This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL.]
I HAVE thought it meet, my best beloved fellow-servant in the
Lord, even from this early period,[2] to provide for the course which
you must pursue after my departure from the world,[3] if I shall be
called before you; (and) to entrust to your honour[4] the observance of
the provision. For in things worldly[5] we are active enough, and we
wish the good of each of us to be consulted. If we draw up wills for
such matters, why ought we not much more to take forethought for our
posterity[6] in things divine and heavenly, and in a sense to bequeath
a legacy to be received before the inheritance be divided,—(the
legacy, I mean, of) admonition and demonstration touching those
(bequests) which are allotted[7] out of (our) immortal goods, and from
the heritage of the heavens? Only, that you may be able to receive in
its entirety[8] this feoffment in trust[9] of my admonition, may God
grant; whom be honour, glory, renown, dignity, and power, now and to
the ages of the ages!
The precept, therefore, which I give you is, that, with all the
constancy you may, you do, after our departure, renounce nuptials; not
that you will on that score confer any benefit on me, except in that
you will profit yourself. But to Christians, after their departure from
the world,[10] no restoration of marriage is promised in the day of the
resurrection, translated as they will be into the condition and
sanctity of angels.[11] Therefore no solicitude arising from carnal
jealousy will, in the day of the resurrection, even in the case of her
whom they chose to represent as having been married to seven brothers
successively, wound any one[12] of her so many husbands; nor is any
(husband) awaiting her to put her to confusion.[13] The question raised
by the Sadducees has yielded to the Lord's sentence. Think not that it
is for the sake of preserving to the end for myself the entire devotion
of your flesh, that I, suspicious of the pain of (anticipated) slight,
am even at this early period[14] instilling into you the counsel of
(perpetual) widowhood. There will at that day be no resumption of
voluptuous disgrace between us. No such frivolities, no such
impurities, does God promise to His (servants). But whether to you, or
to any other woman whatever who pertains to God, the advice which we
are giving shall be profitable, we take leave to treat of at large.
We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God
as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of
the earth [15] and the furnishing of the world,[16] and therefore
permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his
one wife, one woman, one rib.[17] We grant,[18] that among our
ancestors, and the patriarchs themselves, it was lawful[1] not only to
marry, but even to multiply wives.[2] There were concubines, too, (in
those days.) But although the Church did come in figuratively in the
synagogue, yet (to interpret simply) it was necessary to institute
(certain things) which should afterward deserve to be either lopped off
or modified. For the Law was (in due time) to supervene. (Nor was that
enough:) for it was meet that causes for making up the deficiencies of
the Law should have forerun (Him who was to supply those deficiencies).
And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word[3] of God
introducing the spiritual circumcision.[4] Therefore, by means of the
wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were
furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and
then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age,[5] either cut
off the redundancies or regulated the disorders.
But let it not be thought that my reason for premising thus much
concerning the liberty granted to the old, and the restraint imposed on
the later time, is that I may lay a foundation for teaching that
Christ's advent was intended to dissolve wedlock, (and) to abolish
marriage talons; as if from this period onward[6] I were prescribing an
end to marrying. Let them see to that, who, among the rest of their
perversities, teach the disjoining of the "one flesh in twain;"[7]
denying Him who, after borrowing the female from the male, recombined
between themselves, in the matrimonial computation, the two bodies
taken out of the consortship of the self-same material substance. In
short, there is no place at all where we read that nuptials are
prohibited; of course on the ground that they are "a good thing." What,
however, is better than this "good," we learn from the apostle, who
permits marrying indeed, but prefers abstinence; the former on account
of the insidiousnesses of temptations, the latter on account of he
straits of the times.[8] Now, by looking into the reason thus given for
each proposition, it is easily discerned that the ground on which the
power of marrying is conceded is necessity; but whatever necessity
grants, she by her very nature depreciates. In fact, in that it is
written, "To marry is better than to burn," what, pray, is the nature
of this "good" which is (only) commended by comparison with "evil," so
that the reason why" marrying" is mare good is (merely) that "burning"
is less? Nay, but how far better is it neither to marry nor to burn?
