Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 5: The Arguments of the Adversaries Are Solved
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).
But now let us wash away the arguments of the adversaries. The first argument is Luther's, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Matrimony, and Calvin's, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 34: “It is nowhere read that whoever takes a wife will receive anything of the grace of God; nay, neither is there a sign divinely instituted in Matrimony. There is added besides that, even if human marriage can be a sign of the joining of Christ with the Church, yet no sacrament can be gathered from this. For the heavens also, which show forth the glory of God, signify the apostles, and the sun designates Christ, and star differing from star in glory is a sign to the Apostle of the resurrection of the dead; lastly, in the Gospel very many signs of the kingdom of heaven are found in the parables of the Lord; for the kingdom of heaven is signified by seed, by a grain of mustard, by leaven, and so on; and yet from so many signs no sacraments properly so called are gathered.”
I answer, first: Luther assumes what is false, as I demonstrated above from the Scriptures and the Fathers. Second, an argument from the negative authority of sacred Scripture is not solid, since the Catholics have already proved sufficiently that many things were handed down by the apostles which were not committed to the sacred letters.
I add that Philip, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article 13, and Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 1219, acknowledged that this argument of Luther is worth nothing. And therefore Philip admitted that Matrimony has some promise of grace; and Chemnitz admitted both the external sign and the promise of grace, although on other grounds they will not have Matrimony to be a sacrament properly so called.
To the confirmation I say: a sacrament is not gathered from any sign whatever, but only from a sign instituted by God and to which grace is annexed. All of which are found in Matrimony; for it is the sign of the joining of Christ with the Church, instituted plainly for this, as we showed from its insolubility; and moreover it has grace annexed, as we taught before. But those signs which Luther and Calvin bring forward neither have grace annexed nor are properly instituted by God: for God did not create the heavens to signify the apostles, but Scripture draws a likeness from their natural property to explain the office of the apostles. And the same is to be understood of all the other like things.
The second argument of Luther: “Matrimony was from the beginning of the world, and still remains among unbelievers too; nor is it less true and holy among them than among us; and on the other hand there are found among the faithful wicked spouses, worse than any nations. But among unbelievers Matrimony is not a sacrament; therefore neither among the faithful; or if it is a sacrament among them, then it is not a sacrament proper to the new law.” Philip and Chemnitz, in the place noted, touch the same argument.
I answer: there are not lacking Catholics who admit that Matrimony is not a sacrament proper to the new law, but was in the old law too, at least among the Jews, and was not so much instituted as confirmed by Christ. For so Alphonsus de Castro teaches, book 11 against heresies, under the word “Marriage,” heresy 3, and Peter Soto, lecture 2 on Matrimony, and certain others; whose reasons are chiefly three. The first, because the Apostle, Ephesians 5, says of the marriage of Adam and Eve, “This is a great sacrament,” and so on. The second, because in Genesis 1 God blessed the marriage of Adam and Eve; from which he seems to have joined grace to the sign. The third, because Leo, letter 92, to Rusticus, says that marriage was so instituted from the beginning that it had in itself the sacrament of Christ and the Church.
But truly I do not see how this can be safely defended. For the Council of Florence numbers Matrimony among the sacraments of the new law, and distinguishes the sacraments of the old law from the sacraments of the new law in this, that those did not confer grace and these confer grace. And the Council of Trent, session 24, canon 1, hands down in express words that the sacrament of Matrimony was instituted by Christ in the new law; and in the decree itself which precedes the canons the council teaches that the marriages of Christians excel in grace the marriages of the ancients.
This was also the opinion of the old theologians. For St. Thomas, on book 4, distinction 26, question 2, articles 2 and 3, writes that Matrimony was instituted as an office of nature in the state of innocence; then in the state of corrupted nature it was added to it that it should be for a remedy; and lastly in the new law it was instituted by Christ as a sacrament. St. Bonaventure too, on book 4, distinction 26, article 2, question 2, teaches that only in the new law has Matrimony true grace annexed. From which we understand that the same author, when above he asserted that Matrimony was a sacrament in the state of innocence, did not speak of a sacrament such as it now is. Scotus besides, in the same distinction 26, the only question, conclusion 4, teaches in most open words that Matrimony was not a sacrament before the coming of Christ, but has only now in the new law been instituted by Christ. Of the more recent, Ruard teaches the same, in the explanation of article 18 of the Louvain theologians, and Dominic Soto on book 4, distinction 26, question 2, article 2, and very many others.
And lastly there is added a manifest reason. For if Matrimony had been a sacrament before the coming of Christ, it would have been instituted either in the state of innocence or afterward. Not in the state of innocence, because then there was no need of sacramental grace, since there was no concupiscence or difficulty, nor was there need of any remedy against sin. And in the state of corrupted nature no institution of Matrimony is read to have been made in the whole Old Testament, but only a certain restriction as to the persons contracting, Leviticus 18.
Moreover, in the Old Testament, by the permission of God, polygamy and divorce were lawful; which two things fight with the notion of the sign; and therefore then Matrimony was not even a sign, nor was grace at that time so necessary in Matrimony as it is in our time, since the men of that time could easily meet, either by a multitude of wives or by a bill of divorce, those difficulties on account of which we taught that grace is required in our time. And although at that time the Hebrews were bound to instruct their children in the faith and religion of God, yet this end was extrinsic to their Matrimony, but it is intrinsic to the Matrimony of Christians. On which matter see Ruard in the place noted.
Nor do those three arguments conclude. For to the first we have already answered before that the Apostle Paul in that place does not give the name of sacrament to the marriage of the first parents, but to the marriages of the faithful. Then, even if the marriage of Adam and Eve signified the joining of Christ and the Church, as in fact it did signify it by way of a figure, yet it could not be called a sacrament properly so called, such as our sacraments are, because it lacked the promise of grace.
To the second I answer: that blessing was bodily, not spiritual; for by it fruitfulness was given to bodies, not the help of grace to spirits. Which Augustine rightly proves, book 13 of the Confessions, chapter 24, from the fact that the same blessing is read to have been given to the fishes and the birds.
To the third I say that St. Leo did not say that from the beginning of the world marriage had the sacrament of Christ and the Church, but from the beginning of its institution; which can rightly be understood of the new institution through Christ. Then, if Leo had said “from the beginning of the world,” that also would be true, because the first marriage, which was that of Adam and Eve, represented the Lord's incarnation; but that marriage was not therefore a sacrament properly so called, and much less the rest.
These things being explained, to the argument I answer: Matrimony was from the beginning of the world, and now also is among unbelievers, as a civil contract and as an office of nature; but it was not, and is not, a true sacrament except among Christians, as Augustine teaches in express words, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 7, and On the Good of Marriage, chapter 24. Wherefore what Luther assumes is false, that Matrimony is equally holy among unbelievers and the faithful; for Augustine in the places noted writes most openly that the marriages of unbelievers lack the sanctity of the sacrament, which the marriages of the faithful by no means lack.
To what Luther added, that wicked spouses worse than all the nations are found among the faithful, I answer: the sanctity of the sacrament is not defiled by the evil morals of those who receive the sacraments; for otherwise we should deny that Baptism and the Eucharist are sacraments; for many who receive these sacraments are very often worse than the heathens themselves. I add that if among the faithful some spouses are wicked, yet many are pious and holy; but among the gentiles all are wicked, none holy.
The third argument is Calvin's, book 4, chapter 19, section 34: “It is not enough that Matrimony be from God, for it to be reckoned a sacrament; for agriculture too and the shoemaker's craft are from God, and yet it is not a sacrament; but it is required that it be an outward ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise. That there is nothing of the kind in Matrimony even children will judge.”
I answer: of the proposition of this argument we have disputed much in the first book On the Sacraments in General, where we showed that a sacrament is not instituted to confirm a promise, but to signify and confer grace. But even if the proposition were true, the argument would conclude nothing, because the assumption is false. For the very external and visible joining of man and woman, which is usually made through solemn words before the Church, is an external ceremony, and instituted by God; and from it that divine promise can be confirmed, that Christ will never altogether desert his Church; for that this is signified by Matrimony we demonstrated from Paul, Ephesians 5.
Nor does it stand in the way that that joining of man and woman is a natural thing and in use among the heathens too: for natural things too, if they are referred to signifying something, can be called ceremonies. To eat bread and drink wine is a natural thing, and in use among all men; and yet the Calvinists themselves, in their holy supper, as they call it, when they eat bread and drink wine, think, not wrongly, that they are in fact performing an external ceremony, because they eat and drink to represent the death of Christ. And in the same way both we and they, when we baptize, wash the body with water, which is commonly in use among all; and yet we truly perform a sacred ceremony, because we refer that external washing to signifying the internal washing.
The fourth argument is of the same Calvin, in the same place, section 36, and of Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination, page 1207: “The papists call Matrimony uncleanness, and pollution, and carnal filth; therefore they fight with themselves when they will have Matrimony to be a sacrament; for a sacrament cannot be called uncleanness, and pollution, and filth.” Calvin does not prove the antecedent; he notes indeed in the margin certain places of the Master of the Sentences and of Gratian, but in none of those places could I find anything to the purpose. But Chemnitz proves it from the letter of Pope Siricius to Himerius of Tarragona, where those words, “They who are in the flesh cannot please God,” seem to be fitted to marriage; as if those who are joined in marriage were in the flesh and could not please God. In the same place also marriage is forbidden to priests on account of those words of Scripture which properly belong to priests: “Be holy, because I am holy”; and “Be ye clean, you that carry the vessels of the Lord.” And this is the letter which Calvin usually cites when he objects to Catholics that they reject Matrimony as pollution, as may be seen in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 12, section 24.
I answer, first: this whole argument rests on a lie and a slander; for Catholics nowhere call lawful Matrimony pollution or uncleanness. For Siricius, a most ancient and most wise pontiff, does not condemn marriages, but sacrileges, which are falsely named marriages by the Lutherans. For in chapters 6 and 7 he reproves monks and priests who wished to be entangled in unlawful marriages, to whom marriages are known to be forbidden by the apostolic teaching; and of these he says, “They who are in the flesh cannot please God.” For priests are convicted of being in the flesh, that is, of living carnally, when they aspire to marriages forbidden to them. And in chapter 5, where the name of pollution is had, he reproves those who, after doing Penance, return to their former filth. But no one does Penance because he has lawfully married or taken a wife; wherefore it follows that he reproved some unlawful Matrimony.
Add that if we should say that there is some foulness and uncleanness in the act of Matrimony by reason of concupiscence and the rebellion of the members, we should say nothing contrary to the divine letters. For in 1 Kings 21 the priest asked David, who sought the loaves of proposition, “If the young men be clean, especially from women?” And David answered, “Truly, as to what concerneth women, we have refrained ourselves from yesterday and the day before.” From which place St. Jerome rightly proves, book 1 against Jovinian, that the carnal act even in the married can be called uncleanness. And Apocalypse 14: “These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins”; in which place every act by which virginity perishes is called defilement; and that virginity perishes through Matrimony cannot be denied.
Lastly: if there is nothing shameful in the act of marriage, why do men blush, and not dare to perform that act before others? And why in Leviticus 18 and 20 are the instruments of that act constantly called by the word of shame? Wherefore, on account of this kind of defilement, of which the Apocalypse speaks, and the uncleanness of which Abimelech speaks in the books of Kings, and the shame of which Moses speaks in Leviticus, it can rightly be said to priests, “Be ye clean, you that carry the vessels of the Lord.”
Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 7 the Apostle, comparing the virgin with the married woman, says: “The virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.” The virgin therefore pleases God in some way in which the married woman does not please him; and the virgin is holy in body and spirit in some way in which the married woman is not holy. Wherefore it could not badly be said of the married, “They who are in the flesh cannot please God”: that is, those who, on account of marriage, are entangled in carnal cares, think on the things of the world, how they may please their wife, and therefore cannot please God in that degree in which a virgin can please him. And in the same manner that saying is rightly fitted to the priest on account of celibacy, “Be ye holy,” namely in body and spirit, in the way in which the married cannot be holy, although they too are holy in their own way.
The fifth argument is of the same Calvin and Chemnitz, in the places noted: “If Matrimony were a sacrament, certainly it would not fight with other sacraments. But the papists teach that the sacrament of Order cannot stand together with Matrimony; therefore either Matrimony is not a sacrament, or the papists fight with themselves.”
I answer: priests are not kept from Matrimony on account of the sacrament which is in Matrimony, but on account of the hindrances and worldly cares which necessarily follow Matrimony. For those who have taken wives, and by mutual consent profess perpetual continence, can be initiated into sacred Orders, and yet they are at the same time both true spouses (for the bond is not loosed nor does the sacrament perish through the vow of continence) and priests; wherefore the sacraments do not fight among themselves. But that in Matrimony, when attention is given to children, there are many things which necessarily call the mind away from divine things, the Apostle teaches, 1 Corinthians 7: “He that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided”; and in the same place he exhorts spouses at least for a time, by consent, to abstain from the act of marriage, that they may give themselves to prayer. So Matrimony is forbidden to priests not on account of the sanctity of the sacrament, but on account of hindrances of this kind.
But against the solution Calvin brings another argument. The sixth argument, then, is: “Intercourse is a part of the sacrament, nor without it is Matrimony a sacrament, as the Master has it, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 26, and Gratian, cause 27, question 2, canon Non est dubium, and canon Cum societas: for through it is figured the joining of Christ with the Church through likeness of nature, namely while the spouses are made one flesh. Therefore, if priests are not kept from the sacrament, they ought to be kept not only from the bond but not even from intercourse itself; or certainly, which is the one thing left, Matrimony will not be a sacrament.”
Calvin adds, to prove the same, this most acute argument, forsooth: “In a sacrament,” he says, “they affirm that the grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred; they teach that intercourse is a sacrament; they deny that the Holy Spirit is ever present in intercourse.” Which last proposition he proves from Gratian, canon Connubia, cause 32, question 2.
I answer: concerning conjugal union there are two opinions of Catholics. For some teach that that union is neither a sacrament nor a part of the sacrament, but only an act, or office, of Matrimony. Others will have conjugal union to be a certain part of the sacrament, not indeed essential but integral; and therefore before union it is called ratified, but not consummated.
Yet all agree in this, that union is not an essential part; and therefore the sacrament of Matrimony, whole and full as to its essential parts, is found in the contract by words of the present; which opinion is also that of the ancient Fathers, as is plain from their most open testimonies.
Ambrose, in the book On the Instruction of a Virgin, chapter 6: “Not the deflowering of virginity,” he says, “makes a marriage, but the marriage compact.” See the same, book 2 on Luke, chapter 2. Augustine has the same, book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 11, and book 2 On the Harmony of the Evangelists, chapter 1, where he teaches that between the blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph there was a true marriage without any carnal union. To the same purpose Gratian brings certain other things from Chrysostom, Isidore, Pope Nicholas and others, cause 27, question 2.
Where yet it is to be observed that in the same question Augustine and Leo are alleged for the contrary opinion, canon Non est dubium and canon Cum societas. But each place is taken from the letter of Leo, 92, to Rusticus of Narbonne, and is alleged corruptly. For those words of Leo, “Since the fellowship of marriage was so constituted from the beginning that, besides the mingling of the sexes, it had in itself the sacrament of Christ and the Church,” Gratian, with a negation added, reads thus: “Since the fellowship of marriage was so constituted from the beginning that, besides the mingling of the sexes, it did not have in itself the sacrament of Christ and the Church.” But Gratian's copy must be corrected from Leo's letter itself. In the same way the text of the Master must be corrected, book 4, distinction 26, where the same places are had with the same corruption.
And that the truer reading is the one that lacks the negation is plain: both because all the copies of St. Leo have it so, and also because that negation fights with the sense of St. Leo. For he means to teach that a concubine is not a true wife; but to prove this there is no need that he show that the mingling of the sexes is required for Matrimony, for that mingling is not lacking in concubinage; but he must show, as he also does, that Matrimony consists not so much in carnal union as in the nuptial covenant, in which is the sacrament of Christ and the Church.
These things being premised, to Calvin's argument I answer that two false things are affirmed by him. First, that intercourse is a sacrament, or such a part of the sacrament that without it the sacrament cannot be; for the Fathers cited above testify that this is false. Nor does it stand in the way that through union the joining of Christ with the Church through likeness of nature is signified; for not that signification alone makes the sacrament, but also the signification of the joining of Christ with the Church, or with any soul, through spiritual love. Wherefore, if union is lacking, a certain signification will be lacking, yet not all signification; and therefore that marriage will indeed be a sacrament, but in some part imperfect, and not consummated.
To those places of the Master and of Gratian which Calvin alleges, it has already been answered that the places are corrupt; whence the Master and Gratian also labor in their explanation. But there is no difficulty if the letter of Leo is consulted.
Second, Calvin assumes falsely that the priest, by the opinion of the Catholic doctors, is not kept from the sacrament of Matrimony but only from intercourse. For priests are plainly kept not from intercourse only, but also from the sacrament of Matrimony; not indeed by reason of the sacrament, as we said above, but by reason of the things which are annexed to the sacrament. Nor is it absurd that those who have one sacrament be kept from another, although each is holy and pleasing to God, when the ministry of the one hinders the function of the other. For the apostles also, Acts 6, cast from themselves the office of ministering at tables, that they might attend more diligently to the word of God and to prayer; and yet each work was one of piety and charity. And in 1 Timothy 5 the widows are reproved who, having been taken into the ministry of the Church, wished to marry; because, namely, they could not easily satisfy marriage and the ministry of the Church at once.
To the confirmation I answer: in it too there are two faults. The first is in that proposition, “They teach that intercourse is a sacrament”; for none of the Catholics, so far as I know, teaches this; but, as I taught before, some deny it simply, some only admit that it is a certain integral part of the sacrament.
From which opinion there does not follow what Calvin thinks follows, that in intercourse sacramental grace ought ordinarily to be given; since grace, by the opinion of the Catholics, is given then when the spouses contract Matrimony by words of the present; for then the sacrament, as regards its essence, is properly ministered.
The other fault is in that proposition, “They deny that the Holy Spirit is ever present in intercourse.” For, in the first place, those words related by Gratian are Origen's, homily 6 on Numbers; and Origen is not of such authority in the Church that his opinion must necessarily be approved.
Then, in that place Origen affirms nothing; for he says in express words, “But I, though I do not pronounce it altogether, yet think,” and so on.
Moreover, those words of Origen, in which he teaches that in the conjugal work the presence of the Holy Spirit is not given, or is not present, do not signify that he is in no way present, but that he is not present to effect that act by some special help. For Origen teaches this: that not all the works of the saints are done by the Holy Spirit. For there are sometimes certain evil works which are done even by the saints, and these are not done by the Holy Spirit; and there are certain good works, but natural, and therefore they do not require the particular help of the Holy Spirit. And in this kind Origen places the conjugal work, and he does not think badly that nature suffices for this work, and that it is neither necessary nor fitting to attribute it to the Holy Spirit. But with this pronouncement of Origen it agrees well that through the conjugal act the grace of the Holy Spirit can be acquired, when that act is an act of justice, or of obedience, or of charity; for it can belong to all these virtues. Whence St. Augustine, book 4 against Julian, chapter 5, says that it is a beatific good when one uses the flesh of his spouse not to satisfy lust, but for offspring, to be propagated for the glory of God. But in such a work that will which chooses the conjugal act for the glory of God without doubt needs the help of God; but the conjugal work itself follows from that will through natural instruments, without new and special help of God, as Origen meant.
The seventh argument is Chemnitz's, in the second part of the Examination, page 1220: “To sacraments properly so called there must be annexed a promise of grace, not of any grace whatever, but of reconciliation and the remission of sins; such a promise is lacking to Matrimony.”
I answer: the argument rests on a false foundation, that all the sacraments are instituted for the remission of sins; which foundation we have overturned more than once, both in the first book On the Sacraments in General and in the fourth book On the Eucharist. And surely that foundation is most solidly overturned from the Eucharist itself. For all grant that the Eucharist is a sacrament properly so called; and yet that it was instituted not for remitting sins but for nourishing and preserving the spiritual life acquired through Baptism, the very species of the sacrament testify; for the sacrament is given in the species of bread and wine for this reason, that we may understand that food is given us in it to sustain life.
The eighth argument of the same is taken from the matter and form of this sacrament; of which matter we shall discourse in the following controversy.
The ninth argument of Chemnitz is taken from this, that the holy ancient Fathers and the old councils, before those of Constance and Florence, did not hand down that Matrimony is a sacrament; and of the doctors Durandus, with those whom he himself cites, openly denies that Matrimony is a sacrament properly so called, or univocally with the others. From which he tries to convict of lying the words of the Council of Trent, which at the beginning of session 24 have thus: “That Matrimony is to be numbered among the sacraments of the new law our holy Fathers, the councils and the tradition of the universal Church have always taught.”
I answer: for the council's statement to be true it is not necessary that all the Fathers and all the councils have in express words that Matrimony is a sacrament; but it is enough if some Fathers and some councils have it, and no Fathers and no councils ever taught the contrary; or if perhaps anyone held the contrary, it is shown that his opinion was reproved by the common judgement.
Further, that some Fathers held Matrimony for a sacrament we taught above, alleging their places; it belonged to Chemnitz to bring forward some who held the contrary; which yet he neither did nor could do.
The old councils explained what was called into controversy in their times: namely, that Matrimony was instituted by God, and is a holy and good thing. But whether it was a sacrament properly so called, there was no cause for them to treat, since no one then doubted of that matter; yet the later councils, when the cause required it, declared what had been left out by the ancients.
As regards Durandus, he had written at first (as Capreolus relates, on book 4, distinction 26, the only question, article 3) that Matrimony is not properly a sacrament. But because on that account he was ill spoken of among Catholics, in the later edition he corrected it, and says that Matrimony is truly and properly a sacrament, but not univocally; and he said that this question of univocation is a logical one, namely that he might not seem to dissent from the others except in a logical question. But although he did not cover his error well enough with that color, yet we see that even before the councils of Constance and Florence those who took Matrimony out of the number of the sacraments were held for heretics, or suspect of heresy. But what force the arguments of Durandus have we shall now see.
