it has neither matter, form, institution, nor fœderal acts assigned to it in the New Testament.

a

2. We shall consider the parts assigned to this sacrament in the Roman Church.b

с

The matter assigned to this sacrament is the inward consent of the parties to the union, and the form consists of the words by which this is expressed, and lastly, the institution is contained in the words, 66 marriage is a great mystery or sacrament." (Eph. v. 32.) These parts shall be considered separately; 1st. As to the matter; it is objectionable for two reasons: (1.) it is not a visible or material sign applied to the parties who receive it, which is necessary to the existence of a sacrament. All mutual compacts might as well be called sacraments as this, since they equally imply an inward consent. (2.) This opinion may produce fatal consequences. The parties may, and often do marry against their wills;

a

By the definition of the Roman Catechism, to which we have already referred, a sacrament is supposed to cause holiness and righteousness. Now, it is surely unfair, that the clergy, the body of men who are most called upon "to let their light shine" before the world, are yet the only body in the Roman Communion who are not permitted to derive from the sacrament of marriage the blessings it conveys ex opere operato,

Pope Eugenius was so sensible of the difficulty of assigning parts to the sacrament, that, though he particularizes them for all the other sacraments in the council of Florence, be omitted any mention of that of matrimony,

See Bell. de Sac. Matrim, l. 1. c. 6.

if, therefore, at a future time, they are led to be pleased with their marriage, then great scruples must arise in their minds, from the conviction that they had not the sacrament, since matter, which is, in this case, their mutual consent, was wanting. If, on the other hand, either party wish to break the marriage, it is sufficient to swear that he gave no inward consent at the time of its celebration, and the marriage is dissolved. Now, all contracts are sacred things; men's words, confirmed by oath, must either be binding, according to the plain and acknowledged sense of them, or all the security and confidence of mankind is destroyed. A religion, therefore, which thus opens the door to perfidy and licentiousness, tends to subvert the order of the world, and should be opposed.

2nd. As to the form, it is absurd to make this consist in the words of men, since it is necessary to a sacrament that it should be instituted by Christ.

3rd. As to the institution, which is founded on the words "this is a great mystery or sacrament," (Eph. v. 32,) by which latter term the Vulgate renders the original. The explaining these words therefore determines the controversy. At the time St. Paul wrote his Epistle, the chief point in debate was, whether the Gentiles were to be received to equal privileges with the Jews in the dispensation of the Messias. The Jews

"

do not deny that the Gentiles may be admitted into that dispensation, but they think that they shall be considered as a distinct body, and in an inferior degree to them. Now, St. Paul had, in several parts of his Epistle, declared that all were equal in Christ; that he had abolished the ground of enmity, which was the Mosaic law, called the law of commandments, contained " in ordinances, that he might make both Jew " and Gentile one new man, he being the chief "corner-stone, in which the whole building, "being fitly framed together, became a holy ❝ habitation unto God." (Eph. ii. 15, 16, 20, 21.) Thus he made use of the figure of a body, and of a temple, to illustrate the point, and to show that all Christians were to make up but one body, and one Church. Accordingly, when he has occasion to speak of the rules belonging to the several states of life, he explains the duties of the married state, by comparing it to the relation that the Church bears to Christ; and having said, that they make but one body and one flesh, which implies that, according to the first institution, each man was to have but one wife, he adds, "this is a great mystery;" that is, from hence another mystical argument might be advanced to prove, that Jew and Gentile must make one body, for, since the Church is the spouse of Christ, he must, according to that figure, have but one wife, and consequently the

Church must be one body, otherwise the analogy will not be valid. This explanation is clear, and confirmed by the following words: "I speak of Christ and his Church."

a

Independent of these particular objections against the parts of this sacrament, it is also liable to objection on account of a consequence which has been deduced from it; that the bond of marriage is indissoluble, and that it is not annulled even by adultery. Now this consequence is opposed to reason, Scripture, and antiquity. It is opposed to reason; for it is clearly necessary that adultery, at least on the wife's part, should void the contract, for the end of marriage being the ascertaining of the issue, and the contract being a mutual transferring the right to each other's person, in order to that end, the breaking this contract, and destroying the end of marriage naturally infers the dissolution of the bond. And on this point the Roman and Attic laws were so severe, that a man who did not divorce

a Durandus urges an invincible objection against the supposition that matrimony is a sacrament. The marriage of infidels, before their conversion, was good and valid, and it is not repeated after their baptism. Now it was not a sacrament at the time it was celebrated, and therefore could not become one after they embraced Christianity. See Durandus in Sent. 1. 4. Dist. 26. q. 3. Bellarmine's answer to this objection is absurd: he says, it becomes a sacrament after their baptism.-(See Bell. de Mat. 1. 1. c. 5.) Now granting the truth of this assertion, we have thus a sacrament without either matter or form, for the marriage is not repeated.

on adultery, was considered infamous. Again, it is opposed to Scripture. Our Saviour says, that "whosoever puts away his wife, except it "be for fornication, and shall marry another, "committeth adultery," which implies that in the case of fornication he may put her away, without incurring sin. It is true, that Mark and Luke repeat these words without mentioning the exception, but it is an universal rule in expounding Scripture, that when a passage is fully expressed by one inspired writer, and less fully by another, the latter should be explained by the former. Lastly it is opposed to antiquity. Tertullian, Basil, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius admit of a divorce in case of adultery; it was allowed in the council of Eliberis, and implied in that of Arles, which recommended the husband not to marry; thus showing that he might do so with propriety. It is still the practice of the Greek Church, and was sanctioned by Popes Zachary and Gregory, and confirmed in a synod held at Rome in the tenth century. In the council of Florence, when the Greeks were reconciled to the Latins, this point

d

a

a See Tertull. cont. Marc. 1. 4. c. 34. Basil. Ep. ad Amphil. c. 9. Chrysos. Hom. 17. in Matt. Epiph. hær, 59.

b See Conc. Elib. c. 65. and Arel. c. 10,

c. 16.

This is confessed by Bellarmine.-See Bell. de Sac, Mat. 1. 1.

4 See Conc. Afric. c. 102. caus. 32. q. 7.