MARRIAGE

Not only is marriage regarded as a sacrament without the least warrant

of Scripture, but the very traditions which extol it as a sacrament

have turned it into a farce. Let me explain.

We said[131] that there is in every sacrament a word of divine

promise, to be believed by whoever receives the sign, and that the

sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now we read nowhere that the man who

marries a wife receives any grace of God. Nay, there is not even a

divinely instituted sign in marriage, for nowhere do we read that

marriage was instituted by God to be a sign of anything. To be sure,

whatever takes place in a visible manner may be regarded as a type or

figure of something invisible; but types and figures are not

sacraments in the sense in which we use this term. Furthermore, since

marriage existed from the beginning of the world and is still found

among unbelievers, it cannot possibly be called a sacrament of the New

Law and the exclusive possession of the Church. The marriages of the

ancients were no less sacred than are ours, nor are those of

unbelievers less true marriages than those of believers, and yet they

are not regarded as sacraments. Besides, there are even among

believers married folk who are wicked and worse than any heathen; why

should marriage be called a sacrament in their case and not among the

heathen? Or are we going to prate so foolishly of baptism and the

Church as to hold that marriage is a sacrament only in the Church,

just as some make the mad claim that temporal power exists only in the

Church? That is childish and foolish talk, by which we expose our

ignorance and our arrogance to the ridicule of unbelievers.

But they will say: The Apostle writes in Ephesians v, "They shall be

two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament." [Eph. 5:31 f.] Surely

you are not going to contradict so plain a statement of the Apostle! I

reply: This argument, like the others, betrays great shallowness and a

negligent and thoughtless reading of Scripture. Nowhere in Holy

Scripture is this word sacrament employed in the meaning to which we

are accustomed; it has an entirely different meaning. For wherever it

occurs it signifies not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred,

secret, hidden thing. Thus Paul writes in i Corinthians iv, "Let a man

so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the

mysteries[132]--i. e., sacraments--of God." [1 Cor. 4:1] Where we have

the word _sacrament_ the Greek text reads _mystery_, which word our

version sometimes translates and sometimes retains in its Greek form.

Thus our verse reads in the Greek: "They shall be two in one flesh;

this is a great _mystery_." [Eph. 5:31] This explains how they came to

find a sacrament of the New Law here--a thing they would never have

done if they had read the word _mystery_, as it is in the Greek[133].

Thus Christ Himself is called a sacrament in I Timothy iii, "And

evidently great is the sacrament--i. e., mystery--of godliness, which

was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared

unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed by the

world, is taken up in glory."[1 Tim. 3:16][134] Why have they not

drawn out of this passage an eighth sacrament of the New Law, since

they have the clear authority of Paul? But if they restrained

themselves here, where they had a most excellent opportunity to

unearth a new sacrament, why are they so wanton in the former passage?

It was their ignorance, forsooth, of both words and things; they clung

to the mere sound of the words, nay, to their own fancies. For, having

once arbitrarily taken the word sacrament to mean a sign, they

straightway, without thought or scruple, made a sign of it every time

they came upon it in the Sacred Scriptures. Such new meanings of words

and such human customs they have also elsewhere dragged into Holy

Writ, and conformed it to their dreams, making anything out of any

passage whatsoever. Thus they continually chatter nonsense about the

terms: good and evil works, sin, grace, righteousness, virtue, and

wellnigh every one of the fundamental words and things. For they

employ them all after their own arbitrary judgment, learned from the

writings of men, to the detriment both of the truth of God and of our

salvation.

Therefore, _sacrament_, or _mystery_, in Paul's writings, is that

wisdom of the Spirit, hidden in a mystery [1 Cor. 2:7 ff.], as he says

in i Corinthians ii, which is Christ, Who is for this very reason not

known to the princes of this world, wherefore they also crucified Him,

and Who still is to them foolishness, an offense, a stone of stumbling

[1 Cor. 1:23; Rom. 9:33], and a sign which is spoken against [Luke

2:34]. The preachers he calls dispensers of these mysteries because

they preach Christ, the power and the wisdom of God [1 Cor. 1:23 f.;

4:1], yet so that one cannot receive this unless one believe.

