Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 17: The Arguments of the Adversaries Are Solved (Objections Eight to Fourteen)
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 eighth objection, page 1263: “Ambrose, in the commentary on chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians, observes that the Apostle did not say of the husband that he should remain without a wife, or be reconciled to his wife, if he has put her away, but only that the husband should not put away his wife. From which he gathers that a second marriage after divorce is forbidden to the woman alone, not to the man.”
I answer: Gratian, cause 32, question 7, and Peter Lombard, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 35, contend that those words were inserted into the commentary of this author by some forger. Others answer that this author speaks of the political law of the Caesars, namely that it was lawful for men, but not for women, by the laws of the Caesars, to take another after repudiating a spouse; and that therefore Paul, lest he offend Caesar, would not say expressly, If the husband has put away his wife, let him remain so, or be reconciled to his wife.
But if these are less approved, the answer is ready: that the author of those commentaries is not Ambrose, which the learned are not unaware of, nor any of the celebrated Fathers; and so that the opinion of him alone cannot prejudge all the others; especially since his opinion about the unequal right of spouses is openly opposed by the true Ambrose himself, as may be seen in book 1 On Abraham, chapter 4.
Nor does the argument taken from Paul by this author conclude. For when Paul says, “And let not the husband put away his wife,” he means without doubt that he ought not to put away his wife in the way in which it was explained of the woman that she ought not to withdraw from her husband.
The ninth objection, on the same page: “A certain Pollentius openly contradicted Augustine's opinion about unlawful marriage after divorce; this was not, then, at that time a Catholic dogma.”
I answer: Pollentius did not contradict Augustine, but consulted him about an obscure question and difficult places of Scripture, as can be understood from the beginnings of each book. Nor is it a wonder if Augustine did not call Pollentius a heretic, nor sharply rebuke him; for not all are heretics who err in the doctrine of faith, but those who add obstinacy to the error, which Pollentius is not read to have done. Wherefore the same Augustine, in the third letter to Volusian, does not reprove Volusian, but modestly admonishes and instructs him, although he had proposed to him plainly impious questions: whether God, leaving the care of the world, had shut himself into the narrowness of one little body; whether the mother of Christ was always a virgin; whether it is credible that he is God who lay shut in the womb for ten months; and so on.
Add that in the time of Augustine this dogma had not been explained by any general council, and therefore those who erred in this matter could more easily be excused. Wherefore the same Augustine, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 19, says that he is deceived venially who, on account of the obscurity of Scripture, thinks that he is not an adulterer who, having put away his wife for the cause of fornication, marries another.
The tenth objection, page 1266: “The Council of Milevis, canon 17, does indeed forbid another Matrimony to be entered after divorce; but neither does it openly deny that another Matrimony is lawful for the innocent party in the case of fornication; and besides, the council adds that a law must be sought from the emperor on this matter. From which we gather that there was at that time no law among Christians which broke such marriages.”
I answer: the canons of the Council of Milevis were composed and published with Augustine chiefly as author (as Chemnitz also confesses). Wherefore, since Augustine disputed in whole books that in no case, not even of fornication, is it lawful while the spouse lives to pass to another marriage, there ought to be no doubt what the sense of that canon is. Then, by this very fact, that that canon excepts no cause, it is to be taken generally.
And those Fathers desired an imperial law, not by which it should be declared that a new marriage after divorce is unlawful while both spouses are still living (for those Fathers affirm that this is certain from the Gospel and the Apostle), but by which those who committed that crime should be punished severely also by the temporal power.
The eleventh objection, on the same page: “Leo, letter 85, otherwise 87, to the bishops of Africa, chapter 1, only removes from his order a priest who, having put away his wife, had taken another; but he does not break his Matrimony, nor expel him from the communion of the Church.”
I answer: Leo does not speak of a priest who, after receiving sacred Orders, took a wife; for that was never done before the Lutheran heresy; but of a certain man who, when he had taken a wife, the first being put away, was afterward promoted to the priesthood. And St. Leo removes him from his order; but he adds nothing about his Matrimony, whether it was valid or void: both because no question had been put to him except about the Ordination, namely whether such a man could be promoted to the priesthood; and because in the same place he adds that the decrees of his predecessors must be kept safe. And one among them is the decree of Innocent I, letter 3, by which those are declared adulterers who, the first being put away, even by a lawful divorce, take another.
The twelfth objection, pages 1266 and 1267: “In the decree of Gratian, cause 32, question 7, four canons are related, Quod proposuisti, Quaedam, Concubuisti, Si quis eum, by which another Matrimony after divorce is granted; and two of these canons are taken from councils, two from the letters of the pontiffs Zachary and Gregory.”
I answer: the first canon is taken from the letter of Gregory III to Boniface, where we read that Gregory granted a second Matrimony to a certain man on account of the sickness of his first spouse. But the doctors understand this canon of a sickness which makes the woman unfit for marriage, and so is an impediment breaking the contracted Matrimony.
The second canon is drawn from a certain council of which not even the name is extant, whence it could easily be disregarded. But yet it is rightly expounded by the doctors of a marriage to be entered after the death of the first spouse. These are the words of the canon: “A certain woman slept with the brother of her husband: it is decreed that the adulterers never be joined in marriage; but to him whose wife was defiled, lawful marriages are not denied.” And the sense of this canon is gathered from a like canon which is had a little after in the same question, and begins Hi vero; where it is laid down that, the adulterous wife being dead, her husband may marry whom he will; but the adulterous woman may not marry even when her husband is dead. Which yet they understand of an adulteress who has sinned with some near relative of hers, and is therefore at the same time incestuous; for otherwise simple adultery does not hinder Matrimony after the death of the spouse.
