Dist. 26, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 26
ARTICULUS II.
De matrimonii integritate.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de matrimonii integritate, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur de integritate quantum ad significationem. Secundo, quantum ad causalitatem. Tertio, quantum ad utrumque.
QUAESTIO I.
Quid sit in matrimonio signum, et quid signatum.
Quaeritur igitur primo, quid sit in Sacramento matrimonii signum, et quid signatum.
1. Et cum signum in Sacramentis sit elementum, sicut dicit Hugo8, quod «Sacramentum est elementum etc. ex similitudine repraesentans»; et cum hic nullum sit elementum, non videtur habere significationem Sacramenti. Si dicas mihi, quod vir et mulier se habent in ratione elementi; contra: p. 666 differt elementum ab eo qui suscipit Sacramentum: ergo si viri et mulieris est Sacramentum illud ut susceptivum, non ergo ut figurativum.
2. Item, sicut appropinquavit tempus veritatis, debuerunt signa Sacramentorum evidentiora esse1: cum ergo vir et mulier fuerint semper materia huius Sacramenti, videtur, quod in nova lege non sunt materia sive elementum. — Si dicas, quod verbum, quo exprimitur consensus, est elementum; contra hoc est, quod istud semper fuit opportunum. — Si dicas, quod addita est benedictio anuli et nuptiarum; hoc nihil est, quia haec non sunt de substantia Sacramenti.
Item quaero, quid sit signatum in hoc Sacramento; et videtur Apostolus dicere ad Ephesios quinto2, quod coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae, ubi ait: Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia.
3. Sed si homo non peccasset, Christus incarnatus non esset, secundum communiorem et probabiliorem opinionem3; et nihilominus magnum fuisset Sacramentum: ergo non tantum coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae est signatum.
4. Item, si significat coniunctionem fidelis animae cum Deo; sed haec est separabilis et solubilis: ergo et matrimonium. Si utrumque; tunc ergo, cum duplex sit coniunctio, et una sine alia, videtur ergo, quod istud Sacramentum non sit unum, sed plura.
5. Item, cum in aliis Sacramentis sit aliquid, quod est res tantum, aliquid, quod est signum tantum, aliquid, quod est res et signum4; quaero, utrum illud sit in hoc; et si est, quaero, quid sit illud. Si dicas, quod consensus exterior est signum, interior res et signum, unio Christi et Ecclesiae res tantum; obiicitur: quia, sicut ordinantur secundum causalitatem, sic ordinantur secundum significationem: ergo si primum non est causa secundi, sed magis e converso: patet etc.
CONCLUSIO.
In matrimonio signum principale est verbum, vel nutus exprimens consensum et ut annexum copula carnalis; signatum vero principale est duplex coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut in aliis Sacramentis aliquid est, quod est res tantum, aliquid, quod est signum tantum, aliquid, quod est res et signum; sic et in matrimonio. Et hoc est in omnibus Sacramentis generale, differt tamen in modo comparandi, et hoc, quia quaedam Sacramenta sunt totaliter ab institutione, quaedam sunt partim a naturae dictamine, partim ab institutione. Illa sunt totaliter ab institutione, quorum usus respicit ea quae sunt fidei pure, ut baptismus et eucharistia; et ista habent signa significantia secundum institutionem interius et exterius; et ideo talia habent elementa convenientia, instituta et exterius adhibita; et in talibus verum est, quod signa ista evidentiora fiunt secundum appropinquationem veritatis; et in talibus verum est, quod primum signum est causa secundi, et secundum quodam modo causa tertii, ut patet in baptismo5. — Sunt et alia, quae quodam modo ab instinctu naturae sunt — ut matrimonium, in quo est maris et feminae coniunctio; et poenitentia, in qua est offensae emendatio — partim a fide, scilicet quod illa coniunctio significet coniunctionem Dei et animae, et illa emendatio faciat reconciliationem Dei cum anima. Et talia quidem suam primam institutionem habuerunt in paradiso, matrimonium autem magis. Et quia quodam modo sunt a natura; et in statu naturae non debebat homo subdi elemento6: ideo non fiunt in elemento extra sensibili; habent tamen exterius signum, quod quidem significat interiorem coniunctionem per naturam suae significationis, sicut verbum, vel nutus, et aliud additum, quod significat naturaliter consensum interiorem animorum, scilicet copula carnalis; secundum quod significat coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae, vel Dei et animae, et hoc est secundum fidem et institutionem. Est enim habile per naturam et significat per institutionem, quia unus est mas et significat Christum, alius autem femina et significat animam7.
