title: Dist. 42, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 874 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum cognatio legalis debeat impedire matrimonium.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum cognatio legalis debeat impedire matrimonium. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia[^p874-6], *Ita diligere*, Nicolaus Papa dicit, et habetur in littera: « Inter eos non contrahitur matrimonium, quos adoptio iungit ».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia alius est et debet esse affectus paternus et maritalis[^p874-7]: si ergo adoptans aliquam tenetur eam tractare affectione paterna, ergo nullatenus potest nec debet affectione mariti.

3. Item, cognationis vinculum impedit propter
<!-- page 875 -->
proximitatem; sed in cognatione legali fit proximitas[^p875-1]: ergo fit matrimonio impedimentum.

**Contra:**
1. Cognatio legalis est de iure positivo, sed matrimonium de iure naturali; sed ea quae sunt iuris positivi, non possunt super ea quae sunt naturalis alligationis[^p875-2]: ergo nec talis adoptio potest impedire matrimonium.

2. Item, matrimonia reguntur iure poli, non iure fori[^p875-3]; sed tales adoptiones sunt de iure fori: ergo per tales adoptiones non habet matrimonium impediri.

3. Item, talis cognatio legalis nulli bono matrimonii repugnat; sed omne quod praestat impedimentum matrimonio, ratione alicuius boni[^p875-4] impedimentum praestat: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Cognatio legalis impedit matrimonium.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cognatio legalis impedit matrimonium. Et ratio huius est statutum Ecclesiae, quae legem confirmat et approbat.

Si autem quaeritur: quare Ecclesia statuit? dici potest, quod ratione honestatis: quoniam isti affectus, scilicet paternus et maritalis, circa eandem personam sunt incompossibiles, salva honestate; et quoniam alis cognatio ad affectum consanguinitatis perducit, si quis contraheret, iam in hoc honestati derogaret; et qui assuesceret contrahere cum filia adoptiva, aut parum aut nihil cum naturali timeret contrahere, cum illam assumserit ad pertractandum ut filiam naturalem. Et sic patet, quare debet impedire.

Quomodo autem impediat secundum tres differentias ita, quod secundum alteram ad tempus tantum, supra[^p875-5] dictum est. — Ratio autem huius est: quia illa adoptio tenet ratione eius, quod sub *eadem potestate* sunt filia naturalis et filius adoptivus, nec se habent ut fratres, nisi quamdiu sic sunt; et ideo, hoc cessante, possunt se habere secundum affectionem coniugalem. — His visis, satis patent obiecta.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Quod enim obiicitur, quod ius positivum non repugnat iuri naturali; dicendum, quod matrimonium non tantum est de iure naturali, secundum quod currit nunc Ecclesia, sed etiam regi oportet secundum ecclesiastica statuta.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod regitur iure poli; iam patet responsio: quia Ecclesia tale impedimentum sua constitutione et approbatione fecit esse validum; alioquin non posset impedire.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non impedit aliquod bonum matrimonii; dicendum, quod sicut supra[^p875-6] dictum fuit de cognatione carnali, quod impeditur bonum naturalis honestatis, propter quod conservandum principaliter est institutum matrimonium[^p875-7].

---

english:
<!-- page 874 -->

### Question II. *Whether legal kinship ought to impede marriage.*

Secondly it is asked whether legal kinship ought to impede marriage. And that it ought, it seems.

1. In Cause thirty, question three[^p874-6], [the canon] *Ita diligere*, Pope Nicholas says — and it is contained in the [Master's] text: «Between those whom adoption joins, marriage is not contracted».

2. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: because paternal and marital affection is, and ought to be, distinct[^p874-7]: if therefore one adopting some woman is bound to treat her with paternal affection, then in no way can he, nor ought he, [treat her] with a husband's affection.

3. Likewise, the bond of kinship impedes on account of
<!-- page 875 -->
nearness; but in legal kinship nearness is produced[^p875-1]: therefore it becomes an impediment to marriage.

**Contra:**
1. Legal kinship is of positive law, but marriage is of natural law; but those things which are of positive law cannot [prevail] over those which are of natural binding[^p875-2]: therefore neither can such adoption impede marriage.

2. Likewise, marriages are governed by the law of heaven [*ius poli*], not by the law of the court [*ius fori*][^p875-3]; but such adoptions are of the law of the court: therefore marriage cannot be impeded through such adoptions.

3. Likewise, such legal kinship is repugnant to no good of marriage; but everything that furnishes an impediment to marriage furnishes an impediment by reason of some good[^p875-4]: therefore etc.

### Conclusio

> Legal kinship impedes marriage.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that legal kinship impedes marriage. And the reason for this is the statute of the Church, which confirms and approves the law.

But if it is asked: why did the Church establish [this]? it can be said [that it is] by reason of honesty: because these affections, namely the paternal and the marital, are incompossible in regard to the same person, honesty being preserved; and because such kinship leads to the affection of consanguinity, if anyone were to contract [marriage], he would in this very act derogate from honesty; and one who grew accustomed to contracting with an adoptive daughter would fear little or nothing to contract with a natural one, since he had taken her up to be treated as a natural daughter. And thus it is clear why it ought to impede.

But in what manner it impedes according to three differences — such that according to one [of them only] for a time — has been said above[^p875-5]. — And the reason for this is: because that adoption holds by reason of the fact that the natural daughter and the adoptive son are under the *same power*, nor do they stand to one another as brother and sister except so long as they are so; and therefore, this ceasing, they can behave toward one another according to conjugal affection. — These things having been seen, the objections are sufficiently clear.

**To the arguments:**

*Ad 1.* As for what is objected, that positive law is not repugnant to natural law; it must be said that marriage is not only of natural law, according to which the Church now proceeds, but also must be governed according to ecclesiastical statutes.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that it is governed by the law of heaven; the response is now clear: because the Church, by its constitution and approbation, made such an impediment to be valid; otherwise it could not impede.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that it does not impede any good of marriage; it must be said that, as was said above[^p875-6] concerning carnal kinship, the good of natural honesty is impeded, for the preserving of which marriage was principally instituted[^p875-7].

---

la: Can. 1. allegatus hic in lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Canon 1, cited here in the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Vide supra d. 40. q. 2. in corp.

en: See above, d. 40, q. 2, in the body.

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Cod. G addit *vel iuris*.

en: Codex G adds *or of law* [«naturalis alligationis *vel iuris*»].

la: Cfr. supra d. 37. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: Cf. above, d. 37, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.

la: Codd. G aa supplent *matrimonii*.

en: Codices G aa supply *of marriage* [«alicuius boni *matrimonii*»].

la: In *Praenotatis* ad hunc art. — Superius pro *naturalem* multi codd. *naturaliter*. Circa finem corp. pro *possunt* edd. *potest*.

en: In the *Prolegomena* to this article. — Above, for *naturalem* many codices [read] *naturaliter*. Near the end of the body, for *possunt* the editions [read] *potest*.

la: Dist. 40. q. 2. — Mox pro *impeditur* Vat. *impedit*.

en: [See] d. 40, q. 2. — Soon after, for *impeditur* the Vatican [edition reads] *impedit*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw L93074–93149) collated column-by-column against the vol4 PDF page-image bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{874,875}-{L,R}-*.png`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the two-column body and page footers). Body reads left column then right column per page; the left-column bands were cut at their right margin, so run-off line-ends were recovered from the right-column bands and the raw OCR. English is a fresh literal parallel translation.

**Structure.** Standard scholastic pattern: three numbered *fundamenta* ("Et quod sic, videtur") argue that legal kinship OUGHT to impede marriage; three *Contra* argue it ought NOT; Conclusio + Respondeo affirm the impediment (grounded in the Church's statute and the *ratio honestatis*); the closing replies (*Ad 1 / Ad 2 / Ad 3*) answer the three *Contra* arguments. Quaracchi's editorial marginal glosses (*Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio.*, *Ratio.*, *Extensio impedimenti.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*) are trimmed per the marginalia rule.

