Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 14: That a Consummated Matrimony Can Be Loosed as to Bed and Living Together
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The third question is on the loosing of a consummated Matrimony as to bed and living together, the conjugal bond remaining; which loosing is properly called divorce by the theologians, and is distinguished from repudiation, which is a loosing also as to the bond. Although the jurists take these words a little otherwise: for they call repudiation the putting away both of a betrothed and of a wife; but divorce the putting away of a wife only, after Matrimony, whether as to bed or as to the bond, as is plain from the law Inter stuprum and the law Inter divortium, in the Digest on the signification of words; whence both in the canon law and in the civil, under the title on divorces, the loosing of Matrimony is treated, whether as to bed only or also as to the bond.
But whatever may be of the words, Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, Philip in the Theological Commonplaces, under the title on marriage, Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, and others everywhere, do not acknowledge a divorce with the conjugal bond remaining. And Chemnitz not only denies that any such divorce is lawful, but also blames the Church because she grants divorce as to bed for several causes, and not for the cause of fornication alone.
But nevertheless the opinion of the theologians and of the whole Church is that a consummated Matrimony between the faithful can be loosed as to bed and living together for two causes.
First by consent, for acquiring a greater and higher state: as if both spouses vow perpetual continence and pass into religion; of which thing very many examples of saints are extant, as we showed in the disputation on vows; and we have the testimony of Christ, Matthew 19: “Every one that hath left house, or lands, or wife,” and so on; where he speaks of the leaving of a wife, as the apostles had done, namely for the sake of following him.
Second, without consent, on account of a crime, and that threefold. The first is the adultery of one of the spouses, of which Matthew 5. Then, if one of the spouses departs from the Catholic faith; and of this we have the apostolic precept, Titus 3: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid”; where the Apostle speaks of all in general, and does not except spouses or parents. And of these too are understood the words of the Lord, Luke 14: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,” and so on. Then, if one of the spouses drives the other to sin, so that the other cannot live with him without danger of offending God; and of this the Lord speaks when he says, “If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out,” Matthew 18; on which place Jerome, writing, teaches that the sense of the Lord is that if those who are joined to us and dear like our eyes, such as parents, children, wife, are the cause of our ruin, we should withdraw from them.
And all these things are had in the decrees of the Church, under the title on divorces; and lately the Council of Trent confirmed this very thing against the Lutherans in these words, session 24, canon 8: “If anyone shall say that the Church errs when she decrees that for many causes a separation between spouses as to bed, or as to living together, for a certain or uncertain time, can be made, let him be anathema.”
Before we answer the objections of the adversary, three things are to be observed. The first is that the liberty of making a divorce on account of a crime is equal for husband and wife: for although the Lord, Matthew 19, speaks of the husband only, because ordinarily husbands put away their wives and rarely are husbands put away by their wives, yet what the Lord said of husbands belongs also to women. For the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 7, said both: “I command, not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife,” namely without a lawful cause. And the same is taught by the Council of Milevis, canon 17; Innocent I, in letter 3, chapter 4; Jerome, in the letter to Oceanus on the death of Fabiola; and Augustine, book 2 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 8.
The second is that a divorce as to bed only can be made by one's own authority, provided the spouse truly knows the adultery of the spouse. But a divorce as to living together, because it is a public thing, and one which can scandalize others, cannot be made except by the judgement of the Church, as we have in the chapter Porro, on divorces.
The third is that divorce for the cause of fornication can become unlawful for four causes. First, if the fornication was without crime, and so was only material, as if the woman suffered violence, or through ignorance had to do with one whom she believed to be her husband, though he was another. Second, if both spouses are held by the same crime. Third, if after knowing the adultery of the spouse he had to do with the spouse. Fourth, if he was the author to the spouse of committing fornication. See Soto on book 4, distinction 30, the only question, article 1.
But the objections of Chemnitz must be washed away, which he proposed against this canon in the second part of the Examination, page 1208 and following. The first objection: “That definition of divorce, that it is the separation of Matrimony as to bed, the conjugal bond remaining, is new, and wrongly fabricated from words of Paul badly understood: for it is drawn from these words, I command, not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. But the Apostle in this place does not speak of a just divorce, which can be made for the cause of fornication; for he would not command that the wife not depart from her husband if he spoke of a just divorce. He treats, then, of certain light disagreements which sometimes arise between spouses, and so of an unlawful divorce, by which they depart from one another but are reconciled a little after. Wherefore the Catholics wrongly deduced from this place a divorce which is lawfully made in the Church with the bond remaining.”
