title: Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 832 -->

### Articulus I. *De disparitate cultus quoad matrimonii contractionem.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum matrimonium possit contrahi inter fidelem et infidelem.*

Quantum ergo ad primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod matrimonium possit contrahi inter fidelem et infidelem:

1. Et primo *exemplo*: quoniam Ioseph contraxit cum muliere Aegyptiaca nec reprehenditur, sicut dicitur Genesis quadragesimo primo[^p832-1]; similiter Moyses cum Aethiopissa, sicut innuitur Numerorum duodecimo, nec ipse reprehenditur.

2. Item, hoc videtur *auctoritate*, Deuteronomii vigesimo primo[^p832-2]: *Si egressus ad pugnam videris mulierem pulcram in medio captivorum et adamaveris eam, intrabis ad eam dormiesque cum ea, et erit uxor tua*; constat, quod de infidelibus loquitur.

3. Item, primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p832-3]: *Sanctificatur mulier infidelis per virum fidelem*, et e converso: ergo inter fideles et infideles est coniugium sanctum: ergo et licitum.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia diversitas sive disparitas morum non impedit matrimonium contrahendum: ergo pari ratione nec diversitas fidei sive cultus divini matrimonium impedit.

5. Item, matrimonium est Sacramentum commune fidelibus et infidelibus: ergo si ad omnes se extendit, disparitas sive talis repugnantia ipsum non tollit.

6. Item, omne impedimentum matrimonii impedit, pro eo quod obsistit alicui bono matrimonii; sed cultus disparitas nec nocet *bono prolis*, quia potest educari ad cultum Dei, nec *fidei* nec *Sacramenti*: ergo nullo modo impedit.

**Contra:**

1. Probatur *exemplo*: primi Esdrae ultimo[^p832-4] dicitur, quod Esdras separavit viros ab uxoribus alienigenis: ergo non erat inter eos matrimonium.

2. Item, *auctoritate* Legis, Deuteronomii septimo[^p832-5]: *Non sociabis cum eis connubia*; loquitur de infidelibus et alienigenis.

3. Item, Ambrosius in libro de Patriarchis[^p832-6]: «Cave, Christiane, gentili vel Iudaeo filiam tuam dare».

4. Item, potissima distantia est inter fideles et infideles, sicut Christi ad Belial, et lucis ad tenebras[^p832-7]: si ergo in matrimonio magna est unio, nullum potest esse inter eos matrimonium.

> **Conclusio.** *Disparitas, quae est in fide, solummodo impedit matrimonium, sed ea quae est in fidei Sacramento sive baptismo, dirimit illud.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in veteri testamento distinguendum erat inter infideles: quia quaedam mulieres erant infideles et erant de terra Chanaan, quam Dominus promiserat filiis Israel — propter illius gentis obstinationem in infidelitate mandaverat eas occidendas — et de talibus prohibitum erat[^p832-8]. Unde si quis de populo Israel cum illis contraheret, cum esset contra Domini praeceptum, non erat matrimonium. — Quaedam erant infideles de aliis nationibus; et de talibus non erat prohibitum,

<!-- page 833 -->

sed permissum et concessum, ubi non timebatur lapsus in idololatriam, sicut in Ioseph et Moyse.

Ratio autem, quare prohibuit gentes illas et non alias, fuit duplex: una, quia iudicaverat omnes reos mortis; alia, quia obstinatae erant in malo.

In novo testamento alio modo est, quia infidelis est dupliciter: aut quia caret *fide*, aut quia caret *fidei Sacramento*. Si quia *fide* tantum, sic talis disparitas, ubi nota est, impedit matrimonium, sed non dirimit iam contractum, ut si catholicus contrahat cum haeretica baptizata. Si autem sit infidelis, quia caret *fidei Sacramento*, utputa baptismo; quia Sacramentorum ecclesiasticorum et fidelium ianua et fundamentum est baptismus, fidelis, qui contrahere habet secundum Sacramenta Ecclesiae, si cum tali contrahat, nihil facit, etiam si sit *fidelis*, dum tamen non habeat *baptismum*; unde[^p833-1] dirimit iam contractum.

Cultus ergo disparitas praestabat impedimentum in lege veteri non *simpliciter*, sed ubi metuebatur periculum, et divinum aderat iudicium, et super hoc additum erat mandatum. Sic et in nova impedit non *simpliciter* sive de se, sed *ob vitationem periculi* et *diversitatem* Sacramenti baptismi et *inhibitionem*[^p833-2] ecclesiastici statuti, quae ortum habet a duobus praedictis.

*1. 2.* Et sic patent duo prima obiecta.

*3.* Ad illud autem quod obiicitur, quod sanctificatur mulier; dicendum, quod loquitur Apostolus de matrimonio contracto ante cultus disparitatem, quod dicit *manere*, quia fides viri plerumque salvat occasionaliter sive sanctificat mulierem, sicut fides parturit filios[^p833-3].

*4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de disparitate morum etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia disparitas fidei facit disparitatem Sacramentorum, non sic disparitas morum, quia boni et mali conveniunt in Sacramentis. Non tamen disparitas fidei semper facit disparitatem in Sacramentis, sed eatenus, qua facit, impedit. Praeterea[^p833-4] periculosior est.

*5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est commune utrisque[^p833-5]; dicendum, quod eatenus est commune, qua est legis naturae, sed non in quantum Ecclesiae; et quia, si fidelis contrahit, Sacramentum eius iam est Ecclesiae: ideo in hoc non communicat cum infideli, immo multum distat.

*6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est contra aliquod bonum matrimonii; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo est contra bonum *prolis*, quia alter coniugum de facili potest impedire, ne proles Domino dedicetur; est etiam contra bonum *fidei* propter periculum fidei; est etiam contra bonum *Sacramenti*, quia ex parte fidelis matrimonium natum est esse *ratum* et insolubile, cum sit fundatum super Sacramentum fidei; ex alia parte est *contritum*, quia non habet fundamentum[^p833-6]. Et sic patet illud.

english:
<!-- page 832 -->

### Article I. *On disparity of worship as regards the contracting of marriage.*
### Question I. *Whether marriage can be contracted between a believer and an infidel.*

As to the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that marriage can be contracted between a believer and an infidel:

1. And first by *example*: for Joseph contracted with an Egyptian woman and is not reproved, as is said in Genesis forty-one[^p832-1]; likewise Moses with an Ethiopian woman, as is intimated in Numbers twelve, nor is he himself reproved.

2. Likewise, this is seen by *authority*, Deuteronomy twenty-one[^p832-2]: *If, going out to battle, you see among the captives a beautiful woman and desire her, you shall go in to her and sleep with her, and she shall be your wife*; it is evident that it speaks of infidels.

3. Likewise, First Corinthians seven[^p832-3]: *The unbelieving woman is sanctified through the believing husband*, and conversely: therefore between believers and infidels there is a holy union: therefore also a licit one.

4. Likewise, it is seen by *reason*: because diversity or disparity of morals does not impede marriage from being contracted: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does diversity of faith or of divine worship impede marriage.

5. Likewise, marriage is a Sacrament common to believers and infidels: therefore if it extends to all, disparity or such repugnance does not take it away.

6. Likewise, every impediment of marriage impedes for this reason, that it stands against some good of marriage; but disparity of worship neither harms the *good of offspring*, since [the child] can be brought up to the worship of God, nor [that] of *faith* nor of the *Sacrament*: therefore in no way does it impede.

**On the contrary:**

1. It is proved by *example*: in the last [chapter] of First Esdras[^p832-4] it is said that Esdras separated husbands from foreign wives: therefore there was no marriage among them.

2. Likewise, by the *authority* of the Law, Deuteronomy seven[^p832-5]: *You shall not join marriages with them*; it speaks of infidels and foreigners.

3. Likewise, Ambrose in the book On the Patriarchs[^p832-6]: «Beware, Christian, of giving your daughter to a gentile or a Jew».

4. Likewise, the greatest distance is between believers and infidels, as of Christ to Belial, and of light to darkness[^p832-7]: if therefore in marriage there is a great union, no marriage can exist between them.

> **Conclusion.** *Disparity which is in faith only impedes marriage, but that which is in the Sacrament of faith or in baptism dissolves it.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in the Old Testament a distinction had to be made among infidels: for certain women were infidels and were from the land of Canaan, which the Lord had promised to the sons of Israel — on account of the obstinacy of that nation in infidelity He had commanded that they be slain — and concerning such [women marriage] was forbidden[^p832-8]. Hence if anyone of the people of Israel contracted with them, since it was against the Lord's command, it was no marriage. — Certain [women] were infidels of other nations; and concerning such it was not forbidden,

<!-- page 833 -->

but permitted and conceded, where a lapse into idolatry was not feared, as in Joseph and Moses.

Now the reason why He forbade those nations and not others was twofold: one, because He had judged them all guilty of death; the other, because they were obstinate in evil.

In the New Testament it is otherwise, because an infidel is [such] in two ways: either because he lacks *faith*, or because he lacks the *Sacrament of faith*. If [it be] by *faith* only, then such disparity, where it is known, impedes marriage, but does not dissolve one already contracted, as if a Catholic contracts with a baptized heretic. But if he be an infidel because he lacks the *Sacrament of faith*, namely baptism — since the door and foundation of the ecclesiastical Sacraments and of the faithful is baptism — the believer, who must contract according to the Sacraments of the Church, if he contracts with such a one, does nothing, even if he be *a believer*, provided that [the other] does not have *baptism*; whence[^p833-1] it dissolves one already contracted.

Therefore disparity of worship furnished an impediment in the Old Law not *simply*, but where danger was feared, and divine judgment was present, and upon this a command had been added. So too in the New it impedes not *simply* or of itself, but *for the avoidance of danger* and [because of] the *diversity* of the Sacrament of baptism and the *prohibition*[^p833-2] of ecclesiastical statute, which takes its origin from the two aforesaid.

*1, 2.* And thus the first two objections are clear.

*3.* To that which is objected, that the woman is sanctified; it must be said that the Apostle speaks of a marriage contracted before the disparity of worship, which he says *remains*, because the faith of the husband for the most part saves occasionally or sanctifies the wife, as faith brings forth children[^p833-3].

*4.* To that which is objected concerning disparity of morals, etc.; it must be said that it is not alike, because disparity of faith produces disparity of the Sacraments, not so disparity of morals, since good and evil agree in the Sacraments. Yet disparity of faith does not always produce disparity in the Sacraments, but only to the extent that it does, does it impede. Moreover[^p833-4] it is more dangerous.

*5.* To that which is objected, that it is common to both[^p833-5]; it must be said that it is common to the extent that it is of the law of nature, but not insofar as [it is] of the Church; and because, if a believer contracts, his Sacrament is now of the Church: therefore in this he does not communicate with the infidel, nay he differs greatly.

