the necessities of the body; concerning which as the husband's death he gives permission to CHAP. XIV. Per alias nuptias, quarum potestatem dat divortium (" by another marriage, power of which divorce gives."- Bengel). So also Meyer, Alford, etc. 2 Solutam a viro... moechatur; Vulgate, dimissam . . . adulterat. J Matt. xix. 8. "18 9 Matt. xi. 12. Qui vim faciunt diripiunt illud; Vulgate, violenti rapiunt illud. a man may love his enemies, and hate his the other ties of blood, that we hate in them father, and mother, and wife, and children, and what has fallen to the lot of the human race in brothers! For He commands both things who being born and dying, but that we love what calls us to the kingdom of heaven. And how can be carried along with us to those realms these things do not contradict each other, it is where no one says, My Father; but all say to easy to show under His guidance; but after the one God, "Our Father: " and no one says, they have been understood, it is difficult to My mother; but all say to that other Jerusalem, carry them out, although this too is very easy Our mother: and no one says, My brother; but when He Himself assists us. For in that eter- each says respecting every other, Our brother. nal kingdom to which He has vouchsafed to call But in fact there will be a marriage on our part His disciples, to whom He also gives the name as of one spouse (when we have been brought of brothers, there are no temporal relationships together into unity), with Him who hath deof this sort. For "there is neither Jew nor livered us from the pollution of this world by Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is the shedding of His own blood. It is necessary, neither male nor female;" "but Christ is all, and in all " And the Lord Himself says: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Hence it is necessary that whoever wishes here and now to aim after the life of that kingdom, should hate not the persons themselves, but those temporal relationships by which this lite of ours, which is transitory and fs comprised in being born and dying, is upheld; by perinission, not by commandment; or probecause he who does not hate them, does not yet love that life where there is no condition of being born and dying, which unites parties in earthly wedlock, therefore, that the disciple of Christ should hate these things which pass away, in those whom he desires along with himself to reach those things which shall for ever remain; and that he should the more hate these things in them, the more he loves themselves. 42. A Christian may therefore live in concord with his wife, whether with her providing for a fleshly craving, a thing which the apostle speaks viding for the procreation of children, which may be at present in some degree praiseworthy; or providing for a brotherly and sisterly fellowship, without any corporeal connection, having 41. Therefore, if I were to ask any good his wife as though he had her not, as is most Christian who has a wife, and even though he excellent and sublime in the marriage of Chrismay still be having children by her, whether he tians: yet so that in her he hates the name would like to have his wife in that kingdom; of temporal relationship, and loves the hope of mindful in any case of the promises of God, everlasting blessedness. For we hate, without and of that life where this incorruptible shall doubt, that respecting which we wish at least, put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put that at some time hereafter it should not exist; on immortality; though at present hesitating as, for instance, this same life of ours in the from the greatness, or at least from a certain present world, which if we were not to hate as degree of love, he would reply with execration being temporal, we would not long for the future that he is strongly averse to it. Were I to ask life, which is not conditioned by time. For as him again, whether he would like his wife to live a substitute for this life the soul is put, respectwith him there, after the resurrection, when she ing which it is said in that passage, “If a man had undergone that angelic change which is hate not his own soul 5 also, he cannot be my promised to the saints, he would reply that he disciple." For that corruptible meat is necesdesired this as strongly as he reprobated the sary for this life, of which the Lord Himself other. Thus a good Christian is found in one says, "Is not the soul more than meat?" i.e. and the same woman to love the creature of this life to which meat is necessary. And when God, whom he desires to be transformed and renewed; but to hate the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection and sexual intercourse: i.e. to love in her what is characteristic of a human being, to hate what belongs to her as a wife. So also he loves his enemy, not in as far as he is an enemy, but in as far as he is a man; so that he wishes the same prosperity to come to him as to himself, viz. that he may reach the kingdom of heaven rectified and renewed. This is to be understood both of father and mother and He says that He would lay down His soul for CHAP. XVI. 43. Here there arises a second question, when the Lord allows a wife to be put away for the cause of fornication, in what latitude of meaning fornication is to be understood in this passage, whether in the sense understood by all, viz. that we are to understand that fornication to be meant which is committed in acts of uncleanness; or whether, in accordance 6 Matt. vi. 25. 7 John x. 15. 