Tertullian: de Monogamia

[1] Haeretici nuptias auferunt, psychici ingerunt; illi nec semel, isti non semel nubunt. Quid agis, lex creatoris? Inter alienos spadones et aurigas tuos tantundem quereris de domestico obsequio quantum de fastidio extraneo; proinde te laedunt qui abutuntur quemadmodum qui non utuntur.

[1] Heretics take away nuptials, the psychics thrust them on; the former do not marry even once, the latter do not marry only once. What are you about, law of the Creator? Between others’ eunuchs and your charioteers you complain just as much about domestic compliance as about foreign fastidiousness; accordingly, those who abuse you wound you just as those who do not use you.

[2] Verum neque continentia emsmodi laudanda, quia haeretica est, neque licentia defendenda, quia psychica est; illa blasphemat, ista luxuriat; illa destruit nuptiarum deum, ista confundit.

[2] But neither is continence of this sort to be praised, because it is heretical, nor is license to be defended, because it is psychic; that one blasphemes, this one luxuriates; that one destroys the god of marriages, this one confounds him.

[3] Penes nos autem, quos Spiritales merito dici facit agnitio spiritalium charismatum, continentia religiosa est cum licentia verecunda; ambae cum creatore sunt: continentia legem nuptiarum honorat, licentia temperat; illa non cogitur, ista regitur; illa arbitrium habet, haec modum.

[3] But among us, whom to be called Spiritual the recognition of spiritual charisms rightly makes, continence is religious together with modest license; both are with the creator: continence honors the law of nuptials, license tempers; the former is not compelled, the latter is governed; the former has discretion, this one has measure.

[4] Unum matrimonium novimus sicut unum deum. Magis honorem refert lex nuptiarum, ubi habet et pudorem.

[4] We know one matrimony just as one god. The law of nuptials renders greater honor, where it also has modesty.

[5] Sed psychicis non recipientibus Spiritum ea quae sunt Spiritus non placent. Ita, dum quae sunt Spiritus non placent, ea quae sunt carnis placebunt ut contraria Spiritus.Caro, inquit, adversus spiritum concupiscit et spiritus adversus carnem.

[5] But to the psychics not receiving the Spirit, the things that are of the Spirit do not please. Thus, while the things that are of the Spirit do not please, the things that are of the flesh will please as contrary to the Spirit.The flesh, he says, lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.

[6] Quid autem concupiscet caro quam quae magis carnis sunt? Propter quod et in primordio extranea spiritus facta est;non, inquit, permanebit spiritus meus in istis hominibus in aevum, eo quod caro sint.

[6] But what will the flesh desire except the things that are more of the flesh? Because of which, even in the beginning, it was made extraneous to the Spirit;Not, he says, will my Spirit remain in these men forever, because they are flesh.

II.

[1] Itaque monogamiae disciplinam in haeresim exprobrant nec ulla magis ex causa Paraclitum negare coguntur, quam dum existimant novae disciplinae institutorem et quidem dirissimae illis, ut iam de hoc primum consistendum sit in generali retractatu, an capiat Paraclitum aliquid tale docuisse, quod aut novum deputari possit adversus catholicam traditionem aut onerosum adversus levem sarcinam.

[1] Accordingly they reproach the discipline of monogamy as heresy, and for no other cause more are they driven to deny the Paraclete, than while they suppose him the institutor of a new discipline—and indeed most harsh to them—so that now on this point first we must take our stand in a general reconsideration, whether it holds that the Paraclete taught anything of such a kind as either can be reckoned new against the catholic tradition or burdensome against the light burden.

[2] De utroque autem ipse dominus pronuntiavit; dicens enim:Adhuc multa habeo quae, loquar ad vos, sed nondum potestis portare ea; cum venerit spiritus sanctus, ille vos ducet in omnem veritatem, satis utique praetendit edocturum illum, quae et nova existimari possint ut numquam retro edita et aliquanto onerosa ut idcirco non edita.

[2] Concerning both, moreover, the Lord himself pronounced; for, saying:I still have many things which I would speak to you, but you are not yet able to bear them; when the Holy Spirit shall have come, he will lead you into all truth, he sufficiently indeed pre-indicated that he would instruct in those things which both can be deemed new, as never heretofore published, and somewhat onerous, and for that reason not published.

[3] 'Ergo', inquis, 'hac argumentatione quidvis novum et onerosum paraclito adscribi poterit, etsi ab adversario spiritu fuerit.' Non utique; adversarius enim spiritus ex diversitate praedicationis appareret, primo regulam adulterans fidei et ita ordinem adulterans disciplinae, quia cuius gradus prior est, eius corruptela antecedit, id est fidei, quae prior est disciplina: ante quis

[3] 'Therefore,' you say, 'by this argumentation anything new and onerous could be ascribed to the Paraclete, even if it were from an adversarial spirit.' Not at all; for an adversarial spirit would appear from the diversity of proclamation, first adulterating the rule of faith and thus adulterating the order of discipline, because whose rank is prior, his corruption precedes, that is, of faith, which is prior to discipline: before someone

[4] deo haereticus sit necesse st et tunc de instituto; 4. paraclitus autem multa habens edocere, quae in illum distulit dominus, secundum praefinitionem ipsum primo Christum contestabitur qualem credimus cum toto ordine dei creatoris et ipsum glorificabit et de ipso commemorabit et sic de principali regula illa multa, quae sunt disciplinarum, revelabit fidem dicente pro eis integritate praedicationis, novis, quia nunc revelantur, licet onerosis, quia nec nunc sustinentur, non alterius tamen Christi quam qui habere se dixit et alia multa quae a paraclito edocerentur, non minus istis onerosa quam illis, a quibus nondum tunc sustinebantur.

[4] it is necessary that he be a heretic toward God, and then as to his institute; 4. but the Paraclete, however, having many things to teach, which the Lord deferred to him, according to the predefinition will first attest Christ himself such as we believe, together with the whole order of God the Creator, and he will glorify him and will bring him to remembrance; and thus, from the principal rule, he will unveil those many things which are matters of disciplines, faith speaking on their behalf by the integrity of proclamation, new, because they are now being revealed, although burdensome, because not even now are they borne—yet not of another Christ than he who said that he had also many other things which would be taught by the Paraclete—no less burdensome than those which were not yet then endured by those by whom they are not endured even now.

III.

[1] Sed an onerosa monogamia, viderit adhuc impudens infirmitas carnis; an autem nova, de hoc interim constet. Illud enim amplius dicimus: etiamsi totam et solidam virginitatem sive continentiam paraclitus hodie determinasset, ut ne unis quidem nuptiis fervorem carnis despumare permitteret, sic quoque nihil novi inducere videretur, ipso domino spadonibus aperiente regna caelorum ut et ipso spadone, quem spectans et apostolus, propterea et ipse castratus, continentiam mavult.

[1] But as to whether monogamy is burdensome, let the shameless infirmity of the flesh decide still; but whether it is new, let this for the moment be established. For this further we say: even if the Paraclete had today determined total and solid virginity or continence, so as not to permit even by a single marriage to skim off the froth of the flesh’s heat, even so he would seem to introduce nothing new, since the Lord himself opens the kingdoms of heaven to eunuchs, so that even in the very eunuch—regarding which the Apostle also, therefore himself “castrated,” prefers continence.

[2] 'Sed salvo', inquis, 'iure nubendi'. Plane salvo et videbimus quousque, nihilominus tamen ex ea parte destructo, qua continentiam praefert.Bonum, inquit, homini mulierem non contingere — <ergo malum est contingere;> nihil enim bono contrarium nisi malum ---- ideoque superesse, ut et qui habeant uxores sic sint quasi non habentes, quo magis qui non habent habere non debeant.

[2] '“But kept safe,” you say, “the right of marrying.” Clearly kept safe, and we shall see how far; nevertheless, however, on that side destroyed, on which it prefers continence.Good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman — <therefore it is evil to touch;> for nothing is contrary to the good except the evil ---- and therefore it remains, that even those who have wives be thus as though not having, how much more that those who do not have ought not to have.

[3] Reddit etiam causas, cur ita suadeat, quod innupti de deo cogitent, nupti vero, quomodo in matrimonio quis suo placeat. Et possum contendere non mere bonum esse quod permittitur; quod enim mere bonum est, non permittitur, sed ultro licet; permissio habet causam aliquando et necessitatis. Denique in hac specie non est voluntas permittentis nubere; aliud enim vult:Volo vos, inquit, omnes sic esse quomodo et ego.

[3] He also renders the reasons why he so advises: that the unmarried think about God, but the married, how each may please his own in marriage. And I can contend that what is permitted is not purely good; for what is purely good is not permitted, but is allowed outright; permission sometimes even has necessity as its cause. Finally, in this case the will of the one permitting is not that one marry; he wills another thing:I wish you, he says, all to be as I also am.

[4] Et cum ostendit melius esse, quid utique se velle confirmat, quam quod melius esse praemisit? Et ita si aliud quam quod voluit permittit, non voluntate, sed necessitate permittens, non mere bonum ostendit, quod invitus indulsit. Denique cum dicit:Melius est nubere quam uri, quale id bonum intelligendum, quod melius est [et] poena, quod non potest videri melius nisi pessimo comparatum?

[4] And when he shows that something is better, what, assuredly, does he confirm that he himself wills, other than that which he has premised to be better? And thus, if he permits something other than what he willed—permitting not by will but by necessity—he does not exhibit as a merely good thing that which he indulged unwillingly. Finally, when he says:It is better to marry than to burn, quale is that good to be understood as, which is better than [and] a penalty, which cannot seem better except when compared with the worst?

[5] Bonum illud est, quod per se hoc nomen tenet sine comparatione non dico mali, sed etiam boni alterius, ut, et si alio bono comparatum adumbretur, remaneat nihilominus in boni nomine. Ceterum si per mali collationem cogitur bonum dici, non tam bonum est quam genus mali inferioris, quod ab altiore malo obscuratum ad nomen boni impellitur.

[5] That is good which by itself holds this name without comparison, I do not say with evil, but even with another good, so that, even if, when compared with another good, it be adumbrated, it nonetheless remains under the name of good. Moreover, if by comparison with evil it is compelled to be called good, it is not so much a good as a genus of a lower evil, which, obscured by a higher evil, is driven into the name of good.

[6] Aufer denique condicionem, ut dicas:Melius est nubere quam uri, et quaero, an dicere audeas: 'Melius est nubere', non adiciens, quo melius sit. Ergo iam non melius, et dum non melius, nec bonum, sublata condicione, quae, dum melius illud facit alio, ita bonum haberi cogit. Melius est unum oculum amittere quam duos; si tamen discedas a comparatione utriusque, non erit melius unum oculum habere, quia nec bonum.

[6] Remove, finally, the condition, so that you may say:It is better to marry than to be burned, and I ask whether you would dare to say: 'It is better to marry,' not adding in what respect it is better. Therefore now it is not better; and while it is not better, neither is it good, the condition having been removed, which, while it makes that better than another, thus compels it to be held as good. It is better to lose one eye than two; if, however, you depart from the comparison of the two, it will not be better to have one eye, because it is not good either.

[7] Quid nunc, si omnem indulgentiam nubendi de suo, id est de humano sensu accommodat, ex necessitate qua diximus, quia melius sit nubere quam uri? Denique conversus ad alteram speciem dicendo:Nuptis autem denuntio, non ego, sed dominus, ostendit illa, quae supra dixerat, non dominicae auctoritatis fuisse, sed humanae aestimationis.

[7] What then, if he accommodates all the indulgence of marrying from his own resources, that is, from human sense, out of the necessity which we mentioned, because it is better to marry than to burn? Finally, having turned to the other form by saying:But to the married I enjoin, not I, but the Lord, he shows that those things which he had said above were not of the Lord’s authority, but of human estimation.

[8] At ubi ad continentiam reflectit animos:Volo autem vos sic esse omnes: Puto autem, inquit, et ego spiritum dei habeo, ut, si quid indulserat ex necessitate, id spiritus sancti auctoritate revocaret.

[8] But when he turns minds back to continence:But I wish you all to be thus: Moreover I think, he says, that I too have the Spirit of God, so that, if he had indulged anything out of necessity, the authority of the Holy Spirit would revoke it.