Why, even in persecutions it is better to take advantage of the
permission granted, and "flee from town to town,"[9] than, when
apprehended and racked, to deny (the faith).[10] And therefore more
blessed are they who have strength to depart (this life) in blessed
confession of their testimony.[11] I may say, What is permitted is not
goad. For how stands the case? I must of necessity die (if I be
apprehended and confess my faith.) If I think (that fate) deplorable,
(then flight) is good; but if I have a fear of the thing which is
permitted, (the permitted thing) has some suspicion attaching to the
cause of its permission. But that which is "better" no one (ever)
"permitted," as being undoubted, and manifest by its own inherent
purity. There are some things which are not to be desired merely
because they are not forbidden, albeit they are in a certain sense
forbidden when other things are preferred to them; for the preference
given to the higher things is a dissuasion from the lowest. A thing is
not "good" merely because it is not "evil," nor is it "evil" merely
because it is not "harmful."[12] Further: that which is fully "good"
excels on this ground, that it is not only not harmful, but profitable
into the bargain. For you are bound to prefer what is profitable to
what is (merely) not harmful. For the first place is what every
struggle aims at; the second has consolation attaching to it, but not
victory. But if we listen to the apostle, forgetting what is behind,
let us both strain after what is before,[13] and be followers after the
better rewards. Thus, albeit he does not "east a snare[14] upon us," he
points out what tends to utility when he says, "The unmarried woman
thinks on the things of the Lord, that both in body and spirit she may
be holy; but the married is solicitous how to please her husband."[15]
But he nowhere permits marriage in such a way as not rather to wish us
to do our utmost in imitation of his own example. Happy the man who
shall prove like Paul!
But we read "that the flesh is weak;"(1) and hence we soothe(2)
ourselves in some cases. Yet we read, too, that "the spirit is
strong;"(3) for each clause occurs in one and the same sentence. Flesh
is an earthly, spirit a heavenly, material. Why, then, do we, too prone
to self-excuse, put forward (in our defence) the weak part of us, but
not look at(4) the strong? Why should not the earthly yield to the
heavenly? If the spirit is stronger than the flesh, because it is
withal of nobler origin, it is our own fault if we follow the weaker.
Now there are two phases(5) of human weakness which make marriages(6)
necessary to such as are disjoined from matrimony. The first and most
powerful is that which arises from fleshly concupiscence; the second,
from worldly concupiscence. But by us, who are servants of God, who
renounce both voluptuousness and ambition, each is to be repudiated.
Fleshly concupiscence claims the functions of adult age, craves after
beauty's harvest, rejoices in its own shame, pleads the necessity of a
husband to the female sex, as a source of authority and of comfort, or
to render it safe from evil rumours. To meet these its counsels, do you
apply the examples of sisters of ours whose names are with the
Lord,(7)—who, when their husbands have preceded them (to glory), give
to no opportunity of beauty or of age the precedence over holiness.
They prefer to be wedded to God. To God their beauty, to God their
youth (is dedicated). With Him they live; with Him they converse; Him
they "handle"(8) by day and by night; to the Lord they assign their
prayers as dowries; from Him, as oft as they desire it, they receive
His approbation(9) as dotal gifts. Thus they have laid hold for
themselves of an eternal gift of the Lord; and while on earth, by
abstaining from marriage, are already counted as belonging to the
angelic family. Training yourself to an emulation of (their) constancy
by the examples of such women, you will by spiritual affection bury
that fleshly concupiscence, in abolishing the temporal(10) and fleeting
desires of beauty and youth by the compensating gain of immortal
blessings.
On the other hand, this worldly concupiscence
(to which I referred) has, as its causes, glory, cupidity, ambition, want of sufficiency; through which causes it trumps up the "necessity" for marrying,—promising itself, forsooth, heavenly things in return—to lord it, (namely,) in another's family; to roost(11) on another's wealth; to extort splendour from another's store to lavish expenditure(12) which you do not feel! Far be all this from believers, who have no care about maintenance, unless it be that we distrust the promises of God, and (His) care and providence, who clothes with such grace the lilies of the field;(13) who, without any labour on their part, feeds the fowls of the heaven;(14) who prohibits care to be taken about to-morrow's food and clothing,(15) promising that He knows what is needful for each of His servants—not indeed ponderous necklaces, not burdensome garments, not Gallic mules nor German bearers, which all add lustre to the glory of nuptials; but "sufficiency,"(16) which is suitable to moderation and modesty, Presume, I pray you, that you have need of nothing if you "attend upon the Lord;"(17) nay, that you have all things, if you have the Lord, whose are all things. Think often(18) on things heavenly, and you will despise things earthly. To widowhood signed and sealed before the Lord nought is necessary but perseverance.
