CHAP. XI. Of Whoredom, fornication, adultery, and other noisome things, which are contrary to the seventh commandment.No

CHAP. XI. Of Whoredom, fornication, adultery, and other noisome things, which are contrary to the seventh commandment.No

CHAP. XI. Of Whoredom, fornication, adultery, and other noisome things, which are contrary to the seventh commandment.

N ow I think it good to speak somewhat of whoredom or fornication.

For as there were many in old time, so now there are not a few, which affirm, that it is no sin. But I will prove by the scriptures, and by most certain reasons, that it is a grievous sin. They which extenuate this wicked crime, do ground upon diverse arguments. First, in the Acts of the apostles, the 15th chapter, when in those first times there arose a dissention among the Jews and the Grecians, it was by common assent decreed, that the Ethnics should abstain from blood, from strangled, from things offered unto idols, and from fornication. Here (say they) whoredom is reckoned among those things, which in their own nature are not sins: wherefore it appeareth, that of itself it is not sin. For these things were then for a time decreed by the apostles, that Christians might live peaceably together. For No creature of God is evil: as Paul unto Timothy saith. Furthermore, they say, God would not command that, which of itself is sin: but he bad Oseas the prophet, to take unto him a harlot, and to beget children of fornication; so that of its own nature it seemeth not to be evil. Moreover, every sin is

against charity: either against that charity, which we owe unto God; or else that, which we owe unto our neighbor. But in whoredom or fornication, there seemeth to be nothing committed against God; for his honor and religion is not hurt: neither also against our neighbor, for there is no violence used against his wife; neither is there any wrongful oppression committed.

Moreover, Augustine in his book De bono coniugali, writeth, that as meat is unto the body, so is the bed for procreation. But if a man eat and drink a little more than he ought, he is not accused of sin: so likewise, if a man do stray a little in the company of women, he is not to be judged guilty of sin.

Lastly, those things, which God hath forbidden as sins, are so plain and manifest, that even by the light of nature, everyone may understand them to be sins: but fornication, in man's judgment, is not so accounted; and many think that it is no sin. Mitio in the Comedy in Terence saith; Believe me it is no wicked act for a young man to commit fornication. And there wanted not some in the church of Corinth, which were of that opinion. So as by these reasons, the filthiness of whoredom is so extenuated, that either it is not counted for sin; or else thought that it should be reckoned among the least sins.

2. We must not have a respect unto the reasons of men, but unto the word of God; not what men think or judge, but what the holy Ghost speaketh in the holy scriptures. In the prophets, and in Solomon there is detesting of fornication in every place: but in the law they say there is nothing decreed against it. Seeing they will reason by the law, I also will bring testimonies out of it; whereby it may easily be understood, that fornication is forbidden.

In Leviticus, in the book of Numbers, and in Deuteronomy, the Jews are forbidden to link themselves unto strange women. Again, in Deuteronomy

the 25th chapter, it is commanded, that there should be no harlot nor common woman in Israel. Let these places be compared together. It was not lawful to have any harlots, neither strange women, nor yet women of Israel:

Therefore they were all forbidden. But some will say, How then had Samson fellowship with an harlot? Some of the Hebrews answer, that she was not an harlot, with whom Samson had fellowship; but one that kept a vitling house. But forsomuch as that is but a weak answer, me thinketh that another answer must be made. The public-wealth of the Hebrews was at that time corrupted: for they lived then under the Philistines. Neither is it any marvel, if they had then received some of their vices and corrupt manners. Wherefore, some harlots they had; howbeit, not by reason of their own laws, but through the use and conversation of the Philistines.

3. But in the New Testament, whoredom is openly and manifestly forbidden. To the Hebrews it is thus written; Adulterers and fornicators the Lord will judge. The Lord is not said to judge and to avenge, except it be for grievous sins. And to the Ephesians, not only covetous men and idolaters, but also fornicators are excluded from the kingdom of God. To the Corinthians also, where Paul writeth of excommunication; I speak not (saith he) of all sorts of fornicators, but if any brother be named a fornicator, with such ye shall not so much as eat. But he treateth much more manifestly of all this matter, in the sixth chapter of the same epistle, and that of very purpose. For many (as it is said) were of an evil opinion as touching this kind of wickedness. First (he saith;) Meat is ordained for the belly, and the belly for meat, but God shall destroy both this and that; now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord. Moreover, all meat of his own nature is pure; but for the offense of our neighbor, we ought sometimes to abstain.

Howbeit, some man might say; Meat is necessary to live by. It is (saith

Paul) in this life, but in the blessed resurrection God shall destroy both the meat and the belly. Wherefore, thou must not so much esteem it, that for such a cause thou shouldest offend thy brother. It is not commanded, that thou shouldest abstain from all meat generally, but from that only, whereby thy weak brother is offended. But as touching fornications (saith he) of which ye make small account, there is a far other respect; Your body is not appointed for fornication, but for the Lord.

And this must not be passed over, that Paul with great wisdom saith not, that the body is not given for procreation, but that it is not given for fornication; since the body is also given for procreation sake. Oftentimes men are wont to excuse their faults, and to impute them unto nature. The nature of the body (saith he) is that it may be given unto the Lord: so then the rule of life must be taken thereby, and not by evil examples. This is the nature of relatives, not only of those relatives, which in the self-same thing that they be, belong to other; but also of those, which by any means are referred to another thing: as the head unto the body, and likewise the body unto the head. For when we see the head, we straightway require the body: and again, when we see the body, we require the head. Such relatives, as the Logicians say, are called Secundum dici. The Lord is the head of the body of the church, and the church is the body of his head. Wherefore Paul, both wisely and pithily disputeth, when he saith; The body is not made to this end, that it should pollute itself with lusts, but to be correspondent unto the head, and to be conformable unto it. And he addeth; God, which hath raised up Christ, shall raise us up also by his power. The first argument was taken from relatives, the second from God himself. For if he shall raise up our bodies, as he hath raised up Christ, why then do we shamefully use them?

He proceedeth further, and saith; But do you not know, that your bodies are

the members of Christ? Shall I then take the member of Christ, and make it the member of a harlot? Undoubtedly a weighty argument, which he concludeth; Shall I take (saith he) the member of Christ? As though he should have said; No without doubt: for this were to rent in pieces the body of Christ. And it is a most cruel thing to pluck away the members from a lively body, and to join them to a rotten or dead body. But herein the strength of the reason doth consist; Christ cannot commit fornication; wherefore, if thou wilt commit fornication, thou must be first plucked from Christ. Here is showed, that fornication is not only a sin; but also a deadly and most grievous sin, because it plucketh us away from Christ.

4. Afterward he addeth; He which coupleth himself unto a harlot, is become one body [with her:] for they shall be two in one flesh. And he, which is joined with God, is one spirit. This place is very full of consolation: forsomuch as it declareth, that we are joined most nigh unto

Christ, from whom we must needs be plucked away, before we be made the members of a harlot. He, which cleaveth unto a harlot, is become one body with her: for they shall be two in one flesh. The apostle seemeth at the first sight to abuse the words of Genesis, in transferring them to whoredom, which be spoken of matrimony. For these words were first spoken of Adam and Eve: because the flesh of Eve was before in the flesh of Adam, from whom God took a rib, and made thereof a woman, which he again joined unto Adam, to be with him one flesh. But in very deed the apostle abuseth not this sentence, forsomuch as whoredom is a certain corrupting of matrimony: seeing one matter; namely, the conjunction of the flesh, is common to both. For bodies are communicated as well here as there. So as Paul had a respect to that, which is common to them both, when as yet there is this difference between them; that in whoredom the conjunction is against

the law of God: and therefore fornicators must be pulled one from another, otherwise there is left no hope of salvation for them. But in matrimony the knitting together is brought to pass by God, and therefore it is become an indissoluble knot. Seeing then the coupling together is all one, and the selfsame in either of them; Paul did rightly apply that sentence to whoredom.

He that cleaveth unto God, is one spirit. These words serve much for this present matter: for if we be with God one spirit, we must with earnest labor fly from those things, which he hath forbidden. Wherefore aptly hath the apostle added; Fly from whoredom. He saith moreover; Every sin, which a man committeth, is without the body; but he, which committeth whoredom, sinneth against his own body. If the arguments, which I have brought before, do not move you; at the leastwise have a regard to your own body, the which you seem to hate and contemn, when ye commit whoredom.

But it may be demanded, how other sins be without the body; and how by fornication we sin against our own body? For we doubt not, but he which is very angry, nourisheth and augmenteth choler: whereby the body is not a little hurt. Sickness also doth very much weaken the body: wherefore

Solomon saith; A sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones. Again, drunkenness and gluttony do hinder health, and do in a manner utterly destroy the body.

Yea and envious persons do seem also to sin against their own body: for thou mayest perceive them to be dried, withered, and in a manner dead with leanness. How can it then be, that other sins are without the body? Some say that fornicators do sin against their own body; because very many times, through the company, which they have with whores, they are infected with the pocks, and with leprosy. But let others say what they will: I had rather think, that the apostle had respect unto those things that went before; in so much as he had said, that the fornicator is made one body with a

harlot. And he seemeth to sin very grievously against the worthy state of his body, who maketh it all one with the most vile and filthy body of a harlot.

For if any king or prince should marry a wife of a simple and base degree, it will be said, that he hath stained his kindred. I know there be some, which think that these words are spoken hyperbolically: because there be found other sins also, which hurt the body; but this sin doth most grievously and most of all hurt it.

5. The same Paul doth yet further argue; Do ye not know that your bodies are the temple of the holy Ghost? And assuredly, he which destroyeth the temple of God, him will God destroy. As if he had said; Ye have not your bodies of yourselves, but of God; God hath made them his temple, and the holy Ghost dwelleth in them; ye are not your own: wherefore ye do not a little violate justice, in defiling the thing that belongeth to another. Ye are bought with a great price, glorify therefore God in your body. These arguments of Paul are excellent, and of very great weight: wherewith if any man be not well satisfied, let him look upon Samson. He was no idolater, no murderer, no thief; and yet was he taken, bound, his eyes put out, cast into prison, and compelled there to grind, as if he had been a four-footed beast.

Paul by many arguments laboreth to prove whoredom to be sin. And no marvel, seeing he then wrote to the Corinthians, who at that time exceeded others in fornications: whereof came the proverb; Non cuiuis Corinthum; that is, It is not meet for every man to go to Corinth. And generally, all the Ethnics were in an ill opinion touching this vice. For which cause, when the church was yet in growing (as Eusebius testifieth in the 3rd book of his history, the 29th chapter,) The Nicolaits did openly and manifestly commit fornication and fathered the custom of their naughtiness upon Nicolas the deacon.

Howbeit Clemens, bishop of Alexandria, in his Stromata, doth excuse Nicolas; for he saith, that he neither thought nor taught any such thing. But having a very fair woman to his wife, and was thought to be jealous over her, he brought her forth before the people, and said; This is my wife. And that ye might understand that I am not jealous over her, I am content for my part, that any man take her to wife. Which also he meant, so far as the law of God would suffer. Howbeit, they which were afterward called Nicolaites, understanding his words perversely, supposed him to think, that wives among Christians ought to be common. Of this sect it is written in the Apocalypse; But this thou hast, because thou hast hated the doings of the Nicolaites, which I also hate. So that it is no marvel, if Paul took so great pains, to teach that whoredom is sin.

6. This mischief is an enemy unto matrimony, seeing they which follow wanton lusts, and harlots, are enemies unto marriage. Whereupon Terence saith; They which love, can ill abide to take a wife. For which cause

Clemens saith, that Whoredom leadeth from one matrimony unto many; that is, from one lawful conjunction, to many unlawful and wicked. The epistle to the Hebrews joineth fornicators with adulterers, and testifieth, that God will judge them. And these two vices are so joined together, that they are comprehended in the self-same precept, wherein it is said; Thou shalt not commit adultery. Also this pestilent vice is repugnant both unto charity, and to the public wealth. Unto charity (I say;) because the fornicators do injury unto their children, who not being lawfully procreated, are scarcely at any time brought up honestly and virtuously. And they hurt the Commonwealth; because they defraud it of good citizens. For Manzer, a bastard I mean, and one born in fornication, is forbidden to be received into the church: not that he is restrained from the holy communion, or from the

mysteries of salvation; but because it is not lawful for him to rule the public wealth, and to be numbered among citizens. Some think, that this evil would be remedied, if a man might keep a concubine at home: so (say they) the issue shall be certain. Certain perhaps it might be, but lawful it shall not be. Seeing therefore that this mischief is both against matrimony, and charity, and also the public-wealth; it cannot be denied, but that it is a sin most grievous.

And for so much as it is so; why are the stews at this day openly suffered in cities? I speak not of the Ethnics, I speak of the Christians; and of those

Christians, which will alone seem to be the successors of Christ, and to be called by that name. Within their dominion whoredom is most shamefully maintained, they not only being willing unto it, but also taking advantage and revenues for the same. That which is against the word of God, against matrimony, against charity, and against the public wealth; either it is no sin at all, or else it is a notable sin. If it be a sin, why is it not taken away, and weeded out? Howbeit, I know what they will babble. They bring forth

Augustine, who in his book De ordine, writeth thus; Take away brothel houses, and all places will be filled with filthy lusts. But let us consider at what time Augustine wrote this book. Doubtless, while he was yet Catechumenus, that is, unbaptized, and not sufficiently instructed in religion. And although he had not been Catechumenus, yet this saying of his doth not agree with the word of God, neither with very Augustine himself: who in another place affirmeth, that the good, which cometh of evil, as a recompense, must not be admitted. Which also Paul unto the Romans taught, even as they were wont to say of us; Let us do evil, that good may come thereof, whose damnation is just. We must never have regard to the end and event, when we be urged by the commandment of God. Sometimes

men say unto us; Unless thou commit sin, this or that evil will succeed. But we must answer what God hath commanded; the care of the success shall rest upon him. Neither is it meet, that one only sentence of Augustine should be of greater authority, than so many reasons, which we have brought, and so many plain places of the word of God.

7. God commanded absolutely, and by express words, that there should be no harlot in Israel. But some go about to wrest this place from us, in saying that these Hebrew words, Kedescha and Kedeschim, signify not Whores or Harlots; but rather the priests of Priapus, which were vowed and consecrated to things most filthy. But contrariwise, I think, that Kedescha signifieth an Harlot; and Kedeschim, Buggerers and effeminate persons.

God would have neither of those suffered among the people. And that, which they object of the holy services of Priapus, it is nothing. For it was sufficiently before decreed touching idolatry: and what need it to be repeated again? Yet that we may the more manifestly understand, that Kedescha signifieth an Harlot; let us read the history of Judah and Tamar in the book of Genesis; and there we shall see, that Zonah and Kedescha, are taken both for one and the self-same thing. For which cause we must note, that there are certain words, which may be taken both in the good and evil part. Of which sort among the Hebrews, is this word Kedescha, which signifieth, both Holy, and also a Harlot: even as is this word Sacrum among the Latins, and it signifieth cursed. And thereupon Virgil saith; Auri sacra fames, that is; The cursed hunger of gold. This Hebrew word Kedes, is To prepare, or To be prepared: whereof is derived that word, which signifieth an Harlot; because such women are prepared and set ready for all men: or else, because they are wont to go trimly decked and painted. Wherefore

Clemens saith, that The Lacedaemonians suffered harlots to wear wrought

garments, fine apparel, and gold: which things were not lawful for matrons to use.

Now let us see what followeth in Deuteronomy; And the hire of a harlot shall not be brought into the sanctuary. Here again the law calleth that Zonah, which it had before called Kedescha. But thou wilt say; If the law would not have harlots to be suffered, what needed it to have forbidden their oblations? What needed this law? They which speak on this wise, do seem indeed to speak wittily; but yet they speak not sufficiently. For foreign nations also sent gifts for the furniture and use of the temple. The Eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia came to Jerusalem, to offer in the temple. The Macedonians and Romans gave yearly oblations and sacrifices in the temple. Wherefore the law forbiddeth, that if anything be offered by strangers that is gotten by the gain of a harlot, the same should not be admitted into the sanctuary. Besides this, God had given a charge, that there should be no harlot in Israel: but he knew that they would not observe that law. And when the Philistines, Macedonians, and Romans reigned over them, they had harlots. Yea and Christ maketh mention of harlots and publicans together. Then right well doth God first forbid, that there should be no harlots among the Hebrews: and afterward he decreeth, that if in case they were had, the gain coming of them, should not be admitted into the sanctuary. Which undoubtedly he commanded, because of the vileness and filthiness of the gain. In the same place he added; The price also of a dog shall not be brought into the sanctuary: because that beast is fowl and unclean.

