Ephesians 5:25–33

Because it accords with the time of grace that the Sacrament of communion and love should not merely signify communion and love, but also inflame unto the same, so that it may effect what it figures; and because that which most inflames us to mutual love and most unites the members is the unity of the Head, from whom through the diffusive, unitive, and transformative power of love mutual love flows into us: hence it is that in this Sacrament is contained the true body of Christ and immaculate flesh, as diffusing itself to us and uniting us to one another and transforming us into itself through the most ardent charity, by which he gave himself to us and offered himself for us and restored himself to us and remains with us even unto the end of the world.

That conjugal chastity is to be approved according to the evangelical law is shown by authority, as follows. Ephesians 5: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church: but the union of Christ with the Church is according to the most chaste love: therefore the union of man with woman is also according to chaste love. But chaste love is consonant with the law of God: therefore also its act.

And in fact, whatever people say, the state called 'being in love' usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending 'They lived happily ever after' is taken to mean 'They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married', then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be 'in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense - love as distinct from 'being in love' - is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit, reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each others; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be 'in love' with someone else. 'Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.

We must go back to our Bibles. The husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church. He is to love her as Christ loved the Church—read on—and gave his life for her (Eph. V, 25). This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is—in her own mere nature—least lovable. For the Church has no beauty but what the Bridegroom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely. The chrism of this terrible coronation is to be seen not in the joys of any man's marriage but in its sorrows, in the sickness and sufferings of a good wife or the faults of a bad one, in his unwearying (never paraded) care or his inexhaustible forgiveness: forgiveness, not acquiescence. As Christ sees in the flawed, proud, fanatical or lukewarm Church on earth that Bride who will one day be without spot or wrinkle, and labours to produce the latter, so the husband whose headship is Christ-like (and he is allowed no other sort) never despairs. He is a King Cophetua who after twenty years still hopes that the beggar-girl will one day learn to speak the truth and wash behind her ears.

...

The sternest feminist need not grudge my sex the crown offered to it either in the Pagan or in the Christian mystery. For the one is of paper and the other of thorns. The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it.

But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration." But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ? For it is the Church alone which, conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons; as the same apostle again says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water." If, then, she is the beloved and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His washing, cannot bear sons to God.

But that the Church is one, the Holy Spirit declares in the Song of Songs, saying, in the person of Christ, "My dove, my undefiled, is one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her." Concerning which also He says again, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring sealed up, a well of living water." But if the spouse of Christ, which is the Church, is a garden enclosed; a thing that is closed up cannot lie open to strangers and profane persons. And if it is a fountain sealed, he who, being placed without has no access to the spring, can neither drink thence nor be sealed. And the well also of living water, if it is one and the same within, he who is placed without cannot be quickened and sanctified from that water of which it is only granted to those who are within to make any use, or to drink. Peter also, showing this, set forth that the Church is one, and that only they who are in the Church can be baptized; and said, "In the ark of Noah, few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; the like figure where-unto even baptism shall save you; " proving and attesting that the one ark of Noah was a type of the one Church. If, then, in that baptism of the world thus expiated and purified, he who was not in the ark of Noah could be saved by water, he who is not in the Church to which alone baptism is granted, can also now be quickened by baptism. Moreover, too, the Apostle Paul, more openly and clearly still manifesting this same thing, writes to the Ephesians, and says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water." But if the Church is one which is loved by Christ, and is alone cleansed by His washing, how can he who is not in the Church be either loved by Christ, or washed and cleansed by His washing?

Flee evil arts; but all the more discourse in public regarding them. Speak to my sisters, that they love the Lord, and be satisfied with their husbands both in the flesh and spirit. In like manner also, exhort my brethren, in the name of Jesus Christ, that they love their wives, even as the Lord the Church. If any one can continue in a state of purity, to the honour of Him who is Lord of the flesh, let him so remain without boasting. If he begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he is ruined. But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust. Let all things be done to the honour of God.

Thou hast heard how great the submission; thou hast extolled and marvelled at Paul, how, like an admirable and spiritual man, he welds together our whole life. Thou didst well. But now hear what he also requires at thy hands; for again he employs the same example.

"Husbands," saith he, "love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church."

Thou hast seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Wouldest thou have thy wife obedient unto thee, as the Church is to Christ? Take then thyself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for thee to give thy life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever, refuse it not. Though thou shouldest undergo all this, yet wilt thou not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom thou art already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave thyself toward thy wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon thee, and disdaining, and scorning thee, yet by thy great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, thou wilt be able to lay her at thy feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though thou shouldest suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.

Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: "even as Christ is the head of the Church; " and again, in like manner: "He who loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church." You see how your Christ and your Church are put in comparison with the work of the Creator.

You have seen how Paul compels the wife to submit to you in the same measure as the Church submits to Christ; now hear how, on the other hand, he compels you to love her and not to treat her despotically. Love her, then! To what measure? As Christ loved the Church. Care for her as Christ cares for the Church. If it were necessary to suffer and even to die for her, do not refuse. For you, being already united with her by love, would do this; but He did this when she was in enmity against Him and was an adulteress. And just as He brought back to Himself the one who had turned away from Him not by threats and violence, so you yourself, if you should notice that your wife is withdrawing from you and seeking dissipation, try to draw her to yourself with greater love and care. And if you should suffer something for her sake, do not reproach her; for Christ does not reproach the Church either.

After this he admonishes the husbands that they are to love their wives.

He states: Husbands, love your wives. For certainly it is from the love he has for his wife that he will live more chastely and both of them will enjoy a peaceful relationship. If he should love another more than his own wife, he exposes both himself and his wife to the possibility of sin. "Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them" (Col. 3:19).

He then treats of the threefold reason for this. First, one springs from the example of Christ (v. 25b). Secondly, another comes from the husband himself (5:28b). Thirdly, another from a divine commandment (5:31).

Thus he says: as Christ also loved the church; "Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and hath delivered himself for us" (Eph. 5:1-2). The sign of Christ's love for the church is that he delivered himself up for it. "The Son of God who loved me and delivered himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). "He hath delivered his soul unto death" (Is. 53:12). And for what? That he might sanctify it: "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate" (Heb. 13:12). "Sanctify them in truth" (Jn. 17:17); that is the effect of Christ's death.

But that the Church is one, the Holy Spirit declares in the Song of Songs, saying, in the person of Christ, "My dove, my undefiled, is one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her." Concerning which also He says again, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring sealed up, a well of living water." But if the spouse of Christ, which is the Church, is a garden enclosed; a thing that is closed up cannot lie open to strangers and profane persons. And if it is a fountain sealed, he who, being placed without has no access to the spring, can neither drink thence nor be sealed. And the well also of living water, if it is one and the same within, he who is placed without cannot be quickened and sanctified from that water of which it is only granted to those who are within to make any use, or to drink. Peter also, showing this, set forth that the Church is one, and that only they who are in the Church can be baptized; and said, "In the ark of Noah, few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; the like figure where-unto even baptism shall save you; " proving and attesting that the one ark of Noah was a type of the one Church. If, then, in that baptism of the world thus expiated and purified, he who was not in the ark of Noah could be saved by water, he who is not in the Church to which alone baptism is granted, can also now be quickened by baptism. Moreover, too, the Apostle Paul, more openly and clearly still manifesting this same thing, writes to the Ephesians, and says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water." But if the Church is one which is loved by Christ, and is alone cleansed by His washing, how can he who is not in the Church be either loved by Christ, or washed and cleansed by His washing?

