CHAPTER THREE: The Revelation of God's Law (part 3 of 4)
The Fourth Commandment
Remember to sanctify the day of rest. Six days you shall labor and perform all your work. The seventh is the rest of the Lord your God. You shall perform none of your work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female servant, your livestock, or the stranger within your gates. For in six days, etc.
The purpose of this commandment is that, being dead to our own desires and works, we should meditate upon the kingdom of God and exercise ourselves in that meditation by the means he has ordained.
Nevertheless, because this commandment has a particular character distinct from the others, it requires a somewhat different exposition. The ancient doctors customarily called it “shadowy,” because it contains the outward observance of a particular day, which was abolished at the coming of Christ along with the other figures.
This is certainly true, but it touches only half the matter. We must therefore begin our exposition from a higher point and consider three purposes contained within this commandment.
First, under the rest of the seventh day, the Lord intended to represent spiritual rest to the people of Israel. Believers must cease from their own works so that they may permit God to work within them.
Second, he willed that there should be an appointed day on which they assembled to hear the law and observe his ceremonies.
Third, he intended to give a day of rest to servants and laborers subject to the authority of others, so that they might have some relief from their toil.
Yet many passages show that the representation of spiritual rest held the principal place in this commandment (Numbers 15; Exodus 31 and 35; Jeremiah 17; Ezekiel 20 and 22; Isaiah 56). For God never required obedience to any commandment more strictly than to this one.
When he declares through his Prophets that all religion has been destroyed, he complains that his Sabbath has been polluted and violated or that it has not been properly kept and sanctified—as though, once this point were abandoned, nothing remained in which he could be honored.
Conversely, he greatly commends its observance. For this reason, among all the blessings God had bestowed upon them, the faithful regarded the revelation of his Sabbath as a singular benefit. Thus the Levites speak in Nehemiah:
“You revealed your holy Sabbath to our fathers and gave them your commandments, ceremonies, and law by the hand of Moses.”
We see how they esteemed it above all the other commandments. This shows us the dignity and excellence of the Sabbath, which Moses and Ezekiel also explain clearly. For we read in Exodus:
“Observe my Sabbath, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the God who sanctifies you. Therefore, keep my Sabbath, for it must be holy to you. Let the children of Israel keep it and celebrate it throughout their generations, for it is a perpetual covenant and an everlasting sign.”
Ezekiel speaks of this even more fully, yet the substance of his words is that the Sabbath was a sign by which Israel was to know that God was its Sanctifier (Ezekiel 20).
If our sanctification consists in renouncing our own will, the correspondence between the outward sign and the inward reality is already evident. We must cease altogether so that God may work within us. We must surrender our will, resign our hearts, and renounce and forsake all the desires of our flesh. In short, we must cease from everything proceeding from our own understanding so that, with God working within us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches.
This was represented to Israel by the rest of the seventh day. To render its observance more sacred, our Lord confirmed this order by his own example. For it ought greatly to move man when he is taught to imitate his Creator.
If anyone seeks a hidden significance in the number seven, it is probable that, since this number signifies perfection in Scripture, it was chosen here to denote perpetuity. This corresponds with what we find in Moses: after telling us that the Lord rested on the seventh day, he appoints no subsequent day to bring that rest to an end.
Another probable interpretation may also be offered. By this number the Lord intended to signify that the Sabbath of believers will never be perfectly accomplished until the last day. We begin it here and pursue it daily, but because we still wage continual warfare against our flesh, it will not be completed until Isaiah’s declaration is fulfilled —that in the kingdom of God there shall be a Sabbath continuing eternally (Isaiah 66)—when God shall be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
It may therefore appear that by the seventh day the Lord intended to represent to his people the perfection of the Sabbath that will come on the last day, so that throughout this life they might continually aspire toward that perfection.
If this interpretation seems too subtle and anyone is unwilling to receive it, I do not object to his resting in a simpler explanation: that the Lord appointed a day by which the people, under the tutelage of the law, might be trained to meditate upon an endless spiritual rest.
He assigned the seventh day either because he judged it sufficient, because he wished to encourage the people more effectively to observe this ceremony by setting his own example before them, or rather because he intended to show that the Sabbath tended toward no other end than to conform them to their Creator.