**Seam — p.874 (shared with a2-q1).** The bulk of p.874 carries a2-q1: its Respondeo, Ratio 1–2, the *De sufficientia trium cognationum* discussion, and the **SCHOLION** ("In Praenotatis… / De his tribus quaestionibus…") — all belong to **a2-q1**, NOT rendered here. This q2 opens at the centered header *QUAESTIO II* near the foot of the left column and runs into the right column (args 2–3). Of p.874's seven footers, **1–5 are anchored in a2-q1's body** (fn 5's *alligatio* variant anchors on a2-q1's reply 4 "honestatis alligatio") → left for a2-q1; **6** (*Can. 1… in lit. Magistri c. 3*, on arg 1) and **7** (*Vide supra d. 40. q. 2.*, on arg 2) are anchored here → claimed.

**Seam — p.875 (shared with a2-q3).** QUAESTIO III opens at the foot of p.875. The page turn falls mid-argument-3 (after "…impedit propter" / before "proximitatem"). Of p.875's twelve footers, **1–7 are anchored in this q2 body** (1 on arg 3, 2–4 on the Contra, 5 on the *Extensio*, 6–7 on the *Ad 3* reply) → all claimed here. Footers **8–12** (*Can. Ita diligere…*, *Vide supra a. 1. q. 3…*, *Cfr. Praenotata…*, *Vide Praenotata ad 1. art.…*, *Can. 6…*) are anchored in QUAESTIO III's opening arguments → **handed off to a2-q3**.

**Apparatus count.** 9 footers total — **p.874: 2** (Quaracchi fnn. 6–7) + **p.875: 7** (Quaracchi fnn. 1–7). Labels preserve the Quaracchi per-page footer numbers.

**[?] flags.**
- Respondeo, "et quoniam **alis** cognatio ad affectum consanguinitatis perducit" — **RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** Re-read at 600 dpi on the p.875 left column (PDF p.895), with the word magnified: the print shows four letters, *a-l-i-s*, at the head of the line, with no *t* and no hyphenation from the preceding line (which ends *…et quoniam*). So *alis* is what Quaracchi set, and the raw OCR (L93147) is faithful. It is an evident dropped-*t* for **talis** — the very phrase stands three lines above in argument 3 on the same page (*talis cognatio legalis nulli bono matrimonii repugnat*) — but the emendation is Quaracchi's to make, not ours: the Latin is left as printed and the English keeps the sense-reading "such kinship." The `[?]` is removed because the *reading* is no longer in doubt.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 42, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 875 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum cognatio legalis transeat ab uno in alterum.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum cognatio legalis transeat in alterum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia[^1], et habetur in littera: «Inter eos qui natura, et eos qui adoptione sunt filii, venerandae leges matrimonia contrahi non permittunt»; hoc autem non esset, nisi cognatio transiret a patre in filium: ergo etc.

2. Item, plus concordat unio carnis cum cognatione legali quam spirituali; sed unio carnis facit cognationem spiritualem esse communem[^2]: ergo multo fortius cognationem legalem.

3. Item, cognatio carnalis et spiritualis transit: ergo pari ratione cognatio legalis. Aut si non, quare non? Quodsi non transiret, tunc non esset nisi unica species; nunc autem tres assignantur[^3].

**Contra:** 1. Quia cognatio spiritualis est communicabilis, ideo necesse est, quodsi aliquis efficitur spiritualis pater alicuius, quod efficiatur compater patris eiusdem[^4]: ergo pari ratione in adoptione; quod tamen non conceditur: ergo non est cognationis transitus.

2. Item, quia in cognatione spirituali transitus est a patre in filiam naturalem; ideo impossibile est, quod unquam contrahat filius spiritualis cum filia naturali: ergo pari ratione nunquam posset filius adoptivus contrahere cum naturali filia; cuius contrarium dicitur Causa trigesima, quaestione tertia[^5]: *Per adoptionem quaesita fraternitas.*

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum vinculum cognationis legalis transeat in filios et nepotes et in uxores, quare non transit in parentes, cum se habeant in eadem proximitate?

<!-- page 876 -->

### Conclusio.

> **Conclusio.** Vinculum cognationis legalis transit in uxorem simpliciter, in filios tantum ad tempus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod vinculum adoptionis transit in alteram personam dupliciter, scilicet per *carnis commixtionem* et per *generationem*; sed per carnis commixtionem transit *ad semper*, per generationem vero *ad tempus*.

Et ratio huius est, quia talis adoptio respicit bona temporalia et educationem paternam; et quoniam vir et uxor coniunguntur *ad semper* et omnia quae habent, pro indiviso habent; ideo contrahitur vinculum *sempiternum ad uxorem*. Sed *filii naturales* nec semper cohabitant nec semper cum parentibus habent bona indivisa, immo cum emancipantur, patrem relinquunt[^6]; et hinc est, quod *non manet illud vinculum*. — Et sic patet, quomodo transit illud vinculum, et quando simpliciter, et quando ad tempus.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud vero quod quaeritur: quare cognatio legalis non transit in patrem? dicendum, quod cognatio spiritualis transit in patrem, quoniam eundem regenerat, quem pater generavit, ita quod cognatio spiritualis respicit bonum interius; ideo communicatur in uno, et ideo contrahitur cognatio compaternitatis. Sed *adoptans* adoptatum assumit ad aliquid extra, ideo non sic communicatur. — Quod obiicitur secundo, iam patet.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare non transit in ascendendo? dicendum, quod humor venit a radice ad ramos, non e converso[^7]; et quoniam filii rami sunt patris, ideo cognatio legalis a patre communicatur filiis; non sic oportet nec debet communicari parentibus. — Et sic patet totum[^8].

english:
### Question III. *Whether legal kinship passes from one person to another.*

Thirdly it is asked whether legal kinship passes over into another. And that it does, seems [to be so]:

1. Cause thirty, question three[^1], and it is had in the text: "Between those who are sons by nature and those who are sons by adoption, the venerable laws do not permit marriages to be contracted"; but this would not be so, unless the kinship passed from father to son: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the union of flesh accords more with legal kinship than with spiritual; but the union of flesh makes spiritual kinship to be common[^2]: therefore much more strongly [does it make] legal kinship [common].

3. Likewise, carnal and spiritual kinship passes over: therefore by parity of reasoning legal kinship [does] also. Or if not, why not? And if it did not pass over, then there would be only a single species; but now three are assigned[^3].

**On the contrary:** 1. Since spiritual kinship is communicable, it is therefore necessary that, if someone is made the spiritual father of another, he be made the co-father of that same person's father[^4]: therefore by parity of reasoning [so also] in adoption; which nevertheless is not conceded: therefore there is no passing-over of kinship.

2. Likewise, since in spiritual kinship there is a passing-over from father to natural daughter; therefore it is impossible that a spiritual son should ever contract [marriage] with a natural daughter: therefore by parity of reasoning a son by adoption could never contract [marriage] with a natural daughter; the contrary of which is stated in Cause thirty, question three[^5]: *Through adoption a brotherhood is acquired.*

Alongside this it is asked: since the bond of legal kinship passes over into sons and grandsons and into wives, why does it not pass over into parents, since they stand in the same nearness?

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** The bond of legal kinship passes over into the wife simply, into the sons only for a time.

**I respond:** It must be said that the bond of adoption passes into another person in two ways, namely by *union of flesh* and by *generation*; but by union of flesh it passes over *forever*, whereas by generation [only] *for a time*.

And the reason for this is that such adoption regards temporal goods and paternal upbringing; and since husband and wife are joined *forever* and hold in common, undivided, all that they have; therefore a *perpetual bond to the wife* is contracted. But *natural sons* neither always live together nor always have undivided goods with their parents, indeed when they are emancipated, they leave the father[^6]; and hence it is that *that bond does not remain*. — And thus it is evident how that bond passes over, and when simply, and when for a time.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* As to that which is asked: why does legal kinship not pass over into the father? it must be said that spiritual kinship passes over into the father, because it regenerates the same one whom the father begot, so that spiritual kinship regards the interior good; therefore it is communicated in one, and thus the kinship of co-paternity is contracted. But *the adopter* takes the adopted one to something external, therefore it is not so communicated. — As to what is objected in the second place, it is already evident.