Further reasons for marriage which men allege for themselves
arise from anxiety for posterity, and the bitter, bitter pleasure of
children. To us this is idle. For why should we be eager to bear
children, whom, when we have them, we desire to send before us (to
glory)(19) (in respect, I mean, of the distresses that are now
imminent); desirous as we are ourselves, too, to be taken out of this
most wicked world,(20) and received into the Lord's presence, which was
the desire even of an apostle?(21) To the servant of God, forsooth,
offspring is necessary! For of our own salvation we are secure enough,
so that we have leisure for children! Burdens must be sought by us for
ourselves which are avoided even by the majority of the Gentiles, who
are compelled by laws,(22) who are decimated(23) by abortions;(1)
burdens which, finally, are to us most of all unsuitable, as being
perilous to faith! For why did the Lord foretell a "woe to them that
are with child, and them that give suck,"(2) except because He
testifies that in that day of disencumbrance the encumbrances of
children will be an inconvenience? It is to marriage, of course, that
those encumbrances appertain; but that ("woe") will not pertain to
widows. (They) at the first trump of the angel will spring forth
disencumbered—will freely bear to the end whatsoever pressure and
persecution, with no burdensome fruit of marriage heaving in the womb,
none in the bosom.
Therefore, whether it be for the sake of the flesh, or of the
world,(3) or of posterity, that marriage is undertaken, nothing of all
these "necessities" affects the servants of God, so as to prevent my
deeming it enough to have once for all yielded to some one of them, and
by one marriage appeased(4) all concupiscence of this kind. Let us
marry daily, and in the midst of our marrying let us be overtaken, like
Sodom and Gomorrah, by that day of fear!(5) For there it was not only,
of course, that they were dealing in marriage and merchandise; but when
He says, "They were marrying and buying," He sets a brand(6) upon the
very leading vices of the flesh and of the world,(7) which call men off
the most from divine disciplines—the one through the pleasure of
rioting, the other though the greed of acquiring. And yet that
"blindness" then was felt long before "the ends of the world."(8) What,
then, will the case be if God now keep us from the vices which of old
were detestable before Him? "The time," says (the apostle), "is
compressed.(9) It remaineth that they who have wives(10) act as if they
had them not."
But if they who have (wives) are (thus) bound to consign to
oblivion what they have, how much more are they who have not,
prohibited from seeking a second time what they no longer have; so that
she whose husband has departed from the world should thenceforward
impose rest on her sex by abstinence from marriage—abstinence which
numbers of Gentile women devote to the memory of beloved husbands! When
anything seems difficult, let us survey others who cope with still
greater difficulties. How many are there who from the moment of their
baptism set the seal (of virginity) upon their flesh? How many, again,
who by equal mutual consent cancel the debt of matrimony-voluntary
eunuchs(11) for the sake of their desire! after the celestial kingdom!
But if, while the marriage-tie is still intact, abstinence is endured,
how much more when it has been undone! For I believe it to be harder
for what is intact to be quite forsaken, than for what has been lost
not to be yearned after. A hard and arduous thing enough, surely, is
the continence for God's sake of a holy woman after her husband's
decease, when Gentiles,(12) in honour of their own Satan, endure
sacerdotal offices which involve both virginity and widowhood!(13) At
Rome, for instance, they who have to do with the type of that
"inextinguishable fire,"(14) keeping watch over the omens of their own
(future) penalty, in company with the (old) dragon (15) himself, are
appointed on the ground of virginity. To the Achaean Juno, at the town
Aegium, a virgin is allotted; and the(priestesses) who rave at Delphi
know not marriage. Moreover, we know that widows minister to the
African Ceres; enticed away, indeed, from matrimony by a most stem
oblivion: for not only do they withdraw from their still living
husbands, but they even introduce other wives to them in their own
room—the husbands, of course, smiling on it—all contact (with males),
even as far as'the kiss of their sons, being forbidden them; and yet,
with enduring practice, they persevere in such a discipline of
widowhood, which excludes the solace even of holy affection.(16) These
precepts has the devil given to his servants, and he is heard! He
challenges, forsooth, God's servants, by the continence of his own, as
if on equal terms! Continent are even the priests of hell!(17) For he
has found a way to ruin men _ even in good pursuits; and with him it
makes no difference to slay some by voluptuousness, some by continence.
To us continence has been pointed out by the Lord of salvation as
an instrument for attaining eternity,(1) and as a testimony of (our)
faith; as a commendation of this flesh of ours, which is to be
sustained for the "garment of immortality,"(2) which is one day to
supervene; for enduring, in fine, the will of God. Besides, reflect, I
advise you, that there is no one who is taken out of the world(3) but
by the will of God, if, (as is the case,) not even a leaf falls from
off a tree without it. The same who brings us into the world? must of
necessity take us out of it too. Therefore when, through the will of
God, the husband is deceased, the marriage likewise, by the will of
God, deceases. Why should you restore what GOD has put an end to? Why
do you, by repeating the servitude of matrimony, spurn the liberty
which is offered you? "You have been bound to a wife,"(5) sap the
apostle; "seek not loosing. You have been loosed from a wife;(5) seek
not binding." For even if you do not "sin" in re-marrying, still he
says "pressure of the flesh ensues."(6) Wherefore, so far as we can,
let us love the opportunity of continence; as soon as it offers itself,
let us resolve to accept it, that what we have not had strength(7) (to
follow) in matrimony we may follow in widowhood. The occasion must be
embraced which puts an end to that which necessity(8) commanded. How
detrimental to faith, how obstructive to holiness, second marriages
are, the discipline of the Church and the prescription of the apostle
declare, when he suffers not men twice married to preside (over a
Church(9)), when he would not grant a widow admittance into the order
unless she had been "the wife of one man;"(10) for it behoves God's
altar(11) to be set forth pure. That whole halo(12) which encircles the
Church is represented (as consisting) of holiness. Priesthood is (a
function) of widowhood and of celibacies among the nations. Of course
(this is) in conformity with the devil's principle of rivalry. For the
king of heathendom,(13) the chief pontiff,(14) to marry a second time
is unlawful. How pleasing must holiness be to God, when even His enemy
affects it!—not, of course, as having any affinity with anything good,
but as contumeliously affecting what is pleasing to(15) God the Lord.
