Dist. 33, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 33
Quaestio III. Utrum Deus debuerit dispensare de concubina habenda.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum Deus debuerit dispensare, quod licitum esset habere concubinas, et quod liceret habere plures uxores. Et quod non debuerit dispensare, videtur:
1. Quia «Conditor naturae non facit contra naturam1» nec contra ius naturae; sed habere plures uxores et plures concubinas est contra ius naturae: ergo etc.
2. Item, nunquam Deus dispensavit, quod una esset plurium virorum2: ergo cum magis sufficiat una mulier pluribus viris quam e converso, non debuit dispensare, quod unus vir esset plurium.
3. Item, in institutione matrimonii et eius confirmatione3 dicitur, quod erunt duo in carne una; et Matthaei decimo nono super illud: Adhaerebit uxori; Glossa: «Non uxoribus»: ergo si Deus contra suam institutionem non debuit facere, videtur etc.
4. Item, dispensatio recta debet esse propter maius bonum; sed cum4 unus habet duas, hic non salvatur bonum fidei, quia non tantum cognoscit vir uxorem, cum tamen mulier non cognoscat alium virum; nec etiam bonum Sacramenti, quia Christus unicam habet Ecclesiam sponsam, non plures: ergo videtur, quod male sit dispensatum.
5. Item, si omnis dispensatio debet esse propter aliquam causam; quaero, quae sit illa. Si multiplicatio prolis ad cultum Dei; cum ista causa omni tempore stet, quia cultus Dei5 est multiplicandus: ergo in omni tempore deberet ista dispensatio stare.
6. Item, videtur, quod ista dispensatio se extenderit ad solos Patres, quia Deuteronomii decimo septimo6 dicitur: Non habebit uxores plurimas, quae alliciant animum eius, hoc dicitur de rege: ergo multo fortius aliis est istud prohibitum.
Contra: 1. Quod dispensatum fuerit, videtur: quia Abraham simul cum uxore habuit concubinam; et tamen non reprehenditur, immo Dominus approbavit, cum dixit de Ismaele, quod ipsum faceret crescere7: ergo cum hoc non liceret per naturam, dispensatum est cum eo.
2. Item, Iacob habuit duas uxores et duas concubinas8; et constat, quod hoc placuit Deo, quia semen, quod ex omnibus accepit, est approbatum: ergo cum eo fuit dispensatum.
3. Item, David habuit plures, sicut dicitur secundo Regum9, uxores et concubinas; et tamen non reprehenditur: ergo dispensatum est cum regibus.
4. Item, Elcana habuit plures uxores; et tamen non reprehenditur10: ergo videtur, quod cum omnibus sit dispensatum.
5. Item, Lex supponit tanquam licitum, Deuteronomii vigesimo primo11: Si habuerit homo duas uxores, unam dilectam et alteram odiosam; hoc non redarguit: ergo omnibus erat licitum, ergo cum omnibus dispensatum.
Quaeritur igitur, quomodo et quando sit dispensatum, et ubi expressum, et quare tunc et non modo, et quantum se extendat.
Conclusio
Conclusio. Congruum fuit, quod Deus cum Patriarchis et in lege veteri dispensaverit circa polygamiam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ad dispensationem ad hoc, quod debite fiat, et convenienter homo ea utatur, ista quatuor sunt concurrentia, scilicet necessitas, utilitas, congruitas et honestas; et ista quatuor sunt hic.
Primum quidem congruum fuit illud tempus dispensationi, quoniam tempus fuit figurae; et quoniam Christus generare debebat liberos et filios per baptismum, et in Ecclesia catholica et in haereticis diverticulis: ideo in figura debuit praecedere matrimonium sive generatio ex libera et ex ancilla. Et rursus, quoniam inter illos qui ab haereticis baptizantur, quidam haeresim sequuntur, quidam ad Ecclesiam revertuntur; ideo utriusque figura praecessit: primi in Ismaele, de quo dictum est Genesis vigesimo primo12: Eiice ancillam et filium eius; secundi in ancillis Iacob, quarum filii sunt inter liberos computati. Hoc habetur ab Augustino in libro de Baptismo13. Fuit ergo temporis congruitas. —
Fuit etiam necessitas, quia pauci erant Deum colentes; et ut cultus divinus non periret, necesse fuit, ut filios multiplicarent; et contigit, quod uxo-
res steriles haberent1: ideo necessitatem habuerunt tunc plures habere. — Fuit etiam utilitas, quia filii erudiebantur a parentibus et mores patrum servabant; et ideo, quanto plures, tanto cultus Dei erat celebrior, et ideo erat tunc utile multos procreare. — Fuit etiam honestas, quia non affectu libidinoso, sed casto, non affectu adulteri, sed mariti etiam concubinas cognoscebant. In cuius rei testimonium de Abraham dicitur, quod non ipse accepit ancillam, sed uxori obedivit et ei in ea debitum reddidit et affectu viri cognovit; et ideo dicitur Genesis decimo sexto2, quod Sara dedit Agar in uxorem Abraham, non quia fuerit uxor, quia postmodum fuit eiecta, sed ut significetur, quod eo affectu eam cognovit, quo et uxorem. Unde Augustinus decimo sexto de Civitate Dei3 vocat «virum feminis viriliter utentem, uxore temperanter, ancilla obtemperanter, nulla intemperanter».
