← Back to Distinction 39

Dist. 39

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 39

Textus Latinus
p. 829

Cap. I. De dispari cultu.

Post haec de dispari cultu videndum est. Haec est enim una de causis, quibus personae illegitimae fiunt ad contrahendum matrimonium. Non enim licet Christiano cum gentili vel Iudaea inire coniugium, quia etiam in veteri testamento prohibitum est, fideles viros infideles ducere uxores, Domino dicente1: Non accipies uxores de filiabus alienigenarum filiis tuis, ne traducant eos post deos suos. Iuxta hoc Domini praeceptum Iudaeorum coniugia cum alienigenis inita Esdras separavit. Hoc idem etiam in novo testamento servatur. Unde Augustinus2: « Ne nubat femina, nisi suae religionis viro, vel ne vir talem ducat uxorem. Id enim, ut dicis, iubet Dominus, docet Apostolus, utrumque praecipit testamentum ». Item Ambrosius3: « Cave, Christiane, gentili vel Iudaeo filiam tuam tradere; cave, ne gentilem vel Iudaeam vel alienigenam, id est haereticam, et omnem alienam a fide tua uxorem accersas tibi ». Item: « Si quis Iudaeae, sive Christiana Iudaeo, sive Iudaea Christiano carnali consortio misceatur, quicumque tantum nefas admiserit, a christiano coetu protinus segregetur ». — Ex his aliisque pluribus testimoniis apparet, non posse contrahi coniugium ab his qui sunt diversae religionis et fidei.

Cap. II. De coniugio fidelis et infidelis et duorum infidelium.

Huic autem videtur obviare quod Apostolus4 ait de imparibus coniugiis: Ego dico, non Dominus: Si quis frater habet uxorem infidelem, et haec consentit habitare cum illo, non dimittat illam; et si qua mulier etc. Sed « aliud hoc esse, aliud illud, evidenter ostendit Augustinus5. Ibi enim agitur de illis coniugiis fidelium et infidelium, quae contrahuntur ab eis in dispari religione et fide manentibus. Apostolus vero agit de illis qui unius eiusdemque infidelitatis fuerunt, quando coniuncti sunt; sed cum venisset Evangelium, alter sine altera credidit. Intelligisne quid dicam? » « Attende, ut rem ipsam diligentius explanem. Ecce coniuges duo unius infidelitatis fuerunt, quando coniuncti sunt; nulla de his quaestio est, quae pertineat ad illud praeceptum veteris et novi testamenti, quo prohibetur fidelis cum infideli copulare coniugium. Iam sunt coniuges et ambo adhuc sunt infideles; tales sunt adhuc, quales coniuncti sunt. Venitque Evangelii praedicator, credidit eorum unus vel una, sed ita, ut infidelis cum fideli habitare consentiat; non iubet Dominus, ut fidelis infidelem dimittat taliter coniunctum ». « Nec Apostolus iubet, ut non dimittat, sed consulit, ut, si quis aliter agat, non sit transgressor, sicut et de virginibus consulit ». « Monet ergo, quod est lucrandi occasio, cum possit licite relinquere, sed non expedit ». Tunc enim non expedit id quod licitum est, quando permittitur quidem, sed usus ipsius aliis affert impedimentum salutis, sicut discessio fidelis ab infideli, quam non prohibet Dominus, quia coram illo non est iniusta; sed Apostolus, ne fiat, consilio caritatis suadet, ut nemo in ea re iussionis necessitate teneatur, sed consilii voluntate libere faciat ». — Ex his monstratur, et inter infideles6 coniugium esse, et consilium Apostoli non obviare praecepto Domini, quo iubet, fidelem non iungi infideli, et si coniuncti fuerint, separari. Legitur enim, quod « Esdras propheta, immo Dominus per eum, iussit Israelitis uxores dimittere alienigenas, per quas ibant ad deos alienos, non illae per maritos acquirebantur Deo. Recte hoc praecepit; quia per Moysen iusserat Dominus, ne quis uxorem alienigenam duceret. Merito ergo quas duxerant, Domino prohibente, Domino iubente, dimiserunt7 »; quia, ut ait Ambrosius, « non est putandum matrimonium quod extra Dei decretum est factum; sed cum cognoscitur, emendandum, ut quando fidelis infideli copulatur ».

