Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 20: The Arguments of Chemnitz Are Solved
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).
But now let us dissolve the arguments of Chemnitz, who collected them from Luther, Bucer, Calvin and other sectaries.
First he objects the testimony of the sounder papists, who acknowledge and confess that marriages contracted without the knowledge and against the will of parents are not a lawful or divine joining; and he alleges John Gropper in the Cologne Instruction.
I answer: Chemnitz is deceived in many ways. First, because from Gropper alone he tries to gather the mind of the sounder Catholics, whereas we can bring forward against him all the old theologians, and among them St. Thomas, on book 4, distinction 28, question 1, article 3, and very many most learned among the more recent, as Ruard, Peter and Dominic Soto, and others, who teach most openly that a Matrimony, whether clandestine or contracted without the parents' knowledge, is not only a true Matrimony but also a true sacrament.
Second: because John Gropper in that place does not speak of a Matrimony which lacks only the consent of the parents, of which we treat in the present question, but of a Matrimony which is contracted without the parents' knowledge and is at the same time clandestine. For a Matrimony which is celebrated in the face of the Church, although without the knowledge or against the will of the parents, Gropper would never have denied to be a true sacrament. Wherefore in the present question, taken precisely, there is no dissension among Catholics.
Third: because Gropper does indeed deny that clandestine Matrimony is a sacrament, in which he is manifestly deceived and opposes St. Thomas and the sounder theologians; yet he admits that it is a true Matrimony, and tolerated by the Church for a long time, but wishes it to be made void by the Church; which has now been done in the Council of Trent. For the council, while it asserted that clandestine marriages, as long as they had not been made void by the Church, were true marriages, and yet from then on made them void and made persons incapable of so contracting, plainly satisfied the desire of Gropper and of many others, who on account of the most grave troubles which arise from clandestine marriages desired them altogether taken away. In no matter, then, if you separate the question of the sacrament from the question of the truth of Matrimony, of which alone we now treat, does Gropper dissent from us and from the other Catholic theologians.
Second: Chemnitz draws an argument from divine law (for he promises to prove his opinion from divine, natural, civil and canon law): “Matrimony ought to be such a joining that God himself can be held its author and reconciler. But such are not marriages which are contracted without the knowledge or against the will of parents; they are not, therefore, true marriages. The proposition is certain from that of Matthew 19, What God hath joined, and so on. The assumption is proved: God is not the author and reconciler of a Matrimony which is contracted against his word and precept. A Matrimony without the knowledge or against the will of parents is contracted against the word and command of God; God, therefore, is not its author and reconciler. The assumption is proved (for the proposition is most certain): for in the fourth precept of the Decalogue children are commanded to obey their parents; and the Apostle explains, Colossians 3, that this is to be understood in all things: Children, he says, obey your parents in all things.
“And because it could perhaps be answered that the cause of Matrimony is excepted from that law which commands obedience to parents, since Scripture says, A man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, Chemnitz proves that this place of Scripture ought to be understood of consummated Matrimony, not of betrothal, and so that in contracting Matrimony children ought to obey their parents. For Scripture gives precepts to parents about placing their daughters in Matrimony, Deuteronomy 7, Jeremiah 29 and 1 Corinthians 7.
“Moreover, there is extant the divine law of Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22, that if anyone has defiled a virgin, he give her father a certain number of sicles, and have her as wife if the father will, or not have her if he will not. From which we understand that it belongs to the paternal power to make the daughter's marriage valid or void.
“Besides, if a girl has vowed anything to God, her father can make that vow void, Numbers, chapter 30; therefore much more will the same parent be able to make void a promise of marriage made to a man.
“Lastly, God joins husband to wife in lawful Matrimony, but does not join them immediately, as once Adam to Eve; therefore through some means. And what the means is he himself explains in the handing down of the fourth precept, where he commands children to obey their parents; therefore those who contract Matrimony despising these means cannot pronounce with certainty that that marriage is a divine and lawful joining. This reason,” says Chemnitz, “is most weighty, and taken from divine law.”
I answer: it is not proved by this argument that a Matrimony is void, or can be made void, if it is made without the knowledge or against the will of parents, which certainly had to be proved; but only that Matrimony ought not to be contracted without the knowledge or against the will of parents, and that those do ill who so contract; of which there is no question. But that the whole matter may be clearly understood, let us look at the several parts of the argument.
To the first proposition of the first syllogism, then, I answer: God can be called the author of the matrimonial joining in two ways. In one way on the part of the marriage itself; in the other way on the part of those contracting. God will be the author of Matrimony on the part of the marriage itself if the very essence of the marriage has been instituted by God; but he will be the author of Matrimony on the part of those contracting if God inspires the contracting parties themselves to be joined in Matrimony. This we easily find in all the sacraments. For when anyone receives Baptism, or Ordination, or another sacrament from another, God can be called the author of that action either because he himself instituted the sacrament which that man receives, or because he himself moves both the minister to confer the sacrament and the other to receive it. And it can often happen that God is the author in the former way and the devil in the latter; if namely a true sacrament is handed on and received, but both he who hands it on and he who receives it are hunting not for the glory of God and the salvation of the soul, but for some base and sordid gain or advantage.
So, then, in marriage God will be the author of the marriage in one way if the matter and form are present such as God instituted; and this alone is required for Matrimony to be true, firm and valid. In the other way God will also be the author if the spouses contract Matrimony to beget offspring for God's glory, with mature counsel, by the judgement of their elders, and the other due circumstances being observed; and this is required for Matrimony to be celebrated without sin, nay with merit and praise; but not for it to be true, firm and valid. For if a marriage is entered only to satisfy lust, rashly, without the counsel of parents, God will not be the author but the devil of that marriage, as regards the will of those who receive it; although God is the author of the same marriage as regards the essence of its sacrament, which is found whole in that marriage; as can be said of Baptism and all the other sacraments.
