title: Dist. 31

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXI

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XXXI

source_text:
<!-- Latin re-set column-by-column from vol4 PDF bands pp.713–716; raw OCR L76939–77222 used as base for clean running prose only -->

<!-- page 713 -->

### Cap. I. *De tribus bonis coniugii.*

Post haec de bonis coniugii, quae sint et qualiter coitum excusent, dicendum est. Tria sunt principaliter bona coniugii; unde Augustinus[^1]: « Nuptiale bonum tripartitum est, scilicet *fides*, *proles*, *Sacramentum*. In *fide* attenditur, ne post vinculum coniugale cum alio vel alia coeatur; in *prole*, ut amanter suscipiatur, religiose educetur; in *Sacramento*, ut coniugium non separetur, et dimissus vel dimissa nec causa prolis alteri coniungatur ».

### Cap. II. *De duplici separatione.*

Separatio autem gemina est, *corporalis* scilicet et *sacramentalis*. *Corporaliter* possunt separari causa fornicationis, vel ex communi consensu causa religionis, sive ad tempus, sive usque in finem.

<!-- page 714 -->

*Sacramentaliter* vero separari nequeunt, dum vivunt, si legitimae personae sint. Manet enim vinculum coniugale inter eos, etiam si aliis a se discedentes adhaeserint. Unde Augustinus[^2]: « Usque adeo manent inter viventes semel inita iura nuptiarum, ut potius sint inter se *coniuges* etiam separati, quam cum aliis, quibus adhaeserunt ». Item: « Manet inter viventes quoddam coniugale vinculum, quod nec separatio nec cum altero copulatio possit auferre, sicut apostatae anima, velut de coniugio Christi recedens, etiam fide perdita, Sacramentum fidei non amittit, quod lavacro regenerationis accepit. Redderetur enim redeunti, si amisisset abscedens. Habet autem hoc qui recesserit ad cumulum supplicii, non ad meritum praemii ». Item: « Quibus placuit ex consensu ab usu carnalis concupiscentiae in perpetuum continere, absit, ut vinculum inter illos coniugale rumpatur, immo firmius erit, quo magis ea pacta secum gerunt, quae carius concordiusque servanda sunt, non voluptariis corporum nexibus, sed voluntariis animorum affectibus ». — Et attende, quod tertium bonum coniugii dicitur *Sacramentum*, non quia sit ipsum coniugium, sed quia eiusdem rei sacrae signum est, id est spiritualis et inseparabilis coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae.

Et est sciendum, ab aliquibus contrahi coniugium, quod[^3] haec tria bona non comitantur. Deest enim *fides*, ubi vir cum alia, vel mulier cum alio coit. « Hoc igitur bonum ita coniugio adhaeret, ut ex eo, si adsit, amplius commendetur coniugium; si non adsit, non inde annihiletur. Quae enim adultera est, non ideo coniux non est; immo, si coniux non esset, adultera non foret; quod cum fit, culpa committitur, Sacramentum vero non cassatur. — Bonum quoque *prolis* non omnibus adest coniugibus. Quidam enim pari voto continentiam servant, alii pro aetatis defectu, vel alterius rei causa generare non valent. Nec omnes illi, etiam qui prolem recipiunt, *bonum prolis* habent ». Nam *bonum prolis* dicitur non ipsa *proles* vel *prolis spes*, quae ad religionem non refertur, immo ad hereditariam successionem — ut cum quis heredes terrenae possessionis habere desiderat — sed spes ac desiderium, quo proles *ad hoc* quaeritur, ut religione informetur. Multi ergo *prolem* habent, qui tamen *bono prolis* carent; nec ideo tamen coniugium esse desinit. — *Sacramentum* vero ita inseparabiliter coniugio adhaeret legitimarum personarum, ut sine illo coniugium non esse videatur, quia semper manet inter viventes *vinculum coniugale*, ut, etiam interveniente divortio fornicationis causa, coniugalis vinculi firmitas non solvatur. Ubi vero non inter legitimas personas contrahitur coniugium, non adest illud bonum, quod dicitur *Sacramentum*, quia potest solvi talium copula, de quibus post[^4] dicetur.

Quod vero coniugium sit inter eos qui coniugali affectu, non tamen gratia prolis, sed explendae libidinis conveniunt, nec *fornicarii*, sed *coniuges* appellentur; ostendit Augustinus[^5] inquiens: « Solet quaeri, cum masculus et femina, nec ille maritus, nec illa uxor alterius, sibimet non filiorum procreandorum, sed pro incontinentia solius concubitus causa copulantur, ea fide media, ut nec illa cum altero, nec ille cum altera faciat id; utrum nuptiae sint vocandae. Et potest forlasse non absurde hoc appellari *connubium*, si usque ad mortem alicuius eorum id inter eos placuerit, et prolis generationem, quamvis non ea causa coniuncti sunt, non tamen vitaverint, ut vel nolint sibi nasci filios, vel etiam opere malo aliquo agant, ne nascantur. Ceterum, si vel utrumque, vel unum horum desit, non invenio, quomodo has *nuptias* appellare possimus. Etenim si aliquam sibi ad tempus adhibuerit, donec aliam dignam honoribus aut suis facultatibus inveniat, quam in coniugio adducat; *animo* ipse adulter est nec cum illa, quam cupit invenire, sed cum ista, cum qua sic cubat, ut cum ea non habeat maritale consortium ». — Ecce *coniuges* dicuntur qui solius concubitus causa conveniunt, si tamen prolis generationem aliquo dolo malo non vitent.

### Cap. III. *De his qui procurant venena sterilitatis.*

Qui vero venena sterilitatis procurant non *coniuges*, sed *fornicarii* sunt. Unde Augustinus[^6]: « Aliquando eousque pervenit haec libidinosa crudelitas vel libido crudelis, ut etiam venena sterilitatis procuret et, si nihil valuerit, conceptos foetus intra viscera aliquo modo exstinguat vel fundat, volendo, suam prolem prius interire quam vivere, aut si in utero vivebat, occidi, antequam nasci. Prorsus, si ambo tales sint, coniuges non sunt; et si ab initio tales fuerunt, non sibi per *connubium*, sed per *stuprum* potius convenerunt. Si vero ambo tales non sunt, audeo dicere, aut illa quodam modo est *mariti meretrix*, aut ille *adulter uxoris* ».

### Cap. IV. *Quando sint homicidae qui procurant abortum.*

Hic quaeri solet de his qui abortum procurant, quando iudicentur homicidae, vel non. — Tunc puerperium ad homicidium pertinet, quando formatum est

<!-- page 715 -->

et animam habet, ut Augustinus super Exodo[^7] asserit: « Informe autem puerperium, ubi non est anima viva, lex ad homicidium pertinere noluit ». Dicit etiam Augustinus, quod « informe puerperium animam non habet, ideoque multatur pecunia, non redditur anima pro anima; sed iam *formato* corpori anima *datur*, non in *conceptu* corporis *nascitur* cum semine derivata. Nam si cum semine et anima existit de anima, tunc et multae animae quotidie pereunt, cum semen fluxu non proficit nativitati. Primum oportet, domum compaginari et sic habitatorem induci. Cum ergo lineamenta compacta non fuerint, ubi erit anima »? Item Hieronymus[^8] ad Algasiam: « Semina paulatim formantur in utero, et tamdiu non reputatur homicidium, donec elementa confecta suas imagines membraque suscipiant ». — Ex his apparet, tunc eos homicidas esse, qui abortum procurant, cum formatum est et animatum puerperium.

### Cap. V. *De excusatione coitus, quae fit per bona coniugii.*

Cum igitur haec tria bona in aliquo coniugio simul concurrunt, ad excusationem coitus carnalis valent. Quando enim, servata fide tori, causa prolis coniuges conveniunt, sic excusatur coitus, ut culpam non habeat. Quando vero, deficiente bono prolis, fide tamen servata, conveniunt causa incontinentiae, non sic excusatur, ut non habeat culpam, sed venialem. Unde Augustinus[^9]: « Coniugalis concubitus generandi gratia non habet culpam, concupiscentiae vero satiandae, sed tamen cum coniuge propter tori fidem, venialem habet culpam ». Item, hoc, quod coniugati, victi concupiscentia, utuntur invicem ultra necessitatem liberos procreandi, ponam in his, pro quibus quotidie dicimus: *Dimitte nobis debita nostra* etc. Ubi autem haec bona desunt, fides scilicet et proles, non videtur coitus defendi a crimine. Unde in sententiolis Sexti Pythagorici legitur: « Omnis ardentior amator propriae uxoris adulter est ». Item Hieronymus[^10]: « Sapiens iudicio amat coniugem, non affectu; non regnat in eo impetus voluptatis, nec praeceps fertur ad coitum. Nihil est foedius quam uxorem amare quasi adulteram. Qui dicunt, se causa humani generis uxoribus iungi, imitentur saltem pecudes; et postquam venter uxoris intumuerit, non perdant filios nec amatores se uxoribus exhibeant, sed maritos ». Idem: « In matrimonio opera liberorum concessa sunt, voluptates autem, quae de meretricum amplexibus capiuntur, in uxore damnatae ».

### Cap. VI. *De indulgentia, quam facit Apostolus.*

Sed si concubitus, qui fit causa prolis, culpa caret, quid Apostolus secundum indulgentiam permittit? Ita enim ait[^11]: *Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam.* Cui enim praestatur venia nisi culpae? Per hoc etiam quidam probare volunt, nuptias esse peccatum. Sed, ut supra praedictum est, indulgentia alia est *concessionis*, alia *permissionis*. Egerat Apostolus de nuptiis et de carnali coitu et ad utrumque retulit illud: *Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam.* Indulgentur enim nuptiae secundum concessionem et *concubitus nuptialis*, qui fit tantum causa prolis. Concubitus vero, qui est praeter necessitatem generandi ob *incontinentiam*, indulgetur secundum *permissionem*, quia ibi aliqua culpa est, sed levis. Ideoque non *iubetur* nec *conceditur*, sed *permittitur*, quia non est *laudabilis*, sed *venialis*. De hoc Augustinus[^12] sic ait: « Forte aliquis dicet: si veniam concessit Apostolus, ergo peccatum sunt nuptiae; cui enim venia nisi peccato conceditur? Plane, quod infirmitati permisit *secundum veniam* audeo dicere peccatum esse; *veniam* namque concedens, Apostolus concubitum attendit coniugatorum, ubi est incontinentiae malum ».

