title: Dist. 42, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 868 -->

### Articulus I. *De cognatione spirituali.*

Quantum ad primum primo procedamus per modum narrationis; secundo vero per modum inquisitionis.

### Praenotata.

Circa primum tria sunt notanda. Primo, quid sit. Secundo, quot eius species. Tertio, quot modis contrahatur.

De primo sciendum, quod cognatio spiritualis ita definitur: Cognatio spiritualis est propinquitas aut proximitas proveniens ex Sacramenti donatione, vel ad illud tentione. Unde tam ille qui baptizat, quam ille qui tenet proximus et cognatus spiritualiter iudicatur, Causa trigesima, quaestione prima[^p868-1], *Omnes quos in poenitentia*, et Extra, de Cognatione spirituali, capitulo ultimo.

De secundo notandum, quod cognationis[^p868-2] spiritualis tres sunt species. Una dicitur *compaternitas*, quae attenditur inter patrem spiritualem et carnalem patrem. Alia dicitur *paternitas*, et haec attenditur inter eum qui suscipitur, et eum qui suscipit, sive sit masculus, sive femina. Tertia dicitur *fraternitas*, et haec attenditur inter filium spiritualem et filium carnalem praecise et universaliter; nam non se extendit nisi ad illum qui suscipitur, Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia[^p868-3], *Super quibus*, et Extra, de Cognatione spirituali, capitulo septimo, *Tua nos*. Et omnes istae species impediunt matrimonium.

De tertio sciendum, quod spiritualis cognatio dupliciter contrahitur, scilicet *directe* et *indirecte*. *Indirecte*, ut quando uxor efficitur *commater* alicuius per actum viri, vel e converso vir efficitur *compater* per actum uxoris. *Directe* vero contrahitur per actum proprium, ut cum tenet aliquem, vel aliquam ad Sacramenti susceptionem[^p868-4]. — Sed circa hoc fuerunt tres opiniones.

Prima dicit, quod «sicut septem sunt dona Spiritus sancti, ita sunt septem dona baptismi, scilicet a primo pabulo salis usque ad confirmationem», quae fit per episcopum; et in quolibet horum contrahitur compaternitas, ita quod non potest esse matrimonium inter tales, Causa trigesima, quaestione prima[^p868-5], *Pervenit* in fine.

Secunda dicit, quod per tria tantum Sacramenta contrahitur, scilicet per catechismum, baptismum et confirmationem episcopi, de Consecratione, distinctione quarta[^p868-6], *In catechismo*.

Tertia opinio parum differt a secunda. Dicit enim, quod in his tribus contrahitur cognatio spiritualis, sed in baptismo et confirmatione adeo *fortis* est, quod impedit contrahendum et dirimit iam contractum, Causa trigesima, quaestione prima[^p868-7], *Si quis filiastrum*. In catechismo autem contrahitur adeo *exilis*, quod vix impedit contrahendum et non dirimit iam contractum, Extra, de Cognatione spirituali[^p868-8], *Contracto*.

Sed quae istarum opinionum sit verior, dubitationem habet. Et propterea circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum cognatio spiritualis contrahatur per aliquod Sacramentum[^p868-9].

Secundo quaeritur, utrum impediat matrimonium.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum transeat ab uno in alterum.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum cognatio spiritualis contrahatur per aliquod Sacramentum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur; et quod cognatio spiritualis contrahatur per Sacramenta, videtur:

1. Per illud quod dicitur Causa trigesima, quaestione prima[^p868-10]: «Omnes quos suscepimus, ita filii nostri sunt, ut illi quos, nobis suscipientibus, unda sacri baptismatis regeneravit»: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ostenditur ratione: quia cognatio attenditur penes generationem; sed sicut est

<!-- page 869 -->

carnalis generatio in filiis, ita et spiritualis in Sacramentis: cum ergo sit vera regeneratio[^p869-1], videtur, quod sit ibi vera cognatio.

3. Item, qui suscipit aliquem in baptismo tenetur eum fovere et erudire in spiritualibus[^p869-2]: ergo obligatur ad actum paternum spiritualem: ergo per aliquod vinculum spirituale; hoc autem appellamus cognationem: ergo etc.

4. Item, reverentiam et honorem tenetur aliquis ei facere, qui se regeneravit, maiorem quam aliis; hoc autem non est propter aliud nisi propter illud mandatum[^p869-3], quo pater est honorandus specialiter prae aliis hominibus: ergo iste aliquo modo est pater; sed non carnalis: ergo spiritualis. Sed carnalis paternitas facit cognationem carnalem: ergo et spiritualis spiritualem.

**Contra:** 1. Maius est vinculum caritatis quam alicuius Sacramenti; sed vinculum caritatis non efficit aliquam cognationem, nec carnalem nec spiritualem: ergo nec per aliquod Sacramentum cognatio[^p869-4] contrahitur.

2. Item, inter omnia Sacramenta Sacramentum eucharistiae est maioris unionis, pro eo quod unit in uno corpore; sed per Sacramenti eucharistiae susceptionem nulla efficitur spiritualis cognatio: ergo nec per alia.

3. Item, plus assimilantur et conveniunt participantes unum Sacramentum quam dans et suscipiens, in quantum huiusmodi; sed qui participant idem Sacramentum propter hoc non dicuntur habere cognationem, nec spiritualem nec carnalem: ergo etc.

4. Item, quia pater et filius sunt proximi, necesse est, quod filii ab eodem patre procedentes sint proximi et cognati in cognatione carnali: ergo pari ratione, si est cognatio inter patrem spiritualem et filium, erit cognatio inter filios spirituales eiusdem patris: ergo omnes qui baptizarentur ab uno, essent cognati spiritualiter: ergo cum hoc non sit verum, nec illud est verum, quod cognatio spiritualis sit inter dantem Sacramentum et suscipientem.

> ### Conclusio.
> *Cognatio spiritualis vere contrahitur in duobus Sacramentis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod spiritualis cognatio est et esse debet; et hoc propter conformitatem spiritualium ad carnalia. Sicut enim est carnalis generatio, in qua est vinculum et quidam amor naturalis; sic est spiritualis regeneratio per Sacramenta aliqua, et per illam similiter aliquod vinculum acquiritur et amor spiritualis[^p869-5]: et ideo in illis Sacramentis praecipue contrahitur, in quibus est regeneratio. Quoniam igitur dispositio ad regenerationem est in catechismo, regeneratio in baptismo, regenerationis consummatio in confirmatione; hinc est, quod in his tribus secundum communem opinionem contrahitur cognatio. Sed tamen, quia in catechismo non est vera regeneratio, ideo non contrahitur ibi vera cognatio nec alligatio fortis, sed adeo exilis, ut, sicut dictum est[^p869-6], non dirimat matrimonium iam contractum et vix impediat contrahendum. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

1. 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de vinculo caritatis et Sacramento altaris, dicendum, quod in neutro attenditur regeneratio, sed in aqua et Spiritu sancto[^p869-7], quorum unum est in Sacramento baptismi, reliquum in Sacramento confirmationis; et si aliqua regeneratio spiritualis attendatur penes virtutes, haec facit cognationem ad Deum et Filium Dei, non filium vel cognatum hominis, pro eo quod virtutem «operatur Deus in nobis sine nobis[^p869-8]», Sacramentum autem dispensatur per hominem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de comparticipatione, dicendum, quod comparticipatio Sacramenti est vinculum commune, sive ab eodem, sive a diversis sit, quia unus Deus, una fides, unum baptisma[^p869-9]; sed cognatio est vinculum speciale: et ideo Sacramenti comparticipatio nec est cognatio nec facit cognationem; non sic datio et susceptio Sacramenti, immo dicit ordinem ad aliquam personam specialem et quoddam vinculum superaddit et quandam specialem tentionem; et hanc rectissime possumus appellare cognationem. Et sic patet illud.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de fraternitate carnali, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia utrumque est vinculum speciale, et aliquo modo magis conveniunt qui generantur ab eodem, sicut supra[^p869-10] monstratum fuit; qui autem baptizantur ab eodem non magis conveniunt, quam qui baptizantur a diversis. — Amplius, ex affinitate et affinitate non surgit tertia affinitas, nisi interveniat consanguinitas, quae est vinculum per se[^p869-11]; sic ex cognatione spirituali ex utraque parte non surgit cognatio spiritualis, nisi ex altera parte sit consanguinitas. Unde cognatio ponitur inter filium spiritualem et filium carnalem, non inter spiritualem et spiritualem. Et sic patet illud.

<!-- page 870 -->

english:
### Article I. *On spiritual kinship.*

As to the first [point] let us proceed first by way of narration; but secondly by way of inquiry.

### Praenotata.

Concerning the first, three things are to be noted. First, what it is. Second, how many are its species. Third, in how many ways it is contracted.

Concerning the first it must be known that spiritual kinship is defined thus: Spiritual kinship is a nearness or proximity arising from the giving of a Sacrament, or from the holding [of another] for it. Whence both he who baptizes and he who holds [the child] is judged near and akin spiritually, Cause thirty, question one[^p868-1], *Omnes quos in poenitentia*, and Extra, on Spiritual Kinship, in the last chapter.

Concerning the second it must be noted that of spiritual kinship[^p868-2] there are three species. One is called *compaternity* (co-fatherhood), which is reckoned between the spiritual father and the carnal father. Another is called *paternity*, and this is reckoned between the one who is received and the one who receives, whether it be male or female. The third is called *fraternity* (brotherhood), and this is reckoned between the spiritual son and the carnal son, strictly and universally; for it does not extend except to him who is received, Cause thirty, question three[^p868-3], *Super quibus*, and Extra, on Spiritual Kinship, in the seventh chapter, *Tua nos*. And all these species impede marriage.

Concerning the third it must be known that spiritual kinship is contracted in two ways, namely *directly* and *indirectly*. *Indirectly*, as when a wife becomes the *co-mother* (godmother) of someone through the act of her husband, or conversely a husband becomes a *co-father* (godfather) through the act of his wife. But *directly* it is contracted through one's own act, as when one holds someone, man or woman, for the reception of a Sacrament[^p868-4]. — But concerning this there were three opinions.

The first says that «just as there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, so there are seven gifts of baptism, namely from the first food of salt up to confirmation», which is done through the bishop; and in each of these co-fatherhood is contracted, so that there cannot be a marriage between such persons, Cause thirty, question one[^p868-5], *Pervenit*, at the end.

The second says that it is contracted through three Sacraments only, namely through the catechism, baptism, and the confirmation of the bishop, on Consecration, distinction four[^p868-6], *In catechismo*.

