About chastity

The essay “On Chastity” (12 chapters, 207) was written in the form of an admonition to a widowed brother. Tertullian tries to dissuade him from a second marriage and reminds him that through the loss of his wife, God is giving him an indication of the path of a celibate life. Monogamy is the original idea of ​​marriage. If polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament, then in the New Testament it is strictly prohibited. The second marriage must be rejected: it is similar to debauchery (chapter 9). To substantiate his position, Tertullian points out that in the New Testament all Christians are priests. Since the apostolic commandment excludes all bigamous people from the priesthood, neither a priest nor a layman can enter into a second marriage. *The title of the work in Latin is De exhortatione castitatis. Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I have no doubt, dear brother, that since the death of your wife you have thoroughly thought about how to find peace of soul, which you cannot achieve otherwise than by remaining a widower for the future. Give this your full attention. Although in this regard everyone must rely most on himself and consider his own strengths; but since the demands of the flesh here interfere with the reasoning of the mind and resist faith, this latter needs the advice of another person who would serve him as a lawyer or advocate against the flesh. The flesh can be overcome by the mind when the mind follows the will of God rather than its own weakness. No one can and should not be magnified by boldly pleasing his flesh: we must be magnified by obedience to the will of God, which constitutes our sanctification. God wants the one whom He created in His image to be like Him in everything, and to be as holy as He is holy. He established different degrees of holiness for us to participate in. The first degree is virginity, observed from birth. The second degree of virginity after baptism is that during marriage we purify ourselves voluntarily by separation between husband and wife, or that we maintain chastity, remaining constantly as if in a celibate state. Finally, the third degree consists of monogamy, when we renounce the female sex after the death of our first wife. The first happiness, the first virginity is not knowing at all what you can later regret, having known it. The second degree is to despise what you know too well. The third is also worthy of praise, because self-control is a virtue. To be abstinent means not to regret what we are deprived of, and deprived of the Lord God, without whose will not a single leaf will fall from a tree, “not a single bird will fall to the ground” (Matthew 10.29). Doesn’t Job’s saying mean direct modesty and abstinence: “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; [as the Lord pleased, so it was done]” (Job 1.21). On the contrary, by entering into a second marriage, we act against the will of God, wanting a second time to gain what He deprived us of. If God wanted us to remain married, then He would not have taken our first wife away from us, unless anyone thought that God could again want what he once did not want. A sincere and thorough faith should not thus attribute everything to the will of God without any exception. Everyone flatters himself that nothing can happen without His will, as if we did not have our own will. It would be very easy for us to excuse all our sins if we believed that they could not be caused otherwise than by the will of God. This would mean destroying every law, every order, it would even mean, I dare say, destroying God Himself, when anyone decided to say that by His will he does what he himself does not want. How could the Lord, under the threat of eternal fire, prohibit such things as He desires? No doubt He forbids them both because they offend Him and because He does not want them. He equally commands us to do what He pleases, and for doing this He accepts us and rewards us with eternal life. So, when we know what He wants and does not want, then we have the freedom to will this or that, as it is said: “before man is life and death, and whatever he desires, that will be given to him” (Sir 15.17). We should not attribute to the will of God what is left to us at our own will. God wants us to be kind; He cannot wish evil. It is in your will to want to do evil contrary to the will of God, who desires only good. I say that the will of the forces is within us, because we are similar in this respect to our forefather. Adam, the first man and the first sinner, wanted as soon as he sinned. The devil did not instill in him the will to sin, but only gave him a reason to do so. It was God's will that Adam should obey Him freely. This is how it should be with you. God gave you arbitrariness, that is, the will to want. Then He allows you to do even what He does not like. If you disobey Him, you will become a slave of the devil who has overcome you. The devil wants you to desire what God does not want; but he cannot force you to want this, because he could not force the first people to do evil against their will. If they agreed to this, it was not without ignorance of it: they were very aware of the will of God, who, of course, did not want what he forbade them under the death penalty. All that the devil