466、⑷它是摧毁婚姻原则，即基督徒生命珍宝的淫乱。它就是一种淫乱，比被称为单纯奸淫的一般淫乱更反对婚姻之爱。它等于丧失了基督徒与生俱来的婚姻生活的一切能力和倾向；这几点可通过在智者的理性面前有效的重要论据得以证明。关于第一点：既找情妇或纳妾，同时又与妻子联结，就是一种淫乱，比被称为单纯奸淫的一般淫乱更反对婚姻之爱。这一点可从以下考虑看出来：一般的淫乱或单纯的奸淫并不包含类似婚姻之爱的任何爱，因为它纯粹是肉体的冲动或灼热，会直接冷却下来；有时事后不会在这个女人身上留下一丝爱。因此，如果这种淫行的爆发不是出于有意或确定的意图，并且奸淫者对此有所悔改、清醒过来，那么它对婚姻之爱的伤害不大。一夫多妻的淫乱则截然不同。这种淫乱包含一种类似婚姻之爱的爱，因为它爆发后，不像前一种那样冷却、消散并化为乌有，而是保留、更新、确立自己。它还相应地夺走对妻子的爱，并引发对她的冷淡以取代这爱。因为此时，这个男人觉得分享他床的这个女人或妓女可爱，这是由于他的自由意志，若他愿意，这自由意志也能使他退出。这种自由生来就被植入属世人，并因取悦他而倾向于支持他的爱。此外，他与情妇或妾在一起比与妻子在一起更紧贴诱惑。另一方面，他觉得妻子不可爱，是由于他的终身契约所强加的与妻子一起生活的责任。相比与其他女人在一起的自由，这种责任对他来说似乎更有强迫性。显然，随着他对其他女人或妓女的爱逐渐变暖，并且她逐渐被珍视，他对妻子的爱逐渐变冷，并且妻子逐渐被鄙视。
关于第二点：既找情妇或纳妾，同时又与妻子联结，会使男人丧失基督徒与生俱来的婚姻生活的一切能力和倾向。这一点可从以下考虑看出来：对妻子的爱转为对情妇或妾之爱的程度，就是他对妻子的爱被侵蚀、掏空和耗尽的程度，如刚才所示。这一切是通过关闭这个男人属世心智的内层、打开其低层发生的。这一点从以下事实明显可知：在基督徒当中，只爱一个异性的倾向的居所就在他们的至内层；而这个居所能被关闭，却无法被根除。只爱一个异性的倾向，以及接受这爱的能力生来就被植入基督徒；这是因为这爱唯独出自主，已成为宗教信仰的一部分；并且在基督教界，主的神性被承认和敬拜，宗教信仰就出自衪的圣言。因此，这种倾向是天生固有的，并世代相传。我们说，这个基督教的婚姻原则被一夫多妻的淫乱摧毁，其实意思是说，它在一夫多妻的基督徒里面被关闭和阻断。然而，它仍能在他的后代里面复苏，就像祖父或曾祖父的形像在他的孙子或曾孙身上重现一样。正因如此，这种婚姻原则被称为基督徒生命的珍宝，是人类生命的瑰宝和基督教的宝库（457，458节）。
对一个陷入一夫多妻淫乱的基督徒来说，该婚姻原则由此被毁；这一点从以下事实明显看出来：他无法像一夫多妻的伊斯兰教徒那样同等地爱情妇或妾和妻子。相反，他越爱情妇或妾，即越对她变得温暖，就越不爱他的妻子，即越对她变得冷淡；更有甚至，还照着他发自内心承认主纯粹是一个属世人，是马利亚的儿子，而非同时是神的儿子，以及视宗教一文不值的程度而憎恶她。然而，必须清楚的是，这是发生在那些在妻子之外又找情妇或纳妾，并与二者发生性关系之人身上的情形；绝不适用于那些出于合法、正当和纯正重大理由而与妻子分离，并中断与妻子的性关系后，又找别的女人来取代她的人。这是下一节的主题。
466、（4）对于明智的人，我们不难证实它是一种比普通的色欲更能破坏婚姻之爱。并且它会使基督徒生来所有的婚姻的倾向丧失。
首先，普通的色欲或者说简单的通奸不会有与婚姻之爱相类似的爱，因为它只是躯体的冲动，会随即消失，之后可能不会有对那个女人的一点点爱。所以这种色欲不是有目的，有计划的，若当事者感到后悔，它只会略微影响婚姻之爱。
而一夫多妻中的色欲则含有与婚姻之爱类似的爱，它不会消退，象前一种情况那样。它会不断增长会将爱从妻子那里带走，并带来冷淡。这种情况下的男人会因为与情人交往不会受到婚约的限制而觉得情人更可爱——这是一种自然人生来就有的一种特征。因此在它的诱导下他与情人的关系会比与妻子的关系更密切。相反，他不认为妻子也同样可爱，因为与她一起生活所面对的责任的存在。他会因为与情人交往的自由而认为对妻子的责任是强加给他的。所以对配偶的爱会随着对情人的爱的增加而减弱。
关于第二点：它剥夺男人作为基督徒而生来具有的对婚姻生活的倾向。可以从以下几方面考虑：
在对配偶的爱转移给情人的同时，爱也就被众配偶那里带走了。这样的结果是，男人头脑的内在层面会被关闭，而它的低一层面打开了。这可以从基督徒只爱异性中一个是他的最内在因素中看到。
466. (iv) It is a form of promiscuity which destroys the principle of marriage, the treasure of Christian life.
It is a form of promiscuity more opposed to conjugial love than the general type called simple adultery. It entails the loss of all ability and inclination for life in marriage, something Christians have from birth. These points can be proved by weighty arguments appealing to the reason of a wise person. As regards the first point, that having a concubine at the same time as or in association with a wife is a form of promiscuity more opposed to conjugial love than the general promiscuity called simple adultery, this can be seen from the following considerations. General promiscuity or simple adultery does not contain any love analogous to conjugial love, for it is merely a urge of the flesh, which immediately cools off, and sometimes leaves not so much as a trace of love for the woman, once it is over. Consequently this burst of wantonness does only a little damage to conjugial love, if it is not the result of deliberate or confirmed intention, and if the adulterer comes to his senses again.