As to that which is asked: why does it not pass over in ascending? it must be said that the sap comes from the root to the branches, not the reverse[^7]; and since the sons are the branches of the father, therefore legal kinship is communicated from the father to the sons; it is not so fitting nor ought it to be communicated to the parents. — And thus the whole is evident[^8].

la: Can. *Ita diligere* (1.), hic in lit. Magistri, c. 3. allegatus.

en: Canon *Ita diligere* (law 1), cited here in the Master's text, c. 3.

la: Vide supra a. I. q. 3, ubi etiam de seq. arg.

en: See above, article I, question 3, where also concerning the following argument.

la: Cfr. Praenotata ad hunc art. — Pro *tunc... unica species* edd. *hoc... quod unica esset species.*

en: Cf. the Praenotata to this article. — For "then... a single species" the editions [read] "this... that there would be a single species."

la: Vide Praenotata ad 1. art. huius dist., ubi et de maiori seq. arg.

en: See the Praenotata to the first article of this distinction, where also concerning the major [premise] of the following argument.

la: Can. 6. Cfr. Praenotata ad hunc art. in fine (codd. perperam *Post adoptionem*).

en: Canon 6. Cf. the Praenotata to this article at the end (the codices wrongly [read] *Post adoptionem* [After adoption]).

la: *Emancipatio* definitur: Relaxatio nexus patrii cum consensu patris emancipantis et filii emancipandi coram competente iudice. Cfr. Iustinian., l. Institut. imperial. *Quibus modis ius patriae potestatis solv.* (tit. 12.), lex *Videamus nunc* (1.), § *Praeter ea emancipatione*, et § *Et quidem neque.* — Edd. *patrem et matrem relinquunt.* Superius pro *cohabitant* cod. Z *communicant.*

en: "Emancipation" is defined: the loosening of the paternal bond, with the consent of the emancipating father and of the son to be emancipated, before a competent judge. Cf. Justinian, the Imperial Institutes, the [title] "By what modes the right of paternal power is dissolved" (title 12), the law *Videamus nunc* (1), § *Praeter ea emancipatione*, and § *Et quidem neque.* — The editions [read] "they leave father and mother." Above, for *cohabitant* [they dwell together] codex Z [reads] *communicant* [they share].

la: Chrysost., Homil. 32. in Matth. 19, 5. (opus imperfect.): *Humor quidem de radicibus ascendit in herbam, de herba non revertitur ad radices, sed sursum transmittitur in semen* etc. — Inferius pro *debet communicari* edd. *debent communicare.*

en: Chrysostom, Homily 32 on Matthew 19:5 (the *Opus imperfectum*): "The sap indeed ascends from the roots into the plant; from the plant it does not return to the roots, but is transmitted upward into the seed," etc. — Below, for "it ought to be communicated" the editions [read] "they ought to communicate."

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to the first question of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw L93150–L93220) with every damaged region (title bar, Respondeo, and all footers) authored from the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{875,876}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF-priority in cascade-shattered regions). English is a fresh literal translation. Column reflow was done Left-then-Right per page: on p.875 the *videtur* args (1–3) and the *Contra* args (1–2) plus the incidental question run L-column → R-column; the CONCLUSIO/Respondeo/solutions sit on p.876.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.875** (running head "DIST. XLII. ART. II. QUAEST. III. — 875"): the upper L-column holds the tail of **a2-q2** (its CONCLUSIO + Respondeo); QUAESTIO III begins mid-page. This chunk claims only the q3 material: the whole *videtur* + *Contra* section and the incidental *Iuxta hoc quaeritur*. Footer note-series **8–12** are q3's (rendered [^1]–[^5]); footers **1–7** on this page belong to a2-q2 and are left to that chunk.
- **p.876** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 876"): q3's CONCLUSIO, Respondeo (Ratio utriusque), and *Solutio oppositorum* (replies to args 1/2 + the incidental) occupy the top of both columns. Footer note-series **1–3** are q3's (rendered [^6]–[^8]).

**Seam dispositions.**
- **p.875 seam (shared with a2-q2):** a2-q2's Respondeo tail and its footers 1–7 remain with a2-q2; this chunk takes only q3 (footers 8–12). The q3 opener is grammatically self-contained ("Tertio quaeritur…").
- **p.876 seam (shared with a3-q1):** ARTICULUS III (*De secundis nuptiis*) and its QUAESTIO I (*Utrum secundae nuptiae sint licitae*) begin lower on p.876 (L-column below q3's Respondeo, continuing R-column). That opener, its *Consequenter … quaeruntur tria* division, and **p.876 footers 4–10** all belong to **a3-q1** and are left untouched here. q3's tail ("Et sic patet totum") closes cleanly before the ARTICULUS III heading; no splice across the boundary.

**Editorial marginal glosses omitted** (side-notes, not Bonaventure's text): *Ad oppositum*, *Quaestio incidens*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio utriusque*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Ad quaestionem incidentem*.

**`[?]` flags:** none — the bands resolved every OCR garble (title bar, the two-column footer wraps for [^6]/[^7], and the *communicabilis / compater* Contra region) unambiguously.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum secundae nuptiae sint licitae
Whether second marriages are licit

source_text:
<!-- page 876 -->

### Articulus III. *De secundis nuptiis.*

Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de secundo foedere nuptiali. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria: Primo quaeritur, utrum secundae nuptiae sint licitae. Secundo, utrum sint sacramentales. Tertio, utrum sint honorabiles.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum secundae nuptiae sint licitae.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footer numbering on each printed page; here p.876 carries the edition's notes 4–10 (notes 1–3 belong to the preceding a2-q3) and p.877 carries its notes 1–4. In this chunk they are renumbered sequentially 1–11.

Quantum ergo ad primum ostenditur, quod secundae nuptiae non sint licitae.

1. Chrysostomus[^1]: « Secundum virum accipere secundum praeceptum Apostoli licitum, secundum veritatem fornicatio est »; sed de unoquoque iudicandum est secundum veritatem: ergo secundae nuptiae non sunt licitae, cum nec fornicatio.

2. Item, Ambrosius[^2]: « A secundo die subtraxit Deus benedictionem, nobis intelligentiam derelinquens, non bonum esse matrimonium duplex, quia ab unitate dividit »; sed ibi « praefigurantur secundarum foedera nuptiarum »: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia bigamus non potest promoveri ad sacros ordines[^3]; sed poena non infligitur nisi pro culpa: ergo in bigamia est culpa.

4. Item, peccatum est habere plures uxores simul, nisi dispensetur a Deo[^4]: ergo pari ratione videtur esse peccatum habere plures *successive*. Si *dicas*, quod non est simile, quia, cum sunt simul, fit iniuria primae uxori, non tamen successive; *contra*: esto quod prima uxor velit, nihilominus est peccatum: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Abraham secundas contraxit nuptias cum Cethura, Genesis vigesimo quinto[^5]; et in hoc non reprehenditur: ergo licitum fuit ei, et sic etc.

2. Item, primae ad Timotheum quinto[^6]: *Volo iuniores nubere, filios procreare, matresfamilias esse*; loquitur de viduis.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia nuptiae sunt in *remedium*[^7]; sed cum mulier moritur, viro vivente,
<!-- page 877 -->
vel e converso, manet morbus, et non adest remedium: ergo licitum est remedium adhibere, ergo et matrimonium secundo contrahere.

4. Item, nuptiae sunt in *officium*, hoc est in procreationem filiorum ad Dei cultum; sed multi post obitum uxorum sunt idonei filios procreare, similiter multae mulieres post obitum virorum: ergo licet contrahere.

### Conclusio.

> **Conclusio.** Non solum secundae, sed etiam aliae ampliores nuptiae sunt licitae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non tantum secundae nuptiae, sed etiam tertiae et quartae et ampliores sunt licitae, dum tamen fiant bono fine, scilicet propter prolem generandam, vel propter fornicationem vitandam, vel propter necessitatem suam sustentandam, ut cum contrahit vir cum muliere, ut ipsum foveat, vel e converso. Unde Augustinus[^8] dicit: « Non contemnimus quotaslibet nuptias »; et Hieronymus etiam, quod « Dominus non damnavit mulierem septemviram ».

