Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 24: On the Impediment of Kinship: What Kinship Is, and How Many Are Its Degrees
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).
There remains the impediment of kinship, about which there is a very grave controversy; which, that it may be explained in order, we must first set out what kinship is, and which and how many are its degrees. Second, what the heretics think about this matter. Third, the truth will have to be proved and their arguments solved.
To begin, then, with the first: the jurists distinguish between cognation and agnation. For they call cognates those who descend from the same blood through the mother, agnates those who descend through the father; although they sometimes also call all blood relatives cognates. And so cognation is sometimes the name of the genus, sometimes of the species; but agnation is always the name of a species: for those who are agnates can also be called cognates, not the reverse, as is clear from the law Inter agnatos, in the Digest, title Unde legitimi, and the law Jureconsultus, in the Digest on degrees and relatives by marriage; and from Ambrose, in letter 60, to Paternus, at the end, where he denies that those can be called agnates who do not descend through the father, such as brothers of one mother born of a different father. Wherefore Dominic Soto was deceived, on book 4, distinction 40, the only question, article 1, where he says that agnation is the genus and cognation the species.
In canon law both cognation and agnation are called simply consanguinity, which differs from affinity in this: that consanguinity is the bond of those who descend from some one person by the propagation of blood, so that all share the same blood and are brought back to one stock; but affinity is between those who are joined not by propagation but by the union of two into one flesh. For because through carnal union man and woman become one flesh, hence it is that the blood relatives of one of them become near to the other also, and relatives by marriage. And so the parents and brothers and the other blood relatives of the wife become relatives by marriage of the husband; and on the contrary the parents and brothers and other blood relatives of the husband in the same way become relatives by marriage of the wife; yet the blood relatives of one spouse are not relatives by marriage of the blood relatives of the other spouse, but only of the spouse himself.
And they become relatives by marriage of one spouse in the same degree in which they are blood relatives of the other: for the father of the bride becomes in a certain way the father of the bridegroom, and the brother of the bride becomes the brother of the bridegroom, and so on. Wherefore, if anyone knows the degrees of consanguinity, he will easily gather the degrees of affinity.
As to the degrees, then, it must be known that they are counted one way in the civil law and another in the canon law. In the civil law, as is plain from the title on degrees in the Pandects of Justinian, a twofold line is set up. One direct, as of father, son, grandson, and so on, or upward, of father, grandfather, great-great-grandfather, and so on. The other transverse, of brothers, cousins, and so on.
And in the direct line there are as many degrees as there are persons, the stock being left out: for example, the son is in the first degree, the grandson in the second, the great-grandson in the third, the great-great-grandson in the fourth, and so on; nor in this matter does the canon law differ.
But in the transverse line the civil law places no first degree, but begins from the second, which is that of brothers among themselves. And the reason is that in the transverse line too the civil law places as many degrees as there are persons, the stock being taken away; but brothers must be at least two. For if there is only one son of some father, he is not called a brother but only a son; and so he does not make a transverse line, but only continues the direct line. Brothers, then, who are at least two, make the second degree; and the uncle, on the father's or mother's side, with the children of brothers or sisters make the third: for then three persons are found, the stock being taken away. Let there be, for example, two brothers: if a son is born to one of them, there will now be three, and one of the brothers will begin to be called uncle in respect of his brother's son; and so the uncle and the brother's son are in the third degree. And the reason is the same of the maternal uncle and the aunts. The sons of brothers make the fourth, who are called among themselves cousins on the father's side, or cousins on the mother's side if they are sons of sisters. For they cannot be cousins unless four persons are counted, the stock being taken away: namely two brothers and their two sons. Further, the fifth degree will be between the cousin of one and the son of the other; the sixth degree between the two sons of cousins; and so on.
Where this is to be noted in passing, that the second degree is of those equally distant from the stock, but the third of those unequally distant; and in the same way the fourth, sixth, eighth and so on are of those equally distant, the fifth, seventh, ninth and so on of those unequally distant.
