Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 16: That Matrimony Is Insoluble as to the Bond Is Proved from the Word of God, Tradition and Reason
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).
We must now prove, then, that the bond of Matrimony contracted and consummated between the faithful is so insoluble that it cannot be broken even for the cause of fornication; and therefore that while the first spouse lives it is never lawful to aspire to other marriages.
Let the first place be that which is in Matthew, chapter 5: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” Those words, “and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery,” are to be taken either universally or with the exception, “unless for fornication.” If universally, then he who marries her that is put away, even for fornication, commits adultery; therefore she had not been put away as to the bond, but only as to bed; for he who marries her would not commit adultery unless she were still bound to her first husband. If with the exception, then he who marries a fornicatress put away by her husband does not commit adultery. Then the condition of the fornicatress is better than that of the innocent and chaste woman; for the fornicatress is free and can marry, but the innocent woman unjustly put away can neither have her first husband nor marry another. But it is most absurd that the most just law of Christ should will the woman justly put away to be in a better place than the woman unjustly put away.
Some answer that that sentence is general, but that the fornicatress cannot marry another, not because the bond of Matrimony is not broken, but because the law forbids her to marry as a penalty of her sin.
But this solution is nothing. For if she were forbidden to marry as a penalty of sin, but yet were truly free and loosed from the bond of the first marriage, she would indeed sin by marrying, and perhaps the Matrimony would be void; but neither she nor he who married her would commit adultery; for there is no adultery except with another's spouse. But the Lord pronounces in express words: “And he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”
The second place is in Mark, chapter 10: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” And like things are had in Luke 16: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.” These words teach universally that Matrimony contracted and consummated between the faithful is never so dissolved that it is lawful to pass to other marriages.
The adversaries answer that these places must be expounded from chapter 19 of Matthew, where the exception of fornication is had. For unless in the words of Mark and Luke we understand “except for the cause of fornication,” Mark and Luke will fight with Matthew; for these are contradictories: “Every one who puts away,” and so on, “commits adultery,” and “Not every one who puts away,” and so on, “commits adultery.” And this latter sentence is gathered from Matthew; for it is the same to say, “Every one who puts away, except for the cause of fornication,” and “Not every one who puts away”; but the former proposition is had in Mark and Luke, unless the same exception is understood.
But on the contrary. For, as we said above in the question on polygamy, the evangelists do sometimes leave out something, or add something, which other evangelists did not leave out or did not add; but they never so leave out that the sentence is made false; for otherwise the evangelists would have deceived the men to whom they delivered their Gospels, no mention being made of the other evangelists.
Certainly when Mark wrote at Rome the Gospel received from the preaching of Peter, he did not send the Romans back to the Gospel of Matthew as to a commentary; nay, if the Gospel of Matthew had then been in the hands of the faithful at Rome, it is credible that Mark would not have written. For Mark did not write to add something to Matthew, which John did afterward, but only that the Romans might have in writing, for the sake of memory, what blessed Peter the apostle had delivered to them by voice alone; for this cause is related by Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 1; Eusebius, book 2 of the History, chapter 15; and Jerome, in the book On Illustrious Men, under Mark.
And the same can be said of Luke, who wrote the Gospel for those nations to whom Paul had preached, and to whom the volumes of Matthew and Mark had not yet come, but only certain false writings of pseudo-evangelists, as he himself briefly indicates at the beginning of the Gospel, and as is gathered more clearly from Ambrose, in the commentary on chapter 1 of Luke, and from Eusebius, book 3 of the History, chapter 24, and Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men, under Luke. It must be, then, that what Mark and Luke say is true absolutely, and does not depend on the words of Matthew; unless we will have those deceived who read Mark or Luke without Matthew.
But you will object that St. Augustine, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 11, says that the place of Matthew is obscure, and that one must be in doubt about it until we come to the other evangelists.
But Augustine does not say that one must be in doubt about what Matthew says, but about what he does not say. For Matthew says that he commits adultery who, having put away his wife outside the cause of fornication, marries another; and this is simply true. But he does not say whether this man only is an adulterer, or also he who, having put away his wife for fornication, marries another; which the other evangelists said most openly. But our adversaries will have us doubt about what Mark and Luke say, whether it is to be taken as it sounds, not about what they do not say. Wherefore the same St. Augustine, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 9, inveighs gravely against those who do not take the words of these evangelists universally, as they sound: “Who are we,” he says, “that we should say, There is one who commits adultery by marrying another when his wife is put away, and there is one who doing this does not commit adultery, when the Gospel says that every one commits adultery who does this?”
And to that objection we answer that there is no contradiction between the evangelists; for that proposition, “Not every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery,” is not found in Matthew, as the adversaries think. For these are the words of Matthew: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery”; from which it ought not to be inferred, “Therefore not every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery.”
But why this ought not to be inferred, since it plainly seems to follow, many causes are usually given. Durandus, on book 4, distinction 35, question 2, to the last, says that Christ speaks in Matthew presupposing the old law, which commanded adulteresses to be killed; for this law being kept, it was lawful in the case of fornication to put away a wife and take another, because, namely, on account of the adulteress's extreme punishment the bond of marriage was broken.
This solution does not satisfy me. First, because the Lord gave the law not to the Jews only but also to Christians; and the law of the Gospel does not command adulterers to be killed; nay, John 8, the Lord freed the adulteress from death. Nor was Christ ignorant that there would be various laws of princes in his Church, by which adulterers would sometimes be killed and sometimes not; wherefore it is not credible that Christ spoke presupposing the law about killing adulterers.
Moreover, if it were so, the sentence of Christ would be very imperfect. For the death of the adulteress could be hindered in many ways: either because she fled into another region, or because the adultery could not be proved by two witnesses, even if it was well known to the husband. What then would be done according to the teaching of Christ?
Add that to hand over a wife to be stoned is not properly to put her away and take another; for she who is killed is not put away, nor is another said to be taken, the first being put away, when the first is not living.
Lastly, there could be no question whether it was lawful, the wife being stoned for adultery, to take another; there was no more need, then, to except the cause of fornication than the cause of death.
This solution being passed over, then, some say that the word “committeth adultery” is to be referred separately to each part of the sentence, in this way: Whosoever shall put away his wife, unless for fornication, commits adultery; and he who marries another commits adultery. For he commits adultery twice who marries a wife when the first is put away outside the case of fornication: once by the adultery of the wife, of which he was the cause through the unjust putting away; and once by his own adultery, through joining a new wife while the first lives.
And Theophylact briefly indicates this solution, on chapter 19 of Matthew, where he says the sense of this place is that he who puts away his wife outside the cause of fornication commits adultery, that is, is the author to her that she commit adultery. And Augustine had taught the same before, in the book against Adimantus, chapter 3, where he relates this place of Matthew 19 thus: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, maketh her to commit adultery; and he who marries another commits adultery.” And this solution is very conformable to the words of the same Matthew, chapter 5, where he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.” It seems, then, that in Matthew 19, to that sentence, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,” the word “committeth adultery” is to be referred in that sense, that is, “maketh her to commit adultery.”
Others say, and no less probably, that that “except it be for fornication” belongs only to the putting away with which it is immediately joined, and is to be pronounced as a parenthesis, and something understood, in this way: Whosoever shall put away his wife (which is not lawful except for fornication) and shall marry another, commits adultery. And certainly not without cause did the Lord not add that exception after those words, “and shall marry another,” but immediately after those words, “Whosoever shall put away”; and likewise not rashly did the Lord, both in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, when he added, “And he that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery,” not add “except for fornication”: namely to show that the cause of fornication makes only the putting away lawful, not the celebration of a new marriage. This seems to me the opinion of St. Thomas, on book 4, distinction 35, the only question, article 5, to the last; and Jerome obscurely indicates the same in the commentary on this place.
There are other explanations too, less probable, which the Abulensis, Alphonsus de Castro and others devised. But the best is St. Augustine's, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 9, where he teaches that Matthew, or rather the Lord in Matthew, took that “except it be for fornication” negatively, not exceptively; so that the sense is: Whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, that is, outside the cause of fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery. By which the adultery is indeed affirmed of him who, having put away his wife outside the cause of fornication, marries another; but nothing is said of him who marries another, the first having been put away for fornication.
But against this the adversaries press, and most of all Cajetan and Catharinus: if this is the sense of the Lord, then that “except it be for fornication” is added in vain and superfluously; for the Lord could have said generally, and more easily: Every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery.
