title: Dist. 38, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 824 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Qui privatim faciunt votum peccant mortaliter contrahendo.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia possibile est, quod contrahant, ita tamen, quod nullo modo carnaliter conveniant, sicut Ioseph et Maria[^p824-9], et Tiburtius et
<!-- page 825 -->
Caecilia: ergo ibi non est culpa. — Item, si est ibi mortale peccatum: ergo nullus debet de hoc licentiari; sed mulier, quae vovit voto privato, licentiatur de matrimonio contrahendo, titulo *de Eo quod voventes non possunt*[^p825-1] etc., in decretali *Veniens* etc.; ibi dicitur «de voto violato congruam satisfactionem indicas et ei cui vult, in Domino nubendi licentiam non postponas».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod contrahens matrimonium aut intendit contrahere solum intendendo et consentiendo in *coniugalem societatem*, aut in *copulam carnalem*, sive propter libidinem, sive propter generationem. Primum est licitum, secundum est mortale peccatum[^p825-2]. De primo non loquitur Magister, sed de secundo, quia omnes contrahentes fere sic contrahere consueverunt.

Quod quaeritur de illa quae vovit voto simplici; dicendum, quod Ecclesia non dat ibi licentiam *simpliciter*, sed, sicut patet ex littera antecedenti, et Apparatus[^p825-3] dicit ibi, «est comparativa permissio, quia permittitur malum fieri, ne veniat peius», sicut patet ex eo quod dicitur Causa vigesima secunda, quaestione prima, *Considera, quod Salvator* etc. Unde illud factum nullo modo trahendum est ad consequentiam, quia, sicut habetur in aliis decretalibus eiusdem tituli[^p825-4], votum *simplex* impedit. — Et nota, quod praedicta mulier simplici voto vovit, quia, etsi in manibus eremitae voverit, tamen, quia non se obligabat ad religionem specialem, sed communiter ad continentiam, et ille eremita non erat persona publica, nec ipsa vestem mutavit, non fuit votum solemne[^p825-5].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Solemne votum violare peccatum est et scandalum.* Videtur enim haec duo male distinguere, quia ipsum scandalum peccatum est. — Item quaeritur, utrum sint ibi duo peccata. Et quod sic, videtur: quia frangendo votum peccat in Deum, sed scandalizando in proximum[^p825-6].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod scandalum unitum peccato non facit novum peccatum quantum ad transgressionem nec quantum ad poenitentiam, sed novam addit circumstantiam aggravantem, ut fornicatio publica ultra privatam; duplex tamen esse posset quantum ad accusationem[^p825-7]. — Quod obiicitur, quod unum copulatur alteri; dicendum, quod hoc non est propter diversitatem peccati, sed circumstantiae adiectae. — Quod obiicitur, quod in Deum etc.; dicendum, quod idem peccatum et in Deum et in proximum potest esse, sed in Deum principaliter, in proximum ratione circumstantiae adiunctae[^p825-8]; et ideo hoc non facit diversa peccata, quia peccatum numeratur ratione actus, circa quem est, non ratione eius, in quem est. Si quis enim una actione offenderet plures homines, uno peccato peccaret.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *non potest probari quod occulte factum est* etc. Videtur enim mala esse ratio, quia defectus probationis non aufert matrimonium nec facit.

**Respondeo:** Aliquorum opinio fuit, ut Hugutionis[^p825-9], quod votum simplex ita impedit apud Deum, ut solemne; unde illud non est matrimonium in conspectu Dei, sed solum in facie Ecclesiae, quia non sunt testes, per quos possit dirimi; et semper alter coniugum fornicatur, alter vero per ignorantiam excusatur. — Sed nunc per iura nova[^p825-10] satis determinatum est, quod vinculum voti simplicis non aufert obligationem matrimonii, tum quia minus est, tum quia potestas corporis non transfertur, tum etiam, quia in matrimonio, si non petatur, sed reddatur solum, sicut debet facere qui vovit, pro sanctificatione perfecta reputatur[^p825-11]; unde defectus probationis non est ratio sufficiens, sed quaedam congruentia adiuncta.

<!-- page 826 -->

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Viduas a proposito recedentes* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia propositum non obligat aliquem: ergo videtur, quod non sint huiusmodi propter hoc obligatae, ergo possunt retrocedere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Gregorius[^p826-1] intelligit non de proposito simplici vel qualicumque, sed de proposito, quod est firmatum publica testificatione, in qua est votum solemne; et istae sunt quae *primam fidem irritam faciunt*, ac per hoc damnationem habere noscuntur.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In virginali proposito se permanere simulaverunt.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia ubi est simulatio non est votum verum: ergo nec Domino obligatur qui[^p826-2] se simulat obligari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod promissio simulata dupliciter potest esse: aut quia non habet stabilitatem, aut quia non habet interiorem assensum correspondentem. Et haec duplex est, quia quaedam fit timore vel metu, «qui potest cadere in constantem virum», sicut David simulavit se stultum coram Achis, primi Regum vigesimo primo[^p826-3]; quaedam intentione decipiendi alios. — Prima simulatio simpliciter obligat, quia necesse est, ex quo semel se obligavit voluntarie et ore spopondit, quod permaneat in sua pollicitatione. — Si vero spopondit signo, non corde; tenetur apud forum iudiciale et coram Ecclesia, si non affuit timor; apud Deum vero tenetur facere poenitentiam de duplicitate et mendacio. — Si vero tertio modo fuit simulatio, tunc nec apud Deum nec apud Ecclesiam obligatur. Hic autem fit sermo de sponsione simulata primo modo, sicut patet Causa vigesima septima, quaestione prima[^p826-4]. Posset etiam fieri secundo modo, scilicet quando etiam non habet intentionem; tunc enim compellitur ab Ecclesia, sicut dicitur Extra, de Regularibus et transeuntibus ad religionem[^p826-5], *Vidua si sponte velum.*

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Virgines et viduas, sive velatae fuerint, sive non, nullatenus coniugium sortire posse.* — Videtur enim male dicere, quia velum est in signum professionis, sicut habitus est religiosis viris; sed ante habitus susceptionem non videtur solemnizari votum: ergo non videtur omnino impediri coniugium.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod contingit votum solemnizari tribus modis, scilicet *ordinis susceptione*, *habitus assumtione*, ubi est distinctio professorum a non professis, et *propria testificatione*, dum tamen fiat in manu publicae personae. Quamvis ergo tales non susceperint velum; si tamen se astrinxerunt in manu publicae personae ad continentiam, nullo modo possunt contrahere, nec de iure nec de facto. Si autem se voto *simplici* astrinxerunt, non possunt, scilicet *sine peccato*; possunt tamen *de facto*[^p826-6].

### Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quid in omnibus peccatis est gravius quam adulterium?* Videtur enim male dicere, quia gravius est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quod *non remittitur, neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro*[^p826-7]. Item, gravius est peccatum incestus, sicut in littera sequenti habetur; item, adhuc gravius est peccatum contra naturam; item, gravius est homicidium et uxoricidium, de quo solemnis poenitentia imponitur Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda, *Admonere*[^p826-8] etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod peccatum dicitur esse gravius multis modis: aut ratione *contemptus*, et sic peccatum in Spiritum sanctum; aut ratione *libidinis*, ut peccata contra naturam, in quibus libido totum absorbet naturale iudicatorium; aut ratione *ingratitudinis*, et sic peccatum Adae in paradiso; aut ratione *punitionis*, et sic peccatum adulterii, in quo praecipiebantur moechus et moecha lapidibus obrui, sicut dicitur Deuteronomii vigesimo secundo[^p826-9]. Et sic accipitur in proposito, cum dicitur, quod est gravius etc.

### Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Secundum namque in poenis tenet locum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia ordo transgressionum et punitionum est secundum ordinem praeceptorum; sed istud, scilicet non moechari, non est secundum mandatum, sed est in secunda tabula. — *Si dicas,* quod
<!-- page 827 -->
secundum locum tenet ratione *poenae lapidationis*, quae debetur blasphemo, Levitici vigesimo quarto[^p827-1], et adultero, Deuteronomii vigesimo secundo; *obiicitur* tunc, quia eadem poena infligitur filio contumaci et protervo, Deuteronomii vigesimo primo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui dicunt, hoc esse intelligendum sic, quod secundum locum tenet, quia peccatum blasphemiae est a parte animae, sed peccatum adulterii est a parte corporis, et peccatum homicidii a parte coniuncti. — Sed istud non videtur, quoniam eadem poena pro istis omnibus est inflicta; omnes enim capite plectebantur. — Et ideo melius est dicere, quod hoc intelligitur ratione *poenae lapidationis*; homicidium vero puniebatur secundum legem *talionis*[^p827-2].

Si vero obiiciatur de filio inobediente, dicendum, quod non ratione inobedientiae solum, sed etiam ratione aliorum peccatorum, quae erant in dissipationem reipublicae, quia luxuriosus, et consimilia[^p827-3].

Si quaeratur, quare adulterium ita graviter puniebatur; dicendum, quod propter duo, scilicet quia erat in destructionem concordiae ac per hoc reipublicae, quia erat generativum magnae infamiae; postremo, ratione pronitatis magnae. Et haec est causa, quare tam gravis poenitentia pro uxoricidio imponitur, ut pronitas refrenetur[^p827-4].

### Dub. IX.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Exsecrabiliter fit in meretrice, sed exsecrabilius in uxore.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia magis peccat qui abutitur re non concessa, quam qui re concessa; quia ille dupliciter, iste uno modo: ergo gravius ille. — Item, Augustinus, de Bono coniugali[^p827-5], ante illud verbum in originali dicit: «In rebus ad utendum concessis longe fit rationabilius, quam in eis quae non sunt concessa, vel minor, vel rarus excessus»: ergo cum uxor sit ad utendum concessa, patet etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod excessus in usu uxoris potest esse dupliciter: aut *secundum* naturam, aut *contra* naturam. Si *secundum* naturam, tolerabilior[^p827-6] est in uxore, propter hoc quod habet excusationem aliquam. Si *contra* naturam, econtra est, quoniam in matrimonio sunt quaerenda bona matrimonii, et honestius tractanda est coniux quam meretrix; ideo, cum peccatum contra naturam et sit contra bona matrimonii et sit in contumeliam uxoris, cui est quaedam honestas maior in tractando eam exhibenda: hinc est, quod gravius peccat qui facit in uxore; et ideo etiam dicitur[^p827-7], quod propter illud peccatum, scilicet contra naturam, mulier potest dimittere et fugere virum. Et sic patet, quod quamvis pluribus modis peccet qui peccat cum meretrice, quam qui peccat cum uxore; tamen hic intensius peccat propter maiorem contemptum[^p827-8].