Let the tenth argument, then, be that which is the first in Durandus: “In the other sacraments that which is done outwardly exceeds the dictate of natural reason, nor can a sufficient cause of it be given except by the light of faith. But what is done outwardly in Matrimony has a natural cause; therefore Matrimony and the other six are not univocally sacraments. The major proposition is proved. For if anyone should see a child being baptized in the Church, and did not know the mysteries of our faith, he could never give the cause of that washing. For that washing is not done that the child may be cooled, or washed bodily, which are the natural effects of water; but that he may be justified from original sin, which is a supernatural effect and depends on the will of God alone. And the same can be said of the other five sacraments, which are all voluntary signs instituted by God. The minor proposition is also proved. For Matrimony is made to signify and effect the insoluble union of man and woman; but this the words expressing mutual consent signify naturally; and therefore if a heathen should see Matrimony being celebrated, he will easily give the cause why it is done. Nor will it satisfy if one says that Matrimony is the sacrament of Christ and the Church, and that this effect is not signified naturally, nor can be known by a heathen. For the principal signification of the sacraments is of that thing which is effected through the sacrament; for the sacraments effect what they signify. But Matrimony does not effect the union of Christ with the Church, but the union of male and female; and that union is called by Augustine, in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 7, the thing of the sacrament.”
I answer: the minor proposition is false. For the thing of this sacrament is not any union whatever of man and woman, but a union plainly insoluble. For even if the spouses by common consent wished to break this bond of consummated Matrimony, or wished it to be broken by the highest ecclesiastical or temporal power, yet the bond could not be loosed. But so great a union those words of the spouses which are said in the celebration of Matrimony do not signify naturally. “Which,” says Augustine in the place noted, “if they do not make understood, what does so great a firmness of the conjugal bond mean? which I think could by no means have had such force, unless some sacrament of some greater thing were applied from this weak mortality of men,” and so on.
Moreover, the union which the sacrament of Matrimony signifies and effects is a union not only of bodies but also of souls, not of any kind whatever, but through true and divine charity, that the wife be joined to the husband as the Church to Christ, and the husband to the wife as Christ to the Church; and so it is a union consecrating and sanctifying souls, unless an obstacle is put; all of which can neither be signified naturally nor known except by the light of faith. Wherefore Christian Matrimony signifies by appointment and by divine institution no less than the other sacraments.
The eleventh argument, which is the second of Durandus: “The other sacraments consist in some sacred thing which is applied outwardly to the receiver by the minister. But nothing such is found in Matrimony; therefore Matrimony is not a sacrament univocally with the others. The major proposition is plain by induction: for in Baptism water, or washing, is applied; in Confirmation anointing; in the Eucharist consecrated bread; in confession absolution, and so on. But the minor proposition is most certain. For in Matrimony there is nothing which can or ought to be applied; for the will of the spouses expressed by a sign suffices. But if anyone answers that in this sacrament the signs themselves of mutual consent are applied, he will not altogether satisfy; for he will never show that those signs are applied in the way in which the other sacraments are applied. For the rest are necessarily applied by another: for no one baptizes himself, no one absolves himself, and so on; but in Matrimony the spouses bind themselves. Moreover, the other sacraments cannot be conferred on the absent, nor on one through another: for no one baptizes an absent man, and no one is baptized by proxy. But Matrimony can be celebrated between the absent and by proxy; therefore Matrimony is not a sacrament univocally with Baptism and the other sacraments.”
I answer: the consequence of this argument is to be denied; because it is not of the notion of a sacrament in general that it consist in some thing which is applied outwardly, but it is enough that it be a sign and cause of justifying grace.
And surely, if this argument held, we should easily prove that no sacrament is univocally a sacrament with the rest. For there is none which does not have something proper by which it is distinguished from all the others: as, for example, no sacrament besides Baptism has for its matter a true and natural element. We could therefore form the argument thus: it is common to the sacraments not to have for matter a true and natural element; but Baptism has for matter a true and natural element; therefore Baptism is not a sacrament univocally with the rest. The same argument could be made of the Eucharist; for it is common to the other sacraments to consist in an action; but the Eucharist consists not in an action but in a permanent thing. The same could be said of the other sacraments, as Paludanus and Capreolus deduce at length.
But if anyone asks what the cause is why Matrimony alone does not consist in the application of some outward thing, the answer is ready. For God instituted the sacraments in various ways, according as the things in which he instituted them were various. He instituted the sacrament of Baptism in a washing, therefore he willed water to be used; the sacrament of the Eucharist in a refreshment, therefore he chose bread and wine; the sacrament of Penance in a judicial form, therefore he commanded sentence to be pronounced in words; and so of the rest. He established Matrimony in a certain contract, and therefore he willed the custom of contracts to be kept; but in contracts nothing is applied outwardly, but the contracting parties themselves make the contract by the signification of mutual consent.
And hence too the cause is given why Matrimony needs no other minister besides the contracting parties themselves, and why it can be celebrated between the absent and by proxy. For this is the nature of a contract: that the contracting parties bind themselves, and have no need of a third person by whom they are bound; and that they can make a contract with the absent and by proxy, if they will. But in the other sacraments these things have no place, because they fight with their nature and property: for reason does not admit that anyone regenerate himself, or, absent, wash one absent, or that one be washed for another; and so of the rest.
The twelfth argument, which is the third of Durandus: “The sacrament of Matrimony does not confer grace; the others confer it; therefore Matrimony is not a sacrament univocally with the rest.” Durandus proves the major proposition by authority and by reason. The authority is that of some interpreters of the canon law, and besides of the Master of the Sentences, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 2. The reason is twofold: one of the jurists whom he cites; the other his own.
The jurists prove that the sacrament of Matrimony does not confer grace because a pact is lawfully made about contracting Matrimony if a certain sum of money is paid; which would seem unlawful if Matrimony conferred grace; for it is the crime of simony to wish to buy the grace of God with money.
And Durandus himself uses this argument: “Matrimony does not confer first grace, which is justification itself from sins; nor second grace, or the increase of grace; therefore it confers no grace.” And indeed that it does not confer first grace he proves because only Baptism and Penance are instituted for the remission of sin. That it does not confer second, he proves because Matrimony would be of greater grace than continence, if a continent person were increased in divine grace through Matrimony.
I answer: as regards the authority of the interpreters of canon law, it matters little what a certain few of them thought: both because the common opinion, on the rubric on espousals and marriages, is to the contrary, as Navarrus noted in the Enchiridion, chapter 19, number 22; and because in things which belong to divine law, such as the sacraments are, greater faith is to be given to the theologians, who are the true counsellors of divine law, than to the canonists, who are occupied with human laws only.
Nor is the argumentation of Durandus worth anything, who proves the great authority of the canonists from this, that they know well the opinion and faith of the Roman Church. For the canonists know the opinion of the Roman Church in those things which belong to the human canons, but not in those which depend on divine law; nor will they find any canon in the whole body of law where it is had that the sacrament of Matrimony does not confer grace.
And as regards the opinion of the Master, St. Thomas, explaining that place of the Master, shows excellently that nothing was disputed by the Master in that place against the common opinion of the Church. For what the Master says, that certain sacraments were instituted both for a remedy and to give helping grace, as Baptism; certain for a remedy only, as Matrimony; certain to give helping grace only, as the Eucharist, is to be understood of the principal end and effect of the sacraments. For although all the sacraments confer sanctifying grace, and all sanctifying grace has force to blot out sins and gives help to live well, yet certain sacraments are instituted principally to help in good, as the Eucharist, Confirmation and Order; certain to blot out or avoid sins, as Penance, the Unction of the sick and Matrimony; certain for both effects, as Baptism, which, since it is a new generation, includes at once the life of grace and the death of vices.
To the reason of the canonists St. Thomas rightly answers, in the Second of the Second, question 100, article 2, and on book 4, distinction 25, question 3, article 2, question 1: in Matrimony not only the sacrament, but also the civil contract, can be considered; and therefore, although money cannot be taken or given for the sacrament, yet it can for the civil contract, to bear the burdens of Matrimony. Add that, even if Matrimony did not confer grace, yet it would still be a sacrament by the opinion of the same canonists; and so it would not be lawful to give or take money for that sacrament; for nothing sacred can lawfully be sold or bought.
To the reason of Durandus, which is certainly unworthy of so great a theologian, I answer: the sacrament of Matrimony confers grace which can be called both first and second. For although this sacrament is not principally instituted to remit sins, yet it can remit them in the way in which they are remitted by the sacraments of the Eucharist, Confirmation and Order; and if this happens, it will be first grace; but if not, it will be second.
Nor does it stand in the way that continence is more excellent than Matrimony: for it is one thing to compare a state with a state, another a state with a sacrament. The state of continence is higher than the state of Matrimony, and of greater grace and merit: “He that marrieth doth well; he that marrieth not doth better,” 1 Corinthians 7. Yet a sacrament will always increase grace, in whatever state it is received. Wherefore a continent person, while he contracts Matrimony, grows in grace; but if the same continent person had despised human marriage for God's sake, he would have found more grace with God than is that which is given through the sacrament of Matrimony.
The thirteenth argument, which is the fourth of Durandus: “In the other sacraments the ordinance of the Church can have the force of a precept, but is never of the necessity of the sacrament, because the Church cannot change the essentials of the sacraments. But in Matrimony the ordinance of the Church is of the necessity of the sacrament, as is plain: because when the Church forbids marriages in a certain degree of consanguinity, the sacrament is not completed between those persons, even if those persons in fact try to contract Matrimony. Therefore Matrimony is not a sacrament univocally with the other six.”
I answer: the consequence of this argument is bad, and the major proposition false. For the cause why the ordinance of the Church is of the necessity of the sacrament of Matrimony is not that the Church can change the essentials of this sacrament, but that she can change the foundation prerequisite to this sacrament. For the matter of this sacrament is not the joining of any man and woman whatever, but the joining of lawful persons; otherwise there could be a sacrament of Matrimony even between father and daughter, or between son and mother. But which are lawful persons Christ did not define; but, a human contract between lawful persons being presupposed, he raised that joining to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church therefore determines which are to be held lawful persons, and in that way prepares the matter and foundation for the sacrament of Matrimony; but she in no way changes, or can change, the essentials of Matrimony.
It is similar in the other sacraments. For since the matter of the Eucharist is bread and wine, no one can make bread and wine, while they are such, not to be the matter of the Eucharist; nor, on the contrary, that what is not bread or wine, while it is not such, be the matter of the Eucharist; but men can well bring it about that wine is changed into vinegar, and thereby ceases to be the matter of the sacrament; and on the contrary, that grape juice begins to be wine, and in that way becomes the matter of the sacrament. So, then, the Church cannot make lawful persons not to be the matter of the sacrament of Matrimony while they are lawful, nor unlawful persons to be the matter while they are not lawful; but she can by her decree and ordinance make unlawful persons of lawful ones, and the contrary. See St. Thomas on book 4, distinction 34, question 1, article 1, to the fifth.
Moreover, it does not seem to be true, what Durandus laid down in the major proposition, that it is proper to Matrimony that in it the ordinance of the Church be of the necessity of the sacrament. For in the sacrament of Penance and of Confirmation we see the same. For when the Church sets some priest over a certain parish or diocese, if he undertakes to administer the sacrament of Penance to men not subject to him, he not only sins, because he acts against the precept of the Church, but also the absolution is void. And if the supreme pontiff commits to a simple presbyter that he confer the sacrament of Confirmation somewhere, that sacrament will be true and valid. But if a simple priest does this without the command or faculty of the pontiff, the sacrament will not be true, and he himself will sin.
The fourteenth argument, which is the fifth of Durandus: “Without Baptism no one is capable of a sacrament properly so called; but a man is capable of Matrimony before Baptism; therefore Matrimony is not a sacrament properly so called. The minor proposition is proved: for Matrimony is as true and lawful between unbelievers before Baptism as between the faithful after Baptism. Nor does it stand in the way that after Baptism it is called ratified, which before Baptism it was not called; for it is indeed called ratified, but it is no more a sacrament than before, since no change has been made.”
