← Back to Distinction 26

Dist. 26, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 26

Textus Latinus
p. 664

Quaestio III. Utrum institutio matrimonii fuerit sub praecepto.

Tertio quaeritur, qualiter fuerit institutum matrimonium; et est quaestio, utrum institutio matrimonii fuerit sub praecepto. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per textum Genesis1: quia praeceptum est eis, quod crescerent et multiplicarentur; sed non poterat hoc fieri nisi per coniunctionem maris cum femina; hoc autem est matrimonium: ergo matrimonium fuit institutum sub praecepto.

2. Item, Magister in littera2: «Prima institutio matrimonii habuit praeceptum»; sed prima fuit in paradiso: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia matrimonium ordinatum erat ad conservationem speciei quantum ad generativam, et esus lignorum ordinatus erat ad conservationem individui quantum ad nutritivam — quia, etsi nunquam moreretur, tamen determinato tempore in aliam vitam transferretur3 — sed esus cadebat sub praecepto: ergo et coitus.

4. Item, omnes qui possunt tenentur pro loco et tempore multiplicare prolem spiritualem, revocando scilicet hominem a peccato: ergo cum secundum statum primum multiplicatio corporalis esset coniuncta spirituali4, videtur, quod omnes tenebantur, et sic videtur, institutum fuisse matrimonium sub praecepto.

Contra:

1. Si fuit institutum sub praecepto, p. 665 aut ergo illud praeceptum fuit iuris naturalis, aut disciplinae. Non disciplinae, quia unum solum fuit5; non iuris naturalis, quia adhuc maneret: ergo nullo modo fuit institutum sub praecepto.

2. Item, semper licitum fuit homini facere quod melius est; sed melius est omnino continere quam coire, quia castitas virginalis est dignior coniugali: ergo licuit non coire nec nubere. Sed non licuisset, si fuisset vel esset sub praecepto: et sic etc.

3. Item, si praeceptum fuit, cum Abel uxorem non habuerit, videtur, quod peccaverit; sed constat, quod hoc est falsum, quia Abel est primus iustorum, sicut testatur Dominus Matthaei vigesimo tertio6: A sanguine Abel iusti: ergo etc.

4. Item, ad matrimonium maxime requiritur liber consensus: ergo nullo modo arctari debuit homo per praeceptum.

Conclusio. Prima institutio matrimonii praeceptum habuit affirmativum et fuit de iure naturali, non simpliciter, sed secundum tempus; secunda vero habuit indulgentiam, non praeceptum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod «prima institutio matrimonii praeceptum habuit», sicut dicit Magister; et praeceptum illud fuit affirmativum et fuit iuris naturalis. Sed attendendum, quod ius naturale quaedam dictat simpliciter, quaedam secundum tempus: simpliciter, ut Deum amandum; secundum tempus, ut omnia esse communia7. Dico igitur, quod praeceptum de usu matrimonii fuit naturale secundo modo, quia, quamdiu pauci erant, dictabat ius naturale, quod multiplicanda esset proles ad cultum Dei. Sed cessante isto statu, cessavit praeceptum; et ideo secunda institutio tempore legis gratiae habuit indulgentiam, non praeceptum8.

Ad argumenta:

Ad 1. Et ex hoc patet primo obiectum.

Ad 2. Ad secundum dicendum, quod nec tempore legis naturae institutae nec etiam corruptae in statu primo perfectius fuit continere quam nubere: primo quidem, quia non erat ibi pruritus nec turpitudo aliqua; secundo vero, quia erat obedientiae meritum; unde caelibatus Ioannis non praefertur coniugio Abrahae9.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Abel, dicendum, quod illud erat praeceptum affirmativum, et ideo non obligabat ad semper, sed pro loco et tempore; et ideo non peccavit, quia nondum senuerat.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de libertate consensus, dicendum, quod sicut praeceptum non aufert motum caritatis, qui motus maxime gratuitus et liberalis est; sic non aufert libertatem consensus nec diminuit10. Praeterea, quamvis Dominus praeciperet contractionem matrimonii cum aliqua, tamen, utrum cum hac quis contraheret, vel cum alia, reliquit in mera libertate contrahentis11.

