title: Dist. 41, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 863 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod *Ecclesia infra praedictos gradus separat.* Ponatur, quod Ecclesia decepta aliquos separet, et postmodum manifestetur deceptio; quaeritur, utrum tales sint reiungendi. Et quod *sic,* videtur: quia separatio per iniustitiam[^1] facta est: ergo videtur, quod nullo modo possit stare, cum manifestatur, praecedens iudicium fuisse iniustum. — *Contra* hoc est, quia possibile est, quod aliquis post separationem in facie Ecclesiae fiat sacerdos, vel religiosus; sed talis non potest habere usum matrimonii: ergo non debet ei restitui.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quando et qualiter sit restitutio viri facienda uxori, vel e converso.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in tali casu facienda est restitutio: quoniam Ecclesia decepta fuit, et altera personarum iniuste exspoliata; et quoniam Ecclesia potest et debet errorem corrigere et non debet aliquam personam iure suo privare[^2]: ideo, deceptione cognita, si alter, qui iniuste exspoliatus est, petat, debet restituere; et si intravit religionem et votum emisit, potest debitum *reddere,* sed non debet nec potest *exigere,* quoniam obligavit se ad continentiam, quantum est in se[^3].

Quod quaeritur, quando et quomodo debeat uxor restitui viro, aut e converso; dicendum, quod uxor aut agit iure *petitorio,* aut *possessorio*[^4]. Tunc agit *petitorio,* quando dicit, aliquem sibi adiudicari in maritum, quoniam cum ea *contraxit.* Tunc agit *possessorio* iudicio, quando petit, aliquem sibi restitui, pro eo quod vir eius fuit et cum ea *cohabitavit.* — Si agit *petitorio,* et vir excipiat; primo tractabitur exceptio mariti, antequam fiat restitutio sive quam satisfiat petitioni, pro eo quod probata exceptione mariti, si recta est, principalis quaestio perimitur. Si vero agit *possessorio,* restituendus est mulieri, etiam antequam probetur exceptio, Extra, de Restitutione spoliatorum[^5], *Litteras,* et Extra, de Divortiis, *Porro*; exceptis quinque casibus. — Primus est, si obiiciatur mulieri publica fornicatio, et haec fuerit probata, nisi ipsa excipiat in contrarium contra virum de fornicatione, Extra, de Divortiis[^6], *Significasti.* — Secundus casus est, si obiiciatur consanguinitas divina lege prohibita, *in continenti* probanda; differenda est restitutio, nec debet compelli per sententiam, ne forte superinducatur perplexitas. Si vero *differatur,* oportet fieri restitutionem per sententiam, sed tamen non oportet debitum reddere, si habet de consanguinitate conscientiam, Extra, de Restitutione spoliatorum[^7], *Litteras.* — Tertius casus est, si obiiciatur exceptio rei iudicatae, a qua non est appellatum; argumentum de Officio delegati[^8], *Causam matrimonii.* — Quartus casus est, quando tanta est saevitia viri, quod non potest sufficiens cautio adhiberi, utpote quia persequitur uxorem odio capitali, Extra, de Restitutione spoliatorum, *Litteras* in fine. — Quintus casus est, quando ille qui agit, alterum spoliavit sine causa; dicitur, quod non debet restitui, Causa trigesima secunda, quaestione prima, De Benedicto[^9]; attamen illud non est usquequaque verum, quia tunc, quando vult redire, et alter non vult, si non habet quod obiiciat manifeste, ex tunc incipit spoliare.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si duo vel tres consanguinitatem* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia personae propinquae sunt suspectae: ergo non debent recipi ad testificandum. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur: qui possunt matrimonium accusare?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod accusatio, propter quam debeat fieri divortium, aut est de *peccato,* aut de consanguinitatis vinculo. Si est de *peccato* fornicationis, tunc soli coniuges possunt se mutuo accusare[^10] — alii vero non admittuntur, quia tunc fit iniuria viro — et possunt simul stare sine peccato. — Si autem fit accusatio de *consanguinitatis vinculo,* tunc primo admitti debent consanguinei, si sunt superstites, maxime cum est accusatio de matrimonio dissolvendo, quia non praesumitur, quod ipsi velint; et praeterea, melius sciunt genealogiam quam alii; et ideo specialiter in hac causa admittuntur consanguinei[^11]. Tamen si sit quaestio de matrimonio con-<!-- page 864 -->trahendo sive contracto, ut suspecti repellendi sunt, ubi ille cuius filius vel filia coniuncta dicitur, superior est divitiis, potentia et honore. Quodsi consanguinei non adsint, qui testificentur; tunc possunt admitti extranei antiqui et maturi. Quodsi nec hi velint testificari, tunc omnes extranei possunt accusare, nisi aliud obsistat, ut puta si facta fuit denuntiatio, quod matrimonium accuset qui novit; si ille praesens aderat et tacet, ex tunc accusare non potest. Si vero fuit absens, vel postmodum didicit matrimonii impedimentum; si hoc iureiurando firmaverit, est admittendus, Extra, de His qui matrimonium accusare possunt[^12], *Cum in tua,* et infra. Alicubi tamen sine differentia omnis qui vult accusare, admittitur, quia hoc honestatis est, scilicet servare ordinem prius dictum.

### Dub. III.

Item de hoc quod dicit, quod *aliud est fornicatio, aliud stuprum* etc.; quaeritur, utrum ista sint diversa peccata secundum *speciem* et quantum ad *genus* peccati. Et quod *non,* videtur: quia sunt contra idem praeceptum, scilicet *non moechaberis*[^13], et circa actum unius virtutis, sola circumstantia differente, in qua non est nisi accidentalis differentia. In *oppositum* est: primum peccatum habet rationem suam a defectu circumstantiae; sed adulterium dicitur, quia aliquis cognoscit coniugatam, sed fornicatio quia solutam: ergo sunt diversa peccatorum genera.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista non tantum differunt *accidente,* immo sunt *diversa genera* peccatorum; et talia oportet confiteri, quoniam, etsi videantur solum differre circumstantia, quae iudicatur esse accidentalis proprietas; tamen ipsa circumstantia comparata ad *peccatum* est essentialis, quamvis comparata ad *actum* sit accidentalis: et ideo non variat *genus actus,* sed *peccatum.* Quod ergo obiicit, quod est[^14] contra idem praeceptum et circa eundem actum; dicendum est, quod hoc non impedit, quin possint esse diversa peccata, pro eo quod circa eundem actum et contra idem bonum contingit multipliciter obliquari[^15].

### Dub. IV.

Item super hoc quod dicit, quod *stuprum est virginum illicita defloratio;* quaeritur, quod sit maius peccatum, utrum stuprum, an adulterium. Et quod maius sit *adulterium,* patet ex ordine Magistri, quia praemittit minora, et gradatim ascendit[^16]. — *Amplius,* per adulterium iniuriatur quis viro, per stuprum non. Unde virgo, quae non est alteri alligata, non peccat nisi in Deum; sed adultera in Deum et in proximum: ergo etc. — *Contra:* Nobilior est castitas virginalis quam coniugalis[^17]: ergo gravius est peccatum, quod est contra virginalem quam contra coniugalem; sed stuprum est contra virginalem: ergo etc. — Item, qui corrumpit virginem aliquam aufert ei bonum irrecuperabile[^18]; sed non qui adulterat: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod pro maiori parte peccata ad invicem comparata se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. Unde si comparemus coitum cum coniugata ad coitum cum virgine soluta; deformius est virginem deflorare quam defloratam cognoscere; attamen gravius peccat qui adulteratur, quia magis laedit rempublicam et magis offendit virum et magis generat infamiam. — Obiecta autem procedunt per diversas vias.

english:
<!-- page 863 -->

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this which he says, that *the Church separates [spouses] within the aforesaid degrees.* Suppose that the Church, deceived, separates certain persons, and afterwards the deception is made manifest; it is asked whether such persons are to be rejoined. And that they are, it seems: because the separation was made through injustice[^1]: therefore it seems that it can in no way stand, since it is made manifest that the preceding judgment was unjust. — On the contrary is this, that it is possible that someone, after the separation, becomes in the face of the Church a priest or a religious; but such a one cannot have the use of marriage: therefore it ought not to be restored to him.

Alongside this it is asked, when and in what manner restitution of the husband is to be made to the wife, or conversely.

**I respond:** It must be said that in such a case restitution is to be made: because the Church was deceived, and one of the persons unjustly despoiled; and because the Church can and ought to correct an error and ought not to deprive any person of his right[^2]: therefore, once the deception is known, if the other, who was unjustly despoiled, seeks it, he ought to make restitution; and if he entered religion and made a vow, he can *render* the debt, but he neither ought nor is able to *exact* it, since he bound himself to continence, so far as in him lies[^3].