### Dub. X.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *legitimarum foedera nuptiarum redintegranda credamus* etc. Quaeritur ergo hic, si aliquis moriatur et resuscitetur, utrum uxor sua sibi reddenda sit. Et quod sic, videtur per litteram istam, quia primae nuptiae fuerunt *legitimae*. — Item apparet per illud quod dicitur ad Hebraeos undecimo[^p827-9]: *Acceperunt mulieres de resurrectione mortuos suos.* — Item *ratione* videtur: quia isti qui resuscitantur, non privantur hereditate paterna: ergo nec iure uxoris. — Item, qui resuscitantur divino iudicio ut dormientes sunt[^p827-10]; sed matrimonia sunt regenda iure poli: ergo si quantum ad Deum hic dormiens iudicatur, sicut somnus non solvit matrimonium, ita nec talis mortuus, ut videtur. — Item, si solvitur: ergo si resurgat, oportebit contrahi cum eadem: ergo bigamus iudicatur: ergo si non oportet, quod contrahat; videtur, quod primum vinculum adhuc maneat.

**Contra:** ad Romanos septimo[^p827-11]: *Mortuo viro, soluta est mulier a lege viri:* ergo videtur, quod matrimonium sit solutum. — Item, ponatur, quod mulier, viro suo mortuo, statim contrahat; constans est, cum non sit alligata, quia non est cui ligetur, quod matrimonium est verum: ergo si primus resurgat, propter hoc non solvetur. — Item, ita vere mortuus est iste, sicut ille qui incineratur; sed tali,
<!-- page 828 -->
quando resurget, non reddetur uxor, sicut Dominus determinat, Matthaei vigesimo secundo[^p828-1]: ergo pari ratione videtur in proposito.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut superius[^p828-2] dictum est, vinculum matrimoniale non fundatur in anima, sed in coniuncto; unde cum aliquis moritur, statim perit altera pars relationis, et ideo vinculum statim solvitur; et si mulier alii esset matrimonialiter iuncta, non esset separanda. Si tamen alii non est iuncta, et ipse vult eam, ex quadam honestate est ei reddenda.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod sunt redintegranda, verum est, quando solum de facto sunt soluta. — Quod obiicitur de undecimo ad Hebraeos, dicendum, quod mulieres acceperunt mortuos *filios*, non *maritos*[^p828-3]. — Quod obiicitur de hereditate, dici potest, quod illud est etiam gratia et honestas, quod ei reddatur; attamen non est simile, quia de uxore nihil potest vir post mortem disponere. *Praeterea,* aliud est de rebus; potest enim testari de rebus, sed non potest uxorem relinquere alii. — Quod obiicitur, quod sunt dormientes; dicendum, quod verum est respectu potentiae[^p828-4], sed respectu veritatis in iudicando Deus iudicat vere mortuum. — Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum sit bigamus; dici potest, quod non, si illa non cognovit virum alterum, pro eo quod non dividit carnem, nec illa divisit[^p828-5].

### Dub. XI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quodsi viri in dilectione suarum coniugum perseverent.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia ex hoc videtur, quod non debet redintegrari, nisi velit vir. *Contra:* esto quod mulier petat; cum excusetur a fornicatione, videtur, quod vir non possit eam repellere: ergo sive diligat, sive non, debet eam resumere. — Item quaeritur, utrum talis putatio excuset[^p828-6]. Et quod *non*, videtur: quia nullus debet committere se discrimini: ergo quantumcumque vir mulieris se absentet, nisi sit certa, peccat, si contrahit cum alio.

Quaeritur ergo, pro quanta certitudine excusetur.

Quaeritur etiam, si dubitat, virum suum vivere, utrum debeat debitum reddere; videtur enim, quod non: quia nullus dubitans, utrum aliquid sit peccatum mortale, debet illud facere: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod mulier, quae putat virum suum interemptum et contrahit, aut credit hoc praesumtione *tenui*, quae magis debet generare dubitationem quam fidem, aut credit praesumtione *probabili*. Primo modo non excusatur, si contrahat, sicut dicitur Extra, de Sponsalibus et matrimoniis[^p828-7], ubi dicitur, quod quantumcumque vir moretur in bello, et uxor sit iuvencula, tamen non debet contrahere, donec de viro mortuo aliquam habeat certitudinem; qua habita, tunc sine peccato potest contrahere, utpote si iuramentum habeat ducis exercitus, vel sociorum eius, qui mortem noverunt; et tunc excusatur. — Quodsi mulier incipiat post contractum matrimonium dubitare de morte viri; aut est dubitatio *levis*; et haec secundum consilium praelati poterit a corde removeri, et poterit debitum exigere et petere[^p828-8]; si vero *probabiliter* dubitat, debitum debet reddere, sed non exigere; si vero *certificatur* de vita primi viri, nec petere debet nec reddere, sed statim secundum virum deserere. Et hoc probatur per illud quod dicitur Extra, de Secundis nuptiis[^p828-9], *Dominus ac Redemptor*, et Causa trigesima quarta, quaestione secunda, *Cum per bellicam.* Si vero non statim revertitur, tunc imputatur ei crimen adulterii, nec potest ad priorem virum redire, nisi ipse velit. In hoc casu loquitur Leo Papa[^p828-10].

Ex his patent omnia obiecta. Non enim debet *contrahere*, nisi certitudinem habeat de morte; nec debet *petere*, quando probabiliter dubitat; nec debet *reddere*, quando est certa de vita; quodsi aliter faciat, iudicatur fornicationis rea.

### Dub. XII.

Item quaeritur de hoc casu, quem ponit Magister de eo qui relinquit uxorem suam, *abiens in regionem longinquam*; de tali quaeritur, utrum, mortua uxore, vir possit contrahere cum alia secunda. Et quod *non*, videtur: quia pollutio per adulterium cum fide data impedit matrimonium, sicut supra[^p828-11] ostensum est; sed hoc est hic: ergo etc. — Item quaeritur, utrum talis, vivente uxore legitima, debeat reddere debitum, si compellat ipsum Ecclesia. Et videtur, quod *non*, quia ipse fornicatur; sed magis debet quis permittere se excommunicari quam fornicari.

**Respondeo:** Ad primum dicendum est, quod si, altero ignorante, contractum est, est[^p828-12] matrimonium in favorem illius qui ignoravit; si autem ille qui ignoravit, certificatur, non debet talis nec potest sibi copulari, veritate certificata. Sed primus non debet puniri, qui ignoravit, quia non peccavit; et ideo, si
<!-- page 829 -->
ligamen primum solvatur, poterit secundum matrimonium stare.

Quod quaeritur, utrum, vivente prima, possit secundam sine peccato cognoscere; dicit Magister[^p829-1], quod sic, si reddat debitum compulsus ab Ecclesia. Sed illud hodie non tenetur, quia ecclesiastica excommunicatio non obligat ad faciendam fornicationem nec excusat; et ideo talis non debet Ecclesiae obedire; et hoc habetur Extra, de Sententia excommunicationis[^p829-2], *Inquisitioni.*

---

english:
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says: *Those who privately make a vow sin mortally by contracting [marriage].* For it seems to say something false, because it is possible that they contract [marriage], yet in such a way that they in no manner come together carnally, as Joseph and Mary[^p824-9], and Tiburtius and
Cecilia: therefore there is no fault there. — Likewise, if there is mortal sin there: then no one ought to be licensed for this; but a woman who has vowed with a private vow is licensed to contract marriage, under the title *On the fact that those who vow cannot*[^p825-1] etc., in the decretal *Veniens* etc.; there it is said, "concerning a violated vow, enjoin a fitting satisfaction, and do not withhold from her, for the one she wishes, license to marry in the Lord."

**I respond:** It must be said that one contracting marriage either intends to contract solely by intending and consenting to the *conjugal society*, or [intends] *carnal union*, whether on account of lust or on account of generation. The first is licit, the second is mortal sin[^p825-2]. Of the first the Master does not speak, but of the second, because nearly all who contract have been accustomed to contract thus.

As for what is asked concerning her who vowed with a simple vow; it must be said that the Church does not there give license *simply*, but, as is clear from the preceding text, and the Apparatus[^p825-3] says there, "it is a comparative permission, because an evil is permitted to be done, lest a worse come about," as is clear from what is said in Cause twenty-two, question one, *Consider, that the Savior* etc. Hence that deed is in no way to be drawn into a precedent, because, as is held in other decretals of the same title[^p825-4], a *simple* vow impedes. — And note that the aforesaid woman vowed with a simple vow, because, although she vowed into the hands of a hermit, yet, since she did not bind herself to a special religious order but to continence in general, and that hermit was not a public person, nor did she change her habit, it was not a solemn vow[^p825-5].

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *To violate a solemn vow is a sin and a scandal.* For it seems to distinguish these two badly, because scandal itself is a sin. — Likewise it is asked whether there are two sins there. And that there are, it seems: because by breaking the vow one sins against God, but by giving scandal against the neighbor[^p825-6].

**I respond:** It must be said that scandal united to a sin does not make a new sin as regards the transgression nor as regards the penance, but adds a new aggravating circumstance, as public fornication [adds] beyond private; it could nevertheless be twofold as regards accusation[^p825-7]. — As to the objection that the one is joined to the other; it must be said that this is not on account of a diversity of the sin, but of the added circumstance. — As to the objection that [it is] against God etc.; it must be said that the same sin can be both against God and against the neighbor, but against God principally, against the neighbor by reason of the adjoined circumstance[^p825-8]; and therefore this does not make diverse sins, because a sin is numbered by reason of the act about which it is, not by reason of the one against whom it is. For if someone by one action should offend several men, he would sin with one sin.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *it cannot be proved which has been done secretly* etc. For the reasoning seems bad, because a defect of proof neither takes away marriage nor makes it.

**I respond:** The opinion of some was, as of Hugutio[^p825-9], that a simple vow impedes before God just as a solemn one does; hence that [marriage] is not a marriage in the sight of God, but only in the face of the Church, because there are no witnesses through whom it can be dissolved; and always one of the spouses fornicates, but the other is excused through ignorance. — But now by the new laws[^p825-10] it has been sufficiently determined that the bond of a simple vow does not take away the obligation of marriage, both because it is less, and because the power over the body is not transferred, and also because in marriage, if [the debt] is not demanded but only rendered, as one who has vowed ought to do, it is reckoned to perfect sanctification[^p825-11]; hence a defect of proof is not a sufficient reason, but a certain adjoined congruity.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Widows withdrawing from their resolve* etc. For it seems to say something wrong, because a resolve does not bind anyone: therefore it seems that such [widows] are not bound on account of this, therefore they can go back.

**I respond:** It must be said that Gregory[^p826-1] understands [this] not of a simple resolve or of any whatsoever, but of a resolve which is confirmed by public attestation, in which there is a solemn vow; and these are the ones who *make void their first pledge*, and thereby are known to incur damnation.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *They pretended to persevere in a virginal resolve.* For it seems to say something false, because where there is pretense there is no true vow: therefore neither is one bound to the Lord who[^p826-2] pretends to be bound.

