Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 1: On the State of the Question and the Errors of the Heretics; and That Matrimony Is a Sacrament Is Proved from the Divine Letters
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).
On the sacrament of Matrimony there are seven controversies. The first, on its kind: whether it is a sacrament of the new law. The second, on its matter, form and minister. The third, on the unity of Matrimony. The fourth, on its indissolubility, or on divorce. The fifth, on impediments. The sixth, on the judge of matrimonial cases. The seventh, on the ceremonies.
Those who write on Matrimony against the heretics are: Thomas Waldensis, tome 2, chapter 130 and following; John of Rochester, in the defense of the book of King Henry VIII; Alphonsus de Castro, book 11 against heresies, under the word “Marriage”; Ruard Tapper, in the explanation of articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Louvain theologians; Peter Soto, in the Instruction of Priests, in the lectures on Matrimony; Dominic Soto, on book 4, distinction 26; Cardinal Hosius, in the explanation of the Creed, chapters 55 and 56; William Lindanus, book 4 of the Panoplia, chapter 94; John Eck, in the fourth tome of his sermons, from the 69th sermon to the end; Tilmann, in the book on the seven sacraments, chapter 6; Francis Victoria, in the relection on Matrimony; Javellus, in the book on Christian philosophy, part 5.
The First Controversy: Whether Matrimony Is a Sacrament Properly So Called
The first controversy will have five parts. For first the state of the question must be explained and the errors of the heretics brought forward. Then the truth must be asserted from the divine letters. Then confirmed from the tradition and testimony of the ancient Fathers. Afterward strengthened by various reasons, and those not light. Lastly, the objections of the adversaries briefly washed away.
Chapter 1. On the State of the Question, and the Errors of the Heretics
As to the first, then: when we ask whether marriage is a sacrament of the New Testament properly so called, we ask whether marriage, besides the civil contract of man and woman instituted for begetting and educating offspring, is also a sign, or external symbol, of religion, to which is annexed a promise of justifying grace, and that by divine institution. For in this general definition almost all agree, both Catholics and heretics. Certainly the Lutherans and Calvinists, with whom we chiefly deal, do not deny that those are sacraments of the new law properly so called in which those three things are found: an external symbol, a promise of grace, and a command, or divine institution.
Now very many, in almost all ages, have judged that something of these three is lacking in Matrimony, and for that cause that Matrimony is not a sacrament.
The old heretics, Simon, Saturninus, the Gnostics, the Manichees and others, taught that Matrimony is not from God, and so is not a sacrament either. Simon Magus, the prince of all heretics, introduced the foulness of using women without distinction, as St. Augustine testifies, in the book On Heresies, chapter 1. Saturninus, a disciple of Simon, openly asserted that to marry and beget children is from the devil, as Irenaeus witnesses, book 1, chapter 22. That Marcion was in the same heresy, so as to believe marriage unlawful, St. Jerome testifies in the book against Jovinian.
Irenaeus makes Tatian, once a hearer of St. Justin, the patron of the same heresy, book 1, chapter 31; and from there the Encratites arose, on whom see Epiphanius, heresy 46, and Augustine, heresy 25. Where Augustine, when he says that the Encratites are schismatic Tatianists according to Epiphanius, seems to have looked to the summary of the same Epiphanius, where the Encratites are called a certain tearing off from the sect of Tatian. Perhaps they added something contrary to other dogmas of Tatian, and therefore could be called schismatics; for otherwise both Epiphanius himself, in the place noted, and Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian, make Tatian the prince of the Encratites.
St. Augustine attributes the same heresy to the Adamians, heresy 31; the same author, the same to the Manichees, heresy 46. Socrates attributes the same to the Eustathians, book 2 of the History, chapter 33. St. Leo attributes the same to the Priscillianists, letter 91, to Turibius. St. Bernard, sermon 66 on the Canticles, to certain Apostolics, or rather apostates. Lastly St. Antoninus attributes the same to the Albigenses, in the Summa of Theology, part 4, title 11, chapter 2, section 5.
But the heretics of our time do not deny that Matrimony is lawful and instituted by the true God; but they deny that it is a symbol to which is annexed a promise of justifying grace; and from this head chiefly they gather that the notion of a sacrament cannot agree with it.
Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, contends that in Matrimony there is neither a sign instituted by God nor a promise of grace. Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 34, affirms that the notion of a sacrament no more agrees with Matrimony than with agriculture, or the barber's or the shoemaker's craft. Philip in the Commonplaces, under the title on marriage, and Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, from page 1204 to the end, acknowledge in Matrimony the command of God and a promise of grace, but not of the grace that justifies and reconciles man to God; and therefore they deny that Matrimony can be called a sacrament properly in the way in which Baptism and the Eucharist are called sacraments; yet they confess that in some way it is a sacrament.
Of the Catholics there is one, Durandus, who on book 4, distinction 26, question 3, argues that Matrimony cannot be called a sacrament except equivocally; whom Chemnitz brings in for his own defense, forgetting, namely, that all the other theologians, by the testimony of Durandus himself, taught the contrary.
Against all the aforesaid errors, then, the Council of Trent, session 24, canon 1, pronounced anathema on those who should deny that Matrimony is a sacrament properly so called, or instituted by Christ, or that it confers grace. Which opinion, as we do not doubt that it is most true, so we shall undertake to confirm it from the divine letters.
Chapter 2. That Matrimony Is a Sacrament Is Proved from the Divine Letters
To prove that Matrimony is a sacrament of the true name, three things will have to be proved. First, that Matrimony is instituted by God. Second, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing. Third, that it has a promise of justifying grace.
That Matrimony is instituted by God can be understood in two ways. In one way, that we understand the joining of male and female to be from God, as it is referred to propagating the race. In another way, that the same joining is from God as it is referred to signifying some sacred thing and to sanctifying the persons who are so joined. For in the former way the old heretics who condemned marriage denied that Matrimony is from God; in the latter way the Lutherans and Calvinists deny that Matrimony is from God, though they do not condemn marriage.
That marriage is good and from God in the former way is so evident in the divine letters that it is a wonder anyone could have fallen in this matter. Genesis 2: “It is not good,” says God, “for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.” On which place St. Augustine, writing in book 9 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 7, rightly notices that the help of the woman is necessary to the man in no other thing than in the procreation and education of children, since in other things men are better helped by men than by women. Likewise those words, Genesis 2, “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,” were indeed said by Adam, but without doubt with the divine Spirit dictating those words to him; for Christ, Matthew 19, attributes these very words to God. So Adam in the name of God, or rather God through the mouth of Adam, pronounced them; by which Matrimony is most openly approved.