I answer: the Catholics most truly deduced from this place a just and lawful divorce, the bond yet remaining; though not from this place only, but also from many others, as we showed above. For, as St. Augustine, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4, rightly saw and warned, blessed Paul does not speak of the same departing when he says, “I command that the wife depart not from her husband,” and when he says, “And if she depart, that she remain unmarried”: for in the former place he treats of an unjust departing, in the latter of a just one. For if the Apostle were treating of an unlawful separation for light causes when he says, “And if she depart,” and so on, he would not give the spouses the choice that after the separation they either remain unmarried or be reconciled to their husbands, but would simply command that they be reconciled to their husbands. For if the Lord forbade the wife to depart from her husband, namely without a just cause, as the Apostle himself testifies, how can it be that the same Apostle in the same place permits, against the Lord's precept, the wife to remain separated from the husband without a just cause? Wherefore this will be the sense of the Apostle: I command, not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, namely without a just cause; and if she depart, a just cause namely being found, that she remain unmarried, and so on. Erasmus, Chemnitz, Calvin, Beza and all the others err manifestly, then, who expound this place of an unjust departing, and deny that a just divorce can be gathered from this place.
The second objection: “Christ, Matthew 5 and 19, pronounces the putting away of a spouse, except for the cause of fornication, to be unlawful and illegitimate. Against this sentence of Christ the papists decree that besides fornication there are many other causes for which a lawful and legitimate separation of spouses can be made.”
I answer: it is certain from the Gospel that there are other causes besides carnal fornication why a marriage can be separated as to bed, as we showed above from various places; but that one is especially notable which is had in Matthew 19. For where the Lord had commanded that a wife not be put away except for fornication, in the same chapter he promised a hundredfold in this world, and life everlasting in the world to come, to those who should put away their wives for the sake of the perfection of the Gospel. Wherefore, lest the Gospel itself fight with itself, some explanation and limitation must be used.
Moreover, from the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 7, we have learned that an unbelieving spouse can be put away by the believer even if fornication has not come between; the words of the Lord, therefore, are not to be taken universally and without limitation.
That we may expound the sentence of the Lord, then: first, it is to be limited to marriages contracted between the faithful, that room may be given to the Apostle, who permits the loosing of a marriage contracted between unbelievers. Second, the sentence of the Lord is to be understood of putting away by reason of a crime, not by reason of acquiring a greater perfection. For the reason why the Lord forbids a spouse to be put away is that he who puts away unjustly is to the other spouse a cause of committing adultery. But he who puts away for the cause of greater perfection is not a cause of committing adultery; because either the Matrimony is consummated, and then such a separation cannot be made except by the free consent of both parties; or it is only ratified, and then the separation is made as to the bond, and therefore the spouse left can marry another; wherefore there is no danger of adultery.
But why the Lord said that putting away for a crime cannot be made except for the cause of fornication, since yet it can be made for other crimes too, St. Augustine, book 1 On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, chapters 20, 27 and 28, says the reason is that by the name of fornication all crimes can be understood. For idolatry too, and every superstition, is a certain spiritual fornication with false gods; and again, according to the Apostle, covetousness is the service of idols; and as covetousness is the service of idols, and so a certain fornication, so also every other depraved desire is a certain fornication.
But this disputation of Augustine was suspect even to Augustine himself: for according to the letter there is no doubt that the Lord speaks of carnal fornication alone. And moreover it is false that marriages can be broken, even as to bed, for any crime whatever; for, as we showed above, they are broken by the Church only for crimes which tend to the destruction of the spouse's soul. And Augustine, book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 19, does not wish us to follow this opinion of his absolutely.
It must be said, then, that the Lord excepted fornication alone for two causes. The first cause is that fornication alone is the proper reason for loosing Matrimony; but the others are common to Matrimony with all the other fellowships. For on account of heresy, or driving to sin, not only a spouse ought to be separated from a spouse, but also a son from a father, a brother from a brother, a servant from a master, and so on. Wherefore the Lord did not exclude those causes which he knew to be common, but he excluded all those for which the other fellowships are not broken, fornication excepted. And the reason of this is that fornication alone is directly opposed to conjugal faith and to the substance of Matrimony itself, while the other crimes stand toward Matrimony by accident.