**I respond:** It must be said that a simulated promise can be so in two ways: either because it does not have stability, or because it does not have an interior assent corresponding [to it]. And this [latter] is twofold, because one kind is made from fear or dread, "which can befall a steadfast man," as David feigned himself mad before Achis, first [book] of Kings, chapter twenty-one[^p826-3]; another kind, with the intention of deceiving others. — The first pretense binds simply, because it is necessary, from the fact that one once bound himself voluntarily and pledged with the mouth, that he remain in his promise. — But if he pledged by a sign, not with the heart; he is held in the judicial forum and before the Church, if fear was not present; but before God he is held to do penance for the duplicity and the lie. — But if the pretense was in the third way, then he is bound neither before God nor before the Church. Here, however, the discourse is about a simulated pledge in the first way, as is clear in Cause twenty-seven, question one[^p826-4]. It could also happen in the second way, namely when he does not even have the intention; for then he is compelled by the Church, as is said in the Extra[vagantes], on Religious and those passing over to religious life[^p826-5], *A widow if of her own accord [she takes] the veil.*

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *That virgins and widows, whether they have been veiled or not, can in no way obtain marriage.* — For it seems to say something wrong, because the veil is a sign of profession, as the habit is for religious men; but before the reception of the habit the vow does not seem to be solemnized: therefore marriage does not seem to be wholly impeded.

**I respond:** It must be said that a vow happens to be solemnized in three ways, namely by *the reception of an order*, by *the assumption of the habit*, where there is a distinction of the professed from the non-professed, and by *proper attestation*, provided nevertheless that it be made in the hand of a public person. Although therefore such [women] have not received the veil; if nevertheless they bound themselves in the hand of a public person to continence, they can in no way contract [marriage], neither by law nor in fact. But if they bound themselves by a *simple* vow, they cannot, namely *without sin*; they can, however, *in fact*[^p826-6].

### Dub. VII.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *What in all sins is graver than adultery?* For it seems to say something wrong, because graver is the sin against the Holy Spirit, which *is not remitted, neither in this age nor in the future*[^p826-7]. Likewise, graver is the sin of incest, as is held in the following text; likewise, still graver is the sin against nature; likewise, graver is homicide and wife-murder, for which a solemn penance is imposed [in] Cause thirty-three, question two, *Admonere*[^p826-8] etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that a sin is called graver in many ways: either by reason of *contempt*, and thus the sin against the Holy Spirit; or by reason of *lust*, as the sins against nature, in which lust absorbs the whole natural judgment; or by reason of *ingratitude*, and thus the sin of Adam in paradise; or by reason of *punishment*, and thus the sin of adultery, in which the adulterer and the adulteress were commanded to be overwhelmed with stones, as is said in Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-two[^p826-9]. And thus it is taken in the matter at hand, when it is said that it is graver etc.

### Dub. VIII.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *For it holds the second place among penalties.* For it seems to say something wrong, because the order of transgressions and of punishments is according to the order of the precepts; but that [precept], namely not to commit adultery, is not according to the [first] commandment, but is in the second tablet. — *If you should say* that
it holds the second place by reason of *the penalty of stoning*, which is due to the blasphemer, Leviticus, chapter twenty-four[^p827-1], and to the adulterer, Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-two; *it is objected* then that the same penalty is inflicted on the contumacious and insolent son, Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-one.

**I respond:** It must be said that some say this is to be understood thus, that it holds the second place, because the sin of blasphemy is on the part of the soul, but the sin of adultery is on the part of the body, and the sin of homicide on the part of the conjunct [i.e., the composite]. — But this does not seem [right], since the same penalty has been inflicted for all these; for all were beheaded. — And therefore it is better to say that this is understood by reason of *the penalty of stoning*; whereas homicide was punished according to the law of *retaliation*[^p827-2].

But if it is objected concerning the disobedient son, it must be said that [he was punished] not by reason of disobedience alone, but also by reason of other sins, which were toward the ruin of the commonwealth, because [he was] dissolute, and the like[^p827-3].

If it is asked why adultery was punished so gravely; it must be said [that it was] on account of two things, namely because it was toward the destruction of concord and thereby of the commonwealth, because it was generative of great infamy; lastly, by reason of the great proneness [to it]. And this is the reason why so grave a penance is imposed for wife-murder, that the proneness may be restrained[^p827-4].

### Dub. IX.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *It is done execrably with a harlot, but more execrably with a wife.* For it seems to say something false, because he sins more who misuses a thing not conceded than he who [misuses] a thing conceded; because the former [sins] in two ways, the latter in one way: therefore the former [sins] more gravely. — Likewise, Augustine, in *On the Good of Marriage*[^p827-5], before that saying in the original text says: "In things conceded for use it becomes far more reasonable [a matter], than in those which are not conceded, whether a lesser or a rare excess": therefore since a wife is conceded for use, it is clear etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that excess in the use of a wife can be twofold: either *according to* nature, or *against* nature. If *according to* nature, it is more tolerable[^p827-6] in a wife, on account of the fact that it has some excuse. If *against* nature, the contrary is [the case], since in marriage the goods of marriage are to be sought, and a spouse is to be treated more honorably than a harlot; therefore, since the sin against nature both is against the goods of marriage and is to the contumely of the wife, to whom a certain greater honor is to be shown in treating her: hence it is that he sins more gravely who does [this] with a wife; and therefore it is also said[^p827-7] that on account of that sin, namely against nature, the woman can dismiss and flee her husband. And thus it is clear that although he who sins with a harlot sins in more ways than he who sins with a wife; nevertheless here [with the wife] one sins more intensely on account of the greater contempt[^p827-8].

### Dub. X.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *we should believe the covenants of lawful marriages are to be restored* etc. It is asked therefore here, if someone dies and is raised, whether his wife is to be rendered back to him. And that she is, it seems from this text, because the first nuptials were *lawful*. — Likewise it appears through that which is said to the Hebrews, chapter eleven[^p827-9]: *Women received back their dead from the resurrection.* — Likewise by *reason* it seems: because those who are raised are not deprived of the paternal inheritance: therefore neither of the right over the wife. — Likewise, those who are raised by divine judgment are as sleepers[^p827-10]; but marriages are to be ruled by the law of heaven [*iure poli*]: therefore if, as regards God, this [dead man] is here judged sleeping, just as sleep does not dissolve marriage, so neither does such a dead man, as it seems. — Likewise, if it is dissolved: then if he should rise, it will be necessary to contract with the same woman: therefore he is judged a bigamist: therefore if it is not necessary that he contract; it seems that the first bond still remains.

**On the contrary:** to the Romans, chapter seven[^p827-11]: *The husband being dead, the woman is loosed from the law of the husband:* therefore it seems that the marriage is dissolved. — Likewise, let it be supposed that a woman, her husband being dead, immediately contracts [anew]; it is certain, since she is not bound, because there is no one to whom she is bound, that the marriage is true: therefore if the first rises, on account of this it will not be dissolved. — Likewise, this man is as truly dead as one who is reduced to ashes; but for such a one,
when he shall rise, the wife will not be rendered back, as the Lord determines, Matthew, chapter twenty-two[^p828-1]: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems [the same] in the matter at hand.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was said above[^p828-2], the matrimonial bond is not founded in the soul, but in the conjunct; hence when someone dies, immediately the other part of the relation perishes, and therefore the bond is immediately dissolved; and if the woman were matrimonially joined to another, she would not be to be separated. If nevertheless she is not joined to another, and he wills her, out of a certain fittingness she is to be rendered back to him.

As therefore to the objection that they are to be restored, it is true when they have been dissolved only in fact. — As to the objection from the eleventh [chapter] to the Hebrews, it must be said that the women received back their dead *sons*, not *husbands*[^p828-3]. — As to the objection concerning the inheritance, it can be said that this too is a grace and a fittingness, that it be rendered to him; nevertheless it is not similar, because concerning the wife the man can dispose nothing after death. *Moreover,* it is another matter concerning things [property]; for he can make a testament concerning things, but he cannot leave the wife to another. — As to the objection that they are sleepers; it must be said that it is true with respect to power[^p828-4], but with respect to the truth in judging, God judges [him] truly dead. — To that which is asked, whether he be a bigamist; it can be said that he is not, if she did not know the other man, for the reason that she does not divide the flesh, nor did she divide it[^p828-5].

### Dub. XI.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *But if husbands persevere in the love of their wives.* For it seems to say something wrong, because from this it seems that [the marriage] ought not to be restored, unless the husband wills [it]. *On the contrary:* granted that the woman demand [it]; since she is excused from fornication, it seems that the husband cannot repel her: therefore whether he love [her] or not, he ought to take her back. — Likewise it is asked whether such an opinion excuses[^p828-6]. And that it does *not*, it seems: because no one ought to commit himself to a peril: therefore however much the woman's husband absents himself, unless she is certain, she sins if she contracts with another.

It is asked therefore, for how great a certitude she is excused.

It is asked also, if she doubts that her husband is alive, whether she ought to render the debt; for it seems that she ought *not*: because no one who doubts whether something is a mortal sin ought to do it: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that a woman who thinks her husband slain and contracts [marriage] either believes this by a *slight* presumption, which ought rather to generate doubt than belief, or believes by a *probable* presumption. In the first way she is not excused, if she contract, as is said in the Extra[vagantes], on Betrothals and marriages[^p828-7], where it is said that however long the man may tarry in war, and the wife be a young girl, nevertheless she ought not to contract until she has some certitude concerning the dead husband; and this being had, she can then contract without sin, as for instance if she has the oath of the commander of the army, or of his comrades, who knew of the death; and then she is excused. — But if the woman begins, after the marriage is contracted, to doubt concerning the death of the husband; either it is a *slight* doubt; and this, according to the counsel of the prelate, will be able to be removed from the heart, and she will be able to exact and demand the debt[^p828-8]; but if she *probably* doubts, she ought to render the debt, but not exact [it]; but if she *is certified* concerning the life of the first husband, she ought neither to demand nor to render, but immediately to desert the second husband. And this is proved by that which is said in the Extra[vagantes], on Second marriages[^p828-9], *Dominus ac Redemptor*, and Cause thirty-four, question two, *Cum per bellicam.* But if he does not immediately return, then the crime of adultery is imputed to her, nor can she return to the prior husband, unless he himself will [it]. In this case Pope Leo speaks[^p828-10].

From these things all the objections are clear. For she ought not to *contract* unless she have certitude concerning the death; nor ought she to *demand* when she probably doubts; nor ought she to *render* when she is certain concerning [his] life; but if she act otherwise, she is judged guilty of fornication.

### Dub. XII.

Likewise it is asked about this case, which the Master sets down, concerning him who leaves his wife, *going off into a far country*; concerning such a one it is asked whether, his wife being dead, the man can contract with another, a second [wife]. And that he can*not*, it seems: because pollution through adultery with a pledge given impedes marriage, as was shown above[^p828-11]; but this is [the case] here: therefore etc. — Likewise it is asked whether such a one, his lawful wife being alive, ought to render the debt, if the Church compel him. And it seems that he ought *not*, because he himself fornicates; but one ought rather to permit himself to be excommunicated than to fornicate.