I answer: nay, the Lord spoke so by divine prudence; for the place and time required it. For the Lord in that place was answering the Pharisees, who had come prepared to tempt him and catch him in his speech; and because they had already heard that he had disputed on the mount against the bill of divorce granted by Moses in the law, and in consequence also against polygamy, they asked him whether it was lawful to put away a wife for every cause, namely to drive him by that question to pronounce something openly against the law and the examples of the Fathers. Wherefore the Lord, when he saw that his hearers were incapable, answered them precisely to what was asked. They had asked whether it was lawful to put away a wife, namely as to the bond, for every cause; the Lord answered that it was not lawful for every cause; and this he proved because it is not lawful to put away one who is not a fornicatress and take another, which was so clearly true that it could in no way be denied. But whether it is lawful to put away a fornicatress as to the bond and take another, the Lord would not then say openly, because this was too high to be taken in by them then. Although from what the Lord had said about the first origin of the institution of Matrimony this too could easily be understood; but lest the Lord should give them a handle for slandering his words, he willed that they should gather it by themselves, as he did in the parable of the vineyard, and often elsewhere. And yet at home a little after (as Mark writes, chapter 10) he pronounced openly that every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. You see, then, how the words of the Lord contain nothing superfluous, nor do the words of the different evangelists fight among themselves.
Only one thing could be objected against this exposition: namely, that if we so expound it, we shall not have from this place that divorce as to bed is lawful for the fornication of the other spouse. But this matters little; for to establish this dogma the testimony of Matthew, chapter 5, suffices.
The third place is had in the letter to the Romans, chapter 7: “Know you not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man as long as it liveth? For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man: but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband; so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man.” And a like place is had in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7.
From these places we gather that the conjugal bond is never loosed except by death; and because it is not loosed, that it remains even after a divorce made for whatever cause. Which argument St. Augustine made so much of that, in book 2 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 4, he cried out: “These words of the Apostle, so often repeated, so often pressed home, are true, are living, are sound, are plain. A woman does not begin to be the wife of any later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of the former; and she will cease to be the wife of the former if her husband dies, not if he commits fornication. A spouse, then, is lawfully put away for the cause of fornication, but the bond of the former remains; on account of which he becomes guilty of adultery who marries her that was put away, even for the cause of fornication.” So he.
But Cajetan answers that the words of the Apostle are to be taken as a rule, not in every case; so that the sense is: the bond of husband with wife ordinarily and as a rule, namely unless it is loosed from some other source, lasts until death, and then at length is loosed. Erasmus, Calvin, Martyr and Bucer answer almost the same on these places; and especially Peter Martyr will have the exception understood, “except for fornication,” which is had in the Gospel. And Chemnitz teaches likewise, in the second part of the Examination, page 1257.
And this can be proved, first, because Paul says, “I speak to them that know the law”; but the law permitted a bill of divorce in certain cases, and so according to the law death was waited for to break the conjugal bond as a rule, but not always. Second, because Paul says, “the woman that hath an husband,” and does not say simply “wife.” Wherefore he speaks only of her who has not yet been divorced but still lives with her husband. Third, the Apostle seems not so much to contend that the bond remains until death as that it does not last after death; for he desires only to show this, that after the death of a spouse the other spouse is free, whether the bond remained until death or did not remain. Add lastly that, since this is a certain likeness, it is not necessary that it agree in all things.
But that this exposition is false is testified, first, by the words themselves, which, as Augustine rightly says, are plain. For what is plainer than this: “Whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man”? Romans 7. “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth”? 1 Corinthians 7. And certainly it would be a wonder that the Apostle never added the exception, if it were to be added, since he repeated and pressed these things so often.
Then the interpreters testify it: Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Primasius, Anselm and others, on both places of Paul; and besides Origen on chapter 19 of Matthew, Augustine in the place cited, and Jerome in the letter to Amandus, where, asked whether it was lawful for a woman who had put away an adulterous husband to marry another, he answered that it was not lawful, because of these places of Paul, which (as he says) exclude every excuse.
Lastly the reason of the likeness which Paul brings in that place testifies the same. For he wished to prove that the old law bound until Christ, but binds no longer; and to prove this he uses a likeness drawn from Matrimony. For as husband and wife are bound to one another so long as until one of them, or both, dies, so also men are subject to the law so long as until either the law itself is abrogated, and so in a manner dies, or men, carried over into another state, are exempted from the law, and in that way die to the law. And through the death of Christ both were done: for the law was abrogated, and we, carried over into the state of sons of God, died to that old law, which was of servants.
Where in passing it is to be noted that the law is compared to the husband, as Chrysostom expounds, and man to the wife, because as the husband rules the wife, not the wife the husband, so the law rules the man to whom it was given, not the man the law. And although the Apostle ought to have concluded that men are free from the law because the law is dead, as he says that the wife is freed when the husband dies, yet, lest he should offend the Jews, he preferred to invert the conclusion and say that we are dead rather than that the law is dead; although he could have said both, and it is all one to the matter in hand whether the husband, or the wife, or both die.
Further, this likeness of blessed Paul altogether requires that husband and wife can be freed from the bond of marriage by no divorce or repudiation, but by death alone. For as long as the old law was in force, the Jews could never shake its yoke from themselves, even if they tried to give it a bill of divorce and to make a divorce from it by committing fornication with the various laws of false gods; therefore in the same way, as long as the husband lives, the wife can never be freed from the bond of marriage, though she commit fornication with many other men.
Nor do the arguments to the contrary conclude. To the first I answer: that “I speak to them that know the law” is expounded by Theodoret and Ambrose of the law of nature, or of the Gospel, not of the old law; so that the sense is: I speak to skilled men, who know well the nature of law and of marriage, and so on.
And moreover, either repudiation in the old law truly loosed the bond of marriage or it did not loose it (for there is controversy among the doctors). If it did not loose it, and was only permitted as a lesser evil, not as lawful, as the more common opinion of the doctors holds, which Calvin and Beza also follow on chapter 19 of Matthew, then it matters little of which law Paul speaks, as is plain. But if it loosed the bond, and was permitted as lawful, then the place of Paul cannot be understood of the law of Moses, because what Paul says would be false: “Whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man”; for she who was with another man while her husband lived would not be called an adulteress, if repudiation was lawful and dissolved the bond of marriage.
To the second I answer: that “the woman that hath an husband” signifies simply a married woman; which name fits a woman after divorce no less than before divorce, if divorce does not loose the bond, as we contend. And this is clear both from the general conclusion which the Apostle draws, “Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress,” and so on (for he did not say, “Therefore while she is under a husband,” or “while she is not repudiated,” but “while her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man”), and from 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul says in general, “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth.”
To the third I answer: Paul meant to show not only that the bond of marriage does not last after death, but also that it lasts the whole time of the life of the other spouse. For that it does not last after death was most plain, nor would there have been need, to persuade of it, to allege the law and say, “I speak to them that know the law.”
Moreover, the conclusion intended by the Apostle was not only that Christians are not bound to the law of Moses, but also that they are bound not to receive any other; just as the Hebrews too were bound to keep the law of Moses the whole time that it lived, nor could they on any pretext desert it until it died by abrogation, or they died to it by being carried over into another state, as we said.
To the last I answer: like things need not indeed be alike in all things; yet they must be alike in that in which the force of the argument drawn from that likeness lies. And the force of Paul's argument requires that, as the bond of the law can in no way be broken, whatever transgression comes between, as long as that law lives, so the bond of marriage should persevere, whatever fornication comes between, as long as the husband or wife lives.
Add that in 1 Corinthians 7 it is pronounced not by way of a parable, to illustrate something, but absolutely: “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will,” and so on.
The fourth place is in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7: “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” Which place we treated in the preceding question, on divorce as to bed.
And we have from here an argument plainly insoluble. For either the woman of whom it is said, “And if she depart,” and so on, departed for a just cause of divorce, such as fornication and heresy, and whatever other there may be; or without some such cause. This latter cannot be said; for Paul would not say of such a woman, “Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband,” but would say, “Let her remain unmarried until she be reconciled to her husband,” and let her return altogether to her husband; for Paul could not permit an unjust divorce against the express precept of the Lord. And if in the same chapter Paul does not permit spouses to abstain from carnal intercourse for prayer, and for a time, except by consent, how would he permit a wife, against her husband's will, without any cause of just divorce, to remain separated from her husband? He speaks, then, without any doubt of the woman who departed for some just cause of divorce. But she cannot marry another, as Paul most openly says; therefore even a just cause of divorce does not loose the bond of marriage, nor is it lawful for spouses separated by a just divorce to pass to other marriages.
There is only one thing which could be objected, which was also objected by Erasmus. For the Apostle seems to speak of an adulterous woman who departs from her husband not of her own accord but cast out by him; for this seems to be signified when it is said, “or be reconciled to her husband”; for to be reconciled belongs properly to the guilty, who through reconciliation return into favor with those whom they have offended. But if Paul treats of an adulteress, it is no wonder if he wills her to remain unmarried; for second marriages are granted only to the innocent party.