Some answer, as Peter Paludanus and John Capreolus on book 4, distinction 26, the only question, article 3, to the fifth, and John Eck, homily 73 on the sacraments, that those married persons who are converted to the faith must after Baptism contract Matrimony again between themselves, and that only then does that contract become a sacrament. But others, as Thomas of Strasbourg on book 4, distinction 39, question 1, article 1, to the first, and Paludanus in the place cited, say that without a new contract the Matrimony which before Baptism was not a sacrament is at once after Baptism a sacrament, because it now signifies in act what before it signified only in potency.
But however this may be, the common opinion of the theologians on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 39, is that the Matrimony of unbelievers can be true and lawful, but not ratified, nor altogether insoluble; but if both spouses are converted to the faith and baptized, their Matrimony becomes ratified and altogether insoluble, and so a sacrament. For the Matrimony of unbelievers is not ratified for this reason, that it is not a sacrament, as St. Thomas teaches in the second writing on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 39. For complete insolubility is the effect of the sacrament. Whether, then, the married persons contract again after Baptism, or persist in the old contract, that mutual consent, expressed by some sign, or at least by union itself, makes the sacrament of marriage in those who have now been made capable of the sacraments through Baptism.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
C.\PUT V.
Solvunlur argumenta advcrsariorum.
Sed jam adversariorum argnmenla dilnamus.
Priinnm arguinenliun cst Liitheri in lib. de caplivil.
babylon. cap de Malrimonio, el Calvini lih. 4. In-
stitut. cap. 19. §. 'M. Nusquam lcf/ilur, aliquid
ciraiiae Dei acccpturum, quisquis uxorum duxe-
rit\ quin nec siijnum divinilus esi, institutum in
Matrimonium. Accedil praelerea, quod eliamsi
signum essc possit conjuqium humanum, con-
junclionis Ciirisli cum, Ecclesia. non tamen in-
de sacrameniunialiquod collvji polest.Nam eliam
coeli, qui enarrani gloriam Dei, significant apo-
stolos, et soi Christum designal, et stella a stella
differens in claritatc, signum est apostolo resur-
reclionis mortuoruin: denique in evangelio plu-
rima signa regni coelorum in paraboiis Domini
invcniunlur; significatur cnimregnum coelorum
per semen. per granam sinapis, per fermenlwin
eic. et tamen nnlla colliguniur ex tol signis sa-
cramenla proprie dicla.
Kespondeo Primo: Falsnm Lulherus assumit, ut
snpra ex Scripluris el Palribus demonstravi.Secun-
do, non est argumenlum solidum ab auclorilale
negativa sacrae Scripturae, cumsatis jam calliolici
probaverinl niulta esse Iradita ab apostolis, quae
non sunl lileris sacris mandala.
Addo, quod Pliilippus in apologia confessionis
aiiguslanae, arl. 13. el Reranitius in 2.par. exami-
nis, pag. 1219. agnoverunl, hoc Lulheri argumen-
lum nihil valere.El ideo admisit Philippus, habe-
re 31alrimonium promissionem aliquam gratiae ;
Remnilius autem el signum externum . et graUae
promissionem admisii, licet aliunde nolint Malri-
inonium esse sacramenlum proprie dictum.
Ad illam confirmalionem, dico: Non ex quolibet
signo sacramcnlum colligi, sed lanlum ex signo a
Deo inslitulo, etcui sitannexa gratia. Quae omnia
invcniuntur in Malrimonio; esl enim signum con-
junctionis Chrisli ciim Ecciesia,ad hoc plane insli-
lulum, ut oslendimus ex insolubililale ejus ; et
praelerea habet annexam graliam, ut anlea docui-
mus. At illa signa. quae Lulherus el Calvinns pro-
fcrunl, neque graliam annexam habent, nec sunt
Lllilii; 1'H1MUS
i83
propri(> a Deo insliliii:K noii (Miim Deus cronvit coo-
los, ul .iposloios significarenl. sod ex niiturali eo-
riiin proprietiite ducit Scriplura similiUi(iinein, ail
oiricinm aposlolonini explicandiim. Et idem de o-
innibns aliis similihus inlclliijfendum csl.
Secundum argumcnlum Lulheri; Matrimonium
fuil ab inilio mundi, cl adlmc pcrniancL cliam
apud infideles: nec mimis verum cl sanclum esi
apudillos. quam apud ?ios, ct conlra inveniun-
lur apud fidcles impii conjuges. quibusvis gcn-
tibus pejorcs. At apud infideles Iflatrimonium
non est sacramenlunv.Ergo ncc apud fideles: vcl
si esl apud eos sacramenlum; Ergo non cst sa-
cramcntum novae lcgis proprium. Idem argu-
rnentum hiciuniPhilippus cllvcniniliiis loco nolato.
Hespondeo: Non desunt catholici, qui admillant,
Matrimoninm non esse sacramentum proprium no-
vae legis, sed luisse in lege veteri, etiamsi apud
Judaeos, ct a Chrislo non tani institutum, quam
(•.onlirmalum. Ita enim docel Alphonsus a Caslro
libro 11. conlra haereses, verbo Nuptiae, hacresi
3. et Petrus a Solo. lect. 2. de Malrimonio, el alii
quidam, quorum raliones sunt praccipue Ircs. Pri-
nia, quia Apostolus ad Ephes. 5. de conjugio Ada-
ini el Evae dicii: Sacramentum lioc magnum cst
ctc. Secunda, quia Genes. 1. Dcus bcnedixil con-
jiigio Adami ct iwae; ex qno videliir graliam signo
aiJjunxisse. Tcrlia, quia Leo epist. 1)2. ad llusti-
cum. dicil, noptias ah inilio sic inslitulas,ul habe-
renl in se Christi etEccIcsiae sacramenlum.
Scd profeclo non video quemadmodum id tulo
defendi possit. Nam concilium florenlinum, nurae-
rat Hlatrimonium inter sacramenta novae legis, ct
(Jislinguit sacramenta legisvelerisa sacramenlis le-
gis novae, quod illa non conferrenl gratiam, isla
eonfcrant graliam. Et concilium tridcnl. scss. "l't.
can. 1. diseriis vcrbis tradil, sacramenlum Malri-
monii a Chrislo in nova lege iuslilulum: el in ipso
decreto, quod caiiones antccedit, concilium docct,
3LUrimonia Christianorum, gratia praeslare connu-
biis velcium.
Ouae etiam scntenlia fuit velerum Iheologorum:
nam s. Thomas in 4. dist. 2G. (juaest. 2. ariic. 2.
et li. scrihil Malrinioniiim inslitulum fuisse in oiri-
cium naturac, in slalu iniio(;cnliae, dcinde iii stalu
nalurae curiuplat;. fuisse illi additum . ut cssct in
rcmcMlium; ct laiidcm in Icge nova. a Clirislo insli-
lulum luissc sacramciilum. S. etiam iJonavcntura
in 4. dist. 20. arlic. 2. (|uacsl. 2. docet: Malrinio-
nium in lcge nova lanliim haberc annexam vciam
graliam. Ex (luo inhdligimus eundcm auclorcm,
cum suprii as^ciuit. siicramcnlum fiiissc Miilrimo-
ninm in sliitu iiinocentiae, non essc Uxpiulum dc
Kiicriimcnlo. qnale nunc csl. Scoliis priuilerca ea-
dem distinct. 2(). (iijacst. uiiica, conclusion<; 4. a-
perlissimis vcrbis docci, MiilriiTioninm iion fuisso
sacramentnm anie Chrisli iidvcntum, sed nunc dc-
mum in lcgc novii ii Christo instiliiliim.Ouod id(!m
cx rccenlioribus doc(Mil, Huardus in cxplicaliune
art. 18. Loviini(Misium. ct Doiiiiiiicus a Solo, in 4.
disl. 20. qnaesl. 2. arl. 2. ct iilii permulli.
El Dcniqiic acccdit niiiiiih:sl;' riilio. iNam si Mii-
Inmoiiium siicriimciiliim fuis.^cl iinh; Chrisli iidvcii-
tum, vcl fuibsct instilulum in slalu innoccntiuu, vcl
postea: non in slalu innocentiac, quia tunc nulla
luit necessitas gratiae sacriimentalis , cum nulla
esset concupiscenlia vel dillicultas ; neque ullo
remedio conlra peccaluin opus essel. In statu aii-
tiMU iiiilurae corruplae, non lcgilur ulla inslilulio
Malrimonii facla, in loto vclcVi Tcslamcnlo, sed
tantum rcstriclio quaedam, quoad personas conlra-
henies, Levit. 18.
Praetcrca in Testamenlo veleri, permissione Dei
licita eranl polygamia el repudium; quae duo pu-
gnant cum riilione signi, el ideo tunc ne signum
quidem erat 31alrimonium, iicque cral eo leropore
gralia lam neccssaria in Matrimonio. quam noslro
tempore esl: cum facilc potuerinl homines illius
temporis, vel multiludine uxorum , vcl libello re-
pudii occurrere illis dilTicuItalibus, ob quas nostro
tempore gratiam reqiiiri docuimus. El quamvis eo
teinpore lenerenlur llcbraei inslituere lilios in fide
el religione Dei: tamcn hic finis eral exlrinsecus
Matrimonio ilIorum,intrinsecus aulem est Matrimo-
nio Christianorum. De qua re vide Ruardum loco
nolalo.
Neque Iria illa argumenla convincuiit. Nara ad
Primum jam ante rcspondimus, Apostolum Paulum
00 loco nomen sacramenti non tribuere conjugio
primorum parentum, sed nuptiis fidelium. Dcinde
eliamsi conjiigiura Adami ctEvae signilicasset con-
junctionem Christi et Ecclesiae. ut revera per mo-
dum figurae signillcavil: tamen non poluil dici sa-
cramentum proprie diclum, qualia sunl noslra sa-
cramenta, quia defuit illi promissio gratiae.
Ad Secundum respondeo: Benediclionem iilani
fuisse corporalera.non spiriluahMn: inde enim foe-
ciiiidilas corporibiis , non auxilium graliae spiriti-
hiis altribula cst.Quod recte probat Augustinus lib.
13. confessionum. cap. 24. ex eo, quod eadem be-
ncdictio dala lcgilur piscibus et avibiis.
Ad Terlium dico s. Leonem non dixisse , ab ini-
tio mundi nuptias habuisse Christi el Ecclcsiae
sacramentum; sed ab inilio siiae inslitutionis:quod
recle inlelligi polcst denova instilutionc pcr Chri-
slum. Deinde si Leo dixisscl, ab iiiilio mundi , id
ctiam csset verum, qiiia conjiigium primum, quod
Adami et Evac fuit: incnriialioncm Dominicam re-
pracscnlavit: scd non ideo coiijugium illud.et raul-
to rainus cactera.sacramcuta proprie dicta fucrunt.
Ilis explicalis, ad argumenlum Respondeo: Ma-
Irimonium fuisse ab inilio mundi , el niinc eliam
csse apud infideles, ut contraclum civilcm , cl in
oflicium nalurae: sed non fuissc, nec csse veruin
sacramcnlum, nisi apud Chri^tianos.ut Auguslinus
discrlis vcrbis doccl, lib. dc fidc, ct opcril)US.c.7.
ct dc bono coniugali, ciip. 24. Qiiare falsum csl ,
qiiod Luthcriis iissumil, Malrimunium essc aeque
sanclum ii|)ud inlidclcs ct liihlcs: nam Auguslhius
Idcis noiiilis. aperlissimo scrihii, Miitrimoniis infi-
dcliiim dcesse sacramcnli sanclitalcm, quac Malri-
inoniis fidcliiim minime decst.