The third canon is Zachary's, where it is written that he who slept with the sister of his wife can have neither, but that his wife can marry whom she will. And canon 4, which is of the Council of Tribur, speaks to the same sense. But all such canons are understood of a marriage which is granted to the innocent party after the death of the first spouse. And so far we have dissolved the arguments of Chemnitz. Now we shall bring forward others from others.
The thirteenth objection, Luther's, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony: “Christ permitted divorce in the case of fornication, Matthew 5, and compels no one to be celibate, since he says, He that can take, let him take it, Matthew 19. Therefore he permits another wife to be taken when a divorce is made. And it is confirmed from Paul, who says, It is better to marry than to be burnt, 1 Corinthians 7.”
I answer: Christ absolutely compels no one to be celibate, because he willed celibacy to be numbered among the counsels, not among the precepts; yet he compels a man to stand by his promises, and in consequence it often happens that he compels him to be celibate. For he who vowed continence is compelled to render his vows, and so is compelled to be celibate; and he who took a wife promised that while she lived he would cleave to no other; for the bond of Matrimony requires this, which is altogether insoluble; and if therefore he keeps himself from his own, he is compelled to be celibate.
Further, the Apostle said most rightly that it is better to marry than to be burnt; but he did not say, as Augustine notes, book 2 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 12, at the end, that it is better to commit adultery than to be burnt; and that he commits adultery who takes another while the first lives the same Apostle teaches, Romans 7.
The fourteenth objection is Bucer's, in the commentary on chapter 19 of Matthew: “It was permitted to the Jews on account of hardness of heart to put away their wives and take others; therefore the same ought to be lawful for Christians when the same hardness of heart is found in them, so that they cannot live together agreeably. The consequence is proved. First, because if the cause of that law lasts, it is fair that the law itself last too. Second, because Christ the Son of God condemned none of those things which his Father commanded; but the heavenly Father commanded the hard of heart, if they would not treat their wives with marital fairness, to put them away freely, that they might marry others. Third, marriages are so necessary that if any man or woman exists who has no spouse, a spouse must be granted to him. For God did not create man male and female that they might live apart, but said, It is not good for man to be alone, Genesis 2; and Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, Let every man have his own wife. Therefore, if it can be obtained that spouses be not separated, or that, separated, they be reconciled, that indeed is to be wished and procured; but if hardness of heart stands in the way, the word of the Lord cannot be broken: let every man have his own, and every woman her own.”
I answer: there is a question among the doctors whether the repudiation granted to the Jews, so that another Matrimony could be entered after repudiation, was permitted as lawful or as a lesser evil.
And indeed the more common opinion, of the Master, distinction 33 of book 4, and in the same place of Bonaventure, Richard, Dominic Soto and others, holds that it was always unlawful, but yet permitted, that it might be done without punishment, for the cause of avoiding a greater evil. For in Deuteronomy 24 Scripture testifies that the repudiated woman, if she marries another, becomes defiled and abominable before the Lord; from which we understand that it was not lawful for her to marry a second time, but that that marriage was not so much a marriage as adultery covered with the name of marriage. And in Jeremiah 3 we read thus: “It is commonly said, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless return to me, saith the Lord.” In which place not only is she who married another called polluted, but she is also openly signified to be a fornicatress; for the comparison brought in requires it.
And if this opinion is true, Bucer's argument is easily solved: for if for the Jews, notwithstanding the permission of repudiation, it was a sin to marry after repudiation or divorce, how much more will it be a sin for Christians?
But perhaps someone will prefer to embrace the contrary opinion; which (to confess the truth) has always seemed to me most probable. First, because if the bond had not been loosed by the bill of repudiation, that permission would have been very unequal, not to say unjust. For men were permitted to take other wives, since at that time the polygamy of one man with many wives was lawful; but women, who yet are the weaker, would have been compelled to be perpetually continent, and sometimes without any fault. For women were not permitted to have several husbands at once; wherefore they would have had either to become adulteresses or to be perpetually continent. And who will believe that in the old law women were compelled to endure perpetual celibacy, unusual at that time?
Second: because the old law did not punish the marriages of repudiated women with other men, as is plain from Deuteronomy 24; therefore, if those marriages were adulteries, the law would have tolerated public and continual adulteries. But who would easily persuade himself that that law which commanded a woman once caught in adultery to be stoned at the same time tolerated so many adulteries, which would have been publicly committed by many all their life long?
Third: because the law forbade that a repudiated woman, after the death of her second husband, could ever be brought back by her first husband; and forbade it in such a way as at the same time to show that it would be a grave sin if it were done, as is plain to one who weighs the text of Deuteronomy 24. But if the bond of marriage was not loosed by repudiation, it was not a sin, nor to be forbidden; nay, it was very good and to be wished that the wife should return to her true husband.
Fourth: because it would be a wonder that neither Moses nor the prophets, who reproved other vices of the people, never openly reproved these adulteries which were committed with repudiated women.
Fifth: in Leviticus 21 the priest is forbidden to take a widow, or a repudiated woman, or a harlot, but a virgin only; from which law it seems altogether to be gathered that it was lawful for others to take a repudiated woman, as it was lawful to take a widow and a harlot.
Sixth: Abraham, at God's command, repudiated Agar, whom he had taken as wife; nor is it probable that she was compelled thereafter to live in celibacy. As, then, God dispensed with Abraham by reason of a mystery concerning the bond of Matrimony, why could he not dispense with his people, on account of their weakness, concerning the same bond, and so on?
