1. to the worthy gentlemen N. and N., pastors and preachers of N., my dear brothers in Christ. Grace and peace in Christ, our Lord and Savior. It is not only you, dear sirs, who have a lot of trouble with the marriage matters; it is the same with the others. I myself also have all the trouble with it. I almost resist, shouting and crying out that one should leave such things to the worldly authorities and, as Christ says, Matth. 8, 22, "let the dead bury their dead"; God grant that they do it right or wrong. For we are to be servants of Christ, that is, to handle the gospel and conscience; so that we may have enough to do against the devil, the world and the flesh.
(2) No one can deny that marriage is an outwardly worldly thing, like clothing and food, house and court, subject to worldly authority; as is proved by so many imperial laws placed above it. So also I find no example in the New Testament that Christ or the apostles would have taken care of such things, except where it touched the consciences, as St. Paul,
1 Cor. 7, 12. f., and especially where unbelievers and unbelievers are concerned. For among Christians or believers it is easy to act in such and all matters; but with the unbelievers, of whom the world is full, no one can stand behind them or in front of them who does not need the worldly sword of sharpness. And what does it help that we Christians want to make many laws and judgments, if the world is not subject to us and we have no power over it?
Therefore, I will be absolutely unsworn with such things and ask everyone to let me be satisfied with it. If you do not have overlords, then you have officers. If they do not judge rightly, what is it to me? They will answer for it, they have submitted to the office. I am also afraid of the examples of the pope, who was also the first to get involved in this game and took such worldly matters to himself until he became an absolute world ruler over emperors and kings. So I am also concerned here that the dog would learn to eat leather on the lappets, and with good opinion
until we finally fall out of the gospel into vain worldly affairs. For when we begin to be judges in matrimonial matters, the cogwheel has seized us by the sleeve and will carry us away, so that we must judge the punishment. If we are to judge the punishment, we must also judge the body and the goods; so we have gone down under the wheel and drowned in the waters of worldly commerce.
Now, praise God, all the world knows well with what diligence and effort I have worked and am still working on it, so that the two offices or regiments, secular and spiritual, are distinguished and separated from each other, each is actually taught and kept to its work, which the papacy has thus mixed and confused with each other, so that neither has remained in its power, nor strength, nor right, and no one can tear them apart again. For this I am afraid, and with God's help I will guard against it and remain in my office; as said above: "Let the dead bury their dead"; you go and proclaim the kingdom of God, Matth. 8, 22. Thus I have now answered you, so may you also do.
5. But because you persist in demanding instruction from me not only for yourselves and your office, but also for your overlords, who seek advice from you in such matters, and ask me what I would do for my person if I were asked for advice, Especially because your overlords complain to speak in conscience according to the ecclesiastical or pontifical rights, as they strive dangerously in such cases and often against all equity, reason and law, and yet imperial rights are defeated in this, I do not want to give you my opinion.
6 But with the condition, which I hereby want to have told you and everyone very clearly beforehand, that I will do this not as a judge, official or regent, but by way of advice, as I wanted to do it in conscience for the service of good friends in particular; so that whoever wants to follow my advice, that he do it on his own adventure. For if he does not know how to lead it out, he must not seek protection and shelter from me or complain to me about it; for I am not a regiment.
I do not want to be under any compulsion or obligation to judge; and as I do not have one, so I do not want to have one. Rule whoever shall or will; I will report and comfort the consciences as much as I can advise: whoever will or can follow, let him do so; whoever will not or cannot, let him leave it. This is how I have kept it up to now, and this is how I will keep it from now on.
(7) Well then, in God's name, let us get down to business and put such my opinion and counsel into a few articles and pieces, so that they may be the better understood and retained.
I. Secret engagements should not create a marriage at all.
II. Secret engagements should give way to public ones.
III. among two public engagements, the other should give way to the first and be punished.
IV. Whoever, after a public betrothal, touches another than to marry her, breaking the first betrothal, that should be considered an adultery.
V. Forced engagements should not apply.
So many articles we leave now enough to the first part of this booklet, now want to show cause of such articles.
[The first article.]
Of the first (article causes) these are:
(8) First of all, it is divine law that since marriage is a public estate, which is to be publicly accepted and confessed before the congregation, it is proper that it also be publicly instituted and begun with witnesses who can prove it, because God says, Matt. 18:16, "All things shall be in two or three mouths. But where two are secretly betrothed to each other, no one can be sure whether it is true or not, because husband and wife, as well as bride and bridegroom, are one body and one mouth; on which confession and testimony nothing is to be built, nor such uncertain marriage to be confirmed. But lest someone start a quarrel about words here, I call the secret betrothal that takes place behind the knowledge and will of those,
The parents shall have the upper hand and the right and power to establish the marriage, as father, mother and whatever else may be in their place. For even if there were a thousand witnesses to a secret betrothal, if it happened behind the knowledge and will of the parents, they should all be counted as thousands for one mouth only, as those who, without the help of proper and public authority, help such a thing maliciously and in the dark and do not act in the light.
9 Secondly, here is also the secular imperial law, which clearly forbids such secret betrothal. Now, according to the outward course, we are obliged to be obedient to secular law, and shall not prevent imperial rights from yielding to and submitting to papal rights, because these papal rights often strive against public scripture, reason, and equity.
10 Thirdly, the ancient canons and the best pieces of ecclesiastical law also confirm this, all of which forbid such secret betrothal; indeed, even today the pope forbids such betrothals, that they should not take place. But again, when they have taken place, he wants them to be valid and binding, and thus makes a sin of disobedience out of it and rewards it with joy and pleasure of the disobedient, so that they obtain their will with sins of disobedience, which is against all equity and right.
11) Fourthly, the example of the old law and of all fathers, in whom both were law and custom. Law and custom, that the parents married their children out of paternal authority, as 2 Mos. 22, 17. clearly states and the examples of Jsaak's, Jakob's, Joseph's, Samson's etc. prove.
(12) Fifthly, it was also in the natural right of the heathen, as of the Greeks, who were the wisest people on earth. For one reads in the Greek poet Euripides: "My father has to take care of my marriage, it is not my place to act on it. This saying pleases St. Ambrose very much, lid. I. aesund
The book is a reminder to all women that, following the example of Rebekah, they should not become engaged themselves, nor choose husbands, but leave the care and power to their parents.
(13) Sixth, there is also reason and natural equity. For who would approve that I should have brought up a daughter, with so much cost and trouble, care and danger, diligence and labor, and have risked all my life, body and soul, on her for so many years, and she should be no better kept for me than if she were my cow, lost in the woods, which any wolf might devour? So also should my child stand there free, that any knave, who was not known to me or perhaps also my enemy, would have power and a free entrance to steal it from me secretly and take it there behind my knowledge and will? There is no one who would leave his money and goods so freely open that he would take them whoever came to them first. But now the knave takes from me not only my money and property, but also my child, who has become sour to me to bring up, and gets my property and money with the daughter in addition; must therefore reward him and let him have my inheritance in the property, which I have acquired with toil and labor, for the harm and misconduct committed against me. That is, of course, rewarding wickedness with honor; that is, opening the door and the gate and giving room to do harm and damage. And though it may sometimes be that it is a pious fellow, since it is well invested; yet with it a knave as well as a pious man is given room and right to practice such wickedness against me, in whom it is all lost. This, I say, every man must approve in his reason, that it is violence and injustice; which all would be easily prevented, if the secret pledges were forbidden, then no knave could forbear to win a pious man his child, or presumptuously become his foreign heir in the goods which he had not acquired, as he would know that it would be in vain, though he had obtained a thousand secret pledges.
Fourteenth, we are to be moved by the great danger and harm that has often resulted and still results from such secret betrothals. Here I will show what forced me, before I considered such causes, to advise and act against secret betrothals. It has often happened,
That before me came - without what came before others in the wide world - a married couple of people, since one or both of them had engaged themselves secretly with others before; there was misery and distress. We confessors and theologians were supposed to counsel such captive consciences, but how could we? Then the official law and custom stood and judged that the first secret betrothal should be a right marriage before God and the other a public adultery. So they went and tore up the other marriage, and commanded that the first secret betrothal be kept, that they have ten children with each other in the public marriage, and that their inheritance and goods be mixed together. God forbid that the first betrothed should be present and speak to her, or be elsewhere, even if he had also married elsewhere and never wanted to have her again.
15 Further, if such a betrothal was so secret that it could not be proven with any witnesses, and the other marriage was publicly confirmed before the church, they were forced to do both. First, they had to consider the secret marriage as the right marriage in their conscience before God. Again, they were forced, even in banishment and obedience, to the other man at table and in bed as the right husband, because this marriage was publicly proven; but that one, the secret one, no one was allowed to believe without it alone in their conscience before God. What should a poor conscience do here? How could it be more confused than with such repugnant laws and judgments? If she ran from the other man to her first fiancé, she was judged an adulteress and put under ban, deprived of the sacraments and all Christian rights. If she stayed with the other man, she was again judged an adulteress before God. So she could not stay here and yet she had to stay here.
(16) What faithful counsel do they give to such a conscience? This is what they give: they say that she should keep the first betrothal, and if she is banished to the other husband, she should suffer the banishment, as it does her no harm before God; and whether she may not come to the first husband in the flesh and be forced to lie with the other, and give him the marriage duty.
If he has the right to do so, she should also suffer and perform it with her body, but with her heart she should cling to the first betrothal and not demand any marriage obligation from the other man. This means comforting and teaching the conscience; these are the fruits of secret betrothal. At that time, such things went on in the Schwang.
(17) Dear, what kind of a strange wife is this? She is another man's wife, but the same other man is not her husband. The first man is not her husband, but she is still his wife, for she has the right and power to demand the marriage debt from him as a wife, but he does not have to pay her, for she does not have to go to him; again, the other man is her husband, but she is not his wife, for she has no right nor power to demand the marriage debt from him as a wife. I will be silent about the danger of forcing a woman into bed with her husband, to perform the marriage duty and yet not to demand it. Yes, it is good to cut into someone else's skin; it is easy to impose laws on others that are none of our business. Such clumsy cases probably arise more from such clumsy laws and commandments. And what good should follow from such foolish, unreasonable, unnatural, ungodly laws, if it is difficult that good should follow from the very finest, best laws?