The second cause is that the Lord was speaking of a putting away not for a certain time but perpetual; for of this those were speaking who had questioned him. Further, there is no cause of perpetual divorce except fornication: for on account of the fornication of a spouse, even if it be committed only once and he who sinned presently repents, the other spouse is freed from rendering the debt for his whole life. But on account of other crimes he is not freed except for the time during which those crimes last: for if the spouse who was inducing the spouse to sin repents and is seriously converted, the spouse is bound to receive him back and live with him with marital affection; because those crimes, as we said, are opposed to Matrimony by accident, and fornication of itself; and therefore, as soon as a spouse by committing fornication breaks the faith given to the spouse, because he does not stand by his promises, he falls from the right of marriage, nor has he any longer any right over the spouse.
The third objection: “The separation which is described in 1 Corinthians 7 outside the cause of fornication Paul neither counsels nor decrees, but teaches that it fights with the precept of the Lord, who commands them not to depart; but when spouses, against that teaching of the Apostle, separate themselves by private stubbornness, then Paul counsels reconciliation, or, if they will not, pronounces that they ought to remain without marriage. But this eighth canon says that the Church herself can decree separation for many causes besides fornication.” So Chemnitz; for I wished to set down his words, lest he complain that his objection has not been faithfully recited.
I answer: this objection was solved when we answered the first; for Chemnitz falsely assumes that those words of Paul, “If she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband,” are to be taken of an unlawful departing, as we there taught from Augustine by a most invincible demonstration. And so Chemnitz falsely says that in 1 Corinthians 7 a separation outside the cause of fornication is described and disapproved by Paul. But even if this were true, we should expound the sentence of Paul as we have already expounded the sentence of the Lord.
The fourth objection: “Christ, Matthew 5, forbids a wife to be put away outside the cause of fornication for this reason, that such a putting away exposes to the dangers of burning, fornication and adultery. But the papists are not anxious about these dangers; for they freely decree separation for a certain or uncertain time.”
I answer: when the putting away is just, the danger of fornication to which the one put away is exposed is not imputed to him who puts away, who uses his right, but to him who gave the cause why he should be put away. For certainly he who puts away his wife for the cause of fornication, because he puts her away justly, is not said to expose his wife to the danger of fornication, even if she, so put away, begins to practise the harlot's trade. And that the putting away which the Church decrees is just we proved above, because it is conformed to the Gospel and to right reason. For since two dangers threaten, one to the innocent spouse if he is allowed to live with a heretical spouse, or one driving to crimes, namely the danger of falling into heresy or into crimes; the other to the guilty spouse if he is separated, namely the danger of fornication; the Church by a right judgement thinks that the innocent should be provided for rather than the guilty, and therefore breaks those marriages as to living together. Wherefore the papists decree separation not because they are not anxious about the dangers of fornication and adultery, but because they are more anxious about other, graver dangers.
The fifth objection: “They contend that divorce ought to be such that in it the bond of Matrimony remains safe. But by that papist separation the bond of marriage is loosed in many and various ways. For what the bond of Matrimony is these sentences teach: And shall cleave to his wife; Let us make him a help that may be before him; The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; Return together again, lest Satan tempt you; They are not two, but one flesh; and Matrimony itself is defined as an undivided habit of life. But divorce as to bed and living together looses all these bonds; therefore men separate what God has joined.”
I answer: the whole objection rests on a false explanation of the conjugal bond. For the conjugal bond is called a certain mutual obligation, because the man is so made the husband of one woman that he cannot be another's while she lives, and the woman is so made the wife of one man that she cannot be another's while he lives; for so the Apostle explains it, Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. But living together, and the fellowship of bed and table, of which the Scriptures alleged by Chemnitz speak, do not make the bond itself, nor are they it, but follow from it; otherwise, whenever husband and wife, even for a just cause, went away into different regions and were apart from one another, the bond of marriage would be loosed; which is certainly most absurd. As, then, husband and wife keep the bond of Matrimony when one lives in the east and the other in the west, because the husband cannot be joined to another woman, nor the wife to another man, without adultery, since they are still true spouses although they do not live together nor cleave to one another; so also husband and wife separated by divorce keep the conjugal bond, because he is still the husband of this woman only, and she the wife of this man only.
