352 OfS ati sfacti on m an ded Pardon , and amends himself, is absolved from all his secret S ins . ’ If that be his S entiment, though false indeed ; (because he says, ‘ before an y B rother pri vately, and that indif erently ; whether he ask Pardon of his own A ccord, or as forced thereto by Rebukes If, I say, he thin k such a Penance to be profitable, why excludes be it from the Number of the S acraments not indeed for any other Intent, but that it may be the less valued ; and, being deprived of the Name of a S acra ment, (which amongst C hristians is in great Venera tion) it might become despicable : For which Thing he finds no other Pretext, but that Penance has no visible S ign ; as though the exterior Penance , or the very A ct and Gestures of the B ody, when the Priest absolves the Penitent, could not be a S ign of spiritual Grace , by which the Penitent obtains Remission . B u t, in fine, to conclude the D iscourse of Penan ce , I wish he may at last repent himself, for having treated of Penance after so evil a Manner ; that he may wholesomely perform all its Parts, as he endeavours to destroy them all ; that he may be contrite for his M alice, confess publicly his E rrors ; and that, submitting himself to the Judgment of the C hurch, (which with so many B lasphemies he has of ended) he may recompence for what he has before committed, with the greatest S atisfaction possible ; for in deed he cannot do it worthily .
D e S ati sfacti on e 353 in hoc item, quod nihil interesse cenect, an confiteatu r u l tr o, an c or r eptu s pete t veniam) , tam en si P oen iten tiam etiam talem cenect esse tam u til em , cur Poen iten tiam exim it e numero sac r am en tor u m ? Non ob aliud om n i n o, quam u t haber etu r in minore p r etio, et vidu ata n omine sacramenti , quod apud C hristianos est in venera tione, vil esc er et . Quam in rem non alium r eper it p r a textum , quam quod P oen iten ti a non habeat signum visibile, quasi vel exterior Poen iten ti a, vel ille ipse cor por eu s actus , et gestus, qu o sacerdos absol vit poen iten tem, sign um esse non possit sp ir itali s gratia , qua poen iten s c on sequ itu r r em i ssi on em . S ed u t al iqu an do fin em l oqu en di faci am de Poeni ten ti a, utinam al iq u an do pa n iteat ipsum tam male tr actata P oen iten ti a ; et cujus omnes partes c on atu r ever ter e, sal u br iter Olim partes omn es adim p l eat : con ter atu r de malitia, publice confiteatu r errores , et E c cl esia , quam tot bl asphem ii s of en dit, judicio se su b j i c i en s, quicquid ante c omm i sit, quanta maxima potest ( nam dign a pr ofecto non potest) S ati sfac tion e r ecom pen set !
C HA P . x ®f confirmation LUT HE R i s so far from admitting C on fir m ati on to be a S acrament, that, on the C on trary, he says, he adm i r es what the C hu r ch ’ s I n ten ti on was i n m aki n g i t on e. An d this most impertinent B abl er tr ifles thus in so sacred a Thing ; asking why the C hurch does not make three S acraments of B read, as having in S cripture some Occa sions to do it ? The C hurch has not done any such Thing, because she takes no Occasions, from any Words whatsoever in S cripture, for having any other S acra ments, than those which were instituted by C hr i st, and sanctified by his most holy B lood : E ven so it omits none of them which have been given by C hr i st and his A pos tles, and transmitted to u s, as it were, from Hand to Hand, though Nothing should be writ of them in any Place . B u t when he says, that C on fi r m ati on wor ks n o S alva~ ti on , and that it is supported by n o Promise of C hr ist; he only says this, proving Nothing, but only denying all . B u t when L u ther makes Mention of some Passages, from which ( though he laugh at it ) the S acrament of C onfirmation may probably have its B eginning ; why judges he so perversely of the whole C hurch, as if it should rashly admit a S acrament ; because he reads n o Word of Promise in these Places ; as if C hrist had promi sed, said, or done Nothing, but what the E van g el i sts men tion in the S criptures ! By this Rule, if there was n o Gospel bu t that of S t . J ohn , he should deny the Institution of the S acrament of our Lord ’ s
356 0 fC onfir m ati on S upper ; of which Institution St. J ohn writes Nothin g at all : Many other Things don e by J esus have been omitted by all ; which (as the E vangelist himself saith) are not wr itten in this B ook, and which the whole World could not contain of which, some have, by the M outh of the A postles, been delivered to the Faithful , and have been ever after conserved by the perpetual Faith of the holy C atholic C hurch ; whom, I thin k , you ought to be lieve concerning some Thing s which are not in the Gos pels ; when, ( as S t. A u g u sti n e says) You cou ld n ever kn ow whi ch i s the S cr iptu r e i tself, bu t by the Tr adi ti on ofthe C hu r ch . A n d though none should have been ever written, yet the Gospel would have always remained written in the Hearts of the Faithful , which was more antient than all the B ooks of the E vangelists . Let not I /u ther think it is a prevailing A rgument to prove the Nullity of the S acraments , not to find them instituted in the S criptures . Otherwise , if he admits Nothing at all , but what he reads clearly in the Gospel , ( that he may have no Place for VVr an g l in g ) how comes he to be lieve, ( if he believes it, for he scarce believes an y Thing at all ) the perpetual Virginity of the blessed Virgin Mar y ? Of which he is so far from finding any Thing in S cripture , that H el vidi u s took Occasion by S cripture itself to prove the C ontrary . Neither is any Thing Op posed against him, but the Faith of the whole C hurch , which is no where greater and stronger than in the S ac rameute. For my Part , I do not think that any Person, who has the least S park of Faith in him, can be per su aded, that C hr i st, who p r ayed for S t. Peter, that hi s F ai th shou ld n ot fail n L who p l ac ed hi s C hu r ch on a fir m Rock; should suf er her, for so many A ges , to be bound by vain S igns of corporal Things , under an erroneous C onfidence of their being divine S acraments . If Noth *John xxi . 25 . i Lu . xxii . 32.
D e S acr am en to C onfirmati onis 357 scr ibit Joannes, qui eodem D ei consilio n on tetig it i stu d, qu o multa alia pr a ter i er u n t omn es , qu a fec it Jesus Q u a , u t in qu it evangelista, n on su n t scr ip ta in libr o hoe, et qu a totu s m u n du s n on posset caper e. ” E x quibus nonnulla per apostol or u m ora fidel ibu s patefacta sunt, et perpetua dein c eps E cclesia c athol ica fide conservata cui quare non debeas de qu ibu sdam credere, qu an qu am non l eg an tu r in evan g el ii s, qu u m , u t A ugustinus ait “nisi traden te E cclesia scire non posses q u a sint evan gel i a Quorum si nullum u n qu am scriptum esset, m an er et tam en evangelium scriptum in c or dibu s fidel i um, quod an tiqui u s fuit omnium evan g el i star um codicibu s ; m an er en t sacramenta, qu a et ipsa n on dubito evan g el i star u m libris esse omn ibus an tiqu i or a, n e putet Luther n s efli c ax argum entum esse frustra su sc epti sacra menti , si non r ep er i at in stitu tum in evan gel ii s. A l ioq u i si nihil om n i n o r ec ip i at, quod non tam aperte legat in evangelio, u t ter g iver san di non sit locus, quomodo credit ( si modo credit, qui fere ni hil credit ) perpetuam Maria vi r g i n i tatem ? D e qua adeo ni hil invenit in S c r iptu r i s, u t H el vidi u s n on aliunde quam ex S cr iptu r ar u m verbis ar r ipu er it ansam decer n en di c on tr ar i u m . Nec aliud oppon itu r illi , quam toti u s E cclesia fides, qu a n u squ am maj or est, aut fortior, quam in sac r am en ti s. E g o certe n em i n em esse puto, qui scin til l am u l l am habeat fidei , cui per su ader i possit quod Christus qui p r o Petro or avit, n e fides ejue defic er et, qui E ccl esiam suam supra fir m am petre m c oll oc avit, pater etu r eam tot sac u l i s un iver sam c or por al iu m rerum sign i s i n an ibu s, erronea fidu ci a vel u t divinis sac r am en ti s obstringi . S i musquem inde q u icq u am l eger etu r , illi tamsu verbo men tem D omi ni poter an t enarrasse, qui pr a sen tes versati
358 0 f C onfir m ati on ing should be read of it any where, yet those who were present , and conversed with our Lord , could , by Word of Mouth , tell what his Mind was , of whom himself says, Ye ar e Wi tn esses who have been wi th m e fr om the B e g in n i n g . * What was to be done , mi ght be taught by the Holy Ghost, of whom Christ said, B u t when the P ar a cli te c om es, whom I will sen d you fr om the F ather , the S p i r i t of Tr u th whi ch p r oceedeth fr om the F ather , he shal l g ive Testim on y of m e i r A n d in another Place , When he shal l com e, that i s, the S pi r i t ofTr u th, he shal l teach you al l Tr u th, for he shal l n ot sp eak of him self; bu t what Thi n g s soever he shal l hear , he shall sp eak; an d the Thin g s that ar e to c om e he shal l shew you . f S hall we believe then, that the C hurch, having so many, and so great Ministers , so many li ving E vangelists, and that S pirit which inspires Truth, has rashly instituted a S ac rament , and puts her Hope in an empty S ig n ? Or shall we not rather believe, that it has learned from the A pos tles, and from the S pirit of Truth ? Certainly, if the Name of this S acrament, the Minister, and the Virtue promi sed in it, be considered, it will appear n ot to be a Thing which we m ay believe to be unadvisedly used by the C hurch . For, as H u go d e S t. Vi ctor e saith, F r om C hr ism i s C hr i st n am ed ; fr om C hr i st, C hr i stian ; every one ought to have taken C hrism, or Unction, since from it they take their common Name . F or we are all an elected Nation, and a royal Priesthood§ in C hr i st : We are not anointed, unless in C ase of Necessity, but by the B ishops, that they may seal the C hristian, and give him the Holy Ghost : ‘E ven ( says he) as we read that the A postles only, in the primitive C hurch, had Power to give the Holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands . ’ The same D oc tor dec lares also the Fruit of the S acrament ; *John xv. 27 . fJOh n xvi . 13 . {John xv. 26. § I . Pet. ii . 9 .
