title: Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 851 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De cognatione carnali sive consanguinitate.*
### Quaestio III. *Usque ad quem gradum se extendat impedimentum consanguinitatis.*

Tertio quaeritur, usque ad quem gradum consanguinitas impediat matrimonium. Et quod usque ad *septimum*, videtur.

1. Gregorius dicit, et habetur in littera[^p851-3]: «Progeniem suam usque ad septimam generationem unumquemque observare, decrevimus». *Si tu dicas*, quod illud est retractatum in Concilio generali, Extra, de Consanguinitate[^p851-4], *Non debet* etc.; ostenditur, quod illud non debet esse retractatum, quoniam aut hoc est *bene statutum*, aut *non*. Si *non*: ergo male statuit sanctus Gregorius et alii Sancti. Si *sic*; sed quod bene statutum est non indiget retractatione, sed observatione: ergo etc.

2. Item, secundum rectum ordinem non est retrocedendum, sed ultra progrediendum: ergo si sancti Patres consanguinitatem usque ad gradum septimum produxerunt, ergo qui reducit ipsam ad quartum retrocedit. Sed qui *aspicit retro non est aptus regno Dei*[^p851-5]: ergo male fecerunt qui retractaverunt.

3. Item, in proximis gradibus non permittitur contrahere propter dilatationem caritatis; sed quanto caritas est frigidior, tanto magis indiget dilatari: cum ergo in fine *caritas refrigescat*[^p851-6], et hoc iam evenerit; videtur, quod nunc magis competat gradus consanguinitatis protendere quam restringere.

4. Item, quanto magis fideles sunt multiplicati, tanto magis habent copiam de his, cum quibus licite possunt contrahere: ergo maior opportunitas erat in praecedentibus temporibus[^p851-7] cum propinquis quam nunc: si ergo illa opportunitas non excludebat constitutionem de septenario gradu consanguinitatis observando; ergo nec nunc.

**Contra:**

1. Quod non debeat impedire ultra *secundum*, videtur: quia in Lege non prohibetur nisi usque ad secundum gradum, sicut patet Levitici decimo octavo[^p851-8]: ergo si omnes possunt matrimonialiter per Deum coniungi, qui a Deo non prohibentur; ergo omnes, quotquot infra illum gradum coniunguntur, a Deo coniunguntur: ergo per hominem separari non possunt: ergo non potest matrimonium alicui prohiberi infra illum gradum.

2. Item, Ecclesia non potest facere, quod baptizatus careat baptismate, et quantumcumque statuat, si baptizatur quis, de facto baptizatus est: ergo quantumcumque prohibeat et statuat, ut aliqui invicem non contrahant, tamen, si de facto contrahant, contractum est: ergo videtur, quod gradus prohibiti ab Ecclesia matrimonium non impediant. Sed isti omnes sunt ultra secundum: ergo etc.

3. Item, matrimonium contractum contra Ecclesiae *interdictum* verum est matrimonium[^p851-9]: ergo cum gradus consanguinitatis non habeant virtutem impediendi nisi propter Ecclesiae statutum; videtur, quod secundum veritatem non impediunt.

4. Item, Hieronymus[^p851-10] dicit, quod «nihil sibi credatur, nisi probet per vetus vel per novum testamentum»: ergo cum non possit probari per novum nec per vetus, quod non possit contrahi in gradibus ultra secundum; videtur, quod nulli credendum est, si dicat contrarium: ergo retinendum est, quod potest contrahi.

> **Conclusio.** Consanguinitas secundum legem naturalem impedit in primo gradu, secundum legem veterem, usque ad secundum; secundum legem evangelicam, usque ad quartum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod secundum tempora nostra matrimonium impeditur a gradibus consanguinitatis usque ad *quartum inclusive*, sicut patet Extra, de Consanguinitate, *Non debet*, in decretali edita in Concilio generali.

Si autem quaeritur ratio huius; dicendum, quod huius ratio est *statutum Ecclesiae*. Si quaeratur ultra, quare Ecclesia statuit; dicendum, quod quia

<!-- page 852 -->

*potuit*, et *congruum* fuit, et quia erat *utile*, et quia erat *necesse*. — Primum quidem *potuit*, et quod potuit, probatur per Scripturam: quia in principio in constitutione matrimonii in lege naturae duae excipiebantur personae, scilicet pater et mater, Genesis secundo[^p852-1]: *Relinquet homo patrem et matrem* etc.; post processu temporis in Lege fuerunt plures exceptae, sicut patet Levitici decimo octavo: si ergo lex evangelica abundare debet a Moysaica, ergo in lege evangelica plures debuerunt excipi. Sed Christus in propria persona non excepit: ergo si nihil diminutum debet esse in Ecclesia, ergo *posse* determinandi Ecclesiae reliquit, maxime Petro[^p852-2] et eius successori. Quod attendentes, sancti Patres exceperunt multos gradus consanguinitatis; ex quo apparet, quod ipsi *posse* habuerunt.

*Si autem tu quaeras a me*: quare huiusmodi *posse* Ecclesiae dereliquit? dicendum, quod ratio huius est, quia illud Sacramentum in *contractu* consistit, qui est personae ad personam; et quoniam Dominus plenam iurisdictionem dedit Petro super spiritualia et ampliorem, quam reges terrae et imperator habeant super temporalia. Si ergo regis et principis potentia potest contractus limitare, ut malae fidei possessor iudicetur qui contra eorum interdicta mercatur[^p852-3]; quid mirum, si dedit Ecclesiae *posse*? Immo debuit dare, ut posset personarum legitimitatem et idoneitatem ad contrahendum determinare.

*Si tu quaeras*: quare ipse per se non determinavit? dici potest, quod secundum diversa tempora oportebat, diversas personas et diversos gradus excipi; quia ergo statuta divina non decet sic mutare, sicut humana[^p852-4]: hinc est, quod non ipse Christus debuit limitare, sed limitandos Petro et eius successoribus committere. Et sic patet, quod *potuit*.

Secundo vero *congruum* fuit, quod usque ad talem gradum consanguinitas protenderetur: quoniam consanguinitas ortum habet ex propagatione; propagatio autem est ex semine, semen autem in se habet naturam quatuor humorum et quatuor elementorum[^p852-5]: et hinc est, quod consanguinitas *ultra* quartam generationem non debuit determinari. Et *iterum*, *infra* illum gradum non debuit commisceri, nec matrimonium copulari, ubi potestas corporis datur alii. Sicut ergo corpus quatuor constat elementis, ita oportet quatuor gradibus distare, qui debent carnaliter commisceri. — Et *iterum*, lex nova super legem Moysaicam plus debet addere perfectionis, quam lex Moysaica super legem naturae. Si ergo lex Moysaica unum addidit gradum supra legem naturae; tunc ergo lex evangelica saltem duos debet addere, sicut iustitia Evangelii non tantum superat iustitiam Legis, sed etiam superabundat. Congruum ergo fuit et propter legem matrimonii et propter legem Evangelii, matrimonium a consanguinitatis *quarto* gradu impediri, nec ultra addi nec minui. Et sic patet, quomodo fuit *congruum*.

Fuit etiam *utile*, quia vinculum matrimonii ratione affinitatis, quae ibi contrahitur, fovet caritatem et foederat inimicos; et quoniam caritas nostris temporibus refriguit, ideo citius nunc rumpitur vinculum amoris quam in Ecclesia primitiva; et alligatus vinculo citius fugit, et qui fuerat proximus frequentissime fit inimicus. Ut ergo fugiens posset revocari; cum a quarto gradu et deinceps iam ab affectione amoris frigescant, utile fuit constituere, ut post quartum gradum posset fugiens revocari ad vinculum, posset etiam confoederari inimicus; propter quam utilitatem decebat, Pontificem Summum, manente priori prohibitione, dispensare; et cum ista utilitas sit frequentissima, utile fuit, ut fieret ius commune.

Quarto vero fuit *necesse* propter periculum: quoniam propter multitudinem consanguineorum et brevitatem dierum vix potest aliquis computare consanguineos usque ad septimum gradum; et ita erat ibi maximum periculum, quia[^p852-6] frequentissime contingebat, homines iungi infra gradus prohibitos, immo vix poterat aliquis evadere: et ideo oportuit, prius statutum retractare. Tale periculum vel talis necessitas non fuit in tempore Ecclesiae primitivae, tum quia homines erant *longioris vitae*, tum quia *minoris generationis*; nunc autem decrevit in hominibus potentia virtutis nutritivae, et augmentata est potentia virtutis generativae propter fervorem libidinis, qui viget nunc in hominibus adeo, quod secundum communem cursum possent homines ita multiplicari, quod usque ad quartum gradum, nedum usque ad octavum[^p852-7], vix inveniret aliquis, cum qua contraheret. — Et illud patet ad oculum: possibile enim est, quod aliquis generet viginti, et iterum, quod aliquis generet tres; nunc ponamus secundum communem cursum, quod generet decem, et illi decem alios decem; in secundo gradu erunt centum, in tertio mille, in quarto decem millia; et ita infra quatuor gradus haberet aliquis consanguineos in una linea undecim millia centum et undecim, totidem in linea ascen-

<!-- page 853 -->

dente, et totidem in transversali: ergo secundum naturam haberet triginta tria millia et trecentos triginta tres consanguineos. Et in una magna patria vix inveniret, cum qua contraheret usque ad quartum[^p853-1] gradum, quanto magis usque ad septimum. Ideo propter periculum oportuit revocare illud statutum, et hoc scilicet usque ad quartum gradum statuere. — Et ista fuit potissima ratio, quare mutatum est, sicut expresse dicitur in decretali[^p853-2] edita in Concilio generali, ubi dicitur: «Non debet reprehensibile iudicari, si secundum varietatem temporum statuta quoque varientur humana, praesertim cum urgens necessitas vel evidens utilitas hoc exposcit». — Hoc autem non solum *necessitas* exposcebat, sed etiam *utilitas* requirebat, et aderat *congruitas* et *potestas*; ideo recte usque ad quartum gradum impediri matrimonium, rectissime et irreprehensibiliter statuit et ordinavit Ecclesia.

