Volume 1

A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood.

Date:: [between 1890 and 1899?]

Credit: A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood. Source: Wellcome Collection.

43/1096 (page 23)

$)uto liircp main heads or defensiones: 1st, Abra- hair. liA'ed before the law which forbade adultery, thei-pfore he could uot have committed it. “ Deus in Pai adiso licet coujugium laudaverit, non adul- terium daranaverat.” It is hard to understand how such a sentence could have been written in the face of Matt. xix. 4-9, or how so great an authority could forget that the very idea of con- jujium implied the wrong of adulterium. 2ndly, Abraham was actuated by the mere desire of oifspring ; and Sarah herse*lf gave him her hand- maiden, Her example (with Leah’s and Rachel’s) is turned into a moral lesson against female jealousy, and then men are admonished—“ Nemo sibi blandiatur,” &c., as above quoted. 3rdly. Galat. iv. 21—4, is referred to, and the conclusion drawn, “ Quod ergo putas esse peccatum, adver- tis esse mysterium; ” and again “ haec quae in figuram contingebant, illis crimini non erant.” We have sketched this chapter of Ambrose be- cause of the great place assigned him in the controversy of Western against Eastern Church law. Another passage referred to in this Q. “ Dicat aliquis,” is the 9th section of a sermon on John the Baptist, formerly numbered 65, now 52 (Ed. Bened. App. p. 462), and the work of an Am- brosiaster. But here the adulterium (filii testes adulterii) is the act of an unmai-ried man with his ancilla (distinguished from a concubiua, De- cret: I. Dist. 34, “ Concuhina autem” seq.), i.e. a sort of Contubernium is called by a word which brings it within the letter of the 7th Commandment. Perhaps Ambrose and his pseudonym, like’ many others, saw no very great difference be- tween the prohibition of sins secundum literam and secundum analogiam—as, for example, idola- try is adultery. It seems clear that he did not with Lactantius form an ideal of marriage and then condemn whatever contradicted it. His language on wedlock in Paradise forbids this explanation. Looking eastwards, there is a famous sermon (37, al. 31) preached by Gregory Nazianzen, in which he blends together the points we have numbered 2, 3, and 4. He starts (vi.) from the inequality of laws. Why should the woman be restrained, the man left free to sin ? The Latin version is incorrect; it so renders KaTairopv^v^iv as to introduce the later notion of adulterium. Gregory thinks {more Acsopi) that the inequality came to pass because men were the law-makers ; further, that it is contrary to (a) the 5th Com- mandment, which honours the mother as well as the father; (6) the equal creation, resurrection, and redemption of both sexes ; and (c) the mys- tical representation of Christ and His Church. A healthy tone is felt in much of what Gre- gory says, but (ix.) the good of marriage is de- scribed by a definition far inferior in life and spirituality to that of the pagan Modestinus, and (in x.) naturally follows a preference for the far higher good of celibacy. The age was not to be trusted on this topic w’hich formed an under- lying motive with most of the great divines. Chrysostom notices the chief texts in his Expository Homilies. For these we cannot afford space, and they are easily found. We are more concerned with his sermon on the Bill of Divorce (ed Bened. iii. 198-209). “ It is commonly called adultery,” he says in substance, “when a man wrongs a married woman. I, however, affirm it of a married man who sins with the unmarried. For t*he essence of the crime depends on the con- dition of the injurers as well as the injured. Tell me not of outward laws. I wdll declare to thee the law of God,” Yet W'e encounter a qualification: the offence of a husband wdth the unmarried is (p. 207) poix^ias enpov eldos. We also find the preacher dwelling wdth great force upon the lifelong servitude (SouAefa) of marriage, and we perceive from comparing other passages that there is an intentional contrast with the noble freedom of celibacy. Asterius of Amaseia has a forcible discourse (printed by Combefis, and particularly worth reading) on the question : “ An liceat homini dimittere uxorem suam, quacunque ex causa ? ” The chief part of it belongs to our next division, but towards the end, after disposing of insuffi- cient causes, he enters on the nature of adul- tery. Here (as he says) the preacher stands by the husband. “ Nam cum duplici fine matrimo- nia contrahuntur, benevolentiae ac quaerendorum liberorum, neutrum in adulterio continetur. Nec enim affectui locus, ubi in alterum animus inclinat; ac sobolis omne decus et gratia perit, quando liberl confunduntur.” Our strong Teu- tonic instincts feel the truth of these words. Asterius then insists on mutual good faith, and passes to the point that the laws of this world are lenient to the sins of husbands who excuse their own license by the plea of privileged harmlessness. He replies that all wmmen are the fdaughters or wives of men. Some man must feel each woman’s degradation. He then refers to Scripture, and concludes with precepts on domestic virtue and example. The sermon of Asterius shows how kindred sms may be thoroughly condemned without abolishing esta- blished distinctions. But it also shows a gene- ral impression that the distinctions of the Forum were pressed by apologists of sin into their own baser service. Jerome’s celebrated case of Fabiola claims a few lines. It was not really a divorce propter adulterium, but parallel to the history told by Justin Martyr. The points for us are the antithesis between Paulus noster and Papini- anus (with Paulus Papiniani understood) and the assertion that the Roman law turned upon dignity—i.e. the matrona as distinguished from the ancillula. Jerome feels most strongly the unity of marriage, and joins wdth it the proposition that the word Man contains Woman. He therefore says that 1 Cor. vi. 16, applies equally to both sexes. Moreover, the same tendency appears, as in Chrysostom, to de- press w^edlock in favour of celibacy. Marriage is servitude, and the yoke must be equal, “ Eadem servitus pari conditione cejisetur.” But the word adulterium is employed correctly ; and in another place (on Hosea, ii. 2) he expressly di’aws the old distinction—“ Fornicaria est, quae cum pluribus copulatur. Adultera, quae unum virum deserens alter! jungitur.” * Augustine, like Lactantius, posits an idea of marriage {De Genesi, ix. 12 [vii.]). It possesses a Good, consisting of three things—fdes, proles, » The innupta who offends cum viro conjugato is not here made an adulteress; Jerome’s remedy might have been a specific constitution.$