On the Good of Marriage 15–31

For which Christians of our time, free from the bond of marriage and able to abstain from all intercourse, seeing that it is now the time, as it is written, not for embracing but for refraining from embracing, would not rather choose to keep virginal or widowed continence than to bear, with no duty to human society now compelling them, the tribulation of the flesh without which marriages cannot be (to say nothing of the other things from which the apostle spares them)? But when they have been joined while concupiscence ruled, if they afterwards overcome it, since it is not permitted to dissolve a marriage as it was permitted not to contract it, they become such as the form of marriage professes: so that either by mutual consent they ascend to a higher degree of holiness, or, if both are not such, the one who is such will not demand but render the debt, keeping in all things a chaste and devout harmony. But in those times, when the mystery of our salvation was still veiled by prophetic sacraments, even those who were such before marriage joined in marriage for the duty of propagation, not overcome by lust but led by godliness. Anyone who reads attentively how they used their wives, when it was even permitted for one man to have several, whom he had more chastely than any of these now has one (to whom we see what the apostle grants by way of pardon), does not doubt that, if such a choice had been given them as was given when the New Testament was revealed, the Lord saying, “Let him who can receive it receive it,” they would have received it even with joy. For they had them for the work of begetting, not in the disease of desire, like the gentiles who do not know God. This is so great a thing that many today would more easily abstain from all intercourse their whole life than keep the measure of not coming together except for the sake of offspring, if they were joined in marriage. Indeed we have many brothers and fellow heirs of the heavenly inheritance of both sexes who are continent, whether they have experienced marriage or are untouched by any such union; indeed they are innumerable. Yet whom have we ever heard, in familiar conversation, whether among those who are married or those who have been, telling us that he never had relations with his spouse except in hope of conception? What the apostles command the married, then, belongs to marriage; but what they grant by way of pardon, or what hinders prayer, marriage does not compel but tolerates.

So if perhaps (I do not know whether this can happen, and I rather think it cannot), but still, if perhaps a man who has taken a concubine for a time sought only children from that union, not even so is this union to be preferred even to the marriages of those women who do that venial thing. For we must consider what belongs to marriage, not what belongs to those who marry and use marriage too immoderately. For if someone uses fields unjustly and wrongfully seized in such a way as to give generous alms from their produce, he does not thereby justify the robbery; nor, if another greedily broods over a paternal estate or one justly acquired, is the rule of civil law by which he became the lawful owner to be blamed on that account; nor will the perversity of a tyrannical faction be praiseworthy if the tyrant treats his subjects with royal clemency; nor is the order of royal power blameworthy if a king rages with tyrannical cruelty. For it is one thing to wish to use an unjust power justly, and another to use a just power unjustly. So neither do concubines taken for a time make their concubinage just if they lie with a man for the sake of children, nor do married women, if they are wanton with their husbands, bring a charge against the order of marriage.

It is clear, certainly, that a marriage can come into being from those who were wrongly joined, when an honorable agreement follows afterward. But a marriage once entered into in the city of our God, where, even from the first union of the two human beings, marriage bears a certain sacrament, can in no way be dissolved except by the death of one of them. For the bond of marriage remains even if the offspring for whose sake it was entered upon does not follow because of evident barrenness, so that, although the spouses now know they will not have children, it is still not permitted for them to separate, even for the sake of children, and join themselves to others. If they do so, they commit adultery with those to whom they have joined themselves, while they themselves remain spouses. Among the ancient fathers it was indeed lawful, with the wife's consent, to take another woman, from whom children common to both might be born, by the union and seed of the one, but by the right and authority of the other; whether it is also lawful now I would not rashly say. For there is not now the need of propagation that there was then, when it was permitted, even when wives were bearing children, to take others in addition for the sake of a more abundant posterity, which now is certainly not permitted. For the hidden distinction of times makes so much difference to the fitness of doing or not doing something justly that now a man does better who does not marry even one wife, unless he cannot contain himself; but then even those who could much more easily have contained themselves married even several without blame, unless godliness at that time demanded otherwise. For just as a wise and righteous man who already desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ, and delights more in this best thing, now takes food not from desire of living here but from the duty of caring for others, so as to remain in the flesh, which is necessary for the sake of others; so to have relations with women by the right of marriage was a duty for holy men then, not a matter of lust.

