no one can know better than he who
suffered through them, what a wife or woman is. Well then, he says in the
Proverbs:[3] "The foolish and bold woman comes to want bread." What bread?
Surely that bread which cometh down from heaven: and he immediately adds[4]
"The earth-born perish in her house, rush into the depths of hell." Who are
the earth-born that perish in her house? They of course who follow the
first Adam, who is of the earth, and not the second, who is from heaven.
And again in another place: "Like a worm in wood, so a wicked woman
destroyeth her husband." But if you assert that this was spoken of bad
wives, I shall briefly answer: What necessity rests upon me to run the risk
of the wife I marry proving good or bad?[5] "It is better," he says, "to
dwell in a desert land, than with a contentious and passionate woman in a
wide house." How seldom we find a wife without these faults, he knows who
is married. Hence that sublime orator, Varius Geminus[6] says well "The man
who does not quarrel is a bachelor.[1] "It is better to dwell in the corner
of the housetop, than with a contentious woman in a house in common." If a
house common to husband and wife makes a wife proud and breeds contempt for
the husband: how much more if the wife be the richer of the two, and the
husband but a lodger in her house! She begins to be not a wife, but
mistress of the house; and if she offend her husband, they must part.[2] "A
continual dropping on a wintry day" turns a man out of doors, and so will a
contentious woman drive a man from his own house. She floods his house with
her constant nagging and daily chatter, and ousts him from his own home,
that is the Church. Hence the same Solomon previously commands:[3] "My son
flows forth beyond." And the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says
"Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things spoken,
lest haply we flow forth beyond." But who can hide from himself what is
thus enigmatically expressed?[4] "The horseleech had three I daughters,
dearly loved, but they satisfied her not, and a fourth is not satisfied
when you say Enough; the grave, and woman's love, and the earth that is not
satisfied with water, and the fire that saith not, Enough." The horse-leech
is the devil, the daughters of the devil are dearly loved, and they cannot
be satisfied with the blood of the slain: the grave, and woman's love, and
the earth dry and scorched with heat. It is not the harlot, or the
adulteress who is spoken of; but woman's love in general is accused of ever
being insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is
again in need; it enervates a man's mind, and engrosses all thought except
for the passion which it feeds. What we read in the parable which follows
is to the same effect: "For three things the earth cloth tremble, and for
four which it cannot bear: for a servant when he is king: and a fool when
he is filled with meat: for an odious woman when she is married to a good
husband: and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress." See how a wife is
classed with the greatest evils. But if you reply that it is an odious
wife, I will give you the same answer as before--the mere possibility of
such danger is in itself no light matter. For he who marries a wife is
uncertain whether he is marrying an odious woman or one worthy of his love.
If she be odious, she is intolerable. If worthy of love, her love is
compared to the grave, to the parched earth, and to fire.
29. Let us come to Ecclesiastes and adduce a few corroborative passages
from him also.[1] "To everything there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die: a time to
plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted." We brought forth
young under the law with Moses, let us die under the Gospel with Christ. We
planted in marriage, let us by chastity pluck up that which was planted. "A
time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing: a time to love, and
a time to hate: a time for war, and a time for peace." And at the same time
he warns us not to prefer the law to the Gospel; nor to think that virgin
purity is to be placed on a level with marriage:[2] " Better," he says, "is
the end of a thing than the beginning thereof." And he immediately adds:
"Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than
these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this." And he gives the
reason why the latter days are better than the former:[3] " For wisdom with
an inheritance is good." Under the law carnal wisdom was followed by the
sword of death; under the Gospel an eternal inheritance awaits spiritual
wisdom. "Behold, this have I found,[4] saith the Preacher, one man among a
thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. Behold
this only have I found, that God made man upright; but they have sought out
many inventions." He says that he had found man upright. Consider the force
of the words. The word man comprehends both male and female. "But a woman,"
he says, "among all these have I not found." Let us read the beginning of
Genesis, and we shall find Adam, that is man, called both male and female.
Having then been created by God good and upright, by our own fault we have
fallen to a worse condition; and that which in Paradise had been upright,
when we left Paradise was corrupt. If you object that before they sinned
there was a distinction in sex between male and female, and that they could
without sin have come together, it is uncertain what might have happened.
For we cannot know the judgements of God, and anticipate his sentence as we
choose. What really happened is plain enough,--that they who in Paradise
remained in perpetual virginity, when they were expelled from Paradise were
joined together. Or if Paradise admits of marriage, and there is no
difference between marriage and virginity, what prevented their previous
intercourse even in Paradise? They are driven out of Paradise; and what
they did not there, they do on earth; so that from the very earliest days
of humanity virginity was consecrated by Paradise, and marriage by
earth.[1] "Let thy garments be always white." The eternal whiteness of our
garments is the purity of virginity. In the morning we sowed our seed, and
in the evening let us not cease. Let us who served marriage under the law,
serve virginity under the Gospel.
30. I pass to the Song of Songs, and whereas our opponent thinks it
makes altogether for marriage, I shall show that it contains the mysteries
of virginity. Let us hear what the bride says before that the bridegroom
comes to earth, suffers, descends to the lower world, and rises again.[2]
"We will make for thee likenesses of gold with ornaments of silver while
the king sits at his table." Before the Lord rose again, and the Gospel
shone, the bride had not gold, but likenesses of gold. As for the silver,
however, which she professes to have at the marriage, she not only had
silver ornaments, but she had them in variety--in widows, in the continent,
and in the married. Then the bridegroom makes answer to the bride, and
teaches her that the shadow of the old law has passed away, and the truth
of the Gospel has come.[3] ' Rise up, my love my fair one, and come away,
for lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone." This relates to the
Old Testament. Once more he speaks of the Gospel and of virginity: "The
flowers appear on the earth, the time of the pruning of vines has come."
Does he not seem to you to say the very same thing that the Apostle
says:[4] "The time is shortened that henceforth both those that have wives
may be as though they had none "? And more plainly does he herald
chastity:[5] "The voice," he says, "of the turtle is heard in our land."
The turtle, the chastest of birds, always dwelling in lofty places, is a
type of the Saviour. Let us read the works of naturalists and we shall find
that it is the nature of the turtle-dove, if it lose its mate, not to take
another; and we shall understand that second marriage is repudiated even by
dumb birds. And immediately the turtle says to its fellow:[6] "The fig tree
hath put forth its green figs," that is, the commandments of the old law
have fallen, and the blossoming vines of the Gospel give forth their
fragrance. Whence the Apostle also says,[1] "We are a sweet savour of
Christ."[2] ' Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away. O my dove, thou
art in the clefts of the rock, in the covert of the steep place. Let me see
thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy
countenance is comely."[3] Whilst thou coveredst thy countenance like Moses
and the veil of the law remained, I neither saw thy face, nor did I
condescend to hear thy voice. I said,[4] "Yea, when ye make many prayers, I
will not hear." But now with unveiled face behold my glory, and shelter
thyself in the cleft and steep places of the solid rock. On hearing this
the bride disclosed the mysteries of chastity:[6] " My beloved is mine, and
I am his: he feedeth his flock among the lilies," that is among the pure
virgin bands. Would you know what sort of a throne our true Solomon, the
Prince of Peace, has, and what his attendants are like?[6] "Behold," he
says, "it is the litter of Solomon: threescore mighty men are about it, of
the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war:
every man hath his sword upon his thigh." They who are about Solomon have
their sword upon their thigh, like Ehud, the left-handed judge, who slew
the fattest of foes, a man devoted to the flesh, and cut short all his
pleasures.[7] "I will get me," he says, "to the mountain of myrrh;" to
those, that is, who have mortified their bodies; "and to the hill of
frankincense," to the crowds of pure virgins; "and I will say to my bride,
thou art all fair, my love, and there is no spot in thee." Whence too the
Apostle:[8] "That he might present the church to himself a glorious church,
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing."[9] "Come with me from
Lebanon, my bride, with me from Lebanon. Thou shalt come[10] and pass on
from the beginning of faith, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the
lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards." Lebanon is, being
interpreted, whiteness. Come then, fairest bride, concerning whom it is
elsewhere said[11] "Who is she that cometh up, all in white?" and pass on
by way of this world, from the beginning of faith, and from Sanir, which is
by interpretation, God of light, as we read in the psalm:[12] "Thy word is
a lantern unto my feet, and light unto my path;" and "from Hermon," that
is, consecration: and "flee from the lions' dens, and the mountains of the
leopards who cannot change their spots." Flee, he says, from the lions'
dens, flee from the pride of devils, that when thou hast been consecrated
to me, I may be able to say unto thee:[1] "Thou hast ravished my heart, my
sister, my bride, thou hast ravished mine heart with one of thine eyes,
with one chain of thy neck." What he says is something like this--I do not
reject marriage: you have a second eye, the left, which I have given to you
on account of the weakness of those who cannot see the right. But I am
pleased with the right eye of virginity, and if it be blinded the whole
body is in darkness. And that we might not think he had in view carnal love
and bodily marriage, he take once excludes this meaning by saying[2] "Thou
hast ravished my heart, my bride, my sister." The name sister excludes all
suspicion of unhallowed love. "How fair are thy breasts with wine," those
breasts concerning which he had said above, My beloved is mine, and I am
his: "betwixt my breasts shall he lie," that is in the princely portion of
the heart where the Word of God has its lodging. What wine is that which
gives beauty to the breasts of the bride, and fills them with the milk of
chastity? That, forsooth, of which the bridegroom goes on to speak:[3] "I
have drunk my wine with my milk. Eat, O friends: yea, drink and be drunken,
my brethren." Hence the Apostles also were said to be filled with new wine;
with new, he says, not with old wine; because[4] new wine is put into fresh
wine-skins, and they[5] did not walk in oldness of the letter, but in
newness of the Spirit. This is wine wherewith when youths and maidens are
intoxicated, they at once thirst for virginity; they are filled with the
spirit of chastity, and the prophecy of Zechariah comes to pass, at least
if we follow the Hebrew literally, for he prophesied concerning virgins:[6]
"And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the
streets thereof. For what is his goodness, and what is his beauty, but the
corn of the elect, and wine that giveth birth to virgins?" They are virgins
of whom it is written in the forty-fifth psalm:[7] "The virgins her
companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and
rejoicing shall they be led: they shall enter into the King's palace." 31.