To the assumption of the same first syllogism I answer: according to the distinction laid down, marriages which are contracted without the knowledge or against the will of parents often do not have God as author in the second way, yet have him in the first way, if nothing else stands in the way; and therefore they are true and valid marriages, although for the most part they are not contracted without sin.
To the proof of the assumption, which was, “God is not the author of a Matrimony which is contracted against his precept,” I answer by the same distinction: for either the precept of God against which someone contracts Matrimony belongs to the essence of Matrimony, or only to explaining circumstances accidental to Matrimony, such as perfecting the will of those contracting, that they seek and desire a good thing well, and so on. If in the former way someone acts against the precept of God, he does not have God as author of the marriage as to the essence of the marriage itself, and so the marriage is void and unlawful. If in the latter way he acts against the precept, he does not have God as the author of his will in receiving the marriage, nor does he merit a reward but a penalty for the work; yet he has God as the author and reconciler of his marriage, as regards its essence.
To the proof of the assumption of the second syllogism, which was drawn from the fourth precept of the Decalogue, which is explained by Paul, Colossians 3, I answer: that precept belongs to forming morals, not to ministering sacraments. Wherefore the father is to be obeyed in all things, even in contracting marriage, if he commands justly and according to God; and therefore he who does not do it sins, but the Matrimony is not at once void. For the bishop and the Church are to be obeyed in all things no less than the father according to the flesh; and yet if a layman baptizes against the precept of the bishop and the Church, the Baptism will be valid and true, but that layman will sin in baptizing. Nor is Matrimony valid only as a sacrament, but also as a civil contract, although it is contracted against the father's precept. For the son, as we set out above, although he is bound to follow his father's direction when he disposes of the state of his life, yet disposes of what is his own, not another's, and gives what is his own, not another's; wherefore the disposition and gift are valid and firm, although they were not transacted without sin.
To those testimonies which the adversary brought forward to prove that Scripture gives the father precepts about placing daughters in Matrimony, there is no need to answer, since we by no means deny that the marriages of children belong most of all to the care and providence of parents.
But to what is brought from chapter 22 of Exodus and 22 of Deuteronomy, to prove that it lies with the father to make a daughter's marriage valid or void, we answer: in that place it is not a question of a Matrimony already contracted, but of a future one, by reason of a preceding defilement. For that joining of the man with the girl which is described in those two chapters as done without the father's knowledge was not conjugal union but defilement, as Scripture speaks. For the defiler did not wish to have a wife, but only to satisfy lust; wherefore as a penalty it is enjoined on him that he take the girl as wife if her father will give her. And so that is not an example of a marriage being made void by a father, but only of a marriage being ratified or not ratified at the father's will, by which yet the girl's consent is not excluded. But what would happen if with equal consent a man and a woman had contracted Matrimony without the father's knowledge, Scripture does not have.
Add that if in those chapters Moses were speaking of making void a Matrimony already contracted between the virgin and her defiler, this example would be against Luther and Philip, and against Chemnitz himself too, who say that a marriage of children against the will of parents cannot be broken if it has been consummated. For how could the father have separated his daughter from that defiler (as Moses openly grants) if that defilement had been of a consummated marriage?
To that about making vows void, which is had in the book of Numbers, chapter 30, I answer: that law is determined of daughters who have not yet come to puberty; as is plain from this, that Scripture in that chapter twice repeats that the father can make void the vows of a daughter who lives in her parents' house and is still of girlish age. Like to this divine law is the canon law which is had in the canon Puella, cause 20, question 2, in these words: “If a girl before the twelfth year of age of her own accord has taken the sacred veil, her parents or guardians can at once make that deed void if they will. But if in a stronger age a young woman or young man has chosen to serve God, the parents have no power of forbidding.” And the reason of the law, both divine and canon, is that before the years of puberty men do not have the full judgement of reason, and therefore are not masters of their acts; but after the years of puberty they are made their own masters, and can dispose at their will of their person and of the acts which are naturally free.
To the last, about the means through which God joins men in Matrimony, I answer: for Matrimony to be true and valid no other means are required besides the free consent of the spouses. For as God dispenses the other sacraments through a minister, so also Matrimony; and the minister of Matrimony is each spouse, as we have explained elsewhere. But for the marriage to be pleasing to God and useful to the spouses themselves, means have been instituted by God: the counsels of parents and friends, mature deliberation, the blessing of the priest, and other things of that kind; and he who despises these cannot pronounce with certainty that his marriage pleases God or will be useful to him, although at the same time he can have no doubt that it is true and firm, and most certainly instituted by God.
The third objection of Chemnitz is drawn at once from natural and civil law. For that the marriages of children contracted against the will of parents are void he proves from the civil law, from the law Nuptiae, in the Digest on the rite of marriages, and from laws 1 and 2 in the Code on marriages, and from the Institutes on marriages, the section Justas autem. And that they are void also by the law of nature he proves from the law last cited. For in that law, after it has been laid down that the consent of parents is required in marriages, these words are added: “For that this ought to be done both civil and natural reason persuades, so much that the command of the parents ought to go before.”
