title: Dist. 30, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 707 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De consensu, qui deficit a parte rationis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum consensus erroneus faciat matrimonium.*

Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum consensus erroneus faciat matrimonium. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia consensus sequitur cognitionem[^1], ergo qui consentit consentit in eum, de quo cogitat; sed credens, hunc esse alium, de illo cogitat: ergo consentit in illum et non in hunc: et sic etc.

2. Item, «voluntarium est cuius principium est in ipso cognoscente singularia[^2]»: ergo involuntarium, ubi non est cognitio; sed ubi errat, non cognoscit, et sic non est ibi ratio voluntarii: ergo nec matrimonium.

3. Item, plus habet de ratione involuntarii quod fit per ignorantiam quam per violentiam[^3]; sed illud impedit: ergo et istud.

4. Item, ad hoc est auctoritas, quae dicit hoc, sicut habetur Causa vigesima nona, quaestione prima[^4] per totum.

**Contra:**
1. Isaac credidit benedicere Esau, tamen benedicendo Iacob benedictus est[^5]: ergo a simili, qui credit ducere unam in uxorem et ducit aliam, uxor eius est.

2. Item, Iacob credidit cognoscere Rachelem et cognovit Liam[^6], et tamen matrimonium fuit: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc ostenditur ratione: quia qui peccat per ignorantiam nihilominus peccat et non excusatur: ergo nec matrimonium infringitur propter errorem.

4. Item obiicitur, quia rusticus, credens cuprum aurum, emit cuprum, non aurum: ergo similiter videtur, quod mulier credens, Petrum esse Martinum, consentit in Petrum.

5. Item, si consensus erroneus impedit in quantum erroneus: ergo ubicumque est error, est impedimentum: ergo si credit contrahere cum divite et contrahit cum paupere, videtur, quod non fiat contractio matrimonii.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quis error impediat, et utrum error nobilitatis impediat matrimonium. Videtur enim, quod non, cum sit error qualitatis; oppositum autem dicit Magister in littera[^7].

> **Conclusio.** Matrimonium impedit error circa personam, non autem error circa proprietates personae, nisi sit circa conditionem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod error potest esse duplex in consensu: aut error circa personam, aut circa proprietates personae. Si sit error circa personam, talis consensum tollit et matrimonium impedit. Quae enim consentit in aliquem, credens ipsum esse alium, secundum veritatem affectus eius coniungitur ei, de quo credit, et in eum consentit; et ideo non est ibi matrimonium, pro eo quod non est consensus mutuus. Ad hoc autem, quod sit error personae, necesse est, quod duplex persona occurrat: una in aspectu interiori, altera in exteriori; et talis error facit, consensum et voluntatem diverti ab eo qui exterius apparet, pro eo quod consensus omnis et voluntas aliquam sequitur cognitionem. Invisa enim, ut dicit Augustinus[^8], diligere possumus, incognita nequaquam. — Si autem sit error proprietatum personae, talis error non omnino tollit consensum; et ideo non omnino impedit matrimonium, nisi quando est error conditionis sive servitutis. Quare autem iste error magis impediat quam alius, infra[^9] dicitur.

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de benedictione Iacob, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia benedictio est opus Dei et secundum veritatem illi debebatur, quem ignorans benedicebat, et ideo Isaac benedictionem postmodum confirmavit; sed consensus est opus personae[^10] quantum ad iudicium potens errare; ideo non est simile.

<!-- page 708 -->

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Iacob, cognoscens Liam, erravit, et tamen matrimonium fuit; dicendum, quod non ex coitu fuit matrimonium; sed postmodum Iacob consensit in illam quam cognoverat, et rursus servivit pro prima[^11].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ignorantia non excusat a culpa; dicendum, quod ignorantia iuris non excusat, sed tamen ignorantia personae et facti, adhibita diligentia, excusat[^12], ut si quis cognoscat aliam, credens cognoscere suam; sic in proposito.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui credit emere aurum etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile duplici ex causa: primum, quia rusticus non cogitat de auro nisi in generali, sed de cupro in speciali; sed mulier, errans in Petro, cogitat de Martino in speciali. Praeterea, consensus est actus voluntatis interior, qui consequitur aestimationem et credulitatem; sed emptio est actus exterior, qui consequitur contractum exteriorem circa rem. Si tamen rusticus mentionem faceret de auro, ita quod mentio de auro fieret in contractu, et ille venderet aurichalcum pro auro; tunc non teneret contractus, immo teneretur decipiens ad restitutionem; et quantum ad hoc est simile. Et hoc est, quod Magister introducit istud pro simili in ipsa littera[^13].

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quis error impediat; patet responsio ex praedictis. Quod vero quaeritur de nobilitate, dicendum, quod circa nobilitatem contingit errare dupliciter[^14], ut patet per exemplum. Mulier enim, quae credit, hunc quem videt, esse filium regis Angliae, dupliciter potest errare: aut enim cognoscit personam filii regis Angliae visu, vel auditu; et tunc in veritate consentit in illum, quia de illo cogitat; et tunc est error personae, et non est matrimonium. Aut personam eius non cognoscit, sed solum cogitat dignitatem et credit, hunc quem videt, habere illam dignitatem et nobilitatem; et tunc non consentit nisi in hunc, et est error proprietatis, non substantiae. — Quod ergo obiicitur: credit, hunc esse alium; falsum est, sed alterum, quia nobilitas non est substantia, sed accidens[^15].

english:
### Article Unique. *On the consent that fails on the part of reason.*
### Question I. *Whether erroneous consent makes marriage.*

As to the first, then, it is asked whether erroneous consent makes marriage. And that it does not, is shown:

1. Because consent follows knowledge[^1], therefore he who consents, consents to the one of whom he thinks; but one who believes this person to be another thinks of that other one: therefore he consents to that one and not to this one: and so on.

2. Likewise, "the voluntary is that whose principle is in the one who knows the particulars"[^2]: therefore the involuntary is present where there is no knowledge; but where one errs, one does not know, and so the character of the voluntary is not present there: therefore neither is marriage.

3. Likewise, what comes about through ignorance has more of the character of the involuntary than what comes about through violence[^3]; but the latter is an impediment: therefore so is the former.

4. Likewise, there is an authority which says this, as is found in Cause Twenty-Nine, Question One[^4], throughout.

**On the contrary:**
1. Isaac believed he was blessing Esau, yet in blessing him it was Jacob who was blessed[^5]: therefore by a like argument, one who believes he is taking one woman as wife and takes another, she is his wife.

2. Likewise, Jacob believed he was knowing Rachel and knew Leah[^6], and yet there was marriage: therefore, and so on.

3. Likewise, this is shown by reason: because one who sins through ignorance sins nonetheless and is not excused: therefore neither is marriage broken on account of error.

4. Likewise it is objected, because a peasant, believing copper to be gold, buys copper, not gold: therefore it likewise seems that a woman who believes Peter to be Martin consents to Peter.

5. Likewise, if erroneous consent is an impediment insofar as it is erroneous: then wherever there is error, there is an impediment: therefore if she believes she is contracting with a rich man and contracts with a poor one, it seems that no contracting of marriage takes place.

In connection with this it is asked which error is an impediment, and whether error as to nobility impedes marriage. For it seems that it does not, since it is an error of quality; but the Master says the opposite in the text[^7].

> **Conclusion.** Error concerning the person impedes marriage, but not error concerning the properties of the person, unless it concerns condition.

**I respond:** It must be said that error in consent can be twofold: either error concerning the person, or error concerning the properties of the person. If it is error concerning the person, such error takes away the consent and impedes the marriage. For she who consents to someone, believing him to be another, is joined, according to the truth of her affection, to him whom she believes [him to be], and consents to him; and therefore there is no marriage there, because there is no mutual consent. But for there to be error of the person, it is necessary that a twofold person be present: one in interior regard, the other in exterior; and such error makes the consent and the will turn away from the one who appears outwardly, because all consent and will follows some knowledge. For, as Augustine says[^8], we can love the unseen, but never the unknown. — But if it is error concerning the properties of the person, such error does not entirely take away consent; and therefore it does not entirely impede marriage, except when it is error of condition or of servitude. But why this error impedes more than another is said below[^9].

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected concerning the blessing of Jacob, it must be said that it is not a like case: because the blessing is the work of God, and in truth was owed to him whom, unknowingly, he was blessing; and therefore Isaac afterward confirmed the blessing; but consent is the work of the person[^10], as regards a judgment capable of erring; therefore it is not a like case.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that Jacob, in knowing Leah, erred, and yet there was marriage; it must be said that the marriage did not come from the intercourse; but afterward Jacob consented to her whom he had known, and again served for the first one[^11].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that ignorance does not excuse from fault; it must be said that ignorance of law does not excuse, but nevertheless ignorance of the person and of the fact, due diligence having been employed, does excuse[^12] — as if someone should know another woman, believing he knows his own; so in the case proposed.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that one who believes he is buying gold, etc.; it must be said that it is not a like case, for a twofold reason: first, because the peasant does not think of the gold except in general, but of the copper in particular; but the woman, erring as to Peter, thinks of Martin in particular. Moreover, consent is an interior act of the will, which follows an estimation and a believing; but purchase is an exterior act, which follows an exterior contract concerning the thing. If, however, the peasant were to make mention of gold, so that mention of gold were made in the contract, and the other were to sell brass for gold; then the contract would not hold — indeed the deceiver would be bound to restitution; and to this extent it is a like case. And this is what the Master introduces as a like case in the text itself[^13].

*To 5.* To that which is objected, as to which error is an impediment: the answer is clear from what has been said. But as to what is asked concerning nobility, it must be said that one can err about nobility in two ways[^14], as is clear from an example. For a woman who believes that this man whom she sees is the son of the king of England can err in two ways: for either she knows the person of the king of England's son by sight or by hearing, and then she truly consents to him, because she thinks of him; and then it is error of the person, and there is no marriage. Or she does not know his person, but only thinks of his rank, and believes that this man whom she sees has that rank and nobility; and then she consents only to this man, and it is error of a property, not of substance. — As to what is therefore objected, that she believes him to be another: that is false; rather, it is another [thing she believes of him], since nobility is not a substance, but an accident[^15].