[9] Sed et Iohannes monens sic nos incedere debere quemadmodum et dominus, utique etiam secundum sanctitatem carnis admonuit incedere. Adeo manifestius: Et omnis, inquit, qui spem istam in illo habet, castificat se, sicut et ipse castus est. Nam et alibi: Estote sancti, sicut et ille sanctus fuit, scilicet carne; de spiritu enim non dixisset, quia spiritus ultro sanctus agnoscitur nec <ex>spectat sanctitatis admonitionem, quae propria natura est eius; caro autem docetur sanctitatem, quae et in Christo fuit sancta.

[9] But John also, admonishing that we ought thus to walk even as the Lord, assuredly also according to the sanctity of the flesh admonished us to walk. So much the more manifestly: And everyone, he says, who has this hope in him, makes chaste himself, just as he himself is chaste. For elsewhere: Be ye holy, just as he too was holy, namely, in the flesh; for he would not have spoken of the spirit, because the spirit is of its own accord recognized as holy and does not await an admonition of sanctity, which is its proper nature; but the flesh is taught sanctity, which also in Christ was holy.

[10] Igitur si omnia ista oblitterant licentia nubendi et condicione licentiae inspecta et praelatione continentiae imposita, cur non potuerit post apostolos idem spiritus superveniens ad deducendam disciplinam in omnem veritatem per gradus temporum ---- secundum quod Ecclesiastes:Tempus omni rei inquit ---- supremam iam carni fibulam imponere, iam non oblique a nuptiis avocans, sed exerte, cum magis nunc tempus in collecto factum sit annis circiter CLX exinde productis?

[10] Therefore, if all these things obliterate the license of marrying, and with the condition of the license considered and the prelation of continence imposed, why could not, after the apostles, the same Spirit, supervening to lead the discipline into all truth through the gradations of times ---- according to what Ecclesiastes says:A time for every thing, he says ---- place now the supreme clasp upon the flesh, now not obliquely calling away from nuptials, but explicitly, since now the time has been made up in the aggregate, with about 160 years having since then elapsed?

[11] Nonne ipse apud te retractares, vetus haec disciplina sit, praemonstrata iam tunc in carne domini et in voluntate, dehinc in apostolorum eius tam consiliis quam exemplis? 'olim sanctitati huic destinabamur; nihil novi Paraclitus inducit; quod praemonuit, definit, quod sustinuit, exposcit.' Et nunc recogitans ista facile tibi persuadebis multo magis unicas nuptias competisse Paraclito praedicare, qui potuit et nullas, magisque credendum temperasse illum, quod et abstulisse decuisset.

[11] Would you not yourself reconsider, with yourself, that this discipline is ancient, already then pre-shown in the Lord’s flesh and in his will, and thereafter in his apostles both in counsels and in examples? ‘Once upon a time we were destined for this sanctity; the Paraclete introduces nothing new; what he forewarned, he defines; what he tolerated, he now demands.’ And now, rethinking these things, you will easily persuade yourself that it was much more fitting for the Paraclete to preach a single marriage, who could even have enjoined none, and that it is rather to be believed that he tempered what it would also have been proper to take away.

[12] Si, quae velit Christus, intelligas, in hoc quoque Paraclitum agnoscere debes advocatum, quod a tota continentia infirmitatem tuam excusat.

[12] If you understand what Christ wills, in this as well you ought to recognize the Paraclete as advocate, inasmuch as he excuses your infirmity from total continence.

IV.

[1] Secedat nunc mentio Paracliti ut nostri alicuius auctoris; evolvamus communia instrumenta scripturarum pristinarum. Hoc ipsum demonstratur a nobis neque novam neque extraneam esse monogamiae disciplinam, immo et antiquam et propriam Christianorum, ut Paraclitum restitutorem potius sentias eius quam institutorem.

[1] Let mention of the Paraclete now withdraw, as of some author of ours; let us unroll the common instruments of the pristine Scriptures. This very point is demonstrated by us: that the discipline of monogamy is neither new nor foreign, but rather both ancient and proper to Christians, so that you may sense the Paraclete to be its restorer rather than its institutor.

[2] Quod pertineat ad antiquitatem, quae potest antiquior forma proferri quam ipse census generis humani? Unam feminam masculo deus finxit una costa eius decerpta et utique ex pluribus. Sed et in praefatione ipsius operis:Non est, inquit, homini bonum eum solum esse; faciamus adiutorium illi; adiutores enim dixisset, si pluribus eum uxoribus destinasset.

[2] As it pertains to antiquity, what older form can be brought forward than the very census of the human race itself? One female for the male God fashioned, one rib of his being plucked out, and of course from among many. But also in the preface of the work itself:It is not, he says, good for the man that he should be alone; let us make a helper for him; for he would have said helpers, if he had destined him for several wives.

[3] Adiecit et legem de futuro, siquidem prophetiae dictum est:Et erunt duo in unam carnem, non tres neque plures; ceterum iam non duo, si plures. Stetit lex; denique perseveravit unio coniugii in auctoribus generis ad finem usque, non quia non erant feminae aliae, sed quia ideo non erant, ne primitiae generis duplici matrimonio contaminarentur.

[3] He also added a law for the future, since in prophecy it is said:And the two shall be into one flesh, not three nor more; otherwise they are no longer two, if there be more. The law stood; and finally the union of marriage persevered among the authors of the race unto the end, not because there were no other women, but because for that very reason they were not, lest the first-fruits of the race be contaminated by a double marriage.

[4] Alioquin si deus voluisset, et esse potuisset; certe de filiarum suarum numerositate sumpsisset, non minus ex ossibus et ex carne sua habens Evam, si hoc pie fieret.

[4] Otherwise, if God had willed, it also could have been; assuredly, from the numerosity of his daughters he would have taken, no less having Eve from his own bones and from his flesh, if this were done piously.

[5] At ubi primum scelus homicidium in fratricidio dedicatum, tam dignum secundo loco scelus non fuit quam duae nuptiae; neque enim refert, duas quis uxores singulas habuerit an pariter singulae duos fecerint: idem numerus coniunctorum et separatorum.

[5] But when the first crime, homicide dedicated in fratricide, had been inaugurated, there was not a crime so worthy of second place as two nuptials; for it makes no difference whether someone has had two wives singly, or likewise single women have made two [husbands] apiece: the same number of the joined and of the sundered.

[6] Semel tamen vim passa institutio dei per Lamech constitit postea in finem usque gentis illius; secundus Lamech nullus exstitit quomodo duabus maritus: negat scriptura, quod non notat. Aliae diluvium iniquitates provocaverunt, semel defensae, quales fuerunt, non tamen septuagies septies, quod duo matrimonia meruerunt.

[6] Yet the institution of God, having once suffered violence stood fast through Lamech thereafter even unto the end of that race; no second Lamech arose as a husband to two: Scripture denies what it does not note. Other iniquities provoked the deluge, once excused, such as they were, yet not seventy times seven, which two marriages deserved.

[7] Sed et reformatio secundi generis humani monogamia matre censetur: iterum duo in unam carnem crescere et redundare suscipiunt, Noe et uxor filiique eorum in unicis nuptiis.

[7] But also the reformation of the second human race is reckoned with monogamy as mother: again the two undertake to grow and to redound into one flesh, Noah and his wife and their sons, in single nuptials.

[8] Etiam in ipsis animalibus monogamia recognoscitur, ne vel bestiae de moechia nascerentur:Ex omnibus, inquit, bestiis ex omni carne duo induces in arcam, ut vivant tecum; masculus et femina erunt; de animalibus volatilibus secundum genus et de omnibus serpentibus terrae secundum genus ipsorum duo ex omnibus introibunt ad te, masculus et femina.

[8] Even in the animals themselves monogamy is recognized, lest even beasts be born from moechy (adultery):From all, he says, beasts of all flesh you shall bring two into the ark, that they may live with you; male and female they shall be; of the flying animals according to their kind and of all the serpents of the earth according to their kind, two of all shall enter to you, male and female.

[9] Eadem forma et septena ex binis adlegi mandat, ex masculo et femina uno et una. Quid amplius dicam? Immundis quoque alitibus cum binis feminis introire non licuit.

[9] In the same form he also mandates that sevenfold, by twos, be selected, of male and female, one and one. What more shall I say? Nor was it permitted that even unclean birds enter with two females.

[1] Haec quantum ad primordiorum testimonium et originis nostrae patrocinium et divinae institutionis praeiudicium. Quae utique lex est, nonmonimentum, quoniam, si ita factum est a primordio, invenimus nos ad initram dirigi a Christo, sicut in quaestione repudii dicens illud propter duritiam ipsorum a Moyse esse permissum, ab initio autem non ita fuisse, sine dubio ad initium revocat matrimonii individuitatem; ideoque quos deus ab initio coniunxit in unam carnem duos, hodie homo non separabit.

[1] These things, so far as concerns the testimony of the beginnings and the patronage of our origin and the prejudgment of divine institution. Which assuredly is law, not amonument, since, if it was thus done from the beginning, we find ourselves to be directed back to the beginning by Christ, just as, in the question of repudiation, saying that that was permitted by Moses on account of the hardness of them, but that from the beginning it was not so, he without doubt recalls the indivisibility of marriage to the beginning; and therefore those whom God from the beginning joined into one flesh, the two, today man will not separate.

[2] Dicit et apostolus scribens ad Ephesios deum proposuissein semetipso ad dispensationem adimpletionis temporum ad caput, id est ad initium, reciprocare universa in Christo, quae sunt super caelos et super terras in ipso.

[2] And the apostle also says, writing to the Ephesians, that God purposedin himself unto the dispensation of the fulfillment of the times to the head, that is, to the beginning, to bring back all things in Christ, which are in the heavens and on the earth, in himself.

[3] Sic et duas Graeciae litteras, summam et ultimam, sibi induit dominus, initii et finis concurrentium in se figuras, uti, quemadmodum A ad Ω <usque volvitur et rursus Ω ad A> replicatur, ita ostenderet in se esse et initii decursum ad finem et finis reoursum ad initium, ut omnis dispositio in eo desinens, per quem coepta est, per sermonem scilicet dei, qui[a] caro factus est, proinde desinat, quemadmodum et coepit.

[3] Thus too the Lord put on for himself two letters of Greece, the first and the last, figures of beginning and end converging in himself, so that, just as A to Ω <as far as is rolled and in turn Ω to A> is folded back, so he would show that in himself there is both the running of the beginning to the end and the return of the end to the beginning, so that every disposition, ending in him through whom it was begun—namely, through the Word of God, who was made flesh—accordingly may end just as it also began.

[4] Et adeo in Christo omnia revocantur ad initium, ut et fides reversa sit a circumcisione ad integritatem carnis illius, sicut ab initio fuit, et libertas ciborum et sanguinis solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit, et matrimonii individuitas, sicut ab initio fuit, et repudii cohibitio, quod ab initio non fuit; et postremo totus homo in paradisum revocatur, ubi ab initio fuit.

[4] And to such a degree are all things in Christ recalled to the beginning, that even faith has returned from circumcision to the integrity of that flesh, just as from the beginning it was, and the liberty of foods and abstinence from blood alone, just as from the beginning it was, and the indivisibility of marriage, just as from the beginning it was, and the restraint of repudiation, which from the beginning was not; and finally the whole man is recalled into paradise, where from the beginning he was.

[5] Cur ergo vel monogamum illo debeat Adam referre, qui [non] potest tam integrum quam inde dimissus est? Quantum pertinet itaque ad initii restitutionem, id a te exigit et dispositionis et spei tuae ratio, quod ab initio fuit; secundum initium, quod tibi et in Adam censetur , elige, in quo eorum initium tuum deputes: in ambobus te sibi monogamiae censura defendit.

[5] Why, then, should he even refer Adam as a monogamist to that state, who [not] can be as intact as he was when he was sent out from there? Therefore, insofar as it pertains to the restitution of the beginning, the reason of both your disposition and your hope demands from you that which was from the beginning; according to the beginning, which is assessed for you both in Adam , choose in which of them you reckon your beginning: in both, the standard of monogamy defends you for itself.