And those words, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder,” are to be understood of the true bond, not of living together or the sharing of bed; unless we will have the spouses themselves loose what God has joined as often as they are absent from one another.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
C.\ri!T XIV. Malrimoniam consummalum solvi posse quoad thorum el cokabitalionem. Terlia quaestio est de solutione Malrimonii con- summati quoad Ihorum cl cohabilalionein, manen- le vinculo conjusali: quac solulio proprie dicilur dlvorlium a lhcolo;4is: el distinguilur ;i repndio , quod csl solulio cliam quoad vinculum. Quamvis jureconsulli paulo aliter accipianl istas voccs:nam repuiJium vocanl diraissionem lum sponsae, tum eliam uxoris: divortium aulem, dimissionem solius uxoris posl .Malritnoiiiiim, sive quoad thorum. sivc quoad vinculum, ut patet ex 1. inter sluprum, et 1. iiilcr divorlium. II. dc. vcrb. siniiiliciil. undc lam in jure ciinouico, (lUiim civili. iii lilulo ih^ divortiis, ap;ilur Ac soliilionc M^ilrimouii, sivc (|uo;id lliorum hiuluiu, sive cliam ipioad vinculum. Scd (luidtjuid sil dc vocibus, bulhcrus in lihro dc caplivil. ttabylon. cap. dc Matrimonio, Philip- pus iu locis thcolof:;icis lil. di! conjuj,MO, Kcmni- liiis in 2. par. cxaiu. coucilii lri(lcuiini,ct alii pas- siin, non afrnoscunl divortium miinentc vinculo conjiitj;ili. K(Mniiilius ;iutcm non solum nogal, ul- Iniii cssc licilum divorlium ciusmodi , scd cli;uu 1'^cclcsiam rc|)rchcii(lit, quod pluribus de caussis, ct non sola caussa fornicaiionis, divorlium quoad lliorum conccdiil. .\l nihilominus scnlonti;i tboologorum. cl Kcclc- siae totius cst, possc Matrimonium consummalum iiilcr ndelcs solvi quoad Ihorum cl cobabitationcni diuibus dc Ciiussis. Piimo ex conscnsn, proptcr majorom atque al- liorcm slalum acquircnduin, ut si ulcrquc conju- gum contincnli;uii pcrpctiuim voveal, el nd rcli- gioucui tr;inscat: cujus rei plurima cxcmpla san- ctorum exstant, ul in disputationc dc volis oslen- dimus, ct habcmus tcstimonium Chrisli Mattb. 19. Omnis qui rcliqucril domwn. vcl aqrum.vel uxo- rem elc. ubi loquitur dc dimissionc uxoris.ut Apo- stoli fcceranl, nimirum caussa sequendi ipsum. Secundo sinc consensu, ob crimcn, idque Iri- plcx. Primum cst, adullcrium allcrius conjugis . de quo Malth. ,j. Doindc si allcr conjugum a Udc catholica reccdat. ct dc hoc habcmus aposlolicuin pracccplum. ad Til. 3. Ilaercticumliominem posi unani, el sccunda^n corrcclioncm devila,uhi Apo- slolus de omnibus gcncralim loquitur, neque con- jogcs, aul parcnlcs cxcipit. El dc his cli.im inlel- liguntur vcrba Domini Luc. 14. Si quis venil ad vie, ei non odit palrcm suuni cL malrem, cl uxo- rem clc. Dciiide si nllcr conjugum irapellal altcrum ad pcccalum, ila ul non possil altcr cum co coha- bilarc sine pcriculo Dcuin oITendcndi; cl dc lioc loquitur Dominus cum ait: Si oculus luus scanda- lizal (c, erue cum. Matth. 18. in queui locum scri- bcus Ilieronymus, docct senlcnliam Domini csse, ut si ii, qui nobis conjuncti sunt , ct cluiri instar oculorum. ul parcnlcs. filii, uxor, caussa sint rui- ii.irum; ;ib iis rccedamus. Atque liaec omnia habcnlur in decrelis Eccle- siae in tilulo dc divorliis, cl nuper concilium Iri- denliiium conlra Lulhcranos id ipsum his verbis coufirmavil, sess, 24. can. 8. Si qnis dixeril. Ec- clesiam errare, cum ob muUas caussas scpara- tioncm inler co7ijufics quoad Ihorum, ai quond cohabitationem ad cerium, incertumve tempus fieri jwsse decernit, anathema sit. Sunl aulcm aulequam ad objeclioncs advcrsarii rcspoiideamus. Obs(M'vand;i tria. Primum cst. li- bertalcm divorlium facicndi ob crimen. parem es- sc viro el uxori: licct cnim Dominus Matlli. 