Here we take "the church" to mean every believer and everyone who has received baptism. The believer is brought to faith by the washing in water and the invocation of the Word. But how is this applied to a husband's conduct toward his wife? This is not entirely clear. One possible view is that the mystery of baptism is being rehearsed in this metaphor. On the other hand, if we refer this to the endurance of the husband, which entails his giving himself for the wife and bearing and suffering all that is hers, even sharing in all that she endures, she is being cleansed with water and the Word—that is, she is being purified in the Lord's sight when he renders her pure and by his endurance makes her ready to be sanctified by washing and the Word.

"And gave Himself up," he says, "for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it."

So then she was unclean! So then she had blemishes, so then she was unsightly, so then she was worthless! Whatsoever kind of wife thou shalt take, yet shalt thou never take such a bride as the Church, when Christ took her, nor one so far removed from thee as the Church was from Christ, And yet for all that, He did not abhor her, nor loathe her for her surpassing deformity. Wouldest thou hear her deformity described? Hear what Paul saith, "For ye were once darkness." Didst thou see the blackness of her hue? What blacker than darkness? But look again at her boldness, "living," saith he, "in malice and envy." Look again at her impurity; "disobedient, foolish." But what am I saying? She was both foolish, and of an evil tongue; and yet notwithstanding, though so many were her blemishes, yet did He give Himself up for her in her deformity, as for one in the bloom of youth, as for one dearly beloved, as for one of wonderful beauty. And it was in admiration of this that Paul said, "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die"; and again, "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her.

"That He might sanctify it having cleansed it," he proceeds, "by the washing of water with the word; that He might present the Church to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish."

"By the washing or layer" He washeth her uncleanness. "By the word," saith he. What word? "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And not simply hath He adorned her, but hath made her "glorious, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Let us then also seek after this beauty ourselves, and we shall be able to create it. Seek not thou at thy wife's hand, things which she is not able to possess. Seest thou that the Church had all things at her Lord's hands? By Him was made glorious, by Him was made pure, by Him made without blemish? Turn not thy back on thy wife because of her deformity. Hear the Scripture that saith, "The bee is little among such as fly, but her fruit is the chief of sweet things." She is of God's fashioning. Thou reproachest not her, but Him that made her; what can the woman do? Praise her not for her beauty. Praise and hatred and love based on personal beauty belong to unchastened souls. Seek thou for beauty of soul. Imitate the Bridegroom of the Church. Outward beauty is full of conceit and great license, and throws men into jealousy, and the thing often makes thee suspect monstrous things. But has it any pleasure? For the first or second month, perhaps, or at most for the year: but then no longer; the admiration by familiarity wastes away. Meanwhile the evils which arose from the beauty still abide, the pride, the folly, the contemptuousness. Whereas in one who is not such, there is nothing of this kind. But the love having begun on just grounds, still continues ardent, since its object is beauty of soul, and not of body. What better, tell me, than heaven? What better than the stars? Tell me of what body you will, yet is there none so fair. Tell me of what eyes you will, yet are there none so sparkling. When these were created, the very Angels gazed with wonder, and we gaze with wonder now; yet not in the same degree as at first. Such is familiarity; things do not strike us in the same degree. How much more in the case of a wife! And if moreover disease come too, all is at once fled. Let us seek in a wife affectionateness, modest-mindedness, gentleness; these are the characteristics of beauty. But loveliness of person let us not seek, nor upbraid her upon these points, over which she has no power, nay, rather, let us not upbraid at all, (it were rudeness,) nor let us be impatient, nor sullen. Do ye not see how many, after living with beautiful wives, have ended their lives pitiably, and how many, who have lived with those of no great beauty, have run on to extreme old age with great enjoyment. Let us wipe off the "spot" that is within, let us smooth the "wrinkles" that are within, let us do away the "blemishes" that are on the soul. Such is the beauty God requires. Let us make her fair in God's sight, not in our own. Let us not look for wealth, nor for that high-birth which is outward, but for that true nobility which is in the soul. Let no one endure to get rich by a wife; for such riches are base and disgraceful; no, by no means let any one seek to get rich from this source. "For they that desire to be rich, fall into a temptation and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts, and into destruction and perdition." Seek not therefore in thy wife abundance of wealth, and thou shall find everything else go well. Who, tell me, would overlook the most important things, to attend to those which are less so? And yet, alas! this is in every case our feeling. Yes, if we have a son, we concern ourselves not how he may be made virtuous, but how we may get him a rich wife; not how he may be well-mannered, but well-monied: if we follow a business, we enquire not how it may be clear of sin, but how it may bring us in most profit. And everything has become money; and thus is everything corrupted and ruined, because that passion possesses us.

And slept in the trance of His passion, and willingly suffered death for her, that He might present the Church to Himself glorious and blameless, having cleansed her by the laver,

" What more disgraceful than immodesties? If, moreover, even from a "brother" who "walketh idly" he warns the Thessalonians to withdraw themselves, how much more withal from a fornicator! For these are the deliberate judgments of Christ, "loving the Church," who "hath delivered Him self up for her, that He may sanctify her (purifying her utterly by the layer of water) in the word, that He may present the Church to Him self glorious, not having stain or wrinkle"-of course after the laver-"but (that) she may be holy and without reproach; " thereafter, to wit, being "without wrinkle" as a virgin, "without stain" (of fornication) as a spouse, "without disgrace" (of vileness), as having been "utterly purified.

So, she was depraved, impure, and without form, but He was not disgusted by her, and so you too should not be disgusted by your wife, even if she were ugly and worthless. And that the Church was ugly, listen: "you were once darkness," and what is blacker than darkness? They served malice and envy, and what can be more impure? Disobedient, foolish, and even blasphemous, and what can be more vile than this? And yet, He gave Himself up for her, as if she were beautiful and wonderful. And He cleansed her "with the washing of water," that is, baptism. "By means of the word." Which word? In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As a result of this sanctification he cleanses it from the stains of sin. Hence he adds cleansing it by the laver of water. This washing has a power from the passion of Christ. "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death; for we are buried together with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6:3-4). "And I will pour upon you clean water and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness" (Ez. 36:25). "There shall be a fountain open to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; for the washing of the sinner and of the unclean woman" (Zach. 13:1). This occurs in the word of life which, coming upon the water, gives it the power to cleanse: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 28:19).

