title: Dist. 26, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 669 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum carnalis commixtio sit de integritate matrimonii quoad significationem et efficaciam.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum carnalis commixtio sit de integritate matrimonii quantum ad *significationem* et *efficaciam*. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia in institutione matrimonii dicitur[^7]: *Erunt duo in carne una*, et Dominus ipse repetit Matthaei decimo nono; sed hoc non est ante commixtionem: ergo commixtio est de integritate.

2. Item, Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^8]: «Non dubium est, illam mulierem ad coniugium non pertinere, cum qua docetur commixtio sexuum non fuisse».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia coniugium est *signum* coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae in conformitate naturae[^9]; sed hoc solum est in commixtione: ergo etc.

4. Item, matrimonium est institutum in *remedium* concupiscentiae; sed hoc remedium habetur ab his solum, qui matrimonio[^10] sunt coniuncti: ergo hoc remedium non est per continentiam, sed per commixtionem, quia aliter non esset magis remedium nubere quam non nubere.

**Contra:** Quod non sit de integritate quantum ad *significationem*, videtur:

1. Quia perfectum matrimonium fuit inter Adam et Evam ante cognitionem carnalem, et ante dixit[^11]: *Hoc nunc os*, quam eam cognosceret: ergo commixtio non est de integritate.

2. Item, perfectum matrimonium fuit inter Mariam et Ioseph, quia fuit ibi bonum prolis, fidei et Sacramenti; et sine commixtione[^12]: ergo etc.

<!-- page 670 -->

Item, quod non sit de integritate in ratione remedii, videtur:

3. Quia Augustinus[^1d] dicit, quod «sanctior est copula mentium quam corporalis»: ergo maior datur ibi efficacia contra concupiscentiam in unione mentali quam carnali.

4. Item, in actu illo efficitur homo totus caro: ergo per oppositum, cum gratia, quae est remedium contra concupiscentiam, faciat spiritualem, nunquam datur in illo actu.

5. Item, in actu illo satisfit concupiscentiae; sed dum satisfit ei, ipsa intenditur; sed quod intendit concupiscentiam non est remedium, immo venenum: ergo carnalis commixtio non prodest, immo obest ad remedium matrimonii.

> **Conclusio.** *Copula carnalis non est de integritate matrimonii quoad esse necessitatis, sed solum quoad esse completionis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *integritas* rei dupliciter accipitur, videlicet quantum ad *esse necessitatis*, vel quantum ad *esse completionis* sive plenitudinis. Si loquamur quantum ad *esse necessitatis*, verum est, quod Sacramentum matrimonii esse habet sine commixtione carnis; si autem quantum ad *esse plenitudinis*, sic est de eius integritate. Et sic procedunt rationes ad partes oppositas.

Et hoc patet sic. In matrimonio enim considerantur haec tria, scilicet *signum*, *officium*, *remedium*. Quantum ad *significationem*, dicendum, quod duplex est eius significatio: significat enim coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae per *caritatem* et coniunctionem per *naturae conformitatem*[^2d]. — Similiter duplex est *officium*: unum est *mutuae educationis* et fomenti, et aliud *procreandae prolis*. — Similiter duplex est *remedium*: unum est quantum ad concupiscentiae defluxionem, ut scilicet non in omnem mulierem intendat; aliud quantum ad *inordinationem*, ut scilicet non libidine, sed amore prolis procreandae[^3d] sive matrimoniali affectu mulierem cognoscat.

Primum igitur signatum et primum *officium* et primum *remedium* sunt in Sacramento matrimonii quantum ad coniunctionem *animorum*, secundum autem solum quantum ad coniunctionem *corporum*. Et primum est de substantia matrimonii quantum ad *esse necessarium*; secundum quantum ad *esse plenum*.

Et sic patet responsio ad utramque partem, distinguendo perfectionem duplicem sive duplicem integritatem sufficientiae et plenitudinis. Et secundum hoc distinguunt iuristae[^4d] matrimonium, scilicet matrimonium *ratum* et matrimonium *consummatum*.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod gratia non datur in illo actu, ergo non est remedium contra peccatum; dicendum, quod remedium aliquod contra peccatum est dupliciter: aut quia liberat a peccato commisso, et hoc est per gratiam, quae in eo confertur; quoddam, quod liberat a peccato, quod committeretur alias, et tale remedium est matrimonium, quia multi infirmi urerentur concupiscentia, nisi haberent uxorem, quam cognoscendo carnis adustionem evadunt; et in tali quantum ad *usum* non est necesse gratiam dari, quamvis in actu illo possit homo mereri, sicut habebitur infra[^5d].

Ad illud vero quod ultimo obiicitur, quod non est in remedium, immo contra, quia intendit concupiscentiam in satisfaciendo ei; dicendum, quod qui cognoscit uxorem *debite* concupiscentiae non satisfacit, sed potius obviat, ne uratur; et ideo non intenditur, sed remittitur in eo fervor libidinis. Sed qui cognoscit, ut *delectetur*, non cognoscit matrimonialiter; et talis non habet remedium, immo praestat concupiscentiae fomentum[^6d].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of marriage as to signification and efficacy.*

Thirdly it is asked whether carnal intercourse belongs to the integrity of marriage as to *signification* and *efficacy*. And that it does, seems [to be shown]:

1. Because in the institution of marriage it is said[^7]: *They shall be two in one flesh*, and the Lord himself repeats it in Matthew nineteen; but this is not [so] before intercourse: therefore intercourse belongs to the integrity.

2. Likewise, Augustine says, and it is had in the text [of the Master][^8]: «There is no doubt that that woman does not belong to the marriage, with whom no intercourse of the sexes is taught to have taken place».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: because marriage is a *sign* of the conjunction of Christ and the Church in a conformity of nature[^9]; but this [conjunction] is only in intercourse: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, marriage was instituted as a *remedy* for concupiscence; but this remedy is had only by those who are joined by marriage[^10]: therefore this remedy is not through continence, but through intercourse, since otherwise it would not be more of a remedy to marry than not to marry.

**On the contrary:** That it does not belong to the integrity as to *signification*, seems [to be shown]:

1. Because there was a perfect marriage between Adam and Eve before carnal knowledge, and beforehand he said[^11]: *This now is bone*, before he knew her: therefore intercourse does not belong to the integrity.

2. Likewise, there was a perfect marriage between Mary and Joseph, because there were present there the good of offspring, of fidelity, and of the Sacrament; and [it was] without intercourse[^12]: therefore etc.

<!-- page 670 -->

Likewise, that it does not belong to the integrity in the character of a remedy, seems [to be shown]:

3. Because Augustine[^1d] says that «the coupling of minds is holier than that of bodies»: therefore greater efficacy against concupiscence is given there in the mental union than in the carnal.

4. Likewise, in that act a man is made wholly flesh: therefore, on the opposite side, since grace, which is the remedy against concupiscence, makes [him] spiritual, it is never given in that act.

5. Likewise, in that act concupiscence is satisfied; but while it is satisfied, it is itself intensified; but that which intensifies concupiscence is not a remedy, but rather a poison: therefore carnal intercourse does not profit, but rather harms the remedy of marriage.

> **Conclusion.** *Carnal coupling does not belong to the integrity of marriage as to the being of necessity, but only as to the being of completion.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the *integrity* of a thing is taken in two ways, namely as to the *being of necessity*, or as to the *being of completion* or fullness. If we speak as to the *being of necessity*, it is true that the Sacrament of marriage has its being without carnal intercourse; but if as to the *being of fullness*, then it does belong to its integrity. And thus the reasons for the opposite sides proceed.

And this is made clear thus. For in marriage these three are considered, namely *sign*, *office*, *remedy*. As to *signification*, it must be said that its signification is twofold: for it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church through *charity*, and the conjunction through *conformity of nature*[^2d]. — Likewise the *office* is twofold: one is of *mutual upbringing* and fostering, and the other of *procreating offspring*. — Likewise the *remedy* is twofold: one is as to the outflow of concupiscence, namely that a man not direct himself upon every woman; the other as to *disorder*, namely that he know the woman not from lust, but from love of offspring to be procreated[^3d] or from marital affection.

The first thing signified, therefore, and the first *office* and the first *remedy* are in the Sacrament of marriage as to the conjunction of *minds*, but the second only as to the conjunction of *bodies*. And the first belongs to the substance of marriage as to *necessary being*; the second as to *full being*.

And thus the response to both sides is made clear, by distinguishing a twofold perfection or a twofold integrity, of sufficiency and of fullness. And according to this the jurists[^4d] distinguish marriage, namely marriage *ratified* and marriage *consummated*.

To that, then, which is objected—that grace is not given in that act, therefore it is not a remedy against sin—it must be said that a remedy against sin is [such] in two ways: either because it frees from a sin already committed, and this is through the grace which is conferred in it; [or there is] a certain [remedy] which frees from a sin that would otherwise be committed, and such a remedy is marriage, since many weak persons would burn with concupiscence unless they had a wife, by knowing whom they escape the burning of the flesh; and in such [a remedy], as to *use*, it is not necessary that grace be given, although in that act a man can merit, as will be had below[^5d].