360 OfC on fir mati on ‘A s the Remission of S ins , ( saith he) i s received in B ap tiem ; so, by the Imposition of Hands, the Holy Ghost is given : There, Grace i s given to the Remission of S ins : Here , Grace is given to C onfirmation ; for what avails it you to be lifted up from your Fall, if you are not confirmed to stand ? ’ These are H u g o ’ s Words , which are also consonant to Reason . For as in the cor poral Life , besides Generation , by which we get Life, another A ction is required , by which we may increase , and grow to the Perfection of S trength : S o, in the spiritual Life, which is required by Regeneration in B aptism, the S acrament of C onfirmation is necessary, by which the spiritual Life is led to perfect Virtue , and the Holy Ghost is given for perfect S trength . A n d be sides , the S acrament of B aptism, which helps u s to be lieve, C onfirmation is profitable to give us C ourage to confess our Faith boldly . For to this it is ordained, that Man may, before the Persecutor, boldly confess his Faith : A n d this is what Mel chiad es saith ; In B aptism we are regenerated to Life , after B aptism we are con firmed for the C ombat ; for C onfirmation arms and in str u cts us against the A gonies of this World . Finally, that Lu ther may un derstand that this S acra ment i s no new Thing, or vain Fiction ; but that it is so far from being void of Grace, that it confers the S pirit of Grace and Truth : We will here relate what S t . H i er om has written of this S acrament of C onfirmation . ‘ If the B ishop impose his Hand, it i s on them who have been baptized in the true Faith, who have believed in the Father, S on , and Holy Ghost, three Persons and on e S ubstance . B u t the A r ian , who believes in no other ( stop your E ars , that you may n ot be polluted with the Words of such monstrous Impiety,) but in the Father alone, in Jesus Christ as a C reature , in the Holy Ghost as S ervan t to both ; how shall he receive the Holy Ghost
D e S acr am en to C on fir m ati on i s 361 peccatorum, hic gratia datu r ad c onfirm ation em . Quid autem p r odest si a l apsu er iger i s, nisi ad stan dum con fir m er i s H ac ten u s Hugo, cui recta quoque consentit ratio . Q u em adm odu m enim in vita corporali pra ter g en er ation em , per quam vitam c on sequ im u r , alia requi ritur actio, per quam et cr escim u s, et ad perfecti on em Virtutis per du c im u r , ita in Spiritali vita, q u a per g en er ati on em B apti sm ati s ac qu ir itu r , opus est sacra mento C onfir m ati on i s, per quam vita sp i r itu al i s ad per fectam vi r tu tem p er du c itu r ; et S piritus sanctus datu r ad perfectum robur . E t pra ter sacramentum B aptism i , quod adjuvat ad credendum, C onfirm ati o p r odest in adju tor i u m for titu din i s ad au dac ter c onfiten du m . A d hoc enim or din atu r , u t homo coram persecutore fidem c onfiteatu r au dacter ; et hoc est, quod ait Melchiades : “In B aptismo r eg en er am u r ad vitam, post B apti sm a c onfir m am u r ad pugnam nam C onfirm atio ad hu j u s mu n di agon es ar m at, et in struit. D en iq u e u t Lu ther u s i n tel l igat hoc sacramentum neque novum esse, neque inane figm en tu m , sed adeo n on vacare gratia, u t S pi r itu m etiam gratia c on fer at, ac ver itati s, affer em u s in mediu m quid beatus Hieronymus de C onfirm ati on i s sacramento scr ipser it. A it enim E p i sc opu s si im pon it manum, his im pon it, qui recta fide baptizati sunt, qui in Patre, et Filio, et S piritu sanoto, tres personas, et unam substantiam c r edider u n t. A r r i an u s vero, qu um nihil aliud c r edider it ( cl au di te, q u a so, aures, qui au ditu r i estis, n e tanta im pi etati s voc ibu s pol l u am ini ) nisi in Patre solo vero D eo, et in Jesu C hristo salvatore creatura, et in S piritu san cto utriusque servo, quomodo S p i r itu m sanctum ab E cclesia
362 Of C on fir m ati on from the Church, who has not as yet Obtain ed Remi ssion of his S ins ? For the Holy Ghost inh abits n ot, but where Faith is pure, nor remains but in that Church which has true Faith for her Guide . ’ ‘ If in this Place, you ask why he that is baptiz ed in the C hurch, receives not the Holy Ghost but by the Hands of the B ishop ? Learn, that this Observation is descended from this A uthority ; because, after ou r Lord ’ s A scension , the Holy Ghost descended on the A postles , and we find the same to have been done in many Places . ’ Hitherto St . H i er om . Which S entence is also confirmed by divers Passages in the S cripture, and particularly by that in the A c ts, which shews that the People baptized before in S am ar i a, received the Holy Ghost , when Peter and John came amon g them, and laid their Hands upon them . * I therefore admire how it should come into Lu ther ’ s Mind to dispute, that C onfirmation is only to be accounted a Rite and a C ere mony, and deny it to be a S acrament ; when it is demon str ated, not only by the Testimony of holy Fathers, and by the Faith of the whole C hurch, but also by clear Pas sages of S cripture ; that not only Grace, but also, the very S pirit of Grace, is conferred by the visible S ig n of the B ishop ’ s Imposition of Hands . Let I /u ther therefore forbear to contemn an y m ore the S acrament of C onfirmation, which the D ign ity of the Minister, the A uthority of the C hurch, and the Profit of the S acrament itself, commend . *Ac ts viii . 1 4—1 7
C HA P . xi ®f the Sacrament of marriage MARRIAGE , the first of all S acraments, celebrated by the first of Mankind, and honoured with our S aviour ’ s first Miracle, being for so long Time had in a religious Veneration for its very Name of a S acrament ; is now, at last, ( that People should not so much regard or value conjugal Faith, ) den yed by I/u ther to be any S acr ament at all ; and as in other S acraments, ( some of which he takes away, by denying the S ign instituted ; others, by denying promised Grace) he denies both of them to be in M arriage ; (holding, that Grace has be en no where promised thereby ) he teaches also, That it has been no where instituted for a S ign : A n d how kn ows he this ? B ecau se ( says he) we r ead i t n ot. 0 strong Reason, and Mother of many Heresies ! This was the Fountain, from which H el vidi u s drew his Venom . You admit n o S acrament, unless you read its Institution in a B ook ! What B ook has he ever wr it who instituted all ? C on c er n i n g som e Thi n g s, ( says he) I beli eve C hrist ’ s E van geli sts : Why then does he n ot, in some Things , believe also the C hurch of C hr i st; which is by C hrist himself preferred to all the E vangelists , who have been only Members of the C hurch ? Wherefore, if he confides so much in one, why does he distrust all together ? If he attribute so much to a M ember, why nothing at all to the whole B ody ? The Church believes it to be a S acrament ; that it has been instituted by God ; given by C hrist ; and left to us by his A postles ; delivered afterwards by the Holy
C A P . x1 me Sacramento matrimonii MAT RI M ONI UM sacr am en tor um omnium primum inter primos homines cel ebr atum , primo C hristi miraculo c ohon estatu m , quod, propter sacramenti nomen, ipsum tan diu tam religiose c u l tum est, Lu ther u s nunc dem um , n e c on ju g al em fidem tanti qu i squ am putet in p oster u m , megat esse sacramentum ullum . E t qu u m alia sacra menta sic su stu l er it, u t in 11 11 0 n eg ar et i n stitu tu m sign um, in alio n egar et p r om i ssam g r ati am , in M atri monio n eg at u tr u m qu e : nam n eg at u sq u am pr om i ssam esse g r ati am ; n eg at u squ am in stitu tu m esse pro signo . Unde ha c novit ? “Quia non l eg itu r , ” in q u i t. 0 ratio nem fortem, et m u l tar u m ha r esu m p ar en tem ! E x hoe fonte venenum hau sit H el vi diu s. Nullum sacramentum adm itti s, cujus in stitu ti on em non legis in libro ? Quem libr u m u n q u am scripsit ille, qui i n stitu it omnia ? “D e q u ibu sdam , ” in qu it, “credo evan g el i sti s C hristi . C u r ergo de qu ibu sdam C hristi nOn c r edi s E cclesia , quam C hristus omn ibus pr a pon it evan gel i sti s, qui non nisi membra q u a dam fu er u n t E cclesia ? Q u am obr em , si fidi s un i , cur diffidi s omnibus ? S i membro tr ibu i s tan tum, cur toti nihil tr ibu i s c orpor i ? E cclesia credit esse sacramentum ; E cclesia credit a D eo i n stitu tu m , a C hristo tr adi tum , tr aditu m ab apostol is, tr aditu m a sanctis P atr ibu s, per man us dei n c eps pro sacramento tr aditu m ad nos pervenisse, pro sacramento per nos tr aden du m p oster i s ad fin em usque sa cu l i , pro sacra mento ven er an du m . H oc E cclesia credit, et quod credit, dicit . Hoc, i n qu am , tibi dicit eadem E cclesi a, qu a tibi
