Thesis VIII

By the written word of God also it is shown that Christian marriage, by reason of its state, has sanctifying grace conjoined to it; and that, when it itself comes to be, it is also the cause of this grace, is at least strongly urged from the words alone of the Scriptures, the analogy of faith being applied.

I. Let us come to the Scriptures. In Eph. V. 22 seq., as the Council of Trent bears witness, it is intimated that marriage is a sacrament. This must be explained, and it must be inquired whether a true demonstration of Catholic doctrine can be drawn out of this passage. Three partial questions must be distinguished: 1. whether marriage is a sacrament in some general respect; 2. whether it is of itself conjoined with sanctifying grace proper to its state; 3. whether the rite itself, by which marriage comes to be, is, under God, the cause of that grace.

As to what regards the first, after the Apostle has explained the mutual relation of man and woman by the mutual relation of Christ and the Church, he concludes thus, with the words of Adam from Gen. II. 24: For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be in one flesh: This is a great sacrament (τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστί); but I speak in Christ and in the Church (εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν). Now the pronoun this (in the words this sacrament) indicates that the appellation of sacrament is made of the preceding thing, which has already been shown and made present; but what precedes generally is the sentence of Adam, and what immediately comes before is this: that the two would be in one flesh. Therefore these words of Adam contain a mystery, or the thing expressed by these words is a mystery or sacrament. Moreover it must be observed that Adam, by those words for this cause, with which he begins the last part of the speech, joins the following things by a causal bond with the things preceding in Gen. II. 22, 23. But these preceding things are not only those words spoken of Eve: bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; for from these alone it is certainly not clear how there follows that which is then added: a man shall leave father and mother, etc. Rather, the preceding things are the whole deed which preceded, namely that God gave Eve as wife to Adam and joined her with him in such unity, as Adam himself also expressed. But when Paul had interpreted mystically of the Church those same words of Adam (bone of my bones, etc.; to be of the bones and flesh of someone designates in the Scriptures whatever degrees of necessity; cf. Fr. de Hummelauer on Genesis, at this place), v. 30, because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones, that is, of Christ, and had thus transferred them to signify the marriage of Christ with the Church, he immediately continues by using the words of Adam, yet with the conjunction changed: ἀντὶ τούτου, a man shall leave father, etc. For in Hebrew it is על כן, which the LXX render ἕνεκα τούτου. But ἀντὶ τούτου can conveniently be translated: after the likeness of this. Namely, just as the Church is the spouse of Christ, so (after the likeness of this union) a man shall leave, etc., by which the relation of type and ectype is signified. Thus the Apostle returns to that which he had taught from the beginning of the discourse, that the union of Christ with the Church is the type of marriage.

Now no one doubts that all the words of Adam are to be taken in the literal sense of the marital union of man and woman, since this is the proper and immediate sense of the words, and the occasion on which they were uttered demands this sense; moreover Christ himself taught this interpretation, Matth. XIX. 5. But that these words, a man shall leave, etc., they shall be two in one flesh, also have a mystical signification, that is, that the thing immediately signified by these words also signifies something else, the Apostle teaches us, calling these words, or the thing expressed by the words, a sacrament, and declaring that it is great in Christ and in the Church, that is, in the union of Christ with the Church, which he had explained above as the conjunction of Bridegroom with Bride. Therefore the union of Christ and the Church is the term or object to which that mystery is referred, εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν; wherefore the union of man and woman is certainly a sign of this union. For it is called a mystery because in it lies hidden the signification of a hidden thing, of which sort is the espousal of the Word with the Church. Thus Jerome explains the mind of Paul on this passage: "The same thing he interprets by allegory in Christ and in the Church...