Scholion

Vide scholion ad Articulum I, quod totum Articulum I (quaestiones I–III) complectitur et cum quaestione I huius articuli redditur (`bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q1`).

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether the institution of marriage was under a precept.

Thirdly it is asked in what manner marriage was instituted; and the question is whether the institution of marriage was under a precept. And that it was so, it seems:

1. By the text of Genesis1: because it was commanded to them that they should increase and multiply; but this could not be done except through the joining of male with female; and this is matrimony: therefore matrimony was instituted under a precept.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text2: «The first institution of matrimony had a precept»; but the first was in paradise: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because matrimony was ordered to the conservation of the species as regards the generative [power], and the eating of the trees was ordered to the conservation of the individual as regards the nutritive [power] — because, even if he were never to die, nevertheless at a determined time he would be transferred into another life3 — but eating fell under a precept: therefore also intercourse.

4. Likewise, all who are able are bound, according to place and time, to multiply spiritual offspring, namely by recalling man from sin: therefore, since according to the first state bodily multiplication was joined to the spiritual4, it seems that all were bound, and thus it seems that matrimony was instituted under a precept.

On the contrary:

1. If it was instituted under a precept, p. 665 then either that precept was of natural law or of discipline. Not of discipline, because there was only one5; not of natural law, because it would still remain: therefore in no way was it instituted under a precept.

2. Likewise, it was always lawful for man to do what is better; but it is better to abstain entirely than to have intercourse, because virginal chastity is more worthy than conjugal: therefore it was lawful not to have intercourse nor to marry. But it would not have been lawful, if it had been or were under a precept: and so, etc.

3. Likewise, if there was a precept, since Abel did not have a wife, it seems that he sinned; but it is established that this is false, because Abel is the first of the just, as the Lord testifies in Matthew twenty-three6: From the blood of Abel the just: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, for matrimony free consent is especially required: therefore in no way ought man to have been constrained by a precept.

Conclusio. The first institution of matrimony had an affirmative precept and was of natural law, not absolutely, but according to the time; but the second had indulgence, not a precept.

I respond: It must be said that «the first institution of matrimony had a precept», as the Master says; and that precept was affirmative and was of natural law. But it must be noted that natural law dictates certain things absolutely, certain things according to the time: absolutely, as that God is to be loved; according to the time, as that all things be common7. I say therefore that the precept concerning the use of matrimony was natural in the second mode, because, as long as men were few, natural law dictated that offspring should be multiplied for the worship of God. But when that state ceased, the precept ceased; and therefore the second institution, in the time of the law of grace, had indulgence, not a precept8.

To the arguments:

Ad 1. And from this the first objection is evident.

Ad 2. To the second it must be said that neither in the time of the law of nature instituted nor even corrupted was it more perfect in the first state to abstain than to marry: first indeed, because there was there no prurience nor any baseness; secondly, because there was the merit of obedience; hence the celibacy of John is not preferred to the marriage of Abraham9.

Ad 3. To that which is objected concerning Abel, it must be said that that was an affirmative precept, and therefore did not oblige for always, but according to place and time; and therefore he did not sin, because he had not yet grown old.

Ad 4. To that which is objected concerning the freedom of consent, it must be said that, just as a precept does not take away the motion of charity, which motion is most gratuitous and liberal; so it does not take away the freedom of consent nor diminish it10. Moreover, although the Lord commanded the contracting of matrimony with some [woman], nevertheless, whether one should contract with this one or with another, he left to the mere freedom of the one contracting11.

Scholion

See the scholion to Article I, which covers the whole of Article I (Questions I–III) and is rendered with Question I of this article (`bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q1`).

