Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 24: The Objections of Luther Answered
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).
But now let us answer the arguments of Luther. The first objection. The Apostle bids a bishop be chosen blameless, or (as he speaks to Titus) without crime, which is in Greek anenkletos. And such a one is he who cannot be openly accused of any crime. But the Apostle at once explained what are the crimes which a bishop ought to be without, and says: “The husband of one wife, having faithful children.” Therefore “the husband of one wife” does not signify monogamy, which is opposed to the polygamy of several wives successively (which was never a crime), but that which is opposed to fornication and adultery, which are true crimes.
I answer: in this passage by the name of “crime” may be understood not only sin, but whatever is wont to be reprehended by men; for not only sins are reprehended, but also those things which give a sign of incontinence or of another vice. And that any digamy whatever is such a thing is most certain. For therefore in the Council of Neocaesarea (canon 7) priests are forbidden to be present at the marriages of the twice-married; and even among the Gentiles the twice-married could not be pontiffs, as Tertullian relates (Book I to his wife) and Servius (on that of Aeneid IV, “to this one fault perhaps I could have succumbed”): “fault,” he says, “on account of the ancient rite by which the twice-married were repelled from priesthoods.” The Apostle therefore wishes that a bishop can be noted among men for nothing that bears an evil appearance, and therefore bids him be a monogamist. So Chrysostom expounds this passage. We can, however, by the name of “crime” understand also a grave and deadly sin, as Saint Augustine will have it (tract 41 on John, and Book I against the two letters of the Pelagians, chapter 14); but if we so take the name of crime, we ought not to expound the following words of Blessed Paul as if by them it were explained what it is to be blameless, or without crime, but so that by them it is declared that a bishop ought not only to be without crime, but also adorned with many excellent endowments — as monogamy, sobriety, doctrine, and so on.
The second objection. If a bishop ought to be a monogamist, either the reason of this would be moral — namely, for the sake of greater continence — or certainly spiritual or mystical — namely, for the signification of the marriage of the one Christ with the one Church. But neither can be said. For if the reason were moral, it would be much more required in a bishop that he be not an adulterer or concubine-keeper than that he be not twice-married; and yet we see adulterers and concubine-keepers not repelled from the priesthood, but the twice-married repelled. But if the reason be mystical, many absurdities follow. For, first, the other endowments of bishops which are numbered by Paul are all moral — as sobriety, hospitality, doctrine, and the rest. Why will “the husband of one wife” not also be moral? Secondly, if a bishop ought to be a monogamist because his marriage signifies the matrimony of Christ with the Church, then laymen too will have to be monogamists, because their marriage also signifies the marriage of Christ. Thirdly, if that is the reason, then a bishop will have to take a virgin and keep her always a virgin, for so Christ did. Fourthly, a bishop will have to repudiate his former wife and cleave to a latter; for Christ, the Synagogue being repudiated, cleaved to the Church; wherefore a bishop, to imitate Christ, will be not a monogamist but twice-married. Fifthly, the same bishop will necessarily have to have a wife, and not lack her for even a point of time; for Christ never lacks the Church, His spouse.
I answer that the reason why bishops, priests, and deacons ought to be monogamists is partly moral, partly mystical. For although many reasons are wont to be given by the Fathers, yet all are brought back to those two noted in the adversary’s argument. One cause, then, is moral, namely a lesser suspicion of incontinence, or a more perfect continence. This Tertullian gives in the cited passages, and Chrysostom in the commentary on the passages of Blessed Paul; and to this is brought back the cause which Epiphanius gives (heresy 59), where he says a bishop ought to be a monogamist for the excellence of the priesthood. To the same can be brought back that which Ambrose gives (Book I On the Offices, last chapter), where he says a bishop ought to be a monogamist that he may more freely exhort men to continence. The other cause is mystical, namely the perfect signification of the marriage of Christ with the Church; for he who has taken a second wife signifies indeed by his marriage the marriage of Christ, but not so perfectly as he who had only one; for he does not signify that Christ is the spouse of one Church in such a way that He never had another.
You will say: therefore he who takes a second wife sins, for he signifies something false — namely, that Christ is the spouse of several Churches. I answer that this does not follow. For second marriages were not instituted to signify that Christ is twice a husband, and therefore they do not signify this — although neither do they signify that He is so the one of one that He had no other, but simply signify the very conjunction of one with one present, whatever there may have been in the past. And so the marriages of the twice-married signify nothing false, but lack a certain perfection of signification which the marriages of monogamists have. And this cause Saint Augustine gives (in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 18), and Saint Leo (in letter 88 to the Africans); and hither also pertains that reason of Epiphanius about the excellence of the priesthood.
To answer, then, to the individual parts of the objection: “If the reason is moral,” they say, “then by a stronger reason adulteries and concubinage are forbidden, than digamy.” I answer that these too are indeed forbidden; for he did not wish adulterers or concubine-keepers to be chosen bishops, who bade men without crime, blameless, sober, chaste, and so on, be chosen. But yet we deny that these are more forbidden than digamy in choosing a bishop. For these are forbidden by one reason only, and that not the primary one; but digamy is forbidden by two reasons. And that the primary reason is not the moral one, for the sign of incontinence, but the other mystical one, for the signification, is plain from this, that even those are deemed twice-married who had one wife, but a widow, or otherwise corrupt, as is established from the cited passages of the canons of the Apostles, the Council of Neocaesarea, Innocent, Leo, and others; and besides, even though concubinage is far baser than digamy, yet digamy of its own nature is a sign of a more lasting incontinence, more firmly inhering.
To the first of the other part I answer that monogamy is rightly numbered with the other moral endowments, both because it too is a moral endowment, and also because there is no inconvenience in numbering a mystical endowment with the moral ones, since all are necessary to a bishop. To the second, we deny that it follows that laymen too ought to be monogamists. For it is not necessary that laymen be endowed with that perfection with which bishops ought to be endowed; wherefore it is enough if the marriage of laymen signify the marriage of Christ with the Church, though it does not signify it as of one with one, as we said above. To the third, we deny also that it follows that a bishop ought to have kept his wife always a virgin. For the Church, the spouse of Christ, has two privileges; for she is both a virgin, according to that of 2 Corinthians 11, “I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ,” and at the same time most fruitful, and daily bears very many children through the laver of regeneration. But these two privileges together no human marriage can represent, except that which was between the Blessed Virgin and Saint Joseph. Therefore it is enough if the marriage of a bishop signify one of them — namely, either the fruitfulness of the Church, if he had children from his wife, or virginity, if perchance he kept his wife a virgin, as some holy men did.
