Thesis VII

In the word of God handed down there is contained the Catholic doctrine that Christian Marriage is truly and properly a Sacrament.

I. If by the perpetual and universal tradition of the Christian Church (which surely the decrees of Councils, solemn professions of faith, liturgies or sacramentals, the works of Theologians and Fathers represent) this doctrine is proved to be contained, namely that Christian Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament of the new law, that ought to be enough and more than enough for the Theologian, so that this truth may be said to be demonstrated; if indeed those things are true which concerning the force of Tradition we both teach in the Schools and defend against heretics. Moreover this is easily demonstrated. A true and proper Sacrament is that to which there univocally belongs the definition of those things which in the Church are held as sacraments, namely which are efficacious signs of sanctifying grace; that is, it is that which is a sacrament as Baptism, the Eucharist, etc., are. But by divine Tradition it is certain that Christian Marriage, which namely is contracted by Christian persons, is to be held in the number of these sacraments.

II. Indeed, that we may bring forward an argument which shows the agreement of both the Greek and Latin Church at once, it is certain that the heretical sects which in the fifth century, when namely each Church, Latin and Greek, was still united, departed from the Catholic Church, always had among themselves seven sacraments in number, and among these marriage; and although they disagree among themselves in other dogmas, nevertheless in this all agree. Therefore we gather that those sects received this sevenfold number from the Church and carried it with them.

Therefore in the fifth century the whole Catholic Church had marriage in the number of those things which are properly called sacraments. But this is sufficient that apostolic tradition be demonstrated. You have the proof of the antecedent from the following testimonies, provided you observe that sects of this sort were always tenacious of those things which from the beginning they received from their parents and abhorred changes. Now the faith of the Nestorian Syrians is testified to by Sulaka the Patriarch, in the profession of faith which, while still a monk, he issued at Rome in 1553: "We also believe in holy baptism, and in the sacrifice which is the body and blood of Christ, and in the holy priesthood, and in marriage." Simon Assemani reports the faith of the Jacobites and Copts (Bibliotheca Orientalis, tome II, dissertation On the Monophysites, n. 5): "As regards the sacraments, it is clear from their ritual and pontifical books, etc., that the sevenfold number of them, such as is acknowledged by the Catholic Church, is held most sacred among the Jacobites." Vartan, Bishop of the Armenians, who published his works about two centuries before the Council of Florence, is also a witness that the Armenians thought the same before the Council of Florence; for he says (cf. Galanus, tome 2, p. 440), in the admonitions to the Armenians, c. 6: "Paul the Apostle instructed his disciple Dionysius concerning the seven sacraments of the Church. Christianity rests upon the seven sacraments of the Church... The first sacrament is baptism, the second the sacrifice of the Mass; the third the blessing of the ointment, which the Latins call chrism; the fourth is order; the fifth is marriage, etc." Likewise in the seventeenth century the Greek Church, against Cyril Lucaris favoring the Protestants, issued the profession of its faith, saying among other things: "Anathema to Cyril, fabricating new dogmas and believing that the seven Sacraments of the Church, namely baptism, chrism, penance, eucharist, priesthood, extreme unction, and marriage, are not from the institution of Jesus Christ, nor from the tradition of the Apostles and perpetual practice." Therefore the consequent which we gathered is certain. Cf. Schelstrate, Acts of the Oriental Church against the Heresy of Luther.