*6.* To that which is objected, that it is not against any good of marriage; it must be said that this is false, nay it is against the good of *offspring*, since one of the spouses can easily impede the offspring from being dedicated to the Lord; it is also against the good of *faith* on account of danger to faith; it is also against the good of the *Sacrament*, because on the part of the believer the marriage is born to be *ratified* and indissoluble, since it is founded upon the Sacrament of faith; on the other part it is *broken*, because it does not have a foundation[^p833-6]. And thus that is clear.

la: Vers. 45. — Seq. locus est Num. 12, 1.

en: [Gen. 41,] v. 45. — The following passage is Num. 12, 1.

la: Vers. 10. seqq., plura tamen in Vulgata interiiciuntur.

en: [Deut. 21,] vv. 10 ff., though much is inserted in between in the Vulgate.

la: Vers. 14: Sanctificata est mulier etc.

en: [1 Cor. 7,] v. 14: *The woman is sanctified*, etc.

la: Vers. 10. seqq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. 2.

en: [1 Esdras (Ezra) 10,] vv. 10 ff. Cf. here the text of the Master, cc. 1-2.

la: Vers. 3: Neque sociabis cum eis coniugia.

en: [Deut. 7,] v. 3: *Neither shall you join marriages with them*.

la: Pressius in l. de Abraham, c. 9. n. 84; refertur a Gratiano, C. 28. q. 1. c. 13, et a Magistro, hic c. 1.

en: More precisely in the book On Abraham, c. 9, n. 84; it is cited by Gratian, C. 28, q. 1, c. 13, and by the Master, here c. 1.

la: Respicitur II. Cor. 6, 14. seq.

en: Reference is made to II Cor. 6, 14 f.

la: Exod. 34, 16. Cfr. supra pag. 703, nota 3.

en: Exod. 34, 16. Cf. above, p. 703, note 3.

la: Cod. K (l a secunda manu) addit impedit contrahendum et. Pro etiam si sit codd. R S T perperam nisi sit.

en: Codex K (the l by a second hand) adds *impedit contrahendum et*. For *etiam si sit* codices R S T wrongly [read] *nisi sit*.

la: Cod. K (l a secunda manu) irritationem.

en: Codex K (the l by a second hand) [reads] *irritationem*.

la: Cfr. August., l. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 45. — Superius post contracto cod. U addit in infidelitate.

en: Cf. Augustine, book On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, c. 16, n. 45. — Above, after *contracto*, codex U adds *in infidelitate*.

la: Ita cod. L, cod. E a secunda manu Et praeterea, cod. A quia; multi codd. omittunt Praeterea, et edd. impedit. Praeterea.

en: Thus codex L; codex E by a second hand [reads] *Et praeterea*; codex A, *quia*; many codices omit *Praeterea*, and the editions [read] *impedit. Praeterea*.

la: Edd. ratione utriusque.

en: The editions [read] *ratione utriusque*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. seq.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6 f. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad tres huius articuli quaestiones solvendas vix alia est differentia inter magistros, nisi quod pauci posteriores contra communem sententiam, cui subscribit S. Bonav. (cfr. q. 1. corollar.), falso opinantur, matrimonium inter fidelem et infidelem non posse contrahi valide ipso iure *divino*, non tantum ecclesiastico, quod bene confutat Scot. (hic q. unica n. 5.); qui etiam aliquem modum loquendi, vel potius argumenta a Richardo a Med. in 2. quaestione adhibita improbat. — De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 1-4. ubi et de 2 seqq. qq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica a. 1; Suppl. q. 59. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de tota hac dist. hic q. unica.

**II.** De 2. quaestione praeter citt. locos: S. Thom., locc. citt. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

**III.** In 3. quaestione tanguntur principia catholica circa vitam infidelium, utrum sit semper peccatum, et utrum habeat virtutes naturales; de quo cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. a. 2. q. 2. 3. et scholion. — De ipsa quaestione: S. Thom., locc. citt. a. 2. ad 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., a. 1. q. 3. In aliis vacat.

**IV.** De 4. quaest. alii agunt supra d. 27. (S. Thom., q. 3. a. 2.).

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As to solving the three questions of this article there is scarcely any difference among the masters, except that a few later ones, against the common opinion — to which S. Bonaventure subscribes (cf. q. 1, corollary) — falsely think that marriage between a believer and an infidel cannot be validly contracted by *divine* law itself, not only by ecclesiastical [law]; which Scotus well refutes (here, sole q., n. 5); who also disapproves a certain manner of speaking, or rather the arguments employed by Richard of Mediavilla in the second question. — On the first question: Scotus, here sole q., nn. 1-4, where also on the 2nd and following qq. — S. Thomas, here sole q., a. 1; Suppl. q. 59, a. 1. — B. Albert, here aa. 1-4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following q., here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this whole distinction, here sole q.

**II.** On the second question, besides the cited places: S. Thomas, cited places, a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, cited place, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2.

**III.** In the third question the catholic principles concerning the life of infidels are touched upon — whether it is always sin, and whether it has natural virtues; on which cf. II Sent. d. 28, a. 2, q. 2. 3, and the scholion. — On the question itself: S. Thomas, cited places, a. 2, ad 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, cited place, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, a. 1, q. 3. In others it is lacking.

**IV.** On the fourth question others treat above, d. 27 (S. Thomas, q. 3, a. 2).

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV Quaracchi PDF page-image bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p832-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p833-{L,R}-*`; L bands regenerated at split 2120, R bands at 1780 to defeat the two-column clip), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative in the cascade-shattered two-column regions). Raw OCR L88852–89018 served only as a scaffold. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page correction.** Frontmatter `printed_pages` was `[831, 832, 833]`; corrected to `[832, 833]` (pdf `[852, 853]`). Verified from running heads: p. 832 verso head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." with folio "832"; p. 833 recto head "DIST. XXXIX. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 833". Page 831 carries the Littera Magistri (Capp. VI–VII) plus the COMMENTARIUS "De impedimento dirimente ob cultus disparitatem" / DIVISIO TEXTUS — that content belongs to the d.39 littera/divisio chunks, not to q1.

**Hand-offs.** *First page (832)* is shared with the divisio: the "TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM" (Ad intelligentiam… Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor + the four-question list) at the top of 832 and its footers are the **divisio chunk's**, not claimed here; this chunk opens at the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I headers lower on 832. *Last page (833)* is shared with a1-q2: q2 (`Utrum Sacramentum matrimonii possit contrahi inter infidelem et infidelem`) begins on 833 immediately after this scholion. Page-833 footers split by body anchor: **notes 1–6 are claimed here** (Respondeo/reply markers); **notes 7–9 (Vers. 12; Cfr. supra pag. 436…; Vide supra pag. 683…) belong to a1-q2** and are left for that chunk. All eight footers on p. 832 are q1's.

**Scholion disposition.** This chunk owns the whole Article I "SCHOLION" (raw header OCR'd "SCHOLIOK"), which covers all four questions of the article in four numbered sections: **§I** (general note on the doctors' near-unanimity + *De 1. quaestione* doctor-list), **§II** (*De 2. quaestione*), **§III** (*In 3. quaestione*), **§IV** (*De 4. quaest.*). Rendered in full here, both languages; siblings a1-q2/q3/q4 render no scholion.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi side-glosses ("Ad oppositum", "Fundamenta", "Notandum", "Distinctio infidelium in V.T.", "Augustinus", and the marginal section-numbers 10/11/12) were omitted from the body per the corpus marginalia rule.

**[?] flags.** None outstanding. Two OCR-scaffold digits corrected against the printed bands and content: Aquinas *Suppl. q. 59* (not the scaffold's "69" — Supplement q. 59 = *De impedimento disparitatis cultus*, exactly this topic) in scholion §I; and footer p832-1 "Vers. 45" (raw OCR read "4-5").


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum Sacramentum matrimonii possit contrahi inter infideles

title_alt: Whether the sacrament of marriage can be contracted between infidels

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 833 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Sacramentum matrimonii possit contrahi inter infidelem et infidelem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum matrimonii sit inter infidelem et infidelem. Et quod sic:

1. Innuit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p833-7]: *Si quis frater uxorem habet infidelem* etc.; vocat *uxorem* cui cohabitandum; sed non fuit uxor propter contractionem, quae fuit post fidem, sed ante: ergo etc.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia matrimonium est de dictamine legis naturae; sed lex naturae communis est apud omnes[^p833-8]: ergo etc.

3. Item, matrimonium definitur sic[^p833-9]: «Matrimonium est maris et feminae coniunctio individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens»; sed hoc est inter infideles: ergo etc.

<!-- page 834 -->

4. Item, infideles haeretici habent vera Sacramenta Ecclesiae[^p834-1] — quamvis non habeant fidem, habent verborum formam — ergo si matrimonium apud fideles contrahitur per verba exprimentia consensum; et talis forma est apud infideles: ergo et matrimonii Sacramentum.

1. **Contra:** Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima[^p834-2]: «Non est ratum coniugium quod sine Deo est»; sed tale est coniugium infidelium: ergo non est ratum, ergo non est matrimonium.

2. Item, Ambrosius ibidem[^p834-3]: «Non est putandum coniugium quod extra Dei decretum est factum»; sed tale est coniugium infidelium: ergo etc.

3. Item, matrimonium est Sacramentum Ecclesiae; sed baptismus est fundamentum Sacramentorum Ecclesiae: ergo non habentes baptismum non habent matrimonium.

4. Item, matrimonium est Sacramentum et signum unionis Dei et animae, sive divinae naturae et humanae[^p834-4]; sed hanc non percipiunt infideles nec credunt: ergo non est eorum Sacramentum.

> **Conclusio.** Matrimonium apud infideles habet tantum semiplene rationem officii, remedii et Sacramenti; unde est legitimum quidem, sed non ratum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod matrimonium est institutum in *officium* et in *remedium* et in *Sacramentum*[^p834-5]; et ista tria *complete* habet, secundum quod est apud fideles; apud infideles vero habet ista secundum rationem *semiplenam.* Nam est in *officium,* quia est procreatio prolis legitimae, sed non ad cultum Dei, apud fideles autem ad cultum Dei. Est in *remedium,* quia excusat coitum maritalem a *culpa,* et rursus, datur *ibi gratia* remittens concupiscentiam ratione benedictionis adiunctae; apud infideles vero maritali affectu uxores cognoscentes est excusatio a *culpa,* sed non datur *gratia*; apud fideles utrumque[^p834-6]. Est et *Sacramentum,* quia significat unionem Dei et animae, sive unionem divinae naturae et humanae, non tantum *aptitudine,* sed *actu*; apud infideles vero *aptitudine tantum.* Et *praeterea,* ratio Sacramenti maxime consistit in ratificatione vinculi; apud infideles autem vinculum non habet ratificationem perfectam. — Unde distinguitur Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima[^p834-7] quoddam matrimonium *ratum et legitimum,* ut fidelium; quoddam *legitimum, sed non ratum,* ut infidelium; quoddam *ratum, sed non legitimum,* ut matrimonium contractum a fidelibus in occulto.

*Si autem quaeratur,* quare matrimonium infidelium non est *ratum*; dicendum, quod hoc est propter defectum *Sacramenti fidei,* et propter *statum*; quia in tali statu iunctus est uxori, in quo potest vinciri *vinculo fortiori,* scilicet suscipiendo Sacramentum baptismi, et Christo alligari, a quo statu nemo potest prohibere[^p834-8]; et ideo potest in casu istud vinculum infirmari. Habet tamen ratitudinem, ut, illo statu in utroque manente, non possit solvi.

1. Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud Augustini[^p834-9]: *Non est ratum* etc.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ambrosio, dicendum, quod illud intelligendum est sic: *extra decretum,* id est contra mandatum divinum[^p834-10].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est Sacramentum Ecclesiae; dicendum, quod verum est; sed non tantum Ecclesiae, sed etiam legis naturae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de significatione, dicendum, quod etsi non *actu* repraesentet, tamen *habitu*; et hoc sufficit ad hoc, quod sit Sacramentum. — Vel dic, quod actu repraesentat, licet nemo percipiat[^p834-11].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the sacrament of marriage can be contracted between an infidel and an infidel.*

Secondly it is asked whether the sacrament of marriage exists between an infidel and an infidel. And that it does [is shown]:

1. The Apostle implies it, First Corinthians chapter seven[^p833-7]: *If any brother has an unbelieving wife,* etc.; he calls *wife* the woman with whom he is to cohabit; but she was not a wife by reason of a contract that took place after the faith, but before: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, *by reason* it seems [so], because marriage is [something] from the dictate of the law of nature; but the law of nature is common to all[^p833-8]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, marriage is defined thus[^p833-9]: «Marriage is the union of a man and a woman maintaining an undivided manner of life»; but this exists among infidels: therefore etc.

<!-- page 834 -->

4. Likewise, unbelieving heretics have true sacraments of the Church[^p834-1] — although they do not have the faith, they have the form of the words — therefore if marriage among the faithful is contracted through words expressing consent; and such a form exists among infidels: therefore also the sacrament of marriage [exists among them].

1. **On the contrary:** Cause twenty-eight, question one[^p834-2]: «A marriage which is without God is not ratified»; but such is the marriage of infidels: therefore it is not ratified, therefore it is not a marriage.

2. Likewise, Ambrose in the same place[^p834-3]: «A marriage which is made outside God's decree is not to be considered [a marriage]»; but such is the marriage of infidels: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, marriage is a sacrament of the Church; but baptism is the foundation of the sacraments of the Church: therefore those not having baptism do not have marriage.

4. Likewise, marriage is a sacrament and a sign of the union of God and the soul, or of the divine and human nature[^p834-4]; but infidels do not perceive this nor believe it: therefore it is not their sacrament.

> **Conclusion.** Marriage among infidels has only in a half-full way the character of an office, a remedy, and a sacrament; whence it is indeed legitimate, but not ratified.

**I respond:** It must be said that marriage was instituted as an *office,* as a *remedy,* and as a *sacrament*[^p834-5]; and it has these three *completely* according as it is among the faithful; but among infidels it has these according to a *half-full* character. For it is an *office,* because it is the procreation of legitimate offspring, but not for the worship of God, whereas among the faithful [it is] for the worship of God. It is a *remedy,* because it excuses marital intercourse from *fault,* and again, *grace* is *there* given remitting concupiscence by reason of the blessing attached [to it]; but among infidels, [those] knowing their wives with marital affection, there is an excusing from *fault,* but *grace* is not given; among the faithful, both[^p834-6]. It is also a *sacrament,* because it signifies the union of God and the soul, or the union of the divine and human nature, not only *in aptitude,* but *in act*; but among infidels *[only] in aptitude.* And *besides,* the essence of a sacrament consists chiefly in the ratification of the bond; but among infidels the bond does not have perfect ratification. — Whence there is distinguished, [in] Cause twenty-eight, question one[^p834-7], a certain marriage [that is] *ratified and legitimate,* as [that] of the faithful; a certain [marriage that is] *legitimate, but not ratified,* as [that] of infidels; a certain [marriage that is] *ratified, but not legitimate,* as a marriage contracted by the faithful in secret.

*If, however, it be asked* why the marriage of infidels is not *ratified*; it must be said that this is on account of the defect of the *sacrament of faith,* and on account of the *state*; because in such a state he is joined to a wife in a condition in which he can be bound by a *stronger bond,* namely by receiving the sacrament of baptism, and being bound to Christ, from which state no one can prevent [him][^p834-8]; and therefore in [such] a case this bond can be weakened. It has, nevertheless, [a kind of] ratification, so that, while both remain in that state, it cannot be dissolved.

1. And by this the response to that [saying] of Augustine[^p834-9] is clear: *It is not ratified,* etc.

2. To that which is objected concerning Ambrose, it must be said that it is to be understood thus: *outside the decree,* that is, contrary to the divine command[^p834-10].

3. To that which is objected, that it is a sacrament of the Church; it must be said that it is true; but not only of the Church, but also of the law of nature.

4. To that which is objected concerning signification, it must be said that although it does not represent *in act,* yet [it does] *in habit*; and this suffices for this, that it be a sacrament. — Or say that it does represent in act, although no one perceives [it][^p834-11].

---

la: Vers. 12.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 436, nota 2. et pag. 748, nota 5.

en: Cf. above p. 436, note 2, and p. 748, note 5.

la: Vide supra pag. 683, nota 2. et pag. 684, nota 4.

en: See above p. 683, note 2, and p. 684, note 4.

la: Ut dictum est supra d. 25. a. 1. q. 2. — Mox verbo *habeant* praemittunt edd. *tamen.*

en: As was said above, d. 25, a. 1, q. 2. — Shortly, before the word *habeant* the editions place *tamen.*

la: In principio, ubi haec verba a Gratiano attribuuntur quidem *Augustino,* in nota tamen adiecta dicitur: Hoc non est inventum apud B. Augustinum. Verum apud Ambrosium in idem c. 7. primae ad Cor. [v. 15.] haec leguntur: «Non enim ratum est matrimonium, quod sine Dei devotione est»; et similia in Glossa ordinaria ibidem ex B. Ambrosio.

en: At the beginning, where these words are indeed attributed by Gratian to *Augustine,* yet in an added note it is said: This is not found in blessed Augustine. But in Ambrose, on the same chapter 7 of First Corinthians [v. 15], these words are read: «For a marriage is not ratified which is without devotion to God»; and similar things in the Ordinary Gloss there from blessed Ambrose.

la: Tam apud Gratian. nota praeced. allegatum, quam in Comment. (olim Ambrosio tributo) super 1. Cor. 7, 15. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Both in Gratian, cited in the preceding note, and in the Commentary (once attributed to Ambrose) on 1 Cor. 7:15. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 6, et Comment. a. 2. q. 1. — Inferius pro *eorum* cod. M *inter eos matrimonii.*

en: See above the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 6, and Commentary a. 2, q. 1. — Below, for *eorum* codex M reads *inter eos matrimonii.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 1. seq. — Inferius verbis *quia est* nonnulli codd. interserunt *ibi.* Subinde post *a culpa* edd. addunt *mortali,* omisso *maritalem* (cfr. supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1.).

en: Cf. above the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 1 f. — Below, at the words *quia est* several codices insert *ibi.* Then after *a culpa* the editions add *mortali,* omitting *maritalem* (cf. above d. 31, a. 2, q. 1).

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. seq.

en: See above d. 26, a. 2, q. 2 f.

la: A Gratiano super C. *Si quis Iudaicae pravitati* (17.). Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. seq.

en: By Gratian on the canon *Si quis Iudaicae pravitati* (17). Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6 f.

la: Cod. U *prohiberi.* Pro *suscipiendo* plures codd. *sustinendo.* Finem corp. cod. K exhibet sic: *ut, in illo statu utroque manente, non possit solvi.*

en: Codex U reads *prohiberi.* For *suscipiendo* several codices read *sustinendo.* Codex K gives the end of the body [of the article] thus: *so that, while both remain in that state, it cannot be dissolved.*

la: Vide supra nota 2.

en: See above, note 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. ad 3. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. above d. 1, p. 1, q. 2, ad 3. — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{833,834}-{L,R}-*.png`, regenerated at split_x 1780/2120), reflowed column-by-column, against raw OCR L89019–89119 (QUAESTIO III opens at L89120). The auto-chunker's "Secundo quaeritur…" opener (L89019) aligns correctly with printed QUAESTIO II — alignment verified, no q-swap. Printed pages 833–834 confirmed from running heads ("DIST. XXXIX. ART. I. QUAEST. II." / "833", "834 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). No scholion in this quaestio (the Art. I scholion is carried by a1-q1 and covers q1–q4); `has_scholion: false`.

**Apparatus:** 14 entries. Per-page split: page 833 → 3 entries (notes 7, 8, 9); page 834 → 11 entries (notes 1–11).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- Page 833 is shared with **a1-q1** (top of both columns = q1's Respondeo, replies Ad 1–6, and the Art. I SCHOLION). Page 833's footer notes **1–6 belong to q1** (anchors: 1 "unde¹ dirimit", 2 "inhibitionem²", 3 "…filios³", 4 "Praeterea⁴", 5 "utrisque⁵", 6 in q1's Ad 6) — claimed there, NOT here. q2 claims only 7–9.
- Page 834 is shared with **a1-q3** (QUAESTIO III opens at the foot of both columns). Page 834's footer **note 12** ("Vers. 23", anchoring q3's arg 1 "Ad Romanos decimo quarto¹²") **belongs to q3**, NOT here. q2 claims 1–11.

**Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial margin labels, not Bonaventure's text): *Ad oppositum*, *Finis matrimonii*, *Conclusio 1*, *Concl. officii/remedii*, *Corollarium*, *Quaestio incidentalis*, *Notandum*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Aliter*.

**[?] flags:** none. All readings clear at band resolution; OCR garbles (`Sacramenium`, `raanu`, `hcet`, `polest`, `ralio`) silently corrected against the PDF bands.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 834 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum matrimonium infidelium excuset coitum, ut non sit ibi peccatum.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum matrimonium infidelium excuset coitum sive coniugalem actum, ut non sit ibi peccatum. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Ad Romanos decimo quarto[^p834-12]: *Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est*; sed actus coniugalis apud infideles non est ex fide: ergo est peccatum.

<!-- page 835 -->

Si tu dicas, quod ibi appellatur *fides* conscientia, et illud dicitur non esse ex fide, quod est contra conscientiam, sicut exponit Magister in littera[^p835-1]; *obiicitur* tunc de Glossa, quae exponit, quod «omnis vita infidelium est peccatum»: ergo et vita matrimonialis peccatum est: ergo matrimonium non excusat a peccato.

2. Item, Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima, capitulo primo[^p835-2]: «Non est vera pudicitia infidelis cum coniuge sua», et est verbum Augustini: ergo infidelis non cognoscit coniugem suam pudice; et cognoscit pudice, vel impudice: ergo impudice: ergo coitus eius non est sine peccato.

3. Item, Sacramenta ecclesiastica apud haereticos, quamvis sint veracia, non tamen sunt utilia, quoniam, etsi habeant formam, tamen propter infidelitatem nullam habent efficaciam[^p835-3]: ergo pari ratione apud infideles.

4. Item, haereticus baptizando peccat mortaliter, quia non baptizat, ut ad cultum Dei perducat, sed ut ad errorem trahat; sed[^p835-4] infideles non procreant prolem ad cultum Dei, sed potius ad permanendum in suis tenebris et erroribus: ergo peccant coeundo propter prolem. Sed nullus coitus est isto honestior, qui fit propter prolem habendam: ergo nullus coitus in infidelibus fit sine peccato.

**Contra:** 1. Triplex est pars continentiae, scilicet virginalis, vidualis et coniugalis; sed infideles continentia virginali continendo non peccant, similiter continendo continentia viduali: ergo pari ratione nec in continentia coniugali. Sed ista est in reddendo et petendo debitum uxori: ergo etc.