**I respond:** To the first it must be said that if, while the other party was ignorant, [the marriage] was contracted, the marriage stands[^p828-12] in favor of the one who was ignorant; but if the one who was ignorant is certified [of the truth], such a one neither ought nor can join himself [to her], the truth being certified. But the first ought not to be punished, who was ignorant, because he did not sin; and therefore, if
the first bond be dissolved, the second marriage will be able to stand.

As to what is asked, whether, the first [wife] being alive, he can know the second without sin; the Master says[^p829-1] that he can, if he render the debt compelled by the Church. But that is not held today, because ecclesiastical excommunication does not oblige to the committing of fornication nor excuse [it]; and therefore such a one ought not to obey the Church; and this is held in the Extra[vagantes], on the Sentence of excommunication[^p829-2], *Inquisitioni.*

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 30. q. 2. et dub. 4. — De Tiburtio (pro quo substituendum est *Valerianus*, cui Caecilia in matrimonium data fuit, cuius frater erat Tiburtius) et Caecilia cfr. Breviar. Roman. die 22. Nov. II. Noct. lect. 4. et 5.

en: Cf. above, d. 30, q. 2, and dub. 4. — Concerning Tiburtius (for whom *Valerianus* is to be substituted, to whom Cecilia was given in marriage, whose brother was Tiburtius) and Cecilia, cf. the Roman Breviary, 22 November, 2nd Nocturn, lessons 4 and 5.

la: Sive *Qui clerici vel voventes matrimonium contrahere possunt*, X. lib. IV. tit. 6. c. 5.

en: That is, *Those clerics or vowing persons who can contract marriage*, [Decretals of Gregory] IX, book IV, tit. 6, ch. 5.

la: Supple: illis qui privatum fecerunt votum continentiae. Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. et d. 28. q. 6. ad 1.

en: Supply: for those who made a private vow of continence. Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 28, q. 6, ad 1.

la: Scil. *Glossa* (cfr. supra pag. 798, nota 3.). In ipsa decretali *(Veniens)* dicitur: Nos itaque attendentes, tutius esse, ut praefata mulier post fidem [cuidam viro absenti datam de matrimonio] et votum [in manibus cuiusdam eremitae] simpliciter oblatum, matrimonium contrahat, quam fornicationis reatum incurrat etc. — Summam seq. canonis *Considera* [codd. *Considerate*], quod hic Salvatur (8.) Gratian. exhibet his verbis: Infirmis iurare conceditur. — Subinde respicitur Regul. iuris, regul. 28: «Quae a iure communi exorbitant nequaquam ad consequentiam sunt trahenda» libr. V. tit. 12, in VI.

en: Namely the *Gloss* (cf. above, p. 798, note 3). In the decretal itself *(Veniens)* it is said: We therefore, considering it safer that the aforesaid woman, after the pledge [given to a certain absent man concerning marriage] and the vow [offered simply into the hands of a certain hermit], contract marriage rather than incur the guilt of fornication etc. — The summary of the following canon *Consider* [mss. *Considerate*], which Gratian here sets forth (8) in these words: To the infirm it is granted to swear. — Then there is a reference to a Rule of law, rule 28: "Things that depart from the common law are by no means to be drawn into a precedent," book V, tit. 12, in [the Sext].

la: Ut in C. *Consuluit* (4.) et C. *Rursus* (6.), in quibus dicitur, quod votum simplex matrimonium impedit contrahendum et non dirimit iam contractum. — Pro *votum simplex* edd. male *votum simpliciter*.

en: As in the canon *Consuluit* (4) and the canon *Rursus* (6), in which it is said that a simple vow impedes a marriage to be contracted and does not dissolve one already contracted. — For *a simple vow* the editions wrongly [read] *a vow simply*.

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: See above, a. 2, q. 1, in the body [of the article].

la: Cfr. supra pag. 781, nota 2.

en: Cf. above, p. 781, note 2.

la: Vide supra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 3.

en: See above, d. 17, p. III, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 376, nota 3. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 17. a. 48, ubi docet, scandalum tunc esse *speciale* peccatum, quando per se intenditur; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, p. 376, note 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 17 a. 48, where he teaches that scandal is then a *special* sin, when it is intended for its own sake; St. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 2 subquestion 2; Peter of Tarantaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Refertur Hugutionis (non pauci codd. *Huguitionis*) opinio a *Glossa* super C. *Rursus* (6.), X. Qui clerici vel voventes matrimonium contrahere possunt (lib. IV. tit. 6.) ad verba *cum simplex votum apud Deum non minus obliget quam solemne*, et dicitur, quod contraria «opinio hodie quasi communis est».

en: The opinion of Hugutio (not a few mss. *Huguitio*) is reported by the *Gloss* on the canon *Rursus* (6), [Decretals] IX, *Those clerics or vowing persons who can contract marriage* (book IV, tit. 6), at the words *since a simple vow before God obliges no less than a solemn one*, and it is said that the contrary "opinion is today almost the common one."

la: Vide supra nota 4.

en: See above, note 4.

la: Respiciuntur verba August. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXII. c. 2, et hic a. 2. q. 1. (ubi etiam *secunda* ratio explicatur) relata. — Superius post *petatur* edd. supplent *debitum*. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: There is a reference to the words of Augustine reported above [in] the text of the Master, d. XXXII, ch. 2, and here [in] a. 2, q. 1 (where also the *second* reason is explained). — Above, after *demanded* the editions supply *the debt*. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: In verbis huius dubii. — Eodem modo solvitur hoc dub. a S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: In the words of this doubt. — This doubt is resolved in the same way by St. Thomas and Peter of Tarantaise, here on the text.

la: Codd. I K *quae*.

en: Mss. I K [read] *quae* ["who," fem.].

la: Vers. 13. (cfr. III. Sent. d. 38. q. 2. ad 3.). — De *metu* vide supra pag. 700, nota 1.

en: Verse 13 (cf. III Sent. d. 38, q. 2, ad 3). — Concerning *dread* see above, p. 700, note 1.

la: Can. *Viduas* (2.) et C. *Hae vero* (9.). Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Superius pro *apud Deum vero tenetur* cod. F *apud Deum non, tenetur tamen*.

en: The canon *Viduas* (2) and the canon *Hae vero* (9). Cf. here the text of the Master, ch. 2. — Above, for *but before God he is held* ms. F [reads] *before God he is not [held], he is nevertheless held*.

la: Libr. III. tit. 31. c. 4.

en: [Decretals] book III, tit. 31, ch. 4.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Matth. 12, 32: *Non remittetur ei, neque* etc. — De seq. obiect. cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine.

en: Matthew 12:32: *It shall not be remitted to him, neither* etc. — Concerning the following objection cf. here the text of the Master, ch. 2, at the end.

la: Can. 8. Cfr. supra d. 37. a. 2. q. 2. arg. 1. ad oppos. et ibid. ad 4.

en: Canon 8. Cf. above, d. 37, a. 2, q. 2, argument 1 on the opposite side, and there ad 4.

la: Vers. 22. Vide supra pag. 784, nota 11. — De hac solut. cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. dub. 2; Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 148. m. 3. et q. 152. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 21; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Verse 22. See above, p. 784, note 11. — Concerning this solution cf. II Sent. d. 33, dub. 2; Alexander of Hales, Summa, part II, q. 148, memb. 3, and q. 152, memb. 3; Bl. Albert, here a. 21; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarantaise, here on the text.

la: Vers. 16. — Seq. locus est Deut. 22, 22; tertius Deut. 21, 18. seqq.

en: Verse 16. — The following passage is Deut. 22:22; the third [is] Deut. 21:18 ff.

la: August. XIX. contra Faustum, c. 25: Huic igitur immoderatae ac per hoc iniustae laesioni Lex iustum modum figens, poenam talionis instituit, hoc est, ut qualem quisque intulit iniuriam, tale supplicium pendat; proinde *oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente* [Exod. 21, 24; Matth. 5, 38.] etc.

en: Augustine, XIX *Against Faustus*, ch. 25: To this immoderate and thereby unjust injury the Law, fixing a just measure, instituted the penalty of retaliation, that is, that as each inflicted an injury, so he should pay the punishment; hence *an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth* [Exod. 21:24; Matth. 5:38] etc.

la: Vide Deut. 21, 20.

en: See Deut. 21:20.

la: Ut dictum est supra d. 37. a. 2. q. 2. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 21; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit., *Secundum in poenis tenet locum,* ubi hic dicit: scil. quantum ad lapidationis poenam in veteri lege. Lex enim primo et principaliter praecipiebat, lapidari blasphemantem Deum, de quo habetur Lev. 24, 16; deinde adulterum vel adulteram, de quo habetur Deut. 22, 22. seqq.

en: As was said above, d. 37, a. 2, q. 2. — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 21; Peter of Tarantaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text, [at] *It holds the second place among penalties,* where he says here: namely as regards the penalty of stoning in the old law. For the Law first and principally commanded the one blaspheming God to be stoned, on which see Lev. 24:16; then the adulterer or adulteress, on which see Deut. 22:22 ff.

la: Cap. 11. n. 12: Tantum valet ordinatio Creatoris et ordo creaturae, ut in rebus ad utendum concessis, etiam cum modus exceditur, longe sit tolerabilius, quam in eis, quae concessa non sunt, vel unus vel rarus excessus. Cfr. C. *Adulterii* (11.), C. 32. q. 7.

en: Ch. 11, n. 12: So great is the ordination of the Creator and the order of the creature, that in things conceded for use, even when the measure is exceeded, a single or rare excess is far more tolerable than in those which are not conceded. Cf. the canon *Adulterii* (11), Cause 32, q. 7.

la: Codd. communiter *tolerabilius*.

en: The mss. commonly [read] *tolerabilius* [neuter].

la: Cfr. C. *Omnes causationes* (7.), C. 32. q. 7. et *Glossa* in hunc can. Vide etiam supra d. 35. q. 1. ad 5.

en: Cf. the canon *Omnes causationes* (7), Cause 32, q. 7, and the *Gloss* on this canon. See also above, d. 35, q. 1, ad 5.

la: Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 149. m. 2; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, part II, q. 149, memb. 2; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Vers. 35.

en: Verse 35.

la: Cfr. Matth. 9, 24; 27, 52, et Ioan. 11, 11. seqq. — De *iure poli* cfr. supra pag. 807, nota 7. — Inferius pro *talis mortuus* codd. F G *cum talis moritur* (plures alii codd. exhibent *vel etiam moritur*) cod. K (I a secunda manu) *talis mors*.

en: Cf. Matth. 9:24; 27:52, and John 11:11 ff. — Concerning *the law of heaven* cf. above, p. 807, note 7. — Below, for *such a dead man* mss. F G [read] *when such a one dies* (several other mss. give *or also dies*), ms. K (I by a second hand) *such a death*.

