Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 29: That Marriages Are Rightly Forbidden by the Church to the Fourth or Seventh Degree; and On Spiritual and Legal Kinship, Public Honesty and Affinity from Fornication
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 follows in order the fourth proposition, which is this: The Catholic Church rightly forbade marriages formerly as far as the seventh, but afterward as far as the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity. This is against all the heretics named above; for all blame the Church on this matter.
And two things would have to be proved: first, that the Church can make laws about the degrees of kinship; second, that she had cause to make such laws. But the first has already been proved above, in the disputation on the impediment of the solemn vow; the second, then, is proved by four reasons, which St. Thomas took for the most part from the Fathers, in the Second of the Second, question 154, article 9.
The first reason is drawn from the honor owed to blood relatives and relatives by marriage: for nature itself teaches that a peculiar shamefastness, reverence, or worship and observance is owed to parents, and in consequence to other blood relatives and relatives by marriage. But with this reverence the conjugal act fights most of all, which cannot be performed without a certain shamefulness and irreverence. Wherefore in Leviticus 18, when marriage with a mother is forbidden, the cause is given, “because she is thy mother”; and when marriage with a daughter-in-law is forbidden, it is said, “because she is thy son's wife.” Of which matter Augustine speaks thus, book 15 of the City of God, chapter 16: “There is in human modesty, I know not how, something natural and praiseworthy, that from her to whom it owes reverence by reason of nearness it holds back lust, though generative, of which we see even conjugal chastity itself blush.” And this reason holds as far as knowledge of the kinship is had; and men ordinarily acknowledge themselves kin as far as the fourth generation, but after that there are hardly any who hold themselves for kin.
The second reason is drawn from the intimacy and familiarity which ought to be among blood relatives and relatives by marriage. For parents and children, brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren, stepmother and stepchildren dwell in the same house, and are constantly together night and day; the other near relatives too go often and confidently to their relatives and stay with them. But that this close intimacy might be harmless, it was altogether necessary to forbid marriages between such persons; for otherwise three evils would arise from this constant living together. One, that marriages would be arranged too easily, and too quickly too, and rashly. Then the greatest occasion would be given to incests: for sins are more easily committed with those with whom there is a right of contracting Matrimony than with others. Lastly, all things would be full of evil suspicions; and the friendliness, endearments and kisses which now among relatives are of piety would then not rashly be believed to be of lust. And St. Ambrose enlarges this reason, in letter 60, to Paternus.
The third reason is taken from the desire of spreading charity among strangers. For through marriages men are joined and bound together by the bond of close relationship. But if marriages were contracted among relatives, this most ample fruit of spreading close relationship would perish: for many bonds would be uselessly narrowed to one person which could most usefully have been spread over many. For if, for example, a brother takes his sister as wife, the same man will be brother and husband in respect of the wife; and the same will be son and son-in-law in respect of the father; and the father will be at once father and father-in-law in respect of the son. And so two bonds of love are brought back to one, which could have united two. The same Ambrose brings this reason, in the same letter 60, and Augustine, book 15 of the City of God, chapter 16.
The fourth reason is taken from the moderate use of the conjugal office. For since blood relatives naturally love each other, if conjugal love too were added, carnal love would grow more than is due. Which reason is drawn from Aristotle, in book 2 of the Politics.
Against this proposition are these arguments of the adversaries. First, John Brenz objects, in the commentary on Leviticus, on chapter 18: “The Roman pontiff is not above Christ, since he himself makes himself only his vicar. But Christ did not come to set up political laws, but to announce the word of God; therefore neither ought nor can the Roman pontiff make such laws.”
I answer, first: Christ did not indeed make political laws, but yet could have made them if he had willed; and what he can by himself, he can also through vicars, especially since those laws are judged necessary for the eternal salvation of the faithful.
Second: the laws about Matrimony are not merely political, but also spiritual, since Matrimony is a sacrament. Whence Christ himself, as he made some laws about the other sacraments, so also about Matrimony, when he took away polygamy and repudiation; and as he left to the Church power to lay down many other things about the other sacraments, so also about marriages. Wherefore the old councils are full of canons about Matrimony, as may be seen in the Second Council of Tours, in which the canons of many councils are alleged.