For, concerning the honours which widowhood enjoys in the sight
of God, there is a brief summary in one saying of His through the
prophet: "Do thou (16) justly to the widow and to the orphan; and come
ye,(16) let us reason, saith the LORD." These two names, left to the
care of the divine mercy, in proportion as they are destitute of human
aid, the Father of all undertakes to defend. Look how the widow's
benefactor is put on a level with the widow herself, whose champion
shall "reason with the LORD!" Not to virgins, I take it, is so great a
gift given. Although in their case perfect integrity and entire
sanctity shall have the nearest vision of the face of God, yet the
widow has a task more toilsome, because it is easy not to crave after
that which you know not, and to turn away from what you have never had
to regret.(17) More glorious is the continence which is aware of its
own right, which knows what it has seen. The virgin may possibly be
held the happier, but the widow the more hardly tasked; the former in
that she has always kept "the good,"(18) the latter in that she has
found "the good for herself." In the former it is grace, in the latter
virtue, that is crowned. For some things there are which are of the
divine liberality, some of our own working. The indulgences granted by
the Lord are regulated by their own grace; the things which are objects
of man's striving are attained by earnest pursuit. Pursue earnestly,
therefore, the virtue of continence, which is modesty's agent;
industry, which allows not women to be "wanderers;"(19) frugality,
which scorns the world.(20) Follow companies and conversations worthy
of God, mindful of that short verse, sanctified by the apostle's
quotation of it, "Ill interviews good morals do corrupt."(21)
Talkative, idle, winebibbing, curious tent-fellows,(22) do the very
greatest hurt to the purpose of widow-hood. Through talkativeness there
creep in words unfriendly to modesty; through idleness they seduce one
from strictness; through winebibbing they insinuate any and every evil;
through curiosity they convey a spirit of rivalry in lust. Not one of
such women knows how to speak of the good of single-husbandhood; for
their "god," as the apostle says, "is their belly;"(23) and so, too,
what is neighbour to the belly. These considerations, dearest
fellow-servant, I commend to you thus early,(1) handled throughout
superfluously indeed, after the apostle, but likely
to prove a solace to you, In that(if so it shall turn out(2)) you will cherish my memory in them.
Very lately, best beloved fellow-servant in the Lord, I, as my
ability permitted, entered for your benefit at some length into the
question what course is to be followed by a holy woman when her
marriage has (in whatever way) been brought to an end. Let us now turn
our attention to the next best advice, in regard of human infirmity;
admonished hereto by the examples of certain, who, when an opportunity
for the practice of Continence has been offered them, by divorce, or by
the decease of the husband, have not only thrown away the opportunity
of attaining so great a good, but not even in their remarriage have
chosen to be mindful of the rule that "above all(1) they marry in the
Lord." And thus my mind has been thrown into confusion, in the fear
that, having exhorted you myself to perseverance in single husbandhood
and widowhood, I may now, by the mention of precipitate(2) marriages,
put "an occasion of falling"(3) in your way. But if you are perfect in
wisdom, you know, of course, that the course which is the more useful
is the course which you must keep. But, inasmuch as that course is
difficult, and not without its embarrassments,(4) and on this account
is the highest aim of (widowed) life, I have paused somewhat (in my
urging you to it); nor would there have been any causes for my
recurring to that point also in addressing you, had I not by this time
taken up a still graver solicitude. For the nobler is the continence of
the flesh which ministers to widowhood, the more pardonable a thing it
seems if it be not persevered in. For it is then when things are
difficult that their pardon is easy. But in as far as marrying "in the
Lord" is permissible, as being within our power, so far more culpable
is it not to observe that which you can observe. Add to this the fact
that the apostle, with regard to widows and the unmarried, advises them
to remain permanently in that state, when he says, "But I desire all to
persevere in (imitation of) my example:" (5) but touching marrying "in
the Lord," he no longer advises, but plainly(6) bids.(7) Therefore in
this case especially, if we do not obey, we run a risk, because one may
with more impunity neglect an "advice" than an "order;" in that the
former springs from counsel, and is proposed to the will (for
acceptance or rejection): the other descends from authority, and is
bound to necessity. In the former case, to disregard appears liberty,
in the latter, contumacy.