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 25, p. 1, q. 3, ad 5, and d. 38, a. 2, q. 2, in the body.

la: Aristot., III. Ethic. c. 1. (Cfr. supra pag. 521, nota 8.) Multi codd. et edd. singula (τὰ καθ' ἔκαστα).

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* III, c. 1. (Cf. above, p. 521, note 8.) Many codices and editions read "the particulars" (τὰ καθ' ἔκαστα).

la: Vide Aristot., III. Ethic. c. 1. — Minor ostensa est supra d. 29. q. 1. — Pro *quod fit*, quod nonnulli codd. omittunt, cod. K (I a secunda manu) *consensus*, codd. LY (E a secunda manu) *involuntarium*, cod. aa *ubi consentit*. Iustinian., D. II. de Iurisdictione omnium iudicum (tit. 4.), lex *Si per errorem* (§ 15.): *Quid enim tam contrarium est consensui quam error, qui imperitiam detegit?*

en: See Aristotle, *Ethics* III, c. 1. — The minor premise is shown above, d. 29, q. 1. — For *quod fit* ("that which comes about"), which several codices omit, codex K (a first hand, in a second hand) reads *consensus*, codices L and Y (E, in a second hand) read *involuntarium*, codex aa reads *ubi consentit*. Justinian, Digest II, "On the Jurisdiction of All Judges" (tit. 4), the law *Si per errorem*, § 15: "For what is so contrary to consent as error, which betrays inexperience?"

la: Ex qua Magister, hic in lit. c. 1, plura proponit.

en: From which the Master, here in the text, c. 1, sets forth a good deal more.

la: Cfr. Gen. 27, 23. seqq.

en: Cf. Gen. 27:23 and following.

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1.

la: Libr. VIII. de Trin. c. 4. n. 6. seqq. et X. c. 1. seqq.

en: Book VIII, *On the Trinity*, c. 4, n. 6 and following; and Book X, c. 1 and following.

la: Cod. K *hominis*. Cfr. supra d. 29. q. 1. ad 2.

en: Codex K reads *hominis* ("of the man"). Cf. above, d. 29, q. 1, ad 2.

la: Gen. 29, 27. seq. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Gen. 29:27 and following. See here the Master's text, c. 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 7.

en: Cf. above, p. 86, note 7.

la: Vat. addit: *aut circa subiectam personae, aut circa proprietates personae.*

en: The Vatican [manuscript/edition] adds: "or concerning that which underlies the person, or concerning the properties of the person."

la: Porphyr., de Praedicab. c. de Differentia, dicit, quod omnis quidem differentia *alteratum* facit, differentia vera substantialis sive specifica *aliud*.

en: Porphyry, *On the Predicables*, the chapter *On Difference*, says that every difference indeed makes [a thing] "other" (*alteratum*) in some respect, but true, substantial or specific difference makes it "another thing" (*aliud*) entirely. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Principia hic circa impedimentum erroris et servitutis posita iure canonico comprobantur; attentione digna est regula ab auctore nostro assignata, qua dignoscitur, quando sit error circa personam; et cfr. infra dub. 3.

De I. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 51. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**II.** Verum fuisse matrimonium inter Ss. Virginem et S. Ioseph, a nonnullis theologis in dubio positum est, refragante communi sententia, quae ex Patribus plures rationes congruentiae hoc loco relatas urgere solet. — Quomodo cum proposito sive voto castitatis verum matrimonium licite contrahi possit, disputatum est supra d. 28. q. 6. — Hic specialiter de voto agitur, quod emisisse B. Virginem, communiter docetur. Non autem ita conveniunt doctores in duplici quaestione, utrum ipsa iam ante matrimonium contractum hoc votum fecerit; et utrum hoc votum absolutum fuerit, an conditionatum (scilicet, nisi Deus aliter disponeret). Durand. (hic q. 2.) utrumque probabile esse putat, scilicet vel B. Virginem ante matrimonium non fecisse votum, sed tantum propositum conditionatum; vel (ut S. Bonav., supra d. 28. q. 6, docet) ipsam certificatam de custodienda virginitate, votum absolutum emisisse. Votum absolutum et ante matrimonium fuisse, docet cum nostro Doctore Scot. (hic q. 2.). Idem (n. 4. seq.) evertere nititur opinionem alteram, quae pro voto conditionato militat, et quam profitentur cum Magistro (hic c. 2.) S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. 2; Sum. III. q. 29. a. 2.); B. Albert. (hic a. 8-11.); Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2.); Richard. a Med. (hic a. 1. q. 1. 2.); Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 2.) aliique multi. Sed Henr. Gandav. (Quodl. 9. q. 11.) quoad votum absolutum consentit S. Bonaventurae, et quod ipsa «ante matrimonium vovit, sed non nisi certificata de perseverantia sua in virginitate». — Hi igitur cum Scoto contra alios tenent, non obstante voluntate absoluta et certitudine nunquam utendi iure matrimonii, tamen fuisse inter eos verum matrimonium, cum ad hoc sufficiat potentia et obligatio remota, licet voto continendi perpetuo quoad actum impedita. — De locis Scripturae contra virginitatem Matris Dei obiectis vide infra dub. 4. 5.

**III.** Solutio 3. quaestionis communis est. De eadem: Scot., supra d. 26. q. unica n. 19. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; Suppl. q. 48. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The principles here concerning the impediment of error and of servitude are confirmed by canon law; a rule assigned by our author is worthy of attention, by which it is discerned when there is error concerning the person; and compare below, doubt 3.

On the first question: Scotus, here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, aa. 1–2; Suppl. q. 51, aa. 1–2. — Bl. Albert, here aa. 1–4. — Peter of Tarantaise, here q. 1, aa. 1–2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1–2. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Denys the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** That there was a true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph has been put in doubt by some theologians, the common opinion — which is accustomed to urge, on this point, several arguments of fittingness gathered from the Fathers — dissenting. — How, together with a proposal or vow of chastity, a true marriage can be lawfully contracted, has been disputed above, d. 28, q. 6. — Here the question deals specially with the vow, which the Blessed Virgin is commonly taught to have made. But the doctors do not agree so well on a twofold question: whether she had already made this vow before the marriage was contracted; and whether this vow was absolute, or conditional (namely, unless God should dispose otherwise). Durandus (here q. 2) thinks either is probable — namely, either that the Blessed Virgin made no vow before marriage, but only a conditional resolve; or (as St. Bonaventure teaches above, d. 28, q. 6) that, having been assured that she was to preserve her virginity, she made an absolute vow. That the vow was absolute, and made before marriage, is taught, along with our Doctor, by Scotus (here q. 2). The same author (n. 4 and following) strives to overturn the other opinion, which argues for a conditional vow, and which is professed, along with the Master (here c. 2), by St. Thomas (here q. 2, aa. 1–2; Summa III, q. 29, a. 2); Bl. Albert (here aa. 8–11); Peter of Tarantaise (here q. 2); Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 1, q. 1–2); Denys the Carthusian (here q. 2), and many others besides. But Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 9, q. 11), as to the absolute vow, agrees with St. Bonaventure, and holds that she "vowed before marriage, but only once assured of her perseverance in virginity." — These, therefore, together with Scotus, hold against the others that, notwithstanding the absolute will and certitude of never making use of the right of marriage, there was nevertheless a true marriage between them, since for this it suffices that the power and the obligation remain, even though remote, though impeded as to the act by a vow of perpetual continence. — On the passages of Scripture objected against the virginity of the Mother of God, see below, doubts 4 and 5.

**III.** The solution of the third question is the common one. On the same: Scotus, above, d. 26, q. unica, n. 19. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; Suppl. q. 48, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarantaise, here q. 3, aa. 1–2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1–2. — Denys the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 76288–76461), with the Quaracchi Vol. IV two-column PDF as authority for the cascade-shattered regions — the Respondeo, all five "Ad" replies, and both page footers — read column-band by column-band off `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p707-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p708-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (450 dpi, split x=1880). Running heads verified: p707 "DIST. XXX. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I." (top), p708 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Offset confirmed pdf = printed + 20 (707→727, 708→728); note `extract-pages.py --volume vol4 --pages 707-708` errored transiently on p.707's direct pdftoppm call (`pdftoppm produced no output`) but a manual re-run at the same pdf page (727) succeeded immediately — treat as a one-off flake, not a page-mapping problem.
- **Alignment check.** "Primo/Secundo/Tertio quaeritur" — this distinction's Articulus Unicus has no such internal split; the raw range opens cleanly at `QUAESTIO 1.` (line 76288) directly under `ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De consensu, qui deficit a parte rationis.`, and closes cleanly at `QUAESTIO II.` (line 76462, *Utrum consensus matrimonialis beatae Mariae Deo fuerit in se placitus et honestus*). No swap risk here — single clean boundary confirmed against both raw OCR and the PDF page images.
- **Marginalia trimmed.** The printed page carries small marginal topic-tags in the outer margin next to the running argument — *Duplex error*, *Conclusio 1*, *Notandum*, *Conclusio 2*, *Solutio oppositorum* (p. 707) and *Notandum*, *Ratio duplex* (p. 708). Per the corpus's OCR-cleanup convention (marginal glosses bleeding inline are trimmed, not Bonaventure's running text), these are omitted from both the Latin and English bodies.
- **Apparatus page-split.** Page 707's footer sequence 1–10 (all Contra-argument and Respondeo citations) is rendered as [^1]–[^10]; page 708's footer sequence restarts at 1 and runs to 5 (covering the "Ad 2"–"Ad 5" replies), rendered here as [^11]–[^15]. Page 708's footer note 6 ("Vers. 13. — Seq. locus est Deut. 7, 13. seq.") anchors to *Matthaei undecimo* in **QUAESTIO II**'s opening argument (right column, same page) — it is **not** claimed here; forwarded to `d30-a1-q2` as the first apparatus entry it should render.
- **Scholion disposition.** All three scholion points (I–III) belong wholly to this quaestio per the printed page (708, left column, immediately before `QUAESTIO II.`); none are shared with Q2. `d30-divisio.md` is itself still a skeleton (`[Translation pending]` throughout) — its `## Notes` carried no hand-off addressed to this quaestio; nothing was picked up from it.
- **[?] flags.** None. Both pages' PDF column bands were legible at 450 dpi throughout the cascade-damaged Respondeo/Ad-replies/footer regions; no ambiguous readings remain.
- **Hand-off to d30-a1-q2.** Page 708's right column, immediately after this quaestio's scholion, opens `QUAESTIO II.` / *Utrum consensus matrimonialis beatae Mariae Deo fuerit in se placitus et honestus* (raw line 76462), with its first Contra-style argument citing *Matthaei undecimo* under footer note 6 (still on p. 708) — see apparatus note above.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 30, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 708 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum consensus matrimonialis beatae Mariae Deo fuerit in se placitus et honestus.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum consensus matrimonialis beatae Mariae Deo fuerit in se placitus et honestus. Fuit enim hoc ordine: primo virgo vovit, secundo nupsit et nupsit ipsi Ioseph.