The third opinion differs little from the second. For it says that in these three spiritual kinship is contracted, but in baptism and confirmation it is so *strong* that it impedes a marriage to be contracted and dissolves one already contracted, Cause thirty, question one[^p868-7], *Si quis filiastrum*. But in the catechism it is contracted so *slight* that it scarcely impedes one to be contracted and does not dissolve one already contracted, Extra, on Spiritual Kinship[^p868-8], *Contracto*.

But which of these opinions is the truer has a doubt. And therefore concerning this three things are asked.

First it is asked whether spiritual kinship is contracted through some Sacrament[^p868-9].

Secondly it is asked whether it impedes marriage.

Thirdly it is asked whether it passes from one to another.

### Question I. *Whether spiritual kinship is contracted through some sacrament.*

On the first point one proceeds thus; and that spiritual kinship is contracted through the Sacraments, it seems:

1. By that which is said in Cause thirty, question one[^p868-10]: «All whom we have received are our sons in the same way as those whom, when we stood sponsor for them, the water of holy baptism regenerated»: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this is shown by reason: because kinship is reckoned according to generation; but just as there is

<!-- page 869 -->

carnal generation among sons, so also spiritual generation in the Sacraments: since therefore there is true regeneration[^p869-1], it seems that there is true kinship there.

3. Likewise, he who receives someone in baptism is bound to cherish him and to instruct him in spiritual things[^p869-2]: therefore he is obligated to a paternal spiritual act: therefore through some spiritual bond; but this we call kinship: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, one is bound to show reverence and honor to him who has regenerated him, greater than to others; but this is for no other reason than because of that commandment[^p869-3] by which a father is to be honored specially before other men: therefore this man is in some way a father; but not carnal: therefore spiritual. But carnal paternity makes carnal kinship: therefore also spiritual [paternity makes] spiritual [kinship].

**On the contrary:** 1. Greater is the bond of charity than that of any Sacrament; but the bond of charity does not effect any kinship, neither carnal nor spiritual: therefore neither is kinship[^p869-4] contracted through any Sacrament.

2. Likewise, among all the Sacraments the Sacrament of the eucharist is of greater union, inasmuch as it unites into one body; but through the reception of the Sacrament of the eucharist no spiritual kinship is effected: therefore neither through the others.

3. Likewise, those who participate in one Sacrament are more assimilated and agree more than the giver and the receiver, insofar as they are such; but those who participate in the same Sacrament are not for this reason said to have kinship, neither spiritual nor carnal: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, since father and son are near [of kin], it is necessary that sons proceeding from the same father be near and akin in carnal kinship: therefore by parallel reasoning, if there is kinship between a spiritual father and a son, there will be kinship among the spiritual sons of the same father: therefore all who should be baptized by one would be spiritually akin: therefore, since this is not true, neither is that true, that spiritual kinship exists between the one giving the Sacrament and the one receiving it.

> ### Conclusion.
> *Spiritual kinship is truly contracted in two Sacraments.*

**I respond:** It must be said that spiritual kinship is and ought to be; and this on account of the conformity of spiritual things to carnal things. For just as there is carnal generation, in which there is a bond and a certain natural love; so there is spiritual regeneration through certain Sacraments, and through it likewise some bond is acquired and a spiritual love[^p869-5]: and therefore it is contracted chiefly in those Sacraments in which there is regeneration. Since therefore the disposition to regeneration is in the catechism, regeneration in baptism, the consummation of regeneration in confirmation; hence it is that in these three, according to the common opinion, kinship is contracted. Yet nevertheless, because in the catechism there is no true regeneration, therefore there is not contracted there a true kinship nor a strong binding, but one so slight that, as was said[^p869-6], it does not dissolve a marriage already contracted and scarcely impedes one to be contracted. — And thus the reasons for this are to be conceded.

1. 2. To that which is objected to the contrary concerning the bond of charity and the Sacrament of the altar, it must be said that in neither is regeneration reckoned, but in water and the Holy Spirit[^p869-7], of which the one is in the Sacrament of baptism, the other in the Sacrament of confirmation; and if any spiritual regeneration be reckoned according to the virtues, this makes a kinship to God and the Son of God, not a son or kinsman of a man, inasmuch as the virtue «God works in us without us[^p869-8]», whereas a Sacrament is dispensed through a man.

3. To that which is objected concerning co-participation, it must be said that co-participation in a Sacrament is a common bond, whether it be from the same or from different [givers], because there is one God, one faith, one baptism[^p869-9]; but kinship is a special bond: and therefore co-participation in a Sacrament is neither a kinship nor makes a kinship; not so the giving and receiving of a Sacrament, but rather it bespeaks an ordering to some special person and superadds a certain bond and a certain special holding; and this we can most rightly call kinship. And thus that is clear.

4. To that which is objected last concerning carnal brotherhood, it must be said that it is not similar: because each is a special bond, and in some way those who are generated from the same [parent] agree more, as was shown above[^p869-10]; but those who are baptized by the same [minister] do not agree more than those who are baptized by different ones. — Furthermore, from affinity and affinity there does not arise a third affinity, unless consanguinity intervenes, which is a bond in itself[^p869-11]; so from spiritual kinship on both sides there does not arise a spiritual kinship, unless on one side there be consanguinity. Whence kinship is placed between a spiritual son and a carnal son, not between a spiritual [son] and a spiritual [son]. And thus that is clear.

<!-- page 870 -->

la: Can. 8. — (De ipsa *definitione* cognationis cfr. ibid. C. *Ita diligere debet*, c. 1. q. 3, et Glossa ibid.). — Seq. locus est lib. IV. tit. 11. c. 8, *Ex litteris vestris.* — Superius pro *ad illud tentione* multi codd. *ad id de necessitate*, cui codd. I K addunt *sequitur*; B. Albert., hic a. 2, *ad idem tentione.*

en: Canon 8. — (On the *definition* of kinship itself, cf. ibid. C. *Ita diligere debet*, c. 1, q. 3, and the Gloss there.) — The following passage is lib. IV, tit. 11, c. 8, *Ex litteris vestris.* — Above, for *ad illud tentione* ("holding to it"), many codices [read] *ad id de necessitate* ("to it of necessity"), to which codices I K add *sequitur* ("follows"); B. Albert, here a. 2, [reads] *ad idem tentione.*

la: Ita cod. E, alii codd. et edd. *consanguinitatis.*

en: Thus codex E; other codices and editions [read] *consanguinitatis* ("of consanguinity").

la: Can. 4. — Seq. locus est libr. IV. tit. 11.

en: Canon 4. — The following passage is lib. IV, tit. 11.

la: Cod. aa addit *vel dationem.*

en: Codex aa adds *vel dationem* ("or by the giving [of it]").

la: Can. 1, ex quo praenotata verba, quae a Glossa exponuntur sic: *Primum salis collatio... Secundum aurium et narium linitio... Tertium est in pectore et in fronte crucis facta signatio... Quartum est olei sancti unctio... Quintum baptismi ablutio... Sextum in vertice chrismatis perunctio... Septimum eiusdem in fronte facta signatio.* Cfr. *Glossa* in C. *Contracto matrimonio* (5.), X. de Cognatione spirituali (lib. IV. tit. 11.), ubi idem et etiam duae seqq. opiniones afferuntur.

en: Canon 1, from which [come] the aforementioned words, which are expounded by the Gloss thus: *The first is the giving of salt... The second is the anointing of the ears and nostrils... The third is the signing made with the cross upon the breast and upon the forehead... The fourth is the anointing with holy oil... The fifth is the washing of baptism... The sixth is the anointing with chrism upon the crown of the head... The seventh is the signing made upon the forehead of the same.* Cf. the *Gloss* on C. *Contracto matrimonio* (5.), X, on Spiritual Kinship (lib. IV, tit. 11), where the same and also the two following opinions are adduced.

en: Canon 100. Cf. C. *Si quis ex uno* (3.), C. 30, q. 4.

la: Can. 2.

en: Canon 2.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 11. c. 5.

en: Lib. IV, tit. 11, c. 5.

la: Cod. F *per Sacramenta.*

en: Codex F [reads] *per Sacramenta* ("through Sacraments").

la: Can. 8; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi plenius affertur. — Post *Omnes quos* in cod. L (E P a secunda manu), textu originali consentiente, additur *in poenitentia.*

en: Canon 8; cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, where it is more fully adduced. — After *Omnes quos* ("All whom") in codex L (E P by a second hand), the original text agreeing, is added *in poenitentia* ("in penance").

la: Ioan. 3, 5: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto* etc.; Tit. 3, 5: *Per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus sancti.*

en: John 3, 5: *Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit* etc.; Titus 3, 5: *Through the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. — Edd.: *ergo obligatur ad talem actum spiritualem patrinus spiritualis: ergo* etc.

en: Cf. above, d. 6, p. II, a. 3, q. 1. — The editions read: *therefore the spiritual godfather is obligated to such a spiritual act: therefore* etc.

la: Exod. 20, 12: *Honora patrem tuum* etc.

en: Exodus 20, 12: *Honor thy father* etc.

la: Cod. K *aliqua cognatio.*

en: Codex K reads *aliqua cognatio* ("any kinship").

la: Vide supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius pro *per illam* cod. aa *per illa.*

en: See above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, for *per illam* ("through it"), codex aa reads *per illa.*

la: In *Praenotatis* ad hunc art. in fine.

en: In the *Praenotata* to this article, at the end.

la: Vide supra pag. 868, nota 11.

en: See above, page 868, note 11. *(As printed. Verified at 600 dpi 2026-07-21: p.868 carries exactly ten numbered footers, so the target of this cross-reference does not exist — a Quaracchi numbering slip, left uncorrected. See the Notes below.)*

la: Respicitur definitio virtutis supra pag. 326, nota 4.

en: Reference is made to the definition of virtue, above, page 326, note 4.

en: Ephesians 4, 5.

la: Dist. 40. q. 1. — Superius pro *speciale* permulti codd. et edd. *spirituale.*

en: Distinction 40, q. 1. — Above, for *speciale* ("special"), very many codices and editions read *spirituale* ("spiritual").

la: Vide supra d. 41. q. 2. — De seqq. cfr. *Praenotata.* — Superius post *Amplius* edd. addunt *sicut.*

en: See above, d. 41, q. 2. — On what follows, cf. the *Praenotata.* — Above, after *Amplius* ("Furthermore"), the editions add *sicut* ("as").

latin_scholion:
**I.** De tribus opinionibus, quae fuerunt de radice cognationis *spiritualis*, vide supra in *Praenotatis*. Idem repetit S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2; Suppl. q. 56. a. 2.), qui concludit, eandem contrahi tantum per baptismum et confirmationem; cui sententiae communi reapse etiam adhaeret auctor noster secundum principia ab ipso posita. Unde etiam sibi constans approbat quod idem S. Thomas (loc. cit. ad 8.) docet, scilicet per Sacramentum *poenitentiae* non contrahi, proprie loquendo, cognationem spiritualem, sed «tantum quoddam foedus inter sacerdotem et mulierem confitentem, simile cognationi spirituali». A Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIV. de Reform. c. 2.) etiam hoc impedimentum restrictum est, ita ut non sit nisi inter *ministrum* utriusque Sacramenti et recipientem illud, nec non inter *eundem* et suscipientis parentes; porro inter *patrinum* (vel *matrinam*) et recipientem; denique inter patrinum et matrem recipientis, nec non inter matrinam et patrem eiusdem.

