title: Dist. 25, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 656 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nec ex his aliquem in clericatu honorem vel exiguum subrogare.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut iste habet *ordinem,* aut *nihil* habet. Si *nihil* habet: ergo poterit ab episcopo catholico promoveri cum dispensatione, sicut patet in haereticis. Si habet *ordines:* ergo iam promotus est.

**Respondeo,** quod hoc non dicit, quia non *sit ordinatus,* sed quia *male sit ordinatus.* Male autem est ordinatus dupliciter: aut quia est ordinatus *a quo* non debet, aut quia *sicut* non debet. Primo modo tripliciter: aut quia ordinatur ab *haeretico,* vel *simoniaco,* sicut hic in proposito; tunc enim, si scienter facit et communicat haeresi, vel simoniae, non potest exsequi nec dispensatur de facili, et hoc vult dicere in littera[^1]. — Aut ordinatur a *catholico non suo* sine licentia episcopi proprii et auctoritate; talis debet deponi, Causa septima, quaestione prima[^2], dispensari tamen potest, si talis ordinans aliquam ponit spem in ratihabitione episcopi proprii. — Aut ordinatur ab episcopo, qui *renuntiavit loco et of*<!-- page 657 -->*ficio,* quia talis non debet conferre ordines; si vero renuntiavit *loco tantum,* potest dare minores ordines et de licentia episcopi potest dare omnes; et qui sine licentia episcopi proprii recipit ordines posset deponi de rigore iuris, potest tamen cum eo dispensari[^3].

Secundo modo dicitur *male ordinatus,* quia non recipit *eo modo,* quo debet; et tunc aut *furtive,* aut *per saltum.* Si *furtive,* hoc est dupliciter: aut quia *duos* recipit et eodem die, ita quod alterum furatur, loquendo de *sacris;* et poena omnium talium est depositio, sicut dicitur distinctione septuagesima septima[^4], *Subdiaconus,* Extra, de Eo qui furtive, *Innotuit* etc. Si autem furtive recipit *unum tantum;* tunc aut *fuit prohibitum* sub interminatione anathematis; et tunc solus Papa dispensat, Extra, de Eo qui furtive. Si autem *non fuit prohibitum;* tunc potest permitti in minoribus, et si intrat claustrum, praelatus potest dispensare cum eo. — Si vero est ordinatus *per saltum,* hoc est dupliciter: aut ex *malitia,* aut ex *negligentia.* Si *ex malitia;* licet characterem recipiat, tamen debet deponi. Si *ignoranter;* sic, poena sibi imposita ab episcopo, poterit ad inferiorem ordinem promoveri, suspenso eo interim ab exsecutione superioris, distinctione quinquagesima secunda[^5], Extra, de Clerico ordinato per saltum.

Nota etiam hic, quod licet possit saltari ab uno ordine, omisso alio, praetermisso tamen *sacerdotio,* non potest esse episcopus, Extra, de Excessibus praelatorum, *Ex litteris,* in fine[^6]. Si vero omisit *diaconatum,* episcopus est, sed illum ordinem, quem omisit, dare non potest, Causa prima, quaestione prima[^7]. Ita tamen non est in baptismo, quia est Sacramentum primum.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *omnes dicuntur simoniaci, et dantes et accipientes.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia Simon solum voluit emere: ergo soli emptores *simoniaci* debent dici, et venditores *Giezitae*[^8]. — Item, plus fecit Giezi quam Simon, quia Simon solum voluit emere, sed Giezi vendidit: ergo magis ab ipso debent denominari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Simon ideo voluit emere, ut post venderet; ideo utrumque malum et peccatum sibi imputatur, et ideo utrique ab ipso denominantur.

Quod obiicitur de voluntate, dicendum quod quia iste iam tempore gratiae revelatae et maiorem potestatem et spiritualiorem voluit emere; et iterum pactum voluit facere: ideo gravius satis et enormius peccavit, quam ille qui petiit ex quadam liberalitate, et credebat ille, quod esset modicum; sed poena leprae sempiternae[^9] ostendit, quam magnum esset illud scelus.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *utrique eadem sententia percelluntur.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia gravius peccant vendentes, ut videtur, quia minus appretiant quam ementes: ergo gravius debent puniri. — *Contrarium* videtur, quia emens praestat illi occasionem et accipit[^10] ultra sortem: ergo si gravius peccat usuras accipiens quam dans, patet etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quantum ad *genus* peccati est uniformitas, quia uterque gratiae Spiritus sancti facit iniuriam; sed gravius pensatur peccatum secundum maiorem appetitum et intensionem libidinis et secundum gradum[^11] personae vendentis et ementis. Gravius enim peccat episcopus vendens quam subditus emens; quia tamen genus peccati est idem, utrique eadem sententia percelluntur.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Qui vero ordinantur a simoniacis, quos, cum ordinantur, nesciunt* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia tales <!-- page 658 -->simoniaci ordinantes sunt irregulares et non habent exsecutionem; et «*nullus dat quod non habet*[^12]»: ergo non dant exsecutionem. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis simoniacus, qui est mihi notus, sustineatur ab Ecclesia, et ipse est episcopus meus, et ego compellor ad sacros ordines: quaeritur, quid tunc facere debeam. Si enim scienter ordinor a simoniaco; sum irregularis et punior tanquam simoniacus. Si non obedio; pecco mortaliter et scandalizo: ergo videtur, quod in tali casu homo sit *perplexus.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in *primo* casu exsecutionem habet a iure, quod propter ignorantiam talem reputat excusatum, ordinem vero habet a simoniaco[^13]. In *secundo* debet, quantum potest, subterfugere; quod si non potest, magis patitur, quam agat, et habetur tunc pro excusato. Unde vel debet ordines differre, vel ad alium episcopum ire; sed si non potest aliud, debet sustinere, et cum Ecclesia sustineat, debet et ipse sustinere et excusatur, sicut ille qui ignorat[^14].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quisquis horum alterum vendit, sine quo alterum non habetur.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia ius patronatus annexum est fundo inseparabiliter: ergo cum ius patronatus sit spirituale et non possit vendi sine simonia[^15]; impossibile est, quod talis fundus sine simonia vendatur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister non loquitur de *temporalibus,* quibus annexa sunt spiritualia; sed contra[^16] de *spiritualibus,* quibus annexa sunt temporalia, sicut est praebenda; et in talibus habet locum verbum Magistri, non in primis. Fundus enim non est annexus iuri patronatus, sed magis e converso. — Vel dicendum, quod intelligit de eo quod ita iunctum est spirituali, quod tenet locum spiritualis. Sed fundus sive villa, cui ius patronatus annexum est, tenet vere rationem rei temporalis[^17].

### Dub. VI.

Item super hoc quod dicit: *Simoniaca haeresis tripartita est,* quaeritur: quibus modis contrahitur simonia? Et consuevit dici, quod quinque modis, qui his versibus continentur:

> *Nummus*[^18], *lingua, timor, caro cum fama populari*
> *Non faciunt gratis spirituale dari.*

Ergo secundum hoc videtur, quod Magister insufficienter tres modos assignet.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur de sufficientia horum modorum. Cum enim fama sit *bonus odor*[^19], sicut bonum exemplum, non videtur, quod sit quid temporale. — Item, in veteri lege habebatur sacerdotium iure propinquitatis[^20]: ergo cum illud non esset peccatum, non videtur etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod proprie loquendo, simonia est in *pretio,* quod quidem intendit avaritia[^21], maxime cum intervenit *pactio,* et ista simonia determinatur hic a Magistro. Et potest fieri tripliciter: quia pretium potest dari ita, quod simoniacus non recipit, utpote quia datur collateralibus; vel potest dari a collateralibus ordinati; vel potest ipse ordinatus dare ordinatori, et tunc est simonia in ordinis susceptione, et proprie loquendo, in his tribus modis. — Vel aliter, quia aut *ordinatus dat,* et *ille recipit,* et tunc simoniace ordinatur a simoniaco; aut *iste dat,* sed ille *non recipit,* et tunc simoniace a non simoniaco[^22]; aut quia *nec iste dat, nec ille recipit,* sed ille alias fuit simoniacus, et tunc ordinatur non simoniace a simoniaco. — Penes hoc sumitur distinctio *Magistri* satis sufficiens, sed in *communi* distinctione modorum accipitur *simonia* generalius, a qua pauci sunt hodie immunes in clero respectu multitudinis, utpote quando ille qui ordines tribuit[^23], ex causa indirecta tribuit, vel alius ex causa inordinata acquirit sive ordinem, sive beneficium; et isti sunt *quinque modi,* quorum sufficientia patet sic. Si aliquis inordinate movetur, aut ex *timore male humiliante,* et sic est unus modus; aut ex *amore male inflammante,* et tunc — cum triplex sit amor, scilicet *superbia vitae,* quae amat honores, et *concupiscentia carnis,* et *concupiscentia oculorum*[^24] — penes *concupiscentiam oculorum* accipitur illa, quae est in *nummo,* quae comprehendit omne terrenum et obsequium vile. Penes *amorem carnalem* accipitur aliud membrum, scilicet *caro,* quod comprehendit inordinatum amorem sive respectu propinquorum, sive respectu aliorum, ut si quis amore fornicariae promoveret filium fornicariae. Si autem quantum ad *superbiam,* dupliciter: aut prout appetit *favorem,* ut hypocrita, et sic est *favor* sive fama popularis; aut prout appetit *laudari,* et sic *lingua.* Et sic patet sufficientia. — Vel ut distinguatur *munus* a *manu,* a *lingua* et a *corde*[^25], et duplex motivum timor et amor, et sic erunt quinque modi. Et per hoc patet numerus et sufficientia.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de fama, dicendum, quod fama magnum bonum est *non appetenti,* sicut viro iusto, sed appetenti et laboranti ad hoc non est magnum bonum, sicut hypocritae; unde Proverbiorum decimo[^26]: *Memoria iusti cum laudibus, et nomen impiorum putrescet.*

Quod obiicitur de consanguinitate, non est simile: quia sacerdotium veteris legis erat carnale, sed illud novae est spirituale[^27]. — Et sic patent ea quae sunt circa istam partem.

---

english:
<!-- page 656 -->

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first the question is asked about what he says: *Nor from these to substitute anyone in a clerical honor, even a slight one.* For it seems to be badly said, because either this man has *an order,* or he has *nothing.* If he has *nothing:* then he will be able to be promoted by a catholic bishop with a dispensation, as is clear in the case of heretics. If he has *orders:* then he is already promoted.