p. 830

Sed ut ait Augustinus1: « Cum coepisset gentibus Evangelium praedicari, iam coniunctos gentiles gentilibus comperit coniugibus; ex quibus si non ambo crederent, sed unus vel una, et infidelis cum fideli consentiret habitare; nec prohiberi a Domino debuit fidelis infidelem dimittere nec iuberi: ideo non prohiberi, quia iustitia permittit a fornicante discedere; et infidelis hominis fornicatio est maior in corde, nec vera eius pudicitia cum coniuge dici potest, quia omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, quamvis veram fidelis habeat pudicitiam, etiam cum infideli coniuge, quae non habet veram; ideo autem nec iuberi, quia nec contra iussionem Domini gentiles fuerunt ambo coniuncti ». « Licitum ergo erat per iustitiam fideli infidelem dimittere; sed licitum non erat faciendum propter liberam benevolentiam ». — Evidenter apparet, et inter infideles coniugium esse, et Apostolum de illis agere, qui in infidelitate coniuncti fuerunt, et post alter ad fidem conversus est, cum quo infidelis habitare consentit; et hunc non dimittere fideli consulit Apostolus, quia forte per fidelem salvabitur infidelis.

Cap. III. De fornicatione spirituali, propter quam dimitti coniux potest.

Potest tamen licite dimittere, quia in infideli est fornicatio, si non corporis, tamen mentis. Causam enim fornicationis Dominus excepit; fornicationem vero generalem et universalem intelligere cogimur, non modo scilicet corporalem, sed et spiritualem; de qua Augustinus2 ait: « Idololatria et quaelibet noxia superstitio fornicatio est. Dominus autem permisit, causa fornicationis uxorem dimitti, sed non iussit; et sic dedit Apostolo locum monendi, ut qui voluerit non dimittat »; potest tamen licite dimittere. « Si enim fornicatio carnis detestanda est in coniuge, quanto magis fornicatio mentis, id est infidelitas »?

Cap. IV. Pro quibus peccatis possit fieri separatio, vel non.

Si autem quaeris, an propter aliud vitium nisi propter infidelitatem vel idololatriam possit dimitti; attende, quid Augustinus3 ait: « Si infidelitas fornicatio est, et idololatria infidelitas, et avaritia idololatria; non est dubitandum, et avaritiam fornicationem esse. Quis ergo quamlibet illicitam concupiscentiam potest a fornicationis genere separare, si avaritia fornicatio est? Ex quo intelligitur, quod propter illicitas concupiscentias, non tantum quae in stupris cum alienis viris vel feminis committuntur, sed ob quaslibet, quae animam a lege Dei aberrare faciunt et perniciose corrumpi, possit sine crimine et vir uxorem suam dimittere, et uxor virum ». Item, « rectissime dimittitur, si viro suo dicat: non ero uxor tua, nisi mihi de latrocinio divitias congeras, vel nisi solita lenocinia exerceas, aut si quid aliud facinorosum vel flagitiosum a viro suo expetat. Tunc ille, si veraciter poenitens est, habetque fidem per dilectionem operantem, membrum, quod eum scandalizat, amputabit ». — Ex his apparet, quod non solum infidelitas, sed et quaelibet concupiscentia, quae perniciose turpiterque corrumpit, fornicatio spiritualis est, per quam vir uxorem, vel uxor virum dimittere potest. Consulit tamen Apostolus, ne fidelis dimittat infidelem volentem cohabitare nec a Deo revocare.

Cap. V. An liceat fideli aliam ducere, vel non.