But it can in no way be defended that Paul speaks of an adulterous and cast-out woman. For when the woman is commanded not to depart from her husband, she is commanded not to be herself the author of the divorce, not to desert her husband; not that she be not cast out and depart under compulsion. For that is commanded which is in the power of him to whom it is commanded; but it is not in the power of the woman not to be cast out, nor can she, when her husband expels her, not depart.
Then a little after the Apostle says, “And let not the husband put away his wife”; which would be altogether the same as the former precept, and so superfluous, if for the woman to depart from the husband were nothing else than to be cast out and put away by the husband.
Lastly, if the Apostle spoke only of an adulteress put away, he would hand down a very imperfect teaching; for it could still be asked what a woman is to do who is separated from her husband on account of her husband's adultery, not on account of her own fault. Paul therefore speaks generally of every woman who is the author of a just divorce. And he says, “Let the woman not depart,” but does not say, “Let the woman not put away her husband,” as he afterward says, “Let not the husband put away his wife”: because ordinarily the wife is in the husband's house, and therefore makes a divorce by departing from him, not by casting him out of the house; on the contrary the husband, because he is in his own house, makes a divorce by putting away, not by withdrawing.
And what is objected about the word “to be reconciled,” which Chemnitz also noted, page 1259, to prove that the wife departed through her own fault, has no force. For both he who has hurt and he who has been hurt are said to be reconciled; for those are properly reconciled who have been estranged. Whence Marcus Tullius Cicero, book 1, letter 2, to Lentulus, says that the will of the senate has been reconciled, which yet had been estranged from Lentulus not by its own fault but by that of others. And in this sense God is said to be reconciled to men, 2 Machabees 1: “May he hear your prayers, and be reconciled unto you”; and chapter 7: “He will be reconciled again with his servants”; and that of Matthew 5, “Be reconciled to thy brother,” Chrysostom expounds whether the brother says justly or unjustly that he has been offended.
The same truth can be proved, second, from tradition: for testimonies of the Fathers are extant in every age. And first, in the first century, we have the testimony of Clement, in the canons of the apostles, canon 48, where it is commanded without any exception that he be excommunicated who, having put away his wife, takes another.
Then in the second century, that is, after the year of the Lord 100, we have the testimonies of Justin and Athenagoras. Each, in the apology for the Christians to the emperor Antoninus, lays down among the Christian doctrines that it is adultery if anyone marries a woman put away by another; and Athenagoras adds also that if anyone, the first being put away, takes another, it is not marriage but adultery. In the same century Clement of Alexandria, at the end of book 2 of the Stromata: “Scripture,” he says, “judges it adultery to be joined in Matrimony while one of those separated is alive”; and a little before he had said that separation cannot be made except for fornication.
In the third century, after the year of the Lord 200, Tertullian, book 4 against Marcion, past the middle, answers Marcion, who objected that Christ was contrary to Moses because he forbade divorce which Moses had granted, in these words: “I say that he made the prohibition of divorce here conditionally: if anyone puts away his wife for this, that he may take another,” and so on; where he teaches that Christ did not forbid divorce if a just cause is present, but forbade another marriage after divorce. In the same century Origen, tract 7 on Matthew, explaining chapter 19, says that certain bishops permitted a woman to marry while her first husband lived, and adds: “They did it against the Scripture.”
In the fourth century, after the year of the Lord 300, in the Council of Elvira, canon 9: a woman who on account of her husband's adultery married another is not received to Communion except after the death of her first husband; from which we understand that that Matrimony was judged unlawful, even on the part of the innocent, and in the case of adultery. In the same century St. Ambrose, on chapter 16 of Luke, writes much against those who, having put away their wife, marry another, and everywhere calls that marriage adultery; nor in that whole disputation does he ever except the cause of fornication. St. Jerome likewise, a contemporary of Ambrose, in the letter to Oceanus on the death of Fabiola, writes that Fabiola, having put away a husband not only adulterous but covered with all crimes, married another; but he adds that she did it because she did not know the rigor of the Gospel; and in the same place he writes that after the death of her second husband she performed with the greatest humility the public penance imposed on her by the bishop. From which we understand that at that time it was held a public crime in the Catholic Church if anyone, while the spouse lived, passed to other marriages, even for the cause of fornication. The same Jerome, in the letter to Amandus, asked about this very question, answered simply that it is unlawful, even for the cause of fornication, to pass to other marriages while the spouse lives. In the same century St. John Chrysostom, homily 17 on Matthew, explaining chapter 5, teaches the same.
In the fifth century, after the year of the Lord 400, the Council of Milevis, canon 17, defined according to the teaching of the Gospel and the apostles that it is never lawful, while the spouse lives, to pass to other marriages; and the same is had in the African Council, canon 69. In the same century Innocent I, in letter 3 to Exuperius, canon 6, asked whether, a divorce coming between, it was lawful to enter another marriage, answered that it is in no way lawful, but that both are adulterers, husband as well as wife, if after divorce they pass to other marriages. At the same time St. Augustine taught this expressly, both in the two books On Adulterous Marriages and in the book On the Good of Marriage.
In the sixth century, after the year of the Lord 500, Primasius, in the commentary on chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians, on that “If she depart, that she remain unmarried,” has the same.
In the seventh century, after the year of the Lord 600, Isidore teaches the same, book 2 On the Divine Offices, chapter 19.
In the eighth century, after the year of the Lord 700, Bede affirms the same, on chapter 10 of Mark.
In the ninth century, after the year of the Lord 800, the Council of Friuli, canon 10, defined the same most openly; and in the same century Theophylact, on chapter 19 of Matthew and on chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians.
In the tenth century, after the year of the Lord 900, the Council of Nantes, which is believed to have been celebrated under the emperor Arnulf, canon 12, declared the same.
In the eleventh century, after the year 1000, Anselm has the same, on chapter 5 and chapter 19 of Matthew.
In the twelfth century, after the year 1100, Pope Alexander III defined the same, in the chapter Ex parte, on espousals and marriages.
In the thirteenth century, after the year 1200, Innocent III defined the same, in the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces; and in the same century all the theologians taught the same who wrote on distinction 33 of the fourth of the Sentences, as St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and others.
In the fourteenth century, after the year 1300, very many Scholastic doctors, Scotus, Durandus and others.
In the fifteenth century, after the year 1400, the Council of Florence decreed the same, in the instruction of the Armenians; which it is certainly a wonder that Cajetan and Catharinus did not notice.
In the sixteenth century, lastly, after the year 1500, the Council of Trent defined the same, session 24, canon 7.
Let there be added last an argument sought from reason. First: the Matrimony of the faithful is a sign of the joining of Christ with the Church, as the Apostle teaches, chapter 5 to the Ephesians. But that union is indissoluble; therefore the conjugal bond too is indissoluble. And although the whole Church together cannot commit fornication from God, yet some parts of the Church, namely some of the faithful, sometimes commit fornication spiritually and make a divorce; but it is not therefore lawful for them to change their God, nor does God so cast them off that he will not be reconciled; nay, he always exhorts them to reconciliation. Such, then, must the marriage of Christians be, that no such divorce is ever made without the hope of reconciliation remaining. And this reason drawn from the sacrament Augustine presses greatly, in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapters 7, 13, 18 and 24.
Second: if another Matrimony were lawful, injury would be done to the offspring; for the children already born would be ill provided for, who would begin to have a stepfather for a father and a stepmother for a mother. And this is the reason of St. Ambrose, on chapter 16 of Luke, where he also says that for the children's sake the father ought to pardon the mother's fault.
Third: if such a marriage were lawful while the other spouse lived, a door would be opened to infinite repudiations, even unjust ones. For now, because the faithful know that they must either live unmarried or be reconciled to the first spouse, they are not easily led to divorce; but if they knew that, the wife being repudiated, another could presently be taken, divorces would be made most easily, and they would sometimes seek occasions of disagreements and crimes, and so on. And Jerome touches this reason, on chapter 19 of Matthew, where he writes that because there was danger lest husbands, from desire of another marriage, should build a slander against the first wife, the Lord therefore willed a wife to be put away for fornication in such a way that yet, while she lived, it was not lawful to take another.
Fourth: if after divorce in the case of fornication it were lawful for the innocent party to enter another Matrimony, either it would be lawful for the guilty too, or it would not. If it were lawful, then the adulterer would carry off an advantage from his sin; and husbands too would often commit adultery on purpose, that they might be freed from their wife and take another wife. If it were not lawful, I ask first, why? For since that person is loosed from the bond of the first marriage (for the innocent party could not enter another Matrimony unless the bond of the first were broken), and does injury to no one, why can he not contract Matrimony?
