449. That the lust in fornication is not the lust of adultery, everyone clearly sees from common perception. What law, or what judge, charges a fornicator with the same crime as an adulterer? Everyone sees this from common perception for the reason that fornication is not opposed to conjugial love in the way that adultery is. It is possible for fornication to have conjugial love concealed within it, as any natural love may have concealed in it a spiritual one. Indeed, the spiritual love even unfolds in fact out of the natural one; and when the spiritual love has unfolded, then the natural one girds it as bark does wood, or as a scabbard does a sword, and also serves the spiritual love as a protection against violations. It is apparent from this that the natural love, which is a love for the opposite sex, precedes the spiritual love, which is a love for one of the sex. If then fornication ensues from a natural love for the opposite sex, it can also be wiped away, provided conjugial love is looked to, hoped for and sought as the principal good. [2] It is altogether different with the lascivious and obscene love of adultery. We have already shown in the preceding chapter, on the opposition of licentious love to conjugial love, that this love is opposed to conjugial love and destroys it. Consequently, if a purposeful or deliberate adulterer for various reasons enters the marriage bed, the case is reversed. The natural love with its lascivious and obscene lusts then lies hidden within, while the appearance of spiritual one covers it outwardly. Reason can see from this that the lust in fornication is relatively moderate compared to the lust of adultery, being like the first cooling of the year compared to the cold of midwinter in arctic regions.