Dist. 33, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 33
Quaestio II. Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum contra legem naturae sit, quod unus habeat plures uxores. Et quod sic, ostenditur:
1. Auctoritate, quia Genesis quarto3 dicit Glossa de Lamech, qui habuit duas uxores: «Primus contra morem et naturam adulterium commisit»: ergo etc.
2. Item, ratione videtur: quia secundum dictamen naturae est, quod vir et mulier quantum ad actum illum pares sint4; sed uxor una non potest esse plurium virorum: ergo nec e converso.
3. Item, secundum rectam rationem vir tenetur uxori debitum reddere: ergo cum impossibile sit simul pluribus reddere, non potest se simul pluribus obligare. Sed si plures posset simul habere, simul se pluribus obligaret: ergo etc.
4. Item, quod indictum est homini a sua constitutione spectat ad ius naturale; sed a sua constitutione dictum est5: Relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo in carne una: ergo secundum dictamen naturae est, quod tantum sint duo: ergo una unius, et non plures.
Contra: 1. Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera6: «Quando erat mos habere plures uxores, peccatum non erat»; sed mos vel consuetudo contra naturam non est approbanda nec excusat a culpa: ergo habere plures uxores non est contra naturam.
2. Item, Augustinus7 dicit, quod «contra praeceptum non erat, quia nulla hoc lege erat prohibitum»; sed quod est contra ius naturae est prohibitum in lege naturae: ergo etc.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia «quod est cibus ad salutem individui, hoc est coniugium ad conservationem speciei1»; sed licitum est pluribus cibis uti ad conservationem individui: ergo et plures uxores habere ad conservationem speciei.
4. Item, coniunctio maris et feminae est propter prolis multiplicationem, hoc est secundum dictamen naturae: ergo si mulier sterilis est2, natura dictat, quod possit ex alia generare, cum unusquisque, quantum est de natura, appetat semen et prolem relinquere super terram: ergo non est contra, sed secundum naturam.
Conclusio
Conclusio. Pluribus uti uxoribus est contra ius naturae communiter et proprie sumtum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est supra3, illa distinctione praesupposita, si «ius naturale dicatur quod in Lege et Evangelio scribitur»; sic ius naturale est, quod sit una unius. Erunt, inquit, duo in carne una, tam in veteri quam in novo4. — Si autem ius naturale dicatur quod ratio recta dictat; adhuc verum est, quia adhuc dictat natura, secundum quod rationis rectae est, quod non faciat alii quod sibi non vult fieri; sed vir non vult, quod uxor habeat alium virum: nec ergo debet velle habere aliam uxorem, cum in tali actu, ut supra5 visum est, ad paria iudicentur et tanquam pares conveniant. — Si dicatur ius naturale quod natura impressit animalibus; sic dicendum, quod non omnibus, sed aliquibus animalibus brutis6 impressit; sed tamen in natura est aliquorum animalium irrationalium, et in nostra natura plantavit. — Et hoc patet experimento, eo quod in matrimonio est quidam amor singularis, in quo non communicat alienus; unde naturaliter omnis vir zelat uxorem quantum ad hoc, ut nullum diligat, ut diligit7 ipsum in actu illo; et omnis uxor similiter zelat virum quantum ad hoc: unde stante natura, nunquam fuisset ibi communitas, etiam si cetera essent communia. — Similiter, caritate adveniente, quae facit omnia esse communia, nunquam facit uxorem communem, propter privatum amorem, qui debet esse in matrimonio8, qui etiam est Sacramentum illius amoris, quo Deus zelat animam, ut nolit, aliquem tantum diligi; sic et anima a Deo nullo modo vult propter aliam deseri. Et in hoc patet sapientia Dei, quae se nobis in nobis ostendit, et nobis ipsis ostendit, quid agere debeamus, in creaturis subditis, secundum illud Iob9: Interroga iumenta, et docebunt te; sed mens hominis obfuscata hoc non attendit. — Concedendum igitur, quod uti pluribus uxoribus est contra ius naturae.
Ad argumenta:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod quando mos erat, peccatum non erat; dicendum, quod mos ille erat approbatus non ab hominibus tantum, sed a Deo, ut post10 patebit; et ideo peccatum non erat.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non erat contra praeceptum; dicendum, quod vocat praeceptum expressum exterius per vocem vel scripturam, sicut legem Moysaicam.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de cibo, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia ibi est usus rei inferioris, hic est usus paris, et ideo unius; alioquin superior fit. Praeterea, ibi est mutuus amor, et ideo mutuus zelus, et ideo singularitas11.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ad multiplicationem12 talis actus etc.; dicendum, quod etsi natura dictet, prolem esse multiplicandam, tamen dictat: debite et ordinate, et ita quod nulli fiat iniuria; et ideo magis cessandum esse a generatione prolis, quam iniuriam fieri alicui; et ideo nec uxorem aliam duci. Item, etsi natura dictet quaerendum bonum commodi, non tamen in praeiudicium boni honesti; et honestas consistit in rectitudine iustitiae et observatione fidei, sed bonum commodi est in fecunditate prolis13. Hinc est, quod ad prolem generandam non debet alia uxor adiici, nisi Deus dispenset14.