366 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r iag e Fathers for a S acrament, an d given as it were, from Han d to Han d down to us ; from u s also, as a S acra men t, down to Posterity, and to be honoured to the E n d of the World . The C hurch believes this ; and tells you what it believes too. The same C hurch that says, The E van g eli sts wri t the Gosp el , tells you this also . F or if the C hurch had n ot said, That the Gospel of John , i s the Gospel of J ohn , you should n ot have kn own it ; for you were n ot present when he writ it. Why then do you not believe the C hurch, when she tells you that C hrist has don e these Things ; has instituted these S acraments ; that the A postles have delivered them ; as well as when she says, That the E van g eli sts wr i t su ch, an d su ch Gosp els ? B u t Luther says, ‘M arriage was amongst the antient Patriarchs , and amongst the Gentiles ; and that as tr u ly as amongst us, yet was it not a S acrament with eithe r of them. ’ A s for the Fathers that were under the Law, and before the Law, I do not agree with I/uther ; bu t am certain , that Marriage was a S acrament with them as well as C ircumcision . B u t amongst the Gen tiles, the C ase is otherwise ; for their Marriage depended on the Custom and Laws of each People : S o that some Mar r i ag es were lawful wi th some of them, which by others were accounted ridiculous : A n d yet , contrary to I/u ther , we find some of Opinion, that even the M arriages of the Gen tiles were a S acrament amongst them . For S t. A u g u stin e says, ‘That the S acrament of M arriage i s comm on to all Nations : B u t the S an ctity of it i s on ly in the C ity of ou r God, and in hi s holy Moun tain, ’ ( the Church . ) On which S entiment, let him that pleases read H ugo de S an c to Vi c tor e . B u t though the Marri ag e of the Unfaithful be no S acrament, yet does it n ot fol low what I/u ther infers, That the M arriage of the Faith fu l is n on e either . For the People of God have some
368 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r i age thing more holy in M arriage, and have always had, as well as its first Institution , as when it was honoured with Laws given by God . Moreover, the Gentiles, be cause i t was acted as a human Thing amongst them, were wont, by C ompacts and human Laws, to take Wives , and after to reject them again . D i vor c em en t was not lawful in former Times amongst the People of God : F or though God, by M oses, permitted the B ill of D ivorcement among the H ebr ews; yet C hr i st confesses that it was indulged them for the Hardness of the Peo ple ’ s Hearts : F or , fr om the B eg in n i n g ( saith ou r S e vi ou r , ) i t was n ot so. B u t C hr i st hath restored Chris tians to pristine S anctity, consec rating M arriage with an i n desol vabl e B ond of S ociety ; unless in C ase of Fornication between those, whom no human E rror , but God himself, has j oined together . It follows not , there fore, that if M arriage has not been a S acrament amongst the Gentiles , it must be none amongst us C hristians , or has not been a S acrament amongst the antient Patri archs ; amongst C hristians , if it was no where read , yet the Faith of the C hurch ought to suffice us . A n d yet that one Passage of the A postle, which I/u ther en deav ours to put by with a S coff, does plainly demonstrate, that Marriage, not only now, but also at the very first B eginning of M an kind , was instituted a S acrament Which I suppose will not be doubted by any B ody who reads that Part of the E pistle to the E phesians , and at ten tivel y considers it . Which whole Passage we have here inserted ; because , by any Man ’ s Words , it cannot be more clearly explicated, than it is already by the A postle himself, who has so plainly shewn us his Mind therein, that no Pl ac e of Refuge is left to I/u ther ’ s im pertinent C alumnies . F or he saith, ‘Let Women be sub jcet to their Husbands, as to our Lord : B ecause the Man i s Head of the Woman, as C hr i st is Head of the
D e S acr am en to Matr im on ii 3 69 san ctiu s, habu itqu e semper, et qu u m primum in stitu er e tur, et qu um datis a D eo l eg ibu s hon estar etu r . Porro apud Gentes, quoni am humana tantum r es agebatu r , adsc i sc er e sibi c on ju ges ac r ej i c er e pacti s ac l eg ibu s hu m an i s sol eban t. In D ei populo ju n c tos C on j u g io non l ic u it olim divelli . Nam quod per Moysem D eus per misit H ebr a i s l ibel l u m r ep u dii , C hristus fatetu r in du l tu m propte r du r iti am populi : al ioqu in uxor es animo su o n on satis c om m odas i n ter fectu r i : “ n am ab i n iti o, ” in qu it C hristus , “ n on er at si c . C hristianos vero C hristus ad pr i stin am r evoc avit san cti tatem , c on secr an s M atrimonium indissolubili vinculo societatis , excepta for n i c ation i s causa, inter eos quos n on hu m an u s error , sed D eus rite c on j u n xit . Non sequitur igitur u t si C on ju g iu m non fuerit sacramentum Gentibus, idci r c o sacra mentum aut nunc non sit C hr i sti an i s, au t non fuerit p r i sc i s Olim P atr ibu s. Nam quod ad C hristianos p er tin et, etiam si n u squ am l eg er etu r , E cclesia fldes su ffieer et . E t tam en unus ille locus ex A postolo, quem Lu ther u s cavillo c on atu r eludere, manifeste doc et Matrimonium n on nunc tan tum, sed et olim quoque in generis humani pr im or dii s in sti tu tu m pr o sacramento . Quod n em in i , op in or , dubium r elin q u etu r , qui locum il l u m ex epistola ad E phesi os p er l eg et et c on sider abit atten ti u s, quem totum pl ac u it i n ser er e, pr op ter ea quod nullius in terp r etation e poter it res sl u c er e cl ar iu s, quam ipsi s verbis A postoli , qui tam apert e quod sen sit, exp licu it, u t in epti s Lu ther i c al u m n ii s nullum r el iqu er it locum . A it enim : “Mu li er es vi r i s su i s su bdi ta si n t, si cu t D om i n o : q u on i am vi r cap u t est m u li er i s, si cu t C hr i stu s capu t est E ccl esia , ip se S al vator c orp or i s eju s . S ed si cu t E ccl esi a su bj ecta est C hr i sta, i ta et m u li er es vi r is su i s i n om n i bu s. Vi r i ,
370 Ofthe S acr am en t of Ill ar r iag e Church : Himself the S aviour of his B ody . B u t as the C hurch i s subject to C hrist, so the Women to their Hus bands, in all Things . Husbands love your Wives, even as C hrist loved the C hurch, and delivered himself for it . That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the Laver of Water in the Word ; That he might present to himself a glorious C hurch , not having S pot or Wrinkle, or an y such Thing ; but that it m ay be holy and unspotted . S o also Men ought to love their Wives as their own B odies ; he that loveth his Wife , loveth himself . For no M an ever hated his own Flesh, but he nourishes it and cher ishes it, as also C hrist the C hurch because we are Mem bers of his B ody, of his Flesh, and of his B ones : For this C ause shall a Man leave Father and Mother, and cleave to hi s Wife , and they shall be two in one Flesh ; This is a great S acrament : B u t I speak in C hrist, and in the You see how the blessed A postle teacheth every - where, that the M arriage of Man and Wife is a S acrament, which represents the C onjunction of C hrist with his C hurch : For he teacheth , that God consecrated Matrimony, that it might be the Mystery of C hrist j oined with hi s C hurch . He tells you, ‘That the Man and Wife make one B ody, of which the M an is the Head ; and that C hrist and the C hurch make on e B ody, of which C hrist is the Head . ’ He makes the chief C ause why the Husband ought to love his Wife, n o other, than that he may not be an unlike S ign to C hrist , whom he represents : A n d this he makes rather the C ause , than that common Nature of the M ale and Female, which of itself should also excite Love . He, by the same E xam ple, ‘ exhorts the Wife to fear and respect her Husband that is, because she represents the C hurch Of C hrist . A n d after he has by many Words inculcated these Things over and over again ; ( fearing lest any B ody *E ph es. v . 22 fol .
