Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 38: That a Ratified Marriage Is Dissolved by Solemn Vows
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Monachis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book II), On Monks (On the Members of the Church, Book II). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Of the fourth point there are two extreme errors. One is of Martin Chemnitz (against session 24 of the Council of Trent, canon 6) and of the Magdeburgians, who teach that marriage, whether it be ratified and consummated, or ratified only, cannot be dissolved by monastic profession. So teach the Centuriators (Century 1, Book 2, chapter 12, column 637); the same teaches Erasmus (on 1 Corinthians chapter 7); and to the same opinion inclines, of the Catholics, Claude Espence (Book 6, chapter 4, On Continence). And there are for this opinion most grave arguments. For (Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7) marriage is pronounced indissoluble; and that this is said of the ratified marriage appears, first, because a ratified marriage does not differ from a consummated one by any essential difference; for carnal union is a certain act of marriage, not the essence of marriage. Secondly, a ratified marriage is a true sacrament, signifying the inseparable union of Christ and the Church, therefore indissoluble. Besides, thirdly, by a ratified marriage the husband gives the wife power over his body; therefore he cannot, his wife being unwilling, vow continence to God.
The other error is in the other extreme, namely that marriage even consummated is dissolved by entrance into the religious life. So decreed Justinian (Code, De Episcopis et Clericis, the final law); and Gregory reports this law (Book 9, epistle 39). For this opinion is wont to be adduced Basil (in the questions more fully explained, question 12), where he seems to say that a husband who cannot obtain the consent of his wife to pass to the religious life can do it against her will; there is also adduced the example of Theonas the abbot, of whom Cassian writes (Conference 21, chapter 9) that, when he had lived five years with his wife, and then wished to become a monk, and could not obtain leave from his wife, against her will he dissolved the marriage and became a monk. And (chapter 10) the same Cassian writes that this deed ought not to be reprehended, since this Theonas afterward shone with apostolic miracles, and his deed was praised by very many great Fathers.
But nonetheless the opinion of the Church is in the middle — namely, that a ratified marriage is dissolved by monastic profession, but not a consummated marriage. This we have (chapter Ex publico, and chapter Ex parte tua, and chapter Verum, De Conversione Coniugatorum, and cause 27, question 2, canon Desponsatam, and many other canons in the same place); to which was added the Council of Trent (session 24, canon 6), where it is said: “If anyone shall say that a ratified, not consummated, marriage is not dissolved by the solemn religious profession of one of the spouses, let him be anathema.”
The second part of this opinion, then, is proved against the second error. First, from Scripture itself; for that which Christ says, What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, and, He that shall put away his wife maketh her to commit adultery (Matthew 19), and that which the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7), To them that are joined in matrimony, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband, etc., must have place in some marriage; therefore at least in a consummated marriage; for if it has not place in this, it will have place in none. Secondly, from the Fathers; for Jerome (in epistle 14 to Celantia) accuses her for vowing continence without the leave of her husband. Likewise Augustine (epistle 45 to Armentarius, and in epistle 199 to Ecdicia) expressly teaches that it is not lawful for a spouse, the other spouse being unwilling, to vow continence, and that if she do it, she ought to be compelled, the vow notwithstanding, to render the debt to her husband. The same teaches Gregory (Book 9, epistle 39, to Theoctista), where he reprehends the civil law which permits the contrary. The same forbid the Eighth Synod and Nicholas I (in the epistle to King Charles), and other decrees of Councils and Pontiffs in Gratian (cause 27, question 2), and also in the Decretals (title De Conversione Coniugatorum).
To the testimony of Basil I answer that perhaps he speaks of a marriage ratified but not yet consummated. And if it is so, his opinion most openly favors us. But if perchance he speaks of a consummated one, I say that Basil has three things in that place. For first he asserts that a married man coming to the monastic life ought to be asked whether he has obtained the consent of his wife; for the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7). Then Basil adds that if the spouse fights and resists, one ought to hear the voice of the Lord: He that hateth not father, mother, wife, etc., is not worthy of me. Which two seem to fight with each other. But he adds, thirdly, that it often happened that by prayers it was obtained from God that the spouse, seized by disease, was compelled to give consent.