can do is that he can change your will according to your will. If you succumb to him, you will become his servant, not because he can instill a special will in you, but because the will that is in you will prevail. Therefore, we are free to want or not to want: it belongs to the soul to show before the face of God whether its will agrees with His will. So, I affirm that we must carefully study the will of God, and not only His manifest will, known to all of us, but also His hidden will. There are things that at first glance are consistent with the will of God, because He allows them; but what is only permitted does not yet constitute the direct will of the one who allows it. Permission means more indulgence than will. It is, of course, not given without the participation of the will; but here the will is aroused by a special reason, as if forcing it to allow what it finds difficult to command. Study the will of God, as it is in itself, and try to understand the reasons that in certain cases cause it to deviate from the straight path. His will does not consist in what He allows out of condescension, but in what His law prescribes. As soon as He allows a certain thing, He thereby shows that He prefers another thing to it. Isn’t it clear that we need to do more preferably what They prefer than what They allow? By showing us what is more pleasant for Him, does He not advise us from what is less pleasant for Him? By letting us know what He allows and what He prefers, does He not oblige us to follow the path that we ourselves should prefer to please Him? Thus, making sure that He loves more and what He loves less, if for this you begin to do something other than what He prefers, then you will act against His will, you will offend Him; and this is not a way to receive sanctification from Him. By doing what He allows and rejecting what He actually wants, you sin in some way, and you are unlikely to be among the elect. Not wanting to be worthy of sanctification means sinning. So, if the second marriage is based on the will of God, received and, as it were, forced by condescension: then we say without hesitation that this is not His pure and direct will, because here it is subject to the reason that required condescension. Abstinence is obviously preferred to this second marriage because one better thing cannot be preferred to another better thing: one of them must not be as good as the other. I have outlined these basic principles at the end, so that after this I can be guided by the instructions of the Apostle. You cannot consider me wicked if I say that the Apostle also teaches us to prefer abstinence. It must first be noted that his leniency in relation to his second marriage does not come, so to speak, from the Holy Spirit, but from human reason. Commanding widowers, “but if they cannot abstain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to become inflamed. But it is not I who command those who are married, but the Lord” (1 Cor 7.9-10). Here he shows quite clearly that these words: “for it is better to marry than to be kindled,” were uttered by him in the name of the Lord. They apply to both married people and those who want to get married. Let us, however, consider what kind of good this is, which is only good because it is better than a terrible execution, and which is only good when compared with evil. Marriage is a blessing because being inflamed is even worse than marriage. In my opinion, only that which deserves this name should be called good, without being justified by comparison. Good should not be compared not only with any evil, but also with such good, which in this case loses some of its value, although it does not cease to be good. But when a thing is recognized as good only in comparison with evil, then I affirm that it is only a lesser evil, appearing to be good in front of a greater evil. Without this comparison, is it possible to simply say: “it’s better... to get married,” without explaining what marriage is preferred to? And since it is impossible to say directly: marriage is better, then one should not say that it is also a good thing. Marriage here is only something better in comparison with the worst. Therefore, when it is said: “for it is better to marry than to be inflamed,” it is also as if someone said: it is better to be crooked than to be blind. Leaving aside the comparison, of course, no one will say: it is better, or it is good to be crooked. Consequently, no one should interpret this text in their favor, which, however, actually concerns unmarried and single people; and even these are obliged to pay attention primarily to what is best in marriage. The apostle also said: “Are you united to your wife? don't look for a divorce. Are you left without a wife? don't look for a wife. However, even if you marry, you will not sin” (1 Cor 7.27–28). But even in this text it is he himself who speaks, and not the Holy Spirit. There is a great difference between the commandment of God and the counsel of man. “I do not have the commandment of the Lord,” he says above, “... but I give advice” (1 Cor 7.25). Indeed, neither in the Gospel nor in the Epistles of St. Paul, there is no commandment to leave your wife. From which it follows that what is permitted by the Lord should be considered permission, if not prohibition. After