372 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r i age should thin k this C omparison of the Husband with C hrist , and the Wife with the C hurch, to be some S imilitude, used only for the C onveniency of the E x hortation, ) he shews it to be a true M atter, a true S acra ment , foretold by the Prophesy of the chiefest and first of all Prophets , when the World was but newly created For when the A postle saith, ‘He that loves his Wife, loves himself ; for no Man ever hated his own Flesh, but loves and cherishes it, even as C hrist loveth his C hurch ; because, ( says he) we are Members of his B ody, of his Flesh, and of his B ones, ’ This he spoke to remind us of the Words, much like to these, which A dam spoke, when E ve was first brought into his S ight, ‘This is B one of my B one, and Flesh of m y Flesh . ’ A n d that the A postle might more clearly shew that the S acrament of the C onjunction of A dam and E ve pertains to that Union of C hr ist with hi s C hurch , he added A dam ’ s very Words, ‘Wherefore a M an shall leave Father and Mother, and cleave to his Wife ; and they shall be two in one This S acrament, saith the A postle, is great in C hrist and the C hurch . How could he have more evidently refuted Im ther , than by these Words, which he so impertinently scof s at, in con tending that the A postle had taken away the S acrament from the Marriage of Man and Wife , by saying, ‘This S acrament is great in C hrist and his C hurch ’ A s if he should , by saying, the S acrament of B aptism is great in the washing of the S oul , deny the B aptism of the B ody to be a S acrament ; or, as if he should, by saying, the S acrament of the E ucharist is great in the B ody of C hrist, deny the S pecies of B read and Wine to be a S ac rament ; or, as if by saying, That the same S acrament is great in the mystical B ody of C hrist, he should detract the S acramen t from the B ody which he took of the *Gen . ii . 23.
D e S acr am en to Matr im on ii 373 esse ver am , verum esse sacramentum a pr ophetar u m omnium primo, p r im oqu e eju s ipsiu s vaticinio, orbe j am tu m r ec en s condito, pr a n u n c i atum . Nam qu um dixi s set : Q u i su am uxor em dilig i t, seipsu m dilig i t. Nem o en im car n em su am odi o habu i t, sed n u tr it, et fovet cam , si cu t et C hr i stu s E cc l esiam : q u i a m em br a su m u s, ” in quit, c orp or i s ej u s, et d e car n e ei u s, et de ossi bus eju s. Q u a verba dixit A p ostol u s, u t nos in memoriam du c er et eor u m ver bor u m qu a verbis i sti s similia dixit A dam, qu u m in c on spectu eju s primum adducta est E va : “ H c c n u n c 03 ex ossibu s m ei s, c l car o de car n e m ea. E t u t eviden ti u s osten der et A postol u s ad C hristi copulam cum E cclesi a pertinere sacramentum c on jun cti on i s A da cum E va, A da verba ipsa su bj u nxit : “P r op ter ea r eli n q u et hom o pe tr em e t m atr em , et adha r ebi t u xor i su a : c i cr u n t du o i n c ar n e u n a. H 0 0 sacr am en tu m , ” in qu it A postol u s, m ag n u m est i n C hr i sta et E ccl esi a. Quo modo potu i sset A postol u s eviden tiu s r efel l i sse Luthe r um , quam his ip si s verbis, q u a Lutherns inepte con atu r eludere ? Qui ex eo quod A postol u s dixit sacramentum hoc magnum esse in C hristo et E cclesia, c on ten dit A pos tol u m abstu l i sse sacramentum a M atrimonio viri et uxoris, tanquam si quis ita l oq u er etu r : S acramentum B ap ti sm i magn um est in abl u ti on e anima , n egar et B ap ti sm u m corporis esse sacramentum ; aut si quis di c er et sacramentum E u char i stia mag n um esse in ipso Christi corpore, n eg ar et panis et vini species esse sacramentu m ; aut si dic at idem sacramentum esse magnum in C hristi corpore mystico, sacramentum detr aher et c or p or i , quod su m psit de Vi r g in e ? Quis u n qu am vidit quem quam tam nugace g l ossem ate, tanta se cum gloria jactan tem
374 Ofthe S acr am en t of Mar r iag e blessed Virgin . Who has ever seen any Man swell with gr eater Pride for so frivolous a Gloss ? F or if the A postle had been of hi s Opinion, and willing his Words should be so interpreted, as to shew this S acrament to be great only in C hr ist and hi s C hurch, without any Refer ence at all to the Marriage of Man and Wife ; it would lessen the Force and Weight of all those Things, where by, in that C omparison of the two C on junctions, he had before commended Marriage . It would also, in another M an ner prejudice the Mat ter he undertook, if he should refer these Words of A dam only to C hrist and his C hurch, which , of them selves , seem to un ite Man and Wife together in mutual Love , so as to teach, that there is in them no Reference to Man and Wife . The A postle teaches, that those Words of A dam , were a Prophecy of C hr i st and his C hurch ; which is confirmed by all the holy D octors , and very clearly demonstrated by A dam ’ s speaking these Words at the very first S ight Of E ve, by which he pre ferred a Wife to Father and Mother ; n or as yet any C ommand of begetting Children, to instruct him, by the C omparison of Parents and Children , what Father and Mother were . B ecause, if those Words of A dam were a Prophecy of Christ and his C hurch , then it seems they either did not belong to that M arriage which was there performed ; or that some Marri age, as a proper S ign of this C onjunction, was then made a S acrament by God himself, whose S pirit then formed the Words of A dam , that the same Words might signify what was then done, and what was prophesied ; that is, the Mar r i ag e of Men , and the C onjunction of C hrist with the Church ; and as one S acrament comprehends a sacred Thing, and the proper and sacred S ig n of the same Thing . Moreover, that you may the more plainly discern , that
376 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r iag e what L uther speaks, is to n o Purpose ; observe, that the A postle ’ s B usiness, in that Place, to the E phesi an s, is not about teaching them how great a S acrament C hr i st joined with the C hurch, is ; but about exhorting mar ried People how to behave themselves on e towards an other , so as they might render their M arriage a S acra ment, like, and agreeable to, that so sacred a Thing, of which it is the S acrament. Lu ther , therefore, in this Place, is either negligent himself, and unadvisedly reads this Passage, or else he most impiously dissembles what Truth he discovers therein ; when he says, ‘That which we give, (which is the S ense of the whole C hurch) pro c eeds from great Idleness, Negligence and inconsiderate Reading thereof . ’ D oes S t. A u gu sti n e therefore care lessly read the A postle ? Has S t . H i er om negligently un derstood him ? and all Men except L u ther , by whose Vigilance S t. P au l himself is discovered to have writ, not a S acrament, but a Mystery ? 0 this quick- sighted Man ! who is able to see that the whole L ati n C hurch does wrong fully name that a S acrament , which the A postle, wr iting in Gr eek, calls Mystery, and not S ac rament ! as though the Latins had erred by speaking the Word in Lati n , because S t . Pau l does not use a Lati n Word in the Gr eek Tongue . If the Interpreter had translated it not a S acrament, but a Mystery, and had left the Greek Word entire ; yet had not this taken away the A rgument, whereby M arriage is, from this Place of the A postle, concluded to be a S acrament ; seeing it is taught so to be , by the C ircumstance of the whole Mat ter . For let him wrest the Word Mystery, as much as he will ; yet can - he never by it take away, or deny, the S acrament , though thereby it may not be proved . Neither shall it be said , that he speaks or thinks ill , who says, that the E ucharist is a g reat Mystery ; for there is no S acrament but what is a Mystery, that i s,
D e S acr am en to Matr im on ii 377 dicere, non hoc agit A postol u s in illo loco ad E phesios, u t docer et ex illis verbis quam mag n um esset sacra mentum C hristus c on ju n ctu s cum E cclesia, sed u t m on er et con ju n ctos M atrimonio, u t se sic mutuo gere rent, u t ipsor u m conjugium rei tam sacra , cujus sacra mentum erat, idon eu m et quam simillimum sac r am en tum r edder en t . Lutherns igitur hoc in loco, vel osci tat ipse, atque in dil ig en ter et inconsulte legit il l u m locum, aut, quod l ecti on e c om per it, im pietate di ssim u l at, q u u m hu n c in tel l ectu m , quem attu l im u s, et quomodo i n tel lig it E cclesia, r esp on det esse magn a oscitan tia , et i n tel l i gentis in c on su l tata q u e l ecti on i s. E rgo A ug ustinus osc itan ter legit A postol u m ? Oscitan ter legit H i er on y m u s Osc itan ter on mes, pra ter unum Lu ther um Qui vig il an ti a su a depr ehen dit Pau l u m ipsum non sc r ipsi sse sacramentum, sed mysterium ? O hominem ocu l atu m , qui vider it totam E c cl esi am latinam per p er am vocare sacramentum id quod A postol u s, dum gra ce scr iber et, appel l et mysterium, non sacramentum : quasi ideo latini er r ar en t, qui rem effer ent latine , quia Paulus in lingua gra ca non u tatu r latino voc abu l o. Quod si non sacra mentum, sed mysterium ver ti sset i n ter p r es, et g r a c am voc em r el iq u i sset integram, n on abstu l i sset tam en argu mentum quo ex eo loco A postoli c on cl u ditu r Matri m on i u m esse sacramentum, qu u m id ita esse rei totiu s doc eat c i r c u m stan ti a. Nam u t maxime tor qu eat m ys ter ii verbum, nunquam tam en effici et u t, eti am si non statu at sacramentum, ideo tol l at ac meget sacramentum ; neque male aut sentire dic etu r , au t l oqu i , qui sic l oq u atu r : E u char i sti a magn um est mysterium . Q m obr em , q u u m nullu m sit e sac r am en ti s, quod non idem sit mysterium, u tp ote quod sub visibili sign o c om p l ecti tur ar c an am et in vi sibil em g r ati am , in terp r es animad ver ten s in illis Pauli verbis ad E phesi os totiu s loci seriem decl ar ar e p l an i ssim e id m yster ii genus A pos