De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic quaest. unica, ubi etiam de toto 1. et 2. art. agit. — S. Thom., locis citt. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1-5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1; Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica.

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

**III.** De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3, et Suppl. a. 4. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the three opinions which existed regarding the root of *spiritual* kinship, see above in the *Praenotata*. S. Thomas repeats the same (here q. 1, a. 2; Supplement q. 56, a. 2), who concludes that it is contracted only through baptism and confirmation; to which common opinion our author too in fact adheres, according to the principles laid down by him. Whence also, consistent with himself, he approves what the same S. Thomas (loc. cit. ad 8) teaches, namely that through the Sacrament of *penance* there is not contracted, properly speaking, a spiritual kinship, but «only a certain bond between the priest and the woman making confession, similar to spiritual kinship». By the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, on Reform, c. 2) this impediment also was restricted, so that it is only between the *minister* of either Sacrament and the one receiving it, and also between the *same* and the parents of the one received; further, between the *godfather* (or *godmother*) and the one received; finally, between the godfather and the mother of the one received, and also between the godmother and the father of the same.

On the 1st question: Scotus, here in a single question, where he also treats of the whole of articles 1 and 2. — S. Thomas, in the places cited. — B. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 1-5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 2. — On this and the 2 following questions: Durandus, here q. 1; Dionysius the Carthusian, here in a single question.

**II.** On the 2nd question: S. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 1. — B. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 1.

**III.** On the 3rd question: S. Thomas, in the places cited, here a. 3, little-questions 2, 3, and Supplement a. 4, 5. — B. Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (Art. I opener + PRAENOTATA raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L92413–92470; QUAESTIO I body L92471–92661); vol4 PDF column-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{868,869,870}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, pdf = printed + 20) authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutiones / scholion / footers. QUAESTIO I opener (ARTICULUS I header + q1 title) and the **Art. I PRAENOTATA** (the *via narrationis* opener + the definition, three species, three opinions, and internal question-listing) both fold in here per the article-opener convention (mirrors a2-q1 / a3-q1). The editorial marginal glosses (*Via narrationis, De definitione, De speciebus, De modis contrahendi, Opinio prima/secunda/tertia, Via inquisitionis, Fundamenta*) are trimmed as marginalia, not Bonaventure's text.
- **Alignment confirmed:** the divisio TRACTATIO on p.868 lists "Primo quaeritur, utrum cognatio spiritualis contrahatur per aliquod Sacramentum" as the first of three questions; raw L92473 title matches. QUAESTIO II (*Utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium*) opens at the foot of p.870, after this scholion, and is excluded (belongs to a1-q2).
- **Page-split map:** body opens p.868 (foot of page: article/quaestio opener + arg 1 + start of arg 2, which breaks mid-word `carna-|lis` across the 868/869 seam — `<!-- page 869 -->` placed at the clean word boundary before "carnalis"). p.869 carries the rest of arg 2 + args 3–4, Contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, and replies 1.2 / 3 / 4 ("Et sic patet illud."). Scholion alone on p.870 (top), `<!-- page 870 -->` before it.
- **Reply numbering:** the first solutio is printed **"1. 2."** — a single combined reply to objections 1 (vinculum caritatis) and 2 (Sacramentum altaris/eucharistiae); confirmed on p.869 L-0 band ("1. 2. A[d]…vinculo cari[tatis]"). Replies 3 (comparticipatio) and 4 (fraternitas carnalis) follow singly.
- **Apparatus (page-keyed labels):** 21 footnotes total. **p.868 → `[^p868-1]`…`[^p868-10]`:** notes 1–9 gloss the PRAENOTATA (now rendered here per the article-opener convention — they are *not* divisio material, and were previously **unclaimed**); note 10 is the arg-1 gloss (formerly this chunk's sole `[^1]`). **p.869 → `[^p869-1]`…`[^p869-11]`:** the eleven p.869 footers (formerly `[^2]`–`[^12]`). All markers paired in both Latin and English bodies. Marker resolutions from the bands: [^p869-6] anchors "sicut dictum est" in the Respondeo; [^p869-8] anchors the *virtus* quotation "operatur Deus in nobis sine nobis."
- **Chunking correction:** the earlier claim that "the divisio owns p.868 notes 1–9, 11" is retired. The `d42-divisio` chunk owns only the **p.867 DIVISIO TEXTUS + its two NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM**; the p.868 PRAENOTATA and all its footers belong to this article-opener chunk (a1-q1).
- **Footers left to neighbors:** QUAESTIO II (a1-q2) owns all p.870 footers below the scholion and any p.870 material after "Utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium."
- **Scholion disposition:** ART I carries one article-level scholion (printed top of p.870, over three questions), rendered here under q1 with sections **I** (three opinions + Trent restriction + loci "De 1. quaestione"), **II** (loci "De 2. quaestione"), **III** (loci "De 3. quaestione"). q2/q3 render no scholion. OCR garbles the header `SCHOLIOK`; bands read `SCHOLION`. Band correction: `Suppl. q. 56. a. 2.` (OCR "86"); `Suppl. a. 4. 5.` (OCR "4. S."). `has_scholion: true`.
- **RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21) — the "pag. 868, nota 11" cross-reference is an edition-internal slip, not a lost note.** Both pages were re-imaged at 600 dpi. **p.869** (PDF p.889) prints note 7 verbatim as *Vide supra pag. 868, nota 11.* — the page number and the note number are both unambiguous. **p.868** (PDF p.888) carries exactly ten numbered footers and no more: the left-column register runs 1–5 (ending *…Primum salis collatio… Tertium est in pectore et in fronte crucis facta*), the right-column register carries that entry's runover plus 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the register below note 10 is blank; the last body anchor on the page is superscript 10. So there is no eleventh footer in the print, and nothing was lost by the scan or the OCR. The cross-reference is preserved verbatim and **no p.868 note 11 entry is created.** (Likely intent, offered as a note only and *not* acted on: the anchor sits on *in aqua et Spiritu sancto*, which is precisely what p.869's own note 1 glosses — *Ioan. 3, 5: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto etc.* — so the editors probably meant their own page's note 1. We do not emend Quaracchi's citation.) The original flag note is kept below for provenance.
- **[superseded] `[?]` flag — phantom "pag. 868, nota 11":** `[^p869-7]` (p.869 footer note 7) reads verbatim "*Vide supra pag. 868, nota 11.*", and it is preserved as printed. **However, p.868 as digitized carries only ten numbered footers (notes 1–10):** both authoritative sources agree — the raw IA djvu OCR footer block (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L92480–92490) runs 1→10 and then hits the p.869 page-break with no note 11, and the p.868 footer PDF bands (`vol4-p868-{L,R}-2.png`) likewise end at note 10 ("…additur *in poenitentia.*"). No `[^p868-11]` could therefore be rendered without inventing content, so none was created. Note 11 is either (a) a genuine 11th footer present in the physical print but dropped from the IA scan/OCR (its semantic target — the two regenerating Sacraments, *aqua et Spiritu* = baptism + confirmation — is not covered by any of notes 1–10), or (b) an edition-internal numbering slip. *(Superseded: the fresh 600 dpi p.868 extraction was made on 2026-07-21 and settles this in favour of (b) — see the disposition above. `[?]` cleared.)*
- **Other `[?]`:** none besides the above. All shattered praenotata/Respondeo readings resolved against the p.868–869 column-bands. Minor judgment call: [^p869-5] ("Vide supra d.7 a.2 q.3 / per illam" variant) placed at clause-end "amor spiritualis" — the annotated "per illam" sits within that clause.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 42, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 870 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione prima[^1], *De eo quod interrogasti* etc., et infra: «Si filiolam, aut commatrem suam aliquis in matrimonium duxerit, separandos esse iudicamus et gravi poenitentia plectendos».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur hoc ipsum: tanto honestius et purius custodiendum est vinculum, quanto est sanctius et spiritualius: si ergo propter honestatem non potest contrahi matrimonium, ubi intervenit vinculum carnale et cognatio carnalis[^2]; multo fortius, ubi intervenit cognatio spiritualis.

3. Item, qui est proximus cognatione carnali tractandus est affectu consanguinitatis: si ergo ille affectus non admittit copulam carnis, immo naturaliter refugit; ergo et cognatio spiritualis, ut videtur.

**Contra:**
1. Cognatio spiritualis manet simul cum matrimonio: ergo non impedit. *Probatio:* Causa trigesima, quaestione prima[^3], *De eo quod interrogasti:* «Si coniuges legitimi filium suum de fonte susceperint; si volunt, simul maneant»: ergo non compelluntur separari: ergo spiritualis cognatio non impedit.

2. Item, cognatio carnalis disponit ad spiritualem: ergo non habent oppositionem ad invicem: ergo una non praestat alteri impedimentum: ergo nec commixtio carnis susceptioni Sacramenti, nec e converso.

3. Item, plus facit qui aliquem de errore trahit ad fidem, quam qui baptizatum levat de fonte; sed si quis convertat[^4] aliquam ad fidem, non impeditur cum ea contrahere, immo potest sponsalia contrahere sub hac conditione, si velit ad fidem venire: ergo nec impeditur, si levat de fonte, quin etiam possit contrahere.

4. Item, diversitas in participatione Sacramenti impedit matrimonium, ut puta cultus disparitas; sed opposita habent oppositos effectus[^5]: ergo quod facit conformitatem in cultu et Sacramento disponit ad Sacramentum. Hoc autem facit dispensatio et collatio baptismi: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Cognatio spiritualis, si matrimonium praecedit, impedit contrahendum et dirimit contractum; si vero sequitur, interdum tollit ius petendi debitum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cognatio spiritualis potest sequi, aut praecedere matrimonium. Si sequatur, generaliter verum est, quod non potest infringere matrimonii vinculum[^6].

