Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 10: On the Polygamy of Many Wives at Once
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).
Now, to come to the other part of this controversy: the first who opened the door to polygamy among Christians seems to have been the emperor Valentinian, otherwise a pious and Catholic prince. For he (as Socrates relates, book 4 of the History, chapter 27), when he was taken with love of a certain Justina and wished to take her in marriage, his former wife Severa being left, from whom he had already received a son, Gratian, in order to cover his intemperance with some color, promulgated a law that it should be lawful for anyone to have two wives at once.
In our time Martin Luther, as he tried to call up from hell countless other errors, so he tried to call up this error too, of which there was hardly any memory among the faithful. For in the propositions on the bigamy of bishops, which he published in the year 1528, he wrote thus, propositions 65 and 66: “Only the Mosaic laws, concerning the wife of a dead brother and concerning a daughter defiled against her father's will, compel a man to be the husband of several wives; which are no more abrogated than all the rest, that is, they are free, neither forbidden nor commanded.” And above, in proposition 62 and following, he says that among the heathens it would perhaps be a scandal if a Christian had several wives, yet among the Jews it is no scandal, and therefore it cannot be shown to be unlawful. And because in the whole of Europe and Africa there are almost no heathens living with Christians, but only Jews and Mohammedans, to whom their false prophet granted a multitude of wives, according to Luther's opinion it would be lawful in all these regions to take many wives. What of the fact that the same Luther, in the explanation of Genesis which he published in the year 1525, in the commentary on chapter 16, disputes not in passing but expressly whether it is lawful for Christians, after the example of Abraham, to have several wives at once, and at last answers that it is neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; and that he himself indeed would not introduce this new custom, but neither could he disapprove it, since the examples of the Fathers are still free?
This opinion of Luther the Anabaptists follow, as Chemnitz testifies, in the second part of the Examination, page 1229, where he confesses that this error concerning the polygamy of several wives at once is rightly condemned by the Council of Trent. Wherefore he must confess that the arch-prophet of the Lutherans also, who was in the same error, is rightly condemned; as indeed he is condemned in canon 2 of session 24 of the Council of Trent in these words: “If anyone shall say that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at once, and that this is forbidden by no divine law, let him be anathema.” For these words of the council, which are approved by Chemnitz, are properly directed against Luther, whose opinion it is that polygamy is neither commanded nor forbidden by God.
Nor is this definition of the Council of Trent new. For Siricius defined the same long ago, in letter 1, and Innocent I in letter 9, and Innocent III in the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces, and lastly many others in the whole title on the betrothed of two, and in Gratian, cause 24, question 3, canon An non.
And this truth can be confirmed by these arguments. First, Christ, Matthew 19, calls Matrimony back to its first institution, and wills it to hold from then on. But that first institution excludes polygamy; therefore polygamy is forbidden by Christ. The major proposition is proved: for the Lord, asked by the Pharisees whether it was lawful to put away a wife, answered that it was not lawful: “Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” And when the Pharisees pressed that Moses had permitted a bill of divorce, the Lord, again calling the whole cause back to the first institution, says: “Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”
And that Matrimony as instituted at the beginning altogether excludes the polygamy of many wives at once is proved, first, from the manner of speaking. For those words in the singular number, “made them male and female,” and “shall cleave to his wife,” and “they two shall be in one flesh,” plainly show that God willed Matrimony to be the joining of one with one, not of one with many.
Second, from that explanation of Christ: “Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.” For these words signify that the effect of Matrimony as instituted at the beginning is that those who are joined become one flesh; but if one is joined to many, there will not be one flesh but many; and there will be through such a Matrimony not so much a union as a division.
Third, it is plain from the first creation of man itself. For if God had willed Matrimony to be of one with many, he would have created for Adam not one only but many women, whom he could have taken as wives. For Adam could not have a wife except one who had been created with him by God; for it is altogether against nature that a father should take a daughter or a granddaughter; and all the women besides Eve were daughters or granddaughters. So God compelled Adam to be the husband of one.
Let the consent of the Fathers be added last. For Jerome, Chrysostom, Bede, Theophylact and Anselm, in the commentary on chapter 19 of Matthew, Ambrose at the end of the book On Widows, and Augustine, book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 9, teach that Matrimony instituted at the beginning excludes polygamy; nay, the reasons brought a little before are almost all drawn from these Fathers.
Second: Christ, Matthew 5 and 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16, declares that he who, having put away his wife, takes another commits adultery. From which testimonies it is gathered that polygamy is altogether unlawful by the law of the Gospel. For he who, having put away the first, takes another is said to commit adultery for this reason: because the first could not be put away, and although she seems put away before men, yet she is still truly the wife of him who first took her. For if by the putting away she had ceased to be a wife, her husband would not commit adultery in taking another, just as he does not commit adultery who, his first wife being dead, takes another. But if he commits adultery who takes another while the first lives, then it is not lawful to have several spouses, unless we will have adulteries to be lawful; and if it is not lawful to take another when the first is put away, much less when the first is kept. For it is not lawful to take another when the first is put away because the first is still a wife; but much more is she a wife who is not put away. Wherefore, while the first wife lives, whether put away or kept, it is unlawful to take another.
