Responsio 12f: if Theutberga is guilty of incest

[p 193] We say these things so that the princes and kings and rulers of the holy church may do all things according to reason and the order of law, but also so that the above-mentioned case may be decided with judgement of equity. But the same blessed Gregory described, in the letter of instruction to John the defensor who was going into Spain, the method of constituting the judgement if Hubert should come for this reason to hear an ecclesiastical judgement, not having been judged by a civil one. Gregory says: ‘First so that this may happen in an orderly way, when there are some accusers and other witnesses, let the quality of the case be explored there, whether it is worthy of exile or condemnation, so that with him present under oath, testimony may be offered against him or introduced by a written statement of acts, and so that he himself has license to reply and defend himself. But it also to be enquired subtly about the persons of the accusers and witnesses, their condition and their opinion, lest they may be destitute or perhaps may have some hostility against him and whether they give testimony from hearing or have testified that they really specially know, and let the judgement be in writing and thus let the sentence be recited and thus all these things may be solemnly confirmed.’

For the rest, if the woman is found guilty of crime with her brother before the start of the marriage, we have produced this to be considered, corresponding to the letter of the same Gregory to John, bishop of Palermo about a certain woman, who some man left before he became a deacon, and a certain man handed her over to a husband after the change of clothes. For he said: ‘Since there are faults in which it is a fault to relax the punishment, the truth should always be sought, so that it ought to be inquired whether a crime condemns the accused or whether detected innocence removes him from punishment. Therefore it came to us that Fantinus the defensor wished to exercise vengeance on Peter, the bearer of this letter, because, as it said, at the time he was a tenant he handed over the widow of a certain deacon to a husband. But Peter asserts she was not the wife of the deacon, nor did she come to him as a virgin, in short, so she might not presume to change her religious clothing after he was promoted into holy orders. He added that before she came to the deacon and afterwards she had lived with a bad reputation. Therefore we exhort your fraternity in these words to enquire into this case, with the fear of God, as is suitable, and subtle investigation in all ways. And if the woman concerned was married to the deacon then let the above-mentioned letter bearer be handed to the defensor and ruler of the patrimony mentioned for vengeance and let those who have been joined badly be separated with suitable emendation.’ We extract this from the words of St Gregory.

And just as we placed above from the words of St Augustine, that in the church excommunication and separation from the church does what killing used to do in the old law or also what it now by laws does in the state [res publica], so, just as is set before, if whatever woman, who is caught by the public laws in crimes of this kind, evading the forum’s judgement, should come to episcopal judgement, as it seems to us, according to the holy council of Ancyra, about ‘those who fornicate irrationally with men or beasts and about those women who fornicate and kill their offspring or who do things with themselves so that they expel foetuses from their womb, she should be ordered to pray among those who are very weakened [?] by an unclean spirit.’ Then, chastised by a strict ten-year penance, she will be judged to devote herself to the fruits of worthy penance until the end of her life, with the option reserved, by ecclesiastical piety to give the viaticum to her, if fear of death should attack, separated not only from the marriage bed, but from all marital consort, according to the decree of the blessed Pope Gregory to Felix, Bishop of Sicily. He said: ‘We decree about those who are faithfully taught and now stand undestroyed, planted with firm roots, that every individual should observe his descent as far as the seventh generation and as far as he knows relatives by marriage, he should not approach association of this kind of coupling. Nor indeed is any Christian allowed or will be allowed to take in marriage her whom someone from his own blood has in marriage or has stained with any illicit pollution, since such coupling is incestuous and abominable to God and all humans. But we read that formerly it was constituted by the holy fathers that the incestuous were not to be reckoned by the name of marriage. Nor also do we omit this, in this part of care, that all the incestuous are to be separated from the thresholds of holy church until they may be reconciled through satisfaction by the prayers of priests to the same holy catholic church.’ And in the canonical edict offered before St Peter: ‘If anyone should take a wife from his own relatives or she whom a relative had, let him be anathema.’ And St Ambrose on the first letter to the Corinthians says: ‘For a brother or sister is not subject to service in this way, the reverence of marriage is not due to him, who appalled the author of marriage. For that marriage is not established which is without God’s devotion.’

And St Jerome in the third book of the commentary on the letter of Paul to the Ephesians: ‘In the same way as the Church is subjected to Christ, so is the wife subjected to the husband. Husband and wife are bound by the same order as the pre-eminence and subjection that Christ and the Church have. But is it to be seen that in the way in which there is a holy joining of Christ and the Church, thus also let there be a holy bond in man and woman. But just as not every congregation of heretics can be said to be the Church of Christ, nor is Christ their head, thus not every marrying, which is not joined according to the precepts of Christ in his man (?), can rightly be called marriage, but rather adultery.’

Hence it is to be noticed intelligently, that what the doctor himself said in a letter to the priest Amandus, that ‘as long as the man lives, although he may be an adulterer, although a sodomite, although overwhelmed by all sins and deserted by his wife because of these sins, he is reckoned her husband, she is not allowed to take another man’, he says about him who sins in the marriage himself, after a legitimate marriage is started. In this law man and woman are held by equal sentence. But in this place it is a matter of her of him who, having committed incest before a legitimate marriage is started, takes away from himself/herself the legitimate marriage which he/she had been able to have.

And in the council of Agde: ‘We keep nothing at all of mercy about incestuous marriages, unless they should be cleansed by the separation of the adulterers. But the incestuous are not to be reckoned by the name of marriage, which it is deadly for them to be designated as (?).’ And St Augustine in the book about the good of marriage: ‘It is one thing not to sleep together except only for the wish to beget children, which is no sin: it is another thing indeed to seek the desire of the flesh by sleeping together, but with the spouse only, which is a venial sin. For even if they do not sleep together for the sake of propagating offspring, the propagation of offspring is not resisted for the sake of this lust, either by evil will or evil act. For those do this, who although they are called spouses, are not. Not do they retain any truth of marriage, but spread the honest name to veil infamy. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their sons, who are born against their will. For they hate to nourish or have those whom they feared to beget. Thus as they rage against those they begot unwillingly, the shadowy iniquity is disclosed in the light as clear iniquity and the hidden shameful deed proved by open cruelty. Sometimes, this lustful cruelty or lust for cruelty goes so far as to procure poisons for sterility, or, if that should not be effective, to destroy and eject the conceived foetus in some way from the womb, preferring its offspring to die rather than live, or if it lived in the womb, to kill it before it was born. Well, if both parties are like this, they are not spouses, and if they were such from the beginning, they have not come together by marriage but rather by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I dare to say that either she is in some way the whore of her husband or he is an adulterer to his wife.’