Therefore, a sacrament is a mystery, or secret thing, which is set

forth in words and is received by the faith of the heart. Such a

sacrament is spoken of in the verse before us--"They shall be two in

one flesh. This is a great sacrament"[Eph 5:31]--which they understand

as spoken of marriage, whereas Paul wrote these words of Christ and

the Church, and clearly explained his meaning by adding, "But I speak

in Christ and in the Church." Ay, how well they agree with Paul! He

declares he is setting forth a great sacrament in Christ and the

Church, but they set it forth in a man and a woman! If such wantonness

be permitted in the Sacred Scriptures, it is small wonder if one find

there anything one please, even a hundred sacraments.

Christ and the Church are, therefore, a mystery, that is, a great and

secret thing, which it was possible and proper[135] to represent by

marriage as by a certain outward allegory, but that was no reason for

their calling marriage a sacrament. The heavens are a type of the

apostles, as Psalm xix declares; the sun is a type of Christ; the

waters, of the peoples [Ps. 19:1 ff.]; but that does not make those

things sacraments, for in every case there are lacking both the divine

institution and the divine promise, which constitute a sacrament.

Hence Paul, in Ephesians v, following his own mind[136], applies to

Christ these words in Genesis ii about marriage, or else, following

the general view,[136] he teaches that the spiritual marriage of

Christ is also contained therein, saying: "As Christ cherisheth the

Church: because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his

bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and

shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is

a great sacrament; I speak in Christ and in the Church." [Eph. 5:29

ff.] You see, he would have the whole passage apply to Christ, and is

at pains to admonish the reader to find the sacrament in Christ and

the Church, and not in marriage.[137]

Therefore we grant that marriage is a type of Christ and the Church,

and a sacrament, yet not divinely instituted, but invented by men in

the Church, carried away by their ignorance both of the word and of

the thing. Which ignorance, since it does not conflict with the faith,

is to be charitably borne with, just as many other practices of human

weakness and ignorance are borne with in the Church, so long as they

do not conflict with the faith and with the Word of God. But we are

now dealing with the certainty and purity of the faith and the

Scriptures; so that our faith be not exposed to ridicule, when after

affirming that a certain thing is contained in the Sacred Scriptures

and in the articles of our faith, we are refuted and shown that it is

not contained therein, and, being found ignorant of our own affairs,

become a stumbling-block to our opponents and to the weak; nay, that

we destroy not the authority of the Holy Scriptures. For those things

which have been delivered to us by God in the Sacred Scriptures must

be sharply distinguished from those that have been invented by men in

the Church, it matters not how eminent they be for saintliness and

scholarship.

[Sidenote: Hindrances to Marriage]

So far concerning marriage itself. But what shall we say of the wicked

laws of men by which this divinely ordained manner of life is ensnared

and tossed to and fro? Good God! it is dreadful to contemplate the

audacity of the Roman despots, who wantonly tear marriages asunder and

again force them together. Prithee, is mankind given over to the

wantonness of these men, for them to mock and in every way abuse and

make of them whatever they please, for filthy lucre's sake?

There is circulating far and wide and enjoying a great reputation, a

book whose contents have been poured together out of the cesspool of

all human traditions, and whose title is "The Angelic Sum,[138]"

though it ought rather to be "The More than Devilish Sum." Among

endless other monstrosities, which are supposed to instruct the

confessors, while they most mischievously confuse them, there are

enumerated in this book eighteen hindrances to marriage[139]. If you

will examine these with the just and unprejudiced eye of faith, you

will see that they belong to those things which the Apostle foretold:

"There shall be those that give heed to spirits of devils, speaking

lies in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry." [1 Tim. 4:1 ff.] What is

forbidding to marry if it is not this--to invent all those hindrances

and set those snares, in order to prevent men from marrying or, if

they be married, to annul their marriage? Who gave this power to men?

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 him not bring harm upon another, and let him

not rob me of my liberty!

Yet I am glad that those shameful laws have at length attained to

their full measure of glory, which is this: the Romanists of our day

have through them become merchants. What is it they sell? The shame of

men and women--merchandise, forsooth, most worthy of such merchants,

grown altogether filthy and obscene through greed and godlessness. For

there is nowadays no hindrance that may not be legalised upon the

intercession of mammon, so that these laws of men seem to have sprung

into existence for the sole purpose of serving those grasping and

robbing Nimrods as snares for taking money and as nets for catching

souls, and in order that that "abomination" might 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

ministry of the Gospel, which in their greed 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 know where to begin, whither to go on, or where to leave

off. I know that no state is well governed by means of laws. If the

magistrate 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 know what use to make of the laws nor how to

adapt them to the individual case. More stress ought, therefore, to be

laid, in civil affairs, on putting good and wise men in office than on

making laws; for such men will themselves be the very best laws, and

will judge every variety of case with lively justice. And if there be

knowledge of the divine law combined with natural wisdom, then written

laws will be entirely superfluous and harmful. Above all, love needs

no laws whatever[140].