Ad illiid.quod addcbiit Lulhcrus conjuges impios
cl oniiiibusg(M\lilihusp(!Jorcs invcniri apud lidcles;
Hcspondco: Non pollui sacriimcnli sanclilahMii pcr
mnlos morcs coriim. qui siicramcnlii pcrcipiunl ,
iiiiiii alioipii (;tiiiiii Hiqilsinniii cl Eiichiirisliani sa-
cramcnta csbc ncgarcmui): multi cnini, qui isla sa-
;8V
UE SACUAMI-NTO MATUIMd.M
rraiuoiUa percipiunl, s;iepciiuiiicro ipsis ellinicis
sunl pfjnros. Aildo, (|iiod si iipud lideles iilicpii
sunl conjuires impii.iiiulli liinien pii ct s;meli sunl:
.ipud genles uuleni oiiines sunl iiiipii, iiuUus saii-
elus.
Terliuiii ar<iunuMUuiu esl OMlviui, Iil).i. cap. 11).
§ 34. yon Mids es/, Malvimoninm esse a Deo, nl
sacramcnliun censcri yossil; nam cdam agricul-
tura cl ars suloria cst a Dco, ncc tamcn est sa-
cramcntum: scd rcquirilur , ut sit cncremonia
extcrior a Dco posila, ad conlirmandam promis-
sioneni.yihil tale esse in }lalrinionio, pueri quo-
<iuc judicabunt.
liespondeo: De proposilione liujus arfjumeiiti
mulla dispulavimus, in primo lib. de saeramcnlis
iii i^enere, ubi oslendimus, sacramcnlum noii csse
inslilulum ;id eonlirinaiidam promissioncm, sed ad
sijT|iiii(and;im el eonferembim giali;mi. Sed eli;iin
si proposilio essel vera, niliil concluderel ariiii-
menlum. quia falsa esl assumptio.Ipsa eiiim exfer-
na el visibilis conjunclio viri el l'oemiii;ie , quae
[ler solemnia verba coram Ecdesia ficri solct, cac-
remonia exlerna est, alque a Deo inslilula:el ex ea
coiilirmari polcsi promissio illa divina , quod Ec-
clcsiam suam Cbrislus num(|uam omnino sildcser-
iurus,id enim per .Malrimonium signi(icari,ex Pau-
lo demonsliMvimus ad Eplics. 5.
INeque ubslat, quod conjunclio iJIa viri el focmi-
iiae, sil rcs naluralis cl usilal;i cliain apud elbni-
eos: nam res etiam nalurales si ad aliquid siiinifi-
candum rcferanlur.caercmoniae dici possuiil.Man-
duciire panem el liiberc vinum, res naturalis est,
el apud omnes bomines usilala; el tamen ipsi et-
iam Calvinistae in sua coena sancta, quam vocant,
cum panem manducant cl vinum bibunl , cacre-
moni;ini exlernam re exercere non male arbitran-
lur, quia manducant et bibunt, ut Chrisli inorlem
repraesentcnt; cl eodem modo tum nos, tum illi ,
cum baplizamus, aqua corpus abluimus, quod usi-
talum esivulgo apud omnes; ettamen sacram cae-
remoniam v.-re exereemus , quia ablutioncm illam
extern;im. iid inlernam ablutionem significandara
referiiiiiis.
Quarlum argumcntum est ejusdem Calvini ibi-
dcm § 30. et Kemnilii in 2. par. exam. pag. 1207.
Ponlilicii Matrimonium immundiliem, el pollu-
lioncni, el carnaics sordes appciiant: ergo secum
ipsi pufjnunt, cum Malrimonium sacramcnlum
essc volunt: ncque cnim sacramentum immun-
dilies. et poUutio, ac sordes dici polest. Anlece-
dens Calvinus non probat; nolat quidem ad mar-
jrinem loea quaedam magislri sentenliiirum ct Gra-
liani. sed in niillo corum locorum invenire polui
-iliquid. quod ad rem faceret. Remnitius aulem
probal ex epislolaSyricii papae ad Himerium lara-
concnsem. ubi verba illa: Qui in carnc ninl. Deo
■placere non possunl, ad eonjugium aceomodari
videntur: quasi ilii in carne sint, et Deo placcre
non possint, qui nuptiis eopulantur. Ibidem eliam
sacerdolibus nuptiae interdicuntur , ob ill;i verba
^criplurae. quae proprie ad sacerdotes perlinent:
Sancti estote, quoniam ego sanctus sum:e\, Mun-
tlamini, qui fertisvasa Domini. Atqne baec est
epislola, quam solet eitare Calvinus , (luando ca-
lliolieis objieit, ipiod Matriinoniiim iit pollntionem
rejiciaiil, ul videre est lib. 4. liislil. c.ip.l^. § 2i.
|{e-^ponil(>o iirimiim: Argomciihim lioc l(»liiin
iiieiid;icio el c;diiiiiiii;i nili; iiiis(iii;iiii eiiim catlioli-
ci legiliinuni M;ilrimonium , pollulioiKMn aut im-
muiKiiliein voe;inl. Syricius enini aiiti(pii.ssimus,
el Siipientissimus ponlifex, iion conjugia daninat ,
sed saerilegia, qiiae lalso a Liilli(;rauis coiijugia
nomiiKiiiltir. Hi^prebendil ciiim c. 0. et 7. Mdna-
clios el s;icei(l(»l('s, qui illicids nupliis implicari
vohibiint, quibus e\ a|)oslolica doctrina conjugia
interdicta esse noscuntur ; ae de bis dicil: Qui in
carnf: sunt, Dco placere non possunt. Sacerdotes
eiiim incarne esse, i(lest,ciirn;llilcr vivcre convin-
cunlur, cum ad conjugiii sibi iiUerdicta aspiriint.
Ciipile autem 5, iibi nomen pollulionis liabetur ,
reprelKMidil eos. (lui post iictiim Pocnilcnliam, iid
prislinas sordes red^nint. Neiiio aulcm agil Poeni-
lentiam, quod legilime nupseril , vcl uxorem (iii-
xeril: quiire id seqiiilur, utillicitum aliquod Miilri-
inoninm reprelieiideril.
Adde: Quod si in aclu Matrimonii lurpiludincm
el immundiliem aliquam esse dicerenms ratione
concupiscenliiie ct rebellionis membrorum , niliil
diceremus divinis lileris repiignans. Nam 1. Ile-
giim 21. inlerrogavit sacerdos a Davidc , pelenle
panes proposiiionis: Si mundi sunl pueri, niaxi-
me a mulicrilnis?El respondit David: El quidcm
si dc mu.iicrihus (iqiiur, co nlimdmus nos al) lieri
el nudiuatertius. Ex quo loco recle probal s. Ilie-
ronymus lib. 1. in .Tovinian. aclum earnalem etiam
in conjugalis, iiniiiunditiem dici posse. El Apoc.
14. Hi su7ii. qui cum muiicribus non su7U coin-
quinali; virgines enini sunt; quo loco coinquina-
lio voealur omiiis aclus, quo perit virginilas: per
Malrimonium autcm virginilatem perire,negari non
polesi.
Denique: Si nibil turpe in aclu conjugii esl, cur
bomines crnbeseunl.neque coram aliis eum acluin
exercere audenl? ct cur Levit. 18. et 20. perpeluo
inslrnmcnta (^jus actus, lurpitudinis vocabulo ap-
pellanlur?0uare proplcr liujusmodi inquiniilioncm,
de qna loquilur Apocalypsis; el imioundiliein, de
qua Abimelecb iii libris Uegum;et turpiludinem ,
dc qua Moyses in Levitico: recte dici potest sacer-
dotibus: Mundamini qui feriis vasa Domini.
Praelcrea 1. Corinlli. 7.Aposloliis virgincm eon-
ferens cum conjugala, dicil: Yirgo cogiiat quae
Dominisunt, quomodo placcai Deo, ui sii sancta
corpore et spiritu. Placet igitur Virgo Deo aliquo
modo, quo non placel conjugata; etsancta est vir-
go corpore et spirilu, aliquo modo quo sancta non
est conjugata: qunmobrcm non raale dici posset
de coniugalis:()wi in carnc suni.Deo placere non
7)0.ss?m«:idest,qui carnalibus curis ob nuplias sunt
implicali. cogilanfqnae miindi sunl,quomodo pla-
ceant uxori, el ideo Deo placere non possunl eo
gradu. quo placerc polesl virgo. El ad cundcm
modum sacerdoli ob coelibatum recte accommo-
dalur illnd: Sancti estotc, nimirum corpore et spi-
rilu. quo modo conjugali sancti esse non possunt,
licet ipsi etiam suo modo sancti sinl.
Ouinlum argumenlum est eorundem Calvini, et
Kemnitii in locis uiidaw: Si Matrimonium esset
LIIJER PRIMUS
n's
sacramenliun, cer(e non pugnarelcum aJiifi sa-
cramenlLS. At Ponlificii docenl, non posse Ordi-
'liis sacramentum cnm Matrimonio simul consi-
stere; igitur vel Matrimonium non est sacramcn-
ium. vel ipsi secum Pontificii pugnant.
Respondeo: IVon .-ircenlLii- sacerdoles a Malrinno-
iiio propler sacramenlum,quod in Malrimonio est,
sed propler impedimenla elsaeculares curas.quae
necessario Malrimonium consequunlur. Siquidem
qui uxores duxerunl, et ex consensu niuluo conli-
nenliam perpctuam profilenlur , sacris Ordinibus
iniliari possunl, el tamen simul et veri conjuges
(nec enim per volum conlincnliae vinculum solvi-
tur, aul sacramentum peril) el sacerdoles sunl ,
quare non pugnanl sacramenta inter se. Esse au-
lem in Malrimonio, quando liberis opera datur ,
mulla, quae aniiiium a rcbus divinis neccssario a-
Yocenl, Apostolus docet 1. Corinth. 7. Qui cum
uxore est, sollicitus esl quae sunt mundi,quomo-
do j)laceat uxori, el divisus est: et ibidem horla-
lur conjuges , saltem ad tempus ex consensu ab
aclu conjugii se abslineant, ut vacent oralioni.Ila-
que non propter sacramenti sanclitatcm , sed pro-
pter cjusmodi impediraenta sacerdotibus Matrimo-
nium interdicitur.
Sed conlra solutionem, Calvinus aliud argumen-
lum profert. Est igllur sexlum argumentum: Coi-
iJts pars sacramenti est,nec sine eo Matrimonium
sacramentum est, ut habel Magisler lib. 4. sen-
lentiarum, dist. 26. et Gratianus 27. quaest. 2.
canon. i\'on est dubiuin, ct canon. Cum societas:
nam per eum figuratur conjunclio Ckristi cu '.
Ecclesia, per naturae conformitatem, dum scili-
cet efficiuntur conjuges una caro. Ergo si a sa-
cramento non arcentur sacerdoles, non solum a
vinculo, sed nec ab ipso coitu debenl arceri: aut
certe quod unum superesl, Matrimonium sacra-
mentum non erit.
Addil ad idcm comprobandum Calvinus lioc acu-
tissimum, scilicet. argumenlum: In sacramento ,
inquit.co?i/err?; gratiam Spiritus sancti affirmant:
coitum tradunt essesacramentunv.incoitu negant
imquam Spiritum sanctum adesse. Quam ulii-
mani proposilionem ex Graliano probat, canon.