8. Caligula, otherwise a detestable monster, decreed (as we have in Suetonius) that they, which should commit whoredom or brothelry, should be openly punished. Hereof Hostiensis writeth ridiculously; Harlots indeed

(saith he) are bound to pay and to offer, but the church cannot nor ought not to receive the same. Yet the gloss doth much better decree in the Decretals, distinction the 90th in the chapter Oblationis; namely, that Nothing at all, which cometh of the gain of a harlot, should be offered in the church. But priests and monks, when they feared that some of their profit should be gone, have devised another reason. For although (say they) the gain of harlots cannot be received for an oblation; yet nothing letteth, but that it may be received for alms. But after what sort doth the Pope receive the money of harlots? Surely, not as an oblation, because he cannot; nor as alms, because he is not poor: it resteth therefore, that he receiveth the same as a prince. The Lord would not have this kind of money in his sanctuary; but the Pope will have it in his treasury, and he hath it, and getteth a wonderful great gain by it. Whose vicar then is the Pope? God's vicar? Nay,

God refused such a gain. What? Is he the vicar of Christ? But Christ never departed from the will of his father. Then must it consequently follow, that he is antichrist; when as he both teacheth and doth those things, which are expressly and purposely against the word of God and of Christ. But he will say, that he exacteth this money as a prince. Let him then be a prince. But I demand, whether he be an evil prince, or a good prince? It is not lawful for a good prince to depart from the laws of God. Let him then be an evil prince: let him be even a Caligula.

Peradventure he will answer, that in respect he is a prince, he doth according to the civil laws, which do not take away harlots out of the Romans dominion: yea rather, they disdain not to decree somewhat touching their price or reward. In the Digests De condictione ob turpem causam, in the law Idem etsi, it is decreed; that They cannot demand again, that which they have given to a harlot. And there is a reason added; For

though it be a shame for a harlot to be a harlot, yet it is no shame to take her hire being a harlot. These words are obscure, so that they may seem to be a riddle. Further in the Digests, in the title De donationibus, in the law

Affectionis gratia, it is decreed; that It is lawful to give as well unhonestly as honestly. It is lawful honestly to give, as to parents, kinsfolk, friends, &c: unhonestly, as to harlots. But I would know, by what license that is lawful?

Hath God given goods unto men, to cast them away on harlots? Howbeit, they confess here, that some shamefulness there is: for though it be lawful to give, yet if thou hast promised anything unto a harlot, thy obligation bindeth thee not; neither can the harlot challenge thy promise: as it may be seen in the Glose, in the title De donationibus, in the law Ea quae.

But it is a doubt, that if she do not receive it shamefully, why it may not be lawful for her to ask it without shame. They answer, that this followeth not: because many things are taken honestly, which are not honestly demanded. And for that matter he citeth the law 1. De varijs & extraordinarijs cognationibus. Wherefore the Pope will not, by the civil laws, take away harlots; but receive money of them: which he seeth cannot be suffered by the laws of God. But here I will reason with him a little.

Certainly he professeth himself to be a ruler over the civil laws, and in very deed he hath altered many of them, as though he would amend them; when as yet he hath taken away the good, and sometime, in the stead of them, hath put such as be evil. Whie hath he not amended those laws for the suffering of harlots; seeing they be repugnant to the law of God?

Undoubtedly, the true cause why he hath not taken away the laws of harlots, is this: because it should be over hurtful unto the Popes treasury. For at Rome they measure their laws by profit, and not by honesty.

9. Howbeit, by what civil right do they receive money of harlots? They answer; for tribute. But why do not they rather say; for brothelry?

Doubtless, if we will speak truly, Popes in this respect are not altogether free from brothelry. Let them diligently mark the civil laws, whereby they now go about to defend themselves, and over which they boast themselves to be rulers; and let them look what those judge of brothelry. In the Digests

De ritu nuptiarum, in the law Palàm, it is thus written; He which hath bondwomen for gain, the same committeth brothelry. Now I demand of these men, in what condition they count the harlots in Rome? For citizens?

Nothing less. They count them therefore in a manner for bond-women, and of them they make gain: so as in a manner they are brothelers or bawds. As much might be said of usury. In their dominions they suffer Jews, which are usurers; and they take gain of their usury, every year a certain part, the twentieth part at the least. Wherefore the Pope is not only a bawd, but also a usurer. And that which I affirm of the Pope, let profane princes also take heed, least the same should be also said of them, which exercise this kind of gain of the Jews. To them undoubtedly agreeth that saying of David; If thou sawest a thief, thou rannest with him, and laidst thy portion with adulterers.

But they say that these be tributes. But in the Code, in the title De pectigalibus & commissis, in the law Ex praestatione, and in the law

Allegatis; Tribute is defined to be that, which is paid for those things, which are brought into the public wealth from foreign nations: for they are called in Latin, Vectigalia, of the verb Vebere, which signifieth To carry. And the eight part of everything was paid, in the name of a tribute, or custom.

Wherefore customers were called Octauarij, of Octaua parte, that is, The eighth part, which they gathered. But what (I pray you) do harlots bring unto the public wealth? Even filthiness and lusts; of the which the Courtiers

and Popish priests do gather not the eight part, but the whole. These Vectigalia are also called tributes and customs, which are taken of fields and lands. But what fields have harlots? What lands? None forsooth: then let them leave to excuse a most shameful thing by so honest a title. I know they will say; If harlots were suffered to be free and at liberty, they would sin more licentiously. O goodly kind of correction!

Can harlots be restrained by no other means, but so? They ought rather to decree, that they should not remain in the city, that they should have illfavored and dark houses, that they should cast away all the ornaments of the body, that they should not come abroad openly; and they should be shamed by some notes of dishonesty, that thereby they might be mocking stocks to the world. By this means they might peradventure be called home into the right way. But now (good God!) how are they kept under? Their houses be most gorgeous, they ride openly in chariots, appareled like princes, they ride upon their fine foot-cloths. They have in their company men wearing chains, and disguised persons, yea and sometimes Cardinals, especially in the night, and a most sumptuous train of waiting women. Will they deny that these things are true? Then let grave and faithful men, which have at any time been in Rome, show whether the thing be so or no. If they will not believe me, I can bring for witness both Cardinals and Prelates of Rome.

10. Paulus the third of that name declared once, that he minded some reformation of the church: he committed the matter to certain Cardinals and Bishops, which were counted more pure than the rest. And what they judged, it is extant in the third volume of Councils. And they complain, that the power of harlots is so great at Rome, as it was in no other place the like.

But hath Paulus the third amended this? Also in the synod of Trent, the clergy of Rome promised some great reformation: but they did it not;

neither did they endeavor it at all. Why do they not rather imitate and follow the laws of Justinian? He, in his Authentiks, in the title De

Jenonibus, willeth, that Harlots should be utterly thrust out of the city; and that, if they promised anything unto bawds, they should not be bound to pay and accomplish the same. Nay rather, if they have sworn to be harlots for a time, the Pope absolveth them of their oath. These things do these men dissemble, and do suffer and maintain harlots. Which nevertheless we are not to wonder at: for seeing they so diligently retain and increase spiritual fornication of minds; namely, superstition and idolatry, how can they but join therewith the fornication of the body? But seeing they took away wives from their massing priests, it was a hard thing, yea and impossible, to be without brothel houses.

Justinian sorrowed, because he saw brothel houses so nigh unto the churches of God: but now they dwell in the midst of cities, not far from the houses of divine service; and it grieveth not the Pope one whit. But let the owners, in whose houses these harlots dwell, plead their own cause. But such houses, for the most part, appertain to Bishops and churches: and they will say; We do not take part of the gain of a harlot, but (as meet is) we receive rents of our houses. Which is not prohibited by the civil laws: for in the Digests De petitione baereditatis, in the law Ancillarum, it is said; that Brothel houses are used in the city rents of honest men. And in the same title, in the law Si possessor, it is ordained; that If a man have dishonest gains, he should be compelled to restore them, least an honest meaning might bring profit unto him that is an owner, by a dishonest gain. Howbeit, seeing they will maintain it by laws, why have they not a respect unto the interpretation of those laws? Namely, if this kind of gain be once exacted of harlots, that ought to be restored unto the heir: otherwise it is not lawful to

require them. Neither can contrariety of laws be avoided by any other means: for these laws should not agree with those of Justinian, which are to be read in the Authentiks. De Jenonibus & scenicis mulicribus.

But let them (I beseech you) mark the words which are read in the title De ritu nuptiarum, in the law Palàm: and in the title De ijs, qui notantur infamia, in the law Athletas; that That woman is infamous, which professeth herself a harlot, and he also that is partaker of the gain; and generally, that all bawds are infamous. Let us also (which is of much more weight) have a regard to the word of God, who commandeth; Be ye holy, for I am holy.

What do we gather by these words? Even that that is not to be suffered among Christians, whereby men are made infamous. So then let bawds and harlots be removed away, forsomuch as these kind of persons are noted infamous by the civil law. But they will say; Men oftentimes fall, and sometimes commit those things, whereby they are made infamous. I grant it: yet is not this to be borne withal, whereby they are made infamous, whether they will or no. But though they had a thousand civil laws on their side, yet ought we more to esteem the word of God. Jerome, speaking hereof, writeth very well in his epitaph of Fabiola; Civil laws (saith he) ought not so carefully to be cited; Papinianus writeth one thing, and Paul another. And before Jerome, Tertullian De anima; Brothel houses (saith he) are detestable before God.

11. But if harlots (say they) should be suffered, there is some hope of their conversion. For Christ saith; The harlots and publicans shall go before you into the kingdom of heaven. But let them show me, whether they can by no other means be called home into the kingdom of God, but by sufferance.

But he meaneth not harlots, so long as they be harlots, and be not converted.

For what cause then is it said, that they shall go before the Pharisees and

Scribes into the kingdom of God? Because they, being converted, do acknowledge and bewail their sins: but the Pharisees and Scribes regarded not their wicked acts, but would seem to be most holy. If harlots should be suffered, because they may be converted; then shall there be no sin so grievous, which ought to be punished. For there is none so far past grace, but that some hope remaineth, that he may be called home into the right way. And so by this means, all laws shall be silent. They say moreover, that God did forbid harlots, as we read in Deuteronomy; and yet they were afterward permitted: for Solomon gave judgment between two harlots. First

I answer, that it is not certain that they were harlots: in so much as this word

Zonah, signifieth her also that keepeth a vitling house, and one that getteth her living by sundry sort of gain. Further, though they were harlots; it is yet but a weak and frivolous argument. For we must not reason from that which is done, unto that which ought to be done. God undoubtedly forbad harlots, but afterward discipline quailed, and many things were committed against the law. Howbeit, we must have a regard, not unto that which is done; but unto that, which God hath commanded to be done: otherwise, if we will live according to examples, there are ill examples enow everywhere.

For Popes and Cardinals do not only suffer harlots; but also they themselves keep them as things most dainty. Neither can they abide the Canons, which decree, that a priest for whoredom should be deprived; in the distinct 82nd chapter Presbyter: when nevertheless the Gloss saith there;

Now a days no man is deposed for whoredom. The same we have in the 2nd cause, question 7. chapter Lator. The apostle excludeth whoremongers from the kingdom of God, but these exclude them not from the church: neither think they that they ought to be deposed. But it is no marvel, seeing they say that the bishop may dispense with adulteries, and other light crimes: as

may be perceived in the Extravagants De iudicijs, in the law At clerici.

They be the words of Alexander the third: whereby it appeareth, that these men account adulteries for very small crimes. Whie should we then depend upon their examples? Philo a Jew saith; that In the public wealth of the Jews, harlots might not be suffered: for of necessity it behooved all, when they came to ripe years, to be either husbands or wives. Some widows indeed there were, but those were ancient in years, and of a tried chastity.

This example should we follow; namely, of such a holy public wealth: and not the example of the Popes court.

At a certain time I being in Rome, remembered a witty saying of Crates.

He; when he came to Delphi, and saw in the temple of Apollo, a golden image of Phryne a very notable harlot, cried out; Behold a triumphant token of the wantonness of the Grecians! So I considering there the sumptuousness and magnificence of harlots, said; Behold a token of the wantonness of the bishops of Rome's prelates! But let us leave them, and proceed with the words of God, and the reasons brought from thence. Basil, in his first book upon the Psalms, expounding these words; And hath not sit in the chair of pestilence, writeth very well: Whoredom (saith he) stayeth not itself in one man, but invadeth a whole city. For someone young man coming unto a harlot, taketh unto himself a fellow; and the same fellow also taketh another fellow. Wherefore, even as fire, being kindled in a city, if the wind blow vehemently, stayeth not in the burning of one house or two, but spreadeth far and wide, and draweth a great destruction with it: even so this mischief, being once kindled, rangeth over all the city. Ambrose also prudently writeth upon the 119th Psalm, alleging the words of the 16th chapter of the Proverbs; Who can nourish burning coals in his bosom, and not be burnt with them? Who (saith he) can think that harlots may be

nourished in a city, and young men not be corrupted with whoredom? And so may we aptly invert that sentence of Augustine; If thou take away harlots, all places shall be filled with filthy lust. We rather say the contrary;

Nourish harlots, and all places shall be filled with filthy lusts.

They object again a recompense of sins, and will have brothel houses to be suffered, lest violence should be offered unto honest matrons. I have answered before, that Evil things must not be done, that good may come thereof. Yea, but God himself (say they) hath ordained a recompense to be made for sins; seeing he for the hardness of the Hebrews hearts, to the intent they might not fall into greater inconvenience, appointed them a bill of divorcement. But these men ought to remember, that we must not call

God unto answer; neither is it lawful to require of him a reason of his laws.

Wherefore it is no sound conclusion: God did so; Therefore it is lawful for us to do the like. We must not look what God hath done, but what he hath commanded us to do. But God saw that hatred happeneth oftentimes between man and wife, and danger of committing of murder: rather than the same should happen, he appointed that a bill of divorcement should be made. But it is a false argument: God appointed a bill of divorcement;

Therefore it is lawful for us to keep brothel houses.

12. Now remaineth to confute the objections of the adversaries. First they said; Whoredom in the Acts of the apostles, is numbered among those things, which of their own nature are not evil: as blood, things strangled, and things dedicated unto idols. For No creature of God is evil, that is received with thanks-giving. Wherefore, seeing fornication is reckoned among these, it is no sin. Howbeit, this is a weak reason: for these things are not reckoned up of the apostles, because the nature of the fault should be alike every one of them; but because all these, if they should have been

used, would at that time have disturbed the church. The Jews, by the custom of the law, abstained from blood, and from that which was strangled: and the Ethnics made no account of whoredom. So, to the intent that peace might grow between them all, they decreed, that they should all abstain from those things. Whereby it followeth not, that all these things be alike faulty: but this rather we may infer, that all these things were an occasion of disturbing the church. Further, they objected, that God commandeth not sins: but he commanded Hosea the prophet to have fellowship with a harlot.

I answer: Every sin, in that respect is sin, because it is against the word of God: but if God particularly command anything to be done, which otherwise dissenteth from the word written, that verily is no sin. Sin it is to take other men's goods away; yet God commanded the Hebrews, when they should go out of Egypt, that they should borrow stuff and silver vessels of the Egyptians, and take them away with them: which they did without sin.

Also, no man doubteth, but that murder is sin: and yet Abraham, if he had sacrificed his son at the commandment of God, which he was ready to do, he had not sinned. So may we say of Hosea the prophet, if he committed whoredom at the commandment of God, his whoredom was no sin. I know there be some, which think, that Hosea was not bidden to commit whoredom, but to take a harlot to his wife: but that agreeth not. For it followeth; And thou shalt beget of her children of fornication. Children gotten after that manner; namely, of a lawful wife, should not have been children of fornication. Jerome doth better interpret these things hyperbolically, and saith; that By this image was expressed the wickedness of the Jews, which had forsaken God a husband to them all, and had committed fornication with the idols of the Gentiles, and had begotten unlawful and bastard children, as touching the service and religion of God.

Moreover, that is false, which they alleged; namely, that whoredom is neither against charity, nor religion. For we have before declared, that it is otherwise: neither is it here needful to repeat that, which we have said.

Augustine was brought, which saith; What meat is unto the body, that is the bed for procreation; But to eat or drink a little more than needeth, is not a grievous sin; No more therefore is whoredom.

