Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 19: That the Consent of Parents Is Not Required for the Essence of Matrimony
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 first question, then, is whether the consent of parents is necessarily required for the Matrimony of children. For the adversaries contend that the Matrimony is void unless it is made with the consent of the parents; but because they do not altogether agree among themselves, we shall briefly relate their opinions. The first seems to have been Erasmus, who called the matter into controversy; for in the colloquy on Matrimony, in which he brings in Eubulus and Catharina speaking, he says thus: “Some define that to be a valid Matrimony which has been contracted between a youth and a girl by words of the present, even without the knowledge and against the will of the parents. But this dogma neither the sense of nature approves, nor the laws of the ancients, nor Moses himself, nor the teaching of the Gospel or the apostles.” So he.
Martin Luther, in the sermon on Matrimony, speaks with a distinction: for either offspring has been born of a marriage contracted without the consent of the parents, or has not yet been born. If it has been born, the Matrimony ought to be firm; if it has not yet been born, it will be in the power of the parents to confirm or to make void the marriage. Philip teaches the same in the Commonplaces, under the title on marriage.
Bucer, on chapter 19 of Matthew, wishes the civil laws to be called back into use, by which he says it is provided that the marriages of children be not valid without the consent of the father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather. John Brenz, in the catechism, expounding the fourth commandment: if a Matrimony has been celebrated without the consent of the parents, he orders it to be referred to the magistrate, and by his judgement to be confirmed or made void. For although it is a general rule that children ought to enter marriages with the consent of their parents, yet there are some cases in which it is lawful to do otherwise. Martin Chemnitz comes down to the same opinion, in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 1273 and following; where yet he wrongly confuses the marriages of children without the consent of parents with clandestine marriages: for it can be that a Matrimony is clandestine and yet contracted with the consent of the parents; and on the contrary that it is not clandestine, but public and before the Church, and yet celebrated without the knowledge and against the will of the parents. John Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, the last section, enumerating the laws of the Roman pontiffs about Matrimony which are (as he himself says) either impious toward God or most unjust toward men, puts this in the first place: “Such are,” he says, “that marriages contracted between young people without the command of their parents remain firm and valid.” So these.
But the Catholic doctors are so far from doubting that those marriages are firm and valid that they have never numbered the lack of paternal consent among the impediments of Matrimony; and lately the Council of Trent, session 24, in the decree on clandestine marriages, laid down in these words: “The holy synod condemns with anathema those who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by children under their parents' power without the consent of the parents are void, and that parents can make them valid or void.” But that the question may be explained more briefly and easily, we shall lay down some propositions.
First proposition: By the consent of the parents alone Matrimony cannot be celebrated between children; and therefore a father cannot compel a son to marriage. Philip admits this proposition in the place noted, nor do the others deny it.
It is proved, first, by the example of divine Scripture. For in Genesis, chapter 24, when the father and brother of Rebecca had treated of her Matrimony with the steward of Abraham, who was asking for her as wife for Abraham's son, they said: “Let us call the maid, and ask her will.”
Second, it is plain from the canon law: the canon Sufficiat, cause 27, question 2; the canon Ubi non est, cause 30, question 2; the chapter Tuas dudum, on the betrothed of two; and the only canon on the espousal of those under age, in the Sext.
Third, it is plain from reason. For the consent of those is necessarily required who pronounce the form of Matrimony; for those words would be false, “I take thee for mine,” “I take thee for mine,” if the consent of those pronouncing them were lacking. But those who contract pronounce the form themselves; their consent, therefore, is necessarily required.
Then, marriage is the highest degree of friendship, according to the Philosopher; it is therefore against the nature of marriage that it be contracted between the unwilling.
Second proposition: The consent of the children, even if it is alone, suffices to make a firm and valid Matrimony; nor can such a Matrimony be made void by the parents or the magistrate. This is against Erasmus and the Lutherans.