19.de viro tanlum loquatur, quia ordinarie viri uxorcs dimiltunl.raro aulem ab uxoribus dimiltunlur viri; lamen quod Dnminus de viris dixit.ctiam ad focmi- nas pertinet. Kam Apostolus 1. Cor. 7. ulrumquc dixit: Praecipio non ego, sed Dominus , uxorem a viro non discedcre, el vir uxoreni non dimil- Lii;b;ii i'i;i.\ius 80i ial; iiiiuirLmi siiie licila caussa. El idciu doceut couciliuui inilevit. cau. 17. lunocenlius I. in episl. 3. cap. 4. Hieron. in episl. ad Occanuni dc obitu Fabiolae.elAuguslinuslib.de adulteriuis couju- ijiis 2. cap. 8. Secundmn est: Divortium quoad Ihorum lanluui, propria auctorilatc possc fieri , luodo vcre noverit conjux coujui^is adullerium.Al vero divorlium (luo- ad coliabilalionem, quia rcs esl publica , el (luao scandalizare polesl cacleros; non posse lieri, nisi Ecclcsiae judicio, ul liabemus cap. Porro, do di- vortiis. Tertium est: Divorlium in caussa fornicatiouis quatuor dc caussis posse licri illicituni. Primo si lornicatio fucril siue crimine, el proindc uou lucril uisi materiolis, ut si mulier vim passa lueril, aul ex iguorautia cuin eo rem liabuerit, qucni virum suum csse credebat, cuni tamen esset alienus. Sc- cundo si uterquc conjux eodem crimiue teneatur. Terlio si posl coguilum adulterium conjugis, cum 00 rera habueril. Quarto si auclor fuit coujugi, ul foruicarctur. Vide Sotum in 4. dist. 30. quacst. u- nica, art. 1. Sed Kcmnitii objecla dilucnda suul,quac adver- sus hunc canonem proposuit iu 2. par. cxam.png. 1208. cl scquentibus.Prima objectio: DejinUio ilta divorlii', cjiiod sil separalio Matriinonii quoad tliorinn, manenle vinculo conjugali, nova cst, cl ex verbis Pauli maleinlelleclis, pcrperam fabri- cata: nam ex illis verbis deducla cst: praecipio non ego, sedDominus, uxorcm avironon dis- cedcre , quod si disccsserit, manerc innuptam, aut viro suo rcconciliari. Sed Apostolus lioc loco nonloquitur dejusto divortio, quod licri potesl in caussa l'ornicalionis: non cnimpracciperct u- xorem a viro non discedere , si dc divortio juslo loqucretur. Agit iqitur de dissidis quibusdam le- vibus, quac inlerdum inlcr conjuqcs oriuntur , ct proindc de illicito divorlio , quo a sc invicon disccdunt, sed paulo post reconciliantur. Quarc pcrpcram ex hoc loco calholici divortium dcdu- xerunt, quod manente vinculo in l^cclesia licite (iat. RcspondcO; Catholici ex hoc loco vcrissimc di- voriiunijustu rn et licitum, mancnle tamcn vinculo dediccrunl, quamvis non cx hoc loco solum , scd etiam cx muUis aliis, ut supra oslendimus. Nain ul sanctus Augustinus, iib. 1. de adulteriuis con- jugiis, cap. 1. 2. .