The case of polygamous promiscuity is quite different. This contains a love analogous to conjugial love, for after bursting out it does not cool off, being dissipated and withering away to nothing like the first type, but it remains, renewing and establishing itself, making corresponding inroads on love for the wife and substituting coldness towards her instead. For he then looks on the woman who shares his bed as loveable, as the result of the freedom of will which allows him, if he will, to draw back, something implanted in the natural man; and because this is agreeable, it tends to support that love. Moreover with a concubine he is more closely attached to allurements than with a wife. On the other hand he looks on his wife as unlovable owing to the duty to live with her imposed by his compact for life, which then seems to him the more forced as compared with the freedom he has with the other woman. It is clear that his love for his wife cools off proportionately and she becomes despised, as his love for the other woman warms up and she is held dear.
[2] As regards the second point, that having a concubine at the same time as or in association with a wife causes a man to lose all ability and inclination for a life in marriage, something Christians have by birth, this can be seen from the following considerations. To the extent that love for a wife is transferred into love for a concubine, to that extent his love for his wife is eroded, emptied out and exhausted, as shown just above. This takes place by the shutting off of the inner levels of his natural mind, and the opening up of its lower levels. This can be established from the location of the inclination among Christians to love one of the other sex being at the inmost level; and the fact that this location can be blocked off, but not rooted out. The inclination to love one of the other sex, and also the ability to receive that love being implanted in Christians from birth, is due to that love which comes only from the Lord becoming a matter of religion; and in the Christian world the Lord's divinity is acknowledged and worshipped, and religion comes from His Word. That is why it is inherent, and why it is transplanted from one generation into the next.