Do you therefore, who attend to the laws of God, esteem those laws more honourable than the necessities of this life, and pay a greater respect to them, and run together to the Church of the Lord, "which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature." For this Church is the daughter of the Highest, which has been in travail of you by the word of grace, and has "formed Christ in you," of whom you are made partakers, and thereby become His holy and chosen members, "not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but as being holy and unspotted in the faith, ye are complete in Him, after the image of God that created you."

By the same bath of regeneration and water of sanctification all sins of the redeemed are cleansed and healed, not only those which are pardoned at this time in baptism but also those that are subsequently contracted by human infirmity or ignorance.

The Church is the Lord's bride whom He so loves that in her no spot or wrinkle is endurable. For the truth which this analogy serves to emphasise is that Love, in its own nature, demands the perfecting of the beloved; that the mere "kindness" which tolerates anything except suffering in its object is, in that respect, at the opposite pole from Love. When we fall in love with a woman, do we cease to care whether she is clean or dirty, fair or foul? Do we not rather then first begin to care? Does any woman regard it as a sign of love in a man that he neither knows nor cares how she is looking? Love may, indeed, love the beloved when her beauty is lost: but not because it is lost. Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal. Love is more sensitive than hatred itself to every blemish in the beloved; his "feeling is more soft and sensible than are the tender horns of cockled snails". Of all powers he forgives most, but he condones least: he is pleased with little, but demands all.

What Christ is accomplishing [in baptism] is that the church should be "holy and spotless." It is "holy" in that it has been cleansed by the washing of water by the Word. It is "spotless" in that it is without spot or wrinkle.

And then the Son of God will be exceeding glad, and shall rejoice over them, because He has received His people pure.

Not simply pure, but "glorious"! And just as Christ is the source of all blessings for the Church, so you too be the same for your wife; and just as He imparted spiritual beauty to the Church, so you too strive for this, and not for bodily beauty. And if you seek spiritual beauty in your wife, you will soon create it in her, setting her in order and making her glorious in spirit both for yourself and for God. These words refer to the passions of the soul. Defilements are recent passions that are easy to wash away, which also caused dishonor; vices, however, are passions that have grown old over time — these are what made people unclean and are difficult to wash away. But the divine bath cleansed all of this and made them holy and blameless.

The goal of this sanctifying action is the Church's purity. Thus he states that he might present it to himself, a glorious church; as if the Apostle said: It would be highly improper for the immaculate bridegroom to wed a soiled bride. This is why he presents her to himself in an immaculate state, now through grace and in the future through glory.

Regarding the latter, he says glorious by the clarity of both body and soul. For "he will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory" (Phil. 3:21). Hence he adds not having spot: "the man that walked in the perfect way, he served me" (Ps. 100:6); "blessed are the undefiled in the way: who walk in the law of the Lord" (Ps. 118:1). Or wrinkle refers to the lack of suffering since, as the Apocalypse 7 (16) remarks: "they shall no more hunger nor thirst," or any such thing, but that it should be holy through its confirmation in grace, and without the blemish of any defilement. Thus all of these characteristics can be understood of the appearance of the Church in the future through glory.

But if they are taken to refer to her appearance through faith, then he would be saying: that he might present to himself, through faith, a glorious church, since "it is a great glory to follow the Lord" (Sirach 23:38), not having a spot of mortal sin. "Thou art stained in thy iniquity" (Jer. 2:22). Nor does it have a wrinkle, that is, a duplicity of purpose which those who are rightly united with Christ and the Church do not have. "My wrinkles bear witness against me" (Job 16:9). But rather that it should be holy through its aspiration and without blemish through every kind of purity.

Ye wives, be subject to your own husbands, and have them in esteem, and serve them with fear and love, as holy Sarah honoured Abraham. For she could not endure to call him by his name, but called him lord, when she said, "My lord is old." In like manner, ye husbands, love your own wives as your own members, as partners in life, and fellow-helpers for the procreation of children. For says He, "Rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her conversation be to thee as a loving hind, and a pleasant foal; let her alone guide thee, and be with thee at all times: for if thou beest every way encompassed with her friendship, thou wilt be happy in her society." Love them therefore as your own members, as your very bodies; for so it is written, "The Lord has testified between thee and between the wife of thy youth; and she is thy partner, and another has not made her: and she is the remains of thy spirit;" and, "Take heed to your spirit, and do not forsake the wife of thy youth."

The example proceeds to wives from the church and to husbands from Christ.… He urges the husbands on the basis of something inferior, namely, their own body, not only from the superior, that is, their Lord.

The ruling power is therefore the head. And if "the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman," the man, "being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman." Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, "Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh."

The precepts of chastity, brethren, are ancient. Wherefore do I say ancient? Because they were ordained at the same time as men themselves. For both her own husband belongs to the woman, for the reason that besides him she may know no other; and the woman is given to the man for the purpose that, when that which had been his own had been yielded to him, he should seek for nothing belonging to another. And in such wise it is said, "Two shall be in one flesh," that what had been made one should return together, that a separation without return should not afford any occasion to a stranger. Thence also the apostle declares that the man is the head of the woman, that he might commend chastity in the conjunction of the two. For as the head cannot be suited to the limbs of another, so also one's limbs cannot be suited to the head of another: for one's head matches one's limbs, and one's limbs one's head; and both of them are associated by a natural link in mutual concord, lest, by any discord arising from the separation of the members, the compact of the divine covenant should be broken. Yet he adds, and says: "Because he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ the Church." From this passage there is great authority for charity with chastity, if wives are to be loved by their husbands even as Christ loved the Church and wives ought so to love their husbands also as the Church loves Christ.

"Even so ought husbands to love their own wives," saith he, "as their own bodies."

What, again, means this? To how much greater a similitude, and stronger example has he come; and not only so, but also to one how much nearer and clearer, and to a fresh obligation. For that other one was of no very constraining force, for He was Christ, and was God, and gave Himself. He now manages his argument on a different ground, saying, "so ought men"; because the thing is not a favor, but a debt. Then, "as their own bodies." And why?

Chapter I.-Passages of Holy Scripture Compared. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."

Not as a more important and most necessary example does he now point to this (for it is clear that the relationship of Christ to the Church is far more important than this example), but as one that is nearer and more at hand. Precisely so that no one might say that He was God and gave Himself up — he shows us this necessity in another way. "Ought," he says, to love, that is, this matter is not a favor but a debt and a necessity, because a wife is your body. Thus, the example of Christ he brought not only to show that one ought to love, but also to show that one ought to care for her well-being. "That she might be," he says, "holy and blameless." But the example of the body he put forward only in relation to love.

From the above he draws the conclusion he intended by affirming: So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.

Above he urged husbands to love their wives; he appealed to Christ and to the example of Christ's love for the church (5:25). Here he demonstrates the same thing from the point of view of the husband himself. The reason is as follows. A husband and wife are somehow one; hence, as the flesh is subject to the soul, so is the wife to the husband; but no one ever held his own flesh in contempt, therefore neither should anyone his wife. Whence he states He who loves his wife loves himself. "Therefore, now they are not two, but one flesh" (Mt. 19:6). Just as a man sins against nature in hating himself, so does he who hates his wife. "With three things my spirit is pleased, which are approved before God and men: the concord of brethren, and the love of neighbors, and man and wife that agree well together" (Sirach 25:1-2).