Again, Matthew 19, Christ: “What therefore God hath joined together,” he says, “let no man put asunder.” Nor for any other cause, John 2, did the Son of God will to be present at a wedding and to adorn it with a notable miracle, except to show, as St. Augustine noted on that place, that he had made marriage. The Apostle too, 1 Corinthians 7: “He that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well”; and in the same place, “If a virgin marry, she hath not sinned”; and 1 Timothy 4 he notes that there would be heretics who would forbid to marry; and chapter 5: “I will therefore that the younger should marry, bear children, be mistresses of families,” and so on; and Hebrews 13: “Marriage honourable,” and so on. Lastly, the Scriptures are full not only of testimonies but also of examples of most holy men who, bound in marriage, pleased the Lord.
There are added the old councils, as that of Gangra, chapter 11, and the first of Braga, canon 1, by which the aforesaid heresy is condemned.
That Matrimony is instituted by God in the latter way, namely as the sign of a sacred thing, some labor laboriously to prove from certain obscure places of Scripture, as from that of Matthew 19, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” But there is no need to labor in this matter. For if we prove that Matrimony is the sign of a sacred thing, to which is annexed a certain promise of grace, it will follow from this necessarily that it is instituted by God, even if we do not have a place of Scripture where express mention is made of this institution; for no man or angel can institute such a sign. This the adversaries frankly confess: Philip in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article 13; Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 2; and Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination, page 13. And by this way we have demonstrated elsewhere that the sacraments of Confirmation, Ordination and the Unction of the sick were instituted by God.
As to the second, then, that Matrimony is the sign of a sacred thing, and so not a civil contract only but also a certain mystery and sacrament, we prove from chapter 5 of the letter to the Ephesians: “This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.” Where three things are briefly to be observed.
First, that Luther and Calvin in the place cited, and Beza in the annotations on this place, wrote foolishly that the Catholics were deceived by the version of the common interpreter, who renders in this place “sacrament” when he ought to have rendered “mystery.” For mysterium in Greek and sacramentum in Latin are the same; nor could the Apostle, who wrote in Greek, name a sacrament except by a Greek word.
But that the Catholics did not gather from the word “sacrament,” placed in this place, alone that Matrimony is a sacrament properly so called is most manifestly plain from this, that in many other places of the Old and New Testament the word “sacrament” is had, as Tobias 12, Daniel 2, Colossians 1, 1 Timothy 3, Apocalypse 1 and 17, and in this very letter to the Ephesians, chapters 1 and 3; and yet from none of these places have we fabricated any new sacrament properly so called. And indeed the adversaries also cite these places, to teach that the Catholics ought not to have constituted a new dogma about the sacraments from that one word; but they plainly cite them for us. For, as I said, even from this it can most manifestly be gathered that the Catholics do not rely on that word alone, since in so many other places they have found no sacrament properly so called. And so from this word alone we do not prove that Matrimony has the whole notion of a sacrament; but we prove that which we undertook to prove in this place, that Matrimony is a sign, or some sacred symbol, and not a merely civil and natural contract.
Second, it is to be considered to what thing that “great sacrament” is fitted by the Apostle: whether namely to the joining of Christ and the Church, or to the human marriage of man and woman.
Luther and Calvin in the place cited, and Erasmus and Beza in the annotations on this place, contend that the joining of Christ with the Church is called by the Apostle a great sacrament, or secret. And from this they gather that Matrimony in this place is not even called a sign or symbol; for they will not have “sacrament” taken in this place for the sign of a sacred thing, but for the sacred and secret thing itself. And their argument is nothing else than that blessed Paul says, “But I speak in Christ and in the church”; and further, “There is no mystery,” as Erasmus says, “in a man being joined to a wife; for we see that done every day.” But they are most openly refuted. For in the first place they have against them all the old interpreters of this place. The commentary which is attributed to Ambrose has thus: “He signifies that the sacrament of the mystery is great in the unity of man and woman.”
Jerome, in the commentary on this place, speaking of the marriage of Adam and Eve: “This very thing,” he says, “is interpreted by allegory in Christ and in the Church, so that Adam prefigured Christ, and Eve the Church.” And a little below he brings in Gregory Nazianzen, explaining the words of Paul thus: “I know that this place is full of unspeakable sacraments, and seeks the divine heart of an interpreter; but I, according to the littleness of my sense, think that meanwhile it is to be understood in Christ and in the Church.” So he, who by the place full of sacraments understands the words of Genesis, where marriage is described. And so he places the great mystery of which Paul speaks in marriage itself, inasmuch as it represents the joining of Christ and the Church.
Chrysostom, homily 20 on the letter to the Ephesians, expounding this place: “And well he said,” he says, “This is a great mystery: as if he had said, Yet the allegory does not overturn conjugal love.” And presently: “Truly,” he says, “it is a mystery, and a great mystery, that, leaving him who begot, him who nourished, even her who brought forth with pain and travail, a man should cleave to her who was not seen before, and prefer her to all. Truly it is a mystery. And the parents too, when these things are done, are not offended,” and so on. You see how openly St. John Chrysostom acknowledges a great mystery in marriage, where Erasmus could see no mystery. Theophylact, Oecumenius and the rest speak to the same sense.
Lastly, St. Augustine expounds this place in the same way, book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 10: “The sacrament of marriage,” he says, “is commended to the married faithful; whence the Apostle says, Husbands, love your wives,” and so on.
Then the adversaries can be refuted from the text itself. For when the Apostle says, “This is a great sacrament,” that pronoun “this” must necessarily be referred to that which went immediately before, for it points to the thing that is being treated. But immediately before went this: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.” The sense of Paul, then, must be this: this sacrament, namely that a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that they be two in one flesh, is great, because it represents the marriage of Christ and the Church.
Moreover, the same is gathered from the argument of that whole chapter. For the Apostle exhorts the married to mutual good will, and among other arguments brings this as the chief, that their marriage is not a light and contemptible thing, but includes a great mystery, which is referred to Christ and the Church. But if, according to the adversaries, the whole mystery is placed in Christ and the Church, and nothing of it belongs to Matrimony, the whole argumentation of Paul falls, nor will it easily appear to what end that mention of the joining of Christ and the Church, placed at the end of that chapter, belongs.
Add lastly that Paul did not say in Greek en Christo kai ekklesia, but eis Christon kai eis ten ekklesian, that is, “unto Christ and unto the Church.” By which words he plainly shows that Christ and the Church are the term, so to speak, of that mystery, or mystical sign; and so that the mystery is in marriage, but that the signification of this mystery ends in and is referred to Christ and the Church.
Nor do the arguments of the adversaries prove anything. For that “But I speak” signifies, as Jerome, Nazianzen and others expound, “I interpret this mystery of marriage of Christ and the Church.”
But to what Erasmus objected, that there is no mystery in a man being joined to a wife, I answer: there is indeed no mystery in a man being joined to a wife in any way whatever, since we see that even in harlots, and even in the beasts themselves; but that one should be joined to one by an indissoluble bond in such a way that, whatever trouble occurs, and even when the hope of offspring is lost, they cannot be separated, cannot be without a great mystery.