This argument does not seem solid enough to Cajetan. For Cajetan, writing on chapter 19 of Matthew, says that this argument is not without a scruple, on account of certain words of Mark. Then, writing on chapter 10 of Mark, he explains the scruple noted before. And this is the scruple: that Mark, relating the words of the Lord, did not say, “Whosoever shall marry another committeth adultery,” but “Whosoever shall marry another committeth adultery against her.” From which Cajetan would have it understood (if yet I understand him rightly, for he speaks rather obscurely, after his manner) that that second marriage is not called by Christ adultery simply, but adultery to the injury of the first wife, that is, adultery improperly and in a certain respect, not absolutely and properly.
But this scruple can easily be taken away. For, first, those words “against her” are not had in Matthew, chapter 19, and Luke, chapter 16; for these evangelists say absolutely that he commits adultery who marries another.
Nor does it stand in the way that Cajetan says Matthew and Luke must be expounded by Mark, who adds what they left out. For although the evangelists sometimes leave out something which is supplied by others, yet they always speak the truth, and so sufficiently that they can be understood even by those who have not read the other evangelists; otherwise those who at one time had only one would have been deceived. Wherefore the exposition of one evangelist by another ought not to be such that without it what one of them said is made false. It must be, then, that what Matthew and Luke say is clearly true, namely that he absolutely commits adultery who takes a second wife while the first lives; otherwise those would have been deceived who read Matthew or Luke without Mark.
Moreover, those words, “committeth adultery against her,” do not take away adultery, but lay it down, and add something besides. For to commit adultery against a wife put away is truly to commit adultery, but with the added injury of an unjust putting away; and to expound it otherwise is, without any cause, to abandon the proper and genuine signification of the words, and to feign figures at will; which, if it were lawful, would corrupt and deprave all the Scriptures.
Add that Augustine, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 11, and Bede, in the commentary on chapter 10 of Mark, so expound Mark as we have said; and Innocent III, in the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces, has the whole argument which we have so far explained; and before him Innocent I, in letter 3, to Exuperius, chapter 6; and all the other Fathers, whom we shall cite in the following question, who affirm that he truly commits adultery who, while the first wife lives, even though put away by divorce, is joined to another.
But perhaps Cajetan meant to say that to commit adultery against her is true adultery when another wife is taken against the will of the first, who has been unjustly put away; but when the first is kept and consents, it is not adultery if another is taken; and so that the prohibition of polygamy is not plainly gathered from the words of the Lord.
I answer: the consent of the wife neither suffices nor is required to make polygamy lawful. For in the Christian time, in which polygamy is forbidden, even if the first wife greatly wished that her husband should take another, yet it would not be lawful for him; but in the time of the patriarchs, in which polygamy was lawful, consent was not required, as is plain from the wives of Jacob. For it is not likely that Lia consented that Jacob should take Bala, the handmaid of Rachel her rival, as wife; nor, on the other hand, that Rachel consented that Jacob should take Zelpha, the handmaid of Lia; but Jacob used his right. So also David took many wives, the former ones even not knowing it; nor is it read anywhere that a husband sought the consent of his former wife that he might lawfully take another. Wherefore it is not taking another against the wife's will that makes adultery, but taking another while the first lives and remains a wife.
Third, it is proved from the Apostle. For, first, the Apostle, wherever he speaks of Matrimony, always speaks of a wife in the singular number, as 1 Corinthians 7: “Let every man have his own wife”; and “Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed,” and so on. Then the same Apostle writes most openly that a wife cannot, while her husband lives, marry any other. Romans 7: “Whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man.” And 1 Corinthians 7: “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” And below: “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will.” These places expressly forbid polygamy on the part of women, that is, they forbid women to marry more than once while their former husbands live. But they forbid also in consequence polygamy on the part of men, that is, that men take several wives at once. For although it is less against reason and nature that a man have several wives than that a wife have several husbands, as we shall demonstrate below, yet both are against reason.
And moreover, whatever may be of the law of nature, by the law of the Gospel man and woman are equal as to faith and the conjugal debt, as the same Paul explains, 1 Corinthians 7, when he says: “Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” By which words the Apostle signifies that in the contract of Christian Matrimony, which is the sacrament of the one Christ with the Church, the husband is so joined to the wife that he hands himself over wholly to her, as the woman hands herself over wholly to the husband; from which it follows that, as the woman cannot without injustice hand herself over to another man, so neither can the man without injustice hand himself over to another woman.
Wherefore St. Augustine, although in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 17, he wrote that it is more absurd if one woman be joined to many men than if one man be joined to many women, yet in book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 8, he taught that in Christian Matrimony the woman is equal to the man as regards monogamy; and therefore, as by the Apostle's testimony the woman will be an adulteress if, while her husband lives, she be with another man, so also on the contrary the man will be an adulterer if, while his wife lives, he be with another woman.
We gather, then, this reason from the Apostle: a woman cannot, according to the Apostle's teaching, have several husbands; but according to the same Apostle man and woman are equal in this matter; therefore, according to the Apostle, one man cannot have several wives.