III. But that we may enlarge this argument, let us consider singly the testimonies of the Church. Therefore, if in the Church, especially the Latin Church, we make our way from the latest times to the older, there stands forth first the Tridentine decree, session XXIV, canon 1, and the Florentine decree in the decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians; in these Marriage is numbered among the seven sacraments of the Church, which are called sacraments only properly, and it is said truly and properly to be one of the seven sacraments of the Evangelical law. Then there is at hand the profession of faith issued by Michael Palaeologus in the ecumenical Council of Lyons II (year 1274), in which you have these things: "The same holy Roman Church also holds and teaches that there are seven ecclesiastical sacraments: one, namely, baptism; another is the sacrament of confirmation... another is penance, another eucharist; another the sacrament of order; another is marriage; another extreme unction." Lucius III had preceded these (year 1181) in the Council celebrated at Verona (Ad abolendam, On Heretics), saying: "All who do not fear to think or teach otherwise than the Most Holy Roman Church preaches and observes concerning the sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, or concerning baptism, or concerning the confession of sins, marriage, or the remaining ecclesiastical sacraments... we bind with the bond of perpetual anathema." Already before this, in the same century, the leading Theologians of the School had taught the same opinion: Hugh of St. Victor (about the year 1140), On Sacraments in General and On the Sacraments of Faith; and the Master of the Sentences (about 1150, in the fourth book), to whom all the rest of the theologians gave assent, teaching that a sacrament of the Church is the visible form of invisible grace, so that it bears its image and exists as cause (dist. 1); and that there are seven sacraments of this sort, among which they numbered marriage among the faithful (dist. 2) ¹. At the beginning and thus the one contracting marriage is more acceptable to God than he had been in the preceding instant, because to enter marriage is a good work, and the power of the sacrament, through the merits of Christ, works an increase of grace. But he would have pleased God more if he had wished to persevere celibate or a virgin. Moreover, to obtain grace with God can have a certain special signification, namely to be made, on account of some work, more acceptable to God than if the opposite, although licit, had been done. Therefore, if the grace of God is taken thus, it can be said that the other sacraments confer grace, but marriage only a remedy, which nevertheless is an effect of sanctifying grace. of the same twelfth century Otto, Bishop of Bamberg, in a Sermon (in Migne, P.L., vol. CLXXIII, p. 1555), after enumerating the Sacraments of the Church, baptism namely, etc., says: "the sixth is marriage, that is, matrimonial union." Again, at the beginning of the same twelfth century, the same doctrine was handed down plainly enough by Rudolph Ardens, who has these things in the Homilies on the Sunday Epistles and Gospels, homily 2: "What is marriage? The legitimate conjunction of male and female, retaining an individual custom of life. What are the goods of marriage? Three: fidelity, offspring, sacrament. It is a sacrament because it is the sign of a sacred thing... Therefore the bridegroom and bride who are about to approach the sacrament of nuptials ought to repent of past excesses and confess their sins." Certain ancient orders or rituals command the same thing. Cf. Martene, order 14. The same thing, on account of reverence for the sacrament, William, Bishop of Paris, prescribed in his Constitutions in the year 1208. Moreover, the duty of repenting and confessing for rightly receiving the sacrament of nuptials shows this to be a sacrament properly so called. Therefore this opinion was commonly known and certain in that age. Likewise at the beginning of the twelfth century Hildebert, Bishop of Tours, in Sermon 2 (Galland, tome 14, p. 334 ff.), n. 3, says: "Therefore there are three sacraments in the city of our God which both preceded the others in time and are known to obtain the primacy in the restoration of the sons of God. The first of these is marriage, the second baptism, the third the sacred libation of the Lord's table. Upon these, in the youth of the world, a form was impressed by God, etc."

¹ The Master indeed immediately adds: "of which some furnish a remedy against sin and confer helping grace, as baptism; others are only for a remedy, as marriage; others sustain us by grace and virtue, as the eucharist and order." By these words the Master seems to deny that marriage confers grace. But since, as St. Thomas observes in the same place, the definition of a genus ought to agree with all the species, and in the definition of sacrament by the Master himself it is placed that it exists as cause of grace, his opinion cannot be one which simply denies that grace is conferred through the sacrament of marriage. But that which is called a remedy will be a certain grace, which nevertheless, on account of a certain special reason, can be honored by this singular name and distinguished from grace taken generally. Thus St. Thomas interprets the saying of the Master in the same place, q. I, a. 1, ql. 2, ad 3: "It must be said that each thing is denominated from that to which it is ordered. But the grace which is conferred in marriage, insofar as it is a sacrament of the Church celebrated in the faith of Christ, is ordered directly (although not exclusively) to repressing concupiscence, which pertains to the act of marriage; and therefore the Master says that marriage is only for a remedy; but this is through the grace which is conferred in it." Perhaps the Master considered that which is special in marriage with respect to the grace of God before the other sacraments. Namely, he who receives any other sacrament becomes either simply acceptable to God or more acceptable to him, and always pleases him more than if he had not received the sacrament; nor does the opposite please God more than the reception itself of the sacrament, at least of itself. But he who contracts marriage does not please God more than if he had chosen the opposite, that is, life in continence. An increase of sanctifying grace is indeed conferred through marriage, with helps suitable to that state,