2. Item, infidelis, qui habet uxorem et cognoscit eam affectu maritali, cognoscit suam ordinato affectu; sed actus transiens super debitam materiam cum ordinatione affectus est absque peccato: ergo actus coniugalis in infidelibus est absque peccato.

3. Item, matrimonium excusat a peccato, aut ergo in quantum Sacramentum *legis naturae,* aut in quantum Sacramentum *Ecclesiae.* Si in quantum Sacramentum *legis naturae:* ergo cum hoc modo sit apud infideles, ergo excusat eorum coitum. Si in quantum Sacramentum *Ecclesiae solum:* ergo non excusavit ante adventum Christi: ergo quotquot ante adventum Christi uxores cognoverunt, fornicatores fuerunt: ergo cum hoc sit nefas dicere, redit primum.

4. Item, ubi est matrimonium, ibi est mutua obligatio: ergo cum apud infideles sit matrimonium, ergo est ibi mutua obligatio: ergo alter alteri tenetur debitum reddere. Sed nullus peccat faciendo id, ad quod tenetur, nisi per malam voluntatem illud depravet: ergo ille qui reddit debitum uxori suae, non peccat.

> **Conclusio.** Matrimonium infidelium excusat aliquo modo coitum a culpa.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum est in praecedenti problemate, matrimonium infidelium est *remedium semiplenum.* Et ratio huius est, quia bona matrimonii imperfecte sunt ibi, tum quia in eis deficit *fides,* tum quia deficit in eis *Sacramentum fidei.* Quia deficit *fidei Sacramentum,* ideo non est perfectum *Sacramentum* sive vinculum, cum possit fortiori vinculo ligari. Quia deficit *fides,* non est in eis perfectum *remedium,* quia *sine fide impossibile est placere Deo*[^p835-5]; et quamvis sine fide possit quis in aliquo actu *vitare peccatum,* quia non agit malum, tamen impossibile est *mereri praemium.* Unde sicut aliter est apud infideles *continentia,* et aliter apud fideles, quia fideles per pudicitiam et vitant *poenam* et acquirunt *palmam,* illi vero, etsi vitent *poenam,* cum a malo cessant, non tamen acquirunt *palmam*[^p835-6]; sic in matrimonio intelligendum, quod apud fideles tum propter meritum fidei, tum propter benedictionem Ecclesiae non solum datur *remedium,* quod praeservat a culpa, sed etiam datur *gratia,* quae remittit concupiscentiam. Apud infideles vero nulla omnino datur *gratia,* tamen, quia coniunguntur secundum divinum statutum, vitant *culpam,* nisi affectio libidinosa interveniat, quae etiam apud Christianos actum coniugalem foedat. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, quod matrimonium apud infideles aliquo modo coitum excusat.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod quod *non est ex fide,* ergo est peccatum; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur, sicut praedictum est et patet ex Glossa[^p835-7], quod *non est ex fide,* id est «contra conscientiam», quia «qui facit contra conscientiam aedificat ad gehennam». Sed quod subiungit, quod «omnis vita infidelium est peccatum», hoc dictum est *per concomitantiam,* quia nunquam est sine peccato, pro eo quod sola fide purificantur peccata[^p835-8]; et ideo, quidquid faciant, quamdiu sine fide sunt, absque peccato esse non possunt.

<!-- page 836 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vera pudicitia non est infidelis etc.; dicendum, quod *vera* tantum valet, quantum *perfecta*; unde dicitur non esse *vera,* quia non est perfecta. — Sed ista expositio aliquantulum est extranea; et ideo dicendum est, quod non est *vera pudicitia,* quia non habet verum et proprium effectum virtutis, sicut non est verum vinum, quod non habet operationem vini. Operatio autem sive effectus virtutis est, quia facit declinare a malo, et per hoc vitat *poenam*; facit etiam quod bonum est[^p836-1], et per hoc acquirit *gloriam.* Et quamvis apud infideles possit reperiri primum, non tamen secundum; ideo pudicitia non est *vera virtus* apud eos. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus[^p836-2]: «Ubi deest cognitio aeternae et incommutabilis Veritatis, falsa est virtus etiam in optimis moribus».

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Sacramenta Ecclesiae non habent efficaciam apud haereticos; dicendum, quod non est simile de matrimonio et aliis Sacramentis. Nam in aliis praestatur remedium contra morbum, qui *iam inest* — unde in aliis datur gratia, vel effectus gratiae, quo mediante curatur anima a morbi corruptela — in matrimonio autem, in quantum Sacramentum *legis naturae,* datur remedium *praeservativum* a culpa, ne quis in cognoscendo mulierem peccet; licet, in quantum est Sacramentum *Ecclesiae,* ratione benedictionis annexae det etiam gratiam digne accedentibus. Quoniam ergo infideles non suscipiunt gratiam gratum facientem nec eius effectum, quamdiu sunt in infidelitate; ideo alia Sacramenta non praestant eis remedium, hoc vero solum potest eis praestare, licet non perfectum, sed solum ad cavendum malum[^p836-3].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod haereticus baptizando peccat mortaliter; dicendum, quod peccat, quia usurpat quod suum non est; et quodsi actualiter intendat ad errorem perducere, tunc gravius peccat. Sed sicut potest esse, quod aliquis haereticus baptizet, non intendens hominem perducere ad errorem; sic potest esse, quod aliquis generet prolem, non intendens ad cultum idolorum pertrahere, sed solum intendens posteritatem habere. Et hoc quidem, quia caret *intentione formata,* non habet perfecte bonum prolis nec meritum; quia tamen non habet intentionem *deformatam,* ideo non habet demeritum. Et ideo tales filii iudicari possunt[^p836-4] *legitimi,* quod est signum, quod matrimonialiter sunt generati; aliter enim iudicarentur *illegitimi.*

Est enim quadruplex differentia filiorum ita apud infideles, sicut apud fideles. Quidam enim sunt *naturales et legitimi,* ut qui de legitimis uxoribus generantur; et isti debent et possunt succedere in bonis. Quidam *legitimi, sed non naturales,* ut filii adoptivi; et isti similiter possunt succedere. Quidam *naturales, sed non legitimi,* ut illi qui nati sunt de concubinis. Quidam sunt nec *legitimi nec naturales,* ut sunt illi qui de adulterio sunt nati, vel etiam de incestu[^p836-5].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the marriage of infidels excuses intercourse, so that there is no sin in it.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the marriage of infidels excuses intercourse or the conjugal act, so that there is no sin in it. And that it does not, it seems:

1. To the Romans, chapter fourteen[^p834-12]: *Whatever is not from faith is sin*; but the conjugal act among infidels is not from faith: therefore it is a sin.

<!-- page 835 -->

If you say that there *faith* is called conscience, and that is said not to be from faith which is against conscience, as the Master explains in the text[^p835-1]; *it is then objected* from the Gloss, which explains that «the whole life of infidels is sin»: therefore the married life too is sin: therefore marriage does not excuse from sin.

2. Likewise, Cause twenty-eight, question one, chapter one[^p835-2]: «There is no true chastity of an infidel with his spouse», and it is a saying of Augustine: therefore an infidel does not know his spouse chastely; and he knows [her] either chastely or unchastely: therefore unchastely: therefore his intercourse is not without sin.

3. Likewise, the ecclesiastical sacraments among heretics, although they be genuine, are nevertheless not profitable, since, even if they have the form, yet on account of unbelief they have no efficacy[^p835-3]: therefore by parity of reasoning [it is so] among infidels.

4. Likewise, a heretic in baptizing sins mortally, because he does not baptize in order to lead [one] to the worship of God, but to draw [one] to error; but[^p835-4] infidels do not procreate offspring for the worship of God, but rather for remaining in their own darkness and errors: therefore they sin by coming together for the sake of offspring. But no intercourse is more honorable than this one, which is done for the sake of having offspring: therefore no intercourse among infidels is done without sin.

**On the contrary:** 1. There are three parts of continence, namely virginal, widowed, and conjugal; but infidels by maintaining virginal continence do not sin, likewise by maintaining widowed continence: therefore by parity of reasoning neither in conjugal continence. But this consists in rendering and requesting the debt to a wife: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, an infidel who has a wife and knows her with marital affection knows his own [wife] with ordered affection; but an act passing over its due matter with an ordering of affection is without sin: therefore the conjugal act among infidels is without sin.

3. Likewise, marriage excuses from sin, either therefore inasmuch as it is a sacrament of *the law of nature,* or inasmuch as it is a sacrament of *the Church.* If inasmuch as it is a sacrament of *the law of nature:* then, since it exists in this way among infidels, it therefore excuses their intercourse. If inasmuch as it is a sacrament of *the Church only:* then it did not excuse before the coming of Christ: therefore however many knew wives before the coming of Christ were fornicators: therefore, since it is wicked to say this, the first [alternative] returns.

4. Likewise, where there is marriage, there is a mutual obligation: therefore since among infidels there is marriage, there is therefore there a mutual obligation: therefore the one is bound to render the debt to the other. But no one sins by doing that to which he is bound, unless he corrupts it through an evil will: therefore he who renders the debt to his wife does not sin.

> **Conclusion.** The marriage of infidels excuses intercourse in some way from fault.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched upon in the preceding problem, the marriage of infidels is a *half-full remedy.* And the reason for this is that the goods of marriage are there imperfectly, both because in them *faith* is lacking, and because in them the *sacrament of faith* is lacking. Because the *sacrament of faith* is lacking, it is therefore not a perfect *sacrament* or bond, since it can be bound by a stronger bond. Because *faith* is lacking, there is not in them a perfect *remedy,* because *without faith it is impossible to please God*[^p835-5]; and although without faith someone can in a given act *avoid sin,* because he does not do evil, yet it is impossible to *merit a reward.* Whence, just as *continence* is one thing among infidels and another among the faithful — because the faithful through chastity both avoid *punishment* and acquire the *palm,* whereas those [others], even if they avoid *punishment* when they cease from evil, nevertheless do not acquire the *palm*[^p835-6] — so is it to be understood in marriage, that among the faithful, both on account of the merit of faith and on account of the blessing of the Church, there is given not only a *remedy,* which preserves from fault, but also *grace* is given, which remits concupiscence. But among infidels no *grace* at all is given; nevertheless, because they are joined according to divine ordinance, they avoid *fault,* unless a lustful affection intervene, which even among Christians defiles the conjugal act. — And thus the arguments are to be conceded which show that among infidels marriage excuses intercourse in some way.

1. To that, then, which is objected — that «whatever *is not from faith*» is therefore a sin — it must be said that this is understood, as was said before and is clear from the Gloss[^p835-7], [to mean] that which *is not from faith,* that is, «against conscience», since «he who acts against conscience builds toward hell». But as for what it adds, that «the whole life of infidels is sin», this is said *by concomitance,* because it is never without sin, for the reason that sins are purified by faith alone[^p835-8]; and therefore, whatever they do, so long as they are without faith, they cannot be without sin.