Seventh: in Exodus 21 the divine law laid down that if a master gave a wife to a servant, and she bore sons, in the seventh year the servant should go out free, but the wife and the sons should be the master's; and so that man was deprived of his wife and sons. But if the bond was not loosed, that woman was compelled without any fault of hers to be perpetually continent; which, since it is improbable, it seems must be said that God at that time easily dispensed concerning the bond, as he had also dispensed concerning polygamy.
Nor does that argument of the first opinion conclude. For in Deuteronomy 24, according to the Hebrew and Greek copies, we read, “because it is an abomination before the Lord”; and this is the sense of the words: a repudiated woman ought not to return to her first husband when she has been defiled with another, that is, when she has had to do with another, because it is abominable before the Lord that a woman should so often change husbands, and, as it were lent to another, return again to the first. But according to the Latin edition, which has of the woman, “And she is become abominable before the Lord,” the sense is: because her husband publicly, and so before the Lord, judged her polluted and abominable when he cast her out; because this woman has been marked with public infamy by her husband, and been made abominable and polluted by him, it is not fair that he should have her any longer, even if perhaps he desires to take her.
Nor does the place of Jeremiah conclude either: for the Lord argues from the lesser: if a husband does not take back a repudiated woman if she has married another, how much more ought I not to take thee back, who hast not married another but hast played the harlot with very many lovers?
But if this opinion is admitted, which St. Thomas, Scotus, Durandus and Paludanus defend on book 4, distinction 33, the Abulensis on Matthew, chapter 19, questions 49 and 50, Eck, homily 74 on the sacraments, and Peter Soto, lecture 13 on Matrimony, then to Bucer's argument the consequence will have to be denied. For the Lord most openly revoked the concession made to the Jews when he says, Matthew 5, “He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery”; and Matthew 19, “From the beginning it was not so”; and “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder”; and Mark 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.”
But Bucer answers that all these must be understood of those who put away, or take one put away, in fraud of the first marriage. For he will have it that another Matrimony cannot be entered until after the divorce reconciliation has been tried; and if anyone takes another, his own being put away, or takes one put away by another, before he has tried whether he could live peaceably with his own, he says that this man contracts Matrimony in fraud of the first marriage, and according to the Lord's sentence commits adultery; but if one of the spouses is so hard of heart that he will in no way live peaceably with the spouse, of this he says Christ commanded nothing.
But if these things were so, our Lord would have dissented from the Pharisees in nothing. For neither did the Pharisees wish marriages to be broken when spouses lived peaceably, but only when one would not live in concord with the other; nor did the law of Moses itself permit a bill of divorce to be given except on account of hardness of heart. But if the Lord agreed so well with the Pharisees, what do those words mean, “It was said to them of old,” and so on, “But I say to you,” and so on, Matthew 5? There must be no doubt, then, that the Lord altogether took away absolutely that repudiation granted or permitted in the law, and called marriage back to its first origin.
To the first proof I answer: that cause does not last universally; and if it did last, it is not to be tolerated. For the grace of the New Testament is greater than that of the Old, whether you consider knowledge, or sacraments, or examples; nay, it is proper to the New Testament to take away the stony heart and give a heart of flesh, Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. And not only in the New Testament is it not judged hard to be bound insolubly to one spouse only, but even not to touch a woman at all and to cherish celibacy to the end of life. Lastly, marriage itself in the New Testament is a sacrament, and confers a peculiar grace by which the troubles of marriage are easily borne; which grace the Hebrews in the Old Testament lacked. Wherefore many things could be tolerated in the Jews, whose state was that of children, which are not to be tolerated in Christians, whose profession requires a greater perfection and supplies helps to acquire and preserve it.
Then, even if we had none of these things to answer, yet it would not be lawful for us, on account of the hard of heart, to pervert or change the Gospel of Christ, which in this matter sounds clearly. Otherwise, as St. Augustine rightly warns, book 2 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 10, the law of Christ displeases all the incontinent, and yet is not to be changed on their account.
To the second I grant that Christ condemned none of those things which the Father had commanded; for he is said to condemn who blames things as done unjustly or imprudently. And Christ never pronounced that anything which the Father had commanded had not been rightly commanded; but on the contrary he says rather, Matthew 5, “I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil”; and, “One jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” But nevertheless very many precepts of God, which had been given for a time and which fitted the state of the synagogue only, Christ changed; and he who either does not know or denies this is not a Christian. For where now among the people of God is circumcision? Where the sabbath? Where the sacrifices of cattle? Where the other countless rites which are commanded by God through Moses in Leviticus? Since, then, the bill of divorce was such, it ought not to be a wonder if Christ willed it taken out of the way.
To the third proof, which would befit Epicurus, or rather a horse and a dog, more than a man, and most of all a Christian, I answer: it is not necessary that wherever there is a man or woman without a spouse, a spouse be at once given him; otherwise the words of the Apostle would be false: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman”; and “Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife”; and “He that giveth not his virgin in marriage doth better”; and “More blessed shall she be, if she so remain,” 1 Corinthians 7. And blessed John, and Christ himself, would not have done rightly in willing to be without a spouse.
Further, God willed man to be male and female that the human race might be propagated, not that all should be compelled to live with a spouse.