---
Question II. Whether to have several wives is against the law of nature.
Secondly it is asked whether it is against the law of nature that one man should have several wives. And that it is so is shown:
1. By authority, because on Genesis, chapter 4, the Gloss says of Lamech, who had two wives: «He was the first to commit adultery against custom and against nature»3: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because it is according to the dictate of nature that man and woman should be equal as regards that act4; but one wife cannot belong to several men: therefore neither the reverse.
3. Likewise, according to right reason a man is bound to render the debt to his wife: therefore, since it is impossible to render it to several at the same time, he cannot bind himself to several at the same time. But if he could have several at once, he would bind himself to several at once: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, what is enjoined upon man from his very constitution pertains to natural right; but from his very constitution it was said5: A man shall leave father and mother, and they shall be two in one flesh: therefore it is according to the dictate of nature that there be only two: therefore one wife of one husband, and not several.
On the contrary: 1. Augustine says, and it is had in the text6: «When it was the custom to have several wives, it was not a sin»; but a custom or usage against nature is not to be approved, nor does it excuse from fault: therefore to have several wives is not against nature.
2. Likewise, Augustine7 says that «it was not against a precept, because by no law was this prohibited»; but what is against the right of nature is prohibited in the law of nature: therefore etc.
3. Likewise it seems so by reason: because «what food is for the health of the individual, that marriage is for the conservation of the species1»; but it is lawful to use several foods for the conservation of the individual: therefore also to have several wives for the conservation of the species.
4. Likewise, the joining of male and female is for the multiplication of offspring, which is according to the dictate of nature: therefore if the wife is barren2, nature dictates that he may beget from another, since everyone, so far as pertains to nature, desires to leave seed and offspring upon the earth: therefore it is not against, but according to nature.
Conclusion
Conclusion. To use several wives is against the right of nature, taken commonly and properly.
I respond: It must be said that, as was said above3, that distinction being presupposed: if «natural right be called that which is written in the Law and the Gospel», then it is natural right that there be one wife of one husband. They shall be, he says, two in one flesh, both in the old and in the new [testament]4. — But if natural right be called that which right reason dictates, still it is true, because nature still dictates, in accordance with what belongs to right reason, that one should not do to another what he does not wish done to himself; but a man does not wish his wife to have another man: neither therefore ought he to wish to have another wife, since in such an act, as was seen above5, they are judged equal and come together as equals. — If natural right be called that which nature has impressed upon animals, then it must be said that it impressed it not on all, but on some brute animals6; but nevertheless it is in the nature of some irrational animals, and it planted [it] in our own nature. — And this is evident by experience, from the fact that in marriage there is a certain singular love, in which no stranger shares; whence naturally every man is jealous of his wife in this respect, that she love no one as she loves7 him in that act; and every wife likewise is jealous of her husband in this respect: whence, nature standing [as it is], there would never have been community there, even if other things were common. — Likewise, when charity comes—which makes all things to be common—it never makes a wife common, on account of the private love which ought to be in marriage8, which is also the Sacrament of that love by which God is jealous for the soul, so that He wills not that anyone be loved so much [as Himself]; so too the soul in no way wills to be deserted by God for the sake of another. And in this the wisdom of God is manifest, which shows itself to us in ourselves, and shows to our very selves what we ought to do, in the creatures subject [to us], according to that [word] of Job9: Ask the beasts, and they will teach you; but the mind of man, darkened, does not attend to this. — It must therefore be granted that to use several wives is against the right of nature.
To the arguments:
To 1. To that, then, which is objected—that when it was the custom, it was not a sin—it must be said that that custom was approved not by men only, but by God, as will appear later10; and therefore it was not a sin.
To 2. To that which is objected—that it was not against a precept—it must be said that it calls a precept [something] expressed outwardly by word or writing, as the Mosaic law.
To 3. To that which is objected concerning food, it must be said that it is not similar: because there it is the use of an inferior thing, here it is the use of an equal, and therefore of one; otherwise the superior comes to be. Moreover, there is a mutual love, and therefore a mutual jealousy, and therefore singularity11.
To 4. To that which is objected—that such an act is for multiplication12 etc.—it must be said that although nature dictates that offspring is to be multiplied, yet it dictates: duly and in order, and in such a way that no injury be done to anyone; and therefore one must rather cease from the generation of offspring than that injury be done to anyone; and therefore not even is another wife to be taken. Likewise, although nature dictates that the good of advantage is to be sought, yet not to the prejudice of the honorable good; and the honorable consists in the rectitude of justice and in the observance of faith, whereas the good of advantage is in the fecundity of offspring13. Hence it is that, for the generating of offspring, another wife ought not to be added, unless God dispense14.