But Chemnitz objects two places of Augustine against our exposition. One is tract 9 on John, where Augustine denies that the sacrament of which the Apostle speaks is in the marriage of man and woman, and teaches that it is only in Christ and the Church: “They shall be two,” he says, “in one flesh. This is a great sacrament. And lest anyone should understand this greatness of the sacrament in each and every man who has a wife: But I speak, he says, in Christ and in the Church.”
The other place is book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 21, where he says: “What in Christ and in the Church is a great sacrament, this in each and every husband and wife is a very small one, but yet the inseparable sacrament of union.”
I answer: St. Augustine takes the name of sacrament in two ways when he treats of Matrimony. In one way for the sacred and indissoluble bond, which yet he sometimes calls not so much the sacrament as the thing of the sacrament, as in book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 10. In another way he takes sacrament for the sign of a sacred joining. In the former way he says that the sacrament is great in Christ and in the Church, but very small in married persons: because, namely, each married believer is very small in respect of Christ and the Church; although the bond, both between Christ and the Church and between married persons, is not very small but very great, because altogether insoluble. In the latter way Augustine took sacrament in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 18, where he says that the sacrament of single marriages signifies the subjection of the one Church to the one God; also in book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 10, where he says most openly that the sacrament of marriage is commended to the married faithful by the Apostle, to the Ephesians.
Third, it is to be explained whether this great mystery is placed by the Apostle in the marriage of Adam and Eve, or in other marriages. Jerome indeed seems to have understood this place of the marriage of Adam and Eve.
And although it cannot be denied that Adam and Eve bore the figure of Christ and the Church, in that Eve was formed from the side of Adam sleeping, yet in this place the Apostle without doubt refers the great sacrament not to the marriage of Adam and Eve, but to the marriages of the faithful. For, first, the words which he alleges from Genesis, “A man shall leave father and mother,” and so on, are understood of every marriage; for he does not say, “I shall leave,” but indefinitely, “A man shall leave.” Nay, these words cannot be fitted to the marriage of the first parents: for Adam did not leave father and mother to cleave to his wife, since he himself, the first parent of all, had no parents. And moreover he speaks of future marriages, since he says “shall leave”; he does not speak, then, of his own, which he knew already to be done.
Then Christ, Matthew 19, concludes from this same place of Genesis that Matrimony cannot be dissolved: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” And certainly Christ did not mean to teach that the Matrimony of Adam and Eve was not to be dissolved, which many thousands of years before had been dissolved by death; but that marriages indefinitely and in general, about which he had been asked by the Jews, ought not to be dissolved.
Besides, the Apostle in this chapter 5 to the Ephesians, since he brings those words of Genesis in argument to prove the general proposition that husbands ought to love their wives, is to be judged to have meant those words to be interpreted of every marriage. And although those words can be understood of every marriage, yet the Apostle does not place a sacrament in it except as it is referred to the marriage of Christians. For he does not say, “This was a great sacrament,” but “is, in Christ and in the Church.”
Wherefore St. Augustine in the book On the Good of Marriage affirms everywhere that Matrimony is not a sacrament except in the Church; and St. Thomas, on book 4, distinction 26, question 2, article 2, says that only in the New Testament does Matrimony represent the joining of Christ and the Church. Ruard teaches the same, in the explanation of article 18, and others.
It remains now that we show from the divine letters the third thing which is required for the notion of a sacrament, namely the promise of grace, in marriage. And first it is gathered from this very chapter 5 to the Ephesians. For in this place we are taught not only that Matrimony is the sign of the joining of Christ and the Church through likeness of nature, but also through spiritual charity, by which Christ loves the Church and governs her holily, and the Church herself cleaves to Christ by faith, hope and charity, and is subject to him by obedience. That this is true cannot be doubted: both because Christ is joined through likeness of nature not to the Church alone, but to the whole human race; he is joined to the Church alone as bridegroom to bride, by spiritual love; and therefore it is necessary that marriage signify also this spiritual union which is between Christ and the Church; and also because blessed Paul presses this spiritual union most of all, when he says, “The church is subject to Christ,” and “Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it,” and so on. But marriage cannot signify this unless between husband and wife there is, besides the civil contract, a spiritual union of souls also; and therefore in the same place the Apostle warns more than once that husbands love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and that wives obey their husbands as the Church obeys Christ. But if God joins man and woman to this end, that by their spiritual union they may signify the spiritual union of Christ and the Church, without doubt he bestows grace on them, without which they would not have that spiritual union.
And this is confirmed from other places of Scripture. 1 Timothy 2: “She shall be saved,” he says, “through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification with sobriety.” Where it is to be noted that “through childbearing” is put for “in childbearing.” For the Apostle does not mean to signify that the bearing of children is the cause of salvation; but that the woman in the state of Matrimony, or in the state of bearing children, will be saved, if she continue in faith, love and sanctification.
And hence are removed those questions which some propose: how can virgins or the barren be saved, if the woman is saved through the bearing of children? For that phrase, “through something” for “in something,” is very frequent in the Scriptures: as Acts 15, “Moses is read through every sabbath”; Acts 26, “Through all the synagogues I punished them”; Romans 4, “That he might be the father of all them that believe through uncircumcision”: for uncircumcision was not the cause why Abraham was the father of all, but being in uncircumcision he was made the father of all through faith.
Second, it is to be noted that “if she continue” is in the Greek copies, and in some Latin ones also, in the plural number, “if they continue”; and therefore some Fathers referred that word to the children, not to the mothers, so that the sense is: the woman shall be saved through childbearing, if the children continue in faith, and so on. But it is much more probable that the word be referred to the mothers; which indeed can rightly be done whether we read “if she continue,” as Augustine reads on Psalm 83, and from Augustine Bede on this place of the Apostle, or whether we read “if they continue,” as the greater part of the copies have. For, as Sedulius and Primasius acutely saw and noted on this place, the Apostle often passes from number to number, as in this very chapter: “In like manner women also in decent apparel,” and so on, and presently, “Let the woman learn in silence.” And Galatians 6: “You, who are spiritual, instruct such a one… considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” So, then, the sense in this place will be: she shall be saved through childbearing, if they continue; that is, if each one of them continue in faith, and so on. Or, as Cajetan expounds not badly: if she herself and her husband continue. For that it be referred to the children is very hard; for who would believe that Paul means the salvation of the mother to depend on the perseverance of the children? Then, to educate and instruct the children belongs more to the father than to the mother; and yet the Apostle in this place meant to signify something proper to women, by which he might console them, since he had forbidden them to speak in the Church. Add that Calvin and Beza in the annotations on this place admit that “if they continue” belongs to the mother, not to the children.