We said that this Christian principle of marriage is destroyed by polygamous promiscuity; but this must be understood as meaning that in the case of a polygamous Christian it is shut off and intercepted. But it remains capable of being revived in his descendants, just as happens with the re-appearance of the likeness of a grandfather or great-grandfather in a grandson or great-grandson. That is why that principle of marriage is called the treasure of Christian life, and just above the jewel of human life and a treasure-house of Christian religion (457-458).
[3] The destruction of the principle of marriage as the result of polygamous fornication in the case of a polygamous Christian who indulges in it is plainly to be seen from the fact that he cannot love his concubine and his wife equally, as a Mohammedan can. But the more he loves or has warm feelings for his concubine, the less he loves his wife or feels coldly towards her. An even more detestable result is that he is the more prone to acknowledge at heart the Lord as only a natural man and as Mary's son, and not at the same time as the Son of God, and to treat religion as worthless. Yet it must be well understood that this is what happens to those who take a concubine in addition to a wife, and have sexual relations with both of them. It does not apply to those who are separated for lawful, just and weighty reasons, and cut themselves off from sexual relations with their wives, but take another woman to enjoy in her place. This will be the subject of the next section.
466. 4. It is licentiousness, by which the conjugial inclination, the precious treasure of Christian life, is lost. We can convincingly demonstrate, by arguments persuasive to the reason of one who is wise, that it is a form of licentiousness more opposed to conjugial love than ordinary licentiousness that is called simple adultery; also that it entails the loss of every capacity for and inclination to married life which is present in Christians from birth.
With respect to the first, it can be seen that taking a mistress simultaneously or conjointly with the wife is a form of licentiousness more opposed to conjugial love than ordinary licentiousness that is called simple adultery, from the following considerations:
Ordinary licentiousness or simple adultery does not involve a love analogous to conjugial love, for it is only an urge of the flesh which immediately subsides, and which sometimes leaves behind it not a trace of any love for the woman. Consequently, if this boiling over of lasciviousness is not purposeful or deliberate, and if the adulterer repents of it, it takes away only a little something from conjugial love.
It is otherwise with polygamous licentiousness. It does involve a love analogous to conjugial love; for it does not subside, fade, and disappear after boiling over as the former does, but remains, grows and ensconces itself, and in the same measure it takes away from love for the wife and induces a coldness toward her instead. Indeed, the man then regards the harlot who shares his bed as lovable because of the freedom of will he has in being able to withdraw if he chooses - a trait that is inborn in the natural self and which, because it is therefore pleasing, supports that love. And furthermore, with all its allurements he has with the mistress a closer union than with his wife. On the other hand, he does not regard his wife as lovable because of the obligation he has of living with her, an obligation enjoined on him by a covenant for life, which he then perceives as all the more compelled because of the freedom he has with the other. It follows that love for the married partner cools in the same degree that love for the adulterous one grows warmer, and that the first is despised in the measure that the latter is prized.
[2] With respect to the second point, it can be seen that taking a mistress simultaneously or conjointly with the wife robs a man of every capacity for and inclination to married life which is present in Christians from birth, from the following considerations:
In the measure that love for the married partner is transferred to love for a mistress, in the same measure it is taken away, depleted and dissipated with respect to the married partner, as shown just above. This comes about as a result of the closing of the interior elements of the man's natural mind and the opening of its lower ones, as may be seen from considering that the seat of the inclination in Christians to love one of the opposite sex is in the inmost elements of a person, and from the fact that this seat can be closed off, although not eradicated.
An inclination to love one of the opposite sex, and with it a capacity for receiving that love, has been implanted in Christians from birth, for the reason that this love comes from the Lord alone and has been made part of their religion, and because in Christianity the Lord's Divinity is acknowledged and worshiped, and religion is derived from His Word. Hence the implantation of that inclination, and also its transmission from generation to generation.
We said that this Christian conjugial inclination is lost by polygamous licentiousness, but what we mean is that it is closed up and cut off in the Christian polygamist. However, it may still be reawakened in his descendants, as happens in the instance of the likeness of a grandfather or great grandfather reappearing in a grandson or great grandson. That is why we call this conjugial inclination the precious treasure of Christian life, and above in nos. 457, 458, the precious jewel of human life and the repository of Christian religion.
