5. Also the question is wont
to be asked, when a male and female, neither the one the husband,
nor the other the wife, of any other, come together, not for the
begetting of children, but, by reason of incontinence, for the mere
sexual intercourse, there being between them this faith, that
neither he do it with any other woman, nor she with any other man,
whether it is to be called marriage.1944
And perhaps this may, not without
reason, be called
marriage,
1945
if it shall be the resolution
1946
of both
parties until the
death of one, and if the begetting of
children,
although they came not together for that cause, yet they
shun not,
so as either to be
unwilling to have
children born to them, or even
by some
evil work to use means that they be not
born. But, if
either both, or one, of these be wanting, I find not how we can
call it
marriage. For, if a man should take unto him any one for a
time, until he find another worthy either of his
honors or of his
means, to marry as his compeer; in his
soul itself he is an
adulterer, and that not with her whom he is desirous of finding,
but with her, with whom he so
lies, as not to have with her the
partnership of a
husband. Whence she also herself, knowing and
willing this, certainly acts unchastely in having intercourse with
him, with whom she has not the
compact of a
wife. However, if she
keep to him
faith of
bed, and after he shall have
married, have no
thought of
marriage herself, and prepare to contain herself
altogether from any such
work, perhaps I should not
dare lightly to
call her an adulteress; but who shall say that she
sins not, when
he is aware that she has intercourse with a man, not being his
wife? But further, if from that intercourse, so
far as pertains to
herself, she has no wish but for sons, and
suffers unwilling
whatever she
suffers beyond the cause of begetting; there are many
matrons to whom she is to be preferred; who, although they are not
adulteresses, yet force their
husbands, for the most part also
wishing to
exercise continence, to pay the due of the
flesh, not
through desire of
children, but through glow of
lust making an
intemperate use of their very right; in whose marriages, however,
this very thing, that they are
married, is a good. For for this
purpose are they
married, that the
lust being brought under a
lawful bond, should not float at large without form and loose;
having of itself
weakness of
flesh that cannot be curbed, but of
marriage fellowship of
faith that cannot be dissolved; of itself
encroachment of immoderate intercourse, of
marriage a way of
chastely begetting. For, although it be shameful to wish to use a
husband for purposes of
lust, yet it is
honorable to be
unwilling
to have intercourse
save with an
husband, and not to give
birth to
children save from a
husband. There are also men incontinent to
that degree, that they spare not their
wives even when pregnant.
Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married
persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the
fault of marriage.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