Second, Luther objects, in the Babylonian Captivity, on Matrimony, and Bucer on chapter 19 of Matthew: “God knows better than any man which persons are fit for Matrimony, and how far the degrees of kinship extend. But he did not forbid marriages except as far as the second degree in the unequal line; therefore marriages in further degrees are rashly forbidden by men.”
I answer: God most wisely and plainly divinely gave the law to his people, which law yet by the same wisdom he would not have common to us, but peculiar to that people only; for one thing befitted that one people, another the Christian Church spread through all nations. For in that people the law of marriage was not to be greatly narrowed: both because they were few, and because their own wealth was to be preserved in the same tribe, and lastly because they were very prone to repudiating wives. For since kinswomen are loved more than outside women, the less those were kept from marriages with kinswomen, the more the door to repudiations was shut. Lastly, as on account of the weakness of that nation repudiations and polygamy were permitted, so also marriages were granted to the Hebrews in certain degrees in which it would by no means befit that they be granted to Christians. Whence St. Augustine, book 15 of the City of God, chapter 16, confesses that marriages with cousins were lawful to the ancients, and yet are most rightly forbidden to Christians.
Third, Beza and Chemnitz object, the one in the book on repudiations, the other in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 1233, some old councils, as that of Epaone, chapter 30, the Second of Tours, canon 22, the First of Paris, chapter 4, in which marriages are forbidden only as far as the second degree; to which can be added the testimony of St. Gregory in the answers to the questions of Augustine, bishop of the English, chapter 6, where he teaches that marriages can be contracted in the third and fourth degree, provided one abstains altogether from the second. From which testimonies the adversaries gather that the prohibition of the fourth degree, and much more of the seventh, was unknown to the ancient Church.
I answer: it is false that the law about prohibition as far as the seventh degree was unknown to antiquity. For, first, Alexander II, who sat after the year of the Lord 1060, in the Lateran Council, as we have in the canon Ad sedem, cause 35, question 5, affirms that the old custom of the Church lasted for long times, that marriages were forbidden as far as the seventh degree. St. Gregory, who sat in the year 600, that is, four hundred and sixty years before Alexander II, book 12, letter 31, to Felix, bishop of Messina, writes most openly that he dispensed with the English alone, on account of their recent conversion to the faith, that they might contract marriages in the third and fourth degree, whereas otherwise they are forbidden by the common law as far as the seventh; from which the argument made before from Gregory remains solved. Moreover Pope Julius, who preceded Gregory by more than two hundred years, affirms that no one is to be permitted to contract Matrimony within the seventh degree, as is had in the canon Nullum, cause 35, question 2, and in Ivo, book 7 of the Decretum.
There is extant also the Second Council of Toledo, celebrated before the times of St. Gregory, where in chapter 5 it is laid down that no one contract Matrimony with any relatives as far as he knows the lineament of affinity by the succession of the family; which place Alexander II explains in the place cited, that the sense is that marriages are forbidden in all degrees, and so in seven; for no one acknowledges any kinship beyond the seventh. A like decree was made in Germany, in the Council of Worms, as Gratian relates, the canon In copulatione, cause 35, question 2, where marriages are forbidden in one's own kinship as far as the generation is known or kept in memory.
The Council of Agde in Gaul, celebrated before all those which the adversaries cite, canon 61, after the prohibition of certain degrees, adds a general prohibition, that no one take as wife any blood relative of his. There are extant lastly in the same Gratian, the same cause 35, question 2, the canon Nulli and the canon Contradicimus, two other Gallican councils, of Lyons and of Chalon, in which again marriages are forbidden as far as the seventh degree. We have, then, that the custom or law of the seven degrees was not unknown to antiquity, since it so flourished in Italy and Germany for many ages, and began more than a thousand years ago.
To those three councils cited by the adversaries, then, I say that in those councils certain chief degrees are enumerated, but it is not denied that others also are forbidden. For the Second Council of Tours refers itself to the earlier councils, as to that of Epaone and others, and openly professes that the statutes of the ancients are to be kept; and that of Epaone brings in the beginning of canon 61 of the Council of Agde, celebrated before; from which we understand that all agree with that of Agde, where Matrimony with all blood relatives is forbidden generally.