The similitude agreeth not in every point, but serveth only for that part, for which it is taken. And undoubtedly, he which eateth or drinketh more than he ought, doth not straightway forgo the health of his body; but he, which strayeth in carnal fellowship, and playeth the harlot, may easily forthwith procreate a child, unto whom he doth injury, because through his fault he is born a bastard. Moreover, there followeth evil education, and by that means charity is hurt. I might also say, that even as evil and noisome meat destroyeth the body (yea Adam, by eating of the forbidden fruit, corrupted his posterity:) so whoredom killeth the soul. Lastly, whereas they alleged, that fornication is therefore no sin; because this cannot be perceived by the light of nature, that I say is nothing. For the precepts of God may be known even by nature, that they are just: howbeit, by such a nature as is sound and uncorrupt; seeing a corrupt nature doth oftentimes allow vices instead of virtues. For among the Lacedaemonians, theft was commended: and (as Thucydides writeth) among the ancient Greeks piracy was counted a virtue. Furthermore, it followeth, that the precepts of God may by nature be known to be just and honest; but yet by a nature instructed and framed with the word and spirit of God. Otherwise (as Paul witnesseth)

A carnal man knoweth not the things, which are of God.

Of Bastards, and children unlawfully born.

13. Whereas Jephthah had a noble man to his father, yet it did profit him nothing; because he was base born, and not born in lawful marriage.

Wherefore by the civil law of the Hebrews, it was not lawful for him to have place in the congregation of Israel. For in Deuteronomy it is written,

Manzer shall not enter into the congregation or assembly. Zur, is in Hebrew A stranger; and a bastard is so called, because he pertaineth not unto the family of the father. She that bare Jephthah was no wife but a harlot. This

Hebrew word Zonah, signifieth two things. First A vitler, that is, such a one as selleth things pertaining to victuals: for Zon signifieth To feed or nourish.

It signifieth also A harlot, perhaps for this cause; namely, for that vitlers are sometimes ill spoken of for chastity, as appeareth by a certain law of Constantine, which is extant in the Code Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs. And undoubtedly, either signification may be aptly applied to this place. Some of the Hebrews think, that Jephthah was not the son of a harlot; but only the son of a concubine, which was not espoused with a lawful contract, and dowry. But that seemeth not very well to agree: for the Hebrews called not a concubine Zonah. Neither had it been lawful for Jepthas brethren to have expelled him as a stranger, if he had been the son of a concubine: for the having of concubines, of that sort, was with the Jews true matrimony.

Further we must know that the Hebrews had another word. But why would not God have a bastard to come into the congregation? Not because he had been the worse man, so that he had lived well; but that the people might know, that God detesteth whoredom.

And not to enter into the congregation, was nothing else, but to be made unfit for the executing of an office, either civil or sacred: although otherwise he had to his father either a priest or a ruler. So then it was not lawful for bastards to execute the office, either of a tribune, or pretor, or

magistrate, or priest. Whie therefore doth God now make a bastard ruler over his people? Because he prescribed the law unto men, and not unto himself. Another cause is, least they, which are so born, should therefore straightway be discouraged. Further, to the intent they might remember, that they be not excluded for their own fault, but for their father's fault. And now, to return unto Jephthah: his brethren could not have thrust him out, except he had been born of a harlot. Otherwise, a concubine was a lawful wife. And the children of Jacob, which were born of his concubines, abode with their other brethren, and were inheritors together with them. But thou wilt say, that Abraham cast out Ishmael. That was done before the law, and by the special will of God; to the intent the whole and perfect inheritance might come to Isaac. Otherwise, by the ordinary law of the Hebrews the children of concubines were not utterly excluded from all inheritance.

14. And that the matter may be made more plain, it seemeth good thus to distinguish children. Some be legitimate and not natural, as those be, which are adopted and chosen. Othersome there be, which are natural, and not legitimate, as they which are born of concubines. But I speak here of concubines after the Roman manner: for as touching the Hebrews, they which were born of them were legitimate. And there be other, which be both legitimate and natural; as they, which are born in just matrimony. Lastly, there be some, which are neither legitimate, nor yet natural; as bastards be.

And a bastard is he, which cannot tell who is his father: or else, if he can tell, it is one, whom it is not lawful for him to have for his father. As it is written in the Digests Destatu personarum, in the law Vulgo concepti. There is a great difference in the state of children. But we (as concerning this matter, which we have in hand) will neither entreat of children adopted, nor yet of children naturally legitimate: but only of natural children and

bastards, who seem to be more obscure than the rest. The children, which are natural, and not legitimate, may be made legitimate: as it is in the Code,

De naturalibus filijs, in the law Anastatij. And the ways how they might be made, are described in the same Code, in the law Si quis. But bastards could not be made legitimate.

If we shall speak of the children of concubines, after the manner of the Jews, they were legitimate; as we have taught before. But the Romans counted them not as legitimate: only this they ordained; that they might be made legitimate. Moreover, bastards be not in the fathers power, neither yet can they be. This I say, to the intent that we may see in how great a misery bastards are. So Jephthah could not attain to the inheritance of his father.

And these laws were made, that men might be withdrawn from whoredom, if it were but only for the ignominy of their children: for when they beget bastards, they hurt them without hope of recovery. Whereupon Chrysostom, upon the epistle to the Romans, when he interpreteth these words (Now is the hour for us to rise from sleep) earnestly inveigheth against whoremongers: Whie dost thou sow (saith he) that which is not lawful for thee to reap; or if thou dost gather it, it is reproachful unto thee? For infamy will arise thereof, both to him which shall be born, and to thee also. For he, so long as he liveth, shall be full of ignominy; and thou, as well when thou art living, as when thou art dead, shalt always be noted of shameful lust,

&c. Therefore it hath been ordained by laws, that bastards should not be admitted to the inheritance of their fathers.

15. The father, when he dieth, may give somewhat unto natural children; yea, they inherit, though the father die intestate, when there are no other children: yet they succeed not in the whole, but only in two twelve parts; as appeareth in the Code De naturalibus liberis, in the law Licet patri. But the

bastard was so far from inheriting to his father, as he might not so much as demand food of him: as it is in the Code De incestis nuptijs, in the law Ex complexu. Howbeit, the Ecclesiastical canons deal somewhat more gently: for they permit, that a bastard should have somewhat given him to find him withal: as may be seen in the Extravagants, of him that married her, whom before he had polluted with adultery; in the chapter Cùm haberet. And thus both the laws of God and man do agree. Neither (as I have said before) were those laws made for hatred or cruelty against bastards; but that at the least, by this means, the shameful lusts of men should be restrained.

Notwithstanding, I will not overpass this, that by the laws of Rome a bastard might succeed his mother: as we have in the Digests Ad senatusconsultum, Tertullian lib. 1. He may also complain of his mother, if she leave him out of her will; as we have in the Digests De mofficioso testamento, in the law 29. where this is to be understood; Except the mother be a noble woman.

And why bastards are not reputed in the place of children, and are deprived of their father's inheritance; Augustine, besides these reasons, which I have brought, bringeth also another reason out of the holy scripture.

In the 22nd of Leviticus it is written; He that cometh to the wife of his uncle, shall die without children. But (saith he) many are born also of incest, whose parents are not childless. He answereth, that the Lord so speaketh in the law, because such are not counted for children: wherefore their fathers are justly said to be without children, although they have children; because it is all one, as if they had none. And because such children are contemned of their father, neither are they rightly brought up nor chastised; oftentimes they prove worse than the other. Chrysostom, upon the epistle to the Hebrews, the twelfth chapter, in his 29th homily,

exhorteth the people to think, that God doth like a father, when he chastiseth us. For the father neglecteth unlawful begotten children and bastards: therefore God, when he chastiseth, doth the part of a true and lawful father.

Plutarch, in his Problems, the 130th Problem, saith; that The Romans had four surnames; so that some were called Cnaei, and other some Caij: and those names they noted by two letters only, or by three. Wherefore he demandeth, why Spurius, that is A bastard, was written by these two letters

Sp. Because (saith he) the first letter S. signifieth Sine, that is, Without, and P. Patre, that is, A father; because he was born of an unknown father: although the same may also be applied unto those that are born after their father is dead. But to them it was no reproach to be called bastards: for Sp.

Melius, Sp. Cassius, and other of that name, were noble citizens. We have heard the law of God, and also the civil law: now it remaineth that we search the canons.

16. In the Decrees, the distinction 56. in the chapter Presbyterorum: they suffer not bastards to be admitted to holy orders, unless they have been first brought up in Monasteries; as though by this means they might be amended.

But the canons which afterward follow, be somewhat milder. Chrysostom, upon Matthew, in his 4th homily (as it is in the same place recited, in the chapter Nunquam) teacheth that such manner of births ought not to be hurtful unto the children. For if a man have been a thief, a whoremonger, or a murderer, and then be repentant; his former life shall not be hurtful unto him. Much less ought the sin of the father to be hurtful unto the child: nay rather, if the child behave himself well, he shall be so much the more notable, and worthy of more praise; in that he hath not followed the steps of his father. Jerome, in his epistle unto Pammachius, against John bishop of Jerusalem, as in the same decrees appeareth, in the chapter Nascitur:

Bastards (saith he) are not to be contemned; for they had God the worker of them, neither did God disdain to make them, and to give them a soul, &c.

Gregory also in the same place, in the chapter Satis perversum, saith; that It would be an unmeet thing, that the child should so be punished for the pleasure of his father, as he might not be preferred to the holy ministry.

Jerome in the same place, in the chapter Dominus; If Christ vouchsafed that bastards be reckoned in his genealogy, why shall not we then admit them to the ministry, &c?

After these canons, which be more favorable unto bastards, is brought a strong argument on the contrary part. Whoremongers (say they) do seem to pour in a certain force into the seed, which passeth also into the children; whereof follow evil inclinations: and thereby are they judged to be worse than other, especially when they be not corrected in their childhood.

Wherefore, if they be promoted unto the holy ministry, the church shall be indamaged. Yet at the last it is added in the chapter Cenomanensis: If there be any that are notable, they may be admitted unto holy orders; but yet not that it should be a general rule for all, but a privilege only. And these things be written in the Decrees. But in the Decretals, De filijs presbyterorum, we read; that Bastards, if they be made monks, may come into orders; yet so nevertheless, as they may not be promoted unto dignities, nor be made either abbots or priors. Howbeit, if they live without the monastery, the bishop may give them orders, and bestow small benefices upon them: but that is by interposing his own authority, and (as they commonly call it) by dispensation. But the ecclesiastical dignities shall not be given them, of any other than of the Pope; for that power he keepeth to himself alone: albeit such dispensations of Popes and bishops have respect to gain only. The judgment of these things should have been left unto the church, which

herein ought to have regard unto two things; namely, to the necessity of the church, and to the excellent virtues of him whom it would promote. If the church shall have a great need, and he excel in virtues, the manner of his birth shall be no let unto him. For Paul, in his epistles to Timothy and to Titus, when he diligently writeth of the election of bishops and priests, did forbid none of this kind of men.

But thou wilt say, that in the old law bastards were excluded from the ministry. I grant it: nevertheless, we are not now bound to that law; and it was made only for the detestation of adultery. Yet now, if they be able to profit the church greatly, their election must not be forbidden. And it is vain, which is written in the Decretals, that legitimates may be chosen, but bastards ought to be rejected; except with dispensation, as we have in the title De electionibus. For these counterfeit colors and deceits, the Roman bishops have invented, to amplify their dominion. But the judgment, which I have allowed, agreeth with charity; and we may gather the like of it out of the civil law; where it treateth De decurionibus, that is, of captains over ten soldiers; since these were civil judges for private cities and towns.

Wherefore it is decreed, that bastards might be made Decuriones, if necessity so required. In the Digests De decurionibus, in the law

Generaliter, in Paraph Debet enim. The law therefore would have that order; namely of Decuriones, to be full. Howbeit, if another born legitimate, were a suitor together for the same, he should be preferred before the bastard. So think I that we must do in the church; that if any man be as good, and as apt for the ministry, being a legitimate born; let consideration be had to him, before the bastard, who must give place in that case unto him that is legitimate. It is added in the law; If they be honest and good, the blemish of birth shall nothing hinder them: in the same title, in the law

Spurios, and in the law following. These things have I therefore mentioned, that we might understand, by what right Jephthah was by his brethren thrust out, and that the agreement of the civil laws with the law of God might be perceived.

Of Adultery.

17. Doubtless, adultery is a grievous sin, and how grievous it is (as Tertullian gathereth in his book De monogamia) we may perceive by the contrary, in comparing the same unto matrimony. Let us consider wherein matrimony consisteth. God made man and woman, he joined them together in one flesh: wherein matrimony doth stand. And if so be that one flesh be rent and pulled away, so as another is mingled and set in place, adultery is committed. This heinous crime hath been forbidden, ever since the first original of mankind, as many of the fathers have proved. God made man and woman, not men and women; to the intent that every man should be content with his own wife, and every wife with her own husband: if now then a man be not content with his own wife, he shall not have one wife; but many. Man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife: if he be pulled away, doubtless he cleaveth not to her. Chrysostom, upon the 51st

Psalm, in the first homily, saith; that The fruit of adultery is murder and poisoning. In his 42nd homily upon Matthew, he saith; that Adulterous women very oftentimes practice murder, and that not of one man only, but of all them also, unto whom they think that their infamy may come; as did

Herodia. Jerome against Jovinian, toward the end of the first book; Whatsoever tumults (saith he) are in tragedies, is the spite that is between married wives, and their husbands harlots. Moreover, Agamemnon was slain by the adulterer Aegistus. Atreus and Thiestes, by reason of adultery,

took in hand those cruel enterprises. The ravishing of Helen stirred up the most cruel war of Troy. In this is a certain sink of all evil.

Cyprian, in the second epistle of his fourth book to Antonius, writeth; that In the first times there were such bishops, as would never let adulterers to rest in the church: but there were other bishops, that after a good space of time, if they showed forth any fruit of penance, would reconcile them after a sort. Augustine, in his 42nd epistle to Vincentius the Donatist, alledgeth this epistle, and saith; that This diversity of custom the bishops had, and yet they kept the unity of the church. Christ willeth, that matrimonies should not be broken off; and yet he so accounted of adultery, as he made it the cause why matrimony should be undone. By adultery the household is disquieted, the bed itself is dishonored, great injury is done unto the children: for either they be bastards, or else taken for bastards. Bartholus Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs, in the Pandects writeth, about the title [of the same book] that Adultery is the most grievous crime of all other, except treason: to wit, as concerning civil regiment. Thales Milesius judged, that perjury is not a more grievous sin than adultery. For a certain adulterer was ready to take his oath, that he committed not adultery; and perjury (saith he) is not worse than adultery.

Chrysostom, in his 62nd homily upon John, was bold to write, that adultery is a more grievous sin than idolatry. And he alloweth two reasons, both which nevertheless are derived from matrimony, and the nature thereof. Which is written by Paul in the first to the Corinthians, where he decreed, that A believing husband may dwell with his unbelieving wife: but he granteth not that an adulterer may dwell together with an adulteress: wherefore, that the same is a more grievous fault. Another reason is: The believing wife is not defiled with the company of her idolatrous husband;

but an adulteress is always polluted, if she be joined with an adulterer: therefore he concludeth, that adultery is a thing more grievous than idolatry.

But under correction of so notable a man, I may say, that the arguments be weak. We must not compare matrimony with idolatry: but matrimony and adultery must be compared between themselves. These two are in such sort, as the one of them in his own nature, and by the appointment of God is good, and the other is sin.

And whereas in matrimony, the one part is sometime an unbeliever; that happeneth by accident. But the greatness of sin must not be judged by those things, which come by chance, or (as they speak in the Schools) which happen by accident. A believing wife may dwell with an unbelieving husband, so he be willing thereunto. For matrimony is a good thing: it is not so polluted with the idolatry of the other party, as it cannot be good unto the believer in Christ. But adultery is always an evil thing, none can well and rightly use the same. And though the reason of that father be not firm, and that it is not true, that idolatry is a lighter sin than adultery (for idolatry is the greatest sin of all:) yet the sin of adultery draweth so near unto idolatry, as in the holy scriptures it is compared with idolatry. Idolaters be called whoremongers and adulterers: for the wedlock of God with men is violated.

18. But we might stand in doubt, whether it he lawful for any man to take her to wife, whom he hath before polluted with adultery. If the civil laws, or the Jewish laws were in use, this case would not so oft happen to be.

Adultery was an offense, whereunto death was due. If the adulterers, both man and woman, should be put to death; how might they contract matrimony? Certainly not in another world, where no marriages shall be.

But sometime perhaps a man escapeth unpunished, or else adulteries committed are not openly known; what then ought to be done? In the 18th

and 20th chapters of Leviticus, there be appointed many impediments, and many degrees, wherein matrimonies be forbidden; yet is not this named in that place. Perhaps for the cause which I have now spoken of; namely, for that adultery deserved death; or else, because it was a secret crime. In that case there seemeth to be no laws of God, which prohibit. Howbeit, the Popes laws did afterward ordain this much; that if one of the married persons did seek the death of the other, whereby such a one might enjoy the desired matrimony, such marriage should be void. The same we find in many places of the Extravagants, in the title where disputation is had of him, that marrieth his wife, whom he had first polluted by adultery.