Nevertheless I will say and do what I can. I admonish and pray all

priests and brethren[141], when they encounter any hindrance from

which the pope can grant dispensation and which is not expressly

contained in the Scriptures, by all means to confirm[142] any marriage

that may have been contracted[143] in any way contrary to the

ecclesiastical or pontifical laws. But let them arm themselves with

the divine law, which says, "What God hath joined together, let no man

put asunder." [Matt. 19:6] For the joining together of a man and a

woman is of divine law and is binding, however it may conflict with

the laws of men; the laws of men must give 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 marriage because it was contracted contrary to

the laws of men, he is antichrist, he does violence to nature, and is

guilty 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 man had the right to frame such laws, and Christ has

granted 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 laws were condemned beforehand by Paul, when he

foretold that there would be men forbidding to marry [1 Tim. 4:3].

Here, therefore, those cruel hindrances arising from affinity,

spiritual or legal relationship[146], and consanguinity must give way,

so far as the Scriptures permit, in which the second degree of

consanguinity alone is prohibited. Thus it is written in Leviticus

xviii, in which chapter there are twelve persons a man is prohibited

from marrying; namely, his mother, his mother-in-law, his full sister,

his half-sister by either parent, his granddaughter, his father's or

mother's sister, his daughter-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 examination, for the brother's or sister's daughter, or the

niece, is not included in the prohibition, although she is in the

second degree. Therefore, if a marriage has been contracted outside of

these degrees, 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 incomparably superior to any laws; so that marriage

should not be annulled for the sake of the laws, rather should the

laws be broken for the sake of marriage.

That nonsense about conpaternities, conmaternities, confraternities,

consororities, and confilieties must therefore be altogether

abolished, when a marriage has been contracted. What was it but the

superstition of men that invented those spiritual relationships?[147]

If one may not marry the person one has baptised or stood sponsor for,

what right has any Christian to marry any other Christian? Is the

relationship that grows out of the external rite, or the sign, of the

sacrament more intimate that that which grows out of the blessing[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 become truly her

father in Christ, would it not be right for her to remain his wife?

Would not Paul have had the right to marry a maiden out of the

Corinthian congregation, of whom he boasts that he has begotton them

all in Christ? [1 Cor. 4:15] Lo, thus has Christian liberty been

suppressed through the blindness of human superstition.

There is even less in the legal relationship[149], and yet they have

set it above the divine right of marriage. Nor would I recognise that

hindrance which they term "disparity of religion,"[150] and which

forbids one to marry any unbaptised person, even on condition that she

become converted to the faith. Who made this prohibition? God or man?

Who gave to men the power to prohibit such a marriage? 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 married the Christian Monica,

the mother of St. Augustine; 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 with whom he had lived

in adultery, or when he plotted to bring about the death of a woman's

husband in order to be able to wed the widow. I 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, was wed 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 a man is bound by being betrothed to another

woman. Here they decide that, if he has had carnal knowledge 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 himself to one

woman belongs no longer 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 what was no longer his own; he deceived her

and actually committed adultery. But they regard the matter

differently because they pay more heed to the carnal union than to the

divine command, according to which the man, having plighted his troth

to the first, is bound to keep it for ever. For whoever would give

anything must give 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

men. Therefore, the man in the above case cannot with a good

conscience live in marriage with the second woman, and this hindrance

should be completely overthrown. For if a monastic vow make a man to

be no longer his own, why does not a promise of betrothal given 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 vow, why may not

a bride claim her betrothed, even though he has known another? But we

said above[154] that he who has plighted his troth to a maiden ought

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 marriage 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 marriage is

annulled by it. Thus they constantly exalt their traditions above the

commands of God. I do not indeed sit in judgment on the present state

of the priestly order, but I observe that Paul charges a bishop to be

the husband of one wife [1 Tim. 3:2]; hence no marriage 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 marriage, approved by the divine commandment. But

what if wicked men in sheer despotism prohibit or annul it? So be it!

Let it be wrong among men; it is nevertheless right before God, Whose

command must needs take precedence if it conflicts with the commands

of men.

An equally lying invention is that "hindrance of public decency,"[157]

by which contracted marriages 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, may marry the latter's widow? That is not a

judgment[158] of public decency, but ignorance[158] of public decency.

