Quaest. 3, Art. 1

Quaestiones disputatae de perfectione evangelica · Quaestio III: De continentia

Textus Latinus

p. 166

Quaestio III. De continentia.

Postquam habitum est de paupertate, restat nunc agere¹ de continentia; circa quam secundum tres partes ipsius triplex quaestio inducetur.

Nam primo quaerendum est de pudicitia coniugali.

Secundo, de continentia viduali.

Tertio, de sanctimonia virginali; et hoc totum per comparationem ad legem evangelicam et divinam.

Articulus I. De pudicitia coniugali.

Est igitur prima quaestio, utrum coniugalis pudicitia sit secundum legem evangelicam et approbanda. Et quod sic, ostenditur auctoritate et ratione; auctoritate sic.

1. Matthaei decimo nono², respondens Dominus ad quaestionem sibi factam de matrimonio: Non legistis, quia qui fecit homines ab initio masculum et feminam fecit; et post: Quos Deus coniunxit homo non separet? Coniunctio ergo maris et feminae secundum individuam vitae consuetudinem est ex institutione Dei et approbata in lege Evangelii per sententiam Christi; et secundum hanc attenditur actus coniugalis pudicitiae: ergo virtus ista et eius actus consonat legi divinae.

2. Item, Ioannis secundo³: Vocatus est Iesus et discipuli eius ad nuptias; et consequenter ostendit, quod primum miraculum fecit ibi; sed si actus nuptialis non esset consonus legi Dei, Christus per sui ipsius praesentiam non approbasset: ergo etc.

3. Item, primae Petri tertio⁴: Viri cohabitantes secundum scientiam, quasi inferiori vasculo muliebri impartientes honorem; sed hoc est secundum actum coniugalem: ergo actus coniugalis est consonus legi Dei.

4. Item, primae ad Timotheum secundo⁵ dicitur de muliere: Salvabitur per filiorum generationem, si permanserit in fide et dilectione cum sanctificatione; sed in actu coniugali est generatio filiorum, et illud est consonum legi Dei: ergo etc.

5. Item, ad Ephesios quinto⁶: Viri diligite uxores vestras, sicut et Christus Ecclesiam; sed coniunctio Christi ad Ecclesiam est secundum amorem castissimum: ergo et coniunctio viri ad mulierem est secundum amorem castum. Sed amor castus est consonus legi Dei: ergo et eius actus.

6. Item, primae ad Corinthios septimo⁷: Uxori vir debitum reddat, et uxor viro. Vir potestatem sui corporis non habet, sed mulier: ergo virum debitum reddere uxori est consonum legi Dei; sed hoc fit secundum actum coniugalem: ergo etc.

7. Item, ibidem⁸: Si acceperis uxorem, non peccasti; et si nupserit virgo, non peccat: ergo si prius erat continens sine uxore, videtur, quod et post erit continens cum uxore etc.

Item, hoc idem ostenditur ratione sic.

8. Omne illud, quod consonat evangelicis Sacramentis, est bonum et laudabile; sed continentia coniugalis est huiusmodi: ergo est bona et laudabilis. Maior patet; minor probatur: ad Ephesios quinto⁹: Sacramentum hoc magnum est etc.: ergo continentia coniugalis est consona legi Dei.

9. Item, quod consonat divinis praeceptis est opus virtutis et consonum legi Dei; sed actus coniugii est huiusmodi: ergo est opus virtutis. Minor probatur: Genesis primo¹⁰: Crescite et multiplicamini etc.; sed hoc fit per actum coniugalem: ergo etc.

10. Item, quod consonat naturali dictamini et ex ratione procedit est opus virtutis; «virtus enim

p. 167

est habitus in modum naturae rationi consentaneus»¹; sed continentia coniugalis consonat naturali dictamini et ex ratione procedit: ergo etc.

11. Item, quod consonat bono naturali et communi consonat legi Dei; sed actus coniugalis est huiusmodi, quia est ad hominum multiplicationem seu speciei conservationem: ergo etc.

12. Item, triplex est ratio appetibilis, scilicet honestum, conferens et delectabile²; sed ubicumque sunt ista tria, illud est consonum legi Dei; in matrimonio est honestum per fidem et etiam conferens et delectabile per filiorum generationem: ergo etc.

13. Item, quod est cibus ad conservationem individui, hoc est concubitus ad conservationem speciei; sed moderatus usus cibi est virtutis, ut sobrietatis: ergo et moderatus concubitus est virtutis, scilicet castitatis: ergo est consonus legi Dei.

Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Lucae vigesimo³: Filii huius saeculi nubunt et traduntur ad nuptias etc.; sed filii huius saeculi non sunt filii Dei: ergo per actum coniugalem, quem exercent, non sunt filii Dei: ergo continentia coniugalis est repugnans legi Dei.

2. Item, ad Romanos octavo⁴: Qui autem in carne sunt Deo placere non possunt; sed per quod actum carnalem exercent dicuntur esse in carne: ergo tales Deo placere non possunt: ergo etc.

3. Item, ad Galatas sexto⁵: Qui seminat in carne de carne metet corruptionem; sed seminare in carne fit per actum continentiae coniugalis: ergo continentia coniugalis est contraria legi Dei.

4. Item, primae ad Corinthios septimo⁶: Qui cum uxore est sollicitus est quae sunt mundi, et quomodo placeat uxori; sed sollicitudo et complacentia huius mundi damnatur et est contraria legi Dei: ergo et continentia coniugalis.

5. Item, ibidem⁷: Qui habent uxores sint tanquam non habentes; sed qui non habet uxorem non utitur ea: ergo qui habet ea non utatur. Sed hoc est contrarium actui continentiae coniugalis: ergo continentia coniugalis repugnat legi Dei.

6. Item, ibidem⁸: Iterum revertamini in idipsum; hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium; sed nullus actus virtutis habet indulgentiam: ergo actus continentiae coniugalis non est actus virtutis: ergo etc.

Item, hoc idem ostenditur ratione sic.

7. Omne illud est malum, ad quod de necessitate sequitur peccatum; sed ad actum continentiae coniugalis de necessitate sequitur peccatum, scilicet originale in prole generata⁹: ergo etc.

8. Item, omnis actus, quem de necessitate concomitatur malum, vituperabilis est; sed actum continentiae coniugalis de necessitate concomitatur malum, scilicet libido: ergo est vituperabilis: ergo etc.

9. Item, omnis actus, de quo aliquis rationabiliter erubescit, est actus vituperabilis; sed actus quo vir commiscetur uxori¹⁰, est talis: ergo etc.

10. Item, omnis actus et motus alienans a Deo est a virtute extraneus; sed actus continentiae coniugalis est talis: ergo etc. Probatio mediae: Osee primo¹¹; Glossa: «Sicut vinum inebriat hominem et a statu suae mentis alienat, sic lex coniugii alienat hominem ab his quae Dei sunt»: ergo etc.

11. Item, nullus actus, in quo absorbetur ratio, est actus virtutis; sed in actu continentiae coniugalis totaliter absorbetur ratio: ergo non est opus virtutis.

12. Item, nullus actus, qui repugnat delectationi spirituali, est motus virtutis; sed actus continentiae coniugalis est talis: ergo etc.

13. Item, omnis virtus consistit circa medium¹²; sed delectatio, quae est in actu coniugali, est excessiva: ergo eius actus non erit actus nec opus virtutis.

14. Item, omnis virtus est circa bonum et difficile; sed actus coniugalis est fragilis¹³ et facilis: ergo non est opus virtutis.

15. Item, continentiae actus est continere; continere autem est a concubitu abstinere: ergo huic¹⁴ cum sit contrarium uxorem cognoscere, erit et contrarium continentiae, ac per hoc nec virtus nec opus virtutis, et sic repugnans vel dissonum a lege Dei.