Responsio 12e: Stand by your hand

[p 187] But this kingdom was united from the hands of many in the hand of the fathers of our kings by the grace of God. And the one kingdom is one church, which ought never to be divided, just like one man and one rector in one rule, in the divisions of those kings. Nor should it be said that among our princes someone may flee from one people or one kingdom to another people or kingdom, but rather they remain in one kingdom, just as befits Christians and in the unity of mother church. St Gregory writes to John, Bishop of Cagliari about what patronage those fleeing to the church ought to have, saying: ‘If some people about whom there is an investigation should perhaps take refuge in the church, the case ought to be disposed so that neither do they suffer violence, nor do those who says they are oppressed sustain losses. Therefore let it be your care that those it concerns promise by oath to them to preserve law and justice, and let them be warned in all ways to come out and to render account for their acts.’

Following this example, our catholic princes ought to be careful that they obey divine mandates as sons of the catholic church and what they confirmed with their own hands and God as a witness, namely that they ought not only not to protect men of this kind and defend them against law and reason, but also not receive them, unless for this reason, that they come to render right account. But certain of the same kings who affirmed this so far still by the grace of God live in this body and one has gone to the Lord. But sons are born for the father, by whom, according to the Roman law which their predecessor emperors and kings built and preserved and through which they ruled their peoples and corrected them happily, ‘an action begun by a progenitor should be completed by the heirs’and thus each of the statutes of their predecessors should be kept well in all ways, just as they desire that the things they constitute to be preserved by their successors. And it does not seem trivial for kings or whoever else to infringe the things they take care to confirm with their own hands [p 188], since from divine doctrine and apostolic tradition, the confirmation of such a very great matter was always by the hand of the first in the world themselves, so that the vicars of the apostles themselves from themselves [?] decreed over celestial authority, that ‘he who should go against his subscription in anything, he himself should deprive himself of the honour’. And let the kings not say: this is constituted about bishops and not kings, but consider if they desire to be sublime and honoured in the rule of the people, under Christ the one king and priest, from the derivation of whose name they are called lords of Christ, from whose honour and love and fear they are called lords and kings by participation in his great name, although they are men just like the rest, and if they want to have a part with these in the kingdom of the heavens, with those who are anointed with holy chrism. Chrism receives its name from the name of Christ who thence anointed priests, prophets, kings and martyrs, he also anointed with the oil of delight before his brothers made whoever of them in baptism kings and priests for our God and a royal people and a royal priesthood according to the apostles John and Peter. Let them know and understand themselves to be deprived of the name of kings and the dignity of office in the eyes of God, (although they may usurp that name before the eyes of men and by unstable and earthly power) when they act against the hand of their subscription, if what they confirmed with their hand pleased God. Since, just as just and good kings live in their good and just laws, when the guilty are repressed and punished by them and innocent are lifted up and freed, so apostolic men live within rules promulgated and confirmed by their hands, by which who act against those rules, from that day on which they are constituted.

And just as the Apostles says about her who living is dead, thus also such a transgressor, (although those who now, in the places of the apostles retain him, do not judge him, either since they do not know or they conceal what has been done) if he should not correct himself before the last day will merely be judged as placed among those to be condemned in judgement for greater transgressions. For the law is not placed for the just, just as the Apostle says, but for transgressors and the wicked, homicides and parricides and fornicators and the remaining sinners. For, written not without cause, it is read, that the words of the decalogue are written by the finger of God. Indeed he decreed that law would be valid forever which he wrote with his finger, that is his spirit. And the Lord says about the elect in the gospel: Rejoice, since your names are written in heaven. But the prophet Jeremiah said about the reprobate: Withdrawing from you, O Lord, they are written in earth. But this is not to be understood childishly, as if God wrote the good in the heavens, the bad in the earth for the remedy of forgetfulness, but to be understood beneficially, [p 189] that he who should do either heavenly or earthly works, through these, as if by letters, commented on, he may be eternally impressed in the memory of God. In this law is demonstrated, that what anyone should confirm by his hand justly and rationally he should preserve inviolably and with persistent justice.

Not in vain does he who comes for baptism, if he is of age or the godfather for the boy, but also the one publicly doing penance coming to reconciliation, by church tradition, give his own name written, which is placed upon the holy altar among the celebration of the celestial mysteries and commended to the Lord by the priest reciting it at the place. But none the less in the holy diptychs the names of the faithful both living and dead are not frivolously written and those of the unfaithful are erased from the same diptychs after death by holy judgement if they should have been written down. But perhaps the princes say, as if supported by imperial license: What great evil do I do against God or who will judge me thence if I either infringe or do not notice a precept or edict confirmed by my hand? First, indeed, let them notice that if they are over others, God is over them. And if they should act wickedly and not correct themselves they will be judged the more gravely, the more they are loftily preferred on the royal throne. For kings and priests correct the wicked acts of their subjects, but they ought not to forget that their evils will be judged by the same Lord, not ought they to hear with deaf ear what is written: The powerful will suffer torments powerfully, but mercy is conceded to the small. Therefore let them read the history of holy Abraham who received a charter of confirmation from the seller of his wife’s tomb before his sons and the people of the land as so great, that he worshipped on the land, the people of the land, that is the sons of Eth (?), since he obtained that by their heard concession, and they [the princes] will be able to find how the great (?) ought to consider this. But also they will find sufficiently in the Law about this confirmation, which flourished only before the coming of Christ, so that Pilate instructed by ancient custom said to the Jews demanding that what he had written in the inscription over Christ might be gainsaid: ‘What I have written, I have written’, not wanting what he had done to be unfinished or unchanged. Which also long before was confirmed by the Lord stipulations, just as is written above the inscription of the title to the psalm: Do not corrupt. And in the book of Tobit is read how a chirograph (that is written by hand) ought to be believed to be of very certain stability and firmness and is it demonstrated in the gospel about written bonds. [p 190] But certain princes (may God make this far from our Christian princes) perhaps do not see that their confirmation remains after they are infirm, and withdraw themselves and just as St Augustine says the acts passes and the guilt remains. They give what was theirs to holy places by confirmation and usurp it for themselves by occupation, which, so that the poorer of the world may not obtain them by interceding payment (?), rather they also take them away for themselves and do not give them to the holy places and they perpetrate sacrilege when they ought to have provided a remedy for themselves. Therefore St Gregory in the letter to the subdeacon Sabinus writes: ‘It is sacrilege and against the laws if someone tempts from effort of bad will to retain what is relinquished to holy places from his savings (?). Let clerics or seculars who should presume to retain either offerings of relatives or donations or things left by will or should think to take away that which they themselves donated to churches of monasteries, be excluded from church, just as the holy synod states, just like killers of the poor, until they return those things.’

