Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 9: On the Polygamy of Many Wives in Succession
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. 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 Third Controversy: On the Unity of Marriage
There follows the third controversy, on the unity of Matrimony, or on polygamy, which is opposed to unity. There are two principal parts of this controversy: one on the polygamy of many wives in succession; the other on the polygamy of many wives at once.
Concerning the polygamy of many wives in succession, namely where one succeeds another, there are two things which the heretics of this time object to us. The first is that we do not admit those who have married more than once to sacred Orders.
But of this matter we have treated in the first book On Clerics, where we showed that Paul willed that the husband of one wife, that is, one who had not had several wives, be ordained bishop, presbyter and deacon, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
The other is that we forbid this polygamy to Christians. For Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 1220, writes that Catholics think second marriages ought not to be blessed because they lack the sacrament and are fornications and prostitutions; and he alleges the decree of Gratian, the canon Hac ratione and the canon Quomodo, cause 31, question 1.
But this is a manifest slander. It was indeed the old error of Montanus, as St. Augustine relates in the book On Heresies, chapter 26, and of Tertullian, as is plain from his book On Monogamy, and of the Novatians, as Theodoret witnesses, book 3 On the Fables of the Heretics, that second marriages are unlawful. But Catholics teach both in word and in deed that second marriages, nay even third and fourth and others after them, are lawful and true marriages, and so sacraments.
This is manifestly gathered from the Apostle, who, Romans 7, affirms that a woman whose husband is dead will not be an adulteress if she marries another man; and 1 Corinthians 7 says, “If her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord.” Which place Augustine weighs carefully, in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapter 12, where he observes that blessed Paul did not say, “If the first husband die, or the second, or the third,” but indefinitely, “her husband.” And so it is always lawful to marry when the husband is dead, however many he may have been. The same Apostle, 1 Timothy 5, exhorts the younger widows to marry a second time, on account of the danger of incontinence.
Moreover, the Council of Nicaea, canon 8, commands that the Novatians, when they return to the Church, be not received unless they promise that they will communicate also with those who may have had experience of second marriages.
To this let the testimonies of the Fathers be added: of Ambrose in the book On Widows, of Jerome in the letter to Geruntia, of Augustine in the book On the Good of Widowhood, of Chrysostom in homily 20 on the letter to the Ephesians, and of others, who openly approve second marriages, although they prefer continence to them.
Lastly, the Council of Florence, in the instruction of the Armenians (according to the text of him who collected the summary of the councils), declared lawful not only second and third, but also fourth and further marriages.
To what is objected about the blessing, let us answer: it is most true that second marriages are not blessed; but the cause of this is not that second marriages lack the sacrament. For the first, that second marriages ought not to be blessed, most weighty authors affirm: the Fathers of the Council of Neocaesarea, canon 7; Ambrose, or whoever was the author, on chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians and on chapter 3 of the first to Timothy; Augustine, sermon 243 on the Season; Isidore, book 2 On the Divine Offices, chapter 19; Alexander III and Urban III, in the Extravagants on second marriages, the chapter Capellanum and the chapter Vir autem. But that second marriages are not blessed because they lack the sacrament the Fathers cited do not say, nor is it true; for that blessing does not belong to the essence of the sacrament, as we showed above. But the cause why second marriages are not blessed is that the blessing given in the first marriage does not perish, and those who have once been blessed ought not to be blessed again, as Urban teaches in the place noted.
To the places which Chemnitz objected it is easy to answer. For Chemnitz either blames the authors of those canons, or Gratian the collector. If the authors of the canons, he wages war with the most ancient Fathers, not with the Scholastics or the more recent doctors: for the three canons which are cited in that place in reproof of second marriages are drawn from authors who lived eleven hundred or twelve hundred years ago. If Chemnitz accuses the collector, he is unfair and dishonest, since in the same place Gratian openly asserts the contrary, and brings many testimonies of Jerome and Augustine to prove that not only second but also fourth and further marriages are lawful.