As to what is asked, when and how the wife ought to be restored to the husband, or conversely; it must be said that the wife acts either by the right of *petition* or of *possession*[^4]. She acts by *petition* when she says that someone is to be adjudged to her as husband, since he *contracted* with her. She acts by *possessory* judgment when she asks that someone be restored to her, on the ground that he was her husband and *cohabited* with her. — If she acts by *petition,* and the husband raises an exception; the husband's exception will first be treated, before restitution is made or the petition satisfied, on the ground that, the husband's exception being proved, if it is sound, the principal question is quashed. If, however, she acts by *possession,* she is to be restored to the woman even before the exception is proved, X, "On the restitution of the despoiled"[^5], *Litteras,* and X, "On divorces," *Porro*; with five cases excepted. — The first is, if public fornication is charged against the woman, and this has been proved, unless she herself excepts to the contrary against the husband concerning fornication, X, "On divorces"[^6], *Significasti.* — The second case is, if consanguinity forbidden by divine law is charged, to be proved *forthwith;* restitution is to be deferred, nor ought [the party] to be compelled by sentence, lest perhaps perplexity be brought on. But if it is *deferred,* restitution must be made by sentence, yet the debt need not be rendered, if he has [a scruple of] conscience about the consanguinity, X, "On the restitution of the despoiled"[^7], *Litteras.* — The third case is, if the exception of a matter adjudged, from which there is no appeal, is charged; the argument from "On the office of the delegate"[^8], *Causam matrimonii.* — The fourth case is, when the savagery of the husband is so great that sufficient security cannot be furnished, inasmuch as he pursues his wife with mortal hatred, X, "On the restitution of the despoiled," *Litteras,* at the end. — The fifth case is, when he who brings the action has despoiled the other without cause; it is said that restitution ought not to be made, Cause the thirty-second, question the first, *De Benedicto*[^9]; yet that is not everywhere true, because then, when he wishes to return, and the other does not wish, if he has nothing to charge openly, from then on he begins to despoil.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *If two or three [prove] consanguinity* etc. For it seems ill said, because near persons are suspect: therefore they ought not to be admitted to testify. — Alongside this it is asked: who can accuse a marriage?

**I respond:** It must be said that the accusation on account of which a divorce ought to be made is either concerning *sin* or concerning the bond of consanguinity. If it is concerning the *sin* of fornication, then only the spouses can accuse each other[^10] — but others are not admitted, because then injury is done to the husband — and they can stand together without sin. — But if the accusation is made concerning the *bond of consanguinity,* then first the consanguinei ought to be admitted, if they are surviving, especially when the accusation is about dissolving the marriage, because it is not presumed that they would wish [it]; and besides, they know the genealogy better than others; and therefore in this cause especially the consanguinei are admitted[^11]. Yet if the question is about a marriage to be contracted <!-- page 864 -->or already contracted, so that they are to be rejected as suspect, where he whose son or daughter is said to be joined [in marriage] is superior in riches, power, and honor. But if consanguinei are not present to testify, then aged and mature strangers can be admitted. But if not even these are willing to testify, then all strangers can accuse, unless something else stands in the way, as for instance if a denunciation has been made that whoever knows should accuse the marriage; if he was present and is silent, from then on he cannot accuse. But if he was absent, or afterwards learned the impediment of the marriage; if he confirms this by oath, he is to be admitted, X, "On those who can accuse a marriage"[^12], *Cum in tua,* and below. Somewhere, however, without distinction, everyone who wishes to accuse is admitted, because this pertains to fair dealing, namely to preserve the order previously stated.

### Doubt III.

Likewise about this which he says, that *fornication is one thing, defilement (stuprum) another* etc.; it is asked whether these are diverse sins according to *species* and as to the *genus* of sin. And that they are not, it seems: because they are against the same precept, namely *thou shalt not commit adultery*[^13], and about the act of one virtue, only the circumstance differing, in which there is nothing but an accidental difference. In the *opposite* [sense] it stands: the first sin takes its account from a defect of circumstance; but it is called adultery because someone knows a married woman, but fornication because [he knows] an unmarried one: therefore they are diverse genera of sins.

**I respond:** It must be said that these do not merely differ by *accident,* but rather are *diverse genera* of sins; and such things must be confessed, since, even though they seem to differ only by a circumstance, which is judged to be an accidental property; nevertheless that very circumstance, compared to the *sin,* is essential, although compared to the *act* it is accidental: and therefore it does not vary the *genus of the act,* but the *sin.* As to what he objects, that it is[^14] against the same precept and about the same act; it must be said that this does not prevent them from being able to be diverse sins, on the ground that about the same act and against the same good it happens that one is deflected in manifold ways[^15].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise upon this which he says, that *stuprum is the illicit deflowering of virgins;* it is asked which is the greater sin, whether stuprum or adultery. And that adultery is the greater is clear from the order of the Master, because he sets the lesser first and gradually ascends[^16]. — *Further,* by adultery one does injury to a husband, by stuprum not. Hence a virgin, who is not bound to another, does not sin except against God; but an adulteress against God and against her neighbor: therefore etc. — *On the contrary:* virginal chastity is nobler than conjugal[^17]: therefore the sin which is against the virginal is graver than that which is against the conjugal; but stuprum is against the virginal: therefore etc. — Likewise, he who corrupts a virgin takes from her an irrecoverable good[^18]; but not he who commits adultery: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that for the most part sins compared to one another are related as exceeding and exceeded. Hence if we compare intercourse with a married woman to intercourse with an unmarried virgin; it is more unseemly to deflower a virgin than to know one [already] deflowered; yet he who commits adultery sins more gravely, because he more injures the commonwealth and more offends the husband and more begets infamy. — But the objections proceed by diverse ways.

la: Edd. *iustitiam.*

en: The editions read *iustitiam* ("justice") [for *iniustitiam,* "injustice"].

la: In C. *Discretionem* (6.) et C. *Iordanae* (11.), X. de Eo qui cognovit etc. (lib. IV. tit. 13.) nec non in C. *Quanto te novimus* (7.), X. de Divortiis (lib. IV. tit. 19.) dicitur, quod nemo suo iure debeat sine sua culpa privari.

en: In the chapter *Discretionem* (6) and the chapter *Iordanae* (11), X, "On him who knew" etc. (book IV, title 13), and also in the chapter *Quanto te novimus* (7), X, "On divorces" (book IV, title 19), it is said that no one ought to be deprived of his right without his own fault.

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. dub. 4.

en: Cf. above, d. 27, dub. 4.

la: Vide C. *Ad ultimum* (2.) seqq., X. de Causa possessionis etc. (lib. II. tit. 12.).

en: See the chapter *Ad ultimum* (2) and following, X, "On the matter of possession" etc. (book II, title 12).

la: Libr. II. tit. 13. c. 13. — Seq. locus est lib. IV. tit. 19. c. 3.

en: Book II, title 13, c. 13. — The following passage is book IV, title 19, c. 3.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 4.

en: Book IV, title 19, c. 4.

la: Libr. II. tit. 13. c. 13.

en: Book II, title 13, c. 13.

la: Plenius de Officio et potestate iudicis delegati (lib. I. tit. 29.), c. 16. — De seq. loco cfr. nota praecedens.

en: More fully, "On the office and power of the delegated judge" (book I, title 29), c. 16. — On the following passage, cf. the preceding note.

la: Can. 5. — Inferius pro *quia tunc* edd. *sed tunc.* — Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Canon 5. — Below, for *quia tunc* the editions read *sed tunc.* — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here in connection with the text.

la: Cfr. Glossa in verba Gratian. C. *Apud misericordem* (10.), C. 32. q. 1. § 1. et C. *Maritis* (4.), X. de Adulteriis et stupro (lib. V. tit. 16.). — Mox pro *tunc* [i. e. alias] *fit* codd. G R *tunc fieret,* et verbis *et possunt* cod. K (I a secunda manu) interserit *non.*

en: Cf. the Gloss on the words of Gratian, chapter *Apud misericordem* (10), C. 32, q. 1, § 1, and the chapter *Maritis* (4), X, "On adulteries and defilement" (book V, title 16). — Presently, for *tunc* [i.e. elsewhere] *fit,* codices G, R read *tunc fieret,* and into the words *et possunt* codex K (I, by a second hand) inserts *non.*