It is proved, first, by examples of divine Scripture. In Genesis 26 Esau took two wives, who both had offended the mind of Isaac and Rebecca his parents; he therefore took them against his parents' will. And again, in chapter 28, he took a third, against the will of the same parents; and yet Isaac did not make those marriages void, and Scripture simply calls wives those who had been so taken. Then Jacob, Genesis 29 and 30, took one wife according to the counsel of his parents; but the other three, and especially the two handmaids, he took with his parents altogether unaware; and yet Jacob, a most holy patriarch, would not have done it if he had believed the consent of the parents to be necessary. Tobias too, as we read in chapter 7 of the book of Tobias, took a wife in another region, his parents not knowing; and yet the angel Raphael, who was with him, did not admonish him to wait for his parents' consent, nor did he himself think it a scruple to do this without his parents' knowledge.
Second, it is proved from the canon law. For in the chapter Cum virum, on regulars, Clement III speaks thus of a marriageable girl: “Then,” he says, “because she has free will, she is not compelled to follow the will of her parents in the choice of her state.” And to this belongs what St. Ambrose says in the book On Virgins: “She to whom it is lawful to choose a husband, is it not lawful for her to prefer God?” Where he teaches that it is lawful for a virgin girl, even against her father's will, to vow continence to God, as it is lawful for the same girl to choose a husband. And the same Ambrose, in letter 43 to Sysinnius, who was indignant with his son because he had taken a wife without his counsel, says indeed that some fault was committed by that son, yet shows plainly enough that the Matrimony was valid, and praises Sysinnius because he readily pardoned his son's fault.
Third, it is proved by reason. In such a marriage nothing of those things is lacking which belong to the essence of Matrimony; it will therefore be a true and valid, and so insoluble, Matrimony. The antecedent is proved. For the consent of the contracting parties is present, and so the intention of the minister; the matter is present, which is persons fit for Matrimony; the form is present, that is, the words or signs of mutual consent; what then is lacking? They will say: the consent is not full and sufficient; for since children are in the power of their parents, they cannot establish anything in so grave a matter without the parents' leave. I answer: either the consent of the children is not full because the use of free will is lacking, or because maturity of counsel is lacking, or because children are so subject to their parents that they have no right to dispose of the state of their life. The first cannot be said, because then there would be no marriage even with the consent of the parents. Nor can the second be said. For to contract Matrimony maturity of counsel is not necessarily required, but only the use of free will, such as is also required for sinning, for meriting, for vowing, and so on; otherwise an occasion would be given of breaking marriages everywhere. Wherefore the canons require only puberty in those contracting. Then it often happens that one who still has parents is a man of more mature counsel than many others who have been bereaved of parents and other elders; if, then, these latter can choose a wife without anyone else's counsel, why not also those former, who, as we now suppose, are more prudent than these? But neither can the third be said. For a son, although he owes obedience and reverence to his father, yet when he has the use of free will is free and his own master, no less than the father, in the things which belong to the state of life. Wherefore he may indeed sin while he does not follow his father's direction in choosing a state, yet what he does will be valid and firm, because he disposed of what was his own, not of another's. Moreover, the theologians rightly teach that the marriage of slaves against the will of their masters is firm and valid; and it is had in the canon law, chapter 1, on the marriage of slaves: for the law of nations, by which slavery was introduced, could not take away what the law of nature granted. Therefore much more will the marriage of children against the will of their parents be valid; for the subjection of slaves to a master is greater than that of children to parents. The argument is confirmed from the testimony of the adversaries. For Luther and Melanchthon contend that a Matrimony of children contracted against the will of the parents, if it has been consummated by carnal union, can no longer be made void by the parents.
But that carnal union does not make the son more prudent, nor does it exempt him from his father's power; therefore either the Matrimony contracted before union could not be made void by the parents, or, if it could then, it will be able to be after union too; which they deny. But, says Melanchthon, when the Matrimony is consummated, it is no longer a question of the future but of the present, and injury would be done to the spouse if she were deserted after violation. But a Matrimony contracted by words of the present is also not a future but a present marriage, and the conjugal gift has already been made; by that reason, then, no Matrimony could be made void, whether consummated or not consummated. Moreover, a Matrimony consummated against the will of the parents was either consummated by right or not. If consummated by right, then it was also contracted by right before the consummation; for a Matrimony not contracted by right cannot be consummated by right; therefore even before consummation the Matrimony contracted against the will of the parents was valid and firm. But if it was not consummated by right, it can by right be made void after the consummation, nor will any injury be done to the spouse; for he does injury to no one who uses his right. Otherwise, if that reason had force universally, no marriages could be broken after consummation, even though contracted by no right, nay against all rights. And by the same reason a union brought about by the defilement of a virgin could not be broken; the contrary of which yet we read in Exodus 22, where he who has seduced a virgin betrothed to no one is compelled to have her as wife if her father will give her, but if not, is compelled at least to give her a dowry.
