Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 06: 26.01.14 Letters XLVIII Part 2
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 06 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 26.01.14 Letters XLVIII Part 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
14. You are indignant with me because I have merely silenced Jovinian and not instructed him. You, do I say? Nay, rather, they who grieve to hear him anathematized, and who impeach their own pretended orthodoxy by eulogizing in another the heresy which they hold themselves. I should have asked him, forsooth, to surrender peaceably! I had no right to disregard his struggles and to drag him against his will into the bonds of truth! I might use such language had the desire of victory induced me to say anything counter to the rule laid down in Scripture, and had I taken the line-so often adopted by strong men in controversy-of justifying the means by the result. As it is, however, I have been an exponent of the apostle rather than a dogmatist on my own account; and my function has been simply that of a commentator. Anything, therefore, which seems a hard saying should be imputed to the writer expounded by me rather than to me the expounder; unless, indeed, he spoke otherwise than he is represented to have done, and I have by an unfair interpretation wrested the plain meaning of his words. If any one charges me with this disingenuousness let him prove his charge from the Scriptures themselves.
I have said in my book,hyperlink "If `it is good for a man not to touch a woman,' then it is bad for him to touch one, for bad, and bad only, is the opposite of good. But, if though bad it is made venial, then it is allowed to prevent something which would be worse than bad," and so on down to the commencement of the next chapter. The above is my comment upon the apostle's words: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."hyperlink In what way does my meaning differ from that intended by the apostle? Except that where he speaks decidedly I do so with hesitation. He defines a dogma, I hazard an inquiry. He openly says: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." I timidly ask if it is good for a man not to touch one. If I thus waver, I cannot be said to speak positively. He says: "It is good not to touch." I add what is a possible antithesis to "good." And immediately afterwards I speak thus:hyperlink "Notice the apostle's carefulness. He does not say: `It is good for a man not to have a wife,' but, `It is good for a man not to touch a woman'; as if there is danger in the very touching of one-danger which he who touches cannot escape." You see, therefore, that I am not expounding the law as to husbands and wives, but simply discussing the general question of sexual intercourse-how in comparison with chastity and virginity, the life of angels, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity."hyperlink But if all created things are good,hyperlink as being the handiwork of a good Creator, how comes it that all things are vanity? If the earth is vanity, are the heavens vanity too?-and the angels, the thrones, the dominations, the powers, and the rest of the virtues?hyperlink No; if things which are good in themselves as being the handiwork of a good Creator are called vanity, it is because they are compared with things which are better still. For example, compared with a lamp, a lantern is good for nothing; compared with a star, a lamp does not shine at all; the brightest star pales before the moon; put the moon beside the sun, and it no longer looks bright; compare the sun with Christ, and it is darkness. "I am that I am," God says;hyperlink and if you compare all created things with Him they have no existence. "Give not thy sceptre," says Esther, "unto them that be nothing"hyperlink -that is to say, to idols and demons. And certainly they were idols and demons to whom she prayed that she and hers might not be given over. In Job also we read how Bildad says of the wicked man: "His confidence shall be rooted out of his tabernacle, and destruction as a king shall trample upon him. The companions also of him who is not shall abide in his tabernacle."hyperlink This evidently relates to the devil, who must be in existence, otherwise he could not be said to have companions. Still, because he is lost to God, he is said not to be.
