Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 21: On the Impediments That Make the One Contracting Incapable Simply, That Is, On the Vow and the Existing Bond
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
We have spoken of the impediments which are taken on the part of consent. Now we must speak of those which are taken on the part of the persons contracting: and first of those which make one incapable simply, then of the others.
The impediments which make a person incapable simply are four (as we said above): impotence of coming together, the solemn vow of monks, sacred Order, and the bond with a wife already taken. Of which the first and last are beyond controversy; although Luther devised a new error about the bond arising from espousals, which we shall refute in passing a little after. The two middle ones can be brought back to one, namely to the solemn vow; since sacred Order is judged an impediment for this reason, that by the decree of the Church it has annexed the solemn vow of chastity.
There remains only the question, then, whether the solemn vow of continence is an impediment breaking Matrimony. And indeed Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, admitted that the vow of continence is a lawful impediment; but in other books written afterward he always denied it, and in deed, by taking a nun as wife, declared his opinion. And all his disciples teach the same both by words and by deeds.
Among Catholics it was never doubtful that the simple vow of continence is an impediment hindering the contracting, yet not breaking the contract; but that the solemn vow is an impediment hindering the contracting and breaking the contract; which last was defined under anathema in the Council of Trent, session 24, canon 9.
Wherefore three things are to be proved. First: that the simple vow of chastity is an impediment hindering the contracting of Matrimony. Second: that the simple vow of chastity is not an impediment breaking the contract. Third: that the solemn vow of chastity is an impediment both hindering and breaking.
Let the first proposition, then, be: A simple vow hinders the contracting of Matrimony. This can easily be proved from the foundation laid in the second book On Monks, where we showed from the Scriptures, the councils, the Fathers and reason itself that the vow of perpetual continence is lawful, holy and most pleasing to God. For from there we can reason thus to what belongs to this place: the vow of perpetual continence is lawful; therefore it must be kept, since Scripture says, “If thou hast vowed any thing to God, defer not to pay it,” Ecclesiastes 5, and Deuteronomy 23. But the vow of continence cannot be paid by him who takes a wife, since he is bound to render the debt to her when she asks; it is not lawful, therefore, for those who have such a vow to be joined in Matrimony.
Moreover, in 1 Timothy 5 blessed Paul pronounces thus of the widows who had vowed continence: “For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry: having damnation, because they have made void their first faith.” Where the Apostle does not condemn those widows because, after they had grown wanton, they wished to marry, for that was to be praised, not blamed; but because in wishing to marry they made void their first faith, namely that given to God about keeping continence. And in this way all the interpreters, Greek and Latin, understood this place; and moreover the Sixth Council of Carthage, canon 104, and the Fourth of Toledo, canon 55; likewise Tertullian in the book On Monogamy, Basil in the book On Virginity, Epiphanius, heresy 48, Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian, Innocent I, letter 2, chapter 13, Augustine in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapters 8 and 9, Gelasius, letter 1, chapter 23, Fulgentius, letter 1.
Second proposition: A simple vow does not break a Matrimony contracted after the vow. This the adversaries do not deny; and Augustine teaches the same expressly in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapters 9 and 10; we find the same declared in law by Alexander III, Celestine III and Boniface VIII, the chapter Consuluit, under the title on clerics or those who vow, and the chapter Rursus, in the same title, and the only chapter on the vow, in the Sext. And reason most openly supports this declaration. For a promise, such as the simple vow is, binds indeed in conscience, yet does not transfer the ownership of the thing promised from him who promised to him to whom it was promised; and therefore, if he who promised changes his mind and in fact gives the thing to another, he sins indeed, yet the gift has its force; unless the simple vow be such as sets a man in the religious state, of which vow there is no question in this place.
And hence another error of Luther is refuted, who in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, disputing about the impediment of the bond, admits indeed with the Catholics that the bond with a wife already taken is an impediment breaking all other marriages, but adds, against all the theologians, that the bond of espousals too ought to break a following Matrimony: “Here,” he says, “they conclude that if anyone has known the later one, the espousals of the former cease; which I plainly do not wish. And I think that he who has bound himself to one is no longer his own master, and by this, the divine law forbidding,” and so on.
But this error of Luther was long ago condemned, in the chapter De illis, and the chapter Si inter virum, and the chapter Adolescens, on espousals and Matrimony, and chapter 1 on the betrothed of two, which chapter is attributed to St. Augustine; and the reason is the same: because through espousals there is made not a gift but a promise.
Nor do Luther's arguments conclude. First he objects thus: “No one can give what he does not have. He who has contracted espousals with one is no longer his own master; therefore he cannot give himself to another; therefore the second marriage is to be judged void.” I answer: the assumption is denied. For he who has contracted espousals with one is still his own master, since he has given himself to no one, although he has promised a gift. Wherefore, if, leaving his betrothed, he contracts with another by words of the present, the Matrimony holds; but he has sinned who broke faith.
Second he objects: “God forbids that any man circumvent his brother in business, which is to be kept beyond and above all human traditions.” I answer: what is assumed is true; but where does it tend? For we confess that he sins who circumvents his brother, not keeping the faith given him; but the Matrimony contracted with that sin will not therefore be void. For he too who promises someone a wife rich, or noble, or of good morals, if she is not such, without doubt circumvents him and has sinned gravely against his neighbor; and yet the Matrimony will not be void if it has been contracted by words of the present.
He objects third: “If the vow of religion makes one another's, why not also faith given and received, since this is of precept and a fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5, and that of human choice?” I answer: if we compare giving faith to a betrothed with vowing, each is of human choice; for no one is compelled by divine law to vow this or that, or to take this or that wife. But if we compare keeping faith with a betrothed with fulfilling a vow made to God, each is of precept and a fruit of the Spirit; since to fulfil a vow is to keep faith with God. Nor does the Apostle number among the fruits of the Holy Spirit keeping faith with man and not keeping faith with God; wherefore Luther errs gravely when he teaches that vows are of human choice, but espousals of divine law. But why solemn vows of religion break Matrimony we shall explain a little after.