### Cap. VII. *De malo incontinentiae.*

« Incontinentiae malum est, quod vir cognoscit uxorem etiam ultra necessitatem procreandi liberos, sed et ibi est nuptiarum bonum. Non enim, quia *incontinentia* malum est, ideo *coniugium*, ubi est concubitus praeter intentionem generationis, non est bonum. Non propter *illud malum* culpabile est *hoc bonum*, sed *illud malum* fit veniale propter bonum nuptiale »; quod non reprehendit Apostolus, sed malum incontinentiae. Item: « Concubitum, qui non fit causa prolis, nuptiae non cogunt fieri, sed *impetrant ignosci*; si tamen non ita sit nimius, ut impediat tempora, quae orationi debentur, nec immutetur in eum usum, qui est contra naturam. Concubitus enim necessarius causa generandi inculpabilis, et solus ipse nuptialis est. Ille vero, qui ultra necessitatem progreditur, non rationi, sed libidini obsequitur, et hunc non *exigere*, sed *reddere* coniugi, ne fornicetur, ad coniugem pertinet. Si vero ambo tali concupiscentiae subiguntur, rem faciunt, quae non est nuptiarum; cuius delicti non sunt nuptiae *hortatrices*, sed *deprecatrices*[^13] ». « Decus quidem coniugale est

<!-- page 716 -->

castitas, procreandi et reddendi carnalis debiti fides, hoc est opus nuptiarum, quod ab omni peccato defendit Apostolus dicens: *Non peccat virgo, si nupserit* ». « Cum igitur culpabilis non sit generandi intentione concubitus, qui proprie nuptiis imputandus est; quid secundum veniam concedit Apostolus, nisi quod coniuges debitum carnis exposcunt, non propaginis voluntate, sed libidinis voluptate, quae tamen voluptas non propter nuptias cadit in culpam, sed propter nuptias accipit veniam? Immoderata igitur progressio *secundum veniam* conceditur. Quocirca et hinc laudabiles sunt nuptiae, quia etiam illud quod non pertinet *ad se*, ignosci faciunt *propter se*. Non enim iste concubitus, quo servitur concupiscentiae, agitur, ut impleatur foetus, quem postulant nuptiae ». « Omnino igitur in genere suo nuptiae bonae sunt, quia fidem tori servant et prolis suscipiendae causa utrumque sexum commiscent et impietatem separationis horrent[^14] ». Sanctitati etiam coniugii nec coniux infidelis obesse potest, sed potius fidelis prodest infideli, ut Apostolus docet. — Ex his ostenditur, quod coniuges, qui causa prolis tantum conveniunt, vel qui exigentibus debitum reddunt, defendit a peccato sanctitas coniugii bonumque nuptiale. « Si enim absque peccato non posset fieri concubitus coniugalis, non praecepisset Dominus post diluvium eos copulari, dicens: *Crescite et multiplicamini*; cum iam sine carnali concupiscentia non possint commisceri ».

### Cap. VIII. *De carnis delectatione, quae peccatum sit, vel non.*

Sed forte aliquis dicet, omnem carnis concupiscentiam et delectationem, quae est in coitu, malum esse et peccatum, quia *ex peccato* est et *inordinata*. — Et nos dicimus, illam concupiscentiam semper malam esse, quia *foeda* est et *poena peccati*; sed non semper *peccatum* est. Saepe enim delectatur vir sanctus secundum carnem in aliqua re, ut requiescendo post laborem, edendo post esuriem; nec tamen talis delectatio est peccatum, nisi sit immoderata. Sic et delectatio, quae est in coitu coniugali, cui adsunt illa tria bona, a peccato defenditur. — Videtur tamen beatus Gregorius[^15] aliter sentire, scilicet quod sine peccato non possit fieri carnalis commixtio, dicens: « Vir cum propria coniuge dormiens, nisi lotus aqua, ecclesiam intrare non debet. Quamvis diversae hominum nationes de hac re diversa sentiant et alia custodire videantur; Romanorum tamen semper ab antiquioribus usus fuit, post admixtionem propriae coniugis et lavacri purificationem quaerere et ab ingressu Ecclesiae paululum temperare. Nec hoc dicentes, culpam deputamus esse coniugium; sed quia ipsa licita admixtio coniugis sine voluptate carnis fieri non potest, a sacri loci ingressu est abstinendum, quia voluptas ipsa sine culpa esse nullatenus potest ».

Hoc autem, ne praedictis obviet, intelligendum est in illis qui non gratia prolis conveniunt, quorum voluptas non est sine peccato. Et vix aliqui reperiri possunt adhuc amplexus carnales experientes, qui non interdum conveniant praeter intentionem procreandae prolis. Hoc autem quoties fit, ab ingressu ecclesiae abstinendum est. Et quod ita intelligendum sit, Gregorius[^16] consequenter ostendit: « Si quis vero sua coniuge, non cupidine voluptatis raptus, sed tantum creandorum liberorum gratia utitur, iste profecto sive de ingressu ecclesiae, sive de sumendo corporis dominici mysterio suo est iudicio relinquendus, quia prohiberi a nobis non debet accipere qui in igne positus nescit ardere. Cum vero non amor procreandae sobolis, sed voluptas dominatur in opere commixtionis; habeant coniuges etiam de commixtione sua quod defleant. Tunc autem vir, qui[^17] post admixtionem coniugis lotus aqua fuerit, etiam sacram communionem valeat accipere, cum ei secundum praefinitam sententiam ecclesiam licuerit intrare ».

---

english:
<!-- page 713 -->

### Cap. I. *On the three goods of marriage.*

After these things, it must be said concerning the goods of marriage, what they are and in what way they excuse intercourse. There are three chief goods of marriage; whence Augustine[^1]: « The nuptial good is tripartite, namely *fidelity*, *offspring*, *Sacrament*. In *fidelity* it is attended to that, after the conjugal bond, one not come together with another man or another woman; in *offspring*, that it be lovingly received and religiously reared; in the *Sacrament*, that the marriage not be separated, and that the man or the woman dismissed not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring ».

### Cap. II. *On the twofold separation.*

Now separation is twofold, namely *bodily* and *sacramental*. *Bodily*, spouses can be separated by reason of fornication, or by common consent for the sake of religion, whether for a time or right to the end.

<!-- page 714 -->

*Sacramentally*, however, they cannot be separated while they live, if they be legitimate persons. For the conjugal bond remains between them, even if, departing from each other, they have attached themselves to others. Whence Augustine[^2]: « So far do the once-entered rights of marriage remain between the living, that they are rather *spouses* to each other even when separated, than [spouses] with those to whom they have attached themselves ». Likewise: « There remains between the living a certain conjugal bond, which neither separation nor union with another can take away, just as the soul of an apostate, as it were withdrawing from marriage with Christ, even with faith lost does not lose the Sacrament of faith, which it received in the laver of regeneration. For it would be restored to him returning, if he had lost it in departing. But he who has withdrawn has this to the heaping-up of his punishment, not to the merit of reward ». Likewise: « As for those who have resolved by consent to abstain forever from the use of carnal concupiscence, far be it that the conjugal bond between them be broken; rather it will be the firmer, the more they keep those covenants which must be more dearly and harmoniously observed — not by the pleasure-seeking bonds of bodies, but by the willing affections of souls ». — And note that the third good of marriage is called the *Sacrament*, not because it is the marriage itself, but because it is a sign of that same sacred reality, that is, of the spiritual and inseparable union of Christ and the Church.

And it must be known that by some a marriage is contracted which[^3] these three goods do not accompany. For *fidelity* is lacking, where a man is with another woman, or a woman with another man. « This good, then, so cleaves to marriage that from it, if it be present, the marriage is the more commended; if it be not present, the marriage is not on that account annulled. For she who is an adulteress is not on that account no wife; nay, if she were no wife, she would not be an adulteress; and when this happens, a fault is committed, yet the Sacrament is not made void. — The good of *offspring* too is not present to all spouses. For some by equal vow keep continence, others by defect of age, or for some other reason, are unable to generate. Nor do all those, even who receive offspring, have the *good of offspring* ». For the *good of offspring* is said to be not the *offspring* itself or the *hope of offspring* which is not referred to religion but rather to hereditary succession — as when someone desires to have heirs of an earthly possession — but rather the hope and desire by which offspring is sought *for this end*, that it be formed in religion. Many therefore have *offspring* who nevertheless lack the *good of offspring*; nor does the marriage on that account cease to be. — The *Sacrament*, however, so inseparably cleaves to the marriage of legitimate persons that without it the marriage would seem not to exist, because there always remains between the living the *conjugal bond*, so that, even with a divorce intervening for the cause of fornication, the firmness of the conjugal bond is not dissolved. But where a marriage is contracted not between legitimate persons, that good which is called the *Sacrament* is not present, because the coupling of such persons can be dissolved, of whom it will be spoken later[^4].

But that there is a marriage between those who come together with conjugal affection, yet not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy lust, and that they are to be called not *fornicators* but *spouses*, Augustine[^5] shows, saying: « It is wont to be asked, when a male and a female, neither he the husband nor she the wife of another, couple with each other not for the procreation of children but through incontinence, for the sake of intercourse alone, with this fidelity between them, that neither she with another nor he with another do this — whether they are to be called married. And perhaps not absurdly can this be called a *wedlock*, if it has pleased them so between themselves until the death of one of them, and if, though they were not joined for that cause, they have nevertheless not shunned the generation of offspring, so as either to be unwilling that children be born to them, or even to do something by some evil means that they not be born. But if either both, or one of these two things, be lacking, I do not find how we can call this *marriage*. For if he has taken a woman to himself for a time, until he find another worthy of his honors or his means, whom he may bring into marriage, he is in mind an adulterer — not with her whom he desires to find, but with this one, with whom he so lies that he does not have with her marital partnership ». — Behold, they are called *spouses* who come together for the sake of intercourse alone, provided they do not by some evil deceit shun the generation of offspring.

