title: Dist. 26, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 663 -->

### Quaestio II. *A quo Sacramentum matrimonii fuerit institutum.*

Secundo quaeritur, a quo fuerit Sacramentum matrimonii institutum[^1]. Et quod a Deo, videtur:

1. Per illud Matthaei decimo nono[^2]: *Quod Deus coniunxit, homo non separet*; hoc dicitur de coniunctione, quae est in matrimonio: ergo si ista est a Deo: patet etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur: quia Genesis primo[^3] dixit eis Deus: *Crescite et multiplicamini*; sed illud crementum erat per usum actus matrimonialis: ergo matrimonium fuit a Deo institutum.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *per rationem*: quia, si Sacramenta sunt a voluntate humana; et omne tale est variabile et mutabile, cum Sacramenta sint immutabilia: videtur, quod non solum hoc, sed etiam omnia alia sunt a Deo instituta.

4. Item, Sacramenta, quanto maiora sunt, tanto a maiore instituenda sunt; sed Sacramentum matrimonii est praecipue magnum, sicut dicitur ad Ephesios quinto[^4]: *Sacramentum hoc magnum est*: ergo a maximo Deo, non ab homine institutum fuit.

**Contra:**

1. Institutio matrimonii fuit in illo verbo[^5]: *Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea* etc.; sed istud verbum fuit Adae, non Dei: ergo fuit institutum ab homine, non a Deo.

2. Item, si Sacramentum matrimonii est institutum a Deo; et in his quae sunt a Deo instituta, non potest Ecclesia aliquid mutare nec disponere[^6]: ergo nec circa matrimonium. Sed tota die dispensat quantum ad hoc Sacramentum: ergo etc.

3. Item, non legitur Deum esse locutum de matrimonio, nisi quando dixit[^7]: *Crescite et multiplicamini* etc.; et cum hoc etiam dictum sit bestiis, videtur, quod etiam inter bestias constituit. Sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

4. Item, matrimonium contrahitur per humanum consensum[^8]: ergo est contractus humanus;
<!-- page 664 -->
sed contractus humani sunt instituti ab hominibus: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Sacramentum Matrimonii fuit institutum a Deo, Adam interius illustrante.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod institutio matrimonii est a Deo. — Sed notandum, quod quaedam sunt Sacramenta, quae sunt pure fidei, sicut baptismus et confirmatio et consimilia; quaedam autem non tantum sunt fidei, sed etiam naturalis dictaminis; et talia sunt poenitentia et matrimonium, sed tamen non omnino sunt de dictamine iuris naturalis[^9]. Quae primo modo sunt Deus instituit *mandando*; quae secundo modo instituit *interius illustrando*; et sic instituit matrimonium. Unde ipse non praecepit Adam, quod Evam duceret in uxorem, sed illustravit eum interius, ut intelligeret, eam sibi dandam in uxorem, et omnibus posteris per liberum consensum uxores illo modo coniungi. Unde Adam sic illustratus dixit: *Hoc nunc os* etc., et sicut dicit Magister in littera[^10], prophetice est locutus; et ideo verbum illud non fuit a semetipso, sed a Deo: et ideo institutio huius Sacramenti fuit a Deo.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Et sic patet primum.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tunc Ecclesia nihil mutare potest; dicendum, quod Dominus instituit Sacramentum quoad formam et quoad materiam, quantum illi tempori congruebat, excipiendo solum patrem et matrem[^11]; et quia aliae personae secundum diversa tempora debebant congruere institutioni, de legitimitate personarum reliquit Ecclesiae dispensandum; et circa hanc dispensat Ecclesia.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Dominus non est locutus de matrimonio nisi ibi: *Crescite et multiplicamini*; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo locutus est per Adam, quando Adam, Spiritu sancto illustratus, dixit illud verbum in persona Dei; et hoc patet, quia Matthaei decimo nono[^12] repetit illud ut verbum Dei.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est contractus humanus; dicendum, quod non est *pure* humanus; et hoc patet sic. In matrimonio namque duo sunt: et mutua *obligatio* et obligationis mutuae *indissolubilitas*; et quamvis primum sit *hominis*, secundum est *instituentis*; et ratione illius indissolubilitatis praecipue matrimonium tenet rationem Sacramenti et signi sacri: et ideo non ab homine ortum habet, sed a Deo; et hoc melius patebit infra[^13], quando agetur de insolubilitate matrimonii.

english:
### Question II. *By whom the Sacrament of matrimony was instituted.*

Secondly it is asked, by whom the Sacrament of matrimony was instituted[^1]. And that it was by God, it seems:

1. By that passage of Matthew nineteen[^2]: *What God has joined together, let no man separate*; this is said of the joining which is in matrimony: therefore, if this is from God: it is evident, etc.

2. Likewise, this same thing seems [so]: because in Genesis one[^3] God said to them: *Increase and multiply*; but that increase was through the use of the matrimonial act: therefore matrimony was instituted by God.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by reason*: because, if the Sacraments are from the human will, and everything of that sort is variable and mutable, whereas the Sacraments are immutable, it seems that not only this one, but also all the others are instituted by God.

4. Likewise, the greater the Sacraments are, by so much the greater is he by whom they must be instituted; but the Sacrament of matrimony is especially great, as is said to the Ephesians five[^4]: *This is a great sacrament*: therefore it was instituted by the greatest God, not by man.

**On the contrary:**

1. The institution of matrimony was in that word[^5]: *This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh*, etc.; but that word was Adam's, not God's: therefore it was instituted by man, not by God.

2. Likewise, if the Sacrament of matrimony is instituted by God, and in those things which are instituted by God the Church can change or arrange nothing[^6]: therefore neither concerning matrimony. But all day long it dispenses as regards this Sacrament: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, it is not read that God spoke concerning matrimony, except when he said[^7]: *Increase and multiply*, etc.; and since this was also said to the beasts, it seems that he established it even among the beasts. But this is unfitting: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, matrimony is contracted through human consent[^8]: therefore it is a human contract;
<!-- page 664 -->
but human contracts are instituted by men: therefore, etc.

> **Conclusion.** The Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted by God, Adam being inwardly illumined.

**I respond:** It must be said that the institution of matrimony is from God. — But it must be noted that certain Sacraments are purely of faith, such as baptism and confirmation and the like; but certain ones are not only of faith, but also of the natural dictate; and such are penance and matrimony, yet nevertheless they are not wholly of the dictate of natural law[^9]. Those which are of the first mode God instituted *by commanding*; those which are of the second mode he instituted *by inwardly illumining*; and thus he instituted matrimony. Hence he himself did not command Adam to take Eve as wife, but illumined him inwardly, that he might understand that she was to be given to him as wife, and that for all his descendants wives were to be joined in that manner through free consent. Hence Adam, thus illumined, said: *This now is bone*, etc., and, as the Master says in the text[^10], he spoke prophetically; and therefore that word was not from himself, but from God: and therefore the institution of this Sacrament was from God.

**To the arguments:**

*Ad 1.* And thus the first is evident.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that then the Church can change nothing; it must be said that the Lord instituted the Sacrament as to form and as to matter, so far as befitted that time, excepting only father and mother[^11]; and because other persons according to diverse times had to accord with the institution, he left the legitimacy of persons to be dispensed by the Church; and concerning this the Church dispenses.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that the Lord did not speak concerning matrimony except there: *Increase and multiply*; it must be said that this is false; nay rather, he spoke through Adam, when Adam, illumined by the Holy Spirit, spoke that word in the person of God; and this is evident, because in Matthew nineteen[^12] he repeats it as the word of God.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that it is a human contract; it must be said that it is not *purely* human; and this is evident thus. For in matrimony there are two things: both the mutual *obligation* and the *indissolubility* of the mutual obligation; and although the first is *of man*, the second is *of the one instituting*; and by reason of that indissolubility matrimony especially holds the character of a Sacrament and of a sacred sign: and therefore it has its origin not from man, but from God; and this will appear better below[^13], when the indissolubility of matrimony is treated.

en: See II Sentences, d. 19, aa. 2 and 3. — Above, for *visum* codex U [reads] *visivam*; several codices wrongly substitute *est* for *etc.*, codex A *est supra*. At the end of the solution, for *utrumque* ("both") the editions [read] *unicum* ("single").

la: Vers. 6.

en: [Matthew 19,] verse 6.

la: Vers. 28.

en: [Genesis 1,] verse 28.

la: Vers. 32. — Inferius post *maximo* codd. B R (I a secunda manu) addunt *scilicet*.

en: [Ephesians 5,] verse 32. — Below, after *maximo* codices B R (I by a second hand) add *scilicet* ("namely").

en: Genesis 2:23.

la: Codd. M O S X *dispensare*.

en: Codices M O S X read *dispensare* ("to dispense").

la: Gen. 1, 28. — De bestiis ibid. v. 22. — Post textum Scripturae codd. E W Y prosequuntur: *ergo si Dominus instituit matrimonium, quando dixit: Crescite et multiplicamini etc., cum hoc etc.* Pro *et cum* codd. I K *ergo cum*.

en: Genesis 1:28. — Concerning the beasts, ibid., v. 22. — After the scriptural text, codices E W Y continue: *ergo si Dominus instituit matrimonium, quando dixit: Crescite et multiplicamini etc., cum hoc etc.* ("therefore, if the Lord instituted matrimony when he said: Increase and multiply, etc., since this, etc."). For *et cum* codices I K [read] *ergo cum*.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: As is shown below, d. 27, a. 2, q. 1 and following.

la: Cfr. supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 22. a. 2. q. 1. — Superius pro *sed etiam* plures codd. *quantum etiam*, cod. L *quam etiam*.

en: Cf. above, d. 17, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 22, a. 2, q. 1. — Above, for *sed etiam* ("but also") several codices [read] *quantum etiam*, codex L *quam etiam*.

