Bonaventure

DISTINCTIO XXX.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; here they are renumbered continuously across pp. 705–706.

Cap. I. De errore, qui evacuat consensum.

Nec solum coactio impedit vel excludit consensum, sed etiam error. «Non autem omnis error consensum impedit. Est enim error alius personae, alius fortunae, alius conditionis, alius qualitatis: error personae, quando hic putatur esse ille homo, et est alius; error fortunae, quando putatur esse dives qui pauper est, vel e converso; error conditionis, quando putatur esse liber qui servus est; error qualitatis, quando putatur esse bonus qui malus est. — Error fortunae et qualitatis coniugii consensum non excludit. Error vero conditionis coniugalem consensum evacuat, de qua conditione postmodum tractabimus. Error quoque personae consensum coniugalem non admittit, ut si quis feminam nobilem in coniugium petat, et pro ea alia ignobilis tradatur ei; non est inter eos coniugium, quia non consensit vir in istam, sed in aliam; ut si quis promitteret mihi, se venditurum aurum, et pro auro offerret mihi aurichalcum, et ita me deciperet; nunquid dicerer consensisse in aurichalcum? Nunquam volui emere aurichalcum, nec ergo in illud consensi, quia consensus non nisi voluntatis est. Sicut ergo error materiae excludit consensum, ita et in coniugio error personae. — Sed obiicitur de Iacob¹, qui pro Rachel septem annis servierat, et supposita est ei Lia; nunquid error personae exclusit coniugium, cum non in eam, sed in Rachel consenserit? Sed quod ibi factum est in mysterio gestum non improbe traditur; ibi tamen, etsi non praecessit, secutus est consensus; nec ex illo concubitu, qui consensum praecessit, fornicarii iudicantur, cum ille maritali affectu eam cognoverit, et illa uxorio affectu debitum persolverit, putans, lege primogeniturarum et paternis imperiis se illi iure copulatam. Excusatur etiam, quia Dei consilio in mysterio ita actum est. Hodie etiam excusaretur ille cui inscio uxoris soror, lectulum eius ingressa, se subiiceret; quae cum sine spe coniugii perpetuo manere censeatur, ille tamen, qui cognovit eam per ignorantiam, excusatur. Quod per simile probatur: si enim diabolus, transfigurans se in angelum lucis², credatur bonus, non est error periculosus. Quod autem vir ille in illam mulierem non consenserit, ex simili ostenditur: si quis haereticus nomine Augustini vel Ambrosii alicui Catholico se offerret eumque ad suae fidei imitationem vocaret; si ille assentiret, in cuius sententiam fidei diceretur consensisse? Non in haereticorum sectam, sed in integritatem fidei, quam ille haereticus se mentiebatur habere. — Error fortunae consensum non excludit — quae enim nubit pauperi putans, illum esse divitem, non potest renuntiare priori conditioni, quamvis erraverit — nec error qualitatis, ut si quis ducat uxorem meretricem, corruptam, quam putat esse castam, vel virginem, non potest eam dimittere³».

Cap. II. De coniugio Mariae et Ioseph.

Praemissis aliquid addendum est de modo illius consensus, qui inter Mariam et Ioseph intercessit. Sane credi potest, non solum Mariam, sed etiam Ioseph apud se disposuisse virginitatem servare, nisi Deus aliter iuberet; eosque sic consensisse in coniugalem societatem, ut uterque de altero, revelante Spiritu sancto, intelligeret, quod virginitatem servare vellet, nisi Deus aliter inspiraret; sed illam voluntatem verbis non expresserant, postea vero expresserunt et in virginitate permanserunt. Consensit ergo Maria in maritalem societatem, sed non in carnalem copulam, nisi de eadem specialiter Deus praeciperet, cuius etiam consilio in maritalem consensit copulam, quia virginitatem servare volebat: et ideo non aliter consensisset in coniugalem societatem, nisi familiare Dei consilium habuisset. De qua Augustinus⁴ sic ait: «Beata Maria proposuit, se servaturam votum virginitatis in corde, sed ipsum votum non expressit in ore. Subiecit se divinae dispositioni, proposuit, se perseveraturam virginem, nisi Deus aliter ei revelaret. Committens ergo virginitatem suam divinae dispositioni, consensit in carnalem copulam, non illam appetendo, sed divinae inspirationi in utroque obediendo; postea vero simul cum viro labiis expressit, et uterque in virginitate permansit». Inter quos, ut ait Augustinus⁵, perfectum fuit coniugium, perfectum quidem non in significatione, sed in sanctitate. Sanctiora enim sunt coniugia pari voto continentium. Unde Augustinus: «Quod Deo pari consensu voveratis, ambo perseveranter reddere debuistis, a quo proposito si lapsus est ille, tu saltem persevera». «Non quia pariter temperabatis a commixtione carnali, ideo maritus tuus esse destiterat, immo vero tanto sanctius coniuges manebatis, quanto sanctiora concorditer placita servabatis». Perfectum igitur fuit Mariae et Ioseph coniugium in sanctitate; perfectum etiam fuit secundum triplex bonum coniugii, fidem scilicet, prolem et Sacramentum. «Omne enim nuptiarum bonum, ut ait Augustinus⁶, impletum est in illis parentibus Christi, fidem, prolem, Sacramentum: p. 706 prolem cognoscimus ipsum Dominum; fidem, quia nullum adulterium; Sacramentum, quia nullum divortium». «Solus ibi nuptialis concubitus non fuit, quia in carne peccati fieri non poterat sine pudenda concupiscentia carnis, quae accidit ex peccato; sine qua concipi voluit qui sine peccato futurus erat». Et licet non intercesserit coniugalis concubitus, coniuges tamen vere fuerunt mente, non carne, sicut et parentes; quamvis Ambrosius⁷ dicat, perfectum fieri coniugium per carnalem copulam. «In omni, inquit, matrimonio coniunctio intelligitur spiritualis, quam confirmat et perficit coniunctorum commixtio corporalis». Sed intelligendum est, coniugium perfici commixtione corporali non quantum ad veritatem, vel sanctitatem coniugii, sed quantum ad significationem, quia perfectius unionem Christi et Ecclesiae tunc figurat.