You will say: because the law forbids. But where is the law forbidding? For there is no law extant, so far as I know, which grants marriage to the innocent alone. Then, why would the law forbid a man to marry who is loosed, and prone to vices, when there remains no longer any hope of reconciliation with the first spouse? By a divine, most prudent and most just judgement, therefore, Christ decreed that marriage must be altogether indissoluble as to the bond.
Add last that even among the heathens, where the discipline of morals was in force, no repudiations were made. For Tertullian writes, in the Apology, chapter 6, that at Rome for about six hundred years from the founding of the city no repudiation was written; but afterward, discipline being overthrown, repudiations too were brought in with other vices.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUV XVI.
iMalrimonium insoluhilc csse quoad vinculum,
prohalur cx vcrho Dci, tradilione cl rationc.
Probandum igilur jam nobis csl. Matrimonii in-
tor fidelcs ccntracti et consummali vinculum adoo
csse insolubile, ul ncque caussa fornicationis di-
rimi possil; et idco vivente priorc conjuge num-
«lUMn essc licitum ad alias nupiias aspirare.
Primus locus sii ille, qui est apud 3Ialth. cap.
j. Omnis qui dimiserit iiocoreni suam. cxcepta
fornicationis caussa, facit eam moechari, et qui
dimissam diixerit, adultcrat. Vcrba illa: Et qui
dimissam duxcrit aduli.crat vcl universc accipi-
cnda sunt, vel cum exceptionc. nisi ob fornicatio-
nem. Si universe.ergo qui diraissam duxerit.etiam
ob fornicalionem, moecholur; ergo non fuerat di-
missa quoad vinculum. sed soium quoad thorum:
non enim moecharciur qui illam ducit, nisi adhuc
csscl priori viro alligala. Si cum cxcepiionc, crgo
qui fornicariain a viro dimissam duxcrii, non moe-
chatur. Ergo melior est condilio fornicariac,quam
innocentis ct casiae; nam fornicaria libera est, el
nubere potesl; innoccns autem injuslc dimissa.nec
priorem virura haberc potest, nec alieri nubcrc.
.\tqui hoc absurdissimuiT) esl, ul lex Christi justis-
sima dimissam juste meliori loco essc velil, quam
dimissam injuste,
Respondent aliqui: Scnieniiam illam esse gene-
ralcra. sed fornicariam non posse nubere alleri;
nou qiiod non sil diromptum vinciilum .M.itriiiui-
nii. sod quia in poenam peccati lcx pruhibel illam
nubere.
Scd haoc snlulio milla csi.Si cnim prohiberctur
nu!)crc in |)oenam peccali, scd vcrc taincn libeia
essol. ao, soliila viiuMiIis prioris conjugii, peccarot
quidom nubondo. ci forlo .Matrimouium csset irri-
tum. scd non moochareiur noquo ipsa, ncqiic (^ui
cain (luccrei: non cnim csi adullcriiim , nisi ciim
conjuge alicrius. Dominus autem discrlis vorhis
pronuncial: El qiii dimis^am duxcril, adullcrdl.
Socundus locus cst apud .Marcum, cap. 10. Qui-
cumqnc dimiscrit nxorcm suam ctaliamduxc-
rit, aduUcrium commillit supcr cam: etsinxor
dimiscritvirumsuum, clalii nupscrit, mocclia-
/(n*. Et similia h:iI)Ciitur Luc. 10. Omnis qui di-
niiltit uxorcm suam, et allcram ducit , moeclia-
lur, ct quidimissam a viro ducil, moechalur.
Hacc verba uuiversaliler doccnl nuraquain ila dis-
solvi Malrimonium inter fidclcs coniracium el coii-
summalum, ut liccat ad alias nuptias Iransirc.
Respondenl advcrsarii: Loca isia debcre cxponi
cx cap. 10. Maiih. ubi habetur exceplio fornicalio-
nis. Nam nisi inverbis Marci et Lucae, subinlelli-
gamus, exccpla caussa fornicalionis , pugnabunt
Marcus el Lucas cum Matthaco: ista enim conira-
diccnlia sunt: Omnis qui dimiserit Qtc. moccha-
/ur; ct. ^on omnis qui dimisorii elc. raoechatur.
Ista aulera posterior scnlcntia cx Matthaeo colligi-
iur; idem enim cst diccre: Omnis qui dimiserit ,
cxccpla fornicalionis caussa: et, Non omnis qui
dimiscrit: prior vero proposilio apud Marcum ct
Lucam habelur, nisi subinlelligaiur eadem exce-
piio.
At conlra. Nam ut supra dixiraus in quaesliono
dc polygamia, evangclistae omitlunl quidcm inlcr-
dum aiiquid, aut addunl , quod alii evangelislae
non oraiserunt, aul non addiderunt, sed numquam
ila omillunl, ut senlentia reddatur falsa; nam alio-
qui evangolistae homines deccpisscnt , quibus e-
vangcliasua iradiderunl, nuUa menilone facia a-
liorum evangelislarum.
Cerie quando Marcus Romac scripsit evange-
lium cx praedicalione Pctri acceptum. non remisit
Romanos ad cvangelium 3Ialthaei tamquam ad com-
menlnrium: immo si tunc Romae Matthaei evange-
lium in manibus fidelium fuissct.crcdibilc csl Mar-
cum scriplurura non fuisse. Non enim scripsit
Marcus, ut Malihaeo aliquid adderet , quod postea
fecit Joannes,sed tanlum ul haberenl Romani scri-
ptum, memoriac caussa. quod sola voce b. Pelrus
apostolus illis tradidcrat: hanc enim caussam re-
ferunl Irenneus lih. 3. cap. 1. Eusebius lib. 2. hi-
slor. cap. 1j. ct Ilicronyraus in lib. dc viris illu-
stribus in Marco.
Alquc idcm dici potest de Luca, qui evangelium
scripsit his gentibus, quibus praedicaverat Paulus,
et ad quos liondum pervenerant Matlhaei el Marci
volumina: sed tantum falsa quaedam scripta pseu-
doevangclistarum, ul ipse breviter indical iu prin- j
cipio evangelii, et clanus coiligitur ex Ambrosio ,
in commeniar. 1. cap. Lucac, et ex Eusebio lib. 3.
hisior. cap. 2^. et Ilieronymus in libro de viris il-
luslribus in Luca. Oporlci igitur vera esse absolu-
l.lUEi; PUIMUS
811
lc.quac M aroiis cl Lucas dicunl, ncquc pcndcrc a
vcrbis Mallhaci, nisi vcliiiius dcccplos luissc cos ,
qui sine Maltl)aco, 3Iarcum aut Lucain lcgcbaiil.
Scd objicics: Quia s. Auguslinus lib. 1. dc adul-
terinis conjug. cap. 11. dicit locum Mallliaei cssc
obscurum, cl csse ainbigcndum dc co, doncc ve-
iiiamus ad alios cvangclislas.
Ad Auguslinus non dicil ambigcndum de co quod
Mallbacus dicit,scd dc co (|uod non diciUIattliacus
cnim dicil cum moccliari, qui cxlra caussam lorni-
calionis uxorc dimissa, aliaiu ducil:ct iioc csl sim-
plicitcr verum. Sed non dicit, aii liic lanluin sit
mocclius, an cliain is, qui diiuissa uxorc ob lorni-
cationem, aliain ducil: id (|uod alii cvaugclislac di-
xcrunt aperlissimc. Advcrsarii aulcm nostri volunt
nos ambigerc dc co, quod Marcus ct Lucas dicuiil,
aii sit accipicndum ut sooat, non dc co quod noii
dicunt. Ouarc idcm s. Augustiuus lib. 1. (Jc iidiil-
lcrinis conjugiis, cap. 0. graviter invehitur in eos,
(]ui horuni evangclislarum vciba non accipiunt u-
nivcrsalitcr, utsonanl: Qiii suiiius, inquit, nos,ul
dicamus. esl qui vioeclKilur, vxorc diniissa, al-
leram ducens cl esl quilioc faciens non inecha-
lur. eam evancjclium dical omncm mocchari qui
hoc facil.
Ad objectionem aulcm iliam rcspondcinus, non
essc repugnantiam intcr evangelistas ; illa cniin
propositio:Non omnis qui diiiiiltil uxorcm, el aliam
ducil, moccbatur, non invcnilur apud Mattbeum,
ul adversarii exislimant. Illa enim sunt verba Mal-
Ibaei : Quicumquc dimiseril uxorem suam, nisi
ob fornicationem , el aliam duxeril, nioechaiur;
ex quibus non debct inlcrri, Ergo non omnis, qui
dimiscrit uxorcm, claliam duxcril moechalur.