But to that which is objected last—that it is not for a remedy, but rather against [it], because it intensifies concupiscence in satisfying it—it must be said that he who knows his wife *duly* does not satisfy concupiscence, but rather withstands it, lest he burn; and therefore it is not intensified, but the fervor of lust is remitted in him. But he who knows [her] in order that he may *take pleasure*, does not know [her] matrimonially; and such a one does not have the remedy, but rather furnishes fuel to concupiscence[^6d].

---

en: Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5.

la: Hic c. 6.

en: Here, c. 6 [of the Master's text].

la: Ut insinuat Magister, hic in lit. c. 6; cfr. ibi nota 3. — Post *commixtione* cod. M supplet *carnali.*

en: As the Master suggests, here in the text, c. 6; cf. note 3 there. — After *commixtione* ["intercourse"] codex M supplies *carnali* ["carnal"].

la: Codd. F L *qui in matrimonio.*

en: Codices F and L [read] *qui in matrimonio* ["who [are joined] in marriage"].

en: Genesis 2:23.

la: Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XXX. c. 2.

en: See below, the Master's text, d. XXX, c. 2.

la: Sententia haec colligitur ex Epist. 262. (alias 199.) n. 4, et ex l. *de Nuptiis et concupisc.* c. 11. n. 12, ex quibus Magister, infra d. XXX. c. 2, quaedam affert. Magis convenit Ambros., VI. Exposit. in Luc. 8, 21. n. 36: *Religiosiores copulae mentium docentur esse quam corporum.* — Pro *corporalis* cod. E *corporum.*

en: This opinion is gathered from Epistle 262 (elsewhere 199), n. 4, and from the book *On Marriage and Concupiscence*, c. 11, n. 12, from which the Master, below at d. XXX, c. 2, adduces certain things. It agrees better with Ambrose, VI *Exposition on Luke* 8:21, n. 36: *The couplings of minds are taught to be more religious than those of bodies.* — For *corporalis* ["of the body"] codex E [reads] *corporum* ["of bodies"].

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Cod. K *coniunctionem etiam divinae naturae et humanae, quae est per naturae conformitatem.* Post *et coniunctionem* edd. addunt *eorundem.*

en: See here the Master's text, c. 6. — Codex K [reads] *coniunctionem etiam divinae naturae et humanae, quae est per naturae conformitatem* ["also the conjunction of the divine and the human nature, which is through conformity of nature"]. After *et coniunctionem* ["and the conjunction"] the editions add *eorundem* ["of the same"].

la: Ita codd. STX, codd. IK *creandae*, alii vel *creat*, vel *coeat*, edd. cum aliquot codd. omittunt *procreandae* et subinde pro *sive* substituunt *nec sine* (quod etiam plures alii codd. exhibent).

en: Thus codices STX; codices IK [read] *creandae* ["to be created"], others either *creat* ["creates"] or *coeat* ["may come together"]; the editions, with some codices, omit *procreandae* ["to be procreated"] and thereupon for *sive* ["or"] substitute *nec sine* ["and not without"] (which also very many other codices exhibit).

la: Cfr. verba, quae Gratian. C. *Cum initiatur* (35.), C. 27. q. 2, praemittit, et C. *Institutum est* (39.), ibid., subiungit, ubi distinguitur triplex matrimonium, scil. *initiatum*, *ratum* et *consummatum* (vide infra d. 27. dub. 5.).

en: Cf. the words which Gratian sets before canon *Cum initiatur* (35), C. 27, q. 2, and appends [to] canon *Institutum est* (39), in the same place, where a threefold marriage is distinguished, namely *initiated*, *ratified*, and *consummated* (see below, d. 27, dub. 5).

la: Dub. 3; cfr. d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. seq., d. 32. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3. Cfr. etiam quaest. praeced.

en: Dubium 3; cf. d. 31, a. 1, q. 1 and a. 2, q. 1 following, d. 32, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3. Cf. also the preceding question.

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF page/column images (`raw/vision/vol4/p-{669,670}.png` + `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p670-{L,R}-*`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 72556–72681) as base only for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override the PDF is authoritative: this q3's OCR is two-column cascade-shattered (the p. 670 Respondeo interleaved L/R line-for-line, and the p. 670 footer notes 1–7 were never captured in the raw range at all — they sit after L72682, spliced through the *Dubia* opening), so the bands carried the p. 670 reconstruction entirely. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 669–670 = PDF 689–690).

**Page-verify (frontmatter corrected).** The skeleton frontmatter read `printed_pages: [670, 671]`; eyes-on the bands shows this was off by one. Running heads: p. 669 = "DIST. XXVI. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 669" (recto); p. 670 = "670 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (verso). QUAESTIO III **opens on p. 669** (lower half, after q2 ends "…Et sic patet totum") and **completes on p. 670** ("…praestat concupiscentiae fomentum"). The full-width *DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* header and *Dub. I* both sit at the **bottom of p. 670** (not p. 671). Corrected to `printed_pages: [669, 670]`, `pdf_pages: [689, 690]`. (The task brief's "≈ 670–671 / DUBIA opens on 671" was the pre-verify estimate.)

**Page break.** p. 669 → 670 falls inside the *Contra*: p. 669 holds the *quod sic* args 1–4 and the *Contra … quantum ad significationem* args 1–2 ("…sine commixtione: ergo etc."); p. 670 opens with the *Contra … in ratione remedii* args 3–5. `<!-- page 670 -->` placed at that seam. The p. 670 opening sentence (a fresh *Item, quod non sit…* contra-series header) is grammatically continuous with the p. 669 tail — no cascade-merge splice.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false` — Article II's single scholion covers all three questions and lives in the a2-q1 chunk; note `^6d` here ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.") points to it explicitly.

**Shared-page footer split.**
- p. 669 footer (12 notes): notes **1–6** anchor in the q2 body above (owned by a2-q2); notes **7–12** are q3's and are claimed here (`^7`–`^12`).
- p. 670 footer (7 notes): notes **1–6** are q3's, claimed here (`^1d`–`^6d`); note **7** ("Epist. 1. Cor. 15, 46…") anchors in *Dub. I* ("…prius est quod animale, deinde quod spirituale") and belongs to the following a2-dub chunk — NOT claimed here.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi side-glosses omitted per project convention (not Bonaventure's text): p. 669 "Pro parte affirmativa / Pro parte negativa / De 1. opinione, quae est falsa"; p. 670 "Distinctio. / Conclusio. / Explicatur. / Duplex significatio, officium et remedium."

**`[?]` flags:** none — all readings legible on the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 26, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 670 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de situ huius partis. Videtur enim, quod Sacramentum matrimonii deberet primo situari sive primo de eo tractari. Primum quidem, quia *prius est quod animale, deinde quod spirituale*[^1]; sed matrimonium respicit statum animalem,
<!-- page 671 -->
alia spiritualem: ergo etc. — Item, matrimonium est primo inter omnia institutum: ergo primo debuit de eo determinari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum est[^2], Sacramenta non ordinantur secundum *statum perfectionis,* vel *imperfectionis,* nec secundum *tempus institutionis;* sed ordinantur secundum *comparationem* ad statum hominis indigentis his Sacramentis. Et quoniam quinque prima Sacramenta respiciunt indigentiam *in se*[^3] principaliter, sed duo ultima sunt *ad alterum,* scilicet ordo et coniugium; coniugium inter cetera minus habet de proprietate Sacramentorum novae legis et minus de perfectione, cum nunc temporis sit indulgentia[^4]: ideo recte post alia determinatur de ipso. Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sub praecepto dictum est hominibus: Crescite et multiplicamini* etc. Cum illud idem dictum sit bestiis[^5], quae non sunt rationis capaces, quomodo tale praeceptum potuit dari?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod homini fuit et *benedictio,* et *praeceptum* et[^6] *morale* et *sacramentale: benedictio* ratione potentiae in generando, sed *praeceptum* ratione capacitatis in ratiocinando, sed *praeceptum sacramentale* ratione coniunctionis indivisibilis in significando. Ex hoc patet, quod bestiis solum fuit *benedictio* illud verbum, quia non sunt rationis capaces; patet etiam, quod non fuit *sacramentale* nisi ratione institutionis matrimonii in coniunctione Adam et Evae, quae postmodum est secuta[^7].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *De minoribus bonis est coniugium, quod non meretur palmam.* Videtur enim falsum, quia omne quod fit ex caritate, meretur palmam; sed aliquis potest ex caritate contrahere et uxorem cognoscere: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud verbum aut intelligitur solum, quando quis utitur coniugio ad *vitandam fornificationem,* aut intelligitur de *palma,* secundum quod dicit quandam *superexcellentiam* ad meritum quantum ad *aureolam,* sive quantum ad *fructum sexagesimum*[^8].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *De minoribus malis, id est venialibus, est coitus, qui fit causa incontinentiae.* Videtur enim falsum dicere: quia incontinentia est peccatum mortale: ergo et concubitus, qui fit propter incontinentiam, est mortale peccatum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod concubitum fieri *causa incontinentiae* dupliciter potest intelligi: aut ut incontinentia[^9] intelligatur ut *aspernanda,* aut ita ut intelligatur ut *assequenda* sive *prosequenda;* et primo modo intelligit Magister, secundo modo opponit. — Utrum autem sit peccatum in eo qui sic coire intendit, infra[^10] melius patebit.