(18) Therefore, to avoid such dangerous and unskillful abominations, I have been torn and set free by such commandments and rights, and I still advise that the secret vows be annulled and not allowed to stand, so that such and such a thing may be done away with and be safe from innumerable dangers and mischiefs. And whether no rulers will follow me in this, and thus the secret vows would not be publicly condemned and annulled, as would be fair and right; I have no interest in this. I hereby want to comfort and report all those who are entangled and confused in such consciences, because of the secret vows, by the pope, bishops, officials, preachers, confessors, that they cheerfully and safely despise such papal laws, let the secret vows be nothing and hold themselves together after the public marriage, like true spouses, without all shyness and fear of adultery, be it by demanding or paying the marriage debt. Can and
If anyone wants to follow such advice, it is good; if anyone does not want to, let him do so; I do not want to force anyone to do so with laws that I cannot enforce.
19 And I hope that the bishops will not reproach me here, as if I were tearing apart or destroying their regiment. No, I do not destroy it, nor have I destroyed it, but I strengthen and confirm it. For I say just as they command, that in such a case the woman should remain with the other man in banishment and obedience, yes, I say more harshly, in God's disgrace and for the sake of her conscience. But if they continue to say that she should be the first man's wife before God, then I will secretly tear and destroy in my conscience, as I have done until now and have torn and destroyed other pieces more. For this is not their regiment. They are great abuses and additions, which confuse the consciences without any need. It behooves the officials and bishops, because they are not theologians but lawmakers, not to rule in conscience; that belongs to us theologians: let them rule forum, we want to rule conscientiam.
20. Although I do not blame the pope alone for this clumsy law of secret marriage, the unlearned jurists and officials have done much to it; who, when they have heard a sentence from the law, have soon been doctor of all doctors; for there goes a sentence to note in their laws de favorabilibus (of unfortunate things), and say: in causis matrimonii semper est judicandum pro matrimonio; that is, in matters of love one should always act in favor of it rather than against it. Now, marriage is a blissful thing, therefore they have taken care to establish marriages where they have found only a tiny cause for it, and thus the secret betrothal must be valid and cause enough to establish the dear blissful marriage; but what unkind, hostile, horrible danger and harm has come from such untimely friendly action, we have now heard. Kindly to one side, kindly to the other! Right and a good conscience are much better things than marriage, therefore they should rather act in accordance with right and conscience than against it, much more than in accordance with marriage.
(21) Just as they have also played a very foolish game cum verbis de praesenti vel de futuro (i.e., with words indicating a present or future time). By this also they have broken up many marriages which were valid according to their law, and bound up those which were not valid. For these words: I will have thee to wife, or, I will take thee, I will have thee, thou shalt be mine, and the like, they have commonly called verba de futuro (words indicating a future time), and pretend that the man's name should thus say: accipio te in uxorem, I take thee to my wife; the woman's name thus: I take thee to my husband; and have not seen nor perceived that this is not in custom. To speak German, when speaking de praesenti (of the present time); but that is spoken de praesenti: I will have thee. Ego volo te habere; est praesentis temporis, non futuri, therefore no German man speaks of future betrothal when he speaks, I will have you or take you. For one does not say: I will have you, as they juggle with accipiam te; but accipio te, actually means in German: ich.will dich nehmen oder haben, and is understood de praesenti, that he now speaks yes with such words and gives his will into it. Yes, I myself do not know how a servant or maid should or could become engaged in German per verba de futuro; for as one becomes engaged, so it is per verba de praesenti. And especially the rabble knows nothing of such a nimble grammar, that accipio and accipiam are two different things; he therefore continues according to our language and says: I will have you, I will take you, you shall be mine etc. Now the hour is said yes, without further delay or hesitation.
(22) I would let this be called verba de futuro if a condition, appendix, or excerpt were added, such as: I will have you, where you will wait for me for two or one year; item: I will have you, if you bring me a hundred guilders; item, if your or my parents want, and the like. In such words the will is not freely given, but postponed and bound to something that is in its power.
and therefore he also confesses at the same time that he cannot do it now and his will is not yet free; therefore such a betrothal does not bind as per verba de praesenti. Whether, however, one owes it to the other to keep the "condition" or appendix, I leave to the jurists to fight out; I think that where the secret vows have been annulled, such a question should not be necessary; For in public vows, of course, vain verba de praesenti would occur, and whether per verba de futuro or per conditionem (conditionally) also public vows would occur and the "conditio" would come into question, I respect, one should keep to it here, as in all other covenants, since one is obliged to keep faith; where otherwise great, important, honest causes do not fall in between, that one could not keep faith with God and right. But who can tell such cases, because they are unusual stories? And summa, if the secret betrothals were done away with, I would call Sponsalia the public betrothals per verba de praesenti, regardless of the fact that they are otherwise called Sponsalia betrothals per verba de futuro, because nothing certain can be said of such betrothals and they are vain rare cases and unusual stories. For according to the usual way, a public betrothal must take place by verba de praesenti. Such a thing would seem to me to be a great adornment and would prevent many errors; but whoever wants to do it, let him do it; I alone advise and set nothing, unless the consciences need my instruction.
(23) Here I must now answer their reason, so that they confirm the secret engagements and thus frighten and trick the consciences. They quote the saying of Christ, Matth. 19, 6: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder. Now, they say, God has joined together the two who are secretly engaged. Then see how they take the saying so badly; for in their opinion this would be the meaning of the saying: where two come together, God has joined them together. From this it would follow that the adulterer and adulteress are also not to be separated, for God has also joined them together; because it is well known that without God they are
could not live for a moment, let alone come together. So we would have to say that a thief and his theft, a robber and his robbery also should not be able to do from each other, because God has put them together, and thus would blame all wickedness unpunished at last on God, as Adam did in paradise, when he blamed God through Eve and said: "The woman you gave me gave me, and I ate of her", Gen. 3, 12; as if he said: If you had not given me the woman, I would have remained pious, punish yourself first etc.
(24) Therefore it will be a matter of good discernment and understanding what the saying "what God puts together" means. He does not say: what is joined together by itself; but: what God joins together. The joining together is soon seen, but that it should be God who joins together, they do not want to respect; but quickly, when a joining together is done by themselves, they want to hang the name of God on it as a cover of shame and say that God has done it; this is then against the other commandment, misusing and dishonoring God's name. So the saying itself clearly states that two kinds of joining are done, one by God, the other without God. By God means that which is done according to His word and commandment through us. Without God means that it happens apart from His word and commandment through ourselves. For we have now so often taught that we should do nothing, we certainly have God's word for it, and God Himself also has nothing to do with us, nor we with Him, without the one means, which is His word, by which we know His will and have to judge ourselves according to it. He who has a God without His Word has no God, for the true God has put our life, being, status, office, speaking, doing, leaving, suffering and everything into His Word, and has modeled for us that apart from His Word we may not seek anything, nor know anything, nor should we, even about God Himself, for apart from His Word He wants to be incomprehensible, unsearchable, unhealthy with our thoughts and meditations, as Solomon says, Proverbs. 25, 27: "He who searches the majesty, it will oppress him." Therefore, it is due to us
not to do nor judge according to the secret counsel and will of His Majesty, but all and only according to the public counsel and will of His word.
(25) Thus the decision is: What is joined together by the Word of God, that God has joined together, and nothing else. Now let the secret betrothals prove that God's word is involved and has commanded or commanded such things. Say, how do you know that God has joined you together? Give a sign that God did it and not you yourself without God. Rather, it is against God and His word, namely, against the obedience of parents, which God has clearly commanded, and God is in the same commandment and forbids such a betrothal and does not join you together at all. What is joined together without God's commandment is sin and wrong against God and His word. Therefore, they may not keep this saying for themselves, except to their own shame and dishonor to God.
26 Thus we read in Genesis, Exodus 22:16, that if someone persuades another's daughter and also weakens her for this purpose, which of course does not happen, they come together and are too close, yet he could not keep her, even if the law itself assigns her to him; but the maidservant father would divorce them and tear such a marriage apart, or the father's consent would have to be obtained anew. From which example it is clear enough that this saying, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder," does not contradict our opinion of forbidding secret betrothals, for such non-divorcing occurs when they come together with God. In such a saying, Christ also speaks of those who are already married to each other, that they should not divorce, and with this saying he abolishes the law of the letter of divorce, as the text clearly implies; for commerce rejoices that the Jews divorced their wives from Moses' law when they wanted to, and took others, Deut. 24, 1. ff. Of such wanton and unnecessary divorce they ask Christ if it is right to divorce wives for all kinds of reasons? For it seems to them too free and unjust.
to divorce so easily. Christ responds to such frivolous separation, saying that it is unjust, and that Moses gave them such a law for the sake of their hard, stubborn hearts, Matth. 19:4, so that they would not do evil and kill their wives; then he says, v. 6: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder"; that is, they should not put asunder themselves according to the law of Moses.What God has joined together, let not man put asunder"; that is, let them not put asunder themselves according to the law of Moses, as they have hitherto been accustomed to do, but as God has joined them together, let them also keep one another until God Himself puts them asunder. Therefore, this saying actually applies to those who are already sitting together in marriage. But we are dealing here with the secret betrothal, since no marriage has yet taken place and they have not yet come together, whether this betrothal will be able to bind them together in the future and thus not to be separated or torn apart.
27. but do you ask: I now know how and when God joins man and woman; how do I know when God separates? Answer: First, by death, as Paul, Rom. 7:2, puts God's word, saying, "If the man is dead, the woman is single." Secondly, when one commits adultery; for God's commandment judges and punishes adultery with death, so an adulterer is already divorced from his spouse by God Himself and His word, and such a divorce is not called done by man, because it does not happen without God's word. But more about that later, now we want to make this piece of secret vows complete.
(28) But lest anyone here should have a conscience, and find themselves married to each other by secret vows, having come together against the will of their parents, and should now perhaps think: O Lord God, what shall I do? I have not come to my spouse from God, but against God and His word, by myself, against my parents' will; so, unfortunately, I will not have had a proper marriage until now and may never have one with this spouse etc. And now she wanted to divorce him, even though she would not like to.
29. here I say, do not beleib, but what has come together and sits in public
Marriage to each other shall remain and shall not be divorced for reasons of secret betrothal. For what we now and herewith write and advise concerning secret betrothal, we do not do against past and long ago secret betrothals, but against future ones, so as to forestall the innumerable confusions of conscience which have arisen hitherto and before through such secret betrothals. For even though the previous secret betrothals were not right, they are still excused to some extent by the fact that a common right, indeed, a common error, custom, and habit existed, and the parents had to give way to it and consent to it; so that the children are not so much to blame as the spiritual tyrants, who thereby robbed the parents of their paternal power and authority, and thus made the children all too free. Since their conjugal nature has now come into being and is no longer a secret betrothal, they should take no notice of this writing and be content to ask God for mercy that they have erred and not done right; for we do not act in this any further than to prevent secret betrothals from now on.