### Cap. III. *On those who procure the poisons of sterility.*

But those who procure the poisons of sterility are not *spouses*, but *fornicators*. Whence Augustine[^6]: « Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to such a pass that it even procures poisons of sterility, and, if these avail nothing, extinguishes or expels in some manner the conceived fetuses within the womb, willing its own offspring to perish before living, or, if it was already alive in the womb, to be slain before being born. Assuredly, if both are such, they are not spouses; and if from the beginning they were such, they came together not by *wedlock* but rather by *fornication*. But if both are not such, I dare to say that either she is in a certain way the *husband's harlot*, or he the *wife's adulterer* ».

### Cap. IV. *When those who procure abortion are homicides.*

Here it is wont to be asked concerning those who procure abortion, when they are to be judged homicides, or not. — Then does the fetus pertain to homicide, when it is formed

<!-- page 715 -->

and has a soul, as Augustine on Exodus[^7] asserts: « The unformed fetus, however, where there is no living soul, the law did not will to pertain to homicide ». Augustine also says that « the unformed fetus has no soul, and therefore [the offense] is punished by a fine, and soul is not rendered for soul; but to the already *formed* body the soul *is given*, it is not *born* in the *conception* of the body, derived along with the seed. For if it exists from the soul together with the seed and the soul, then also many souls daily perish, when the seed by flux does not come to birth. First the house must be framed together, and thus the inhabitant brought in. When therefore the lineaments have not been compacted, where will the soul be »? Likewise Jerome[^8] to Algasia: « Seeds are gradually formed in the womb, and for so long it is not reckoned homicide, until the elements, being complete, take on their shapes and members ». — From these things it appears that they are homicides who procure abortion when the fetus is formed and ensouled.

### Cap. V. *On the excusing of intercourse, which is done through the goods of marriage.*

When therefore these three goods concur together in some marriage, they avail to the excusing of carnal intercourse. For when, the fidelity of the marriage-bed being kept, spouses come together for the sake of offspring, intercourse is so excused that it has no fault. But when, the good of offspring being lacking, yet fidelity being kept, they come together for the cause of incontinence, it is not so excused that it have no fault, but a venial one. Whence Augustine[^9]: « Conjugal intercourse for the sake of generating has no fault, but for the sake of satisfying concupiscence, yet with one's spouse for the sake of the fidelity of the bed, it has a venial fault ». Likewise, that which married persons, overcome by concupiscence, use with each other beyond the necessity of procreating children, I would place among those things for which we daily say: *Forgive us our debts* etc. But where these goods are lacking, namely fidelity and offspring, intercourse does not seem to be defended from crime. Whence in the maxims of Sextus the Pythagorean it is read: « Every too-ardent lover of his own wife is an adulterer ». Likewise Jerome[^10]: « The wise man loves his spouse by judgment, not by passion; the impulse of pleasure does not reign in him, nor is he carried headlong to intercourse. Nothing is more foul than to love one's wife as an adulteress. Those who say that they are joined to their wives for the cause of the human race, let them at least imitate the beasts; and after the wife's womb has swollen, let them not destroy the children, nor show themselves lovers to their wives, but husbands ». The same: « In matrimony the works of children are granted, but the pleasures which are taken from the embraces of harlots are, in a wife, condemned ».

### Cap. VI. *On the indulgence which the Apostle grants.*

But if the intercourse which is done for the sake of offspring lacks fault, what does the Apostle permit by way of indulgence? For thus he says[^11]: *But this I say by way of indulgence.* For to whom is pardon granted except to fault? By this too some wish to prove that marriage is a sin. But, as has been said above, indulgence is one thing of *concession*, another of *permission*. The Apostle had treated of marriage and of carnal intercourse, and to both he referred that saying: *But this I say by way of indulgence.* For marriages are indulged by way of concession, and also *nuptial intercourse*, which is done only for the sake of offspring. But intercourse which is beyond the necessity of generating, on account of *incontinence*, is indulged by way of *permission*, because there some fault is present, but a slight one. And therefore it is neither *commanded* nor *conceded*, but *permitted*, because it is not *praiseworthy*, but *venial*. Concerning this Augustine[^12] thus says: « Perhaps someone will say: if the Apostle granted pardon, then marriages are a sin; for to whom is pardon granted except to sin? Plainly, what he permitted to infirmity *by way of pardon* I dare to say to be a sin; for in granting *pardon*, the Apostle regards the intercourse of the married, wherein is the evil of incontinence ».

### Cap. VII. *On the evil of incontinence.*

« The evil of incontinence is that a man knows his wife even beyond the necessity of procreating children, but even there is the good of marriage. For not because *incontinence* is an evil is *marriage* therefore not good, where there is intercourse beyond the intention of generation. It is not on account of *that evil* that *this good* is culpable, but *that evil* becomes venial on account of the nuptial good »; which the Apostle does not reprove, but the evil of incontinence. Likewise: « Intercourse which is not done for the sake of offspring, marriages do not compel to be done, but *obtain that it be pardoned*; provided, however, it be not so excessive as to hinder the times which are owed to prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature. For intercourse necessary for the cause of generating is inculpable, and it alone is nuptial. But he who goes beyond necessity obeys not reason but lust, and to render this to one's spouse — not to exact it, but to *render* it — lest [the spouse] fornicate, pertains to the spouse. But if both are subjected to such concupiscence, they do a thing which is not of marriage; of which offense marriages are not the *encouragers*, but the *intercessors*[^13] ». « The conjugal decorum, indeed, is

<!-- page 716 -->

chastity, the fidelity of procreating and of rendering the carnal debt; this is the work of marriage, which the Apostle defends from all sin, saying: *The virgin does not sin, if she marry* ». « Since therefore intercourse is not culpable when done with the intention of generating — which is properly to be imputed to marriage — what does the Apostle concede by way of pardon, except that spouses exact the debt of the flesh, not with the will for propagation, but with the pleasure of lust, which pleasure nevertheless falls not into fault on account of marriage, but on account of marriage receives pardon? Immoderate progression, therefore, is conceded *by way of pardon*. Wherefore hence too marriages are praiseworthy, because they cause even that which does not pertain *to themselves* to be pardoned *on their account*. For this intercourse, whereby concupiscence is served, is not carried on that the fetus be fulfilled which marriages require ». « Altogether therefore in their own kind marriages are good, because they keep the fidelity of the bed and for the sake of receiving offspring join together both sexes and abhor the impiety of separation[^14] ». To the holiness of marriage, moreover, not even an unbelieving spouse can be a hindrance, but rather the believing one profits the unbeliever, as the Apostle teaches. — From these things it is shown that spouses who come together for the sake of offspring alone, or who render the debt to those exacting it, are defended from sin by the holiness of marriage and the nuptial good. « For if conjugal intercourse could not take place without sin, the Lord would not have commanded them after the flood to couple, saying: *Increase and multiply*; since now they cannot be joined without carnal concupiscence ».

### Cap. VIII. *On the delight of the flesh, whether it be sin, or not.*

But perhaps someone will say that all fleshly concupiscence and delight which is in intercourse is evil and sin, because it is *from sin* and *inordinate*. — And we say that that concupiscence is always evil, because it is *foul* and the *penalty of sin*; but it is not always *sin*. For often a holy man is delighted according to the flesh in some thing, as by resting after labor, by eating after hunger; nor yet is such delight a sin, unless it be immoderate. So also the delight which is in conjugal intercourse, to which those three goods are present, is defended from sin. — Yet blessed Gregory[^15] seems to feel otherwise, namely that carnal union cannot take place without sin, saying: « A man sleeping with his own wife, unless washed with water, ought not to enter the church. Although diverse nations of men feel diversely about this matter and seem to observe other things; yet the usage of the Romans was always, from the more ancient ones, after union with one's own wife, to seek the purification of the laver and to abstain a little from entering the Church. Nor in saying this do we reckon marriage to be a fault; but because that lawful union of a spouse cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, one must abstain from entering the holy place, because that pleasure can in no way be without fault ».

This, however, that it may not conflict with the aforesaid, must be understood of those who come together not for the sake of offspring, whose pleasure is not without sin. And scarcely any can be found, yet experiencing carnal embraces, who do not sometimes come together beyond the intention of procreating offspring. And however often this happens, one must abstain from entering the church. And that it is to be so understood, Gregory[^16] consequently shows: « But if anyone uses his wife, not seized by desire of pleasure, but only for the sake of begetting children, that man assuredly, whether concerning entrance into the church or concerning the receiving of the mystery of the Lord's body, is to be left to his own judgment, because he ought not to be prohibited by us from receiving who, placed in the fire, knows not how to burn. But when not the love of procreating offspring, but pleasure dominates in the work of union, let the spouses have, even concerning their own union, something to bewail. But then the man who[^17], after union with his spouse, has been washed with water, may even worthily receive holy communion, since it is permitted him according to the prescribed sentence to enter the church ».