Not, as very many think, can the whole history which is written in Genesis concerning Adam and Eve easily be referred to Christ and the Church, but only that which is set down in the present passage: for this cause, etc. For the first man and first prophet, Adam, prophesied this concerning Christ and the Church: that our Lord and Savior left his Father, God, and his mother, the heavenly Jerusalem (I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world, John XVI. 28), and came to the earth on account of his body, the Church, and fashioned her from his own side, and on account of her the Word was made flesh. And because not all sacraments are equal, but one sacrament is greater and another lesser, for that reason he now says: This is a great sacrament; and at the same time this is an indication of him who infers: but I speak in Christ and in the Church"; as if he were saying, according to the interpretation of Nazianzen: "I know that this passage is full of ineffable sacraments and seeks the divine heart of an interpreter; but I, according to the smallness of my understanding, think meanwhile that it is to be understood in Christ and in the Church." Cf. also St. Thomas, discoursing on this passage in the same way.

Therefore the words of Adam, which in the literal sense signify the marital union of man and woman, mystically, with Paul as author, signify the marriage of Christ with the Church. Marriage, therefore, is a sign of this thing. And so marriage is a theoretical sign of a sacred thing, of which sort is the union of Christ with the Church. It is, moreover, a great sign. Why? Certainly because it signifies a great thing. Is it also because it signifies in a certain wonderful mode? This will be clear from what is to be said. Therefore, since the generic notion of a sacrament is that it is a sign of a sacred thing, in this sense certainly marriage is called a sacrament, because it is the sign of that most sacred thing.

II. But we must proceed further and ask whether marriage is only a theoretical sign of the union of Christ with the Church, or whether it is also conjoined with grace and signifies it. The question is, namely, whether by divine institution there is conjoined with marriage, by reason of itself, a grace fitting the state of marriage, which is conferred when marriage comes to be. But we are taught sufficiently clearly by Paul that marriage among Christians is of this sort. We suppose that the marriage of which he himself speaks is certainly the marriage of Christians; for those whom he addresses are Christians, and they are the same persons to whom the example of Christ and the Church is proposed as a thing known. But whether the doctrine of Paul pertains only to Christian marriage, we shall say later.

And so, A) if a brief analysis is made of the words of the Apostle from v. 22 onward, one may observe, 1. that that marriage is considered by the Apostle which is of divine institution; for it is considered as one of one man with one woman and indissoluble, vv. 23, 29; such, namely, as was declared by Adam in the prophetic words: for this cause, etc.

2. That the nature of a sacrament or sign is exhibited by the Apostle as inhering in marriage by divine institution, inasmuch, namely, as God himself assumed marriage into a sign. For he repeats it from the prophetic words of Adam, which words the Apostle knew were to be attributed to God, since they are attributed to God himself by Christ, Matth. XIX. 5. Hence although other mutual relations besides that which is proper to spouses, for example, that of father to son and conversely, can represent some relation of the Church to God and conversely, nevertheless it is not therefore lawful to conclude that there belongs to this relation what is asserted by Paul of marriage by reason of the sacrament, that is, of such mystical signification, unless you first demonstrate that that union also of father and son has been assumed by God as a sacrament or sign of some relation or union of his to the Church or to others.

3. That the relation which intervenes between man and woman is so explained by the Apostle that the man is the head of the woman (v. 23), the woman is the body of the man and subject to him (vv. 24, 28). But this relation is permanent, just as the relation of head to body is permanent. Therefore some state is signified.

Moreover, 4. with Paul as author, a certain proportion exists between this relation of man and woman and the relation of Christ and the Church; for the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the Church (v. 23), and the woman is subject to the man in all things, as the Church is subject to Christ (v. 24), or the woman is the body of the man, as the Church is the body of Christ (vv. 23, 28). Namely, the union of man with woman is similar to the union of Christ with the Church; it is, namely, a union representing the union of Christ with the Church, and therefore it is a state representing something wholly holy and supernatural, and for that reason this state itself also, by reason of representation, is holy and supernatural. According to Paul these things pertain to the essence of marriage; for from them he gathers the proper offices of spouses, namely, because they are such - the man the head of the woman, as Christ of the Church, the woman subject to the man, as the Church to Christ - the man must conduct himself in a certain way toward the woman, and the woman toward the man.