Now it was in a similar sense that I declared it to be a bad thing to touch a woman-I did not say a wife-because it is a good thing not to touch one. And I added:hyperlink "I call virginity fine corn, wedlock barley, and fornication cow-dung." Surely both corn and barley are creatures of God. But of the two multitudes miraculously supplied in the Gospel the larger was fed upon barley loaves, and the smaller on corn bread.hyperlink "Thou, Lord," says the psalmist, "shalt save both man and beast."hyperlink I have myself said the same thing in other words, when I have spoken of virginity as gold and of wedlock as silver.hyperlink Again, in discussinghyperlink the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed virgins who were not defiled with women,hyperlink I have tried to show that all who have not remained virgins are reckoned as defiled when compared with the perfect chastity of the angels and of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if any one thinks it hard or reprehensible that I have placed the same interval between virginity and wedlock as there is between fine corn and barley, let him read the book of the holy Ambrose "On Widows," and he will find, among other statements concerning virginity and marriage, the following:hyperlink "The apostle has not expressed his preference for marriage so unreservedly as to quench in men the aspiration after virginity; he commences with a recommendation of continence, and it is only subsequently that he stoops to mention the remedies for its opposite. And although to the strong he has pointed out the prize of their high calling,hyperlink yet he suffers none to faint by the way;hyperlink whilst he applauds those who lead the van, he does, not despise those who bring up the rear. For he had himself learned that the Lord Jesus gave to some barley bread, lest they should faint by the way, but offered to others His own body, that they should strive to attain His kingdom;"hyperlink and immediately afterwards: "The nuptial tie, then, is not to be avoided as a crime, but to be refused as a hard burden. For the law binds the wife to bring forth children in labor and in sorrow. Her desire is to be to her husband that he should rule over her.hyperlink It is not the widow, then, but the bride, who is handed over to labor and sorrow in childbearing. It is not the virgin, but the married woman, who is subjected to the sway of a husband." And in another place, "Ye are bought," says the apostle, "with a price;hyperlink be not therefore the servants of men."hyperlink You see how clearly he defines the servitude which attends the married state. And a little farther on: "If, then, even a good marriage is servitude, what must a bad one be, in which husband and wife cannot sanctify, but only mutually destroy each other?" What I have said about virginity and marriage diffusely, Ambrose has stated tersely and pointedly, compressing much meaning into a few words. Virginity is described by him as a means of recommending continence, marriage as a remedy for incontinence. And when he descends from broad principles to particular details, he significantly holds out to virgins the prize of the high calling, yet comforts the married, that they may not faint by the way. While eulogizing the one class, he does not despise the other. Marriage he compares to the barley bread set before the multitude, virginity to the body of Christ given to the disciples. There is much less difference, it seems to me, between barley and fine corn than between barley and the body of Christ. Finally, he speaks of marriage as a hard burden, to be avoided if possible, and as a badge of the most unmistakable servitude. He makes, also, many other statements, which he has followed up at length in his three books "On Virgins."
15. From all which considerations it is clear that I have said nothing at all new concerning virginity and marriage, but have followed in all respects the judgment of older writers-of Ambrose, that is to say, and others who have discussed the doctrines of the Church. "And I would sooner follow them in their faults than copy the dull pedantry of the writers of to-day."hyperlink Let married men, if they please, swell with rage because I have said,hyperlink "I ask you, what kind of good thing is that which forbids a man to pray, and which prevents him from receiving the body of Christ?" When I do my duty as a husband, I cannot fulfil the requirements of continence. The same apostle, in another place, commands us to pray always.hyperlink "But if we are always to pray we must never yield to the claims of wedlock for, as often as I render her due to my wife, I incapacitate myself for prayer." When I spoke thus it is clear that I relied on the words of the apostle: "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to ...prayer."hyperlink The Apostle Paul tells us that when we have intercourse with our wives we cannot pray. If, then, sexual intercourse prevents what is less important-that is, prayer-how much more does it prevent what is more important-that is, the reception of the body of Christ? Peter, too, exhorts us to continence, that our "prayers be not hindered."hyperlink How, I should like to know, have I sinned in all this? What have I done? How have I been in fault? If the waters of a stream are thick and muddy, it is not the river-bed which is to blame, but the source. Am I attacked because I have ventured to add to the words of the apostle these words of my own: "What kind of good thing is that which prevents a man from receiving the body of Christ?" If so, I will make answer briefly thus: Which is the more important, to pray or to receive Christ's body? Surely to receive Christ's body. If, then, sexual intercourse hinders the less important thing, much more does it hinder that which is the more important.