Primo videtur fuisse reprehensibilis in hoc, quod vovit:

1. Quia, sicut dicitur Matthaei undecimo[^1], *lex et Prophetae usque ad Ioannem*: ergo videtur, quod beata Maria in principio erat sub Lege; sed in Lege sterilis erat maledicta, sicut innuitur Deuteronomii septimo: ergo dum vovit, videtur, quod incurrerit maledictionem.

<!-- page 709 -->

2. Item, votum castitatis est in consilio; sed consilia primo a Christo sunt promulgata et in praedicatione evangelica[^2]: ergo videtur, quod ante Christi adventum virginitatem vovere ad Virginem non pertinebat.

Item, ulterius non videtur bene fecisse, quod nupsit alii:

3. Primum, propter periculum, quoniam mulier, quae vult virginitatem servare, cum periculo potestatem sui corporis viro tradit, et maxime cohabitando: ergo si beata Virgo voverat, periculo se committebat, quando cum viro cohabitabat.

4. Item, perfectius est carere omni consortio virili sive quantum ad societatem, sive quantum ad copulam, quam aliquo modo viro adhaerere: ergo si decebat, Matrem Domini esse perfectissimam, nullo modo decuit, viro alicui esse nuptam.

Ulterius videtur, quod tali viro non debuit nubere:

5. Quoniam Virgo Maria erat cognata Elisabeth, quae erat uxor sacerdotis Zachariae, sicut dicitur Lucae primo[^3]; sed personae, quae erant de diversis tribubus, non debebant simul contrahere, sicut probatur per illud quod dicitur Numerorum ultimo: ergo cum Ioseph esset de tribu Iuda, ut patet in Matthaeo; videtur, quod male fecit beata Virgo, quod illi nupsit.

6. Item, beata Maria erat ex stirpe regali, ex progenie David, sicut cantat Ecclesia[^4]: «Regali ex progenie Maria»; sed Ioseph fuit faber, sicut dicitur Matthaei decimo tertio: ergo si non decet, virgines de regali stirpe fabris desponsari; videtur, quod beata Virgo Maria inconvenienter nupsit.

### Conclusio.

> Matrimonialis consensus gloriosissimae Virginis fuit Deo placitus; fuit enim conveniens, illam vovere ac postea nubere idque ipsi Ioseph.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc totum, quod in illo matrimonio gestum est, familiari consilio Spiritus sancti est factum.

Primo namque decuit, Virginem virginitatem vovere triplici ratione. Prima est, ut esset Dei decentissimum habitaculum. Quia enim sapientia candor est lucis aeternae et speculum sine macula, quam nihil inquinatum incurrit[^5]; decebat, ut ex Matre incorrupta et re et voluntate firma conciperetur; perfecta autem incorruptio voluntatis in voto consistit virginitatis. — Secunda ratio est, ut esset mulieribus totius virginitatis exemplum. Sicut enim Deus Pater Christum viris proposuit in exemplum, sic eius Matrem in exemplum proposuit mulieribus; et quoniam hoc est maxime imitandum et laudandum, scilicet votum virginitatis, absque dubio in illa esse debuit. — Tertia ratio est, quia debebat in ea esse omnis nobilitatis et sanctitatis privilegium. Absit enim, quod aliqua alia virgo beatam Mariam excellat; immo Altissimus, qui fundavit eam[^6], omnis dignitatis privilegio adornavit, ut, sicut ipse eam prae ceteris adamavit, sic ipsa omnibus esset sanctior et amabilior universis. Unde circumscripta maternitate Dei, adhuc ipsa prae ceteris Sanctis debet amari et laudari; et ideo Spiritus sanctus, qui aliis inspiravit virginitatis votum, ab ea non retinuit celatum[^7].

Non solum autem conveniens fuit, ut voveret, sed etiam ut nuberet, triplici ex causa: primo propter significationem, secundo propter infamiae vitationem, tertio propter divini consilii occultationem. Propter significationem, quia Ecclesia est spiritualis sponsa et virgo et mater, et hoc significari debuit; et nulla alia ad hoc significandum idonea fuit, nisi haec quae simul fuit Virgo et mater[^8]: et ideo, ut perfecte significaret, debuit etiam desponsari. — Secunda ratio est propter infamiae vitationem: quia, ut dicit Bernardus[^9], omnes credidissent, quod esset fornicaria; et «non decebat, hoc credi de Matre Dei nec etiam de Christo, quod esset natus ex adulterio; tolerabilius autem fuit ad tempus credi, quod esset natus ex coniugio». Si enim Virgo fuisset infamata et Filius eius, tunc color excusationis Pharisaeis esset relictus, et velamen ipsis mulieribus infamibus. — Tertia ratio est propter consilii divini occultationem, ne adversario notum fieret consilium Dei. Hoc autem occultatum fuit adversario per hunc modum, quia, sicut Bernardus[^10] dicit, «non poterat latere diabolum quod scirent homines»; unde per homines scire non potuit, nec per se, quia a Virgine procul repellebatur.

<!-- page 710 -->

Decens etiam fuit, ut tali homini nuberet triplici ex causa, scilicet ratione generis, ratione fidelitatis et ratione paupertatis. Ratione generis, quia erat de tribu Iuda et de semine David et propinquus beatae Virginis, et per ipsum descripta est genealogia Christi, quae non debet per feminas describi, sicut Hieronymus super Matthaeum[^11] dicit. — Secunda ratio est, quia fuit vir castus et iustus, sicut dicit Evangelium; et ut esset Virgini in solatium et in testimonium eunti in Aegyptum, datus est ei a Deo in virum. — Tertia ratio est propter paupertatem, quia Christus, qui super omnia venit confundere superbiam, non voluit vocari filius regis, sed magis filius fabri. In quo ostenditur Christi humilitas et etiam ipsius Virginis gloriosae[^12], et confusa est mundanorum superbia. — Ex his patent obiecta.

*Ad 1 et 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod non debuit vovere, quia hoc spectat ad Evangelium; dicendum, quod Virgo sanctissima non erat sub Lege. Nam quomodo sub Lege erat, quae Legis auctorem genuit? Et rursus, si illi qui spiritu Dei aguntur[^13], non sunt sub Lege, cum haec esset plena Spiritu sancto, non pertinebat ad Legem, sed ad Evangelium, quod ab ipsa infantia in corde ipsius scripserat Dei digitus, ipse scilicet Spiritus sanctus.

*Ad 3 et 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de periculo et imperfectione, dico, quod Virgo certificata fuit vel inspiratione divina, vel revelatione angelica de ipsius sancti Ioseph continentia[^14]; et ipsa de se certa erat, quae nullum omnino carnis stimulum sentiebat: et ideo sine omni imperfectione et periculo nubere poterat et debebat, quoniam Deus sic inspirabat.

*Ad 5 et 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fuit ex genere sacerdotali; dicendum, quod verum est ex parte matris, sed ex tribu David ex parte patris[^15]; et ideo illi nubere debuit et potuit etiam secundum Legem. Praeterea, puellae de genere sacerdotum sub illa lege non arctabantur, nec etiam illae, ad quas non spectabat hereditas, propter hoc quod lex illa instituta fuit, ne confunderentur hereditates. — Ultimum patet.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the marital consent of blessed Mary was in itself pleasing and honorable to God.*

In the second place inquiry is made whether the marital consent of blessed Mary was in itself pleasing and honorable to God. For it happened in this order: first the virgin made a vow, second she married, and married Joseph himself.

In the first place she seems to have been reprehensible in this, that she made a vow:

1. Because, as is said in Matthew eleven[^1], *the Law and the Prophets [prophesied] until John*: therefore it seems that blessed Mary was at the beginning under the Law; but under the Law the barren woman was accursed, as is intimated in Deuteronomy seven: therefore, in making her vow, she seems to have incurred the curse.

2. Likewise, the vow of chastity belongs to counsel; but the counsels were first promulgated by Christ and in the evangelical preaching[^2]: therefore it seems that, before the coming of Christ, it did not pertain to the Virgin to vow virginity.

Likewise, further, she does not seem to have done well in that she married another:

3. First, on account of danger, since a woman who wishes to preserve her virginity hands over the power of her body to a man at peril, and especially by cohabiting: therefore if the blessed Virgin had made a vow, she was exposing herself to danger when she was cohabiting with a man.

4. Likewise, it is more perfect to lack all male companionship, whether as to society or as to intercourse, than to cleave to a man in any way: therefore if it was fitting for the Mother of the Lord to be most perfect, it was in no way fitting for her to be married to any man.

Further it seems that she ought not to have married such a man as this:

5. Since the Virgin Mary was a kinswoman of Elizabeth, who was the wife of the priest Zachary, as is said in Luke one[^3]; but persons who were of different tribes ought not to intermarry, as is proved by what is said in the last chapter of Numbers: therefore, since Joseph was of the tribe of Judah, as is clear in Matthew, it seems that the blessed Virgin did wrong in marrying him.

6. Likewise, blessed Mary was of royal stock, of the lineage of David, as the Church sings[^4]: "Mary, of royal lineage"; but Joseph was a carpenter, as is said in Matthew thirteen: therefore, if it is not fitting for virgins of royal stock to be betrothed to carpenters, it seems that the blessed Virgin Mary married unfittingly.