Hic quaeritur, si fidelis infidelem dimittat, vel infidelis a fideli discedat, an liceat fideli aliam ducere. Videtur auctoritas testari, quod vivente illa, alteram ducere non valeat. Ambrosius4 enim verba Apostoli exponens ait: « Alioquin, si disceditis ab invicem et volentes cohabitare dimittitis et aliis vos copulatis, adulteri estis, et filii vestri, qui de hac copula nascuntur, immundi, id est spurii sunt ». Item: « Si quis habuerit uxorem virginem ante baptismum, vivente illa, post baptismum alteram habere non potest. Crimina enim in baptismo solvuntur, non coniugia ». Sed econtra Ambrosius testatur: Si infidelis, dicit Apostolus5, discedit, discedat. Non enim est servituti subiectus frater aut soror in huiusmodi; quia « non debetur reverentia coniugii ei qui horret auctorem coniugii. Non est enim ratum matrimonium, quod sine Dei devotione est; et ideo non est peccatum ei qui dimittitur propter Deum, si alii se copulaverit. Contumelia enim Creatoris solvit ius matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur, ne accusetur alii copulatus. Infidelis autem discedens et in Deum peccat et in matrimonium, nec est ei servanda fides coniugii, qui ideo recessit, ne audiret, Christum esse Deum christianorum coniugiorum. Si vero ambo crediderint, per cognitionem Dei confirmatur coniugium ». Attende, haec praedictis contraria posse videri, ita ut sibi Ambrosius contradicere videatur. « Sed distinguendum est hic: aliud esse dimittere volentem cohabitare, aliud dimitti propter Deum ab illo qui horret nomen Christi. Ibi lex benevolentiae non servatur, hic veritas custoditur. Et ideo, cum liceat dimittere volentem cohabitare, non tamen, ea vivente, aliam ducere licet; discedentem vero sequi non oportet, et ea vivente, aliam ducere licet. Sed hoc non est intelligendum, nisi de his qui in infidelitate sibi copulati sunt. Sed si ad fidem uterque conversus est, vel si uterque

p. 831

fidelis matrimonio iunctus est, et post alter eorum a fide discesserit et odio fidei coniugem reliquerit, dimissus discedentem non comitabitur; nec tamen, illa vivente, alteram ducere poterit, quia inter eos fuerat ratum coniugium, quod non potest solvi1 ».

Cap. VI. Utrum coniugium inter infideles sit.

Sunt tamen nonnulli, qui inter infideles asserunt non esse coniugium, quia nec rata nec legitima est eorum copula. Rata non est, quia solvi potest; nec legitima, quia Apostolus2 dicit: « Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Eorum autem coniunctio non est ex fide, et ideo peccatum est; non est igitur coniugium, quia nullum coniugium peccatum est. Augustinus etiam dicit, quia non est vera pudicitia infidelis cum fideli. Sed vera negatur esse pudicitia, non quod infidelium coniugium non sit verum, sed quia non habet illud triplex bonum, quod excusat coitum et meretur praemium. Item, illud Apostoli: Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est; non ita intelligendum est, ut quidquid fit ab infidelibus peccatum sit; sed omne quod fit contra fidem, id est conscientiam, male fit et ad gehennam aedificat. Vel, in omni eo, quod infidelis facit, peccat, non quia illud facit, sed quia non eo modo illud facit, quo debet, non referens ad debitum finem.

Cap. VII. Quod coniugium sit legitimum.

Copula igitur maritalis, quae est inter infideles, coniugium est legitimum, sed non ratum: legitimum, quia est inter legitimas personas; sed non ratum, quia sine fide. Coniugium vero fidelium legitimum est et ratum, si tamen legitimae sunt personae. Quod autem legitima sit infidelium coniunctio, Augustinus3 testatur dicens: « Uxor legitima societate coniuncta sine ulla culpa relinquitur, si cum viro christiano permanere noluerit ». — Ex hoc etiam probatur, quod infideli ad fidem converso Apostolus consulit infidelem non dimittere; quod non faceret, si non esset inter eos legitimum coniugium. Legitimum est quod legali institutione vel provinciae moribus, non contra iussionem Domini contrahitur.

---

English Translation
p. 829

Chap. I. On disparity of worship.