---

la: Libr. IX. de Genesi ad lit. c. 7. n. 12.

en: Book IX of *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 7, n. 12.

la: Libr. I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 10. n. 11; C. *Usque adeo* (28.), C. 32. q. 7. Quae praecedunt sumta sunt ex Glossa ad I. Cor. 7, 1, et respicitur Matth. 19, 9. — Seq. locus ibid.; tertius ibid. c. 11. n. 12. — In secundo loco pro *apostatae* plures edd. *apostata*, refragante editione Maurina Augustini. — Propositio *Et attende* etc. sumta est ex Hug., Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 4, in qua pro *quia sit* plurimae edd. *quod sit*, refragantibus codd. et ed. 1.

en: Book I of *On Marriage and Concupiscence*, c. 10, n. 11; [Gratian's] Canon *Usque adeo* (28), C. 32, q. 7. What precedes is taken from the Gloss on 1 Cor. 7:1, and Matt. 19:9 is looked to. — The following passage is in the same place; the third in the same, c. 11, n. 12. — In the second place, for *apostatae* several editions read *apostata*, against the Maurist edition of Augustine. — The proposition *And note* etc. is taken from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 7, c. 4, in which, for *quia sit*, most editions read *quod sit*, against the codices and ed. 1.

la: Ita codd. et ed. 4, in aliis *ubi*. Post *foret* solae Vat. et ed. 6 addunt glossema: *non enim est adulterium, nisi cum fides tori violatur legitimi*; quod sumtum est ex Hug., II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 8, ubi etiam alia, quae sequuntur, vel in cit. loco Summae Sent.

en: So the codices and ed. 4; in others *ubi*. After *foret*, only the Vatican and ed. 6 add the gloss: *for it is not adultery, unless the fidelity of the lawful bed is violated*; which is taken from Hugh, *On the Sacraments*, book II, part XI, c. 8, where also the other things which follow are found, or in the cited place of the *Summa Sententiarum*.

la: Dist. XXXIV.

en: Distinction XXXIV.

la: Libr. de Bono coniugali, c. 5. n. 5; C. *Solet quaeri* (6.), C. 32. q. 2.

en: Book *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 5, n. 5; Canon *Solet quaeri* (6), C. 32, q. 2.

la: Libr. I. de Nuptiis etc. c. 15. n. 17; C. *Aliquando eousque* (7.), ibid.

en: Book I of *On Marriage* etc., c. 15, n. 17; Canon *Aliquando eousque* (7), in the same place.

la: Quaest. 80; C. *Quod vero* (8.), ibid. — Seq. locus est Quaestiones ex vet. test. (inter opera eius), q. 23; C. *Moyses tradidit* (9.), ibid.

en: Question 80; Canon *Quod vero* (8), in the same place. — The following passage is from the *Questions on the Old Testament* (among his works), q. 23; Canon *Moses handed down* (9), in the same place.

la: Epist. 121. (alias 151.) q. 4; C. *Sicut semina* (10.), ibid.

en: Letter 121 (elsewhere 151), q. 4; Canon *Sicut semina* (10), in the same place.

la: De Bono coniugali, c. 6. n. 6. — Propositio, quae sequitur, occurrit in Hug., Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 3, qui citat Augustinum. — Sententia Sexti (Xisti) est n. 222. (Biblioth. vet. Patrum de la Bigne t. 5.).

en: *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 6, n. 6. — The proposition which follows occurs in Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 7, c. 3, who cites Augustine. — The maxim of Sextus (Xystus) is n. 222 (de la Bigne, *Bibliotheca veterum Patrum*, t. 5).

la: Libr. I. adversus Iovinian. n. 49; C. *Origo quidem* (5.), C. 32. q. 4, ubi etiam sententia Xisti. — Seq. locus eiusd. in Comment. super Epist. ad Eph. 5, 27; C. *Liberorum ergo* (14.), ibid.

en: Book I *Against Jovinian*, n. 49; Canon *Origo quidem* (5), C. 32, q. 4, where also the maxim of Xystus is found. — The following passage of the same [author] is in the *Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians* 5:27; Canon *Liberorum ergo* (14), in the same place.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 6. — Mox citatur supra d. XXVI. c. 2.

en: Epistle, 1 Cor. 7:6. — It is soon cited above, dist. XXVI, c. 2.

la: Potius apud Lyran. in Glossa I. Cor. 7, 6, ubi et quae praecedunt, qui locus extenditur in seq. cap. Analoga sunt in Augustino de Bono coniugali, c. 10. n. 11; I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 14. n. 16.

en: Rather in Lyra, in the Gloss on 1 Cor. 7:6, where also what precedes is found, which passage is extended in the following chapter. Analogous passages are in Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 10, n. 11; and book I of *On Marriage and Concupiscence*, c. 14, n. 16.

la: August., de Bono coniug. c. 10. n. 11; seq. locus ibid. c. 11. n. 12, ubi citatur I. Cor. 7, 28. 38; tertius I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 14. n. 16.

en: Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 10, n. 11; the following passage in the same, c. 11, n. 12, where 1 Cor. 7:28, 38 is cited; the third [passage] in book I of *On Marriage and Concupiscence*, c. 14, n. 16.

la: August., III. contra Iulian. Pelagian. c. 16. n. 30. — Deinde respicitur I. Cor. 7, 14, et sequitur locus ex Hug., Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 3, ubi citatur Gen. 9, 1.

en: Augustine, book III *Against Julian the Pelagian*, c. 16, n. 30. — Then 1 Cor. 7:14 is looked to, and there follows a passage from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 7, c. 3, where Gen. 9:1 is cited.

la: Regest. XI. indict. 4. epist. 64. (alias 31.) ad Augustin. resp. 10; C. *Vir cum propria* (7.), C. 33. q. 4.

en: *Register*, book XI, indiction 4, letter 64 (elsewhere 31), to Augustine [of Canterbury], response 10; Canon *Vir cum propria* (7), C. 33, q. 4.

la: Ibid., et in Can. § 2., ubi pro *raptus* ed. 1 cum originali Gregorii et Can. *captus*, et pro *creandorum* ed. 1 *procreandorum*.

en: In the same place, and in the Canon § 2, where for *raptus* ed. 1, with the original of Gregory and the Canon, [reads] *captus*, and for *creandorum* ed. 1 [reads] *procreandorum*.

la: Cod. C *cum*, et inferius pro *valeat accipere* omnes codd. et ed. 1 *valet accipere*.

en: Codex C [reads] *cum*, and below, for *valeat accipere* all the codices and ed. 1 [read] *valet accipere*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF column bands for printed pp. 713–716 (raw OCR L76939–L77222 used only as a base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing, per the VOL II OVERRIDE). All four pages verified by running head: p.713 recto ("DISTINCTIO XXXI." head + page no. 713), p.714 verso ("714 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."), p.715 recto ("DISTINCTIO XXXI. / 715"), p.716 verso ("716 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). Offset pdf = printed + 20 confirmed.

**Band regeneration.** The even (verso) pages 714 and 716 have the text block shifted right; the default vol4 left-column split (1880) clipped the left column, so pp. 714 and 716 were regenerated with `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2120`. Page 715 (recto) was regenerated at the standard 1880 split. On odd page 715 the right column runs slightly into the gutter, so the left edge of the right column was cross-checked against the raw OCR clean prose (Augustine/Jerome/Gregory quotations, all standard texts).

**Page layout.** Distinction XXXI opens mid-page on p.713: the top of both columns holds the tail of d.30's Dub. V (left) and Dub. VI (right, incl. its Respondeo), then a full-width centered "DISTINCTIO XXXI" heading, then the littera (Cap. I–II) in two columns below. The Dub. V/VI material and its footer notes 1–9 belong to the **prior d.30 dubia chunk**, NOT to this littera; only the "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" note (this chunk's [^1]) is the littera's on p.713.

**Apparatus split (17 entries; Quaracchi restarts numbering each page).**
- p.713: 1 littera note (NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM n.1) → [^1].
- p.714: 5 notes (n.1–5) → [^2]–[^6]. Note [^2] (n.1) spans the left/right footer columns; note [^3] (n.2) likewise continues into the right footer column.
- p.715: 7 notes (n.1–7) → [^7]–[^13]. Note [^10] (n.4) continues into the right footer column.
- p.716: 4 notes (n.1–4) → [^14]–[^17]. Left footer holds n.1–2 ([^14]–[^15]), right footer n.3–4 ([^16]–[^17]).

**Footer hand-off forwarded to divisio.** This chunk shares p.716 with the divisio chunk (divisio = pp.716–717). The littera ends at the close of Cap. VIII ("...ecclesiam licuerit intrare»."); immediately below on p.716 begin "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI. De causa finali matrimonii quoad bona coniugii in communi." and "DIVISIO TEXTUS." — these belong to the divisio chunk. All four footer notes on p.716 (n.1–4) are anchored in the littera (Cap. VII–VIII) and are claimed here; the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO text on p.716 carries **no footnotes yet** (its apparatus begins later), so there is **nothing to forward** to the divisio chunk from p.716's footer band.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the bands; the few OCR garbles (e.g. littera n.5 `c. IS.`→`c. 15`, n. `'6`→`6`; body `forlasse`, `sacramentaliter` marginal bleed) were silently corrected from the printed bands. Editorial marginal source-labels (Augustinus., Hugo., Notandum., Dubium 1./2./3., Aug, Dub, Greg) printed in the outer margins were trimmed from the body per the marginal-gloss rule.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 31, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 716 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI.
#### *De causa finali matrimonii quoad bona coniugii in communi.*

*Post haec de bonis coniugii, quae sint et qualiter coitum excusent etc.*

#### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de causa formali et efficiente coniugii. Hic agit de causa finali, propter quam est; et haec est triplex bonum. Dividitur autem haec pars in duas. In prima agit de bonis coniugii communiter. In secunda de bono fidei specialiter, infra distinctione trigesima secunda: *Sciendum est etiam, quod cum in omnibus aliis* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat, quae et quot sint bona coniugii. In secunda vero determinat, qualiter per ea excusatur coitus, ibi: *Cum igitur haec tria bona in aliquo* etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat, quae et quot sint bona coniugii. In secunda, qualiter se habeant ad matrimonium, utrum sint separabilia, an inseparabilia, ibi: *Et est sciendum, ab aliquibus contrahi coniugium.* In tertia removet duo dubia incidentia, ibi: *Solet quaeri, cum masculus et femina* etc.

<!-- page 717 -->

*Cum igitur haec tria bona in aliquo coniugio* etc. Haec est secunda pars, in qua agitur, quomodo bona coniugii excusant illum actum, et habet haec pars tres particulas. In prima determinat, per quem modum excusant. In secunda vero determinat quandam auctoritatem Apostoli, quae videtur esse contraria, ibi: *Sed si concubitus, qui fit causa prolis* etc. In tertia determinat quandam auctoritatem Gregorii, ibi: *Sed forte aliquis dicet* etc. Et sic duo principaliter determinat Magister in hac distinctione.

#### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius distinctionis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de bonis matrimonii.

Secundo, qualiter excusant coitum.

Circa primum tria quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum bona matrimonii sint in genere conferentis sive utilis, an honesti[^1].

Secundo quaeritur de numero et sufficientia eorum.

Tertio quaeritur de necessitate horum bonorum.

