Dist. 33, Art. 1, Q. 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/4/d/33/q/bon-sent-IV-d33-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On conjugal continence among the ancients.*
### Question I. *Whether it is against the law of nature to have a concubine.*

As to the first point it is shown that to *have a concubine* is not against the law of nature:

1. Because it is not against the law of nature to have a maidservant and a manservant; but a man may use a maidservant as he pleases: therefore it is not against the law of nature to know her carnally, and so on.

2. Likewise, a woman not married and free has power over her own body; but one who has some thing may give it to whom he wills: therefore he too who acquires it lawfully, lawfully receives it, since he does injury to no one: therefore when it proceeds from the woman's will that he should know her even without a conjugal compact, since she belongs to no other, nor is injury done to anyone; it seems [so], and so on.

3. Likewise, Isidore in the fifth book of the *Etymologies*: «The natural law is common to all nations»; but to have a concubine is not against this: therefore, and so on.

Likewise, that one may by the law of nature have *her together with a wife*, it seems:

4. Because *the man does not have power over his own body, but the woman does*: therefore, the wife being willing to receive seed from her maidservant, the man is bound to know the maidservant.

5. Likewise, to this very point the example of Abraham makes, who at Sarah's request knew Hagar; where Augustine also says that Sarah did this «by that right, by which *the man does not have power over his own body*»; but this is according to the law of nature: therefore, and so on.

**On the contrary:** 1. According to all laws the sons who are of concubines are blameworthy, and it is a reproach to them to be born thus; but there is no reproach unless some disorder precede: therefore if, according to the dictate of nature, there is reproach in the sons who are born thus; it seems that in such an act there is disorder, and so on.

2. Likewise, right reason dictates that a son ought to succeed his father, therefore it is a penalty to a son when he does not have the paternal inheritance; but according to the customs of all it is the case that those born of concubines do not succeed to the paternal inheritance: therefore, since right reason likewise dictates that there is no just penalty except on account of the disorder of a fault; since there was no fault in him after generation, there was fault in the generating.

3. Likewise, right reason dictates that the man and the woman in that act are united and become one flesh, and that that act is one of equality, since it is like in species and nature; but union unto equality belongs only to wife and husband, otherwise they are not equal: therefore right reason or the natural dictate shrinks from intercourse with a concubine.

4. Likewise, right reason dictates that both parents ought to raise the child, and that the offspring afterward in old age ought to raise the parents, and is bound to raise them equally and always: therefore since it judges that man and woman ought to be joined for the generation of offspring, because for this the generative power was given; it is judged that from this they come together for the raising of offspring, and again for receiving from the offspring service and honor unto the end: therefore it judges that they do not rightly come together unless they come together equally and inseparably in that act. But if so; then only the husband and wife ought to come together: therefore, and so on.

Likewise, that one ought not to have *a concubine together with a wife*, it seems:

5. Because a wife cannot come together with another man without committing adultery, which is against the natural law: therefore neither may the husband [come together] with any other woman than with his wife.

6. Likewise, the natural law dictates that a man should do to another what he wishes to be done to himself, and not do to another what he does not wish to be done to himself; but a husband according to right reason abominates and hates that another should know his wife: therefore, and so on.

### Conclusion.

> *To have a concubine, although it is not against the law of nature taken most properly, is nevertheless against the law taken commonly and properly; therefore it is not only evil because forbidden, but forbidden because evil.*

**I respond:** It must be said that natural law is spoken of in three ways, namely commonly, properly, and more properly; and according to this it is defined in three ways by Isidore.

In one way thus: «The natural law is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel»; so it is defined at the beginning of the *Decretum*. If *natural law* be taken in this way; then to have a concubine is against natural law, because it is against the Law and the Gospel; but against the law of Moses *implicitly*: for it does not expressly command the fornicator to be slain, except in a [certain] case, as is clear from Deuteronomy the twenty-second; yet it is implicitly enclosed there: *Thou shalt not commit adultery*, where every non-matrimonial intercourse is forbidden. Against the evangelical law it is [forbidden] *expressly*; for it says that fornicators do not have a part in the kingdom of God, in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the sixth [chapter], and in the seventh it says that *each one should have his own [wife] on account of fornication*. — Now the reason of this precept is the Sacrament of matrimony, which was instituted by God for *signification* and for *healing*: for *signification* before the fall, but for *healing* after the fall. For since that power is corrupted and disordered, as was said above, to such a degree that it does not go forth into act without the kingdom of the soul being overturned; it cannot come about after the fall without sin, unless it be excused through matrimony; therefore to know a concubine in such a way is a sin, as far as it is of itself, and against the Law and the Gospel, and so against natural law taken *commonly*.

In the second way it is called [natural law] *properly*, and so it is defined at the beginning of the *Decretals*: «The natural law is that which is common to all nations»; and this is the law which right reason dictates. Against this too is it to know or to have a concubine. — And this is clear: because natural law dictates that man and woman should come together in such an act for the generation of offspring, which should succeed to both, and over which they should preside in common, and which should be subject to both equally. And since that act is alike in species and [is] for begetting one alike in species; nature dictates that they come together in a certain equality; but this is the case when the father is joined to her that she may be wife and mother of a family. And therefore right reason dictates that it is not fitting [that they come together] as with a concubine; but this [dictate] in many is obscured through lust, yet nevertheless it remains intact in those who do not deprave their judgment through evil works.

In the third way natural law is called [it] *most properly*, [namely] that which «nature has taught all animals»; and in this way it is not *against* nature, nor yet altogether *according to* nature, and this because certain animals are brute — though not all — which are joined in an *undivided* coupling, as are turtledoves; and since, as the Philosopher holds, all the powers which are dispersed among the animals are gathered together in man, as the weapons of all animals are in the hand of man; although not all other animals have the instinct, yet the nature of man has it: hence to this the right nature of man is inclined, that, if he cleaves to a woman, he should so cleave that for her sake he leaves father and mother, and so takes [her] into an undivided coupling.

According to these things, therefore, it is clear that to fornicate or to have a concubine is not only evil because forbidden, but forbidden because evil. — Hence the reasons [adduced] for this are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that one may use his own thing, etc.; it must be said that she who is taken for such a use is taken unto equality; and if she is taken in an ordered way, it is required that she become an equal. And therefore one never rightly uses either a maidservant or a free woman, unless he contract with her as with a wife.

2. To that which is objected, that he does injury to no one, since she commits herself to him; it must be said that he does injury to *God*, against whose statute he acts; he does injury also to *himself*, in that by disordering himself *he sins against his own body*; for the man does injury to himself, although she is willing, because like one frenzied she wills her own evil. For if some woman should will that she be killed, or be abused against nature, who would dare to say that this is not evil?

3. To that which is objected, that natural law is common; it must be said that one [part] is open, another more hidden; and according as [it is] more open, it is more common, according as [it is] less [open], it is less common; and since this [precept] is more hidden, therefore [it is] less common; yet the law of matrimony is found among all.

4. To that which is objected, that the woman has power over the man's body; it must be said that although the other goods be *common*, this good nevertheless ought to be

*private*. Hence he can share his wife with no other nor exact the [conjugal] power over another, but only over his own body; so neither the woman over the man's.

5. To that which is objected concerning Sarah, it must be said that Abraham would never have complied, nor ought he to have complied, unless divine dispensation had intervened. Hence that which Augustine says was not the *whole excusing cause*, but was a *sign*.