**I respond** that he does not say this because a man is not *ordained,* but because he is *badly ordained.* Now one is badly ordained in two ways: either because he is ordained *by one from whom* he ought not, or because he is ordained *in a way in which* he ought not. In the first way, in three ways: either because he is ordained by a *heretic,* or by a *simoniac,* as here in the case proposed; for then, if he does so knowingly and shares in heresy or in simony, he cannot exercise the office nor is he easily dispensed, and this is what he means to say in the text[^1]. — Or he is ordained by a *catholic not his own* without the license of his proper bishop and without authority; such a one must be deposed, Cause 7, question 1[^2], yet he can be dispensed, if such an ordainer places some hope in the ratification of the proper bishop. — Or he is ordained by a bishop who *has renounced his place and of*<!-- page 657 -->*fice,* because such a one ought not to confer orders; but if he renounced his *place only,* he can give the minor orders and, by the bishop's license, can give all of them; and one who receives orders without the license of his proper bishop could be deposed by the rigor of law, yet he can be dispensed[^3].

In the second way one is said to be *badly ordained* because he does not receive *in that manner* in which he ought; and then either *by theft,* or *by a leap.* If *by theft,* this is in two ways: either because he receives *two* orders and on the same day, so that he steals one of them, speaking of *sacred* orders; and the punishment for all such is deposition, as is said in distinction 77[^4], *Subdiaconus,* Extra, *de Eo qui furtive, Innotuit* etc. But if he receives by theft *one only;* then either it *was forbidden* under the threat of anathema, and then the Pope alone dispenses, Extra, *de Eo qui furtive.* But if it *was not forbidden;* then he can be allowed to remain in the minor orders, and if he enters the cloister, the prelate can dispense with him. — But if he is ordained *by a leap,* this is in two ways: either from *malice,* or from *negligence.* If *from malice;* although he receives the character, nevertheless he must be deposed. If *in ignorance;* then, with a punishment imposed on him by the bishop, he will be able to be promoted to a lower order, while he is meanwhile suspended from the exercise of the higher, distinction 52[^5], Extra, *de Clerico ordinato per saltum.*

Note also here that, although one may leap over one order, omitting another, nevertheless when the *priesthood* is passed over he cannot be a bishop, Extra, *de Excessibus praelatorum, Ex litteris,* at the end[^6]. But if he omitted the *diaconate,* he is a bishop, but he cannot give that order which he omitted, Cause 1, question 1[^7]. It is not so, however, in baptism, because it is the first Sacrament.

### Doubt II.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says, that *all are called simoniacs, both those who give and those who receive.* For it seems to be badly said, because Simon wished only to buy: therefore the buyers alone ought to be called *simoniacs,* and the sellers *Gehazites*[^8]. — Likewise, Gehazi did more than Simon, because Simon only wished to buy, but Gehazi sold: therefore they ought rather to be named from him.

**I respond:** It must be said that Simon wished to buy for this reason, that he might afterward sell; therefore both evil and sin are imputed to him, and therefore both are named from him.

To the objection concerning the will, it must be said that because this man, already in the time of revealed grace, wished to buy a greater and more spiritual power, and moreover wished to make a bargain: therefore he sinned rather gravely enough and more enormously than the one who sought out of a certain liberality, and who believed that it was a small thing; but the punishment of everlasting leprosy[^9] showed how great that crime was.

### Doubt III.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says, that *both are struck by the same sentence.* For it seems to be badly said, because the sellers sin more gravely, as it appears, because they value [the thing] less than the buyers do: therefore they ought to be punished more gravely. — The *contrary* seems true, because the buyer furnishes him the occasion and receives[^10] beyond the principal: therefore if the one who receives usury sins more gravely than the one who gives, it is clear, etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that as to the *kind* of sin there is uniformity, because each does injury to the grace of the Holy Spirit; but the sin is weighed as more grave according to the greater appetite and intensity of lust and according to the rank[^11] of the person selling and buying. For a bishop selling sins more gravely than a subject buying; yet because the kind of sin is the same, both are struck by the same sentence.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says: *But those who are ordained by simoniacs, whom, when they are ordained, they do not know,* etc. For it seems to be badly said, because such <!-- page 658 -->simoniac ordainers are irregular and have no power of exercise; and «*no one gives what he does not have*[^12]»: therefore they do not give the power of exercise. — Likewise, suppose that some simoniac, who is known to me, is tolerated by the Church, and he is my bishop, and I am compelled toward sacred orders: it is asked what I ought then to do. For if I am knowingly ordained by a simoniac, I am irregular and am punished as a simoniac. If I do not obey, I sin mortally and give scandal: therefore it seems that in such a case a man is *in a dilemma.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in the *first* case he has the power of exercise from the law, which on account of ignorance reckons such a one excused, but he has the order from a simoniac[^13]. In the *second* he ought, as far as he can, to escape it; but if he cannot, he suffers rather than acts, and is then held as excused. Hence he ought either to defer the orders, or to go to another bishop; but if he can do nothing else, he ought to bear it, and since the Church bears with it, he too ought to bear it and is excused, like one who is ignorant[^14].

### Doubt V.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says: *Whoever sells one of these, without which the other is not had.* For it seems to be badly said, because the right of patronage is annexed to the estate inseparably: therefore since the right of patronage is spiritual and cannot be sold without simony[^15], it is impossible that such an estate be sold without simony.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master is not speaking of *temporal things,* to which spiritual things are annexed; but on the contrary[^16] of *spiritual things,* to which temporal things are annexed, as is a prebend; and in such cases the word of the Master holds, not in the former. For the estate is not annexed to the right of patronage, but rather the reverse. — Or it must be said that he understands it of that which is so joined to the spiritual that it holds the place of the spiritual. But an estate or a farm, to which the right of patronage is annexed, truly holds the character of a temporal thing[^17].

### Doubt VI.

Likewise upon what he says: *The simoniacal heresy is threefold,* it is asked: in what ways is simony contracted? And it is customarily said, in five ways, which are contained in these verses:

> *Money*[^18], *tongue, fear, flesh together with popular fame*
> *Do not allow a spiritual thing to be given freely.*

Therefore according to this it seems that the Master insufficiently assigns three ways.

In connection with this the question is asked about the sufficiency of these ways. For since fame is a *good odor*[^19], like a good example, it does not seem to be something temporal. — Likewise, in the old law the priesthood was held by right of kinship[^20]: therefore since that was not a sin, it does not seem [simony], etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that, properly speaking, simony is in the *price,* which indeed avarice[^21] intends, especially when a *bargain* intervenes, and this simony is here determined by the Master. And it can occur in three ways: because the price can be given in such a way that the simoniac does not receive it, inasmuch as it is given to those beside him; or it can be given by those beside the ordained man; or the ordained man himself can give to the ordainer, and then there is simony in the receiving of orders, and, properly speaking, in these three ways. — Or otherwise, because either *the ordained gives,* and *the other receives,* and then he is simoniacally ordained by a simoniac; or *this one gives,* but the other *does not receive,* and then simoniacally by a non-simoniac[^22]; or because *neither this one gives, nor the other receives,* but that man was otherwise a simoniac, and then he is ordained not simoniacally by a simoniac. — Within this the distinction of the *Master* is taken as sufficiently adequate, but in the *common* distinction of the ways *simony* is taken more generally, from which few today are immune in the clergy in respect of the multitude, as when the one who bestows orders[^23] bestows them from an indirect cause, or another from a disordered cause acquires either an order or a benefice; and these are the *five ways,* whose sufficiency is shown thus. If someone is disordinately moved, either from *fear wrongly humbling,* and thus there is one mode; or from *love wrongly inflaming,* and then — since love is threefold, namely the *pride of life,* which loves honors, and the *concupiscence of the flesh,* and the *concupiscence of the eyes*[^24] — under the *concupiscence of the eyes* is taken that [mode] which is in *money,* which comprehends everything earthly and base service. Under *carnal love* is taken another member, namely *the flesh,* which comprehends disordered love whether in respect of kinsfolk or in respect of others, as if someone, out of love for a harlot, were to promote the son of a harlot. But if [it be] as regards *pride,* in two ways: either as he seeks *favor,* like a hypocrite, and thus it is *favor* or popular fame; or as he seeks *to be praised,* and thus [it is] the *tongue.* And thus the sufficiency is clear. — Or so that the *gift* be distinguished — by the *hand,* by the *tongue,* and by the *heart*[^25] — and the motive twofold, fear and love, and thus there will be five modes. And through this the number and sufficiency are made clear.

To the objection concerning fame, it must be said that fame is a great good *to one not seeking it,* like a just man, but to one seeking it and laboring for it it is not a great good, like a hypocrite; whence Proverbs 10[^26]: *The memory of the just [is] with praises, and the name of the wicked shall rot.*

The objection concerning consanguinity is not similar: because the priesthood of the old law was carnal, but that of the new is spiritual[^27]. — And thus those things which concern this part are made clear.

---

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1.

la: Can. *Episcopus in dioecesim* (28.), secundum quem episcopus in aliena dioecesi alienos clericos ordinans uno anno a Missarum celebratione cessare debet. Cfr. d. 71. et C. 9. q. 2. C. *Nullum episcoporum* (6.), in quo dicitur, quod episcopus clericos alienos in aliena dioecesi ordinans iudicandus sit «tanquam depositus a sancta synodo» etc. Vide Hieron., *Epist.* 51. (alias 10.), in qua S. Epiphanius excusat se Ioanni episc. Ierosolymitano, quod Paulinianum presbyterum ordinasset, ipso inconsulto. — Inferius pro *aliquam,* quod edd. omittunt, codd. E G I K V *alium.* Subinde codd. omittunt *proprii.*

en: Canon *Episcopus in dioecesim* (28.), according to which a bishop ordaining clerics of another in another's diocese must cease for one year from the celebration of Masses. Cfr. dist. 71 and C. 9 q. 2, C. *Nullum episcoporum* (6.), in which it is said that a bishop ordaining clerics of another in another's diocese is to be judged «as deposed by a holy synod» etc. See Jerome, *Letter* 51 (alias 10), in which St. Epiphanius excuses himself to John, bishop of Jerusalem, for having ordained the presbyter Paulinian without consulting him. — Below, for *aliquam,* which the editions omit, codices E G I K V read *alium.* Then the codices omit *proprii.*

la: Cfr. C. *Requisivit a nobis* (I.), X. de Ordinatis ab episcopo, qui renuntiavit episcopatui (lib. I. tit. 13.).

en: Cfr. C. *Requisivit a nobis* (1), X. *de Ordinatis ab episcopo, qui renuntiavit episcopatui* (bk. I, tit. 13).