Nor did Justinian invent this order of degrees in the Authentics, nor did Alexander II disapprove it in the Lateran Council (as Dominic Soto suspects, on the fourth, distinction 40, article 2); but it was in the most ancient laws of the Romans, as is plain from Paul the jurist, in the Digest on degrees, which Paul preceded Justinian by three hundred years, for he flourished in the time of the emperor Alexander, about the year of the Lord 230; and from St. Ambrose, in letter 60, to Paternus, where, according to this order of counting degrees, he affirms that two cousins are blood relatives in the fourth degree, but the uncle and the sister's son in the third. And Ambrose wrote more than a hundred years before Justinian was born.
And Pope Alexander II, in the Lateran Council, as is plain from the canon Ad sedem, cause 35, question 5, does not refute Justinian, but the error of some who understood Justinian badly; whence in the same place Alexander repeats two or three times that the civil law is right if it keeps its own order of computation. For the civil law looks to the number of persons, the canon law to the distance from the stock. According to the canon law, then, in the direct line the first degree is of the children, who are derived next from the stock; the second of the grandchildren; the third of the great-grandchildren, and so on. In the transverse line the first degree is of full brothers; the second of cousins, and at the same time of the uncle and the brother's son; the third is of the sons of two cousins, and at the same time of a cousin and the son of the other cousin; and so on. From which Pope Alexander deduces that from two degrees according to the civil law one is constituted according to the canon law; and so that he who is second by civil law is first by canon law; and he who is third and fourth by civil law is second by canon law; and he who is fifth and sixth by civil law is third by canon law; and he who is seventh and eighth by civil law is fourth by canon law; and so on.
And the reason of the canonical reckoning is given excellently by the theologians and canonists, and is had also in the chapter Quod dilectio, on consanguinity and affinity, and in the last chapter of the same title: because, namely, since persons in the transverse line are not joined except by reason of the stock from which they proceed, they cannot be more or less distant among themselves than they are distant from the stock; it necessarily results, then, that they are joined among themselves, or distant, in the degree in which they are joined to the stock or distant from it. Wherefore two brothers will be in the first degree, because each is in the first degree with the stock; cousins will be in the second, because each is in the second degree with the stock. But if they are unequally distant from the stock, like the uncle and the brother's son, then they will be distant among themselves in the degree in which he who is more remote is distant from the stock. For since they are joined through the stock, it cannot be that anyone is nearer to his blood relative than to the stock; the brother's son, then, cannot be less distant from the uncle than from the grandfather. Although, then, the uncle is distant from the stock by one degree only, yet because the brother's son is distant from the same stock by two degrees, therefore the uncle and the brother's son are in the second degree, no less than two sons of brothers.
And this is what Pope Alexander signified when he said that from two civil degrees one canonical is made. For by civil law the uncle and the brother's son make one degree; two sons of brothers make another, because one person is added to the number, and the civil law looks to the number of persons; but by canon law the degree of the uncle and the brother's son is the same as that of two cousins, because the canon law does not count persons but considers the distance from the stock.
And it is to be observed that the reckoning of degrees does not extend to infinity. For the paternal power passed on into the son, through which the son is like his father, not only in species but also in the individual, as in constitution, manners, color and features, on account of which there exists a peculiar affection among blood relatives, is lessened little by little, so that it is greater in the son than in the grandson, greater in the grandson than in the great-grandson, and so on, and at length after some generations vanishes altogether. Otherwise, if it always lasted, it would follow that all men who descend from one Adam, the first stock of the human race, would be blood relatives; whereas on the contrary we find that not only not all men, but not even the citizens of one town, keep that affection which nature has planted in blood relatives.
Yet because it cannot easily be known how far that power of the same blood persists, and it is probable that it is preserved not always equally, but now in more, now in fewer generations, according as that power is stronger in one than in another, therefore, that we might have something certain, lawgivers have fixed a certain number of degrees.
And indeed Moses, in Leviticus, chapter 18, fixed only two degrees, namely the first and the second. For in the direct line he forbade the marriage of a father with a daughter and with a granddaughter, and likewise of a mother with a son and with a grandson; in the transverse line he forbade the marriage of a brother with a sister, whether of one or of both parents, and of a nephew with his aunt on the father's or mother's side; yet he did not forbid on the contrary the marriage of an uncle, on the father's or mother's side, with the daughter of a brother or sister. And these as to consanguinity, where there are two degrees according to the canons, and three according to the laws.
