Chapter IV.—Waiving Allusion to the Paraclete, Tertullian Comes to the Consideration of the Ancient Scriptures, and Their Testimony on the Subject in Hand.

Waiving, now, the mention of the Paraclete, as of some authority of our own, evolve we the common instruments of the primitive Scriptures.  This very thing is demonstrable by us:  that the rule of monogamy is neither novel nor strange, nay rather, is both ancient, and proper to Christians; so that you may be sensible that the Paraclete is rather its restitutor than institutor.  As for what pertains to antiquity, what more ancient formal type can be brought forward, than the very original fount of the human race?  One female did God fashion for the male, culling one rib of his, and (of course) (one) out of a plurality.  But, moreover, in the introductory speech which preceded the work itself, He said, “It is not good for the man that he be alone; let us make an help-meet for him.”  For He would have said “helpers” if He had destined him to have more wives (than one).  He added, too, a law concerning the future; if, that is, (the words) “And two shall be (made) into one flesh”—not three, nor more; else they would be no more “two” if (there were) more—were prophetically uttered.  The law stood (firm).  In short, the unity of marriage lasted to the very end in the case of the authors of our race; not because there were no other women, but because the reason why there were none was that the first-fruits of the race might not be contaminated by a double marriage.  Otherwise, had God (so) willed, there could withal have been (others); at all events, he might have taken from the abundance of his own daughters—having no less an Eve (taken) out of his own bones and flesh—if piety had allowed it to be done.  But where the first crime (is found) homicide, inaugurated in fratricide—no crime was so worthy of the second place as a double marriage.  For it makes no difference whether a man have had two wives singly, or whether individuals (taken) at the same time have made two.  The number of (the individuals) conjoined and separate is the same.  Still, God’s institution, after once for all suffering violence through Lamech, remained firm to the very end of that race.  Second Lamech there arose none, in the way of being husband to two wives.  What Scripture does not note, it denies.  Other iniquities provoke the deluge:  (iniquities) once for all avenged, whatever was their nature; not, however, “seventy-seven times,”21    Septuagies septies.  See Gen. iv. 19–24. which (is the vengeance which) double marriages have deserved.

But again:  the reformation of the second human race is traced from monogamy as its mother.  Once more, “two (joined) into one flesh” undertake (the duty of) “growing and multiplying,”—Noah, (namely), and his wife, and their sons, in single marriage.22    Comp. Gen. vii. 7 with 1 Pet. iii. 20ad fin.  Even in the very animals monogamy is recognised, for fear that even beasts should be born of adultery.  “Out of all beasts,” said (God),23    Comp. Gen. vi. 19, 20. “out of all flesh, two shalt thou lead into the ark, that they may live with thee, male and female:  they shall be (taken) from all flying animals according to (their) kind, and from all creepers of the earth according to their kind; two out of all shall enter unto thee, male and female.”  In the same formula, too, He orders sets of sevens, made up of pairs, to be gathered to him, consisting of male and female—one male and one female.24    See Gen. vii. 3.  What more shall I say?  Even unclean birds were not allowed to enter with two females each.

CAPUT IV.

Secedat nunc mentio Paracleti, ut nostri alicujus auctoris. Evolvamus communia instrumenta scripturarum pristinarum. Hoc ipsum demonstratur a nobis, neque novam, neque extraneam esse monogamiae disciplinam, 0934B imo et antiquam, et propriam Christianorum; ut Paracletum restitutorem potius sentias ejus, quam institutorem. Quod pertineat ad antiquitatem, quae potest antiquior forma proferri, quam ipse sensus generis humani? Unam foeminam masculo Deus finxit, una costa ejus decerpta, et utique ex pluribus. Sed et in praefatione ipsius operis: Non est, inquit, bonum homini solum eum esse; faciamus adjutorium illi. Adjutores enim dixisset, si pluribus eum uxoribus destinasset. Adjecit et legem de futuro. Siquidem prophetice dictum est: Et erunt duo in carnem unam (Gen. II, 18, 24), non tres, neque plures. Caeterum, jam non duo, si plures. Stetit lex. Denique, perseveravit unio conjugii in auctoribus generis ad finem usque; non 0934C quia non erant foeminae aliae, sed quia ideo non erant, ne primitiae generis duplici matrimonio contaminarentur. Alioquin, si Deus voluisset, esse potuissent: certe de filiarum suarum numerositate sumpsisset, non minus ex ossibus et ex carne sua habens Evam, si hoc pie fieret. At ubi primum scelus, homicidium, in fratricidio dedicatum, tam dignum secundo loco scelus non fuit, quam duae nuptiae. Neque enim refert duas quis uxores singulas habuerit, an pariter singulae duas fecerint. Idem numerus conjunctorum et separatorum. Semel tamen vim passa institutio Dei per Lamech, constitit postea in finem usque gentis illius. Secundus Lamech nullus existit, quomodo duabus maritatus. Negat Scriptura quod non notat. Aliae diluvium iniquitates provocaverunt, semel defensae 0934D qualescumque fuerunt; non tamen septuagies septies, quod duo matrimonia meruerunt. Sed et reformatio secundi generis humani monogamia matre 0935A censetur. Iterum duo in unicis nuptiis. Etiam in ipsis animalibus monogamia recognoscitur, ne vel bestiae de moechia nascerentur. Ex omnibus, inquit, bestiis, ex omni carne, duo induces in arcam, ut vivant tecum masculus et foemina. Erunt de animalibus volatilibus secundum genus, et de omnibus serpentibus terrae, secundum genus ipsorum, duo ex omnibus introibunt ad te masculus et foemina. Eadem forma et septena ex binis adlegi mandat ex masculo et foemina, uno et una. Quod amplius dicam? Immundis quoque alitibus cum binis foeminis introire non licuit.