grounded in what is just, although in the appearance of what is just. XI. Those who from causes legitimate, just, and really excusatory, are engaged in this concubinage, may at the same time he principled in conjugial love. XII. While this concubinage continues, actual connection with a wife is not allowable. We proceed to an explanation of each article.
463. I. These are two kinds of concubinage, which differ exceedingly from each other, the one conjointly with a wife, the other apart from a wife. That there are two kinds of concubinage, which differ exceedingly from each other, and that the one kind consists in taking a substituted partner to the bed, and living conjointly and at the same time with her and with a wife; and that the other kind is when, after a legitimate and just separation from a wife, a man engages a woman in her stead as a bed-fellow; also that these two kinds of concubinage differ as much from each other as dirty linen from clean, may be seen by those who take a clear and distinct view of things, but not by those whose view of things is confused and indistinct: yea, it may be seen by those who are in conjugial love, but not by those who are in the love of adultery. The latter are in obscurity respecting all the derivations of the love of the sex, whereas the former are enliglitened respecting them: nevertheless, those who are in adultery, can see those derivations and their distinctions, not indeed in and from themselves, but from others when they hear them: for an adulterer has a similar faculty with a chaste husband of elevating his understanding; but an adulterer, after he has acknowledged the distinctions which he has heard from others, nevertheless forgets them, when he immerses his understanding in his filthy pleasure; for the chaste and the unchaste principles, and the sane and the insane, cannot dwell together; but, when separated, they may be distinguished by the understanding. I once inquired of those in the spiritual world who did not regard adulteries as sins, whether they knew a single distinction between fornication, keeping a mistress, the two kinds of concubinage, and the several degrees of adultery? They said they were all alike. I then asked them whether marriage was distinguishable? Upon this they looked around to see whether any of the clergy were present, and as there were not, they said, that in itself it is like the rest. The case was otherwise with those who in the ideas of their thought regarded adulteries as sins: these said, that in their interior ideas, which are of the perception, they saw distinctions, but had not yet studied to discern and know them asunder. This I can assert as a fact, that those distinctions are perceived by the angels in heaven as to their minutiæ. In order therefore that it may be seen, that there are two kinds of concubinage opposite to each other, one whereby conjugial love is destroyed, the other whereby it is not, we will first describe the kind which is condemnatory, and afterwards that which is not.
