Dist. 30
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/30/q/bon-sent-IV-d30-littera
----------------------------------------
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 Jacob, 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 light, 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 her».

### 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 Augustine 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 Augustine 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 Augustine says, was fulfilled in those parents of Christ: *fidelity*, *offspring*, *sacrament*:

*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 Ambrose 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 multiply*, 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 said: *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 adulteress».

---