After these matters, disparity of worship must be considered. For this is one of the causes by which persons are made illegitimate for contracting marriage. For it is not lawful for a Christian to enter into marriage with a gentile or a Jewess, since even in the Old Testament it was forbidden that faithful men should take unbelieving wives, the Lord saying1: You shall not take wives of the daughters of foreigners for your sons, lest they lead them away after their gods. According to this precept of the Lord, Ezra separated the marriages of the Jews contracted with foreigners. This same thing is observed also in the New Testament. Hence Augustine2: « Let not a woman marry, except a man of her own religion, nor let a man take such a wife. For this, as you say, the Lord commands, the Apostle teaches, and both testaments enjoin ». Likewise Ambrose3: « Beware, Christian, of giving your daughter to a gentile or a Jew; beware lest you take to yourself a gentile or a Jewess or a foreigner — that is, a heretic — and every wife alien to your faith ». Likewise: « If anyone be joined in carnal fellowship to a Jewess, or a Christian woman to a Jew, or a Jewess to a Christian, whoever has committed so great a wickedness, let him be at once separated from the Christian assembly ». — From these and many other testimonies it appears that marriage cannot be contracted by those who are of a different religion and faith.

Chap. II. On the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever and of two unbelievers.

But there seems to be opposed to this what the Apostle4 says concerning unequal marriages: I say, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to dwell with him, let him not put her away; and if any woman etc. But « that this is one thing and that another, Augustine5 evidently shows. For there the discussion is about those marriages of believers and unbelievers which are contracted by them while they remain in disparity of religion and faith. But the Apostle treats of those who were of one and the same unbelief when they were joined; but when the Gospel had come, the one believed without the other. Do you understand what I say? » « Attend, that I may explain the matter itself more diligently. Behold, two spouses were of one unbelief when they were joined; there is no question about these which pertains to that precept of the Old and New Testament, by which a believer is forbidden to join marriage with an unbeliever. Now they are spouses and both are still unbelievers; they are still such as they were when joined. And the preacher of the Gospel came, and one of them believed, a man or a woman, but in such a way that the unbeliever consents to dwell with the believer; the Lord does not command that the believer put away the unbeliever thus joined ». « Nor does the Apostle command that he not put her away, but he counsels, that if anyone act otherwise, he be not a transgressor, just as he also counsels concerning virgins ». « He advises, therefore, because there is an occasion of gain, since one could lawfully forsake, but it is not expedient ». For then that which is lawful is not expedient, when it is indeed permitted, but the use of it brings to others an impediment to salvation, as does the departure of a believer from an unbeliever, which the Lord does not forbid, because in his sight it is not unjust; but the Apostle, that it be not done, persuades by the counsel of charity, that no one in that matter be bound by the necessity of a command, but act freely by the will of counsel ». — From these things it is shown both that there is marriage among unbelievers6, and that the counsel of the Apostle does not run counter to the precept of the Lord, by which he commands that a believer not be joined to an unbeliever, and, if they have been joined, that they be separated. For it is read, that « Ezra the prophet, nay rather the Lord through him, commanded the Israelites to put away their foreign wives, through whom they were going to strange gods, nor were those women being won to God through their husbands. Rightly did he command this; because through Moses the Lord had commanded that no one take a foreign wife. Deservedly, therefore, those whom they had married, the Lord forbidding, the Lord commanding, they put away7 »; because, as Ambrose says, « that marriage is not to be reckoned which is made outside God's decree; but when it is recognized, it must be amended, so that when a believer is joined to an unbeliever ».

p. 830

But as Augustine1 says: « When the Gospel had begun to be preached to the gentiles, it found gentiles already joined to gentile spouses; of whom, if not both believed, but one, a man or a woman, and the unbeliever consented to dwell with the believer; the believer neither ought to be forbidden by the Lord to put away the unbeliever nor to be commanded: therefore not forbidden, because justice permits departing from a fornicator; and the fornication of the unbelieving man is greater in the heart, nor can there be said to be true chastity of his with his spouse, because everything that is not of faith is sin, although the believer has true chastity, even with an unbelieving spouse, who does not have true chastity; but therefore neither commanded, because the gentiles were not both joined contrary to the command of the Lord ». « It was lawful, therefore, by justice for the believer to put away the unbeliever; but it was not lawful to do it, on account of free good-will ». — It evidently appears both that there is marriage among unbelievers, and that the Apostle treats of those who were joined in unbelief, and afterward one was converted to the faith, with whom the unbeliever consents to dwell; and the Apostle counsels the believer not to put him away, because perhaps through the believer the unbeliever will be saved.