Third proposition: Children sin when, without a just and reasonable cause, they contract marriages without the knowledge or against the will of their parents. I said “without a just and reasonable cause,” because it can sometimes be that a son does not sin in taking a wife without his father's knowledge, because, namely, he believes that his father will hold it valid; and in this way Tobias took a wife without his father's knowledge. It can also be that a son does not sin in taking a wife against his father's will: as if the father unjustly forbids his son marriage, or, for the sake of a greater dowry, will give him only an unworthy woman, or even a heretic. Yet for the most part children sin when they do not follow their parents' will in this matter: for for the most part parents are more prudent, nor is there danger that they will wish their children ill provided for, since they love them naturally. Moreover, it belongs to parents to provide for their children and to direct them; therefore it belongs to children to allow themselves to be ruled and led by their parents. And we have clear examples and testimonies in the Scriptures. In Genesis, chapter 24, Isaac took the wife whom his father gave him, and Rebecca his wife followed her father’s counsel in that matter; disputing of which, Ambrose, book 1 On Abraham, the last chapter, brings much to this purpose, and among other things praises the verses of Euripides, who brings in a virgin speaking thus: “My father will take on the care of my betrothal; for this is not mine.” And in letter 43 to Sysinnius he says that he was justly indignant that his son had wished to take a wife without his knowledge. In Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 7 the precept about the Matrimony of children is given to the parents rather than to the children, namely that they be not joined with the Chanaanites: “Thy daughter thou shalt not give to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son.” And Isaac openly commanded his son Jacob not to take a wife of the daughters of Chanaan, but one of the daughters of Laban; which he also did obediently, Genesis 28. You will say: if a father can command his son to take a wife, and such a wife, then he can compel him to take or not to take a wife; which is against the first proposition. I answer: a father can be understood to be said to compel his son to Matrimony in three ways. First, that the father compel a son plainly dissenting and unwilling to live with some woman whom he will have to be his wife; and this cannot be done, and if it is done, the Matrimony is null. And this is properly what was asserted in the first proposition. Second, that he compel the son to assent by bringing on the fear of death, or another fear that falls on a steadfast man; and this too is by no means lawful for the father. Nor would that Matrimony be valid: since for Matrimony not only consent, but the freest consent of the contracting parties, is required, since Matrimony is a perpetual bond and by its nature requires good will and friendship, and that the highest. Third, that he induce the son to assent by commanding with paternal authority, when in truth it is good for the son, so that according to right reason he cannot dissent; and this is lawful for the father, and the son is bound to obey. Just as, when it is good for the son to eat such or such a food, and to abstain from such or such, the parent can command, and the son is bound to obey. And although this too is in its way to compel, and to bring on the fear of eternal death, yet that Matrimony would not therefore be called compelled, nor would it be void; because that fear of hell is not properly brought on in order that he take a wife, but follows of itself from the transgression of the precept.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPIT XIX.
Non rcqniri ad esscnliam Malrimonii,
consensnm parenlum.
Prima igilur quacslio csl,an rcquiratur ncccssa-
rio ad Blatrimonium liIioriim,consensus parenlum.
Conlcndiint cnim advcrsarii, Malrimonium irrilnm
csse, nisi lial cum parcnlum consensu: sed tiuia
non omnino inler so conveniunt, eorum senlcnlias
brcviler refcromns.Primus videlur fuisse Erasriius,
qiii roin in conlroversiam rovocavil; nam in collo-
quio dc MaUiinonio, in quo Kubnlura el Calliari-
nam loqutMilos induoil, sic ait: Definiiint quidarii
Malrimoninm csscralmn, quodinsciisxiut cliam
inviiis parcnlibus. inlcr jmerum ct pucllam per
verba de praescnti contraclum cst. Alqui isliuC
dofjrna nec nalurac sensus apjnobalMec velerum
lego.s, ncc illoyses ipse. nec evangclica, aut apo-
sloiica docirina. llaoc illc.
