Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

31.

So, again, when Faustus says that the wife's being privy to her husband's conduct made the matter worse, while he is prompted only by the uncharitable wish to reproach Abraham and his wife, he really, without intending it, speaks in praise of both. For Sara did not connive at any criminal action in her husband for the gratification of his unlawful passions; but from the same natural desire for children that he had, and knowing her own barrenness, she warrantably claimed as her own the fertility of her handmaid; not consenting with sinful desires in her husband, but requesting of him what it was proper in him to grant. Nor was it the request of proud assumption; for every one knows that the duty of a wife is to obey her husband. But in reference to the body, we are told by the apostle that the wife has power over her husband's body, as he has over hers; ¹ so that, while in all other social matters the wife ought to obey her husband, in this one matter of their bodily connection as man and wife their power over one another is mutual,--the man over the woman, and the woman over the man. So, when Sara could not have children of her own, she wished to have them by her handmaid, and of the same seed from which she herself would have had them, if that had been possible. No woman would do this if her love for her husband were merely an animal passion; she would rather be jealous of a mistress than make her a mother. So here the pious desire for the procreation of children was an indication of the absence of criminal indulgence.

Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

31.

Ubi autem Faustus in facto Abrahae velut conscientiam culpat uxoris, ibi vero malo quidem animo et intentione vituperandi, sed tamen nesciens et nolens utrumque collaudat. Neque enim conscientiam suam flagitio coniugis miscuit, quo ille suam libidinem turpi et illicita voluptate satiaret, sed etiam illa naturali ordine filios volens seque sterilem sciens ancillaris uteri fecunditatem in usum iuris sui potestate licita vindicavit, non cedens viro concupiscenti, sed iubens oboedienti, p. 625,8 neque hoc inordinata superbia. Quis enim nescit uxorem marito tamquam domino debere servire? Sed quod ad membra corporis attinet, quibus sexus ipse distinguitur, apostolus dicit: Similiter et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier, ut cum in ceteris actibus ad humanam pacem pertinentibus mulier viro debeat servitutem, huius unius rei, qua sexus utriusque carnali sorte discernitur et carnali commixtione concernitur, similem in se habeant potestatem vir in uxorem et uxor in virum. Prolem igitur, quam de se habere Sara non poterat, de ancilla habere voluit, ex eo tamen semine, ex quo et de se, si posset, habere debebat. p. 625,18 Numquam hoc faceret mulier, si in corpore viri carnali concupiscentia teneretur; zelaret enim potius pelicem, non faceret matrem. Nunc vero propterea sic propagandi voluntas pia fuit, quia concumbendi voluntas libidinosa non fuit.