Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 11: The Argument of the Adversaries Drawn from the Example of the Patriarchs Is Solved
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).
But the argument of Luther and the Anabaptists must be solved, which is taken from the example of Abraham, Jacob, David and the other patriarchs, who, it is certain, both had many wives and at the same time were pleasing and acceptable to God. This argument is usually dissolved in various ways.
For some teach that the patriarchs had only one lawful wife, and that the rest were their concubines. This they prove, first, from those words of the Jews, John 8: “We are not born of fornication”; for they seem to have meant, as Euthymius interprets, that they did not descend from Agar, the concubine of Abraham, but from Sara, his lawful wife.
Then, because Scripture everywhere calls concubines those women who cleaved to the patriarchs besides the wife; and that their sons were not heirs is plain from those words of Genesis 25: “Abraham gave all that he had possessed to Isaac; but to the sons of the concubines he gave gifts.”
Lastly from the Fathers. For Ambrose, book 1 On Abraham, chapter 4, when he wished to defend the deed of Abraham, who had sought a son from the handmaid while his wife Sara was living, brings three excuses. The first is that at that time adultery was not yet forbidden by law. The second, that he did it from love of posterity, not from the heat of lust, and with the consent of his wife, and that at length he did penance for it. The third, that he did it to signify something to come, according to the Apostle, Galatians 4.
St. Augustine too, book 2 against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, chapter 9; book 22 against Faustus, chapter 30; and book 16 of the City of God, chapter 25, excuses the same crime of Abraham objected by the Manichees, on the ground that he did it not from lust but for the sake of offspring, and that with his wife consenting. But he could have washed away the crime with one word, if he had thought Agar was the true wife of Abraham.
Lastly St. Leo, letter 92, to Rusticus of Narbonne, chapter 4, distinguishes between a wife and a concubine, and teaches that a concubine is not a true wife, so that if anyone who has a concubine takes another as wife, he is not judged to double his marriage; and he gives the example of Sara and Agar. Wherefore he seems to have held that Agar was not the true wife of Abraham.
But this opinion is improbable, and does not solve the difficulty. For whatever may be of Sara and Agar, certainly Lia and Rachel were two true wives of the patriarch Jacob; for each was free, and each is constantly called wife. And the same can be said of Anna and Phenenna, the wives of Elcana, and of very many others.
Then, who would believe that the patriarch Abraham, a most wise and most holy man, nay the father of all holiness, and always named with honor in the Scriptures by the apostles and prophets and by Christ himself, either did not know that adultery is a sin, or could be driven by the consent of his wife, or for any other cause, to commit what he knew to be a sin?
Add that if those women had not been the true wives of the patriarchs, we should have to say that the patriarchs sinned not once or twice from human frailty, but almost their whole life long, and that openly and by profession; for they kept those women constantly and publicly.
Moreover God himself says to David, 2 Kings 12: “I gave thy master's wives into thy bosom.” But how, I ask, can God be the author of adultery?
Lastly blessed Paul, Galatians 4, writes that the two sons of Abraham signified the two Testaments, or two peoples; and that as Abraham had one son of the free woman, that is, Sara, the other of the bondwoman, that is, Agar, so God had two peoples, one of the bond synagogue, the other of the free Church. Agar therefore signified the synagogue. But the synagogue was not joined to God by an adulterous union, but by a lawful one; therefore Agar too, if the signification is true, was not an adulterous concubine, but a lawful wife of Abraham.
Nor do those arguments conclude. For that “We are not born of fornication” must be understood of spiritual fornication, which is idolatry, not of carnal fornication, as St. Augustine rightly expounds this place; for this is why they add, “We have one Father, even God.” As if they had said: we do not descend from idolatrous gentiles, who commit fornication with many gods, but from patriarchs, worshippers of one God.
Then the same is plain from the words above: for they had said above that they had Abraham for father, and from this they afterward conclude that they are not of fornication; so that to be of Abraham and not to be of fornication are the same. But if carnal fornication were in question, and by fornication the union with Agar were understood, they would have been of fornication even if they were of Abraham. But if spiritual fornication is in question, that is, idolatry, those who are of Abraham are most truly said not to be of fornication, because Abraham was not an idolater, but a most faithful worshipper of one God.
Nor does the second argument conclude. For in Scripture true and lawful wives are also sometimes called concubines, and concubines themselves are called wives. For in Genesis 16 Agar is called a wife; in Genesis 25 Cetura is also called a wife, and a little after both she and Agar are called concubines; and in Judges 19 the true and lawful, nay the only, wife of a certain Levite is now called wife, now concubine.
For there were two kinds of wives, both among the ancient Hebrews and among the gentiles. Some, who were taken not only for procreating children but also for the fellowship of all goods and the government of the whole house; and the sons of these alone were heirs; and these were properly called mothers of families. Others were also lawful wives, but not admitted to the fellowship of goods and the government of the house; and these were neither called mothers of families, nor were their sons heirs; and these were named both wives and concubines.
That this was in use among the Hebrews is plain from chapter 25 of Genesis cited above. And that it was the custom among the gentiles is clear from Gellius, book 18, chapter 6.
And in this way Gratian, distinction 34, canon Omnibus, expounds the last canon of the Council of Toledo, where it is said that those can be admitted to communion who are content with one woman, whether she be wife or concubine; for he says that she is called a concubine who was truly a wife, but taken privately, without legal instruments.