<!-- page 836 -->

2. To that which is objected, that there is no true chastity of an infidel, etc.; it must be said that *true* is worth only as much as *perfect*; whence it is said not to be *true,* because it is not perfect. — But this exposition is somewhat foreign [to the point]; and therefore it must be said that it is not *true chastity,* because it does not have the true and proper effect of virtue, just as it is not true wine which does not have the operation of wine. Now the operation or effect of virtue is that it makes [one] turn aside from evil, and through this it avoids *punishment*; it also makes [one] do what is good[^p836-1], and through this it acquires *glory.* And although among infidels the first can be found, yet not the second; therefore chastity is not a *true virtue* among them. And this is what Augustine says[^p836-2]: «Where the knowledge of the eternal and unchangeable Truth is lacking, virtue is false even in the best morals».

3. To that which is objected, that the sacraments of the Church do not have efficacy among heretics; it must be said that the case is not the same for marriage and the other sacraments. For in the others a remedy is provided against a disease which *is already present* — whence in the others grace is given, or the effect of grace, by means of which the soul is healed of the corruption of the disease — but in marriage, inasmuch as it is a sacrament of *the law of nature,* there is given a *preservative* remedy against fault, lest anyone sin in knowing a woman; although, inasmuch as it is a sacrament of *the Church,* by reason of the blessing attached it also gives grace to those who approach worthily. Since therefore infidels do not receive sanctifying grace nor its effect, so long as they are in unbelief; therefore the other sacraments do not provide them a remedy, but this one alone can provide it for them, though not a perfect [remedy], but only for warding off evil[^p836-3].

4. To that which is objected, that a heretic in baptizing sins mortally; it must be said that he sins, because he usurps what is not his own; and if he actually intends to lead [one] to error, then he sins more gravely. But just as it can be that some heretic baptizes without intending to lead a man into error, so it can be that someone begets offspring without intending to draw [them] to the worship of idols, but only intending to have posterity. And this indeed, because it lacks a *formed intention,* does not have perfectly the good of offspring nor merit; yet because it does not have a *deformed* intention, it therefore does not have demerit. And therefore such children can be judged[^p836-4] *legitimate,* which is a sign that they were begotten in a married way; for otherwise they would be judged *illegitimate.*

For there is a fourfold difference of children among infidels just as among the faithful. For some are *natural and legitimate,* as those who are begotten of legitimate wives; and these ought and can succeed to the goods [of inheritance]. Some are *legitimate, but not natural,* as adopted sons; and these likewise can succeed. Some are *natural, but not legitimate,* as those who are born of concubines. Some are *neither legitimate nor natural,* as are those who are born of adultery, or even of incest[^p836-5].

---

la: Vers. 23.

la: Hic c. 6. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum et sumta est ex Prospero, lib. Sententiarum ex Augustino, n. 106.

en: Here, c. 6. — The Gloss is the *Ordinary* [Gloss] in Strabo and Lyra, and is taken from Prosper, book of *Sentences from Augustine,* n. 106.

la: Sive in principio, ubi Gratian. hoc Augustini verbum (l. de Coniug. adult. c. 18. n. 20.) refert; occurrit etiam ibid. in C. *Sic enim recedere* (9.). Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Or at the beginning, where Gratian reports this saying of Augustine (bk. *On Adulterous Marriages,* c. 18, n. 20); it occurs also in the same place in the canon *Sic enim recedere* (9). Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 25. a. 1. q. 2. — Mox post *ratione* cod. Y addit *et matrimonium.*

en: Cf. above d. 25, a. 1, q. 2. — Shortly, after *ratione* codex Y adds *et matrimonium.*

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *similiter.*

en: Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] *similiter.*

la: Respicitur Glossa in Ps. 33, 15. Cfr. supra pag. 357, nota 8.

en: Reference is made to the Gloss on Ps. 33:15. Cf. above p. 357, note 8.

la: De hac Glossa vide tom. II. pag. 905, nota 1. Ibid. pag. 907, nota 2. allata sunt verba Innocentii, quae seq. rationem (*aedificat ad gehennam*) continent, de quibus cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. et Gratian. super C. *Omnes deinceps* (14), C. 28. q. 1.

en: On this Gloss see vol. II, p. 905, note 1. In the same place, p. 907, note 2, the words of Innocent are cited, which contain the following reason (*builds toward hell*), concerning which cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6, and Gratian on the canon *Omnes deinceps* (14), C. 28, q. 1.

la: Act. 15, 9: *Fide purificans corda eorum.*

en: Acts 15:9: *Purifying their hearts by faith.*

la: Psalm. 33, 15: *Diverte a malo et fac bonum.* — De *vera* virtute secundum sententiam S. Augustini cfr. tom. III. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: Psalm 33:15: *Turn away from evil and do good.* — On *true* virtue according to the opinion of St. Augustine, cf. vol. III, d. 23, a. 2, q. 1, in the body [of the article].

la: Potius Prosper, lib. Sententiarum ex Augustino, n. 106. — In fine solut. in cod. bb secunda manus addidit: *quia non habet praemium aeternum.*

en: Rather Prosper, book of *Sentences from Augustine,* n. 106. — At the end of the solution, in codex bb a second hand added: *because it does not have an eternal reward.*

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. et q. 3. ad arg. 4. pro parte negativa. — Superius pro *accedentibus* cod. aa *accipientibus.*

en: See above d. 26, a. 2, q. 2 and q. 3, to argument 4 for the negative side. — Above, for *accedentibus* codex aa [reads] *accipientibus.*

la: Cod. Z *iudicantur.*

en: Codex Z [reads] *iudicantur.*

la: Eodem modo filii referuntur a Glossa in C. *Tanta est vis* (6.), X. *Qui filii sint legitimi* (lib. IV. tit. 17.). — Superius post *succedere* codd. F G repetunt *in bonis.* — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: In the same way the [kinds of] children are reported by the Gloss on the canon *Tanta est vis* (6), [in the Decretals] *Qui filii sint legitimi* (bk. IV, title 17). — Above, after *succedere* codices F G repeat *in bonis.* — See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{834,835,836}-{L,R}-*.png`), reflowed column-by-column (each quaestio prints as its own two-column block), against raw OCR L89122–89299. The auto-chunker's "Tertio quaeritur…" opener (L89122) aligns correctly with printed QUAESTIO III — **alignment verified, no q-swap.** Printed pages 834–836 confirmed from running heads ("834 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.", "DIST. XXXIX. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 835", "836 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). No scholion in this quaestio (the Art. I scholion is carried by a1-q1 and covers q1–q4, as note p836-5 confirms: "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest."); `has_scholion: false`.

**Page layout.** Page 834 is dominated by q2 (its arguments in the top block, its Respondeo in the top-right block); QUAESTIO III opens only at the **foot** of page 834 (header + opener "Tertio quaeritur…" + arg 1 with marker 12). Page 835 is entirely q3 (arg 1 tail through Respondeo and reply Ad 1). Page 836 carries q3's replies Ad 2–4 and the *quadruplex differentia filiorum* in its **top** block, then QUAESTIO IV opens in the **bottom** block.

**Apparatus: 14 entries.** Per-page split: page 834 → 1 entry (note **12** only); page 835 → 8 entries (notes 1–8); page 836 → 5 entries (notes 1–5).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- Page 834 shared with **a1-q2** (q2 fills most of the page; q3 opens at the foot). Page 834's footer **note 12** ("Vers. 23", anchoring q3's arg 1 "Ad Romanos decimo quarto¹²") is **claimed here**; notes 1–11 belong to q2 (claimed there). This is the hand-off forwarded from a1-q2's report — **picked up.**
- Page 836 shared with **a1-q4** (QUAESTIO IV opens in the page's lower block). Page 836's footer **notes 1–5** anchor in q3's body (1 "bonum est", 2 "Augustinus", 3 "cavendum malum", 4 "iudicari possunt", 5 "de incestu") and are **claimed here**; **notes 6–8** ("ad Timotheum primam⁶", "ratione Hieronymi⁷", "simpliciter⁸") anchor in q4's opener and arguments — **forwarded to a1-q4, NOT claimed here.**

**Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial margin labels, not Bonaventure's text): *Ad oppositum, Conclusio, Notandum, Solutio oppositorum, Expositio 1 non probata, Expositio auctoris, Quadruplex differentia filiorum, Nota.*

**[?] flags:** none material. One resolved reading: the body marker at "sola fide purificantur peccata" prints as a glyph resembling "6", but the ascending in-page sequence (5 → 6 → 7 → …) and the exact citation match (note 8 = Act. 15:9, *Fide purificans corda eorum*) fix it unambiguously as note **8**. OCR garbles (`excusei`, `ihi`, `pecccatum`, `Qnidam`, `raatrimonium`, `hcet`) silently corrected against the PDF bands.


title: Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 836 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum matrimonium contractum ante baptismum ponat in numerum cum matrimonio contracto post baptismum.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum matrimonium ante baptismum ponat in numerum cum matrimonio contracto post baptismum, ita quod talis iudicetur bigamus. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Hieronymus super Epistolam ad Timotheum primam[^p836-6]: «Si unam habuit ante baptismum, alteram post baptismum, non est putandus bigamus».

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione Hieronymi[^p836-7]: «Prorsus innovato per baptismum omnia vetera sunt dimissa»: ergo cum tale coniugium et talis actus coniugalis ad statum vetustatis pertineat, ergo habetur, tanquam si non fuerit: ergo non computatur cum matrimonio subsequenti.

3. Item, ordinatus ante baptismum et ordinatus post baptismum non est bis ordinatus, etiam si ordinetur ab alio et alio: ergo pari ratione coniugatus ante et coniugatus post non est bis coniugatus, etiam si contrahat cum alia et alia.

4. Item, *secundum quid* non connumeratur ei quod est *simpliciter*[^p836-8]: sed vinculum matrimoniale <!-- page 837 --> est vinculum ante baptismum imperfectum et *secundum quid*, post baptismum vero est perfectum: ergo non debet unum alteri connumerari: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus super Epistolam ad Titum[^p837-1]: «Qui ante baptismum habuit unam et post baptismum habuit aliam non est reputandus nisi bigamus».

2. Item, hoc videtur *ratione* sua[^p837-2]: «In baptismate crimina abolentur, non id quod honestum est, utpote foederatio coniugalis»: ergo si non aboletur, adhuc manet, et iudicatur iste fuisse coniugatus: ergo si iterum contrahat, est iudicandus bigamus.

3. Item, virgo, quae corrupta fuit carne ante baptismum, semper post iudicatur corrupta et nunquam poterit inter virgines consecrari, et hoc, quia amissio virginitatis respicit aliquid ex parte carnis, quod nunquam potest recuperari: ergo cum bigamia respiciat divisionem carnis, patet[^p837-3] etc.

4. Item, si baptizatus apud haereticos iterum baptizetur, quantum est in se, iterat baptismum et puniendus est poenitentia rebaptizati: ergo cum coniugium sit verum apud infideles[^p837-4], qui iterum contrahit iterat matrimonium: ergo non potest esse nisi bigamus.

### Conclusio
> *Qui contrahit matrimonium cum una ante baptismum, cum alia post baptismum est bigamus.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut expresse apparet, Hieronymus et Augustinus hic fuerunt contrarie opinati; et nisi quis velit distorquere verba, non video, quomodo possint reduci ad concordiam. Ideo enim in hoc habuerunt opiniones contrarias, quia fundati sunt super diversa.

Hieronymus enim voluit, quod omnis vita infidelium esset culpa, et quod matrimonium infidelium ad veterem hominem pertineret; et quia in baptismo *exspoliatur vetus homo cum actibus suis, et induitur novus*[^p837-5]: hinc est, quod dixit, quod sicut peccata praeterita isti non imputantur nec computantur; sic etiam nec coniugia.

