Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Further Remarks Upon St. Paul's Teaching.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XI.—Further Remarks Upon St. Paul’s
Teaching.
Grant, now, that you marry “in the
Lord,” in accordance with the law and the apostle—if,
notwithstanding, you care even about this—with what face do you
request (the solemnizing of) a matrimony which is unlawful to those of
whom you request it; of a monogamist bishop, of presbyters and deacons
bound by the same solemn engagement, of widows whose Order you have in
your own person refused? And they, plainly, will give husbands
and wives as they would morsels of bread; for this is their rendering
of “To every one who asketh thee thou shalt give!”662
And they will join you together in a
virgin church, the one betrothed of the one Christ! And you will
pray for your husbands, the new and the old. Make your
election, to which of the twain you will play the adulteress. I
think, to both. But if you have any wisdom, be silent on behalf
of the dead one. Let your silence be to him a divorce, already
endorsed in the dotal gifts of another. In this way you will earn
the new husband’s favour, if you forget the old. You ought
to take more pains to please him for whose sake you have not preferred
to please God! Such (conduct) the Psychics will have it the
apostle approved, or else totally failed to think about, when he
wrote: “The woman is bound for such length of time as her
husband liveth; but if he shall have died, she is free; whom she will
let her marry, only in the Lord.”663
For it is out of this passage that they draw their defence of the
licence of second marriage; nay, even of (marriages) to any amount, if
of second (marriage): for that which has ceased to be once for
all, is open to any and every number. But the sense in
which the apostle did write will be apparent, if first an agreement be
come to that he did not write it in the sense of which the
Psychics avail themselves. Such an agreement, moreover, will be
come to if one first recall to mind those (passages) which are diverse
from the passage in question, when tried by the standard of doctrine,
of volition, and of Paul’s own discipline. For, if he
permits second nuptials, which were not “from the
beginning,” how does he affirm that all things are being
recollected to the beginning in Christ?664
If he wills us to iterate conjugal connections, how does he maintain
that “our seed is called” in the but once married Isaac as
its author? How does he make monogamy the base of his disposition
of the whole Ecclesiastical Order, if this rule does not antecedently
hold good in the case of laics, from whose ranks the Ecclesiastical
Order proceeds?665
| 665 See de Ex. Cast.,
c. vii. | How does he
call away from the enjoyment of marriage such as are still in the
married position, saying that “the time is wound up,” if he
calls back again into marriage such as through death had escaped from
marriage? If these (passages) are diverse from that one about
which the present question is, it will be agreed (as we have said) that
he did not write in that sense of which the Psychics avail themselves;
inasmuch as it is easier (of belief) that that one passage should have
some explanation agreeable with the others, than that an apostle should
seem to have taught (principles) mutually diverse. That
explanation we shall be able to discover in the subject-matter
itself. What was the subject-matter which led the apostle to
write such (words)? The inexperience of a new and just rising
Church, which he was rearing, to wit, “with milk,” not yet
with the “solid food”666
of stronger
doctrine; inexperience so great, that that infancy of faith prevented
them from yet knowing what they were to do in regard of carnal and
sexual necessity. The very phases themselves of this
(inexperience) are intelligible from (the apostle’s) rescripts,
when he says:667
“But
concerning these (things) which ye write; good it is for a man not to
touch a woman; but, on account of fornications, let each one have his
own wife.” He shows that there were who, having been
“apprehended by the faith” in (the state of) marriage, were
apprehensive that it might not be lawful for them thenceforward to
enjoy their marriage, because they had believed on the holy flesh of
Christ. And yet it is “by way of allowance” that he
makes the concession, “not by way of command;” that is,
indulging, not enjoining, the practice. On the other hand, he
“willed rather” that all should be what he himself
was. Similarly, too, in sending a rescript on (the subject of)
divorce, he demonstrates that some had been thinking over that also,
chiefly because withal they did not suppose that they were to
persevere, after faith, in heathen marriages. They sought
counsel, further, “concerning virgins”—for
“precept of the Lord” there was none—(and were told)
that “it is good for a man if he so remain permanently;”
(“so”), of course, as he may have been found by the
faith. “Thou hast been bound to a wife, seek not loosing;
thou hast been loosed from a wife, seek not a wife.”
“But if thou shalt have taken to (thyself) a wife, thou hast not
sinned;” because to one who, before believing, had been
“loosed from a wife,” she will not be counted a
second wife who, subsequently to believing, is the
first: for it is from (the time of our) believing that our
life itself dates its origin. But here he says that he “is
sparing them;” else “pressure of the flesh” would
shortly follow, in consequence of the straits of the times, which
shunned the encumbrances of marriage: yea, rather solicitude must
be felt about earning the Lord’s favour than a
husband’s. And thus he recalls his permission. So,
then, in the very same passage in which he definitely rules that
“each one ought permanently to remain in that calling in which he
shall be called;” adding, “A woman is bound so long as her
husband liveth; but if he shall have fallen asleep, she is free:
whom she shall wish let her marry, only in the Lord,” he hence
also demonstrates that such a woman is to be understood as has withal
herself been “found” (by the faith) “loosed from a
husband,” similarly as the husband “loosed from a
wife”—the “loosing” having taken place through
death, of course, not through divorce; inasmuch as to the
divorced he would grant no permission to marry, in the teeth of
the primary precept. And so “a woman, if she shall have
married, will not sin;” because he will not be reckoned a second
husband who is, subsequently to her believing, the first, any more
(than a wife thus taken will be counted a second wife). And so
truly is this the case, that he therefore adds, “only in
the Lord;” because the question in agitation was about her who
had had a heathen (husband), and had believed subsequently to
losing him: for fear, to wit, that she might presume herself
able to marry a heathen even after believing; albeit not even this is an
object of care to the Psychics. Let us plainly know that, in the
Greek original, it does not stand in the form which (through the either
crafty or simple alteration of two syllables) has gone out into common
use, “But if her husband shall have fallen asleep,”
as if it were speaking of the future, and thereby seemed to pertain to
her who has lost her husband when already in a believing state.
If this indeed had been so, licence let loose without limit would have
granted a (fresh) husband as often as one had been lost, without any
such modesty in marrying as is congruous even to heathens. But
even if it had been so, as if referring to future time, “If any
(woman’s) husband shall have died, even the future would
just as much pertain to her whose husband shall die before she
believed. Take it which way you will, provided you do not
overturn the rest. For since these (other passages) agree to the
sense (given above): “Thou hast been called (as) a slave;
care not:” “Thou hast been called in uncircumcision;
be not circumcised:” “Thou hast been called in
circumcision; become not uncircumcised:” with which
concurs, “Thou hast been bound to a wife; seek not loosing:
thou hast been loosed from a wife; seek not a
wife,”—manifest enough it is that these passages pertain to
such as, finding themselves in a new and recent “calling,”
were consulting (the apostle) on the subject of those (circumstantial
conditions) in which they had been “apprehended” by the
faith.
This will be the interpretation of that passage, to be
examined as to whether it be congruous with the time and the occasion,
and with the examples and arguments preceding as well as with the
sentences and senses succeeding, and primarily with the individual
advice and practice of the apostle himself: for nothing is so
much to be guarded as (the care) that no one be found
self-contradictory. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