### ARTICULUS I.
#### *De bonis matrimonii.*

---

english:
<!-- page 716 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXI.
#### *On the final cause of matrimony as regards the goods of marriage in general.*

*After these things, concerning the goods of marriage—what they are and how they excuse coitus, etc.*

#### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the formal and efficient cause of marriage. Here he treats of the final cause, on account of which it exists; and this is a threefold good. Now this part is divided into two. In the first he treats of the goods of marriage in general. In the second, of the good of fidelity specifically, below in the thirty-second distinction: *It must also be known that, whereas in all other things,* etc.

The first part has two [members]. In the first he determines what and how many are the goods of marriage. In the second he determines how through them coitus is excused, there: *When therefore these three goods are in some [marriage],* etc.

The first part has three parts. In the first he determines what and how many are the goods of marriage. In the second, how they are related to matrimony, whether they are separable or inseparable, there: *And it must be known that by some persons marriage is contracted.* In the third he removes two incidental doubts, there: *It is wont to be asked, when male and female,* etc.

<!-- page 717 -->

*When therefore these three goods are in some marriage,* etc. This is the second part, in which it is treated how the goods of marriage excuse that act; and this part has three little parts. In the first he determines by what mode they excuse. In the second he determines a certain authority of the Apostle which seems to be contrary, there: *But if the coitus which takes place for the sake of offspring,* etc. In the third he determines a certain authority of Gregory, there: *But perhaps someone will say,* etc. And thus the Master principally determines two things in this distinction.

#### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this distinction two things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the goods of matrimony.

Second, how they excuse coitus.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether the goods of matrimony are in the genus of what is advantageous (that is, of the useful), or of the honorable[^1].

Second it is asked concerning the number and sufficiency of them.

Third it is asked concerning the necessity of these goods.

### ARTICLE I.
#### *On the goods of matrimony.*

---

la: Vat. addit *an delectabilis.* Cfr. tom. II. pag. 593, nota 1. (Aristot., II. *Ethic.* c. 3, ubi dicit, quod « tria sint, quae in electionem... cadunt: honestum, utile et iucundum »).

en: The Vatican edition adds *or the delightful.* Compare vol. II, p. 593, note 1. (Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 3, where he says that « there are three things which fall into choice: the honorable, the useful, and the pleasant »). ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from vol4 PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{716,717}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 20 → pdf 736–737), cross-checked against raw OCR L77223–77277. Running heads verified: p.716 = "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." / "716"; p.717 = "DIST. XXXI. ART. I. QUAEST. I." / "717".
- **Structure.** The DIVISIO TEXTUS is set in two columns spanning both pages; reading order is p716-L → p716-R → p717-L → p717-R (the p716-R tail "...utrum sint" continues to p717-L "separabilia..."; "et habet" at the p717-L tail continues to p717-R "haec pars tres particulas..."). The physical page break falls mid-paragraph between "utrum sint" and "separabilia"; the `<!-- page 717 -->` marker is placed at the nearest paragraph boundary.
- **Chunk scope.** Single-pars distinction (no pars split). This chunk holds the COMMENTARIUS opener + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + the ARTICULUS I opener ("De bonis matrimonii"). QUAESTIO I ("Utrum matrimonium sit in genere...") and its *videtur*/*contra* body begin the sibling chunk **a1-q1** (pp. 717–718).
- **Footer hand-offs.**
  - *p.716* — all four numbered footers (1 August. *contra Iulian.*; 2 *Regest.* XI / Gratian; 3 *Ibid.* Can. § 2; 4 Cod. C variant) anchor in the LITTERA (Lombard's text, capp. VII–VIII: the Augustine and Gregory quotations), **not** in the divisio. They belong to the **littera** chunk (pp. 713–716). This chunk claims **none** of p.716's footers.
  - *p.717* — footer note **1** ("Vat. addit *an delectabilis*") anchors at "an honesti" in the Tractatio → **claimed here**. Footers 2–7 on p.717 (Vers. 35 Glossa; *de Bono coniugali* c.8; per coniugium variant; Augustinus *de Bono coniugali*; etc.) anchor in the QUAESTIO I body → belong to **a1-q1**.
- **Apparatus count:** 1 entry (p.717 note 1). Per-page split: p.716 → 0 (all to littera); p.717 → 1 (of that page's ~7, the rest to a1-q1).
- **[?] flags:** none. OCR and PDF bands agree; no illegible readings.

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. 31, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt: Whether matrimony is in the genus of the useful or of the honorable

source_text:
<!-- page 717 -->

### Articulus I. *De bonis matrimonii.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum matrimonium sit in genere utilis, an honesti.*

Et quod sit in genere *honesti*, videtur.

1. *Super illud primae ad Corinthios septimo*[^1]: *Non ut laqueum* etc.; Glossa: « Non esse turpe demonstravit, sed quod honesto honestius est generali nomine *honesti* commendavit ».

2. Item, hoc videtur *ratione*: quia castitas, cum sit virtus, est in genere honesti; sed actus coniugalis est actus castitatis, quoniam est castitas coniugalis, sicut vidualis[^2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, actus, qui alias esset fornicarius, fit non fornicarius per coniugium[^3]; sed nihil tollit dehonestatem peccati nisi honestum: ergo coniugium etc.

4. Item, servare fidem coniugii hoc est opus iustitiae de se; sed talia cadunt in genere honesti, et hoc est bonum matrimonii: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus *de Bono coniugali*[^4]: « Quaedam bona data sunt a Deo, quae propter se appetenda sunt, ut sapientia, salus et amicitia; quaedam vero propter aliud necessaria, ut doctrina, cibus et coniugium »; sed honestum est propter se appetendum: ergo etc.

2. Item, Hieronymus in libro *de Virginibus*[^5]: « Fornicationis periculo conceduntur nuptiae, et excusabile fit quod non propter se est appetendum, sicut viduis solum fornicationis periculo conceduntur secunda connubia ».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia « honestum est quod sua vi nos trahit et dignitate nos allicit[^6] »; sed omne tale est ab omnibus appetendum, coniugium autem non est ab omnibus appetendum: ergo etc.

4. Item, omnis verecundia recta est de eo quod habet aliquid inhonestatis, non de honesto; sed omnis homo sanae mentis actum coniugalem erubescit: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Matrimonium secundum aliquid sui est in genere tum *honesti*, tum *utilis*, tum *delectabilis*, quae tamen bona suis contrariis sunt admixta.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum triplex bonum sit in coniugio, scilicet *fides*, *proles* et *Sacra*-

<!-- page 718 -->

*mentum*[^7]; *fides* est, quod suam cognoscat et non aliam; hoc est bonum moris de se ordinatum et cadit in genere *honesti*. — *Prolis* vero *bonum* cadit in genere *conferentis*; confert enim prolis multiplicatio ad speciei conservationem et perfectionem numeri, sicut cibus ad conservationem individui. — Bonum vero *Sacramenti* cadit in genere *delectabilis*, quia tanta est ibi unio, ut *relinquat homo patrem et matrem, et sint duo in carne una*[^8]; unde praecipitur viris, *ut uxores diligant sicut corpora sua*. Et sic patet, « quod cum tria sint in electione, sicut vult Philosophus, scilicet *honestum*, *conferens* et *delectabile* »; in triplici genere est bonum coniugii. Et haec tria bona *pura* essent in statu puritatis et innocentiae; sed per peccatum sunt *suis contrariis admixta*: quoniam in actu illo est quaedam inhonestas contracta ratione improbitatis libidinis et pruritus; et ideo in[^9] bono *honesto* quaedam permiscetur inhonestas. Est etiam quoddam *damnum*, quia impeditur homo ab orationis instantia; unde procreando prolem ad cultum Dei impeditur ut tunc perfecte colere Deum[^10]: sic ergo bono *conferenti* permiscetur *damnum*. Et etiam *delectabili*, scilicet Sacramenti indivisioni, quaedam *tribulatio* et *angustia*, quia *qui cum uxore est cogitat quae sunt mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, et divisus est*, quoniam *tribulationem carnis habet huiusmodi*[^11]: et ita bonum delectabile permiscetur tristitiae et angustiae. — Quoniam ergo *bonum* est, tamen *permixtum*; ideo appeti potest, et etiam melius est non appeti. Unde *qui iungit virginem bene facit, et qui non iungit* virginem *melius facit*. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes ostendentes, matrimonium secundum aliquid sui esse in genere *honesti*.

**Ad obiecta:**

*1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod est propter aliud appetendum; dicendum, quod loquitur ratione boni *conferentis*, quod ibi est.

*2. 3. 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hieronymo, et ad rationes sequentes solvendum est, quod non est *pure bonum*, sed aliquid habens admixtum; et quia bonum istud est medicinale, ideo bonum non fit malum propter malum, quod ibi est, immo curat et excusat malum, non ut non sit *poenale* — et ideo est ibi verecundia et tribulatio — sed solum, ut non sit *culpabile*, sicut patebit infra[^12].

english:
### Article I. *On the goods of matrimony.*
### Question I. *Whether matrimony is in the genus of the useful, or of the honorable.*

And that it is in the genus of the *honorable*, it seems.

1. On that passage of the first [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^1]: *Not that I may cast a snare* etc.; the Gloss: "He showed it not to be base, but commended, under the general name of the *honorable*, that which is more honorable than the honorable."

2. Likewise, this seems [to hold] by *reason*: because chastity, since it is a virtue, is in the genus of the honorable; but the conjugal act is an act of chastity, since there is a conjugal chastity, just as [there is] a widow's[^2]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, an act which otherwise would be fornicating becomes non-fornicating through marriage[^3]; but nothing takes away the dishonor of sin except the honorable: therefore marriage etc.

4. Likewise, to keep the faith of marriage is of itself a work of justice; but such things fall in the genus of the honorable, and this is a good of matrimony: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*[^4]: "Certain goods have been given by God which are to be sought for their own sake, such as wisdom, health, and friendship; but certain others [are] necessary for the sake of something else, such as teaching, food, and marriage"; but the honorable is to be sought for its own sake: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Jerome in the book *On Virgins*[^5]: "By the danger of fornication marriages are conceded, and that becomes excusable which is not to be sought for its own sake, just as to widows second wedlocks are conceded only by the danger of fornication."