(30) With the same I will also answer the unruly, naughty, wicked men and women, who would gladly be from one another and seek cause with this saying, and pretend: Neither am I joined to my husband by God, therefore I will now amend myself and divorce him. No, you shall not find such a scandalous cover here in the word of God, we want to prevent you from doing so. You know, my dear fellow, that there are two kinds of law, one that gives and the other that punishes. I will now call them disciplinary law and penal law; he who does not keep disciplinary law must suffer penal law. The law of discipline is that you should stay with your wife and keep your marriage. Criminal law is that if you do otherwise, you must neither stay with your wife nor keep your marriage, but give up your head or leave the country.
31 So also here. If you have won your spouse by secret betrothal with sins and have now married publicly, you have gone against the law of chastisement and have entered into the
You shall keep what you have gained, whether you like it or not. For thou hast taken away the honor of the daughter, and done violence to the parents and friendship, which parts are not atoned for by thrusting them from thee, but do much harm by them, both to child and parents, and canst not give them again as thou hast taken them. Therefore think, if thou wilt cast it from thee, make it whole again, as it was before thou touched it, or keep it for punishment and penance; though thou shouldest be punished further for it, according to the law of Moses.
Thirty-two: It does not count, my dear journeyman, if you have stolen a pair of shoes from a cobbler and then want to give them back to him if you have torn them. It is against the law to steal shoes, and if it is possible to prevent the cobbler's shoes from being stolen or ever being returned without spoilage, it should be done. But if they are stolen, you must not bring them back when they are spoiled, but keep them and pay for them, and be punished for the theft. If a marriage is made and the maid becomes a wife, you must not return her because she is corrupt and has become worthless to others, but keep her and pay penance for it. A wicked woman also earns her wages with sins and fornication, yet she shall not give back such wages, and no one can demand it of her. A gambler also wins money with sins, but when he has won it, he must not give it back to the one from whom he won it, because he wanted it that way when he dared to gamble and wait for luck.
(33) Again, someone will say, "Yes, if a knave realizes that he cannot get my daughter by secretly betrothing her, he will take pains to weaken her secretly, thinking that she must remain his because she is dishonored in her honor, or both would like to make a covenant that they both confess that they have recognized each other in the flesh, even if it were not true. I answer:
770 D- 23,110-112. B. Of the ten commandments in particular. Sixth commandment. W. x. 911-914. 771
Who can prevent all boys? Think and take care of your child; but if you cannot prevent their honor, how will you prevent secret betrothal? If the secular authorities were to punish such boys and maid abusers, they would not do so. But because one does not punish as one is guilty, but also assigns the maid to him as a reward for his debauchery, so one may not ask me for advice, each one may have what happens to him. What can I advise or help, if the authorities do not punish a boy who steals your money and goods or does other harm and violence? I must let you have what has happened to you.
34 Let this be the final decision of this first article, that secret betrothal, because no marriage is yet in progress and no physical injury has yet been done to the maid and her parents, but is still entirely within the parents' prohibition and power, is to be completely prevented and not considered a marriage. Whoever wants to accept and follow it, let him do so; whoever does not, let him do it as he pleases, without the preachers and pastors having to adhere to this doctrine, so that they do not allow a secret marriage in their conscience; if they cannot persuade the officials or authorities not to allow it in the public court, then let them go and do what they want. And if one or the other were to come with a troubled conscience, who had secretly betrothed himself to one or two, and yet now publicly had another to marry, that one should satisfy the same and let her henceforth remain with the same other with a good conscience, as having been urged to do so by criminal law and God's word, which confirms such a right.
The second article.
[Secret betrothal shall give way to public betrothal].
35 From this article, the other with the two following is clear enough, namely, where it happens in the dispute that a public engagement or marriage is addressed by a secret engagement and contested, as has often happened so far, both with lies and
In truth, henceforth the secret betrothal shall neither be seen nor heard, and the claim shall not be permitted, nor shall any right be granted; but the public betrothal or marriage shall proceed without all timidity, as if there were no obstacle at all, notwithstanding that the authorities and custom have hitherto held otherwise; nor shall it be of any avail whether in the secret betrothal treasures, hand vows, oaths, or obligations had fallen. If, however, the authorities do not want to do this, or if the party himself does not want to accept it, then, as has been said, let whatever goes, and let them tear secret and public vows into each other, join them, boil them, brew them, simmer them, and roast them as they wish, so that you remain safe and free in conscience, that secret vows are not valid before God, and that there is no danger to you whether you would be publicly inflicted on another afterwards.
But what should one do if the secret betrothal is not a simple betrothal, but is also followed by secret sleeping? I said above that the authorities should impose punishment on those who secretly steal away their child with a betrothal and also sleep on it. But if they do not let the punishment go, then they should act so that he keeps her for marriage, and the public betrothal gives way to the secret one. For the prostitute and her parents will suffer greater injustice and dishonor if she thus remains in disgrace than the one who betrayed with betrothal alone, yet still has the wreath, and the sleeper may not have publicly betrothed himself to another, because he is stuck here in an unrequited matter not with a simple secret betrothal, but also with sleeping. Moses, Deut. 22, 29, also judges that whoever sleeps with a prostitute should keep her for marriage and also be punished for it.
37 And this shall be said where the secret betrothal with the sleeping is known or proven. If, however, this is not known or proven, but the procreator denies it and swears to it, the matter must remain on his conscience and the public betrothal must be allowed to continue, and the first prostitute must be given free power to marry elsewhere, even though she may be in
If she knows in her conscience that the procreator has taken a false oath, she must let him go in such a conscience as an adulterer before God, who would leave her and divorce her, yes, as a dead deceased man, of whom she is free and free from her guilt, and let God judge her. But if they both want to swear, then one may further ask the jurists how they should be admitted to the oath or not, or which oath one should believe the most. For it is too far-reaching for me to act here and also not necessary. For I advise rather, where one party swears, that the other party, even if he knows that the latter is taking a false oath, should not swear after it, but leave it alone and command it to God, and be free.
38 Further, if such a sleeper, when he is in public marriage with the other, should begin to feel remorse, and his conscience should be troubled, that he has so wickedly deceived, lied to, and disgraced the poor strumpet and her parents, and has not made restitution, and has denied and disgraced God by false oaths, and has made himself beautiful in his iniquity by God's name; as it is also great wickedness. Now, this is also the fruit of the secret engagement and marriage; the officials, as said above, force him to the first and at the same time to the other, and forbid him to demand the marriage debt. But what is the use of such advice? I grant him such a distemper of remorse, and he deserves it, so that he may be an example to others to learn not to sin against conscience, for it does not remain outside in the end, and comes that much worse, the longer it remains outside. My advice, however, is that he should make restitution to the first and get along with her in a Christian way, and stay with the other, both demanding and performing the marriage duty as befits a right free marriage. For since marriage is a public estate, ordained of God, and is not a corner transaction nor a dark work, and whoever seeks it in corner and darkness and accepts it secretly, he is a marriage thief and has stolen it and not gotten it honestly with God and his word obedience, as is proper to such an honest estate; therefore, the abominable, stolen, secret, and unfaithful marriage shall not be considered a marriage,
The dishonorable marriage gives way to the honest marriage with God and honor.
39 For our rule should and must be that all private public affairs should give way to caeteris paribus, that is, secret betrothal should give way to public betrothal; thus, also, secret sleeping should give way to public sleeping. For it would also not be right in the sight of God that one should deprive the other wife, who has become married to God and in his obedience, of such a marriage, and thus punish her for her virtue and make her pay for the sin of others. Again, the first wife, who would have married in disobedience to God and without God, should demand and be called, as it were, to misuse her virtue for her disobedience. Therefore the other woman in public marriage shall keep the husband alone and free, and the marriage shall also be and be called between them both alone, free to both of them; for neither temporal authority nor spiritual authority permits the other woman to be deprived of her right to the husband and to have her marriage torn apart without her fault and cause, therefore he shall also remain in it. And even if he publicly confesses or complains about such a secret marriage and sleeping together and swears an oath - which he may well do, and which would be good for others as an example, so that no one would henceforth start such a game with his conscience - he is not to be believed and, as I said, punished, because he cannot prove it; And even if one should believe his oath, it should not help him, because the public free marriage, established with God and honor, should keep the glory and right against the stolen, treacherous, disobedient angle marriage; so that also the prostitutes and women henceforth beware of the secret sleeping and do not believe so lightly the good words of the procurer; because they believe and trust in men, therefore it is also right for them according to the Scriptures: He that trusteth in man shall fall short; and again, he that trusteth in man shall have misfortune. But she who is publicly betrothed stands and trusts in God, for she has God's word and witnesses who must be believed. But the secretly betrothed has no word of God, no witnesses.
Witnesses, but only the good words and promise of the blasphemer, who is a man and alone, therefore she is cheaply deceived.
40 Yes, how, if the parents or friendship did not want to let the asleep prostitute follow the procreator to marriage, as the rich, of respectable nature, did not want to give their child to a lowly loose man, but presses straight for the punishment etc.? Answer: If the authorities can be made to punish this, I will let it happen and, as said above, I would like to see it. But if not, I would advise that the prostitute be given to him, and that he follow and not be kept in shame and danger. But if it happens that she is kept by force, and there is no hope that she will be given to him or follow him, then I consider the procurer to be free, where he proves his demand with witnesses, as is proper, and may well change! Cor. 7: But what does the harlot do from now on? She must do as a prisoner of the Turks and suffer this imprisonment as punishment for her disobedience and secret sleeping, and whether she is then given to another by her parents or friends, she must suffer, follow and accept this, as if she had lost her freedom with the Turks, to lock herself up and refuse; just as David's wife, Michal, had to suffer that her father, Saul, gave her to another, and followed him until time gave another.
41 Again, if poor parents might like to see their maid secretly entrusted to a rich man and slept on by him. If this were to happen without deceit and trickery on the part of the parents, out of their own desire and love, I think it should be a marriage, as I said above, regardless of the man's wealth, because in law there is no respect for the person. If a man and his parents are happy for him to have a richer man's daughter secretly under this law, he should also be happy for him to have a poor man's daughter under this law. But where deceit and trickery would be prepared here by the maid's parents, so that the rich man's son would be caught treacherously - which cases are not to be told here, for who can consider all trickery and deceit in the future? -It would be right that they
They would have to mock and, as the Scripture says, Ps. 7:16, "fall into the pit they had prepared.
