Dist. 33, 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/33/q/bon-sent-IV-d33-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether God ought to have granted dispensation concerning the having of a concubine.*

Thirdly it is asked whether God ought to have dispensed, so that it should be lawful to have *concubines*, and so that it should be permitted to have several *wives*. And that He ought not to have dispensed, it seems:

1. Because «the Founder of nature does not act against nature» nor against the right of nature; but to have several wives and several concubines is against the right of nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, God never dispensed that one woman should belong to several men: therefore, since one woman suffices more for several men than the reverse, He ought not to have dispensed that one man should belong to several [women].

3. Likewise, in the institution of matrimony and its confirmation it is said that *they shall be two in one flesh*; and on Matthew, chapter 19, upon that [word]: *He shall cleave to his wife*; the Gloss: «*Not to wives*»: therefore if God ought not to act against His own institution, it seems [it should not have been dispensed] etc.

4. Likewise, a right dispensation ought to be for a greater good; but when one man has two [wives], here the good of *faith* is not preserved, because the man not only knows his wife, whereas the woman does not know another man; nor even the good of the *Sacrament*, because Christ has one Church as spouse, not several: therefore it seems that it was ill dispensed.

5. Likewise, if every dispensation ought to be for some cause, I ask what that cause is. If [it be] the multiplication of offspring for the worship of God, then, since this cause stands at every time, because the worship of God is to be multiplied, therefore at every time this dispensation ought to stand.

6. Likewise, it seems that this dispensation extended only to the Fathers, because in Deuteronomy, chapter 17, it is said: *He shall not have many wives, who may allure his mind*; this is said of the king: therefore much more strongly is that thing prohibited to others.

**On the contrary:** 1. That it was dispensed, it seems: because Abraham together with his wife had a concubine; and yet he is not reproved, nay rather the Lord approved, when He said of Ishmael that He would make him increase: therefore, since this was not permitted by nature, it was dispensed with him.

2. Likewise, Jacob had two wives and two concubines; and it is established that this pleased God, because the seed which He received from them all is approved: therefore it was dispensed with him.

3. Likewise, David had several, as is said in Second Kings, wives and concubines; and yet he is not reproved: therefore it was dispensed with the kings.

4. Likewise, Elkanah had several wives; and yet he is not reproved: therefore it seems that it was dispensed with all.

5. Likewise, the Law supposes it as lawful, Deuteronomy, chapter 21: *If a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated*; this it does not censure: therefore it was lawful to all, therefore it was dispensed with all.

It is asked, then, how and when it was dispensed, and where it is expressed, and why then and not now, and how far it extends.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** It was fitting that God should have dispensed with the Patriarchs and in the old law concerning polygamy.

**I respond:** It must be said that, for dispensation—to the end that it be duly made and that a man use it becomingly—these four things concur, namely *necessity*, *utility*, *fittingness*, and *honorableness*; and these four are present here.

First indeed, that time was *fitting* for the dispensation, because it was a time of *figure*; and because Christ was to beget children and sons through baptism, both in the catholic Church and in the heretical byways: therefore in *figure* there had to precede a marriage, that is, a generation from a free woman and from a handmaid. And again, because among those who are baptized by heretics, some follow heresy, some return to the Church, therefore the figure of both preceded: of the first in Ishmael, of whom it is said in Genesis, chapter 21: *Cast out the handmaid and her son*; of the second in the handmaids of Jacob, whose sons are counted among the free-born. This is had from Augustine in the book On Baptism. There was, then, a *fittingness* of the time. —

There was also *necessity*, because few were worshippers of God; and lest the divine worship should perish, it was necessary that they should multiply children; and it happened that the wives

were barren: therefore they had necessity then to have several. — There was also *utility*, because the children were instructed by their parents and kept the ways of the fathers; and therefore, the more numerous [they were], the more renowned was the worship of God, and therefore it was then useful to procreate many. — There was also *honorableness*, because they knew even their concubines not with a lustful affection, but with a chaste one, not with the affection of an adulterer, but of a husband. In testimony of this it is said of Abraham that he did not himself take the handmaid, but obeyed his wife and rendered her the debt in her, and knew her with the affection of a husband; and therefore it is said in Genesis, chapter 16, that Sarah gave Agar to Abraham as a *wife*—not because she was a *wife*, since afterward she was cast out, but that it might be signified that he knew her with the same affection with which [he knew] his wife. Whence Augustine, in the sixteenth book On the City of God, calls him «a man using women manfully—the wife temperately, the handmaid compliantly, none intemperately».