Now, 5. the offices which Paul gathers from this sort of state are the love of the man toward the woman (v. 25), and the fear of the woman toward the man (v. 33), which fear is itself also a certain love, but joined with a certain reverence and subjection. But that love is supernatural; for its norm, which is proposed, is wholly supernatural, namely the love of Christ and the Church (vv. 25-28), and the formal reason on account of which it is demanded is supernatural; for it is demanded from this, that the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church, namely from this, that the union of man and woman is a union representing the union of Christ and the Church. And the final reason of the same is also supernatural, namely, that through acts in the exercise itself the love of Christ toward the Church and the subjection of the Church toward Christ may be represented. For to this also pertain the words of Paul: Men, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church; for they ought to act according to its norm, so that they may represent it, just as by reason of the state they represent the union of Christ with the Church. Besides, no other love than supernatural love could have been commended to the faithful in this economy from the example of Christ.

Moreover, 6. the love which is commended to spouses is a special love, that is, one proper to the state of marriage; for it is not commanded to them because they are Christians, but because the man is the head of the woman and the woman subject to the man. But the man existing as head of the woman and the woman subject to the man represent Christ and the Church. Therefore the love is permanent, just as the state remains. But, 7. in this is situated the proper office of marriage; therefore to the same also belongs the power or principle of this supernatural love proper to the same state, and this Paul manifestly supposes when he commands and commends the act.

Therefore the state of marriage, because it is such a state representing the marriage of Christ with the Church, has by reason of itself joined to it a permanent principle of supernatural love proper to it, that is, sanctifying grace proper to it, permanent, by which man and woman are able to conduct themselves toward one another as Christ toward the Church and the Church toward Christ, and so to represent the love of Christ and the subjection of the Church. I have said sanctifying grace, for the principle of permanent love is sanctifying grace, which besides gives a right to those actual helps which are suitable and necessary for that work on account of which habitual grace is given.

Therefore the sacrament of marriage, signifying the union of Christ with the Church, represents it also as to the mode in which the union comes to be, namely according to grace and holiness, because it is joined with sanctifying grace so that it may refer to the union of Christ with the Church. Wherefore marriage, when it comes to be, also signifies the grace annexed to it. For that contract or rite by which marriage comes to be signifies the very union of the spouses, and the contract or rite by which marriage comes to be among Christians signifies such a union as comes to be among Christians. But this is a union representing the union of Christ with the Church, a holy union or one conjoined with grace; therefore a twofold signification must be distinguished in marriage: one which is the signification of the union of Christ with the Church; the other which is the signification of the holiness or grace annexed to it, by which that union is perfectly represented.

Marriage, therefore, is a marital union supernaturally holy, with which sanctifying grace proper to that state is connected, and which marriage itself, when it comes to be, signifies.

III. But the question finally remains, whether God alone immediately effects in the spouses (disposed, of course) that grace which marriage signifies, or whether the rite itself of the nuptials is, under God, the cause of it, as the other sacraments are. We do not contend that this is openly taught by the Apostle in this place; nevertheless it is intimated, inasmuch as the Apostle teaches those things which, although of themselves they do not suffice, nevertheless, the account of the Christian economy being had, which he himself rightly must be said to suppose, certainly urge the matter. We say, therefore, that, when those things which the Apostle teaches are considered, and account is had of the character of the Christian economy, it is urged that the rite by which marriage comes to be is the cause of grace.

Certainly, 1. it is clear from what has been said that sanctifying grace is annexed to marriage by divine institution; for it is clear that it is annexed for a special reason, because marriage is the sign of the union of Christ with the Church, which signification is from divine institution. Therefore, 2. it is clear that marriage, when it comes to be, signifies by divine institution the grace annexed to it. For marriage itself, when it comes to be, signifies that union of spouses which comes to be by the force of mutual consent; but a holy union comes to be by divine institution, that is, grace is annexed to the union. Therefore just as it is from divine institution that this union is supernaturally holy, so from the same institution it arises that the rite essential to it, by which marriage is entered upon, signifies such a union.