As to affinity, he forbade the marriage of a son with his stepmother, and of a father with his daughter-in-law, and again of a father with his stepdaughter or with her daughter; and these in the direct line. In the transverse line he forbade marriage with a brother's wife, and with a wife's sister while the wife lives, and with an uncle's wife. Where too there are two degrees according to the canons, the first and the second, and three according to the laws: for the stepdaughter's daughter is in the second degree with the father, and the uncle's wife is in the second degree with his nephew.
Wherefore Luther errs, in the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, where he says that in the divine law only the first degree of affinity is forbidden, and the first and second of consanguinity.
And what St. Ambrose too says, in letter 60, that in the divine law the marriage of cousins is forbidden, who are in the fourth degree according to the laws, I do not see how it can be true; just as also what the same Ambrose in the same place denies, that the marriage of a father with a daughter is expressly forbidden in the law; perhaps he slipped in memory. For the first prohibition, “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother,” signifies nothing else than that a daughter should not marry her father, and a son should not take his mother as wife.
But although the divine law was content with these few degrees, yet the civil law forbade also the marriages of cousins, who are in the fourth degree according to the laws, as Ambrose testifies, letter 60.
And the ecclesiastical law went further. For the Church had formerly defined the seventh degree, beyond which there should be no consanguinity, as is plain from Alexander II cited above; but afterward, in the Lateran Council under Innocent III, both consanguinity and affinity were restricted to the fourth degree, as is plain from the chapter Non debet, on consanguinity and affinity.
From which we understand that what is commonly said, that in the direct line marriages are forbidden to infinity, which perhaps Gaius first wrote, in the law Nuptiae, in the Digest on the rite of marriages, is denied by many.
Although there is no reason why we should be very anxious about this matter, since it can hardly happen that anyone should desire to enter Matrimony in the fifth degree or further in the direct line. For either living men are not found, or they are so unequal in age that it would be most absurd for them to wish to contract Matrimony between themselves. For let us grant that in the direct line each one begets as soon as age allows, that is, when he has come to the fifteenth year, which yet rarely or never happens: if they had to be joined in the fifth degree, one would have ninety years, the other fifteen; and if in the eighth degree, one would have a hundred and thirty-five years, the other fifteen. Nay, Adam himself, who lived nine hundred and thirty years, yet did not outlive beyond the eighth generation; at which time, if he had wished to take a wife outside his blood relationship, he would have had to take, a decrepit man of about nine hundred years, a girl of fifteen years as wife.
The Church added besides two other species of kinship which are not contained in Leviticus: namely spiritual kinship, which arises from Baptism and Confirmation, and legal kinship, which arises from adoption. Likewise she added two other quasi-species of affinity: one, which arises from espousals, which is called the justice of public honesty; and the other, which arises from fornicating carnal union, although this last, according to some, is not with difficulty drawn out of Leviticus. Further, according to the decrees of the Council of Trent, session 24, spiritual kinship and public honesty break marriages only within the first degree; but affinity from fornicating union within the first and second.
There is also a certain other affinity, which arises from a Matrimony ratified but not yet consummated, which, although it is usually called public justice, yet is without doubt something more perfect; and therefore Pope Pius V declared that the council's restriction of public justice to the first degree has no place except in espousals for the future.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV.
De impedimenlo cognationis; qnid sil
cognatio et quol ejus gradus.
Reslat impedimenlum cognalinnis, dc quo grn-
vissima controversia est: quae ul ordine explicari
possil: Primo exponcndum erit, quid sit cognalio.
etqui, et quot ejus gradus. Secundo, quid de liao
re haeretici sentianl. Tertio, probanda erit verilas,
el solvenda argumenta ipsorum.
Ut igitur a Primo incipiamus:JureconsuIli dislin-
guunl inter cognalionem ct agnationem. Cognalos
cnim vocanl, qui ex eodem sanguine per matrcm
descendunl, agnatos, qui pcr patrem; tamelsi co-
gnalos eliam inlerdum omnes consanguineos ap-
pellent. Itaque cognalio aliquando est nomcn gr-
neris,aIiquando spcciei; agnalio aulem scmpcr esl
nomen speciei: qui enim agnali sunl,cogn;iti etiam
dici possunl.non contra,ut perspicuum est ex leg.