Fourth, polygamy, both on the part of the husband and on the part of the wife, is against the law of nature and the notion of Matrimony; it is not, therefore, lawful, especially in the law of the Gospel, which took away all the permissions which were in the old law. The antecedent, as regards the polygamy by which one woman marries many men at once, is certain and examined among all; for such polygamy is against all the ends of Matrimony.
Four ends of Matrimony can be distinguished, for the sake of teaching. The primary end is the receiving and education of offspring. But since one woman can bear only once a year, she can be made fruitful sufficiently by one man. But if she is joined to several, not only will she not bear more often, but more rarely, or never; for experience testifies that harlots are barren. Then none of those men to whom the same wife was common would know his children, which would certainly harm the education of the children very greatly.
The second end of Matrimony is domestic fellowship and the sharing of the works which are necessary for life. For, as Aristotle teaches, book 8 of the Ethics, chapter 12, husband and wife are joined not only to procreate, like the other animals, but also to live together, that they may rule the family together and share the domestic offices between them; for some tasks befit the husband, others the wife. But this end would be altogether hindered by a multitude of husbands in the same family; for there would be many heads of one body. Wherefore, as many servants can belong to one master, yet one servant cannot rightly serve many masters, so also one man can in some way have many wives at once, but in no way can one woman have many husbands at once.
The third end is that marriage be a remedy against concupiscence. To this the marriage of one woman with many men would not only bring no remedy against concupiscence, but would even stir up angers, quarrels and implacable discords among the rivals, as is well known; which discords the wife could in no way restrain, since it befits her to be subject and obey, not to preside and rule.
The fourth end is that it be a sacrament of Christ and the Church, to which end this polygamy is most of all opposed. For there is one God to whom the Church is joined, not many; nor can the Church, or any soul, be joined to many gods except by fornication.
And these are the reasons of St. Augustine, book 3 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 12, and the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 17, where he also proves this very opinion by the example of the ancient saints: some of the saints are found who had several wives, but of holy women we read of none at all who was joined to several husbands.
But as regards that polygamy by which one man has many wives, it is not altogether beyond controversy whether such polygamy is against the law of nature. For Durandus, on book 4, distinction 33, question 1, and Alphonsus, bishop of Avila, on chapter 19 of Matthew, question 30, teach that it is not against it; yet Pope Innocent, in the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces, and most theologians, on distinction 33 of book 4, hold the contrary opinion. For although the marriage of one man with many wives is not against the first end of Matrimony, that is, the propagation and education of offspring, since one man can easily procreate and feed children from many women, yet it is plainly against the other ends.
For that second end, which is social cohabitation and the government of the house, is not a little hindered by a multitude of wives. For the wife, although she is subject to the husband, is not so as a servant, but as a companion and one at his side; and therefore she too has a headship in the house, as Chrysostom teaches at length, homily 20 on the letter to the Ephesians; and St. Thomas proves the same, part 1, question 92, article 3, from the very making of the woman: for she was formed for this reason not from the head nor from the feet, but from the side, that she might neither rule the man nor be subjected like a handmaid, but be a companion and at his side. The names of honor also testify to this; for the wives of kings are called queens, and those of the Augusti, Augustae. But every headship by its nature loves to be single, as Augustine teaches in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 17; it is therefore against Matrimony that one man should have several spouses.
And from this we understand the argument of Augustine in the place cited, by which he proves that it is not so much against reason if one man have several wives as it is against reason if one woman have many husbands: because it is not against reason that one master have many servants, whereas it is against reason that one servant have many masters. We understand, I say, that this argument does not prove that it is not absolutely against reason that one man have many wives, since there is a great difference between the subjection of servants to a master and the subjection of a wife to a husband; but that it only proves that it is less absurd that one man have several wives than that one woman have several husbands, since the husband is the head of the woman, and not the woman of the husband.
The third end, which is a remedy against concupiscence, is also hindered by this polygamy of one man with many wives. For without doubt one man cannot render the debt to many wives as he would render it to one; and it seems, as we said in the third reason, a certain unfairness that the wife should hand herself over wholly to the husband, but the husband not wholly to the wife. And moreover, since it can hardly be that one is not loved more than another, quarrels and contentions easily arise from this polygamy; as Scripture testifies they arose even between holy women, Sara and Agar, Lia and Rachel, Genesis 16 and 30, and between Anna and Phenenna, 1 Kings 1. Nor is it true, what Durandus writes, that such quarrels arise by accident, namely from the wickedness of the women. For on the contrary it would rather be by accident, from the goodness of the women, if they did not arise, since polygamy brings them with it.
Lastly the fourth end, namely the sacrament, is without controversy opposed to polygamy.
To these the first institution is added: for if polygamy were conformed to nature, without doubt God would have instituted it at the beginning, since it would have been at that time most necessary for propagating the race, and the natural origin would have been formed from there. But on the contrary God at the beginning instituted monogamy, as we showed in the first reason; polygamy, therefore, is not according to nature.
The fifth argument can be taken from the custom of the Church. For if polygamy were lawful for Christians, some example would be brought forward of approved Christians who had several spouses at once. For it is wonderful that the examples of the patriarchs, as Luther says, were always free and lawful, and yet that no good man can be named who in all fifteen hundred years imitated those examples with praise.