5 Luke xiv. 26. similar, there is no necessity for understanding that it is lawful for a woman to put away her husband, saving for the cause of fornication, as is the case also with the husband. with the usage of Scripture in speaking of fornication (as has been mentioned above), as meaning all unlawful corruption, such as idolatry or covetousness, and therefore, of course, every transgression of the law on account of the un- 44. It is therefore to be considered in what lawful lust [involved in it].' But let us consult latitude of meaning we ought to understand the the apostle, that we may not say rashly. "And word fornication, and the apostle is to be conunto the married I command," says he, "yet sulted, as we were beginning to do. For he not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart goes on to say, "But to the rest speak I, not from her husband: but and if she depart, let the Lord." Here, first, we must see who are her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her "the rest," for he was speaking before on the husband." For it may happen that she departs part of the Lord to those who are married, but for that cause for which the Lord gives permis- now, as from himself, he speaks to "the rest: " sion to do so. Or, if a woman is at liberty to hence perhaps to the unmarried, but this does put away her husband for other causes besides not follow. For thus he continues: "If any that of fornication, and the husband is not at brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she liberty, what answer shall we give respecting be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put this statement which he has made afterwards, her away." Hence, even now he is speaking to "And let not the husband put away his wife"? those who are married. What, then, is his obWherefore did he not add, saving for the cause ject in saying "to the rest," unless that he was of fornication, which the Lord permits, unless speaking before to those who were so united, because he wishes a similar rule to be understood, that if he shall put away his wife (which he is permitted to do for the cause of fornication), he is to remain without a wife, or be reconciled to his wife? For it would not be a bad thing for a husband to be reconciled to such a woman as that to whom, when nobody had dared to stone her, the Lord said, "Go, and sin no more."2 And for this reason also, because He who says, It is not lawful to put away one's wife saving for the cause of fornication, forces him to retain his wife, if there should be no cause of fornication: but if there should be, He does not force him to put her away, but permits him, just as when it is said, Let it not be lawful for a woman to marry another, unless her husband be dead; if she shall marry before the death of her husband, she is guilty; if she shall not marry after the death of her husband, she is not guilty, for she is not commanded to marry, but merely permitted. If, therefore, there is a like rule in the said law of marriage between man and woman, to such an extent that not merely of the woman has the same apostle said, "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband;" but he has not been silent respecting him, saying, "And likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife; "— if, then, the rule is 1 Augustin expresses himself (Retract. I. xix. 6) as having misgivings about his own explanation of this matter here. He advises readers to go to his other writings on the subject of marriage and divorce, or to the works of other writers. He says all sin is not fornication (omne peccatum fornicatio non est); and to determine which sins are fornication, and when a wife may be dismissed, is a most broad (latebrosissima) question. He calls the question a most difficult (difficillimam) one, and says, " But verily I feel that I have not come to the perfect conclusion of this matter (imo non me perve misse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio. Retract. ii. 57). Some of his treatises on the marriage relation: De Bono Conjugali; De Conjuguis Adulterinis; De Nuptiis et Concupiscientia. John viii. 11. Vide deinceps ne pecces; Vulgate, jam amplius noli peccare. that they were alike as to their faith in Christ; but that now he is speaking to "the rest," i.e. to those who are so united, that they are not both believers? But what does he say to them? "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not put him away." If, therefore, he does not give a command as from the Lord, but advises as from himself, then this good result springs from it, that if any one act otherwise, he is not a transgressor of a command, just as he says a little after respecting virgins, that he has no command of the Lord, but that he gives his advice; and he so praises virginity, that whoever will may avail himself of it; yet if he shall not do so, he may not be judged to have acted contrary to a command. For there is one thing which is commanded, another respecting which advice is given, another still which is allowed.3 A wife is commanded not to depart from her husband; and if she depart, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband: therefore it is not allowable for her to act otherwise. But a believing husband is advised, if he has an unbelieving wife who is pleased to dwell with him, not to put her away : therefore it is allowable also to put her away, because it is no command of the Lord that he should not put her away, but an advice of the apostle: just as a virgin is advised not to marry; but if she shall marry, she will not indeed adhere to the advice, but she will not act in opposition to a command. Allowance is given when it is said, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." And there 3 Ignoscitur, lit. "is pardoned." 