Therefore let them know that along with their own sins, they will also be punished for the sake of all the sins of those who gave the same things for the redemption of their soul. And let those who perhaps confirm ill-advisedly not disregard what they give to their friends and faithful men, and take that away without judgement, when the things they have given return to the memory in doing penance, not noticing that they go from the world when the soul leaves the body, but the land remains for ever and is held free from the possessor by charter of royal confirmation of those things. And while the hearts breathe, perhaps the lips are provoked to ill-saying, not without the weight of sin, since both have been provided, that is lest a certain king should give ill-advisedly or without judgement of equity take something away or after judgement an unbroken charter might remain about the things taken away. For it is written: The memory of the just with praises, but the name of the impious will decay. Thus it is better and more rational that through reason a broken charter may decay and praise of their equity may remain than a charter of confirmation may remain and the name of praise decay.

But perhaps the princes reading or hearing these things may say: The bishops have chastised us well, we will give nothing by precept, lest we are reproved again. On the contrary, let them here what the prophet complains of, saying with the voice of those chastising: ‘We have cured Babylon and she is not healed. [p 191] Indeed Babylon is cured, yet not returned to health when the mind confused in wicked action hears the words of correction, receives the whips of correction and yet refuses to go back to the right way of salvation.’ And through Wisdom: ‘Just as vinegar in natron, thus it is for him who sings songs with a very bad heart. When vinegar is placed in natron, it bublles constantly and boils up’. Thus for the most part, also the hearts of the powerful, who swell from power and do not humble themselves from their humanity (as Abraham said to the Lord, humbling himself from the exultation of his conversation: ‘I will speak to my God although I am dust and ashes’), when they hear correction of the chastising missus of the Lord, they erupt into a word of contradiction from the excitement of their heart. Bishops have not forbidden giving to holy places or faithful men, making known to all: Consecrate and render to your God and Do all things with counsel ands you will not repent afterwards and Do not do what is iniquitous, not judge unjustly and justly judge your neighbour. Just as a prince does not want what God concedes to him to be taken from him by someone stronger, so also let he himself not take away without judgment of equity from anyone either what he gave or what he did not give, since it is written: What you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another. But rather the bishops again and again preached: Make for yourself friends form the mammon of unrighteousness, so that when you die, they receive you in the eternal tabernacle, and Whatever your hand can do immediately, since their is neither place nor reason among those below, to which you hasten.

And just as the bishops preached those things which are useful and honest, thus no less let them preach so that the king may hasten to conceal a shameful mark from himself on the royal name, and as much as he can, wash away through undivided days and acts, remembering the statement of Deuteronomy which says: ‘You will have a place outside the camp to which you should go for the requisites of nature, bearing a peg in your belt, and when you sit down, you shall dig a hole and you shall put soil on your excrement, of which you are relieved. For the Lord your God walks in the middle of the camps, so that he may rescue you and deliver your enemies to you, so that your camps should be holy and no foulness appear in them, lest he should leave you. Indeed encumbered by the weight of corruptible nature, certain overflows of our thoughts burst out from the womb of our mind and from our actions by the unworthy work of rule (?) as if the burdens of the belly. And we ought to carry a peg under our belt, who are the rectores of the people, that is so that we always girdled for restraining ourselves may have the goad of compunction around us, which incessantly digs the earth of our mind with the sorrow of penance, and conceals what foulness burst outs from us. Indeed the excrement of the belly is covered in the ditch by earth through the peg, when the overflowing of our mind or the reprehensible foulness of our work, discussed with subtle refutation and corrected by honest work, is concealed before the eyes of God through the goad of its compunction and the good of correction. But is it to be considered that the kings and emperors of old stated in their laws that a confirmation was determined to be confirmed by five or seven or ten witnesses, as Ambrose writes. [p 192] But also in the signing of charters a conditional regulation is placed by civil law, about the expense by which he who should be tempted to break a charter should be punished by the fisc. And the accuser signing a written accusation may not change himself from that condition.

But they wrote about their confirmation, since the hand of the prince, just as we read is said in the Book of Kings about David is reckoned for 10,000. And a king, constituted by God either by grace or because of the sins of the people, will be crowned by the king of kings himself about his just acts or judged by judgement of equity will be punished for unjust judgement and wicked actions. They also inserted in the same laws in the Lex Cornelia on wills, about those who should knowingly write suppress, move, devise or destroy a will or other false instrument by fraud: the honestiores are to be deported to an island, the humiliores wither condemned to the minds or raised on the cross, but the slave to have capital punishment. And as St Augustine reminds in the commentary on the gospel of John: It is the law of the forum that the rescript that someone obtains who lies to the prince in entreaties, should not benefit him, rather he should lack the benefit of the writing himself, by which he guided the rescript. But they said nothing about confirming their rescripts, since they held it sinful to infringe what they confirmed, just as is read in the Book of Esther, as much as a signing had the condition of a king’s ring, the absence of that ring had that much caution, how much more the subscription of the royal hand. And the royal dignity ought not to take as perfunctory what is written in its precepts: And so that the precept may obtain fuller strength in the name of God and I give happily in that or that year in the name of God, lest what is happily confirmed in the name of God is unhappily weakened without the judgement of God, that is without the judgement of truth, since it is written: You shall not pollute the name of your God and You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Let them also read Paul and the explainers of the Apostle himself, how significant it was said that the same Apostle wrote in his letters [p 193]: See how I have written this with my own hand. And again: My salutations by the hand of Paul. Therefore kings who may confirm with subscription of their hand things given by them or privileges of the saints with anathema strengthened by hands, and should afterwards count it little to preserve these, as if bound, they are not held by the chain of anathema, let them hear the statement of the blessed Gregory to the patrician Theoctista: ‘They themselves are witnesses that they are not Christians who trying to loosen themselves reckon the bindings of the whole church as vain (?) and through this nor do they consider the absolution of the holy church, which if offers to the faithful, to be true, if they do not reckon its binding as valid, and since they believe the truth to deceive, they are therefore tightly bound in their sins. But if therefore there are those who under the Christian name either dare to reach this or silently to hold it among themselves, both I and all the catholic bishops and the universal church anathematise them.’

Responsio 5. On the difficulty of divorce, loving one's wife, the importance of judgment, the case of Northildis, and unpleasant Frankish men.

