Chapter 10 [IX.]—Why It Was Sometimes Permitted that a Man Should Have Several Wives, Yet No Woman Was Ever Allowed to Have More Than One Husband. Nature Prefers Singleness in Her Dominations.
Now, if to the God of our fathers, who is likewise our God, such a plurality of wives had not been displeasing for the purpose that lust might have a fuller range of indulgence; then, on such a supposition, the holy women also ought each to have rendered service to several husbands. But if any woman had so acted, what feeling but that of a disgraceful concupiscence could impel her to have more husbands, seeing that by such licence she could not have more children? That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more honourable precedent. In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives,—many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one. Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, “The head of the woman is the man;”32 1 Cor. xi. 3. and, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.”33 Col. iii. 18. So also the Apostle Peter writes: “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”34 1 Pet. iii. 6. Now, although the fact of the matter is, that while nature loves singleness in her dominations, but we may see plurality existing more readily in the subordinate portion of our race; yet for all that, it was at no time lawful for one man to have a plurality of wives, except for the purpose of a greater number of children springing from him. Wherefore, if one woman cohabits with several men, inasmuch as no increase of offspring accrues to her therefrom, but only a more frequent gratification of lust, she cannot possibly be a wife, but only a harlot.
CAPUT IX.
10. Cur viro plures aliquando uxores, nunquam autem feminae plures viros habere permissum. Natura principiorum singularitatem amat. Nam si Deo patrum nostrorum, qui etiam noster est, illa numerositas conjugum propterea non displicuisset, ut copiosius se libido jactaret, ita etiam sanctae feminae servissent pluribus singulae: quod si aliqua faceret, quid eam nisi concupiscentiae turpitudo compelleret, ut plures viros haberet, quando ista licentia plures filios non haberet? Verumtamen magis pertinere ad nuptiarum bonum, non unum et multas, sed unum et unam, satis indicat ipsa prima divinitus facta conjugum copula, ut inde connubia sumerent initium, ubi honestius attenderetur exemplum. Progrediente autem genere humano, junctae sunt quibusdam bonis viris bonae feminae, singulis plures. Unde apparet et illud dignitatis magis appetisse modestiam, et hoc fecunditatis permisisse naturam. Nam et principatus magis naturaliter unius in multos, quam in unum potest esse multorum. Nec dubitari potest naturali ordine viros potius feminis, quam viris feminas principari. Quod servans Apostolus ait, Caput mulieris vir (I Cor. XI, 3); et, Mulieres, subditae estote viris vestris (Coloss. III, 18): et apostolus Petrus, Quomodo Sara, inquit, obsequebatur Abrahae, dominum illum vocans (I Petr. III, 6). Quod licet ita sese habeat, ut natura principiorum amet singularitatem, facilius autem pluralitatem videamus in subditis: tamen plures feminae uni viro nunquam licite jungerentur, nisi ex hoc plures filii nascerentur. Unde si una concumbat cum pluribus, quia non est ei hinc multiplicatio prolis, sed frequentatio libidinis, conjux non potest esse, sed meretrix.