Dist. 33, Art. 2, 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/33/q/bon-sent-IV-d33-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the reward of virginity is the aureole.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning virginity by comparison with its reward; and it is commonly said that the reward of virginity is the aureole, and this is proved:

1. By a *figure*: in Exodus, chapter twenty-five, it is commanded that upon the great crown another little crown be made; and according to this figure the reward is twofold, as the masters say: *substantial*, and this is called the *aurea* (golden crown) after the likeness of the great crown; and *accidental*, and this is called the *aureole* after the likeness of the little one. If, then, the comely soul, and above all the spouse of Christ, ought to be crowned with that crown; and such is the virgin: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this is shown through Scripture, Apocalypse chapter twelve: *A woman clothed with the sun, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.* If this is rightly expounded of the blessed Virgin, then, just as Christ shares his throne with those who conquer, so the blessed Virgin shares a crown with those who are perfectly continent; and so on.

3. Likewise, a crown is due to one who contends; but the greatest struggle is in the flesh: therefore he who conquers it perfectly and notably ought to be notably crowned. But virgins conquer perfectly: therefore they are to be notably crowned, therefore they will have some crown that the married do not.

**On the contrary:**
1. Every merit belongs to charity, therefore also every reward: therefore if charity moves all the virtues and shares its merit with them all, therefore also its reward: therefore no reward is to be rendered to virginity more than to any other virtue. *If you say* that this is true of the *substantial* reward; *on the contrary*: no reward is due to one who lacks charity, neither *substantial* nor *accidental*: therefore every reward is due to charity.

2. Likewise, if some superadded reward is due to virginity, either this is by reason of *difficulty* or by reason of *perfection*. If by reason of *difficulty*: but it is more difficult wholly to deny one's own will and to beg for Christ's sake than to preserve continence: therefore much more strongly is an aureole due to such an act. If by reason of *perfection*: but it is much more perfect to love enemies: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if a special reward is due to virginity, then it is either by reason of incorruption of the *flesh* or of the *mind*. If of the *flesh*: then one corrupted by violence would not have an aureole, the contrary of which is held through the word of Lucy: « If you violate me against my will, my chastity will be doubled unto a crown ». If according to incorruption of the *mind*: either because *never corrupted* or because *repaired*. If because *never corrupted*: then an aureole is due to very few, and not even to blessed John, because he willed to marry, as is said, and yet his virginity is much commended. If because *repaired*: then however much a person has been lustful, provided he perfectly repents, he will have an aureole. If according to *both*: there arises a still greater incongruity, since to none, or to few, is an aureole due.

Likewise, since the hundredfold fruit is due to virginity — and it is agreed that this is not a substantial but an accidental reward — it seems therefore that the *aureole* is the same as the *fruit*; but since the *fruit* befits the widowed state, why not also the *aureole*? The difference, therefore, is asked.

### Conclusion.

> To virginity there is due not only the substantial reward or *aurea* on account of the root of charity, but also the hundredfold fruit on account of the perfection of its state, and the aureole on account of its beauty.

**I respond:** It must be said that we read in Scripture of a threefold reward, namely the reward of the *aurea*, the reward that is the *fruit*, and the reward of the *aureole*. Now this is distinguished by different authors in different ways.

For some say that the reward of the *aurea* is due to the root of charity, the reward of the *fruit* is due by reason of the restraining of proneness [to sin], but the *aureole* by reason of incorruption. For since charity flows into all the virtues, therefore the *aurea* is due to every virtue and act. And since the concupiscible power, as regards generation, is corrupt and infected, therefore in it *proneness* is vigorous; therefore to continence alone, which restrains it, the reward of *fruit* is due. But since incorruption is regarded as to *faith* against the leaven of error and falsity, as to the *flesh* against pleasure, and as to *constancy* even unto death; therefore an aureole is due to three acts, namely to *preaching*, to *virginal continence*, and to *martyrdom* itself. Hence according to these the *aurea* is joy over God, the *fruit* joy over the restriction of proneness, but the *aureole* joy over incorruption. — But this position does not seem fitting, since *incorruption* is not only in those to whom an aureole is due, but also in *justice*, which *is perpetual and immortal*, and in *charity, which never fails*; and therefore this way of taking it does not seem fitting.

Others say otherwise: that the reward of the *aurea* is due to the root of charity itself, but the *fruit* by reason of *difficulty*, and the *aureole* by reason of *perfection*; hence because the greatest difficulty is in continence altogether — indeed a kind of martyrdom — and in enduring the terrible things that bring on death; therefore the *fruit* is due to *Martyrs* and to the *continent*. But the greatest perfection is in the three acts of the soul itself, namely the rational, the concupiscible, and the irascible; and this in two ways: by conversion to *God*, and thus there is due to them the perfection of the *aurea*; and by comparison to a *lower good*, and thus the *aureole* is due, which is a diminutive, since it is a reward in a created good; and according to the perfect act of the threefold power an aureole is assigned or rendered. For the most perfect act of the rational power, by comparison *to what is below*, is to preach the truth of faith; of the concupiscible, to restrain the flesh wholly from intercourse; of the irascible, to endure death; and therefore to the three a threefold aureole is due. — But this position too does not seem altogether fitting, since it is of as great a perfection to relinquish all things and to deny oneself as to preach and to be wholly continent; and therefore it does not seem that an aureole is due to virginity according to *perfection* or by reason of perfection.

