CHAP. X. The seventh Precept; Thou shalt not commit adultery: and first of Matrimony, and having of concubines.Matrimony

CHAP. X. The seventh Precept; Thou shalt not commit adultery: and first of Matrimony, and having of concubines.Matrimony

CHAP. X. The seventh Precept; Thou shalt not commit adultery: and first of Matrimony, and having of concubines.

M atrimony, wedlock, marriages, and wedding, do signify all one thing, and matrimony (as it is in the first book of the institutes of Justinian, when mention is made of the power of the father, and in the Digests, De ritu nuptiarum) is defined to be a conjunction of man and woman, an inseparable conversation of life, and a communicating of the law of God and man. But this definition must be made perfect by the holy scriptures. Wherefore we must say, that this conjunction of man and woman, was instituted by God, for the increasing of children, for the taking away of whoredom, and that thereby the life of man might have helps and commodities. In this definition, no doubt but the conjunction of man and woman are instead of the matter. Unto the form appertaineth the inseparable conversation of life; seeing with this mind and purpose man and wife must marry together. For although that copulation be separated by adultery; yet, when the matrimony is contract, both man and wife ought to have this in their mind: that being once joined, they must abide and live together. This also belongeth unto the form, that between them two there be a

communicating of the law of God, and of the law of man; since it behooveth that they should he both of one religion, and that they communicate human things one with another. For the wife passeth into the family of her husband, and is accounted one flesh with her husband. Yea and the goods of both the wedded persons, in all respects, be made common to the one and the other. Howbeit, the efficient cause of this ordinance was

God himself, even from the beginning, who made a helper unto Adam. And the end (as we have said) is the procreation of children: for God said;

Increase and multiply. But as touching the other end; namely, for the avoiding of whoredom, Paul hath very well and plainly written, in the first to the Corinthians.

If thou wilt demand, whether bonds or writings are required for contracting of matrimony, we may answer, They be not required: because the consent of either parties is sufficient, as may be perceived in the Authentiks, and in the Code, where it is entreated of marriages. But that, which Jerome writeth unto Oceanus, that thereby a wife is discerned from a concubine; because a wife must have bonds, and a dowry (which concubines had not) this I say is not universally to be received; for his saying is to be extended unto that wife, which before was a concubine. As touching her it was needful to have bonds, that she might no more be counted a concubine, and that the children, which she already had, or afterward should have, might be legitimate. But a dowry is not required of necessity; because (as it is a common saying) a dowry hath not place without matrimony: but matrimony may consist without a dowry. For a dowry is given for the easier sustaining of the burden of matrimony. The canons have added, and that profitably, that matrimonies should not be contracted privily. For if the assent of the man and wife be secret, and

without witnesses, judges can pronounce nothing of such a matrimony contracted. Wherefore, if their wills should be changed, and after those secret matrimonies, they should contract solemn and public marriages; the first marriages give place unto them, and the conscience is kept both doubtful, and also wounded.

2. But to speak of having of concubines, two things are to be considered; first, what the Roman laws ordained concerning the same; secondly, in what sort it was used among the Hebrews, or what is to be understood, when we read that the fathers had concubines. As concerning the first, the having of concubines was by the civil law a certain kind of matrimony: for a concubine was not a harlot prostituted unto many men; nor yet a harlot, which was kept together with a lawful wife. And how much she differeth from a wife, it shall appear by the definition of a concubine. For a concubine is she, that hath the use of marriage with one that liveth sole. But for that she is not inseparable (insomuch as they that are so joined may easily be separated) therefore a concubine differeth far from a very wife.

Moreover, the rites of the law are not communicated with her: for a concubine passeth not into the family of him, with whom she is conversant; yea and their goods and faculties are not common together. Neither are the children, born of that conjunction, counted lawful and just heirs; unless they be made legitimate by the benefit of the prince. Howbeit, it is by the Roman law forbidden that a man should have many concubines at once. And it is prohibited to have a concubine, together with a wife. Moreover, by the Roman laws, such cannot be counted as concubines, with whom rape may be committed; namely, a free born virgins; and a widow under 25 years of age. For if a man have carnal company with them, either it shall be matrimony, or else judged whoredom. Yet nevertheless, a widow may be a

concubine, if before witnesses it be declared, that she is taken, not for a wife, but for a concubine. And lastly, there can be no concubine, which may not become a wife: although not in that place where she dwelleth, yet at the leastwise in another place. Which I therefore say: because by the Roman law, it was not lawful for the president to marry a wife of that province where he governed: which nevertheless he might have as a concubine.

And if thou wilt demand, whether the Roman law allowed concubines? I will answer, that they did absolutely allow of them, because they did not condemn the having of concubines, as a thing unlawful; so that it were used in such sort as I have said. Yet indirectly it reproveth that conjunction, when as it suffereth not the children born of concubines, to be lawful and just heirs, unless she at the length of a concubine should become his wife; or unless it be by the authority of the prince. Howbeit, we must understand, that the children of a concubine were admitted unto a certain small portion of inheritance; but yet, not to a like and equal portion with the legitimate: yea and the children born of a concubine, were not in the jurisdiction of the father. But when of a concubine she was made a wife, then it was necessary, that there should be tables of matrimony. If we will retain the Roman law, a handmaiden cannot be made a concubine; seeing by that law a handmaiden could not be made a wife. For the conjunction of a free man with a handmaiden, the Roman laws called Contubernium, a kind of fellowship: neither did they account it for a just matrimony. Howbeit, by handmaidens the Romans understood not hired servants, but such as they had bought.

Which I therefore speak, because our hired handmaidens be free persons: so as it is lawful to contract just matrimony with them.

3. But now let us consider the law of the Hebrews, and what is to be thought of the concubines of the fathers. In very deed they were wives,

although oftentimes they were handmaidens: as Agar, Bala, Zilpa, and the concubines of Gideon. In the plea of court, and as touching the civil affairs of the places, in the which those fathers dwelt, it seemeth that free men might not enter matrimony with them: and therefore perhaps in the holy scriptures they were called concubines. But yet before God, that is, by the law of matrimony instituted by him, they were wives. Wherefore in the book of Genesis, Agar, which is called a concubine, is called a wife also. So then there were two differences between the Hebrew laws, and the Roman laws; because with them, the having of concubines was no matrimony, but with the Jews it was matrimony before God: although perhaps in the court of plea, and in civil reason, because of the servile condition of the woman, she was not acknowledged for a wife. Further, herein they differ; because the Jews had handmaidens to their concubines: and the same was not lawful to the Romans, if we follow that law, that she should be a concubine, which may be made a wife; seeing the Roman laws counted not that for matrimony, which was contracted with a handmaiden.

Nevertheless, this civil law was not in Jerome's time retained in the empire of Rome; either because the ecclesiastical laws had mitigated it, or else for some other cause. For in an epistle unto Oceanus, he speaketh of certain, which had their handmaidens instead of wives, and forbear the name of a wife, because they would avoid burdens and charges: who notwithstanding, if they became rich, made their handmaidens wives. But we must further consider, that where concubines seem to be allowed and permitted in the decrees, the same should be understood of those, which are in very deed wives: although by the Roman laws, and in place of pleading, they were counted concubines; because that woman was not solemnly married, notwithstanding that there was between them a mutual consent of

matrimony. This, which I have alleged, is read in the 34th distinction, in the chapter Is qui & Christiano. Whereof the first is the decree of the Council of Toledo: the other is the testimony of Isidorus, in his book De distantia noui & veteris testamenti. But when in the decrees there is mention made of concubines, which in very deed are not wives; they are generally prohibited: and that is, when either party will not always dwell together, nor yet acknowledge one another as man and wife.

Of Polygamy, or the having of more wives than one.

4. Here have I matter somewhat hard to be explained touching polygamy.

This place cometh oftentimes to hand in the holy scriptures; therefore it shall be very well once to understand what we are to judge of the same. I undoubtedly will declare (as in a matter obscure) what may seem good unto me; not prescribing anything in the meantime to any man, that can allege any better. Polygamy is two manner of ways to be considered of. The first is, that when the first wife is dead, a second or a third is married: as touching this, because there is at this day no doubt, I will say nothing. The other is, when two, or more wives be kept in matrimony. But whether it be lawful for one woman to have two husbands at once, I think it needless to inquire: for certain it is, that it was never lawful by any good laws. This matter may be considered, either simply and absolutely, or else according to the nature of the time and place. First therefore we will inquire, whether polygamy may be simply and absolutely proved. Secondly, by what right the same was used among the fathers in the old law of Moses. Lastly, whether the same liberty may be also transferred unto us.

5. As concerning the first, there seem to be arguments strong enough for the proof of either part. First I will bring forth their arguments, which would have polygamy to be lawful. Secondly, I will show what may be said on the

other part. After that, I will confute the former arguments. [ 1] First therefore they say, that they have examples, not of the common sort of men, but of the most holy men, Abraham, Jacob, Helcana, and David: them (say they) we follow in other things; and why should it not be lawful in this matter also? [ 2] Further, if they sinned herein, it is not likely that God would have dissembled that sin: for he sent Nathan unto David, to reprehend him of adultery; and Gad, that should blame him for numbering the people. And other offenses of the people were ever reproved by the prophets. [ 3] Moreover it is not read, that the fathers did repent for such kind of polygamy: wherefore, if it were a sin, they died without repentance.

[ 4] Besides this, when Nathan reproved David, he thus used his speech to him, under the person of God; I have anointed thee king, and given thee the house of thy lord, and the wives of thy lord, into thy bosom. He meant Egla and Rispha, the wives of Saul; and more were promised him, if these might not seem sufficient. [ 5] Besides this, when God in Exodus gave express warning of a goring ox, of a tooth smitten out, and of every small matter, he never forbad polygamy; nay contrariwise, by supposition it may be perceived, that he did permit polygamy. For in the 21st chapter of Deut. he made this law; If any man have two wives, the one that he loveth, the other that he hateth, let him not prefer the son of the beloved, before the son of her that he hateth. Howbeit, this place proveth not greatly; for it might be, that the one wife was divorced.

[ 6] Furthermore, if a man die without children, God commandeth, that the brother of him should marry his wife: neither is there any exception added; namely, that unless the same brother have his own wife before.

Wherefore, God not only permitteth, but also commandeth, that there should be polygamy. [ 7] If polygamy were permitted, so often

divorcements would not be used: for husbands do therefore refuse their first wives, because they may marry others. [ 8] Also, the fruitfulness, which is chiefly regarded in matrimony, would be greater by many wives, than by one. And by this reason the Turks at this day do defend polygamy; because they have a singular respect unto propagation and issue of children. [ 9]

Again, what account shall we make of those ancient patriarchs, unto whom the Jews have always attributed so much? Surely, unless we accept of polygamy, they were begotten either in whoredom, or in adultery; since lawful matrimony it cannot appear to be. And by that means should the fathers and authors of the stock and name of the Jews be bastards. [ 10]

Where shall then become that nobility so often boasted of? For only Rachel was the lawful wife of Jacob; and of her only two were brought forth,

Joseph and Benjamin. And of Joseph were Ephraim and Manasseh born.

For indeed Lea was a wife, but yet a supposed wife; that is, a concubine: or rather a harlot than a wife. Wherefore, all the other patriarchs were bastards.

[ 11] Besides this, Valentinian the elder, a godly emperor, and a Christian, had two wives together, as Socrates affirmeth in his fourth book. For when as Severa his wife had very much commended unto him the favor and beauty of the young maid Justina, whom she had in her train: the emperor therewith inflamed, was wholly determined to take her to wife. Yet did he not put away Severa from him, seeing of her he begat Gratianus, which afterward did reign. [ 12] Howbeit, none of the fathers, which lived in that time (although they were frank of speech, and excellent men) reprehend him for so doing. Yea, and of this second matrimony was Valentinian the second born; and Galla, who afterward married Theodosius the emperor. [

13] And this also is affirmed by some, touching Charles the great; although others write, that he put away the daughter of Desiderius, king of the

Lombards, without publication of the cause; and that after the same he took to wife a maiden of Suevia a damsel of a noble house. Howsoever the matter be, yet all men grant, that he, besides his wives, had four concubines.

[ 14] Chrysostom upon that place of Paul (The husband of one wife) saith, that Paul added this for their sakes, which came from Judaism unto Christ.

For to them it was lawful to have many wives. Yet (saith he) Paul gave warning that a bishop should not be chosen from among the number of such. And Jerome likewise followed the same opinion. Wherefore, in those days, they that had more wives than one, were suffered among the Christians.

[ 15] And at this day, if a Turk or a Jew should come unto Christ with his two wives, what should be done as touching them? To pluck either the one or the other away, against her will, were cruelty. But should we permit them both? [ 16] Moreover, seeing barrenness is a curse of God: if a man cannot by his first wife have issue, shall he so remain cursed, or not rather marry another? [ 17] Augustine, in his 22nd book against Faustus the Manichei, when as he dealt in this matter, he so divided sin, as he said one is against nature, another against custom, and another against law. He saith that polygamy is not against nature, for it is a furtherance unto fruitfulness; neither against custom, because it was now openly received; neither against the law, seeing there was no caution made by the laws concerning the same: wherefor he concludeth, that polygamy was lawful. [ 18] The law also of marrying another wife was granted, if any man's wife became a leper. [ 19]

Likewise, there is license granted unto those wives, whose husbands are wandered into far countries, or be fled, touching whom it cannot be known or heard, either by letters, or yet by messengers, for a certain space of time what was become of them. And yet the bond of matrimony rested in both:

for if the first husband that was far absent return home, he is compelled to take his own wife, although she be married to another. And after this sort polygamy is permitted. Howbeit, this doth not much make for the matter; seeing we speak here of those, which use two wives both together.

[ 20] Furthermore, if a woman for any cause shall be refused by her husband, the bond of matrimony remaineth undissolved: but she cannot return to her husband, from whom she is compelled to depart; for she is now become profane unto him, yet may she be married to another. In this sort a wife may have two husbands. Men are wont to refer the original of polygamy unto Lamech: but touching him, whatsoever others do think,

Chrysostom saith, he was a good man and a godly. [ 21] It seemeth also to agree with reason, that whosoever will, may yield as concerning his right.

Why then should not this be lawful in matrimony, if the wife be willing to permit it unto her husband, seeing by that means there is no injury done unto any? For so Sara permitted Agar unto Abraham: and not only she took not that fact of her husband in ill part, but also she did of her own accord provoke him thereunto. Also Caietane upon Genesis saith; [ 22] Let the godly reader consider, that in express words there is no law written as touching polygamy.

6. But on the contrary part, to speak plainly of the thing itself, I say, that polygamy is not lawful. And to prove this, I will reason first from the very institution of matrimony. [ 1] For if we will know the form or reason of anything, we must have recourse unto the beginnings. God at the very beginning created not three or four; but two, and by the mouth of Adam himself pronounced the law of marriage; This is now bone of my bones, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh; that is, They shall be so united together,

as they may be one flesh. If we perceive anything hath happened [otherwise] in matrimony, the same must be revoked to this original form.

But if thou wilt say, that the latter laws (as the lawyers term it) do over-rule the former: I answer, that if any things were brought in, or usurped afterward, the same be human inventions; and that the first institution is the law of God. And if thou wilt likewise contend about the time, the same is also in time the latter: for Christ, in the 19th of Matthew, and in the tenth of Mark, called home the same as it were by a kind of recovery; Knowe ye not (saith he) that he, who from the beginning made them, said unto them: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh? Whom God therefore hath joined together, let not man separate. By these words the former law of God is repeated, and newly established.

[ 2] And if so be that Christ would not suffer, that the first wife, being put away, another should be married; how less credible is it, that he would suffer any man to have many wives at one time? Nay rather, he speaketh more sharply, that He, which marrieth another, committeth adultery. Neither is the matter, which some here object, of any great force, that Mark saith;

He committeth adultery against her: as though he were not an absolute adulterer, but only that he doth injury to his first wife. [ 3] Yes truly, he committeth double sin; first, because he is an adulterer; secondly, for that he doth injury to his wife. Jerome in many places doth ponder these words;

They shall be two in one flesh. Against Jovinian he saith; It is written, In one flesh, not in two or three. And he addeth, that Lamech was a naughty man, which divided one rib into two: but (saith he) he suffered the punishment of his naughtiness in the flood. The same thing he saith in an epistle unto Salvina. Although I must needs grant this, that these reasons

prove not Jerome's purpose: for unto Salvina and Geruntia, he inveigheth against second marriages. Into the which error Tertullian also fell, when as he erred with the Montanists. Nevertheless, these reasons do very well serve us in this place.

But Jerome addeth; And he shall cleave unto his wife: Not, unto wives (saith he.) I verily, when I ponder with myself these words, In one flesh, I perceive a great emphasis or force in them. For One flesh, is either by colligation, as when all the members be knit one with another, or else by continuation. Both the ways make, that all the parts of the body do serve one another. So the hand doth his endeavor unto the mouth, the mouth unto the belly, the belly unto the whole body: as it is more at large described by Galen, De usu partium. Such kind of flesh is not possible to be communicated, so as it cannot pass from one living creature to another living creature. We see therefore, that by the force of these words, both adultery, and polygamy are taken away. But thou wilt object; Whie then in a divorce, by reason of adultery, is it permitted to have another marriage? I answer: for that the cause of the unity is taken away, and that is the fastening together. Wherefore it is said; And he shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. But he which committeth adultery, cleaveth not unto his wife; and so he is not one flesh with her. The very same is to be judged, if a faithful wife, for her faith sake, be cast off, her husband being an infidel: for there also is their cleaving together taken away; that is to wit, the cause of unity. Wherefore Paul saith; The Lord hath not called us to bondage. Neither must it be any let unto us, that the name of Two, is not expressed in Genesis: it is sufficient, that Christ hath added that word. And the same must be fully supplied in Genesis, since when those things were spoken, there were only two; Adam and Eve.

But here is a great doubt put: for if that reason, concerning unity of flesh, should be of force, it will also be of force in fornication and adultery; so as it should not be lawful for a lewd man to be plucked from her, with whom he hath committed fornication. In so much as Paul, when he disputed against fornication, saith; Shall I take the member of Christ, and make it the member of a harlot? For it is written (saith he) They shall be two in one flesh. Now is that reason either firm, or not firm: if it be firm, it shall also be of force in fornication: if it be not of force, neither shall it be firm in matrimony. Some answer, that Paul saith, that indeed the flesh of them, which commit fornication together, is all one; yet not perpetually, but for a time only. Howbeit this is nothing: for Paul citeth the same place out of Genesis. Neither doth he speak of one hour, or another, but absolutely.

It seemeth that a better answer may be made on this wise; that so far as belongeth to the nature of the thing itself, the flesh is altogether one: but seeing that whoremongers come not together according to the Lord's institution, that conjunction is not firm, but may be dissolved. Indeed they are made one and the same flesh, as concerning the fact (as they use to say;) howbeit, by stealth, not lawfully. But in matrimony both are good: as well the conjunction, as the prescript of the Lord. That did Paul lay hold of, because he saw it made to the purpose: for this hath whoredom common with matrimony. Which hereby appeareth, for that through such a conversation with harlots, there ariseth an affinity: so as it may not be lawful afterward to contract matrimony with the parents, or children, or brethren of such a one, as thou hast before unlawfully kept company with.

This is evident by the scriptures: for when Absalom had kept unlawful company with the wives of his father; David, when he was afterward restored, would not receive them unto him, because he did perceive, that by

reason of that ill company, there was now some affinity contracted.

Howbeit, no law is by that means procured, whereby the whoremonger may compel the harlot to remain with him.

7. [ 4] Paul unto the Corinthians writeth very well of this matter. For first he saith; Let every man, for avoiding fornication, have his own wife; and every woman have her own husband. But, her own, is contrary unto Him that is common to another. Again, if the husband have many wives, the wife of necessity must have a husband common to others, and not proper to herself. [ 5] The Logicians have very well defined that to be proper, which always and only agreeth unto one alone. Paul addeth; I would not have you to defraud one another. But in polygamy, one or other must of necessity be defrauded: for the husband cannot keep company with them all at once.

Wherefore Jacob was constrained so to decide the matter, as he by turns was sometime with Rachel, and sometime with Lea: seeing hereof there arise perpetual contentions and brawls betwixt women. For we see no living creature that is so void of courage, but both in feeding and propagation, would be free from impediment: and had rather fight, than to be kept from these things.

And in the state of polygamy, although women come not to the field, yet they be at war together, sometime with chiding and brawling, and oftentimes with their fists and nails. [ 6] He that marrieth a wife, giveth his body unto his wife: how can he then deliver the same afterward to another?

It is a great injustice, when one will not abide by his promise. Nevertheless, thou wilt say; He delivereth his body indeed, yet not altogether. I hear thee: but why then will he have his wife to give her body altogether unto him? In contracts, consideration must be had to both alike. [ 7] Besides this, the principal point of matrimony is friendship; and friendship doth chiefly

consist in justice: if justice halt, matrimony must needs be lame. Paul addeth; that The husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife; nor the wife of her own body, but the husband. Wherefore, the husband cannot marry a second wife, without injury done unto the first. He affirmeth also, that the troubles in matrimony are very great: For such shall have tribulation of the flesh. And it is not the part of a wise man, to increase his own troubles, where no need is: for there be very few, which be able well to sustain one such kind of cross as this is.

8. [ 8] Another reason is derived from the signification or sacrament. Paul saith unto the Ephesians; Husbands love your wives, as Christ hath loved his church, &c. And; They shall be two in one flesh. Great (saith he) is this sacrament or mystery in Christ, I say, and his church. But Christ hath one only church; wherefore, if our actions ought to be correspondent unto the original form, it shall not be lawful for us to marry more wives than one.

This reason Jerome used against Jovinian: in which place he earnestly inveigheth against Lamech, who (as he saith) divided one rib into two. And so he affirmeth, that the heretics divide the church into sundry conventicles.

This doth not much trouble me, seeing this reason might serve for polygamy. For Solomon had seven hundred Queens, and three hundred concubines. And in the Canticles it is read, that he had three score Queens, and four score concubines: howbeit, one of them was his dove, one was his perfect one. That doth Augustine in his treatise De bono coniugali, the 18th chapter, thus interpret; that Christ of all his particular churches, throughout the world, hath collected one church unto himself. I pass over, how others do interpret Rachel to be the church; and Lea the synagogue. In very deed, there was one only dove, that is to say, one perfect church.

[ 9] The School-divines say, that three things specially are requisite in matrimony; fruitfulness; dwelling together, that the man and woman may one help another; and the sacrament (as they term it) that is, the signification. That first good thing touching fruitfulness, polygamy nothing hindereth: nay rather, it is an increase to the same. Yet that they can dwell together in that state, and the husband help all his wives alike, it can hardly be. [ 10] In matrimony there must be a singular charity. But, both reason it self, and Aristotle in the eighth book of his Ethics, do teach, that special friendship cannot abide among many: for among the more in number that friendship is spread, the slacker it must be toward everyone in particular. [

11] There ought also to be a singular unity in wedlock: for They be two in one flesh. And Paul saith; Bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. But no one man can be one and the same towards many. Further, in polygamy, all the rest are oftentimes contemned in comparison of one, and they are counted in the place of handmaids, and that same one doth bear rule, and command the rest. Neither doth malice there stay itself: since oftentimes, for that one woman's sake, the residue are miserably afflicted. And this appeareth out of the second chapter of Malachi: for there the wives that were waxed old, when they were despised and wronged by their husbands, by reason they had married other wives, came into the court of the temple, and complained unto the Lord. And herein the husbands committed double sin, both in that they married others wives, and because they afflicted their former wives.

[ 12] It seemeth also, that the having of many wives, maketh against good manners: since enmities are not only sprung up among their wives, but also are bred and increased among their children. For Agar, when she saw herself to have conceived, she despised her mistress, then she fled;

afterward, when she was returned, and could not agree with Sara, Abraham was constrained to cast her forth. Touching Jacob, the history is well known. Of Helcan and his wives, we have spoken in our Commentaries upon the first book of Samuel. Epiphanius against the Massalians saith; that The ancient fathers, when they had many wives, never sustained them together in one house. Whence he took that, I know not: yet from thence I suppose he had the same; for that Laban, when he pursued Jacob, and sought his idols, it is written, that he first entered into the tent of Rachel, afterward of Lea: whereby it appeareth that they dwelt asunder.

[ 13] Solomon, although he gave no good counsel to himself, yet by the inspiration of the holy Ghost he gave good warning to others. For in the Proverbs he saith; Delight thyself with the wife of thy youth, let her be thy hind, let her be thy fawn, satisfy thyself always with her paps. But this cannot he do, which hath many wives. [ 14] And not only Solomon did see this, but Laban also. For he, although he had forced Jacob to take the two sisters: yet when he overtook him flying into Gilead, and had made a covenant with him, he added this; Molest not my daughters, nor yet bring in other wives unto them. For this he saw could not be done, but that those should be greatly disquieted. Lamech had two wives, Ada and Sela: and Sela signifieth in Latin, Umbra eius, that is, His shadow. For she seemed rather to be the shadow of a wife, than a wife indeed.