Saint Basil, then, seems to will that a married man, if he wish to become a monk, first seek the consent of his wife; if he cannot obtain it, let him pray to God and press with tears and fasts, that this too may be persuaded to his wife, and then at last, consent obtained, let him become a monk. For so he will both obey the Apostle, while he does not leave his spouse without consent, and will also obey Christ, while he sets the love of his wife after the love of Christ. We have an example in the brother and sister of Saint Bernard. For both he from his wife, and she from her husband, by the insistence of prayers obtained the consent which before they could not obtain. See Book 1, chapters 4 and 6, of the life of Saint Bernard.
To the example of Cassian I say that it is one of those deeds of the saints which are to be admired, not imitated. For it is to be believed that by a peculiar admonition of the Holy Spirit it was done, beyond the common order and law, since he afterward shone with so many signs and virtues.
The other part is proved against the other error. First, by the testimonies of the Church cited above; for although the adversaries do not receive them, yet since they themselves bring none to the contrary, right reason teaches that so many holy Pontiffs and one general Council are rather to be believed than the simple denial of a few men.
Secondly, it is proved by the examples of the saints. And first, that Saint Paul recalled Saint Thecla from marriage before the consummation of the marriage, Epiphanius testifies (heresy 78) and Ambrose (Book 2 On Virgins).
The second example is of Saint Alexis, who on the first night of his marriage, leaving his wife untouched, set out abroad and led a chaste life perpetually; so Simeon Metaphrastes reports in his life, whose history is confirmed by the celebration of the whole Church for many ages.
The third example is of Saint Euphrasia, of whom the same Simeon Metaphrastes reports the like.
The fourth is of Saint Cecilia, who, the same Metaphrastes testifying, on the first night of her marriage denied to her husband Valerian the conjugal debt, because she wished to live continently.
The fifth is in Augustine (Book 8 of the Confessions, chapter 6), where he writes that two soldiers, the life of Anthony being read, at once undertook monastic vows, leaving the betrothed whom they had; and these, when they knew this, did likewise. Nor does it matter that they are called by Augustine betrothed, not wives; for very often the ancients call them betrothed until the consummation of the marriage, and thence husbands and wives. So the name of betrothed is taken in the chapter Ex publico, and chapter Carissimus, and chapter Ex parte tua, in the Extra, De Conversione Coniugatorum; and in the same way Augustine (Book 8 of the Confessions, chapter 3): “It is instituted,” he says, “that betrothed women already promised be not given quickly, lest the husband hold cheap the given whom the betrothed did not sigh for as delayed.” Besides, the adversaries deny that not only wives, but also future betrothed, can be dismissed on account of monastic vows.
The sixth is of Saint Leobard, who, Gregory of Tours testifying, broke the nuptial covenants entered into with an honorable girl, and against the will of his parents became a monk.
The seventh is in Gregory (Dialogues, Book 3, chapter 14), where he says that Gregoria, a sacred virgin, the marriage being already arranged, fled to the church and sought the habit of the monastic life, and obtained it.
It is proved lastly by a twofold reason. The first is that reason itself teaches that it is always lawful to pass from a less perfect state to a more perfect, if this can be done without anyone’s detriment. But the state of marriage is more imperfect than the state of the religious life; therefore a passage can be made from one to the other when this is done without anyone’s detriment; but it is done without anyone’s detriment when the marriage is ratified but not consummated. For when the marriage is consummated, a twofold detriment arises if it be dissolved: one to the offspring already born or conceived, which cannot be so well educated; the other to the spouse herself, who remains bound, nor can marry another, and even when she could, not so conveniently, since she is no longer a virgin. But none of these is found in an unconsummated marriage. For there is no offspring, and the wife can marry another, and as well as before, since she is still a virgin, and incurs no infamy from a repudiation of this kind, as is known.
Thou wilt say: But injury is done her, since she is despoiled of her right against her will. I answer: she is bound to consent to her husband wishing to enter a marriage incomparably more perfect, since she can do this without her own inconvenience; and she can be compelled to do what she is bound to do.
Thou wilt say again: If this reason were of any force, it would prove that a ratified marriage is dissolved not only by monastic profession, but also by the reception of sacred orders, and especially by the episcopal dignity, since to sacred order too a solemn vow of continence is annexed, and the state of bishops is more perfect than the state of religious. But a ratified marriage is not dissolved by the reception of sacred order, as John XXII defined (in the Extravagant Antiquae concertationis, De Voto). I answer: they are not alike; for marriage is repugnant of itself and by the nature of the thing to monastic profession, but is not repugnant of itself and by the nature of the thing to sacred order, but only by the decree of the Church.