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4, et C. *Videtur nobis* (3.), X. Qui matrimonium accusare possunt etc. (lib. IV. tit. 18.), ubi etiam Glossa ad verba *Antiqua consuetudine* propositionem seq. (de repellendis) insinuat.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4, and the chapter *Videtur nobis* (3), X, "Who can accuse a marriage" etc. (book IV, title 18), where the Gloss too, on the words *Antiqua consuetudine,* suggests the following proposition (concerning those to be rejected).

la: Libr. IV. tit. 18. c. 6. — Inferius pro *differentia omnis* qui ex codd. F G substituimus *differentia, omnis qui,* cod. A omittit *omnis.* — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 31. a. 12; S. Thom., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. et 3; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4.

en: Book IV, title 18, c. 6. — Below, for *differentia omnis,* which from codices F, G we have substituted as *differentia, omnis qui,* codex A omits *omnis.* — The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, IV Sent., d. 31, a. 12; St. Thomas, here a. 3, subquestions 2 and 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here in connection with the text; Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 4.

la: Exod. 20, 14; Deut. 5, 18. — Aliquanto inferius cod. aa bis *quando* pro *quia.*

en: Exodus 20:14; Deut. 5:18. — Somewhat below, codex aa twice reads *quando* for *quia.*

la: Edd. perperam *non est.* Superius pro *essentialis* codd. G aa *substantialis.*

en: The editions wrongly read *non est.* Above, for *essentialis* codices G, aa read *substantialis.*

la: Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 147-152; S. Thom., hic a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit. In locis citt. agitur etiam de seq. dub.

en: Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, part II, q. 147–152; St. Thomas, here a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here in connection with the text. In the passages cited the following doubt is also treated.

la: Edd. *praemittit maiora et gradatim descendit,* codd., servato contra contextum *maiora,* pro *descendit* substituunt *ascendit.*

en: The editions read *praemittit maiora et gradatim descendit* ("he sets the greater first and gradually descends"); the codices, keeping *maiora* against the context, substitute *ascendit* ("ascends") for *descendit.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 754, nota 6. — Inferius post *coniugalem* edd. addunt *decorem.*

en: Cf. above, p. 754, note 6. — Below, after *coniugalem* the editions add *decorem* ("comeliness").

la: Vide supra pag. 338, nota 3. — Cod. II *irreparabile.* Mox edd. *adulteratur.*

en: See above, p. 338, note 3. — Codex II reads *irreparabile.* Presently the editions read *adulteratur.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from the p.863–864 PDF column bands (`vol4-p863-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`, `vol4-p864-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20, so PDF 883–884; split_x=1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 91893–92044. The IA OCR cascade-shatters this region (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation, two-column bleed, and the running footers of both columns interleaved), so the column bands are authoritative throughout. Running head on p.864 reads "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. / 864"; DISTINCTIO XLII begins lower in p.864-R. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 4** (NOT 3 as the dispatch brief anticipated). The bands show **Dub. I, II, III, and IV** in sequence before DISTINCTIO XLII.
- **Dub. I** (p.863) — On the Master's *Ecclesia infra praedictos gradus separat:* if the Church, deceived, wrongly separates spouses and the deception later appears, are they to be rejoined? Answer: restitution is due (the Church must correct its error and not deprive anyone of his right), but one who has meanwhile entered religion may *render* the marital debt yet not *exact* it. The mechanics of petitory vs. possessory action follow, with five excepted cases (public fornication, forbidden consanguinity, res iudicata, mortal-hatred savagery, despoiling-without-cause).
- **Dub. II** (p.863 R → p.864 L) — On *Si duo vel tres consanguinitatem* etc.: near persons are suspect, so who may accuse a marriage? Answer: for a *sin* (fornication) only the spouses; for the *consanguinity bond,* first surviving consanguinei (they know the genealogy), then aged strangers, then anyone — with the denunciation-and-silence bar.
- **Dub. III** (p.864 L → R) — On *aliud est fornicatio, aliud stuprum:* are they diverse sins by species/genus? Answer: yes, diverse genera (not merely accidental difference) and so must both be confessed; the circumstance, though accidental to the *act,* is essential to the *sin.*
- **Dub. IV** (p.864 R) — On *stuprum est virginum illicita defloratio:* which is graver, stuprum or adultery? Answer: adultery (per the Master's ascending order), because although deflowering a virgin is more unseemly, the adulterer more injures the commonwealth, offends the husband, and begets infamy; the pro-stuprum objections proceed by diverse ways.

**Dub. II header recovery:** the raw OCR garbles the header as `Ddb. II.` (raw L46/interleaved) and the two-column cascade buries it; the p.863-R-1 band shows it cleanly as **Dub. II.**, positioned between the close of Dub. I ("…ex tunc incipit spoliare.") and the *Si duo vel tres* question. Confirmed against the printed page.

**Footer ownership / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.863** (PDF 883): a single per-page sequence **1–11**, physically split into a left-column footer block (1–7) and a right-column footer block (8–11). All eleven anchor in the *dubia* body (Dub. I holds 1–9, Dub. II holds 10–11), so this chunk claims all of them → [^1]–[^11]. Anchor map: iniustitiam¹→[^1], privare²→[^2], in se³→[^3], possessorio⁴→[^4], spoliatorum⁵ (Litteras, + *Porro* seq. locus)→[^5], de Divortiis⁶ (Significasti)→[^6], spoliatorum⁷ (Litteras)→[^7], delegati⁸ (Causam)→[^8], De Benedicto⁹→[^9], accusare¹⁰→[^10], consanguinei¹¹→[^11].
- **Printed p.864** (PDF 884): per-page sequence restarts at **1**, split left-column (1–4) and right-column (5–7). All seven anchor in the *dubia* body → [^12]–[^18]. Anchor map: accusare possunt¹ (Cum in tua)→[^12], non moechaberis²→[^13], quod est³→[^14], obliquari⁴→[^15], ascendit⁵→[^16], coniugalis⁶→[^17], irrecuperabile⁷→[^18]. The subsequent footer **1** under the centered "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" block (*Ita codd. et edd. 2,3,6,7,8 et ipse Hugo…*) glosses the DISTINCTIO XLII Lombard *littera* (Cap. I, "Tria quaedam¹ sunt…") and is **excluded** here — it belongs to the d.42 chunk.

**p.863 seam disposition (vs a1-q3):** the "DIST. XLI. DUBIA." / "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI." heads sit near the top of p.863; the whole visible body of p.863 is Dub. I plus the opening of Dub. II. Every p.863 footer (1–11) anchors in the dubia body, so a1-q3 leaves all of them to this chunk — no footer is shared into a1-q3.

**Distinctio XLII boundary:** everything from the centered **DISTINCTIO XLII / Cap. I (De spirituali cognatione)** header onward (printed p.864 R, lower) is excluded here and owned by the d.42 chunks.

**[?] flags:** none inline. One minor citation judgment logged: footer [^3] reads **dub. 4** on the p.863-L-2 band (the IA raw OCR gives the garble "dub. i"); the band glyph is taken as authoritative per the Vol IV/Vol II override. Confidence high; all four dubia bodies read cleanly from the column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 42

title_alt: Distinctio XLII — De cognatione spirituali et legali (textus Magistri)

title_alt: Distinction XLII — On spiritual and legal kinship (the Master's text)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 864 -->

### DISTINCTIO XLII.

### Cap. I. *De spirituali cognatione.*

De parentalium graduum famosa quaestione aliquid, licet minus sufficienter, diximus. Iam de spirituali cognatione addamus, quae etiam personas impedit, ut non sint legitimae ad ineundas nuptias. « Tria[^p864-1] quaedam sunt: consanguinitas, affinitas et spiritualis germanitas. Consanguinitas est inter eos qui iunguntur secundum lineam generis. Affinitas inter eos qui genere quidem non sunt coniuncti, sed mediante genere
<!-- page 865 -->
sunt sociati, verbi gratia, uxor filii fratris mei, quae non est de genere meo, per ipsum qui est de genere meo, mihi affinis facta est, et ego illi ». « Spiritualis proximitas est inter compatrem et commatrem, et inter eos quorum unus alterum de sacro fonte levavit, vel in catechizatione, aut confirmatione tenuit. Est etiam inter filios eiusdem hominis carnales et spirituales ».