la: Hic c. 1. Vide etiam II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4-6.

en: Here, c. 1. See also II Sentences, d. 18, a. 1, q. 1, ad 4–6.

la: Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 4: *Prima autem institutio duas tantum personas, id est patrem et matrem, a contractu matrimonii excepit, ubi hominem, ut adhaerere possit uxori suae, patrem et matrem relicturum esse asseruit, dicens* [Gen. 2, 24.]: *Propter hoc relinquet* etc.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. XI, c. 4: *But the first institution excepted only two persons, that is, father and mother, from the contract of matrimony, where it asserted that a man, so that he might cleave to his wife, would leave father and mother, saying* [Genesis 2:24]: *For this reason he shall leave*, etc.

la: Vers. 5. seq.: *Propter hoc dimittet homo* etc. Cfr. infra dub. 2.

en: [Matthew 19,] verse 5 and following: *For this reason a man shall leave*, etc. Cf. below, dub. 2.

la: Dist. 27. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Superius voci *instituentis* cod. L praemittit *Dei*, edd. *tamen*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Distinction 27, a. 3, q. 1 and following. — Above, before the word *instituentis* codex L prefixes *Dei*, the editions *tamen*. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

latin_scholion:
*Vide scholion ad Articulum I, quod totum Articulum I (quaestiones I–III) complectitur et cum quaestione I huius articuli redditur (`bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q1`).*

---

english_scholion:
*See the scholion to Article I, which covers the whole of Article I (Questions I–III) and is rendered with Question I of this article (`bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q1`).*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 71923–72062) with the Quaracchi Vol. IV two-column PDF as the authority for the cascade-shattered objection block and both page footers, read column-band by column-band off `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p66{3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (p663 at split_x 2120, p664 at split_x 2120; offset pdf = printed + 20). Left column top→bottom, then right column, per page.
- **Page span corrected.** The auto-chunker's frontmatter had `printed_pages: [664, 665]`; page-verify shows this quaestio actually runs **663–664**. Its title (QUAESTIO II, garbled `QUAESTIO H.` at raw L71923) + objection block (both columns) and footer notes 1–8 sit at the bottom of **p663** (below Art. I's scholion, which belongs to a1-q1); the Conclusio + Respondeo + Solutio and footer notes 1–5 are on **p664**. The quaestio ends in p664's right column ("...agetur de insolubilitate matrimonii"); QUAESTIO III opens immediately below on the same column. It does **not** reach p665. Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages`/`source` updated to 663–664 / 683–684.
- **Page-footer split.** Page 663's footer notes 1–8 (rendered here as [^1]–[^8]) are wholly this quaestio's objection apparatus; Article I / Quaestio I has its own separate footer block higher on p663 — not claimed here. Page 664's footer notes 1–5 (rendered here as [^9]–[^13]) are this quaestio's Respondeo/Solutio apparatus; page 664's footer notes **6–9** belong to QUAESTIO III (its *fundamenta* about *sub praecepto* / *in paradiso*) — **not** claimed here. Hand-off to the a1-q3 agent: p664 footers 6–9 are yours.
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. Quaracchi prints one scholion for the whole of Articulus I (§§ I–IV, covering all three questions); it is rendered with Question I (`bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q1`). Footnote [^13] itself ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") confirms the scholion bearing on this question is the preceding one's. No q2-anchored scholion text appears; a one-line La+En cross-reference stands in the `### Scholion` slot above.
- **Note-1 anchor.** Page 663 footer note 1 ("Vide II. Sent. d. 19...") is the quaestio's opening cross-reference plus scattered variant remarks; its marker is placed at the end of the opening statement ("...institutum[^1]"), the only position preceding the videtur arguments (whose scripture markers are notes 2–4). Standard Quaracchi opening-note pattern; not flagged.
- **[?] flags.** [^4] codex sigla: the 450 dpi band reads the pair after *maximo* as *B K* while the IA djvu OCR reads *B R*; rendered *B R* (both K and I recur elsewhere in this apparatus, and R is the more common siglum) — a minor unresolved siglum ambiguity, no text affected. No other ambiguities: the PDF bands resolved every OCR cascade-fragment in the objection block and both footers.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 26, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 664 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum institutio matrimonii fuerit sub praecepto.*

Tertio quaeritur, qualiter fuerit institutum matrimonium; et est quaestio, utrum institutio matrimonii fuerit sub praecepto. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per textum Genesis[^1]: quia praeceptum est eis, quod crescerent et multiplicarentur; sed non poterat hoc fieri nisi per coniunctionem maris cum femina; hoc autem est matrimonium: ergo matrimonium fuit institutum sub praecepto.

2. Item, Magister in littera[^2]: «Prima institutio matrimonii habuit praeceptum»; sed prima fuit in paradiso: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia matrimonium ordinatum erat ad conservationem *speciei* quantum ad generativam, et esus lignorum ordinatus erat ad conservationem *individui* quantum ad nutritivam — quia, etsi nunquam moreretur, tamen determinato tempore in aliam vitam transferretur[^3] — sed esus cadebat sub praecepto: ergo et coitus.

4. Item, omnes qui possunt tenentur pro loco et tempore multiplicare prolem spiritualem, revocando scilicet hominem a peccato: ergo cum secundum statum primum multiplicatio corporalis esset coniuncta spirituali[^4], videtur, quod omnes tenebantur, et sic videtur, institutum fuisse matrimonium sub praecepto.

**Contra:**

1. Si fuit institutum sub praecepto,
<!-- page 665 -->
aut ergo illud praeceptum fuit *iuris naturalis*, aut *disciplinae*. Non *disciplinae*, quia unum solum fuit[^5]; non *iuris naturalis*, quia adhuc maneret: ergo nullo modo fuit institutum sub praecepto.

2. Item, semper licitum fuit homini facere quod melius est; sed melius est omnino continere quam coire, quia castitas virginalis est dignior coniugali: ergo licuit non coire nec nubere. Sed non licuisset, si fuisset vel esset sub praecepto: et sic etc.

3. Item, si praeceptum fuit, cum Abel uxorem non habuerit, videtur, quod peccaverit; sed constat, quod hoc est falsum, quia Abel est primus iustorum, sicut testatur Dominus Matthaei vigesimo tertio[^6]: *A sanguine Abel iusti*: ergo etc.

4. Item, ad matrimonium maxime requiritur liber consensus: ergo nullo modo arctari debuit homo per praeceptum.

> **Conclusio.** Prima institutio matrimonii praeceptum habuit affirmativum et fuit de iure naturali, non simpliciter, sed secundum tempus; secunda vero habuit indulgentiam, non praeceptum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod «prima institutio matrimonii praeceptum habuit», sicut dicit Magister; et praeceptum illud fuit *affirmativum* et fuit iuris naturalis. Sed attendendum, quod ius naturale quaedam dictat *simpliciter*, quaedam *secundum tempus*: simpliciter, ut Deum amandum; secundum tempus, ut omnia esse communia[^7]. Dico igitur, quod praeceptum de usu matrimonii fuit naturale *secundo modo*, quia, quamdiu pauci erant, dictabat ius naturale, quod multiplicanda esset proles ad cultum Dei. Sed cessante isto statu, cessavit praeceptum; et ideo secunda institutio tempore legis gratiae habuit indulgentiam, non praeceptum[^8].

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Et ex hoc patet primo obiectum.

*Ad 2.* Ad secundum dicendum, quod nec tempore legis naturae institutae nec etiam corruptae in statu primo perfectius fuit continere quam nubere: primo quidem, quia non erat ibi pruritus nec turpitudo aliqua; secundo vero, quia erat obedientiae meritum; unde caelibatus Ioannis non praefertur coniugio Abrahae[^9].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Abel, dicendum, quod illud erat praeceptum affirmativum, et ideo non obligabat *ad semper*, sed *pro loco et tempore*; et ideo non peccavit, quia nondum senuerat.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de libertate consensus, dicendum, quod sicut praeceptum non aufert *motum caritatis*, qui motus maxime gratuitus et liberalis est; sic non aufert *libertatem consensus* nec diminuit[^10]. *Praeterea*, quamvis Dominus praeciperet contractionem matrimonii cum aliqua, tamen, utrum cum hac quis contraheret, vel cum alia, reliquit in mera libertate contrahentis[^11].

english:
### Question III. *Whether the institution of marriage was under a precept.*

Thirdly it is asked in what manner marriage was instituted; and the question is whether the institution of marriage was under a precept. And that it was so, it seems:

1. By the text of Genesis[^1]: because it was commanded to them that they should increase and multiply; but this could not be done except through the joining of male with female; and this is matrimony: therefore matrimony was instituted under a precept.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text[^2]: «The first institution of matrimony had a precept»; but the first was in paradise: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because matrimony was ordered to the conservation of the *species* as regards the generative [power], and the eating of the trees was ordered to the conservation of the *individual* as regards the nutritive [power] — because, even if he were never to die, nevertheless at a determined time he would be transferred into another life[^3] — but eating fell under a precept: therefore also intercourse.

4. Likewise, all who are able are bound, according to place and time, to multiply spiritual offspring, namely by recalling man from sin: therefore, since according to the first state bodily multiplication was joined to the spiritual[^4], it seems that all were bound, and thus it seems that matrimony was instituted under a precept.

**On the contrary:**

1. If it was instituted under a precept,
<!-- page 665 -->
then either that precept was *of natural law* or *of discipline*. Not *of discipline*, because there was only one[^5]; not *of natural law*, because it would still remain: therefore in no way was it instituted under a precept.

2. Likewise, it was always lawful for man to do what is better; but it is better to abstain entirely than to have intercourse, because virginal chastity is more worthy than conjugal: therefore it was lawful not to have intercourse nor to marry. But it would not have been lawful, if it had been or were under a precept: and so, etc.