Cur autem id non debcat infcrri, cuiu planc sc-
«lui vidcatur, niullae caussae reddi solcnt. Duran-
dus in 4- dist. Xi. quacst. 2. ad ultimum , dicit ,
Christum loqui apud Mallhaeum praosup|)osita le-
gc vctcri, (luacjubcbat adultcras occidi; liac cuim
lege servata, licebal in caussa fornicationis uxo-
rem diuiittcro et aliain diiccro, cpiia niiiiirum pro-
ptcr adullcrac supiilicium cxlrcmum , diriuicbatur
vinculum conjugii.
Non probaliir milii liaec solutio. Primo.(piia Do-
nrmus non tr.ididit IcgiMii solis Judacis , scd ctiam
Chiisl aiiis: non jubcl lcx cvaugclica adultcros oc-
cidcre, immo .loan.S. Dominus adultcram libcravil
a mnrl(M\cc ignoialial Christiis.iii Kcdesia siia va-
I ias fuissc futuras Icgcs principum, qiiibus iiitcr-
dum occidcrcntiir, intcrdum non occidcrcntur ad-
ultcri; quarcnon cst crc^bbib^ Christum cssc lo-
(piutum pracsupposila lcgc dc occidciulis adul-
lcris.
Praelerea:Si ila cssel,Chrisli sontonlia cssel val-
dc iiupcrh:cta. N.im poluit miiltis modis iiii|)('(liri
uiors adultcrac,aut (piia lii^^crct in aliiiiii rcgioiicni,
auL (pjia noii posbcl probari tcstibiis diiobus .'idui-
lcrium, etiamsi viro explonilnm csscl; quid (srgo
luric licrcl sccunduin Chn.sli doclrinam?
A(l(Je,(iiiod tr.idcrc uxorcin Iiipid.iiidiim, non esl
proprio iliam dimitterc cl duccrc ali;ini: non cnim
ilimittilur (pii occiditur,iic(pic dicilur ;ilia duci prio-
rr diinissa, (luando prior uou vivil.
Ociiiquc non potcnil cssc (|uaoslio, an liccrcl
u.xorc lapidala ob adulterium. nliam ducerc: non
igilur oporlcbat magis cxcipcrc caussani fornica-
lionis, quam caussam morlis.
ILic crgo sotutionc omissa,aliqui dicunt vcrbuni
Moechalur, refcrcndum csse divisim ad ulramquc
p;irlciu scntcntiac, boc modo: Quicumquc dimise-
rit uxorcm suam nisi ob Ibruicalioiicm, mocchalur,
ct qui aliam duxcrit,moccIi;ilur: bis cniin mocclui-
tur, qui uxorcm ducit priore dimissa, cxlra casum
foruicalioiiis,scmcI quidcin. jidullorio uxoris, cu-
jus ipsc caussa fuit pcr injusliiiu dimissioncm; cl
scmcl,aduIterio proprio, pcr iiovac iixoris vivcntc
priore conjunctioncm.
Lt lianc solutioncm idioiil brt vilcr Tlicopliyla-
clus in cap, 19.Miilthaci,ubi dicit scnlculiam hujus
loci cssc, (juod qui dimittit uxorcm cxlra caussam
lornicationis, mocchalur, idesl. auctor cst illi iii
mocchelur. Et iilcin iinic docucnit Aiigusliuus lib.
coiilra Adimantum c;ip. 3. ubi sic cnarral locum
istum Miillh. I!). Quicumqne dimiscril uxorem,
nisi ob furnicalionein, facit eam movchari,«>t qui
aliam duxerit.nioecho tur. V^s\quQ liacc solulio viil-
dc conformis cjusdcm Mallbaci vcrbis cap. o. ubi
ait: Quicumquc dimiserit ^ixorem suam, nisiob
fornicationem, facit cam moechari. Vidclur igi-
lur Matth. 19. ad candcm scnlcnliam: Quicumque
dimiseril uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationcm,
rclcrcndum essc vcrbum,if/(;ec/miur,in illo scnsu,
idcsl, facit eam moecbari.
Alii dicunt, ncc minus probabililer, illud: Msi
ob fornicationem. non pertincrc nisi ad dimissio-
iicin,cum qua immcdiatc conjungilur, cl cssc j^or
parcnlhcsim pronnnciandum, el ali(piid subinlcl-
ligondum.hoc modo: Quicumqiic dimiscrit uxorciii
((]uod non liccl, nisi ob fornicalioncm) ct ali;im
duxcril,rno(^ch;ilur.Et ccrte non sinc caussa Doiiii-
niis non adjccit illam cxceptioiiom posl illa vcrb;i:
El aliam duxcrit, scd immodiate posl illa: Qui-
cumquc dimiserit^nf^A] simiiilor iion tcuiorc Domi-
niis tiim M;illh. .>. tum Mattli. 19. cum iiiljunxil:/>7
qui dimissam duxerit,moeclialur.\)on addit: ]\isi
ob fornicationem, ut nimirum indiciirct. causs^mi
foriiicationis solaiii dimissioiiem licihim facere.nou
autoin iiovi coiijugii cclobr;itioncin. Ilaoc mihi vi-
doliir s. Tlioniiic sontcnti;io iii i. disl. Xi. (pi;icst.
unica ;irt. .">. ;id ullim. ct c;iudcm obscurc subiudi-
cat llicron. in Coinmcnl. Iiujusloci.
SiiiU ct ;ili;ie explir;ilionos luiiius i)rob;ibilcs,
quas Ahulcnsis, Alphousus dc Caslro, ct ;ilii c\-
cogit;irunl: Scd optim;i cst s. Augiistini lil). 1. (h;
a(Iiiii(!rinis conjugiis^cjip. 9. ubi dorcl Miillluicuiii,
vol polius DomiiKim apiid M;itlh;ioum, ^icccpissc
illiid: iMsi ob fornicalioncm. n(!g;itivc, uon cxo(>-
plivc: ul scnsus sil,Quicuinquc (iimiscril uxorcm,
iiisi ob fornic;itionom. idosl, c\tr:i o;iiiss;iiii foriii-
o;itionis,(U ;ili;iiii diixorit, moccluitur. lv\ qiio allir-
malur (]ui(loiii ;idultoriuiu cjus, (]ui uxore dimissii
cxlr;i causs;im forniciitionis aluiiii duxcrit: scd
iiihil (licitiir (\(' co,qui duxoril ;ili;im pnqiric diniis-
s 1 ob foriiic;ilioncm.
At conlr;i insl;inl advcrsarii.cl maxime Cajctanus
ot C;illi;iriiius. Si ist;i csl siMilcntiii Doiiiini. orgo
frustr;i ct supcrvac;incc additur illud: iMsi ob for-
nicationem; polcral cnim Dominus gcncralini, ci
812
ItK SACIIA.MIMO .MAIlil.Md.MI
faiiliiis iliciMi": Oiniiis (|iii (liiiiisoril uxoi-lmh, r\ ;i-
li;im (lii\oril: moocluiUir.
K.<s|)on(kH): Imnio ilivin;i prii(l(Mili;i Dominiis ila
lo(|iuiios esl;i(J cniin posliiliilmnl locns el lonipns.
i\;im Dominus in oo loco rospon(lol):il |)lKiris;iois,
qui vononiul p;ir;ili,ul ouui lonl;iroul,ol iii scrmoiK;
t;ipcrcnl; el quiu jiiin ;uuiior;iul, cum in uioiilc
quatiliim disscruissc conlrii libolluiu r(>puiiii ;i Moy-
sc iu lo^o couscssum.ol cunscquculcr cliam conlra
polyjjamiam, inlcrroi^avcruul cnm, an liccrol uxo-
roui (liiuilloro quacumquo o.\ c;uissa, ul nimirum.
ea inloro^Mlioue impcllcrciil onui ad prouuiioian-
ciuiii ;iliiiuiil aporli coulra Ic-^^om ol e.xcmpla l'a-
Iruiu. nuaro Dominus cuni vidorcl autiilorcs inca-
paoos cssc: rcspoudil cis priiocisc ad inlcrrogala.
Quacsioriinl illi. an liccrcl uxorcm dimillcrc, ni-
uiirum (pioad viuculum, quiicumque cx caussa;
rcspondilDuminus.non licoro (luaouinquc cx caus-
sa:id(iuo probiivil.quia nou licol diinillcrc uon for-
nicariam ol aliam duccrc, id quod lam porspicuc
voruni cral.ul nullo niodo ncgari posscl.Ulrum au-
loiii liooal diinillorc fornicariam quoad vinculum cl
iiliaui ducorc, Dominus luiic apcrlc dicore noluil,
(juia lioc allius cral. ul ab cis tunc capi posscl.