CONCLUSIO.

Pudicitia coniugalis approbabilis est et consona legi Dei, et quidem secundum omnes temporis decurrentis status.

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: Dicendum, quod absque dubio pudicitia coniugalis approbabilis est et consona legi Dei,

p. 168

non solum secundum statum praesentis temporis¹ aut futuri, verum etiam a principio mundi usque ad finem praesentis saeculi, quousque electorum numerus compleatur.

Ad cuius intelligentiam notandum, quod ipsa pudicitia coniugalis et ipsius actus et usus consonat legi naturae et legi Scripturae et legi gratiae.

Legi naturae consonat ratione ipsius naturae conditae, ratione praeceptionis superadditae, ratione revelationis desuper ostensae. — Consonat, inquam, ipsi legi naturae ratione naturae conditae, quae formata fuit in sexuum distinctione, secundum illud Genesis primo²: Creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, masculum et feminam creavit eos. — Consonat etiam ratione praeceptionis superadditae, adhuc lege naturae manente, secundum illud Genesis primo³: Benedixit illis Deus et ait: Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram; quod quidem non fit legitime nisi per usum pudicitiae coniugalis. — Consonat nihilominus ratione revelationis desuper datae. Nam Adam prophetice dixit post soporationem: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea. Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. Hoc verbum dicitur Deus dixisse Matthaei decimo nono⁴, quia Adam illud dixit divino Spiritu illustratus. — Ex primo horum coniunctio viri et mulieris est naturalis, ex secundo est moralis, ex tertio est sacramentalis; et hoc totum sibi competit secundum statum legis naturae; ex quo⁵ primo originem trahit actus et usus ipsius pudicitiae coniugalis.

Consonat etiam legi scriptae ratione divini promissi, divini miraculi et divini statuti. Ratione divini promissi: quia Dominus promisit Abrahae, Genesis decimo septimo⁶: Eris pater multarum gentium; faciamque te crescere vehementissime, et ponam te in gentibus, regesque ex te egredientur. — Ratione divini miraculi, secundum illud Genesis vigesimo primo⁷: Visitavit Dominus Saram, sicut promiserat, et implevit quae locutus est, concepitque et peperit filium in senectute sua eo tempore, quo praedixerat ei Deus. — Consonat etiam ratione divini statuti, Levitici decimo octavo⁸. Nam leges statuit Dominus, secundum quas attenditur legitimitas in personis, quae contrahunt. Ait enim: Ego Dominus Deus vester; custodite leges meas atque iudicia, quae faciens homo, vivet in eis. Omnis homo ad proximam sanguinis sui non accedat etc. — Ex quo igitur Dominus tanquam beneficium promisit, se daturum prolem Abrahae per viam coniugii, et emortuam⁹ vulvam Sarae mirabiliter fecundavit, leges etiam dedit, secundum quas matrimonium contrahendum est: patet, quod pudicitia coniugalis consonat legi scriptae.

Consonat etiam nihilominus legi gratiae, primo quidem ratione denunciationis angelicae, secundum illud Lucae primo¹⁰: Ne timeas, Zacharia, quoniam exaudita est oratio tua, et Elisabeth, uxor tua, pariet tibi filium; hoc autem meruerat Zacharias per orationem devotam et per vitam sanctam in lege coniugii pudice servata; unde dicitur Lucae primo, quod ambo erant iusti ante Dominum, incedentes in omnibus mandatis et iustificationibus Domini, sine querela. — Secundo ratione definitionis dominicae, non solum per factum, quo nuptiis interfuit¹¹, sed etiam per verbum, quo sententialiter definivit, Matthaei decimo nono: Quos Deus coniunxit homo non separet. — Tertio etiam consonat ratione eruditionis apostolicae. Nam Petrus et Paulus, principales ordinatores Ecclesiae, utrique¹² commendant et matrimonium et legem et fidem tori et solutionem debiti et amorem mutuum uxoris et viri. — Quoniam igitur coniugalis pudicitia approbatur et ore apostolico et verbo evangelico et ore angelico et ore divino; approbatur etiam a natura, quae est lex indita, et a Scriptura seu lege Moysaica et a lege evangelica: manifestum est, quod ipsa legi divinae consonat et secundum eam est approbanda. Et mirum est, quomodo haereticorum perfidia ita insanit, ut coniugalem pudicitiam reprobet tot irrefragabilibus testimoniis approbatam. — Unde Augustinus, de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus¹³: «Malas dicere nuptias, aut fornicationi comparandas, aut stupris, et cibos credere malos, non hoc Christianorum, sed Manichaeorum est».

Sed hoc attendendum est, quod licet ipsum coniugium sit in omni statu et tempore approbandum, in primo tamen statu, scilicet naturae institutae, fuit in Sacramentum et officium; sed labente homine, ratione naturae fuit in officium, ratione vero morbi fuit in remedium¹⁴. Quia enim Sacramentum est, ideo est potius ipsius morbi remediatio, quam inficiatur a morbo; unde nunc tenet rationem officii, remedii et Sacramenti. Et secundum hoc intelligendum, quod usus pudicitiae coniugalis dupliciter po-

p. 169

test fieri: aut secundum quod quis habet oculum ad officium procreandi prolem ad cultum Dei, et sic est actus virtutis purae ratione radicis, ratione modi et ratione finis; aut secundum quod habet oculum ad remedium etiam¹, ut incontinentiae vitium devitetur, et sic est actus virtutis, quam comitatur infirmitas carnis. Si vero quis habeat oculum ad morbum, hoc est ad concupiscentiam satiandam; aut aliquo modo respicit remedium, vel officium, et tunc est non actus virtutis, sed vitium veniale, quia excusatur per matrimonii Sacramentum; aut nullo modo habet oculum nisi ad satiandum concupiscentiae appetitum, quo tanto impetu fertur, quod etiam si non esset uxor, cognosceret eam; et tunc, quia actus ille pervertit matrimonii legem, non est actus pudicitiae consonans, sed repugnans. — Unde Augustinus, in libro de Bono coniugali²: «Concubitus necessitatis causa generandi inculpabilis solus ille nuptialis est; ille autem, qui ultra istam necessitatem progreditur, non iam rationi, sed libidini obsequitur; et hunc tamen non exigere, sed reddere coniugi, ne fornicando damnabiliter peccet, ad personam pertinet coniugalem. Si autem ambo tali concupiscentiae subiugantur, rem faciunt non plane nuptiarum; verumtamen, si magis in sua coniunctione diligunt quod honestum, quam quod inhonestum est, id est quod nuptiarum, quam quod non nuptiarum; hoc eis, auctore Apostolo, secundum veniam conceditur. Tantum namque valet ordinatio Creatoris et ordo creaturae, ut in rebus ad utendum concessis, etiam cum modus exceditur, longe tolerabilius sit, quam in eis quae concessa non sunt vel unus vel rarus excessus». — Ex his igitur liquidum est, quod continentia coniugalis et eius debitus usus secundum legem Dei est approbabilis. Unde et rationes, quae ad hanc partem inducuntur, concedendae sunt.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de filiis saeculi huius, dicendum, quod filii saeculi aliquando distinguuntur contra filios lucis, sicut Lucae decimo sexto³: Filii huius saeculi prudentiores sunt filiis lucis etc.; aliquando distinguuntur contra filios alterius saeculi sive resurrectionis, ut hic. Primo modo dicuntur filii saeculi huius qui huic saeculo conformantur et ipsum praecipue diligunt; et sic sonat in vitium. Secundo modo dicuntur filii huius saeculi qui in hoc saeculo vivunt, vel cum saeculo transeunt⁴; et sic sonat in infirmitatem. Unde ex hoc non habetur, quod coniugium sit vituperabile, sed quod habet infirmitatem annexam.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui in carne sunt Deo placere non possunt; dicendum, quod inesse⁵ in carne potest dicere habitudinem materiae, vel finis; secundum quod dicit habitudinem materiae, non est reprehensibile esse in carne, et sic consonat pudicitiae coniugali et usui eius; secundum quod dicit habitudinem finis, utpote cum quis facit opera carnalia propter carnem, sic culpabile est; et hoc modo intelligit Apostolus, et hoc modo non est ex pudicitia coniugali, immo potius contra illam. Unde Augustinus, in libro de Bono coniugali⁶: «Habent bonum coniugia, quod carnalis vel iuvenilis incontinentia, etiam si vitiosa est, ad propagandae prolis redigitur honestatem, ut ex malo libidinis aliquid boni faciat copulatio coniugalis; deinde, quia reprimitur et quodam modo verecundius aestuat concupiscentia carnalis, quam temperat parentalis affectus. Intercedit enim quaedam gravitas fervidae voluptatis, cum in eo, quod sibi vir et mulier adhaerescunt, tamen pater et mater esse meditantur». — Ex quo colligitur, quod coniugium tantae virtutis est, quod carnale opus ad spiritualem honestatem reducit. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens de hoc quod obiicit de illo: Qui seminat in carne etc.