9. [ 15] Yea and the Comedy also teacheth, that polygamy is a great corrupting of matrimony: since in the Comedy Phormio, the old man

Chremes, when he had a wife at Athens that was rich, and would marry another in Lemnos, was constrained to change his name, and to call himself

Stilpho. Which unless he had done, perhaps that second woman of Lemnos would not have been married unto him. Yea, Chremes by the Parasite

Phormio is accused of polygamy, as of a grievous crime and offense. [ 16] The Roman laws could never abide, that a man should have more wives than one. For in the Code, concerning incest's, and unprofitable marriages,

Dioclesian and Maximian decreed, that none should have many wives: and who that did contrary, should be punished. And they add, that the same was received before the Praetorian edicts. In the Digests Deijs, qui notantur infamia, law the first, in the Paraph, at the end; They be noted of infamy, which have two wives together, or be trothed to two at once. The same we find in the Code, Ad legem Julian, de adulterijs, in the law, Eum qui. The which also is the more to be marveled at, in the Code De Judaeis, in the law

Nemo; Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius decreed, that it should not be lawful for the Jews, which lived under the Roman empire, to marry more.

So the godly emperors, though they did bear with many other things in that nation, yet would they not suffer this. In the Eliberine Council (which is also cited in the 31st question, chapter De ijs) it is decreed, that the ministers should not bless such kind of marriages. This place hath naughtily and perversely been wrested unto second marriages; for the Council speaketh plainly of polygamy: which also the Glosser perceived. The reason is alleged, because the priest ought rather to persuade them unto repentance, than to bless them. The same is in the Extrauagant De secundis nuptijs, law the first. By these reasons I am moved to think, that polygamy is not absolutely lawful. And much less do I allow of them, which think, that marriages ought to be common. Such were the Gnostics, the Valentinians, and the Secundians: of the which opinion some write that Plato also was.

10. Now I come to the second point. What wilt thou then say, shall we think of the fathers? Even thus, that they may two manner of ways be defended. For first I say, that God, according to the state of those times,

dispensed with them, for the law which he had made at the beginning.

Moreover, some add a signification. As touching the first, God could have raised men out of the sin of the earth; but seeing he had decreed, that mankind should be spread by procreation, polygamy was necessary. And this reason doth the Master of the sentences follow. For propagation of the flesh was the increase of godliness: seeing God would, that the people, in whom true religion was planted, should continue even unto Christ. So then it was lawful for them to have many wives, to the intent that that people might be more in number: neither can it appear that they sinned, when they so did. But here sin must be distinguished: for if, to sin, be to stray from most perfect reason, surly they sinned. Howbeit, if we determine that to be sin, wherewith God is offended, and is provoked to revenge, they sinned not: since God dispensed with his law, to the end that the people, of whom he would be worshipped, might be of the greater number. For although among other nations, some perhaps were good men; yet the public worshipping of God was nowhere else but in Judea. Further, there seemed to be no new thing brought in by them; for the whole East part used polygamy. Wherefore, God provided, that even that, which others used sinfully, the Jews should use without committing sin.

But thou wilt object; Seeing we confess, that herein there is some imperfection, why did God suffer it to be in his church, which ought to be most perfect? I answer, that in very deed that church was perfect; but that was according as those times did permit: because as yet they killed beasts, and had gross sacrifices. For they which so defend the fathers, are wont to say, that the age of the whole world must be so considered of, as the age of one man, in whom is childhood, youth, man's state, and old age. And there be many things lawful to children, which would not become an elder age.

Augustine noteth, that to wear garments with sleeves, and down to the ground, among the ancients was a token of niceness: but now (saith he) it would be noted, if one should use a short garment, and without sleeves.

Howbeit, thou wilt say, that those fathers were most perfect, as Abraham and Jacob, as David and others. I grant it. Nevertheless, it is one thing to consider a man in himself; and another thing, as the time serveth. Those fathers were perfect in themselves; yet, by reason of the time they had much imperfection. For they say, that those times were full of darkness, if they should be compared with our light. Indeed the Jews of that time, being compared with the Gentiles, were in a manner the light of the whole world: but they were nothing in comparison of our state, after that the holy Ghost was given, and the Gospel spread abroad. And there be many things well done in the dark, which would not be abidden in the light.

11. Nevertheless, thou wilt yet inquire, by what scriptures it may be showed, that God did dispense with his law. I answer, that the same may sufficiently appear, by the examples of Abraham, Jacob, David, Helcana, and other godly fathers. But those (thou wilt say) might err; and that their fact is not sufficient to confirm the consciences of others. Yes verily, it ought to seem sufficient unto us, for that we perceive not, that anywhere, they were reproved by the prophets for this cause. Moreover, God, when he made the law, if anything were before done amiss by the fathers, he amended it. For before that time it was lawful for Jacob to have two sisters in wedlock. But this did God forbid by the law, and distinguished the degrees: yet did he not revoke polygamy, although the place may seem most of all to require it. And this the rather also he alloweth, in that God saith, that he gave the wives of Saul unto David into his bosom. Wherefore, the fathers sinned not in that matter; for they did it without lust: which we

doubt not but many did. And they kept the faith of wedlock very religiously: for they had access unto none, but unto their own wives. And by this means the issue was provided for. Howbeit, thou wilt object, that if the law of God were dispensed with, in consideration of bringing forth children, the same should chiefly have been done unto Adam. Augustine De nuptijs & concupiscentijs, the first book, and ninth chapter answereth, that God would set forth in Adam the form of perfect matrimony. Moreover, he addeth, that at that time there was no idolatry: but afterward, when idolaters were increased, it was necessary that the godly should also increase; and for that cause God dispensed with his law.

Yea (thou wilt say) but it is the perverseness of nature, and therefore not to be ascribed unto God. Philip Melancthon (whom I name for honor sake) in his Epitome of the Ethics distinguisheth natural honesty, and saith, that one is eternal; to wit, that God must be worshipped: that thou oughtest to do to others, as thou wouldest be done unto: for these things be eternal, and cannot be changed without great trouble. The other is that, which somewhat declineth from a perfection: yet not so, as any great naughtiness or confusion doth follow. And of this sort he reckoneth polygamy, which (he saith) God did allow among the Israelites. Even so was it, for a man to marry the wife of his brother: which for that time God not only allowed, but also commanded. Some of the fathers add, that God did dispense with his law, not only for propagation sake; but also, that he might by some means shadow that, which should afterward come to pass. Ambrose in his first book, and fourth chapter of Abraham the patriarch, because he first had a child by Agar, and afterward by Sara, saith, that therein lay hidden a great mystery. The very which thing Jerome also said to Geruntia; to wit, that Sara represented the church, and Agar the synagogue. The same they judge

of Rachel and Lea. The same of Anna and Phenenna. Of this mind was Justinus Martyr, in his conference that he hath with Tryphon; namely, that it was not lawful unto the fathers to have many wives at once, unless it be to describe a mystery.

But what the fathers themselves have held concerning the polygamy of those of old time, it may easily appear by their own testimonies. Clemens

Alexandrinus, in his στρώματα, the fourth book, saith; that God, in those first times did exact polygamy of them. Chrysostom saith, that God granted polygamy unto them. Jerome to Geruntia saith, that the same was done according to the variety of times. Augustine De doctrina christiana, in the third book, and 12th chapter, saith; that that fact of the fathers must not be regarded, according to the outward action, but after the manner of their lusting. Wherefore he saith, that they sinned not, if they did it only for issue sake; but if there were any, that therein sought after lust, they could not be excused. Indeed Augustine in that place treated of meats: but this he added in the end as touching polygamy, and saith, that the same was blameless, because of replenishing the world with sufficient issue. The same father against Faustus the Manichei; Seeing saith he, it was then the manner, it was no sin. And in the same book De doctrina christiana, the 18th chapter, he saith; They might have even many wives in chastity, and one with lust.

And he addeth, that they, which had many for another cause, that is, for propagation sake, are to be preferred above them, which had but only one for lust sake. Ambrose of Abraham the patriarch saith, that he did nothing for fulfilling of lust; therefore he may be excused. Finally, the same thing doth the Master of sentences affirm, in the fourth book, distinction 33.

12. Thus therefore may the doings of the fathers be defended. First, because those most ancients understood by the spirit of God, wherewith

they were endued, that God did dispense with his law. Secondly, because the posterity followed the example of their ancestors, especially when they perceived, that the doing thereof was neither reproved anywhere by God, nor yet afterward by any law. Others there be, which think, that the same was sin, though not very heinous, and that it was remitted them by reason of their faith. And they think, that the same sin might be eased in them, by reason of probable ignorance: since probable ignorance may in some part excuse sin. For he that knoweth the will of his Lord, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Perhaps in those times of darkness, either they thought not of the law, or else they understood it not. Moreover, they saw that polygamy was received now usually over all the East part, so as they thought, that there was no other matter in it, than a civil ordinance. And whatsoever sin was therein, God made as though he knew not, both for propagation sake, because he meant of that stock to raise up a great number of people; and also by reason of the ignorance of the same people, (for as yet they were not otherwise instructed;) and lastly for the figure and mystery sake. This is another reason made by the latter men, whereby the polygamy of the fathers may be defended. Both reasons seem unto me probable, and so probable, as I see there be both learned and godly men, which sometime do follow the one, and sometime the other.

For Philip Melancthon, (unto whose manifold learning and godliness I do attribute very much) though in his Ethics (which place I cited before) he saith that God allowed polygamy in the Israelites; yet in his book De coniugio, he writeth manifestly, that matrimony ought to be a conjunction of one unto one. And he saith, that God did bear with that imperfection in the fathers; because they, although otherwise they were perfect, yet were not without their blemishes. Howbeit, this Melancthon of the tree of

consanguinity more plainly saith, that the same sin proceeded of ignorance: yet he addeth, probable; because as yet no law was extant concerning the same. But what law he speaketh of, I do not perceive: for the law given to Adam went long before. Unless perhaps he mean the law manifested by Christ; or else that Moses, which put that law into writing, was not yet born: seeing before that time, it was only kept by tradition. Or else peradventure he meant, that that custom was politic; and that in such civil ordinances, always something is suffered to be amiss. Howbeit this he saith, that God pardoned their faith, because it was not done against the express law. But whereas that great learned man inclined to this other reason, it was not of inconstancy; but because he perceived them both to be probable. Unless peradventure he were always of this mind; and that when in his Ethics he saith, that God allowed it, he meant, that he forgave it. The choice shall be in thee (gentle reader) which reason thou haddest rather to follow: both of them be probable; neither of them ungodly.

Indeed for my part the first liketh me best: for I see that God altogether would that his people should be increased. Further, albeit I doubt not, but that those fathers were not void of sin; yet where they may be well defended, I would not charge them over-much. Yet Ambrose writeth somewhat of this matter, which I see not how it may be allowed. For he excuseth Abraham; first, for issue sake; secondly, for the shadowing [of things to come;] lastly, because he coming out of Chaldea, retained some gentilism. This latter reason is not of any great force: for Abraham had abstained a great while, neither did he join Agar to himself of his own accord, but was provoked thereunto by his wife Sara. Yet doth Jerome unto

Geruntia report the same of Jacob. He saith it is objected, that Jacob had two wives. Indeed (saith he) he had; but that was in Mesopotamia, and

under Laban. But what answer will he make of Abraham? For he undoubtedly was not in Mesopotamia. What will he say of David? Since he had his wives in the midst of Jewry.

13. And as touching the third part of that we purposed to speak of; namely, whether that liberty may be also transferred unto us? I answer, that it is in no wise lawful. For now hath Christ made manifest that law of God, and hath called it back to the first institution. Wherefore, he that now transgresseth the same, doth against the plain word of God. Moreover, the cause being taken away, the effect must needs be taken away. And the cause was, the increase of posterity: whereof there is now no need, seeing God hath now those that worship him over all the world. But before it behooved that the worshipping of God should be retained among one people, until the coming of Christ. And it was very profitable, that the same law should be expounded by Christ: for when as Adam was the first man that had one wife, it was meet that Christ the second Adam, of whom the same first was a figure, should ordain the marriage of one alone. But thou wilt say, that Christ came not to make laws, but to preach the Gospel, and to redeem mankind, and that therefore it behooved him to leave matrimony in the state it was in, as well as the sun, the stars, and other outward things.

I answer, that Christ made no new law, but only revoked the old. For he only declared the will of his father, and taught nothing anew. Further he took away sacrifices, so that now he is a wicked man that will kill any beast for sacrifice. He also brake the strength of the judicial laws, so as no man, that is of sound judgment, will urge magistrates to execute those laws against their wills. Neither only did Christ this by himself, but also by his apostle Paul. Also he revoked wholly that matter concerning divorcement: so that if any man depart from his wife, and marry another, he committeth

adultery. But thou wilt object; By this means the forefathers may seem to be adulterers. I answer, as I have said before, that God dispensed with his law, and that therefore they sinned not: nevertheless, the matter being now expounded and declared, he that shall do otherwise doth grievously sin. And revoking hath a respect always to the time to come, and not to that which is past; seeing such is the condition of all laws: otherwise, as concerning the nature of the fact, the same undoubtedly did appertain unto adultery. For the ten commandments have the same respect to virtues and vices, as the ten predicaments have towards all kind of things: insomuch as there is nothing, but may be reduced to some predicament or other; so there is not any virtue nor any vice, which may not be reduced to some precept.

Now then, if we stand unto that second opinion, which we have expounded, that there was some vice in polygamy; the same must needs be adultery. And although in plain reason it were not sin, as in the former opinion I declared; yet was it some revolting from perfection. Panormitanus

(in the title of divorcements, in the chapter Gaudemus) saith, that The forefathers, when they had given a bill of divorcement, and had married another, were sufficiently excused of adultery: because adultery cannot be committed but by collusion or by covine. And this he declareth by two laws: the one ecclesiastical, and the other civil. The ecclesiastical is out of the Triburien Council, as we read it in the 34th cause, question the second, in the chapter In lectum. A man had a wife, and she a sister, all in one house.

When the wife was absent, that same sister went to his bed. Afterward came the husband, and thinking it had been his wife, had the company of her. The Council absolved the man, upon condition, that he did it not fraudulently: but he was constrained to swear, that he did that wicked act ignorantly and unwittingly. And it is called a wicked act, not because it was so in very

deed, but because the matter pertained to wickedness. Thus the fathers are excused, because they married not their second wife by collusion: for they perceived, that the same was accustomed and usual among all.

The other law civil, is in the Digests Ad legem Juliam, de adulterio, in the last law but one. A certain man put his wife from him, but gave her not a just bill of divorcement. Another man married her that was put away; he was accused of adultery: but he was excused, because he knew not that there was anything lacking unto a just divorce. This I speak, least it should seem unto any man, that Christ accused the fathers, of adultery. But if God, for propagation sake, dispensed with the forefathers, as touching his law; why (wilt thou say) may not the same be done at this time to them which profess the Gospel; seeing, if they be compared with the Papists and Atheists, they be but few in number? Howbeit, the reason is not all alike: because it behooved the religion of God, until the coming of Christ, to be retained in one nation only. Now the succession of godliness is not sought for out of one stock or line, but is spread over the whole world.

14. To this opinion of mine do all the fathers agree. For Chrysostom in his 56th homily on Matth. saith; We must not judge of the fathers according to our own reason; for at that time it was lawful, now it is not lawful. And he addeth, that Christ came, to the end he might bring us to the state of angels.

For now he granteth us one, till we come to that place, where they are neither married, nor yet marry wives. The same father, in his oration De libello repudij, saith, that Christ was therefore come, to lead us unto a higher philosophy. The true religion he calleth philosophy, to take away the pride of the Grecians, who attributed so much unto their philosophy. Jerome writeth hereof in diverse places to Geruntia, to Eustochius, and against Jovinianus. And among other things, he writeth, that Christ was Alpha and

Omega, that is, The first and the last. And when the matter was now come to Omega, that is, Unto the last, the same was revoked by Christ to Alpha, that is, Unto the beginning: for that it pleased God (as Paul saith to the Ephesians) to bring all things into one, and restore them in Christ; that such things, as yet were imperfect, might be brought to perfection. Unto

Eustochius he saith; that the world before time was unreplenished, but when the harvest was ripe, God put to his scythe, that is to say, he cut off such liberty.

The Valentinians and Martionits, by reason of this fact of the old fathers, accused the God of the Old Testament; but Christ (they said) the son of the good God, revoked this sufferance of the evil god. Jerome answereth; We divide not the law and the Gospel, neither do we set Christ against his

Father: but we worship one God, who would have it for that time, but now hath decreed against it. For that then was the time to scatter stones abroad, now is the time to gather them up: then was the time of embracing, now is the time to abstain from embracing's. Briefly he saith, that the fathers served their times. And that that saying, Increase and multiply, is not in the same force at this day; for in old time, virginity was reproachful: that now

Paul writeth; The time is but short, and therefore they which have wives, let them be as though they had none. And he addeth, that Christ doth allow of them, which have made themselves chaste for the kingdom of heavens sake.

Also Augustine De doctrina christiana, in the third book and 13th chapter, saith, that Those forefathers were so chaste, as if they had happened to be in our days, they would have made themselves chaste, for the kingdom of heaven.

These things among the fathers must be read with judgment: for their mind was by all means to extol virginity, and single life. In very deed Paul

praiseth virginity; yet so, as if a man perceive, that by that means the kingdom of heaven may be enlarged; or if by doing otherwise, it may be hindered. He praiseth it I say, not as a thing, which of his own force, and of itself, pleaseth God; but as a state, wherein we may the more commodiously and readily spread the Gospel. Augustine saith, that now we cannot have many wives, but with lust, because it would be against laws and customs, which cannot be violated without unlawful lust. Also against Faustus he saith; Because it was then the manner, it was no sin; but now because it is not the manner, it is sin. Clemens in his Stromata, which place I cited before; when he had said, that God in the law required polygamy, added afterward, that the same is not now lawful.

And Justin against Tryphon saith, that now everyone doth rejoice under his vine, that is, Everyone hath his own wife, and that is but one only. And he reproveth the Rabbins, who as yet gave leave to themselves to have more than one. Out of Origin we cannot learn anything for a certainty, he so playeth in his allegories; and many wives he maketh many virtues: and he saith, that he is most happy that hath many. By all these things it appeareth, that polygamy is at this day forbidden. And to all these, I also add this, that the Roman laws did never permit polygamy: and it is the part of a good citizen to obey good laws. Yea and Plutarch saith, that There followed a most grievous disturbance of the public wealth, and of the whole world, when that law was broken. For after that Antony (who already had in marriage Octavia the sister of Octavius Caesar) had also married Cleopatra; the people took it in ill part, and Augustus most of all: so as they put themselves in arms one against another, with all their endeavor and power.

15. Now must I confute those arguments, which we brought at the beginning for polygamy, Abraham (say they) and other fathers were holy

men, and had many wives. Here might I make answer at a word: that we must live by laws, and not by examples. But I add moreover, that God either willed it, or bare with it. It is therefore a paralogism, or false argument, A secundum quid ad simpliciter, that is, when that which is but in some respect, is put for that which is absolute. God dispensed with them: will he therefore with us also? Or else it was a good thing in them: is it therefore good of itself? But the prophets reproved not that fact. What marvel is it? For they saw it was either licensed by God, or else doubtless permitted. Howbeit, here there is a false argument, when that which is not the cause, is put for the cause: seeing it was permitted them for propagation, or for figure sake. Now there is no need, either of so populous a propagation, or else of such a figure. They repented not. It is no marvel: because no man can repent him of the fact, which he is ignorant of. For it was a tolerable ignorance, or else (that which I rather believe) they saw it was lawful for them. God gave the wives of Saul into the bosom of David.

It was lawful; insomuch as he had dispensed with his law. Or if any man will say, that God permitted that unto David only: this is the meaning; namely, that God gave the kingdom unto David: then it followed, that he might marry the wives of Saul if he would; since no man could then let him.

But the first answer pleaseth me better. God made no law against polygamy.

And no marvel; for his will was, that that people should mightily increase.

Afterward by Christ he revoked it to the first institution. So, that which was wanting in Moses is supplied by Christ.

A brother, although he had a wife, yet he was compelled to marry the wife of his brother that was dead. The case is particular, and prerogatives must not be drawn unto examples. God would have that to be done for certain causes, not only in the law, but also before the law: as appeareth by the

children of Judah, and [his daughter in law] Tamar. Moreover, the Rabbins say, that that woman was not counted for the wife of that brother, which remained alive; but of the husband which was dead, and that the name of the first husband was given to the children which were born of her. So as the brother, which remained alive, was not properly her husband; but only had access unto her, that he might raise up issue unto her. We should have fewer divorcements and whoredoms. Neither of them is true: for they which hate their wives, will shut them out of their house; as they which cannot once abide the sight of them. Nor yet was that the cause, why God permitted a man to have more wives than one. And as touching whoredom, certainly David, when he had many, yet he could not temper himself from Bersabe.

Greater would the fruitfulness be. I grant it: and therefore God dispensed with his law. Howbeit now, when as religion is not tied to one nation only, but is dispersed over all the world, there is no need of such fruitfulness; seeing now the church hath her resting places of receipt: although not always in one place, yet wheresoever God hath offered occasion. But the marriages of the fathers might seem to be adulteries. No forsooth; seeing

God either gave license, or bare with it. For (as we said out of Panormitane) adultery is not committed, but with collusion. And that he proved by two laws; the one civil, and the other ecclesiastical. Undoubtedly marriages they were, although not so perfect, as that of one man to one woman. But what shall become of that nobility of the Jews? It shall firmly abide in his own state; insomuch as those old patriarchs were born of lawful wedlock. For Zilpha and Bilha, although they were but in the state of servants, and might be called concubines; yet in very deed they were wives: howbeit, they were

not mistresses of the house, nor yet were handfasted with Jacob. Neither did that nobility depend of the mothers, but of the blessing and promise of God.

Valentinian had two wives. Admit he had: nevertheless, we must see whether he had them rightly or no: for although he were a good emperor, yet was he not such a one as could not sin. Claudius Caesar, when he perceived that by the laws it was not lawful for him to marry his brothers daughter, made a law, that it might be lawful: but scarcely was there any one claw-back to be found, which would follow that fact. Now both these laws are utterly extinct and forgotten; seeing they be neither in the Pandect, in the Digests, nor yet in the Code. Nevertheless, the fathers reproved not this in Valentinian. How canst thou tell that? Surely (as I have declared) they have sufficiently set forth in their writings what their meaning was.

But let us consider the event. Justina that second wife became an Arian, and did grievously vex Ambrose. The younger Valentinian, which was born of Galla, the daughter of Justina, followed the religion of his grandmother, and did vehemently oppress the churches: and he lay miserably slain in his litter.

Chrysostom saith, that Paul added [The husband] of one wife, because of them, which having many wives, were converted from Judaism unto Christ.

And thereof it appeareth, that polygamy also was borne withal even in the church. I answer, that the same was therefore borne with; because that declaration of the law of Christ, was of force, for the time to come, and not for the time past. Howbeit, it was borne with, as a certain infirmity, because with a good conscience they agreed among themselves.

Yet do I otherwise understand that place of Paul: for him do I think that Paul called the husband of one wife, who liveth chastely with his own, and followeth not the wives of other men but is altogether of perfect and good fame. And I am led so to think, because the same Paul saith, that Widows

should be chosen, which had been the wives of one husband. But it was never lawful for a woman, by any laws, to have two husbands: Paul would have her to be a widow, which should be chaste, and well reported of. If the Turk at this day, with his two wives, should be converted unto Christ; might that polygamy be suffered in Christian religion? Surely it might be suffered for a time, for they with a good conscience agreed between themselves.

Neither must injury be done unto those wives: for every of them hath right in her husband. And that law, which Christ made, must be of force (as we have said) for the time to come. That which now is done with a good conscience and in probable ignorance, cannot be undone. Howbeit, another kind of answer is made hereof, in the Decrees of divorcements, in the last law. If the first wife will dwell together with her husband, she shall be counted for the wife, and the rest to be dismissed; if the first will not, the next must be had in that place: and so of the rest.

I do not here contend. But yet I wonder at these men: for in the same title, the said Innocentius, being asked his counsel of a Jew, which in matrimony had his brothers wife? Answereth, that she may be kept still, after that they be contracted in good faith. If this be lawful, why is not that other lawful, seeing Christ took away both? But they might peradventure answer, that the Jews had an express law for marrying of the brothers wife; but none at all for polygamy. Or else, that the Roman laws would not suffer more wives than one; but one they would suffer, although she did not so rightly marry.

Fruitfulness is the blessing of God. Be it so, but now (as I have often said) the same is not so needful. Indeed it is a blessing, but yet not so, that he is cursed which hath not children. Augustine saith, that it was neither against the custom, nor against the law, nor yet against nature; and yet it is now against the law, and against custom. Those things, which were alleged

concerning lepers, and them which be far distant, make nothing to this purpose. For neither do we speak here of him, which at one time dwelleth and is conversant together with many wives.

A wife dismissed was married to another, when as in the meantime the bond of matrimony was not undone. I answer, that a bill of divorcement did sufficiently excuse her from adultery, especially when she did it of probable ignorance. Lamech is commended by Chrysostom. Doubtless it is not for polygamy, but for repentance. Yet for what cause so ever it were, others do not so praise him. A wife, if she will, may yield of her own right. Howbeit, this is not to depart from her own right, but from that which is God's right: for we must not have respect what the wife would, but what God will. And as concerning that, which Sara did, she did it by the setting on and persuasion of the holy Ghost: wherewith, there is no doubt, but she, and other godly women were endued. The Schoolmen, among the number of whom we cited Caietanus, say, that There is not any law extant, which expressly forbiddeth polygamy; which although they affirm, yet certainly others say not so. In deed the very form thereof in plain terms is not found and expressed; yet is the same necessarily gathered by the words both of Christ and Paul. And thus much of this question.

Of Barrenness.

16. Among the Jews barrenness was reproachful, and was accounted a very grievous infamy, and that for many causes. First, because it seemeth to be repugnant unto that precept, wherein God commanded, both immediately after the making of the world, and straightway after the flood: saying,

Increase and multiply. Further, because those that be barren, attain not to that blessing of God, which he promised unto Abraham; to wit, that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, and as the sand of the sea. Again, they

which wanted children, seemed after a sort to be hated of God, in that he would not have their generation and stock to be spread any further abroad.