[6] Sed et si initium transmittit ad finem ut A ad Ω, quomodo finis remittit ad initium , atque ita census noster transfertur in Christum, animalis in spiritalem, quianon primo, quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, dehinc quod spiritale, proinde videamus, an id ipsum debeas huic quoque censui secundo, an in eandem te formam conveniat novissimus quoque Adam in quam et primus, quando novissimus Adam, id est Christus, innuptus in totum, quod etiam primus Adam ante exilium.

[6] But even if the beginning transmits to the end as A to Ω, how does the end remit to the beginning, and thus our census is transferred into Christ, the animal into the spiritual, because not first what is spiritual, but what is animal; thereafter what is spiritual, accordingly let us see whether you also owe this very thing to this second census, whether it befits that the last Adam likewise conform you to the same form as also the first, since the last Adam, that is, Christ, was unmarried in the whole, which the first Adam also was before the exile.

[7] Sed donato infirmitati tuae carnis suae exemplo perfectior Adam, id est Christus, eo quoque nomine perfectior qua integrior, volenti quidem tibi spado occurrit in carne; si vero non sufficis, monogamus incurrit in spiritu, unam habens ecclesiam sponsam secundum figuram, quam apostolus illud magnum sacramentum interpretatur, in Christum et ecclesiam, competentes carnali monogamiae per spiritalem.

[7] But, indulgence being granted to the infirmity of your flesh by the example of his own flesh, the more perfect Adam, that is Christ—more perfect also by this designation inasmuch as he is more intact—meets you, if you are willing, as a eunuch in the flesh; but if indeed you do not suffice, he presents himself as a monogamist in spirit, having one Church as bride according to the figure, which the apostle interprets as that great sacrament, in reference to Christ and the Church, corresponding to carnal monogamy by means of the spiritual.

[8] Vides igitur, quemadmodum etiam in Christo novas censum non possis eum sine monogamiae professione deferre, nisi carne sis, quod spiritu ille est, licet et quod fuit carne, aeque esse debueris.

[8] You see therefore how, even in Christ, renewing the census, you cannot defer/present it without a profession of monogamy, unless you are in flesh what he is in spirit, although you ought equally to be also what he was in flesh.

VI.

[1] Sed adhuc nobis quaeramus aliquos originis principes. Non placent enim quibusdam monogami parentes Adam et Noe; fortasse nec Christus. Ad Abraham denique provocant, prohibiti patrem alium praeter deum agnoscere. Sit nunc pater noster Abraham: sit et Paulus:In evangelio, inquit, ego vos genui.

[1] But still let us for ourselves seek some principals of origin. Not pleasing, indeed, to some are the parents of monogamy, Adam and Noah; perhaps not even Christ. To Abraham, at last, they appeal, having been forbidden to acknowledge a father other than God. Let Abraham now be our father: let Paul be as well:In the Gospel, he says, I begot you.

[2] Etiam Abrahae te filium exhibe; non enim passivus tibi census est in illo: certum tempus est, quo tuus pater est. Si enim ex fide filii deputemur Abrahae, ut apostolus docet dicens ad Galatas:Cognoscitis nempe, quia, qui ex fide, isti sunt filii Abrahae, quando credidit Abraham deo et deputatum est ei in iustitiam? Opinor, adhuc in monogamia, quia in circumcisione nondum.

[2] Also exhibit yourself as a son of Abraham; for you do not have a passive registration in him: there is a fixed time when he is your father. For if we are to be reckoned sons to Abraham from faith, as the apostle teaches, saying to the Galatians:You recognize, surely, that those who are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham, when Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness? I suppose, still in monogamy, because not yet in circumcision.

[3] Quodsi postea in utrumque mutatus est, et in digamiam per ancillae concubinatum et in circumcisionem per testamenti signaculum, non potes illum patrem agnoscere nisi tunc, cum deo credidit, siquidem secundum fidem filius eius es, non secundum carnem; aut si posteriorem Abraham patrem sequeris ut et digamum, recipe et circumcisum.

[3] But if afterwards into both he was changed, both into digamy through the concubinage of the handmaid, and into circumcision through the signaculum of the testament, you cannot recognize him as father except then, when he believed God, since according to faith you are his son, not according to flesh; or if you follow the later Abraham as father, as a digamist too, receive him also as circumcised.

[4] Si reicis circumcisum, ergo recusabis et digamum; duas dispositiones eius binis inter se modis diversas miscere non poteris. Digamia cum circumcisione esse orsus est et monogamia cum praeputiatione: recipis digamiam, admitte et circumcisionem; tueris praeputiationem, teneris et monogamiae.

[4] If you reject the circumcised, therefore you will also refuse the digamist; his two dispositions, diverse from each other in a twofold manner, you will not be able to mix. He began to be in digamy with circumcision, and in monogamy with preputiation: you receive digamy, admit circumcision as well; you uphold preputiation, you are bound also to monogamy.

[5] Adeo autem monogamiae Abrahae filius es sicut et praeputiati, ut, si circumcidaris iam, non sis filius, quia non eris ex fide, sed ex signaculo fidei in praeputiatione iustificatae. Habens apostolum disce cum Galatis. Proinde etsi digamiam iam tibi intuleris, non es illius, cuius fides in monogamia praecessit.

[5] So much, moreover, you are a son of Abraham’s monogamy, as also of preputiation, that, if you are circumcised now, you will not be a son, because you will not be from faith, but from the sign of the faith justified in preputiation. Having the apostle, learn with the Galatians. Accordingly, even if you have now imposed digamy upon yourself, you are not his whose faith preceded in monogamy.

Nam etsi postea pater multarum nationum nuncupatur, sed earum, quae ex fide digamiam praecedente filii habeant deputari Abrahae.

For although afterwards he is called the father of many nations, yet of those who, from faith, with the digamy of the son preceding, have to be reckoned to Abraham.

[6] Exinde res viderint: aliud sunt figurae, aliud formae, aliud imagines, aliud definitiones: imagines transeunt adimpletae, definitiones permanent adimplendae; imagines prophetant, definitiones gubernant.

[6] From then on, let the matter see to itself: figures are one thing, forms another, images another, definitions another: images pass away once fulfilled, definitions remain to be fulfilled; images prophesy, definitions govern.

[7] Quid digamia illa Abrahae portendat, idem apostolus edocet interpretator utriusque testamenti, sicut idem semen nostrum in Isaac vocatum determinat. Si ex libera es, ad Isaac pertines; hic certe unum matrimonium pertulit.

[7] What that digamy of Abraham portends, the same apostle teaches—the interpreter of both testaments—as he likewise determines that our seed is called in Isaac. If you are from the freewoman, you pertain to Isaac; he, assuredly, bore one marriage.

[8] Isti itaque sunt, ut opinor, in quibus censeor. Ceteros nescio; quorum si exempla circumspicio, alicuius David etiam per sanguinem nuptias sibi ingerentis, alicuius Salomonis etiam uxoribus divitis, meliora sectari iussus habes et Iosephum uniiugum ---- et hoc nomine audeo dicere patre meliorem ----, habes Moysen dei de proximo arbitrium, habes Aaronem principalem. sacerdotem.

[8] These, therefore, are, as I suppose, those among whom I am enrolled. The others I do not know; if I look around at their examples, of some David even thrusting upon himself nuptials by blood, of some Solomon too, rich in wives, you are bidden to pursue better things; and you have Joseph, one-yoked (monogamous) ---- and under this title I dare to say him better than the father ----, you have Moses, the first-hand judgment of God, you have Aaron the principal priest.

[9] Secundus quoque Moyses populi secundi, qui imaginem nostram in promissionem dei induxit, in quo primo nomen domini dedicatum est, non fuit digamus.

[9] Likewise the second Moses of the second people, who introduced our image into the promise of God, in whom first the name of the Lord was dedicated, was not a digamist.

VII.

[1] Post vetera exempla originalium personarum aeque ad vetera transeamus instrumenta legalium scripturarum, ut per ordinem de omni nostra paratura retractemus. Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cumlege ---- quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit ----, interdum quae volunt legis arripiunt, plane et nos sic dicimus decessisse legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum quae nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concessarint, quae vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata, ut scilicet redundare possit iu- stitia nostra super scribarum et Pharisaeorum iustititia<m>.

[1] After the old examples of the original persons, let us likewise pass over to the old instruments of the legal Scriptures, so that in order we may reconsider everything of our preparation. And since some at times say that they have nothing to do withthe law ---- which Christ did not dissolve, but fulfilled ----, at times they seize from the law what they want, plainly we also thus say that the law has ceased, to the extent that its burdens, according to the judgment of the apostles, which not even the fathers were able to bear, have been relaxed, but the things that look to justice not only remain reserved, but are even enlarged, so that our jus- tice may overflow beyond the justice of the scribes and Pharisees<m>.

[2] iusti, utique et pudicitia. Si ergo, quoniam in lege praecipitur, ut quis fratris sui uxorem sine liberis defuncti in matrimonium adsumat ad suscitandum fratri suo semen, idque saepius evenire in unam personam potest secundum callidam illam quaestionem Sadducaeorum, ideo et alias putant permissam frequentiam nuptiarum, intelligere debebunt primo rationem ipsius praecepti et ita scient illam rationem iam cessantem ex eis esse, quae evacuata sint.

[2] jus, assuredly also pudicity. If, therefore, since in the law it is prescribed that someone take into matrimony his brother’s wife, the brother having died without children, to raise up seed for his brother, and since that can rather often happen to one and the same person according to that crafty question of the Sadducees, for that reason they think that in other cases as well a frequency of marriages is permitted; they will need first to understand the rationale of the precept itself, and thus they will know that that rationale, now ceasing, belongs among the things which have been voided.

[3] Necessario succedendum erat in matrimonium fratris sine liberis defuncti, primum, quia adhuc vetus illa benedictio decurrere habebat:Crescite et redundate, dehinc, quoniam patrum delicta etiam de filiis exigebantur, tertio, quoniam spadones et steriles ignominiosi habebantur.

[3] Necessarily it was to be succeeded into the marriage of a brother deceased without children, first, because that old benediction was still in force:Increase and abound, thereafter, since the delicts of the fathers were even exacted from the sons, third, since eunuchs and sterile persons were held ignominious.

[4] Itaque ne proinde maledicti iudicarentur, qui non naturae reatu, sed mortis praeventu orbi decessissent, ideo illis ex suo genere vicaria et quasi postuma suboles supparabatur. At ubi etcrescite et redundate evacuavit extremitas temporum inducente apostolo: Superest, ut et qui habent uxores sic sint, ac si non habeant, quia tempus in collectum est, et desinit uva acerba a patribus manducata filiorum dentes obstupefacere ---- unusquisque enim in suo delicto morietur ---- et spadones non tantum ignominia caruerunt, verum et gratiam meruerunt invitati in regna caelorum, sepulta lege succedendi in matrimonium fratris contrarium eius obtinuit non succedendi in matrimonram fratris.

[4] Therefore, lest they be judged in like manner accursed, who had departed childless not by guilt of nature, but by the preemption of death, a vicarious and, as it were, posthumous offspring was on that account being supplied to them from their own stock. But when bothincrease and abound were voided by the extremity of the times, the apostle introducing: It remains, that even those who have wives be as if they had not, because time has been contracted, and the sour grape eaten by the fathers ceases to set the children’s teeth on edge ---- for each one indeed will die in his own offense ---- and eunuchs have not only been free from ignominy, but have even merited grace, invited into the kingdoms of heaven, with the law of succeeding into a brother’s marriage buried, its contrary has obtained—of not succeeding into a brother’s marriage.

[5] Et ita, ut praediximus, quod cessavit valere cessante ratione non potest alii argumentationem accommodare. Ergo non nubet defuncto viro uxor, fratri utique nuptura, si nupserit; omnes enim nos fratres sumus; et illa nuptura in domino habet nubere, id est non ethnico, sed fratri, quia et vetus lex adimit coniugmm allophylorum.

[5] And thus, as we have foretold, what, its rationale having ceased, has ceased to have force cannot accommodate an argumentation to another. Therefore the wife will not marry the deceased husband; if she marries, she will of course marry a brother; for we are all brothers; and she, about to marry in the Lord, has to marry, that is, not an Ethnic (pagan), but a brother, because even the old law takes away the marriage of foreigners.