And that saying, “It is not good for man to be alone,” signifies that it was not good for the propagation of the race that the male alone should be created, but that the creation of the woman too was necessary; but it does not signify that it is not lawful, or not better for the man himself, to cherish celibacy than to be joined in Matrimony, especially when the race has been sufficiently propagated; otherwise the word of God, “It is not good for man to be alone,” would fight with another word of God, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
Lastly, that of Paul, “Let every man have his own,” is said to the married, according to that saying, “Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed”; or, if it concerns taking a wife, it is said only to those who are free and fear the danger of fornication. For otherwise, if a woman is bound by the bond of marriage to a husband and withdraws from him by divorce, it is not said to her, “Every woman her own,” but it is said, “Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” And if a woman is bound to God by a vow of continence and wishes to marry, it is not said to her, “Every woman her own,” but, “Having damnation, because they have made void their first faith,” 1 Timothy 5. Lastly, if a woman is free and, hoping in God, does not fear the danger of fornication, it is not said to her, “Every woman her own,” but, “More blessed shall she be, if she so remain,” 1 Corinthians 7. And so far of the firmness of Matrimony.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Objectio Octava, pag. 1263. Ambrosiusin com-
menlario, cap. 7. prioris ad Corinlh. observat
Apostolum 7ion dixisse de viro, ut maneat sine
uxore, aut uxori rcconcilictur, si eam dimiserit:
sed tantum, ul vir uxorem non dimitlat.Ex quo
ipse colligit, soli 7nulicri prohiberi secunduni
conjugium, non autcm viro posl divorlium.
Respondeo: Gratianus 32. quaesl. 7. et Pelrus
Lombardus lib. i. sentent. distinct.35.conlendunt
ea verba ab aliquo falsario inscrla fuisse commen-
lario hujus aucloris. Alii respondcnt loqui aucto-
rera islum de lege polilica Caesarum, quod videli-
cet liceat viris, non autem focminis pcr legcs Cae-
sarum repudiata conjuge aliam duccre : et ideo
Paulum, ne offenderct Caesarem , non voluisse
cxpresse dicere, si vir dimiseril uxorcm , maneat
sic, aut uxori reconcilictur.
Si tamen haec minus probenlur, iu promplu est
rcsponsio, auclorem corum commcntariorum noii
esse Arabrosium, quod cruditi non ignorant, ne-
quc aliqucm cx ccicbralis Palribus: proiiule cjus
unius sciitentiam non possc omnibus aliis pracju-
dicare; pracserlim cum ejus senlenlia de impari
820
1)E SACnAMFNTO MATniMOMl
jurc cnnjiipum apcrle ipsi vpro Anibrosio adverse-
lur. ul \iiUMHM'st. lib. 1. lie AbralKun. rap. i.
.\e(]iu* arjiuincnluni ex. Paulo suuipluiu ab lioc
auclort», ooncluilil: ouin eniin Paiilus dicil: Elvir
uxotrin non dimithil , inU'lli<;;il sinc dubio, ciim
non dcbcrc dimillcrc uxorcm ad cuni modum, quo
cxpIicaUim esl dc mulicre, non dcbcrc illam rccc-
derc a viro.
ObjccUo i>'ona. paf^. cadem: roUcnlius quidam
Au(]U6lini senlcnliae, dc illicilo conjiuiio posl di'
vorliuin apcrtc conlradixU; non ifjitur cral hoc
co tcmporc catliolicum dogma.
Kespondeo: PoUcnUus non conlradixil AugusU-
no. scil euni consuluit circa quacsUoncm obscu-
ram. cl loca Scripturac dilTicilia, ul ex principiis
ulriusque libri inlelligi polesl. Nequc mirum est,
si AugusUnus PoUcntiurn non vocavil baereticum,
ncque acriler increpavit; non cnini baeretici sunl
quicumquc erranl in fidei doclrina , sed qui perti-
naciain ad errorem adjungunl.quod PoUentius non
legilur fecisse. Quare idem Augustinus in cpist.
ad Volusianum tertia.non reprebendit Volusianum,
scd modcste adraonet el inslruit, licet quaestioncs
ci proposucrit plane irapias,an Deus relicta mundi
cura, ad unius corpusculi angusUas se coegeril,an
Cbristi maler fucrii seraper virgo, an sit credibile
Deum esse, qui in ulero clausus jacuil mensibus
deccm etc.
Adde.quod tempore AugusUni non erat boc dog-
ma ab aliquo generali concilio explicalum, et ideo
facilius excusari polerant.si qui in hac re errassent.
Quarc itlera Auguslinus libro de fide et operibus ,
cap. 19. dicit venialiter falli , qui ob Scripturae
obscuritatem cxisUmant non esse adulteruin eum,
qui diiuissa uxorc caussa fornicalionis,aliam ducit.
Objectio Decima, pag. 1266. Concilium milevi-
fanumcanon. 17. proiiibel quidem , nc post di-
vorlium aliud .Valrimonium inealur: sed neque
aperte negat parli innoccnli in caussa fornica-
lionis licilum esse aliud Iflatrimonium; et prae-
lcrea addit concilium petendam esse de hac re
legem ab imperatore.l'nde colligimus, non fuisse
co lempore ullam apud Chrislianos legem, quae
dirimeret ejusmodi Matrimonia.
Rcspondeo: Canones concilii milevilani, Augu-
sUno praecipue auctore (ut etiam faletur Remni-
Uus) composiU, edilique fuerunl. Quare cum Au-
guslinus inlegris libris disputaverit, in nullo casu,
ne fornicalionis quidem, licilum esse vivente con-
juge ad aliud transire conjugium;dubiura esse non
debet,qune sit canonis illius sentenlia. Deinde boc
ipso. quod illc canon nullam caussam excipit, ge-
neralini accipicndus est.
Legem aulera iraperialem Palres illi desidera-
banl,non qua declarelur illicitum esse novum con-
jugium post divortium,utroque adbuc vivenle con-
juge: id enira ex evangelio, el Aposlolo conslare
Pa'ires illi afrn-raant: sed qua punirentur severe et-
iam a teraporali potestate, qui crimen illud admit-
terent.
