Dist. 38, Divisio Textus
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/38/q/bon-sent-IV-d38-divisio
----------------------------------------
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXVIII.

#### *On the impediments arising from the obligation of vow and of matrimony.*

*Now let us examine concerning the vow* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the impediment which comes from ecclesiastical institution. Here he treats of the impediment which comes from our own obligation. And since a person can be obligated to another in two ways, namely by vow and by matrimony; therefore he first treats of the impediment which comes from the obligation of a vow; but second, of that which arises from the obligation of matrimony, and that second part begins there: *When a man and a woman are lawfully joined* etc.

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines what a vow is, briefly intimating what it is and concerning what and of whom. In the second he determines concerning the obligation in comparison to matrimony, showing that a certain [vow] impedes but does not annul, as a simple vow; a certain [vow] both impedes and annuls, as a solemn one. And that second part begins there: *But it must be known that of vows one is common* etc.

In the second way: *When a man and a woman lawfully* etc. This is the second part, in which the Master determines concerning the impediment of the bond (*ligaminis*), and this part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he shows that one lawfully joined to one [spouse] cannot, while she is living, be joined to another, nor conversely; and if he be joined in fact, it is not matrimony. In the second he asks whether those joined in fact can through ignorance be excused from adultery, there: *Here it is asked concerning those women who, thinking* etc.; where he determines that they are excused when they are in doubt, but when they are made certain, they are not excused.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the present distinction it is asked concerning the vow. And concerning this, two [matters] are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the vow in itself.

Second it is asked concerning the vow in comparison to obligation.

Concerning the first, three [things] are asked. First it is asked concerning the vow, what it is according to essence. Second it is asked, concerning what it is. Third, in whom it is.

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the vow in itself.*

---