Then follows:[8] "A garden shut up is my sister, my bride: a garden shut
up, a fountain sealed." That which is shut up and sealed reminds us of the
mother of our Lord who was a mother and a Virgin. Hence it was that no one
before or after our Saviour was laid in his new tomb, hewn in the solid
rock. And yet she that was ever a Virgin is the mother of many virgins. For
next we read: "Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with precious
fruits." By pomegranates and fruits is signified the blending of all
virtues in virginity.[1] "My beloved is white and ruddy"; white in
virginity, ruddy in martyrdom. And because He is white and ruddy, therefore
it is immediately added[2] ' His mouth is most sweet, yea, he is altogether
lovely." The virgin bridegroom having been praised by the virgin bride, in
turn praises the virgin bride, and says to her:[3]. How beautiful are thy
feet in sandals,[4] O daughter of Aminadab," which is, being interpreted, a
people that offereth itself willingly. For virginity is voluntary, and
therefore the steps of the Church in the beauty of chastity are praised.
This is not the time for me like a commentator to explain all the mysteries
of virginity from the Song of Songs I have no doubt that the fastidious
reader will turn up his nose at what has already been said.
32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope:[5] "Behold a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." I
know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in
Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to
speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a
girl, is not Almah, but Naarah![6] What then is the meaning of Almah? A
hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more,
because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of
men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she
was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is
described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from
the words of Abraham's servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia:[7] "And he
said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way
which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to
pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give
me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say
to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same
be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master's son." Where he
speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah,
that is, a virgin secluded., and guarded by her parents with extreme care.
Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied
to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance. "Behold a virgin
shall conceive and bear a son." If virginity be not preferred to marriage,
why did not the Holy Spirit choose a married woman, or a widow? For at that
time Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser, was alive,
distinguished for purity, and always free to devote herself to prayers and
fasting in the temple of God. If the life, and good works, and fasting
without virginity can merit the advent of the Holy Spirit, she might well
have been the mother of our Lord. Let us hasten to the rest:[1] "The virgin
daughter of Zion hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn." To her whom
he called daughter the prophet also gave the title virgin, for fear that if
he spoke only of a daughter, it might be supposed that she was married.
This is the virgin daughter whom elsewhere he thus addresses:[2] " Sing, O
barren, thou that dost not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud,
thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the
desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord." This is
she of whom God by the mouth of Jeremiah speaks, saying:[3] "Can a maid
forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire." Concerning her we read of a
great miracle in the same prophecy[4]--that a woman should compass a man,
and that the Father of all things should be contained in a virgin's womb.
33. "Granted, "says Jovinianus," that there is a difference between
marriage and virginity, what have you to say to this,--Suppose a virgin and
a widow were baptized, and continued as they were, what difference will
there be between them?" What we have already said concerning Peter and
John, Anna and Mary, may be of service here. For if there is no difference
between a virgin and a widow, both being baptized, because baptism makes a
new man, upon the same principle harlots and prostitutes, if they are
baptized, will be equal to virgins. If previous marriage is no prejudice to
a baptized widow, and past pleasures and the exposure of their bodies to
public lust are no detriment in the case of harlots, once they have
approached the layer they will gain the rewards of virginity. It is one
thing to unite with God a mind pure and free from any stain of memory,
another to remember the foul and forced embraces of a man, and in
recollection to act a part which you do not in person. Jeremiah, who was[1]
sanctified in the womb, and was known in his mother's belly, enjoyed the
high privilege Because he was predestined to the blessing of virginity. And
when all were captured, and even the vessels of the temple were plundered
by the King of Babylon, he alone was[2] liberated by the enemy, knew not
the insults of captivity, and was supported by the conquerors; and
Nebuchadnezzar, though he gave Nebuzaradan no charge concerning the Holy of
Holies, did give him charge concerning Jeremiah. For that is the true
temple of God, and that is the Holy of Holies, which is consecrated to the
Lord by pure virginity. On the other hand, Ezekiel, who was kept captive in
Babylon, who saw the[3] storm approaching from the north, and the whirlwind
sweeping all before it, says,[4] "My wife died in the evening and I did in
the morning as I was commanded." For the Lord had previously told him that
in that day he should open his mouth, and speak, and no longer keep
silence. Mark well, that while his wife was living he was not at liberty to
admonish the people. His wife died, the bond of wedlock was broken, and
without the least hesitation he constantly devoted himself to the prophetic
office. For he who was called being free, is truly the Lord's bondservant.
I do not deny the blessedness of widows who remain such after their
baptism; nor do I disparage those wives who maintain their chastity in
wedlock; but as they attain a greater reward with God than married women
who pay the marriage due, let widows themselves the content to give the
preference to virginity. For if a chastity which comes too late, when the
glow of bodily pleasure is no longer felt, makes them feel superior to
married women, why should they not acknowledge themselves inferior to
perpetual virginity.
34. All that goes for nothing, says Jovinianus, because even bishops,
priests, and deacons, husbands of one wife, and having children, were
appointed by the Apostle. Just as the Apostle[5] says he has no commandment
respecting virgins, and yet gives his advice, as one who had obtained mercy
from the Lord, and is anxious throughout the whole discussion to give
virginity the preference over marriage, and advises what he does not
venture to command, lest he seem to lay a snare, and to put a heavier
burden upon man's nature than it can bear; so also in establishing the
constitution of the Church, inasmuch as the elements of the early Church
were drawn from the Gentiles, he made the rules for fresh believers
somewhat lighter that they might not in alarm shrink from keeping them.
Then, again, the Apostles and elders wrote[1] letters from Jerusalem that
no heavier burden should be laid on Gentile believers than that they should
keep themselves from idolatry, and from fornication, and from things
strangled. As though they were providing for infant children, they gave
them milk to drink, not solid food. Nor did they lay down rules for
continence, nor hint at virginity, nor urge to fasting, nor repeat the
directions[2] given in the Gospel to the Apostles, not to have two tunics,
nor scrip, nor money in their girdles, nor staff in their hand, nor shoes
on their feet. And they certainly did not bid them,[3] if they wished to be
perfect, go and sell all that they had and give to the poor, and "come
follow me." For if the young man who boasted of having done all that the
law enjoins, when he heard this went away sorrowful, because he had great
possessions, and the Pharisees derided an utterance such as this from our
Lord's lips: how much more would the vast multitude of Gentiles, whose
highest virtue consisted in not plundering another's goods, have repudiated
the obligation of perpetual chastity and continence, when they were told in
the letter to keep themselves from idols, and from fornication, seeing that
fornication was heard of among them, and such fornication as was not "even
among the Gentiles." But the very choice of a bishop makes for me. For he
does not say: Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets
children; but who marries one wife, and[4] has his children in subjection
and well disciplined. You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his
episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case--if he be discovered,
he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be
condemned as an adulterer. Either permit[5] priests to perform the work of
marriage with the result that virginity and marriage are on a par: or if it
is unlawful for priests to touch their wives, they are so far holy in that
they imitate virgin chastity. But something more follows. A layman, or any
believer, cannot pray unless he abstain from sexual intercourse. Now a
priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore
always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from
the duties of marriage. For even under the old law they who used to offer
sacrifices for the people not only remained in their houses, but purified
themselves for the occasion by separating from their wives, nor would they
drink wine or strong drink which are wont to stimulate lust. That married
men are elected to the priesthood, I do not deny: the number of virgins is
not so great as that of the priests required. Does it follow that because
all the strongest men are chosen for the army, weaker men should not be
taken as well? All cannot be strong. If an army were constituted of
strength only, and numbers went for nothing, the feebler men might be
rejected. As it is, men of second or third-rate strength are chosen, that
the army may have its full numerical complement. How is it, then, you will
say, that frequently at the ordination of priests a virgin is passed over,
and a married man taken? Perhaps because he lacks other qualifications in
keeping with virginity, or it may be that he is thought a virgin, and is
not: or there may be a stigma on his virginity, or at all events virginity
itself makes him proud, and while he plumes himself on mere bodily
chastity, he neglects other virtues; he does not cherish the poor: he is
too fond of money. It sometimes happens that a man has a gloomy visage, a
frowning brow, a walk as though he were in a solemn procession, and so
offends the people, who, because they have no fault to find with his life,
hate his mere dress and gait. Many are chosen not out of affection for
themselves, but out of hatred for another. In most cases the election is
won by mere simplicity, while the shrewdness and discretion of another
candidate elicit opposition as though they were evils. Sometimes the
judgement of the commoner people is at fault, and in testing the qualities
of the priesthood, the individual inclines to his own character, with the
result that he looks not so much for a good candidate as for one like
himself. Not unfrequently it happens that married men, who form the larger
portion of the people, in approving married candidates seem to approve
themselves, and it does not occur to them that the mere fact that they
prefer a married person to a virgin is evidence of their inferiority to
virgins. What I am going to say will perhaps offend many. Yet I will say
it, and good men will not be angry with me, because they will not feel the
sting of conscience. Sometimes it is the fault of the bishops, who choose
into the ranks of the clergy not the best, but the cleverest, men, and
think the more simple as well as innocent ones incapable; or, as though
they were distributing the offices of an earthly service, they give posts
to their kindred and relations; or they listen to the dictates of wealth.