When the apostle asks "whoever hated his own flesh?" what is meant by flesh? Flesh is to be taken care of, "nourished and fostered." Flesh here refers to the body yoked to the rational soul, as is clear [from the previous verse].

"For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it."

That is, tends it with exceeding care. And how is she his flesh? Hearken; "This now is bone of my bones," saith Adam, "and flesh of my flesh." For she is made of matter taken from us. And not only so, but also, "they shall be," saith God, "one flesh."

"Even as Christ also the Church." Here he returns to the former example.

The purpose of God cannot be undone, nor can anyone make a better provision than God already has. God made the body. No workman loves another's work better than his own. Hence the apostle says "no one hates his own flesh."

"No one," he says, "hates his own flesh"—excepting only Marcion, obviously—"but he nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church." But you [Marcion] are the only one who hates it, since you deprive it of resurrection. So you also hate the church. But Christ loved the flesh, as seen in his love for the church. The point is that as no man hates his own flesh so he does not hate his own wife but indeed acts to preserve, honor and crown her.

How much honour is given to the flesh in the name of the church! "No man," says the apostle, "ever yet hated his own flesh" (except, of course, Marcion alone), "but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord doth the Church." But you are the only man that hates his flesh, for you rob it of its resurrection.

He says that everyone applies intense and most diligent care for their own body, and so should you toward your wife. And again he brings Christ as an example, showing that Christ also loved us as His own flesh.

He proves that they ought to love one another in saying For no man ever hated his own flesh. This love is evident in what happens since "love is verified when it is expressed in action." For we love anything whose powers we sustain. But everyone nourishes and cherishes his own flesh in order to sustain it. "But, having food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content" (1 Tim. 6:8).

But is not this contrary to Luke 14 (26): "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yes and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple?" I reply. The Apostle affirms that a man ought to love his wife as he does himself; but he must love himself less than God; hence he should also love his wife less than God. In stating "he who does not hate his wife," he is not commanding that she be hated—which would be to command a mortal sin—but that she be loved as the man loves himself. Now love in a lesser degree is like a certain hatred in comparison with whatever is loved most or to a greater degree, in this case, God.

Likewise, no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it. But there are objections to this. When anyone loves something he never wants nor desires to be separated from it. Yet the saints wanted to be separated from the flesh. "Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24), "having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ" (Phil. 1:23). Besides, nobody afflicts what he loves, but the saints punished their flesh while they were in this world. "I chastise my body and bring it into subjection" (1 Cor. 9:27). Moreover, some people even kill themselves, as is frequently heard of. Judas did it.

I reply. The flesh, when considered in itself, is not held in contempt, but everyone naturally wants it to exist and nourishes it for this end. On the other hand, the flesh can be considered as an obstacle to what we will, and thus, through circumstance (per accidens), it can be detested in a certain way. For everything that we will is either good or evil. If good, it may be the ultimate end, eternal life, from which we are held back by the flesh. "While we are in the body we are absent from the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:6). And since we naturally desire our fulfillment and well-being—nor can we enjoy these while we are in the flesh—we will to discard it, not as an evil held in contempt, but as a good we love less than the greater good it impedes. The authoritative texts quoted above, and others like them, are to be explained in this way.

Or, we may will a good that is not the end, but disposes for the end; for example, virtuous habits. But this type of good is opposed by the immoral tendencies of the flesh. On this account do the saints discipline and punish their flesh in order that it might submit to the spirit for the curbing of sensual desires. For, in desiring such, the flesh blocks our acquisition of the virtues which dispose us for the ultimate good. Therefore, whoever punishes his flesh that it might submit to his spirit does not hate it, but rather obtains its own good which is that it be subject to the spirit—just as the good of man is to be subject to God: "it is good for me to adhere to my God" (Ps. 72:28). "I chastise my body..." and similar passages are to be understood in this way. This would not have been necessary in the state of innocence as long as man was subject to God, and the flesh totally submissive to the spirit; the gift of original justice consisted precisely in this mutual submission.

On the other hand we sometimes will what is evil. Hence, just as holy persons discipline, or wish to discard, their flesh inasmuch as it is an obstacle to the good they desire, so also the wicked, insofar as the flesh blocks the evil they desire, will kill it and commit suicide, as Judas did.

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,-that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man.

"Because we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones."

Tell me not that such and such things are so. Seest thou not that we have in our own flesh itself many defects? For one man, for instance, is lame, another has his feet distorted, another his hands withered, another some other member weak; and yet nevertheless he does not grieve at it, nor cut it off, but oftentimes prefers it even to the other. Naturally enough; for it is part of himself. As great love as each entertains towards himself, so great he would have us entertain towards a wife. Not because we partake of the same nature; no, this ground of duty towards a wife is far greater than that; it is that there are not two bodies but one; he the head, she the body. And how saith he elsewhere "and the Head of Christ is God"? This I too say, that as we are one body, so also are Christ and the Father One. And thus then is the Father also found to be our Head. He sets down two examples, that of the natural body and that of Christ's body.

Just as Eve was fashioned from Adam, so were we from Christ the Lord. We are buried with him in baptism. We rise with him. We eat his body and drink his blood [in the Eucharist].

That is, we have a great kinship with Him. For He came from our substance, just as Eve from Adam. And as there the closeness was so great, so it is with us as well. And from another perspective too, we are "of His flesh and of His bones," because just as He was born of the Spirit without conjugal union, so are we in the baptismal font; and because having received the mysteries, we are from that moment divinely re-created. In short, he says that we have the highest closeness to Him. For both visibly He is a partaker with us in flesh and blood, and invisibly He is the source of our spiritual rebirth, just as Adam was the source of Eve's creation.

Then he indicates that a man must love his wife through an example. Thus he says, Christ also loved the Church as something of his very self because we are members of his body. "For we are members one of another" (Eph. 4:25). He mentions of his flesh on account of his sharing the same nature with us. "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have" (Lk. 24:39). Or, he says this mystically so that of his flesh refers to the weak who are of the flesh, and of his bones would refer to the strong who are hard as bone.

If Christ cleaved to the church so that they became one flesh, in what way did he "leave" his Father? In what way did he "leave" his mother? He left his Father in the sense that, when he was in the form of God he … emptied himself, assuming the form of a slave. … That means that he left the Father, not by deserting him or withdrawing from him but by coming to humanity in a lowly form in which he temporarily divested his glory with the Father.

Since each of the spiritual unions signified in the Sacrament of matrimony is a union of one as agent and infuser, and of the other as patient and receiver; and this by the bond of love, which proceeds from pure will: hence it is that matrimony must be a joining of two persons, differing according to the relation of agent and patient, namely of the male sex and the female, and this from the pure consent of the will. And because consent before commingling does not make a full union, because they are not yet one flesh: hence it is that by words regarding the future, matrimony is said to be initiated, by words regarding the present confirmed, but in carnal union consummated, because then they are one flesh and become one body: and through this it fully signifies that union which is between us and Christ. For then the body of one is fully transferred to the body of the other according to the power of one's spouse for the procreation of offspring.

Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him — the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: "Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them." [Genesis 1:26-27] Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, "Increase and multiply." [Genesis 1:28] We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.

Moreover, that Nicostratus, having lost the diaconate of sacred administrations, because he had abstracted the Church's money by a sacrilegious fraud, and disowned the deposits of the widows and orphans, did not wish so much to come into Africa as to escape thither from the city, from the consciousness of his rapines and his frightful crimes. And now a deserter and a fugitive from the Church, as if to have changed the clime were to change the man, he goes on to boast and announce himself a confessor, although he can no longer either be or be called a confessor of Christ who has denied Christ's Church. For when the Apostle Paul says, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church; " -when, I say, the blessed apostle says this, and with his sacred voice testifies to the unity of Christ with the Church, cleaving to one another with indivisible links, how can he be with Christ who is not with the spouse of Christ, and in His Church? Or how does he assume to himself the charge of ruling or governing the Church, who has spoiled and wronged the Church of Christ?

Thus, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, an intelligent man in other matters, says that there is only a "theological" opposition to divorce, and that it is entirely founded on "certain texts" in the Bible about marriages. This is exactly as if he said that a belief in the brotherhood of men was only founded on certain texts in the Bible, about all men being the children of Adam and Eve. Millions of peasants and plain people all over the world assume marriage to be static, without having ever clapped eyes on any text. Numbers of more modern people, especially after the recent experiments in America, think divorce is a social disease, without having ever bothered about any text. It may be maintained that even in these, or in any one, the idea of marriage is ultimately mystical; and the same may be maintained about the idea of brotherhood. It is obvious that a husband and wife are not visibly one flesh, in the sense of being one quadruped. It is equally obvious that Paderewski and Jack Johnson are not twins, and probably have not played together at their mother's knee. There is indeed a very important admission, or addition, to be realised here. What is true is this: that if the nonsense of Nietzsche or some such sophist submerged current culture, so that it was the fashion to deny the duties of fraternity; then indeed it might be found that the group which still affirmed fraternity was the original group in whose sacred books was the text about Adam and Eve. Suppose some Prussian professor has opportunely discovered that Germans and lesser men are respectively descended from two such very different monkeys that they are in no sense brothers, but barely cousins (German) any number of times removed. And suppose he proceeds to remove them even further with a hatchet; suppose he bases on this a repetition of the conduct of Cain, saying not so much "Am I my brother's keeper?" as "Is he really my brother?" And suppose this higher philosophy of the hatchet becomes prevalent in colleges and cultivated circles, as even more foolish philosophies have done. Then I agree it probably will be the Christian, the man who preserves the text about Cain, who will continue to assert that he is still the professor's brother; that he is still the professor's keeper. He may possibly add that, in his opinion, the professor seems to require a keeper.

And that is doubtless the situation in the controversies about divorce and marriage to-day. It is the Christian church which continues to hold strongly, when the world for some reason has weakened on it, what many others hold at other times. But even then it is barely picking up the shreds and scraps of the subject to talk about a reliance on texts. The vital point in the comparison is this: that human brotherhood means a whole view of life, held in the light of life, and defended, rightly or wrongly, by constant appeals to every aspect of life. The religion that holds it most strongly will hold it when nobody else holds it; that is quite true, and that some of us may be so perverse as to think a point in favour of the religion. But anybody who holds it at all will hold it as a philosophy, not hung on one text but on a hundred truths. Fraternity may be a sentimental metaphor; I may be suffering a delusion when I hail a Montenegrin peasant as my long lost brother. As a fact, I have my own suspicions about which of us it is that has got lost. But my delusion is not a deduction from one text, or from twenty; it is the expression of a relation that to me at least seems a reality. And what I should say about the idea of a brother, I should say about the idea of a wife.

They are trying to break the vow of the knight as they broke the vow of the monk. They recognise the vow as the vital antithesis to servile status; the alternative and therefore the antagonist. Marriage makes a small state within the state, which resists all such regimentation. That bond breaks all other bonds; that law is found stronger than all later and lesser laws. They desire the democracy to be sexually fluid, because the making of small nuclei is like the making of small nations. Like small nations, they are a nuisance to the mind of imperial scope. In short, what they fear, in the most literal sense, is home rule.

Yet there is a difference, and it is just what I suggested. The Eastern mysticism is an ecstasy of unity; the Christian mysticism is an ecstasy of creation, that is of separation and mutual surprise. The latter says, like St. Francis, "My brother fire and my sister water"; the former says, "Myself fire and myself water." Whether you call the Eastern attitude an extension of oneself into everything or a contraction of oneself into nothing is a matter of metaphysical definition. The effect is the same, an effect which lives and throbs throughout all the exquisite arts of the East. This effect is the thing called rhythm, a pulsation of pattern, or of ritual, or of colours, or of cosmic theory, but always suggesting the unification of the individual with the world. But there is quite another kind of sympathy--the sympathy with a thing because it is different. No one will say that Rembrandt did not sympathise with an old woman; but no one will say that Rembrandt painted like an old woman. No one will say that Reynolds did not appreciate children; but no one will say he did it childishly. The supreme instance of this divine division is sex, and that explains (what I could never understand in my youth) why Christendom called the soul the bride of God. For real love is an intense realisation of the "separateness" of all our souls. The most heroic and human love-poetry of the world is never mere passion; precisely because mere passion really is a melting back into Nature, a meeting of the waters. And water is plunging and powerful; but it is only powerful downhill. The high and human love-poetry is all about division rather than identity; and in the great love-poems even the man as he embraces the woman sees her, in the same instant, afar off; a virgin and a stranger.

The same allegorical interpretation applies both to Christ and to the church, that Adam is to prefigure Christ and Eve the church. For "the last Adam was made a lifegiving spirit." Just as the whole human race is born from Adam and his wife, so the whole multitude of believers has been born of Christ and the church.

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the twain shall become one flesh."

Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begat him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that the three are one flesh. Thus then are we in relation to Christ; we become one flesh by participation, and we much more than the child. And why and how so? Because so it has been from the beginning.

Now why did he not say of the wife also, She shall be joined unto her husband? Why, I say, is this? Because he was discoursing concerning love, and was discoursing to the husband. For to her indeed he discourses concerning reverence, and says, "the husband is the head of the wife", and again, "Christ is the Head of the Church." Whereas to him he discourses concerning love, and commits to him this province of love, and declares to him that which pertains to love, thus binding him and cementing him to her. For the man that leaves his father for the sake of his wife, and then again, leaves this very wife herself and abandons her, what forbearance can he deserve?

For thus will it be most certainly agreed that the Church is formed out of His bones and flesh; and it was for this cause that the Word, leaving His Father in heaven, came down to be "joined to His wife; "

For, inasmuch as Adam straightway predicted that "great mystery of Christ and the church," when he said, "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall become one flesh," he experienced the influence of the Spirit. For there fell upon him that ecstasy, which is the Holy Ghost's operative virtue of prophecy.