Therefore, when in these days a certain woman removed her
marriage from the pale of the Church, and united herself to a Gentile,
and when I remembered that this had in days gone by been done by
others: wondering at either their own waywardness or else the
double-dealing(8) of their advisers, in that there is no scripture
which holds forth a licence of this deed,—"I wonder," said I, "whether
they flatter themselves on the ground of that passage of the first
(Epistle) to the Corinthians, where it is written: If any of the
brethren has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to the matrimony,
let him not dismiss her; similarly, let not a believing woman, married
to an unbeliever, if she finds her husband agreeable (to their
continued union), dismiss him: for the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the
believing husband; else were your children unclean.' "(9) It may be
that, by understanding generally this monition regarding married
believers, they think that licence is granted (thereby) to marry even
unbelievers. God forbid that he who thus interprets (the passage) be
wittingly ensnaring himself! But it is manifest that this scripture
points to those believers who may have been found by the grace of God
in (the state of) Gentile matrimony; according to the words themselves:
"If," it says, "any believer has an unbelieving wife;" it does not say,
"takes an unbelieving wife." It shows that it is the duty of one who,
already living in marriage with an unbelieving woman,(1) has presently
been by the grace of God converted, to continue with his wife; for this
reason, to be sure, in order that no one, after attaining to faith,
should think that he must turn away from a woman(2) who is now in some
sense an "alien" and "stranger."(3) Accordingly he subjoins withal a
reason, that "we are called in peace unto the Lord God;" and that "the
unbeliever may, through the use of matrimony, be gained by the
believer."(4) The very closing sentence of the period confirms (the
supposition) that this is thus to be understood. "As each," it says,
"is called by the Lord, so let him persevere."(5) But it is Gentiles
who "are called," I take it, not believers. But if he had been
pronouncing absolutely, (in the words under discussion,) touching the
marriage of believers merely, (then) had he (virtually) given to saints
a permission to marry promiscuously. If, however, he had given such a
permission, he would never have subjoined a declaration so diverse from
and contrary to his own permission, saying: "The woman, when her
husband is dead, is free: let her marry whom. she wishes, only in the
Lord."(6) Here, at all events, there is no need for reconsidering; for
what there might have been reconsideration about, the Spirit has
oracularly declared. For fear we should make an ill use of what he
says, "Let her marry whom she wishes," he has added, "only in the
Lord," that is, in the name of the Lord, which is, undoubtedly, "to a
Christian." That "Holy Spirit,"(7) therefore, who prefers that widows
and unmarried women should persevere in their integrity, who exhorts us
to a copy(8) of himself, prescribes no other manner of repeating
marriage except "in the Lord:" to this condition alone does he concede
the foregoing(9) of continence. "Only," he says, "in the Lord:" he has
added to his law a weight—"only." Utter that word with what tone and
manner you may, it is weighty: it both bids and advises; both enjoins
and exhorts; both asks and threatens. It is a concise,(10) brief
sentence; and by its own very brevity, eloquent. Thus is the divine
voice wont (to speak), that you may instantly understand, instantly
observe. For who but could understand that the apostle foresaw many
dangers and wounds to faith in marriages of this kind, which he
prohibits? sad that he took precaution, in the first place, against the
defilement of holy flesh in Gentile flesh? At this point some one says,
"What, then, is the difference between him who is chosen by the Lord to
Himself in (the state of) Gentile marriage, and him who was of old
(that is, before marriage) a believer, that they should not be equally
cautious for their flesh?—whereas the one is kept from marriage with
an unbeliever, the other bidden to continue in it. Why, if we are
defiled by a Gentile, is not the one disjoined, just as the other is
not bound?" I will answer, if the Spirit give (me ability); alleging,
before all (other arguments), that the Lord holds it more pleasing that
matrimony should not be contracted, than that it should at all be
dissolved: in short, divorce He prohibits, except for the cause of
fornication; but continence He commends. Let the one, therefore, have
the necessity of continuing; the other, further, even the power of not
marrying. Secondly, if, according to the Scripture, they who shall be
"apprehended" "by the faith in (the state of) Gentile marriage are not
defiled (thereby) for this reason, that, together with themselves,
others(12) also are sanctified: without doubt, they who have been
sanctified before marriage, if they commingle themselves with "strange
flesh,"(13) cannot sanctify that (flesh) in (union with) which they
were not "apprehended." The grace of God, moreover, sanctifies that
which it finds. Thus, what has not been able to be sanctified is
unclean; what is unclean has no part with the holy, unless to defile
and slay it by its own (nature).
