Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 23: On Digamy (Second Marriage)
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The last question remains: whether it is forbidden by apostolic law that one who, after the death of his first wife, has taken another be admitted to sacred orders. Now the whole controversy is about those words of Blessed Paul: “A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” And again: “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife.” And three expositions of this passage are chiefly found.
The first is Luther’s (in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Sacrament of Order, and more fully in the propositions on the digamy of bishops), where he teaches that Blessed Paul by those words forbade only whoredom and adulteries, and the sense is: “A bishop must be the husband of one wife” — that is, a bishop must be content with a lawful wife only, whether one or several, and not indulge in whoredoms; so that the word “husband” does not signify a married man, but something common to a married man and an adulterer. And he adds that not only is a plurality of wives successively not forbidden by Paul, but not even simultaneously, unless perhaps among the Gentiles on account of scandal; for among the Jews, where there was the custom of taking several wives, Luther does not think it was forbidden to Christian bishops to have many wives at once.
The second opinion is of others who hold that a multitude of several wives at once is forbidden by Paul, but not successively. So teach the Magdeburgians, although otherwise they are wont to be rigid Lutherans (Century 1, Book II, chapter 4, columns 451 and 452), and Calvin (on chapter 3 of the first to Timothy, and on chapter 1 of the epistle to Titus).
The third opinion is that of the Catholic Church, which always taught that those words of Blessed Paul are to be so understood that it is forbidden to initiate into sacred orders those who have in any way been twice-married. Which opinion we can prove by three arguments.
First, from chapter 5 of the first to Timothy, where we read of widows: “Let a widow be chosen of no less than sixty years of age, who has been the wife of one husband.” From this passage Luther’s opinion is first refuted; for by the same phrase it is said “the wife of one husband” and “the husband of one wife.” But it is certain that “the wife of one husband” cannot signify that the widow was not an adulteress or harlot; for a harlot is not called a “wife,” if she be referred to an adulterer or fornicator, but an adulteress or prostitute. Then, continence from adultery and fornication is required in a woman not only at the time her husband lives, but also afterward while she lives in widowhood; and yet Paul here speaks only of the time when the husband of that widow lived; for she is not said to have been the wife of one husband except when she had a husband. Therefore by those words, “who has been the wife of one husband,” it cannot be signified that a widow be chosen who was not a harlot or adulteress, but that she had only one husband.
From the same passage is also refuted the opinion of the Centuriators, Calvin, Pomeranus, and others, who will have it that Paul forbade a bishop or deacon to have two wives at once. For (as we said) by the same phrase, and in the same epistle, and by the same Apostle, a bishop is bidden to be the husband of one wife, and a widow the wife of one husband. But no reason permits that Paul should have wished to command that a widow not be chosen who was the wife of many husbands at once; for Paul would have commanded this in vain, since nowhere and never was there such a usage that one woman was the wife of several husbands. The Jews of old had many wives, as the Turks even now have; but it was never heard that one woman had several husbands. For, as Saint Augustine says (Book III On Christian Doctrine, chapter 12), why one man had several wives there was a reason, that more children might be born; but why one woman should be the wife of several husbands there can be no reason, for a woman will bear only once a year, whether she have one husband or a hundred — nay, harlots ordinarily bear none.
The second argument is drawn from the time when Paul wrote this. For at that time there was no custom, either among the Jews or among the Gentiles, and much less among the Christians, that one man should have two wives at once; and accordingly what was not done there was no reason so seriously to forbid. And as regards the Gentiles, it is plain enough from this, that in the Roman Empire, by which the world was then ruled, the polygamy of several wives at once was always infamous and forbidden. See the Digest (On Those Who Are Noted with Infamy, first law); likewise the Code (On Incestuous Marriages, law Neminem, and on the Julian law On Adulteries, law Eum qui). For although those laws are a little later than apostolic times, yet they indicate that the prohibition of polygamy is much more ancient. The first who by a public law granted the polygamy of several wives at once was Valentinian the elder, as Socrates relates (Book IV, chapter 26). But that law did not last long, since it was evident that the Emperor made that law for no other cause than to cover his own intemperance.