This explanation, then, being laid as a foundation, let us see what the Apostle requires of married women: “If she continue,” he says, “in faith, and love, with sobriety”; where he enumerates four goods of Christian Matrimony, against four evils which cannot be avoided in Matrimony without the grace of God. The first evil is not keeping faith with the spouse. The second, the hatreds and quarrels which from time to time arise between spouses. The third, a certain uncleanness and foulness from the rebellion of the members. The fourth, intemperance. To these Paul opposes faith, love, sanctification and sobriety; in which he says they must continue, as in things received, namely, in the very celebration of Matrimony.
And hence, 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle calls Matrimony a gift of God, as virginity itself: “Every one,” he says, “hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.” And 1 Thessalonians 4 he exhorts spouses to abstain from fornication, and to possess their vessel in sanctification; which, namely, they have received before through Matrimony.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
DE SACRAMENTO MATRIMOKII
LIBER IIMCUS
De sacraa;enlo malrimoniiSeplem Conlroversiae
sunt. Prima, de genere,an sil sacramentura novae
legis. Secuncla, cje maleria, forraa el minislro.Ter-
tia de unilate Malrimonii. Quarla, de indissolubili-
tiile, sive de divorlio. Quinla , de impedimenlis.
Sexta, de judicc caussarum matrimonialium. Se-
ptiraa, de caercmoniis.
Scril)unt aulem de Mnlrimonfo adversus haereti-
cos, Thomas Waldensis , lorao 2. cap. 130. el sc-
quenlibus. Joannes Roffensis in defensione libri
regis Ilenrici Vlll. Aiphons. a Castro, lib. Il.con-
ira haereses, verbo Nuptiae. Ruardus Tapperus in
cxplicatione arliculilS. i9. et 20. Lovaniensiura.
Pelrus a Soto, in inslilutione sacerdolum, in le-
clionibus de Matrimonio. Dominicus a Soto in 4.
distinct.26. Hosius cardinalis,in explicalione sym-
boli, cap. 55. et 56. Gulielmus Lindanus, lib. 4*
Panopliae, cap.94.Joan. Eckius in 4. tomo sermo.
num, a 69. sermone, usque ad finem, Tilmannus
in libro de seplem sacramcntis , cap. 6. Franci-
scus Vicloria in relectione de Matrimonio. Javellus
in libro de philosophia chrisliana, partc 5.
CONTROVERSIA I.
Sttne Malrimonium sacramentiim
proprie diclum.
Conlroversiae Primac. quinqne parles erunt.
Primuiii enim explicandus erit status quaestionis
<'t e.rrores kaerelicorum in medium adferendi.
Deinde, veritas ex divinis literis afserenda. Tum
(onfirmanda. ex veterum Patrum traditionc ct
lestimonio. Postearationibns variis , iisque non
levibus corroboranda. Postremo, adversariorum
ut)jecta breviter diluenda.
CAPUT PRIMUM
De statu quaeslionis el crroribus haerelicorum.
Qiiod igilur ad Primum iilliiiet cum (|uaerimiis,
sitiK! conjugiuri) sacrameiiliim proprie (licliiin Te-
slamonli novi, id (piiMMimns . ulriim coiiju^iium ,
priicl(!r civilcm (•oiiliiiclum viri ci fficmiiiiie ;i<i jiro-
liii^Miulain el cdiiciiiidiim piulcui iiislitiilum , sit
etiam signum, scu syinbolum exlcrnum rcligionib,
ciii sil annexa promissio gratiae justiflcanlis , id-
que ex divina instilulione.Nam in hacgenerali de-
linilione fere conveniunl omnes.tum calholici,tum
liaerctici. Cerle Lulherani et Calvinistae, cum qiii-
bus polissimum agimiis, non neganl sacrameiila
esse novae legis proprie dicta, ubi Iria illa inve-
niunlur , symbolum cxlernum, promissio graliae
et mandatum, sive insliliilio divimi.
Jam vero pcrmulli omiiibus lcre sacculis.aliquid
liorum Iriiim in Malrimonio dcsideriiri , el ea de
caussa Malrimonium sacriimenlam non esse cen-
siicruiil.
Velcres hacrislici, Simon. Sahirninus, Gnoslid,
M;iiii(;lia(M (^l alii. iMalrimoiiium a Doo non csso ,
proinde uec sacriimciiliiin osse ddcucrunl, Simoii
iiiiigiis, Iiaorclicorum (iiiinium priiice|)S, tiirpiludi-
iiein inlrodiixil iii(iin"creiiler utondi foomiiiis,s.Au-
{'iistino lcsU;, lib. dc, liiiorosibus. c;ip. \. Siilunii-
iiii>, Siiiionis discipiilus. aperle assoruit, niibere ,
ol liberos gignerc. a diaholo osse , lesto. Ironaco
lil). 1. (;. 22. .Miiicionem in on-lcm hiiorcsi fuisse ,
iil iiiipli;is illicil;is csso crcdorol , lestaliir s. Ilie-
ronymus iii lihro coiitr;i Joviniiinuin.
Tatiaiium s.Justini (pioiidam audilorom.eiusdem
liiKMOsis piilroniim f;icil IroiiiKMis, lib. 1. cap. 'M.
;il<pic indi; l']iicr;iti;io orli siiiil.do (pjibiis vide Kpi-
pli;iiiiiiiii haeresi 46. et Augusliiium haoresi 25.iibi
Augusliiius, cum dicH,l!]iu:raliliis schismalicos T;i-
716
Di: SAClUMEiNTO MMUIMO.Ml
tiiinistarmu esse ;ipiid Ef.ipluiiiiiim. rospexisse vi-
(ItMur ad annoepluiloosiin ojnsdem Epipluinii . iibi
Kncr;ililao iliciiiiliir. ;iviilsio qu;u'd;ini ;i socla Ta-
tinni. ForUissc ;iildiilerunl aliqnid ropujjnans aliis
dogmalilnis Taliani, ol idoo scliisnuilici dici polne-
ruiil: n;im aluH|ui ol ipso Kpipluiiiius loco nolalo ,
ol Uioronyuuis lil). 1. coiilra Joviui;uium , T;ilia-
num Kucralilarnm principom faciunl.
Eandom liaorosim Irilmil Adamiiinis s. Au;zusli-
nus liaoros. i>l. o;iiidoin Maniciuiois.luicr. iG.idcm
anclor. Eiindcm Euslalhi;inis Iribuil Socr;ilos lib.
2. hislor. cap. 3,*^. E;indom Prisrillianislis Irilmit
s. \ro opist. 91. ;io Turbinm. Eandom npnsiolicis
quibusdam. scu milius aposlalicis s. noriuirdus
scrm. GO. in canlill.Eandcm deniquc Iribuil Albi-
iicnsibus s. Anloiiiiiiis in summa liioologica, p;ir.
4. lil. II. cap. 2. § o.