What of this, that not only have Christians always cherished monogamy, but even the heathens among the Romans? For in the civil law the polygamous are visited by the gentile emperors with the mark of infamy and other penalties, as is plain from the Digest, on those who are noted with infamy, law 1; likewise from the Code, on incestuous marriages, the law Eum qui. Aristotle too, both in the Politics and in each of the Economics, prescribes monogamy. But of these things so far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
C.\PUT X. De pubjgamia mullarum uxorum simul. i>unc,ul ad AUeram partem hujus conlroversiae veiiiHUius;primus qui inler Chrislianos polygamiae ijditum patefecit, videtur fuisse Valentinianus im- perntor. nliocpii pius cl catholious princops, Is e- niiu (ut Soornt(>s ref(Mt lib. i. hisl. cn|). 27.) cum amorc captus cssel Jiistinac cujusdam, (>am(pie in Matrimouium dnocre vcllct.rcl(uila priore conjugo Scvcra, c.\ ([ua (Irnlinnum lilium jnm susccperat: ul colore aliquo intcmperantia suam cgcret, legem promulgavil, ul liccrel unicuique duas simul con- juges Iiahcre. iNoslro tcinporc Martinus l.uthcrus, ul alios cr- rorcs innumcrabiles, ila etiain liunc errorem. cu- jus fere nulla mcmorin apud fidclcs exlahal.ab in- foris revocarc conatus esl.Nnm iii proposiliouibus de bigamia cpiscoporum, quas edidil auno 1528. iln scripsit,propositionc G">. ct Or». ISola svnl jura .Vosaica, de fralris defuncli nxore, cl de lilia corrupla invilo palre, quae cogunl plurium esse uxorum virum: quae non magis sunL abrogala, quam reliqua omnia, idcsl, libera, nec prohibi- la, nec praecopla, cl supra in proposilionc 02. ct scqiienlibus, dicit. npud ethnicos forlasse scanda- lum forc, si Chrislianus plurcs uxores habeal: tn- meii intcr Judacos non esse scnndnlum, et ideo non possc oslendi id esse illicilum.Et quia in tola Europa et Africa viv ulli sunt cum Chrislianis et- hnici, scd Inntura Jiidnci et Mnhumelani. quibus uxorura inuUiludincm pscudoprophcla suus cou- cessit; sccundum Lutheri scntcnliam licercl in his omnibus regionibus uxorcs multas duccre. Quid? quod idcm Lutherus in cxplicationc Gcnescos , qunm anno 1525. cdidit, in commenlario ad cap. 10. non obiter, scd ex professo dispulat, ulrum Clirislianis liceal excmplo Abrahne plures simul u- xorcs hnbcre, ac landem respondcl,id neque esse praeceplum, neque prohibilum.scd liberum; else (piidcm nolic hanc novnra consueludinem introdu- ccre, scd ncc improbare posse, cum excmpla Pa- trum adliuc sint libera. llauc Lulheri sententiam Annbnplistae sequun- tur, ul Rcmnilius in 2. par. exam. pag. 1229. te- slatur; ubi falctur recte a concilio tricJenlino da- mnari iiunc erroicm de poiygamia plurium uxorum simul. Quare fnteri debel, recte etinm dnmnari ar- cliiprophetam Lulhernnorum, qui in eodom errore fuil; ul revera damnalur in 2. can. concilii Iriden- tini sess. 2k his verbis: Si quis dixerit, licere Ckridianis plures simul Jiabcre uxorcs, el hoc nulla lcge divina esse prohibilum,analhema sil. Haec enim verba concilii, quaea Kemnilio appro- bantur, proprie in Lulhcrura dirigunlur, cujus cst ilia scntenlia, polygaraiam non essc n Deo praece- ptnm, nec prohibilam. Neque est nova hacc dcfinitio conciiii Iridenii- ni. Idem cnim definivil olim Syricius in epist. 1. el Innoccnlius I. in cpisl. 9. ct Innocentius III. cap. Gaudemus, de divort. acdenique mulli alii, in toto titulo de sponsa duorura, el apud Gralia- nuin 24. quaesl. 3. can. An non. Potest autcm haeo veritas his argumenlis con- firmari. Primo, Ciirislus Mnllh. 