To the fourth, we deny that Christ ever repudiated His spouse to take another. For Christ, as man, never took any but one spouse, that is, the Christian Church, which He formed for Himself from His pierced side, as of old Adam took as his wife one Eve, drawn from his side. And the same Christ, as God, from the beginning of the world joined the Church to Himself in matrimony, nor ever dismissed her. For although Christ seems to have repudiated the Synagogue, because at this time the Jews are without God, and because Blessed Paul (Galatians 4) expounds of the Old Testament that of Genesis 21, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son,” yet in reality Christ did not repudiate the Church of the Old Testament, but renewed her, and made her beautiful, and from a bondwoman made her free, and in this way cast out the bondwoman, that is, that servile state — just as if someone took a bondwoman to wife and after some time freed her. Wherefore Blessed Paul (Romans 11): “Hath God cast away His people? God forbid; for I also am an Israelite. God hath not cast away His people, which He foreknew,” and so on. And so only a certain part of the obstinate Jews withdrew from the unity of the true Synagogue; the rest remained, and through them the marriage of Christ with the Church was continued. To the fifth, we deny that a bishop must always and necessarily have a wife; nay, we say he will do better if he never take a wife. For since Christ is both virgin and husband, if a bishop have no wife, he will represent Christ the virgin; if he have a wife, he will signify the marriage of Christ. And so monogamy is required in a bishop if he was married, not absolutely.
The third objection. That Paul says (1 Timothy 3) that a bishop ought to be the husband of one wife is like that which he says (1 Corinthians 7): “Let every man have his own wife.” But in these latter words second marriages are not forbidden, but adulteries and whoredoms. I answer that the proposition of the argument is to be proved by Luther; for those two sayings are not altogether alike. For in the former the number of the marriage is determined, since mention is made of one wife; in the latter it is not determined; for everyone will truly have his own wife if he have a lawful spouse, even though perchance she be not the first but the second. But Luther insists, and proves those sayings to be alike. For (1 Timothy 3) Paul says: “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife”; where that “one” cannot determine the number, otherwise the sense would be that many deacons should have one wife in common. That word “one,” then, is put for “only,” so that the sense is: let deacons be the husbands of their own wife only, not of other women. But the objection is unworthy of an answer. For who does not understand that “let deacons be the husbands of one wife” is to be taken distributively, not conjointly? This, then, is the sense: let deacons — that is, any deacon — be the husband of one wife.
The fourth objection. The Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7) places himself in the number of the widowed, and yet (1 Corinthians 9) says: “Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Paul, then, could, though widowed, take a wife; for how could he lead about a wife-sister if he could not first take her? I answer that this argument sins in many ways. For, first, Blessed Paul does not number himself among the widowed, but among those who lacked a wife, whether they had never taken one or had already lost one: “To the unmarried,” he says, “and to the widows I say, it is good if they so remain, even as I.” Then, the same Apostle does not say that he has power to lead about a wife-sister, but a sister-woman, as all the interpreters relate, of which we disputed in the preceding question.
The fifth objection. Paul could, if he had wished, have openly said that a bishop ought to be a monogamist; therefore, since he did not say a bishop ought to be a monogamist, but the husband of one wife, he wished to compel his readers to understand his words not of the singularity of marriage (which the word monogamy sounds), but of the singularity of the woman (which “the husband of one wife” signifies). Therefore Blessed Paul does not forbid a bishop second marriages, but the intercourse of other women besides the intercourse of a lawful wife. I answer that if it be lawful thus to cavil, questions will never be ended. The Apostle said what could be understood; he was not bound to shake out all forms of speech. Add that the word “monogamist” was not in use among the Greeks, but first began to be employed by the Latins, though composed of Greek words. Accordingly it is no wonder if Paul, who wrote in Greek, did not use it. Add too that this very word, though properly derived from one marriage, is yet usually taken also for one who has one wife, whether she be the first or the second; from which it follows that a monogamist is altogether the same as the husband of one wife.
The sixth objection. Ambrose (in the book On Priestly Dignity, chapter 4) expounded those words, “the husband of one wife,” of the spiritual marriage of the bishop with the Church, and says the Apostle bids this, that a bishop rule one Church, not many. Therefore, if we believe Ambrose, digamy is not forbidden to priests. Jerome too (in the letter to Oceanus) most sharply defends Carterius, a Spanish bishop, who had had two wives; and to the law of the Apostle, against which that bishop was accused of having sinned, he answers that “the husband of one wife” can be understood in many ways. For, first, this can be the sense: let a bishop be the husband of one wife — that is, let him have one at one time, and though, she being dead, he take another, yet let him never have two at once. Then also, by the name of “wife” the Church can be taken, so that he is the husband of one wife who is set over one Church. And again, by the name of “wife” a woman can be taken, so that “the husband of one wife” is the same as “the husband of one woman,” so that not so much second marriages as the intercourse of many women at once is forbidden. We can add the testimony of Saint Augustine (in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 18), where he opposes the priest of the Old Testament, who could have many wives, to the priest of the New Testament, who can have only one. But the former could have many at once; therefore the latter is forbidden to have several at one time, but not one after another.