And as regards the Christians, and also the Jews, it can easily be gathered from the New Testament that there was no custom among them for anyone to have two wives; for the Scripture of the New Testament always speaks of a spouse in the singular number. Matthew 5: “Whoever shall put away his wife.” Chapter 19: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” And in the same place: “Everyone that shall leave house, or lands, or father, or mother, or wife,” and so on. Luke 14: “He that hateth not father, and mother, and wife, and children,” and so on. 1 Corinthians 7: “Let every man have his own wife.” Likewise: “Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.” Ephesians 5: “Let every one love his wife as himself.” Nay, in Luke 1 we read that Zachary, his wife remaining barren to old age, yet did not take another over her — which without doubt he would have done, if at that time it had been lawful. Josephus indeed writes (Book XVII of the Antiquities, chapter 2) that King Herod had nine wives; but private men, even among the Jews, had long ceased to take several wives.
The third argument is the authority of the Fathers, who always understood this passage on monogamy so that it is not lawful to create bishop or deacon one who has had two wives, even at different times. Tertullian (Book I to his wife): “How much second marriages detract from faith, how much they clamor against holiness, the discipline of the Church and the prescription of the Apostle declare, when he does not suffer the twice-married to preside, when he does not grant a widow to be enrolled in the order unless she was the wife of one husband.” Nor is there any doubt that by the twice-married he understands those who had two wives, not at once, but one after another; for of this digamy he speaks in the whole book. For he exhorts his wife not to enter second marriage when he is dead. Similar things he has in the book On Monogamy, and in the book On the Exhortation to Chastity. Nor does it conflict with these that the same Tertullian in the book On Monogamy objects to the Catholics the digamy of priests: “How many,” he says, “preside among you from digamy?” For either some twice-married presided by dispensation; or certainly some who had had a second wife before Baptism, who in the opinion of many were not held twice-married, though among others (of whom Tertullian was one) they were deemed twice-married; or, finally, this was done by vice and abuse — for we do not defend that what we say ought not to be done was never done.
Epiphanius (heresy 59, of the Cathari): “What things have been delivered concerning the priesthood, on account of the eminence of the celebration of sacred things, these they thought were to be applied equally to all, when they heard that a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, continent, and likewise a deacon and priest. For in truth the holy preaching of God, after the coming of Christ, does not receive those who, after their wife is dead, have been joined in second marriage, on account of the excellent honor and dignity of the priesthood; and this the holy Church of God certainly observes with sincerity.” Thus he. Where he most openly speaks of the digamy of several wives successively, since he calls those twice-married who, the wife being dead, take another, and since he reprehends the Cathari, who from this passage of Paul forbade second marriages even to laymen.
Ambrose (Book X, letter 82, to the Church of Vercelli, treating this passage of Paul, “the husband of one wife”): “He who has repeated marriage has not the fault of one defiled, but is stripped of the prerogative of the priest.” Thus he. Where he most openly rejects the opinion of Luther and Calvin, who will have Paul forbid either two wives at once, or adulteries; for those who admit these have the fault of the defiled, and are not only stripped of the prerogative of the priest. Similar things Ambrose has (Book I On the Offices, last chapter, and in the book On Priestly Dignity, chapter 4). Jerome (in the commentary on the first chapter of the epistle to Titus) by “the husband of one wife” understands a monogamist. And that by the name of monogamist he understands one who has had several neither at once nor successively is plain from those words: “The Apostle, giving these precepts about bishops and priests, indeed relaxed them in the rest — not that he exhorts to second marriages, but that he indulges the necessity of the flesh.” Thus he. But certainly the Apostle does not indulge the laity to fornicate, or take two wives at once, but only, the wife being dead, to enter marriage again; therefore he forbids this very thing to priests, that they have several wives even successively.
Saint Augustine (in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 18, treating this passage, “the husband of one wife”): “It has seemed not absurd that he who has exceeded the singular number of wives has not committed any sin, but has lost a certain norm of the Sacrament, necessary not to the merit of a good life, but to the seal of ecclesiastical ordination.” Thus he. Where, when he says that to exceed the singular number of wives is an impediment to ordination, and yet not a sin, he openly indicates that he speaks of a multitude of wives not at one time but at different times. For to have several at the same time is in no way lawful for a Christian, in Augustine’s opinion; for thus speaks the same Augustine (Book XX against Faustus, chapter 47): “What crime, in fine, is it that is objected to the holy man Jacob about several wives had at once? If you consult nature, he used those women not for the sake of wantoning, but of begetting. If custom, at that time and in those lands this was practiced. If precept, it was forbidden by no law. But now why is it a crime if anyone do this, except because neither by custom nor by law is it lawful?” The same he also has (in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 7, and Book III On Christian Doctrine, chapter 12).