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod dicit Chrysostomus, quod secundum veritatem est fornicatio; dicendum, quod ipse vocat veritatem *coniecturam rationis*, quae tamen saepe fallitur, licet probabiliter iudicet. — Vel dicendum, quod fornicatio dicitur quaedam *immersio*[^9] libidinis, quia illud maxime consuevit movere ad secundas nuptias contrahendas.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod dicit Ambrosius, quod duplex matrimonium non est bonum; dicendum, quod illud intelligendum est sic: id est, non est honorabile[^10].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod punitur poena irregularitatis; dicendum, quod non posse ascendere ad sacros ordines non est poena, quia etiam nec mutus vel mutilatus naturaliter potest ascendere; nec tamen hoc est ei in poenam, sed quia non est idoneus.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non licet plures habere simul; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia, viro vivente, mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis, nec e converso vir, vivente muliere[^11]; et ideo non potest alteri dare, et si dat, contra ius facit. Sed mortua uxore, solutus est, et ideo alteri potest dare; et ideo licet, et non peccat.

english:
### Article III. *On second marriages.*

Next, as to the third article, inquiry is made concerning the second marriage-covenant. And concerning this three questions are raised: First it is asked, whether second marriages are licit. Secondly, whether they are sacramental. Thirdly, whether they are honorable.

### Question I. *Whether second marriages are licit.*

As to the first, then, it is shown that second marriages are not licit.

1. Chrysostom[^1]: "To take a second husband is, according to the precept of the Apostle, licit; according to truth it is fornication"; but concerning each thing one must judge according to truth: therefore second marriages are not licit, since neither is fornication.

2. Likewise, Ambrose[^2]: "From the second day God withdrew his blessing, leaving us to understand that a double marriage is not good, because it divides from unity"; but there "are prefigured the covenants of second marriages": therefore etc.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems: because a bigamist cannot be promoted to sacred orders[^3]; but a penalty is not inflicted except for fault: therefore in bigamy there is fault.

4. Likewise, it is a sin to have several wives at the same time, unless one be dispensed by God[^4]: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems to be a sin to have several *successively*. If you *say* that it is not similar, because, when they are at the same time, injury is done to the first wife, but not [when] successively; *on the contrary*: granted that the first wife should be willing, nevertheless it is a sin: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Abraham contracted a second marriage with Keturah, Genesis twenty-five[^5]; and in this he is not reproved: therefore it was licit for him, and so etc.

2. Likewise, First to Timothy, chapter five[^6]: *I will that the younger [women] marry, bear children, be mothers of families*; he speaks of widows.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems: because marriage is for a *remedy*[^7]; but when the woman dies, the husband living,
<!-- page 877 -->
or the reverse, the disease remains, and there is no remedy at hand: therefore it is licit to apply a remedy, therefore also to contract a second marriage.

4. Likewise, marriage is for a *duty (officium)*, that is, for the procreation of children unto the worship of God; but many after the death of their wives are fit to procreate children, likewise many women after the death of their husbands: therefore it is licit to contract.

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** Not only second, but also other further marriages are licit.

**I respond:** It must be said that not only second marriages, but also third and fourth and further ones are licit, provided however that they be done for a good end, namely for the sake of begetting offspring, or for the sake of avoiding fornication, or for the sake of sustaining one's own need, as when a man contracts with a woman, that he may cherish her, or the reverse. Hence Augustine[^8] says: "We do not despise marriages of whatever number"; and Jerome also, that "the Lord did not condemn the woman [wed] to seven men."

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which Chrysostom says, that according to truth it is fornication; it must be said that he calls truth a *conjecture of reason*, which nevertheless is often deceived, although it judges probably. — Or it must be said that fornication is called a certain *immersion*[^9] in lust, because that most of all is wont to move [one] to contracting second marriages.

*To 2.* To that which Ambrose says, that a double marriage is not good; it must be said that this is to be understood thus: that is, it is not honorable[^10].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that he is punished with the penalty of irregularity; it must be said that not being able to ascend to sacred orders is not a penalty, because even one who is mute or maimed is naturally unable to ascend; nor yet is this to him a penalty, but because he is not fit.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that it is not licit to have several at the same time; it must be said that it is not similar, because, the husband living, the woman does not have power over her own body, nor the reverse the husband, the woman living[^11]; and therefore she cannot give [it] to another, and if she gives, she acts against the law. But the wife being dead, he is loosed, and therefore can give [himself] to another; and therefore it is licit, and he does not sin.

la: Homil. 32. in Matth. 19, 8. (opus imperfect.): *Nam secundum quidem accipere secundum praeceptum Apostoli* [1. Cor. 7, 39.] *est, secundum autem veritatis rationem vere fornicatio est.* Cfr. C. *Hac ratione* (9.), C. 31. q. 1. — Inferius pro *cum nec* codd. F G *sicut nec.*

en: Homily 32 on Matthew 19:8 (the imperfect work): *For to take a second [wife] according to the precept of the Apostle* [1 Cor. 7:39] *is [licit], but according to the account of truth it is truly fornication.* Cf. C. *Hac ratione* (9.), C. 31, q. 1. — Below, for *cum nec* (nor when) codices F G [read] *sicut nec* (just as neither).

la: Potius Hieron., I. adversus Iovinian. n. 16. Cfr. Epist. 48. (alias 50.) n. 19, ubi hoc dictum defendit.

en: Rather Jerome, book I *Against Jovinian*, n. 16. Cf. Letter 48 (alias 50), n. 19, where he defends this saying.

la: Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3, and here the letter of the Master, c. 7.

la: Cfr. supra d. 33. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. above, d. 33, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Vers. 1. — Mox Vat. perperam omittit *non.*

en: Verse 1. — Presently the Vatican edition wrongly omits *non.*

la: Vers. 14.

en: Verse 14.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 1. seq., ubi etiam de *maiori* seq. arg.

en: See above, the letter of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 1 f., where also [is treated] the *major* [premise] of the following argument.

la: De Bono viduitatis, c. 12. n. 15. Idem refertur a *Glossa ordinaria* apud Strabum in I. Cor. 7, 39, et in C. *Quodsi dormierit* (13.), C. 31. q. 1. (cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.). — Seq. locus occurrit in locc. citt. Augustini, Glossae et canonis; respicitur in ipso Matth. 22, 25. seqq. Eandem sententiam profert Hieron., I. adversus Iovinian. n. 15: *Non damno bigamos... et, si dici potest, octogamos.* Cfr. Epist. 48. (alias 50.) n. 18, et C. *Aperiant* (11.), C. 31. q. 1.

en: *On the Good of Widowhood*, c. 12, n. 15. The same is reported by the *Glossa ordinaria* in Strabo on 1 Cor. 7:39, and in C. *Quodsi dormierit* (13.), C. 31, q. 1 (cf. here the letter of the Master, c. 7). — The following passage occurs in the cited places of Augustine, the Gloss, and the canon; it is regarded in Matthew 22:25 ff. itself. Jerome brings forward the same opinion, book I *Against Jovinian*, n. 15: *I do not condemn bigamists... and, if it may be said, octogamists.* Cf. Letter 48 (alias 50), n. 18, and C. *Aperiant* (11.), C. 31, q. 1.

la: Codd. E L Y *intensio.* Deinde pro *illud* mallemus *illa.*

en: Codices E L Y [read] *intensio* (intensity). Then for *illud* we would prefer *illa.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. in fine.

en: See here the letter of the Master, c. 7, at the end.

la: Rom. 7, 2. seq. et I. Cor. 7, 4. et 39. — Inferius Vat., post *solutus est* addito *vir*, subinde omittit *alteri potest dare, et ideo.* Post *licet*, et cod. G addit *dando alteri.*