la: Cap. 4. § I. — Seq. locus [*Innotuit*] est cap. 3. Extra, lib. V. tit. 30, in quo titulo ea etiam, quae S. Bonav. deinde habet, continentur. — Inferius post *unum tantum* codd. R S addunt *sic dico, quod.* Subinde post *minoribus* cod. F supplet *ordinibus.*

en: Chap. 4, § 1. — The following passage [*Innotuit*] is chap. 3, Extra, bk. V, tit. 30, in which title are also contained those things which St. Bonaventure has next. — Below, after *unum tantum* codices R S add *sic dico, quod.* Then after *minoribus* codex F supplies *ordinibus.*

la: Can. *Sollicitudo dilectionis* (I.). — Seq. locus est Extra lib. V. tit. 29. C. *Tuae litterae* (I.). Cfr. supra pag. 625, nota 3. et 5.

en: Canon *Sollicitudo dilectionis* (1). — The following passage is Extra, bk. V, tit. 29, C. *Tuae litterae* (1). Cfr. above, p. 625, notes 3 and 5.

la: Cap. 10. lib. V. tit. 31. Vide supra d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3.

en: Chap. 10, bk. V, tit. 31. See above, dist. 24, part II, art. 2, q. 3, fundamentum 3.

la: *Antiqui* (cfr. supra d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3.) hoc concludebant ex C. *Gratia* (I.), in quo dicitur: Si autem non accipiunt [simoniaci gratiam in ecclesiasticis ordinibus], non habent; si autem non habent, nec gratis nec non gratis cuiquam dare possunt etc. Cfr. etiam ibid. C. *Quod quidam* (97.), qui est Augustini, et ex quo Magister, hic in lit. c. I plura refert. Idem docet S. Bonav. supra d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. ad 4, et cfr. ibi scholion n. 11. Ibid. a. I. q. 3. ad 1. explicatur seq. propos. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: *The ancients* (cfr. above, dist. 24, part II, art. 2, q. 3) concluded this from C. *Gratia* (1), in which it is said: But if they do not receive [as simoniacs, grace in the ecclesiastical orders], they do not have it; but if they do not have it, they can give it to no one either freely or not freely, etc. Cfr. also there C. *Quod quidam* (97), which is Augustine's, and from which the Master, here in the text, chap. 1, adduces much. St. Bonaventure teaches the same above, dist. 24, part II, art. 2, q. 3, ad 4, and cfr. there scholion n. 11. Ibid., art. 1, q. 3, ad 1, the following proposition is explained. — St. Thomas resolves the same doubt, here on the text.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Cfr. here the text of the Master, chap. 2.

la: Libr. IV. Reg. 5, 27: *Sed et lepra Naaman adhaerebit tibi et semini tuo usque in sempiternum. Et egressus est ab eo leprosus quasi nix.* — De hoc dub. cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. I. quaestiunc. I. ad 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. I. ad 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.

en: 4 Kings 5:27: *But the leprosy of Naaman shall also cleave to thee and to thy seed for ever. And he went out from him a leper as white as snow.* — On this doubt cfr. Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* part II, q. 169, membrum 1; Bl. Albert, here art. 6; St. Thomas, here q. 3, art. 1, quaestiuncula 1, ad 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, art. 1, ad 1; Richard of Middleton, here art. 2, q. 2.

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *ut accipiat.*

en: The editions, with several codices, read *ut accipiat* (that he may receive).

la: Edd. *statum.*

en: The editions read *statum* (state) [for *gradum,* rank].

la: Secundum Aristot., II. *Elench.* c. 3. (c. 22.). Vide etiam supra pag. 657, nota 5.

en: According to Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* II, c. 3 (c. 22). See also above, p. 657, note 5.

la: Cfr. C. *Si qui a simoniacis* (108.), C. 1. q. I. — Inferius pro *excusato,* quod habent codd. A B E G L (F a secunda manu), alii codd. et edd. *excommunicato.* Subinde pro *aliud,* quod habent plurimi codd., edd. *ire ad alium.* In fine solut. edd. omittunt *et excusatur,* pro quo plures codd. perperam *et excommunicatur.*

en: Cfr. C. *Si qui a simoniacis* (108), C. 1, q. 1. — Below, for *excusato,* which codices A B E G L (F by a second hand) have, other codices and the editions read *excommunicato.* Then for *aliud,* which most codices have, the editions read *ire ad alium.* At the end of the solution the editions omit *et excusatur,* for which several codices wrongly read *et excommunicatur.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dub. Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.

en: On this doubt cfr. Richard of Middleton, here art. 2, q. 3.

la: Vide C. *De iure vero patronatus* (16.), X. de Iure patronatus (lib. III. tit. 38.), ubi dicitur, quod «inconveniens sit vendi ius patronatus, quod est spirituali annexum».

en: See C. *De iure vero patronatus* (16), X. *de Iure patronatus* (bk. III, tit. 38), where it is said that «it is unfitting that a right of patronage be sold, which is annexed to a spiritual thing».

la: Cod. L *tantum,* cod. aa et ed. I *econtra.*

en: Codex L reads *tantum,* codex aa and edition 1 read *econtra.*

la: Secundum C. *Ex litteris* (7.), X. de Iure patronatus (lib. III. tit. 38.), ius patronatus transit cum universitate vendita in universali, nisi excipiatur. — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. m. 4. a. 2. in fine; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. et circa lit.

en: According to C. *Ex litteris* (7), X. *de Iure patronatus* (bk. III, tit. 38), the right of patronage passes with the whole property when sold in its entirety, unless it be excepted. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* part II, q. 169, membrum 4, art. 2, at the end; Bl. Albert, here art. 2; St. Thomas, here q. 3, art. 2, quaestiuncula 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, art. 2; Richard of Middleton, here art. 3, q. 3, and on the text.

la: Edd. *Munus,* cui lectioni favent cod. A a secunda manu correctus et B. Albert., hic a. 5; sed infra explicatur *nummus.*

en: The editions read *Munus* (gift), a reading favored by codex A as corrected by a second hand and by Bl. Albert, here art. 5; but below *nummus* (money) is explained.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 593, nota 3.

en: Cfr. above, p. 593, note 3.

la: Scilicet Aaron cum filiis; cfr. Exod. 28, 43.

en: Namely Aaron with his sons; cfr. Exod. 28:43.

la: Cod. O *avarus,* cod. K (I a secunda manu) *ex avaritia,* edd. *avaritiam.*

en: Codex O reads *avarus,* codex K (1 by a second hand) reads *ex avaritia,* the editions read *avaritiam.*

la: In edd. desideratur hoc secundum membrum.

en: In the editions this second member is lacking.

la: Cod. T *communicat.* Edd. omittunt *ex causa indirecta* [i. e. inordinata] *tribuit.*

en: Codex T reads *communicat.* The editions omit *ex causa indirecta* [i.e. *inordinata*] *tribuit.*

la: Epist. 1. Ioan., 2, 16. — De *amore* male inflammante et *timore* male humiliante cfr. tom. II. pag. 146, nota 7. verba August. — Inferius pro *quod comprehendit* nonnulli codd. *quae comprehendit.*

en: 1 John 2:16. — On *love* wrongly inflaming and *fear* wrongly humbling, cfr. vol. II, p. 146, note 7, the words of Augustine. — Below, for *quod comprehendit* several codices read *quae comprehendit.*

la: Gregor., IX. *Moral.* c. 34. n. 53: Tres vero sunt acceptiones munerum, ad quas ex fraude festinatur. Munus namque *a corde* est captata gratia a cogitatione; munus *ab ore* est gloria per favorem; munus *ex manu* est praemium per dationem. Cfr. ibid. XII. c. 54. n. 62, et 1. Homil. in Evang. homil. 4. n. 4, ubi distinguit munus *ab obsequio,* munus *a manu* et munus *a lingua.* Vide etiam C. *Salvator praedicit* (8.), C. 1. q. 3. § 1.

en: Gregory, *Moralia* IX, c. 34, n. 53: There are three kinds of the acceptance of gifts, toward which one hastens out of fraud. For a gift *from the heart* is favor captured by thought; a gift *from the mouth* is glory through favor; a gift *from the hand* is a reward through giving. Cfr. ibid. XII, c. 54, n. 62, and *Homily 1 on the Gospel,* homily 4, n. 4, where he distinguishes a gift *from compliance,* a gift *from the hand,* and a gift *from the tongue.* See also C. *Salvator praedicit* (8), C. 1, q. 3, § 1.

la: Vers. 7.

en: Verse 7 (i.e. Proverbs 10:7).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 500, nota 4. — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. et circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1.

en: Cfr. above, p. 500, note 4. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* part II, q. 169, membrum 3; Bl. Albert, here art. 5; St. Thomas, here q. 3, art. 3, and on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, art. 1. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p65{6,7,8,9}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) per the Vol IV / Vol II override (PDF-authoritative in the cascade-shattered footer/Respondeo regions), checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 71217–71464. The left column clips at the default vol4 split (x≈1880), so bands were regenerated in two passes — **split_x = 2120 for the left column, split_x = 1780 for the right column** — and reflowed column-by-column (L top→bottom, then R). DUB. VI's *Respondeo* tail was read off p.659 (bands at split_x = 1880 and 2120, combining the slight column overlap to recover both clipped edges).

**Dubia count.** 6 dubia: **DUB. I–VI**, all complete. DUB. I opens the section on p. 656 (in-line, right after the centered `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` heading) and runs onto p. 657; DUB. II and III on p. 657; DUB. IV opens on p. 657 and runs onto p. 658; DUB. V on p. 658; DUB. VI opens on p. 658 and its *Respondeo* runs off the foot of p. 658 into the top of p. 659 (left column), ending at *Et sic patent ea quae sunt circa istam partem* immediately before the Dist. XXVI littera. No scholion (`has_scholion: false`).