Noslri vcro lcmporis bacrelici non nognnl Matri-
moniimi cssc licilum.ct a Dco vero inslilulnm.sed
ncpaiit essc symbolum. cui sit ann(\\a promissio
}:rali;ic iusliliciinlis; cl e\ boc polissimum c;ipilc,
sacramenli rationcm illi convenire non posse colli-
"unl
Luthorus in lib. de cnplivil. babyl. cap. dc Ma-
Irimonio. conlendiliii .M;ilrimonio noquc sifjiiuin a
Ooo iuslilulum, noipic graliae promissioncm osse.
(lalvinus lib. 4. luslil. c;ip. 19. §. 31. non masis sa-
cramcnti ralicncm Miilrinionio convcnire aflirmal,
quam agricullurae, aut lonslrinac, aul suloriae arli.
IMiilippus in locis. lil. de conjiigio. el Romnitius
iii 2. par. e\nni. tridonlini coiicilii a pag. 1204. us-
que ad fincm, agnoscunt iu Maliimonio Dci man-
dnliim ct promissioncm gr;iline. scd non graliae ju-
slificanlis el reconciliaiilis bominis Doo: ol ideo
negant sacramenlum propriiic dici posse .Matrimo-
nium eo modo. quo Baplismus et Eucbarislia sa-
cramenla dicunlur: falenlur lamcn aliquo modo
sacrnmcnlum esse.
E\ calbolicis unus est Durandus. qui in 4. dist.
26. quaest.3. Malrimonium sacramenlum non nisi
aequivoce dici posse dispiilat, quem in suum pa-
Irocinium adducil Kemnilius, oblitus videlicel. o-
mnes alios Iheologos, ipso eliam tesle Durando
cnnlrarium docuisse.
Igiliir advcrsus omncs praedictos errores. conci-
lium tridcnlinum, sess. 24. can.1. analhema dixit
iis, qui negarent, Malrimonium sacramenlum esse
prnprie dicliim, aut a Chrislo insliliilum. aul gra-
linm conferre. Quam sonlenliam, ul verissimam' es-
se non dubilamus. sic eliam ex divinis iitciis con-
firmure aggrediemur.
CAPUT II.
Halrwionmm sacramenlum esse, prolaiur
ex dninis lileris
Ul Matrimonium veri nominis sacramenlum esse
probemus. Iria probanda crunt. Primo, Malrimoni-
om a Deo esse insiilulum. Secundo. esse syiiibo-
lum rei sacrae. Tertio, habere promissionem gra-
liac juslificanlis,
Essc aulem a Dco .Matrimonium inslilulum.diio-
bus ciodis polcsl intellifcM. Unu modo, ut inlclliga.
miis a Doo csse conjunclionem masiuli el rocnii-
nao. ul 01 roforlur iid goiiiis propagiiiidum.' Alloro
modo, oiiiidom coiijuiiclioucm osso ii Dco. ut re-
forlur ad rom aliiiuiim sacram siguilioiindam, ol
bomincs. qui it;i iungunlur , sanclilioiuidos. INam
liriorc niodo nogiibiint Miilrimoiiium (>sso a Doo,
luiorolici vctor(>s. (]ui iui|)liiis (himiuibaiil : poslc-
riore modo nogant Lutherani ct Calvinislac M;itri-
miuiium cssc a Dco, qui nuptias lamen non dam-
n;iiil.
Priorc modo nuplias esse bonas ct a Dco, tam
csl in divinis liloris evidcus, ul mirum sit, ullos in
biic ro liibi poliiissc. rionos. 2. I\on o.nl , inquit
Dcus. bonuiii.hoiiiinem esse solam: faciamus illi
ailjntorium simila sibi. In quom locum s. Augu-
sliiius, lib. 9. do Gcncsi ad lileiam, cap. 7. scri-
bcns. rccle iiniuiiidvorlil. iiullii in re ;ili;i cssc viro
nccessarium focinin;ie ;i(ljulorium.nisi in [irocrca-
tione el educationc liberorum, siqiiidem in aliis
rclius mclius viri a viris.quam a foemiiiis adjnviin-
lur. Ilcm vcrbii illa. Gcnos. 2. Proplor lioc relin-
quet Jiomo palreni el matrem, ct adkaerebil u-
xori sudc. dicla qiiidom sunt ab Adamo, sed sinc
diibio divino spiritu illii ci vcrba diclanle : nam
Chrislus, Mallh. 19. Iribuit baec ipsa verba Deo.
Ilaquc Adam nomine Dci, scu potius Deus per os
Adami illa pronunciiivil;c\ quibus aperlissime Ma-
triiuouium approbiilur.
Riirsus. Mallh. 10. Chrislus: QuodDcus, inquil,
conjunxU. homo non separol. ."<ec alia de caussa,
Joaii. 2. nupliis intorcssc Dci Filius. easque insi-
gni miraculo ornarc voluil, nisi ut indicarel, quoct
in cum locum s. Aiiguslinus nolavil.se fccisse nu-
ptias. Aposlolus quoque , 1. Corinlh. 7. Qui Ma-
irimonio junfjil virgineni suam,benc facH; el ibi-
dcm: Si nupseril virgo, non peccavii; et 1. Ti-
molli. 4. nolal baerolicos fiiluros, qui proliiberenl
Tiiibcro; el cap. Tt.Volo ego juniores nubero, filios
'procrcare. malresfamilias e>se elc. el Ilebr. 13.
Jlonorabilc connubium elc. Dcnique plenae sunl
Sfriplurac non solum lostimoniis.sed oliam exem-
plis sanclissimorum virorum, qui nupliis implicali
Domiuo placuerunl.
Accedunt concilia votera.ut gangrense cap. 11.
et bracarense I. can. 1. quibus praedicta haeresi&
coiidemnalur.
Posleriore modo Malrimonium a Deo esse insti-
tulum, nimirum, ul sigiium rei sacrae,nonnuIIi la-
boriosc probare nilunlur e\ obscuris qnibusdam
Scripturae locis, ut cx illo Mallh. 19. Quos Deus
ccnjunxil. homo non separet; sed non cst opus
in liac re laborare.Nam si probemus.Malrimoniuni
esse signum rci sacrac, cui sil annoxa ccrla pro-
missio gnitiae, sequctur inde necessario a Deo es-
se insliiulum. eliiitnsi locum Scriplurae non ha-
beamus ubi e\prossa mcniio fial biijus inslilulio-
nis: neque enim potcsl ullus bomo , vel angelus ,
ejusmodi signum insliluere. Id quod ingenue con-
(ilentur adversarii. Pbilippus in apologia confess.
augustanae. arl. 13. Calvinus lib. 4. Inslil.cap.19.
§ 2. el Kcmnilius in 2. par. e\am. pag. 13. Et hac
via nos alibi demonstravimus, sacramenla Confir-
malionis. Ordinationis ct Unclionis infirmorum a
Dco instiluta fuisse.