### Conclusion.

> The marital consent of the most glorious Virgin was pleasing to God; for it was fitting that she vow, and afterward marry, and this to Joseph himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that this whole affair, which was transacted in that marriage, was done by the intimate counsel of the Holy Spirit.

For in the first place it was fitting that the Virgin vow virginity, for a threefold reason. The first is, that she might be the most fitting dwelling-place of God. For since wisdom is the brightness of eternal light and a mirror without blemish, on which nothing defiled falls[^5]; it was fitting that he be conceived from a Mother incorrupt both in deed and in firm will; but the perfect incorruption of the will consists in the vow of virginity. — The second reason is, that she might be for women an example of complete virginity. For just as God the Father set forth Christ to men as an example, so he set forth his Mother to women as an example; and since this — namely, the vow of virginity — is most to be imitated and praised, it must without doubt have been present in her. — The third reason is, that there had to be in her the privilege of every nobility and holiness. For far be it that any other virgin should surpass blessed Mary; rather the Most High, who founded her[^6], adorned her with the privilege of every dignity, so that, just as he himself loved her above all others, so she herself might be holier and more lovable than all. Whence, apart even from her divine motherhood, she herself ought still to be loved and praised above the rest of the Saints; and therefore the Holy Spirit, who inspired others with the vow of virginity, did not withhold it concealed from her[^7].

But it was fitting not only that she vow, but also that she marry, for a threefold reason: first on account of signification, second on account of the avoidance of infamy, third on account of the concealment of the divine plan. On account of signification: because the Church is a spiritual spouse, both virgin and mother, and this had to be signified; and no other was fit to signify this except she who was at once Virgin and mother[^8]: and therefore, that she might signify it perfectly, she also had to be betrothed. — The second reason is on account of the avoidance of infamy: because, as Bernard[^9] says, everyone would have believed that she was a fornicatress; and "it was not fitting that this be believed of the Mother of God, nor even of Christ, that he was born of adultery; but it was more tolerable that for a time it be believed that he was born of a lawful marriage." For if the Virgin and her Son had been defamed, then a pretext of excuse would have been left to the Pharisees, and a veil to infamous women themselves. — The third reason is on account of the concealment of the divine plan, lest the counsel of God become known to the adversary. And this was concealed from the adversary in this way: because, as Bernard[^10] says, "the devil could not fail to notice what men knew"; hence he could not know it through men, nor by himself, since he was kept far away from the Virgin.

It was also fitting that she marry such a man for a threefold reason, namely by reason of lineage, by reason of faithfulness, and by reason of poverty. By reason of lineage: because he was of the tribe of Judah and of the seed of David, and a kinsman of the blessed Virgin, and through him the genealogy of Christ is set down, which ought not to be traced through women, as Jerome says on Matthew[^11]. — The second reason is, that he was a chaste and just man, as the Gospel says; and that he might be a comfort to the Virgin and a witness to her when she went into Egypt, he was given to her by God as a husband. — The third reason is on account of poverty: because Christ, who above all things came to confound pride, did not wish to be called the son of a king, but rather the son of a carpenter. In which is shown the humility of Christ, and also that of the glorious Virgin herself[^12], and the pride of worldly men is confounded. — From these things the objections are answered.

*To 1 and 2.* To what is objected first, then — that she ought not to have vowed, since this pertains to the Gospel — it must be said that the most holy Virgin was not under the Law. For how was she under the Law, who bore the author of the Law? And again, if those who are led by the Spirit of God[^13] are not under the Law, since she was full of the Holy Spirit, she did not belong to the Law but to the Gospel, which the finger of God — that is, the Holy Spirit himself — had written in her heart from her very infancy.

*To 3 and 4.* To what is objected concerning danger and imperfection, I say that the Virgin was assured, either by divine inspiration or by angelic revelation, of the continence of Saint Joseph himself[^14]; and she herself was certain of herself, since she felt no stirring of the flesh whatsoever: and therefore she could and ought to marry without any imperfection or danger, since God so inspired it.

*To 5 and 6.* To what is objected — that she was of priestly lineage — it must be said that this is true on the mother's side, but on the father's side she was of the tribe of David[^15]; and therefore she both ought to have married him, and could do so, even according to the Law. Moreover, girls of priestly lineage were not bound by that law, nor were those to whom no inheritance pertained, on account of this: that that law was instituted so that inheritances might not be confounded. — The last point is evident.

---

la: Vers. 13. — Seq. locus est Deut. 7, 13. seq.

en: Verse 13. — The following place is Deut. 7:13 and following.

la: Cfr. Matth. 19, 11. seq. et 21.

en: Cf. Matt. 19:11 and following, and 21.

la: Vers. 5. et 36. — Seq. locus est Num. 36, 6. seqq.; tertius est Matth. 1, 2. seqq. (Zacharias erat *de vice Abia*, et uxor illius *de filiabus Aaron*; Luc. 1, 5.).

en: Verse 5 and 36. — The following place is Num. 36:6 and following; the third is Matt. 1:2 and following (Zachary was *of the course of Abia*, and his wife *of the daughters of Aaron*; Luke 1:5).

la: In festo nativitatis B. M. V. (8 Sept.), 3. Antiph. ad Laudes, quae exhibetur etiam apud Gregor. in libro Responsali. — Seq. locus est Matth. 13, 55.

en: In the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (8 Sept.), the 3rd Antiphon at Lauds, which is also found in Gregory's *Liber Responsalis*. — The following place is Matt. 13:55.

la: Sap. 7, 26. et 25: *Nihil inquinatum in eam incurrit* (pro *quam* codd. EG *in quam*, cod. I *quia*, edd. *quod*). — Cfr. Ambros., *de Institutione virginis*, c. 6. n. 44. seq., ubi etiam seq. ratio insinuatur, et Anselm., *de Conceptu virgin. et orig. pec.* c. 18. — Aliquanto superius pro *hoc totum* multi codd. et ed. *hoc votum*.

en: Wisdom 7:26 and 25: *Nothing defiled falls upon her* (for *quam*, codices EG read *in quam*, codex I *quia*, the editions *quod*). — Cf. Ambrose, *On the Institution of a Virgin*, c. 6, n. 44 and following, where the following reason is also intimated, and Anselm, *On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin*, c. 18. — Somewhat above, for *hoc totum* many codices and the edition read *hoc votum*.

la: Psalm. 86, 5: *Et ipse fundavit eam Altissimus*. — Inferius pro *inspiravit* cod. U *inspirat*.

en: Psalm 86:5: *And the Most High himself founded her.* — Below, for *inspiravit* codex U reads *inspirat*.

la: Cfr. August., *Serm.* 213. (alias 119. de Tempore) c. 7. n. 7, et *Serm.* 4. de Symbolo ad catechumenos, c. 1. n. 1.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 213 (otherwise 119, *On the Season*), c. 7, n. 7, and *Sermon* 4, *On the Creed, to Catechumens*, c. 1, n. 1.

la: Homil. 2. super *Missus est*, n. 12. Eandem rationem afferunt Ambros., II. *Exposit. in Luc.* n. 1; *de Institutione virginis*, c. 6. n. 42; Hieron., *de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae* etc. n. 4, et I. *Comment. in Matth.* 1, 18. (ubi etiam tertia ratio ex Ignatio Martyre secundum Origenem, Homil. 6. in Luc., afferatur). — Inferius pro *excusationis* codd. R T U X bb *exsecrationis*.

en: [Bernard,] Homily 2 on *Missus est*, n. 12. The same reason is given by Ambrose, *Exposition on Luke*, Book II, n. 1; *On the Institution of a Virgin*, c. 6, n. 42; Jerome, *On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary* etc., n. 4, and *Commentary on Matthew*, Book I, on 1:18 (where the third reason, from Ignatius the Martyr according to Origen's Homily 6 on Luke, is also given). — Below, for *excusationis* codices R T U X bb read *exsecrationis*.

la: Vers. 6. Non pauci codd. et ed. *Quos* Deus etc.

en: Verse 6. Not a few codices and the edition read *Quos* [instead of *quod*], "Whom God etc."

la: Loc. cit. n. 13.

en: [Bernard,] loc. cit., n. 13.

la: Cap. 1, 18. Ibidem, sicut in lib. de *Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae* etc. n. 4, affertur etiam secunda ratio, inspicitur Matth. 1, 19: *Ioseph autem vir eius, cum esset iustus* etc. — Inferius ante *ut esset* plurimi codd. omittunt *et*.

en: [Jerome, Commentary on Matthew,] c. 1, on 1:18. There likewise, as in the book *On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary* etc., n. 4, the second reason is also given, and Matt. 1:19 is regarded: *And Joseph her husband, being a just man*, etc. — Below, before *ut esset*, most codices omit *et*.

la: Bernard., Homil. 1. super *Missus est*, n. 5: *Quae est ista tam venerabilis, ut salutetur ab Angelo; tam humilis, ut desponsata sit fabro?*

en: Bernard, Homily 1 on *Missus est*, n. 5: "Who is this woman, so venerable that she is greeted by an Angel; so humble that she is betrothed to a carpenter?"

la: Rom. 8, 14: *Quicumque enim spiritu Dei aguntur* etc.

en: Rom. 8:14: *For whoever are led by the Spirit of God*, etc.

la: Cfr. supra d. 28. q. 6.

en: Cf. above, d. 28, q. 6.

la: Vide Ambros., III. *Exposit. in Luc.* n. 4. 5. et August., *Qq. in Iudic.* q. 47; II. *de Consensu Evangelist.* c. 2; 83 *Qq.* q. 61. n. 2; XXIII. *contra Faust.* c. 8; Beda, in Luc. 1, 36. — Pro *David* cod. U (E primitus) *Iuda*. — Cfr. Num. 36, 2. seqq. (tribui sacerdotum *Levi* nulla terrena hereditas assignata fuit). — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See Ambrose, *Exposition on Luke*, Book III, nn. 4–5, and Augustine, *Questions on Judges*, q. 47; *On the Harmony of the Gospels*, Book II, c. 2; *83 Questions*, q. 61, n. 2; *Against Faustus*, Book XXIII, c. 8; Bede, on Luke 1:36. — For *David* codex U (E originally) reads *Iuda*. — Cf. Num. 36:2 and following (to the tribe of priests, *Levi*, no earthly inheritance was assigned). — See the scholion attached to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF (pp. 708–710, PDF 728–730; `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 1880`), per the Vol II/IV override — the IA djvu OCR for this range is severely cascade-shattered (columns bleed into a single interleaved raw line, confirmed by testing a gap-split heuristic on the raw range, which failed to yield a clean per-column split). Raw OCR was used only to confirm the line-range boundary (`QUAESTIO II.` at L76462, `QUAESTIO III.` at L76629) and to sanity-check Scripture/author citations in the apparatus. English translation is fresh and literal, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Boundary verification.** Grepped `QUAESTIO` in the raw range; confirmed `QUAESTIO 1.` (L76288), `QUAESTIO II.` (L76462), `QUAESTIO III.` (L76629) are the only three real headers in the vicinity (no running-head false positives at this granularity). "Secundo quaeritur, utrum consensus matrimonialis..." aligns correctly as the opening of Q2 — confirmed against the PDF (page 708, left column, immediately after Q1's Scholion III).