The precise explanation matters little, provided the mystery’s significance remains: that the people were instructed to cease from their own works. The Prophets continually directed the Jews toward this contemplation so that they would not imagine they had fulfilled the commandment merely by abstaining from manual labor.
Besides the passages already cited, Isaiah says:
“If you turn away your foot on the Sabbath, refraining from doing your own pleasure on my holy day; if you call the Sabbath holy and delightful to the glorious Lord, and honor him by not performing your own works or pursuing your own pleasure, then you shall prosper in God.”
—Isaiah 58
There is no doubt that what was ceremonial in this commandment was abolished by the coming of Christ. For he is the truth whose presence causes all figures to vanish. He is the body before whom the shadows are forsaken. He is, I say, the true fulfillment of the Sabbath.
For being buried with him through baptism, we are united with him in his death so that, being made participants in his resurrection, we may walk in newness of life (Romans 6).
Therefore, the Apostle says that the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come and that the substance belongs to Christ—that is, the true and solid reality, which he explains clearly in that passage (Colossians 2).
This reality is not content with a single day but requires the whole course of our lives, until, being altogether dead to ourselves, we are filled with the truth of God. It follows that every superstitious observance of days must be far removed from Christians.
Nevertheless, since the two remaining purposes must not be numbered among the ancient shadows but apply equally to every age, although the Sabbath has been abolished, this principle continues among us: we must have appointed days on which to assemble to hear preaching, offer public prayers, and celebrate the sacraments. Second, servants and laborers must be given some relief from their work.
There is no doubt that the Lord had both purposes in view when he commanded the Sabbath. The first is sufficiently demonstrated by the practice of the Jews themselves. Moses notes the second in Deuteronomy:
“That your male and female servants may rest as you do. Remember that you were a servant in Egypt.”
Likewise in Exodus:
“That your ox and donkey and your household may rest.” —Exodus 23
Who can deny that these two purposes apply to us no less than to the Jews? Ecclesiastical assemblies are commanded by the Word of God, and experience itself demonstrates how necessary they are for us. But unless appointed days are established, when could we assemble?
The Apostle teaches that among us all things must be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14). Yet so far is it from being possible to preserve decency and order without this arrangement of days that, if it were abolished, we would immediately witness extraordinary disorder and confusion within the church.
If, therefore, we experience the same necessity that the Lord intended to remedy by ordaining the Sabbath for the Jews, let no one claim that this law has no relevance to us. For our gracious Father certainly intended to provide for our necessity no less than for theirs.
“But why,” someone may ask, “do we not assemble every day and thereby remove this distinction?”
I would greatly desire it. Indeed, spiritual wisdom deserves to have some portion of every day assigned to it. But if, because of the infirmity of many, daily assembly cannot be obtained, and love does not permit us to compel them any further, why should we not follow the rule God has shown us?
We must speak somewhat more fully on this matter because certain restless minds today raise an uproar over Sunday. They complain that the Christian people are being maintained in a form of Judaism because they still retain some observance of days.
I answer that we observe Sunday without Judaizing because there is a great difference between us and the Jews. We do not observe it with strict religious devotion as a ceremony containing some spiritual mystery. Rather, we employ it as a necessary means of preserving good order within the church.
“But,” they say, “Saint Paul denies that Christians should be judged regarding the observance of days, since such things are shadows of things to come. For the same reason, he fears that he has labored among the Galatians in vain because they still observe days. And in Romans he declares it superstition to distinguish one day from another” (Colossians 2; Galatians 4; Romans 14).
But what person of sober understanding does not see what kind of observance the Apostle is discussing? Those people were not considering the purpose we have described—the preservation of order and good governance in the church. By retaining festivals as shadows of spiritual things, they obscured the glory of Christ and the brightness of the gospel.
They did not abstain from manual labor because it hindered them from devoting themselves to meditation upon God’s Word. Rather, they did so out of foolish devotion, imagining that by resting they were rendering service to God.
It is against this perverse doctrine that Saint Paul protests, not against the lawful ordinance established to preserve peace within Christian fellowship. For the churches he founded observed the Sabbath for this latter purpose. He demonstrates this by appointing that day for the Corinthians to bring their offerings to the church (1 Corinthians 16).