LIBER PRIMUS
777
QuoJ igilur ad Secundum allinel , Malrimonium
signun) esse rei sacrae, el proinde non civilcni
conlraclum solum, sed eliam myslerium quoddam
el sacramenlum, probamus ex cap. 5. epist. ad
Epliesios: Sacramenlum hoc rr.aqnum est:erjo aw-
tem dico in Clirisio et in Ecclesia. Ubi sunl Iria
breviter observanda.
Primo ineple Lutherum et Cnlvinnm loco cilato,
et Bezam in annol. ad hnnc locum, scripsisse, Ca-
tholicos dcceplos ex versione vuigari inlerpretis,
qui reddit, hoc loco, Sacramenluni , cum reddere
debiiisset.?7i)ys(e?*ium: nam idem est ijraece my-
slerium, el sacriimenlum ialine: neque p()luitA[)o-
slolus qui graece scripsil, sacramenlurn nomina-
re, ni i graeco vocahulo.
Quod aulem calholici non ex sola voce, sacra-
menlum, hoc loco posita, Slalrimonium sacramen-
lum proprie dictum esse collegerinl, manifestisSi-
me patet ex eo, quod in mullis aliis locis Testa-
menli veleris el novi, habelur vox . sacramentum
ulTobiae 12.Daniel. 2. Coloss. 1. I.Timolh.3. A-
pocai. 1. el 17. et in hac ipsa epist. ad Ephes.
cap. 1. et 3. el tamen ex nullo hornm locornm
ncvum ali(iuod sacramentum proprie dictum fabri-
oali sumus. El quidem baec loca citanl eliam ad-
versarii.ul doceant non dehuisse calholicos ex ilia
iina vocc novum dogma de sacramentis constiluc-
re: sed plane pro nobis cilant. Nam , ul dixi, vel
liinc maniiestissinie coUigi polesl, calliolicos non
illa sola voce niti. cum in lot aliis locis nullum sa-
cramentum propric dictum invenerint. Ilaque ex
hac voce sola non probamus , Malrimonium inte-
gratn habere sacramenti ralionem : sed prohamus
lamen id, quod hoc loco probandum suscepimus ,
Watrimonium essc signum. seu symbolum aliquod
sacrum: non aulem contraclum mere civilem el na-
luralcm.
Secundo considerandum est, cui rei accommo-
delur ab aposlolo illud: Socramenlum magnum,
utrum vidflicel conjunctioni Chrisli et Ecciesiae ;
an conjugio humano viri et foeminae.
Luiherus el Calvinus loco cilato, el Erasmus ac
IJeza in annolal. ad iuinc locum , contcndunt ab
Apostolo. inagnum sacrnmentum, sive arcanum ,
vocari coiiiunctionem Clnisti cum Ecclesia. Atqiie
inde colligiint, Malrimoniiim lioc loco ne appeilari
quidem signum, sive synibolum; non cnim sacra-
mentum lioc loco accipi volnnl pro signo rei sa-
crae,sed pro ijisa re sacra el arcana. Argumenliim
antem ipsoriiin lum esl aliiid, nisi quia b. Paiilus
aii: Efjo nulcm dico in Clirislo elin Ecclesia. VA
{\\\v<\'. ISuilum esl myslerium , ut ail Erasinus, .si
riro uxorjumjalur; id enim quolidie jieri vide-
mus. Sed liillunlur aperlissime; naiii in primis ba-
benl coiilriist; omnes vclcres hiijiisloci intcrpreles.
Commenliiriiis qiii Amhrosio iribiiiliir sic- habcl:
Myslerii sacramenhim yrande in unitalc viri ac
foeminac esse siynilical.
Hieronymus in commenlaiio linjiis loci.loquens
de conjiigio Ad;iini el Eviie. Idi])sum , inqiiil. ])e.r
aller/oriam in Clirislo inlerprelalur. el in Eccle-
sia; ut Adam Clirislum, el Eva 'praejiyurare.l Ec-
clesiam\ el paulo infra adducil Gregorium iiaziiin-
zenum ita enarranlem verba Pauli:Scio quia locus
isle ineffahilibus jjfenws sil sacramenlis, et divi-
num cor quaerat inlerpretis; eyo auiem pro pu-
sillilate sensws mei, in Christo interim Hlud,et in
Ecclesiaintelligendum puto. Ilaec ille , qui per
locum plenuni sacramentis, intclligit verba Gene-
sis, ubi dcscribitur coniugium. Proinde magniim
mysterium, de quo Piiulus loquitur, in ipso conju-
gio ponit, quatenus Chrisli el Ecclesiae conjun-
ctionem repraescnliit.
Chrysostomus hoinil. 20. in epist. ad Ephesios,
bunc locum exponcns: Et bene dixit, inqiiit, Ma-
gnum esl hoc mysterium: ac si dixissct: Verum-
tamen allegoria Js/f/. dHertionem. conjugalem non
cvertit. El mox: Revera. iuqiwi^ myslerium est, et
magnum mysterium relicto en qui genuit. eo qui
aluit. eiiam ea quae prpcrilji^iae viisere, el cum
laboreparlurivit. adhaererc virumHii, quae an-
tea neque visa sil: atque hanc omnibus praefer-
re. Vere mystcrium est. El ])arenles etiam cum
ista fiuni, non offenduntur clc. Vidos (luam aper-
te s. Joannes chrysostomus magnum mysterium in
conjugio agnoscat,uhi nulluin niyslcrium Erasmus
videre poliiit. In eandem seiitentiiim loquunlur
Theophylactus, Oecumenius et ciieteri.
Deniques. Auguslinus eodem modo hunc locum
exponil, lib. 1. (le nuptiis, el concup. et cap. 10.
Sacramentuni, inquit, nupiiorum commendaiur
fidelibus conjugalis; unde dicii Apostolus: Yiri
diligite uxores vestras eic.
Deinde ex ipso textu adversarii rerelli possunl ;
Nam cum Aposlolus ait: Sacramentum hoc ma-
gnum est, illud pronomen, Hoc, referri debel ne-
cessario ad id. quod proxime praecessil: cst enim
demonslrativum ejus rei.de qua agilur.Al proxime
illud praecessit: Belinquet homo patrem ei ma-
ircm, el adhaerebii uxori suae; ei erunt duo in
carne ima.Scntenlia igitur Pauli Iiaec esse dcbet:
Sacramenlum hoc, nimirum quod relinquat homo
palrem el matrem, el adhaereal uxori. cl siiit duo
in cnrne una, magnum esl. quia Chrisli ct Ecclc-
siae conjugium rcpraesenlat.