He objects fourth: “It is lawful for a wife to claim back her husband, notwithstanding a vow of religion made; why then is it not lawful for a betrothed to claim back her betrothed, even after union with another has followed?” I answer: there is a great difference between a wife and a betrothed, since the former already has and possesses as her own the body of her husband, as the Apostle teaches, 1 Corinthians 7, but the latter does not yet have nor possess the man's body except in hope and promise. But of these things enough.
Third proposition: A solemn vow breaks a Matrimony celebrated after the vow. It is proved by authority and reason. And first there is the authority of the ancient councils.
The First of Toledo, celebrated about the year of the Lord 400, canon 16, laid down that a devoted woman, if perhaps she married, could not be received to the Church unless she lived chastely while he lived to whom she had joined herself, or only after his death. From which we understand that that marriage was not held a true marriage, because it had been contracted after religious profession; for otherwise, if it had been a true marriage, why would she have had to abstain from him who had been taken as husband?
The general Council of Chalcedon, celebrated eleven hundred years ago, canon 16: “A virgin,” it says, “who has consecrated herself to the Lord God, and likewise a monk, may not contract marriage; but if they are found doing this, let them be excommunicated.”
Nor can it be answered that the council forbids marriages to be celebrated, but does not judge them void when celebrated. For, first, the Council of Tribur, canon 23, alleged this very canon of the Council of Chalcedon to prove that that is not a true Matrimony which is contracted after solemn vows. Then, there was never doubt among Christians whether those sinned who did not pay to God the vow of continence; but there were not lacking those who doubted whether the marriages were true and valid which are contracted by those who had vowed continence. Wherefore the council meant to declare what was doubtful, and asserted that marriages are not lawful after a solemn vow, such as is that of monks and nuns.
The Council of Friuli, eight hundred years ago, canon 11, on sacred virgins: “If they have married publicly, let them be restrained indeed by bodily punishments worthy of the world's judgement, let them be separated from one another, and let them do penance all the days of their life.”
The Eighth Council of Toledo, nine hundred years ago, canon 6, commands subdeacons, if they have taken wives, to be shut up in monasteries.
The Fourth of Toledo, nine hundred and fifty years ago, canon 31: “Some of the monks,” it says, “going out from the monastery, not only return to the world but also take wives. Let them therefore be called back to the same monastery from which they had gone out, and be assigned to penance.”
The Second of Tours, a thousand years ago, canon 16: “If any,” it says, “have been converted in a monastery, let them in no way have leave thereafter to wander; nor (which God forbid) may any of them take a marriage; and if he has taken a wife, let him be excommunicated, and be separated from the fellowship of the wife of evil company, even with the help of the judge.”
The Council of Tribur, about seven hundred years ago, canon 23, openly commands those to be separated who are joined in Matrimony after a solemn vow.
Second is the authority of the ancient and most holy pontiffs. Siricius, in letter 1, chapter 6, commands monks and nuns, if they presume to contract marriages, not only to be excommunicated but also to do penance in houses of correction to the end of their life.
Innocent I, in letter 2, chapters 12 and 13, distinguishes openly between the solemn and the simple vow. For in chapter 12 he says that she who had received the sacred veil, and so had made a solemn vow of continence, if perhaps she married, could not be admitted to penance so long as he lived to whom she joined herself, as is done with her who is joined to another while her husband lives; in chapter 13 he says that she who had made a simple, not a solemn, vow, if she afterward married, could be admitted to penance.
Gelasius I, in letter 1, chapters 22 and 23, has a like distinction, and acknowledges a great difference between the marriages of professed virgins, whose vow is solemn, and the marriages of widows, who have a simple vow. For the marriages of sacred virgins he calls incestuous compacts, and commands them to be excommunicated; and incestuous compacts sound like an unlawful marriage. But the widows he says ought to satisfy God by penance; but he neither calls their marriages incestuous compacts nor commands them to be excommunicated.
Gregory I, book 1, letter 40, to Anthemius, writes that monks who have taken wives are to be separated from their spouses and sent back to the monasteries.
To the same effect there are many answers of Alexander III, Celestine III and Innocent III, under the title on clerics or those who vow.
Third is the authority of the holy Fathers. Cyprian, book 1, letter 11, to Pomponius, writes that sacred virgins who had slept with men are adulteresses of Christ, and are to be altogether separated from those men, and he calls that joining incestuous. And although those with whom they had slept did not call themselves their husbands, yet Cyprian would have made the same judgement of them if they had wished to profess themselves their husbands. For he calls them adulteresses of Christ because they do not keep faith with Christ; and they do not keep faith if they join themselves to another, whether they call him husband or by another name. And Cyprian calls the joining of a man with a sacred virgin incestuous on account of the relation to Christ, who willed to become our brother; which relation would be found no less in that joining which should be made with a man under the name of spouse than in that which should be made without such a name. Whence what Cyprian says in the same letter, that those virgins are to be admonished that, if they will not or cannot persevere, they marry openly, is to be understood of those who have not yet vowed. Otherwise, since Cyprian says disjunctively that they marry if they will not or cannot persevere, he would permit them to marry after the vow even if they can be continent, provided only they will not; which is most absurd, and not to be granted even by the Lutherans themselves.
Basil, in the book On Virginity, a little beyond the middle: “When,” he says, “they have professed virginity to the Lord, and afterward, won over and overcome by an ill-flattering carnal will, they desire to cover the crime of defilement with the honorable name of marriage, they are not ignorant, although they feign ignorance, that she who has broken the right hand and the covenant of her bridegroom is neither any longer the bride of him whom she has abandoned, nor can by any laws be called the wife of him to whom, her bridegroom deserted, stirred by lust, she has joined herself.” And below he shows this same at length, that she can never be called the wife of a mortal man, but always the adulteress of Christ, the immortal husband.
Ambrose, in the book to a fallen virgin, chapter 5: “She who has pledged herself to Christ and received the sacred veil has already married; she is already joined to an immortal husband; and now, if she will marry by the common law of marriage, she commits adultery.”