But let us weigh also the canons cited by Gratian. The first is of the Council of Neocaesarea, celebrated about twelve hundred years ago: for in that council, canon 7, presbyters are forbidden to be present at the celebration of second marriages, since penance is to be enjoined on those who marry more often.
This canon some understand of those who wish to have several wives at once, which we shall demonstrate in the following chapter to be against the Gospel. Others understand the same canon of those who contract marriages more often in succession, and affirm that these sin not in seeking marriage more often, but in wishing that solemnity to be used in second marriages which, by the custom of the Church, is to be used only in the first; and therefore that penance is to be enjoined on them by the presbyters by whom they are invited to that solemnity. It may also be that those ancient Fathers, who were more severe in other matters too, wished those who often contract marriages to be marked with some penance as a sign of incontinence: for the Council of Laodicea, canon 1, confesses that second marriages are lawful, and yet enjoins a penance of a certain time on those who seek second marriages. But whatever the mind of those Fathers was, it was a particular council, to which the general Council of Nicaea, canon 8, can rightly be opposed, in which second marriages are most openly approved.
The second canon is attributed to Chrysostom; but in truth it is not St. John Chrysostom's, but of some other, whose Unfinished Work on Matthew is extant; which work is either of a heretical man or has been corrupted by heretics, since it contains many things that fight with orthodox doctrine.
The words of the present canon are had in homily 32, on chapter 19 of Matthew, where that author writes that second marriages were permitted by the apostles on account of the incontinence of men, but are in truth fornication. Which words some so expound as to have that author call second marriages fornication by hyperbole, not because to marry a second time is in truth fornication, but something less good than to remain in widowhood. But whatever may be of that author's mind, it is certain that his words have no authority in doctrines; especially since the true Chrysostom, in homily 20 on the letter to the Ephesians, says that second marriages cannot be condemned.
The last canon is St. Jerome's, in book 1 against Jovinian, where he wrote so much in praise of virginity and continence that he seemed to some to condemn not only polygamy but even marriage absolutely.
But in the Apology to Pammachius, for the books against Jovinian, he wrote in express words: “I do not condemn the twice married, nay not even the thrice married, and, if it can be said, the eight times married,” and so on. And in the commentary on chapter 1 to Titus he says that Tertullian's book On Monogamy, where second marriages are condemned, is heretical. And in the letter to Geruntia on monogamy: “What then?” he says. “Do we condemn second marriages? By no means; but we praise first ones. Do we cast the twice married out of the Church? Far from it; but we call the once married to continence.” So, then, St. Jerome did not judge second marriages unlawful; but if at times he exhorted more vehemently to a single marriage, he did it both from the love of chastity, with which that most holy man burned wonderfully, and on account of the incontinence of many, who, not content with a second, or third, or even fourth Matrimony, sometimes went on to the twentieth: for he relates in the same letter to Geruntia that in the time of Damasus there was at Rome a pair of spouses, of whom one had buried twenty wives, the other twenty-one husbands.
Yet one scruple still seems to remain. For since Catholics teach that the twice married cannot be promoted to sacred Orders for defect of the sacrament, it seems that among Catholics the second Matrimony, as Chemnitz said, lacks the sacrament.
I answer: the twice married cannot be initiated into sacred Orders for defect of the sacrament, not because their Matrimony is not a sacrament, but because it lacks a certain perfection of the sacrament. For he who is once married signifies that Christ is so the one husband of one spouse that he never had another; but he who is twice married signifies indeed that Christ is the one husband of one, which suffices for the sacrament; but he does not signify that he is so of one as never to have been of another. And both for the defect of this signification and for other causes, of which we treated in the disputation on the bigamy of clerics, the twice married are not taken into sacred Orders.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CONTROVERSIA III.
Be iinitafe conjiigii.
CAPUT IX.
Dej)olygamia muUarum uxorum successive
Sequilur conlroversia Tertia de unilnteMalrimo-
nii, sive de polygamia , quac unilali opponilur.