this advice, given by him as if in an abstract way, he again confirms what he had already said, and says: “But such will have tribulations in the flesh” (1 Cor 7.28). Then he adds: “I tell you, brethren: the time is already short, so that those who have wives must be as if they had not” (1 Cor 7.29). Saying, “It is good for a man to remain so” (1 Cor 7.26), that is, not to marry, he advises against doing what he previously permitted; advises against entering into a first marriage, much less a second one. By advising us to follow his example, he clearly indicates what he requires of us, and what we must renounce, similar to his desire. What he does not want, he does not allow either by will or thought; if he had wanted or thought, he would have given not permission, but a command. He further says: “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants, only in the Lord. But she will be happier if she remains like this, according to my advice; but I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” (1 Cor 7.39–40). Here two different opinions are presented: for some he allows them to marry again, for others he prescribes abstinence. Which one to hold on to, you ask? Look and understand for yourself. Where he allows, he expresses his opinion there, like a prudent man; and where he forbids, he speaks as a man guided by the Holy Spirit. Follow from these two opinions the one that is divine. Some believers have the spirit of God, but not all believers are Apostles. St. Paul, as a believer, says: “But I think that I also have the Spirit of God”; which cannot be doubted, because he is truly a believer: but these words were added by him in order to perceive the dignity and power of his apostleship. Since the Holy Spirit was primarily given to the Apostles, who revealed Him in their writings, miracles, prophecies and preaching, they possessed Him more than other believers. St. Paul made the most of the authority of the Holy Spirit when he commanded us to do what he preferred; and because of the majesty of the Holy Spirit, he gave us here not advice, but a commandment. Now I want to talk about the law of marriage, as it is in itself. The origin of the human race sanctified it by showing us what God from the very beginning decreed as a rule for all the descendants of Adam. God, having created man, called for his goodness to give him a helper: from one of his ribs He took him a wife. There was no doubt that there was no shortage of substance, because Adam had not one, but many ribs. God's hands were tireless, and He certainly could have created several wives for Adam if He had wanted; but he didn’t do that. Adam, the son of God, and Eve, the daughter of God, married, and should be content with each other. This is how the law of marriage took place. It is said: “and [the two] will become one flesh” (Gen. 2.24), therefore, not three and not four will be one flesh. So, whoever marries once constitutes one flesh “and the two shall become one flesh”; and whoever enters into this union twice or more, his flesh ceases to be one, he becomes three, four or more in one flesh. On the other hand, the Apostle, interpreting this text, adapts it to the union of Jesus Christ with His church. Just as Christ is one, so the church is one. We see in this interpretation a new incentive for us to adhere to monogamy, precisely because just as our forefather Adam entered into a union with Eve only once in the flesh, so Christ entered into one union with His Church in the spirit. Whoever departs from monogamy, therefore, sins both in the flesh and in the spirit. The first polygamist was cursed: it was Lamech, who, having married two wives, made three beings in one flesh. But, others will say, the blessed patriarchs had not only several wives, but also concubines; and therefore we should be allowed to at least marry several times. All this happened under the old law, of which the first commandment was: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1.28); happened then, as the former covenant took place between God and His people, the transformation of which was similar marriages, etc. But when a new revelation told us, “the time is now short, so that those who have wives must be as if they have not” (1 Cor. 7:29): the Gospel, approving abstinence and curbing polygamy, thereby put an end to the ancient law. However, both of these laws, apparently contradicting one another, come from the same God, who first wanted the human race to multiply and the world to be filled with people to accept the new covenant; Now, when we approached the end of time, God was pleased to end the previous permission. Thus, it is not without reason that God now abolishes what he first allowed. This is what always happens: the beginning is weak, but the end is strong. God acted like a man who plants forest branches so that in due time he will have huge trees to build. The ancient law had the purpose of planting this forest; and the Gospel provides an ax for cutting it. Thus, many other articles of the old law were repealed. Previously they said: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Ex. 21:24), but now it is strictly “forbidden to repay evil for evil” (Rom. 12:17). Even in human legislation, it seems to be a rule that a new law always changes an old one. Why don’t we