[135] In the first place, that it should by love of eternal salvation be according to the Gospel admonition, as Saint Augustine says in his book On the good of marriage, where marriage is observed to be better as it is more spiritually maintained, and not broken. And St Augustine says in his fifth book against Julian, “Luke the evangelist said about the Lord that he was thought to be the son of Joseph, and this was thought so that he might be believed to have been born from Joseph’s sexual relations. He removed this false opinion of the people, not denying that Mary was the wife of this man against angelic witness, although you yourself admit that she took the name of wife from the pledge of betrothal.[?]. And this pledge remained perfectly inviolate. Nor indeed, when he had seen the holy virgin bestowed with divine fertility, did he seek another wife, for nor indeed would he have sought this one, had a wife not been necessary. But he did not judge that the bond of faithful union should be dissolved because the hope of sharing the flesh was taken away.”

[136] Second, equally according to the Gospel truth, about the cause of fornication. This medicine is applied in the canons of the Council of Ancyra: “If anyone’s wife is an adulteress or if he has committed adultery, it is fitting for him to bring it to completion with a penance of seven years.” And about their separation in the Council of Africa, chapter 69, it is written: “It pleased us, that according to the Gospel and Apostolic discipline, neither a husband left by his wife nor a wife by her husband may be joined to another, but let them remain thus or be reconciled. And if they ignore this, let them be brought to repentance.” The authority then continues, that in whatever way marriages legitimately entered into should be separated, they should not be separated without sacerdotal awareness and without legal judgment. And again in the Council of Elvira: “A believing woman who leaves her believing adulterous husband and marries another: that she should not marry him. If she does marry him, she will not accept communion, unless the man she left departs this world, or the necessity of illness compels it to be given.” And a similar judgement is to be held regarding the husband, for, as Innocent wrote to Exsuperius bishop of Toulouse, and Augustine wrote in his book On the ten strings, and Jerome in his letter to Oceanus about the death of Fabiola, they are held under the same law of divine judgment.

If they are broken apart for whatever cause: Innocent wrote about this to Exsuperius bishop of Toulouse, chapter 7. “Your Goodwill also asked about those, who join themselves to another in marriage after a repudiation, who on both sides are clearly adulterers. For whoever rushes to another union while his wife is alive, although the marriage may be seen to be broken, cannot be seen not to be adulterers. And even those persons who are joined to them are also seen to have committed adultery, according to what we read in the Gospel: Whoever leaves his wife and marries another, commits adultery: and similarly whoever marries the woman who was left also commits adultery. And therefore all must abstain from the communion of the faithful. But nothing of the sort can be decreed for their relatives or friends, unless they are revealed to have arranged the illicit union.”

[137] And St Ambrose writes in his book on Abraham: “I advise you men, especially those who are reaching for the grace of the Lord, not to become mingled with an adulterous body: for who joins himself to a prostitute is made one body – nor to give this opportunity to divorce for women. Let no one delude himself with the laws of men. All sex outside marriage [stuprum] is adultery, and what is not allowed for a woman is not allowed for a man. The same chastity is required from a man as from a woman. Whatever is done with a woman who is not the legitimate wife is condemned as the crime of adultery. Therefore watch out what for you must beware, so that no one offer himself to the sacraments unworthily.”

Chapter 4. In the council of Agatha, it is written about those who leave their wives without reason as follows: “About those laymen who send away or who have sent away their conjugal partner for no serious fault, and without offering plausible reasons for the break up, therefore set aside their marriage, so that they dare what is not theirs or is not permitted. If they do this before they have explained the cause of the break up to the provincial bishop, and if they cast off their wives before they are condemned by judgment, they are to be excluded from the communion of the church and from the gathering of the holy people, because they stain the faith of marriage.” And again in the Council of Elvira, “Woman, who leave their husbands without any preceding reason and join themselves to others, may not accept communion even in the end.” And there are other incestuous unions and separations and judgments about them, which we pass over from discussing here, hastening to other matters.

Let all those who are reading this recognise that the holy and apostolic men, the successors that is of the Apostles, did not establish laws from their traditions – which we have included here, so that none of the faithful should dissolve a marriage established by divine authority without his bishop’s knowledge – so that we should despise and wish to trample upon the Christian laws of the world. For the Church is often accustomed to demand that these should be promulgated even for matters of the Church by emperors and kings, and episcopal authority frequently uses and accepts their decisions in their judgments, together with the sentences of the canons. So much so that Damasus and Leo and Saint Gregory made these sentences of law canonical, as we find in their letters, and Saint Gregory drew up advice for John the defensor going to Spain from sacred orders wholly instituted from the laws.

[138] And amongst other kings and emperors throughout the various courses of time who decreed legal rights is the Emperor of our own time, Louis of pious memory. In a synod and general meeting at Worms, in the presence of the legate of the Apostolic See and Pope Gregory and many others, he commanded about those things which bishops had recently found in synods held at four places of his empire to be necessary and useful concerning the matter of all, bishops as well as faithful laymen, with everyone’s agreement decreeing thus: “Whoever”, he said, “marries another wife, having left his own wife or having killed her though innocent, let him put down his weapons and perform public penance. And if he should be contumacious, let him be seized by the count and bound in chains, and held in custody, until the issue is brought to our attention”.

Christ, the virtus of God and the wisdom of God, says of himself: “I wisdom, dwell in counsel, and am present in learned thoughts. By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things”.