4. Ad illud, quod qui cum uxore est sollicitus etc.; dicendum, quod duplex est sollicitudo: una, quae est sub Deo, et haec dicitur sollicitudo distrahens et occupans; alia est, quae inducit ad oblivionem Dei, et haec est sollicitudo suffocans; similiter et de amicitia distinguendum. Apostolus autem loquitur de prima, et ratio procedit de secunda⁷.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui habent uxores debent esse tanquam non utentes; dicendum, quod Apostolus non inhibet ibi omnem usum rerum mundanarum; quia tunc oporteret hominem exire extra mundum, et sic nullus in mundo isto esset iustus et bonus; sed ostendit ibi, quod in hoc mundo non est figenda intentio, nec diligendus est sicut finis, sed sicut via ad finem. Quod patet per illud quod subdit: Praeterit enim figura huius mundi⁸. Unde ex hoc non habetur, quod uxore non sit utendum, sed quod non est in amore ipsius et usu quiescendum, cum ipsa non sit bonum stabile, sed transitorium et caducum.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod coniugii actus est secundum indulgentiam; dicendum, quod hoc

p. 170

non est dictum de ipso coniugio et actu nuptiali, quod fit ad filiorum procreationem, sed quod fit propter incontinentiam compescendam, quia hoc¹ habet culpam venialem coniunctam, sicut dictum est supra. Unde Augustinus, in libro de Bono coniugali²: «Si acceperis uxorem, non peccasti; et si nupserit virgo, non peccat. Hinc iam dubitare fas non est, nuptias non esse peccatum; non itaque nuptias secundum veniam concedit Apostolus. Nam quis ambigat, absurdissime dici, non eos peccasse, quibus venia datur? Sed illum concubitum secundum veniam concedit, qui fit secundum incontinentiam, non sola causa procreandi, sed etiam aliquando nulla causa procreandi; quem nuptiae fieri non cogunt, sed ignosci impetrant, si tamen non sit ita nimis, ut impediat quae seposita debent esse tempora orationis, nec immutetur in eum usum, qui est contra naturam».

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne illud est malum, ad quod sequitur de necessitate peccatum; dicendum, quod illud est verum, per se loquendo; sed in generatione prolis attendendum, quod duo concurrunt, scilicet coniugalis actus et libido, et ad invicem distinguuntur; quia, si homo stetisset, actus coniugii esset absque libidine; peccatum igitur originale non consequitur coniugii actum ratione sui, sed ratione annexae libidinis; et ideo ex hoc non sequitur, quod ipse sit malus, sed quod libido sit mala. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus contra Iulianum³: «Peccatum originale transmittit ad posteros non propagatio, sed libido.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis actus, quem de necessitate concomitatur malum, est vituperabilis; dicendum, quod libido comitatur actum pudicitiae coniugalis ut poena, sed non comitatur ut culpa: quia bonum matrimonii facit, quod libido illa ordinatur ad bonum, scilicet ad procreationem liberorum; ac per hoc ipsum bene utitur malo et potius excusat malum, quam vitietur a malo; quia, sicut dictum est, virtutem in se habet medicamenti divinitus instituti. Unde Augustinus, in tertio libro contra Iulianum⁴: «Cur non vis acquiescere, ita esse libidinem malam, qua bene utantur gignendi gratia coniugati? An potest esse bonorum usus malus, et non potest malorum bonus, cum inveniamus, ipso satana quam bene usus fuerit Apostolus, tradens ei hominem in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fieret»?

9. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus actus, de quo aliquis rationabiliter erubescit, est actus virtutis; dicendum, quod homo non erubescit de actu coniugali ratione ipsius actus, sed ratione ipsius poenae vitiosae, scilicet libidinis, quae ex vitio primi parentis originem trahit, quae in vitio originalis peccati originem tribuit, quae etiam ipsi spiritui est quodam modo rebellis. De actu vero coniugali minime erubescit; quod patet, quia non confunditur, sed gloriatur de hoc, quod filios procreavit secundum matrimonii legem, quae illam libidinem refrenavit et actui illi limitem et modum et debitum finem dedit. Unde Augustinus, quarto libro contra Iulianum⁵: «Quis nostrum dicit, coniugalium membrorum malum esse consertum, in quo nuptiae bene utuntur ad propagandos filios concupiscentiae malo? Quae concupiscentia malum non esset, si sola generandi causa ad licitum concubitum moveretur; nunc vero, cum ei resistit coniugalis pudicitia, limes est mali, quia nullius est criminis, quia per fidei bonum utitur homo libidinis malo».

10. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis motus alienans a Deo etc.; dicendum, quod aliquid alienare a Deo dicitur dupliciter: vel simpliciter, vel quantum ad aliquem actum seu statum. Primo modo non potest esse sine peccato; secundo modo potest esse per poenam peccati et etiam per actum virtutis; sicut etiam exercitium actionis retardat et ad tempus impedit actum contemplationis, sicut etiam somnus impedit exercitium in virtute.

11. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus actus, in quo absorbetur ratio, est actus virtutis; dici potest, quod ratio dicitur absorberi dupliciter in aliquo actu: vel antecedenter, vel consequenter. Si antecedenter, sicut est in ebrietate, quia ebrius procurat scienter aliquid, per quod in se usum rationis subvertat, sic habet illud quod obiicit veritatem; si autem consequenter seu etiam concomitanter, sic veritatem non habet. Nam et in somno ratio absorbetur. Unde Augustinus, contra Iulianum⁶: «Non potuisti gravius accusare libidinem, nisi fatendo, in eius impetu neminem posse sancta cogitare; sed utique religiosus animus, isto malo bene utens, hoc cogitat, ut libidinem concumbendo patiatur, quod non potest cogitare, cum patitur; sicut salutem homo cogitat, ut somno se impertiat, quod utique non potest cogitare, cum dormit».

12. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus actus, qui repugnat delectationi spirituali, est motus virtutis; dicendum, quod spirituali delectationi potest aliquis actus repugnare dupliciter: vel ratione ipsius quietis, vel ratione ordinis. Est enim delectatio spi-

p. 171

ritualis quies ordinata. Quod repugnat ei ratione ordinis, illud est vitiosum; quod autem repugnat ratione quietis ad tempus, non oportet quod sit vitium, sicut ostensum est prius. — Praeterea, actus coniugalis non repugnat illi delectationi ratione sui, sed ratione annexi.

13. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis actus virtutis consistit circa medium; dicendum, quod licet in actu coniugali videatur esse delectatio excessiva per comparationem ad impetum sensualitatis, est tamen modificata per comparationem ad regimen rationis, quae considerat et debitum tempus et debitum locum et debitam materiam et debitum finem et etiam debitum modum; unde delectatio illa excessiva non est actus virtutis, sed modificatio illius a ratione est actus pudicitiae coniugalis. Unde Augustinus, quarto libro contra Iulianum¹: «Quaeris, utrum in coniugibus christianis conventuum voluptatem pudicitiam, an impudicitiam nominem? Ecce, respondeo: non ipsa nominatur pudicitia, sed eius mali usus bonus, quo etiam usu bono fit, ut illud malum nec impudicitia dici possit; impudicitia enim est eiusdem mali usus flagitiosus, sicut pudicitia virginalis est eiusdem mali usus nullus».

14. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis virtus est circa bonum et difficile; dicendum, quod licet cognoscere uxorem non sit difficile per se, sicut nec manducare cibum; tamen servare ibi debitum modum et limitem ponere, hoc est et arduum et difficile, et per bellum quoddam virtutis concupiscentiam intra se ipsum laudabiliter expugnare. Unde Augustinus, contra Iulianum libro tertio²: «Habet palmam de huius mali subiectione, quamvis minorem, pudicitia coniugalis; belligerat enim etiam ipsa contra carnalem concupiscentiam, ne limites tori nuptialis excedat; belligerat, ne definitum ex consensu coniugum orandi tempus irrumpat; belligerat fortiore conflictu, ne ultra, quam generandis filiis sat est, etiam ipsum coniugis corpus attrectet. Talis pudicitia nec menstruatis nec gravidis utitur feminis nec eius aetatis, qua certum est, eas concipere non valere; nec eam prorsus concumbendi vincit affectus, sed tunc relaxatur, cum speratur generationis effectus³».

15. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod continere est a concubitu abstinere; dicendum, quod abstinere a concubitu dicitur dupliciter: vel universaliter ab omni, et sic est consilii; vel ab omni illicito, et sic est actus continentiae coniugalis, quae magis proprie coniugalis pudicitia dicitur, pro eo quod, sicut sobrietas est in moderato usu cibi, abstinentia vero dicit cessationem et a licito usu; sic pudicitia dicit honestum et castum usum, continentia vero castam dicit cessationem ab usu; et utrumque bonum, sicut infra videbitur, quia bonum est bene uti malo, et melius est bene non uti malo. Sed hoc in quaestione sequenti plenius patefiet.

English Translation

p. 166

Question III. On continence.

Now that poverty has been dealt with, it remains to treat¹ of continence; concerning which, according to its three parts, a threefold question will be brought forward.

For first inquiry must be made about conjugal purity.

Secondly, about widowly continence.

Thirdly, about virginal holiness; and all this by comparison with the evangelical and divine law.

Article I. On conjugal purity.

The first question, then, is whether conjugal purity is in accordance with the evangelical law and is to be approved. And that it is, is shown by authority and by reason; by authority thus.

1. Matthew the nineteenth², where the Lord, answering the question put to him about matrimony, says: Have ye not read, that he who made men from the beginning made them male and female; and afterwards: Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder? The union of male and female, therefore, according to an undivided fellowship of life, is from the institution of God and is approved in the law of the Gospel by the sentence of Christ; and it is according to this union that the act of conjugal purity is reckoned: therefore this virtue and its act accord with the divine law.

2. Again, John the second³: Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage; and it goes on to show that he worked his first miracle there; but if the nuptial act were not in accord with the law of God, Christ would not have approved it by his own presence: therefore and so forth.

3. Again, First Peter the third⁴: Ye husbands, dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel; but this is according to the conjugal act: therefore the conjugal act is in accord with the law of God.

4. Again, in First Timothy the second⁵ it is said of the woman: She shall be saved through childbearing, if she continue in faith and love with sanctification; but in the conjugal act there is the begetting of children, and that is in accord with the law of God: therefore and so forth.

5. Again, Ephesians the fifth⁶: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also the Church; but the union of Christ with the Church is according to a most chaste love: therefore the union of the man with the woman is also according to a chaste love. But chaste love is in accord with the law of God: therefore so is its act.

6. Again, First Corinthians the seventh⁷: Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife to the husband. The husband hath not power of his own body, but the woman: therefore for the husband to render the debt to his wife is in accord with the law of God; but this is done according to the conjugal act: therefore and so forth.

7. Again, in the same place⁸: If thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: therefore if a man was continent before, without a wife, it seems that afterwards too he will be continent with a wife, and so forth.

Again, this same thing is shown by reason thus.

8. Everything that accords with the evangelical Sacraments is good and praiseworthy; but conjugal continence is of this kind: therefore it is good and praiseworthy. The major is evident; the minor is proved from Ephesians the fifth⁹: This is a great Sacrament, and so forth: therefore conjugal continence is in accord with the law of God.

9. Again, what accords with the divine precepts is a work of virtue and in accord with the law of God; but the act of wedlock is of this kind: therefore it is a work of virtue. The minor is proved: Genesis the first¹⁰: Increase and multiply, and so forth; but this is done through the conjugal act: therefore and so forth.

10. Again, what accords with the dictate of nature and proceeds from reason is a work of virtue; «for virtue

p. 167

is a habit in the manner of nature, agreeable to reason»¹; but conjugal continence accords with the dictate of nature and proceeds from reason: therefore and so forth.

11. Again, what accords with the natural and common good accords with the law of God; but the conjugal act is of this kind, since it is for the multiplication of men, or the preservation of the species: therefore and so forth.

12. Again, the aspect of the desirable is threefold, namely the honourable, the profitable and the pleasant²; but wherever these three are, that thing is in accord with the law of God; in matrimony there is the honourable through fidelity, and also the profitable and the pleasant through the begetting of children: therefore and so forth.

13. Again, what food is for the preservation of the individual, intercourse is for the preservation of the species; but the moderate use of food belongs to virtue, namely to sobriety: therefore moderate intercourse also belongs to virtue, namely to chastity: therefore it is in accord with the law of God.

Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Luke the twentieth³: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage, and so forth; but the children of this world are not the children of God: therefore through the conjugal act which they perform they are not children of God: therefore conjugal continence is repugnant to the law of God.

2. Again, Romans the eighth⁴: And they who are in the flesh cannot please God; but because they perform the carnal act they are said to be in the flesh: therefore such men cannot please God: therefore and so forth.

3. Again, Galatians the sixth⁵: He that soweth in the flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption; but sowing in the flesh is done through the act of conjugal continence: therefore conjugal continence is contrary to the law of God.

4. Again, First Corinthians the seventh⁶: He that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife; but solicitude for this world and taking pleasure in it are condemned and are contrary to the law of God: therefore so is conjugal continence.

5. Again, in the same place⁷: They that have wives, let them be as if they had none; but he who has no wife does not use her: therefore he who has one should not use her. But this is contrary to the act of conjugal continence: therefore conjugal continence is repugnant to the law of God.

6. Again, in the same place⁸: Return together again; but I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment; but no act of virtue is a matter of indulgence: therefore the act of conjugal continence is not an act of virtue: therefore and so forth.

Again, this same thing is shown by reason thus.

7. Everything upon which sin follows of necessity is evil; but upon the act of conjugal continence sin follows of necessity, namely original sin in the offspring begotten⁹: therefore and so forth.

8. Again, every act which evil of necessity accompanies is blameworthy; but evil of necessity accompanies the act of conjugal continence, namely lust: therefore it is blameworthy: therefore and so forth.

9. Again, every act at which a man reasonably blushes is a blameworthy act; but the act by which a husband is joined with his wife¹⁰ is such: therefore and so forth.