3. It is clear that rites instituted by God for signifying grace to be conferred on men are in the New Law efficacious of the same; for this is the proper character of the New Law, that it not only signifies, as the Old Law does, but also effects grace. Or, in other words, it is clear that it is proper to the New Law that sanctifying grace, the ordinary bestowal of which God instituted for certain states and offices, namely, be conferred through sensible rites or through sacraments properly so called. But the ordinary bestowal of sanctifying grace has been instituted by God for those who are joined in marriage; moreover the sign of this grace is the sacrament of marriage from the divine institution itself; therefore it is also an efficacious sign.

IV. There are, besides, those who bring forward other testimonies of the Scriptures to prove or urge the same thing: namely, 1 Cor. VII. 14; Coloss. III. 18; 1 Tim. II. 15. But in the first passage it is not sufficiently clear why there should be speech there of the holiness of marriage, insofar as it is a sacrament. For the words otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy seem to be joined with that which he had warned before, that the faithful spouse should not depart from the unbelieving spouse; for otherwise their children previously begotten would be regarded as though spurious, while, if the spouses remain together, the children are held to be wholly legitimate and without any ignominy ¹; indeed, he says, they are holy, because through the faithful spouse they have been led to Christ.

¹ And indeed Gelasius I, in the Treatise against the Pelagian Heresy, hands down the interpretation of this passage, the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through the faithful woman, etc. He weighs first, namely, that since the two are in one flesh, because the body of each faithful spouse is the temple of God, according to a certain mode, through the conjugal unity of the flesh, the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse also touches the body, and that this society is far distant from that partnership which in both spouses has been enslaved to idols. Then he observes that through the prayer of each faithful spouse some mercy is bestowed even upon the unbelieving spouse, and through this he is declared to have been made, according to a certain mode, a participant in the divine favor. This especially happens when, by confidence of marriage, striking his heart with holy words by an assiduous voice, the faithful spouse frequently insinuates faith and hope in God, and then also when, by the example of holy conduct, as Peter admonishes (1 Pet. III), the spouse leads him to the love of God and of virtue. Therefore the sanctification of which the Apostle speaks is that which, with the faithful spouse assisting, not rarely befalls the unbelieving spouse through the grace of God. In an analogous mode the same Pontiff interprets the following words concerning the uncleanness and holiness of the children.

But in the other passage, from the fact that the Apostle teaches that a woman may marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord, and therefore that marriage should come to be in the Lord, it does not follow that marriage is a sacrament. "That phrase in the Lord," says Augustine (On Adulterous Marriages, c. 25), "can be taken in two ways: either as remaining Christian" (namely, that she marry in such a way that she does not desert Christ, or expose herself to the danger of deserting him), "or as marrying a Christian"; and Tertullian likewise interpreted it in both ways, the former in L. II. Ad Uxor., c. 2, the latter in De Monogamia, c. 7.

The same must be said of the third passage cited, where the Apostle commands women to be subject to their husbands, as is fitting, in the Lord. From this it does not appear how you would certainly gather this sense: as is fitting for those women who have contracted marriage, not as Gentiles, but sacramentally. I do not know what the fourth passage proves by itself: the woman shall be saved, says the Apostle, through the generation of children, if she has remained in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety; this can be said of any state of the faithful, namely that he will be saved who fulfills the offices of his state in faith and love, unless nevertheless you combine that passage with the testimony cited by us.

V. Therefore marriage, which would come to be at least according to the primitive institution, was always a sacrament taken in the broader sense, insofar as it is a sign of a sacred thing; but marriage is not a sacrament taken in the stricter sense, insofar as it is an efficacious sign of grace, except in the New Law. But why? The general reason is because sacraments properly so called exist only in the New Law. The Tridentine Fathers, Sess. XXIV, c. un., preformed the argumentation which we have used. Wherefore here there is, as it were, a process of perfection of marriage according to St. Thomas, Suppl., On Marriage, q. 42, a. 2. Marriage, namely, in the state of innocence was instituted for the office of nature (yet of holy nature); in the state of fallen nature another end also was superadded to it, namely, that it might be as a remedy for concupiscence; but in each state it was a sign of the union of Christ with the Church, and for that reason a sacrament taken in the broad sense; in the New Law, with that twofold end preserved, it was besides instituted as a sacrament properly so called.