---

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about the placement of this section. For it seems that the Sacrament of matrimony ought to be placed first, or to be treated of first. First indeed, because *that which is animal is prior, then that which is spiritual*[^1]; but matrimony regards the animal state,
another [Sacrament regards] the spiritual: therefore etc. — Likewise, matrimony was instituted first among all things: therefore it ought first to have been determined concerning it.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been touched upon[^2], the Sacraments are not ordered according to a *state of perfection,* or *of imperfection,* nor according to the *time of institution;* but they are ordered according to *comparison* to the state of the man needing these Sacraments. And since the first five Sacraments regard need *in itself*[^3] principally, but the last two are *for another,* namely order and matrimony; matrimony among the rest has less of the property of the Sacraments of the new law and less of perfection, since at the present time it is an indulgence[^4]: therefore rightly it is determined concerning it after the others. And thus the response to the objections is clear.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Under a precept it was said to men: Increase and multiply,* etc. Since the same thing was said also to the beasts[^5], which are not capable of reason, how could such a precept be given?

**I respond:** It must be said that to man there was both a *blessing,* and a *precept* both[^6] *moral* and *sacramental: the blessing* by reason of the power in generating, but the *precept* by reason of the capacity in reasoning, but the *sacramental precept* by reason of the indivisible conjunction in signifying. From this it is clear that to the beasts that word was only a *blessing,* because they are not capable of reason; it is also clear that it was not *sacramental* except by reason of the institution of matrimony in the conjunction of Adam and Eve, which followed afterward[^7].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Of the lesser goods is matrimony, which does not merit the palm.* For it seems false, because everything that is done out of charity merits the palm; but someone can out of charity contract [marriage] and know his wife: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that that word is either understood only when someone uses matrimony to *avoid fornication,* or it is understood of the *palm,* according as it denotes a certain *super-excellence* with respect to merit as regards the *aureole,* or as regards the *sixtyfold fruit*[^8].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Of the lesser evils, that is, the venial ones, is the coitus which is done for the cause of incontinence.* For it seems false to say: because incontinence is a mortal sin: therefore also the intercourse which is done on account of incontinence is a mortal sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that intercourse being done *for the cause of incontinence* can be understood in two ways: either so that incontinence[^9] be understood as [something] *to be spurned,* or so that it be understood as [something] *to be attained* or *to be pursued;* and in the first way the Master understands it, in the second way he opposes [it]. — But whether there is sin in one who intends to have intercourse thus, will be shown better below[^10].

---

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 46: *Sed non prius quod spiritale est, sed quod animale* etc.

en: First [Epistle] to the Corinthians 15:46: *But not first that which is spiritual, but that which is animal,* etc.

la: Codd. U X *hominis in se.*

en: Codices U, X [read] *hominis in se* ("of the man in itself").

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.

en: Genesis 1:22.

la: Cod. F G repetunt *praeceptum.*

en: Codices F, G repeat *praeceptum* ("precept").

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

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

la: Respicitur Matth. 13, 8: *Alia [semina] autem ceciderunt in terram bonam et dabant fructum, aliud centesimum, aliud sexagesimum, aliud trigesimum.* Cfr. infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 3, ubi agitur tam de aureola quam de hoc triplici fructu. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard., hic circa lit.

en: Reference is made to Matthew 13:8: *But others [seeds] fell upon good ground and yielded fruit, one a hundredfold, another sixtyfold, another thirtyfold.* Cf. below, d. 33, a. 2, q. 3, where both the aureole and this threefold fruit are treated. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard [of Mediavilla], here on the text.

la: Ita codd. O U X. Immediate post codd. F G L N W Y aa praebent verbum *intelligatur,* et subinde codd. N Q Y *ita ut intelligatur.* Alii codd. communiter et edd. legunt: *aut ut continentia intendatur ut aspernenda, sive prosequenda* [edd. cum aliquot codd. *aspernenda, aut quod intendatur (intelligatur) ut assequenda sive prosequenda*], lectio falsa, ut patet ex contextu.

en: Thus codices O, U, X. Immediately after, codices F, G, L, N, W, Y, aa supply the word *intelligatur* ("be understood"), and then codices N, Q, Y [read] *ita ut intelligatur* ("so that it be understood"). Other codices commonly, and the editions, read: *aut ut continentia intendatur ut aspernenda, sive prosequenda* ("or so that continence be intended as [something] to be spurned, or to be pursued") [the editions, with some codices, *aspernenda, aut quod intendatur (intelligatur) ut assequenda sive prosequenda*], a false reading, as is clear from the context.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`vol4-p670-BOT`, `vol4-p671-{L,R}-*`, top clip `vol4-p671-TOP`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 72682–72892), which for these dubia is fairly clean running prose and served as the base for marker spacing. The OCR interleaves the dubia with the neighboring Dist. XXVII *littera* (Cap. I–VII) because both share pp. 671–673 in two columns; only the dubia are transcribed here. English is a fresh literal translation. Editorial marginal glosses on these pages (*Notandum.* beside the Dub. IV Respondeo on p.671-R; the *Dubium 1.* / *Canon.* margins belonging to the Dist. XXVII littera) are trimmed — not Bonaventure's text.

**Dubia count: 4** (Dub. I–IV). No scholion (`has_scholion: false`; the p.670 footer note 6 *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* points to a2-q1's scholion, not to any dubia scholion).

**Page-verify correction (skeleton frontmatter was wrong):** the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header + Dub. I opener sit at the **foot of printed p.670** (spanning both columns), continuing to the top of p.671; Dub. II–IV then fill p.671 (left column: Dub. I Respondeo + Dub. II; right column: Dub. II tail + Dub. III + Dub. IV). Dub. IV ends "…infra⁹ melius patebit," and immediately below (p.671-L, ~55 % down) the **Dist. XXVII littera** *Cap. I. Quae sint consideranda in coniugio* begins. So the dubia occupy **pp. 670–671 only** — nothing on pp. 672–673, which are wholly the Dist. XXVII littera. `printed_pages` corrected from the skeleton's `[671,672,673]` → `[670,671]`, `pdf_pages` → `[690,691]`. This chunk claims **no** Dist. XXVII littera text and **no** littera footer (the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` series at the bottom of p.671-R, opening *Cfr. Gratian., introductio in C. 27. q. 2…,* is the littera's — excluded).

**Seam with a2-q3 (SHARED page 670):** the body above the dubia at the top/middle of p.670 is the tail of the Dist. XXVI, a. 2, q. 3 solutio. Quaracchi restarts footer numbering per printed page, and **p.670 footer notes 1–6 belong to a2-q3** (1 *Sententia haec colligitur ex Epist. 262. (alias 199.) n. 4…;* 2 *Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6…;* 3 *Ita codd. S T X, codd. I K creandae…;* 4 *Cfr. verba, quae Gratian. C. Cum initiatur (35.)… vide infra d. 27. dub. 5.;* 5 *Dub. 3; cfr. d. 31. a. 1. q. 1…;* 6 *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*). This dubia chunk claims **only p.670 note 7** (the 1 Cor. 15,46 note on Dub. I "spirituale⁷") → [^1]. When `bon-sent-IV-d26-a2-q3.md` is promoted it must claim p.670 notes 1–6 (verify the split then).

**Page-split / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.670** (PDF 690): dubia footer **7** (*Epist. I. Cor. 15, 46: Sed non prius quod spiritale est…* — Dub. I "spirituale⁷") → [^1]. (Notes 1–6 = a2-q3, excluded.)
- **Printed p.671** (PDF 691): dubia footers **1–9** (all dubia). Left-column footer: **1** (*Dist. 2. dub. 1…* — Dub. I "tactum est¹") → [^2]; **2** (*Codd. U X hominis in se* — Dub. I "in se²") → [^3]; **3** (*Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3…* — Dub. I "indulgentia³") → [^4]; **4** (*Gen. 1, 22* — Dub. II "bestiis⁴") → [^5]; **5** (*Cod. F G repetunt praeceptum* — Dub. II "praeceptum et⁵") → [^6]; **6** (*Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. seq…* — Dub. II "secuta⁶") → [^7]; **7** (*Respicitur Matth. 13, 8…* — Dub. III "sexagesimum⁷") → [^8]. Right-column footer: **8** (*Ita codd. O U X…* — Dub. IV "incontinentia⁸") → [^9]; **9** (*Dist. 31. a. 2. q. 2. seq.* — Dub. IV "infra⁹") → [^10]. The `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` note that follows on p.671-R is the Dist. XXVII littera's — excluded.

**Page break:** falls mid-Dub. I, between the opener "…sed matrimonium respicit statum animalem," (p.670-R foot) and "alia spiritualem: ergo etc." (p.671-L top). `<!-- page 671 -->` placed at that boundary.

**Band correction:** p.671 footer note 9 (→ [^9]) opens *Ita codd. **O U X**…* — the band shows three sigla (O, U, X); the IA djvu OCR dropped the leading *O* (read "U X"). Band reading kept.

**[?] flags:** none. All four dubia bodies and all 10 claimed footers read cleanly from the PDF column bands. (Dub. III's *vitandam fornificationem* is printed thus in the 1889 edition — band and OCR agree — and is left as printed, not "fornicationem.")

