(that is, his wife) with this intention of heart, certainly does not possess her in the " disease of desire," as the Gentiles which know not God, but in sanctification and T!
liess. IV. 3-5.
honour, as believers who hope in God. A man turns to use the evil of concupiscence, and is not overcome by it, when he bridles and restrains its rage, as it works in inordinate and indecorous motions; and never relaxes his hold upon it except when intent on offspring, and then controls and applies it to the carnal generation of children to be spiritually regenerated, not to the subjection of the spirit to the flesh in a sordid servitude. That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that " they pleased Him," ^ thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification.
CHAP. 10 [iX.] WHY IT WAS SOMETIMES PER- MITTED THAT A MAN SHOULD HAVE SEVERAL WIVES, VET NO WOMAN WAS EVER ALLO\\'ED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE HUSBAND. NATURE PRE- FERS SINGLENESS IN HER DOMINATIONS.
Now, if to the God of our fathers, who is likewise our God, such a plurality of wives had not been displeasing for the purpose that lust might have a fuller range of indulgence; then, on such a supposition, the holy women also ought each to have rendered service to several husbands. But if any woman had so acted, what feeling but that of a disgraceful concupiscence could impel her to have more husbands, seeing that by such licence she could not have more children? That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more honourable precedent. In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, — many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one. Nor can it be duubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, "The head of the woman is the man; " 3 and, " Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands."
'• So also ^ See Heb. xi. 4-6.
[Book I.
the Apostle Peter writes: " Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord." ' Now, although the fact of the matter is, that while nature loves singleness in her dominations, but we may see plurality existing more readily in the subordinate portion of our race; yet for all that, it was at no time lawful for one man to have a plurality of wives, except for the purpose of a greater number of children springing from him. Wherefore, if one woman cohabits with several men, inasmuch as no increase of offspring accrues to her therefrom, but only a more frequent gratification of lust, she cannot possibly be a wife, but only a harlot.
CHAP. II [X.] THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE; THE WORLD'S LAW ABOUT DIVORCE DIFFERENT FROM THE GOSPEL'S.
It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond^ in marriage which is recommended to believers in wedlock. Accordingly it is enjoined by the apostle: " Husbands, love your Avives, even as Christ also loved the Church." ^ Of this bond the substance •♦ undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live; and that it should be unlawful for one consort to be parted from the other, except for the cause of fornication. s For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church; so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation for ever. And so complete is the observance of this bond in the city of our God, in His holy mountain'' — that is to say, in the Church of Christ — by all married believers, who are undoubtedly members of Christ, that, although women marry, and men take wives, for the purpose of procreating children, it is never permitted one to put away even an unfruitful wife for the sake of having another to bear children.
And whosoever does this is held to be guilty of adultery by the law of the gospel; though not by this world's rule, which allows a divorce between the parties, without even the allegation of guilt, and the contraction of other nuptial engagements,— a concession which, the Lord tells us, even the holy Moses extended to the people of Israel, because of the hardness of their hearts.? The same condemnation applies to the woman, if she is married to another man. So enduring, indeed, are the rights of marriage between those who have contracted them, as long as they both live, that even they are looked on as man and wife still, who have separated from one another, ' I Pet. iii. 6.
- Quoddam sacramentum. See above, Oti Original Szn, ch. 39 [xxxiv ].
6 Ps. xlviii. 2. 7 Matt. xix. 8.
rather than they between whom a new connection has been formed. For by this new connection they would not be guilty of adultery, if the previous matrimonial relation did not still continue. If the husband die, with whom a true marriage was made, a true marriage is now possible by a connection which Avould before have been adultery, ^llus between the conjugal pair, as long as they live, the nuptial bond has a permanent obligation, and can be cancelled neither by separation nor by union with another. But this permanence avails, in such cases, only for injury from the sin, not for a bond of the covenant. In like manner the soul of an apostate, which renounces as it were its marriage union with Christ, does not, even though it has cast its faith away, lose the sacrament of its faith, which it received in the laver of regeneration. It would undoubtedly be given back to him if he were to return, although he lost it on his departure from Christ. He retains, however, the sacrament after his apostasy, to the aggravation of his punishment, not for meriting the reward.