19. revocat Matri- inonium ad primam institulionem, ac vultcnm dc- inccps valerc.Scd prima ilia institulio exciudit po- lygamianr.igilur polygamin a Chrislo prohibila est. Major propusilio probnlur; nnm Doininus interro- guius a Pharisaeis, an iiccrcl uxorem repudiare, LlllKU PliiMUS 7<)9 respomlil non licerc: Quia qiu fccit hominem ab inilio, masculum el foeminam fccU eos, cl dixil: Propler hoc dimittel homo palrem et mairem, ct adhaerebil uxori suac, ct crunt duo in carnc una: itaque jam non sunt duo, scd una caro. Quod cr(jo Deus conjunxil^ homo non separct.Ei cum insUirenl Pharisoci, Moysem permisisse libel- lum repu(lii:Domiiuis ilcrum revocans loUim cnus- sam ad primam inslilulionem, nil: Ad duriliam cordis vcstri .Voijses ))crmisit vobis dimittcre u- xorcs vestras, ab inilio autcm non fuil sic ctc. Quod aulem Malrimonium inilio inslilulum. o- mnino cxclud;U polygamiam mullarum uxorum si- mul. Probalur primo ex modo lo(iuendi; illa enim verba in numcro singulari: IHasculum et foomi- nam fecit cos, el; Adherebit uxori suac, el, E- runt duo in carnc ima;Apcrle indicanl Dcum vu- luisscMalrimoniumessc conjunclioncm unius cum una, non unius cum mullis. Secundo ex illa explicalionc Chrisli://a7?iej(t7?i non sunt duo, scd una caro. llacc enim verba si- gnificanl Malrimonii inilio insllluli eum esse eiTe- clum, ul qui conjungunlur, fianl una caro: al si u- nus nuillis jungalur,non eril una caro sed multae; nec lam ficl unio, quam divisio per lale Malrimo- nium. Terlio palel ex ipsa prima crealione hominis. Nam si Deus voluissel 3Ialrimonium esse unius cura muUis,crcassel Adamo non unam lanlurii,sed mullas foeminas, quas in uxores ducere poluissel. I\am iion poleral Adam uxorem haberc, nisi quac cum illo creala fuisset a Deo;repugnal enim omni- no nalurae, ut paler ducat filiam, aut ncplcm: o- mnes aulem foerainae praeler Evam, filiae,aulne- ples fuerunl. Ilaquc coegit Deus Adamum mono- gamum esse. Acccdal ullimo consensus Palrum. Nnm ITiero- nymus, Chrysoslomus, lieda , Thcophylaclus cl Anselmus in commenlnrio, ad cnp. 19. 3Iatl. Am- brosius in lib. de viduis exlremo, et Augustinus lib.l. dc nupliis et concupisccnlia, cap. 9. doccnt Malrimoniura inilio instilutum, excludere polyga- miam; immo raliones paulo anlc aliala, ex his Pa- Iribus depromplae sunt fere omnes. Sccundo: Chrislus Mattliaei o. ct 19. Marci 10. et Lucae 10. declarat eum, qui dimissa uxore a- liam duxerit,moecliari. E\ quibus lesliraoniis col- ligilur, polygamiam jure cvangclico esse omnino illicitam; I\am idco mocchari dicilui', qui dimissa priore aliam ducit: quia prior non polerat dimitli, et licet videalur diinissa corara hominihus, lameu adhuc vcrc est uxor illius,quj eam prirao duxeral. Kani si per diraissioiiem desiissel essc uxor, non moccharetur vir ejus, aliam duccns, quemadrao- duin non mocchalur, (jui priorc uxore morlun n- liam (iucil. Quod si moechatur, qui aliam ducil vi- venlc priore, non licel igitur plures conjuges ha- bere, nisi a(lulleria licita essc velimus; el si iion licet aliam duccrc, dimissa priore, mullo rainus priorc,relcnla. IVain iioii licet priore dimissa aliain ducere, quia prior adhuc est uxor; al multo magis csl uxor (|uae iion cst dimissa:(piarc vivenie prio- re uxorc, sivc dimissa, sive reliiitu, illicitum esl ducerc ulium. lloc argumentum non videlur Cajclano salis so- lidum: scribcns cnim Cajelanus iii cap. 19. Malth. (licil lioc argumcnluin non carcre scrupuIu,propter vcrba quacdam Marci. Dcinde scribeus in cap.lO. Marci, explicat scrupulnm anlea nolalum: est au- lcm hic scrupulus, quouiam Mnrcus refcrens verba Domini, non divit; Qui alinm duxerit, moechatur, sed: Qui aliam duxcrit. mocchatur super eam.EK (|uo vult Gnjetanus inlelligi (si lamen ego recte il- lum intelligo; obscurius enim loquilur more suo) secundumillud conjugium non vocari a Chrislo a- dullerium sinipliciter, sed adullerium in injuriam prioris uxoris, idest, adulterium improprie, et se- cundum aliquid, non absolule ct improprie. Scd iste scrupulus facilc exirai potest, Nara in prirais illa vcrba: Supcr cam, non habenlur apud 3Iallh. cap. 19. et Luc. eap. 10. isti eniin cvaiige- listac absolute dicunt, moechari eura, qui aliuin duxerit. iXeque obslal, quod Cajclanus dicil, debcre ex- poni Mntthaeum et Lucam, per 3Iarcum , qui addit quod niii omiserunt. INam evangelislae licel intcr- dum oinillant aliquid, quod ab aliis supplelur, la- mcn semper verum dicunl, et ila suflicienler, ut possint intclligi etiara ab iis,qui non legerint alios evangelistas: alioqui ii, qui soluin unuin aliquando habcbant. deccpU fuissenl. Quare exposilio unius evangelislae per aliuni iion debet esse talis, ul si- nc ca reddal falsum, quod aliquis eorutn dixil. 