Praeterea idern cidligitur ex argnmento tolius
illiiis capitis. Aposlolus cnim borlalur conjngcs
ad multiam benevolcnliam, cl intcralia argumenta
lioc. ut potissimum adducil, quod ipsorum conju-
giiim non silres levis el contemnemia , scd iny-
slerium magniim includat, qnod ad Chrislum et
Ecclesiam relcriiliir. Quod si jiixla advcrsarios. lo-
liiiii mysterium in Chrisio.et Ecclesia consliliialur;
;id Matrimoniiim aulcm iiiliil perlineai ; tola Pauli
argiimeiilatio concidii, ncc fiicilc apparchit. quor-
siirii pcrlineal illii commemoiiilio coiiiniiclionis
Clirisli et Ecclesiiie, in exlremo illo capite posila.
Adde nllimo. (piod Piiiilus graccc non dixit, E'v
Xc':o) xal £xxX-/i'7ia: scd sU Xv.^ov , xal v.^ \T,y
sxx/./i-riav, idcsl, in Chrisliiin ci Kcclcsiiim. Quibiis
verbis apertc indicat, Ctirisliim el Kcclcsiam esse
lermimim, ut sic, lo(piiimiir.ilIiiis mysl(M-ii.seu my-
stici signi; el proiridc iiiystrMiiiin cssc iii conjugio,
scd lenninari ac refcrri myslcrii hujus signilica-
lioncin ad Clirisluin el Ecclcsiam.
IVeqiie arguiiHMila advcrsariorum aliqnid pro-
])anl. Illud eiiim; Ego auiem dico, significal, nt
Hieronymus, IVazianzenus, el alii exponunl; Ego
77S
Dii sacr.\mi:nto .matiumomi
inlorprelor lioc inyslerium conjiigii ilc Clirislo cl
Ecclesia.
A(l itl vero, quoil Krasiniis objiciebiit.nulliim es-
se in)Sl(M-ium,qiu)il u.\ori vir conjiingatur.Kospon-
tleo: IVuIlum quidem esse mysterium, quod uxori
vir quomoilocumqneiunpalur.fiiin id cliain in mc-
ivlricihus. et in ipsis etiam bcstiis cernamus; sed
quod unus uni indi^solubili vinculo ila jnnffatur ,
iit qimvis occurrentc incommodo, cl cliam amissa
spc prolis sejungi ncqnoant, sinc magno myslcrio
cssc non potest.
Sed objicit Remnilius duo locn Augustini conlra
nostram exposilioncin. Tnus cst Iract. 9. in Joan.
ul)i negal .Vugustinus . sacramcnlum, dc quoApo-
slolus loquilur, esse in coniiigio viri cl foeminae,
et tantuin csse docct in Clirislo et Ecclcsia: Erunt,
in(]uit, duo in carnc una.Sacramcnlum hoc ma-
(jnum csl. El nc quis istam niagniludincm sacra-
menli jn singulis quibusquc liominibus uxorcm
habentil)us intidligcrcl: Eijo autem, inquit , dico
in Cliristo et in Ecclesia.
Aller jocus est lib. 1. de nupliis, cl concup. c.
21. ubi dicit: Quod in Christo el. in Ecclcsia est
maonumsacramenlum. hoc cst in singulis qui-
busqxLc viris alque uxoribus minimum , sed
lamcn conjunctionis inseparabilc sacramen-
lum.
Respondeo: S. Auguslinns diipliciter accipit no-
inen sacramcnli, cuni de Matrimonio agilur. Uno
modo pro sacro el indissolubili vinculo , quod la-
mon aliquando non tam sacramcntum , quam rcm
sacramenli vocat, ut lib. 1. de nui)liis. et concup.
cap. 10. Alio modo sacramenlum accipit,pro signo
sacrac conjunclionis. Priore modo dicil sacram^en-
lum magnum essc in Clirislo el in Ecclcsia, mini-
mum autem in hominibus conjugalis: quia nimi-
riim singuli quique fidcles conjugati, minimi sunt
respeclu Christi elEcclesiae ; lamclsi vinculum
tam inter Chrislum et Ecclesiam , quam inter ho-
mines conjugalos. non sil minimum,sed maximum
quia omnino insolubile: Posteriore modo accepil
Auguslinus sacramenlum lib. de bono conjugali ,
cap. 18. ubi dicil: Sacramcntum singulariim nu-
ptiarum. significare subjectioncm unius Ecclesiae
ad uniim Deum: eliam lib.l. dc nuptiis.el concup.
cap. 10. ubi aperlissime dicit : Sacramenlum nu-
ptiarum, commendari fidelibus conjugatis ab Apo-
stolo ad Ephesios.
Terlio explicandum est,utrum hoc magnum my-
sterium conslilualur ab Apostolo in coniugio Ada-
mi et Evae, an vero in aliis conjugiis. Hieronymus
quidem videlur hunc Incum intelfcxisse de conju-
gio Adami et Evae.
Et quamquam negari non potest, Adamura et E-
vara figuram gessisse Christi et Ecclesiae , in eo
<|uod Eva dc latcre dormicntis Adami formata esl:
i.unen hoc loco Apostolus magnuin sacraraenlum
iion ad conjugium Adami et Evae, sed ad nuptias
lidelium sine dubio refert. Nam in primis , verba
quae ipse allegat ex Genesi: Relinquet homopa-
trem et matrem etc. de omni conjugio inlelligun-
!ur; non enim ait: Ego relinquam; sed indefinile :
Relinquet homo. Iramo conjugio priraorum paren-
tum isla verba accommodari non possunt: non e-
nini rcliiiuit Adam patrcm ct inatrcm , ul uxori
adhaercrcl suffe, cum parentcs iiullus habucrit
ipsc primus omnium parcns. Et praetcrca dc fu-
turis coiijugiis loquiliir, cum dicat: Bclinquct;
noii igilur dc suo loquitur , quod jam novcral fa-
ctiim.
Dcindc Christus Matth. 19. cx hoc eodcm loco
Gcnescos concliidit, Matrimonium non possc dis-
solvi: Quod Dcus conjanxit, homo non separet.
El ccrlc iion voluil Clirislus id doccrc. Malrimo-
niuin Adami cl Evac non essc solvcnduin, quod
antc mullis annorum millibus per inorlcm dissolu-
tum fiicrat; scd conjugia indidinilc, ct in gencre,
dc qiiibus a Judacis interrogalus fuerat.non deberc
dissolvi.
Adhaec Aposlolus in hoc cap. !). ad Ephes. cum
adfcralin argunuMilum vcrba illa Genesoos ad pro-
bandam gcnaralnm proposilionem, (Jcbere viros di-
ligcrc uxores snas: de omni conjugio ea verba in-
terprctari voluisseccnscndus esl.Quamvisautcm ea
vcrha dc omni conjugio inlelligi possint.lamen Apo-
stolus non ponit in co sacraincntum,nisi ul ad con-
jugiiim Christianoruin refcrlur. Non enini ait, sacra-
mcnluin hoc magnum fuit, scd: Est, in Chrislo
et in Ecclesia.