3. Likewise, if there was a precept, since Abel did not have a wife, it seems that he sinned; but it is established that this is false, because Abel is the first of the just, as the Lord testifies in Matthew twenty-three[^6]: *From the blood of Abel the just*: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, for matrimony free consent is especially required: therefore in no way ought man to have been constrained by a precept.

> **Conclusio.** The first institution of matrimony had an affirmative precept and was of natural law, not absolutely, but according to the time; but the second had indulgence, not a precept.

**I respond:** It must be said that «the first institution of matrimony had a precept», as the Master says; and that precept was *affirmative* and was of natural law. But it must be noted that natural law dictates certain things *absolutely*, certain things *according to the time*: absolutely, as that God is to be loved; according to the time, as that all things be common[^7]. I say therefore that the precept concerning the use of matrimony was natural in the *second mode*, because, as long as men were few, natural law dictated that offspring should be multiplied for the worship of God. But when that state ceased, the precept ceased; and therefore the second institution, in the time of the law of grace, had indulgence, not a precept[^8].

**To the arguments:**

*Ad 1.* And from this the first objection is evident.

*Ad 2.* To the second it must be said that neither in the time of the law of nature instituted nor even corrupted was it more perfect in the first state to abstain than to marry: first indeed, because there was there no prurience nor any baseness; secondly, because there was the merit of obedience; hence the celibacy of John is not preferred to the marriage of Abraham[^9].

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected concerning Abel, it must be said that that was an affirmative precept, and therefore did not oblige *for always*, but *according to place and time*; and therefore he did not sin, because he had not yet grown old.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected concerning the freedom of consent, it must be said that, just as a precept does not take away the *motion of charity*, which motion is most gratuitous and liberal; so it does not take away the *freedom of consent* nor diminish it[^10]. *Moreover*, although the Lord commanded the contracting of matrimony with some [woman], nevertheless, whether one should contract with this one or with another, he left to the mere freedom of the one contracting[^11].

la: Cap. 1, 28. — Inferius pro *hoc autem* Vat. *haec autem coniunctio legitime facta*.

en: [Genesis] chapter 1, [verse] 28. — Below, for *hoc autem* ("but this") the Vatican edition [reads] *haec autem coniunctio legitime facta* ("but this joining lawfully made").

la: Hic c. 3. — Post *in paradiso* Vat. addit: *et ibi data fuit sub praecepto*.

en: Here, c. 3. — After *in paradiso* ("in paradise") the Vatican edition adds: *et ibi data fuit sub praecepto* ("and there it was given under a precept").

la: Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 3. — Praeceptum edendi insinuatur Gen. 2, 16: *Ex omni ligno paradisi comede*. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 20. dub. 7. — Verbis *ad generativam* cod. E interserit *vim*.

en: Cf. II Sentences, text of the Master, d. XX, c. 3. — The precept of eating is intimated in Genesis 2:16: *Eat of every tree of paradise*. Cf. II Sentences, d. 19, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4, and d. 20, dub. 7. — In the words *ad generativam* codex E inserts *vim* ("power").

la: Quia secundum Anselm., de Conceptu virgin. et orig. peccat. c. 10. et 24, geniti heredes fuissent originalis iustitiae; secundum Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 24, fuissent «sine peccato quidem... sed non similiter paternae iustitiae heredes» (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 90. m. 1, et S. Bonav., II. Sent. d. 33. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.).

en: Because according to Anselm, *On the Conception of the Virgin and Original Sin*, cc. 10 and 24, those begotten would have been heirs of original justice; according to Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, p. VI, c. 24, they would have been «without sin indeed... but not likewise heirs of the paternal justice» (cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. II, q. 90, m. 1, and St. Bonaventure, II Sentences, d. 33, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1).

la: Quod continetur Gen. 2, 17: *De ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas*. Hoc praeceptum vocatur ab Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 29, praeceptum *disciplinae* (cfr. II. Sent. d. 20. dub. 7.), pro quo edd. bis *positivi* substituunt.

en: Which is contained in Genesis 2:17: *But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat*. This precept is called by Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, p. VI, c. 29, a precept *of discipline* (cf. II Sentences, d. 20, dub. 7), for which the editions twice substitute *positivi* ("positive").

la: Vers. 35. Cfr. supra pag. 184, nota 8, August., Enarrat. in Ps. 142. n. 3, et XV. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. n. 2.

en: [Matthew 23,] verse 35. Cf. above, p. 184, note 8; Augustine, *Enarrations on the Psalms*, on Ps. 142, n. 3, and *On the City of God* XV, c. 1, n. 2.

la: Secundum Isidor., V. Etymolog. c. 4, ad ius naturale pertinet «communis omnium possessio»; quae sententia ab Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 27. m. 4. a. 1. § 1. et a. 3. § 4, ita explicatur, quod omnia communia sint tempore status *naturae bene institutae*, non *naturae lapsae* nisi in casu necessitatis. Cfr. Glossa in C. *Ius naturale* (7.), d. 1.

en: According to Isidore, *Etymologies* V, c. 4, to natural law belongs «the common possession of all»; which opinion is explained by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 27, m. 4, a. 1, § 1, and a. 3, § 4, thus, that all things are common in the time of the state *of nature well instituted*, not *of nature fallen*, except in a case of necessity. Cf. the Gloss on the canon *Ius naturale* (7), d. 1.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Respiciuntur verba August. infra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 2, allata. — Cod. K addit: *in secundo statu est e converso propter contrarias causas*. Superius pro *turpitudo* cod. F *libido*.

en: There is reference to the words of Augustine adduced below in the text of the Master, d. XXXIII, c. 2. — Codex K adds: *in secundo statu est e converso propter contrarias causas* ("in the second state it is the reverse, on account of contrary causes"). Above, for *turpitudo* ("baseness") codex F [reads] *libido* ("lust").

la: Ita codd. F G L O (bb a secunda manu), alii codd. et edd. *dirimit*. Subinde pro *Praeterea* plures codd. *primo*, cod. K *quia*, edd. *ideo*.

en: Thus [read] codices F G L O (bb by a second hand); other codices and the editions [read] *dirimit* ("destroys"). Then, for *Praeterea* ("moreover") several codices [read] *primo* ("first"), codex K *quia* ("because"), the editions *ideo* ("therefore").

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

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 72063–72172) with the Quaracchi Vol. IV two-column PDF as the authority for the cascade-shattered *fundamenta*, Contra block, Respondeo, Solutio, and both page footers, read column-band by column-band off `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p66{4,5}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 20). p665 regenerated at split_x 1780 to capture the right-column footer (notes 5–7 mine). Left column top→bottom, then right column, per page.
- **Page span corrected.** The auto-chunker's frontmatter had `printed_pages: [665, 666]`; page-verify shows this quaestio runs **664–665**. QUAESTIO III opens full-width (header + title centered across both columns, hence clipped into both L and R bands) at the bottom of **p664**, below a1-q2's Respondeo/Solutio; its opener + *fundamenta* 1–4 fill the rest of p664 (left column into right column), and Contra 1 begins at the foot of p664's right column ("Si fuit institutum sub praecepto,"). The Contra continuation (1–4) + Conclusio + Respondeo + Solutio (1–4) are on **p665**; the quaestio ends in p665's right column ("...reliquit in mera libertate contrahentis"), immediately above ARTICULUS II. It does **not** reach p666. Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages`/`source` updated to 664–665 / 684–685.
- **Page-footer split.** Page 664's footer notes **6–9** (rendered here as [^1]–[^4]) are this quaestio's *fundamenta* apparatus — picked up from the a1-q2 hand-off (its p664 footer notes 1–5 are a1-q2's Respondeo apparatus, not claimed here). Page 665's footer notes **1–7** (rendered here as [^5]–[^11]) are this quaestio's Contra/Respondeo/Solutio apparatus; page 665's footer note **8** ("Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2...") belongs to ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO I (its opening *Hugo* citation) — **not** claimed here. Hand-off to the a2-q1 agent: p665 footer note 8 is yours.
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. Quaracchi prints one scholion for the whole of Articulus I (covering all three questions); it is rendered with Question I (`bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q1`). Footnote [^11] itself ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.") confirms the scholion bearing on this question is Question I's. A one-line La+En cross-reference stands in the `### Scholion` slot above.
- **[?] flags.** None. The 450 dpi PDF bands resolved every OCR cascade-fragment in the body and both footers; footnote [^10]'s codex sigla (F G L O; bb second hand) and [^9]'s Cod. K reading were read directly from the p665 right-column footer band (regenerated at split_x 1780).

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. 26, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 665 -->

### ARTICULUS II.
### *De matrimonii integritate.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur *de matrimonii integritate*, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur de integritate quantum ad *significationem*. Secundo, quantum ad *causalitatem*. Tertio, quantum ad *utrumque*.

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Quid sit in matrimonio signum, et quid signatum.*

Quaeritur igitur primo, quid sit in Sacramento matrimonii *signum*, et quid *signatum*.

1. Et cum signum in Sacramentis sit *elementum*, sicut dicit Hugo[^p665-8], quod «Sacramentum est elementum etc. ex similitudine repraesentans»; et cum hic nullum sit elementum, non videtur habere significationem Sacramenti. *Si dicas* mihi, quod vir et mulier se habent in ratione elementi; *contra*:
<!-- page 666 -->
differt elementum ab eo qui suscipit Sacramentum: ergo si viri et mulieris est Sacramentum illud ut *susceptivum*, non ergo ut *figurativum*.

2. Item, sicut appropinquavit tempus veritatis, debuerunt signa Sacramentorum evidentiora esse[^p666-1]: cum ergo vir et mulier fuerint semper materia huius Sacramenti, videtur, quod in nova lege non sunt materia sive elementum. — *Si dicas*, quod *verbum*, quo exprimitur consensus, est elementum; *contra* hoc est, quod istud semper fuit opportunum. — *Si dicas*, quod addita est *benedictio* anuli et nuptiarum; hoc nihil est, quia haec non sunt de substantia Sacramenti.

