Medieval Sourcebook:
St Augustine:
From "On Marriage and Concupiscence"
The complete text of the treatise "On Marriage and Concupiscence" may be
found on-line at the Christian Classics
Ethereal Library.
BOOK I, CHAP. 3 --CONJUGAL CHASTITY THE GIFT OF GOD.
That chastity in the married state is God’s gift, is shown by the most blessed
Paul, when, speaking on this very subject, he says: "But I would that all men were
even as I myself: but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and
another after that." Observe, he tells us that this gift is from God; and although he
classes it below that continence in which he would have all men to be like himself, he
still describes it as a gift of God. Whence we understand that, when these precepts are
given to us in order that we should do them, nothing else is stated than that there ought
to be within us our own will also for receiving and having them. When, therefore, these
are shown to be gifts of God, it is meant that they must be sought from Him if they are
not already possessed; and if they are possessed, thanks must be given to Him for the
possession; moreover, that our own wills have but small avail for seeking, obtaining, and
holding fast these gifts, unless they be assisted by God’s grace.
BOOK I, CHAP. 5 --THE NATURAL GOOD OF MARRIAGE. ALL SOCIETY NATURALLY REPUDIATES A
FRAUDULENT COMPANION. WHAT IS TRUE CONJUGAL PURITY? NO TRUE VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY EXCEPT
IN DEVOTION TO TRUE FAITH.
The union, then, of male and female for the purpose of procreation is the natural good
of marriage. But he makes a bad use of this good who uses it bestially, so that his
intention is on the gratification of lust, intend of the desire of offspring.
Nevertheless, in sundry animals unendowed with reason, as, for instance, in most birds,
there is both preserved a certain kind of confederation of pairs, and a social combination
of skill in nest-building; and their mutual division of the periods for cherishing their
eggs and their alternation in the labor of feeding their young, give them the appearance
of so acting, when they mate, as to be intent rather on securing the continuance of their
kind than on gratifying lust. Of these two, the one is the likeness of man in a brute; the
other, the likeness of the brute in man. With respect, however, to what I ascribed to the
nature of marriage, that the male and the female are united together as associates for
procreation, and consequently do not defraud each other (forasmuch as every associated
state has a natural abhorrence of a fraudulent companion), although even men without faith
possess this palpable blessing of nature, yet, since they use it not in faith, they only
turn it to evil and sin. In like manner, therefore, the marriage of believers converts to
the use of righteousness that carnal concupiscence by which "the flesh lusteth
against the Spirit." For they entertain the firm purpose of generating offspring to
be regenerated--that the children who are born of them as "children of the
world" may be born again and become "sons of God." Wherefore all parents
who do not beget children with this intention, this will this purpose, of transferring
them from bring members of the first man into being members of Christ, but boast as
unbelieving parents over unbelieving children, - however circumspect they be in their
cohabitation, studiously limiting it to the begetting of children, - really have no
conjugal chastity in themselves. For inasmuch as chastity is a virtue, hating unchastity
as its contrary vice, and as all the virtues (even those whose operation is by means of
the body) have their seat in the soul, how can the body be in any true sense said to be
chaste, when the soul itself is committing fornication against the true God? Now such
fornication the holy psalmist censures when he says: "For, lo, they that are far from
Thee shall perish: Thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from Thee." There
is, then, no true chastity, whether conjugal, or vidual, or virginal, except that which
devotes itself to true faith. For though consecrated virginity is rightly preferred to
marriage, yet what Christian in his sober mind would not prefer catholic Christian women
who have been even more than once married, to not only vestals, but also to heretical
virgins? So great is the avail of faith, of which the apostle says, "Whatsoever is
not of faith is sin;" and of which it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
"Without faith it is impossible to please God."
BOOK I, CHAP. 7 --MAN’S DISOBEDIENCE JUSTLY REQUITED IN THE REBELLION OF HIS OWN
FLESH; THE BLUSH OF SHAME FOR THE DISOBEDIENT MEMBERS OF THE BODY.
