Quaest. 3, Art. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/10/d/3/q/bon-qpe-q3-a1
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *On continence.*

Now that poverty has been dealt with, it remains to treat 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 nineteenth, 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 second: *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 third: *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 second 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 fifth: *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 seventh: *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 place: *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 fifth: *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 first: *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

is a habit in the manner of nature, agreeable to reason»; 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 pleasant*; 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 twentieth: *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 eighth: *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 sixth: *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 seventh: *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 place: *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 place: *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 begotten: 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 wife 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 first; 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 mean; 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 frail 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 this, 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,

not only according to the state of the present time 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 first: *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 first: *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 nineteenth, 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 which 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 seventeenth: *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-first: *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 eighteenth. 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 dead 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 first: *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 marriage, 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, both 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 Dogmas*: «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 *remedy*. 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

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 well, 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 Marriage*: «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 sixteenth: *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 world; 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 in* *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 Marriage*: «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 second.

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 away*. 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

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 this has a venial fault joined to it, as was said above. Whence Augustine, in the book *On the Good of Marriage*: «*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 Julian: «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 Julian*: «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 Julian*: «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 Julian*: «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

*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 Julian*: «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 three: «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 for».

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.