42. But how would it be if there were two who wanted to hold this opinion, and were publicly betrothed with such a free conscience that both of them, or one of them, would let go of their previous secret betrothal, which they had done elsewhere; But afterwards both of them, or one of them, being provoked by evil men, or otherwise moved by the devil's temptation, or of their own will, would seek cause to separate, and run to a place where secret betrothals were valid against the open betrothal, that they might not be compelled by force to keep the public betrothal; what in this should the other part do? Whether it should also follow that part or wait and remain so, or consider itself free and free to unite with another spouse? Answer, as above: Let go what does not want to stay; but according to Christ's word, Matth. 18, 15. ff., admonish and demand that part for a certain time, with testimony, as is due; if he then does not come, let your judge, if he does not, pronounce your priest free and unattached. Proclaim right and might to change thee, according to the rule of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 7:15: "If an infidel be soft, let him depart; a brother or sister is not bound in such a case." Whoever can and will, I say again, let him follow; whoever will not, let him.
43. the same is to be judged, if they were already now in marriage, and one would like to be from the other, and it would be serious or make a pretense: Yes, I am indeed publicly betrothed and joined to you, but my conscience now compels me that I have previously betrothed myself to another, my confessor has advised me to do so etc. If she is serious, let her always go, if she does not want to or cannot stay; although the pope does not allow her such a departure, let her do it secretly or move to an unknown country. If, however, she is not in earnest, but seeks cause to depart from you, and has thus far used our advice and now needs the official's advice again, both out of ill will, and thus departs from you, then give her the right to leave.
the blessing and repeat after her: Run, whore, run to the devil after all. For the world is so full of wickedness that it cannot be fathomed, let alone forestalled with laws. You have now overcome a dilemma: If one does not like it in the papacy, he comes to us and deceives us. If he does not like it with us, he leaves us the disgrace and goes back to the papacy, where he also finds protectors of all vice and misdeeds committed with us. Just as some priest's wives have done now; when they have grown tired of one thing and would like to have another, they run away with good companions and pretend that it was not a marriage, their consciences may not suffer it, and now they want to become pious strumpets. Yes, go, my beautiful bride! We can all deceive the world with the little word "conscience" as long as Christ lies in the cradle and is a child; but when he will grow up and come by force, we will learn who has deceived the other; nevertheless, we want to remain as free as they are and sing: I am like you, my noble A. Always trot along, you will find your equal etc. After these cases and examples, whoever is willing or able may judge in other similar cases, for it is impossible to tell all cases.
(44) And if there be a case so strange and erroneous, whether in this or in other articles and matters, which cannot be judged from any scripture or book, let a good pious man or two advise and speak in the matter; and afterwards, when they have advised and spoken, let them stand by their judgment and counsel without any wavering or doubt. For even if in such obscure matters they do not always hit the nail on the head of the law, such a minor error does no harm. And it is better to have final peace and tranquility with disadvantage and less right, than to always seek the judgment for the most pointed and sharpest right with infinite discord and unrest; one will never find it. For it is not necessary for a good marksman to hit the stake or the nail all the time; one must also let him be a good marksman who shoots close at hand or several times in the blade. All the wise men of the world, plus experience, confess
They say that there are more faults and wrongs and that they increase daily, more than laws and justice can be made. Therefore they also say that the strictest law is the greatest injustice; as Solomon also says, Ecclesiastes 7:17: "Thou shalt not be too righteous, lest thou tarnish." And again, Proverbs 30:33: "He who cuts too much forces blood out."
45 Therefore, even if such pious men err a little in such erroneous cases, because they mean it faithfully and sincerely and do not seek their own benefit, nor do they knowingly speak against the established rights, God will be pleased with their error and bury everything in the Lord's Father, since we say, "Forgive us our trespasses; just as every authority must often err and cannot avoid it, and yet for this reason does not leave the office, nor despair. This life is too sinful and too blind. Even if we do the best, we still lack in many things, which we must command God and say with King David, Ps. 19:13, "Who notices all the faults? Lord, cleanse me from the hidden ones" etc.; and Jac. 3, 2.: "We are all often lacking together" etc.; so that God may also find room in us to forgive lack and sin and to prove His grace.
46 But that no tyrant or knave understand this, as I have hereby permitted them to judge or speak in matters according to their liking or conceit against public rights or truth. I am speaking here of pious men, not of public certain law, but of dark erroneous matters, which cannot be decided according to the public certain law, and since there is not enough law and books, that there the matter should be ended and the people satisfied in conscience, and not let them forever fear and doubt about the uncertain law; since peace is more important than all law, and peace is not made for the sake of law, but law is made for the sake of peace. Therefore, if one thing must give way, let justice give way to peace, and not peace to justice. Wherever peace can be had without compulsion of law, let the quarrelsome law be abandoned; error against law does no harm, but is a great virtue of peace.
But how to all, where this would come into the custom and habit, that the. As no law or doctrine has ever been so good, it is often weakened by abuse and evil trickery; as they say: Inventa lege, inventa est fraus in legem - nevertheless, innumerable errors and effects will be omitted, which otherwise everywhere have the upper hand, and one could easily get through with many things, so that both, priest, judge and also the party itself, would have all the more peace and quiet, and in addition easier conscience and work.
The third article.
Among two public engagements, the other shall give way to the first and be punished.
48 "He who has the bride is the bridegroom," says St. John the Baptist, John 3:29. Since the first man to be betrothed has the bride and is the bridegroom, she cannot be betrothed to anyone else afterwards, nor the bridegroom to anyone else. Hence Moses, Deut. 22, 23, calls a betrothed virgin a wife, saying: "If a virgin is betrothed to one, and one sleeps with her in the city, you shall stone them both to death. The harlot because she has not cried out, the man because he has disgraced his neighbor's husband or wife." There you see that a trusted bride is called a wife in the Scriptures. So also Matth. 1, 20. the angel says to Joseph, when Mary was entrusted to him: "Joseph, you son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your husband or wife. Therefore this article is certain enough, if two are publicly betrothed to each other, and it remains with the same betrothal, that neither can leave the other for life.
(49) But now in matrimonial matters, as we have heard above, there is such an extensive confusion of cases against such certain rights and articles that there is a great common saying: He who is fortunate leads the bride home. As if to say: It does not stand with the right, but with the right.
Luck, who shall have the bride, and helps nothing to dance around it. For it is also true that the cases have been so varied, and the rights of secret betrothal so adventurous, that many a man has had his bride led away from his arms, and neither betrothal, nor witnesses, nor bids have helped.
(50) So it is here also, if it remains with a simple betrothal, then it is soon judged that no other betrothal shall apply afterwards, for it is a true marriage before God and the world. But what if a person becomes publicly engaged to a person and conceals the fact that he has previously become secretly engaged to another and has slept with her or even impregnated her? This is a knave, and I would judge thus: If the secret engagement and sleeping is known or proven, then in such a case first the knave shall be punished, that he has thus deceived and fooled the maid and her parents, or the widow and her friendship with a public engagement. After that, the public betrothal, if it is still unmade, shall give way to the secret betrothal, if it is made asleep, as stated above.
But here one would like to persuade me: You said above that where there is a public betrothal, there should be a true marriage, and the betrothed should be called a wife, as you proved from Moses and Matthew Cap. I, 20. How can you then here with good reason advise that the secret betrothal with subsequent sleeping should remain a marriage? This would break up a public marriage of trust? I answer: One must proceed wisely with Mosi's laws, because his rule in marriage matters has a much different form than ours, especially in two parts.
The first, that a man may have two or more wives in wedlock, therefore he says: if one has already publicly betrothed himself to one and thus begun a true marriage; yes, if he had taken her home immediately, and it happened that he had previously slept with another, yes, even though the secret betrothal stood, or even slept with her after the wedding, then he may well keep the slept with the public bride or wife in wedlock.
But this does not apply and is not suitable for us, since a man must have only one wife, therefore his law cannot apply to us completely and in all respects; for we must look at the form and nature of our country if we want to establish or use law and justice, because our law and justice are based on our country and not on Mosi's country and nature, just as Mosi's laws are based on his nature and form and not on our people's nature and form.
(53) Secondly, among the people of Moses, a harlot did not care much if she was made pregnant, especially in the hope of future marriage, for she could soon be married and was in no danger. In addition, the fruit of the womb was so important to them and was such a delicious thing that bodily virginity or honor was held in low esteem. But this is not so with us, but the female honor goes with us over all the fruit of the body, and a sleeping harlot hardly comes to honor and there is great danger that she becomes even mean (a whore). Therefore we also must judge ourselves in this way, and cannot call it Moses' law if we accept it in one part, since it serves us, and leave it in the other. For Moses can do both, judging the publicly trusted prostitute a wife who is not to be left in any way, and yet at the same time also honoring the woman who has been asleep and granting her to the same man in marriage. We, however, follow Most insofar as we judge the publicly trusted wife to be a conjugal spouse; but since we cannot also award the sleeping woman to him, as Moses did, we must take a measure here that can be accepted by our people, and not leave the stolen honor of the maiden, which we consider to be the highest treasure, so stuck in danger.
54 Therefore I have advised: Where the public betrothal is still pure without sleeping, and before that there is a secret betrothal with sleeping, which is known, sworn or proven, the publicly trusted prostitute shall give way according to fairness; considered that she still has the treasure of her honor completely and with it can well come to marriage, but this sleeping woman neglects her highest treasure according to our country's form and cannot well come to marriage, as she might have done under Moses.
might have come. This seems to me to be fair and right, as long as the punishment of the authorities does nothing against the secret abusers and rapists. But where the punishment would go, all this case would soon be advised and much more. For I do not consider it good that such things should go unpunished, since it is both a great annoyance that a public betrothal should be torn up, or that the secret slaughter should be left in disgrace; they would be well worth it, both the sleeper and the sleuth, that they should at least have to leave the country for a time, so that the annoyance might be atoned for or brought in, and an example given to the others to fear.
55) But whether anyone would pretend that the publicly betrothed bride, if she is divorced for the sake of the first insemination, is also thereby wronged and harmed and should be counted as a disgrace? the answer is: She nevertheless retains her highest treasure of honor, and her innocence is also honorable and praiseworthy, that she is deceived and must suffer such undeservedly. And she should think how she would do if her trusted lover had previously betrothed another wife, or had publicly engaged herself to another elsewhere; then she would have to be divorced and suffer all this. Moreover, if the deceiver is punished, her innocence will be all the more honest and such deception will be for her good.