[6] Cum autem et in Levitico cautum sit:Quicumque sumpserit fratris uxorem, immunditia est, turpitudo, sine liberis morietur, sine dubio, dum ille prohibetur denuo nubere, et illa prohibetur non habens nubere nisi fratri. Quomodo ergo apostolo conveniet et legi, quam non in totum impugnat, cum ad epistolam ipsius venerimus, ostendetur.

[6] But since also in Leviticus it is stipulated:Whoever shall have taken his brother’s wife, it is an uncleanness, a disgrace; he will die without children, without doubt, while he is prohibited to marry anew, and she is prohibited, having none to marry except the brother. How therefore it will agree with the apostle and with the law, which he does not entirely impugn, when we have come to his epistle, it will be shown.

[7] Interim quod pertineat ad legem, magis nobis competunt argumentationes eius; denique prohibet eadem sacerdotes denuo nubere; filiam quoque sacerdotis iubet viduam vel eiectam, si semen non fuerit illi, in domum patris sui regredi et de pane eius ali. Ideo 'si semen non fuerit illi', non ut, si fuerit, denuo nubat ---- quanto magis enim non imbet, si filios habeat? ---- sed ut, si habuerit, a filio potius alatur quam a patre, quo et filius praeceptum dei exsequatur:Honora patrem et matrem.

[7] Meanwhile, as pertains to the Law, its argumentations suit us more; finally, that same (Law) prohibits priests to marry anew; it also commands the daughter of a priest, being a widow or ejected, if seed shall not have been to her, to return into her father's house and to be nourished from his bread. For this reason, “if seed shall not have been to her,” not so that, if it shall have been, she should marry anew ---- how much more indeed does it not enjoin, if she should have children? ---- but so that, if she shall have them, she be sustained by a son rather than by her father, in order that the son also may carry out the precept of God:Honor your father and your mother.

[8] Nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos et magnus patris de suo vestiens, quia qui in Christo tinguntur, Christum induerunt, sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit secundum Iohannem. Nam et illum adolescentem festinantem ad exsequias patris ideo revocat, ut ostendat sacerdotes nos vocari ab eo, quos lex vetabat parentum sepulturae adesse:Super omnem, inquit, animam defunctam sacerdos non introibit et super patrem suum et super matrem suam non contaminabitur.

[8] But for us, Jesus, the high priest and great one of the Father, clothing us with what is his own, since those who are baptized in Christ have put on Christ, has made us priests to God his Father, according to John. For he even calls back that adolescent hastening to the exequies of his father for this reason, to show that we are called priests by him, we whom the law forbade to be present at the sepulture of parents:Over every, he says, deceased soul the priest shall not enter, and over his father and over his mother he shall not be contaminated.

[9] Ergo et hoc nos interdictum observare debemus? Non utique; vivit enim unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia et neque mortui sumus, qui deo vivimus, neque mortuos sepelimus, quia et illi vivunt in Christo; certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiae debitores ex pristina dei lege, quae nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.

[9] Therefore must we observe this interdiction also? Not at all; for our only Father, God, lives, and Mother Church, and neither are we dead, we who live to God, nor do we bury the dead, because they too live in Christ; assuredly we are priests called by Christ, debtors to monogamy from the former law of God, which then prophesied about us in its priests.

VIII.

[1] Nunc ad legem proprie nostram, id est evangelium conversi qualibus excipimur exemplis, dum ad sententias pervenimus? Ecce statim quasi in limine duo nobis antistites Christianae sanctitatis occurrunt, monogamia et continentia, alia pudica in Zacharia sacerdote, alia integra in Iohanne antecursore, alia placans deum, alia praedicans Christum, alia totum praedicans sacerdotem, alia plus praeferens quam prophetam, scilicet eum, qui non tantum praedicaverit aut demonstraverit coram, verum etiam baptizaverit Christum.

[1] Now, turned to the law properly ours, that is, the Evangel, with what examples are we received as we arrive at the sentences? Behold, straightway, as it were on the threshold, two prelates of Christian sanctity meet us, monogamy and continence: the one modest/chaste in Zechariah the priest, the other integral in John the Forerunner; the one appeasing God, the other preaching Christ; the one proclaiming a whole priest, the other holding forth as more than a prophet—namely him who not only preached or showed openly before, but even baptized Christ.

[2] Quis enim corpus domini dignius initiaret quam eiusmodi caro, qualis et concepit illud et peperit? Et Christum quidem virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum, ut uterque sanctitatis titulus in Christi censu dispungeretur per matrem et virginem et univiram.

[2] For who would more worthily initiate the body of the Lord than flesh of such a kind as both conceived it and bore it? And indeed a virgin brought forth Christ, destined to be married once after the birth, so that each title of sanctity in Christ’s register might be checked off through a mother both a virgin and a one-husband woman.

[3] At ubi infans templo exhibetur, quis illum in manus suscipit, quis in spiritu primus agnoscit?Vir iustus et cautus et utique non digamus, vel ne dignius mox a femina Christus praedicaretur vetere vidua et univire, quae et templo dedita satis in semetipsa portendebat, quales spiritali templo, id est ecclesiae, debeant adhaerere.

[3] But when the infant is presented to the temple, who takes him into his hands, who first recognizes him in spirit?A just and cautious man, and assuredly not a digamist; or else Christ would soon be more worthily proclaimed by a woman—an aged widow and one-husbanded—who, devoted to the temple, in herself sufficiently foreshadowed of what sort they ought to adhere to the spiritual temple, that is, the church.

[4] Tales arbitros infans dominus expertus non alios habuit et adultus. Petrum solum invenio maritum per socrum, monogamum praesumo per ecclesiam, qua super illum omnem gradum ordinis sui de monogamis erat collocatura.

[4] Such arbiters the infant Lord experienced; nor had he others even when adult. Peter alone I find to be a husband, by his mother-in-law; a monogamist I presume by the Church, which over him was about to place every grade of her order from monogamists.

[5] Ceteros cum maritos non invenio, aut spadones intelligam necesse est aut continentes. Nec enim, si penes Graecos communi vocabulo censentur mulieres et uxores pro consuetudinis facilitate ---- ceterum est proprium vocabulum uxorum ----, ideo Paulum sic interpretabimus, quasi uxores demonstret apostolos habuisse.

[5] Since I do not find the others to be husbands, I must understand them either as eunuchs or as continent. Nor indeed, if among the Greeks women and wives are reckoned under a common vocable for the ease of custom—furthermore, there is a proper vocable of wives—on that account shall we interpret Paul thus, as though he demonstrates that the apostles had wives.

[6] Si enim de matrimoniis disputasset ---- quod in sequentibus facit, ubi magis apostolus aliquod exemplum nominare potuisset ----, recte videretur dicere:Non enim habemus potestatem uxores circumducendi sicut ceteri apostoli et Cephas?

[6] For if he had disputed about matrimonies ---- which in the subsequent [parts] he does, where rather the apostle could have nominated some example ----, he would rightly seem to say:For do we not have the power to lead around wives just as the other apostles and Cephas?

[7] At ubi ea subiungit, quae de victuaria exhibitione abstinentiam eius ostendunt dicentis:Non enim habemus potestatem manducandi et bibendi?, non uxores demonstrat ab apostolis deductas, quas et qui non habent, potestatem tamen manducandi et bibendi habent, sed simpliciter mulieres, quae illis eodem instituto quo et dominum comitantes ministrabant.

[7] But when he subjoins those things which, concerning the victual provision, show his abstinence, saying:For do we not have the power of eating and drinking?, he does not show wives led along by the apostles, whom even those who do not have nevertheless have the power of eating and drinking, but simply women, who, accompanying them, were ministering to them by the same institution as also to the Lord.

[8] Iam vero si Christus reprobat scribas et Pharisaeos sedentes in cathedra Moysi nec facientes quae docerent, quale est, ut et ipse super cathedram suam collocaret, qui sanctitatem carnis praecipere magis, non etiam obire meminissent, quam illis omnibus modis insinuaret et docendam et agendam?

[8] Now indeed, if Christ reproves the scribes and Pharisees sitting in the cathedra of Moses and not doing the things they taught, what sort of thing is it, that he too should set upon his own cathedra those who would be mindful to prescribe rather the sanctity of the flesh, but not also to carry it out, rather than in every way insinuate to them that it must both be taught and done?

[9] in primis de suo exemplo, tunc de ceteris argumentis, cum puerorum dicit esse regna caelorum, cum consortes illis facit alios post nuptias pueros, cum ad simplicitatem columbae provocat, avis non tantum innocuae, verum et pudicae, quam unam unus masculus novit, cum Samaritanae maritum negat, ut adulterum ostendat numerosum maritum,

[9] in the first place from his own example, then from the other arguments, when he says that the kingdoms of the heavens are of children, when he makes others, after nuptials, co-sharers with them— children, when he calls to the simplicity of the dove, a bird not only innocuous, but also modest/chaste, which one single male knows, when he denies to the Samaritan woman a husband, so that he may show the many-numbered husband to be an adulterer,

[10] cum in revelatione gloriae suae de tot sanctis et prophetis Moysen et Heliam secum mavult, alterum monogamum, alterum spadonem ---- non enim aliud fuit Helias quam Iohannes, qui in virtute et spiritu venit Heliae ----, cum illevorator et potator homo, prandiorum et cenarum cum publicanis et peccatoribus frequentator semel apud unas nuptias cenat multis utique nubentibus; totiens enim voluit celebrare eas, quotiens et esse.

[10] when in the revelation of his glory, out of so many saints and prophets, he prefers Moses and Elijah with himself, the one a monogamist, the other a eunuch ---- for Elijah was nothing other than John, who came in the virtue and spirit of Elijah ----, when thatglutton and drinker, a man, a frequenter of luncheons and dinners with publicans and sinners, dines once at a single wedding, with many, to be sure, marrying; for he wished to celebrate them as often as they were to be.

IX.

[1] Sed hae argumentationes potius existimentur de coniecturis coactae, si non et sententiae astiterint, quas dominus emisit in repudii retractatu, quod permissum aliquando iam prohibet, inprimis quia ab initio non fuit sicut matrimonii numeras, tunc quiaquos deus coniunxit, homo non separabit, scilicet ne contra dominum faciat.

[1] But let these argumentations be considered rather as forced from conjectures, unless the pronouncements too stand, which the Lord issued in the retractation of repudiation, which, once permitted, He now forbids: in the first place because from the beginning it was not so, as you enumerate in the case of matrimony; then becausewhom God has joined, man will not separate, namely, lest he act against the Lord.

[2] Solus enim ille separabit, qui et coniunxit; separabit non autem per duritiam repudii, quam exprobrat compescit, sed per debitum mortis, siquidem unus ex passeribus duobus non cadit in terram sine patris voluntate.

[2] For he alone will separate, who also joined together; he will separate not, however, through the hardness of repudiation, which he reproaches he restrains, but through the debt of death, since indeed one of the two sparrows does not fall to the earth without the Father's will.

[3] Igitur siquos deus coniunxit, homo non separabit repudio, ecquid consentaneum est, ut, quos separavit morte, homo novo coniungat matrimonio, proinde contra dei voluntatem iuncturus separationem atque si separasset coniunctionem?

[3] Therefore, ifwhom God has conjoined, man will not separate by repudiation, is it at all consistent that, those whom he has separated by death, a man should conjoin in a new marriage, thus, against the will of God, about to conjoin a separation just as if he had separated a conjunction?

[4] Hoc quantum ad dei voluntatem non destruendam et initii formam restruendam. Ceterum et alia ratio conspirat, immo non alia, sed quae initii formam imposuit et voluntatem dei movitad prohibitionem repudii, quoniam qui dimiserit uxorem suam praeter ex causa adulterii, facit eam adulterari, et qui dimissam a viro duxerit, adulteratur utique.

[4] This, so far as not to destroy the will of God and to restore the form of the beginning. Moreover, another rationale also conspires—nay, not another, but the one which imposed the form of the beginning and moved the will of Godto the prohibition of repudiation, since whoever dismisses his wife, except on account of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and whoever has married a woman dismissed by a husband assuredly commits adultery.

[5] 'Non et nubere legitime [non] potest repudiata et, si quid taliter commiserit sine matrimonii nomine, non capit elogium adulterii, qua adulterium in matrimonio crimen est?' Deus aliter censuit, citra quam homines, ut in totum sive per nuptias sive vulgo alterius viri admissio adulterium pronuntietur, immo <. . .>.