But why enlarge on such a subject? When the very apostle whom our heretics adopt, interprets the law which allows an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn, not of cattle, but of ourselves; and also alleges that the rock which followed (the Israelites) and supplied them with drink was Christ; teaching the Galatians, moreover, that the two narratives of the sons of Abraham had an allegorical meaning in their course; and to the Ephesians giving an intimation that, when it was declared in the beginning that a man should leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife, he applied this to Christ and the church.

I shall now endeavour, from my point of view, to prove that the same God is (the God) of the man and of Christ, of the woman and of the Church, of the flesh and the spirit, by the apostle's help who applies the Creator's injunction, and adds even a comment on it: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, (and shall be joined unto his wife), and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery." In passing, (I would say that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries in the estimation of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the heretics. "But I am speaking," says he, "of Christ and the Church." This he says in explanation of the mystery, not for its disruption. He shows us that the mystery was prefigured by Him who is also the author of the mystery.

What kind of yoke is that of two believers, (partakers) of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? Both (are) brethren, both fellow servants, no difference of spirit or of flesh; nay, (they are) truly "two in one flesh." Where the flesh is one, one is the spirit ton.

Finally, "there shall be," said He, "two in one flesh," not three nor four. On any other hypothesis, there would no longer be "one flesh," nor "two (joined) into one flesh." These will be so, if the conjunction and the growing together in unity take place once for all. if, however, (it take place) a second time, or oftener, immediately (the flesh) ceases to be "one," and there will not be "two (joined) into one flesh," but plainly one rib (divided) into more. But when the apostle interprets, "The two shall be (joined) into one flesh" of the Church and Christ, according to the spiritual nuptials of the Church and Christ (for Christ is one, and one is His Church), we are bound to recognise a duplication and additional enforcement for us of the law of unity of marriage, not only in accordance with the foundation of our race, but in accordance with the sacrament of Christ. From one marriage do we derive our origin in each case; carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ.

You are to respect the first law [of creation], he says in effect, which was laid down along with the fashioning of the woman and implanted in human nature.… This is the fruit of marriage: One child comes of two partners. The apostle, having recalled the holy requirement of marriage [that the two shall become one flesh], shows that this is illustrated also in the spiritual marriage. He not only demonstrates it but virtually shouts it out.

Here is yet another example, namely: when someone, having left his parents, is united with her. And he did not say: will live together with her, but: "shall cleave," indicating an inseparable union. And the words "one flesh" are understood also simply, as the great John Chrysostom says: shall be one flesh; but they can also mean something else, namely: the two shall be for the production of one flesh, that is, a child.

The Apostle exhorted the Ephesians above to love their wives. He did this in two ways: both by offering the example of Christ's love for the Church, and by the love a man has for himself (5:25), now he gives a third encouragement drawn from the authority of Scripture.

The authoritative text is Genesis 2 (24); words spoken by Adam when he saw his wife who had been formed from his rib. Yet does not this contradict Matthew 19 (4-5) which states that God himself spoke these words? I reply that Adam spoke them as inspired by God, and God spoke them insofar as he was inspiring and teaching Adam. We use the same expressions; there are many words which the Lord spoke by those whom the spirit of God instructed; so Matthew 10 (20) affirms: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaks in you."

It should be noted that in the above mentioned authority a threefold union of a man and wife is designated. The first union is through the devotion of their love, for it is strong enough in each that they both left their fathers behind. "So a man loves his wife better than his father or mother. Many have lost their heads completely for their wives" (3 Esd. 4:25-26), and much more concerning this is stated there [in 3 Esd. 4]. But this is natural, for natural desires fit in harmoniously with actions that must be performed. It is evident that a desire exists in all higher agents that they administer to, and communicate with, lower agents. Thus a natural love for the lower is present in them. Now a man is an inferior in relation to his father and mother, he is not higher than they; hence he is naturally more drawn towards his wife and children, to whom he is superior, than to his parents. And also because his wife is intimately united to him in the act of procreation.

The second union is through living together. Thus he says and he shall cleave to his wife. "With three things my spirit is pleased, which are approved before God and men: the concord of brethren, and the love of neighbors, and man and wife that agree well together" (Sirach 25:1-2).

The third is their carnal union—and they shall be two in one flesh, that is, in their carnal intercourse. For in any act of generation there is an active and a passive power. In plants both powers are in the same [plant], but in the perfect animals they are distinguished. And hence in the act of generation among animals the male and female become, as in plants, only one and the same body.

The apostle speaks of a great mystery in the relation of Christ and the church. That which is great in respect of Christ and the church may seem less auspicious in the relation between husbands and wives. But in marriage it still represents the mystery of an inseparable bond.

Matrimony, because it renews the multitude in the being of nature, which is the foundation of all, was therefore first introduced before all others: although, on account of the disease of concupiscence attached to it, and because it is the least sanctifying, even though in signification it is a great Sacrament, it is placed last among the spiritual remedies and assigned the final place.

God from the beginning instituted that propagation should take place through a conjunction of male and female that is undivided and singular, which would signify before sin the conjunction of God and the soul, or of God and the subcelestial hierarchy, but after sin the conjunction of God and human nature, or of Christ and the Church; and therefore in both cases it is a Sacrament, namely before and after, although in different ways, with respect to signification and use. For since it was a Sacrament before the disease supervened, the concupiscence which supervened through sin is rather to be excused through matrimony than it is able to vitiate it: because the disease does not corrupt the medicine, but the medicine has the power to cure the disease.

"The Lord cast a deep sleep upon Adam, and when he had fallen asleep, he took one of his ribs" and made a woman "and brought her to Adam." And the Lord said: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife." And the Apostle said: "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church."

And why, while he slept, did He take one of his ribs? Could He not have done this while he was awake? This is mystical. Was not the Church formed from the side of Christ, when Christ fell asleep on the cross? And from His side flowed forth blood and water, that is, the Sacraments, through which the Church is reborn. From the rib of Adam, Eve was formed, who was joined to him in marriage. Just as man was formed from virgin earth, so Christ from the glorious Virgin. And just as from the side of the sleeping Adam woman was formed, so the Church from Christ hanging on the cross. And just as from Adam and Eve, Abel and his successors were formed, so from Christ and the Church the whole Christian people.

Everything that accords with the evangelical Sacraments is good and praiseworthy: but conjugal continence is of this kind: therefore it is good and praiseworthy. The major is evident; the minor is proved: Ephesians 5: This Sacrament is a great one, etc.: therefore conjugal continence is consonant with the law of God.

the Apostle Paul has used this as an illustration, explaining it in a mystical manner, concerning the Lord Christ and the Church, saying: This mystery is great, but I speak of Christ and of the Church. For just as Adam is the head of all men in this world, as being the cause of their existence, and their father, so also the Lord Christ according to the flesh is the head of the Church, and the father of the future age.