378 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r iage what con tain s, under a visible S ign, a secret an d invisi ble Grace ; the Interpreter notin g in the Words of S t. P au l to the E phesian s, that the whole Passage does most evidently declare the A postle to write of such a Mystery as i s a S acrament . A n d if he had n ot truly translated it, S t. A u g u stin e and S t. H i er om , his Readers, were not so careless, but they would have discovered the E rrors in the Translation : Nor were they so much i n cl in ed to favour Marriage, as to follow an E rror, rather than correct it, when once discovered ; especially, seeing S t. A u gu sti n e was nothing inferior to I/u ther , in the Knowledge of the Gr eek Tongue : A n d S t. H i er om , who, wi thout D oubt, was the most skilled of his Time in that Language, did so favour Virginity, that , by some Per sons, he was thou ght to be almost un just towards Mar r i age . Wherefore, that all Men may the more easily u n der stand, not only these, whom I/u ther in C ontempt calls sententious, and now idle Readers but also the best and most learned of the antient Fathers of the C hu r ch ; let us here what S t . A u gustin e says, ‘Not only Fa cun dity, ( says he) whose Fruit i s in the Off- spring n ot only in C hastity, whose B ond is Faith, ’ but also the S acrament of M arriage, is commended to the Faithful , married People : For which Reason, the A postle says , ‘Husbands love your Wives, even as C hr i st loved his Church S t . A u gu sti n e, then, calls it a S acrament ; and that Inxther may n ot say he has read this Passage carelessly, he treats of the same Text, again and again, in divers Works . F or in another Place, he says, ‘ It has been said in Paradise, Man shall leave Father and M other, and cleave to hi s Wife ; ’ f which by the A postle is called a great S acramen t in C hr i st and hi s C hurch . Why does not S t. A u gu sti n e explicate that Mystery of ‘ E phes. v. 25. {Gen . 11. 24.
380 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r iage Lu ther to be an E rror, which the Lati n s call a S acra ment ; seeing that in the Gr eek Text S t . P au l calls it Mystery, not S acrament ? S t. A u gu stin e, above a thou sand Times , calls it the S acrament of Marri age ; as in that Place where he says, That Off - sp r i ng , F ai th, an d S acr am en t, whi ch ar e al l the Goodn ess of Mar r i ag e, i s fu lfil l ed i n the P ar en ts, of C hr i st him self. Why has he not here admonished us, that it is not a S acrament, but a Mystery ? For if what I/u ther says, be true, to wit , That it is n ot a S acrament, but concern C hrist and his C hurch ; then is it n ot true which S t. A u g u sti n e says : For that which L u ther takes for only a Mystery, is not the good S acrament of Marriage, nor has it been fulfilled in the M arriage of the Virgin Mar y. A n d in another Place, S t. A u g u stin e, treating of the same Words of the A postle, says, What i s g r eat i n C hr i st an d the C hu r ch, i s ver y li ttl e i n Man an d Wife ; an d yet i t i s an i n separ abl e S acr am en t of C on ju n cti on . If I/u ther holds that it is not called a S acrament , uh less in C hrist and his C hurch ; the A postle ’ s ver y Words, if diligently examined only by a Gr am m ar i an , shall con vince him ; as when the A postle says , Thi s S acr am en t i s g r eat; bu t I say i n C hr i st an d the C hu r ch . What S acra ment is that, that is great in C hrist and the C hurch ? C hrist and the C hu r ch cann ot be a S acrament in Christ and the Church : For none speaks after this Manner . It is therefore a necessary C onsequence, that this S acra ment , which he says is great in C hrist and the C hurch , is that C onjunction of Man and Wife which he has spoken of . There is Nothing else but this spoken here by the A postle, viz . Thi s C on j u n cti on of Man an d Wom an , i s a g r eat S acr am en t in C hr i st an d the C hu r ch, as a sacr ed S ig n i n a m ost sacr ed Thi n g . Lastly, if I/u ther still obstinately deny, that (by these Words of the A postle) M arriage should be called a S acrament ;
D e S acr am en to Matr im on ii 381 pel l at mysterium, n on sacramentum . A ugustinus plus millies appellat sacramentum connubii , et sacramentum n u pti ar u m : qu em adm odu m et il l ic , ubi dicit, quod omne n u pti ar u m bonum im p l etu m est in ipsis Christi parenti bus, proles, fides, sacramentum . C u r hic non adm on u it nos non esse sacramentum, sed mysterium ? P r a ter ea, si verum dicit Luthern s sacramentum non esse, nisi in C hristo et E cclesia, verum non dicit A ugustinus . Nam neque il l u d sacramentum bonum est n u pti ar u m , pr a ser tim u t acc epit Lu ther u s, qui dicit du n taxat esse mys ter iu m , neque in Maria n u ptii s im p l etu m est. E t iterum super eadem A postoli verba dicit A ugus tinus Quod in C hristo et E cclesi a est magnum, hoc in si n gu li s qu ibu sq u e viris et uxor ibu s est minimum, sed tamem c on j u n c ti on i s inseparabile sacramentum . Quod si Lu ther u s dic at n on voc ar i sacramentum, nisi in C hristo et E cclesia, r evi n c etu r etiam ipsi s A postoli verbis , si dil ig en te r expen dan tu r vel a grammatico . Nam qu u m A p ostol u s dic at : “ S acr am en tu m hoe m ag n u m est, eg o au tem di c o i n C hr i sto et E ccl esia, ” quod est il l u d sacramentum, quod magnum est in C hristo et E cclesia ? C hristus et E cclesia non potest esse sacra mentum in C hristo et E cclesia : nemo enim sic loquitur . Ncc esse est igitur u t id sacramentum, quod dicit esse magnum in C hri sto et E cclesia, sit illa c on ju n cti o viri cum c on j u g e, de qua dixer at . Non aliud igitur dicit A postol u s, quam hoc, id est illa c on j u n cti o viri et m u l ie ris , magn um est sacramentum in Christo et E cclesia, tanquam sacrum sign um in re sac er r im a. D en iq u e si p er tin aciter n eg et Lu ther u s in illis A pos toli verbis C onjugium voc ar i sacramentum, sed tantum Christi copulam cum E cclesia . saltem non n eg abit i stu d,
382 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r iag e but merely the C onjunction of C hrist with the C hurch Yet surely he will not deny C onjunction of M an and Wife to be at least a S ign of that sacred C onjunction of Christ and his C hurch , and that too by God ’ s own Insti tu tion ; not by human Invention, seeing our first Parents were j oined by God himself . B u t if he denies all this that has been said ; the A postle ’ s Words will, however, manifest his Impudence : For it is so often, and so plainly repeated, that he who should not see it, must nu doubtedly confess himself to be blind . If therefore it shall evidently appear , that Grace is conferred by M arriage, which i s a S ign of so sacred a Thing ; I/u ther will be compelled, whether he wil l or no, to admit Marriage as a S acrament, or else to reject all S acraments ; seeing that, by hi s own C onfession, a S ac rament consists in the S ig n of a sacr ed Thi n g , an d the Pr om ise of Gr ac e . Let us see then, if it can be evi den tl y made out, that Grace is infused after any Man ner by M arriage ; for Lu ther flatly denies it . ‘We read in no Place, ( says he) that he who marries a Wife shall receive any Grace from God . ’ M ar r i ag e ( says the A postle) i s hon ou r abl e i n al l , an d a B ed u n defil ed : * The B ed could not be u n defil ed , if the Mar r i ag e wanted Grace ; neither has M arriage any Thing else to confer, bu t a B ed u nsp otted . B u t because God, whose B ounty has provided, that n o necessary Thing should be wanting, even to irrational C reatures, accord ing to their several Natures and C apacities ; nay, even to Things wanting S ense ; has, by the like bountiful Providence, j oined Grace to M arriage , by which, he that does n ot slight it, but keeps his Faith inviolate to his Wife , shall not only not contract any B lemish by the carnal A ct, (whose filthy C oncupiscence would other wise stain him ) but shall , on the C ontrary, be advanced *H ebr . xiii . 4.