Et ex hoc patet responsio ad primum, quid sit hic signum, quia primo et principaliter est verbum, vel nutus, in quo exprimitur consensus; ut annexum est distinctio sexuum.
1. 2. Patet etiam, quare non habet elementum, sicut alia Sacramenta. — Patet etiam, quare signum non crevit in evidentia, quia non erat omnino secundum institutionem; ideo immutabile est quantum ad ipsum significans, augmentum tamen est in evidentia significandi, quia certius nunc scitur, quid significat matrimonium, quam ante sciretur. p. 667 Ad illud quod quaeritur, quid sit ibi signatum; dicendum, quod unum est signatum principale, scilicet coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae; et quia ista coniunctio est dupliciter, scilicet per caritatem et per naturae conformitatem, dupliciter in hoc Sacramento significatur: prima per consensum animorum, secunda per commixtionem sexuum1.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, si homo non esset lapsus etc.; dicendum, quod adhuc significasset unionem Christi sive Dei cum Ecclesia, licet non ita expresse, et coniunctionem cum fideli anima; sed tamen Dominus praeviderat, ita futurum esse, et ideo sic instituerat. Si tamen homo non peccasset, Sacramentum a significatione vacuum non esset2.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod primum non est causa secundi; dicendum, quod ubi est significatio secundum institutionem, primum potest esse causa secundi; sed ubi per naturam, secundum, quod est interius, est causa exterioris, quia effectus exterior signum est causae interioris, ut verbum consentiendi interioris consensus est signum, sicut in poenitentia visum est3.
I. De 1. quaestione cfr. infra d. 27. a. 1. q. 1, a. 2. q. 1. Eandem doctrinam alii Scholastici profitentur in quaestione, utrum matrimonium sit Sacramentum. De eadem quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 14. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 42. a. 1. — B. Albert., de hac et seqq. qq. hic a. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 3; Diony. Carth., hic q. 2.
II. Quoad 2. quaestionem dicit Durand. (loc. cit.), quod aliter opinentur theologi, aliter iuristae, quibus tribuit opinionem 1. hic relatam, quod scilicet matrimonium non conferat gratiam; et quod hic defectus sit ratio, quare in pacto eiusdem intervenire possit pecunia (cfr. solut. ad 4.). Pro hac falsa opinione ille citat «Gaufredum in sua Summa tit. de Sacramentis non iterandis» et «Ostiensem in Summa» (eodem tit.). Auctoritate nixus canonistarum, quorum aliqui fuerint cardinales vel praelati, «quorum est specialiter scire, quid Ecclesia Romana praedicat et observat», Durand., refragantibus aliis Scholasticis, illam opinionem tenet tanquam veram. Sed a Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 1.) ut haeretici reprobantur qui dicunt, «matrimonium non esse vere et proprie unum ex septem legis evangelicae Sacramentis, a Christo Domino institutum, sed ab hominibus in Ecclesia inventum, neque gratiam conferre». — A S. Thoma et Petro a Tar. affertur etiam alia opinio quae ipsi matrimonio novae legis illum tantum effectum tribuit, quem S. Bonav. matrimoniis ante Christum vindicat, scilicet quod declinet a malo excusando actum coniugalem.
De 2. quaestione: Scot. loc. cit. n. 14. 15[?]. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Suppl. q. 42. a. 3; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 78. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.