try better to find in the Old Testament rules that are consistent with our rules, and, according to our own understanding, included in the new Testament? I see that in ancient times the excessive tendency to marry was also often curbed. The book of Leviticus says: “He must take a maiden [from his people] as a wife” (Lev.21.13); therefore one virgin, and not many. Also in another place it says: “and lest he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart be corrupted” (Deut. 17.17). But in this case, as in every other, it was left to Jesus Christ to fulfill or supplement the law. Therefore, Christians have made it a strict and strict duty for priests to marry only once, so that, as I know, whoever has two wives is deprived of the priesthood. You may object that this prohibition applies only to priests; then other believers are allowed to enter into a second marriage. What madness to believe that laymen are allowed to do what priests are prohibited from doing! Aren't we all priests? Our Lord Jesus Christ made us all not only ministers, but also priests of the Heavenly Father. The authority of the church established the boundaries between priests and laity. But the essential duty of serving God belongs inherently to everyone. Don’t we, even without priests, offer sacrifices to Him in prayers, kneeling, vigils, and even in teaching others? Don’t we have the right to baptize ourselves if necessary? You are a priest for yourself and for whom, although not for everyone. Where three believers, even laymen, have gathered, there is a church: each is enlivened by his faith, and God does not look at faces. You will be justified not as a minister, but as a member of the Church. Therefore, if you sometimes correct the position of a priest, then you must also submit to the law of the priesthood. Do you dare to baptize anyone and make sacrifices to God who had two wives? If a bigamist priest is forbidden to do this, then a layman who encroaches on this is even more criminal. But you will say that such an act can be excused if necessary. Know that you cannot call it necessary what is sometimes not necessary. Do not enter into a second marriage, and you will never have to break the law regarding church rites. God wants us to always be ready to begin performing His sacraments. If the laity, from among whom the priests are chosen, do not submit to the conditions of the priesthood, then where will the priests come from when they are needed? Thus, we must act in such a way that the laity does not marry twice, because it is impossible to elect anyone else as a priest other than a layman who must be married only once. So let people marry if everything that is lawful is good, notwithstanding Paul’s saying: “Everything is lawful for me, but not everything edifies” (1 Cor 10.23). Tell me, however, can something that is not useful be called good? If that which is not useful for salvation can be allowed, then it follows that evil things can also be permitted. What will you prefer, what you consider good because it is allowed, or what is in itself good because it is useful? Salvation is far from self-will. There is nothing to say about what is good in itself, because it does not need permission. But what is usually permitted is that which is doubtful in its goodness, which could not have been permitted, and especially when there are no special circumstances justifying the permission. A second marriage is permitted to avoid the danger of intemperance. By giving believers a choice of something less good, God tests them in order to separate those who want to follow His will from those who want to obey their passions, and to discern who is looking for what is useful and who is pleasant, who wants to please God and who wants to please themselves. Arbitrariness is a stumbling block to obedience, because obedience is tested by temptation, and temptation is based on arbitrariness. That is why many things that are, in themselves, seemingly unkind and unhelpful are allowed. He who has the will is tempted; and whoever is tempted is subject to the judgment of God. The apostles had permission to marry and take their wives with them in peace. But the one who did not want to take advantage of this permission advises us to follow his example, and at the same time shows that arbitrariness here is nothing more than a test, turned by him in favor of abstinence. Entering into the deep meaning of these last words, we find that marriage in general is tolerable fornication, so to speak. St. Paul, saying that spouses “are concerned about how to please themselves” (1 Cor. 7.32-33), of course, did not mean here that they please themselves with purity of morals, which he certainly would not have discredited; but he spoke here about outfits, decorations and other little things through which spouses try to excite each other to voluptuousness. The desire to please outwardly is the very essence of carnal lust, which on its part is the cause fornication. But isn’t marriage similar to fornication, isn’t it the purpose of satisfying the same desires? The Lord Himself said: “Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her” (Matthew 5.28). lust, except would he take such a wife whom he did not see and did not desire? It is important for a husband’s conscience that he did not desire