The second reason is: in marriage a twofold bond is found; one spiritual, which arises from consent alone; the other carnal, which arises from union. But that carnal one is dissolved by bodily death, as appears from 1 Corinthians 7; therefore the spiritual bond ought to be dissolved by spiritual and civil death; such is monastic profession, by which a man in a manner dies to the whole world. And from this reason too it appears why such a marriage is not dissolved by sacred order; for sacred order does not require that spiritual or civil death by which one renounces wealth and his own will.
To the arguments there is a twofold solution. One common among the theologians, which Soto especially explains (on Book 4, distinction 27, question 1, article 4): that a marriage merely ratified is as insoluble as a consummated one; and then to all those arguments they answer that they prove very well that a ratified marriage cannot be dissolved by man — that is, by any human authority — but yet do not prove that it cannot be dissolved by God; and that it is God who dissolves it, when He calls the betrothed to the religious life.
Thou wilt say: Whence have we that God dissolves ratified marriages, and does not also dissolve consummated ones by the calling to the religious life, since it is certain that God can dissolve all? I answer, we know it from the declaration of the Church.
The other solution is common among the canonists, which Cajetan too follows (in the opuscula, tome 1, tract 28), who teach that a consummated marriage is not soluble except by God; but a marriage merely ratified is soluble by the authority of the Pontiff, and even without that authority is dissolved by entrance into the religious life; and then to the argument from the words of the Lord (Matthew 19), What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, they answer that those words are understood only of a consummated marriage. For these words were not said by the Lord until after He had said, They shall be two in one flesh, which is not except by carnal union. And that this text ought so to be expounded Alexander III teaches (chapter Ex publico, De Conversione Coniugatorum).
To the first argument they answer that a ratified and a consummated marriage do not differ only accidentally — that is, as a thing operating and not operating, as the first opinion will have it; nor yet differ properly essentially, as though there were lacking to a ratified marriage the other part of the essence, in the way that man and soul differ; but differ as the perfect and the imperfect, as differ a man to whom no integral part is lacking, and a man maimed, deaf, or blind — which the very words show. For why is it called a ratified marriage, and not consummated, if nothing is lacking to it but the operation or effect? And why is not the priesthood too called ratified and not consummated, before the priest begins to exercise sacred orders?
Further, that which is lacking to a ratified marriage is that which makes it soluble. For the Sacrament of marriage has a threefold signification. First, it signifies invisible grace, or the conjunction of Christ with the soul. Secondly, the conjunction of Christ with the Church through charity. Thirdly, the conjunction of Christ with the Church through conformity of nature. Of which a ratified marriage has only the first, as Saint Thomas teaches (on Book 4, distinction 27, question 1, article 3, question 2, to the first) and Innocent III (chapter Debitum, De Bigamis). Which signification suffices to constitute a true sacrament, but it does not make the marriage insoluble; for that conjunction of Christ with the soul is not insoluble, as is evident.
But a consummated marriage has the other two, as appears from Paul (Ephesians 5), who did not say, This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church, until after he had said, They shall be two in one flesh, which certainly is by union. And this whole is confirmed from this, that if a ratified, not consummated, marriage signified the union of Christ with the Church, it would follow that he is twice-married who has contracted two ratified marriages, though he has consummated only one, or none, which is against the chapter Debitum, De Bigamis. The consequence appears; for digamy is contracted from the defect of the signification of the one Christ with the one Church, which he has not who has contracted with two.
To the second argument I say that a ratified marriage is a true sacrament, but not perfect as to all signification.