Why was not this judgment of public decency found among the people of

Israel, who were endowed with the best laws, the laws of God? On the

contrary, the next of kin was even compelled by the law of God to

marry the widow of his relative [Deut. 25:5]. Must the people of

Christian liberty be burdened with severer laws than the people of

legal bondage? But, to make an end of these figments, rather than

hindrances--thus far there seem to me to be no hindrances that may

justly annul a contracted marriage save these: impotence of the

husband, ignorance of a previously contracted marriage, and a vow of

chastity. Still, concerning the last, I am to this day so far from

certain that I do not know at what age such a vow is to be regarded as

binding; as I also said above in discussing the sacrament of

baptism[159]. Thus you may learn, from this one question of marriage,

how wretchedly 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

men, restore the Gospel of liberty, and by it judge 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

marriage has been contracted; no marriage should be annulled by any

such hindrance. But as to marriages 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 may grant a dispensation to another or even

to himself, and following that counsel snatch his wife out of the

power of the tyrannical laws as best he can. For with what right am I

deprived of my liberty by another's superstition and ignorance? If the

pope grants a dispensation for money, why should not I, for my soul's

salvation, grant 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 the

matter of impotence.

Take the following case. A woman, wed to an impotent man, is unable to

prove her husband's impotence before court, or perhaps she is

unwilling to do so with the mass of evidence and all the notoriety

which the law demands; yet she is desirous of having 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 merely a dweller under the

same roof with her), to give herself to another, say her husband's

brother, but to keep this marriage 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 man's impotence are a hindrance to the marriage; the

tyranny of the laws permits no divorce; the woman is free through the

divine law, and cannot be compelled to remain continent. Therefore the

man ought to yield her this right, and let another man have her as

wife whom he has only in outward appearance.

Moreover, if the man will not give his consent, or agree to this

division,--rather than allow the woman to burn or to commit adultery,

I should counsel her to contract a marriage 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 marriage are not the

rightful 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 completely defrauding her of her body and her life. Is not the sin

of the man who wastes his wife's body and life a greater sin than that

of the woman who merely alienates the temporal goods of her husband?

Let him, therefore, agree 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 commit adultery. Let both

be weighed in the same scales. Certainly, by every right, deceit

should all back on the deceiver, and whoever has done an injury must

make it good. What is the difference between such a husband and the

man who holds another's wife captive together 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 man's child as his heir. Doubtless

this would be the judgment of charity. In that case, the impotent man,

who is not really the husband, should support the heirs of his wife in

the same spirit in which he would at great 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 of my ability, for the strengthening of 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 my part I so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy 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 must,

therefore, be in error whenever he grants a divorce for any other

cause, and no one should feel safe who has obtained a dispensation by

this temerity (not authority) of the pope. Yet it is a still greater

wonder to me, why they compel a man to remain unmarried after being

separated 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.

Would to God this matter were thoroughly threshed out and decided, so

that counsel might be given in the infinite perils of those who,

without any fault of their own, are nowadays compelled to remain

unmarried, that is, of those whose wives or husbands have run away and

deserted them, to come back perhaps after ten years, perhaps never.

This matter troubles and distresses me; I meet cases of it every day,

whether it happen by the special malice of Satan or because of our

neglect of the word of God.

I, indeed, who, alone against all, can decide nothing in this matter,

would yet greatly desire at least the passage in I Corinthians vii to

be applied here,--"But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a

brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases." [1 Cor. 7:15]

Here the Apostle gives permission to put away the unbeliever who

departs and to set the believing spouse free to marry again. Why

should not the same hold true when a believer--that is, a believer in

name, but in truth as much an unbeliever as the one Paul speaks

of--deserts his wife, especially if he never intends to return? I

certainly can see no difference between the two. But I believe that if

in the Apostle's day an unbelieving deserter had returned and had

become a believer or had promised to live again with his believing

wife, he would not have been taken back, but he too would have been

given the right to marry again. Nevertheless, in these matters I

decide nothing, as I have said,"[165] although there is nothing I

would rather see decided, since nothing at present more grievously

perplexes me and many more with me. I would have nothing decided here

on the mere authority of the pope or the bishops; but if two learned

and pious men agreed in the name of Christ and published their opinion

in the spirit of Christ [Matt. 18:19 f.], I should prefer their

judgment even to such councils as are nowadays assembled, famous only

for numbers and authority, not for scholarship and saintliness.

Herewith I hang up my harp[166][Ps. 137:2], until another and a better

man shall take up this matter with me.