someone else’s wife before marrying; Before marriage, all the wives are strangers, so that no wife marries except when her husband has already committed adultery with her. The laws seem to make a distinction between marriage and fornication; but this difference actually relates to the permission given or rejected, and not to the thing itself. This applies to both husbands and wives. Marriage and fornication constitute one union, one carnal combination, the desire of which the Lord called fornication. To this you will object that I am carried away too far, that I am even attacking the first marriage. This is true. I attack it because it is also based on wish; and desire is already fornication. The best thing for a person is to completely remove himself from the female sex, and this is why virginity has the advantage of being removed from any semblance of fornication. If these arguments are so unfavorable for first marriages, then what force should they have against second and third marriages? Thank God that He allowed you to marry once; but it’s better not to even think about a second marriage, considering it as if forbidden. To use permission immodestly, that is, immoderately, means to use it for evil. Isn’t it enough for you that you have descended from virginity to the second stage of chastity, and do you need to descend further to the third and fourth stage? If one marriage is not enough for you, then how will you limit yourself? He who condemns bigamists has not set a certain number of marriages. Therefore, we can get married every day until judgment finally befalls us, just as it befell Sodom and Gomorrah. Then the word spoken in the Gospel will be fulfilled: “Woe to those who are pregnant and those who nurse with breasts in those days” (Luke 21.23), that is, woe to fornicating husbands who bear fruit in the womb of their wives, and to wives who bear and feed children. But when will these marriages stop? Probably when such husbands and wives will cease to exist. So let us give up carnal things, and let us rather take up spiritual things. Take advantage, dear brother, of this opportunity, which was unexpected for you, but which seems very opportune, to free you forever from any earthly obligation. You are no longer a debtor. You are happy after losing your wife. And this loss is your gain. You can now conveniently accomplish the work of holiness through abstinence. By exhausting your flesh, you will enrich your spirit. Look how close a person is to spiritual nature, freeing himself from his wife for the occasion. He feels as if he has been reborn. When he prays, he seems to see himself closer to heaven. He spends his nights meditating on the Holy Scriptures. His heart is filled with bliss. By fighting the devil, he gains confidence in himself. The Apostle advises us to observe bodily purity, which brings the greatest dignity to prayer, teaching us through the fact that purity of heart is necessary, and that we must cleanse ourselves often. At any time, in any place, prayer is needed; and, therefore, purity, the predecessor of prayer, is also needed. Prayer flows from the soul: if the soul has a reason to blush, then prayer is overwhelmed by shame and timidity. The Holy Spirit offers prayer to God. Seeing the shame of the soul, how can He accept her prayer and lift it to heaven? Will not this holy messenger himself be covered with the shame of his soul? The following word from the Old Testament is a true prophecy: “Be... holy, because I am... holy” (Lev. 19.2). Also: “You deal mercifully with the merciful, sincerely with the sincere, purely with the pure, and with the evil one according to his wickedness” (Ps 17.26-27). We must enter into the spirit of the divine law in accordance with the dignity of the Lord, and not according to violent lusts of the flesh. In accordance with this, the Apostle also says: “To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8.6). A second marriage provides two excuses for shame. The soul of a man is worried about two wives: from one in memory, from the other in reality. You cannot hate your first wife, whose memory is all the more sacred to you because she is already in the kingdom of God, and because you commemorate her every year. Therefore, you will stand before your God with as many wives as you pray for: you will begin to perform the Holy Mysteries for two wives, performed by the hands of a monogamous priest, and perhaps a virgin, surrounded by his deacons and canonesses, also monogamous or virgins. And after all this, will you dare to coldly offer God the sacrifice of your prayer, and among other mercies, will you begin to ask him for the gift of chastity, both for yourself and for your new wife? I know that many refer to the insatiable lust of the flesh. Others make excuses for the need to win friends, to have someone to manage the house and family, to keep the household in order, to supervise servants, to save expenses. It turns out, according to you, that only the houses of married people can be well managed, and that single people must certainly go bankrupt. But don’t eunuchs, military men and travelers get by without wives and always lose their property? And aren’t we ourselves warriors, and shouldn’t we be subject to the discipline of the greatest of rulers? Aren't we ourselves travelers