To the third I say. First, that those who give themselves to a wife always understand that they give with this condition, unless they be called by God to spiritual nuptials. Secondly, that the spouse is not bound to render the debt of this kind with detriment to her own spiritual good, when it can be done without any detriment of the other spouse, as happens in the present case. Either solution is good, but this latter is more conformable to the decrees and deeds of the Pontiffs, who in fact dispense in a ratified, not consummated, marriage. Besides, the first opinion relies on the testimony of Nicholas (cause 27, question 2, canon Scripsit), where he says that it is God who dissolves the marriage, when He calls someone to the religious life. But this foundation is not solid, because Nicholas speaks of a consummated marriage, and understands it dissolved as to the bed, not as to the bond.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXVIII. Per vota solemnia solvi Matrimonium ratum , non consummatum. De quarto duo sunt errores extremi. Unus est Martini Kemnitii contra sess. XXIV. Concilii Tridcntini can. 6. et Magdeburgen- sium, qui docent, matrimonium sive sit ra¬ tum et consummatum, sive sit ratum tantum, non posse solvi permonasticamprofessionem. Ita docent Centur. I. lib. II. cap. 12. coi. 637. idem docet Erasmus in cap. VII. I. ad. Corint. et in eamdem sententiam propendet ex Catholicis Claudius Espenca3us lib. VI. cap. 4. de continent, suntquepro hac senten¬ tia gravissima argumenta. Nam Mattii. XIX. et I. Cor. VII. matrimonium insolubile esse pronuntiatur : quod autem hoc de rato di¬ catur, patet primo, quia matrimonium ratum non differt a consummato ulla essentiali dif¬ ferentia; copula enim carnalis actus quidam est conjugii, non essentia conjugii. Secundo, matrimonium ratum est verum Sacramen¬ tum, significans Christi et Ecclesiae unionem inseparabilem, ergo indissolubile. Praeterea Tertio, per matrimonium ratum dat viruxori potestatem corporis sui : ergo non potest invita uxore continentiam Deo vovere. Alter error est in altero extremo, quod nimirum- matrimonium etiam consummatum dissolvatur per ingressum in religionem. Ita decrevit Justinianus C. de Episc. et Cler. 1. finali; et refert hanc legem Gregorius lib. IX. epist. 39. pro qua sententia adduci solet Basilius in quaestionibus fusius explicatis, q. 12. ubi videtur dicere, virum, qui non potest ab uxore impetrare consensum transeundi ad religionem, posse ea invita id facere; adducitur etiam exemplum Theonae Abbatis, de quo Cassianus coi. }fxi. cap. 9. scribit, quod cum per quinque annos cum uxore vi¬ xisset, ac deinde Monachus fieri vellet, et ab uxore licentiam non impetraret, illa invita, matrimonium solvit, et Monachus factus est. Et cap. 10. scribit idem Cassianus, non de¬ bere hoc factum reprehendi, cum iste Theo- nas Apostolicis miraculis postea claruerit, et a plurimis magnis Patribus factum ejus col¬ laudatum fuerit. At nihilominus Ecclesiae sententia est in medio, nimirum matrimonium ratum solvi per monasticam professionem, non autem matrimonium consummatum. Id habemus cap. Ex publico, et cap. Ex parte tua, et cap. Verum, de conversione conjugat, et 27. qucest. 2. can. desponsatam, aliisque 'multis canonibus ibidem; quibus accessit Tridentini Concilii, sess. XXIV. can. 6. ubi dicitur : « Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum, non consummatum , per solemnem religionis professionem alterius conjugum non dirimi, anathema sit. » Probatur ergo secunda pars hujus senten¬ tiae contra secundum errorem. Primo, ex ipsa Scriptura: nam quod Christus ait : Quos Deus conjunxit , homo non separet. Et : Qui di¬ miserit uxorem, facit eam moechari. Matth. XIX. et quod ait Apostolus I. Corint. VII : Iis qui matrimonio juncti sunt; praecipio non ego , sed Dominus , mulierem a viro non discedere etc. in aliquo matrimonio locum habere debet, ergo saltem in matrimonio consummato ; si enim in hoc non habet locum, in nullo habe¬ bit. Secundo, ex Patribus : nam Hieronymus in epist. 