Ex hoc patet, quod haec dispensatio non se extendat ad tempus naturae institutae nec gratiae: quia in natura instituta non erat tempus figurae nec necessitas sterilitatis; similiter in tempore gratiae cessaverunt figurae, et omnes vocantur4 ad Christi culturam, et multiplicatum est genus humanum valde. — Similiter ratione utilitatis non se extendit ante tempus Abrahae, quia ante non multiplicabantur ad cultum Dei, sed ad malum, quia imitatores erant paternorum scelerum; et ideo deleti sunt cum terra5. — Ratione vero honestatis ad illos solos se extendit, qui uxoribus et concubinis temperanter et ad cultum Dei multiplicandum sciebant et volebant uti; aliter eis dispensatio non valebat.
Ista autem dispensatio facta est divina inspiratione in Patriarchis et rege David, quando utrisque de semine facta est repromissio6; et quia isti erant capita et imitandi erant tanquam Sancti; intellexerunt recte, dispensationem hanc ad omnes extendi, qui erant imitatores eorum in castitate; et mos fuit ex hoc introductus, durans usque ad Christi adventum. Sed tunc cessavit, quia cessavit congruitas et necessitas, ut visum est. Unde omnibus, quibus licuit, licuit solum ex dispensatione, quae fuit per inspirationem; et hoc dicitur Extra, de Divortio7, in quadam decretali Innocentii; ubi dicitur, quod «nunquam licuit alicui nisi divina inspiratione».
Ad argumenta:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Deus non facit contra ius naturae; dicendum, quod verum est: contra ius naturae, quod ordinat in ipsum; sed contra ius naturae, quod ordinat ad proximum, potest; non tamen facit contra, sed supra, quia ratio recta sic dictat, hoc non esse faciendum, ut tamen dictet, in eius opposito Deo esse obediendum8.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod una sit plurium; dicendum, quod una sit plurium, nulla esset utilitas, quia unus potest fecundare plures, sed non una a pluribus. Esset etiam damnum, quia defectus tranquillitatis; non enim potest cum pace unus duobus dominis servire9, sicut unus dominus duobus servis imperare; et vir caput est et dominatur mulieri. Deesset etiam bonum Sacramenti, quia una anima non duobus viris, sed Christus multis copulatur animabus; et amplius, esset incertitudo prolis et confusio hereditatis.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus instituit, quod duo etc.; dicendum, quod verum est tempore legis naturae et tempore gratiae. Sed ex causa tempore Legis debuit dispensare; nec facit contra suam institutionem ipse, qui rem instituit, cum pro loco et tempore dispensat.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dispensatio debet esse propter maius bonum; dicendum, quod bonum prolis adeo necessarium est, ut propter ipsum vellet Deus in aliquo detrahi bono fidei et Sacramenti, non tamen omnino, quia tunc aliquibus10 fidem servabant, et ratio significationis ibi manebat.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multiplicatio prolis non est causa: dicendum, quod immo, quia cultus Dei crescebat tunc non per vocationem, sed per successionem, quia illis tantum fuit Lex tradita; et ideo tunc erat opportunum11.
Ad 6. Ad illud quod quaeritur; ad quos se extendebat? dicendum, quod ratione inspirationis tantum ad Patres, sed ratione honestae imitationis et moris derivatum est ad posteros, qui uxoribus utiliter uti sciebant. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod regibus erat prohibitum; dicendum, quod non fuit prohibitum, ne haberent plures, sed ut non haberent plurimas; non dicitur etiam illud simpliciter, sed cum determinatione, quae alliciant animum, et tales erant alienigenae12.
---
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 nature1» 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 men2: 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 confirmation3 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 when4 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 God5 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 176, 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 increase7: therefore, since this was not permitted by nature, it was dispensed with him.
2. Likewise, Jacob had two wives and two concubines8; 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 Kings9, 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 reproved10: therefore it seems that it was dispensed with all.
5. Likewise, the Law supposes it as lawful, Deuteronomy, chapter 2111: 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 2112: 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 Baptism13. 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 barren1: 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 162, 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 God3, 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 called4 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 earth5. — 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 seed6; 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 Divorce7, 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 obeyed8.
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 masters9, 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 some10, 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 opportune11.
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 women12.
---
- 1August., XXVI. contra Faustum, c. 3.Augustine, Against Faustus, [book] XXVI, c. 3.
- 2Codd. G H addunt uxor.Codices G H add uxor.
