14.
He has ended his discussion of wedlock and virginity, and has carefully steered between the two precepts without turning to the right hand or to the left. He has followed the royal road and fulfilled the command 1 not to be righteous over much. Now again he compares monogamy with digamy, and as he had subordinated marriage to virginity, so he makes second marriages inferior to first, and says, 2“A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgement: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” He allows second marriages, but to such persons as wish for them and are not able to contain; lest, 3 having “waxed wanton against Christ,” they desire to marry, “having condemnation, because they have rejected their first faith;” and he makes the concession because many had already turned aside after Satan. 4“But,” says he, “they will be happier if they abide as they are,” and he immediately adds the weight of Apostolic authority, “after my judgement.” And that an Apostle’s authority might not, like that of an ordinary man, be without weight, he added, “and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” When he incites to continence, it is not by the judgement or spirit of man, but by the judgement and Spirit of God; when, however, he grants the indulgence of marriage, he does not mention the Spirit of God, but weighs his judgement with wisdom, and adapts the severity of the strain to the weakness of the individual. In this sense we must take the whole of the following passage: 5“For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.” And similarly the words to Timothy, 6“I desire therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule the household, give none occasion to the adversary for reviling: for already some are turned aside after Satan,” and so on. For as on account of the danger of fornication he allows virgins to marry, and makes that excusable which in itself is not desirable, so to avoid this same fornication, he allows second marriages to widows. For it is better to know a single husband, though he be a second or third, than to have many paramours: that is, it is more tolerable for a woman to prostitute herself to one man than to many. At all events this is so if the Samaritan woman in John’s Gospel who said she had her sixth husband was reproved by the Lord because he was not her husband. For where there are more husbands than one the proper idea of a husband, who is a single person, is destroyed. At the beginning one rib was turned into one wife. “And they two,” he says, “shall be one flesh”: not three, or four; otherwise, how can they be any longer two, if they are several. Lamech, a man of blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh between two wives. Fratricide and digamy were abolished by the same punishment—that of the deluge. The one was avenged seven times, the other seventy times seven. The guilt is as widely different as are the numbers. What the holiness of second marriage is, appears from this—that P. 359 a person twice married 7 cannot be enrolled in the ranks of the clergy, and so the Apostle tells Timothy, 8“Let none be enrolled as a widow under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” The whole command concerns those widows who are supported on the alms of the Church. The age is therefore limited, so that those only may receive the food of the poor who can no longer work. And at the same time, consider that she who has had two husbands, even though she be a widow, decrepit, and in want, is not a worthy recipient of the Church’s funds. But if she be deprived of the bread of charity, how much more is she deprived of that bread which cometh down from heaven, and of which if a man eat unworthily, he shall be guilty of outrage offered to the body and the blood of Christ?
Eccles. vii. 16 . ↩
1 Cor. vii. 39, 40 . ↩
1 Tim. v. 11, 15 . ↩
1 Cor. vii. 40 . ↩
Rom vii. 2, 3 . ↩
1 Tim. v. 14, 15 . ↩
See 1 Tim. iii. 12 . Most ancient writers interpreted S. Paul’s words as referring to second marriages after loss of first wife, however happening. And certain Councils decided in the same sense, e.g. Neocæsarea ( a.d. 314). Ellicott’s Pastoral Ep., fifth ed., p. 41. ↩
1 Tim. v. 9 . Other authorities, however, suppose the words to refer to an order of widows, and pertinently ask, would the Church thus limit her alms. ↩
