Chapter 30 [XV.]—The Case of Abimelech and His House Examined.

Then, again, as to the passage which he has adduced from the inspired history concerning Abimelech, and God’s choosing to close up every womb in his household that the women should not bear children, and afterwards opening them that they might become fruitful, what is all this to the point? What has it to do with that shameful concupiscence which is now the question in dispute? Did God, then, deprive those women of this feeling, and give it to them again just when He liked? The punishment however, was that they were unable to bear children, and the blessing that they were able to bear them, after the manner of this corruptible flesh. For God would not confer such a blessing upon this body of death, as only that body of life in paradise could have had before sin entered; that is, the process of conceiving without the prurience of lust, and of bearing children without excruciating pain. But why should we not suppose, since, indeed, Scripture says that every womb was closed, that this took place with something of pain, so that the women were unable to bear cohabitation, and that God inflicted this pain in His wrath, and removed it in His mercy? For if lust was to be taken away as an impediment to begetting offspring, it ought to have been taken away from the men, not from the women. For a woman might perform her share in cohabitation by her will, even if the lust ceased by which she is stimulated, provided it were not absent from the man for exciting him; unless, perhaps (as Scripture informs us that even Abimelech himself was healed), he would tell us that virile concupiscence was restored to him. If, however, it were true that he had lost this, what necessity was there that he should be warned by God to hold no connection with Abraham’s wife? The truth is, Abimelech is said to have been healed, because his household was cured of the affliction which smote it.

CAPUT XV.

30. Item aliud ex libro divino testimonium quod posuit de Abimelech, et Deo volente clausa omni vulva in domo ejus ne mulieres ejus parerent, atque aperta rursus ut parerent, quid ad rem pertinet? quid habet de illa pudenda libidine, de qua nunc quaestio est? Numquid ipsam Deus detraxit illis feminis, reddiditque cum voluit? Sed poena fuit ut parere non possent, beneficium vero ut parere possent more hujus corruptibilis carnis . Non enim tale beneficium Deus conferret corpori mortis hujus, quale non haberet nisi corpus vitae illius in paradiso ante peccatum, ut et conceptus proveniret sine libidine pruriente, et partus sine dolore cruciante. Cur autem non intelligamus, quandoquidem dicit Scriptura, aforis omnem vulvam fuisse conclusam, aliquo dolore factum esse, ut non possent feminae concubitum perpeti, qui dolor Deo succensente fuisset inflictus, miserante detractus? Nam si ad impedimentum serendae prolis esset libido detrahenda, viris esset detrahenda, non feminis. Femina enim posset voluntate concumbere, etiam desistente libidine qua stimularetur; si viro non deesset, qua excitaretur. Nisi forte, quia scriptum est, et ipsum Abimelech fuisse sanatum, virilem dicturus est ei libidinem redditam. Quam profecto si amiserat, quid opus fuit eum divinitus admoneri, ut Abrahae non misceretur uxori? Sed sanatum dicit, quia domus ejus ab illa peste sanata est.