LIIJLIIJ 1'1{IMUS
71)7
Duae sunl parlcs piiiicipalcs hujus conlroversiao.
Uria (Je polygamia mullarun] uxorum suooessive.
Allcra. (ic polyi^aniia mullarum uxorum simul.
De polygaraia mullarum uxorum successivcqua-
rum vidclicot una allcri sucocdal, duo suiil, «luae
nobis hacrelici hujus lcmporis objiciunt. Primum
csl.quod polygamos non admillamus ad sacros Or-
dines.
Sed dc liac rc disscruimus in \. lib. dc clcricis,
ubi oslendiraus, Paulum uiiius uxoris virumjdesl,
qui non plurcs uxorcs liabueril,episcopum,presby-
lerum el diaconum ordinarl voluisse, 1. Tim.3. el
Til. 1.
Allcrum esl,quod prohibo.amus Chrislianis islam
polygamiam. Kemnilius euim in 2. part. cxamin.
pag. 1220. scribil: Calholicos exislimare, secundas
nuplias non debcrc benedici, co quod sacramenlo
carcant cl foniicalioncs sint ac prosliluliones ; et
allcgat dccrclum Graliani, can. Eac ralLone, cl
can. Quomodoo\. (inaest. 1.
Sed liacc esl manilesta calumnia. Fuil quidem
anliquus error Montani, ut relcrt s. Auguslinus in
libro dc haeresibus cap. 20. ct Terlulliani, ul pa-
lei cx lib.ejusdom dc monagamia cl Novaliaiiorum,
leslc Tlicodorclo lib. 3. de fabuiis haerelicorum ,
sccuudas nuplias esse illicilas. Calhohci vcro, ct
verbo cl faclo docenl secundas nuplias, immo el-
iam terlias et quarlas, et alias deinccps esse iici-
las et vera Malrimonia, alque adeo sacrameiita.
Id quod ex Aposlolo manifosle colligilur, qui
P»om. 0. aflirmat: 31ulierem viro suo mortuo uon fo-
re adullcram, si alteri viro nupscrit: et 1. Corinlli.
7. dicil: Si dormierU vir ejus, cui vull nubal, tan-
ium in Domino. Qucm locum diligcnler expendit
Auguslinus lib. de bono viduilalis cap. 12. ubi ob-
serval, b. Paulum non dixisse: Si dormicrit primus
vir, aut secundus, aul lerlius; scd indefinile: Vir
ejus. Proindc semper nubcre licel morliio marito,
quolus tandem fueril.Idera Aposlolus 1. Timolh. 5.
viduas juniores horlalur, ul secundo nubant, ob in-
coniinenliae periculum.
Practerca concilium nicenum can. 8. juhetNova-
tianos non rccipi, cum ad Ecclesiam rcdcunt, nisi
polliceanlur se communicaluros eliam cum iis qui
forlo secundas nu|)lias expcrli luorint.
Huc Accedanl leslimonia Palrum, Amhrosii in li-
bro de viduis. Ilioronymi in cpisl. ad Gerunliam,
Auguslini in libro de bono viduilalis, Chrysosloini
hoiii. 20. in episl. ad Eplics. ct aliorum, qui sc-
cundas nuplias aperte probant,licet illis conlinen-
tiam praoferanl.
Deniiiue concilium florcnlinum in inslruclionc
Armenorum (juxla fidcm cjus, qui summam conci-
jiorum coUcgil) non solum sccundas ot lcrlias,
scd cliam (juarlas ct alias deincoi)S nuptias, lici-
las cssc doolaravit.