4 Lit. "it is pardoned." without crime, put away his wife, and a wife her husband, because the Lord makes the cause of fornication an exception; which fornication, in accordance with the above considerations, we are compelled to understand as being general fore, if it is allowable that an unbelieving wife should be put away, although it is better not to put her away, and yet not allowable, according to the commandment of the Lord, that a wife should be put away, saving for the cause of fornication, [then] unbelief itself also is fornication. and universal. 45. For what sayest thou, O apostle? Surely, 47. But when He says, "saving for the cause that a believing husband who has an unbelieving of fornication," He has not said of which of wife pleased to dwell with him is not to put her them, whether the man or the woman.3 For away? Just so, says he. When, therefore, the not only is it allowed to put away a wife who Lord also gives this command, that a man should commits fornication; but whoever puts away not put away his wife, saving for the cause of that wife even by whom he is himself compelled fornication, why dost thou say here, "I speak, to commit fornication, puts her away undoubtnot the Lord"? For this reason, viz. that the edly for the cause of fornication. As, for inidolatry which unbelievers follow, and every other stance, if a wife should compel one to sacrifice noxious superstition, is fornication. Now, the to idols, the man who puts away such an one Lord permitted a wife to be put away for the puts her away for the cause of fornication, not cause of fornication; but in permitting, He did only on her part, but on his own also: on her not command it: He gave opportunity to the part, because she commits fornication; on his apostle for advising that whoever wished should own, that he may not commit fornication. not put away an unbelieving wife, in order that, Nothing, however, is more unjust than for a perchance, in this way she might become a man to put away his wife because of fornication, believer. "For," says he, "the unbelieving if he himself also is convicted of committing husband is sanctified in the wife, and the un- fornication. For that passage occurs to one: believing wife is sanctified in the brother." I suppose it had already occurred that some wives were embracing the faith by means of their believing husbands, and husbands by means of their believing wives; and although not mentioning names, he yet urged his case by examples, in order to strengthen his counsel. Then he goes on to say, "Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." For now the children were Christians, who were sanctified at the instance of one of the parents, or with the consent of both; which would not take place unless the marriage were broken up by one of the parties becoming a believer, and unless the unbelief of the spouse were borne with so far as to give an opportunity of believing. This, therefore, is the counsel of Him whom I regard as having spoken the words, "Whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee." 2 "For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." 4 And for this reason, whosoever wishes to put away his wife because of fornication, ought first to be cleared of fornication; and a like remark I would make respecting the woman also. 48. But in reference to what He says, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced 5 committeth adultery," it may be asked whether she also who is married commits adultery in the same way as he does who marries her. For she also is commanded to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but this in the case of her departing from her husband. There is, however, a great difference whether she put away or be put away. For if she put away her husband, and marry another, she seems to have left her former husband from a desire of chan46. Moreover, if unbelief is fornication, and ging her marriage connection, which is, without idolatry unbelief, and covetousness idolatry, it is doubt, an adulterous thought. But if she be not to be doubted that covetousness also is for-put away by the husband, with whom she desired nication. Who, then, in that case can rightly to be, he indeed who marries her commits adulseparate any unlawful lust whatever from the category of fornication, if covetousness is fornication? And from this we perceive, that because of unlawful lusts, not only those of which one is guilty in acts of uncleanness with another's husband or wife, but any unlawful lusts whatever, which cause the soul making a bad use of the body to wander from the law of God, and to be ruinously and basely corrupted, a man may, tery, according to the Lord's declaration; but whether she also be involved in a like crime is uncertain, — although it is much less easy to discover how, when a man and woman have in 3 Modern commentators do not spring this question, agreeing that the fornication referred to is of the wife, Paulus, Döllinger (in Rev., May, 1869) think the fornication of the woman was committed Christ. u. Kirche, to which Professor Conington replied in Cont. before her marriage. Plumptre also prefers the reference to ante nuptial sin. 4 Rom. ii. 1. 5 ámoλeλvμérny; that is, one divorced unlawfully, who has not been guilty of fornication (so Meyer very positively, Stier et. al, Alford hesitatingly). This explanation might seem to limit re-marriage to such an one, inasmuch as the essence of the marriage bond has not been touched (So Alford et. al.). 