Chap. III. On spiritual fornication, on account of which a spouse can be put away.

Yet one can lawfully put away, because in the unbeliever there is fornication, if not of the body, yet of the mind. For the Lord made fornication an exception; but we are compelled to understand fornication generally and universally, not only bodily, namely, but also spiritual; concerning which Augustine2 says: « Idolatry and every noxious superstition is fornication. But the Lord permitted a wife to be put away for the cause of fornication, but did not command it; and thus he gave the Apostle occasion for admonishing, that whoever wishes may not put her away »; yet one can lawfully put away. « For if fornication of the flesh is to be detested in a spouse, how much more fornication of the mind, that is, unbelief »?

Chap. IV. For what sins separation can be made, or not.

But if you ask whether on account of any other vice than unbelief or idolatry one can put away; attend to what Augustine3 says: « If unbelief is fornication, and idolatry unbelief, and avarice idolatry; it is not to be doubted that avarice too is fornication. Who, then, can separate any unlawful concupiscence whatever from the class of fornication, if avarice is fornication? From which it is understood, that on account of unlawful concupiscences — not only those which are committed in debaucheries with other men or women, but for whatever sort make the soul stray from the law of God and be perniciously corrupted — both a man may without crime put away his wife, and a wife her husband ». Likewise, « most rightly is she put away, if she say to her husband: I will not be your wife, unless you heap up riches for me from robbery, or unless you ply your accustomed pandering, or if she demand anything else criminal or shameful from her husband. Then he, if he is truly penitent, and has faith working through love, will cut off the member which scandalizes him ». — From these things it appears, that not only unbelief, but also any concupiscence whatever which perniciously and basely corrupts, is spiritual fornication, through which a man can put away his wife, or a wife her husband. Yet the Apostle counsels that a believer not put away an unbeliever willing to cohabit, nor call [that one] back from God.

Chap. V. Whether it is lawful for a believer to marry another, or not.

Here it is asked, if a believer puts away an unbeliever, or an unbeliever departs from a believer, whether it is lawful for the believer to marry another. Authority seems to testify that, while she lives, he cannot marry another. For Ambrose4, expounding the words of the Apostle, says: « Otherwise, if you depart from one another and, though willing to cohabit, you put them away and join yourselves to others, you are adulterers, and your children, who are born of this union, are unclean, that is, spurious ». Likewise: « If anyone has had a virgin wife before baptism, while she lives, after baptism he cannot have another. For crimes are dissolved in baptism, not marriages ». But on the contrary Ambrose testifies: If the unbeliever, says the Apostle5, departs, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not subject to servitude in such cases; because « reverence of marriage is not owed to him who abhors the author of marriage. For that is not a ratified marriage which is without devotion to God; and therefore there is no sin for the one who is put away for God's sake, if [that one] join to another. For the contumely of the Creator dissolves the bond of marriage regarding the one who is left, lest he be accused of being joined to another. But the unbeliever who departs sins both against God and against the marriage, nor is the fidelity of marriage to be kept for him, who withdrew for this reason, that he might not hear that Christ is the God of Christian marriages. But if both have believed, through the knowledge of God the marriage is confirmed ». Attend, that these may seem contrary to the aforesaid, so that Ambrose seems to contradict himself. « But it must be distinguished here: it is one thing to put away one willing to cohabit, another to be put away for God's sake by him who abhors the name of Christ. There the law of benevolence is not kept, here truth is guarded. And therefore, although it is lawful to put away one willing to cohabit, yet, while she lives, it is not lawful to marry another; but one is not obliged to follow the one departing, and, while she lives, it is lawful to marry another. But this is not to be understood except of those who were joined to one another in unbelief. But if both have been converted to the faith, or if either

p. 831

believer has been joined in marriage, and afterward one of them has departed from the faith and out of hatred of the faith has abandoned the spouse, the one dismissed shall not follow the one departing; nor yet, while she lives, shall he be able to marry another, because between them there had been a ratified marriage, which cannot be dissolved1 ».