And therefore both the deputies of Christ and the successors of the Apostles established these laws, and we howsoever presiding over the church of God in their place, insert them here, so that the blessing which the Lord first gave to Adam and his wife in paradise, saying “Increase and multiply”, which given once is to this day and to the end not denied not only to the faithful but also to the unfaithful, may be given by the mouths of the priests to the faithful and the devout individually, as a holy mystery– which Christ brought through his presence to the wedding when he made water into wine. And so, those who are joined through God, that is through their ministry, by the laws of the world, which are sanctified by the justice of God though which anyone is made just, may not be separated without their knowledge. And if for the sake of God they are separated spiritually from commingling of the flesh, that cleaving to the Lord they made be made one spirit, as Paul says about many who are in the church, including publicans and prostitutes, murderers and adulterers, “For I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ”, they may be joined to the Lord with the full blessing of sacerdotal awareness. If however the spouses are separated by a just civil law, and in concordance with the holy precept of the Lord because of the sin of fornication, which is accustomed to snatch away through human fragility, let them seek the medicinal advice of episcopal attention. So that the bishop might know how, with respect to the quality and degree of the form of injury and to their virtue, he must apply the medicine of healing. Thus the Lord the day before he would suffer for the reparation and salvation of all who perished in Adam, blessed at dinner with his own hands a Eucharist composed of bread made of flour and water, and a cup of the holy altar mixed with water, and commended it to the mouth, which everyday in the whole catholic Church spread far and wide across the world he consecrates though the hands and mouths of priests with those unfailing words of his, for the redemption, the reparation and the salvation of believers. Priests with a medicinal blade cut off from that life-giving communion those who publicly sin in serious crimes which the laws publicly condemn. And after a satisfaction which seems appropriate, they attend to their reintegration into the wholesome refreshment, since the spiritual doctors of the church, that is the priests of the Lord, are able to give medicinal and healing counsel for the infirmities of sinners secretly confessed to them. And they are not able to separate anyone by an ecclesiastical judgment, that is the separation from the communion of the church, or from a rank, or from a conjugal union, unless he has publicly and freely confessed to crimes, or has openly been convicted of them. And confession or conviction in ecclesiastical positions has a form and an order, which do not need to be included here. And public confession or the conviction of secular men has its form and order, in which they ought publicly to be judged. Not that serious crimes cannot be dissolved also by secret confession and penance, but lest the weak in the church should be caused to stumble seeing punishments whose causes they know nothing about; and what is agreed by the attention of many to have been perpetrated, shall be healed by the knowledge of many.

[140] And who in the church sins [against one person??], let him apply himself to showing the satisfaction owed to him. And who destroyed many, as much as himself, by his own examples, let him cure many with the antidote of his humiliation. As Paul says about himself, “I before was a blasphemer and a persecutor and contumelious”, and “They saw how he who first fought against this faith now preaches it, and they glorified God in me”. It is the case that whoever offends God in many things will attain a cure more quickly with many people praying for him to the Lord, as St Gregory wrote to Felix, the bishop of Sicily. “The wicked should be segregated from the good, the evil from the just, so that in their shame they may recognize their consciences, and be converted from their wicked deeds. And if they should be incorrigible, let them be segregated from the faithful until satisfaction, following the sentence of the Lord saviour, who amongst other things said to a brother sinning against him, ‘But if thy brother shall offend against thee” and what follows, up to where it is said “let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.’ The bad should be segregated from the good by these and many other authorities of the holy fathers, lest the just perish for the unjust, as is written ‘the just man perishes for the impious’. There must always be a discretion between the good and the bad, as there is between sheep and goats. Open sins should not be pegged with hidden correction, but rather what is openly harmful should be openly complained of. So that while they are healed by open chiding, those who offend by imitating them are corrected. For while one is rebuked, many are emended. And it is better that one man should be condemned for the salvation of many, that that through the license of one person, many should perish. It is no wonder if this notion is observed amongst men, since we have often known this to happen amongst cattle. Those which are seen to have scabies or some skin disease are separated from the healthy, lest all should be damned or perish from their disease. It is indeed preferable that the wicked should be openly corrected than that the good should perish for them.”

These things needed to be said, to explain why we set down the laws that spouses should be separated, whether from the love of God or the admission of sin, with sacerdotal awareness, whence they took the blessing of entering into marriage. But since we are currently concerned with the separation of a man and wife, which took place not because of love for perpetual continence, nor, as is said, for an open crime, but on account of a certain suspicion, it is necessary that this dispute be aired through men of this order, that is married men, and that it be judged according the Christian laws set down by God with a most fair investigation, and settled. And whenever sacerdotal piety or the medicinal severity of church authority finds its place in this business, let it not only offer itself to the sons of the church and the judges of justice, but let it truly force itself upon them.

[141] And since it is written, “Pass not beyond the ancient bounds which thy fathers have set”, whose examples which should be imitated are for us true doctrine, we thought it necessary to recall to the memory that some of us were present in the palace of Attigny in the time of the Lord Louis, the pious emperor of holy memory, when there was a universal synod of the whole empire, including even legates of the Roman see. In the general placitum, a woman of not ignoble ancestry called Northildis publicly complained to the emperor about certain shameful matters between her and her husband named Agambert. The emperor sent her to the synod, so that episcopal authority should decide what should be done. But the entirety of the bishops sent her back to the judgment of the laymen and of the married, so that they might judge between her and her husband who knew about these matters and were sufficiently gifted in the laws of the world, so that this woman should subject herself to their legal judgments, and should hold without appeal to what they decided about the matter. If there were some crime, for which after their judgment she would demand a form of penance from episcopal authority, they would not refuse to impose it upon her according to what the holy canons constituted. This sacerdotal discretion pleased the lay nobles, because judgment about their wives was not taken away from them, nor was any prejudice inflicted upon civil laws by the sacerdotal order. And they gave the law to the woman’s complaint, and conveyed a settlement in judgment to the legal question.

[142] In the same way let them call this matter, whose discussion concerns most important people, to the middle of judgment, and let them judge very carefully following what they see to be appropriate to a judgment of equity; recognising that a marriage legally entered into is able to be dissolved for no reason, except, as we have said above, a joined spiritual separation, or a manifest confession or an open conviction of physical fornication. For as Saint Augustine says in this book On the good of marriage, it is not licit for a man to leave her husband or a husband her wife even because of her sterility, “nor is it allowed to join oneself to others for the sake of children, for whom the wife was married. And if they were to do this, they and those to whom they joined themselves would commit adultery. The bond of marriage remains, even if because of manifest sterility children, for whom it was entered into, do not follow.” And again in the same book, “Just as it is preferable to die of hunger than it is to eat sacrifices made to idols, so it is better to die without children than to seek offspring [stirps] from an illicit sexual union.”

And in his books to Pollentius about adulterous marriages, the reader will find it is stressed over and over again that a husband cannot be separated from a wife, nor a wife from a husband, except only for the cause of fornication. By that they are able to be separated, on condition however that they remain unmarried or are reconciled to each other.

And St Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew: “The disciples said to the Lord, ‘If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry’. The burden of wives is a heavy one, if it is not permitted to leave them except for the reason of fornication. How will she be coped with if she is drunken, if she is angry, if she has wicked habits, if she is wanton, greedy, roving, abusive and slanderous? Like it or not, she will be coped with. For when we were free, we voluntarily subjected ourselves to this servitude."