[5] 'Is it not also that a repudiated woman [not] can marry lawfully, and, if she has committed anything in such a manner without the name of marriage, she does not incur the elogium of adultery, since adultery is a crime within marriage?' God judged otherwise, apart from men, namely that altogether, whether through nuptials or promiscuously, the admission of another man is pronounced adultery, nay <. . .>.

[6] Ideo videamus enim, quid sit matrimonium apud deum, et ita cognoscemus, quid aeque adulterium. Matrimonium est, cum deus duos iungit in unam carnem aut iunctos deprehendens in eadem carne coniunctione signavit; adulterium est, cum quoquo modo disiunctis duobus alia caro, immo aliena misceatur, de qua dici non possit:Haec est caro ex carne mea et hoc os de ossibus meis.

[6] Therefore let us indeed see what matrimony is before God, and in that way we shall know what likewise adultery is. Matrimony is, when God joins two into one flesh, or, finding them joined in the same flesh, has sealed the conjunction; adultery is, when, the two being separated in whatever way, another flesh—nay, an alien one—is mingled in, of which it cannot be said:This is flesh from my flesh and this bone from my bones.

[7] Semel enim hoc et factum et pronuntiatum sicut ab initio ita et nunc in aliam carnem non potest convenire. Itaque sine causa dices deum vivo marito nolle repudiatam alii viri iungi, quasi mortuo velit, quando, si mortuo non tenetur, proinde nec vivo;

[7] For once this has both been done and pronounced, just as from the beginning so also now, it cannot be made to agree with another flesh. And so you will say without cause that God, with the husband alive, does not wish the repudiated woman to be joined to another man, as if he would wish it when he is dead, since, if she is not held when he is dead, so likewise not when he is alive;

[8] tam in repudio matrimonmm dirimente quam morte non tenebitur ei, cui, per quod tenebatur, abreptum est. Cui ergo tenebitur, nihil de eo interest, vivo an mortuo a viro nubat; neque enim illo delinquit, sed in semetipsam:

[8] so both in repudiation dissolving matrimony and in death she will not be held to him, from whom that, by which she was held, has been snatched away. To whom, therefore, will she be held? it makes no difference in that matter, whether she marries away from her husband living or dead; for she does not offend against him, but against herself:

[9]Omne delictum, quod admiserit homo, extra corpus est; qui autem adulteratur, in corpus suum delinquit. Adulteratur autem, sicut praestruximus, qui aliam carnem sibi immiscet super illam pristinam, quam deus aut coniunxit in duos aut coniunctam deprehendit.

[9]Every offense that a man has committed is outside the body; but he who commits adultery sins against his own body. Now he commits adultery, as we have premised, who commingles to himself another flesh on top of that pristine one, which God either conjoined as two, or found conjoined.

[10] Ideoque abstulit repudium, quod ab initio non fuit, ut, quod ab initio fuit, muniat, duorum in unam carnem. perseverantiam, ne necessitas vel occasio tertiae concarnationis irrumpat, ei soli causae permittens repudium, si forte praevenerit, cui praecavetur.

[10] Therefore he removed repudiation, which from the beginning was not, so that he might fortify that which from the beginning was—the perseverance of two into one flesh—lest the necessity or the occasion of a third concarnation irrupt, permitting repudiation to ei sole cause, if perchance it should have come beforehand, which is guarded against.

[11] Adeo autem repudium a primordio non fuit, ut apud Romanos post annum sexcentesimum urbis conditae id genus duritiae commissum denotetur. Sed illi etiam non repudiantes adulteria commiscent; nobis, et si repudiemus, ne nubere quidem licebit.

[11] So much, moreover, repudiation was not from the beginning, that among the Romans, after the six-hundredth year from the founding of the city, that kind of hardness is denoted as having been committed. But they also, not repudiating, commingle adulteries; for us, even if we repudiate, not even to marry will be permitted.

10.

[1] Video iam hinc nos apostolum provocantem. Ad cuius sensum facilius perspiciendum tanto instantius praeculcandum est mulierem magis defuncto marito teneri, quominus alium virum admittat. Recogitemus enim repudium aut discordia fieri aut discordiam facere, mortem vero ex lege, non ex hominis offensa evenire idque omnram esse debitum, etiam non maritorum.

[1] I already see from here the apostle challenging us. In order that his meaning be more easily perceived, it must be all the more urgently inculcated that a woman is held the more by a husband now deceased, so that she not admit another man. For let us reconsider that a repudiation either arises from discord or produces discord, whereas death, rather, comes about by law, not from a man’s offense, and that this is a debt of all, even of those who are not husbands.

[2] Igitur si repudiata, quae per discordiam et iram et odium et causas eorum, iniuriam vel contumeliam vel quamlibet querelam, et anima et corpore separata est, tenetur inimico, ne dicam marito, quanto magis illa, quae neque suo neque mariti vitio, sed dominicae legis eventu matrimonio non separata, sed relicta, eius erit etiam defuncti, cui etiam defuncto concordiam debet?

[2] Therefore, if the repudiated woman, who through discord and ire and hatred and the causes of these—injury or contumely or any complaint whatsoever—and who has been separated both in soul and in body, is held to be an enemy, not to say to a husband, how much more that woman who neither by her own fault nor by her husband’s fault, but by the event of the Dominical law, has not been separated from marriage but left behind, will be his even when he is deceased, to whom, even when deceased, she owes concord?

[3] A quo repudium non audiit, non divertit; cui repudium non scripsit, cum ipso est; quem amisisse noluit, retinet; habet secum animi licentiam, qui omnia homini, quae non habet, imaginario fructu repraesentat.

[3] From whom she did not hear a repudiation, she has not turned aside; to whom she did not write a repudiation, she is with him; whom she did not wish to have lost, she retains; she has with her the liberty of mind, which represents to a person, by imaginary enjoyment, all the things which he does not have.

[4] Ipsam denique interrogo feminam: 'Dic mihi, soror, in pace praemisisti maritum tuum?' Quid respondebit? An in discordia? Ergo hoc magis evincta est, cum quo habet apud deum causam; non discessit, quae tenetur.

[4] Finally I question the woman herself: 'Tell me, sister, did you send your husband on ahead in peace?' What will she answer? Or in discord? Therefore she is all the more bound fast to him, with whom she has a case before God; she has not departed, she who is held.

Sed in pace? Ergo perseveret in ea cum illo necesse est, quem iam repudiare non poterit, nec sic quidem nuptura, si repudiare potuisset. (4.)

But in peace? Therefore it is necessary that she persevere in it with him, whom now she will not be able to repudiate, nor would she, even so, be about to marry, if she had been able to repudiate. (4.)

[5] Enimvero et pro anima eius orat et refrigerium interim adpostulat ei et in prima resurrectione consortium et offert annuis diebus dormitionis eius.

[5] Indeed, she both prays for his soul and meanwhile requests refreshment for him and a share in the first resurrection, and she offers on the annual days of his dormition.

[6] Nam haec nisi fecerit, vere repudiavit, quantum in ipsa est, et quidem hoc iniquius, quanto [quomodo potuit] quia non potuit, et hoc indignius, quanto iam [in]dignius, si quia non meruit.

[6] For unless she has done these things, she has truly repudiated, so far as lies in herself; and indeed this is the more iniquitous, inasmuch as [as she was able] it is because she was not able; and this the more unworthy, inasmuch as it is now [more un]worthy, if it is because she did not merit.

[7] Aut numquid nihil erimus post mortem secundum aliquem Epicuram et non secundum Christum? Quodsi credidimus mortuorum resurrectionem, utique tenebimur, cum quibus resurrecturi sumus rationem de alterutro reddituri. Si autem in illo aevoneque nubent neque nubentur, sed erunt aequales angelis, non ideo non tenebimur coniugibus defunctis, quia non erit restitutio coniugii?

[7] Or will we perchance be nothing after death according to some Epicurus and not according to Christ? If we have believed the resurrection of the dead, surely we shall be held, together with those with whom we are to rise again, to render a reckoning concerning one another. If, however, in that aeonneither will they marry nor be given in marriage, but they will be equal to the angels, will we not therefore still be bound to our deceased spouses, because there will not be a restitution of marriage?

[8] Atquin eo magis tenebimur, quia in meliorem statum destinamur, resurrecturi in spiritale consortium, agnituri quam nosmetipsos quam et nostros. Ceterum quomodo gratias deo in aeternum canemus, si non manebit in nobis sensus et memoria debiti huius? Substantia, non conscientia reformabimur?

[8] Nay rather, all the more we shall be bound, because we are destined to a better state, about to rise into a spiritual consortium, about to recognize both ourselves and our own. Furthermore, how shall we sing thanks to God forever, if the sense and memory of this debt will not remain in us? Shall we be refashioned in substance, not in conscience?

[9] Ergo qui cum deo erimus, simul erimus, dum omnes apud deum unum ---- licet merces varia, licet multae mansiones penes patrem eundem ----, uno denario eiusdem mercedis operati, id est vitae aeternae, in qua magis non separabit quos coniunxit deus, qui in ista minore vita separari vetat.

[9] Therefore we who will be with god will be together, since we all are with the one god ---- although the reward is varied, although there are many mansions with the same father ----, having worked for one denarius of the same wage, that is, of eternal life, in which he will all the more not separate those whom god has joined, who in this lesser life forbids to be separated.

[10] Cum ita sint, quomodo alii viro vacabit, quae suo etiam in futurum occupata est? ---- utrique autem sexui loquimur, etsi ad alterum sermo est, quia una omnibus disciplina praeest; ---- aliud habebit in spiritu aliud et in carne? Hoc erit adulterium, unius feminae in duos viros conscientia.

[10] Since these things are so, how will she be at leisure for another husband, she who is occupied with her own even for the future? ---- moreover, we speak to each sex, although the sermon is addressed to the one, because one discipline presides over all; ---- will she have one thing in spirit and another also in the flesh? This will be adulterium, the conscience of one woman toward two husbands.

[11] Si alter a carne disiunctus est, sed in corde remanet, illic, ubi etiam congregatus sine carnis congressu et adulterium ante perficit ex concupiscentia et matrimonium ex voluntate, usque adhuc maritus est, ipsum. illud possidens, per quod et factus est, id est animum, in quo si et alius habitabit, hoc erit crimen.

[11] If the other is disjoined from the flesh, but remains in the heart—there, where even union without carnal congress both brings adultery to completion beforehand by concupiscence and matrimony by will—he is still up to this point a husband, of the selfsame one, possessing that very thing by which he was made so, that is, the mind; and if another also shall dwell in that, this will be the crime.

[12] Ceterum non est exclusus, si a viliore commercio carnis discessit: honoratior maritus est, quanto mundior factus est.

[12] But moreover he is not excluded, if he has departed from the viler commerce of the flesh: the more honorable husband he is, the more clean he has been made.

XI.

11.

[1] Ut igitur in domino nubas secundum et apostolum ---- si tamen vel hoc curas ----, qualis es id matrimonium postulans, quod eis a quibus postulas non licet habere, ab episcopo monogamo, a presbyteris et diaconis eiusdem sacramenti, a viduis, quarum sectam in te recusasti?

[1] So then, that you may marry in the Lord also according to the Apostle ---- if indeed you even care about this ----, what sort of person are you, asking for that marriage which those from whom you ask are not permitted to have: from a monogamous bishop, from presbyters and deacons of the same sacrament, from widows, whose order you have refused in yourself?

[2] Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et uxores quomodo bucellas ---- hoc enim est apud illos:Omni petenti te dabis ---- et coniungent vos in ecclesia virgine, unius Christi unica sponsa, et orabis pro maritis tuis, novo et vetere?

[2] And they plainly will thus give husbands and wives just like little morsels ---- for this is with them:Omni petenti te dabis ---- and they will conjoin you in the virgin church, the unique spouse of the one Christ, and will you pray for your husbands, the new and the old?

[3] Elige, cui te adulteram praestes; puto, ambobus. Quodsi sapias, taceas defuncto; repudium sit illi silentium tuum, alienis iam dotalibus scriptum. Hoc modo novum promereberis maritum, si veteris obliviscaris: debes magis illi placere, propter quem deo placere non maluisti.