To the testimony of Ambrose it will be easy to answer, since he himself in that very passage which is objected to us writes that to the letter digamy of wives is forbidden to priests, but that mystically it can also be expounded of a digamy of Churches; wherefore the same Ambrose (in letter 82, and Book I On the Offices, last chapter, and in the commentary on Paul) does not mention this mystical exposition, but expounds it simply of true monogamy. But that we may answer to Jerome, it is to be observed that there was a controversy among the ancient Fathers whether one who had one wife before Baptism, and, she being dead, took another after Baptism, was to be deemed twice-married or not. For Saint Jerome (in the letter to Oceanus) contends that such a man is not twice-married, because through Baptism he was made a new man from an old, and nothing of the old which he did before Baptism can harm him. And indeed to this opinion canon 17 of the Apostles much favors, which expressly forbids him to be made a bishop who after Baptism celebrated marriage twice. But on the contrary, Ambrose, Innocent, and Augustine (in the cited passages) contend that he is altogether to be held twice-married who had two wives, whether before Baptism or after Baptism. For Baptism washes away sins, does not dissolve marriages; and renews a man as to the oldness of vices, not as to the things that are rightly disposed. And this opinion at length prevailed, and was received by the whole Church. Nor does the apostolic canon stand in the way; for perhaps at that time, on account of the fewness of men, the Apostles dispensed with those who before Baptism had had one wife, or several, provided they had not had several after Baptism. For this precept of the Apostle is not altogether indispensable. Jerome, then, does not defend a polygamist bishop, nor teach that polygamy was permitted to priests by Blessed Paul, but only contends that he who had only one wife after Baptism is not a polygamist, though he had another before Baptism.
And although the same Jerome adduces those three expositions of the Pauline passage which are set forth in the objection, yet he does not approve them as true and genuine. For that first, of the polygamy of several wives at once, he says he adduces “to cut a bad knot with a bad wedge.” The other, of the polygamy of Churches, he says is a forced and harsh exposition: “Some,” he says, “forcedly interpret wives for Churches, husbands for bishops.” Finally that third, of the husband of one woman, and at the same time the two former, he most openly rejects, when he says thus: “All these things we bring forward, not that we resist the true and simple understanding, but that we may teach thee so to understand the holy Scriptures as they are written, and not to evacuate the Baptism of the Savior and make void the whole Sacrament of the gibbet.” Thus he. Where he opposes those three expositions to one simple and true. And which he calls simple and true can be understood from his commentary on chapter 1 of the epistle to Titus, where he expounds simply that the husband of one wife is he who, after the death of his first wife, did not take a second.
To the passage of Augustine I answer that the antithesis of the priests of the Old and New Testament is placed only in this, that the former had several wives, the latter one — not in this, that the former had several at once, the latter not several at once. Which can be gathered from two things. For Augustine says that the priests of the New Testament therefore cannot have several wives, because they signify the marriage of Christ with the one Church; but the Church is altogether one, not one after another. Then the same Augustine in the same place says that it is not a sin to have two wives now, but yet is an impediment to ordination. But that to have two at once in the time of the New Testament is a sin, the same Augustine teaches (in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 7). Therefore when he says that a priest of the New Testament can have only one wife, he understands neither at once nor successively.
The seventh objection is our own, that the matter may be better understood. If digamy were forbidden to priests for a defect of signification, certainly he would be twice-married who had had several lawful wives, though he had consummated marriage with only one; for marriage is whole and perfect even without conjugal intercourse. But the canon law defines the contrary (chapter Debitum, on the twice-married). Besides, only that digamy would be forbidden which consisted of two true marriages; but it is not so; for (chapter Nuper, on the twice-married) even those are deemed twice-married who took one wife lawfully and another not lawfully, when yet the latter was not a true marriage. Nay, even those who after a solemn vow take one wife are deemed twice-married, and those too who take a harlot, though one. Where it is in no way possible to imagine two marriages, unless one call fornication a marriage. And it is confirmed: for if a fornicating man take a virgin wife, he is not twice-married; but if a chaste man take a harlot, he is twice-married. Therefore the foundation of digamy is not a defect of signification; for in this those marriages are equal in which either the man or the woman committed fornication.
I answer: there are three species of digamy, as the interpreters of canon law rightly teach on the title On the Twice-Married. The first species is true and proper digamy, namely that which arises from two true marriages. And this digamy happens in three ways. First, on the part of the man only, when the man had two true wives. Secondly, on the part of the wife only, when the wife had two true husbands. Thirdly, on the part of both, when a widower takes a widow; and of this species there is no doubt. For it is established that in it a defect of signification is always present, since either the man is not one of one, or the wife not one of one. The second species is interpretative digamy — that is, which truly, by the nature of the thing, is not digamy, but by the interpretation of law is held and reputed digamy. And this digamy happens whenever someone takes a second wife, or a wife a second husband, in fact, not in right — whether the first marriage was in right, or yet in fact only — as is plain from the title On the Twice-Married. For although here there is not truly a defect of signification, yet the Church extends the penalty of the twice-married to these too; and perhaps Saint Paul, when he says, “Let bishops be the husbands of one wife,” wished this to be understood of right or of fact, so that he forbade anyone to be ordained who was the husband of several wives, whether in right or in fact. The third species is metaphorical digamy — that is, which arises from a double marriage, one of which was not true but metaphorical. For thus the Council of Ancyra (canon 19) bids those be held among the twice-married who after a vow of continence passed to marriage; since a vow of continence is a kind of marriage of the soul with God, though metaphorical. And these are forbidden to be ordained, not because they are truly twice-married, but because the Church wished to extend to them the penalty of the twice-married.
From these I answer, first, that digamy does not arise except from a consummated marriage. For, as Pope Innocent rightly says (chapter Debitum, on the twice-married), a marriage ratified but not consummated signifies the conjunction of God with the soul through grace; but a consummated marriage signifies the conjunction of Christ with the Church through conformity of nature. For the Apostle (Ephesians 5) said, “This is a great Sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church,” when a little before he had said, “They shall be two in one flesh.” But digamy is born from a defect of signification of the marriage of Christ with the Church, not of God with the soul. To that which was objected about the digamy of those who had several wives in fact, not in right, answer has already been given in the explanation of the species of digamy.
