Marriage and Virginity (continued)
15. In the city of our God, however, where marriage is sealed by the first act of intercourse between the two persons, once marriage has been entered into it cannot be dissolved by any means except by the death of one of them. The marriage bond remains, even if because of evident infertility no children result, despite the fact that this was the reason for entering into the marriage. Although the husband and wife now know that they will not have children, they are still not allowed to divorce and enter a relationship with someone else, not even for the purpose of having children. If they do this, they commit adultery with the ones with whom they have the new relationship, but they themselves remain husband and wife. It is clear that for the ancient fathers it was not wrong, with their wife's consent, to take another woman in order to have children from her. The child would belong to both women, to one because of her physical contribution, and to the other because of her rights and position.†29 Whether this is allowed now, I would not be quick to say. Now there is not the same need for offspring as there was then. At that time, in order to have a larger number of descendants, even when one's wife was able to have children, one was allowed to marry others as well, but this is certainly not allowed now. Making a clear distinction between the different circumstances of the times has such an effect on whether it is right or wrong to do something that, unless celibacy is impossible, it is now better not to have even one wife, whereas then even those who would much more readily have stayed celibate, had not piety demanded otherwise at that time, were blameless in having several wives. A good and wise person, who already longs to die and be with Christ and takes pleasure in the prospect of that supreme good,†30 no longer takes nourishment because of a desire to go on living here but out of duty, in order to remain in the body because of the needs of others. In the same way for holy men at that time the lawful act of intercourse in marriage was an act of duty, not sensuality.
Procreation an Act of Piety in the Old Testament
16, 18. What food is for the health of a person, sexual union is for the health of the race.
Neither is devoid of pleasure for the senses, and when this is regulated and put to its natural use under the restraint of moderation there cannot be passion.†31 On the other hand, what forbidden food is in relation to sustaining life, fornication and adultery are in relation to seeking to have offspring; and what forbidden food is in the case of gluttony, unlawful intercourse is in the case of passion without desire for offspring; and what excessive appetite for lawful food is for some people, the intercourse that is excusable is for married persons.
Accordingly, just as it is better to die of hunger than to eat food that has been sacrificed to idols, so too it is better to die without children than to look for descendants by an illicit union.†32 Nevertheless, whatever the circumstances of their birth, if people do not copy the vices of their parents and give God due worship, they will be honorable and will be saved.
Whatever person it comes from, the human seed is created by God, and while it will go badly for anyone who uses it badly, it will never itself be bad. Even so, just as the good children of adulterers do not justify the adulteries, so too the bad children of married persons are not the fault of marriage. There is no comparison at all between the fathers of New Testament times who took nourishment because it was their duty, even though they ate it with natural physical enjoyment, and the pleasure of those who ate the food from sacrifices,†33 or those who overindulged even in food that was not forbidden. So too the fathers of the Old Testament had intercourse because it was their duty, and their natural enjoyment of it was never let go to the point of becoming irrational or sinful passion, and there is no comparison between this and the depravity of adultery or married persons' excesses. Children have had to be provided for our mother Jerusalem, now spiritually and at that time physically, but always from the same source, love. The deeds of the fathers were different only because the times were different. It was necessary even for the prophets, who were not carnal persons, to participate in carnal union, just as it was necessary for the apostles, who were not carnal persons, to eat in a carnal way.†34
Marriage Today Is Not Comparable to Marriage in the Past
17, 19. There is no comparison between any of those women to whom it is now said, If they are unable to be continent, they should marry; for it is better to marry than to burn (1 Cor 7:9), and the holy women of those times, even the married ones. Among all peoples marriage exists for the same purpose, namely to have children, and however they turn out, marriage is instituted for them to be born in a regulated and honorable way. Persons, however, who are not chaste move up on the ladder of respectability, as it were, by marrying. On the other hand, those who would undoubtedly have remained celibate, had the demands of those times allowed it, in a certain sense went down a step in holiness by marrying. For this reason, although their marriages are equally good as marriages, since for both the purpose is to