Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 8: The Arguments of Cano 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).
Now let us answer the arguments of Cano. The first objection: “It cannot be proved from Scripture or tradition that Matrimony contracted in a profane way, without an ecclesiastical minister, is a sacrament; therefore, if Matrimony is truly a sacrament, it must have, besides the civil contract, some sacred form and an ecclesiastical minister.”
I answer: Scripture and tradition teach that neither Matrimony contracted in a profane way nor Matrimony with a sacred form pronounced by an ecclesiastical minister is a sacrament; they speak only in general, and testify that the Matrimony of Christians is a sacrament. For nowhere in Scripture, nor even in any council or holy doctor, will Cano find that the form of the sacrament of Matrimony is sacred words pronounced by a priest. Wherefore, if the argument proved anything, it would prove that there is no sacrament of Matrimony, or certainly that this sacrament cannot be defended from divine Scripture or tradition. But it proves none of these things: for the councils and Fathers always understood the divine Scripture which speaks of the sacrament of Matrimony of the civil contract of Matrimony itself, inasmuch as it was raised and carried over by Christ, through the addition of grace, to the dignity of a sacrament.
The second objection: “In the Council of Florence it was defined that all the sacraments consist of things and words. In Matrimony contracted in a profane way without an ecclesiastical minister there are often no words, but only nods, or letters, or conjugal union itself; therefore such a Matrimony cannot be a sacrament. But if anyone answers that nods, letters and union take the place of words, it can be objected against him that by the same reason it could be proved that a mute priest may absolve by nods, or a mute bishop confer sacred Orders by nods. And moreover it seems most absurd that union should supply the place of the sacramental form, since the Holy Spirit is not present in it, as is had in the canon Connubia, cause 32, question 2.”
I answer: in the Council of Florence, by the words which are required for all the sacraments, are understood not only words properly so called, but also those signs which take the place of words. For this reason the same council, when it set out the sacraments one by one, did not say that in Matrimony words are necessarily required, but said that the words of the spouses are regularly used. And it added that “regularly” because sometimes nods are used, which hold the place of words.
Nor is it unusual, or beside the custom of divine Scripture, that men be said to speak by nods, and so that nods hold the place of words. For John 13: “Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him”; explaining which place Augustine writes that Peter spoke by beckoning, and that the nods themselves are called words by divine Scripture.
To what Cano objects about the sacrament of Penance and of Ordination, I answer: there is a great difference between those sacraments and Matrimony. For the sacrament of Penance has the form of a judgement; and in a judgement sentence must be pronounced from the tribunal; nor was it ever heard that a mute judge was appointed. Moreover, the priest must hear the penitent, examine him, see in him the signs of penance, know in him the purpose of not sinning and of making satisfaction for the past; all which require the presence of both, and that the priest can hear and speak. By like reason the bishop who is about to confer Orders must have those to be ordained present, that he may lay hands on them, and offer them the sacred instruments to touch; he must also pronounce the form in words, that the definite power which is conferred through Ordination may be expressed. Lastly, even if we had nothing else, the usage of the Church shows sufficiently that neither absolution nor Ordination can be conferred either by a mute or by one absent. But Matrimony has the form of a contract; and a contract has it from its nature and from custom that it can be celebrated even between mutes or the absent.
To that about union, it has already been answered in the preceding question; for Calvin too had objected it.
The third objection: “Sacraments are sacred ceremonies and acts of religion. But Matrimony contracted in a profane way, by the words of the spouses alone, has nothing sacred; therefore such a Matrimony cannot be called a sacrament.”
I answer: Matrimony of itself is indeed a natural and civil thing; yet from the signification and the effecting of grace joined to it, it is plainly sacred. Wherefore those words, “I take thee for mine,” do not have the same force among the heathens and among the faithful: for among those they effect only a civil contract, and therefore cannot properly be called sacred words; but among Christians, because they signify the union not only of bodies but also of souls, or the likeness of the union of Christ and the Church, and sanctify men, they are deservedly called, and are, sacred words. Nor does it stand in the way that they are sometimes said by spouses who are thinking nothing sacred. For the words of Baptism too are sometimes pronounced by unbelievers without any religion; and yet, because by their institution they are sacred words, and they are pronounced with the intention of doing what the Church does, they effect the sacrament.
The fourth objection: “In all the sacraments, by the declaration of the Council of Florence, a definite minister is required who confers the sacrament. But in Matrimony contracted in a profane way there is no minister; therefore such a Matrimony is not a sacrament.”
I answer: the Council of Florence does indeed require a minister, but it does not deny that the person of the minister and of the receiver can concur in the same man; nay, the same council taught this very thing openly, when it says that the efficient cause of Matrimony is the consent of the spouses expressed through their words. Nor does it stand in the way that in the other sacraments the minister is distinguished from the receiver. For, as we said above, this is proper to Matrimony because it is a certain contract; for the nature of a contract requires that the contracting parties themselves be the cause of their contract.
The fifth objection: “The faithful do not think themselves sacrilegious when they contract in this profane way, if perhaps they lack the grace of God; it is written, then, in the minds of the faithful that such a contract is not a sacrament of the Church.”
I answer: I do not see how Cano can prove the antecedent of his argument; for the contrary of what he assumes is much more probable. For since all read everywhere in the catechisms that there are seven sacraments, and that one of them is Matrimony, and never either read in the catechisms or heard in sermons that not all marriages, but only some, are sacraments, it is credible that the faithful people commonly hold the opinion that all lawful marriages are sacraments, and so do not doubt that sacrilege is committed in the violation of that sacrament.
Nor does it stand in the way that some come to receive Matrimony defiled with many stains of sins; for on the other hand many are found who in no way dare to contract Matrimony without first making the confession of their sins. Then, if there are so many who plunder sacred vessels, who pollute churches, who openly commit other sacrileges, even though they do not doubt that these are sacrileges, what wonder if some easily commit this sacrilege, whether they know it to be a sacrilege, or perhaps even do not know it?
The sixth objection: “Augustine, in letter 23 to Boniface, writes that the bodily things themselves of which the sacraments consist bear the image and likeness of that sanctification of which they are said to be signs and causes; as the external washing of Baptism designates the internal cleansing, and the external eating of the Eucharist the internal refreshment, and in their way effect them. But civil and profane Matrimony neither bears the image of sanctification nor is shown under some external appearance of sanctity in order to sanctify; it is not, therefore, properly a sacrament.”