To the third argument, taken from the Fathers, I answer: Ambrose tried to defend Abraham in various ways, but in the last answer he laid down the true defense. For in the last answer he wrote openly that the marriage of Abraham with Agar was not a sin but a mystery: for God willed it to be done so, to signify something to come, as the Apostle expounds, Galatians 4. From which we understand that Ambrose thought that marriage with several wives, otherwise unlawful, was made lawful by the dispensation of God; which is the solution which afterward Innocent III and the Scholastics followed.
Further, St. Augustine in the places cited does not say that Agar was not a wife, or that Abraham's union with her was adultery; but only says that he did not sin with the sin of lust, because he knew another woman only for love of offspring and with the consent of his wife.
But, they say, he could have driven off the crime with one word if he had said that Agar was a true spouse and that at that time polygamy was lawful. I answer that Augustine said this elsewhere. For in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 38, he wrote openly that the patriarch Jacob had four wives because at that time no law forbade it; and in book 22 against Faustus, chapter 47, he says that at that time it was not against the laws, nor against custom, and therefore was lawful. But because the Manichees chiefly objected lust and wantonness to the patriarchs, therefore St. Augustine tries both more often and more fully to show that the patriarchs gave themselves to their wives not from the itch of the flesh but from love of posterity.
As regards St. Leo, he distinguishes a wife from a concubine, and a free woman from a handmaid; and he takes concubine so that she is understood not to be a true wife; but when he brings the example of Sara and Agar, he speaks of the free woman and the handmaid. Nor does it necessarily follow that he will have handmaid and concubine, free woman and wife, to be altogether the same; for there are many concubines who yet are free, and many handmaids who yet are wives. Wherefore for the truth of the example brought by St. Leo it is enough that Agar was the handmaid of Abraham, which is most true; but it is not necessary that she was not also a wife. I confess, however, that Leo speaks rather obscurely and hardly: whence in book 2 On Councils, chapter 8, when I explained canon 17 of the First Council of Toledo, I said that Agar, by the opinion of St. Leo, was not a true wife of Abraham but only a concubine, following, namely, the gloss on the canon Non omnis, cause 32, question 2. But in a doubtful matter I think it pious to expound Leo as I have now done.
There is, then, another opinion of others, who not only teach that those women of the patriarchs were true and lawful wives, but also affirm that it is not forbidden except by the positive law of the Gospel. This opinion they will have to be that of the holy Fathers Jerome and Augustine.
For Jerome, in the letter to Oceanus on the monogamy of clerics, speaks thus: “The Apostle knew that it had been granted by the law, and he knew that by the example of the patriarchs and of Moses it was familiar to the people to scatter children among many wives.” So he. Polygamy, then, was not against any law, but rather according to law, in the times of the Hebrews.
Augustine, book 3 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 12: “For the sake of sufficient offspring,” he says, “there was a blameless custom of one man having several wives at once.” And book 16 of the City of God, chapter 38: “At that time no law forbade having many wives for the sake of multiplying posterity.” Lastly, book 22 against Faustus, chapter 47: “Some sins are against nature, some against custom, some against precept. Since these things are so, what crime at length is it that is objected to the holy man Jacob about having several wives at once? If you consult nature, he used those women not for the sake of wantonness but of begetting; if custom, at that time and in those places this was commonly done; if precept, it was forbidden by no law.” So he.
Yet this opinion fights with Innocent III, in the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces, where he says that it was never lawful for anyone, without divine dispensation, to have several wives at once. It fights also with Chrysostom, homily 56 on chapter 29 of Genesis, where he says that the custom of having several wives was bad, and therefore abolished by Christ, but was lawful to the ancient Fathers because permitted by God. It fights too with Ambrose, who, as we saw above, could not excuse Abraham from the crime of adultery except by reason of a mystery, namely because God had dispensed in the law of monogamy instituted at the beginning.
Moreover, if polygamy were forbidden only by the positive law of the Gospel and not by the natural law, it would be lawful at this time for unbelievers to have several wives; for they are not bound by the particular laws of the Gospel before they become Christians. But after the coming and preaching of Christ, polygamy is unlawful for all men, as is plain from this: that if an unbelieving polygamist comes to Baptism, he is compelled to put away all his wives except the first, because the Church judges that only the marriage with the first is true Matrimony, as is plain from the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces.
Nor can it be answered that such an unbeliever is compelled after Baptism to put away his wives except one because the Christian law forbids anyone to have several wives at once, although it was lawful in heathenism. For the Christian law forbids also that true marriages be broken; and so, if those had been true marriages, they would not be broken by the Church, but such a man would only be commanded not to take other wives from then on, unless all those he had taken before were dead; just as we see done in marriages contracted by unbelievers in the degrees forbidden by the Church. For because the law of the Church does not bind unbelievers, the marriages are judged lawful and are not broken when they come to the faith, although they would be broken if they were made after Baptism received; all of which can be learned from the same chapter Gaudemus.
Lastly, it is refuted by all the arguments which were made in the fourth reason.
Nor are Jerome and Augustine against us: for their opinions are most true, the divine dispensation being laid down, which we lay down with Innocent and the Scholastics. For that dispensation being laid down, Matrimony with several wives at once was not against the law, nay it was according to the written law of Moses; the custom of that time too was blameless, as Augustine says. And lastly, while the same dispensation was in force, it was not against nature to take several wives, but only to take them for the sake of wantonness; and therefore Augustine rightly says that the marriages of the patriarchs were not against nature, because they were made not for the sake of wantonness but of begetting.
There is, then, the third opinion, common to the Schools: that it was lawful for the patriarchs, by divine dispensation, to take several wives. But since about this too there are various opinions, and some will have it that there was a peculiar divine inspiration in each of the Fathers, by which they understood that it was lawful for them by divine dispensation to be joined to several wives; others will have it enough if that dispensation became known to the first patriarchs by divine inspiration; and again some teach that this dispensation was made only with the people of God, others with all nations; I shall set out in a few propositions what seems to me more probable in this matter.
