Against Julian
The whole work on one page. Select a passage number to open that passage with its notes, Scripture references, and citation.
Chapter 5
5.46PL 44:809
Jam vero < de Joseph, cujus Mariam de Evangelio conjugem dixi (De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, lib. i, n. i2), multa diu disputas contra sententiam meam, et conaris ostendere, < quia concubitus defuit, nullo modo fuisse conjugium : i ac per hoc, secundum te , cum destiterint concumbere conjuges, jam non erunt conjuges, et divortium erit illa cessatio. Quod ne contingat, agam sicut possunt decrepiti quod juvenes agebant, et ab hoc opere quo etiam continens nimium delectaris, nec effœtis ætate corporibus parcant. Non se cogitent quantum ad libidinis attinet incentiva, senuisse, ut possint conjuges permanere. Si hoc tibi placet, tu videris. Ego autem ( quia liberorum procreandorum causa uxores esse ducendas , honestas consentit humana, quolibet modo libidini cedat infirmitas), præter fidem quam sibi debent conjuges, ne fiant adulteria, et prolem cujus generandae causa sexus uterque miscendus est , adverti etiam tertium bonum quod esse in conjugibus debet, maxime pertinentibus ad populum Dei, quod mihi visum est esse aliquod sacramentum, ne divortium fiat vel ab ea conjuge quae non potest parere, vel sicut fecisse Cato perhibetur (Plutarch. in ejus Vita, ct Lucan. lib. 2), ne ab eo viro qui plures non vult suscipere filios, alteri fetanda tradatur (De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, lib. 1, n. ii. Propter hoc in illo quod secundum Evangelium conjugium nuncupavi, omnia tria bona nuptiarum dixi esse completa ; fidem, quia nullum adulterium ; prolem, ipsum Dominum Christum ; sacramentum, quia nullum divortium. t Non ergo quia dixi omne nuptiarum, id est, hoc tripartitum bonum , in illis Christi parentibus fuisse completum; propterea hoc dixisse putari debeo, sicut insimulas, < ut quidquid aliter fuerit, malum esse videatur. » Dico enim et aliter bonum esse conjugium, ubi proles nisi per concubitum non potest procreari. Si enim aliter posset, et tamen concumberent conjuges, apertissime libidini cederent, atque illo malo uterentur male : cum vero propter quod sexus ambo sunt instituti, nisi eorum commixtione non nascitur homo; propter hoc mixti conjuges illo malo utuntur bene : si autem de libidine quaerunt etiam voluptatem, venialiter male.
Now, regarding Joseph, whose wife I said Mary was called according to the Gospel, you argue at length against my view and try to show that, because intercourse was lacking, there was in no way a marriage; and so, according to you, when spouses have stopped having intercourse they will no longer be spouses, and that cessation will be a divorce. Lest this happen, let the decrepit do as best they can what they did as young men, and not spare their bodies, worn out by age, from this work in which you, though continent, delight so excessively. Let them not think that they have grown old as far as the incitements of lust are concerned, so that they may remain spouses. If this pleases you, see to it yourself. But I (since human decency agrees that wives are to be taken for the sake of procreating children, in whatever way weakness yields to lust), besides the faith which spouses owe each other, lest adulteries occur, and the offspring for the sake of whose begetting each sex is to be joined, have noticed also a third good which ought to be in spouses, especially those belonging to the people of God, which seemed to me to be a kind of sacrament: that there be no divorce, either from a wife who cannot bear children, or, as Cato is reported to have done, that a wife not be handed over to another man to be made pregnant by a husband who does not wish to take up more children. For this reason, in that union which according to the Gospel I called a marriage, I said that all three goods of marriage were fulfilled: faith, because there was no adultery; offspring, the Lord Christ himself; sacrament, because there was no divorce. So, because I said that the whole good of marriage, that is, this threefold good, was fulfilled in those parents of Christ, I ought not to be thought to have said, as you allege, “that whatever was otherwise seems to be evil.” For I say that marriage is good otherwise too, where offspring cannot be procreated except through intercourse. For if it could be otherwise, and spouses still had intercourse, they would most plainly be yielding to lust and using that evil badly; but since, for the purpose for which both sexes were instituted, a human being is not born except by their union, spouses who unite for this reason use that evil well; but if they seek pleasure too from lust, they use it badly, but venially.