When the first man transgressed the law of God, he began to have another law in his
members which was repugnant to the law of his mind, and he felt the evil of his own
disobedience when he experienced in the disobedience of his flesh a most righteous
retribution recoiling on himself. Such, then, was "the opening of his eyes"
which the serpent had promised him in his temptation - the knowledge, in fact, of
something which he had better been ignorant of. Then, indeed, did man perceive within
himself what he had done; then did he distinguish evil from good, - not by avoiding it,
but by enduring it. For it certainly was not just that obedience should be rendered by his
servant, that is, his body, to him, who had not obeyed his own Lord. Well, then, how
significant is the fact that the eyes, and lips, and tongue, and hands, and feet, and the
bending of back, and neck, and sides, are all placed within our power - to be applied to
such operations as are suitable to them, when we have a body free from impediments and in
a sound state of health; but when it must come to man’s great function of the
procreation of children the members which were expressly created for this purpose will not
obey the direction of the will, but lust has to be waited for to set these members in
motion, as if it had legal right over them, and sometimes it refuses to act when the mind
wills, while often it acts against its will! Must not this bring the blush of shame over
the freedom of the human will, that by its contempt of God, its own Commander, it has lost
all proper command for itself over its own members? Now, wherein could be found a more
fitting demonstration of the just depravation of human nature by reason of its
disobedience, than in the disobedience of those parts whence nature herself derives
subsistence by succession? For it is by an especial propriety that those parts of the body
are designated as natural. This, then, was the reason why the first human pair, on
experiencing in the flesh that motion which was indecent because disobedient, and on
feeling the shame of their nakedness, covered these offending members with fig-leaves; in
order that, at the very least, by the will of the ashamed offenders, a veil might be
thrown over that which was put into motion without the will of those who wished it: and
since shame arose from what indecently pleased, decency might be attained by concealment.
BOOK I, CHAP. 9 --THIS DISEASE OF CONCUPISCENCE IN MARRIAGE IS NOT TO BE A MATTER OF WILL,
BUT OF NECESSITY; WHAT OUGHT TO BE THE WILL OF BELIEVERS IN THE USE OF MATRIMONY; WHO IS
TO BE REGARDED AS USING, AND NOT SUCCUMBING TO, THE EVIL OF CONCUPISCENCE; HOW THE HOLY
FATHERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FORMERLY USED WIVES.
This disease of concupiscence is what the apostle refers to, when, speaking to married
believers, he says: "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye
should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his
vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the disease of desire, even as the Gentiles
which know not God." The married believer, therefore, must not only not use another
man’s vessel, which is what they do who lust after others’ wives; but he must
know that even his own vessel is not to be possessed in the disease of carnal
concupiscence. And this counsel is not to be understood as if the apostle prohibited
conjugal - that is to say, lawful and honourable - cohabitation; but so as that that
cohabitation (which would have no adjunct of unwholesome lust, were it not that man’s
perfect freedom of choice had become by preceding sin so disabled that it has this fatal
adjunct) should not be a matter of will, but of necessity, without which, nevertheless, it
would be impossible to attain to the fruition of the will itself in the procreation of
children. And this wish is not in the marriages of believers determined by the purpose of
having such children born as shall pass through life in this present world, but such as
shall be born again in Christ, and remain in Him for evermore. Now if this result should
come about, the reward of a full felicity will spring from marriage; but if such result be
not realized, there will yet ensue to the married pair the peace of their good will.
Whosoever possesses his vessel (that is, his wife) with this intention of heart, certainly
does not possess her in the "disease of desire," as the Gentiles which know not
God, but in sanctification and honour, as believers who hope in God. A man turns to use
the evil of concupiscence, and is not overcome by it, when he bridles and restrains its
rage, as it works in inordinate and indecorous motions; and never relaxes his hold upon it
except when intent on offspring, and then controls and applies it to the carnal generation
of children to be spiritually regenerated, not to the subjection of the spirit to the
flesh in a sordid servitude. That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and
before him, to whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," thus used
their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain
individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the
multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification.
BOOK I, CHAP. 10 --WHY IT WAS SOMETIMES PERMITTED THAT A MAN SHOULD HAVE SEVERAL WIVES,
YET NO WOMAN WAS EVER ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE HUSBAND. NATURE PREFERS SINGLENESS IN
HER DOMINATIONS.
Now, if to the God of our fathers, who is likewise our God, such a plurality of wives
had not been displeasing for the purpose that lust might have a fuller range of
indulgence; then, on such a supposition, the holy women also ought each to have rendered
service to several husbands. But if any woman had so acted, what feeling but that of a
disgraceful concupiscence could impel her to have more husbands, seeing that by such
licence she could not have more children? That the good purpose of marriage, however, is
better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is
shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the
Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking their beginning therefrom,
and of its affording to them a more honourable precedent. In the advance, however, of the
human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good
wives, - many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on
one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity.