To that about him who takes a harlot, some answer that he who takes a harlot is therefore twice-married, though a fornicator who takes a virgin is not twice-married, because a bishop represents the Church, and the spouse of a bishop represents Christ; and it is established that in the Church herself some corruptions are not lacking, but in Christ nothing of the kind can be. But this solution conflicts with the Apostle Paul, who (Ephesians 5) compares the man with Christ and the spouse with the Church: “Husbands,” he says, “love your wives, as Christ the Church.” Others, among whom is Domingo de Soto (on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 27, question 3, article 1), say that the cause of that difference is that marriage takes its species from the term to which; and accordingly the marriage of a man is only then vitiated when the vice is in the wife, for she is the term to which in respect of the man; and on the contrary, when the vice is in the man, then the marriage is vitiated on the part of the wife, and if she were capable of ordination, she would become irregular if she married a fornicating man. But this solution seems more acute than true. For if digamy arose only from the term to which, certainly he who took a second virgin wife would not be twice-married; for in such a marriage there is no vice in the term to which, but the whole is in the term from which, that is, in the man himself who contracts marriage twice. But there is no digamy more proper than to take two wives, though virgins. As therefore digamy arises equally whether a widower take a virgin or a virgin take a widower, as is plain, so also there would be digamy when a fornicating man takes a virgin, if there were digamy when a chaste man takes a harlot.
I answer, then, that it is forbidden that he be ordained who takes a harlot — not because that is digamy, nor on account of that precept of the Apostle, “the husband of one wife,” but because it so pleased the Church for the dignity of the priesthood. For it is unworthy of so grave a person to have marriage with a harlot; but it is not unworthy of a fornicating man to take a virgin wife. And that the cause of this is not digamy but the dignity of the priesthood can be proved from this, that in canon 18 of the Apostles, where a priest is forbidden to be made who took a harlot, he too is forbidden to be made a priest who took a bondwoman or an actress of comedies — where digamy has no place, but only infamy. And let these things said about celibacy suffice.
Now there would follow the fifth and sixth disputations: the fifth on the canonical hours, the sixth on the rite of tonsure or shaving of clerics. But because the canonical hours can more conveniently be treated in the disputation on prayer, and of the rite of tonsure we shall discourse in the following book, which will be On Monks, we will now betake ourselves to the seventh disputation.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. Solvuntur objectiones Lutheri. Sed jam ad argumenta Lutheri respon¬ deamus. Prima Objectio. Apostolus jubet, Episcopum eligi irreprehensibilem , sive, ut ad Titum loquitur , sine crimine, quod est Graece uvij/.lnzog. Is autem est ejusmodi, qui non potest palam argui alicujus criminis. Explicavit vero statim Apostolus , quae sint crimina , quibus carere debet Episcopus, et ait : Unius uxoris vir, filios habens fideles. Igitur unius uxoris vir , non significat mo¬ nogamiam, quae opponitur polygamiae plu¬ rium uxorum successive, quae numquam fuit crimen , sed eam , quae opponitur for¬ nicationi et adulterio , quae vera sunt cri¬ mina. Respondeo, potest hoc loco nomine crimi¬ nis non solum peccatum intelligi, sed quid¬ quid ab hominibus reprehendi solet; neque enim sola peccata reprehenduntur, sed etiam ea, quae signum praebent incontinentiae , aut alterius vitii : talem autem esse quamlibet bigamiam certissimum est. Nam idcirco in Concilio Neocaesariensi, can. 7. prohibentur Sacerdotes interesse nuptiis digamorum, et etiam apud Gentiles bigami Pontifices esse non poterant, ut Tertullianus refert , lib. I. ad uxorem , et Servius in illud IV. H£nei- dos. Huic uni forsan potui succumbere culpae. « Culpae , inquit , propter antiquum ri¬ tum, quo repellebantur a sacerdotiabis nup¬ tae. » Apostolus igitur vult , Episcopum nullius rei, quae malam speciem prae se ferat, apud homines posse notari , et ideo monogamum esse jubet. Ita hunc locum Chrysostomus exponit ; possumus tamen nomine criminis intelligere etiam peccatum grave ac laethale,. ut vult. S. Augustinus tractat. 41. in Joan- nem, et lib- 1. contra duas epistolas Pelagia- norum, cap. 14. sed si ita accipiamus nomen criminis, non debemus exponere verba se¬ quentia B. Pauli , quasi iis explicetur quid sit, esse irreprehensibilem , sive sine crimi- CAPUT XXIV. 473 ne ; sed ita , ut eis declaretur, Episcopum non solum sine crimine esse debere , sed etiam multis praeclaris dotibus ornatum, ut monogamia, sobrietate, doctrina etc. Secunda objectio. Si Episcopus monoga¬ mus esse deberet , aut ratio hujus rei esset moralis, videlicet ob majorem continentiam, aut certe spiritualis sive mystica, videlipet ob significationem conjugii unius Christi cum una Ecclesia; at neutrum dici potest. Nam si ratio esset moralis , multo magis require¬ retur in Episcopo ne esset adulter, aut con- cubinarius , quam ne esset bigamus , et ta¬ men videmus adulteros , et concubinarios non repelli