Add that, even if it were certain that those councils permitted marriages beyond the second degree, nothing absurd would follow; for in such changeable things change and variety can easily happen.
Fourth, the same Beza and Chemnitz object that the reason of the Lateran Council why the prohibition was restricted to the fourth degree is altogether ridiculous and childish: for this cause is given, that there are four humors in the human body, according as man is known to be composed of four elements.
I answer: the sanction of that council, the most crowded and celebrated of all, by which kinship was restricted to the fourth degree, does not rest on that reason which the heretics have undertaken to harass, but on others far weightier, as is plain from chapter 50 of the same council. And the chief reason is that experience teaches that at this time the prohibition of so many degrees cannot be kept without enormous loss. For because the age has declined, and charity grown cold, and concupiscence increased, it very often happens that men do not remember so great a multitude of blood relatives and relatives by marriage, and treat them as strangers; and therefore very many would often contract marriages in the forbidden degrees from ignorance or negligence, if that prohibition still lasted; and from this very many doubts, lawsuits and scandals would arise. Wherefore, as the ancients did rightly who kept those degrees as long as experience taught that they could conveniently be kept, so the later ones did rightly who brought back those degrees to fewer when, taught by the same experience, they saw that they could no longer be observed without great loss, as the council speaks. And the limit was rightly fixed in the fourth degree, because, since very many men see the fourth generation, consanguinity as far as that degree cannot easily be given over to forgetfulness.
Further, that reason about the four humors is brought not as the primary reason, but as a certain fitness; nor yet is it foolish or ridiculous, but plainly physical, as St. Thomas shows, on book 4, distinction 40, question 1, article 4. For because man consists of four elements, it is gathered very probably that in the fourth degree that force of the same blood which is drawn from the first stock entirely fails. For in the mixing of the blood received from the father with another stranger's, which is made in generation, what is most subtle, namely the fiery force, is first confused and perishes; second the airy, third the watery, fourth the earthy. Wherefore in the fourth generation that whole blood seems to perish.
Chapter 30. On Spiritual and Legal Kinship, and on Public Honesty and Affinity from Fornication
Fifth proposition: Spiritual and legal kinship, public justice, and affinity from fornication are deservedly numbered by the Church among the impediments of Matrimony. On spiritual and legal kinship whole titles are extant in the decretal letters; many testimonies of the ancients too can be read in Gratian, cause 30, questions 1 and 3. Moreover, the four reasons for the confirmation of the preceding proposition have force also in these two kinships. Nor do the adversaries bring anything solid against it, although after their manner they mock these kinships.
Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, and Beza following him in the book on repudiations, object this: that all Christian men are brothers and all Christian women sisters, and so all are spiritual kin among themselves. Wherefore either spiritual kinship ought not to be judged an impediment, or certainly Christians will celebrate marriages with heathens only.
But it is easy to answer. For the impediment of spiritual kinship depends not on the law of nature but on the choice of the Church; and the Church did not will any spiritual kinship whatever to be an impediment, but only that which arises from Baptism and Confirmation. For to make this kinship an impediment she had a reasonable cause, because one receives spiritual being from another, and therefore owes him a peculiar reverence, and so on; nor did she see any absurdity follow from this addition of an impediment. But to make the kinship which is among all Christians an impediment she neither had a cause (for those four reasons have no place in this kinship), and she saw the greatest absurdity follow, namely that the faithful would be compelled to be coupled with unbelievers.
Now public honesty is a certain begun affinity, as espousals can be called a begun Matrimony; therefore, as perfect affinity is an impediment breaking Matrimony in all degrees, so it was fair that public honesty should break Matrimony in some degree at least.