Cap. III. De finali causa coniugii.

Exposito, quae sit efficiens causa matrimonii, consequens est ostendere, ob quam causam soleat vel debeat contrahi matrimonium. «Est igitur finalis causa contrahendi matrimonii principalis procreatio prolis; propter hoc enim instituit Deus coniugium inter primos parentes, quibus dixit: Crescite et multiplicamini⁸ etc. Secunda est post peccatum Adae vitatio fornicationis; unde Apostolus: Propter fornicationem unusquisque habeat uxorem suam, et unaquaeque habeat virum suum. Sunt et aliae causae honestae, ut inimicorum reconciliatio et pacis redintegratio. Sunt etiam et aliae minus honestae causae, propter quas aliquando contrahitur, ut viri mulierisque pulcritudo, quae animos amore inflammatos saepe impellit inire coniugium, ut valeant suum explere desiderium; quaestus quoque et divitiarum possessio frequenter est causa coniugii et alia multa, quae cuique diligentiam adhibenti facile est discernere. Nec est assentiendum illis qui dicunt, non esse coniugium, quod propter has causas minus honestas contrahitur. Constat enim ex praemissis, coniugium fieri ex communi consensu, verbis de praesenti expresso, quamvis amor ad hoc attraxerit. Cuius rei documentum praestat Iacob, qui Rachel decoram facie et venusto aspectu amavit eamque diligens ait⁹: Serviam tibi pro Rachel septem annis. In Deuteronomio etiam legitur: Si videris in medio captivorum mulierem pulcram et adamaveris eam voluerisque uxorem habere, introduces eam in domum tuam» etc.

Cap. IV. Quod malus finis non contaminat Sacramentum.

Et licet fine non bono contrahatur coniugium, quando species contrahentis movet animum, coniugium tamen bonum est, quia vita mala, vel intentio perversa alicuius Sacramentum non contaminat. — Habuit autem coniugium Mariae et Ioseph alias causas speciales, scilicet ut «Virgo solatio viri sustentaretur, et ut diabolo partus celaretur, ut Ioseph esset testis castitatis, defendens eam ab infamia suspicionis, ne ut adultera damnaretur¹⁰».

---

DISTINCTION XXX.

Chap. I. On the error which nullifies consent.

Not only coercion impedes or excludes consent, but also error. «Now not every error impedes consent. For error is of one kind regarding person, of another regarding fortune, of another regarding condition, of another regarding quality: error of person, when this man is thought to be that man, and is another; error of fortune, when a man is thought to be rich who is poor, or the reverse; error of condition, when one is thought to be free who is a slave; error of quality, when one is thought to be good who is wicked. — Error of fortune and of quality does not exclude the consent of marriage. But error of condition nullifies the marital consent, of which condition we shall treat afterward. Error of person, too, does not admit marital consent, as when someone seeks a noble woman in marriage, and another, ignoble, is given to him in her place; there is no marriage between them, because the man did not consent to this woman, but to another; as if someone should promise me that he would sell me gold, and for the gold should offer me brass, and thus deceive me; would I be said to have consented to the brass? I never wished to buy brass, and therefore I did not consent to it, because consent belongs only to the will. Just as, then, error of matter excludes consent, so too in marriage does error of person. — But an objection is raised concerning Jacob¹, who had served seven years for Rachel, and Leah was substituted for him; did error of person, then, exclude marriage, since he consented not to her but to Rachel? But what was done there was done in a mystery, and is not related as blameworthy; there, however, even though it did not precede, consent followed; nor from that intercourse, which preceded the consent, are they judged fornicators, since he had known her with marital affection and she had rendered the debt with the affection of a wife, thinking, by the law of the firstborn and by her father's command, that she was rightly joined to him. He is excused also because it was so done by God's counsel in mystery. Today, too, that man would be excused to whom, unknown to him, his wife's sister, having entered his bed, gave herself; who, since she is judged to remain forever without hope of marriage, [is excused] though he who knew her did so through ignorance. Which is proved by a like case: for if a devil, transforming himself into an angel of light², is believed to be good, this is not a dangerous error. But that the man did not consent to that woman is shown by a like case: if some heretic, under the name of Augustine or Ambrose, should offer himself to some Catholic and call him to the imitation of his faith; and if that man should assent, to whose profession of faith would he be said to have consented? Not to the sect of heretics, but to the integrity of the faith which that heretic falsely claimed to hold. — Error of fortune does not exclude consent — for a woman who marries a poor man thinking him rich cannot renounce the prior condition, although she erred — nor does error of quality, as when someone takes as wife a prostitute, corrupted, whom he thinks chaste, or a virgin, he cannot dismiss her³».

