Dist. 28, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/28/q/bon-sent-IV-d28-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what it says: *If someone promises something to another and swears,* etc.; it is asked whether the oath adds anything to the promise. For if it adds nothing, then it is applied in vain; if it does add something, then the promise and the bond are firmer. **But on the contrary:** a greater bond arising afterward dissolves a lesser one, as a private vow is dissolved by a consummated marriage: therefore if someone should pledge himself to one person with simple faith, and afterward to another with an oath, it seems that he would be bound to the second.

**I respond:** It must be said that among things that are of the same kind of forum, although one is greater than another, nevertheless it does not dissolve [the other]. Hence a consummated marriage does not dissolve a ratified one, because each is a marriage and binds in the face of the Church; likewise, betrothal-vows do not dissolve betrothal-vows, but marriage dissolves betrothal; and therefore one must stand by the first faith and obligation. For the second oath is null, because it is contrary to what one is bound faithfully to fulfill; hence it must be done according to that saying of Isidore: "In evil promises, rescind your faith": therefore he sinned in swearing, but did not sin in adhering to the first.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked concerning what it says: *But it is not so, when the oath of a present marriage is confirmed by the attestation of consent.* For it seems wrong to say this, because a marriage before consummation is dissolved by a solemn vow: therefore, since a consummated marriage is of as great an obligation as a vow, it seems that it likewise ought to dissolve [it].

**I respond:** It must be said that it is not alike, because here the obligations are of the same kind; moreover, each of the two [spouses] remains alive to the world; and again, in the subsequent marriage faith is promised and given to the woman. But in a solemn vow the obligation is of another kind; moreover, a man dies to the world, which dissolves such a bond; and again, faith and service are promised to God, to whom we are more bound than to others: and therefore it is not alike. A state of perfection is taken on; and therefore such a vow is licit and thereby binding; but the second marriage is not licit, and therefore has neither force nor obligation. And thus it is plain that it is not alike.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked concerning what it says, that without a blessing marriage does not come about as regards the honorableness of the Sacrament. This seems false, because in second marriages the Sacrament is honorable, and yet there is no blessing.

**I respond:** It must be said that in second marriages, especially when the woman is a widow, the blessing is not given, on account of a defect in the Sacrament, as will appear below. But a blessing is given and the Mass of the Trinity is celebrated, on account of the threefold good of marriage, which is appropriated to the three Persons: the good of offspring is appropriated to the Father, the good of faith to the Son, and the good of the Sacrament, or of the indivisible bond, to the Holy Spirit.

---