Chap. VI. Whether there is marriage among unbelievers.

Yet there are some who assert that among unbelievers there is no marriage, because their union is neither ratified nor legitimate. It is not ratified, because it can be dissolved; nor legitimate, because the Apostle2 says: « Everything that is not of faith is sin. But their union is not of faith, and therefore it is sin; it is not, therefore, marriage, because no marriage is sin. Augustine also says, that there is no true chastity of an unbeliever with a believer. But true chastity is denied to be [there], not because the marriage of unbelievers is not true, but because it does not have that threefold good which excuses intercourse and merits a reward. Likewise, that saying of the Apostle: Everything that is not of faith is sin; is not to be so understood, as that whatever is done by unbelievers is sin; but everything that is done against faith, that is, against conscience, is done ill and builds toward Gehenna. Or, in everything that an unbeliever does, he sins, not because he does that thing, but because he does not do it in that manner in which he ought, not referring it to its due end.

Chap. VII. That [such] marriage is legitimate.

The marital union, therefore, which is among unbelievers, is a legitimate marriage, but not ratified: legitimate, because it is between legitimate persons; but not ratified, because without faith. But the marriage of believers is legitimate and ratified, if, however, the persons are legitimate. And that the union of unbelievers is legitimate, Augustine3 testifies, saying: « A lawful wife joined in fellowship is left without any fault, if she has been unwilling to remain with her Christian husband ». — From this also it is proved, that to an unbeliever converted to the faith the Apostle counsels not to put away the unbeliever; which he would not do, if there were not a legitimate marriage between them. Legitimate is that which is contracted by legal institution or by the customs of the province, not against the command of the Lord.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Exod. 34, 16; Deut. 7, 3; mox I. Esdr. 10, 11. Hoc capitulum sumtum est ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 8. — Pro accipies edd., excepta 1, accipias, refragantibus codd. et Vulgata.
    Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3; then I Ezra 10:11. This chapter is taken from Hugh, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 7, c. 8. — For accipies the editions, except one, read accipias, against the codices and the Vulgate.
  2. 2
    Libr. I. de Coniugiis adulterinis, c. 21, n. 25; C. Sic enim (9.), C. 28. q. 1. § 6. De praecepto Apostoli cfr. II. Cor. 6, 14.
    Book I, On Adulterous Marriages, c. 21, n. 25; canon Sic enim (9.), Causa 28, q. 1, § 6. On the precept of the Apostle, cf. II Cor. 6:14.
  3. 3
    Libr. I. de Abraham, c. 9. n. 84; C. Cave (15.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. Si quis Iudaicae (17.), ibid.
    Book I, On Abraham, c. 9, n. 84; canon Cave (15.), in the same place. The following passage is canon Si quis Iudaicae (17.), in the same place.
  4. 4
    Epist. I. Cor. 7, 12.
    Epistle, I Cor. 7:12.
  5. 5
    Loc. cit. Seq. locus ibid. n. 26, et can. cit. § 7. Tertius est August., I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 44; quartus I. de Coniugiis adulterinis, c. 13. n. 14; C. Iam nunc (7.), ibid; quintus ibid. c. 18. n. 22. Eosdem locos affert Glossa ad I. Cor. 7, 12, apud Lyranum.
    In the place cited. The following passage in the same place, n. 26, and in the canon cited, § 7. The third is Augustine, Book I, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, c. 16, n. 44; the fourth, Book I, On Adulterous Marriages, c. 13, n. 14; canon Iam nunc (7.), in the same place; the fifth, in the same place, c. 18, n. 22. The Gloss on I Cor. 7:12, in Lyra, adduces the same passages.