And, worse than all, they give promotion to the clergy who besmear them
with flattery. To take the other view, if the Apostle's meaning be that
marriage is necessary in a bishop, the Apostle himself ought not to have
been a bishop, for he said,[1] "Yet I would that all men were even as I
myself." And John will be thought unworthy of this rank, and all the
virgins, and the continent, the fairest gems that give grace and ornament
to the Church. Bishop, priest, and deacon, are not honourable distinctions,
but names of offices. And we do not read:[2] " If a man seeketh the office
of a bishop, he desireth a good degree," but, "he desireth a good work,"
because by being placed in the higher order an opportunity is afforded him,
if he choose to avail himself of it, for the practice of virtue.
35. "The bishop, then, must be without reproach, so that he is the
slave of no vice: "the husband of one wife," that is, in the past, not in
the present; "sober," or[3] better, as it is in the Greek, "vigilant," that
is nhpha'leon; "chaste," for that is the[4] meaning of sw'phrona;[5]
"distinguished," both by chastity and conduct: "hospitable," so that he
imitates Abraham, and with strangers, nay rather in strangers, entertains
Christ; "apt to teach," for it profits nothing to enjoy the consciousness
of virtue, unless a man be able to instruct the people intrusted to him, so
that he can exhort in doctrine, and refute the gainsayers;[6] "not a
drunkard," for he who is constantly in the Holy of Holies and offers
sacrifices, will not drink wine and strong drink, since wine is a luxury.
If a bishop drink at all, let it be in such a way that no one will know
whether he has drunk or not. "No striker," that is,[7] a striker of men's
consciences, for the Apostle is not pointing out what a boxer, but a
pontiff ought not to do. He directly teaches what he ought to do: "but
gentle, not contentious, no lover of money, one that ruleth well his own
house, having his children in subjection with all chastity." See what
chastity is required in a bishop! If his child be unchaste, he himself
cannot be a bishop, and he offends God in the same way as did[1] Eli the
priest, who had indeed rebuked his sons, but because he had not put away
the offenders, fell backwards and died before the lamp of God went out.[2]
"Women in like manner must be chaste," and so on. In every grade, and in
both sexes, chastity has the chief place. You see then that the blessedness
of a bishop, priest, or deacon, does not lie in the fact that they are
bishops, priests, or deacons, but in their having the virtues which their
names and offices imply. Otherwise, if a deacon be holier than his bishop,
his lower grade will not give him a worse standing with Christ. If it were
so, Stephen the deacon, the first to wear the martyr's crown, would be less
in the kingdom of heaven than many bishops, and than Timothy and Titus,
whom I venture to make neither inferior nor yet superior to him. Just as in
the legions of the army there are generals, tribunes, centurions, javelin-
men, and light-armed troops, common soldiers, and companies, but once the
battle begins, all distinctions of rank are dropped, and the one thing
looked for is valour: so too in this camp and in this battle, in which we
contend against devils, not names but deeds are needed: and under the true
commander, Christ, not the man who has the highest title has the greatest
fame, but he who is the bravest warrior.
36. But you will say: "If everybody were a virgin, what would become of
the human race"? Like shall here beget like. If everyone were a widow, or
continent in marriage, how will mortal men be propagated? Upon this
principle there will be nothing at all for fear that something else may
cease to exist. To put a case: if all men were philosophers, there would be
no husbandmen. Why speak of husbandmen? there would be no orators, no
lawyers, no teachers of the other professions. If all men were leaders,
what would become of the soldiers? If all were the head, whose head would
they be called, when there were no other members? You are afraid that if
the desire for virginity were general there would be no prostitutes, no
adulteresses, no wailing infants in town or country. Every day the blood of
adulterers[3] is shed, adulterers are condemned, and lust is raging and
rampant in the very presence of the laws and the symbols of authority and
the courts of justice. Be not afraid that all will become virgins:
virginity is a hard matter, and therefore rare, because it is hard: "Many
are called, few chosen." Many begin, few persevere. And so the reward is
great for those who have persevered. If all were able to be virgins, our
Lord would never have said:[1] ' He that is able to receive it, let him
receive it:" and the Apostle would not have hesitated to give his advice,--
[2] " Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord." Why then,
you will say, were the organs of generation created, and why were we so
fashioned by the all-wise creator, that we burn for one another, and long
for natural intercourse? To reply is to endanger our modesty: we are, as it
were, between two rocks, the[3] Symplegades of necessity and virtue, on
either side; and must make shipwreck of either our sense of shame, or of
the cause we defend: If we reply to your suggestions, shame covers our
face. If shame secures silence, in a manner we seem to desert our post, and
to leave the ground clear to the raging foe. Yet it is better, as the story
goes, to shut our eyes and fight like the[4] blindfold gladiators, than not
to repel with the shield of truth the darts aimed at us. I can indeed say:
"Our hinder parts which are banished from sight, and the lower portions of
the abdomen, which perform the functions of nature, are the Creator's
work." But inasmuch as the physical conformation of the organs of
generation testifies to difference of sex, I shall briefly reply: Are we
never then to forego lust, for fear that we may have members of this kind
for nothing? Why then should a husband keep himself from his wife? Why
should a widow persevere in chastity, if we were only born to live like
beasts? Or what harm does it do me if another man lies with my wife? For as
the teeth were made for chewing, and the food masticated passes into the
stomach, and a man is not blamed for giving my wife bread: similarly if it
was intended that the organs of generation should always be performing
their office, when my vigour is spent let another take my place, and, if I
may so speak, let my wife quench her burning lust where she can. But what
does the Apostle mean by exhorting to continence, if continence be contrary
to nature? What does our Lord mean when He instructs us in the various
kinds of eunuchs.[5] Surely[6] the Apostle who bids us emulate his own
chastity, must be asked, if we are to be consistent, Why are you like other
men, Paul? Why are you distinguished from the female sex by a beard, hair,
and other peculiarities of person? How is it that you have not swelling
bosoms, and are not broad at the hips, narrow at the chest? Your voice is
rugged, your speech rough, your eyebrows more shaggy. To no purpose you
have all these manly qualities, if you forego the embraces of women. I am
compelled to say something and become a fool: but you have forced me to
dare to speak. Our Lord and Saviour,[1] Who though He was in the form of
God, condescended to take the form of a servant, and became obedient to the
Father even unto death, yea the death of the cross--what necessity was
there for Him to be born with members which He was not going to use? He
certainly was circumcised to manifest His sex. Why did he cause John the
Apostle and John the Baptist to make themselves eunuchs through love of
Him, after causing them to be born men? Let us then who believe in Christ
follow His example. And if we knew Him after the flesh, let us no longer
know Him according to the flesh. The substance of our resurrection bodies
will certainly be the same as now, though of higher glory. For the Saviour
after His descent into hell had so far the selfsame body in which He was
crucified, that[2] He showed the disciples the marks of the nails in His
hands and the wound in His side. Moreover, if we deny the identity of His
body because[3] He entered though the doors were shut, and this is not a
property of human bodies, we must deny also that Peter and the Lord had
real bodies because they[4] walked upon the water, which is contrary to
nature.[5] " In the resurrection of the dead they will neither marry nor be
given in marriage, but will be like the angels." What others will hereafter
be in heaven, that virgins begin to be on earth. If likeness to the angels
is promised us (and there is no difference of sex among the angels), we
shall either be of no sex as are the angels, or at all events which is
clearly proved, though we rise from the dead in our own sex, we shall not
perform the functions of sex.