First proposition: Concerning polygamy, both of a wife with many husbands and of a husband with many wives, no man can dispense, and most of all after the Gospel has been preached. It is plain: because polygamy is forbidden first by the divine natural law, and then by the divine law of the Gospel; but an inferior cannot dispense in the law of a superior; and so neither can man in the law of God.
Second: God can dispense concerning the polygamy of one husband with several wives, but not of one wife with many husbands. The reason is that two kinds of precepts belong to the law of nature. Some universal and most common, which are as it were the first principles of the law of nature; others which are derived from the first as conclusions. And those former contain the rule of rightness so universally that in no case do they need any change, and therefore they are altogether indispensable; such as are the precepts of the Decalogue. But the latter contain indeed the rule of rightness, but sometimes, when the circumstances of things and persons are changed, it is useful that the law be changed; yet even then it cannot be changed except by him who laid it down.
Now the polygamy of one woman with many men belongs to those first principles of the law of nature, nor can it become good through any change of circumstances, because it fights, as we showed above, with all the ends of Matrimony; therefore no dispensation falls on it.
You will say: what if there were only one woman among men, and she were married to a barren man? Would it not be necessary to dispense with her, that she might marry another man, lest the world perish?
I answer: there is no danger that such a case should happen; for God has care of the providence of the human race. Otherwise we could also ask whether a father ought to marry his daughter, or a son his mother, if no others remained among men. But even granting that case, it would rather be dispensed with her that she loose the bond with her first husband than that she have two husbands.
Further, the polygamy of one man with many wives belongs to the latter kind of precepts; because, as we said, it does not fight with the primary end, but only with the secondary; and it can be that sometimes it is useful, for attaining the primary end, to disregard the secondary; and therefore dispensation can fall on that law, but only God's, as we said, not men's.
Third proposition: For God to be said to dispense concerning polygamy, there is not required any external speaking or Scripture, nor does it suffice that right reason dictate to anyone that it is lawful; but a peculiar inspiration of God is required.
The first part is proved because such as the law is, such the dispensation too is required to be. But the law forbidding polygamy in the time of the patriarchs was not written in any book, but only impressed on minds; for it is certain that the books of sacred Scripture had their beginning from Moses.
The second part is proved because the law forbidding polygamy was not natural only because conformed to right reason, but because God by special inspiration had taught Adam what the nature of the Matrimony instituted by him was, and so that he willed it to contain monogamy. For these secondary precepts of the law of nature have no coercive force unless they are specially sanctioned by God or by some prince; but they bind only in so far as right reason teaches that a thing is so to be done or not done, as St. Thomas teaches on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 33, question 1, article 1, to the second. As, then, the law of monogamy had been sanctioned by God through special inspiration, so there was need of special inspiration for its dispensation.
Fourth proposition: The dispensation concerning polygamy was shown by God to some first Fathers; then by their word or example it came to all.
It is proved because already in the time of Abraham, and thereafter, the matter was known to all, so much so that Sara induced Abraham to take a second wife. For it is not credible that Sara, a most holy woman, would have done this unless she had known it to be lawful; nor is it likely that this was first shown to her by God. By like reason Laban offered Jacob two daughters; and again they offered the same man two other wives; nor did he wonder, or say that it was not lawful. And lastly Moses in Deuteronomy speaks as of a known thing, lawful everywhere, when he says, “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and the other hated,” and so on, Deuteronomy 21. It was not necessary, then, that a divine inspiration be made to each one; but it was enough if it was made to the first Fathers; and perhaps it was made to Noe alone, and then he taught the others.
Fifth proposition: It is probable that the dispensation was granted to all nations, and not to the Hebrews alone. I say that this is probable because I am not unaware that many think it was granted only to the people of God, namely for propagating that nation from which the Messias was to be born.
It is proved, first, from Augustine, who in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 38, and book 22 against Faustus, chapter 47, writes that in the lands where Jacob took four wives there was a custom of taking several wives for the sake of posterity, and that this custom was blameless because at that time no law forbade polygamy. In which place Augustine shows that the dispensation was general: both because he says absolutely that at that time there was no law forbidding polygamy, because, namely, the natural law, on account of the general dispensation, bound nowhere; and also because he says that in that place, and in other lands where Jacob then was, it was lawful. But that place was of the gentiles, not of the Hebrews; since Laban, whose daughters Jacob took as wives, was an idolater, as is plain from Genesis 31; and lastly because the cause why polygamy was then lawful is said by Augustine to have been the propagation of the race, or sufficient offspring; nor does he anywhere say, so far as I know, the propagation of the people of God only.
Second, it is proved because Scripture relates that not only Abraham and Jacob and their descendants, but also Esau, who did not belong to the people of God, took many wives, Genesis 26 and 28; and there seems no doubt that Esau did it in imitation of Abraham; nor does Scripture reprove him. The Ismaelites too, who to this day keep the custom of polygamy, probably received it from Abraham and the other Fathers; and since Scripture does not reprove the gentiles for having several wives at that time, it is probable that the permission was altogether general.
Sixth proposition: It is probable that this dispensation ceased before the coming of Christ; but if it did not cease before, it is certain that it was altogether taken away by Christ, so that polygamy is now forbidden not only to Christians but also to all other nations.
That the dispensation, if any then existed, was taken away by Christ is sufficiently proved in the first argument of the preceding chapter. And that it is probable it had ceased of itself before, we gather from this, that the cause of the dispensation had already ceased before; for the cause had been the fewness of men. For because after the flood men were very few, and did not live long as before the flood, therefore God, for the easier propagation of the human race, granted polygamy; but before Christ came the world was already most full of men; wherefore the cause of the dispensation had ceased.
