Distinction XXVI

GRATIAN. Part I. In both epistles there follows: “the husband of one wife,” namely after baptism, not before baptism. Hence Jerome writes to Oceanus [epistle 83]:

The husband of one wife, that is, married once, after baptism. For even if before baptism he had a wife who died, this is not imputed to one who is entirely new, whom neither fornications nor the other things that occurred before now harm.

Augustine, however, testifies to the contrary, writing on the epistle to Titus. Those understand more acutely who have judged that even one who, as a catechumen or pagan, had another wife is not to be ordained, because the matter concerns the sacrament, not sin. On account of the sanctity of the sacrament, just as a woman, if she was violated while a catechumen, cannot after baptism be consecrated among the virgins of God, so it did not appear absurd that a twice-married man had not sinned but had lost the norm of the sacrament—not with respect to the merit of life, but to the seal of ordination. “The husband of one wife”: a bishop signifies the unity from all nations subjected to one husband, Christ. Part II. §1. Just as it is not permitted to serve two masters, so it is not permitted to apostatize from the one God and pass into the superstition of another.

Likewise Innocent [I] to Rufus and Eusebius and the other Macedonian bishops [epistle XXII, c. 2]. It is then proposed that one who as a catechumen had a wife and lost her ought not to be called twice-married if after baptism he obtained another, and that she who was joined to the new man should be regarded as the first because that marriage was taken away through the sacrament of baptism together with the other crimes. Since this is assuredly said concerning one wife, if he had three wives while placed in the old man, she who is fourth after baptism will, for those interpreting thus, be his first; and she who was taken in the fourth place will equally receive the name of virgin. Who, I ask, does not see that this is contrary to the precept of the Apostle, who says: “A man who is the husband of one wife ought to be made a priest”? But it is objected that in baptism everything whatsoever that was done in the old man was dissolved. Tell me, that I may speak with your peace: are crimes alone forgiven in baptism, or also those things that are fulfilled according to the Lord’s precepts and God’s institutions? Is taking a wife a crime or is it not a crime? If it is a crime, then—with the aforesaid pardon let me say it—he who commanded in paradise that crimes be committed, when he himself blessed them, will be the author of the fault. But if it is not a crime, because it is unlawful to call what God instituted a crime, and Solomon added, “For a wife is prepared for a man by God,” how is that which is read to have been consummated with God as author believed to be forgiven among crimes? What is to be judged concerning the children of such persons? Will those who were born of the woman who was the wife before baptism not be admitted to fellowship in the inheritance, and will they be called either natural or spurious because there is no legitimate marriage except that which, as it seems to you, is entered after baptism? The Lord himself, when he was asked by the Jews whether it was lawful to dismiss a wife, and when he explained that it ought not to be done, added: “Therefore, what God has joined, let man not separate.” And lest he be believed to have spoken concerning those marriages that are obtained after baptism, let them remember that this was both asked by the Jews and answered to Jews. §2. I ask, and anxiously ask, whether the wife of one who was formerly a catechumen and is afterward made faithful is one and the same, and whether the children whom he received from her while he was a catechumen and others afterward while faithful are to be called brothers; or whether, after their father has died, they have no fellowship in the inheritance to be divided, because spiritual regeneration is believed to have taken away from them the name of sons. Since it is absurd to think thus, what reason is there for this to be defended and tossed about more by empty opinion than strengthened by any authority, when what the law commanded and God joined cannot be reckoned among sins? §3. Suppose one who, while a catechumen, devoted himself to virtues, followed humility, maintained patience, gave alms, rescued by any means those destined for death, abhorred adulteries, and maintained chastity. I ask: when he has been made faithful, does he lose these things because through baptism everything that the old man had done is thought to be taken away? Look upon Cornelius, a gentile man devoted to prayers and alms, hearing an angel through revelation and seeing Peter himself: were these things, on account of which baptism appears to have been granted to him, taken away from him through baptism? If this is believed, believe me, the error is not small, because whatever has been done well and guarded according to the precepts of the law cannot perish for those who do it. §4. Therefore, because the bond of marriage is effected by God’s command, it cannot be called a sin; and what is not a sin ought not to be believed to be dissolved among sins. It will therefore be sound to judge that the name of the former wife cannot be abolished, since what was fulfilled by God’s will was not forgiven as a sin.

Likewise Ambrose in the book On Duties [Book I, final c. 80]. Only one bond, and not a repeated one, is permitted to us; and in marriage itself there is a law not to repeat marriage or the union of a second wife. This appears marvelous to very many, since even marriages repeated before baptism generate impediments to the election for office and the prerogative of ordination, although offenses are not accustomed to harm if they have been forgiven by the sacrament of the laver. But we ought to understand that fault can be forgiven by baptism; law cannot be abolished. In marriage there is not fault but law. What is of fault, therefore, is remitted in baptism; what is of law is not dissolved in marriage. But how can one who himself has entered marriages repeatedly be an exhorter of widowhood? GRATIAN. John the Baptist also, when he prohibited Herod from incest, saying, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife,” plainly showed that marriages exist among unbelievers. Hence it is given to be understood that not only those who enter marriages repeatedly after baptism are called twice-married, but also those who are proved to have had one wife before baptism and another after baptism. §1. A twice-married man, however, ought not to be ordained as priest, not because he offended by taking a second wife, but because he has been divested of the prerogative of a priest. Hence Ambrose in the epistle to the people of Vercelli [Book X, epistle 82, says]:

One who is without crime and the husband of one wife is held to the law of receiving the priesthood. But one who has repeated marriage indeed does not have the fault of one defiled, but is divested of the prerogative of a priest.