If we fear superstition, it was more to be feared in the Jewish festivals than it is now on Sunday. Therefore, because it was expedient to overthrow superstition, the day observed by the Jews was abandoned. And because another day was necessary for maintaining order, good governance, and peace in the church, a different day was appointed in its place.
I do not insist upon the number seven in order to subject the church to any form of bondage. For I would not condemn churches that appointed other solemn days for assembly, provided there were no superstition—which there is not when the sole purpose is to maintain good order.
Let this, then, be the substance of the commandment. As the truth was represented to the Jews under a figure, so it is declared to us without a figure: throughout our lives we must meditate upon a perpetual rest from our own works so that God may work within us by his Spirit.
Second, we must observe the lawful order of the church by hearing the Word, celebrating the sacraments, and offering public prayers.
Third, we must not excessively burden those who are under our authority.
This overturns the falsehoods of those false teachers who formerly filled the poor common people with Jewish notions, distinguishing between Sunday and the Sabbath only by saying that the seventh day formerly observed had been abolished but that one day must nevertheless still be kept in the same manner.
This amounts to nothing more than changing the day in defiance of the Jews while retaining the superstition condemned by Saint Paul: that the day possesses some hidden spiritual significance, as it did under the Old Testament.
Indeed, we see what their doctrine has produced. Those who follow it surpass the Jews in their carnal conception of the Sabbath, so that the rebukes found in Isaiah would apply more properly to them than to those whom the Prophet reproved in his own day.
The Fifth Commandment
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord your God gives you.
The purpose is this: because God wills the order he has established to be maintained, we must observe the degrees of authority as he has appointed them.
The substance of the commandment, therefore, is that we must reverence those whom the Lord has ordained as our superiors and render them honor and obedience, together with gratitude for the benefits we have received from them.
From this follows the prohibition that we must not detract from their dignity through contempt, rebellion, or ingratitude. For the word honor bears this broad meaning in Scripture. Thus, when the Apostle says that elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, he speaks not only of the reverence owed to them but also of the compensation their labor deserves.
Because this commandment, which subjects us to our superiors, is strongly opposed to the perversity of our nature—which, swollen with ambition and pride, does not willingly submit—the least objectionable and most agreeable form of authority is presented to us as an example, since it is best able to bend and soften our hearts toward obedient submission.
Thus, through the subjection that is sweetest and easiest to bear, the Lord gradually accustoms us to every form of lawful subjection, because the same principle applies to them all.
Whenever God gives someone preeminence, he communicates his own name to that person insofar as is necessary to preserve his authority. The titles Father, God, and Lord belong so properly to God that whenever they are mentioned, our hearts ought to be moved by an acknowledgment of his majesty.
Therefore, when he permits men to share these titles, he imparts to them, as it were, some spark of his own brightness so that they may be ennobled and rendered honorable according to their rank.
Thus, in the person called father, we must recognize something of divine honor, since he does not bear God’s title without cause.
Likewise, one who is a prince or lord participates in some measure in the honor of God.
We must not doubt, therefore, that the Lord here establishes a universal rule: according as we recognize someone to have been ordained by God as our superior, we must render him honor, reverence, and love and perform every service toward him within our power.
Nor must we consider whether our superiors are worthy of such honor. Whatever their character may be, they did not attain their position apart from God’s will, and it is on account of that position that our Lord commands us to honor them.
Nevertheless, he expressly commands us to reverence the parents who brought us into this life, something nature itself ought to teach us. For all who violate parental authority through contempt or rebellion are monsters rather than men.
Therefore, our Lord commands that all who disobey father or mother should be put to death, and with good reason. For since they do not acknowledge those through whom they entered this life, they are surely unworthy to live.
Many passages of the law confirm what we have said: the honor spoken of here consists of three parts—reverence, obedience, and love arising from gratitude for benefits received.
The first is commanded when God orders that anyone who curses father or mother should be put to death, for in this manner he punishes all contempt and disrespect (Exodus 21; Leviticus 20; Proverbs 20).
The second appears in his command that the rebellious and disobedient child should likewise be put to death.
The third is confirmed by Christ’s declaration in Matthew 15 that God commands us to support our parents and do them good.
Whenever Saint Paul mentions this commandment, he exhorts us to obedience, which belongs to the second part (Ephesians 6; Colossians 3).