Lastly, affinity from fornication is true affinity, although a little more imperfect than that which arises from lawful Matrimony; and if it is true affinity, there is no cause why it should not break Matrimony. And that that affinity is true which arises from fornication is clear. For affinity is born from this, that through marriage two persons become one flesh; but through fornication too two persons become one flesh, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 6: “He who is joined to a harlot is made one body. For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh.” Moreover, from fornication true kinship arises, since he is truly a father who so begets, and he truly a son who is so begotten; why then could not affinity arise from fornication? Add what we read in book 2 of Kings, chapter 20, that the ten concubines of David, whom his son Absalom had violated, were shut up by the same David and never again known by him: because, namely, they had all been made as it were daughters-in-law by the joining with his son.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIX.
rkccle ab Ecclesia prohiberi conjurjia, usquc ad
quarlum vel scplimum gradum consanguini'
lalis el afjlnilaiis.
Scquilur ordinc Quarta proposilio,quac lalis csl:
Rcclc calholica Ecclcsia conjuqia prohibuil olim
usquc ad ^icplimum, poslea vcro usquc ad quar-
tuni gradum consanguinilalis ei affmUulis. Ilacc
cst contra omncs haer(?licos supra nominatos: o-
mniis cnim de hac re Kcclcsiam reprehcndunt.
Ac duo quidem probanda cssonl. Primo, Kcclc-
siam possu leges fcrre de gradibus cognalioiiis.
Sccuiido , caussam habuisse cur cjusmodi lc-
ges tuicrit. Sed illud primuin jam esl probalum
snpra in dispulatione dc impedimenlo voti solcin-
nis: probatnr igitur illud secundum quatuor ralio-
nibus. quas fere cxPatribus desumpsil s. Thomas
iii 2.2. quacst. i:)i. arl. 9.
Prima ralio ducitur ab honore dobilo consangui-
neis ct affinibus: docet enim ipsa natura, parcnli-
bus et conscqucutcr aliis consanguineis el aflini-
bus dcbcri pcculiarero vcrecundiam, reverentiam
scu ciillum et obscrvanliam. Huic autcm revcrcn-
tiae ropugnat maxime conjugalis aclus , qui sinc
lurpiludine quadara cl irrovcrentia exerceri non
polest. Quocirca Levitic. 18. cum prohibelur con-
jugiuin cura malrc, canssa rcdditur: Quia malcr
luacsl; et cura prohibelur conjugium cuin nuru ,
dicilnr: Quia iixor fdii iui esl. De qua re sic lo-
quiliir Augustinus lib. 15. de civitatc Dci cap. IG.
Nescio quomodo inesl Immanae verecundiae
quiddam nalurale, alque laudabile, ul cui dcbcl
caussa propinquilalis verecundiam, ab ea conli-
neal, quamvis generatricem, lamen libidinem ,
de qua erubcscere videmus, et ipsam pudicitiam
conjugalem.Haec aulemralio eousque vaIel,quous-
quc habcliir notitia cognationis: solent autcm bo-
mines ordinarie usque ad quartam generationera
se cognatos agnosccre, deinceps aulem vix ulli
sunt, qui se pro cognatis habeanl.
Sccunda ratio ducitur a consuetudine etfamilia-
ritate, quae inlcr consanguineos otalTmes essc de-
bel. Nam parentes el filii fratrcs el sorores, avi et
nepotes, noverca el privigni in cadem dorao ha-
bilanl, elassidue noclu et inlerdiu siinul vorsan-
tur:caeteri cliam propinqui,crebro ct fidentcrpro-
pinquos adeunl, el cum illis mancnt.Ut autem ista
iuliraa consuetudo innoxia ossel, oporluit omnino
inler ejusmodi personas conjugia interdicere:alio-
qui enim tria mala ex ista assidua conversatione
Lliu:ii PIUMLS
8«1«
oo
nascerenlur. Unum , quod nimis facile el nimis
eli.un cilo, ac lemere Malrimonia conciliarcnlur.
Deinde maxima praebereUir inceslibus occasio :
facilius enim peccala commiltunlur cum eis, cum
quibus jus esl Malrimonii conlrahendi, quam cum
aliis. Denique esscnl omnia plena malis suspicio-
nibus; el alTabililas, blandiliaequc el oscula, quac
nunc inler propinquos pielalis suni, lunc libidinis
esse non lemcre crederenlur.Alque lianc ralionem
amplifical s. Ambrosius in episl. GG.ad Palernum.