I have said in the same treatisehyperlink that David and they that were with him could not have lawfully eaten the shew-bread had they not made answer that for three days they had not been defiled with womenhyperlink -not, of course, with harlots, intercourse with whom was forbidden by the law, but with their own wives, to whom they were lawfully united. Moreover, when the people were about to receive the law on Mount Sinai they were commanded to keep away from their wives for three days.hyperlink I know that at Rome it is customary for the faithful always to receive the body of Christ, a custom which I neither censure nor indorse. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."hyperlink But I appeal to the consciences of those persons who after indulging in sexual intercourse on the same day receive the communion-having first, as Persius puts it, "washed off the night in a flowing stream,"hyperlink and I ask such why they do not presume to approach the martyrs or to enter the churches.hyperlink Is Christ of one mind abroad and of another at home? What is unlawful in church cannot be lawful at home. Nothing is hidden from God. "The night shineth as the day" before Him.hyperlink Let each man examine himself, and so let him approach the body of Christ.hyperlink Not, of course, that the deferring of communion for one day or for two makes a Christian any the holier or that what I have not deserved to-day I shall deserve to-morrow or the day after. But if I grieve that I have not shared in Christ's body it does help me to avoid for a little while my wife's embraces, and to prefer to wedded love the love of Christ. A hard discipline, you will say, and one not to be borne. What man of the world could bear it? He that can bear it, I reply, let him bear it;hyperlink he that cannot must look to himself. it is my business to say, not what each man can do or will do, but what the Scriptures inculcate.
16. Again, objection has been taken to my comments on the apostle in the following passage:hyperlink "But lest any should suppose from the context of the words before quoted (namely, `that ye may give yourselves ...to prayer and come together again') that the apostle desires this consummation, and does not merely concede it to obviate a worse downfall, he immediately adds, `that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.'hyperlink `And come together again.' What a noble indulgence the words convey! One which he blushes to speak of in plainer words, which he prefers only to Satan's temptation, and which has its root in incontinence. Do we labor to expound this as a dark saying when the writer has himself explained his meaning? "I speak this," he says, `by way of permission, and not as a command.'hyperlink Do we still hesitate to speak of wedlock as a thing permitted instead of as a thing enjoined? or are we afraid that such permission will exclude second or third marriages or some other case?' What have I said here which the apostle has not said? The phrase, I suppose, "which he blushes to speak of in plainer words." I imagine that when he says "come together," and does not mention for what, he takes a modest way of indicating what he does not like to name openly-that is, sexual intercourse. Or is the objection to the words which follow-"which he prefers only to Satan's temptation, and which has its root in incontinence"? Are they not the very words of the apostle, only differently arranged-"that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency"? Or do people cavil because I said, "Do we still hesitate to speak of wedlock as a thing permitted instead of as a thing enjoined?" If this seems a hard saying, it should be ascribed to the apostle, who says, "But I speak this by way of permission, and not as a command," and not to me, who, except that I have rearranged their order, have changed neither the words nor their meaning.
17. The shortness of a letter compels me to hasten on. I pass, accordingly, to the points which remain. "I say," remarks the apostle, "to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn."hyperlink This section I have interpreted thus:hyperlink "When he has granted to those who are married the use of wedlock, and has made clear his own wishes and concessions, he passes on to those who are unmarried or widows, and sets before them his own example. He calls them happy if they abide even as he,hyperlink but he goes on, `if they cannot contain, let them marry.' He thus repeats his former language, `but only to avoid fornication,' and `that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence.' And when he says, `If they cannot contain, let them marry,' he gives as a reason for his words that `it is better to marry than to burn.' It is only good to marry, because it is bad to burn. But take away the fire of lust, and he will not say `it is better to marry.' For a thing is said to be better in antithesis to something which is worse, and not simply in contrast with what is admittedly good. It is as though he said, `It is better to have one eye than none.'" Shortly afterwards, apostrophizing the apostle, I spoke thus:hyperlink "If marriage is good in itself, do not compare it with a conflagration, but simply say, `It is good to marry.' I must suspect the goodness of a thing which only becomes a lesser evil in the presence of a greater one. I, for my part, would have it not a lighter evil but a downright good." The apostle wishes unmarried women and widows to abstain from sexual intercourse, incites them to follow his own example, and calls them happy if they abide even as he. But if they cannot contain, and are tempted to quench the fire of lust by fornication rather than by continence, it is better, he tells them, to marry than to burn. Upon which precept I have made this comment: "It is good to marry, simply because it is bad to burn," not putting forward a view of my own, but only explaining the apostle's precept, "It is better to marry than to burn;" that is, it is better to take a husband than to commit fornication. If, then, you teach that burning or fornication is good, the good will still be surpassed by what is still better.hyperlink But if marriage is only a degree better than the evil to which it is preferred, it cannot be of that unblemished perfection and blessedness which suggest a comparison with the life of angels. Suppose I say, "It is better to be a virgin than a married woman;" in this case I have preferred to what is good what is still better. But suppose I go a step further and say, "It is better to marry than to commit fornication;" in that case I have preferred, not a better thing to a good thing, but a good thing to a bad one. There is a wide difference between the two cases; for, while virginity is related to marriage as better is to good, marriage is related to fornication as good is to bad. How, I should like to know, have I sinned in this explanation? My fixed purpose was not to bend the Scriptures to my own wishes, but simply to say what I took to be their meaning. A commentator has no business to dilate on his own views; his duty is to make plain the meaning of the author whom he professes to interpret. For, if he contradicts the writer whom he is trying to expound, he will prove to be his opponent rather than his interpreter. When I am freely expressing my own opinion, and not commenting upon the Scriptures, then any one that pleases may charge me with having spoken hardly of marriage. But if he can find no ground for such a charge, he should attribute such passages in my commentaries as appear severe or harsh to the author commented on, and not to me, who am only his interpreter.