Sed tamen quantum ad ius solvendi debitum, distinguendum: quia hoc aut factum est necessitate, ut puta quando parvulus est in periculo mortis, et non est qui baptizet eum, aut ex ignorantia, aut ex industria. In primo casu simpliciter non amittit ius petendi nec solvendi; in secundo casu similiter, si fuit diligentia, non amittit; in tertio casu amittit ius petendi qui hoc facit; tamen, quia non debet

<!-- page 871 -->

peccatum suum alteri imputari, tenetur reddere. Et hoc totum confirmatur per auctoritates, quae sunt in littera[^7], quarum quasdam oportet reducere ad concordiam per praedictam distinctionem.

Si autem cognatio spiritualis praecedat matrimonium, illa, inquam, quae contrahitur per baptismum et confirmationem; sic impedit contrahendum et dirimit contractum, pro eo quod facit personas simpliciter illegitimas; et ideo, si videatur vinculum contrahi, non tamen contrahitur. — Impedit autem cognatio matrimonium secundum tres differentias, scilicet *paternitatis, compaternitatis* et *fraternitatis,* sicut probatur Causa trigesima, quaestione prima[^8], *De eo quod interrogasti,* et in aliis sequentibus capitulis, et Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia per totum.

1. Per hanc distinctionem patet responsio ad primum obiectum: quia illa auctoritas intelligitur de cognatione, quae consequitur matrimonium, quae non potuit solvere prius vinculum, quod inter personas legitimas erat contractum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod una cognatio est ordinata ad alteram; dicendum, quod verum est, non tamen in eodem, sed in diversis. Sicut enim carnis commixtio ordinatur ad generationem, non tamen generans debet cum filia carnaliter commisceri propter novitatem vinculi; sic intelligendum, quod non debet baptizans cum baptizato carnaliter commisceri nec per matrimonium copulari. Amplius, quamvis unum horum vinculorum sit ordinatum ad alterum, non tamen spirituale ad carnale, sed e converso. Et ideo, postquam intervenit cognatio spiritualis, nunquam debet intervenire commixtio carnalis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illo qui revocat ab errore, dicendum, quod illud vinculum non solum facit impensio beneficii, sed etiam statutum Ecclesiae Christi. — Si autem quaeras, quare magis instituit Ecclesia; dicendum, quod per nullam institutionem[^9] dicitur homo generari, sed solum ad generationem disponi; in baptismo autem est vera generatio: et ideo non sic contrahitur vinculum, quod praestet matrimonio impedimentum per documentum fidei, sicut per Sacramentum baptismi.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de diversitate cultus, quod impedit; dicendum, quod sicut circa actum virtutis contingit virtutem corrumpi ab extremis, quoniam virtus desiderat medium[^10]; sic aliquo modo potest evenire in Sacramentis, maxime circa matrimonium. Unde sicut impeditur a nimia disparitate, ita etiam impeditur a nimia proximitate[^11].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether spiritual kinship impedes marriage.*

In the second place inquiry is made whether spiritual kinship impedes marriage. And that it does, is shown as follows.

1. Cause thirty, question one[^1], *De eo quod interrogasti* etc., and further on: "If anyone should take his goddaughter, or his co-mother, in marriage, we judge that they must be separated and punished with grave penance."

2. Likewise, this same point seems evident by *reason*: a bond is to be guarded the more honorably and the more purely, the holier and the more spiritual it is: if therefore for the sake of honor marriage cannot be contracted where a carnal bond and carnal kinship[^2] intervene; much more so where spiritual kinship intervenes.

3. Likewise, one who is near by carnal kinship is to be treated with the affection of blood-relationship: if therefore that affection does not admit carnal union, but rather naturally shrinks from it; therefore neither does spiritual kinship, as it seems.

**On the contrary:**
1. Spiritual kinship remains together with marriage: therefore it does not impede it. *Proof:* Cause thirty, question one[^3], *De eo quod interrogasti:* "If lawful spouses have taken up their son from the font; if they wish, let them remain together": therefore they are not compelled to separate: therefore spiritual kinship does not impede.

2. Likewise, carnal kinship disposes toward spiritual kinship: therefore they do not have opposition to one another: therefore the one does not furnish an impediment to the other: therefore neither does the mingling of flesh to the reception of the Sacrament, nor conversely.

3. Likewise, he does more who draws someone from error to the faith than he who lifts a baptized person from the font; but if someone should convert[^4] a woman to the faith, he is not impeded from contracting with her, but rather can contract espousals under this condition, if she is willing to come to the faith: therefore neither is he impeded, if he lifts her from the font, from being able also to contract.

4. Likewise, diversity in the participation of the Sacrament impedes marriage, as for instance disparity of worship; but opposites have opposite effects[^5]: therefore that which produces conformity in worship and in the Sacrament disposes toward the Sacrament. But this is done by the dispensing and conferring of baptism: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> Spiritual kinship, if it precedes marriage, impedes its being contracted and dissolves the contracted marriage; but if it follows, it sometimes takes away the right of demanding the debt.

**I respond:** It must be said that spiritual kinship can follow, or precede, marriage. If it should follow, it is generally true that it cannot break the bond of marriage[^6].

But nevertheless, as to the right of rendering the debt, a distinction must be made: for this was done either from necessity, as for instance when an infant is in danger of death, and there is no one to baptize him, or from ignorance, or from design. In the first case one simply does not lose the right of demanding nor of rendering; in the second case likewise, if there was diligence, one does not lose it; in the third case the one who does this loses the right of demanding; yet, because his own sin ought not to be imputed to another, he is bound to render. And all this is confirmed by the authorities which are in the text[^7], some of which must be brought into agreement through the aforesaid distinction.

But if spiritual kinship should precede marriage — that kinship, I mean, which is contracted through baptism and confirmation — thus it impedes the marriage's being contracted and dissolves the contract, inasmuch as it makes the persons simply illegitimate [for it]; and therefore, if a bond seems to be contracted, nonetheless it is not contracted. — Now kinship impedes marriage according to three distinctions, namely of *fatherhood, co-fatherhood,* and *brotherhood,* as is proved in Cause thirty, question one[^8], *De eo quod interrogasti,* and in the other chapters following, and in Cause thirty, question three throughout.

1. Through this distinction the response to the first objection is evident: for that authority is understood of the kinship which follows upon marriage, which could not dissolve the prior bond that had been contracted between lawful persons.

2. To that which is objected, that the one kinship is ordered to the other; it must be said that this is true, yet not in the same case, but in different ones. For just as the mingling of flesh is ordered to generation, yet the begetter ought not to be carnally united with his daughter because of the newness of the bond; so it must be understood that the one baptizing ought not to be carnally united with the baptized nor be joined [to him or her] through marriage. Furthermore, although one of these bonds is ordered to the other, yet the spiritual is not [ordered] to the carnal, but conversely. And therefore, after spiritual kinship has intervened, carnal mingling ought never to intervene.

3. To that which is objected concerning the one who recalls [another] from error, it must be said that that bond is produced not only by the bestowal of the benefit, but also by the statute of the Church of Christ. — But if you should ask why the Church rather instituted [it]; it must be said that by no institution[^9] is a man said to be begotten, but only to be disposed to generation; whereas in baptism there is a true generation: and therefore the bond is not so contracted as to furnish an impediment to marriage through the teaching of the faith, as [it is] through the Sacrament of baptism.

4. To that which is objected concerning diversity of worship, that it impedes; it must be said that, just as regarding an act of virtue it happens that virtue is corrupted by the extremes, since virtue desires the mean[^10]; so in some manner it can occur in the Sacraments, especially regarding marriage. Hence just as it is impeded by too great a disparity, so also it is impeded by too great a proximity[^11].

---

la: Can. 5: *De eo quod interrogastis,* qui integer refertur hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Canon 5: *De eo quod interrogastis,* which is reported in full here in the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Cfr. d. 40. q. 2, ubi etiam de seq. arg.

en: Cf. d. 40, q. 2, where also concerning the following argument.

la: Can. 5. Cfr. nota penultima. — Superius post *impedit* cod. L supplet *matrimonium.*

en: Canon 5. Cf. the penultimate note. — Above, after *impedit,* codex L supplies *matrimonium.*

la: Plures codd. *trahit,* codd. FG *convertit.*

en: Several codices [read] *trahit,* codices FG *convertit.*

la: Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 41. (c. 7.): *Contrariae contrariorum causae.* — *Maior* ostensa est supra d. 39. a. I. q. I.

en: Aristotle, *Meteorology* IV, text 41 (c. 7): "Contraries are the causes of contraries." — The *major* [premise] has been shown above, d. 39, a. I, q. I.

la: Cfr. C. *Si vir* (2.), X. de Cognatione spirituali (lib. IV. tit. II.).

en: Cf. C. *Si vir* (2.), X. *On Spiritual Kinship* (Book IV, tit. II.).

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2.

la: Can. 5. — Superius verbis *vinculum contrahi* cod. P interserit *vel matrimonium.*

en: Canon 5. — Above, at the words *vinculum contrahi,* codex P inserts *vel matrimonium.*

la: Sive, ut codd. AEIKLV bb habent, *instructionem.* Inferius ex codd. AK substituimus *generatio* (cod. aa *regeneratio*) pro *cognatio.*

en: Or, as codices AEIKLV bb have, *instructionem.* Below, from codices AK we have substituted *generatio* (codex aa *regeneratio*) for *cognatio.*

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. dub. 3.

en: According to Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 6. Cf. II Sent., d. 27, dub. 3.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 92662–92760) as base for the clean *videtur/Contra* argument prose and footnote-marker spacing, with the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.870–871 (PDF pp.890–891; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) authoritative for the *Respondeo/Solutio* and all footers per the VOL II OVERRIDE. Read column-by-column (L top→bottom, then R) on both pages.