[3] Choose to whom you will present yourself as an adulteress; I suppose, to both. But if you are wise, be silent toward the deceased; let your silence be for him a repudiation, already written upon another’s dotal writings. In this way you will merit a new husband, if you forget the former: you ought rather to please him, for whose sake you did not prefer to please God.

[4] Haec psychici volunt apostolum probasse aut in totum non recogitasse, cum scriberet:Mulier vincta est, in quantum temporis vivit vir eius; si autem mortuus fuerit, libera est: cui vult nubat, tantum in domino. Ex hoc enim capitulo defendunt licentiam secundi matrimonii, immo et plurimi, si secundi; quod enim semel esse desiit, omm obnoxium est numero.

[4] These psychics want the apostle to have approved this, or not at all to have reconsidered, when he wrote:The woman is bound, for as much time as her husband lives; but if he should have died, she is free: let her marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord. From this chapter they defend the license of a second marriage—nay, even of very many, if a second is allowed; for whatever has once ceased to be is wholly subject to number.

[5] Quo autem sensu apostolus scripserit, ita relucebit, si prius constet non hoc illum sensu scripsisse, quo psychici utuntur; constabit autem, si quis ea recordetur, quae huic capitulo diversa sunt et apud doctrinam et apud voluntatem et apud propriam ipsius Pauli disciplinam.

[5] But in what sense the apostle wrote will thus shine forth, if first it be established that he did not write in that sense which the psychics use; and it will be established, if one recalls those things which are diverse from this chapter both in respect to doctrine and in respect to intention and in respect to Paul’s own proper discipline.

[6] Si enim secundas nuptias remittit, quae ab initio non fuerunt, quomodo affirmat omnia ad initium recolligi in Christo? Si vult nos iterare coniugia, quomodo semen nostrum in Isaac semel marito auctore defendit?

[6] If indeed he permits second nuptials, which were not from the beginning, how does he affirm that all things are re-collected to the beginning in Christ? If he wants us to iterate conjugal unions, how does he defend our seed in Isaac as once, with the husband as author?

[7] Quomodo totum ordinem ecclesiae de monogamis disponit, si non haec disciplina praecedit in laicis, ex quibus ecclesiae ordo proficit? Quomodo in matrimonio adhuc positos a fructu matrimonii avocat dicensin collectum esse tempus, si per mortem matrimonio elapsos iterum in matrimonium revocat?

[7] How does he dispose the whole order of the church from monogamists, if this discipline does not precede among laymen, from whom the church’s order advances? How does he call away those still placed in marriage from the fruit of marriage, sayingthe time has been gathered up to be, if those who have slipped from marriage through death he calls back into marriage again?

[8] Haec si diversa sunt ei capitulo, de quo agitur, constabit, ut diximus, non hoc illum sensu scripsisse, quo psychici utuntur, quia facilius est, ut aliquam rationem habeat unum illud capitulum, quae cum ceteris apiat, quam ut apostolus diversa inter se docuisse videatur.

[8] If these things are diverse from that chapter, about which is being treated, it will stand established, as we have said, that he did not write this in that sense, in which the psychics make use, because it is easier that that one chapter should have some reason to have which savours with the rest, than that the apostle should be seen to have taught things diverse among themselves.

[9] Eam rationem in ipsa materia poterimus recognoscere. Quae ista materia apostolo fuit scribendi talia? Tirocinium novae et quam maxime orientis ecclesiae, quam lacte scilicet educabat, nondum solido cibo validioris doctrinae, adeo ut prae illa infantia fidei ignorarent adhuc, quid sibi agendum esset circa carnis et sexus necessitatem.

[9] That rationale we will be able to recognize in the material itself. What was that subject-matter to the apostle for writing such things? The tyrocinium of the new and quite especially rising Church, which he was, of course, nourishing with milk, not yet with the solid food of more robust doctrine, to such a degree that, in view of that infancy of faith, they still did not know what it behooved them to do concerning the necessity of flesh and of sex.

[10] Cuius etiam ipsas species ex rescriptis intelligimus: cum dicit:De his autem quae scribitis: bonum est homini mulierem non attingere; propter fornicationes autem unusquisque uxorem suam habeat, ostendit fuisse qui in matrimonio a fide deprehensi verebantur, ne non liceret illis matrimonio suo exinde uti, quia in carnem sanctam Christi credidissent.

[10] Of which even the very species we understand from the rescripts: when he says:But concerning the things you write: it is good for a man not to touch a woman; but because of fornications let each one have his own wife, he shows that there were those who, having been found in marriage after coming to faith, were fearing lest it should not be permitted to them thereafter to make use of their marriage, because they had believed in the holy flesh of Christ.

[11] Et tamen secundum veniam concedit,non secundum imperium, id est indulgens, non praecipiens ita fieri. Ceterum malebat omnes id esse quod et ipse. Proinde et de repudio rescribens demonstrat quosdam de isto quoque cogitasse, vel maxime, quia et in ethnicis matrimoniis non putabant post fidem perseverandum.

[11] And yet he grants according to indulgence,not according to command, that is, indulging, not prescribing that it be so done. Moreover, he preferred all to be that which he himself was. Accordingly, also writing back about repudiation, he demonstrates that some had considered this too, most especially, because even in ethnic matrimonies they thought that after the faith one ought not to persevere.

[12] Quarebant et de virginibus consilium ---- praeceptum enim domini non erat ----: bonum esse homini, si sic permaneat, utique quomodo a fide fuerit inventus:Vinctus es enim uxori? ne quaesieris solutionem; solutus es ab uxore? ne quaesieris uxorem. Si autem acceperis uxorem, non deliquisti, quia ante fidem soluto ab uxore non numerabitur post fidem secunda uxor, quae post fidem prima est.

[12] They were also seeking counsel about virgins ---- for there was no precept of the Lord ----: that it is good for a man, if he remain thus, namely in the way in which he was found by faith:Are you bound to a wife? do not seek a release; are you loosed from a wife? do not seek a wife. But if you have taken a wife, you have not transgressed, because for one who before the faith was loosed from a wife, after the faith a second wife will not be counted, she who after faith is the first.

[13] A fide enim etiam ipsa vita nostra censetur. Sed hic parcere se dicit illis; alioquinpressuram carnis subsecuturam prae angustiis temporum impedimenta matrimonii recusantibus; quin potius de domino sollicitudinem habendam promerendo quam de marito. Et ita revocat, quod permisit.

[13] For by faith even our very life itself is assessed. but here he says that he spares them; otherwise the pressure of the flesh would follow, on account of the straits of the times, for those refusing the impediments of marriage; nay rather, solicitude is to be had about the Lord by meriting him than about a husband. And thus he recalls what he permitted.

[14] Sic ergo in eodem ipso capitulo, quo definivit unumquemque, in qua vocatione vocabitur, in ea perseverare debere, adiciens:Mulier vincta est, quamdiu vivit vir eius; si autem dormierit, libera est: cui volet nubat, tantum in domino, hanc quoque eam demonstrat intelligendam, quae et ipsa sic fuerit inventa soluta a viro, quomodo et vir solutus ab uxore, per mortem utique, non per repudium facta solutione, quia repudiatis non permitteret nubere adversus pristinum praeceptum.

[14] Thus then in that very chapter, wherein he defined that each one, in what vocation he is called, in that he ought to persevere, adding:A woman is bound as long as her husband lives; but if he has fallen asleep, she is free: let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord, he shows this also to be understood of her who likewise has been found loosed from a husband, just as the man loosed from a wife, by death of course, not with dissolution made by repudiation, since he would not permit the repudiated to marry against the former precept.

[15] Itaque et mulier, si nupserit, non delinquit, quia nec hic secundus maritus deputabitur, qui est a fide primus, et adeo sic est, ut propterea adiecerit:Tantum in domino, quia de ea agebatur, quae ethnicum habuerat et amisso eo crediderat, ne scilicet etiam post fidem ethnico se nubere posse praesumeret, licet nec hoc psychici curent.

[15] Therefore even a woman, if she marries, does not sin, because neither will this husband be accounted a second, who is first with respect to the faith; and so truly is it, that for this reason he added:Only in the Lord, because the case concerned one who had had an ethnic (pagan) husband and, with him gone, had come to believe, lest she presume that even after the faith she could marry an ethnic (pagan), although not even this do the psychics care about.

[16] Sciamus plane non sic esse in Graeco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem:Si autem dormierit vir eius, quasi de futuro sonet ac per hoc videatur ad eam pertinere, quae iam in fide virum amiserit.

[16] Let us plainly know that it is not so in the authentic Greek, as it has gone into use through the clever or simple eversion of two syllables:If, however, her husband should fall asleep, as though it sounded about the future and through this might seem to pertain to her who has already in the faith lost her husband.

[17] Hoc quidem si ita esset, in infinitum emissa licentia totiens virum dedisset, quotiens amissus esset, sine ullo pudore nubendi etiam ethnicos congruente[s]. Sed si ita esset quasi de futuro: 'si cuius maritus mortiras fuerit', tantundem et futurum ad eam pertineret, cuius ante fidem morietur maritus. Quavis accipe, dum cetera non evertas.

[17] This indeed, if it were so, license let loose to the infinite would have granted a husband as many times as one had been lost, with no shame in marrying, even congruent with the pagans. But if it were thus as though about the future: 'if anyone’s husband shall have died,' the future would equally pertain to her whose husband will die before faith. Take it however you please, provided you do not overturn the rest.

[18] Nam cum et illa sententiae cedant:Servus vocatus es? ne curaveris; in praeputi<o voc>atus es? ne circumcidaris; circumcisus vocatus es? ne adduxeris ---- quibus concurrit: Vinctus es uxori? ne quaesieris solutionem; solutus es ab uxore? ne quaesieris uxorem ----, satis manifestum est ad eos haec pertinere, qui in nova et recenti vocatione constituti de his consulebant, in quibus a fide fuerant deprehensi.

[18] For since also those sentences precede:Were you called as a slave? do not be anxious; were you called in uncircumcision? do not be circumcised; were you called circumcised? do not draw it back ---- to which there converges: Are you bound to a wife? do not seek a dissolution; are you loosed from a wife? do not seek a wife ----, it is sufficiently manifest that these pertain to those who, constituted in a new and recent vocation, were consulting about those matters in which they had been found when faith overtook them.

[19] Haec erit interpretatio capituli istius, de hoc examinanda, an et tempori et causae et tam exemplis et argumentis praecedentibus quam et sententiis et sensibus subsequentibus et in primis an ipsius apostoli et consilio proprio congruat et instituto; nihil enim custodiendum est, quam ne diversus sibi deprehendatur.

[19] This will be the interpretation of this chapter, to be examined on this point: whether it both fits the time and the cause, and both the preceding examples and arguments as well as the subsequent sentences and senses, and especially whether it is congruent with the apostle himself and with his own counsel and institution; for nothing is more to be safeguarded than that he not be found at variance with himself.

XII.

12.

[1] Audi et aliam subtilissimam e contrario argumentationem. 'Adeo', inquiunt, 'permisit apostolus iterare conubium, ut solos qui sint in clero monogamiae iugo adstrinxerit; quod enim quibusdam praescribit, id non omnibus praescribit.'

[1] Hear also another most subtle argumentation on the contrary. '“So far,” they say, “has the apostle permitted the marriage to be iterated, that he has bound with the yoke of monogamy only those who are in the clergy; for what he prescribes to some, that he does not prescribe to all.”'

[2] Numquid ergo et quod omnibus praecipit, solis episcopis non praescribit, si, quod episcopis praescribit, non et omnibus praecipit? An ideo omnibus, quia et episcopis, et ideo episcopis, quia et omnibus? Unde enim episcopi et clerus?

[2] Is it then also the case that what he prescribes to all, he does not prescribe to bishops alone, prescribes, if what he prescribes to bishops he does not also prescribe to all does he prescribe? Or is it therefore for all, because it is also for bishops, and therefore for bishops, quia it is also for all? For whence are bishops and the clergy?

Nonne de omnibus?

Is it not from all?

[3] Si non omnes monogamiae tenentur, unde monogami in clerum? An ordo aliquis seorsum debebit institui monogamorum, de quo allectio fiat in clerum?

[3] If not all are held to monogamy, whence monogamists into the clergy? Or must some order of monogamists be instituted separately, from which the selection may be made into the clergy?

