DE VIRGINITATE B. MARIAE

• 857A

To the holy bishop G., Hugh, the servant of your beatitude. You have told me that a question concerning the virginity of blessed Mary was put to your Paternity by a certain man, in which indeed that man's irreverence was very displeasing, in that he did not speak of a most sacred matter as modestly as he ought. I therefore (as had been agreed, the things which seemed to need saying upon this) am setting down with the pen and sending them to be read. Farewell.

Concerning the uncorrupted virginity of the Lord's mother, faith devoutly and devotion faithfully confesses this: that conjugal consent in no way diminished its perfection, just as conception did not violate her chastity, 857Bnor did childbearing take away her integrity. For that same one was a perpetual virgin, and even when she was betrothed to a man she did not for that reason abandon or change her purpose of continence; and when she was made fruitful (not by a man) she conceived without lust; and when she brought forth a son she bore him without pain. What do you say now, contentious inquirer and hearer without devotion? Do you wonder, or do you disbelieve? If you wonder at what is to be wondered at, you are not to be wondered at; if you do not believe what is to be believed, you are not to be borne with; if you attempt to assert what is false, you are not to be listened to; if you strive to assail what is true, you are to be refuted; and finally, if you deny what is manifest, you are to be confuted. I confess it: I cannot bear with an even mind your rash presumption, in that with such shameless and trifling talkativeness you attempt to profane the pure and to stain the untouched. Foolishly have you dashed against the mother of light with these your shadows. 857CFor what did they mean, those arguments of yours fit to be blown away, which — when you had woven them with long and protracted rumination, as though you were about to bring forth some new and great discovery (as is your custom) — you began to carry about, seeking itching ears; showing yourself, indeed, more unlearned to the learned than learned to the unlearned. For what? Did you wish to be a teacher? A reporter of novelty, or an asserter of truth? But let it be so. You had found something to teach. Why did it seem good to you to defame chastity and to assail truth? But perhaps (which is what I rather suspect) you were contriving nothing against the truth, but, catching at the breezes of popular fame with your accustomed and ingrained lightness, you thought you would prove the sharpness of your wit, if you first wrapped the matter up (as it were in the circuit of a question) 857Dbefore others, so that afterwards, in the solving of it, you might appear the teacher. But now the thing has turned out for you the other way about. For in your question you have been proved rash, and in the solution you have not been found learned. Let us see, nevertheless, what that great and weighty question is which (as you suppose) is insoluble to no one but you. 858AAnd indeed even if it were weighty, it would be so all the more truly for many rather than for you, by as much as you more foolishly presume it for yourself alone. Let us see, nevertheless, what it is. First you ask whether marriage can come about without consent to intercourse; that is, whether those can contract matrimony with one another who do not consent to one another in rendering the debt of the flesh. Perhaps, then, you were moved by what you had heard said: "intercourse does not make a marriage, but consent." And it would have moved you deservedly, if indeed that which you had not heard said, but had supposed was to be understood — consent to intercourse — had been added. You ask, then, whether there can be marriage without consent to intercourse. After this, to those who answer you that without consent of this kind there is no true marriage, you seem (as I hear) to add your own estimate; for this reason perhaps, because anyone who answered otherwise to you as you asked this would lay upon you the necessity 858Bof keeping silent for the rest. Then, this being granted and established — namely that without the covenant of such consent marriage cannot stand — you press on and ask whether there was a true marriage between Mary the mother of the Lord and Joseph, whom Scripture will be found several times to have called the husband of Mary, and to have named Mary herself, without any doubt, the wife or spouse of that same Joseph. This being granted — since to deny it too is absurd, seeing that it is both proved by the manifest authority of Holy Scripture and confirmed by the catholic religion with its own attestation — you infer and say: If there was a true marriage, then consent to carnal intercourse was there, and Mary is found to have given her assent to a man for intercourse of the flesh. 858CAnd if this is true — nay rather, because if this is not true, it cannot be called a true marriage — why is Mary herself said to have remained always a true virgin, who is not denied to have once been a true wife? For either she did not consent, and was not a true wife; or she consented, and did not remain a true virgin. For in this very thing she deserted the purpose of virginity, that by consent she willingly subjected herself, in the conjugal sacrament, to the debt of carnal commerce. And by this — that she deserted the purpose of virginity in consenting to the union of the flesh — she already ceased to be a virgin in mind, even if she remained a virgin in flesh. What, then, is this Virgin of virgins, singular in integrity, unique in chastity, excelling in dignity? What are these proclamations and unceasing praises — nay rather, what are these daily flatteries 858Dby which we preach Mary's virginity as singularly praiseworthy and gloriously above all others, a virginity which is not only not to be set before all virgins, but is even to be placed after many; who were both proved virgins in the flesh, and kept the purpose of virginity inviolate to the end with a chaste and devoted mind? 859ALet the virginity of Agnes and of Mary now be compared, and let her who was proved the more sublime in merit be rightly held the more exalted in praises as well. The one showed herself so unconquered in the guarding of her virginity that not even death inflicted upon her could cast her down from her purpose. The other showed herself so movable that the affection of one man, and a poor one, bent her to consent to him. The one loved virginity so much that whatever precious thing was promised in comparison with it she thought must be despised; whatever hard thing was inflicted for its defense she judged must not be feared. The other so easily despised virginity that she both deserted it with no reward promised and renounced it with no penalty inflicted. What, then, remains but that we should say that she holds a lower rank in the merit and praise of virginity 859Bwho fell willingly from the purpose of preserving virginity, even if she remained a virgin in flesh; but that she holds the higher rank who, together with integrity of flesh, guarded the purpose of virginity inviolate unto the end! This, then, is what you glory in having discovered by great and laborious searching; and though you have a mind and flesh alike corrupted, you are not afraid falsely to accuse the mind of her who is undefiled (whose flesh you cannot accuse). It would have been far better either that you had first spoken the truth, if you were not ignorant of it, or, if you could not do that, that you had at least kept silent about the depravity by which, once spoken, you have violated the hearing of the simple. But what will you do, if the manifest truth so frees from the peril of error those whom you have corrupted with a false opinion, that nevertheless you do not cleanse yourself from the guilt of rashness?

Let us see, therefore, now, whether the mother of the Lord could both be a true 859Cwife and remain a true virgin. Let us examine (as you demand) what marriage is; and from the definition of it set forth, let us consider whether there could be together in the virgin mother both conjugal consent and the purpose of virginity. For what is marriage but a lawful fellowship between a man and a woman, in which fellowship, namely, out of equal consent each owes his very self to the other? Now this debt is considered in two ways: namely, that each both preserve himself for the other and not deny himself to the other. Preserve, that is to say, lest after such consent he pass over to another fellowship. Not deny, so that he does not separate himself from that fellowship which is common between them. A voluntary consent, therefore, lawfully made between a man and a woman, whereby each 859Dpledges himself a debtor of his own self to the other — this is what makes a marriage. And marriage is that very fellowship, allied by such consent, which does not release the one from the debt while the other lives. There is still another consent, namely of exacting and rendering carnal commerce to one another, which establishes a like covenant between man and woman: a companion of marriage and not its maker, an office and not a bond, which nevertheless is itself also undertaken with an equal vow by both, and must likewise be held by an equal debt. And this debt in this consent too must be discharged in a twofold way (as I recalled in the former case): namely, that each preserve himself for the other, and neither deny himself to the other. That is, that he neither offer the power over his own body for this work to another, nor refuse it to that one. Of that debt by which both the man owes to preserve himself for the woman 860Aand the woman for the man, the Apostle says: The woman who is under a husband, while her husband lives, is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is freed from the law of her husband (I Cor. VII). Therefore while her husband lives she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man. But of that debt by which both the man owes not to deny himself to the woman, and the woman to the man, the same Apostle says: The woman hath not power over her own body, but the man; and in like manner the man hath not power over his own body, but the woman (ibid.). But the necessity of this debt does not subject to one another those married persons in whom, while the marriage was being contracted or ratified, consent to this work did not go before. Nor yet is it to be believed that, when this office ceases, the truth or the virtue of the marriage ceases; nay rather, that the marriage is so much the truer and holier, in that 860Bit is allied in the bond of charity alone, and not in the concupiscence of the flesh and the burning of lust. For what? Would marriage be holy in the concupiscence of the flesh, and not be holy in charity? God forbid! But it is far more truly and more justly called holy and true there, where chastity has nothing to blush at, but charity has something to glory in. How, then, do married persons become debtors of themselves to one another? For what, from that point on, must they preserve themselves for one another, or in what must they not deny themselves, if this cause is taken out of the middle? Apart from this it does not seem why either the man should be joined to the woman or the woman to the man; or why they should be said to be bound to such a fellowship by a mutual debt of the kind that marriage is known to have. This perhaps will seem so to you, who are flesh and who consider the flesh alone. Could you then find nothing else in marriage 860Cwhereby to establish that the conjugal fellowship was ratified for this alone and is holy in this? Is it not much more, if two become one in mind, than if they should become one in flesh? If the one makes the other a sharer of his flesh, and it can be holy — the one makes the other a sharer of his soul, and it is not holy? God forbid! They shall be two in one flesh; this is a great sacrament in Christ and the Church (Ephes. V). They shall be two in one heart: this sacrament is greater in God and the soul. See in what manner they bind themselves by a voluntary pledge, that from this point and thenceforward always, in all sincerity of love, in all care of solicitude, in all affection of devotion, in all zeal of compassion, in all strength of consolation and in the faith of devotedness, 860Deach may be to the other what he is to himself; so that each may regard the other as one made together with himself, and may show himself, in all things good and bad alike, undivided in tribulation and in endurance just as he is a companion and sharer in consolation. Finally, so far as concerns outwardly the need of the body, he takes up the other's flesh to be cherished as his own; but so far as concerns inwardly the love of the heart, he guards the other's mind, so far as in him lies, in peace and tranquillity, without disturbance. For so let it be with those who rest in the peace and communion of a holy fellowship, that while each lives not for himself but for the other, each may live for himself more happily and more blessedly. These are the goods of marriage, and the happiness of those who love a chaste fellowship — goods which they cannot see who seek in marriage 861Anothing but the evilly sweet pleasure of the flesh. See now (setting aside the commerce of the flesh) what kind of goods and how great are nevertheless left to marriage; nay rather (setting aside the commerce of the flesh) what kind of evils and how great — that is, what servitude and how great a grief — are excluded from marriage.

But you say to me again: that the first and principal cause of marriage was the propagation of children; and that this was not going to come about without the mingling of flesh is manifestly shown from this, that in the beginning, when God had formed man from the slime of the earth, he is afterwards reported to have made woman for him as a help. Assuredly for no other help than that the woman herself might become for the man, unto the propagation of future offspring, a fellow-worker in the sowing, a conceiver of the seed, a place for the forming, and 861Ba mother for the bringing forth. Woman, then, was joined to man for nothing else than that, through her and with her, the man himself, pouring over his seed by carnal intercourse into the origin of posterity, might supply the substance of flesh to those about to be born of flesh. For this same thing is proved also from this, that God, after he had joined the woman to the man, wishing to declare the cause of that fellowship, first in a manner making them both fruitful by the grace of his blessing unto the power of generating, Increase, he says, and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen. I); giving at once both a command, that they might know that for which they had been joined, and a grace, that they might fulfill that concerning which they had received the precept. From that office, therefore, which is laid upon the two of them, joined and allied, by the precept of their author, the cause of that very fellowship is plainly and undoubtedly shown; 861Cbecause it was altogether absurd that, when he was prescribing the form of living and the ministry of acting for their fellowship, he should not, for the rest, command to be carried out that very thing chiefly on account of which he had willed them to be joined. Hence it is that Adam himself, recognizing to what use the woman had been made, says: This, he says, is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh (Gen. II). Behold, the mingling of flesh in the matrimony of the first parents is both so manifestly enjoined upon them to be carried out and so prophesied by them as to come, that whoever shall say that a marriage is true without it is not doubted to be contrary both to God commanding and to the man consenting to God. And in some such way 861Dit seemed to you, perhaps, that our assertion above should be opposed.

All this, therefore, which you bring forward — that God is read to have made woman for the first man as a help; and that, the woman having been allied with the man, he is recorded to have commanded them both to increase and multiply and fill the earth; and finally that by the man a mingling of flesh between man and woman is prophesied as to come — that on this account there can in no way be a true marriage where indeed there has not been consent to the mingling of flesh. So at least it seems to you. First, then, let it now be agreed between us that you answer me whether or on this account they were allied two in one flesh, and were made of one flesh, because they were to be allied in one flesh. For it is said thus: This now is bone of my bones and flesh 862Aof my flesh; for this cause shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. What is "for this cause"? Is it for this cause in one flesh, because of one flesh? But he did not say, they shall be two in one flesh, for this cause: this now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; but: This, he says, is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; for this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. He said three things: A man shall leave his father and his mother; and he shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh. What is "for this cause"? For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother; for this cause shall he cleave to his wife; for this cause shall they be two in one flesh. For this cause: 862Bfor what cause? For this cause: because this now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Therefore, for this cause in one flesh, because of one flesh; not for this cause of one flesh, because in one flesh. For this cause shall they be two in one flesh. This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. Let us consider one by one the things that have been said, lest perhaps you have said against yourself what you thought was to be said for yourself. A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. Perhaps he meant to say the same thing by "he shall cleave to his wife" and "they shall be two in one flesh," so that to cleave to a wife is this very thing, to be two in one flesh; as though this alone had been said, 862Ca man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and that cleaving itself were understood as nothing other than carnal mingling. Let us examine whether this can stand. A man shall leave, he says, his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife. Those he shall leave, and to this one he shall cleave. Therefore he departs from them, he comes to her. What he withdraws from them, he bestows on her. What is this? A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife. Therefore he leaves father and mother in that respect in which he cleaves to his wife; in which he cannot cleave to his wife, if he does not leave father and mother. A man shall leave his father and his mother. In what respect shall he leave them? Shall he leave them in cohabitation, or in love? 862Dand — if it must be so put — shall he leave them in mingling? If a man shall leave father and mother in cohabitation, and shall cleave to his wife, can he then not have a wife in his father's house? Or can he not love his wife unless he has held father and mother in hatred? For that third thing which has been set forth neither needs to be repeated nor is it seemly to name. Yet in these ways a man shall cleave to his wife: that is, according to cohabitation, according to love, according to carnal mingling. But a man can dwell with father and mother and with his wife at once; he can love father and mother and his wife at once; therefore neither according to cohabitation nor according to love does a man leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife — how much more that which 863Aneither was nor could be: according to carnal mingling a man does not leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife? According to what, then, does a man leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, except according to that singular fellowship in which he owes his very self to another? in which a man does not indeed lay aside the affection of father and mother, so as to choose the affection of his wife alone; but he sets after it the affection of father and mother, so as to prefer to it the affection of his wife; so that he might hold it not merely sole, but singular? Not of the mingling of flesh, therefore, but of the affection of the heart and the bond of a social love, was it said: he shall cleave to his wife. So that by this which is said, he shall cleave to his wife, you may understand the sacrament of marriage, which is in the spirit. But by that 863Bwhich is added, and they shall be two in one flesh, you may recognize the office of marriage, which is in the flesh, not the covenant of the conjugal compact. A man shall leave, therefore, his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. Behold, here is the marriage: he shall cleave to his wife; and here is the office of marriage: they shall be two in one flesh. Why then shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife? A great matter. He prefers the end to the beginning. Father and mother are the beginning, whence he came; the wife is the end, where love comes to rest. There it was creation alone that wrought the love; here love alone makes the choice, without creation. And so a man loves his father and his mother, and from them he received life once; but he loves his wife more, because with 863Cher he has chosen to live always — an utterly divine sacrament and a deep mystery, and a beautiful and wonderful example of the human condition. We have our beginning, from which we received that we should be; we have also our end, without which we cannot be blessed. From him we come to being by the creation of nature; in him we receive being blessed by the choosing of grace. From him all things that are have their being; but in him not all receive being blessed. It is a lesser thing, therefore, and less to be loved, to have being from him. But it is far more, and more to be loved, to be blessed in him; yet each is great and worthy of love, both to have being from him and to be blessed in him. In one way, then, is God the God of those who received from him only that they should be; 863Dbut in another way of those who received him as their reward, that not only should they have being from him, but that they should be blessed in him. Those received from him what they themselves are; these receive from him, so that they may blessedly be what they themselves are, what he himself is. Less then is to be loved what we are, and more that we are blessed, because in the former there is only this which we are; but in the latter there is, together with that which we are, that also which he himself is, from whom we received what we are. A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, so that, setting the old things after the new that supervene, he may come from a beginning through love, and rest in an end through love. You see now what kind and how great a sacrament conjugal love holds forth: that in it the rational soul may learn to choose without end the fellowship of its end, and to cleave to it by that indivisible 864Abond of love and by the equality of a singular love. This was the principal cause of marriage, for which God instituted it: that, having left his father and his mother, a man should choose to be allied to his wife uniquely and singularly, in a love always indivisible. But upon this fellowship, for the advantage of multiplying the race to come, he afterwards laid the office of generating, for the sake of a sure and reasonable sacrament; not indeed that marriage should consist in it, but that from it marriage should both grow in merit through the obedience of that ministry, and appear more fruitful through the fecundity of offspring. Rightly, therefore, is it said: A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh — so that in this, that he cleaves to his wife, there may be a sacrament of that invisible fellowship which is to be made in 864Bthe spirit between God and the soul; but in this, that the two are in one flesh, there may be a sacrament of that invisible participation which was made in the flesh between Christ and the Church. A great sacrament, therefore: They shall be two in one flesh, in Christ and the Church; but a greater sacrament: They shall be two in one heart, in one love, in God and the soul.

Perhaps not enough was done there to show that marriage was not a union of flesh but of heart, lest you suppose that the ministry of the office excels the holiness of the sacrament. You insist that consent of the flesh is the conjugal holiness, and you do not grant that the bond of matrimony is ratified apart from the covenant of intercourse, because he manifestly said: They shall be two in one flesh; and did not manifestly say: They shall be two in one spirit. First it was manifestly 864Csaid, in one flesh; afterwards it was manifestly said, in one spirit, because: That which is carnal is first, then that which is spiritual (I Cor. XV). By the carnal father it was said first, in one flesh; by the spiritual teacher it was said afterwards, in one spirit. Through the prophet God speaks, saying: I will not receive any offering of appeasement from your hand. And you have said: For what cause? Because the Lord hath borne witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, whom thou hast despised. And she is thy partner, and the wife of thy covenant. Did not one make her, and is she not the remainder of his spirit? And what does one seek but the seed of God? Keep therefore your spirit, and do not despise the wife of thy adolescence. When thou shalt have held her in hatred; put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel (Malach. II). There, then, 864Dit was said: This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; here it is said: She is thy partner and the wife of thy covenant. Did not one make her, and is she not the remainder of his spirit? There a part of flesh is spoken of; here a portion of spirit is named. There it was said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. Here it is said: And what does one seek but the seed of God? He, then, requires here the seed of God in the spirit, who there commanded the seed of the flesh to be multiplied in the flesh. There it was said: They shall be two in one flesh. Here it is said: When thou shalt have held her in hatred, put her away — so that the same mingling of flesh which there is foretold as to come between man and woman is here shown to profit nothing without the covenant of love (which is in the spirit). For this is it. When thou shalt have held her in hatred, put her away: not the word of one commanding a separation, but 865Aof one teaching that without the covenant of love the fellowship of the flesh is void and lacking in virtue, even if it endures. The virtue of the conjugal sacrament, therefore, is not in the flesh but in the mind; nor is that consent required for the perfecting of holiness which even before sin was enjoined upon married persons as an office. But after sin it has come down so far that now it is granted as a remedy. In no way, therefore, is the sacrament of marriage to be weighed from that in which then conjugal chastity would be sanctified, but exercised; and now marriage would be sanctified, but the infirmity of the married is allowed for. For this reason of old, when the faith was in one people, and the time had need of the works of the conjugal office for multiplying the number of the faithful, carnal commerce was practiced by one man among several women, and yet 865Bthe singular sacrament of a unique love was not injured in it. But now, when the people of God is rather to be multiplied by spiritual generation, in order to commend the unity of that singular sacrament which is in the spirit, only one woman is allied to one man in one flesh. Then, on account of necessity, the license of the flesh was loosened outwardly in the work; and yet the holiness inwardly was kept whole in the virtue of the sacrament; now, on account of perfection, even the works of the flesh are bound outwardly to unity; and yet in that the unity of the singular sacrament is not effected, but commended. These things have been said for the sake of what had been set forth to be shown: that without consent to carnal commerce a marriage can be holy and true; and that the holiness of the conjugal sacrament does not consist in assent to intercourse of the flesh.

865CAfter these things it now remains that we set forth in the midst our discourse concerning the virgin mother, and inquire by what reasoning or authority it can be proved that she both was a true wife and yet, in her conjugal assent, did not change the purpose of virginity: The angel Gabriel was sent by God into the city of Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary (Luc. I). Mary, therefore, was already espoused when the angel Gabriel was sent to her by God. Let us see what follows: And the angel, having come in to her, said: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she had heard this, she was troubled at his word, and pondered what manner of salutation this might be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with 865DGod. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son, etc. And Mary said: How shall this be: since I know not a man? (Ibid.) This is that word of the Virgin which we were seeking, in which she herself would confute the rivals of her virginity. Let us therefore take testimony concerning her from her own self. How, then, shall this be? That is: how shall it come about that I bear a son, since I know not a man? She does not say, I have not known a man. For this would in no way hinder a virgin espoused, who would come to know a man and to bear a son, but who would not remain a virgin. She does not, then, say this, I have not known a man; because this would have been neither a miracle of virginity past nor a hindrance to childbearing to come, if she had not as yet known a man, and had 866Anot purposed that she would not know one thereafter. She did not say at all: I have not known a man, but: I know not a man. How, she says, shall this be? I know not a man, and I am told that I shall bear a son; how then shall this be, that I bear a son and know not a man: Since I know not a man. What is this, I know not a man? I have the purpose of not knowing a man; I have the purpose of preserving the glory of virginity inviolate unto the end. Just as if someone should say: I drink no wine, I cannot taste this cup; that is, because I have it in my vow not to drink wine, I cannot taste that cup. And just as it is said: Nazarites do not cut their hair (Deut. XXXIII; Judith. XIII, XVI), that is, they have a vow of not cutting their hair; so it is said: I know not a man. How therefore shall this be, 866Bsince I know not a man?

And the angel said to her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee (Luc. I). Do not, he says, on account of your purpose of virginity, distrust the promise of offspring. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee. Thou shalt conceive a son not from a man, but of the Holy Spirit. My promise indeed shall be fulfilled; yet your purpose shall not be violated. You vovistvirum that you would not know; and I foretell that you will bear a son; and therefore you wonder, lest perhaps either the promise be void if the purpose remains, or the purpose be violated if the promise be fulfilled. For neither is the possibility of nature sufficient here, nor does human reason comprehend it, that a virgin should bear, that one untouched should beget a son, and that flesh should proceed from flesh without the work of the flesh. Therefore you wonder 866Chow this shall be, since you know not a man. For meanwhile, so far as lies in you, you can find nothing why you ought to doubt about your own perseverance; and on this account you ask how you can be confident about my promise. How shall this be, since I know not a man? The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. Do not, on account of your purpose, distrust the promise, because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee. Do not, on account of the promise, be afraid for your purpose, because the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, lest integrity be corrupted by intercourse. The power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, lest thy chastity be polluted by lust. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High 866Dshall overshadow thee. Thou shalt supply the substance, and shalt not feel concupiscence. Thou shalt not receive seed from a man, and yet, being fruitful, thou shalt bring forth the fruit of the womb in a son. Do not say, then: How shall this be, since I know not a man? — because this shall not come about through a man, but through the Holy Spirit; for the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. Behold, we now have Mary a virgin espoused, and yet still remaining in the purpose of virginity. Truly espoused a virgin, and no less truly remaining in the purpose of virginity: what more do you seek? Or does the word "espousal" still leave you some ambiguity? For you had heard that the angel was sent to a virgin espoused; but you had not heard that he was sent to a wife. Perhaps, 867Athen, you may say: Mary was already at that time espoused to Joseph, but she was not yet his wife, because he had not yet received her as his own. For if he had received her as his own from that time, why was it said to him afterwards: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife? (Matth. I.) She was not yet, then, a wife when the angel was sent to her, but was only espoused; and therefore it could come about that she did not change the purpose of virginity when she was espoused, and did change it when she was made a wife. This, perhaps, you will still object on your side. But far be it from us to believe that she, after she had heard that she was to be made fruitful with a heavenly birth, in any way gave assent to carnal commerce — she who, even before she had learned the secret of the divine sacrament (which was to be fulfilled in her), held the vow of preserving 867Bvirginity so inviolate that, while she pledged herself to become a wife, she nevertheless purposed to keep that vow no less, with the same devotion with which she had begun and with the same perseverance, unto the very end. She was espoused, then, and she was a wife, and she was a true virgin, and she had not left the purpose of virginity. And so we confess a virgin espoused; we confess a virgin made a wife; we confess that afterwards she was also a mother, and that ever a virgin she held the purpose of virginity inviolate, and that the perpetual glory of chastity reigned along with the modesty of a wife and the honor of a parent. Look now, and diligently consider this virgin, our little virgin, singularly chaste, excellently beautiful, uniquely clean. But I know your eye, that it is bleary, and the more diligently it is strained, the more 867Cwrongly it beholds. The Law, he says, has said: « Cursed be the barren woman, who does not bear; and who leaves no seed in Israel (Deut. VII, 14; Exod. XXIII, 26). » But she bore, and was not barren, who left in Israel the seed of blessing, in whom, according to the promise, all nations are blessed together with Israel — all who shall be blessed in the Lord God of Israel. Nevertheless, in Wisdom we have heard of the barren and undefiled woman as happy, who has not known a bed in transgression, since she shall have fruit in the visitation of holy souls (Sap. III). Again, in the prophet, the Lord shows how great a reward of continence has been laid up with him, saying: Let not the eunuch say: Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs: They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that I willed, 867Dand shall hold my covenant — I will give them in my house and within my walls a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: an everlasting name that shall not perish (Isa. LVI). Who then is this man who curses barrenness in continence, who does not see the purity of continence, and does not understand its fruit? But let us nevertheless hear what appears.

Mary, he says, did not escape the curse, since through her purpose of virginity she ran into barrenness. But further. Why did she wish to marry, after she had vowed continence? There are two things. Either on account of the curse of barrenness she would not have purposed virginity; or on account of her vow of chastity, being about to remain a virgin, she would not have married. But now, if it is rightly called wicked to choose a curse 868Arather than a blessing, what must be said of having made a vow of integrity and marrying? Gladly do I accept it, that out of your obstinacy the praise of the Virgin is heaped up. So does truth will to be made manifest; so does iniquity will to be confuted. Let us see, then, what sort of thing it is for which you think the Virgin is to be blamed. Namely, you say, because in her purpose of virginity she ran into the curse of barrenness. How great, then, is the curse of barrenness? Just as great, surely, as is the blessing of fruitfulness. And so, how great is that blessing of fruitfulness itself? When God blessed those first parents of our race, he said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. Therefore he gave them the blessing of fruitfulness: much, therefore, did he give them, when he gave them the blessing of fruitfulness, when he said: Increase 868Band multiply, and fill the earth. Did he not say this also to the birds of the sky, and say this also to the beasts and cattle of the earth: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth? For when the fifth day of the world's birth had been completed, and God had brought forth from the waters the kind of fishes and of flying things, Scripture added and said: God, seeing that it was good, said: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea; and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth (Gen. I). Again, when he brought Noah forth from the ark with all the living things of the earth after their kind, pouring out upon them all the gift of his blessing, he said again: Increase and multiply (Gen. VIII) and fill the earth. According, surely, to that mercy by which he saves men and beasts (Psal. XXXV); he opens his hand 868Cand fills every living thing with blessing (Psal. CXLIV). Therefore the blessing of fruitfulness was given not only to men, but to cattle. What evil, then, did Mary do? She chose, he says, the curse of barrenness rather than the blessing of fruitfulness. Mark the fairness. Our judge condemns a virgin, on the ground that she scorned the blessing of cattle; and, choosing virginity, received the blessing of angels. My heart, says the Psalmist, was inflamed, and my reins were changed; and I was brought to nothing, and I knew it not. I am become as a beast before thee, and I am always with thee. Thou hast held my right hand; and in thy will thou hast led me, and with glory thou hast received me. For what have I in heaven, and what have I desired of thee upon earth? (Psal. LXXII.) Therefore the Prophet, having found 868Dthat which is laid up for him in heaven, gladly despises, in comparison with it, whatever he loved on earth up to that hour; and now compassing the things above with a spiritual love, he blushes that for so long he had been a beast through carnal delight. For my heart, he says, was inflamed, and my reins were changed. That is: why should I seek to be multiplied on earth by the seed of the flesh, when I recognize that an inheritance is kept for me in heaven? The God of my heart, and God my portion for ever (ibid.). This is that best part which Mary chose, which shall not be taken away from her (Luc. X). And because she understood that she was in honor, she was not compared to the mute senseless ones, nor was she made like to them (Psal. XLVIII). She willed, then, to seek something above the condition of cattle; 869Aand therefore she judged it a small thing, or rather reckoned it unworthy, to set the blessing of cattle before her own honor.

Why, you say, if virginity was better than fruitfulness, did God first bless fruitfulness, and afterwards the law curse barrenness? Hear why. First, when the world was made by the Creator, fruitfulness was blessed, that men might be multiplied; afterwards, when God was acknowledged by one people only, barrenness was cursed by the law, that the faithful might be multiplied; last of all, when that time was at hand in which God is now worshipped by all nations, virginity was blessed, that all might be called forth from the work of the flesh to a celibate life. Hear yet another thing. If that first blessing of fruitfulness was unto salvation, 869Band that second curse of barrenness unto damnation, then fruitfulness of the flesh is a merit and barrenness a fault. Then those women were better who bore many sons, than those who are read to have had none or few. Cetura was better than Sara. Phenenna better than Anna, and many others whom Scripture records to have pleased God not in a multitude of sons, but through the merits of the virtues. But far be it from us to say that fruitfulness of the flesh is a merit, or barrenness a fault. Far be it from us to believe that the law cursed barrenness of the flesh in order to show it damnable before God, and not rather in order to show it (at that time indeed, when the succession of the race was sought in a multitude of sons) unfruitful before men, 869Cand on this account in a manner without honor. The Virgin Mary, therefore, is not to be blamed, nor to be accused of contempt of the law in which barrenness is cursed; nay rather she alone is singularly to be praised, who, considering that the first words of the law were not to be understood carnally, chose to become on earth the abjection of the people and the reproach of men, that through the cleanness of her integrity she might become in heaven the companion of the angels. And beautifully did the Virgin Mary, first among women, taking upon her own flesh for us, for love of chastity, the curse of the law, set [us] free from the curse of the law. Whence it was deservedly granted to her alone that she should bear a son and remain a virgin: so that, because she was the first willingly to prefer virginity to fruitfulness of the flesh, she should now be both fruitful in flesh and whole in virginity. Do you see now what sort of thing 869Dyour accusation is? It remains, then, that we now render the reason why, after her vow of virginity, Mary consented to have a husband. Either this holy woman consented to have a husband for this reason, that her purpose might be concealed — Joseph both approving this very thing and purposing the same; or else, if perhaps Joseph himself was not aware of this purpose (which could well be), she feared to be disobedient to her parents when they commanded the marriage, and on this account consented to marry a man, being strengthened by a special confidence (through the Holy Spirit, who from the beginning had kindled her with the love of chastity) and by an undoubting hope which she had in God, that the divine mercy would so guard her that she could both show obedience to the will of her parents in contracting matrimony, and yet would find in that same matrimony no hindrance 870Afor which she should be forced to break the vow of virginity (which she had taken up for love of chastity). She took up marriage, therefore, but did not change her purpose of virginity. And because she loved chastity and held to obedience, there was found in her both conjugal holiness without loss of virginity, and fruitful virginity without the reproach of barrenness. So that blessed patriarch Abraham, the pattern of faith and the example of obedience, had received in promise that in Isaac his seed should be blessed; and yet afterwards, being commanded by God to sacrifice that same son Isaac whom he had as his only-begotten from Sara his wife, he obeyed without delay or hesitation, knowing for certain that, although according to human reason the command seemed contrary to the promise, yet according to that power by which all things are possible to God, 870Bthe promise could be fulfilled together with obedience to the command. And so it came about that the devotion of obedience (by which he did not put off obeying God who commanded) found its merit; and the faith by which he believed God who promised obtained the effect of the faithful promise. So too it could come about here, that this blessed virgin, commending to God her every desire, had such confidence in him that she believed without doubt both that she could show her parents the obedience due to them, and that she could preserve inviolate — as she wished, with him for her protector — the vow of chastity, of which he alone was aware. But whether it happened thus, or otherwise, we at any rate ought in no way to doubt; that blessed Mary, for a sure and reasonable cause, took up the sacrament of marriage after her vow of preserving virginity and her purpose of continence, 870Cand yet did not change the purpose of virginity, and truly took the name of wife, and perseveringly held the vow of integrity.

The first part of the proposition having therefore been proved, in which it was said that Mary did not change the purpose of virginity in her conjugal consent, our discourse must now pursue its own order to the exposition of the second part, in which it was said that she conceived not of a man but of the Holy Spirit, without lust. The judgment of the first part indeed (because it was more caught up in the question) 870Dneeded a longer disputation. But this second, since less doubt has been raised about it, requires not so much proof as exposition. And so it must first be asked how that which was said — that blessed Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit — ought to be in elligi. For we know, and all of us have by now learned from the most frequent practice of nature, that when a woman is said to have conceived by a man, nothing else is recorded than that she has received the substance of flesh, for the generating of flesh, through the intercourse of flesh. And this substance of flesh, poured over from the flesh of the man through that intercourse of flesh, becomes one flesh with the flesh of the woman, so that what is to be born, truly taking its origin from the substance of both, is generated by him through her and also by her; therefore a woman conceives by a man when from 871Athe flesh of the man, through intercourse of the flesh, she receives seed for generating flesh. Nor does she conceive anything other than what he is by whom she conceives, or than she herself is who conceives; and what she conceives, that she brings forth. What, then, shall we say? Did the Holy Spirit pour into the womb of the Virgin the seed of birth out of his own substance? How then could a spiritual substance supply the seed of flesh? Or was it perhaps not seed of flesh that was conceived, and yet flesh that was born? What do we say? How did Mary conceive of the Holy Spirit? And if she conceived of the Holy Spirit, how was the Holy Spirit not the father of Christ? All these things need great consideration, lest perhaps in a matter difficult and very obscure the human understanding presume something beyond its own possibility. Nor are these things to be doubted because they are obscure, 871Bnor is anything to be defined rashly because they are to be believed. Let us ask, then, what Mary conceived. For either she did not conceive flesh, and did not beget flesh; or if she begot flesh, she conceived flesh. For what she conceived, this she begot? But how could that which is not flesh supply flesh, or flesh not beget flesh? Let us consider in what way this perplexed inquiry, or manner of asking, may soundly and fittingly be understood. And first let us look at how the work of nature is completed in that conception which is carried through according to the accustomed and usual operation of nature. In parents generating carnally and, through intercourse of the flesh, fashioning out of flesh the flesh that is to be born, nature on both sides supplies substance for the creating of the offspring, so that from the flesh of both 871Cmay proceed the flesh which is to be formed in the flesh of one only. Yet this tribute (which nature lays out as a kind of debt, by the appointment of the Creator, for accomplishing the fabric of the human body) is so entirely required of her without any necessity or compulsion, that she is inclined to render it by nothing but love alone, and, if I may so speak, by a spontaneous charity. For there is nothing except love alone that can wring this debt from nature; but when she has been persuaded by a spontaneous charity, then surely, from both sides, she runs willingly and gladly to meet herself for the completing of the work. Indeed whatever is snatched violently from one unwilling is shown to be altogether unsuitable and 871Dineffectual for the effect of a cause of this kind. Love alone, therefore, is what can persuade nature, and in a manner compel her while willing, to sow offspring. And indeed in the woman the love of the man, and in the man the love of the woman, is wont to bring this about: that, since in either alone nature is not sufficient for herself, each may come to the other's help through love, so that what neither could do by itself, each may do by itself together with the other. Therefore the seed of human offspring, which is to be formed by the woman alone, is conceived, being sown at once by man and woman. And this indeed, as has already been said, nature works in the woman through love of the man, and in the man through love of the woman. For which reason too a woman is said to conceive only by a man, although she receives from herself as well as from the man that whereby she is made fruitful. And rightly does she conceive by the man alone, 872Abecause that which is conceived is in the one case taken from the flesh of the man, and in the other case is shown through love of the man. And so she conceives by the man not only that which she receives from the man, but she conceives by the man this also, which she receives from herself out of love of the man. This we wished to set down first, on account of what was said, that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. Mary conceived, then, of the Holy Spirit — not that she received the seed of the birth from the substance of the Holy Spirit, but because through the love and the operation of the Holy Spirit nature supplied substance to the divine birth out of the flesh of the Virgin. For because in the heart, in which the love of the Holy Spirit burned singularly, therefore in her flesh the power of the Holy Spirit was working wonders. And of him whose love in her heart admitted no partner, the operation 872Bin her flesh had no precedent. This alone, therefore, did the Virgin conceive, which she received from her own flesh through the love and the operation of the Holy Spirit; and of this alone she begot a son, without the admixture of a man's seed. It was not, then, lust of the flesh that wrought the conception in the Virgin, who neither received seed from the flesh of a man, nor conceived from her own flesh through love of a man, but through the love and the operation of the Holy Spirit. Nor is the Holy Spirit himself on that account to be called the father of Christ, because his love wrought the Virgin's conception, since he did not bestow the seed of the birth upon the Virgin out of his own essence, but supplied substance to the Virgin herself, out of her own flesh, through his love and power. Christ, therefore, was both born of the Virgin, because he received the substance of flesh from the flesh of the Virgin. 872CAnd he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, because she, being a virgin, conceived from her own flesh alone, without the admixture of a man's seed, through the operation and love of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is that to that same Virgin who was to bear, it is said through the angel: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee (Luc. I). For the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, that by his operation the flesh of Christ might be formed from the flesh of the Virgin. And the power of the Most High overshadowed her, lest, while supplying the substance of flesh, she should be burned with carnal concupiscence. And thus indeed we think that what is said — that the Virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit — is to be understood. Thus also it can be established that she is reported to have felt no lust in conceiving.

• 872D

There now remains this last of the three things that had been set forth: that we should show that she also bore without pain, and suffered no detriment of virginity in bearing. I once heard that a virgin conceived, but that a virgin did not bear, because such a one conceived from a man that which she bore. For deservedly was her integrity corrupted in the childbearing, because her virginity was defiled in the conceiving; and it was just that what had not been conceived without lust should not be borne without pain. In no way would childbearing bring pain, if conception had not felt lust. For if the fault of unlawful delight did not defile her who conceives, never would the penalty of pain torment her who bears. For 873Athat first mother of our race and of our sorrow, after she had conceived an evil delight, only then heard that she should bear children in sorrow — so as to show openly that a woman does not bear with sorrow because she conceives by a man, but because she conceives with lust. For who could say, if man had not sinned, whether human childbearing, even when conceived by a man, would either corrupt integrity or violate chastity? And indeed, if chastity were not violated, why should integrity be corrupted? let him say who can. But the blessed Virgin Mary — that the second restoration might be above the first creation, and that the grace of the Savior might overcome the nature of the race — not only conceived without lust, but did not even receive her offspring from the seed of a man; and on this account she brought forth her son without pain, and with the glory of integrity 873Bremained a virgin after the birth.

Since indeed the questions have not yet come to an end, I am compelled daily to lay exposition upon exposition, and to smear an old wall with fresh plaster; for to untrained minds, always giving way under some new error, nothing can be sufficiently expounded — men who, wrapped up in their own darkness, do not see another's light, and complain that everything they are unable to understand is obscurely said, and thus transfer the defect of their own minds into a complaint against words. In that treatise which I composed on the virginity of blessed Mary, a question was taken in hand in which this above all was being treated: whether it could be shown in any way 873Cthat marriage could be ratified without consent to intercourse. And when we set forth what was required for the definition of this judgment, the reason was made plain that the holiness of the conjugal sacrament in no way consists in consent of the flesh. Accordingly, in determining the things which the ratification of marriage demands, we marked out that marriage is a lawful fellowship between a man and a woman, in which, even apart from the commerce of the flesh, out of equal consent each owes his very self to the other: namely, that he both preserve himself, lest he pass over to another fellowship, and not deny himself to the other, so that he may not separate himself from that fellowship which is mutual. And although this could have sufficed for those for whom a plain reason would suffice, behold, once again those who refuse to profess together, in the mother of the Lord, both a true sacrament of marriage 873Dand a true purpose of virginity — because they suppose that matrimony is not valid without assent to intercourse of the flesh — strive to invalidate our definition (which excludes from marriage the necessity of the flesh) by this reasoning. If, they say, marriage is nothing else but such a fellowship in which, even apart from the commerce of the flesh, out of equal consent each owes his very self to the other by the debt of preserving himself and of not denying himself unto that inseparable union and faith which is in their common fellowship: why then could not marriage be most rightly and most holily celebrated within the same sex as well, and an indivisible fellowship be ratified with praiseworthy charity? For what hinders that a man should not bind a man to himself, and a woman a woman, by such a covenant of compact and love of fellowship? But if this 874Ais altogether ridiculous, and utterly shut out from human reason — namely, that the sacrament of marriage should be celebrated within the same sex, where nevertheless a confederation of fellowship of this kind is not forbidden — it remains that we should profess that in the compact of marriage that very union of flesh, which is not constituted except in the two sexes, is necessary so far as consent is concerned. They compel us, therefore, that we (if we hold that the assent of intercourse is in no way necessary in the compact of marriage) should demonstrate how that fellowship which has been marked out in our definition cannot be established within the same sex. And although this alone might have been enough for the purpose — that the divine institution ordained this fellowship for the joining of the two sexes, and that therefore within the same sex (if it should be done) it would be so alien from the sacrament of marriage, 874Bas for that very reason it becomes unlawful; and just as in a different sex also, between mother and son, it would be unpermitted, therefore it would be void of the holiness of the conjugal sacrament; because he who said: A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh (Gen. II), manifestly taught that this fellowship between mother and son is disordered and on that account not chaste, since in the ratifying of marriage he showed that a mother is not to be sought but to be left. Although this reason alone, therefore, would suffice to prove that within the same sex — however chaste and indissoluble the charity that binds it — there cannot be a sacrament of marriage, we ought nevertheless, as is right in every divine assertion, to look not so much to the defense of ourselves who speak as to 874Cthe edification of those to whom we speak. And so the reason must be rendered why the sacrament of marriage (which in a different sex requires nothing for its own sanctification beyond the spontaneous charity of a perpetual and undivided fellowship) can nevertheless not be ratified within the same sex by a like and identical confederation. We do this thus. In marriage indeed there are two things: the sacrament of marriage, and the sacrament of the conjugal office. That is, marriage and the office of marriage are each a sacrament. Marriage is in the covenant of love. The office of marriage is in the generating of offspring. Therefore conjugal love is a sacrament, and the sacrament in the married is the mingling of flesh. But conjugal love is the sacrament of that love which is in the spirit, 874Dbetween God and the soul. The mingling of flesh in the married is the sacrament of that participation which is in the flesh between Christ and the Church. For which reason conjugal love ought by no means to have been between equals; because that of which it was the sacrament was not between equals. And so male and female are joined in the love of one fellowship, just as God and the soul were joined in the love of one fellowship. Do you not now see whither the whole assertion of our disputation tends? Look upon those two colleges of charity — on earth the male and the female, in heaven God and the soul — and consider with what reasonable providence all things have been ordered. God created male and female, and the female from the male; and because she was made from him, she was set beneath him. To him it was given that he should excel above her both in the liveliness 875Aof reason and in the strength of body; to her it was ordained that she should be subject not only by obedience but also by nature. God willed, then, that she should rest in his strength and providence (as though a fellowship of her own frailty); and that in him her weakness should stir up compassion, so that the man should in a manner love the woman out of compassion, and the woman should love the man rather out of necessity. That a man loves a woman, therefore, is in a manner a benefit, because he is overcome by compassion, that he may not abandon weakness. But that a woman loves a man is rather a debt, because she is compelled by natural necessity to seek protection; and so in a manner the whole usefulness of the love is referred to the woman, because in her is the cause for which either she herself loves the man, or she herself is loved by the man. The sacrament of love, 875Bthen, has been laid open. Love is a sacrament, and the sacrament of love is love. Nor is there now need of a long exposition to show how, in the figure of this sacrament, the man is the image of God, and the woman displays in herself the type and form of the rational soul. For it is manifest that, just as the man's love is inclined toward the woman by a certain compassion and natural fellow-feeling, while the man is loved by the woman rather by the necessity of her condition; so God first loves the rational soul with a gratuitous compassion, and afterwards turns her to the love of himself by a certain reasonable necessity, yet spontaneous and willing. He loves us first, freely, that afterwards he may turn us, loving, to himself who loves; and that there may come to be one fellowship of love, both for our sake, because it is necessary to us, 875Cand for his sake, because in him it is blessed. But in this delightful converse of love the love of God is in a manner the head, because from him love first arises toward us; and love, turned back from us, is referred to him. By a like reasoning also, in conjugal charity, which is the sacrament of this love, the man's love is the head; because the man first joins himself in love to the woman through the fellow-feeling of compassion, so that the woman's love, turned toward the man through instruction and taken up through a spontaneous kindness, may become one in the fellowship of charity. Therefore the Apostle says: The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, the head of Christ is God (I Cor. II). 876AFor what the chastely holy love of the man toward the woman is in the sacrament of marriage, that the love of Christ toward the Church is in the sacrament of faith; and that, in the incarnation of the Word, is the love of God toward human nature. For this reason, in the song of love, when that eternal charity and ineffable love — whether of God toward the soul or of Christ toward the Church — had to be brought out in words, not as it was, but as it could be; nothing among visible things or in human affections could be found more like it than the love of bridegroom and bride; or rather, that invisible and spiritual love could be shown from no other source than through its own sacrament, so that while the hearing received through the Word what human affection knew, the heart inwardly might taste through love what it did not know. For the bride wished to signify in that same place the very interchange of mutual 876Bcharity by which, allied as one to one, she neither admits division in what is her own nor allows partnership in what is another's, when she said: My beloved to me, and I to him, who feeds among the lilies (Cant. II), until the day break and the shadows decline (Cant. VII). And again: I to my beloved, and his turning is toward me (Cant. VI). The Bridegroom too, commending the prerogative of a united, removed love. There are sixty he says, queens, and eighty concubines, and of young maidens there is no number. One is my dove, my perfect one. One to her mother, the chosen of her that bore her (Cant. VI). For the sake of the sacrament of eternal love, therefore, God willed to ratify marriage for the sake of the advantage of human propagation he created sex; and yet conjugal love is a sacrament not on account of a dissimilar sex, 876Cbut on account of a differing nature. For not otherwise, but nature, bestows upon love a charity unequal on either side; and yet sex marks off the inequality of nature. For chaste love is not affected otherwise out of such a sex, but within such a sex out of such a nature. And therefore it cannot be so affected outside such a sex, because outside such a sex such a nature is not found. Let this suffice for those who ask how conjugal love (from which the commerce of the flesh is excepted) is not ratified with a like truth on both sides within the same sex also.