Augustinus vero posuit, quod coniugia infidelium, etsi non essent meritoria, non tamen erant culpabilia, immo erant licita et bona. Et hoc patet, quia Dominus instituit[^p837-6], et ius naturale dictat, et ulterius Apostolus confirmat, qui dicit, uxorem infidelem non esse dimittendam; et quia licita sunt, hinc est, quod per baptismum non delentur. — Et quoniam Augustinus melius habuit fundamentum et verius, hinc est, quod verius et sanius dixit; et ideo canones positioni Augustini concordant, et illud nunc tenet Ecclesia, quod matrimonium ante baptismum contractum cum una, et post baptismum cum alia, facit bigamum, sicut expresse dicitur distinctione trigesima quarta[^p837-7]: «Si quis viduam, licet laicus, duxerit uxorem, seu ante baptismum, seu post baptismum; non admittatur ad clerum. In baptismate enim crimina dimittuntur, non acceptae uxoris consortium relaxatur».

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1 et 2.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur et secundo, dicendum, quod illud iam solutum est, quia nec auctoritas Hieronymi hic habet robur nec ratio sua; unde opinando dixit, non asserendo.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordinato ante baptismum et post, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia in ordine imprimitur character, qui non potest alicui dari, nisi habeat characterem baptismalem, sicut in praecedentibus[^p837-8] probatum est et ostensum; unde qui ordinatur ante baptismum non est ordinatus: ideo, cum ordinatur post baptismum, semel tantum est ordinatus. Non sic est de matrimonio; quia enim ibi non imprimitur character, ideo potest contrahi ante baptismum, et ante coniugatus est quam baptizatus.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est *secundum quid*; dicendum, quod duplex est *secundum quid*: unum, quod diminuit ab *esse*[^p837-9], aliud quod diminuit ab *esse perfecto*. Primum, quod diminuit ab *esse*, non ponit in numerum; cum enim non participet esse, non potest connumerari alii in illo *esse*. Aliud vero potest; et tale est matrimonium infidelium, quod quidem habet rationem coniugii et definitionem, licet non habeat in tanta perfectione, in quanta habet matrimonium fidelium[^p837-10].

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether marriage contracted before baptism is counted together with marriage contracted after baptism.*

Fourth, it is asked whether marriage before baptism is placed in the count with marriage contracted after baptism, in such a way that such a man is judged a bigamist. And that it is not, it seems.

1. Jerome on the First Epistle to Timothy[^p836-6]: «If he had one [wife] before baptism and another after baptism, he is not to be considered a bigamist».

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by Jerome's reasoning[^p836-7]: «Through baptism all old things are utterly renewed [and] dismissed»: therefore, since such a marriage and such a conjugal act belong to the state of oldness, it is held as though it had not been: therefore it is not counted with the subsequent marriage.

3. Likewise, one ordained before baptism and one ordained after baptism is not twice ordained, even if he be ordained by one and another [minister]: therefore, by parity of reasoning, one married before and married after is not twice married, even if he contract with one and another [woman].

4. Likewise, that which is *in a certain respect* is not counted together with that which is *without qualification*[^p836-8]: but the matrimonial bond <!-- page 837 --> is a bond imperfect and *in a certain respect* before baptism, whereas after baptism it is perfect: therefore the one ought not to be counted together with the other: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine on the Epistle to Titus[^p837-1]: «He who before baptism had one [wife] and after baptism had another is not to be reckoned other than a bigamist».

2. Likewise, this seems [to hold] by his own *reasoning*[^p837-2]: «In baptism crimes are abolished, not that which is honorable, such as the conjugal covenant»: therefore, if it is not abolished, it still remains, and this man is judged to have been married: therefore, if he contract again, he is to be judged a bigamist.

3. Likewise, a virgin who was corrupted in the flesh before baptism is ever afterward judged corrupted and can never be consecrated among the virgins, and this because the loss of virginity regards something on the part of the flesh, which can never be recovered: therefore, since bigamy regards the division of the flesh, it is evident[^p837-3] etc.

4. Likewise, if one baptized among heretics is baptized again, as far as it lies in him, he repeats baptism and is to be punished with the penance of the rebaptized: therefore, since marriage is true among infidels[^p837-4], he who contracts again repeats matrimony: therefore he can be nothing but a bigamist.

### Conclusion
> *He who contracts marriage with one [woman] before baptism, [and] with another after baptism, is a bigamist.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as expressly appears, Jerome and Augustine here were of contrary opinion; and unless one wishes to distort their words, I do not see how they can be reduced to concord. For they held contrary opinions on this precisely because they were grounded upon different [premises].

For Jerome held that the whole life of infidels was sin, and that the marriage of infidels belonged to the old man; and because in baptism *the old man is stripped off with his acts, and the new [man] is put on*[^p837-5]: hence it is that he said that, just as the past sins of these are not imputed nor counted, so also neither are their marriages.

Augustine, however, held that the marriages of infidels, though they were not meritorious, were nonetheless not culpable, but rather were licit and good. And this is evident, because the Lord instituted [marriage][^p837-6], and the natural law dictates it, and further the Apostle confirms it, who says that an unbelieving wife is not to be dismissed; and because they are licit, hence it is that they are not blotted out by baptism. — And since Augustine had the better and truer foundation, hence it is that he spoke more truly and more soundly; and therefore the canons agree with Augustine's position, and the Church now holds this: that marriage contracted before baptism with one [woman], and after baptism with another, makes a bigamist, as is expressly said in the thirty-fourth distinction[^p837-7]: «If anyone, though a layman, take a widow to wife, whether before baptism or after baptism, let him not be admitted to the clergy. For in baptism crimes are dismissed; the fellowship of a wife [already] taken is not released».

**To the arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* To that, then, which is objected first and second, it must be said that it is already solved, since neither has the authority of Jerome force here, nor his reasoning; hence he spoke by way of opinion, not by way of assertion.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning one ordained before baptism and after, it must be said that it is not alike, because in ordination a character is imprinted, which cannot be given to anyone unless he have the baptismal character, as was proved and shown in the preceding [matters][^p837-8]; hence he who is ordained before baptism is not ordained: therefore, when he is ordained after baptism, he is ordained only once. It is not so with matrimony; for since a character is not imprinted there, therefore it can be contracted before baptism, and one is married before he is baptized.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that it is [only] *in a certain respect*; it must be said that "in a certain respect" is twofold: one which diminishes from *being*[^p837-9], another which diminishes from *perfect being*. The first, which diminishes from *being*, does not place [it] in the count; for since it does not participate in being, it cannot be counted together with another in that *being*. The other, however, can; and such is the marriage of infidels, which indeed has the account and definition of marriage, though it does not have it in such great perfection as the marriage of the faithful has[^p837-10].

---

la: Cap. 3, 2. Verba haec inveniuntur in C. *Oportet episcopum* (1.), C. 28. q. 3. et in Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum in I. Tim. 3, 2. Hieron. hac de re agit sententiamque suam tuetur in Epist. 69. (alias 83.), l. adversus Iovinian. n. 15. et Comment. in epist. ad Tit. 1, 6.

en: Chap. 3, 2. These words are found in the Canon *Oportet episcopum* (1.), C. 28, q. 3, and in the *Glossa ordinaria* of Strabo on 1 Tim. 3:2. Jerome treats of this matter and defends his opinion in Epistle 69 (alias 83), in Book I *Against Jovinian*, n. 15, and in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus 1:6.

la: In C. *Oportet episcopum* (1), nota praeced. allegato.

en: In the Canon *Oportet episcopum* (1), in the note cited just above.

la: Sic homo pictus et verus non sunt duo homines; nam secundum Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 133. (c. 14.), numeratur unumquodque uno quodam cognato [i. e. uno quodam eiusdem generis], unitates unitate, equi vero equo etc.

en: Thus a painted man and a real man are not two men; for according to Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 133 (ch. 14), each thing is numbered by some cognate [unit] [i.e., by some [unit] of the same genus]: units by a unit, but horses by a horse, etc.

la: Ita indicatur et refertur a Gratiano, C. *Acutius vero intelligunt* (2.), C. 28. q. 3. Sententiam exhibet August., de *Bono coniugali*, c. 18. n. 21, de qua vide C. *Acutius intelligunt* (2.), d. 26. et Glossam *ordinariam* in Tit. 1, 6. apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: So it is indicated and reported by Gratian, in the Canon *Acutius vero intelligunt* (2.), C. 28, q. 3. Augustine sets forth the opinion in *On the Good of Marriage*, ch. 18, n. 21, concerning which see the Canon *Acutius intelligunt* (2.), d. 26, and the *Glossa ordinaria* on Titus 1:6 in Strabo and Lyra.

la: Allegata in praenotato C. *Acutius vero intelligunt*: In baptismate enim crimina abolentur, non foederatio coniugii dissolvitur. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Pro *non id* cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *non autem*, multi codd. *non ideo*.

en: Cited in the aforementioned Canon *Acutius vero intelligunt*: "For in baptism crimes are abolished; the covenant of marriage is not dissolved." Compare also here the text of the Master, ch. 5. — For *non id* codex K (1, by a second hand) reads *non autem*, many codices *non ideo*.

la: Haec ratio tangitur ab August. in C. *Acutius intelligunt* (2.), d. 26. — Pro *consecrari* cod. E *computari*.

en: This reasoning is touched on by Augustine in the Canon *Acutius intelligunt* (2.), d. 26. — For *consecrari* codex E reads *computari*.

la: Cfr. supra q. 2. et 3. — De *maiori* vide supra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2. et C. *Qui bis ignoranter* (117.), seq., de Consecrat. d. 4.

en: Compare above, q. 2 and 3. — On the major [premise] see above the text of the Master, d. VI, ch. 2, and the Canon *Qui bis ignoranter* (117), and following, *De Consecratione*, d. 4.

la: Respicitur Col. 3, 9. seq. — Superius voci *culpa* cod. P praemittit *cum*.

en: The reference is to Colossians 3:9 ff. — Above, before the word *culpa* codex P prefixes *cum*.

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 1. q. 2. — Sententia Apostoli habetur 1. Cor. 7, 12. seq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: See above, d. 26, a. 1, q. 2. — The Apostle's statement is found in 1 Cor. 7:12 ff. Compare here the text of the Master, ch. 7.

la: Can. 13, ubi textus originalis post *clerum* addit: *quia eodem vitio videtur exclusus*.

en: Canon 13, where the original text after *clerum* adds: "because he seems to be excluded by the same fault."

la: Dist. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. ad 1. — Superius pro *in ordine* cod. aa *in ordinatione*.

en: Distinction 24, part II, a. 1, q. 3, ad 1. — Above, for *in ordine* codex aa reads *in ordinatione*.

la: Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de *Fallaciis*, fallaciam *secundum quid ad simpliciter* (Aristot., I. Elench. c. 4.) explicans ait: Dictum *secundum quid* appellatur hic determinatio diminuens de ratione vel de *esse* eius cui adiungitur, ut cum dico *homo mortuus*, ibi *mortuum* diminuit de ratione *hominis* (Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 54. c. 12: «Mortuus homo aequivoce [homo]»; idem dicit de homine picto, de Praedicam. c. 1.). Cfr. tom. III. pag. 258, nota 2.

en: Peter of Spain, *Summulae*, treatise *On Fallacies*, explaining the fallacy of [passing] *from a certain respect to the unqualified* (Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* I, ch. 4), says: "A thing is said [to be] *in a certain respect* [when there is] a determination diminishing from the account or from the *being* of that to which it is joined, as when I say *a dead man*, there *dead* diminishes from the account of *man*" (Aristotle, *Meteorologica* IV, text 54, ch. 12: «A dead man is [called] man equivocally»; he says the same of a painted man, in the *Categories*, ch. 1). Compare tom. III, p. 258, note 2.

en: See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{836,837}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; L bands regenerated at split 2120, p837 R bands at 1780 to recover the clipped column margins), per the VOL II OVERRIDE. The IA djvu OCR (raw L89300–89451) served only as a cross-check for spelling and footnote-marker spacing; it cascade-shatters the two-column layout. Alignment verified: the raw "Quarto quaeritur…" opener (≈L89300) matches the printed q4 opener on p. 836 — no misalignment.