[3] It is clearly apparent that by polygamous licentiousness this conjugial inclination is lost in a Christian who engages in it, from the fact that it is impossible for him to love a mistress and a wife equally in the way that a polygamous Muslim can. Rather, the more he loves the mistress, the less he loves his wife, or the warmer he grows toward the first, the colder he becomes to the latter. Moreover, what is even more despicable, in the same measure, too, he at heart accepts the Lord only as a natural man and Mary's son, and not at the same time the Son of God, and to that extent also attaches little importance to religion.
It should be properly recognized, however, that this is what happens in the case of those who take a mistress in addition to the wife and engage in a physical union with both; and not at all in the case of those who for legitimate, just and truly weighty reasons separate and disunite themselves from the wife in respect to physical love, substituting another woman in her stead. Consideration of the latter kind of circumstance in taking a mistress now follows.
466. 4. It is an illicit relationship that destroys the marriage relationship, which is the precious treasure of Christian life. Arguments that are convincing to a wise person's reason will show that this illicit act is more opposed to the love in marriage than the ordinary illicit act called simple adultery, and that it is a deprivation of every ability and inclination toward the married life that is in Christians by birth.
As to the first point - that having a concubine at the same time as a wife, or together with a wife, is an illicit act more opposed to the love in marriage than the ordinary illicit act called simple adultery - it can be seen from these facts. Ordinary illicit sex, or simple adultery, does not have a love like married love in it, for it is only a physical blaze that soon cools and sometimes does not leave behind it a trace of love for the woman. So this flaring wantonness takes away from married love only in some small way, if it is not done by plan or from conviction, and if the adulterer comes to his senses. Illicit polygamy is different. There is a love in it patterned after the love in marriage, because it does not die down, scatter, and go away at all like ordinary simple adultery after it flares up, but it stays, renews itself, and settles in, detracting from love for the wife to that extent and bringing on coldness toward the wife instead. For then a man finds the prostitute he is sleeping with attractive because his options are not restricted and he can get away from her if he wants to. This independence is inborn in a worldly person, and it bolsters his love by pleasing.
And besides, there is a closer attachment to a concubine by enticements than to a wife. And, vice versa, he finds his wife unattractive on account of his obligation to live with her imposed by the lifetime covenant, which seems the more restricting for the freedom he has with the other. It stands to reason that love for a wife grows cold and she herself worthless in the degree that love for a prostitute grows warm and she becomes precious.
As to the second point - that having a concubine at the same time as a wife, or together with a wife, deprives a man of every ability and inclination toward married life, which is inborn in Christians - it can be seen from these facts. As pointed out already above, however much the love for a mate is transferred to a concubine, to that extent love for the mate is torn away, suffered through, and emptied out. This happens by closing off the inner reaches of the man's worldly mind and unclosing its lower levels.
This can be established by the fact that in Christians the inclination to love one person of the other sex is seated deep within, and this seat can be closed off but not rooted out. An inclination to love one person of the other sex, and also an ability to receive that love, is implanted in Christians at birth because that love comes only from the Lord and is made a matter of religion, and in Christianity the Lord's Divinity is accepted and worshiped, and the religion is from His Word. This is the source of its being implanted, and also transplanted from one generation into another.
It was said that this Christian marriage relationship dies as the result of polygamous fornication. This means that in a polygamous Christian it is closed off and intercepted but can still be revived in his descendants - the way the resemblance of a grandfather, or of his grandfather, returns in a grandson, or great grandson.
This is why that marriage relationship is called the jewel of Christian life and the precious treasure of human life and the treasury of the Christian religion (nos. 457-458 above).