Objectio Undeciraa, pag. eadem. Leo epist. 85.
nlias 87. ad episcopos Afncae, cap. 1. Sacerdo-
tcm, qui dimissa uxore aliani duxerat, tantum
ab ordine removet,non autQm Matrimonium ejus
dirimil, aut eum ab Ecclcsiae communionc CX'
pcUit.
llcspondco: Non loquilur I,co do snccrdolc, qui
posl susccptum sacriim ordincm. iixorcm duxcril;
ncquc cnim id unquani faclum cst anic bacrcsim
Lulbcranam: scd dc quodam, qui cum iixorcm ac-
ccpisscl, priorc dimissa, postcn ad saccrdolium
promotus luerat. Hunc aulcm s. Leo ab ordincrc-
movcl;nibil aulcm addit dc .^lalrimouio cjus,ratuni
nc, an irriluui csscl, lum quia non cral ci propo-
sita quacsUo, nisi dc Ordinatione: an scilicel lalis
bomo ad saccrdotium promovcri poluissct; tum
quia ibidcm addit, salva csse dcbcrc dccrcta prae-
dccessorum suorum. Unum est aulem intcr ea dc-
cretum Innoccnlii I. episl. 3. quo declarantur a-
dullcri, qui priore dimissa, eUam per lcgitiraum
divortium, aliam ducunt.
Objeclio Duodecima, pag. 1266. et 1267. Jn de-
creto Gratiani, 32. quaest. 7. referuntur qualuor
canones, Quod proposuisti Quacdam. Concubuisti.
Si quis eum ; quibus conceditur aliud Matri-
monium post divorlium; et duo quidem corum
canonum cx conciliis sumpti sunt, duo cx cpi-
stolis pontificium Zachariae el Gregorii.
Kespondco: Primus canon sumplus est ex epi-
stola Gregorii III. ad Bonifacium:ubi IcgimusGre-
gorium concessisse sccundum Matrimonium cui-
dam vlro, ob aegritudinem conjugis prioris. Scd
canonem istura intelligunt doclores, dc acgritudi-
ne, quae reddal raulierem incptam ad conjugium,
et proinde sit impediraentum dirimcns contractum
Matriraonium,
Secundus canon depromptus est ex concilio
quodara, cujus ne nomen quidem exstal, unde fa-
cile contemni posset. Sed exponilur tamen re-
cte a docloribus, de conjugio ineundo post mor-
lem prioris conjugis. Ilaec sunt verba canonis :
Quaedam cum fralre viri sui dormivil: decre-
tum est, ut adulteri numquam conjugio copu-
lenlur; illi vero , cujus uxor stuprata cst, li-
cita conjugia non negentur. Sententia autem hu-
jus canonis colligitur cx canone siraili, qui babe-
tur paulo post in eadem quaestione, et incipit: Hi
vero; ubi staluilur, ut raorlua conjuge adultera,vir
ejus ducat quam volueril: mulier vero adultera, ne
marito quidcm morluo nubere possil. Quod tamen
inlelligunt do adultera, quae cum propinquo ali-
quo suo peccaverit, ct idco simul incestuosa sil:
nam alioqui simplex adullerium non impcdit Malri-
raonium post mortem conjugis.
Tertius canon est Zachariae, ubi scribitur, cum,
qui cum sorore uxoris suac dormivit, neutram ba-
bere posse, uxorem tamen ipsius posse nubere,
cui voluerit. Et in eandem senlenliam loquitur ca-
non 4. qui esl concilii triburiensis. Sed inlelligun-
tur omnes ejusmodi canones de conjugio, quod
parU innocenli concedilur post morlem conjugis
prioris. Atque hactenus KemniUi arguraenla dissol-
viraus. Nunc adducemus alia ex aliis.
ObjecUo Deciraatertia Lutbcri in lib. de capUvit.
babyi. cap. dc Matrimonio: Chrislus diyortium
permisit in caussa fornicationis,Matlh. 5. el nul-
lum cogit esse coelibem, cum dicat: Qui potest
capere, capiat, Malth. 19. Ergo permitlit aliam
uxorem duci faclo lUvoiiio. El confirmahir o.x Quo loco non solum pollula diciUir,quac allerinu-
Paiilo, fjui ait: i\l(dius est niibcre, quam url I. pscril.scd clinm apcrle fornicnria esse siguilicalur,
Corinlli. 1. id «Miim rcquiril' comparalio inducla.
licspondco: Chrislus absolulo nemincm cogil Kl si (]uidcm jiacc opinio sil vcra, Buceri argu-
esso coclibem, quia coclibalum inler consilia, non mculum facilc solvilur: si cnim Judaeis, non ob-
inlcr pracccpla numerari voluil:lamen cogil liomi- slanle pcrmissionc repudii, peccalum cral, post
n*Mu slaie promissis, el conscqucnler saepc acci- repudium scu divorlium nuljcre, quonlo magis
dil; ul cogal essG coelibem: Qui enim vovil conli- Chrislianis peccatum erit.