**Apparatus count / page-split.** 27 entries.
- **p. 656 (shared with a. 2 q. 4):** Quaracchi prints 10 footers; notes **1–8 belong to the preceding chunk** (a. 2 q. 4 — the *servus / Sacramentum ordinis* material) and are NOT claimed here. Only notes **9–10** are dubia footers → this chunk's [^1]–[^2]. Note 10's variant tail (`Inferius pro aliquam … omittunt proprii`) wraps to the top of p. 657's footer block; folded into [^2].
- **p. 657 (all dubia):** notes **1–9** → [^3]–[^11]. Note 5 ([^7]) wraps from the left-column footer onto the right-column footer top (`… Si autem non accipiunt … circa lit.`).
- **p. 658 (all dubia):** notes **1–12** → [^12]–[^23]. p. 658 carries no DISTINCTIO XXVI footers (d. 26 begins on p. 659), so none were excluded here.
- **p. 659 (DUB. VI tail only):** the left-column footer notes **1–4** → [^24]–[^27] ([^24] = 1 John 2:16 + tom. II cross-ref + *quod/quae comprehendit* variant; [^25] = Gregory *Moralia* on the threefold *munus*; [^26] = *Vers. 7* for Prov. 10:7; [^27] = *Cfr. supra pag. 500* + parallel-authorities list, which wraps from the foot of the left column onto the top of the right column above the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* heading). Everything at and below that `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` heading (Hug. a S. Vict.; Hebr. 13, 4; Super Gen. ad lit.; 1 Cor. 7, 6) belongs to the Dist. XXVI littera and is **excluded** here.

**Boundary / `[?]` flag — RESOLVED.** DUB. VI's *Respondeo* is now complete. The last body line of p. 658 (`… Si aliquis inordinate movetur, aut ex timore male`) continues at the top of **p. 659** (`humiliante, et sic est unus modus; aut ex amore male inflammante … — Et sic patent ea quae sunt circa istam partem.`) — the p. 659 continuation (raw lines 71446–71464) was read off the 450 dpi bands and folded in. The `DISTINCTIO XXVI. 639` string at raw L71444 is a page-top **running head** on p. 659, not the start of d. 26; the real Dist. XXVI (Cap. I, *De Sacramento coniugii*) begins lower on p. 659 (~L71468) and is **not** part of this chunk. Both `[?]` truncation flags (Latin + English) have been cleared. No residual `[?]` flags remain in this chunk.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi's inline marginal keywords (`Conclusio 2.`, `Solutio oppositorum`, `Ad quaest. incidentes`, `Notandum`, `Aliter`, `De simonia …`, `Fit …`, `Modi quinque`, `Sufficientia`, etc.) are editorial side-glosses and were omitted from the body per the corpus OCR-cleanup convention.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 26

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXVI

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; here p.659's four *notae ad librum Sententiarum* and p.660's four are renumbered continuously 1–8.

### DISTINCTIO XXVI.

### Cap. I. *De Sacramento coniugii.*

«Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum et propter peccatum exordium sumserint, matrimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum a Domino, non tamen ad *remedium*, sed ad *officium*[^1]». Refert enim Scriptura Genesis, in Adam misso sopore, atque una de costis eius sumta, et exinde muliere formata, virum in spiritu intelligentem, ad quem usum mulier facta esset, post ecstasim prophetice dixisse: *Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea; propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una.*

### Cap. II. *De institutione eius et causa.*

Coniugii autem institutio duplex est: una ante peccatum ad *officium* facta est in paradiso, ubi esset *torus immaculatus et nuptiae honorabiles*[^2]; ex quibus sine ardore conciperent, sine dolore parerent; altera post peccatum ad *remedium* facta extra paradisum, propter illicitum motum devitandum; prima, ut natura multiplicaretur; secunda, ut natura exciperetur, et vitium cohiberetur. Nam et ante peccatum dixit Deus: *Crescite et multiplicamini*; et post peccatum, omnibus pene hominibus per diluvium consumtis. Quod vero ante peccatum institutum fuerit coniugium ad officium, post peccatum vero ad remedium concessum, Augustinus[^3] testatur dicens: «Quod sanis esset ad officium aegrotis est ad remedium». Infirmitas enim incontinentiae, quae est in carne per peccatum mortua, ne cadat in ruinam flagitiorum, excipitur honestate nuptiarum. Si non peccassent primi homines, sine carnis incentivo ac fervore libidinis ipsi ac successores eorum convenirent; et sicut remunerabile est aliquod bonum opus, sic coitus eorum bonus esset et remunerabilis. Quia vero propter peccatum letalis concupiscentiae lex membris nostris inhaesit, sine qua carnalis non fit commixtio, reprehensibilis est et malus coitus, nisi excusetur per bona coniugii.

### Cap. III. *Unde secundum praeceptum et secundum indulgentiam contractum sit coniugium.*

Prima institutio habuit praeceptum, secunda indulgentiam. Didicimus enim ab Apostolo[^4], humano generi propter vitandam fornicationem indultum esse coniugium. Indulgentia vero, quia meliora non eligit, remedium habet, non praemium; a qua si quis declinaverit, meretur exitiale iudicium.

<!-- page 660 -->

Quod secundum indulgentiam conceditur voluntarium est, non necessarium; alioquin transgressor esset qui illud non faceret. Et potest sane intelligi, illud sub praecepto dictum hominibus primis ante peccatum *Crescite et multiplicamini*; quo etiam post peccatum tenebantur, usquequo est facta multiplicatio, postquam secundum indulgentiam matrimonii contractus fuit. Ita etiam post diluvium, quo universum pene humanum genus deletum est, secundum praeceptum dictum est filiis Noe: *Crescite et multiplicamini*; multiplicato vero homine secundum indulgentiam contractum est, non secundum imperium.

### Cap. IV. *Quibus modis accipitur indulgentia.*

Indulgentia autem diversis modis accipitur, scilicet pro concessione, pro remissione, pro permissione. Et est permissio in novo testamento de minoribus bonis et de minoribus malis; de minoribus bonis est coniugium, quod non meretur palmam, sed est in remedium; de minoribus malis, id est de venialibus, est coitus, qui fit causa incontinentiae. Illud, id est *coniugium, indulgetur*, id est conceditur; illud vero, id est coitus talis, *permittitur*, id est toleratur, ita quod non prohibetur.

### Cap. V. *Quod nuptiae bonae sint.*

Fuerunt autem nonnulli haeretici nuptias detestantes, qui Tatiani[^5] appellati sunt. «Hi nuptias omnino damnant ac pares fornicationibus aliisque corruptionibus faciunt, nec recipiunt in suorum numero coniugio utentem marem vel feminam». «Quod autem res bona sit coniugium, non modo ex eo probatur, quod Dominus legitur coniugium instituisse inter primos parentes, sed etiam quod in Cana Galilaeae nuptiis interfuit Christus easque miraculo commendavit, aqua in vinum conversa; qui etiam postea virum uxorem dimittere prohibuit nisi causa fornicationis. Apostolus etiam ait: *Virgo non peccat, si nubat*. Constat igitur, rem bonam esse matrimonium»; alioquin non esset Sacramentum; Sacramentum enim sacrum signum est.

### Cap. VI. *Cuius rei Sacramentum sit coniugium.*

Cum igitur coniugium Sacramentum sit, et sacrum signum est et sacrae rei, scilicet coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae, sicut ait Apostolus[^6]: *Scriptum est*, inquit: *Relinquet homo patrem et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. Sacramentum hoc magnum est; ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia.* Ut enim inter coniuges coniunctio est secundum *consensum animorum* et secundum *permixtionem corporum*, sic Ecclesia Christo copulatur voluntate et natura, quia idem vult cum eo, et ipse formam assumsit de natura hominis. Copulata est igitur sponsa sponso spiritualiter et corporaliter, id est caritate ac naturae conformitate. Huius utriusque copulae figura est in coniugio; consensus enim coniugum copulam spiritualem Christi et Ecclesiae, quae fit per caritatem, significat; commixtio vero sexuum illam significat, quae fit per naturae conformitatem.

Inde est quod quidam doctorum dixerunt, illam mulierem non pertinere ad matrimonium, quae non experitur carnalem copulam. Ait enim Augustinus[^7]: «Non dubium est, illam mulierem non pertinere ad matrimonium, cum qua docetur non fuisse commixtio sexus». Item Leo Papa: «Cum societas nuptiarum ita a principio sit instituta, ut praeter commixtionem sexuum non habeat in se Christi et Ecclesiae Sacramentum; non dubium est, illam mulierem non pertinere ad matrimonium, in qua docetur non fuisse nuptiale mysterium». Item Augustinus: «Non est perfectum coniugium sine commixtione sexuum». — Hoc si secundum superficiem verborum quis acceperit, inducitur in errorem tantum, ut dicat, sine carnali copula non posse contrahi matrimonium, et inter Mariam et Ioseph non fuisse coniugium, vel non fuisse perfectum; quod nefas est sentire. Tanto enim sanctius fuit atque perfectius, quanto a carnali opere immunius. Sed superius posita ea ratione dicta intelligendum est, non quin pertineat mulier illa ad matrimonium, cum qua non est permixtio sexuum; sed non pertinet ad matrimonium, quod expressam et plenam teneat figuram coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae. Figurat enim illam unionem Christi et Ecclesiae, quae est in caritate, sed non illam, quae est in naturae conformitate. Est ergo et in illo matrimonio typus coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae, sed illius tantum, qua Ecclesia Christo caritate unitur, non illius, qua per susceptionem carnis capiti membra uniuntur; nec ideo tamen minus sanctum est coniugium, quia, ut ait Augustinus[^8], «in nuptiis plus valet sanctitas Sacramenti quam fecunditas ventris». Est etiam coniugium signum spiritualis coniunctionis et dilectionis animorum, qua inter se coniuges uniri debent. Unde Apostolus ait: *Viri, diligite uxores vestras, ut corpora vestra.*

---

english:
### Cap. I. *On the Sacrament of marriage.*

«Although the other Sacraments took their beginning after sin and on account of sin, the Sacrament of matrimony is read to have been instituted by the Lord even before sin, yet not for a *remedy*, but for a *duty*[^1].» For Scripture relates in Genesis that, when a sleep had been sent upon Adam and one of his ribs had been taken, and thereupon a woman had been formed, the man—understanding in spirit, for which use the woman had been made—after his ecstasy said prophetically: *This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; on account of this a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.*

### Cap. II. *On its institution and cause.*

Now the institution of marriage is twofold: one, before sin, was made for a *duty* in paradise, where there was to be an *undefiled bed and honorable nuptials*[^2]; by which they would conceive without ardor and bear without pain; the other, after sin, was made for a *remedy* outside paradise, for the avoiding of illicit movement; the first, that nature might be multiplied; the second, that nature might be sustained and vice restrained. For even before sin God said: *Increase and multiply*; and after sin, when almost all men had been consumed by the flood. But that before sin marriage was instituted for a duty, and after sin granted for a remedy, Augustine[^3] testifies, saying: «What to the healthy would be for a duty is to the sick for a remedy.» For the infirmity of incontinence, which is in the flesh dead through sin, lest it fall into the ruin of disgraceful deeds, is taken up under the honorableness of nuptials. If the first human beings had not sinned, without the incitement of the flesh and the fervor of lust they and their successors would come together; and just as some good work is meritorious, so their intercourse would be good and meritorious. But because on account of sin the law of deadly concupiscence has clung to our members—without which carnal union does not take place—intercourse is reprehensible and evil, unless it be excused through the goods of marriage.