What food is to the health of the individual, intercourse is to the health of the race, and neither is without carnal pleasure, which, however, when moderated and brought back to its natural use by the restraint of temperance, cannot be lust. What unlawful food is in sustaining life, fornicating or adulterous intercourse is in seeking offspring; what unlawful food is in the luxury of belly and throat, unlawful intercourse is in a lust that seeks no offspring; and what a too immoderate appetite for lawful food is in some people, that venial intercourse is in spouses. Just as it is better to die of hunger than to eat food sacrificed to idols, so it is better to die childless than to seek descendants from unlawful intercourse. But wherever human beings are born from, if they do not follow the vices of their parents and worship God rightly, they will be honorable and saved. For the seed of man, from whatever man, is God's creature, and it will go badly with those who use it badly, but it will never itself be bad. Just as good children of adulterers are no defense of adultery, so bad children of married people are no charge against marriage. Accordingly, just as the fathers of the time of the New Testament, taking food from the duty of caring for others, although they received it with the natural pleasure of the flesh, were in no way comparable with the pleasure of those who ate what was sacrificed, or of those who consumed even lawful food too immoderately, so the fathers of the time of the Old Testament had intercourse from the duty of caring for others; and their natural pleasure, never relaxed into irrational or wicked lust, is in no way to be compared either with the shamefulness of illicit intercourse or with the intemperance of married people. For from the same vein of charity children were to be propagated, now spiritually, then carnally, for that mother Jerusalem; but only the difference of times made the works of the fathers different. So it was necessary that even prophets who were not carnal should come together carnally, just as it was necessary that even apostles who were not carnal should eat carnally.

All those, then, to whom it is now said, “If they do not contain themselves, let them marry,” are not to be compared with the saints who married then. Marriage itself is indeed the same among all nations, for the sake of procreating children; whatever kind of people they later turn out to be, marriage was instituted so that they might be born in an orderly and honorable way. But people who do not contain themselves, as it were, ascend into marriage by a step of honor; while those who would without doubt have contained themselves, had the reason of that time permitted it, in a way descended into marriage by a step of godliness. And so, although the marriages of both, insofar as they are marriages, being for the sake of procreation, are equally good, these married people are not to be compared with those married people. For these have something that is granted them by way of pardon because of the honor of marriage, though it does not belong to marriage, namely that advance which exceeds the need of begetting; and those did not have it. But not even these, if any are perhaps found now who seek and desire nothing in marriage except that for which marriage was instituted, can be made equal to those people. For in these the very desire for children is carnal, but in those it was spiritual, because it agreed with the sacrament of that time. For now no one perfect in godliness seeks to have children except spiritually; but then it was the work of godliness itself to propagate children even carnally, because the generation of that people was a herald of things to come and belonged to the prophetic dispensation.

Therefore, although one man was permitted to have even several wives, one woman was not permitted to have several husbands, not even for the sake of offspring, if perhaps she could bear children and he could not beget. For by a hidden law of nature, things that rule love singleness; but things subject are placed under, not only one to one, but also, if natural or social reason admits it, several to one, not without fitness. For one slave does not have several masters in the way that several slaves have one master. So we read of no holy woman who served two or more living husbands; but we read of several women with one man, when the social custom of that nation allowed it and the reason of the time recommended it. Nor is it against the nature of marriage. For several women can become pregnant by one man, but one woman cannot by several (such is the force of ruling principles), just as many souls are rightly subject to one God. And therefore there is no true God of souls except one; but one soul can commit fornication through many false gods, not be made fruitful.

But since from many souls there is to be one city of those who have one soul and one heart toward God (a perfection of our unity that will come after this pilgrimage, when the thoughts of all will neither be hidden from one another nor conflict with one another in anything), the sacrament of marriage in our time has therefore been brought back to one man and one wife, so that it is not permitted to ordain a steward of the church unless he is the husband of one wife. Those have understood this more acutely who judged that even a man who had another wife as a catechumen or a pagan should not be ordained. For it is a question of the sacrament, not of sin; for in baptism all sins are forgiven. But he who said, “If you take a wife, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she does not sin,” and, “Let him do what he wishes; he does not sin, let him marry,” made it clear enough that marriage is no sin. But because of the holiness of the sacrament, just as a woman, even if she was violated as a catechumen, cannot after baptism be consecrated among the virgins of God, so it has not absurdly seemed that one who has gone beyond a single wife has not committed any sin but has lost a certain norm of the sacrament, necessary not for the merit of a good life but for the seal of church ordination. And so, just as the many wives of the ancient fathers signified our future churches from all nations, subject to one husband, Christ, so our bishop, the husband of one wife, signifies the unity from all nations subject to one husband, Christ; which will be perfected when he reveals the hidden things of darkness and makes manifest the secrets of the heart, so that then each one's praise will come from God. But now there are dissensions, some open, some hidden, even with charity preserved, among those who are to be one and in the one; then there will certainly be none. Just as, then, the sacrament of plural marriages of that time signified the future multitude subject to God in all the earthly nations, so the sacrament of single marriages of our time signifies the unity of all of us, subject to God, that is to be in the one heavenly city. Therefore, like serving two or more husbands, passing from a living husband into marriage with another was not permitted then, is not permitted now, and never will be permitted. For to apostatize from the one God and go into the adulterous superstition of another is always evil. Nor, therefore, did our saints, for the sake of more numerous offspring, do what the Roman Cato is said to have done, who handed over his wife while he was still alive to fill another man's house also with children. For in the marriages of our women the holiness of the sacrament counts for more than the fruitfulness of the womb.