This men seem also to have understood: for neither among the Jews nor among the Romans was polygamy in use in the time of Christ, except perhaps among very few. For in the Gospel, whether the disciples or the Pharisees or others speak, they always speak of a wife in the singular number; and, what is a manifest sign of this thing, Zachary the father of John, though he had a barren wife, yet took no other wife, but lived with that one to old age, as is plain from chapter 1 of Luke.
One argument could still be solved, from the letter of Gregory III to Boniface, where he seems to have granted a second wife to someone on account of the sickness of the first. But of this matter we have treated in book 4 On the Pontiff, chapter 12. The common solution is that that first one was not a true wife on account of a perpetual impediment, and that Gregory declared this.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAI»UT XI. SolvUvr argumcnlum adversariorum, cx pairidrcharum excmplo duclum. Sed argumenlum solvendum esl Lutheri ct Ana- bnptislarum, quod ab exemplo Abrahae, Jacob,Da- vid, aliorumque palriarcharum surnitur , quos cl uxores mullas babuisse, et simul Deo gralos, atque acceptos fuisse conslat. Quod argumcntum variis modis dissolvi solet. Quidam enim docent: Patrinrcbns nnnm lantum nxorcm legitimam habuisse. cacleras vero, concu- binas (iorum fuisse. Id quod probanl, Primum ex iilis verbis Judaeorum Joan. 8. i^Vos ex fornicalio-. na non sitmus nati; videnlur cniin sigiiificare vo- luisse Eulhymio iiiterprete, se non descenderc cx Agar concubina Abrahiie, scd ex legitima, ejus u- xore S;ira. Deinde.quiaScripliira p;issim concubinas nppel- l;it mulieres ilbis, (piae pra(;ler iixorem jialriarcbis ;i(lliaercl)anl: neqiie filios earum haeredes fuisse (l()(M;l.nt p;ilet ex illis verbis ricnes.'2.';./)e(iit Abra- liiuii cuncta quac jiosfiedcrat, haac, lUiis aulcm concabinariim larqUus csl muncra. IJitimoex P;itril)us, naiii Ambrosius lib. 1. de A- br;ili;iiii cap. i. (uiin lacluin AbrnlKic delendcre vel- lct, (lui ex ;incill;i liliuin (piaesier;il, vivenlc Sara u- xorc, tres ndrcrl cxciisationcs. Priina est, qiiod eo liMiipore iioiidiim adulUMiiim Icge iirobibilum es- .s(M. Secunda. quod amorc poslerit;ilis, iion ardore libidinis id feceril, el de consensii uxoris, cl larv- dem ejus rei |)0(Miitenliaiii egorit. Terlia.(iuod id c- geril ;id ali(piid fulurum signific;iiidum, juxla Apo- sloluin ad (il;il;il. i. Sanctus cliam Auguslinus lib. 2. conlra Advcr- s;irium legis rt prophclarum c;ip. \). lib. 22. con- 802 DKSACHAMKNiO 31 \1 UDIO.MI Ira Kaiislum cap. 30. el lib. IG. dc Civil. Dci cap. 25. idetn crimen Abniliae a Miuiicliaeis objectiim exous.it, (piod non libidino, scd prolis },M-alia, id- qiio uvore coseiile fecerit. Poluissot autem uno verbo crimen dilucrc, si exislimassel Agar vcram conjuijcm Alirahami fuisse. Denique s. i.eo cpisl. 1)2. ad lUislicuin narboncn- scm, cap. 4. dislinguit inler uxorem et concubi- nain,ae docet concubinam non esse veram uxorcm, ita ut si quis habcns coiicubinam, ducal aliam in uxorcm, ille non censeatur duplicare coniiigium: ponil aulein cxemplum dc Sara ct Agar. Quare vi- detur sensisse, Agar non vcram fuisse Abrahae conjugem. Sed haecscntcntia csl improbabilis, nec dilTi- cullalem solvit. Xam quidquid sit de Sara cl Agar, ccrle Lia et Rachel duae verae conjuges cranl pa- Iriarchae Jacob, utraquc cnim libcra crat, el ulra- que uxor perpctuo nominatur: et idem dici potesl dc Anna cl Phcnenna uxoribus Ilelcanae, el aliis permultis. Deindcquiscredat palriarcham Abrabam virum sapientissiinum ct sanclissimum, immo parentem omnis saiiclilalis. el in Scripturis ab aposlolis el prophelis, et ab ipso Christi semper cum honore nominatum, vel ignorasse adullerium essc pecca- tum. vel adigi potuisse consensu conjugis, aut alia ulla de caussa.ad id pcrpclrandum, quod peccatum esse non ignoraret. Addcquod si non fuissenl illae vcrae uxores pa- Iriarcharum, oporteret dicere palriarchas non tan- lum scinel , aut ilcrum cx huoiana fragililale,sed lolo fere vitae tempore, idque palam, ct ex profes- sione peccasse: illas enim mulicres perpeluo, et publice relinebanl. Praelerea Deus ipse dicit Davidi, 2. Reg. i2.De' di uxorcs Domini tui in sinum tuum: al quomo- do, quaeso, Deus adulterii auclor esse potesl? Denique bealus Paulus ad Galat. 