**Apparatus count: 10 entries** (p.670: 1 dubia note of 7 on the page, note 7; p.671: 9 dubia notes of the page's dubia sequence, notes 1–9, excluding the littera's NOTAE series).

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. 27

title_alt:
De consensu matrimoniali
On marriage by consent

source_text:
<!-- page 671 -->

### Cap. I. *Quae sint consideranda in coniugio.*

Post hoc advertendum est, quid sit coniugium, et quae sit *efficiens causa* coniugii, et causa, *propter quam* contrahi debeat, et quae sint *bona coniugii,* et quomodo per ea *excusetur coitus* carnalis, et quae sint *legitimae personae* ad matrimonium. Sunt et alia plura in matrimonio consideranda, quae sub compendio perstringemus.

### Cap. II. *Quid sit coniugium.*

« Sunt igitur nuptiae vel matrimonium viri mulieris coniunctio maritalis inter legitimas personas, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens[^1] ». « Ad individuam consuetudinem pertinet, quod absque consensu alterius neuter continentiam profiteri potest, vel orationi vacare »; et quod inter eos, dum vivunt, vinculum coniugale permanet, ut alii se copulare non li-

<!-- page 672 -->

ceat; et ut invicem alter alteri exhibeat quod quisque sibi. Hac autem descriptione legitimorum et fidelium tantum matrimonium includitur.

### Cap. III. *De consensu, qui efficit coniugium.*

*Efficiens* autem *causa* matrimonii est consensus, non quilibet, sed per verba expressus, nec de futuro, sed de praesenti. Si enim consentiunt in futurum, dicentes: accipiam te in virum, et ego te in uxorem; non est iste consensus efficax matrimonii. Item, si consentiant *mente* et non exprimant *verbis* vel aliis *certis signis;* nec talis consensus efficit matrimonium. Si autem verbis explicant quod tamen corde non volunt; si non sit coactio ibi vel dolus, obligatio illa verborum, quibus consentiunt dicentes: accipio te in virum, et ego te in uxorem, matrimonium facit.

Quod autem consensus matrimonium faciat, subditis probatur testimoniis. Ait enim Isidorus[^2]: « Consensus facit matrimonium ». Item Nicolaus Papa: « Sufficiat solus secundum leges eorum consensus, de quorum coniunctionibus agitur; qui solus, si forte in nuptiis defuerit, cetera etiam cum ipso coitu celebrata frustrantur ». Item Ioannes Chrysostomus: « Matrimonium quidem non facit coitus, sed voluntas; et ideo non solvit illud separatio corporis ». Item Ambrosius: « Non defloratio virginitatis facit coniugium, sed pactio coniugalis ». — Ex his apparet, quod consensus, id est pactio coniugalis, matrimonium facit; et ex tunc coniugium est, etiam si non praecesserit vel secuta sit copula carnalis.

### Cap. IV. *Quando incipit esse coniugium.*

Quod enim ab ipsa desponsatione, in qua pactio coniugalis exprimitur, *coniuges* sint, Sanctorum testimonia probant. Ait enim Ambrosius[^3]: « Cum initiatur coniugium, coniugii nomen adsciscitur; cum coniungitur viro, coniugium est, non cum viri admixtione cognoscitur ». Item Isidorus: « *Coniuges* verius appellantur a prima desponsationis fide, quamvis adhuc inter eos ignoretur coniugalis concubitus ». Item Augustinus: « *Coniux* vocatur ex prima desponsationis fide, quam concubitu non cognoverat nec fuerat cogniturus. Nec peierat nec mendax manserat *coniugii* appellatio, ubi nec fuerat nec futura erat carnis ulla commixtio. Propter quod fidele coniugium ambo *parentes Christi* vocari meruerunt non solum illa mater, sed etiam ille pater eius, sicut *coniux* matris eius, *utrumque* mente, non carne ». — Ex his evidenter insinuatur, quod ex tempore, quo intercedit consensus voluntarius ac maritalis, qui solus coniugium facit, veri coniuges sunt sponsus et sponsa.

### Cap. V. *De opinione quorundam, qui dicunt, coniugium non esse ante carnalem copulam.*

Quidam tamen asserunt, verum coniugium non contrahi ante traditionem et carnalem copulam, nec vere coniuges esse aliquos, antequam intercedat commixtio sexus; sed a prima fide desponsationis vir *sponsus,* et mulier *sponsa* est, non *coniux.* Sponsos autem et sponsas *coniuges* frequenter appellari dicunt, non quia *sint,* sed quia *futuri sunt,* cuius rei sponsionem invicem fecerunt. Et secundum hoc verba praemissarum auctoritatum intelligenda fore tradunt.

### Cap. VI. *Quod sponsa potest eligere monasterium sine sponsi consensu.*

Quod vero inter *sponsam* et *coniugem* plurimum intersit, ex eo astruunt, quia licet *sponsae* ante carnalem copulam, inconsulto vel nolente *sponso,* monasterium eligere; quo facto, sponso etiam licet aliam ducere. *Coniugatus* vero vel *coniugata* nec continentiam, nisi ex communi consensu, servare valet nec monasterium petere, nisi uterque continentiam pariter profiteatur. Quod vero liceat *sponsae* monasterium eligere, auctoritatibus Sanctorum probatur. Ait enim Eusebius Papa[^4]: « Desponsatam puellam non licet parentibus alii viro tradere, tamen licet sibi monasterium eligere ». Item Gregorius: « Decreta legalia desponsatam, si converti voluerit, nullo penitus censuerunt damno mulctari ». « Refert etiam Hieronymus, quod Macarius, inter Christi eremitas praecipuus, celebrato nuptiarum convivio, cum vespere thalamum esset ingressurus, ex urbe egrediens transmarina petiit et eremi solitudinem sibi elegit. Beatus etiam Alexius similiter ex nuptiis divina gratia vocatus, sponsam deseruit et nudus Christo famulari coepit. — His auctoritatibus et exemplis liquet, licere sponsis sine consensu suarum sponsarum, et e converso, continentiam profiteri ».

### Cap. VII. *Quod coniugatus sine coniugis consensu nequit profiteri continentiam.*

Hoc autem coniugatis nullatenus licet. Non enim potest vir melioris vitae propositum sumere sine uxoris consensu, et e converso. Unde Gregorius[^5], scribens

<!-- page 673 -->

Theoctistae patriciae: « Sunt qui dicunt, religionis gratia coniugia debere solvi. Verum sciendum est, quia, etsi hoc lex humana concessit, tamen lex divina prohibuit. Si vero utrisque conveniat continentem vitam ducere, hoc quis audeat accusare? Sic enim multos Sanctorum novimus cum suis coniugibus et prius continentem vitam duxisse et post ad sanctae Ecclesiae regimina migrasse. Si vero continentiam, quam vir appetit, mulier non sequitur, aut quam uxor appetit, vir recusat; coniugium dividi non potest, quia scriptum est: *Mulier potestatem suae carnis non habet, sed vir; similiter et vir potestatem sui corporis non habet, sed mulier* ». Idem: « Agathosa, latrix praesentium, questa est, virum suum contra voluntatem suam in monasterium esse conversum. Quapropter experientiae tuae praecipimus, ut diligenti inquisitione discutiat, ne forte eius voluntate conversus sit, vel ipsa se mutare promiserit. Et si hoc tua diligentia repererit; et illum in monasterio permanere provideat et hanc, sicut promisit, mutare compellat. Si vero nihil horum est, nec quoddam fornicationis crimen, propter quod licet uxorem dimittere, praedictam mulierem commisisse cognoveris; ne illius conversio uxori relictae in saeculo fieri possit perditionis occasio, volumus, ut maritum suum illi, etiam si iam tonsuratus est, reddere debeas, omni excusatione cessante; quia nisi fornicationis causa virum uxorem dimittere nulla ratio concedit. Postquam enim copulatione coniugii viri et mulieris unum corpus efficitur, non potest ex parte converti et ex parte remanere in saeculo ». Item ex octava synodo[^6]: « Si quis coniugatus converti ad monasterium velit, non est recipiendus, nisi prius a coniuge castimoniam profitente fuerit absolutus. Tales igitur tunc sine culpa sequuntur Christum, relicto saeculo, si habent ex pari voluntate castitatis consensum ». Item: « Si vir et uxor divertere pro sola religiosa inter se consenserint vita, nullatenus sine conscientia episcopi fiat, ut ab eo singulariter proviso constituantur loco. Nam uxore nolente, vel altero illorum, etiam pro tali re matrimonium non solvitur ».

### Cap. VIII. *De adulterinis coniugiis.*

Item Augustinus[^7]: « Si abstines sine uxoris voluntate, tribuis ei fornicandi licentiam, et peccatum illius tuae imputabitur abstinentiae ». Item Nicolaus Papa[^8]: « Scripsit nobis Thietberga regina, regia se velle dignitate vel copula exui et sola vita privata esse contentam, desiderare. Cui scripsimus, non hoc aliter fieri posse, nisi eandem vitam vir eius Lotharius elegerit ». — Ex his patet, quod coniugati sine communi consensu continentiam profiteri, vel habitum religionis sumere non valent; et si fecerint, revocari debent.