a sacerdotio, digamos autem re¬ pelli ; Si vero ratio sit mystica , multa se¬ quuntur absurda. Nam in primis caeterae dotes Episcoporum, quae a Paulo nume¬ rantur, omnes sunt morales , ut sobrietas, et hospitalitas , doctrina , et caeterae. Cur non etiam ista erit moralis : unius uxoris vir? Secundo, si ideo Episcopus debet esse mo¬ nogamus, quia ejus conjugium significat ma¬ trimonium Christi cum Ecclesia, igitur etiam Laici debebunt esse monogami, quia eorum quoque conjugium significat Christi conju¬ gium. Tertio , si illa est ratio , igitur debebit Episcopus ducere virginem , et eam sem- per virginem conservare ; ita enim Christus fecit. Quarto, debebit Episcopus priorem uxo¬ rem repudiare, et posteriori adhaerere. Nam Christus, Synagoga repudiata, adhaesit Ec¬ clesiae , quocirca Episcopus , ut Christum imitetur , non monogamus , sed bigamus erit. Quinto, debebit idem Episcopus necessa¬ rio uxorem habere , eaque ne ad punctum quidem temporis carere ; Christus enim Ec¬ clesia sponsa sua numquam caret. Respondeo, rationem, cur Episcopi, Pres¬ byteri , et Diaconi debeant esse monogami, partim esse moralem , partim mysticam ; tametsi enim multae rationes reddi solent a Patribus, tamen omnes revocantur ad duas illas in argumento adversarii notatas. Una igitur causa est moralis, videlicet minor su¬ spicio incontinentiae , sive perfectior conti¬ nentia. Hanc reddit Tertullianus locis cita¬ tis, et Chrysostomus in commentario loco¬ rum B. Pauli ; atque ad* hanc revocatur cau¬ sa, quam reddit Epiphanius haeresi 59. ubi dicit, monogamum esse debere Episcopum .t ob excellentiam sacerdotii. Ad eamdem re¬ vocari potest ea , quam reddit Ambrosius, lib. I de officiis, cap. ult. ubi dicit, mono¬ gamum esse debere Episcopum , ut liberius hortari possit homines ad continentiam. Altera causa est mystica , videlicet per¬ fecta significatio conjugii Christi cum Eccle¬ sia, qui enim secundam uxorem duxit, sig¬ nificat quidem conjugio suo Christi conju¬ gium, sed non ita perfecte, ut is, qui unam solam habuit ; non enim significat, Christum ita esse unius Ecclesiae sponsum , ut num¬ quam habuerit aliam. Dices, peccat igitur , qui secundam uxo¬ rem ducit ; nam falsum significat, Christum videlicet plurium esse sponsum Ecclesiarum. Respondeo, id non sequi. Nam secundae nup¬ tiae non sunt institutae ad significandum, Christum bis maritum esse, ideoque id non significant , quamquam nec significant eum esse ita unum unius, ut non habuerit aliam, sed simpliciter significant ipsam conjunctio¬ nem unius cum una praesenti, quidquid fue¬ rit de praeterito. Itaque nuptiae digamorum nihil falsi significant , sed carent quadam perfectione significationis, quam habent nup¬ tiae monogamorum. Atque hanc causam red¬ dunt sanctus Augustinus libro de bono con¬ jugali, cap. 18. et sanctus Leo in epist. 88. ad Afros, et huc etiam pertinet ratio illa Epi- phanii de excellentia sacerdotii. Ut igitur respondeamus ad singulas par¬ tes objectionis : Si ratio , inquiunt, moralis est, igitur majori ratione prohibentur adul¬ teria et concubinatus, quam digamia. Respondeo, prohiberi quidem etiam ista ; non enim voluit adulteros, aut concubinarios Episcopos eligi, qui jussit eligi homines sine crimine , irreprehensibiles , sobrios, castos etc. sed tamen negamus magis ista prohi¬ beri, quam digamiam in Episcopo deligen¬ do. Nam ista prohibentur una solum ratione et ea non primaria : digamia vero duabus rationibus prohibetur. Quod autem primaria ratio non sit illa moralis, ob signum incon- tinentise, sed altera mystica ob significatio¬ nem, patet ex eo , quod digami censentur etiam illi, qui unam uxorem habuerunt, sed viduam, vel alio modo corruptam, ut constat ex citatis locis canonum Apostolorum, Con¬ cilii Neocaesariensis , Innocentii, Leonis, et aliorum, ac praeterea etiamsi longe turpior sit concubinatus, quam digamia, tamen di¬ gamia ex natura sua signum est incontinen¬ tia magis diuturnae, firmiusque inhaerentis. 474 LIBER I. Ad primum alterius partis respondeo, recte monogamiam numerari cum caeteris moralibus dotibus, tum quia etiam ipsa est moralis dos, tum etiam quia nihil incom¬ modi habet, numerare dotem mysticam cum moralibus, cum omnes Episcopo necessariae sint. Ad secundum, negamus id sequi, ut etiam Laici debeant esse monogami. Non enim ne- cesse est, ut Laici ea perfectione sint prae¬ diti, qua praediti esse debent Episcopi ; Quare satis est, si matrimonium Laicorum signifi¬ cet conjugium Christi cum Ecclesia, licet non significet illud, ut est unius cum una, ut supra diximus. Ad tertium, negamus etiam sequi, ut Epis¬ copus debeat uxorem semper virginem ser¬ vasse. Nam Christi sponsa Ecclesia duo pri¬ vilegia habet; nam et virgo est, juxta illud II. Corintb. XI : Despondi vos uni viro virgi¬ nem castam exhibere Christo (1) ; et simul fce- cundissima est, et plurimos quotidie filios parit per lavacrum regenerationis. Duo au¬ tem ista privilegia simul, nullum conjugium humanum repraesentare potest, illo excepto, quod fuit inter B. Virginem et S. Josephum. Idcirco satis est, si Episcopi conjugium, al¬ terum eorum significet, nimirum aut fcecun- ditatem Ecclesiae, si filios ex uxore habuerit, aut virginitatem, si forte uxorem virginem conservavit, ut aliqui sancti viri fecerunt. Ad quartum, negamus, Christum repu¬ diasse unquam sponsam suam, ut acciperet aliam. Nam Christus, ut homo, non accepit unquam, nisi unam sponsam, id est, Eccle¬ siam Christianam, quam ipse ex latere suo perfosso sibi formavit, ut quondam Adam, unam Evam ex latere suo eductam, uxorem accepit. Idem vero Christus, ut Deus, ab ini¬ tio mundi Ecclesiam sibi conjunxit in matri¬ monium, neque unquam eam dimisit. Etsi enim videtur Christus repudiasse Synago¬ gam, quia sunt hoc tempore Judaei sine Deo, et quia B. Paulus ad Galat. IV. exponit de Testamento veteri illud Genes. XXI : Ejice ancillam , et filium ejus (2). Tamen revera Ec¬ clesiam Testamenti veteris Christus non re¬ pudiavit, sed renovavit, et pulchram reddi¬ dit, et ex ancilla liberam fecit, et hoc modo ejecit ancillam, id est, statum illum servi¬ lem. Quomodo si aliquis ancillam uxorem acciperet, ac post aliquantum temporis eam (1) II. Cor. XI, 2.