We find frequently in the writings of the blessed Paul principles conducive to a higher (anagogic) interpretation. This is evident when he writes "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and his church."

Any soul that cleaves faithfully to Christ is like a wife living faithfully with her husband. Even in chaste wedlock she may grieve the mind of her husband. But she preserves the faith of the marriage bed with chaste purity. Prudently and temperately she orders the husband's household. Even while she falls short of meeting his needs she lives chastely and faithfully with him. Though human infirmity often causes her to transgress against him, conjugal chastity makes her cleave with pleasure to her husband.

Yet there is a difference, and it is just what I suggested. The Eastern mysticism is an ecstasy of unity; the Christian mysticism is an ecstasy of creation, that is of separation and mutual surprise. The latter says, like St. Francis, "My brother fire and my sister water"; the former says, "Myself fire and myself water." Whether you call the Eastern attitude an extension of oneself into everything or a contraction of oneself into nothing is a matter of metaphysical definition. The effect is the same, an effect which lives and throbs throughout all the exquisite arts of the East. This effect is the thing called rhythm, a pulsation of pattern, or of ritual, or of colours, or of cosmic theory, but always suggesting the unification of the individual with the world. But there is quite another kind of sympathy--the sympathy with a thing because it is different. No one will say that Rembrandt did not sympathise with an old woman; but no one will say that Rembrandt painted like an old woman. No one will say that Reynolds did not appreciate children; but no one will say he did it childishly. The supreme instance of this divine division is sex, and that explains (what I could never understand in my youth) why Christendom called the soul the bride of God. For real love is an intense realisation of the "separateness" of all our souls. The most heroic and human love-poetry of the world is never mere passion; precisely because mere passion really is a melting back into Nature, a meeting of the waters. And water is plunging and powerful; but it is only powerful downhill. The high and human love-poetry is all about division rather than identity; and in the great love-poems even the man as he embraces the woman sees her, in the same instant, afar off; a virgin and a stranger.

They declare also that Paul has referred to the conjunctions within the Pleroma, showing them forth by means of one; for, when writing of the conjugal union in this life, he expressed himself thus: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."

Gregory of Nazianzus, a very eloquent man and outstandingly versed in the Scriptures, used to say while discussing this passage with me: See how great the promise in this passage is! The apostle, interpreting it as an analogy of Christ and the church, does not himself even profess to have expounded it as the dignity of the idea demanded. He is in effect saying: "I know that this analogy is full of ineffable promises. It requires a divine heart in its interpretation. But in the weakness of my understanding I can only say that in the meantime it should be interpreted as Christ in relation to the church. Nothing is greater than Christ and the church. Even all that is said of Adam and Eve is to be interpreted with reference to Christ and the church."

"This is great mystery: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church."

Why does he call it a great mystery? That it was something great and wonderful, the blessed Moses, or rather God, intimated. For the present, however, saith he, I speak regarding Christ, that having left the Father, He came down, and came to the Bride, and became one Spirit. "For he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit." (1 Cor. vi. 17) And well saith he, "it is a great mystery." And then as though he were saying, "But still nevertheless the allegory does not destroy affection," he adds,

For indeed, in very deed, a mystery it is, yea, a great mystery, that a man should leave him that gave him being, him that begat him, and that brought him up, and her that travailed with him and had sorrow, those that have bestowed upon him so many and great benefits, those with whom he has been in familiar intercourse, and be joined to one who was never even seen by him and who has nothing in common with him, and should honor her before all others. A mystery it is indeed. And yet are parents not distressed when these events take place, but rather, when they do not take place; and are delighted when their wealth is spent and lavished upon it.-A great mystery indeed! and one that contains some hidden wisdom. Such Moses prophetically showed it to be from the very first; such now also Paul proclaims it, where he saith, "concerning Christ and the Church."

This then is marriage when it takes place according to Christ, spiritual marriage, and spiritual birth, not of blood, nor of travail, nor of the will of the flesh. Such was the birth of Christ, not of blood, nor of travail. Such also was that of Isaac. Hear how the Scripture saith, "And it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women." (Gen. xviii. 11) Yea, a marriage it is, not of passion, nor of the flesh, but wholly spiritual, the soul being united to God by a union unspeakable, and which He alone knoweth. Therefore he saith, "He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (1 Cor. vi. 17) Mark how earnestly he endeavors to unite both flesh with flesh, and spirit with spirit. And where are the heretics? Never surely, if marriage were a thing to be condemned, would he have called Christ and the Church a bride and bridegroom; never would he have brought forward by way of exhortation the words, "A man shall leave his father and his mother"; and again have added, that it was "spoken in regard of Christ and of the Church." For of her it is that the Psalmist also saith, "Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house. So shall the king desire thy beauty." (Ps. xlv. 10, 11) Therefore also Christ saith, "I came out from the Father, and am come." (John xvi. 28) But when I say, that He left the Father, imagine not such a thing as happens among men, a change of place; for just in the same way as the word "go forth" is used, not because He literally came forth, but because of His incarnation, so also is the expression, "He left the Father."

Yet, while everything else seems rightly spoken, one thing, my friend, distresses and troubles me, considering that that wise and most spiritual man-I mean Paul-would not vainly refer to Christ and the Church the union of the first man and woman,

The apostle's aim was not amiss when he compared the first condition of Adam with that of Christ. It is a perfectly accurate analogy: the church is generated from Adam's bones and flesh. For her sake the Word left his Father in heaven. He came down to be bonded with this woman, the church. Then he fell into the sleep of his passion. He willingly died for her.… He did this to make her ready for the blessed seed which he himself sows secretly in her, which she cherishes in the depth of her soul. The seed is sown that the church might receive it and fashion it like a woman, to bring forth and foster excellence.

Small in the eyes of heretics but great in the eyes of the apostles are the Creator's works. Of just such a great mystery the apostle speaks when he says: "But I speak of Christ and the church." He says this to confirm the mystery, not to undermine it. He shows us that the mystery was prefigured beforehand by the One who is the author of the mystery.

What had he that was spiritual? Is it because he prophetically declared "the great mystery of Christ and the church? " "This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman.

In passing, (I would say that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries in the estimation of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the heretics. "But I am speaking," says he, "of Christ and the Church." This he says in explanation of the mystery, not for its disruption.

However, even (Adam) himself at that time, reverting to the condition of a Psychic after the spiritual ecstasy in which he had prophetically interpreted that "great sacrament" with reference to Christ and the Church, and no longer being "capable of the things which were the Spirit's," yielded more readily to his belly than to God, heeded the meat rather than the mandate, and sold salvation for his gullet! He ate, in short, and perished; saved (as he would) else (have been), if he had preferred to fast from one little tree: so that, even from this early date, animal faith may recognise its own seed, deducing from thence onward its appetite for carnalities and rejection of spiritualities.