Inler agnatos.ff. unde legitimi,et leg.jureconsuUiis
ff. de gradibus el arfinibus : et ex Ambrosio iii
cpisl. 06. Ad Paternum, exlrema, ubi negat dici
posse agnatos, qui per palrein non dcsccndunt.ui
iratrcs ulerinos ex diverso palrc uiitos.Quarc dccc-
ptus esl Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 40. quacslione
unica arl. 1. ul)i dicil, agn;ilionctu csse genus, cl
cogn;ilioncm csse speciem.
In jurecanonico,tum cognalio.tum agnalio sim-
pliciter dicilur consauguiuitas, qu;ie in hoc dilTi-rt
ab affiniliile,quod consangiiinilas csl viiiciilum cn-
rum, qui ;ib uno ali(pio per sanguinis [iropagiilio-
nem descendunt;ita ut oinncs cundem sauguiiiem
parlicipent,ul ad uniim slipitem reducanliir: ;ilTini-
t;is autein inlcr cos (;sl,qiii uon pcr prop;igiitioiicui,
sed [)er unionem duorum in carnem uiiam conjuu-
gunlur. Qiiia enim jier carnalem copuhun vir el
foemina fiuiiluuii ciiro,inde cst quod consiiiiguinci
uniiis cx illis (dliciuiilur proximi, el afliiies iilleri-
us. Ilaque p;irenles ct fralres, el c^iclcri consau-
guiiici iivoris, ciriciuutur :iniiies iniiriti. el conliii
|);ircules cl fr;ilrcs. cl ciicleri coiisauguinei uiarili.
codcin modo clliciuutur ;inincs uxoris; non tamcn
cousanguinei unius coiijugis. siinl anines consiin-
guineis iillcriiis coiijiigis, sed s(diim ipsi conjuiM.
lUli
838 Dl- SACIlAMF.Mo MAIHniCiMI
Kl qimUMn iii eo sra.lii liiinl aHinos alleri coiijii- si. iil p.ilfl cx nin. /1(/ i^etloni, :<.'}. (|ii;insl. ."». non
gum. 111 quo prailu siinl consan^iuinoi alteri: paler rrlcllii Jiisiiniaiiiiin. sed crrorein (iiioriindaiii inalo
cniin sponsae elllnlur qnoil.iin inotlo paler sponsi, inli-||i}T,Miiiuin Juslinianuin: nnde ibidoin Ale.xan-
el fr.ilcr spoiisne ellicilur Irater s|>onsi ete. Onare dcr his ler\e reixMil. lef^em civilcm recto se liabe-
si quis noveril j,MMdns consanguimlis, lacilc colli- rejicotaliuin ordiiiem servel. Jns eiiim civilo ro-
gel trradus allinilalis. spicil numcruin pcrsnnarnm.jus antein canoiilcuin
Ouanlum ii^itiir ad {^jradus. Seienduin osl. aliter (lisiaiiliiim a stipile. Ij^itur sccnndum jiis ciinoni-
ninnerari in jore civili, alitcr in jure eanonico. In ciim iii ordinc recto primns trradus esl liliornm,
jure civili, ul patcl ex lilulo do gradilnis, in pandc- qui proxinic ;i slipile deriviintiir. secniidus iie()o-
clis Jusliniani, du|dex ordo conslituilur. Unus re- tum.lcrlius pronepolum clc. in ordine Iransverso,
clus.ul palris.filii. ncpolis ete. vel snrsuin versus, primiis nrradns est fralnim iTcrmaiKn-nm. sccundns
palris. avi, ab.ivi clc. AJler Iransversus, iratrum, p.iirucliiiin , seu consobriiKUMim el sinnil piilriii
consobrinornm ctc. cl (ilii fralris, lerlius csl niiornm duoruin fratruiii
El qnidein iii ordine rcclo lol sunl izradus. qnot p;ilriielinm: ol simul patruolis, ol (ilii alleriiis pa-
sunl persouiie, omisso stipilo, verbi {,M-alia; Filius tMidis ol sic deinceps. Kx qiio dodiicit Alexan-
csl in prinio «,Madu. nepos in secuiido, proncpos der papa, ox diiobns (^radihus secuiidiim jns civi-
in lcrlio, abncpos iii quarto clc. ncque in liac re le. nnuin conslilni secundnm jus canonicuni: ci
discrcpal jus canonienm. proinde eum (pii esl sccnndtis iuro civili, osso pri-
In ordinc auloin transverso jus civile nullum po- imim Jure canonico: et qni esl lcrtiiis cl qnartus
nil prinuim sraduni,sed incipil a secundo. (lui csl jnro civili.esse secundiim jnro canonico-,el qui csl
fratrum iiitcr se. El ralio cst, quia in Iransverso cl- (|iiinlus ot sexlus iiiro civili, osso lerlium jurc ca-
iiini ordinc, tol pouit jns civilo gradns. quol sunl nonico: ol qui esl scptinins et oclavus jure civili,
pcrsonae demplo stipite.fralres aulem ul miniinuin csse quarlum jure canonico, cl sic deiiiceps.