And in the title De conversione infidelium, in the canon, which beginneth Laudabilem; If a husband, while his former wife liveth, committeth adultery with another woman, and they contract matrimony together, or plight faith one to another, such a matrimony is of none effect. Which also In concilio

Triburiense, in the forty chapter, was decreed. Augustine in his first book De nuptijs & concupiscentia, the tenth chapter, seemeth to disallow matrimony between adulterers. In the Authentiks, there is nothing extant of this matter: indeed they deny that marriage that is made between the ravisher, and her that is ravished. As for David he cannot properly be called a ravisher: indeed he committed adultery, &c. This matter is treated of by the Master of the sentences, in the fourth book, and 35th distinction. These things may be gathered even by human laws. Howbeit, God separated not David and Bethsabe; he suffered them to remain married, but yet in great affliction. It seemeth that the bishops were led to make these laws, least men should be inclined to the murdering of husbands, to the end they might enjoy their wives.

Of Idleness, and other enticements unto wickedness.

19. But now that we may the easilier avoid the causes of this wickedness, let us see by what steps David was carried into adultery. The circumstances of place and time must be observed. In the afternoon he slept quietly in his withdrawing place. This was an argument of a careless and idle man.

Isboseth, when he on that wise slept in an afternoon, was slain. David, when he lived idle after the same manner, was well near overthrown. But if he had earnestly meditated of God's law, and of God's benefits, which he had abundantly bestowed upon him; of the war which then he made, and of the danger of the Common-wealth, he should never have fallen into these mischiefs. So great a matter was it to be idle. And assuredly, idleness is condemned by the judgment of all wise men. Seneca, when he passed by the manor house of one Vacia a citizen of Rome, that was an idle and slothful man; Here (saith he) is placed Vacia. He did mean, that a man idle and unprofitable for the Common-wealth, was in a manner buried there. But this I also add, that such manner of dead carcasses, both have a very foul savor, and do also bring forth rottenness and worms. I know indeed that there is a certain honest kind of idleness, whereby good men being become the better prepared, are wont to return to execute their offices, either private or public. After this manner Christ did oftentimes spend the whole night in prayers alone upon the mount; but so, as he returned in the morning to preach. Many times was he in secret places, but yet so, as he instructed his disciples. There is also another idleness that is holy and commendable, whereby we keep the sabbath holy from sin: that must we always have in estimation.

But we condemn a dull and slothful idleness, whereby men's minds and wits are dulled. Cato, in his originals, very well wrote; that It behooveth an excellent man to yield no less account of his idleness, than of his business.

And Christians must consider, that they be those excellent men, and that they shall one day be called to that account. Ezekiel, in the 16th chapter;

This (saith he) was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fullness of bread, abundance, and idleness. And albeit that idleness do nourish otherwise many evils; yet doth it not nourish anything either more, or more easily than lust. This also did the Poets see, and Ovid among others, who saith;

Demand is made wherefore and why, Aegistus waxed an adulterer; The reason followeth by and by, He was an idle loiterer, And in another place; If thou fly idleness, Cupid hath no might,

His bow lieth broken, his fire hath no light.

Ambrose hath an excellent similitude of the crab and the oyster: The crab (saith he) most willingly eateth the meat of oysters: but for so much as those be well fortified with most strong shells on both sides, so as they cannot be broken by force, he craftily watcheth, while they open themselves to the sun. Then, while they open themselves, and take the air, the crab putteth a stone into the mouths of them that gape, so as they cannot bring together again their shells: afterward he safely enough thrusteth in his claws, and feedeth of the meat. So (saith he) when men be given to idleness, and open their minds to pleasures, the devil cometh and putteth in filthy cogitations: so that, when they are not able to draw back their shell, wherewith they were armed before, they are devoured.

20. David walked careless and at hearts ease. But princes are not created, to lead their life in idleness: for they are subject to that law, which in old time was said unto Adam; In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat thy bread.

In deed they do not plough nor delve, yet ought they to be vigilant, and to study for the Common-well, to examine causes, to give sentence, to write good laws. And not alonely kings would be idle, but bishops also, and monks especially of all men. Those at the beginning lived of their labors: afterward, they being weary (as I think) of good works, found the means (as idle men) to be maintained with stipends of the church. But when, by godly men, they were set on work; Surely (say they) it is not lawful, since this is not according to the gospel. For Christ warned that We should not be careful for the morrow, but should consider the lilies of the field, and the birds of the air. But against them Augustine disputed, in his book De opere monachorum; If ye will (saith he) imitate the birds and the lilies, why do ye not also imitate them in this point? The lilies do not eat or drink, the birds do not lay up till tomorrow; but ye do eat and drink, and do carefully lay up in store. And he rightly expounded that saying of the Lord; Be not careful for the morrow: for he saith, that the Lord forbiddeth only a pensive carefulness joined with infidelity; as though we are not maintained by the providence of God, but by our own proper industry.

David, when he was idle, fell into adultery. Nebuchadnezzar also, when in peace he gave himself to idleness, he became proud; Is not this (saith he) that great Babylon? As though he had gotten that so great a power of his own self, not of God. Many evils (saith Ecclesiasticus) hath idleness taught.

So then we must specially beware of this evil: For our enemy the devil goeth about roaring and seeking whom he may devour. If he always lie in privy watch, ready bent and prepared to our destruction; it is meet that we also should perpetually watch, and be ever ready to resist. D. Latimer, sometime bishop of Worcester in England, and afterward a most constant witness and martyr of Christ, when he would exhort bishops to do their

duty, among other things said; that There was not a diligenter bishop in England than the devil: for that he did always teach, admonish, instruct, and adorn his church. Wherefore he exhorted them, that if they would not follow God, they should at the least-wise imitate the devil. Howbeit, he cried to them that were deaf: for many bishops at that time were so set, as they would neither follow the devil, nor yet God. Wisely did Jerome admonish, in his treatise to the husbandman; Be thou always doing somewhat, that the devil, when he cometh, may always find thee occupied.

21. David, walking upon the house top, saw a fair woman bathing of herself. But what needed David, with such curious eyes, to behold what was done out of his house? Or why did that silly woman bath herself abroad without covert, where she might be seen naked of men? In that she washed herself, she was not to be blamed: for there were many legal impurities, which it behooved at that time to wash away, by such purifications.

Howbeit, she should have washed herself within, and under covert. David saw, and was caught. To see (they say) is the first entry of lovers. Howbeit, I may more truly say, that To see is the first entry of them that perish. For David looked not upon this woman with a single eye, but with an unclean and evil eye. He straightways cast from him the wholesome word of God;

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Than the which word, there is not a more present or better remedy, if at any time we feel ourselves tickled with carnal pleasures. This wicked act of David will seem the more heinous, if we compare it with that most chaste young man Joseph. He was a young man,

David was old: he was a bachelor, David a husband; yea and that of many wives, that there might be no want to fulfill pleasures: he was provoked, and that of his mistress, who might after a sort have commanded him;

David of his own accord provoked, and that his own subject, whose chastity

he should by all means have defended. The woman was beautiful, and well favored.

But yet we must not thereby gather, that beauty is an evil thing. For a fit joining together of the parts, with a pleasantness of color, which they define to be beauty, is the cunning workmanship of the Creator, and the image of God; neither can it do any harm, except it light upon unchaste eyes. Even as the light of the sun, although otherwise it be pleasant and grateful, yet is it grievous unto bleared eyes. But we are corrupted, not only by the corruption of original sin; but also by other sins drawn unto us by use and custom. Chrysostom; in his first homily upon the 51st psalm; By this example (saith he) all men ought to be moved, that they approach not unto dishonest sights, where harlots are showed, and all gestures of vile lust expressed. For that is ridiculous, which some men do answer; that they are not moved by those sights. For what (saith he) are they made of iron, of stone, or of adamant? Be they wiser, or stronger, or holier than David? If a spark be cast into hay, will it not take fire? Our flesh (saith the prophet) is hay, and may easily be set on fire: and for that cause the holy Ghost setteth forth unto us the fall of David, that we by his example might beware of the like contagion.

The physicians, if by chance they light upon a man that is grievously and dangerously diseased, are wont to bring their disciples; that they may the more easily understand both the force of the disease, and the way how to cure the same. King David was to be cut, so as we ought attentively to consider, by what art he is cured of the Lord. First let us see by what means he was driven to fall. He refrained not his eyes: wherefore he having forgotten himself, was easily carried headlong into mischief. So in the book of Genesis, the sons of God, which were descended of Seth, when they saw

the daughters of men, born in very deed of the posterity of Cain, they began to love them beyond measure; and so being blinded, began to degenerate from their former godliness, which they had retained even from their great grandfather Seth. Paul, unto the Corinthians, commandeth women to have their head covered in the holy congregation, at the least-wise because of the angels. And even as women ought to shadow their face, that they be not seen: so on the other side, men ought to temper themselves, that they do not over-curiously behold them. Of which matter Tertullian wrote many things very well, in a little book entitled De virginibus velandis. And Solomon thus wisely admonished; Lust not after her beauty. Also Gregory the first; They

(saith he) which abuse the outward eye, be worthy to have the inward eye shadowed. I have made a covenant (saith Job) with mine eye, that I will not think upon a virgins. He saith not only, that I would not look upon, but that I would not admit into my mind an imagination of her. This seeing David did not, he cast himself into the danger, which all godly men ought to take heed of.

Of the punishments of Adultery.

22. Somewhat we will declare in this place of the punishments of adultery. And this I think to be necessary for me: for by the grievousness of punishments, we know the weightiness of sins. By rewards and punishments Common-wealth's are preserved. But punishments must be applied, according to the heaviness of offenses. It is very well written in the 24th cause, question 1. in the chapter Non afferamus (which words be ascribed unto Jerome, but rather they are the words of Augustine;) How grievous a sin is Schism, or to be divided from the church, it is perceived by the punishments laid upon men for other grievous sins. The idolatry done unto the molten calf, God punished by a kind of death. Because Zedekiah

burned the book of the prophet, God did revenge it with captivity. But the rebellion done against Moses and Aaron he punished more grievously: he sent a fire, wherewith those, which conspired with Chore, were consumed, and the earth swallowed up the seditious persons. We will first then consider the punishments of adultery, that we may understand how heinous a sin it is. Secondly we will see, whether the adulterer and the adulteress, should have equal punishments; and whether they be bound to like punishments, and whether of them is the greater sinner. Thirdly, what evils may come by reason that these punishments are either neglected or utterly taken away. As touching the first; we must search in the holy scriptures, what may be found touching the punishments of adultery; after that we will descend to the reckoning up of punishments of diverse nations; then will we come to the Roman laws; and last of all unto the ecclesiastical and Canon laws.

Of the first we must understand, that the divine scriptures teach us, that The wages of sin is death. Seeing therefore that death is due unto sins; forthwith, after a man hath transgressed, he might be put to death by the justice of the law. But God is not so strict an exactor, he granteth as yet some space unto life: the which nevertheless is sometime broken off by the sword of magistrates; if grievous crimes be committed, which can by no means be suffered. But there are other sins of less weight, for which it is not lawful to put men to death. Further, we will see whether adultery may be reckoned among those sins, whereunto death is due. Certainly it was a sin, whereunto death belonged: as the holy scriptures declare unto us, and that for good cause. For by this wickedness is hurt that society, from whence is derived the fountain of all friendship among men. In the book of Genesis, when Abimelech the king of Gerar had seen Isaac playing somewhat

familiarly with Rebecca, he perceived him to be her husband and not her brother. So then he charged, that none upon the pain of death should touch that woman. Therefore we see, that before the law of Moses, adultery was by the Ethnics punished with death. Joseph after that it had been laid to his charge in Egypt, that he committed adultery with his mistress, was delivered to the head officer of capital crimes; and was cast into prison.

Tamar, when she had buried two husbands, and waited for the third, unto whom she was betrothed, did commit adultery, and was judged to be burnt.

And undoubtedly, when a woman that is betrothed, doth abuse herself, she committeth adultery. For although it be not a full marriage, yet is there such hope of marriage, as it ought not to be polluted.

This did the emperor Severus perceive. The law may be read Ad legem Iuliam de adulterio, in the Digests, the law Sivxor, in the Paraph Dinus. In the 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy, and in the 20th of Leviticus: by the law that is there given, the adulterer and adulteress are commanded to be put to death. Which sentence, God in the 16th chapter of Ezekiel confirmeth, where he saith, that he would bring punishment upon the adulterous

Israelites. The same law is confirmed in the eighth chapter of John. When the Scribes and Pharisees had brought unto Christ a woman, which was taken in adultery, they said; Moses commanded us in the law, that such a woman should be stoned, &c. So greatly did God esteem chastity, and unspotted wedlock; as he would not have so much as a suspicion to remain between them, which were man and wife. For in the book of Numbers, there is ordained a law touching jealousy. She which was suspected of adultery, was brought unto the priest; curses were denounced, a drink was given her, and straightway it was known whether she was an adulteress or no. And if a man had married a wife, and had been able to gather and prove

by certain signs, that she was not a virgins; she was punished. If a maiden betrothed to a husband, had been forced by any abroad in the field, the ravisher should have been punished with death: if in the city, the damsel should also have had the same punishment. Deuteronomy 22. So then great severity was used herein. Howbeit the revenge was not committed to private persons: the husband killed not his wife, nor the father his daughter; but the matter was brought before a judge. So read we to be done in Susanna, although that history be Apocryphal. In the prophet Jeremiah, we read that Nebuchadnezzar roasted Zedekiah and Achabus, two unchaste priests. These things we have in the holy scriptures, especially of the Old

Testament.

23. The laws of the Gentiles also suffered not this mischief to escape unpunished. If we give credit to Strabo, in the 16th book of his Geography, the Arabians made it death. In Arabia, where spices grow, the same punishment was provided for adulterers; as Eusebius saith in his sixth book, and eighth chapter, De praeparatione evangelica. The Egyptians (as Diodorus Siculus reporteth in the first book of his Bibliotheca) did cut off the nose of an adulteress; that the face of her, which was so pleasing, might be deformed. The adulterer was beaten with a thousand stripes, even well near unto death. Aelianus in his history of Variety, the 13th book, writeth, that Zeleucus the law-maker of Locris ordained, that an adulterer should have both his eyes put out. The same was thought to be a hard law. Within a while after it happened, that his own son was taken in adultery: the people would have released him from punishment, but the father would not. And to the intent the same law might after some sort be kept; he willed, that one of his son's eyes, and another of his own should be pulled out. There were a people, which Soudas calleth Laciadae, and others Placiadae, among whom

adulterers were tormented with punishments and ignominies about the secret parts.

Also the Germans (if we believe Cornelius Tacitus) were most severe punishers of adulteries. For the adulteress, being taken with the manner, was set naked in the sight of her kindred: the hair of her head was cut off, and after that she was by her husband beaten through the town with a cudgel. Plutarch in his Problems writeth, that the Gortinaei, when they had apprehended an adulterer; they brought him forth openly, and crowned him with wool: whereby they might show him to be a wanton and effeminate person. After which time he lived in perpetual infamy among them. The people called Cumaei set an adulteress in the market place, upon an infamous stone, and there of the people was put to shame: then being set upon an asse, she was carried through the city. Afterward in way of ignominy, it was said unto her, ὀνοβάτις. Saletus a citizen of Croton (as Lucianus writeth of them, which being hired serve for reward) made a law, that adulterers should be burned alive. Within a while after, he himself was taken in adultery with his brother's wife: he being accused, made an oration, wherein he so defended himself, that all men bent their minds to pardon him. But he, considering with himself how shameful an offense he had committed, leapt of his own accord into the fire. And among the philosophers, Plato, in his eighth book De legibus, saith; that Adultery is a great and horrible offense, when the husband goeth to another than his own wife, and the wife unto another than her own husband. Further, that we ought to keep our bodies chaste, and not to bestow them upon strumpets and harlots. They (saith he) that shall do that, are in perpetual infamy.

Aristotle, in his seventh book of Politics, in the last chapter save one, writeth thus; If any man shall have carnal copulation with her that is not his

own, or any woman with him that is not her own; let that be counted among most shameful things. So as they noted adulterers, both men and women, to be infamous. Diogenes the Cynic was of another mind. For it happened that a certain man, called Didymus, was taken in adultery: and Diogenes being demanded what should become of him, answered; that according to his own name, he ought to be hanged. For δίδυμοι with the Grecians be the stones of a man or of a beast. In old time among the Atheniens, adultery was a capital crime: as Pausanias in his Boetiks showeth. He citeth the law of Draco. And it was lawful among the Atheniens to slay an adulterer, that was taken with the deed doing.