Item quaero, quid sit *signatum* in hoc Sacramento; et videtur Apostolus dicere ad Ephesios quinto[^p666-2], quod *coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae*, ubi ait: *Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia.*

3. Sed si homo non peccasset, Christus incarnatus non esset, secundum communiorem et probabiliorem opinionem[^p666-3]; et nihilominus magnum fuisset Sacramentum: ergo non tantum coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae est signatum.

4. Item, si significat *coniunctionem fidelis animae* cum Deo; sed haec est separabilis et solubilis: ergo et matrimonium. Si *utrumque*; tunc ergo, cum duplex sit coniunctio, et una sine alia, videtur ergo, quod istud Sacramentum non sit unum, sed plura.

5. Item, cum in aliis Sacramentis sit aliquid, quod est *res tantum*, aliquid, quod est *signum tantum*, aliquid, quod est *res et signum*[^p666-4]; quaero, utrum illud sit in hoc; et si est, quaero, quid sit illud. *Si dicas*, quod *consensus exterior* est signum, *interior* res et signum, *unio Christi et Ecclesiae* res tantum; *obiicitur*: quia, sicut ordinantur secundum causalitatem, sic ordinantur secundum significationem: ergo si primum non est causa secundi, sed magis e converso: patet etc.

### CONCLUSIO.

> *In matrimonio signum principale est verbum, vel nutus exprimens consensum et ut annexum copula carnalis; signatum vero principale est duplex coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut in aliis Sacramentis aliquid est, quod est *res tantum*, aliquid, quod est *signum tantum*, aliquid, quod est *res et signum*; sic et in matrimonio. Et hoc est in omnibus Sacramentis generale, differt tamen in modo comparandi, et hoc, quia quaedam Sacramenta sunt *totaliter ab institutione*, quaedam sunt *partim a naturae dictamine, partim ab institutione*. Illa sunt totaliter ab institutione, quorum usus respicit ea quae sunt fidei pure, ut baptismus et eucharistia; et ista habent signa significantia secundum *institutionem interius et exterius*; et ideo talia habent elementa convenientia, instituta et exterius adhibita; et in talibus verum est, quod signa ista evidentiora fiunt secundum appropinquationem veritatis; et in talibus verum est, quod primum signum est *causa secundi*, et secundum quodam modo *causa tertii*, ut patet in baptismo[^p666-5]. — Sunt et alia, quae quodam modo *ab instinctu naturae* sunt — ut *matrimonium*, in quo est maris et feminae coniunctio; et *poenitentia*, in qua est offensae emendatio — *partim a fide*, scilicet quod illa coniunctio significet coniunctionem Dei et animae, et illa emendatio faciat reconciliationem Dei cum anima. Et talia quidem suam *primam institutionem* habuerunt in paradiso, matrimonium autem magis. Et quia quodam modo sunt *a natura*; et *in statu naturae* non debebat homo subdi elemento[^p666-6]: ideo non fiunt in *elemento extra sensibili*; habent tamen *exterius signum*, quod quidem significat interiorem coniunctionem per naturam suae *significationis*, sicut *verbum*, vel *nutus*, et *aliud additum*, quod significat naturaliter consensum interiorem animorum, scilicet copula carnalis; secundum quod significat coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae, vel Dei et animae, et hoc est secundum *fidem et institutionem*. Est enim *habile per naturam* et *significat per institutionem*, quia unus est mas et significat Christum, alius autem femina et significat animam[^p666-7].

Et ex hoc patet responsio ad primum, quid sit hic signum, quia *primo et principaliter* est *verbum*, vel *nutus*, in quo exprimitur consensus; ut *annexum* est distinctio sexuum.

1. 2. Patet etiam, quare non habet *elementum*, sicut alia Sacramenta. — Patet etiam, quare signum non *crevit in evidentia*, quia non erat omnino secundum institutionem; ideo immutabile est quantum ad *ipsum significans*, augmentum tamen est in *evidentia significandi*, quia certius nunc scitur, quid significat matrimonium, quam ante sciretur.
<!-- page 667 -->
Ad illud quod quaeritur, quid sit ibi *signatum*; dicendum, quod unum est signatum *principale*, scilicet coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae; et quia ista coniunctio est dupliciter, scilicet per *caritatem* et per *naturae conformitatem*, dupliciter in hoc Sacramento significatur: prima per consensum animorum, secunda per commixtionem sexuum[^p667-1].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, si homo non esset lapsus etc.; dicendum, quod adhuc significasset unionem Christi sive Dei cum Ecclesia, licet non ita expresse, et coniunctionem cum fideli anima; sed tamen Dominus praeviderat, ita futurum esse, et ideo sic instituerat. Si tamen homo non peccasset, Sacramentum a significatione vacuum non esset[^p667-2].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod primum non est causa secundi; dicendum, quod ubi est significatio secundum institutionem, primum potest esse causa secundi; sed ubi per naturam, secundum, quod est interius, est causa exterioris, quia effectus exterior signum est causae interioris, ut verbum consentiendi interioris consensus est signum, sicut in poenitentia visum est[^p667-3].

english:
### Article II.
### *On the integrity of matrimony.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made *concerning the integrity of matrimony*, and about this three questions are asked. First it is asked concerning integrity as regards *signification*. Second, as regards *causality*. Third, as regards *both*.

### Question I.
### *What in marriage is the sign, and what is signified.*

It is asked therefore first, what in the Sacrament of matrimony is the *sign*, and what the *thing signified*.

1. And since in the Sacraments the sign is an *element*, as Hugh says[^p665-8], that «a Sacrament is an element etc. representing by a likeness»; and since here there is no element, it does not seem to have the signification of a Sacrament. *If you say* to me, that man and woman stand in the character of an element; *on the contrary*:
an element differs from him who receives the Sacrament: therefore if that Sacrament belongs to man and woman as *receptive*, then not as *figurative*.

2. Likewise, as the time of truth drew near, the signs of the Sacraments ought to have been more evident[^p666-1]: since therefore man and woman have always been the matter of this Sacrament, it seems that in the new law they are not the matter or element. — *If you say* that the *word*, by which consent is expressed, is the element; *against* this is that this was always fitting. — *If you say* that the *blessing* of the ring and of the nuptials has been added; this is nothing, because these are not of the substance of the Sacrament.

Likewise I ask, what is the *thing signified* in this Sacrament; and the Apostle seems to say to the Ephesians, chapter five[^p666-2], that [it is] *the conjunction of Christ and the Church*, where he says: *This is a great Sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.*

3. But if man had not sinned, Christ would not have been incarnate, according to the more common and more probable opinion[^p666-3]; and nonetheless it would have been a great Sacrament: therefore not only the conjunction of Christ and the Church is the thing signified.

4. Likewise, if it signifies *the conjunction of the faithful soul* with God; but this is separable and dissoluble: therefore also marriage [is]. If [it signifies] *both*; then therefore, since the conjunction is twofold, and one [is] without the other, it seems therefore that this Sacrament is not one, but many.

5. Likewise, since in the other Sacraments there is something which is *thing only*, something which is *sign only*, something which is *thing and sign*[^p666-4]; I ask whether that is in this [Sacrament]; and if it is, I ask what it is. *If you say* that the *outward consent* is the sign, the *inward* [consent] the thing and sign, the *union of Christ and the Church* the thing only; *it is objected*: because, just as they are ordered according to causality, so they are ordered according to signification: therefore if the first is not the cause of the second, but rather the reverse: it is evident etc.

### Conclusion.

> *In marriage the principal sign is the word, or the nod expressing consent, and as annexed the carnal union; but the principal thing signified is the twofold conjunction of Christ and the Church.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as in the other Sacraments there is something which is *thing only*, something which is *sign only*, something which is *thing and sign*, so too in marriage. And this is general in all the Sacraments, yet it differs in the manner of comparison, and this because certain Sacraments are *wholly from institution*, certain are *partly from the dictate of nature, partly from institution*. Those are wholly from institution whose use regards the things that are of faith purely, as baptism and the eucharist; and these have signs signifying according to *institution, inwardly and outwardly*; and therefore such [Sacraments] have suitable elements, instituted and outwardly applied; and in such it is true that these signs become more evident according to the approach of the truth; and in such it is true that the first sign is the *cause of the second*, and the second in a certain manner the *cause of the third*, as is evident in baptism[^p666-5]. — There are also others which in a certain manner are *from the instinct of nature* — such as *matrimony*, in which there is the conjunction of male and female; and *penance*, in which there is the amendment of an offense — *partly from faith*, namely that that conjunction should signify the conjunction of God and the soul, and that amendment should effect the reconciliation of God with the soul. And such [Sacraments] indeed had their *first institution* in paradise, but matrimony more [so]. And because in a certain manner they are *from nature*; and *in the state of nature* man ought not to be made subject to an element[^p666-6]: therefore they do not come about in an *outward sensible element*; yet they have an *outward sign*, which indeed signifies the inner conjunction by the nature of its *signification*, like a *word*, or a *nod*, and *another added thing* which naturally signifies the inner consent of minds, namely the carnal union; according to which it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church, or of God and the soul, and this is according to *faith and institution*. For it is *apt by nature* and *signifies by institution*, because the one is male and signifies Christ, the other female and signifies the soul[^p666-7].

And from this the answer to the first [point] is evident, what the sign is here, because *first and principally* it is the *word*, or the *nod*, in which consent is expressed; while as *annexed* [there] is the distinction of the sexes.

1. 2. It is also evident why it does not have an *element*, as the other Sacraments [do]. — It is also evident why the sign did not *grow in evidentness*, because it was not wholly according to institution; therefore it is unchangeable as regards *the signifying [element] itself*, yet there is an increase in the *evidentness of signifying*, because it is now more certainly known what marriage signifies than was known before.