I answer: civil Matrimony, not indeed as civil, but as raised by Christ to the order of sacred things, most beautifully bears the image of the joining of Christ with the Church, and with the soul of each one through grace and charity: for this the external fellowship of husband and wife represents, which we said is the matter of this sacrament, as the washing is in Baptism and the species of bread in the Eucharist. And we taught above that the sacrament of Matrimony is used not only to signify but also to effect the same union of Christ with the soul. Wherefore the assumption of the contrary argument is false, which the author certainly ought to have proved, not simply asserted, as he did.
The seventh objection: “Words, by the Council of Florence, are the forms of the sacraments. But it cannot be that a thing not sacred should complete a sacrament; the forms of the sacraments, therefore, must be sacred words. But in Matrimony contracted in a profane way there are no sacred words; such a Matrimony, therefore, cannot be called a sacrament.”
The assumption, which Cano easily noticed would have to be denied, he proves: because if there were any such words, they would certainly be these: “I take thee for mine,” and so on. But that these are not sacramental words he contends by many reasons. First, because they can be the matter of him who receives the sacrament, but in no way the form, since the form is introduced by the agent into the patient through ministering causes.
Second: because although the matter of the sacraments can be some natural thing, yet the form, which gives being to the sacrament, must necessarily be supernatural; but those words, “I take thee for mine,” are natural on every side, and used by all nations.
Third: the form of the sacrament signifies the spiritual effect of which the sacrament is said to be the cause. But those words, “I take thee for mine,” are the signs of no spiritual effect.
Fourth: the words which are the form of a sacrament are determined by divine institution, and cannot be changed at the will of men; but the words by which Matrimony is to be contracted are not defined at all.
Fifth: when some words are the form of a sacrament, if a nod, or writing, or any other sign whatever is substituted in the place of those words, the action is empty. But if the contracting parties put nods or writing in place of words, they make Matrimony just as much as if they used words.
Sixth: the name of a sacrament is usually taken for the matter, not likewise for the form: for Baptism is called the washing, not those words, “I baptize thee,” and so on. But those words, “I take thee for mine,” and so on, are called Matrimony, or the sacrament of Matrimony; for Matrimony is a contract which is constituted by the words of both spouses. Those words, therefore, are the matter of the sacrament, not the form.
I answer: I deny that those words, “I take thee for mine,” and so on, cannot be the form of the sacrament. To the first proof I answer: it is not impossible, nor absurd, that sometimes the agent and patient be the same, especially according to different parts; for anyone can with his hands bind, or loose, or wash his own feet, nay with one hand loose, bind or wash the other; in the same way, then, he will be able with words and tongue to hand himself over to another, which alone is required in Matrimony. Wherefore, if Cano's argument held, it would prove that Matrimony even as a civil contract is impossible; for Matrimony cannot be contracted without the spouses binding themselves; and so the form of the contract is brought into the very same person as patient who produces and brings in that form as agent. But why it cannot be that anyone baptize himself, or confirm, or ordain, or anoint himself, and so on, the cause is not that which Cano brings in this place; for it would be very easy for anyone to sprinkle himself with water and say, “I baptize myself,” and so on, and the same of the other sacraments; but it is because in them the notion of the sign fights against it, as we said above, which does not fight against it in the sacrament of Matrimony.
To the second proof I answer: both the matter and the form of a sacrament are a natural thing if considered physically, and supernatural if considered sacramentally. For not the words only, but also the washing, the anointing and so on, have a supernatural signification from divine institution; which Cano also admits, or rather assumed in argument, in the sixth objection; wherefore the distinction he uses in this place is empty. And just as he admits that those words, “I take thee for mine,” are the matter of the sacrament, although they are words in some way human and natural, so he could have admitted that they are the form. For just as he is compelled to say that those words, inasmuch as they are the matter of the sacrament, are sacred and supernatural by reason of the new signification instituted by God, so we say that those words, as the form of the sacrament, are sacred and supernatural, and so on.
To the third I answer: those words by divine institution signify a spiritual effect, namely the spiritual union of Christ with the Church and with the soul; which Cano is compelled to say of the same words inasmuch as, in his opinion, they are matter; for the matter too must signify.
To the fourth I answer: the sacramental words are determined as to their sense, not as to the number of syllables or the sound of the voice; otherwise the sacraments could not be celebrated in different languages. So, then, in the sacrament of Matrimony the words are determined which sufficiently express mutual consent, whether this be done in more words or in fewer.
To the fifth I answer: nods cannot be substituted in place of words only when the form of the sacrament is only a word properly so called; but in Matrimony this is peculiar, that the forms are both words properly so called and also words improperly so called, such as nods, as we said above in the solution of the second objection.
To the sixth I answer: by that argument it is only proved that the words of the spouses are matter, but it is not proved that they are not also form. For if that which is only the matter of a sacrament can be named the sacrament, how much more can that be named the sacrament which is at once matter and form? Then, that those words, “I take thee for mine,” are called Matrimony is altogether unheard of; for Matrimony is defined as the joining of man and woman, retaining an undivided habit of life. So Alexander III defines it, in the chapter Illud, on presumption, and before him Justinian, in the Institutes, on paternal power, at the beginning; and the theologians and canonists everywhere receive that definition. Wherefore those words, “I take thee for mine,” are the cause of Matrimony, but are not Matrimony itself; and so the argument fights against its own author, for it proves that those words are not the matter of this sacrament but rather the form, since the sacrament is said of the matter, and is not said of these words.
The last objection is taken from the authority of theologians, Fathers and popes: for Cano contends that our opinion is not common to all the theologians. And out of so great a number of doctors he produces only three or four, and then adds many places of popes and Fathers drawn from the canon law, which are nothing to the purpose. Let us answer them one by one.
First he brings William of Paris, who in the book On the Sacraments, the treatise on Matrimony, chapter 9, question 1, denies that Matrimony is a sacrament of the true name, and has sacramental power, unless it has been consecrated by the priestly ministry. Like this testimony are the opinions of some canonists, who place the sacrament of Matrimony conferring grace in the priestly blessing and the prayers which are usually poured out over the married; which opinion of the canonists he says is that of the theologians.