I answer: natural reason teaches that marriages ought not to be celebrated without the command of parents. And Justinian truly asserts this in that place: since by the law of nature the son is subject to the father, and ought to be ruled by him from whom he received his being. Yet the law of nature does not teach that a Matrimony is void if it is made without the command of the parents. And it matters little what the civil law has laid down in this part: for, as Pope Lucius III writes, in the chapter Clerici, on judgements, the emperor himself confesses that the laws do not disdain to imitate the sacred canons; and we have this confession of the emperor in the Authentic Ut clerici apud episcopos, the next-to-last section. Since, then, the sacred canons, and lately a general council, have defined that a Matrimony contracted against the will of parents, provided it is not clandestine (for the same council made that void), is valid, the laws cannot define the contrary; and if perhaps they have defined it, they are to be judged abrogated.
The fourth objection, from the canon law, contains several canons, to which we shall answer one by one. The first is of Evaristus, in a decretal letter, who speaks thus: “Otherwise a lawful marriage is not made, unless the wife is asked of those who are seen to have power over the woman, and by whom she is kept, and is betrothed by the parents and near relatives.”
I answer: the decree of Evaristus, which is also related in the body of the canon law, the canon Aliter, cause 30, question 5, requires many conditions for marriages to be judged lawful, some of which conditions can in no way please the adversaries. Wherefore this decree fights no less with the adversaries than with us; for it requires among other things that the wife be blessed by the priest with prayers and oblations (that is, with the sacrifice of the Mass); likewise that the spouses give themselves to prayers for two or three days and keep chastity. If these conditions are necessary for marriages to be lawful, there will be no lawful marriages among the Lutherans; for they neither offer an oblation to God for those about to marry, nor keep continence for two or three days.
Moreover many of those conditions are so extrinsic and accidental that it is foolish to believe that without them a marriage is void: such as that groomsmen guard the wife, that relatives accompany her, that she be lawfully dowered and solemnly received, and so on. Wherefore we are compelled to say that Evaristus did not mean to signify that all those conditions are necessary, so that if one or another is lacking the Matrimony is void; but that a marriage is so lawful if all those are present, that on the contrary, if none of them is present and the marriage is contracted secretly, without witnesses and without any solemnity, it cannot be held lawful; not indeed in conscience, but in the external forum, and before the Church, which does not judge of hidden things.
The second canon is taken from book 1 On Abraham of St. Ambrose, and is had in Gratian, the canon Honorantur, cause 32, question 2. But nothing is had in that canon against our opinion: for Ambrose only exhorts girls, after the example of Rebecca, to leave to their parents the judgement about their marriages. But if it is done otherwise, whether the marriage is lawful or not Ambrose defines nothing in that place.
The third canon is of the Fourth Council of Carthage, in Gratian, cause 30, question 5, the canon Sponsus. But neither has this canon anything to which answer must be made. For the canon commands that when the bridegroom and bride are to be blessed by the priest, they be presented to the Church by the parents and the groomsmen; which indeed we by no means deny ought to be done. But it does not follow from this that the marriage is void if these things are not done, because there is no doubt that these belong to the solemnity, not to the essence, of marriage.
The fourth canon, which is attributed to Leo, is in Gratian, the canon Qualis, cause 30, question 5. Where not only is there nothing against the Catholic opinion, since that canon only describes the rite of marriage, but does not define that the marriage is void if those rites are not kept; but there is something expressly against the adversaries. For that canon concludes: “If the wife has committed fornication, she is to be put away; but while she lives, another is not to be taken, because adulterers shall not possess the kingdom of God.” Chemnitz ought to admit this opinion, if he reveres the canons.
The fifth canon is of the Third Council of Toledo, in Gratian, the canon Hoc sanctum, cause 32, question 2, where we read only this: that no virgin be compelled to take a husband against the will of her parents, or her own. Which, if it is rightly looked at, has something against the Lutherans, against the Catholics nothing at all: for the council fights against those who were trying to hinder virgins from their purpose of continence and to thrust husbands on them, which the Lutherans certainly often do. The council laid down, then, that a virgin be not compelled to take a husband except one whom she herself has chosen, or certainly her father, with her consenting; but does it follow from this that, if she has taken a husband without her father's knowledge, the marriage is void?
The sixth canon is of Pope Nicholas, and is had in the canon Nostrates, cause 30, question 5, where among other rites of marriage it is laid down that they be made with the consent of the parents. But nothing follows from this. For Nicholas enumerates various rites of marriage, and at the end of the canon adds that it is not a sin if not all are kept; from which we understand that not all are essential; nor does he himself declare in that place which are essential and which accidental.
The seventh canon is of the Council of Orleans, in Gratian, cause 30, question 1, the canon De raptoribus, where we read that a girl who has been carried off is to be returned to her father, even if she has consented to the ravisher.
The eighth is of Gregory, or rather of Gratian himself, in the same cause 30, question 2, the canon Apud, where it is said: “When the girl carried off has been restored to her father, if the will of both parents agrees in one, they are not forbidden to be joined to one another.”
I answer: rape is one thing, a marriage celebrated against the father's will another. For rape belongs to her who is not yet one's own wife, nor betrothed. For he who violently carries off his own betrothed from her father is not called a ravisher, because he takes what is his own, not another's, as is plain from Gelasius, the chapter Lex illa, cause 30, question 1. Rightly, then, the canons willed that a girl carried off, even if she consented to be carried off, be returned to her father; because he who carried her off did injury to the father by violently leading away his daughter, although he did no injury to the girl. But if the girl carried off, according to the decree of the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 6, placed outside the power of the ravisher and in a safe place, with free consent contracted marriage with the ravisher, the Matrimony would be valid, nor could it be made void by the father. For rape is an impediment hindering the contracting of marriage, but not breaking the contract, as the theologians teach, and among them St. Thomas, the Second of the Second, question 154, article 7, to the third, where he shows that the Council of Meaux, which had laid down the contrary, has been abrogated.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX.
Solvunlur argumenla Kemnilii.