49. Again, it is asked whether, if, with a wife's permission, either a barren one, or one who does not wish to submit to intercourse, a man shall take to himself another woman, not another man's wife, nor one separated from her husband, he can do so without being chargeable with fornication? And an example is found in the Old Testament history; but now there are greater precepts which the human race has reached after having passed that stage; and those matters are to be investigated for the purpose of distinguishing the ages of the dispensation of that divine providence which assists the human race in the most orderly way; but not for the purpose of making use of the rules of living. But yet it may be asked whether what the apostle says, "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," can be carried so far, that, with the permission of a wife, who possesses the power over her husband's body, a man can have intercourse with another woman, who is neither another man's wife nor divorced from her husband; but such an opinion is not to be entertained, lest it should seem that a woman also, with her husband's permission, could do such a thing, which the instinctive feeling of every one prevents. tercourse one with another with equal consent, would be put to death. Accordingly, while he one of them should be an adulterer, and the was being kept in cruel confinement, and was other not. To this is to be added the considera- unable to rid himself of that debt, the dread day tion, that if he commits adultery by marrying began to impend and to draw near. He hapher who is divorced from her husband (although pened, however, to have a very beautiful wife, she does not put away, but is put away), she but one who had no money wherewith to come causes him to commit adultery, which neverthe- to the relief of her husband; and when a certain less the Lord forbids. And hence we infer that, rich man had had his desires inflamed by the whether she has been put away, or has put away beauty of this woman, and had learned that her her husband, it is necessary for her to remain husband was placed in that critical situation, he unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.' sent to her, promising in return for a single night, if she would consent to hold intercourse with him, that he would give her the pound of gold. Then she, knowing that she herself had not power over her body, but her husband, conveyed the intelligence to him, telling him that she was prepared to do it for the sake of her husband, but only if he himself, the lord by marriage of her body, to whom all that chastity was due, should wish it to be done, as if disposing of his own property for the sake of his life. He thanked her, and commanded that it should be done, in no wise judging that it was an adulterous embrace, because it was no lust, but great love for her husband, that demanded it, at his own bidding and will. The woman came to the villa of that rich man, did what the lewd man wished; but she gave her body only to her husband, who desired not, as was usual, his marriage rights, but life. She received the gold; but he who gave it took away stealthily what he had given, and substituted a similar bag with earth in it. When the woman, however, on reaching her home, discovered it, she rushed forth in public in order to proclaim the deed she had done, animated by the same tender affection for her husband by which she had been forced to do it; she goes to the prefect, confesses everything, shows the fraud that had been practised upon her. Then indeed the prefect first pronounces himself guilty, because the matter had come to this by means of his threats, and, as if pronouncing sentence upon another, decided that a pound of gold should be brought into the treasury from the property of Acyndinus; but that she (the woman) be installed as mistress of that piece of land whence she had received the earth instead of the gold. I offer no opinion either way from this story: let each one form a judgment as he pleases, for the history is not drawn from divinely authoritative sources; but yet, when the story is related, man's instinctive sense does not so revolt against what was done in the case of this woman, at her husband's bidding, as we formerly shuddered when the thing itself was set forth without any example. But in this section of the Gospel nothing is to be more steadily kept in view, than that so great is the evil of fornication, that, while married people are bound to one another by so strong a 50. And yet some occasions may arise, where a wife also, with the consent of her husband, may seem under obligation to do this for the sake of that husband himself; as, for instance, is said to have happened at Antioch about fifty years ago,3 in the times of Constantius. For Acyndinus, at that time prefect and at one time also consul, when he demanded of a certain public debtor the payment of a poundweight of gold, impelled by I know not what motive, did a thing which is often dangerous in the case of those magistrates to whom anything whatever is lawful, or rather is thought to be lawful, viz. threatened with an oath and with a vehement affirmation, that if he did not pay the foresaid gold on a certain day which he had fixed, he * That is, innocent or guilty, she cannot marry without committing adultery The Roman-Catholic Church forbids divorces, but permits an indefinite separation a mensa et toro ("from table and bed"). 2 Abraham taking Hagar with Sarah's consent. 3 About the year 343; for Augustin wrote this treatise about the year 393 |