CHAP. 12 [XI.] — MARRIAGE DOES NOT CANCEL A MUTUAL vow OF CONTINENCE; THERE WAS TRUE WEDLOCK BETWEEN MARY AND JOSEPH; IN WHAT WAY JOSEPH WAS THE FATHER OF CHRIST.
But God forbid that the nuptial bond should I ^ be regarded as broken between those who have by mutual consent agreed to observe a perpetual abstinence from the use of carnal concupiscence. Nay, it will be only a firmer one, whereby they have exchanged pledges together, which will have to be kept by an especial endearment and concord, — not by the voluptuous links of bodies, but by the voluntary affections of souls. For it I was not deceitfully that the angel said to Joseph: " Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." ^ She is called his wife because of her first troth of betrothal, although he had had no carnal knowledge of her, nor was destined to have. The designation of wife was neither destroyed nor made untrue, Avhere there never had been, nor was meant to be, any carnal connection. That virgin wife was rather a holier and more wonderful joy to her husband because of her very pregnancy without man, with disparity as to the child that was born, without disparity in the faith they cherished. And because of this conjugal fidelity they are both deservedly called " parents "? of Christ (not only she as His mother, but he as His father, as being her husband), both having been such in mind and purpose, though not in the flesh. But while the one was His father in purpose only, and the other His mother in the flesh also, they were both of them, for all that, only the parents of His humility, not of His sublimity; of His weakness, not of His divinity.
8 Matt. i. 20.
8 Matt. i. 20.
9 Luke ii. 41.
Chap. 15.]
For the Gospel does not lie, in which one reads, " Both His father and His mother marvelled at those things which were spoken about Him; " ' and in another passage, " Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year;"^ and again a little afterwards, " His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast Thou thus dealt with us? Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing." ^ In order, however, that He might show them that He had a Father besides them, who begat Him without a mother, He said to them in answer: " How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"'* Furthermore, lest He should be thought to have repudiated them as His parents by what He had just said, the evangelist at once added: "And they understood not the saying which He spake unto them; and He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." 5 Subject to whom but His parents? And who was the subject but Jesus Christ, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God "?^ And wherefore subject to them, who were far beneath the form of God, except that " He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant,"? — the form in which His parents lived? Now, since she bore Him without his engendering, they could not surely have both been His parents, of that form of a servant, if they had not been conjugally united, though without carnal connection. Accordingly the genealogical series (although both parents of Christ are mentioned together in the succession) ^ had to be extended, as it is in fact,'' down rather to Joseph's name, that no wrong might be done, in the case of this marriage, to the male, and indeed the stronger sex, while at the same time there was nothing detrimental to truth, since Joseph, no less than Mary, was of the seed of David,'° of whom it was foretold that Christ should come.
CHAP. 13. IN THE MARRIAGE OF MARY AND JOSEPH THERE WERE ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE WEDDED STATE; ALL THAT IS BORN OF CONCUBINAGE IS SINFUL FLESH.
The entire good, therefore, of the nuptial institution was effected in the case of these parents of Christ: there was offspring, there was faithfulness, there was the bond." As offspring, we recognise the Lord Jesus Himself; the fidelity, in that there was no adultery; the bond," because there was no divorce, [nil] Only there was no nuptial cohabitation; because He who was to be without sin, and was sent not in sinful flesh, but ' Luke ii. 33. So the Vulgate as well as the best Greek texts, instead of the " And Joseph and His mother marvelled," etc., of the common text.
" Luke ii. 41. 3 Luke ii. 48. * Luke ii. 49.
' Luke ii. ^o, 51. «> Phil. ii. 6.? Phil. ii. 7 9 Compare Luke iii. 23 with Matt. i. 16. ^' Sacramentum.