10. Again, every act and movement that estranges from God is foreign to virtue; but the act of conjugal continence is such: therefore and so forth. Proof of the middle term: Osee the first¹¹; the Gloss: «As wine inebriates a man and estranges him from the state of his mind, so the law of wedlock estranges a man from the things that are God's»: therefore and so forth.

11. Again, no act in which reason is swallowed up is an act of virtue; but in the act of conjugal continence reason is wholly swallowed up: therefore it is not a work of virtue.

12. Again, no act that is repugnant to spiritual delight is a movement of virtue; but the act of conjugal continence is such: therefore and so forth.

13. Again, every virtue is concerned with a mean¹²; but the delight that is in the conjugal act is excessive: therefore its act will be neither an act nor a work of virtue.

14. Again, every virtue is concerned with what is good and difficult; but the conjugal act is frail¹³ and easy: therefore it is not a work of virtue.

15. Again, the act of continence is to contain oneself; to contain oneself, however, is to abstain from intercourse: therefore, since knowing one's wife is contrary to this¹⁴, it will also be contrary to continence, and for that reason neither a virtue nor a work of virtue, and so repugnant to, or out of accord with, the law of God.

CONCLUSION.

Conjugal purity is approvable and in accord with the law of God, and that according to every state of passing time.

I ᴀɴsᴡᴇʀ: It must be said that without doubt conjugal purity is approvable and in accord with the law of God,

p. 168

not only according to the state of the present time¹ or of the future, but also from the beginning of the world to the end of the present age, until the number of the elect be completed.

For the understanding of which it must be noted that conjugal purity itself, both its act and its use, accords with the law of nature, with the law of Scripture and with the law of grace.

It accords with the law of nature by reason of nature itself as created, by reason of a precept added over it, and by reason of a revelation shown from above. — It accords, I say, with the law of nature itself by reason of nature as created, which was formed in the distinction of the sexes, according to that word of Genesis the first²: God created man to his own image and likeness; male and female he created them. — It accords also by reason of a precept added over it, while the law of nature still remained, according to that word of Genesis the first³: God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth; which indeed is not done lawfully except through the use of conjugal purity. — It accords nonetheless by reason of a revelation given from above. For Adam said prophetically after his deep sleep: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh. This word God is said to have spoken, in Matthew the nineteenth⁴, because Adam spoke it enlightened by the divine Spirit. — From the first of these the union of man and woman is natural, from the second it is moral, from the third it is sacramental; and all this belongs to it according to the state of the law of nature; from which⁵ the act and use of conjugal purity first takes its origin.

It accords also with the written law by reason of a divine promise, a divine miracle and a divine statute. By reason of a divine promise: because the Lord promised Abraham, in Genesis the seventeenth⁶: Thou shalt be a father of many nations; and I will make thee increase exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. — By reason of a divine miracle, according to that word of Genesis the twenty-first⁷: The Lord visited Sara, as he had promised, and fulfilled what he had spoken; and she conceived and bore a son in her old age, at the time that God had foretold her. — It accords also by reason of a divine statute, Leviticus the eighteenth⁸. For the Lord established laws according to which lawfulness is reckoned in the persons who contract. For he says: I am the Lord your God; keep my laws and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them. No man shall approach to her that is near of kin to him, and so forth. — Since, then, the Lord promised as a benefit that he would give Abraham offspring by way of wedlock, and wonderfully made fruitful the dead⁹ womb of Sara, and also gave laws according to which matrimony is to be contracted: it is plain that conjugal purity accords with the written law.

It accords also nonetheless with the law of grace: first, by reason of the angelic announcement, according to that word of Luke the first¹⁰: Fear not, Zachary, for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son; and Zachary had merited this by devout prayer and by a holy life kept chastely in the law of wedlock; whence it is said in Luke the first that they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame. — Secondly, by reason of the Lord's determination, not only by the deed by which he was present at a marriage¹¹, but also by the word by which he determined it as a sentence, in Matthew the nineteenth: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. — Thirdly, it accords also by reason of the apostolic teaching. For Peter and Paul, the chief ordainers of the Church, both¹² commend matrimony, and the law and fidelity of the marriage bed, and the rendering of the debt, and the mutual love of wife and husband. — Since, then, conjugal purity is approved by the apostolic mouth, by the evangelical word, by the angelic mouth and by the divine mouth; and is approved also by nature, which is a law put within us, and by Scripture or the Mosaic law, and by the evangelical law: it is manifest that it accords with the divine law and is to be approved according to it. And it is a wonder how the faithlessness of heretics is so mad as to condemn conjugal purity, approved by so many irrefutable testimonies. — Whence Augustine, On Ecclesiastical Dogmas¹³: «To call marriage evil, or to compare it to fornication or to debauchery, and to believe foods evil, is the part not of Christians but of Manichees».

But this must be attended to: that although wedlock itself is to be approved in every state and time, yet in the first state, namely of nature as instituted, it was for a Sacrament and for a duty; but when man fell, by reason of nature it was for a duty, and by reason of disease it was for a remedy¹⁴. For because it is a Sacrament, it is rather a remedying of the disease itself than something infected by the disease; hence it now holds the character of a duty, of a remedy and of a Sacrament. And according to this it must be understood that the use of conjugal purity can

p. 169

take place in two ways: either according as one has an eye to the duty of procreating offspring for the worship of God, and so it is an act of pure virtue by reason of its root, by reason of its manner and by reason of its end; or according as one has an eye to the remedy as well¹, that the vice of incontinence may be avoided, and so it is an act of virtue which the infirmity of the flesh accompanies. But if one has an eye to the disease, that is, to satisfying concupiscence; either he in some way regards the remedy, or the duty, and then it is not an act of virtue but a venial fault, because it is excused through the Sacrament of matrimony; or he has an eye in no way except to satisfying the appetite of concupiscence, by which he is carried with such force that even if she were not his wife he would know her; and then, because that act perverts the law of matrimony, it is not an act in accord with purity but repugnant to it. — Whence Augustine, in the book On the Good of Marriage²: «Only that intercourse which is for the necessity of begetting is blameless and nuptial; but that which goes beyond this necessity now obeys not reason but lust; and yet not to demand this, but to render it to the spouse, lest he sin damnably by fornication, belongs to the conjugal person. But if both are subjected to such concupiscence, they do a thing not plainly of marriage; nevertheless, if in their union they love what is honourable more than what is dishonourable, that is, what belongs to marriage more than what does not belong to marriage, this is granted them by way of pardon, on the authority of the Apostle. For so much does the ordinance of the Creator and the order of the creature avail, that in things granted for use, even when the measure is exceeded, it is far more tolerable than in things not granted, whether a single or a rare excess». — From these things, then, it is clear that conjugal continence and its due use is approvable according to the law of God. Hence the reasons brought forward for this side are also to be conceded.

1. To that which is first objected on the contrary side, about the children of this world, it must be said that the children of the world are sometimes distinguished against the children of light, as in Luke the sixteenth³: The children of this world are wiser than the children of light, and so forth; sometimes they are distinguished against the children of the other world, or of the resurrection, as here. In the first way those are called children of this world who are conformed to this world and love it above all; and so the phrase sounds of vice. In the second way those are called children of this world who live in this world, or who pass away with the world⁴; and so it sounds of infirmity. Hence it is not had from this that wedlock is blameworthy, but that it has infirmity annexed to it.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that they who are in the flesh cannot please God, it must be said that to be in⁵ the flesh can express a relation of matter, or of end; according as it expresses a relation of matter, it is not reprehensible to be in the flesh, and so it accords with conjugal purity and its use; according as it expresses a relation of end, as when someone does carnal works for the sake of the flesh, it is so blameworthy; and in this way the Apostle understands it, and in this way it is not from conjugal purity, but rather against it. Whence Augustine, in the book On the Good of Marriage⁶: «Marriages have this good, that carnal or youthful incontinence, even if it is vicious, is brought back to the honourableness of propagating offspring, so that out of the evil of lust conjugal union may make something good; and further, because carnal concupiscence is held down and burns in a certain way more modestly, being tempered by parental affection. For a certain gravity comes in upon the heat of pleasure, when, in the very thing by which man and woman cleave to each other, they yet think of being father and mother». — From which it is gathered that wedlock is of such power that it brings a carnal work back to a spiritual honourableness. — And by this the answer is plain to the following objection, that which is objected from that word: He that soweth in the flesh, and so forth.