duoesse debenl. Si cnim nnus lanlnm sit alicujns n.ntio aiilem canonicao supputalionis rodditur
palris (ilius. is nou dicitur fraler. scd (ilins lanlum: opliniii a llioolon;is ol ciinonistis, cl h;ibotnr oiiain
jiroindc nun tacil ordinem Iransversum, sed lan- ciipile. Quod dileelio, do consaii^Miinilalo el afriiti-
lum propagal ordinem reclum. Frafrcs igitur qni talo.ol cap. FLnalicodp.m, quia nimirum cnm per-
duo siinl nl minimuin, sccundum elficiunl gradum: soiiae iii ordino Iransverso non conjungantur. nisi
lerlium aulem faciunt patrnus, vel avunculus cum riitione sli[)ilis,a quo procednnt, non possnni intor
filiis fralrum, vcl sororum: nam tunc Ircs personao se magis.aul niiiius dtstarc, qnam a siipile distent:
inveniunlur dcmplo stipile. Sint, exempli gratia necessario igilur efTicilur, ul eo gradu inlcr sc
(luo fralres: si alteri eorum filius nascalur, jam e- conjunganliir . vel dislent, qiio slipiti eonjun-
vunl Ires.el incipiel dici altcr fralruin palrnus, res- gimluri vel ab eo distant. Qinire duo fralres in
pcclu (ilii fralris sui: alquc ita in lertio gradu sunl priino gradu crunl, quia ulerque in primo gradu
palruus. ct filius fratris. El cadem dc avunculo, esl ciim slipile: consobrini in secundo eruiil, quia
amila, malcrtera, ratio cst. Quarlnm faciunl fiiii iiterque in seenndo gradn osl cum slipile. Quod si
friitrum.qui inter se palrueles dicunlur, vel conso- iiKwqnaiiter a slipite dislent, ut palruus el filius
brini, si (ilii sororum sint. Neque cnim esse pos- fr;itris. lunc eo gradu inter se distiibuni, qno di-
sunl piilrncles, sive consobrini, nisi qualuor pcr- stal a slipite ille, qni csl remotior. Cum enim por
souaedemplo slipite numerenlur:duo videlicelfra- slipilem conjungantur, fieri noii polcsl. ut nllns
lrcs,el duo ipsorum filii.Quinius porro gradus crit propinquior sil consanguineo sno, quam stipiti:
inlcr pralruelem uniiis ot filium alterius. Sexlns non igilur filius fralns 'minns distarc polest a pa-
gradus inlcr duns filios patruelium;el sic deinccps. Iruo. qu;iin ab avo. Licot igilur palriins iino tantum
Ubi illud obiter est notaiidum, socnndum gra- gradu dislet a slipite.lamen quia filius fralris duo-
dum esse aequaliler dislanlium a slipilc. terlium iiiis gr;idi!>ns dislal ab endcm slipite, ideo palruus
aulem esse inac(;uarilcr distantium: el ad eundem ct filius fralris in secundo gradu sunt, non niiims
modum.quartuni,sextum,octavum clc. esse acqua- quam duo filii fralrum.