The promise is added to commend the commandment more highly and remind us how pleasing this submission is to God. Saint Paul uses this incentive when he says that this is the first commandment with a promise. For the promise previously given in the first table was not attached to one commandment alone but extended to the whole law.
The present promise must be understood in this manner. The Lord spoke specifically to the Israelites concerning the land he had promised them as an inheritance. If possession of that land was a pledge of God’s favor, we should not be surprised that he chose to testify to his grace by promising them long life, through which they might enjoy his blessing for a longer time.
It is therefore as though he had said: “Honor your father and mother, so that by living long you may enjoy for a longer time the land that shall serve as a testimony of my grace toward you.”
Moreover, because the whole earth is blessed to believers, we rightly number the present life among God’s blessings. Therefore, insofar as long life is evidence of God’s favor toward us, this promise also belongs to us.
Long life is not promised to us, any more than it was promised to the Jews, because it contains blessedness within itself, but because it is a sign of God’s goodness toward the righteous.
Therefore, if an obedient child dies in youth—as frequently happens —God nevertheless remains entirely faithful to his promise. Indeed, he fulfills it no less than if he were to give a hundred acres of land to someone to whom he had promised only two.
The whole matter rests upon this: long life is promised here only insofar as it is a blessing, and it is a blessing from God insofar as it testifies to his grace. Yet he displays that grace to his servants a hundred thousand times more clearly in death.
Conversely, when the Lord promises his blessing in the present life to those who obey their fathers and mothers, he likewise signifies that his curse shall come upon all who are disobedient. To ensure that his judgment is executed, he commands in his law that justice be carried out against them.
If they escape the hands of men in some manner, God himself will avenge their disobedience. For we see how many such people die in wars, quarrels, or other ways, so that it becomes apparent that God’s hand is at work in bringing them to a miserable end.
And if some escape until old age, yet remain deprived of God’s blessing in this life, merely languishing here while being reserved for greater punishment hereafter, they are very far from participating in this promise.
Finally, we must briefly observe that we are commanded to obey our parents only in the Lord, as is evident from the foundation we have established (Ephesians 6). They preside over us because God has elevated them and communicated to them some portion of his honor.
Therefore, the submission rendered to them should serve as a step leading us to reverence God, who is the supreme Father. Consequently, if they seek to make us transgress his law, we must not then regard them as fathers but as strangers who seek to turn us away from obedience to our true Father.
We must form the same judgment concerning our princes, lords, and superiors. For it would be exceedingly unreasonable if their preeminence possessed any authority to diminish the supremacy of God, since it depends upon his authority and ought to magnify rather than diminish it—to confirm rather than violate it.
The Sixth Commandment
You shall not kill.
The purpose of this commandment is that, because God has united the whole human race in a common bond, the safety and preservation of everyone must be precious to each of us.
In sum, therefore, every act of violence, injury, or harm by which our neighbor’s body is wounded is forbidden to us. From this we must proceed to the positive command: if we are able to do anything to preserve our neighbor’s life, we must faithfully employ ourselves in doing so. We must both provide whatever contributes to his welfare and oppose whatever threatens it. Likewise, if anyone is in danger or distress, we must assist and relieve him.
If we remember that God is the Lawgiver who speaks here, we must understand that he gives this rule to our souls. For it would be ridiculous to suppose that he who beholds the thoughts of the heart and chiefly regards them would instruct only our bodies in true righteousness.
Therefore, murder of the heart is forbidden here, and the inward affection of preserving our neighbor’s life is commanded. Although the hand gives birth to murder, the heart conceives it when infected with anger and hatred.
Consider whether you can be angry with your brother without desiring to harm him. If you cannot be angry without such a desire, neither can you hate him without it, since hatred is nothing but deeprooted anger.
However much you may dissemble and seek refuge beneath deceitful excuses, it is certain that hatred and anger cannot exist without the desire to do harm. If you still seek to evade the matter, the Holy Spirit has already pronounced that everyone who hates his brother in his heart is a murderer (1 John 3:15).
Christ likewise declares that whoever is angry with his brother is liable to judgment; whoever displays his anger is liable to condemnation before the council; and whoever insults him is liable to the fire of hell (Matthew 5).
Scripture identifies two reasons upon which this commandment is founded: man is the image of God, and he is also our own flesh.