And even this doth the oration of Lysias testify, wherein it is spoken of the death of Eratosthenes the adulterer. The adulteress was not strait way put to death, but it was not lawful for her to come into holy assemblies. Otherwise she might have all manner of ignominy done unto her by any person, only the punishment of death excepted: not for that they did take pity of her, but that they might give her the longer torment. Which may be gathered by the oration of Demosthenes against Neaera, if the same be his. Polybius in the second book of his history; If an adulterer be slain (saith he) let the executioner go free. He seemeth to speak this by the laws of the Grecians: for he was a Graecian born. How greatly the Grecians were moved for the adultery and violent taking away of Helene, all men know, which have any small skill of the poets. Muhammad (as appeareth by his own laws) would have adulterers to be whipped in a manner to death. The Goths made a law of death against adulterers, as it is read in the first book of Procopius De bello Gothico. Many things of sundry nations might be recited; but these for this time shall suffice.

24. I come now to the Roman laws. Dionysius Halicarnassaeus commendeth Romulus the first king of the Romans; for that he would have, by his laws, matrimony to be inviolate; and yet (so far as we can find) he made not adultery to be punishable by death. Divorce was permitted for the cause of adultery. Yea and afterward, for the suspicion of adultery, a putting away of the adulteress was admitted. And so did Caesar: for he put away his wife Pompeia, finding her with Clodius in the house of the head bishop. But he being afterward bidden to declare against her some witness of adultery, he would not: and being demanded wherefor he had then put her away, he answered; that his house should not only be free from the filthiness of adultery, but also from the very suspicion thereof. By the laws of the twelve tables, an adulterer was put to death. But in so much as belongeth to public punishments, it seemeth that in those former ages, they were more easy.

Tacitus in his second book declareth, that a certain man was accused of treason and of adultery, in the time of Tiberius Caesar. And touching adultery, it seemed that it was warily enough provided for, by the law Julia.

But Tiberius, who about the beginning of his reign was gentle, did by entreaty put away those great punishments, and said; After the manner of our ancestors, let the adulteress be removed two hundred miles from the city, and the adulterer be banished both out of Italy and Africa.

We read in the tenth book of Titus Livius, that one Fabius Gurges, which was Censor, had condemned many matrons of adultery. The amercement that they paid was money, of the which money he afterward built a temple unto Venus. Out of the oration of M. Cato, which is rehearsed by Aulus

Gellius in the tenth book, and the title is De dote; we may perceive, that before the law Julia was made, it was lawful to slay both the adulterer and the adulteress. Augustine, in the third book and fifth chapter De civitate Dei

saith; that The ancient Romans used to bury the vestal virgins alive, if they had committed whoredom; but that they did not deal so severely in punishing of adulterers. He saith, that they rather protected the temples of their idols, than their own wedlock. And no marvel it is: for they worshipped adulterous gods; Jupiter, Mars, and Venus. After that time was the law Julia made, whereof there is mention in the Digests, and in the Code. Many did falsely imagine that the same law had been made by Julius

Caesar.

It was made by Augustus, who was also called Julius; for so much as he was the adopted son and heir of Julius Caesar. Suetonius saith, that he made this law, and he made it upon just cause; for his daughter Julia, and a niece that he had, were most licentious monsters. The emperor used to call them, his rotten impostems. When he had made the law, there was brought unto him a young man taken in adultery with his daughter Julia. The which the emperor took in so evil part, as he flew at him with his fists. The young man with a loud voice cried out; Thou Caesar only hast set down this law.

Caesar, for that he was blamed, as if he had been an inconstant man, would not eat his supper for sorrow. By this Julian law, where first, in the time of Cato, it had been lawful to thrust through both the adulterer and the adulteress; then was this power taken from the husband: and it was lawful to kill the adulterer only. In the Digests Ad legem Juliam, in the law Marito; and in the Code, in the same title, in the law Gracchus.

Yet I read in Suetonius, that Claudius Caesar killed Messalina, under the name of adultery: but for so much as he was an emperor, he did what he would. It was lawful for a husband to kill the adulterer, although not absolutely; but when he should be taken with the manner, and in his own house. Neither might he do it to everyone, but to one of the common sort:

for if it had been a noble man, unto whom he ought a reverence, it was not lawful: yet might he keep him shut up in his house 24 hours, until he did bring witnesses. We see, that there was some exception of persons. Why leave was taken away from the husband to kill his wife, a reason may be given. Husbands do sometime bear hatred unto their wives, when they be contentious or deformed. They might covet to gain a dowry and to marry another woman: therefore the law would not condescend, that the wife should be slain. Howbeit, it was lawful for the father of the adulteress, to slay both; as well in his own house, as in the house of his son in law: as may be seen in the Digests Ad legem Juliam. But it was not lawful for him to kill the adulterer, unless he also killed his daughter; the reason was this, that Nature teacheth the parents to love their children heartily: whereby it is probable, that he would not slay his daughter, unless she were taken in adultery.

25. Seneca, in his first Declamation, seemeth to affirm, that it should be lawful to kill them both. For he put this case. A certain soldier, which had lost his hands in war, found his wife to have fellowship with an adulterer: even while the act was committed, he called his son to slay them. The son refused to obey, wherefore the father rejected his son: it is demanded, whether he did this justly or no? But perhaps Seneca had respect unto the time of Cato. But if so be the husband, when he was in a fury, had killed his wife being an adulteress; he, by the Roman laws, should have easier punishment, than if he had been an absolute murderer. For he fell not into the danger of the law Cornelia of murderers: his punishment was exile.

Which is to be seen in the Pandects, Ad legem Corneliam de sicarijs, in the first and third laws. Whereupon, when it is said by the Canonists, the 33rd cause, question the second, in the chapter Inter haec; that Sometime it was

lawful by the Roman laws to kill a wife, being taken in adultery, and not by the Ecclesiastical laws; ye must understand, that the matter is not altogether so; but because the punishment was light, after a sort it was said to be lawful. Or else perhaps, they which made those canons, had respect unto the laws of Lombardie, in the which that was lawful.

Let us also add, that the husband might, by the Roman laws, slay the adulterer; not only when he took him at home with the manner, so as he could not deny it; but also out of the house, when the case were so, that he was suspected, and that the husband could bring testimony, that he had given him warning once, twice, and thrice, that he should not have communication with his wife. Howbeit, if he had found them talking familiarly together in the temple or place of prayer, then it was not lawful so to do: but they were delivered unto the bishop or defender of the church.

But the bishops were many ways against the putting of them to death: neither would they give license to kill them. It seemeth, that those first

Canonists were led with a desire of saving souls; that they should not die upon the sudden, without repentance. The latter Canonists favored this matter, perhaps because they, more than others, lay in wait for the chastity of other men's wives. Wherefore there were many punishments for adultery provided by this law Julia. First, the crime was brought before public assembly: the accusation was admitted, not rashly (forsooth) but by a certain order. The wife, if she accused her husband of adultery, was not heard; but she herself was accused. The first place was given to the husband, the second to the father; brethren and uncles also might accuse: and afterward, at certain times, place was given unto strangers.

Divorcement was ordained between them, they lest the dowry and donation, which came by marriage. Both the adulterer and adulteress became

infamous, but after sundry fashions: the adulterer, not, unless he were condemned; the adulteress, so soon as she was attached.

And there was some certain peculiar thing in the crime itself, which could not be accorded with the accuser: as it appeareth in the Code De transactionibus, in the law Transigere. It is the law of Dioclesian and Maximinian: they would not have it agreed upon, that money, being given to the accuser, he should cease from [pursuing] this wicked fact. Which yet was lawful in other crimes of death; namely, to redeem the soul for money, or for anything else. Moreover, the husband might not retain the adulteress, nor yet call her home, after he had put her away: otherwise, he should have incurred the crime of brothelry. Besides this, when a woman was thus convicted, no other man might take her to wife. In detestation of this crime, this also was added; that not only they, which had committed adultery, were punished; but they also, which had enticed any woman, though they could not attain to their purpose. In the Digests De criminibus extraordinarijs, in the first law, we read; that the enticer ought to be punished without order of law. Moreover, if soldiers had been convicted of adultery, they were dismissed from the oath of war, they were put out of pay with shame; whereof the lawyers bear record, in the Digests Dere militari. Plinius secundus, in his sixth book of epistles, in his epistle unto Cornelianus, writeth; that Traianus did straightway for adultery discharge a soldier of his oath, and dismissed him with shame.

But these punishments otherwhile were mitigated, and it came to pass, that it was commonly said (as Juvenal writeth) Thou law Julia, what art thou asleep? They made but a scorn of it. Sometimes they were contented with this shame, that the adulteress should be brought forth openly in the garment of a man. Whereupon the poet Martial saith; When Numa saw the

adulterous laid afar off in her gown, then he said that she was a condemned adulteress. At Rome, in the days of Theodosius, there was a more shameful custom. An adulteress being taken and condemned, was brought to the brothel house: as Socrates in the fifth book of histories, and third chapter writeth. Theodosius coming to Rome, took away this most shameful custom; least sins should be added unto sins. Constantine Magnus (as we read in the law Julia de adulterijs, in the Code, in the law Quamuis adulterij) appointed a very severe punishment of adultery. He calleth adulterers, sacrilegers, or robbers of matrimony; and therefore thinketh them to be unworthy of this life. Then was that law received, which did endure unto the time of Jerome: as we read in the epistle to Innocentius De muliere septies icta Vercellis. There be some also, which affirm, that adultery, even before Constantine, was punished with death by the Roman laws: and they allege a law worthy to be known, which was made by Alexander Severus the son of Mammea, in the Code Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs. Thus it beginneth; It is agreeable to the chastite of our times, that adulterers be punished. If any woman did by any means escape capital punishment, he ordained, that none should marry her. And yet the same

Alexander was long before the time of Constantine.

26. Some seek for this shift, and say; that by capital punishment, according to the ancient laws, is meant banishment. But that maketh no matter: for there is another law of Dioclesian and Maximinian (who were before Constantine, though not long) where it is thus read in the Code, in the title De transactionibus, in the law Transigere; There is no let, but there may be composition made for capital crimes, except it be for adultery. In capital crimes, the laws do permit, that a man might redeem blood for money, if need should be, and might compound with the accuser, to cease

his accusation. If by this word Caput, thou say is meant banishment; the words that follow do forbid it. In the residue he saith; In those faults, which cause not the punishment of death, it is not lawful to make composition.

Howbeit, the common opinion of the lawyers is, that by the law of the Digests, it is no crime of death: but by the law of the Code it is, by reason of that law of Constantine. Which opinion if we should follow, and say, that the law Julia ordained grievous punishments, and yet not the punishment of death: I will show in histories the contrary. Julius Caesar had a franchised man, whom he loved dearly; this man being known to have committed adultery with a matron belonging to a certain gentleman, he put to death.

Opilius Macrinus (as writeth Julius Capitolinus) was accustomed to burn in the fire the adulterer and the adulteress, both their bodies being joined together. Aurelianus (as testifieth Vopiscus) having a soldier, which ravished the wife of his host, tied him fast unto the top of two trees, which he had bended down: the same being let slip again with great violence, plucked the body in sunder in two parts. Augustus, for adultery, put to death

Proclus his franchised servant. If therefore the law Julia did not condemn adulterers to death, it appeareth hereby, that emperors (as the circumstances required) might increase the punishments. That law of Constantine, which decreed death against adulterers (as we have it in the Authentiks) is rehearsed in the Code Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs: it beginneth; Sed body. Justinian somewhat mitigated that severity, who suffered the punishment to continue, as touching the adulterer; but he dealt somewhat more favorably towards the adulteress. He permitted them to have their life, but yet after such a sort, as they should be beaten with cudgels, and driven to a monastery, from whence the woman might be demanded again of her husband within the space of two years. If the husband did not demand her

again, but were dead in the meantime, she was constrained to live there during her life.

After this, adultery was so smally regarded, as they made a mock thereof, and would do it in a manner of set purpose. In some place they made it to be a penalty of money; whereby the poorer sort (in deed) might be restrained, but the richer had a greater occasion to sin. Even in like manner as it happened of a law, which Gellius speaketh of; that for paying a certain sum of money, one man might strike another. Whereupon a certain man giving a blow to a citizen, whom he met by the way, commanded his servant that followed him, to go pay the judge that sum of money which he had forfeited. By this means it came to pass, that men said; He is a vile man that seeketh for law at the chief justices hand against adultery: as if he might say; He hath small courage, that thrusteth not through both the adulterer and the adulteress. But although the laws are silent, yet the justice of God showeth itself: for it punisheth adulterers with madness, with fury, and with other most grievous punishments; even as we see in David. These things had I to declare of civil punishments, which if they were distributed into a certain method, were either punishable by death; so as the magistrate himself punished them: or it was appointed to be done by private persons; as by the husband, and the father of the adulteress; or else, if they escaped the punishment of death, they were noted with some infamy. The infamy was sometime, naked [without outward tokens] sometime it had certain outward tokens [of shame] otherwhile the adulteress was set upon an asse, and crowned with wool. Sometime there was added a chastising of the body. The wives were beaten with cudgels, their noses were cut off. Or else the punishment was of another kind: they were banished, they forfeited a

sum of money, they lost their dowry, they were divorced, and might no more be married.

27. Now we will speak of ecclesiastical punishments. And whereas many things be showed by the fathers and the councils, we will use this method: that first we will declare what they have disallowed in the civil laws; secondly, what ecclesiastical punishments they themselves have laid upon adulterers. [ 1] First, the punishment of death liked them not. In the Council of Tribure, chapter 46. it is ordained; that If an adulteress shall fly unto the church, she may not be delivered unto her husband, or to the judge, or president. The first council of Orleans, which was held under Clodouaeus, in the 3rd canon, hath in a manner decreed the same; namely, that Adulterers may be safe, if they fly to the church, and shall not be delivered; or else, if they be delivered, they shall take an oath that they will not hurt them; and if so be they had not stood to their oath, but violated the same, they were excommunicated. At the length it came to that pass, that the bishops, to save them from death, would have the judgment of that crime to pertain unto their Court. And this they will have to be the cause thereof. If this examination be permitted to lay men, they would be too negligent therein: as who should say, that they themselves are most severe. And what

I beseech you do they by their episcopal examinations? They set a fine upon their heads, and separate them from the marriage bed. Hereof arise innumerable whoredoms; yea and the naughty men themselves sometimes abuse these wives being separated.

[ 2] Moreover, they allow not, that the adulterer or the adulteress should be slain, either by the husband or father. Of this mind was Augustine in his treatise De adulterinis coniugijs ad Pollentium, in many places of the second book. He would, that those private men should forgive adulteries

committed. These reasons he bringeth; We be all infected with sin, we have need of mercy; Therefore unto sinners we must show mercy. And he useth the saying of Christ in the eighth of John; He which among you is free from sin, let him cast the first stone against the adulteress. He that is thus urged, let him think with himself, whether he be guilty of sin. Forgive ye (saith our

Savior) and it shall be forgiven unto you. We pray; Forgive us our trespasses, even as we forgive them that trespass against us. With what face can we speak these things, if we be so cruel in revenge? God will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn and live. Why then wouldest thou his death?

These reasons be not firm in all respects. For if they should be understood concerning civil magistrates, no malefactor should be punished; and to what end should magistrates then bear the sword? As touching private men, I agree with Augustine; that they ought not to take such power upon them, as to slay the adulteress and the adulterer. If any man will say; The public laws do there give authority unto the husband, he is no private person: even as when they command the soldiers to fight, or the executioner to put a man to death, who be private men. But if by the commandment of the magistrate, they do that, which they are commanded, they be not private persons anymore. It is lawful for a traveler, by the way, to defend himself against thieves, if they assail him: if he slay them, he is discharged. For the magistrate, at such a time, armeth him; he cannot be sued at the common law: the prince would not that his subject should perish.

I answer: that the civil laws have given no such authority to the husband and the father of the adulteress; but only hath pardoned their grief conceived: they command not that this should be done, but they command the soldiers and executioners [to do their duties.] Wherefore the similitude

is not alike. So also it may be answered of the traveling man, which is set upon by thieves: if he defend himself with a mind to kill the thief, he is not absolved; but if he kill him by chance, or (as they say) by accident, then he is absolved. The case is not all one: for he hath no time to call upon the magistrate, he cannot sue him at the law. But the husband might shut up the adulterer in his house, he might call for witnesses, and deal with him by the law. [ 3] Also the Ecclesiastical writers, and the Canonists do not allow, that when accusation is had, the adulterous husbands should be heard, and not the adulterous wives. [ 4] Neither would they allow accepting of persons; to wit, that only the common persons, and not the nobler sort should be put to death.