37. But why do we argue, and why are we eager to frame a clever and
victorious reply to our opponent?[6] "Old things have passed away, behold
all things have become new." I will run through the utterances of the
Apostles, and as to the instances afforded by Solomon I added short
expositions to facilitate their being understood, so now I will go over the
passages bearing on Christian purity and continence, and will make of many
proofs a connected series. By this method I shall succeed in omitting
nothing relating to chastity, and shall avoid being tediously long. Amongst
other passages, Paul the Apostle writes to the Romans:[1] "What fruit then
had ye at that time in the things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end
of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end
eternal life." I suppose too that the end of marriage is death. But the
compensating fruit of sanctification, fruit belonging either to virginity
or to continence, is eternal life. And afterwards:[2] "Wherefore, my
brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ;
that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the
dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the
flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our
members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged
from the law, having died to that wherein we were holden; so that we serve
in newness of the Spirit, and not in oldness of the letter." "When," he
says, "we were in the flesh, and not in the newness of the Spirit but in
the oldness of the letter," we did those things which pertained to the
flesh, and bore fruit unto death. But now because we are dead to the law,
through the body of Christ, let us bear fruit to God, that we may belong to
Him who rose from the dead. And elsewhere, having previously said,[3] "I
know that the law is spiritual," and having discussed at some length the
violence of the flesh which frequently drives us to do what we would not,
he at last continues: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out
of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." And
again, "So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but with the
flesh the law of sin." And,[4] "There is therefore now no condemnation to
them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh. For the law of
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and
death." And more clearly in what follows he teaches that Christians do not
walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit:[5] "For they that
are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are
after the spirit the things of the spirit. For the mind of the flesh is
death; but the mind of the spirit is life and peace: because the mind of
the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can it be: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of
God dwelleth in you," and so on to where he says,[1] "So then, brethren, we
are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live
after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the spirit ye mortify the deeds of
the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these
are sons of God." If the[2] wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, and
they who are in the flesh cannot please God, I think that they who perform
the functions of marriage love the wisdom of the flesh, and therefore are
in the flesh. The Apostle being desirous to withdraw us from the flesh and
to join us to the Spirit, says afterwards:[3] " I beseech you therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And be not
fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of
your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect
will of God. For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man
that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to
think; but to think according to chastity "[4] (not soberly as the Latin
versions badly render), but "think," he says, "according to chastity," for
the Greek words are eis to` swphronei`n. Let us consider what the Apostle
says: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove
what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." What he says is
something like this--God indeed permits marriage, He permits second
marriages, and if necessary, prefers even third marriages to fornication
and adultery. But we who ought to present our bodies a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable to God, which is our reasonable service, should consider,
not what God permits, but what He wishes: that we may prove what is the
good and acceptable and perfect will of God. It follows that what He merely
permits is neither good, nor acceptable, nor perfect. And he gives his
reasons for this advice:[5] "Knowing the season, that now it is high time
for you to awake out of sleep: for now is salvation nearer to us than when
we first believed. The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." And
lastly:" Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the
flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." God's will is one thing, His
indulgence another. Whence, writing to the Corinthians, he says,[1] "I,
brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal,
even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For
ye are yet carnal." He who[2] is in the merely animal state, and does not
receive the things pertaining to the Spirit of God (for he is foolish, and
cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned), he is not
fed with the food of perfect chastity, but with the coarse milk of
marriage. As through man came death, so also through man came the
resurrection of the dead. As in Adam we all die, so in Christ we shall all
be made alive. Under the law we served the old Adam, under the Gospel let
us serve the new Adam. For the first man Adam was made a living soul, the
last Adam was made a quickening spirit.[3] "The first man is of the earth,
earthy: the second man is of heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also
that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are
heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear
the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption." This is so clear that no explanation can make it clearer:
"Flesh and blood," he says, "cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither
doth corruption inherit incorruption." If corruption attaches to all
intercourse, and incorruption is characteristic of chastity, the rewards of
chastity cannot belong to marriage.[4] "For we know that if the earthly
house of this tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house
not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. For verily in this we groan,
longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven. We are
willing to be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord.
Wherefore also we make it our aim, whether in the body, or out of the body,
to be well-pleasing unto God." And by way of more fully explaining what he
did not wish them to be he says elsewhere:[5] "I espoused you to one
husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ." But if you
choose to apply the words to the whole Assembly of believers, and in this
betrothal to Christ include both married women, and the twice-married, and
widows, and virgins, that also makes for us. For whilst he invites all to
chastity and to the reward of virginity, he shows that virginity is more
excellent than all these conditions. And again writing to the Galatians he
says:[1] "Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Among the works of the law is marriage, and accordingly under it they are
cursed who have no children. And if under the Gospel it is permitted to
have children, it is one thing to make a concession to weakness another to
hold out rewards to virtue.
38. Something else I will say to my friends who marry and after long
chastity and continence begin to burn and are as wanton as the brutes :[2]
"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the
flesh? Did ye suffer so many things in vain ?" If the Apostle in the case
of some persons loosens the cords of continence, and lets them have a slack
rein, he does so on account of the infirmity of the flesh. This is the
enemy he has in view when he once more says :[3] "Walk by the Spirit, and
ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against
the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." It is unnecessary now to
speak of the works of the flesh: it would be tedious, and he who chooses
can easily gather them from the letter of the Apostle. I will only speak of
the Spirit and its fruits, love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, meekness,[4] continence. All the virtues of the
Spirit are supported and protected by continence, which is as it were their
solid foundation and crowning point. Against such there is no law.[5] "And
they that are of Christ have crucified their flesh with the passions and
the lusts thereof. If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also
walk." Why do we who with Christ have crucified our flesh and its passions
and desires again desire to do the things of the flesh?[6] "Whatsoever a
man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth unto his own flesh,
shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit
shall of the Spirit reap eternal life." I think that he who has a wife, so
long as he reverts to the practice in question, that Satan may not tempt
him, is sowing to the flesh and not to the Spirit. And he who sows to the
flesh (the words are not mine, but the Apostle's) reaps corruption. God the
Father chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we might
be holy and without spot before Him.[1] We walked in the lusts of the
flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were
children of wrath, even as the rest. But now He has raised us up with Him,
and made us to sit with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,[2] that
we may put away according to our former manner of life the old man, which
is corrupt according to the lusts of deceit, and that blessing may be
applied to us which so finely concludes the mystical Epistle to the
Ephesians: [3] " Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in
uncorruptness."[4] " For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we
wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion anew the body
of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory.[5]
Whatsoever things then are true, whatsoever are chaste, whatsoever things
are just, whatsoever things pertain to purity, let us join ourselves to
these, let us follow these.[6] Christ hath reconciled us in his body to God
the Father through his death, and has presented us holy and without spot,
and without blame before himself: in whom we have been also circumcised,
not with the circumcision made with hands, to the spoiling of the body of
the flesh, but with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him
in baptism, wherein also we rose with him. If then we have risen with
Christ, let us seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on
the right hand of God; let us set our affections on things above, not upon
the things that are upon the earth. For we are dead, and our life is hid
with Christ in God. When Christ our life shall appear, then we also shall
appear with him in glory.[7] No soldier on service entangleth himself in
the affairs of this life; that he may please him who enrolled him as a
soldier.[8] For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all
men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly
lusts, we should live purely and righteously and godly in this present
world."