**Cross-chunk apparatus split (p.708, shared with q1) — corrected against q1's own promotion.** Page 708's footer carries 6 Quaracchi footnotes. Only the last (original note 6: "Vers. 13. — Seq. locus est Deut. 7, 13 seq.", anchored at "Matthaei undecimo" in objection 1) belongs to this quaestio — renumbered [^1] here. My first working draft mis-anchored original note 1 (Gen. 29:27) to this quaestio's opening statement ("primo virgo vovit") on a thematic guess; checking against `bon-sent-IV-d30-a1-q1.md` (already promoted, uncommitted, in this working tree while this file was being built) shows the textually exact anchor is q1's own "Ad 2" reply — "et rursus servivit pro prima[^11]" — which literally re-tells the Genesis 29 Jacob/Leah/Rachel double-service narrative the footnote cites. Corrected: that note, and the other four page-708 notes (originals 2–5, q1's [^12]–[^15]), all belong to q1's "Ad 2"–"Ad 5" replies, exactly as q1's own hand-off note states. No entries from p.708 are duplicated between q1 and q2.

**Scholion note.** q1's closing Scholion (I–III; PDF p.708, right column) substantively treats this quaestio's subject matter — Scholion II specifically discusses "Verum fuisse matrimonium inter Ss. Virginem et Ioseph" and the *votum absolutum* vs. *conditionatum* debate that underlies q2's Conclusio/Respondeo. Per q1's own Notes, that Scholion belongs wholly to q1 (not shared with q2), so this chunk sets `has_scholion: false`.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forward (p.710, shared with q3).** Page 710's footer carries 12 Quaracchi footnotes; the first 6 belong to this quaestio (renumbered [^10]–[^15] here). The remaining 6 (original notes 7–12: Matt. 19:6 variant, Peter of Spain on causation, cross-ref to d.25, cross-ref to d.26 a.2 q.1, Gen. 29/Deut. 21, and d.6 p.II a.2 q.1) anchor in `bon-sent-IV-d30-a1-q3.md`'s objections (visible on PDF p.710, left/right columns below "QUAESTIO III."). **Forwarding to q3's promotion**: those 6 notes are for q3's own apparatus, not duplicated here.

**No `[?]` flags** — all Latin readings were clear and unambiguous on the 450 dpi PDF crops; no illegible or contested OCR spots in this range.

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. 30, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 710 -->

### Articulus Unicus.
### Quaestio III. *Utrum consensus libidinosus sit causa matrimonii.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum consensus libidinosus sit causa matrimonii, ut puta cum aliquis consentit in aliquam propter divitias, vel propter pulcritudinem. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia coniunctio matrimonialis est a Deo, ut patet per illud quod dicitur Matthaei decimo nono[^1]: *Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet*; sed coniunctio libidinis non est a Deo, haec autem coniunctio, vel consensus venit ex libidine, quia ex inordinato amore: ergo etc.

2. Item, cuius causa mala, ipsum quoque malum[^2], unde si radix mala, et ramus operis malus; sed consensus iste est malus: ergo non efficit matrimonium nisi malum. Sed matrimonium non est malum, cum sit Sacramentum: ergo etc.

3. Item, matrimonium spirituale, contractum interveniente avaritia et pecuniae pactione, omnino rumpitur et non debet stare, sicut patet in episcopo simoniaco: ergo pari ratione matrimonium carnale, quod est signum illius.

4. Item, matrimonium est signum coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae[^3]; sed Ecclesia non coniungitur Christo, nec Christus Ecclesiae, nisi amore casto: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Hoc videtur sacra Scriptura, quia dicitur expresse Genesis vigesimo nono[^4], quod Iacob propter pulcritudinem consensit in Rachelem; similiter Deuteronomii vigesimo primo[^5]: *Si videris mulierem pulcram* etc.

2. Item, hoc ostenditur duplici simili: quia qui baptizat alium intentione lucrandi vere baptizat; et intentio est necessaria ad baptismum[^6], sicut consensus ad matrimonium. Item, mercenarius, qui praedicat amore pecuniae, praedicat et profert Evangelium verum, et credendum est ei: ergo si amor libidinosus non depravat Evangelium in praedicante, nec matrimonium in consentiente.

4. Item, si requiritur consensus castus ad matrimonium, pari ratione et caritas: ergo non poterit hoc Sacramentum perfici nisi ab habentibus caritatem[^7], quod non est in aliquo Sacramento.

> **Conclusio.** Consensus libidinosus, qui caret intentione contrahendi, est contra Sacramenti huius veritatem, sed qui intendit contrahere intentione libidinis est tantum contra eiusdem utilitatem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod consensus libidinosus dicitur dupliciter: aut quia intendit libidinem per modum finis et obiecti, videlicet quia talis consensus nihil quaerit nisi corporalem copulam extorquere[^8], non uxorem ducere; et illud privat intentionem contrahendi. Alio modo dicitur libidinosus, quia, etsi consentiat in aliquam, ut ducat in uxorem, tamen hoc non facit propter servandam castitatem, sed propter explendam cupiditatem sive voluptatem. Primus consensus est contra Sacramenti veritatem, secundus est contra utilitatem, non contra veritatem; de consensu autem illo est hic sermo, non qui caret intentione contrahendi, sed qui intendit contrahere intentione libidinis; iste autem non aufert, quin sit matrimonium. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes hoc probantes.

<!-- page 711 -->

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod matrimonium est a Deo, et hoc a libidine; dicendum, quod in consensu duo sunt, scilicet substantia consensus et circumstantia mala, quia propter pecuniam, vel luxuriam. Substantia actionis est bona[^9] et est a Deo; et haec est causa consensus; circumstantia vero nihil facit ad hoc, unde nec iuvat nec est causa nec concausa. — Unde ex hoc patet sequens, quia consensus non est causa matrimonii secundum id quod habet malitiae, sed secundum id quod habet bonitatis. — Quod vero dicitur, quod opera exteriora recipiunt qualitatem ab interiori[^10], verum est, secundum quod sunt opera rationis quae ordinantur in finem et procedunt ab ipsa voluntate, in quantum bona per ordinationem in bonum finem, vel in quantum mala.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de matrimonio spirituali; dicendum, quod non est simile: primum, quia ibi requiritur dignitas personae et honestas, quae debite tractare debeat Sacramenta; secundo vero quia illud Sacramentum est spirituale, et officium, ad quod eligitur, est spirituale, et sponsa spiritualis: et ideo, quando introducitur per pecuniam, omnino repellitur. Non sic in matrimonio carnali, ad quod nec personae dignitas nec officium spirituale est; et iterum, non datur gratia per eum modum per quem in aliis Sacramentis, sed solum auxilium gratiae, sicut supra in principio[^11] visum est, nisi forte ratione benedictionis adiunctae, quae vendentem faceret simoniacum.

*Ad 4.* Ad ultimum respondendum, quod non est signum ratione omnium conditionum, sed ratione divisibilitatis; ideo non oportet, quod ex castitate, vel ex caritate conveniant[^12].

---

english:
### Article Unique.
### Question III. *Whether a lustful consent is the cause of matrimony.*

Thirdly it is asked whether a lustful consent is the cause of matrimony, as for instance when someone consents to a woman on account of riches, or on account of beauty. And that it is not, is shown:

1. Because the matrimonial union is from God, as is clear from what is said in Matthew nineteen[^1]: *What God has joined, let not man separate*; but the union of lust is not from God — and this union, or consent, comes from lust, since it arises from disordered love: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, that whose cause is evil is itself also evil[^2]; hence if the root is evil, the branch of the work is evil too; but this consent is evil: therefore it does not effect matrimony except an evil one. But matrimony is not evil, since it is a Sacrament: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a spiritual marriage, contracted with avarice intervening and a pact concerning money, is altogether broken and ought not to stand, as is clear in the case of a simoniacal bishop: therefore by the same reasoning carnal matrimony, of which [spiritual matrimony] is a sign, [ought likewise not to stand].

4. Likewise, matrimony is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church[^3]; but the Church is not united to Christ, nor Christ to the Church, except by a chaste love: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Sacred Scripture seems to show this, since it is said expressly in Genesis twenty-nine[^4], that Jacob consented to Rachel on account of her beauty; likewise in Deuteronomy twenty-one[^5]: *If you see a beautiful woman*, etc.

2. Likewise, this is shown by a double similitude: because he who baptizes another with the intention of gain truly baptizes; and intention is necessary for baptism[^6], just as consent is for matrimony. Likewise, a hireling who preaches out of love of money nevertheless preaches and proclaims the true Gospel, and it must be believed on his account: therefore if lustful love does not corrupt the Gospel in the one preaching it, neither does it corrupt matrimony in the one consenting.

4. Likewise, if a chaste consent is required for matrimony, by the same reasoning charity would be required as well: therefore this Sacrament could not be perfected except by those having charity[^7], which is not [required] in any [other] Sacrament.

> **Conclusion.** A lustful consent which lacks the intention of contracting is against the truth of this Sacrament, but one who intends to contract with the intention of lust is only against its usefulness.