**Ad argumenta primae partis:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Gregorio, dicendum, quod rationabiliter illud statutum fuit tempore suo, et non minus rationabiliter revocatum tempore moderno; nec fuit revocatum, quia esset male statutum, sed quia quod congruebat tempore primitivo non congruebat statui nostro propter maiorem imperfectionem, quae est in nobis, et propter maiora pericula.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est retrocedendum; dicendum, quod verum est in his quae sunt *perfectionis*[^p853-3], sed ea quae sunt rigoris temperari possunt et debent. — Vel dicendum et melius, quod condescendere oporteat infirmitati, et ubi non possumus nos erigere, necessario oportet nos humiliare et inclinare; et ideo propter imperfectionem hominum statutum illud oportuit temperare. Unde verum est, quod non est retrocedendum, sed tamen imperfectionem hominum tolerare est opportunum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de dilatatione caritatis, dicendum, quod illa ratio potius est ad oppositum quam ad propositum. Quia enim caritas minus se extendit, ideo citius oportet ei succurri et adiuvari; et proximus ab amore citius fugit, et ideo citius est revocandus.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maiorem habent fideles copiam; dicendum, quod verum est, si multiplicarentur personae, ita quod non multiplicarentur consanguinei; hoc autem non est verum: et ideo, sicut crescit ex una parte aptitudo, ita ex alia crescit ineptitudo.

**Ad argumenta pro secunda parte:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus non prohibet ultra secundum; dicendum, quod verum est *per se*; tamen prohibet *per Ecclesiam*, quia Ecclesia prohibet auctoritate sibi divinitus data. Ratio autem, quare Deus dedit Ecclesiae auctoritatem super hoc, iam visa est.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non potest facere, quod careat baptismate; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia baptismi institutionem Deus per se ordinavit et confirmavit; sed personarum legitimitatem commisit Ecclesiae, quia matrimonium contrahitur inter virum et mulierem, et Ecclesia habet plenitudinem iurisdictionis super utrumque.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ecclesiae interdicto, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illud interdictum est *ad tempus*, non *simpliciter*, nec facit personas illegitimas simpliciter, sed ligat, ut sine peccato non possint, et ideo poena talibus debet imponi.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hieronymo, dicendum, quod secus est in dictis Ecclesiae et Hieronymi: quia Hieronymus non poterat probare per Scripturam, se esse testem veritatis; ideo ad hoc, quod crederetur sibi, oportebat, quod per Scripturam probaret, esse verum quod testificabatur et dicebat. Sed Ecclesia per Scripturam suam potuit probare auctoritatem[^p853-4]; qua probata, oportet obedire, non aliud testimonium quaerere. Et sic totum patet[^p853-5].

---

english:
<!-- page 851 -->

### Article Unique. *On carnal kinship, or consanguinity.*
### Question III. *To what degree the impediment of consanguinity extends.*

Thirdly it is asked, up to what degree consanguinity impedes marriage. And it seems that it does so up to the *seventh*.

1. Gregory says, and it is had in the text[^p851-3]: «We have decreed that each one is to observe his own progeny up to the seventh generation». *If you should say* that this was retracted in the general Council, Extra, *On Consanguinity*[^p851-4], *Non debet* etc.; it is shown that it ought not to have been retracted, since either this was *well established*, or *not*. If *not*: then Saint Gregory and the other Saints legislated badly. If *so* — but what has been well established does not need retraction but observance: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, according to right order one ought not to go backward but to advance further: therefore, if the holy Fathers extended consanguinity up to the seventh degree, then he who reduces it to the fourth goes backward. But he who *looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God*[^p851-5]: therefore those who retracted it did badly.

3. Likewise, in the nearest degrees contracting is not permitted, on account of the widening of charity; but the colder charity is, the more it needs to be widened: since therefore at the end *charity grows cold*[^p851-6], and this has already come to pass; it seems that now it is more fitting to extend the degrees of consanguinity than to restrict them.

4. Likewise, the more the faithful are multiplied, the more they have an abundance of those with whom they can lawfully contract: therefore there was a greater opportunity in preceding times[^p851-7] with kinsfolk than now: if therefore that opportunity did not exclude the constitution about observing the seventh degree of consanguinity, then neither does it now.

**On the contrary:**

1. That it ought not to impede beyond the *second* [degree] seems [true]: because in the Law nothing is prohibited except up to the second degree, as is plain from Leviticus, chapter eighteen[^p851-8]: therefore, if all can be joined matrimonially by God who are not prohibited by God; then all, as many as are joined within that degree, are joined by God: therefore they cannot be separated by man: therefore marriage cannot be prohibited to anyone within that degree.

2. Likewise, the Church cannot bring it about that one baptized should lack baptism, and however much she may legislate, if someone is baptized, he is in fact baptized: therefore, however much she may prohibit and legislate that certain persons not contract with one another, nevertheless, if they do in fact contract, the contract holds: therefore it seems that the degrees prohibited by the Church do not impede marriage. But all these [degrees] are beyond the second: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a marriage contracted against the Church's *interdict* is a true marriage[^p851-9]: therefore, since the degrees of consanguinity have no power of impeding except on account of the Church's statute; it seems that in truth they do not impede.

4. Likewise, Jerome[^p851-10] says that «nothing is to be believed on a man's word unless he proves it by the Old or by the New Testament»: therefore, since it cannot be proved by the New nor by the Old that one cannot contract in degrees beyond the second; it seems that no one is to be believed if he says the contrary: therefore it is to be held that one can contract.

> **Conclusion.** Consanguinity, according to the natural law, impedes in the first degree; according to the old law, up to the second; according to the evangelical law, up to the fourth.

**I respond:** It must be said that, according to our times, marriage is impeded by the degrees of consanguinity up to the *fourth inclusive*, as is plain from Extra, *On Consanguinity*, *Non debet*, in the decretal published in the general Council.

But if the reason for this be asked; it must be said that the reason for this is the *statute of the Church*. If it be asked further, why the Church legislated thus; it must be said that it is because she

<!-- page 852 -->

*could*, and because it was *fitting*, and because it was *useful*, and because it was *necessary*. — First indeed she *could*, and that she could is proved through Scripture: because in the beginning, in the constitution of marriage under the law of nature, two persons were excepted, namely father and mother, Genesis, chapter two[^p852-1]: *A man shall leave father and mother* etc.; afterward, in the course of time, under the Law more were excepted, as is plain from Leviticus, chapter eighteen: if therefore the evangelical law ought to abound beyond the Mosaic, then under the evangelical law more ought to have been excepted. But Christ in his own person did not except any: therefore, if nothing ought to be diminished in the Church, then he left the *power* of determining to the Church, especially to Peter[^p852-2] and his successor. Attending to this, the holy Fathers excepted many degrees of consanguinity; from which it appears that they had the *power*.

*But if you should ask me*: why did he leave a power of this kind to the Church? it must be said that the reason for this is that that Sacrament consists in a *contract*, which is of person to person; and because the Lord gave to Peter full jurisdiction over spiritual things, and a fuller one than kings of the earth and the emperor have over temporal things. If therefore the power of a king and a prince can limit contracts, so that he is judged a possessor in bad faith who trades against their interdicts[^p852-3]; what wonder if he gave the *power* to the Church? Indeed he had to give it, so that she might be able to determine the legitimacy and fitness of persons for contracting.

*If you should ask*: why did he not determine it himself, of himself? it can be said that, according to diverse times, diverse persons and diverse degrees had to be excepted; since therefore it is not becoming that divine statutes be changed as human ones are[^p852-4]: hence it is that Christ himself did not have to set the limits, but to commit the setting of limits to Peter and his successors. And thus it is plain that she *could*.

Secondly, it was *fitting* that consanguinity be extended up to such a degree: since consanguinity has its origin from propagation; and propagation is from the seed, and the seed has in itself the nature of the four humors and of the four elements[^p852-5]: and hence it is that consanguinity ought not to have been determined *beyond* the fourth generation. And *again*, *within* that degree there ought to be no carnal mingling, nor marriage joined, where the power of the body is given to another. As therefore the body is composed of four elements, so those who are to be carnally mingled must be four degrees apart. — And *again*, the new law ought to add more of perfection over the Mosaic law than the Mosaic law over the law of nature. If therefore the Mosaic law added one degree above the law of nature; then the evangelical law ought to add at least two, just as the justice of the Gospel not only surpasses the justice of the Law, but even superabounds. It was therefore *fitting*, both on account of the law of marriage and on account of the law of the Gospel, that marriage be impeded by the *fourth* degree of consanguinity, and that nothing be added beyond it nor taken from it. And thus it is plain how it was *fitting*.

It was also *useful*, because the bond of marriage, by reason of the affinity which is contracted there, fosters charity and makes allies of enemies; and because charity in our times has grown cold, therefore the bond of love is now more quickly broken than in the primitive Church; and one bound by the bond more quickly flees, and he who had been a neighbor very often becomes an enemy. Therefore, that the one fleeing might be called back — since from the fourth degree and onward they already grow cold in the affection of love — it was useful to establish that after the fourth degree the one fleeing might be called back to the bond, and the enemy might also be made an ally; on account of which usefulness it was becoming that the Supreme Pontiff should dispense, the prior prohibition remaining; and since this usefulness is very frequent, it was useful that it should become common law.

Fourthly, it was *necessary* on account of danger: since, on account of the multitude of blood-relations and the shortness of days, scarcely can anyone reckon his blood-relations up to the seventh degree; and so there was the greatest danger there, because[^p852-6] it very frequently happened that men were joined within the prohibited degrees — indeed, scarcely could anyone escape it: and therefore it was necessary to retract the earlier statute. Such danger or such necessity did not exist in the time of the primitive Church, both because men were *of longer life*, and because they were *of smaller generation*; but now the power of the nutritive faculty has decreased in men, and the power of the generative faculty has been increased on account of the ardor of lust, which now so flourishes in men that, according to the common course, men could so multiply that scarcely would anyone find a woman with whom he might contract even up to the fourth degree, not to say up to the eighth[^p852-7]. — And this is plain to the eye: for it is possible that someone beget twenty, and again, that someone beget three; now let us suppose, according to the common course, that he beget ten, and those ten another ten each; in the second degree there will be a hundred, in the third a thousand, in the fourth ten thousand; and thus within four degrees a man would have, in one line, eleven thousand one hundred and eleven blood-relations, as many in the ascending line,

<!-- page 853 -->

and as many in the collateral line: therefore according to nature he would have thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three blood-relations. And in one great country he would scarcely find a woman with whom he might contract up to the fourth[^p853-1] degree — how much less up to the seventh. Therefore on account of the danger it was necessary to revoke that statute, and namely to establish [it] up to the fourth degree. — And this was the strongest reason why it was changed, as is expressly said in the decretal[^p853-2] published in the general Council, where it is said: «It ought not to be judged reprehensible if, according to the variety of the times, human statutes too are varied, especially when urgent necessity or evident usefulness demands it». — Now not only did *necessity* demand this, but *usefulness* also required it, and there was present both *fittingness* and *power*; therefore rightly, most rightly and irreprehensibly, has the Church established and ordained that marriage be impeded up to the fourth degree.