en: Romans 7:2 f. and 1 Cor. 7:4 and 39. — Below the Vatican edition, after *solutus est* having added *vir*, thereupon omits *alteri potest dare, et ideo.* After *licet*, codex G also adds *dando alteri.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Licet aliqui Ss. Patres secundas nuptias tanquam parum honestas interdum fere reprobare videantur, tamen conclusiones 1. et 2. quaestionis ab omnibus doctoribus approbantur. De 1. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; Suppl. q. 63. a. 1. — B. Albert., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic a. 17. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 3; Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica.
**II.** De 2. quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.
**III.** Quaestionem 3. explicite tractant Petr. a Tar., a. 2, et Richard. a Med., a. 3. q. 2. S. Thom. eam tangit locis citt. a. 1. ad 3, aliique similiter locis citt.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Although certain holy Fathers seem at times almost to reprove second marriages as scarcely honorable, nevertheless the conclusions of questions 1 and 2 are approved by all the doctors. On question 1: St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1; Supplement q. 63, a. 1. — Blessed Albert, on this and the 2 following questions, here a. 17. — Peter of Tarantaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 1. — On this and the 2 following questions, Durandus, here q. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. unica.
**II.** On question 2: St. Thomas, at the places cited, a. 2. — Peter of Tarantaise, at the place cited, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, at the place cited, q. 3.
**III.** Question 3 is explicitly treated by Peter of Tarantaise, a. 2, and Richard of Middleton, a. 3, q. 2. St. Thomas touches on it at the places cited, a. 1 ad 3, and others likewise at the places cited.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw L93221–93383) collated against the p.876–877 450-dpi column bands (`vol4-p87{6,7}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Two-column page; reflowed column-by-column (L top→bottom, then R). Vol II/IV override applied: bands authoritative where OCR cascade-fragments (Respondeo, Conclusio, replies, footers).
- **Art. III opener folded in:** the short `ARTICULUS III. De secundis nuptiis` opener (*Consequenter... quaeruntur tria*, with its Primo/Secundo/Tertio list) is folded into this q1 per the chunking convention; no standalone a3-divisio chunk.
- **Footnote numbering:** Quaracchi restarts its footer sequence per printed page. p.876 supplies this q1's notes 4–10 (notes 1–3 on p.876 — *Emancipatio*, Chrysost. *Humor*, *Vide scholion* — belong to the preceding a2-q3) → chunk [^1]–[^7]. p.877 supplies its notes 1–4 → chunk [^8]–[^11]. 11 apparatus entries total.
- **p.876 seam (shared with a2-q3):** a2-q3 occupies the top of both columns (Conclusio *Vinculum cognationis legalis...*, Respondeo, and the 1./2. + *ascendendo* replies), ending "Et sic patet totum" in the right column; ARTICULUS III opens below it (bottom right column) and q1 restarts two-column beneath. Only the Art. III opener + q1 body and their footers (Quaracchi 4–10) are claimed here; a2-q3's material and its footers (Quaracchi 1–3) are left to `bon-sent-IV-d42-a2-q3`.
- **p.877 seam (shared with a3-q2):** q1 ends with its article-level Scholion (I–III), set in the lower two-column band. QUAESTIO II (*Utrum secundae nuptiae sint sacramentales*) opens below and belongs to `bon-sent-IV-d42-a3-q2`; its text (*Secundo quaeritur...* and args) and its footers (Quaracchi p.877 notes 5–8) are NOT included here. The p.877 notes read into this chunk (Quaracchi 1–4) all anchor in q1's Respondeo/replies. Running head on p.877 reads "QUAEST. II" (reflecting q2's opening on the page); q1 content is unaffected.
- **Article-level Scholion:** the Art. III scholion (OCR garble `SCHOLIOE`, ~raw L93362) covers all three questions of the article and is rendered here (I = q1, II = q2, III = q3), last subsection of both the Latin and English blocks. a3-q2 and a3-q3 carry no scholion of their own.
- **Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text): *Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Aliter.*, *Notandum.*
- No `[?]` flags: all readings resolved against the bands.
- **Health-scan false positive (2026-07-17, J4 Class D/E pass):** the health scan flags `defs=11 la=13 en=11`. This is NOT a real apparatus defect — it is the known §2 backtick-blockquote-style false positive from `manual-review/J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md` (plain-text variant, not backtick-quoted): the explanatory note at the top of `## Latin` ("...they are renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^11].") uses literal `[^1]` and `[^11]` inline to describe the example range, and the regex-based classifier (and, per the handoff, the live renderer) counts these two prose occurrences as real body anchors. Verified via the §7 duplicate-label finder: `la dupes/extras = ['1', '11']`, `en dupes/extras = []` — i.e. the ONLY discrepancy is those two prose occurrences; the 11 real Latin/English body anchors and 11 apparatus defs already match exactly and are correctly content-paired. No content was changed. Per handoff §2, the underlying notation is NOT to be fixed chunk-by-chunk (it needs Wilson's corpus-wide decision on de-fencing vs. classifier/renderer regex fix) — this chunk is flagged for that running list.


title: Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 877 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum secundae nuptiae sint sacramentales.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum secundae nuptiae sint sacramentales sive habeant rationem Sacramenti. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Sacramentum matrimonii efficit consensus animorum expressus per verba exteriora inter *legitimas* personas[^p877-5]; sed talis est in secundis nuptiis: ergo etc. Quod istae personae sint *legitimae*, probatur, quia nullo iure a matrimonio prohibentur.

2. Item, coitus excusatur in secundis nuptiis, alioquin non concederet eas Apostolus[^p877-6]; sed coitus in matrimonio excusatur ratione medicinae sacramentalis: ergo etc.

3. Item, secundae nuptiae sunt inseparabiles sicut et primae; sed inseparabilitas in matrimonio non venit ex parte boni fidei nec prolis: ergo ex parte boni, quod est Sacramentum[^p877-7].

4. Item, qui cognoscit secundam coitu fornicario non efficitur irregularis, qui autem secundam cognoscit, cum qua contraxit, efficitur irregularis[^p877-8]: ergo amplior est hic unio quam ibi; sed non nisi sacramentalis: ergo etc.

<!-- page 878 -->

**Contra:**
1. Qui iterat Sacramentum facit ei contumeliam, et ideo nihil facit iterando[^p878-1]; sed in secundis nuptiis iteratur matrimonii Sacramentum: ergo non est ibi Sacramenti susceptio, sed contumelia.

2. Item, vinculum matrimonii contrahitur ex mutuo consensu; sed consensus est vinculum animorum, et matrimonium est vinculum, quod non solvitur, manentibus extremis: ergo cum animae sint incorruptibiles, semper manet vinculum primi matrimonii. Sed alligatus uni sacramentaliter non potest alteri sacramentaliter obligari[^p878-2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, in secundis nuptiis est carnis divisio ex parte viri vel mulieris; sed Christus est indivisus[^p878-3], et Ecclesia similiter indivisa et unius solius sponsa, et humana natura a divina est indivisa: ergo non manet significatio: ergo etc.

4. Item, Sacramentum est dignum benedictione, quia sacrum est et sanctificans[^p878-4]; sed secundae nuptiae non benedicuntur: ergo non videtur ibi esse Sacramentum.

### Conclusio

> Secundae nuptiae in se sunt Sacramentum, sed in comparatione ad primas nuptias habent minus complete rationem significationis sacramentalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de secundis nuptiis, aut *in se*, aut in *relatione* ad primas. Si *in se*; sic, cum sit ibi consensus expressus inter legitimas personas, sunt utique Sacramentum, nec est ibi carnis divisio, sed unio carnis viri et mulieris. Si autem loquamur[^p878-5] *in comparatione* ad praecedentes; sic manet in eis Sacramenti ratio *incompleta* propter carnis divisionem, quia in primis carnem suam univit cum uno, in secundis cum alio; et talis divisio tollit de plenitudine significationis.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Sacramentum iteratur; dicendum, quod Sacramentum iterari non dicitur, nisi primo manente; sed primum est solutum, uxore mortua[^p878-6].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est vinculum animarum, quae sunt perpetuae; dicendum, quod anima et est *anima* et est *spiritus*; et non est vinculum animarum, nisi in quantum *coniunctae corporibus*; ordinatur enim hoc vinculum ad carnis commixtionem: ideo solvitur, cum anima separatur et desinit animare[^p878-7].

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundae nuptiae carnem dividunt; dicendum, quod hoc est *per accidens*, quia *primo uniunt*, et *per consequens dividunt*; et sunt Sacramentum ratione *unionis*, non ratione *divisionis*. Tamen quia *divisio* concomitatur *unionem* nec est de perfectione Sacramenti; ideo non debetur ei tanta solemnitas; et quia benedictio est ad solemnitatem, ideo tales nuptiae non benedicuntur[^p878-8]. — Et sic patet sequens. — Sed attendendum, quod nuptiae possunt esse secundae ex parte viri et primae ex parte mulieris, vel e converso, vel ex parte utriusque. In primo casu plus salvatur ratio Sacramenti — Christus enim unitur pluribus animabus et sibi eas desponsat — in secundo casu minus[^p878-9]; in tertio minime. Et ideo in primo casu, cum mulier est virgo, quamvis vir sit bigamus, nuptiae benedicuntur[^p878-10].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether second marriages are sacramental.*

Secondly it is asked whether second marriages are sacramental, or have the character of a Sacrament. And that they do, it seems:

1. Because the Sacrament of marriage is effected by the consent of minds expressed through outward words between *legitimate* persons[^p877-5]; but such [consent] exists in second marriages: therefore etc. That these persons are *legitimate* is proved from the fact that by no law are they prohibited from marriage.