I answer: the priestly blessing in Matrimony is twofold. One, which is given in the contract of the present, when the priest says, “I join you together, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; and this is usually given in a private house. The other is the blessing which is given in the church at the time of Mass, with various prayers added.
If Cano speaks of the former, of which he certainly seemed to speak in the whole preceding disputation, he has no author whom he can bring for his opinion: for William of Paris and the canonists speak of the blessing and prayers which are used at the time of the sacrifice in the church. If he speaks of the latter, he has indeed the aforesaid authors; but they are both few and in no way to be compared with the whole school of theologians. And moreover they are in manifest error: for it is examined and certain that that latter blessing is something sacramental, not a sacrament; since in that blessing there are no words which seem to be the form of a sacrament; and since that blessing is not given to second marriages, which yet in the judgement of all are true sacraments; and since it can be omitted without sin, provided negligence and contempt be absent, as is plain from the canon Nostrates, cause 30, question 5.
Add that the foundation of the canonists is very weak; for they prove their opinion from the chapter In Ecclesia, on simony, where priests are forbidden to take money for the blessing of those who marry, because that blessing is a sacrament. But in that place the blessing of those who marry is called a sacrament in a broad way; as in the same place there are called sacraments, that is, sacred ceremonies, the funeral rites of the dead, the office of burial, the leading of a bishop to his see, and other things of that kind.
Second, Cano objects the Fathers of the Council of Cologne, who require another form of the sacrament than the Scholastics usually require. But to this we answered above when we refuted Chemnitz; for we showed from the very words of the Enchiridion, published in the name of the Council of Cologne, that the form of this sacrament is the words by which the spouses express mutual consent.
Third, Cano objects Peter Paludanus, who, on book 4, distinction 5, question 2, writes that spouses do not sin who contract Matrimony while existing in mortal sin. From which opinion it is gathered that Matrimony contracted civilly is not a sacrament; for that author was not so unskilled as not to know that the sacrament of Matrimony cannot be received without sacrilege by those who exist in mortal sin.
I answer: Peter Paludanus, in that very place which Cano cites, teaches in open words that the sacrament of Matrimony is ministered by the spouses themselves, expressing their consent to one another, since the essence of Matrimony consists in that consent expressed by signs. Wherefore it is a wonder why Cano would have us gather the opinion of Paludanus from a certain consequence of his rather than from his own words. Further, Paludanus in that place does not speak of the spouses as they receive the sacrament of Matrimony, but as they minister it; for he wished to prove that the minister does not always sin who dispenses a sacrament while existing in sin, as in a case of necessity. But whatever may be of this opinion of his, there can be no doubt of his mind in the question which we now treat.
Fourth, he objects St. Thomas, who, Cano affirms, subscribes to his opinion in two places. One place is on book 4, distinction 1, question 1, article 3, where St. Thomas teaches that for Penance as it is a moral virtue, and for Matrimony as it is an office of nature, determined words are not required, but any signs and nods suffice; but that as Penance and Matrimony are sacraments, established in the dispensing of the ministers of the Church, determined words are required. The other place is book 4 against the Gentiles, chapter 78, where St. Thomas proves that Matrimony is a sacrament because it is dispensed through the ministers of the Church, and a certain blessing is given to those who marry.
I answer: the former place, if it proves anything, proves only that for the sacrament of Matrimony nods, or any other signs whatever, do not suffice, but that words are necessary, as in all the other sacraments; but it does not prove that Matrimony is not a sacrament unless those words are uttered by an ecclesiastical minister; since the same St. Thomas, distinction 26, question 2, article 1, to the first, says in express words that the form of the sacrament is the words of the spouses, and that the blessing of the priest is not of the essence of this sacrament. Add that the same St. Thomas in the second writing on the fourth book, distinction 1, question 1, article 3, when he had set down the words written above, which are had also in the first writing, added: “Or it must be said that in these, as they are sacraments, some signs are required in place of words”; from which place we understand that St. Thomas was not certain of the former opinion.
In the latter place St. Thomas proves that Matrimony is a sacrament from a sign and from conjectures, as we also did above; for it is a sign of this thing that Matrimony is adorned with the priestly blessing, and that it belongs to the ministers of the Church to judge matrimonial cases.
Fifth, he brings forward the testimonies of most weighty authors: of Evaristus, in letter 1; of Calixtus, in the letter to the bishops of Gaul; of Siricius, in the letter to Himerius; of Hormisdas, in Gratian, cause 30, question 1, canon Nullus; of Nicholas, in the same Gratian, cause 31, question 2, canon Lotharius; of Ambrose, book 9, letter 70, to Vigilius; of Isidore, book 2 On the Ecclesiastical Offices, chapter 19. Lastly the testimonies of certain councils: of the Fourth of Carthage, canon 13; of the Lateran, as is had in the chapter In Ecclesiae corpore, in the Extravagants, on simony; of Vienne, as is had in the Clementine Religiosi, on privileges; of Lyons, cause 35, question 3, canon Nulli; and of Constance, at the end of that council. Which testimonies, if they had anything against our opinion, would deservedly frighten us.
But they have nothing at all (the one testimony of Evaristus excepted) except that in Matrimony the priestly blessing and other ceremonies of the kind are usually, or ought to be, used; which we too most gladly accept and defend against the heretics. But that those ceremonies are of the essence of the sacrament, or that Matrimony contracted by words of the present between the faithful is not a sacrament, is found in none of those testimonies. Nay, in the Lateran Council, from which that chapter In Ecclesia, on simony, is taken, the blessing of those who marry is indeed called a sacrament, but such a sacrament as is also the office of burial, the funeral rites of the dead, the leading of a bishop to his see, and the like.
There is one, Evaristus, who in letter 1, and in Gratian, cause 30, question 5, canon Aliter, seems to say that marriages contracted without a priest are not marriages, but adulteries, or defilements, or fornications.