St. Thomas indeed, in IV, dist. II, q. I, a. 1, ql. 2, reports the opinion of certain persons saying that "in marriage some grace is not conferred, but that it is only for a remedy against concupiscence." Either this opinion must be accepted in the way in which we accepted the doctrine of the Master in the Note, whom they seem to have followed as to the manner of speaking, or it must be held to be a certain imprudent aberration from the common doctrine. Certainly, as St. Thomas argues in the same place, the very doctrine admitted by those same Theologians, namely that marriage is a sacrament of the New Law, and that the sacraments of the New Law are causes of grace, is evidently repugnant to this other doctrine, that no grace is conferred through marriage. Wherefore aberrations of this sort, which touch the manner of speaking rather than the thing itself, are not witnesses of dissent from the doctrine of others, but are witnesses of a doctrine not yet clarified and illustrated by the scholastic method through proper and distinct concepts; and this also happens in other questions. Durandus also later joined those Theologians of whom Thomas makes mention, but, the School protesting, he afterwards corrected his opinion.

Therefore from the twelfth century it is certain that ecclesiastical preaching in the Latin Church had been sufficiently explicit: the marriage of Christians is truly and properly a sacrament.

IV. Moreover, in the preceding age there also exists a continuous series of tradition all the way to Apostolic times, handing down at least this, most openly and without doubt: namely that the marriage of Christians is of divine institution and is entered into with God as author; that it is a sacred thing; that it is joined with sanctification and grace; that it was sanctified by Christ; and now and then also teaching that marriage is truly and properly a sacrament.

Indeed, a) there exist either Orders or Rituals (cf. Martene, On the Ancient Rites of the Church, book I, part 2, chapter IX, article 6 ff., and Goar in the Euchologion of the Greeks), or Sacramentaries, which extend in a long series all the way to the Gelasian Sacramentary, which is said to have been derived from the Sacramentary of St. Leo. Now in the Sacramentary of Gelasius (cf. Thomasius, Codices of the Sacraments, book III, Sacramentary of the Roman Church) there is represented the nuptial action which takes place within the solemnities of Masses, consisting of the prayers and blessings of the Priest; and in it you have these things: "God is he who connects spouses in legitimate society; the wife is joined by the gift of God to marital fellowship." And God is entreated that "he pour upon the spouses the help of his blessing; that in conjugal fellowship, with equal affection, with similar mind, they be joined by mutual holiness; that he deign to confirm their nuptials as those of the first man; that he sanctify the beginnings of the woman; that she, associated in good and prosperous fellowship, may keep the commands of the eternal law and may marry faithful and chaste in Christ." Once the blessing has been completed, the spouses receive communion from the altar. But from these Ritual books, whose authority in the Church is very great, since they represent the public testimony of the Churches, it is manifest that marriage is exhibited as a thing flowing from divine institution, a thing which is made with God as author, a thing joined with sanctification and grace; namely, that man and woman are joined to each other by mutual holiness and marry in Christ.