Therefore, if we would not violate the image of God, we must do no injury to our neighbor. And if we would not renounce all humanity, we must cherish him as our own flesh.
The exhortation that may be drawn from the benefit of Christ’s redemption will be treated elsewhere. But the Lord intended us naturally to consider these two things already mentioned in man, both of which lead us to do him good: that in everyone we should reverence God’s image impressed upon him and love our own flesh.
Therefore, a person who has abstained from shedding blood is not necessarily innocent of murder. For whoever either commits an act contrary to his neighbor’s welfare, endeavors or plots to do so, or merely conceives it in his heart is regarded by God as a murderer.
Conversely, unless we employ ourselves according to our ability and the opportunity given us to do good to our neighbor, we transgress this commandment by our cruelty.
If the Lord is so deeply concerned for the bodily welfare of every person, we may understand from this how greatly he obligates us to seek the salvation of souls, which are incomparably more precious before him.
The Seventh Commandment
You shall not commit adultery.
The purpose of this commandment is that, because God loves purity and chastity, every form of uncleanness must be far removed from us.
Its substance, therefore, is that we must not be stained by any impurity or fleshly intemperance. Corresponding to this prohibition is the positive command that our life in all its actions should be regulated by chastity and self-control.
God expressly forbids adultery, toward which all sexual incontinence tends, so that by the shamefulness and indecency of adultery—which is all the more visible more visible because it dishonors our bodies—he may cause us to abhor every form of sexual impurity.
Man was created on the condition that he should not live alone but should possess a helper corresponding to himself. Moreover, through the curse of sin, he became still more subject to this necessity. Therefore, insofar as it was expedient, the Lord provided us with a remedy by instituting marriage, which, having ordained it by his authority, he sanctified by his blessing.
From this it is evident that every union of man and woman outside marriage is cursed before him, while the fellowship of marriage is given as a remedy for our necessity so that we may not give free rein to our sinful desires.
Let us not flatter ourselves when we hear that a man cannot live with a woman outside marriage without incurring the curse of God.
We need this remedy for two reasons: both because of the condition of our original nature and because of the corruption that subsequently entered it. No one is exempt except the person to whom God has granted a special grace. Let everyone, therefore, carefully consider what has been given to him.
Those who have not received the special gift of continence, if they refuse to employ the remedy granted and offered to them, contend against God and resist his ordinance.
Let no one object here, as many customarily do, that by God’s assistance he will be able to do all things. For such assistance is given only to those who walk in his ways—that is, within their calling (Psalm 91). All who forsake the means God provides and rashly attempt to overcome their necessity by their own presumption have departed from that calling.
The Lord declares that continence is a singular gift, not bestowed indiscriminately upon his whole church but upon very few of its members. For he sets before us a particular class of persons who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven—that is, so that they may devote themselves more freely to the service of God’s glory (Matthew 19).
Lest anyone imagine that this lies within our own power, Christ had already said that not everyone is capable of receiving it, but only those to whom it is given from heaven. He therefore concludes, “Let the one who is able to receive it, receive it.”
Saint Paul teaches the same even more clearly when he says:
“Each person has received his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.”
But our priests, monks, and nuns, disregarding this consideration, confidently suppose that they will be able to remain continent. Yet who revealed to them that they could preserve chastity throughout their lives, as they bind themselves perpetually to do?
They hear God’s declaration concerning the universal condition of mankind:
“It is not good for man to be alone.”
They also understand—and would to God they did not so keenly experience—how fierce the goads of incontinence are within their flesh. With what boldness, then, do they dare reject this general calling for their entire lives, since the gift of continence is often granted only for a particular season, as circumstances require?
In such obstinacy, they should not expect God to assist them but should instead remember what is written:
“You shall not tempt the Lord your God.”
To tempt God is to strive against the nature he has given us and to despise the remedies he provides, as though they had no relevance to us.
These people not only do this but are unashamed to call marriage a pollution. Yet our Lord did not consider its institution unworthy of his majesty; he pronounced it honorable among all; and Jesus Christ sanctified it by his presence and honored it with his first miracle (Genesis 2; Hebrews 13; John 2).
They do this solely to magnify the condition they have embraced—the abstention from marriage—as though their own lives did not plainly demonstrate that abstaining from marriage and possessing virgin chastity are entirely different things.
