← Back to Distinction 39

Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 39

Textus Latinus
p. 836

Quaestio IV. Utrum matrimonium contractum ante baptismum ponat in numerum cum matrimonio contracto post baptismum.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum matrimonium ante baptismum ponat in numerum cum matrimonio contracto post baptismum, ita quod talis iudicetur bigamus. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Hieronymus super Epistolam ad Timotheum primam6: «Si unam habuit ante baptismum, alteram post baptismum, non est putandus bigamus».

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione Hieronymi7: «Prorsus innovato per baptismum omnia vetera sunt dimissa»: ergo cum tale coniugium et talis actus coniugalis ad statum vetustatis pertineat, ergo habetur, tanquam si non fuerit: ergo non computatur cum matrimonio subsequenti.

3. Item, ordinatus ante baptismum et ordinatus post baptismum non est bis ordinatus, etiam si ordinetur ab alio et alio: ergo pari ratione coniugatus ante et coniugatus post non est bis coniugatus, etiam si contrahat cum alia et alia.

4. Item, secundum quid non connumeratur ei quod est simpliciter8: sed vinculum matrimoniale p. 837 est vinculum ante baptismum imperfectum et secundum quid, post baptismum vero est perfectum: ergo non debet unum alteri connumerari: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Augustinus super Epistolam ad Titum1: «Qui ante baptismum habuit unam et post baptismum habuit aliam non est reputandus nisi bigamus».

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione sua2: «In baptismate crimina abolentur, non id quod honestum est, utpote foederatio coniugalis»: ergo si non aboletur, adhuc manet, et iudicatur iste fuisse coniugatus: ergo si iterum contrahat, est iudicandus bigamus.

3. Item, virgo, quae corrupta fuit carne ante baptismum, semper post iudicatur corrupta et nunquam poterit inter virgines consecrari, et hoc, quia amissio virginitatis respicit aliquid ex parte carnis, quod nunquam potest recuperari: ergo cum bigamia respiciat divisionem carnis, patet3 etc.

4. Item, si baptizatus apud haereticos iterum baptizetur, quantum est in se, iterat baptismum et puniendus est poenitentia rebaptizati: ergo cum coniugium sit verum apud infideles4, qui iterum contrahit iterat matrimonium: ergo non potest esse nisi bigamus.

Conclusio

> Qui contrahit matrimonium cum una ante baptismum, cum alia post baptismum est bigamus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut expresse apparet, Hieronymus et Augustinus hic fuerunt contrarie opinati; et nisi quis velit distorquere verba, non video, quomodo possint reduci ad concordiam. Ideo enim in hoc habuerunt opiniones contrarias, quia fundati sunt super diversa.

Hieronymus enim voluit, quod omnis vita infidelium esset culpa, et quod matrimonium infidelium ad veterem hominem pertineret; et quia in baptismo exspoliatur vetus homo cum actibus suis, et induitur novus5: hinc est, quod dixit, quod sicut peccata praeterita isti non imputantur nec computantur; sic etiam nec coniugia.

Augustinus vero posuit, quod coniugia infidelium, etsi non essent meritoria, non tamen erant culpabilia, immo erant licita et bona. Et hoc patet, quia Dominus instituit6, et ius naturale dictat, et ulterius Apostolus confirmat, qui dicit, uxorem infidelem non esse dimittendam; et quia licita sunt, hinc est, quod per baptismum non delentur. — Et quoniam Augustinus melius habuit fundamentum et verius, hinc est, quod verius et sanius dixit; et ideo canones positioni Augustini concordant, et illud nunc tenet Ecclesia, quod matrimonium ante baptismum contractum cum una, et post baptismum cum alia, facit bigamum, sicut expresse dicitur distinctione trigesima quarta7: «Si quis viduam, licet laicus, duxerit uxorem, seu ante baptismum, seu post baptismum; non admittatur ad clerum. In baptismate enim crimina dimittuntur, non acceptae uxoris consortium relaxatur».

Ad argumenta:

Ad 1 et 2. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur et secundo, dicendum, quod illud iam solutum est, quia nec auctoritas Hieronymi hic habet robur nec ratio sua; unde opinando dixit, non asserendo.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordinato ante baptismum et post, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia in ordine imprimitur character, qui non potest alicui dari, nisi habeat characterem baptismalem, sicut in praecedentibus8 probatum est et ostensum; unde qui ordinatur ante baptismum non est ordinatus: ideo, cum ordinatur post baptismum, semel tantum est ordinatus. Non sic est de matrimonio; quia enim ibi non imprimitur character, ideo potest contrahi ante baptismum, et ante coniugatus est quam baptizatus.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est secundum quid; dicendum, quod duplex est secundum quid: unum, quod diminuit ab esse9, aliud quod diminuit ab esse perfecto. Primum, quod diminuit ab esse, non ponit in numerum; cum enim non participet esse, non potest connumerari alii in illo esse. Aliud vero potest; et tale est matrimonium infidelium, quod quidem habet rationem coniugii et definitionem, licet non habeat in tanta perfectione, in quanta habet matrimonium fidelium10.