III. Conclusio quaestionis 3. a theologis auctori coaevis communiter approbantur. Magister tamen (hic c. 6.) refert aliam opinionem, ortam ex quibusdam locis Patrum vel depravatis, vel male intellectis, ut pag. 660, nota 3. observatum est. Eadem opinio singularis iterum nuper invenit quendam defensorem. Cfr. infra d. 27. dub. 5.
De eadem: Scot., in utroque Scripto infra d. 30. q. 2. — S. Thom., locc. citt. a. 4; Suppl. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 15. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.
---
Article II.
On the integrity of matrimony.
Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the integrity of matrimony, and about this three questions are asked. First it is asked concerning integrity as regards signification. Second, as regards causality. Third, as regards both.
Question I.
What in marriage is the sign, and what is signified.
It is asked therefore first, what in the Sacrament of matrimony is the sign, and what the thing signified.
1. And since in the Sacraments the sign is an element, as Hugh says8, that «a Sacrament is an element etc. representing by a likeness»; and since here there is no element, it does not seem to have the signification of a Sacrament. If you say to me, that man and woman stand in the character of an element; on the contrary: an element differs from him who receives the Sacrament: therefore if that Sacrament belongs to man and woman as receptive, then not as figurative.
2. Likewise, as the time of truth drew near, the signs of the Sacraments ought to have been more evident1: since therefore man and woman have always been the matter of this Sacrament, it seems that in the new law they are not the matter or element. — If you say that the word, by which consent is expressed, is the element; against this is that this was always fitting. — If you say that the blessing of the ring and of the nuptials has been added; this is nothing, because these are not of the substance of the Sacrament.
Likewise I ask, what is the thing signified in this Sacrament; and the Apostle seems to say to the Ephesians, chapter five2, that [it is] the conjunction of Christ and the Church, where he says: This is a great Sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.
3. But if man had not sinned, Christ would not have been incarnate, according to the more common and more probable opinion3; and nonetheless it would have been a great Sacrament: therefore not only the conjunction of Christ and the Church is the thing signified.
4. Likewise, if it signifies the conjunction of the faithful soul with God; but this is separable and dissoluble: therefore also marriage [is]. If [it signifies] both; then therefore, since the conjunction is twofold, and one [is] without the other, it seems therefore that this Sacrament is not one, but many.
5. Likewise, since in the other Sacraments there is something which is thing only, something which is sign only, something which is thing and sign4; I ask whether that is in this [Sacrament]; and if it is, I ask what it is. If you say that the outward consent is the sign, the inward [consent] the thing and sign, the union of Christ and the Church the thing only; it is objected: because, just as they are ordered according to causality, so they are ordered according to signification: therefore if the first is not the cause of the second, but rather the reverse: it is evident etc.
Conclusion.
In marriage the principal sign is the word, or the nod expressing consent, and as annexed the carnal union; but the principal thing signified is the twofold conjunction of Christ and the Church.
I respond: It must be said that, just as in the other Sacraments there is something which is thing only, something which is sign only, something which is thing and sign, so too in marriage. And this is general in all the Sacraments, yet it differs in the manner of comparison, and this because certain Sacraments are wholly from institution, certain are partly from the dictate of nature, partly from institution. Those are wholly from institution whose use regards the things that are of faith purely, as baptism and the eucharist; and these have signs signifying according to institution, inwardly and outwardly; and therefore such [Sacraments] have suitable elements, instituted and outwardly applied; and in such it is true that these signs become more evident according to the approach of the truth; and in such it is true that the first sign is the cause of the second, and the second in a certain manner the cause of the third, as is evident in baptism5. — There are also others which in a certain manner are from the instinct of nature — such as matrimony, in which there is the conjunction of male and female; and penance, in which there is the amendment of an offense — partly from faith, namely that that conjunction should signify the conjunction of God and the soul, and that amendment should effect the reconciliation of God with the soul. And such [Sacraments] indeed had their first institution in paradise, but matrimony more [so]. And because in a certain manner they are from nature; and in the state of nature man ought not to be made subject to an element6: therefore they do not come about in an outward sensible element; yet they have an outward sign, which indeed signifies the inner conjunction by the nature of its signification, like a word, or a nod, and another added thing which naturally signifies the inner consent of minds, namely the carnal union; according to which it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church, or of God and the soul, and this is according to faith and institution. For it is apt by nature and signifies by institution, because the one is male and signifies Christ, the other female and signifies the soul7.