### Cap. III. *Whence marriage is contracted according to precept and according to indulgence.*

The first institution had a precept, the second an indulgence. For we have learned from the Apostle[^4] that marriage was granted to the human race for the avoiding of fornication. But indulgence, because it does not choose the better things, has a remedy, not a reward; and if anyone turns away from it, he merits deadly judgment.

<!-- page 660 -->

What is granted according to indulgence is voluntary, not necessary; otherwise he who did not do it would be a transgressor. And it can indeed be understood that that word was said under a precept to the first human beings before sin: *Increase and multiply*; by which also after sin they were bound, until multiplication was accomplished, after which marriage was contracted according to indulgence. So too after the flood, by which almost the whole human race was destroyed, it was said according to precept to the sons of Noah: *Increase and multiply*; but once mankind had been multiplied it was contracted according to indulgence, not according to command.

### Cap. IV. *In what ways indulgence is understood.*

Now indulgence is understood in various ways, namely for concession, for remission, for permission. And there is permission in the New Testament concerning lesser goods and lesser evils; concerning lesser goods there is marriage, which does not merit the palm, but is for a remedy; concerning lesser evils, that is venial ones, there is intercourse, which takes place by reason of incontinence. The former, that is *marriage, is indulged*, that is conceded; but the latter, that is such intercourse, is *permitted*, that is tolerated, in such a way that it is not prohibited.

### Cap. V. *That nuptials are good.*

Now there were certain heretics who detested nuptials, who were called Tatians[^5]. «These utterly condemn nuptials and make them equal to fornications and other corruptions, and do not receive into the number of their own a man or woman who uses marriage.» «But that marriage is a good thing is proved not only from the fact that the Lord is read to have instituted marriage among the first parents, but also because Christ was present at the nuptials in Cana of Galilee and commended them by a miracle, when water was turned into wine; who also afterward forbade a man to dismiss his wife except by reason of fornication. The Apostle too says: *A virgin does not sin, if she marries*. It is established, therefore, that matrimony is a good thing»; otherwise it would not be a Sacrament; for a Sacrament is a sacred sign.

### Cap. VI. *Of what thing marriage is the Sacrament.*

Since, therefore, marriage is a Sacrament, it is also a sacred sign of a sacred thing, namely of the conjunction of Christ and the Church, as the Apostle[^6] says: *It is written*, he says: *A man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great Sacrament; but I say, in Christ and in the Church.* For as between spouses there is a conjunction according to the *consent of minds* and according to the *mingling of bodies*, so the Church is joined to Christ by will and by nature, because she wills the same as he, and he himself assumed a form from the nature of man. The bride, therefore, has been joined to the bridegroom spiritually and corporeally, that is, by charity and by conformity of nature. Of each of these joinings there is a figure in marriage; for the consent of spouses signifies the spiritual joining of Christ and the Church, which comes about through charity; but the mingling of the sexes signifies that which comes about through conformity of nature.

Hence it is that certain of the doctors have said that that woman does not pertain to matrimony who does not experience carnal union. For Augustine[^7] says: «There is no doubt that that woman does not pertain to matrimony with whom it is shown that there was no mingling of sex.» Likewise Pope Leo: «Since the fellowship of nuptials was so instituted from the beginning that, apart from the mingling of the sexes, it does not have in itself the Sacrament of Christ and the Church; there is no doubt that that woman does not pertain to matrimony in whom it is shown that there was no nuptial mystery.» Likewise Augustine: «Marriage is not perfect without the mingling of the sexes.» — If one takes this according to the surface of the words, he is led into so great an error as to say that without carnal union matrimony cannot be contracted, and that between Mary and Joseph there was no marriage, or that it was not perfect; which it is impious to think. For it was so much the holier and more perfect, the more free it was from carnal work. But it must be understood, from the reasoning set down above, not that that woman does not pertain to matrimony with whom there is no mingling of the sexes; but rather that she does not pertain to matrimony which would hold the express and full figure of the conjunction of Christ and the Church. For it figures that union of Christ and the Church which is in charity, but not that which is in conformity of nature. There is therefore in that marriage also a type of the conjunction of Christ and the Church, but only of that by which the Church is united to Christ by charity, not of that by which through the assumption of flesh the members are united to the head; nor for that reason, however, is that marriage less holy, because, as Augustine[^8] says, «in nuptials the holiness of the Sacrament avails more than the fecundity of the womb.» Marriage is also a sign of the spiritual conjunction and love of minds, by which spouses ought to be united to one another. Whence the Apostle says: *Husbands, love your wives, as your own bodies.*

---

la: Hug. a S. Vict., II. *de Sacram.* p. XI. c. 1; unde etiam quae sequuntur excerpta sunt. Seqq. loci Scripturae respiciuntur, vel sunt Gen. 2, 21. 23. 24.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. XI, c. 1; whence also the things that follow are excerpted. The following scriptural passages are alluded to, or are Gen. 2:21, 23, 24.

la: Hebr. 13, 4. Cfr. etiam Gratian. super C. *Sicut non omnis* (2.), C. 32. q. 2. — Seq. locus Scripturae est Gen. 1, 28. et 9, 1.

en: Heb. 13:4. Compare also Gratian on C. *Sicut non omnis* (2), C. 32 q. 2. — The following scriptural passage is Gen. 1:28 and 9:1.

la: *Super Gen. ad lit.* libr. IX. c. 7. n. 12. In fine cap. respicitur Rom. 7, 15[?]. 23.

en: [Augustine,] *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book IX, c. 7, n. 12. At the end of the chapter Rom. 7:15[?], 23 is alluded to.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 7, 6.

en: [The Apostle,] 1 Cor. 7:6.

la: August., *de Haeresibus*, c. 25. (cfr. infra d. XXXI. c. 6.), cuius sunt ipsa verba, quae sequuntur. — Alter locus est Hug., *Sum. Sent.* tr. 7. c. 2; ubi respicitur Gen. 2, 24[?]. et Ioan. 2, 2. seqq., deinde Matth. 5, 32; 19, 9, denique 1. Cor. 7, 36.

en: Augustine, *On Heresies*, c. 25 (cf. below, d. XXXI, c. 6), whose very words follow. — The other passage is Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 7, c. 2; where Gen. 2:24[?] and John 2:2 ff. are alluded to, then Matt. 5:32; 19:9, finally 1 Cor. 7:36.

la: Circa tres locos hic positos notandum est, eosdem afferri etiam a Gratian. C. *Non est dubium* (16.), et seq. C. *Cum societas*, C. 27. q. 2, atque super C. *Sufficiat* (2.), ibid., sed ita, ut admisceantur plures errores. Nam 1. locus (*Non est dubium*) non invenitur in August., sed est continuatio 2. loci, scil. Leonis (Epist. 167. (alias 2.) ad Rustic. inquisit. 4.); hic autem depravate exhibetur a Magistro et Gratian. (lege: ut praeter sexuum coniunctionem *haberet* in se Christi et Ecclesiae Sacramentum). Tertius locus est August., 1. *Soliloq.* c. 10. n. 17, sed ibi sensum habet diversum, cum agatur de usu matrimonii.

en: Concerning the three passages set down here it is to be noted that the same are cited also by Gratian, C. *Non est dubium* (16), and the following C. *Cum societas*, C. 27 q. 2, and on C. *Sufficiat* (2), ibid., but in such a way that several errors are mixed in. For the 1st passage (*Non est dubium*) is not found in Augustine, but is a continuation of the 2nd passage, namely of Leo (Ep. 167 [alias 2] to Rusticus, inquiry 4); here, however, it is presented in corrupt form by the Master and by Gratian (read: that apart from the conjunction of the sexes it *would have* in itself the Sacrament of Christ and the Church). The third passage is Augustine, *Soliloquies* I, c. 10, n. 17, but there it has a different sense, since it treats of the use of matrimony.

la: *De Bono coniugal.* c. 18. n. 21. Deinde affertur Eph. 5, 25.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 18, n. 21. Then Eph. 5:25 is cited. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance / VOL IV override.** Latin base from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 71468–71629), re-set against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p659..660-{L,R}-*.png`). The p.659 bands as originally cut (split_x 1880) clipped the left edge of the right column and the right edge of the left column; regenerated at `colcrop.py vol4 659 2120` (clean left column) and `colcrop.py vol4 659 1780` (clean right column). Band read column-by-column, left then right. The band supplied the fuller Cap. VI opening — *«…et sacrum signum est et sacrae rei, scilicet coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae»* — where the OCR had collapsed *signum est et sacrae rei*.

**Page span (page-verified).** The littera runs pp. 659–660 only. p.659 (recto, running head *DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.*) carries Cap. I–III to *«…meretur exitiale iudicium. Quod secundum in-»*; p.660 (verso, *SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.*) carries Cap. III(cont.)–VI, ending *«…Viri, diligite uxores vestras, ut corpora vestra.»* p.661 begins *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI* (raw L71630), which is out of scope. Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` corrected from [659,660,661]/[679,680,681] to [659,660]/[679,680] accordingly.

**p.659 seam (d.25 / d.26).** The top of p.659 (both columns) holds the tail of d.25's DUB. VI *commentary* plus its footers — left-column notes 1–4 (*Epist. I. Ioan. 2, 16* [amore male]; *Gregor. IX Moral.*; *Vers. 7*; *Cfr. supra pag. 500*) and the top-right continuation (*Ital., S. p. II. q. 169…; B. Albert. hic a. 5; S. Thom. hic q. 3 a. 3; Petr. a Tar. hic q. 2 a. 1*). Those belong to d.25 and are **not** claimed here. This chunk claims only the littera's own footer block, headed **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** (p.659, [^1]–[^4]). p.660 is entirely littera, so its whole footer ([^5]–[^8]) is claimed; Quaracchi restarts the numbering per page (renumbered continuously [^1]–[^8] in this chunk).

**Marginalia trimmed.** Editorial side-glosses bleeding into the OCR (author labels *Augustinus.*, *Leo.*, *Notandum.*, *Aliter.*; and the *Dubium 2/3/4* cross-reference markers on p.660) were removed as marginalia, not Master's text.