Sponsi vero possunt sine communi consensu monasterium eligere; unde videtur inter sponsum et sponsam coniugium non esse. Ideoque asserunt, a prima fide desponsationis coniuges appellari, non re praesentium, sed spe futurorum, quia ex fide, quam ex desponsatione sibi invicem debent, postea efficiuntur coniuges. Praemissas etiam auctoritates, quibus asseritur, quod consensus matrimonium facit, ita intelligi volunt, ut consensus vel pactio coniugalis non ante coitum faciat matrimonium, sed in coitu. Sicut enim defloratio virginitatis non facit matrimonium, nisi praecedat pactio coniugalis; ita nec pactio coniugalis, antequam adsit copula carnalis. Ex *pactione* igitur coniugali *sponsi* et *sponsae* fiunt ante coitum, in *coitu* vero efficiuntur *coniuges.* Facit enim pactio coniugalis, ut quae prius erat *sponsa* in coitu fiat *coniux.*

His autem ita respondemus. Fit aliquando desponsatio, ubi est compromissio viri et mulieris de *contrahendo* matrimonio, non est autem ibi consensus de *praesenti;* et est desponsatio habens consensum de *praesenti,* id est pactionem coniugalem, quae sola facit coniugium. In illa ergo desponsatione, ubi est pollicitatio contrahendi matrimonium, *sponsi* tantum et *sponsae* fiunt, non *coniuges;* et talibus sponsis licet sine communi consensu continentiam profiteri et monasterium eligere. In ea vero desponsatione, ubi est consensus de praesenti, *coniugium* contrahitur, et ab illius desponsationis prima fide *veri coniuges* appellantur. Secundum hanc distinctionem desponsationis de sponsis varie loquuntur doctores.

### Cap. IX. *Quod multipliciter sponsus et sponsa accipitur.*

Aliquando enim *sponsas* vocant, quae talem habuerunt desponsationem, ubi fuit pactio coniugalis de praesenti; et illae vere coniuges sunt. Unde Gregorius[^9]: « Si quis uxorem desponsaverit vel subarrhaverit, quamquam postmodum, praeveniente die mortis eius, nequiverit eam ducere in uxorem; tamen nulli de consanguinitate eius licet accipere eam in coniugio; et si inventum fuerit factum, separetur omnino ». Item Iulius Papa: « Si quis desponsaverit uxorem vel subarrhaverit, et vel praeveniente die mortis eius, vel irruentibus quibusdam causis, eam non cognoverit; nec frater eius nec ullus de consanguinitate eius eandem sibi tollat in uxorem ullo unquam tempore ». Item Gregorius: « Qui desponsatam proximi sui puellam ceperit in coniugium, anathema sit ipse et omnes consentientes ei, quia secundum legem Dei mori decernitur. Nam

<!-- page 674 -->

divinae legis mos est, sponsas appellare *coniuges,* ut in Evangelio: *Accipe Mariam coniugem tuam;* et in Deuteronomio: *Si quis alterius sponsam in agro vel in quolibet loco oppresserit, vel adduxerit in domum suam; moriatur, quia uxorem proximi sui violavit,* non quae iam uxor erat, sed quae a parentibus uxor fieri debebat ». — Ex his colligitur, quod sponsae quaedam coniuges sunt ante commixtionem sexuum. — Sed forte illud movet quod in fine capituli dicitur: *Non quae iam uxor erat, sed quae uxor fieri debebat.* Quod non ita debet intelligi, quasi uxor vere non fuerit, ex quo pactio coniugalis intercessit; sed quia nondum traducta fuerat, nec res uxoria intercesserat, scilicet concubitus coniugalis.

Vocatur[^10] etiam *sponsa,* quae sic viro desponsata est, ut non intercesserit consensus de praesenti, sed sponsio futuri. Secundum quem modum illud decretum intelligitur: « Si quis sponsam filii oppresserit, et post filius eius eam duxerit; pater postea non habeat uxorem, nec mulier virum; filius, qui patris facinus ignoravit, aliam ducat ». Si *coniux* illa fuisset, quod utique foret, si in sponsalibus pactio coniugalis intercessisset, non permitteretur sponso aliam ducere. Moechis autem poena non nubendi ex rigore infligitur, ut alii terreantur. Item ex eodem[^11]: « Quidam desponsavit uxorem et dotavit et cum ea coire non potuit, quam clanculo frater eius corrupit et gravidam reddidit; decretum est, ut, quamvis nupta non potuerit esse legitimo viro, desponsatam tamen fratri frater habere non possit; sed moechus et moecha fornicationis quidem vindictam sustineant, licita vero eis coniugia non negentur ». De illa desponsatione hoc intelligi debet, ubi non fuit consensus coniugalis de praesenti, alioquin non liceret eis alias sortiri coniugia. Secundum hoc etiam illud intelligi debet: « Statutum est a sacro conventu, ut, si quis sponsam alterius rapuerit, publica poenitentia mulctetur et sine spe coniugii maneat. Et si ipsa eidem crimini consentiens non fuerit, licentia nubendi alii non negetur[^12] ». « Apparet, hanc fuisse desponsatam sine pactione coniugali de praesenti, et ideo non fuisse coniugem; cui, vivente sponso, alteri nubendi licentia non negatur ». Sunt enim quaedam nuptialia pacta de futuro, ex quibus *sponsi* et *sponsae* vocantur nec exinde coniuges sunt; et est quaedam pactio coniugalis de praesenti, quae *sponsum* et *sponsam* etiam coniuges facit. Et utraque pactio *desponsatio* vel *sponsalia* interdum dicuntur, *proprie* tamen *sponsalia* dicuntur quaedam solemnia pacta nuptialia.

De nuptialibus pactis, ubi est tantum *sponsio futuri,* ait Augustinus[^13]: « Institutum est, ut iam pactae sponsae non statim tradantur, ne vilem habeat maritus datam, quam non suspiravit sponsus dilatam ».

### Cap. X. *Quae sponsa sit vidua, mortuo sponso, et quae non.*

Et est sciendum, quod illa sponsa, quae tantum in futuro est pacta, mortuo sponso, non remanet vidua, quia non fuerat vir eius. Unde si quis eam duxerit, ad sacros ordines conscendere non prohibetur, quia non duxit viduam. Viduae enim maritus aeque, sicut bigamus, sacerdos fieri prohibetur; ex tali autem copula nullus arcetur a sacris ordinibus. Secundum hoc intelligendum est quod ait Pelagius Papa[^14] de illo qui, mortuo sponso eius, sponsam ducit in uxorem: « Nihil est, inquit, quantum ad hunc articulum attinet, quod ei obviet de canonicis institutis, quin ad sacros ordines promoveri valeat ». Si vero talis sponsa fuisset, inter quam et sponsum eius consensus de praesenti intercessisset, eo mortuo, vidua remansisset; cui copulatus in coniugio ulterius ad sacros ordines non accederet, cum viduam duxerit. Non est igitur ambigendum, quin solus de praesenti consensus coniugium efficiat, et exinde veri coniuges appellentur. Ideo post talem consensum si quis alii se copulaverit, etiam si carnis commixtio illic sequatur, ad priorem copulam revocandus est.

---

english:
<!-- page 671 -->

### Chap. I. *On what things are to be considered in marriage.*

After this it must be noted what marriage is, and what is the *efficient cause* of marriage, and the cause *on account of which* it ought to be contracted, and what are the *goods of marriage,* and how through them *carnal intercourse is excused,* and who are the *legitimate persons* for matrimony. There are also many other things to be considered in marriage, which we shall run through in brief compass.

### Chap. II. *What marriage is.*

« Marriage, then, or matrimony, is the marital union of a man and a woman between legitimate persons, retaining an undivided common manner of life[^1]. » « To the undivided common life it pertains that without the consent of the other neither can profess continence, or be free for prayer »; and that between them, while they live, the conjugal bond remains, so that it is not permitted to unite with an-

<!-- page 672 -->

other; and that mutually the one render to the other what each [owes] to himself. By this description only legitimate and faithful matrimony is included.

### Chap. III. *On the consent which effects marriage.*

Now the *efficient cause* of matrimony is consent — not any consent whatever, but one expressed through words, and not concerning the future, but concerning the present. For if they consent regarding the future, saying: I will take you as husband, and I you as wife; this consent is not effective of matrimony. Likewise, if they consent *in mind* and do not express it *by words* or by other *certain signs;* neither does such consent effect matrimony. But if they express in words what nevertheless they do not will in their heart; if there be no coercion there or deceit, that obligation of the words by which they consent, saying: I take you as husband, and I you as wife, effects matrimony.

That consent effects matrimony is proved by the testimonies adduced below. For Isidore[^2] says: « Consent makes matrimony ». Likewise Nicholas the Pope: « Let the consent alone suffice, according to their laws, of those whose union is in question; which alone, if it happen to be lacking in the nuptials, the rest, even celebrated with intercourse itself, are frustrated ». Likewise John Chrysostom: « Matrimony indeed intercourse does not make, but the will; and therefore separation of body does not dissolve it ». Likewise Ambrose: « Not the deflowering of virginity makes marriage, but the conjugal pact ». — From these it appears that consent, that is the conjugal pact, makes matrimony; and from then on it is marriage, even if carnal union has not preceded or followed.