But others thought, that barrenness was therefore infamous among the Jews; because Messias should proceed from their posterity. And so everyone endeavored to have many children, that out of his progeny Messias might one day be born. Howbeit, he was promised only unto the tribe of Judah, and family of David: so as it behooved only these to be careful of that matter. Howbeit, of that desire there may be brought another reason much more true. For the true religion and pure worshipping of God, before the coming of Christ, was in public profession retained only among the Jews.

Wherefore the more that the Jews increased in number, the greater multitude should be of the worshippers of God. For this cause therefore did holy men study to have a large posterity, that the true God might be worshipped of a great many. But if to any man there happened no children, he was noted with a kind of infamy and rebuke. Therefore, when Rachel at the length became great with child; The Lord (saith she) hath taken away my rebuke. And Isaiah saith; In that day shall seven women take hold of one man, and they shall say; We will find ourselves bread and apparel, only take from us our rebuke.

Moreover, among Ethnics it was reproachful to be without children. And among the Romans those, which had begotten many children, were excused by the civil law from charge and public offices: as it is manifestly set forth in the title De ijs, qui numero liberorum se excusant. At Rome doubtless, three were sufficient for an excuse. In Italy were required four. In the provinces five, so they were not adopted, nor yet were taken of the enemies, nor died out of the wars. Howbeit, this number of children excused only from personal offices, not from offices of inheritance: but sixteen children

in number excused from both kinds of offices, as it is in the Digests De jure immunitatis, in the law Semper: which was made by Pertinax. Afterward also twelve did excuse, as appeareth in the Code De decurionibus, in the law Si quis decurio. Briefly, the bearing of children hath always been an honorable thing among all nations. A certain Lacedaemonian being an old man and unmarried, as he passed by the high way, saw a man that did not rise up to give him honor, and he asked of him why he did so? Who answered him; Because thou hast left none unto the Common-wealth, that may rise up unto me when I am old.

And albeit that among the Christians, this kind of rebuke may seem to be taken away: yet must we endeavor to our power, that we may leave very many children unto the church. But by the example of Anna we are warned, that the lack of children, and fruitfulness, are not to depend only of the second causes; seeing they proceed chiefly from God himself. For in the family of king Abimelech, God shut up the wombs of the women, that they might not bring forth. Afterward, at the prayers of Abraham they were delivered, that they might bear children. So as Rachel, when she grievously afflicted herself, and said to her husband; Give me children, for else I shall die. Jacob being angry said; Am I unto thee in God's stead? If God keep from thee the fruit of thy womb, why doest thou cry unto me? So on the other side, fruitfulness is the gift of God. Therefore in Isaiah the 66th chapter he saith; Am I he that maketh other to bear, and bear not myself?

And David in the psalm pronounced; It is God that maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to abound with children.

Whether it be lawful for children to marry without the consent of their parents.

17. Now shall it be very well to see, whether it be lawful for children to contract matrimony without consent of their parents. Certainly Samson would not. And it is a matter of much honesty, and of thankfulness towards the parents, if matrimony be not contracted without their knowledge and consent. At the beginning, Adam did not choose himself a wife: God was his father, and brought Eve unto him. Abraham, when Isaac was a man, sent his servants to his kindred, to seek out a wife there for his son. Isaac also sent Jacob into Mesopotamia to his uncle, to the end he might get him a wife there. Afterward followed the law that was given of God by Moses, that children should honor their parents. But the honor, which must be given unto them, is not only to uncover the head, to give the upper hand, and to rise up (yet these things must also be done, though they be not sufficient;) but they must also sustain their progenitors, if need shall require, and show themselves dutiful towards them. Wherefore, the power of a father is defined to be a bond of piety, whereby children are bound to their parents, to perform the duties of humanity and thankfulness.

If so be children in other things ought to obey their parents, doubtless they ought chiefly to do it in contracting of matrimony. Hereof there is a peculiar law in the 22nd chapter of Exodus; If a maiden, which is not betrothed, shall be deceived, he that hath seduced her, ought to give her a dowry, and to take her to wife. But it is added; If the father will. Otherwise he shall only give a dowry; neither shall he have the maiden to wife against the fathers will. And in the book of Numbers, the thirty chapter; If a maiden vow a vow, and the father hear it, and letteth it not, the vow shall be firm; but if he gainsay it, it shall be in vain. And what is a vow? A promise made unto God. Howbeit, matrimony is a promise, which is made unto man. If God permit a vow made unto him, to the judgment of the father; much more

will he permit matrimony unto him, seeing it is a promise made between men. In the second book of Samuel, Tamar answered unto her brother

Ammon; If thou desire me at my father's hand, he will not deny me unto thee. The custom was then, that the daughters were desired of the parents.

Here I dispute not, whether it were lawful for David to give to Ammon his sister to wife.

Further, Paul saith to the Ephesians; Children obey your parents in all things. He excepteth nothing, when he writeth so: but saith, In all things; namely, which they command not against the word of God. And in his first epistle to the Corinthians the seventh chapter, is most manifestly declared, that it belongeth to the parents to give their daughters in marriage to husbands. And that was known, not only by the law of God, but also by the light of nature. Which, even the Comedies of Terence and Plautus manifestly declare. And in Euripides a maiden answereth; Of my marriages my father will have care, seeing these things are not in me to determine.

Which verse certainly so liked Ambrose, as he placed it in his book of the patriarchs. Further, it serveth very well for domestical peace: for the daughter in law ought to be to the father in law instead of a daughter.

Contrariwise, of rash marriages rise great discords at home. And for so much as the father ought to help his son with his goods; it is meet again, that the son should obey his father in contracting of matrimony. In other civil contracts, the son can do nothing, without the consent of his father; as appeareth in the Digests, De mutuo, ad senatusconsultum Macedonianum.

Wherefore it is meet, that the judgment of the father should be tarried for in so weighty a matter.

The self-same thing have the civil laws decreed. Justinian in his institutions, in the title De nuptijs, will not that marriages should be firm,

without the consent of the parents. And in the Digests De statu hominum, in the law Paulus; If a son marry a wife against the will of his parents, the child, which shall be born of those parents, shall not be legitimate. And in the Code De nuptijs, in the law Si proponis, the case is diligently to be marked. The daughter marrieth by consent of her father; she afterward being aggrieved at her husband, departeth from him: after that, he returneth into favor, and she marrieth him again against her fathers will. It is answered, that that matrimony is not lawful. Hereby it appeareth, how much those laws esteemed the authority of a father. Again, in the law Si furiosi, children (if perhaps their parents be mad, or bereft of their wits) seeing they cannot use the consent of them in contracting of matrimony, they shall use the consent of their tutors.

18. So then it seemeth marvelous, that Christians at this day determine, that marriages are lawful, without consent of the parents. And to cover this, they allege the Canons: of the which I think it good briefly to declare some.

And first I will make mention of the better Canons, which were the more ancient: for the later they were decreed, the more corrupt they were. In the Decrees, cause 30. question 5. chapter Aliter; Matrimonies are then lawful, when the maidens are desired at the parent's hands, and delivered openly: otherwise they are not matrimonies, but whoredoms, dishonest companying's, adulteries, and fornications. Thus decreed Evaristus.

Nicolaus also at the consultation of the Bulgars, cause 30. question 5. chapter Nostrates; Those matrimonies are firm, which be knit by the consent of them which contract them, and of those in whose power they are.

Leo also the first, in the 30. cause, question 5. chapter Qualis; Then it is to be counted matrimony, when the maiden is by her parents delivered unto her husband. And in the 31st cause, question 2. chapter Non omnis; A

woman, which marrieth by the consent of her father, is without blame, if any man shall afterward find fault withal. And thus Gratianus concludeth that place; that he saith, In contracting of matrimony, the consent of the parents is always to be required.

Further, Ambrose entreating of the place in Genesis, where it is written, that the servant of Abraham came into Mesopotamia, and found a wife for his master's son; the parents of the maid, when they endeavored to retain him longer, and he would not tarry, they called the maid, and asked her, whether she would go with him. After this manner he saith (as also it is declared in the 23rd cause, question 2. chapter Honorandum;) They asked not her of the wedding, but only of the journeying with him. For it pertaineth not (saith he) to maidenly shamefastness, to choose unto herself a husband. And the same he affirmed of widows, which be young. Although

(to say the truth) I cannot herein agree unto Ambrose, that the maiden was not demanded the question; whether she would marry him. Neither do I doubt, but she was demanded as touching both maters. For in the 30th cause, question 2. chapter Ubi non est, we read, that There can be no matrimony, where is not the consent of those, which contract: yea even in the marriages of the children, which are but seven years of age. And seeing at that age they are thought to understand somewhat of matrimony, necessary is the consent of them which contract. And because there is mention made of spousages, we think good to note this by the way; that children so contracting, ought to be seven years of age: for otherwise the parents can promise nothing for them. Those children, if they afterward, being of more years, shall contract another matrimony, the same is of effect, and not the [former] espousals: which yet must be understood, if the parents consent to the second matrimony. Moreover, in the 31st cause, question the

second, chapter Tua; Hormisdas answereth, that children, when they contract after this manner, ought to stand to the will of their parents. And in the Extravagants De sponsatione impuberum, in the chapter Tua, it is ordained, that children, when they come to ripe age, ought to obey their parents, forsomuch as they also gave their faith, and consented.

19. I thought it good also to bring forth somewhat of the Councils. The Council of Toledo, the fourth cause, question 21. chapter Hoc sanctum, decreeth; If widows will not profess chastity, let them marry to whom they will. And the same it decreeth of a maiden: but it addeth; So that it be not against the will of the parents, or her own. Such an addition we see that Nicolaus the second added, as we find in the 27th cause, question second, chapter Sufficiat, where he writeth after this manner; To join matrimony, the consent of those which contract is sufficient: and it followeth, According to the laws. Which is added, because the matrimonies of children be not acknowledged, if they be made without the consent of the parents. Yet the gloss referreth not those words unto the civil laws, but to the canons: because as the Canonists say, the civil laws are sometimes corrected by the canons. But oftentimes it happeneth, that those canons are in very deed ἀκάνονες, that is, Rules without rule: as in the Extravagants, De coniugijs servorum, chapter the first; If bond-men contract, yea against the will of their lords, such matrimonies shall be ratified. Behold (saith the gloss) the canons amend the civil laws: for in them it is forbidden, that a bond-man should marry a wife against the will of his lord. Yea, if a free man have very often recourse unto another man's bondwoman, he is made a bond-man.

And a free woman, if she have much access unto another man's bond-man, she also loseth her freedom. The gloss saith moreover, that more is attributed unto matrimony, than unto holy orders; because it is not lawful to

bring a strange bond-man into orders, but it is lawful to contract matrimony with him. Wherefore, it manifestly appeareth, that the latter canons were corrupted and depraved, which took away from marriages the consent of parents, as a thing not necessary.

But now let us see what reasons they pretend. In the Extravagants De sponsalibus, in the chapter Cùm locum, it is said, that in contracting of matrimony, there ought to be a full liberty. And in the same place, in the chapter Veniens; If any fear happen therein, the matrimony should be void.

And there is given a reason: because she cannot long please him, of whom she is hated; and because such contracts have oftentimes unhappy success; and that thing is easily contemned, which is not beloved. Yea it seemeth, that the canons have so loved liberty in contracting of matrimony, that the Council of Paris (as we find in the 30th cause, question the second) decreed, that it is not lawful to desire a wife, by the rescript of the king: although the same be also ordained in the Code De nuptijs; law the first; chapter Si nuptias ex rescripto. The reason is, because the rescripts of princes are in a manner imperious commandments. Neither do I disallow that: although I do not a little marvel, that the canons have proceeded so far, that matrimony may be contracted between him that stealeth away a maid, and her that is stolen. In the Extravagants De raptoribus & incendiarijs, in the chapter

Cùm causa: A maiden that was stolen away out of the house of her father, and contracted matrimony with him that did steal her; the father withstood the marriage.

Here the good Pope answereth; Forsomuch as the maiden consenteth, she cannot seem to be stolen. Wherefore, he decreed that matrimony to be good.

And in the next chapter Accedens; If any man had stolen away a maiden, not only against the will of her parents, but also against her own will (which

maiden nevertheless if she afterward agreed with him that stole her) he decreed, that firm matrimony might be contracted between them. The same seemeth to be decreed in the 36th cause, question the second, chapter In summa: where is entreated of the stealer, and her that is stolen. And it is decreed; If she that is stolen, shall consent with him that stealeth, matrimony may be contracted between them: but yet in such sort, that first they do some penance. But because some canons do make against this decree, therefore they moderate the matter thus; That wheresoever they read, that matrimony cannot be contracted between such persons, that, they understand to be said for someone of these three causes: either because she that is stolen, did not consent; or else, because she was betrothed before to another by words (as they use to speak it) of the present tense (for I say not of the future tense, because the husband was not bound to marry one defiled;) either else for that she was not marriable.

20. But in the Code it is far otherwise decreed, touching the stealing of virgins; namely, that matrimony between these persons may by no manner of means be contracted: no not although the father give his consent unto her that is stolen. And Justinian also in his Authentiks, collation the ninth, in the title Quae raptoribus nubunt, decreeth the same to the detestation of so great a crime. But our Canonists (forsooth) think matrimonies to be lawful, even against the fathers will. Wherefore in the 32nd cause, question 2. chapter Mulier, the gloss saith, that the authority of the father is undone as touching an oath and matrimony, when ripe age cometh: which saying the School-men have also followed. Of this matter they dispute, in the fourth chapter of sentences, distinction 28. where they define, that a man, even the son of the goodman of the house, hath a certain dominion over his own

body: neither is so bound to his parents, but that he may, at his own liberty, dispose it as touching matrimony.

And when they read in the Canons, that the consent of the parents is required for the contracting of matrimony, they, by their interpretation corrupt them, and say; that Evaristus Nicolaus, and Leo, when they so decreed, did judge that the consent of the parents is required touching the honesty of matrimony, but not in respect of the necessity. Which peradventure they drew out of the gloss in the Extravagants De sponsalibus impuberum, in the law Tua: which is after this sort; that The good will of the parents must be required, yet rather for the honesty of marriage than for necessity sake. So that, if the parents will not assent; yet are the children free, and may contract matrimony at their own liberty. Yea and the Master of sentences, in the 28th distinction, saith, that The consent of parents serveth for the comeliness and honesty of marriages, and not for necessity.

And he bringeth the words of Evaristus. But he saith; There is a difference between those things, which are required to the substance of marriages, and those things, which serve for honesty and comeliness. And the good will of the parents (as he saith) pertaineth not to the substance of marriages. He thinketh, that without it, children may lawfully contract. And for so much as he maketh matrimony a sacrament, he would have in such marriages the strength of matrimony, but not the honesty.

21. But because they very much urge the words of Evaristus, when he writeth that marriages, contracted without the good will of the parents, are whoredoms, fornications, and adulteries. The Master of the sentences answereth, that that is true, not because such marriages be so indeed; but for that, they coming secretly together among themselves, and privily without the parent's knowledge, are wont to be counted whoremongers and

adulterers: but yet that the matrimony abideth ratified, and is firm, by reason of the words of the present tense which were used therein. Also

Thomas Aquinas, in the same place, is of the same mind. And unto that, which is alleged out of Paul to the Ephesians (where he saith; Children obey your parents in all things) he answereth, that it must be understood of those things, wherein the children have not any liberty; namely, as touching familiar and domestical things. And this reason he addeth: Because matrimony is a certain kind of servitude, which the child is not compelled to take upon him against his will. And in that it is written of Abraham, that he sought his son a wife out of his own kindred; he answereth, that the same happened, because he knew that land to be promised unto his posterity: and that God had decreed to take it away from the Chanaanits: so as he would not have his son to contract matrimony with them. These fellows indeed speak much, but they bring not so much as one word out of the holy scriptures. They still affirm, that children ought to have most full liberty left them as touching marriages: but that is a mere invention of their own, which by no means hath his foundation upon the word of God.

22. The ancient fathers were of our mind. But it happened of them, as of the Canons: for the more ancient they were, the better they were and the more new, the more corrupt. Tertullian in his second book to his wife, as touching the marriages of Christians with Ethnics, writeth very well: neither alloweth he of marriages, between persons of a contrary religion. God (saith he) giveth thee to a husband. And he addeth, Doubtless upon the earth daughters cannot rightly and justly marry, without the consent of the parents. How therefore wilt thou marry, without the consent of thy heavenly father? Chrysostom upon Genesis, and upon Matthew, when he entreateth of marriages, remitteth the matter unto the examples of the fathers in the

Old Testament. Neither is it of great necessity to recite his words, when as the same father upon the first epistle to Timothy, in his 9th homily, treateth manifestly of that matter. There he exhorteth parents, because of the slippery age of their children, to give them in marriage: but he exhorteth not the children, that they should choose unto themselves husbands or wives.

Yet he converteth his speech unto the parents, that they should provide marriages for them. And he addeth a very notable sentence; If (saith he) they begin to play the harlots before they be married, they will never regard their faith in matrimony.

I will note also by the way, what he writeth in that place of wedding crowns. For even at that time, they used crowns or garlands in weddings.

What (saith he) signifieth the crown or garland? Forsooth, that the husband and the wife should declare, that even unto that time, they had conquered their lusts. If thou hast been an adulterer or whoremonger, how bearest thou a crown or garland? Augustine in his 133rd epistle being desired to make a marriage between a young man and a maid; I would do it (saith he) but that the mother of the child is not present; and thou knowest, that in making of marriages, the mothers good will is necessary. In this place Augustine writeth more severely than the civil laws: for they will not have the child to be in the power of his mother. Of Ambrose I will speak nothing at this time:

I spake enough of him before. Seeing then the law of God, and the law of nature, the laws of cities, and the laws of families, the fathers, and sincere canons affirm, that the consent of the parents is necessary, and the examples of the godly declare the same; what should let us to be of that mind?

Neither ought this to seem grievous unto children: since it was by the laws of God so appointed for their commodity. For young persons, in such things, and specially women, ofttimes provide very ill for themselves.

Wherefore, it is written in the Code De sponsalibus; in the law Si pater:

When the father hath betrothed his daughter, if he afterward die, the governor or tutor cannot undo the covenant of the father. And a reason is added; Because tutors sometimes are won with money, and women are carried to their own discommodities. Also the example of Christ ought to move us, which was given of his father, to be the husband of the church: and he always said, that He did not his own will, but the will of his father, by whom he was sent. Further, how great a disorder ariseth in the Commonwealth, through this corruption? How great a window is opened to filthy lusts? In some places, he that can first lie with a maiden, hopeth to obtain her to wife, even against her parents good will.

23. But now we must answer the reasons, which the contrary part allege for themselves. [ 1] First, as we before said, they cry, that in contracting of matrimony, there ought to be a full liberty. But (I pray you) what liberty? Of the flesh, or of the spirit? Undoubtedly that liberty of the spirit is the greatest, when we obey the commandments of God: who, if he would have us obedient unto our parents in other things, why not in contracting of matrimony also? So then they break the law of God, which even in this thing obey not the parents. Further, if they will have the liberty of contracting of matrimony; why do they themselves forbid so many degrees of kindred? Once the Popes would not suffer matrimony to be contracted, even unto the seventh degree: but now they contain themselves within the fourth. Moreover, why do they forbid marriages unto the ministers of the church? Again, why did God himself forbid matrimonies between persons of contrary religion, if there ought to be so great a liberty in marriage as they feign to be? [ 2] But they add; Children, for fear of their parents, will say, that that matrimony pleaseth them, which pleaseth them not.

Nevertheless, the son is not compelled so to say: nothing letteth but that he may answer, that the same wife pleaseth him not; and that such a matrimony will not be agreeable to his mind. And indeed unless his consent be had, matrimony may in no wise be contracted.

In the Digests De ritu nuptiarum, in the law Non cogitur, we read, that the son cannot be compelled to marry a wife. And De sponsalibus, in the law

Sed ea: If a daughter hold her peace, she seemeth to consent unto the father.

And there are two causes alleged, wherefore the daughter may gainsay her father; if either the father offer her a husband that is wicked, or that is deformed. Otherwise, if none of these causes be, it is required of her, that she love him, whom the father hath chosen. But if she will not assent, when the husband is neither deformed nor evil manered, she incurreth the crime of ingratitude; which is so great, as the father may disherit her for it. And in the title De ritu nuptiarum, in the law Si cogente patre; Although the son have assented for fear of the father, yet because he had rather assent than offend the father, such a matrimony ought to be firm and ratified. Unto the former causes I would add a third; If the father offer a husband, which is of a contrary religion. And I would ever counsel the parents to do that, which should be agreeable to their children; unless they should perceive them to be very obstinate and unjust. But when the parents behave themselves tyrannously towards their children, and force them to marry wives, which they cannot abide; the matter must be brought before the magistrate. It is his part to hear the cause, and to deliver the son from injury, if he be over sharply oppressed. Then, if the son marry a wife by the authority of the magistrate, although it be against the will of the father, it cannot seem, that he hath married utterly without the parents consent. For the magistrate is the father of the country.

The same seemeth to be decreed De ritu nuptiarum, in the law Qui liberos. And me thinketh, the School-men have not well said, that the children of the household have power over their own body; forsomuch as they owe unto their parents, even for the very being, which they have. They ought not to be compelled unto marriages against their will; but that they should marry without the consent of the parents, it cannot be allowed them.

And whereas liberty is so many times obtruded unto us, and the power of the body vaunted of; let us again reply upon them with the answer of God, as touching the daughters of Zalphead, who saith of them: Let them have heritage among their brethren, but let them marry in their own tribe. These women are compelled to marry the nighest of their kin, neither hated they that liberty which these men imagine. And the brother sometimes was compelled to marry the wife of his brother being dead: neither could she marry otherwise. Therefore, so great liberty is not necessary in marriages, as these men pretend. And by the civil law, so great is the authority of the father over his son, that he may sell him, if he fall into grievous necessity.

And least it seem to any man to be a barbarous point; it is permitted by the law of God, in Exodus the 21st chapter: but yet adding certain cautions, which I think not good here to repeat. Wherefore, they did not rightly argue; when they said, that matrimony is a kind of servitude: which the son ought not to take upon him at the appointment of his father.

24. And whereas they say, that the consent of parents is required for the honesty of matrimony, and not upon necessity; it is vain and frivolous. For what greater necessity can there be, than that, which the law and commandment of God doth import? Children are commanded to honor father and mother. Also Paul the apostle prescribeth them to obey their parents in all things. And the same thing writeth he unto the Philippians, the

fourth chapter; That which remaineth brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever are honest, whatsoever just, whatsoever pure, whatsoever profitable, whatsoever things are of good report, do ye. By these words appeareth, that the things which be honest, must not be separated from the commandments of God. So then, look how necessary it is to obey God's commandments, so necessary it is, not to marry without the consent of the parents. And whereas they add, that the consent of the parents is indeed required; but yet if they will not consent, the matrimony may be firm: that is nothing else but to deride the parents. For what reproach is it for the son, so to desire the consent of his father, as though he be against it, and gainsay it; yet nevertheless he will abide in his purpose, and go through with the same?

It were much better not to desire it, than to desire it with that mind. This also seemeth a wonder to me, that the Master so perverteth the words of Evaristus, that when he saith, that matrimonies, contracted without the consent of the parents, are whoredoms and fornications, and not matrimony; he dare expound, that the matter is not so indeed: but because they so come together, as whoremongers and adulterers use to do. But the saying of Evaristus is manifest; They are not (saith he) matrimonies. And indeed he addeth what they are; namely, fornications, adulteries, and whoredoms. And he saith not that they seem to be these things, but that they are so.

25. There be others, which object the book of Genesis, where it is written, that Esau married the wives of the Chanaanits, which his parents took in very ill part: for he had married them contrary to their commandment; and yet the scripture calleth them wives. Wherefore it seemeth, that matrimony may be contracted, even against the parents will. I grant indeed, that in the holy scriptures they be called wives; but yet therefore, because he so counted them, and because the nations, among whom they dwelt, so reputed

them. Notwithstanding, it is not gathered hereby, that the scriptures do confirm such a matrimony. The same form of speaking used Paul in the first to the Corinthians, the eighth chapter; Even as there be many gods, and many lords. He saith that there be many gods: not that there are so indeed

(for there is but one God) but because the most part so believed, and common persuasion conceived that there was an infinite number of gods.

Therefore he saith, Many gods. But to us, which judge aright, there is but one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ. It is no unaccustomed or strange thing in the scriptures, so to call things, as men use commonly to speak: yet elsewhere, when they speak properly, they call everything by his own name.

Howbeit thou wilt say; We never read, that the children of Esau were not legitimate. I answer, that Esau had indeed a great posterity; but whether it were lawful or no, the scripture showeth not. Whereunto add, that by those nations, among whom he lived, they were counted legitimate; for those had not the word of God, wherein it is commanded, that this should not be done: and they had wonderfully corrupted the law of nature.

26. Others cry; What shall we think of our forefathers? What also of many, which live at this day, and have contracted matrimonies without the consent of their parents? Shall we call them matrimonies, or else adulteries?

And shall we count their children so born, for legitimate, or for bastards? I answer: that when as such marriages were had in that time of darkness, before the new light of the Gospel; those men in very deed were not excused from sin (for it was not lawful for them to be ignorant of the law of God:) but yet, because they were done publicly, and by the permission of the magistrate; I am persuaded, that such matrimonies are firm and ratified.

If they object, that in such marriages the consent of the parents wanted: I answer, that it was therein, and it was not therein. For the magistrates had

made the civil laws subject to the canons: which undoubtedly they ought not to have done. Now in this, all men agree. And forsomuch as the magistrate hath the authority of the people, if he consent unto anything, there, after a sort, is the public consent of the people. As at this day in Parliaments, when they assemble for the payment of some sum of money: although some private men of the people be not contented with it; yet, because it is agreed upon by the magistrate, they also should seem to have given their consent.

So indeed, the father would not that the matrimony of his son should be firm without his consent. Howbeit, seeing he submitted his will to the judgment of the magistrate, he should seem after a sort to have given his consent. But now the truth of the thing being known, the magistrate ought to revoke the error. So as the matrimonies, which hitherto (that is, in darkness) have been contracted against the will of the parents, ought to be firm, and the children born of them ought to be legitimate. Nevertheless, if the law should afterward be repealed, then should they be no matrimonies, but only presupposed; and in very deed whoredoms, fornications, and adulteries: even as Evaristus rightly judgeth. Howbeit, while the laws, which are now in force, are not abrogated, I dissolve not the matrimonies which in the meantime are so contracted. Neither do I say, that the children born of these marriages are bastards; but I declare what doth seem most agreeable to the word of God, and to honesty. But Evaristus might justly write so; because in his time the Roman laws were of force, which accounted not such conjunctions to be matrimonies. Further, I add, that fathers are not to be obeyed, when they let the marriages of their children only for religion sake; because in that cause, God must be obeyed in all

things, who is the head father of all things. Look the first to the Corinthians, the seventh chapter, verse 37.

Of Ravine, or violent taking away.

27. This word Raptus, Ravine, in the Hebrew cometh of Chatath. The Greeks say, ἁρπάζειν; the Latins Rapere, which is, To take away by violence; not after every manner of sort, but as it were by a certain fury and great violence. Wherefore ravine differeth from theft; because theft may be committed secretly and without violence. For which cause, in the Digests

De jureiurando, in the law Duobuireis, it is written; If a man swear he hath not taken anything away violently, yet is he not straightway quit of theft.

For although that thing, which a man doth, be not ravine; yet it may be theft. So the civil law putteth a difference between theft and ravine. But to what things ravine pertaineth, it is mentioned in the Digests, De conditione triticiaria, in the law the first. Things immoveable, as houses, lands, and farms are entered upon: but those, which be moveable, as things not having life, beasts and men are violently taken away. Howbeit, we treat here of the violent taking away of things moveable: yet nevertheless, not of all, but of men's bodies, that are by violence taken away for lusts sake. This is another kind of ravine, but not proper, which Augustine toucheth in the 19th sermon

De verbis apostoli: and it is mentioned in the Decrees, 14th cause, question the fifth, in the chapter Si quid inuenisti, where he saith, that things, which be found, must be restored. Which if thou do not, thou hast taken them away forcibly; forsomuch as thou hast done what thou couldest: so that if thou haddest found more, thou wouldest have taken away more.

There the Glosser very well declareth, what is to be done with things that be found. Either (saith he) the same are counted for things cast away: as if the owner have cast away anything, the same, if a man retain, when he hath

found it, he committeth not theft; but if that thing, which is found be not forsaken, neither thought to be cast away willingly by the owner (as when a ring is found, or a purse, or any such thing, which is not wont to be cast away) if thou detain it, it is theft, unless thou keep it by thee with a mind and will to restore it again. So then, thou must openly tell that thou hast found these things, whereby the owner may come to his own again; as it is decreed in the Digests De furtis, in the law Falsus, in the Paraph, Qui alienum. But if thou keep it by thee, with a mind not to restore it, it is theft.

And this doth Augustine in the place now alleged reprove. The very same is decreed in the Code De thesauro, in the law Nemo, and in the institutions

De rerum divisione, where it is ordained; that If a man find treasure in his house or ground, it shall be his that findeth it. Howbeit, if he find it in another man's soil, either he hath gotten it by chance, or else he sought for it. If he have gotten it by chance, let it be divided between the finder and the owner; but if he sought for it, the whole must be yielded to the owner. If the place were holy, and the treasure found by chance, the finder shall have it. It is added, that if a man do seek for treasure in his own ground, and thereunto use Magic, and arts forbidden; the thing found, ought to be yielded unto the common treasury. For he, which by evil means hath sought anything, seemeth unworthy to be possessor thereof. But to return to Augustine, I affirm that which before I said, that it is not properly ravine, if a man hold back that which he hath found of another man's.

And this doth Origin plainly declare in his fourth homily upon Leviticus; Some (saith he) will not restore that, which they have found: for they say, that God hath given it them. Howbeit, whatsoever they say, it is a crime like unto ravine. He saith not, that it is ravine, but a certain thing like unto it.

Although we have out of the civil law distinguished theft from ravine, yet

may ravine be called theft; but yet so, that there be added a violence. In the Digests De Furtis, in the law Si vendidero, it is thus written; He that taketh away by violence, every way committeth theft, and is an open thief. But omitting these things, let us return to that kind whereof we now entreat.

Some have said, that this Latin word Rapere, is nothing else, but Violently to lead away a maiden from the house of her father, to the end that he dishonesting her, may afterward have her for his wife. But this definition is not full and absolute, although it be used of the Canonists in the 36th cause, question 1 chap. Lex illa, in the Paraph Cùm ergo. For in the history of judges, the maidens were violently caught away, yet were they not taken away from their father's house, but out of the field or vineyards. Neither is that true, which is added: namely, To marry her, or to have her to his wife, when he hath dishonested her: for the mind of him that taketh her away by violence, may be to have her for his concubine, or to abuse her at his pleasure, though he take her not to wife. Further, this foresaid definition only maketh mention of maidens, when as yet nevertheless, both married women and widows, free-maid-servants and bond-maid-servants, and also young children may be violently taken away. Wherefore the crime extendeth further than that definition doth import. Only harlots seem to be exempted; for they are not said to be carried away violently, although they be taken away by force. And certainly, it is then no action of violent taking away, but of injuries only. But it is meant, that such persons are violently caught away from the custody either of their parents, or of their tutor, guardian, patron, or lord; to the end there may be used an unlawful copulation, whether matrimony follow or no.

28. Now must we declare what punishments be ordained for such violent takers. In the Code De Raptu virginum, & viduarum, in the law Unica,

Justinian entreateth at large of that matter, and maketh the taking away of the persons, which I have before rehearsed, guilty of death: so that the companions also, and they which assisted the raptor, are comprehended in the same punishment. Neither was that thought to be sufficient, but there were other punishments invented more grievous than death. For it is decreed, that not only the judges and magistrates shall put him to death; but also, if the raptor be taken with the wicked deed doing, either by the parents, brethren, kinsfolk, tutor, governor, lord, patron, or finally by him, in whose power she is that is taken away, they may kill him, and that without any punishment. It is also ordained, that they, which are present with the raptor, and defend him in his dishonest act, may also be slain without any danger. He addeth likewise, that violent taking away is sometime committed against a man's own spouse: as if one by violence take away her, whom he hath not yet married. And if a man take away another man's wife, he doth not only commit adultery, but also ravine. If the raptor be not slain (as they say) in the very heat of the crime, he ought afterward to be put to death by the judges or magistrates: and so, that if he appeal unto a superior magistrate, he shall not be heard. And that (saith Justinian) was ordained by a law made by Constantine.

Undoubtedly it is grievous, not to be heard if thou appeal. And that is here decreed. So great a matter did the civil laws make of ravine. In free-maidservants and bond-maid-servants, the punishment is ended with death: but if a free-woman be taken away by violence, the goods of the raptor, and of those which be present with him, do turn to her use that is taken away.

Neither can the raptor give away his goods, or bequeath them by his will, but they fall to her that is so taken away: and that not only for a time, but also forever; in such sort, that she may either sub them, alienate them, or

give them for a dowry. One thing only is excepted; to wit, Unless she that is taken away, be afterward married to the raptor. The goods of the raptor were given her upon that condition, that she should not marry him: and the reason of the law is added; because in our public weal, we suffer not, that a man should marry a wife, after the manner of an enemy. For citizens are wont to marry their wives, and not to take them violently away. But what was done with them, which although they were not present at such taking away; yet were of counsel thereof: or being witting thereof, uttered it not; or else afterward received the raptor into their house? Justinian decreed, that they indeed should not lose their goods; but only be put to death.

Nevertheless, if a bond-man, or bondwoman were taken, either in committing or aiding this crime, it was commanded that they should be burnt with fire.

29. But what if a maid will, by her own consent, be taken away; yet must no part of the punishment (saith Justinian) be diminished: it is even all one, whether the woman will or will not. And the reason is added; Because, if the raptor would abstain from the wrapped, it is not very likely, that any woman will offer herself, of her own accord, to be taken away. Wherefore it seemeth probable, that she was won by flatteries and deceits. Yea and the parents of the maiden, if they consent to the taking away, are commanded to be banished. These things Justinian decreeth in the Code: who nevertheless afterward in the Authentiks (where it is entreated of women taken away, which marry the raptor) was compelled to make the law anew; because there were some, which caviled, that if she that was taken away did consent to be married, she might possess the goods of the raptor. For so they interpreted the first law, that the goods of the raptor ought to come unto her that was taken away, if she married him, or if he in his will made her his

heir. But we (saith Justinian) meant no such thing: for our laws do not appoint rewards for a wicked crime. Besides, neither can he make any will, forsomuch as he is now condemned to die. Neither do any of our laws suffer any such matrimonies to be in force. And if it be no matrimony, how then can she possess the goods of the raptor, in the name of the dowry? And so he decreed, that such matrimonies should not be ratified.

What then shall become of the goods of the raptor? If the maid (saith he) have parents, which have not thereunto consented, those goods shall come unto them; but if they have consented (as I have already said) they were banished, without any propriety of goods or lands. Which kind of punishment was much more grievous, than plain exile. But if the maiden had no parents, or had those which consented, the goods of the raptor were confiscate to the common treasury. By these things it appeareth, that in those times ravine was counted detestable. Whereunto I will also add this; If any daughter had married against the will of her parents, or otherwise behaved her self wantonly and unchastely, it was lawful for the parents to disherit her: as appeareth in the Code De inofficioso testamento, in the law

Si filiam. This one thing is excepted: If the father knew that the just time of matrimony was past, and would not bestow his daughter, then hath he nothing to deal against her, if she marry without his knowledge, or against his will; nay rather, he is compelled to give her a dowry, as appeareth in the Code, in the same place, in the law Si post viginti quinque annos. Whereby it appeareth, that 25 years was the furthest time that matrimony should be driven off. The same is mentioned in the Digests, De ritu nuptiarum, in the law Qui liberos. Other lawyers determine the same thing, if a woman take away a man by violence: although they say that happeneth but seldom.

30. Now must be added the opinion of the Canonists, and what they bring out of the scriptures. In the 36th cause, question the first, Gratian bringeth that definition of wrapped, which we have before confuted. But this he addeth: that in ravine, injury is sometime done to the maiden, and not to the parents; and sometime to the parents, and not to the maiden: and sometime to them both. For if the maiden will be taken away of her own free will, there is no injury done unto her, but unto her parents: howbeit, if the parents give the man power to take away their daughter, because she will not consent to marry him; then there is no injury done unto them, but unto the daughter. Yet there is injury done to both of them, when the daughter is led away from her parents against their will. And in the same place he bringeth the Council of Orleans, in the chapter De raptoribus, where also he confesseth, that ravine was wont to be punished with death. But it is further said; that If the raptor take the church, he escapeth the punishment of death.

How then? If the maiden (saith he) consented unto the raptor, first she shall be taken from him, and restored to her parents. Nevertheless, she being excused; to wit, a caution being accepted, let her not be slain or disherited: but if she consented not, she is by herself sufficiently purged: yet shall the raptor be compelled to public penance; as it appeareth in the 36th cause, question the second, chapter Raptores. But what if he will not do penance?

He shall be excommunicated, according to the Cabylon and Chalcedon Council.

Notwithstanding, if he do penance, he shall be punished by the purse. And herein they say that they follow the word of God, which is written in Deuteronomy the 22nd chapter; If a man dishonest a maiden, he shall give unto her father fifty sickles, and shall take her to wife. And so they condemn the raptor to pay a certain sum of money unto the parents of the

maiden: the which sum if he will not pay, or hath not wherewithal, he is driven to serve the father of the maiden for certain years (which the Glosser contriveth into five:) upon this condition, that in the meantime he may redeem himself if he will. It is added also; If they consent together, the matrimony is firm, so that the father agree thereunto. And that these matrimonies may be firm betwixt the raptor, and her that is taken away. It also appeareth by the Decretals De raptoribus & incendiarijs, in the chapter

Cùm causa, and in the chapter following: which without doubt is against the civil laws, and against the Canons of the better sort. But the Council

Meldenum decreed far otherwise: for first, it ordained, that the raptor, and she that is taken away, should do public penance; afterward it permitteth matrimony, but yet not between themselves, but with other. And it is added; that If the husband or wife of either of them die, he which hath committed the ravine, or consented unto the raptor, cannot contract new matrimony, except the bishop release him. Besides this it is decreed, that by no means, any such matrimony should be firm, no not although the parents consent thereunto. Yea and the same Gratian confesseth, that the same thing was decreed in the Council which was held at Aquisgrane; yet afterward, both he himself otherwise defineth, and also the Decretals of the Popes.

What then make they of those Councils? They answer that those Councils meant this, that it should not be lawful to contract matrimony in that case, unless open penance be first done, and the consent of the parents had. And to prove that sentence, Gratian in the 36th cause, question 2. chapter Tria, citeth Jerome, who seemeth to acknowledge three kinds of matrimony to be lawful. One, when a maiden is given in matrimony to a husband by her parents, or tutors. Another, if a maiden be oppressed of a man, and her father afterward consent to give her to him in matrimony. The third is, if the

father consent not to such marriages, but give her unto another man. These three matrimonies he saith are lawful in the holy scriptures. But in the 27th cause, question 2. chapter Additur, by the testimony of Jerome, there is added another lawful kind of matrimony; namely, when a widow, which is not under the authority of the parents, marrieth in the Lord. Here Gratian gathereth, that Jerome acknowledgeth matrimony between the raptor, and her that is taken away. But I perceive, that in the 22nd chapter of Exodus, there is nothing entreated of violent taking away; only mention is made there of whoredom committed, and not of violent taking away. For it is said;

If he by flatteries shall allure her to lie with him, then hath he liberty given him that he may take her to his wife, having the consent of the parents. But if a man had taken away a maiden, or man-child by violence, then he was judged by the law Plagium, that is, stealing of men: which is in Deuteronomy, and this it testifieth, that Whosoever stealeth a woman or man in Israel, should be punished with death. Wherefore there is nothing contained in the holy scriptures (so far as I see) touching the firmness or establishment of such a matrimony.

31. But here some man will object, that Jacob and his sons did consent, that Shechem the son of Hemor should have in matrimony Dinah, Jacob's daughter, being violently taken away by him, upon condition, that his subjects would suffer themselves to be circumcised. I grant this: howbeit, that was done before the law of Moses was given. Neither do we read, that the Patriarchs had any word of God concerning this matter. Neither can it be denied, that before the law was published, very many things were committed against it. Jacob, of whom we now speak, had at one time two sisters in matrimony. Amram had to wife his aunt, of whom he begat

Moses, Aaron, and Marie. Which matrimonies, after the law was given,

were not lawful. So as the example, now brought, proveth nothing. But if raptors should have any hope of matrimony, there would be opened a wide window for wild young men to take women violently away: for they will make no doubt to take women away violently, if they shall have any hope to marry her, whom they have taken away. But all occasions of evil must be removed out of the Common-wealth, and the Church. Moreover, seeing parents must have great honor done unto them, they should sustain a great reproach, if matrimonies should be contracted between the raptor, and her that is taken away against their will.

This also seemeth to be added, that Lucius the Pope writeth unto the bishop of Burgis, as appeareth in the Extravagants De raptoribus & incendiarijs, in the chapter Cùm causa, that he decreeth, that If a maiden say, that before she was taken away, there were words passed between them touching marriage, it cannot properly be called ravine. What shall then be done? May she against her parents will marry the raptor? Innocentius the third, in the chapter following, decreeth; If a maiden be taken away against her will, and afterward consent to marry the raptor, that marriage is also firm, yea although it be against the will of her parents. And he addeth that this is done, in the honor of matrimony; when as indeed it openly appeareth to the contumely thereof, if a man with deeper judgment weigh the whole matter. In the 27th cause, question 2. chapter Raptor, it appeareth; If a maiden that is taken away, be betrothed unto another by the words of the future tense, she must be restored unto him, if he will receive her: and if he will not, it is free for the maiden, which was taken away, to marry another.

But if she were betrothed by the words of the present tense, and that she can prove, that she was taken away against her will: the spouse, if he will not receive her, ought to be compelled.

32. The School-divines write not much disagreeing from this. Thomas in the 22nd question toucheth this matter, when he writeth, that violent taking away springeth of a vehement lust; whereby the raptor is so troubled, that he neglecteth all dangers. And he will have her that is taken away, to be rendered to her spouse, if she have any; and if she have none, unto her parents; or if she be without parents, to them in whose power she was. And then, if they will agree, she may marry the raptor; but yet so, that there be first made a restitution: because in all theft and robbery, restitution is chiefly required. Yet (saith he) ravine before restitution be made, is a hindrance to the contracting of matrimony; that is, that they sin, if they contract matrimony: nevertheless, if it be contracted, it breaketh not the contract. But to the canons, which determine against it, he answereth, that they were made in detestation of the crime: but that the Pope afterward considered the matter better. Howbeit, this was not the part of a godly man, to worship the Pope for God, and so to flatter him like a bondslave. And to the end he might seem to speak rightly, he bringeth the words of Jerome, which are in Gratian, concerning the three kinds of matrimony. But how that place serveth to this matter we have in hand, I have showed before.

Lastly, he objecteth unto himself the Meldensian Council. Howbeit, that place (he saith) must be understood, as if a man will take away her that was married unto another: as though that were obscure or doubtful. We need no canons to understand this.

Against Thomas, a certain Divine (none of the simpler sort) earnestly opposeth himself in this matter. And where Thomas saith, that the violent taking away hindereth not the matrimony already contracted; he answereth that many decrees make against that doctrine. Further, he bringeth a reason; namely, that he, which is excommunicated, cannot receive the sacraments.

Then afterward he addeth, that the raptor is excommunicated: wherefore, unless he do penance, and reconcile himself unto the church, he cannot contract matrimony. There Caietane would altogether defend his Thomas; and denieth that he, which is excommunicate, can be partaker of the sacraments. Howbeit, this he confesseth: that he, which is excommunicate, sinneth, if he receive the sacraments. And he saith further; If an excommunicate be admitted to confirmation, or to holy orders, it cannot be denied, but that he hath received the sacraments: neither is it lawful for him to begin them again, if he afterward do penance. Besides he saith, that the Master of the sentences in the fourth book, where he reckoneth the impediments, which take away matrimony contracted, maketh no mention at all of wrapped.

Moreover, he teacheth that the raptor, and she that is taken away, are not excommunicated Ipso facto, but are to be excommunicated. But because he seeth that it is in the canons of the Council of Chalcedon and Cabylon; Let the raptor, and her that is taken away, be accursed: he answereth, that the gloss interpreteth that saying to be of the same force, as if it had been said;

Let them be accursed. And again he answereth to the other two things, touching restitution and penance; and saith, that she, which is taken away, ought not to be restored: but it is sufficient, if he satisfy the father by some means, although she be not delivered into his hands; even as in theft, it is not always of necessity, that things taken away should be restored, but sometimes it is sufficient, that the wrong be recompensed, either by a price, or by a bond. But concerning penance, he saith; The raptor, if he contract without it, he sinneth indeed; but yet after he hath contracted, the matrimony is firm. Lastly he saith, that the canons, which decree to the contrary, either be abrogated, or else speak of spouses. After this sort

Thomas, Caietanus, the Divines, Ecclesiastic's, and Canonists trifle among themselves, and play the parasites with the Pope their god.

33. Now I will declare what the holy scriptures do determine hereof, or what they will have us to judge of the same. The first place is out of Genesis, the sixth chapter, where it is written; The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took them to wives, such as they liked. I know there are brought sundry expositions of this place. Some interpret The sons of God to be angels, which being inflamed with the beauty of fair women, had fellowship with them. This exposition cannot agree: for seeing that angels have no bodies, they cannot burn in such lusts.

Others understand by The sons of God those, which came of Seth, and were brought up in the true worshipping of God; who being overcome with beauty and fairness, contracted matrimony with the daughters of Cain; that is, with idolaters and infidels. Whereby there now remained nothing sound and perfect: and therefore God sending a flood, destroyed the whole world.

The Chaldee interpreter saith, that the children of God were mighty men, and magistrates; who when they had taken to wives the daughters of base men, all things were fraughted with vices. Here do I see that wrapped was committed, which thing the Chaldee paraphrast hath signified, whose authority among the Hebrews is incredible.

And certainly, Moses saith not, that they desired these wives of their parents, but only took them whom they liked best. By that place may easily be noted the course, and as it were the degree of man's wickedness. For first they saw, and then they desired, and at the last they violently took away.

Neither were they won by their manners, but only by the beauty of the body: wherefore God punished that sin by a flood. And although there were many other sins in men, yet this one is expressed with an emphasis.

Besides, in the 34th chapter of the same book, Shechem the son of Hemor did violently take away Dinah the daughter of Jacob: but what end came of that violent taking away, it is not now needful to declare. But the cause why

Dinah was violently taken away, was her curiosity. The maiden would go forth, and understand the manners of other women. Curiosity was a hurt to her then, and also will be a hurt always unto women. For if it were hurtful unto the family of Jacob, being so great a patriarch, for a maiden to wander abroad; how much more dangerous is it for other families, which are not so holy nor acceptable unto God? But the nature of women is greatly infected with this vice. And therefore Paul to Titus admonisheth women to love their husbands, to bring up their children, and to be abiders at home. And to Timothy, when he entreateth of wanton and young widows; They wander abroad (saith he,) and run from house to house, and at the last go after Satan.

Yea and these virgins, of whom there is mention made in the 21st chapter of Judges, when they wandered abroad through the vineyards, and gave themselves idly unto dancing's, were intercepted by the Benjamits. Some will say, that the brethren of Dinah oppressed the Hemorhits by guile. It is true indeed, but when they were reproved of their father, they said; Ought they to have done, nebata, that is, a foolish and wicked thing in Israel? And that Dinah was taken away not willingly, but against her will, hereby appeareth: because it is written, that Shechem, after he had oppressed her, spake unto her heart. Which signifieth no other thing, than that he would by flattery have comforted her. But it may seem to be a marvel, that these

Benjamits were not punished for their ravine. And yet we must consider, that they did not properly commit ravine, because they led away the maidens, not only by their own counsel, but also by the will of the elders.

Otherwise, true and proper ravine hath always had an unlucky end. Io was led away by the Phoenicians, Europa by the men of Creta, Medea by Jason, and Helen by Paris. All which violent takings away stirred up discords and wars, and also the overthrows of public-wealth's and kingdoms. Also the Sabine women, while they would be curious beholders of public games, were caught by the Romans. Whereof followed such wars, as both nations were in a manner destroyed; as Titus Livius, and Augustine De civitate Dei, do write. Seeing then God will not have such wicked acts unpunished, it is meet that from hence forth we avoid such matrimonies. I am not of the mind, to deny that matrimonies, which have been hitherto after that sort contracted, are no matrimonies at all. For it is not my meaning to bring a confusion of things. But these two points I affirm; first, that in contracting, there is sin, especially, if it be done against the will of the parents: further, that those laws, whereby such matrimonies are permitted, must be corrected, that hereafter it may not be lawful to do the like. For we see that the order, which God hath set, is perverted; when as the parents are neglected, by whose counsel's matrimonies should be contracted. And by this means young men are encouraged to violent taking away, seeing they hope that they shall marry the wives, whom they violently take away.

Besides, that which I speak, is agreeable with the laws of God, with the law of nature, and with the civil laws. Wherefore let the Canonists and Schoolmen take heed, how they judge the contrary.

Whether marriages be lawful between persons of diverse religions.

34. There be which defend this kind of marriages, and affirm, that they be lawful. [ 1] For although God, in the 23rd of Exodus, in the seventh of Deuteronomy, and in many other places forbad the contracting of them, that (say they) must be understood only concerning the seven nations, which

were inhabitants of the land of Canaan. Neither think they, that God did forbid, but that the Hebrews might marry with other nations. [ 2] They add also, that as touching the Chanaanits, that law might sometime be dispensed with: for Rahab the Chanaanite, because she was godly and favored the Israelites, became the wife of Salmon, who not only was a Hebrew, but a prince of the tribe of Judah. [ 3] I omit Judah, that went in to a wife of the Chanaanits, because he was otherwise unclean: so then it is not lawful to ground an argument upon his example. [ 4] More probable is that, which is written in the 21st chapter of Deuteronomy; where God gave leave unto the Israelites (if themselves would) to marry the strange women, which were captives among them. But first he would, that the head of her that should be married, should be shaven, her nails not pared, her garment changed, and that she should mourn for her parents by the space of thirty days. Hereby they gather, that such marriages were not by all means forbidden.

[ 5] Yea and Boaz married Ruth a Moabite: and David took Maacha the daughter of Thalma the king of Gessur. [ 6] Solomon also had the daughter of Pharaoh. [ 7] Neither for this cause was he reproved of any: nay rather, he seemeth to be commended, because he loved Jehovah. [ 8] I pass over Samson, of whose matrimony with a stranger it is evidently written in the book of Judges. [ 9] Moreover, there is a place brought out of Paul, in the first to the Corinthians, wherein is decreed; that It is lawful for the believer to abide with a wife that is an unbeliever. Hereby they gather, that the diversity of religion maketh not, but that marriages may be firm. [ 10] Yea and Augustine De adulterinis conjugijs ad Pollentium, in the 23rd chapter: and also De fide & operibus, the 19th chapter, affirmeth, that there is no evident place extant in the new testament, that such kind of marriages should not be contracted. Nevertheless, Jerome in his first book against

Jovinian, sharply inveigheth against this kind of matrimony; and doth openly witness and complain, that such marriages in his time were not eschewed. Also the same Augustine, in the place now alleged De fide & operibus, is sorry, that men did not think it to be sin, to contract marriage with them that be of a sundry religion. But there is a doubt put as touching

Solomon; because he seemeth not to be altogether clear of sin, by reason of these marriages: since in the 23rd chapter of Deuteronomy, there is mention made, that some nations were altogether to be excluded from the conversation of the Israelites. For the Ammonites, and the Moabits were perpetually to be excluded from the church of the Jews: but the Idumeans and Egyptians only unto the third generation. And yet did Solomon immediately, in the first generation, admit an Egyptian woman into the church of the Hebrews.

35. Now on the contrary part, let us bring forth the reasons, which condemn and forbid this kind of matrimony. And it is proved not to be lawful, unless that party, which was of the condemned religion, shall depart from the same. [ 1] For, when as God so oftentimes forbad these kind of matrimonies, he added the cause: lest the unbelieving party should allure the faithful party unto idolatry. Because, if the unbelieving party abide in his or her religion, the other party doth put forth itself into great hazard: which the heavenly father would have utterly to be turned away from his children. Wherefore, if the believer think that he shall abide steadfast in this kind of wedlock, he undoubtedly seemeth to tempt God. [ 2] Further, we learn by the example of Solomon (who at length made idols and churches for his outlandish wives) what success such matrimonies had. And Jehoshaphat on this behalf sinned grievously. [ 3] Ahab also, though he were an evil prince, yet became he much worse by reason of Jezebel. [ 4]

Moreover, what happened unto the Israelites, when they shamefully kept company with the daughters of Moab; [ 5] in the book of Numbers it is manifest. [ 6] Jacob and Rebecca took it in very ill part, that Esau married strange wives. [ 7] And Esdras, after his return out of Babylon, when he perceived that the Israelites had coupled themselves with the Moabites, and with foreigners of a diverse religion, he undid those matrimonies: the which if they had been stable by the law of God, it had not been lawful to have severed those persons.

[ 8] Again, Paul in the second epistle to the Corinthians, the sixth chapter, when he writeth (Do not ye bear the yoke with the unbelievers) it may seem, that he forbad this: and it is thought that he alluded it unto the law of Moses, which forbad that they should not till the ground with an ox and an asse together. For when a yoke is put upon beasts, which be of diverse natures or forms, the work goeth not well forward. Herewithal the apostle added; For what fellowship hath unrighteousness with righteousness, or what partaking hath light with darkness? Some man will say, that this place seemeth not to be extended unto matrimony; seeing Paul doth there reprove the Corinthians, because they persuaded themselves, that it was lawful to keep company with the Ethnics in outward things without committing of sin. Therefore Paul would, that so much as is possible, they should sever themselves from them: and he brought forth a sentence, which is universal, and not particular touching matrimonies. But if the sentence were general, and that he pronounced the same of other affairs; how much rather shall it be of force in the contracting of marriages together with them? Erasmus also in his annotations saith, that the same apostle doth not only forbid outward dealings together, but marriage also. And undoubtedly reason persuadeth the same: because the property of marriage is to be a

participation of heavenly and human things. For if this be attributed unto friendship, much more it shall be proper unto matrimony, seeing the same is a friendship most nearly knit.

36. [ 9] Cyprian, who is brought forth by Augustine in the places now cited, in his epistle De lapsis, doth lament, that the church in those days was troubled with that detestable vice; even in like manner as it was about the time of Augustine, and Jerome; They prostitute (saith he) the members of God unto the Gentiles. [ 10] And Jerome, in his first book against Jovinian writeth, that the Christian parents do prostitute their members unto the idols. And he further saith, that Christian women, which are so married, become the ribs of the devil. [ 11] Yea and Ambrose in his 70th epistle to Vigilius, writeth very largely of this matter; where, besides the decrees of the old law, he bringeth two other arguments. First, that man and wife ought to receive blessing under the veil of the priest. But and if they shall be of sundry religions, how shall they be covered in the church of Christ under one veil? By those words we understand, that it was then the manner to have matrimonies solemnized in temples; and that the husband and wife were covered both with one veil by the minister: to the intent that they, which stood by, might see they were joined then together. Which custom is very much against secret matrimony.

Possidonius, upon the life of Augustine, writeth, that he did very well like the counsel of Ambrose, who judged; that If man and wife did consent together in matrimony, the minister of the church should be sent for, by whom the covenants of marriage should be established, and the matrimony should be confirmed. And what the veil was, wherewith the new married folk should be covered, I have nothing else to affirm, but that (as I think) it was an outward sign received from the Jews, who also at this day retain the

same. And perhaps Ruth had a respect thereunto, when she desired of Boaz that he would cover her with his cloak; to wit, that he would acknowledge her for his lawful wife. Another argument of Ambrose was, that man and wife ought otherwhile to pray together. And peradventure he meaneth those kind of prayers, which publicly are uttered sometime in churches. But if man and wife do not cleave both unto one God, how can they both pray together? Nay rather, it will easily happen, that when the one of them hath determined to pray, the other will be minded to feast and make cheer. [ 12]

The same father, in his book of the Patriarch Abraham, the ninth chapter, warneth the faithful, that they should diligently beware, least they bestow their daughters upon Jews and infidels; or to take wives among them. And his words are alleged in the decrees, 28th cause, question 1. in the chapter

Non oportet.

[ 13] And in the same question, Paraph Exijs, Ambrose is cited, who saith; It is no marriage, which is done without the decree of God, and therefore must be amended, Gratian interpreteth those words, and saith, that It is not decreed, that there is no matrimony at all among the infidels; but that the marriage between them is not lawful, seeing it is contracted contrary to the commandment of God: that is, between such persons, as God would not have to be coupled together; namely, them which be of kindred one to another, within certain degrees prohibited in the law; or else, when the one party shall be an infidel. Further Ambrose commendeth the old Patriarchs, which sought out wives of their own stock. [ 14] Tertullian also, in his book

De corona militis, saith; We marry not unto Ethnics, least they should compel their wives to idolatry, whereat they begin their marriages. [ 15]

And while he endeavoreth to prove, that God hath forbidden those marriages, he bringeth the place of Paul in the first to the Corinthians,

wherein he saith; If she will marry, let her marry in the Lord. Which saying nevertheless of his, some do understand to be spoken generally: as if the apostle had said; Let her marry religiously, observing godliness, in the fear of the Lord: as though by these few words he forbad not this kind of matrimony. And it might be, that Augustine was of the same mind. But I think, that the speech of the apostle, being pronounced generally, is so to be understood, as thereby marriages also with infidels be forbidden. For how can it be, that a faithful person should be coupled religiously, and in the fear of the Lord, with the enemies of Christ? And certainly Tertullian, Jerome, and Ambrose, understood that place after this sort.

[ 16] Moreover, Tertullian himself wrote unto his wife, that such marriages cannot be allowed by any of the holy scriptures. And he added, that therein were many dangers, and also wounds of faith: dangers, lest the faithful should fall into idolatry; and wounds of faith, because, in so much as otherwise we be weak, we have the more need to be supported. But the other party, being an infidel, will not help: and the faithful party shall be compelled many times to hear that will displease him. [ 17] Moreover, he speaketh more boldly and freely, saying; that such marriages make men guilty of adultery, and that we must not communicate with them in brotherly fellowship. Wherefore it easily appeareth, that they, which so had contracted matrimony in those days, were excommunicated. And why they were guilty of adultery, he declareth on this wise: God by his law forbad such matrimonies; Therefore an infidel, which is given in matrimony, is not fit for that marriage. Then, seeing they be no marriages, there shall be whoredom committed. A strange person is brought in, by whom the temple of God is defiled. Moreover, this sin is therefore made the more grievous, because it is not hard for Christians to find out other matches.

[ 18] Moreover, he addeth, that if it be true, that Menander and the apostle declared; that Naughty talk corrupteth good manners: how much more will so unmeet matches make them naught? Undoubtedly, he that is a stranger from Christ, will speak no good of him. Besides this, the worst of all is, to have the servant of the devil so near at hand. [ 19] Verily, the servants of princes, which would be counted faithful, can by no means abide to have fellowship with their enemies, or with their enemies servants. And it cannot be denied, but that they, which joined themselves to such wives, passed not to be among the enemies of Christ. [ 20] Further, it is to be considered, that in those days, the assemblies of the godly were had in the night season. And therefore, how could that husband, which was an infidel, suffer his wife to be absent in the night? [ 21] Again, it is evident enough, that God is the maker of godly marriages: but such [as those other be] are procured of naughtiness, that is, by the devil. [ 22] Besides, Tertullian bringeth an example taken from things civil. For the law was very ancient; that If any woman kept unlawful company with a bond-man, and being warned did not amend, she should at the length be made the handmaid of the master of that bond-man, which she shamefully loved. Neither did the Roman laws suffer, that servants should marry without the consent of their lords. What account then shall we make of Christ, which is the true Lord of us all?

[ 23] Moreover, if we come unto strange women, we shall at length fall into the hands of their master, which is the devil. Indeed the reasons, which this writer maketh, be very strong: the which nevertheless persuaded not the women of that time, especially the richer sort, because they were not willing to join themselves in matrimony to poor Christian men; but contrariwise, they sought after large houses, which might receive their substance. [ 24] Afterward he added a notable sentence, and saith; that

Faithful men must desire marriages of the church, that there may be one desire, one faith, hope, and discipline between man and wife. The which when Christ seeth, he will rejoice, and will send his peace among them.

And contrariwise, without this, they shall never live peaceably. [ 25] At the last, he concludeth with his own judgment, affirming, that such marriages are not lawful. And he addeth; that Although they were lawful, yet that they be not expedient. Certainly in other matters and proprieties, that sentence is very greatly regarded; Take thou thine equal. How much rather in matrimony ought there to be a consent, as touching religion?

37. There might be other of the fathers also brought; but passing over them, I affirm, that the Councils have judged the very same thing. [ 26] For the Council Agathense, not only forbiddeth marriages with infidels, but also inditeth them with heretics. Also the Council of Urbin, as it is brought in the 28th cause, question the first, in the chapter Si Judaicae, &c. hath ordained the very same. [ 27] In like manner hath the Council of Laodicea, Canon the 10th and 21st. But I marvel that many of the Canonists dare write, that the Pope can dispense with this law: because it is (as they term it) positive, that is, evil. Certainly they be deceived: for (as it is proved) this is a divine institution, neither is it lawful for men to dispense with it, because God himself commanded it. Yet must we add, that with Ethnics matrimonies are lawful, so that they be converted unto Christ, and to the worship of the true

God. So I think, that Moses married his Ethiopian wife, and Jacob the daughter of Laban. But because there is mention made of matrimony with heretics, what shall we say is to be done at this day, when as Papists are sometime joined to the professors of the Gospel, and professors of the Gospel contract themselves with Papists? Hostiensis said, that this ought

not to be done; but yet, that if such be joined together in matrimony, they be man and wife, and the marriages of force.

Yea and Thomas, in the fourth book of the sentences, seemeth not to mislike this opinion. But these fellows do soon utter what they think: yet they prove not that, which they speak. While they thus affirm, they cast themselves into a very great absurdity. For if that party, which is a heretic, provoke to heresy the faithful and sincere party: if the faithful will not assent, nor yet dwell with the other party; or if he will dwell together, he doth it not without perpetual contumely to Christ, what shall be done? They answer; If the matter come to that point, let them be separated; howbeit, from the bed, but not from the bond of matrimony. And so they imagine a kind of divorcement, utterly unknown unto the holy scriptures. Wherefore I lean to the contrary part, and am led by these reasons. In the history of Kings, and in the latter book of Paralipomenon, the 18th chapter,

Jehoshaphat (otherwise a most commendable prince) is accused by the word of God; because he entered into affinity with Ahab, an idolatrous king.

[ 28] For he coupled Athaliah the daughter of Ahab unto his son [Joram:] whereupon he was afterward sharply reproved by Jehu the son of Ananie, as it appeareth there in the 19th chapter.

38. [ 29] Let us consider moreover, how great mischief followed thereof.

Joram the son of a good father (namely of Jehoshaphat) casting aside the worshipping of the true God, did imitate the kings of Israel: [ 30] Athaliah his wife urging him thereunto. Now let us compare together the Israelites and the Jews, between whom there is the same consideration to be had, that is between the heretics and the Christians. For the Israelites did profess the law of Moses, they had circumcision: neither were they by all means strange from the faith of the Jews, and yet notwithstanding was the amity,

which the kings of Judah had with them, reproved; and by the will of God their ships were broken, while they joined together in friendship. What shall we then say concerning heretics? [ 31] In the third to Titus it is written;

Shun thou a heretic, after the first and second admonition. Doest thou give ear unto the apostle, if thou marry such a one? Such were the Israelites in times past, being compared with the Jews; such are the Papists and Anabaptists; if thou compare them with the professors of the Gospel. [ 32]

Add hereunto, that in John the fourth chapter, it is written, that the Samaritans had no conversation with the Jews.

These reasons do very much move me: howbeit, I would that the matter should be so mitigated, as we might not be more careful than reason would, about the easier sort of controversies and disagreements. But let us chiefly examine, whether the parties, which are to be joined in matrimony, do agree together in the chiefest points of religion; namely, Whether they believe in one very God, as touching the essence, and three persons together in one substance; Whether they believe, that for our sins we have need of Christ to be an only mediator; in whom be two perfect natures, divine and human, the properties of them being preserved; Whether they believe that we be justified by faith without works; That there shall be as well a resurrection, as a general judgment: and other things of like sort? Which I add herein, because it were an infinite thing to descend unto more particularities. But admit, that when the marriage is made; the husband and the wife do agree in religion; what must afterward be done, if the one of them shall fall into heresy? The Papists answer: They must be separated from the bed, as we said before, but not from the bond of matrimony.

But Coelestinus judged, that those matrimonies should utterly be undone, and a license of new marriage granted them. Innocentius, which followed

after, abolished this decree: saying; It may be, that they, coveting to be at liberty from the marriage which they mislike, would accuse their wives as heretics, or would fain themselves to be heretics: as appeareth in the Extravagants De diuortijs, in the chapter Quando te, &c. But I acknowledge no divorce, but that which is free, wherein liberty to marry again may be at the least wise granted to the party offended. Neither do the holy scriptures show of any other kind of divorce. Howbeit I would answer

Innocentius, that the one married party must not be believed, that accuseth the other of heresy, unless the mater be proved by just and lawful examination. Moreover, I think it best, that such punishments be laid upon heretics, as none may lightly be led to profess heresy. Wherefore we must determine, that the surest way is, to take heed of such marriages at the beginning. And if it happen afterward, that there arise any heresy of great importance among them, which is tried out by lawful examination, let there be ways and means attempted, whereby the infected party may repent.

Which if it take no place, and that the infected party will not dwell with the faithful: or else is not ready to do this, without committing blasphemies and contumelies against Christ: they must be separated with a free divorce. Now remaineth, that we answer to the arguments, which seemed to make against our opinion.

39. [ 1] First it was said; that God meant such matrimonies [of unlike religion] only as touching the seven nations of the land of Canaan. I answer, that the cause, which is afterward added, is general; namely: least men should turn from the true God, and from the right worshipping of him. But here we will demand, that if turning unto the true God had happened among them; whether it were lawful for the Hebrews to contract with those nations? I think it had not been lawful, without some special dispensation of

God; because God had wholly cast out those nations. [ 2] And as for that, which was brought touching matrimony licensed with a captive woman, I first say, that if a man will more narrowly behold that law, he shall easily perceive, that such matrimony was not allowed by God: the which nevertheless he granted to the Hebrews, by reason of their incredible folly.

Which I hereby gather, because he willed, that the head of a strange captive woman should be shaven: that if perhaps she pleased a Hebrew, by reason of her beautiful hair, now being shaven, he might begin to mislike of her.

He also ordained that her garments should be changed; because even those (as often it cometh to pass) might procure that love. He also commanded that they should let their nails grow, to make them the more deformed. And he willed, that there should be a morning for thirty days; that if she were loved before for her mirth and amiableness, now she should less please for her morning and unhandsomeness. With these conditions God endeavored to make a medicine for raging love. Over this, there is added a great burden, that if she began to be misliked, he ought not to have her for a bondslave, or else sell her to another: but he was commanded after a divorce was made to let her go free. Those conditions being observed, at the last he condescended, that she should be a wife: which must be understood

(although it be not expressed) that she should be first well instructed in religion, and should be converted unto the true God.

[ 3] But touching those examples brought of them, which in old time married such women; I confess, that some such were married, who nevertheless did first admit the true and sound religion. But I judge, that Solomon had perhaps done better, if he had refrained from the daughter of the Egyptian; because I do not think that Pharaoh was much better than

Ahab, with whom the matrimony being made was reproved by God. And

whereas it is written in the history, that Solomon loved Jehovah; that I do understand was meant by the love, which he had at the first, before he was yet corrupted. For afterward, when he was grown to old age, his heart, through strange women, was alienated from God. And as concerning

Augustine, which said, that in the New Testament there is no express commandment extant, whereby such kind of marriages are forbidden; I set against him Tertullian, Jerome, and other fathers, who refer to this place the words of Paul to the Corinthians, the second epistle, and sixth chapter, which I alleged before. And that which he wrote in the former epistle (Let him marry in the Lord) they refer unto this place, and show, that they were spoken against this kind of matrimony. And where it is alleged, that many in old time did not abstain from the marriages, neither did think that they sinned thereby: that have not we to do with. For while Paul lived, there were many, which had recourse to idolatry, and thought not that they did ill therein; even as many thought that whoredom was not to be reckoned a fault: which nevertheless, the apostle doth earnestly reprove, and showeth it to be sin.

And that, which to the Corinthians is decreed by the same apostle, that The believing husband may dwell with the unbelieving wife, if he will, and be contented therewith: [ 4] we answer, that we in this place do reason of marriages to be made, and not of such as be already made. So as the apostle saith there; He or she that hath an unbelieving spouse. Whereby it appeareth, that he speaketh of matrimony that was contracted before. [ 5]

But touching Solomon, whether he brake the law, which is in Deuteronomy, of the not bringing in of nations into the church of the Jews, either never, or else till many generations were past: I say, that that law must be more diligently weighed, and more narrowly scanned, what is, To enter into the

church. For (as I think) we must not believe, that a man being a proselyte, and converted unto the true God, and circumcised, should wait so long after he were justified, to be admitted unto offering of sacrifices and common prayers. Wherefore it is very likely, that in the law was meant their enfranchising into the city, whereby they might be in possibility to execute offices, and to be in the state of marrying wives of the tribes of Israel. And so, as concerning this, Solomon should not be accused for breaking the law, seeing the same provideth it for men and not for women. I think therefore, that matrimonies of this kind are not to be made, because they be rather snares than marriages.

Of Degrees forbidden to make contract in marriage.

40. This seemeth first to be agreed upon, that in the 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus, are not rehearsed all persons or degrees, in whom marriages are forbidden. For there is no mention made of grandmother: when as nevertheless all men will confess it to be most shameful, if any man should take his grandmother to wife who is so far above him in years.

The wise also of the grandfather is not mentioned. And though the wife of the uncle, by the father's side, be spoken of; yet is there nothing spoken concerning the wife of the uncle by the mothers side. Yea and (that we more marvel at) there is no prohibition for the father to marry his daughter: when as all men confess, that those marriages be most incestuous. So as it is to be thought, that in that place are set forth by the holy Ghost certain degrees prohibited: and those not many but yet such, that by them (as by certain exquisite and manifest rules) we may judge of the like. Wherefore we must think, that whatsoever is spoken as touching the mother, is also commanded as touching the grandfather, or grandmother: seeing that all these are reckoned to be parents. Those things also, which are spoken as touching the

wife of the uncle by the father's side, do manifestly show what is to be done as concerning the wife of the uncle by the mother's side: forsomuch as these affinities or degrees have by the same space or distance, relation one to another. So that I am of this mind, that I think the prohibitions mentioned in the law, are therefore set forth, that by them we might evidently understand, what is meet to do in the like degrees.

I grant nevertheless, concerning Paulus Burgensis reason, that they much more break the law, which do contract matrimonies with persons forbidden: and that they also pervert the order of kindreds. For unto me he seemeth to do far worse, which marrieth his grandmother, than he which marrieth his niece of his brother's side: although I think, that both these matrimonies are unlawful. What the Hebrews of our time do, I pass not much; yea, I much doubt of that, which Paulus Burgensis assureth himself, as a thing plain and manifest; namely, that the Jews at this day are most diligent in observing of their outward laws. For me thinketh I should do well, in not giving to them more dignity or religion than to Christians. Wherefore, as it is manifest enough, that we have for men's traditions, strayed very much from the right observation of the commandments of God, and also from the right knowledge of the scriptures: so is it also likely that the same hath happened to the Jews, especially in this our age. So as I am not injurious against them, when I will not yield more unto them, than unto ourselves.

Nevertheless, I will not let to declare, that their Rabbins have added to the degrees forbidden in the law, many more as well in descending as ascending: which thing I understand the great learned man Paulus Phagius hath declared in his annotations on Leviticus. Neither can I be persuaded, that they were added by them for any other cause; but only for that they thought that those degrees were comprehended in the degrees expressed by

God. Wherefore that (as I think) will not be sufficient for judging of lawful marriages, if the degree, wherein they are contracted, shall not by manifest and proper words in the law be forbidden, nor yet the order of kindred perverted: for it may be, that the like degree, and of the same distance, is forbidden by authority of the law. Neither doth the scripture (so far as I can see) allege in any place such a reason, as belongeth to the perverting of order, although (as I have said before) I will not utterly reject the same.

41. Some man peradventure will say; What matter is it for us of this age, either to know or to mark those precepts, which are contained in the 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus; seeing that we, after the coming of Christ, are no more bound to the civil laws of the Jews? I grant that the Christians are not bound to the civil precepts of the law: but yet I ascribe those precepts, which are there given for marriages, not to civil laws, but rather to moral. And I think, that I may bring a reason out of the same place to confirm my saying. For God when he gave those laws, added these words thereunto; Take heed therefore that ye defile not yourselves with whoredoms, and such incest's, as the Gentiles have done, whom I have driven out of those lands, which I have now given unto you: for seeing those nations have been polluted with so grievous wicked acts, I have therefore so destroyed them, and will do the like unto you, except you shall diligently shun those things, which I command you, as touching these evils.

I think no man will doubt, but that the Chanaanits, which received not the law by Moses, neither were citizens of the public wealth of the Israelites, could not by that law be condemned; because they obeyed not the laws of the Hebrews. They were subject only to the law, which is called moral.

Seeing then God reproveth them for that cause, that they were so defiled with such filthy lusts and incest's, and affirmeth, that for the same cause he

deprived them both of their land and life: it is manifest, that these laws must be joined, not to civil precepts, but to moral, which all men are bound to observe.

Nevertheless, it seemeth at the first sight to be against this doctrine, in that Abraham (a man otherwise most holy) is thought to have married his brother's daughter; namely, Sara. Amram had also Jochabed his aunt to wife, of whom he begat Moses, Aaron, and Marie. And it seemeth, that so godly and holy men would not have done this, if the moral law (as we have said) had been against it. To this we answer: first, that the law of nature was much blotted by corruption and wickedness, which overwhelmed all mankind soon after sin: and for that cause they, which contracted such matrimonies, thought peradventure that the same was lawful. And therefore, although they cannot altogether be excused by that ignorance; yet it is to be thought that they committed less sin than those, which durst do such things, after the law was given. I add moreover, that among the facts of the fathers, certain things are now and then spoken of, by which other men must not take example, seeing they are sometimes to be interpreted as prerogatives, or certain privileges given them. But how so ever it be, we must not (as I think) much labor to excuse the fathers in all things. Although I know there be, which say, that Sara was not the daughter of Abraham's brother, but of kin some other way. And therefore she might be called his sister, after the ancient manner of speaking; as though she were of some kindred unto him, but yet not so near of kin, but that they might marry together. And in like manner they say of the kindred of Amram and Jochabed. Howbeit, I will omit these things, seeing the whole matter may be made plain by these two kind of answers before alleged.

42. It might also be demanded, that if the precepts of matrimonies be moral, and do appertain to the law of nature, why God would also establish them in his laws? Because the light of nature was come to that point, that it was not sufficient. The brightness thereof was daily more and more defaced in the hearts of men. Which doth manifestly appear, not only in these, but also in the ten commandments: where it is commanded, that men should abstain from theft and murder. And yet we read in the histories, that robbing on the sea, and also on the land prevailed in such sort, as they might seem to be full of honor and dignity. Plato, in his first book of laws, thought, that concerning procreation of children, we should abstain from mothers, grandmothers, and the degrees above them; again, from daughters, nieces, and degrees beneath them: but as for other persons he made free. Jerome against Jovinian, in his second book testifieth, that the Scots in his time had no certain marriages: but accompanied with their women, as they lusted themselves, even with such as came first to hand. He saith moreover, that the Meds, Indians, Ethiopians, and Persians, confusedly contracted matrimonies with their mothers, sisters, daughters, and nieces.

Which seemeth nevertheless to disagree with that, which Herodotus writeth of the Persians. For Cambyses (as he testifieth) desired to marry his sister, for the which he asked counsel of the lawyers and wise men: and demanded of them, whether that matrimony were lawful or no. To whom they answered, that they indeed had no law for the brother to marry his sister: but yet they had another law among them, whereby it was lawful for the king of the Persians to do whatsoever himself lusted. Surely they answered well in the first part of their answer, but in the latter part they most shamefully flattered the tyrant. Howbeit, the things, which be written by this historiographer (though sometimes fabulous) and those that Jerome

bringeth, vary not. For the common sort, being now corrupted with shameful and wicked custom, contracted such matrimonies: howbeit, the wiser sort, in whom the law of nature did shine, perceived that those matrimonies were not lawful; although, being overcome with covetousness, they would not forbear them. Whom Paul to the Romans hath sharply reproved, saying; Which men, notwithstanding that they know the righteousness of God, they not only do such things, but also they consent unto those which do them. And these matrimonies are known as it were in their own nature to be so unlawful, as they, which hear relation made of such things, be stricken with an exceeding great horror. Yea and they themselves, which have committed such things in the heat of their lust, seem to detest those whom they have defiled.

The poets make mention of Cynara and Myrrha his daughter, with whom her father perceiving that he had unawares kept unlawful company, he so hated her, that he persecuted her, all that ever he might. Amnon began so to hate his sister, whom he had dishonested, that he commanded her to be violently thrust out of his sight. Thou shalt also never in a manner find (if thou look into histories) that incestuous marriages, or carnal copulations came to good end. Ptolemy king of Egypt took to wife, by fraud and guile, his sister Euridice. What ill success came thereof, the histories, and (specially Justin) have plainly set forth. Antonius Caracalla, who married his stepmother; and Nero, that committed abomination with his mother, not only came to a most unhappy end, but (according to their deserts) were wonderfully hated of the people, and were openly called monsters of mankind. Wherefore we grant, both that these commandments, which do prohibit those sins, pertain to the law of nature; and also, that they were for just cause renewed by God in his moral laws.

43. It may also be plainly enough declared by another reason, that incestuous marriages are forbidden by the light of nature; seeing that they were earnestly forbidden by the Roman laws, which were counted among the most excellent and honest laws: and those marriages were specially named, wherein any man had married his niece by the brother's side.

Although Claudius Caesar, when he would marry his brother's daughter Agrippina, caused the first law to be abrogated; and to be decreed, that it might be lawful for every man to have his brother's daughter to wife: but there was none at Rome, except it were one or two, that would follow his example. But the first law, which was the best, was observed among the Romans. Howbeit, we must understand, that there were certain persons prohibited by the laws of the Romans, whereof God's laws made no mention; and yet their prohibition was not without reason. So as the citizens of Rome were bound to observe them, although by the light of nature they could see no cause why they should so do. Which kind of laws was wont to be called peculiar, because it seemeth to be a thing private unto certain persons. I will make the thing more plain by examples.

The Romans (as may be seen in the Code) would not that matrimonies should be made between the guardian and the pupil; because they saw it would easily come to pass thereby, that the guardian, which had consumed the goods of his pupil, least he should be constrained after the time of his tutorship, to render an account of those goods, would solicit the maiden to marriage: which being obtained, he should be free from rendering an account of her goods. Surely the law was good, but yet it was not perfectly observed. Cicero (otherwise a grave man) was ill reported of for the same cause: for being far in other men's debt, when he had forsaken his wife

Terentia, he married his pupil, of whose goods and affairs he had the charge

as guardian. Also the Romans decreed, that no president of any province should take to wife, either to himself, or to any of his, any woman within the same province, wherein he governed. For they knew right well, that it might so happen, that the Pretor, Proconsul, or President in a province, having affiance in the families and kinsfolk coming to him by his wife, might conspire new matters, and at last alienate themselves from the Common-wealth. They also saw a great danger to hang thereupon, lest he should not be just and severe in giving of judgment; because he would gratify his kinsfolk more than others. Lastly, it should not be free for them to have marriages within the provinces; because magistrates might in a manner compel them of the provinces, to contract matrimonies either with themselves, or with their friends.

We see also this excellent law violated. For Felix, which governed Jury under Nero, (as it is written in the 24th chapter of the Acts of the apostles) had Drusilla a Jew to wife. But what need is it to rehearse, that these laws of less weight were not observed, when as that people had shaken off even those laws, which we called moral, and are known by the law of nature?

Cicero declareth in his Oration for Cluentius, that Sassia, a certain wicked woman, was so inflamed with wicked lust, that she instigated her son in law

Aurius Melinus, (to whom she had before married her daughter) to refuse his wife, that he might take her to wife instead of her daughter: which at the length she brought to pass. And whereas that deed was accounted full of dishonesty, yet was it not punished by the laws. Neither do we read that the matrimony (which Cicero affirmeth was unluckily contracted without order or authority) was dissolved by the power and commandment of the magistrates. Wherefore, there is here also offered a good reason, why God would again inculcate by a new law, those things, which by the light of

nature were judged to be honest: for the bounds, bars, and closures of nature were broken, by the impotent lust of men; and therefore they were to be made surer by another bond. For the Israelites were no more shamefast in keeping of natural honesty, than the Romans were.

44. Neither is this to be forgotten, that God had certain proper things in his law, which may be called peculiar: seeing all men were not bound unto them by the law of nature, but the Hebrews only. For he would not have them to contract matrimony with the Chanaanits, Ammorhites, Jebusits, &c. for other people seem not to have been bound to that law. Neither should we at this day (if there were such nations still) be letted, but that we might join ourselves in matrimony with them. Although the cause of that law ought at this day to be holden: which cause is, that matrimonies should not be contracted with them that be of a contrary religion; for we must beware, that the godly be not joined with the wicked. I know that Augustine, concerning unlawful marriages, writeth to Pollentius, in the second book, and De sermon Domini in monte; that There is not a place in the New

Testament, wherein by express words, matrimonies with infidels are forbidden. But of this matter I will not write much at this present, seeing I have largely entreated thereof upon the epistle to the Corinthians. This will

I say moreover, that a good man, in contracting of matrimonies, ought to follow chiefly that which is honest; and not lightly to depart from commendable orders, and usual customs, which are not against the word of God. And if there happen peradventure any doubt, let him not think it much to ask his magistrate: otherwise he shall rashly put forth himself, his wife, and his children into danger.

For if he be married in any of the degrees prohibited, he shall not be counted a husband, but a whoremonger; and his wife shall be called a

harlot; and the children, in that marriage begotten, shall be taken for bastards. Howbeit, the magistrate, although he may not, concerning matrimony, forbid certain other contracts, besides those which God hath forbidden: yet can he not, neither ought he to remit any of those, which God hath commanded, and which he hath forbidden by his law. Yea, he must most diligently take heed, that he burden not the people too much, or without an earnest cause; as we see that the Pope hath done, who hath two ways sinned therein. First, in that he durst usurp the office of making laws in a Common wealth; which undoubtedly pertaineth not unto him.

Secondly, because in his laws he followed not the word of God; but without reason forbad first all degrees, even to the seventh, which he perceiving afterward not to be observed, and that all things were full of confusion, he restrained his prohibitious to the fourth degree. Wherein he is constant and obstinate, if there come no money in: but if money be offered (whereof he must have much brought him to fill his greedy desire) he dispenseth as pleaseth him, both with his own laws, and the word of God.

45. This also must be known, that God hath in his laws another decree, which we may call peculiar; because it should not extend to other nations: neither ought it to be in force at all times. And that was, that when any husband did die without children, the brother that remained alive, or some other next of kin, should marry her that was left: so that the first, which should be procreated of that marriage, should be counted the son of him that was dead, and as in the inheritance should fully succeed him. For God would not in that Common-wealth, that men should altogether be extinguished. And he provided, that this division of lands should be kept as much as might be. And seeing the same is not used in our public-wealth's, neither that God hath commanded it; therefore it doth nothing appertain

unto us. Wherefore we must keep our selves under the general and common law; namely, that no man presume to marry the wife of his brother being dead, although he died without children.

And be it known unto us, that in the beginning, when only the family of Adam lived on the earth, brethren were not forbidden, as they were afterward: for brethren were driven of necessity to marry their sisters.

Howbeit, afterward, when as men were increased in number, they began to be ashamed, and by the instinction of God, or nature, either to abstain from prohibited persons, or at the least-wise to know that such conjunctions were full of ignominy. But what time they began first to abstain, it appeareth not by the history. The heathen poets perhaps showed that necessity of them in old time, which urged the family of the first parents to match the brother and sister together, when they feign, that their gods had their sisters to wives. For the chief of them; namely, Jupiter had Juno, who in Virgil thus speaketh of herself; But I, which walk the Queen of gods, both sister and wife to Jove.

46. And though the word of God, and the instinct of nature, should be sufficient of itself to make us abstain from the foresaid conjunctions; yet are there brought by diverse writers, causes fit enough to forbid the same.

Augustine, in his 15th book De civitate Dei, and 16th chapter, writeth; that That abstinence doth very much help to enlarge the bonds of human society.

For if marriages should be concluded between the parents of one family, there would be no kindreds between others. Furthermore, it is not convenient, that one and the same man should sustain the persons of sundry kindreds; to wit, that one man should both be the uncle and husband of any one woman; and that one woman should both be the aunt and also the wife of any one man. Which reason also Cicero made in his fifth book De

finibus; and Plutarch in his 108th problem. And seeing both these men were Ethnics, they could not perceive this, unless they had been illuminated with the light of nature. Also the third reason is added; because these persons, from whom we must abstain, do for the most part dwell together in one house. So if they should have leave to join in matrimony together, they would not so gravely and modestly be conversant one with another, as domestical civility requireth.

Plutarch, in the place now alleged, hath showed two other reasons, besides these, which we have brought. One is, that between near cousins, dissensions were to be feared: for they would soon complain, that the right of kindred were taken away. Which saying I thus understand: If either she that were to be married, or he that would marry, should overskip the nearer of kin, for to marry one of further alliance: then that party, which were nearer of kin, would take it to be an injury received; as if by overskipping, it had been purposely done, to put the other party to shame. Even as it cometh to pass in making of wills, wherein they, which be the nearer of kin, neither may nor ought to be forgotten. And in the law, touching the raising of seed unto the brother already dead, the first place was to be granted unto him that was nearest of kin; who, if he would not use his own right, was made ashamed: as that law more at large doth declare. Wherefore, seeing that disorders between all sorts are to be hated, then those between kindreds must be detested. Also Plutarch bringeth another reason; namely, that women be weak, and therefore have need of many and sundry upholders.

So that in marrying with strangers, if they be afflicted by them as it cometh to pass, they have all their own kinsmen to be their patrons and defenders: but if they should be wives unto their own kindred, and be ill entreated of them, they should have a very few to defend their cause; since other

kinsfolk would not be very ready for their sakes, to fall at controversy with their own kin: which would not grieve them to do against strangers.

47. But seeing now I am in hand with Plutarch, I remember that, which he hath written in the sixth problem: and I think it not unprofitable to rehearse the same, seeing it appeareth to be against that, which Augustine hath in his

15th book De civitate Dei, and 16th chapter, touching the marriage of cousins germane. For he affirmeth there, that the same was lawful before his time; although such kind of matrimonies seemed very rare, because men did in a manner forbear to contract with persons so near of blood. But he saith, that afterward that liberty was taken away. Which in very deed I cannot perceive in the Roman laws, which were publicly received and allowed: and yet nevertheless, those laws were in force throughout Africa.

So as it may seem obscure to some, of which laws Augustine speaketh: unto whom he saith, that matrimonies of this kind were forbidden in his time.

But it must be understood, that when Augustine lived, the law of Theodosius the elder was in force, who first among the Caesar's (so far as I know) forbad this sort of matrimony. Which also Aurelius Victor, and Paulus Diaconus do testify. And the same we find at this day in the Code of Theodosius, concerning incestuous marriages, the sentence as touching these persons remaining in these words; He that shall violate himself with the marriage of his cousin germane, either of his sisters or brothers daughter, or of his wives daughter; lastly, of any the marriages of whom is forbidden and condemned.

Howbeit, at this day the law is not extant in the Digests, nor in the Code, nor yet in the Authentiks. Which nevertheless king Clotherius followed, as it is read in the Almane laws, in the title De illicitis nuptijs: yea and it is confirmed by the ecclesiastical Canons and Decrees, by Gratian 35th

question 2 and 3: out of the Agathen Council, the 61st Canon. And Gregory the first, in that place, is found to be of the very same opinion: in the chapter Quaedam lex Romana, &c. These things he answereth unto the sixth interrogative of Augustine the bishop of Canterbury. And he affirmeth, that they which join together in the degree of cousins germane, ought to refrain from contracting of matrimony between themselves. And Ambrose also long before Gregory, in his 66th epistle to Paternus, condemned marriage between brothers and sisters children; and witnesseth, that the same was forbidden by Theodosius law: which I also have already alleged.

And if it be lawful to use conjecture, I think that Theodosius did it at the request of Ambrose, who had a marvelous respect to public honesty. Yet nevertheless was not that law so severe in those days, but that the same might sometime be dispensed with; as the epistle to Paternus doth show.

And in that Ambrose affirmeth there, that such kind of marriage was forbidden by the law of God; it cannot be proved unto any, which thoroughly consider the words of the law, and the acts of the fathers.

How the Romans ordered themselves in ancient time, as touching the marriage of cousins germane, this I have observed. In the second book, and fifth Decade of Livie: Ligustinus saith, that his father gave him to wife his uncle's daughter. Cicero also, in an oration for Cluentius, writeth, that Cluentia was lawfully married to M. Aurius her cousin germane. And M.

Antonius the philosopher married Faustine his cousin germane; as Julius Capitolinus writeth. And before the building of Rome, there is mention made of the marriage between Turnus and Lavinia, who descended of two sisters. Yet Plutarch, in the place before cited, saith, that in the former times at Rome it was provided by law, that they which were near of kin should not be joined in marriage: but that the same law was afterward released

upon this occasion. For a certain man, which both was honest, and of good reputation among the people of Rome, being very much pressed with penury, married a cousin germane of his, which was very rich and wealthy: for which cause he was accused of incest. But his cause being heard, he (by the judgment of the people of Rome) was absolved. For favor bare a great stroke in the city. By means whereof, there was a law made by the people, that from thence forward it should be lawful for cousin germanes to marry.

These things I thought good to declare of this kind of marriage, both out of the laws of God, out of the laws of the Romans both ancient and later, and also out of the fathers and ecclesiastical Canons.

Whereunto I will add, that there be many cities acknowledging the Gospel, which do not allow the marriage of brothers and sisters children; namely, Zurich, Berna, Basil, Schaphusium, Sangal, Bienna, &c. Also in the kingdom of England (where I was) there this degree was excluded from marriage. So as in places, where the magistrate doth forbid these marriages, the faithful sort must forbear them; for those reasons, which I have before declared. But Othniel, if he were the cousin germane to Achsa, he might marry her by the law of God: but if he were her uncle, he might not do it by the common law; howbeit, he married her. Wherefore one of these two things we must say; either that there was a fault in him (for the fathers, as we have already said, were not always free from sin) or else, that God, by a certain privilege or prerogative, would have these things to be done: which nevertheless must not be challenged for an example. Neither must we forget, that by a custom very usual in the scriptures, they which by any means were joined in blood were called brethren. Even as Lot is called the brother of Abraham; and the kinsmen of Jesus Christ the son of God, in the evangelical history, be called his brethren. So likewise in this place it may

be, that Othniel is called the brother of Caleb, when he was only joined unto him by some near kindred. And this exposition the interpreters, for the most part, do use: the which I would not mislike, unless I saw added in the text this particle (The younger) which is not accustomed to be added, but when brethren or sisters are in very deed compared together.

Whether any dispensation may be made in degrees of kindred prohibited by God.

48. Now let us declare, whether any dispensing may be in the degrees forbidden by the law of God. For at this day, those which would be counted

Christians, being matched in the degrees forbidden, do say; Let us go to the Pope, let us talk with him, he will dispense with us, so we reward him with money. Neither do the common sort only say this, but our masters, which be the School-divines, in the fourth book of sentences, the 34th distinction, concerning matrimony write, that the Pope can dispense. And they endeavor to prove that this he may do. For they say, that those precepts, which be in the 18th and 20th chapter of Leviticus, touching degrees forbidden, partly be moral, and partly judicial. The moral and natural are, that the father may not marry his daughter, nor the son his mother. Here they say is such an indecency, as by no means it can be taken away; but that it should be a perpetual impediment. For they say, that the father and the daughter, the mother and her son be one flesh. Notwithstanding, in matrimony it behooveth, that one flesh become another than it was: howbeit, those are not severed.

But if the reason were firm, Adam might not have married Eve: she was his flesh, for he saith; This is now flesh of my flesh. They answer, that Eve was the flesh of Adam; not by way of nature, but by miracle; since God so framed Adams rib, as it was made a woman. Howbeit, when kindred is

defined, we have no recourse to miracles: but it is said to be a bond of those persons, which be derived from one beginning by procreation; so Eve might not be called a kinswoman of Adam. Wherefore they say, that in those precepts, which be in Leviticus, the indecency between father and daughter, mother and son, is natural, moral, and perpetual: and that the rest of the degrees do appertain to the judicial laws. Some indecency they would have to be there, but yet not so much as hath been always forbidden. For brethren and sisters did at the first time marry one to another: yea and the sister of the brother departed, was married in the law, for the raising up of seed.

Jacob had two sisters in wedlock; Amram had his aunt; Abraham had Sara, whom he called sister. Wherefore (say they) these degrees; namely, the father and the daughter, the mother and the son, are after a sort perpetually forbidden by the law of nature, and by the moral law: but other persons, which be forbidden by God, were kept back from marriages; howbeit, that was by the judicial laws.

But those laws endured so long, as the civil regiment of the Jews continued: which being decayed, we are not tied to those laws any further, than the church hath allowed of them; so as unto us they be laws of the church, and not moral laws: neither are they laid upon us by the laws of God, but by the laws ecclesiastical and positive. And whereas they make the Pope to be president over the whole church, they say it is in his power, for certain just causes, to release these impediments. They so flatter the Pope, that Caietane Secunda secundae Thomae, question 154. article the ninth, saith, that the Pope doth for just causes dispense in all those degrees (except for marriage between the father and the daughter, and between the mother and her son;) not by a common law already ordained, but by the Popes license. This he assigneth to be the cause, for that they be judicials.

Experience teacheth, that these things have sometimes happened. Immanuel the king of Portugal married two sisters, Catharine Queen of England two brethren, Ferdinandus the king of Naples married his aunt: Pope Alexander the sixth allowing the same. I have read, that Martin the fifth gave license to marry with a natural sister: whereof many of the Canonists say, that it is to be doubted, whether it were lawful or no. This license is horrible. Ye see how great matters these men challenge unto themselves.

I am of another mind: and those things, which be contained in Leviticus, touching degrees forbidden, I esteem them to be moral. Such marriages seem rather beastly than human. And that the same [prohibition of degrees] is rather natural and moral, I prove by the very words of those laws. When

God made those laws, he spake on this wise; Observe ye these things, and defile not yourselves with these abominations, as the Chanaanites, which were before you, and I did cast them out. If ye shall imitate them, and shall defile yourselves, the earth also shall cast you out. Thus I reason; The Chanaanites were not the people of Israel, God did not give laws unto them by Moses, yet were they punished for such kind of marriages; wherefore they were bound to these precepts. If they were bound, they were bound by the light of nature; and the precepts did also pertain to other nations. A nature being well instituted, might perceive that shamefulness. The Lord said, that he for that cause hated the Chanaanites. So then it should not be convenient for us, that those precepts were but of small value, perishing together with the civil administration of the people of Israel.

What do they speak of the children of Adam? Our cause and theirs is not all one. Their cause stood upon great necessity. Moreover, God dispensed, saying; Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. And God can dispense when he will. It was not his pleasure to bring forth other women. That this

should be done without such a necessity as that was, we have not a word to show it. In that it was once done, men must not imitate the same. True it is, that Jacob married two sisters: but public honesty was after a sort defaced in Mesopotamia, and elsewhere. Neither were all things well done, which the fathers did: unless we can say; that the spirit of God would this to be done peculiarly. We speak of the common law, and usual course. Jacob had two sisters against his will: his will was to have had but only one: but through the wiles of Laban, the one was put to him against his will, and the other died by the way, before he entered into the holy land. The Hebrews say, that God would not that so great wickedness should be in the land of promise.

Against that example we allege the law of God. We must not live by examples, but by laws. There were such things in other nations also, but not to be allowed therefore. Eusebius Caesariensis, in Praeparatione euangelica, writeth, that the Persians had marriages between the father and the daughter, and between the mother and the son. Berosus writeth, that giants before the flood did not refrain from such marriages. Caracalla said to his stepmother; If it were lawful. The unchaste woman answered; If it like thee it is lawful; An Emperor giveth laws, he taketh none. Among the Atheniens it was lawful to marry sisters. These things be shameful. Against those shameful things, let us oppose the good laws of the Romans. As touching this matter we see things very repugnant in the Popes licenses. By a common and forbidden law, they abridge the liberty of marriage, and forbid more degrees than God did appoint. For once they forbad the seventh degree, within a while the fourth degree; afterward they so license at their own pleasure, as they except only the first degree.

So will I, so do I command, Let will for reason stand.

I deny not, but that in these contracts, the incest is greater in one degree than in another: but what things soever God hath forbidden, be dishonest. If they say that they do this by a fullness of power: let them say (saith Baldus) by a fullness of tempest, wherewith the church is troubled and corrupted.

Do not think that any man (God I will except) can give license, that the brother should marry his sister.

Of Dowries; In the Commentaries upon Judges, the first chapter, and the 14th verse.

49. But whether husbands received dowries of their wives, before the law, it is uncertain. The servant of Abraham rather gave gifts unto Rebecca, than received; for so much as he brought with him golden and silver vessels, in the name of Abraham and Isaac, which were to be given to the spouse. But there is no mention made of the maiden's dowry. Also Jacob served for his wives, so far was he from receiving anything of them in the name of a dowry. Shechem also, the son of Hemor, inordinately loving Dinah the daughter of Jacob, with whom he had committed fornication, said unto the sons of Jacob; Increase her dowry as ye list, I will refuse no condition, so I may have your sister to be my wife. Howbeit, I cannot tell how the custom of the ancient fathers, in not taking but giving dowries to wives, which they should marry, ought to be commended: yet I thought good to recite those things, which I have read hereof by the way. And to begin with Megadorus in Plautus Comedy Aulularia, when he should take to wife the daughter of a poor man, being also without dowry, commended his counsel by those words; If (saith he) other men would do after my example, the city would then be in better concord, and envy should not be so rife among us as it is.

They (namely the wives) will fear us the more, and we shall keep them with much less cost, &c.

When I consider these things, they seem to be very wisely spoken. For now and then it happeneth, that one city is after a sort divided into two parts; when as the daughters of poor men are without hope to marry with them that be of the richer sort, either for the slenderness of their dowry, or else because they have no dowry at all: for they attain not thereto, except it be by chance, or else very seldom. Wherefore the richer and mightier sort are much envied, and grievously hated of the poorer. Besides this, wives, which have good dowries, stand in the less awe of their husbands: yea rather, they despise and set naught by them, counting them as unworthy to be matched with them. Lastly, their decking and lusts cannot be satisfied, but with extreme charges. Plutarch in his Apophthegs of Lycurgus, when he was asked wherefore he had commanded that virgins should marry without dowry, answered; To the intent that some should not be left unmarried for poverty sake, or other some should be over-much desired or wooed for their wealth; but that every man diligently considering the maidens conditions, might choose him a wife for virtue sake. He showeth also, in the thirty problem, that the bride brought to the bridegroom's house only a distaff and a spindle. The Decemuiri of Rome decreed also, by the laws of Solon, that a woman should be without a dowry, and should bring from her father's house only three garments, and also certain vessels of small price; because they would declare, that the fellowship of marriage is not confirmed by riches, but through the love of children.

Certainly these things do very well agree with that, which is written by Paulus and Ulpianus, in the Pandects, as concerning the free gift between the husband and wife. It is written also of the Egyptians, that if they received dowry of their wives, they should then be counted as their wives bond-men. Which custom did sufficiently teach, that it seemeth both

infamous and unprofitable to seek a dowry of our wives; when as nothing is more noble than liberty. And nature hath ordained, that the husband should rule the wife. And it is written, that the Spaniards had a custom, that the wives should bring to their husbands a distaff wound with flare, instead of a dowry. I might rehearse a great many besides, to signify, that all the men in old time allowed not, that husbands should have dowries given them, when they married their wives. But in very deed the laws of God make mention very often of dowry. And yet I am assured, that the same was some-where used before the law. In Exodus, he which had defiled a virgins, was bound to marry her, so that her father were content; but if he would not marry her, then he was forced to give her a dowry, even as the law appointeth the dowry of virgins to be. Moreover, in the first book of Kings, the ninth chapter; Pharaoh gave for a dowry unto Solomon, who had married his daughter, the city Gazar, which he had taken from the Chanaanites. Beside this, the Roman laws, which otherwise be most indifferent of all other, do make very much mention of dowries; and have many whole titles, wherein this matter only is treated.

50. But seeing we are now come thus far, it seemeth meet to define a dowry, that thereby we may the easilier know, how much must be attributed thereto by godly men, in the contracting of matrimonies. A dowry is a right to use things, which are given to the husband by his wife; or by others in her name, to sustain the burdens of matrimony. And although a dowry be properly said a right of using; yet notwithstanding, those things, which are given unto the man, are oftentimes called by this name dowry. Howbeit, the end is chiefly to be noted in this definition; namely, to sustain the burdens of matrimony. It seemeth also, that seeing the husband bestoweth very much in nourishing of his wife, and in the honest maintenance of her,

justice and equity would, that somewhat in like manner be yielded unto him. Then, seeing a dowry hath this foundation of justice, there is no doubt, but that it is a thing lawful. Nevertheless, therein is an error not to be suffered; because some are not ashamed to say, that by a dowry, concord between man and wife is easily obtained. This, both reason and experience teacheth to be most false. Who is ignorant, that that kind of friendship

(which hath respect only unto profit, and which is grounded only upon pleasure) is very frail and transitory?

Moreover, experience teacheth, that marriages which be so contracted, as there is no other consideration had therein, but only the wives beauty and her dowry, have very ill success. Wherefore these are reproved by the common proverb; Qui vxores oculis & digitis ducunt, Such as marry wives with their eyes and fingers, that is, which are moved only with beauty and money. So then it behooveth just laws not altogether to take dowries away, but rather strictly to provide, that they be not over-much increased, nor done without right or reason. And for this cause the Roman laws commanded those dowries to be cut off, which were greater than the ability of the giver might bear: as we read in the Digests De jure dotium. And contrariwise, we must take heed, that neither parents nor tutors, being overcome with covetousness, give less than honesty requireth: as it is written in the title De dote inofficiosa. And because dowries be given, to sustain the charges of matrimony; those cannot be excused, which having received them of their wives, afterward dare use their wives miserably. Besides that, they be unjust, because they violate the law of God, whereby they ought to love their wives as themselves, and as their own proper body; when as they will not conveniently help them with their own goods.

Yea there be some, which if they were not let by public laws, would consume, sell, and utterly alienate their wives dowries. And that this might not be, the laws, especially of the Romans, have carefully provided. For they decree, that the state or title of the dowry should remain with the wives, although the husbands had the fruit and use thereof, so long as the marriage should last. But what (I pray you) shall we say of them, which suffer so grievous and intolerable burdens of matrimony to be daily augmented, while they too much flatter and cocker their wives? Surely they sin very grievously: forsomuch as now, neither their own patrimony, neither their wives dowries can be sufficient; because they exceed so much in sumptuous attire. Certainly, among godly husbands and good wives, all things ought to be used with moderation and temperance. But wherefore

(think we) have the laws ordained so many things, and by so many ways concerning dowries? Even because they would keep the citizens without hurt or damage, when as they marry and are joined together in matrimony.

For it is expedient for the public wealth that if the husband die, the dowry should remain whole unto the wife; wherewith if she will, she may marry again: or if the wife die first, that the dowry should serve to nourish, apparel, and bring up the children, which are begotten in matrimony.

51. Notwithstanding, thou wilt demand; Whie are dowries said to be given under this title, of sustaining the burdens of matrimony? Even least the same dowry should be counted a price: as though wives and marriages were things to be sold. For the which cause, in the Digests, gifts between husband and wife are prohibited; to wit, that in matrimonies and contracts, gifts between man and wife be neither given nor received. Furthermore, when as divorcements were given in many places by that civil law, if gifts between man and wife had been lawful, marriages would very easily have

been dissolved. Seeing if one of the married parties would not give unto the other, so much as he demanded; that party should forthwith have been refused. The men in deed might give certain gifts unto their wives, before the marriages, which were called jointures, as some certify recompensing's of the dowry. Yet nevertheless, when they were once married together, the Roman laws permitted not, that they should give gifts one to another.

Whereof Plutarch also hath made mention; out of whom nevertheless is brought another reason than that, which I declared to be taken of the very laws. These be the words, in the 35th and 36th precept of matrimony:

Certain bodies are said to consist of severed things, as an army, and a navy; other bodies, of things joined together, as a house and a ship; and other some are united and compact together, as all living creatures are. Wherefore matrimony, which consisteth of living creatures, is united and compact: but the matrimony, which is made either for dowry sake, or for children, belongeth to bodies joined together. And that which consisteth for pleasure or carnal copulation, thou mayest number among the severed bodies: for there man and wife may be said to dwell together, but not to live together.

And as in living creatures, the temperatures of humors run through all parts: so marriage must mingle bodies, money, friends and kinsfolk together. And the maker of the Roman laws forbad persons coupled in matrimony, to take or to give gifts one to another: not to the intent they should not be partakers of any one thing; but that they should think all things to be common.

Howbeit, these things are to be understood of free gifts, and not of dowries: which otherwise were both lawful and much used in the Roman public well. For the daughters of Scipio, Curius, and Cincinnatus had dowries out of the treasury; because of the poverty of their parents, to the intent they should not be married without dowries. Yea and the general

Council of Arls, as it is rehearsed in the thirty question, the fifth chapter Nullum sine, decreed, that no matrimony should be contracted without a dowry. Let the dowry (saith it) be according to the ability, neither let any woman presume to take a husband, or any husband a wife, without public marriage. This canon I willingly allow, in that it condemneth secret marriages: but where it decreeth, that marriages cannot be contracted without a dowry, seeing that is not confirmed by the testimony of God's word, I cannot admit. For there are and have been very many, which have married wives altogether without dowry; yea and these men of so great honesty and authority (as it should seem) a rash part to condemn their doing, seeing the holy scriptures are not against it. Neither do I judge, that matrimony should by any means be denied to those women, which are without a dowry, if marriage be necessary for them.

Moreover, Paul testifieth, that matrimony doth shadow the conjunction that Christ hath with his church. Wherefore, if the truth of the matter be well considered, the church had nothing to offer unto Christ in the name of a dowry: nay rather (as Ezekiel teacheth) the same was found wrapped in blood and mire. Also the fathers in the old testament seem sometimes to have had wives without dowries. So then it seemeth meet to be decreed, that men may, and that it is lawful to receive dowries, when they are given, and that the same custom is honest, so that a just measure be not exceeded, and that he which marrieth, be not allured thereunto through the name of the dowry, as being the principal cause. The manners and godliness of the wife ought chiefly to be regarded. Neither ought any man forthwith to persuade himself; If I shall marry a wife without a dowry, I shall therefore have her the better, and the more at quiet, since (as Jerome declareth in his first book against Jovinian) Cato Censorius had Actoria Paula to wife, born of a base

kindred, who was poor also and without a dowry; and yet nevertheless she was a drunkard, impotent, and behaved herself proudly toward Cato.

Of Divorcements, and putting away of wives.

52. Unto the Hebrews and Ethnics it was but a light matter to put away their wives, and it was lawful upon every occasion: but unto the Christians it ought not so to be. This hath Christ declared in the 5th and 19th of Matthew. There (when he saith) Moses gave you a bill of divorcement) it ought not so to be understood, as though Moses did this of himself, without the commandment of God: for he was most faithful, as God beareth record of him. And that which is decreed in the law, touching divorcement, afterward is commanded in Malachi; to wit, If thou hate thy wife, put her away. For the Lord would not, that hatred and enmity should be retained in so near friendship. Wherefore, in the New Testament, Christ calleth us home unto the first institution. For insomuch as now, the spirit is more plentiful, and grace more abundant; men ought to use greater patience and charity towards their wives, and not so to deal against them, as they should reject them for every cause. In like manner there is required of the wives a greater obedience and modesty.

53. Here thou wilt say unto me; What if thou shalt find at this day, among Christians, such as be so hard-hearted, and so obstinate in retaining of hatred and enmity in wedlock, as they be not only equal to the Jews, but also go beyond them therein? Seeing then the disease is all one, why is not the same remedy left? Unto whom we answer, that they, which be of such sort, be strangers from Christ: wherefor we commit them to the Commonwealth, to determine of them as it shall seem most expedient. For when they cannot be amended by the church, let us count them for Ethnics and Publicans: let us deal with them by the civil laws. We have it plainly enough

declared by the word of Christ, that a divorce ought not to be done, unless it be for the cause of adultery. The which exception, if it be intermitted by Paul, it is no marvel: for when Paul saith; that he speaketh not these things, but the Lord, he sendeth us to the Lord's own words: neither doth he pluck anything away from his commandment. And when he saith, that he commandeth not, but the Lord; he maketh not those things of small force, which he taught before, when they are not read to be [expressly] spoken of Christ, since even those things are of the Lord: for he saith; And I think, that I also have the spirit of God.

But he therefore speaketh of the commandment of Christ to mitigate the sharpness of his speech; for it seemeth intolerable to the flesh, that matrimony cannot be dissolved. It is even as much, as if Paul had said; I set not before you strange or new things, and such as have not been heard of before my time; this the Lord hath commanded. Else, both this and those things, which the apostle wrote before, are firm, and full of authority. But this is the difference, that these things the Lord spake by his own self, and repeateth them by Paul; but those other he would to be uttered by the apostle only. And touching his sentence, that matrimony should not be dissolved, Christ allowed it by a testimony out of the book of Genesis, where it is said; For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. Two near friendships are laid together in these words; the one is between parents and their children; the other between the husband and the wife. And seeing the bond of the father, or of the children is such, as it cannot be sundered and shaken off by any means, much less this bond between man and wife. And as the bond of amity between the child and the parents endureth perpetually, so doth the conjunction between the husband and the wife. This is Christ's interpretation of that place, and

the reason that he bringeth thereof: but yet he will have the cause of adultery to be excepted. And Paul (by whom Christ speaketh) excepteth another thing; namely, if one of the married persons, in that he is an infidel, will not dwell with the other being faithful, as it shall be declared in place convenient.

54. But as touching the cause of adultery, which Christ excepted, some doubt whether that be the only cause; and they are bold to say, that Christ's meaning was to comprehend therein all other wickedness, which is either equal, or more heinous than adultery: and they say, that the manner of the holy scriptures is, that in one cause rehearsed, they include others like unto it. Even as we read in Deuteronomy, of man-slaughter, which is committed by chance, and against a man's will: where one only reason is described; namely, when the hatchet flieth off the helm. But what? Shall we not judge the very same, if in building or carrying of anything, one man shall kill another unwillingly? Even so (say they) there are presently many faults equal, and perhaps more grievous than adultery: so as they judge, that those offenses do also make a cause of divorcement. Which meaning perhaps caused many emperors, otherwise godly and studious of Christianitis, to express many crimes in their laws, for the which it should be lawful to make a divorce; because they judged them to be no less than adultery. And that other causes also, besides the crime of adultery, are to be admitted; hereby it may appear, for that Paul added, as touching the unfaithful spouse, which will not dwell with the other being faithful: which case Christ spake not of. Yea, and at this day, if a coldness (as they term it) or other like impediment be perceived in the parties, which be already married, a just divorce is permitted. And yet nevertheless Christ excepted only the cause of adultery.

Yea, and if we will thoroughly consider what license the bishops of Rome have given to themselves herein, we shall perceive, that they have openly arrogated unto themselves the power to dissolve matrimony already contracted; so that there followed not copulation (as they call it.) Yea moreover it is reported, that there hath been a Popes dispensation seen, which hath taken away matrimony; not only contracted, but (as they say) finished. And Pope Zechariah, (as it is written in the fourth book of sentences) when a certain man had committed adultery with his wives sister, wrote thus unto him; Seeing thou hast committed this horrible act, thou shalt have neither of them to wife; both thou and she, whom thou hast defiled with adultery, shall remain without hope of marriage, and thine own wife shall marry in the Lord, with whom she will. In which case, thou seest it manifestly judged by this bishop, that a divorcement made for the cause of adultery, doth admit a marriage afterward. They will moreover have matrimony dissolved, if there be an error or a mistaking of the person or condition: as if a woman shall think that she hath a certain husband, and shall [afterward] prove the same to be another than she meant to have; or else, if she had taken him to be a free man, and of an honest stock, whom she findeth to be a bondman.

There is added also the cause of the degree of kindred, even of the degree not forbidden by the law of God, when they would have the matrimony that is contracted to be cut off. So it appeareth, that it was not so straitly judged, that the same only cause, which Christ doth express, maketh a divorce.

Otherwise, seeing Christ expressed one only cause; how cometh it to pass that emperors being Christians, and men also which be of the church, have added so many other causes? Certainly it was even this, that they thought, that in that one only cause, Christ meant to be contained both the offenses

which be equal, and those which be more grievous. Erasmus (who treated hereof at large) added; When the Lord commandeth that thou swear not, that thou be not angry, that thou say not Racha, if a man shall strike thee upon the one cheek, turn unto him the other, if one will take away thy cloak, give him also thy cote, and such like; we admit interpretations, that we may understand these things to be spoken oftentimes of the preparation of the mind; to wit, that it be not done rashly or lightly, nor without a just cause: and shall we be here so hard and precise, that we cannot admit any interpretation or exposition?

55. And the reason why Christ did express but one only cause of adultery, seemeth to be, for that there is nothing so great an enemy unto matrimony as this mischief is. They shall (saith the scripture) be one flesh. But he that committeth whoredom, doth so join himself to other flesh, as he is plucked away from his own wife: for; Shall I (saith Paul) take the member of Christ, and make it the member of a harlot? This (as I have declared) is the opinion of some, which although it be not wicked, and perhaps it cannot easily be confuted: yet for my part, as I with all my heart embrace those causes, which be expressed in the scriptures; so can I hardly endure, that divorcement should stretch beyond these bonds. And in very deed, as touching such crimes as the scripture speaketh of; if a magistrate, being a Christian, should use the severity, which both the divine laws, and the Roman laws have decreed to be most just, we should not be troubled with these discommodities. I speak not now of the impediments of nature, which may happen so to be, and be sent in such sort by God, as matrimony cannot any longer consist. That which I have declared, I would have it to be understood only as touching wicked acts, which of many are thought to

make matrimony void. Those things I say cannot (in my judgment) be easily known, otherwise than by the holy scriptures.

56. Yea moreover, and in those things which the scripture hath expressed, I think that nothing ought to be adventured, except the magistrate do ratify the same. For matrimony, although it be ordained by God; yet, as touching the circumstances, it hath many things belonging unto the civil laws and customs. Wherefore they, which contrary unto the magistrate's mind, and against the common laws, do contract new matrimonies, the first wife being dismissed, do incur exceeding great dangers. They give the children, which be born of the latter matrimony such a blemish of infamy, as they be commonly taken for bastards: and unto such a shame do they deliver the wife, whom they have married, as she is accounted an adulteress and a harlot; and do cause that they themselves also are noted with the same dishonesty. We must pray therefore, and by all means entreat the magistrate, that he being faithful, will determine hereof; and that he will apply his laws to the word of God. And it must be foreseen, that it be so determined, as a window be not set open to horrible offenses, whereby matrimonies are in many places rashly dissolved. And on the other part they must take heed, least while they will defend a divorcement so made, whereof the holy scriptures never give any testimony, that the bond of wedlock still remaineth (the husband and the wife being severed, and so severed, as they cannot dwell together;) I say heed must be taken, that no occasion be given unto frail lusts, and company of harlots.

And if so be that any, for fornication sake, or because that he will not by any means that his wife should dwell with him (as Paul writeth of the infidel) is constrained to abide sole, and live continually without a wife, he remaining in a doubt, and not knowing what he ought to do, when the laws

will give him no liberty to marry a second person; certainly there are but two remedies, which he must have recourse unto; that either, when he is driven to this strait, he may now think that he is called unto this single life by God, whom by continual prayers he ought to move and solicit, that he will be present with him, whereby he may live chastely and purely; and when he perceiveth that injury is done unto him by the laws, let him commend his cause unto God, for that he did not willfully, and of his own accord, cast himself into this state, but being urged of necessity, is constrained to retain this lot. But and if he shall altogether perceive, that he is not able to live a chaste and continent life, and that he cannot be persuaded in his mind to live single and without a wife; and thinketh it expedient for him to use the liberty, which God hath appointed, least he should do it against the will of his own magistrate, and against the common laws; let him depart, and get himself into other countries, where this may be lawful: there let him marry, and addict himself unto that Common-wealth, by whose laws it is permitted him. These things are in such sort taught by me, as I am ready always to hear and admit that counsel, which shall be better, and more perfect.

57. But of this I marvel oftentimes with myself, how it came to pass, that Valentinian, Theodosius, and Justinian, otherwise most Christian princes, partly made laws themselves of divorcements, and partly by their authority confirmed them which were made of old; and that such laws were not openly withstood by the most godly bishops, which lived in those days: seeing otherwise, Ambrose procured Theodosius to make a law of deferring the punishment of death for certain days, and found means by his authority, that the decrees, which Symmachus would have established, took no place.

Seeing therefore that those princes, which were very godly, durst ordain

such things by their laws, and that the church withstood not the same; how cometh it to pass, that magistrates at this day do stand in doubt to determine hereof? Peradventure they would say, that there would then be great store of divorcements. Which is not very likely, seeing among the Hebrews,

Grecians, and Romans, where divorcements were lawful, we read not that there was any great number. But and if so be they think, that our men be worse in these days, than either the Hebrews or Ethnics were in old time; both they do injury unto the name of Christianity, and by this means are brought, that they the rather condescend unto divorcement; because it was permitted as a remedy of wickedness. For who will have a medicine to be taken away, while he perceiveth the disease still to reign?

58. This moreover ought to be certain, that Christ, when he excepted the cause of adultery, meant not a divorce, wherewith the wife and the husband should be separated only (as they say) from the bed and board, and that the bond of wedlock should still remain. The Lord spake unto the Hebrews, wherefore his words are to be understood of the usual divorce amongst that people. Also the Ethnics, as well Romans as Grecians, had only this sort of divorce known among them; that the one married person was so loosed from the other, as new marriages might be lawful. And if so be that Christ had otherwise meant it, he should have seemed not to have answered unto the question propounded unto him: for they reasoned then of that kind of divorce, for the which a bill of putting away a man's wife was granted by the law. The disputation was of that, wherefore the words of Christ ought so to be understood. For whether is it more likely, that the Jews inquired of the divorce, which they were ignorant of; or rather of that, which Moses had granted to them in the law? I think that no man is doubtful, whether they asked of the thing, which was usual among them.

59. What also the ancient fathers in the church have judged hereof, it is no difficult thing to perceive. Origin granteth, that some bishops gave leave unto wives (being separated from their husbands) to marry others: which fact of theirs he saith, was against the scriptures, and yet he excuseth the bishops, that they did it not without consideration. Of the same mind shalt thou find Jerome to be, in the Epitaph of Fabiola, which was married to another, while her former husband yet lived. Jerome there confesseth, that she did not well therein; but yet in the meantime he excuseth her fact, by sundry and manifold reasons. And it appeareth manifestly, that the other marriage of this woman was not quite cut off. The bishops therefore of those times did not give counsel to have new marriages; but it seemeth that they did bear with those, which happened in the meantime. Albeit (as we have recited out of Origin) some of them gave license to marry again. But we are to believe, that the greater part did rather suffer than persuade.

Wherefore I understand the Canon of the council of Neocaesaria (wherein ministers of the church are forbidden to be present to bless the second marriages) to be meant as touching this sort, and not of those which are renewed after the death of the other spouse; forsomuch as these marriages are good and godly, and are commanded by Paul, unto whom so ever they shall be needful, seeing he saith unto Timothy, that he would have The younger widows to marry, and to bring forth children. But those other marriages (in so much as the other married party was living) were taken for suspected; although they were borne withal: and therefore the ecclesiastical blessing was not given to them. And this doth the reason show, which is added to the Canon: for it is said; For how can they enjoin repentance for these marriages? Whereas it is not read, that ever any repentance was enjoined for second marriages, after the death of the husband or wife, as

though they had been sin. But for matrimony, which hath been done, the husband being yet alive, it is manifestly showed in the epistle of Jerome, which we even now spake of. There was repentance enjoined to Fabiola, although (as I have said) we read, that that matrimony was neither dissolved, neither yet counted unlawful; for that woman was with the latter husband so long as he lived.

60. And as concerning Ambrose, how little he misliked second marriages, the one party being alive, his exposition upon the second to the Corinthians, the seventh chapter, doth plainly testify: where he understandeth, that the wife may depart from her husband for three causes. The one, if he be an adulterer; another, if he be a back-slider from the [true] religion; the third, if he would abuse his wife through lust, contrary unto the just use and custom of nature: for these causes (saith he) let a woman depart, but let her remain unmarried; since that is not lawful to her, which is lawful to the husband.

For if the husband put away his wife for fornication sake, he may marry another. And he saith very plainly, that the man's cause in this respect is better than the woman's, and the reason he allegeth; because Man is the woman's head: and that therefore it is not meet he should be tied by such strict laws. Peradventure, besides this reason, which he brought, he had respect unto the law of the Old Testament, where it seemeth to have been lawful only unto the men, to give a bill of divorcement. Which hereby is proved; because at no time in the scriptures, there is any mention made of women, that they should give a bill of divorcement unto their husbands.

And in the prophet Malachi, when God doth complain of the cruelty of husbands towards their wives, (which daily lamented in the temple, and wept in their prayers, making relation what they endured at their husbands

hands) he commandeth, that he which hateth his wife, should give her license to depart.

But and if so be it had been permitted unto women, to give unto their husbands a bill of divorcement; they would not have endured such cruelty, and so hard a state of life. They would have departed of themselves, and would not have waited for an admonition from the Lord, which should say by his prophet; If thou hate thy wife, put her away. And undoubtedly, God seemeth in the Old Testament, for sins sake, to have subjected the woman unto the man, by a certain kind of servitude; so as her state in many things should be worse than the state of man. It was lawful unto the husband (if he had been jealous) to make trial of her by public and solemn ceremony: which was not lawful for women against their husbands. Polygamy, or to have more wives than one, was sometime granted unto men: which was not permitted unto women. And we might reckon up many such like things, which notwithstanding were not without consideration appointed by the law of God, which would be now overlong to rehearse. Yea and among the Romans, there was no such punishment of lusts used against men, as was against women. The woman was condemned of adultery, with what man so ever she had kept unlawful company; but there was no punishment used against the man, except when he had plaid the harlot in a strange bed, or had ravished those which were honest and free born; but if he had done wickedly in harlots houses, or against his own handmaids, there was no punishment for him.

61. But Jerome in the epistle to Oceanus hath otherwise, and he saith; that That which the holy scripture commandeth the man, the same doth also redound to the woman: and he will have the like decree of both. Further, as touching the Roman laws he saith; In one sort speaketh Caesar, and in

another sort Christ; one way Paul, and another way Papinianus. For my part, although I cannot deny, but in the law of Moses the condition of women and men was unlike in respect of many things; yet in this cause, as the state of our time standeth, I would not subscribe unto Ambrose: against whom also Augustine is, is, who, in the second book and eighth chapter to Pollentius De adulterinis coniugijs, maketh both their states alike.

Notwithstanding that, which the Master of the sentences bringeth, is most vain; whose judgment is, that these things are packed into Ambrose his books by heretics. But so might all controversies be easily dissolved, and we might say, that those things, which make against us in the fathers, were thrust in by heretics. Howbeit, the same Ambrose afterward giveth the scope of new marriages unto women also, if the unbeliever will not dwell together with her. Which in very deed standeth me instead of a reason to prove, that the liberty of both is alike. For if the cause, which the apostle showeth, extend it self unto both the man and wife; it shall no less be granted in the cause of fornication, which Christ expressed.

Moreover, that which is permitted unto the man, shall no otherwise be, but that matrimony is dissolved, because of fornication. But if so be it be dissolved, and the woman loosed from the same; why shall it not also be lawful for her to be married unto another? Last of all we see, that the laws of the bishops do grant unto a woman her divorce, if she prove that her husband is very cruel unto her. Which seeing they do as touching her divorce, how dare they deny that it may not be done in a man? In the old law it was not lawful for wives to give a bill of divorcement; because it was given for every cause. And seeing women be inconstant, it is not meet that they should depart from men for every cause. But now if the certain causes were limited, we might easily be rid of that inconvenience. I will also add,

that the time is not easy to be known, wherein it began among the Romans to be lawful for women to put away their husbands, unless it be in those questions mixed together of the old and New Testament, which are entitled to Augustine. In the question 115. it is written, that under Julian this began to be lawful for them. For then leave was given unto women; that they might put away their husbands. Notwithstanding, who this Julian was, it appeareth not; seeing we read of two emperors of that name.

62. But these were wont to be counted the causes, why the fathers would, that new marriages should not be lawful, after a divorce was made for fornication sake. First, for that it might seem that the husband lusting after a new wife, would invent a feigned crime of adultery against the first.

Further, for that it might seem no wise man's part, that when it happened ill with him before, he would try the same luck again, and after a sort seek the same infelicity. Besides these, there are brought in the places, as well to the Romans as to the Corinthians, where the apostle seemeth to be of that mind; that a wife, so long as her husband shall live, is bound to his law. The latter writers also do cavil, that matrimony is a sacrament, and that therefore it cannot be made void. And Innocentius, when he decreed that it is not lawful for the one party married, to enter into new matrimony, if the other shall be fallen into heresy, addeth this reason; that There would be a door open unto great inconvenience: for any man would soon feign himself to be a heretic, that he might be delivered of his wife, and obtain another. Further, they be wont to urge this saying; That which God hath coupled together, let no man separate.

These reasons Erasmus doth plainly confute. Touching the first; If a severe judgment be appointed by bishops and magistrates, false reports might easily be prevented, neither will there be any leave given of divorce,

unless that fornication shall plainly and evidently be proved. Of the other reason it is said; That which is objected, is very ridiculous, seeing we oftentimes see, that those which have sailed once without good success, and have abidden shipwreck, do return again to shipping. And the party, which is innocent, while he endureth pricking's and burnings, and cannot easily keep himself chaste; what marvel is it, if he cast in his mind to marry again?