But this testimony is rightly expounded by the theologians and canonists, who teach that the pontiff speaks of lawful Matrimony in the external forum. For the Church judges in the external forum not a lawful Matrimony but fornication, unless it can be proved by witnesses, although she knows that in the forum of conscience it is a most true marriage, if the consent of both spouses has come between. And that Evaristus judges clandestine marriages unlawful because mutual consent to marriage is presumed to have been lacking is clear from the last words of the letter, where we read that the Matrimony is unlawful unless one's own will has given its vote and lawful vows have come to its help. And Cano is compelled to admit this solution, unless he will believe, against the decree of the Council of Trent, that clandestine marriages were not true marriages, but adulteries, or defilements, or fornications. For Evaristus not only denies that those hidden marriages are sacraments, which Cano desires to hear, but also affirms that they are adulteries, defilements, fornications; which, unless it is understood of the external forum only, contains a manifest error, as the general council, which Cano as a true Catholic would not doubt must be obeyed, has most openly defined.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT YIII.
Solvuntur argumenta Cani
Jam ad Cani argumenla respondeamus. Prima
objectio: Non polest ex Scriptura, vel tradilionc
prohari,Malrimoniumprophane conlraclum sine
minislro ecclesiastico , essc sacramenlum: ercjo
si Matrimonium revere sacramentum est. opor-
tet illud praeter civitem contractum, habere for-
mam aliquam sacram, et ministrum ecclcsia-
sticum.
Respondeo: Scriplura el Iradilio neque Matrimo-
nium prophane contractum, neque Blatrlmonium
cum forma sacra a ministro ecclesiastico pronun-
ciala, docent esse sacramentum, sed generalim
solum loquunlur, ac Matrimonium Chrislianorum
sacramenlum esse teslantur: nusquam enim in Scri-
plura.aut eliam in concilio ullo, aul sacro doctore
inveniet CunuSjlormam sacramenti Mnlrimonii es-
se verba sacra, quae a sacerdole pronuncianlur.
Quare si argumentum aliquid probarel, probaret
nullum csseMatrimonii sacramentum.aut certe non
posse hoc sacramentum ex divina Scriplura, vel
tradilione defendi. Sed nihil horum probat: !\am
concilia el Palres Scripturam divinam, quae dc sa-
cramenlo Malrimonii loquitur, semper inlellexe-
runl dc ipso contractu civili Matrimonii, qualenus
a Chrislo pcr additionem gratiae ad sacramenli di-
gnilalem evectus el transfatus fuit.
Sccunda objeclio: In co7icilio florentino defini-
ium est, omnia sacramenta rebus et verbis con-
stare. In Matrimonio prophanc conlraclo sine
ministro ecclesiastico , saepe nulla sunt verba,
sed soli nulus, aut literae, aul ipsa copula con-
juf](dis; non ifjiiur tale Malrimonium sacramon-
tum esse polest. Quodsi quis respondeat, nutus ,
ct lileras. et copulam, vicem verborum gerere :
conlra ohjici potest, eadem ratione probari posse
licere sacerdoti muto nulihus ahsolvcre, aut epi-
scopo mulQ nulibits Ordines sacros confnrrc. El
practerca absurdvisimum esse vidclur, ut coputa
vicem suppleat formae sacramcnlalis, cum in ea
Spiritus sanctus non adsit, ut habelur Can. Con-
nubia, 32. quacst. 2.
Hcspondeo: In concilio florcnlino per verba ,
quac ad omnia sacrainciitii rciiuininlur, inlclligi
non solum vcrha |)ropric dicla, scd cliam ca siguii,
quae vic(Mn vcrborum gcrunt. N;un idco idciii (;on-
cilium, cum singulii sacriimenta sigilliilim cxpone-
rct, non dixil, in Miilrimonio neccssario vcrbii rc-
(|iiiri:scd iiil rcguhiritcr vcrba conjugiim ;i(ii'ibcri.
Addidil vcro illud {llegulariler) quia nonnuiiHiuam
nulus adhibentiir, qui locum vcrborum lcncanl.
Ncque inusitaluni csl, aut practcr Scripturac di-
vinac morcm,ut per nulus homines loqui dicanlar,
et proinde nutus vcrborum viccm lcneanl: Nara Jo-
an.l3. Innuit Simon Pctrus Joanni el dixit,q\ien\
locum enarrans, Augustinus. scribit, Pclrum in-
nuendo dixisse, el ipsos nutus a divina Scriptura
vcrba appcllari.
Ad ca quae Canus objicii de sacramento Peniten-
liae et Ordinalionis;Respondeo: 3Iagnum esse dis-
criraen inter ea sacraraenla et 31alriraoniura. Sa-
cramcntum cnim Pocnilcntiac liabet formam judi-
cii: in judicio aiilcm ex tribunali scntenlia pronun-
cianda est; nequc umquam esl audilum, ul judex
mulus conslitucrclur . Practcrca dcbct saccrdos
confitenlem audire, exarainarc, signa Poenilentiae
in ipso cernerc. propositum non peccandi, et pro
pracleritis salisfaciendi in ipso cognosccrc, quae
omnia rcquirunt pracscnliam ulriusquc, ct ul sii-
ccrdosaudire ctloqui possit. Pari ralione cpisco-
pus Ordines collalurus, dcbel praesenles habcre
ordinandos, ul eis manus imponat, et instrumenta
sacra tangenda offerat: dcbet etiam vcrbis formain
pronunciare, ut cerla potestas, quac per Ordina-
tionem conrcrlur. cxpriraalur. Dcnique (si nihil
habcrcmus arm(1)Ecclesiae usus satis oslendit,mu-
que absolulioncm, ncquc Ordinationcra vel a ne-
to, vcl ab absente conferri posse. At vero Malri-
nionium formam habet contractus: contractus au-
lcm ex natura sua cl ex consuetudine id habet,
ut etiam inlcr mulos vel abscntes celebrari
possil.
Ad illud de copula,jam anle responsum esl,quac-
slionc superiore; nam illud etiam Calvinus objc-
ccrat.
Tcrlia objeclio: Sacramenta sunt caercmoniae
sacrae et acAos religionis. At Matrimoniumpro-
phane conlractum solis verbis conjugum, nihil
hal)et sacri: non igitur talc Matrimonium sacra-
mentum dicipotest.
