Part 23 (2/2)
Granted that they were holy men and impelled by Godly zeal, why should another's holiness disturb my liberty? why should another's zeal take me captive? Let whoever will, be a saint and a zealot, and to his heart's content; only let hi harm upon another, and let hilad that those shalory, which is this: the Roh them become merchants What is it they sell? The shame of men and worown altogether filthy and obscene through greed and Godlessness For there is nowadays no hindrance that alised upon the intercession ofinto existence for the sole purpose of serving those grasping and robbing Ni souls, and in order that that ”aboht stand ”in the holy place,” [Matt 24:15] the Church of God, and openly sell to men the shame of either sex, or as the Scriptures say, ”shame and nakedness,”
[Lev 13:6 ff] of which they had previously robbed them by means of their laws O worthy trade for our pontiffs to ply, instead of the reed and pride they despise, being delivered up to a reprobate sense with utter shame and infamy
[Rom 1:28]
But what shall I say or do? If I enter into details, the treatise will grow to inordinate length, for everything is in such dire confusion one does not knohere to begin, whither to go on, or where to leave off I know that no state is well governed by istrate be wise, he will rule more prosperously by natural bent than by laws If he be not wise, he will but further the evil by means of laws; for he will not knohat use to make of the laws nor how to adapt theht, therefore, to be laid, in civil affairs, on putting good and wiselaws; for such e every variety of case with lively justice And if there be knowledge of the divine law combined with natural wisdom, then written laill be entirely superfluous and harmful Above all, love needs no lahatever[140]
Nevertheless I will say and do what I can I admonish and pray all priests and brethren[141], when they encounter any hindrance frorant dispensation and which is not expressly contained in the Scriptures, by all e that may have been contracted[143] in any way contrary to the ecclesiastical or pontifical laws But let them arm themselves with the divine lahich says, ”What God hath joined together, let no ether of a , however it ive way before it without hesitation For if a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife, how much more will he tread underfoot the silly and wicked laws of men[144] in order to cleave to his wife! And if pope, bishop or official[145] annul any e because it was contracted contrary to the laws of uilty of lese-majesty toward God, because this word stands,--”What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” [Matt 19:6]
Besides this, no ranted to Christians a liberty which is above all laws of men, especially where a law of God conflicts with them Thus it is said in Mark ii, ”The Son of man is lord also of the sabbath,” [Mark 2:28]
and, ”The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath” [Mark 2:27] Moreover, such laere condemned beforehand by Paul, when he foretold that there would beto marry [1 Ti froal relationshi+p[146], and consanguinity ive way, so far as the Scriptures peruinity alone is prohibited Thus it is written in Leviticus xviii, in which chapter there are twelve persons a ; namely, his mother, his mother-in-law, his full sister, his half-sister by either parent, his granddaughter, his father's or hter-in-law, his brother's wife, his wife's sister, his stepdaughter, and his uncle's wife [Lev 18:6 ff] Here only the first degree of affinity and the second degree of consanguinity are forbidden; yet not without exception, as will appear on closer exahter, or the niece, is not included in the prohibition, although she is in the second degree Therefore, if a rees, it should by no means be annulled on account of the laws of men, since it is nowhere written in the Bible that any other degrees were prohibited by God Marriage itself, as of divine institution, is incoe should not be annulled for the sake of the laws, rather should the laws be broken for the sake of e
That nonsense about conpaternities, conmaternities, confraternities, consororities, and confilieties e has been contracted What was it but the superstition of men that invented those spiritual relationshi+ps?[147]
If one may not marry the person one has baptised or stood sponsor for, what right has any Christian to rows out of the external rite, or the sign, of the sacra[148]
of the sacrament itself? Is not a Christian man brother to a Christian woman, and is not she his sister? Is not a baptised man the spiritual brother of a baptised woman? How foolish we are! If a man instruct his wife in the Gospel and in faith in Christ and thus becoht for her to reht to ation, of whootton them all in Christ? [1 Cor 4:15] Lo, thus has Christian liberty been suppressed through the blindness of hual relationshi+p[149], and yet they have set it above the divine right of nise that hindrance which they terion,”[150] and which forbids one to marry any unbaptised person, even on condition that she become converted to the faith Who ave to e? The spirits, forsooth, that speak lies in hypocrisy, as Paul says [1 Tim 4:1] Of them it must be said: ”The wicked have told me fables; but not as thy law” [Ps 119:85] The heathen Patricius ustine; why should not the same be permitted nowadays?
The same stupid, nay, wicked cruelty is seen in ”the hindrance of crime,”[151]--as when a man has married a woman ho about the death of a woman's husband in order to be able to wed theI pray you, whence comes this cruelty of man toward man, which even God never demanded? Do they pretend not to know that Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, ed by David, a most saintly man, after the double crime of adultery and murder? If the divine law did this, what do these despotic men to their fellowservants?