It is very clear that the marriage relationship is destroyed in a Christian who practices polygamous fornication, from the fact that he cannot love a concubine and a wife equally, like a Mohammedan, but fails to love his wife or cools off toward her in the measure that he loves his concubine or warms up to her. And, more detestably, in the same measure he at heart identifies the Lord as just a man of this world and as the son of Mary but not the Son of God as well. And in the same measure he also devaluates religion.
But note well that this happens to those who add a concubine to a wife and join sexually with both - definitely not those who for legitimate, just, and truly important reasons separate from a wife and disconnect themselves from her physical love, and make an arrangement with a kept woman.
This type of concubinage comes next.
466. IV. THAT IT IS WHOREDOM, AND BY IT THE CONJUGIAL WHICH IS THE PRECIOUS TREASURE 1OF CHRISTIAN LIFE, IS DESTROYED. That it is a whoredom more opposed to conjugial love than the common whoredom which is called simple adultery, and that it is the deprivation of all ability and inclination for the conjugial life which is within Christians from birth, can be proved by arguments which are valid before the reason of a wise man.
As regards the FIRST point, that simultaneous concubinage or concubinage conjointly with the wife is a whoredom more opposed to conjugial love than the common whoredom which is called simple adultery, this can be seen from the following: Within common whoredom or simple adultery there is no love analogous to conjugial love, it being merely a burning heat of the flesh which cools down directly, and sometimes does not leave behind it any vestige of love for the woman. Therefore, this effervescing lasciviousness, if the act is not committed from purpose or confirmation, and if the adulterer repents of it, detracts only some little from conjugial love. Not so with polygamous whoredom. Within this, unlike the former, is a love analogous to conjugial love; for after the effervescence, it does not cool down, disperse, and pass off into nothing, but remains and renews and establishes itself. To that extent it takes away from love to the wife and induces cold for her in its place; for the man then looks upon the harlot who shares his bed as lovely, doing this because of the freedom of his will in that he can withdraw if he pleases. This freedom is inborn in the natural man, and being pleasing to him, it supports his love. Moreover, unition with a concubine, with all its allurements, is closer than with the wife. On the other hand, he does not look upon his wife as lovely, and this because of the duty of cohabitation with her enjoined by a covenant for life; and his perception of this duty as being forced is the stronger because of his freedom with the other woman. That love for the married partner grows cold, and she herself is held cheap in proportion as love for the one who is a harlot grows warm, and she is prized, is evident.
[2] As regards the SECOND point, that simultaneous concubinage or concubinage conjointly with the wife deprives man of all ability and inclination for that conjugial life which is within Christians from birth, this can be seen from the following: So far as love for the married partner is transcribed into love for the concubine, so far it is torn away, exhausted, and emptied out, as shown just above. That this is effected through the closing of the interior parts of the man's natural mind and the unclosing of the inferior, can be evident from the fact that, with Christians, the seat of the inclination to love one of the sex is in their inmosts, and that while this seat can be shut off, it cannot be extirpated. That the inclination to love one of the sex and also the ability to receive that love is implanted in Christians from birth, is because that love is from the Lord alone and is made a matter of religion; and in Christendom the Divine of the Lord is acknowledged and worshipped, and religion is from His Word. Hence is the engrafting of that inclination, and also its transplantation from generation to generation. It was said that by polygamous whoredom this Christian conjugial is destroyed; but what is meant is, that in a Christian polygamist it is closed up and intercepted. Yet it can be resuscitated in his posterity, just as is the case with the likeness of a grandfather or remote ancestor returning in his grandson or great-grandson. Hence it is that this conjugial is called the precious treasure of Christian life, and above (nos. 457, 458), the precious jewel of human life and the repository of the Christian religion.
[3] That with a Christian who is in polygamous whoredom this conjugial is thereby destroyed is manifestly evident from the fact that unlike the Mohammedan Polygamist, a Christian cannot love a concubine and a wife equally, but so far as he loves the concubine, that is, grows warm to her, so far he does not love his wife, that is, so far he grows cold to her; and, what is more detestable, in the same degree at heart he acknowledges the Lord as merely a natural man and as the son of Mary, and not at the same time the Son of God. Moreover, in the same degree he makes religion to be of no account. It should be well noted, however, that this is the case with those who add a concubine to the wife and conjoin themselves to both actually. It in no way applies to those who, from causes legitimate, just, and truly weighty, separate and disjoin themselves from the wife as to actual love and take a woman for use. The consideration of this kind of concubinage now follows.