If these things are so, it is certain that believers contracting
marriages with Gentiles are guilty of fornication,(14) and are to be
excluded from all communication with the brotherhood, in accordance
with the letter of the apostle, who says that "with persons of that
kind there is to be no taking of food even."(15) Or shall we "in that
day"(16) produce (our) marriage certificates before the Lord's
tribunal, and allege that a marriage such as He Himself has forbidden
has beeb duly contracted? What is prohibited (in the pas- sage just
referred to) is not "adultery;" It is not "fornication." The admission
of a strange man (to your couch) less violates "the temple of God,"(1)
less commingles "the members of Christ" with the members of an
adulteress.(2) So far as I know, "'we are not our own, but bought with
a price;"(3) and what kind of price? The blood of God.(4) In hurting
this flesh of ours, therefore, we hurt Him directly.(5) What did that
man mean who said that "to wed a 'stronger' was indeed a sin, but a
very small one?" whereas in other cases (setting aside the injury done
to the flesh which pertains to the Lord) every voluntary sin against
the Lord is great. For, in as far as there was a power of avoiding it,
in so far is it burdened with the charge of contumacy.
Let us now recount the other dangers or wounds (as I have said)
to faith, foreseen by the apostle; most grievous not to the flesh
merely, but likewise to the spirit too. For who would doubt that faith
undergoes a daily process of obliteration by unbelieving intercourse?
"Evil confabulations corrupt good morals;"(6) how much more fellowship
of life, and indivisible intimacy! Any and every believing woman must
of necessity obey God. And how can she serve two lords(7)__ the Lord,
and her husband —a Gentile to boot? For in obeying a Gentile she will
carry out Gentile practices,—personal attractiveness, dressing of the
head, wordly(8) elegancies, baser blandishments, the very secrets even
of matrimony tainted: not, as among the saints, where the duties of the
sex are discharged with honour (shown) to the very necessity (which
makes them incumbent), with modesty and temperance, as beneath the eyes
of God.
But let her see to (the question) how she discharges her duties
to her husband. To the Lord, at all events, she is unable to give
satisfaction according to the requirements of discipline; having at her
side a servant of the devil, his lord's agent for hindering the
pursuits and duties of believers: so that if a station(9) is to be
kept, the husband at daybreak makes an appointment with his wife to
meet him at the baths; if there are fasts to be observed, the
husbandthat same day holds a convivial banquet; if a charitable
expedition has to be made, never is family business more urgent. For
who would suffer his wife, for the sake of visiting the brethren, to go
round from street to street to other men's, and indeed to all the
poorer, cottages? Who will willingly bear her being taken from his side
by nocturnal convocations, if need so be? Who, finally, will without
anxiety endure her absence all the night long at the paschal
solemnities? Who will, without some suspicion of his own, dismiss her
to attend that Lord's Supper which they defame? Who will suffer her to
creep into prison to kiss a martyr's bonds? nay, truly, to meet any one
of the brethren to exchange the kiss? to offer water for the saints'
feet?(10) to snatch (somewhat for them) from her food, from her cup? to
yearn (after them)? to have (them) in her mind? If a pilgrim brother
arrive, what hospitality for him in an alien home? If bounty is to be
distributed to any, the granaries, the storehouses, are foreclosed.
"But some husband does endure our (practices), and not annoy us."
Here, therefore, there is a sin; in that Gentiles know our (practices);
in that we are subject to the privity of the unjust; in that it is
thanks to them that we do any (good) work. He who "endures" (a thing)
cannot be ignorant of it; or else, if he is kept in ignorance because
he does not endure (it), he is feared. But since Scripture commands
each of two things—namely, that we work for the Lord without the
privity of any second person,(11) and without pressure upon ourselves,
it matters not in which quarter you sin; whether in regard to your
husband's privity, if he be tolerant, or else in regard of your own
affliction in avoiding his intolerance. "Cast not," saith He, "your
pearls to swine, lest they trample them to pieces, and turn round and
overturn you also."(12) "Your pearls" are the distinctive marks(13) of
even your daily conversation. The more care you take to conceal them,
the more liable to suspicion you will make them, and the more exposed
to the grasp of Gentile curiosity. Shall you escape notice when you
sign your bed, (or) your body; when you blow away some impurity;(14)
when even by night you rise to pray? Will you not be-thought to be
engaged in some work of magic? Will not your husband know what it is
which you secretly taste before (taking) any food? and if he knows it
to be bread, does he not believe it to be that (bread) which it is said
to be? And will every (husband), ignorant of the reason of these
things, simply endure them, without murmuring, without suspicion
whether it be bread or poison? Some, (it is true,) do endure (them);
but it is that they may trample on, that they may make sport of such
women; whose secrets they keep in reserve against the danger which they
believe in, in case they ever chance to be hurt: they do endure
(wives), whose dowries, by casting in their teeth their (Christian)
name, they make the wages of silence; while they threaten them,
forsooth, with a suit before some spy[1] as arbitrator! which most
women, not foreseeing, have been wont to discover either by the
extortion of their property, or else by the loss of their faith.