To that which is asked, what is *the thing signified* there; it must be said that there is one *principal* thing signified, namely the conjunction of Christ and the Church; and because this conjunction is twofold, namely through *charity* and through *conformity of nature*, it is signified in a twofold way in this Sacrament: the first through the consent of minds, the second through the mingling of the sexes[^p667-1].

3. To that which is objected, if man had not fallen etc.; it must be said that it would still have signified the union of Christ or of God with the Church, though not so expressly, and the conjunction with the faithful soul; but nevertheless the Lord had foreseen that it would be so, and therefore had so instituted [it]. Yet even if man had not sinned, the Sacrament would not have been empty of signification[^p667-2].

5. To that which is objected, that the first is not the cause of the second; it must be said that where there is signification according to institution, the first can be the cause of the second; but where [it is] by nature, the second, which is inward, is the cause of the outward, because the outward effect is the sign of the inward cause, as the word of consenting is the sign of the inward consent, as was seen in penance[^p667-3].

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2. Cfr. supra pag. 13, nota 2. — Inferius post *nullum sit elementum* edd. addunt: *quod hic nullum sit Sacramentum, et si nullum Sacramentum videtur.* In fine arg. pro *susceptivum* codd. MO *suscipientium*, et pro *non ergo ut* permulti codd. perperam *omnino ergo ut*, codd. IK legunt: *omnino ergo erit infigurativum.*

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] *On the Sacraments*, Book I, part IX, c. 2. Cf. above, p. 13, note 2. — Below, after *nullum sit elementum* the editions add: *quod hic nullum sit Sacramentum, et si nullum Sacramentum videtur* (that here there is no Sacrament, and if there is no Sacrament it seems). At the end of the argument, for *susceptivum* codices MO [read] *suscipientium*, and for *non ergo ut* very many codices wrongly [read] *omnino ergo ut*, codices IK read: *omnino ergo erit infigurativum.*

la: Cod. aa addit: *sicut dicit Hugo*, cuius verba habentur supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1. Edd.: *Item, sicut in nova lege appropinquavit veritas, ita novae legis tempore, scilicet veritatis, debuerunt... evidentia esse.*

en: Codex aa adds: *sicut dicit Hugo* (as Hugh says), whose words are given above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 2, fundam. 1. The editions [read]: *Item, sicut in nova lege appropinquavit veritas, ita novae legis tempore, scilicet veritatis, debuerunt... evidentia esse* (Likewise, as in the new law the truth drew near, so in the time of the new law, namely of the truth, [the signs] ought... to be evident).

la: Vers. 32.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 2.

en: See Bk. III Sent., d. 1, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. De eucharistia cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See above, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1. On the eucharist cf. above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 5, et Comment. p. I. q. 1. — De institutione *poenitentiae* vide supra d. 22. a. 2. q. 1, et *matrimonii*, hic a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Codd. RX *instinctu naturae* pro *in statu naturae* (Vat. addit *institutae*). Superius post *magis* sola Vat. addit *aperte*. Inferius pro *vel nutus* plurimi codd. et ed. 1 perperam *vel virtus* (idem recurrit aliquanto inferius), et pro *aliud additum* pauci codd. et ed. 1 *illud additum*, cod. G *aliquid additum*, Vat. *illud additur.*

en: Cf. above, the Master's text, d. I, c. 5, and the Commentary, p. I, q. 1. — On the institution of *penance* see above, d. 22, a. 2, q. 1, and of *matrimony*, here a. 1, q. 1 and following. — Codices RX [read] *instinctu naturae* for *in statu naturae* (the Vatican [ed.] adds *institutae*). Above, after *magis* the Vatican [ed.] alone adds *aperte*. Below, for *vel nutus* very many codices and ed. 1 wrongly [read] *vel virtus* (the same recurs somewhat below), and for *aliud additum* a few codices and ed. 1 [read] *illud additum*, codex G *aliquid additum*, the Vatican [ed.] *illud additur.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — De *habilitate per naturam* etc. cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. — Paulo superius pro *quia unus* plures codd. *vel quia, sicut unus*, vel *sicut, quia unus*, codd. EY *quia sicut quod unus*, codd. IK *quia autem unus*. Subinde pro *alius [homo] autem femina* codd. FGL *alius est femina.*

en: See here the Master's text, c. 6. — On *aptitude by nature* etc. cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 5. — A little above, for *quia unus* several codices [read] *vel quia, sicut unus*, or *sicut, quia unus*, codices EY *quia sicut quod unus*, codices IK *quia autem unus*. Then, for *alius [homo] autem femina* codices FGL [read] *alius est femina.*

la: Ut insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: As is intimated here in the Master's text, c. 6.

la: Explicatur III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 2. ad 8. — Superius pro *licet non ita expresse, et*, quod praebet cod. I, alii codd. et edd. perperam *licet non expresse* (secunda manus in cod. E bene sensum exprimit addendo *quia*, in cod. bb *sicut*).

en: Explained in Bk. III Sent., d. 1, a. 2, q. 2, ad 8. — Above, for *licet non ita expresse, et* (which codex I offers), the other codices and editions wrongly [read] *licet non expresse* (a second hand in codex E well expresses the sense by adding *quia*, in codex bb *sicut*).

la: Dist. 22. a. 2. q. 2. — Post *consentiendi* edd. addunt *exterius*, cod. Z *exterioris*. Superius verbis *secundum, quod* codd. FLW interserunt *et.*

en: D. 22, a. 2, q. 2. — After *consentiendi* the editions add *exterius*, codex Z *exterioris*. Above, in the words *secundum, quod* codices FLW insert *et.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De 1. quaestione cfr. infra d. 27. a. 1. q. 1, a. 2. q. 1. Eandem doctrinam alii Scholastici profitentur in quaestione, utrum matrimonium sit Sacramentum. De eadem quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 14. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 42. a. 1. — B. Albert., de hac et seqq. qq. hic a. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 3; Diony. Carth., hic q. 2.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem dicit Durand. (loc. cit.), quod aliter opinentur theologi, aliter iuristae, quibus tribuit opinionem 1. hic relatam, quod scilicet matrimonium non conferat gratiam; et quod hic defectus sit ratio, quare in pacto eiusdem intervenire possit pecunia (cfr. solut. ad 4.). Pro hac falsa opinione ille citat «Gaufredum in sua Summa tit. de Sacramentis non iterandis» et «Ostiensem in Summa» (eodem tit.). Auctoritate nixus canonistarum, quorum aliqui fuerint cardinales vel praelati, «quorum est specialiter scire, quid Ecclesia Romana praedicat et observat», Durand., refragantibus aliis Scholasticis, illam opinionem tenet tanquam *veram*. Sed a Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 1.) ut haeretici reprobantur qui dicunt, «matrimonium non esse vere et proprie unum ex septem legis evangelicae Sacramentis, a Christo Domino institutum, sed ab hominibus in Ecclesia inventum, neque gratiam conferre». — A S. Thoma et Petro a Tar. affertur etiam alia opinio quae ipsi matrimonio novae legis illum tantum effectum tribuit, quem S. Bonav. matrimoniis ante Christum vindicat, scilicet quod declinet a malo excusando actum coniugalem.

De 2. quaestione: Scot. loc. cit. n. 14. 15[?]. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Suppl. q. 42. a. 3; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 78. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.

**III.** Conclusio quaestionis 3. a theologis auctori coaevis communiter approbantur. Magister tamen (hic c. 6.) refert aliam opinionem, ortam ex quibusdam locis Patrum vel depravatis, vel male intellectis, ut pag. 660, nota 3. observatum est. Eadem opinio singularis iterum nuper invenit quendam defensorem. Cfr. infra d. 27. dub. 5.

De eadem: Scot., in utroque Scripto infra d. 30. q. 2. — S. Thom., locc. citt. a. 4; Suppl. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 15. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On the 1st question cf. below, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1. The same doctrine other Scholastics profess under the question, whether marriage is a Sacrament. On the same question: Scotus, here q. unica, n. 14. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; Suppl. q. 42, a. 1. — B. Albert, on this and the following questions, here a. 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1. — On this and the 2 following questions, Durandus, here q. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

**II.** As to the 2nd question, Durandus (loc. cit.) says that theologians hold one opinion, jurists another, to whom he attributes the opinion related here as the 1st, namely that marriage does not confer grace; and that this defect is the reason why money can intervene in the pact of the same (cf. the solution to [obj.] 4). For this false opinion he cites «Gaufredus in his Summa, title on Sacraments not to be repeated» and «the Ostian in [his] Summa» (same title). Relying on the authority of the canonists, some of whom were cardinals or prelates, «whose special office it is to know what the Roman Church preaches and observes», Durandus, against the other Scholastics, holds that opinion as *true*. But by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, can. 1) those are reproved as heretics who say «that marriage is not truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, but was devised by men in the Church, and does not confer grace». — By St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise there is also brought forward another opinion which attributes to marriage of the new law itself only that effect which St. Bonaventure claims for marriages before Christ, namely that it turns [one] away from evil by excusing the conjugal act.

On the 2nd question: Scotus, loc. cit., nn. 14, 15[?]. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Suppl. q. 42, a. 3; *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 78. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 2.

**III.** The conclusion of the 3rd question is commonly approved by the theologians contemporary with the author. The Master, however (here c. 6), reports another opinion, arisen from certain passages of the Fathers either corrupted or ill understood, as was noted on p. 660, note 3. This singular opinion has again lately found a certain defender. Cf. below, d. 27, dub. 5.