28. [ 5] Also they are against that rigor, that if the adulterer or adulteress escape, there should be no reconciliation had. Augustine, in his book a little before alleged, will have it to be otherwise; If the woman (saith he) repent, let there be a reconciliation. He alledgeth reasons thereof; God must be followed, his church doth oftentimes commit fornication, as we know was done in the time of the Judges and Kings: yet he saith by Jeremiah; Ye will not receive your adulterous wives, I do otherwise. The same doth Hosea affirm in the name of God. If examples shall bear stroke, David did so.

Michal the daughter of Saul was given unto another: that, which was committed, was adultery; for in that mean while there was no divorce:

David required to have her again. Also Justinian did moderate that austerity: for when the adulteress had been thrust into a monastery, the husband might demand her again within the space of two years. But thou wilt tell me:

Augustine saith; She is not worthy to be my wife, she is impure and polluted. Why dost thou cast her impure, which hath repented herself? She

is restored unto the kingdom of heaven by the keys; and may she not be restored to thy bed? Wouldest thou have thyself to be so served?

On this wise did the Council of Arles determine: which we read in the Extravagants De adulterijs, in the chapter Si vir sciens. The words of the Council be these; If an adulteress be penitent, the man ought to take her again. The gloss saith; Is it the part of honesty, or of necessity? He saith: of honesty. I infer; If it be of honesty, in respect of godliness, it is also of necessity. For we must do all things, which appertain to honesty: as we have in the fourth chapter to the Philippians; Whatsoever things be true, whatsoever things be honest, whatsoever things be just, think upon them.

He saith, that it is not of necessity, because he cannot be compelled thereto by an outward law. It is added; But not often. That seemeth (saith the Gloss) to be repugnant to the Gospel, when it saith; Seventy times seven. He answereth, that he may forgive her so often as he will; but the church will not often put itself to be a mean for the obtaining of this reconciliation, least it should seem to open a window unto wickedness. Moreover, the church thinketh that it should be but feigned repentance, if this should be often done. He addeth; Peradventure these things are spoken for terror sake. But if so be she do not repent her, she ought not to continue in matrimony: for then the husband might seem to be the maintainer of adultery. And in the Council of Arles, it is said; he should seem to be a partaker of iniquity.

Jerome, upon the 19th chapter of Matthew, writeth; She that hath divided one flesh into another, ought not to be kept; least the husband should be under the curse. For he that retaineth an adulteress with him, wanteth wisdom. If he be unjust, which accuseth an innocent, he seemeth unwise that retaineth an offender. But these things must be understood [with this exception;] that unless repentance be had. Moreover, it is demanded;

whether the husband shall accuse his wife of adultery, when she is dismissed? Some think, that of charity she ought not to be accused; if she repent. But others say, that the crime is not to be forborne; and that private magistrates should put to their helping hand, to the rooting out of wickedness; and that public-wealth's cannot stand, unless that great offenses be punished; also that the law of God would have evil to be rid from amongst men. It is certain in deed, that if adultery should continue still, the adulterer ought to be accused; that at the least wise, by that means, he might be made the better, if other convenient remedies were used before: as if he had warning given him by his friends. But admit, that the party which sinned do repent, ought he notwithstanding to be accused? Surely, if the crime were openly known, and the party innocent receive the adulteress into favor by reason of repentance, he shall seem to maintain sin. Men know of the adultery, but of the repentance they know not; they will think that he useth brothelry. If he accuse her, he shall at the least wise purge himself, and avoid the blame of infamy.

Admit that the crime be not so commonly known, and that the party in fault be repentant: but she hath conceived, and is to be delivered of a child: if the husband accuse her not, the issue shall be his supposed heir; it shall not be lawful for him to disherit him: there will be an injury done unto his lawful begotten children. What shall be done in this case? In these two latter cases; namely, if the crime be openly known, and the child conceived; counsel is given of the more learned sort, that the husband shall not go unto the magistrate, to desire the punishment to be executed on her, which is penitent; but that, for the avoiding of his own infamy, he shall repair to the church, and signify the cause: whereby they may understand, that the party doth repent. Also, if the case be showed to certain persons; not for

punishment sake, but to the intent they may know that the fruit is conceived by an adulterer, which afterward also he might disherit, there is found a remedy for these evils. Joseph, when he saw his wife Marie to be great with child, not by him, was troubled, he would not defame her, and yet was he a just man. On the one part he saw it belonged unto justice to accuse her; on the other part, he was troubled in himself, not without the special providence of God. While he was in a perplexity, which way to take; God was at hand with him. So will he likewise do unto the godly in these cases, he will be present with them, and will comfort them. These questions we fall into, by reason that adultery is not punished by death.

29. Thus have we seen what the fathers have disallowed in the civil laws.

Now, hereafter let us see, what manner of ecclesiastical punishments they have been accustomed to lay upon adulterous persons. Cyprian, in the fourth book, and second epistle unto Antonianus, writeth; that There were certain bishops, which gave no peace unto adulterers; that is, they admitted them not to the communion, but would have them perpetually to be excluded. Others gave them peace, but yet after a certain time. Cyprian thinketh, that a moderation must be used; least they be utterly excluded from Christ, and cast away all love of religion. He saith also, that there must be a trial made of their repentance for a certain time: the space of time he appointeth not. The Synod of Ancyra, in the 19th chapter, appointed seven years: which space of time the Eliberine Council abridged unto five years.

Whereby it may appear, that it was in the choice of the prelates of the church. The Council of Neocaesaria decreed, concerning Clergy men; that If the wife of a Clergy man fall into adultery, he is at his choice, whether he will straightway refuse her, or else depart from the ministry. They seem to admit no reconciliation in the clergy. I think the cause seemeth to be, for

that the family of the minister ought to be of good report. Moreover, they added; that a lay-man, whose wife was fallen into adultery, should not be admitted into the ministry. I think the cause to be this; for that he first ought to have governed well in his own house. But there was a suspicion of negligence, seeing his wife did fall into adultery. If a clergy man had not rejected his wife, when she fell into adultery, the Eliberine Council gave him no peace or fellowship with others, during his life.

The Council of Toledo decreed otherwise (as we have it in the Decrees, 32nd cause, question the sixth, in the chapter Placuit,) to wit, that A clergy man, whose wife did fall into adultery, might keep her at home; howbeit tied for certain years, with a fasting that should serve to keep her in health, but not that should make her to die. In the Decrees, the 81. distinction, in the chapter Romanus, the chapter Presbyter, and the chapter Diaconus;

Adulterous ministers be utterly removed from the ministry. And the Eliberine Council did give no peace unto bishops, priests, or deacons (being fallen into adultery) no not when they should die: no more also did they to the common sort of men, which had committed adultery more than once or twice. They found also another kind of remedy, but that was in cases of suspicion. In the Extravagants De judicijs, in the chapter Significasti; If a minister were suspected of adultery, and the crime could not be proved, they used the canonical purgation; namely, that he should find out other five ministers, which would affirm by oath, that they could not believe this of him. But such it behooved these ministers to be, as they might be sure would not forswear themselves. They used also another thing; namely, that an adulterer should not contract matrimony with the adulteress, if her first husband had been dead. But this they understood [conditionally] if so be

they had contracted while the other spouse were alive; or had conspired the death of the husband.

There resteth to declare what we are to think of the decree of Justinian. As touching that, that a woman, after she were beaten, should be driven into a monastery, and not be punished with death as an adulterer: I perceive not by what reason that might be proved. The crime belongeth unto both, as well to the man as to the woman: why then is the punishment unlike? The sin of the woman doth no less stain the family, than the sin of the man; yea and that more. Perhaps it will be said, that she is weak: but if that reason should take place, no woman ought to be punished with death. Wherefore under correction of so notable a man, the inequality of the punishment can hardly be allowed: but I think he did this in favor of the bishops. Moreover, he is blamed, insomuch as he ordained; that If a husband shall not demand his wife again within two years; or else that he die, she should be constrained to live continually in the monastery without marriage. Undoubtedly that is against the holy scriptures. What if she be incontinent, as she gave a token thereof by reason of the crime of adultery? If so be that the magistrate grant life unto a malefactor, he ought also to grant those things, which pertain to a godly life. Otherwise, what profit cometh by putting her away; unless it be to make her worse? I have declared what I think concerning the decree of Justinian.

30. Now let us come unto the other question; namely, whether a man and a woman do sin, the one as grievously as the other, in the case of adultery; and whether they both are to be driven unto one punishment, so that in all respects they should be in all things equal. Unto very many it hath not so seemed good; and that verily for diverse causes. They would have the case to be more grievous touching women than touching men: and the causes,

which lead them thereto, are these. [ 1] [First] because they perceived that the civil laws do admit no accusation of the husband against his wife, or of the father against his daughter; but not so of the woman, although she take her husband with the shameful act, and have witnesses of the same: as we have in the Code, within the title Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs, in the first law. Wherefore they in old time accounted the fault to be more grievous [in the woman.] [ 2] Also they weigh this, that a woman being taken, is straightway infamous: but a man must be first accused and condemned, before that he be stained with infamy. [ 3] Thirdly, it was sometime lawful, before the law Julia, for husbands to kill their wives: as Cato testifieth in the place above recited; The law (saith he) is to slay her that is taken. But it is not lawful for her to touch thee once with her finger, if she perceive thee to commit adultery. Hereunto Plautus pleasantly alluded in the comedy

Mercator. In very deed women are here bound to over-strict a law: [ 4] as Plutarch (upon the life of Romulus) reporteth, that it was lawful for the husband to put away his wife for adultery; but not so on the contrary part.

Which law seemed also to like Constantine: as we read in the Theodosian Code, De adulterijs, in the chapter Placuit; Let the husband (saith he) put away his wife for adultery, but let not her do the same unto her husband, though he be an effeminate person, or a muliercularian. For this term he useth.

[ 5] Also they hereby consider of an inequality; for that the woman, if she kept ill company with another man's bond-man, she was made a bondwoman; but it is not taught that it was so done unto men, if they sinned against bond-women. [ 6] Moreover, they say, that lust is always counted to be more shameful in women, and that therefore the crime should be more grievous in them. [ 7] Further, they suppose that a man, although he live in

matrimony, if he keep ill company with others, being loose or single women (as they call them) he committeth not adultery: when as on the contrary part, a woman being married, may have fellowship with no man, but she falleth into adultery. And they allege that which Suetonius writeth upon the life of Vespasian; that he caused the Senate to decree, that a free-woman, which joined herself with bond-men, should be constrained to bondage: but decreed not so, touching men. Howbeit, this and the fifth argument is all one. [ 8] There is another argument taken Ex Orificiano, out of the Code, in the law Illustris; that It is a far more shameful thing for a woman to have bastards, that is, by one which is not a lawful husband, than it is for a man to have bastards. [ 9] Ecclesiasticus is alleged, which in the 7th, 24th, and 26th chapters, speaketh many things of the custody, which the father ought to have of his daughters, for the conservation of their chastity; but speaketh nothing of his men children. [ 10] They also consider this; that A woman, being taken in adultery, loseth her dowry and donation, granted in respect of marriage, [ 11] whereas the adulterer sustaineth no loss. In the Extravagants

De donationibus inter virum & vxorem, in the chapter Plerúnque, in the end; Adam and Eve, being found to be in one kind of sin, have not both one punishment: Eve is punished more grievously.

31. [ 1] On the other side, the causes seem to be very great, which persuade otherwise. The first is, that a woman is more weak and imperfect

[than a man;] she wanteth understanding and judgment. These things seem to serve for diminishing the fault. And many laws persuade us, that in punishing, we should have a consideration of the sex. [ 2] Some of the laws

I will recite. In the Digests Ad legem Juliam peculatus, it is said; that In punishment, there must be consideration had of the sex: the law beginneth,

Sacrilegij poenam. Also Ad legem Juliam de adulterijs, in the law Si

adulterum, in the Paraph Fratres, and in the Paraph Iacestam, they would have a difference to be considered of in the sex, because women are not forced to be skillful in the laws, sometimes they be deceived: they think that to be lawful, which is not lawful. Also the Ecclesiastical laws teach, that there ought to be a consideration had of the sex. In the Extravagants, De homicidio, in the chapter Si dignum, in the Code, Ad legem Juliam maiestatis, in the law Quisquis, in the Paraph Filias; There is more favor showed to the daughters of conspirators, than unto their sons. In the Decrees, cause 32. question 6, the chapter Indignatur, there is consideration had of women, even in the self-same cause of adultery.

[ 3] There be sayings also of most excellent men, which be agreeable to this sentence. Augustine, in his treatise De adulterinis coniugijs ad

Pollentium, citeth the letters written by Antonius Pius which we may read in the Gregorian Code; that It is very unjust, that men should require that faith of women, which themselves will not show. [ 4] In the Digests De adulterio, in the law Si vxor, in the Paraph Si judex; It is commanded, that if the judge have knowledge of the adultery, let him look whether the husband have lived chastely. [ 5] And so the fault of the woman is mitigated, because the men themselves by their ill living be causes of their unclean life. [ 6]

Whereupon Seneca, in his 94th epistle unto Lucillus, saith; that It is a most unjust thing for men to exact faithfulness of women, when as they themselves be the corrupters of other men's wives. [ 7] Neither did

Augustine put this matter in silence, who saith, that Vir; that is to say, Man, hath his name of Virtus, that is, Virtue; and that therefore he ought to excel the wife in all virtues and chastity. In his little book De decem chordis, (and it is also read in the 32nd cause, question 5. in the chapter Non moechaberis,) saith, that The husband is the head of his wife; if the head

fall into adultery, and the wife be chaste, he is a man turned upside down, the head is under the feet.

[ 8] It happeneth ofttimes, that the adulteries of the wife, are revengements of an adulterous husband. It is said of Clytemnestra, that she gave the power of her body to Aegistus, because she heard that Agamemnon preferred Chrysis before her. That such a punishment is brought by the judgment of God, it appeareth that Job understood, who in the 31st chap. saith; If my heart hath been carried aside to a strange woman, and if I have lie in wait at my neighbor's door, then let my wife grind unto another man, and let her yield her body to other men. So then there be reasons to be made on both parts. What shall we say? If credit be given to the School-divines, the distinction must be made, which is mentioned in the fourth book of sentences, in the 35th distinction. If the faith of wedlock be considered, the sin is equal on both parts; either is bound unto other, whether the woman give herself to another, or else the man commit adultery. If the condition of the person be respected, seeing man is the more perfect, he hath the firmer judgment, and ought to excel his wife; his sin is more grievous than hers.

Howbeit, if we note the confusion of things, the supposed heirs, and the shame of the family, the woman is more grievously charged.

But as touching the very law itself of wedlock, they say well; that the bond is all alike, that sin is committed as well by the one as by the other, they must be brought to an equality. Equality we prove out of the holy scriptures; Unto one Adam, the Lord gave one Eve; and to one Eve, he gave one Adam: and he said; They shall be two in one flesh. Paul, when he treateth of these things in the first to the Corinthians, the seventh chapter, saith; that The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband.

And on the other side, he maketh this law equal to the one and the other.

Neither doth he speak unto the one party, of rendering due benevolence; but unto them both. And if they shall think good to sever themselves for prayer sake, he willeth that the same be done by both their consents. In case of religion, if they will not dwell together, each party is set at liberty. The same is also spoken there concerning the unbelieving husband. The law of God commandeth, that both, as well the adulterer, as the adulteress, should be slain. Seeing therefore he maketh this equality, we also ought to follow the same.

32. Now it remaineth, that we answer to the arguments. It was said, that a woman must not be heard. This law is civil, and refused of the Ecclesiastical writers; and that justly. Jerome, in his epistle to Oceanus, upon the death of Fabiola, wrote a very excellent sentence; Those things, which in the holy scriptures are commanded unto men, do redound unto women. Wherefore, if it be lawful for a man to start from his wife, for the cause of adultery; it is also lawful unto the wife. Among us there is the same liberty, and the same bondage unto both parties: to correct after a sort the civil laws. Both parties must be heard. Touching infamy also, it is man's ordinance. Even as praise is called the celebration of other men's virtues; so infamy is to dispraise that, which is in another. And it may be, they will speak more of women than of men. But with God this fame is of no importance. There is more spoken of the women, by reason of the harm which they bring; and because they make a confusion in families. As concerning that it hath been lawful for men to kill their wives, and not for the wives, their husbands: I answer; If it were lawful, yet that law was not just, as the fathers thought. I add: It is no marvel if it were not lawful unto women; for they handle not weapons, but are subject unto men; and in this respect there is some inequality.

And in that there was used to be a putting away of the woman by the man:

I say it was a decree of men, as Jerome citeth in the sentence now alleged.