— (2) Gen. XXI, 10. III, 12. liberaret. Quare B. Paulus ad Rom. XI : Numquid , inquit , Deus repulit populum suum ? Absit. Nam et ego Israelita sum. Non repulit Deus plebem suam, quam, praescivit etc.( 3) Itaque solum pars qusedam obstina¬ torum Judaeorum recessit ab unitate verae Synagogae : reliqui manserunt; et per eos continuatum est conjugium Christi cum Ec¬ clesia. Ad quintum, negamus. Episcopum sem¬ per ac necessario uxorem habere debere ; imo melius facturum dicimus, si numquam uxorem duxerit. Nam cum Christus et virgo et maritus sit, si Episcopus uxorem non ha¬ beat, Christum virginem repraesentabit, si uxorem habeat, Christi conjugium significa¬ bit. Itaque monogamia in Episcopo requiri¬ tur, si conjugatus fuerit, non absolute. • Tertia Objectio, quod Paulus ait, I. Ti- moth. III. Episcopum esse oportere unius uxoris virum ; simile est ei, quod idem ait, I. Corinth. VII : Unusquisque uxorem ha¬ beat (4). At in his posterioribus verbis non prohibentur secundae nuptiae, sed adulteria, et scortationes. Respondeo, probandam esse Luthero pro¬ positionem argumenti ; non enim sunt om¬ nino similes duae illae sententiae. Nam in priori determinatur numerus conjugii, cum unius uxoris mentio fit; in posteriore non determinatur ; habebit enim vere unusquis¬ que suam uxorem, si legitimam conjugem habeat, etiamsi forte non sit prima, sed se¬ cunda. Sed instat Liitherus, et probat sententias illas esse similes. Nam, I. Timoth. III Paulus ait : Diaconi sint unius uxoris viri (5), ubi illud ; Unius , non potest determinare nume¬ rum, alioqui sensus esset, ut multi Diaconi unam uxorem communem haberent. Poni¬ tur igitur illa vox, Unius, pro, Solius, ut sen¬ sus sit, Diaconi solius uxoris suae viri sint, non mulierum caeterarum. At indigna est objectio, cui respondeatur. Quis enim non * intelligit illud : Diaconi sint unius uxoris viri; divise accipi debere, non conjuncte? Iste igitur sensus est; Diaconi, id est, quilibet Diaconus sit unius uxoris vir. Quarta Objectio. Apostolus Paulus I. Co¬ rinth. VII se in numero viduorum ponit, et tamen I. ad Corinth. IX. ait : An non habe¬ mus potestatem sororem uxorem circumducendi, — (3) Rom. XI, 1 et 2. — (4) I. Cor. VII, 2. — (5) I. Tim. ■ CAPUT XXIY. 475 sicut Apostoli , et fra tres Domini , et Cephas ? (1) Poterat igitur Paulus, licet viduus esset, uxorem ducere ; quomodo enim potuisset sororem uxorem circumducere, si non po¬ tuisset eam prius ducere. Respondeo, hoc argumentum multis mo¬ dis peccare. Primum enim B. Paulus non se inter viduos numerat, sed inter eos, qui uxore carebant, sive eam numquam acce¬ pissent, sive jam amisissent : Innuptis , in¬ quit, et viduis dico , quia bonum est, si sic per¬ manserint, sicut et ego (2). Deinde, non dicit idem Apostolus, habere se potestatem soro¬ rem uxorem circumducendi, sed sororem mulierem, ut interpretes omnes tradunt de quare superiore quaestione disputavimus. Objectio quinta. Poterat Paulus, si voluis¬ set, aperte dicere, Episcopum debere esse monogamum, ergo cum non dixerit, Epis¬ copum debere esse monogamum, sed unius uxoris virum, cogere voluit Lectores, ut in- telligerent verba sua, non de singularitate nuptiarum, quod sonat nomen monogamiae, sed de singularitate mulieris, quod significat illud : Unius uxoris vir. Non igitur interdicit Episcopo B. Paulus secundas nuptias, sed aliarum mulierum commercium, praeter commercium legitimae uxoris. Respondeo, si ita cavillari liceat, num¬ quam finiendas quaestiones : Dixit Aposto¬ lus, quod intelligeretur ; non debuit omnes loquendi formas excutere. Adde vocem, Mo¬ nogamus, apud Graecos non esse in usu, sed a Latinis primum ulhrpari coeptam, etsi ex Graecis vocibus compositam. Proinde non esse mirum, si Paulus, qui Graece scripsit, ea non fuerit usus. Adde etiam, hanc ipsam vocem, licet proprie ab unis nuptiis deduc¬ tam, tamen usitate etiam accipi pro eo, qui habet unam uxorem, sive ea prima fuerit, sive secunda ; ex quo sequitur, ut idem om¬ nino sit Monogamus, quod unius uxoris vir. Sexta objectio. Ambrosius lib. de dignit. sacerdotali cap. 4. illa verba : Unius uxoris vir, exposuit de conjugio spiritali Episcopi cum Ecclesia, atque ait, Apostolum id ju¬ bere, ut Episcopus unam Ecclesiam regat, non multas. Non igitur, si Ambrosio credi¬ mus, interdicitur Sacerdotibus digamia. Hieronymus quoque in epistola ad Ocea¬ num, defendit accerrime Carterium Hispa¬ num Episcopum, qui duas uxores habuerat, et ad legem Apostoli, in quam peccasse Epis¬ copus ille accusabatur, respondet : posse illud : Unius uxoris vir, multis modis intel- ligi. Nam primum hic potest esse sensus : Sit Episcopus unius uxoris vir, id est, unam habeat uno tempore, et licet ea mortua alte¬ ram ducat, numquam tamen simul habeat duas. Deinde