Sedjam argumenla Kemnilii dissoIvamus,qui ex
Lulhero, Bucero, Calvino, et aliis seclariis ea col-
legit.
Primo objicit leslimonium seniorum Ponlificio-
rum, qui agnosciint el falcntur, Matrimonia insciis
et invilis parenlibus contracta , non essc legiti-
mam, aut divinam conjuiiclioncm; ct allegat Joan-
dedil, el Kebecca uxor ipsius, consilium palris sui nem Gropperum in inslitulione Coloniensi.
m ea re sequula est;de qua re dispulans Ambrosius
hb. 1. de Abraham cap. ullimo, mulla ad hoc pro-
posilum adfert, el inler alia laudat versus Euripi-
dis, qui virginem ila loqucnlcm introducil: Spon-
saliuni quidem meorum pater meus curam subi-
bil: lioc enini non esl meum. El in episl. 43. ad
Kespondeo: Mullis modis fallitur Kemnitius.Pri-
mo, quia ex uno Groppero colligcrc conalur men-
lem saniorum calholicorum, cum nos conlra pro-
ferre possimus omnes anliquos theoIogos,et in eis
s. Thomam, in 4. dist. 28. qunest. 1. art. 3. etre-
cenliores plurimos doclissimos, ut Ruardum, Pe-
Sysinnium, dicit eum jusle indignalum, quod se Irum et Dominicum a Solo, el alios, qui apertissi-
inscio filius uxorem ducere voluisset. me doccnl, Malrimonium, sive clandestinura, si-
Exod. 34. cl Deulcronomii 7,praeceplum de Ma- ve insciis parentibus contractum, non esse solum
LIIJEH PRIMUS 827
Malrimonlum verum, sed cliam verum sacramen- liaboal, si paler voluoril, vcl non haheal,si nohm-
lum. ril.Ex quo intolhgimus palriac polcslalis essc.cou-
Secundo: Quia Joannes Gropperus eo loco non jugium filiac ralum vcl irrilum rucorc.
loquilnr de Malrimonio. cui solum dccst parcn- Adhaec, si puolla Dco vovcrit uliquid,polest pa-
tum conscnsus.de qiio nos in praesenti quaestionc ler voliim illud irrilnre. Num. cap. M). crgo mullo
Iraclamus. sod de Malrimonio, quod insciis pnron- mngis irrilnrc poleril idcm parcns, promissioncm
libus contrnhitur, ot sinuil clandcstinum est. Ma- homini l'aclam de conjugio.
Irimoninm cnim. quod in facic Ecclesiac colebra- Dcniquo Dons conjutigil virum uxori in lcgilimo
lur, licel pnronlibus insoiis vol invilis. numquam Malrinionio, sod non conjungil immedialc. ut olim
ripopporus verum ossc sacramcnlum dcnogassol. Adamum Evao: crgo por aliquod medium.Quod sit
Ouare in quaestinno praosenli praccise accepla, aulem mcdium, ipse oxphcat in Iradilione quarli
nuHa csl iutor oaliiolioos dissensio. pracoopli, uhi jubol niios paronlil)US obcdirc;ergo
Tcrtio: Quia f.ropporus Malrimouium clandesli- qui liis mcdiis sprelis Malrimonium conlraliunt,
nnm negal quidom essc sacramcnlum, in quo ma- .4100 possunt ccrlo pronunciarc, conjugium illud
nifcstc fallilur. ac s. Thomae, et saniorihus Ihoo- essc divinam ct lcgilimam ccuijunclioncm: Ilaec
logis rcpugn;it: Inmcn admillit cssc vorum Matri rnlio, inquil Kemnitius, (jravissima csl, el cx ju-
mouium. et nh Ecolosia longo lempore loloratum. rc divino dcsumpta.
scd oplal ab Ecclosia irrilari: quod jam faclum est Respondco: l>on prohatur hoc argumenlum Ma-
iu ooucilio triflonlino. Concilium cnim dum asso- trimonium cssc irritum, aul irrilari possc, si fiat
ruit Malrimouia ciandcslina, quamdiu ab Ecclesia insciis aut invitis parcnlibus; quod sanc pro))an-
irrilata non erant. fuisse vora Malrimonia.et lamen dum erat: sed tantum, non dchere Matrimonium
doinccps illa irrilavil, ac personas inhabiles fccit insciis aul invilis parcntihus conlrahi ot male fa-
.1(1 .sic contrahonflum : plano salisfocit dcsiderio cere, qui ila contrahunl.de quo nulla quaestio cst.
riropperi. et aliorum mullorum.qui ob inoommoda Scd ut res lola perspicue intclligalur, singulas ar-
gravissima, quac ex clandeslinis conjugiis oriun- gumenli parles inspiciamus.
lur. ea ou)nino sublala cupiohnnl. NuIIa igitur in Ad primam igilur primi syllogismi proposilionem
ro. si quncslioncm do sacrnmonlo soparcs n quae- Respondeo: Dupliciler posse Dcum auclorem dici
slione de verilate 3Inlrimonii. de qua sola nunc a- Malrimonialis conjunctionis. Uno niodo ex parte
gimus.r.ropporns a nobis, atque a cacleris llieolo- ipsius conjugii:Al!ero modoex parteconlrahcnlium.