On the same: Scotus, in both Writings, below, d. 30, q. 2. — St. Thomas, locc. citt., a. 4; Suppl. a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 15. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit., q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 665–667 (PDF pp. 685–687; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 72173–72382) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The auto-chunk skeleton's fenced OCR is cascade-shattered (two-column diagonal bleed), so the bands are authoritative throughout. The default `colcrop.py` bands (`split_x=1660`/`1880`) clip Vol IV's skewed gutter; bands were regenerated at **`split_x=2120` for the left column and `split_x=1780` for the right**. Reading order per page: full left column (bands 0–2) top→bottom, then full right column, then the two-part footer. Marginal side-glosses (*De 2. quaestione*, *Ad oppositum*, *Duplex signatum*, *Duplex...*, *Nota*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio positorum*, *Notandum*) were trimmed as editorial marginalia; `CONCLUSIO`, `RESPONDEO`, and `SCHOLION` are retained as genuine section markers.

**Title correction.** The skeleton frontmatter carried `title_la: "Quid sit matrimonium"` (the task's provisional label). The band shows Article II is *De matrimonii integritate* and its **Quaestio I** is titled **_Quid sit in matrimonio signum, et quid signatum_** (what in marriage is the sign, and what is signified) — verified from both the centered quaestio title (p. 665, spanning) and the page-665/667 running-head title band. `title_la`/`title_en` corrected accordingly.

**Page-span correction.** The skeleton listed printed pp. 666–668 / PDF 686–688. Page-verify against running heads and the QUAESTIO II boundary shows the quaestio actually **begins at the bottom of p. 665** (the ARTICULUS II opener + QUAESTIO I title + arg. 1 through *«...sicut dicit Hugo, quod Sacramentum est ele-»* sit in the two-column foot of p. 665) and **ends on p. 667** (Respondeo tail + the Article II SCHOLION), with QUAESTIO II beginning lower on p. 667. Frontmatter corrected to `printed_pages: [665, 666, 667]` / `pdf_pages: [685, 686, 687]`. The seam p.665→666 is grammatically continuous (*…se habent in ratione elementi; contra:* | *differt elementum ab eo qui suscipit Sacramentum…*); the seam p.666→667 is continuous (*…quam ante sciretur.* | *Ad illud quod quaeritur, quid sit ibi signatum…*).

**Chunking convention.** Per the locked Vol II/IV convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener (*Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de matrimonii integritate… Primo… quantum ad significationem; Secundo, quantum ad causalitatem; Tertio, quantum ad utrumque*) is folded into this article's q1 — no standalone article-opener chunk. Opener alignment verified: the article lists three questions by *significationem / causalitatem / utrumque*, and this q1 (*significatio* — the sign/signified) correctly opens *Quaeritur igitur primo, quid sit in Sacramento matrimonii signum, et quid signatum*. No q-swap.

**Scholion disposition — this is the Article II scholion (owned here).** Its header glyph OCR-garbles to `SCHOLIOK`; on the band it reads cleanly `SCHOLION` (centered, p. 667, spanning both columns), located at raw ~L72344. Placed **last** in each language block per the parser gotcha. It has **three numbered sections and covers all three questions of Article II**, with a doctor-register appended after §§ II and III: **§ I** → **q. 1** (whether marriage is a Sacrament / where the *quid signatum* doctrine is treated) + its doctor register; **§ II** → **q. 2** (Durandus on grace/*causalitas*, the Trent Sess. XXIV can. 1 anathema, the Thomas/Tarentaise alternative) + its *De 2. quaestione* register; **§ III** → **q. 3** (the conclusion of q. 3 as commonly approved; the Master's variant opinion) + its *De eadem* register. It carries no keyed `[^N]` markers (unkeyed editorial prose). `has_scholion: true` set.

**Apparatus count: 11 footnotes** — p. 665 note 8 (1), p. 666 notes 1–7 (7), p. 667 notes 1–3 (3). Per-page numbering restarts (Quaracchi convention), so markers are page-prefixed. **Shared-page splits:** on p. 665 the footer's **notes 1–7 belong to the preceding chunk `bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q3`** (annotating the tail of a.1 q.3 — Gen. 2:17 / Isidore *ius naturale* / *communis omnium possessio* / *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.*); only note 8 (Hugh, *de Sacram.* p. IX c. 2) is this quaestio's. On p. 667 the footer's **notes 4–7 belong to the next chunk `bon-sent-IV-d26-a2-q2`** (QUAESTIO II's opening args); only notes 1–3 (Respondeo tail) are this quaestio's. Verify both seams when those chunks are promoted.

**[?] flags:**
- **Scholion § II doctor-register, `De 2. quaestione: Scot. loc. cit. n. 14. 15[?]`** — the first Scotus number in the *De 2. quaestione* register is ambiguous on the band (reads as `11` or `14`; the IA OCR garbles it `M`). Given § I's clearly-legible `Scot., hic q. unica n. 14`, `loc. cit. n. 14. 15` is the most probable reading, but the leading digit is not certain. Rendered `n. 14. 15[?]` in both languages; not doctrinally load-bearing (a doctor-citation register).
- **Respondeo-to-*signatum* reply (p. 667), marginal reply-number `2.`** — a bare `2.` sits in the gloss margin against *Ad illud quod quaeritur, quid sit ibi signatum; dicendum…*. Treated as an editorial marginal reply-tally (like the trimmed side-glosses) and not rendered inline; the reply itself is kept whole. Flagged for the record, not doctrinally load-bearing.


title: Dist. 26, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 667 -->

### Quaestio II. *Quid sit in hoc Sacramento causans, et quid causatum.*

Secundo quaeritur, quid sit in hoc Sacramento causans, et quid causatum. Et quod aliquid efficiat, probatur:

1. Quia, ut dicit Augustinus, et habetur in littera[^1], quod «sanis erat ad officium aegris est ad remedium»; sed quod nullam habet efficaciam non praestat remedium: ergo si matrimonium praestat remedium, aliquid efficit.

2. Item, si est Sacramentum novae legis: ergo efficit quod figurat[^2].

3. Item, matrimonium est magnum Sacramentum[^3] in nova lege, ergo non tantum repraesentationem, sed etiam institutionem et sanctificationem continet; sed Sacramentum sanctificans donat gratiam: ergo etc.

4. Item, sicut Sacramentum repraesentat ex similitudine, ita figurat ex institutione, et ita sanctificat ex benedictione; sed in nova lege est benedictio nuptiarum: ergo videtur, quod sit sanctificatio: sic etc.[^4]

<!-- page 668 -->

**Contra:** 1. Si Sacramentum aliquid efficit, efficit quod figurat; sed istud significat coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae[^5], et hanc non efficit: ergo nec aliquid aliud.

2. Item, Sacramentum, quod dat gratiam et habet efficaciam, ab omnibus debet accipi, qui habent morbum; sed omnes habent morbum concupiscentiae: ergo omnes debent nubere. Sed bonum est homini non nubere[^6]: ergo non dat gratiam.

3. Item, si dat gratiam; quaero: quam? Si coniungit animam Deo et desponsat, vel unit etiam membra ad invicem; cum animam fieri sponsam Christi, et membra uniri[^7] sit effectus baptismi et eucharistiae, videtur, illud Sacramentum superfluere.

4. Item, Sacramentum, quod dat gratiam, si vendatur, vel sub pacto pecuniae accipiatur, facit intervenire simoniam: ergo qui aliquam duceret uxorem cum pacto pecuniae esset simoniacus; quod falsum est.

> **Conclusio.** Matrimonium in nova lege non tantum praestat remedium, sed etiam aliquod donum gratiae.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod illud Sacramentum *nullam dat gratiam*; et quod dicitur, quod Sacramenta novae legis dant gratiam, dicunt intelligi de his quae in nova lege sunt instituta; nec est hoc Sacramentum remedium per *efficaciam*, sed per *indulgentiam*. Et inde est, quod concupiscentiam non minuit *simpliciter* sive secundum *habitum*, minuit tamen secundum *indulgentiam* et secundum *actum*, ut non urat, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios septimo[^8], quod *melius est nubere quam uri*.

Alii dicunt, quod in Sacramento matrimonii *datur gratia* digne et devote suscipientibus ratione *benedictionis superadditae*; Deus enim eis benedicit ad benedictionem sacerdotis. — Sed haec positio non videtur valere, quia illa benedictio est *sacramentalis*; et si *sacramentale* efficit, quanto magis Sacramentum!

Et ideo tertio modo dicendum, quod suscipientibus hoc Sacramentum detur *remedium*, quod est de ratione Sacramenti, quod excusat coitum et facit illud esse veniale, sive non esse peccatum, quod alias esset peccatum[^9]; et hoc potest esse sine dono gratiae, et habuit hoc illud Sacramentum statim post lapsum. Sed nunc tempore legis novae non tantum praestat illud *remedium*, sed etiam aliquod *gratiae donum* digne suscipientibus, utpote his qui ex caritatis consensu uniuntur ad procreandum prolem ad divinum cultum.