39. The day would not be long enough were I to attempt to relate all
that the Apostle enjoins concerning purity. These things are those
concerning which our Lord said to the Apostles :[9] "I have yet many things
to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit
of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth." After the
crucifixion of Christ, we find in the[10] Acts of the Apostles that one
house, that of Philip the Evangelist, produced four virgin daughters, to
the end that Caesarea, where the Gentile Church had been consecrated in the
person of Cornelius the centurion, might afford an illustration of
virginity. And whereas our Lord said in the Gospel:[1] "The law and the
prophets were until John," they because they were virgins are related to
have prophesied even after John. For they could not be bound by the law of
the Old Testament, who had shone with the brightness of virginity. Let us
pass on to James, who was called the brother of the Lord, a man of such
sanctity and righteousness, and distinguished by so rigid and perpetual a
virginity, that even[2] Josephus, the Jewish historian, relates that the
overthrow of Jerusalem was due to his death. He, the first bishop of the
Church at Jerusalem, which was composed of Jewish believers, to whom Paul
went, accompanied by Titus and Barnabas, says in his Epistle:[3] "Be not
deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect boon is
from above, coming down from the Father of lights,[4] with whom there is no
difference, neither shadow that is cast by turning. Of his own will he
brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-
fruits of his creatures." Himself a virgin, he teaches virginity in a
mystery. Every perfect gift cometh down from above, where marriage is
unknown; and it cometh down, not from any one you please, but from the
Father of lights, Who says to the apostles, "Ye are the light of the
world;" with Whom there is no difference of Jew, or Gentile, nor does that
shadow which was the companion of the law, trouble those who have believed
from among the nations; but with His word He begat us, and with the word of
truth, because some shadow, image, and likeness of truth went before in the
law, that we might be the first-fruits of His creatures. And as He who was
Himself the[5] first begotten from the dead has raised all that have died
in Him: so He who was a virgin, consecrated the first-fruits of His virgins
in His own virgin self. Let us also consider what Peter thinks of the
calling of the Gentiles:[6] " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance
incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven
for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation
ready to be revealed in the last time." Where we read of an inheritance
incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, prepared in heaven
and reserved for the last time, and of the hope of eternal life when they
will neither marry, nor be given in marriage, there, in other words, the
privileges of virginity are described. For he shows as much in what follows
:[1] "Wherefore girding up the loins of your mind, be sober and set your
hope perfectly on the grace that is to be brought unto you at the
revelation of Jesus Christ; as children of obedience, not fashioning
yourselves according to your former lusts in the time of your ignorance;
but like as he which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all
manner of living; because it is written, ye shall be holy; for I am
holy.[2] For we were not redeemed with contemptible things, with silver or
gold; but with the precious blood of a lamb without spot, Jesus Christ,[3]
that we might purify our souls in obedience to the truth, having been
begotten again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the
word of God,[4] who liveth and abideth. And as living stones let us be
built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood offering up spiritual
sacrifices through Christ our Lord.[5] For we are an elect race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession.[6] Christ
died for us in the flesh. Let us arm ourselves with the same conversation
as did Christ; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
that we should no longer live the rest of our time in the flesh to the
lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past is sufficient for
us when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, and other vices. Great and
precious are the promises attaching to virginity which He has given us,[7]
that through it we may become partakers of the divine nature, having
escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.[8] The Lord
knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the
unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgement, but chiefly them
that walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement, and despise dominion,
daring, self-willed. For they, as beasts of burden, without reason, think
only of their belly and their lusts, railers who shall in their corruption
be destroyed, and shall receive the reward of iniquity: men that count
unrighteousness delight, spots and blemishes, thinking of nothing but their
pleasures; having eyes full of adultery and insatiable lust, deceiving
souls not yet strengthened by the love of Christ. For they utter swelling
words and easily snare the unlearned with the seduction of the flesh;
promising them liberty while they themselves are the slaves of vice,
luxury, and corruption. For of what a man is overcome, of the same is he
also brought into bondage. But if, after they had escaped the defilements
of the world through the knowledge of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they are
again overcome by that which they before overcame, the last state is become
worse with them than the first. And it were better for them not to have
known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back and
forsake the holy commandment delivered unto them. And it has happened unto
them according to the true proverb, the dog hath turned to his own vomit
again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire." I have
hesitated, for fear of being tedious, to quote the whole passage of the
second Epistle of Peter, and have merely shown that the Holy Spirit in
prophecy foretold the teachers of this time and their heresy. Lastly, he
more clearly denotes them, saying,[1] "In the last days seducing mockers
shall come, walking after their own lusts."
40. The Apostle has described Jovinianus speaking with swelling cheeks
and nicely balancing his inflated utterances, promising heavenly liberty,
when he himself is the slave of vice and self-indulgence, a dog returning
to his vomit. For although he boasts of being a monk, he has exchanged his
dirty tunic, bare feet, common bread, and drink of water, for a snowy
dress, sleek skin, honey-wine and dainty dishes, for the sauces of[2]
Apicius and[3] Paxamus, for baths and rubbings, and for the cook-shops. Is
it not clear that he prefers his belly to Christ, and thinks his ruddy
complexion worth the kingdom of heaven? And yet that handsome monk so fat
and sleek, and of bright appearance, who always walks with the air of a
bridegroom, must either marry a wife if he is to show that virginity and
marriage are equal: or if he does not marry one, it is useless for him to
bandy words with us when his acts are on our side. And John agrees with
this almost to the letter:[4] "Love not the world, neither the things that
are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not
in him. For all that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, and the lust
of the eyes, and the pride of this life, which is not of the Father, but is
of the world." And, "The world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he
that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. A new commandment have I
written unto you, which thing is true both in Christ and in you; because
the darkness is passing away, and the true light already shineth." And
again,[1] " Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it is not yet made
manifest what we shall be. But we know that, if he shall be manifested, we
shall be like him: for we shall see him even as he is. And every one that
hath this hope purifieth himself, even as he is pure.[2] Herein is our love
made perfect, if we have boldness in the day of judgement: that as he is,
even so may we be in this world." The Epistle of Jude also expresses nearly
the same:[3] "Hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." Let us read
the Apocalypse of John, and we shall there find the Lamb upon Mount
Sion,[4] and with Him "a hundred and forty-four thousand of them that were
sealed, having His name and the name of His Father written in their
foreheads, who sing a new song, and no one can sing that song save they who
have been redeemed out of the earth. These are they who have not defiled
themselves with women, for they continued virgins. These follow the Lamb
whithersoever He goeth: for they were redeemed from among men, first-fruits
to God and to the Lamb, and in their mouth was found no guile, and they are
without spot." Out of each tribe, the tribe of Dan excepted, the place of
which is taken by the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand virgins who have been
sealed are spoken of as future believers, who have not defiled themselves
with women. And that we may not suppose the reference to be to those who
know not harlots, he immediately added: "For they continued virgins."
Whereby he shows that all who have not preserved their virginity, in
comparison of pure and angelic chastity and of our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself, are defiled.[6] " These are they who sing a new song which no man
can sing except him that is a virgin. These are first-fruits unto God and
unto the Lamb, and are without blemish." If virgins are first-fruits, it
follows that widows and the continent in marriage, come after the first-
fruits, that is, are in the second and third rank: nor can a lost people be
saved unless it offer such sacrifices of chastity to God, and with pure
victims reconcile the spotless Lamb. It would be endless work to explain
the Gospel mystery of the ten virgins, five of whom were wise and five
foolish. All I say now is, that as mere virginity without other works does
not save, so all works without virginity, purity, continence, chastity, are
imperfect. And we shall not be hindered in the least from taking this view
by the objection of our opponent that our Lord was at Cana of Galilee, and
joined in the marriage festivities when He turned water into wine. I shall
very briefly reply, that He Who was circumcised on the eighth day, and for
Whom a pair of turtle-doves and two young pigeons were offered on the day
of purification, like others before He suffered, shewed His approval of
Jewish custom, that He might not seem to give His enemies just cause for
putting Him to death on the pretext that He destroyed the law and condemned
nature. And even this was done for our sakes. For by going once to a
marriage, He taught that men should marry only once. Moreover, at that time
it was possible to injure virginity if marriage were not placed next to it,
and the purity of widowhood in the third rank. But now when heretics are
condemning wedlock, and despise the ordinance of God, we gladly hear
anything he[1] may say in praise of marriage. For the Church does not
condemn marriage, but makes it subordinate; nor does she reject it, but
regulates it; for she knows, as was said before, that[2] in a great house
there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and
earthenware; and that some are to honour, some to dishonour; and that
whoever cleanses himself will be a vessel of honour, necessary, prepared
for every good work.