gis rnlholiois dissonlit. Erit auclor Deus Malrimonii ex partc ipsius con-
Secuudo: Kcmnitius argumenlum ducit cx iure jugii, si ipsa conjugii csscnlia a Dco sit inslilula:
divinn (prontchir enim sc prohaiurum senlontiam erit aulem auclor Matrimonii ex parle conlrahcn-
suam ox jurc divino. nnlurnli. civili ol canonioo) lium, si ipsis conlrahcntibus Dcus inspirel,ul 3Ia-
.llatrimoniiun lalis dchoi essc conjiinclio. nl cjns Irimonio jungnnlur.Id quod in omnihus sncrnmen-
iinclor ot concilialor Dcm ipsc hnbcri possil: Al lis fnciie rcporimus. Cum cnim quis BaptisnunTi,
cJHsmodi no7i sunt Malrimonia. qnac insciis. vcl aul Ordinalionom. aiil sacramcnlum aliud nh alio
incilis parcnlihus conlrahnmlnr: non ifiilnrsnvt pcrcipit, polcst Dcus auctor dici ojus acliouis. vol
vora Malrinionia.Proposilio ccrla cst ex iUo Mal- quia ipse saornmcntum instiluit quod ille percipit,
Ihaci 19. Quod Dcus conjunxit ctc. Assnmplio vcl quia ipse inovet Inm ministruin nd sacramcu-
prohntur. Non oM Dcus nnctor ct eonciliator Ma- lum confcrendum. lum alium ad sacramcntum re-
Irimonii. qvod ronlra. ojns vorfrum . el praccc- cipiendum. El polost saopc acoidorc,ut priorc mo-
plu.mconlrnhllur.Malrimoninm. insciis vclinvilis do sit auclor Deus , poslcriore diidjohis; si videli-
parcnlihus.conlra Dcivcrhumclma.ndalumr.du- cct verum saoramonlum Irndntiir cl porcipinlur,
trahilur: non cst ifjitur oju,s nuclor ct concilia- scd et qui Irndit et qui pcrcipil, non ob Dci glo-
tor Dcus Assumiplio prohalnr (nam proposilio riam, ct animao salulem, scd oh lucrum anl coin-
ccrtissima csl) nam. in qv,nrto pracccpto docaln- modum aliqiH)d lurpc ac sordidum nuncalur.
f)i juhonlur filii ot)od.irc parcnlil>u.s: ct cxplicat Sio igilur in oonjugio.auotor ooujugii niio modi)
Aposlolu)^ ad, ('.(do^sons. 3. id in omnHtus rcl>us cril Dcus, si mntoria cl forma adsiut. qiinlia Dous
cssc inlclliffcndum\ Filii, inquit, ohcditc parcn- insliluil: cl hoc solum roquirilur, ut Matrimonium
til^iis pcr omnia. sil vonim, nrmiim ct ralum. AIIimo modo amdor
El qiiia possot forlasso rospondcri. ab ca Io£!o, crit cliam Dcus. si oonjugcs nd iirolcin ail Doi ^lo-
qune jiihcl ohcdirc pnrcnlihns, oxoipi caussam Ma- riam gignondam, maluro consilio de scnlenlia nin-
Irimonii, dioenle Scripliirn: liclinqnct homo pa- jornm, aliisquc circiimslaniiis dchitis ohsorvatis,
Ircm ct malrcm. cl adliacrcbit vxori sn,ao: pro- Malrimoniiim oonlrnhnnl: ol hoc rc(piirilur, ul Mn-
bnl Komnitiiis isliim looiim Soriplnrac dol)(M'C in- liimonium sino pocoato , iinmo vcro cum moiilo
lolligi dc Mnlrimonio oonsummato , non dc do- ot laude cchd)rotur: non autom ul sit verum, lir-
sponsationo,ct proindc in Miitrimonio ooulrahondo inuin ct raliim. Si cnim Inntuni ad (>xplcndam libi-
dobore filios pnrenlihus obodiro. Nnm Soriptura (linom, tcmorc. sinc consilio parcnlum coujugium
Iradil prncocpla paronlibtis. dc (ilinhus in 3Ialri- iiu!attir, non eril auctor Dous, scd diahohis ojus
nionio oollocandis, Dentcr. 7.IIi(!roin. 29. cl l.Co- oonjugii,quod altinct ad volunlaloin suscipionlium:
linlh. 7. licol oitisdom conjiigii auclor sil Dcus, quod nlli-
Praclorca exslal lox divina Exodi 22. ol Denlc- nct ad sacraiiKMili ojiis ossontiam, quac lota in 00
ronomii 22. iil si quis virgincm slupravcril,det pa- oonjiigio reporilur: ut do Hnptismo. alisquc sacra-
Iri cjus ccrlum nurnorum siclorum,ct eam uxorcm inenlis omnihus dici potcsl.
82"? DH SACIJAMK.NiO MA J IIIMo.MI
A(i assumplionoin ojnsiliMii primi sYllojiisini l{(v cat nxoroin. si onm pntor (l;iro voliioril. Il.iqiio non
sponiloo:Jii.\tii posilain (lislinclioiiom, .>lalriinoiii,i, csl oxoiiipliim illiul oonjii^ii a paln^ irrilari, scd
qnac insoiis vol invilis paronlibns oontraliiinlur, laiiliini ooiijii^ni rnlnri, vol non riiluri pn» arhilrio
saopo iion lialtoro noiim aiiolorom socuiiilo modo, p.ilris.a (pio lamon non oxchulilur piiollai! ooiisimi-
liaboro lainon priino ino.lo. s'i niliil aliuil obslcl; .sti>. Soil (piid rulurum cs.scl. si pari cousiMisu vir
cl ideo vora no rala .Malriinonia osso, licel sinc ol l'ooiniiia insoio patrc.llalrimoiiiuiii conlra.visscnl,
poooalo ul pUuimum noii contraliaiilur. Scriplura lum liabiU.