**I respond:** It must be said that a lustful consent is spoken of in two ways: either because it intends lust after the manner of an end and an object, namely because such a consent seeks nothing but to extort bodily coupling[^8], not to take a wife; and this deprives it of the intention of contracting. In another way one is called lustful because, although he consents to some woman so as to take her as a wife, nevertheless he does this not for the sake of preserving chastity, but for the sake of satisfying cupidity or lust. The first consent is against the truth of the Sacrament, the second is against its usefulness, not against its truth; and it is of that latter consent that we speak here — not the one that lacks the intention of contracting, but the one that intends to contract with the intention of lust; and this does not take away that it is matrimony. — Hence the arguments proving this are to be granted.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*To 1, 2.* To what is objected, that matrimony is from God, and this [consent, is] from lust; it must be said that in consent there are two things, namely the substance of the consent and the evil circumstance, since [it is done] on account of money, or lust. The substance of the act is good[^9] and is from God; and this is the cause of the consent; the circumstance, however, contributes nothing to this, whence it neither helps, nor is it a cause or a co-cause. — Hence from this the following point is clear, that consent is not the cause of matrimony according to what it has of malice, but according to what it has of goodness. — As for what is said, that exterior works receive their quality from the interior [act][^10], this is true insofar as they are works of reason, which are ordered to an end and proceed from the will itself, in that they are good through their ordination to a good end, or evil [through ordination to an evil end].

*To 3.* To what is objected concerning spiritual matrimony: it must be said that it is not alike, first, because there dignity of person and honesty are required, since one must treat the Sacraments with due propriety; second, because that Sacrament is spiritual, and the office to which one is chosen is spiritual, and the spouse is spiritual: and therefore, when it is brought about through money, it is altogether rejected. Not so in carnal matrimony, for which neither dignity of person nor a spiritual office is required; and again, grace is not given through it in the manner it is given through other Sacraments, but only the help of grace, as was seen above at the beginning [of this treatise][^11], unless perhaps by reason of an attached blessing, which would make the seller simoniacal.

*To 4.* To the last it must be answered that it is a sign not by reason of all [the] conditions [of the thing signified], but by reason of indivisibility; hence it is not necessary that they come together out of chastity, or out of charity[^12].

---

la: Vers. 6. Non pauci codd. et ed. *Quos Deus* etc.

en: Verse 6. Not a few codices and editions [read] *Whom God* etc.

la: Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Locis argg., agens de causa efficiente ait: *Cuius causa efficiens non est bona, ipsum quod fit, non est bonum.* Aristot., II. Topic. c. 3. (c. 9.): *Quorum generationes... malae, et ipsa mala.* Cfr. Boeth., II. de Differentiis topic., qui praeter praedicta etiam hoc dicit: *Cuius finis bonus est, ipsum quoque bonum est.*

en: Peter of Spain, *Summulae*, tract on the Loci of arguments, treating of the efficient cause, says: *That whose efficient cause is not good, the thing which comes to be is not good.* Aristotle, *Topics* II, c. 3 (c. 9): *Things whose generations... are evil, are themselves also evil.* Cf. Boethius, *On Topical Differences* II, who besides the aforesaid also says this: *That whose end is good, is itself also good.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXV. c. 2, et Comment. a. 1. q. 4.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. 25, c. 2, and the Commentary, a. 1, q. 4.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1.

en: As was shown above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vers. 17. seqq. — Seq. locus est Deut. 21, 11: *Et videris... mulierem* etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Verse 17 and following. — The following passage is Deut. 21:11: *And you see... a woman*, etc. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Vide supra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Mox post *matrimonium* cod. Iv addit: *ergo qui consentit in aliquam ratione pulcritudinis vere matrimonium contrahit*, edd. *ergo* etc.

en: See above, d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — Shortly after *matrimonium*, codex Iv adds: *therefore whoever consents to a woman by reason of beauty truly contracts matrimony*; the editions [read simply] *therefore* etc.

la: Vat. *aliquo alio*.

en: The Vatican [manuscript reads] *some other* [i.e., a variant reading for this clause].

la: Cod. L addit *ex femina*, Vat. *et feminam*.

en: Codex L adds *from a woman*; the Vatican [manuscript reads] *and a woman*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1.

en: See II Sent., d. 37, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 38. a. 1. q. 1. — Superius pro *opera rationis* codd. L P V (E a secunda manu) *opera moris*. Pro *vel in quantum mala* codd. *non in quantum mala*.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 38, a. 1, q. 1. — Above, for *works of reason*, codices L, P, V (E by a second hand) [read] *works of custom*. For *or insofar as evil*, the codices [read] *not insofar as evil*.

la: Scil. tractatus de matrimonio, d. 26. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Namely, the treatise on matrimony, d. 26, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to q. 1 of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Re-set entirely from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`raw/vision/vol4/p-710.png`, `p-711.png`, cropped via `tools/colcrop.py vol4 {710,711} 1880`) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override — the IA djvu OCR at raw lines 76629–76764 is severely cascade-shattered (diagonal one-token-per-line interleaving of both columns) and was unusable as a base for this chunk; it was consulted only to confirm the raw line-range boundary and running-head text.

**Boundary re-derivation (per dispatch instructions).** Verified the true chunk end is the section header `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (OCR-garbled `DUBIA CmCA LITTERAM MAGISTRT.`) at raw line 76765 — **not** the running head `DIST. XXX. DUBIA. 711` at raw line 76707, which is only a page-top artifact sitting mid-chunk (page 711 opens with more of Q3's Respondeo/solutio, not with the Dubia). `line_end` set to 76764 (last blank line before the true section header). Confirmed the `Tertio quaeritur...` opener aligns correctly with Q3 — no q-swap.

**Printed-page / apparatus-series map:**
- p.710: two footnote series share the page footer. Markers 1–6 (page's own numbering) belong to **q.2's tail** (still skeleton as of this promotion — not touched here). Markers **7–12** belong to this chunk's opening *videtur*/*contra* arguments; rendered above as file-local [^1]–[^6].
- p.711: markers **1–6** (page's own numbering) belong to this chunk's Respondeo/solutio; rendered above as file-local [^7]–[^12]. Markers 7–9 on the same page-footer belong to the *following* **Dub. I** (and the start of Dub. II) — **forwarded, not resolved here**; whoever promotes `d30-dubia` should pull those three entries (`Magister in lit. periculosus`; `Cfr. supra d.27. a.2. q.2. in fine corp.`; `Vide III. Sent. d.9. a.1. q.6; B. Albert., hic a.6; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.`) straight from PDF p.731 right column bottom rather than re-cropping.
- No scholion present for this quaestio (none printed between the Ad-argumenta and the Dubia header); consistent with the corpus convention that some quaestiones simply lack one.

**`[?]` flags:**
- Contra-argument numbering in the printed text itself jumps from "2." to "4." with no visible "3." (the "duplici simili" of baptism-intention + hireling-preacher both fall under "2."). Preserved as printed; flagged in case a future 600 dpi decade-polish pass finds a dropped "3." elsewhere in the column gutter.
- Apparatus [^7]/[^8] (page-711 series 1–2, "Vat. *aliquo alio*" and "Cod. L addit *ex femina*, Vat. *et feminam*") — marker attachment points in the body (placed at *caritatem* and *extorquere* respectively) are inferred from content/order rather than a directly legible superscript digit in the crop; flag for confirmation at the next decade polish pass (d.21–d.30 gate, due once d.30 closes).

**Hand-off to `d30-dubia`:** the chunk immediately following this one begins at raw line 76765 with `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `Dub. I` (`Si enim diabolus, transfigurans se in angelum lucis...`), running onto PDF p.731 right column and p.732. Apparatus markers 7–9 of p.711's footer (see above) belong there.


title: Dist. 30, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 711 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: *Si enim diabolus, transfigurans se in angelum lucis, credatur bonus, non est error perniciosus*[^1]. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia hic est error, qui ducit ad idololatriam, ut si ostendat, se esse Christum, et credatur et adoretur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister loquitur de errore illo ita, quod non procedatur ultra, quia iste non est error iuris, sed facti[^2]. — Vel si ultra procedat, intelligitur ita, quod non simpliciter, sed sub conditione, utpote si adoret eum, si est Christus; tunc nulla est idololatria nec deceptio periculosa. Si autem ultra procedat, tunc incipit esse periculum[^3].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si quis haereticus nomine Augustini vel Ambrosii* etc. Videtur, quod talis error sit periculosissimus: quia si talem haereticum nomine Augustini recipit, tunc credet omnia quae sibi dicet, et ita contra fidem, et efficietur qui sic credit haereticus, et nullus a tali errore excusatur: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si haereticus ille, qui sic se offerret sub nomine Augustini, procederet in praedicando errorem: si ei tunc crederet, periculum esset, quia non tantum in persona esset error, verum etiam in fide. Nec excusatur talis, qui tali assentit, quoniam habet consiliarium interiorem, ad quem debet retroire[^4] et quem debet consulere. Sed si ille non procedat ultra, sed solum in generali dicat, quod sequatur sectam suam; tunc nullum est periculum: verum in persona et si praedicat ei Augustini, potest ibi esse meritum in assentiendo.