0- porlet igilur.ut perspicue verum sit quod Mullhaeus et Lucas dicunl, videlicet absolute moechari cum, qui secundnin uxorein ducit, priina vivcnte: alio- qui decepli fuissenl, qui Malthaeuni, aut Lucara si- ne Marco legissent. Praclcrea illa verba: Moechatus super eam, non lollunl adullerium, sed ponunt, el aliquid praele- rca addunt. Moechari enim supcr dimissam uxo- rem, est vcrc moechari, sed cum iujuria addila in- juslae dimissionis: et aiitcr exponcre, esl sine ulla caussa rclinquere propriam et gerraanam verbo- rum significationem,elfingere tropos ad arbilriuni, quod si liccreletiaraScripluras omnes corruniperc et depravare. Adde, quod Augustinus lib. 1. de adullerinis conjiigiis cap. 11. et lieda in comraeiilario ad cap. 10. Marci, ila Marcum exponunl, ul nos dixiraus: et Innoccnlius III. cap. Gaudemus, de divorliis , lolum argumcnluin, quod hnclenus explicuimus , habcl, ei nnle eum liinocenlius I. in epist, 3. ad Exuperiuin cap. 0. ct oinncs alii Palres , quos in sequcnli quneslione cilnbimus. qui nftirmnnl vero. oum mocchari, qui vivcnle priorc uxore elium di- inissa per rcpudium, alleri jungilur. Scd fortc Cajctnnus dicere voluit, mocchari su- perenm, esse verum ndulleriiim.^iuin ducilur tuiic alin uxor, inviln priore, quno injustc dimissa est : at relcntii et consenlicntc priore, non cssc adul- teriuiii, si ducatur nlin; proindc non apertc coUigi cx vcrbis Douiini, prohibiliouera polygniiiiae. Ilespondeo: Consensus uxoris neque sullicil, ne- quc re^iuirilur nd polygnmiam licitniii reddendam. Nniii teiiiporc Chrisliano. cpio intcrdicla est poly- gaiiiia, eliamsi prior uxor maxime vellel , ut mari- lus aliam ducerel, non Irra^n id ei licercl: lcmpo- soo DK SACKAMKMO .MAir.l.MOMI ro aiiliMii palriiircliiiium, <]iio polyi^amia lioila cral, iion rctiuirrbaliii- coiiseiisiis; nl palel dc nxtiril)iis Jjcob. xNoii tMiiiii Vfrisimilc t>st, roiiscnsissc l.iam, iil Jacob accipcrcl iSiilaiii Racliclis acmulac suac aiicillaiu iii uxorcm; iict|iic coiilra consciisissc Ka- (liclcm.ul J;u'ub accipcriM Zclpnam ancillaiii Kiac: scil Jacob jurc suo ulcbalur. Sif cliam David nuil- las uxores aeccpil. prioribus itl ifinoianlibus; nc- ()uc usquam Ic^iUir, marilum jicliisst» uxoris j^rio- ris consonsum, ul ci liccrcl aliam tlucorc. (Juarc iion lacil atlullcrium, iiivila uxurc aliam cluccrc , scil aliam duccrc priorc vivciilc cl uxorc pcrma- IlClllC. Tcrlio probalur cx Aposlolo. Nam in primis A- poslolus ubicumtjuc lotpiilurdc Hlalrimonio, scm- pcr loipiilur de uxorc in numcro sini;;ulari . ul 1. Oor. 1. l nnsquisiiuc i>nani uxorcni liabcal: cl; AlUijalus cs uxori, noU i}uacrcre sohiUoncm clc. Dciiuic idcm Aposlolus apcrllssimc scribil, u.\o- rcm iion possc, vivcnlc marilo. alicui nllcri nubc- re. Rom. 1. \'/rc)j/e viro 'vocabiUir aduUcra, si lacril cum aUcro viro. El l. Coriiilli. 7. lis qui MiUrinionio juncU sunl. praccipio non c(jo,scd Donunus. uxorcni a vironon disccdcrc: quod si disccsserU. manerc innu])1am, aut viro suo re- conciUari.El inlra: MuUcr aUipaUicst lc(ji,quun- lo U'}}iporcvir cjus vivU: quod si dor}}uerU vir ijus, libcrala vsl a lc<je: cui vuU nubal. Quac loca prohibcnl, polygamiam cx parlc focminarum fxprcssc, itlcsl, probibcnl nc focminac sacpius uubanl, vivcnlibus viris prioribus. Scd proliibcnl cliam consequcnlcr polygamiam cx parlc virorum, idesl, nc viri plurcs siniul uxorcs ducanl. Nam li- ccl niimis rcpufrncl ralioni ac nalnrac, ul vir pli;- res uxorcs, quam uxorplures marilos Iiabcal,ut inlcrius dcinonslrabimus: ulrumquc tamcn ralioni rcpuiinat. VA Practerca quidquid sil dc jurc nalurac, jure c-vani,'eIico pares sunl vir el foemina, quantum ad lidcm ct debilum conjugale, ul ipsc idcm Paulus cxplical 1. Oorintli. 