### Cap. II. *Qui sint filii spirituales.*

« Spirituales filii sunt quos de sacro fonte levamus, vel in catechizatione seu confirmatione tenemus. Filii etiam et filiae spirituales eorum sunt, qui trinae mersionis vocabulo eos sacro baptismate tingunt. Dicitur etiam spiritualis filia sacerdotis quae ei peccata sua confitetur[^p865-1] ». Unde Symmachus Papa[^p865-2]: « Omnes quos in poenitentia suscipimus, ita nostri spirituales sunt filii, ut et ipsi quos, vel nobis suscipientibus, vel sub trinae mersionis vocabulo mergentibus, unda baptismi regeneravit. Silvester etiam admonet, ut ad suam poenitentialem nullus sacerdos accedat, quia scriptum est: Omnes quos in poenitentia accipimus, ita nostri filii sunt, ut in baptismo suscepti »; « quorum omnium flagitiosa est commixtio ». « Quod autem compater et commater sibi iungi nequeant, nec pater spiritualis vel mater filiae vel filio spirituali, ex Concilio Maguntinensi docetur[^p865-3] »: « De eo quod interrogasti, si aliquis filiolam suam duxerit uxorem, et de eo qui concubuit cum matre spirituali, et de eo qui filium suum baptizavit, et uxor eius eum de fonte suscepit hac causa, ut dissidium fieret coniugii, si post in tali copula possunt permanere; sic respondendum est: si filiolam aut commatrem suam aliquis in coniugium duxerit, separandos esse iudicamus et gravi poenitentia plectendos. Si vero coniuges legitimi, unus vel ambo, ex industria hoc fecerint, ut filium suum de fonte susciperent; si innupti manere voluerint, bonum est; sin autem, gravis poenitentia insidiatori iniungatur, et simul maneant; et si praevaricator coniugii supervixerit, acerrima poenitentia mulctetur et sine spe coniugii maneat ». — Ex his apparet, quod aliquis filiolam suam vel commatrem non potest sibi copulare nuptialiter; et si praesumtum fuerit, separandi sunt. Qui autem legitime coniuncti sunt, non ideo separandi sunt, quia alter eorum insidiose filium de fonte levavit. — Quod etiam Nicolaus[^p865-4] confirmat dicens: « Nosse desideras, utrum mulier, quae viri filium ex alia femina genitum de sacro fonte levaverit, postmodum possit eodem viro copulari. Quos ideo coniungi posse decernimus, quia secundum canones sacros, nisi amborum consensu, nullius religionis obtentu debet coniux dimittere coniugem, cum Apostolus praecipiat: *Nolite fraudare invicem, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus* » etc. Item: « Dictum est nobis, quasdam feminas desidiose, quasdam vero fraudulenter, ut a viris suis separentur, proprios filios coram episcopis ad confirmandum tenuisse. Unde nos dignum duximus, ut, si qua mulier filium suum desidia, aut fraude aliqua coram episcopo tenuerit ad confirmandum, propter fallaciam vel fraudem, quamdiu vivat, poenitentiam agat; a viro tamen suo non separetur ». Item Ioannes Papa[^p865-5]: « Ad limina beati Petri homo, nomine Stephanus, veniens, nostro praesulatui innotuit, quod filium suum in extremo vitae positum, necdum baptismi unda lotum, absentia sacerdotum cogente, baptizavit eumque propriis manibus suscepit. Atque pro huiusmodi negotio reverentia tua praefatum hominem a sua coniuge iudicavit esse separandum. Quod fieri nullatenus debet, dicente Scriptura: *Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet*; et Dominus non dimittere uxorem nisi causa fornicationis iubet. Et nos tanta auctoritate freti, dicimus, dimittendum esse, et inculpabile iudicandum quod necessitas intulit. Nam baptizandi opus laicis fidelibus, si tamen necesse fuerit, libere conceditur. Unde si supradictus homo filium morientem aspiciens, ne animam perpetuo perire dimitteret, unda baptismi lavit, ut eum de potestate mortis eriperet; bene fecisse laudatur. Ideoque suae uxori sibi iam olim legitime sociatae impune, dum vixerit, iudicamus manere coniunctum nec ob hoc separari debere ». — His aliisque pluribus auctoritatibus edocetur, coniuges non esse separandos, si post legitimam copulam alter alterius filium de fonte levat, vel in confirmatione tenet.

His autem obviare videtur, quod Deusdedit Papa[^p865-6] ait: « Pervenit ad nos diaconus sanctitatis vestrae epistolam deferens, quod quidam viri et mulieres praeterito sabbato paschali pro magno populi incursu nescientes filios suos suscepissent de lavacro. Cupis ergo scire, an propter hoc debeant viri ac mulieres ad proprium usum redire, vel non. Nos vero hac re moesti priorum inquisivimus dicta et invenimus in archivis apostolicae Sedis, iam talia contigisse in pluribus Ecclesiis, quarum episcopis ab hac apostolica Sede volentibus scire, utrum viri ac mulieres redirent ad proprium torum; beatae memoriae sancti Patres Iulius, Innocentius et Caelestinus cum episcoporum plurimorum consensu in Apostolorum principis Ecclesia, prohibentes talia, rescripserunt et confirmaverunt, ut nullo modo se in coniugio reciperent mulieres ac viri, qui-
<!-- page 866 -->
cumque hac ratione susceperint natos, sed separarent se, ne, suadente diabolo, tale vitium inolescat ». Item[^p866-1]: « Si quis filiastrum vel filiastram suam ante episcopum tenuerit ad confirmationem, separetur ab uxore sua et aliam nunquam accipiat ». — Haec autem vel ad terrorem dicta sunt, non quia ita esset faciendum, sed ne illud fieret, summopere cavendum; vel de illis est intelligendum, qui prius filios suos vicissim de fonte susceperunt, quam fierent coniuges. — Praemissis autem auctoritatibus omnino consentiendum est, ut « sive proprium, sive tantum viri filium mulier de fonte susceperit, non ideo a viro separetur; quod et de viro similiter oportet intelligi ».

### Cap. III. *De copula spiritualium, vel adoptivorum et naturalium filiorum.*

Quod autem spirituales, vel adoptivi filii naturalibus copulari nequeant, Nicolaus Papa[^p866-2] testatur, ita inquiens: « Ita diligere debet homo eum qui se suscepit de sacro fonte, sicut patrem. Inter fratres et filios spirituales gratuita et sancta communio est, quae dicenda non est consanguinitas, sed habenda spiritualis proximitas. Unde inter eos arbitror non posse fieri legale coniugium, quia nec inter eos qui natura, et eos qui adoptione filii sunt, venerandae leges matrimonia contrahi permittunt. Item, si inter eos non contrahitur matrimonium, quos adoptio iungit, quanto potius a carnali oportet inter se contubernio cessare quos per caeleste Sacramentum regeneratio sancti Spiritus iungit »?

### Cap. IV. *De copula filiorum, qui ante compaternitatem vel post nati sunt.*

Hoc autem quidam volunt intelligere de illis tantum filiis, quibus compatres facti sunt; de aliis vero, qui ante compaternitatem vel post geniti sunt, concedunt, quod legitime et licite iungi possunt. Quibus videtur consentire Urbanus secundus[^p866-3] dicens: « Super quibus consuluit nos tua dilectio, hic videtur respondendum, ut baptismus sit, si, instante necessitate, femina puerum in nomine Trinitatis baptizaverit, et quod spiritualium parentum filii vel filiae ante vel post compaternitatem genitae possunt legitime coniungi praeter illam personam, qua compatres sunt effecti ». Paschalis vero secundus[^p866-4] post compaternitatem genitos copulari prohibet, scribens Rhegino episcopo: « Post susceptum filium de fonte vel filiam spiritualem qui ex compatre vel ex commatre fuerint nati matrimonio coniungi non possunt ». — Illud etiam notandum est, quod in Tiburiensi Concilio legitur: « Si quis suae spiritualis commatris filiam fortuito, et ita contingente rerum casu, in coniugium duxerit, consilio maturiori servato, habeat atque legitimo connubio honeste operam det ».

### Cap. V. *Si cui liceat duas commatres ducere, alteram post alteram.*

Solet etiam quaeri, si commatrem uxoris post eius obitum quis ducere valeat. De hoc Nicolaus Papa[^p866-5] sic scribit: « Sciscitatur a nobis sanctitas vestra, si quis duas commatres habere valeat unam post alteram. In quo meminisse debes, scriptum esse: *Erunt duo in carne una.* Cum igitur constet, quod vir et mulier una caro efficiuntur; restat, virum compatrem constitui illi mulieri, cuius assumta uxor commater erat; et ideo virum illi feminae non posse coniungi, quae commater eius erat, cum qua idem fuerat una caro effectus ». Huic autem illud contrarium videtur: « Qui spiritualem habet compatrem, cuius filium de lavacro accepit, et eius uxor commater non est, licet ei, defuncto compatre suo, eius viduam ducere in uxorem; quos nulla generatio spiritualis secernit ». Item, ex epistola Paschalis Papae: « Post uxoris obitum cum commatre uxoris coniugio copulari, nulla videtur ratio vel auctoritas prohibere. Non enim per carnis unionem ad unionem spiritus pertransitur ». — Sed sciendum, quod « auctoritas Nicolai de illo agit, qui uxori suae debitum reddidit, postquam commater illius exstitit. Aliae vero auctoritates de illo agunt, cuius uxor, postquam a viro suo derelinquitur, illius commater efficitur nec post compaternitatem a viro suo cognoscitur »; vel de illo potius agunt, cuius uxor ante defungitur, quam ab eo cognoscatur.