And from this the answer to the first [point] is evident, what the sign is here, because first and principally it is the word, or the nod, in which consent is expressed; while as annexed [there] is the distinction of the sexes.
1. 2. It is also evident why it does not have an element, as the other Sacraments [do]. — It is also evident why the sign did not grow in evidentness, because it was not wholly according to institution; therefore it is unchangeable as regards the signifying [element] itself, yet there is an increase in the evidentness of signifying, because it is now more certainly known what marriage signifies than was known before.
To that which is asked, what is the thing signified there; it must be said that there is one principal thing signified, namely the conjunction of Christ and the Church; and because this conjunction is twofold, namely through charity and through conformity of nature, it is signified in a twofold way in this Sacrament: the first through the consent of minds, the second through the mingling of the sexes1.
3. To that which is objected, if man had not fallen etc.; it must be said that it would still have signified the union of Christ or of God with the Church, though not so expressly, and the conjunction with the faithful soul; but nevertheless the Lord had foreseen that it would be so, and therefore had so instituted [it]. Yet even if man had not sinned, the Sacrament would not have been empty of signification2.
5. To that which is objected, that the first is not the cause of the second; it must be said that where there is signification according to institution, the first can be the cause of the second; but where [it is] by nature, the second, which is inward, is the cause of the outward, because the outward effect is the sign of the inward cause, as the word of consenting is the sign of the inward consent, as was seen in penance3.
I. On the 1st question cf. below, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1. The same doctrine other Scholastics profess under the question, whether marriage is a Sacrament. On the same question: Scotus, here q. unica, n. 14. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; Suppl. q. 42, a. 1. — B. Albert, on this and the following questions, here a. 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1. — On this and the 2 following questions, Durandus, here q. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.
II. As to the 2nd question, Durandus (loc. cit.) says that theologians hold one opinion, jurists another, to whom he attributes the opinion related here as the 1st, namely that marriage does not confer grace; and that this defect is the reason why money can intervene in the pact of the same (cf. the solution to [obj.] 4). For this false opinion he cites «Gaufredus in his Summa, title on Sacraments not to be repeated» and «the Ostian in [his] Summa» (same title). Relying on the authority of the canonists, some of whom were cardinals or prelates, «whose special office it is to know what the Roman Church preaches and observes», Durandus, against the other Scholastics, holds that opinion as true. But by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, can. 1) those are reproved as heretics who say «that marriage is not truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, but was devised by men in the Church, and does not confer grace». — By St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise there is also brought forward another opinion which attributes to marriage of the new law itself only that effect which St. Bonaventure claims for marriages before Christ, namely that it turns [one] away from evil by excusing the conjugal act.
On the 2nd question: Scotus, loc. cit., nn. 14, 15[?]. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Suppl. q. 42, a. 3; Summa contra Gentiles IV, c. 78. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 2.
III. The conclusion of the 3rd question is commonly approved by the theologians contemporary with the author. The Master, however (here c. 6), reports another opinion, arisen from certain passages of the Fathers either corrupted or ill understood, as was noted on p. 660, note 3. This singular opinion has again lately found a certain defender. Cf. below, d. 27, dub. 5.
On the same: Scotus, in both Writings, below, d. 30, q. 2. — St. Thomas, locc. citt., a. 4; Suppl. a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 15. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit., q. 3.
---
- 8Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2. Cfr. supra pag. 13, nota 2. — Inferius post nullum sit elementum edd. addunt: quod hic nullum sit Sacramentum, et si nullum Sacramentum videtur. In fine arg. pro susceptivum codd. MO suscipientium, et pro non ergo ut permulti codd. perperam omnino ergo ut, codd. IK legunt: omnino ergo erit infigurativum.[Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments, Book I, part IX, c. 2. Cf. above, p. 13, note 2. — Below, after nullum sit elementum the editions add: quod hic nullum sit Sacramentum, et si nullum Sacramentum videtur (that here there is no Sacrament, and if there is no Sacrament it seems). At the end of the argument, for susceptivum codices MO [read] suscipientium, and for non ergo ut very many codices wrongly [read] omnino ergo ut, codices IK read: omnino ergo erit infigurativum.