*?. el 4. rcctc vidit el monuit , iion loquilur b. Paulus dc cadcm disccssione, cuiu ,x\[' Praccipio uxoreni aviro non disccdcre. \\i cum ait: Quod si disccsscrit, manerc innuplam : IVaiii in priorc loco agil dc iiijusla disccssione , iu postcriore dc justa. Si cnim Apostolus agcret dc separatione iliicila ob levcs caussas, cum iu[,Quod si disccsscrit etc. non darct conjugibiis oplioncm, ul post scparatioiicm, auL iiiiiuptac iiiaiicrcnl, aut viris suis rccoiiciliareiilur , scd siinplicitcr prac- cipcret , ut viris reconciliarcntur. Si eiiim l)o- iiiinus uxorem a viro discedcre proliibuit , ni- iiiirum sincjusta caussa , ut ipse A[)Ostolus lc- slalur , quomodo llcri polcsl , ul idcm Aposlo- lusibidcin pcrmitlat, coiitra Uomini pracccptiim uxorcm a viro siisc jusla caussu scparalum maiicrc? Quarc hic eril sensus AposloU: praecipio non ego, scd Dominus, uxorcm a viro non disccdcrc, niini- rum sinc justa caussa; quod si disccsscrit, caussa nimiruin justa invcnta, nianerc inuuptam etc. Er- raut igilur manircste Erasmus, l\.cmiiilius,Calvirius Ceza el omucs alii, qui hunc locuiii cxponunl de iiijusla disccssione; et justum divorliuin ex hoc loco colligi possc ncganl. Secunda objeclio: Christus Mallh. 5. et 10. di- missionem conjwjis nisi propler caussam l'urni- cutionis pronuncial esse illicilam ct illi(jilimam. Contra hanc Christi senlcnliam, Ponliticii deccr- nunt praetcr fornicalioncm , niutlas ulias esse caussas, propler quas licila ct lcgilima conju- gum scparatio ficri possit. Ucspondco:Constal ex evangelio,alias esse caus- sas practer fornicalionem cariialem , cur conju- gium scparari possit quoad tliorum , ut supra o- stcndiiiius ex variis locis: scd ille in primis esl in- siguis, qui liabetur Malth. tO. [Nam ubi Domiiius jusscrat, non diraitti uxorcm, nisi ob fornicatio- neiii; iu eodcin capitc, promisil ccntuplum in Iioc sacculo, el vilam aetcrnam iu luluro iis, qui uxo- res diraiseriul proptcr evangclioaui pcrfcclioncm. Quarc ne ipsuin cvangcliuin sccuin pugucl, adhi- bcnda csl cxplicatio ct limilalio aliqua. Praetcrea cx Aposlolo 1. Cor.7. didicimus,poss(i iulidclem coniugcni a lldcli diiiiitti, cliauisi forni- catio non interccsscrit: non igitur vcrba Domiiii univcrsaliler, el sine limitalione accipienda suiit. Ut igitur Domiui sculcnliam cxponamus. Priino limitaiida est ad Malrimonia contracta iiitcr fidclcs, ul dcLur locus Aposlolo pcrraitlcnli sululioiicm conjugii coiitracli intcr iiilidclcs. Sccundo scntcii- tia i)ouiiiii iutelligenda csl de diiiiissionc ratione criiiiinis non rationc majoris pcrfcclionis adiiii- scciidae. Nam ratio cur Doininus prohibct coiiju- gcm diraitti, csl quia qui injustc diraittit, est altcri conjugi caussa moccliaudi. At (jui dimillit caussa niajoiMS perfeclionis, non csl caussa mocchandi , quia vel Matrimonium est coiisummaluin; ct tunc iion potcst ncri lalis scparalio.uisi cx coiiscusu li- bcro utriusquc partis; vel est ratum tanlum, el lunc lil separatio quoad vinculum, et idco polcst coiijux rclicta alleri nubcrc: (piarc nullum csl a- dullerii pcriculum, Cur autem dimissioncm ob crimen Doininus di- xcril non posse fieri, nisi caussa fornicationis,cuiu laiueu possit ficri ctiain ob alia crimina; s. Augu- stiiius lib. 1. dcserm. Domini in inonte . cap. 20. 27. el 28. dicil rationem essc, quia noinine forni. catiouis intelligi possunt oninia crimiiia. Nain cl- iaiu idololatria ct oiniiis siipcrslilio, esl foriiicalio (]uacdam spirilualis cum falsis diis: cL rursus sc- cmidum Apostolum, avaritia cst idolorura scrvi- liis; cl sicut avaritia csl idoloruin scrvitus.ct proin- d(! lornicatio (piacdam, ila ctiaiu oinnis alia prava cupiditas esl quacdam fornicaiio. Scd hacc disiuitalio Augiisliui, ipsi ctiaiii Aiigu- stiiio suspccta fuit:nain ad lilcram iiou cstdubiuin (piiii Dominus loqualur,de sola fornicatioue carna- li. El practcrca falsiim csl, oh (pKullihcl crimcu possc dirimi ftlatrimoiiia, cliain (pioad Ihoruni : solum ciiiiu, ul supra oslcndimus , diriumnlur ab M)> l)K SACliAMiiiNJo .MAiKI.Mo.MI tocle^ia nh crimiii;i, (iiKie vor^iml iii tlc.liimiinUiiii iiilcriiis fonjiiK'^- U''''i*^' 'il^"» Aui;ubliiiiis lil). 