384 0 fthe S acr am en t ofMar r i age to Grace . For M arriage should not have an immaculate B ed, if the Grace, which is infused by it , did not turn that unto Good, which should be otherwise a S i n . Which, in another Passage of S t . P au l , where he treats of the Woman ’ s D uty, is more plainly demonstr ated ; S he ( saith he) shal l be saved, thr ou gh the Gen er ati on ofC hildr en B u t if you take away Marriage , what else shall Generation be, (by which , as the A postle saith , ther e i s n o S al vati on i n Mar r i ag e ) bu t D eath an d eter n al D am n ati on ? For, Take away Mar r i ag e, ( says S t . B er n ar d ) an d an u n defil ed B ed fr om the C hu r ch, an d do you n ot then fil l i t wi th A du l ter i es, I n c ests, S odom y, and al l S or ts of Un cl ean n ess ? If all Generation , out of Wedlock, is damnable, the Grace Of M arriage must needs be great, by which that A ct, (which of its own Nature defil es to Punishment ) is not only purged, to take away the B lemish ; but is so much sanctified, that, as the A postle testifies, it becomes meritorious . Neither has it that Privilege of Grace , bu t by Virtue of the S ac rament, consecrated for that Purpose by God himself ; that Man , at his first C reation, might , by the Use there of, both perform his D uty of Propagation , and have also a Remedy of C oncupiscence , when restored : Yet what should the conjugal A c t itself be, but C oncupiscence , if God had not made it the Remedy thereof Which now the holy Grace of the S acrament has so made a Remedy of C oncupiscence , as that the paternal S ubstance may not be negligently consumed, ( as the prodigal S on had done) forbidding n ot only, not to thirst after stolen Waters of other Men ’ s C isterns, but also not to inebriate ourselves with ou r own ; but make ou r sober D raughts so wholesome , that they m ay profit to Life everlasting . The A postle , in the same Place , though he exhorted as much as possible to C ontinency and Virginity, (Virtues *I . Tim . ii . 1 5.
D e S acr am en to Matr im on ii 385 esset pec c atu m . Quod ipsum et alibi quoque, qu u m de m u li er i s agit Offici o, Paulus designat aper tiu s : “ S al va bi l u r , ” in q u it, per fili or u m g en er ati on em . A t si tollas C onjugium, quid aliud fuerit g en er ati o, per quam, u t A postol u s ait, sal vabitu r in C on j u g i o, quam mors et a ter n a damn ati o ? “Nam tolle, in q u i t beatus B er n ar dus, de E cclesia hon or abil e connubium, et thor u m im maculatum, nonne r ep l es eam con c u bin ar ii s, in cestu osi s, sem in iflu i s, m ol l ibu s m asc u l or u m c on cu bitor ibu s, et omni den iq u e genere im m u n dor u m . ” S i igitur extra C onjugium om n i s g en er ati o dam n abil i s est, magna videtur gratia Matrimonii , qui eu m dem actu m ( si natu ram r esp ic i s) ex quo m acu l ar er i s in pa nam, non solum ita pu rg at, u t eluat labem, sed etiam sic san ctific at, u t A postolo teste , r epor tet p r a m iu m . Nee i stu d habet privilegium gratia , nisi virtute sacramenti ab ipso D eo in id c on sec r ati , u t bomini ipsi u s cultori foret et in p r opag ati on i s officiu m , q u u m c r eatu s est, et in remedi um c on c u p i sc en tia , q u u m r estitu tu s est . Q u an qu am ille ipse c on j u g al i s actus quid esset aliud, quam c on c u p i s centia, nisi D eus ill u m fac er et remedium c on cu p i s centia ? Quem nunc sancta sacramenti grati a sic fecit c on c u p i sc en tia remedium, u t eos, qui gratia paterna substantiam, quam D eus i n fu n dit C on j u g io, n eg l ig en ter n ol it, u t fil iu s prodigus fecit, effun der e, non solum, de fen dat, n e quid aqua furtiva siti an t e c ister n i s alienie, sed etiam n e se in ebr i en t suis, et sobrios haustus efli c i an t tam salubres , u t in vitam pr ofici an t a ter n am . Nam et A postol u s i n illo etiam loco, ubi , quantum potu it, hor tabatu r ad c on ti n en ti am et vi r g in i tatem , con trariam con j u gal i g en er ation i vi r tu tem , tamem Matri
386 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r i age contrary to con jugal Generation) yet confesses, that Marriage is the Gift of God ; and on e of those Gifts, of which it is said, E ver y g ood an d p erfect Gift i s fr om above, desc en din g fr om the F ather ofI/ig hts. * A n d cer tain l y the Gift of God, (which i s so given, that he who receives it, may continue in that S tate of Life, in which he ought to remain, and n ot fall into the S tate of D e struction) doth it not shew that it hath in itself pre ser vative Grace ? M oreover, when the A postle saith, If an y B r other have a Wife, an I n fidel , an d she c on sen t to li ve wi th him , l et him n ot pu t her away : A n d ifan y Wom an have an H u sban d, an I n fidel , an d he c on sen t to dwel l wi th her , l et her n ot p u t away her H u sban d : F or the Man , an I n fidel , i s san ctified by the fai thfu l Wom an ; an d the Wom an , an I n fid el , is san ctified by the fai thfu l H u s ban d; other wise, you r C hildr en shou ld be u n cl ean ; bu t n ow they ar e holy . + D o not these Words of the A postle shew, that, in Marriage (which is an entire Thing of itself, after on e of the Parties is converted to the Faith) the S anctity of the S acrament san ctifies the whole M ar r iag e, which before was altogether unclean ? B u t why should that M arriage be now more holy than before , ( as being a M arriage) if, for on e of the Parties converted, sacramental Grace were not added to it, which, before B aptism, ( the D oor of all the S acraments ) could n ot enter to the Marriage of the Unfaithful ? B u t, to pass by the A postle ; let us consider God, the C onsecrator of this S acrament . Has he not consecrated Marriage with his B lessing, when he j oined together our first Parents ? For the S cripture saith, God bl essed them ; sayi n g , i n cr ease, an d m u l tipl y f Whose B less ing, having Operated in all other living C reatures , ac cordi ng to their several C apacities ; who should doubt *Jas. i . 1 7 . +1 . C or . VI I . 12 . fGen . i . 28 .
388 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r i age bu t that he has infused the Force of spiritual Grace into the S pirit of Man , who alone is capable of Reason, unless he did believe, that God, (being so boun tiful to the meanest of B easts, as to give them largely, according to their Natures , what was necessary) should be so spar ing of his B lessings to Man , whom he created after his own Image ; that having only Regard to his B ody, he should omit the S oul , that B r eath ofLife, which he him self has breathed, and by which he was most r epr e sented, without imparting any Part of that great B less ing to it ? Further ; when C hrist, God and Man , conversing amongst Men , not only honoured M arriage with his own Presence, but also adorned i t with his first Miracle ; has he not taught, That Mar r i ag e i s to be hon ou r ed ? A n d without Grace, I do not find any Thing in it deserving Honour . Nor do I think he would have been present at it, if Marriage had not already some Grace , which might render it acceptable to C hrist ; or else he con ferred Grace to it himself : B u t I see, the Miracle that he wrought, * admonishes us that the insipid Water of carnal C oncupiscence , by the secret Grace of God, is changed to Wine of the best Taste . B u t why search we so many Proofs in so clear a Thing ? especially, when that only Text is sufficient for all , where C hrist say s , Whom God has join ed tog ether , l et n o Man pu t asu n der . 1 ' O the admirable Word ! which none could have spoken, but the Word that was made Flesh ! who thin ks it not to have been abundantly sufficient, that God has j oined the first of M ankind ; and that the B ounty of so great a God is to be admired by all Men ? B u t now we are taught from Truth itself, that those who are law fu lly married, are not rashly j oined together ; not by the C eremonies of Men only, but by the invisible Presence *John ii. +Matt . xix. 6.