- 1Cod. aa addit: sicut dicit Hugo, cuius verba habentur supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1. Edd.: Item, sicut in nova lege appropinquavit veritas, ita novae legis tempore, scilicet veritatis, debuerunt... evidentia esse.Codex aa adds: sicut dicit Hugo (as Hugh says), whose words are given above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 2, fundam. 1. The editions [read]: Item, sicut in nova lege appropinquavit veritas, ita novae legis tempore, scilicet veritatis, debuerunt... evidentia esse (Likewise, as in the new law the truth drew near, so in the time of the new law, namely of the truth, [the signs] ought... to be evident).
- 2Vers. 32.Verse 32 [Eph. 5:32].
- 3Vide III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 2.See Bk. III Sent., d. 1, a. 2, q. 2.
- 4Cfr. supra d. 22. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 23. a. 1. q. 1.Cf. above, d. 22, a. 2, q. 2, and d. 23, a. 1, q. 1.
- 5Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. De eucharistia cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.See above, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1. On the eucharist cf. above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.
- 6Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 5, et Comment. p. I. q. 1. — De institutione poenitentiae vide supra d. 22. a. 2. q. 1, et matrimonii, hic a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Codd. RX instinctu naturae pro in statu naturae (Vat. addit institutae). Superius post magis sola Vat. addit aperte. Inferius pro vel nutus plurimi codd. et ed. 1 perperam vel virtus (idem recurrit aliquanto inferius), et pro aliud additum pauci codd. et ed. 1 illud additum, cod. G aliquid additum, Vat. illud additur.Cf. above, the Master's text, d. I, c. 5, and the Commentary, p. I, q. 1. — On the institution of penance see above, d. 22, a. 2, q. 1, and of matrimony, here a. 1, q. 1 and following. — Codices RX [read] instinctu naturae for in statu naturae (the Vatican [ed.] adds institutae). Above, after magis the Vatican [ed.] alone adds aperte. Below, for vel nutus very many codices and ed. 1 wrongly [read] vel virtus (the same recurs somewhat below), and for aliud additum a few codices and ed. 1 [read] illud additum, codex G aliquid additum, the Vatican [ed.] illud additur.
- 7Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — De habilitate per naturam etc. cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. — Paulo superius pro quia unus plures codd. vel quia, sicut unus, vel sicut, quia unus, codd. EY quia sicut quod unus, codd. IK quia autem unus. Subinde pro alius [homo] autem femina codd. FGL alius est femina.See here the Master's text, c. 6. — On aptitude by nature etc. cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 5. — A little above, for quia unus several codices [read] vel quia, sicut unus, or sicut, quia unus, codices EY quia sicut quod unus, codices IK quia autem unus. Then, for alius [homo] autem femina codices FGL [read] alius est femina.
- 1Ut insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6.As is intimated here in the Master's text, c. 6.
- 2Explicatur III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 2. ad 8. — Superius pro licet non ita expresse, et, quod praebet cod. I, alii codd. et edd. perperam licet non expresse (secunda manus in cod. E bene sensum exprimit addendo quia, in cod. bb sicut).Explained in Bk. III Sent., d. 1, a. 2, q. 2, ad 8. — Above, for licet non ita expresse, et (which codex I offers), the other codices and editions wrongly [read] licet non expresse (a second hand in codex E well expresses the sense by adding quia, in codex bb sicut).
- 3Dist. 22. a. 2. q. 2. — Post consentiendi edd. addunt exterius, cod. Z exterioris. Superius verbis secundum, quod codd. FLW interserunt et.D. 22, a. 2, q. 2. — After consentiendi the editions add exterius, codex Z exterioris. Above, in the words secundum, quod codices FLW insert et. ---