18. Another charge brought against me is simply intolerable! It is urged that in explaining the apostle's words concerning husbands and wives, "Such shall have trouble in the flesh," I have said:hyperlink "We in our ignorance had supposed that in the flesh at least wedlock would have rejoicing. But if married persons are to have trouble in the flesh, the only thing in which they seemed likely to have pleasure, what motive will be left to make women marry? for, besides having trouble in spirit and soul, they will also have it even in the flesh."hyperlink Do I condemn marriage if I enumerate its troubles, such as the crying of infants, the death of children the chance of abortion, domestic losses, and so forth? Whilst Damasus of holy memory was still living, I wrote a book against Helvidius "On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary," in which, duly to extol the bliss of virginity, I was forced to say much of the troubles of marriage. Did that excellent man-versed in Scripture as he was, and a virgin doctor of the virgin Church-find anything to censure in my discourse? Moreover, in the treatise which I addressed to Eustochiumhyperlink I used much harsher language regarding marriage, and yet no one was offended at it. Nay, every lover of chastity strained his ears to catch my eulogy of continence. Read Tertullian, read Cyprian, read Ambrose, and either accuse me with them or acquit me with them. My critics resemble the characters of Plautus. Their only wit lies in detraction; and they try to make themselves out men of learning by assailing all parties in turn. Thus they bestow their censure impartially upon myself and upon my opponent, and maintain that we are both beaten, although one or other of us must have succeeded.
Moreover, when in discussing digamy and trigamy I have said,hyperlink "It is better for a woman to know one man, even though he be a second husband or a third, than several; it is more tolerable for her to prostitute herself to one man than to many," have I not immediately subjoined my reason for so saying? "The Samaritan woman in the Gospel, when she declares that her present husband is her sixth, is rebuked by the Lord on the ground that he is not her husband."hyperlink For my own part, I now once more freely proclaim that digamy is not condemned in the Church-no, nor yet trigamy-and that a woman may marry a fifth husband, or a sixth, or a greater number still just as lawfully as she may marry a second; but that, while such marriages are not condemned, neither are they commended. They are meant as alleviations of an unhappy lot, and in no way redound to the glory of continence. I have spoken to the same effect elsewhere.hyperlink "When a woman marries more than once-whether she does so twice or three times matters little-she ceases to be a monogamist. `All things are lawful ...but all things are not expedient.'hyperlink I do not condemn digamists or trigamists, or even, to put an impossible case, octogamists. Let a woman have an eighth husband if she must; only let her cease to prostitute herself."