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Cap. 1, 28. — Inferius pro hoc autem Vat. haec autem coniunctio legitime facta.
    [Genesis] chapter 1, [verse] 28. — Below, for hoc autem ("but this") the Vatican edition [reads] haec autem coniunctio legitime facta ("but this joining lawfully made").
  2. 2
    Hic c. 3. — Post in paradiso Vat. addit: et ibi data fuit sub praecepto.
    Here, c. 3. — After in paradiso ("in paradise") the Vatican edition adds: et ibi data fuit sub praecepto ("and there it was given under a precept").
  3. 3
    Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 3. — Praeceptum edendi insinuatur Gen. 2, 16: Ex omni ligno paradisi comede. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 20. dub. 7. — Verbis ad generativam cod. E interserit vim.
    Cf. II Sentences, text of the Master, d. XX, c. 3. — The precept of eating is intimated in Genesis 2:16: Eat of every tree of paradise. Cf. II Sentences, d. 19, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4, and d. 20, dub. 7. — In the words ad generativam codex E inserts vim ("power").
  4. 4
    Quia secundum Anselm., de Conceptu virgin. et orig. peccat. c. 10. et 24, geniti heredes fuissent originalis iustitiae; secundum Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 24, fuissent «sine peccato quidem... sed non similiter paternae iustitiae heredes» (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 90. m. 1, et S. Bonav., II. Sent. d. 33. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.).
    Because according to Anselm, On the Conception of the Virgin and Original Sin, cc. 10 and 24, those begotten would have been heirs of original justice; according to Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments I, p. VI, c. 24, they would have been «without sin indeed... but not likewise heirs of the paternal justice» (cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 90, m. 1, and St. Bonaventure, II Sentences, d. 33, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1).
  5. 5
    Quod continetur Gen. 2, 17: De ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas. Hoc praeceptum vocatur ab Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 29, praeceptum disciplinae (cfr. II. Sent. d. 20. dub. 7.), pro quo edd. bis positivi substituunt.
    Which is contained in Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat. This precept is called by Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments I, p. VI, c. 29, a precept of discipline (cf. II Sentences, d. 20, dub. 7), for which the editions twice substitute positivi ("positive").
  6. 6
    Vers. 35. Cfr. supra pag. 184, nota 8, August., Enarrat. in Ps. 142. n. 3, et XV. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. n. 2.
    [Matthew 23,] verse 35. Cf. above, p. 184, note 8; Augustine, Enarrations on the Psalms, on Ps. 142, n. 3, and On the City of God XV, c. 1, n. 2.
  7. 7
    Secundum Isidor., V. Etymolog. c. 4, ad ius naturale pertinet «communis omnium possessio»; quae sententia ab Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 27. m. 4. a. 1. § 1. et a. 3. § 4, ita explicatur, quod omnia communia sint tempore status naturae bene institutae, non naturae lapsae nisi in casu necessitatis. Cfr. Glossa in C. Ius naturale (7.), d. 1.
    According to Isidore, Etymologies V, c. 4, to natural law belongs «the common possession of all»; which opinion is explained by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 27, m. 4, a. 1, § 1, and a. 3, § 4, thus, that all things are common in the time of the state of nature well instituted, not of nature fallen, except in a case of necessity. Cf. the Gloss on the canon Ius naturale (7), d. 1.
  8. 8
    Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 3.
  9. 9
    Respiciuntur verba August. infra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 2, allata. — Cod. K addit: in secundo statu est e converso propter contrarias causas. Superius pro turpitudo cod. F libido.
    There is reference to the words of Augustine adduced below in the text of the Master, d. XXXIII, c. 2. — Codex K adds: in secundo statu est e converso propter contrarias causas ("in the second state it is the reverse, on account of contrary causes"). Above, for turpitudo ("baseness") codex F [reads] libido ("lust").
  10. 10
    Ita codd. F G L O (bb a secunda manu), alii codd. et edd. dirimit. Subinde pro Praeterea plures codd. primo, cod. K quia, edd. ideo.
    Thus [read] codices F G L O (bb by a second hand); other codices and the editions [read] dirimit ("destroys"). Then, for Praeterea ("moreover") several codices [read] primo ("first"), codex K quia ("because"), the editions ideo ("therefore").
  11. 11
    Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion to the 1st question of this article. ---
Cited by

3 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 26, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 26, Art. 2, Q. 1→