Saint John Chrysostom (homily 2 on the epistle to Titus): “By this very thing he chastises also the unchaste, while he does not permit them, after second marriages, to be assumed to the government of the Church and the dignity of pastor; for he who is found to have kept no benevolence toward a dead wife, how will he be the best teacher of the Church? For you all surely know that although by the laws second marriages are permitted, yet that matter lies open to many accusations. He wishes, then, that the prelate give no occasion to those subject to him.” Thus he. Where he most clearly signifies that by “the husband of one wife” Blessed Paul means one who, after the death of his first wife, did not take a second — in which way expound also the rest, both the Greeks (as Theophylact and Oecumenius) and the Latins (Sedulius, Anselm, Primasius, Haymo, Saint Thomas, and the others in the commentary on this passage). The same too the ancient supreme and most holy Pontiffs teach in express words: Siricius (in letter 1 to Himerius, chapter 11), Leo I (in letter 85, elsewhere 88, to the bishops of Africa, chapter 1), Gelasius I (in letter 1 to the bishops of Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicily, chapter 5), Hilary (in the Roman Council), and Innocent (in letter 22). There is one, Theodoret, so far as I could read, of all the number of the ancients, who by “the husband of one wife” understood one who does not have two or more wives at once; for so he expounds (in the commentary on chapter 3 of the first epistle to Timothy); but his authority is not so great that he ought to be preferred to so many holy Pontiffs and all the other Fathers.
To these is added, fourthly and lastly, the custom of the whole Church. For, as Innocent writes (in letter 22, chapter 1), in the whole East and West this was kept — which we see kept even now — that the twice-married be not ordained. And that this was kept not only everywhere but also always can be plain from Leo (letter 88 to the Africans), where he says that this was always kept; and also from this, that mention of this matter is made in the canons of the Apostles (canons 17 and 18), and in the most ancient Councils, as that of Neocaesarea (canon 8) and the First of Nicaea (Ambrose being witness, in letter 82). And that it was afterward always kept is plain from the decree of Gratian (distinction 26), and from the volume of the decretals (title On the Twice-Married), where many testimonies of Pontiffs and Fathers of diverse ages are set down. And what has always and everywhere been kept, without any doubt descends from apostolic tradition.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIII. De Digamia . Postrema restat quaestio, num Apostolica lege prohibitum sit, ne qui post primae uxo¬ ris obitum alteram duxit, ad sacros ordines admittatur. Tota autem controversia de ver¬ bis illis beati Pauli est : Oportet Episcopum irreprehensibilem esse , unius uxoris virum. Et rursum : Diaconi sint unius uxoris viri (1). Tres autem ejus loci expositiones praecipue reperiuntur. Prima Lutheri est in libro de captivitate Babylonica, capite de ordinis Sacramento, et fusius in propositionibus de digamia Epis¬ coporum, ubi docet , B. Paulum illis verbis solum prohibuisse scortationem , et adulte¬ ria, et sensus sit ; « Oportet Episcopum esse unius uxoris virum, » id est, oportet Episco¬ pum sola uxore legitima, sive una, sive plu¬ ribus esse contentum, non indulgere scorta¬ tionibus; ita ut vocabulum viri, non signifi¬ cet maritum, sed aliquid commune ad mari¬ tum, et adulterum, et addit, non modo non esse prohibitam a Paulo pluralitatem uxo¬ rum successive, sed neque simul , nisi forte apud Gen tiles propter scandalum ; nam apud Judaeos, ubi erat consuetudo plures uxores ducendi, non existimat Lutherus interdictum fuisse Christianis Episcopis multas simul uxores habere. Altera