Respoiidco: Matrimonium cx sc quidem rcs est
naluriilis ct civilis: tamcn ex adjuncta significatio-
nc ct clficicntia gratiac, planc sacrum csl. Quarc
vcrba illa: Ego te accipio in meam,Ego tc accipio
in meum non candcm vim habcnt apud cthnicos
cl apud lidcles: apud illos enim solum contractum
civilfMn clficiunt, et idco vcrba sacra proprie dici
ncquciint; apud Christianos ;iiitcm.qui;i unionem
signilicaiil non sohim corporum, scd ctiam animo-
rudi, vcl siinilitudincm unionis Chrisli ct Eccle-
siac. ct s:iiit;liric;ml homincs,sacra vcrba mcrito di-
cunliir etsiinl. Ncqu(! obslal,quod inlcrdum a con-
jiigibus iiihil sacrum cngilanlibus dicuntur. INani
cliain vcrba B.iplisnii, alKiunndo ab inri(l(!lil)us si-
nc iillii rcligioiic pronucjantnr, ct taracii (piia cx in-
slitntionc siia vcrbii sunl Siicra. ct ciim intcnlione
fiicicndi qnod Ecclcsia fiicit,pronuncianlur, sacra-
mcnlum (^lficiunt.
Oniiriii objcctio:/?! omnihus sacramcntis ex de-
clardlionc llorentini conciUi, rcquirilur ccrlus
ministcr qui sacramcnlum conferal: At in Malri-
monio prophanc conlraclo nutliis cst minislcr;
non igilur talc Malrimoninm cst sacramentum.
Rcspondco: Concilium norcntinum, minislrnm
qnidcm rfMpiiril, scd non ncgal possc in ciindfiii
homincm concurrcrc minislri, ct suscipicntis pcr-
VJi
l)l-; SACHAMKMO MATIII.MOMI
soiuiin: immo lioc ipsum idiMii conoiliiin nperlc do-
cuil, cum ait, c;iuss;uu cllicienlcui 3I;iliiiu()nii csse
conscnsum conjupum per verl);i ipsorum expres-
sum. .\oquc obsUit, quod in ;iliis s;icr;imcnlis di-
slin?u;Uurministcr;i suscipicule. i\;im utsupr;i di-
\imus. id pruprium cst .Miilrimonii, quia coiilractus
quidam csl: nalura enini conlraclus id exigil, ul i-
psi contralientcs sui conlractus sinl caussa.
Quinta objcclio: Fidclcs non sc existimant sa-
crilegos, qno temporc sic prophanc coiUrahunt,
si fortc gratia Dci carcant: in animis ■igilur fide-
lium inscriptum csl.cjusmodi contraclum non es-
sc Ecclcsiac sacramcntum.
Itespondeo: Non video, quemadmodum anlcco-
dons arj,nimenti sui Canus probare possit:nam con-
irarium ejus, quod ipse assumit, mullo probabiiius
cst. Cum enim in catechismis passim oranes le-
gant. seplem esse sacramenla, alque unum ex eis
csse -Matrimonium, neque unquam vcl in catechi-
smis loirerlul, vcl in coucionibus audierint, non
omnia .Matrimonia.sed tantum quaedam esse sacra-
nicnta; credibile esl fidelem populum communiler
iu ea scnlentia csse, ut oinnia Matrimonia Icgilima
s;icramenla esse censeat: ct proiude sacrilegium in
cjus sacramcnti violationc comraitti non dubitel.
.\equc obstat, quud nonnulli ad Matrimonium
suscipiendum accedant multis peccatorum sordi-
bus inquinali: narn multi ctiam contra inveniunlur,
([ui nulla rationc audent Malrimonium contrahere,
nisi peccatorum confessione antc praemissa. De-
indc si tam mulli sunt qui sacra vasa diripiunt, qui
lempla poIIuunt,qui alia sacriiegia aperle commil-
tunt, cliamsi ca sacrilegia csse non dubitent: quid
inirum, si hoc sacrilcgium nonnulli facile perpe-
Irent, sive sacrilegium esse sciant, sive etiam for-
lassc nesciant.
Scxta objectio: Auguslinus in episL 23. ad Bo-
nifacium, scribit, rcs ipsas corporeas , quibus
sacramenla constant , imaginem et similitudi-
nem gcrerc cjus sanctificationis, cujus signa et
caussae esse dicuntur, ut Baplismi lotio exter-
na, internam purgationem, et Eucharistiae ex-
tcrna manducatio, internam refectionem desi-
gnant ct suo modo cfficiunt.At Matrimonium ci-
vilc, el prophanum, nec sanctificalionis imagi-
ncm gcril,neque ad sanctificandum sub quodam
externa sanctitatis specie exhibetur : non est
itaque proprie sacramentum.
Rcspondeo: Malrimonium civile, non quidem ul
civile, sed ut a Cristo evectum ad ordinem reruni
sacrarum. pulchorrimc refert imaginem conjun-
ctionis Christi cum Ecclesia, et cum anima unius-
cujusque per gratiam ct chariiatem: id enim re-
praesenlal extcrna viri cl uxoris socielas, quam
maleriam hujus sacramenli csse diximus, ut esl
lotio in Bapljsmo. ct spccies panis in Eucharislia.
Ad candeni unionem Christi cum aniraa non solum
significandam. sed eliam emciendam, Matrimonii
sacraraentum adhiberi supra docuimus:quare falsa
cst assumptioargumenti contrarii, quam sane au-
ctor probare dcbuisset; non simpliciler, ut fecit
assercre.
Septima objeclio: Verba exconcilioflorentino,
formae sarramcntorum sunt: At fieri nequit, ut
rcs non sacra sacramcnlum pcrficiat: vcrha igi-
tur sarra sacramcnlorum formac csse (irbcnt' At
in Malrimonio prophanc conlracto nulla sunt
verba sacra:non igitur talc Matrimonium sacra-
mcnlum appcHari ]}olcsl.
Assiiinptioiiom, (piain nogandam csse facilc Ca-
nus animadvcrlil, probat; quia si ull;i cssciitojus-
modi vcrba. illa cerle essenl: Ego te accipio in
meam clc. Ilacc aulcm non cssc vcrha sacramon-
lali;i, mullis ralionibus conloiulil. l>rinio,(|iiia cjiis,
qui suscipit sacramenlum, matoria cssc possiiiil,
forma aulcm nullo inodo, (•iim form;i ;il) ;igoiilc iii
passiim inediantibus caussis admiuisiris iiilrodii-
catur.