Connubia, ^l. qiiaest. 2.
RespondfH): De copula conjugali iluac sunt opi-
niones calholicorum. Quidam enim docenl, copu-
lum illam neque sacramentum, neque pnrlem sa-
cramenti esse; sed aclum solum, sive unicium Ma-
Iriinonii. Alii volunt.copulam coniiigaiem esse par-
lem (juandam sacramenti , non quidem essentia-
lem, sed intcgralem, el idco anle copulam appel-
lari ratum, sed non consummalum.
Omnes tamen in en conveniunl , "quod copula
non sil pars cssenlialis;et propterca sacramenlum
Matrimonii totiim ac pleniim quantuni ad partes
essenliales, invenialur in conlractu per verba de
praescnti:quae sententia cst eliam veterum Patrum,
iil ex aperlissimis eorum lestimoniis perspicuum
cst.
Ambrosius lib. de inslilut. virgin. cap. G. Non
de flor atio, \n(]ml, virginitalis , facit conjugium,
scdpactio conjugalis. Vide cundem lib. 2. in Lu-
cam, cap. 2. Idcm habcl Auguslinus lib. 1. dc nu-
pliis, el concup. cap. \\. el lib. 2. de consensu
evangelistaruin, cap. 1. ubi docel, inler b. Virgi-
nem Mariam, et s. Joseph, verum conjugium sinc
ulia carnali copula fuissc. Ad idem proposilum a-
lia quaedam adducit ex Chrysostomo, Isidoro, Ni-
colao papa et aliis, Gralian. 27. (piaesl. 2.
Ubi tamen observandum esl, in eadem quaestio-
ne alligari in contrariam sentenliam Auguslinum
et Leonem, can. Non esl dubium, cl canon. Cum
societas. Sed uterque locus sumplus esl ex epist.
Leonis92. ad Ruslicum Narbonensem el depravate
allegatur. Nam illa verba Leonis: Cum societas
nupliarum sic ab initio constituta sit, ul praeter
sexuum commixtionem haberet in se Chrisli et
Ecclesiae sacramentum. Gralianus addila negatio-
ne,ila \eg,\[:Cum societas nuptiarum sic ab inilio
constituta sit, ut praeter sexuuni conimixlionem
non haberel inse Christi et Ecclesiae sacramen-
tuni, sed emendandus est Gratiani codex ex ipsa
Leonis epist. Eodem modo emendandus esl textus
magistrl lib. 4. disl. 26. ubi eadem loca, cum ea-
dem depravatione habentur.
Esse aulem veriorem lectioncm, quae caret ne-
galione, patel: tum quia ila habenl omnes codices
s. Leonis , lum etiam quia illa negatio repugnat
senlenliae s. Leonis.Ille enim docere inlendit.con-
cubinam non esse verum uxorem: ut autem hoc
probet, non csl opus, ut oslendat ad Malrimonium
requiri coinmixtionem sexuum; illa enim commix-
tio in concubinatu non deesl: sed oslendere debet,
quod etiam facit, Malrimonium non lam in copula
carnali consislere.qiiam in foedere nuptiali, in quo
esl sacramenlum Christi et Ecclesiac.
Ilis praemissis, ad argumentum Calvini Kespon-
dco: Duo falsa ab ipso afTirmari. Primo, coitum
sacramenlum esse, vel lalem sacramcnti partem,
ut sine eo sacramentum esse non possit: id enim
lalsum esse, testanlur supra cit;Ui Palrcs. Neque
obstat, quod per copulam significetur conjunclio
Christi cum Ecclesia, per naturae conformilatem:
nam non illa sola significalio sacramentum facit,
sed etiam significatio conjunctionis Chrisli cum
Ecclesia, vel cum quavis animo, pcr amorcm spi-
rilualem.Quocirca si dcsit copula.significatio quae-
dam deerit: non tamen omnis significatio, ct ideo
conjiigium illud sacraracnlum quidcm erit, scd
aliqua ex parte imperfeclum , el non consumma-
lurn.
Ad i!l;i loca Magislri et Graliani, quae Calvinus
alifgat, jarn est responsum , loca esso corrupla :
unde eliam Magisicr cl Gratianus laboraiit in co-
riim explicalione. Scd nulla cst dillicuUas, si l-eo-
nis epist. consulatiir.
Secundo falsoCalvinus assumit: Saccrdotcm non
arceri a sacramento Malrimonii , ex calholicorum
dnctoriim senlentia, sed solum a coilu. Arcentur
enim plane sacerdotes nnn a coilu tnntum, sed ct-
iam a sacramento Malrimonii; non qiiidcm ralionc
sn(;rainenli. iil supra dixiiniis. scd ralioni* eoriim ,
quae sacramento annoxa sunl.Nc^pie cst ahsuniuni,
(!0s, qiii iiniiin sacramcnliiin hahent , arceri ab a-
lio, licet ulrumqiic sanclum el Deo gratum sit,
quando unius minislcrium alterius fiinclionem im-
pcdit. Nam cl aposloli Actor. (». rejeccrunl a sc
7s,;
DKSACKAiMIi.MU .M.\ lUI.MOMI
iiiuiius niinislruncJi iiitMi.sis, ul verbo Dci, el orii-
lioni (lilijjciilius inslare posseiil: el liiinen ulrmii-
<|ue opus puiin ct cli;iril;ilis enil. El I. Tiinolli. 3.
reprelieiuluiihir vi(lu;i(\ (]uiie ;ul niinisliM-iiiiii Fc-
(•lcsi;ie iissumpUie. iuib(>re volcbiiiil: (]ui;i iiimirum
iion Incile poleninl nupliis simul el minislerio Ec-
o!esi;ie s;Uisr;u'erc.
Ad conlirmalionem Respondeo: In en quoque
duoesse vilin. Primum (;sl, in illa projiosiliuiie :
Coiluni Iradunt sacrnmcntum csse , niillus enini
falliolicorum. quod sciam, lioc tradil;sed iil anlea
docui, aliqui id simpliciler neg;inl , aliqui solum
admillunt esse parlem quandam integianlem sa-
cr;imonli.
E.v qua sentenlia non scquitur , quod Oalvinus
sequi existimal. in coilu debere ordinarie s;icra-
menlalcm gratiam dari: gralia siquidcm e.x callio-
licorum sentenlia tuiic daUir. ciim conjuges per
verba de praesciili .Malrimonium conlraiiunl; lunc
eiiim sacramenlum. quod alliucl ad ejus esscn-
liam, propric miiiislr;ilur.
Ailerum vitium est in illa proposilione: Jn coUu
negant unquam Spiritam sanclum adesse , ii;im
In primis vcrba illa aOraiiano relala.Origcnis sunt,
lioiuil. ('). iii .>'iimor.Origenes aulem non esl tanlac
;iuclorilalis in Kcclcsia, ut ejus senlcnlia necessa-
rio approbanda sil.
Ueinde eo loco Origenes nihil nnirmat; ait enim
discrtis vcrbis: Ego autcm, Ucet non usquequa-
que pronuncicm. puto lamcn etc.
Praelerea verba illa Origenis, quibus doccl, in
opere conjugali non d;jri, sive non adesse prae-
senliam Spirilus sancli , non signiGcanl nulio mo-
do adesse, sed non adesse ad eum aclum efficien-
dum, speciali aliquo auxilio. Id enim Origcnes do-
cel. non omnia sanclorum opera fieri a Spiritu
sanclo. Quaedam enim sunl aliquando mala opera,
quae ctiam a sanctis fiunl.et ea non fiunl a Spirilu
sancto; quaedam sunl bona. scd naluralia, el ideo
non e.xigunl peculiarem Spirilus sancti auxilio. Et
in hoc generc ponit Origenes conjugale opus, ncc
male c.xislimat, ad opus hoc naturam suniccre, ne-
que esse necessarium,ncque decere illud tribucre
Spirilui sancto. Cum hoc aulem Origcnis prouun-
ciato recte cohaeret, per actum conjugalem posse
acquiri gratiam Spiriius sancli, quando aclus iste
esl actiis justitiae, vel obedienliac, vel charilatis :
nam hnrum omiiium virlutum esse potest. Undc
s. Augustinus lib. 4. in Julian. cap. 5. dicil. bo-
num bealificum csse, quando quis ulitur conjugis
carnc uon ad libidinem explendam, scd ad sobo-
lem, ob Dei gloriam propagandam.Sed in laii ope-
re voluiUas illn, quae aclum conjugalem eligil ad
Dei gloriain, Dci sine dubio auxilio indigct; opus
nutcm ipsum conjugale exvolunlale illn scquilur
per naturalia inslrumenla , sine novo ac speciali
Dei auxilio, ut Origenes vo]eb;U.
Septimum argumentum Remnitii cstin2.par. e-
xaminis pag. 1220. Sacramentis proprie dictis
anncxa debet esse promissio gratiae non cujus-
cumque. sed reconcilialionis el remissionis pec-
calorum: talis jnomissio Matrimonio deest.
Respondeo:[Nititur argumenlum falso fundamen-
lo, quod omnia sacramenta sinl insliluta ad remis-
sionem pecc^iiorum: (piod riiiul.iiiuMiliiiu non so-
niel everliiiius, tum in 1. lib. de S;i( r;iiiieiUis iii
geiiero, luiu in 4. lib. de Eucharislia. Et sano e.v
i|)s;i Eiicli;irisli;i riiiidamenliim illud solidissime e-
vorliliir. Euch;irisli;im (^nim sacr;imonlum esse
projirie diclum, omnes coiicodunt , el e;iin tnmeii
non nd peccala remiileiula, sed nd vilam spirilun-
lem per b^ipti^^miim ncquisilam, aloiidnin el coii-
serv;iiulnm, iiistiliiliim (!sse. specics i|)sne sacrn-
meiUi lest;iiUur: idoo eiiim in sjiecie |)anis el viiii
lidc siujramcnlum d;iliir. iil iri oo nobis cibiim dnri
;id viliim sustoiil;iiuliim iiUellignmus.
Oclnvuni nrgumeiilum eiusdoiii. sumilur cx mn-
teria el lormn liujiis sncramenti : de qua rc disse-
reinus in seqiuuUi oonlroviirsia.
Nonum arguineiitum Ivomnilii sumilur cx co ,
quod sancti Palres antiqui el velcrn concilia, aiUc
couslaiitiense et norentinum, iu)a IradideruiU Ma-
trimoniuin esse sacramentuin;et exdocloribus Du-
rniidus cum iis, quos ipse cilnt , aperte neg;it Ma-
Irimoiiium csse sacrnmenlum proprie dictum,sive
uiiivoce cum aliis. Ex quibus , mendacii iirguere
conalur tridenlini concilii verba, quue ad inilium
sess. 24. ila hnbent: Malrimoniuni inter novae
legis sacramenta adnumerandam sancti Patres
nostri. concilia et universalis Ecclesiae Iraditio
semper docuerunt.
Kespondeo:Ut vera sit concilii sentcnlia non cst
necesse, ut omnes Pntres, et omnin coiicilin diser-
lis vcrbis habeant.iMntrimonium esse sacramiuUuiii:
sed satis esl, si aliqui Patres, el aliqu;i concili;i id
hnbeant, et nulli Pntres, nullaque conciIi;i coiUr;i-
rium iiliquando docucrint: vel si quis lorle conlra-
rium senserit, ejus o|)inio communi judicio repro-
bata fuisse monslrctur.