Marliiuis Lulbcrus in serm. de Malrimonio, cum
dislinclione loquitur: nam aut nata esl proles ex
conjugio conlraclo sine parentum conscnsu, aut
nondum csl nala. Si nala est , firmum esse dcbet
Malrimonium: si nondum cst nata,in poleslale pa-
rcnlum erit, confirmare, vel irrilare conjugiura. I-
dcm docel Pbilii)pus in locis, til. de conjugio.
Ducerus in cap.lO, Matlbaei revocari optal in u-
suin legcs civilcs, quibus id caveri dicit,nc nuptiae
liliorum ralac sinlsine consensu palris,aul avi.aut
proavi, Joannes Brentius in calecliismo, expoiiens
quarlum |)raeccpUiin; si Malrimonium sine paien-
liiiii consensu, celcbralum sit, jobel id referri ad
luagislralum, alqiic ejus judicio connrmandiim,
vel irrilandum esse, Nam clianisi gcncralis rogula
sit,quodlibcridebeanlinireconjugiacumi^arcnium
conscnsu,lamcn nonnulli siint casus.in quibus licet
eliam secus agere. In eandcm senlenliam descen-
dit .Marlinus Kcmnilius in 2, parl, exam. concilii
Iridenlini pagina 127.'». el sequonlibus, ubi lamen
non rccle confiindil Malrimonia liliorum sinc con-
sonsu parenl-ura, cum Matrimoniis clandeslinis/po-
lcsl enim lieri ul Malrimonium silclandeslinum, el
lamen cum parenlum consensu conlracluin : et
conlra ul non sil clandesUnum,sed publicum.el co-
ram Ecclesia, cl lamen insciis, el invilis parcnli-
bus celcbralum; Joanncs Calvinus lib, 4. inslilut.
cap. 19. § nll. cnumerans Icges ponlificum roma-
norum d(3 Malrimonio(ul ipse loquilur) vcl in Dcum
I
LIHEi; PRIMUS 82.';
iinpias, Ycl in homincs iniquissimas, primo loco Secunrlo probiiliir ox jnrc cnnonico. \ani cnpil.
isliim ponil: Qiiulcs sunt, imiuil, nl coiijiiQia ui- Cumvirum, do, riiuularibus, ita loqiiilur r.lomons
tcr adolescenlulos , parentum, injussu conlra- IIl.(lcpuoll;i nuhili: Tunc, inquil, quia libcvum
cla, firma, ralaquc mancant. llacc illi. Calholici habctarbilrium.in clcctionc proposili, parentum
vero doclorcs adco non duhilanl ea Hlalrimonii fir- scqui non cocjitur volunlalem. El huc pcrlinct
ma oc rnla essc. ul neque unquam iiilor impedi- quod ait s. Amhrosius in libro dc virginihus: CAii
mcnla Malrimonii uumcrnvcrinl diifectum coiison- licct, inquit , marilum cligcre. non licct Deum
suspalcrni, cl nupcr coucilium Irideiiliuum sess. pracfcrre? uhl i]occl licere puellae virgiui, palre
24. in decrelo de Malrimoniis clandeslinis, in hacc eliam invito. conlinontiam Deo vovere: slcul eidcm
verha stalueril:Scnic/a synodus analhcmatc dam- licel viruiii oligere.Et idcm .Vinhrosius in epist. 43.
nat eos, qui falso affLrmat Malrimonia a [iliisfa- ad Sysiunium, qui tilio indignnbatur, quod sinc
milias sine consensu 2)cirentum contracta, irrita suo consilio uxorom duxissid, dicil, culpam ali-
ossc, et parcntcs c.a rata, vel irrita faccre posse. quam ab co tilio admissam.lnmen. sntis aporte in-
Sed ulhrevius, et facilius quaeslio cxplicclur, pro- dicnl,Mntrimonium fiiisso ralum.ol Sysinniiim Inu-
posi-tlones aliquol slaUiemus. dnl.quod facile culpam ignovciil (ilio.