Assuredly, Theodosius (as we find in the Code De repudijs, in the law Consensus) giveth authority unto the wives, to put away their husbands: and he declareth many causes why. There is an excellent place of this matter in the Decrees, cause 32. question the fifth, in the chapter Christiana religio: where it is written, that Adultery is condemned in both sexes alike. And because some were offended, for that they saw men oftentimes put away their wives, and wives to be more often excommunicated for adultery than husbands: answer is made, that it is not, because sin is lesser in man than in woman; but for that men might have more free authority against the women. And therefore, forsomuch as the church doth not judge, unless it be in matters which be manifest, it cometh to pass, that women are more often taken than men, and are excommunicated, and suffer divorcement. Also we know, that in the old law, it was lawful for men to give a bill of divorcement unto women; but contrariwise, that the same was not lawful for women: therefore it seemeth, that God did attribute more unto men. I answer, that the case must be weighed, for the which God would have this bill of divorcement to be given. It had been an easy matter for men to kill their wives, when as they might not be rid of them: but this was less to be feared of women, because it doth seldomer happen.

Another argument was, that it was provided by the laws; that If a woman coupled herself with another man's bondman, or kept shameful company with him, she should be brought into bondage: but it was not so ordained against men, that they should become slaves; according as Vespasian persuaded the Senate of Rome, as Suetonius reporteth. But it is answered, that men made this decree. If it had been in women to have decreed the

same, they would have provided otherwise. Moreover, it appeareth, that Plato, in the second book of his laws, counted both alike; both the men, which kept unlawful company with bond women; and the women, which did the like with bondmen. Besides, they that would make a difference, are in the danger of that saying of Paul; In the same thing that thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou doest even the same things that thou judgest. But it was added; That lust hath always been counted a more shameful thing in women, than in men. Of whom hath it been so accounted?

Of men. But, will we say, is it so, if we respect the will and commandment of God? Man and woman undoubtedly be all of one lump. Further, women be the unperfecter and of the less judgment: it is man's part to guide them, and to have charge of them. How can the lust be more filthy in woman than in man? Unless perhaps we will have this respect, that women's shame is more manifest, they become with child, the matter appeareth, the show is more evident in them: but if we consider the commandment and law of God, the case is all one with them both.

33. [ 7] But they say; that It is the common opinion of men, that if a man, joined in matrimony, have copulation with a woman, being free and at liberty, he committeth not adultery; but that whensoever a woman that is married, have copulation with another, she is counted an adulteress. So as there is a difference. To dissolve this reason, many things are to be said.

First, if we seek the etymology of the word adultery; it signifieth, To go to the wedlock bed of another. Wherefore, in what sort so ever it be done, be it of man or woman, it is all one. Indeed I know, that the civil laws have judged and determined, that it is adultery; when there is wicked society with a married woman. For if the same be either widow, or virgins, they say it is whoredom: and that adultery is only to have fellowship with her that is

married. This is the opinion of the lawyers, as appeareth Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs, in the law, which beginneth Inter liberas personas. Whereupon

Azo, a famous lawyer, defined Adultery to be the lying with the wife or spouse of another man; and that, to speak properly, (which I add, because

Jerome, in his 2nd treatise against Jovinian, towards the end, writeth the opinion of Xystus one of Pythagoras sect, that if the husband moderate not himself in concupiscence with his wife, he committeth adultery, but this is not proper adultery) the deflowering of concubines or handmaidens, which be joined in marriage with bond-men, is not taken for adultery.

Indeed it was sin, and there was an action commenced, either of the law Aquilia, or else of trespass; as against a servant corrupted, but not to appeach him of adultery. But we are to judge otherwise by the holy scripture. The lawyers by their leave have not well defined adultery. This did Chrysostom note, who in his epistle to the Thessalonians writeth thus;

The Roman laws punish women, which be taken in adultery, but men they do not punish, yet God will punish them; for without all doubt, it is adultery. Augustine, in his book De fide & operibus, the 18th chapter, saith; that They be adulterers, which have other men's wives in place of their own; and adulteresses, which have other women's husbands. And so a woman, that is set at liberty, and useth a strange man instead of her own, committeth adultery. The same Augustine, De bono conjugali contra

Jovinianum, the fourth chapter, writeth; that Adultery is a violating of the faith of wedlock. When a man therefore hath access to another man's wife, whether she be free, or knit in marriage, adultery is committed by him, that is the husband. And a little after he saith; It is adultery, when there is carnal fellowship with another man, or another woman, against the covenant of

marriage. How oft therefore so ever it be done against this covenant, by the testimony of Augustine it is adultery.

If I should define it, thus would I say; that Adultery is a venereous action, wherein there is carnal fellowship with that flesh, which is not bound to itself by the law of matrimony, but unto another. Now let us see the parts of the definition. Action is the genus, or general word: and because the actions of men be diverse, venereous is added for the difference. Again, there is another difference; in that the fellowship is with that flesh, which is bound unto another, by the faith of matrimony. Why is it said; Not unto itself, but, unto another? [ 8] To the intent we may understand, that in the polygamy, which was in old time, there was no plain adultery. For one of the wives, when she was joined with a husband, was joined with that flesh, which was also tied to another woman. Therefore it is said; Which is not joined unto itself, but unto another, by the faith of matrimony. Further, if we will more narrowly examine that piece of the sentence; To have carnal fellowship, may be understood, to be either in act, or cogitation. For Christ saith; He that shall look on another man's wife, to lust after her, hath already committed adultery in his heart. But here we speak of adultery, that breaketh out into act; not of that, which as yet is within the heart.

34. Moreover, it was said to be more shameful for women to have bastards, than it is for men. [ 9] This also hath proceeded of man's reason: a shame it is, both to the one and to the other; but perhaps it appeareth more in women than in men. Those places of Ecclesiasticus, which urge parents to keep their daughters, or the bodies of their daughters, have not respect unto this place. No rather, the wise man doth consider, that if daughters be corrupted, they are to bring great harm and ignominy to their fathers house; and the father is accused of negligence. But men children must also be well

brought up, howbeit, the foulness of this fact, in this crime, appeareth elsewhere, not in the father's house. Nevertheless, these things bring not to pass, but that they both commit sin. [ 10] Another argument; But wives lose their dowry, whereas adulterers be not so punished. That is false: for even as if matrimony be undone, by the fault of the woman, she loseth her dowry and donations given in respect of marriage; so, if it be done through the man's fault, he loseth the dowry itself and donations also, and must restore them unto her.

[ 11] Again, somewhat was said of Adam and Eve; that they were in the like fault, and yet Eve was more grievously punished than Adam. Here may either of both be said; either that the sin was not of like weight, or else that the punishment of Eve was not more grievous. It is excused by some, that the man's fault was the greater. For it is said; Cursed is the earth for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it, thorn and thistle shall it bring forth unto thee, and thou shalt eat of the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread, &c. These evils were continual unto man: he should labor, he should eat in great sweat and travel, and the earth gave not unto him the fruit that he looked for. Women seem to be less punished; only the pains of child-birth and conceiving are laid upon them, the which be not perpetual: but the labors of men do always continue. Further, the man ought to provide, not only for himself, but also for his wife, children, and for his whole family. But if thou wilt say, that the wife is subject unto the husband, and must be under his government: this importeth not much; for by the very constitution itself, she is inferior unto man. Wherefore it might by this means be denied, that woman is more grievously punished than man.

But if we would grant unto this, we might also say on the other part, that the sin in woman was somewhat more grievous; namely, because she was

seduced by the devil, and so seduced, as she thought she should become equal unto God, and this she very much desired. Nevertheless, Adam believed it not; because he saw it was not possible to be: and therefore the apostle saith, that he was not seduced, but did only eat; to the intent he might obey his wives mind, and made more account of his wife than of God; therefore he was not deceived with the same kind of error. Moreover, the woman did not only sin, but she also induced her husband to sin. But on the other part, she is somewhat lightened; because she was the unperfecter, and was seduced. Howbeit, if any of their sins were more grievous than other, the woman's sin was to be weighed the greater. This is the opinion of the Master of the sentences, in the second book, distinction the 12: and he alledgeth many places out of Augustine. But I, for my part, would say; that the man's sin was more grievous, and that his punishment was the greater, by reason of his perfection and excellency. Wherefore this argument maketh nothing to the purpose; either the punishment was of equality, or else the circumstances were not alike grievous to be aggravated to them both. The circumstances were many, some were more grievous in Adam, and some in Eve.

35. Also it was alleged on the contrary part, that the sin is less in women: for a consideration should be had of the sex. Indeed this is to be granted: yet the cause must be searched out, why those laws be favorable unto the sex.

And there is a cause brought by the laws themselves; namely, that women are not driven to have the knowledge of all laws and customs: and therefore may the more easily err; and the error doth somewhat mitigate the fault. But here this erring hath no place: for there is no woman so foolish, but she knoweth, that she ought to keep her faith and promise with her husband.

But in incest, they rather forgave unto women than unto men; because they

knew not those degrees, wherein it was lawful or not lawful to be married: and therefore they were not so grievously punished. And whereas it was alleged, that the adulteries of the men are oftentimes punished by the adulteries of the women: as it hath been said of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra. We answer, that such revenges are not to be allowed; for that they are repugnant to the word of God: and therefore we allow no such forms of revenging.

True indeed it is, that sins are punished with sins; and he that keepeth not faith himself, must not look to have another keep the same with him: nevertheless, this is done by the order and providence of God. It is not lawful for any man to do ill, because another hath sinned: for by that means, evil would grow till it were infinite. In that women are somewhat forborne in the great offense of treason, it is no marvel: for, the cause why that the sons of conspirators, which have sinned against the prince, are punished in such sort as they be, is; least that if they should retain the authority and riches of their parents, they might imitate their sins; or else revenge their death: the which in daughters is not to be feared. But yet it must not therefore be concluded, that there is a difference as touching the crimes.

Briefly, I allow well enough that distinction of the Schoolmen; that if the faith of matrimony be considered, the sin is of like equality, both in the adulterer and adulteress. If the state [of the parties] be considered, the man sinneth more grievously: but if we regard the harm that is done unto the family, it is to be laid to the woman's charge. And, that man sinneth more grievously, in respect of that which belongeth to his state and degree, it is manifest; not only by this, that he is of a greater judgment, but we may also perceive it, even by the holy history. Nathan was not sent unto Bethsabe, but unto David.

36. And thus much have we said concerning the second question. Now let us come to the third; namely, what we are to determine of these punishments intermitted. Verily, if I should speak freely what I think, it is not well ordered, that the punishment of death is not in use; seeing the same agreeth with the word of God, and with divine laws, which ought to be of great importance with us. [ 1] In Leviticus, and in Deuteronomy, God ordained, that both the adulterer and adulteress should be slain. [ 2]

Secondly, I prove this by the very order itself of the commandment of God.

Let us lay before our eyes the ten commandments. As touching the worshipping of the true God, it pertaineth to the first commandment: he that should do otherwise, was to suffer death. Of taking the name of the Lord in vain, it is said; If there be any blasphemer, let him die the death. Of keeping holy the sabbath day, we read; that he which did gather sticks on the sabbath day, was commanded to be slain. Of the fifth precept it is decreed, that if any man were rebellious against his parents, he should be brought to the judges, and slain. Of the sixth precept; He that hath slain another man, let him perish, and let him be plucked even from the altar. Then followeth the precept of adultery; there the sword stayeth his execution, and proceedeth no further. Unto stealing and false-witness-bearing, there is no punishment of death appointed. Neither hath concupiscence any punishment of blood belonging thereunto.

[ 3] Seeing the order is on this wise, I would know, why the men of our time invert the same? But they say that the Common-wealth is more disturbed by thieves, than by adulterers: for we must have a consideration unto the commodity of the Common-wealth. But I deny that thieves do more disturb the Common-wealth. If they rob and slay by the high way in the night, and lie in wait for men's lives, I might easily grant it: but

absolutely of stealing I cannot say so. Doubtless, if our judgment be right, who had not rather loose somewhat of his goods and substance, than that his wife should be dishonested? Howbeit, such a covetousness there is at this day engrafted in men, that they make more accompt of their money, than of their wives honesty. Wherefore I say, that there is some injury done unto thieves, in so much as they be hanged; and adulterers, who sin more grievously, are suffered to live. [ 4] The fourth reason is, that in suffering adulterers to live, they intricate us with very hard questions. First there is brought in by the papists a divorce from the marriage bed, but not from the bond of matrimony. Moreover, there is disputation, whether the innocent party may contract matrimony, while the other party liveth. And there is a controversy, whether the adulteress, which surviveth, may marry again with another. Further, they dispute of reconciliation between adulterers, and by this easy means, cities are filled with uncleanness and adulteries; and men would after a sort be more pitiful than God himself.

37. It is objected, that Christ suffered not the adulterous woman to be stoned. The eighth of John. Whereby they gather, that the Lord would not have this to be done in the state of the Gospel; and therefore adulterers are to be spared in these days. They say also, that Joseph being accused of this crime, was not put to death. To these two examples we must answer. First, I am not ignorant, that the same story, in the eight chapter of John, hath been rejected by some; because it rather seemed to be put in of others, than to be written by John. Jerome, in his second book against Pelagius, writeth of this matter. The same doth Eusebius Caesariensis touch in his third book, who saith; that he did think it to be taken out of the gospel of the Nazarits.

Augustine, in his second book De adulterinis coniugijs ad Pollentium, thinketh; that It was the very story of John in deed, but devised by cruel

husbands to be wiped out, to the intent that adulterous wives might be put to death. Hereby it cometh to pass, that in some copies it is found and in some not. How likely a thing this is, let other men judge. What so ever it be, whether it be of John's writing or no, the matter is not great; for it containeth nothing against the sentence which I have proposed: which thing

I will somewhat more largely declare.

Ye must think with yourselves, that the Pharisees did not bring the adulteress unto Christ, as unto a judge or king; for they never acknowledged him to be such a one. Neither did Christ ever usurp such an office unto himself, he withdrew himself, when they would have made him a king; neither would he divide the heritage: and he pronounced his kingdom not to be of this world. Whie then do they bring her to him? Even to lay a bait for him, and as they say to take him in a trip. He was praised among the common sort for his clemency, he was loved of the people. Then did these

Pharisees devise among themselves; If he shall say, that she must be put to death, this favor of the people will fall from him, as being one, that would bring in again the rigor of the law; but if he say, that she must be let go, he shall do against the law of Moses, yea and of God himself. But Christ very well repelled their wiliness. He did neither of both, which they hoped he would do: yet in the meantime, he did his part very worthily. He was no civil magistrate, but the minister of the church. It was his office to preach the Gospel and repentance; both which he did. Wherefore he said to the Pharisees; He that among you is free from sin, let him throw the first stone at her. He said not; Let her not be put to death: but, Take heed what ye yourselves do, and repent.

This also must Judges be warned of, that in the thing wherein they condemn others, they be not guilty themselves. But therefore it is not said;

If yourselves have sinned, spare ye others. For they should sin two ways; as well for that themselves were guilty of heinous offenses; as also because they punished not others, which were guilty in the same. This that belonged unto himself, he gave them warning of: and in the same sort he did afterward unto the woman; Go thy ways (saith he) and sin no more.

Therefore he discharged her: for he said; Seeing no man hath condemned thee, neither do I condemn thee. He saw her penitent heart. After what sort did he acquit her? Not from the punishment of death; for that he left to the Common-wealth. But he accused her not. That might not Christ do, not in that respect that he was a minister of the church; but because he had not seen her, nor taken her with the manner, he could not be a witness; neither came he into this world for that purpose.

Notwithstanding, some man will say; She nevertheless scaped away, by reason of the words of Christ. This was indirectly [not in respect of Christ's judgment.] Christ's dealing was otherwise. This was the Scribes fault, who might not abide to hear Christ's preaching of repentance. They everyone departed one after another, and left her there alone. Neither is this a good consequent; Christ, at his first coming, condemned not an adulteress;

Therefore he punisheth not adulteries. He punisheth them oftentimes, when the magistrates sword is still: he doth, and he will do his office. Neither is it a good reason, to say; The church hath not the sword, it doth not punish adultery with death; Therefore, neither ought the civil magistrate to do it.

The church letteth not the civil magistrate, but that he may do his office.

More slender is the argument taken of Joseph: for certainly he was delivered to the chief justice of capital crimes. The crime therefore was of death: they which were put in that prison, were appointed to be put to death; even as that Baker was. But the judgment of Joseph's cause was deferred:

besides this, he was not accused, that he had committed adultery; but that he would have done the same. And let these things suffice for those objections.

