Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 28: That the First Degree of Consanguinity in Both Lines, and the First of Affinity in the Direct Line, Are Forbidden by the Law of Nature and Indispensable by Man
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).
Let the third proposition now be: Marriages in the first degree of consanguinity, both in the direct line and in the transverse, and in the first degree of affinity in the direct line only, are forbidden by the law of nature. We taught in the preceding conclusion that not all the precepts about forbidden degrees belong to the law of nature; now we explain which are to be judged precepts of the law of nature.
And concerning this third proposition it is to be noted in the first place that we have said nothing of the second, third and following degrees in the direct line, not because we do not think them forbidden by the law of nature, but because the reason seems to be the same of the first and of the rest; for it is the common opinion that all marriages between ascendants and descendants are forbidden. For although in the more remote degrees the nearness of blood is less, yet the inequality of age is greater, which makes up for that lack of nearness: as, for example, between a grandson and his grandmother the nearness of blood is less, and so the unseemliness of the marriage less, than between a son and his mother; yet the inequality of age is greater, and in consequence the unseemliness by reason of age greater; for the grandson is hardly a youth when the grandmother is already an old woman. By like reason, between a great-grandson and his great-grandmother the nearness of blood is less, yet the inequality of age greater, than between a grandson and his grandmother. And when one goes so far in the degrees that there is no longer any sharing of blood, as in the fifth degree and following, then the ascendants are either dead or altogether worn out and decrepit; and on the contrary the descendants are either little children or of so tender an age that no reason allows marriages to be joined between them.
It is to be noted in the second place that we have placed the first degree in the conclusion, but not altogether universally: for we do not think the first degree of affinity in the transverse line, as of a brother-in-law with his brother's wife, forbidden by the law of nature, as we taught in the preceding conclusion. Nor ought this to seem a wonder. For there is a great difference between the first degree in the direct line and the first in the transverse; and again there is a difference not to be despised between consanguinity and affinity; nay, in the same first degree in the direct line there is found a certain breadth, and so a diversity.
And we can, for the sake of teaching, arrange the order of the marriages forbidden by the law of nature thus. The first, and that the most shameful of all, is of a son with his mother. For there is both the highest joining between mother and son, and moreover the mother, who by the order of nature presides, would by reason of the marriage have to be subject to him.
The second is of a father with his daughter. For this is equal to the first as regards the joining, but less shameful, because the order of rule is not inverted, since it belongs both to a daughter and to a wife to be subject, not to preside. And about these two all agree that they are forbidden by the law of nature.
The third is of a brother with his full sister, of both parents: for here too there is the highest joining, but a side joining, and therefore less than that which is between a father and his daughter.
The fourth is of a brother with a sister of one parent only: for there can be no doubt that marriage with a sister of one parent is less shameful than with one of both.
The fifth is of a stepson with his stepmother; for this is little or perhaps nothing short of the third. For although on one side it has less shamefulness, because it is affinity, not consanguinity, yet on the other side it carries more unseemliness, since it is in the direct line and the order of rule is inverted; for the stepmother is in place of a mother, and ordinarily is also older, and by the order of nature has power over the stepson.
The sixth and last is of a stepfather with his stepdaughter: for this is in the same degree as the foregoing, but lacks the unseemliness from the perversion of rule. For it befits the stepdaughter to be subject to the stepfather, whether he be only in place of a father or become also her husband. And what has been said of the stepson and stepmother is to be understood also of the son-in-law and mother-in-law; and what has been said of the stepfather and stepdaughter is to be understood of the father-in-law and daughter-in-law. Of these four degrees there are not lacking those who deny that they are forbidden by the law of nature, among whom is Cajetan, the Second of the Second, question 154, article 9; yet the more common and truer opinion holds the contrary.
It is to be noted in the third place that we have said in the conclusion that marriages in these degrees are indispensable by man, because we think that all marriages in any degree whatever are dispensable by God: for there is no degree in which marriage is so intrinsically evil that it cannot be done well. Which is plain from this, that no degree takes away the primary or secondary end of Matrimony, although it hinders it in some way; for even from the marriage of a son with his mother children could be born and educated, and so on; nor do I read anyone who has expressly denied this. For Cajetan himself, in the Second of the Second, question 154, article 9, says that this first degree in the direct line has of itself and naturally an impediment of marriage annexed; yet in the same place he writes that marriage in this degree is dispensable by the author of nature.
And some argument to prove this can be brought from the deed of the daughters of Lot, who, when they thought that no man at all remained in the world, believed that it was lawful for them to seek children from their own father, Genesis 19. And although they are not excused from sin, because they ought to have left this care of propagating the race to their father, or at least to have communicated the counsel with him and waited for his judgement, and not to have forestalled and deceived their father, yet the deed itself shows that in so extreme a case such a marriage is not altogether against human reason, especially if the authority of God dispensing were added. Nay, Chrysostom, homily 44 on Genesis, and Ambrose, book 1 On Abraham, chapter 6, free them from all crime. Augustine, book 22 against Faustus, chapter 43, says that they sinned not so much from the heat of lust as from too great a love of posterity.
These things being noted, the conclusion is proved. First, because all and only the aforesaid marriages are punished with the extreme penalty in Leviticus, chapter 20, whereas the others are punished with lighter penalties.
Second: because there are no examples of saints who at any time ever contracted marriages in these degrees, although there are of others, as we showed above.
Third: because no dispensation was ever made by the Church in these degrees, although there were not lacking those who at times sought it. For of the count of Armagnac Paulus Aemilius relates, in his Louis XI, that he joined his full sister to himself in Matrimony by a false diploma of the pontiff; because, namely, he could never extort a true diploma from the pontiff, he procured a false one from a certain corrupt minister. But in the degrees which we said are not forbidden by the law of nature dispensations are read to have been made more than once. For one is read to have been made in the first degree of affinity in the transverse line by Innocent III, the last chapter on divorces; and by Martin V, by the testimony of Antoninus, part 3, title 1, chapter 11 of the Summa of Theology; and again in the second degree of consanguinity by Alexander VI, by the testimony of Cajetan, the Second of the Second, question 154, article 9. Nay (as was shown above), Innocent III, in the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces, openly declared that in the second and following degrees marriages contracted between unbelievers ought to be valid.