### Cap. VI. *Si vir et uxor simul valeant tenere puerum.*

Solet etiam quaeri, si uxor cum viro simul debeat in baptismo suscipere puerum. De hoc Urbanus[^p866-6] ait: « Quod uxor cum marito in baptismo simul non debeat suscipere puerum, nulla auctoritate invenitur prohibitum; sed ut ipsa puritas spiritualis paternitatis ab omni labe et infamia conservetur immunis, decrevimus, ut utrique simul ad hoc aspirare non praesumant. Quia vero piaculare flagitium commisit qui duabus commatribus velut sororibus nupsit, magna poenitentia debet ei iniungi ».

### Cap. VII. *De secundis et tertiis et deinceps nuptiis.*

Sciendum est etiam, quod non solum primae vel secundae nuptiae sunt licitae, sed etiam tertiae et
<!-- page 867 -->
quartae non sunt damnandae. Unde Augustinus[^p867-1]: « Secundas nuptias omnino licitas Apostolus concedit ». « De tertiis autem et quartis et de ultra pluribus nuptiis solent homines movere quaestionem. Sed quis audeat definire quod nec Apostolum video definisse? Ait enim: *Si dormierit vir eius, cui vult nubat.* Non dicit: primus, vel secundus, vel tertius, vel quotuslibet; nec nobis definiendum est quod non definit Apostolus. Unde ut breviter respondeam, nec illas nuptias debeo damnare, nec eis verecundiam numerositatis auferre, nec contra humanae verecundiae sensum audeo dicere, ut, quoties voluerint, nubant, nec ex meo corde praeter Scripturae auctoritatem quotaslibet nuptias damnare ». Item testatur Hieronymus[^p867-2]: « Ego nunc libera voce exclamo, nec damnari in Ecclesia bigamiam, immo nec trigamiam; et ita licere quinto et sexto, quemadmodum secundo marito nubere ». — Apostolus tamen bigamos a sacerdotali honore excludit. Sed hoc non facit pro vitio bigamiae, immo pro Sacramenti virtute, ut sit una unius, sicut unica unici. — Illud tamen Caesariensis Concilii[^p867-3] videtur innuere, bigamiam esse peccatum: « Presbyterum, inquit, in nuptiis bigami prandere non convenit, quia, cum poenitentia bigamus indigeat, quis erit presbyter, qui talibus nuptiis possit praebere consensum »? Sed hoc de illo intelligi potest, qui primae uxori insidiatus putatur desiderio secundae; vel pro signaculo Sacramenti illud dicitur, quod in bigamo non servatur. Ambrosius[^p867-4] etiam dicit, quod « primae nuptiae tantum a Domino sunt institutae, secundae vero sunt permissae; et primae nuptiae sub benedictione Dei celebrantur sublimiter, secundae vero etiam in praesenti carent gloria ».

---

english:
<!-- page 864 -->

### DISTINCTION XLII.

### Chap. I. *On spiritual kinship.*

Concerning the famous question of the degrees of kinship we have said something, though less than sufficiently. Now let us add [something] concerning spiritual kinship, which also impedes persons, so that they are not legitimate for entering into marriages. « There are three things[^p864-1]: consanguinity, affinity, and spiritual brotherhood (*germanitas*). Consanguinity is between those who are joined according to the line of descent. Affinity is between those who indeed are not joined by descent, but through the mediation of descent
<!-- page 865 -->
are allied — for example, the wife of my brother's son, who is not of my kindred, [yet] through him who is of my kindred has been made my kinswoman-by-affinity, and I hers ». « Spiritual nearness is between the co-father (godfather) and the co-mother (godmother), and between those of whom one has raised the other from the sacred font, or has held [him] in catechesis or in confirmation. It is also between the carnal and the spiritual sons of the same man ».

### Chap. II. *Who are spiritual sons.*

« Spiritual sons are those whom we raise from the sacred font, or hold in catechesis or confirmation. Their spiritual sons and daughters also are those who, by the name of the threefold immersion, dip them in sacred baptism. She too is called the spiritual daughter of a priest who confesses her sins to him[^p865-1] ». Whence Pope Symmachus[^p865-2]: « All whom we receive in penance are so our spiritual sons, as also [are] those whom — whether while we receive them, or while [they are] immersed under the name of the threefold immersion — the water of baptism has regenerated. Sylvester also admonishes that no priest approach his own female penitent, because it is written: All whom we receive in penance are so our sons as [those] received in baptism »; « of all of whom the intercourse is disgraceful ». « That a co-father and co-mother cannot be joined to each other, nor a spiritual father to the daughter, nor the mother to the spiritual son, is taught from the Council of Mainz[^p865-3] »: « Concerning that which you asked, if someone has taken his goddaughter to wife, and concerning him who has lain with a spiritual mother, and concerning him who baptized his own son, and his wife received him from the font for this cause, that a dissolution of the marriage might be made, whether afterward they can remain in such a union: thus it must be answered: if someone has taken his goddaughter or godmother into marriage, we judge that they must be separated and punished with grave penance. But if legitimate spouses, one or both, have done this on purpose, that they might receive their son from the font; if they wish to remain unmarried, it is good; but if not, let grave penance be enjoined on the plotter, and let them remain together; and if the transgressor of the marriage survives, let him be punished with the sharpest penance and remain without hope of marriage ». — From these things it appears that someone cannot join to himself in marriage his goddaughter or godmother; and if it has been presumed, they must be separated. But those who are legitimately joined are not on that account to be separated, because one of them has craftily raised the son from the font. — Which Nicholas[^p865-4] also confirms, saying: « You desire to know whether a woman, who has raised from the sacred font the son of [her] husband begotten of another woman, may afterward be able to be joined to the same man. We therefore decree that they can be joined, because according to the sacred canons, except by the consent of both, under pretext of no religion ought a spouse to dismiss a spouse, since the Apostle commands: *Do not defraud one another, unless perhaps by consent for a time* » etc. Likewise: « It has been told us that certain women — some slothfully, some indeed fraudulently, in order to be separated from their husbands — have held their own sons before the bishops for confirmation. Whence we have judged it worthy that, if any woman by sloth, or by some fraud, has held her son before the bishop for confirmation, on account of the deceit or fraud, as long as she lives, let her do penance; yet let her not be separated from her husband ». Likewise Pope John[^p865-5]: « To the thresholds of blessed Peter a man, by name Stephen, coming, made known to our prelacy that his son, placed at the extremity of life, not yet washed by the water of baptism — the absence of priests compelling — he baptized and received him with his own hands. And for a matter of this kind your reverence judged that the aforesaid man was to be separated from his wife. Which ought by no means to be done, since Scripture says: *What God has joined let not man separate*; and the Lord bids [us] not to dismiss a wife except for the cause of fornication. And we, relying on so great an authority, say that he must be let go, and that what necessity brought about must be judged blameless. For the work of baptizing is freely granted to lay faithful, if however it be necessary. Whence if the aforesaid man, looking upon his dying son, lest he should let the soul perish forever, washed [him] with the water of baptism, that he might snatch him from the power of death; he is praised as having done well. And therefore we judge that he remains joined with impunity to his wife, long since legitimately allied to him, while he lives, and that he ought not on this account to be separated ». — By these and many other authorities it is taught that spouses are not to be separated, if after a legitimate union the one raises the other's son from the font, or holds [him] in confirmation.