**Page span & footer split.** q4 opens mid-page 836 (below a1-q3's Respondeo/solutions, which own p. 836 footers 1–5) and runs to the end of the *Solutio oppositorum* on p. 837, where ARTICULUS II begins (handed to `bon-sent-IV-d39-a2-q1`).
- **p. 836 (3 footers, mine):** 6, 7, 8 — right-column footers anchored in q4's *ad oppositum* args (`primam`⁶, `Hieronymi`⁷, `simpliciter`⁸). Footers 1–5 on p. 836 belong to a1-q3 (NOT claimed here).
- **p. 837 (10 footers, mine):** 1–10 — the entire p. 837 footer sequence is anchored in q4's body (Contra 1–4, Respondeo, Solutio). All 13 apparatus entries carry `[^pNNN-M]` page-scoped labels because Quaracchi restarts numbering each page.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Received (from a1-q3):* shared p. 836 — a1-q3 owns footers 1–5 there; this chunk begins at the centered QUAESTIO IV heading and claims only footers 6–8.
- *Forwarded (to a2-q1):* shared p. 837 — q4 ends at "…matrimonium fidelium¹⁰"; ARTICULUS II (*De disparitate cultus quoad matrimonii solutionem*) and any of its footers belong to a2-q1.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi side-glosses (`Ad oppositum`, `Notandum`, `Quadruplex differentia filiorum`, `Ratio Augustini`, `Conclusio` [margin], `Solutio oppositorum`, `Duplex secundum quid`) were omitted from the body per the corpus marginalia rule. The centered `CONCLUSIO.` heading (distinct from the margin gloss) is rendered as `### Conclusio`.

**Scholion.** None rendered here (`has_scholion: false`). The Art I scholion lives in a1-q1 and covers q1–q4; footers p836-7, p837-10 (and a1-q3's own p836 footer) point to it ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.").

**[?] flags / corrections.**
- **Title corrected.** The skeleton `title_la` read "…ponat in numerum **Sacramentorum**" and `title_en` "…places one among the sacraments" — both erroneous. The printed centered title (pp. 836–837, spanning both columns) reads "…ponat in numerum **cum matrimonio contracto post baptismum**." Corrected in both frontmatter and body headings; no `[?]` retained — the reading is unambiguous on the bands.
- No illegible spots; both pages read cleanly at the regenerated band resolutions.


title: Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 838 -->

### Articulus II. *De disparitate cultus quoad matrimonii solutionem.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de disparitate cultus per comparationem ad matrimonii solutionem; et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum, altero veniente ad fidem, altero remanente in infidelitate, solvatur matrimonium quantum ad fidelem.

Secundo, utrum solvatur quantum ad infidelem.

Tertio, utrum solvatur, cum alter coniugum fit infidelis.

Quarto, utrum, utroque veniente ad fidem, solvatur matrimonium propter personarum illegitimitatem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum, altero infidelium veniente ad fidem, altero remanente in infidelitate, solvatur matrimonium quoad fidelem.*

Quantum ergo ad primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod matrimonium solvatur quantum ad permanentem in fide.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p838-1]: *Quodsi infidelis discedit, discedat, non enim est servituti subiectus frater aut soror in huiusmodi.* Super quem locum dicit Ambrosius: «Contumelia Creatoris solvit matrimonium in eo qui relinquitur, ne accusetur alii copulatus».

2. Item, matrimonium non est ratum sine Sacramento baptismi; sed quod non est ratum solvitur per fornicationem corporalem: ergo et per fornicationem spiritualem. Quod autem ratum sit per baptismum, patet per Innocentium, Extra, de Divortiis[^p838-2], *Quanto te novimus*: «Sacramentum, inquit, baptismi, quod semel est admissum, ratum efficit coniugii Sacramentum».

3. Item, mulier non potest prohibere virum, ut non convertatur ad fidem: ergo si non vult sequi vel cohabitare, non potest prohibere, ut non contrahat, cum vir ad continentiam non teneatur.

4. Item, fortius vinculum solvit minus, ubi minus repugnat; sed fortiori vinculo tenetur baptizatus Deo quam uxori infideli: ergo ubi mulier non concordat ei[^p838-3], solvitur vinculum ab ipsa.

**Contra:**
1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p838-4]: *Si quis vir habet infidelem uxorem, non dimittat eam, si consentit cohabitare*: ergo matrimonium est adhuc inter eos: ergo nec vinculum solvitur, nec cohabitatio dividitur, altero converso.

2. Item, matrimonium consummatum per carnis commixtionem significat unionem naturarum in Christo[^p838-5]; sed illa est omnino insolubilis: ergo et tale matrimonium: ergo si carnaliter sunt commixti, tale vinculum non potest solvi.

3. Item, quod rectum est per fidei Sacramentum non infirmatur, sed confirmatur; sed inter duos infideles recte contractum est matrimonium: ergo si nunquam infirmatur, si persistant in infidelitate, nec[^p838-6] si alter veniat ad fidem.

4. Item, si alter coniugum transeat ad frugem melioris vitae, utpote ad religionem, non solvitur matrimonium consummatum[^p838-7]: ergo nec si transit ad fidem.

### Conclusio

> Si in matrimonio infidelium una tantum pars convertitur ad fidem, haec liberatur ab officio cohabitationis et debiti solvendi, immo tunc ab ipso vinculo matrimonii, quando infidelis non vult cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod loquendo de solutione quantum ad *cohabitationem* et *mutuam servitutem*, hoc est in potestate fidelis; sed loquendo de solutione quantum ad *ruptionem vinculi*, distinguendum est: quoniam infidelis aut *vult cohabitare*, aut *non*. Si *vult cohabitare*, aut *cum* blasphemia nominis Christi, aut *sine*; si *sine*, aut ut *pertrahat* ad infidelitatem, aut *non*. — Si *vult* cohabitare sine blasphemia nominis Christi, et ita quod non pertrahat
<!-- page 839 -->
ad peccatum; non solvitur matrimonium, quia nec iniuriatur nec facit contumeliam Deo nec matrimonio nec marito. — Si autem *discedit*, vel *non vult* cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris, vel sine impulsione ad infidelitatem; in his tribus casibus potest a fideli dimitti, et per contumeliam factam matrimonio et Creatori *vinculum* potest frangi; et potest cum alia contrahere, ut dicit Ambrosius, et Extra, de Divortiis, *Quanto te novimus*, et: *Gaudemus*[^p839-1].

Concedo igitur, quod solutionem matrimonii contracti in infidelitate tria faciunt: primum est *ipsius imbecillitas*; secundum est *cultus disparitas*; tertium, *Creatoris vel matrimonii iniuria*. Primum *reddit possibile* ad dissolutionem, secundum *disponit*, et tertium *dissolvit*. — Matrimonii *imbecillitas* est ratione significationis imperfectae, quam habet apud infideles, et ratione defectus baptismi. Unde dicitur, quod illud matrimonium est legitimum, sed non ratum, quia, ut dicit Innocentius, «Sacramentum fidei, id est baptismi, quod semel admissum est ratum efficit Sacramentum coniugii», ex parte scilicet *suscipientis* est intelligendum; et hoc est, quia infideles non possunt ita ligari in «individuam vitae consuetudinem[^p839-2]», quin alter possit transire ad fidem; et ita, si non vult commutari, potest simpliciter separari, cum perfecta fides advenit suscipiendo Sacramentum fidei. — *Cultus disparitas* est secunda ratio, quia tunc advenit alteri personae fortius vinculum. — *Iniuria matrimonii* sive *Dei* est, cum non vult cohabitare, aut non sine contumelia Creatoris[^p839-3]; et tunc vinculum illud solvitur, quia repugnat vinculo, quo fidelis alligatur Deo. — Concedendae sunt ergo rationes probantes, quod solvitur matrimonium, his concurrentibus; et patent rationes ad oppositum.

1. Quod enim dicit Apostolus, hoc verum est, quando mulier vult habitare in pace sine contumelia Dei.

2. Aliud patet, quia, etsi sit consummatum, non tamen est ratum nec habet apud infideles plenam significationem nec stabile fundamentum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides non infirmat rectum; dicendum, quod verum est eatenus, qua rectum est; sed eatenus, qua est via ad obliquitatem, ut si mulier nolit cohabitare, nisi vir protrahatur ad malum, tunc solvit.

4. Ultimum patet, quia illae tres causae non concurrunt, cum aliquis transit ad frugem melioris vitae.

english:
### Article II. *On disparity of cult with respect to the dissolution of marriage.*

Next, with regard to the second article, inquiry is made concerning disparity of cult in comparison to the dissolution of marriage; and concerning this four things are asked.

First it is asked whether, when one comes to the faith and the other remains in unbelief, the marriage is dissolved with respect to the believer.

Second, whether it is dissolved with respect to the unbeliever.

Third, whether it is dissolved when one of the spouses becomes an unbeliever.

Fourth, whether, when both come to the faith, the marriage is dissolved on account of the illegitimacy of the persons.

### Question I. *Whether, when one of two unbelievers comes to the faith while the other remains in unbelief, the marriage is dissolved with respect to the believer.*

With regard, then, to the first, the argument proceeds thus, and it is shown that the marriage is dissolved with respect to the one who remains in the faith.

1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^p838-1]: *But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart, for a brother or sister is not made subject to servitude in such cases.* Upon which passage Ambrose says: «Contempt of the Creator dissolves the marriage in the case of the one who is abandoned, so that he not be accused for being joined to another».

2. Likewise, a marriage is not ratified without the Sacrament of baptism; but what is not ratified is dissolved by bodily fornication: therefore also by spiritual fornication. That it is ratified through baptism is clear from Innocent, in the *Extra*, on Divorce[^p838-2], *Quanto te novimus*: «The Sacrament of baptism», he says, «once it has been admitted, makes the Sacrament of marriage ratified».

3. Likewise, a woman cannot prevent her husband from being converted to the faith: therefore if she does not wish to follow or cohabit, she cannot prevent him from contracting [another marriage], since the husband is not bound to continence.

4. Likewise, a stronger bond dissolves a weaker one where it is less opposed to it; but a baptized person is held by a stronger bond to God than to an unbelieving wife: therefore where the woman is not in accord with him[^p838-3], the bond is dissolved on her side.