Fourth: because all nations either shrink naturally from the aforesaid marriages, or, if any nations indulge in them, they are judged by the others wild and barbarous. The Persians, who permitted marriages with parents and sisters, are blamed by all: as by Tertullian in the Apology, chapter 9; by Chrysostom in the homily on Pentecost, at the end; by Augustine, question 61 on Leviticus; by Theodoret in the book on laws. Aristotle too, in book 2 of the Politics, blames the community of wives for this reason, that it would follow that sons would be joined to parents and brothers to sisters; and in book 9 of the History of Animals, chapter 47, he writes that camels and horses cannot be driven to mingle with their mothers, and relates two plainly wonderful examples. Pliny does the same, book 8 of the Natural History, chapter 42. Suetonius, in his Gaius, relates among the crimes of the emperor Gaius that he would have his sister Drusilla in place of a wife. Eutropius and other writers, in the life of Antoninus Caracalla, mark the same man because, from too great shamelessness, he did not keep from his stepmother Julia.
Lastly, Ambrose, in letter 60 to Paternus, writes that the marriage of a father with his daughter fights with the law of nature written in the hearts of all. And Augustine, book 15 of the City of God, chapter 16, writes that marriages with sisters were permitted only by perverse laws. For what was once done by the sons of Adam under the compulsion of necessity, nature afterward, when men had multiplied, so shrank from as if it had never been lawful. Some natural reasons could also be brought here from St. Thomas and other authors, but they will be brought more fitly for the following conclusion.
Now against this third proposition certain arguments are usually objected. The first is taken from the example of the sons of Adam, who contracted marriages with their sisters. For if such marriages fought with the law of nature, they could not be lawfully contracted unless the author of nature dispensed. But no dispensation is read to have been made then; nor does it seem to have befitted the divine wisdom that at the same time it should make a law and dispense in the law; wherefore marriage with a sister will not be forbidden by the law of nature.
I answer, first: it can be that God dispensed with the sons of Adam that they might be joined to their sisters: for there was not required some external dispensation by voice or Scripture, but an internal inspiration sufficed; perhaps too God signified and declared his will to his sons through Adam. Nor is it absurd that at the very beginning of the world God dispensed in that law, since the author of things willed all men to proceed from one, and did not judge it good to create several males and several females at once.
Second, it can more easily be said that there was no need of a dispensation, because the marriage of a brother with a sister is forbidden by the law of nature except in that supreme necessity of propagating the race, as was declared in the second proposition.
The second argument is taken from the example of Abraham, who seems to have taken his sister by his father, since he himself says, Genesis 20: “And yet indeed she is my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife.” I answer: Sara is called Abraham's sister after the manner of the Scriptures, because she was his blood relative, namely his niece through his father's line.
And because not only some of ours, but also Beza, in the book on repudiations, contends that Sara was Abraham's full sister, therefore I wish to confirm our opinion a little more fully, and to refute what is objected to the contrary. That she was, then, his niece from his brother, not his full sister, is proved, first, by the authority of the most learned writers: of St. Jerome in the Hebrew Questions, on chapter 11 of Genesis, and in the book against Helvidius; of St. Augustine, book 16 of the City of God, chapters 12 and 19, and book 22 against Faustus, chapter 31; and of Josephus the Hebrew, book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 14.
Second, it is proved from chapter 11 of Genesis, where we read: “Thare begot Abram, Nachor and Aran.” And below: “Abram and Nachor took wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nachor's wife Melcha, the daughter of Aran, father of Melcha and father of Jescha”; in which place by Jescha nothing can be understood but Sarai, who, by the testimony of Josephus and Jerome, had two names. For it is in no way credible that Scripture meant to reveal the father of Melcha and not the father of Sarai, a far worthier person; and then, to what end would mention be made of Jescha if she were other than Sarai?
Third, it is proved from the same chapter, where we read thus: “Thare therefore took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Aran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son.” Why did he not say, “and Sarai his daughter,” but only “his daughter-in-law”? Certainly a daughter is more closely joined to a father than a daughter-in-law. But because she was not properly a daughter, he would not mix her with those who were properly sons.
Fourth, it is proved: because if Abraham and Nachor had taken their full sisters, they would have done it because at that time it would have been lawful by the customs of those nations, as those confess who defend that Sara was Abraham's full sister. For one must not have recourse to a divine dispensation, since it was not necessary, if such a marriage is not against the law of nature, as the adversaries will have it. But if then both by the law of nature and by the customs of the nation it had been lawful to enter such a marriage, it would have profited Abraham nothing to say, “She is my sister.” For he said this to cover the marriage, as is plain from Genesis 12 and 20; which Isaac also afterward did, Genesis 26: for when asked about his wife, and fearing to be killed on her account, he said, “She is my sister.” It must be confessed, then, that the men of those places so shrank from marriage with one's own sister that, on hearing the name of sister, they at once believed that she was not a wife.
Lastly, who would believe that Abraham without any necessity took his own sister, since on account of this crime God commanded, Leviticus 20, that both spouses be slain together?
But answer must be made to the objections of Cajetan, who holds the contrary in the explanation of chapter 20 of Genesis and chapter 18 of Leviticus, and of some others.
First they object those express words: “Indeed she is my sister.” I answer: by those words it is signified that she was truly a blood relative. For Isaac too, Genesis 26, says of Rebecca that she is his sister, although it is certain that she was his niece through a cousin, that is, the daughter of Bathuel, the son of Nachor, Abraham's brother; likewise Abraham calls Lot his brother, Genesis 13, though he was his nephew; and in Tobias 8 the younger Tobias says: “Thou knowest, O Lord, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife”; and yet she was not his full sister. In Daniel 5 Nabuchodonosor is called the father of Baltassar, though he was his grandfather, as Jerome writes on that place. Lastly, in Matthew 12 certain men are named brothers of the Lord, although the Lord had no full brothers.