Ratione enim expressionis consensus in individuam consuetudinem vitae[^10], et ratione benedictionis Ecclesiae, cuius est Sacramenta debite tractare, sublevatur anima a corruptione concupiscentiae inordinata, et datur gratia ad copulam *singularem* et ad copulam *utilem* et ad copulam *inseparabilem*. Ex hac *gratia* fit *remedium* contra triplicem inordinationem concupiscentiae, et nascitur *triplex bonum* matrimonii. Concupiscentia enim inclinat ad *multas*, quia luxuriosus non est una contentus; et in matrimonio datur gratia homini, ut soli uxori velit coniungi, et ita pronitas ad multas excluditur per copulam *singularem*. — Concupiscentia etiam inclinat ad *delectationem*, non ad utilitatem, quia luxuriosus non quaerit nisi satisfacere appetitui; et in matrimonio datur gratia, ut non cognoscat uxorem nisi propter prolem, et ita excluditur[^11] per copulam *utilem*. — Item, concupiscentia *fastidium generat* post impletionem; unde luxuriosus, postquam cognovit unam, illam respuit et vadit ad aliam; in matrimonio vero datur gratia, ut semper velit esse cum una, et ita excluditur[^12] per copulam *inseparabilem*. — Ex copula *singulari* oritur bonum *fidei*, ut ad aliam non accedat; ex copula *utili* bonum *prolis*; ex copula *inseparabili* bonum *Sacramenti*.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quomodo efficit quod figurat; dicendum, quod figurat coniunctionem *animorum* primo et hanc efficit, non *primo* uniendo, sed magis, sicut confessio contritionem; et hoc iterum quodam modo efficit coniunctionem *cum Deo*; quia, si membrum membro magis unitur, per consequens etiam magis unitur Christo. Sed in eucharistia[^13], dum membra magis uniuntur *Christo*, et per consequens magis uniuntur ad invicem, unde Christo incorporantur; et sic patet differentia.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tunc omnes deberent accipere uxores; dicendum, quod in matrimonio datur gratia ad *remedium*, sed in *voto*

<!-- page 669 -->

disponitur anima, ut gratia detur ad *perfectius remedium*. Unde quia perfectius minus perfecto est praeponendum, ideo non omnes debent nubere, sed melius faciunt qui vovent continentiam. Sed quia *non omnes capiunt verbum istud*[^14], ideo utrumque est necessarium, et remedium *voti et religionis* et remedium *matrimonialis coniunctionis*.

3. Ad aliud patet responsio; quoniam in hoc Sacramento non *fit* desponsatio, sed *figuratur* ipsa desponsatio, quae est Dei ad animam; sed desponsatio, quae *fit et figuratur*, est desponsatio viri et mulieris; ubi per consequens datur aliqua gratia ad efficaciorem desponsationem et unionem ipsius animae[^15]; hoc tamen est ex consequenti.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de simonia, dicendum, quod matrimonium accipit rationem spiritualitatis et gratiae, quando consensus iungitur benedictioni, ubi explicatur *significatio*, et obtinetur per benedictionem *sanctificatio*; et ideo in benedictione sacerdotali consistit ratio *spiritualis* praecipue. Nam matrimonium habet aliquid de *contractu* voluntario et annexum temporale ut temporale. Et ideo, si quis venderet benedictionem, esset simoniacus[^16]; qui autem consentit finaliter propter pecuniam, quamvis peccet, non tamen iudicatur *simoniacus*, maxime quia ipse non est Sacramenti dispensator. — Et *praeterea*, multa temporalia sunt adiuncta, ut mutua educatio et filiorum enutritio et alia plura, et ideo licet dotes accipere; et si quis cum pactione magnae dotis consentiat, simoniacus non est[^17] — istud Sacramentum, etsi aliquo modo cum aliis conveniat in praestando *remedium*, habet tamen *carnale officium coniunctum*, ratione cuius in pactione non cadit vitium simoniacum, etiam si *alias* detur — cadit tamen in peccatum, quia contra gratiam disponitur. — Haec autem potuit esse ratio, quae movit illos qui dixerunt, gratiam in hoc non dari. Sed qui recte vult respicere et iudicare, necesse habet *pretiosum a vili separare*[^18], ratione quorum diversa huic Sacramento contingit attribuere; et sacri canones hoc innuunt, in quibus ab antiquo statutum fuit, ut vir cum uxore in primo die benedictionis carnaliter non conveniret ob reverentiam illius benedictionis Ecclesiae, quae, etsi videatur annexa Sacramento, utique fit in quantum *signum*; in quantum tamen habet efficaciam et est ecclesiasticum, spectat ad eius esse completum. Et sic patet totum.

---

english:
### Question II. *What in this Sacrament is causing, and what is caused.*

Secondly it is asked, what in this Sacrament is causing and what is caused. And that it effects something is proved:

1. Because, as Augustine says, and as is had in the text[^1], that "what for the healthy was for duty, for the sick is for a remedy"; but what has no efficacy does not afford a remedy: therefore if marriage affords a remedy, it effects something.

2. Likewise, if it is a Sacrament of the new law: therefore it effects what it figures[^2].

3. Likewise, marriage is a great Sacrament[^3] in the new law, therefore it contains not only representation, but also institution and sanctification; but a sanctifying Sacrament bestows grace: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, just as a Sacrament represents by likeness, so it figures by institution, and thus it sanctifies by blessing; but in the new law there is a blessing of nuptials: therefore it seems that there is sanctification: thus etc.[^4]

**On the contrary:** 1. If a Sacrament effects something, it effects what it figures; but this signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church[^5], and this it does not effect: therefore neither anything else.

2. Likewise, a Sacrament which gives grace and has efficacy ought to be received by all who have the disease; but all have the disease of concupiscence: therefore all ought to marry. But it is good for a man not to marry[^6]: therefore it does not give grace.

3. Likewise, if it gives grace, I ask: which? If it joins the soul to God and betroths [it], or also unites the members to one another; since for the soul to be made the bride of Christ, and the members to be united[^7], is the effect of baptism and the eucharist, it seems that that Sacrament is superfluous.

4. Likewise, a Sacrament which gives grace, if it be sold, or received under a pact of money, causes simony to intervene: therefore whoever would take a wife with a pact of money would be a simoniac; which is false.

> **Conclusion.** Marriage in the new law affords not only a remedy, but also some gift of grace.

**I respond:** To this some have wished to say that that Sacrament *gives no grace*; and as for what is said, that the Sacraments of the new law give grace, they say it is to be understood of those which were instituted in the new law; nor is this Sacrament a remedy through *efficacy*, but through *indulgence*. And hence it is that it does not diminish concupiscence *simply* or according to *habit*, yet it diminishes [it] according to *indulgence* and according to *act*, so that it does not burn, according to what is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^8], that *it is better to marry than to burn*.

Others say that in the Sacrament of marriage *grace is given* to those who receive worthily and devoutly by reason of *a superadded blessing*; for God blesses them at the blessing of the priest. — But this position does not seem to hold, because that blessing is *sacramental*; and if a *sacramental* effects [grace], how much more a Sacrament!

And therefore it must be said in a third way, that to those receiving this Sacrament a *remedy* is given, which belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, which excuses coitus and makes it to be venial, or not to be a sin, which otherwise would be a sin[^9]; and this can be without a gift of grace, and this Sacrament had this immediately after the fall. But now, in the time of the new law, it not only affords that *remedy*, but also some *gift of grace* to those who receive worthily, namely to those who from the consent of charity are united to procreate offspring for the divine worship.

For by reason of the expression of consent unto an individual [shared] mode of life[^10], and by reason of the blessing of the Church, whose it is to handle the Sacraments duly, the soul is lifted up from the corruption of disordered concupiscence, and grace is given for the *singular* union and for the *useful* union and for the *inseparable* union. From this *grace* there arises a *remedy* against the threefold disorder of concupiscence, and there is born the *threefold good* of marriage. For concupiscence inclines toward *many* [women], because the lustful man is not content with one; and in marriage grace is given to a man, that he may wish to be joined to his wife alone, and thus proneness toward many is excluded through the *singular* union. — Concupiscence also inclines toward *pleasure*, not toward usefulness, because the lustful man seeks only to satisfy the appetite; and in marriage grace is given, that he may not know his wife except for the sake of offspring, and thus it is excluded[^11] through the *useful* union. — Likewise, concupiscence *generates loathing* after satisfaction; whence the lustful man, after he has known one, spurns her and goes to another; but in marriage grace is given, that he may always wish to be with one, and thus it is excluded[^12] through the *inseparable* union. — From the *singular* union arises the good of *fidelity*, that he may not go to another; from the *useful* union the good of *offspring*; from the *inseparable* union the good of the *Sacrament*.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, how it effects what it figures; it must be said that it figures the conjunction of *souls* first and effects this, not by *first* uniting, but rather as confession [effects] contrition; and this again in a certain way effects a conjunction *with God*; because, if member is more united to member, consequently it is also more united to Christ. But in the eucharist[^13], while the members are more united to *Christ*, and consequently are more united to one another, whence they are incorporated into Christ; and thus the difference is apparent.

2. To that which is objected, that then all ought to take wives; it must be said that in marriage grace is given for a *remedy*, but in the *vow*

the soul is disposed, that grace may be given for a *more perfect remedy*. Whence, since the more perfect is to be preferred to the less perfect, therefore not all ought to marry, but they do better who vow continence. But because *not all receive this word*[^14], therefore both are necessary, both the remedy *of the vow and of religion* and the remedy *of the matrimonial conjunction*.

3. To the other the answer is apparent; since in this Sacrament there is not *made* a betrothal, but the betrothal itself is *figured*, which is [the betrothal] of God to the soul; but the betrothal which is *made and figured* is the betrothal of man and woman; whereby consequently some grace is given for a more efficacious betrothal and union of the soul itself[^15]; yet this is by consequence.

4. To that which is objected lastly concerning simony, it must be said that marriage takes on the character of spirituality and grace, when the consent is joined to the blessing, where the *signification* is unfolded, and *sanctification* is obtained through the blessing; and therefore in the priestly blessing consists the *spiritual* character especially. For marriage has something of a *voluntary contract*, and something temporal annexed as temporal. And therefore, if someone were to sell the blessing, he would be a simoniac[^16]; but he who consents finally for the sake of money, although he sins, is nevertheless not judged a *simoniac*, especially because he himself is not the dispenser of the Sacrament. — And *besides*, many temporal things are annexed, such as mutual upbringing and the nurturing of children and many other things, and therefore it is licit to receive dowries; and if someone consents with a pact of a great dowry, he is not a simoniac[^17] — this Sacrament, although in some way it agrees with the others in affording a *remedy*, nevertheless has a *carnal office conjoined [to it]*, by reason of which no simoniacal vice falls in the pact, even if it be given otherwise — yet it falls into sin, because it is disposed against grace. — This, moreover, could have been the reason which moved those who said that grace is not given herein. But he who wishes rightly to look and to judge must needs *separate the precious from the vile*[^18], by reason of which it befalls to attribute diverse things to this Sacrament; and the sacred canons intimate this, in which it was of old established, that a man should not come together carnally with his wife on the first day of the blessing, out of reverence for that blessing of the Church, which, although it may seem annexed to the Sacrament, is nevertheless done insofar as it is a *sign*; but insofar as it has efficacy and is ecclesiastical, it pertains to its being complete. And thus the whole is apparent.