sententia est aliorum, qui existi¬ mant a Paulo prohiberi multitudinem plu¬ rium uxorum simul , non tamen successive. Ita docent Magdeburgenses, etsi alioqui rigi- i 470 LIBER I. di Lutherani esse soleant, Cent. I, lib. II, c. 4, coi. 451 et 452. et Calvinus in cap. III. prioris ad Tiraoth. et in caput. I. epistolae ad Titum. Tertia sententia Catholicae Ecclesiae est, quae semper verba illa B. Pauli ita intelli- genda esse docuit , ut prohibitum sit sacris ordinibus initiare eos , qui quovis modo bi¬ gami fuerint. Quam sententiam probare pos¬ sumus tribus argumentis. Primo ex cap. V. prioris ad Timotheum, ubi de viduis legimus : Vidua eligatur non minus sexaginta annorum , quce fuerit unius viri uxor (1). Ex hoc enim loco refellitur in primis Lutheri sententia ; nam eadem phra¬ si dicitur, unius viri uxor, et unius uxoris vir : certum autem est illud : Unius viri uxor , non posse significare, ut vidua non fuerit adultera, vel scortatrix; nam scortum non dicitur uxor, si ad adulterum aut scor¬ tatorem referatur, sed adultera , vel mere¬ trix. Deinde continentia ab adulterio et scor¬ tatione , non solum requiritur in muliere quo tempore vir ejus vivit , sed etiam pos¬ tea dum in viduitate degit, et tamen Paulus non loquitur hoc loco nisi de tempore quo vir ejus viduae vivebat; non enim dicitur uxor unius viri fuisse , nisi quando virum habebat. Igitur illis verbis : Quce fuerit unius viri uxor , non potest significari ut eligatur vidua quae non fuerit scortatrix, aut adulte¬ ra, sed quae unum solum maritum habuerit. Ex eodem loco refellitur etiam sententia Centuriatorum, Calvini , Pomerani , et alio¬ rum, qui volunt Paulum prohibuisse, ne ha¬ beat Episcopus vel Diaconus duas simui uxo¬ res. Nam (ut diximus) eadem phrasi, et in eadem epistola, ef^ ab eodem Apostolo jube¬ tur esse Episcopus unius uxoris vir, et vidua unius viri uxor. At nulla ratio permittit, ut Paulus jubere voluerit, ne vidua eligatur, quae fuerit uxor multorum virorum simul ; id enim frustra Paulus jussisset , cum nus¬ quam, et numquam fuerit ejusmodi usus, ut una mulier esset plurium virorum uxor. Ha¬ buerunt quondam Judaei multas uxores , ut etiam nunc habent Tureae , at numquam est auditum , ut una mulier plures maritos ha¬ buerit. Nam ut ait S. Augustinus lib. III de doctrina Christiana , cap. 12. Cur unus vir haberet plures uxores , ratio erat, ut plures filii nascerentur ; at cur una mulier sit uxor plurium virorum , nulla esse potest ratio ; non enim pariet mulier nisi semel in anno, sive habeat unum , sive centum viros , imo meretrices nullos pariunt ordinarie. Altera, ratio ducitur ex tempore, quo haec Paulus scripsit; nam eo tempore non erat consuetudo, neque apud Judaeos, neque apud Gentiles , et multo minus apud. Christianos, ut unus vir duas simul uxores haberet ; pro¬ inde quod non fiebat, non erat cur tam serio prohiberetur. Et quidem quod Gentiles atti¬ net , satis patet ex eo quod in Imperio Ro¬ mano, quo tunc orbis terrarum regebatur, semper infamis et prohibita fuit polygamia plurium uxorum simul. Vide ff. de his qui notantur infamia lege prima. Item, Codice de incoestis nuptiis , L. neminem , et ad L. Juliam, de adulteriis, L. eum qui; Tametsi enim leges istae paulo posteriores sint Apos- tolicis temporibus , tamen indicant prohi¬ bitionem polygamiae , multo esse antiquio¬ rem. Primus, qui publica lege concessit polyga- miam plurium uxorum simul , fuit Valenti¬ nianus senior, ut Socrates refert lib. IV, c. 2G. Sed non diu ea lex duravit, cum consta¬ ret, Imperatorem non alia de causa eam le¬ gem tulisse, quam ut tegeret intemperantiam suam. Quod vero attinet ad Christianos, necnon etiam Judaeos , ex Testamento novo facile colligi potest , non fuisse apud eos consue¬ tudinem, ut quis duas uxores haberet; sem¬ per enim de conjuge in numero singulari lo¬ quitur Scriptura Testamenti novi. Matth. V: Qui dimiserit uxorem suam. Cap. XIX : Si li¬ cet homini dimittere uxorem suam. Et ibidem; Omnis , qui reliquierit domum , vel agros , aut patrem , aut matrem , aut uxorem etc. Lucae XIV : Qui non odit patrem, et matrem, et uxo¬ rem, et filios etc. I. Gorinth. VII : Unusquis¬ que suam uxorem habeat. Item : Alligatus es uxori, noli quaerere solutionem ; solutus es ab uxore , noli quaerere uxorem. Ad Ephes. V ; Unusquisque uxorem suam , sicut seipsum dili¬ gat (2). Quin etiam Lucae I. legimus, Zacha- riam uxore sterili usque ad senectutem per¬ manente, non tamen superduxisse alteram, quod haud dubie fecisset , si eo tempore id fieri licuisset. Scribit quidem Josephus lib. XVII. antiquit; cap. 2. Herodi Regi novem uxores fuisse : At privati homines etiam apud Judaeos jamdudum desierant plures uxores accipere. (1) I. Tim.V, 9. — (2) Matth. V, 31 ; XIX, 2 et 27; Luc. XIV, 26; I. Cor. VII, 2 et 27; Eph. V, 33. CAPUT XXIII. 47! Tertia ratio est auctoritas Patrum, qui semper hunc locum de monogamia ita intel¬ lexerunt , ut non liceat eum Episcopum vel Diaconum creari, qui duas uxores, etiam di¬ versis temporibus , habuerit. Tertullianus lib. I ad uxorem : « Quantum fidei detfahant, quantum obstrepent sanctitati nuptiae secun¬ dae, disciplina Ecclesiae, et praescriptio Apos¬ toli declarat, cum digamos non sinit praesi¬ dere , cum viduam allegi in ordinationem, nisi univiram non concedit. » Neque dubium est, quin perdigamos intelligat eos, qui duas uxores habuerunt, non simul, sed unam post alteram; nam de hac digamia in toto libro loquitur. Hortatur enim uxorem suam, ut se mortuo non ineat secundas nuptias. Similia habet in lib. de monogamia , et in libro de exhortatione castitatis. Neque his repugnat, quod idem Tertullianus in libro de monoga¬ mia Catholicis objicit , digamiam Sacerdo¬ tum : « Quot, inquit, ex digamia praesident apud vos? » Nam vel aliqui digami ex dis¬ pensatione praesidebant : vel certe aliqui, qui alteram habuerant ante Baptismum , qui multorum opinione non habebantur diga¬ mi, etsi apud alios, in quibus Tertullianus erat, digami censerentur : vel tandem vitio et abusu id fiebat; nec enim defendimus, numquam esse factum id quod fieri non de¬ bere dicimus. Epiphanius haeres. 59. Catharorum : « Quae ad sacerdotium tradita sunt , propter emi¬ nentiam celebrationis sacrorum , ea aequa¬ liter ferri ad omnes putaverunt, cum audie¬ rint, quod oportet Episcopum irreprehensi¬ bilem esse, unius uxoris virum, continentem similiter et Diaconum, et Presbyterum. Re¬ vera enim non suscipit sancta Dei praedica¬ tio post Christi adventum eos, qui a nuptiis, mortua ipsorum uxore, secundis nuptiis con¬ juncti sunt , propter excellentem sacerdotii honorem, ac dignitatem, et haec certo sancta Dei Ecclesia cum sinceritate observat. » Haec ille. Ubi apertissime loquitur de digamia plu¬ rium uxorum successiva , cum eos digamos appellet, qui mortua uxore, aliam ducunt, et cum Catharos reprehendat, qui ex hoc loco Pauli etiam Laicis interdicebant secundas •nuptias. Ambrosius lib. X, epist. 82. ad Ecclesiam Yercellens. tractans hunc locum Pauli : Unius uxoris vir : « (kii, inquit, conjugium iteraverit , culpam n<m habet coinquinati, sed praerogativa exuitur Sacerdotis. »Hsec ille. Ubi apertissime rejicit Lutheri atque Calvini sententiam, qui volunt ab Apostolo prohiberi vel duas simul uxores , vel adulteria; lieec enim qui admittunt, culpam habent coinqui¬ nati , et non solum praerogativa exuuntur Sacerdotis. Similia habet Ambrosius lib. I de officiis, cap. ult. et lib. de dignitate sa¬ cerdotali, cap. 4. Hieronymus in commentario primi capitis epistolae ad Titum , per unius uxoris virum monogamum intelligit. Quod autem mono¬ gami nomine intelligat eum, qui nec simul, nec successive plures habuerit, perspicuum est ex illis verbis : « Apostolus, inquit, de Episcopis et Presbyteris haec praecipiens uti¬ que in caeteris relaxavit, non quod hortetur ad secunda