Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/39/q/bon-sent-IV-d39-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### 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 Timothy: «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 reasoning: «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 qualification*: but the matrimonial bond  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 Titus: «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 *reasoning*: «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 evident 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 infidels, 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 on*: 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], 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 distinction: «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]; 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 *being*, 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 has.

---