la: Vers. 2. seq. Cfr. I. Cor. 7, 39.

en: Verse 2 f. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:39.

la: Vers. 30.

en: Verse 30.

la: Secundum Haymonem in hunc loc.

en: According to Haymo on this passage.

la: Cod. K bene supplet *divinae*.

en: Ms. K rightly supplies *divine* [power].

la: Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., de hoc et seq. dubio hic a. 4. q. 1. 2.

en: The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarantaise, concerning this and the following doubt, here a. 4, q. 1, 2.

la: Multi codd. *excusetur*.

en: Many mss. [read] *excusetur* [subjunctive].

la: Libr. IV. tit. 1. C. *In praesentia* (19.). Cfr. *Glossa* ibid.

en: [Decretals] book IV, tit. 1, the canon *In praesentia* (19). Cf. the *Gloss* there.

la: Cod. L *et reddere*.

en: Ms. L [reads] *and to render*.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 21. c. 2. — Seq. locus est C. 34. q. 1. et 2. c. 1.

en: [Decretals] book IV, tit. 21, ch. 2. — The following passage is Cause 34, q. 1 and 2, ch. 1.

la: In verbis huius dubii. — Inferius post *petere* edd. supplent *debitum*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: In the words of this doubt. — Below, after *to demand* the editions supply *the debt*. — Cf. concerning this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Pro *est* codd. *illud*, incongrue, nisi cum cod. bb (P a secunda manu) mox post *ignoravit* addatur: *stare potest, quousque cognoscat.*

en: For *stands* [*est*] the mss. [read] *illud*, incongruously, unless with ms. bb (P by a second hand) there be added just after *was ignorant*: *it can stand, until he comes to know.*

la: Hic in lit. c. 3.

en: Here in the text, ch. 3.

la: Libr. V. tit. 39. c. 44. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: [Decretals] book V, tit. 39, ch. 44. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF colcrop bands for printed pp. 824–829 (pdf 844–849; offset pdf = printed + 20), per the Vol II Override (PDF authoritative for this cascade-shattered two-column region). Verso pages 826, 828 required split_x = 2120 to capture the left column; recto pages 825, 827, 829 and the p.824 tail used split_x = 1780 to capture the right column's left edge (default 1660 clipped it). Raw OCR range L88095–88540 used only as a cross-check.

**Page correction.** Frontmatter `printed_pages` corrected from [825–830] to **[824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829]**. The section header *DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* and the opening of Dub. I sit at the **bottom of p.824** (two columns below the full-width header), not on p.825; and the dubia **end on p.829**, where Dub. XII closes ("*Inquisitioni.*") immediately before the full-width heading *DISTINCTIO XXXIX. Cap. I. De dispari cultu.* Page 830 is entirely d.39 and is **not** part of this chunk.

**Dubia count.** 12 dubia total (Dub. I–XII), each its own subsection.

**Seam verification (last dubium complete).** Dub. XII's *Respondeo* runs from p.828 R across to p.829 top of both columns and concludes with "…et hoc habetur Extra, de Sententia excommunicationis[^p829-2], *Inquisitioni.*" — a complete answer. The next line on p.829 is the full-width running head/heading *DISTINCTIO XXXIX* with *Cap. I. De dispari cultu* (Lombard's littera for d.39), which is **not** claimed here. Confirmed no dubia material bleeds past the seam and no d.39 material was pulled in.

**Apparatus: 46 entries**, page-split as p.824 → 1 (note 9 only); p.825 → 11 (notes 1–11); p.826 → 9 (notes 1–9); p.827 → 11 (notes 1–11); p.828 → 12 (notes 1–12); p.829 → 2 (notes 1–2). Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page; labels use `[^pNNN-M]`.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* p.824 footer note 9 (Tiburtius / "Cfr. supra d. 30. q. 2. et dub. 4.") forwarded by the a. 2 q. 3 writer — it anchors at *Ioseph et Maria[^p824-9]* in Dub. I and is claimed here as `[^p824-9]`. Of p.824's dubia portion, only marker 9 falls in the dubia body; notes 1–8 of p.824 belong to the preceding a. 2 q. 3 material and are **not** claimed.
- *Forwarded:* On p.829, below the dubia's notes 1–2, the block headed **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** begins the apparatus of d.39's littera (its own note 1 = "Exod. 34, 16; Deut. 7, 3…", note 2 = "Libr. I. de Coniugiis adulterinis…", etc.). These are the **d.39 littera NOTAE** and are **not** claimed here — handed off to the d.39 chunk.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi's side-margin glosses (*Distinctio.*, *Subdistinctio.*, *Notandum.*, *Resp.*, *Ad obiecta.*, *Quaestio 1./2.*, *Ad oppos.*, *Fundam.*, *Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2. et vera.*, *Modus solemnizandi*, *Augustinus*, *Ambrosius*, etc.) are omitted as editorial marginalia per project convention; none is part of Bonaventure's running text.

**OCR corrections (silent, PDF-confirmed).** `Consutuit → Consuluit` (p.825 n.4); `Vers. 21 → Vers. 13` and `nota 14 → nota 11` (p.826 n.3, n.9); `a. i. → a. 4` (p.828 n.5); running-head digit garbles (`828` for a recto head, etc.) ignored in favor of the +20 offset and running-head text.

**[?] flags.** None. All body text and all 46 footer notes were legible in the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 39

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXIX

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 829 -->

### Cap. I. *De dispari cultu.*

Post haec de dispari cultu videndum est. Haec est enim una de causis, quibus personae illegitimae fiunt ad contrahendum matrimonium. Non enim licet Christiano cum gentili vel Iudaea inire coniugium, quia etiam in veteri testamento prohibitum est, fideles viros infideles ducere uxores, Domino dicente[^p829-1]: *Non accipies uxores de filiabus alienigenarum filiis tuis, ne traducant eos post deos suos.* Iuxta hoc Domini praeceptum Iudaeorum coniugia cum alienigenis inita Esdras separavit. Hoc idem etiam in novo testamento servatur. Unde Augustinus[^p829-2]: « Ne nubat femina, nisi suae religionis viro, vel ne vir talem ducat uxorem. Id enim, ut dicis, iubet Dominus, docet Apostolus, utrumque praecipit testamentum ». Item Ambrosius[^p829-3]: « Cave, Christiane, gentili vel Iudaeo filiam tuam tradere; cave, ne gentilem vel Iudaeam vel alienigenam, id est haereticam, et omnem alienam a fide tua uxorem accersas tibi ». Item: « Si quis Iudaeae, sive Christiana Iudaeo, sive Iudaea Christiano carnali consortio misceatur, quicumque tantum nefas admiserit, a christiano coetu protinus segregetur ». — Ex his aliisque pluribus testimoniis apparet, non posse contrahi coniugium ab his qui sunt diversae religionis et fidei.

### Cap. II. *De coniugio fidelis et infidelis et duorum infidelium.*

Huic autem videtur obviare quod Apostolus[^p829-4] ait de imparibus coniugiis: *Ego dico, non Dominus: Si quis frater habet uxorem infidelem, et haec consentit habitare cum illo, non dimittat illam; et si qua mulier* etc. Sed « aliud hoc esse, aliud illud, evidenter ostendit Augustinus[^p829-5]. Ibi enim agitur de illis coniugiis fidelium et infidelium, quae contrahuntur ab eis in dispari religione et fide manentibus. Apostolus vero agit de illis qui unius eiusdemque infidelitatis fuerunt, quando coniuncti sunt; sed cum venisset Evangelium, alter sine altera credidit. Intelligisne quid dicam? » « Attende, ut rem ipsam diligentius explanem. Ecce coniuges duo unius infidelitatis fuerunt, quando coniuncti sunt; nulla de his quaestio est, quae pertineat ad illud praeceptum veteris et novi testamenti, quo prohibetur fidelis cum infideli copulare coniugium. Iam sunt coniuges et ambo adhuc sunt infideles; tales sunt adhuc, quales coniuncti sunt. Venitque Evangelii praedicator, credidit eorum unus vel una, sed ita, ut infidelis cum fideli habitare consentiat; non iubet Dominus, ut fidelis infidelem dimittat taliter coniunctum ». « Nec Apostolus iubet, ut non dimittat, sed consulit, ut, si quis aliter agat, non sit transgressor, sicut et de virginibus consulit ». « Monet ergo, quod est lucrandi occasio, cum possit licite relinquere, sed non expedit ». Tunc enim non expedit id quod licitum est, quando permittitur quidem, sed usus ipsius aliis affert impedimentum salutis, sicut discessio fidelis ab infideli, quam non prohibet Dominus, quia coram illo non est iniusta; sed Apostolus, ne fiat, consilio caritatis suadet, ut nemo in ea re iussionis necessitate teneatur, sed consilii voluntate libere faciat ». — Ex his monstratur, et inter infideles[^p829-6] coniugium esse, et consilium Apostoli non obviare praecepto Domini, quo iubet, fidelem non iungi infideli, et si coniuncti fuerint, separari. Legitur enim, quod « Esdras propheta, immo Dominus per eum, iussit Israelitis uxores dimittere alienigenas, per quas ibant ad deos alienos, non illae per maritos acquirebantur Deo. Recte hoc praecepit; quia per Moysen iusserat Dominus, ne quis uxorem alienigenam duceret. Merito ergo quas duxerant, Domino prohibente, Domino iubente, dimiserunt[^p829-7] »; quia, ut ait Ambrosius, « non est putandum matrimonium quod extra Dei decretum est factum; sed cum cognoscitur, emendandum, ut quando fidelis infideli copulatur ».

<!-- page 830 -->

Sed ut ait Augustinus[^p830-1]: « Cum coepisset gentibus Evangelium praedicari, iam coniunctos gentiles gentilibus comperit coniugibus; ex quibus si non ambo crederent, sed unus vel una, et infidelis cum fideli consentiret habitare; nec prohiberi a Domino debuit fidelis infidelem dimittere nec iuberi: ideo non prohiberi, quia iustitia permittit a fornicante discedere; et infidelis hominis fornicatio est maior in corde, nec vera eius pudicitia cum coniuge dici potest, quia *omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est,* quamvis veram fidelis habeat pudicitiam, etiam cum infideli coniuge, quae non habet veram; ideo autem nec iuberi, quia nec contra iussionem Domini gentiles fuerunt ambo coniuncti ». « Licitum ergo erat per iustitiam fideli infidelem dimittere; sed licitum non erat faciendum propter liberam benevolentiam ». — Evidenter apparet, et inter infideles coniugium esse, et Apostolum de illis agere, qui in infidelitate coniuncti fuerunt, et post alter ad fidem conversus est, cum quo infidelis habitare consentit; et hunc non dimittere fideli consulit Apostolus, quia forte per fidelem salvabitur infidelis.