4. scribit, duos filios Abrahara significasse duo Teslamenla, sivc duos populos; et sicut Abraham unum filium ha- buil ex libera, idest, Sara, alterum ex ancilla, idest, Agar: ita Deum habuisse duos populos, unum ex synggoga serva, altcrnm ex Ecclesia li- bera. Significavil igilur Agar synogogam. Al syna- goga non fuit adullerina conjuuclione Deo copu- lata, sed legitima; ergo et Agar, si vcra est signi- ficalio, non fuil adultera concubina, sed legithna conjux Abrahae. Neque argumenla illa concludunt; nam illud: Nos ex fornicatione non sumus naii, inlelligi de- betdefornicalioncspirituali, quae esl idololalria, non dc fornicatione carnali, ul hunc locum s. Au- guslinus recte exponit: ideo enim illi addunl: Sed unum Pairem liabemus Deum. Ac si dixissent: l\os non descendimus cx genlibus idololatris, qui cura multis diis fornicantur, sed ex patriarchis u- nius Dci eultoribus. Deinde idem palet ex verbis superioribus: supra enmi dixerant, se palrem habere Abraham, el in- de concludunt postea, se non esse ex fornicalione; ita ut idem sit esse ex Abrahara,et non esse ex for- nicalione. At si ageretur de fornicalione carnali,et per fornicationem inlelligeretur conjunclio cum A- gar, fiiissenl ex foniiridioiic, cliaiiisi fiiissciil cx Abraham. Si vero agatur de spirilu;ili fornicatione, idcsl, de idololatria, verissimc dicuiitur non esse cx foriiicalionc, qui sunt ox Abrahiim, quia Abra- haiii idololalra non fuit, scd unius Dci lidclissimus cullor. i\o(]uc Sccundmn argdiTKMilmn concludil. Nam in Scriplura cliam vcrac ct lcgiliinae uxorcs ali- quando dicuntur concubinae, cl ipsae concubinac dicunlur uxorcs. Siqiiidcm Gciics. 10. Agar dicitur uxor: G(iiics. 21. Cctlmra dicitiir cti;iin uxor , ci paulo posl lam ipsa, quam Agar dicunlur concubi- nae: el Judic. 19. uxorvera, el legitima, immo ct unioa cujusdain Levilae, nunc uxor, nunc concu- bina noininatur. Erant aulem duo genera uxorum, lura apud Ile- braeos veteres , cum etiam apud gciitilcs. Quae- dam, quae ducebanlur non solum ad procreandos liberos,sedetiam ad socictatem omnium bonorum, el totius domus gubernalioncm; alque hariim tan- tum filii eranl haeredcs; et hae propric diccbantur malresfamilias. Quaedam erant legilimae eliam uxores, sed non admissae ad societalem bonorum, et domus gubernationem; el hae neque matresfa- milias diccbantur, ncque caruin filii hacredcs e- rant; et Iiae lum uxores, lum concubinae noraina- bantur. Id in usu fuisse apud lIebracos,palct ex cap.2i5. Gen. supra citato. Apud genliles autem id fuisse in raore positum, pcrspicuum esl ex Gellio Iib.18. cap, C. El hoc modo exponit Gralianus dist. 34. can. 0- mnibus, canonera ullimum concilii loletani, ubi dicunlur admilli posse ad communionem ii, qui una muliere contenli sunt, sive ea sit uxor, sive concubina: dicit enira eoncubinara vocari eara, quae verc esset uxor, sed privatim ducla, sinc le- galibus inslrumenlis. Ad Tertiura argumenlum ex Palribus desum- pluin, Respondeo: Ambrosium variis modis Abra- bamum defendere conalum esse, sed in ullima re- sponsione veram defensionera posuisse. In ullima cnim responsione apertc scripsit , conjugiura A- brahae cum Agar non fuisse peccalum, scd myste- rium: Deus enira ila fieri voluil ad aliquid fulurum significandum, ul Aposlolus exponit Galat. 4. Ex quo intelligimus, Ambrosium exislimasse , conju- gium cum pluribus uxoribus alioqui illicilum, Dei dispensalione factum esse licilum: quae est solu- lio, quam poslea Innocenlius III. el Scholaslici sequuti sunl. Porro s. Augustinus in locis citalis non dicil , Agar non fuisse uxorera, aul conjunctionem Abra- hami cum ipsa fuisse adulterium, sed solum dicit, cum non peccasse peccato libidinis,quia solum ob amorein prolis et ex conscnsu uxorisaliara mulie- rcm cognovit. Al, inquiunt, potuissct uno verbo crimen depel- Icrc,si dixissel, Agar vcram conjugem fuisse, el co tempore licilain fuisse polygaraiara.Rcspondeo hoe alibi dixit Auguslinus. Nam in lib. 16. de Civit.Dei cap. 38. apertc scripsil,Jacob palriarcham quatuor nxores habuisse, quia eo terapore nulla lex id pro- hibe^bal: et lib. 22. conlra Fauslum cap. 47. dicit LI151-H PUIMUS m eo lemporc id non fuisse conlra leges, ncquc con- Ira consucludincm. el ideo fuissc licilum.Scd quia Manichnei praccipuc objicicbanl palriarchis libidi- nem ac pclulanliam; idcirco s. Auguslinus. cl sae- pius, cl lusius demonslrarc conalur . pairiarchas non lubiico carnis, sed amore poslerilalis operam uxoribus dcdissc. Quod ad s. Lconem perlinel, dislinguil ille uxo- rem a concul)ina, el liberam ab ancilla: et concu- binam ila accipit, ul ea non vcra uxor inlclligalur: sed