etiam, nomine uxoris accipi potest Ecclesia, ut ille sit unius uxoris vir, qui uni praepositus Ecclesiae est. Et rursus, nomine uxoris mulier potest accipi, ut idem sit unius uxoris vir, quod unius mulieris vir, ut non tam secundae nuptiae, quam multa¬ rum simul mulierum commercium prohibea¬ tur. Addere possumus testimonium S. Augus¬ tini lib. de bono conjugali cap. 18. ubi op¬ ponit Sacerdotem Testamenti veteris, qui multas uxores habere poterat, Sacerdoti Testamenti novi, qui unam solum habere potest. At ille multas simul habere poterat, igitur iste plures uno tempore habere pro¬ hibetur, non autem unam post alteram. Ad Ambrosii testimonium facile erit res¬ pondere, siquidem ipse in illo ipso loco, qui nobis objicitur, scribit, ad litteram prohiberi digamiam uxorum Sacerdotibus. Mystice autem posse etiam exponi de digamia Eccle¬ siarum ; quocirca idem Ambrosius in epistol. 82. et lib. I de officiis cap. ult. et in com- ment. in Paulum, non meminit hujus mysti¬ cae expositionis, sed exponit simpliciter de vera Monogamia. Ad Hieronymi vero, ut respondeamus, observandum est, controversiam fuisse inter veteres Patres ; An qui unam uxorem habuit ante Baptismum eaque mortua, alteram du¬ xit post Baptismum, bigamus censendus es¬ set, nec ne? Nam S. Hieronymus in epistola ad Oceanum contendit, ejusmodi hominem non esse bigamum, propterea quod per Bap¬ tismum sit factus novus homo ex veteri, et nihil ei nocere possit norum, quae fecit ante Baptismum. Et sane huic sententiae multum favet can. 17 Apostolorum, qui diserte pro¬ hibet Episcopum fieri, qui post Baptismum bis nuptias celebravit. Contra vero, Ambrosius, Innocentius, et Augustinus locis citatis contendunt, om¬ nino habendum bigamum, qui duas uxores habuit, sive ante Baptismum,- sive post Bap¬ tismum. Nam Baptisma diluit peccata, non solvit conjugia; et renovat hominem, quan¬ tum ad vetustatem vitiorum, non quantum (1) I. Cor. IX. 5. — (2) I. Cor. VII, 8. 476 LIBER I. ad ea, quae recte se habent. Atque hgec sen¬ tentia tandem praevaluit, et ab universa Ec¬ clesia recepta est. Neque obstat canon Apos- tolicus; fortasse enim eo tempore propter hominum paucitatem dispensabant Apostoli cum illis, qui ante Baptismum uxorem unam, vel plures habuerant, modo non habuissent plures post Baptismum. Neque enim est hoc praeceptum Apostoli omnino indispensabile. Hieronymus igitur non defendit Episcopum polygamum, nec docet, a B. Paulo permis¬ sam polygamiam Sacerdotibus, sed solum contendit, eum, qui unam tantum uxorem habuit, post Baptismum non esse polyga¬ mum, licet habuerit alteram ante Baptis¬ mum. Et quamvis idem Hieronymus tres illas expositiones loci Paulini adducat, quae in objectione propositae sunt, non tamen eas approbat, ut veras et germanas. Nam pri¬ mam illam de polygamia plurium uxorum simul, dicit se adducere, ut malo cuneo ma¬ lum nodum scindat. Alteram de polyga¬ mia Ecclesiarum, dicit esse coactam, et duram expositionem : « Quidam, inquit, coacte interpretantur uxores pro . Eccle¬ siis, viros pro Episcopis. » Denique ter¬ tiam illam de viro unius mulieris, et simul duas superiores, rejicit apertissime, cum sic ait : « Hajc universa proferimus, non quo verae et simplici intelligentise resistamus, sed ut doceamus te Scripturas sanctas sic intelligere, ut scriptae sunt, nec evacuare Baptismum Salvatoris, et totum patibuli Sa¬ cramentum irritum facere. » Haec ille. Ubi tres illas expositiones uni simplici et verae opponit; Quam autem vocet simplicem et veram, intelligi potest ex commentario ejus ad cap. I. epist. ad Titum, ubi simpliciter exponit, unius uxoris virum esse eum, qui post obitum primae uxoris, secundam non duxit. Ad locum Augustini respondeo, antithe- sim sacerdotum Testamenti veteris, et novi, in eo solum positam esse, quod illi habue¬ runt plures uxores, isti unam ; non autem in eo, quod illi habuerunt plures simul, isti non plures simul, id quod ex duobus colligi po¬ test : Nam Augustinus dicit, ideo Sacerdotes novi Testamenti non posse habere plures uxores, quia significant Christi conjugium cum una Ecclesia; at Ecclesia una est om¬ nino, non una post alteram. Deinde idem Augustinus ibidem dicit, non esse pecca¬ tum, habere nunc duas uxores, sed tamen esse impedimentum ordinationis. At habere duas simul tempore novi Testamenti, pecca¬ tum esse, idem Augustinus docet lib. de bonoconjug. cap. 7. Igitur cum dicit, Sacer¬ dotem Testamenti novi non posse habere, nisi unam uxorem, intelligit, nec simul, nec successive. Septima objectio nostra est, ut res melius intelligatur, si bigamia prohibita esset Sa¬ cerdotibus ob defectum significationis, certe bigamus esset, qui plures uxores legitimas habuisset, licet cum una tantum matrimo¬ nium consummasset ; nam matrimonium in¬ tegrum est et perfectum etiam sine copula conjugali. At contrarium definit jus canoni¬ cum cap. Debitum de bigamis. Ad hsec, illa sola bigamia prohibita esset, quaj ex duobus veris matrimoniis constaret, at non ita est; nam cap. Nuper, de bigamis, censentur bigami etiam illi, qui unam uxo¬ rem legitime duxerunt, et alteram non legi¬ time, cum tamen posterius non fuerit verum matrimonium. Imo etiam qui post votum solemne unam uxorem ducunt, bigami cen¬ sentur, et illi quoque, qui fornicariam du¬ cunt, licet unam. Ubi nullo modo fingere licet duo matrimonia, nisi quis fornicatio¬ nem matrimonium appellet. Et confirmatur; Nam si vir fornicarius ducat uxorem virgi¬ nem, non est bigamus ; si vero vir castus ducat