The handmaid of God[2] dwells amid alien labours; and among these
(labours), on all the memorial days[3] of demons, at all solemnities of
kings, at the beginning of the year, at the beginning of the month, she
will be agitated by the odour of incense. And she will have to go forth
(from her house) by a gate wreathed with laurel, and hung with
lanterns, as from some new consistory of public lusts; she will have to
sit with her husband ofttimes in club meetings, oft-times in taverns;
and, wont as she was formerly to minister to the "saints," will
sometimes have to minister to the "unjust."[4] And will she not hence
recognise a prejudgment of her own damnation, in that she tends them
whom (formerly) she was expecting to judge?[5] whose hand will she
yearn after? of whose cup will she partake? What will her husband
sing[6] to her, or she to her husband? From the tavern, I suppose, she
who sups upon God[7] will hear somewhat! From hell what mention of God
(arises)? what invocation of Christ? Where are the fosterings of faith
by the interspersion of the Scriptures (in conversation)? Where the
Spirit? where refreshment? where the divine benediction? All things are
strange, all inimical, all condemned; aimed by the Evil One for the
attrition of salvation!
CHAP, VII.—THE CASE OF A HEATHEN WHOSE WIFE IS CONVERTED AFTER MARRIAGE WITH HIM VERY DIFFERENT, AND MUCH MORE HOPEFUL.
If these things may happen to those women also who, having
attained the faith while in (the state of) Gentile matrimony, continue
in that state, still they are excused, as having been "apprehended by
God"[8] in these very circumstances; and they are bidden to persevere
in their married state, and are sanctified, and have hope of "making a
gain"[9] held out to them. "If, then, a marriage of this kind
(contracted berate conversion) stands ratified before God, why should
not (one contracted after conversion) too go prosperously forward, so
as not to be thus harassed by pressures, and straits, and hindrances,
and defilements, having already (as it has) the partial sanction of
divine grace? " Because, on the one hand, the wife[10] in the former
case, called from among the Gentiles to the exercise of some eminent
heavenly virtue, is, by the visible proofs of some marked (divine)
regard, a terror to her Gentile husband, so as to make him less ready
to annoy her, less active in laying snares for her, less diligent in
playing the spy over her. He has felt "mighty works;[11] he has seen
experimental evidences; he knows her changed for the better: thus even
he himself is, by his fear,[12] a candidate for God.[13] Thus men of
this kind, with regard to whom the grace of God has established a
familiar intimacy, are more easily "gained." But, on the other hand, to
descend into forbidden ground unsolicited and spontaneously, is (quite)
another thing. Things which are not pleasing to the Lord, of course
offend the Lord, are of course introduced by the Evil One. A sign
hereof is this fact, that it is wooers only who find the Christian name
pleasing; and, accordingly, some heathen men are found not to shrink in
horror from Christian women, just in order to exterminate them, to
wrest them away, to exclude them from the faith. So long as marriage of
this kind is procured by the Evil One, but condemned by God, you have a
reason why you need not doubt that it can in no case be carded to a
prosperous end.
Let us further inquire, as if we were in very deed inquisitors of
divine sentences, whether they be lawfully (thus condemned). Even among
the nations, do not all the strictest lords and most tenacious of
discipline interdict their own slaves from marrying out of their own
house?—in order, of course, that they may not run into lascivious
excess, desert their duties purvey their lords' goods to strangers.
Yet, further, have not (the nations) decided that such women as have,
after their lords'[1] formal warning, persisted in intercourse with
other men's slaves, may be claimed as slaves? Shall earthly disciplines
be held more strict than heavenly prescripts; so that Gentile women, if
united to strangers, lose their liberty; ours conjoin to themselves the
devil's slaves, and continue in their (former) position? Forsooth, they
will deny that any formal warning has been given them by the Lord
through His own apostle![2]
What am I to fasten on as the cause of this madness, except the
weakness of faith, ever prone, to the concupiscences of worldly[3]
joys?—which, indeed, is chiefly found among the wealthier; for the
more any is rich, and inflated with the name of "matron," the more
capacious house does she require for her burdens, as it were a field
wherein ambition may run its course. To such the churches look paltry.