But to this there seems to be opposed [what] Pope Deusdedit[^p865-6] says: « There has come to us a deacon bearing a letter of your holiness, [reporting] that certain men and women, on the past paschal Saturday, on account of a great throng of people, unknowingly had received their [own] sons from the laver. You desire therefore to know whether on this account men and women ought to return to their proper use, or not. But we, saddened by this matter, have inquired into the sayings of our predecessors and have found in the archives of the Apostolic See, that such things have already happened in many Churches, whose bishops, when they wished to know from this Apostolic See whether the men and women should return to their proper bed; the holy Fathers of blessed memory Julius, Innocent, and Celestine, with the consent of very many bishops, in the Church of the prince of the Apostles, forbidding such things, wrote back and confirmed, that in no way should the women and men receive themselves into marriage, who-
<!-- page 866 -->
soever had received children in this manner, but should separate themselves, lest, at the devil's persuasion, such a vice grow inveterate ». Likewise[^p866-1]: « If anyone has held his stepson or stepdaughter before the bishop for confirmation, let him be separated from his wife and never take another ». — But these things have been said either for terror — not because it should so be done, but that it might not be done, [and] must be most greatly guarded against; or they are to be understood of those who first received their sons in turn from the font, before they became spouses. — But, the aforesaid authorities being premised, it must be altogether agreed that « whether the woman has received from the font her own son, or only her husband's son, she is not on that account to be separated from her husband; which likewise must be understood of the husband ».

### Chap. III. *On the union of spiritual, or adoptive, and natural sons.*

But that spiritual, or adoptive, sons cannot be joined to natural ones, Pope Nicholas[^p866-2] attests, thus saying: « A man ought so to love him who received him from the sacred font, as [he loves] a father. Between spiritual brothers and sons there is a gratuitous and holy communion, which is not to be called consanguinity, but is to be held [as] spiritual nearness. Whence between them I judge that a legal marriage cannot be made, because neither between those who are sons by nature, nor those who [are sons] by adoption, do the venerable laws permit marriages to be contracted. Likewise, if marriage is not contracted between those whom adoption joins, how much more ought those to cease from carnal cohabitation with one another whom the regeneration of the Holy Spirit joins through the heavenly Sacrament »?

### Chap. IV. *On the union of sons who were born before or after the co-fatherhood.*

But this some wish to understand of those sons only, to whom [the parents] have been made co-fathers; but concerning others, who were begotten before the co-fatherhood or after, they concede that they can be lawfully and licitly joined. To whom Urban the second[^p866-3] seems to consent, saying: « Concerning the matters on which your love has consulted us, here it seems to be answered, that let it be baptism, if, necessity being urgent, a woman has baptized a boy in the name of the Trinity, and that the sons or daughters of spiritual parents begotten before or after the co-fatherhood can be legitimately joined, except that person by whom they were made co-fathers ». But Paschal the second[^p866-4] forbids those begotten after the co-fatherhood to be joined, writing to Bishop Rhegino: « After the reception of a son from the font, or of a spiritual daughter, those who have been born of the co-father or of the co-mother cannot be joined in marriage ». — This too must be noted, which is read in the Council of Tibur: « If anyone [has taken] the daughter of his spiritual co-mother by chance, and, it so happening by the hazard of circumstances, has taken [her] into marriage, a more mature counsel being observed, let him have [her] and honorably give attention to a legitimate wedlock ».

### Chap. V. *Whether it is lawful for anyone to take two co-mothers, one after the other.*

It is also wont to be asked whether anyone may take the co-mother of [his] wife after her death. Concerning this Pope Nicholas[^p866-5] thus writes: « Your holiness inquires of us, whether anyone may have two co-mothers, one after the other. In which you ought to remember that it is written: *They shall be two in one flesh.* Since therefore it is agreed that a man and a woman become one flesh; it remains that the man is constituted co-father to that woman, whose taken wife was co-mother; and therefore that the man cannot be joined to that woman who was his co-mother, with whom the same [man] had been made one flesh ». But to this the following seems contrary: « He who has a spiritual co-father, whose son he received from the laver, and whose wife is not co-mother, it is lawful for him, his co-father being dead, to take his widow in marriage; whom no spiritual generation separates ». Likewise, from a letter of Pope Paschal: « After the death of a wife, to be joined in marriage with the co-mother of the wife, no reason or authority seems to forbid. For one does not pass over through the union of the flesh to the union of the spirit ». — But it must be known that « the authority of Nicholas treats of him who rendered the debt to his wife, after she became co-mother of that [man]. But the other authorities treat of him whose wife, after she is abandoned by her husband, becomes co-mother of that [man] and is not known by her husband after the co-fatherhood »; or they rather treat of him whose wife dies before she is known by him.

### Chap. VI. *Whether a husband and wife may together hold a boy.*

It is also wont to be asked whether a wife with [her] husband ought together to receive a boy in baptism. Concerning this Urban[^p866-6] says: « That a wife with [her] husband ought not together to receive a boy in baptism, is found forbidden by no authority; but that the very purity of spiritual fatherhood may be kept immune from all stain and infamy, we have decreed that both may not together presume to aspire to this. But because he has committed an expiable crime who married two co-mothers as [if] sisters, a great penance ought to be enjoined on him ».

### Chap. VII. *On second and third and thereafter marriages.*

It must also be known that not only first or second marriages are licit, but also third and
<!-- page 867 -->
fourth are not to be condemned. Whence Augustine[^p867-1]: « Second marriages the Apostle grants to be altogether licit ». « But concerning third and fourth, and beyond, more numerous marriages, men are wont to raise a question. But who would dare to define what I see not even the Apostle to have defined? For he says: *If her husband has fallen asleep, let her marry whom she wishes.* He does not say: the first, or the second, or the third, or however-many-th; nor is it to be defined by us what the Apostle does not define. Whence, that I may briefly answer, I ought neither to condemn those marriages, nor to take from them the modesty of number, nor against the sense of human modesty do I dare to say, that they may marry as often as they wish, nor out of my own heart, beyond the authority of Scripture, to condemn however-many marriages ». Likewise Jerome[^p867-2] attests: « I now with free voice cry out, that neither is bigamy condemned in the Church, nay nor trigamy; and that it is thus lawful to marry a fifth and a sixth [husband], just as to marry a second husband ». — The Apostle nevertheless excludes bigamists from the priestly honor. But he does this not for the vice of bigamy, but rather for the virtue of the Sacrament, that there may be one [wife] of one [husband], as one [woman] of one [man]. — Yet [that saying] of the Council of Caesarea[^p867-3] seems to intimate that bigamy is a sin: « It is not fitting, it says, for a presbyter to dine at the marriage of a bigamist, because, since a bigamist needs penance, who will be the presbyter who could give consent to such marriages »? But this can be understood of him who is thought to have plotted against his first wife out of desire for the second; or it is said for the seal of the Sacrament, which in a bigamist is not preserved. Ambrose[^p867-4] also says that « first marriages only were instituted by the Lord, but second ones were permitted; and first marriages are celebrated sublimely under the blessing of God, but second ones lack even the glory [that is] in the present ».

---

la: Ita codd. et edd. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 et ipse Hugo, II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 17, unde sumtae sunt haec propositio et sequentes; in ceteris edd. *quidem.* Seq. locus est eiusdem Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 12.

en: Thus the codices and editions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and Hugh himself, *On the Sacraments* [book] II, part XI, c. 17, whence this proposition and the following are taken; in the other editions [it reads] *quidem.* The following passage is from the same author's *Summa Sententiarum,* tract 7, c. 12.

la: Gratian. super C. *Ad limina* (7.), C. 30. q. 1; cfr. Hugo, Sum. loc. cit.

en: Gratian on the canon *Ad limina* (7), Causa 30, q. 1; cf. Hugh, *Summa,* at the place cited.

la: Can. *Omnes quos* (8.), ibid. Plurimae edd. ante *poenitentialem* addunt *filiam.* Seq. locus est Gratiani loc. cit.

en: The canon *Omnes quos* (8), in the same place. Very many editions add *filiam* before *poenitentialem.* The following passage is Gratian's, at the place cited.

la: Hugo, Sum. Sent. loc. cit. Pro *Maguntinensi* Hugo et cod. Erf. habent *Maguntiensi,* ed. 8 *Moguntinensi.* Sequens can. huius Concilii est ibid. et C. *De eo quod interrogastis* (5.), ibid. Cfr. C. *Veniens* (6.), X. de Cognatione spirituali (lib. IV. tit. 11.).

en: Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* at the place cited. For *Maguntinensi* Hugh and codex Erf. have *Maguntiensi,* ed. 8 *Moguntinensi.* The following canon of this Council is in the same place, and [so is] the canon *De eo quod interrogastis* (5), in the same place. Cf. the canon *Veniens* (6), [Decretals of Gregory IX] X, *On spiritual cognation* (book IV, tit. 11).

la: Can. *Nosse desideras* (3.), C. 30. q. 1; ubi citatur I. Cor. 7, 5. Seq. locus est C. *Dictum est* (4.), ibid.

en: The canon *Nosse desideras* (3), Causa 30, q. 1; where 1 Cor. 7:5 is cited. The following passage is the canon *Dictum est* (4), in the same place.