And again in the letter to Amand the priest: “The Apostle cut through all the debates, and very clearly defined that woman to be an adulteress, who marries another while her husband is alive. Please do not object to me about the abductor’s violence, the mother’s persuasion, the father’s authority, the swarms of relatives, the traps of slaves and relatives, the damage to the family property: as long as her husband is alive, even if he is an adulterer, even if he is a sodomite, even if he is buried deep in all wickednesses and the wife leaves him because of this, he is still considered her husband, and she is not allowed to take another. And the Apostle did not decide this on his own authority, but Christ spoke through him, who said in the Gospel, “whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery”.

[143] And the apostolic Innocent, Leo, and Gregory, and the African Council, Ambrose, John of Constantinople, Origen in his books amended by Saint Jerome, the venerable priest Bede and all other catholic doctors: they all agree with this evangelical truth and apostolic doctrine. And if there were not such a clear precept of the Lord, so that even Paul when asked about virgins and giving counsel did not dare to change anything at all of it, saying “Concerning the wife: it is not I but the Lord who commands the wife not to leave her husband, and that if she leaves, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband”, and there were such a place in scripture that authors would understand it differently, though not contrary to faith, then we would follow the decision of the most and of greatest authority which we have in the canons. But as it stands we are not able to nor should we think or understand differently, except according to what we read in the divinely inspired writings. Saint Paul associated fornicators and adulterers with worshippers of idols, saying that they will not possess the kingdom of God, and ordered that bread not be broken with them. And again he wrote, that God will judge fornicators and adulterers. And these men, who as we have shown are held by the same judgment before God as are women, if they have committed adultery, will be punished with a greater punishment to the degree that they are the heads and governors of women, the more fragile sex and weaker vessels. And they must not presume an illicit licence, so that they condemn their adulterous wives without judgment. For the Lord in law about the slave, who is the property of his master: “Who strikes his slave or slave girl with a stick, so they die at his hands, will be guilty of a crime.’ And the holy canons, ‘if anyone kills his own slave without the awareness of a judge’, command them to expiate the spilling of blood with an excommunication for two years. And, ‘if a mistress beat her slave girl with blows, whence she dies, and if this happens on purpose, let her be admitted to communion after seven years or if there was an excuse after five, saving the authority of the gift of viaticum, which is to be denied to none in their last breath."

[144] If therefore such equity and goodwill should be preserved even towards the servile condition in the house of every Christian, how much more and more generously and fully should it be kept between a husband and wife, a man and his spouse, the head and the body? For, as the Apostle taught, the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church, the saviour of the body, and men must love their wives as they love their own bodies. Whoever loves his life, loves himself. For no one ever held his own flesh in hatred, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.

And let the Christian man pay attention, that if the foot or hand or genitals or whatever other limb begins to rot away or to be eaten up by cancer, with how much diligence, and medical inspection and judgment does he either bear it, so that it might heal, or cut it from himself, if it is unable to heal. And so let him do with his limb, that is his body, that is his wife. And again the Apostle says, ‘Men, love your wives as Christ loved his Church and gave himself for her, so that he might sanctify her, cleansing her in a bath by his word. For indeed so much, and so great and excellent a love is commended by apostolic men between a husband and a wife, saving however the superiority in that marriage of the husband and the subjection of the wife, so that none is able nor should be greater in that union, instituted once by God and legitimately brought together. For what should be more venerable than the conjugal mystery of Christ and the church? What should be more holy, that that men should love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving himself for it, so that he might sanctify and cleanse it? What should be dearer and more reciprocal than that a man should be head of a woman as Christ is the head of the church, the saviour of the body? He even testifies in the gospel about the unity of this marriage saying, and now they are not two, but one flesh. They will be, he said, two in one flesh. And the Apostle adds to this, saying ‘Men love your wives and do not be bitter to them'. If therefore men must not be bitter to their wives, how much less should they be savage, cruel, bloodthirsty, keeping no law for them, no reason, no judgment, which in the Christian religion is even to be kept for slaves? But as soon as they want, provoked with indignation and an impious fury, they order them to be lead as if to the butchery to be torn to pieces , and they order them to be slaughtered by the knives of their cooks like sheep or pigs; or they themselves butcher them with their own hand and their own blade, not remotely giving themselves to them in imitation of the Lord Jesus Christ that they might sanctify and cleanse them, but rather destroying them for ever through the zeal of their lust, they impiously pollute themselves with their blood: when in such a case, the more easily murder can be committed by a husband’s zeal, the more justly should be awaited legitimate judgment.

[145]. Some of these are so unmerciful, and are found to be not of human affection but of bestial cruelty, that they kill their first wives from suspicion of adultery, without any law, without reason, by no judgment, but simply from hatred and cruelty or lust towards another wife or concubine. And drenched in recent blood, not only are they pricked by no repentance, nor making satisfaction to God in humility, but exulting in their pride, they arrive at Christ’s altar without delay, and, not bothered, dare to touch the sacred mysteries. Christ always says about such people taking his mysteries what he said about Judas: Behold, the hand of my betrayer is with me on the table. When they are able to be released from their sinning wives without any mortal peril by a judgment, they do not wait for it, but forestalling the judgment of divine law, they incur the judgment of damnation. Let them defend themselves as much as they like, those of this sort, through the earthly laws if there are such or through human custom. But if they are Christian, let them know that on the day of Judgment, they will be judged not by Roman or Salian or Burgundian law, but by divine and apostolic law, although in the kingdom of Christ even those public laws should be Christian, fitting with and consonant to Christianity. The law of the Almighty God divides all things into three kinds, which men are seen to have subject to them in earthly matters or to possess, since in the Ten Commandments He defines it and says, “Neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his”. In these words the dignity of the wife should be considered in one way, the condition of slaves and slavegirls in another, and in another the vileness of brute animals or unfeeling things. And so all these are to be dealt with according to their own merits, and distinguished and judged in their own degrees.

We say this so that the sort of people who in a disordered order preserve amongst themselves a meaner condition for their wives than for their slaves, should think about it. And if a master is guilty of murder for a slave killed without the awareness of a judge, and is not able to expiate the shedding of blood except through penance: what should be understood for the case of a wife? We do not say this to trample upon or prohibit proper judgments, but rather we exhort that these should be sought and followed. For let us know the law of God, that every Christian will be judged on the day of judgment, so that he will receive according to his works. So except through legitimate judges and witnesses let no guilty person be allowed to be punished, nor adulterers or adulteresses, those whom He commanded to be stoned in a public judgment by the people. And we read that Susanna, when she was falsely accused of the crime of adultery, was both condemned in public judgment and was absolved in public. And the woman truly caught in adultery was first led according to the law to the Pharisees, who exercised the power of judgment over the people, and then for the sake of tempting him to the judgment of the Lord. And he did not deny the judgment but ordered it to be carried out justly and by the just. Therefore, if any woman caught in adultery according to the law of Moses, which the Lord promulgated in the old Testament, or to the public laws of Christians, which the church embraces, should come to episcopal judgment, there is a very obvious and very sufficient medicine prepared by the wholesome tradition of the Apostles, by which without any error of ambiguity she will be able to be cured, through divine grace and ecclesiastical piety.