### Cap. III. *De fornicatione spirituali, propter quam dimitti coniux potest.*

Potest tamen licite dimittere, quia in infideli est fornicatio, si non corporis, tamen mentis. Causam enim *fornicationis* Dominus excepit; *fornicationem* vero generalem et universalem intelligere cogimur, non modo scilicet corporalem, sed et spiritualem; de qua Augustinus[^p830-2] ait: « Idololatria et quaelibet noxia superstitio fornicatio est. Dominus autem *permisit,* causa fornicationis uxorem dimitti, sed non *iussit;* et sic dedit Apostolo locum monendi, ut qui voluerit non dimittat »; potest tamen licite dimittere. « Si enim fornicatio carnis detestanda est in coniuge, quanto magis fornicatio mentis, id est infidelitas »?

### Cap. IV. *Pro quibus peccatis possit fieri separatio, vel non.*

Si autem quaeris, an propter aliud vitium nisi propter infidelitatem vel idololatriam possit dimitti; attende, quid Augustinus[^p830-3] ait: « Si infidelitas fornicatio est, et idololatria infidelitas, et avaritia idololatria; non est dubitandum, et avaritiam fornicationem esse. Quis ergo quamlibet illicitam concupiscentiam potest a fornicationis genere separare, si avaritia fornicatio est? Ex quo intelligitur, quod propter illicitas concupiscentias, non tantum quae in stupris cum alienis viris vel feminis committuntur, sed ob quaslibet, quae animam a lege Dei aberrare faciunt et perniciose corrumpi, possit sine crimine et vir uxorem suam dimittere, et uxor virum ». Item, « rectissime dimittitur, si viro suo dicat: non ero uxor tua, nisi mihi de latrocinio divitias congeras, vel nisi solita lenocinia exerceas, aut si quid aliud facinorosum vel flagitiosum a viro suo expetat. Tunc ille, si veraciter poenitens est, habetque *fidem per dilectionem operantem,* membrum, quod eum scandalizat, amputabit ». — Ex his apparet, quod non solum infidelitas, sed et quaelibet concupiscentia, quae perniciose turpiterque corrumpit, *fornicatio spiritualis* est, per quam vir uxorem, vel uxor virum dimittere potest. Consulit tamen Apostolus, ne fidelis dimittat infidelem volentem cohabitare nec a Deo revocare.

### Cap. V. *An liceat fideli aliam ducere, vel non.*

Hic quaeritur, si fidelis infidelem dimittat, vel infidelis a fideli discedat, an liceat fideli aliam ducere. Videtur auctoritas testari, quod vivente illa, alteram ducere non valeat. Ambrosius[^p830-4] enim verba Apostoli exponens ait: « Alioquin, si disceditis ab invicem et volentes cohabitare dimittitis et aliis vos copulatis, adulteri estis, et filii vestri, qui de hac copula nascuntur, immundi, id est spurii sunt ». Item: « Si quis habuerit uxorem virginem ante baptismum, vivente illa, post baptismum alteram habere non potest. Crimina enim in baptismo solvuntur, non coniugia ». Sed econtra Ambrosius testatur: *Si infidelis,* dicit Apostolus[^p830-5], *discedit, discedat. Non enim est servituti subiectus frater aut soror in huiusmodi;* quia « non debetur reverentia coniugii ei qui horret auctorem coniugii. Non est enim ratum matrimonium, quod sine Dei devotione est; et ideo non est peccatum ei qui dimittitur propter Deum, si alii se copulaverit. Contumelia enim Creatoris solvit ius matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur, ne accusetur alii copulatus. Infidelis autem discedens et in Deum peccat et in matrimonium, nec est ei servanda fides coniugii, qui ideo recessit, ne audiret, Christum esse Deum christianorum coniugiorum. Si vero ambo crediderint, per cognitionem Dei confirmatur coniugium ». Attende, haec praedictis contraria posse videri, ita ut sibi Ambrosius contradicere videatur. « Sed distinguendum est hic: aliud esse dimittere volentem cohabitare, aliud dimitti propter Deum ab illo qui horret nomen Christi. Ibi lex benevolentiae non servatur, hic veritas custoditur. Et ideo, cum liceat dimittere volentem cohabitare, non tamen, ea vivente, aliam ducere licet; discedentem vero sequi non oportet, et ea vivente, aliam ducere licet. Sed hoc non est intelligendum, nisi de his qui in infidelitate sibi copulati sunt. Sed si ad fidem uterque conversus est, vel si uterque

<!-- page 831 -->

fidelis matrimonio iunctus est, et post alter eorum a fide discesserit et odio fidei coniugem reliquerit, dimissus discedentem non comitabitur; nec tamen, illa vivente, alteram ducere poterit, quia inter eos fuerat ratum coniugium, quod non potest solvi[^p831-1] ».

### Cap. VI. *Utrum coniugium inter infideles sit.*

Sunt tamen nonnulli, qui inter infideles asserunt non esse coniugium, quia nec *rata* nec *legitima* est eorum copula. *Rata* non est, quia solvi potest; nec *legitima,* quia Apostolus[^p831-2] dicit: « *Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est.* Eorum autem coniunctio non est ex fide, et ideo peccatum est; non est igitur coniugium, quia nullum coniugium peccatum est. Augustinus etiam dicit, quia non est *vera* pudicitia infidelis cum fideli. Sed *vera* negatur esse pudicitia, non quod infidelium coniugium non sit verum, sed quia non habet illud triplex bonum, quod excusat coitum et meretur praemium. Item, illud Apostoli: *Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est;* non ita intelligendum est, ut quidquid fit ab infidelibus peccatum sit; sed omne quod fit contra fidem, id est conscientiam, male fit et ad *gehennam aedificat.* Vel, in omni eo, quod infidelis facit, peccat, non quia *illud* facit, sed quia non *eo modo* illud facit, quo debet, non referens ad debitum finem.

### Cap. VII. *Quod coniugium sit legitimum.*

Copula igitur maritalis, quae est inter infideles, coniugium est *legitimum,* sed non *ratum: legitimum,* quia est inter legitimas personas; sed non *ratum,* quia sine fide. Coniugium vero fidelium *legitimum* est et *ratum,* si tamen legitimae sunt personae. Quod autem *legitima* sit infidelium coniunctio, Augustinus[^p831-3] testatur dicens: « Uxor legitima societate coniuncta sine ulla culpa relinquitur, si cum viro christiano permanere noluerit ». — Ex hoc etiam probatur, quod infideli ad fidem converso Apostolus consulit infidelem non dimittere; quod non faceret, si non esset inter eos legitimum coniugium. *Legitimum* est quod legali institutione vel provinciae moribus, non contra iussionem Domini contrahitur.

---

english:
<!-- page 829 -->

### Chap. I. *On disparity of worship.*

After these matters, disparity of worship must be considered. For this is one of the causes by which persons are made illegitimate for contracting marriage. For it is not lawful for a Christian to enter into marriage with a gentile or a Jewess, since even in the Old Testament it was forbidden that faithful men should take unbelieving wives, the Lord saying[^p829-1]: *You shall not take wives of the daughters of foreigners for your sons, lest they lead them away after their gods.* According to this precept of the Lord, Ezra separated the marriages of the Jews contracted with foreigners. This same thing is observed also in the New Testament. Hence Augustine[^p829-2]: « Let not a woman marry, except a man of her own religion, nor let a man take such a wife. For this, as you say, the Lord commands, the Apostle teaches, and both testaments enjoin ». Likewise Ambrose[^p829-3]: « Beware, Christian, of giving your daughter to a gentile or a Jew; beware lest you take to yourself a gentile or a Jewess or a foreigner — that is, a heretic — and every wife alien to your faith ». Likewise: « If anyone be joined in carnal fellowship to a Jewess, or a Christian woman to a Jew, or a Jewess to a Christian, whoever has committed so great a wickedness, let him be at once separated from the Christian assembly ». — From these and many other testimonies it appears that marriage cannot be contracted by those who are of a different religion and faith.

### Chap. II. *On the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever and of two unbelievers.*

But there seems to be opposed to this what the Apostle[^p829-4] says concerning unequal marriages: *I say, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to dwell with him, let him not put her away; and if any woman* etc. But « that this is one thing and that another, Augustine[^p829-5] evidently shows. For there the discussion is about those marriages of believers and unbelievers which are contracted by them while they remain in disparity of religion and faith. But the Apostle treats of those who were of one and the same unbelief when they were joined; but when the Gospel had come, the one believed without the other. Do you understand what I say? » « Attend, that I may explain the matter itself more diligently. Behold, two spouses were of one unbelief when they were joined; there is no question about these which pertains to that precept of the Old and New Testament, by which a believer is forbidden to join marriage with an unbeliever. Now they are spouses and both are still unbelievers; they are still such as they were when joined. And the preacher of the Gospel came, and one of them believed, a man or a woman, but in such a way that the unbeliever consents to dwell with the believer; the Lord does not command that the believer put away the unbeliever thus joined ». « Nor does the Apostle command that he not put her away, but he counsels, that if anyone act otherwise, he be not a transgressor, just as he also counsels concerning virgins ». « He advises, therefore, because there is an occasion of gain, since one could lawfully forsake, but it is not expedient ». For then that which is lawful is not expedient, when it is indeed permitted, but the use of it brings to others an impediment to salvation, as does the departure of a believer from an unbeliever, which the Lord does not forbid, because in his sight it is not unjust; but the Apostle, that it be not done, persuades by the counsel of charity, that no one in that matter be bound by the necessity of a command, but act freely by the will of counsel ». — From these things it is shown both that there is marriage among unbelievers[^p829-6], and that the counsel of the Apostle does not run counter to the precept of the Lord, by which he commands that a believer not be joined to an unbeliever, and, if they have been joined, that they be separated. For it is read, that « Ezra the prophet, nay rather the Lord through him, commanded the Israelites to put away their foreign wives, through whom they were going to strange gods, nor were those women being won to God through their husbands. Rightly did he command this; because through Moses the Lord had commanded that no one take a foreign wife. Deservedly, therefore, those whom they had married, the Lord forbidding, the Lord commanding, they put away[^p829-7] »; because, as Ambrose says, « that marriage is not to be reckoned which is made outside God's decree; but when it is recognized, it must be amended, so that when a believer is joined to an unbeliever ».

<!-- page 830 -->

But as Augustine[^p830-1] says: « When the Gospel had begun to be preached to the gentiles, it found gentiles already joined to gentile spouses; of whom, if not both believed, but one, a man or a woman, and the unbeliever consented to dwell with the believer; the believer neither ought to be forbidden by the Lord to put away the unbeliever nor to be commanded: therefore not forbidden, because justice permits departing from a fornicator; and the fornication of the unbelieving man is greater in the heart, nor can there be said to be true chastity of his with his spouse, because *everything that is not of faith is sin,* although the believer has true chastity, even with an unbelieving spouse, who does not have true chastity; but therefore neither commanded, because the gentiles were not both joined contrary to the command of the Lord ». « It was lawful, therefore, by justice for the believer to put away the unbeliever; but it was not lawful to do it, on account of free good-will ». — It evidently appears both that there is marriage among unbelievers, and that the Apostle treats of those who were joined in unbelief, and afterward one was converted to the faith, with whom the unbeliever consents to dwell; and the Apostle counsels the believer not to put him away, because perhaps through the believer the unbeliever will be saved.