---

la: Hic c. 2, ex August., IX. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 7. n. 12. — Superius post *Et quod* Vat. supplet *hoc Sacramentum*.

en: Here [in the Master's text], c. 2, from Augustine, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis*, bk. IX, c. 7, n. 12. — Above, after *Et quod* ("And that"), the Vatican edition supplies *hoc Sacramentum* ("this Sacrament").

la: Vide supra d. I. p. I. q. 5, et lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1. — Vat. ex hoc arg. et seq. unum facit, in hoc arg. omissis verbis *ergo efficit quod figurat*, et in seq. *Item... in nova lege*.

en: See above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 5, and the Master's text, d. 4, c. 1. — The Vatican edition makes one argument out of this one and the following, omitting in this argument the words *ergo efficit quod figurat* ("therefore it effects what it figures"), and in the following [omitting] *Item... in nova lege* ("Likewise... in the new law").

la: Eph. 5, 32: *Sacramentum hoc magnum est.* — De hoc et seq. arg. conferantur verba Hug. a S. Vict. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 3. allegata.

en: Eph. 5:32: *This is a great sacrament.* — On this and the following argument let the words of Hugh of St. Victor be compared, cited above at d. 1, p. 1, q. 2, ad 3.

la: Saltem primarum; cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XLII. in fine, et Comment. a. 3. q. I. seqq. — Pro *sic etc.* codd. IK *sicut* in ceteris.

en: At least of the first [blessings]; cf. below the Master's text, d. 42, at the end, and the Commentary, a. 3, q. 1 ff. — For *sic etc.* codices IK read *sicut* in the rest.

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Codd. IK *iungi*, non pauci codd. *unita*, nonnulli et edd. *unire*.

en: Codices IK [read] *iungi*, not a few codices *unita*, some codices and the editions *unire*.

la: Vers. 9. — Mox voci *digne* plures codd. praemittunt *in*.

en: Verse 9. — Presently, before the word *digne* several codices prefix *in*.

la: Cod. U addit *mortale*. Superius pro *et facit, illud* codd. FLW *faciens illud*. Aliquanto inferius vocibus *digne* et *his* permulti codd. praefigunt *in*.

en: Codex U adds *mortale*. Above, for *et facit, illud* codices FLW [read] *faciens illud*. Somewhat below, before the words *digne* and *his* very many codices prefix *in*.

la: Respicitur definitio matrimonii infra in lit. Magistri d. XXVII. c. 2, posita et in Comment. ibid. dub. explicata. — Pro *in individuam* codd. RST *individuam* habet (plures alii codd. et ed. 1 omittunt etiam *in*).

en: The definition of marriage is referred to, below in the Master's text, d. 27, c. 2, set down and explained in the Commentary there in the dubium. — For *in individuam* codices RST have *individuam* (several other codices and ed. 1 also omit *in*).

la: Supple: *ista concupiscentia*; cod. bb supplet *illa pronitas*, edd. *delectatio appetitivae*, cod. h legit *et ista excluditur*. Superius pro *satisfacere appetitui*, quod habent codd. FWbb, codd. IK *satisfactionem appetitus*, alii codd. *satisfactionem appetitui*, edd. *satisfactionem appetitivae seu appetitus sensitivi*.

en: Supply: *ista concupiscentia* ("this concupiscence"); codex bb supplies *illa pronitas*, the editions *delectatio appetitivae*, codex h reads *et ista excluditur*. Above, for *satisfacere appetitui*, which codices FWbb have, codices IK [read] *satisfactionem appetitus*, other codices *satisfactionem appetitui*, the editions *satisfactionem appetitivae seu appetitus sensitivi*.

la: Edd. supplent *variarum concupiscentia*. — De triplici bono matrimonii cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XXXI. c. 1, et Comment. a. 1. q. 2.

en: The editions supply *variarum concupiscentia*. — On the threefold good of marriage cf. below the Master's text, d. 31, c. 1, and the Commentary, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) addit *est e converso, quia* (cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3. 6.). Vat. *sicut in eucharistia*. Eadem Vat. cum ed. I superius post *sed magis* addit *augendo*.

en: Codex K (and I by a second hand) adds *est e converso, quia* ("it is conversely, because") (cf. above d. 8, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3, 6). The Vatican edition [reads] *sicut in eucharistia* ("just as in the eucharist"). The same Vatican edition, together with ed. 1, above after *sed magis* adds *augendo*.

la: Matth. 19, 11. — Plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *istud*. Mox pro *necessarium* Vat. *congruum vel bonum*. Superius post *sed in voto* codd. Fbb supplent *continentiae*. Subinde pro *ut gratia detur* cod. F *ut gratiam habeat*, plures codd. *ut gratia*, cod. L *ut*, edd. *per gratiam*.

en: Matt. 19:11. — Very many codices and ed. 1 omit *istud*. Presently, for *necessarium* the Vatican edition [reads] *congruum vel bonum*. Above, after *sed in voto* codices Fbb supply *continentiae*. Then, for *ut gratia detur* codex F [reads] *ut gratiam habeat*, several codices *ut gratia*, codex L *ut*, the editions *per gratiam*.

la: A cod. U suppletur *cum Deo*.

en: By codex U is supplied *cum Deo* ("with God").

la: Cfr. C. *Cum in Ecclesiae* (9.) et (42.), X. *de Simonia* etc. (lib. V. tit. 3.).

en: Cf. the canon *Cum in Ecclesiae* (9) and (42), in the Decretals (X), *On Simony* etc. (bk. V, tit. 3).

la: Vide C. *De illis* (3.), X. *de Conditionibus appositis in desponsatione* etc. (lib. IV. tit. 5.), ex quo elicitur, quod non est illicitum apponere conditionem pecuniae in matrimonio contrahendo. — Non pauci codd. hic prosequuntur *unde istud*, edd. *quia id*, quae etiam inferius pro *alias* [codd. ER addunt [?]].

en: See the canon *De illis* (3), in the Decretals (X), *On conditions attached in betrothal* etc. (bk. IV, tit. 5), from which it is drawn that it is not illicit to attach a condition of money in contracting a marriage. — Not a few codices here continue *unde istud*, the editions *quia id*, which [words] also below, in place of *alias* [codices ER add [?] — reading cut at the foot of the column].

la: Ier. 15, 19. — In seqq. respicitur C. *Sponsus et sponsa* (5.), C. 30. q. 5. — Pro *respicere* cod. R *inspicere*. Mox pro *huic* edd. *habuit*. Inferius pro *efficaciam* cod. R *gratiam*.

en: Jer. 15:19. — In what follows the canon *Sponsus et sponsa* (c. 5), Causa 30, q. 5, is referred to. — For *respicere* codex R [reads] *inspicere*. Presently, for *huic* the editions [read] *habuit*. Below, for *efficaciam* codex R [reads] *gratiam*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi Quaracchi column bands (`vol4-p{667,668,669}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`, regenerated at `split_x≈2120` because vol4's left body column runs past the default 1660/1880 splits and was being truncated), corrected against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 72383–72555). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page-range correction (page-verified).** The skeleton frontmatter read `printed_pages: [668,669,670]` / `pdf_pages: [688,689,690]`. Eyes-on the bands shows the quaestio actually spans **printed pp. 667–669** (pdf 687–689, offset +20): the `QUAESTIO II` header + title + the four "pro" arguments sit at the foot of **p. 667** (right body column, below a2-q1's scholion tail); the running head atop p. 668 is `668 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`, and the running head atop p. 669 is `DIST. XXVI. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` (Q. III begins lower on p. 669, after this quaestio ends with *Et sic patet totum*). Frontmatter corrected accordingly.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. Article II carries a single scholion covering all three of its questions; it is printed with a2-q1 and lives in that chunk. This is expected, not a dropout.

**Shared-page footer splits.**
- **p. 667 (shared with a2-q1).** The page's printed footer numbers 1–7. Notes 1–3 attach to a2-q1's left-column replies (*commixtio sexuum*; *licet non ita expresse*; *consentiendi*) and belong to a2-q1. Notes 4–7 attach to this quaestio's "pro" arguments (Augustine/*in littera*; *efficit quod figurat*; Eph. 5:32 *magnum Sacramentum*; *sic etc.*) and are claimed here as [^1]–[^4]. When a2-q1 is promoted it should claim printed notes 1–3 of p. 667.
- **p. 668.** Entirely this quaestio; printed notes 1–9 → [^5]–[^13].
- **p. 669 (shared with a2-q3).** Printed footer numbers 1–12. Notes 1–5 attach to this quaestio's replies (Matt. 19:11 *verbum istud*; *cum Deo*; *de Simonia*; *de Conditionibus*; Jer. 15:19 *pretiosum a vili separare*) → [^14]–[^18]. Notes 6–12 belong to a2-q3 (which begins lower on p. 669) and are NOT claimed here.

**`[?]` flags.**
- [^17] (p. 669 printed note 4): the variant clause `...quae etiam inferius pro alias [codd. ER addunt ___]` is cut off at the very foot of the left footnote column; the word(s) the codices ER add could not be read from the 450 dpi band. Flagged pending a 600 dpi re-read at the d.20 polish gate.
- Minor: [^3]'s cross-reference `ad 3` follows the IA djvu OCR; one band glimpse suggested `ad 5`. Left as `ad 3` (OCR-supported); low stakes.