Prima proposilio: Solo conscnsu parent um, Ma- Tertio probatur rationc.In ejusmodi conjugio ni-
irimoniumintcrfilioscclcbrarinonpotcst-.ctideo hil eoriim decst, qune ad essenliain Mntrimonii
71071 potcst patcr fdium ad conjugium cogere . perlinent; veruin igilur ot raluin, alquc ndeo in-
llanc proposilionem admillit Philippus loco notato, solubilc Malriraonio eril.ProhaUir anleccdens.IVnm
nequc alii eam negant. conscnsus conlrahenlium adest, et proindc inlcii-
Prohalur primo e.xcmplo Scriplurae divinae.IXam tjo minislri; adesl maleria, quao sunl porsonne ad
in Genosi cap. 24. cum pnler el frnlcr lichcccac dc Matriuioniiim idoneao.adesl forma, idesl.vcrha sou
.Matrimonio ejus cum procuratorc Ahrahae,qui eam signa mului consensus: quid igilur decst? Dicenl,
in uxoroiii filio Ahrahne pelohnl, Iraclnsscnl, di- oo'nsensus non est pleiius ac sufficicns; nam cuni
.\erunl: Vocemurf imcllam, ct inqairamu.i cjus vo- filii sint in potestnlc pnrcnlum, nou possunt in rc
luntatcm. ^ lara gravi sinc parenlum faoiillalc ali^iuid couslilu-
Sccundo palet ox jurc cauonico, cnn. Sufficiat, erc.Vvespondoo: Vel consensus filiorum non csl
27. q. 2. can. Ubi non cst, 30. qu. 2. Cap. Tuas plonus, quia dcest usus lihcri arhilrii.vel quia de-
dudum, de sponsa duorum; et can. unico, dc de- est consilii maluritas, vcl quia ila suhjiciiinUir filii
sponsalionc impubcrum in VI. parcnlihus, ut jus non hnhoant de slalu vilnc suae
Tertio patet ralionem. Nnm illornm necessario disponendi. Primnm dioi non poiosl. quia lunc et-
consensus requirilur, qui Mnlrimonii formam pro- jjim cum pnronlum consonsu, conjagiuin uou es-
nuncianl: essenl enim falsa verba illa: Ego et acci- sef. Nec Scoundum dici polest. Nain' nd Malrimo-
pio inmcam, Ego teaccipioin meum, si consen- niiim contrnliendum non cxigilur necessario con-
sus pronuncianlium ea voiba dcessot. Al forinam silii mnliiritas, sed solum usus lihcri arbilrii, qua-
proiiunciant ipsi qui conlrnhunl; ipsorum igiUir Hs oliam roqiiiritur ad peccandum, ad mcrondum.
consensus necessario requirilur. nd vovendum olc. alioqiii darelur occasio Matrimo-
Dcinde conjugium est summus nmiciliac gradus, „ia passim dirimendi. Ouocirca solam puhortalom
secundum philosophum ; rcpugnnt igitur nalurac jn conlrahentibus caiiones exigiinl. Deiiule sacpe
conjugii, ut conlrnhnlur inler invitos. pccidit, ul qiii pnrenlos ndhuchabot, sit vlr maUi
Secunda proposilio: Filiorumconscnsus ctiam- rioris consilii, quam inuUi alii, qui paronlihus a-
si solus sit, ad Matrimonium firmum ac ratuni ijisque mnjoribus orlinli suiil; si igiliir lii |)osU;rio-
efjiciendum sufflcil; nec polcsl a parcntilms, vcl j-os uxorem eligore possunl,sine uiliiis nlloriuscou-
magistratu ejusmodiMalriinoniumirrilariA\i\cc silio, eur non eliam priores illi. qui siiiit his. ul
esl eoulra Krasmum et Lulliorauos. ja,„ pouimus. prudcnlioros? Sod lUMpio Terliiim
Prohalur priiiio excmplis Scriplurne diviiine. ■,ii(;i polest. INnm filiiis licet pnlri ohedienliam et
Genesi 20. Esau duxil uxorcs duas, quae niiihae rovorenliam dohcal. larncn qiiando usum lihcri ar-
oITendoraiil ariinuim Isanc ol Rohoccne paronlum i,ii,-ii habct, liber est, et sui .jmis.non minusquam