John Chrysostom, in letter 6 to Theodore: “Marriage,” he says, “is honorable; but for you it is no longer fitting to keep the privileges of marriage: although you often call this very thing marriage, yet I judge it worse than adultery.”
Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian: “Certainly you confess,” he says, “that he cannot be a bishop who begets children in the episcopate; otherwise, if he is caught, he will not be held as a husband, but condemned as an adulterer.”
Nor does what some object about St. Malchus stand in the way, who, by the testimony of St. Jerome in his Life, after he had been a monk many years, took a wife, and remained with her to the end of his life. For there was no marriage between Malchus and that woman whom, being compelled, he feigned to take as wife; since she had another husband living, as the same Jerome relates, when she was compelled by her master to marry Malchus. So there was between them a certain spiritual and holy fellowship under the name of marriage.
Now, that we may prove by a reason drawn from the word of God that the solemn vow is an impediment breaking Matrimony, it must necessarily be premised that there is a question among Catholics by what law the solemn vow breaks a Matrimony which is celebrated after such a vow, natural and divine, or only ecclesiastical and positive.
And indeed many, and they most weighty theologians, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Albert, Richard, Durandus and Dominic Soto, on book 4, distinction 38, contend that the solemn vow breaks Matrimony by divine and natural law. Whose chief reason is this: because the solemn vow is not a simple promise made to God, as is the vow which is called simple, but is a handing over, in the present, of oneself to the perpetual service of Christ; and that handing over has been accepted and approved by Christ through his ministers. Wherefore the solemn vow differs from the simple as marriage contracted in the present from espousals for the future. But by divine and natural law no one can give to another what is not his, and if he gives it, the gift is void; therefore by natural and divine law marriage after a solemn vow is void.
And indeed, if it could be shown from the Scriptures, or by some evident reason, that the solemn vow differs from the simple in this, that in that there is a gift in the present, in this only a promise for the future, it would not be necessary to seek another reason. Yet because many deny that principle, as Scotus and Paludanus on book 4, distinction 38, and Cajetan, the Second of the Second, question 88, article 7, and all the interpreters of canon law, as Panormitanus testifies on the chapter Rursus, on clerics or those who vow, and think rather that it was brought about by the decree of the Church alone that the solemn vow breaks Matrimony, therefore it remains to be proved that the Church could establish this impediment of Matrimony.
But this is easily proved. First, from the very fact that she did it: for the Church from the most ancient times, as is plain from the testimonies cited, both in councils and through the supreme pontiffs, laid this down. Perhaps it even descends from apostolic tradition. For Cyprian, Basil and Ambrose, who acknowledge this impediment, lived before those councils and those pontiffs by whom this decree seems to have been made; and therefore the councils and pontiffs are to be judged not so much to have laid down something new as to have renewed or declared an old decree. And what the ancient Church did, which the heretics cannot deny to have been the true Church of Christ, and repeated more than once, it is foolish and impious to say was not done by right.
Then it is proved because to make persons unlawful for Matrimony is not to change the essentials of the sacrament, as we said above, but to make valid or void the human contract which is prerequired in the sacrament of Matrimony. For Christ did not declare which human contract is to be held lawful and which unlawful; but, that declaration being presupposed, he willed the lawful human contract between man and woman to be a sacrament.
And that the Church can make such contracts lawful or unlawful by her decree, by making persons capable or incapable, is proved. For, first, all those places of Scripture belong here from which we learn that the care of governing the Church was committed to the apostles and their successors: Luke 10, “He that heareth you”; Matthew 16, “To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; John, the last chapter, “Feed my sheep.” For it belongs to him who presides by right to make laws about human acts, and to rule them, and to make them valid or void.
In the Old Testament, besides the divine natural law, there were also certain positive judicial laws fitted to that people, both about marriages and about other human contracts. But those laws have been abrogated, nor do we have others prescribed by Christ; therefore it is necessary that there be in the Church the power of sanctioning like laws according to places and times; otherwise the Christian commonwealth would be most imperfect, and plainly most wretched.
Moreover, political kings, who preside over the commonwealth, can make human laws about human contracts, and decree that those made in a certain way are valid and otherwise void, for the common peace and concord of peoples; therefore ecclesiastical princes too will be able to do this for the eternal salvation of souls.
You will say: if this is so, not only the Church but also political princes will be able to establish impediments of Matrimony; for on the contract of Matrimony depends not only the salvation of souls but also temporal peace and concord.
I answer: if Matrimony were only a civil contract, political princes could without doubt establish impediments, by making persons lawful or unlawful; as indeed the emperors, especially the heathen ones, often did, as is plain from the Digest on the rite of marriages and the Code on the Julian law on adulteries, where there are many laws about the contract of Matrimony. Yet because now among Christians Matrimony is a sacrament, and on that civil contract the sacrament of the Church depends, and the dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the Church, therefore the power of establishing impediments of Matrimony belongs most properly to the ecclesiastical prince. And it does not belong to the political prince except with the consent of, and in subordination to, the ecclesiastical prince; for the same power cannot belong both immediately and properly to two different tribunals.
Wherefore St. Thomas, although on book 4, distinction 34, the only question, article 1, to the fourth, he granted that Matrimony, as it is a civil contract, can depend on civil law, yet in distinction 42, question 2, article 2, to the fourth, explains it so that civil law has place if the authority of the Church also is added: “The prohibition of human law,” he says, “would not suffice for an impediment of Matrimony, unless the authority of the Church intervened, which forbids the same.”
And that the Church not only could establish the solemn vow as an impediment breaking Matrimony, but also had cause to establish it, can easily be proved. For those who take solemn vows of continence change their state of life, and ascend from the imperfect to the perfect; and it would be absurd if the same afterward returned again to the more imperfect state. Then, those who make these vows make them with great deliberation and after a long preceding probation; and it is unfitting that what has been done with mature counsel should be changed again. Besides, solemn vows are regularly made publicly, and before many witnesses, nay with the people looking on; therefore they cannot be violated without enormous scandal. Wherefore it befitted the Church to provide that this could not be changed; and the most effective means of providing was to make void marriages contracted after such vows. Lastly, those who make solemn vows not only bind themselves to God, but also of their own accord subject themselves to the Church, that they can be compelled by her, even by way of judgement; and so they cannot complain if the Church makes them incapable of Matrimony.