nculiau). cogilur reddere vola sua, el sic cogiliir Scd forle conlrariam opinioncni quis mnlil am-
esse coelebs: el qui duxit uxorem: promisil se illa plecli;quac (ul verum lalcar) milii scmpcr probabi-
vivente nulli alii adhacsurum ; id enim rcquiril lissiu)a visa csl. Primo.quia si vinculum non fuisset
vinculum )Ialrimonii , quod esl omnino insolubi- solulum pcr libelluu) rcpudiijuisscl illa p(M-rj)issio
lc: clsi ideo a sua se conlinel , cogilur esse coc- valde ina(!qu;ilis, nc dicam. iui(]ua. Nam viiis pcr-
lebs. niillcbalur alias uxorcs duccrc, cum csscl co lem-
Porro Aposlolus redissime dixil.nielius essc nti- porc licila polygamia unius viii rum niuliis uxori-
b(M'e. qunu) uri; scd non dixil. ul nolal Auguslinus bus, focminae"aulem,quac lamcn suiil inHrnnores,
lib. 2. dc adullerinis conjugiis. cap. 12. in finc, coaclac fuiss(Mil pcrpeluo conlincrc, el aliquando
nielius (>st moechari, quam uri: i):oechari aulcm sine ulla culpa. Non enim liccbal focminis habere
cum. qui vivcnh; priorc aliam ducil, ideni Aposlo- siinul plurcs viros: quare dcbui.sscnl,aul adullerac
lus doccl Komaii. 7. licri, aut iierpeluo conlinerc. Qnis aulcm crcdet,
Objcclio D(!ciuiaqiiarta esl Buceri in commenl. in Icgc vclcri fuissc coaclas mulicrcs pcrpeluuni
cap. 19. Mallh. Jtidaeis 'permissiim eral ob duri- coclibalum eo lemporc inusilalum lolerarc.
liam cordis dimillcrc uxorcs, el alias duccrcwr- Secundo: Quia lcx vetus non puuicbal nnplias
go idcm liccre dcbel Chrislianis, quando cadcm repudialarum cuin aliis viris.ul palet Dculerouora.
invc.nilur in eis cordis durilia, ul simid commo- 2i. ergo si illae nupliae adulleria eranl, lcx lolc-
de Iwbilare ncqueant. Probalur consequcniia. rasset publica el conlinua adullcria. Al quis facilc
Priino, quia si caussa lcgis illius dural, acquum sibi pcrsuadeal, cam lcgem, quae jubcbal lapidari
esl,uL cliam lex ipsa durcl. Secwido, quia Cliri- muliercm, quae semel in aclullcrio dcprehensa es-
slus jilius Dei non damnavit quidquam eorum, sel, simul lolcrassc lot adullcria, quae publice pa-
quae Pater ipsius praccepii: Palcr aulcm coele- Irala fuisscnl a mullis lolo vilac lcmpore?
slis jussit duris corde, si nollcnt maritali acqui- Terlio: Quia lex piohibcbal, ne rcpudiata post
tate uxores traclare, ul eas libere dimitlcrcnt,ut n)ortcm sccundi marili. posset unquam rcduci a
nuberent aliis. Tertio, udeo ncccssariae sunt nu- priorc marito: ct quid^mi ila |)rohil)cbal, ul simul
ytiae, ut si qui, aut quae cxistat, cui nulius sit indicarel gravc cssc pcccaliim si id (ierel, utpalet
conjux, conjuQcm illi concedere oporteat. Non expcndenli lexlum, cap. 2i. Deuieronomii. Al si
enim Deus crcavil hominem masculum ct foemi- pcr repudium non solvebalur viiiculum conjugj,
nam, ut seorsimvivanl. sed dixit,Non csi bonum non cral pcccalum,nec proliibondum, immo valde
liaminem esse soium, Genes. 2. et Paulus 1. Co- bonuin cl oplanduui , ul uxor rcdircl ad suum ve-
rinlh. l.Unusquisque suam uxorem habeat. Ergo rum marilum.
si inipctrari possil, ut eonjugcs non separcntur, Quarlo: Quia mirum essel, ncquc Moyscm, ne-
aul separalireconciiicntur,idquidcmoplandam que proi^hclas. qui alia vilia populi rc|)rel)ende-
e.s/, et procurandum: si aulcm obsUlcrit cordis bani, numqiiam palam rcprchcndissc isla adulle-
durilia, non polerii infringi verbum Domini, u ria. quac ficbant cum repudialis.
nusquisque suam, et unaquaeque suum. Qiiiiito: Lcvil. 21. prohibcliir saccrdos non du-
ricsp^jndeo: Quaeslio esl apud dociorcs. ulrum ccr^; u^drcin viduam. ncc rciiudialam. ncc mere-
repuOium Judaeis concessum,ila utaliud Malrimo- iricem, sed virginem lanluin: ex qua lege vidctur
niiii)) posl rcpudium iniri possct.pcrmissum fucrit oi))i)ino colligi, licuisse aliis duccre rcpudialam,
ul licilum, an vcro ul minus inalum. quciuadmodum licebat ducerc viduam cl mcre-
El (juidcm scnlenlia cominunior magislri dist. Iricciu.
»3. lib. 4. el ibidcin J>onav. IJicIiardi. Dominici a Scxlo: Abraham jubcntc Dco rcpudiavit Agar,
Solo, ct alioruii) id habcl, ul ill.cilu)i) sempcr lue- quam duxcral iu uxorcm; ncque prubabilc csl luis-
ril, scd permissum lai))cn ut impunc licrcl, caussa se coaclam illaiii deinccps CQlcrc coclibalum. 8i-
majoris mali evilandi. INam Deulcr-. 24, Scriptura cul ergo Dcus dispcnsavit cum Abraham ralione
leslalur. mulicrcm rcpudiatain, si allcri nuiiseril, mystcrii circa vinculiim Malrimouii: curnnnpoliiit
licri pollulain cl abominabilcin coraiu Domino; ex dispensarc cuin populo suo ob corum inlirmitalcm
quo inlclligimus.non licuissc illi sccundo nubcre, eirca idcm vinciihim etc.