14. ad Gelantiam, arguit eam, quod sine licentia viri continentiam vovisset. Item Augustinus epist. 43. ad Armentarium, et in epistola 199. ad Ediciam, diserte docet, non licere conjugi, invito oonjuge, vovere continentiam, et si id faciat, debere cogi, ut, voto non obstante, viro suo debitum red¬ dat. Idem docet Gregorius lib. IX. epist. 39. ad Theoctistum, ubi reprehendit legem civi¬ lem, quae permittit contrarium. Idem prohi¬ bent Vili Synodus et Nicolaus I, in epist. ad Carolum Regem, aliaque Conciliorum et Pontificum decreta apud Gratianum 27. qusest. 2. necnon in decretalibus, tit. decon- vers. conjugatorum. Ad testimonium Basilii respondeo, for¬ tasse loqui eum de matrimonio rato, sed nondum consummato. Quod si ita est, sen¬ tentia ejus nobis apertissime favet. Sin au¬ tem de consummato forte loquatur, dico tria habere eo loco Rasilium. Primum enim asse¬ rit, conjugatum venientem ad monastic-en, debere interrogari, an consensum uxoris obtinuerit : Vir enim non habet potestatem corporis sui , sed uxor , ut Apostolus ait L Cor. VII. Deinde addit Basilius, si conjux (1) Matii. XIX, 6; I. Cor. VII, 10. CAPUT XXXVIII. 611 repugnet, ac resistat, oportere audire Do¬ mini vocem : Qui non odit patrem , matrem , uxorem etc. non est me dignus (1). Quae duo inter se pugnare videntur. Sed addit tertio, saepe accidisse, ut orationibus a Deo impe¬ tratum sit, ut conjux morbo correpta, con¬ sensum praebere cogeretur. Videtur ergo S. Basilius velle, ut conju¬ gatus, si Monachus fieri velit, primum con¬ sensum uxoris quaerat : si impetrare non potest, oret Deum, et 'lachrymis et jejuniis instet, quo id etiam uxori persuadeatur, ac tum demum obtento consensu Monachus fiat. Sic enim et Apostolo obediet, dum non sine consensu conjugem relinquit, et Christo etiam parebit, dum uxoris amorem Christi amori postponit. Exemplum habemus in fratre et sorore S. Bernardi. Nam et ille ab uxore, et illa a marito orationum instantia consensum obtinuit, quem antea impetrare non poterant. Vide lib. I, cap. 4 et 6. vita? S. Bernardi. Ad exemplum Cassiani dico, esse illud unum ex iis factis Sanctorum, quae sunt ad¬ miranda, non imitanda. Credendum enim est, peculiari Spiritus sancti admonitu id factum esse, praeter communem ordinem, ac legem, quandoquidem ille tot claruit postea signis et virtutibus. Probatur altera pars contra alterum erro¬ rem. Primo, testimoniis Ecclesiae supra ci¬ tatis ; etsi enim adversarii ea non recipiunt, tamen cum nulla ipsi in contrarium adferant, recta ratio docet, potius credendum esse tot sanctis Pontificibus, et uni generali Concilio, quam simplici inficiationi paucorum homi¬ num. Secundo probatur exemplis Sanctorum. Ac primum,- quod sanctam Theclam ante matrimonii consummationem S. Paulus a nuptiis revocaverit, testatur Epiphanius haeresi 78. et Ambrosius lib. II. de virgi¬ nibus. Secundum exemplum est S. Alexii, qui prima nocte nuptiarum uxorem intactam relinquens, peregre profectus est, castam- que vitam perpetuo duxit : ita refert Simeon Metaphrastes in ejus vita, cujus historia to¬ tius Ecclesiae a multis see.culis celebratione confirmata est, Tertium exemplum est S. Euphrasiae, de qua similia refert idem Simeon Metaphras¬ tes. Quartum est S. Cecilise, quae, teste eodem Metaphraste, prima nocte nuptiarum negavit viro suo Valeriano conjugale debitum, quia nimirum continenter vivere volebat. Quintum est apud Augustinum lib. VIII. Confess. cap. 6. ubi scribit, duos milites, lecta Antonii vita, mox vota monastica sus¬ cepisse, relictis sponsis, quas habebant .' illas vero cum id cognovissent, similiter fecisse. Nec refert quod ab Augustino dicantur spon¬ sae, non uxores ; nam saepissime Veteres sponsas et sponsos vocant usque