  6. 6
    Plures edd. falso fideles, simul omittunt et ante inter.
    Several editions falsely [read] fideles, and at the same time omit et before inter.
  7. 7
    August., loc. cit. c. 18. n. 20. (quoad substantiam); locus alter est Comment. in I. ad Cor. 7, 15 (inter opera Ambrosii); cfr. C. 28. q. 1, introductio.
    Augustine, in the place cited, c. 18, n. 20 (as to substance); the other passage is in the Commentary on I Cor. 7:15 (among the works of Ambrose); cf. Causa 28, q. 1, introduction.
  8. 1
    Loc. cit. c. 18. n. 20, ubi citatur Rom. 14, 23. Seq. locus est ibid. c. 20. n. 24; C. Sic enim, ibid. § 5.
    In the place cited, c. 18, n. 20, where Rom. 14:23 is cited. The following passage is in the same place, c. 20, n. 24; canon Sic enim, in the same place, § 5.
  9. 2
    Libr. I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 45; C. Idololatria (5.), ibid. Seq. locus est in Glossa in I. Cor. 7, 15, apud Lyranum, secundum August., I. de Coniugiis adult. c. 17. n. 19.
    Book I, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, c. 16, n. 45; canon Idololatria (5.), in the same place. The following passage is in the Gloss on I Cor. 7:15, in Lyra, according to Augustine, Book I, On Adulterous Marriages, c. 17, n. 19.
  10. 3
    In cit. Sermone, c. 16. n. 46, et can. cit. § 1. Seq. locus est August., de Fide et operibus, c. 16. n. 28; C. Uxor legitima (4.), ibid., et respicitur Gal. 5, 6. — Pro congeras edd., excepta 1, congreges, refragantibus codd., canone et originali.
    In the Sermon cited, c. 16, n. 46, and in the canon cited, § 1. The following passage is Augustine, On Faith and Works, c. 16, n. 28; canon Uxor legitima (4.), in the same place, and Gal. 5:6 is referred to. — For congeras the editions, except one, read congreges, against the codices, the canon, and the original.
  11. 4
    Comment. in I. Cor. 7, 14. (inter opera eius); Gratian., introd. in C. 28. q. 2. Seq. locus est C. Si quis (1.), ibid.
    Commentary on I Cor. 7:14 (among his works); Gratian, introduction to Causa 28, q. 2. The following passage is canon Si quis (1.), in the same place.
  12. 5
    Epist. I. Cor. 7, 15. Seq. locus est in Comment. citato in praecedente nota, v. 16; C. Si infidelis (2.), ibid., sed ibi in antiqua editione Decreti falso tributus est Gregorio.
    Epistle, I Cor. 7:15. The following passage is in the Commentary cited in the preceding note, v. 16; canon Si infidelis (2.), in the same place, but there, in the ancient edition of the Decretum, it is falsely attributed to Gregory.
  13. 1
    Gratian. super can. cit. — Pro iunctus est et pro potest solvi edd., excepta 1, coniunctus est, et dissolvi potest.
    Gratian on the canon cited. — For iunctus est and for potest solvi the editions, except one, [read] coniunctus est and dissolvi potest.
  14. 2
    Rom. 14, 23; cfr. Gratian. super C. Omnes deinceps (14.), ibid. q. 1. — Locus August. est l. de Coniugiis adulterinis c. 18. n. 20. Quoad explicationem huius loci ad Romanos cfr. II. Sent. d. XLI. c. 1.
    Rom. 14:23; cf. Gratian on canon Omnes deinceps (14.), in the same place, q. 1. — The passage of Augustine is the Book On Adulterous Marriages, c. 18, n. 20. As to the explanation of this passage on Romans, cf. II Sent., d. 41, c. 1.
  15. 3
    De Fide et operibus c. 16. n. 28; C. Uxor legitima (4.), ibid. — De seqq. cfr. Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 8.
    On Faith and Works, c. 16, n. 28; canon Uxor legitima (4.), in the same place. — On what follows, cf. Hugh, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 7, c. 8. ---
Dist. 39, Divisio Textus→