1. rclriicl. cap. V3. lum vull nus lianc suain sonlcn- tiam abscilulc seqiii. Dicciulum csl ii^iUir, Dominum ob duas caussas c.xccpissc solam roruicalioncm. Prima caussa cst , (|uia sola foruicaUo csl propria ralio sohilioiiis Ma- Irimoiui; caclorae auloiu ooiuiuuiics sunlMalrimo- iiio cum aliis oninibus coiiroeiioraliuuihus : nani proptcr hacrcsim, vel iiuiuolioncm ad pcccandum, uou soUim scparari (lchcl oouju.n: a coiiiu<,'c, scci eliam lilius a paUc, IValcr a Iralrc, sorvus a Domi- no clc. Quocirca Dominus islas caussas uon c.xclu- sit, (luas sciohal csse commiiucs, scd exoUidil cas oniues, oh ([uas oaclcrac oonlcdcralioncs non diri- muulur, e.\ocpta fornicalionc. ilalio aulciu liujus csl.quia sola fornicalio direclc opponilur lidei con- jiiLraii. cl suhslanliac ipsius iMalrimonii , cactcra auloui orimiua per accidens se habcnl ad MaU'ini0' nium. Sccuuda caussa esl, quia Dominus loquchalur dc diniissiunc non ad certuin lcmpus , sed perpc- lua: nam dc luic loqucbauUir, qui cum inlerroga- vcranl. l*orro caussa pcrpclui divorUi nuila csl , nisi foruioatio: propler foruioalionem cnim ounju- tris. ctiamsi tautum semei ca pcrpclrelur , el mox (jui peccaveral, resipiscal,iihcralur allcr cunjux a liobilo rcddcndo per umnein vilam. Al pruptcr aiia crimina uon lihcratur, nisi pro co tenipore , quo (luranl ca orimiua: si cnim conjux, qui cunjugcm ad pcccanduin iuducehal, resipiscal, el scriu cun- \f.Mialur, lcnelur conjux eum recipere, eiquc a(Te- olu marilali oohabilare, quia isla crimiua , ul dixi- mus, pcr accidens upponunUir Matrimonio, ao for- nioaliu por se oppunilur; cl ideu slaliin , atque oonjiix rurnioandu frangil conjugi datara fidem , (|uia nun slal promissis, cadil a jure conjugii, nec habct amplius in conjugem uiluin jus. Tcrlia ohjeotiu: Separalionem, qiiac 1. Cor. 7. exlra caassain, fornicaiionis describHar, Paulus nec suadel. nec decernil, seddoccl eam pugnare cum praeceplo Domini, qni praccipil non disce- dere: quando vero conjiKjes conlra illam Apo- sloli docirinam privala coniamacia sc separanl, lunc Paulus suadel reconcilialionem, aul si lioc nolinl. pronuncial ipsos debcrc sine conjugio manere. Sed oclavus liic canon dicil, ipsam Ec- clesiani ob muUas caussas, praeler fornicalio- nem, decernere posse separalionem. ilacc Rem- nilius; vului enim ejus verba ponerc, ne queralur ohjociiunem suam non esse lidoliler rccilalara. llespondeo: Tunc soluta est haec objeclio, cum ad priniam respondiinus: falso enim Kemnilius as- 5umil, illa verba Pauli: Si discesscril, manerc in- nuplam, aul viro suo reconciliari, esse accipien- da de illicila discessione, nl ibi ex Auguslino in- violissima demoiistralione docuimus. ilaque falso dicil KemniUus, descrihi I. Corinth. 7. separalio- nein exlra caussam fornicationis, et eam a Paulo improhari. Sed eliamsi boc essot veruin , cxpone- reinus Pauli senlentiam,ut jain Domini scntentiam r.\posuiraus. Quarla objectio: Clirislus Mallli. 