ad consum¬ mationem matrimonii, atque exinde maritos et uxores. Sic accipitur nomen sponsae in cap. Ex publico, et cap. Carissimus et cap. Ex parte tua, extra de conversione conjuga¬ torum; et eodem modo Augustinus lib. VIII. Confess, cap. 3 : « Institutum est, inquit, ut sponsae jam pactae, non cito tradantur, ne vilem habeat maritus datam, quam non sus¬ piravit sponsus dilatam. » Praeterea adver¬ sarii non solum uxores, sed etiam sponsas futuras, negant posse dimitti propter vota monastica. Sextum est S. Leobardi, qui, teste Grego- rio Turonensi, rupit foedera nuptialia cum honesta puella inita, et invitis parentibus Monachus factus est. Septimum est apud Gregorium lib. Dia- log. III. c. 14. ubi dicit, Gregorium sacram virginem, nuptiis jam constitutis, ad Eccle¬ siam confugisse, et sanctimonialis vitee ha¬ bitum petiisse, ac impetrasse. Probatur ultimo, duplici ratione. Prima est, quia ratio ipsa docet, semper esse lici¬ tum transire de statu minus perfecto ad perfectiorem , si id possit fieri sine ullius detrimento. At status conjugii est imperfec¬ tior statu religionis : ergo poterit ab uno ad alium fieri transitus quando id fiat sine ul¬ lius detrimento : fit autem sine ullius detri¬ mento, quando matrimonium est ratum, sed non consummatum. Nam cum matrimonium est consummatum, duplex detrimentum ori¬ tur, si dirimatur ; unum proli jam natae, vel conceptae, quae non poterit tam bene educari; alterum ipsi conjugi, quae manet ligata, nec potest alteri nubere, et quando etiam posset, non tam commode, cum non sit amplius virgo. At nihil horum invenitur in matri¬ monio non consummato. Ibi enim nulla est proles, et uxor potest alteri nubdVe, et seque bene, atque antea, cum adhuc sit virgo, et (1) I. Cor. VII, 4; Luc. XIV, 26. 612 LIBER II. nihil infamiae incurrat ex hujusmodi repudio, ut notum est. Dices : at injuria illi fit, cum spoliatur in¬ vita re sua. Respondeo : tenetur consentire marito volenti perfectiores nuptias sine ulla comparatione inire, cum id facere possit sine suo incommodo, potest autem cogi ut faciat, quod tenetur facere. Dices rursum : si haec ratio valeret quid¬ quam, probaret non solum propter monas¬ ticam professionem matrimonium ratum di¬ rimi, sed etiam propter sacrorum ordinum susceptionem, ac praecipue propter episco¬ palem dignitatem, cum etiam sacro ordini sit annexum solemne votum continentiae, et status Episcoporum sit perfectior statu reli¬ giosorum. At non dirimitur matrimonium ratum propter ordinis sacri susceptionem, ut Joannes XXII definivit in Extravaganti, Antiquae concertat, de voto. Respondeo : non esse similia; nam monasticae professioni repugnat per se, et ex natura rei conjugium, non autem repugnat per se, et ex natura rei ordini sacro, sed ex solo decreto Ecclesiae. Secunda ratio est : nam in matrimonio duplex invenitur vinculum ; unum spirituale, quod ex solo consensu nascitur ; alterum carnale, quod nascitur ex copula ; sed istud carnale dirimitur per mortem corporalem, ut patet ex I. Corinth. VII, ergo vinculum spirituale dirimi debet per mortem spiritua¬ lem et civilem : talis est monastica professio, qua homo toti mundo quodam modo mori¬ tur. Et ex hac etiam ratione patet, cur non dirimatur tale matrimonium per ordinem sacrum ; nam sacer ordo non requirit mor¬ tem illam spiritualem seu civilem, qua quis opibus et propriae voluntati renuntiet. Ad argumenta duplex est solutio. Una communis Theologorum , quam praecipue Sotus explicat in IV, dist.27, quaest'. I, art. 4 quod tam insolubile sit matrimonium tantum ratum, quam consummatum; et tunc ad illa omnia argumenta respondent, ea probare optime matrimonium ratum non posse diri¬ mi ab homine, id est humana ulla auctoritate, sed tamen non probare, quin possit dirimi a Deo ; Deum autem esse qui dirimit, cum sponsum vocat ad religionem. Dices : unde habemus, quod Deus dirimat matrimonia rata, et non dirimat etiam con¬ summata per vocationem ad religionem, cum certum sit, Deum omnia posse dirimere? Respondeo , scimus ex Ecclesiae declara¬ tione. Altera solutio est communis Canonistarum, quam etiam sequitur Cajetan. in opusculis tom. I, tract. 