matrimonia , sed quod necessi¬ tati carnis indulgeat. » Haec ille. At certe non indulget Apostolus Laicis ut fornicen¬ tur , aiit duas simul uxores ducant, sed so¬ lum, ut uxore defuncta, iterum ineant matri¬ monium; Igitur hoc ipsum Sacerdotibus pro¬ hibet, ne plures etiam successive uxores ha¬ beant. S. Augustinus lib. de bono conjugali, cap. 18. tractans hunc locum; Unius uxoris vir : « Non absurde, inquit, visum est , eum qui excessit uxorum numerum singularem, non peccatum aliquod commisisse, sed normam quamdam Sacramenti amisisse non ad vitae bonse meritum, sed ad ordinationis Ecclesias¬ ticae signaculum necessariam. » Haec ille. Ubi cum dicit , numerum sipgularem uxo¬ rum excedere, impedimentum esse ordina¬ tionis, nec tamen esse peccatum , aperte in¬ dicat , se loqui de multitudine uxorum non uno tempore, sed diverso. Nam eodem tem¬ pore plures habere Christiano nullo modo licet ex Augustini sententia : sic enim loqui¬ tur idem Augustinus lib. XX. contra Faus¬ tum, c. 47 : (t Quid, inquit, tandem criminis est, quod de pluribus simul habitis uxoribus, objicitur sancto viro Jacob? Si naturam con¬ sulas, non lasciviendi , sed gignendi causa illis mulieribus utebatur. Si morem, illo tem¬ pore, atque in illis terris hoc factitabatur, si praeceptum, nulla lege prohibebatur ; nunc vero cur crimen est, si quis hoc faciat , nisi quia, et moribus et legibus non licet?» Idem quoque habet in libro de bono conjugali, c. 7. et lib. III de doctrina Christiana, cap. duo¬ decimo. Sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus hom. 2. in epist. ad Titum : « Castigat, inquit, hoc ipso etiam impudicos, dum non eos permittit post secundas nuptias ad Ecclesiae regimen, dig- 472 LIBER I. nitatemque Pastoris assumi; nam qui de¬ functae uxori benevolentiam nullam servasse deprehenditur, quo pacto hic Ecclesiae prae¬ ceptor esse optimus poterit? Nostis enim profecto omnes, quod etsi per leges secundae nuptiae permittuntur , multis tamen ea res accusationibus patet. Nullam ergo occasio¬ nem praebere subjectis praesulem vult. » Haec ille. Ubi clarissime significat, unius uxoris virum a B. Paulo dici eum, qui post obitum primae uxoris, secundam non duxit, quo mo¬ do exponunt etiam caeteri , tum Graeci , ut Theophylactus et QEcumenius , tum Latini, Sedulius, Anselmus, Primasius, Haymo, S. Thomas , et caeteri in comment. hujus loci. Idem etiam disertis verbis docent veteres summi, sanctissimi que Pontifices; Siricus in epist. 1. ad Himericum , cap. 11. Leo I in epist. 85. alias 88. ad Episcopos Africae, cap. 1. Gelasius I in epist. 1. ad Episcopos Lucaniae, Brutii, et Siciliae, c. 5. Hilarius in Concilio R,omano ; et Innocentius in epist. 22. Unus est Theodoretus , quantum legere potui , ex omni numero veterum , qui per unius uxoris virum intellexerit eum, qui duas aut plures simul uxores non habet; ita enim exponit in commentario cap. 3. prio¬ ris epistolae ad Timotheum ; sed non est tan¬ ta ejus auctoritas , ut tot sanctis Pontifici¬ bus, et omnibus aliis Patribus anteponi de¬ beat. His accedit Quarto et ultimo totius Eccle¬ siae consuetudo. Nam, ut.Innocentius scribit in epist. 22, cap. 1. in toto Oriente et Occi¬ dente hoc servabatur, quod etiam nunc ser¬ vari videmus , ut bigami , non ordinentur. Neque solum ubique, sed etiam semper hoc servatum esse, planum esse potest ex Leone epist. 88. ad Afros, ubi dicit, semper hoc es¬ se servatum ; necnon ex eo, quod hujus rei mentio fit in Canonibus Apostolorum , can. 17 et 18. et in antiquissimis Conciliis , ut Neoeaesariensi , can. 8. et Nicsenum I, teste Ambrosio in epist. 82. Deinceps etiam sem¬ per esse servatum, patet ex decreto Gratia¬ ni, dist. 26. et ex decretalium volumine, tit. de digamis , ubi multa ponuntur testimonia Pontificum, et Patrum diversarum aetatum : Quod autem semper et ubique servatum est, sine dubitatione ulla ab Apostolica traditio¬ ne descendit. *