d. Proof of the Fourth Main Conclusion

47. For the fourth conclusion [n.10] let this be the first special prior conclusion: it is fitting that to the aforesaid contract be annexed the conferring of grace, because the aforesaid contract is difficult, since from it arises a very difficult obligation. This is also apparent because of the many miseries and infirmities in which they are bound to serve each other until death. And therefore, as far as this is concerned, there is a greater difficulty here than in Religion. Now the difficulty of it is connected to the honor of it (which was proved earlier [nn.29-30]); and for doing what is honorable, as for doing what is difficult, it is fitting for grace to be conferred. This contract too needs grace because of the difficulty that is in this act, wherein the mind is much distracted from God.

48. The second conclusion: that it is fitting that this grace is regularly conferred under some special sensible sign, instituted for this purpose by God. For such a sensible sign is more keenly asked for by us and more recognized; and it is necessary for us first to know grace and afterwards to desire it. From which it follows that such a sensible sign can reasonably and fittingly be instituted for signifying the grace legitimately conferred on the contracting parties.

49. The third conclusion: it is expedient that some sacrament properly so called be conjoined with the aforesaid contract. It is plain from the two preceding conclusions [nn.47-48] that it be an efficacious sign of the grace then conferred. But one must understand that, by bracketing consideration of the idea of a sacrament, the truths about matrimony in the matter at hand can commonly be shown by reason of contract and obligation.

50. Now this annexed idea of a sacrament seems to introduce many new difficulties, as: by whom and when it was instituted; what form and how it is one; who is the minister and how he is one; and what the effect is of the sacrament.

51. About the first [sc. ‘by whom’]: it cannot be said that the sacrament of matrimony was established in the state of innocence, Genesis 2.7-8, 18-25, because all the sacraments have their efficacy from the passion of Christ displayed and foreseen; but if the state of innocence had endured, the passion of Christ would not have been displayed or foreseen. Nor does it appear that it is a sacrament of the Mosaic Law. Nor is there found in the Evangelical Law where it was instituted. For Christ in Matthew 19.4-6 approves what was instituted in Genesis 2.24, and Paul 1 Corinthians 7.2-4 taught that thus is the act or use that follows the contract of matrimony.

52. Someone therefore might say that what is said in Ephesians 5.32, “This is a great sacrament, I speak in Christ and in the Church,” is understood about a sacrament taken in an extended sense and for sign of a sacred thing, of which, however, it is not cause or efficacious sign. For matrimony is not an efficacious sign in respect of union with Christ, but it is an efficacious sign in a way; so can a vow of virginity be an efficacious sign of union with Christ.

53. Because, however, the Church commonly holds the sacrament of matrimony to be the seventh among the ecclesiastical sacraments, and “one is not to think otherwise of the sacraments than the Roman Church thinks,” Gregory IX, Decretals V tit.7 ch.9, ‘About heretics’, therefore can it be said that God has annexed to the contract of matrimony a sacrament properly speaking, at least for the Gospel Law; otherwise it would not be a sacrament of the New Law. And then it is necessary to say that it was instituted by Christ, as was universally said above about the ecclesiastical sacraments [Ord. IV d.2 nn.18-26].

54. But the ‘when’ is not found more plainly than in Matthew 19.4-6. And although there Christ only approved the contract instituted in Genesis 2.18-24, and consequently he did not institute that contract, yet he did institute the sacrament. This can be taken from the word that he added [Matthew ibid.], “What God has joined, let not man put asunder,” so that it not be understood precisely that God joined them by instituting the contract of matrimony, but that he joined them from then on with grace through the institution, conjoined with the contract, of a concomitant sacrament.

55. Now the form is some sensible sign, instituted by God for signifying efficaciously the grace then conferred.

56. But here there is a doubt: for either God instituted as indeterminate a sign to be a sacrament of grace as the sign is indeterminate that is required for the contract, or God has determined the sign that has to be the efficacious sign of grace more than is the sufficient sign for the contract determined by human imposition. And if the latter, either he has determined some words precisely, as “I accept you for my wife” or “for my husband,” or he has determined indifferently any words at all expressing the concept of consent.

57. And between these three members there is considerable difference; because if this one be held very strictly, namely that the form of this sacrament consist in these words precisely, it follows that on many occasions there is a contract of matrimony without a sacrament, even in the Evangelical Law, because on many occasions the contract is made through other words than these. If too he has determined the words but any words indifferently that are expressive of mutual consent, still, since sometimes there is a contract (as between mutes) without words, it follows that in some places there is a contract of matrimony without a sacrament. Nor is this absurd, because it is probable that up to the Evangelical Law matrimony was frequently contracted where however there never was a sacrament as we now speak of it, namely in the proper sense. Mutes according to this, therefore, are truly spouses, because there is a true contract between mutes. And grace is given there not by force of the sacrament, but just as grace is given to the truly penitent without expression of words, not by force of the sacrament but by force of merit and contrition, so between the mute there is a true contract, and grace is given without a sacrament.

58. But if God has not determined the sign to be a sacrament of grace more than is determined by human imposition to be sufficient for a contract, then it can be said that in the case of any contract in the Evangelical Law a sacrament is concomitant, because the sign that is required for the contract is by divine institution a sacrament. The Church, however, has determined that the sacrament is done only through words.

Thus is the third point plain [sc. the form, n.50].

59. But how is the form one? Because it is one by unity of integrity, not by unity of indivisibility; for the words, expressive of consent on this side and that, are one integral sign both with respect to the contract and with respect to grace. Nor is it unacceptable that several partial forms are one sacrament, as was said above of the Eucharist about the words over the bread and wine [Ord. IV d.8 nn.60-62].

60. About the minister [n.50] there is another doubt because, for the most part, the contracting parties themselves minister this sacrament to themselves, either mutually or each to themself. But neither is this necessarily required if with every contract of matrimony there is a sacrament, for sometimes the fathers contract on behalf of a son and daughter who are present without expressing their own signs; if there is a sacrament there, one must say that the minister of the sacrament can indifferently be whoever can be a minister in a contract of matrimony.

61. But then how is the minister one? It can be said as was said above about one form [n.59].

62. But what is the effect [n.50]? I reply: two graces in the souls of the contracting parties, and this unless there is an obstacle - supply, mortal sin here, there. For it is not sufficient to receive grace that the contracting party is not feigning with respect to the sacrament, but it is necessary that there be penitence first, because this sacrament does not give first grace. But there is one total and first effect, namely the graced union of hearts.

63. But if the form is to be restricted to a certain sign and to determinate ministers, one must consequently say that not all those who contract [matrimony] in the Christian Law receive grace; and yet it can be said that they do receive grace if there is not otherwise an obstacle, because God assists there on account of the difficulty of honorable contract - not however as much grace as they receive with the sacrament, especially had an impossibility not existed.