Dist. 28, Divisio Textus
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 28
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.
Supra ostendit Magister, consensum esse causam matrimonii. Hic excludit differentias consensuum non efficientium matrimonium; et talis est consensus defectivus. Quoniam autem consensus dupliciter potest deficere, scilicet vel ex aliquo exteriori1, vel ex aliquo interiori, ut puta per errorem, vel per coactionem: ideo haec pars habet duas. In prima agit de consensu defectivo exterius. In secunda vero interius, infra distinctione vigesima nona: Oportet autem, consensum coniugalem liberum esse a coactione.
Prima pars tres habet secundum triplicem consensum, sive secundum quod consensus potest tripliciter considerari, scilicet quantum ad tempus, sive in quo sive pro quo fit; quantum ad alienum testimonium, coram quo fit; et quantum ad terminum, in quem dirigitur; sic haec pars tres habet partes. In prima inquirit Magister de consensu de futuro iuramento firmato, utrum faciat matrimonium. In secunda de consensu cum testimonio, ibi: Praemissae autem sententiae videtur obviare etc. In tertia quaerit, in quam rem oporteat consentire ad hoc, quod contrahatur matrimonium; utrum in carnalem copulam, an non; et hoc ibi: Hic quaeritur, cum consensus de praesenti.
Quaelibet autem istarum partium duas habet. In prima opponit; in secunda solvit. Partes autem in littera manifestae sunt.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis sex quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium.
Secundo, utrum consensus ad tempus.
Tertio, utrum consensus conditionatus.
Quarto, utrum consensus tacitus.
Quinto, utrum consensus occultus.
Sexto, utrum solus consensus in carnalem copulam.
ARTICULUS UNICUS.
De pluribus consensus modis.
---
Division of the text.
Above, the Master showed that consent is the cause of matrimony. Here he excludes the differences of those consents which do not bring about matrimony; and such is defective consent. Since, however, consent can be defective in two ways — namely, either from something exterior1, or from something interior, as for instance through error, or through coercion — this part therefore has two [sections]. In the first he treats of consent defective from without. In the second, from within, below in the twenty-ninth distinction: But it is fitting that conjugal consent be free from coercion.
The first part has three [sections] according to the threefold consent, or according as consent can be considered in three ways: namely, as to the time, whether that in which or for which it is given; as to the outside testimony, before whom it is given; and as to the term, to which it is directed; thus this part has three sections. In the first the Master inquires concerning consent of the future confirmed by oath, whether it makes matrimony. In the second, concerning consent with testimony, there: But the foregoing opinion seems to run counter, etc. In the third he asks to what thing it is necessary to consent in order that matrimony be contracted; whether to carnal copulation or not; and this there: Here it is asked, when the consent is of the present.
Each of these parts, moreover, has two [sections]. In the first he raises objections; in the second he resolves them. The parts, moreover, are evident in the text.
Treatment of the questions.
For the understanding of the present distinction, six things are asked.
First it is asked, whether consent of the future makes matrimony.
Second, whether consent for a time [does].
Third, whether conditional consent [does].
Fourth, whether tacit consent [does].
Fifth, whether hidden consent [does].
Sixth, whether consent alone directed to carnal copulation [does].
The sole article.
On the several modes of consent.
---
- 1In codd. S T additur scilicet tempore, vel testimonio, vel termino.In codices S and T there is added: "namely, of time, or of testimony, or of the term."