cuMi cxcm|)lum adicrl Sarae et Agar,dc libcra el ancilia loquilur. INcque necessario sequilur, ul velit csse omnino eandem , ancillam et concubi- nam; liberam ct uxorcm: nam et mullae sunt con- cubinae, quae lamen suut libcrae; ct mullae sunt ancillac, ct tamen uxores. Quare ad exempli a s. Lcone allali verilatcm, salis esl, si Agar ancilla fuerit Abrabae, quod cst verissimum : non autcm nccesse csl, ut eadem uxor non fucril. Falcor la- mcn Leonem obscurius el duriusculc loqui: unde iib.2. deconciliis cap.8. Cam c.xplicarem can.M . concilii lolelani I. dixi, Agar cx scnlculia s. Lconis noQ fuisse veram Abrahae uxorcm , sed concubi- nam tanlum: sequutus nimirum glossam in cnno- ncm. Ao7i omnis 32. qu. 2. sed in re dubia pium cxislimo, Leonem exponere, ut jam fcci. Est igilur alia sentenlia aliorum, qui non solum docenl,laeminas illas palriarcliarum veras et legiti- mas uxores fuisse, sed eliam affirmantid non csse probibilum, nisi jure posilivo evangelico. Quam senlcntiam esse volunt sanclorum Palrum Iliero- nymi el Auguslini. Hieronymus enim in cpist. ad Oceanum dc mo- nogamia clericorum, sic loquilur: Sciebnt, Aposto- lus. lefje conce^sum, el cxemplo palriarcharum, ac Moysi. familiare populo noverat in multis u- xoribus liberos spargere. Hacc ille : non igilur conlra lcgcm ullam. sed polius sccunduin Icgcm cral polygamia, lcmporibus Hcbracorum. Auguslinus Iib.3. dc doclr. chrisl. cap. 12. Suf- ficiendae, inquil, prolis caussa , eral uxorum pUirimiim simuL uni viro liabondarum inculpa- (>ilis C07isuetudo. El lib. 0. de Civit. Dci cap. 38. Eo tcmpore mulliplicandae posleritatis caussa mullas uxores habcre lex nuUa prohibebal. Dc- nique lib. 22. conira Faustum cap. 47. Peccala alia sunl contra naluram. alia conlra morem . alia conlra praeceptum. Quae cum ilasint, quid landem criminis est. quod de pluribus uxoribus t<imul liabHis objicilur sanclo viro Jacob? Si na- iuram consulas. non lasciviendi, sed rjenerandi caussa illis muUeribus ulebatur: si morem, illo lempore.et inilLis locis hoc faciilabiLlur: siprae- ceplum, nulla lecje prohibebatur. Hacc illc. Hacc lamen seulcntia, repugnal Innoceulio III. cap. Gaudemus, dc divorl. ubi dicit nulli uuquam fuisse liciluin siuc divina di.-^pciisaliouc. plurcs si- mul uxores habere: repugnat cliani Chrysoslomo homil. .')(). in cap. .30. ricnescos, ubi dicil , con- sucluvlincm |)Iurium uxorum babcndarum fuissc nialam, et idco a Clirislo abolilam : scd Palribus anlirpiis fuisse licitam , (|uia a Dco pcrmissam: re- pugiiat quoquc And)rosio , qiii ut siipra vidimus , nou poluit Abrahamum cxcu.sarc ab adiillcrii cri- mine nisi ralione myslerii , nimirum , quia Deus dispensaverat in lcge monogamiac ab inilio insli- lutac. Praeterea si solo jure evangelico posilivo , non aulcm jurc nalurali probibila esset polygamia, li- cerct hoc tenqiore infidelibus pliires uxorcs liabc- re: neque enim illi liuienlur parlicularibus Icgibus evangelii, antcquam Clirisliani liaiil. Al posl Cbri- sli advcnlum ct pracdicalionem, omnibus bomini- bus illicila cst polygamia, ul cx eo palet ; quod si iufidclis polygamus ad Baptismiim veniat, cogitur dimillcre uxores omncs, praclcr primam ; quia in- dicat Ecclcsia solum conjugium cum prima vcrum csse Malrimonium, utpalet ex cap. Gaudcmus de divorl. Nec responderi potest, ejusmodi inndclem cogi posl Biiplismum dimillcrc uxorcs praclcr unam . quia Icx chrisliana probibcl, ne quis liabeal plurcs simul uxorcs. elsi id in gcnlilitale licilum fucrit. IVam lex chrisliana prohibet eliam dirimi vera 3Ia- Irimonia: ac proiudo si illa fiiisscnt vcra Malrimo- nia, non dirimcrentur ab Ecclcsia,scd solum prae- ciperelur ejusmodi bomini, ne deinceps alias uxo- rcs ducerel, nisi omnibus illis morluis, quas anle duxisset:quemadmodum fieri videmus in Walrimo- niis contractis ab infidelibus^in gradibus ab Eccle- sia proliibilis. Nam quia lex Ecclesiae non obligat infideles, Malrimonia censenlur lcgilima, ncc diri- rnunlur, cum illi veniunt ad iidcm, ctiamsi dirime- renlur. si post Baplismum acceplum liercnt; quod lolum ex eodem cap.Gmtdcmits. cognosccre liccL Dcnique refcllilur argumeulis omnibus, quae in quarla ralione facla sunt. INcque Ilieronymus cl Augustinus nobis advcr- sanlur: corum enim sentcniiac vcrissimae sunl , posita dispcnsatione divina, quam nos cum Inno- ccntio ct Scholasiicis ponimus. Ea enim dispensa- tione posila, nou erat conlra Icgcm. immo erat se- cunduin Icgem Moysis scriplam.Malrimonium cum pluribus simul uxoribus: consueludo