b) The Fathers, even the most ancient, teach α) that "the Church conciliates marriage, the oblation confirms it, the blessing seals it, the Angels announce it when sealed, and the Father holds it ratified" (Tertullian, To His Wife, book II, chapter 9); β) that "it is fitting that bridegrooms and brides make marriage according to the judgment of the Bishop, that the nuptials may be according to the Lord and not according to cupidity" (Ignatius Martyr, Epistle to St. Polycarp, chapter 5); γ) that "marriage itself ought to be sanctified by the priestly veil and blessing" (Ambrose, epistle 19 to Vigilius); that "it is after the manner of sacrilege if by any transgression that blessing is violated which the priest imposes upon the woman about to marry" (Siricius, Roman Pontiff, to Himerius of Tarragona, n. 4). Therefore, in the address of Peter to the ecclesiastical assembly, which he is said to have had after he handed over his Roman chair to Clement, as is narrated in the Clementines (cf. either the epistle of Clement to James prefixed to these in the edition of Cotelerius, or, in Dressel, the other epitome of Clement of the preachings of Peter, n. 151), these words occur, spoken to the presbyters: "Those things which belong to presbyters are these: Before all things, let them quickly join the young in nuptials, by forestalling the snares of the cupidity burning in youth. But neither let them cast away care concerning the marriage of those now old; for in some, even when they have grown old, strong cupidity is present." Namely, the marriage of Christians is subject to the care and government of priests. Wherefore Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, book 3, indicates that presbyters in the Church were accustomed to be present at Christian nuptials; for, reproving women adorned with false hairpieces and approaching the nuptial blessing, he says: "Upon whom will the presbyter impose hands? Whom, moreover, will he bless? Not the woman who is adorned, but another head by means of another's hair." But from these things it is certain that the rite which is exhibited in the orders is most ancient and reaches Apostolic times, or has been derived from the Apostles; then it is certain also from the opinion of the Fathers that marriage is a thing belonging to the Church, a sacred thing, joined with sanctification.

c) The Fathers again teach that divine grace coheres with marriage, as Tertullian, loc. cit., chapter 7: "If therefore a marriage of this sort is ratified before God, why should it not also turn out prosperously, so that it is not so harassed by pressures and straits and impediments and defilements, having already from a part the patronage of divine grace?" Therefore this is for marriage to be ratified before God: namely, to have the patronage of divine grace. Maximus of Turin, homily 23:

"Christ goes to nuptials, in order that those which long ago he constituted by power he may sanctify by the blessing of his presence." Innocent I, epistle 9, concerning a simultaneous bigamist, hands down these things: "We establish, with the Catholic faith giving support, that that was marriage which had first been founded by divine grace, and that the coming together of a second woman, while the former survives and has not been cast out by divorce, can by no compact be legitimate." Moreover marriage founded by divine grace is that which was contracted first. Therefore divine grace coheres with Christian marriage.

d) Monuments confirm the doctrine of the Fathers handed down thus far. In the work of the distinguished man Garrucci (Glasses, etc., table 26) there exists a twofold representation of nuptials; in each, the man and woman join right hands; in one, between them there stands the Monogram of Christ; in the other, between the same persons, a column adorned with gems, which is the symbol of the Church, whose gems are the Apostles, with the inscription: May you live in God. "Happy are the nuptials at which Christ is present," says Chrysologus, sermon 157. There exists a Greek coin to be referred to the fifth or sixth century, in which bridegroom and bride join right hands, Christ existing in the middle, who, embracing both, joins them, with the inscription Θεοῦ χάρις, "the grace of God." Nazianzen had already expressed this (epistle 193) a little otherwise: "I join youthful right hands to each other, and both to the hand of God."

V. But does the notion of sacrament properly so called, explicitly asserted of Christian marriage, occur in the monuments of the ancients which remain to us? That they may persuade this, some appeal to the words of Tertullian, On Prescription, chapter 40, by which they judge that he numbers marriage among the sacraments properly so called. "The devil," he says, "whose parts it is to overturn truth, emulates also the very things of the divine sacraments in the mysteries of idols. He himself also washes certain persons, namely his believers and faithful ones; he promises expiation from the laver (after the laver), and thus even initiates Mithras; there he signs his soldiers on the foreheads; he also celebrates the oblation of bread... What of the fact that he also establishes the supreme Pontiff in one marriage?... He therefore so emulously affected to express in the affairs of idolatry the very things from which the sacraments of Christ are administered, etc." Behold, they say, the Christian sacraments: baptism, penance, confirmation, eucharist, nuptials, which the devil emulates as an ape. But to establish the supreme Pontiff in one marriage is nothing other than to establish that the Pontiff be the husband of one wife, which Paul had prescribed, and which, with the devil persuading, unbelievers were imitating. Cf. the same author, To His Wife, book I, chapter 7.

