|
But he who says that there should have been neither copulation nor
generation but for sin, virtually says that man's sin was necessary to
complete the number of the saints. For if these two by not sinning
should have continued to live alone, because, as is supposed, they
could not have begotten children had they not sinned, then certainly
sin was necessary in order that there might be not only two but many
righteous men. And if this cannot be maintained without absurdity, we
must rattler believe that the number of the saints fit to complete this
most blessed city would have been as great though no one had sinned, as
it is now that the grace of God gathers its citizens out of the
multitude of sinners, so long as the children of this world generate
and are generated.
And therefore that marriage, worthy of the happiness of Paradise,
should have had desirable fruit without the shame of lust, had there
been no sin. But how that could be, there is now no example to teach
us. Nevertheless, it ought not to seem incredible that one member
might serve the will without lust then, since so many serve it now.
Do we now move our feet and hands when we will to do the things we
would by means of these members? do we meet with no resistance in
them, but perceive that they are ready servants of the will, both in
our own case and in that of others, and especially of artisans employed
in mechanical operations, by which the weakness and clumsiness of
nature become, through industrious exercise, wonderfully dexterous?
and shall we not believe that, like as all those members obediently
serve the will, so also should the members have discharged the function
of generation, though lust, the award of disobedience, had been
awanting.? Did not Cicero, in discussing the difference of
governments in his De Republica, adopt a simile from human nature,
and say that we command Our bodily members as Children, they are so
obedient; but that the vicious parts of the soul must be treated as
slaves, and be coerced with a more stringent authority? And no
doubt, in the order of nature, the soul is more excellent than the
body; and yet the soul commands the body more easily than itself.
Nevertheless this lust, of which we at present speak, is the more
shameful on this account, because the soul is therein neither master of
itself, so as not to lust at all, nor of the body, so as to keep the
members under the control of the will; for if they were thus ruled,
there should be no shame. But now the soul is ashamed that the body,
which by nature is inferior and subject to it, should resist its
authority. For in the resistance experienced by the soul in the other
emotions there is less shame, because the resistance is from itself,
and thus, when it is conquered by itself, itself is the conqueror,
although the conquest is inordinate and vicious, because accomplished
by those parts of the soul which ought to be subject to reason, yet,
being accomplished by its own parts and energies, the conquest is, as
I say, its own. For when the soul conquers itself to a due
subordination, so that its unreasonable motions are controlled by
reason, while it again is subject to God, this is a conquest virtuous
and praiseworthy. Yet there is less shame when the soul is resisted by
its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the
body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it
for life itself.
But so long as the will retains under its authority the other members,
without which the members excited by lust to resist the will cannot
accomplish what they seek, chastity is preserved, and the delight of
sin foregone. And certainly, had not culpable disobedience been
visited with penal disobedience, the marriage of Paradise should have
been ignorant of this struggle and rebellion, this quarrel between will
and lust, that the will may be satisfied and lust restrained, but
those members, like all the rest, should have obeyed the will. The
field of generation should have been sown by the organ created for this
purpose, as the earth is sown by the hand. And whereas now, as we
essay to investigate this subject more exactly, modesty hinders us,
and compels Us to ask pardon of chaste ears, there would have been no
cause to do so, but we could have discoursed freely, and without fear
of seeming obscene, upon all those points which occur to one who
meditates on the subject. There would not have been even words which
could be called obscene, but all that might be said of these members
would have been as pure as what is said of the other parts of the body.
Whoever, then, comes to the perusal of these pages with unchaste
mind, let him blame his disposition, not his nature; let him brand
the actings of his own impurity, not the words which necessity forces
us to use, and for which every pure and pious reader or hearer will
very readily pardon me, while I expose the folly of that scepticism
which argues solely on the ground of its own experience, and has no
faith in anything beyond. He who is not scandalized at the apostle's
censure of the horrible wickedness of the women who "changed the
natural use into that which is against nature," will lead all this
without being shocked, especially as we are not, like Paul, citing
and censuring a damnable uncleanness, but are explaining, so far as we
can, human generation, while with Paul we avoid all obscenity of
language.
|
|