Chapter XIV.—Even If the Permission Had Been Given by St. Paul in the Sense Which the Psychics Allege, It Was Merely Like the Mosaic Permission of Divorce—A Condescension to Human Hard-Heartedness.

Now, if the apostle had even absolutely permitted marriage when one’s partner has been lost subsequently to (conversion to) the faith, he would have done (it), just as (he did) the other (actions) which he did adversely to the (strict) letter of his own rule, to suit the circumstances of the times:  circumcising Timotheus96    Acts xvi. 3; see Gal. iii. iv. on account of “supposititious false brethren;” and leading certain “shaven men” into the temple97    Comp. Acts xxi. 20–26. on account of the observant watchfulness of the Jews—he who chastises the Galatians when they desire to live in (observance of) the law.98    See Gal. iii. iv.  But so did circumstances require him to “become all things to all, in order to gain all;”99    See 1 Cor. ix. 22. “travailing in birth with them until Christ should be formed in them;”100    Gal. iv. 19. and “cherishing, as it were a nurse,” the little ones of faith, by teaching them some things “by way of indulgence, not by way of command”—for it is one thing to indulge, another to bid—permitting a temporary licence of re-marriage on account of the “weakness of the flesh,” just as Moses of divorcing on account of “the hardness of the heart.”

And here, accordingly, we will render the supplement of this (his) meaning.  For if Christ abrogated what Moses enjoined, because “from the beginning (it) was not so;” and (if)—this being so—Christ will not therefore be reputed to have come from some other Power; why may not the Paraclete, too, have abrogated an indulgence which Paul granted—because second marriage withal “was not from the beginning”—without deserving on this account to be regarded with suspicion, as if he were an alien spirit, provided only that the superinduction be worthy of God and of Christ?  If it was worthy of God and of Christ to check “hard-heartedness” when the time (for its indulgence) was fully expired, why should it not be more worthy both of God and of Christ to shake off “infirmity of the flesh” when “the time” is already more “wound up?”  If it is just that marriage be not severed, it is, of course, honourable too that it be not iterated.  In short, in the estimation of the world, each is accounted a mark of good discipline:  one under the name of concord; one, of modesty.  “Hardness of heart” reigned till Christ’s time; let “infirmity of the flesh” (be content to) have reigned till the time of the Paraclete.  The New Law abrogated divorce—it had (somewhat) to abrogate; the New Prophecy (abrogates) second marriage, (which is) no less a divorce of the former (marriage).  But the “hardness of heart” yielded to Christ more readily than the “infirmity of the flesh.”  The latter claims Paul in its own support more than the former Moses; if, indeed, it is claiming him in its support when it catches at his indulgence, (but) refuses his prescript—eluding his more deliberate opinions and his constant “wills,” not suffering us to render to the apostle the (obedience) which he “prefers.”

And how long will this most shameless “infirmity” persevere in waging a war of extermination against the “better things?”  The time for its indulgence was (the interval) until the Paraclete began His operations, to whose coming were deferred by the Lord (the things) which in His day “could not be endured;” which it is now no longer competent for any one to be unable to endure, seeing that He through whom the power of enduring is granted is not wanting.  How long shall we allege “the flesh,” because the Lord said, “the flesh is weak?”101    Matt. xxvi. 41.  But He has withal premised that “the Spirit is prompt,” in order that the Spirit may vanquish the flesh—that the weak may yield to the stronger.  For again He says, “Let him who is able to receive, receive (it);”102    Matt. xix. 12. that is, let him who is not able go his way.  That rich man did go his way who had not “received” the precept of dividing his substance to the needy, and was abandoned by the Lord to his own opinion.103    See Matt. xix. 16–26; Mark x. 17–27; Luke xviii. 18–27.  Nor will “harshness” be on this account imputed to Christ, the ground of the vicious action of each individual free-will.  “Behold,” saith He, “I have set before thee good and evil.”104    See Deut. xxx. 1, 15, 19, and xi. 26.  See, too, de Ex. Cast., c. ii.  Choose that which is good:  if you cannot, because you will not—for that you can if you will He has shown, because He has proposed each to your free-will—you ought to depart from Him whose will you do not.