But Augustine speaks more clearly. For in On Nuptials and Concupiscence, chapter 10, he teaches that not only fecundity and fidelity, but a certain sacrament of nuptials is commended to the married faithful. But he says that the effect of this sacrament is indissolubility, just as character is the effect of baptism. "Of this Sacrament, without any doubt, the thing is that male and female, joined in marriage, persevere inseparably as long as they live. Thus there remains among the living a certain conjugal thing which neither separation nor union with another can take away; but it remains for the guilt of crime, not for the bond of covenant; just as an apostate soul, departing as it were from the marriage of Christ, even when faith has been lost, does not lose the sacrament of faith which it received by the laver of regeneration." And in On the Good of Marriage, chapter 24, he compares the sacrament of marriage to the sacrament of ordination: "The good of nuptials, which belongs to the people of God, is also in the holiness of the sacrament, through which it is unlawful even for one departing by repudiation to marry another... nor is the conjugal bond dissolved except by the death of the spouse. Just as, if an ordination of clergy is made for gathering a people, even if the gathering of the people does not follow, nevertheless the sacrament of ordination remains in those ordained; and if by some fault anyone is removed from office, he will not lack the sacrament of the Lord." Wherefore in the same place, chapter 18, he says: "In the nuptials of Christians the holiness of the sacrament has more force than the fecundity of the womb." But a sacrament which belongs only to the faithful, which is the cause of a permanent effect after the manner of a character, which is compared to baptism and order, you will not interpret more suitably than if you understand a sacrament properly so called. Especially since this manner of speaking, the thing of the sacrament, is customarily employed by Augustine when he has speech concerning sacraments properly so called. Nor is St. Hildebert of Tours opposed to this interpretation; indeed he supports it, when in the Sermon cited above, n. 4, concerning this manner of speaking of Augustine he observes "that, all the other things which are required in legitimate marriage being omitted, Augustine ascribes sacrament to its stability; someone not imprudent, as I think, might say that this was said by prerogative rather than singularly (that is, not only in this, but chiefly in it): for an authority not to be contemned hands down that a sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing." Then he goes on to enumerate those things in which marriage is a sign of a sacred thing.

But especially Cyril of Alexandria must be appealed to, who thus discourses in On John, book II, chapter 2: "Christ himself, having been invited with his disciples, came to the nuptials, not so much in order to feast as in order to work a miracle, and besides to sanctify the principle of human generation, so far, namely, as pertains to the flesh. For it was fitting that he who was about to renew the very nature of man should not only impart a blessing to those who had already been called into birth, but should also pre-establish grace for those who were afterward to be born, and make their entrance into being (τὴν εἰς εἶναι πάροδον) holy." Therefore Christ not only imparted a blessing to those already born, namely through baptism, but besides sanctified the very principle of human generation, that is, marriage, and by this sanctification pre-established grace for those to be born, so that their birth would be holy. These things of themselves signify the supernatural sanctity of marriage, by which its act, or the generation of children, also is holy: which sanctity of a permanent thing is itself permanent of itself; and when this is posited, marriage becomes a true sacrament. Moreover Epiphanius teaches the same thing, although less clearly, heresy LXVII: "Who would not recognize that nuptials are venerable and, with the grace of God breathing upon them, obtain the heavenly kingdom, even from this, that the Savior himself was invited to nuptials, that he might bless them?" The Fathers of Ephesus likewise teach, Act 1, saying: "Christ then, by dispensation, blessed the nuptials themselves, when in Cana of Galilee he deigned to be present, being called with the holy Apostles." From these things you see that, just as Christ is said to have sanctified the waters by his baptism, so he is said by his presence to have sanctified nuptials. If you weigh this comparison rightly, you will easily understand that, just as the sanctification of the waters, according to the Fathers themselves, was a sanctification conferring sacramental power, in the same way the sanctification of nuptials must be accepted.