(56) But that poor strumpet has nothing left, and the punishment does not restore her honor; and a woman who has lost her honor is worthless, because we do not value the blessing of the body as highly as the Jews do, and yet such secret sleeping on an engagement cannot be counted as fornication, for it is done in the name and mind of marriage, which heart and mind or name fornication does not have. Therefore, there is a great difference between fornication and secretly sleeping on a betrothed marriage. No Christian or honest man would do otherwise if he had come so far as to neglect it and secretly betrothed a prostitute, if he thought of keeping her and abandoning all public betrothals that would have taken place afterwards.
57. but I have presented this article
for the sake of admonition, that one should keep it as one pleases; for I have well experienced what a desolate rabble there is in the world. Loose boys wander and run through the country from one city to another, and where one sees a maiden that he likes, he catches fire and quickly seeks how he can get it; he takes a ferry and gets engaged again, and wants to forget and let go of the first engagement, which was made elsewhere to another. And that is worse, they go to and hold weddings on it; but some have weddings here and there, and thus commit great shameful vices with the name and appearance of marriage.
Here the parish priests shall look up and admonish their people and report such danger, namely: that no citizen or farmer give his child to an unknown journeyman or man. The authorities shall not permit such marriages, and the priest shall not offer, trust or bless them; but, whether man or woman, if they are strangers and unknown, they shall be brought before a good authority in writing and orally, so that it may be known what kind of people they are, whether they are single or married, honest or dishonest; As some craftsmen do, who demand an audience from their comrades in their trade, as the monks also did, who accepted no one, because they knew that he was free and no one was obligated with a betrothal or debt or property. How much more should one demand such a declaration from strangers, both male and female, who want to marry! For it is truly important for everyone to see what kind of husband he gets, and to whom he gives his child or friend; it is also important for the council and the community to know what they get for a citizen or member of their community.
(59) For we see it in experience, as it is said, that the boys and girls run now and then, and take wives and husbands, only that they perform their trespasses; and after that they steal all that they can, and run away, and deal in marriage, as the Tartars or Gypsies do, who have marriage and baptism wherever they go, that a damsel is ten times a bride, and a child ten times baptized. I know a little town, not far from here, I want the
I will not name them for the sake of honor. As our gospel was going on, we found two and thirty pairs of people sitting by each other for marriage, since either the woman or the man was a runaway person; but I thought there should not have been much more than two and thirty houses or citizens there. So the dear bishops, officials and authorities had kept house and had seen that in these bushes had gathered everything that had otherwise been driven away or had gone astray. But now, praise God, the Gospel has swept such arousal so purely that nowhere is there any public adultery, fornication or immorality suffered; nor must the poor Gospel be called heresy, and nothing good come of it.
(60) In this article there are also various cases which cannot all be told, and must be left to the counsel and judgment of pious men, as indicated above. As that I give you one, if one had children with the other wife and had sat with her at home for a long time, and had come into a food etc. Answer: It does not help: because he publicly trusts the first and is her right husband, he cannot keep the other with the children; and, as spiritual law says, it is all the worse that they have sat so long with each other in adultery, and their souls have lain in the devil's bonds, if they otherwise both knew about the public betrothal of the first; For whichever part did not know about it is innocent of adultery and has been deceived; although it was imprudence that it did not inquire beforehand and become certain whether its spouse was joined elsewhere. Therefore, he may now accept such divorce and disgrace as penance, and be a joke and a warning to himself and all others that no one should lose himself, because he has certain knowledge that his spouse is single and free.
61) How if the first trusted one, seeing that her husband left her and sat down with another, also went and took another, with whom she now also has children and goods etc. ? Answer: This is also wrong, and she shall also be divorced from the other husband; for she has made herself a judge and has taken her
The first husband should be acquitted and released himself, and the first husband should be let go; not demanded nor rightfully requested, as a pious wife is obliged to do, so that she, as a silent partner, has immediately consented to the first husband's adultery or unlawful marriage, and has added her own marriage to it; therefore, in such cases, one should seek justice beforehand and thus object to the husband's betrothal to the other, or even demand it again after the wedding. If he then escapes or could not be justly preserved, she should then have herself acquitted and also change in the name of God.
(62) But how, if the first betrothed were so angry and would not leave the other illegitimate husband, and would not have the first betrothed husband again, whether he would gladly go to her and leave the other? Answer: Let the authorities make her do it and accept the husband again. But if she does not want to do so, she shall be expelled and remain without marriage forever, because the husband is alive, 1 Cor. 7:11, and the husband shall remain with the other after the punishment has been carried out and shall henceforth count such sleeping as sleeping before the public betrothal, because the first wife is offered to restore the first public betrothal and yet she does not want to, so that she cancels it against herself and deprives herself of it by right. If, however, the authorities force her, and she would much rather run away over it or vacate the land, let her run away and let the husband, as I said, remain with the other. But what I have said of the woman's image against the man in this case, I will also have said of the man's image against the woman. And stands our reason 1 Cor. 7:15: "If the unbeliever depart, let him depart; the brother or sister is not captive in this case."
(63) The same is to be answered, if it should happen that a disagreement and enmity arose between the betrothed persons, so that no one could reconcile them, and one therefore left the other as for a good cause, and took another spouse and sat at home? Answer: All unjustly; for no man shall be judge of himself, and divorce himself. He should first demand his bride and force her through the authorities.
And if they do not want to, let them remain without marriage forever, as said above, and let themselves be judged single and then go to another first.
(64) How then, if he know not where his first wife is? for he left her in another country, when he departed, whether she be dead, or trusted to another, or still single? Answer: Then thou mayest look, and think, and search, and find out in the places round about, where thou hast left her, and departed from her, and meanwhile stand still with the other woman. How would it be if one were to search diligently for a year or half a year, after which he would not be able to find out anything about his first confidant? Here, I think, but on wise people's improvement, that he would let her with open letters and demand in the pulpit now and then for a certain time. If she would not come then, that he would stay with the other one, with the right against his first wife, if she would come. Item, if one believed, and would be persuaded of it with mighty appearances and signs, that his trusted wife had died, and after that she would come again and find another one with him? Answer: He shall take the first again and let the other go. But how, if she does not want to return to him and does not want to have him? Well, let the authorities recognize this and force her to you; if she does not want to, then let yourself be acquitted and confirm with the other, because it is not lacking in you, you have gladly wanted to have her again and have not willingly sinned through strong error, that she owes you to forgive and she does not want to, it is just as much as if she now ran away from you and left you willfully. From this any one may judge other cases more, and wise pious people will judge it rightly.
The fourth article.
Whoever after the public betrothal touches another with betrothal, than to marry the same with it, to break the first betrothal, that should be considered an adultery.
This article is also clear, and the papal laws have not allowed such a sleeping against the public engagements,
The law does not judge against secret betrothals, but all such cases: that they confirm the first betrothal, be it secret or obvious, to marriage and do not let the following sleeping with a betrothal be a marriage. But it would be necessary not to let such intercourse pass so easily, but to show how great and grave adultery is, that it was punished by death in the Law of Moses. Therefore, the pastors should diligently admonish and indicate how great this adultery is. For it is to be feared that he who does not love his bride more than to part with his love and his body from the bride after, in and before the wedding, has no sense of purpose or earnestness in marriage. He must be a vice and a loose evil man, not worthy to live, let alone to possess a marriage.
For we have heard above that a publicly betrothed prostitute is called a wife, and that such a public betrothal, where it is free and pure from other prostitutes who have slept with him before, establishes a true and honest marriage; therefore he is certainly a true husband. And because it is not proper for us to have more than one wife, who is a wife of his own, he is not powerful in his body and cannot touch another without adultery; so there is a great difference between sleeping before the public betrothal and sleeping after the public betrothal. For before the public betrothal he is still single and free, so that he does not break the marriage with the secretly betrothed woman by sleeping, but after the public betrothal he is not single, but a bridegroom and husband.
67 If it is a true marriage, the spiritual law should not have permitted, nor should it apply, that such a fiancé or fiancée should leave one another and run into a monastery; for it is now a conjugal husband and has no power to become a spiritual wife or to remain a virgin without the other's will; but just as the pope permits and gives permission for a wife to demand her husband out of the monastery, so he should do the same.
The bride and groom allowed and commanded that they did not run away from each other to the monastery. It is just as much a marriage after the public betrothal as after the wedding. And even if one wants to pretend that a public betrothal may be broken by a previous sleeping, as it is said, therefore the marriage before the wedding is not as hard and firm as after the wedding. This is not always the case; there are just as many instances of a marriage being broken up after the wedding as before it; the one is like the other.
68 However, this is not necessary for us now, because the monastic life, as it has been kept until now, is condemned, so that, if God wills it, no marriage shall be hindered from now on. But if someone still wants to remain chaste after his public betrothal and does not let himself be persuaded to his spouse, I would not allow him to do so in any other way than the way St. Paul does, 1 Cor. 7, 11, where he admonishes that the woman should reconcile with the man or remain without marriage, and thus leaves her stuck in an evil conscience. So I would also judge this part, that she remains without marriage; not for the sake of chastity, but that she does not want to be persuaded to her husband and should be called the reconciled bride; since chastity is not mentioned for merit or high status, but so that one has more rest and space to act with God's word and prayer and less of child and home care, as St. Paul praises it. Where such is not sought in chastity, but a holy estate or that one would gladly be rid of one's intimate spouse, neither is of any use, and one's own will and advantage are sought. Summa, I do not want to clear her conscience, nor do I want to make her safe, she may dare it on her own adventure; because it has come so far that she has publicly forgiven herself, it is more certain that she keeps what she has vowed and given; God does not require the robbery of her chastity anywhere.
In this article there are also many strange cases. Among them is the first one that occurred to the holy patriarch Jacob, when his brother-in-law, Laban, gave him another daughter, Leah, instead of Rachel, who was his rightful bride and betrothed wife. Whether
did Jacob or Leah sin here also? Answer: Neither sinned, because both their hearts and consciences were so set that each thought it was with his lawful spouse. Jacob thought it was his Rachel; Leah thought she must have Jacob out of her father's commandment. Just as it has happened that a man has become an adulterer with his own wife, as if he had secretly appointed another, and his wife was also secretly found in her place etc. Now, even according to the strict law, St. Jacob would not have had to keep Leah, but he did so as a pious man; since he had touched her, he did not want to leave her, especially because at that time it was the custom of the land to have more than one wife. But now, if such a case should arise, that another person should be attached to one, as, I fear, may not easily happen, he shall keep the first betrothed and leave the one who has slept with her, because he is deceived and cannot keep them both; for he has not slept with her willingly, as he does who knowingly still sleeps with one on a secret betrothal, for if he had done so knowingly, it would be adultery, as has been said.