**Contra:**
1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^p838-4]: *If any man has an unbelieving wife, let him not put her away, if she consents to cohabit*: therefore the marriage is still between them: therefore neither is the bond dissolved, nor is cohabitation divided, when one is converted.

2. Likewise, a marriage consummated by the commingling of the flesh signifies the union of the natures in Christ[^p838-5]; but that union is altogether indissoluble: therefore so too such a marriage: therefore if they have been carnally commingled, such a bond cannot be dissolved.

3. Likewise, what is right through the Sacrament of the faith is not weakened but confirmed; but between two unbelievers a marriage was rightly contracted: therefore if it is never weakened, if they persist in unbelief, neither is it[^p838-6] weakened if one comes to the faith.

4. Likewise, if one of the spouses passes over to a better manner of life, as to religion, a consummated marriage is not dissolved[^p838-7]: therefore neither if he passes over to the faith.

### Conclusio

> If in a marriage of unbelievers one party only is converted to the faith, this party is freed from the office of cohabitation and of paying the debt, indeed then from the very bond of marriage, when the unbeliever is unwilling to cohabit without contempt of the Creator.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that, speaking of dissolution with respect to *cohabitation* and *mutual servitude*, this is within the power of the believer; but speaking of dissolution with respect to the *rupture of the bond*, a distinction must be drawn: for the unbeliever either *wishes to cohabit*, or *does not*. If he *wishes to cohabit*, it is either *with* blasphemy of the name of Christ, or *without*; if *without*, either so as to *draw* [the believer] to unbelief, or *not*. — If he *wishes* to cohabit without blasphemy of the name of Christ, and in such a way that he does not draw [the believer]
<!-- page 839 -->
to sin; the marriage is not dissolved, because he neither does injury nor offers contempt to God nor to the marriage nor to the husband. — But if he *departs*, or *is unwilling* to cohabit without contempt of the Creator, or without impulsion to unbelief; in these three cases she can be dismissed by the believer, and through the contempt done to the marriage and to the Creator the *bond* can be broken; and she can contract with another, as Ambrose says, and the *Extra*, on Divorce, *Quanto te novimus*, and: *Gaudemus*[^p839-1].

I concede therefore that three things bring about the dissolution of a marriage contracted in unbelief: the first is *its own weakness*; the second is *disparity of cult*; the third, *injury to the Creator or to the marriage*. The first *renders it possible* for dissolution, the second *disposes* it, and the third *dissolves* it. — The *weakness* of the marriage is by reason of the imperfect signification which it has among unbelievers, and by reason of the defect of baptism. Hence it is said that such a marriage is legitimate, but not ratified; because, as Innocent says, «The Sacrament of the faith, that is of baptism, which once admitted makes the Sacrament of marriage ratified», is to be understood, namely, on the part of the recipient; and this is because unbelievers cannot be so bound into «the individual companionship of life[^p839-2]» that the other may not pass over to the faith; and thus, if the unbeliever does not wish to be changed, the [believer] can be simply separated, when perfect faith comes by receiving the Sacrament of the faith. — *Disparity of cult* is the second reason, because then a stronger bond comes upon the other person. — *Injury to the marriage* or to *God* occurs when the unbeliever does not wish to cohabit, or not without contempt of the Creator[^p839-3]; and then that bond is dissolved, because it is opposed to the bond by which the believer is bound to God. — The reasons proving that the marriage is dissolved when these concur are therefore to be granted; and the reasons to the opposite are plain.

1. For what the Apostle says is true when the woman wishes to dwell in peace without contempt of God.

2. The other is clear, because, even though the marriage be consummated, nevertheless it is not ratified, nor does it have among unbelievers full signification nor a stable foundation.

3. To that which is objected, that faith does not weaken what is right; it must be said that this is true insofar as it is right; but insofar as it is a way to obliquity, as when the woman is unwilling to cohabit unless the husband be drawn to evil, then it does dissolve.

4. The last is clear, because those three causes do not concur when someone passes over to a better manner of life.

la: Vers. 15. — Verba Ambrosii sumta sunt ex Comment. in hunc loc. olim Ambrosio tributo. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Verse 15. — The words of Ambrose are taken from the Commentary on this passage formerly attributed to Ambrose. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 7: Quia Sacramentum fidei, quod semel est admissum, nunquam amittitur, sed ratum etc.

en: Book IV, tit. 19, c. 7: Because the Sacrament of the faith, which once has been admitted, is never lost, but ratified, etc.

la: Cod. L (E a secunda manu) *fidei*.

en: Codex L (E, by a second hand) reads *fidei*.

la: Vers. 12: Si quis frater uxorem habet infidelem, et haec consentit habitare cum illo, non dimittat illam.

en: Verse 12: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

la: Cfr. supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. et 3.

en: Cf. above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1 and 3.

la: Cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *videtur similiter*, edd. superius post *ergo* omisso *si*, hic legunt *ergo nec*; et paulo superius Vat. omittit *sed confirmatur*.

en: Codex K (1, by a second hand) *seems to read similarly*; the editions, having above omitted *si* after *ergo*, here read *ergo nec*; and a little above the Vatican edition omits *sed confirmatur*.

la: Vide supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1. — Permulti codd. et ed. 1 *confirmatum*.

en: See above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 1. — Very many codices and the first edition read *confirmatum*.

la: Loco superius pag. 839, nota 2. allegato, c. 8. — Post *Ambrosius*, *et* edd. addunt *Innocentius*.

en: In the passage cited above on page 839, note 2, c. 8. — After *Ambrose*, the editions add *and Innocent*.

la: Respicitur definitio matrimonii supra d. 27. dub. 1. explicata. Cfr. de hac ratione supra a. 1. q. 2.

en: The definition of marriage explained above at d. 27, dub. 1, is here referred to. Cf. concerning this reason above, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Cod. U, omisso *aut non*, hic addit: *vel nisi trahat ad infidelitatem*.

en: Codex U, omitting *aut non*, here adds: *or unless he draw [the believer] to unbelief*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Bene notandae sunt distinctiones in principio responsionis ad 1. quaest. positae. Aliud est enim absolutio coniugis conversi ab officio *cohabitationis* et *debiti solvendi*, remanente altera parte in infidelitate; aliud est solutio ipsius *vinculi* matrimonialis, ita ut coniux conversus ad aliud matrimonium possit transire. Primum per se semper evenit, quamvis sub conditionibus hic tactis liceat, immo ab Apostolo suadeatur, ut fidelis non discedat a parte infideli. Sed secundum fit solummodo tunc, quando infidelis cum alio non vult cohabitare nisi *cum contumelia Creatoris*. Ratio huius et egregia explicatio istius locutionis *cum contumelia Creatoris* in responsione auctoris invenitur. — Divisio materiae et status quaestionis quoad 1. et 2. quaest. diverso modo sumitur a diversis; unde auctores de utraque loquentes simul laudamus. De 1. et 2. quaestione: Scot. loc. cit. n. 5. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. 3-5; Suppl. q. 59. a. 3-5. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2.

**II.** De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.

**III.** De 4. quaestione: S. Thom., utroque loco q. 3. ad 3. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., locis citt.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The distinctions set down at the beginning of the response to the first question are well to be noted. For it is one thing to absolve the converted spouse from the office of *cohabitation* and of *paying the debt*, the other party remaining in unbelief; it is another thing the dissolution of the *bond* of marriage itself, so that the converted spouse may pass over to another marriage. The first always happens of itself, although it is lawful under the conditions here touched upon — nay, is urged by the Apostle — that the believer not depart from the unbelieving party. But the second occurs only then, when the unbeliever is unwilling to cohabit with the other except *with contempt of the Creator*. The ground of this and an excellent explanation of that expression *with contempt of the Creator* is found in the response of the author. — The division of the matter and the state of the question with respect to the first and second questions is taken in a different way by different authors; whence we cite together the authors who speak of both. On the first and second question: Scotus, in the place cited, n. 5 and following. — St. Thomas, here a. 3-5; *Suppl.* q. 59. a. 3-5. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1-3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durandus, here q. 2.

**II.** On the third question: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2. q. 3.

**III.** On the fourth question: St. Thomas, in both places q. 3. ad 3. 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the places cited.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-image bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{838,839}-{L,R}-*.png`, regenerated at split 2120 for L / 1780 for R), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the cascade-shattered two-column Respondeo, scholion, and footers). Raw OCR L89452–89604 consulted for reference only. English is a fresh literal parallel translation.

**Page correction.** The auto-chunk skeleton listed `printed_pages: [837, 838, 839]`, but the running heads prove otherwise: **page 837** carries the head *DIST. XXXIX. ART. I. QUAEST.* and its entire body (both columns) is Art. I q4 (the *bigamus* question) — it belongs to a1-q4, not here. **ARTICULUS II** opens at the top of **page 838** (verso head *838 · SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.*). Page 839 head is *DIST. XXXIX. ART. II. QUAEST. II.* Corrected `printed_pages` to **[838, 839]**, `pdf_pages` to **[858, 859]** (offset +20). `line_start`/`line_end` kept as assigned.

**Title.** Verified from the QUAESTIO I band on p.838: *Utrum, altero infidelium veniente ad fidem, altero remanente in infidelitate, solvatur matrimonium quoad fidelem.* (The skeleton's placeholder title, drawn from the Tractatio's *quantum ad fidelem* phrasing, is superseded.)

**Structure.** Chunk folds the ARTICULUS II opener + four-question listing (per the locked convention) into this q1. Disputation runs *inverted*: the four numbered *fundamenta* argue the marriage IS dissolved; the four *Contra* argue it is NOT; the Conclusio + Respondeo affirm dissolution under the three concurring causes; the closing 1–4 reply to the *rationes ad oppositum* (the Contra). Editorial marginal glosses (*Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Duplex secundum quid.*, *Ratio 2/3*, *Concl.*, *Distinctio*) trimmed per the marginalia rule.

**Scholion.** This chunk OWNS the Article II scholion (raw header OCR'd *SCHOLIOK*; PDF reads *SCHOLION*), which spans both columns at the foot of p.839 and covers all four Art II questions in three numbered sections: **§I** (opening note on the *absolutio*-vs.-*solutio vinculi* distinction + doctor-list *De 1. et 2. quaestione*), **§II** (*De 3. quaestione*), **§III** (*De 4. quaestione*). Rendered in full here, both languages, as the last subsection of each language block. Siblings a2-q2/q3/q4 render no scholion.

**Apparatus / footer hand-offs.** 10 footers claimed, all anchored in this body:
- **p.838** — all 7 footers (1–7) mine (the whole page is Art II opener + q1).
- **p.839** — footers **1–3** mine (anchored in the q1 Respondeo: *Gaudemus*¹, *consuetudinem*², *Creatoris*³). Footers **4, 5, 6** on p.839 are anchored in QUAESTIO II's body (*relatio*⁴, *discessit*⁵, *ei vir*⁶), which begins at the foot of p.839 → **handed off to a2-q2**.
- **p.837** footers are entirely a1-q4's — none claimed here.

**Hand-offs received/forwarded.** Received: none (a1-q4 keeps all of p.837). Forwarded: p.839 footers 4–6 → a2-q2, which also picks up the QUAESTIO II opener and body beginning at the foot of p.839.

**[?] flags.** None. All bands read cleanly at 450 dpi.