Now, if the opinion expressed in all these monuments of the earlier age that have been brought forward (IV, V) is compared with the opinion expressed in the monuments of the later age (III), which we enumerated above, it is clear, first, that speech in each series is about the same thing; secondly, that the opinion expressed in the more ancient monuments is related to the opinion of the later ones as a generic and more or less determined notion is related to a specific and more determined notion. But this specific and more determined account, which appears in the later monuments, was apprehended and implicitly asserted by all those formulas which exist in the older monuments. Therefore the same doctrine which is explicitly asserted in the later monuments was also held in the earlier age. The minor is proved. For it is necessary that the ancients, speaking of marriage as it is in the concrete, apprehended its notion not only generically, but also specifically, or the determinate mode by which it is a sacred thing and joined with sanctification; for any thing is determinate in itself and exists in a determinate mode. Therefore a sacred thing is sacred in a determinate mode. But it could not happen that for so long an age, when there was question of a matter frequent in daily use, the account of sacredness which is in marriage would be apprehended only in a confused mode still determinable, without the wise perceiving that the confused concept was to be determined more, lest marriage be confused with other sacred things of another species; without therefore a question arising concerning its proper and determinate notion, and doubts and diverse opinions existing. Nor could it happen that thereafter, from the eleventh century, a certain determinate mode by which marriage is sacred, if it had recently been devised, would be proposed to the faithful without any controversy as a known thing. But there exists no trace in the preceding centuries of questions or diverse opinions on this matter, and from the eleventh century a certain determinate mode by which marriage is a sacrament is proposed without any controversy. Therefore in the earlier ages the determinate account of sacredness which belongs to marriage was apprehended, and the faithful, or at least the teachers of the faithful, were conscious of this thing. But this determinate account of sacredness which was attributed to marriage in the earlier centuries could not be other than that which afterwards is explicitly expressed in the later monuments; otherwise there would have arisen in the Church a doctrine not only new, but also contrary to the ancient doctrine. Therefore the earlier formulas represent that same thing, although a little more obscurely, at least as regards us, which the later formulas represent; therefore the doctrine exhibited by the definitions of Councils is represented by an uninterrupted series of testimonies which is connected with the Apostolic age.

But if you add that in the series also of the ancient monuments the notion of Sacrament properly so called repeatedly shines forth (cf. n. V, Augustine and Cyril), you will have a confirmation, although not a necessary one, of the identity of the thing known both by the later and by the more ancient. Therefore from apostolic tradition proceeds the doctrine that Christian marriage is a sacrament properly so called. And so by a twofold kind of arguments Catholic tradition is demonstrated in this matter: that is, both by the consensus of all Christians in the fifth century (II), and by the analysis of the doctrine of every age all the way to Apostolic times or times near to them.

VI. Yet a difficulty not to be despised occurs. For it is asked, first, why the Fathers before Augustine, disputing with the Gnostics and Manichaeans, who rejected marriage as introduced by Satan, and bringing forward also testimonies of the Scriptures, why the Fathers, I say, when they attack this error with arguments drawn from divine authority, nevertheless never bring that into the middle, namely that marriage is a sacrament? Moreover, there disputed on this matter Irenaeus, book I, Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book III, Tertullian, book I, To His Wife, Titus of Bostra, book II, against the Manichaeans, Epiphanius, heresy 23 of Saturnilus, 32 of Epiphanes, 45 of the Severians, 67 of the Hieracites, and Didymus of Alexandria, Against the Manichaeans, etc. It is asked, secondly, why the Fathers disapproving the nuptials of the faithful with unbelievers, such as Tertullian, book II, To His Wife, Cyprian in Augustine, On Faith and Works, chapter 19, and the Fathers of the Council of Laodicea, canon 10, and of the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, canon 14, did not appeal to the dignity of the sacrament, which seems to be the most powerful reason. It is also asked, thirdly, why Jovinian, who gathered together all arguments (cf. Jerome, book I, Against the Same) in order to extol marriage and make it equal to virginity, did not bring forward the account of sacrament. Namely, from all these things it seems that the doctrine was unknown to the earlier centuries: that marriage is a sacrament.