Seventy-two: If a man finds his public spouse not pure, but slept with another beforehand, and he finds this before or after the wedding, may he dismiss her and take another? In the law of Moses such a one was stoned and burned, therefore it is clear that a complete divorce is. The pope allows him to divorce her at table and in bed, but does not allow him to take another. But we give the advice, because the divorce from bed and table is a real divorce, that not a shred of marriage remains - for what kind of marriage is it to be divorced from table and bed, but a painted or dreamed marriage? - so he may well take another, and there is no commandment of God that commands him to remain without marriage or to keep the impure one. It is true that if it is a good man who can be persuaded to do so and immediately takes a fee for it, and keeps it in the hope that it will keep itself right from now on, that would be well done and better than divorce. But if he is almost
If he is pious, he may do like Joseph, Matth. 1, 20, who wanted to leave Mary secretly so that he would not disgrace her, and is therefore praised as a righteous man.
This is what I want to say when the bride is convicted that she is not pure of honor; for that one should follow bad suspicion and evil conceit, or even evil mouths, which secretly slander a maiden, that is against God and right. The wicked devil has prevented many a fine marriage by such evil conceit and wicked mouths; or, where he could not prevent it, he has embittered and spoiled it with suspicion to the utmost. Against this blasphemous evil and devilish thing thou shalt do thus: If any man come to thee, and tell thee of thy bride, or of thy wife, that she is not pure, pretending great grudges, as he hath seen, and heard, and is sure of all things, etc. seize him therefore, and say, Wilt thou confess this, and openly before the court, when I accuse her, confess and testify? If he refuses and pretends that he wants to warn you kindly and faithfully in secret, then believe firmly and do not doubt that the wicked devil has sent him to you, and lie as a knave or a fool, even if it were your father, mother, brother or sister. Remember that he wants to warn you and secretly advise you now that it has happened. Why did he not do it before? Nor will he confess it publicly, that thou mayest be rid of her; therefore his poisonous warning and counsel is this: he seeth thee hid, and so will keep thee in marriage, and will not help thee out by public confession, but will embitter thy heart secretly, and bring it into everlasting hatred and disquietude against thy bride. Therefore you see that he lies when he says he wants to warn you and do it for your good, and is a little devil, as I said.
Seventy-two: Therefore say to him thus, that he shut his mouth, which he opened in the name of the devil, in the name of God, or you will bring him to trial, that he may have to prove his accusation or suffer his punishment for it as a wicked, poisonous slanderer. So it is said: when it has happened, one should speak the best of it;
That is divine and right, especially where one cannot or will not publicly confess the contradiction. What thing is ever so good that one cannot do secretly in the worst way? But if one should believe such assassins, no thing, indeed no God, would remain right, neither in heaven nor on earth. But if thou wilt believe them, then have thy reward, that thou shalt have no rest for ever in thy marriage or betrothal; then do thou what the devil would have thee do, for he is hostile to the marriage state, and is an unclean spirit of fornication, therefore he doth not willingly permit it, nor doth he make it full of trouble. And here the preachers and pastors should be diligent that they do not allow such secret deceit of the devil to apply or happen, but should punish it with preaching, ward it off and warn the people against it. And if it should happen that a harlot is so slandered against her bridegroom, that they with great diligence talk the bridegroom out of such devil's poison and avert it, and in front of him again condemn the devil's message, which has caused such a thing, to the highest degree as knaves, peelers, poisonous, evil worms, or, if they were good friends, as great mad fools and unfunny people.
I have experienced it with four or five fine virgins, who were famous for all honor and virtue and had not a single impurity about them; but as soon as they were betrothed, the devil's mouths came to the bridegrooms or to their good companions; one had seen and heard this, the other that, and everything had to be certain, even if it was twice forged and thrice lied, that I finally had to make this proverb: Certainly no pious child must become a wife, unless she has become a whore before. For I saw, whether they were pious or pure in body, they still had to be harlots with the stank mouths. The poor people of women have nothing more vile or noble than honor, which the devil does not have to leave them. He is called Diabolus or Diabel, that is, a defiler or blasphemer; that is what he is and remains; good to him who knows or believes it! That is why I praise this proverb against such a teuselsgeschäft, since one
says: One should praise women, whether true or false, they need it well. And again: Many a man speaks evil of women, who does not know what his mother did; for among the women are all our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, mothers and friends, whose honor is our honor and their shame our shame. Enough of that now.
74 If a man betroths himself to a bondwoman, or to a noblewoman, or to a leper, or to a deaf man, or to a blind man, or to one that hath a grievous and eternal disease, may he take another? Answer: If he knew it, and yet betrothed himself to her, he shall keep her, as he would have it. Likewise, if one or two of these defects affect one another after the betrothal, they shall not divorce again, but tolerate what God inflicts on them and bear with each other. But if one of the defects is not known and is thus deceived, it is dangerous to answer; for if a man finds such a defect afterwards, that he certainly would not have taken her if he had known it before, he should be justly free to dismiss her, for he never consented to take her with such an addition.
But who wants to prevent the evil people here, who perhaps seek causes from each other, if they are repentant and think they can find something better? Since a part wants to pretend: I would not have taken it if I had known of the defect; and yet lies about it, but would certainly not have considered the defect in the heat, which he now considers. Again, that part also lies and pretends that it was without defect and would have had it after the betrothal or marriage; as it is in the world with lies and deceit among each other, where one seeks one's own benefit, advantage or goodwill. Such people, who have neither the fear of God nor a conscience, I send from me to the judge, from the judge to the executioner, that they may loose or bind themselves with oaths and other judicial ways as they can.
I am now writing to the pious, good consciences, where the same someone of such great eternal shortcomings has one at his trust.
If he finds a condition with which he would not have taken it knowingly, he is deceived and shall be free to change. The ecclesiastical laws also stipulate that error unb Conditio dirimunt contractum (error and non-fulfillment of a condition tear up a contract). But because in the same law divorce is commonly permitted in such a way that none may change, we consider such divorce to be nothing, indeed a mere ghost, dangerous to the soul and conscience. Therefore, whoever wants to use the same right, may do so; we do not want to need it according to conscience; for with it there is no use at all to act thoroughly and finally in matrimonial matters. And whether it should harm this party that he has not diligently inquired about such deficiency beforehand and thus be blamed for his imprudence, it should help that party much less that he has knowingly deceived his neighbor and thus let his faithful trust be dangerously and unwarnedly lacking. Who would not, for the sake of his honest love and praiseworthy fervor, give a bridegroom credit for such imprudence? indeed, who would not rather praise his heartfelt, good confidence and trust that he did not ask? So much worse is that part's unfaithfulness and misdeed that it may not have warned such faithfulness of this part, but also helped it to start and fail. Even if someone would like to search for all deficiencies, it is not the custom of the country nor the habit; and if it were the habit, no one would like to reveal his deficiencies, especially the secret ones, as the leprosy, to his own detriment, but would deny, hide, decorate and make them the least and smallest, as he would always like.
What more cases may occur, I command, as said above, pious, God-fearing men to pay the best they like, be it according to the secular or ecclesiastical law, where it is good; because it is almost everywhere judged, as if his master had not been legitimate, also does not intend to become legitimate, therefore not much asks how it is for the married man about his judgment, which nevertheless the secular laws do not do.
The fifth article.
Forced engagements shall not be valid.
All the world is one in this article, for God created man and woman so that they should come together with desire and love, with willingness and gladness of heart. And the bridal love or marriage will is a natural thing, implanted and instilled by God. That is why the love of the bride is so highly praised in the Holy Scriptures and is often used as an example of Christ and His Christianity. Therefore, parents sin against God and nature when they force their children into marriage or into a spouse they do not desire. Thus we read in the first book of Moses, Cap. 24, v. 57, 58. When the friends betrothed Rebekah, they demanded of her and inquired of her whether she would have Isaac? and considered it right that one should also have the will of the damsel beforehand. The Holy Spirit did not write such an example in vain, so that he might confirm the natural law, which he created in such a way that husbands and wives should be joined together freely and without restraint, with will, desire and love.
Whatever evil may have come from forced marriage, daily experience teaches and instructs us well. It still requires great grace against the devil, flesh and world, that it may be well, if it is obediently begun in God's blessing and commandment, and with joy and love, that one may not begin it unkindly against God's right and with displeasure, and thus paint the devil over the door, he will come himself. And it is a strange thing that a man may want to have a bride, knowing that she neither wants nor likes him, and that parents may be so foolish as to force their children into eternal displeasure and unwillingness; unreasonable animals would not. And even if God and nature had not commanded that marriage should be unnecessary, a father's or mother's heart toward children should not suffer otherwise than that it be done with lust and love. But mammon and the belly is a mighty god. Therefore, the parish priests should diligently do such a thing and discourage people from such coercion.
For it is possible that neither children nor parents have not known that it is a sin against God and nature to force a person to marry. That is why the parents did not conscience about it, and did not consider it a sin, but were pleased with it, as if they had done it well, and it was in their free power to do so with their children. No, dear journeyman, this power should not be allowed to you, but should be resisted and taken away by God's word and commandment, so that you know that you do not have such power over your child; and it is not a fatherly power, but an unfatherly, tyrannical, unrighteous power, not much better than if a thief or robber took away or withheld what was yours by force. And the authorities should not allow a father to do this, but should also punish him and force him to remain in the measure of his fatherly power and not let him go any higher than a father deserves. It is an abominable sin if a man willfully strangles his own child, or makes him blind or lame; but how much better do you think you are doing by forcing your child to marry when he has no desire or love for it? whether it be that your child would rather be dead? Take care that you do not become a murderer of your own child by striving against the nature and manner of marriage ordained by God, and fall into a great and damnable mortal sin.
(81) Yes, this the rude have soon learned from the gospel, that fatherly power is to be feared, and children ought not to betroth themselves secretly; then they may accept the gospel, but they also go to and abuse it, and it must be their cover of shame; they want to make a sacrilegious power out of fatherly power, and that the same so freely and without conscience, as if they had earned indulgence with it. If thou wilt have the gospel to give thee power over thy child, and to require filial obedience to thee, then thou shalt have it also, when it calleth thee to deal fatherly with thy child, and forbid thee to proceed with impudent sacrilegious violence in this matter, because his soul's salvation is in danger. For you cannot give him the desire and love for his spouse, which he should and must have according to God's command,
Who wills that man and wife should love one another. If then thou canst blast out of the gospel filial disobedience, thou canst again be blasted out of it thy unpaternal iniquity. And where childish disobedience is a sin, your unpaternal wickedness is two sins, that you know it, and is to be reckoned like the tyrants who keep or force their children from the Christian faith; in that they are not guilty of obedience, but are free, and shall be disobedient, as Christ says, Matt. 10:37: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." And how a pastor may continue to do this.