Porro Patres nonnullos Malrimonium pro sncrii-
menlo habuisse, suprn nos eorum locis iillegniis
docuimus; ad RemiUtium perlinebnl , aliquos pro-
ferre, qui conlrarium senseriiU ; quod tiimen nec
fecil. nec fncere potuil.
Concilia vetera id explicarunt, quod suis tcmpo-
ribus in controversiam vocabatur; Malrimonium
videlicet a Deo instilutura, remque sanclam ct Lo-
iinm esse.Utrum autem sacramentum essel proprie
dictum, non fuil caussn cur Irnctnrent, cuin iieino
de illn re lunc ambigeret; concilin tamen posterio-
rn, ciiussa id postiilanle, declararunt quod a vetc-
ribus omissum luerat.
Quod ad Durandura attinet, scripserat ille initio
(ut Cnpreolus refert in 4. disl. 26. qu. unica art.
.3.) Matriraonium non esse proprie sncramentum.
Sed quia propterea malc apud cntholicos audiebal;
in posteriori edilione id correxit, at(]uc nit, esse
mnlrimoniura vere et proprie sacramenlum, sed
non univocc; atque istarn quaeslionem de univoca-
lione, logicam esse dixil, ut nimirum non videre-
tur ab aliis,nisi in qunestione logica dissentii-e.Sed
quamquam ille non salis isto colore texil erroreni
suiim. videmus tamen etiam anle constnntiense et
florentinum conciliura, pro haei-elicis, vel de hae-
resi suspectis habitos, qui Malrirnonium e numero
sacramenlorum eximerenl. Quid iiuteni virium ha-
beanl argumenta Durnndi, nunc vidcbimus.
Sit igiiur decimum argumeiitum, (juud esl pri-
lAmi PHIMLS
787
iiiiiin iipiul DiirnniJuiii: /ri sacrameniis caeteris ,
id quod exferius arjilur, excedit dictamen raiio-
nis naturalis, ncc potesl reddi sufficiens caussa
illius. nisipcr iumen Jidei. At quod exterius a-
gilur in i^hilrimonio, naturalem caussam habet;
nonigitur sunt univoce sacramenta . Matrimo-
niwn et reliqua sex. Major proposilio probatur.
Nam si quis videat in Ecclesia puerum baptizari,
et ignorei ■mysteria nostrae fidei numquam red-
dere polerii caussam ejus ablutionis. Non enim
oblulio illa jit, ut puer refrigereiur, aul la,vetur
corporaliter. qui sunt naturales aquae effeclus ;
sed ut justilicelur apGccato originali, qui est ef-
fectus supernaluralis. et a sola Deivoluntatc de-
pcndens.Ei idcm dici potest de aliis quinque sa-
cramenlis, quae sunt omnia signa voluntaria a
Deo instituta.Probatur quoqueminor proposiiio.
Nam .llatrimonium fU ad significandam ct effi-
cicndam unionem insolubilem viri et mulieris :
id aulem naturaliter significant verba exprimen-
lia muluum consensum;et ideo si eihnicus videat
.flalrimonium celebrari, facile caussam reddel ,
cur id fiat. Ncque satisfaciet, si quis dixerit:Ma-
Irimonium esse sacramentum Chri^ti et Eccle-
siae,el hunc effe.clum non significari naturaliter,
nec posse cognosci ab ethnico. ISam significatio
sacramentorum principalis est ejus rei, quac per
sacramenlum efficitur: Sacramenta enim faciunt
quod significant.Matrimonium autem non efficit
unionem Christi cum Ecclesia, sedunionem ma-
sculi et foeminae; et ista unio dicitur ab Augu-
stino lib. de bono conjugali cap. 7. res sacra-
nienti.
Respontloo: Minor proposilio falsa esl. Nam iion
eslquaclibel unio viri el foeminae, res sacramenti
liujus. sed unio plane insolubilis. Eliamsi enim
eommuni consensu conjuges hoc vinculum Malri-
joonii consummali dirimere vellenl, aul a summa
polcslale ecclesiaslici),vel lemporali dirimi velienl;
iion lameii vinciiluiii solvi possel.Haiic autem lan-
tam unionem non significanl iiaiuraliler verba ilia
conjiiguiii, quaedicunliir in celebralione Malrimo-
iiii: Quem, imiuil Auguslinus loco nolalo, 7ion fa-
ciunl intentum.quid sibi velit tanta firmitas vin-
culi conjugalis? quod iiequaquam puto tantum
valcrc. potuisse. nisi alicAi.jus rei majoris cx hac
infirma mortalilaJe hominum, quoddam sacra-
mcntum adliiberctur etc.
Praelerea unio quam significal et eflicit sacra-
menlum Malrimonii.esl unio non solum corporum,
sed i;tiam animorum. iion qualiscumquc, sed per
veram el divinam cliarilalem, ul iixor jungalur vi-
ro, ul Ecclesia Chrislo: elviruxori, ut Chrislus
Kcclesii.e; [)roinde esl unio sacraiis el sanclificans
aniiiias. iiisi punalur obcx; quae omnia nec riaiu-
raliler significari. nec nisi liiminc fidci cognosci
possunl. Ouiire Miilriinoiiiiim chrisliaiium non mi-
nus ad placilum,el ex divina inslilulionc significal,
quam alia sacramenla.
Undecimum argumenlum, quod esl secundum
DnrnudwSucramento. caetera consistunt in aliqua
re saora.quae appiicatur extrinsecus suscipicnti
a minisiro.At Jiihil lale invenitur in Matrimonio;
non icjitur .Vatrimonium csl sacramenlum uni-
voce cum caeteris. Major propositio patel indu-
ctivc: Nam in Baptismo applicatur aqua , sive
ablutio; in Confirmatione unctio; in Eucharistia
panis consecratus; in confessione absolutio ctc.
Minor autem proposilio certissima cst. Nam in
Malrimonio nihil est quod applicari possil , vel
debeat: nam voluntas conjugum signo expressa
sufficit.Quod si quis respondcal,appUcari in hoc
sacramento signaipsa mutui conscnsus, non o-
mnino satisfaciet, nam numquam oslendet ap-
plicari eo modo ista signa, quo modo applican-
lur sacrame7ita caetera. Nam rdiqua applican-
tur necessario ab alio:nemo enim scipse baptizat
nemo se absoivit etc. at in Mairimunio ipsi con-
juges seipsos ligant. Praeterea aliii sacramcnta
non possunt conferri in absentes, iieque uni per
alium: nemo enim baptizat hominem absenlem,
nequcullus per procurnlorcm baptizalur.At Ma-
trimonium inter abscnles et per procuralorem
celebrari potest:non igitur univoce MatrimoniU7n
est sacramentum cum Uaptismo et caetcris sacra-
mentis.
Respondeo:Neganda esl hujus argumenli conse-
quentia; quia non esl de ralionc sacramenti in ge-
nere, ut consistat in aliqua re , quae exlrinsecus
applicetur, sed salis esl, ut sit signum el caussa
graliae juslificanlis.
El sane, si hoc argumentum valerel, facile pro-
baremns, nullum esse sacramenlum univoce cum
reliquis. Kullum enim est,quod non habeat aliquid
proprii, in quo ab omnibus aliis dislingualur : ul
exempli caussa, sacramenlum nullum praeler Ba-
plismum, habet pro maleriii verum el nalurale e-
lemenlum . Possemus igitur ila formare argumen-
tum; communeesl sacramentis , non habcrc pro
maleria verum et n;ilurale elemenlum;sed Baplis-
nius habel pio materia veruin el naluralc elemcn-
tum; non igitur Baplismus csl sacramenlum uni-
voce cum caeleris: Idcm argumenlum ficii possel
de Eucharislia; nam comiiiune esl sacriimenlis
caeleris, in aclionc consislerc ; sed Eucharislia
non in aclione, sed in rc pcrmaiiente consislil. I-
dem dici pobsel de aliis sacramenlis, ul Paludanus
et Capreolus fuse deducunl.
Si quis aulem rogcl, quae caussa sil, cur solum
Malrimonium non consistal in applicalione rei ali-
cujus exlrinsccae; respohsio in promplu esl. Deus
eiiim sacramenlii vario modo instituit; prout res e-
ranl variae,in quibus ea inslituil.Sacramenlum B.i-
ptismi in lotionc insliluil, ideo aquam adhiberi vn-
luil: Sacramcnlum Eucharistiac iii rcleclione, ideo
panem et vinuin elegil; sacramenlum Poenilenliae
in lormajudiciali^ideoverbis senlentiamprcnuncia-
ri maiid;ivil:el sic dc ciicleris.Malrimonium in con-
traclu quo(l;iin consliluil, et ideo morem contra-
cluuin servari voluil: in conlractibus autem nihil
exlrinsecus iip[)Iicalur. sed i|)si conlr;iliciilt's, inu-
lui conscnsus sigiiillcatione conlraclum rniciiinl.
Atijue hinc elnun reddilur causa, cur Malrimo-
iiiuin non egeal alio minislro praeler i^isos con-
Irahcnles, etcur inter absenles el per procuralo-
rem celebrari [lossil. Il;iec eiiim csl iialura coiilra-
ctus; ul ipsi sc conlrahcntcs ligcnt, nequc opus
habcanl lerlia persoiia ;i qua ligenlur: cl ul cum
7S^
UK SACnA.MKMO MAHaMO.Ml
ahsciilibiis cl per prociUMlorcm conlr;uMum race-
re, si velint. (hhmiiI. lii aliis auleiu sacriimenlis
isla lociimnon liahonl, (iuia ropnj^Mianl (>onim na-
Inrai". ol propnolali: iKupic cnim ralio admillil, nl
quis soipsnm regenercl, aul absens abscnlcm la-
YCl. anl niuis lavclnr jiro alio, cl sic de aliis.
Argnmcnlnm (InOilfcimum , (piod cst Durandi
lcrtium: Sacramcnluni Malrinwnii non confcrt
(jratiain; caetera confcrunl: non igitur cst Hla-
Irinioniuni !<acranicntuni univoce cuni rcUquis.
l'roposilionein majorem probal Dnrandns auclori-
lalc cl ralione. Auclorilas cst ali(]uot juris cano-
nici inlcrprclnm, ac i^raclerca magislri seiUenlia-
rnm in 4, lib. scntcnt. tlislinct. 2. Kalio esl du-
plcx. Ina, jurpconsultorum, quos ipse cilat. Alle-
ra. ipsius propria.
Jnrcconsulli probanl, sacramontnm Malrimonii
non confcrre graliam, qnia licile lit paclum dc 3Ia-
Irimonio contralicndo . si ccrta snmma pecuniac
iinmorclnr; quod illicitum videretur, si Malrimo-
niuin i;raliam conferr(!t. esl cnim simoniac crimen,
gratiam Dim pecnniis em(.'re velle.
Ipse vero Durandus lioc argnmcnto utilur: Ma-
triinoniuni non confcrt priniani (jratiam, qiiae
cst ipsa juslilicatio a pcccatis: neque secundam
gratiam, sivc gratiac incremcntum: nullamigi-
tur graliani confcrt. Et (]uidem quod i,'ratiam
primam non conleral. probal, qnia solus liaplis-
iiius et Poenilentia ad peocali remissionem insli-
lula sint. Qnod non sccnndam, probat, quia majo-
ris graliae csscl Malrimonium, qnam continentia;
si continens pcr 3Ialrimoninm in gralia divina au-
gcretur.
