Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| There is a Kind of Hidden Wedlock in the Inner Man. Unlawful Pleasures of the Thoughts.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter 12.—There is a Kind of Hidden Wedlock in the
Inner Man. Unlawful Pleasures of the Thoughts.
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:775
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;776
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.”777
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.778
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;779
| 779 [Augustin means, that while he has
given an allegorical and mystical interpretation to the narrative
of the fall, in Genesis, he also holds to its historical
sense.—W.G.T.S.] | —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.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