Yet they are so shameless as to call their manner of life “angelic.” In this they grievously insult the angels of God, comparing them with fornicators, adulterers, and men guilty of even worse abominations.
No elaborate arguments are needed here, since the truth itself convicts them. For we see plainly with what horrible punishments our Lord repays such arrogance and contempt for his gifts. I am ashamed to uncover the more secret things, although far too much is already known—so much that the very air stinks with it.
They offer one argument to prove that priests should not marry: if the Levitical priests were required to refrain from relations with their wives whenever they approached the altar, so that they might offer their sacrifices more purely, it would be improper for the Christian sacraments, being nobler and more excellent, to be administered by married men.
As though the evangelical ministry and the Levitical priesthood were the same office!
On the contrary, the Levitical priests represented the person of Jesus Christ, who, as Mediator between God and men, was to reconcile us to the Father by his perfect purity.
Since those priests were sinners and could not fully correspond to Christ’s holiness, they were commanded to purify themselves beyond ordinary human custom whenever they approached the sanctuary, so that they might represent him in some measure through these figures. At that time, they specifically bore the figure of Christ because, acting as mediators, they appeared before God on behalf of the people in the tabernacle, which was an image of the heavenly throne.
But because ecclesiastical pastors do not possess this office or represent this person, the comparison is irrelevant.
Therefore, the Apostle declares without exception that marriage is honorable among all, but that God will judge fornicators and adulterers (Hebrews 13).
Moreover, it was exceedingly presumptuous for them to require such continence as a matter of necessity. In doing so, they brought great reproach upon the ancient church, which was not only distinguished by pure doctrine but flourished even more remarkably in holiness.
For what, I ask, will they say of all the ancient Fathers, who plainly not only tolerated marriage among bishops but also approved it? It would follow that they perpetuated a profanation of God’s mysteries, since, according to the present opinion, married men could not administer them purely.
It is true that this matter was debated at the Council of Nicaea. As there are always certain superstitious persons who invent some new fantasy to make themselves appear remarkable, some wished marriage to be forbidden to priests.
But what was decided? The opinion of Paphnutius was accepted, who declared that a man’s faithful cohabitation with his wife was chastity. Thus holy marriage remained intact. It was not regarded as dishonorable for bishops to be married, nor was marriage judged to bring any stain upon the ministry.
Likewise, the Fathers who followed, with the exception of Jerome, did not detract so severely from the honor of marriage.
We shall be content with one testimony from Saint Chrysostom, since he cannot be suspected of favoring marriage too greatly. On the contrary, he was excessively inclined to praise and magnify virginity. Yet he speaks in this manner:
“The first degree of chastity is undefiled virginity. The second is marriage faithfully preserved. Therefore, the love of a husband and wife who live honorably in marriage is a second kind of virginity.”
Now, if married persons acknowledge that their union is blessed by God, this should warn them not to contaminate it through unrestrained intemperance. Although the honor of marriage covers the shamefulness of incontinence, that does not mean marriage should become an incentive to it.
They must not imagine, therefore, that everything is lawful for them. Each husband must conduct himself soberly toward his wife, and each wife likewise toward her husband, governing themselves so that they do nothing contrary to the holiness of marriage.
For God’s ordinance must be regulated and reduced to such modesty, not allowed to overflow into dissipation.
Finally, we must consider who the Lawgiver is that condemns adultery: the one who possesses us entirely and therefore rightly requires integrity from us in body, soul, and spirit.
Thus, when he forbids adultery, he also forbids us to entice others toward evil by immodest clothing, indecent gestures and behavior, or shameful speech.
The philosopher Archelaus did not speak without reason when he told a young man dressed too delicately that it made no difference through which part of his body he displayed his immodesty. This judgment is valid before God, who abhors every impurity wherever it may be found, whether in soul or body.
Lest anyone doubt this, let us remember that God commends chastity to us here. If he commands chastity, he condemns everything opposed to it.
Therefore, if we would obey this commandment, our hearts must not burn inwardly with evil desire; our eyes must not look immodestly; our faces must not be adorned for seduction; our tongues must not entice others to immorality with filthy words; and our mouths must not, through intemperance, provide occasion for lust.
For all these vices are stains by which chastity and continence are defiled and their purity polluted.