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L92662 `Utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium` under `QUAESTIO II.`; body opens `Secundo quaeritur, utrum cognatio spiritualis impediat matrimonium. Et quod sic, videtur.` — matches `title_la`. No q-swap.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.870** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 870"; verso). The upper portion of the page holds the Art. I SCHOLION (*De tribus opinionibus…* / De 1./2./3. quaestione) and belongs to `bon-sent-IV-d42-a1-q1`, which renders it — **not rendered here** (`has_scholion: false`). My q2 body (QUAESTIO II opener → *Fundamenta* 1–3, Contra 1–4, CONCLUSIO, Respondeo) occupies the foot of the L-column and the R-column. Footer note-series **1–6** (Can.5 / Cfr. d.40 q.2 / Can.5 + cod. L variant / *trahit·convertit* / Aristot. *Meteor.* + d.39 cross-ref / C. *Si vir*) → [^1]–[^6], all anchored in my q2 body.
- **p.871** (running head "DIST. XLII. ART. I. QUAEST. III. — 871"; the running head reads QUAEST. III because q3 opens lower on the page, but the page-top body is still q2's Respondeo/Solutio). My q2 owns the body from the reply-tail *peccatum suum alteri imputari…* down through the four *Ad obiecta* replies, ending at *…impeditur a nimia proximitate.* Footer note-series **1–5** (Hic c.2 / Can.5 + cod. P variant / *instructionem·generatio* codex variants / Aristot. *Ethic.* + II Sent. d.27 cross-ref / *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) → [^7]–[^11], all anchored in my q2 body. **p.871 footer notes 6–11 belong to QUAESTIO III and are left to `bon-sent-IV-d42-a1-q3`.**

**p.870 seam disposition.** Shared with a1-q1: q1 owns the q1 body-tail + the SCHOLION at the top of p.870; q2 owns the QUAESTIO II body below and p.870 footers 1–6 (all six anchored in q2). Scholion deliberately not duplicated here.

**p.871 seam disposition.** Shared with a1-q3. The reply-2 sentence splices cleanly across the p.870/871 page boundary (*…tamen, quia non debet* | *peccatum suum alteri imputari, tenetur reddere*) — no lost text at the seam. Within p.871 the boundary between q2 and q3 falls after q2's reply 4 (*nimia proximitate*), before the centered `QUAESTIO III.` heading (*Utrum spiritualis cognatio transeat ab uno in alterum*). q2 claims p.871 footers 1–5 only; QUAESTIO III and p.871 footers 6–11 are forwarded to a1-q3.

**Apparatus count = 11** (p.870: 6; p.871: 5), each keyed to body markers in both languages.

**[?] flags:** none. All formulae, codex sigla (L, FG, P, AEIKLV bb, AK, aa), and Gratian/Decretals/Aristotle citations resolved against the PDF bands. Note: OCR rendered [^2]'s cross-reference as "d. 10. q. 2" (digit-mangle); the p.870 L-2 footer band reads **d. 40. q. 2**, adopted here per the Vol II PDF-priority override.

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. 42, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 871 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum spiritualis cognatio transeat ab uno in alterum.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footer numbering on each printed page; here p.871 carries the edition's notes 6–11 and p.872 carries its notes 1–7. In this chunk they are renumbered sequentially 1–13.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum spiritualis cognatio transeat ab uno in alterum, utpote ab uxore in virum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione quarta, capitulo primo[^1], *Sciscitatur*: « Constat, virum compatrem constitui illi mulieri, cuius matrimonio assumta uxor commater esse videbatur ».

2. Item, ibidem[^2] ex Concilio Chalcedonensi: « Si quis cum duabus sororibus, aut cum duabus commatribus dormierit; secundum antiquam consuetudinem octo annis poeniteat »; ergo peccatum est contrahere cum duabus commatribus, sicut cum duabus sororibus.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia vir, qui cognoscit mulierem, necessario efficitur affinis omni consanguineo mulieris, qui est cognatus carnaliter; et hoc propter hoc, quod efficiuntur unum corpus[^3]: ergo pari ratione, si mulier est alicui cognata spiritualiter; si iungatur alicui, necesse est, quod ille efficiatur affinis eidem.

4. Item, magis uniuntur vir et uxor in unitate carnis quam mater et filius; sed qui efficitur pater spiritualis alicuius necessario efficitur compater matris[^4]: ergo multo fortius qui efficitur compater viri efficitur compater uxoris.

**Contra:**

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione quarta[^5]: « Qui spiritualem habet compatrem, cuius filium de lavacro fontis accepit, et eius uxor commater non est, liceat eidem, compatre suo defuncto, eius viduam ducere in uxorem ».

2. Item, in sequenti capitulo[^6]: « Post obitum uxoris suae cum commatre uxoris coniugia copulari nulla videtur ratio vel auctoritas prohibere ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia unio carnis et
<!-- page 872 -->
spiritus simpliciter sunt disparatae: ergo per unam ad aliam non transitur[^7]: ergo non videtur, quod ab uno ad alterum transeat cognatio spiritualis.

4. Item, quantumcumque vir fuerit amicus sive filius Dei, per hoc uxor non coniungitur Deo novo vinculo, nec e converso: ergo pari ratione, quando unus coniugum spiritualiter alligatur alicui, non propter hoc alligatur et alter.

### Conclusio.

> **Conclusio.** Consanguinitas spiritualis, contracta per actum alterius, non transit in alterum; sed contracta per actum proprium, et quidem post carnalem copulam, transit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum auctoritates sint ad utramque partem, cognatio spiritualis aliquo modo transit a muliere in virum, aliquo modo non.

Sed tamen notandum, quod Magister[^8] et etiam Gratianus distinguunt sic, quod postquam alter coniugum contrahit cognationem cum aliquo, aut mutuo se cognoscunt, aut non. Si sic, tunc transit cognatio spiritualis ab uno in alterum; si non, tunc non transit. — Sed ista responsio a iurisperitis non approbatur, nec ipsum capitulum concordat, Causa trigesima, quaestione quarta[^9], *Post uxoris obitum*, ubi dicitur, quod « per unionem carnis non transitur ad unionem spiritus ». Si ergo aliquis vel aliqua habet cognationem spiritualem, per sequentem copulam talis cognatio in alterum non pertransit.

Et ideo aliter distinguendum, quod aliqua mulier vel aliquis vir potest contrahere cognationem spiritualem aut per actum *suum*, aut per actum *alterius*; aut quia levat alterius filium, aut quia levatur eius filius. Si per actum *alterius*, sic nullo modo transit nec communicatur. Si per actum *proprium*, aut *ante* carnalem copulam, aut *post*. Si *ante*, tunc non transit nec communicatur, quia « per unionem carnis sequentem non transitur ad unionem spiritus praecedentem »; et in his duobus casibus licet habere duas commatres. Si vero per actum *proprium* contrahit *post* carnalem copulam, cum vir et mulier sint una caro et unum principium, operatio sive actio unius alteri attribuitur, et in hoc casu non licet habere duas commatres, Extra, de Cognatione spirituali[^10], *Martinus Bertham*. Et ratio huius assignatur unitas principii. — Et sic solvuntur contrarietates. Et hoc continetur in his versibus:

> Quae mihi, vel cuius mea natum fonte levavit,
>     Haec mea commater fieri mea non valet uxor,
> Si qua meae natum non ex me fonte levavit,
>     Hanc post fata meae non inde vetabor habere.

Concedendum ergo, quod aliquo modo transit ab uxore in virum, licet aliquae rationes ad hoc inductae sint sophisticae.

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, iam patet responsio, quod auctoritates currunt secundum illas duas vias priores.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod istae coniunctiones sunt omnino disparatae; dicendum, quod non est verum, quoniam cognatio spiritualis fit per actum corporalem; et quia unum corpus sunt, ita quod unitas praecedit[^11]: ideo quod fit ab uno reputatur fieri ab alio. Sed cum unitas sequitur, non potest venire ad unitatem principii actus sacramentalis.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum, quod non est simile, propter hoc quod[^12] fit per gratiam mentalem, hoc autem per actum corporalem. Et sic patet illud[^13].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether spiritual kinship passes from one person to another.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether spiritual kinship passes from one person to another, for example from the wife to the husband. And that it does, it seems.

1. *Causa* thirty, *quaestio* four, chapter one[^1], *Sciscitatur*: "It is agreed that the man is constituted co-father (*compater*) to that woman whose marriage the wife taken up seemed to be the co-mother (*commater*)."

2. Likewise, in the same place[^2], from the Council of Chalcedon: "If anyone should sleep with two sisters, or with two co-mothers, let him do penance eight years according to the ancient custom"; therefore it is a sin to contract with two co-mothers, just as with two sisters.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems: because a man who knows a woman necessarily becomes an in-law (*affinis*) to every blood-relative of the woman who is her kinsman carnally; and this on account of the fact that they become one body[^3]: therefore by parity of reasoning, if a woman is spiritually kin to someone; if she be joined to another, it is necessary that he become an in-law to the same [kinsman].

4. Likewise, husband and wife are more united in the unity of the flesh than mother and son; but he who becomes the spiritual father of someone necessarily becomes the co-father of the mother[^4]: therefore much more strongly he who becomes the co-father of the husband becomes the co-father of the wife.

**On the contrary:**

1. *Causa* thirty, *quaestio* four[^5]: "Let it be permitted to him who has a spiritual co-father, whose son he received from the laver of the font, and whose wife is not co-mother, once his co-father is dead, to take his widow as wife."

2. Likewise, in the following chapter[^6]: "After the death of his own wife, that a marriage be joined with the co-mother of the wife no reason or authority seems to prohibit."

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems: because the union of the flesh and
<!-- page 872 -->
of the spirit are simply disparate: therefore through the one there is no passing to the other[^7]: therefore it does not seem that spiritual kinship passes from one to another.

4. Likewise, however much a man may have been a friend or son of God, through this the wife is not joined to God by a new bond, nor the reverse: therefore by parity of reasoning, when one of the spouses is spiritually bound to someone, the other is not bound on account of this.

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** Spiritual consanguinity, contracted through the act of another, does not pass into the other [spouse]; but contracted through one's own act, and indeed after carnal intercourse, it does pass.

**I respond:** It must be said that, since the authorities are for either side, spiritual kinship in some way passes from the wife to the husband, and in some way does not.

But nevertheless it should be noted that the Master[^8] and also Gratian distinguish thus: that after one of the spouses contracts kinship with someone, either they know each other mutually, or not. If so, then spiritual kinship passes from one to the other; if not, then it does not pass. — But this response is not approved by the jurists, nor does the chapter itself agree, *Causa* thirty, *quaestio* four[^9], *After the death of the wife*, where it is said that "through the union of the flesh there is no passing to the union of the spirit." If therefore a man or a woman has spiritual kinship, through subsequent intercourse such kinship does not pass over into the other.

