Annotation IV

”When his mother Mary was betrothed.” — Matthew 1:18

On Matrimony.

The author of the Opus imperfectum on Matthew, in the first homily, expounding this passage, seems to slip into the error of Marcion, Tatian, and Montanus, who condemn marriage. For he says that matrimony is by its very nature a sin, but permitted by God for necessity’s sake, and consequently that it neither pleases God nor has any reward. And he sets forth this opinion in these words:

“The marital union, as regards the nature of the thing itself, is a sin; but by God’s concession a license has been granted. A license, I say, has been granted — not a righteousness. For although, by reason of the necessity of the thing, it has ceased to be a sin, yet it has not merited to be a righteousness. And so to those who use it, though it inflicts no penalty, yet it yields no reward; though it does not kill, yet it does not save. Whence the prophet — looking not to the indulgence of God, but to the foulness of the act itself — said, ‘Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me’ [Ps. 50:7]: that is, what wonder if I have sinned, who am born of sin? For the nature of sin has attended its own begetting. For if matrimony itself were pleasing to God, never would a glorious crown be promised to those who abstain from it; nor would those who hate it be so loved by God. For he is not rewarded who flees the good, but he who flees the evil.

“Do you wish to know how matrimony is lawful? — how once it was even lawful to have sisters as wives? how Cain and Abel had [them]? These are the names of the daughters of Adam, whom he had in the beginning after Cain and Abel — Risam and Edoclam — and they did not sin, because the scarcity of men and necessity excused that fault. Afterward, as the number of men grew, that evil returned into its own nature and began to be a sin; yet it remained in use, so that one man was allowed to have several wives. Then, the world being enlarged, this evil too resumed its own nature and began to be a sin; yet it remained in use, so that one man should have one wife. But now, after the fullness of time has come and the world has grown old, we know what the counsel of God is, and what he wills, and what is pleasing before him. Yet we have not dared to say [it outright], on account of incontinent men — in whose body the soul does nothing, but blood wholly possesses them, and that most filthy vapor proceeding from that insane fire.

“Finally, when the angel commanded Tobias, at his nuptials, that before they came together according to that human custom they should first rise and pray, and say thus: ‘Lord, thou knowest that not for lust have I taken a wife, but for the sake of procreating children’ [Tob. 8] — for had he prayed otherwise, his prayer would not have been pleasing to God — see, therefore, that only the sake of children excuses that most base work of the flesh. But now, the world being multiplied, the occasion for creating men is extinguished; now not the multitude of men, but the charity of the saints, delights God. Behold, there is one lust which begets fornication, and [another] which supplies the marital use. But just as the shores set a boundary for the sea, saying, ‘Thus far shalt thou come, and here shalt thou be constrained’ — so marriage set a boundary for carnal lust, that coming just so far, it might there restrain itself. As therefore the sea, if it overpass its shores, transgresses, so also a man, if he transgress the marital license. If therefore the lust in married men and in adulterers is one and the same, how can it come about that one and the same thing should for one half be righteousness and for the other half be sin? For either it is wholly sin or wholly righteousness, since it is one thing; but it is true that lust is not righteousness — therefore it is wholly sin. Yet the penalty of that sin is not imputed, until this hateful and corruptible world pass away.” — Thus far, in the first homily.

Again, in homily 82, on that passage of Matthew 19 (“Moses, on account of [your] hardness,” etc.), speaking of second marriages, he says: “Even the Apostles enjoined [people] to enter upon second marriages on account of the incontinence of men. For to take a second [wife] is according to the Apostle’s precept; but according to the standard of truth, it is truly fornication. Yet while it is committed publicly and licitly, God permitting, it becomes an honorable fornication.”