|
17. Let us now complete, so far as the Lord helps us, the
discussion which we have undertaken, respecting that part of reason to
which knowledge belongs, that is, the cognizance of things temporal
and changeable, which is necessary for managing the affairs of this
life. For as in the case of that visible wedlock of the two human
beings who were made first, the serpent did not eat of the forbidden
tree, but only persuaded them to eat of it; and the woman did not eat
alone, but gave to her husband, and they eat together; although she
alone spoke with the serpent, and she alone was led away by him: so
also in the case of that hidden and secret kind of wedlock, which is
transacted and discerned in a single human being, the carnal, or as I
may say, since it is directed to the senses of the body, the sensuous
movement of the soul, which is common to us with beasts, is shut off
from the reason of wisdom. For certainly bodily things are perceived
by the sense of the body; but spiritual things, which are eternal and
unchangeable, are understood by the reason of wisdom. But the reason
of knowledge has appetite very near to it: seeing that what is called
the science or knowledge of actions reasons concerning the bodily things
which are perceived by the bodily sense; if well, in order that it may
refer that knowledge to the end of the chief good; but if ill, in
order that it may enjoy them as being such good things as those wherein
it reposes with a false blessedness. Whenever, then, that carnal or
animal sense introduces into this purpose of the mind which is
conversant about things temporal and corporeal, with a view to the
offices of a man's actions, by the living force of reason, some
inducement to enjoy itself, that is, to enjoy itself as if it were
some private good of its own, not as the public and common, which is
the unchangeable, good; then, as it were, the serpent discourses
with the woman.
And to consent to this allurement, is to eat of the forbidden tree.
But if that consent is satisfied by the pleasure of thought alone, but
the members are so restrained by the authority of higher counsel that
they are not yielded as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; this,
I think, is to be considered as if the woman alone should have eaten
the forbidden food. But if, in this consent to use wickedly the
things which are perceived through the senses of the body, any sin at
all is so determined upon, that if there is the power it is also
fulfilled by the body; then that woman must be understood to have given
the unlawful food to her husband with her, to be eaten together.
For it is not possible for the mind to determine that a sin is not only
to be thought of with pleasure, but also to be effectually committed,
unless also that intention of the mind yields, and serves the bad
action, with which rests the chief power of applying the members to an
outward act, or of restraining them from one.
18. And yet, certainly, when the mind is pleased in thought alone
with unlawful things, while not indeed determining that they are to be
done, but yet holding and pondering gladly things which ought to have
been rejected the very moment they touched the mind, it cannot be
denied to be a sin, but far less than if it were also determined to
accomplished it in outward act. And therefore pardon must be sought
for such thoughts too, and the breast must be smitten, and it must be
said, "Forgive us our debts;" and what follows must be done, and
must be joined in our prayer, "As we also forgive our debtors."
For it is not as it was with those two first human beings, of which
each one bare his own person; and so, if the woman alone had eaten the
forbidden food, she certainly alone would have been smitten with the
punishment of death: it cannot, I say, be so said also in the case
of a single human being now, that if the thought, remaining alone, be
gladly fed with unlawful pleasures, from which it ought to turn away
directly, while yet there is no determination that the bad actions are
to be done, but only that they are retained with pleasure in
remembrance, the woman as it were can be condemned without the man.
Far be it from us to believe this. For here is one person, one human
being, and he as a whole will be condemned, unless those things
which, as lacking the will to do, and yet having the will to please
the mind with them, are perceived to be sins of thought alone, are
pardoned through the grace of the Mediator.
19. This reasoning, then, whereby we have sought in the mind of
each several human being a certain rational wedlock of contemplation and
action, with functions distributed through each severally, yet with
the unity of the mind preserved in both; saving meanwhile the truth of
that history which divine testimony hands down respecting the first two
human beings, that is, the man and his wife, from whom the human
species is propagated; this reasoning, I say, must be listened to
only thus far, that the apostle may be understood to have intended to
signify something to be sought in one individual man, by assigning the
image of God to the man only, and not also to the woman, although in
the merely different sex of two human beings.
|
|