Interrogatio 5

[135]. [And tell us] how or for what causes marriages can be separated once they have been entered into, and without which causes they must not be separated. And after a separation, whether the man or woman, whichever one is still alive, can hope for another union; and whether, sinning within marriage, they should each be judged by the same judgement.

Interrogatio 9/Responsio 9. About trickery and deceit in oaths and ordeals.

[164] But let us concede that there was deceit in this ordeal by the working of the devil, who although he lost the glory of angelic spirit, did not lost its subtlety of nature. He is permitted - the Lord allowing it either because of the unfaithfulness of those who do not rightly believe or for the purgation of the faithful, as when the devil on Christ’s behest suffocated Judas communicans, full of wickedness [??], and buffeted Paul when he was taken up to the third heaven – to do many things, by divine judgement which is hidden but never unjust, just as many things were performed through the magicians of the Pharaoh, which Moses the prophet of the Lord had done. And the airs were disturbed to test Job, and fire from the airy heavens burned up his sheep and his children. And the Antichrist will do many things himself and through his ministers, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. And through a phitonissa a vision of Samuel was shown. And in the book of Dialogues which St Gregory wrote we read that “an idol was found”, “which being for a little while by chance cast into the kitchen, fire suddenly to come from it, which to the sight of all the monks seemed to set the whole kitchen on fire. For the quenching of it, the monks by casting on of water made such a noise, that the man of God Benedict, hearing it, came to see what the matter was. He himself beheld that the fire was in the sight of his brothers, but not his own. He bowed down his head forthwith in prayer, and then he recalled those brothers , whom he perceived that they were deluded with a fantastical fire, to their sight, that they might behold the kitchen standing safe and sound, and not those fantastical flames, which the devil had falsely devised”.

[165] And it is read in the Itinerary of Peter about the father of Clement, that he was smeared with an ointment by Simon Magus whom he had forsaken, so that he might be killed by the faithful, and he appeared to everyone’s sight in the form of Simon. Only Peter saw who he really was, and brought the disciples back to their sight through prayer, and returned his proper shape to the sight of those looking on, making sport of the phantom. And in the life of the former monk John, parents by devilish working saw their daughter to be equal [??]. And the Gospel we also read about the two disciples walking with Christ and doubting in him, for their eyes were held back, that they might not recognise him. We assume not unsuitably that the hindrance on their eyes was sent by Satan, so that Jesus might not be recognised, but that it was done with Christ’s permission until the sacrament of bread, so that it should be understood that the hindrance of the enemy is removed by sharing in the unity of his body, so that Christ is able to be recognised. So it is no wonder if the Lord, who appeared externally to the sight of those doubting the same way he was considered by them within, permits these things to happen in judgement, for the sake of the incredulity of those hesitating and doubting in faith. This was done in their sight, not through the deception of truth, but because they were not capable of seeing the truth and thought the matter other than it was: as St Gregory says about Mary: “she was looking for the Lord, whom she did not at all believe had been resurrected, but because she loved and doubted, she saw and did not recognise, for love showed him to her, and doubt hid him. And the Lord appeared to those disciples walking along the road who did not believe, but he did not show them a form which they would recognise. The Lord showed externally in the sight of their eyes, what was happening within them in the sight of their heart. The simple truth did nothing through duplicity, but showed himself to them in body as he was to them in mind."

[166] And Saint Augustine says in his book on Christian Doctrine “Whatever men have arranged for [demonic] consultations is superstitious, and so are the treaties of signification negotiated and entered into with devils, which are employed in the magical arts, and so are the books of the haruspices and augurs. In this class we must place also all amulets and cures which the medical art condemns, whether these consist in prayers, or in marks which they call characters, or in things for hanging or tying on. (…) And all these omens are of force just so far as has been arranged with the devils by that previous understanding in the mind which is, as it were, the common language, but they are all full of hurtful curiosity, torturing anxiety, and deadly slavery. For it was not because they had meaning that they were attended to, but it was by attending to and marking them that they came to have meaning. And so they are made different for different people, according to their several notions and prejudices. For those spirits which are bent upon deceiving, take care to provide for each person the same sort of omens as they see his own conjectures and preconceptions have already entangled him in.” And the venerable priest Bede says in his commentary on the book of Daniel, “If anyone wonders, how a woman is able to disturb and awaken a prophet after death by demonical art, let him know for certain that either the devil showed a false shadow to those asking questions, or if it was really Samuel, so much was permitted to the devil in doing these things as the Lord allowed. Nor is it surprising that these things were allowed for some hidden causes to the wicked spirit, who set up the saviour on the pinnacle of the temple, and who sought and took Job for testing. And if as we believe it was rather a phantom of the unclean spirit which appeared, how much true and prophetic things he was able to narrate should disturb anyone. For we know that the devil is able to know in advance or predict many things of the future which he learned form the heavenly angels. But those things which he says should not be listened to, for all things which he says or does to men, he does with the intention of luring them."

So that the devilish traps might not come to fruition, we should resist the devil, as the Apostle says, strong in the faith which conquers the world, and through which the saints conquered the kingdoms. And about those who firmly believe in it, it is said ‘Let it be to you, according to your faith’, and the Apostle says ‘let him demand in faith, without any hesitation’. And if something should happen to test our faith – for it is useful to test even the saints with the flames of temptation, so that the tempted who had been strong should be revealed, or so that once their weakness had been recognised through temptation, they might learn to be stronger, and so, when they have been tested, they might accept the crown of life – then we should not mull over the divine judgements, which are sometimes hidden but never unjust. Nor must it seem strange if some trickery by the devil’s cunning interferes in this type of judgement, with God’s permission. For the water of baptism, in itself faithful, as Ambrose says, is to some a water of lies: the baptism of the wicked does not heal, it does not clean, it pollutes. And according to the decrees of the canons, of St Innocent and of other Roman popes, those baptised by heretics in the name of the holy Trinity take the grace of the holy spirit through the laying on of hands, but those baptised in the name of the holy trinity are not commanded to be baptised again. But is it possible, although trickery is found in the baptism of heretics, that the baptism of catholics will not be proven? And if some trickery is found in the ordeal because of the faith of the incredulous, is the law of purgation to be abandoned from the custom of those who believe? For just as private or public trickery is always to be punished, so, as we read is written, the custom which does not impede the public good is to be considered as law. Therefore, if any fraudulence is found in this ordeal, through whatever trick, let the matter be brought back into question, as reason suggests, with a doubled vengeance of judgement, whether for the admission of sin or for the faithless deceit.