**To the arguments of the first part:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected concerning Gregory, it must be said that that statute was reasonable in his own time, and no less reasonably was it revoked in the modern time; nor was it revoked because it had been badly established, but because what was fitting in the primitive time was not fitting for our condition, on account of the greater imperfection which is in us, and on account of the greater dangers.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that one ought not to go backward; it must be said that this is true in those things which belong to *perfection*[^p853-3], but those things which belong to rigor can and ought to be tempered. — Or it must be said, and better, that one ought to condescend to weakness, and where we cannot raise ourselves up, we must of necessity humble ourselves and bow down; and therefore, on account of the imperfection of men, that statute had to be tempered. Hence it is true that one ought not to go backward, but nevertheless it is opportune to bear with the imperfection of men.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the widening of charity, it must be said that that argument is rather for the opposite than for the proposition. For because charity extends itself less, therefore it must the more quickly be succored and assisted; and one's neighbor flees the more quickly from love, and therefore he is the more quickly to be called back.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the faithful have a greater abundance; it must be said that this would be true if persons were multiplied in such a way that blood-relations were not multiplied; but this is not true: and therefore, just as on the one side aptitude grows, so on the other side ineptitude grows.

**To the arguments for the second part:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that God does not prohibit beyond the second [degree]; it must be said that this is true *of himself*; nevertheless he prohibits *through the Church*, because the Church prohibits by the authority divinely given to her. And the reason why God gave the Church authority over this has already been seen.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that she cannot bring it about that one lack baptism; it must be said that the case is not the same: because God of himself ordained and confirmed the institution of baptism; but the legitimacy of persons he committed to the Church, since marriage is contracted between a man and a woman, and the Church has fullness of jurisdiction over both.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the Church's interdict, it must be said that the case is not the same: because that interdict is *for a time*, not *absolutely*, nor does it make persons illegitimate absolutely, but it binds them, so that they cannot [do it] without sin, and therefore a penalty ought to be imposed on such persons.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning Jerome, it must be said that it is otherwise in the sayings of the Church and in those of Jerome: because Jerome could not prove by Scripture that he was a witness of the truth; therefore, in order that he be believed, it was necessary that he prove by Scripture that what he testified and said was true. But the Church was able to prove her authority by her own Scripture[^p853-4]; and this being proved, one must obey, and not seek another testimony. And thus the whole is plain[^p853-5].

---

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 14. c. 8, estque Innocent. III. in Concilio generali Lateran. — In fine arg. respicitur regula canonis supra d. 35. q. 5. arg. 1. ad oppos. allegata.

en: Book IV, tit. 14, c. 8; and it is Innocent III's, in the general Lateran Council. — At the end of the argument, reference is made to the rule of the canon cited above at d. 35, q. 5, arg. 1, on the opposite side.

la: Luc. 9, 62: Nemo... respiciens retro aptus est etc.

en: Luke 9, 62: *No man... looking back is fit* etc.

la: Matth. 24, 12: Refrigescet caritas multorum.

en: Matt. 24, 12: *The charity of many shall grow cold.*

la: Codd. L Y (E a secunda manu) supplent contrahere.

en: Codd. L Y (E by a second hand) supply *contrahere*.

la: Vers. 6. seqq. — Inferius respicitur Matth. 19, 6: Quod ergo Deus coniunxit homo non separet.

en: Verse 6 ff. — Below, reference is made to Matt. 19, 6: *What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 32. a. 4. q. 2.

la: Vide quae diximus tom. I. pag. 210, nota 10.

en: See what we said in vol. I, p. 210, note 10.

la: Vers. 24, ubi Vulgata post patrem addit suum (cfr. supra pag. 664, nota 3.). — Seq. locus est Lev. 18, 8. seqq.

en: Verse 24, where the Vulgate after *patrem* adds *suum* (cf. above, p. 664, note 3). — The following passage is Lev. 18, 8 ff.

la: Pro Petro multi codd. Ecclesiae principi. Aliquanto inferius post huiusmodi communior lectio codd. addit vel Sacramenta, vel Sacramenti (codd. T U X omittunt posse); cod. O legit: quare super huiusmodi Sacramenta posse.

en: In place of *Petro* many codd. read *Ecclesiae principi*. Somewhat below, after *huiusmodi*, the more common reading of the codd. adds either *Sacramenta* or *Sacramenti* (codd. T U X omit *posse*); cod. O reads: *quare super huiusmodi Sacramenta posse*.

la: Iustinian., C. XI. de Agricolis et censitis (tit. 47.), lex Quemadmodum originarios (7.): Malae fidei namque possessorem esse nullus ambigit, qui aliquid contra legum interdicta mercatur. Cfr. supra pag. 371, nota 2.

en: Justinian, Codex XI, *On Farmers and Registered Tenants* (tit. 47), law *Quemadmodum originarios* (7): «For no one doubts that he is a possessor in bad faith who trades in anything against the interdicts of the laws». Cf. above, p. 371, note 2.

la: Cfr. verba C. Non debet in fine corp. allegata.

en: Cf. the words of the canon *Non debet*, cited at the end of the body [of the article].

la: In praeallegato C. Non debet dicitur: Quaternarius vero numerus bene congruit prohibitioni coniugii corporalis... quia quatuor sunt humores [sanguis, cholera, phlegma, melancholia] in corpore, qui constant ex quatuor elementis. Cfr. C. In quadam nostra (8.), X. de Celebrat. Missarum (lib. III. tit. 41.). — Inferius pro ubi... datur edd. nec... dari.

en: In the aforecited canon *Non debet* it is said: «The quaternary number indeed accords well with the prohibition of bodily marriage... because there are four humors [blood, choler, phlegm, melancholy] in the body, which are composed of four elements». Cf. the canon *In quadam nostra* (8), X, *On the Celebration of Masses* (lib. III, tit. 41). — Below, in place of *ubi... datur*, the editions have *nec... dari*.

la: Cod. L (bb a secunda manu) et quia, edd. et, quae etiam aliquanto inferius pro decrevit perperam crevit.

en: Cod. L (bb by a second hand) reads *et quia*, the editions *et*, which also, somewhat below, wrongly read *crevit* for *decrevit*.

la: Plures codd. septimum.

en: Several codd. read *septimum*.

la: Non pauci codd. quintum, et post pauca edd. octavum pro septimum.

en: Not a few codd. read *quintum*, and a little after, the editions read *octavum* for *septimum*.

la: Scilicet Non debet, ubi textus originalis quandoque pro quoque. — Inferius pro recte Vat. iuste.

en: Namely *Non debet*, where the original text has *quandoque* for *quoque*. — Below, in place of *recte*, the Vatican edition has *iuste*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 292, nota 11. et pag. 816, nota 7. — De seq. ratione cfr. 1. Cor. 3, 1. seqq.

en: Cf. above, p. 292, note 11, and p. 816, note 7. — On the following argument cf. 1 Cor. 3, 1 ff.

la: Vide Matth. 16, 18. seq.

en: See Matt. 16, 18 f.

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p851-*`, `-p852-*`, `-p853-*`), with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, L90754–L90955) used as the base only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the VOL II OVERRIDE, the column bands are authoritative in the cascade-shattered regions (Respondeo, the solutions, and every page footer). Default column split clipped both p.851 (right column left-edge cut) and p.852 (left column right-edge cut); re-cropped with `colcrop.py vol4 851 1620` and `colcrop.py vol4 852 2120`. English translated literally, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Page span (estimate confirmed, not corrected).** Running heads verify: p.851 = `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III. 851`; p.852 = `852 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (the OCR renders this as `832`); p.853 = `DIST. XL. DUBIA. 853`. `printed_pages: [851, 852, 853]` / `pdf_pages: [871, 872, 873]` stand unchanged (offset pdf = printed + 20).

**Scholion.** None, by design. The only scholion block of d.40 is printed at the top of p.849 and is rendered in full by `bon-sent-IV-d40-a1-q1`; its §II ("De 3. quaestione", on Lateran IV) covers this question. Nothing scholion-related is duplicated here. `has_scholion: false`.

**Apparatus page-split map (20 entries).**
- **p.851 — footers 3–10 (8 entries, all mine).** Footers 1 and 2 on this page anchor in the tail of `d40-a1-q2` (*necessitatis*¹, *Et sic patet totum*²) and were correctly claimed by that chunk; per its hand-off I have claimed 3–10 in full. Verified against the p.851 L-2 and R-2 footer bands.
- **p.852 — footers 1–7 (7 entries, all mine).** No shared page: p.852 lies wholly inside this quaestio.
- **p.853 — footers 1–5 (5 entries, mine).** Markers: ¹ *usque ad quartum*¹ (L col.), ² *in decretali*² (L col.), ³ *perfectionis*³ (L col.), ⁴ *probare auctoritatem*⁴ (R col.), ⁵ *Et sic totum patet*⁵ (R col.).

**Hand-offs forwarded.** **p.853 footer 6 and any following belong to `bon-sent-IV-d40-dubia`, NOT to this chunk.** Footer 6 (`August., Epist. 55. (alias 119.) c. 5. n. 9: Propter ipsum numerum septenarium…`) anchors at *in septenario universitas totius vitae concluditur*⁶ inside the DUBIA's Respondeo (right column of p.853, below the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header). It sits in the p.853 **right-hand** footer block. The dubia writer should read `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p853-R-2.png` and continue the p.853 sequence from 6.

**Tail at the seam — verified clean.** This chunk's body ends at *«…non aliud testimonium quaerere. Et sic totum patet⁵.»* (p.853, right column), which is grammatically complete and is the last sentence before the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` running header (raw L90956). The Solutio is NOT truncated (all four replies to the first part and all four to the second part are present), and no opening text of the dubia (`Dub. I. In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram…`) has been swallowed into this chunk.

**Textual notes / OCR corrections.**
- Footer p851-3: the raw OCR reads `Hic c. I.`, the band reads what could be `Ilic`/`Hic`. Rendered **`Hic c. 1.`** — confirmed by the identical Quaracchi formula used for the littera reference in the sibling chunk `d40-a1-q2` (`[^p849-5]: Hic c. 4.`). No `[?]` flag.
- Footer p851-4: the raw OCR reads `supra d. 33. q. 3. arg. I.`; the 450 dpi band reads **`supra d. 35. q. 5. arg. 1.`**. The band is authoritative under the VOL II OVERRIDE and is what is rendered; recorded here in case the decade polish-blocker's 600 dpi pass wants to re-check the two digits.