Unde nota, quod in eadem veritate assentiens aliquis alicui secundum quod catholico doctori meretur; assentiens ut haeretico demeretur; assentiens ut philosopho nec meretur nec demeretur. Unde esto, quod sicut Moyses[^5] dixit: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram,* ita etiam diceret Aristoteles, ita etiam Arius; qui crederet quod Moyses dicit, mereretur, quia crederet, quod Spiritu sancto fuerit afflatus, et ita crederet primae Veritati. Qui crederet quod Aristoteles dicit, nec mereretur nec demereretur, quia adhaereret sapientiae mundanae. Qui crederet quod Arius dicit, putans, Arium, qui fuit haereticus, esse doctorem verum, demereretur, quia assensus est fundatus[^6] super haeresim.
<!-- page 712 -->

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Error fortunae consensum non excludit.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia possibile est, quod aliquis consentiat in aliquam pro sola pecunia; ratio consentiendi fuit pecunia; sed non existente causa principali, non existit effectus[^7]: ergo si non est dives illa, in quam consentitur propter divitias, non est consensus: ergo nec matrimonium. — Item, esto quod consensus exprimeretur sub conditione pecuniae; deinde si non daretur, non esset matrimonium in conspectu Ecclesiae[^8]: ergo pari ratione, si non est ita in corde, non est matrimonium in conspectu Dei.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod error fortunae non excludit consensum, immo consensum inducit. Inducitur autem consensus falsa aestimatione ad eliciendum consensum verum; et cum non sit in aliam personam quam in hanc, verus est consensus, et verum est matrimonium.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod pecunia est causa; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo aestimatio, vel spes habendae pecuniae.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, si consentiret spe pecuniae; dicendum, quod aliud est spe pecuniae consentire, aliud sub conditione consentire. Qui enim consentit spe pecuniae supponit divitias in aestimatione et absolute elicit consensum ex voluntate, et ideo matrimonium contrahit; sed qui sub conditione, reservat sibi adhuc consensum, et ideo non est matrimonium; nec est similitudo inter hunc consensum et illum[^9].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Postea vero expresserunt et in virginitate permanserunt.* Contra: Matthaei primo[^10]: *Accepit Mariam coniugem suam et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit Filium suum primogenitum.* Ex hac littera dupliciter arguitur: primo de ly *donec:* ergo *post* cognovit; similiter de ly *primogenitum,* quia *primum* dicitur respectu *secundi.* — Item, Ioannis secundo[^11]: *Descendit Capharnaum ipse et Mater eius et fratres eius:* ergo fratres habuit; et constat, quod non de patre: ergo de Matre.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ex duplici verbo praedicto ortum habuit vilissima haeresis Claudianorum[^12], qui fatentur, beatam Virginem post generationem Christi fuisse cognitam a Ioseph; sed ista haeresis est omnino irrationabilis, quod beatissima Mater Dei, ex quo fuit templum Dei et Spiritus sancti, operi carnis vacaret. Hoc non potest cadere nisi in animam impiam et stultam, credere scilicet tantam in Matre Dei indignitatem; ideo erroneum est et perniciosum. Et Dominus in morte istum errorem evacuavit, quando eam beato Ioanni recommendavit et dedit eum sibi in solatium loco Filii: utquid illum dedisset, si filios habuisset[^13]?
<!-- page 713 -->

Quod ergo obiicitur de ly *donec,* dicendum, quod dicit terminum incertum, sicut ibi[^14]: *Dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos* etc.; constat, quod post sedebit a dextris. — Similiter hoc nomen *primogenitum* privat ordinem ad *anterius,* non ponit ordinem ad *posterius;* et ideo primogenitus appellatur, quia Dominus erat secundum Legem offerendus. — Et si tu obiicias, quod habuit aliquos fratres; dicendum, quod fratres vocantur ibi propinqui in secundo gradu, vel in tertio[^15].

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Committens se divinae dispositioni consensit in carnalem copulam:* ergo videtur, quod saltem fuerit mente corrupta; quod dicere est blasphemia. — Item, videtur sibi contradicere, quia paulo ante[^16] dicit: «Consensit Maria in maritalem societatem, sed non in carnalem copulam»: ergo falsum dicit nunc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud verbum Augustini intelligitur, non quia Virgo consenserit, ut ipsam cognosceret, quia nunquam credo hoc ipsam voluisse, nec Deum hoc sibi inspirasse; sed consensit in coniugalem societatem sive in mutuam corporum potestatem, quae ordinata erat ad copulam carnalem, non tamen ordinatione necessaria[^17].

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Iacob Rachel decoram facie et venusto aspectu[^18] amavit; utrum peccaverit. Et quod sic, videtur, quia Magister dicit in littera[^19], quod «pulcritudo est causa minus honesta, propter quam contrahitur matrimonium». — Item, fallax gratia et vana est pulcritudo, sicut dicitur Proverbiorum ultimo[^20]: ergo qui propter pulcritudinem contrahit matrimonium movetur ex vanitate: si ergo in Sacramentis divinis talis causa est reprehensibilis, patet etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod pulcritudo in muliere vel in viro potest dupliciter movere ad matrimonium contrahendum: aut sicut causa principalis, aut sicut causa inducens et attrahens quodam modo. Si sicut causa principalis; tunc est causa minus honesta, quia non debet hoc intendi in matrimonio, sed filiorum procreatio, vel aliquod simile, et hoc iterum ordinatum est ad divinum obsequium. Si autem sicut inducens; potest esse sine peccato, ad minus gravi, pro eo quod pulcritudo naturaliter attrahit animum ad amorem; et si amor talis sit complacentiae non multum intensus, non est culpabilis. — Si quis autem dicat, quod Iacob ibi venialiter peccaverit, non est multum improbabile. — Et nota, quod multae possunt esse causae inducentes, quae sine peccato inducunt, dum tamen non sistatur in eis, scilicet gratia, pulcritudo, divitiae, merces[^21], sapientia, virtus, sed virtus et mores super omnia sunt attendenda.

english:
<!-- page 711 -->

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what he says: *For if the devil, transfiguring himself into an angel of light, is believed to be good, this is not a pernicious error*[^1]. For it seems false to say this, since here there is an error which leads to idolatry, as if he should show himself to be Christ, and be believed and adored.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master speaks of that error in such a way that it is not carried further, because this is not an error of law, but of fact[^2]. — Or if it is carried further, it is understood in such a way that it is not simply so, but under a condition, namely if one should adore him, if he is Christ; then there is no idolatry nor dangerous deception. But if it is carried further still, then it begins to be a danger[^3].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *If someone heretical under the name of Augustine or Ambrose,* etc. It seems that such an error would be most dangerous: because if he receives such a heretic under the name of Augustine, then he will believe everything the heretic says to him, and so [act] against the faith, and he who believes in this way becomes a heretic, and no one is excused from such an error: therefore, etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that if that heretic, who offered himself in this way under the name of Augustine, were to proceed in preaching an error: if one were then to believe him, it would be a danger, because the error would be not only in the person, but also in the faith. Nor is one excused who assents to such a person, since he has an interior counselor, to whom he ought to turn back[^4] and whom he ought to consult. But if that person does not proceed further, but only says in general that one should follow his own sect; then there is no danger: it is true in the person, and if he preaches the truth of Augustine to him, there can be merit in assenting there.

Hence note that, in the same truth, one who assents to another according as he is a Catholic doctor merits; assenting to him as to a heretic, one demerits; assenting to him as to a philosopher, one neither merits nor demerits. Hence suppose that, just as Moses[^5] said: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth,* so too would Aristotle say it, so too would Arius; he who believed what Moses says would merit, because he would believe that Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so would believe the First Truth. He who believed what Aristotle says would neither merit nor demerit, because he would be adhering to worldly wisdom. He who believed what Arius says, thinking Arius, who was a heretic, to be a true doctor, would demerit, because his assent is founded[^6] upon heresy.
<!-- page 712 -->

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *An error of fortune does not exclude consent.* For it seems to speak badly: because it is possible that someone should consent to a woman for money alone; the reason for consenting was the money; but the principal cause not existing, the effect does not exist[^7]: therefore if she in whom one consents on account of riches is not rich, there is no consent: therefore no marriage either. — Likewise, suppose that consent were expressed under the condition of money; then if it were not given, there would be no marriage in the sight of the Church[^8]: therefore by the same reasoning, if it is not so in the heart, there is no marriage in the sight of God.

**I respond:** It must be said that an error of fortune does not exclude consent, but rather induces consent. For consent is induced by a false estimation so as to elicit true consent; and since it is not directed toward another person than this one, the consent is true, and the marriage is true.

As to what is objected, that money is the cause; it must be said that this is false, but rather it is the estimation, or hope of having money, [that is the cause].

To what is objected, if one should consent in hope of money; it must be said that it is one thing to consent in hope of money, another to consent under a condition. For he who consents in hope of money supposes riches in his estimation and absolutely elicits consent from the will, and therefore contracts marriage; but he who consents under a condition reserves his consent to himself still, and therefore there is no marriage; nor is there a likeness between this consent and that one[^9].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *But afterward they declared it and remained in virginity.* On the contrary: Matthew, chapter one[^10]: *He took Mary his wife and did not know her, until she brought forth her firstborn son.* From this text a twofold argument is made: first from the word *until:* therefore he knew her *afterward;* likewise from the word *firstborn,* because *first* is said with respect to *a second.* — Likewise, John chapter two[^11]: *He went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother and his brothers:* therefore he had brothers; and it is agreed that this is not said of the father: therefore of the Mother.

**I respond:** It must be said that from the aforesaid twofold expression the most base heresy of the Claudianists[^12] took its rise, who assert that the blessed Virgin was known by Joseph after the birth of Christ; but this heresy is altogether irrational, [holding] that the most blessed Mother of God, since she was the temple of God and of the Holy Spirit, should be given over to the work of the flesh. This cannot fall except into an impious and foolish soul, believing, that is, so great an indignity in the Mother of God; therefore it is erroneous and pernicious. And the Lord at his death did away with this error, when he commended her to blessed John and gave him to her as a comfort in place of a Son: for why would he have given him, if she had had sons[^13]?
<!-- page 713 -->

As to what is objected concerning the word *until,* it must be said that it states an uncertain term, just as there[^14]: *The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies* etc.; it is agreed that afterward he will sit at [his] right hand. — Likewise this name *firstborn* removes an order to what is *prior,* it does not posit an order to what is *later;* and therefore he is called firstborn because he was, according to the Law, to be offered. — And if you should object that he had some brothers; it must be said that *brothers* are there called kinsmen in the second degree, or in the third[^15].

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Committing herself to the divine disposition, she consented to carnal intercourse:* therefore it seems that she was at least corrupted in mind; which to say is blasphemy. — Likewise, he seems to contradict himself, because a little before[^16] he says: «Mary consented to the marital society, but not to carnal intercourse»: therefore he now says something false.

**I respond:** It must be said that that saying of Augustine is understood, not as though the Virgin had consented so as to know him carnally, since I never believe that she herself willed this, nor that God inspired this in her; but she consented to the conjugal society, or to the mutual power over each other's body, which was ordained to carnal intercourse, though not by a necessary ordination[^17].

