Dist. 26, Art. 1, Q. 3
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/4/d/26/q/bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### 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 Genesis: 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 text: «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 life — 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 spiritual, 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,

then either that precept was *of natural law* or *of discipline*. Not *of discipline*, because there was only one; 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-three: *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 common. 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 precept.

**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 Abraham.

*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 it. *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 contracting.