To the first it must be confessed that the ancient Fathers, when they attack that error of certain Gnostics and Manichaeans, do not use explicitly, and under this formula of words which we now would use, an argument taken from the dignity of a true and proper sacrament, but appeal both to the divine institution of marriage (Gen. II; Matt. XIX), and to the words of the Apostle (Hebr. XIII, 4; 1 Cor. VII, 2, 28 ff.; 1 Tim. V, 11), and also to the blessing which Christ imparted by his presence to the nuptials in Cana of Galilee. But, first, that argument sought from silence, since it is negative, loses all force if against it, as has been done, positive arguments can be brought forward. Secondly, we said deliberately: explicitly and under that formula of words which we now use. For since the Fathers must be judged to have attributed the dignity of sacrament to marriage when they say that it was sanctified by Christ by the blessing of his presence, and since they object this sanctification against the heretics, it cannot simply be asserted that the Fathers did not use that argument. Indeed, on the contrary, it must be held that when the Fathers objected that blessing against the heretics, which the Greeks frequently do, they objected to them the account of a true sacrament. For just as they signified that the true account of sacrament is present in baptism when they spoke of the sanctification imparted to the waters in the Jordan by Christ, so they must be thought to speak of true sacramental sanctification when they say that Christ, by his presence, blessed and sanctified nuptials. For the rest, thirdly, the argument taken from the proper dignity of a true sacrament was in no way necessary for the Fathers; rather, it was enough to urge the divine institution. Indeed, the matter was being dealt with against heretics who, permitting to themselves any wandering concubitus whatever for the sake of pleasure, nevertheless condemned the procreation of children and nuptials, as Epiphanius and Clement of Alexandria testify concerning the Gnostics in the places cited, and Augustine concerning the Manichaeans in On Heresies, heresy 46: "They admonish their hearers that, if they use spouses, they should nevertheless avoid conception and generation, lest the divine substance which enters into them through foods be bound by the chains of flesh in offspring." And against Secundinus the Manichaean, chapter 22: "For you do not so much detest concubitus as nuptials." Cf. also Titus of Bostra, cited work, book II. Now this base opinion erred simply in that which belongs to natural right, and therefore to overthrow it, it was enough to teach that the procreation of offspring and marriage are according to nature and honorable, which all the Fathers furnish; and also from the Scriptures, which those heretics received in some manner, it was enough to show that the procreation of offspring and marriage, which nature demands, were confirmed by divine institution. And this was directly opposed to their opinion, who taught that to take a wife and procreate children was from Satan.

To the second, we respond first that the dignity of the sacrament of itself does not prevent these nuptials from being permitted, as was done from the beginning of the Church; wherefore neither in the nearest centuries was this argument too much to be urged, especially lest the preceding Fathers seem to be condemned as injurious toward the sacrament. For the rest, where the necessity of permitting it was lacking, and it was lawful for Bishops, without scandal and disturbance of the faithful, to guard the honor of the sacrament most fully, it is false that an argument was not also drawn thence for prohibiting these nuptials, although they had not yet invalidated them. For in the Council of Elvira it is indeed said, canon 15: "On account of the abundance of girls, Christian virgins are by no means to be given in marriage to the Gentiles, lest an age swelling in its flower be dissolved in adultery of the soul." But in canon 16 it is added: "But it has pleased us that they be given neither to Jews nor to heretics, because there can be no society of a faithful person with an unbeliever," certainly in a sacred thing; which reason is not one that may be denied to be sought from the dignity itself of the sacrament. The same reason is also contained implicitly in the opinion of Cyprian, which Augustine reports in the cited place: "St. Cyprian in the epistle On the Lapsed (compare it), among the evil morals of Christians, counts joining the bond of marriage with unbelievers, which he asserted to be nothing other than prostituting the members of Christ to the Gentiles; these in our times are now not thought to be sins, because in truth in the New Testament nothing has been commanded concerning this, and therefore it has been believed either to be lawful or has been left as doubtful." But since the Laodicean and Chalcedonian canons bring forward no special reason, they also exclude no suitable one.

3. As regards Jovinian, we respond that he too denied the distinction between the innocent and penitents, or equated penitents with the innocent (Jerome, cited work, book II, in proposition 1), and nevertheless, in order to show this parity, did not gather an argument from the fact that penance is a sacrament. Namely, he was instituting a comparison between the merits of each, the innocent and the penitent, which each could acquire for himself in his own state, and between the reward which he contended had been promised as the same to all because of their works, not between the rites by which some state was consecrated. Wherefore neither did he appeal to the account of sacrament in marriage, because he was comparing the state of marriage with the state of virginity, or the merits which in each state man and woman could attain, and he gathered the equal merit of the virgin and the spouse from the value of the works of each before God.