Respondeo: Quod altinet ad auctoritalem inler-
pretum jnris canonici . non multuin refcrl, quid
pauci quidara ex illis senserinl.lum quia communis
senlenlia in rubricam de sponsalibus et Jlatrimo-
niis. esl in conlrnrium. ut notavit Navarrus in en-
cliirid. cap. 19. Nuiner. 22.lum quia in his,quae ad
jus divinum perliiient. qualia sunt sacramenta.ma-
jor Odes habenda esl theologis, qui veri sunt juris
divini consulli, qu;)m canonislis, qui in solis hu-
nianis legibus versanlur.
.>'eque valet quidquam Durandi argumentatio ,
qui ex eo probat magnam esse canonistarum au-
cloritatem. quia ipsi probe norunl sententiam, et
fidom romanae Ecclesiae.Nam sententiam romanae
Ecclesiae norunt canonistae in iis, ad hurnanos
canones pcrtinenl. non iinlem in iis, quiie pondent
ex juro (livino: neque canonem uliuai in lolo cor-
pore juris invenient, ubi liabealur Matrimonii sa-
cramentum gratiam non coiiferre.
Quod autem ad magislri senlenliam attinel.oslen-
dil praeclare s. Thomas, locum illnm magisiri ox-
planans, nihil a magislro conlra coramunem Eccle-
siae sentenliam in eo loco dispulalum esse. Quod
enim ait magister : quaedam sacramenta inslituta
esse tum in remedium, tum ul graliam adjulricem
tribuerent, ul Baplismum; quaedam in remedium
tunlnm. ul Malrimonium; qnaedam ul graliam lan-
lum adjutricem darent,ul Eucharistiam: inlelligen-
dum est de principali iine et efTectu sacramento-
rum. Etsi enim omnia sacramenla gratiam gratum
facienlem conferant,et omnis gralia gratum faciens
vim habcat pcccata delcndi, ol anxilinm ad henp
vivcndum Iribual; lamen (|uaediiiii sacraincnla in-
slilul;i smil priiicip;iliUM' ad iiiviiiKlnm iii boiio. nt
Eucliiinsliii, Conliriiiiilio c.[ (irdo: (piaodiim ad pec-
cata delcndii anlvilanda; ut Puciiilenlia , Unctio
inliriiioruin el M;ilriinoninin: (piiiedam ad ulruui-
(pio elTeclnm, ul IJiiplismiis, (]ni cum sit nova go-
noratio, includit simul vilam griiliac cl inortcm
vitiorum.
Ad ralionem canonisliirnm resjiondol reclo san-
clusTliomas in 2. 2. (]. 100. arl. 2. ol in 4. disl.
2i). q. 3. art. 2. quaesl. 1. In Miilrimonio non so-
lum sacramenlum, sed cliain contriictuin civilcm
considerari possc;ol pro[)tcrea licel non possil pro
sacramenlo iiecnnia accipi vel fiari, jiosse laincn
pro civili conlraclu ad onera Blalrimonii tolerandii.
Adde^ijuod eliamsi Malrimoiiiniii griitiam non con-
ferret, tamen adhuc Siioramciilnm esset, ex eoruii-
dem canonislarum sonlonliii, proinde non licerot
pro co sacramenlo pecuni;is dare vel accipere :
nihil cnim sacrnm licile vendi anl eini potcst.
Ad rationcm Duriuidi, qnae cerle liiiilo llieologo
indigna est; Respondeo: Matrimonii sacramcnlum
graliam conferre, qu;ie et prima et secunda dici
possil.Nam etiamsi hoc sacramenliin) non sil prin-
cipaliter inslitulum ad rcmillenda pecciila, tanion
ea remiltere polest eo modo, quo n sacramenlis
Eucharisliae, Confirmalioiiis et Ordinis remiluin-
lur: el siquidem id liat, eril prinia gratia ; sin au-
tein, eril secunda.
Ncque obslat, quod conlinentia sit cxccllentior
Malrimonio: nam aliud est compriire slalum cnm
slalu^ aliud, stalum cum sacramenlo. Stalus con-
tinentiae altior esl statu Matrimonii et majoris giii-
tiiie ct meriti: Qui cnimnubil^ bene facit: quinon
nubit, melius facit, 1. Corinth. 7. Sacranicnlum
tamen semper anget gratiam , iii quocumque sta-
lu suscipialur. Quare conlinens duni Matrimoniun)
conlrahit, in gralia crescil* sed si idein coiitinens
propler Deum nuptias humanascontempsisset,plus
gratiae apud Deum invenissel, qnam sil ilia, quiie
per sacramenlum Matrimonii dalur.
DecimumlerLium argumentum, quod est Quar-
tum Durandi: In sacramentis caeteris , ordinaiio
Ecclcsiaevimpraeceptihaberepotest. sed num-
quam est de necessitate sacramenli,quia non po-
test Ecclesia mutare csseniiaiia sacrainenlorum.
Al in Matrimonio, Ecclesiae ordino.tio est de ne-
cessitate sacramenli, ut patct; quia cum Eccle-
sia prohibet conjugia in certo gradu consangui-
nitatis , non perficilur sacramenlum inter eas
personas, etiamsi personae iUac reipsa Malrimo-
niu7n contrahere conentur. ISon igitur Matrinio-
nium esl cum caeteris sex univoce sacranien-
tum.
Ucspondeo: Mala est consequentia hujus argn-
menli, el major propositio falsa. Nam caussa cnr
ordinalio Ecclesiae sit de necessitate siicramenti
Matrimonii, non est, quia Ecclesia possil mutare
essentiaiia hujus sacramenti, sed quin polosl nin-
lare 1'undamentum praerequisitum ad hoc sacra-
mentum. Materia enim sacramenti hujns, mm ost
conjunctio viri et mulieris cujuscunuiue, sod c(ui-
junctio legilimarum persnniiriim; ;iiio(iiii eliam in-
I
LIDEH IMUMLS
78<>
lorpalrem el fili;iin , inlcrqiin filium ct mfilrcm,
esse posscl Malriiiionii siicramenliim. Ouac siril
autcm lcgitimae personac, ClirisUis non dcfinivil ,
sed pracsupposilo conlraclu humano inlcr lcgili-
mas pcrsonas, cain conjunolioncm cvcxil ipse ad
sacramcnli dignilalcm. Ecclcsia ii^Mlur dclt;rminal,
quae sinl habcndac lcgilimac pcrsonae,el co modo
inaleriam cl lundamcnlnm praeparal sacramcnlo
Malrimonii; non aiilcm essenlialia Malrimonii nllo
modo mulal, aut mularc polcst.
Simile cst in aliis sacramentis. Nam quia malc-
ria Eucharisliac esl panis el vinum , ncmo potesl
faccre. ut panis el vinum diim talia sunt . non sint
malcria Euc-harisliac; ncquc contra, nt quod non
cst panis aat vinum, dum non est lale, Euchari-
sliac malcria sil: scd bcnc possunt homincs facc-
rc, ul vinum mulctur in acetum, et indc dcsinat
essc malcria sacramcnti: cl conlra, ut uva incipiat
esse vinum, et eo mndo fiat materia sacramcnli.
Sic igilur Ecclcsia ikmi potcst facere, ut pcrsonae
legitimuc nonsini uuitcria sacramcnti Matrimonii ,
dum lcgitimac non sunt: neque ut non lcgilimae
sint malcria, dum non sunt legitimae : sed polest
tamcn (lc(;rclo ct ordinationc sua, ex lcgitimis, il-
lcgitiinas faccrc, ct contra. Vidc s. Thomam in 4.
dist. 3t. quacsl. 1. art. 1. ad 5.
Praclcrca non vidclur esse vcrum, qnod in ma-
jori propositionc Dnrandus posuit, cssc proprium
Malrinionii. nt in co Ecclesiae ordinatio sit dc nc-
ccssitatc sacramcnli.IXam in sacramenlo Poenitcn-
tiae et Confirmalionis, idcm ccrnimus. Cum enim
Ecclcsia saccrdotem aliqucm ccrtae parocciae, vcl
dioecesi pracficit. si is bominibus non sibi subjc-
clissacramcnlum Poenitcntiac administrare aggrc-
dialur, non soliim peccal, qiiia conlra Ecclcsiac
pracccptnm agii, scd ctiain irrita est absolutio. Et
si snmmus ponlircK simplici prcsbytcro commitlat,
ut sacramenlnm Confirmalionis alicubi confcral ;
sacramcnlum illud cril vcrum el ratum. Quod si
absque ponlificis mandalo, vel facullate id faciat
simplcx saccrdos,ncque sacramenlum erit verum,
et ipsc pecciibil.
Dccimnmquartum argnmcnlum, quod est quin-
lum Durandi: Absfiue Baplismo nemo csl capax
sacr(imenHpr()])ric (Mcli: scd Malrimonii capax
cstkonw anU- linpHsmum , C7y/o Iffalriiiionium
non psl sacramcnlum proprie diclumJlinor pro-
posilio probalur: AVuu Malrimonium ila esl ve-
rum cl lcfiitimuni inlcr infidclcs antc Daplismum;
ulinlerfidclcs ])Osi Baplismum. IScquc obslat,
quod post Ilaplismum dicitur ralum , quod anle
Ilaplisinum non diccbalur: nam dicitur quidcm
ratum, scd non cst nuKjis s icramentum , ([uam
anlea, cum nutta mutalio facta sit.
Ilespondcnt aliqui. ul Pclrus Paludanus ct Joan-
ncs Caprcoliis in i. disl. 2(1. q. unica art. :{. ad 5.
et Joanncs E(d\ius homil. 7.']. dc sacramcntis , eos
conjugiitos, qui convcrlunlur ad fiicm:dcbcre post
Baptismiiin itcrufn contrjihcrc inlcr sc M;ilrimo-
nium, ct tuin dciniim coiilractum illiim ficri sacra-
mcntum. Alii taincn,ut Tliomas dc Argcnlina in i.
dist. .*iD. q. 1. ;irl. I. ad I. ct I';iluiliiiius loco ci-
tato,di(;iint,siin; iiovo conlradn Miilrimoiiium (piod
anlo Baptismum non crat sacriinKMilu'!! , sliilim
11ki,i,ak>ii.\i. V<<I. IIL
post Baptismum essc sacramcnlum, ((uia jam aclu
signilicat, quod antea solum in potenlia signiOcii-
bat.
Sed quid dc hoc fit, cominunis scntcnlia tlieolo-
gornm in 4. sentcnl. di.sl. 39. cst , Matrimonium
iiilidcliiim cssc possc vcrum ct lcgitimum , scd
non iMtuin, ncc omnino insohibilc ; scd si iimbo
conjugati convertantur ad fidcm el baplizcntur,
Miilrimoninm corum ficri raliim et omiiino inso-
liibilc, ct proindesacrumcntmn. !N';im idco M;ilri-
monium infidclinm non est nitum , <piia iion cst
sacrainentum, ut s.Thomas doccl in sijcundo scri-
pto in 4. scnt. dist. 2!). Omnimoda cnim insohibi-
litas cst cfTcctas .sacramcnli. Sivc igitur conjiig;iti
post Haptismura iterum contr;ili;iiil,'sive pcrsislant
in contractu anliquo, illc conscnsus muluus signo
aliquo, aut saltcm ipsa copula c.\prcssns, sacra-
mcnlum conjugii facilin iis.qui jam pcrlJaptismum
capaccs sacramentorum ellecti sunl.