And these same reasons show why the Church would not have simple vows be breaking impediments. For those who make simple vows neither properly change their state, and often make them without great deliberation, and privately and without witnesses; nor do they subject themselves to the Church more than they were subject before; whence they cannot be compelled to keep the vow by way of judgement, but by way of fraternal correction; unless the simple vows be such as, as we said a little before, make a man truly and properly religious; such as are the simple vows of our Society, which by the constitution of Gregory XIII, the supreme pontiff, which begins Ascendente Domino, are declared to be substantial to religion and breaking Matrimony.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI.
De impedimenti!:. quae inliabikm simpUciler fa-
ciunt con(rahenlem, idesl . de voto el liga-
inine.
Di.Kimus dc impcdimenlis . qunc sumunlur cx
p;ulc coiiscnsus. Xuuo dc iis diccndum esU quno
sumunlur ex p;irle personarum conlrahenlium. Kl
Priinum dc illis. quac simplicitcr inhabilem rcd-
dunl. Deinilc dc aliis.
Impedimcula, (luae simpliciler reddunl inhabi
lcm personani.qualuor sunl (ulsupra diximus) im-
polcnlia cocuudi, volum solemue monachorum.Or-
dosaccr cl liiiamcn cuin uxore jam ducla.Ex qui-
bus primum el ullimum,cxlr;i conlroversiam sunl:
taiuelsi Lulhcrus de ligamine ex sponsalibus orlo
noviim errorem excogilavcril,qucm paulo post obi-
ter refulabimus.Duo mcdi;i ad unuin rcvocari pos-
suut, nimirura ad volum solemne: siquidem Ordo
sacer idco ccnsetur impcdimcntiim quia cx dccre-
to Ecclesiac aiiuexuin liabel votum solcmne casti-
talis.
Quaeslio igilur solurn siiperesl: utrum solemnn
votiim contiiicntiaesil ira|icdimcnlum dirimcns M;i-
Irimonium. Et quidcm Lulherus in lib. de captivi-
tale babylonica cap. de Hlatrimonio. admisit,votum
continentiae esse impedimcnlum legitimum: sed
in aliis libris postea scriptis. semper ncgavit, ct
reipsa,ducta uxore sanctimoniali,senlentiam suam
declaravit.Quod idem omnes cjus discipuli, el vcr-
bis ct faclis docent.
Apud catholicos iiumquam dubium fuit, quin vo-
lum contincntiae simplex.sit impedimenlum impc-
diens contrahendum. non tamo.n dirimens contra-
f tiim: volum auliun solemnc sil impedimentum im-
pediens contrahendum , et dirimens contraclum,
quod ullimum sub analheinatc definitum esLin con-
cilio tridentino, sess. 24. can. 9.
Quare tria prohanda sunl. Primo:Votum simplex
castitatis esse iinpedinienlum impedicns Malrimo-
nium contrahcndum.Secundo: Volum simplex ca-
stitalis. non essc impedimenlum dirimens contra-
ctum. Terlio: Voium solcmnc caslilalis,esse inii^e-
dimentum. et impediens et dirimens.
Sit igitur prima Propositio: Votum simplex im-
pcdii Malrimonium conirahendum. Haec facile
probari potest ex fundamenlo facto in 2. lib. dc
monachis.ubi ostcndimus cx Scripturis. conciliis,
p;itribiis, et ex ipsa ratione votuin perpctuae con-
tiuentiae esse licilum^sanctum et Deo gralissimum.
Inde enlm sic raliocinari possumus ad id quod esl
hujus loci: Votum perpeliiae contiucnliac esl lici-
tuni.crgo scrvaiidum csl: cum Scriiilura dical: Si
(juidvovit^li 1h'o. vc niorcriaredderc. Eccclcsiast.
.">. ct Dcuteroi). 2:5. Al rcddi non potesl votum con-
liiKMiliac ah co qiii uxorcm diicit , cum lcnealur
iiii pclenti dchitum rcddere: non igiliir licet iis,
(]ui votum ejusmodi linbcul. iMalrimonio jungi.
rractere;i. I.Timotli. *>. b.P;iulus de viduis.quac
couliiKMilijim vovcranl. il;i pronunciat: Cu,m luxu-
riaUui fuerinl iii Chrii>lo, nubcre V(dnnl, liaben-
lcs damnalioncm, quia. primam (idem irriiam
fcccrunl. Uhi Aposl(dus iion ,d;imii;il viduas illas,
f|uia postcaqiKim luxiiriatac fucranl, nuberc vo-
lu(U'unl : id ciiini laiKhuidum eral, non vituperan-
dum: sed quia niihcrc volcnlcs, prim;iin lidem,
Dco videlicet dnlam de scrv;inda conlinenlia irri-
lam facicbant. El hoc modo huiic locum intcllexe-
runt omnes intcrprclcs gracci el lalini, el practe-
TOi\ concil. carlliaginiense VI.c;in.]04.et loletaimm
IV. c;in. .•)5. Ilem Tcrtullianus in lih. dc monoga-
mia. n;isilius in lib. de virginitaic. Epiphanius h;ic-
rcs. 48. llieronyimus lib. 1. in .loviniaiium. Inno-
renlius 1. epislola 2. cap. 13. Augustiiius lib. dc
bono vidiiil;ilis cnp. 8. el 1). Gclasius epistohi 1.
c;ip. 23. Fulgenlius epist. 1.
Seciind;i Proposilio: Volum f^implcx non diri-
viil Mairimonium posiipsum volum conlracium.
Hanc adversarii non negant: cl eandem ex profes-
so docct Auguslinus in lib.de hono viduitiitls cap.
9. cl 10. eandem invenimus injiirc dcclaralam ab
Alexandro lll.Coclcslino III. el Bonihuio Vlll.cap.