19. I will come now to the passage in which I am accused of saying that-at least according to the true Hebrew text-the words "God saw that it was good"hyperlink are not inserted after the second day of the creation, as they are after the first, third, and remaining ones, and of adding immediately the following comment:hyperlink "We are meant to understand that there is something not good in the number two, separating us as it does from unity, and prefiguring the marriage-tie. Just as in the account of Noah's ark all the animals that enter by twos are unclean, but those of which an uneven number is taken are clean."hyperlink In this statement a passing objection is made to what I have said concerning the second day, whether on the ground that the words mentioned really occur in the passage, although I say that they do not occur, or because, assuming them to occur, I have understood them in a sense different from that which the context evidently requires. As regards the non-occurrence of the words in question (viz., "God saw that it was good"), let them take not my evidence, but that of all the Jewish and other translators-Aquilahyperlink namely, Symmachus,hyperlink and Theodotion.hyperlink But if the words, although occurring in the account of the other days, do not occur in the account of this, either let them give a more plausible reason than I have done for their non-occurrence, or, failing such, let them, whether they like it or not, accept the suggestion which I have made. Furthermore, if in Noah's ark all the animals that enter by twos are unclean, whilst those of which an uneven number is taken are clean, and if there is no dispute about the accuracy of the text, let them explain if they can why it is so written. But if they cannot explain it, then, whether they will or not, they must embrace my explanation of the matter. Either produce better fare and ask me to be your guest, or else rest content with the meal that I offer you, however poor it may be.hyperlink
I must now mention the ecclesiastical writers who have dealt with this question of the odd number. They are, among the Greeks, Clement, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, Eusebius, Didymus; and, among ourselves, Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary. What Cyprian said to Fortunatus about the number seven is clear from the letter which he sent to him.hyperlink Or perhaps I ought to bring forward the reasonings of Pythagoras, Archytas of Tarentum, and Publius Scipio in (Cicero's) sixth book "Concerning the Common Weal." If my detractors will not listen to any of these I will make the grammar schools shout in their ears the words of Virgil:
Uneven numbers are the joy of God.hyperlink
20. To say, as I have done, that virginity is cleaner than wedlock, that the even numbers must give way to the odd, that the types of the Old Testament establish the truth of the Gospel: this, it appears, is a great sin subversive of the churches and intolerable to the world. The remaining points which are censured in my treatise are, I take it, of less importance, or else resolve themselves into this. I have, therefore, refrained from answering them, both that I may not exceed the limit at my disposal, and that I may not seem to distrust your intelligence, knowing as I do that you are ready to be my champion even before I ask you. With my last breath, then, I protest that neither now nor at any former time have I condemned marriage. I have merely answered an opponent without any fear that they of my own party would lay snares for me. I extol virginity to the skies, not because I myself possess it, but because, not possessing it, I admire it all the more. Surely it is a modest and ingenuous confession to praise in others that which you lack yourself. The weight of my body keeps me fixed to the ground, but do I fail to admire the flying birds or to praise the dove because, in the words of Virgil,hyperlink it
Glides on its liquid path with motionless swift wings?
Let no man deceive himself, let no man, giving ear to the voice of flattery, rush upon ruin. The first virginity man derives from his birth, the second from his second birth.hyperlink The words are not mine; it is an old saying, "No man can serve two masters;"hyperlink that is, the flesh and the spirit. For "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other," so that we cannot do the things that we would.hyperlink When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.
21. Christ Himself is a virgin;hyperlink and His mother is also a virgin; yea, though she is His mother, she is a virgin still. For Jesus has entered in through the closed doors,hyperlink and in His sepulchre-a new one hewn out of the hardest rock-no man is laid either before Him or after Him.hyperlink Mary is "a garden enclosed ...a fountain sealed,"hyperlink and from that fountain flows, according to Joel,hyperlink the river which waters the torrent bed eitherhyperlink of cords or of thorns;hyperlink of cords being those of the sins by which we were beforetime bound,hyperlink the thorns those which choked the seed the goodman of the house had sown.hyperlink She is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel,hyperlink always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies; and through her "the Sun of Righteousness,"hyperlink our "high priest after the order of Melchizedek,"hyperlink goes in and out. Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh,hyperlink thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son. Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes.hyperlink The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity. Why do we delude ourselves and feel vexed if while we are continually straining after sexual indulgence, we find the palm of chastity denied to us? We wish to fare sumptuously, and to enjoy the embraces of our wives, yet at the same time we desire to reign with Christ among virgins and widows. Shall there be but one reward, then, for hunger and for excess, for filth and for finery, for sackcloth and for silk? Lazarus,hyperlink in his lifetime, received evil things, and the rich man, clothed in purple, fat and sleek, while he lived enjoyed the good things of the flesh but, now that they are dead, they occupy different positions. Misery has given place to satisfaction, and satisfaction to misery. And it rests with us whether we will follow Lazarus or the rich man.
Footnotes
1122 Ag. Jov. i. 7.
1123 1 Cor. vii. 1, 1 Cor. vii. 2.