2. Likewise, intercourse is excused in second marriages, otherwise the Apostle would not concede them[^p877-6]; but intercourse in marriage is excused by reason of a sacramental remedy: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, second marriages are indissoluble just as the first are; but indissolubility in marriage does not come from the good of fidelity nor of offspring: therefore from the good which is the Sacrament[^p877-7].

4. Likewise, one who knows a second woman by fornicating intercourse is not made irregular, but one who knows a second woman with whom he has contracted [marriage] is made irregular[^p877-8]: therefore this union is greater than that one; but [it is not greater] except sacramentally: therefore etc.

**Contra:**
1. One who repeats a Sacrament does it an outrage, and therefore accomplishes nothing by repeating[^p878-1]; but in second marriages the Sacrament of marriage is repeated: therefore there is no reception of a Sacrament there, but an outrage.

2. Likewise, the bond of marriage is contracted from mutual consent; but consent is a bond of minds, and marriage is a bond which is not dissolved while the extremes remain: therefore, since souls are incorruptible, the bond of the first marriage always remains. But one bound to one person sacramentally cannot be sacramentally bound to another[^p878-2]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in second marriages there is a division of the flesh on the part of the man or the woman; but Christ is undivided[^p878-3], and the Church likewise is undivided and the spouse of one alone, and human nature is undivided from the divine: therefore the signification does not remain: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a Sacrament is worthy of blessing, because it is sacred and sanctifying[^p878-4]; but second marriages are not blessed: therefore there does not seem to be a Sacrament there.

### Conclusio

> Second marriages are in themselves a Sacrament, but in comparison to first marriages they have less completely the character of sacramental signification.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking of second marriages, either *in themselves*, or in *relation* to the first. If *in themselves*; then, since there is there a consent expressed between legitimate persons, they are indeed a Sacrament, nor is there a division of the flesh, but a union of the flesh of man and woman. But if we speak[^p878-5] *in comparison* to the preceding [marriages]; then there remains in them the character of the Sacrament *incomplete* on account of the division of the flesh, because in the first she united her flesh with one, in the second with another; and such division takes away from the fullness of the signification.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that the Sacrament is repeated; it must be said that a Sacrament is not said to be repeated except while the first remains; but the first is dissolved, the wife having died[^p878-6].

2. To that which is objected, that it is a bond of souls, which are perpetual; it must be said that the soul is both *soul* and *spirit*; and it is not a bond of souls except insofar as they are *joined to bodies*; for this bond is ordered to the commingling of the flesh: therefore it is dissolved when the soul is separated and ceases to animate[^p878-7].

3. 4. To that which is objected, that second marriages divide the flesh; it must be said that this is *per accidens*, because *they first unite*, and *consequently divide*; and they are a Sacrament by reason of *union*, not by reason of *division*. Yet because *division* accompanies *union* and is not part of the perfection of the Sacrament; therefore so great a solemnity is not owed to it; and because blessing pertains to solemnity, therefore such marriages are not blessed[^p878-8]. — And thus the following is clear. — But it must be noted that marriages can be second on the part of the man and first on the part of the woman, or conversely, or on the part of both. In the first case the character of the Sacrament is more fully preserved — for Christ is united to many souls and espouses them to himself — in the second case less[^p878-9]; in the third least of all. And therefore in the first case, when the woman is a virgin, although the man be twice-married, the marriage is blessed[^p878-10].

---

la: Vide supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et dub. 1.

en: See above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 1 and following, and dub. 1.

en: First Letter to the Corinthians 7:39.

la: Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1. et 2.

en: See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3, in reply to 1 and 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6.

la: Codd. F G aa *alligari*.

en: Codices F, G, aa read *alligari*.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 1, 13: *Divisus est Christus?*

en: First Letter to the Corinthians 1:13: *Is Christ divided?*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 2. seqq.

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

la: Codd. G L supplent *de eis*.

en: Codices G, L supply *de eis* ("concerning them").

en: Romans 7:2 and following, and First Corinthians 7:39.

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1. — Superius verbis *et non* cod. F interserit *matrimonium*.

en: Cf. above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 1. — Above, at the words *et non*, codex F inserts *matrimonium*.

la: Cfr. C. *Capellanum* (1.) et C. *Vir autem* (3.), X. de Secundis Nuptiis (lib. IV. tit. 21.), et supra d. 28. dub. 3.

en: Cf. the canon *Capellanum* (1) and the canon *Vir autem* (3), in the *Decretals* (X), On Second Marriages (book IV, tit. 21), and above, d. 28, dub. 3.

la: Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3. in fine.

en: See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3, at the end.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw L93384–93553) and cross-checked column-by-column against the vol4 PDF page-image bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{877,878}-{L,R}-*.png`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the cascade-shattered two-column Respondeo and footers). English is a fresh literal parallel translation. Editorial marginal glosses (*Ad oppositum.*, *Distinctio.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum*, *Restrictio notae*) trimmed per the marginalia rule. The `*` after *Et sic patet* is an editorial cross-reference mark (keyed to the *Restrictio notae* margin note), not a Quaracchi footnote, and is not rendered.

**Page correction.** The dispatch listed `printed_pages: [877, 878, 879]`. Eyes-on band verification shows QUAESTIO II occupies **only pp. 877–878**: its *videtur* (args 1–4) sits at the foot of p.877 below the Art. III scholion; the *Contra* + *Conclusio* + *Respondeo* fill p.878 (both columns). **QUAESTIO III (*Utrum secundae nuptiae sint honorabiles*) begins at the foot of p.878** — args 1–2 in the left column below the *videtur* block, header + args 3–4 in the right column below the Respondeo — and continues onto p.879. No q2 body or footer touches p.879. Corrected to `printed_pages: [877, 878]`, `pdf_pages: [897, 898]`. (The dispatch's "q3 begins on p.879" belief is the source of the over-wide range; q3 in fact opens on p.878.)

**Seam — p.877 (shared with a3-q1).** a3-q1 owns the Art. III scholion and the q1 Respondeo tail printed above QUAESTIO II, together with p.877 footers **1–4** (anchored in that material: *Augustinus*¹, *intensio/illa*², *lit. Magistri c.7 in fine*³, and the *Rom. 7 / solutus est … alteri potest dare* variant⁴ keyed to q1's «mortua uxore, solutus est» line). This chunk claims **only p.877 footers 5–8**, all anchored in the q2 *videtur* (*legitimas personas*⁵, *Apostolus*⁶, *Sacramentum*⁷, *irregularis*⁸).

**Seam — p.878 (shared with a3-q3).** p.878 carries one continuous footer sequence **1–13** spanning both q2 and q3. This chunk claims **footers 1–10**, all anchored in the q2 body (Contra *iterando*¹, *obligari*², *indivisus*³, *sanctificans*⁴; Respondeo *loquamur*⁵, *uxore mortua*⁶, *desinit animare*⁷, *benedicuntur*⁸, *in secundo casu minus*⁹, *nuptiae benedicuntur*¹⁰). Footers **11, 12, 13** (*fornicationis*¹¹ = 1 Cor. 7,2 et 39; *ut prius*¹² = quaest. praeced.; *Deuteronomii vigesimo quinto*¹³) are anchored in the QUAESTIO III body → **handed off to a3-q3**, which also owns the p.878 q3 opener (title + args 1–4) and all of p.879.

**Scholion.** None here — the Art. III scholion belongs to a3-q1; footer 10's «Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.» confirms q2 carries no scholion of its own. `has_scholion: false`.

**Footer text corrections (band-authoritative over raw OCR).** p.877 footer 8 raw OCR read *d. 23*; the band clearly reads **d. 25** (a. 2. q. 3.), matching p.878 footer 9's *d. 25. a. 2. q. 3. in fine* — corrected to 25. p.878 footer 2 siglum *aa* preserved verbatim (Quaracchi codex siglum, cf. the same *aa* in this distinction's a2-q3 apparatus).