ConsuMiil.Q\i\ clerici vel voventes. ct cap. Bursus,
eodcm, el cap. unico, de volo in VI. El ralio de-
clarationi huic npcrtissima suffragnlur. Proiuissio
enim qiialis esl voluni simplex,obligat qiiidcm in
conscicntia.lnmen non Iransfcrl dominium rci pro-
missac ab eo, qui promisit, in cum cui proniissa
cst: et ideo si is, qui promisit, sentcnliam mulct,
clrcm alteri re ipsa donel, ille quidem peccal, la-
men donalio vim suam habet, nisi lale sil volum
simplex quod homincm in slatu religioso conslilu-
al. de quo voto hoc loco non agilur.
Et hinc refcllitur alius crror Liilheri,qui in lib.
de capliv. bahylon. cap. de Mnlrimonio, disputnns
de impedimcuto ligaminis, admillil quidcm cum
catholicis, ligamen cum uxore Jam ducta esse im-
pcdimentum dirimcns omnia alia Matrimonia. sed
nddit contra omnes Iheologos debcrccliam liga-
mcn sponsnliorum dirimere sequensMnlrimonium:
IlicJnqnW.concludunt.si posieriorem quis cofjno-
verii. prioris cessore sponsalia: quod plane non
cupio. El ego arbiiror cum esse jam non sui
juris, qui uni sesc addixerit, ac per hoc prohi-
benlc jure divino elc.
Sed crror islc Lulhcri damnnlus jamdudum fuit,
cap. Dc illis, et cap. Si inicr virum. el cap. ado-
lescens, de sponsnlibus el Matrimonio.cl cap. 1.
De sponsa d\iorum, quod capul s. Augustino Iri-
builur; cl r.ilio endem esl, quia per sponsalia nou
sit donalio. sed promissio.
INeque argumenla l>ulheri concIudunt.Primo sie
abiicit:iVcmo poiest dare quod non habel. Qui
sponsalia cum \ma conlraxit, non esl amplius
suijuris-.ergo nonpotesi seipse allcri dare-.crgo
Lir.Kli IM-.IMUS
831.
seciuuluni conjagLiim irritum judicandum esl.
Kesponiieo: Negalur assuniplio. Xam qui sponsalia
cuni una conlraxit, adiuic esl sui juris, ouni se nul-
li (Jonavecit, licel donitluiuin promiseiil. Quare si
relicla sponsa cuni alia conlrahal pcr verl)a dii
|iraesenli, Malrinionium lenet, sed peccavil, qui
iidern fregil.
Secundo objcil: Deus proliibct ne quis in nego-
tio fraires suum circumreniat, quod servanduni
f.sl ullra.et supra onines humanas tradilioncs.
Hespondco: Verum esl quod assumilur: sed quor-
sum tendil? Falemur enim peccare eum, qui Ira-
Irem suum circumvenil. lidem ei dalam non ser-
vans, sed non ideo irrilum crit Matrimonium cum
eo peccalo contraclum. i^am is cliam, qui uxorem
alicui divilem, aut nobilem.aut bene moralam pro-
niitlit, si ca lalis non sil, illum sine dubio circum
venit, gravilerque in proximum suum pcccavil:ne-
que tamen matrimonium irriUira eril, si per verba
de praesenli contractum fuerit.
Olijicil lcrtio: Si voluni religionis facit alie-
num, cur non eliam (ides dala et accepla; cum
liaec sit praecepli et fruclus spirilus, Gal. 5. il-
lud aulem arbitrii humani? Uespondeo: Si com-
paremus, (idem dare sponsae, cum eo quod est
vovere, ulrumque est arbilrii humani: neque enim
cogilur (juisquam jurc divino hoc aut islud vovere,
aul uxorem islara, vci illam ducere.Si conleramus
autem id, quod est servare lidem sponsae, cum eo
quod est implero votum Deo faclo; utrumque est
praecepti cl tYuclus spirilus: siquidem implerc vo-
lum,esl fidem servareDco. Neque Aposlolus inler
IVuclus Spirilus sancli numerat, scrvare fidcm ho-
mini, et non servare tldem Dco, quarc Lulherus
gravitcr crral, curn vota arbrilrii huuiani, sponsa-
lia aulem juris divini essc docct. Cur autcm vota
rciigionis solemne Malrimonium dirimanl, paulo
posl explicabimus.
Objicil quarto: Licel iixori virum suum i^epele-
re, vuto religionis facto non obstanle\ cur ergo
non liceat sponsae spo/isum suum repetere.eiiani
sequuta copula cum af/c/Yt.^^llcspondeo: Magnum
csldiscrimcn inler u.xorcm et sponsara, cum illa
jam liabcat, el possidcal ul rem suam, corpus viri
sui, ul Apostolus doccl, 1. Cor. 7. ista aulcm non-
dum habeal, nec possideat viri corpus nisi in spe
et promissione. Scd dc bis satis.
Terlia Proposilio. Yotum solemne dirimit Ma-
irimonium post ipsumvolum cclebratum: Proba-
iiir auctorilale el ralionc. Ac primo est aucto-
rilas veterum conciliorum.
Tolclanum 1. cclcbraium circa annum Domini
■400. can. 10. staluit, dcvotam rocminam, si forie
iiupseril, non possc rccipi ad Kcclesiam nisi vi-
viiiile illo, cui se conjunxijrat, caste vivat, aut nou-
iiisi post morlem ejus. Kx quo intclligimus uu-
plias illas non fuisse babilas veras nu[)tias, qiiia
postmoii islicam professioiiem contractac fueraiil:
idioqiii cnira si vcrae nupliae fuisscnl, cur ilhim
contmere oportuissel ab illo ipso, qui in marilum
lucrat acccplus?
Clialccdonensc conciliuin gcncralc, aiitc aniios
1 100. celcbratum can. 10. Mrgincm, iiiquil, (/uae
"icDomino consecravil.similitcr clmonachum non
iicere iiuptialia jure conlraliere: quod si hoc
invcnti fuerinl perpelrantes , excommunicen-
tnr.