And therefore it must be distinguished otherwise: that some woman or some man can contract spiritual kinship either through one's *own* act, or through the act of *another*; either because he raises another's son [from the font], or because his own son is raised. If through the act of *another*, then in no way does it pass or is it communicated. If through one's *own* act, either *before* carnal intercourse, or *after*. If *before*, then it does not pass or is communicated, because "through the subsequent union of the flesh there is no passing to the preceding union of the spirit"; and in these two cases it is permitted to have two co-mothers. But if through one's *own* act he contracts *after* carnal intercourse, since husband and wife are one flesh and one principle, the operation or action of the one is attributed to the other, and in this case it is not permitted to have two co-mothers, *Extra*, *On Spiritual Kinship*[^10], *Martinus Bertham*. And the reason for this is assigned as the unity of the principle. — And thus the contrarieties are resolved. And this is contained in these verses:

> She whom, or whose child, mine raised from the font for me,
>     This co-mother of mine cannot become my wife;
> But she who did not raise my child from the font from me,
>     Her, after her husband's death, I shall not thereby be forbidden to have.

It must therefore be granted that in some way it passes from the wife to the husband, although some of the reasons adduced for this are sophistical.

*To 1, 2.* To what is objected on the contrary, the response is already clear, that the authorities run according to those two prior ways.

*To 3.* To what is objected, that these unions are wholly disparate; it must be said that it is not true, because spiritual kinship comes about through a corporeal act; and since they are one body, in such a way that the unity precedes[^11]: therefore what is done by the one is reckoned to be done by the other. But when the unity follows, it cannot attain to the unity of principle of the sacramental act.

*To 4.* To what is objected last, it must be said that it is not similar, on account of the fact that[^12] the one comes about through mental grace, but the other through a corporeal act. And thus that [objection] is clear[^13].

---

la: Textus originalis et edd. *Restat* pro *Constat.*

en: The original text and the editions read *Restat* for *Constat.*

la: Can. 2: *Si pater... aut cum duabus sororibus* etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Canon 2: *If a father... or with two sisters* etc. Cf. here the letter of the Master, c. 5.

la: Cfr. supra d. 41. q. I.

en: Cf. above, d. 41, q. I.

la: Vide supra Praenotata. — Superius pro *uxor* cod. P *mulier.*

en: See the Prefatory Notes above. — Earlier, for *uxor* (wife) codex P reads *mulier* (woman).

la: Can. 4. Codd. perperam *filiam* pro *filium.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5, ubi etiam de seq. arg.

en: Canon 4. The codices wrongly [read] *filiam* (daughter) for *filium* (son). Cf. here the letter of the Master, c. 5, where the following argument is also treated.

la: Can. 5: *Post uxoris obitum cum commatre uxoris viri superstitis coniugio copulari* etc.

en: Canon 5: *After the death of the wife, that a marriage be joined with the co-mother of the wife of the surviving husband* etc.

la: Ut insinuatur in can. allegato in praecedente nota; cfr. infra corp. quaest.

en: As is implied in the canon cited in the preceding note; cf. below in the body of the question.

la: Hic c. 5. — Gratian. super canones praenotatos.

en: Here c. 5. — Gratian, on the canons noted above.

la: Cap. 5. — Ex codd. F G cum textu originali posuimus *unionem* pro *unitatem.* — *Glossa* in verba Gratiani super hunc canonem: *Nunc Gratianus solvit praedictam contrarietatem et male secundum Huguitionem* etc.

en: Chapter 5. — From codices F G, with the original text, we have put *unionem* (union) for *unitatem* (unity). — The *Gloss* on the words of Gratian upon this canon: *Now Gratian resolves the aforesaid contrariety, and badly, according to Huguccio* etc.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 11. c. 4. Cfr. ibid. *Glossa*, in qua etiam seqq. versus occurrunt.

en: Book IV, title 11, c. 4. Cf. there the *Gloss*, in which the following verses also occur.

la: Vat. addit *actum*, et paulo inferius male omittit *non.*

en: The Vatican edition adds *actum*, and a little further down wrongly omits *non.*

la: Edd. incongrue supplent *hoc* (supplendum: *illud*, scil. esse amicum Dei), et mox omittunt *actum.*

en: The editions incongruously supply *hoc* (one should supply *illud*, namely, to be a friend of God), and shortly after omit *actum.*

la: Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to question I of this article.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw L92761–92874) collated against the p.871–872 450-dpi column bands (`vol4-p87{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Two-column page; reflowed column-by-column (L top→bottom, then R). Vol II/IV override applied: bands authoritative where OCR cascade-fragments (Respondeo, Conclusio, footers).
- **Footnote numbering:** Quaracchi restarts its footer sequence per printed page. p.871 supplies its notes 6–11 (this q3 begins mid-page; notes 1–5 on p.871 belong to the preceding a1-q2) → chunk [^1]–[^6]. p.872 supplies its notes 1–7 → chunk [^7]–[^13]. 13 apparatus entries total.
- **p.871 seam (shared with a1-q2):** q2 occupies the top of both columns; QUAESTIO III opens lower in the left column and continues into the right column. Only q3 body and q3's footers (Quaracchi 6–11) are claimed here; q2's material and its footers (Quaracchi 1–5) are left to `bon-sent-IV-d42-a1-q2`.
- **p.872 seam (shared with a2-q1):** q3 ends at "Et sic patet illud" (top of both columns). ARTICULUS II / *De cognatione legali* opens below and belongs to `bon-sent-IV-d42-a2-q1`; its text ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum...", "Circa primum tria sunt praenotanda...", PRAENOTATA) and its footers (on p.873) are NOT included here. The p.872 footer notes read into this chunk (Quaracchi 1–7) all anchor in q3's body.
- **Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text): *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Conclusio generalis.*, *Distinctio 1.*, *Distinctio auctoris.*, *Non probatur.*, *Conclusio 2.*, and the p.872 R-column side-notes.
- No `[?]` flags: all readings resolved against the bands.
- No scholion in this quaestio (the Art. I scholion is carried in `bon-sent-IV-d42-a1-q1`; note [^13] cross-refers to it).
- **2026-07-17 apparatus-health false positive (J4 Class D/E pass):** the health-scan flagged this chunk `defs=13 la=15 en=13`. Confirmed **not a real defect** — it's the J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md §2 backtick-blockquote false positive, plain-text variant. The `## Latin` intro blockquote (line 31) reads "...here p.871 carries the edition's notes 6–11 and p.872 carries its notes 1–7. In this chunk they are renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^13]." — a plain-text (non-backtick-fenced) `[^1]–[^13]` describing the renumbering scheme, not real footnote anchors. The classifier's regex (and the live site renderer) can't distinguish this prose reference from a real anchor, inflating the Latin anchor count by 2 (the `1` and `13` tokens). All 13 real apparatus defs are correctly and uniquely bound in both languages otherwise. Per session instructions, content/wording was NOT altered — this is a documentation-only disposition, flagged for Wilson's corpus-wide decision alongside the other backtick-blockquote instances already logged in `manual-review/J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md` §2.


title: Dist. 42, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 872 -->

### Articulus II. *De cognatione legali.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de cognatione *legali*. Circa quam primo procedendum est per modum *narrationis*, secundo per modum *inquisitionis*.

### Praenotata.

Circa primum tria sunt praenotanda. Primo, quid sit, et quae eius species. Secundo, qualiter contrahatur. Tertio, quomodo impedit matrimonium.

Primo igitur sciendum est, quod cognatio legalis ita describitur: Cognatio legalis est proximitas proveniens ex adoptione. Oritur autem quasi triplex proximitas ex adoptione. Una est quasi *descenden-*

<!-- page 873 -->

*tium*, quae attenditur inter adoptantem et filiam, vel neptem adoptatam. Alia est quasi *a latere*, scilicet illa quae est inter filium naturalem et filiam adoptivam. Tertia vero est quasi quaedam *affinitas*, quae est inter adoptatum et uxorem adoptantis, vel adoptantem et uxorem adoptati. Hae sunt species, de quibus parum dicitur in iure canonum[^1].

Secundo intelligendum est, quod ista cognatio, sicut patet per rationem suam, contrahitur per actum *adoptandi*. *Adoptare* autem est extraneam personam in filium, vel filiam, vel nepotem, vel deinceps legitime assumere[^2]. *Legitima* autem assumtio dicitur, quia *non omnis* persona potest omnem adoptare. Nam *adoptare* non potest mulier, nisi ex rescripto principis sibi concedatur in solatium filiorum. Iste enim actus est proprie virorum[^3]. Item, *non omnium*, quia adoptare non potest minor viginti annis, nisi forte iusta causa interveniat. Ille vero potest adoptare, qui paterfamilias est et sui iuris et potest generare; nam spado vel frigidus non potest adoptare. — Quilibet autem potest *adoptari*, sive masculus sit, sive femina, dummodo sit minoris aetatis patre adoptivo. Unde sive sit minor, sive maior[^4], sive habeat patrem, sive non; adoptari potest, differenter tamen. Qui enim *sui iuris* est dicitur *arrogatus* et transit in potestatem arrogantis. Qui autem est in *potestate patris* non transit in potestatem adoptantis et dicitur *simpliciter adoptari*. Primum debet fieri auctoritate principis, secundum imperio magistratus. — Alia etiam differentia est, quia adoptans filio *arrogato* tenetur relinquere quartam partem bonorum, filio *adoptivo* nihil, si non vult[^5].

Tertio intelligendum est, quod cognatio legalis per modum *descendentium* et per modum *affinitatis* semper impedit matrimonium. Unde nunquam adoptans potest contrahere cum filia adoptiva nec cum uxore filii adoptivi, et sic de aliis. Sed in secunda specie non manet impedimentum nisi ad tempus, scilicet quamdiu est et durat adoptio; sed ea soluta emancipatione filii adoptivi, vel naturalis, postea non impedit, Extra, de Cognatione legali[^6], et Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia, *Ita diligere* etc., et iterum, *Per adoptionem* etc.

Ad intelligentiam autem horum tria breviter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum cognatio legalis sit aliquod vinculum. Secundo quaeritur, utrum impediat matrimonium. Tertio, utrum transeat ab uno in alterum.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum cognatio legalis sit aliquod vinculum.*

Circa primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod cognatio legalis dicat aliquod vinculum secundum veritatem.

1. Nicolaus Papa dicit, et habetur in littera[^7]: «Inter eos non contrahitur coniugium, quos adoptio iungit»: ergo aliqua iunctura et vinculum est ibi.

2. Item, cognatio primo est per legem *naturalem*: si ergo lex divina ultra *naturalem* addit *spiritualem*, pari ratione lex humana ultra naturalem addere poterit et debebit *legalem*.