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that Jacob loved Rachel for her comely face and graceful appearance[^18]; whether he sinned. And it seems that he did, because the Master says in the text[^19] that «beauty is a less honorable cause on account of which marriage is contracted». — Likewise, favor is deceitful and beauty is vain, as is said in the last chapter of Proverbs[^20]: therefore whoever contracts marriage on account of beauty is moved by vanity: therefore if in the divine Sacraments such a cause is reprehensible, the point is evident, etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that beauty in a woman or in a man can move one to contract marriage in two ways: either as a principal cause, or as a cause inducing and attracting in a certain manner. If as a principal cause; then it is a less honorable cause, because this ought not to be the intention in marriage, but rather the procreation of children, or something similar, and this in turn is ordained to the divine service. But if as an inducing [cause]; it can be without sin, or at least without a grave one, inasmuch as beauty naturally draws the mind to love; and if such love of complacency is not very intense, it is not blameworthy. — But if someone should say that Jacob sinned venially there, this is not very improbable. — And note that there can be many inducing causes, which induce without sin, provided one does not rest in them, namely favor, beauty, riches, wages[^21], wisdom, virtue — but virtue and character are above all to be attended to.

la: Magister in lit. *periculosus.*

en: The Master in the text [reads] *periculosus* ("dangerous") [rather than *perniciosus*, "pernicious"].

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. in fine corp.

en: Cf. above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, at the end of the body.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 6; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See III Sent., d. 9, a. 1, q. 6; Bl. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, and Richard of Mediavilla, here around the text.

la: Edd. *recurrere.*

en: The editions [read] *recurrere* ("to have recourse") [rather than *retroire*].

la: Gen. 1, 1. — Inferius pro *quod Moyses dicit* cod. L *Moysi, quod diceret verum,* plures codd. *quod Moyses* [aliqui codd. omittunt *Moyses*] *diceret verum.*

en: Genesis 1:1. — Below, for *quod Moyses dicit* ("what Moses says") codex L [reads] *Moysi, quod diceret verum* ("of Moses, that he would speak the truth"), several codices [read] *quod Moyses* [some codices omit *Moyses*] *diceret verum* ("that Moses would speak the truth").

la: Cod. K *assensus eius fundatur.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Codex K [reads] *assensus eius fundatur* ("his assent is founded" [passive]). — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, and Richard of Mediavilla, here around the text.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 493, nota 6.

en: Cf. above, p. 493, note 6.

la: Vide supra pag. 669, nota 4.

en: See above, p. 669, note 4.

la: Cfr. supra d. 28. q. 3. ad 2; B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 28, q. 3, ad 2; Bl. Albert, here a. 4; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, ad 4; Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vers. 24. seq.

en: Verse 24 and following.

la: Vers. 12.

en: Verse 12.

la: Epiphan., III. adversus Haeres. haeres. 78, eos qui hanc haeresim amplectebantur, generali nomine *Antidicomarianitae* designat, cuius auctorem commemorat Apollinarem aut eius discipulos. August., de Haeres. n. 56. eodem nomine (*Antidicomaritae*) utitur et n. 84. dicit, Helvidianos hunc errorem docuisse (cfr. Hieron., de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae adversus Helvidium). Ambros., de Institutione virgin. c. 3. n. 35, refert, quendam episcopum [ed. Maurin. in nota adiecta hunc episcopum nominat *Bonosum*] in hanc haeresim prolapsum esse. Investigare nequivimus, quare haec haeresis a S. Bonav., vel potius in codd. et edd. nominetur haeresis Claudianorum. Fortasse error irrepsit in codd. male scribendo *Claudianorum* pro *Elvidianorum* (Helvidianorum). — Inferius verbis *templum Dei* cod. L interserit *Filii.*

en: Epiphanius, book III against Heresies, heresy 78, designates by the general name *Antidicomarianitae* those who embraced this heresy, whose author he records as Apollinaris or his disciples. Augustine, *On Heresies*, n. 56, uses the same name (*Antidicomaritae*) and at n. 84 says the Helvidians taught this error (cf. Jerome, *On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, against Helvidius*). Ambrose, *On the Institution of Virgins*, c. 3, n. 35, reports that a certain bishop [the Maurist edition, in an added note, names this bishop *Bonosus*] fell into this heresy. We have not been able to discover why this heresy is named by St. Bonaventure, or rather in the codices and editions, the heresy of the Claudianists. Perhaps the error crept into the codices by writing *Claudianorum* mistakenly for *Elvidianorum* (Helvidianorum). — Below, in the words *templum Dei* ("temple of God"), codex L inserts *Filii* ("of the Son").

en: [See the note on] the editions' [reading] *recurrere* [is repeated at this locus in the Quaracchi apparatus].

la: Psalm. 109, 1. — Inferius respicitur Exod. 13, 2: *Sanctifica mihi omne primogenitum* etc. Cfr. Num. 3, 13; 8, 16. seqq. et Luc. 2, 22. seqq.

en: Psalm 109:1 [Vulgate numbering; = Ps 110:1]. — Below, reference is made to Exodus 13:2: *Sanctify unto me every firstborn* etc. Cf. Numbers 3:13; 8:16 and following, and Luke 2:22 and following.

la: Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.

en: The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1.

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2 [of the Master's text].

la: Cfr. supra d. 28. q. 6; B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. ad 3.

en: Cf. above, d. 28, q. 6; Bl. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, here around the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2, ad 3.

la: Codd., terminis transpositis, *venustam facie et decoro aspectu.*

en: The codices, with the terms transposed, [read] *venustam facie et decoro aspectu* ("comely in face and graceful in appearance").

la: Hic c. 3. — Post *pulcritudo* addunt *procul dubio.*

en: Here, c. 3 [of the Master's text]. — After *pulcritudo* ("beauty") they add *procul dubio* ("without doubt").

la: Vers. 30.

en: Verse 30.

la: Codd. F K L (1 primitus) *mores;* edd. post *virtus* addunt *et mores.* Superius pro *inducunt* codd. R S T *movent.* — Cfr. supra q. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1.

en: Codices F, K, L (1 originally) [read] *mores* ("character"); the editions add *et mores* ("and character") after *virtus* ("virtue"). Above, for *inducunt* ("they induce"), codices R, S, T [read] *movent* ("they move"). — Cf. above, q. 3; Bl. Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 3, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1.

translators_notes:
**This is the LAST chunk of Distinctio XXX** — the closing dubia of the d.21–d.30 decade in Book IV. The next chunk chronologically is `bon-sent-IV-d31-*` (Distinctio XXXI, *De causa finali matrimonii quoad bona coniugii in communi*, Cap. I *De tribus bonis coniugii*), which begins immediately after this chunk's final apparatus entry, raw line 76939. **Triggers the d.21–d.30 polish-blocker gate** per CLAUDE.md — the three locked-in passes (flag resolution, style/formatting audit, cross-chunk boundary sweep) should run over Vol IV d.21–d.30 before dispatching d.31.

**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 76765–76938), cross-checked against 400 dpi PDF column-band crops (`colcrop.py vol4 {711,712,713} 1880`) per the Vol II/III/IV PDF-priority override. The raw OCR for this span is heavily cascade-interleaved (the two Quaracchi columns are woven line-by-line in the raw dump), so the Latin below was reconstructed by reading each page's column bands left-to-right, top-to-bottom, and confirmed against the full uncropped page image at p.711 where a hyphenated word (*matrimo-* / *nium*) spans the column break, verifying correct reading order. Six dubia (DUB. I–VI), all complete. English is a fresh literal parallel translation.

**Dubium count correction.** The task brief's initial raw-scan estimate of "3 dubia" was superseded on inspection — the section actually contains **six** dubia (DUB. I through DUB. VI), matching the `DUB.` heading count confirmed by grep (raw lines 76768, 76774, 76841, 76830 [interleaved order artifact of the two-column OCR — DUB. III's heading physically follows DUB. IV's in raw line order due to column bleed, but DUB. III's *content* precedes DUB. IV's; resolved via the PDF column-band reads], 76912, and p.713 `DUB. VI`).

**Page-boundary / footnote-restart resolution.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page, and this section spans three restarts: p.711 (notes 1–9, of which **1–6 belong to Q3's own apparatus**, out of scope here, and **7–9 belong to DUB. I**, renumbered [^1]–[^3] above); p.712 continuing into the top of p.713 (notes 1–9 as one continuous overflow block: **1–3 = DUB. II**, **4–6 = DUB. III**, **7–9 = DUB. IV**'s first three citations, renumbered [^4]–[^12]); and a fresh restart on p.713 itself (notes 1–9: **1–3 = DUB. IV**'s remaining citations, **4–5 = DUB. V**, **6–9 = DUB. VI**, renumbered [^13]–[^21]). Cap. I of the real Distinctio XXXI (which begins on p.713 immediately after DUB. VI, in the same left column) has its own separate "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" apparatus series (starting fresh at its own note 1, citing *De Genesi ad litteram* IX.7.12) — that belongs to `d31-littera` and was left untouched here.

**Hand-off to the future `d30-a1-q3` promotion.** The auto-chunked skeleton `bon-sent-IV-d30-a1-q3.md` currently claims `line_end: 76767`, but the real text of Q3 (*Utrum consensus libidinosus sit causa matrimonii*) continues onto p.711 through its 4th objection, Conclusio, Respondeo, and replies to all four objections (ad 1–4, "Ratio duplex", "Solutio oppositorum", "Notandum" on the threefold assent), ending at "...vel ex caritate conveniant[^6]" — immediately before the "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI." heading. Q3's own apparatus is p.711's Quaracchi notes 1–6 (Vat. *aliquo alio*; Cod. L *ex femina*; II Sent. d.37 a.1 q.1; II Sent. d.38 a.1 q.1; tractatus de matrimonio d.26 a.2 q.2; scholion ad q.1 of this article). Whoever promotes `d30-a1-q3` next should extend its `line_end` past 76767 through the true Q3/dubia seam and pick up these six footnotes — this was **not** done here since it is out of scope for the dubia chunk itself.

**[?] flags:** none. All 21 apparatus entries and six dubia were confirmed against the 400 dpi PDF column bands; no illegible or ambiguous readings remained after the PDF cross-check.