3. Likewise, it seems by reason: because "the honorable is that which draws us by its own force and allures us by its dignity[^6]"; but everything such is to be sought by all; matrimony, however, is not to be sought by all: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, all right shame is concerning that which has something of dishonor, not concerning the honorable; but every person of sound mind blushes at the conjugal act: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> Matrimony, according to something of itself, is in the genus now of the *honorable*, now of the *useful*, now of the *delightful*—goods which nevertheless are mixed with their contraries.

**I respond:** It must be said that, since there is a threefold good in marriage, namely *faith* [fidelity], *offspring*, and *Sacra*-

*ment*[^7]; *faith* is that one should know one's own [spouse] and not another; this is a good of conduct, ordered of itself, and it falls in the genus of the *honorable*. — But the *good of offspring* falls in the genus of the *beneficial*; for the multiplication of offspring is conducive to the conservation of the species and the perfection of number, just as food [is conducive] to the conservation of the individual. — But the good of the *Sacrament* falls in the genus of the *delightful*, because so great is the union there, that *a man leaves father and mother, and the two are in one flesh*[^8]; whence it is enjoined upon husbands, *that they love their wives as their own bodies*. And thus it is clear, "that since there are three things in choice, as the Philosopher wills, namely the *honorable*, the *beneficial*, and the *delightful*"; in a threefold genus is the good of marriage. And these three goods would be *pure* in the state of purity and innocence; but through sin they are *mixed with their contraries*: since in that act there is a certain dishonor contracted by reason of the wickedness of lust and prurience; and therefore in the *honorable* good a certain dishonor is intermingled[^9]. There is also a certain *harm*, because a man is impeded from persistence in prayer; whence in procreating offspring for the worship of God he is impeded from then worshipping God perfectly[^10]: thus therefore to the *beneficial* good is intermingled *harm*. And also to the *delightful* [good], namely to the indivision of the Sacrament, [is intermingled] a certain *tribulation* and *distress*, because *he who is with a wife thinks on the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided*, since *he has tribulation of the flesh of this kind*[^11]: and so the delightful good is mingled with sorrow and distress. — Since therefore it is a *good*, yet a *mixed* [one]; therefore it can be sought, and yet it is better not to be sought. Whence *he who joins a virgin does well, and he who does not join* a virgin *does better*. — The reasons showing that matrimony, according to something of itself, is in the genus of the *honorable*, are therefore to be conceded.

**To the objections:**

*1.* To that, then, which is objected, that it is to be sought for the sake of something else; it must be said that it speaks by reason of the *beneficial* good, which is there.

*2. 3. 4.* To that which is objected from Jerome, and to the reasons following, it must be resolved that it is not *purely good*, but something having an admixture; and because this good is *medicinal*, therefore the good does not become evil on account of the evil which is there, but rather cures and excuses the evil—not so that it should not be *penal* (and therefore there is there shame and tribulation)—but only so that it should not be *culpable*, as will be clear below[^12].

la: Vers. 35. — Glossa, quae exhibetur a Petro Lombard. in hunc locum (a Strabo et Lyrano ex parte tantum), sumta est ex August., de Bono viduitatis, c. 5. n. 7: *Non matrimonium turpe esse monstravit, sed quod honesto erat honestius generalis honesti nomine commendavit.*

en: Verse 35. — The Gloss, which is presented by Peter Lombard on this passage (from Strabo and [Nicholas of] Lyra only in part), is taken from Augustine, *On the Good of Widowhood*, c. 5, n. 7: "He showed that matrimony is not base, but commended, under the general name of the honorable, that which was more honorable than the honorable."

la: Cfr. August., de Bono coniugali, c. 8. n. 8, ubi exponit illud Hebr. 13, 4: *Honorabile connubium in omnibus et torus immaculatus*, et Serm. 343. de Susanna et Ioseph. — Codd. N aa addunt *et virginalis*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 8, n. 8, where he expounds that passage of Heb. 13:4: "Marriage honorable in all, and the bed undefiled," and Sermon 343, *On Susanna and Joseph*. — Codices N, aa add *and a virgin's* [i.e. *sicut vidualis et virginalis*].

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 2: *Propter fornicationem autem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat* etc.

en: [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Cor. 7:2: "But on account of fornication let each one have his own wife," etc.

en: Chapter 9, n. 9.

la: Libr. I. adversus Iovinian. n. 14. (refutans primum ipsius errorem: *Virgines, viduas et maritatas, quae semel in Christo lotae sunt, si non discrepent ceteris operibus, eiusdem esse meriti*), et Epist. 48. (alias 50.) apologetica ad Pammachium pro libris contra Iovinianum, n. 8.

en: Book I *Against Jovinian*, n. 14 (refuting his first error: that "virgins, widows, and married women, who have once been washed in Christ, if they do not differ in their other works, are of the same merit"), and Letter 48 (elsewhere 50), the apology to Pammachius for the books against Jovinian, n. 8.

la: Cicero, II. Rhetor. c. 53. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 40, nota 5.

en: Cicero, *Rhetoric* [*On Invention*] II, c. 53. Cf. tom. I, p. 40, note 5.

la: Vide quaest. seq. — Inferius pro *numeri* (cod. aa addit *electorum*) cod. bb *universi*. Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 35. (c. 4.).

en: See the following question. — Below, for *numeri* (codex aa adds *electorum*) codex bb [reads] *universi*. Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 35 (c. 4).

la: Gen. 2, 24: *Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem... et erunt duo* etc. Cfr. Matth. 19, 5. et Marc. 10, 7. — Seq. locus est Eph. 5, 28: *Ita et viri debent diligere uxores suas ut corpora sua.* — Verba Philosophi vide supra pag. 717, nota 1.

en: Gen. 2:24: "Wherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother... and they shall be two," etc. Cf. Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:7. — The following passage is Eph. 5:28: "So also men ought to love their wives as their own bodies." — For the words of the Philosopher see above, p. 717, note 1.

la: Pro *ideo in* cod. E *ita*, alii codd. communiter et ed. 1 omittunt *ideo*. Superius pro *essent* cod. aa *erant*, et pro *admixta* plures codd. *annexa*.

en: For *ideo in*, codex E [reads] *ita*; the other codices generally and ed. 1 omit *ideo*. Above, for *essent* codex aa [reads] *erant*, and for *admixta* several codices [read] *annexa*.

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 7, 5: *Nolite fraudare invicem, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacetis orationi* etc. — Cod. Z addit *non posset*, cod. aa *nequeat*, Vat. *non valeat*. Superius pro *ab orationis* plures codd. et ed. 1 *a rationis*, Vat. legit *a rationis instantia seu intentione*.

en: Regarded is 1 Cor. 7:5: "Do not defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may be free for prayer," etc. — Codex Z adds *non posset*, codex aa *nequeat*, the Vatican edition *non valeat*. Above, for *ab orationis* several codices and ed. 1 [read] *a rationis*; the Vatican edition reads *a rationis instantia seu intentione* [from the persistence or intention of reason].

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 33, ubi Vulgata pro *cogitat* (quod in v. 34. occurrit) *sollicitus est*, et v. 28: *Tribulationem tamen carnis habebunt huiusmodi.* — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 38: *Igitur et qui matrimonio iungit virginem suam bene facit* etc.

en: [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Cor. 7:33, where the Vulgate, for *cogitat* (which occurs in v. 34), [reads] *sollicitus est*, and v. 28: "Yet such shall have tribulation of the flesh." — The following passage is ibid. v. 38: "Therefore both he who joins his virgin in matrimony does well," etc.

la: Art. 2. q. 1. seq. et dub. 5.

en: Article 2, q. 1 and following, and dub. 5. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** In hoc articulo agitur praecipue de *tribus bonis* matrimonii, a S. Augustino assertis et deinde communiter receptis. Notandum est, quod *fides* hic non accipitur ut *fides theologica* nec proprie ut *virtus*, sed ut quaedam pars sive proprietas virtutis iustitiae. Item, *Sacramentum* hic non dicitur ipsum matrimonium, sed *inseparabilitas* eius; cfr. hic q. 2. ad ult.; Magister, hic c. 2; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 7; Scot., hic q. unica n. 5. Porro de bono *prolis* vide hic dub. 1.

**II.** Quod in solutione quaestionis 1. dicitur, tria ista bona in lapso per peccatum esse suis contrariis admixta, a S. Thoma aliisque supponitur et adhibetur ad probandum, quod in matrimonio debeant esse aliqua « bona *excusantia* », per quae scilicet fiat compensatio detrimenti spiritualis, quod in matrimonio incurritur. Scoto (hic q. unica n. 2. 3.) non placet hic modus loquendi, iam a Magistro aliisque antiquis usurpatus, quia sensu *proprio* non possit accipi, cum matrimonium ex obiecto et fine iam habeat rationem actus honesti. Nec hoc negat S. Thom., immo dicit (hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 2.): « Ista bona, quae matrimonium honestant, sunt *de ratione* matrimonii; et ideo non indiget eis quasi *exterioribus* quibusdam ad honestandum, sed quasi causantibus in ipso honestatem, quae ei secundum se competit ». — Ceterum notum est, Manichaeos, tum antiquos tum medio aevo redivivos, negasse, matrimonium esse in genere *honesti*, cum esset malum in se, sicut materia; qui error pessimus in Almarico iterum damnatus est ab Innocentio III. et Concilio Laterano IV. (c. 2. *Damnamus*). Cfr. etiam infra a. 2. q. 1.

Quaestionem I. tractant S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med. sub titulo: « Utrum debeant haberi aliqua bona ad excusandum matrimonium ». Cfr. Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Suppl. 49. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1; Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica.

**III.** De sufficientia horum 3 bonorum omnes consentiunt. Cfr. S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — B. Albert., a. 4-6. 8-10. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

**IV.** Circa 3. quaestionem patet, quod tria illa bona non eodem modo spectant ad hoc Sacramentum. Bonum *Sacramenti* sive *inseparabilitas* est bonum « *primum* et intrinsecum et *forma*; *fides*, id est fidelitas in iuste reddendo actum debitum, est bonum eius ut *finis proximus*, sed minus principalis; bonum *prolis* est eius bonum extrinsecum, ut *finis ultimus*, sed principalis » (Scot., loc. cit. n. 4.). — Attamen de bonis *fidei* et *prolis* loquendum est cum distinctione ab omnibus recepta, quod licet in matrimonio *contracto* defectus eorum non solvat vinculum, tamen in *contrahendo* eodem conditio apposita contra haec duo bona (sicut contra bonum Sacramenti) matrimonium reddat invalidum (Scot., loc. cit. n. 9.). De 3. quaestione S. Thom., locis cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 1-3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In this article the discussion is chiefly about the *three goods* of matrimony, asserted by St. Augustine and thereafter commonly received. It must be noted that *faith* here is not taken as *theological faith*, nor properly as a *virtue*, but as a certain part or property of the virtue of justice. Likewise, *Sacrament* here is not called matrimony itself, but its *inseparability*; cf. here q. 2, at the end; the Master, here c. 2; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, ad 7; Scotus, here sole q., n. 5. Further, concerning the good of *offspring*, see here dub. 1.