7. cum ait: Uxori vir dcbilum reddal, el uxor viro. MuUcr sui corporis polc- slalcm non habct. scd vir: simiUtcr aiUem el vir siU corporis poleslalct}i non liabct, scd muUcr. Uuibus vcrbis Aposlolus significat in contraclu Ma- irimoiiii i^brisliani. quod est sacramenlum unius Cliristi cum tcclcsia, ita conjungi virum uxori, ut sc totura illi tradat, sicul sr totain viro mulier Ira- dil: cx qiio sequitiir, ut sicut non polcsl mulier si- ne injustitia se tradere allcri viro ; ita nec possit vir sine injuslilia sc Iradcre allcri focminae. Quarc s. Augustinus licet in libro de bono con- jugali cap. 17. scripscrit, magis absurdum csse si una mulicrmultis viris, quam si unus vir mulieri- bus multis jungatur: tamen in lib. l.de adulterinis conjugiis cap. 8. docuil parem essein Matrimonio clirisliano foeminam viro, quod altinetad monoga- miam: et idco sicul, Aposlolu testc, mulicr adulle- ra eril, si vivente marito fueril cum altcro viro, ita ctiam e conlrario vir adulter erit, si vivcnle uxorc fuerii cum alia foemina. Colligimus igitur ex Apostolo hanc rationcm ; 3Iulier iioii potest juxta Apostoli doctrinam plurcs viros habere; sed juxla eundcm Apostolum pares sunl vir cl iiinlicr iii liac rt^.Non igiliir potcsl juxla .Aposbdii!!! iiiuis vir plurcs uxorcs Iiabcrc. <)uarto polygamia tum cx pnrtc viri, tum cx par- lc uxoris, jiiri naliirac c[ ralioni Miilrimonii rcpu- gnal; non igitur licita cst, pracsertim iii icge evan- gclica, qiiac siistulit pcrmissioncs omncs, tpiac c- raiit iii Icgc vetcri. Aiilcccdcns,(|utid altincl ad po- lygamiam. qua una mulier mullis siinul viris nu- IhmcI, apiid omncs ccrtum ct cxploratum csl: nain talis polygamia rc|)ugnal omnibus Malrimonii liiii- bus. Possunt autem distingui qualuor fines Matrimo- iiii, doctriuac caussa. I''inis Primarius cst siisccplio clcducalio prolis. Al cuiu uua mulicr non nisi sc- mid in aniio parcre possil, ab uno viro sunicientcr foclari polcril. Si vcro pluribus juiigatur , iion so- Iiim non paricl sacpius, scd rariiis, aul nuuKpiain parict: cxpcricntia cnim tcslatur, mcrctriccs infoe- (MHulas essc. Dcinde ncmo virorum illorum quibus cadcm uxor commuuis csset, filios suos nossel , quod saiie cdiiralioni libcrorum plurimum nocercl. Altcr fmis Matrimonii cst. domcslica socictas et communicalio opcrum, quac ad vitam iiecessaria sunt. Nam ul Aristotelcs docct lib. 8. elhnicorum, cap. 12. vir cl uxor non junguntur solum ad pro- crcandum, ul animalia caelera, sed cliam ad colia- bilandum, ul simul familiam rcgant , el oflicia do- mcslica inler se partiantur: alia enim munia viro, alia.uxori convcniunt. Ilicaulcm finis omnino iiu- pcdirctur pcr mulliludincm virorum in eadcm fa- milia: csscnt cnim mulla capila unius corporis. Quocirca sicut multi scrvi possunt esse unius Do- mini; non tanicn potcst unus scrvus multis Domi- nis rcclc servire: sic ctiam polcst aliquo modo u- nus vir mullas conjuges simul habere,nullo autem modo polest una foemina mullos simul haberc ma- ritos. Tcrtius ilnis cst, ul sil conjugium in rcmcdium contra concupiscenliam.Ad istud conjugium unius focminac cum mullis viris , non modo remedium non adfcrrcl conlra concupiscenliam , scd ctiam iras, rixas cldiscordias implacabilcs cxcitarel in- ter rivales. ut nolurn cst, quas discordias non pos- sct uxor ulla ratione compescere, cum ci conveniat subjici ct obedirc, non praecsse et dominari. Quarlus linis csl, ul sil sacramcntura Christi ct Ecclesiac,cui fini maximc repugnat isla polygamia. Unus cnim Dcus est, ciii Ecclcsia jungilur, non mulli: ncc polcsl Ecclcsia , sive anima quaevis mullis diis conjungi, nisi fornicando. Sunt aulcm hae rationes s. Augustini lib. 3. de doctrina chrisliana cap. 12. et libro dc bono con- jugidi cap. 17. ubi eliam hanc ipsam sentcnliarn probal cxemplo vclerum sanctorum. Inveniuntur ctiam quidam sanctorum,qui plures uxores habuc- runt, sed quae marilis pluribus juncta fuerit, nul- liim omnino sanclarum lcgimus foeminarum. Quod vero ad polygamiam illam attinet, qua u- nus vir mullas uxorcs habel, non cst omnino extra conlrovcrsiam, an lalis polygamia juri naturae re- pugncl. Durandus cnim in 4. distinct. 33. quaest. 1. ct Alphonsus cpiscopus abulcnsis in cap. 19. Matlh. quaest. 