D e S acr am en to Matr im on ii 389 nisi quis D eu m c r edat, q u u m infim i s q u ibu squ e bestiol is fu i sset tam ben ig n u s, u t pro sua cu iqu e natura l ar g itu s sit aflu en ter , hom in i , quem ad ipsiu s con didi sset imagi nem, tam parce manum in ben edicti on e r estr in ger et, u t, corporis du n taxat habita ratione, animam, il l u d vitae spiraculum, quod ipse in sp i r aver at, et qua maxime r ep r sosen tabatu r , tanta ben edicti on e pr aster i r et intac tam . Iterum, qu u m C hristus homo et idem D eus ver satu s inter homines, n u pti as n on solum sua hon or avit pras se nti a, sed etiam n obilitavit miraculo , annon docu it hon or an du m esse C onnubium ? Quod ego certe non video quid honore dig n u m habere possit absque gratia . Neque il l u m puto ad n u p ti as fuisse ven tu r u m , nisi vel j am tum haberet aliquid gratias C onjugium, quod ipsum C hristo fac er et g r atu m , vel u t C on ju g io g r ati am ipse c on fer r et. Quin et m i r acu l u m , quod op er abatu r , n os ad mouere video in sip idam c on c u p i sc en tiae c arn al i s aquam, per occ u l tam D ei g r ati am , in optim i sapor i s vinum esse conversam . S ed quid opus est in re tam clara tot pr obam en ta c on qu i r er e ? Praesertim q u u m vel unus ille locus abunde suficiat , quo C hristus ait : “ Q u os D eu s c on j u n xi t, hom o n on sep ar et. O verbum adm i r abil e, et quod nemo potu i sset efi ari , p r aster Verbum quod caro factum est ' Quis n on pu tasset abunde satis esse, quod primos homines , in itiu m generis , c on j u n xi sset D eus ? A tque id ipsum fu er at, in tanta D eitati s m aj estate, nulli non adm i r an da ben ig n itas. A t nunc , Veritate referente didic im u s qu ic u n q u e legitimo C on j u g i o c opu l an tu r , eos non temere neque m or tal i u m du n taxat c aer im on ii sf sed ipso D eo i n vi sibil iter assistente, et i n sen sibil iter c o
390 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r i ag e and insensible C o—operation of God himself : A n d there fore is i t forbidden, that any should separate those whom God has j oined together . 0 Word as full of Joy and Fears as it is of A dmiration ! Who should n ot rej oice, that God has so much C are over his M arriage, as to vouchsafe, not only to be present at it, but also to pre side i n it ? Who should not tremble, whilst he is in D oubt how to use his Wife , whom he is not only bound to love, but also to live with, in such a M anner, as that he m ay be able to render her pure and immaculate to God, from whom he has received her ? Wherefore , seeing that God himself, as he says , j oi n s al l m ar r i ed P eop l e tog ether ; who believes not that he infuses Grace by M arriage ? D oes he j oin always, and give his B lessing but once ? Why reassumes he the C fiic e of j oining, if we believe him not also to reassum e that of B lessing ? Or can we imagine, that the most holy S pirit, whi ch i s to be ador ed i n S p i r i t an d i n Tr u th, should always exercise the Office of j oining mar ried People, for C are of carnal C opulation onl y ? I n deed, as for that M atter, it should be sufficient that God leaves Man , like other A nimals, to hi s own natural and corrupt Inclinations . There must be understood S ome thing sure more holy than the C are of propag ating the Flesh, which God performs in Marri age ; and that , with out all D oubt, is Grace ; which is by the Prelate of all S acraments infused into married People in consecrating Marriage . S eeing therefore, we have, by so many Reasons , proved Grace to be conferred in M arriage ; and that M arriage , which ( as appears by the Words of the A pos tle) is a S ign of a sacred Thing, (which S ign, is j oined with Grace, as is already said) cannot be a bare Figure only ; it follows then, that, in D espite of Lu ther , Mar
392 Ofthe S acr am en t ofMar r iage r i ag e is a S acrament ; though it had not, ( as it is) been so called by the A postle . B u t has any one , either A ntient or Modern, doubted to call Marriage a S acrament, without being hissed at by the C hurch In which alone , as H u g o de S an c to Vi c tor e mentions, i s found a two—fold S ig n : ‘For M arriage itself is the S acrament of the S ociety, which is in the S pirit between God and Man ; but the D uty of M arriage is the S acrament of that S ociety, which in the Flesh is between C hrist and the C hurch. For if that (says he) which is in the Flesh, is great, much more that which is in the S pirit : A n d if God is rightly called in S cripture , a B ridegroom, and the S oul of Man the B ride , there is certainly S omething betwixt God and the S oul ; of which , what consists in M arriage betwixt Man and Woman, is the S acrament , and Image . B u t perhaps, ( to speak more expressly) that S ociety, which is ex ter i or ly observed, according to the C ontract in Mar r i ag e, is the S acrament ; and the mutual Love of the S ouls , which is kept by an interchangeable B ond of con jugal S ociety and A lliance , is the M atter of the S acra ment . ’ A n d again ‘ this same Love , by which M ale and Female are spiritually united in the S anctity of Wed lock, is the S acrament and S ign of that Love, by which God is interiorly j oined to the rational S oul , by Infusion of his Grace , and Participation of his S pirit . ’ Thus far the Words of H u g o. Wherefore , seeing that not only the public Faith of the C hurch, for so many A ges before us , and the antient Fathers, remarkable for their virtuous Lives and Knowledge in S cripture ; but also the blessed A postle S t . P au l , D octor of the Gen til es, have esteemed Mar r i ag e as a S acrament , (which makes Wedloc k honour ~ able, and does by Grace , not on ly conserve the B e d n u spotted from A dultery ; but also washes away the S tains
D e S acr am en to Matr im on ii 393 tam en facit, non appel l ar et A postol u s. S ed quis u n quam aut veter um , aut n ovor u m , nisi quos expl osit E c olesia, M atrimonium du bi tavit appellare sacramentum ? “In quo uno, ” quod Hugo de S anoto - Victor e com m em or at, “ duplex i n ven er e signum : nam et C onjugium ipsum sacramentum est illins societatis quas in S piritu est inter D eum et animam, offic ium vero C on ju g ii sacra mentum est il l iu s societatis, quas in carne est inter C hr i stu m et E ccl esi am . Nam si magnum est, ” i n qu it, “quod in carne est, multo magis utique est , quod in spiritu est . E t si recte per S c r iptu r am san ctam D eus S pon su s dic itu r , et anima r ation al i s S ponsa vocatu r , aliquid p r ofec to inter D eum et animam est, cujus id quod in C on ju g i o inter m asc u l u m et foem in am constat, sacramentum et imago est . S ed forte, u t expr essi u s di c am , ipsa societas, quas exterius in C on j u g io pacto foederis ser vatu r , sacramentum est, et ipsiu s sacramenti r es est dil ecti o mutua an im or u m , quae ad in vi c em socie tatis et fce der i s c on ju gal i s vinculo c u stoditu r . E t haec r u r su s ipsa dil ectio, qua m asc u l u s et foem in a in sancti tate C on j u g ii animis u n i u n tu r , sacramentum est, et signum il l iu s dil ection i s, qua D eus animas r ati on al i intus per in fu sion em gratias su ae, et S piritus sui participa ti on em , c on ju n g itu r . ” H acten u s Hugo . Q u am obr em , qu u m non solum publica fides E cclesias tot ante nos saec u li s, ac vetusti Patres S cr iptu r ar u m scientia et vitae m er i ti s insignes , sed ipse etiam beatus A postol u s et D octor Gentium Paulus M atrimonium habu er in t pro sacramento, quod hon or abil e fac i at connubium, et thor u m per g r ati am non solum servet im m ac u l atu m ab adulterio, sed et abl u at im m u n diti am l ibidin i s, et aquam c on ver tat in vinum, san ctam qu e p r oc u r et vol u n tatem a l ic iti s n on n u n q u am abstin en di com pl exibu s, n on video quid contra Lutherns possit affer r e nisi quod “haer etic i , ” u t beatus ait B ernardus, “pro l ibitu quisque su o sacra
394 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s of Lust, turns Water into Wine, and procures a holy Pleasure of abstain ing, even from lawful Pleasures . ) I do not perceive what Lu ther can say to the C ontrary ; u n l ess i t i s becau se H er eti cks (as S t. B er n ar d saith) do stil l , ac cor di n g to thei r own F an ci es, str i ve who shal l exc eed other s, i n en deavou r in g , wi th thei r vip er ou s Teeth, to tear i n P i ec es the S acr am en t of the C hu r ch, as the B owel s ofthei r M other . C HA P . x1 1 ®f tbe fiacrament of ®roers I N the S acrament of Or der s, Lu ther keeps n o Manner of Order ; but gathering together from here and there all the Treasuries of his M alice, he pours them out against it . He shews how well his M ind is compose d for E vil , if his Power were answerable thereto : He proposes many Things, and asser ts and affirms the worst : B u t, satisfyin g himself bv only saying, thus, and thus, he confirms Nothing at all , by an y M anner of Reason . In which Proceeding his great Impudence appears, who, not vou chsafin g to believe the whole C hurch, (wi thout having Reasons for its Faith) does unreasonably require that he himself should be credited , without shewing any Reason at all ; and that in M atters of such Nature, as he cannot tell what is to be believed , unless the C hurch teach him : An d yet he desires to be believed , and that in such S ort, as to do it, is to confoun d and trample under Foot the whole C hurch : For what else aims he at , by endeavouring to take away the H oly S acr am en t of