Second they object: granted that blood relatives of equal degree can be called brothers, yet it is absurd that the uncle be called the brother of his niece, since he ought rather to be called her father. I answer: that this is not absurd the examples brought teach: of Isaac calling Rebecca his sister, who was his niece through a cousin; and of Abraham calling Lot his brother, who was his nephew from his brother.
Third they object: when Abraham says, “the daughter of my father,” he speaks of a father properly so called, not of a grandfather; therefore he speaks of a sister, not of a niece. And Cajetan proves the antecedent, because when Abraham added, “and not the daughter of my mother,” he spoke without doubt of a mother properly so called; therefore also when he says, “the daughter of my father,” he spoke of a father properly so called.
I answer: Abraham speaks of a father properly so called, who speaks of his own father, not of Sara's father; for he says, “the daughter of my father,” not “the daughter of her father.” And he who was properly Abraham's father was improperly father, that is, grandfather, of Sara; but Abraham's mother was not mother, nor grandmother, of Sara, because Aran, Sara's father, was not Abraham's brother by the same mother, but by the father only; and therefore he said, “the daughter of my father,” not “the daughter of my mother.” Wherefore the impropriety is not in the word “father,” but in the word “daughter,” which is taken for granddaughter.
But why did he not say openly, “the granddaughter of my father,” or “the daughter of my brother”? Why did he prefer to speak improperly rather than properly? I answer: because he had said, “She is my sister,” he had to speak consistently and say, “the daughter of my father.” Moreover, because Sara's father died before her grandfather, as we have in Genesis, chapter 11, she knew no other father than her grandfather, and therefore Abraham too was accustomed to call her sister. And this is what Chrysostom says, homily 45 on Genesis, whom some wrongly allege for the contrary opinion. For he says that she was called Abraham's sister because she called the same man father whom he did; because, namely, having lost her father properly so called, she knew no other father than her grandfather.
Fourth they object: if Sara was not properly Abraham's sister, then he deceived the king when he said, “She is my sister.” I answer: he did not deceive by a lie, but evaded by an ambiguity, which is lawful when one is questioned not judicially.
But at least he ought afterward to have opened the whole matter, when he had escaped the danger, lest he lead that king into the opinion that he had contracted Matrimony with his full sister. I answer: it is altogether credible that a longer conversation was held between Abraham and that king, and all things explained at length, but that Scripture, after its manner, touches the matter briefly.
Fifth: a somewhat more difficult argument can be objected. For if Sara was the daughter of Aran and the wife of Abraham, as we say, she would have had to be born when her father Aran was seven years old, which can in no way be. And I prove that this follows thus. Abraham was ten years older than Sara, as is plain from chapter 17 of Genesis, where Abraham speaks thus: “Shall a son be born to him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sara that is ninety years old bring forth?” Therefore when Sara was born Abraham was ten years old. But Aran was younger than Abraham himself by at least two years, since he was third after him; for Thare begot three sons, Abraham, Nachor and Aran, Genesis 11. Therefore Aran was eight years old when Sara was born; therefore he begot her in his seventh year, if she is his daughter.
I answer: Aran was older by birth than Abraham and than Nachor, although Abraham is put in the first place on account of his dignity. And I do not say this rashly, nor did I devise it only to solve this difficulty, but learned it from Scripture itself: for in Genesis 11 we read thus: “And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran.” From which place we have that in the seventieth year of Thare these three sons had already been born: for Scripture does not signify that all three were begotten in the same year, but that in that year Thare began to have three sons, namely one begotten that year and the others before. And in that year Abraham was born: for Scripture in Genesis always shows the time of the birth of those whose genealogy it weaves, that we may know the age of the whole world, others being passed over who do not belong to that chronology. So we see Scripture, in Genesis 5, revealing in what year of Adam's age Seth was born, through whom the chronology is woven, but not in what year of the same Adam Abel or Cain was born; and in Genesis 5 Noe is said, when he was five hundred years old, to have begotten Sem, Cham and Japheth, where the year is noted precisely in which Sem was born, because through him the chronology is carried on; and the same can be observed in the rest. Since, then, Abraham alone of the sons of Thare is he whose genealogy is explained, and through whom the chronology is woven, it must be said that he was born in that year, and the others before. And so Aran was not seven, but perhaps twenty-seven or thirty-seven years old when he begot Sara; which is also confirmed from this, that he died before the rest, and that Nachor too took his daughter.
The third principal argument is drawn from the example of Thamar, the daughter of David, who, when she was being forced by her brother Ammon, is read to have said: “Do not, my brother, do not force me; do not this folly; but rather speak to the king, and he will not deny me to thee,” 2 Kings 13. For from this place we understand that it was not unusual for sisters to be taken by brothers; otherwise, whence would that counsel have come into the girl's mind?
Some answer that Thamar was not in truth the daughter of David, but his stepdaughter, and therefore was indeed the sister of Absalom by the same mother, but in no way the sister of Ammon. But this cannot be defended. For in that very chapter 13 of book 2 of Kings Thamar is called the daughter of the king and the sister of Ammon; and most clearly in book 1 of Paralipomenon, chapter 3, all the sons of David being enumerated, Scripture adds: “All these are the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines: and they had a sister Thamar”; and Thamar could not be the sister of all the sons of David, who had been born of various wives and concubines, unless she had the same father as they.