30. doccnt, non rcpugnare: Inno- ccnlius tamcn ponlifcx cap. Gaudcmus, dc divor- LUJEii rni.Mis 801 liis, el llicologi pleriqnc m dist. 33. lib. 4. scn- lcnliam conlrariam lucnlur, Nam clinmsi conju- i,Mum unius viri cum mullis uxoribus , non rcpu- i,Micl. Primo flni 3lalrimonii, idcsl, proiis prop;ig;i- lioni ct cducjilioni; cum fncile possil unus vir cx niultis focmitiis liberos procrcare ct alere; tamen aliis fiuibus aperle rcpugnat. Wam Sccundus ille finis, qui cst socialis cohabi- talio, et domus gubernalio, non parum impedilur per uxorum inuUitudinem. Siquidem uxor, licet sit viro subjecta, non tamen ut famula , sed ut socia el collaleralis: ct ideo ipsa quoqiic in domo prin- cipalum babel, ul fuse Iradit, Cbrysostomus hom. 20. in epist. ad Epbesios: cl idem probal s. Tbo- mas 1. par. quaest. 92. arl. 3. ex ipsa produclionc mulicris: idco enim non ex capile, nequc ex pedi- bus, sed ex latere formala csl,ut ncque doniinclur viro, neque snbjiciatur instar ancillae , scd socia sil et collateralis. Quod etiam leslanlur bonorum vocabula. Regum enim uxores reginae,el Augusto- rum Augustne dicuntur. Jnm vero omnis principa- lus sua nalura diligit singularitalem,ut Augustinus docellib. de bono conjugali cap. 17. rcpugnat igi- lur Matrimonio , ul unius viri plurcs sinl con- juges. Atquc binc inlclligimns argumenlum Augustini loco citalo, quo ipse probat, non ila esse contra ralionem,si unus vir plures uxorcs babeal, qucm- admodum csl contra ralionem , si una nuilier niullos viros babeat:quia non csl contra rationem. ul unus Dominus multos servos habeat ; cum sit contra ralionem,ut unusscrvus mullos babcat do- tninos; inlelligimus.inquam,hoc argumentum non |)robare, non csse absolute contra rationem, ut u- nus vir multas nxores babcat: siqnidem magnum csl discrimcn inter subjectionem servorum ad do- ininum, ct subjcctionem uxoris ad virum; sed tan- lum probare, minus essc absurdum, ut unus vir plures uxores. quam ut una mulier plures viros babeal, cuin vir sit caput mulicris,non contra mu- lier viri. Tertius finis. qui csl remedium conlra concupi- sccnliam. impedilur cliam per istam polygamiani uiiiiis viri cuin rnullis uxoribiis. Wnm sine dubio iion potest un;is vir ila dcbilum reddere mullis u xoribus. alque redderct uni: el videtur,ul in terlia r;ilione diximus, iniquilas qiincdam, iil uxov sc; lo- t;im viio lr;idal, vir;iul(Mn iion se toliim uxori. Kl l'raeterca ciiin vix Hcri possit, ul iioii niiigis uii;i <lilig;itiir, qii;im alter;i, iiide rixae et contiMitionos ex b;ic polygamia l.icile iiascunlur, sicul eli;iiii iii- ter sanclas l'oeiniii;is, S;iram el Agar, Liamjlacbe- lem natas essc, Scriplura testalur, Genes. 10. et 30. ct iriler Annam cl IMi(Miennani, l.I\cg.l.IVe(|iie vcrum fsl, ((uod scriliit l)uraiidiis, cjusmodi ri\;is per accidens oriri, cx pravitate scilicet focmina- rum.Nam e conlrnrio potius per accidcns (icrel:ex l)onilale focmiiwuum, si eae non orireiilur , cum cas polygnmia seriim adler^il. Ouarlus derii(iue finis, nimiruin s;icramcntum , sinc controversia p(dy,L';imi;ie reiiugiiat. HisAccedil prima iiistitutio: si eniin polygamia nalurae conformis cssct, sinc dubio Dcus initio illam instituisscl,cum cl cssclco lcmporc maxime nccessaria nd propagnndum genus, ct nnluralis o- rigo liinc formarelur. Al c ronlrario Dcus initio monogamiam insliluit, ut in priina ralione oslen- dimus: non est igitur polygamia secundum nalu- r;iin. Quinlum argumcntum sumi p^^lcst cx Ecclesiae consueludine. Si enim polygamia Cbrislianis licila cssel. aliqiiod excmplum prolerrelur probatoruin Cbristianoriim, qui plures simiil conjuges babuis- sent. Mir;ibile enim est , exempla palriarcbarum, ut Lulberus dicit, semper fuisse liliera cl licilarel tamen niilhim probum virum nnminnri posse, qui in lolis l.-JOO. annis exempla illa imilalus cuin lau- dc fuerit. Quid?quod non solum Cbristinni semper mono- g;iniiani coluerunl, sed eliam etliniri iqiud llouia- iios. Nam in jure civili ab imperaloribus gentili- bus infamine nola. aliisquc poenis polygami afTi- ciuniur, ul pnlel ff. de liis , qiii nolnnlur infnmla Ipg. 1. itcm C. de inceslis nupliis, leg. Eum qui. Arisloleles etiarn tum in politicis, tum in ulroque oeconornico, monognmiam praecipit. Sed dc bis baclenus.