Formerly, when they were born, they brought with them natural right,
now they do not. No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything more
crafty than these absurdities, which were devised to elude a right of
nature. Therefore let this remain in the case which both Scripture
teaches and the jurist says wisely, namely, that the union of male
and female belongs to natural right. Moreover, a natural right is
truly a divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely impressed
upon nature. But inasmuch as this right cannot be changed without an
extraordinary work of God, it is necessary that the right to contract
marriage remains, because the natural desire of sex for sex is an
ordinance of God in nature, and for this reason is a right; otherwise,
why would both sexes have been created? And we are speaking, as it
has been said above, not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that
desire which they call physical love [which would have existed
between man and woman even though their nature had remained pure],
which concupiscence has not removed from nature, but inflames, so
that now it has greater need of a remedy, and marriage is necessary
not only for the sake of procreation, but also as a remedy [to guard
against sins]. These things are clear, and so well established that
they can in no way be overthrown.

Thirdly. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all
who are not fit for celibacy. The adversaries ask that a commandment
be shown them which commands priests to marry. As though priests are
not men! We judge indeed that the things which we maintain
concerning human nature in general pertain also to priests. Does not
Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry?
For he interprets himself a little after when he says, v. 9: It is
better to marry than to burn. And Christ has clearly said Matt. 19,