fornicariam, bigamus est : Non igitur fundamentum bigamiee est defectus signifi¬ cationis; nam in hoc paria sunt illa conju¬ gia, in quibus aut vir, a«t mulier fornicatio¬ nem admisit. » Respondeo, tres sunt species bigamise, ut interpretes juris Canonici recte docent in titulum de digamis. Prima species est diga¬ mia vera et propria, ea videlicet, quse ex duobus veris matrimoniis oritur. Contingit autem tribus' modis haec digamia. Primo, ex parte viri tantum, cum vir habuit duas ve¬ ras uxores. Secundo, ex parte uxoris tantum, cum uxor habuit duos veros maritos. Tertio, ex parte utriusque, cum viduus viduam du¬ cit; et de hac specie nulla dubitatio est. Con¬ stat enim, semper in ea defectum significa¬ tionis adesse, cum aut vir non sit unus unius, aut uxor non sit una unius. Secunda species est digamia interpreta- tiva, id est, quae vere ex natura rei non est digamia, sed juris interpretatione habetur ac reputatur digamia. Contingit autem hsec digamia quotiescumque aliquis ducit secun¬ dam uxorem, aut uxor secundum virum de CAPUT XXIY. 477 facto, non de jure, sive primum conjugium de jure, sive tamen de facto fuerit, ut patet ex tit. de digam. Licet enim hic non sit vere defectus significationis, tamen Ecclesia ex¬ tendit poenam bigamorum etiam ad istos, et forte S. Paulus, cum ait : Episcopi sint unius uxoris viri , intelligi voluit id de jure, vel de facto, ita ut interdixerit, ne quis ordinetur, qui fuerit plurium uxorum vir, sive de jure, sive de facto. Tertia species est digamia metaphoriea, id est, quae consurgit ex duplici conjugio, quorum alterum non verum, sed metaphori- cum fuerit. Sic enim Ancyranum Concilium can. 19. inter digamos liaberi jubet eos, qui post votum continentiae ad matrimonium transierunt : siquidem votum continentiae genus est matrimonii animae cum Deo, licet metaphoricum. Porro isti prohibentur ordi¬ nari, non quia vere bigami sint, sed quia Ecclesia poenam bigamorum ad eos exten¬ dere voluit. Ex his primum respondeo, bigamiam non oriri, nisi ex matrimonio consummato. Nam, ut recte dicit Innocentius Papa c. Debitum, de digamis, Matrimonium ratum, sed non consummatum significat conjunctionem Dei cum anima per gratiam ; Matrimonium au¬ tem consummatum significat conjunctionem Christi cum Ecclesia per naturae conformi- tatem. Nam Apostolus ad Ephes. Y tum di¬ xit : Sacramentum hoc magnum est , ego autem dico, in Christo et in Ecclesia , cum paulo ante dixisset : Erunt duo in carne una (i). Diga¬ mia vero nascitur ex defectu significationis conjugii Christi cum Ecclesia, non Dei cum anima. Ad id vero, quod objiciebatur de bigamia eorum, qui habuerunt plures uxores de fac¬ to, non de jure, jam responsum est in expli¬ catione specierum bigamiae. Ad illud vero de eo, qui ducit fornicariam, quidam respondent, ideo bigamum esse, qui ducit fornicariam, licet bigamus non sit for¬ nicarius, qui ducit virginem, quia Episcopus repraesentat Ecclesiam, sponsa Episcopi re¬ praesentat Christum; constat autem, in ipsa Ecclesia non deesse aliquas corruptelas, in Christo vero nihil ejusmodi esse posse. At haec solutio pugnat cum Apostolo Paulo, qui ad Ephes. comparat virum cum Christo, et sponsam cum Ecclesia : Viri, inquit, diligite uxores vestras, sicut Christus Ecclesiam (2). (i) Epii. V, 32 et 31. — Alii, in quibus est Dominicus a Soto in IV sent. dist. 27, q. 3, art. 1. dicunt, causam illius discriminis esse, quia matrimonium sumit speciem suam a termino ad quem, ac proinde matrimonium viri tunc solum vitia¬ tur, cum in uxore est vitium ; illa enim est terminus ad quem, respectu viri. Et contra, quando vitium est in viro, tunc vitiatur ma¬ trimonium ex parte uxoris, et si illa esset capax ordinationis, fieret irregularis, si nu¬ beret viro fornicario. At haec solutio acutior, quam verior esse videtur ; nam si ex termino ad quem, tan¬ tum nasceretur bigamia, certe qui duceret secundam uxorem virginem, non esset biga¬ mus ; nam in ejusmodi matrimonio nullum est vitium in termino ad quem, sed totum est in termino a quo, id est, in ipso viro, qui bis matrimonium contrahit : atqui nulla est magis propria bigamia, quam ducere duas uxores, licet virgines. Sicut igitur aeque ori¬ tur bigamia, si viduus ducat virginem, et si virgo ducat viduum, ut patet, ita quoque bigamia esset, cum vir fornicarius ducit vir¬ ginem, si bigamia esset, cum vir castus du¬ cit fornicariam. Respondeo igitur, prohibitum esse ne or¬ dinetur, qui ducit fornicariam, non quod ea sit bigamia, neque ob illud Apostoli prae¬ ceptum : Unius uxoris vir, sed quia sic pla¬ cuit Ecclesiae ob dignitatem sacerdotii : Nam indignum est tam gravi persona matrimo¬ nium cum fornicaria, non autem indignum est viro fornicario, si uxorem virginem du¬ cat; Esse autem hujus rei causam, non biga¬ miam, sed dignitatem sacerdotii, ex eo pro¬ bari potest, quod can. 18. Apostolorum, ubi prohibetur sacerdos fieri qui duxit fornica¬ riam; prohibetur etiam is fieri sacerdos, qui duxit ancillam, vel comoediarum actricem, ubi nullum locum habet bigamia, sed sola infamia. Atque heec de coelibatu dicta suffi¬ ciant. Sequerentur nunc disputationes, quinta et sexta videlicet ; quinta de horis canonicis, et sexta de ritu tonsurae, sive rasurae Clerico¬ rum ; sed quia de horis canonicis in disputa¬ tione de oratione commodius tractari poterit, de ritu vero tonsurae disseremus in sequenti libro, qui erit de Monachis, nunc ad septi¬ mam disputationem nos conferemus. (2) Eph. V, 25. 478 LIBER I.