liler dislanlium; quinlum. seplimum. nonum elc. Et hoc est, qiiod Alcxander papa significavit,
essc iniiequaliler dislanlium. cum ait, ex duobus gradibns civilibus fieri nnum
?iequo islum ordiucm graduum confinxil Justi- canonicum, Siquidem jurc civili patruus et lilius
nianus iu Auilicnlicis, neque enm reprobavil Aie- fratris. faciunt unnm gVadum; duo filii fratrum fa-
xander sccundus, m conciiio laleranensi fut su- ciunt allerum, quia una persona additur ad nnmc-
spiciilur Dominicus a Soto.in qunrlnm.disl.40. art. rum, el jus civilc numerum personarum respicil:
2.) sed cral in \inti(]uissimis legibus Roinanorem, at jure canonico idcm esl gradus palrui el lilii
ul palel ex Paulo jureconsulto in ff. de gradibus, fratris, qui duorurn palruclium, quis jus canoni-
qui Piiiilus trecenlis annis Juslinianum praecessil: cum non numeral personas.sed distantiam a slipi-
floruit eniin tcinpore Alexandri imperaluris, circa te considcral.
annuni Duinini 230. cl cx s. Ambrosio in epist. 60. Esl aulem illud observandum,graduum snppula-
ylti /*a/er)iw/H, ubi juxta linnc ordinem nunier;indi lioiiem non exlendi in infinilum. Nam virtus pa-
griidus.iilfinnal duos consobrinos csso consangiii- tcrna in filium Iraducla, per qiiiim esl filius palri
neos in quario graiiu;patruuni aulcm, el filium so- similis , iion solum in specie, sed eliam in indivi-
roris in lerlio. Scripsil autem .\mbrosius annis su- duo, ul complexione, moribus. colore, lineamcn-
pra centuin anteqnam nascerelur Juslinianns. lis,ob quam existit peculiaris affectio inlcr consan-
Alexandcr aulem 11. papa, in concilio laleranen- guineos: paulatim rainuilur.ita utmajor sil in filic,
l.lBEi; 1'1UMUS
839
quam in nepolc, m;ijor in ncpolc, (piani in prone-
pole elc. et lamlcm post allqnol gcncrulionos peni-
lus cvanescit. Alioqiii si seinper durareljd seque-
relnr,nl omnes liomines.qni ab ono Adnino, pruno
Stipitc generis hnuiani (iescenduiit. cousanguinei
essenl;cum tamen ecoutrario experiamur non mo-
do non omnes homines, sed nequc cives unins op-
pidi eum afTeclum rctinere, quem nalura coiisan-
guineis insc.vit.
Quia tamcn non facilc sciri potesl, quousque vir-
lus illa ejusdein sanguinis perscvercl, el prohahiie
osl, non aequalitcr semper, sed niincin |)luribus;
iiunc in paucioribus generalionibns conservari,
I)roul in uun potculior esl virlus quam in alio: ideo
iil cerli aliquid haberemns,legisIatores ccrlum nu-
nierum gradiium praefi.xcrnnt.
Et quidem Moyses in Levit. cnp. 18. praelixit
duos gradiis tanlum. primum videliccl el sccun-
dum. Prohibuil (!iniii in recla linen, conjiigium
Palris cum filia ct cum nepte, el simililcr nnilris
cum lilio et cum nopole: in Iransvcrsa prohibuil
conjugium fralris ciim sorore, sivc cx nno, sivc cx
nlroquc pnrenie: el nopoiis cum amita, vel maler-
tera: non lamcn prohibuil conjiigium econlrario
palriii, vcl aviincuii cum filia fralris vcl sororis. Et
liaec quond consanguinilatcm, ubi sunt duo gra-
diis sccnndum canones, et Ircs secnndum ieges.
Qiioad anTinilnlem. proliibuit conjugium filii cum
uovcrca. cl pnlris cnm nurn, el rursus |iatris cum
privigna.vcl cum cjus filia: cl hacc in rcclo ordinc.
In Irnnsvcr.soaulcm.prohihuit conjugium ciim uxo-
rc frairis. el cnm sororc uxoris, uxore vivcnle; lU
cuir uxorc pnlfui. Ubi cliam sunl duo gradus se-
(■iindum canoncs, primus et secundus, ct tres se-
ciuulum legcs: nam filia privignne cst in sccundo
gradu cum pair(\('l uxor palrui csl in secundo gra-
(lu ciim ejiis ncpole.
Oiiare errat Lnlhcrus in cnpliv. babylon.cap. dc
Matrimonio. ubi dicit. in Icgc divina non prohibe-
ri, nisi primum gradiim .'dlinilalis, el primuni cl
seciindum consanguinilalis.