Tertia ralio sumilur a studio cbarilalis inter ex-
Iraneos dilalaudae. Nam per iMalrimonia conjun-
gunlur el coUignnlur bomincs vinculo necessitudi-
nis. Q;iod si inler propinquos Matrimonia contra-
baiilur. peril hic fructus amplissimus propagandae
iiecessitudinis: nam ad unam personam multa vin-
cula iuutiliter restringuntur,quac in mullas utilis-
sime spargi putuissent. Si enim fraler, exempli
caussa, sororem ducal uxorem; idem eril frater ct
maritus respectu uxoris;el idem eril filius el gener
respcctu patris; el ille erit simul pater el soccr
respeclu filii. Itaque duo vincula dileclionis redu-
cunlur ad unum, quae duos unire potuissent.Hanc
ralionem adfort idem Ambrosius in eadem epislola
G6. cl Auguslinus hb. 15. civilatis Dci, cap. IG.
Quarta raUo sumilur ab usu modcralo oIHcii con-
jugalis. Cum cnim naturaljtcr consanguinei dili-
ganUir, si adderelur ctiam amor conjugnJiSjCrescc-
rel plus debilo carnalis amor. Quac ralio cx Ari-
slot. in 2. lib. politic. deprompla csl.
Adversus hanc propositionem sunt liacc advcr-
sariorum argumenta. Primo, objicil Joanncs Brcn-
tius in commentar. Levit. ad cap. 18. Rojiianus
ponlifex non csl supra Chrislum, cum ipsc cl-
iam non nisi vicarium ejus sc facial.Al Ckrislus
non venit leges polilicas consiilucrc, scd v^rbuni
Dei annunciarc: ergo nec romanus ponlifex dc-
bet. aut polesl ejusmodi lcges ferrc.
Itespondeo Prmio: CbrisUis non lulil quidem po-
lilicas leges, sed potuit tamen fcrre, si voluissct;
ct quod per se polesl, polest cliam pcr vicarios,
praesi-rtim cum eae leges ad actcrnam salulcm li-
deJium nccessariae judicanlur.
Secundo: I^egos de iMatrimonio non sunt mcre
polilicac, sed cliam spirilualcs, cum 3Iatrimonium
sit sacramcnlum. Unde Chrislus ipse, sicul leges
aliquas tulil de sacramcntis caeleris, ila eliam dc
Malrimonio, cum sustulit polygamiam ct rcpudi-
um: el sicul reliqiiil lOccIesiae polcslatcm tmilta
alia slatuendi circa aiia sacramenta , ila cliam
circa Matrimonia. Ouare plena sunl concilia vctcra
canonibus dc Matrlmonio, ut vidcre cst in concilio
turonensi II. in quu mulluriim cunciliorum cauo-
nes allcganlur.
Sccundo ohjicit Lulherus in bahylon. captivil.
de Malrimonio, et lUiccrus in cap. l*.). .Matlhaci:
7)fius mciiuH novif, quae sinl personae aplae ad
Matrimoniiiin, qiinusque se exlcndanl gradus
rognatiuuis quaui ulius liomo. At ipsc non pro-
liibuil conjugiaMisi usquc ad sccundurii gradum
in linca inacquaii; ergo lemcrc prohihcnlur ab
hominibus conjugia in fp-adibus uUvriuribiis.
llcspondeo: i)(;us sapicnlissimc cl plane (liviiie
legcra dedil populo suo, quam lamcn lcgem cadein
sapienlia sua noluil nobis esse comumncm.sed illi
lantum populo peculiarem,aliud cnim conveniebal
iili uni populo.aliud Ecclesiae chrislianae pcr om-
ncs genlcs diflusae: illi enim populo, non fuil ad-
modum restringenda lex conjugii, tum quod pauci
essenl,lum quod in eadem tribu opcs propriae con-
scrvandae erant,tum deuique,quod illi valde proni
esscnl ad uxores repudiandas. Cum cnim consan-
guineae magis diiiganlur,quam externae mulieres,
quo miuus illae arcebantur a iMalrimoniis cum con-
sanguineis,eo magisclaudebalur adilus ad repudia.