That is, Moses pointed to something great and wondrous. And truly it is a mystery — to leave those who gave birth to him, labored for him, and did him good, and to cleave to one whom he had never seen and who had not even begun to do him good. Indeed, this is a great mystery, if only it is understood as referring to Christ, as a prophetic word about Him. For He too left the Father, not in the sense of a change of place, but by condescending to the assumption of flesh, and came to the bride who did not know Him at all, and became one with her in spirit. For "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord" (1 Cor. 6:17). How then can one condemn marriage, when Paul presents it as an image of the mystery of Christ and calls it a mystery?

He goes on to interpret this mystically, and he says This is a great sacrament, it is the symbol of a sacred reality, namely, the union of Christ and the Church. "I will not hide from you the mysteries of God" (Wis. 6:24).

Notice here that four Sacraments are termed great. Baptism by reason of its effect, since it blots out sin and opens the gate of paradise; Confirmation by reason of its minister, it is conferred only by bishops and not by others; the Eucharist because of what it contains, the Whole Christ; and Matrimony by reason of its signification, for it symbolizes the union of Christ and the Church. If, therefore, the text is mystically interpreted, the preceding passage should be explained as follows: For this cause shall a man, namely, Christ, leave his father and mother. I say leave his father, because he was sent into the world and became incarnate—"I came forth from the Father and am come into the world" (Jn. 16:28)—and his mother who was the synagogue—"I have forsaken my house, I have left my inheritance, I have given my dear soul into the hand of her enemies" (Jer. 12:7). And he shall cleave to his wife, the Church. "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Mt. 28:20).

Next, the point is argued by interpreting the above example according to its literal meaning. For there are certain passages in the Old Testament which can be said only of Christ. For instance, Psalm 21 (17): "They have dug my hands and feet: they have numbered all my bones"; or Isaias 7 (14): "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Other passages, however, can be explained as referring to Christ and others; to Christ principally, and to others as they were types of Christ. The above example (Gen. 2:24) is of this category.

Already he has given instructions generally to men concerning their wives and to women concerning their husbands. He now applies the same principles specifically to the Ephesians.… He has added the connecting word however. This shows that even as Christ and the church are one body, so are husband and wife one flesh. The husband's maxim is to love his wife as if she were his own flesh.

"Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband."

For indeed, in very deed, a mystery it is, yea, a great mystery, that a man should leave him that gave him being, him that begat him, and that brought him up, and her that travailed with him and had sorrow, those that have bestowed upon him so many and great benefits, those with whom he has been in familiar intercourse, and be joined to one who was never even seen by him and who has nothing in common with him, and should honor her before all others. A mystery it is indeed. And yet are parents not distressed when these events take place, but rather, when they do not take place; and are delighted when their wealth is spent and lavished upon it.

However not for the husband's sake alone it is thus said, but for the wife's sake also, that "he cherish her as his own flesh, as Christ also the Church," and, "that the wife fear her husband." He is no longer setting down the duties of love only, but what? "That she fear her husband." The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love on his part as a counterpoise to obedience on her part. For example, let the hands and the feet, and all the rest of the members be given up for service to the head, but let the head provide for the body, seeing it contains every sense in itself. Nothing can be better than this union.

And yet how can there ever be love, one may say, where there is fear? It will exist there, I say, preeminently. For she that fears and reverences, loves also; and she that loves, fears and reverences him as being the head, and loves him as being a member, since the head itself is a member of the body at large. Hence he places the one in subjection, and the other in authority, that there may be peace; for where there is equal authority there can never be peace; neither where a house is a democracy, nor where all are rulers; but the ruling power must of necessity be one. And this is universally the case with matters referring to the body, inasmuch as when men are spiritual, there will be peace. There were "five thousand souls," and not one of them said, "that aught of the things which he possessed was his own", but they were subject one to another; an indication this of wisdom, and of the fear of God. The principle of love, however, he explains; that of fear he does not. And mark, how on that of love he enlarges, stating the arguments relating to Christ and those relating to one's own flesh, the words, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother." Whereas upon those drawn from fear he forbears to enlarge. And why so? Because he would rather that this principle prevail, this, namely, of love; for where this exists, everything else follows of course, but where the other exists, not necessarily. For the man who loves his wife, even though she be not a very obedient one, still will bear with everything. So difficult and impracticable is unanimity, where persons are not bound together by that love which is founded in supreme authority; at all events, fear will not necessarily effect this. Accordingly, he dwells the more upon this, which is the strong tie. And the wife though seeming to be the loser in that she was charged to fear, is the gainer, because the principal duty, love, is charged upon the husband. "But what," one may say, "if a wife reverence me not?" Never mind, thou art to love, fulfill thine own duty. For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, "submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ." And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God. Just so, I say, is it also here. Let the wife at least, though she be not loved, still reverence notwithstanding, that nothing may lie at her door; and let the husband, though his wife reverence him not, still show her love notwithstanding, that he himself be not wanting in any point. For each has received his own.

However, when thou hearest of "fear," demand that fear which becomes a free woman, not as though thou wert exacting it of a slave. For she is thine own body; and if thou do this, thou reproachest thyself in dishonoring thine own body. And of what nature is this "fear"? It is the not contradicting, the not rebelling, the not being fond of the preeminence. It is enough that fear be kept within these bounds. But if thou love, as thou art commanded, thou wilt make it yet greater. Or rather it will not be any longer by fear that thou wilt be doing this, but love itself will have its effect. The sex is somehow weaker, and needs much support, much condescension.

However, he says, although I have set this forth allegorically, nevertheless it was also said for the sake of the wife, and the allegory does not destroy the literal indication contained therein regarding the relationship of husband to wife. For each man ought to love his own wife and cherish her as himself. And do not tell me that the wife has this or that defect, because in your own body there are many defects as well — for example, a dislocated arm, a lame leg, a damaged eye — but you do not cut them off; rather, you deem them worthy of even greater care. Since equality produces disorder, he therefore introduces fear, so that one would be the head — the husband. By fear here he means special respect and restraint — a fear befitting free persons, not a slavish one. In such fear, love too will find support for itself and will, in turn, support it. And the wife will love her husband as a part of the body loves the head, and will fear him, that is, honor him as the head. But what if the wife will not fear? You still love and do your part; likewise, even if the wife is not loved, let her still maintain fear. And notice that about the husband's duty to love his wife, he spoke at length, but about fear he does not elaborate, because he wishes the former to prevail, namely love. And the wife, as has been said, should fear with a fear that proceeds from love, not one that arouses trembling and dread, from which hatred rather springs; but so as not to contradict, not to rebel, and not to seek supremacy. For although there is one flesh, and she has authority and is equal in honor in this respect, the wife is the second authority, while the husband holds greater significance.

Thus it must first be interpreted in reference to Christ, and afterwards concerning others. Hence he says Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love his wife, as though he asserted: The above example is principally related of Christ, but not only about him since it must be interpreted and fulfilled in other persons as types of Christ. He states as himself because, just as everyone loves himself in relation to God, so he ought to love his wife in this way, and not inasmuch as she draws him into sin. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife... he cannot be my disciple" (Lk. 14:26). But what about the wife? And let the wife fear her husband, with the fear of reverence and submission since she must be subject to him.