**`[?]` flags.** Both readings above were re-checked at 600 dpi in the d.31–d.40 decade polish-blocker (2026-07-13). Source image for both: `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-851-r600-0871.png`, left-column footer band (crop x 0–2500, y 0.70h+…).
- `[^p851-3]` — **RESOLVED (600dpi p.851):** crop x 150–700, y 0.70h+1100…+1200. Quaracchi prints **«³ Hic c. 1.»** — the initial is a worn `H` (the crossbar is light, which is what produced the OCR's `Ilic`), and the numeral is the arabic `1` of this fount (top-left flag + foot serif), identical to the `1` in `arg. 1.` on the same page. The rendering `Hic c. 1.` stands; no edit needed.
- `[^p851-4]` — **RESOLVED (600dpi p.851):** crop x 30–1300, y 0.70h+1360…+1470. The line reads **«d. 35. q. 5. arg. 1. ad oppos. allegata.»** with both digits unambiguous: the `3` of `35` shows the double right-facing bowls, while the second digit of `35` and the `5` of `q. 5.` show the flat top bar + single lower bowl. The 450 dpi band was right and the IA djvu OCR (`d. 33. q. 3.`) was wrong. The rendering `supra d. 35. q. 5. arg. 1.` stands; no edit needed. (Substantively consistent: d.35 is *De divortio / solutione matrimonii*, whose q. 5 supplies the canon-rule *ad oppositum* that the argument's tail invokes.)
- Silent OCR fixes (unambiguous): `conlrahere→contrahere`, `malrimonium→matrimonium`, `stalutum→statutum`, `relractare→retractare`, `ahcui→alicui`, `Ilem→Item`, `Uem→Item`, `semrae→semine`, `deceih→decem`, `iHi→illi`, `aiiquis→aliquis`, `iolidem→totidem`, `hrailare→limitare`, `mercalur→mercatur`, `refriguil→refriguit`, `nulritivae→nutritivae`, `generaiivae→generativae`, `«pposito→opposito`, `retrocedendura→retrocedendum`, `Cliristus→Christus`, `Peti^o→Petro`, `reslringere→restringere`.
- Running-head digit mangling: the OCR prints p.852's head as `832`; corrected from the band (`852`).

**Inline `[?]` markers:** none outstanding in the body.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 40, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 853 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Labels are page-qualified because Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Gregorius: *Progeniem suam unumquemque usque ad septimum gradum* etc. Quare in hoc gradu sive usque ad hunc gradum potius prohibuit et ultra non processit nec stetit citra?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc habet rationem *litteralem*, *moralem*, *allegoricam* et *anagogicam*. *Litteralem*, quia usque ad tempus illud in antiquis temporibus satis bene consanguinitates poterant computari et homines se consanguineos reputabant. — *Moralis*, quia in septenario universitas totius vitae concluditur[^p853-6], et separantur a consanguineis suis homines usque ad septem gradus, ut

<!-- page 854 -->

significetur, quod omni tempore vitandus est amplexus illicitus, et sic habenda est uxor, ut semper contineatur, ut omnes sint *habentes uxores, tanquam qui non habent*[^p854-1]; et sint coniuncti, ut etiam sint nihilominus separati. — *Allegorica* est: quoniam enim corpus constat ex quatuor humoribus[^p854-2], et anima ex tribus viribus potestative, ut sic significetur, quod vir debet esse uxoris, et uxor est tota viri; hinc est, quod proles ab eis procedentes ad hoc, quod bene possint copulari, debent per gradus septem elongari. — *Anagogica* vero est, ut, quia Christus animabus beatis perfecta coniunctione et confirmata non coniungitur ante octavam resurrectionis[^p854-3]; sic sponsus et sponsa ante octavum gradum coniungi non debent. — Et sic patet, quod septimus gradus erat prohibitus, et quare prohibitio se extendit usque ad gradum septimum inclusive. Et quamvis haec constitutio multum esset congrua, tamen revocari debuit ex causa necessaria et utili et congrua[^p854-4].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Negantes, gradum cognationis inter patrem et filium esse, cum una caro sint pater et filius.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si vir et uxor sunt una caro[^p854-5], qui est propinquus uxori in aliquo gradu in eodem est affinis viro: ergo in quoto gradu est quis propinquus patri, et filio, et e converso. Si ergo pater non potest contrahere cum aliqua, quae sibi attineat in quarta linea ascendente vel transversali: ergo nec filius, nec e converso; quod est manifeste falsum. — Item, si sunt una caro, et « quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, inter se sunt eadem[^p854-6] »; ergo si sunt una caro pater et filius; cum filius et filius suus sint una caro, tunc isti tres sunt una caro, et sic deinceps procedendo: ergo nullus esset gradus in consanguinitate.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio pater et filius faciunt *gradum*, quia, sicut ostensum est, nullus esset alias[^p854-7] gradus in consanguinitate. Sed quod illi dixerunt, quod sint una caro, hoc dixerunt propter quendam modum magis expressivum, quia unus immediate trahit carnem ab altero, cum quo debet habere et habet multam conformitatem, ratione etiam cuius dicitur una caro[^p854-8]. Et sic patet illud.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *sex aetatibus mundi generatio hominis* etc. Quaeritur, quae sint istae sex aetates. Cum enim mundus sit perpetuus, non videtur habere aetates ad modum hominis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod mundus habet aetates secundum statum praesentem. Quoniam enim senescit mundus, oportet etiam, quod fuerit iuvenis[^p854-9]; si ergo habuit senium, et iuventutem, ac per hoc intermedias aetates. Istae autem aetates assignantur in statu illo secundum profectum ad gloriam; unde cum mundus paulative profecerit in cognitione, sicut in uno homine assignantur aetates diversae, ita et in mundo.

In homine autem sex assignantur aetates. Prima est infantia usque ad septimum annum; secunda, pueritia usque ad decimum quartum; tertia, adolescentia usque ad vigesimum quintum, secundum alios usque ad vigesimum octavum; quarta, iuventus usque ad quinquagesimum; quinta, gravitas sive senectus usque ad septuagesimum; sexta, senium sive aetas decrepita usque in finem. — Similiter in mundo prima aetas est ab Adam usque ad Noe; secunda, a Noe usque ad Abraham; tertia, ab Abraham usque ad David; quarta, a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis; quinta, a transmigratione usque ad Christum; sexta, a Christo usque in finem. — Et dicuntur *aetates*, non quia fuerunt aequalis spatii, sed quia in qualibet aliquid novum et aliqua renovatio facta est. In prima fuit creatio Adae et lapsus eius; in secunda fuit diluvium; in tertia, circumcisio et Lex; in quarta, regum unctio; in quinta, populi captivatio et liberatio; in sexta, nostra redemptio[^p854-10]. Et sic patet illud.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Gregorius: *Ipsi etiam Anglorum genti, quae nuper ad fidem venerat* etc. Dicit enim, de novo dispensasse, quia de novo fuerant ad fidem conversi; sed non videtur ista ratio conveniens, quia Ecclesia primitiva, in qua fuit initium nostrae conversionis[^p854-11], fuit perfectissima, quia

<!-- page 855 -->

de novo venientibus datur gratia Spiritus sancti in abundantia: ergo magis sunt idonei ad ferendum pondus ecclesiastici statuti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod secus est de his qui primo conversi sunt, et de his qui nunc convertuntur. Sicut enim Deus in legislatione multitudinem fecit miraculorum[^p855-1], qualem tempore Legis non fecit postea; sic in nova dedit Spiritum sanctum in maiori affluentiae plenitudine: et ideo non est simile. Et ratio huius est satis competens, quia illi qui tunc erant, maiori egebant robore; nunc autem non est sic, immo sunt teneri, quamvis sint aliquantulum ferventes: et ideo oportet multa in talibus tolerare.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *non ideo scripsi, ut, si infra propriam consanguinitatem inventi fuerint, separentur*[^p855-2]. Quaeritur sic — ponatur, quod stante prohibitione de septem gradibus — utrum aliqui contrahentes infra gradus illos possint simul stare, superveniente revocatione mandati[^p855-3]. Et quod sic, videtur, quia nulla lege prohibentur. — Ad oppositum autem est, quod illegitime coniuncti sunt et matrimonium contraxerunt: « constitutiones enim et iura non revocantur ad praeterita[^p855-4] »: ergo non videtur, quod simul stare possint.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quia semper pro matrimonio standum est, secundum quod possibile et licitum est[^p855-5]; si tales personae, superveniente novo statuto, velint insimul stare, et consentire et cohabitare possunt, quia non prohibentur; et ex tunc incipit[^p855-6] esse matrimonium. Et ista constitutio non revocatur ad praeteritum, quia non confirmat primum contractum, sed potestatem tribuit contrahendi de novo. Et sic patet illud.

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which Gregory says: *That each one should [reckon] his offspring up to the seventh degree* etc. Why did he prohibit rather at this degree, or up to this degree, and did not proceed beyond, nor stop short of it?

**I respond:** It must be said that this has a *literal*, a *moral*, an *allegorical*, and an *anagogical* ground. A *literal* one, because up to that time, in ancient times, blood-relationships could be reckoned well enough, and men accounted themselves consanguineous. — A *moral* one, because in the number seven the totality of the whole of life is comprised[^p853-6], and men are separated from their blood-relations up to seven degrees, so that

it may be signified that at every time the unlawful embrace is to be avoided, and that a wife is to be so had that continence is always kept, so that all may be *having wives as though not having them*[^p854-1]; and that they be so joined that they be nonetheless separated. — The *allegorical* one is this: for since the body consists of four humors[^p854-2], and the soul of three powers in respect of its faculties, it is thereby signified that the husband ought to belong to the wife, and the wife is wholly the husband's; hence it is that the offspring proceeding from them, in order that they may rightly be joined in marriage, ought to be distanced by seven degrees. — But the *anagogical* one is this: that since Christ is not joined to the blessed souls in a perfect and confirmed conjunction before the eighth [day] of the resurrection[^p854-3]; so bridegroom and bride ought not to be joined before the eighth degree. — And thus it is plain that the seventh degree was prohibited, and why the prohibition extended up to the seventh degree inclusively. And although this constitution was highly fitting, nevertheless it had to be revoked for a cause necessary and useful and fitting[^p854-4].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Those denying that there is a degree of kinship between father and son, since father and son are one flesh.* For he seems to speak badly: because, if husband and wife are one flesh[^p854-5], whoever is near of kin to the wife in some degree is in the same degree related by affinity to the husband: therefore in whatever degree one is near of kin to the father, [he is in the same degree near] to the son, and conversely. If therefore the father cannot contract [marriage] with any woman who is related to him in the fourth line, ascending or transversal: therefore neither can the son, nor conversely; which is manifestly false. — Likewise, if they are one flesh, and « whatever things are the same as one and the same thing are the same as each other[^p854-6] »; therefore if father and son are one flesh; since the son and his own son are one flesh, then these three are one flesh, and so on proceeding further: therefore there would be no degree in consanguinity.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt father and son do make a *degree*, because, as has been shown, otherwise[^p854-7] there would be no degree in consanguinity. But as to their saying that they are one flesh, they said this on account of a certain more expressive manner of speaking, because the one immediately draws his flesh from the other, with whom he ought to have, and does have, much conformity, by reason of which also he is called one flesh [with him][^p854-8]. And thus that is plain.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *in six ages of the world the generation of man* etc. It is asked what these six ages are. For since the world is perpetual, it does not seem to have ages after the manner of a man.