Ad probationcm assiunpiioiiis, (piac orat: Deus Addo, (piod si iii illis ca[)itil)us Moysos loqucrc-
1I0H csl auclor Malriinonii, quod conlra praccc- lur dc irrilationc Jlalrimoiui jam conliacli iiilor vir-
pluvi ipsius con(raliilur: por caiidom (listinclio- iriuoin el slupralorcm ojus, csscl hoc c.vcmplum
tioin Ui^siH)ndoo: Aul onim praocoplum Doi.coiilra coiiira Lulliorum ct IMiilip|)um.(;l coiitra ipsum cl-
(luod .Malrimonium alitp.iis conlraliil, ad ossonliam iaui Kcmiiiliuiii, qiii iliiuiiit^coiiju^ium liliorum iii-
Hlatrimonii porlinol. aiit solinn ad ciroumslanlias vilis parciitibus dlrimi noii possc, si consumma-
>latrimonio aocidoiilarias oxplicaiidas.ul ad voliiu- lum sil.Oiio iiiodo ouim poluisscl patcr libam siiam
lalcm oonlralionlium porlicioudam, ul boiuiin bc- a stiipralorc illo so|)ararc (ul Moysos aporlc con-
no (piaoral ct appolal, clc. Si priorc modo quis cediljsi stuprum illud consumm.iti conju^ii ruissi^i?
conlra prai-coptnm Dei faoial.non babcl Donin aii- Ad illud dc irrilalionc votoram qiiae babclur iu
( lor.-m conjuirii. quoad cssonliam ipsius coiijugii. bb. iVumcr. oap. M). Ucspondco: Loi^cm illam dc.
proindo irritum ol illogilimum osl oonjugiuin. Si liliabus dclcrmiiian^ (]iiac adluic iion pcrvcncriiiil
poslcriorc modo conlra pracccptum lacial, iioii lia- ;iil pubcrlivlcin; ul c.\ co pcrspicuum esl, quod
bot noum anclorom siinc voluntaiis in coniiigio su- Scriplura in oo capilc bis ro|)Clit, patroin irribirc
scipiondo, noquo |)racmiinn. scd pooiuim oporis possc vota filiiU', cpiac iii domo p;ironluin biibilol,
inorotur; lainon Donm liabcl (•onjugii sui, quod ct adluic csl in acbitc puellari. Ciii logi divinac si-
|)crlincl ad ojus esscnliam, aucloroiu cl concilia- milis csl le\ canonic;i,quac habctur canonc Pital-
loroin. ia, 20. quncsl. 2. in liacc vcrba: Paclla si anlc
Ad probalionem assumplionis socundi syllogis- dnodeciniuni ac(aUs annuni spon(c sua velamcn
mi. quae ducebalur ex quarlo praccopto dccalogi, sibi sacrum assumpscril, possunl stadni paren-
quod e^plicatur a raulo Colossons. []. Respondco: (es. vcl (ulorcs, idfactnni irrKuni faccre, si vo-
rraocopluin illud ad morcs iiiformiindos, non ad luerin(. Si vcro in fordori ae(,a(e adolescen(ula,
sacramrnla ministrand;! pcrtincrcOuarc obedicn- vcl adolcficens servire Dco elegeri(, non cs( po(c-
dum csl Palri pcr omnia, etiam in conlrahcndo s(as parcndbusprohibcndi.WiiWo i\\.\[cm \c^\sU\m
conjugio. si juslc. ol sccundum Doum praocipiiit: (^li\in;ic, lum canonicac, osl, quia anlc annos pu-
el idoo qui id non facil, poccal, scd noii coiUinuo bortalis non li;il)cnl liomines plcnuin judicium r;i-
Malrimonium esl irrilum. N;im non minus cpisco- lionis. idoocpic ncc sunl Doraini acliium suorum:
po. cl Ecclcsiae obcdicndum csl por oinnia. quam ;il posl annos pubcrlatis, sui juris rfficiunlur.ct dc
p;ilri carnali:cl lamcu si quis laicus contra episco- piMsona siia, cl aclibus qui n;iluralilcr libcri suiil,
pi el Ecclosiac praeceplum baptizcl, Dapiismus pro arbilrio dispoucre possunl.
cril ralus el vcrus, scd laicus illc baplizando pcc- Ad Ullimum dc modiis.pcr quac Dcus conjtingit
cabil.Noquc solum .Malrimonium iil sacramenlum, bnmincs in Miilrimonium, Uospondeo: Ad lioc ut
esl ratum, sed cliam ul civilis conlraclus,]icel coii- M;itrimonium sit vcrum cl ralum, non rcquiri alia
Ira praeccptum Palris conlrabatur. Narn filiiis, ut media, praclcr conjugum libcrum conscnsum. Ut
siipra o\i)Osuimus.olsi lciicalur pidris dircclioncm cnim alia sacramcnla Dcus per ministruin dispcu-
seqiii. cuin dc slatu vitac su;ic disponil: tamen de sa!:siccliam Malrimonium;niiuislor ;iulcm Matrimn-
rc sua, non dc alicna disponil. rcmque suam, non nii csl ulcrqucconjux,ulalibi cxplicuiraus.Ulaulcui
alienain donal : quare disposilio ac donalio 'rala conjugium silDeo gralum et ips's conjugibus ulilc,
oi firma esl , quaravis non siuc peccalo transa- mcflia a Deo inslitula sunl, parenlum cl amicorum
cia sil. consilia, nialura dclibcralio.saccrdotis bcnediclio.