- 3Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, 5, ubi etiam seq. locus, quem Hieron. explicans dicit: Similiter ait: Adhaerebit uxori suae, non uxoribus (Glossa interlinearis apud Lyranum).Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5, where also [is] the following passage, which Jerome, explaining, says: Likewise he says: He shall cleave to his wife, not to his wives (interlinear Gloss in Lyra).
- 4Plures codd. si tamen et mox plures pro duas. Vat. solvitur pro salvatur et cum ed. 1 aliam pro non tantum.Several codices [read] si tamen and presently plures for duas. The Vatican [ed. reads] solvitur for salvatur, and with ed. 1 aliam for non tantum.
- 5Codd. O bb addunt semper, codd. T U omni tempore.Codices O bb add semper, codices T U [read] omni tempore.
- 6Vers. 17.Verse 17.
- 7Gen. 16, 10. et 17, 20. — Inferius post est permulti codd. et ed. 1 subiungunt ergo.Gen. 16:10 and 17:20. — Below, after est very many codices and ed. 1 subjoin ergo.
- 8Cfr. Gen. 29, 16. seqq.; 30, 1. seqq.; 35, 23. seqq. et Matth. 1, 2.Cf. Gen. 29:16ff.; 30:1ff.; 35:23ff. and Matt. 1:2.
- 9Cap. 3, 14; 5, 13; 11, 27; 15, 16. et 20, 3.Chapter 3:14; 5:13; 11:27; 15:16 and 20:3 [of Second Kings, i.e. 2 Samuel].
- 10Libr. I. Reg. 1, 2.Book I of Kings [1 Samuel], 1:2.
- 11Vers. 15.Verse 15.
- 12Vers. 10. Post ancillam Vulgata addit hanc. Cfr. Gal. 4, 30. — Mox pro liberos cod. aa filios.Verse 10. After ancillam the Vulgate adds hanc. Cf. Gal. 4:30. — Presently, instead of liberos cod. aa [reads] filios.
- 13Libr. I. c. 10. n. 14, c. 15. n. 23. et c. 16. n. 25.Book I, c. 10, n. 14; c. 15, n. 23 and c. 16, n. 25 [of Augustine, On Baptism].
- 1Cfr. Gen. 16, 2; 29, 31; 30, 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Cf. Gen. 16:2; 29:31; 30:1. See here the text of the Master, c. 1.
- 2Vers. 2. seq.: Cumque ille acquiesceret deprecanti, tulit Agar... et dedit eam viro suo uxorem.Verse 2f.: And when he acquiesced to her entreaty, she took Agar... and gave her to her husband as a wife.
- 3Cap. 25.Chapter 25 [of the City of God, book XVI].
- 4Codd. R S T aa bb invitantur.Codices R S T aa bb [read] invitantur.
- 5Vide Gen. 6. et 7. — Superius post ratione utilitatis Vat. perperam omittit non, et pro ante tempus multi codd. et ed. 1 ad tempus.See Gen. 6 and 7. — Above, after ratione utilitatis the Vatican [ed.] wrongly omits non, and instead of ante tempus many codices and ed. 1 [read] ad tempus.
- 6Gen. 12, 2; 17, 16; 18, 18; 28, 3. seq.; Act. 13, 22. seq. et 32.Gen. 12:2; 17:16; 18:18; 28:3f.; Acts 13:22f. and 32.
- 7Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 8. Gaudemus in Domino, ubi dicitur: Nec ulli unquam licuit insimul plures uxores habere, nisi cui fuit divina revelatione concessum.Book IV, title 19, c. 8, Gaudemus in Domino, where it is said: It was never lawful to anyone to have several wives at once, except to him to whom it was granted by divine revelation.
- 8Cfr. I. Sent. d. 47. q. 4.Cf. Sentences I, d. 47, q. 4.
- 9Matth. 6, 24: Nemo potest duobus etc. (Post unus cod. Z addit servus). — Secundus locus est I. Cor. 11, 3: Caput autem mulieris vir. Eph. 5, 23: Vir est caput mulieris. Subinde respicitur I. Tim. 2, 12: Docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum. — Superius post dicendum edd. legunt quod si una esset plurium. Inferius post anima codd. O R S bb addunt in spirituali matrimonio.Matt. 6:24: No one can [serve] two etc. (After unus cod. Z adds servus). — The second passage is 1 Cor. 11:3: But the head of the woman is the man. Eph. 5:23: The man is the head of the woman. Then reference is made to 1 Tim. 2:12: But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man. — Above, after dicendum the editions read quod si una esset plurium. Below, after anima codices O R S bb add in spirituali matrimonio.
- 10Edd. male aliqui.The editions wrongly [read] aliqui.
- 11Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.
- 12Respicitur III. Reg. 11, 1. seq.: Rex autem Salomon adamavit mulieres alienigenas etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.Reference is made to 3 Kings [1 Kings] 11:1f.: But king Solomon loved foreign women etc. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---