Neque respondari potesl, concilium proliibere
nuptias cclebrandas, sed non judicire irritas cele-
bralas. iVam in priinis conciliuin Iriburicnse cano-
nc 2!5. hunc ipsum canonem concilii chalcedonen-
sis allegavit, ul probaret non esse verum Malrimo-
niuui, quod posl solcmnia vota conlrahilur. Dein-
dc, nuraquam fuit dubium inter Christianos, an
pcccarcnt qui volura continenliae Deo non redde-
renl;scd non defuerunl, qui dubitarent, an iMalri-
monia essent vera ct rata, quae ab ipsis contrahuii-
tur, qui conlinenliam voverant. Quare conciliuna
dcclarare voluit id quod dubium erat, atque asse-
ruit non esse legitima Miilrimonia posl soleinne vo-
luin quale est monachorum el sanclimonialium.
Concilium forojuliense anle annos 1300. can.
ll.desacris virginibus: Sipublice. inquit, nu-
pserinl.dignis quidem mundano judicio corpo-
ralibus coercilae vindictis, seyregentur ab invi-
ccm, el aganl cibnclis dicbus vilae suae poeni-
lontiam.
Concilium toletanura VIII. anto annos 900. ca-
none G. Subdiaconos, si uxores duxerinl, in mona-
steriis includi jubct.
Toletauum IV. ante annos 950. can. 31. Nonnul-
[i,\nqa\[,monachorum egredientes a monastcrio,
no7i solum ad saeculum reverlunlur, sed etiam
uxores accipiunt. Igitur rcvocati in eodem mo-
naslerio , unde exieranl , poenitcnliac depu-
tentur.
Turonicum 11. anle annos 1000. can. 16. Si qui,
iiKluit, in monasterio convcrsi sunt nullalenus
cxinde habcanl licentiam evagandi; ncc {quod
absit) uUus eorum conjugium ducere possit; et
si uxorem duxerit. excummunicelur, et de uxo-
ris malae societaiis consorlio-, eliam judicis auxi-
lio separelur.
Triburiense concilium anle annos circiter 700,
can. 23. aperte jubet separari cos, qui post votum
solcmne Malrimonio conjungciitur.
Sccundo est auctorilas pontificum vetcrum, ac
sanclissimorum.Syricius in epislola 1.cap.G.ilio?ia-
chos elsanclimonialos, si Matriinonia conlrahere
praesumant, jubel non solum excominunicari, sed
eliam in crgastulis usquc ad fincm vitae penilenli-
am agcrc.
Innocciitiiis I. in epist. 2. cap. 12. ct 13. di-
slinguit apcrle inler volum solcmnc et simplex.
^■■\m c. 2. dicit, eam, quac vclura sacrum accepe-
ral, ac proiude solemnc volum cmiscrat conlincn-
tiae, si forte nupserit, non possc admilli ad peiii-
tcntiam, donec vixeril is.cui se conjunxil: qucm-
ndmodum cum illa agitur, quae vivcnle viro allc-
ri jungitur; Cap. 13. dicit, cain, quao votum siin-
plcx, non solcraue einiscrat, si poslea nupseril,
ad pocnitentiam admitli posse.
(](;lasius I. in cpist. 1. cap. 22. et 23. simileni
distinctionem hahct, ac discrimcn magnnm agno-
scil inlcr nuplias virginuin profcssarum, quarum
cst sohMnnc voluiu; et nuptias vidiiarum, quae vo-
tuiii liabcnt simplcx. Nain virginum sacrarurn nu-
ptias vocat incesta focdera el excommunicari cab
Bsa
DliSACUAMKMd MA I lUMoMI
Jubol:incc.sla auliMU foeilor;i illojiilimuui conjuj:;iufii
son.inl. Viiliias auloin illas (licil (l(>l»i!re Doo pcr
poenilonliani salis!ac(Te: sed nec vocal earnn) nu-
plias iiicesla foedera , ne^iue cas jubel cxcoinniu-
iiic.Mi.
Grei^orius I. lib.l. cpisl.iO. ad AnlluMniuni.scri-
bil: Monaclios, qui uxores duxerinl, separandos
a conjugibus cssc, al(|uc ad monaslcria rimil-
lendos.
In eandom sonlenliam cxlant niulla responsa
Aloxandri III. Oocloslini III. ol Innoccnlii III. in
lit. Qui ckrki rd vovcntes.
Terlio esl aiictorilas sanclorum Palrum. Cypria-
nus lib. I. episl. 11. ad Pomponium scribit. virgi-
ncs sacras, (piao cuni viris dormicranl, adullcras
Clirisli cssc, et a viris illis omnino scparandas, ct
coiijunctioncm illam inccstam appollal.El quamvis
ii,cum qiiibus illae dormicrant,non se marilos ca-
rum dicobanl:laincu idcmjudicium dc illis Cypria-
nus fccisset.si se marilos carum prolilcri voluisscnt.
Wam illas adullcras Cbrisli vocat,quia fidemCbristo
iion servanl.iidcm autem non servanl, si altcrisc
jungant,sivc cum inrrilum.sivc alio nomine appel-
lcnl.El inceslam conjunclioncin viri cum sacra vir-
gine Cyprianus vocal, propter relationcm ad Chri-
slum,qui fraler nostcr fieri voluit: quae rclatio non
ininus invcnirctur in ea conjunctione; quae cum
viro Geret sub nomine conjugis, quam in ea quae
lieret sinc lali nomine. Unde quod in eandeiu
cpisl. Cyprianus dicit, eas virgines admoncndas
esse, ul si pcrseverarc noluit, aut non possint,
apertc nubanl: inlolligendum esl de illis (|uae non-
dum voverunl.Alioqui cum Cyprianus sub disjun-
clione dicat, ut nubant, si perseverare nolint, aut
non possint; permitlercl illis, ul nuberenl post vo-
lum, etiamsi possunt continere, modo tantum no-
linl,quod est absurdissimum,el ne ab ipsis quidera
Lulhcranis conccdendum.