Secundo: Quia licel raaleria sacramenlorum rcs
aliqua naturalis esse possit, forma tamen,quae dal
esse sacrameiito, ncccssario superualuralis essc
dcbet, illa aulem vcrba. Ego le accipio in mcam,
undiquc naturalia sunl,et ab oranibus gentibus u-
surpala.
Tertio: Forraa sacramenti significal cum spiri-
tualein effeclum, cujus causs;i sacraracnlum csse
dicitur. Al illa vcrba: Ego te accipio in meam,
nullius elTectus spiritualis signa sunt.
Quarto: Verba quae sunl forma sacramenti, di-
vina institutionc detcrminata sunl,nec possunl ho-
niinum arbitrio mutari: al vcrba quibiis Matrirao-
nium contrahenduin sit, nulla sunt oinnino defi-
nila.
Quinto: Quando verba aliqua sunl forma sacra-
meiili, si nutus, vel Scriptura, vcl aliud quodlibcl
signum, eorura verborum loco substituitur, inanis
aclio est. Al si contrahentes loco verborum, nulus
vel Scripluram subjiclant. aeque conficiunt Matri-
inonium, ac si vcrbis utercnlur.
Sexto: Nomen sacramenli pro maleria accipi so-
let, pro forma non itcm: Baptismus enim dicilur
ablutio, non illa verba: Ego te baplizo etc. At illa
vcrba: Ego te accipio in meam etc. diciintur M;i-
Irimonium, seu Malrimonii sacramentum: est enim
Matrimonium conlractus, qui ex amborum conju-
gum verbis costituilur. Verba igitur illa, maleria
sacramenti sunt, non aulem forraa.
Rcspondeo: Nego verba illa: Ego te accipio in
meam elc. non posse esse formam sacraracnli. Ad
Primam probalionem.Respondeo: Non essc impos-
sibile, neque absurdum, ul aliquando idcm sil a-
gens ct patiens, praesertim secunduin partes di-
versas:potest enim unusquisque manibus sibi ipse
pcdes ligare,vel soIvere,veI abluere, immo et una
manu alteram solvere,ligare,abluere: eodem igilur
modo poterit verbis,el lingua se ipse alleri lra(]ere,
quod in Matrimonio solum requirilur.Quare si Cani
arguraentura valeret, probaret eliam Mdlrimonium,
ut contractum civilem, essc impossibile: ncquc c-
nim potest Matrimoniura contrahi , quin seipsi
conjuges ligent; et proinde forraa conlraclus in
ipsum eun(Jera iudicatur ut patienlem , qui eam
formam producit, atque inducit ul agens. Cur ;ju-
tem fieri nequeat, ut quis ipse baptizet, aul confir-
mel, aut ordinet.aut inungat etc. non esl ea caus-
sa, quam hoc loco adferl Canus ; facillimum enim
essel, ut quis se ipse aqua aspergeret ac diccrel;
Ego me baplizo etc. ct idcm de aliis sacramcntis:
LlIJEll PULMLS
795
scd qiiia rcpugiiul in eis ralio signi, ul supra dixi-
mus, quae nou repugnal in sacranicnlo Malri-
monii.
Ad Secundam probalionem Respondco:Tam ma-
teriam, quam formam sacramenli esse rem natu-
ralem, si pliysice considerelur , el supernalura-
lem, si considcrelur sacramenlaliter. l\on enini
verba soliim, sed eliani ablulio, inunclio elc.signi-
ticalionem liabenl supernaluralem ox divina insli-
tuliop.e: id quod etiam Canns admillit. vcl polius
in arguaienium assumpsit. objeclione scxta; quarc
inanis est dislinctio, qua boc loco utitur. Et sicul
ipse admillil illa verba: Erjo tc accipio in meain,
csse maleriiim sacramenli, licet sinl verba ali(juo
modo luimaiia et naluralia; ila polerat adniillcrc
esse formam. Nam qucmadmodum illc cogilurdi-
cere verba illa.qualenus materia sacramenli sunl,
csse sacra ct supernaturalia, ratione novae signi-
flcalionis a Deo institutae; ila nos dicimus verba
illa, ut sacramenti formam, csse sacra el supcrna-
turalia etc.
Ad Tcrliam Kespondeo: Verba illa ex divina in-
slilulionc signidcarc effeclnm spirilualem , nimi-
rum spirilualem unioncm Clirisli cum Ecclesia et
cum anima: quod idein cogitur Canus diccrc dc
iisdcm vcrbis, qualenus, ipsius opinione, materia
sunl: nam cliain materia significarc dcbct.
Ad Quarlam Respondeo : Vcrba sacramcntalia
dctcrrainala csse quoad sensum,uon quoad nuinc-
rum syllabarum,vel sonum vocis; alioqui non pos-
scnt linguis diversis sacramenta celcbrari. Sic igi-
lur in sacramcnto Matrimouii verba dclerininala
sunl, quae mutuum consensum suiricicnlcr expri-
mant, sivc id pluribus, sive paucioribus vocibus
tiat.
Ad Quintam Ucspondco: Tunc solum non possc
subjici nulus loco vcrborum, quando forma sacra-
mcnti csl solum vcrbiim proprie dictum: al in Mii-
trimonio id pcculiiirc esl, ut forraa sint lam veri)a
proprie dietii, quam cliam impropric: ut nulus : ut
suprii diximus in solutione secuudae objcclionis.
Ad Scxtam Rfjspondco: Argumenlo illo lantuni
probari vcrba conjugum cssc raalcriam,non aulero
probari non osse etiam formam. Nam si id, (juod
malcria cst lanliim sacramenli , sacramcntum no-
minari potesl; (luiinlo magis sacramenlum nomi-
nari potcril id, (piod simul matcria csl ctforniii?