41. I have given enough and more than enough illustrations from the
divine writings of Christian chastity and angelic virginity. But as I
understand that our opponent in his commentaries summons us to the tribunal
of worldly wisdom, and we are told that views of this kind are never
accepted in the world, and that our religion has invented a dogma against
nature, I will quickly run through Greek and Roman and Foreign History, and
will show that virginity ever took the lead of chastity. Fable relates that
Atalanta, the virgin of Calydonian fame, lived for the chase and dwelt
always in the woods; in other words that she did not set her heart on
marriage with its troubles of pregnancy and of sickness, but upon the
nobler life of freedom and chastity. [3] Harpalyce too, a Thracian virgin,
is described by the famous poet; and so is[4] Camilia, queen of the Volsci,
on whom, when she came to his assistance, Turnus had no higher praise which
he could bestow than to call her a virgin. "O Virgin, Glory of Italy!" And
that famous daughter of[1] Leos, the lady of the brazen house, ever a
virgin, is related to have freed her country from pestilence by her
voluntary death: and the blood of the virgin[2] Iphigenia is said to have
calmed the stormy winds. What need to tell of the Sibyls of Erythrae and
Cum, and the eight others? for Varro asserts there were ten whose ornament
was virginity, and divination the reward of their virginity. But if in the
Aeolian dialect "Sibyl" is represented by Theobou'lh, we must understand
that a knowledge of the Counsel of God is rightly attributed to virginity
alone. We read, too, that Cassandra and Chryseis, prophetesses of Apollo
and Juno, were virgins. And there were innumerable priestesses of the
Taurian Diana, and of Vesta. One of these, Munitia, being suspected of
unchastity was[3] buried alive, which would be in my opinion an unjust
punishment, unless the violation of virginity were considered a serious
crime. At all events how highly the Romans always esteemed virgins is clear
from the fact that consuls and generals even in their triumphal chariots
and bringing home the spoils of conquered nations, were wont to make way
for them to pass. And so did men of all ranks. When[4] Claudia, a Vestal
Virgin, was suspected of unchastity, and a vessel containing the image of
Cybele was aground in the Tiber, it is related that she, to prove her
chastity, with her girdle drew the ship which a thousand men could not
move. Yet, as[5] the uncle of Lucan the poet says, it would have been
better if this circumstance had decorated a chastity tried and proved, and
had not pleaded in defence of a chastity equivocal. No wonder that we read
such things of human beings, when heathen error also invented the virgin
goddesses Minerva and Diana, and placed the Virgin among the twelve signs
of the Zodiac, by means of which, as they suppose, the world revolves. It
is a proof of the little esteem in which they held marriage that they did
not even among the scorpions, centaurs, crabs, fishes, and capricorn,
thrust in a husband and wife. When the thirty tyrants of Athens had slain
Phidon at the banquet, they commanded his virgin daughters to come to them,
naked like harlots, and there upon the ground, red with their father's
blood, to act the wanton. For a little while they hid their grief, and then
when they saw the revellers were intoxicated, going out on the plea of
casing nature, they embraced one another and threw themselves into a well,
that by death they might save their virginity. The virgin daughter of
Demotion, chief of the Areopagites, having heard of the death of her
betrothed,[1] Leosthenes, who had originated the Lamian war, slew herself,
for she declared that although in body she was a virgin, yet if she were
compelled to: accept another, she should regard him as her second husband,
when she had given her heart to Leosthenes. So close a friendship long
existed between Sparta and Messene that for the furtherance of certain
religious rites they even exchanged virgins. Well, on one occasion when the
men of Messene attempted to outrage fifty Lacedaemonian virgins, out of so
many not one consented, but they all most gladly died in defence of their
chastity. Whence there arose a long and grievous war, and in the long
run[2] Mamertina was destroyed. Aristoclides, tyrant of Orchomenos, fell in
love with a virgin of Stymphalus, and when after the death of her father
she took refuge in the temple of Diana, and embraced the image of the
goddess and could not be dragged thence by force, she was slain on the
spot. Her death caused such intense grief throughout Arcadia that the
people took up arms and avenged the virgin's death.[3] Aristomenes of
Messene, a just man, at a time when the Lacedaemonians, whom he had
conquered, were celebrating by night the festival called the[4] Hyacinthia,
carried off from the sportive bands fifteen virgins, and fleeing all night
at full speed got away from the Spartan territory. His companions wished to
outrage them, but he admonished them to the best of his power not to do so,
and when certain refused to obey, he slew them, and restrained the rest by
fear. The maidens were afterwards ransomed by their kinsmen, and on seeing
Aristomenes condemned for murder would not return to their country until
clasping the knees of the judges they beheld the protector of their
chastity acquitted. How shall we sufficiently praise the daughters of
Scedasus at Leuctra in Boeotia? It is related that in the absence of their
father they hospitably entertained two youths who were passing by, and who
having drunk to excess violated the virgins in the course of the flight.
Being unwilling to survive the loss of their virginity, the maidens
inflicted deadly wounds on one another. Nor would it be right to omit
mention of the Locrian virgins. They were sent to Ilium according to custom
which had lasted for nearly a thousand years, and yet not one gave occasion
to any idle tale or filthy rumour of virginity defiled. Could any one pass
over in silence the seven virgins of Miletus who, when the Gauls spread
desolation far and wide, that they might suffer no indignity at the hands
of the enemy, escaped disgrace by death, and left to all virgins the lesson
of their example--that noble minds care more for chastity than life?
Nicanor having conquered and overthrown Thebes was himself overcome by a
passion for one captive virgin, whose voluntary self-surrender he longed
for. A captive maid, he thought, must be only too glad. But he found that
virginity is dearer to the pure in heart than a kingdom, when with tears
and grief he held her in his arms slain by her own hand. Greek writers tell
also of another Theban virgin who had been deflowered by a Macedonian foe,
and who, hiding her grief for a while, slew the violator of her virginity
as he slept, and then killed herself with the sword, so that she would
neither live when her chastity was lost, nor die before she had avenged
herself.
42. To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is
authoritatively handed down that Budda, the founder of their religion, had
his birth through the side of a virgin. And we need not wonder at this in
the case of Barbarians when cultured Greece supposed that Minerva at her
birth sprang from the head of Jove, and Father Bacchus from his thigh.[1]
Speusippus also, Plato's nephew, and[2] "Clearchus in his eulogy of Plato,
and[3] Anaxelides in the second book of his philosophy, relates that
Perictione, the mother of Plato, was violated by an apparition of Apollo,
and they agree in thinking that the prince of wisdom was born of a
virgin.[1] Timus writes that the[2] virgin daughter of[3] Pythagoras was at
the head of a band of virgins, and instructed them in chastity.[4]
Diodorus, the disciple of Socrates, is said to have had five daughters
skilled in dialectics and distinguished for chastity, of whom a full
account is given by Philo the master of[5] Carneades. And mighty Rome
cannot taunt us as though we had invented the story of the birth of our
Lord and Saviour from a virgin; for the Romans believe that the founders of
their city and race were the offspring of the virgin[6] Ilia and of Mars.
43. Let these allusions to the virgins of the world, brief and hastily
gathered from many histories, now suffice. I will proceed to married women
who were reluctant to survive the decease or violent death of their
husbands for fear they might be forced into a second marriage, and who
entertained a marvellous affection for the only husbands they had. This may
teach us that second marriage was repudiated among the heathen. Dido, the
sister of Pygmalion, having collected a vast amount of gold and silver,
sailed to Africa, and there built Carthage. And when her hand was sought in
marriage by Iarbas, king of Libya, she deferred the marriage for a while
until her country was settled. Not long after, having raised a[7] funeral
pyre to the memory of her former husband Sichus, she preferred to "burn
rather than to marry." Carthage was built by a woman of chastity, and its
end was a tribute to the excellence of the virtue. For the[1] wife of
Hasdrubal, when the city was captured and set on fire, and she saw that she
could not herself escape capture by the Romans, took her little children in
either hand and leaped into the burning ruins of her house.
44. What need to tell of the wife of[2] Niceratus, who, not enduring to
wrong her husband, inflicted death upon herself rather than subject herself
to the lust of the thirty tyrants whom Lysander had set over conquered
Athens?[3] Artemisia, also, wife of Mausolus, is related to have been
distinguished for chastity. Though she was queen of Caria, and is extolled
by great poets and historians, no higher praise is bestowed upon her than
that when her husband was dead she loved him as much as when he was alive,
and built a tomb so great that even to the present day all costly
sepulchres are called after his name, mausoleums.[4] Teuta, queen of the
Illyrians, owed her long sway over brave warriors, and her frequent
victories over Rome, to her marvellous chastity. The Indians and almost all
the Barbarians have a plurality of wives. It is a law with them that the
favourite wife must be burned with her dead husband. The wives therefore
vie with one another for the husband's love, and the highest ambition of
the rivals, and the proof of chastity, is to be considered worthy of death.
So then she that is victorious, having put on her former dress and
ornaments, lies down beside the corpse, embracing and kissing it, and to
the glory of chastity despises the flames which are burning beneath her. I
suppose that she who dies thus, wants no second marriage. The famous
Alcibiades, the friend of Socrates, when Athens was conquered, fled to
Pharnabazus, who took a bribe from Lysander the Lacedmonian leader and
ordered him to be slain. He was strangled, and when his head had been cut
off it was sent to Lysander as proof of the murder, but the rest of his
body lay unburied. His concubine, therefore, all alone, in defiance of the
command of the cruel enemy, in the midst of strangers, and in the face of
peril, gave him due burial, for she was ready to die for the dead man whom
she had loved when living. Let matrons, Christian matrons at all events,
imitate the fidelity of concubines, and exhibit in their freedom what she
in her captivity preserved.
45. Strato, ruler of Sidon, thought of dying by his own hand, that he
might not be the sport of the Persians, who were close by and whose
alliance he had discarded for the friendship of the king of Egypt. But he
drew back in terror, and eying the sword which he had seized, awaited in
alarm the approach of the enemy. His wife, knowing that he must be
immediately taken, wrested the weapon from his hand, and pierced his side.