### Chap. III. *On spiritual fornication, on account of which a spouse can be put away.*

Yet one can lawfully put away, because in the unbeliever there is fornication, if not of the body, yet of the mind. For the Lord made *fornication* an exception; but we are compelled to understand *fornication* generally and universally, not only bodily, namely, but also spiritual; concerning which Augustine[^p830-2] says: « Idolatry and every noxious superstition is fornication. But the Lord *permitted* a wife to be put away for the cause of fornication, but did not *command* it; and thus he gave the Apostle occasion for admonishing, that whoever wishes may not put her away »; yet one can lawfully put away. « For if fornication of the flesh is to be detested in a spouse, how much more fornication of the mind, that is, unbelief »?

### Chap. IV. *For what sins separation can be made, or not.*

But if you ask whether on account of any other vice than unbelief or idolatry one can put away; attend to what Augustine[^p830-3] says: « If unbelief is fornication, and idolatry unbelief, and avarice idolatry; it is not to be doubted that avarice too is fornication. Who, then, can separate any unlawful concupiscence whatever from the class of fornication, if avarice is fornication? From which it is understood, that on account of unlawful concupiscences — not only those which are committed in debaucheries with other men or women, but for whatever sort make the soul stray from the law of God and be perniciously corrupted — both a man may without crime put away his wife, and a wife her husband ». Likewise, « most rightly is she put away, if she say to her husband: I will not be your wife, unless you heap up riches for me from robbery, or unless you ply your accustomed pandering, or if she demand anything else criminal or shameful from her husband. Then he, if he is truly penitent, and has *faith working through love,* will cut off the member which scandalizes him ». — From these things it appears, that not only unbelief, but also any concupiscence whatever which perniciously and basely corrupts, is *spiritual fornication,* through which a man can put away his wife, or a wife her husband. Yet the Apostle counsels that a believer not put away an unbeliever willing to cohabit, nor call [that one] back from God.

### Chap. V. *Whether it is lawful for a believer to marry another, or not.*

Here it is asked, if a believer puts away an unbeliever, or an unbeliever departs from a believer, whether it is lawful for the believer to marry another. Authority seems to testify that, while she lives, he cannot marry another. For Ambrose[^p830-4], expounding the words of the Apostle, says: « Otherwise, if you depart from one another and, though willing to cohabit, you put them away and join yourselves to others, you are adulterers, and your children, who are born of this union, are unclean, that is, spurious ». Likewise: « If anyone has had a virgin wife before baptism, while she lives, after baptism he cannot have another. For crimes are dissolved in baptism, not marriages ». But on the contrary Ambrose testifies: *If the unbeliever,* says the Apostle[^p830-5], *departs, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not subject to servitude in such cases;* because « reverence of marriage is not owed to him who abhors the author of marriage. For that is not a ratified marriage which is without devotion to God; and therefore there is no sin for the one who is put away for God's sake, if [that one] join to another. For the contumely of the Creator dissolves the bond of marriage regarding the one who is left, lest he be accused of being joined to another. But the unbeliever who departs sins both against God and against the marriage, nor is the fidelity of marriage to be kept for him, who withdrew for this reason, that he might not hear that Christ is the God of Christian marriages. But if both have believed, through the knowledge of God the marriage is confirmed ». Attend, that these may seem contrary to the aforesaid, so that Ambrose seems to contradict himself. « But it must be distinguished here: it is one thing to put away one willing to cohabit, another to be put away for God's sake by him who abhors the name of Christ. There the law of benevolence is not kept, here truth is guarded. And therefore, although it is lawful to put away one willing to cohabit, yet, while she lives, it is not lawful to marry another; but one is not obliged to follow the one departing, and, while she lives, it is lawful to marry another. But this is not to be understood except of those who were joined to one another in unbelief. But if both have been converted to the faith, or if either

<!-- page 831 -->

believer has been joined in marriage, and afterward one of them has departed from the faith and out of hatred of the faith has abandoned the spouse, the one dismissed shall not follow the one departing; nor yet, while she lives, shall he be able to marry another, because between them there had been a ratified marriage, which cannot be dissolved[^p831-1] ».

### Chap. VI. *Whether there is marriage among unbelievers.*

Yet there are some who assert that among unbelievers there is no marriage, because their union is neither *ratified* nor *legitimate.* It is not *ratified,* because it can be dissolved; nor *legitimate,* because the Apostle[^p831-2] says: « *Everything that is not of faith is sin.* But their union is not of faith, and therefore it is sin; it is not, therefore, marriage, because no marriage is sin. Augustine also says, that there is no *true* chastity of an unbeliever with a believer. But *true* chastity is denied to be [there], not because the marriage of unbelievers is not true, but because it does not have that threefold good which excuses intercourse and merits a reward. Likewise, that saying of the Apostle: *Everything that is not of faith is sin;* is not to be so understood, as that whatever is done by unbelievers is sin; but everything that is done against faith, that is, against conscience, is done ill and *builds toward Gehenna.* Or, in everything that an unbeliever does, he sins, not because he does *that thing,* but because he does not do it *in that manner* in which he ought, not referring it to its due end.

### Chap. VII. *That [such] marriage is legitimate.*

The marital union, therefore, which is among unbelievers, is a *legitimate* marriage, but not *ratified: legitimate,* because it is between legitimate persons; but not *ratified,* because without faith. But the marriage of believers is *legitimate* and *ratified,* if, however, the persons are legitimate. And that the union of unbelievers is *legitimate,* Augustine[^p831-3] testifies, saying: « A lawful wife joined in fellowship is left without any fault, if she has been unwilling to remain with her Christian husband ». — From this also it is proved, that to an unbeliever converted to the faith the Apostle counsels not to put away the unbeliever; which he would not do, if there were not a legitimate marriage between them. *Legitimate* is that which is contracted by legal institution or by the customs of the province, not against the command of the Lord.

---

la: Exod. 34, 16; Deut. 7, 3; mox I. Esdr. 10, 11. Hoc capitulum sumtum est ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 8. — Pro *accipies* edd., excepta 1, *accipias,* refragantibus codd. et Vulgata.

en: Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3; then I Ezra 10:11. This chapter is taken from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 7, c. 8. — For *accipies* the editions, except one, read *accipias,* against the codices and the Vulgate.

la: Libr. I. de Coniugiis adulterinis, c. 21, n. 25; C. *Sic enim* (9.), C. 28. q. 1. § 6. De praecepto Apostoli cfr. II. Cor. 6, 14.

en: Book I, *On Adulterous Marriages,* c. 21, n. 25; canon *Sic enim* (9.), Causa 28, q. 1, § 6. On the precept of the Apostle, cf. II Cor. 6:14.

la: Libr. I. de Abraham, c. 9. n. 84; C. *Cave* (15.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. *Si quis Iudaicae* (17.), ibid.

en: Book I, *On Abraham,* c. 9, n. 84; canon *Cave* (15.), in the same place. The following passage is canon *Si quis Iudaicae* (17.), in the same place.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 12.

en: Epistle, I Cor. 7:12.

la: Loc. cit. Seq. locus ibid. n. 26, et can. cit. § 7. Tertius est August., I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 44; quartus I. de Coniugiis adulterinis, c. 13. n. 14; C. *Iam nunc* (7.), ibid; quintus ibid. c. 18. n. 22. Eosdem locos affert Glossa ad I. Cor. 7, 12, apud Lyranum.

en: In the place cited. The following passage in the same place, n. 26, and in the canon cited, § 7. The third is Augustine, Book I, *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount,* c. 16, n. 44; the fourth, Book I, *On Adulterous Marriages,* c. 13, n. 14; canon *Iam nunc* (7.), in the same place; the fifth, in the same place, c. 18, n. 22. The Gloss on I Cor. 7:12, in Lyra, adduces the same passages.

la: Plures edd. falso *fideles,* simul omittunt *et* ante *inter.*

en: Several editions falsely [read] *fideles,* and at the same time omit *et* before *inter.*

la: August., loc. cit. c. 18. n. 20. (quoad substantiam); locus alter est Comment. in I. ad Cor. 7, 15 (inter opera Ambrosii); cfr. C. 28. q. 1, introductio.

en: Augustine, in the place cited, c. 18, n. 20 (as to substance); the other passage is in the Commentary on I Cor. 7:15 (among the works of Ambrose); cf. Causa 28, q. 1, introduction.

la: Loc. cit. c. 18. n. 20, ubi citatur Rom. 14, 23. Seq. locus est ibid. c. 20. n. 24; C. *Sic enim,* ibid. § 5.

en: In the place cited, c. 18, n. 20, where Rom. 14:23 is cited. The following passage is in the same place, c. 20, n. 24; canon *Sic enim,* in the same place, § 5.

la: Libr. I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 45; C. *Idololatria* (5.), ibid. Seq. locus est in Glossa in I. Cor. 7, 15, apud Lyranum, secundum August., I. de Coniugiis adult. c. 17. n. 19.

en: Book I, *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount,* c. 16, n. 45; canon *Idololatria* (5.), in the same place. The following passage is in the Gloss on I Cor. 7:15, in Lyra, according to Augustine, Book I, *On Adulterous Marriages,* c. 17, n. 19.

la: In cit. Sermone, c. 16. n. 46, et can. cit. § 1. Seq. locus est August., de Fide et operibus, c. 16. n. 28; C. *Uxor legitima* (4.), ibid., et respicitur Gal. 5, 6. — Pro *congeras* edd., excepta 1, *congreges,* refragantibus codd., canone et originali.

en: In the Sermon cited, c. 16, n. 46, and in the canon cited, § 1. The following passage is Augustine, *On Faith and Works,* c. 16, n. 28; canon *Uxor legitima* (4.), in the same place, and Gal. 5:6 is referred to. — For *congeras* the editions, except one, read *congreges,* against the codices, the canon, and the original.

la: Comment. in I. Cor. 7, 14. (inter opera eius); Gratian., introd. in C. 28. q. 2. Seq. locus est C. *Si quis* (1.), ibid.

en: Commentary on I Cor. 7:14 (among his works); Gratian, introduction to Causa 28, q. 2. The following passage is canon *Si quis* (1.), in the same place.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 15. Seq. locus est in Comment. citato in praecedente nota, v. 16; C. *Si infidelis* (2.), ibid., sed ibi in antiqua editione Decreti falso tributus est Gregorio.

en: Epistle, I Cor. 7:15. The following passage is in the Commentary cited in the preceding note, v. 16; canon *Si infidelis* (2.), in the same place, but there, in the ancient edition of the Decretum, it is falsely attributed to Gregory.

la: Gratian. super can. cit. — Pro *iunctus est* et pro *potest solvi* edd., excepta 1, *coniunctus est,* et *dissolvi potest.*

en: Gratian on the canon cited. — For *iunctus est* and for *potest solvi* the editions, except one, [read] *coniunctus est* and *dissolvi potest.*

la: Rom. 14, 23; cfr. Gratian. super C. *Omnes deinceps* (14.), ibid. q. 1. — Locus August. est l. de Coniugiis adulterinis c. 18. n. 20. Quoad explicationem huius loci ad Romanos cfr. II. Sent. d. XLI. c. 1.

en: Rom. 14:23; cf. Gratian on canon *Omnes deinceps* (14.), in the same place, q. 1. — The passage of Augustine is the Book *On Adulterous Marriages,* c. 18, n. 20. As to the explanation of this passage on Romans, cf. II Sent., d. 41, c. 1.

la: De Fide et operibus c. 16. n. 28; C. *Uxor legitima* (4.), ibid. — De seqq. cfr. Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 8.

en: *On Faith and Works,* c. 16, n. 28; canon *Uxor legitima* (4.), in the same place. — On what follows, cf. Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 7, c. 8. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands at `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{829,830,831}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (L split 2120, R split 1780), cross-checked against raw OCR L88541–L88791. Skeleton reflow discarded and rebuilt from the bands per the VOL II OVERRIDE.