Basilius in lib. de virginilale, parum ultra me-
diuin: Cum, inquit, virrjinitalem Domino profes-
sae sint. carnali poslmodum voluntatc male
blanda delinilac, ac dcvictae, stupri scelus ho-
nesto conjiirjii nomine obtegere cupiunt, nnn
ifinoranl hujusmodi, quamvis ignorantiani si-
iiLulent; quae sponsi dextram, el foedera prae-
varicata sit, eani nec illius ultra esse sjjonsam,
qucni dereliquit\ neque ejus uxoreni per idlas
legcs dici posse, cui se, deserto sponso, libidinc
incitata conjunxit. Et infra copiose boc idem os-
tendit. numquam illam dici posse uxorcm viri
mortalis, sed seinper Chrisli, viri immortalis adul-
leram.
Ambrosius in lib. ad virginem lapsam cap. .'>.
Quac se spopondil Christo, et sacruni velanien
accepit, jam nupsit; ia;n immortali juncla est viro.
el jam si volueril nubere cummuni lege conjugii
adultcrium perpclral.
Joan. chrysostomus in cpist. G. ad Tbeodorum:
Uonorabiles, inquit, nuptiac, sed tejam servare
non convenit privilegia nupliarum: quamvis frc-
quenter hoc ipsum nuptias voces, ego tanien a-
dulterio illud pejus existimo.
Hieronyimus lib. 1. in Jovinianum:Cer/e confite-
ris, inquil) non posse essc episcojmm, qui in e-
jnscopatu filios facial : alioqui si dcprehensufi
fitcrit.nonquasivir tencbilur, sed quasi aduUer
damnabitur.
Nc(|ue obslat, qnod quidam objiciunl dc s. Hlal-
du). (]Hi loste s. Ilioronymo in cjus vila, posloa-
quam mullos annos moiiachus fuoral, uxorom flu-
xil, el cum ea usque ad finem vitae pcrmaiisd. IVaui
conjugium nulluin fuit inlor .Malchum et eaui foe-
minain, quam coaclus se ductn-e (inxil in nxorein:
si(piidem illa viruin alternm liabuit vivent(Mu, ul
idem llieronymus referl, quando a Domino suo nu-
bcrc Malcho coinpollcbalur.fla(]uo socielas qiiac-
dam spirilualis et sancla inlcr cos luit, sub nominc
nupliarum.
Nunc ut ralionc ducta c.\ vcrbo Dci, probomiis,
volum solemnc csse impcdimentum dirimcns Hla-
trimonium, prnemiltcndum nccessario csl, quac-
slionem esse inter calholicos, quo jure volum so-
lcmne dirimunt Matrimonium,quod posl cjusmodi
volum celebralur, nalurali nc, ac divino, an soluin
ecclesiaslico ac positivo.
Et quidem mulli,iique gravissimi Ihcologi , s.
Thomas , s. Bonaventura , Albertus , Richardus,
Duranduset Dominicus a Solo in 4. dist. 38. cun-
tondunl.votum solcmne jure divino ac nalnr.di di-
rimcrc Malrimonium. Quorum haec cst polissiiiia
rulio . quia voluin solomno non est simplo.x
promissio Doo facta, ut est volura, quod dicitur
simplex,sed esl traditio de pracsenti sui ipsius in
perpetuum Christi obsequium ; et ea tradilio a
Christo per minislros suos acccplala ac probata
est. Quare dilTert votum solemne a simplici, ut
conjugium de praescnti contractum a sponsalibiis
de futuro.Sed jure divino ac naturali, nemo polcst
alteri dare quod suum non est, el si dederil, irrita
est donatio: igilur jure nalurali et divino irritum
est coniugium post volura solerane.
El quideiu si ex Scripturis,aul evidenti aliqua ra-
lione deraonslrari posset,volum solemne diflerre a
simplici,quod in illo sit donalio de pracsenti, in i-
sto vero promissio tantum dc fuluro;non oporloret
aliam quaerere rationem. Tamen quia princii)ium
illud multi nogant. ul Scotus et Paludanus in 4.
dislincl. 38. c\ Cnjotanus in 2. 2. quaest. 88. art.
7. ct omncs inlerpreles juris canonici, ut Panor-
mitanus teslalur in cap. 7JursMs, qui clerici, vel vo-
ventes, ot conlra potius exislimanl, solo Ecciosiae
decrcto faclum esse, ut volum solemne dirimat
Malriraonium:ideo probandum superest,Ecclesiam
poluisse hoc impedimcntum Malrimonii consli-
tuere.
Sed lioc facile probalur.Primum ex eo ipso quod
fecil, Ecclesia oniin ab anliquissimis lemporibus,
ul ex leslimoniis citalis pcrspicuum esl, lum in
conciliis, tum per surnmos ponlifices hoc slatuit.
Fortassc eliam hoc de apostolica\traditionc de-
scendit.Nam Cyprianus,Basilius ct Ambrosius, qui
hoc impedimenlum agnoscunl, anle ea concilia,
eosque ponlifices vixerunt,a quibus hoc decretum
faclum videtur: ct idco concilia et pontifices non
lam novi aliquid statuissc, quam vetus dccrelura
innovasse.auldcclarasse censendi sunt. Quod au-
tem Ecclesia antiqua, quara vcrara fuisse Christi
Ecclesiam haerctici negare non possunt, fecit, ct
i.iui:r PIU31US
833
saepius rcpelivil.sluUum alque impium esl dicerc,
non esse jure facluni.
Deindc probalur, quia illegilimas fncere personas
ad Malriiiioniiiin.noii est mulare sacramenli cssen-
lismail supradiximus. sed ralum vcl irrilum face-
re conlracluni humanum. qui in sacramenlo ^lalri-
nionii pracrcquirilur. Non eniin Chnsliis dcclara-
vil, quis coiiiraclus humanus sil habendus legili-
mus,quis illegilimus,sed ea declaraliono prnesup-
posila, Yoluil coiiiraclum huinanum lcgilimum in-
ler viruin el foeminam sacramenluin esse.