Footnotes:
1. Cimelium, a latinized form of the Greek = anything stored up as a precious treasure.
466. (iv) It is whoredom, destroying the marital inclination which is the treasure of Christian life. It can be shown by arguments cogent to the reason of the wise that this is whoredom more nearly opposite to marital love than common whoredom, which is called simple adultery, and that it means the loss of all the faculty and inclination for marital life which Christians have by birth. As for the first point, that simultaneous concubinage or concubinage together with the wife is whoredom more nearly opposite to marital love than the common whoredom which is called simple adultery, this is to be seen from the following considerations. In common whoredom or simple adultery there is no love analogous to marital love, for it is only a heat of the flesh, which presently passes, and sometimes leaves behind it no vestige of love for the woman. Therefore this effervescing lasciviousness, if it does not proceed from set purpose or from confirmation, and if the adulterer repents of it, takes away only a little from marital love. It is otherwise with polygamous whoredom. In this there is a love analogous to marital love, for it does not cool nor is it dissipated, and it does not pass into nothing after effervescence, as does the former, but remains, renews and establishes itself, and by so much takes away from love for the wife and in its place induces cold for her. For the man then looks on the courtesan who shares his bed as lovely, by reason of his freedom of will to withdraw if he pleases, an inborn trait of the natural man; as this is therefore gratified, it supports that love. Furthermore, there is closer union by allurements with a concubine than with a wife. On the other hand, the man ceases to look on his wife as lovely on account of the obligation to live with her imposed by the covenant for life, which seems to him coercive, the more so in view of his freedom with the other woman. It is obvious that love for the partner grows cold and she herself is held cheap in the degree in which love for the courtesan grows warm and she is prized.
[2] As for the second point, that simultaneous concubinage or concubinage together with the wife deprives a man of all the faculty and inclination for the married life which Christians have by birth: this may be seen from the following considerations. As far as love for the partner is transcribed into love for the concubine, so far love for the wife is torn away, drawn upon and emptied out (as was shown just above). This comes to pass through the closing of the interiors of his natural mind and the unclosing of its lower parts, as is plain from the seat of the inclination which Christians have for loving one of the sex - in the inmosts - and from the fact that this seat can be closed up, but not uprooted. An inclination to love one of the sex, and the faculty, too, of receiving that love, have been implanted in Christians by birth, for the reason that that love is from the Lord alone, and has become a matter of religion, and in Christendom the Divine of the Lord is acknowledged and worshiped, and religion is from His Word; so the Christian marital tendency is engrafted and also transplanted from generation to generation. We have said that this Christian marital tendency perishes in polygamous whoredom, but by this we mean that it is shut in and obstructed in a Christian polygamist, but still can be restored in his posterity, just as the likeness of grandfather or great grandfather may recur in grandson or great grandson. Hence this marital capacity is called the treasure of Christian life, and (above, n. 457-458) the jewel of human life and the repository of the Christian religion.
[3] That this marital capacity is destroyed by polygamous whoredom in a Christian, is very plain from the fact that he cannot, like a Mohammedan polygamist, love concubine and wife equally, but that as far as he loves the concubine or is ardent toward her, he does not love his wife or is cool to her. What is still more detestable, so far also he at heart regards the Lord as a natural human being only, and as the Son of Mary, and not at the same time as the Son of God; and so far he also flouts religion. But it should be appreciated that this is the case with those who add a concubine to the wife and join themselves bodily to both; and not at all the case with those who for legitimate, just and really weighty causes separate themselves and in respect of actualized love keep apart from the wife and in her place put a woman kept for use. Our consideration of this kind of concubinage now follows.