If, then, even those who are joined only for the sake of begetting, for which marriage was instituted, are not compared with the fathers, who sought children in a very different way than these (for Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his son, whom he had received after such hopelessness, fearlessly and devoutly did not spare his only son, and would not have put down his hand had not the one who commanded him to raise it forbidden him), it remains for us to see whether at least our continent people are to be compared with those married fathers; unless perhaps these are already to be preferred to them, for whom we have not yet found anyone to compare. For there was a greater good in their marriages than the good proper to marriage, to which the good of continence is undoubtedly to be preferred; because they did not seek children from marriage from such a duty as that by which these are led, from a certain sense of mortal nature that requires succession for departure. Whoever denies that this is a good does not know God, the creator of all goods from heavenly to earthly, from immortal to mortal. Not even beasts are entirely without this sense of begetting, and especially birds, whose care in building nests is plain to see, and a certain likeness of marriage for procreating and rearing together. But those men far surpassed, with a much holier mind, this affection of mortal nature (whose chastity in its kind, when the worship of God is added, is placed, as some have understood, in the thirtyfold fruit), for they sought children from their marriages for Christ's sake, to distinguish his race according to the flesh from all nations, as it pleased God to dispose, so that this might serve above all for prophesying him, that it was foretold from what race and from what nation he would come in the flesh. There was, then, a far greater good than the chaste marriages of our faithful in that which father Abraham knew to be in his thigh, under which he ordered his servant to put his hand, that he might swear concerning the wife his son was to marry. For by putting his hand under the man's thigh and swearing by the God of heaven, what else did he signify but that the God of heaven would come in that flesh which would take its origin from that thigh? Marriage, then, is a good, in which married people are better the more chastely and faithfully they fear God, especially if they also nourish spiritually the children they desire carnally.

Nor does the fact that the law commands a man to be purified even after conjugal intercourse show that it is a sin, unless it is that which is granted by way of pardon, which, when excessive, also hinders prayers. But as the law places many things among the sacraments and shadows of things to come, a certain material formlessness in the seed, which when formed will make a human body, was set there as a sign of an unformed and untaught life; and since a person must be cleansed from this formlessness by the form of teaching and instruction, that purification after the emission of seed was commanded as a sign of this. For it does not happen by sin even in sleep, and yet purification was commanded even there. Or if anyone thinks this too is a sin, supposing it happens only from some desire of this kind (which is undoubtedly false), are women's customary monthly periods also sins? Yet the same old law commanded them to be purified from these, only because of that material formlessness which, when conception has taken place, is added, as it were, to the building of the body. And so, since it flows formlessly, the law wished it to signify a mind without the form of discipline, flowing about unseemly and dissolute, which it signifies ought to be formed when it commands such a flow of the body to be purified. Finally, is it also a sin to die, or is it not even a good work of kindness to bury the dead? And yet purification was commanded for that too, because a dead body, deserted by life, is not a sin but signifies the sin of a soul deserted by righteousness.

Marriage, I say, is a good, and it can be defended by sound reason against all slanders. Yet with the marriages of the holy fathers I seek to compare, not what marriages, but what continence; or rather, not marriages with marriages (for the gift given to the mortal nature of human beings is equal in all), but, since I do not find people who use marriage whom I could set beside those people who used marriage very differently, we must ask which continent people are to be set beside those married ones. Unless perhaps Abraham could not have abstained from marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, who was able fearlessly to sacrifice, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, the only pledge of offspring for which marriage is dear!