---

English Translation

Question IV. Whether marriage contracted before baptism is counted together with marriage contracted after baptism.

Fourth, it is asked whether marriage before baptism is placed in the count with marriage contracted after baptism, in such a way that such a man is judged a bigamist. And that it is not, it seems.

1. Jerome on the First Epistle to Timothy6: «If he had one [wife] before baptism and another after baptism, he is not to be considered a bigamist».

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by Jerome's reasoning7: «Through baptism all old things are utterly renewed [and] dismissed»: therefore, since such a marriage and such a conjugal act belong to the state of oldness, it is held as though it had not been: therefore it is not counted with the subsequent marriage.

3. Likewise, one ordained before baptism and one ordained after baptism is not twice ordained, even if he be ordained by one and another [minister]: therefore, by parity of reasoning, one married before and married after is not twice married, even if he contract with one and another [woman].

4. Likewise, that which is in a certain respect is not counted together with that which is without qualification8: but the matrimonial bond p. 837 is a bond imperfect and in a certain respect before baptism, whereas after baptism it is perfect: therefore the one ought not to be counted together with the other: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine on the Epistle to Titus1: «He who before baptism had one [wife] and after baptism had another is not to be reckoned other than a bigamist».

2. Likewise, this seems [to hold] by his own reasoning2: «In baptism crimes are abolished, not that which is honorable, such as the conjugal covenant»: therefore, if it is not abolished, it still remains, and this man is judged to have been married: therefore, if he contract again, he is to be judged a bigamist.

3. Likewise, a virgin who was corrupted in the flesh before baptism is ever afterward judged corrupted and can never be consecrated among the virgins, and this because the loss of virginity regards something on the part of the flesh, which can never be recovered: therefore, since bigamy regards the division of the flesh, it is evident3 etc.

4. Likewise, if one baptized among heretics is baptized again, as far as it lies in him, he repeats baptism and is to be punished with the penance of the rebaptized: therefore, since marriage is true among infidels4, he who contracts again repeats matrimony: therefore he can be nothing but a bigamist.

Conclusion

> He who contracts marriage with one [woman] before baptism, [and] with another after baptism, is a bigamist.

I respond: It must be said that, as expressly appears, Jerome and Augustine here were of contrary opinion; and unless one wishes to distort their words, I do not see how they can be reduced to concord. For they held contrary opinions on this precisely because they were grounded upon different [premises].

For Jerome held that the whole life of infidels was sin, and that the marriage of infidels belonged to the old man; and because in baptism the old man is stripped off with his acts, and the new [man] is put on5: hence it is that he said that, just as the past sins of these are not imputed nor counted, so also neither are their marriages.

Augustine, however, held that the marriages of infidels, though they were not meritorious, were nonetheless not culpable, but rather were licit and good. And this is evident, because the Lord instituted [marriage]6, and the natural law dictates it, and further the Apostle confirms it, who says that an unbelieving wife is not to be dismissed; and because they are licit, hence it is that they are not blotted out by baptism. — And since Augustine had the better and truer foundation, hence it is that he spoke more truly and more soundly; and therefore the canons agree with Augustine's position, and the Church now holds this: that marriage contracted before baptism with one [woman], and after baptism with another, makes a bigamist, as is expressly said in the thirty-fourth distinction7: «If anyone, though a layman, take a widow to wife, whether before baptism or after baptism, let him not be admitted to the clergy. For in baptism crimes are dismissed; the fellowship of a wife [already] taken is not released».

To the arguments:

To 1 and 2. To that, then, which is objected first and second, it must be said that it is already solved, since neither has the authority of Jerome force here, nor his reasoning; hence he spoke by way of opinion, not by way of assertion.

To 3. To that which is objected concerning one ordained before baptism and after, it must be said that it is not alike, because in ordination a character is imprinted, which cannot be given to anyone unless he have the baptismal character, as was proved and shown in the preceding [matters]8; hence he who is ordained before baptism is not ordained: therefore, when he is ordained after baptism, he is ordained only once. It is not so with matrimony; for since a character is not imprinted there, therefore it can be contracted before baptism, and one is married before he is baptized.