466. (4) That it is scortation by which the conjugial, which is the precious jewel of Christian life is destroyed. That it is scortation more antagonistic to conjugial love than ordinary scortation, which is called simple adultery, and that it is a deprivation of all the faculty and inclination for conjugial life which is inherent in Christians from nativity, can be clearly shown to the reason of a wise man by valid arguments. As to the first: That concubinage at the same time and conjointly with a wife is scortation more antagonistic to conjugial love than ordinary scortation, which is called simple adultery, may be seen from these considerations: That in ordinary scortation or simple adultery there is no love analogous to conjugial love, for it is only a burning heat of the flesh which quickly ceases to rage and sometimes does not leave a vestige of love for the woman; and therefore, this effervescing lasciviousness, if not indulged in from purpose or from confirmation, and if the adulterer repents of it, only takes away in some small degree from conjugial love. It is not so with polygamous scortation. In this there inheres a love analogous to conjugial love, for it does not effervesce, dissipate, and pass away into nothing after effervescence like the former, but remains, renews, and establishes itself, and in so far takes away from the love to the wife and in its place induces cold towards the wife. For the man then looks upon the courtesan bedfellow as lovely, from a freedom of will, in that he can 'draw back if he pleases, a freedom that is innate in the natural man, and being therefore, grateful, it supports that love; and the more, that with the concubine there is a closer unition by allurements than with the wife. And on the other hand he does not look upon the wife as lovely, on account of the duty of cohabitation with her enjoined by the covenant for life, which he then feels to be the more constrained because of his freedom with the other. That love for the married partner grows cold and she herself vile in proportion as love for the courtesan grows warm, and she is held in favor, is evident. As regards the second point: That concubinage at the same time and conjointly with a wife deprives a man of every faculty and inclination to conjugial life, which is inherent in Christians from nativity, may be seen from these considerations: That in so far as love for the married partner is transcribed into love for the concubine, that for the married partner is torn off, exhausted, and emptied out, as has been shown just above. That this takes place through the closing of the interiors of his natural mind and the opening of its lower parts, is very evident from the fact, that with Christians the seat of the inclination to love one of the sex is in their inmosts, and that this seat may be closed up but cannot be extirpated. The reason why the inclination to love one of the sex, and also the faculty for receiving that love, is implanted in Christians from nativity, is that the love is from the Lord alone and is become a matter of religion, and in Christendom the Divine of the Lord is acknowledged and is worshiped, and the religion is from His Word. Hence comes the ingrafting of it, and also the transplanting of it, from generation to generation. It was said that the Christian conjugial is destroyed by polygamous scortation; but by that is meant that in a Christian polygamist it is shut off and intercepted; but yet it may be resuscitated in his posterity, just as takes place with the likeness of a grandfather or a great great grandfather returning in his grandson or great great grandson. Hence it is that this conjugial is called the jewel of the Christian life, and above, n. 457, 458, the precious treasure of human life and the repository of Christian religion. That this conjugial is destroyed by polygamous scortation in the case of a Christian who is in it, is very manifest from the fact that he cannot love a concubine and a wife equally, as a Mahometan polygamist can, but that in so far as he loves the concubine, or grows warm towards her, in so far he does not love his wife and grows cold to her. And what is more detestable, in so far he in heart regards the Lord as a natural man only and the son of Mary, and not at the same time as the Son of God; and in so far he also makes the Christian religion of no account. But it should be well known that this is the case with those who add a concubine to the wife, and actually conjoin themselves to both, and not at all to those who for causes legitimate, just, and truly weighty, separate themselves, and as to actual love disunite themselves from the wife, and put a woman kept for use in her place. The consideration of this kind of concubinage now follows.
