II. To the Initial Arguments

23. To the first argument [n.3]: the remark of the Apostle, namely “husband of one wife etc.” is understood to be, “that is, not of several wives” - and not only then, about the present, but about the past, that is, that he not have had several, because then he would be a bigamist and irregular.

24. If, however, you say that it was also then licit to have one wife - this is true according to the custom of the primitive Church, when making use of a matrimony previously contracted; but it is not licit to contract then, even if he had had no wife before.

25. And by this is plain the answer to the following argument [n.4], for when the text says “they join in matrimony,” the gloss [ad loc.] expounds it, “that is, they use one already joined.”

26. To the next [n.5] I deny the likeness, because reception of Holy Orders requires only the due sex and the due minister and the due intention in receiver and minister, and therefore they are conferred on a married man, though he sin in receiving them. But matrimony requires suitability for contracting in the persons; through reception of Holy Orders he is wholly unsuitable for contracting that matrimony; hence, by the converse, the impediment of matrimony to Orders is not such as is the impediment of Orders to matrimony.