**[?] flags.** None. All bands read cleanly at 450 dpi.


title: Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 3

title_alt:
Utrum secundae nuptiae sint honorabiles
Whether second marriages are honorable

source_text:
<!-- page 878 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum secundae nuptiae sint honorabiles.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum secundae nuptiae sint honorabiles. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia omne illud, in quo salvatur ratio honesti, salvatur ratio honorabilis; sed in secundis nuptiis salvatur ratio honesti, quia vitatur inhonestas fornicationis[^1]: ergo etc.

2. Item, gloria est patris filios successores in bonis relinquere, et maxime bonos; sed frequenter in primis nuptiis non acquiruntur filii, sed in secundis; ergo videtur, quod non habenti prolem honorabile sit secundo nubere.

3. Item, omnia Sacramenta divina sunt honoranda: ergo omne quod tenet in se rationem Sacramenti, tenet rationem honorabilis; sed secundae nuptiae sunt huiusmodi, ut prius[^2] probatum est: ergo secundae nuptiae sunt honorabiles.

4. Item, in Lege qui nolebat suscitare semen fratri, extrahebatur calceamentum de pede, et exspuebatur in faciem eius signum opprobrii sempiterni, Deuteronomii vigesimo quinto[^3]: ergo si multo magis debet quis sollicitus esse de prole sua quam de aliena; videtur, quod si aliquis non habens filios <!-- page 879 --> de prima uxore, ipsa mortua, nolit contrahere cum alia, quod sit sibi opprobrium: ergo ab oppositis, contrahere cum secunda est honorificum. — *Si tu dicas*, quod secus est nunc in lege nova, in qua quaeritur fecunditas mentis magis quam ventris[^4]; *obiicitur* in contrarium, quod illud non solvit: quia, si aliquid est bonum, sua iteratione non fit malum, sed melius, quia duplex melius est quam simplex: ergo si aliquid est honorabile, sua iteratione non fit vituperabile. Sed primae nuptiae sunt honorabiles: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Omne illud est indecens, a quo arcentur honestae personae, ne intersint; sed secundae nuptiae sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. *Maior* manifesta est; *minor* probatur per illud Caesariensis Concilii, quod ponitur in littera[^5]: «Presbyterum, inquit, prandere in nuptiis bigami non convenit, cum poenitentia bigamus indigeat»: ergo etc.

2. Item, omne illud est indecens, per quod efficitur quis ineptus ad gradum dignitatis, ad quem prius erat idoneus; sed per secundas nuptias efficitur quis ineptus ad gradum sacerdotii, ad quem erat prius aptus[^6]: ergo secundas nuptias contrahere est vituperabile et indecorum.

3. Item, omne illud est in opprobrium, quod reddit hominem notabilem de aliquo vitio; sed secundae nuptiae sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. Et hoc confirmatur per illud Ambrosii, quod habetur in littera[^7], quod «etiam in praesenti carent gloria».

4. Item, omne illud est in opprobrium, quod reddit indignum ecclesiastica benedictione; sed secundae nuptiae, quamvis sint licitae, privatae sunt benedictione, quae debetur illi Sacramento[^8]: ergo sunt opprobriosae.

### Conclusio.

> Secundae nuptiae, proprie loquendo, non sunt honorabiles, non tamen sunt vituperabiles, sed tolerabiles.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod matrimonii Sacramentum est utile et honorabile. Et quamvis utile et honorabile sit ratione triplicis boni: fidei, prolis et Sacramenti; tamen, ut appropriate loquamur, nuptiae sunt honorabiles, quia torus est immaculatus[^9], et hoc est per bonum fidei; utiles vero sunt, quia venter est fecundus, et hoc est per bonum prolis. Bonum vero Sacramenti ad utrumque refertur: ad honorabilitatem, in quantum significat — sic enim Sacramentum hoc magnum est et honorabile, scilicet ratione significati, in Christo scilicet et Ecclesia[^10] — ad utilitatem vero, in quantum remedium peccati.

Si ergo loquamur de secundis nuptiis ratione utilitatis; sic salvatur ratio utilitatis. Utiles enim erant, quia erant in officium et in remedium[^11]; et utrumque horum ut plurimum in secundis nuptiis reperitur. Si ratione honorabilitatis; dicendum, quod honorabiles erant ratione continentiae coniugalis et significationis sacramentalis, et utrumque horum ibi est imperfecte et defective. Nam significatio sacramentalis defective est secundum veritatem, continentia coniugalis secundum probabilitatem. Ideo dico, quod «carent gloria», et ideo non sunt honorabiles; tamen, quia carent culpa, non sunt vituperabiles, sed sunt tolerabiles. Unde nec Dominus nec Sancti[^12] eas prohibent tanquam malas, sed tamen eas non persuadent quasi defectivas. — Concedendum igitur, quod, proprie loquendo, secundae nuptiae non sunt honorabiles, sicut ostendunt rationes; et hoc est quod dicit Ambrosius, et habetur in littera[^13], quod «etiam in praesenti carent gloria».

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod vitatur fornicatio; dicendum, quod vitatur secundum statum imperfectionis; et ideo potius hoc ad utilitatem quam ad laudem vel honorem dignoscitur pertinere.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de cognatione, dicendum, quod hoc non dicit secundum tempus gratiae, sed secundum tempus legis scriptae[^14]. — Vel si nunc dicat honorem, hoc est quantum ad hominem, non quantum ad Deum, quia quaeritur modo successio religionis, non sanguinis; ideo utilitati potius quam honori hoc attribuendum est.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Sacramento, dicendum, quod verum est, quod est Sacramentum; tamen est cum defectu, ratione cuius habet quandam ignobilitatem; ac per hoc potius minuitur gloria, quam amplificetur in talis Sacramenti contractione.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de suscitatione seminis, dicendum, quod illud fuit proprium legis veteris, propter hoc quod ibi erat benedictio in prole <!-- page 880 --> carnali et promissio temporalis; sed nunc illa lex non habet locum. *Et si tu obiicias*, quod idem iteratum est melius, ergo honorabilius; dicendum, quod verum est si iteratio competat suae naturae, sicut in his quae acquiruntur per assuefactionem. Hoc tamen non habet ubique locum, quia baptismus iteratus non est melior quam simplex, quia non competit ei iteratio[^15]; sic iteratio matrimonii non competit significationi nec competit usui honestatis sive castitatis, nisi sit propter infirmitatem carnis, — quae magis facit excusabilitatem quam honorem.

His visis, satis patent quae sunt circa litteram[^16].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether second marriages are honorable.*

In the third place it is asked whether second marriages are honorable. And that they are, seems [to be shown]:

1. Because in everything in which the character of the honest is preserved, the character of the honorable is preserved; but in second marriages the character of the honest is preserved, since the dishonor of fornication is avoided[^1]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it is a father's glory to leave behind sons as successors in his goods, and especially good ones; but often in first marriages sons are not obtained, but in second ones [they are]; therefore it seems that for one who has no offspring it is honorable to marry a second time.

3. Likewise, all divine Sacraments are to be honored: therefore everything that holds in itself the character of a Sacrament holds the character of the honorable; but second marriages are of this kind, as was proved before[^2]: therefore second marriages are honorable.

4. Likewise, in the Law, from him who was unwilling to raise up seed for his brother the sandal was drawn off his foot, and there was spat in his face a sign of everlasting reproach, in Deuteronomy 25[^3]: therefore, if much more ought one to be solicitous for his own offspring than for another's; it seems that if someone, having no sons from a first wife, she being dead, is unwilling to contract [marriage] with another, this is a reproach to him: therefore, from the opposites, to contract [marriage] with a second is honorific. — *If you should say* that it is otherwise now under the new law, in which fruitfulness of mind is sought rather than of the womb[^4]; *it is objected* on the contrary that this does not resolve [the matter]: because, if something is good, by its repetition it does not become evil, but better, since a double is better than a single: therefore if something is honorable, by its repetition it does not become blameworthy. But first marriages are honorable: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Everything is unseemly from which honorable persons are kept away, lest they be present; but second marriages are of this kind: therefore etc. The *major* is manifest; the *minor* is proved by that [statement] of the Council of Caesarea, which is set down in the text[^5]: "It is not fitting," it says, "for a priest to dine at the wedding of a twice-married man, since a twice-married man is in need of penance": therefore etc.