### Chap. IV. *When marriage begins to be.*

That from the very betrothal, in which the conjugal pact is expressed, they are *spouses,* the testimonies of the Saints prove. For Ambrose[^3] says: « When marriage is initiated, the name of marriage is taken on; when she is joined to the man, it is marriage, not when she is known by the man's intercourse ». Likewise Isidore: « They are more truly called *spouses* from the first pledge of betrothal, although as yet conjugal intercourse be unknown between them ». Likewise Augustine: « She is called *spouse* from the first pledge of betrothal, whom he had not known by intercourse nor was about to know. Nor had the appellation of *marriage* perjured itself nor remained false, where there neither had been nor was to be any mingling of flesh. On account of which both merited to be called the faithful marriage, the *parents of Christ,* not only that mother, but also that father of his, as the *spouse* of his mother — *both* in mind, not in flesh ». — From these it is evidently insinuated that from the time at which voluntary and marital consent intervenes, which alone makes marriage, the betrothed man and betrothed woman are true spouses.

### Chap. V. *On the opinion of certain persons who say that marriage does not exist before carnal union.*

Yet some assert that true marriage is not contracted before the handing-over and carnal union, nor are any truly spouses before the mingling of the sexes intervenes; but from the first pledge of betrothal the man is a *betrothed man,* and the woman a *betrothed woman,* not a *spouse.* But betrothed men and betrothed women, they say, are frequently called *spouses,* not because they *are,* but because they *are to be* so, of which thing they have made a mutual pledge. And according to this they hand down that the words of the aforesaid authorities are to be understood.

### Chap. VI. *That a betrothed woman can choose a monastery without the betrothed man's consent.*

But that between a *betrothed woman* and a *spouse* there is a great difference, they establish from this: that a *betrothed woman* is permitted, before carnal union, without consulting or against the will of the *betrothed man,* to choose a monastery; and this done, the betrothed man too is permitted to marry another. But a *married man* or *married woman* can neither observe continence, except by common consent, nor seek a monastery, unless both alike profess continence. That a *betrothed woman* is permitted to choose a monastery is proved by the authorities of the Saints. For Eusebius the Pope[^4] says: « A betrothed girl it is not permitted to the parents to hand over to another man, yet it is permitted her to choose a monastery for herself ». Likewise Gregory: « The legal decrees have judged that a betrothed woman, if she wishes to convert, be mulcted by absolutely no penalty ». « Jerome also relates that Macarius, foremost among the hermits of Christ, the wedding feast having been celebrated, when in the evening he was about to enter the bridal chamber, going out from the city sought lands across the sea and chose for himself the solitude of the desert. Blessed Alexius too, likewise called by divine grace from his nuptials, deserted his betrothed and began to serve Christ naked. — From these authorities and examples it is clear that it is permitted to betrothed men, without the consent of their betrothed women, and conversely, to profess continence ».

### Chap. VII. *That a married person cannot profess continence without the spouse's consent.*

But this is by no means permitted to the married. For a man cannot take up a purpose of a better life without the consent of his wife, and conversely. Whence Gregory[^5], writing

<!-- page 673 -->

to Theoctista the patrician lady: « There are those who say that on account of religion marriages ought to be dissolved. But it must be known that, even if human law has conceded this, yet divine law has forbidden it. But if it be agreeable to both to lead a continent life, who would dare to accuse this? For thus we know many of the Saints both to have led a continent life with their spouses before, and afterwards to have passed to the governance of the holy Church. But if the continence which the man seeks, the woman does not follow, or which the wife seeks, the man refuses; marriage cannot be divided, because it is written: *The woman does not have power over her own flesh, but the man; likewise also the man does not have power over his own body, but the woman* ». The same: « Agathosa, the bearer of the present [letter], has complained that her husband against her will has been converted into a monastery. Wherefore we command your experience diligently to examine by careful inquiry, lest perhaps he was converted with her will, or she promised to change herself. And if this your diligence shall have found; let it provide both that he remain in the monastery and compel her, as she promised, to change. But if none of these is so, nor have you learned that the aforesaid woman has committed any crime of fornication, on account of which it is permitted to dismiss a wife; lest his conversion become for the abandoned wife left in the world an occasion of ruin, we will that you ought to restore her husband to her, even if he is already tonsured, all excuse ceasing; because save for the cause of fornication no reason grants that a man dismiss his wife. For after by the union of marriage of the man and the woman one body is made, it cannot in part be converted and in part remain in the world ». Likewise from the eighth synod[^6]: « If any married man wishes to convert to a monastery, he is not to be received, unless first he has been released by his spouse who professes chastity. Such then follow Christ without fault, the world being left behind, if they have from equal will the consent of chastity ». Likewise: « If a man and wife have consented among themselves to separate for the sake of religious life alone, let it by no means be done without the knowledge of the bishop, that by him, providing singularly, they be established in [their] place. For with the wife unwilling, or either of them, even for such a matter marriage is not dissolved ».

### Chap. VIII. *On adulterous unions.*

Likewise Augustine[^7]: « If you abstain without the will of your wife, you grant her license of fornicating, and her sin will be imputed to your abstinence ». Likewise Nicholas the Pope[^8]: « Thietberga the queen has written to us that she desires to be stripped of her royal dignity or [conjugal] union and to be content with a private life alone. To her we wrote that this cannot be done otherwise, unless her husband Lothar choose the same life ». — From these it is clear that the married, without common consent, cannot profess continence, or take up the habit of religion; and if they have done so, they must be recalled.

But betrothed persons can, without common consent, choose a monastery; whence it seems there is no marriage between a betrothed man and a betrothed woman. And therefore they assert that from the first pledge of betrothal they are called *spouses,* not by the reality of present things, but by the hope of future ones, since by the faith which from the betrothal they owe to one another, they are afterwards made spouses. The aforesaid authorities also, by which it is asserted that consent makes matrimony, they will to be understood thus: that the consent or conjugal pact does not make matrimony before intercourse, but in intercourse. For just as the deflowering of virginity does not make matrimony, unless the conjugal pact precede; so neither does the conjugal pact, before carnal union is present. From the conjugal *pact,* therefore, they become *betrothed man* and *betrothed woman* before intercourse, but in *intercourse* they are made *spouses.* For the conjugal pact brings it about that she who before was a *betrothed woman* becomes in intercourse a *spouse.*

To these things we respond thus. Sometimes a betrothal occurs where there is a mutual promise of the man and the woman concerning *contracting* matrimony, but there is not there consent of the *present;* and there is a betrothal having consent of the *present,* that is a conjugal pact, which alone makes marriage. In that betrothal, therefore, where there is a promise of contracting matrimony, they become *betrothed* only, not *spouses;* and to such betrothed persons it is permitted, without common consent, to profess continence and to choose a monastery. But in that betrothal where there is consent of the present, *marriage* is contracted, and from the first pledge of that betrothal they are called *true spouses.* According to this distinction of betrothal the doctors speak variously of the betrothed.

### Chap. IX. *That "betrothed man" and "betrothed woman" are taken in multiple senses.*

For sometimes they call those *betrothed women* who have had such a betrothal where there was a conjugal pact of the present; and these are truly spouses. Whence Gregory[^9]: « If anyone has betrothed or pledged a wife to himself, although afterwards, the day of her death anticipating, he could not lead her as wife; nevertheless it is permitted to none of her kindred to take her in marriage; and if it be found to have been done, let them be entirely separated ». Likewise Julius the Pope: « If anyone has betrothed or pledged a wife, and, either the day of her death anticipating, or certain causes rushing in, has not known her; let neither his brother nor any of her kindred take the same to himself as wife at any time ever ». Likewise Gregory: « Whoever has taken in marriage the betrothed girl of his neighbor, let him be anathema, himself and all consenting to him, because according to the law of God he is decreed to die. For

<!-- page 674 -->

it is the custom of the divine law to call betrothed women *spouses,* as in the Gospel: *Take Mary your spouse;* and in Deuteronomy: *If anyone has oppressed another's betrothed in a field or in any place, or has led her into his house; let him die, because he has violated the wife of his neighbor* — not her who was already a wife, but her who was to be made a wife by her parents ». — From these it is gathered that certain betrothed women are spouses before the mingling of the sexes. — But perhaps that moves [a difficulty] which is said at the end of the chapter: *Not her who was already a wife, but her who was to be made a wife.* Which ought not to be so understood as if she were truly not a wife, from the time the conjugal pact intervened; but because she had not yet been handed over, nor had the wifely reality intervened, namely conjugal intercourse.