[4] Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus cleram, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quiasacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit; cum ad peraequationem disciplinae sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas et pares <non> sumus.

[4] But when we are exalted and inflamed against the clergy, then we are all one, then all priests, because he made uspriests us to God and Father ; when we are provoked to the equalization of sacerdotal discipline, we lay down the fillets and are <not> equals.

[5] De ecclesiasticis ordinibus agebatur, quales ordinari oporteret. Oportebat igitur omnem communis diseiplinae formam sua fronte proponi, edictum quodammodo futurum universis impressioni, quo magis sciret plebs eum ordinem sibi observandum, qui faceret praepositos, et ne vel ipse honor aliquid sibi ad licentiam quasi de privilegio loci blandiatur.

[5] The matter at hand was about ecclesiastical orders, what sort ought to be ordained. It was proper therefore that every form of the common discipline be set forth with its own front, an edict, as it were, destined to be for an impression upon all, whereby the plebs might the more know that the order to be observed by themselves, which makes the prepositi, and lest even the honor itself should coax itself toward license as if from a privilege of place.

[6] Prospiciebat spiritus sanctus dicturos quosdam: 'Omnia licent episcopis', sicut ille vester Utinensis nec Scantiniam timuit. Quot enim ex digamia praesident apud vos, insultantes utique apostolo, certe non erubescentes, cum haec sub illis leguntur!

[6] The Holy Spirit foresaw some would say: 'Everything is permitted to bishops,' just as that fellow of yours of Utina did not even fear the Scantinian law. For how many from digamy preside among you, indeed insulting the apostle, certainly not blushing, when these things are read under them!

[7] Age iam, qui putas acceptionem monogamiae de episcopis factam, recede a reliquis tuis titulis disciplinae, qui cum monogamia episcopis ascribuntur: noli esse irreprehensibilis, sobrius, bene moratus, ornatus, hospitalis, docibilis, quin vero et vino deditus et [manu promptus ad caedendum et] pugnax et pecuniae amans et domum non regens nec filiorum curans disciplinam, sed nec ab extraneis famam bonam sectans.

[7] Come now, you who suppose the acceptance of monogamy to have been made concerning bishops, withdraw from your other titles of discipline, which together with monogamy are ascribed to bishops: do not be irreprehensible, sober, of good morals, decorous, hospitable, docile, nay indeed be devoted to wine and [ready-handed for cutting down and] pugnacious and money-loving and not ruling your household nor caring for the discipline of your children, nor yet pursuing a good reputation from outsiders.

[8] Si enim suam habent episcopi legem circa monogamiam, etiam cetera, quae monogamiae accedere oportebit, episcopis erunt scripta, laicis vero, quos monogamia non convenit, cetera quoque aliena sunt. Evasisti, psychice, si velis, vincula disciplinae totius; praescribe constanter non omnibus praecipi, quae quibusdam sint praecepta.

[8] If indeed bishops have their own law concerning monogamy, then the rest also, which ought to accede to monogamy, will have been written for bishops; but for laymen, for whom monogamy is not fitting, the other things likewise are alien. You have escaped, psychic, if you will, the bonds of the whole discipline; prescribe consistently that the things which are precepts for certain persons are not enjoined upon all.

[9] Aut si cetera quidem communia sunt, monogamia vero solis episcopis imposita est, numquid illi soli Christiani pronuntiandi, in quos tota disciplina collata est?

[9] Or if indeed the rest are
common
are, but monogamy is imposed upon bishops alone,
must they alone be pronounced Christians, upon whom the whole discipline
collated/conferred?

XIII.

13.

[1] 'Sed et Timotheo scribens vultiuvenculas nubere, filios suscipere, matres familias agere.' Ad eas dirigit, quales supra denotat, iuvenculas viduas, quae in viduitate deprehensae et aliquamdiu assectatae, postquam in deliciis habuerunt Christum, nubere volunt, habentes iudicium, quod primam fidem resciderunt, illam scilicet, a qua in viduitate inventae et professae eam non perseverant.

[1] 'But also, writing to Timothy, he willsyoung women to marry, to receive children, to act as matrons of a household. He directs this to those, such as he has denoted above, young widows, who, found in widowhood and for some time adhering to it, after they have had Christ among their delights, want to marry, incurring judgment, because they have rescinded their first faith, namely that one, in which, having been found in widowhood and having professed it, they do not persevere.

[2] Propter quod vult eas nubere, ne primam fidem susceptae viduitatis postea rescindant, non ut totiens nubant, quotiens in viduitate temptanda, immo et in deliciis habita noluerint perseverare.

[2] On account of which he wants them to marry, lest they thereafter rescind the first faith of the widowhood undertaken, not so that they marry as often as, whenever in widowhood, being to-be-tempted, nay rather, even when, having been held in delights, they have been unwilling to persevere.

[3] Legimus et ascribentem Romanos eum:Quae, autem sub viro est mulier, viventi viro vincta est; si autem obierit, evacuata est a lege viri. Nempe ergo vivente viro adulterare putabitur, si facto fuerit alii viro; si vero obierit vir, liberata est a lege, quod non sit adultera, facta alii viro.

[3] We read him also writing to the Romans:The woman who is under a husband is bound to a living husband; but if he has died, she is released from the law of the husband. Accordingly then, with the husband living, she will be considered to adulterate, if made she shall have been to another man; but if the husband has died, she is freed from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, made to another man.

[4] Sed et sequentia recognosce, quo sensus iste, qui tibi blanditur, evadat.Itaque, inquit, fratres mei, mortificamini et vos legi per corpus Christi, ut efficiamini alteri, ei scilicet, qui a mortuis resurrexit, uti fructum feramus deo. Cum enim eramus in carne, passiones delictorum, quae per legem, efficiebantur in membris nostris ad fructum ferendum morti; nunc autem evacuati sumus a lege, mortui, in quo tenebamur, ad serviendum [deo] in novitate spiritus et non in vetustate litterae.

[4] But also recognize the things that follow, to what issue that sense, which flatters you, comes out.Therefore, he says, my brothers, be made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may become another’s, namely his who rose from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the passions of delicts, which through the law were being effected in our members for bearing fruit unto death; but now we have been evacuated from the law, having died, in that in which we were held, to serve [God] in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

[5] Igitur si mortificari nos iubet legi per corpus Christi,quod est ecclesia, quae spiritu novitatis constat, non per litteram vetustatis, id est legis, auferens te a lege, quae <non> tenet uxorem marito defuncto, quominus alii viro fiat, ad contrariam te redigit condicionem, ne amisso viro nubas;

[5] Therefore, if he bids us to be mortified to the law through the body of Christ,which is the Church, which consists by the spirit of newness, not by the letter of oldness, that is, of the law, removing you from the law, which does not bind a wife, her husband having died, so as to prevent her from becoming to another man, he reduces you to the contrary condition, that, with your husband lost, you should not marry;

[6] quantumque non deputareris adultera, alteri viro facta post mortem mariti, si adhuc in lege agere deberes, tanto ex diversitate condicionis adulterii praeiudicat te post mortem mariti alii nubentem: quia iam mortificare legi, non potest tibi licere, cum recessisti ab ea, apud quam tibi licebat.

[6] and inasmuch as you would not be accounted an adulteress, having been made another man’s after your husband’s death, if you still had to act in the Law, by so much, from the diversity of the condition, adultery prejudges you, marrying another after your husband’s death: because now to be mortified to the Law cannot be licit for you, since you have withdrawn from her, with whom it was licit for you.

XIV.

14.

[1] Nunc et absolute apostolus permisisset in fide amisso matrimonio nubere, proinde fecisset quemadmodum et cetera, quae adversus formam regulae suae pro condicione temporum gessit, circumcidens Timotheum propter superducticios falsos fratres et rasos quosdam inducens in templum propter observationem Iudaeorum, ille qui Galatas in lege volentes agere castigat.

[1] Now, even absolutely the apostle had permitted, upon the marriage having been lost in the faith, to marry, he would have done accordingly, just as the other things which he carried out, against the form of his own rule, for the condition of the times: circumcising Timothy on account of the superinduced false brethren, and bringing certain shaven men into the temple on account of the observance of the Jews—he who chastises the Galatians wishing to act in the Law.

[2] Sed ita res exigebant, ut omnibus omnia fieret, quo omnes lucrifaceret, parturiens illos, donec formaretur Christus in ipsis, et calefaciens tamquam nutrix parvulos fidei, docendo quaedam per veniam,non per imperium ---- aliud est enim indulgere, aliud iubere ----, proinde temporalem licentiam permittens denuo nubendi propter infirmitatem carnis quemadmodum Moyses repudiandi propter duritiam cordis.

[2] But thus the circumstances required, that he should become all things to all, in order that he might make gain of all, travailing with them, until Christ should be formed in them, and warming like a nurse the little ones of faith, teaching certain things by indulgence,not by command ---- for it is one thing to indulge, another to command ----, accordingly permitting a temporal license of marrying again on account of the infirmity of the flesh just as Moses [permitted] of repudiating on account of the hardness of the heart.

[3] Et hic itaque reddemus supplementum sensus istius. Si enim Christus abstulit, quod Moyses praecepit, quia ab initio non fuit sic, nec sic ideo ab alia virtute venisse reputabitur Christus, cur non et Paracletus abstulerit, quod Paulus indnlsit, quia et secundum matrimonium ab initio non fuit, nec ideo suspectus habendus sit quasi spiritus alienus, tantum ut deo et Christo dignum sit, quod superducitur?

[3] And here, accordingly, we too will render a supplement of this sense. For if Christ took away what Moses commanded, because from the beginning it was not so, nor on that account will Christ be reckoned to have come from another power, why should not the Paraclete also have taken away what Paul indulged, since a second marriage likewise was not from the beginning, nor therefore ought He to be held suspect as an alien spirit—only let that which is superinduced be worthy of God and Christ?

[4] Si deo et Christo dignum fuit duritiam cordis tempore expleto compescere, cur non dignius sit et deo et Christo infirmitatem carnis tempore iam collectiore discutere? Si iam iustum est matrimonium non separari, utique et non iterari honestum est. Denique apud saeculum utrumque in bona disciplina deputatur, aliud concordiae nomine, aliud pudicitiae.

[4] If it was worthy of God and of Christ to restrain the hardness of heart when the time was fulfilled, why would it not be more worthy both of God and of Christ to dispel the infirmity of the flesh at a now more advanced time? If now it is just that marriage not be separated, assuredly that it not be repeated is honorable. Finally, in the world both are accounted in good discipline, the one under the name of concord, the other of pudicity.

[5] Regnavit duritia cordis usque ad Christum, regnaverit et infirmitas carnis usque ad Paracletum; nova lex abstulit repudium ---- habuit et, quod auferret ---- et nova prophetia secundum matrimonium, non minus repudium prioris.

[5] Hardness of heart reigned up to Christ; let the infirmity of the flesh likewise have reigned up to the Paraclete; the new law took away repudiation (divorce) ---- it also had what to remove ---- and the new prophecy took away a second marriage, no less a repudiation of the former.

[6] Sed facilius duritia cordis Christo cessit quam infirmitas carnis; plus haec sibi Paulum defendit quam illa Moysen, si tamen defendit, cum indulgentem eum captat, praescribentem recusat, quae potiores sententias et perpetuas voluntates eius eludit, quae non sinit nos hoc apostolo praestare quod mavult.

[6] But the hardness of heart yielded to Christ more easily than the infirmity of the flesh; this latter defends itself by Paul more than that former [did] by Moses—if indeed it defends—since it seizes on him as indulgent, but refuses him as prescribing; it eludes his weightier sentences and perpetual wills, which does not allow us to render to this apostle what he prefers.

[7] Et quousque infirmitas ista impudentissima in expugnando meliora perseverabit? Tempus eius donec Paracletus operaretur, fuit, in quem dilata sunt a domino, quae tunc sustinere non poterant, quae iam nemini competit portare non posse, quia, per quem datur portare posse, non deest.

[7] And how long will this most impudent in assailing better things persevere? Its time was until the Paraclete should be at work, to whom were deferred by the Lord the things which then they could not sustain, which now it befits no one to be unable to bear, since he through whom it is given to be able to bear is not lacking.