Ad id, quod objicilur dc benediclionc, Hespon-
dcaiiius: Verissimum osse, sccuiidas uuplias non
bcneihci; sed caussaui hujus rei non esso.(iuia so-
cundac nuptiac carcant sacraincnlo. Nani illud pri-
muni. idcsl, secundas nu[)lias non dobore bonedi-
ci, aflirmant gravissimi auclores, Patrcs concilii
ncocacsaricnsis can. 7. Amhrosius, sivo (|uicuiu-
que fuit auclor, in 7. cap. nrioris ad Corinlh. d iii
15ELLAR.MIM V<ii. lll
3. capul prioris ad Timolh. Auguslinus serm.243.
de lemporc. Isidorus lib.2. de ollioiis divinis cap.
19. Alexandor III. el Urbanus III. cxlra.de secun-
dis nuptiis,cap. Capcllannm , et cap. Vtr aulem.
Al ideo sccundas nuplias non benedici, quod sa-
cramenlo caroant. Palros cilali noii diciinl, ncquc
est verum: benodiclio cnim illa ad sacramenli os-
scnliam non pcrtinel, ut supra ostendimus,caussa
aulem cur sccundac nupliao non boncdicantur.csl,
quia bcncdiclio in primis nupliis data non porit,
nc(]ue debenl ilerum benedici,qui scMiiel bcnedicli
fucrunl, ut Urbanus docet loco nolalo.
Ad loca, quae objccit IvemMitius, facile esl res-
pondcre. Nam vel canonum illorum auctoresKcm-
nilius rcprchendil, vel Gratianum collectorcm. Si
auclores canonum:cum anliquissimis Patribus bel-
lum gerit, non cum scholasticis, vel reccnlioribus
docloribus: Ircs eniin canones,qui in secundarum
nupliarum reprehensioncm eo loco cilanlur, de-
prompti sunl ex auctoribus, qui antc mille olcen-
lum, vel millo et ducenlos annos vixorunl. Si col-
lectorcm Remnilius accusal; iniquiis ct improbus
esl, cum eodcin loco Gralianus aperle coiitrariuin
asseral, et multa teslimonia Ilieronymi et Augu-
slini adducal, ut probet non soluin socundas, scd
eliam quartas, et ulleriorcs nuplias licitas ossc.
Sed expendaraus ctiain canoncs a Graliano cila-
los. Primus est concilii ncocaesariensis aiite an-
nos 200. celebrali: nara in co concilio can. 7.pro-
hibenlnr presbyleri interefse celobritali secunda-
rum nupliarum, cum poenilentia injungcnda sit
iis, qui saepius nubunt.
Ilunc canonem aliqui intelligunl dc iis, qui si-
raul plures uxores habcrc volunt: quod csse con-
tra cvangclium in sequenli capilc demonstrabi-
mus. Alii eundcm canoncm dc iis inlelligunl, qui
saepius nuplias conlrahunt successivc, al(|ue hos
non pcccarc anirmant,quod saepius nuplias appc-
lanl; scd quod in sccundis nupiiis eam cclebrita-
lem adhibcri vclint,quae solum in primis.dc morc
Ecclesiae adhibetida est; cl ideo poonilcnliam in-
jugcn(Jam illis esse a presbyloris,a quibusad eam
celebrilatem invilantur. Potost eliam fieri, utanli-
qui illi Palres, (pii aliis eliam in rehus siivoriorcs
erant, ob signum inconlinenliac notandos aliqui
poenilenlia esse volucriut cos.qui saepe iMalrimn-
nia conlrahunl: nain concilium laodiccnum can.l.
falelur, Icgilimas esse secundas nnptias.ol lamon
injungit certi lcmporis pocnihmliam iis.qui secun-
das nuplias appelunt. Scd quaccumquc fueril co-
rum Palrum mons, concilium fuit parliculare, cui
reclc opponi polost concilium nicaonum goncrale
can. 8. in quo secundac nupliac apcrlissime ap-
prohanlur.
Socundns rauon tribuilur Chrysosloino. sod rc-
vcra non sancli Joannis chrysosloini, sed allorius
cujusdam csl, cujus cxlal opus imporfoclum in
Mallhaoum: quod opus aul esl hominis haorelici,
aul ost ab haerolicis corruplum, si(|uidom mnlla
conlinol cum doclrina orlhodoxa pugnanlia.