Others therefore answer that Thamar was indeed the true sister of Ammon, and knew well that such a marriage was unlawful, but yet uttered those words either because no other counsel occurred to her in those straits, or because she thought that her brother, disturbed by that vehement passion, would not notice that marriage with a sister is unlawful. But neither can this be said: for her words in the same chapter show that Thamar spoke seriously of a future marriage if it were asked of the king. For when, forced by her brother, his love turned into the highest hatred, she was being driven out, she said: “This evil is greater which thou now doest against me in driving me away, than that which thou didst before.” She wished, then, to remain with him after the manner of a wife, and was busy that, David consenting, she might be taken by Ammon as wife.
This being laid down, to the argument I answer: a firm argument cannot be drawn from the opinion and words of one girl, who, although she had never seen such a marriage, and herself too shrank from it absolutely, yet thought it less evil to be taken as wife by her brother than to be defiled by force, especially if the king's assent were added.
The fourth argument is like the foregoing; for it is drawn from the example of Adonias, who asked for his stepmother Abisag the Sunamitess as wife, 3 Kings 2.
I answer, first: it is not certain that Abisag was the wife of David, and by this neither is it certain that she was the stepmother of Adonias, David's son. For, as is said in the place cited, she ministered to David in his old age and slept with him to warm him; but she is neither called his wife, nor did David know her, as Scripture speaks in the same place.
Second: since Adonias was punished with the penalty of death by Solomon on account of that request, it is a sign that he asked for an unlawful thing; for certainly the sentence of Solomon, the wisest king, ought to weigh more than the request of Adonias.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVIII.
Primum gradum consanguiniialis lam in rccta,
quam in Iransvcrsa linea, et prinmm affinita-
tis in recta linea,jure naturue interdictos csse
el ab liomine indispensabiles.
Sil jam Tcrlia proposilio: Jure naturae interdi-
cta sunt conjugia in primo gradu consanguini-
latis, tam in recta linea, quam in transvcrsa; et
in primo gradu affinilatis in recta linea tantum.
Docuimiis in superiore conclusione , non oinnia
praecepla rJe gradibus prohibilis ad jus nalurac
perlincre; nunc explicaraus, quae sinl censcnda
praccepla juris nalurae.
Est aulem circa proposilionem islam lerliam
primo loco nolandum, nos nihil dixisse de secun-
do et lerlio el sequenlibus gradibus in recla li-
nea, non quod eos non pulemus jure nalurae pro-
hibilos,sed quia eadem ratio esse videtur dc primo
€t de caeteris: est cnim communis scnleniia,inler
ascendenles et descendenles omnia conjugia esse
prohibita. l\am etiamsi in gradibus remotioribus
minor sit propinquilas sanguinis, tamen major est
inaequalitas aelalis, quae defectum iilum propin-
qiiilalis compensat; ul, ex. gr. inter nepolem eta-
viam minor est propinquilas sanguinis, elproindc
minor indecenlia conjugii, quam inlcr filium et
nialrem; lamen major est inaequalilas aetalis, el
consequenter major indecentia ralione aetalis: ne-
pos cnim vix est adelescens , cum avia jam
est anus. Pari ratione inler pronepotem et proa-
viam , minor est propinquilas sanguinis, lamen
major inaequalitas aelalis, quam inter ncpolcm et
aviam. Et quando tam procul procedilur in grndi-
bus, ut jom nulla sil communicalio sanguinis. ul
in quinlo gradu el sequentibus, tunc aut morlui
sunt ascendentes, aut omnino confccti ac dccre-
pili; el conlra,descendentes, aut infanluli,aut lam
lenerae aelalis sunt, ul nulla ratio fcral, inler eos
conjugia eopulari.
Secundo loco notandura csl: Nos in conclusionc
posuisse primum gradum,scd non omnmo univcr-
saliler: nam primuin gradum affinilalis iii liiica
transversa, ul icviri cum Iratria, non pulamus pro-
hibitum essc jure naturae, ut conclusione supe-
riorc docuimus. Neque id mirum videri dcbet.Nam
magna dineicnlia est inler primum gradiim in li-
nea recta, ct priuium in transversa; et rursum dis-
crimen esl non conlemnendum, inter consangui-
nitalem cl affinilatem: immo in codcm primo gra-
du in linea recla, invenitur latiludo quaf'<Jam, el
proinde diversitas.
Possumus aiilem doctrinae caussa iia disponerc
ordinem conjiigioruui jur(; naturac [)roliibilorum.
Primuin. idque onHiiutn tur|)issimum cst, filii cum
matre. INam el sumina conjunctio esl inler nialrem
cl iiliiiin. et praeterea deberct maler. (luae nalu-
rac ordinelilio i)raeesl,cidem conjugii rationc sub-
csse.
Serundum esl: Palris cum filia. Id enim pnr est
priino, quod atlinel ad conjunclionem. sed minus
lurpe est, quia noii invertilur ordo rcgiminis.cum
et filiae: el uxoris sit, subjici, non praeesse. Ac
de his duobus omncs conveniunt.jure naturae esse
prohibila.
Terlium est: Fratris cum sorore germana, ex u-
troque parente: nam et hic summa conjunctio csf,
sed laleralis et idco minor,quam sil ea, quae patri
cum filia intercedit.
Quarlum esl: Fratris cum sorore, ex allero lan-
tum parente: ncque enim dubium esse potesUquin
sit minus turpe conjugium cum sorore ex allero
parente, quam ex uiroquc.
Quintum est: Privigni cum noverca,id enim pa-
rum omnino abesl a terlio et forle nihil. Nam et'
iamsi ex una parle minus turpiludinis habcal,quia
esl affinitas, non consanguinitas: tamen ex allera
parle plus indecentiae prae se fert, cum sit in rc-
cla linea, el invertitur ordo rcgiminis ; noverca e-
nim est loco malris,et ordinarie ctiara scnior essc
solet, et in privignum ordinc naturac potcstaleni
habel.