When the body was properly laid out she lay down upon it in the agony of
death, that she might not violate her virgin troth in the embraces of
another.[1] Xenophon, in describing the early years of the eider Cyrus,
relates that when her husband Abradatas was slain, Panthea who had loved
him intensely, placed herself beside the mangled body, then stabbed
herself, and let her blood run into her husband's wounds. The[2] queen whom
the king her husband had shewn naked and without her knowledge to his
friend, thought she had good cause for slaying the king. She judged that
she was not beloved if it was possible for her to be exhibited to another.
Rhodogune, daughter of Darius, after the death of her husband, put to death
the nurse who was trying to persuade her to marry again.[3] Alcestis is
related in story to have voluntarily died for Admetus, and Penelope's
chastity is the theme of Homer's song. Laodamia's praises are also sung by
the poets, because, when[4] Protesilaus was slain at Troy, she refused to
survive him.
46. I may pass on to Roman women; and the first that I shall mention
is[5] Lucretia, who would not survive her violated chastity, but blotted
out the stain upon her person with her own blood. Duilius, the first Roman
who won a[6] naval triumph, took to wife a virgin, Bilia, of such
extraordinary chastity that she was an example even to an age which held
unchastity to be not merely vicious but monstrous. When he was grown old
and feeble he was once in the course of a quarrel taunted with having bad
breath. In dudgeon he betook himself home, and on complaining to his wife
that she had never told him of it so that he might remedy the fault, he
received the reply that she would have done so, but she thought that all
men had foul breath as he had. In either case this chaste and noble woman
deserves praise, whether she was not aware there was anything wrong with
her husband, or if she patiently endured, and her husband discovered his
unfortunate condition not by the disgust of a wife, but by the abuse of an
enemy. At all events the woman who marries a second time cannot say this.
Marcia, Cato's younger daughter, on being asked after the loss of her
husband why she did not marry again, replied that she could not find a man
who wanted her more than her money. Her words teach us that men in choosing
their wives look for riches rather than for chastity, and that many in
marrying use not their eyes but their fingers. That must be an excellent
thing which is won by avarice! When the same lady was mourning the loss of
her husband, and the matrons asked what day would terminate her grief, she
replied, "The same that terminates my life." I imagine that a woman who
thus followed her husband in heart and mind had no thought of marrying
again. Porcia, whom [1]Brutus took to wife, was a virgin; Cato's wife,[2]
Marcia, was not a virgin; but Marcia went to and fro between Hortensius and
Cato, and was quite content to live without Cato; while[3] Porcia could not
live without Brutus; for women attach themselves closely to particular men,
and to keep to one is a strong link in the chain of affection. When a
relative urged Annia to marry again (she was of full age and a goodly
person), she answered, "I shall certainly not do so. For, if I find a good
man, I have no wish to be in fear of losing him: if a bad one, why must I
put up with a bad husband after having had a good one?"[4] Porcia the
younger, on hearing a certain lady of good character, who had a second
husband, praised in her house, replied, "A chaste and happy matron never
marries more than once." Marcella the eider, on being asked by her mother
if she was glad she was married, answered, "So much so that I want nothing
more."[5] Valeria, sister of the Messalas, when she lost her husband
Servius, would marry no one else. On being asked why not, she said that to
her, her husband Servius was ever alive.
47. I feel that in giving this list of women I have said far more than
is customary in illustrating a point, and that I might be justly censured
by my learned reader. But what am I to do when the women of our time press
me with apostolic authority, and before the first husband is buried, repeat
from morning to night the precepts which allow a second marriage? Seeing
they despise the fidelity which Christian purity dictates, let them at
least learn chastity from the heathen. A book On Marriage, worth its weight
in gold, passes under the name of[1] Theophrastus. In it the author asks
whether a wise man marries. And after laying down the conditions--that the
wife must be fair, of good character, and honest parentage, the husband in
good health and of ample means, and after saying that under these
circumstances a wise man sometimes enters the state of matrimony, he
immediately proceeds thus: "But all these conditions are seldom satisfied
in marriage. A wise man therefore must not take a wife. For in the first
place his study of philosophy will be hindered, and it is impossible for
anyone to attend to his books and his wife. Matrons want many things,
costly dresses, gold, jewels, great outlay, maid-servants, all kinds of
furniture, litters and gilded coaches. Then come curtain-lectures the
livelong night: she complains that one lady goes out better dressed than
she: that another is looked up to by all: 'I am a poor despised nobody at
the ladies' assemblies.' 'Why did you ogle that creature next door?' 'Why
were you talking to the maid?' 'What did you bring from the market?' 'I am
not allowed to have a single friend, or companion.' She suspects that her
husband's love goes the same way as her hate. There may be in some
neighbouring city the wisest of teachers; but if we have a wife we can
neither leave her behind, nor take the burden with us. To support a poor
wife, is hard: to put up with a rich one, is torture. Notice, too, that in
the case of a wife you cannot pick and choose: you must take her as you
find her. If she has a bad temper, or is a fool, if she has a blemish, or
is proud, or has bad breath, whatever her fault may be--all this we learn
after marriage. Horses, asses, cattle, even slaves of the smallest worth,
clothes, kettles, wooden seats, cups, and earthenware pitchers, are first
tried and then bought: a wife is the only thing that is not shown before
she is married, for fear she may not give satisfaction. Our gaze must
always be directed to her face, and we must always praise her beauty: if
you look at another woman, she thinks that she is out of favour. She must
be called my lady, her birth-day must be kept, we must swear by her health
and wish that she may survive us, respect must be paid to the nurse, to the
nursemaid, to the father's slave, to the foster-child, to the handsome
hanger-on, to the curled darling who manages her affairs, and to the eunuch
who ministers to the safe indulgence of her lust: names which are only a
cloak for adultery. Upon whomsoever she sets her heart, they must have her
love though they want her not. If you give her the management of the whole
house, you must yourself be her slave. If you reserve something for
yourself, she will not think you are loyal to her; but she will turn to
strife and hatred, and unless you quickly take care, she will have the
poison ready. If you introduce old women, and soothsayers, and prophets,
and vendors of jewels and silken clothing, you imperil her chastity; if you
shut the door upon them, she is injured and fancies you suspect her. But
what is the good of even a careful guardian, when an unchaste wife cannot
be watched, and a chaste one ought not to be? For necessity is but a
faithless keeper of chastity, and she alone really deserves to be called
pure, who is free to sin if she chooses. if a woman be fair, she soon finds
lovers; if she be ugly, it is easy to be wanton. It is difficult to guard
what many long for. It is annoying to have what no one thinks worth
possessing. But the misery of having an ugly wife is less than that of
watching a comely one. Nothing is safe, for which a whole people sighs and
longs. One man entices with his figure, another with his brains, another
with his wit, another with his open hand. Somehow, or sometime, the
fortress is captured which is attacked on all sides. Men marry, indeed, so
as to get a manager for the house, to solace weariness, to banish solitude;
but a faithful slave is a far better manager, more submissive to the
master, more observant of his ways, than a wife who thinks she proves
herself mistress if she acts in opposition to her husband, that is, if she
does what pleases her, not what she is commanded. But friends, and servants
who are under the obligation of benefits received, are better able to wait
upon us in sickness than a wife who makes us responsible for her tears (she
will sell you enough to make a deluge for the hope of a legacy), boasts of
her anxiety, but drives her sick husband to the distraction of despair. But
if she herself is poorly, we must fall sick with her and never leave her
bedside. Or if she be a good and agreeable wife (how rare a bird she is!),
we have to share her groans in childbirth, and suffer torture when she is
in danger. A wise man can never be alone. He has with him the good men of
all time, and turns his mind freely wherever he chooses. What is
inaccessible to him in person he can embrace in thought. And, if men are
scarce, he converses with God.[1] He is never less alone than when alone.
Then again, to marry for the sake of children, so that our name may not
perish, or that we may have support in old age, and leave our property
without dispute, is the height of stupidity. For what is it to us when we
are leaving the world if another bears our name, when even a son does not
all at once take his father's title, and there are countless others who are
called by the same name. Or what support in old age is he whom you bring
up, and who may die before you, or turn out a reprobate? Or at all events
when he reaches mature age, you may seem to him long in dying. Friends and
relatives whom you can judiciously love are better and safer heirs than
those whom you must make your heirs whether you like it or not. Indeed, the
surest way of having a good heir is to ruin your fortune in a good cause
while you live, not to leave the fruit of your labour to he used you know
riot how."