**II.** As to what is said in the solution of question 1, that these three goods, in [the nature] fallen through sin, are mixed with their contraries, this is presupposed by St. Thomas and others and applied to prove that in matrimony there must be certain "*excusing* goods," by which, namely, a compensation may be made for the spiritual detriment which is incurred in matrimony. To Scotus (here sole q., n. 2, 3) this manner of speaking, already employed by the Master and other ancients, is not pleasing, because it cannot be taken in a *proper* sense, since matrimony from its object and end already has the character of an honorable act. Nor does St. Thomas deny this, but rather says (here q. 1, a. 1, ad 2): "These goods, which make matrimony honorable, are *of the very account* of matrimony; and therefore it does not need them as certain *external* things for making it honorable, but as things causing in it the honorableness which belongs to it in itself." — For the rest, it is known that the Manichaeans, both the ancient ones and those revived in the Middle Ages, denied that matrimony is in the genus of the *honorable*, since it was evil in itself, like matter; which most wicked error was again condemned in Amalric by Innocent III and the Fourth Lateran Council (c. 2, *Damnamus*). Cf. also below, a. 2, q. 1.

Question 1 is treated by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton under the title: "Whether there ought to be some goods for excusing matrimony." Cf. Scotus, on this and the 2 following, here sole q. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *Supplement* 49, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1, 2, 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1. — On this and the 2 following questions, Durandus, here q. 1; Denis the Carthusian, here sole q.

**III.** Concerning the sufficiency of these 3 goods all agree. Cf. St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, a. 4–6, 8–10. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 2.

**IV.** Concerning the 3rd question it is clear that those three goods do not regard this Sacrament in the same manner. The good of the *Sacrament*, or *inseparability*, is a good "*first* and intrinsic and *form*; *faith*, that is fidelity in justly rendering the due act, is its good as a *proximate end*, but less principal; the good of *offspring* is its extrinsic good, as a *last end*, but principal" (Scotus, in the place cited, n. 4). — Nevertheless concerning the goods of *faith* and *offspring* one must speak with a distinction received by all, namely that although in a matrimony [already] *contracted* a defect of them does not dissolve the bond, yet in *contracting* [it], a condition attached against these two goods (just as against the good of the Sacrament) renders the matrimony invalid (Scotus, in the place cited, n. 9). Concerning the 3rd question: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 3, and a. 2, q. 1–3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF page-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{717,718}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, 450 dpi), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the two-column, cascade-shattered Respondeo / Ad-obiecta / scholion / footers; raw OCR L77278–77448 used only for clean-prose base + footnote-marker spacing). Running heads verified: p.717 "DIST. XXXI. ART. I. QUAEST. I." / "717"; p.718 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (verso); the scholion tail verified against p.719 "DIST. XXXI. ART. I. QUAEST. II." / "719". Page-band split shifts recto↔verso: p.717 is a recto (text block right-shifted; L split ≈2120), p.718 a verso (text block left-shifted; L column regenerated at split 2320 to avoid right-edge truncation; R at 1780).

**Page-span.** Body runs pp. 717–718. The Art. I **Scholion** (§I–IV) begins at the foot of p.718 (spanning both columns) and its §II and §IV doctor-lists finish at the **top of p.719** — read there but rendered here in full (this chunk owns the whole Art. I scholion; siblings a1-q2 and a1-q3 render no scholion).

**Scholion disposition.** Four numbered sections, §I–IV, covering all three questions of Article I: §I general (terminology of *fides* / *proles* / *Sacramentum*); §II on Question 1 (the "*bona excusantia*" dispute, Scotus vs. Aquinas/Master; Manichaean/Amalric condemnation) + Question-1 doctor-list; §III on Question 2 (sufficiency of the goods) + doctors; §IV on Question 3 (the goods' differing modes toward the Sacrament; the contracting-vs-contracted distinction) + Question-3 doctor-list (this last list continues onto p.719). No footnote markers occur within the scholion body (citations are inline).

**Apparatus / footer hand-offs.** Two per-page footer series, renumbered [^1]–[^12]: **p.717 notes 2–7 → [^1]–[^6]** (all anchored in this quaestio's body); **p.718 notes 1–6 → [^7]–[^12]** (all anchored in the Respondeo / Ad-obiecta). **p.717 note 1** ("*Vat. addit an delectabilis. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 593…*") anchors in the divisio's *Tractatio quaestionum* ("*…an honesti*¹") and is NOT claimed here — it belongs to the d.31 divisio chunk, which per the hand-off already owns it. No footers claimed from p.719 (the scholion tail there carries no numbered footer anchored in this body).

**Editorial marginalia (trimmed from body per convention).** The Quaracchi printed margins carry keyword glosses not part of Bonaventure's text: "*Triplex bonum*" (beside the Respondeo, p.717); "*Conclusio 1 / 2 / 3 / 4*" (beside the four sub-conclusions of the Respondeo, p.718); "*Solutio positorum*" and "*Nota*" (beside the Ad-obiecta, p.718). These are omitted from the reflowed text.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the page-bands. Minor OCR/print corrections silently applied (e.g. *coningium*→*coniugium*, *erube-scit*→*erubescit*, *Laterano*/*Almarico* proper names) where the print band made intent unambiguous.


title: Dist. 31, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Whether there are three goods of marriage

source_text:
<!-- page 719 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum tria sint matrimonii bona.*

Secundo quaeritur de numero et sufficientia bonorum matrimonii; et assignantur ab Augustino tria in libro de Bono coniugali[^1], scilicet « fides, proles et Sacramentum ». Primo videtur, quod hic sit *defectus*.

1. Nam praeter haec est in coniugio *mutuum obsequium*; et hoc quidem aliquod bonum est, sicut dicitur Ecclesiastis quarto[^2]: *Melius est, duos esse quam unum*, et non est aliquid istorum: ergo etc.

2. Item, ista tria competunt matrimonio, secundum quod est in *officium*; sed matrimonium non solum est in *officium*, sed etiam in *remedium*[^3]: ergo videntur plura esse.

3. Item, bonum *pacis* est aliquod bonum, immo maximum bonum, ut dicit Augustinus[^4]; sed hoc est bonum, quod frequenter facit coniugium: ergo insufficienter enumerat. *Si dicas*, quod enumerat ea quae sunt bona matrimonii, non ut frequenter, sed ut semper; *obiicitur*: quia nec fides nec proles semper est in matrimonio.

*Sed contra*, videtur, quod superflue:

4. Quia unius rei unicus est finis: ergo si matrimonii Sacramentum est unum, ergo unum debet habere principalem finem: ergo unum est bonum eius, quia *bonum* et *finis* idem[^5].

5. Item, nihil dicitur esse bonum sui ipsius; sed matrimonium est Sacramentum: ergo Sacramentum non est bonum matrimonii.

6. Item, nihil debet connumerari suis proprietatibus; sed fides et proles sunt conditiones et proprietates matrimonii, ergo Sacramenti: ergo non debent distingui neque connumerari cum bono Sacramenti. — *Si dicas*, quod Sacramentum aliter accipitur, scilicet pro *proprietate* matrimonii; *quaeritur*, quae sit illa proprietas, et quare magis sibi appropriavit nomen Sacramenti[^6].

### Conclusio.

> *Sufficientia trium bonorum matrimonii monstratur triplici via.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod numerus et sufficientia bonorum matrimonii potest accipi a parte causae *instituentis* sive *efficientis*, et sic a triplici principio: a dictamine scilicet *naturae*, ut vir cubet cum muliere ad conservationem ipsius naturae, et sic bonum *prolis*; a dictamine *rationis rectae*, ut vir cum sua et non cum alia cubet[^7] muliere, et sic bonum *fidei*; a dictamine *gratiae*, ut significetur unio divinae naturae et humanae, et sic bonum *Sacramenti*.

Potest accipi a parte principii *constituentis*, et hoc tripliciter: quia ad hoc, quod matrimonium habeat esse *completum*, tria sunt necessaria, scilicet *institutio*, *usus* et *fructus*. Ratione *institutionis* est bonum Sacramenti, ratione debiti *usus* est bonum fidei, ratione *fructus* conferentis usum est bonum prolis. Et sic patet, quod est triplex bonum.

Potest etiam accipi a parte *finis moventis* sive *terminantis*, et hoc vel quia *ad bonum*, vel quia *contra malum*. Quia *ad bonum*; cum triplex sit eligendum bonum, scilicet *honestum*, *conferens* et *delectabile*, ratione boni *honesti* est fides, ratione *conferentis* proles, ratione *delectabilis* est Sacramentum, secundum quod superius[^8] est monstratum. — Vel aliter: quia *contra malum* concupiscentiae, quae habet in se triplex malum, scilicet *fluxum*, *inordinationem* et *fastidium*; contra *fluxum* est in matrimonio unio *singularis*, contra *inordinationem* unio *utilis*, contra *fastidium* unio *inseparabilis*. Ratione *singularitatis* in unione est fides, ratione *utilitatis* proles, ratione *inseparabilitatis* Sacramentum[^9]. — Et haec tria significant triplicem proprietatem unionis Christi cum Ecclesia, quia scilicet unitur uni, et quia ex ea *filios generat*, et quia nunquam separatur.