2. Likewise, everything is unseemly through which someone is made unfit for a grade of dignity for which he was previously suited; but through second marriages someone is made unfit for the grade of priesthood, for which he was previously fit[^6]: therefore to contract a second marriage is blameworthy and unseemly.

3. Likewise, everything is a reproach which renders a man notable for some vice; but second marriages are of this kind: therefore etc. And this is confirmed by that [saying] of Ambrose, which is contained in the text[^7], that "even in the present [life] they lack glory."

4. Likewise, everything is a reproach which renders [someone] unworthy of the ecclesiastical blessing; but second marriages, although they are licit, are deprived of the blessing which is owed to that Sacrament[^8]: therefore they are reproachful.

### Conclusion.

> Second marriages, properly speaking, are not honorable; yet they are not blameworthy, but tolerable.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of matrimony is useful and honorable. And although it is useful and honorable by reason of a threefold good — of fidelity, of offspring, and of the Sacrament — nevertheless, to speak by appropriation, marriage is honorable because the bed is immaculate[^9], and this is through the good of fidelity; and [marriages] are useful because the womb is fruitful, and this is through the good of offspring. But the good of the Sacrament refers to both: to honorability, insofar as it signifies — for thus this Sacrament is great and honorable, namely by reason of the thing signified, namely in Christ and the Church[^10] — but to utility, insofar as it is a remedy for sin.

If therefore we speak of second marriages by reason of utility; thus the character of utility is preserved. For they were useful, because they were unto duty and unto remedy[^11]; and each of these is for the most part found in second marriages. If by reason of honorability; it must be said that they were honorable by reason of conjugal continence and of sacramental signification, and each of these is there imperfectly and defectively. For the sacramental signification is defective as regards truth, conjugal continence as regards probability. Therefore I say that "they lack glory," and therefore they are not honorable; yet, because they lack fault, they are not blameworthy, but are tolerable. Hence neither the Lord nor the Saints[^12] prohibit them as evil, but nevertheless do not urge them as being defective. — It must therefore be granted that, properly speaking, second marriages are not honorable, as the arguments show; and this is what Ambrose says, and it is contained in the text[^13], that "even in the present [life] they lack glory."

1. To that, then, which is objected, that fornication is avoided; it must be said that it is avoided according to a state of imperfection; and therefore this is recognized to pertain rather to utility than to praise or honor.

2. To that which is objected concerning kinship, it must be said that this is not said according to the time of grace, but according to the time of the written law[^14]. — Or, if it now speaks of honor, this is as regards man, not as regards God, since now succession of religion is sought, not of blood; therefore this is to be attributed to utility rather than to honor.

3. To that which is objected concerning the Sacrament, it must be said that it is true that it is a Sacrament; yet it is with a defect, by reason of which it has a certain ignobility; and through this the glory is rather diminished than amplified in the contracting of such a Sacrament.

4. To that which is objected concerning the raising up of seed, it must be said that that was proper to the old law, for the reason that there was there a blessing in carnal offspring and a temporal promise; but now that law has no place. *And if you object* that the same thing repeated is better, therefore more honorable; it must be said that this is true if repetition befits its nature, as in those things which are acquired through habituation. This, however, does not hold everywhere, because baptism repeated is not better than a single [one], since repetition does not befit it[^15]; so the repetition of matrimony does not befit its signification, nor does it befit the use of honesty or of chastity, unless it be on account of the infirmity of the flesh — which makes rather for excusability than for honor.

These things having been seen, what pertains to the text is sufficiently clear[^16].

---

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 2. et 39.

en: First Letter to the Corinthians 7:2 and 39.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Vers. 7. seqq. — Edd. *extrahebat* (Vulgata *tollet*) *calceamentum... exspuebat*.

en: [Deuteronomy 25,] verses 7ff. — The editions [read] *extrahebat* (the Vulgate, *tollet*) *the sandal... he spat*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 762, nota 4. — Inferius post *quia duplex* edd. supplent *bonum* (cfr. supra pag. 307, nota 1.).

en: Cf. above, p. 762, note 4. — Below, after *since a double* the editions supply *good* (cf. above, p. 307, note 1).

la: Hic c. 7.

en: Here, c. 7.

la: Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3.

en: See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Hic c. 7. — Permulti codd. omittunt *etiam*.

en: Here, c. 7. — Very many codices omit *even*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 878, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, p. 878, note 8.

la: Hebr. 13, 4: *Honorabile connubium in omnibus, et torus immaculatus.* Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Voci *nuptiae* edd. praemittunt *secundae*.

en: Hebrews 13:4: *Marriage honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.* Cf. above, d. 31, a. 1, q. 1f. — Before the word *marriage* the editions prefix *second*.

la: Eph. 5, 32. — Mox pro *praestat*, quod habent edd., ex codd. R S substituimus *peccati*, quae lectio confirmatur ex pluribus aliis codd. incongrue ponentibus *peccat*.

en: Ephesians 5:32. — Presently, in place of *praestat*, which the editions have, we have substituted from codices R S *peccati*, which reading is confirmed from several other codices that incongruously put *peccat*.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 1. seq. — Pro *Utiles enim erant* [nuptiae] multi codd. *Utile enim erat* [matrimonium], qua lectione servata, codd. F G W bene prosequuntur *quia erat in* etc. Inferius post *dicendum*, quod codd. addunt *quia*.

en: See above, in the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 1f. — In place of *For they were useful* [marriages] many codices [read] *For it was useful* [matrimony], and with this reading kept, codices F G W rightly continue *since it was unto* etc. Below, after *it must be said*, the codices add *that*.

la: Cfr. supra q. I, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Cf. above, q. 1, and here in the text of the Master, c. 7.

la: Vide supra d. 33. a. 2. q. 2. et dub. 1. — Edd. omittunt *tempus gratiae, sed secundum*. De secunda solut., in qua pro *religionis* (ita cod. aa, bb a secunda manu) codd. communiter et edd. *relationis*, cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 4, et Comment. dub. 6. nec non d. 37. a. 1. q. 3. ad 5.

en: See above, d. 33, a. 2, q. 2 and dub. 1. — The editions omit *the time of grace, but according to*. Concerning the second solution, in which for *of religion* (thus codices aa, bb by a second hand) the codices commonly and the editions [read] *of relation*, cf. above, in the text of the Master, d. XXXIII, c. 4, and the Commentary, dub. 6, as well as d. 37, a. 1, q. 3, ad 5.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6. — Superius verbis *idem iteratum* edd. interserunt *bonum*.

en: Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 6. — Above, in the words *the same thing repeated*, the editions insert *good*.

la: Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw L93554–93702) as base, with the Respondeo/Solutio and all footers verified against the p.879–880 column bands (`vol4-p{879,880}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); vol4 column split x≈1880, offset pdf = printed + 20. English is a fresh literal translation. No scholion for this quaestio (Art. III's scholion lives in a3-q1).

**p.878 seam (with a3-q2).** The QUAESTIO III header, its title, and the four *videtur* (pro) arguments physically occupy the foot of printed p.878 (shared with a3-q2, which owns the q2 material above). Per the coordinator's spec, `printed_pages` is set to the quaestio's principal spread [879, 880]; a `<!-- page 878 -->` marker is retained in the body for locational accuracy. **Footer split on p.878:** that page carries a single Quaracchi series 1–13. Notes 1–10 belong to a3-q2 (its Contra/Respondeo/solutiones); this chunk claims only the three footers anchored in q3's *videtur* arguments — note 11 (arg. 1, *fornicationis*, 1 Cor 7:2), note 12 (arg. 3, *ut prius probatum est*, "Quaest. praeced."), note 13 (arg. 4, *Deuteronomii vigesimo quinto*). These are renumbered [^1]–[^3] here.

**p.879 seam.** Entirely q3; the whole p.879 series 1–11 is claimed ([^4]–[^14]).

**p.880 seam (with future d.43).** p.880 is shared: q3's tail (end of *Ad 4* + "His visis, satis patent quae sunt circa litteram") sits at the top, then `DISTINCTIO XLIII` (Cap. I, *De resurrectione et iudicii conditione*) begins. The p.880 Quaracchi series notes 1–2 (above the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` divider) are q3's — note 1 (*non competit ei iteratio*, baptism) and note 2 (*circa litteram*, the closing cross-reference) — claimed here as [^15]–[^16]. All d.43 littera text and its `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` footers are left to the future d.43 writer.

**[?] flags:** none.