Otherwise, therefore, it must be said that, as was also said above, in virginity three things are considered, namely *habit*, *state*, and *beauty*; to the habit corresponds the *aurea*, to the state the *fruit*, but to the beauty of integrity the *aureole*. — And that the *aurea* corresponds to the habit is not doubtful. — But that the *fruit* corresponds to the state is shown thus: because, just as the greater and lesser *fruit* which the Lord sets down in the Gospel is reckoned according to the nobility of the soil, so the greater and lesser *fruit* is reckoned according to the state. For grant that three persons in three states are continent, each as well as he can: still widowed continence exceeds *conjugal*, and *virginal* exceeds *widowed*. Hence because in continence especially the diverse states are considered and are distinguished according to it; therefore the reward of *fruit* is fitted to continence alone — not but that it can be fitted to others also, if diverse *states* are to be assigned. — And that the *aureole* corresponds to some exterior beauty is clear: because aureoles are assigned to those acts which regard something extrinsic, as for instance what is *below*, such as the body; or what is *alongside*, such as the neighbor, whom one converts and leads to the fatherland by good teaching. Hence there will be a certain beauty for *Doctors* from those converted through them; and there will also be a certain beauty and joy for *Martyrs* in the body, who exposed themselves to sufferings for Christ; a certain beauty for *Virgins* in the body, which they kept incorrupt for Christ; and that beauty, or the joy over that beauty, is rightly called the *aureole*. Yet I believe it is better that the *aureole* be called *beauty* rather than *joy*, because all will rejoice over the beauty, yet not all will have the aureole; but that the whole may be summed up in one, it is better to say that it is both, namely *beauty with joy* and *joy with beauty*. — These things seen, the objections are clear.

1, 2, 3. As to what is objected, that every merit is due to the root of charity; it must be said that this is true of the *substantial* reward; of the *accidental* it is not true primarily and of itself, but not without it; hence it is a cause *without which not* [a necessary condition]. — Similarly it is clear why an *aureole* is due to virginity, not by reason of perfection, but by reason of beauty. By reason of *perfection of state* the hundredfold fruit is due, but by reason of *beauty* the aureole.

As to what is asked, by reason of which incorruption the *aureole* is due; it must be said that on this there are three opinions. For some say that, since merit consists in the soul, an aureole is due to the *incorruption of the mind*; likewise to a will perfect in enduring death for Christ; and they confirm this by what is said of blessed Martin: « O blessed soul, which, though the sword of the persecutor did not take it away, yet did not lose the palm of martyrdom ». — But this position does not seem fitting, since however much someone may wish to preach, unless he goes forth into the deed, I do not believe that he has an aureole. Hence that saying about blessed Martin is to be understood of the *essential* reward, since he was equal to the Martyrs on account of the greatness of his charity.

Another opinion is that it is due to the *exterior act*; hence if someone is not martyred in act, he will not have an aureole; likewise if virginity is taken away by violence, the aureole is lost. Hence Pope Leo says that those corrupted by violence « should not dare to compare themselves with the sacred virgins », nor are they even espoused with a ring. And according to these, however much a man preaches, he carries off a *reward*, but not an *aureole*, unless he converts someone. — But it is hard to say that if she is wholly violated by force, she should lose anything there, so long as no consent intervenes, [where there is] no fault.

And therefore it must be said in a third way, that the aureole is due to the *interior act* by comparison with exterior beauty, and to the exterior [act] as referred to the interior. Hence if a virgin should will to be corrupted and yet is not corrupted, and afterward repents; because incorruption is preserved in the flesh, therefore she will have the aureole. Likewise, if she should be unwilling to be corrupted and is corrupted; that corruption is not to be judged a corruption of the beauty of virtue; and therefore the beauty remains whole, since the adorning of virtue proceeds from within. And this is what is said in the text: « The flesh cannot be corrupted unless the mind is first corrupted », namely by a corruption that runs counter to virginity. Hence, as to what is said, that « they should not dare to compare themselves with the sacred virgins »; this is on account of the danger, because perhaps in that act they consented; hence they must always be fearful.

From these things it can be made clear when virginity is lost. For since two things concur to make perfect virginity, namely incorruption of the mind and incorruption of the flesh: incorruption of the mind is as the *formal* [element] and completion; incorruption of the flesh is as the *material* [element]. If, then, *both* perish, the whole is lost and can never be recovered. — But if *incorruption of the flesh* is lost while *incorruption of the mind* is preserved; there remains what is *formal* and completive of virginity, and therefore its merit and reward, although that which was material be lost; hence it is lost *in a certain respect*, yet remains *without qualification*; it is lost in the sight of *men*, not in the sight of *God*. And this is what Ambrose says, and it is held in the text. — But if *incorruption of the mind* is lost while *incorruption of the flesh* is preserved, then what is *formal* is lost, and what is *material* remains; and because she returns to her purpose and has the material substrate; virginity returning, she is to be judged a virgin, though not in so great a glory as she would be, had she never consented. And to hold this seems to be the more pious view.

---