scfJ conjuLiium illiid, non la)U conjiigium, (juam a- Scpliiiio: Kxod 21. lex divina consliliiil,ut si Do-
dullcrium conjugii noinine lcctuiu fiiissc. Kt llic- ininus scrvo diMlcril uxorcin, el ca pcp(M'erit lilios;
i(Mn. ;>. sic lcgimus: Vulgo dicilur, si dimiserit aniiu scplimo s(mviis cgrcdiatur libcr, scd iixor, ct
vir uxorem suam. elrccedens ab eo duxeril vi- iilii Domini sint; iil^iue ila privabalur vir ille uxo-
ruia, (dlhruui.nujiKpi.id rcverlclur ad o.am idlra? re cl liliis. (hiod si vinculiim nou solvcbaliir. co-
numijuid iion pollula, et conlamiuala orit mu- gcbalur niuli(M- illa sinc ulla siia culpa p(M'pclui)
lier illa? Tu autcm fornicata es cum amaloribus continerc: qtiod cimi improbabilc sH, diccnduni
mullis: tamcn rcverlerc ad mc, dicil Domiiiu^. vidclur. Dcum eo lcmporc facilc dis|)ensassc circa
l!j;i.nuiiiM. Vnl. III. 101
oo
S2J
DE SArHAMKMO )I \Tni.M(i.N!l
vinculuni. siciil eliam ilispcnsavcral rirca polypa-
iiiiiun.
i\i'quo ari^uuicnluin ilhiil prioris opiuionis con-
vincil. i>'iini iu DcMilcr. c;i|). 21. siH-uuiluui lichriu'-
os oi grjiocos co<liccs lcginuis: Uuoninm nbomi-
nnUo cs/ cornm Domiito, cl esl liic scusus vcrbu-
ruui: |{cpu(li;il;i noii dclict rccliro ;i(l priimiui vi-
ruui (pniiulo polliil;i csl cuin allcrn. i(icsl. (piaudo
cuiii ;illcro rcui li;il)uil.qiii;i abouiinabilc csl cor;iiu
Duuiiuo iil luulicr lolics iiiulcl iiuirilos, cl qu;isi
comuiodala rueril allcri, ileruin rcdc;U ad primuui.
Scd ju.xla cditioncm lalinain, quao liabol di; iViulic-
rc: El abominnbilis fncln cst cornm /?o?;)//jo;scn-
sus csl. QuKi iiKirihis cjus publicc. cl proindc co-
ram Domino eam pollulain cA ;il)oniin;ibiIcm jutli
c.ivit. cuni ilbiin cjccit. quia niulicr isl;i a niiuiio
suo nolala cst publica innimia, el ab co lacla csl;i-
bomiiKibilis ct iiollula, non esl acquuin ul ilbiin
aniplius liabc;il, ctiam si furlc cupiiil c;im duccrc.
Ncquc locus ciiam Ilicrciniac c()ncludil:nam Do-
miiuis arguincnt;iliir a miiiori. si vh' iiou rccipitrc-
pudi;il;im, si ea nupseril alteri;(iuanlo inagis debc-
rern c<^o non lc recipcrc, qiiac non nnpsisli alleri,
&C{\ rornicala es cum amaloribus plurimis?
Quod si hacc sentcnlia atlmillatur, qu;im defen-
dunl s. Thomas, Scolus, Durandus cl P;iludanus,
in 4. dislinct. 33. Ahulcnsis in Matlh. cap. 19.
qu;icsl. 49. cl 50. Eckius homil. 74. dc sacramen-
lis, cl Petrus a Soto lect. 13. de ^hilrimonio, tunc
ad ;irpumenlum Buceri negand;i crit consequcntia.
Domiiuis cnim conccssionom Judaeis faclam aper-
lissiinc rcvooflvit. cum ail Miitlh. .>. Qui dimissam
duxcrit mocchnlur. El 3I;iilh. 19. Ab imlio non
fuii sic. El: Quod Deiis conjuuxil. homo non se-
parct. Et iMarc. lO.Quicumquc dimiscril uxorem
snam. el aliam duxerit. adultcrimn commiltit
supcr eam; et si uxor dimiseril Tirum, cl alii mi-
pserit, moechnlur.
Sed rcspondet Buccrus: Debcre inlelligi ista o-
mnia dc iis, qui dimillunt, vcl dimissam accipiunl
in fraudem prioris conjugii. Vult cnim ipse, non
posse aliud Matrimonium iniri, donec post divorti-
um lcnlala sil reconciIi;itio; et si quis aliam ducal
dimissa sua, aul dimi.^^s^im ab ;iIio accipiat, ante-
quam lentaverit, an posset cum sua pacifice hnbi-
lare, hunc dicil in fraudcm prioris conjugii Malri-
muniiim contraherc, ct juxla Domini sentenlinm
niocclKiri: scd si riller conjugum diiro corde sit, ut
nullo modo vclil pacifice cum conjuge habitarc,de
hoc dicit Chrislum nlliil pracccpisse.
Al si istii se habcrent, Dominus nosler nulla in
rc a Pharisacis disscnsissel. Ncquc enim Pbarisaei
voleiiiinl nialrimonia dirimi, quando conjuges pa-
cifice habilaliant, scd solum quando alter nolebat
cum iillero concorditer vivere: neque lex ipsa Mo-
ysis,Iibellum repudii dari permisil nisi cb duritiam
c.ordis. Quod si Domino cuin Pharisaeis tam bene
conveniebat, quid sibi volunl illa: Diclum est an-
tiquis etc. Ego auicm dico vobis elc. Mallh. 5.
Non igilur dubitandum est, quin Dominus absolule
rcpudium illud in lege concessum aul pcrinissum,
omnino suslulerit, el ud primam originem conju-
gium revocaverit.