CAPUT XIV.

Nunc si et absolute Apostolus permisisset in fide, amisso matrimonio, nubere, proinde fecisset quemadmodum et caetera, quae adversus formam regulae suae pro conditione temporum gessit, circumcidens Timotheum propter superinductitios falsos fratres, et rasos quosdam inducens in templum propter observationem Judaeorum (Act. XVI, 3, XXI, 24), ille 0949C qui Galatas, in Lege volentes agere, castigat. Sed ita res exigebant , ut omnibus omnia fieret, quo omnes lucrifaceret, parturiens illos, donec formaretur Christus in ipsis, et calefaciens tanquam nutrix parvulos fidei (I Cor., IX, 20; Gal., IV, 9), docendo quaedam per veniam, non per imperium, aliud est enim indulgere, aliud jubere: proinde temporalem licentiam permittens denuo nubendi propter infirmitatem carnis, quemadmodum Moyses repudiandi propter duritiam cordis (Deuter. XXIV, 1). Et hic itaque reddemus supplementum sensus istius. Si enim Christus abstulit quod Moyses praecepit, quia ab initio non fuit sic (Matt. XIX, 8), nec sic ideo ab alia venisse virtute reputabitur Christus; cur non et Paracletus abstulerit, quod Paulus indulsit? Quia et 0949D secundum matrimonium ab initio non fuit, nec ideo suspectus habendus sit, quasi spiritus alienus, tantum ut Deo et Christo dignum sit quod superducitur ? Si Deo et Christo dignum fuit duritiam cordis tempore expleto compescere, cur non dignius 0950A sit et Deo et Christo infirmitatem carnis tempore jam collectiore discutere? Si justum est matrimonium non separari, utique et non iterari honestum est. Denique, apud saeculum utrumque in bona disciplina deputatur, aliud concordiae nomine, aliud pudicitiae. Regnavit duritia cordis usque ad Christum: regnaverit et infirmitas carnis usque ad Paracletum. Nova lex abstulit repudium, habuit quod auferret. Nova prophetia, secundum matrimonium, non minus repudium prioris. Sed facilius duritia cordis Christo cessit, quam infirmitas carnis. Plus haec sibi Paulum defendit, quam illa Moysen; tamen defendit cum indulgentem eum captat, praescribentem recusat, quae potiores sententias et perpetuas voluntates ejus eludit; quae non sinit nos hoc Apostolo praestare, 0950B quod mavult. Et quousque infirmitas ista impudentissima in expugnando meliora perseverabit? Tempus ejus donec Paracletus operaretur fuit, in quem dilata sunt a Domino, quae tunc sustineri non poterant, quae jam nemini competit portare non posse; quia per quem datur portare posse, non deest. Quamdiu causabimur carnem, quia dixit Dominus, Caro infirma (Matth., XXV, 1)? Sed praemisit et, Spiritus promptus; ut vincat spiritus carnem, ut cedat quod infirmum est fortiori. Nam et: Qui potest capere, capiat (Matth., XIX, 12), inquit; id est, qui non potest, discedat. Discessit et ille dives, qui non ceperat substantiae dividendae egenis praeceptum, et dimissus est sententiae suae a Domino (Matth., XIX, 16-22). Nec ideo duritia imputabitur 0950C Christo de arbitrii cujuscumque liberi vitio . Ecce, inquit, posui ante te bonum et malum (Deut., XXX, 15, Eccli., XV, 18); elige quod bonum est; si non potes, quia non vis ( posse enim te, si velis, ostendit, quia tuo arbitrio utrumque proposuit), discedas oportet ab eo, cujus non facis voluntatem.