**Page verification (running heads).** p. 829 = right-page number "829" (top-right) with the large `DISTINCTIO XXXIX.` header opening the littera; p. 830 = "830" (top-left) under running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; p. 831 = running head `DIST. XXXIX. DIVISIO TEXTUS.` with page number "831". The littera therefore spans **pp. 829–831**, not 830–831 as the skeleton frontmatter had it — `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` corrected to [829,830,831] / [849,850,851].

**Chunk start.** The littera begins mid-page on p. 829 (left column), after the tail of d.38's dubia (`…dicit Magister, quod sic, si reddat debitum compulsus ab Ecclesia.` / right col `…de Sententia excommunicationis, Inquisitioni.`), at the large `DISTINCTIO XXXIX.` header + `Cap. I. De dispari cultu.` That d.38 tail is NOT in this chunk.

**p. 829 footer split (claimed vs not claimed).** The bottom of p. 829 carries TWO apparatuses. The upper block (unlabeled), notes `1 Hic in lit. c. 3.` and `2 Libr. V. tit. 39. c. 44. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.`, belongs to the **d.38 Bonaventure dubia** and is NOT claimed here. Below the sub-header `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` is the littera's own series (notes 1–7), all claimed as `[^p829-1..7]` — this is the p.829 NOTAE block the d.38 dubia agent flagged as belonging to d.39's littera.

**p. 831 hand-off to the divisio.** The littera (Cap. VI first half, left col; Cap. VI second half + Cap. VII, right col) occupies only the TOP of p. 831; the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIX` + `DIVISIO TEXTUS` (opening `Supra determinata sunt impedimenta matrimonii…`) begins mid-left-column and is the **adjacent divisio chunk**, not this one. The littera ends at `…non contra iussionem Domini contrahitur.` The three footer notes at the bottom of p. 831 (labeled here `[^p831-1..3]`) all anchor to littera markers (Cap. V `solvi`, Cap. VI `Omne quod non est ex fide`, Cap. VII `Augustinus testatur`) and are claimed here; the divisio's own footers begin on p. 832.

**Apparatus count.** 15 entries total — p. 829: 7 (`[^p829-1..7]`); p. 830: 5 (`[^p830-1..5]`); p. 831: 3 (`[^p831-1..3]`). Marginal source-labels printed by Quaracchi (Augustinus, Ambrosius, Glossa, Canon, Gratianus, Dubium) are editorial marginalia and are not rendered inline, per the vol4 littera convention (cf. `bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-littera.md`).

**`[?]` flags.** None. One minor reconstruction: in the p.831 note 2 apparatus entry the word `cfr.` before `II. Sent. d. XLI. c. 1` is read from the p.831 L-band right sliver (`cfr. II. Se…`); the R-band shows the line wrap without it, but the reading is coherent (a cross-reference to Bonaventure's own Book II commentary on Rom. 14:23) and is not flagged.

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. 39, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 831 -->

### Commentarius in Distinctionem XXXIX.
#### *De impedimento dirimente ob cultus disparitatem.*

*Post haec de dispari cultu videndum est.*

### Divisio textus.

Supra determinata sunt impedimenta matrimonii, quae impediunt respectu omnis personae. Hic determinantur impedimenta, quae respiciunt personas determinatas. Et dividitur haec pars in duas, quoniam aliquae personae non sunt legitimae propter nimiam distantiam, ut illae, in quibus est cultus disparitas. Quaedam propter nimiam convenientiam, ut illae, in quibus est spiritualis, vel carnalis proximitas. Ideo haec pars habet duas. In prima agit de impedimento, quod venit ex cultus disparitate. In secunda de impedimento, quod venit ex proximitate, infra distinctione quadragesima: *Nunc superest de cognatione* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima agit de cultus disparitate per comparationem ad matrimonii contractionem. In secunda per comparationem ad dissolutionem, ibi: *Potest tamen licite dimittere* etc. Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda dissolvit dubitationem, ibi: *Huic autem videtur obviare* etc.; ubi ostendit, quod quamvis matrimonium non possit contrahi inter fidelem et infidelem, potest tamen esse, si prius contractum est.

*Potest tamen licite dimittere, quia in infideli* etc. Haec pars secunda agit de matrimonii dissolutione, et haec pars duas habet. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda manifestat mentientes, ibi: *Sunt tamen nonnulli, qui inter infideles* etc., ubi reprehendit eos, qui dicebant, inter infideles non esse coniugium. Prima pars habet duas. In prima parte agit de dissolutione matrimonii quoad cohabitationem inter eos qui sunt disparis cultus. In secunda agit de dissolutione matrimonii quoad vinculi fractionem sive omnimodam separationem, ostendens, quod si infidelis non vult cohabitare, fidelis potest contrahere, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, si fidelis infidelem dimittat* etc.

<!-- page 832 -->

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis quaeritur de impedimento, quod habet esse in matrimonio ex cultus disparitate. Et de hoc duo quaeruntur principaliter.

Primo quaeritur de disparitate cultus per comparationem ad matrimonii contractionem.

Secundo, per comparationem ad dissolutionem.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum matrimonium possit contrahi inter fidelem et infidelem.

Secundo, utrum Sacramentum matrimonii possit contrahi inter infidelem et infidelem.

Tertio, utrum matrimonium contractum inter infideles excuset a peccato.

Quarto, utrum matrimonium contractum in infidelitate ponat in numerum cum matrimonio fidelium.

### Articulus I.
#### *De disparitate cultus quoad matrimonii contractionem.*

---

english:
### Commentary on Distinction XXXIX.
#### *On the diriment impediment on account of disparity of worship.*

*After these matters, disparity of worship must be considered.*

### Division of the Text.

Above, the impediments of matrimony which impede with respect to every person have been determined. Here are determined the impediments which regard determinate persons. And this part is divided into two, since some persons are not legitimate on account of too great a distance, as those in whom there is disparity of worship; certain [others] on account of too great a closeness, as those in whom there is spiritual or carnal proximity. Therefore this part has two [members]. In the first he treats of the impediment which comes from disparity of worship. In the second, of the impediment which comes from proximity, below in the fortieth distinction: *Now it remains [to treat] of kinship,* etc.

The first part has two [members]. In the first he treats of disparity of worship by comparison to the contracting of matrimony. In the second, by comparison to [its] dissolution, at: *He can nevertheless licitly dismiss [her],* etc. The first part has two [members]. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he resolves a doubt, at: *But to this it seems there is an objection,* etc.; where he shows that, although matrimony cannot be contracted between a believer and an unbeliever, it can nevertheless exist, if it was contracted beforehand.

*He can nevertheless licitly dismiss [her], because in an unbeliever,* etc. This second part treats of the dissolution of matrimony, and this part has two [members]. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he exposes those who lie, at: *There are nevertheless some who, among unbelievers,* etc., where he reproves those who said that among unbelievers there is no marriage. The first part has two [members]. In the first part he treats of the dissolution of matrimony as to cohabitation between those who are of disparate worship. In the second he treats of the dissolution of matrimony as to the breaking of the bond, or complete separation, showing that if the unbeliever is unwilling to cohabit, the believer can contract [marriage], at: *Here it is asked whether a believer may dismiss an unbeliever,* etc.

### Treatment of the Questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction, inquiry is made concerning the impediment which has [its] being in matrimony from disparity of worship. And concerning this, two things are asked principally.

First it is asked concerning disparity of worship by comparison to the contracting of matrimony.

Secondly, by comparison to [its] dissolution.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First it is asked whether matrimony can be contracted between a believer and an unbeliever.

Secondly, whether the Sacrament of matrimony can be contracted between an unbeliever and an unbeliever.

Thirdly, whether matrimony contracted among unbelievers excuses from sin.

Fourthly, whether matrimony contracted in unbelief is counted together with the matrimony of believers.

### Article I.
#### *On disparity of worship as to the contracting of matrimony.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p831-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`, `vol4-p832-{L,R}-0`; right column regenerated at split 1780) against raw OCR L88792–88851. Offset pdf = printed + 20 confirmed (printed 831 → pdf 851). Reflowed column-by-column (left column top→bottom, then right column) for both pages.

**Page span corrected.** Skeleton frontmatter had `printed_pages: [831]`; content spills onto p.832 (TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + ARTICULUS I opener). Corrected to `[831, 832]` / pdf `[851, 852]`. Page break placed at the TRACTATIO heading.

**Footer hand-offs.** p.831's three footers all anchor in the LITTERA (Lombard, Cap. V–VII: `solvi¹`, `Apostolus²`, `Augustinus³`) — claimed by the littera chunk, NOT here (per hand-off: shared first page's Master-caps footers are the littera's). This chunk claims zero footers; `has_apparatus: false`. Forward hand-off to `bon-sent-IV-d39-a1-q1`: QUAESTIO I body (`Quantum ergo ad primum sic proceditur…` / `Contra:` at foot of p.832) and any p.832 QUAESTIO I footers are a1-q1's; this chunk ends at the ARTICULUS I subtitle *De disparitate cultus quoad matrimonii contractionem.*

**[?] flag — dispatch brief vs. page.** The brief stated "TRACTATIO lists 2 principals (Art I 4 questions, Art II 4 questions)." The page bears out **2 principals** (Primo *per comparationem ad matrimonii contractionem* = Art. I; Secundo *per comparationem ad dissolutionem* = Art. II) but only lists the **four sub-questions of the first principal** (`Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.` + the four `Primo…Quarto` items), then goes straight to ARTICULUS I. The second principal's four questions are NOT on pp.831–832; per Vol II/IV convention they are listed at the Article II opener on a later page and belong to that chunk. [?] rendered only the four questions present on the page — verify against the Art. II opener when it is built.