8. Whence, also, what the Apostle Paul said of the unmarried woman, “that she may be holy both in body and spirit;”18    1 Cor. vii. 34 we are not so to understand, as though a faithful woman being married and chaste, and according to the Scriptures subject unto her husband, be not holy in body, but only in spirit. For it cannot come to pass, that when the spirit is sanctified, the body also be not holy, of which the sanctified spirit maketh use: but, that we seem not to any to argue rather than to prove this by divine saying; since the Apostle Peter, making mention of Sarah, saith only “holy women,” and saith not, “and in body;” let us consider that saying of the same Paul, where forbidding fornication he saith, “Know ye not, that your bodies are members of Christ? Taking, therefore, members of Christ, shall I make them members of an harlot? Far be it.”19    1 Cor. vi. 15. [See R.V.] Therefore let any one dare to say that the members of Christ are not holy; or let him not dare to separate from the members of Christ the bodies of the faithful that are married. Whence, also, a little after he saith, “Your body is the temple within you of the Holy Spirit, Whom ye have from God; and ye are not your own; for ye have been bought with a great price.”20    1 Cor. vi. 19, 20 He saith that the body of the faithful is both members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Spirit, wherein assuredly the faithful of both sexes are understood. There therefore are married women, there unmarried women also; but distinct in their deserts, and as members preferred to members, whilst yet neither are separated from the body. Whereas, therefore, he saith, speaking of an unmarried woman, “that she may be holy both in body and spirit,” he would have understood a fuller sanctification both in body and in spirit, and hath not deprived the body of married women of all sanctification.

CAPUT VI.

8. Nuptas etiam corpore sanctas esse, licet minus quam innuptas. Bonum viduitatis non minuitur laudato bono conjugii, sed augetur. An beatior Anna vidua, quam Ruth bis nupta. Unde et illud quod de innupta Paulus apostolus dixit, Ut sit sancta et corpore et spiritu (I Cor. VII, 34), non sic accipiendum est, quasi nupta fidelis et casta, et secundum Scripturas subdita viro, non sit sancta corpore, sed tantummodo 0435 spiritu. Fieri enim non potest ut sanctificato spiritu, non sit sanctum etiam corpus, quo sanctificatus utitur spiritus. Sed ne cuiquam nos potius argumentari, quam hoc divino eloquio probare videamur; quoniam Petrus Saram commemorans, Sanctae, inquit, mulieres tantummodo; non ait, et corpore: illud ejusdem Pauli consideremus, ubi prohibens fornicationes ait, Nescitis quia corpora vestra membra sunt Christi? Tollens ergo membra Christi, faciam membra meretricis? Absit. Audeat ergo aliquis dicere membra Christi sancta non esse: aut vero audeat a membris Christi fidelium conjugatarum corpora separare. Unde etiam paulo post ait: Corpus vestrum templum in vobis est Spiritus sancti, quem habetis a Deo: et non estis vestri; empti enim estis pretio magno (I Cor. VI, 15, 19 et 20). Corpus fidelium et membra Christi esse dixit, et templum Spiritus sancti, ubi profecto utriusque sexus fideles intelliguntur. Ibi ergo sunt nuptae, ibi et innuptae; sed distinctae meritis, et tanquam membris membra praelata, quorum tamen neutra sint a corpore separata. Quod igitur de innupta loquens ait, Ut sit sancta et corpore et spiritu; ampliorem innuptarum et in corpore et in spiritu sanctificationem intelligi voluit, non corpus nuptarum omni sanctificatione privavit.