3. Item, sicut patris est generare filium, ita et fovere et hereditatem relinquere: ergo cum aliquis assumit sibi aliquem ad hos actus, recte dici potest *pater*, et ille *filius*; sed istae duae sunt relationes[^8] proximitatis: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Nullus potest sibi aliquem adoptare in patrem, ita quod sit ibi vinculum: ergo pari ratione nullus, ut videtur, potest sibi aliquem adoptare in filium: ergo nullum est adoptionis vinculum.

2. Item, omnes iusti sunt filii Dei adoptivi[^9]: ergo adoptio est vinculum generale; sed non attenditur ibi adoptio penes vinculum generale: ergo etc.

3. Item, in nobis non sunt nisi duo, scilicet anima et corpus; sed ex parte animae est cognatio spiritualis, ex parte corporis cognatio carnalis: ergo aut legalis non differt ab istis, aut superfluit[^10].

4. Item, cognatio est vinculum perpetuum, si est vera cognatio[^11]; sed adoptio non est perpetuum vinculum, quia adoptivus potest emancipari: ergo videtur, quod nulla sit talis cognatio.

<!-- page 874 -->

### Conclusio.

> Cognatio legalis est aliquod vinculum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est ponere vinculum cognationis *legalis*; hoc autem vinculum transumtum est et habet originem a cognatione *carnali*, sicut et cognatio *spiritualis*[^12]. Patris enim carnalis est filium generare et filium educare; quoniam igitur per Sacramentum regenerationis est *spiritualis* generatio, hinc est, quod contrahitur *spiritualis* cognatio. — Rursus, quoniam in adoptione fit assumtio alicuius ad actum paternum, qui est fovere, educare, possessionem dimittere; hinc est, quod est ibi affectus[^13] paternus et officium, ac per hoc aliquod vinculum; hoc autem a legibus statutum est in solatium filiorum, quod est maximum inter cetera ipsis coniugatis. — Et sic patet, quomodo cognatio *legalis* sit vinculum.

Si autem quaeratur sufficientia harum trium cognationum, scilicet *carnalis*, *spiritualis* et *legalis*; dicendum, quod tripliciter potest sumi: uno modo penes triplicem *legem*, a qua est, scilicet legem *naturalem*, *divinam* et legem *positivam*. Quantum ad primam est cognatio *carnalis*, quantum ad secundam *spiritualis*, quantum ad tertiam *legalis*. — Secundo modo potest sumi penes illud *quod respiciunt*. Tria enim sunt in nobis bona: bonum naturae, bonum gratiae et bonum fortunae; et bonum naturae respicit cognatio *carnalis*, bonum gratiae cognatio *spiritualis*, bonum vero fortunae cognatio *legalis*. — Tertio modo sic, ut cognatio carnalis respiciat *carnem*, spiritualis *animam*, legalis vero *totum hominem*. — His visis, facile est obiectis respondere.

1. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur, quod filius non potest adoptare patrem; dicendum, quod sicut in naturalibus pater generat filium, non e converso, ita et in legalibus patris est adoptare filium, non e converso. Nam adoptio est quaedam generatio[^14].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnes iusti sunt filii adoptivi Dei; dicendum, quod sicut omnes sumus *a Deo*, tamen non sumus omnes *consanguinei*, quamvis habeamus unum patrem, pro eo quod ipse est principium commune; sed quando ab eodem patre carnali generamur, habemus aliquod vinculum speciale: sic in proposito oportet intelligere.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in nobis non est nisi anima et corpus; dicendum, quod non tantum in hominibus ista attenduntur, sed etiam adiuncta possunt[^15]; et quaedam respiciunt animam magis, quaedam magis corpus, quaedam magis coniunctum, ut patet, cum dicitur: homo intelligens, albus et risibilis. Primum est ratione animae; secundum ratione corporis; tertium ratione coniuncti: sic in proposito potest intelligi.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est vinculum perpetuum; dicendum, quod duo sunt in adoptione: et est[^16] *dominium* et subiectio, et hoc potest amoveri per emancipationem; et est quaedam *honestatis alligatio*, quae non relinquit, ex quo semel alicui inest.

english:
### Article II. *On legal kinship.*

Consequently, with respect to the second article, inquiry is made concerning *legal* kinship. Concerning it, one must proceed first by way of *narration*, secondly by way of *inquiry*.

### Preliminary notes.

Concerning the first, three things are to be noted beforehand. First, what it is, and what are its species. Secondly, how it is contracted. Thirdly, in what manner it impedes marriage.

First, therefore, it must be known that legal kinship is thus described: Legal kinship is a proximity arising from adoption. Now from adoption there arises a threefold proximity, as it were. One is, as it were, *of descen-*

*dants*, which is considered between the one adopting and the daughter, or granddaughter, adopted. Another is, as it were, *from the side*, namely that which is between a natural son and an adopted daughter. But the third is, as it were, a certain *affinity*, which is between the one adopted and the wife of the one adopting, or between the one adopting and the wife of the one adopted. These are the species, of which little is said in the law of the canons[^1].

Secondly, it must be understood that this kinship, as is evident from its very nature, is contracted through the act of *adopting*. Now *to adopt* is to take up legitimately an outside person as a son, or daughter, or grandchild, or so on[^2]. And it is called *legitimate* taking-up, because *not every* person can adopt everyone. For a woman cannot *adopt*, unless by rescript of the prince it be granted to her as a consolation for children. For this act properly belongs to men[^3]. Likewise, *not of everyone*, because one under twenty years cannot adopt, unless perhaps a just cause intervene. But he can adopt who is a father of a family and of his own right and able to beget; for a eunuch or an impotent man cannot adopt. — Now anyone can *be adopted*, whether he be male or female, provided he be of a lesser age than the adoptive father. Hence whether he be younger or older[^4], whether he have a father or not; he can be adopted, differently nevertheless. For he who is *of his own right* is called *arrogated* and passes into the power of the one arrogating. But he who is in the *power of a father* does not pass into the power of the one adopting and is said to be *adopted simply*. The first ought to be done by the authority of the prince, the second by the command of a magistrate. — There is also another difference, because the one adopting is bound to leave a fourth part of his goods to an *arrogated* son, nothing to an *adoptive* son, if he does not wish[^5].

Thirdly, it must be understood that legal kinship, by way of *descendants* and by way of *affinity*, always impedes marriage. Hence the one adopting can never contract with the adoptive daughter, nor with the wife of the adoptive son, and so of others. But in the second species the impediment does not remain except for a time, namely as long as the adoption exists and lasts; but once it is dissolved by the emancipation of the adoptive son, or of the natural son, thereafter it does not impede, *Extra*, *On Legal Kinship*[^6], and Cause 30, question 3, *Ita diligere* etc., and again, *Per adoptionem* etc.

Now for the understanding of these things three questions are briefly asked. First it is asked, whether legal kinship is any kind of bond. Secondly it is asked, whether it impedes marriage. Thirdly, whether it passes from one to another.

### Question I. *Whether legal kinship is any kind of bond.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is shown that legal kinship does denote some kind of bond in truth.

1. Pope Nicholas says, and it is had in the text[^7]: "Between those whom adoption joins marriage is not contracted": therefore there is some joining and bond there.

2. Likewise, kinship is firstly by *natural* law: if therefore the divine law adds a *spiritual* [kinship] beyond the *natural*, by the same reasoning human law will be able and bound to add a *legal* [kinship] beyond the natural.

3. Likewise, just as it belongs to a father to beget a son, so also to cherish him and to leave him an inheritance: therefore when someone takes up another for these acts, he can rightly be called *father*, and that one *son*; but these two are relations[^8] of proximity: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. No one can adopt someone for himself as a father, in such a way that there be a bond there: therefore by the same reasoning no one, as it seems, can adopt someone for himself as a son: therefore there is no bond of adoption.

2. Likewise, all the just are adoptive sons of God[^9]: therefore adoption is a general bond; but adoption is not there considered in respect of a general bond: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in us there are but two things, namely soul and body; but on the part of the soul there is spiritual kinship, on the part of the body carnal kinship: therefore either legal kinship does not differ from these, or it is superfluous[^10].

4. Likewise, kinship is a perpetual bond, if it is true kinship[^11]; but adoption is not a perpetual bond, because the adoptive [son] can be emancipated: therefore it seems that there is no such kinship.

### Conclusion.

> Legal kinship is some kind of bond.

**I respond:** It must be said that a bond of *legal* kinship is to be posited; but this bond is transferred and takes its origin from *carnal* kinship, just as also spiritual kinship does[^12]. For it belongs to a carnal father to beget a son and to bring up a son; since therefore through the Sacrament of regeneration there is a *spiritual* generation, hence it is that *spiritual* kinship is contracted. — Again, since in adoption there takes place a taking-up of someone for a paternal act, which is to cherish, to bring up, to relinquish possession; hence it is that there is there a paternal affection[^13] and duty, and through this some kind of bond; and this has been established by the laws as a consolation for children, which is the greatest among the other things for the married themselves. — And thus it is evident how *legal* kinship is a bond.

But if the sufficiency of these three kinships be asked, namely *carnal*, *spiritual*, and *legal*; it must be said that it can be taken in three ways: in one way in respect of the threefold *law* from which it is, namely *natural* law, *divine* law, and *positive* law. As to the first there is *carnal* kinship, as to the second *spiritual*, as to the third *legal*. — In a second way it can be taken in respect of that *which they regard*. For there are three goods in us: the good of nature, the good of grace, and the good of fortune; and *carnal* kinship regards the good of nature, *spiritual* kinship the good of grace, but *legal* kinship the good of fortune. — In a third way thus, that carnal kinship regards the *flesh*, spiritual [kinship] the *soul*, but legal [kinship] the *whole man*. — These things having been seen, it is easy to answer the objections.

1. For to that which is objected, that a son cannot adopt his father; it must be said that just as in natural things a father begets a son, not the reverse, so also in legal things it belongs to a father to adopt a son, not the reverse. For adoption is a certain generation[^14].

2. To that which is objected, that all the just are adoptive sons of God; it must be said that just as we are all *from God*, yet we are not all *blood-relations*, although we have one father, for the reason that He is the common principle; but when we are begotten from the same carnal father, we have some special bond: so in the matter at hand it must be understood.

3. To that which is objected, that in us there is nothing but soul and body; it must be said that these are considered not only in men, but adjuncts also can [be considered][^15]; and some regard the soul more, some more the body, some more the composite, as is evident when it is said: a man is intelligent, white, and capable of laughter. The first is by reason of the soul; the second by reason of the body; the third by reason of the composite: so in the matter at hand it can be understood.