Quarc s. Augnslinus in lib. de bono conjugali
passim anirmat, Matrimonium non esse sacramen-
tum, nisi in Ecclesia: ct s. Thomas in 4. dist. 26.
quaest. 2. arlic. 2. dicit in solo Testamenlo novo
Matrimonium repracscntare conjunctionem Chrisli
cl Ecclesiae. Quod idcra docenl Ruardus in expli-
calione arlic. 18. et alii.
Restai nunc ut Tcrlium, quod ad ralionem sa-
cramenti requiritur, graliae videlicel promissio-
nem, in conjugio, ex divinis lilcris ostcndamus.
Ac primura icl colligilur ex hoc ipso cap. 5. ad
Ephes. !Nam hoc loco non solura doccmur, Matri-
monium esse signum conjunclioncs Chrisli et Ec-
clesiac pcr naturac conformilalem, sed eliam per
spirilualcra charilatem.qua Christus Ecclesiam di-
ligit el sancle gubernat , et ipsa Ecclesia Chrislo
adhaerct per fidem, spem el charilalem, eique per
obcdienliam subjicitur. Id aulem verura esse du-
bilari non polest; tura, quia Chrislus pcr naturae
conrormilalera non soli Ecclcsiae jungilur.sed loli
huraano generi: soli Ecclesiae jungilur , ul spon-
sus sponsae, spiriluali dilcctione; et ideo necesse
est ut conjugium hanc ctiam spirilualem unioneni
significct, quae esl inler Chrislum et Ecclesiam;
tiira e.liam, quia b. Paulus hanc unionem spiritua-
lora maxime urgel, ciim ail: Ecclesia subjecta est
Chrislo, et Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. elseipsum
tradidit pro ea, ut eam sanclificaret etc. Non po-
test autem conjugium id significare , nisi inler vi-
rum et uxorem praeler civilem contractum. sic
eliam unio spirilualis animorum; et ideo ibidein
Aposlolus non scmcl monet, ul viri uxorcs dili-
ganl, ut Chrislus Ecclesiain dilexit, et uxores viris
obediant.ut Ecclesia obedil Christo. Quod si Deus
viriim et foerainain conjungil ad hunc fincm, ut
spiriluali sua unionc, unionem spirilualem Chrisli
et Ecclesiae significent, sine dubio gratiam illis
largitur, sine qua spiritualem illam unionem non
habercnf.
LIBEU PRIMIIS
779
El conrirmaliir lioc ox riliis Soriplurae locis 1.
Timolh. 2.Salvabilur,\nqu\\, per jUiorum genera-
tionem . si permanseril in fide et (iilectione, et
sanclilicalione cum sobrieiaie: ubi Notantlum esl
\\\u6: Pcr fdiorum generaiionem , posilum essc
pro, in filiorum generalione. Non enim significare
vult Aposlolus, Oliorum generalionem esse caus-
sam salutis; red mulierem in slalu Malrimonii, si-
ve in slalu generandi filios salvam fore,si perman-
seril in fide, dileclione et sanctificatione.
El hinc tollunlur illae quaestiones, qnasquidam
proponunl; Quomodo salvari polerunt virgines aut
steriles. si mulier salvalur per filiorum generalio-
nera? frequenlissima enim est in Scripluris illa
phrasis, Per aliquid, pro, in aliquo: ut Aclor. 15.
Per omne sabbathum legiiur Moyses. Actor. 26.
Per omnes synagogas eram puniens iiios. Roman.
4. Utsilpaleromniumcredentium per praepu-
tium: noii enim praeputium erat caussa,cur Abra-
ham esset pater omnium,sed in praepulio exislens,
pater factus est omnium per iidem.
Secundo notandum est illud: Si permanserit,\n
graecis codicibus, el aliquol eliam latinis esse iu
numero multiludinis:Sipermansennt,elideo non-
nullos Patresrelulissc verbum illud ad filios, non
ad malres, ul sensus sil; Salvabilur mulier per fi-
liorum generationem, si filii permanserinl in fide
elc. Caelerum mullo probabilius esl, ut referalur
verbum ad matres; quod quidem recle fieri polest,
sive legamus: St pcrmanseril, ut legit Auguslinus
in psalm. 83. et ex Auguslino, Beda in hunc lo-
cum aposloli, sive legamus: Permanserint, ut ha-
bet major pars codicum. Nam, ut acule viderunt
cl nolarunt Scdulius el Primasius in hunc locum ,
Apostolus, saepe transil de numcro ad iiumerum ,
ut in hoc ipso capile: Simililer et mulieres in lia-
bitu ornato elc. et moxiMulier in silcnlio discat.
Et Galat. 6. Vos qui spiriiuales estis, hvjusniodi
instruite: considerans te ipsum, ne el tu tcnteris.
Ila igiliir hoc loco sensus eril : Salvabilur per
filiorumgeneralionem, si pernumserint; idcst ,
si unaquaeque illarum permanserit , in fide eic.
Vcl, ul non male Cajelanus exponil; Si permanse-
rint ipsa ct vir ejus.INam quud ad filios referalur,
durissimum esl;(iuis enim credal Paulum velle sa-
lulein malris peudere a filiorum perseveraiilia ?
Deiiide ediicare filios el insliluere, magis ad pa-
trein, quain ad matrem perlinet: et tamen Aposto-
lus hoc loco aliquid mulieribus proprium signifi-
care voliiit, quo eas consolarelur, cum eis locjui
in Ecclcsia piohibuisset. Adde quod Calvinus et
Beza in aiinolalioiiihus ad hunc locum admiltunl ,
illud: St permariicn/, ad inatrem , non ad filios
perlinere.
Haec ergo explicalione, ut fundamenlo, posila ,
videamus,quid Apostolus a conjugalis focminis re-
quirat: Sipermanscril, iiiqiiil, ia lldc et dilcciio-
ne cum sobrietate, uhi (|ualtior bona enuinerat
Malrimonii chrisliaiii, conlra (]ualiior mala, «luae
sine gralia Dei in Malrimonio evilari noii possunl.
Priraum esl inahim, non scrvare conjugi fidein.
Secundum, odium et rixae , quae subinde iiiler
conjuges oriuntur. Tertium iinmundilia quaedain
cl lurpitiido ex rebellione incmbrorum. Quarluin
intemperaatia. His Paulus opponil fidem, dileclio-
nem, sanctiUcalionem ct sobrielatem ; in quibus
permanendum esse dicit , lamquam videlicel in
ipsa Matrimonii celebralione acceplis.
Atque hinc 1. Corinth. 7. vocat donum Dei Ma-
trimonium Apostolus, ut ipsam virginilalem:t/nws-
(/uis^ue.inquit, tZonu?7i suum habet ex Deo, unus
quidem sic, alius autem sic. Et 1. Thessal. 4.
horlatur conjuges ut abstineanl se a fornicatioiie ,
el vas suum possideant in sanctificatione ; quam
nimirum per Malrimonium ante acceperunt.