[167] But about the purgation of the sacrament, we read in the letter of Saint Gregory to Secundinus the bishop of Taormina, that the wife of Leo the cartularius had left him for the crime of fornication and had put on nun’s clothing. But given an oath by him that since their marriage had begun he had not fallen into the sin of adultery, she returned to her husband without consulting the bishop, and so she was excommunicated with her household. And the holy pope decreed that her household should quickly be absolved. And if it were clear, that the woman had found nothing to say against her husband, and that her suspicion had been cut off through that oath, and that after this she had returned to him of her own free will, then the censure upon her was to be moderated, and she was not to be deprived of communion for long. And he wrote again to Candidus the abbot, “Finally we dispose, so that it will be to the full satisfaction of everyone, that as well as his physical oath, he should confirm that he practised no trickery, or hid anything, but revealed the whole truth. And if anyone, which we do not believe will happen, should try in some way to apply a contrary will about this matter, let him know that he is guilty before God who tries to rescind what has been settled usefully. For let him recognise that it is not his business to detract from this decision and this affair.” And to Praeiecta, “It is very convenient to the moderation of the church, that what has been arranged or decided should not be disturbed afterwards by any opposition.” We have often heard concerning this purgation of the sacrament, that many are accustomed to do some trickery in it by swearing with a trick. But they are not so much swearing as perjuring, for as we read, that oath will be judged by God as it was received by Him who was accustomed to be satisfied through it, in faith [?]. But we are not able to deny that deceit or rather perjury committed in the purgation of the sacrament is revealed, as can happen in the ordeal through devilish cunning and by divine permission. And we find in the book of kings and Macabees about the treacherous oath, and in the Prophet about the unfaithful oath made to the king, that they did not give them out unpunished. And we think that what we have said above suffices.

Responsio 7. On procedure.

In the same way, so we read, some attempted with a false piety to defend St Peter, that he had said he did not know that man because he recognised that he was God, when the truth says ‘you will deny me’. So these, greater in iniquity because with impious falsehood they misrepresent a feigned truth which they proclaim as pious, say that He wished to free this woman, so that He might deceive those believing in her ordeal, though it is said “For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful’. And St Peter said to Simon Magus, who thought that he was able to buy the grace of the Holy Spirit through whom miracles and signs were worked and which flees the deceitful: “Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter (…)For I see thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.” And, as St Gregory says, ‘The simple truth does nothing through duplicity, peering into hearts and proving the reins, and reaching unto the division of the soul and the body, of the joints also and the marrow and the innards of the heart. And is truth is near to those that call upon it Him in truth, so he orders judgment to be made in truth.” For who calls upon the Lord and is deceived? Faithfully invoked in a just judgement, He is not able to deceive anyone, for the Lord is just in all his ways, and holy in all his works. And the Catholic teachers say about the purgation of the sacrament, that as indeed it was taken by him cui perinde fuit [?], so it is judged by the Lord. And Paul says “For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the lips, confession is made unto salvation”. And there is no confession without confession in the heart and by the lips, so that our mind is in concord with our voice. And in baptism, it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh which cleanses, but the questioning and confession of a good conscience in God. For Paul, who had confessed this Christ to be the son of the living God, knew him to be the Lord and believed him to be God, denied that he was the disciple of him who said “Who confesses in me before me, I will confess him before my Father’ and ‘Who denies me, I will deny him.’ And as we read, to deny that he was his disciple, as Peter said ‘I am not’ to someone who claimed that he was one of that man’s disciples, is nothing other than to deny that he is a Christian. And so the Councils decreed those who believed in Christ in their hearts and denied him with their lips, conquered by torture, to be amongst the fallen. And again it is written, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?” How, I say, did this woman call upon the Lord as her helper and liberator in this ordeal, in Whom she did not believe? And if she faithfully believed in the Lord whom she called upon, she believed him to be true and not false, and loving the just and justice, and whom she knew not to be able to deceive or be deceived. Those who say to the contrary, what other do they say than affirm that the truth can deceive and be deceived? They are more obstinate than the demons, who, as the Gospel says, left those possessed confessing him, because they knew him to be the Christ.

[162] And what also is said, that even he who took the confession of this woman was a witness of this, we wonder if it is in any way able to be true. And we would not believe this, if we did not dare not to believe those men who told us this. For he would have known that what he reads in the book of Leviticus must not be understood perversely: “’If any one hear the voice of one swearing, and is a witness either because he himself hath seen, or is privy to it: if he do not utter it, it is on his soul.’” For as Origen says, “From this, without doubt the soul takes the sin of him who does or swears something unjust. This too edifies us according to history, lest we should ever pollute our consciences with the sins of someone else, or lend consent to those who do bad things. By consent I mean not just doing the same, but being keeping silent about things done openly and illicitly.” And if he knew and kept silent because of the secret confession, why – and as is said may it not be – did he stay silent or agreed that there should be an ordeal, not respecting the sentence of the law and the Gospel, “Do not tempt the Lord your God’. For if it is a diminution of honour to act against canonical authority, which proceeds from the fountain of the law, the prophets and the gospel, promulgated by the Holy Spirit by whom these things were spoken, he who tries to oppose the truth of the Gospel in such important matters will not be able to escape danger. And again it is written, “thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord”. If he promised fidelity to his lord, who did he dare to consent to this trickery against him? And if caught between two dangers, he chose the lesser, to neglect the oath, so that he might avoid the greater, lest he become a betrayer of confession, why does he now reveal this confession? For it is written: “He that walketh deceitfully, revealeth secrets: but he that is faithful, concealeth the thing committed to his soul” as if it should openly say, he that does not conceal the thing committed to his soul is not faithful. And Paul says about those who are not faithful, “What part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?”

Many things could be said here, but that is not convenient for us. For everyone will bear his own burden. We have said this briefly, not because we wish to believe in or be believed about any derogation of whichever priest [?]: but so that to the extent we might respond, we might in the name of the Lord point out to those witnesses this impious act of betrayal and duplicity, which we should very much avoid, and which is certainly detestable in all men.

Interrogatio 7

[161] And they say that it was on account of a secret confession made by this woman that her champion escaped unburned from the ordeal .