**I respond:** It must be said that the world has ages according to its present state. For since the world grows old, it must also be that it was once young[^p854-9]; if therefore it had old age, it also had youth, and through this the intermediate ages. But these ages are assigned in that state according to its advance toward glory; whence, since the world has advanced little by little in knowledge, just as in a single man diverse ages are assigned, so also in the world.

Now in man six ages are assigned. The first is infancy, up to the seventh year; the second, boyhood, up to the fourteenth; the third, adolescence, up to the twenty-fifth, according to others up to the twenty-eighth; the fourth, young manhood, up to the fiftieth; the fifth, gravity or old age, up to the seventieth; the sixth, senility or the decrepit age, up to the end. — Likewise in the world the first age is from Adam up to Noah; the second, from Noah up to Abraham; the third, from Abraham up to David; the fourth, from David up to the transmigration of Babylon; the fifth, from the transmigration up to Christ; the sixth, from Christ up to the end. — And they are called *ages*, not because they were of equal span, but because in each of them something new and some renewal took place. In the first was the creation of Adam and his fall; in the second was the flood; in the third, circumcision and the Law; in the fourth, the anointing of kings; in the fifth, the captivity and liberation of the people; in the sixth, our redemption[^p854-10]. And thus that is plain.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which Gregory says: *To the English people also, which had lately come to the faith* etc. For he says that he dispensed anew, because they had been newly converted to the faith; but this reason does not seem fitting, because the primitive Church, in which was the beginning of our conversion[^p854-11], was most perfect, since

to those newly coming the grace of the Holy Spirit is given in abundance: therefore they are the more fit to bear the weight of an ecclesiastical statute.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is otherwise with those who were converted at the first, and with those who are converted now. For just as God at the giving of the Law worked a multitude of miracles[^p855-1], such as He did not work afterwards in the time of the Law; so in the new [Law] He gave the Holy Spirit in a greater fullness of abundance: and therefore it is not alike. And the reason for this is quite fitting, because those who then were, needed greater strength; but now it is not so, rather they are tender, however somewhat fervent they may be: and therefore many things must be tolerated in such persons.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *I have not written this in order that, if they be found within their own consanguinity, they should be separated*[^p855-2]. It is asked thus — let it be supposed that, the prohibition of the seven degrees standing — whether any who contract [marriage] within those degrees can remain together, when a revocation of the mandate supervenes[^p855-3]. And that they can, seems so, because they are prohibited by no law. — But on the opposite side is that they were unlawfully joined and contracted marriage: « for constitutions and laws are not revoked back upon the past[^p855-4] »: therefore it does not seem that they can remain together.

**I respond:** It must be said that, since one must always stand for the marriage, so far as is possible and lawful[^p855-5]; if such persons, when the new statute supervenes, wish to remain together, they can both consent and cohabit, because they are not prohibited; and from that time it begins[^p855-6] to be a marriage. And this constitution is not revoked back upon the past, because it does not confirm the first contract, but grants the power of contracting anew. And thus that is plain.

---

la: August., *Epist.* 55. (alias 119.) c. 5. n. 9: *Propter ipsum numerum septenarium, quo universitatis significatio saepe figuratur, qui etiam ipsi Ecclesiae tribuitur propter instar universitatis.* Idem dicit Ambros., VII. *Exposit. in Luc.* 12, 24. n. 95. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 12. a. 1. q. 2, ubi sex dies assignantur labori, et septimus requiei; *Brevil.* p. V. c. 10. — Edd. substituunt *Moralem* pro *Moralis*, et inferius *Allegoricam* pro *Allegorica est*. Cod. L *includitur*.

en: Augustine, *Letter* 55 (alias 119), c. 5, n. 9: "On account of that very number seven, by which the signification of universality is often figured, which is also attributed to the Church herself because of her likeness to universality." Ambrose says the same, *Exposition on Luke* VII, on 12, 24, n. 95. Cf. II *Sent.* d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, where six days are assigned to labor and the seventh to rest; *Breviloquium* p. V, c. 10. — The editions substitute *Moralem* for *Moralis*, and below *Allegoricam* for *Allegorica est*. Codex L reads *includitur*.

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 7, 29.

en: The reference is to 1 Corinthians 7:29.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 852, nota 5. — Inferius pro *uxor est* [edd. omittunt *est*] codd. F G *debet esse*.

en: Cf. above, p. 852, note 5. — Below, for *uxor est* [the editions omit *est*] codices F and G read *debet esse*.

la: Ambros., VII. *Exposit. in Luc.* 13, 10. n. 173: *In octavo numero resurrectionis est plenitudo.* Cfr. August., *Epist.* 55. (alias 119.) c. 13. n. 23; *Enarrat. in Ps.* 6. n. 2, et supra pag. 40, nota 1. — Inferius post *septimus gradus* permulti codd. et edd. addunt *non*, perperam, nisi cum cod. L pro *septimus* substituatur *octavus*.

en: Ambrose, *Exposition on Luke* VII, on 13, 10, n. 173: "In the eighth number is the fullness of the resurrection." Cf. Augustine, *Letter* 55 (alias 119), c. 13, n. 23; *Expositions on the Psalms*, Ps. 6, n. 2, and above, p. 40, note 1. — Below, after *septimus gradus*, very many codices and editions add *non*, wrongly, unless with codex L *octavus* be substituted for *septimus*.

la: Vide supra q. 3, ubi etiam in scholio notantur alii auctores de hac re tractantes.

en: See above, q. 3, where also in the scholion other authors treating of this matter are noted.

la: Respicitur Gen. 2, 24; Matth. 19, 5.

en: The reference is to Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5.

la: Aristot., I. *Elench.* c. 5. (c. 6.).

en: Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* I, c. 5 (c. 6).

la: Ex cod. bb et ed. 1 supplevimus *alias*, pro quo Vat. *alius*.

en: From codex bb and edition 1 we have supplied *alias*, for which the Vatican edition reads *alius*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 37. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4.

la: Vide Gregor., I. *Homil. in Evang.* homil. 1. n. 1. et 5.

en: See Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels* I, homily 1, nn. 1 and 5.

la: Praeter ea quae supra pag. 51, nota 4. ex August. allegavimus, cfr. eius *Qq. 83* q. 58. n. 2. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Besides the things which we cited above, p. 51, note 4, from Augustine, cf. his *Eighty-three Questions*, q. 58, n. 2. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Cod. K *conversationis*.

en: Codex K reads *conversationis*.

la: Cfr. Exod. 19, 16. seqq., et Deut. 4, 11. seqq.

en: Cf. Exodus 19:16 ff., and Deuteronomy 4:11 ff.

la: In lit. Magistri praefigitur *non*, quia haec verba ibi respiciunt tempus *post* abrogatum privilegium, hic vero tempus *ante* ipsum privilegium datum.

en: In the text of the Master *non* is prefixed, because there these words look to the time *after* the privilege was abrogated, but here to the time *before* that privilege was granted.

la: Scilicet de septem gradibus.

en: Namely, [the mandate] concerning the seven degrees.

la: Vide supra pag. 841, nota 10.

en: See above, p. 841, note 10.

la: Cfr. C. *Tuas nos* (7.), X. de Consanguinit. et affin. (lib. IV. tit. 14.) et C. *Videtur nobis* (3.), X. Qui matrimonium accusare possunt etc. (lib. IV. tit. 18.), ubi dicitur, quod matrimonium favorabilis res sit.

en: Cf. the chapter *Tuas nos* (7), Decretals of Gregory IX, *On Consanguinity and Affinity* (bk. IV, tit. 14), and the chapter *Videtur nobis* (3), Decretals, *Who can accuse a marriage* etc. (bk. IV, tit. 18), where it is said that marriage is a favored matter.

la: Edd. cum multis codd. *incepit*.

en: The editions, with many codices, read *incepit*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{853,854,855}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, L90956–91126). The whole dubia section is two-column cascade-merged in the OCR (single raw lines splice left-column text to right-column text), so the bands are authoritative throughout; the OCR served only as a cross-check on running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Default `colcrop` split (1880) clipped the right column on the odd pages and the left column on the even page — re-cropped with `colcrop.py vol4 853 1620`, `855 1620` (odd) and `854 2120` (even).

**Printed-page span CORRECTED.** The scaffold estimated pp. 853–856. Verified from running heads (`DIST. XL. DUBIA. 853` on p.853; `854 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` on p.854; `DISTINCTIO XLI. 855` on p.855): **the d.40 dubia occupy pp. 853–855 only.** They end mid-p.855, where DISTINCTIO XLI (`Cap. I. De affinitatis gradibus`) begins. Frontmatter `printed_pages` corrected to [853, 854, 855] and `pdf_pages` to [873, 874, 875]. **Page 856 belongs entirely to d.41 and is NOT part of this chunk.**

**DUBIA COUNT — verified off the bands: FIVE (Dub. I–V).** The coordinator's grep of the raw OCR found only `DUB. l.`, `DUB. II.` and `DuB. V.`; Dub. III and Dub. IV are invisible in the raw because they sit in the p.854 right column, which the OCR cascade-merges. Both were located visually in print:
- **Dub. I** — p.853, left column (question) / right column (Respondeo), under the centered `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` banner.
- **Dub. II** — p.854, left column.
- **Dub. III** — p.854, right column (header `DUB. III.` clearly printed, mid-column).
- **Dub. IV** — p.854, right column (header `DUB. IV.` clearly printed, lower column).
- **Dub. V** — p.855, left column (question) / right column (Respondeo).
Every band of pp. 853–855 (body + footer, L then R) was read; no sixth `DUB.` header appears anywhere in the range. The count is five, not more.

**SEAM CHECK — the last dubium is COMPLETE.** Dub. V's question breaks off in the p.855 left column at `…si infra propriam consanguinita-` (this is exactly where the raw OCR truncates, which is why the OCR looked cut). It resumes at the top of the p.855 **right column** (`-tem inventi fuerint, separentur…`) and runs through the full *Respondeo* to `Et sic patet illud.` Rendered complete from the bands. The d.41 littera (`DISTINCTIO XLI` / `Cap. I`) begins *below* that, in the lower half of p.855.