To 4. To that which is objected, that it is [only] in a certain respect; it must be said that "in a certain respect" is twofold: one which diminishes from being9, another which diminishes from perfect being. The first, which diminishes from being, does not place [it] in the count; for since it does not participate in being, it cannot be counted together with another in that being. The other, however, can; and such is the marriage of infidels, which indeed has the account and definition of marriage, though it does not have it in such great perfection as the marriage of the faithful has10.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 6
    Cap. 3, 2. Verba haec inveniuntur in C. Oportet episcopum (1.), C. 28. q. 3. et in Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum in I. Tim. 3, 2. Hieron. hac de re agit sententiamque suam tuetur in Epist. 69. (alias 83.), l. adversus Iovinian. n. 15. et Comment. in epist. ad Tit. 1, 6.
    Chap. 3, 2. These words are found in the Canon Oportet episcopum (1.), C. 28, q. 3, and in the Glossa ordinaria of Strabo on 1 Tim. 3:2. Jerome treats of this matter and defends his opinion in Epistle 69 (alias 83), in Book I Against Jovinian, n. 15, and in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus 1:6.
  2. 7
    In C. Oportet episcopum (1), nota praeced. allegato.
    In the Canon Oportet episcopum (1), in the note cited just above.
  3. 8
    Sic homo pictus et verus non sunt duo homines; nam secundum Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 133. (c. 14.), numeratur unumquodque uno quodam cognato [i. e. uno quodam eiusdem generis], unitates unitate, equi vero equo etc.
    Thus a painted man and a real man are not two men; for according to Aristotle, Physics IV, text 133 (ch. 14), each thing is numbered by some cognate [unit] [i.e., by some [unit] of the same genus]: units by a unit, but horses by a horse, etc.
  4. 1
    Ita indicatur et refertur a Gratiano, C. Acutius vero intelligunt (2.), C. 28. q. 3. Sententiam exhibet August., de Bono coniugali, c. 18. n. 21, de qua vide C. Acutius intelligunt (2.), d. 26. et Glossam ordinariam in Tit. 1, 6. apud Strabum et Lyranum.
    So it is indicated and reported by Gratian, in the Canon Acutius vero intelligunt (2.), C. 28, q. 3. Augustine sets forth the opinion in On the Good of Marriage, ch. 18, n. 21, concerning which see the Canon Acutius intelligunt (2.), d. 26, and the Glossa ordinaria on Titus 1:6 in Strabo and Lyra.
  5. 2
    Allegata in praenotato C. Acutius vero intelligunt: In baptismate enim crimina abolentur, non foederatio coniugii dissolvitur. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Pro non id cod. K (1 a secunda manu) non autem, multi codd. non ideo.
    Cited in the aforementioned Canon Acutius vero intelligunt: "For in baptism crimes are abolished; the covenant of marriage is not dissolved." Compare also here the text of the Master, ch. 5. — For non id codex K (1, by a second hand) reads non autem, many codices non ideo.
  6. 3
    Haec ratio tangitur ab August. in C. Acutius intelligunt (2.), d. 26. — Pro consecrari cod. E computari.
    This reasoning is touched on by Augustine in the Canon Acutius intelligunt (2.), d. 26. — For consecrari codex E reads computari.
  7. 4
    Cfr. supra q. 2. et 3. — De maiori vide supra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2. et C. Qui bis ignoranter (117.), seq., de Consecrat. d. 4.
    Compare above, q. 2 and 3. — On the major [premise] see above the text of the Master, d. VI, ch. 2, and the Canon Qui bis ignoranter (117), and following, De Consecratione, d. 4.
  8. 5
    Respicitur Col. 3, 9. seq. — Superius voci culpa cod. P praemittit cum.
    The reference is to Colossians 3:9 ff. — Above, before the word culpa codex P prefixes cum.
  9. 6
    Vide supra d. 26. a. 1. q. 2. — Sententia Apostoli habetur 1. Cor. 7, 12. seq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.
    See above, d. 26, a. 1, q. 2. — The Apostle's statement is found in 1 Cor. 7:12 ff. Compare here the text of the Master, ch. 7.
  10. 7
    Can. 13, ubi textus originalis post clerum addit: quia eodem vitio videtur exclusus.
    Canon 13, where the original text after clerum adds: "because he seems to be excluded by the same fault."
  11. 8
    Dist. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. ad 1. — Superius pro in ordine cod. aa in ordinatione.
    Distinction 24, part II, a. 1, q. 3, ad 1. — Above, for in ordine codex aa reads in ordinatione.
  12. 9
    Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Fallaciis, fallaciam secundum quid ad simpliciter (Aristot., I. Elench. c. 4.) explicans ait: Dictum secundum quid appellatur hic determinatio diminuens de ratione vel de esse eius cui adiungitur, ut cum dico homo mortuus, ibi mortuum diminuit de ratione hominis (Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 54. c. 12: «Mortuus homo aequivoce [homo]»; idem dicit de homine picto, de Praedicam. c. 1.). Cfr. tom. III. pag. 258, nota 2.
    Peter of Spain, Summulae, treatise On Fallacies, explaining the fallacy of [passing] from a certain respect to the unqualified (Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations I, ch. 4), says: "A thing is said [to be] in a certain respect [when there is] a determination diminishing from the account or from the being of that to which it is joined, as when I say a dead man, there dead diminishes from the account of man" (Aristotle, Meteorologica IV, text 54, ch. 12: «A dead man is [called] man equivocally»; he says the same of a painted man, in the Categories, ch. 1). Compare tom. III, p. 258, note 2.
  13. 10
    Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---
← Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 1→