Quamquam cx iis, quac Doniinus dixoral dc prima
origiuo insliluli Malrimouii. facile polcral lioc cl-
ii.iu iulclligi, scd ne darel iilis Dominus ansam ca-
luniuiandi vcrba sua, voluil, ul ipsi pcr se id col-
ligcrcnl, qucmadmodum fecil iu parabola vincac,
ol alias saepe: cl uihikmunus douii p;ui!o posl (ut
^larcus scribil capilc 10.) apcrle pronunciavil, o-
luuem qui dimillil uxorcm, cl aliam ducit.moeclia-
ri. Vidcs igilur (lucmadmodum vorba Doniini niliil
supcrvacanei conlincaul,ncc pugncul inler se vcr-
ba divcrsorum cvangelislarum.
Unum dumiaxal contra banc expositionem objici
possct, quod uimirum si ita cxponamus, non lia-
bebimus cx lioc loco, licilum osse divorliura quo-
ad lborum,ob fornicalionem alterius conjugis. Sed
parum id reforl; nam ad boc dogma stabiiiendum,
suilkit lestiinonium 3Iallh. cap. 5.
Torlius locus habotur in epist. ad Roman. cap.
7. .1/1 ifjnoralis fralres {scieniibus enim legem lo-
quor)quia lcx in liomine dominalnr quanto lem-
porc livir? JSam quae sub liro esLmulier.vivente
viro alligata esl lcgi: si aulcm morluus fuerit vir
cjus.solula cst a lcge viri: Igilur vivenle viro.vo-
cabilur aduUera, si fucrit cum alio viro\ si au-
tcm morluus fuerit vir cjus, libcrata csl a lege
viri, ul non sil adullera, si fucrit cum alio viro,
cl similis locus babctur in cpislola priore Coriulh.
cap. 7.
Ex liis aulem locis colligimus numquam solvi
vinculum conjugale, nisi per morlem: el quia non
solvitur, mancre eliam posl divortium quacumquc
dc caussa factum. Quod argumenlum lanti fccit s.
Augnstinus,ut lib 2. de adullerinis conjugiis, cap.
4. clnmavcril: Ilaec verba Ajwsloli toliesrepeiita,
totios incukala, vera sunt, viva sunl, sana sunl,
plana sunl. Nullius viri posterioris mulier esse
incipit. nisi prioris essc desicril: esse autcm de-
sinct uxor priorisi, si moriatur vir cjus, non si
fornicetur Ucilc ilaque dimittitur conjux ob ca-
ussam fornicationis,scd manct vinculum prioris,
proptcr quod ftt rcus adultcrii.qui dimi^sam da-
xcral, cliam oh caussam fornicalionis.llwoc illc.
Scd rcs[)undct Ciijelanus: Vorbii Apostoli acci-
picuda cssc rogularitcr, non aulcm in casu.ulscn-
sus sit;vinculiiiu viri ouin uxoro ordimirie ct regu-
hirilcr, nisi soilicol iiliiiudc soiviilur, durarc uscpic
ad uiorlom, cl tuuc dcmum solvi. Idem fcrc rcs-
pondel Krasinus, Calviuus, Marlyr el Hucerus in
iiaec loca, ct pracscrlim Polrus lUiirlyr vult iiilel-
ligi cxccplioncm: Msi ob fornicalioncm, quao iii
cvangclio habclur. Et simililer doccl Kcmnilius in
2. par, cxamiu. jiag. r2.j7.
Polcst iiutcni id |)rol)iiri Primo, quiii Pauhis ail:
Scicntibus lcgem loquor, lcx aulcm permitlobat
libolluin ropudii iu quibusdam casibus, ot proindo
scoundum lcgcm rogulariter quidcni,sed non som-
per mors cxpcclid)alur ad vinculi conjugalis dircm-
plioiiem. Secundo, (piia Piuilus mV.Quae sub viro
csl. mulicr; ct non dicit siniplicilcr uxor. Quarc
loquiturdc ca lanlum,quao nondum cst rcpudiala,
sc(J adhuc viro coliabiliit. Tcrtio vidclur Aposlolus
non tam conlcndcrc, vinculum pcrmanere usque
ad morlem, quam non durarc post mortom: id e-
niin solum illc cupil oslcudcrc, post mortcm con-
jugis liberum essc alterum conjugem,sive ad mor-
lem usquc ad vinculum permanseril,sive non per-
manscrit. Addc ullimo.quod cum hacc sit quaedam
siuiilitudo, iion csl nccesse ul in omnibus con-
vcniiit.
Scd falsam esse Iiauc cxposilionem, tcstanlur
Primiim ipsa vcrba, quao ul Augusliuus rcctc di-
cil. plaua sunt. Quid cnim planius illo: Mulier vi-
venle viro vocabilur adultcra, si fucril cum alio
viro? Roman. 7. Mulier alligala est lcgi, quanto
tempore vir cjus vivil? 1. Corintb. 7. El ccrtc mi-
rum essel Apostolum numquam addidissc excep-
lionem, si ea addenda csscl, cum tam sacpe hacc
repctiveril cl incuicaverit.
Dcindc testantur Inlcrpretes, Ambrosius, Chry-
soslomus, Theophylactus, Tbeodoretus, Oecume-
nius, Primasius, Anselmus el alii, in ulrumquc lo-
cum Pauli,ct practerca Origenes in cap. lO.Malth.
Auguslinus loco citato, ct Hicronymus in episl. ad
Amandum, ubi inlcrrogalus, an liccrct mulicri di-
misso viro adullero, alii nubcrc, rcspondit, non li-
ccre, ob hacc Pauli loca, quac (ut ipse dicil) o»
mnem excusationcm excludunl.
Deniquc idem lestalur ralio similitudinis, quam
eo loco Paulus adducil, volebal enim probare, le-
gem veterem obligasse usquc ad Chrislum.sed jam
non amplius obligare:ulilur autem ad Iioo proban-
dum simililudine ducla ex Malrimonio.Qucniiidmo-
dum cnim vir el uxor lamdiu sibi invicem obligan-
lur, doncc aller eorum, vel ulerquc niorialur, sic
eliam tamdiu homines legi subjecti sunt,duncc vcl
ipsa lex abrogelur, et sic quodammodo morialur,
vel bomincs Iranslali in alium slalum, a lcgc exi-
manlur, et eo modo legi morianlur.Pcr Christi au-
tem morlem ulrumque"factum esl: nam el lcx est
abrogala et nos Iranslati in statum filiorum Dei,
lcgi illi vcleri, quae erat servoruin,mortui sumus.
Ubi obiter est iVotandum, legein comparari viro,
ut Chrysostomus exponit ct hominem coraparari
uxori, quia sicut vir dominalur uxori, non uxor vi-
LIBEH PRIMUS
813
ro, ila lex dominalur homini, cui data esl, non ho-
ino legi. Et quamvis debuisset Aposlolus conchi-
dere, homincs liberos esse a lege; quia lex mor-
lua est, sicutdicit uxorem liberari, quandomorilur
vir: lamca ne Judaeos oflenderel, maluit inverlere
conclusionem, ac dicere, nos mortuos cssc, quam
legem esse morluam, quamquam ulrumque dicere
poluisset.et perinde esl ad id de quo agitur,utrum
vir, aut uxor, aut ulerque morialur.
Porro haec similitudo b. Pauli omnino requirit ,
ut vir et uxornullo divortio autrepudio, sed sola
morle Uberati queanl a vinculo conjugii.Nam quam-
diu lex vetus vigebat, numquam polcrant Judaei
jugum ejus a se exculere , etiamsi illi repudium
dare, et ab ea divorlium facere conarenlur, forni-
cando cum variis legibus falsorura deorum ; ergo
eodem modo, quanlo tempore maritus vivil, num-
quam potest uxora vinculo conjugii liberari,quam-
vis cum mullis aliis viris fornicelur.
INeque argumenta in conlrarium convincunt. Ad
Primum Respondeo: Illud , Scienlibus legem lo-
quor, a Theodoreto et Ambrosio exponi de lcgc
nalurae, vcl cvangelica, non de lege veteri,ut sen-
sussit: Loquorhominibus peritis, et qui bene no-
runt naluram legis et conjugii etc.
El Praelerea aut repudium in lege vcleri solve-
bat revera vinculum conjugii, aut non solvebat (est
enim conlrovcrsia inler doclores). Si non solvebat,
et tantum permiltebalur, ut minus malum, non au-
lcm ullicilum, ut communior habet opinio docto-
rum, quam eliam sequuntur Calvinus el Beza, in
cap. 19. Matlhaei; lum parum refert , de qua lcge
Paulus loquatur, ul palet. Si vero solvebat vincu-
lura, et permittebalur utlicitum ; tum non potest
Pauli locus de lege Moysis intelligi , quia falsum
essct quod Paulus dicil: Vivenieviro, vocabitur a-
dultera, si fuerit cum altero viro; neque enim vo-
cabalur adullera quae vivenle viro erat cum allero
viro, si repudiura licilum erat , et vinculum con-
jugii dissolvebal.