Denique sicut ob infirmitatem illius genlis permit-
tobantur repudia el polygamia;ila eliam concedc-
bantur llebraeis conjugia in quibusdam gradibus,
in quibus Christianis minime decerct concedi. In-
dc s. Augustinus lib. lo. dc civit. Dei cap. 16.
faletur, antiquis licila fuisse conjugia cum conso-
brinis, el ea tamcn Christianis reclissimc i)ro-
hiberi.
Terlio objiciunt Beza et Remnilius, illc in libro
de repudiis, iste in 2. parle exam.tridenl. concilii
pag. 1233. aliquol concilia vetera. ul epanncnse
cap. 30. turonense 11. can. 12. parisiense I. cap.
4. in quibus nbn prohibenlur conjugia, nisi usquc
ad sccundum gradum:quibus adcli potcsl teslimo-
nium s.Gregorii in responsis ad inlcrrogata Angu-
stini Anglorum episcopi,cap. G.ubi docci, in lcrlio
el (|uarto gradu Matrimonia conlrahi posse. modo
a secundo omnino abslinealur. Ex quibus lcslinio-
niis colligunt advcrsarii,prohibitionem quarli gra-
dus, et mullo magis seplimi, anliquae Ecclesiae
fulssc incognilain.
Kcspondeo: Falsum cst, anliquitali incognilam
fuisse legem dc prohibitione usque ad scplimum
gradum. Wam in primis Alexander II. qui sedit
post annum Domini 1060. in concilio latcranensi,
ut habcmus can.ylti scdem, 3j.quaesl. .">. aljirmal,
anliquum morem Ecclesiae pcr longa lcinpora du-
rasse, ut usque ad sepUnmm graduin conjugia iu-
tcrdicerenlur. S. Gregorius,qui anno GOO. scdobat,
idest, 460. anni ante Xlexandrum 11. lib. 12. epist.
31. ad Fcliccm episcopum messancnsem apfM*-
lissime scribil, se cum solis Anglis ob roccnlcm
conversioncm ad fidoi,n dispensassc. cl in tertio
cl quarlo gradu Malrimonia conlrahcrct, cum alio-
qui us(iue ad scptimum communi logo inlordlcan-
tur: ex quo solulum manol argumcnlum ex Gre-
gorio antea faclum. Praclcroa .lullus papa.qui plus
(liiccntis aiinis Grcgorium anloccssit, anirnial.nnlli
pcrmillcndum esse Malrimonium conlrahere inlra
scplimum gradum, ul haholur oanon. Nullum,
3,'). quacst. 2. el apud Iviuicm, lib. 7. dccrcti.
Exlalcliam concilium lulclanum II. celcbratum
aiile lompora s. Grogorii, ubi in ."». cap. slaliiilur.
iit Malilinuniuiu nullis conlrahat cum propimpiis
ullis, us(pio(piu linoamcnti alliiiitalis gcncris ^uc-
oossione cognuscil, (piom locum cxplical Alc-
xamlcr II.Ioco citalu,ul sonsiis sil. proliihita csse
coniugla iii omnibus gradibus, (;! |)ruind(' In sc-
plcm; nullus enim ullra scplimum cognalionein
iillam aguoscil. Simile factiim osl dccrclum iii
(ii-rinaiila, in concilio wormalicnsi, refcrcnlc Gra-
llano, (-.111. In Cdjtuhdione, Xi. (piacsl. 2. iihi pro-
hibenlur conjugia in proi^ria cognalioiic, usipic
s:,6
1)E SACnAMtMO iM.VilllMOMI
<li)in jffiieriUio iijjnoscilur, aul ivteinoii.i rcliiielur.
Coiifiliuiu iltMiiii^alliouse iii Uiillia celobr;ituiu
iiiito illii ouiiiiii. (|uae iulvcrsarii cilaut. ciui. (H.
|H)sl pruliibitioufii) {jiiuluuiu aliiiuoruin inldil <^c-
iioriilcu) proliibitioiicui, ne quis ulliiiu cousiiu-
j,Miine:iiu suaiu ducal uxorcm.Kxslat deiiiquc ;ipud
lundcni (iraliaiuiiu eadoin causs;i, yj. quaesl. 2.
rau. Piulli, cl Ciin. Contnidicimusxi duo alia cou-
nlia jjiiJliiMna. luj^^lunonso el cabilononsc, in qni-
J)iis rursuin ad scptiimiin us(pio i,'raduin 3Iilri-
uioiiia proliibontur. Ilaboinus i,i::ilur inoroin. sivo
lepcm de soptcm gradibus, uon luisse incoijnilaiu
;iutiquitali. cuin ila Ilaiia, Gcnnania niullis sao-
ciilis vigucril, cl aule aiiuis 1000. inilium coc-
pcnt.