Ex his patent obiecta, quia connumerantur non quaecumque bona, sed quae *communia* sunt statui naturae corruptae et stantis[^10]; ideo nec pax nec obsequium nec bonum, quod accipitur, in quantum est *remedium*, inter haec bona connumerantur, sed haec tria bona solum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *superfluunt*, quia unius unus finis; dicendum, quod unum est bonum *principale* et *inseparabile*, scilicet sacra- <!-- page 720 --> mentale vinculum; et alia sunt huic annexa, et nihil impedit, quod aliquid habeat unum principalem finem et plures utilitates adiunctas.

5. 6. Patet etiam responsio ad illud quod obiicitur de bono Sacramenti: nam ipsa unio dicitur Sacramentum matrimonii, sed inseparabilitas unionis dicitur *bonum* Sacramenti sive Sacramentum, quod est bonum matrimonii.

Ratio autem, quare conditio inseparabilitatis vindicavit[^11] sibi nomen istud, est, quia matrimonio est consubstantialis et consequens ipsum inseparabiliter, non sic aliae conditiones. Et sic patent obiecta[^12].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the goods of matrimony are three.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the number and sufficiency of the goods of matrimony; and three are assigned by Augustine in the book On the Good of Marriage[^1], namely « faith, offspring, and Sacrament ». First it seems that here there is a *defect*.

1. For besides these there is in wedlock *mutual service*; and this indeed is some good, as it is said in the fourth [chapter] of Ecclesiastes[^2]: *It is better that two be than one*, and this is none of those [three]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, these three belong to matrimony insofar as it is in [the character of] a *duty*; but matrimony is not only in a *duty*, but also in a *remedy*[^3]: therefore there seem to be more.

3. Likewise, the good of *peace* is some good, indeed the greatest good, as Augustine says[^4]; but this is a good which wedlock frequently brings about: therefore it enumerates insufficiently. *If you say* that it enumerates those things which are goods of matrimony, not as [occurring] frequently but as [occurring] always; *it is objected*: because neither faith nor offspring is always in matrimony.

*But on the contrary*, it seems that [it enumerates] superfluously:

4. Because of one thing there is one single end: therefore if the Sacrament of matrimony is one, therefore it ought to have one principal end: therefore its good is one, since *good* and *end* are the same[^5].

5. Likewise, nothing is said to be a good of its very self; but matrimony is a Sacrament: therefore the Sacrament is not a good of matrimony.

6. Likewise, nothing ought to be numbered together with its own properties; but faith and offspring are conditions and properties of matrimony, therefore of the Sacrament: therefore they ought not to be distinguished nor numbered together with the good of the Sacrament. — *If you say* that Sacrament is taken otherwise, namely for a *property* of matrimony; *it is asked* what that property is, and why it has rather appropriated to itself the name of Sacrament[^6].

### Conclusion.

> *The sufficiency of the three goods of matrimony is shown by a threefold way.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the number and sufficiency of the goods of matrimony can be taken on the part of the *instituting* or *efficient* cause, and thus from a threefold principle: namely from the dictate of *nature*, that a man should lie with a woman for the conservation of nature itself, and thus the good of *offspring*; from the dictate of *right reason*, that a man should lie with his own and not with another[^7] woman, and thus the good of *faith*; from the dictate of *grace*, that the union of the divine and human nature be signified, and thus the good of the *Sacrament*.

It can be taken on the part of the *constituting* principle, and this in three ways: because, in order that matrimony have *complete* being, three things are necessary, namely *institution*, *use*, and *fruit*. By reason of *institution* there is the good of the Sacrament, by reason of the due *use* there is the good of faith, by reason of the *fruit* conferring use there is the good of offspring. And thus it is clear that there is a threefold good.

It can also be taken on the part of the *moving* or *terminating end*, and this either because it is *toward the good*, or because it is *against evil*. Because *toward the good*: since the good to be chosen is threefold, namely the *honorable*, the *beneficial*, and the *pleasant*, by reason of the *honorable* good there is faith, by reason of the *beneficial* [good] offspring, by reason of the *pleasant* [good] there is the Sacrament, according to what was shown above[^8]. — Or otherwise: because it is *against the evil* of concupiscence, which has in itself a threefold evil, namely *flux*, *disorder*, and *loathing*; against *flux* there is in matrimony a *singular* union, against *disorder* a *useful* union, against *loathing* an *inseparable* union. By reason of *singularity* in the union there is faith, by reason of *usefulness* offspring, by reason of *inseparability* the Sacrament[^9]. — And these three signify the threefold property of the union of Christ with the Church, namely because He is united to one, and because *from her He generates sons*, and because He is never separated.

From these things the objections are made clear, because there are numbered together not any goods whatever, but those which are *common* to the state of corrupt and standing nature[^10]; therefore neither peace nor service nor the good which is taken insofar as it is a *remedy* are numbered among these goods, but these three goods alone.

4. To that which is objected, that they are *superfluous*, since of one thing there is one end; it must be said that there is one *principal* and *inseparable* good, namely the sacra- <!-- page 720 --> mental bond; and the others are annexed to it, and nothing prevents that a thing should have one principal end and several adjoined uses.

5. 6. The response is also clear to that which is objected concerning the good of the Sacrament: for the union itself is called the Sacrament of matrimony, but the inseparability of the union is called the *good* of the Sacrament, or the Sacrament which is the good of matrimony.

But the reason why the condition of inseparability has claimed[^11] this name for itself is that it is consubstantial with matrimony and follows it inseparably, not so the other conditions. And thus the objections are made clear[^12].

---

la: Cap. 24. n. 32. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: [*De Bono coniugali*] ch. 24, n. 32. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Vers. 9. Post *esse* Vulgata addit *simul*.

en: Verse 9. After *esse* (to be) the Vulgate adds *simul* (together).

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 1. et 2.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 1 and 2.

la: Libr. XIX. de Civ. Dei, c. 11: *Tantum est enim pacis bonum, ut etiam in rebus terrenis atque mortalibus nihil gratius soleat audiri, nihil desiderabilius concupisci, nihil postremo possit melius inveniri.*

en: Book XIX of the City of God, c. 11: "For so great is the good of peace that even in earthly and mortal things nothing is wont to be heard more gladly, nothing desired more longingly, nothing finally can be found better."

la: Secundum Aristot. Cfr. tom. 1. pag. 769, nota 1. — Superius pro *superflue* (cod. T addit *dicat*) Vat. *superfluat*.

en: According to Aristotle. Cf. vol. 1, p. 769, note 1. — Above, for *superflue* (superfluously) (cod. T adds *dicat*) the Vatican edition reads *superfluat*.

la: Cod. O addit *quam alia Sacramenta*.

en: Cod. O adds *than the other Sacraments*.

la: Multi codd. omittunt *cubet*. Inferius pro *principii*, quod habent codd. E I K Z, alii codd. vel cum edd. *principali*, vel *principalis*.

en: Many codices omit *cubet* (lie with). Below, for *principii* (of the principle), which codd. E I K Z have, other codices read either, with the editions, *principali*, or *principalis*.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: [See] the preceding question.

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. in fine corp. — Pro *contra fluxum* plurimi codd. *contra defluxum*.

en: See above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 2, at the end of the body [of the article]. — For *contra fluxum* very many codices read *contra defluxum*.

la: Pro *stantis* (cfr. infra d. 33. a. 1. q. 2.), quod habet cod. Z (addito *hoc est institutae*), multi codd. *statim*, cod. O *stanti*, cod. bb *institutae*, cod. A *statui*, codd. R X aa legunt: *statui naturae institutae* (cod. X *innocentiae*, cod. aa *conditae*) et *statui naturae corruptae*.

en: For *stantis* (standing) (cf. below, d. 33, a. 1, q. 2), which cod. Z has (adding *that is, of [nature] instituted*), many codices read *statim*, cod. O *stanti*, cod. bb *institutae*, cod. A *statui*; codices R X aa read: *of the state of nature instituted* (cod. X *of innocence*, cod. aa *created*) and *of the state of nature corrupted*.

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *vindicat*.

en: The editions, with a few codices, read *vindicat* (claims [present tense]).

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed pp. 719–720 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{719,720}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, L regenerated at split 2120/2500, R at 1780), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (cascade-shattered two-column IA OCR; bands authoritative). Raw OCR L77449–77563 used only as a reference skeleton. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Page-span correction (verified against running heads).** The auto-chunk frontmatter listed `printed_pages: [718, 719, 720]`, but the running head at raw L77441 reads `DIST. XXXI. ART. I. QUAEST. II. … 719` and the `QUAESTIO II` rubric + `Utrum tria sint matrimonii bona` sit at the very top of printed p. 719. **p. 718 carries no q2 content** — it is entirely a1-q1 (its Conclusio 1–4 and the Article-I scholion). Corrected to `printed_pages: [719, 720]` / `pdf_pages: [739, 740]`; `source` updated to pp. 719–720. The opener alignment ("Secundo quaeritur de numero et sufficientia bonorum") is correct — no q-swap.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false` (confirmed): the Article-I scholion is rendered in a1-q1. The last lines of q1's scholion actually spill onto the top of p. 719 (left col.: "…matrimonium reddat invalidum (Scot., loc. cit. n. 9.)"; right col.: the S. Thom./Albert/Petr. a Tar./Richard. bibliography). These are **not** rendered here.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- Shared page with **a1-q1** is p. 719 (not p. 718 as the dispatch note said): q1's scholion tail sits at the top of p. 719, but bears no numbered footer. All ten of p. 719's numbered footers (nn. 1–10 → markers [^1]–[^10]) are anchored in the q2 body and are claimed here; none forwarded to q1.
- Shared page with **a1-q3** is p. 720. p. 720's footer sequence restarts at 1: nn. 1–2 (`vindicat`; `Vide scholion…`) are anchored in the q2 tail (markers [^11]–[^12], claimed here); nn. 3–12 belong to q3 and are **not** claimed.
- **Cross-page footer overflow:** p. 719 fn 10 (on *stantis*, in the q2 Respondeo) physically overflows into the top of p. 720's left-hand footer column ("stanti, cod. bb *institutae*… et *statui naturae corruptae*."). The full note is reassembled under [^10]; the overflow resolves what looked like a truncated "cod. O" at the foot of p. 719 (cod. O reads *stanti*).

**[?] flags.** None outstanding. The p. 719-fn-10 overflow, briefly ambiguous at the p. 719 column foot, was resolved by reading the p. 720 footer band (split 2500).