Sextum et ultimum est: Vitrici cum privigna :
hoc enim est in eodem gradu cum supcriorc, scd
deest indeccntia ex pcrversionc regiminis. Privi-
gnae subesse convenil vitrico, sivesitloco tanlum
patris, sive fial etiam marilus: el quod dictum est
de privigno et noverca,inleIIigendum esl eliam de
gcnero et socru; et quod diclum est de vilrico ct
privigna, intellig^ndum est de socero el nuru.Do
his quatuor gradibus non desunt qui negent eos
jure naturae prohibilos.in quibus eslCajclanus iu
2.2. quaest. 134. arl. 9. tamen senlenlia commu-
nior ct vcrior, contrarium habet.
Tertio notandum est:I\os in conclusione dixisse
conjugia in his gradibus indispensabilia esse ab
homine, quia pulamus, a Dco indispcnsabilia esse
conjugia omnia in quovis gradu: nullus cnira esl
gradus,in quo conjugium ila sit inlrinsece n\alum,
ul repugnel illud licri bcne. Quod ex eo patel ,
quia nullus gradus loUit finem Malrimonii prima-
rium, vel secundarium, licct aliquo modo impe-
diat; nam ex conjugiocliam filii cum malrc. nasci
possunl liberi el cducari, elc. nequc logi ulium ,
qui exprcsse hoc negaverit. Nam ipse eliam Caje-
lanus in 2. 2. quacst. irii. arl. *,). gradum islum
primum in linca rccla, dicil habere per se, el na-
turaliter anne.xum impedimenlum conjugii; ta<neu
ibidem scribit, con.iugiuin in hoc gradu dispensa-
bile esse ab auctorc naturae.
El aliquod argumcnlum ad hoc probandura ad-
ferri potest cx faclo filiarum Lolh , quae cum cxi-
slimarent.nullum oranino virum in iiiundo super-
esse, crediderunt sibi liciluni esse , ex proprio
patre libcros (piaererc, (iencs. U). Et quamquani
a pcccalo non excusenlur, quia d(>buissent curam
isiam generis prnpagandi palri rclinqucn^aut ccrlc
cum eo communicare consilium, et ipsius exs()e-
ctarc judicium, cl non praevenirc, ac palrem deci-
perc: lamen faclun) ipsum indical, iii lam exlrcnio
casii non esse oninino conlra liumtinam ralioncni
ejusmodi conjugium, praesertim si acccderet au-
dorilas dispciKsanlis Dei. Immo Chrysoslomus iio-
mil. 41. in Ccn. et Ambro.sius Iib. 1. de Abrahain
cap. 0. eas omni crimine iiheranl. Augusliiius
lib. 22. conlra Fauslum. cap. 43. pcccassc dicil ,
8oi UE SACRAMKNTO MATRI.MUMI
non liim anloro liliitlinis.quam iiiinioamore poslc- ab cxomplo filiorum Adac, (pii cuin sororibus suis
rilalis. Malrimonia conlraxerunl. Si eniin ejusinodi conjii-
Jlis nolalis, probaUir conciusio. Priino . qiiia j,Ma ciiin lo^c n.iUuMC put^iiareiit, non i)ossciil jurc
oiniiia et sola ciuijii-jia praedicla puniuuUir ulUmo couU-alii, uisi dispcnsaulc aucU)rc iiaUirac. Nulia
supplicio in Lcyil. cap. 20. cum caclcra punianlur aulcin Uinc facla lcgilur dispensalio ; ncc vidclur
levioribus poeuis. dccuisse diviuain sapiciiUain, ul eodcin lcmpore
SccuiKlo:Ouia luilla cxslanl cxcmpla sauclorum lcj^cm coudcrcl, cl iii lcgc disponsarcC, quarc non
qui ullo untpiam lcmporc bisgradibusconU-axcriiil erit probibiluiu jurc ualurac coujuijium cum so-
MalriuKMiia, cum laiiicn exsleul dc aliis, ut supra rorc.
oslcndimus. Rcspondco: Primo lieri polcsl,ul Dcus cum filiis
Tcrlio: Quia nulla unquam facla esl dispensalio Adac dispcusavcril, ul sororibus juni^crculur: iion
ab Ecclcsia in bis gradibus^quamvis non del'uerinl, enim rcquirebalur exlerna aliqua dir.pensalio pcr
qui eain aliiiuando quacrcrciil. [\'(un dc coinilc voccm, aul Scripliirain,scd salis cral inlerna inspi-
Armcniaco rcfcrt Paulus Acmilius iii Ludovico XI. ralio; forle eliaiii Dcus pcr Adaiuum si^nificavit ac
euin f.ilso poulificis diiilomalc sororcm gcrmanam dcclaravil cjusfdiis volunlalcm suam. IVequc ab-
sibi MaUimonio conjiiuxisse; qua nimirum vcruin surdum cst, quod in ipso mundi inilio in ea legc
dipltuna cxlortiucrc numquam poUiil a i)onlificc ; dispensavcril Dcus, quandoquidcm voluit rerum
falsiim a ('orrupto quoilam iiiiuislro procuravil. Iii auclor omiics bomiucs ab uno proccdcre , neque
j^radibus aulcm quos diximus , jurc naiurac non bonum judicavit,plurcs simul masculos,pIuresque
l^roliibcri. non semcl faclae lc!j;uiilur dispciisalio- focminas procrcarc.
ncs. Facla enim lcgilur in priino gradu aninilalis Sccundo: Facilius dici polcsl, nulla fuisse opus
in linca Irausversa, ab Innoccnlio III. cap. finali , dispensatione, quia conjugium fralris cuin sorore,
dc divortiis: ct a Marlino V. lcslc Anlouino, 3.par. jure nalurae probibctur, exccpta summa illa ne-
tif. I. cap. 11. summae Ibcologicae; cl rursum in cessilate gcneris propagaudi: ut in secunda propo-
sjGCundo gradu cousanguinilalis, ab Alexaiuiro YI. silione declaralum esl.
teslc Cajelano in 2. 2. quaesf. 154. art. 1). Imrao Secundum arguraentum sumitur ab exemplo A-
(iil supra esl demonslralum) Inuocenlius III. cap. brabae,qui soroVem ulcriiiain duxisse videlur,cum
Gaudemus. dc divorliis, apcrlc dcclaravit , in sc- ipsc dical Gcncs. 20. Vere sorormca esl.filia pa-
cundo et sequcnlibus gradibus . Malrimoniu inler trismei, non fdia malris meae, el duxi eani in
infidcles contracta, rata esse debcre. uxorem. Respondeo: Sarain dici sororem Abrabae
Quarto:Quia omnes Genles aul a conjugiis prac- de morcBcriplurarum, quia consanguinea ejus c-
diclis naluralilcr abborrent. aut si quac Genlcs iis rat, ncptis videlicel ex palre.
indulgent, ab aliis fcrae el barbarae judicanlur. El quia non solum iioiinulli exnoslris,sed etiam
Pcrsac. qui connubia cum parcnlibus cl sorori- Beza in lib, de repudiis coiilendit, Saram germa-
bus pcrmillebaul, ab omnibus rcprebcndunlur, ut nam sororem Abrabami fuissc, ideo senlenliam no-
a Tcrtulliano in apologetico, cap. 9. a Cbrysoslo- slram paulo fusius confirmare cupio, et ea quae
mo bomil. dc penlccosle in finc, ab Auguslino , conlra objiciunlur, refulare. Igilur neptem ex fra-
quacsl. Gl. in Levilic. a Tlieodorclo in lib. dc le- Ire, non sororem germanam fuisse.probalur Primo
gibus. Arisloleles quoquc iu lib. 2. Polilicorum , auctorilale doctissimoruin scriptorum, s. Ilierony-
inde reprebendit communionem uxorura. quia se- nii in quaesl. bebraicis, ad cap. 11. Genes. el in
qucrelur, ul filii parenlibus, el fralrcs sororibus lib. conlra Elvidium, s.Auguslini lib.lG.de civilal.
jungcrentur. cl in Ub. 0. dc bisloria aniraalium , Dei cap.l2.el 19.et lib. 22.conlraFaustum.cap.31.
cap. ■i.T.scribit, camelos ct equos,non posse adigi, et Josepbi Ilebraei, lib. 1. aniiquit. cap. 14.
ul cum malribus misccanlur,et exempla duo phinc Sccundo probalur ex cap. 11. Genes. ubi legi-
admirabilia relcrl. Ouod cliam facil Plinius lib. 8. mus: Thara genuil Abram, Nachor el Aran. El
naluralis bislor. c. 42. Svclonius in CajO;inter fla- inU;\:Duxerunl Abram et Naclior uxores: nomen
gilia Caji impcraloris refcrl, quod sororcm Drusil- uxoris Abraham Sarai,et nomen Nachor Mclcha,
lam uxoris loco baberc volncrit. Eulropius, et alii filia Aranpalris Melchae etpatris Jeschae: quo
scriptores in Anlouini Caracailae vila, notant eun- loco per Jescbam non polesl inlelligi nisi Sarai ,
dem, quod ob nimiam impudicitiam a noverca Ju- quae leste Josepbo et Hieronymo, binominis erat.
lia non abslinucrit. Keque enim uUo modo credibile esl , Scripturam
Denique Ambrosins in episl. GG. ad Paternum prodere voluisse patrem Melchae , el non patrein
scribil, conjugium patris cum filia pugnare cum Sarai, personae longe dignioris; et deinde quor-
lege nalurae.scripla in cordibus singulorum.Et Au- sum mcnlio fieret Jesciiae,si diversa esset a Sarai?
gusUnus Iib.lo.de civital.Dci cap.lG.scribit^conju- Tertio probatur ex codem capile , ubi sic legi-
gia cum sororibus, nou nisi perversis legibus fuis- raus^Tu/if itaque Thare Abraham filium suum^et
se pcrmissa. Quod enim semel faclum esl.corapel- Lolh fdium Aran fiiii sui, et Sarai nurum suam,
lcnte necessilate, a filiis Adae, ila poslea raullipli- itcuorcm A6ra/m?)i/tiusm.Quarenon dixiuEtSarai
calis hominibus natura exborruit, quasi nuraquam filiam suam; sed solum, Nurum suaml^ cerle Clia
licueril. Possent buc eliam adduci rafiones aliquot conjunclior esl patri, quam nurus. Sed quia non
naturales ex s. Tboma, et aliis auctoribus.sed eae erat proprie filia, noluit eam raiscere cum iis, qui
commodius adducenlur pro conclusione sequenli. proprie erantfilii.
Jam vero contra leriiam banc proposilionem ob- Quarlo probalur: Quia si Abraham, el Naclior ac-
jici solenl argumenta quaedam. Primum sumilur cepissent sororcs gcrmanas, id fecissenl, quia eo
I.IDCU rui.MLs
5:; 3
liimpore per mores ill.irum gcnliimi licuissel; ut
falenlur, qui defcncJunl Suraui fuisse Abrahanii so-
rorem gennanam. .Aequc e;.im recurreudum est
nd (lispensalionem divinam.cum eanecessaria nou
fucril.si non esl conlra jus nalurae lale conjugium
ut adversarii volunl. At si tunc cl pcr lcgem nalu-
rae et per raores geulis licuissct tale conjugium,
inirc; niliil profuisset Abrahae dicere: Soror mea
est. Id enim dixil ad legendum conjugium, ul pa-
tet Gen. 12. cl 20. quod idcm poslea fecit Isnac ,
Genes. 26. inlerrogalus enim de uxorc sua, ac li-
mens propler illam occidj, di.xil: Soror mea esl.
Oporlct igilur laleri, homines locorum illorum i!a
horruisse conjugium cum propria sorore, ul audllo
noinine sororis stalim credcrenl eam nou fuisse
uxorem.
Denique quis credal Abrahamum sine ulla ne-
ccssilale duxisse propriam sororem, cum propicr
hoc crimen Deus jusserit, Levit. 20. ulrumquc
conjugem simul necari.