in this world? How can you, a Christian, not get along without a wife? But, you say, I need a friend to support the burden of home life. In this case, choose a directly spiritual spouse for yourself; choose as your friend a widow, flaunting her religious zeal, rich in her poverty, ennobled by her sedate age. This kind of marriage is very good for you. You can find as many such spouses or sisters as you like anywhere, without fearing God. But no! Christians, who should not think about tomorrow, want to have offspring. The servants of God, who have renounced their inheritance through worldly pleasures, want to have heirs. Having no children from their first marriage, they try to get them from their second. They would like to live longer, while the Apostle desires and asks God to leave the world as soon as possible. Probably, such a Christian will be less concerned about persecution, will endure torment with greater courage, will respond more intelligently during interrogations, and finally will die much calmer, leaving behind children so that there will be someone to bury him. One might think that Christians act in this way for the good of some republic, fearing that there may be a shortage of inhabitants when they do not care about their multiplication. They may be afraid that laws and trade will not cease to flourish, that the churches will not be empty, that there will be no one left who can cry: Christians to be torn to pieces by wild beasts! Probably, those who want to have children are not disgusted by such a cry. It would seem that caring for children alone is enough to force us to remain single. The laws oblige fathers to raise them, foreseeing, of course, that not a single intelligent person would voluntarily take on such onerous work. What will you do when you convey these burdensome feelings to your wife? What's good? Won't you use medicine to destroy the embryo in her womb? But I think that we are not allowed to kill a child, either before or after its birth. Perhaps, during your wife’s pregnancy, you will decide to ask God to do what you yourself do not dare to do, or you will choose a barren wife, incapable of childbearing in years. Think about everything and don’t indulge in dreams. If God wills, then a barren or old wife will become fruitful, precisely because you considered her incapable of it. You yourself know one man who, in order to manage his house, took himself a second wife, who was considered barren; but she soon doubled the number of his children. I will end this discussion, dear brother, by citing several examples borrowed from the pagans, examples that God often presents to us as proof that what pleases Him is often recognized as good by secular wisdom. Pagans have the greatest respect for monogamy, to the point that when girls enter into legal marriage, their interlocutors are always women who have been married only once. If people consider this a good omen: then I find that they are right. During religious ceremonies and other celebrations, monogamous wives always have preference over others. A priestess of Jupiter cannot have more than one husband. A high priest can only marry once. That's the honor they have of monogamy. If Satan, in mockery of us, so skillfully mimics the sacred laws of God: then shouldn’t we be ashamed that we do not offer to the Lord the sacrifice that so many people give to the devil, dedicating their virginity or permanent widowhood to him? We have all heard of the virgins of Vesta, Juno in Achaia, Apollo in Ephesus, and Minerva in various other places. The priests of the Apis ox in Egypt take a vow of chastity. Wives dedicated to African Ceres voluntarily renounce the rights of marriage and deprive themselves of even the pleasure of hugging and kissing their own male children. After voluptuousness, the devil knows how to transform himself into an instrument of destruction even through abstinence. How not criminal is a Christian who rejects abstinence, which could serve as an instrument of salvation for him! On the last day we will see that these idolatrous women, who knew how to preserve their widowhood in order to gain a good reputation for themselves, will rise up as a witness against us, like Queen Dido, who fled to a foreign land, who might have wanted to enter into a relationship with the African sovereign, but, in order not to enter into a second marriage, chose to burn herself at the stake, or like the famous Lucretia, who for the fact that once, and even then violently, she was in the arms of a strange man, washed her face covered in shame with blood, and did not want to live, having known two husbands. I could find many more examples of this kind among Christians, incomparably more excellent examples of the fact that it is better to live chastely than to die for chastity, because life and chastity are two things that are better kept together than separated from each other by death. How many holy men, how many virgins in the clergy, devoted themselves to abstinence, and chose to unite with the one God! They almost equalized the flesh with the spirit, and cut off from them everything that cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. This makes us think that whoever wants to enter heaven must abstain from the fact that he cannot enter heaven. You might be interested in: