The history · 401 · Augustine · Hippo Regius

Forbidden by no law

Augustine writes that the patriarchs' plural marriages broke no law in their setting: not nature, custom, or command. He nevertheless concludes that Christians in his own day should not follow the practice, reasoning from changed conditions, custom, and the church's symbolic fulfillment.

Read the document

  • …quod neque contra naturam committitur, quia non lasciuiendi, sed gignendi causa illis feminis utebantur; neque contra morem, quia illis temporibus ea factitabantur; neque contra praeceptum, quia nulla lege prohibebantur.

    “…that is no sin, which is committed neither against nature, in that they used those women not for wantonness, but for the begetting of children: nor against custom, forasmuch as such things were usually done at those times: nor against command, forasmuch as they were forbidden by no law.”

    Augustine, De Bono Coniugali (On the Good of Marriage) · §33 (cited as 25.33 in chapter.paragraph form); Latin collated against the CSEL-based text, page reference in CSEL 41 still to be confirmed

    The clause reads quia nulla lege prohibebantur, “because they were forbidden by no law.” The tag nulla lege prohibente, by which this passage is often known, is a later shorthand: that wording does not occur anywhere in the work. The English above is the standard NPNF translation.

  • …cum et plures habere uni uiro licebat…

    “Clearly with the good will of the wife to take another woman, that from her may be born sons common to both, by the sexual intercourse and seed of the one, but by the right and power of the other, was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bare children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.”

    Augustine, De Bono Coniugali · §17 (cited as 15.17 in chapter.paragraph form)

    Both halves of Augustine's position stand in this one paragraph: it was lawful for the fathers, and he holds that it is not lawful in his own day. Quoting either half alone misrepresents him.

  • “…we read that many females served one husband, when the social state of that nation allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded to it: for neither is it contrary to the nature of marriage.”

    Augustine, De Bono Coniugali · §20 (NPNF)

    Augustine stating that plurality does not contradict the nature of marriage itself.

Put it in context

Augustine is not campaigning for the practice. He holds that his own age should keep its custom of one wife, and elsewhere he distinguishes the patriarchs' conditions from the customs and laws of his own society. Both halves belong to his position, and quoting only the first would misrepresent him. His conclusion for Christians is a theological inference from changed conditions, custom, and symbolism rather than a universal prohibition he quotes from one verse.

The important surprise is the distinction Augustine makes. He says the patriarchs were forbidden by no law and that plurality was not contrary to the nature of marriage under the conditions he describes, while still holding that Christians in his own society should keep one-wife custom.

What is disputed

Augustine says both that the patriarchs were forbidden by no law and that his own society did not permit the same practice. The dispute often depends on which half receives more attention. The Latin has been collated against the work; the exact page reference in the printed CSEL volume is still being confirmed.

How I read this record

This is my conclusion from the source, not part of the quotation.

Augustine explicitly defends the lawfulness of the patriarchs' marriages while defending one-wife practice for his own age. His reasoning shows that those two claims could coexist in a major Western theologian.

Open the sources

Back to the full history