---
- 3Vers. 19. — In Glossa, quae est ordinaria, apud Strabum et Lyranum post naturam additur per bigamiam. Idem dicit Glossa interlinearis apud Lyranum.Verse 19. — In the Gloss, which is the ordinary [Gloss], in Strabo and Lyra, after nature is added through bigamy. The interlinear Gloss in Lyra says the same.
- 4Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXII. c. 1. — Mox pro una permulti codd. et ed. 1 illa, et pro virorum cod. E uxor.Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXXII, c. 1. — Presently, instead of una very many codices and ed. 1 [read] illa, and instead of virorum cod. E [reads] uxor.
- 5Gen. 2, 24: Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae [quod etiam cod. bb addit], et erunt etc. — Superius pro indictum codd. O U inditum, cod. M indicatum, et pro constitutione cod. F institutione, cod. U conditione.Gen. 2:24: A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife [which cod. bb also adds], and they shall be etc. — Above, instead of indictum codd. O U [read] inditum, cod. M indicatum, and instead of constitutione cod. F [reads] institutione, cod. U conditione.
- 6Hic c. 1. sumtum ex XXII. contra Faustum, c. 47.Here [in the text], c. 1; taken from Against Faustus, [book] XXII, c. 47.
- 7Loc. in praeced. nota allegato. Cfr. XVI. de Civ. Dei, c. 38. n. 3.The passage cited in the preceding note. Cf. [book] XVI of the City of God, c. 38, n. 3.
- 1Secundum August., de Bono coniugali, c. 16. n. 18. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. in fine.According to Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, c. 16, n. 18. See here the text of the Master, c. 1, at the end.
- 2Cod. K (1 a secunda manu) ergo si vir uxorem habeat sterilem; pro est, quod aliqui codd. omittunt, edd. cum pluribus codd. ex.Cod. K (1, by a second hand) [reads] ergo si vir uxorem habeat sterilem; instead of est, which some codices omit, the editions with several codices [read] ex.
- 3Quaest. praeced., in qua triplex distinctio iuris naturalis explicata est.The preceding question, in which the threefold distinction of natural right was explained.
- 4Supple: testamento. Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, 5.Supply: testament. Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5.
- 5Quaest. praeced. — Superius per verba non faciat alii etc. respicitur Tob. 4, 16; Matth. 7, 12. et Luc. 6, 31. — Pro nec ergo plures codd. vel cum ed. 1 nec ipse, vel nec, vel ita nec, Vat. igitur nec ipse.The preceding question. — Above, by the words let him not do to another etc., reference is made to Tob. 4:16; Matt. 7:12 and Luke 6:31. — Instead of nec ergo plures the codices, or with ed. 1, [read] nec ipse, or nec, or thus nec; the Vatican [ed.] igitur nec ipse.
- 6Codd. R S T bb supplent hoc natura.Codices R S T bb supply hoc natura.
- 7Pro ut diligit cod. bb (L a secunda manu) nisi, edd. praeter.Instead of ut diligit cod. bb (L by a second hand) [reads] nisi, the editions praeter.
- 8Ex codd. T bb supplevimus in matrimonio. Immediate post iidem codd. substituunt quoniam pro qui, codd. I K quia. Subinde pro aliquem tantum diligi edd. eam aliquem alium tantum diligere. Pro sic et plures codd. sed, cod. L et, ac pro aliam cod. R alium, cod. S alia.From codices T bb we have supplied in matrimonio. Immediately after, the same codices substitute quoniam for qui; codices I K [read] quia. Then, instead of aliquem tantum diligi the editions [read] eam aliquem alium tantum diligere. Instead of sic et several codices [read] sed, cod. L et, and instead of aliam cod. R [reads] alium, cod. S alia.
- 9Cap. 12, 7. — Mox pro hominis edd. cum pluribus codd. hominum, cod. bb (E a secunda manu) in hominibus. Verbo attendit cod. R praemittit in omnibus.Chapter 12:7. — Presently, instead of hominis the editions with several codices [read] hominum, cod. bb (E by a second hand) in hominibus. Before the word attendit cod. R prefixes in omnibus.
- 10Quaest. seq. — Post a Deo codd. R S T addunt inspiratus.The following question. — After a Deo codices R S T add inspiratus.
- 11Exod. 34, 14: Noli adorare Deum alienum. Dominus zelotes nomen eius, Deus est aemulator.Exod. 34:14: You shall not worship a foreign god. The Lord, jealous is his name, God is a jealous one.
- 12Codd. R S T aa supplent prolis. Inferius pro fieri edd. inferre.Codices R S T aa supply prolis. Below, instead of fieri the editions [read] inferre.
- 13Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro adiici codd. A E adduci.Cf. above, d. 31, a. 1, q. 1. — Presently, instead of adiici codices A E [read] adduci.
- 14Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question. ---