For continence is a virtue not of the body but of the soul. And virtues of the soul are sometimes shown in action and sometimes lie hidden in a disposition, as the virtue of martyrdom stood out and appeared by enduring sufferings. But how many there are with the same virtue of soul who lack the testing by which what is within, in God's sight, may come forth also into the sight of men, not beginning to exist then but becoming known then! Patience was already in Job, which God knew and to which he bore witness; but it became known to men by the test of temptation, and what lay hidden within was not born but made manifest through what was brought upon him from without. Timothy certainly had the virtue of abstaining from wine, and Paul did not take it away from him by advising him to use a little wine because of his stomach and his frequent illnesses (otherwise he would have been teaching harmfully, that for the health of the body there should be loss of virtue in the soul); but because what he advised could be done with that virtue intact, the benefit of drinking was allowed to the body in such a way that the disposition to abstain remained in the soul. For a disposition is that by which something is done when there is need; and when it is not done, it can be done, but there is no need. This disposition regarding continence from intercourse is not had by those to whom it is said, “If they do not contain themselves, let them marry.” But it is had by those to whom it is said, “Let him who can receive it receive it.” So perfect souls used earthly goods, necessary for something else, by this disposition of continence, through which they were not bound by them and through which they could also not use them if there were no need. And no one uses them well except one who can also not use them. Many indeed abstain more easily so as not to use them than temper themselves so as to use them well; yet no one can use them wisely except one who can also continently not use them. From this disposition Paul too said, “I know both how to abound and how to suffer need.” For to suffer need belongs to any people whatever; but to know how to suffer need belongs to the great. So also who cannot abound? But to know how to abound belongs only to those whom abundance does not corrupt.

But so that it may be understood more plainly how virtue can be in a disposition even if it is not in action, I speak from an example about which no Catholic Christian doubts. That our Lord Jesus Christ, in the truth of his flesh, was hungry and thirsty, ate and drank, none of those who are faithful according to his gospel doubts. Was there, then, not in him the virtue of continence from food and drink as great as there was in John the Baptist? For “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, ‘Look, a glutton and a wine-drinker, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’” Are not such things said against those of his household, our fathers, because of another way of using earthly things, as far as intercourse is concerned: “Look, lustful and unclean men, lovers of women and of wantonness”? And yet, just as that was not true of him (although it was true that he did not abstain from eating and drinking as John did; for he himself said most plainly and most truly, “John came neither eating nor drinking; the Son of Man came eating and drinking”), so this is not true of those fathers either, although there has come now an apostle of Christ, not married and not begetting, of whom pagans may say, “He was a magician,” and there came then a prophet of Christ, marrying and begetting children, of whom the Manichees may say, “He was a womanizer.” “And wisdom is justified by her children.” What the Lord added there, when he had said those things about John and himself, “Wisdom,” he says, “is justified by her children,” refers to those who see that the virtue of continence must always be in the disposition of the soul, but shown in action according to the fitness of circumstances and times; just as the virtue of patience of the holy martyrs appeared in action, while that of the others, equally holy, was in disposition. So, just as the merit of patience is not unequal in Peter, who suffered, and in John, who did not suffer, so the merit of continence is not unequal in John, who experienced no marriage, and in Abraham, who begot sons. For both the celibacy of the one and the marriage of the other served as soldiers of Christ according to the allotment of times; but John had continence also in action, while Abraham had it in disposition alone.

So in that time, when the law, following the days of the patriarchs, pronounced cursed the one who did not raise up seed in Israel, even the one who was able did not bring it forth, yet he had it; but from the time the fullness of time came, so that it could be said, “Let him who can receive it receive it,” from then until now and onward to the end, the one who has it acts on it, and the one who is unwilling to act on it should not lie that he has it. And therefore, by those who corrupt good morals with evil talk, it is said with empty and vain cunning to a continent Christian who refuses marriage, “So you are better than Abraham?” When he hears this, let him not be disturbed, nor dare to say “Better,” nor slip from his resolve (for the one he would not say truly, the other he would not do rightly); but let him say: “I am not better than Abraham, but the chastity of the unmarried is better than the chastity of marriage; Abraham had one of these in use, both in disposition. For he lived chastely as a married man; he could have been chaste without marriage, but then it was not fitting. I more easily do not use the marriage that Abraham used than I would use marriage in the way Abraham used it; and so I am better than those who through incontinence of soul cannot do what I do, not than those who because of the difference of time did not do what I do. For what I now do, they would have done better, if it had been to be done then; but what they did, I would not do in the same way, even if it were to be done now.” Or if this man perceives and knows himself to be such that, with the virtue of continence safe and abiding in the disposition of his soul, if he had come down to the use of marriage from some religious duty, he would be such a husband and such a father as Abraham was, let him dare plainly to answer that captious questioner and say, “I am not better than Abraham, at least in this kind of continence, which he did not lack, though it did not appear; but I am such a one, not having something else, but doing something else.” Let him say this plainly, because even if he wishes to boast, he will not be foolish, for he speaks the truth. But if he refrains, lest anyone think of him above what he sees in him or hears from him, let him remove the knot of the question from his own person and answer not about the man but about the thing itself, and say, “Whoever can do so much is such as Abraham was.” It can happen, though, that the virtue of continence is less in the soul of the one who does not use the marriage that Abraham used; yet it is greater than in the soul of the one who kept the chastity of marriage because he could not keep a greater. So also the unmarried woman, who thinks of the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit, when she hears that imprudent questioner saying, “So you are better than Sarah?” let her answer, “I am better, but than those women who lack the virtue of this continence, which I do not believe of Sarah. She, then, with this virtue, did what befitted that time, from which I am free, so that what she preserved in her soul may appear also in my body.”