**Health-scan false positive (2026-07-17, J4 Class D/E audit).** The scanner flagged `defs=8 la=10 en=8`. This is the documented §2 false-positive pattern (J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md), not a real defect: the explanatory blockquote opening the `## Latin` section ("...here p.659's four *notae ad librum Sententiarum* and p.660's four are renumbered continuously [^1]–[^8].") contains literal `[^1]` and `[^8]` as prose describing the numbering scheme, not real markers. These inflate the scanned Latin anchor count from 8 to 10. Verified by direct grep: each of `[^1]`–`[^8]` appears exactly once in the real Latin body and exactly once in the real English body, matching the 8 apparatus defs 1:1 with no duplicates and no gaps. No edits made; this chunk is healthy as-is.

**[?] flags (2).** [^3] — the "in fine cap." scripture ref reads **Rom. 7, 15. 23** on the band (last-but-one digit legibly a "5"); the raw OCR had *Rom. 7, 13. 23*. [^5] — the Hug. *Sum. Sent.* ref reads **Gen. 2, 24** on the band; the raw OCR had *Gen. 2, 21*. Both are single-digit ambiguities in the footer font (1/4/5) that a 600 dpi pass at the next decade-polish gate should settle; band readings retained inline with [?].

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 26, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 661 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI.
#### *De matrimonio secundum causam formalem.*

*Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum et propter peccatum* etc.

#### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

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

Haec est ultima pars totalis partis, in qua agit Magister de Sacramentis. In hac enim parte ultimo agitur de Sacramento matrimonii; et quoniam tunc unaquaeque res perfecte cognoscitur, quando cognoscitur secundum quadruplex genus causae[^1]: ideo pars ista habet quatuor partes. In prima agit de matrimonio secundum causam formalem. In secunda secundum causam efficientem, infra distinctione proxima: *Post hoc advertendum est, quid sit coniugium.* In tertia secundum causam finalem, infra distinctione trigesima prima: *Post haec de bonis coniugii.* In quarta secundum causam materialem, quae est personarum legitimitas; haec enim est dispositio a parte suscipientis; et per oppositum agit de illegitimitate, et hoc agit infra distinctione trigesima quarta: *Nunc superest attendere, quae personae* etc.

Prima pars, in qua determinat de matrimonio secundum causam formalem, habet duas: quia enim matrimonio formaliter convenit Sacramentum et signum; et signum sacramentale duo in se continet, secundum quod tale signum significat *divinam institutionem et naturalem repraesentationem*[^2]: ideo pars ista habet duas. In prima agit de matrimonii institutione. In secunda de repraesentatione sive aptatione signi ad signatum, et hoc ibi: *Cum igitur coniugium Sacramentum sit.*

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat institutionis *tempus.* In secunda *modum,* ibi: *Prima institutio habuit praeceptum.* In tertia removet quoddam dubium, quod habet ex praedictis ortum, ibi: *Fuerunt autem nonnulli haeretici.*

*Cum igitur coniugium Sacramentum sit.* Haec est secunda pars, in qua post institutionem agit de significatione, et habet haec pars tres particulas. In prima determinat, quid sit in hoc Sacramento *signum,* et quid *signatum tantum,* et quid *signatum et signum*[^3]; ex quibus intelligitur, unicum fieri Sacramentum sive integrari. In secunda ex verbis suis introducit dubium, ibi: *Inde est, quod quidam doctorum.* In tertia vero dissolvit, ibi: *Hoc si secundum superficiem.* — Et ita in duobus est continentia huius distinctionis, scilicet in huius Sacramenti *institutione* et in Sacramenti *constitutione* sive integratione.

#### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis secundum duo, quae determinat Magister de Sacramento matrimonii, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de eius institutione.

Secundo, de eius integritate.

Circa primum tria quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, quando fuerit institutum.

Secundo, a quo.

Tertio quaeritur, qualiter fuerit institutum.

---

english:
### Commentary on Distinction XXVI.
#### *On matrimony according to its formal cause.*

*Since the other sacraments came after sin and on account of sin,* etc.

#### Division of the text.

This is the last part of the total part in which the Master treats of the Sacraments. For in this part he treats last of the Sacrament of matrimony; and since each thing is perfectly known when it is known according to the fourfold genus of cause[^1]: therefore this part has four parts. In the first he treats of matrimony according to its formal cause. In the second, according to its efficient cause, in the next distinction below: *After this it must be noted what marriage is.* In the third, according to its final cause, below in the thirty-first distinction: *After these things, concerning the goods of marriage.* In the fourth, according to its material cause, which is the legitimacy of the persons; for this is a disposition on the part of the one receiving [it]; and by way of the opposite he treats of illegitimacy, and this he does below in the thirty-fourth distinction: *Now it remains to consider which persons* etc.

The first part, in which he determines concerning matrimony according to its formal cause, has two [subparts]: for since to matrimony there formally belong both the Sacrament and the sign, and the sacramental sign contains two things in itself, inasmuch as such a sign signifies *the divine institution and the natural representation*[^2]: therefore this part has two [subparts]. In the first he treats of the institution of matrimony. In the second, of the representation, or the fitting of the sign to the thing signified, and this here: *Since therefore marriage is a Sacrament.*

The first part has three parts. In the first he determines the *time* of the institution. In the second, the *manner*, there: *The first institution had a precept.* In the third he removes a certain doubt which has arisen from the aforesaid, there: *But there were certain heretics.*

*Since therefore marriage is a Sacrament.* This is the second part, in which, after the institution, he treats of the signification, and this part has three particulars. In the first he determines what is the *sign* in this Sacrament, and what is *the thing signified only*, and what is *the thing signified and the sign*[^3]; from which it is understood that a single Sacrament is made, or integrated. In the second, from his own words, he introduces a doubt, there: *Hence it is, that certain of the doctors.* In the third, however, he resolves it, there: *This, if according to the surface.* — And so the content of this distinction consists in two things, namely in the *institution* of this Sacrament and in the *constitution* or integration of the Sacrament.

#### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction, according to the two things which the Master determines concerning the Sacrament of matrimony, two things are principally inquired.

First it is asked concerning its institution.

Second, concerning its integrity.

Concerning the first, three things are inquired.

First it is asked, when it was instituted.

Second, by whom.

Third it is asked, in what manner it was instituted.

---

la: Secundum Aristot., I. *Metaph.* c. 4. (c. 3.). Cfr. I. *Poster.* c. 2; II. c. 1. seq. et I. *Phys.* text. 1.

en: According to Aristotle, *Metaphysics* I, c. 4 (c. 3). Cf. *Posterior [Analytics]* I, c. 2; II, c. 1 ff., and *Physics* I, text 1.

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. ad 5.

en: See above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 2, ad 5.

la: Edd. omittunt *tantum, et quid signatum et signum.*

en: The editions omit *"[only], and what is the thing signified and the sign."*


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

title_alt:
Quando matrimonium fuerit institutum
When marriage was instituted

source_text:
<!-- page 661 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
### *De institutione Sacramenti matrimonii.*

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Quando matrimonium fuerit institutum.*

Circa primum ostenditur, quod matrimonium fuerit institutum *ante lapsum*:

1. Per illud quod dicitur Matthaei decimo nono[^p661-4]: *Non legistis, quod ab initio qui fecit homines masculum et feminam fecit illos? Et dixit: Propter hoc* etc.

2. Item, Magister in littera[^p661-5]: «Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum exordium sumserint, ma-
<!-- page 662 -->
trimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia usus coniugii est ad procreationem prolis; sed prolis procreatio conveniebat statui innocentiae: ergo tunc debuit institui.

4. Item, matrimonium est apud omnes, ergo est de dictamine naturae[^p662-1]; sed talia ab initio homini sunt impressa: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Hugo de sancto Victore[^p662-2]: «Tempus institutionis Sacramentorum ex tunc esse coepit, quando homo a gaudiis paradisi eiectus est»; et ita videtur, quod matrimonium post lapsum sit institutum.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Sacramentum est medicina contra morbum; sed tempore status innocentiae nullus fuit morbus: ergo etc. *Si tu dicas*, sicut dicit Magister[^p662-3], quod «institutum est in officium, non in remedium»; quaeritur tunc: quare similiter alia non sunt instituta in officium et post in remedium, sicut matrimonium?

3. Item, Sacramenta sunt signa visibilia rerum invisibilium, per quae homo manuducitur ad spiritualia cognoscenda; sed Adam non indigebat manuduci, quia «spirituali mente erat praeditus[^p662-4]»: ergo non fuit necesse institui in statu innocentiae.

4. Item, ante lapsum non erat maior inordinatio vel libido in actu generativae quam in actu nutritivae; sed licuit Adae comedere de *omni ligno*[^p662-5]: ergo similiter videtur, quod licuit ei coire cum omni muliere; aut si non; quaeritur: quare magis est arctatus ad istum actum quam ad alium?

Item, cum post lapsum habeamus Sacramentum, quod respicit actum *nutritivae* et *generativae*, et utrumque est in *remedium*[^p662-6]; quare Adam similiter non habuit in statu innocentiae Sacramentum, quantum ad utrumque actum in *officium*? Et videtur, quod magis debuit habere quantum ad *nutritivam*, quia nutritiva magis erat ibi in usu quam *generativa*.

### CONCLUSIO.

> *Matrimonium fuit institutum tempore status innocentiae tantum in officium, post lapsum etiam in remedium.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quia *institutio* respicit usum, et usus matrimonii est in remedium et est in officium; usus autem aliorum Sacramentorum est tantum in remedium: ideo matrimonii usus non tantum convenit infirmis, sed etiam sanis; et ideo duplex fuit eius institutio: una ante lapsum in officium, et alia post lapsum in remedium[^p662-7]. Est autem usus matrimonii in remedium contra *ignorantiam*, dum erudit in quantum signum; et in remedium contra *concupiscentiam*, dum illam refrenat ut medicamentum. Sic et eius officium fuit quantum ad duas operationes potentiarum: et quantum ad actum *cognitivae*, ut homo videret exterius coniunctionem in creatura, quam intelligebat[^p662-8] interius, non, inquam, ut erudiretur, sed ut, videndo materialiter quod sciebat, oblectaretur. Similiter quantum ad actum *generativae* fuit in officium, ut, quia per se homo non potuit speciem conservare, adiuncta socia, in actum illum *conservationis* prodire posset.

1. 2. 3. Ex hoc patent tria obiecta.

4. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de nutritiva, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia ibi fit continua deperditio per calorem; ideo frequens debet fieri restauratio et de multis, non de uno tantum. — Aliter potest dici, quod duplex est *deperditio*, scilicet quantum ad humidum *nutrimentale* et *radicale*; similiter duplex est *restauratio*, scilicet quantum ad humidum *nutrimentale* per *lignum paradisi*, et similiter quantum ad humidum *radicale* per *lignum vitae*[^p662-9]; hoc autem, ut dicit Augustinus, non solum fuit in *usum*, sed etiam in *Sacramentum*. Significabat enim pastum sapientiae interiorem; et quia una est sapientia, unicus fuit ille cibus, licet alii essent plures. Similiter, quia in actu coniugii intelligitur coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae[^p662-10]; et Christus est sponsus unicus, et Ecclesia unica: inde est, quod divina institutione est mulier viro matrimonio coniuncta, sicut et lignum vitae provisum in Sacramentum. Quia vero per peccatum est amissa conservatio *individui*[^p662-11], salva nihilominus illa quae est *speciei*; ideo remansit matrimonium, sed non remansit illud lignum; habuerunt tamen aliquod signum, quousque Christus incarnaretur[^p662-12].

Si tunc quaeratur: quare magis quantum ad nutritivam et generativam Adam habuit Sacramenta quam quantum ad alias potentias, ut visum etc.? dicendum, quod ista fuerunt in usum et in talem
<!-- page 663 -->
usum, qui veniebat ex indigentia. Nam Adam nec per se poterat conservari[^p663-1] nec per se poterat generare. Et ideo indiguit aliquibus, quibus uteretur; et quia usus exterioris hominis et indigentia importabant similitudinem interioris, quia anima non per se potest vivere, nisi reficiatur a Christo, nec similiter per se bona opera facere, nisi fecundetur ab ipso: ideo patet, quod utrumque fuit Sacramentum, nec penes alios sensus oportuit alia Sacramenta institui.

english:
### Article I.
### *On the institution of the Sacrament of matrimony.*

### Question I.
### *When marriage was instituted.*

Concerning the first point it is shown that marriage was instituted *before the fall*:

1. By that which is said in Matthew, chapter nineteen[^p661-4]: *Have you not read, that he who from the beginning made men made them male and female? And he said: For this cause* etc.

2. Likewise, the Master in the [Lombard's] text[^p661-5]: «Although the other Sacraments took their beginning after sin, the Sacrament of matrimony is read to have been instituted even before sin.»

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because the use of marriage is for the procreation of offspring; but the procreation of offspring was befitting to the state of innocence: therefore it ought then to have been instituted.

4. Likewise, marriage exists among all peoples, therefore it is from the dictate of nature[^p662-1]; but such things were impressed upon man from the beginning: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Hugh of St. Victor[^p662-2]: «The time of the institution of the Sacraments began from the point when man was cast out from the joys of paradise»; and thus it seems that marriage was instituted after the fall.

2. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because a Sacrament is a medicine against disease; but in the time of the state of innocence there was no disease: therefore etc. *If you say*, as the Master says[^p662-3], that «it was instituted as an office, not as a remedy»; then it is asked: why were not the other [Sacraments] likewise instituted as an office and afterward as a remedy, like marriage?

3. Likewise, Sacraments are visible signs of invisible things, by which man is led by the hand to the knowledge of spiritual things; but Adam did not need to be led by the hand, because «he was endowed with a spiritual mind[^p662-4]»: therefore it was not necessary that it be instituted in the state of innocence.

4. Likewise, before the fall there was no greater disorder or concupiscence in the act of the generative [power] than in the act of the nutritive; but it was permitted to Adam to eat of *every tree*[^p662-5]: therefore it likewise seems that it was permitted to him to have intercourse with every woman; or if not, it is asked: why was he more restricted to this act than to another?

Likewise, since after the fall we have a Sacrament which regards the act of the *nutritive* and of the *generative* [powers], and each is a *remedy*[^p662-6]; why did Adam likewise not have in the state of innocence a Sacrament, as regards each act, as an *office*? And it seems that he ought rather to have had one as regards the *nutritive*, because the nutritive was there more in use than the generative.

### Conclusion.

> *Marriage was instituted in the time of the state of innocence only as an office; after the fall, also as a remedy.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, because *institution* regards use, and the use of marriage is a remedy and is an office, whereas the use of the other Sacraments is only a remedy: therefore the use of marriage befits not only the sick but also the healthy; and therefore its institution was twofold: one before the fall as an office, and another after the fall as a remedy[^p662-7]. Now the use of marriage is a remedy against *ignorance*, inasmuch as it instructs [man] as a sign; and a remedy against *concupiscence*, inasmuch as it restrains it as a medicine. So too its office was in respect of two operations of the powers: both as regards the act of the *cognitive* [power], that man might see outwardly in a creature the conjunction which he understood[^p662-8] inwardly — not, I say, that he might be instructed, but that, seeing materially what he knew, he might take delight; likewise as regards the act of the *generative* [power] it was an office, so that, because man could not by himself preserve the species, with a companion joined to him he might be able to proceed to that act of *preservation*.

1. 2. 3. From this the three objections are made clear.

4. But to that which is objected concerning the nutritive [power], it must be said that it is not a similar case, because there a continual loss occurs through heat; therefore restoration must be made frequently and from many things, not from one only. — Otherwise it can be said that loss (*deperditio*) is twofold, namely as regards the *nutrimental* and the *radical* moisture; likewise restoration is twofold, namely as regards the *nutrimental* moisture through the *tree of paradise*, and likewise as regards the *radical* moisture through the *tree of life*[^p662-9]; and this, as Augustine says, was not only for use but also for a Sacrament. For it signified the inward nourishment of wisdom; and because wisdom is one, that food was single, although the others were many. Likewise, because in the act of marriage the conjunction of Christ and the Church is understood[^p662-10]; and Christ is the one bridegroom, and the Church is one: hence it is that by divine institution woman is joined to man in marriage, just as the tree of life too was provided for a Sacrament. But because through sin the preservation of the *individual* was lost[^p662-11], while nevertheless that which belongs to the *species* was preserved; therefore marriage remained, but that tree did not remain; yet they had some sign, until Christ should be incarnate[^p662-12].

If it then be asked: why did Adam have Sacraments as regards the nutritive and the generative [powers] rather than as regards the other powers, such as sight etc.? it must be said that these were for use and for such
use as came from need. For Adam could neither preserve himself by himself[^p663-1] nor generate by himself. And therefore he needed certain things which he might use; and because the use of the outer man and [his] need bore a likeness of the inner [man] — since the soul cannot live by itself, unless it be refreshed by Christ, nor likewise do good works by itself, unless it be made fruitful by him — therefore it is clear that each was a Sacrament, nor with respect to the other senses was it necessary that other Sacraments be instituted.

la: Vers. 4. seq.: *Non legistis, quia qui fecit hominem ab initio masculum et feminam fecit eos* [Gen. 1, 27.]? *et dixit* [Gen. 2, 24.]: *Propter hoc dimittet homo patrem* etc.

en: Verses 4 f.: *Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning made them male and female* [Gen. 1:27]? *and said* [Gen. 2:24]: *For this cause shall a man leave father* etc.

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1 [i.e. in the Master's text, chapter 1].

la: Cfr. supra pag. 436, nota 2.

en: Cf. above, p. 436, note 2.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 12: *Tempus institutionis Sacramentorum ab eo incepisse creditur, quo primus parens merito inobedientiae a gaudiis paradisi expulsus* etc.

en: *On the Sacraments*, Book I, part VIII, c. 12: *The time of the institution of the Sacraments is believed to have begun from that [point] at which the first parent, by the desert of his disobedience, was expelled from the joys of paradise* etc.

la: Hic in lit. c. 1. et 2. — Inferius post *instituta* cod. R addit *prius*.

en: Here in the [Master's] text, cc. 1 and 2. — Below, after *instituta* codex R adds *prius*.

la: Ut insinuat August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 42. n. 58. et 60. Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXII. c. 3. Vide etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 5.

en: As Augustine intimates, *On Genesis according to the Letter* XI, c. 42, nn. 58 and 60. Cf. Bk. II Sent., the Master's text, d. XXII, c. 3. See also above, the Master's text, d. 1, c. 5.

la: Scilicet Sacramentum eucharistiae et matrimonii; cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. I. ad 3. — Superius pro *habeamus*, quod habet cod. P (E F a secunda manu), cod. O *habemus*, codd. RSTUX *habuit*, ed. I cum multis codd. *hominum*, cod. L *hominem*, Vat. perperam *non habeamus*.

en: Namely the Sacrament of the eucharist and of matrimony; cf. above, d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. I, ad 3. — Above, for *habeamus* (which codex P has — E, F by a second hand), codex O [reads] *habemus*, codices RSTUX *habuit*, ed. I with many codices *hominum*, codex L *hominem*, the Vatican [edition] wrongly *non habeamus*.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: See here the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Codd. I K *intellexerat*.

en: Codices I, K [read] *intellexerat* (had understood).

la: Gen. 2, 9. — Verba August. vide supra pag. 184, nota 3. — De humido nutrimentali et radicali cfr. tom. I. pag. 316, nota 12. — Inferius pro *interiorem* plurimi codd. minus apte, ut videtur, *interioris*.

en: Gen. 2:9. — For Augustine's words see above, p. 184, note 3. — On the nutrimental and radical moisture cf. tom. I, p. 316, note 12. — Below, for *interiorem* very many codices, less aptly (as it seems), [read] *interioris*.

la: Vide infra a. 2. q. I, et hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Inferius pro *matrimonio* codd. F L *matrimonialiter*.

en: See below, a. 2, q. I, and here in the Master's text, c. 6. — Below, for *matrimonio* codices F, L [read] *matrimonialiter*.

la: Rom. 5, 12: *Per peccatum mors*.

en: Rom. 5:12: *Through sin, death*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. I. ad 3. — Edd. *nasceretur*.

en: Cf. above, d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. I, ad 3. — The editions [read] *nasceretur* (should be born).

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. et 3. — Superius pro *visum* cod. U *visivam*, plures codd. pro *etc.* perperam substituunt *est*, cod. A *est supra*. In fine solut. pro *utrumque* edd. *unicum*.

en: See Bk. II Sent., d. 19, a. 2 and 3. — Above, for *visum* codex U [reads] *visivam*, several codices wrongly substitute *est* for *etc.*, codex A *est supra*. At the end of the solution, for *utrumque* the editions [read] *unicum*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quid sit matrimonium *re* et *nomine*, explicatur infra d. 27. a. 1. et dub. 1; de ratione Sacramenti, quae ei competit, cfr. infra a. 2. et d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. 3; de consensu ut causa eiusdem d. 27. a. 2, et d. 28-30; de indissolubilitate d. 27. a. 3. et d. 33. a. 3; de bonis tribus eiusdem d. 31. a. 1; de usu ibid. a. 2. et d. 32; de unitate d. 33. a. 1. et 3; de relatione eius ad virginitatem ibid. a. 2; de impedimentis d. 34-42; de toto tractatu Breviloq. p. VI. c. 13.