quoque illius temporis erat inculpabilis, ut Auguslinus dicit. Et dcni(iue eadem dispensalione vigcule , non crat conlia naturam, plures uxorcs duccrc, scd lantum eas duccre lasciviendi caussa ; et ideo rccle dicit Augusliniis , conjugia patriarcbarum nou fuissc conira naluram, quia nnn ficbauL lascivicndi , scd gigucndi caiissa. Estigitiir Tcrtia scntcnlia vScholariim comiminis, palriarcliis cx divina dispcnsalionc licuissc |»luics uxorcs duccre.Sed quoniam dc h;ic ctiain re vari;ie sunt opiniones, et alii quidem volunt singulis Pa- Iribus pcculiarem adfuisse divinam inspiralioncm. (|ua iulclIigercuL liccri! sibi divina (iis|)cnsaUuiui pluribus uxoribus jungi: alii volunl salis fuissc, si priinis palriarchis diviua inspirationc innntucril ca dispcnsatio: cl rursus alii hanc dispcnsaliomMn taiitum cum populo Dci; alii cum omnibus gculi- bus faclam doccnt: cxponam paucis proposilioiii- biis. ipiid milii iu bac re probiibilius vidciitiir. Priiiiii proposilio: Circa poUjijauiiaia lam uxo- ris cum muUis viris, quamviri cum mullis uxo- ribus, nulLus liomo dispensarc ])olei>t, etmaximc ])ost evanfjeliumpracdicalum. Palel; (piia poly- giunia [irohibila csl priiuum juro divino nalur;ili, sov ui-: s.uiii.vMKNro mmiumumi ol doiihlc jiiio ilivino ov;ingeIii'o; non polcsl aulcm infenur ilispcnsarc in legc supcrioris proimle ncc lioino in loj;i* Doi. SccunJa. Polcsl Deiis dispcnsarc circa polifija- miam uniiLs viri cuin pluribus uxorihas.non au- tcm utiius nxoris cum muUis viru>. Kalio csl,(|uia (luo j^cncra praect>ploruin ad jus nalurac |)crlincnl. Quaedain univcrsalia cl conununissiina, quac sinil vcluli |M'iiicipia prinia juris nalurac. Quacdani alia, (]uac c\ [)riinis lauKiuani conclusioiics dcrivanluc. Kl i|uidcin priora illa, conlincnl ila univcrsalilcr rci:;ulain rccliludinis, ul in nullo casu niulalionc ulla indigcanl, cl idco sunl oinnino indispcnsabi- lia; qualia sunl pracccpia dccalof^i. Posloriora au- lcfn conlincnl quidcin rcgulani rccliUidiuis: scd ali()uando inulalis circuinslanliis rcruin cl |)crso- naruni. ulilc csl lci^cin niulari ; scd laincn cliain lunc inulari non polcsl nisi ab co,qui illaiu posuil. Jain igilur polygamia rocminae unius cuni intil- lis viris pcrlincl ad priina illa priiicipia jiiris nalu- rae, ncc pcr ullani nuilalioncin circuinsianliarum polcsl (icri bona. quia rcpugnal, nl supra oslendi- inus, omnibus finibus Malrimoiiii ; idco iii illani null 1 cadil dispcnsalio. Diccs: Quid si sola csscl una nuilicr inlcr liomi- ncs, el ea esscl nupla viro slcrili : nonnc oporle- rcl cum ca dispcnsare, ul nubcrcl allcri viro, ne inundus inlcrird? Uespondeo:>on csse pcriculum ul lalis casus ac- cidal: Doo cniin curac est providcnlia gcncris hu- mani, Alioqui cliam qiiacrcrc posscmus num debc- rel palcr filiam u.xorcm duccre, aul filius malrcm, si nulli alii inler homines superessenl.Scd dalo el- iam illo casu, polius dispensanduni cum ca esscl, nl solvercl vinculum cuiii priorc niarilo, quam ut duos marilos habcret. Porro polygamia unius viri cum mullis n.\oribus, ad poslcrius gcnus praeceplorum pcrlincl: (piia.ut diximus, non rcpugnal primario fini, scd secunda- rio tanlum; cl fieri polcsl, ut aliquando ulile sit ad conscquenduin primarium finem, contemnere secundarium: clidciicoin illam lcgcm cadere po- lesl dispcnlalio, sed Dci tanlum, ul di.vimus, non hominum. Terlia proposilio: LL Deus dicaiur dispensarc circa polycjamiam,non requirilur exlerna aliqui loquulio ,vcl Scriptura,nec sufficil quod recla ra- tio diclel alicui illam essc licilam: sed requirilur peculiaris inspiralio Dei. Prima pars probatur, quia qualis cst lc.x, talis ct- iam rcquirilur dispensalio. Le.x aulem prohibens polygamiam lemporc palriarcharum, non eral scri- pla in ullo libro, sed solum impressa in menlibus: libros enim Scriplurae sacrae a Moyse initium ha- buisse, certum est. Secunda pars probatur, quia lc.\ prohihcns poly- gamiam, non cratsolum naluralis quia conformis ralioni rectae, sed quia Deus speciali inspiralione ducuefat Adamum , quae essct nalura Matrimo- nii a sc insllluli, et proinde se velle ul monoga- miam contineret. Nain secundaria ista pracccpla juris naturac, non habenl vim coactivam, nisi spe- cialiler a Deo, vel ab aliquo principe sancianlur; scd solum obligant quaclenus recla ratio docct ila csse faci(Mulum, vel non raciendum ul s. Tlioinas doccl in i. senlenl. disl. SW. (luacsl.l. arl. 1. ad 2. Siciil igilur spcciali inspiralioiH; sancila rucral a Dco lc.