4. To that which is objected, that it is not a perpetual bond; it must be said that there are two things in adoption: there is[^16] *dominion* and subjection, and this can be removed through emancipation; and there is a certain *bond of honorableness*, which does not depart, from the moment it is once present in someone.

la: Cfr. *Glossa* in Introductionem (*Quod autem*), C. 30. q. 3. et in C. *Si qua per adoptionem* (I.), X. de Cognatione legali (lib. IV. tit. 12.). — Codd. E F G *canonico*.

en: Cf. the *Gloss* on the Introduction (*Quod autem*), C. 30, q. 3, and on the canon *Si qua per adoptionem* (I.), X. *On Legal Kinship* (Book IV, tit. 12). — Codices E F G [read] *canonico*.

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 234, nota 1.

en: See tom. III, p. 234, note 1.

la: Secundum Iustinian., I. Instit. imperial. de Adoptionibus (tit. 11.), lex *Non solum* (I.), § *Feminae*. In hac lege insinuantur etiam ea quae sequuntur.

en: According to Justinian, *Institutes*, Book I, *On Adoptions* (tit. 11), the law *Non solum* (I.), § *Feminae*. In this law are also intimated the things which follow.

la: Cod. L (E a secunda manu) addit *sive emancipatus* [cod. E *sive non*]. Pro *sive sit* plurimi codd. *si sit*, et mox *differt* pro *differenter*. Subinde post *arrogantis* cod. aa addit *vel adoptantis*.

en: Codex L (E by a second hand) adds *sive emancipatus* [codex E *sive non*]. For *sive sit* very many codices [read] *si sit*, and shortly after *differt* for *differenter*. Then after *arrogantis* codex aa adds *vel adoptantis*.

la: Codd. F G *nisi velit*.

en: Codices F G [read] *nisi velit*.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 12. c. 1. — Seq. locus est C. 30. q. 3. c. 1. et 6.

en: Book IV, tit. 12, c. 1. — The following place is C. 30, q. 3, c. 1 and 6.

la: Hic c. 3. — Pro *coniugium* cod. aa cum textu originali *matrimonium*. Subinde verbis *et vinculum* codd. L Y interserunt *aliquod*.

en: Here c. 3. — For *coniugium* codex aa, with the original text, [reads] *matrimonium*. Then between the words *et vinculum* codices L Y insert *aliquod*.

la: Cod. Z *rationes*.

en: Codex Z [reads] *rationes*.

la: Cfr. Rom. 8, 15. et 23; Gal. 4, 5; Eph. 1, 5. — Inferius pro *ibi adoptio* nonnulli codd. *ibi cognatio*, edd. *ibi cognatio vel adoptio*.

en: Cf. Rom. 8:15 and 23; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5. — Below, for *ibi adoptio* some codices [read] *ibi cognatio*, the editions *ibi cognatio vel adoptio*.

la: Vat. pro conclusione arg. substituit *contrahitur*.

en: The Vatican edition, in place of the conclusion of the argument, substitutes *contrahitur*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 41. Praenotata, circa finem. — Inferius pro *potest* plures codd. et edd. *non potest*.

en: Cf. above, d. 41, Preliminary notes, near the end. — Below, for *potest* several codices and the editions [read] *non potest*.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *transumtum* cod. P *transumtivum*, cod. Q *transumtive*.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 1. — For *transumtum* codex P [reads] *transumtivum*, codex Q *transumtive*.

la: Edd. *effectus*.

en: The editions [read] *effectus*.

la: Iustinian., I. Instit. imperial. de Adoptionibus (tit. 11.), lex *Non solum* (I.), § *Minorem natu*, ait: *Adoptio enim naturam imitatur*.

en: Justinian, *Institutes*, Book I, *On Adoptions* (tit. 11), the law *Non solum* (I.), § *Minorem natu*, says: "For adoption imitates nature."

la: Supple: *attendi*. Edd. *coniunctum*, omisso *possunt*. Inferius pro *intelligens*, quod plures codd. omittunt, codd. F G *rationalis*.

en: Supply: *attendi*. The editions [read] *coniunctum*, omitting *possunt*. Below, for *intelligens*, which several codices omit, codices F G [read] *rationalis*.

la: Pro *et est* edd. *scilicet*, et *haec possunt* pro *hoc potest*. Pro *alligatio* cod. Z *obligatio*.

en: For *et est* the editions [read] *scilicet*, and *haec possunt* for *hoc potest*. For *alligatio* codex Z [reads] *obligatio*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** In Praenotatis S. Doctor distinguit duplicem adoptionem: *perfectam*, quae vocatur *arrogatio*, et *imperfectam*. Ad primam requiritur, ut adoptatus reducatur in potestatem adoptantis, quod non potest fieri, quando non est sui iuris v. g. adhuc vivens sub potestate patris, nisi talis sit emancipatus a principe. Hoc impedimentum a iure civili Romano introductum et ab Ecclesia receptum est, ita ut non incidat, nisi adoptio sit *perfecta*.

**II.** De his tribus quaestionibus, iam solutis iure canonico, omnes idem sentiunt, tamen aliter quaestiones dividunt.

**III.** De eisdem agunt: Scot., hic q. unica n. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1-3; Suppl. q. 87. a. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7-14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1-3. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In the Preliminary notes the Holy Doctor distinguishes a twofold adoption: the *perfect*, which is called *arrogation*, and the *imperfect*. For the first it is required that the one adopted be brought back into the power of the one adopting, which cannot be done when he is not of his own right, e.g. still living under the power of his father, unless such a one be emancipated by the prince. This impediment was introduced by the Roman civil law and received by the Church, in such a way that it is not incurred unless the adoption is *perfect*.

**II.** Concerning these three questions, now resolved by canon law, all hold the same opinion, yet they divide the questions differently.

**III.** On the same subjects treat: Scotus, here the sole question, n. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1-3; *Supplement* q. 87, a. 1-3. — Blessed Albert, here a. 7-14. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 1-3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1-3. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here the sole question.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.872–874 (PDF pp.892–894; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 92875–93073) as the base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered through the Praenotata, Respondeo, *Ad obiecta*, scholion, and every footer, so the PDF column-band read is authoritative there; the OCR supplied marker spacing only. This chunk is **Distinction 42, Articulus II, Quaestio I** — *Whether legal kinship is any kind of bond* — with the short **Articulus II opener + Praenotata** (via narrationis) folded in per the locked Vol II/IV convention (a short ARTICULUS opener is folded into that article's q1, no standalone divisio chunk).

**Opener alignment verified.** The Praenotata's `Ad intelligentiam autem horum tria breviter quaeruntur` lists Primo *utrum cognatio legalis sit aliquod vinculum* → q1; Secundo *utrum impediat matrimonium* → q2; Tertio *utrum transeat ab uno in alterum* → q3. This matches `title_la` and the sibling chunk ids (a2-q1/q2/q3). No q-swap.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.872** (foot; running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 872"): shared with **a1-q3**, which owns the whole upper page (spiritual-kinship q3 body + its replies). This chunk claims only the **Articulus II opener + Praenotata head + the start of praenotandum 1** (down to `Una est quasi descenden-`). That opener text carries **no footnote markers**, so p.872's footer series 1–7 belongs entirely to a1-q3 (its note 7, *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.*, points forward to this chunk's scholion but is anchored in a1-q3's body). **No p.872 apparatus is claimed here.**
- **p.873** (running head "DIST. XLII. ART. II. QUAEST. I. — 873"): praenotandum 1 tail + praenotanda 2–3, the *Ad intelligentiam … tria quaeruntur* tractatio, QUAESTIO I title, affirmative args 1–3, and Contra 1–4. Footer series **1–11** → [^1]–[^11].
- **p.874** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 874"): CONCLUSIO, Respondeo (with the *sufficientia trium cognationum* excursus, viae 1–3), replies 1–4, and the article-level SCHOLION. Footer series **1–5** → [^12]–[^16]. **Footer notes 6–7 of p.874** (*Can. 1. allegatus hic in lit. Magistri, c. 3* / *Vide supra d. 40. q. 2. in corp.*) anchor in QUAESTIO II's *videtur* args and are **left for a2-q2**.

**Apparatus count = 16** (p.873: 11; p.874: 5), all keyed to body markers in both languages.

**Scholion.** The article-level scholion sits on p.874, printed with the OCR-garbled header `SCHOLIOK` (= SCHOLION). It has one numbered note (**I.**, on the double adoption / *arrogatio* vs. imperfect, keyed to the Praenotata) followed by the standard concluding "parallel-places" note (`De his tribus quaestionibus … De eisdem agunt: …`). The source shows only the single numeral **I.**; for legibility the concluding note is split into **II.** (the shared-doctrine sentence) and **III.** (the enumerated parallels) — the numerals II/III are **editorial**, not printed in the source (see `[?]` flag). This is the sole scholion for the whole article; **a2-q2 and a2-q3 render no scholion** (`pro quaest. seq.` convention). `has_scholion: true`.

**Seam dispositions.** p.872 seam: a1-q3 above owns the page and all 7 p.872 footers; this chunk takes only the marker-free Art II opener + Praenotata head. p.874 seam: after this chunk's scholion, QUAESTIO II opens (foot of p.874 L- and R-columns); its footers (p.874 notes 6–7) are left for a2-q2.

**[?] flags:**
- **p.874 note 1 (apparatus entry 12), *transumtum* variant sigla** — **RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** The earlier band was cut at the wrong column split (the old `colcrop.py` default of 1880; p.874 is an even page and its true gutter is at x≈2873 at 600 dpi / ≈2155 at 450 dpi — see `manual-review/vol4-column-gutter-parity.md`). Re-imaged at 600 dpi (PDF p.894), the p.874 left-column footer note 1 reads cleanly and in full: *Vide supra a. 1. q. 1. — Pro transumtum cod. P transumtivum, cod. Q transumtive.* Both sigla are **P** and **Q**; there is no third variant. The supposed second reading *sumtivum* was an artifact of the clipped band — the line breaks *tran-* / *sumtivum*, and the crop lost the *tran-*. The spurious `[al. sumtivum]` has been removed from both the Latin and the English.
- **Scholion II/III numerals** are editorial: the printed scholion numbers only note **I.**; the following bibliographic note (*De his tribus quaestionibus …*) is unnumbered in the source and was split into II/III here to satisfy the three-part rendering. Confirm at 600 dpi whether the source intends a single note I + concluding note, or genuine I/II/III.