Chapter 34 [XIX.]—The Pelagians Argue that Cohabitation Rightly Used is a Good, and What is Born from It is Good.

I request your attention now to the following words. He says, “That children, however, who are conceived in wedlock are by nature good, we may learn from the apostle’s words, when he speaks of men who, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust, men with men working together that which is disgraceful.215    Rom. i. 27. Here,” says he, “the apostle shows the use of the woman to be both natural and, in its way, laudable; the abuse consisting in the exercise of one’s own will in opposition to the decent use of the institution. Deservedly then,” says he, “in those who make a right use thereof, concupiscence is commended in its kind and mode; whilst the excess of it, in which abandoned persons indulge, is punished. Indeed, at the very time when God punished the abuse in Sodom with His judgment of fire, He invigorated the generative powers of Abraham and Sarah, which had become impotent through old age.216    Gen. xxi. 1, 2, and xix. 24. If, therefore,” he goes on to say, “you think that fault must be found with the strength of the generative organs, because the Sodomites were steeped in sin thereby, you will have also to censure such created things as bread and wine, since Holy Scripture informs us that they sinned also in the abuse of these gifts. For the Lord, by the mouth of His prophet Ezekiel, says: ‘These, moreover, were the sins of thy sister Sodom; in their pride, she and her children overflowed in fulness of bread and abundance of wine; and they helped not the hand of the poor and needy.’217    Ezek. xvi. 49. Choose, therefore,” says he, “which alternative you would rather have: either impute to the work of God the sexual connection of human bodies, or account such created things as bread and wine to be equally evil. But if you should prefer this latter conclusion, you prove yourself to be a Manichean. The truth, however, is this: he who observes moderation in natural concupiscence uses a good thing well; but he who does not observe moderation, abuses a good thing. What means your statement, then,”218    See first chapter of the first book of this treatise. he asks, “when you say that ‘the good of marriage is no more impeachable on account of the original sin which is derived herefrom, than the evil of adultery and fornication can be excused because of the natural good which is born of them’? In these words,” says he, “you conceded what you had denied, and what you had conceded you nullified; and you aim at nothing so much as to be unintelligible. Show me any bodily marriage without sexual connection. Else impose some one name on this operation, and designate the conjugal union as either a good or an evil. You answer, no doubt, that you have already defined marriages to be good. Well then, if marriage is good,—if the human being is the good fruit of marriage; if this fruit, being God’s work, cannot be evil, born as it is by good agency out of good,—where is the original evil which has been set aside by so many prior admissions?”

CAPUT XIX.

0456

34. Attende sequentia: «Quod autem,» inquit, «filii ex conjugio suscepti naturaliter boni sunt, Apostolo dicente discamus, qui ait de improbis: Relicto naturali usu feminae, exarserunt in de sideria sua, invicem masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes (Rom. I, 27). Ostendit ergo,» inquit, «usum feminae et naturalem esse, et pro suo modo laudabilem: flagitium autem ex voluntate propria exerceri contra institutionis pudorem. Merito itaque,» inquit, «et in bene utentibus genus concupiscentiae modusque laudatur, et in turpibus excessus ejus punitur. Denique eodem tempore Deus Abrahae et Sarae marcentia aevo membra vegetavit» (Gen. XXI, 1), «quo in Sodomis ipsa igneo imbre punivit» (Id. XIX, 24, 25). «Si igitur putas,» inquit, «accusandum membrorum vigorem, quoniam per ipsum Sodomitae flagitiis obliti sunt; accusabis etiam creaturam panis et vini, quoniam hinc quoque eos peccasse Scriptura divina significavit. Dicit enim Dominus per Ezechielem prophetam: Verumtamen hae iniquitates Sodomae sororis tuae, superbia, in saturitate panum et abundantio vini fluebant ipsa et filii ejus, et manum pauperis et egentis non adjuvabant» (Ezech. XVI, 49). «Elige jam,» inquit, «utrum mavis: aut reputa divino operi commixtionem corporum, aut creaturam panis et vini similiter malam esse defini. Quod si feceris, aperte Manichaeus esse convinceris. Concupiscentiae autem naturalis qui modum tenet, bono bene utitur; qui modum non tenet, bono male utitur. Quid dicis ergo,» inquit: «Ita nuptiarum bonum malo originali, quod inde trahitur, non potest accusari; sicut adulteriorum malum bono naturali, quod inde nascitur, non potest excusari» (De Nupt. et Concup., lib. 1, n. 1)? «His sermonibus,» inquit, «quod negaveras concessisti, quod concesseras sustulisti: et nihil magis laboras, quam ut parum intelligaris. Ostende sine commixtione nuptias corporales: aut unum aliquod huic operi nomen imponito, et vel bonum, vel malum conjugium nuncupato. Spopondisti utique bona te definire conjugia: si conjugium bonum, si homo fructus conjugii bonus, si hic fructus opus Dei malus esse non potest, qui per bonum ex bono nascitur; ubi igitur originale malum, quod tot praejudiciis interemptum est?»