Dcindc verba illa: /iVyo lc accipio m?7icam,Ma-
tnmoiiiiim ;i|)pcll;iri, csl oinnino inaudilum: Miitri-
inoniuin cniin dcliuilur, niiiris ct focminae coiijuu-
flio, individiiam vibic ccmsuctudincm rclincns.Sic
dclinit Alcxandcr III. c;i[). lllud, de pr;iesumplio-
nc ct anlc cum .liistini;iiiiis, Inslilut.dc pnlr.potcst.
in princi[)io,ct c;im (lcfinilioncm tbcologi ct cano-
nislae passim rcci[)iunt. Qii;ire verba illa: AV/o ta
accipio in 7nea7Ji,caussa .^I;ilriinonii sunl, scd non
suntipsa Malrimonium; [)roindc argumciilum con-
tra aiiclorcin suum pugnal.prob;it cnim illa vcrba:
Efio la accipio in meam,non cssc matcriam liiijns
sacramcnli. scd |)olius formam. cuin siicramcnluin
de matcria dic;ilur, dc bis aulem vcrbis iion di-
ciilur.
L'llim;i objcclio snmiliir ox auclorilalc llicologo-
Mim. P-ilnim iic [^oniili' um : conlciidit cnim Ca-
nus, non esse scntenliam noslram communem o-
mnibus tbeologis. Atque ex lanto numero docto-
rum, producit solum Ircs aut quiiluor , ac deindc
addil mulla loca pontificum ct Palrum exjurc ca-
nonico deprompla, quae nihil ad rem faciunl. Re-
spondeamus ad singula.
Primo adducil Guliclmum Parisicnscm , qui in
lib. de sacramcnlis, tract. de Malrimonio cap. 1).
qu. 1. ncgat Matrimonium veri nominis sacramen-
lum esse, ct sacranicnt;ilcm virlulcm babcre, nisi
saccrdolali ministcrio consccralum fucril. lluic lc-
slimonio similcs sunt nonnullorum canonislaruni
senlenliae, qui sacramcntum Malrimonii gratiam
conferens conslituunl in bencdiclioiic saccrdotali,
et precibus quae super conjugatos fuiidi solcnt ,
quorum canonistaruin scntentia Ibeologorum sit.
Rcspondco: Duplex est bcncdiclio saccrdolalis
in Malrimonio. Una, quae dalur in conlraclu do
praesenli, cum sacerdos dicit: Ego vos conjuwjo,
innomine Palris, et Filii cl Spiritus sancti, cl
bacc fere in domo privalii dari solet. Allera cst be-
nedictio, quae datur in tcmplo tcmporc missae ,
cum adjunctis variis prccibus.
Si de priore loquatur Canus, dc qua sano loqui
visus estin tota superiore disputatione,nullum lia-
bet auclorem, quem pro sua scntenlia profcrat :
I\am Gulielmus Parisiensis el canonistae loquun-
tur dc benedictione el precibus, quac adbibentur
lemporc sacrificii in templo. Si de posleriore lo-
quatur, habct quidem auctores praedictos, sed illi
ct pauci sunt , ct nullo modo cum oinni schola
thcologorura confcrendi. Et praetcrea in manifeslo
crrore versanlur: nam illam benediclioncm poste-
riorem, exploralum ac ccrlum est, sacramenlale
qiiid cssc, non aulem sacramcntum, cuin in ca be-
nedictione nulla sint verba, quac lorma sacramenli
esse vidcantur; ctcum ea bencdiclio secundis nu-
pliis non detur, quae tamen omnium judicio vera
sacraincnla sunl; ct cum absque pcccilo omitli
possit, modo negligcnlia ct conlcmplus absil, ul
patet ex cim.lISostratcs 20. quaest. 5.
Addc quac fiindaracnlum canonislarum debilis-
siiuuin csl; probanl cnim scntcnliam su;un cv c;i[).
In Ecclesia de simonia, ubi proliibentur saccrdo-
tes accipcrc pccunias pro bcncdictionc nubculium,
quia ca bcncdiclio siicramcnlum csl. Scd co loco
vocatur bcnedictio nubcnlium, sacramcnlum birgo
modo; ul eliain ibidem sacramcnl.^ vocanlur .idcst,
caercmouiac sacriie , exeqiiiac dcfunclorum, oiVi-
cium scpuIturac,dcductio episcopi ad suam scdcm
cl aliii id gcnus.
Secundo objicitCanus Patrcs concilii colonicn-
sis, (jiii aliiim formam sacramcnti rc([uirunl, (pi;iiii
Scliolaslici rc(|uircrc solent. Scd ad lioc suj^ra rc-
spondimus, cum Kemnitium rcfularcmus: ostcndi-
miis cnim ex vcrbis i[)sis cncbiridii, uomiiK^ ('ou-
cilii colonicnsis cdili, forin;im bujiis s;icraniciili
esse vcrba, quibus conjuges muluum consensum
cxprimunt.
Tcrtio objicit Canus Pclriim P;ilud;inum , ([ui in
i. disl. ."». quacst. 2. scribit . non pcccarc coiiju-
gcs, qui Miiliimonium contr;iIuiut iu pcccalo nior-
lali exislcns. E\ (|ua scnlcnlia colligilur Malrimo-
nium civililcr conlraclum non cssc sacramcnlum ,
l\)Ci
l)i: SACr.AMllMO MATIUMOM
npiiue eiiim nuolor illc l;un inipnrilus enil , ul no-
si-iiol sacrainenluin Malriinonii sinc s;icrili!};io su-
scipi iion posse ub iis, (|ui in peccalo niorUili o\i-
sdint.
itespondoo: l'olrus Palud;inus in illo ipso loco
(|ucin Ciinus cilal, aperlis verbis docel, sacranien-
luin Malrimonii nimislrari ;ib ipsis coiiju^ibiis.ciMi-
se:isu'.n suuuj invicein expriinenlibus. cuin in eo
consensu sii^nis expresso essenlia M.ilrimonii con-
sislal. Quarc miruin esl.cur Canus velil nos poliiis
cx consetpienlia quad;im ipsius colligere Palii(i;iiii
senleiUiam, ipiam ex propriis verbis illius. Porro
Paludonuseo loco non loquilur de conjuj^ibus, ul
sacramenUim Matrimonii recipiuiil , sed ul illud
minislrant: siiiuidem probare volebal, non semper
peccare ininislrum. qui in peccato cxislcns sacr;i-
inenlum dispcnsat, ut in casu neccssilalis , scd
quidquid lil de hac cjus senlenlia,dubitari non po-
tesl de inenlc cjus in quaeslioiie, quain nunc tra-
clamus.