5. ideo prohi' bel u.corem diiniUi ejjlra caussam fornicaUonis, quia. cjniinwdi diniissio objicil pcricuUs usUonis, forniraUonis el. adulicrii. Scd dc his pcricuUs l*onUlidinon sunt solUcili: libcre cnim decer- nunl separaiioneni ad ccrlum , incerlumve icntpns. llospondeo: Quando jusla cst dimissio: pcricu- lum fornicalionis, cui obiioilur dimissus, non im- pulatur dimiUenli, qui ulilur jure suo, sed ci, qui dcdit oaussam our dimiltorotur. Nam ccrte qui di- mitlit u.xorera caussa fornicalionis, quia jusle di- milUl, non dicitur ohjicerc uxorcin periculo forni- oalionis,eUamsi illa sic dimissa merolriciain artcra oxeroere iuoipial. Justam autem csse dimissio- noiu, quam Eoclesia dcccrnil, supra prohavimns, (piia esl ooufurmis evangoliu, et reclac ralioni. Nain cum duu imminoant pcricula: Unum cunjugi innooenti, si sinatur hahilarc cura conjugc liaere- lioo, aut iinpelienle ad flagilia;periculura videlicet in haoresim, aul in flagitia lahondi: Alterara con- jugi nooenli, si separclur; periculura scilicet for- nicandi: Koclesia recto judicio censet potius con- sulep.duin innucenli, quam noccnli» el ideo Matri- monia illa diiimit quoad cohabitationera. Quare Puulificii non ideo scparationera deccrnunt, quod de perioulis fornicalionis ct adullerii non sintsol- licili, sed quod inagis soilicili sint de periculis a- liis graviorihus. Ouinla oh\ec[\o:Conlendunt tale debcre esse di- vorU\nn, in quo vincuUun Malrimonii salvmn maneai.Alqui sic PonUficia illa separalione vin- culum conjugii muUis el variis modis solvilur. ISam quid sil vincuhim Blalrimonii, docenl hac senieniiae: El adhaerebit uxori suae; Faciamus ei adjiUorium, quod sil coram ipso; Mulier non habel poicstalcni corporis sui, sed vir\ Ilcrum convcniie, ne icnlel vos Saian;No7i sunt duo.scd ^ma caro; el ipsum Matrimonium definilur indi- vidua vilae consuetudinc.At hacc omniavincula solvit divoriium quoad Ihorwn, et cohabilaiio- ncni', ergo homines separant, quod Deus con- junxit. Respondeo: Tola oljjectio nililur falsa vinculi conjugalis cxplicalionc. Vinculum cnlm conjugalc dicilur mutua quaedara obligalio, quia vir ila effi- citur maritus unius focminae,ut non possit esse al- lerius, illa viveule; el foemina ila efiicitur uxor li- nius viri, ut non possit esse allerius, illo vivenle: Sic enim explicat Apostolus Roman. 7. et 1. Co- rint. 7.Cuhahilalio autem, et societas lccti ac men- sae, d(j quo loquunlur Scripturac aliegatae a Rera- iiilio, nuu vinoulum ipsura eiriciunl, aut sunt, sed cx illo cunsequunlur: alioqai quotiescumque vir, et uxor, eliam jusla de caussa, in diversas reglo- nes ahirent, alquc inter se dislarent, conjugii vin- culum solveretur; quod sane absurdissimum est. Sicut igitur vir, ct uxor, vinculum Malrimonii reti- nent, quando unus in oriente, altera in occidente degil, quia non polest vir alteri foerainae, neque uxur alleri viro sinc adulterio jungi, cum adhuc sint vcri conjuges, licet non cohahitent,ncque sibi invicera adhaercant: ita eliam vinculum conjugi re- lincnt vir ct uxor, per divortium separati, quia ad- huc ille hujus solius foerainae vir, et illa hujUB so- lius viri uxor esl. i\m\ 1'Ri.Mis 809 llla aulem vorba : Qiiod Deus conjunxil, homo non separcl; dc vcro viiiculo inlciligeuda sunl, non de coliabilalionc, aul Iccli coinniunione, nisi velimus conjuges ipsos lolies solvere quod Deus conjunxil, quolics a se inviccm absunl.