A rich man is a difficult thing (to find) in the house of God;[4] and
if such an one is (found there), difficult (is it to find such)
unmarried. What, then, are they to do? Whence but from the devil are
they to seek a husband apt for maintaining their sedan, and their
mules, and their hair-curlers of outlandish stature? A Christian, even
although rich, would perhaps not afford (all) these. Set before
yourself, I beg of you, the examples of Gentiles. Most Gentile women,
noble in extraction and wealthy in property, unite themselves
indiscriminately with the ignoble and the mean, sought out for
themselves for luxurious, or mutilated for licentious, purposes. Some
take up with their own freedmen and slaves, despising public opinion,
provided they may but have (husbands) from whom to fear no impediment
to their own liberty. To a Christian believer it is irksome to wed a
believer inferior to herself in estate, destined as she will be to have
her wealth augmented in the person of a poor husband! For if it is "the
pour," not the rich, "whose are the kingdoms of the heavens,"[5] the
rich will find more in the poor (than she brings him, or than she would
in the rich). She will be dowered with an ampler dowry from the goods
of him who is rich in God. Let her be on an equality with him. on
earth, who in the heavens will perhaps not be so. Is there need for
doubt, and inquiry, and repeated deliberation, whether he whom God has
entrusted with His own property[6] is fit for dotal endowments?[7]
Whence are we to find (words) enough fully to tell the happiness of
that marriage which the Church cements, and the oblation confirms, and
the benediction signs and seals; (which) angels carry back the news of
(to heaven), (which) the Father holds for ratified? For even on earth
children[8] do not rightly and lawfully wed without their fathers'
consent. What kind of yoke is that of two believers, (partakers) of one
hope, one desire,[9] one discipline, one and the same service? Both
(are) brethren, both fellow servants, no difference of spirit or of
flesh; nay, (they are) truly "two in one flesh."[10] Where the flesh is
one, one is the spirit ton. Together they pray, together prostrate
themselves, together perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually
exhorting,[11] mutually sustaining. Equally (are they) both (found) in
the Church of God; equally at the banquet of God; equally in straits,
in persecutions, in refreshments. Neither hides (ought) from the other;
neither shuns the other; neither is troublesome to the other. The sick
is visited, the indigent relieved, with freedom. Alms (are given)
without (danger of ensuing) torment; sacrifices (attended) without
scruple; daily diligence (discharged) without impediment: (there is) no
stealthy signing, no trembling greeting, no mute benediction. Between
the two echo psalms and hymns;[12] and they mutually challenge each
other which shall better chant to their Lord. Such things when Christ
sees and hears, He joys. To these He sends His own I peace.[13] Where
two (are), there withal (is) He Himself.[14] Where He (is), there the
Evil One is not.
These are the things which that utterance of the apostle has,
beneath its brevity, left to be understood by us. These things, if need
shall be, suggest to your own mind. By these turn yourself away from
the examples of some. To marry otherwise is, to believers, not
"lawful;" is not "expedient."[1]
ELUCIDATION.
(Marriage lawful, p. 39.)
ST. PETER was a married apostle, and the traditions of his wife
which connect her married life with Rome itself render it most
surprising that those who claim to be St. Peter's successors should
denounce the marriage of the clergy as if it were crime. The touching
story, borrowed from Clement of Alexandria, is related by Eusebius.
"And will they," says Clement, "reject even the apostles? Peter and
Philip, indeed, had children; Philip also gave his daughters in
marriage. to husbands; and Paul does not demur, in a certain Epistle,
to mention his own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order
to expedite his ministry the better." Of St. Peter and his wife,
Eusebius subjoins, "Such was the marriage of these blessed ones, and
such was their perfect affection."[1]
The Easterns to this day perpetuate the marriage of the clergy,
and enjoin it; but unmarried men only are chosen to be bishops. Even
Rome relaxes her discipline for the Uniats, and hundreds of her
priesthood, therefore, live in honourable marriage. Thousands live in
secret marriage, but their wives are dishonoured as "concubines." It
was not till the eleventh century that the celibate was enforced. In
England it was never successfully imposed; and, though the "priest's
leman" was not called his wife (to the disgrace of the whole system),
she was yet honoured (see Chaucer), and often carried herself too
proudly.
The enormous evils of an enforced celibacy need not here be
remarked upon. The history of Sacerdotal Celibacy, by Henry C. Lea[2]
of Philadelphia, is compendious, and can be readily procured by all who
wish to understand what it is that this treatise of Tertullian's
orthodoxy may best be used to teach; viz., that we must not be wiser
than God, even in our zeal for His service.