Ad illa teslimonia,quae adversarius producebat, el alia id gcnus; quae qui spcrnit,non polcsl ccrlo
nl probarcl Scriptunim darc piilri praecepla dc fi- pronunciarc suum conjugium Dco placcre, aul si-
li;ilms in Malrimonio collocandis, nibil opus est bi ulile fulurum, liccl codem tcmpore possit non
rcspondcre, cura nos minime ncgcmus ad paren- ambigere, quin sit vcrura etfirmura, alque a Dco
tum curam et providenliara, filiorum conjugia ma- ccrlissirae inslitulum.
xiinc pcrlinere. Tcrtia objcclio Kemnilii ducilur simul ex jnre
Ad illud aulcm, quod cx cap. 22. Exodi, et 22. nalurali el civili.Nam quod Malrimonia filiorum in-
Douleronomii adfcrlur, ad probandum. pcnes pa- vilis parentibus contracla, irrila sinl, exjurccivili
Ircm essc. cnnjugium filiae ralura vcl irrilum fa- probat. ex L. Nuptiae. tT. dc rilu nupliarum. clcx
ccre. Rcspondemus: Non agi eo loco de 3Ialrirao- L. 1. cl 2.G. de nupdis, ct ex lustilul. dc nupdis
niojara contraclo, scd dc futuro, caussa stupri § Jit.s/as aitfcm. Quod autcra irrita sinl eliam jurc
praeccdcnlis. Non cnim illa conjunclio viri cum nalurac, probat cx legc proxirac cilata. I\am in c;i
l)nolla. qnac inscio patrc in duobus illis capitibus lcgc, poslcaquaii saucitam est requiri iu nupliis
facla describilur. copula couiugalis crat, sed stu- cousensum parcnlum, subjunguntur hacc verba:
prum, ul Scriplura lotjuilur. Non enim slnpralor Nam hoc ficri dcbero, el civilis c( naluralis ra-
uxon^m babere voluit,scd libidinem tauliim explc- (io suadc(. in lantum u(jussus parcn(am prac-
rc: quaic in pocna'n injungitur ei, ul pacUain du- ccdcrc 0^cbca(.
LllJKU PIUMLS
82i)
Respondeo: Ralio naluralis docol nuplias non
dcbcie injussu paronlum celebrari.El hoc verc as-
seril co loco Juslinuiuus: siquidcm jure nalurac fi-
lius palri subjiciltir.el ab co regcndus esscl n quo
accepil ul esscl: tamcn jiis nalurac non doccl, ir-
riliun essc Malriinonium si injussu parenlum fiat.
Lcx aulem civilis uon mulluin rcfert, quid in hnc
partc slalueril: nam ul scribil Lucius pnpa III.
cap. Clerici. de judiciis, imperalor ipsc falclur;non
dcdignari lcgcs sacros cnnones iinilari; el habc-
mus iiaiic impcr;iloris confessioncm in Aulhenl. UL
clcrici apud cpiscopos, § pcnullim. Cumigilursa-
rri canoncs, ct nuper generale concilium dcfinie-
ril. ^lalrimonium invilis parenlibus conlraclum,
mo4o non sil clandesliuum (hoc ciiim idem conci-
lium irrilavil) ralum esse, non possunl leges con-
trarium definire, cl si forle dcfinierint, abrogalae
judicandiic sunl.
Quarta obieclio ex jure canonico plures canones
conlincl. ad qumum singulos rcspmidcbimus. Pri-
miis csl Kvarisli in C|iislola dcciclali, qui sic lo-
quilur: .l//c/' lccjiliinuin non (il coiijuginm, nisi
ab his qui siipcr ipsaiii foeminain dominalioncm
habcre vidcnuir, cl a quibu^ cnslodilur itxor pe-
tatnr. cl a parenlibus, et jjropinquis sponsctnr.
IJcspondco: Dccrelum Evarisli, quod csl cliam
in corpiis juris canonici relalum, can. Aliler 30.
quiicsl. .'). luullas condiliones rcquiril.ul Malrimo-
nia ccnseanlur lcgilima,quarum coii<!ilionum non-
nullae adversariis nullo modo placerc possunl.
Quare hoc decrelum non minus cum adversariis.
quaiii iiol)iscum pugnal; requiril enim inlcr cacle-
ra, iil uxor cum prccibus cl oblalionibus (idest,
cum sacrificio Missae) a sacerdole benedicalur: i-
lem ul conjuges biduo vcl Iriduo oralionibus va-
cenl, cl caslilalem cuslodianl. Quae condiliones si
necessariac sunl, ul conjugia legilima slnt, nulla
crunl inlcr Lulheranos lcgiliina conjugia: neque
cniin oblationem Dco pro nupluris offcrunl, nequc
bidiio vcl Iriduo conlincnliam scrvanl.
Praelerea mullac ex illis condilionibus, ila sunl
cxlrinsecae el accidenlariac, iil stullum sil crede-
re, sine illis conjugium irrilum essc; qnales sunl,
ul uxnrcm paranymphi cuslodianl.ul propinqui co-
niitcrilur, ul ca lcgilimc dolclur, cl solemniier ac-
cipialur clc. Quarc coginmr dicere, Evarislum non
voluisse signilicarc, eas onincs condilioncs cssc
neccssarias, ila ul si una vcl allera dcsit, irrilum
sil Malrimonium:sed ila legilimum esse conjugium,
si illa uiiinia adsinl, ut e conlrario si nulla carum
ndsil, cl conjugium occiillc sine lcslibus cl sine
ulla cclcbrilalc contrahatur, legilimum hahori non
possil; non quidem in conscicntia, scd in foro cx-
lerno, cl apud Ecclcsiam, quae non judical dc oc-
cullis.