Touching the place to the Romans it may easily be answered; The apostle did not there dispute, whether divorcements might be by any means admitted; but it sufficed him, that he showed unto the believing Jews, and to them which were converted to our religion, that it was now lawful to marry again in Christ, after that death was come, which is the certain and undoubted cause of dissolving matrimony: wherein, although there were a singular conjunction and peace between man and wife, yet by death the same is dissolved. Very wisely therefore did Paul in that place put only that cause of dissolving matrimony, which of necessity he was to grant; although no other cause had happened in the mean while. So unto the Corinthians he would show, that it was lawful for a widow to contract new marriages, if she would; because her first husband was dead. He reasoneth not there, whether a divorce may be made for any other cause; but only showeth, that there is no cause why second marriages be not lawful, when either the husband or the wife happen to die.

63. But whether matrimony be a sacrament or no, it is not hard to be answered. If thou understand the name of a sacrament generally, and at large, for every such thing as signifieth some holy thing, we will not deny, but that matrimony may be a sacrament; seeing it resembleth unto us, the conjunction of Christ with his church: whereof we have a testimony in the epistle to the Ephesians. But after this manner thou art forced to appoint,

not only seven, but an infinite number of sacraments: such as are the washing of feet, the shaking of dust from the feet, the embracings of young children in arms, and in a manner all the actions of Christ. But if thou wilt draw the name of a sacrament to those things, which not only betoken spiritual things, but also are used to be done by certain words, and of which there is a commandment extant, that they should be done: in this sense thou canst not appoint matrimony [to be a sacrament.] I pass over, that Dionysius in his treatise De ecclesiastica Hierarchia, reckoneth it not among the rest of the sacraments. Neither would Jovinian have escaped this argument, which left not any small thing untouched, whereby he might extol matrimony. Further, what sort of sacrament soever this be, the reason furthereth not the purpose of our adversaries. For Christ, whom they would signify to be joined unto the church, hath made a divorce from the synagogue, and hath coupled our church unto him. But if peradventure they shall say, that this is not done but by his death: I will answer, that the divine nature in Christ, for the which this matrimony is especially agreeable unto him, neither died, nor yet possibly can die. And yet (as Isaiah writeth) God gave a bill of divorcement unto the people of Israel, and by reason of their sins he rejected them from his company.

64. A slender reason also is it that Innocentius brought: for by the like and the same reason might any man fain himself to be a servant, when otherwise he were free; to the intent he might undo the matrimony contracted, and procure himself another wife. And if that the error of their state were so great a matter to them, that it dissolved matrimony; why should not that be of more force, which Christ himself and the apostle did except? Neither doth that greatly trouble us, which they uttered in the last place; namely, that it is not man's part, to separate them whom God hath put

together. For when such causes, as these be, do happen; it is God which divideth, and not men: forsomuch as he, by his word, hath given this power.

Undoubtedly men should then separate, if for every cause not expressed by God, they should attempt to undo matrimony. And Paul, when he said; Let her remain unmarried, speaketh of them, which being led by light causes, departed from their husbands. It was a custom among the Hebrews, to give a bill of divorcement upon any cause. And divorcements were so common and usual unto the Ethnics, as Juvenal said; So are there eight husbands made, five for the harvest time, &c. Wherefore, not without cause the apostle writeth these things unto the Corinthians. The Romans were not so ready to put away their wives. For the first, which made a divorce, was

Spurius Servilius, and that because of barrenness of the wife; in the two hundred and thirty year after the building of the city: as Plutarch mentioneth in the life of Romulus.

Paul therefore speaketh not of the cause of fornication: for as touching that, he disagreeth not from Christ, who (as we have proved) did grant there a just divorce. Neither must the apostle be understood, as though he allowed those departing's of married folks one from another: verily he condemneth them, and would not have them so rashly, and upon such trifling causes to depart one from another. But as a good minister he provideth, least perhaps, if they fall into this vice, they may commit another more grievous; namely, to be married unto another. Let her (saith he) remain unmarried, or else let her be reconciled unto her husband. And he seemeth in this place, not so greatly to reprove and blame the crime of departing one from another, as it deserveth. For he saw, that sometimes it happeneth that women be not separated of their own accord; but cast forth by their husbands, in such sort, as if they would return, yet is there no present means for them to do it.

Howbeit the magistrate ought to provide for such afflicted souls by approved and good laws.

65. But now I thought good to weigh and examine certain things, which be spoken by Augustine, in his two little books De adulterinis coniugijs unto Pollentius, according as I shall judge them to serve unto the purpose of this place. He thought in very deed, that it was not lawful for him, that should put away his wife for the cause of adultery, to marry another. But whereas in Matthew that cause is excepted, he answereth, that either of them both is an adulterer; as well he which for adultery sake, as he that without that cause, putteth his wife from him, and marrieth another. And he saith, that Matthew expresseth only one of them, to note him which committeth the greater sin. Both of them do commit adultery, by putting away their wife, and marrying of another; but he more grievously, that shall do this without cause of fornication. And so he would, that the same exception should only be of force to moderate the crime of adultery: but not to this effect, that it should be quite taken away. And this he thinketh that he can show by the word of God: for Luke and Mark uttered the same sentence absolutely, and without any exception. They say; Every man, which shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery: therefore he concludeth generally, that the saying of Christ must be understood as Luke and Mark wrote. But Matthew (saith he) noteth him, that shall do it for fornication sake, that it may be understood he sinneth the less.

But certainly I would judge this kind of argument to be most weak: for it seemeth we should rather say, that Luke and Mark wrote not the perfect or complete sentence of the Lord, which we ought to gather out of Matthew, and to understand it definitely. Which rule he himself useth, and that not once, in his book De consensu evangelistarum, where he plainly saith; that

Very oftentimes in the other evangelist's, some things are spoken not very plainly and perfectly. The which ought more perfectly to be gathered out of Matthew. And it is to be wondered at, how he can always seem to understand that departure, whereof the apostle speaketh, for that which may be lawful, seeing the apostle plainly said; Let not the wife be separated from her husband. So as it is manifest, that the apostle speaketh of that departing, which is not lawful; seeing he forbiddeth the same. Whereby it easily appeareth, that here is no speech touching the cause of fornication.

But in that case the apostle would not command, that the wife should not depart from her husband: for that were to nourish brothelry, if adultery should be suffered, the wife being present and abiding with her husband.

Wherefore Paul commandeth, that she should not depart for these small causes, seeing that is not lawful. And if perhaps she do depart, he commandeth that she should remain unmarried; or else that she be reconciled unto her husband. Everyone is bound to put away evil from among his own family. How should a husband but exclude his wife, when he findeth her in adultery? And yet the apostle saith; Let not a man put away his wife. Ought he therefore to harbor her adultery? Hereby is sufficiently showed, of what manner of departing and ejection these things be meant. And in this place thou hast Chrysostom, who is of our opinion: for he saith; Sometimes they depart one from another by reason of contentions, or faint courage, or else for continency, or for other pretenses: neither doth he make any mention of adultery. Tertullian, in his fourth book against Martion, saith; that Justice hath the Lord to be a defender of divorce. By which words he showeth, that Christ did confirm divorce, and that he took it not utterly away. For by this reason the heretics went about to prove, that Christ was contrary to God in the Old Testament, for

condemning of those things, which he ordained. Which sentence of Tertullian should not be true, if just divorcements (as the Hebrews used) should not be admitted among the Christians.

66. Neither ought this to trouble us much, that in the Old Testament, a bill of divorcement was permitted for every cause; seeing now Christ draweth the matter into so strict a room: this is no cause, why thou shouldest think him to be against the decrees and laws of his father. But this thou must consider, that in those days, the same law of giving a bill of divorcement, which was ordained in the 24th of Deuteronomy, was civil: and Christ dealt not as touching the civil affairs. They, which govern a Common-wealth, appoint themselves such a scope, as if two evils or discommodities be offered, the less must be permitted, lest they should fall into the greater.

Which may easily be showed in harlots, whom they suffer to live in cities, least more heinous crimes should be committed. Which nevertheless, the law of the Lord in his Common-wealth did not permit. But now I bring this as an example, which although it be not done according to Christianity; yet is it to be seen here and there in many Common-wealth's. Even so, as concerning the affairs of matrimony, when the matches be untoward, one of the two discommodities seemed necessary; that they, which hated their wives, either they would perpetually afflict them, and at length kill them; or else a license of divorcement was to be given them.

This latter evil seemed more tolerable, wherefor God granted the same to be in his Common-wealth: but yet he so granted it, as a bill of divorcement should be written. Wherewith a sharp and intractable man, even in writing of it, might some ways be moved, and might more deeply ponder how dishonest a part it should be, to drive her away from him, with whom even from the beginning he had lived most familiarly. For we be wont more

attentively to ponder those things, which we write, than those things which we speak. Moreover, he commanded, that when she should be cast out by a bill of divorcement; she might never be received again into matrimony by her first husband. So as in these political laws, let a Christian and godly man so behave himself, that he use not this leave, which he seeth is granted him, least we fall into more heinous evils: since he may perceive that it hath some evil also joined with it, although it be the lesser. Wherefore our redeemer hath appointed decrees unto his people, both of piety and religion.

In the meantime he condemned not the counsel of God, which he used in the Common-wealth of the Hebrews, for restraining of more grievous sins.

67. Thou shalt not find in the Old Testament any men of praise or renown (so far as the holy histories make mention) that used a divorce Do not object Abraham, which put away Agar, and Ishmael her child from him: for this he did not of his own accord, but at the suit of his wife, and commandment of God. Also Augustine, in the place above recited, did write; that It is unbeseeming for Christian husbands, to take the matter so grievously, that they should not be reconciled to their wives (which fall into adultery) when they be penitent, and show hope of amendment of their life.

They must (saith he) consider with themselves, that they be Christians whose part is to incline to mercy, and not to be hard-hearted. David (he saith) took Michal to him again, who nevertheless was coupled to another man. But this example of his seemeth not very effectual, because Michal committed not a full and complete adultery: for the young woman was compelled by her father, who was king, to match herself with another man.

So that she was driven unto that latter matrimony, not only by the law of the country, but also by the commandment of the king. In the second place he bringeth in the example of Christ, who seemeth to have pardoned the

adulteress: which (no doubt) is of force to persuade the minds of husbands unto mercy towards their penitent wives. Yet doth it not prove, that adulterers should not be punished by laws and magistrates with death. For Christ, by that action, did not take anything away from the civil laws, or from the severity of public judgments. Bitter men (saith Augustine) did so hate that chapter of John, as they blotted it out of his place. By which words he seemeth to note (as the thing itself declareth) that the same chapter was not found in all the copies. Certainly these men ought to have remembered their own frailness, and to mark how oftentimes they themselves fell into sundry mischiefs; and sometime perchance into the very same kind of sin, of violating the faith of marriage.

68. They moreover, which so obstinately hate their wives, say it is not meet, that husbands who be the heads, and wives, should be both under one law. Nay rather (saith Augustine) seeing the man is the woman's head, her ruler and guide; therefore it had been meet he should excel her in virtue.

And he citeth the law of Antonius the emperor, which he saith, he read in Gregory's book, which is on this wise; I judge it to be very unjust, that a man should require chastity of his wife, which he himself performeth not to her. Where upon he decreed, that she should not be condemned of adultery, which proved her husband either guilty of that crime, or else that he gave her an occasion of falling. By these and such other means, Augustine exhorteth men to pardon their wives, when they have offended. Which I very well allow, when there is hope of true repentance, and change of life.

So then, if the magistrate once apply his mind to take away these evils, and to reform the faults that be in matrimony; let him provide, that husbands, which complain of their wives naughtiness, being proved in the same fault

themselves, escape not unpunished: and let him provide by good laws, that husbands give unto their wives no occasion of sinning.

69. But when the apostle saith; Unto the remnant speak I, not the Lord. If any brother have a wife that is an infidel, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not put her away, &c. thou shalt note, that dwelling together is required to a just matrimony. Wherefore the Lord said, that he would appoint man a wife to be a helper unto him. Which I speak not, to the intent it should never be lawful for man and wife to be one from another, either by occasion of sickness, or else for other great and urgent necessities: but that married folks may understand, that there should be no let in them to dwell together, and that they should not shun to live one with another. Thou wilt demand perhaps; If the unbelieving party be proved altogether an Atheist, an Epicure, and which hath no regard of religion, so as there is despair of his salvation; whether in that case the party that believeth, ought to remain in wedlock? We answer: Certainly, when the party married is past all hope of salvation, a separation may be made; for the effect being removed, there is left no place for the cause. All the reason of abiding together, was for charity sake; that the faithful man might win his wife unto Christ.

But because it is not lawful to despair of any man, while he liveth; and he that this day is an Atheist, an Epicure, and contemner of religion, tomorrow perhaps will not be so; seeing God hath the hearts of men in his hands: therefore, unless there happen to be a manifest and special revelation of the condemnation of such a one, there ought not to be a departing. But if the same party in the meantime shall be a blasphemer, and a curser of Christ; so as the believer cannot remain in matrimony, without the contumely of Christ (for perhaps the husband cannot abide to be reprehended of blasphemy;) or else that the truth of Christ must be defended by confession:

is it lawful then to depart? Yea verily; for he, which honoreth Christ, if he do not deliver his name from contumely, if he may; or at the least-wise passeth not whether he seem to consent unto the injury done unto him, he sinneth grievously, and in vain taketh himself to be a Christian. Wherefore prudently doth the apostle write; (If the unbeliever will dwell together with the believer:) because he is not judged to be willing, which doth detest the religion of his spouse; who doth revile his God with blasphemies, and suffereth not that his conscience may rest in tranquility and quietness. This is not to dwell together, but to torment the other party, to raise up strife, and utterly to overthrow all domestical peace.

70. Also, if it happen, that the faithful party be weak, and perceiveth himself, by means of that matrimony, to fall away by little and little from Christian religion; so that he is almost led away from the faith, and ready to fall headlong into idolatry, by being with idolaters, what shall he then do?

He ought not to abide: for that sentence must stand sure and unshaken; We must not do evil, that good may come thereof. Neither is there any hope then remaining, that the unbelieving party can be converted, which was the cause of retaining matrimony: nay rather it now happened contrariwise, that the believing party should be put in jeopardy of inclining to infidelity. And this was the reason why God, in the Old Testament, appointed matrimony, which was contracted with infidels, to be dissolved by Esdras: because men were by that means stirred up unto such worshipping's, as were forbidden; so far off were they from winning their wives unto the Jews religion.

Augustine, in the place now cited, reasoneth on this wise; For this cause Paul wrote these things, for that it was to be feared, that if through the Gospel begun, the matrimonies contracted should be made void, Christian

religion would be condemned; as though it troubled the Common-wealth's, and did cut in sunder honest and lawful contracts.

And there was added another discommodity; namely, that the unbelieving party, suffering a repulse of her husband for religion sake, entangled herself with new marriages, whereby her mind might be the more vehemently hardened in infidelity, and more and more become strange unto Christian religion. Which would not have happened, if the faithful wife had tarried with him. So as it seemeth good, that all means be attempted, before a departure be had. Hereby therefore we see, that Paul doth give leave to depart, not for religion sake only; but in case that the unbelieving party will not dwell together [with the believer.] So as he maketh the obstinate will, to be the cause of departing, rather than unlikeness of religion: seeing he teacheth, that the same after a sort might be abidden. And it appeareth, that the sentence of Christ, wherein he only excepteth whoredom, was not complete: seeing the apostle here added another.

71. Here arise three great doubts. [ 1] First it seemeth, that Paul layeth open the party that believeth unto great peril: for he persuadeth him to remain with an infidel, whereby he perhaps might fall into idolatry; for it is an easy matter to be seduced of the unbelieving party. But it is answered, that it is not so: for, God being then moved by prayers, will help the faithful party, when he perceiveth him to follow his vocation, and that he did not willingly, and of his own accord, procure those dangers. Which had been as much as to tempt God, who seeth, that he abideth not in this kind of marriage by his own will, or for his own commodity sake; but that he may obey the commandment of God, and therefore will help him. Moreover, if it happen that the believer, being weak, perceiveth himself to be led from Christ, he hath leave to depart; as we have instructed before.

[ 2] The second doubt is, for that in committing of whoredom, we therefore sin; because we take the member of Christ, and make the same the member of a harlot. How happeneth it here, that sin is not committed, when as we make the member of Christ (I mean the party that believeth) to be a member of idolatry? It is soon answered; that we do it not: he was the member of his wife before. Only this must be holden, that there should be no parting for the Gospel sake. There is no leave given to him, which already is the member of Christ, that he should become the member of an idolatrous woman, to marry with one that is an infidel: but it is only said, that he should not rashly depart. But in committing of fornication, we which already be the members of Christ, are pulled from him; and make ourselves the members of a harlot. Thou seest that the reason is unlike. Furthermore, it cometh to pass, that in coupling with a harlot, either party is impure; as well the harlot, as he which hath the company of her. So is it not in marriage of persons of unsemblable religion, where the one party; namely, the believer is pure. For he, which committeth whoredom, is not only mingled in body with a harlot, but also he consenteth with her in the wicked desire of fornication. So that both of them, as well touching the mind, as the body, are defiled. But here, in marriages of contrary religion, they are not coupled together in respect of faith; but in bodies only: and Paul testifieth, that from the body of the infidel, uncleanness is taken away, that the other party may not be contaminated. In the meantime, faith remaineth sound, and the mind pure, in the party sanctified: which faith hath no place in committing of whoredom.

The last doubt is; if a Christian husband dwell with an idolatrous and an unbelieving wife, and that he ought not rashly to depart, and yet may depart from an adulteress; it seemeth to follow, that adultery is a more grievous

sin, and more intolerable than idolatry is. Chrysostom answereth, that God is so very good, as sometime he preferreth our commodities before his own: for he willeth, that the sacrifice be left at the altar, and before we do offer sacrifice, a reconciliation is to be made with our neighbors. He sometime forbeareth to have a debt paid unto him, and forgiveth the same: but us he will not absolve, unless we satisfy our neighbor. Wherefore the argument is but feeble, wherein thou didest gather, that idolatry is a lesser sin than adultery; because the spouse is permitted [to tarry] with the idolatrous wife, and from adultery he may depart. But it appeareth, that we may make a more perfect answer; that in very deed idolatry, in his own nature, is a more grievous sin than adultery: but that adultery is more repugnant to wedlock than idolatry, wherein man and wife should be one flesh, and by adultery be drawn one from another. It is true indeed, that idolatry is more repugnant unto God than adultery is; but adultery is a greater enemy to marriage than idolatry. Which doth hereby appear, for that marriages are had between idolaters and Mahumets.

72. But whether David did well, in taking of the Synamite to wife, it appeareth doubtful unto some. For those that are cold [of nature] when they marry wives, they seem not to do the part of a married man, because according to human laws, such marriages be not firm: for cold persons do enforce themselves to perform that which they are not able. Certainly, there have been many things decreed touching this matter, as well by the Civil as by the Canon laws. First they decree, that if there be a continual defect; those which be contracted, ought to be separated; so that the party, which sueth for separation, had no foreknowledge of that disease. For if the woman, contracting with a man in ill state, did know thereof before, she cannot for that cause step back from her husband. There is a law had

concerning spousages, in the law Mulier, which ordained in this wise; If before matrimony contracted, the wife knew of the infamy or the impotency of the man, let her impute it to her own self, she cannot seek for divorce. In the Digests Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs, in the law Si vxor, about the end it is said; If any man know that a woman hath committed adultery, and shall afterward marry her, he cannot accuse her of adultery: for seeing he took her to wife, and had knowledge of it, he seemed to allow of her conditions.

The same hath the Canon law determined, as in the 33rd cause, question 1. in the chapter Requisisti, the Gloss saith; If the woman knew the impediment of the man, and contract with him, she cannot step back. But admit she knew it not, shall the matrimony be firm? Gregory, in the Canon alleged, did counsel, that they should dwell together; to the intent the woman, if she cannot be a wife, may be a sister. But this he speaketh by counsel, not by commandment. For if she deny with loud voice, and say, that she would be a mother, and bear children; she is heard. Howbeit, they make a condition; namely, that she shall gain-say it within the space of two months (as appeareth in the Extravagants De frigidis and maleficiatis, in the first Canon;) seeing if she abide long, she seemeth by her own consent to have confirmed the marriage. But the rigor of this law is not observed at this day, but a longer space of time is appointed, and that justly: for he perhaps may seem cold at the beginning, which will not be so afterward.

What shall be done then, if she gainsay it, and yet allow it? If the husband will stand at denial, he must be credited: but if he confess it, they shall be separated, and leave is given unto the woman, to provide another marriage.

Which nevertheless ought not to be done over hastily: for they will have the space of three years to be expected; to the end a longer, and a more sure experience may be had. The same have the civil laws judged. Justinian De

repudijs, in the law In causis, first assigneth two years; but there in the Paraph Sed body, he assigneth three years, and it doth very well agree with the Popes Canons. The same he hath in the Authentikes, in Collatione 4. in the Paraph Per occasionem; namely, that three years be given. Howbeit, this must be understood on this wise; Unless a plain proof thereof can be had before, because it ought not then to be deferred. But some men say; that It is possible, that judges may be deceived, that the disease may sometime be cured, and that the space of three years seemeth not to be sufficient, that he might marry with another, and have children, and that in conversation they might both of them sometimes confess their coldness, because they might find the means to be separated. If this should happen, they would that the man, being afterward found fit for procreation, should renew his former marriage. But this is not observed. The same do they affirm of them, which be hindered by devilish practices. But because the devil doth sometimes hinder, so as a man is able to use the company of one woman, and not of another; therefore matrimony is assigned to be with her, from whom he is not let. These things are said touching women.

73. But if the man do either know, or be ignorant that he is cold, what then shall be done? If he be ignorant of it, he is after a sort excused; and it is lawful for him to ask a divorce, whereby he may be eased of the charges of marriage. But if he know before, that he had the disease of coldness, he is compelled to find and maintain his wife, whom he deceived. The Popes canons decree, that he should marry no more: as it is read in the place a little before alleged, De frigidis & maleficiatis. Howbeit, there be some, which say; If he can find any that will have him to her husband, so he make known this imperfection, he may contract matrimony with her. But what manner of marriage will that be, when it is done neither for procreation of

children, neither for avoiding of whoredom? Unto this they answer, according to the saying of Augustine, which we read in the 27th cause, question the first, in the chapter Nuptiarum: and it is written in the eighth chapter De bono conjugali. In the old time, marriage was an obedience of the law; now it is for the redress of our infirmity, and for the comfort of mankind. But the place is ambiguous, for the comfort of mankind may have a respect unto procreation of children; since thereby the parents conceive no small pleasure, wherein they delight themselves. Howbeit, at this day, they admit this kind of marriage: and there be many found, which do peaceably live together.

They, which entreat of these things, have considered, that there is a great difference between coldness and old age. And they define, that old age must never be driven from marriage. In ancient time was made the law called

Papia, or Papaea, under Tiberius Caesar (whereof Tranquillus in Claudio maketh mention, and so doth Lactantius;) whereby it was provided, that they which were past three score years of age, should not marry wives; and that the women should not be married, which did exceed the age of fifty years. But these laws were abolished by Justinian: as is to be found in the Code De nuptijs, in the law Sancimus. For this coldness is not in all persons alike. Howbeit, neither the laws of emperors, nor of bishops gave liberty to them, which were gelded men indeed, to marry. Yet it behooveth, that that coldness or devilish practices, which may dissolve matrimony, should be perpetual. For skillful men do sometime make a remedy for things, which hurt but for a time. Besides this, it is necessary, that the impediment be before the contracting of matrimony: for if they once become one flesh, marriage is not undone. Of this matter also wrote the Master of the sentences, in the fourth book, the 34th distinction.

74. Now remaineth that we entreat particularly of the matrimony of David. And this will we first note, that he was not moved unto that marriage, of his own accord, neither of lust, or of naughty desire; but by the advise of his noble men, and by the prudent counsel of physicians.

Nevertheless, thou wilt say, that a naughty advise and a wicked, must not be admitted. This in very deed is true: but in this matter (so far as may appear) neither lewdness of mind, nor naughty desire can be proved. First, old age nothing hindered, but that the king might contract matrimony: who perhaps also was thought, that as touching coldness, he might be restored; although not to the strength; which he was wont to have, yet so, as should be fit for his old body. Certainly Abraham was restored, when he was an hundred years of age: so that after the death of Sara he married another, and by her he did beget children. Neither was there wanting natural helps to David, wherewith the physicians thought they might restore him. Moreover, if they declared unto the damsel the old man's impediment, and the same being known, she gave her consent, she sustained no injury. It might be added, that her mind was persuaded by God, that she should consent for the benefit of the whole kingdom. Notwithstanding, if she were moved thereto by ambition; the counsel had not been good. But to judge rashly of these points, it standeth neither with our godliness, nor yet with our authority.

Seeing these things might be done of a sincere mind, and by the will of God; I think they ought rather to be taken in good part. This doth the history teach, that this damsel was not long with the king; because within a while after he died: howbeit, his life, which was very necessary for the Commonwealth, was prolonged for a while. Yet thus much I will admonish, that we need not labor so much to excuse the fathers of blame; who also ought not to be charged, unless the history compel thereunto. Neither will we pass it

over, that God used the occasion of this damsel to oppress Adonias, and to establish the kingdom of Solomon.

↑ Back to top