Voiba praosoiilis canonis habc.iilur sorm. 32. iii
cap. 11). Mallhaoi, ubi auctor illi! scribil,sccuii(las
nuplias ab apostolis praoci|)i oh incontinenliam
homiiium, s(mI rovora fornicalionom esso. Quae
101
79S
l»L S.VCRAMEMO MATUI.MO.MI
voiha nfiiimilli il;i oxpomiiil, ul volinl oiim nnclo-
rom p»M' liyporbolom vuoasse lornioalionom socnn-
tlas nnplias. non quod rcvera fornicalio sil.scenn-
(lo luihero, scii aliipiul niinus bonmn, qnam in vi-
ilnilalc pcrmanore. Sed quieliimd sil (ie anoloris
illins monlo. cerlum esl ejus vori)a non lial)cre in
«io-rmalihns anolorilalem: pracscrlim. cnin vcrns
Cluysosloinos hoin. 20. in e|)i>t. ad Kphcs. dioal,
seonndas iuii)lias non posse damnari.
Poslrenuis canon s. Hioronymi csl. in lih. I.nd-
vcrsus Jovin. ul)i lam mnlla sori])sit, in laudem
\iri,'inilalis cl conlmcnliac. ul visns sil nonnullis
non modo polygamiara, scdcliam nuplias absolule
damnare.
Caclerum in apolo-jia nd Pammnchinm. pro 11-
bris ndvcrsus Jovinianom. discrlis vcrbis scripsil:
Non damno hiqanws, immo nec Irigamos, el si
dici polcsl oclogamos clc. cl \n oom. oap. 1. nd
Til. dicil, libruiu de monogamia Tertulliiuii. ubi
scoundae nnpliae damnaiilur essc hacrelicum: cl
in cpist. ad Geronliam dc monogamia: Qaid igi-
tiu'? inquit. damnamus secunda Matrimonia?
Diinimc: scd prima laudamiis: abjicimus de Ec-
cUjsia difjamos? absil: sed monogamos ad conli-
ncnliamproxocamus.\\.d^(\VL(i s.Hieronymusnon il-
licilas scoundas nuplias esse ccnscbal; sed si
qnando vclicmcnlius ad monogamiam horlabalur,
id facicbal Inm amorc pudiciliac. quo sanclissi-
nius ille vir mire ardcbal, lum ob incontinentiam
mullorum, qui non conlcnli sccundo, aul tcrlio,
vel etiam quarlo Malrimonio, usque ad vigesimum
aliquando progrcdiebanlur: referl enim in eadem
episl. ad Geronlinm, Damasi lcmpore fuisse Ro-
uiae par conjugum, quorura aller viginli uxores
sepclierat, ahera marilos viginti cl unum.
Unus tamcn adhnc scrupulns rcmancre videlur.
IVam cum catholici doccanl: Bigamos defectu sa-
cramcnli non posse ad sacros ordincs promoveri,
videlur secundum Matrimonium apud cntholicos,
ul Remnilius dicebnt sacramento carere.
Respondco: Bigami, defeclu sacraracnti, sacris
iniliari ncqueunt, non quod eorum Malrimonium
sacrnmcnlum non sil, sed quod peVfeclione qua-
dam sacrnmenti cnrcat. Qui enim monogamus est,
significal Chrislum ita esse unum unius conjugis
virum, at numqunm alteram hnbnerit: qui autcra
bignmus cst, signillcat quidcm Chrislum csse u-
num unius, quod ad sacramcntum suffici!:sftd non
significat ita esse unius, ut non fuerit nltcrius; et
lum defectu hujus significnlionis, lura ob nlias ca-
ii^sas, de quibus egimus in dispulationc de biga-
jnia ciericorum, bigami ad sacros Ordincs non as-
sumuntur.