If, then, we compare the things themselves, there is no doubt at all that the chastity of continence is better than the chastity of marriage, although both are good; but when we compare persons, the better is the one who has more good than another. Moreover, whoever has more of the same kind also has what is less; but whoever has only what is less certainly does not have what is more. For thirty is in sixty, not sixty in thirty. But not acting on what one has lies in the distribution of duties, not in a lack of virtues; for the one who finds no wretched people whom he can mercifully help does not lack the good of mercy either.

Add to this that people are not rightly compared with people on the basis of some one good. For it can happen that one person does not have something that another has, but has something else that should be valued more. For the good of obedience is greater than that of continence. Marriage is nowhere condemned by the authority of our Scriptures, but disobedience is nowhere excused. If, then, one were to set before us a virgin who will remain so but is disobedient, and a married woman who could not remain a virgin but is obedient, which should we call better? The one less praiseworthy than if she were a virgin, or the one worthy of condemnation, virgin though she is? So if you compare a drunken virgin with a sober married woman, who doubts that he would give the same verdict? For marriage and virginity are two goods, of which one is greater; but sobriety and drunkenness, like obedience and defiance, are the one good, the other evil. It is better to have all goods, even lesser ones, than a great good with a great evil; for even among goods of the body, it is better to have Zacchaeus's stature with health than Goliath's with a fever.

It is quite rightly asked, not whether an entirely disobedient virgin should be compared with an obedient married woman, but a less obedient one with a more obedient, since the other too has marital chastity and is therefore good, though less than virginal chastity. If, then, one is as much less in the good of obedience as she is greater in the good of chastity, which is to be preferred when the one is compared with the other is judged by the one who, first comparing chastity itself with obedience, sees that obedience is in a way the mother of all virtues. And for this reason there can be obedience without virginity, because virginity is from counsel, not from command. By obedience I mean that by which commands are obeyed. Therefore obedience to the commands can exist without virginity, but it cannot exist without chastity. For it belongs to chastity not to commit sexual immorality, not to commit adultery, not to be stained by any unlawful intercourse; those who do not keep these things act against God's commands and are therefore exiles from the virtue of obedience. But virginity can exist without obedience, because a woman can accept the counsel of virginity and keep her virginity and yet despise the commands: just as we know many consecrated virgins who are talkative, curious, drunken, quarrelsome, greedy, proud; all of which are against the commands and, as happened to Eve herself, bring death by the crime of disobedience. Therefore not only is an obedient married woman to be preferred to a disobedient virgin, but a more obedient married woman to a less obedient virgin.

It was from this obedience that that father, who was not without a wife, was prepared to be without his only son, and that slain by his own hand. For I might not unreasonably call him only, the son of whom he heard from the Lord, “In Isaac shall your seed be called.” How much more quickly, then, would he have obeyed so as to be even without a wife, if that were commanded! Hence it is not without reason that we often wonder at some of both sexes who abstain from all intercourse and yet obey the commands carelessly, though they have seized so ardently on not using what is permitted. Who, then, doubts that the men and women of our time, though free from all intercourse, are not rightly compared with the excellence of those holy fathers and mothers who begot children, being less than they in the virtue of obedience, even if those people had lacked, even in the disposition of the soul, what is manifest in the action of these? Let the boys, then, follow the Lamb, singing the new song, as it is written in the Apocalypse, “who have not defiled themselves with women,” for no other reason than that they remained virgins. But let them not therefore think themselves better than the first holy fathers, who used marriage, if I may put it so, in a marital way. For the use of marriage is such that, if anything is done in it through carnal union that exceeds the need of begetting, even though it is done venially, it is a defilement. For what does pardon expiate, if that advance does not defile at all? It would be surprising if the boys who follow the Lamb were free from this defilement, unless they remained virgins.