Ad Secundum Respondeo illud: Quae sub viro
est, mulier, simpliciler conjugatam significare ,
quod nomen non minus convcnit mulieri post di-
vortiura, quara anle divortiura, si divorlium non
solvil vinculum, ut nos contendimus. Et hoc per-
spicuum esl tura ex conclusione generali , quam
Aposlolus inferl: Jgilur vivenle viro, vocabitur
adultera etc. non enim dixit, Igilur dum est sub
viro, vel dura non rcpudiatur, sed dura vir ejus vi-
vif, vocabilur adullera, si fueril cura allcro viro :
lum cx 1. Corinth. 7. ubi generatim Paulus dicit :
Mulier alligata est lcgi, quanto lempore vir ejus
vivit.
Ad Tcrtium Respondeo: Non solum voluisse
Paulum ostcndere, vinculum con.jugii non durarc
posl mortera; sed ctiara durare toto temporc vitae
altcrius conjugis. !\am illud non durarc posl mor-
tem aperlissimum erat, nec fuisscl opus ad id pcr-
suadcndum allcgarc legcm, ac dicerc: Scienlibus
legem loquor.
Praetcrca conclusio ah Aposlolo inlcnla , non
erat solura,non obligari Chrislianos nd lcgem Mny-
sis, sed etiam obligari ad non rccipiendam ullam
aliam;sicul eliamllebraei obligabanlur legcm Moy-
BELliRMIM Vol. 111
sis servare tolo tempore, quo ea vivehat, nec pole-
ranl ullo praetextu eam deserere , donec morere-
lur per abrogationcm, aul ipsi morerenlur illi per
Iranslalionem in alium slaluni, ut dixiraus.
Ad ullimum Respondco: Non debcrc quidcm si-
milia in omnibus esse similia; lamcn debcrc simi-
lia esse in eo, in quo est vis arguraenli ex illii si-
mililudine ducli.Requiril aulcra vis arguraenli Pau-
lini, ut sicul vinculum legis nullo modo disrumpi
potest, quacumque iniercedenlc praevaricatione ,
donec ea lex vivit.ila vinculum conjugii perseveret
quacumque intervenienle fornicalione , donec ma-
rilus aut uxor vivit.
Adde quod l. Corinlh. 7. non per modum para-
bolae, ad ilhid illuslrandura, sed absolule pronun-
cialur: Mulicr alligata est legi , quanto tcmpore
vir ejus vivil: quod si dormierit vir ejus, liberata
esl; cui vult, nubal elc.
Quartus locus est in epist.prioread Corinlh.cap.
7. lUs, qui Matrimonio juncti sunt.praecipio,non
ego, sed Dominus^uxorem a viro non discedere:
quod si discesserit, manere innuptam , aut viro
suo ?'eco7ici?ia?i.Quera locum Iractavimus in quae-
slione superiore de divortio quoad Ihorum.
Habemus aulera hinc argumenlum plane insolu-
bile. Nam vel mulier, de qua dicilur:Si discesserit
eic.discessit ex caussa justadivorlii,ut fornicationis
el haeresis,elquaecumque sit alia;vel sine tali aliqua
caussa. Hoc poslerius dici non polest, nara Paulus
non diceret de tali foeraina, Maneat innupta; aut
viro suo reconcilielur; seddiceret, Maneat innupla
donec viro suo reconcilietur, et oranino ad virum
suura rcdeat; non enini polerat Paulus permittere
injusturadivortium conlra expressum Domini prae-
ceptum. Etsi in eodem capite Paulus non permillit
conjuges abstinere a carnali commercio ob oratio-
nem, el ad lempus, nisi ex consensu, quomodo
perraitteret conjugem invito marito sine ulla caus-
sa justi divortii sepnratara a viro mnncrc? Loqui-
tur crgo sine ullo dubio de muliere, quac disccs-
sit ob juslam aliquara divortii caussam. Alqui ista
non potest alteri nuberc,ut Paulus apertissime di-
cil; ergo eliara caussa jusla divortii non solvit vin-
culum conjugii,ncque licet conjugibus juslodivor-
tio separatis ad alia transire conjugia.
Unum est tanlum, quod ohjici possct, quod et-
iam ab Erasmo objeclum fuil.Nara vidctur Aposlo-
lus loqui de mulierc adullcra, quae disccdit a viro
non sponle sua, scd nh illo ejccla: id cnim signi-
ficari videlur, cum dicilur: Aut viro suo roconci-
lictur; nam rcconciliari propric ad rcos pcrtinct,
qui per reconcilinlionem redeiml in gratiam cnm
iis, quos offcndorunl. Ouod si Paiilus agnt dc ndiil -
tcrn, non est mirum, si vclil onm ninncrc iiinu-
plam:soIi enim parli innoccnli conccdunlur sccun-
dae nupliac.
Al nullo pacto dofcndi polcst, Pauliim loqui dc
mulierc adullera cl ojccta: iinm cmu praecipilur
mulicri a viro non disccdcrc , praecipilur ne ipsa
sit auctor divorlii, nc ne dcsorat virum,non aulom
no cjicialiir ct coacla discodal. Id cnim pracoipi-
lur, quod cst in potestate cjus, cui praccipilur:iion
osl autcm in poteslalc mulicris nc cjicinlur.ncquc
polcslmarito expelleiilc non discedore.
I0;j
tiU
DE S.\f.RA)lKNTO M.vmi.MOMI
Deiiulo paulo po.«;f ail .Aposloliis: El viru:i'orc7n
non dii)iiltut:q\.\0(\ rssel (nnnino idein ciim prioie
praecepto, el proinde supervnconeuni,si mnlicrem
discedere a viro nihil essel aliud, nisi ejici,eldi-
milli a viro.
Deniqne si Aposlolus solum de aduUera dimissa
loqnereUir, v;dde imperfectam doctrinam Iraderet:
adhuc enim quneri possct, qnid sil faciendnm mu-
lieri, qnae separalur a viro ob adnllerinm viri,non
• ob culpam suam propriam. Ergo Paulns generalim
loquilur de oiniii muliere,quac justi divortii anctor
esl: Dicil aulem: Mulicr non dlsccdal, non aulom
dlcit, Mulier non dimiltal virnm.sicul poslea dicil:
Yir non dimillal uxorcm: qnia ordinarie uxor cst
in domo viri, el ideo divorlium facil discedendo
ab eo, non eum ex domo ejiciendo;contra marilns,
quia esl in domo sua divorlium facit diniillcndo,
non recedendo.
Illud aulcm quod objicitar de verbo, Reconcili-
or. quod cliam pag. 1259. nolavil Remnitius, ut
probaret culpa sua uxorcm discessisse,nullam vim
babet. Reconciliari enim dicilur lani is, qui laesit,
quam is, qui lacsus csl: nam reconciliantur pro-
prie; qui alienati sunt. Undc M. T. Cic. lib. 1. e-
pisl. 2. ad Lentulum, dicil reconcilialam esse vo-
luntalem senalus, quae lamen non culpa sua, sed
aliornm.abalienala a Lentulo fuerat. Etinhocsen-
su dicilur Deus reconciliari hominibus, lib. 2.Ma-
chab. cap. 1. Exaudiat Dcus oraliones vcslras,
et reconcilietur vobis; et cap. 7. Reconciliabilur
Deus servis suis; et illud Matth. 5. Rcconclliare
fralri tuo, exponit Chrysostomus, sive juste, sive
injuste fraler se offensum dicat.
Eadem veritas Secundo ex traditione probari po-
lesl: exlant cnim omnibus aelatibus testimonia Pa-
trum. Ac Prirao quidem saeculo habemus testimo-
nium Clemenlis,in canonibus apostolorum can.48.
ubi sine ulla exceptione excommunicari jubetur,
qui uxore dimissa aliani ducit.
Deinde Secundo saeculo, idest, post annum Do-
mini 100. habemus testimonia Justini et Alhena-
gorae. Uterque in apologia pro Christianis, ad im-
perat. Antoninum, inter dogmata christiana ponit,
Adulterium csse, si quis diraissam ab alio ducat:
et Alhenagoras addit eliam, si quis priore dimissa
aliam ducat, non esse conjugium, sed adulterium.
Eodem saeculo Clemens alexandrinus lib. 2. stro-
matum exlremo: Adulterium, inquit, exislimat
Scripiura, conjungi Matrimonio, vivo altero ex
separatis, et paulo ante dixerat, non posse fieri
separationem, nisi ob fornicationem.