la: Can. *Ad limina* (7.), ibid.; et citantur Matth. 19, 5; 6, 32. — Vat. cum edd. 4, 5, 9 pro *dimittendum esse* (i. e. non inquietandum) *non dimittendam esse,* scilicet uxorem.

en: The canon *Ad limina* (7), in the same place; and Matt. 19:5; 6:32 are cited. — The Vatican [edition] with editions 4, 5, 9, for *dimittendum esse* (i.e. [that he is] not to be disturbed) [reads] *non dimittendam esse,* namely the wife.

la: Can. *Pervenit ad nos* (1.), ibid. De explicatione et abrogatione huius canonis cfr. C. *Qui spiritualem* (4.), ibid. q. 4. et C. *Martinus* (4.), X. de Cognatione spirit. (lib. IV. tit. 11.). — Post *archivis* edd. plurimae et codd. BCE addunt glossando *id est armariis;* deinde Vat. et plurimae edd. falso *praesidentes* pro *prohibentes;* denique pro *rescripserunt* ed. 8 cum canone *praescripserunt.*

en: The canon *Pervenit ad nos* (1), in the same place. Concerning the explanation and abrogation of this canon cf. the canon *Qui spiritualem* (4), in the same place, q. 4, and the canon *Martinus* (4), [Decretals] X, *On spiritual cognation* (book IV, tit. 11). — After *archivis* very many editions and codices BCE add, by way of gloss, *id est armariis* (that is, in the presses); then the Vatican [edition] and very many editions falsely [read] *praesidentes* for *prohibentes;* finally, for *rescripserunt* ed. 8, with the canon, [reads] *praescripserunt.*

la: Can. *Si quis filiastrum* (2.), C. 30. q. 1. — Pro *ita* edd., excepta I, *quod ita,* refragantibus codd. — Seq. locus est Gratian., super C. *Non debet* (10.), ibid.

en: The canon *Si quis filiastrum* (2), Causa 30, q. 1. — For *ita* the editions, except ed. I, [read] *quod ita,* the codices opposing. — The following passage is Gratian's, on the canon *Non debet* (10), in the same place.

la: Can. *Ita diligere* (1.), ibid. q. 3. § 1. et 2.

en: The canon *Ita diligere* (1), in the same place, q. 3, §§ 1 and 2.

la: Can. *Super quibus* (4.), ibid.

en: The canon *Super quibus* (4), in the same place.

la: Can. *Post susceptum* (5.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. *Illud etiam* (6.), ibid.

en: The canon *Post susceptum* (5), in the same place. The following passage is the canon *Illud etiam* (6), in the same place.

la: Can. *Sciscitatur a nobis* (1.), ibid. q. 4, ubi respicitur Gen. 2, 24. Seq. locus est C. *Qui spiritualem* (4.), ibid.; tertius C. *Post uxoris* (5.), ibid. Quae sequuntur sunt ex Gratiano super ult. can. — Cod. Erf. annotat: *Cave, quia Magister hic non tenetur.* — De ista opinione Magistri et Gratiani cfr. infra Comment. a. 1. q. 3.

en: The canon *Sciscitatur a nobis* (1), in the same place, q. 4, where Gen. 2:24 is referred to. The following passage is the canon *Qui spiritualem* (4), in the same place; the third, the canon *Post uxoris* (5), in the same place. What follows is from Gratian on the last canon. — Codex Erf. notes: *Beware, because the Master is not held [to be right] here.* — Concerning this opinion of the Master and of Gratian cf. below, the Commentary, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Can. *Quod autem* (6.), ibid.

en: The canon *Quod autem* (6), in the same place.

la: [Augustin.,] De Bono viduitatis, c. 4. n. 6; lib. II. contra Adversar. Legis et Prophet. c. 11. n. 37; C. *Deus masculum* (12.), C. 31. q. 1. Seq. locus est de Bono viduitatis, c. 12. n. 15, ubi citatur I. Cor. 7, 39; C. *Quod si dormierit* (13.), ibid. — Pro *auferre* codd. CD *afferre,* Vat. *inferre,* refragante etiam canone. — Hoc cap. sumtum est ex Hug., Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 21.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Good of Widowhood,* c. 4, n. 6; book II *Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets,* c. 11, n. 37; the canon *Deus masculum* (12), Causa 31, q. 1. The following passage is from *On the Good of Widowhood,* c. 12, n. 15, where 1 Cor. 7:39 is cited; the canon *Quod si dormierit* (13), in the same place. — For *auferre* the codices CD [read] *afferre,* the Vatican [edition] *inferre,* the canon also opposing. — This chapter is taken from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* tract 7, c. 21.

la: [Hieron.,] Epist. 48. (alias 50.) ad Pammachium, n. 18; C. *Aperiant quaeso* (11.), ibid. § 2. — Pro *bigamiam et trigamiam* plurimae edd. *bigamam et trigamam;* codd. AB *digamiam* [et trigamiam] (quod etiam infra ab aliis codd. repetitur). — Deinde respicitur I. Tim. 3, 2.

en: [Jerome,] Epist. 48 (alias 50) to Pammachius, n. 18; the canon *Aperiant quaeso* (11), in the same place, § 2. — For *bigamiam et trigamiam* very many editions [read] *bigamam et trigamam;* the codices AB *digamiam* [et trigamiam] (which is also repeated below by other codices). — Then 1 Tim. 3:2 is referred to.

la: Can. *De his* (8.), ibid.

en: The canon *De his* (8), in the same place.

la: [Ambros.,] Comment. in I. Cor. 7, 40 (inter eius opera).

en: [Ambrose,] Commentary on 1 Cor. 7:40 (among his works). ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L92045–L92362) corrected column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{864,865,866,867}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x≈1880). English is a fresh literal parallel. Offset `pdf = printed + 20` (864→884 … 867→887). No scholion exists in the *littera* (`has_scholion: false`).

**Page layout (verified from bands).** On **p.864** the upper half of BOTH columns is d.41's Bonaventure commentary (the tail of Dub. II, then Dub. III and Dub. IV), NOT this littera. The `DISTINCTIO XLII.` header, `Cap. I` and its opening (*De parentalium graduum famosa quaestione…*) open lower in the columns — Cap. I begins at the foot of the left column and continues into the right-column foot. The littera then fills BOTH columns of pp.865–866 and the top of both columns of p.867, ending at `…secundae vero etiam in praesenti carent gloria` immediately before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLII.` (the divisio's territory). Running heads/folios confirmed: `DISTINCTIO XLII.` (p.865), `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` / folio `866` (p.866), `DIST. XLII. ART. I.` / folio `867` (p.867). The `S. Bonav. — Tom. IV.` signature and `109` gathering-mark sit under p.865-R.

**Chapter list.** Seven chapters, all present: Cap. I *De spirituali cognatione*; Cap. II *Qui sint filii spirituales*; Cap. III *De copula spiritualium, vel adoptivorum et naturalium filiorum*; Cap. IV *De copula filiorum, qui ante compaternitatem vel post nati sunt*; Cap. V *Si cui liceat duas commatres ducere, alteram post alteram*; Cap. VI *Si vir et uxor simul valeant tenere puerum*; Cap. VII *De secundis et tertiis et deinceps nuptiis*.

**Footer / apparatus crosswalk (17 entries: p.864 → 1; p.865 → 6; p.866 → 6; p.867 → 4).**
- **p.864, footer notes 1–4** (`Libr. IV. tit. 18. c. 6`; `Exod. 20, 14; Deut. 5, 18`; `Edd. perperam non est`; `Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 147-152`) anchor in **d.41's Dub. II–IV commentary** printed above them — **NOT claimed here** (they belong to the d.41 dubia chunk).
- **★ p.864, `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` note 1** (`Ita codd. et edd. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 et ipse Hugo…`) is the fresh Master's-text apparatus and glosses this littera's marker `« Tria¹ quaedam sunt »` (Cap. I). **Claimed here** as `[^p864-1]`. This is the note the d.41-dubia writer deliberately left unclaimed for this chunk.
- **p.865** (whole page = littera, footers restart at 1): LEFT-column notes 1–4 (*Ad limina*/`confitetur`; *Omnes quos*/`Symmachus`; *Maguntinensi*/`docetur`; *Nosse desideras*/`Nicolaus`) and RIGHT-column notes 5–6 (*Ad limina*/`Ioannes`; *Pervenit ad nos*/`Deusdedit`). All six claimed as `[^p865-1]`–`[^p865-6]`.
- **p.866** (whole page = littera): LEFT notes 1–4 (*Si quis filiastrum*/`Item`; *Ita diligere*/`Nicolaus Papa`; *Super quibus*/`Urbanus secundus`; *Post susceptum*/`Paschalis vero secundus`) and RIGHT notes 5–6 (*Sciscitatur a nobis*/`Nicolaus Papa` [Cap. V]; *Quod autem*/`Urbanus` [Cap. VI]). All six claimed as `[^p866-1]`–`[^p866-6]`.
- **p.867** (littera occupies the top of both columns): the **top footer** notes 1–4 (De Bono viduitatis/`Augustinus`; ad Pammachium/`Hieronymus`; *De his*/`Caesariensis Concilii`; Comment. in I. Cor./`Ambrosius`) anchor in this littera and are **claimed** as `[^p867-1]`–`[^p867-4]`. Note 2 splits across the column rule (its tail — `…codd. AB digamiam … Deinde respicitur I. Tim. 3, 2` — sits in the right-column footer).