[8] Quamdiu causabimur carnem, quia dixit dominus:Caro infirma? Sed praemisit et: Spiritus promptus, ut vincat spiritus carnem, ut cedat quod infirmum est fortiori. Nam et: Qui potest capere, capiat inquit, id est qui non potest discedat; discessit et ille dives, qui non ceperat substantiae dividendae egenis praeceptum, et dimissus est sententiae suae a domino.

[8] How long shall we plead the flesh as an excuse, because the Lord said:The flesh is weak? But he also prefaced: The spirit is ready, so that the spirit may conquer the flesh, that what is weak may yield to the stronger. For also: He who can receive it, let him receive it, he says, that is, he who cannot, let him depart; and that rich man departed as well, who had not taken up the precept of dividing his substance to the needy, and he was dismissed to his own judgment by the Lord.

[9] Nec ideo duritia imputabitur Christo de arbitrii cuiuscumque liberi vitio:Ecce, inquit, posui ante te bonum et malum; elige quod bonum est; si non potes, quia non vis ---- posse enim te, si velis, ostendit, quia tuo arbitrio utrumque proposuit ----, discedas oportet ab eo, cuius non facis voluntatem.

[9] Nor therefore will hardness be imputed to Christ on account of the vice of anyone’s free will:Behold, he says, I have set before you the good and the evil; choose what is good; if you are not able, because you do not will ---- for he shows that you can, if you should will, since to your choice he has proposed both ----, you ought to depart from him whose will you do not do.

XV.

15.

[1] Quae igitur hic duritia nostra, si non facientibus voluntatem dei renuntiamus? quae haeresis, si secundas nuptias ut illicitas iuxta adulterium iudicamus? Quid est enim adulterium quam matrimonium illicitum?

[1] What hardness of ours, then, is there here, if we renounce those not doing the will of God? what heresy is there, if we judge second nuptials as illicit, on a par with adultery? For what is adultery if not an illicit matrimony?

[2] Notat apostolus eos, qui in totum nubere prohibebant, qui et de cibis interdicebant, quos deus condidit. Nos vero non magis nuptias auferimus, si secundas recusamus, quam cibos reprobamus, si saepius ieiunamus. Aliud est auferre, aliud temperare, aliud est legem non nubendi ponere, aliud est modum nubendi statuere.

[2] The apostle notes those who altogether forbade marrying, who also interdicted foods, which God created. We, however, do not remove marriages any more, if we refuse second marriages, than we reprobate foods, if we fast more often. It is one thing to take away, another to temper, another is to lay down a law of not marrying, another is to establish a mode of marrying establish.

[3] Plane, qui exprobrant nobis duritiam vel haeresim in hac causa aestimant. si in tantum fovent carnis mei firmitatem, ut in nubendo frequenter sustinendam putant, cur illam in alia causa neque sustinent neque venia fovent, cum tormentis expugnata est in negationem?

[3] Clearly, those who upbraid us for rigor or reckon heresy in this matter: if to such a degree they foster the firmity of my flesh, that in marrying they think it should frequently be borne, why in another case do they neither bear it nor foster it with pardon, when, battered by torments, it has been forced into denial?

[4] Utique enim illam magis excusari capit, quae in proelio cecidit quam quae in cubiculo, quae in eculeo succubuit quam quae in lectulo, quae crudelitati cessit quam quae libidini, quae gemens devicta est quam quae subans. Sed illam quidem a communicatione depellunt, quia non sustinuit in finem, hanc vero suscipiunt, quasi et haec sustinuerit in finem.

[4] Surely indeed she more admits of excuse, who fell in battle rather than she who in the bedchamber, who succumbed on the rack rather than she who on the little couch, who yielded to cruelty rather than she who to libido, who, groaning, was conquered rather than she who, panting. But that one they drive away from communion, because she did not endure unto the end; this one, however, they receive, as if this one too had endured unto the end.

[5] Propone, quid utraque non sustinuerit in finem, et invenies eius causam honestiorem, quae saevitiam quam quae pudicitiam sustinere non potuit. Et tamen nec cruentam defectionem infirmitas carnis excusat, nedum impudicam.

[5] Set forth what each failed to endure unto the end, and you will find the cause more honorable of her who could not endure cruelty than of her who could not endure pudicity. And yet the infirmity of the flesh excuses not even a bloody defection, much less a shameless one.

XVI.

16.

[1] Rideo autem, cum infirmitas carnis opponitur, quae summa fortitudo dicenda est. Iterum nubere virium res est; resurgere in opera carnis de continentiae otio substantia est laterum. Talis infirmitas et tertio et quarto et usque septimo forsitan matrimonio sufficit, ut quae totiens fortior quotiens fuerit infirmior, habitura iam non apostolum auctorem, sed Hermogenem aliquem, plures solitum mulieres ducere quam pingere.

[1] I laugh, however, when the infirmity of the flesh is put forward, which ought to be called the supreme fortitude. To marry again is a matter of strengths; to rise again into the works of the flesh out of the leisure of continence is a substance of the flanks. Such infirmity suffices for the third and the fourth and perhaps up to the seventh marriage, inasmuch as she will be as many times stronger as she has been weaker, having now not the apostle as author, but some Hermogenes, accustomed to lead to wife more women than to paint.

[2] Materia enim in illo abundat, unde et animam esse praesumens multo magis spiritum a deo non habet, iam nec psychicus quia non de afflatu dei psychicus.

[2] For matter abounds in him, whence also, presuming the soul to be material, much more he does not have the spirit from god, now not even “psychic,” because he is not “psychic” from the afflatus of god.

[3] Quid, si inopiam quis causetur, ut carnem suam aperte prostitutam profiteatur exhibitionis causa nubentem, oblitus de victu et vestitu non esse cogitandum? Habet deum etiam corvorum educatorem, etiam florum excultorem.

[3] What, if someone should plead indigence, so as to avow his flesh openly prostituted—marrying for the sake of provision—forgetful that about food and clothing one ought not to be thinking? He has God as the educator even of the ravens, even the dresser of the flowers.

[4] Quid, si solitudinem domus ostendat? Quasi una mulier frequentiam praestet homini ad fugam proximo. Habet viduam utique, quam assumat licebit: non unam huius generis uxorem, sed iam plures habere concessum est.

[4] What, if he should display the solitude of the house? As if a single woman could furnish company to a man on the brink of flight. He has, at any rate, a widow whom it will be permitted to assume: not one wife of this kind, but already it has been granted to have several.

[5] Quid, si de posteritate quis cogitet isdem animis quibus oculis uxor Loth, ut ideo quis repetat matrimonrum, quia de priore liberos non habuit? Heredes scilicet Christianus quaeret, saeculi totius exheres: habet fratres, habet ecclesiam matrem.

[5] What if someone thinks of posterity with the same spirit with which the wife of Lot used her eyes, so that for this reason someone seeks to repeat marriage, because from the former he did not have children? A Christian, to be sure, will seek heirs, disinherited of the whole world: he has brothers, he has the Church as mother.

[6] Aliud est, si et apud Christum legibus Iuliis agi credunt et existimant caelibes et orbos ex testamento dei solidum capere non posse. Nubant igitur huiusmodi in finem usque, ut in ista confusione carnis sicut Sodoma et Gomorra et diluvii dies ab illo ultimo exitu saeculi deprehendantur.

[6] Another thing it is, if also they believe that with Christ matters are conducted by the Julian laws, and suppose that celibates and childless cannot take the whole from the testament of God. Let such people therefore marry on to the very end, so that in this confusion of flesh, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the days of the deluge, they may be caught at that last exit of the age.

[7] Adiciant tertium dictum:Manducemus et bibamus et nubamus, cras enim moriemur, non recogitantes vae illud praegnantibus et lactantibus multo gravius et amarius eventurum in concussione totius mundi, quam evenit in vastatione unius particulae Iudae.

[7] Let them add a third dictum:Let us eat and drink and let us marry, for tomorrow indeed we die, not reconsidering that that woe to the pregnant and nursing will come much more gravely and bitterly in the convulsion of the whole world, than befell in the devastation of a single small portion of Judea.

[8] Satis opportunos novissimis temporibus fructus iteratis matrimoniis colligant: ubera fluitantia et uteros nauseantes et infantes pipiantes; parent antichristo, in quo libidinosius saeviat; adducet illis carnifices obstetrices.

[8] Let them gather sufficiently opportune fruits for the latest times by iterated marriages: flowing breasts and queasy wombs and piping infants; let them beget for Antichrist, upon whom he may rage more libidinously; he will bring to them executioners as midwives.

XVII.

17.

[1] Habebunt plane, Christo quod legent speciosum privilegium, carnis usquequaque imbecillitatem. Sed hanc iudicabunt iam non Isaac monogamus pater noster nec Iohannes aliqui Christi spado nec Iudith [nec] filia Merari nec tot alia exempla sanctorum: solent ethnici iudices destinari.

[1] They will indeed have, to read before Christ as a specious privilege, the imbecility of the flesh on every side. But this they will have judged now not by Isaac, our monogamous father, nor by John, some eunuch of Christ, nor by Judith [nor] the daughter of Merari, nor by so many other exemplars of the saints: heathen judges are wont to be assigned.

[2] Exsurget regina Carthaginis et decernet in Christianas, quae . profuga et in alieno solo et tantae civitatis cum maxime formatrix, cum regis nuptias ultro optasse debuisset, ne tamen secundas eas experiretur, maluit e contrario uri quam nubere.

[2] The queen of Carthage will arise and adjudge against Christian women, who . a fugitive and on a foreign soil and, at the very time, the foundress of so great a city, when she ought of her own accord to have desired a king’s nuptials, yet, in order not to experience them as second ones, preferred on the contrary to be burned rather than to marry.

[3] Assidebit et illi matrona Romana, quae etsi per vim nocturnam nihilo minus alium virum experta maculam carnis suo sanguine abluit, ut monogamiam in semetipsam vindicaret. Fuerunt et quae pro viris mori mallent quam post viros nubere.

[3] There will sit beside her also a Roman matron, who, although by nocturnal violence nonetheless, having experienced another man, washed the stain of the flesh with her own blood, in order to vindicate monogamy in herself. There were also those who would prefer to die for their husbands rather than to marry after their husbands.

[4] Idolis certe et [in] monogamia et viduitas apparent: Fortunae Muliebri coronam non imponit nisi univiris sicut Matri Matutae; pontifex maximus et flaminica semel nubunt; Cereris sacerdotes viventibus etiam viris et consentientibus amica separatione viduantur.

[4] Before the idols, certainly, both [in] monogamy and widowhood are apparent: a crown is not placed upon Fortuna Muliebris except by uni-virae, just as upon Mother Matuta; the pontifex maximus and the flaminica marry once; the priestesses of Ceres, even with their husbands living and consenting, are made widows by friendly separation.

[5] Sunt et quae de tota continentia iudicent nos, virgines Vestae et Iunonis Achaicae et Dianae Scythicae et Apollinis Pythii; etiam bovis illius Aegyptii antistites de continentia infirmitatem Christianorum iudicabunt.

[5] There are also those who will judge us concerning total continence, the virgins of Vesta and of Achaean Juno and of Scythian Diana and of Pythian Apollo; even the priests of that Egyptian bull, concerning continence, the infirmity of Christians will judge.

[6] Embesce, caro, quae Christum induisti! Sufficiat tibi semel nubere, in quod a primordio facta es, in quod e fini revocaris. Redi in Adam vel priorem, si in novissimum non potes; semel gustavit ille de arbore, semel concupiit, semel pudenda protexit, semel deo erubuit, semel ruborem suum abscondit, semel de paradiso sanctitatis exulavit, semel exinde nupsit.

[6] Be enfeebled, flesh, you who have put on Christ! Let it suffice you to marry once, for which from the beginning you were made, to which from the end you are recalled. Return into Adam, the former, if into the last you cannot; he once tasted from the tree, once desired, once covered his privy parts, once blushed before God, once hid his blush, once went into exile from the paradise of sanctity, once thereafter married.

[7] Si in illo fuisti, habes tuam formam, si in Christum transisti, melior esse debebis. Exhibe te tertium Adam et hunc digamum et tunc poteris esse, quod inter duos non potes.

[7] If you were in that one, you have your form; if you have crossed over into Christ, you ought to be better. Exhibit yourself a third Adam, and this one a digamist, and then you will be able to be what between two you cannot.