Quarlo objicit s. Tbomam,qucm duobus in locis
scntenli;ic suae subscribere Canus ;i(rirmal. Unus
locus est in 4. dist. 1. quacst. l.arl.3. ubi s.Tlio-
mas docet, ad Pocnitentiam qualcnus virtus mora-
lis est, cl ad Malrimonium.ul cst in ofTicium nalu-
rac, non rcquiri dclerminala vcrba , sed sigiia cl
nulus quoslibelsuniccrc. Al vero ul Poenilenlia
ct Malrimonium sacramcnta sunt, in dispcnsalionc
minislrorum Ecclesiac conslituta, requiri dclerrai-
nata vcrba. .\lter locus esl lib.i.contra gcnlcs cap.
78. ubi s. Thomas probal, Malrimonium esse sa-
cramenlum , qnia per ministros Ecclesiae di-
spcnsalur , el quacdam bencdiclio nubculibus da-
lur.
Rcspondco: Prior locus si quid probat , probat
solum ad sacramentum M;itrimonii non sufTicere
nulus, sive quaecumque alia signa, sed neccssaria
csse vcrba, ul in omnibus aliis sucramenlis;at non
probal, Malrimonium non esse sacr;unenlum, nisi
verba illa a minislro ecclesiaslico proferanlur,cura
idein s. Thomas disl. 2G. quacst. 2. arl. 1. ad 1.
diserlis verbis dirat, formam sacramenli esse ver-
ba conjugum:benediclionem aulem sacerdolis non
cssc de cssenli;i liujus sacramenli. Adde, quod i-
dem sanctus Thomas in secundo scriplo in quar-
tum dist. 1. quaest. 1. arlic. 3. cum posuisset ver-
ba supra scripta, quae habentur eliam in primo
scripto, addidil: Vci dicenduni, quod in Ids. ul sa-
cranicnla sunt, rcquirunlur aliqua signa loco
vcrboruni', ex quo loco inltdligiinus s. Thomain
non certum fuisse prioris opinionis.
In posteriorc loco s.Thomas probatMalrimonium
esse sacramenlum a signo et conjccluris. ut etiam
nos supra fecimus.est cnim sigiium hujus rci,quod
Matrimonium sacerdotali benediclione oriiclur, et
quod ad Ecclesiae ministros perlineal caussas raa-
Irimoniales judicare.
Quinlo proferl Iftslimonia gravissimorura aucto-
rum. Evaristi in episl. 1. Calixti in cpist. ad cpi-
scopos Galliae.Syricii in epist. ad Himerium. Hor-
niisdoe apud Gralianum 30. quaest. 1. can. Nullus
Nicolai apud eundem Gratianum 31. quaesl.2.can.
Lolharius, Ambrosii lib. 9. epist. 70. ad Vigilium,
Isidori lib. 2. dc ofTiciis ecclcs. cap. 19. Denique
leslimonia conciliorum quorund;mi , ul carlh;igj-
nicnsis IV. can. 13. Latcranensis, ul h;il)('lur cn\).
lii fkclcsiaii corpore, cxlra dc simoni;i. Vieiincn-
sis. iit li;il)eliir in Clem(Milin;i religiosi, de privilc-
giis Lut^duiieiisis 3.">. q. 3. c;iii. NaUi, et C()iisl;in-
tiensis in (Ine ipsius concilii.Qiiae sanc testimonia,
si (piid h;il)(Menl contra 8ententi;im noslnim, meri-
lo iios terrercnl.
At nihil omnino habcnl (uno Evaristi lestimonio
cxcepto),nisi. in Matrimonio adhiberi solere, vel
debere lioiUMliclioncm s;i(;erdol;il(;m, el ali;is ejiis-
inodi c;icrcmonias:quo(l cliam nos libenlissime ac-
cipimus, et coiilra haerclicos dcfendinius. Essi;
autein eas caeremonias dc csseniia sacramcnti,iiut
M;ilriinoniuin per vcrba dc priiesenli inler (ideles
conlraclum, non csse sacramcntum, in nulli) co-
rum teslimoniorum invenilur: immo in concilio la-
leriinensi,undc sumplum est illud CA\[).InEcclcsiae
dcsimonia,vocanlur quidem benedictionubenlium,
sacramenlum, scd lalc sacramcnlum, quale cst cl-
iam oETicium sepuUurae , exequiae defunctorum ,
deduclio episcopi ad suam sedem ct simili;i.
Unus cst Evaristus, qui in cpist. 1. el apud Gr;i-
tianum 30. quaest. 3. can. AliUtr, Mairimonia sinc
sacerdolc contracta videtur dicere , non csse Ma-
Irimonia, sed adulleria, vcl slupra , vel furnica-
tiones.
Sed hoc tcslimonium rccte cxponilura Ihcologis
el canonislis, qui doccnt, loqui ponlificcm dc Ma-
Irimonio legilimo in foro exleriore. Ecclesia cniin
non judlcat Matrimonium legilimum, sed fornica-
lionem in foro cxlcriorc, nisi tesiibus probari pos-
sit, tamelsi scial in foro conscicntiae esse verissi-
mum malrimonium, si ulriusque conjugis consen-
sus inlcrveneril. Quod autem Evarisliis Malrimonia
clandestina judicet illcgitima,quia pracsumilur de-
fuisse muluus consensus in conjugium , perspi-
cuum est ex ullimis verbis epistolae, ubi legimus
Malrimonium cssc illcgilimum, nisi voluntas pro-
pria sulTragata fuerit,et vota succurrerint legilima.
Hanc autem solulioncm admitlerc cogilur Canus,
nisi velit contra dccrctum Iridcnlini concilii crede-
re, Matrimonia clandeslina non fuisse vcra conju-
gia, scd adulleria , vel slupra aut fornicalioiies.
Evarislus enim Malrimonia iila occulla non solum
negat esse sacramenla, quod Carius audire cupit ,
sed ctiam affirmal esse adulleria, slupra , foriiica-
tiones; quod nisi inlelligalur in foro cxteriore lan-
turn, manifeslum errorem continet , ut concilium
gencrale, cui Canus, ut vere calholicus parenduiu
csse non dubitabut, apertissimc definivit.