**The d.41 running-head bleed.** Raw L91100 `DISTINCTIO XLI.` + folio digits is the **p.855 running head**, bleeding into the OCR mid-chunk — not the end of the chunk, and the folio there is **855**, not 856. Dub. V's header (L91119) legitimately follows it in the raw. Body ends at L91126; the real d.41 header is L91127.

**Shared-page footer crosswalk (p.853).** p.853 is shared with `d40-a1-q3` (*Usque ad quem gradum se extendat impedimentum consanguinitatis*, raw L90754–90955), whose *Ad obiecta* run down both columns above the dubia banner. Of p.853's six footer notes:
- **notes 1–5 belong to `d40-a1-q3`** (anchored in q3's body: `quartum¹ gradum`, `in decretali² edita in Concilio generali`, `quae sunt perfectionis³`, `probare auctoritatem⁴`, `Et sic totum patet⁵`). **Left to q3 — NOT claimed here.**
- **note 6 is this chunk's** (anchored at `in septenario universitas totius vitae concluditur⁶` in Dub. I's Respondeo) → rendered as `[^p853-6]`.
Opening-sentence continuity confirmed: Dub. I opens `In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram…`, a fresh sentence under the section banner — nothing is owed from q3's tail.

**Second footnote block on p.855.** p.855 carries a *second*, separate footer block headed `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` with its own notes 1–4 (Can. *Porro*, Can. *Aequaliter*, Cod. D *ad*, Can. *De propinquis*). These are the apparatus to **Lombard's littera for d.41**, not to Bonaventure's dubia. **Not claimed here — they belong to `d41-littera`.**

**Apparatus: 18 entries.** Page-split map: **p.853 → 1** (note 6 only; notes 1–5 are q3's) · **p.854 → 11** (notes 1–11, all in this body) · **p.855 → 6** (notes 1–6 of the Bonaventure block, all in this body; the four `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` notes excluded).

**Hand-offs.** *Picked up:* none (Dub. I begins cleanly). *Forwarded to `d41-littera`:* the lower half of p.855 (DISTINCTIO XLI, Cap. I *De affinitatis gradibus*, Cap. II *De variis traditionibus affinitatis*) plus the whole `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` note block on p.855 (notes 1–4). *Forwarded to q3:* p.853 footer notes 1–5 (confirm q3 holds them).

**Marginalia trimmed** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): `Ratio litteralis`, `Ratio moralis`, `Ratio allegorica`, `Ratio anagogica`, `Aetates hominis`, `Aetates mundi`, `Notandum` (×3).

**Silent OCR fixes:** `lioDem lilleralem` → `rationem litteralem`; `Qnare` → `Quare`; `stelit` → `stetit`; `Videtnr` → `Videtur`; `gradii` → `gradu`; `conlrahere` → `contrahere`; `Hnea` → `linea`; `nnlius` → `nullus`; `RESPIMDKO/RESPGNDEO/RESPONDKO` → `Respondeo`; `Qnaeritur`/`quaesintistae` → `Quaeritur` / `quae sint istae`; `assignautuF` → `assignantur`; `gloi-iam`, `ti^ansmigrationem`, `cai^nem`, `i^enovatio` etc. (hyphen-artifact carets) normalized; `Chrisium` → `Christum`; `dihivium` → `diluvium`; `iiberatio` → `liberatio`; `Gregorins` → `Gregorius`; `ftdem` → `fidem`; `noslrae` → `nostrae`; `Respgndeo` → `Respondeo`; `fecitmiraculorum` → `fecit miraculorum`; `scnpsi` → `scripsi`; `Quaerilur`/`gradi-bus` rejoined; `slare` → `stare`; `praeter-ita` rejoined; `cohahitare` → `cohabitare`; `palet iilnd` → `patet illud`. Apparatus: `Epist. So.` → `Epist. 55.`; `Sciiicet` → `Scilicet`; `Rcspicitur` → `Respicitur`; `.Aristot.` → `Aristot.`; `Cod. Iv conversationis` → `Cod. K *conversationis*` (read off the band); `Hichnrd. a Mcd.` → `Richard. a Med.`; `Praeler ca` → `Praeter ea`; `pag. iO, nola 1` → `pag. 40, nota 1` (band).

**`[?]` flags: none.** All readings were resolvable off the 450 dpi bands; nothing was left ambiguous.

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. 41

title_alt: Distinctio XLI — De affinitate (textus Magistri)

title_alt: Distinction XLI — On affinity (the Master's text)

source_text:
<!-- page 855 -->

# DISTINCTIO XLI.

### Cap. I. *De affinitatis gradibus.*

Nunc de affinitate videndum est; de qua Gregorius[^p855-1] ait: « Porro de affinitate, quam dicitis parentelam esse, quae ad virum ex parte uxoris, seu quae ex parte viri ad uxorem pertinet, manifesta ratio est: quia, si secundum divinam sententiam ego et uxor mea sumus *una caro*, profecto mihi et illi mea suaque parentela propinquitas una efficitur. Quocirca ego et soror uxoris meae in uno et primo gradu erimus; filius vero eius secundo gradu erit a me, neptis vero tertio; idque utrinque in ceteris agendum est successionibus. Uxorem vero propinqui, cuiuscumque gradus sit, ita me oportet attendere, quemadmodum ipsius quoque gradus aliqua femina propriae propinquitatis sit; quod nimirum uxori meae de propinquitate viri sui in cunctis cognationis gradibus convenit observare. Qui vero aliorsum sentiunt antichristi sunt ». Item, Iulius Papa[^p855-2]: « Aequaliter vir coniungatur consanguineis propriis et consanguineis uxoris ». Item, Isidorus: « Sane consanguinitas, quae in proprio viro conservanda est, etiam in uxoris parentela de lege nuptiarum custodienda est, quia constat, eos duos fuisse in carne una; ideoque communis est illis utraque parentela ». Item, Iulius Papa: « Nullum in utroque sexu permittimus ex propinquitate sui sanguinis vel uxoris usque in[^p855-3] septimum generationis gradum uxorem ducere, vel incesti macula copulari, quia, sicut non licet cuiquam Christiano de sua consanguinitate, sic nec de consanguinitate uxoris coniugem ducere propter carnis unitatem ». Item, Gregorius: « De affinitate consanguinitatis per gradus cognationis placuit usque ad septimam generationem observare. Nam et hereditas rerum, per legales instrumentorum definitiones sancita, usque ad septimum gradum heredum protendit successionem. Non enim ei succederent, nisi de propagine cognationis deberetur ». — His auctoritatibus insinuatur, et quae sit affinitas, et usque ad quem gradum sit observanda, scilicet usque ad septimum.

### Cap. II. *De variis traditionibus affinitatis.*

Sed alii videntur concedere, in quinta generatione inter affines contrahi coniugium, et in quarta etiam, si contractum fuerit, non separari. Ait enim Fabianus Papa[^p855-4]: « De propinquis, qui ad affinitatem per virum
<!-- page 856 -->
et uxorem veniunt, defuncta uxore vel viro, in quinta generatione iungantur; in quarta si inventi fuerint, non separentur; in tertia vero propinquitate non licet uxorem alterius accipere post obitum eius. Aequaliter vir iungatur in matrimonio eis quae sibi consanguineae erant, et uxoris suae consanguineis, post mortem uxoris ». — Ecce, hic conceditur, in quinta vel quarta propinquitate affinium fieri coniugium. Iulius etiam Papa ait: « Statutum est, ut relictam patris uxoris suae, relictam fratris uxoris suae, relictam filii uxoris suae nemo sibi in matrimonium sumat; relictam consanguineorum uxoris suae usque in tertiam progeniem nemo in uxorem sumat; in quarta vero et quinta si inventi fuerint, non separentur ». — Ecce, quam varie de affinitatis observatione loquuntur auctores. Alii enim usque ad septimum gradum eam observari sanciunt; alii vero in quinto vel quarto matrimonia contracta non dividunt. Sed illi veritatis rigorem, isti misericordiae dispensationem videntur proponere. Potest enim Ecclesia dispensare in copula affinium usque ad tertium gradum, sicut Gregorius dispensavit in quarto gradu consanguinitatis. — Illud etiam non est praetereundum, quod Gregorius[^p856-1] Venerio episcopo scripsit: « Sedem apostolicam consulere decrevisti, si mulier copula nuptiali extraneo viro coniuncta cognationi eius pertineat; si, eo defuncto, cognatio maneat, vel si sub alio viro cognationis vocabula dissolvantur; vel si susceptae soboles possint legitime ad prioris viri cognationis transire copulam. Si una caro fuerit, quomodo potest aliquis eorum propinquus uni pertinere, nisi pertineat alteri? Hoc minime posse fieri, credendum est. Porro, uno defuncto, in superstite affinitas non deletur, nec alia copula coniugalis affinitatem copulae prioris solvere valet; sed nec alterius coniunctionis soboles placet ad affinitatis prioris viri consortium transire. Si quis ergo sacrilego et temerario ausu in defuncto quaerit propinquitatem exstinguere, vel sub altero affinitatis vocabulo dissipare, vel susceptas soboles alterius copulae propinquitati prioris credit legitime sociari; hic negat, Dei verbum validum esse, quod dixit: *Erunt duo in carne una* ». — Ecce, hic prohibet, si, mortuo primo viro, uxor eius alii nupserit, filios de secundo viro genitos ducere uxores de cognatione prioris viri, quia filii mediante matre ad cognationem prioris viri pertinent, cum quo mater eorum una caro exstiterat. Hoc idem etiam Innocentius Papa[^p856-2] ait: « Si qua mulier ad secundas nuptias transierit et ex eis sobolem genuerit, nullatenus potest ad consortium cognationis prioris viri pertingere ». Hoc autem observandum est usque ad septimum generis gradum, sed maxime usque ad tertium vel quartum, sicut supra positum est.

### Cap. III. *Si coniugium sit inter eos qui nota consanguinitate dividuntur.*

Et est sciendum, quod Ecclesia infra praedictos gradus consanguinitatis coniunctos separat. Si autem ignoranter coniuncti fuerint in conspectu Ecclesiae, et postmodum, probata consanguinitate, eiusdem iudicio separati; quaeritur, utrum copula illa coniugium fuerit. Quibusdam videtur non fuisse coniugium, quia non erant legitimae personae; sed tamen de crimine excusantur per ignorantiam, et quasi coniugium reputatur, quia bona fide et per manum Ecclesiae convenerunt; unde et filii eorum legitimi habentur. Alii[^p856-3] vero dicunt, fuisse coniugium, licet non essent legitimae personae, quia talium coniunctiones vocant canones coniugia, ubi de personis agunt, quarum testimonio consanguineorum sit dirimenda coniunctio.