Ad illa igitur Iria concilia ab advcrsariis cilala.
Dico cnuinorari in illis conciliis praccipuos quos-
dam ijradus, sed non ncgari esse etiam aiios pro-
liibilos.Xam concilium lurononse II. romiilil se ad
snporiora conciiia,ut ad epanncnse ct alia.etapcrio
prolilelur. servanda esse slatubi vctcrum: Epan-
nense autem adducit initium canonis GI. concilii
aiialliensis anlea celebrati: px quo inlclligimus, o-
mnia conveniro cum ag;itlicnsi , ubi goneriililor
probibelur cum omnibus consanguincis Matri-
u.onium.
Adde: Quod ctiamsi conslaret ea concilia permi-
sisso conjugia ullra secundum gradum, nihil ab-
surdi sequeretur: polest enim in cjusmodi rebus
nmtabilibus, mutalio el varielas facile accidere.
Quarlo: Objiciunt iidem Bcza et Koinnilius, ra.
lionem lateranensis concilii, cur prohibitio rcstri-
cta sit ad quartum gradum, omnino liducuiam el
pucrilem esse: redditur enim ea caussa,quia qua-
luor sunl bumores in corpo humano, proul ex
tiuatuor elementis hominem conslat esse compo-
silum.
Respondoo: Conciiii illius omnium frequenlis-
simi ct celeberrimi Siinclio.qua cognatio ad quar-
lura gradum restricta esl, non ea ralione nititur,
(liiom haeretici exagiiandam susceperunt, scd aliis
longo gravioribus,ut piilet ex cap. 50. ejusdem
concilii. Praecipua autem ratio esl.quia exporien-
lia docel, non posse boc lcmpore tot graduum
prohibilionem sine ingonti dispendio conservari,
INam quia aelas decrevit et charilas refrixit ct con-
nipiscentia aucta est, fil saepissime, ut homines
non rccordenlur tanlae mulliludinisconsanguineo-
rum el aninium; et se ad ilios. lamquam ad exlra-
noos habeant; el ideo frequenler in gradibus pro-
bibitis pliirimi ex ignoranlia, vel negligentia con-
traherenl Malrimonia, si adhuc proliibilio illa du-
raret: indeaulcm piurima dubia, lilcs ct scandala
«trircntnr. Quare ut rocte fecerunt veteris, qui eos
gradus servarunt,quamdiu exporienlia docuit com-
mode posso servari: ila recte fecerunt posleriores,
quicos gradus ad pauciores revocarunl,quando ab
tadem experieiilia docli, viderunl, jani non posse
.impiius sine magiio dispendio, ul concilium lo-
<|uilur. observari. In quarlo aulem gradu rccte fi-
xus cst torminus,quia cum homines plurimi quar-
lain genorationera videant. non polest facile con-
sanguinilas usque ad eum gradum obli^ioni
mandari.
Porro ralio illa de qualuor humoribus, non ul
ratio priiuariii, sed ut congruonlia quacdam adfer-
tur: noqiio tamcu inepla aut ridiculii cst, scd pla-
nc pliysica, ut s. Thum;is oslcndit in 4. dislinct.
10, qiiaost. 1. arl, i. Quia enim liomo cx quatuor
olomoiilis conslat, colligilur adinoduin probabiii-
lcr, in (piarlo gradu penilus dclicoro viin illinn san-
giiinis (\jusdom, qu;ie a primo slipitc lr;ihilur, lu
pormixliono enim sanguinis a p;ilre accepti cum
alio oxlranoo, quac fit in gcucralionc; id (piod csl
sublilissimuin, nimirura vis ignoa, 1. ' conlunditur
ct porit; 2. vis aerea, 3. aquoa, 4, terrea. Quarc
in quiirla generalionc totus ille sanguis pcrire
videtur.