For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for
many to have dominion over one. Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the
order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this
principle in view that the apostle says, "The head of the woman is the man;"
and, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." So also the Apostle
Peter writes: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord." Now, although the
fact of the matter is, that while nature loves singleness in her dominations, but we may
see plurality existing more readily in the subordinate portion of our race; yet for all
that, it was at no time lawful for one man to have a plurality of wives, except for the
purpose of a greater number of children springing from him. Wherefore, if one woman
cohabits with several men inasmuch as no increase of offspring accrues to her therefrom,
but only a more frequent gratification of lust, she cannot possibly be a wife, but only a
harlot.
BOOK I, CHAP. 11 --THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE; THE WORLD’S LAW
ABOUT DIVORCE DIFFERENT FROM THE GOSPEL’S.
It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor
chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond in marriage
which is recommended to believers in wedlock. Accordingly it is en-joined by the apostle:
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church." Of this bond
the substance undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are joined together in
matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live; and that it should be unlawful
for one consort to be parted from the other, except for the cause of fornication. For this
is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church; so that, as a living one with a living
one, there is no divorce, no separation for ever. And so complete is the observance of
this bond in the city of our God, in His holy mountain - that is to say, in the Church of
Christ - by all married believers, who are undoubtedly members of Christ, that, although
women marry, and men take wives, for the purpose of procreating children, it is never
permitted one to put away even an unfruitful wife for the sake of having another to bear
children. And whosoever does this is held to be guilty of adultery by the law of the
gospel; though not by this world’s rule, which allows a divorce between the parties,
without even the allegation of guilt, and the contraction of other nuptial engagements, -
a concession which, the Lord tells us, even the holy Moses extended to the people of
Israel, because of the hardness of their hearts. The same condemnation applies to the
woman, if she is married to another man. So enduring, indeed, are the rights of marriage
between those who have contracted them, as long as they both live, that even they are
looked on as man and wife still, who have separated from one another, rather than they
between whom a new connection has been formed. For by this new connection they would not
be guilty of adultery, if the previous matrimonial relation did not still continue. If the
husband die, with whom a true marriage was made, a true marriage is now possible by a
connection which would before have been adultery. Thus between the conjugal pair, as long
as they live, the nuptial bond has a permanent obligation, and can be cancelled neither by
separation nor by union with another. But this permanence avails, in such cases, only for
injury from the sin, not for a bond of the covenant. In like manner the soul of an
apostate, which renounces as it were its marriage union with Christ, does not, even though
it has cast its faith away, lose the sacrament of its faith, which it received in the
laver of regeneration. It would undoubtedly be given back to him if he were to return,
although he lost it on his departure from Christ. He retains, however, the sacrament after
his apostasy, to the aggravation of his punishment, not for meriting the reward.
BOOK I, CHAP. 16 --A CERTAIN DEGREE OF INTEMPERANCE IS TO BE TOLERATED IN THE CASE OF
MARRIED PERSONS; THE USE OF MATRIMONY FOR THE MERE PLEASURE OF LUST IS NOT WITHOUT SIN,
BUT BECAUSE OF THE NUPTIAL RELATION THE SIN IS VENIAL.
But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are
to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and
adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not
procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so
far as to be within range of forgiveness, though not prescribed by way of commandment: and
the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the other, lest Satan should tempt them
by reason of their incontinence. For thus says the Scripture: "Let the husband render
unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not
power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of
his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt
you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment." Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be
contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the
purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage,
is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married
persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due
of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of
concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of
marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be
reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable
that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which
subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing,
which is the end and aim of marriage.
BOOK I, CHAP. 17 --WHAT IS SINLESS IN THE USE OF MATRIMONY? WHAT IS ATTENDED WITH
VENIAL SIN, AND WHAT WITH MORTAL?
It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to
beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal
pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For
although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no
attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who
resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain
no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for
criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their
children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom
they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so
reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it
clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes,
indeed, this lustful cruelty, or; if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant
methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this,
to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its
offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life
within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so
flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the
beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are
not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the
husband’s harlot; or the man the wife’s adulterer.
BOOK I, CHAP. 18 --CONTINENCE BETTER THAN MARRIAGE; BUT MARRIAGE BETTER THAN FORNICATION.
Forasmuch, then, as marriage cannot be such as that of the primitive men might have
been, if sin had not preceded; it may yet be like that of the holy fathers of the olden
time, in such wise that the carnal concupiscence which causes shame (which did not exist
in paradise previous to the fall, and after that event was not allowed to remain there),
although necessarily forming a part of the body of this death, is not subservient to it,
but only submits its function, when forced thereto, for the sole purpose of assisting in
the procreation of children; otherwise, since the present time … is the period for
abstaining from the nuptial embrace, and therefore makes no necessary demand on the
exercise of the said function, seeing that all nations now contribute so abundantly to the
production of an offspring which shall receive spiritual birth, there is the greater room
for the blessing of an excellent continence. "He that is able to receive it, let him
receive it." He, however, who cannot receive it, "even if he marry, sinneth
not;" and if a woman have not the gift of continence, let her also marry "It is
good, indeed, for a man not to touch a woman." But since "all men cannot receive
this saying, save they to whom it is given," it remains that "to avoid
fornication, every man ought to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband."