Saeculo Terlio, post annum Domini 200.Terlul-
lianus lib. 4. in Marcionem, ultra raedium. obji-
cienli Marcioni Christum conlrarium esse Moysi,
quia prohibuil divortium, quod ille concesserat,
respondcl liis verbis: Pico illum condilionaliter
rnrnc fecisse divortii prohibitionem, si ideo quis
dimittat uxorem, ut aliam ducat etc. ubi docet
Christum non prohibuisse divortium si caussa ju-
sta adsit, sed prohibuisse allerum conjugium post
divorlium.Eodem saeculo Origenes Iract. 7.Matlh.
explicans cap. 19. dicit quosdam episcopos per-
misisse mulieri nuberc viro priore vivenle, et ad-
dil: Conlra Scripluram fecerunt.
Sacculo Qunrlo posl annum Domini 300. in con-
cilio cliberlino cnn. 9. Mulier quae ob viri adulte-
rium alleri nnpsit,non rccipitur ad Communioneni
nisi posl morlem prioris marili: ex quo intclligi-
nius,illicilum fuisse Matrimonium illud judicatum,
clinm cx pnrlc innoccnlis, el in caussa adulterii.
Eodem saeculo, s. Ambrosius in cap. 16. liUcao
nuilta scribit contra cos, qui uxore dimissa aliam
duciint, cl passim ndultcrium vocal id conjugium:
ncque in tola illa dispulationo unquam excipi caus-
sain fornicalionis. Sanctus item Hieronymus. Am-
brosii acqualis, in cpisl. ad Oceanura de obiluFa-
biulac, scribit, Fabiolara dimisso viro non solum
adultero, sed ctiam omnibus flagiliis cooperto al-
lcri nupsissc: scd addit id eara fecisse, quia igno-
rabal rigorcm evangclii: et ibidera scribit,eara post
morlcm sccundi raarili publicam poenilentiamsibi
ab episcopo imposilam, sumraa humililate egisse.
Ex quo inlclligimus, eo lempore publicura criraen
habilum in Ecclcsia calholica fuisse, si quia vi-
vcnte conjugc ad alias nuplias transiret, etiam ca-
ussa fornicationis. Idem Hieronymus in epist. ad
Amandum de hac ipsa quaestione interrogatus,sim-
plicitcr rcspondit, esse illicilum, eliam caussa for-
nicationis, vivcnte conjuge ad alias nuptias Iransi-
re. Eodem saeculo s. Joan. chrysostomus homil.
17. in Malth. cnarrans cap. a. idem docet.
Saeculo Quinlo, posl annum Domini 400. conci-
lium milevilanum, cnn. 17. definivit secundum e-
vangelicam cl aposlolicam doctrinam, numquam
licere vivente conjuge ad alias nuptias transire: et
idera habelur in concilio africano can. 69. Eodem
saeculo Innocentius I. in epist. 3. ad Exuperium
can. 6. inlerrogatus, an intercedenle divortiolice-
ret aliud inire conjugium, respondit nullo modo
licere, sed esse utrumque adulterum, lam virum,
quam uxorera, si post divorliura ad alias nuptias
transeant. Eodem tempore s. Auguslinus ex pro-
fesso hoc docuit, tum in duobus libris de adulte-
rinis conjugiis, tum in libro de bono conjugali.
Saeculo Sexto, postannum Domini 500. Prima-
sius in commenlario, cap. 7. prioris ad Corinlh.in
illud: Si discesserit, manere innuptam , idem
habet.
Saeculo Septirao, posl annum Domini 600. Isi-
dorus idem docet,lib. 2. de officiis divinis cap.19.
Saeculo Octavo, post annum Domini 700. Beda
in cap. 10. Marci idem alTirmat.
Saeculo Nono, post annum Domini 800. conci-
lium forojuliense can. 10. idem apertissime defi-
nivil; et eodem saeculo Theophylacius in cap. 19.
Matth. et in cap. 7. prioris ad Corinlh.
Saeculo Decirao, post annura Doraini 900. con-
ciliuni nannetense, quod sub Arnulpho imperatore
cclebratum creditur, can. 12. idem declaravil.
Saeculo Undecimo,post annum 1000. Anselmus
in cap. 5. et cap. 19. Matlh. idera habet.
Saeculo Duodecirao, post annum HOO.idem de-
finivit Alexander III. papa,cap. Ex parte de spon-
salibus, et Malrimoniis.
Saeculo Decimotertio, post annum 1200. idcra
defmivil Innocentius III. cap. Gaudemus, de di-
vorliis, et eodera saeculo,idem docuerunt theologi
omnes, qui super dist. 33. quarli senlentiarum
LlBER PHIMIS
815
scripserunt. ut s. Thoraas, s. Bonavenlura, et alii.
Saeculo Decimoquarlo, post annura 1300. pluri-
ini doctores Scholastici, Scotus, Durandus etc.
Saeculo Decimoquinto, post annum 1400. idem
statuit conoilium florentinum, in inslruct.Armeno-
rum, quod sane mirum est non adverlisse Cajeta-
num et Catharinura etc.
Saeculo denique Decimosexto.post annuin 1500.
idem deOnivit conciliura Irident, sess. 24. can. 7.
Accedat Ultirao argumentum ex ratione petitum.
Primo: Malrimonium fidelium, signum esl conjun-
ctionis Christi cum Ecclesia, ut Apostolus docet
cap. 5. ad Ephes. At illa unio indissolubilis est:
igitur et vinculum conjugale indissolubile est. Et
quamvis tota simul Ecclesia a Deo fornicari non
possit, tamen aliquae partes Ecclesiae,nonnulIi vi-
delicet fideles, fornicantur interdum spiritualiler,
et divortium faciunt, sed non proplerea licet illis
mutarc Deum, aut Deus ita illos abjicit,ut nolit re-
conciliari, immo semper horlalur ad reconciliatio-
nem. Tale igitur debet esse conjugium Chrisliano-
rum, ut numquam tale divortium fiat, quin spes
maneat reconciliationis. El hanc ralionem a sacra-
mento duclam, valde urgot Augustinus lib.de bono
conjugali, cap. 7. 13. 18. et 24.
Secundo: Si licitum esset aliud Matrimonium,
injuria afliceretur proles: nam filiis jam natis male
consuleretur, qui pro palre vilricura,pro raatreno-
vercam habere inciperent. Et haec est ralio s.Am-
brosii in cap. 16. Lucae, ubi eliam dicil, propler
filios debere palrem matris culpae ignoscere.
Terlio: Si esset licilum ejusmodi conjugium vi-
vente altero conjnge, aperirelur aditus infinitis re-
pudiis eliam injustis. Nunc enim quia sciunt fide-
les, debere se, autcoelibes vivere, aut priori con-
jugi reconcihari, non facile ad divortium adducun-
tur; ai si scirent, mox repudiala uxore posse aliam
duc), facillime divortia fierent et quaererent occa-
sienes aliquando dissidiorum, el criminum. etc.Et
Iianc rationem attingit Hieronyraus in cap. 19.Mal-
thaei, uhi scribit, quia periculum erat,ne mariti ob
desiderium allcrius conjugii, calumniam slruerent
priori uxori, sic Dominum voluisse diraitli uxorem
ob fornicalionem, ul tamen ea vivente non liceret
aliam ducere.
Quarto: si post divortium in caussa fornicalio-
nis, liceret parli innocenli aliud Malrimonium ini-
re, vel id liceret etiam nocenti, vcl non licerel. Si
liceret,ergo commodum ex peccalo suo aduUer re-
portaret; et saepe ctiam viri dedila opera adulle-
riura commitlerenl, ul possent ab uxorc liberari,
et aliam uxorem ducere. Si non liceret, quaero in
primis, qunre? nam cum ea pcrsona sit a vinculo
prioris conjugii solula (ncque enim poluit pars in-
roccns aliud Malrimoniura inirc, nisi vinculo prio-
tis diremplo) nequc ulii fncil injuriam, quare non
potest Malrimonium conlrahere?
Dices, quia lex prohihet. Sod ubi cst lex prohi-
bens? ncque cnim ulla lex exslat,quod sciam,(pine
soli innoccnli nnplias concedat. Dcinde,cur prohi-
beret lcx conjngari homincm solulum,ct proclivem
ad vilia, quando nulla reslat amplius S|)cs recon-
ciliationis cuni conjugc priorc? Diviuo igilur, pru-
denlissirao, juslissiiDoquc judiciu Chiislus bunxii,
conjugium quoad vinculum omnino indissolubHe
esse debere.
Adde Ultimo, quod etiam apud ethnicos, ubi
morum disciplina vigebal, nulla ficbant repudia.
Scribit enim TertuIIianus in apologet. cap. 6. Ro-
mae per annos ferme 600. ab Urbe condila,nullum
scriptum fuisse repudium:deinde autem eversa di-
sciplina, cum aliis viliis etiani repudia introducta.