She also is called a *betrothed woman*[^10] who has been thus betrothed to a man that consent of the present has not intervened, but [only] a pledge of the future. According to which mode that decree is understood: « If anyone has oppressed the betrothed of his son, and afterwards his son has married her; let the father afterwards not have [her as] wife, nor the woman [have] the man; let the son, who was ignorant of his father's crime, marry another ». If she had been a *spouse,* which she certainly would be, if in the betrothal a conjugal pact had intervened, the betrothed man would not be permitted to marry another. But upon adulterers the penalty of not marrying is inflicted by rigor, that others may be terrified. Likewise from the same[^11]: « A certain man betrothed a wife and endowed her and could not have intercourse with her, whom secretly his brother corrupted and rendered pregnant; it was decreed that, although she could not be married to the legitimate man, yet the brother may not have his brother's betrothed as wife; but let the adulterer and adulteress indeed bear the vengeance of fornication, yet let lawful marriages not be denied to them ». Of that betrothal this ought to be understood where there was no conjugal consent of the present, otherwise it would not be permitted to them to obtain other marriages. According to this also that ought to be understood: « It has been established by a sacred assembly that, if anyone has seized the betrothed of another, let him be mulcted with public penance and remain without hope of marriage. And if she has not been consenting to the same crime, let license of marrying another not be denied her[^12] ». « It appears that this woman had been betrothed without a conjugal pact of the present, and therefore had not been a spouse; to whom, the betrothed man living, license of marrying another is not denied ». For there are certain nuptial pacts of the future, from which they are called *betrothed man* and *betrothed woman,* nor thereupon are they spouses; and there is a certain conjugal pact of the present, which makes the *betrothed man* and *betrothed woman* even spouses. And each pact is sometimes called *betrothal* or *espousals,* yet *properly* are *espousals* called certain solemn nuptial pacts.

Concerning nuptial pacts, where there is only a *pledge of the future,* Augustine[^13] says: « It has been instituted that betrothed women already pledged be not immediately handed over, lest the husband hold cheap her given, whom as betrothed man he did not sigh for when delayed ».

### Chap. X. *Which betrothed woman is a widow when the betrothed man dies, and which is not.*

And it must be known that that betrothed woman who has only been pledged in the future, the betrothed man being dead, does not remain a widow, because he had not been her husband. Whence if anyone marry her, he is not prohibited from ascending to holy orders, because he has not married a widow. For the husband of a widow, equally as a bigamist, is prohibited from being made a priest; but from such a union no one is barred from holy orders. According to this must be understood what Pelagius the Pope[^14] says of him who, her betrothed man being dead, marries the betrothed woman as wife: « There is nothing, he says, as far as pertains to this article, which would stand in his way from the canonical institutes, but that he may be able to be promoted to holy orders ». But if she had been such a betrothed woman between whom and her betrothed man consent of the present had intervened, he being dead, she would have remained a widow; and one united to her in marriage would not further approach to holy orders, since he has married a widow. It is not therefore to be doubted that consent of the present alone effects marriage, and that thereupon they are called true spouses. Therefore after such consent, if anyone unite himself to another, even if carnal mingling should there follow, he must be recalled to the prior union.

---

la: Cfr. Gratian., introductio in C. 27. q. 2. Seq. locus C. *Beata Maria* (3.), ibid. § 1, ubi edd., excepta 1, et cod. C addunt *vitae* post *consuetudinem,* refragante etiam canone.

en: Cf. Gratian, the introduction to C. 27, q. 2. The following passage is the canon *Beata Maria* (3), ibid. § 1, where the editions, except 1, and cod. C add *vitae* after *consuetudinem,* though the canon itself is against it.

la: C. *Coniuges* (6.), ibid. sec. sensum, sed verbotenus apud Gratian., loc. cit. — Seq. locus Nicolai est C. *Sufficiat* (2.), ibid.; tertius Chrysost., in Matth. Opus imperfectum, hom. 32; C. *Omnis res* (4.), ibid.; quartus Ambros., de Institut. virgin. c. 6. n. 41; C. *Cum initiatur* (5.), ibid.

en: The canon *Coniuges* (6), ibid., according to the sense, but word-for-word in Gratian, loc. cit. — The following passage of Nicholas is the canon *Sufficiat* (2), ibid.; the third is Chrysostom, on Matthew, the *Opus imperfectum,* hom. 32; the canon *Omnis res* (4), ibid.; the fourth is Ambrose, *On the Instruction of Virgins,* c. 6, n. 41; the canon *Cum initiatur* (5), ibid.

la: Locis citt. — Seq. locus Isidor. est IX. Etymolog. c. 7. n. 9; cit. can. *Coniuges;* tertius August., l. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 11. n. 12; C. *Coniux vocatur* (9.), ibid. Verbum *utrumque* refertur ad nomen *pater* et *coniux.*

en: At the passages cited. — The following passage of Isidore is *Etymologies* IX, c. 7, n. 9; the canon *Coniuges* is cited; the third is Augustine, bk. *On Marriage and Concupiscence,* c. 11, n. 12; the canon *Coniux vocatur* (9), ibid. The word *utrumque* refers to the nouns *pater* and *coniux.*

la: Can. *Desponsatam* (27.), ibid. Seq. locus est Gregor., VII. Regest., indict. 15. epist. 23. (alias 20.) ad Fortunatum; C. *Decreta legalia* (28.), ibid. Tertius apud Gratian. super C. *Scripsit nobis* (26.), ibid. De re narrata nihil in Hieronymo.

en: The canon *Desponsatam* (27), ibid. The following passage is Gregory, *Register* VII, indiction 15, letter 23 (alias 20) to Fortunatus; the canon *Decreta legalia* (28), ibid. The third is in Gratian, on the canon *Scripsit nobis* (26), ibid. Of the thing narrated there is nothing in Jerome.

la: Loc. cit. XI. indict. 4. epist. 45. (alias 39.); C. *Sunt qui dicunt* (19.), ibid., ubi citatur I. Cor. 7, 4. Seq. locus est loc. cit. epist. 50. (alias 44.) ad Adrianum; C. *Agathosa latrix* (21.), ibid. — Pro *quoddam fornicationis* Gratian. et plurimae edd. *quondam,* refragante ed. Maurina operum Gregorii.

en: At the passage cited, *Register* XI, indiction 4, letter 45 (alias 39); the canon *Sunt qui dicunt* (19), ibid., where 1 Cor. 7:4 is cited. The following passage is at the passage cited, letter 50 (alias 44) to Adrian; the canon *Agathosa latrix* (21), ibid. — For *quoddam fornicationis* Gratian and most editions have *quondam,* though the Maurist edition of Gregory's works is against it.

la: Can. *Si quis* (22.), C. 27. q. 2. — Seq. locus C. *Si vir* (23.), ibid. — Pro *conscientia* plurimae edd. *consensu,* refragantibus codd. et canone, et pro *nolente* ed. 1 et cod. Erf. *volente.*

en: The canon *Si quis* (22), C. 27, q. 2. — The following passage is the canon *Si vir* (23), ibid. — For *conscientia* most editions have *consensu,* though the codices and the canon are against it, and for *nolente* ed. 1 and the Erfurt codex have *volente.*

la: *Verba* haec potius invenies inter opera Chrysost., Homil. 1. in Ps. 50. n. 8; C. *Si tu abstines* (24.), ibid.; sententia autem est apud August., l. de Adulterinis Coniugiis, c. 4. n. 4.

en: These *words* you will rather find among the works of Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Ps. 50, n. 8; the canon *Si tu abstines* (24), ibid.; but the opinion is in Augustine, bk. *On Adulterous Marriages,* c. 4, n. 4.

la: Can. *Scripsit nobis* (26.), ibid. — Infra ante *continentiam* cod. A et edd., excepta 1, addunt *monasterium eligere.* Quae sequuntur occurrunt etiam apud Gratian. super eundem canonem.

en: The canon *Scripsit nobis* (26), ibid. — Below, before *continentiam,* cod. A and the editions, except 1, add *monasterium eligere.* What follows occurs also in Gratian on the same canon.

la: Can. *Si quis uxorem* (14.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. *Si quis desponsaverit* (15.), ibid.; tertius C. *Qui desponsatam* (12.), ibid., ubi citantur Matth. 1, 20; Deuter. 22, 23. seqq.

en: The canon *Si quis uxorem* (14), ibid. The following passage is the canon *Si quis desponsaverit* (15), ibid.; the third is the canon *Qui desponsatam* (12), ibid., where Matt. 1:20 and Deut. 22:23 ff. are cited.

la: Solae edd., excepta 1, *Haec etiam sponsa est.* Seq. locus est C. *Si quis sponsam* (32.), ibid.

en: The editions alone, except 1, read *Haec etiam sponsa est.* The following passage is the canon *Si quis sponsam* (32), ibid.

la: Can. *Quidam desponsavit* (31.), ibid.

en: The canon *Quidam desponsavit* (31), ibid.

la: Can. *Statutum est* (34.), ibid. Seq. locus est apud Gratian. super eund. canonem.

en: The canon *Statutum est* (34), ibid. The following passage is in Gratian on the same canon.

la: August., VIII. Confess. c. 3. n. 7; C. *Institutum est* (39.), ibid. — Ibi codd. et edd., excepta 8, falso omittunt *non* ante *suspiravit,* refragante canone et originali Augustini. — De seqq. cfr. Gratian. super C. *Quod autem interrogasti* (29.), ibid.

en: Augustine, *Confessions* VIII, c. 3, n. 7; the canon *Institutum est* (39), ibid. — There the codices and editions, except 8, wrongly omit *non* before *suspiravit,* though the canon and the original of Augustine are against it. — On what follows cf. Gratian on the canon *Quod autem interrogasti* (29), ibid.

