Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

61.

Ceterum ad id, quod eum Faustus fornicatum commemoravit, addimus nos aliud, quod fratrem suum Ioseph in Aegyptum vendidit. Numquid cuiusquam membra distorta depravant lucem, quae cuncta demonstrat? Sic nec cuiuspiam malefacta malam scripturam faciunt, qua prodente legentibus innotescunt. Consulta quippe aeterna lex illa, quae ordinem naturalem conservari iubet, perturbari vetat, nonnisi propagationis causa statuit hominis concubitum fieri, et hoc nonnisi socialiter ordinato conubio, quod non pervertat vinculum pacis. Et ideo prostitutio feminarum non ad substituendam prolem, sed ad satiandam libidinem propositarum divina atque aeterna lege damnatur. p. 656,25 Omnem quippe dehonestat emptorem turpitudo venalis. Ac per hoc Iudas etsi gravius peccasset, si nurum sciens cum ea concumbere voluisset – si enim vir et uxor, sicut dominus dicit non iam duo, sed una caro est, non aliter nurus est deputanda quam filia – tamen eum, quantum in ipso erat, deformiter cum meretrice cubasse non dubium est. At illa, quae socerum fefellit, non carnis eius concupiscentia nec meretriciae mercedis cupiditate peccavit, sed ex ipso sanguine prolem requirens, ex quo duobus iam fratribus nupta tertio quoque denegato habere non potuit, patri eorum socero suo fetandum corpus fraude subiecit pignore mercedis accepto, quod non ad ornamentum, sed ad testimonium reservavit. p. 657,10 Melius quidem sine filiis remaneret quam sine iure matrimonii mater fieret, longe tamen alia intentione peccavit, quod filiis suis patrem providit socerum suum, quam si eum sibi concupisset adulterum. Denique cum iussu eius produceretur ad mortem et virgam, monile atque anulum protulisset dicens ab eo se gravidatam, cuius pignora illa essent, ubi ea, quae dederat, ille cognovit, istam magis quam se iustificatam esse respondit, quod ei filium suum maritum coniungere noluisset, qua destitutione compulsa illo modo potius quam nullo modo posteritatem non aliunde quam ab eadem stirpe conquireret. In qua sententia non eam iustificatam, sed eam magis quam se iustificatam dicens nec ipsam laudavit, sed in sui comparatione praeposuit, p. 657,12 desiderium scilicet habendae prolis, quo ducta illa se socero supposuerat, minus culpans quam libidinosi concubitus ardorem, quo ipse velut ad meretricem victus intraverat, sicut quibusdam dicitur: Iustificastis Sodomam, id est tantum peccastis, ut vobis Sodoma comparata iusta videatur. Quamquam etiamsi haec mulier non in peioris facti comparatione minus culpata, sed omnino a socero laudata intellegatur – quae tamen consulta illa aeterna lege iustitiae, quae naturalem ordinem perturbari vetat, non utique tantummodo corporum, sed maxime ac primitus animorum, quia in procreandis filiis ordinatam societatem non custodivit, merito culpabilis invenitur – quid mirum, si peccatrix a peccatore laudatur? p. 658,6

Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

61.

Judah, as Faustus says, committed fornication; and besides that, we can accuse him of selling his brother into Egypt. Is it any disparagement to light, that in revealing all things it discloses what is unsightly? So neither is the character of Scripture affected by the evil deeds of which we are informed by the record itself. Undoubtedly, by the eternal law, which requires the preservation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it, conjugal intercourse should take place only for the procreation of children, and after the celebration of marriage, so as to maintain the bond of peace. Therefore, the prostitution of women, merely for the gratification of sinful passion, is condemned by the divine and eternal law. To purchase the degradation of another, disgraces the purchaser; so that, though the sin would have been greater if Judah had knowingly lain with his daughter-in-law (for if, as the Lord says, man and wife are no more two, but one flesh, ¹ a daughter-in-law is the same as a daughter); still, it is plain that, as regards his own intention, he was disgraced by his intercourse with an harlot. The woman, on the other hand, who deceived her father-in-law, sinned not from wantonness, or because she loved the gains of iniquity, but from her desire to have children of this particular family. So, being disappointed in two of the brothers, and not obtaining the third, she succeeded by craft in getting a child by their father; and the reward which she got was kept, not as an ornament, but as a pledge. It would certainly have been better to have remained childless than to become a mother without marriage. Still, her desire to have her father-in-law as the father of her children was very different from having a criminal affection for him. And when, by his order, she was brought out to be killed, on her producing the staff and necklace and ring, saying that the father of the child was the man who had given her those pledges, Judah acknowledged them, and said, "She hath been more righteous than I"--not praising her, but condemning himself. He blamed her desire to have children less than his own unlawful passion, which had led him to one whom he thought to be an harlot. In a similar sense, it is said of some that they justified Sodom; ² that is, their sin was so great, that Sodom seemed righteous in comparison. And even allowing that this woman is not spoken of as comparatively less guilty, but is actually praised by her father-in-law, while, on account of her not observing the established rites of marriage, she is a criminal in the eye of the eternal law of right, which forbids the transgression of natural order, both as regards the body, and first and chiefly as regards the mind, what wonder though one sinner should praise another?