4. To that, that he who is with a wife is solicitous, and so forth, it must be said that solicitude is twofold: one which is under God, and this is called a solicitude that distracts and occupies; another which leads to forgetfulness of God, and this is a solicitude that chokes; and the like distinction is to be made about friendship. Now the Apostle speaks of the first, and the argument proceeds from the second⁷.

5. To that which is objected, that they who have wives ought to be as if not using them, it must be said that the Apostle does not there forbid all use of worldly things; for then a man would have to go out of the world, and so no one in this world would be just and good; but he shows there that one's intention is not to be fixed in this world, nor is it to be loved as an end, but as a way to the end. Which is plain from what he adds: For the fashion of this world passeth away⁸. Hence it is not had from this that a wife is not to be used, but that one is not to rest in the love and use of her, since she is not a stable good but a transitory and perishable one.

6. To that which is objected, that the act of wedlock is by indulgence, it must be said that this

p. 170

is not said of wedlock itself and of the nuptial act that is done for the procreation of children, but of that which is done in order to restrain incontinence, because this¹ has a venial fault joined to it, as was said above. Whence Augustine, in the book On the Good of Marriage²: «If thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Hence it is no longer lawful to doubt that marriage is not a sin; the Apostle, therefore, does not grant marriage by way of pardon. For who would doubt that it is most absurd to say that those to whom pardon is given have not sinned? But he grants by way of pardon that intercourse which takes place through incontinence, not for the sake of procreation alone, but also sometimes for no sake of procreation at all; which marriage does not compel to take place, but obtains pardon for, provided it is not so excessive as to hinder the times that ought to be set apart for prayer, and is not changed into that use which is against nature».

7. To that which is objected, that everything upon which sin follows of necessity is evil, it must be said that this is true, speaking of itself; but in the begetting of offspring it must be attended to that two things concur, namely the conjugal act and lust, and they are distinguished from each other; for if man had stood, the act of wedlock would have been without lust; original sin, therefore, does not follow upon the act of wedlock by reason of itself, but by reason of the lust annexed to it; and therefore it does not follow from this that the act itself is evil, but that lust is evil. And this is what Augustine says against Julian³: «Not propagation but lust transmits original sin to posterity.

8. To that which is objected, that every act which evil of necessity accompanies is blameworthy, it must be said that lust accompanies the act of conjugal purity as a penalty, but does not accompany it as a fault: because the good of matrimony brings it about that that lust is ordered to a good, namely to the procreation of children; and by this very fact it uses the evil well, and rather excuses the evil than is vitiated by the evil; because, as has been said, it has in itself the power of a medicine divinely instituted. Whence Augustine, in the third book Against Julian⁴: «Why will you not agree that lust is evil in such a way that the married use it well for the sake of begetting? Or can there be an evil use of good things, and not a good use of evil things, when we find how well the Apostle used Satan himself, delivering a man to him for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved»?

9. To that which is objected, that no act at which a man reasonably blushes is an act of virtue, it must be said that a man does not blush at the conjugal act by reason of the act itself, but by reason of the vicious penalty itself, namely lust, which draws its origin from the vice of the first parent, which gives origin in the vice of original sin, and which is also in a certain way rebellious to the spirit itself. But at the conjugal act he does not blush at all; which is plain, because he is not confounded but glories in this, that he has procreated children according to the law of matrimony, which has reined in that lust and given that act a limit and a measure and a due end. Whence Augustine, in the fourth book Against Julian⁵: «Which of us says that the evil of concupiscence is joined into the conjugal members, in which marriage uses the evil of concupiscence well for propagating children? This concupiscence would not be an evil if it were moved to lawful intercourse for the sake of begetting alone; but now, when conjugal purity resists it, it is a limit set to evil, because it is of no crime, since through the good of fidelity man uses the evil of lust».

10. To that which is objected, that every movement that estranges from God, and so forth, it must be said that something is said to estrange from God in two ways: either simply, or as regards some act or state. In the first way it cannot be without sin; in the second way it can be through the penalty of sin and also through an act of virtue; just as the exercise of action also delays and for a time hinders the act of contemplation, and just as sleep too hinders exercise in virtue.

11. To that which is objected, that no act in which reason is swallowed up is an act of virtue, it can be said that reason is said to be swallowed up in some act in two ways: either antecedently or consequently. If antecedently, as it is in drunkenness, because the drunkard knowingly procures something by which he overturns the use of reason in himself, then what the objection says holds true; but if consequently, or also concomitantly, then it does not hold true. For in sleep too reason is swallowed up. Whence Augustine, Against Julian⁶: «You could not have accused lust more gravely than by confessing that in its onset no one can think holy things; but surely a religious mind, using this evil well, thinks of this, that it may suffer lust in lying together, which it cannot think of while it suffers it; just as a man thinks of his health, that he may give himself to sleep, which he certainly cannot think of while he sleeps».

12. To that which is objected, that no act which is repugnant to spiritual delight is a movement of virtue, it must be said that an act can be repugnant to spiritual delight in two ways: either by reason of its rest, or by reason of its order. For spiritual delight is

p. 171

ordered rest. What is repugnant to it by reason of order is vicious; but what is repugnant to it by reason of rest for a time need not be a vice, as was shown before. — Moreover, the conjugal act is not repugnant to that delight by reason of itself, but by reason of what is annexed to it.

13. To that which is objected, that every act of virtue is concerned with a mean, it must be said that although in the conjugal act the delight seems to be excessive in comparison with the onset of sensuality, it is nevertheless moderated in comparison with the rule of reason, which considers the due time and the due place and the due matter and the due end and also the due manner; hence that excessive delight is not an act of virtue, but its moderation by reason is an act of conjugal purity. Whence Augustine, in the fourth book Against Julian¹: «You ask whether I call the pleasure of intercourse in Christian spouses purity or impurity? See, I answer: it is not the pleasure itself that is called purity, but the good use of that evil, by which good use it also comes about that that evil cannot be called impurity either; for impurity is the shameful use of the same evil, just as virginal purity is no use of the same evil».

14. To that which is objected, that every virtue is concerned with what is good and difficult, it must be said that although to know one's wife is not difficult of itself, any more than eating food is; yet to keep the due measure there and to set a limit, this is both arduous and difficult, and to overcome concupiscence within oneself praiseworthily by a certain warfare of virtue. Whence Augustine, Against Julian book three²: «Conjugal purity too has a palm, though a lesser one, for the subjection of this evil; for it too wages war against carnal concupiscence, lest it pass the limits of the marriage bed; it wages war, lest it break in upon the time for prayer fixed by the consent of the spouses; it wages war in a stronger conflict, lest it handle even the very body of the spouse beyond what suffices for begetting children. Such purity does not use women in their monthly courses, nor pregnant women, nor women of that age at which it is certain they cannot conceive; nor does the desire of lying together wholly overcome it, but it is loosened then, when the effect of generation is hoped for³».