How, then, if a child is forced into marriage, shall it be and remain a marriage? Answer: Yes, it is a marriage and shall remain one; for even if she is forced to it, she has in fact consented to such coercion, which she has accepted and obeyed, that her husband has received conjugal rights to her publicly, so that she cannot now be taken from him. But since she feels the compulsion is present, she should do so at the proper time, refuse and not accept it, call on some good friends; if that does not help, she should petition the authorities or complain to the priest, or publicly testify with her mouth that she does not want to do it, and thus publicly cry out against the compulsion. For these four means, namely, calling on good friends, petitioning the authorities, complaining to the priest, and crying out in public, should be powerful enough to ward off a forced marriage; indeed, the authorities can do it alone with justification or the priest with good counsel. But if she is silent in the public engagement and leaves such means untried, she should keep what she vows, and afterwards also keep quiet and neither complain nor pretend that she was forced; one should not believe her either. Yea, sayest thou, who knewest that compulsion could be resisted by such means? Answer: So learn it, whoever can and wants to; why did your preachers or judges not teach you? and why did you not seek counsel from your pastor in your distress? You do not want to have preachers or pastors; you respect and need them.
Neither does he, and acts as if one could live well without them and accomplish all things. Well then, have such fruit and the like for your reward, and leave us unaccused and unbothered; if you want it that way, it will serve you right. Why does God set you parents, pastors, authorities, if you have no need of them?
But if a case could be found, where a child, firmly kept, could not have such means and would therefore be betrothed away through intermediaries, who forgave her by force, and she could afterwards bring witnesses that she had never not consented? I wanted to absolve her even after she had fallen asleep, because it happens to her just as if a prostitute's honor is taken away by force, which is called rape and no marriage is to be counted, and all those who do such things and help are all guilty of rape and the theft of her honor. But if she can be persuaded to leave it alone and stay with her husband, as she would have to do in Turkey, then it is all the better, and by her consent it becomes a true marriage. As the Romans write, that their forefathers' wives, stolen from the Sabines, have done. As also the prostitutes, who were robbed in Shiloh, did. Judg. 21:20 f., although there the cause was different, for they were not robbed out of wantonness, but out of great need, as the text there reports.
Furthermore, one also finds such coarse people who absolutely do not want to give away their daughters, even if the child would like to and such a marriage is available that would be honorable and useful to him; but, like a coarse farmer, he blows his belly and also wants to use the gospel for courage and pretend that the child must be obedient to him. But he does not like to let the child go, because he knows how to use it at home instead of a maid, and so he seeks his own in his child. That is not to force him into marriage, but to force him out of marriage; and yet they have no conscience about such unpaternal wickedness, just as if they were doing well by it. And perhaps such rude fools have first given cause to the spiritual law to confirm the secret betrothals. For I, too, before I would have such peasant courage
I would rather advise their children and tell them to get engaged behind such fathers' will. For paternal power is given to fathers by God, not for the sake of courage, nor to harm the children, but to promote and help them, and whoever needs the paternal power otherwise, or needs it to hinder the children, loses it with it and should not be regarded as a father, but as an enemy and corrupter of his own children.
85. Now this is my advice: If it happens that the father or the father's governors refuse to give a child, it is a matter for good friends, the priest or even the authorities to recognize that the marriage is honorable and useful for the child, and the child's parents or governors seek their benefit or goodwill; then the authorities shall take the child in the father's place as deserti (abandoned), like orphans, and force the father; And if he will not, take him by the head, and cast him into a hole, and so deprive him of all his father's power, and punish him as a public enemy, not only of his child, and of God, but also of all the discipline, honor, usefulness, and improvement of the whole community; for he, as much as there is in him, hinders and hurts the citizenship and community, so that it does not grow and become greater, but less, and deprives the city of a citizen. If the authorities do not want to do this, the priest should advise and help with good friends as much as he can, and give the child, as abandoned by the father, even prevented, free power before God to betroth himself with a good conscience, and confirm such marriage. And all of this for the reason that paternal power is not a free offense created by God, but is obligated to serve the children first and foremost with counsel and help for good and honor, and to promote and seek the betterment and increase of the community with all diligence. The parish priests should publicly expose the wickedness of such rude people in the most disgraceful way, so that they may have a conscience about it; and even though they do not fear God, they must be ashamed of themselves before men and obey the authorities.
(86) Again, if it happens that a child also rebels against his father and wants to use the gospel for his courage, because he knows and relies on it that he should not be forced but left to his own will, since he may hang on with a mad love and thus refuse a marriage that would be praiseworthy and honorable for him according to the knowledge of good friends or also of the priest and authorities. Here, one should truly leave the father the power to punish the child; For since marriage is honorable and the child is to be advised, according to the knowledge of pious good people, that the father is neither wronged nor wicked in this, but feels true fatherly loyalty, then the child, if it has no other cause than its mad youthful love, should be punished so that it sticks elsewhere, to be attached elsewhere, let him leave such love and render filial obedience to his father's faithful counsel, and know, if he does not do so, that he is not free to resist such a father's will without sin, but is in danger against the fourth commandment of God; for Christian liberty is not given to any man to use for his own pleasure and goodwill, or to harm, damage, or distress others, but only for the need and danger of conscience, that by it each may serve and benefit the other.
Because the world is full of cunning and deceit, and a child can excuse himself and pretend that he is not doing this out of spite or mad love, but cannot and may not love him or her, the fathers must be instructed in their reason and modesty how they should act with such children. But the preachers should nevertheless report diligently to the young people here and keep the conscience to childlike obedience with indications where they lie in such a case and excuse themselves unjustly, that they sin against fatherly authority twice, both with disobedience and also with deceit, which will not do them any good afterwards, and it is to be feared that they will get an unfortunate marriage as punishment or a short life. That they do not watch and joke in this, they do not deceive the father, but certainly themselves, because God will find their lying and deceiving well. If that is enough
If I were to disobey, if I loved something else and did not want to let it go, there would be no obedience either in heaven or on earth. Abraham also loved his son Isaac, yet he had to let him go and dare. That is enough for the first of the five articles.
The second part.
[Of divorce.]
(88) Necessity demands that we also say something about divorce and other matters, such as the members of the clan and the like. We have just heard that death is the only cause of divorce; and because God commanded in the Law of Moses to stone adulterers to death, it is certain that adultery also divorces marriage, because by it the adulterer is condemned and condemned to death. Therefore also Christ, Matth. 19, 6, when he forbids that married couples should not divorce, he excludes adultery and says: "Whoever puts away his wife, unless it be for fornication, and takes another, commits adultery." This saying is also confirmed by Joseph, Matth. 1, 20, when he wanted to leave Mary because he considered her an adulteress, and yet he is praised by the evangelist for being pious. Of course, he would not be a pious man if he wanted to leave Mary, if he did not have the power and the right to do so.
(89) Accordingly, I cannot and do not object where one spouse breaks the marriage, and it can be proved publicly that the other part is free and may divorce and marry another. However, where it can be done, that they be reconciled and kept together is much better. If, however, the innocent party does not wish to do so, he may use his right in the name of God; and, above all, that such a divorce be pronounced not by his own power, but by the council and judgment of the priest or authorities. Unless, like Joseph, he wants to leave secretly and vacate the land; otherwise, where he wants to stay, he should arrange a public divorce.
(90) But in order that such a divorce may be lessened as much as possible, one should first not allow the other to change again so soon, but wait at least a year or half a year; otherwise it has an annoying appearance, as if he had pleasure and joy in the fact that his spouse has broken the marriage, and thus causes him to get rid of it and freshly take another, and thus exercise his will of courage under the cover of justice. For such evil shows that it is not out of disgust at the adultery, but out of envy and hatred of his spouse, and out of lust and vainglory for another, that he so willingly lusts after the adulteress and so greedily seeks another.
91 Secondly, the priests should be diligent that the guilty party, if the authorities do not punish him, humble himself against the innocent party and ask for mercy. When this is done, then confidently reprove the innocent party with the Scripture, since God commands that one should forgive, and thus press hard on the conscience and show how grave a sin it is if he does not forgive his spouse, who remains unpunished and unchased by the authorities, and accepts correction again. For it is very easy for all of us to fall. And who is without sin? Also, as we would have our neighbor forgive us if we had fallen, so we should do again to others; and so henceforth Christian love and duty, since we owe it to one to forgive another if it mends, are to be enforced mightily here, and so help to stop this right of divorce as much as one can. If that does not help, then let the law go.
92) About this there is now another case, namely, if one spouse runs away from the other, etc. whether here the other may marry with another? Here I answer thus: If it happens that one spouse moves away from the other with knowledge and will, as merchants, or is called to war, or whatever other needs and things are, that they both grant such. Here the other party shall wait and not change until he is certain and has credible evidence that his spouse is dead; as the pope also sets in his decrees and is almost more lax than I am. For
Because the woman consents to such a journey of her husband and puts herself in such danger, she should also keep it that way, and especially if it may happen for the sake of good, as with merchants. If, for the sake of good, she can consent to her husband's traveling in such danger, she will also have such danger where she comes; why does she not keep him at home with less good and let her be content in poverty?
93. But if it is such a boy, of whom I have found many this time, who takes a wife and stays with her for a while, feasts and lives well; then runs away secretly and treacherously without her knowledge and will, leaves her pregnant or with children, sends her nothing, writes her nothing, takes nothing from her, runs after his debauchery, then comes back for one, two, three, four, five, six years and relies on her having to accept him again when he comes, and the city and house are open to him; here it would be time and need for the authorities to issue a strict commandment and keep it tight. And where a knave would submit to such trickery and treachery that the country would be forbidden him, and where he would one day be seized, that his wages would be given to him, as befits a knave. For such a knave has his mockery, both of marriage and of the city law, he does not consider his wife as his wife, nor child as child, for he deprives them of owed duty, food, service, provision etc. against their knowledge and will and strives against the nature and manner of marriage, which is called and is such a life and state that husband and wife, joined together, shall remain, dwell and live with each other until death; as also the secular laws say individuam consuetudinem vitae etc. (a single common way of life). (a single common way of life) and without both consent or unavoidable necessity shall not be nor live from each other. Moreover, as a renegade, disobedient man, he deprives the authorities and the neighborhood of his body and service, as he has sworn to do, so he is used as a thief and robber of the city, the woman, house and property, when he comes running, and no one shall nor can use him. I would not rather have a boy hanged or beheaded than such a boy. And should I or would I have time to paint and paint out such a boy,
I wanted to make it clear that no adulterer should be comparable to him. Therefore I have advised and still advise, where one wants to do it differently, if in a village or town such a boy is, who has been away for a year or half a year in such a way, that the parish priest or the authorities advise and help the woman to look for the boy, where she can and is able to find him, and demand for a certain time; if he does not come, that one publicly accuses him at the church or town hall and also demands him publicly, in addition with threat, one wants to exclude him and to pronounce the woman free. If he then does not come, he shall never come again. But this robbery has been so mean, and has remained unpunished, that it is not to be said, and yet no authority, neither ecclesiastical nor secular, is to suffer [but to punish].