Posse aulem Ecclesiam ejusmodi conlraclus lc-
gilimos vcl illegilimos (lecrelo suo reddcre perso-
nas liabilcs vel inliabiles cfTiciendo: probalur. ^am
in primis huc perlincnl oinnia illa Scriplurae locu,
cx quibus discimus.curam Ecclesiae gubcrnandae
aposlolis, ct eorum successoribus cssc commis-
sam, Lucac 10. Qui vos audil, Malth. Ifi. Tibi
dabo clave>i regni coeiorumJonnnds ullim. Pascc
oves mcas. Nnm nd eum, qui jure praeesl, pertinel
legcs condere de aclibus humanis, cosquc regere,
el rntos vel irritos lacere.
In Tcslamenlo velcri, praclcr jus divinum natu-
rale, crant ctiam cerlae Icges positivac judicialcs
accommodatae illi populo, luin circa Matrimonia,
lum circa alios conlraclus humanos: Illae nulem
leges abrogatae sunt,ncque habcmns alias a Chri-
slo praescriplas;crgo ncccssc esl in Ecclesia esse
poteslalem sirailium legum pro locis el tempori-
bus sancicndarum, alioqui chrisliana rcspublica
imperfeclissimn, nc plnne miserrima esset.
Praeterea possunlrcges poliiici.qui reipublicac
pracsunt,circa humanos conlractus.humanas lcgcs
ferrc, cosquc ccrlo modo faclos, ralos, secus au-
tero,iriitos esse dccerncrc, (d) communem pncem
e' concordiam populorum; crgo potcrunt etiam id
principes ecclesiastici ob sululem actcrnam ani-
marum.
Dices: Si ita cst, non solum Ecclesia, sed eliam
principcs polilici polcrunl impcdimcnta Malrimo-
nii consliluerc: nam cx contradu Matrimonii non
tantum salus nnimnrum, scd etiam pax el concor-
dia lcmporalis pendct.
Rcspondco'.Si Malrimonium esset sohjm contra-
clus civilis, possent sine dubio polilici principcs
impcdimenla constituere, personas lcgitimas, vel
illcgitimas eiricicndo. sicut ctiain feccrunl sacpe
impcrnlorcs,pracscrlim clhnici.ul pnlel fT. d(! rilu
nupliaruin, et C. ad lcgcm Juliain de adultoriis;
ubi sunl multac lcgcs dc conlractii Matrimonii.
Tamcn quia nunc npud Chrislianos Matrimonium
cst sacrnmenlum, ct o\' contraclu illo civili sacra-
mcntum Ecclcsiae pcndct, el sncrnmentorum di-
spensatio ad JCcclcsiam pcrlincl;idco polestns im-
pedinicnta Mnlrimonii conslitiicndi, mnxime pro-
pric ad principcm ccclcsiasticum pcrtinct. Ad i)o-
iiticum aulem non pcrlinet, nisi cum coiiscnsu el
subordinationc nd |)rincipcm ccclcsiaslicum: non
cnim endcm [lolcslas nd duo divcrsa Iribunnlia nc-
quc cl immedialc ct propric pcrlincrc p(»tcsl.
Quarc s. Thoinas, quamvis in i dist. ,'U. quacsl.
unica nrl. 1. ad 4. concesscrit Malriinoniiim, iil csl
civilis conlraclns, pciidcrc possc a lcgc civili, ta-
mcn disl. 12. quaesl. 2. arl. 2. ad i. id ila explical,
ut locuin habeat lcx civilis. si auclorilas ctiam ac-
ccsseril Ecclesiae:P/"o/tt6t7io, iiiqmt, lerjis Jiuma-
nae non sufjicerel ad impedimenlam .Vairimo-
nii. nisi inlervenirel auclorilas Kcclesiae, quae
idem iiilerdicit.
Quod autem Ecclcsia non soluin polucrit volum
solcmne,impcdimcntum dirimcns Hlalrimonii con-
slitucrc, sed eliam caussam habuerit id constitu-
endi, facilc probari potest. Kam qui vola solcmnia
conlinenliae suscipiunl, illi statum vilnc mutanl,
ct nb impcricclo ad pcrfcclum asccndunl, absur-
dum aulcm csset, si iidcm postea ileruin rcdirent
ad statum imperfecliorcm Dcindc, qui hacc vota
faciunl, magna (lelibcraliune et praeccdenlc pro-
balionc diuliirna faciunl: incongruum autem cst,
ut id,quod maluro consilio faclum csl, ilcrum inu-
letur.Adhaec vola solemnia rcgularitcr publicc, cl
coram teslibus nmllis, immo populo inspectnntc
fmnl; crgo non possunt sinc ingenti scantjalo vio-
Inri. Quare dccuit Ecclesinm providere, nc id mu-
tari possil: medium autem cincacissimum provi-
dcndi fuit, irrilarc Malrimonia post ejusmodi vola
contracla. Dcnique, qui vola solemnia faciunl, non
solum Deo se obliganl, scd etiam sponle se sub-
jiciunt Ecclesiae, ut ab ea cogi possinl, eliam per
viam judicii: proinde queri non possunt, si eos in-
habiles ad .^latrimonium Ecclesia facit.
Alquc eacdem istac raliones oslcndunt, cur no-
luerit Ecclcsia, vola simplicin essc impcdimcnla
dirimcnlin. Qni cnini voln simplicin faciunl, ncc
slatum propiic iiuitanl, ct saepe sinc magiia deli-
bcratione,el privalim, ac sinc tcstibus illa faciunt,
ncque se Ecclcsiac subjiciunt magis quam anlea
subjecli esscnt: undc (;ogi non possinl ad volnm
servandum per viam judicii,scd pcr viam corrcclio-
nis fralcrnae, nisi lalia sint vota simplicia, quac,
ul paulo anlc diximus, hominem vcre ac proprie
religiosuin constituant, qualia sunt vota simplicia
societatis nostrac, quae ex conslilulione Grcgorii
XIII. sumnii ponlificis, qunc incipit, Ascendenle
Domino, declnranlur subslanlialia religionis cl di-
rimentia Matrimonium.