15. To that which is objected, that to contain oneself is to abstain from intercourse, it must be said that to abstain from intercourse is said in two ways: either universally, from all, and so it belongs to counsel; or from all that is unlawful, and so it is the act of conjugal continence, which is more properly called conjugal purity, for this reason: that just as sobriety lies in the moderate use of food, while abstinence means ceasing even from lawful use; so purity means an honourable and chaste use, while continence means a chaste ceasing from use; and each is good, as will be seen below, because it is good to use an evil well, and better well not to use an evil. But this will be made plainer in the following question.

Apparatus Criticus

1
A D omittunt agere. — De toto 1. articulo (de continentia coniugali) cfr. IV. Sent. d. 26. a. 1. q. 1-3; de triplici bono coniugii d. 31. a. 1. q. 1-3; de actu matrimoniali licito et illicito ibid. a. 2. q. 1-3; de obligatione debiti d. 32. a. 1-3. — Textus huius quaestionis sumtus est ex codd. A D E.
A D omit agere ("to treat"). — On the whole of the 1st article (on conjugal continence) compare IV Sent. d. 26, a. 1, qq. 1-3; on the threefold good of marriage d. 31, a. 1, qq. 1-3; on the licit and illicit matrimonial act, ibid., a. 2, qq. 1-3; on the obligation of the debt d. 32, aa. 1-3. — The text of this question is taken from the codices A D E.
2
Vers. 4, deinde v. 6, in quo Vulgata Quod pro Quos. — Subinde respicitur definitio matrimonii: Coniunctio maris et feminae individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens. Vide tom. IV. pag. 684, nota 4.
Verse 4 [Matt. 19:4], then verse 6, in which the Vulgate has Quod ("What") for Quos ("Those whom"). — Next, the definition of matrimony is in view: "the union of male and female, keeping an undivided fellowship of life." See tome IV, p. 684, note 4.
3
Vers. 2. et seqq. Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 9. n. 2.
Verse 2 and following [John 2:2]. Compare Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tractate 9, n. 2.
4
Vers. 7.
Verse 7 [I Pet. 3:7].
5
Vers. 15. Vulgata: Salvabitur... dilectione et sanctificatione cum sobrietate.
Verse 15 [I Tim. 2:15]. The Vulgate: Salvabitur... dilectione et sanctificatione cum sobrietate ("She shall be saved ... love and sanctification with sobriety"), with et ("and") and cum sobrietate ("with sobriety") in italic.
6
Vers. 25. Vulgata: Viri... Christus dilexit Ecclesiam.
Verse 25 [Eph. 5:25]. The Vulgate: Viri... Christus dilexit Ecclesiam ("Husbands ... Christ loved the Church"), with dilexit ("loved") in italic.
7
Vers. 3. 4. Vulgata: Similiter autem et uxor viro. Mulier sui corporis potestatem... sed vir. Similiter autem et vir sui corporis... sed mulier. — Secuti sumus lectionem A, ut conclusio prima praemissis magis congruat. E D post viro legunt Mulier potestatem... sed vir: ergo debitum reddere uxori etc.
Verses 3, 4 [I Cor. 7:3-4]. The Vulgate: Similiter autem ("And likewise") the wife to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body ... but the husband. And likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body ... but the wife. — We have followed the reading of A, so that the first conclusion may better fit the premisses. E D after viro ("to the husband") read Mulier potestatem ... sed vir: ergo debitum reddere uxori ("The woman ... power ... but the man: therefore to render the debt to the wife") etc.
8
Vers. 28. Vulgata: Si... virgo, non peccavit.
Verse 28 [I Cor. 7:28]. The Vulgate: Si... virgo, non peccavit ("If ... a virgin, she hath not sinned"), with peccavit in italic for peccat ("sins").
9
Vers. 32. — Pro est consona A consonat.
Verse 32 [Eph. 5:32]. — For est consona ("is in accord") A has consonat ("accords").
10
Vers. 28. — A post probatur addit sic.
Verse 28 [Gen. 1:28]. — A after probatur ("is proved") adds sic ("thus").
1
Teste Cicerone, II. Rhet. c. 54; cfr. supra pag. 53, nota 4.
On the testimony of Cicero, Rhetoric II, c. 54; compare above, p. 53, note 4.
2
Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. I. q. 1. in corp., ubi in nota 1. loci Aristot. citantur, et IV. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro in matrimonio A sed matrimonium.
Compare II Sent. d. 25, p. I, q. 1, in the body, where in note 1 the passages of Aristotle are cited, and IV Sent. d. 31, a. 1, q. 1. — For in matrimonio ("in matrimony") A has sed matrimonium ("but matrimony").
3
Vers. 34. — Loco verborum coniugalem, quem exercent E D habent lacunam.
Verse 34 [Luke 20:34]. — In place of the words coniugalem, quem exercent ("conjugal ... which they perform") E D have a lacuna.
4
Vers. 8. Post sed per supple hoc. — Codd. pluries non conveniunt in ordine argg., quae ordinavimus secundum ordinem solutionum.
Verse 8 [Rom. 8:8]. After sed per ("but through") supply hoc ("this"). — The codices several times disagree on the order of the arguments, which we have arranged according to the order of the replies.
5
Vers. 8. Vulgata: Quoniam qui... carne sua de carne et...
Verse 8 [Gal. 6:8]. The Vulgate: Quoniam qui ... carne sua de carne et ... ("For he that ... in his flesh, of the flesh also ..."), with sua ("his") and et ("also") in italic.
6
Vers. 33.
Verse 33 [I Cor. 7:33].
7
Vers. 29.
Verse 29 [I Cor. 7:29].
8
Vers. 5. 6. Post in idipsum Vulgata addit: ne tentet vos satanas propter incontinentiam vestram. — In A D desunt verba: non secundum imperium usque ad indulgentiam.
Verses 5, 6 [I Cor. 7:5-6]. After in idipsum ("together") the Vulgate adds: "lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency." — In A D the words from non secundum imperium ("not by commandment") as far as indulgentiam ("indulgence") are wanting.
9
De hoc et seqq. argg. cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. seq. et IV. d. 31.
On this and the following arguments compare II Sent. d. 30 f. and IV d. 31.
10
Ita A, sed E D mulieri.
So A, but E D have mulieri ("with the woman").
11
Vers. 11. Glossa secundum sensum est sumta ex Hieron., Comment. in Osee lib. I. c. 4: Sicut enim vinum et ebrietas eum qui biberit mentis suae impotem facit, ita et fornicatio ac voluptas pervertit sensum animumque debilitat. — Codd. citant sic: Io. 1.
Verse 11. The Gloss is taken, as to its sense, from Jerome, Commentary on Osee book I, on c. 4 [Osee 4:11]: "For as wine and drunkenness make him who has drunk no longer master of his mind, so fornication and pleasure too pervert the sense and weaken the mind." — The codices cite thus: Io. 1.
12
Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6; cfr. II. Sent. pag. 671, nota 9.
Aristotle, Ethics II, c. 6; compare II Sent., p. 671, note 9.
13
Idem hic est ac mollis sive effeminatus, ut etiam apud classicos usurpatur. — Maior docetur ab Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3; cfr. supra pag. 139, nota 4.
Here it is the same as mollis ("soft") or effeminatus ("effeminate"), as it is also used among the classical writers. — The major is taught by Aristotle, Ethics II, c. 3; compare above, p. 139, note 4.
14
Codd. male hoc; cfr. infra a. 2. arg. 2. ad oppos. Quoad alios errores, ortos ex confusione terminorum continentiae et continere, codd. invicem se corrigunt.