**p.867 seam (littera vs divisio).** The littera ends at `…in praesenti carent gloria` (right after Ambrose, Cap. VII). Everything from `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLII. / De impedimento matrimonii… / DIVISIO TEXTUS. / Supra egit Magister de cognatione carnali…` onward belongs to the **divisio** chunk. Accordingly the p.867 **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`** footnote sequence (its own note 1 `Dist. 34. in Divisione textus`; note 2 `codd. ORS determinantur`; plus the further `Deinde respici… / Can. De his / Comment. in I. Cor. 7, 40 …` block feeding the divisio-body markers `supra¹`, `determinat²`) is **left to the divisio writer** and NOT rendered here.

**Marginalia trimmed** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses naming the source author, not Lombard's running text): *Hugo, Symmachus, Silvester, Nicolaus, Ioannes, Deusdedit, Canon, Gratianus, Urbanus, Paschalis, Augustinus, Hieronymus, De irregularitate, Ambrosius* (per the d.41 littera convention).

**OCR garbles silently corrected against the bands:** `sociali`→*sociati*; `copulaii`→*copulari*; `Spiritnalis`→*Spiritualis*; `Symmachns`→*Symmachus*; `regeneravit`/`regeneramus` read against band; `Maguntinensi` (retained; variant noted in `[^p865-3]`); `Nicolans`→*Nicolaus*; `praesulatni`→*praesulatui*; `iuiungatur`→*iniungatur*; `couiugii`→*coniugii*; `Rhegino` (as printed); `Tibnriensi`→*Tiburiensi*; `defnncto`→*defuncto*; `bigamiae`/`trigamiam` read against band.

**`[?]` flags.**
- **p.865 note 5, the Matthew citation — RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** Re-read at 600 dpi in the p.865 right-column footer (PDF p.885): the entry prints *Can. Ad limina (7.), ibid.; et citantur Matth. 19, 5; 6, 32.*, with the line breaking after `6,` and `32.` opening the next line. The reading is certain and the `[?]` is removed. The oddity is Quaracchi's, not ours: the glossed clauses answer to Matt. 19:6 (*Quod Deus coniunxit*) and Matt. 5:32 (the fornication exception), so `19, 5; 6, 32` looks like a compressed or mis-set reference — recorded here, transcribed as printed, not emended.

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, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Distinctio XLII — Divisio textus
Distinction XLII — Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 867 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation, and render the Quaracchi *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* for this distinction.

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLII.

### *De impedimento matrimonii, quod venit ex propinquitate spirituali.*

*De parentalium graduum famosa quaestione* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de cognatione carnali. In hac parte agit de spirituali, et continet haec pars praesentem distinctionem, quae potest dividi in duas partes. In prima agit de cognatione spirituali. In secunda vero agit de secundis nuptiis, ostendens, illas esse licitas; quae pars supra[^1] divisa fuit contra totam praecedentem; et hoc facit ultimo capitulo: *Sciendum est etiam, quod non solum primae vel secundae nuptiae* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima ostendit, qualiter spiritualis cognatio contrahatur. In secunda, qualiter impedit matrimonium, ibi: *Quod autem compater et commater* etc. Et illa dividitur in duas. In prima agit de cognatione directa. In secunda vero de indirecta, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, si commatrem* etc.

Prima pars iterum dividitur in duas. In prima agit, quomodo cognatio spiritualis impedit in se. In secunda vero, in comparatione ad cognationem legalem, ibi: *Quod autem spirituales, vel adoptivi filii*. — Et ita tria determinat[^2] in hac distinctione. Primum est de cognatione spirituali; secundum est de legali, et tertium est de secundis nuptiis.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa tria incidit hic principaliter quaestio, sicut tria sunt, quae Magister determinat.

Primo quaeritur de cognatione spirituali.

Secundo, de cognatione legali.

Tertio, de secundo foedere nuptiali.

---

english:
<!-- page 867 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XLII.

### *On the impediment of marriage which comes from spiritual kinship.*

*On the celebrated question of the degrees of kindred*, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of carnal kinship. In this part he treats of spiritual [kinship], and this part comprises the present distinction, which can be divided into two parts. In the first he treats of spiritual kinship. In the second he treats of second marriages, showing that they are licit; which part above[^1] was divided against the whole preceding [part]; and this he does in the last chapter: *It must be known also that not only first or second marriages* etc.

The first part has two [members]. In the first he shows how spiritual kinship is contracted. In the second, how it impedes marriage, there: *But that a godfather and a godmother* etc. And that [part] is divided into two. In the first he treats of direct kinship. In the second, of indirect [kinship], there: *It is also wont to be asked, whether a godmother* etc.

The first part is again divided into two. In the first he treats how spiritual kinship impedes in itself. In the second, in comparison to legal kinship, there: *But that spiritual, or adoptive, children*. — And thus he determines three things[^2] in this distinction. The first is concerning spiritual kinship; the second is concerning legal [kinship], and the third is concerning second marriages.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, a question falls principally here concerning three things, just as there are three things which the Master determines.

First it is asked concerning spiritual kinship.

Secondly, concerning legal kinship.

Thirdly, concerning the second nuptial covenant.

---

la: Dist. 34. in Divisione textus.

en: Distinction 34, in the Division of the text.

la: Codd. O R S *determinantur*.

en: Codices O R S read *determinantur* ("are determined"). ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 92363–92470), with the two-column PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p867-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` authoritative throughout, since the OCR cascade-shatters this divisio (the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO reflow diagonally across both columns of p.867). Reflowed left column then right column. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pdf 887 = printed 867).

**Scope / chunking.** This chunk holds the DIVISIO TEXTUS + the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the article-level question listing) only. Per the Vol II/IV convention, the short ARTICULUS I opener (*Quantum ad primum primo procedamus per modum narrationis…*), the PRAENOTATA, and QUAESTIO I are folded into **d42-a1-q1**, not here. The distinction has **no scholion**. The TRACTATIO lists three articles: **Art I** *De cognatione spirituali* (spiritual kinship), **Art II** *De cognatione legali* (legal kinship), **Art III** *De secundo foedere nuptiali* / *De secundis nuptiis* (second marriages).

**Page-split map.** The COMMENTARIUS header, distinction rubric, DIVISIO TEXTUS, and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM all sit on **p.867** (both columns). The ARTICULUS I opener + PRAENOTATA also begin on p.867 and continue onto **p.868**, but that content is owned by **d42-a1-q1**. `printed_pages` lists [867, 868] because the auto-chunk raw span (L92363–92470) reaches onto p.868; the divisio/tractatio body itself is wholly on p.867, so only a single `<!-- page 867 -->` marker appears in the body.

**Footer ownership (p.867 seams).**
- *Shared with the littera:* p.867 carries four numbered footers (1 *De Bono viduitatis…/Hoc cap. sumtum est ex Hug., Sum. Sent.*; 2 *Epist. 48. ad Pammachium…/Deinde respicitur 1. Tim. 3, 2*; 3 *Can. De his (8.), ibid.*; 4 *Comment. in I. Cor. 7, 40*). These anchor in Lombard's **d42 littera** text at the top of the page, **not** in this divisio — so they are **not** claimed here.
- *Divisio-anchored (claimed here):* the separate **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** block (Quaracchi restarts numbering) has two notes — `[^1]` *Dist. 34. in Divisione textus* (anchored at *quae pars supra…*) and `[^2]` *Codd. O R S determinantur* (anchored at *Et ita tria determinat…*). Both markers are body-anchored in this chunk, so `has_apparatus: true`.
- *Shared with a1-q1 (p.868):* the QUAESTIO I opener and any p.868 footers go to **d42-a1-q1**.

**`[?]` flags.** None. The PDF bands rendered the entire divisio, tractatio, and both NOTAE cleanly.