From this it is evident that this dispensation does not extend to the time of *nature as instituted* nor to that of *grace*: because in *nature as instituted* there was neither *the time of figure* nor *the necessity of barrenness*; likewise in the time of *grace* the figures ceased, and all are called to the worship of Christ, and the human race has been greatly multiplied. — Likewise, by reason of *utility*, it does not extend *before* the time of Abraham, because before then men were not multiplied for the worship of God, but for evil, since they were imitators of their fathers' crimes; and therefore they were destroyed with the earth. — But by reason of *honorableness* it extends only to those who knew how, and willed, to use wives and concubines temperately and for the multiplying of the worship of God; otherwise the dispensation did not avail for them.

Now this dispensation was made by *divine inspiration* in the Patriarchs and in king David, when to both was made the promise concerning the seed; and because these were heads and were to be imitated as Saints, they understood rightly that this dispensation extended to all who were imitators of them in chastity; and a custom was introduced from this, lasting until the coming of Christ. But then it ceased, because the *fittingness* and *necessity* ceased, as has been seen. Whence to all to whom it was permitted, it was permitted solely from the dispensation which was through inspiration; and this is said in the Extra[vagantes], On Divorce, in a certain decretal of Innocent, where it is said that «it was never lawful to anyone except by divine inspiration».

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected—that God does not act against the right of nature—it must be said that this is true: [it is] against the right of nature which ordains [a thing] *toward itself*; but against the right of nature which ordains [a thing] *toward the neighbor*, He can [act]; yet He does not act *against*, but *above*, because right reason so dictates that this is not to be done, in such wise that it may nonetheless dictate that, in the opposite case, God is to be obeyed.

*To 2.* To that which is objected—that one woman might belong to several men—it must be said that were one woman to belong to several, there would be no *utility*, because one man can make several fruitful, but not one woman by several men. There would also be *harm*, because [there would be] a *failure of tranquility*; for one man cannot with peace *serve two masters*, just as one master [cannot] command two servants; and *the man is the head* and rules over the woman. There would also be lacking the *good of the Sacrament*, because one soul is joined not to two men, but Christ is joined to many souls; and further, there would be *uncertainty of offspring* and confusion of inheritance.

*To 3.* To that which is objected—that God instituted that [there be] two etc.—it must be said that this is true in the time of the *law of nature* and in the time of *grace*. But from cause, in the time of the *Law*, He had to dispense; nor does He who instituted the thing act against His own institution when He dispenses according to place and time.

*To 4.* To that which is objected—that a dispensation ought to be for a greater good—it must be said that the *good of offspring* is so necessary that on account of it God willed that something be withdrawn from the *good of faith* and of the *Sacrament*, yet not entirely, because at that time they kept faith to some, and the ground of the signification remained there.

*To 5.* To that which is objected—that the multiplication of offspring is not a cause—it must be said that on the contrary [it is], because the worship of God grew then not through calling, but through succession, since to them alone was the Law delivered; and therefore it was then opportune.

*To 6.* To that which is asked—to whom did it extend?—it must be said that by reason of *inspiration* [it extended] only to the Fathers, but by reason of *honorable imitation* and *custom* it was derived to their descendants, who knew how to use wives usefully. — As to what is objected, that it was prohibited to the kings, it must be said that it was not prohibited that they should not have *several*, but that they should not have *very many*; nor is that said simply, but with a determination, *who may allure the mind*, and such were the foreign women.

---