Chapter I — On the essence and institution of matrimony

I. St. Augustine, Book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, to Pollentius, says: I know not whether the question concerning marriages be not the most obscure and most implicated. Nor do I dare to profess that I have as yet unfolded all its recesses either in this work or in another, or that I am now able, though it press to be explained. In the time of Augustine heretics, in our age not a few Moralists, have by diverse ways obscured this tract.

II. The conjunction of male with female the ancients called matrimonium rather than patrimonium, because it belongs to the woman to bear, to nourish, and to educate offspring. Nuptiae also is called matrimonium from nubendo; and conubium, and conjugium from the common yoke to which both man and woman are subjected.

III. Matrimony is regarded in three ways: 1. As a natural contract; 2. As a civil contract; 3. As a sacrament of the new law. Absolutely it is described as the marital conjunction of a man and a woman between lawful persons, retaining an undivided companionship of life. But it is added, as it is a sacrament divinely instituted, a sign of the conjunction of Christ with the Church, having the promise of grace for uniting the souls of the spouses, and for educating offspring piously and holily in the Christian faith. Lastly matrimony is threefold: legitimate, ratified, and consummated. Legitimate is that which is by the law of nations, contracted according to the norm of the civil laws, such as is that even of unbelievers. Ratified is that which is perfected according to the laws of the Church, and which is approved by the Church. Consummated is when the spouses are mingled together by carnal copulation.

IV. It coalesces out of several things: 1. Mutual consent; 2. An external promise; 3. A reciprocal delivery of bodies; 4. Thence results a perpetual bond; 5. The mutual obligation of rendering the debt; 6. The right which each has in the other; 7. Carnal copulation.

V. All Catholics deny that the essence of matrimony is set in carnal copulation. Between Adam and Eve there was true matrimony before their commixture. True was the matrimony of the Patriarch Joseph with the Blessed Virgin, all carnal copulation being utterly excluded.

VI. The mutual consent of the contracting parties is the efficient cause of matrimony. The Encratites, Marcionites, Manichees, and Priscillianists denied matrimony to be honourable and good. But the holy Scriptures and all Catholics execrate the error of those ravers. Since indeed matrimony was instituted by natural and divine right. The precept of contracting matrimony regards not individuals but the multitude.

VII. QUESTION I. Whether in the old law matrimony was a sacrament? ANSWER. The character of a sacrament can be regarded in two ways: 1. In the broader signification, according as in whatsoever manner it is called a sign of a sacred thing; 2. Inasmuch as it is a practical and efficacious sign of sanctifying grace. The common opinion of theologians denies that matrimony before the coming of Christ was a true sacrament. But that in the broader signification it was a sacrament, all concede, since, instituted in the state of innocence itself, it was a sign of the conjunction of Christ with the Church. This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. … Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. Genesis 2.

VIII. QUESTION II. Is matrimony in the evangelical law a true sacrament? ANSWER. Hus, Luther, Calvin, and the Protestants deny it; but it is of faith that it is a true sacrament, St. Paul saying, Ephesians 5: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church. There is added the perpetual tradition of the Church, whose documents I have given in Vol. X, Book 2, dissertation 1, chapter 4.

IX. QUESTION III. Whether matrimony celebrated between absent faithful through a proctor be a true sacrament? ANSWER. Soto, Isambert, Gotti, Tournely, and very many others affirm it. Victoria, Cano, Cajetan, Catharinus, Vanroy, and others deny it. This second opinion is to me the more probable. For no sacrament is celebrated between the absent. Nor do these words I join you together, and so forth, require the contracting parties present any less than those other words I absolve thee require a present penitent. The use of absolution given to one absent Clement VIII condemned. Tournely answers that absolution given to one absent is not against the nature of the sacrament, and could be given, did not the prohibition of Clement VIII stand in the way. This answer seems futile. Did Clement VIII condemn the aforesaid opinion at his own arbitrary pleasure? He condemned it because these words I absolve thee require a present penitent. Valid therefore will be a matrimony entered upon between absent parties through a proctor in the character of a natural and civil contract; but that it is not a true sacrament is to me the more probable.

X. The matrimony of unbelievers after the promulgation of the evangelical law is not a sacrament. Similarly the matrimony of a believer with an unbeliever is not a sacrament, as seems to me the more probable. If unbelieving spouses be converted to the faith, their matrimony does not become a sacrament according to the more probable opinion: because a later intention cannot bring it about that a contract entered upon, which was not a sacrament, should afterwards become one.

XI. Marriages of Catholics with heretics are altogether unlawful, as all theologians confess. But no law declares them invalid.