Sed respondendum est ad objectiones Ca.ielani,
qui conlra sentil in cxplicalione cap. 20. Gcnes.
etcap. 18. Levilici el nonnuUorum aliornm
Primo objiciunt verba illa expressa: Vere soror
mea esl. Rcspondco: Significari illis verbis . vore
fuisse consanguineam. Nam eliam Isaac,Genes.26.
dicil de Rebecca, sororem suam csse. cum lanieu
conslel eam fuisse neplcm ex palruele, idesl, 11-
liam Balhuelis filii Nachor fralris Abraham: ilidem
Abraham vocat Lolh friitrem suum, Genes 13. cum
tamcn cssel ejus nepos; el Tobiae 8. ail Tobias
junior: Tii scis Domine, quianon luxuriae caus-
sa accipio sororem meam conjagem, et lamcu
non crat soror ejus germana. Daniel. 3. vocaiur
Nabuchodonosor pater Ballasaris, cum tamen es-et
avus ejus. ut in eum locum scribil Ilicronymns.
Denique .Miitlh. 12. nominanlur quidam fralrcs Do-
mini, cum tamen nullos habuerii Dominus gcrma-
rios fralres.
Secundo objiciunt: Esto , fralres dici possinl
consanguinei aequales, absurdum tamen esl, pa-
Iruum dici fralrem ncptis, cum pctius p;iler dici
debcrct. Respondeo:Id non essc absurdum,dorcut
excmpla allala, Isaac vocanlis Rcbcccam sororcm.
quae erat neplis ex palruele: et Abraham vocatilis
Lolh fralrem, qui erat ucpos c.x fralre.
Tcrtio objiciunl: Cum Ahraham ait, (Uiapalris
mei, loquitur de palre proprie diclo. non de nio,
ergo de Horore loquilur.non de neple.XnUivciUns
Cajelanus prohal,(iuia cum addidil Abraham: I\t
non filia matris meae, sinc dubio dc maire pro-
prie dicta loquebalur; igilur ctiam cum ail: Vilia
patris mei, de patre i)ro|iric diclo loqucbatur.
Respoudco: De patre proprie diclo loquilur
.\braham, qui de palre suo, noti de palre Siiae
loquilur; ait enim: Fiita 2^a/ris 7?7ci, noii aulcm,
filia palris ejus. Is autem, qui propric paler crat
Ahrahae, palcr iinpropric, idcsi,avus eral Sarac:
nialcr autcm Abraliae. iion cral malcr, lusquc nvia
Sarac,quia Aran patcr Sarae.non eral fralcrAbndiac
uleriiius, sed cx patrc lanlum, el idco dixit: Fitia
patris mei, non, Filia malris meac. Quare impro-
priclas non est in voce Palris, scd iii vocc Kilia:
qiiae pro ncple accipitur.
lit:;.t/»RM(N/ Vol. IJI.
Al cur non dixil aperle: .Acplis palris moi? vel
filia fralris mci? ciir improprie loqui niiiluil, (|uam
proprie? Rcspondeo: Quin dixeral: Soror mea est.
dcbuit conse^iuentcr loqui; ac dicere: Fiiia patris
7net.Praeterea, quia pater Sarae obiil anle avum,ul
habemus in Gencs. cap. 11. illa non alium palrem
agnosccbat, quam avum, el ideo eliam Abraham
sororem illam a|)pelhirc soIebal.El hoc est quod ait
Chrysoslomus homil.4j. in Genes.qucm perperam
allcganl quiilam pro contraria senlcnli;i. Dicit e-
nim appellaliim sororem Abrahae: quia cundem
patrem vocaba!,quem ille; nimirum quia palre pro-
prie dicto amisso,non aiium palrem noveral, quam
nvum.
Quarlo objiciunl^iSt 7io?ipropne soror erat Ahra-
hami Sara: ergo regem fefellit. cum ail: Soror
mea est. Rcspondeo: Non fcfellit mcndacio, scd
elusit ambiguilate, quod licilum est, cum aliquis
inlerrogatur non juridice.
At sallem debuisset poslca rem tolam apcrirc.
cum pcriculum evasissel, ne rcgem illum in eam
opinionem induceret. quasi cum sorore gcrman;i
Malrimonium conlraxissct. Rcspondeo: Crcdibilc
esl omnino, scrmoncm longiorcm habilum inlcr
Abraham et rcgcm illnm, et omtiia fuse expli-
cala, scd Scriplura breviter.more suo, rcm allijii!.
Quinto: Ob.iici polest argumentum paulo diflici-
lius. i\am si Sara filia esset Aran,el uxor Abrahac.
ut nos dicimus,dchiiissel gigni, cum patcr ejus A-
ran scplem csset annorum, quod fieri nuUo modo
potest. Id aulem sequi, ila probo. Abraham erai
decem annisscnior. quam S;ira. ul palcl ex cap.
17. Geucs. ubi sic loquilur Abraham: Pulasne
centenario nascetur {ilius, et Sara nonagenaria
pariet? ergo quanto nasccbatur Sara. dcccm an-
norum erat Abraham. Sed Afiin erat junior ipso
Abraham. Siillcm duobus aniiis, cum essct terlius
ab ipso: gcuuil cnim Thare tres filios, Abr;iham.
Nachor et Aran, Genes. 11. Ergo Aran eriil oclo
anuorum, quando nasccbalur Sara: ergoanno se-
ptimo illam gcriuil, si cst cjus fili;i.
Hespondco: Aran m;ijur crat nalu. qu;im Ahra-
ham et quam Nachor, licct ob digniliitem primo
loco ponatur Abraham. Id vcro non lcmcrfi dico.
nequesolumad lianc sidvciidam dif(iciill;ilcm ex-
cogit;ivi. scd ex ipsa Scripliira didici: iiam Gencs.