396 Of the S acr am en t of Or der Or der s, than, by rendering the Ministers of the C hurch contemptible, he may procure, that the S acraments of the C hurch may be also despised, and undervalued, as being ministered by the Hands of vile and unworthy Ministers : Which is the only D rift of his whole Work . A n d because Lu ther proceeds with no Order , in treat ing of O rder ; we will gather his Opinions here and there, that the Reader m ay have under one View that Heap of E vils ; which being looked over , we need not take an y great Pains , I suppose, to convince him, whose wicked D octrine all Men may see tends directly to the D estruction of the Faith of C hr i st, by Infidelity . For what design s he else , who disputes that there is no D if ference of Priesthood between the Laity, and Priest ? that all Men are Priests alike : That all Men have the same Power , in what S acrament soever : That the Mi n i str y of the S acraments is not given to the Priests , but by C onsent of the Laity : That the S acrament of Orders is Nothing else but the C ustom of electing a Preacher in the C hurch : That he is not a Priest , who is not a Preacher, unless it be equivocally, as a painted Man , m ay be called a Man : That a Priest m ay be made a Layman again, when he pleases ; because his priestly C haracter is Nothing : Moreover , that Order itself, which as a S acrament, ordains some to be C lergym en , is merely and altogether a Fiction invented by Men , who understand Nothing of ecclesiastical M atters, of Priesthood , of the Ministry, of the Word , or of a S acra ment ? Finally, this holy Priest , (whereby you m ay conjecture how chaste he himself is ) makes it the great est E rror , and greatest B lindness imaginable, that Priests should undertake to lead a single Life . A n d when C hr i st praises those who have made themselves E unuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven ; this most filthy A n ti chr ist compares them to the ol d idolatrous gelded
D e S acr am en to Or din is 397 vu m il l u m m al or u m lector semel habeat sub oc u li s, quo conspecto non er i t, op in or , multum i n su m en du m operae u t il l u m c oargu am u s, cujus im pi am doctr in am videbu n t omnes eo recta contendere , u t om n em C hristi fidem possit i nfidel itate p er ver ter e . Quid enim de sti n at aliud , qui dec er n it inter laicos et sacerdotes nullum esse di sc r im en sac er dotii , omnes ex ae quo pr esbyter os esse, omnes eam dem habere potes tatem in qu oc u m q u e sacramento ? S ac er dotibu s sacra m en toru m ministerium non nisi l aicor u m consensu c omm i tti S acramentum Ordinis nihil aliud esse posse, quam r itu m q u em dam el ig en di c on ci on ator i s in E c cl esi a ? Q u ic u m qu e non p r sedic at, eu m non esse sacer dotem, nisi aeq u ivoc e, qu em adm odu m homo pictus est homo, qui sacerdos est, r u r su s fier i posse l ai c u m c har acter em enim nihil esse . Or din em den iq u e ipsum (qui vel u t sacramentum homines in cl er i c os ordinat, qui pr wdic ar e n esci u n t ) esse vere mere om n i n oq u e figm en tum ex hom in ibu s n atu m nihil de re ecclesiastica , de sac er dotio, de ministerio verbi , de sacramento i n tel l i gentibus . Postremo sanctus iste sacerdos, u t quam castus ipse sit , conjecturam pr aebeat, tanquam er r or em summum , et sum m am c aecitatem ponit, et C ap ti vitaten r m axim am , quod sibi sacerdotes i n dixer in t c ael ibem casti tatem . E t qu u m C hristus eos landet exim i e, qui se c astr aver u n t ob regn um ccel or u m , A n ti chr i stu s iste spu r c i ssim u s eosdem com p ar at evi r ati s olim C ybel i s deaa sac er dotibu s idol atr i s. Jam du du m scio , aures pii lec toris exhor r en t im p iu m hu n c dogm atu m per n iciosor um
398 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s Priests of the H eathen S ybils. I know that ‘ thi s C ata logue of pernicious Opinions has long since wearied the E ars of the pious Reader ; every one of which Opinions is more stuf ed with Heresies, than the Tr oj an ’ s Horse is reported to have been with armed Men . B u t his denying Orders to be a S acrament, is as it were the Fountain to all the rest ; which, being once stopped up, the other small S prings must of Necessity become dry of themselves . ‘This S acrament ( says he) is not known to the C hurch of Chr i st, but has been in vented by the C hurch of the P op e . ’ In these few Words , are contained a great Heap of A bsurdities and Lye s : For he makes D istinction between C hr i st ’ s C hurch, and the P op e ’ s ; whereas the Pope is C hrist ’ s Vicar, in that, over which C hrist is the Head . He says the C hurch has invented ; when it has received it as already instituted, and therefore has not invented it . ‘This S acrament (he says) is unkn own to the C hurch of C hr i st: ’ Whereas it is most certain , that all Parts of the World , which have the true Faith of C hr i st, have Orders for a S acrament : For if he could find some oh scure C orner , (which I doubt he cannot ) in which this S acrament of Orders shoul d not be known ; yet ought not that C orner to be compared to the rest of the whole C hurch ; which not only is subject to C hr i st, but also, for C hr i st ’ s S ake , to C hr i st ’ s only Vicar the P op e of Rom e, and believes Orders to be a S acrament . Otherwise, if I/u ther persists in his D istinction of the P op e ’ s C hurch, from C hr i st ’ s ; and in say ing that the one has Orders for a S acrament , the other not ; let him shew u s the Church of C hr i st, which , contrary to the Faith of the Papal C hurch , ( as he calls it ) knows not the S acrament of Order . In the mean while , it appears evidently, that, by asserting this S acrament to be un known to the C hurch of C hr i st, and that they are not
400 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s of C hr ist ’ s C hurch who are governed by the P op e ; he separates, by both those Reasons, from C hr i st ’ s C hurch , not only Rom e, but also all I taly, Ger m an y, S p ai n , F r an c e, B r i tai n , an d all other Nations, which obey the S ee of Rom e ; or have Orders for a S acrament . Which People , being by him taken from the C hurch of C hr i st; i t consequently follows , that he must either confess C hr i st ’ s C hurch to be in no Place at all, or else, like the D on ati sts, he must reduce the C atholi c C hurch to two or three H er eti cs whispering in a C orner . B u t he draws out of his S haft, as an inevitable D art, ‘That Grace is in no Place promised to this S acrament ; and that the New Testament makes not the least Men tion of it He says , ‘That it is a ridiculous Thing to assert that for the S acrament of God, which cannot any where be demonstrated to have been instituted by God . ’ ‘Nor is i t lawful ( says he) to assert any Thing to be of D ivine Institution, which is not of D ivine Ordinance ! but we ought ( says he) to endeavour to have all Things confirmed to us from clear S cripture . ’ We will see , by and by, whether no M ention is made at all of this S acrament in the New Testament : For by the same D art he expects to wound all the rest of the S acraments ; against which D art , I will take the same B uckler or S hield which Lu ther himself confesses to be impenetrable . His own Words are these : ‘Truly the C hurch has this Faculty, That it can discern the Word of God, from the Word of Men even as S t . A u g u sti n e confesses, ‘That he has believed the Gospel by the Motion of the C hurch ’ s A uthority ; which told him that it was the Gospel . ’ Wherefore , seeing that the C hurch, as Lu ther confesses, can di scer n the Wor d of God, fr om the Wor d of Men ; it is certain it has not that Power , but from God ; nor for any other C ause , than that it may not err
D e S acr am en to Ordin i s 401 Pon tifici parent, au t Or din em pro sacramento r ec ipiu n t. Quos populos omnes q u u m de C hristi tol l at E cclesia, necesse est u t aut E ccl esi am C hristi fateatu r esse nus quam, aut, more D on ati star u m , E c cl esi am C hristi c a thol ic am ad duos aut tres haer etic os r edigat de C hristo susurrantes in angulo . S ed vel u t inevitabile tel u m promit, quod hoc sacra mentum n u l l am habeat pr om i ssi on em gratias u l l ibi , u t in q u it, posi tam : cujus sacramenti vel verbo m em in i sse megat totum Novum Testamentum, et r idicu l u m ait asser er e pro sacramento D ei quod a D eo i n stitu tu m nus quam potest m on str ar i ; nec licet, i n q u it, “adstr u er e al iq u od divin i tu s or din atu m , quod divin i tu s or din atu m non est, sed c on an du m est u t omnia nobis claris, ” i n q u it, “S c r iptu r i s sint fir m ata. Utrum in Novo Testamento nulla p r or su s fiat hu j u s sacramenti m en tio, post ex c u ti em u s. Interim sic agam cum illo , tanquam nulla pr or su s m en tio fier et : nam eodem telo se sper at omni a ferme sacramenta p er foder e ; adversus quod tel u m ego in scutum mihi idipsu m ferrum c on j l ci am , quod Lu ther u s ipse fatetu r impenetrabile . S i c enim se haben t ipsi u s verba : “Hoc sane habet E cclesia, quod potest discernere verbum D ei a verbis hom in u m , sic u t A ugustinus c onfitetu r se evangelio c r edidi sse, m otu m au ctor i tate E cclesias, quae hoc esse evangelium p r aedic a bat . ” Igitur qu u m i stu d habeat, u t Lu ther u s fatetu r , E cclesia, quod verbum D ei discernere potest a verbis hom in u m , c er tu m est i stu d non aliunde haberi , quam a D eo, nec ob aliam causam, quam n e in his er r ar et E c olesia, in quibus n on erratum esse opor teat . S equitur igitur ex hoc fundamento , quod nobis su bstr avit Luthe