Another hindrance is that which they call ”the hindrance of a tie,”[152]--as when abetrothed to another woe of the second, the betrothal with the first becomes null and void This I do not understand at all I hold that he who has betrothed hier to himself, and because of this act, by the prohibition of the divine law, he belongs to the first, though he has not known her, even if he has known the second For it was not in his power to give the latter as no longer his own; he deceived her and actually coard the matter differently because they pay more heed to the carnal union than to the divine cohted his troth to the first, is bound to keep it for ever For whoever would give anything ive of that which is his own And God forbids a man to overreach or circumvent his brother in any matter [1 Thess 4:6] This prohibition must be kept, over and above all the traditions of all ood conscience live in e with the second woman, and this hindrance should be completely overthrown For if a er his ohy does not a proiven and received do the same?--since this[153] is one of the precepts and fruits of the Spirit (Galatians v) [Gal 5:22 f; Eph 5:9], while a monastic vow is of human invention And if a wife may claim her husband despite the act that he has taken a monastic vohy h he has known another? But we said above[154] that he who has plighted his troth to a ht not to take a monastic vow, but is in duty bound to keep faith with her, which faith he cannot break for any tradition of men, because it is commanded by God Much more should the man here keep faith with his first bride, since he could not plight his troth to a second save with a lying heart, and therefore did not really plight it, but deceived her, his neighbor, against God's command Therefore, the ”hindrance of error”[155] enters in here, by which his e to the second woman is rendered null and void
The ”hindrance of ordination”[156] also is a lying invention of men, especially since they prate that even a contracted e is annulled by it Thus they constantly exalt their traditions above the coment on the present state of the priestly order, but I observe that Paul charges a bishop to be the husband of one wife [1 Tie of deacon, priest, bishop or any other order can be annulled,--although it is true that Paul knew nothing of this species of priests, and of the orders that we have to-day Perish those cursed human traditions, which have crept into the Church only to multiply perils, sins and evils! There exists, therefore, between a priest and his wife a true and indissoluble e, approved by the divine commandment But what if wicked men in sheer despotis ht before God, Whose command must needs take precedence if it conflicts with the co invention is that ”hindrance of public decency,”[157]
by which contracted es are annulled I am incensed at that barefaced wickedness which is so ready to put asunder what God hath joined together that one may well scent antichrist in it, for it opposes all that Christ has done and taught What earthly reason is there for holding that no relative of a deceased husband, even to the fourth degree, norance[158] of public decency
Why was not this judg the people of Israel, ere endoith the best laws, the laws of God? On the contrary, the next of kin was even compelled by the law of God to marry theof his relative [Deut 25:5] Must the people of Christian liberty be burdened with severer laws than the people of legal bondage? But, to ments, rather than hindrances--thus far there seem to me to be no hindrances that e save these: inorance of a previously contractedthe last, I am to this day so far froe such a vow is to be regarded as binding; as I also said above in discussing the sacrament of baptise, horetchedly and desperately all the activities of the Church have been confused, hindered, ensnared, and subjected to danger through the pestilent, ignorant and wicked traditions of men, so that there is no hope of betterment unless we abolish at one stroke all the laws of all e and rule all things Amen
[Sidenote: Impotence]
We have to speak, then, of sexual impotence, that we may the more readily advise the souls that are in peril[160] But first I wish to state that what I have said of hindrances is intended to apply after a e should be annulled by any such hindrance But as to es which are to be contracted, I would briefly repeat what I said above[161] Under the stress of youthful passion or of any other necessity for which the pope grants dispensation, any brother rant a dispensation to another or even to hi that counsel snatch his wife out of the power of the tyrannical laws as best he can For hat right anorance? If the pope grants a dispensation for rant a dispensation to myself or to my brother? Does the pope set up laws? Let him set them up or himself, and keep hands off my liberty; else I will take it by stealth! Now let us discuss thecase A woman, wed to an impotent man, is unable to prove her husband's i to do so with the mass of evidence and all the notoriety which the law de children or is unable to remain continent Now suppose I had counseled her to demand a divorce from her husband in order to marry another, satisfied that her own and her husband's conscience and their experience were ample testimony of his impotence; but the husband refused his consent to this Then suppose I should further counsel her, with the consent of the man (who is not really her husband, but ive herself to another, say her husband's brother, but to keep this e secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father The question is: Is such a woman in a saved state? I answer, Certainly Because in this case the error and ignorance of the e; the tyranny of the laws perh the divine law, and cannot be coht to yield her this right, and let another man have her as hom he has only in outward appearance
Moreover, if the ree to this division,--rather than allow the woman to burn or to coe with another and flee to distant parts unknown What other counsel could be given to one constantly in danger from lust? Now I know that some are troubled by the act that then the children of this secret htful heirs of their putative father But if it was done with the consent of the husband, then the children will be the rightful heirs
If, however, it was done without his knowledge or against his will, then let unbiased Christian reason, nay, let Christian charity, decide which of the two has done the greater injury to the other The wife alienates the inheritance, but the husband has deceived his wife and is co her of her body and her life Is not the sin of the reater sin than that of the wooods of her husband?
Let hiree to a divorce, or else be satisfied with strange heirs; for by his own fault he deceived the innocence of a maiden and defrauded her of the proper use of her body, besides giving her a wellnigh irresistible opportunity to cohed in the saht, deceit should all back on the deceiver, and whoever has done an injury ood What is the difference between such a husband and the ether with her husband? Is not such a tyrant compelled to support wife and children and husband, or else to set them free? Why should not the same hold here? Therefore I maintain that the man should be compelled either to submit to a divorce or to support the other ment of charity In that case, the impotent man, who is not really the husband, should support the heirs of his wife in the sareat cost wait on his wife if she fell sick or suffered some other ill; for it is by his fault and not by his wife's that she suffers this ill This have I set forth to the best ofof anxious consciences, being desirous to bring my afflicted brethren in this captivity what little comfort I can[162]
[Sidenote: Divorce]
As to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it be allowable
For amy to it,[163] but whether it be allowable, I do not venture to decide
Christ Himself, the Chief Pastor[164], says in Matthew v, ”Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” [Matt 5:32] Christ, then, permits divorce, but for the cause of fornication only The pope rants a divorce for any other cause, and no one should feel safe who has obtained a dispensation by this tereater wonder toseparated from his wife, and why they will not permit him to remarry
For if Christ permits divorce for the cause of fornication and compels no one to remain unmarried, and if Paul would rather have one marry than burn [1 Cor 7:9], then He certainly seems to permit a man to marry another woman in the stead of the one who has been put away