in the likeness of sinful flesh, '^ could not possibly have been made in sinful flesh itself without that shameful lust of the flesh which comes from sin, and without which He willed to be born, in order that He might teach us, that every one who is born of sexual intercourse is in fact sinful: flesh, since that alone which was not born of such intercourse was not sinful flesh. Nevertheless conjugal intercourse is not in itself sin, when it is had with the intention of producing children; because the mind's good-will leads the ensuing bodily pleasure, instead of following its lead; and the human choice is not distracted by the yoke of sin pressing upon it, inasmuch as the blow of the sin is rightly brought back to the purposes of procreation. This blow has a certain prurient activity which plays the king in the foul indulgences of adultery, and fornication, and lasciviousness, and uncleanness; whilst in the indispensable duties of the marriage state, it exhibits the docility of the slave. In the one case it is condemned as the shameless effrontery of so violent a master; in the other, it gets modest praise as the honest service of so submissive an attendant. This lust, then, is not in itself the good of the nuptial institution; but it is obscenity in sinful men, a necessity in procreant parents, the fire of lascivious indulgences, the shame of nuptial pleasures. Wherefore, then, may not persons remain man and wife when they cease by mutual consent from cohabitation; seeing that Joseph and Mary continued such, though they never even began to cohabit?
CHAP. 14 [XIII.] BEFORE CHRIST IT WAS A TIME FOR MARRYING; SINCE CHRIST IT HAS BEEN A TIME FOR CONTINENCE.
Now this propagation of children which among the ancient saints was a most bounden duty for the purpose of begetting and preserving a people for God, amongst whom the prophecy of Christ's coming must needs have had precedence over everything, now has no longer the same necessity. For from among all nations the way is open for an abundant offspring to receive spiritual regeneration, from whatever quarter they derive their natural birth. So that we may acknowledge that the scripture which says there is " a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing," '^ is to be distributed in its clauses to the periods before Christ and since. The former was the time to embrace, the latter to refrain from embracing.
CHAP. 15. — THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE ON THIS SUBJECT.
Accordingly the apostle also, speaking apparently with this passage in view, declares: " But this 1 say, brethren, the time is short: it re- 1^ Rom. viii. 3.
'■5 Eccles. iii. 5.
[Book I.
maineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had them not; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as though they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without solicitude." ' This entire passage (that I may express my view on this subject in the shape of a brief exposition of the apostle's words) I think must be understood as follows: "This I say, brethren, the time is short." No longer is God's people to be propagated by carnal generation; but, henceforth, it is to be gathered out by spiritual regeneration. " It remaineth, therefore, that they that have wives " be not subject to carnal concupiscence; "and they that weep," under the sadness of present evil, should rejoice in the hope of future blessing; " and they that rejoice," over any temporary advantage, should fear the eternal judgment; " and they that buy," should so hold their possessions as not to cleave to them by overmuch love; " and they that use this world " should reflect that it is passing away, and does not remain. " For the fashion of this world passeth away: but," he says, " I would have you to be without solicitude," — in other words: I would have you lift up your heart, that it may dwell among those things which do not pass away. He then goes on to say: " He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife." ^ And thus to some extent he explains what he had already said: " Let them that have wives be as though they had none." For they who have wives in such a way as to care for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord, without having any care for the things of the world in order to please their wives, are, in fact, just as if they had no wives. And this is effected with greater ease when the wives, too, are of such a disposition, because they please their husbands not merely because 'they are rich, because they are high in rank, noble in race, and amiable in natural temper, but because they are believers, because they are religious, because they are chaste, because they are good men.
CHAP. 1 6 [XIV.] A CERTAIN DEGREE OF INTEM- PERANCE IS TO BE TOLERATED IN THE CASE OF MARRIED PERSONS; THE USE OF MATRIMONY FOR THE MERE PLEASURE OF LUST IS NOT WITHOUT SIN, BUT BECAUSE OF THE NUPTIAL REL.ATION THE SIN IS VENIAL.
But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are to be I Cor. vii. 29-31.
tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness, though not prescribed by way of commandment: ^ and the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the other, lest Satan should tempt them by reason of their incontinence.■♦ For thus says the Scripture: " Let the husband render unto the wife her due: 5 and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the \ husband: and likewise also the husband hath ) not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; ^ and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, 7 and not of commandment."^ Now in a case where permission? i must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible,^ but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh — and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission'' on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage.
CHAP. 1 7 [XV.] — WHAT IS SINLESS IN THE USE OF MATRIMONY? WHAT IS ATTENDED WITH VENL^L SIN, AND WHAT WITH MORTAL?
It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of off"-spring is not the motive of the intercourse, there 5 So al.so the best MSS. of the original.
* So again, after the best witnesses in the original.
^ [The Latin word for " permission" is 7'e?iia, which also means "indulgence," " forbearance," " forgiveness;" and so the sins that may be forgiven are called " venial sins," i.e. " pardonable," and in this sense " permissible," sins. Augustin's argument here turns on this word. — W.]