la: Can. *Valentino* (20.), d. 34; cfr. C. *Debitum pastoralis* (5.), X. de Bigamis non ordinandis, libr. 1. tit. 21.

en: The canon *Valentino* (20), d. 34; cf. the decretal *Debitum pastoralis* (5), in the *Liber Extra,* on Bigamists not to be ordained, book 1, title 21.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 72761–73070) with PDF column-band reads authoritative on the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers (Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE). Bands regenerated per this session's clip note: left columns via `colcrop.py vol4 <p> 2120`, right columns via `colcrop.py vol4 <p> 1780` (the vol4 columns are wide; the default 1880 split truncates the L-column right edge and the R-column left edge). Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 671–674 = pdf 691–694). English is a fresh literal parallel.
- **This is the LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XXVII** — Peter Lombard's full text *De consensu matrimoniali,* the Master's Caps I–X: I (things to consider in marriage), II (definition of marriage), III (consent as efficient cause), IV (when marriage begins), V (the opinion that marriage is only *in coitu*), VI (a betrothed woman may choose a monastery), VII (the married may not profess continence without mutual consent), VIII (adulterous unions, plus the resumption of the opinion and the Master's reply distinguishing betrothal *de futuro* / *de praesenti*), IX (the manifold senses of *sponsus/sponsa*), X (which betrothed woman is a widow at the betrothed's death). **SINGLE-PARS distinction** — no `pars` field. **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM is excluded** per the task.
- **Page span correction (671 added).** The auto-chunk skeleton set the range at raw L72893 / printed 672, but L72893 is the running head at the TOP of p.673, not the distinction start. The genuine `DISTINCTIO XXVII` heading + Cap. I (*Quae sint consideranda in coniugio*) + the opening of Cap. II sit in the lower half of **p.671** (raw ≈ L72761, verified on the p.671 band: heading below the tail of d.26's *Dub. II* Respondeo). To render ALL the Master's chapters the chunk was extended to pp. **671–674**; frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages`/`line_start` updated accordingly.
- **Column-reflow / reading order.** Each page reads Left column fully, then Right column. This is also the logical order: e.g. p.673 L ends Cap. VIII (*…revocari debent*) and p.673 R opens *Sponsi vero possunt…* (married cannot profess continence, **but** betrothed can) — a continuous contrast, not a seam break. The opinion-resumption + reply block (*Sponsi vero possunt … His autem ita respondemus … varie loquuntur doctores*) carries no chapter heading in the source and so runs on under Cap. VIII. The Cap. IV Augustine quote crosses the p.672 L→R column break mid-sentence (*…sed etiam ille* | *pater eius…*); Cap. IX's Gregory *Qui desponsatam* quote crosses the p.673→674 break (*…mori decernitur. Nam* | *divinae legis mos est…*). No body text dropped at these seams (checked against the bands).
- **Littera end / next-chunk seam (p.674).** The littera ends at *…ad priorem copulam revocandus est* (p.674 R column). Immediately after, the **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVII** (*De consensu ut efficiente causa matrimonii* → *DIVISIO TEXTUS* → *Haec est secunda pars…*) begins **in the lower LEFT column of p.674** (the littera occupies an L-shaped region: L-column-top + full R-column; the Commentarius fills the leftover L-column-bottom). That Commentarius/divisio block and everything after it (raw ≥ L73071, OCR `OOMMENTARIUS`) is the NEXT chunk and is EXCLUDED here.
- **Footer ownership.** p.671's footer carries TWO blocks: the numbered notes ¹–⁹ under the running text belong to the PRIOR d.26 *Dubia* (article/quaestio cross-refs) and are EXCLUDED; only the fresh **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** note ¹ (*Cfr. Gratian… Beata Maria*) is the littera's and is claimed as `[^1]`. p.674's bottom footer notes ¹–⁵ (canon numbers 32, 31, 34, 39, 20) are the littera's *NOTAE AD LIBR.* and are claimed as `[^10]–[^14]`; the Commentarius's own notes begin on later pages. Total apparatus = **14** (1 p.671 + 4 p.672 + 4 p.673 + 5 p.674), all anchored in this body.
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **`[?]` flags:**
  - **p.671 `[^1]` canon incipit [?]:** the word before *Maria* in the *NOTAE* note ("Seq. locus C. **[Beata]** *Maria* (3.)") is clipped at the column edge on the band; rendered *Beata Maria* (the standard C.27 q.2 c.3 incipit) but flagged for a 600 dpi recheck at the d.21–d.30 decade-polish gate.
  - **Cap. II reading *…exhibeat quod quisque sibi.*** — the band clearly prints *quod quisque sibi* (with no *debet*); transcribed verbatim (the verb is elided in Quaracchi). Rendered "what each [owes] to himself." Not a genuine ambiguity, noted for the record.
  - Unambiguous OCR garbles silently corrected from the bands (e.g. `matrimoniuin`→*matrimonium,* `desponsalionis`→*desponsationis,* `Theotistae`→*Theoctistae,* `synodo`, `subarrhaverit`, `Pelagius`, `revocandus`).


title: Dist. 27, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 674 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVII.
#### *De consensu ut efficiente causa matrimonii.*

*Post haec advertendum est, quid sit coniugium, et quae sit efficiens causa* etc.

#### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

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

Haec est secunda pars, in qua agitur de causa efficiente coniugii, quae quidem est consensus. Et quoniam non omnis consensus facit coniugium, ideo primo determinat Magister in generali, quod consensus sit matrimonii causa. Secundo inquirit, qualis sit ille consensus, infra distinctione vigesima octava: *Hic quaeri debet, utrum consensus de futuro* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat de ipso coniugio quantum ad quidditatem. In secunda vero quantum ad causalitatem, ibi: *Efficiens autem causa matrimonii* etc. In prima parte duo facit.

<!-- page 675 -->
In prima breviter praemittit, de quibus intendit agere. In secunda breviter definit coniugium maritale, et hoc ibi: *Sunt igitur nuptiae vel matrimonium* etc. Et haec duo sunt quasi praeambula ad cognoscendam matrimonii causalitatem sive originem.

*Efficiens autem causa matrimonii est.* Haec est secunda pars huius distinctionis, in qua agit de causa efficiente, et dividitur haec pars in quatuor partes. In prima veritatem narrat. In secunda[^1] confirmat, ibi: *Quod autem consensus matrimonium faciat* etc. In tertia impugnat, ibi: *Quidam tamen asserunt* etc. In quarta obiectiones in contrarium determinat, ibi: *His autem ita respondemus. Fit aliquando desponsatio* etc. Subdivisiones partium manifeste apparent in his duabus partibus ultimis, maxime utrum ex solo consensu contrahatur insolubile vinculum. — Et sic tria continentur in hac distinctione, scilicet matrimonii quidditas, causalitas et insolubilitas.

#### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis secundum tria, quae determinat Magister, tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de matrimonii quidditate.

Secundo, de causalitate.

Tertio, de insolubilitate.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, quid sit coniugium genere, sive re.

Secundo, quid sit nomine.

---

english:
<!-- page 674 -->

### Commentary on Distinction XXVII.
#### *On consent as the efficient cause of matrimony.*

*After these things it must be noted what marriage is, and what is its efficient cause,* etc.

#### Division of the text.

This is the second part, in which there is treated the efficient cause of marriage, which indeed is consent. And since not every consent makes marriage, therefore the Master first determines in general that consent is the cause of matrimony. Second, he inquires of what sort that consent is, below in the twenty-eighth distinction: *Here it must be asked, whether consent concerning the future* etc.

The first part has two [subparts]. In the first he determines concerning marriage itself as to its quiddity. In the second, however, as to its causality, there: *But the efficient cause of matrimony* etc. In the first part he does two things.

<!-- page 675 -->
In the first he briefly premises the things about which he intends to treat. In the second he briefly defines marital wedlock, and this here: *There are therefore nuptials, or matrimony* etc. And these two are as it were preambles for coming to know the causality or origin of matrimony.

*But the efficient cause of matrimony is [consent].* This is the second part of this distinction, in which he treats of the efficient cause, and this part is divided into four parts. In the first he narrates the truth. In the second[^1] he confirms [it], there: *That consent, however, makes matrimony* etc. In the third he attacks [it], there: *Yet certain persons assert* etc. In the fourth he settles the objections to the contrary, there: *But to these things we thus respond. There sometimes takes place a betrothal* etc. The subdivisions of the parts manifestly appear in these two last parts, especially [as to] whether from consent alone an insoluble bond is contracted. — And so three things are contained in this distinction, namely the quiddity of matrimony, its causality, and its insolubility.

#### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction, according to the three things which the Master determines, three things are principally inquired.

First it is asked concerning the quiddity of matrimony.

Second, concerning [its] causality.

Third, concerning [its] insolubility.

Concerning the first, two things are inquired.

First it is asked, what marriage is in genus, or in reality.

Second, what it is in name.

---

la: Edd. addunt *auctoritatibus.* Inferius in plurimis codd. desiderantur verba *His autem ita respondemus.*

en: The editions add *"by authorities."* Below, in very many codices, the words *"But to these things we thus respond"* are lacking.