11. sic lcgimus: Mxit Thare scptuoginta annis.
et gennit Ahrahnm. /Vac/io>' et Ar<in. Kx (luo loco
habcmus, antio scpUuigcsiuio Tliaic, j;iiii nalo^
fuisse Ires islos filios: non enim Scriplura si-
gnificat, codem ;inuo omncs trcs gcnilus hiissc.
sed illo anno i;im hahcre cocpisse ipsum Tlia-
re trcs filios, iinuru vididicct illo aiino gcnilum.
el alios anlea. IUo autcm anno nalus esl Ahraham:
Scriplura ciiiin iii Gcmisi scmpcr indicat lcmpus
Uiitiviliitis coium, (pioriim lexit gcnc;ilogiam, ut
sciamus aclalcm Inliusmundi, aliis praelcrmlssis.
qui ;id ishiiu cliroii()logi:im iion pcrlincnt. lla vi-
demus Scriptiiriim, Genes. i. prodidisse, quolo
iiniio iicliilis Adic iiiiiiis sil Scth, pcr (piem tcxilur
chroiKdngia, nun ;mtcm(iuoto ;iiino cjiisdcm Ad;ic
luiliis sil .\l)(d, v(d Cain: ct Gcncs. li. dicilur Noc.
ciim (luiugcnlorum (issct annorum, gcuuis.^c Sem.
Cli:im el Jajihcl. iibi nolaiur praccise annus, quo
108
SM
l)K SAi.HAMKMu .MVTUIMOM
riiilu^ osl Som.qiiia pcr illum tloilucilur (•hrouoli)-
fji;i: .'i in r.'lit|ins iil.Mn ohsorvaro licol. (luin ov^o
solns Vbr.ili.im i'\ liliis lliarti sil is.cnjus o\i)lic'alur
g«noalo}»ia, ol por quoin lcxilur oliroiioloj^ia. uo-
cosso osl iliooro.illo aniio ipsuin nalum osso. alios
aulein auloa. 1'roiuilo Aran non soplcm. sod forlo
viijjiiiU soptcm.aul Irij^inla scplom annoriim oral.
(lu imlo gonnil Sarain: quoil cliam indc couliruia-
tiir, (|uia obiil anlo oacloros, cl quia cliam Naolior
liliaiu ojus acoopil.
Torlium argumonlum principalc (Inciliir nb ox-
emplo Tliamar liliao David, qiiac ciim a fralro
suo A-nmou oppriincrolur. dixissn logiliir: lyoli.
fraWr mi\ noli opjn-iiwn-o. mc.^nnli facore siulliii.
nm hanr: qnin /)o/n/.s loquerc ad rcfjcm, ei noii
ncgabit me lihi, 2. Uog. i:^ Ex Iio*"^ cnim loco
inlolligimus. non fuisso inusilalum, ul a rralribus
duccreulursororcs: alioqui cnim, uude consilium
illud puollae vcnissol in monlom?
IJospondonl aIiqiii:Tliamar non fuisse rc vora fi
liam David,scd privii,'nam.alquoidco fuisse qiiidam
sororein ulorinam Absalon, scd non sororcm ullo
mo.lo Ammon. Al lioc dcfcndi non polesl. iVam in
illo ipso capile IIJ. lib. 2. Rcg. vocatur Thamar
lilia regis el soror Ammon, el clarissime lib. 1.
IViralip. cap. .3. onumeralis omuibus (iliis David,
subjiingit Scriplura : Omnes ii fdii David, abs
qne filiis concubinarum.habucrunlquc sororcm
Thamar:non poluit autcm Tliamar soror csse o-
niiiiiim liliorum David. qui ex variis uxoribus cl
concubinis nati fueraut, nisi eundcm cum iilis pa-
Ircm habucril.
Respondenl igilur. alii: Thamnr fuisse quidem
veram sororem Ammon, el bcne nosso, lale con-
jus^ium csse illicilum, sed lamen iila vcrba pro-
liilisse. vel quia nullum aliud consilium in illis
au^iisliis oi occurril, vcl quia pulavil fralrem por-
lurbatum illa vchcmcnli passione non animadver-
surum fuisse, illicitum csse conjugium cum soro-
rc. At neque hoc dici polest: nam Thamar serio
loquutam de conjugio futuro,si a roge id petcrclur;
indicanl ejus vcrba in eodcm capilo. iVam cum vi
compressa a fralrc.in summum odium amorc (;on-
vcrso, expollerolur. dixit: .Vajvs cs[ hoc malum,
quod i^unc aqis adversum me, quam quod anle
fecisli, expellens me. Voluil igitur illa cum eo,
more oonjugis permanerc: alque id satagebal, ut
Davide conscntiente, ab Aramone in uxorem duce-
relur.
Quoposito, ad argumentum Respondeo: Non
posse firmura argumeiitum diici ab opinione et
verbis unius pucllae, quae eliamsi numquam vi-
dcrul tale conjugiura,el ipsa eliam absolule id hor-
rebal:lamen exislimavit minus malum esso a fralre
duci in uxorem, quam vi sluprari,praesertim si re-
gis assensus accederel.
Quartum argumentum simile est superiori; du-
cilur cnim ab exemplo Adoniae, qui novercain
■^nam Abisag Sunamilidem petiit in uxorcm, ?t.
Respondeo Primo: Non constat Abisag fuisse u-
xorem David, et per hoc neque conslat fuisse no-
vercam Adoniac filii David. Nam, ul lococitato di-
citur. minislrabat illa Davidi seni , alque ad eura
calofaciondumcum co cubabal, sed ncqun vocalur
u\or. noquc David cam ooguovit, ul Scriptiiiv lo-
i]uilur in oodoin looo.
Socuiido: Cum Adonias oh cain i^iditiouoiii a Sa-
louiono pooiia oapilis alVcclus fuorit, signum osf,
illiim roin illicilam poslnlasso: corlc ciiim pliis va-
lero dobct seiitonlia Saloinonis rcgis sapicntissimi,
<piaiii postulatio Adoniac.