48. When Theophrastus thus discourses, are there any of us, Christians,
whose conversation is in heaven and who daily say[2] "I long to be
dissolved, and to be with Christ," whom he does not put to the blush? Shall
a joint-heir of Christ really long for human heirs? And shall he desire
children and delight himself in a long line of descendants, who will
perhaps fall into the clutches of Antichrist, when we read that[3] Moses
and[4] Samuel preferred other men to their own sons, and did not count as
their children those whom they saw to be displeasing to God? When Cicero
after[5] divorcing Terentia was requested by[6] Hirtius to marry his
sister, he[7] set the matter altogether on one side, and said that he could
not possibly devote himself to a wife and to philosophy. Meanwhile that
excellent partner, who had herself drunk wisdom at Tully's fountains,
married[1] Sallust his enemy, and took for her third husband Messala
Corvinus, and thus, as it were, passed through three degrees of eloquence.
Socrates had two wives, Xantippe and Myron, grand-daughter of Aristides.
They frequently quarrelled, and he was accustomed to banter them for
disagreeing about him, he being the ugliest of men, with snub nose, bald
forehead, rough-haired, and bandy-legged. At last they planned an attack
upon him, and having punished him severely, and put him to flight, vexed
him for a long time. On one occasion when he opposed Xantippe; who from
above was heaping abuse upon him, the termagant soused him with dirty
water, but he only wiped his head and said, "I knew that a shower must
follow such thunder as that."[2] Metella, consort of L. Sulla the[3]
Fortunate (except in the matter of his wife) was[4] openly unchaste. It was
the common talk of Athens, as I learnt in my youthful years when we soon
pick up what is bad, and yet Sulla was in the dark, and first got to know
the secrets of his household through the abuse of his enemies. Cn. Pompey
had an impure wife[5] Mucia, who was surrounded by eunuchs from Pontus and
troops of the countrymen of Mithridates. Others thought that he knew all
and submitted to it; but a comrade told him during the campaign, and the
conqueror of the whole world was dismayed at the sad intelligence.[6] M.
Cato, the Censor, had a wife Actoria Paula, a woman of low origin, fond of
drink, violent, and (who would believe it?) haughty to Cato. I say this for
fear anyone may suppose that in marrying a poor woman he has secured peace.
When[7] Philip king of Macedon, against whom "Demosthenes thundered in his
Philippics, was entering his bed-room as usual, his wife in a passion shut
him out. Finding himself excluded he held his tongue, and consoled himself
for the insult by reading a tragic poem. [1]Gorgias the Rhetorician recited
his excellent treatise on Concord to the Greeks, then at variance among
themselves, at Olympia. Whereupon [2]Melanthius his enemy observed: "Here
is a man who teaches us concord, and yet could not make concord between
himself his wife, and maid-servant, three persons in one house." The truth
was that his wife envied the beauty of the girl, and drove the purest of
men wild with daily quarrels. Whole tragedies of Euripides are censures on
women. Hence Hermione says,[3] "The counsels of evil women have beguiled
me." In the semi-barbarous and remote city [4]Leptis it is the custom for a
daughter-in-law on[5] the second day to beg the loan of a jar from her
mother-in-law. The latter at once denies the request, and we see how true
was the remark of [6]Terence, ambiguously expressed on purpose--"How is
this? do all mothers-in-law hate their daughters-in-law?" We read of a
certain Roman noble who, when his friends found fault with him for having
divorced a wife, beautiful, chaste, and rich, put out his foot and said to
them, "And the shoe before you looks new and elegant, yet no one but myself
knows where it pinches." Herodotus[7] tells us that a woman puts off her
modesty with her clothes. And our own comic poet [8]thinks the man
fortunate who has never been married. Why should I refer to Pasiphae,[9]
Clytemnestra, and Eriphyle, the first of whom, the wife of a king and
swimming in pleasure, is said to have lusted for a bull, the second to have
killed her: husband for the sake of an adulterer, the third to have
betrayed Amphiaraus, and to have preferred a gold necklace to the welfare
of her husband. In all the bombast of tragedy and the overthrow of houses,
cities, and kingdoms, it is the wives and concubines who stir up strife.
Parents take up arms against their children: unspeakable banquets are
served: and on account of the rape of one wretched woman Europe and Asia
are involved in a ten years' war. We read of some who were divorced the day
after they were married, and immediately married again. Both husbands are
to blame, both he who was so soon dissatisfied, and he who was so soon
pleased. Epicurus the patron of pleasure (though [1]Metrodorus his disciple
married Leontia) says that a wise man can seldom marry, because marriage
has many drawbacks. And as riches, honours, bodily health, and other things
which we call indifferent, are neither good nor bad, but stand as it were
midway, and become good and bad according to the use and issue, so wives
stand on the border line of good and ill. It is, moreover, a serious matter
for a wise man to be in doubt whether he is going to marry a good or a bad
woman. [2]Chrysippus ridiculously maintains that a wise man should marry,
that he may not outrage Jupiter[3] Gamelius and Genethlius. For upon that
principle the Latins would not marry at all, since they have no Jupiter who
presides over marriage. But if, as he thinks, the life of men is determined
by the names of gods, whoever chooses to sit will offend Jupiter[4] Stator.
49. Aristotle and Plutarch and our Seneca have written treatises on
matrimony, out of which we have already made some extracts and now add a
few more. "The love of beauty is the forgetting of reason and the near
neighbour of madness; a foul blot little in keeping with a sound mind. It
confuses counsel, breaks high and generous spirits, draws away men from
great thoughts to mean ones; it makes men querulous, ill- tempered,
foolhardy, cruelly imperious, servile flatterers, good for nothing, at last
not even for love itself. For although in the intensity of passion it burns
like a raging fire, it wastes much time through suspicions, tears, and
complaints: it begets hatred of itself, and at last hates itself." The
course of love is laid bare in Plato's Phaedrus from beginning to end, and
Lysias explains all its drawbacks--how it is led not by reason, but by
frenzy, and in particular is a harsh gaoler over lovely wives. Seneca, too,
relates that he knew an accomplished man who before going out used to tie
his wife's garter upon his breast, and could not bear to be absent from her
for a quarter of an hour; and this pair would never take a drink unless
husband and wife alternately put their lips to the cup; and they did other
things just as absurd in the extravagant outbursts of their warm but blind
affection. Their love was of honourable birth, but it grew out of all
proportion. And it makes no difference how honourable may be the cause of a
man's insanity. Hence [1]Xystus in his Sentences tells us that "He who too
ardently loves his own wife is an adulterer." It is disgraceful to love
another man's wife at all, or one's own too much. A wise man ought to love
his wife with judgment, not with passion. Let a man govern his voluptuous
impulses. and not rush headlong into intercourse. There is nothing blacker
than to love a wife as if she were an adulteress. Men who say they have
contracted marriage and are bringing up children, for the good of their
country and of the race, should at least imitate the brutes, and not
destroy their offspring in the womb; nor should they appear in the
character of lovers, but of husbands. In some cases marriage has grown out
of adultery: and, shameful to relate! men have tried to teach their wives
chastity after having taken their chastity away. Marriages of that sort are
quickly dissolved when lust is satiated. The first allurement gone, the
charm is lost. What shall I say, says Seneca, of the poor men who in
numbers are bribed to take the name of husband in order to evade the laws
promulgated against bachelors? How can he who is married under such
conditions be a guide to morality, teach chastity, and maintain the
authority of a husband? It is the saying of a very learned man, that
chastity must be preserved at all costs, and that when it is lost all
virtue falls to the ground. This holds the primacy of all virtues in woman.
This it is that makes up for a wife's poverty, enhances her riches, redeems
her deformity, gives grace to her beauty; it makes her act in a way worthy
of her forefathers whose blood it does not taint with bastard offspring; of
her children, who through it have no need to blush for their mother, or to
be in doubt about their father; and above all, of herself, since it defends
her from external violation. There is no greater calamity connected with
captivity than to be the victim of another's lust. The consulship sheds
lustre upon men; eloquence gives eternal renown; military glory and a
triumph immortalise an obscure family. Many are the spheres ennobled by
splendid ability. The virtue of woman is, in a special sense, purity. It
was this that made [1]Lucretia the equal of Brutus, if it did not make her
his superior, since Brutus learnt from a woman the impossibility of being a
slave. It was this that made [2]Cornelia a fit match for Gracchus, and
[3]Porcia for a second Brutus. [4]Tanaquil is better known than her
husband. His name, like the names of many other kings, is lost in the mists
of antiquity. She, through a virtue rare among women, is too deeply rooted
in the hearts of all ages for her memory ever to perish. Let my married
sisters copy the examples of [5]Theano, [6]Cleobuline, Gorgente,
[7]Timoclia, the [8]Claudias and Cornelias; and when they find the Apostle
conceding second marriage to depraved women, they will read that before the
light of our religion shone upon the world wives of one husband ever held
high rank among matrons, that by their hands the sacred rites of Fortuna
[9]Muliebris were performed, that a priest or [10]Flamen twice [11]married
was unknown, that the high-priests of Athens to this day [12]emasculate
themselves by drinking hemlock, and once they have been drawn in to the
pontificate, cease to be men.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF II/VI, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW:
http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