Sccundus canon desumplus esl cx lib. 1. dc A-
brahaiii s. Ambrosii. ct habclur iipud Graliaiiiim
can. Ilonoranlur 32. quacsl.2. v^^cd nihil in co ca-
nonc conlra scnlenliam noslram habclur: soliim c-
nim Ambrosiiis hoiliitur pucllii. iit ad cxcmpliim
Hcbcccac, piirmillant parcnlibus jiidicimn dc iiii
pliis suis. Si atilcm sccus fial, silnc lcgitimac nu-
pliiic iin non. Amhrosius co loco iiiliil (iclinil.
Tcrtius ciiiioii csl cuncilii IV. Ciirlhagiiiicnsis a-
liELL.intnM Viil. lil
piid Gratianum 30. quaesl. a. can. Sponsiis. Seti
iicque isle canon (itiidtjuam hiibcl cui rcsponden^
dum sil.Jubel cnim canon.ul cum sponsus ct spon-
sa bcncdiccndi sunl a saccrdotc. oClcrantur Ecclc-
siac a parcnlihus cl paranymphis; quod quidem
lacicndum esse nos minime ncgamus. Scd non in--
dc scijuilur. conjugium cssc irrilum. si i>la non
liant, quia dubium non cst, ista ad solcmnilulem ,
non ad csscnliam conjugii pcrtinerc.
Quarlus canon. qui Lconi Iribuilur, esl apud
Gralianura, can. Qualis 30. quaesl. 5. Ubi non so-
lum nihil esl conlra catholicam sentciiliam , cum
solum describal ille canon rilum nu|)li;iruin, nou
iiiilcm definial, irrilum essc coiijugium , si ritus
ilii non servenlur: sed csl aliquid exprcsse conlra
adversarios.Si cnim concludilur illc canon: Si for-
nicala fucril uxor, dimiltcnda esl,scd illa vicen-
tc, altera non duccnda , quia adultcri rcfjnum
Dei nonpossidebunl. Uainc senleniiam admillcro
debercl Rcmnilius, si canones vcneialur.
Quinlus canon esl concilii lolel;ini lll.apud Gra-
lianum, can. Uoc sanclum 32, quacst. 2. ubi hoo
solum Icgimus, ut nulla virgo exlra voiuntatem pa-
rcnlum, vel suam cogalur maritum acciperc.Qtiod
quidcm si reclc inspicialur, aliquid habel conlra
Lulhcranos.conlra calholicos prorsusnihil: pugnat
cnim concilium adversus eos, qui virgines a pro^
posilo conlincnliac impcdire.alquc cis marilos ob-
Irudere nitebanlur, quod saiic Lulherani frequcn-
ler faciunl. Slaluil igitur concilium.ul non cogalur
virgo virum acciperc, nisi quem ipsa eicgerit, aut
cerlc paler cjus. ipsa consctilicnlc: scd numquid
hinc scquilur,ut si palrc inscio virum duxerit, irri-
tum sit conjugium?
Sexlus ciinon esl Nicolai papae, cl habctur can.
^■ostrales 30. qunest.o.ubi inter alios ritus nuptia-
rum ponilur , ul fiant de conscnsu parcnlum. Scd
nihil indc sequitur. Enumcrat cnim Nicolaus va-
rios nuptiarum rilus, ct in finc canonis adjungil ,
nnn essc pccciitum. si non omncs scrvoutur : ex
quo inlclligimus, non omnes cssc cssentiiiles, ne-
que declariit ipsc co loco, qui sint cssenlialcs, qui
vcro accidenlarii.
Scplimus cnnon csl concilii aurclianensis apiul
Gratianuin 30. quacst. 1. can. Dc rnptoribus ,
uhi lcgimus puelliiin raplam rcddcndam csse palri,
cliamsi raplori ipsa conscnscrit.
Oclavus cst Grcgorii.vcl polius Gniliani ipsius ,
cadcm caussa 30. quacst.2. c.i\u.Apud, ubi dicitur.-
Cum rapta patrifueril restituta, si volunlas pa-
rentis utriusque in unum conveneril, non prohi^
bentur inviccm copidari.
Hespondeo: Aliud csl raplus, idiud conjiigiiim
invito palrc celcbratunr. rnptus cniin ad ciim pcrli-
nct, quac noiulum cst propria uxor, ncquc spoiisa,
Qui cnim violcnlcr sponsam siiiim palri cjtisilcm
sponsac, ;iufcrl. nun dicilur raplor.ipiiii rcm sii;im,
non alienam capil. ut palct cx Gclasio , cap, Lcx
illa 30. qiiacsl. 1. Ucctc igitur voltiiit cniioncs ra-
l)tam puclliim, cliamsi ipsa conscnscril rapi , rcd-
d(!n(l.im cssc palri; (itiia (pii rnptiit, ininriam fccil
palri. viohMilcr cjiis liliiim ahduccndo, liccl inju-
ri;im i^ticlliic iion hicciil. Scd si pucllii rn|)la juxla
dccrclum Iridcnlini concilii scss. 2?. c;ip. G. cxlia
105
830
I>i: SACIVV.MENTO M\T|{lMii.\il
laploris polesliilem consliliil;i, el in loco liilo, 11-
hcro con.-^oiicii ciuii rnplorc conjujiiiiin coutr;iluv
rcl; .>hilriiuoiiiuu) ('S.>cl r;>huu. ucc pusscl :i p;ilrc
irrilnri ll;ipUis cnim csl impcdiuionluiu iiui^cdicns
foulralieiulmu coniuj^iuin, scti udu diriiucus con-
lr;iclum.ul docciil ihcolo}?i,cl iu iis s. Tlioiuns 2.2.
»|u;u?sl. irii. ;irt. 7. nd 3. ul)i oslcndil concilium
mcldensc, quod co"''Mrium sUilucral . csse iihro-
gntuin.