VI. A certain difficulty occurring here must be cleared away. And, 1. indeed, it would be wrongly objected that whatever Paul here says to spouses about love and subjection, the example of Christ and the Church being applied, he could also have said to others, for instance to fathers and sons, without its therefore being lawful to gather that there is some sacrament between them. For, as we have already admonished, Paul presupposes this: that the union of spouses has been assumed by God as a sacrament or sign of the union of Christ with the Church, and from this he infers their offices. But this cannot be said of the others.

Yet, 2. it can be objected thus. The words of the Apostle, This is a great sacrament, were true from the beginning, when it was said: for this cause a man shall leave, etc., and in this way marriages were contracted. Wherefore the argument is made thus. From the words of Paul we gather that marriage is an efficacious sign of grace because it is a sacrament of this kind; but it was a sign of the union of Christ with the Church already from the beginning and thereafter; therefore from the beginning and thereafter it conferred grace. But the consequent is false; therefore also the antecedent.

I answer. From the Apostle we have that the union of man and woman, of which Adam speaks (but Adam does not properly speak of his own marriage; for he himself did not leave father or mother, but speaks of subsequent marriages), is a sign of the union of Christ with the Church; but from him we do not have that it was always in the same mode a sign of this thing. And in truth the marriage which the Apostle considers is of one man with one woman and indissoluble. But such a marriage was not found per se in the Old Testament; therefore it is sufficiently clear that at least those marriages which were made in the age of the Old Testament - much more those among idolaters, more vicious than among the Hebrews - were not considered here by the Apostle. Moreover, formerly, in the economy of shadows and figures, it was the sign of a future thing; now, in the economy of truth, it is the sign of a present thing. But what was proper to the preceding Mosaic economy was to confer only legal sanctity; what is proper to this present economy is to confer intrinsic grace. Therefore, since formerly, by reason of the very proper character of that economy, grace was not given through sensible signs, while now, on the contrary, it is given, this distinction, drawn from the native character of each economy, certainly could intervene between the nature of the sign which belonged to marriage before Christ and that which belongs now: namely, that formerly marriage signified by reason of union only, while now it signifies by reason of an intrinsically holy union.

Therefore I answer to the major of the argument. We do not say that Paul teaches universally that marriage is intrinsically holy because it is a sign, nor do we gather this. Rather, we say that that marriage of which Paul speaks, which is certainly the marriage of Christians, is regarded and represented by him as intrinsically holy and connected with grace, because it is the sign of the union of Christ with the Church; and, the character of the Christian economy being considered, we contend that that marriage of which the Apostle was directly speaking was held by him as a true and proper sacrament. The response to the minor is clear: for only the marriage of one man with one woman and indissoluble was also from the beginning a sign of the union of Christ with the Church, but according to the character of the diverse economies. Hence the consequent is denied, namely, that from the beginning it ought to have conferred grace (that is, ex opere operato).

Moreover, although after the sin of Adam subsequent marriages down to Christian marriage were not intrinsically holy or necessarily of themselves connected with grace and causative of it, nevertheless the marriage of the first parents was connected with grace by reason of the primitive state and ordered to the begetting of holy human beings. Wherefore, although it was not a sacrament in the way in which it now is, it was certainly intrinsically holy by reason of the state in which it came to be. Furthermore, Christ recalled Christian marriage to the dignity of that first marriage, of which God himself was the institutor; therefore rather it ought to follow that now Christian marriage is intrinsically holy, although not in the same respect, just as the reason of sanctification in the present economy is other than it was in that former one.

Wherefore Christian marriage is called a great sacrament also for this reason, that in a special mode, namely through a holy union, it represents the marriage of Christ with the Church.