t

In point of fact, if the original intention of God had been that man should have several wives, either at the same time by polygamy, or successively by divorce, he would have created more than one for the first man, as it is thought that he created several females in each species of animals, for the purpose of accelerating their multiplication. But his design was to form the most perfect union imaginable, by making two different persons one and the same heart, one and the same soul, and one and the same flesh. Now this union, or rather this unity, is to be found in marriage, which being the work of God, no earthly being has a right to break, because no one has a right to undo what God has done. God alone, master of his own work, has this right; and he exercised it, when, for reasons worthy of his wisdom, he permitted polygamy and divorce; but these reasons having ceased by the establishment of a more perfect law, the dispensations which they occasioned can no longer exist. All marriages are to become similar to the first which God instituted, in order to serve as a model to others. An indissoluble and perpetual bond shall henceforth unite all couples, whose union shall henceforward end only when they cease to live; and, whilst God shall preserve them upon earth, they shall be so bound one to another, that, although the earth may be full of men and women, they shall be no more to the married pair than if they were, like Adam and Eve, the sole inhabitants of the earth. Thus marriage, reformed according to the original design of the Creator, recovers all the purity of its institution, and the union of our first parents is perfectly represented by those of their descendants. Another resemblance was soon to render the union more sacred, and the rights more inviolable, viz., that which it was to have to the spiritual marriage of Jesus Christ with his Church. But the time was not as yet come to propose this great mystery; and the Saviour contented himself at that time with again insisting upon the indissolubility of marriage, struggling rather against the repugnance than against the reasoning of the Pharisees.

For, surprised at a doctrine so contrary to their prejudices and their passions, (a) "Why, then," they say to him, "did Moses com

(a) St. Matthew, xix. 7-9.

mand to give a bill of divorce (12), and to put away?" The commandment applied merely to the act of divorce, and not to the divorce itself. From the manner in which the Pharisees expressed 'themselves, they appeared to apply it to both. In order to teach them to make this distinction, "Jesus saith to them: Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be (13) for fornication (14), and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."

The disciples did not wish to interrupt their Master whilst he was engaged with the Pharisees; yet they doubted whether such morality, which appeared to them so severe, should be taken to the very letter. In order to have on this point the explanation which they

(12) The reader has the form of this act at note 7, page 125, Part I.

(13) The exception of the case of adultery excuses the dismissal of the wife, and not the subsequent marriage. The case stands as if it read thus: Whoever shall dismiss his wife-whom it is not allowable to dismiss except in case of adultery--and shall marry another, shall be an adulterer. The Church has always so understood it, and Jesus Christ even gives us sufficiently to understand this, when, in the repetition which he makes to his disciples, he says absolutely, and without excepting any case: Whoever, having dismissed his first wife, shall marry a second, becomes an adulterer.

However, the pretended reformers hold that the exception in case of adultery should extend to the consequence as well as to the crime; and that this case, which justifies divorce, justifies equally the marriage with another woman. Let them speak sincerely. Marriage, such as it was re-established by Jesus Christ, was not relished by them. They wished to substitute for it the Jewish marriage condemned by Jesus Christ. For had they submitted in this point to the authority of his word, they would not have allowed another wife except in the case of adultery, since it is evident that Jesus Christ, every time he treats this subject, either excepts this case only, or excepts none. But we know that they have added those of long absence, obstinate separation, and others, which would multiply to an amazing degree amongst them these second marriages, if they sought to avail themselves of the freedom which this new Gospel gives them. But it is due to them in justice to state, that this legislation allows them much more liberty than they usually allow themselves; and it is well that this legislation has not added to the Jewish divorce Mahometan polygamy, approved, at least tolerated in the person of the Landgrave of Hesse by Luther, and those who, with him, were the chief leaders of the Reformation.

(14) As to the other causes of separation, and their difference from that of adultery, see note 8, page 125, Part I.

desired, (a) when he was "in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing."

Jesus gave no explanation of what he had said, but merely a repetition thereof. (b) "Whosoever, he saith to them, shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry."

This answer included a profound meaning, which they themselves did not as yet comprehend, wherefore "Jesus said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given" from on high; and, in order to give them the first lesson on this subject, he added: "For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven (15). He that can take, let him take it."

(a) St. Mark, x. 10-12.

(b) St. Matthew, xix. 10-17.

(15) In order to secure it for themselves, and to merit therein a richer crown. They make themselves eunuchs, not by attempting against their own persons what the Church has always condemned, but by resolution, or, what is better, by vow made to God of living in perpetual virginity. It is a matter of faith that this state is more perfect than that of marriage. Protestants have repudiated it with the utmost vehemence. There is nothing surprising in this on the part of those who have approved of divorce, and permitted polygamy. Moreover, we are not ignorant of the fact, that their leaders were for the most part priests and men bound by religious vows, and who, being tired of celibacy, would fain not be suspected of having rather embraced the Reformation from the desire of marriage, than marriage from the spirit of reform.

After these reformers appeared the theorists, advocating population. If we had leisure to treat the subject at some length, we should not want reasons to refute them. We are satisfied in opposing to them the following reason, which is calculated to make an impression upon them, viz., the Christian religion is of all others the most favorable to population. Here is the proof of this fact, drawn from its principles and its morality: 1st. Except wherein parties are legitimately married, every thing is criminal where purity is concerned. How many persons who have, at the same time, both excitable passions and a timid conscience, are, as it were, forced into marriage by this inflexible severity! 2d. Every thing is criminal, even in marriage, that is beside the end of marriage, viz., the generation of children. How many married couples, already burdened with offspring, would give themselves licentious freedom, if the curb of religion did not restrain them! 3d. It is criminal in married persons to refuse each other, unless the refusal be founded upon a grave reason. How many obstinate refusals and concealed divorces

Whilst the Saviour was treating such grave questions, (a)" there were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples [who thought he might be troubled by them] rebuked them that brought them. Whom, when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and calling [the children] together, said: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not (16); for the kingdom of heaven is for such. Amen I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it; and embracing them, when he had imposed hands upon them, he blessed them, and [after having given this proof of his goodness] he departed from thence.”

(a) St. Matthew, xix. 13-15; St. Luke, xviii. 16, 17; St. Mark, x. 16.

would be produced by certain apprehensions which it is no longer lawful to regard, by disgusts, antipathies, resentments, &c., if religion did not enforce, by the most terrible menaces, what has been justly termed a right on one part, and a duty on the other! And if at present one were willing to take the trouble of calculating, it would be easy to show that in all these ways religion gives more to the species than it takes away by ecclesiastical and religious celibacy. You will say that all these advantages are to be found in Protestantism, which has not the unavailable class of celibacy; but besides that we must take religion as God has made it, and not such as man may accommodate to his own views, we may further reply that the causes which we have just advanced only operate by means of confession, which Protestants have abandoned. This is only thoroughly known to those whom their ministry brings within reach of the secrets of consciences. But there is no doubt that, from the knowledge thus in their possession, they have formed the opinion which we have just maintained; and unquestionably their notion on this point is, without contradiction, the most probable.

(16) We hinder them when we put off indefinitely the first communion of children. The Master of the feast cries out in vain that these innocent souls must be allowed to approach. A harsh and austere zeal is obstinately bent on driving them away. We know that the respect due to this sovereign Master has induced the Church to abolish the custom of giving communion to children immediately after baptism; but if the Church no longer wishes the age of reason to be anticipated, much less does it wish that we should allow reason to be anticipated by the age of the passions. And how often has it occurred that the passions, always so strong at this age, when reason is so weak, not being restrained by the powerful check which the Eucharist opposes to them, have caused the most fearful ravages, and given rise to those first wanderings from which the soul returns with such difficulty, and so late!

If this reason does not suffice, and if we wish to know what are upon this point the intentions of the Saviour, we have no fear in saying that he will always be better pleased to have greater innocence with a little levity, than greater composure of mind with corruption already commenced. We should, therefore, rather incur the risk of the first than of the second.

CHAPTER XLVII.

THE YOUNG MAN CALLED TO PERFECTION. SALVATION DIFFICULT TO THE RICH.ALL MUST BE RELINQUISHED TO FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST.--PROMISES ATTACHED TO THIS RENUNCIATION.—THE PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD.

(a)" WHEN he was gone forth into the way, a certain ruler running up, and kneeling before him, Good Master, he said to him, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? Jesus said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good, and why dost thou call me good (1)? None is good but God alone (2). But [added the Saviour] if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Which? he said to him," thinking, perhaps, that the new teacher would introduce some new commandments. "And Jesus said: Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt do no murder (3); thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; do no fraud; honor thy father and thy mother; and, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth; what is yet (a) St. Mark, x. 17-27; St. Luke, xviii. 18-24; St. Matthew, xix. 16-25.

(1) (This might as well be thus translated: Why askest thou me, calling me good? Then Saint Matthew would only make the Saviour say what Saint Mark and Saint Luke represent him as saying, which is not unlikely, nor neither is it improbable that he made use of both these expressions.)

(2) He informs him that God alone is essentially good, and that nothing is good apart from God except by the communication of his goodness. The Arians have grossly abused this text, forsooth because Jesus Christ seems here to reprove the young man for attributing to him a quality which belongs properly to God alone. The Fathers refuted them by this very simple reply: This young man is not aware that Jesus Christ is God, and Jesus Christ speaks to him in the certainty of his ignorance.

(3) The second class of precepts is alone spoken of, viz., the precepts which regulate our duties towards our neighbor. That does not mean to assert that there exist no other precepts, or that the others are of little importance; but if we observe these, we shall observe all the others. Taken by themselves, they do not constitute the entire law; but their accomplishment is presumptive proof of the accomplishment of the whole, according to this expression of Saint Paul (Rom. xiii.): He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.