And thus the weakness of incontinence is hindered from falling into the ruin of profligacy
by the honourable estate of matrimony. Now that which the apostle says of women, "I
will therefore that the younger women marry," is also applicable to males: I will
that the younger men take wives; that so it may appertain to both sexes alike "to
bear children, to be" fathers and "mothers of families, to give none occasion to
the adversary to speak reproachfully."
BOOK I, CHAP. 27 --THROUGH LUST ORIGINAL SIN IS TRANSMITTED; VENIAL SINS IN MARRIED
PERSONS; CONCUPISCENCE OF THE FLESH, THE DAUGHTER AND MOTHER OF SIN.
Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty who are born, not of the good by which
marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence, which, indeed, marriage uses aright,
but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame. Marriage is itself "honourable
in all" the goods which properly appertain to it; but even when it has its "bed
undefiled" (not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but
also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing
desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure, which are venial sins in man
and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace
which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be
able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust. Now, this
ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move
the members which cannot be moved simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself
not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a
will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice,
but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame. This
is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate,
yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were;
and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the
mother of many sins. Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural
birth is bound by original sin, unless, indeed, it be born again in Him whom the Virgin
conceived without this concupiscence. Wherefore, when He vouchsafed to be born in the
flesh, He alone was born without sin.
BOOK I, CHAP. 36 --GOD MADE NATURE GOOD: THE SAVIOUR RESTORES IT WHEN CORRUPTED.
Now we do not reprehend bread and wine because some men are luxurious and drunkards,
any more than we disapprove of gold because of the greedy and avaricious. Wherefore on the
same principle we do not censure the honourable connection between husband and wife,
because of the shame-causing lust of bodies. For the former would have been quite possible
before any antecedent commission of sin, and by it the united pair would not have been
made to blush; whereas the latter arose after the perpetration of sin, and they were
obliged to hide it, from very shame. Accordingly, in all united pairs ever since, however
well and lawfully they have used this evil, there has been a permanent necessity of
avoiding the sight of man in any work of this kind, and thus acknowledging what caused
inevitable shame, though a good thing would certainly cause no man to be ashamed. In this
way we have two distinct facts insensibly introduced to our notice: the good of that
laudable union of the sexes for the purpose of generating children; and the evil of that
shameful lust, in consequence of which the offspring must be regenerated in order to
escape condemnation. The man, therefore, who, though with the Just which causes shame,
joins in lawful cohabitation, turns an evil to good account; whereas he who joins in an
unlawful cohabitation uses an evil badly; for that is more correctly called evil than
good, at which both bad and good alike blush. We do better to believe him who has said,
"I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing," rather than
him who calls that good, by which he is so conformed that he admits it to be evil; but if
he feels no shame, he adds the worse evil of impudence. Rightly then did we declare that
"the good of marriage is no more impeachable because of the original sin which is
derived therefrom, than the evil of adultery and fornication can be excused, because of
the natural good which is born of them:" since the human nature which is born,
whether of wedlock or of adultery, is the work of God. Now if this nature were an evil, it
ought not to have been born; if it had not evil, it would not have to be regenerated: and
(that I may combine the two cases in one and the same predicate) if human nature were an
evil thing, it would not have to be saved; if it had not in it any evil, it would not have
to be saved. He, therefore, who contends that nature is not good, says that the Maker of
the creature is not good; whilst he who will have it, that nature has no evil in it,
deprives it in its corrupted condition of a merciful Saviour. From this, then, it follows,
that in the birth of human beings neither fornication is to be excused on account of the
good which is formed out of it by the good Creator, nor is marriage to be impeached by
reason of the evil which has to be healed in it by the merciful Saviour.
Source.
Source: St. Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, tr. Peter Holmes, Robert Ernest
Wallace and Benjamin B. Warfield. Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser.
1, Vol. V (New York, 1893).
Etext file created for a class by Scott Mcletchie [letchie@loyno.edu],
and used by permission here..
This text is part of the Internet
Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use.
© Paul Halsall, October 1998
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 November 2024 [CV]
|