(94) Such and such evil is all due to the fact that it has not been preached or heard what marriage is. No one considered it to be a work or a state that God commanded and placed under temporal authority; therefore everyone treated it as a free lord with his own property, since he could do with it as he wished and should have no conscience about it. No, dear journeyman, if you are bound to a wife, you are no longer a free lord: God compels and commands you to stay with your wife and child, to feed and raise them, and then to obey your authority, help and advise your neighbor. You want to leave such noble, good deeds and use all the good and benefits that marriage and status bring with them. Yes, dear, you should let Master Hans show you on the gallows. It is not valid to do vain harm and damage to everyone and to take vain benefit and good from everyone in return.
95 But if one runs away from the other out of anger or impatience, that is a very different matter; it is also not such a secretly murderous running away. Here we have from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 7:4, what one should do, namely, be reconciled again, or if reconciliation is not possible, remain without marriage. For it may well happen that they are better off than with each other. Otherwise
St. Paul did not allow them to remain without marriage where they did not want to be reconciled; and who can tell all these things or put them into laws? reasonable people must judge here.
(96) How, if the man or the woman be beheaded or put out of the country, shall the other also go with, or remain and change? Answer: They shall bear such an accident with one another, and not therefore separate from one another. For as they have become one body, so must they also remain one body, whether honor or dishonor, wealth or poverty. For thus we read, Matt. 18:25, that the servant who owed his master ten thousand pounds was to be sold, not only for his person, but also for his wife and children etc. So a man's wife would have to enjoy and pay for both.
There are many more cases than those in which poison or murder is committed. For example, when a woman is forced by her husband to steal or commit shameful fornication. But there the authorities and reasonable people can well advise them, for no one can be forced to sin. So a husband must dare his danger because of poison or murder, especially if it is done secretly; the authorities or friends can control and prevent obvious intentions.
From the clan.
For the sake of the clan and the members of friendship, my advice would be to leave it at the secular laws; or if, according to the spiritual law, the third and fourth members are also forbidden, I will let it happen. For the sake of the wild, coarse, savage people, who despise the gospel and abuse it for the sake of their own will, I would not have them take hold of the fifth, the sixth, or the seventh member, for they are not worthy of comfort or freedom. Let it now be done what it will with this, so one should nevertheless create that those who have reached into the third or fourth member or still reach into it, are not made conscience before God, 'especially where they are otherwise good, pious, reasonable people, because it is in the imperial right
and is not forbidden in the Scriptures and is in broad daylight, that the pope and the clergy themselves do not keep the prohibition in the third and fourth member, but take money and sell both, the fourth and third member, the second well with it. If mammon can do this without God's word, then God's word should also be able to do it without mammon.
(99) Therefore, although the second member is forbidden in the secular laws, namely, that one should not take his brother's or sister's daughter in marriage, yet if it had happened, as has often happened with some great kings by papal permission, and might still happen, that a Jew would become a Christian with his wife, who would be his friend in the other member and not forbidden to him by the Law of Moses, just as Abraham and Nahor took their brother Haran's daughters, Genesis 11:29. 11:29, these marriages should still be allowed to remain and not divorced, as the imperial laws also allow and advise in such cases. For even though it is a marriage that began with disobedience of the secular law, since it has now been consummated and is not contrary to God's word, and the wife has become free of honor and worthless, it should remain a marriage out of grace, to prevent greater evil. I say this for the sake of consciences, which perhaps would not be satisfied if the pope had allowed it or sold it for money. But what the forbidden members or persons are in secular law, I leave to the lawyers and legal experts to teach; I write more for the sake of conscience than for the sake of rights.
Here a wise jurist will perhaps pretend: The imperial laws have subordinated themselves to the ecclesiastical law in this matter, therefore it is nothing that one would want to adhere to the secular law; because the latter now subordinates itself to the ecclesiastical law, we must also adhere to it. I answer: I know, alas, all too well, that the emperors have subjected themselves with their law to the pope and to spiritual law; but how gladly they have done this, and how dear it has been to God, how fine it has turned out, the infinite, horrible bloodshed, which the pope has thereby caused, convinces us all too well.
In addition, there is the inextinguishable eternal hatred, envy, discord and innumerable other abominations that have raged between the popes and emperors up to now and may almost never cease to the utterly unspeakable and insurmountable harm of all Christendom throughout the world. It is said: "Pray to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's", Matth. 22, 21. Because the imperial law has taken care of marriage matters as a secular trade and has defined and discussed them, my dear pope should have let it stay that way and not have taken hold of a foreign office, which he was not commanded to do, because that means to steal and take by force.
101 If I were a servant, and my lord would take much danger of his body and goods, and neglect himself, verily I would not always follow him, I would draw back; would he not follow nor obey, that he might leave it. So also here: If the emperor wanted to forgive much and throw himself completely under the pope, until he also wanted to command all my body and property, we do not have to follow the emperor; for with that the imperial regiment would be nothing everywhere, if it should hover over all authority on earth. Here, too, because this is laid down in imperial law, it should be obeyed, as was done in times past, when there were as many devout Christians as there are now, regardless of the fact that the mighty robber and hunter, the pope, subsequently took possession of it and subdued it, or that the emperor subdued it. I say this for the consciences to report. But whoever wants to go with the emperor under the pope, let him always go; I will not consent to such papal robbery and imperial subjugation, lest I also partake of all the fruits that have come from such robbery and subjugation, namely, so much blood, murder, hatred, discord and ruin of Christendom until the last day; as said above.
(102) It is true that to afflict the desperate, wicked [and God-forgetting] world, no better regiment has come on earth than the Turk and the Pope, nor could any man be a ruler.
A better rule would come for them, unless it were the devil's own rule without means. For the world is not worthy to have a line of good and useful law, nor to see a pious overlord, but it should have vain evil and harmful rights, vain tyrants and wicked despots, who belong to the world, for it cannot stand the good law and pious people. That is why I do not worry much, since I alone can report and comfort the consciences, that after that the bad boys Pabst, Turk and devil will go underfoot, God grant, they judge right or wrong; because they do not harm the good consciences, if they have right report and understanding, and we can suffer such plague outwardly well beside the world.
Here I will conclude and leave it for this time, and as above, so also now, advise my dear lords and brothers, the parish priests and pastors, that they reject the matrimonial matters as secular affairs, written in secular laws, and abstain from them as much as they always can, and let the authorities or officials deal with them. Except where their counsel is needed in conscience; as where some matrimonial cases have occurred in which the officials or teachers of the law have entangled and confused the consciences, or otherwise a marriage has been performed contrary to the law, that they exercise their office there and comfort the consciences and not leave them in doubt or error. For if such a case or error or doubt should arise that the conscience could not be helped unless the law or right were abrogated, and yet the same right, because it is common in the world, could not be publicly abrogated, then in the sight of God and secretly in the conscience one should pay more attention to the conscience than to the right; and if one must give way and be vacated, then the right should give way and be vacated, so that the conscience may be released and set free. For law is a temporal thing that must cease at last, but conscience is an eternal thing that never dies. Now if one should kill or entrap an eternal thing, so that a perishable thing remains and becomes free, that would be too unreasonable. Rather, it should be the other way around, that a perishable thing should rather be under
For a sparrow is better than a man, that the sparrow remain. It is better to strangle a sparrow, that the man remain, than to strangle a man, that the sparrow remain. Right is for the sake of conscience, and not conscience for the sake of right. Now if you cannot help both at the same time, help conscience and help right.
I say this because I have often heard confessors complain that such matrimonial matters have come before them that were impossible to settle, and they said: We have to entrust the matter to the gratuitous goodness of God. I have also seen what the doctors, especially Gerson, had to do with the perplexis conscientiis, confused consciences. All this means that spiritual and secular law were mixed together and the external, transient rights were regarded as equal to the internal, eternal rights. But it is not a fine study in rights if one makes confused consciences with it. Rights should frighten and punish, defend and forbid, but they should not confuse and entangle. But where they confuse, they are certainly no longer rights, or ever not rightly understood. Therefore, where you find that a confusion in the conscience wants to rise above the right, then tear confidently through the right, like a millstone through a spider's web, and act as if no right had ever been born there. And if you cannot tear it outwardly before the world, let it go and tear it in the conscience; it is better to leave body and goods confused in the law than the conscience and the soul.
105 And especially this rule or manner shall be kept in praeteritis, that is, when a thing is done, and say, what is done is done; gone is gone, who can gather up again so purely that which is spilt? See to it henceforth that it be done no more, and forgive and forget what is done, to spare the consciences. A wise physician does right when he spares the medicine, because the man is healthy, but when the man is sick and he then wants to leave the man lying there first, so that he may save the medicine, he is a fool. So here, too, he who wants to restore the right that has passed so completely purely that he would rather save the conscience.
If a man wants to be stuck above it before he wants to let something go of the right, that is the greatest fool on earth; just as the monks and clergymen were wise under the papacy. To learn or know the right is not a great art, but to use the right and to keep it in its aim and ring, so that it does not go too far, that is an art.
I should also have dealt with the ecclesiastical law or the pope's decree in this; but it is so disorderly thrown together and often contrary to each other, as that which is gathered from the pope's epistles, which are given for various times and things, that it would be too much trouble for me and give birth to a tremendous disputation, which I could not do with many bows; as has happened to the jurists and happens daily, when they have to pull it together and compare it. It is true that there are many good judgments.
and judgments therein, some of which are also.
It is considered that Angelus*) has summarized it in his Summa, which I let happen, but I would not like that I should follow Angelus in all pieces. Therefore, this is my advice: let the secular rights act here; but in conscience our canon (guideline) should be: Quod publica sponsalia praejudicarent clandestinis et privatis. Sic ante copulata came, praejudicent sponsalibus futuris, caeteris paribus, etc. (That is, that the public betrothals should interfere with the secret or private betrothals. But if carnal intermarriage has taken place in these, the public betrothals shall give way to them etc.).