### Cap. IV. *Quibus personis testificantibus, sint dirimenda coniugia.*

Unde Urbanus Papa[^p856-4]: « Si duo viri vel tres consanguinitatem iureiurando firmaverint, vel ipsi forte confessi fuerint; coniugia dissolvantur. Si vero neutrum contigerit, episcopi eos per fidem Christi obtestentur, quatenus palam fateantur, si se recognoscunt consanguineos. Si se iudicio episcoporum segregaverint, alia matrimonia contrahere non prohibeantur ». Idem: « Notificamus tibi, ut, cum tres vel duo ex propinquioribus eius qui accusatur, hanc propinquitatem iuramento firmaverint, vel si tres vel duo ex antiquioribus Ianuensibus, quibus haec propinquitas est nota, qui bonae famae et veracis testimonii sint, remoto amore, timore, pretio et omni malo studio, praedicto modo firmaverint, sine mora coniugia dissolvantur ». « Consanguineos vero extraneorum nullus accuset, vel consanguinitatem in Synodo computet, sed propinqui, ad quorum notitiam pertinet. Si autem progenies tota defecerit, ab antiquioribus et veracioribus, quibus propinquitas tota nota sit, episcopus canonice perquirat; et si inventa fuerit, separentur ». — Ecce, quibus accusantibus vel testificantibus, dirimenda sit consanguineorum coniunctio, quae coniugium vocatur.

Hic dicendum est, quod aliud est *fornicatio*, aliud *stuprum*, aliud *adulterium*, aliud *incestus*, aliud *raptus*.

### Cap. V. *Quid sit fornicatio.*

« *Fornicatio*, licet sit genus omnis illiciti coitus, qui fit extra uxorem, tamen specialiter intelligitur in usu viduarum, vel meretricum, vel concubinarum ».

### Cap. VI. *Quid sit stuprum.*

« *Stuprum* proprie est virginum illicita defloratio ».

### Cap. VII. *Quid sit adulterium.*

« *Adulterium* est alieni tori violatio; unde adulterium dicitur, quasi ad alterius torum accessio ».

<!-- page 857 -->

### Cap. VIII. *Quid sit incestus.*

« *Incestus* est consanguinearum vel affinium abusus; unde incestuosi dicuntur qui consanguineis vel affinibus suis abutuntur ».

### Cap. IX. *Quid sit raptus.*

« *Raptus* admittitur, cum puella violenter a domo patris educitur, ut corrupta in uxorem habeatur. Sive puellae, sive parentibus vis illata constiterit, hic morte mulctatur. Sed si ad Ecclesiam cum rapta confugerit, privilegio Ecclesiae mortis impunitatem meretur ». — Attendendum est etiam illud Alexandri[^p857-1], qui ait: « Quod frater sororve uxoris tuae *cognati* dicuntur, aequivocationis iure fit et necessitate vulgaris appellationis potius quam ulla causa cognationis. Uxor enim fratris *fratrissa* potius quam *cognata* vocatur. Mariti frater *levir* dicitur. Duorum fratrum uxores *ianitrices* vocantur, quasi eandem ianuam intrantes. Viri soror *glos* appellatur. Sororis autem vir non habet speciale nomen, nec uxoris frater ».

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. They are Quaracchi's *Notae ad Librum Sententiarum* — the editors' apparatus to the Master's own text. Quaracchi restarts the numbering on each printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified (p855-1, p856-1, …).

---

english:
# DISTINCTION XLI.

### Chap. I. *On the degrees of affinity.*

Now affinity must be looked into; concerning which Gregory[^p855-1] says: « Further, concerning affinity, which you say to be kinship — that which pertains to the man on the wife's side, or that which pertains from the man's side to the wife — there is a manifest reason: because, if according to the divine sentence I and my wife are *one flesh*, assuredly to me and to her my and her kinship becomes one nearness. Wherefore I and my wife's sister shall be in one and the first degree; but her son shall be in the second degree from me, and her granddaughter in the third; and the same is to be done on both sides in the remaining successions. But the wife of a kinsman, of whatsoever degree he be, I must so regard as though some woman of that same degree belonged to my own kindred; which without doubt it befits my wife to observe regarding the kindred of her husband in all the degrees of cognation. But those who think otherwise are antichrists ». Likewise, Pope Julius[^p855-2]: « Let a man be joined equally to his own blood-relations and to the blood-relations of his wife ». Likewise, Isidore: « Assuredly the consanguinity which is to be observed in the husband himself is also to be kept, by the law of marriage, in the wife's kindred, because it is agreed that those two were one flesh; and therefore both kindreds are common to them ». Likewise, Pope Julius: « We permit no one, in either sex, from the nearness of his own blood or of his wife's, to take a wife up to[^p855-3] the seventh degree of generation, or to be joined by the stain of incest; because, just as it is not lawful for any Christian [to marry] from his own consanguinity, so neither from the consanguinity of his wife to take a spouse, on account of the unity of the flesh ». Likewise, Gregory: « Concerning affinity, it has been resolved to observe consanguinity through the degrees of cognation up to the seventh generation. For the inheritance of goods too, sanctioned by the legal definitions of the instruments, extends the succession of heirs up to the seventh degree. For they would not succeed to him, unless it were owed by reason of the offshoot of cognation ». — By these authorities it is intimated both what affinity is, and up to what degree it is to be observed, namely up to the seventh.

### Chap. II. *On the various traditions concerning affinity.*

But others seem to concede that in the fifth generation a marriage may be contracted between persons related by affinity, and even in the fourth, if it has been contracted, that they are not to be separated. For Pope Fabian[^p855-4] says: « Concerning kinsfolk who come into affinity through husband
<!-- page 856 -->
and wife, when the wife or husband is dead, let them be joined in the fifth generation; in the fourth, if they be found [so joined], let them not be separated; but in the third degree of nearness it is not lawful to take another's wife after his death. Let a man be joined in marriage equally to those women who were blood-related to him, and to the blood-relations of his wife, after the death of the wife ». — Behold, here it is conceded that in the fifth or fourth degree of nearness of persons related by affinity a marriage may be made. Pope Julius also says: « It is decreed that no one take to himself in marriage the widow of his wife's father, the widow of his wife's brother, the widow of his wife's son; let no one take as wife the widow of his wife's blood-relations up to the third generation; but in the fourth and fifth, if they be found [so joined], let them not be separated ». — Behold, how variously the authorities speak concerning the observance of affinity. For some sanction that it be observed up to the seventh degree; but others do not divide marriages contracted in the fifth or fourth. But the former seem to propose the rigor of truth, the latter the dispensation of mercy. For the Church can dispense in the union of persons related by affinity up to the third degree, just as Gregory dispensed in the fourth degree of consanguinity. — This too must not be passed over, that Gregory[^p856-1] wrote to Bishop Venerius: « You have determined to consult the Apostolic See [as to] whether a woman joined by the marriage bond to an outside man belongs to his cognation; whether, when he is dead, the cognation remains, or whether under another husband the terms of cognation are dissolved; or whether offspring conceived can lawfully pass over to the union of the former husband's cognation. If they have been one flesh, how can any one of them be near of kin to the one, unless he be near of kin to the other? It must be believed that this can by no means come to pass. Further, when one is dead, in the survivor the affinity is not blotted out, nor can another conjugal union avail to dissolve the affinity of the former union; but neither is it fitting that the offspring of another union pass over to the fellowship of affinity of the former husband. If therefore anyone, by sacrilegious and rash daring, seeks in the deceased to extinguish the nearness of kin, or to dissipate it under another name of affinity, or believes that offspring conceived may lawfully be allied to the nearness of the former [husband] belonging to another union; he denies that the word of God is valid, which said: *They shall be two in one flesh* ». — Behold, here he forbids, if, the first husband being dead, his wife has married another, that the sons begotten of the second husband take as wives [women] of the former husband's cognation, because the sons, through the mother, belong to the former husband's cognation, with whom their mother had been one flesh. This same thing Pope Innocent[^p856-2] also says: « If any woman passes over to a second marriage and begets offspring from it, she can in no way attain to the fellowship of the former husband's cognation ». But this is to be observed up to the seventh degree of kinship, but especially up to the third or fourth, as was set down above.

### Chap. III. *Whether there be a marriage between those who are separated by a known consanguinity.*

And it is to be known that the Church separates those joined within the aforesaid degrees of consanguinity. But if they have been joined unknowingly in the sight of the Church, and afterward, the consanguinity having been proved, have been separated by its judgment; it is asked whether that union was a marriage. To some it seems it was not a marriage, because they were not legitimate persons; yet nevertheless they are excused from the crime through ignorance, and it is reckoned as if a marriage, because they came together in good faith and by the hand of the Church; whence also their sons are held to be legitimate. But others[^p856-3] say that it was a marriage, although they were not legitimate persons, because the canons call such unions marriages, where they treat of the persons by whose testimony — that of blood-relations — the union is to be dissolved.

### Chap. IV. *By the testimony of what persons marriages are to be dissolved.*

Whence Pope Urban[^p856-4]: « If two or three men affirm the consanguinity by an oath, or if they themselves perchance confess it; let the marriages be dissolved. But if neither happens, let the bishops adjure them by the faith of Christ, that they openly confess, if they acknowledge themselves to be blood-relations. If by the judgment of the bishops they separate themselves, let them not be forbidden to contract other marriages ». The same [author]: « We make known to you that, when three or two of the nearer kin of him who is accused affirm this nearness by oath, or if three or two of the elder Genoese, to whom this nearness is known, who are of good repute and truthful testimony, having put away love, fear, price, and every evil zeal, affirm it in the aforesaid manner, without delay let the marriages be dissolved ». « But let no one accuse the blood-relations of outsiders, or reckon up the consanguinity in the Synod, but the near kin, to whose knowledge it belongs. But if the whole progeny has failed, let the bishop canonically inquire from the elder and more truthful persons, to whom the whole nearness is known; and if it be found, let them be separated ». — Behold, by what accusers or witnesses the union of blood-relations, which is called a marriage, is to be dissolved.

Here it must be said that fornication is one thing, defilement (*stuprum*) another, adultery another, incest another, ravishment (*raptus*) another.

### Chap. V. *What fornication is.*

« *Fornication*, although it be the genus of every illicit intercourse which is done outside of a wife, nevertheless is understood specially of the use of widows, or harlots, or concubines ».