ejus: proiiidc invilis parenlibus ens nccopil. VA rur- pnler. in his (piae ad slaliiin vilac porliMonl. Quare
sus cap. 28. accopit lerliam, conlra eorundem pa- polorit quidein poooaro, dum iioii seijuilur palris
renlum voliintatom; nec lamcn Isaac ea conjugia direclionem in slalii eligendo, lamen quod facil,
irrilavil.ot Scriplura simpliciler uxores vocnl.qnnc rnlum et firmiim eril, quia de re sua.nou i\c aliiMia
ita duclae fueranl. Deiiidc Jacob Genos. 2{). el 30. disposuil.Praelereaconjugiumscrvorum invilis Do-
du.\iluxorcm unam juxlaconsilium parentum siio- minis. firmum ac ratum esse, Iheologi rcctc do-
rum; sed alias Iros, et praesortim duas anoillns cenl; el hnholur in jiire cnnonico. cap. 1. de con-
duxil, pnrenlihus oinnino iusciis, ncc Ininon .lacoh jn-rio sorvoriim: non ouim jiis goulium, qiio servi-
sanclissimus palriarcha id fecissel, si crodidissol ms iulroducta osl, id i>oUiii aolorre (iiiod ,ius luilii-
neccssarium esso consensum parenlum. Tohias rae conoessit. Ergo mullo mngis con.iiigium filio-
qiioqiie, ul logimns oap. 7. lihri Toliiao, uxorem rum inviiis pnroniihiis cril r;dum:iiiaior oiiim siib-
duxit in aliiuia regione, pnronlihiis igiioranlihus: jeclio esl sorvorum ad Dominuin.ipinm filiorum ad
ncc lainen angelus Ha])ha(;I, qiii ciiiii ipso erat, p:u-ontos. Confirmaliir nrgumenUim o\ lcslimoiilo
oiim admonuil, ut pareiiUim coiiscusum expeclarel, advorsarioriim. >;im I.ullHirus et MidiincliUm oon-
neqiic ipsc rcliijioiii sibi diixil, iiisciis parcntihus lendiinl,. Malrimouiiim filiorum invilis parenlihus
id faccre. conlr;ielimi, si per copulam oarualcui cousumma-
82ii
l)K SACIIAMI-MO .MATIIIMO.MI
Uim sil. lUMi possc aiiipliu.s a parenliluis iirrilari.
Al oopula illa carnalis non lacil liliuin prudiMi-
liorom, ium|uo tvxiiiiit a palria polestaloKM^io (;liain
•uile copulam Hlalrimoniuiii conlraclum a '^parcnli-
bus irrilari non iiolcral. vol si lunc polcrai, cliam
post copulam pi.UMil. (|uoil ipsi ncjjanl, Scd, in-
(|uil Mclanclilhon, qiiamio JHalrinwnium r.s/ con-
sumniatuni, non ainpUus afiilur de fuluro. scd
dc ]'racsrnti: ct injuria ficrcl conjiHii.iii post vio-
lationcm dcscrcrctur. Al eliam MaUiinoiiiom con-
Iraclum por vcrba do praesenli, non esl fulurum,
sed praescns conjuijlum. el donalio conjut,'a!is jam
piMacta esl; illa ij^Mlur ralione iioii poleril irrilari
3IaIrimonium ulluin. sivc consummalum, sivc non
consummaIum.rrai'Iorea Malrimonium consumma-
tum invitis paronlibus, vcl jure consummatum esl,
vei non.Si jurc coiisummatum;ergo cl jurc conlra-
clum anlc consummalionem: non cnim jurc con-
summari polesl .)IaIrimonium:non jure conlraclum;
trgo eliam anle consumuialioncm Malrimonium
invitis parenlibus conlraclum, ratum eral ac llr-
mum. Sin aulein non jurc consuinmalum fuit, jure
posl consummalioncui irrilari poleril, ncquc ulla
liel injuria conjugi: non enim ulli racil injuriam,
qui ulilur jurc suo. Alioqui si ista latio universe
vim baberet, non posscnl diriini Matrimonia ulla
posl consummatioucm, quamvis nullo jurc, immo
trimonio lilioruin, parenlii)us poliiis dalur, (juam