466. IV. Quod sit scortatio, per quod Conjugiale, quod est cimelium vitae Christianae, deperditur. Quod sit scortatio plus opposita amori conjugiali, quam scortatio communis, quae simplex adulterium vocatur; et quod sit deprivatio omnis facultatis et inclinationis ad vitam conjugialem, quae Christianis a nativitate inest, argumentis coram ratione sapientis validis, potest convinci. Quod Primum attinet, quod concubinatus simultaneus seu conjunctus cum uxore, sit scortatio plus opposita amori conjugiali, quam scortatio communis, quae simplex adulterium vocatur, videri potest ex his; quod scortationi communi seu adulterio simplici non insit amor analogus amori conjugiali, nam est modo oestrum carnis, quod illico defervescit, et quandoque non vestigium amoris post se relinquit ad illam; quare haec effervescens lascivia, si non fit ex proposito aut ex confirmato, et si moechus ab illa resipiscit, modo aliquid pauculum derogat amori conjugiali: aliter scortatio polygamica; huic inest amor analogus amori conjugiali, non enim defervescit, dissipatur, et abit in nihilum post effervescentiam, sicut prior, sed manet, renovat et stabilit se, et tantum ex amore ad uxorem decerpit, ac loco ejus pro uxore inducit frigus; spectat enim tunc concubam meretricem ut amabilem ex libero voluntatis quod possit, si lubet, recedere, quod naturali homini ingenitum est, et quia hoc inde gratum est, amorem illum suffulcit; ac insuper cum concubina est propinquior unitio cum illecebris quam cum uxore; at vicissim uxorem non spectat amabilem ex debito cohabitationis cum illa injuncto per foedus vitae, quod tunc percipit ut coactum plus ex libero cum altera; quod amor pro conjuge pari gradu frigescat, et ipsa vilescat, quo amor pro una moecha calescit, et haec in pretio est, constat.
[2] Quod Alterum attinet, quod concubinatus simultaneus seu conjunctus cum uxore deprivet virum omni facultate et inclinatione ad vitam conjugialem, quae Christianis ex nativitate inest, videri potest ex his; quod quantum amor ad conjugem transcribitur in amorem ad concubinam, tantum decerpatur, exantletur, et exinaniatur ille pro conjuge, ut nunc supra ostensum est; quod hoc fiat per occlusionem interiorum mentis naturalis ejus, et reclusionem inferiorum ejus, constare potest ex sede inclinationis ad amandum unam e sexu apud Christianos, quod sit in intimis ejus, et quod haec sedes intercludi possit, sed non exstirpari: quod inclinatio ad amandum unam e sexu, et quoque facultas ad recipiendum illum amorem, Christianis a nativitate implantata sit, est causa, quia ille amor est a Solo Domino, et factus est religionis, et in Christianismo Divinum Domini agnoscitur et colitur, ac religio est ex Verbo Ipsius; inde est insitio ejus, et quoque transplantatio ejus a generatione in generationem: dictum est, quod Conjugiale illud Christianum per scortationem polygamicam pereat, sed intelligitur, quod apud polygamum Christianum occludatur et intercipiatur, sed usque resuscitabile est in ejus posteris, sicut fit cum similitudine avi et atavi redeunte in nepote et pronepote: inde est quod Conjugiale illud dicatur Cimelium vitae Christianae; et supra 457, 458, Clenodium vitae humanae, ac Reconditorium religionis Christianae.
[3] Quod Conjugiale illud per polygamicam scortationem apud Christianum, qui in illa est, perdatur, patet manifeste ex eo, quod non possit amare concubinam et uxorem aeque sicut polygamus Mahumedanus; sed quod quantum amat concubam, seu calescit ad illam, tantum non amet uxorem, seu tantum frigescat ad illam; et quod detestabilius est, tantum etiam Dominum modo pro Naturali homine, proque Filio Mariae, et non simul pro Filio Dei, corde agnoscat, et quoque tantum Religionem floccipendat. At probe noscendum est, quod hoc fiat illis, qui concubinam addunt uxori, et cum utraque actualiter se conjungunt; et prorsus non illis, qui ex causis legitimis, justis, et vere sonticis se separant, et quoad amorem actualem se sejungunt ab uxore, ac usurariam foeminam collocant; 1de hoc Concubinatus genere nunc sequitur.
Footnotes:
1. Prima editio: collocat;