Quod clinm s. Ambrosius in cpist. GG. dicil, in
legc divina prohibcri conjugium palruclium, qui
siinl in i. grndii sccundum leges, non video quo-
niodo vcrum esso possil: sicut cliain, quod idem
Ambrnsius ibidcm, ncgal in h'gc exprcssc prohi-
bcri (■oiijiiginm Pnlris ciim lilin. forie lapsus cst
memorinc. IVnm primn prohibilio: TiirpiliKiineni
palris liri, el lurjnhKlinoin malriH luao non dis-
cnopfrios', nihil aliiid siguifical. nisi nc filia palri
nubal, cl ne filius inntrcin accipiat in uxorcm.
Scd quamquam Icx diviiia his pnucis gradibus
conlcnla fiicril: Inmcn Icx civilis prohibuit clinin
conjugin consobrinoium. qni sunl iu (junrlo gra-
du sccundum lcgcs , ut Ambrosius tcstatur c-
pisl. GG.
Lcx aiitcm ccclcsinslica longiiis progrcssa csl
Ecclesia cnim olim scplimum grndum dclinicral,
nllrn qucm non esscl ulla consanguiiiilas. iit pnlcl
ox Alcxandro TF, snprn citalo: scd postca in couci-
lio Intcrancnsi sub Innoccnlio III. rcslricln csl tuiu
consanguinitas, tum nninilns nd qunrlum griidum,
nl palcl cx cap. Non dcbel. dc consangninilale (;t
aninitalc.
Ex quo inlelligimu5,id quod communilcr dici so-
lcl. in linea rccla iu infinitum prohibcri coniuibia,
quod prirnus forte scripsit Cajus L.nuptiae 2. ff.de
rilii nuptiarum, a rnullis ncgnri.
Quamquam nou est cur dc hac re valdo solllciti
simus.cum vix coiUiugere possil,ut cupianl aliciui
.Matrimonium iniro in gradu quinlo, aut ulleriore
iu rccta linea. Aiit cnim no;i invcniiinlur homiiies
vivi, aulsunl ila inaequales quoad aeliitcm. ul al)-
surdissimuin sit eos inler se Malrimonium velle
contr;ihere. .^iim.iil demus in iiiiqu;i linea singulos
gigncre cum primum per aetatem licet.idesl, cum
ad anunm decimumquiulum pcrvcncrinl, quod la-
iiien raro, aut numqunin accidit; si dcberent iii
quinlo gradu coniungi, habcret iinus jinnos 90. al-
ler 15. et si in oclavo gradu. habercl uiius ;inuos
13r>. alter 13. Immo ipse Ad;im, qui vixit 930. an-
uos, non supcrvixit lamcn nisi usque ad oclavnni
gencr;ilionein:quo lempore si exlra consanguinihi-
tem suam uxorem ducere voluissel, debuisset vir
ilccrepitus, annorum fcre 900, puellam annorum
Id. uxorcm accipcrc.
Addidit prncterea Ecclcsia duas alias species co-
gnationis,qune in Levitico non contiucntur, nimi-
rum cognntiouem spirilualem, qunc orilur cx T^ip-
lismo cl Confirmaiionc: et cognalioncm legalem,
quae orilur ox adoptione. Ilem addidil duns alias
(luasi species aninilnlis; unam, quae orilur ex
sponsalibus. quae publicac honestalis juslitia ap-
pellalur; ct allcram, qiiao orilur cx copuiu carnali
fornicaria, quamvis haec ultima ex Levitico juxta
(|uosdam non difliculter eruatur. Porro juxla con-
cilii tridcnlini dccrela session. 2i. cognalio spi-
ritualis, el publica ctiain honestas intra prinuini
gr;i(lum lanlum M;ilrirnonia dirimunl: afTinitas au-
lem cx copula fornicari;i, iiilra primum el se-
cundum-
Est etiam alia quncdnm alTinil;is, quae orilur ox
Malrimonio ralo, sed uoiidum consummiilo, qiuM^
quamvis puLlica justiti;i dici soleal: Inmcii haud
dubie estquid pcrfectius, el ideo Pins V. papa de-
claravil, rcslriclioncm concilii publicac jusliliae
;id priiunm graduin noii habcic lociiiu, nisi iii
sponsalibus tle fuluro.