Ad Priraam probationem Respoodeo: Caussam
illnm non dnraro univcrsalilcr: ct si dtirarcl, nou
laincn csse tolcrandam. Miijor cnini cst gratia Te-
sl;iinciili novi. (]uain vctcris, sivc cognilioncm, si-
vc sacriimcnla, sivc c.xcmpl.i considcrcs: iiiimo
proprium est noviTeslamcnli.Juifcrrc cor liipidcum,
ct (liirc cor carncuin. Ilicrcmi;ic 31. ct Ezccliielis
3(». Ncc soliim iii Tcslamcnlo iiovo (liirum noii ju-
dic;iliir. uiii lanlum conjugi insolubiliter ;illig;ui,
scd cli;iin iiuilicrcm omniiio non hmgcrc, ct us(|uc
;id vil;ic lincni coclib;iLuin colcrc. Dcnicpic ipsiim
cli;iin coiijugiiim iiiTcshinuuilo iiovo s;icr;iincntuin
csl. ct piHuiliarcm gr;iti;im coiifcrt, quii molcstiae
coiiiugii fiicilc lolcrciitiir. qna griiti;i llcbraei in
vclcri Tcslanicnlo carcbant. Qu;irc iiiulla in Judae-
is lolcrari polcr;int, quoruin slatus pucrorum eral,
qiKic in Chrisli;inis tolcranda iioii sunl, quoruni
profcssio majorcin pcrfcclioncm rcquirit, ct adjn-
inciila ad cam acquircndam el conscrvandam sup-
pcdiliil.
Dcinde cliamsi niliil horum iKibercmus, quod
rcsponderc posscmus, non tamcu propter duros
( orde, Chrisli cvangelium, qnod in hac re pcrspi-
cnc soiKit, pcrvcrlcre. vcl miilarc nobis liccrct.
Alioqui ut rcctc monct s. Auguslinus lib. 2. dc a-
dultcrinis conjugiis, cap. 10. lcx Christi omnibus
inconlincntihus displicct, ncc lumen propter eos
imimilanda csl.
Ad ^ecundain concedo Chrislum non damnasse
qnidquam corum, qnae Pater praeccperal; is enim
damnarc dicitur, qui rcprehendil lamquam injiiste,
vcl imprudcnler 1'acia. Chrislus aulcm nihil eoruin
quac Palcr pracccpcrat, non recle imper<ilum fuis-
sc unquam pronunciavit, scd contra polius M;illh.
,1. :iil: Non veni solvcre legem, sed adimplcre.
El: Jota unum.. nui unus apex non pracieribii a
lege. doncc omniafiant. Al nihiIo!i'inus plurima
Dci praeccpta, qu^ie pro tempore data crant, (lUiie-
quc slalui synagogae tuntum convcniebanl, Chri-
slus iminulavil: el qui id vel ignorat vel ncgal,
Clirislianus non csl. Ubi cnim nunc csl in populo
Dci circumcisio? ubi sabbnlhum? ubi sacrificia pe-
cudum? ubi caeleri rilus innumerabiles. qiii in Lc-
vilico per iMoyscm a Deo praccipiunlur? Talis igi-
tiir cuin fucril libeilus rcpudii, mirum csse non
dcbcl,si eum sublalum de medio Chrislus volucrit.
Ad Tcrliam probalioncm,quae Epicurura magis,
aut polius cquum et canem, quam hominem, et
maxiinc Chrislianum deccrct, Respondeo: Non es-
se neccssarium, ul ubicumque est vir aut mulier
sine conjuge, continuo dctur ei conjux; aliO(iui
falsa esscnt Aposloli vcrba: Bonum est homiui,
mulierem non tajigere. El: Solulus es ab uxore,
noli quaerere uxorem. El-.Qui nonjungit Matri-
nionio virginem suam, meUus facil. Et: Beaiior
eril si sic permanserit. 1. Corinth. 7. el b. Joan-
nes et Chrislus ipse, non recle fecisscnt, quod si-
ne conjuge essc voluerunt.
Porro Dcus hoininem mascuUim et foeminam
csse voluil, ul propagari possel genus humunum,
non autem, ut cogcrenlur omncs cum conjuge vi-
vere.
Illud vero: Non esl bonum, hominem esse so-
/um; significal non fuisse bonura ad propagalio-
nem gcneris, ut solus masculus crearetur, sed ne-
LlliEU l'Rl:MUS
823
cessariam fuisse eliani foeniinae crealioiicin: iioii
aulem significal non licere. aut non esse mclius
jpsi homlni, coclibaluin colere, quam Malrimonio
jungi, praeserlim genere salis propagalo: alioqui
pcgnaret verbum Dei: I\'on est bonum, hominem
csscsoUim. cum alio verbo Dei: lionum cst homi-
ni. mulicrem non tangerc.
Denique illud l*nuli: Vnusquisquc suani, dici-
lur conjugalis, juxta illud, aliigalus es uxori noli
quaerere soliilionem, vel si dc ducenda uxorc aga-
lur, dicilur illis lanlum, qui liberi sunl, el forni-
calionis periculuin timent. I\am alioqui, si quae
mulicr vinculo conjugii cum viro ligala sil. et per
divortium ab eo disuedal, non dicilur ei,unaquae-
que suum;sed dicilur:.lia7iere innuplam, aulviro
reconciliari. Hl si quae per volum conlincnliae
Deo sit alligala, cl nubcre velit, non dicitur ei, u-
naquaeque suum:sed: Dnmnationemliabent,quia
primam fldcm irritam fecerunt. l.Timolli.ri. De-
nique si quae solula sil, et de Deo spcrans, forni-
cationis periculum non meluat, non dicitur ei, u-
naquaeque suum: sed: Bcalior erit.si sic pcrman-
serit. 1. Corinth.7. Atque hactenus de Malrimonii
lirmitale.