The codices wrongly have hoc ("this"); compare below, a. 2, arg. 2 of the opposing series. As for other errors, arising from confusion of the terms continentiae ("of continence") and continere ("to contain oneself"), the codices correct one another.
1
E D perperam operis, simul addunt vel praeteriti, et pro verum habent vel.
E D wrongly have operis ("of the work"), and at the same time add vel praeteriti ("or of the past"), and for verum ("but") have vel ("or").
2
Vers. 27. — Superius pro desuper ostensae codd. super ostensae, sed infra melius habent desuper datae.
Verse 27 [Gen. 1:27]. — Above, for desuper ostensae ("shown from above") the codices have super ostensae ("shown over"), but below they better have desuper datae ("given from above").
3
Vers. 8. — D E ad hoc lege naturae monente, qui infra post quod omittunt quidem.
Verse 8 [as printed; the verse is Gen. 1:28]. — D E have ad hoc lege naturae monente ("the law of nature still admonishing to this"), and below after quod ("which") they omit quidem ("indeed").
4
Vers. 4-6, et supra Gen. 2, 23. 24. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 26. a. 1. q. 2.
Verses 4-6 [Matt. 19:4-6], and above, Gen. 2:23-24. Compare IV Sent. d. 26, a. 1, q. 2.
5
D E quo.
D E have quo ("by which").
6
Vers. 4. 6.
Verses 4, 6 [Gen. 17:4, 6].
7
Vers. 1. 2.
Verses 1, 2 [Gen. 21:1-2].
8
Vers. 2. 5. 6.
Verses 2, 5, 6 [Lev. 18:2, 5, 6].
9
D E pro hoc verbo habent lacunam.
D E have a lacuna in place of this word.
10
Vers. 13. Seq. locus est Luc. 1, 6.
Verse 13 [Luke 1:13]. The following passage is Luke 1:6.
11
Ioan. 2, 1. seqq. — Alter locus est Matth. 19, 6.
John 2:1 ff. — The other passage is Matt. 19:6.
12
A utrumque commendat (sic). — Cfr. fundam. 3. seqq.
A has utrumque commendat ("commends each") (sic). — Compare fundamentum 3 ff.
13
Cap. 34. (est Gennadii et inter opera August.). Hic locus deest in D E, qui deinde habent ostendendum pro attendendum.
Chapter 34 (it is Gennadius's, and among the works of Augustine). This passage is wanting in D E, which then have ostendendum ("to be shown") for attendendum ("to be attended to").
14
Cfr. IV. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 1. seqq., et ibid. Comment. a. 2. q. 2.
Compare IV Sent., the Master's text, d. 26, c. 1 ff., and ibid., the Commentary, a. 2, q. 2.
1
A omittit etiam. Inferius pro vero quis D E corrupte vero pars.
A omits etiam ("as well"). Below, for vero quis ("but if one") D E corruptly have vero pars ("but a part").
2
Cap. 10. n. 11. 12. — Pro necessitatis originale melius necessarius, et infra concupiscentiae subiguntur pro concupiscentiae subiugantur; denique ante solus praefigit et, ac bis addit est ante illa verba nuptiarum. Post verba veniam conceditur textus originalis plura subiungit, in codd. una linea relicta est vacua. Ex originali supplevimus in ante rebus ad utendum. — Infra pro liquidum D E corrupte loquendum.
Chapter 10, nn. 11, 12. — For necessitatis ("of necessity") the original better has necessarius ("necessary"), and below concupiscentiae subiguntur ("are driven by concupiscence") for concupiscentiae subiugantur ("are subjected to concupiscence"); finally before solus ("only") it prefixes et ("and"), and twice adds est ("is") before the words nuptiarum ("of marriage"). After the words veniam conceditur ("is granted by way of pardon") the text of the original adds several things; in the codices one line has been left blank. From the original we have supplied in before rebus ad utendum ("things for use"). — Below, for liquidum ("clear") D E corruptly have loquendum ("to be spoken").
3
Vers. 8. — Inferius post Primo supplevimus modo.
Verse 8 [Luke 16:8]. — Below, after Primo ("In the first") we have supplied modo ("way").
4
Cfr. August., I. de Peccator. meritis etc. c. 20. n. 27.
Compare Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins I, c. 20, n. 27.
5
Ita A, sed D ly in carne, E habet lacunam.
So A, but D has ly in carne ("the phrase 'in the flesh'"), and E has a lacuna.
6
Cap. 3. n. 3: Habent etiam id bonum etc. — Cum originali posuimus cum in eo, quod sibi, dum A habet cum sibi, D E cum eo sibi. Subinde textus originalis omittit tamen.
Chapter 3, n. 3: Habent etiam id bonum ("They have this good also") etc. — With the original we have put cum in eo, quod sibi ("when in the very thing by which ... to each other"), while A has cum sibi, D E cum eo sibi. Next, the text of the original omits tamen ("yet").
7
Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 3.
Compare IV Sent. d. 37, a. 1, q. 3.
8
Vers. 31. (I. Cor. 7.).
Verse 31 (I Cor. 7) [I Cor. 7:31].
1
A hic, quod praeferendum esset, si post nuptiali et, post sed poneretur qui pro quod.
A has hic ("this one"), which would be preferable if after nuptiali ("nuptial") and after sed ("but") qui ("which") were put for quod ("that which").
2
Cap. 10. n. 11. Locus Scripturae est I. Cor. 7, 28. — Originale habet per incontinentiam pro secundum incontinentiam, et ita nimius pro ita nimis, ac tempora orandi pro tempora orationis. Ex eodem substituimus sola causa pro solum causa.
Chapter 10, n. 11. The passage of Scripture is I Cor. 7:28. — The original has per incontinentiam ("through incontinence") for secundum incontinentiam ("according to incontinence"), and ita nimius for ita nimis ("so excessive"), and tempora orandi for tempora orationis ("times of prayer"). From the same we have substituted sola causa ("for the sake ... alone") for solum causa.
3
Revera verba haec inveniuntur de Fide ad Petr. c. 2. n. 16, (auctor est Fulgentius Rusp.), ubi pro originale legitur in parvulos. Locos ex August. contra Iulianum vide tom. II. pag. 754, nota 11.
In fact these words are found in On the Faith, to Peter c. 2, n. 16 (the author is Fulgentius of Ruspe), where for originale ("original") one reads in parvulos ("to little ones"). For the passages from Augustine Against Julian see tome II, p. 754, note 11.
4
Cap. 7. n. 16. In fine respicitur I. Cor. 5, 5.
Chapter 7, n. 16. At the end I Cor. 5:5 is in view.
5
Cap. 8. n. 49: Quis autem nostrum [codd. vestrum] dicit... mali... quia nullius est criminis, quando per fidei bonum bene utitur libidinis malo.
Chapter 8, n. 49: Quis autem nostrum ("But which of us") [the codices vestrum, "of you"] dicit ... mali ... quia nullius est criminis, quando per fidei bonum bene utitur libidinis malo ("says ... of evil ... because it is of no crime, when through the good of fidelity he uses the evil of lust well").
6
Libr. V. c. 10. n. 42: Non igitur etiam tu potuisti gravius accusare quam laudas, nisi etc.
Book V, c. 10, n. 42: "So you too could not have accused more gravely what you praise, except" etc.
1
Cap. 8. n. 49: Quid ergo quaeris... quo usu bono fit... sicut pudicitia virginalis nullus. Cfr. supra q. 1. ad 3.
Chapter 8, n. 49: Quid ergo quaeris ... quo usu bono fit ... sicut pudicitia virginalis nullus ("What then do you ask ... by which good use it comes about ... just as virginal purity, none"). Compare above, q. 1, reply to 3.
2
Cap. 21. n. 43: Habet enim palmam... pudicitia etiam coniugalis etc. Post irrumpat originale quaedam addit.
Chapter 21, n. 43: Habet enim palmam ... pudicitia etiam coniugalis ("For conjugal purity too has a palm") etc. After irrumpat ("break in upon") the original adds certain things.
3
Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 32. a. 3. q. 1. 2.
Compare IV Sent. d. 32, a. 3, qq. 1, 2. ---