\ monogamiac, ila s|)ctiali inspiralionc o- pus cral in (*jus dispensalioiu!. Quarla proposilio: DispcnsaUo circa poltjfia- viiam, iiidicala csi a Deo primis aliquoi Dalri- bus; deinde illorum verbo aui excmplo ad cuc- tnros pervenit. Probatur, quia jam lcmporc Ahrahac.el dciiic(!ps poslea rcs cral omuiuus nola, adco, ul Sara Abra- iiamum induccrclad secundam uxorem duccndam. Acque cnim credibile cst, Sarain roeininam san- clissiinam hoc facluram fuissc , nisi id licilum cssc scivissel: n^ujue vcrisimile csl, illi piinium hoc a Dcd indicatum. Pari ralionc Laban oblulil .lacoho duas fihas;cl rursus illae ohlulerunt eidcin (luas alias nxores; iie(|ue ipse miralus est , aul di- \il, non liccre. El dcniquc 31oyses in Dculcrono- mio, lamquam de rc nola, et passim licila lociiii- lur,cuni aii:St fuerini alicui duac uxorcs,una di- lccla, allera odiosa, elc. Dculeron. il. non igilur necessc crat, ut ad singulos fieret inspiralio divi- na; scd salis crat, si primis l*alril)us facta fucrit, ct fortassc soli Noe fucla fuil, et deindc ipsc alios docuit. Quinla proposilio: Probabile csl dispensaiio- nem concessam omnibus geniibus ,non auicmso- lis Ilebracis. Dico id esse probabile, quia non i- gnoro multos exislimare, soli populo Dei id essc conccssum,nimirum ad propagandam cam gcntcm, uiide Mcssias nascilurus eral. Probatur primo ex Auguslino, qui in hb. IG. de Civit. Dei cap. 38. et lib. 22. contra Fauslum, cap. 47. scribil, in terris ubi Jacoh uxorcs qualuor du- xit, fuissc morem ducendi pluris uxorcs, poslcri- lalis caussa, et eura morem fuisse inculpabilem, quia co lemporc polygamiam lex nulla prohibcbat. Quo loco Augustinus indicat, dispensalionem luis- se generalem, tum quia absoluie dicil, eo lempore nullam fuisse legem prohibcntem polygamiam,quia nimirum lex naturalis propler generalcm dispen- salionem nusquam obligabal, tum etiam, quia di- cit in eo loco, et in aliis terris, ubi Jacob tunc criTi-, id fuissc licilum. Locus aulem illa genlilium erat non Ilebraeorum: siquidem Laban, cujus (ilias Ja- cob accepil uxorcs, idololalria erat,ut patet Genes. 31. tumdenique quia caussa cur poiygamiam lunc essct licita,dicilur ah Augustino fuisse propagatio- nis generis, seu sufficicndae prolis: ncc usquam dicil, quod sciam, propagandi populi Dei Umlum. Secundo probalur,quia Scriplura narrat, non so- lum Abraham el Jacob, et eoruin poslcros, sed e- tiam Esau,qui ad populum Dci non pertinebal,mul- tas uxoi'cs duxisse.Gcnes. 20, et 28. ncque du- bium videlur,quinEsau ad imilalioncm Abrahae id fecerit; neque Scriptura cum reprehendil. Ismae- litas quO(iue, qui usque ad hanc diem consuclu- dinem polygamiac rctinenl, ab Abrahaino, aliisque Patribus eam accepisse credibile est: ct cum Scri- plura genlilcs non rcprehcjidat , quod co temporc plures uxores haberent, probabile esl omniiio ge- neralem fuisse pcrmissionem. Sexta proposilio: Probabilc cst,disi)ensalionem II LiBins pr.Dius S(>: hanc anle Christi adcenlum cessasse: sed si non anle ccssaveril, cerlum csl a Chrislo omnino csse sublalam, ita nljam non solum Chrislianis, scd etiam aliis gcntibus omnibus j^olyyamia prohi- bita sit. Quod a Glirislo sublala dispensalio sit, si qua lunc erat, salis probalum csl in primo argumeiUo capilis superioris. Quod autcm probabilc sit, antea per se cessasse, inde colligimus, quod jam anlea cessaveral caussa dispensationis: caussa enim fue- ral paucitas hominum.Kam quia posl diluvium ho- mines paucissimi erant,et non diu vivebnnl, utante diluvium idcircoDeus ad faciliorem propagationcm generis humani, indulsit polygamiam : sed ante- quam Christus vcnirel, jam plenissimus crat mun- dus hominibus; quare ccssaveral caussa dispcnsa- lionis. Id quod liomines eliam intellexisse vidcnlur:nam nec apud Judaeos, nec apud Uomanos crat in usu polygamia lempore Christi, nisi forlc apud paucis- siraos. Siquidem in cvimgeho sive discipuli . sive pharisaei, sivc ahi loquantur, scmpcr dc uxore in numcro singuhiri loquunlur; et quod cst manifc- hlum indicium hujus rci, Zachorias pnter Joannis, cum uxorcm sterilem haberet, non tamen aliam u- xorcm accepil, scd cum illa una usquc ad scnectu- lem dixit, ut palet ex 1. cap. Lucac. Unum adhuc solvi possetargumenlum ex epislo- la Gregorii Ili. ad Bonifacium, ubi uxorem sccun- dam conccssisse vidctur cuidam ob aegriludinem primae. Sed de hac rc disseruimus iib. 4. de pon- lillcc, cap. 12.Solulio communis cst,iilam primuni nonfuisse vcram conjugcm ob irapedimcnlum per- peluum; alque id Gregorium dcclarassc.