1124 Ag. Jov. i. 7.
1125 Eccles. i. 2.
1126 Gen. i. 31; 1 Tim. iv. 4.
1127 Col. i. 16. Cf. Milton, P. L. v. 601.
1128 Ex. iii. 14.
1129 Esth. xiv. 11.
1130 Job xviii. 14, 15 Vulg.
1131 Ag. Jov. i. 7.
1132 Matt. xiv. 15-21; Matt. xv. 32-38. Cf. Joh. vi. 5-13.
1133 Ps. xxxvi. 7, P.B.V.
1134 Ag. Jov. i. 3.
1135 Ag. Jov. i. 40.
1136 Rev. xiv. 1, Rev. xiv. 4.
1137 Ambrose, On Widowhood, xiii. 79; xiii. 81; xi. 69.
1138 Phil. iii. 14.
1139 Matt. xv. 32.
1140 Matt. xxvi. 26, Matt. xxvi. 29.
1141 Gen. iii. 16.
1142 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Cor. vii. 23.
1143 Cf. Eph. vi. 6.
1144 Ter. Andria Prol. 20, 21.
1145 Ag. Jov. i. 7.
1146 1 Th. v. 17.
1147 1 Cor. vii. 5.
1148 1 Pet. iii. 7.
1149 Ag. Jov. i. 20.
1150 1 Sam. xxi. 4, 1 Sam. xxi. 5.
1151 Ex. xix. 15.
1152 Rom. xiv. 5.
1153 Pers. ii. 16.
1154 That what is now known as reservation of the elements was practised in the early church there is abundant evidence to show. Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 65) writes: "The deacons communicate each of those present and carry away to the absent of the blest bread and wine and water." And those to whom the eucharist was thus taken were not bound to consume it immediately, or all at once, but might reserve a part or all for future occasions. According to Basil (Ep. 93), "in Egypt the laity for the most part had every one the communion in their own houses"-and "all those who dwell alone in the desert, when there is no priest, keep the communion at home and receive it at their own hands." So Jerome speaks (Letter CXXV. 20) of Exuperius as "carrying the Lord's body in a wicker basket, His blood in a vessel of glass." See the article Reservation in Smith and Cheetham's Dict. of Christian Antiquities.
1155 Ps. cxxxix. 11, Ps. cxxxix. 12.
1156 Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 28.
1157 Cf. Matt. xix. 12.
1158 Against Jov. i. 8.
1159 1 Cor. vii. 5.
1160 1 Cor. vii. 6, Vulg.
1161 1 Cor. vii. 8, 1 Cor. vii. 9.
1162 Ag. Jov. i. 9.
1163 1 Cor. vii. 8.
1164 Ag. Jov. i. 9.
1165 Fornication must still be subordinated to marriage.
1166 Ag. Jov. i. 13.
1167 1 Th. v. 23.
1168 Letter XXII.
1169 Ag. Jov. i. 14.
1170 Joh. iv. 16-18. Jerome's version of the story is inaccurate.
1171 Ag. Jov. i. 15.
1172 1 Cor. vi. 12.
1173 Gen. i. 10.
1174 Ag. Jov. i. 16.
1175 Gen. vii. 2.
1176 The author of a literal Greek version of the O. T. made in the second century.
1177 An ebionitic translator, free, not literal, in style.
1178 A careful reviser of the LXX. whose work was welcomed by the Church. His version of Daniel completely superseded the older one.
1179 Cf. Hor. Ep. i. 6, 67, 68.
1180 Cyprian, Letter to Fortunatus, xiii. 11.
1181 Virg. E. viii. 75.
1182 Virg. A. v. 217.
1183 Tert. de Exh. Cast. I.
1184 Matt. vi. 24.
1185 Gal. v. 17.
1186 Ag. Jov. i. 31.
1187 Joh. xx. 19.
1188 Joh. xix. 41.
1189 Cant. iv. 12.
1190 Joel, iii. 18; according to the LXX. and Hebrew. A.V. has "vale of Shittim" (thorns).
1191 LXX.
1192 Hebrew.
1193 Cf. Prov. v. 22.
1194 Matt. xiii. 7.
1195 Ezek. xliv. 2, Ezek. xliv. 3.
1196 Mal. iv. 2.
1197 Heb. v. 10.
1198 Joh. xx. 19, Joh. xx. 27.
1199 Cf. Letter XXII.
1200 Luke xvi. 19-25.