Chap. II. On the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

To what has been said something must be added concerning the manner of that consent which passed between Mary and Joseph. It may indeed be believed that not only Mary but Joseph too had resolved within himself to preserve virginity, unless God should otherwise command; and that both so consented to the marital society that each, by the Holy Spirit revealing it, understood of the other that he or she wished to preserve virginity, unless God should otherwise inspire; but they had not expressed that will in words, but afterward expressed it and remained in virginity. Mary, therefore, consented to the marital society, but not to carnal union, unless God should specifically so command for that very purpose, by whose counsel also she consented to the marital union, because she wished to preserve her virginity: and therefore she would not otherwise have consented to the marital society, unless she had had God's intimate counsel. Of whom Augustine⁴ speaks thus: «Blessed Mary resolved that she would keep the vow of virginity in her heart, but she did not express that very vow with her lips. She submitted herself to the divine disposition; she resolved that she would persevere a virgin, unless God should otherwise reveal it to her. Entrusting, then, her virginity to the divine disposition, she consented to carnal union, not seeking it for itself, but obeying the divine inspiration in both matters; afterward, together with her husband, she expressed it with her lips, and each remained in virginity». Between them, as Augustine⁵ says, the marriage was perfect, perfect indeed not in signification, but in holiness. For marriages of those joined in an equal vow are holier. Whence Augustine: «What you had vowed to God by equal consent, you both ought to render perseveringly; and if he has fallen from that resolve, do you at least persevere». «Not because you both equally abstained from carnal intercourse did your husband therefore cease to be your husband; rather, the more you kept your resolves in holy concord, the more holily you both remained spouses». Perfect, therefore, was the marriage of Mary and Joseph in holiness; it was also perfect according to the threefold good of marriage, namely fidelity, offspring, and sacrament. «For every good of marriage, as Augustine⁶ says, was fulfilled in those parents of Christ: fidelity, offspring, sacrament: p. 706 offspring, for we recognize the Lord himself as the offspring; fidelity, because there was no adultery; sacrament, because there was no divorce». «There alone the nuptial intercourse did not take place, because it could not occur in sinful flesh without the shameful concupiscence of the flesh, which arises from sin; without which he who was to be without sin willed to be conceived». And although conjugal intercourse did not take place between them, they were nonetheless truly spouses in mind, not in flesh, just as were their own parents; although Ambrose⁷ says that marriage is made perfect through carnal union. «In every marriage, he says, a spiritual union is understood, which the bodily commingling of those joined confirms and perfects». But it must be understood that marriage is perfected by bodily commingling not as regards its truth or holiness, but as regards its signification, because it then more perfectly figures the union of Christ and the Church.

Chap. III. On the final cause of marriage.

Having explained what the efficient cause of marriage is, it follows to show for what cause marriage is accustomed or ought to be contracted. «The final cause, then, of contracting marriage is principally the procreation of offspring; for on this account God instituted marriage between our first parents, to whom he said: Increase and multiply⁸, etc. The second cause, after Adam's sin, is the avoidance of fornication; whence the Apostle: Because of fornication let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. There are also other honorable causes, such as the reconciliation of enemies and the restoration of peace. There are also other less honorable causes, on account of which marriage is sometimes contracted, such as the beauty of the man and the woman, which often, kindling their hearts with love, impels them to enter marriage so that they may fulfill their desire; gain also and the possession of riches is frequently the cause of marriage, and many other things which anyone applying diligence can easily discern. Nor is one to agree with those who say that a marriage contracted for these less honorable causes is not a marriage at all. For it is established from what has been said that marriage comes about from common consent expressed in words of the present, even though love may have drawn one to it. Of this matter Jacob furnishes a proof, who loved Rachel for her beautiful face and comely appearance, and loving her said⁹: I will serve you seven years for Rachel. In Deuteronomy also it is read: If you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and wish to have her as wife, you shall bring her into your house», etc.

Chap. IV. That an evil end does not contaminate the sacrament.

And although marriage may be contracted for an end that is not good, when the appearance of the one contracting moves the mind, the marriage is nonetheless good, because the evil life or perverse intention of anyone does not contaminate the sacrament. — Now the marriage of Mary and Joseph had other special causes, namely that «the Virgin might be sustained by the comfort of her husband, and that her childbearing might be hidden from the devil, and that Joseph might be a witness to her chastity, defending her from the infamy of suspicion, lest she be condemned as an adulteress¹⁰».

---