CAPUT XXX.
Dc cur/nalione spirituali el legaU, deque publica
honestate el affinitate ex fornicatione.
Quinla proposiiio: Cognalio spiritualis etieijCu-
lis, publicajustitia et affmitas ex fornicatioae
merito ab Ecclcsia inter impcdimcnta Matri-
monii referunlur. De cognalione spiriluali el lc-
gali inlcgri tiluli exlanl in cpisloiis decrclalibus:
mulla eliam teslimonia velcrum legi possunt apud
Gratianum, 30. quaesl, I, ot 3. Praelerca raliones
qualuor pro conllrmalione [)ropositionis superio-
ris.vim eliam habent in his diiabus cognalionibus.
I\o(iueadversarii aliquid solidi conlra adfcrunt. ii-
cot iias cognaliones more suo irrideanl.
Lutherus in libro de captivit. babyionica,cap. dc
Malrimonio, et eum sequutus Bcza in iib. dc repu-
diis,iilud objiciunl.quod omncs Cbrisliani sint fra-
Ires, et omncs ChrisUanae sororcs: proinde omnes
inier se spiiilualcs cognati. Quocirca aut cogna-
tionom spirilualem non debore censeri impcdi-
mentum, aut cerle cuin solis clhnicis Chrislianos
conjugia celebraluros.
Sed faciie esl rospondcre. Nam impedimentum
cogrialionis spiriluaiis non exjure nalurae, scd cx
Ecclesiae arbilrio pcndet: Ecclesia aulom non
quamlibet spirilualem cognationem impedimenlum
esso voluit, sed eam solam, quae ex Biiplismo cl
Confirmalione orilur, Nam ut lianc cogniilionciu
impodimentum faceret, babuit caussam r;iiionabi-
iem, quia unus ab alio recipit esse spiriluale, et
ideo debol illi poculiarem reverenliam elc. nequo
ullum absurdum ex bac impcdimenli addilione
sequi videbat. At ul cognalionem,quae est inter o-
mnes Chrislianos, impedimenlum faccrct, ncquc
causs;im hiibuil (non cnim quatuor illae raliones
in hac cognalione locum haijenl) elabsurduin ma-
xiinum sequi videbat,nimirum ul cogerentur fidcies
infidelibus copulari,
Jam vero publica honestas,esl inchoala quaedam
nffinitas: sicut sponsaiia Matrimoniuin inchoalum
dici possunl; idco sicut perfecla alfinilas irapedi-
inenlum est Malrimoniura diriraens iu omnibus
gradibus,ila par erat,ut publica honestas Matrimo-
nium in aliquo sidtem gradu dirimeret.
Dcniquo afTlnitas ex fornicalione, vera affinilas
esl, licet paulo iinporfcclior, quara ea sil, quae ori-
tur ex legitimo Miilrimonio; quod si vcra est cifTini-
I.IUEU rui.MLs
857
las,iiulla oaussa esl,cur noii tliriinal Malrimonium.
Ksso aultiin airiiulalein verain enm, qiiae orilur e.\
foinicalionc, pcrspicuiim csl. Nam allhiilas nasci-
lur cx 00, qiiod pcr conjugium du.ie pcrsonae elli-
ciunlur una caro: al por loniicalioiiein eliain duae
per>onae elTiciuuliir una caro, dicenle Aposlolo
■l.Corinlii.O.Qiii adliacrel merelrxi,uniun corpus
elllcilar. Eritnt enim. inquit, dao in carne una.
Praelerea ex rornicalione orilur vera cognalio,cuni
sil vcrc paler qui sic generat, el verc lilius qui sic
gcneralur:curigilur ex fornicatione oriri non possil
alllnilas? Addc, quod legimus in lib. 2. ileg. cap.
20. dccem concubinas David, quas lilius ejus Ab-
salou violaverat, Inclusas ab eodcin Davide fuissc,
el numquam auiplius ab eo cogiiiias:quia niiiiirum
factae erant illae omncs. quasi nurus, ob coiijun-
clionem cum filio suo.