**II.** Communes et necessario faciendae sunt distinctiones circa matrimonium in ratione vel *contractus*, vel *Sacramenti*; item, ut est in *officium*, vel *in remedium*; denique ut primitus institutum a Deo, vel ut ad dignitatem Sacramenti elevatum a Christo, qui est «venerabilium Sacramentorum *institutor* atque *perfector*» (Conc. Trident. Sess. XXIV. prooem.).

De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 18. et n. 9. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; Suppl. q. 42. a. 2; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 78. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.

**III.** De 2. quaestione: Scot., loc. cit. n. 13. — S. Thom., locc. citt. et q. 1. a. 1; Suppl. q. 41. a. 1. — B. Albert. rem[?] hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. et 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 1. 3.

**IV.** Quaestionem 3. Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 1-3.) dividit in tres quaestiones secundum tria tempora: *ante peccatum*, et tunc usum matrimonii ad finem generis conservandi praeceptum fuisse docet; *post peccatum* et ante sufficientem multiplicationem generis humani, et tunc etiam praeceptum fuisse; denique *nunc* post sufficientem hominum multiplicationem, et sic cessasse dicit hoc praeceptum *affirmativum* quoad individua. Denique quoad finem secundarium *evitandae fornicationis* nunquam fuit *praeceptum*, sed tantum *indulgentia*. Eundem modum dicendi adhibet S. Bonav. Non re ipsa, sed tantum in *modo loquendi* dissentientes, alii, ut Scot. (loc. cit. n. 18.) et Durand. (hic q. 2.), dicunt, praeceptum illud, utpote non revocatum, adhuc durare, scilicet eo sensu, quem sic exhibet S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 1; cfr. Suppl. q. 41. a. 2.): «Dicendum, quod praeceptum illud non est revocatum, non tamen obligat unumquemque, ratione iam dicta, nisi illo tempore, quo paucitas hominum exigebat» etc.

De 3. quaestione praeter locos citt.: B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1-3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** What marriage is *in reality* and *in name* is explained below, d. 27, a. 1, and dub. 1; concerning the character of the Sacrament which belongs to it, cf. below, a. 2, and d. 31, a. 1, q. 2, 3; concerning consent as its cause, d. 27, a. 2, and d. 28-30; concerning indissolubility, d. 27, a. 3, and d. 33, a. 3; concerning the three goods, of the same [distinction], d. 31, a. 1; concerning [their] use, ibid., a. 2, and d. 32; concerning unity, d. 33, a. 1 and 3; concerning its relation to virginity, ibid., a. 2; concerning impediments, d. 34-42; concerning the whole treatise, *Breviloquium*, part VI, c. 13.

**II.** Common and necessarily to be made are the distinctions concerning marriage: in the character of a *contract* or of a *Sacrament*; likewise, as it is an *office* or *a remedy*; finally, as first instituted by God, or as elevated to the dignity of a Sacrament by Christ, who is «the *institutor* and *perfecter* of the venerable Sacraments» (Council of Trent, Session XXIV, proem.).

On the 1st question: Scotus, here q. unica, n. 18 and nn. 9 ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2; Suppl. q. 42, a. 2; *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 78. — B. Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.

**III.** On the 2nd question: Scotus, loc. cit., n. 13. — St. Thomas, locc. citt. and q. 1, a. 1; Suppl. q. 41, a. 1. — B. Albert rem[?], here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 3 and 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit., q. 1, 3.

**IV.** Question 3 Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 2, a. 1-3) divides into three questions according to three times: *before sin*, and he teaches that then the use of marriage was commanded for the end of preserving the race; *after sin* and before the sufficient multiplication of the human race, and that then also it was commanded; finally, *now*, after the sufficient multiplication of men, and thus he says that this *affirmative* command has ceased as regards individuals. Finally, as regards the secondary end of *avoiding fornication*, it was never a *command*, but only an *indulgence*. St. Bonaventure employs the same manner of speaking. Dissenting not in the matter itself, but only in the *manner of speaking*, others, such as Scotus (loc. cit., n. 18) and Durandus (here q. 2), say that that command, inasmuch as it has not been revoked, still endures, namely in the sense which St. Thomas thus sets forth (here q. 1, a. 2, ad 1; cf. Suppl. q. 41, a. 2): «It must be said that that command has not been revoked, yet it does not oblige each individual, for the reason already stated, except at that time when the fewness of men required [it]» etc.

On the 3rd question, besides the places cited: B. Albert, here a. 10. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1-3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 661–663 (PDF pp. 681–683; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 71685–71922) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The auto-chunk skeleton's fenced OCR is cascade-shattered (two-column diagonal bleed), so the bands are authoritative throughout. The default `colcrop.py` bands (`split_x=1660`, and a first pass at `1880`) clipped the skewed two-column gutter; bands were regenerated at **`split_x=2120` for the left column and `split_x=1780` for the right** (Vol IV's page is skewed/wide — the left column runs to ≈ x 2000, the right column begins ≈ x 1770). Marginal side-glosses (*Ad oppositum*, *Quaestio incidens*, *Duplex finis*, *Duplex institutio/medela*, *Solutio positorum*, *Alia solutio*, *Nota*) were trimmed per house rule as editorial marginalia; `CONCLUSIO` and `RESPONDEO` are retained as genuine section markers.

**This chunk is Distinction XXVI, Articulus I (*De institutione Sacramenti matrimonii*), Quaestio I** — *Quando matrimonium fuerit institutum* (whether marriage was instituted before or after the fall). Per the locked Vol II/IV chunking convention, the short `ARTICULUS I / De institutione Sacramenti matrimonii` opener that immediately precedes `QUAESTIO I` is folded into this q1 (no standalone article-opener chunk). The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (top of printed p. 661), **including the article-level question list** *Circa primum tria quaeruntur: primo… quando fuerit institutum; secundo, a quo; tertio… qualiter fuerit institutum*, belongs to the **d.26 divisio chunk**, not here.

**Opener alignment verified.** The distinction-level TRACTATIO (p. 661) lists the two articles (*primo… de eius institutione; secundo, de eius integritate*) and Article I's three questions (*quando* / *a quo* / *qualiter fuerit institutum*). This chunk is the **first** question of Article I (*quando* — when), and Q1's body correctly opens *Circa primum ostenditur, quod matrimonium fuerit institutum ante lapsum*. No q-swap. QUAESTIO II (*A quo Sacramentum matrimonii fuerit institutum*) begins on the lower half of p. 663 → next chunk `bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q2`.

**Page-span correction.** The skeleton frontmatter listed printed pp. 661–**664**; page-verify against the running heads and the QUAESTIO II boundary shows this quaestio (body + scholion) closes on **p. 663**, before QUAESTIO II starts (lower p. 663). Frontmatter corrected to `printed_pages: [661, 662, 663]` / `pdf_pages: [681, 682, 683]`. Page 664 belongs to a1-q2/onward.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p. 661** (running head "DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I."): the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I opener + *videtur* arg. 1 (Matt. 19) and the head of arg. 2 (Master's text). Footer note-series has five entries; **notes 1–3 belong to the preceding divisio** (Aristot. *quadruplex genus causae*; *naturalem repraesentationem*; *Edd. omittunt tantum…*), and **notes 4–5 are this quaestio's** (Matt. 19 verse; Master's text c. 1) — rendered here as `p661-4…5`.
- **p. 662** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 662"): tail of arg. 2, *videtur* args. 3–4, the four *Contra* arguments + the unnumbered incidental objection (*Quaestio incidens*), CONCLUSIO, and the Respondeo (*Duplex finis*) running to the foot. Footer note-series **1–12**, all this quaestio's (`p662-1…12`).
- **p. 663** (running head "DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. II. — 663"): the Respondeo's tail (*usum, qui veniebat ex indigentia … alia Sacramenta institui*), then the ARTICLE I **SCHOLION** filling both columns, then QUAESTIO II beginning lower. Only Respondeo-tail note 1 (`p663-1`, the *conservari* / *visum* / *utrumque* composite note) belongs to this quaestio; the scholion is unkeyed; p. 663's remaining footer notes (2–8) belong to QUAESTIO II.

**Scholion disposition — this is the Article I scholion (owned here).** Its header glyph OCR-garbles to `SCHOLIOK`; located at raw ~L71880 by content. Placed **last** in each language block per the parser gotcha. It has **four numbered sections and covers all three questions of Article I**: **§ I** = a topical roadmap (where marriage's *ratio*, consent, indissolubility, goods, unity, impediments etc. are treated); **§ II** = the necessary distinctions (contract/Sacrament; office/remedy; instituted by God / elevated by Christ, with the Trent Sess. XXIV citation) + the doctor-register *De 1. quaestione* (→ **q. 1**); **§ III** = *De 2. quaestione* doctor-register (→ **q. 2**); **§ IV** = *Quaestionem 3.* (Peter of Tarentaise's three-times division + the whole *praeceptum*/*indulgentia* discussion) + *De 3. quaestione* doctor-register (→ **q. 3**). It carries no keyed `[^N]` markers (unkeyed editorial prose). `has_scholion: true` set.

**Apparatus count: 15 footnotes** — p. 661 notes 4–5 (2), p. 662 notes 1–12 (12), p. 663 note 1 (1). Per-page numbering restarts (Quaracchi convention), so markers are page-prefixed (`p661-`, `p662-`, `p663-`). **Shared-page split:** p. 661's footer notes **1–3 are claimed by the d.26 divisio chunk**, not here (verify at the seam when that chunk is promoted); p. 663's footer notes **2–8 belong to `bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q2`** (QUAESTIO II).

**[?] flags:**
- **Scholion § III, `B. Albert. rem[?] hic a. 1.`** — at the left→right column break the left column's last visible token reads `rem` immediately before the right column resumes `hic a. 1.` (`— B. Albert. rem` | `hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar.…`). No word cleanly joins `rem` to `hic a. 1.` The parallel Article-I scholion at d.25-a1-q1 § II reads simply `B. Albert., hic a. 1.`, so `rem` is most likely a stray mark or an unresolved abbreviation. Rendered verbatim with an inline `[?]`; not doctrinally load-bearing (a doctor-citation register).