### Chap. VI. *What defilement (stuprum) is.*

« *Stuprum* is properly the illicit deflowering of virgins ».

### Chap. VII. *What adultery is.*

« *Adultery* is the violation of another's bed; whence it is called *adulterium*, as it were an approach to another's bed (*ad alterius torum accessio*) ».

<!-- page 857 -->

### Chap. VIII. *What incest is.*

« *Incest* is the abuse of female blood-relations or of persons related by affinity; whence those are called incestuous who abuse their own blood-relations or those related to them by affinity ».

### Chap. IX. *What ravishment is.*

« *Ravishment* (*raptus*) is committed when a girl is violently led away from her father's house, that, being corrupted, she may be had as a wife. Whether it be established that the violence was done to the girl or to her parents, he is punished with death. But if he flees to the Church together with the ravished [girl], by the privilege of the Church he merits impunity from death ». — This too must be attended to, that saying of Alexander[^p857-1], who says: « That the brother or sister of your wife are called kin (*cognati*) comes about by the law of equivocation and by the necessity of common appellation, rather than by any ground of cognation. For the wife of a brother is called *fratrissa* rather than *cognata*. The brother of a husband is called *levir* (brother-in-law). The wives of two brothers are called *ianitrices*, as it were entering the same door (*ianua*). The sister of a husband is called *glos*. But the husband of a sister has no special name, nor [does] the brother of a wife ».

---

la: Can. *Porro* (3.), C. 35. q. 5. Respicitur Matth. 19, 5. — Vat. et ed. 8 repetunt *in* ante *secundo* et *tertio*.

en: The canon *Porro* (3), Causa 35, q. 5. It refers to Matthew 19:5. — The Vatican [edition] and edition 8 repeat *in* before *secundo* and *tertio*.

la: Can. *Aequaliter* (13.), ibid. q. 3. Seq. locus est C. *Sane consanguinitas* (14.), ibid. (ex Conc. Maciensi); tertius C. *Nullum* (7.), ibid.; quartus C. *De affinitate* (I.), ibid.

en: The canon *Aequaliter* (13), in the same place, q. 3. The following passage is the canon *Sane consanguinitas* (14), in the same place (from the Council of Mâcon); the third is the canon *Nullum* (7), in the same place; the fourth, the canon *De affinitate* (I), in the same place.

la: Cod. D *ad.*

en: Codex D adds [*in*].

la: Can. *De propinquis* (3.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. *Et hoc quoque* (12.), ibid.

en: The canon *De propinquis* (3), in the same place. The following passage is the canon *Et hoc quoque* (12), in the same place.

la: Can. *Fraternitatis* (1.), ibid. q. 10.

en: The canon *Fraternitatis* (1), in the same place, q. 10.

la: Can. *Si qua* (3.), ibid.

en: The canon *Si qua* (3), in the same place.

la: Ita Hugo, II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 4.

en: Thus Hugh, *On the Sacraments* [Book] II, part XI, c. 4.

la: Can. *Si duo* (4.), ibid. q. 6. Seq. locus est C. *Notificamus* …[?] (3.), ibid.; tertius (in eapp. 5-9.) C. *Consanguineos* (1.), ibid.; sed ultima propositio est ex Gratiano, super C. *Si duo* (4.), ibid. Quae sequuntur idem habet super C. *Lex illa* (2.), C. 36. q. 1.

en: The canon *Si duo* (4), in the same place, q. 6. The following passage is the canon *Notificamus* …[?] (3), in the same place; the third (in chapters 5–9) the canon *Consanguineos* (1), in the same place; but the last proposition is from Gratian, on the canon *Si duo* (4), in the same place. What follows, the same [author] has on the canon *Lex illa* (2), C. 36, q. 1.

la: Can. *Quod autem* (5.), C. 35. q. 5. Cfr. Isidor., IX. *Etymolog.* c. 7. n. 17.

en: The canon *Quod autem* (5), Causa 35, q. 5. Cf. Isidore, *Etymologies* IX, c. 7, n. 17. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L91127–L91278) corrected column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p855-{L,R}-*`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p856-{L,R}-*`, split x≈1880). No scholion exists in d.41's littera (`has_scholion: false`).

**Page layout (verified from bands).** On p.855 the **upper half of BOTH columns is d.40's Bonaventure commentary** (a Respondeo + Dub. V), NOT this littera. The `DISTINCTIO XLI.` header and Cap. I open lower in the left column; the littera runs left-column-then-right-column down p.855 and fills BOTH columns of p.856. Running heads confirmed: `DISTINCTIO XLI.` (p.855), `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` / folio `856` (p.856). Offset `pdf = printed + 20` confirmed (855→875, 856→876).

**Footer / apparatus crosswalk.**
- **p.855, LEFT-column footer (symbol-marked notes: `Cfr. Exod. 19…`, `In lit. Magistri praefigitur non…`, `Scilicet de septem gradibus`, `Vide supra pag. 841 nota 10`, `Cfr. C. Tuas nos…`, `Edd. cum multis codd. incepit`)** — these are **Bonaventure's** apparatus, anchoring in the d.40 Dub. commentary printed above them. **NOT claimed here** — they belong to the d.40 dubia chunk.
- **p.855, RIGHT-column footer, under the heading `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` (notes 1–4)** — the Master's-text apparatus. All four anchor in this littera: Gregorius¹ (Porro), Iulius Papa² (Aequaliter, bundling Sane/Nullum/De affinitate), `usque in³ septimum` (Cod. D), Fabianus Papa⁴ (De propinquis). **Claimed here** as `[^p855-1]`–`[^p855-4]`. This is the block the d.40 dubia writer deliberately left unclaimed.
- **p.856 footer (notes 1–4, both columns; the whole page is littera, so there is no separate `NOTAE` heading)** — all four anchor in this littera: Gregorius¹ (Venerio, *Fraternitatis*), Innocentius Papa² (*Si qua*), Alii³ (*Ita Hugo*), Urbanus Papa⁴ (*Si duo* + *Notificamus*). **Claimed here** as `[^p856-1]`–`[^p856-4]`.

**p.857 littera now rendered here (2026-07-17).** Cap. VIII *Quid sit incestus* and Cap. IX *Quid sit raptus* (with the Alexander citation) are printed at the TOP of p.857 (LEFT column, Cap. headers; the Alexander citation continues into the RIGHT column top) — they belong to the Master's text and were dropped at a two-column OCR seam. They are now rendered here, their correct littera home, opened by a `<!-- page 857 -->` break. The **divisio chunk** holds only the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLI` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` and everything from p.857 downward. Re-set from the p.857 column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p857-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`; split x≈1880), cross-checked against raw OCR L91281–91298 (which is column-scrambled at the seam).

**p.857 apparatus split.** The p.857 footer (LEFT column, above the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block) carries one Master's-text note anchored in this littera: note ¹ = `Can. Quod autem (5.), C. 35. q. 5. Cfr. Isidor., IX. Etymolog. c. 7. n. 17`, glossing the Alexander citation (marked `illud Alexandri¹` in Cap. IX). **Claimed here** as `[^p857-1]`. The four `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` notes (1–4: `Edd. hic pro quod…`, etc.) gloss the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO TEXTUS and are **left to the divisio chunk**. (Aside: the p.857-L footer top also holds the tail of the p.856 note-4 `Notificamus` citation — `…(3.), ibid.; tertius (in eapp. 5-9.) C. Consanguineos (1.), ibid.; sed ultima propositio est ex Gratiano, super C. Si duo (4.), ibid. Quae sequuntur idem habet super C. Lex illa (2.), C. 36. q. 1.` — which would resolve the parked `[^p856-4]` clip, but that entry is out of scope for this seam-repair pass and was left untouched.)

**Cap. VIII `consanguinearum` — RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** Re-read at 600 dpi on the p.857 left column (PDF p.877): the incestus definition prints unambiguously as *consanguinearum* (feminine gen. pl.), with the following clause reading *qui consanguineis vel affinibus suis abutuntur*. The `[?]` is removed; the reading stands as printed. That Quaracchi's wording differs from the more familiar masculine *consanguineorum* of the canon is an edition-level fact, not a transcription doubt.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Lombard's text): *Iulius.*, *Gregorius.*, *Alia opinio.*, *Fabianus.*, *Canones concordantur.*, *Innocentius.*, *Dubium… / 2 opinio*, *Dubium Urb[anus]*, *Dubium 1.*

**OCR garbles silently corrected against the bands:** `afRnilale`→*affinitate*; `e.rTicitur`→*efficitur*; `neplis`→*neptis*; `senlentiam`→*sententiam*; `coiuugem`→*coniugem*; `Fabiauus`→*Fabianus*; `Ale.xandri` (p.857 preview) left for the divisio writer.

**`[?]` flags.**
- `[^p855-1]` — `Vat. et ed. 8`: the numeral/siglum after `ed.` reads as `8` in both the OCR and the p.855 band, but "edition 8" is an unusual citation form (could be an edition siglum rather than a serial number). Transcribed as printed; low-confidence numeral.
- `[^p856-3]` — `Ita Hugo, II. de Sacram.`: the p.856-R footer band shows `II.` (= Hugh, *De sacramentis* lib. II, where the treatise on marriage sits, part XI); the djvu OCR read it as `li.` (lib.). Rendered as `II.`; the two sources disagree on this one glyph.
- **p.856 note 4 (`Notificamus …`) — PARTIALLY RESOLVED / residual ACCEPT-ILLEGIBLE at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** Re-read at 600 dpi (PDF pp. 876–877). Two findings. (a) **The entry does continue** — as a cross-page footer runover, unnumbered, at the head of p.857's LEFT-column footer register, immediately above p.857's own note 1: *(3.), ibid.; tertius (in eapp. 5-9.) C. Consanguineos (1.), ibid.; sed ultima propositio est ex Gratiano, super C. Si duo (4.), ibid. Quae sequuntur idem habet super C. Lex illa (2.), C. 36. q. 1.* That continuation is now folded into the entry. (b) **A short middle span is genuinely lost:** p.856's note-4 line runs to the physical right edge of the imaged sheet and is trimmed there after *…C. Notificamus* plus one clipped glyph; the register below it on p.856 is blank, and the raw OCR breaks off at the identical word. So the *Notificamus* parenthetical (and possibly a few words after it, before the surviving `(3.),`) is unrecoverable from this digitization. `[?]` retained at exactly that point. **Correction made at the same time:** the earlier rendering supplied `(…), ibid.` — the `, ibid.` was an editorial reconstruction with no warrant on the page or in the OCR, and has been removed.