" I Cor. vii. 3-6.
Chap. 20.]
is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man, the wife's adulterer.
CHAP. 18 [XVI.] CONTINENCE BETTER THAN marriage; BUT MARRIAGE BEITER THAN FOR- NICATION.
Forasmuch, then, as marriage cannot be such V\as that of the primitive men might have been, ' jif sin had not preceded; it may yet be hke./that of the holy fathers of the olden time, in I j such wise that the carnal concupiscence which I'i causes shame (which did not exist in paradise previous to the fall, and after that event was not allowed to remain there), although necessarily forming a part of the body of this death, is not subservient to it, but only submits its funcUon, when forced thereto, for the sole purpose of assisting in the procreation of children; otherwise, since the present time (as we have already ' said) is the period for abstaining from the nuptial embrace, and therefore makes no necessary demand on the exercise of the said function, seeing that all nations now contribute so abundantly to the production of an offspring which shall receive spiritual birth, there is the greater room for the blessing of an excellent continence. " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."^' He, however, who cannot receive it, "even if he marry, sinneth not;"^ and if a ' See above, ch. 14 [xiii.]. * Matt xix. 12.' i Cor. vii. 28.
woman have not the gift of continence, let her also marry.^ " It is good, indeed, for a man not to touch a woman." 5 But since " all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given," '' it remains that " to avoid fornication, every man ought to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband." 7 And thus the weakness of incontinence is hindered from falling into the ruin of profligacy by the honourable estate of matrimony. Now that which the apostle says of women, " I will therefore that the younger women marry," * is also applicable to males: I will that the younger men take wives; that so it may appertain to both sexes alike " to bear children, to be " fathers and " mothers of families, to give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." ** CHAP. 19 [XVII.] — BLESSINGS OF MATRIMONY.
In matrimony, however, let these nuptial blessings be the objects of our love — offspring, fidelity, the sacramental bond.^ Offspring, not that it be born only, but born again; for it is born to punishment unless it be born again to life. Fidelity, not such as even unbelievers observe one towards the other, in their ardent love of the flesh. For what husband, however impious himself, likes an adulterous wife? Or what wife, however impious she be, likes an adulterous husband? This is indeed a natural good in marriage, though a carnal one. But a member of Christ ought to be afraid of adultery, not on account of himself, but of his spouse; and ought to hope to receive from Christ the reward of that fidelity which he shows to his spouse. The sacramental bond, again, which is lost neither by divorce nor by adultery, should be guarded by husband and wife with concord and chastity. For it alone is that which even an unfruitful marriage retains by the law of piety, now that all that hope of fruitfulness is lost for the purpose of which the couple married. Let these nuptial blessings be praised in marriage by him who wishes to extol the nuptial institution. Carnal concupiscence, however, must not be ascribed to marriage: it is only to be tolerated in marriage. It is not a good which comes out of the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin.
CHAP. 20 [XVIII.] — WHY CHILDREN OF WRATH ARE BORN OF HOLY MATRIMONY.
This is the reason, indeed, why of even the just and lawful marriages of the children of God are bom, not children of God, but children of the world; because also those who generate, if they are already regenerate, beget children not as chil- 9 See above, ch. 11, and On Ortg.'nai Sin, ch. 39.
[Book I.
dren of God, but as still children of the worM. "The children of this world," says our Lord, beget and are begotten." ' From the fact, therefore, that we are still children of this world, our outer man is in a state of corruption; and on this account our offspring are born as children of the present world; nor do they become sons of God, except they be regenerated.^ Yet inasmuch as we are children of God, our inner man is renewed from day to day.3 And yet even our outer man has been sanctified through the laver of regeneration, and has received the hope of future incorruption, on which account it is justly designated as " the temple of God." " Your bodies," says the apostle, " are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, and which ye have of God; and ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a great price: therefore glorify and carry God in your body." ■♦ The whole of this statement is made in reference to our present sanctification, but especially in consequence of that hope of which he says in another passage, " We ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirft, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." s If, then, the redemption of our body is expected, as the apostle declares, it follows, that being an expectation, it is as yet a matter of hope, and not of actual possession. Accordingly the apostle adds: " For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience