Edition
Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres
29.
Iam vero de uxore non dimittenda quid aliud vel quid oportunius ex illis libris commemorem quam id, unde Iudaeis de hac re interrogantibus dominus ipse respondit? p. 532,5 Cum enim quaererent, utrum liceret quacumque ex causa dimittere uxorem, ait illis: Non legistis, quia qui fecit ‹homines›, ab initio masculum et feminam fecit eos et dixit: ‛Propter hoc dimittet homo patrem et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae; et erunt duo in carne una’. Itaque iam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo deus coniunxit, homo non separet. Ecce Iudaei ex libris Moysi convincuntur non esse uxorem dimittendam, qui secundum voluntatem legis Moysi arbitrabantur se facere, cum dimitterent. Simul et illud hic ipso Christo attestante cognoscimus deum fecisse et coniunxisse masculum et feminam, quod Manichaei negando damnantur non iam Moyseos libro, sed Christi evangelio resistentes. p. 532,18 Porro autem, si quod ipsi opinantur et praedicant, verum est diabolum fecisse atque iunxisse masculum et feminam, qua calliditate diabolica Faustus reprehendit Moysen tamquam coniugia dirimentem per libellum repudii et laudat Christum tamquam illud eiusmodi vinculum confirmantem ex praecepto evangelii, cum utique secundum suam stultam sacrilegamque sententiam Moysen laudare debuerit separantem, quod fecerat et coniunxerat diabolus, et Christum vituperare diaboli figmentum et ligamentum solidantem? Iam illud quomodo aperit magister bonus, cur ipse Moyses, ex cuius libro prolata est de prima coniunctione masculi et feminae tam sancta et nulla separatione violanda castitas coniugalis, postea permiserit dimittere uxorem? Nam cum illi respondissent: Quid ergo Moyses mandavit dari libellum repudii et dimittere? , p. 533,5 ait illis: Quoniam Moyses ad duritiam cordis vestri permisit vobis dimittere uxores vestras. Hoc est, quod paulo ante exposuimus. Quanta enim duritia erat, quae nec per libelli interpositionem, ubi dissuadendi locus iustis et prudentibus tribue_ [ba] _tur, solvi et flecti posset ad recipiendam vel revocandam coniugii caritatem? Ita dominus, quid lex et bonis praeciperet et duris permitteret, eiusdem legis testimonio declaravit, cum et non dimittendam uxorem ex eadem scriptura commemorata coniunctione masculi et feminae monuit divinamque auctoritatem eiusdem coniunctionis exposuit et dandum libellum repudii propter duritiam vel domandi vel indomiti cordis ostendit. p. 533,17
Translation
Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
29.
As regards not putting away a wife, there is no need to quote any other passage of the Old Testament than that referred to most appropriately in the Lord's reply to the Jews when they questioned Him on this subject. For when they asked whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for any reason, the Lord answered: "Have ye not read, that He that made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no longer twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined, let no man put asunder." 1 Here the Jews, who thought that they acted according to the intention of the law of Moses in putting away their wives, are made to see from the book of Moses that a wife should not be put away. And, by the way, we learn here, from Christ's own declaration, that God made and joined male and female; so that by denying this, the Manichaeans are guilty of opposing the gospel of Christ as well as the writings of Moses. And supposing their doctrine to be true, that the devil made and joined male and female, we see the diabolical cunning of Faustus in finding fault with Moses for dissolving marriages by granting a bill of divorce, and praising Christ for strengthening the union by the precept in the Gospel. Instead of this, Faustus, consistently with his own foolish and impious notions, should have praised Moses for separating what was made and joined by the devil, and should have blamed Christ for ratifying a bond of the devil's workmanship. To return, let us hear the good Master explain how Moses, who wrote of the conjugal chastity in the first union of male and female as so holy and inviolable, afterwards allowed the people to put away their wives. For when the Jews replied, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Christ said unto them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your heart, suffered you to put away your wives." 2 This passage we have already explained. 3 The hardness must have been great indeed which could not be induced to admit the restoration of wedded love, even though by means of the writing an opportunity was afforded for advice to be given to this effect by wise and upright men. Then the Lord quoted the same law, to show both what was enjoined on the good and what was permitted to the hard; for, from what is written of the union of male and female, He proved that a wife must not be put away, and pointed out the divine authority for the union; and shows from the same Scriptures that a bill of divorcement was to be given because of the hardness of the heart, which might be subdued or might not.