28. qui docent, matrimonium consummatum non esse solubile, nisi a Deo : matrimonium autem ratum tantum esse so¬ lubile auctoritate Pontificis, et etiam sine illa auctoritate, solvi per ingressum in reli¬ gionem ; et tunc ad argumentum ex verbis Domini Matthaei XIX : Quos Deus conjunxit , homo non separet ; respondent, ea verba in- telligi solum de matrimonio consummato. Nam haec verba non sunt dicta a Domino, nisi postquam dixerat : Erunt duo in carne una (1), quod non sit, nisi per copulam car¬ nalem. Et sic docet exponi debere hunc textum Alexander III, cap. Ex publico, de conversione conjugatorum. Ad primam rationem respondent, matri¬ monium ratum et consummatum non differre solum accide n taliter, id est, ut rem operan¬ tem, et non operantem, ut vult prima opi¬ nio ; nec tamen differre proprie essentialiter, quasi desit matrimonio rato altera pars es¬ sentia?, quomodo differunt homo et anima ; sed differre, sicut perfectum et imperfectum, sicut differunt homo, cui non deest ulla pars integralis, et homo mancus, surdus vel cse- cus : id, quod ipsa verba ostendunt. Cur enim dicitur matrimonium ratum, et non consummatum, si nihil ei deest, nisi operatio, sive effectus? Et cur non dicitur etiam sa¬ cerdotium ratum et non consummatum, an¬ tequam Presbyter incipiat exercere sacros ordines ? Porro id, quod deest matrimonio rato, est id, quod facit illud solubile. Nam Sacramen¬ tum matrimonii triplicem habet significa¬ tionem. Primo, significat gratiam invisibi¬ lem, sive conjunctionem Christi cum anima. Secundo, conjunctionem Christi cum Eccle¬ sia per charitatem. Tertio, cunjunctionem Christi cum Ecclesia per naturae conformita- tem. Ex quibus matrimonium ratum habet solam primam, ut docet S. Thomas in IV. dist. 27. quaest. I. art. 3 quaest. 2. ad I. et Innocentius III, cap. Debitum, de bigamis. Quae significatio sufficit ad constituendum verum Sacramentum, sed ea non facit ma¬ trimonium insolubile ; nam illa conjunctio Christi cum anima non est insolubilis, ut patet. (1) Math. XIX, 6 et 5. CAPUT XXXIX. 613 Matrimonium autem consummatum habet alias duas, ut patet ex Paulo, Ephes. Y. qui non dixit : Sacramentum hoc magnum est , ego autem dico in Christo , et in Ecclesia (1), nisi postquam dixerat : Erunt duo in carne una , quod certe fit per copulam. Et confirmatur hoc totum ex eo, quod si matrimonium ra¬ tum, non consummatum, significaret unio¬ nem Christi cum Ecclesia, sequeretur esse digamum, qui duo matrimonia rata contraxit, licet unum tantum, aut nullum consumma¬ verit, quod est contra cap. Debitum, de di¬ gamis. Sequela patet ; nam digamia contra¬ hitur ex defectu significationis unius Christi cum una Ecclesia, quam non habet, qui cum duabus contraxit. Ad secundam rationem dico, matrimonium ratum esse verum Sacramentum, sed non perfectum, quoad omnem significationem. Ad tertiam dico. Primo, eos, qui dant seipsos uxori, semper intelligere , se. dare cum ea conditione, nisi vocentur a Deo ad spirituales nuptias. Secundo , non teneri conjugem ad solvendum ejusmodi debitum cum detrimento boni spiritualis sui, quando in potest fieri sine ullo detrimento alterius conjugis, ut in praesenti accidit. Utraque so¬ lutio estbona, sed haecposteriorestconformior decretis et factis Pontificum, qui de facto dispensant in matrimonio rato, non consum¬ mato. Praeterea, prima opinio nititur testi¬ monio Nicolai, 27. quaest. 2. can. Scripsit, ubi dicit, Deum esse, qui solvit matrimonium, cum aliquem vocat ad religionem. At hoc fundamentum non est solidum, quia Nicolaus loquitur de matrimonio consummato, et in- telligit illud solvi, quoad thorum, non quoad • vinculum.