tiliis. iu> jiingiMiIur vidclicol cum Oliananacis: Fi-
liain tuam noii dahis IHio cjus; ncx fdiani iUius
accipics lUio tuo, Kl Isaac apertc jussii lilio suo
.lacob. ul non accipcrct uxorem dc liliabus Palesli-
noiiiin. sed aliipiam ex liliabus l,abaii: quod elillo
obedieuler fccil. ricnes. 2S. Diccs, si potcst pater
lilio imperarc, ul uxorem, et lalein uxorein ducal;
crgo polcsl cogere, iil ducal. vcl non ducal uxo-
riMU. (piod csl conlra primam piopositionem. Ue-
spon(l(M):Tribus modis polesl intelligi,ul paler di-
calnr liluim cogerc ad Malriiiioiiiiiin. Primo: Ul fi-
liuin plaiie (lissenli(MiIeiii cl invilum palcr cogal
viverc cum aliqua, quam velil ejus uxorcm ess(!:
cl lioc non potesl fieri, el si liat, Matrimonium cst
nullum. Et lioc propric in prim;i proposilione as-
serliim csl. Scciindo: Ul filium asscntiri cogat, in-
jeclo melu niorlis, aut alio, cadenlc in constantein
virum; cl boc cliam palri niinime licct. Nequc Ma-
trimonium illud cssct ralum: quoniam od Malrimo-
niuin non solum conscnsus, scd etiam consensus
libcrrimus conlralienlium cxigiliir, cuin Matrimo-
nium sit vinculum pcrpeluum, cl nalura sua bcnc-
voIiMitiam et amiciliam, oamque summain requirat.
Terlio: Ul filium ad assenliendum inducat, aucto-
rilalc palcrna imperando, quando rcvera filio id
conduciI,iIa ul secundum rectam rationem dissen-
conlra omnia jura conlracla. El cadcm ralione,per ijrc non possil: el lioc palri licet, el rilius obedire
sliiprum virgini illiiluui , non possel dirimi illa icnelur. Quemadmodum eliain cum filio expedit
conjunctio; cujus tamen corararium lcgimus in E- comedere talein, aut lalcm cibum, ct a lali,vel lali
xodo cap. 22. ubi, qui virginem nulli desponsalain abstinerc, polesl parens jubere, et filius tenelur
viliaveril, cogilur eam habere uxorem, si palcr parere. El licet Iioc etiam sit suo modo cogere, et
cam darc volucrit, sin ininus, cogitur saltem do- mclum inculerc morlis aeternae: non tamen pro-
'^'"C. plerca Malrimonium illud dicerelur coactum, ne-
Tertia propositio: Peccanl filii quando sine ju- qne irritum esset; quia melus ille gehennae non
sta ct rationabili caussa parentibus insciis, vel proprie inculitur ad hoc, ut iste uxorem ducal;sed
invitis Matrimonia contrahunl. Dixi: Sine jusla pcr se consequilur praccepli transgressionera.
ct rationabili caussa, quia polesl aliquando fieri,
ul filius non peccet inscio palre uxorcm ducendo;
quia nimirum crcdit patrem id ratum habilurum;
el boc modo Tobias inscio palrc uxorcm duxit.Po-
lest eliam fieri, ut non peccel filius invilo patrc
iixorem ducendo. ut si paler injuste prohibeat fi-
lium a conjugio; vcl caussa majoris dolis, nonnisi
indignam mulierem, aul cliam haerelicam ei dare
velil. Ut plurimum lamcii peccanl filii,cum non se-
quunlur iu liac re parenlum volunlalcm: Nam ut
plurimum parcnles sunt prudenliores, neque pe-
riculum esl ul filiis male consullum velinl,cuni eos
naluralilcr diliganl. Praclerca parenlum est, filiis
prospicere; cosque dirigere; ergo filiorum est, si-
nere se a parenlibus regi ac duci. Et habcmus c-
xempla ac leslimonia in Scripturis perspicua. Ge-
nes. cap. 24. Isaac acccpit uxorom, quam paler ei