38. Now I conclude, that I speak not this, to the intent I would abolish the authority of magistrates. I know that crimes are to be punished, this is appointed by the law of God: but the manner of punishing is committed unto magistrates; neither ought those laws to be of force. I know also, that those civil laws, given by Moses, do no more bind us than the ceremonial do. The ceremonies took effect till the coming of Christ. The civil laws had their use so long as the Common-wealth did last; they were convenient for that people. But I dare take upon me to say, that it were convenient, that the justice, which is to be seen in those laws, should not be neglected, but should be embraced of magistrates as a profitable thing. As touching the ecclesiastical punishments, in my judgment, such regard ought to be had, that adulterers, which be convicted, and are not penitent, might in such sort be handled, as at the least-wise they ought not to scape so free in the church from punishment, as they should be partakers of the sacraments: for the crime is most grievous; they wound the conscience of the godly sort. And how grievous it is, it is set forth unto us to behold in the fall of David. But what is the cause, why David was not condemned? We answer, that there was not tribunal seat above his own; he had none above him but God, who pardoned him of life: but yet that the same should be full of many crosses; so as he seemed rather to be reserved unto miseries, than to live in happiness.

Of the reconciliation of man and wife after adultery committed.

39. The civil laws are very much against the reconciliation of the husband and the wife, after adultery is committed. For in the Code Ad legem Juliam de adulterijs, in the law that beginneth Castitati nostrorum temporum, it is

decreed; that If a man shall bring home again his wife, being condemned of adultery, he doth incur the crime of brothelry. And in the title of the law

Crimen, we read, that he which shall retain in matrimony his wife being an adulteress, he may not accuse her of adultery. Notwithstanding, it was afterward, by a new law otherwise provided. Neither was it a light matter for one to be condemned of brothelry: but it was even as heinous, as if a man should be condemned of adultery. Yea, and if so be that a man retain with him a woman condemned of adultery, he himself without an accuser may be condemned of adultery. And if a man shall bring her home again, whom he hath put away, he cannot accuse her of the adultery, which she had before committed. But of another adultery he may; since in bringing of her home again, it seemeth that he allowed of her conditions. And if any woman be condemned of adultery, none may take her to his wife. Wherefore the civil laws do utterly mislike of reconciliation after adultery committed; so that it be convicted and condemned. For if there should be but only a suspicion thereof, it may be lawful for the husband to retain her with him, and to accuse her being suspected. And if he shall afterward perceive that he was led with vain suspicion to accuse her, he may desist from his purpose: so that he first obtain a discharge from the judge.

Jerome, upon the 19th chapter of Matthew, may seem to hold with the civil laws: for he writeth, that she, which hath divided one flesh to another man, or other men, must not be retained; least the husband become under the curse. For as it is written in the 28th chap. of the Proverbs; He that keepeth an adulteress with him, is ungodly and foolish. So indeed the 70 interpreters did expound it: but the truth of the Hebrew text hath it not. The same Jerome saith: If there happen any sin to be, it doth not stain matrimony; but if adultery happen, now is not the wife lawful. And in the

32nd cause, question the 1st, the words of Chrysostom are recited; If a man have the company of an adulterous wife let him repent. The same father, upon the 26nd chapter of Matthew: Even as he is unjust, which accuseth an innocent; so he is a fool, which retaineth an adulteress. And the very same saying we have in the Decretals De adulterijs, in the chapter Si vir sciens, and it is the Council of Arles; A man which retaineth an adulteress, is partaker of the crime. Also: If a woman, being put away, should be married to another, although her latter husband be dead; she may not return to the first, for she is now become unclean unto him; as we have it in the 24th chapter of Deuteronomy.

40. But now pass we over these things, and let us see the reasons, which make for reconciliation. That most mighty and excellent God of ours would be the spouse of his church, and that not only in this our age, but also in the days of the fathers. Howbeit, the church, especially in old time, did oftentimes decline unto idolatry, and plaid the harlot with the gods of the Gentiles; as we may read in sundry places, in the book of Judges, and in the history of the Kings, and in the Prophets. Yet nevertheless, Jeremiah, in the name of God called her home, that she might return again to her husband.

And even so did the prophet Ose, and that with many speeches. And if God be ready to receive his adulterous wife, man ought also to be reconciled unto his wife; especially, if she fall from her error, and repent. For how many so ever be Christians, they profess the following of God. There is extant an example of David, which brought home again his wife Michal; although she had been bestowed by the father to another man. Justinian also in his Authentiks, when he commandeth an adulteress to be beaten, and closed up in a monastery; yet doth he give leave unto the husband to take

her unto him again, if he will, within the space of two years; and so doth most manifestly allow of reconciliation.

Augustine, in his second book unto Pollentius, laboreth very much in this, to have them reconciled. For in his time there were many, which would not take their adulterous wives, as they which were now spotted and polluted.

Whereupon he wrote; But dost thou think her to be polluted, whom baptism and repentance hath purged, and whom God hath made clean? She ought not to seem polluted unto thee. And if that she be already reconciled by the keys of the church, and admitted into the kingdom of heaven; by what right mayest thou repel her from thee? In the 32nd cause, question 1. these words also are written; If she be fallen, thou mayest know, that to fall is common among men: and mercy ought to be showed to her, if she be risen again. For the same would we have done unto us. And extreme law is extreme injury.

In the Decretals De adulterijs & stupris, in the chapter Si vir sciens, we read out of the Council of Arles; An adulteress, if she be penitent, ought to be received. The Gloss in that place asketh, by what law or right she should be received? It answereth: Not of necessity; because the man cannot be compelled whether he will or no to take her. Wherefore he ought by the law of honesty to bring her home again.

But I would ask the question; Ought he not to take her home, by the duty of godliness, and precept of God, when as Paul saith unto the Philippians;

Do whatsoever things be honest and just? And so the necessity of the commandment taketh place therein. Howbeit, the Gloss meant there, of the outward law of pleading; whereby no man may be constrained to take an adulteress again. But in the Canon now cited, is added; Not often: for if she fall often into adultery, she should not be received. The Gloss there objecteth Christ against himself, who being demanded, How oft a man

should forgive his brother, when he sinneth against him, answereth; Not seven times only, but seventy times seven times. Unto this he saith, that the words of the canon must be understood; that when the adulteress doth so often stray, the church shall make no intercession for reconciliation; partly, because there would be a window opened unto wickedness; and partly, for that it is thought to be but a feigned and counterfeit kind of repentance. Also there is added another answer; namely, that it is spoken for terror sake, that the people might not sin too boldly and licentiously. Hereby it is gathered, that the church ought to make intercession for repentance, to the intent there might be a reconciliation. Wherefore, the adulteress either showeth tokens of repentance, or else showeth none: if she show any, the church ought to make intercession for her, that there may be a reconciliation; but if she show none, intercession of the church shall not be used: otherwise it might be thought to be a supporter of sins.

41. Now must we make answer unto the arguments, which seemed to be a let unto reconciliation. As concerning the civil laws, they must be amended by the word of God. Jerome and Chrysostom speak of the adulteress, which will not repent. And this is plainly perceived by the Council of Arles. For so it is there: A man, which retaineth an adulteress, is partaker of the crime; yet nevertheless, if she repent, let her be received. But why the law of Moses would not suffer, that a wife, being once put away, should return to her first husband after the death of the second, the cause may easily be showed. For if he had permitted this, divorcements would soon have been admitted; in hope that the wife should at one time or other recover her husband again.

God would, that she, which was once put away, might not return anymore; least she should be put away upon small occasion. There might also have been lying in wait for the latter husband; that the wife, when the latter were

taken away, might return again to the first. Wherefore the law of God was most equal, which pertaineth not unto adulteresses, whom by the commandment of God, it behooved to stone unto death. By these things now it appeareth, that it is lawful for the husband to return again into favor with his wife, that hath been an adulteress; so that she be penitent: who nevertheless ought to accuse his wife of adultery, if the crime be openly known; or if she do persevere in wickedness, or else if the issue be born by adultery, least the lawful heirs should be defrauded. For unless that accusation should be a remedy, a man might not disherit his child born in adultery. Further, the church may make intercession, and deal with the husband, for to bring home his penitent wife again. So as our Levite must not be blamed, for receiving of his adulterous wife into favor; if so be that she did repent her of her adultery.

Of Wine and Drunkenness.

42. Now, because there be very many intemperate men, which being blamed for their drunkenness, are wont to excuse their sin, otherwise most shameful, saying; that They abuse not wine, forsomuch as they use it to that end, for the which it was appointed and ordained by God; to wit, that mortal men might thereby make themselves merry. For this cause I thought it good to reprove their impudency. Wherefore, I will first declare the true use of wine. Afterward I will show the abuse thereof, teaching it to be against the law of God. Then will I bring examples, manifestly to open, that the abuse of it is as well damnable, as fowl and detestable. After this I will rehearse the horrible effects of this evil. And lastly I will answer to those civillations and sophistical arguments, whereby drunkenness and abuse of wine is defended by the Epicures.

As touching the first, I deny not, but that wine hath excellent properties: [ 1] for it quencheth the thirst, which might also be done with water; howbeit, not so commodiously. Because wine, in quenching thirst, maketh a man strong, and quickeneth the spirits, whereby nature is very much refreshed. [

2] Further, it is medicinal for cold and weakness, both of the stomach, and also of the powers, which serve for the life of man. Whereupon Paul writeth unto Timothy, that he should use wine for the stomach, and often diseases thereof. [ 3] It is occupied sometimes also, and not unprofitably for wounds.

For which cause in the tenth of Luke it is written, that the Samaritan bound up the wounds of him, whom he found half dead, and poured wine and oil into them. [ 4] Moreover, wine maketh merry, and helpeth not a little to drive away sadness and heaviness of mind. And therefore Solomon, in his

Proverbs, the 31st chapter, writeth; Give strong drink to them that are heavy, and wine to the sorrowful of heart, let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their sorrow no more. And we read in the 104th

Psalm; Wine rejoiceth the heart of man.

For so great hath been the goodness of God towards man, that he would give unto them, not only things necessary for their sustenance, but he also bestowed large dainties upon them. For properly and of himself he delighteth not in the languishing, sadness, and heaviness of men; but desireth to have them live in godly and honest merriness of the heart.

Wherefore he hath granted unto them, not only the use of wine, but also of oil, and most fragrant smells; flesh likewise, and also diverse and manifold kinds of meats. Assuredly, the use of wine now and then is profitable for them, which are recovered from diseases, and must be restored to their former health; and (as a certain Philosopher showed) the heaviness and certain bitterness of old men is thereby mitigated and asswaged: as hops,

which otherwise are most bitter, become sweet being steeped in water. But we must take heed, that we keep a measure; otherwise, the rejoicing that is attained by wine, is soon turned into very great heaviness. For the untemperateness of wine, doth easily lose his utility; yea, and if men come to drunkenness, the use of wine is most lamentable and hurtful. So then it is necessary to put a difference between the use and abuse thereof.

43. Herewithal we say, that to have too much drink, or to be drunk, may two ways be taken; either properly, or metaphorically. This difference did

Marsilius Ficinus plainly teach, in the argument of his second dialogue De justo; and he maketh one kind of drunkenness above the moon, or a celestial drunkenness, stirred up by drinking of heavenly drink; whereby the mind, being set without itself, and above itself, forgetteth all mortal diseases, and only considereth things divine: by the brightness whereof, first it waxeth dim, but after that it tasteth the savor of the same, it is by a new heat changed from his first habit or quality, whereby within a while it clearly beholdeth spiritual things; and while it savorly tasteth them, it is fruitfully nourished. Wherefore it is written in the psalm; We shall be made drunken with the fruitfulness of thy house. Yea and Musaeus an ancient

Poet saith, that the reward of virtue is perpetual drunkenness. And Orpheus, before Musaeus, said, that the same was signified by the ceremonies and holy services of Dionysius.

The other kind of drunkenness he saith is under the moon, and is worldly; which is stirred up of drink, taken out of the fountain Lethes, that is, carnal drink, whereby the mind being set without itself, and under itself, forgetteth divine things, and doteth. Neither is it to be doubted, but that this kind of drunkenness is utterly to be avoided. Of the first kind of drunkenness, which is metaphorical, there is plain mention made in the Proverbs of

Solomon: where wisdom stirreth up men to drink wine, which she hath set forth upon her table plentifully and abundantly. Yea and Christ our savior, which is the true wisdom, promiseth us such wine in the kingdom of heaven. By translation also is described the wine of compunction and fury, which God will give unto the wicked to drink; whereby they shall become mad, and for their deserts be turned into stark fury. But setting aside these metaphors, let us return unto drunkenness, properly taken, whereof we now entreat.

And let us declare by testimonies of the holy scriptures, that such abuse of wine is forbidden, and the contrary enjoined us. To the Ephesians Paul saith; Be ye not made drunken with wine, wherein is intemperance; but be ye filled with the spirit, speaking to yourselves by psalms hymns, and spiritual songs. Upon which place Jerome saith; We cannot at one time be filled with wine, and with the holy Ghost. For the apostle placeth these things as contraries; even as we cannot serve two masters. He that is filled with the spirit, hath wisdom, meekness, shamefastness, and chastity: and he which is filled with wine, hath foolishness, furiousness, malapertness, and shameful lust. They which be not filled with wine, can easily sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs: which they cannot do, that have filled their gorge with wine. The like also Paul writeth; Care ye not for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof. But Christ, by express words, said unto his disciples; Take heed that your heart's be not overcome with surfeiting and drunkenness. And in the Old Testament, in the Proverbs, the 31st chapter, it is written; Give not wine unto kings. And in the 23rd chapter; Look not upon the wine, when it is red, and when it showeth his color in the cup, and goeth down pleasantly.

And in the second chapter of Ecclesiastes, Solomon saith, that he thought to give his heart to wine and pleasant things, and at the length he found this study and purpose to be mere vanity; I took laughter (saith he) to be error, and I said unto joy; Why dost thou in vain deceive? This mirth of wine, and pleasant things, ought not to be often used by godly men: for so much as Christ hath taught, that They are blessed which mourn, they (saith he in Matthew) shall receive consolation. But in Luke, the sixth chapter it is added; that they shall laugh. And it is best for us, that we do want some joy in this present life, that we may perpetually laugh. In the fifth of Isaiah, it is written; Woe be unto you, which rise up early to follow drunkenness, and to drink even till night, to be inflamed with wine. The viol, timbrel, pipe, and wine, are in your feasts, &c. And again in the same chapter; Woe be to you that are mighty to drink wine, and are strong men to mingle drunkenness.

Besides, Joel in the first chapter writeth; Awake ye up that are drunken with wine.

And this we must not pass over, that in Leviticus, Aaron and his sons are commanded not to drink wine, until they came to sacrifice before the Lord.

And twice Paul commanded, that the ministers of the church should not be given to over-much wine. And when he counseled his Timothy to use wine for the stomach and diseases, he addeth, that it should be but a little; least he should give license unto drunkenness. In the old law also the use of wine was forbidden unto the Nazarites. And the Rechabites in Jeremiah are commended, because at their father's commandment, they abstained from wine: at which time nevertheless they knew that those things were written, which in the history of Judges we have concerning wine; namely, that with it, both God and men are made merry. And that also, which is written in the 104th Psalm; that Wine maketh merry the hearts of men. And so we may

gather, that these are not contrary; and that we may use wine temperately and moderately; and that it is given to us by God, to make us merry in due time by a right use thereof.

44. And we must not be ignorant, that some such times do chance, wherein it is not meet for Christians and godly men to give themselves to mirth. We must mourn, in the meantime, for sins committed. And sometimes we are troubled with very grievous miseries; and when we be under the rod of God's hand, we must pray the more earnestly: whereto fasting's and chastening's of the body do much help. And this doth Paul declare in his first epistle to the Corinthians, when he saith; that It is lawful sometimes for the husband and wife to depart one from another for a season. But yet with mutual consent to lie asunder for a time, that they may give themselves to fasting and prayer: although we must not for such abstinence appoint any certain memorial and year days; but leave the time to the wisdom of the spirit. Howbeit, this reason maketh much against those, which affirm, that they must be always bibbing, and that they must not be without mirth at any time. Yea and the same apostle said of himself; I chastise my body, and bring it into bondage. By which saying he admonished the Corinthians, through his example, to bridle their lusts.

There might be many more examples rehearsed out of the holy scriptures, manifestly to declare, that both drunkenness, and also too much use of wine are forbidden: but these shall be sufficient at this time. And this only I will add, that the Ethnics were also of the same mind. Plato, in his seventh book

De legibus, toward the end, writeth, that Minos by his laws, forbad the Cretenses, that they should not drink together unto drunkenness. And Seneca saith in his 84th epistle, that Drunkenness is nothing else but a voluntary madness: and straightway after; The quality of drunkenness

continuing many days is furiousness. Moreover, they, which contend in drinking, although they have the victory of others in taking of much wine, yet will they, or nill they, the cup overcometh them. And it is shameful for a man to take in more, than he is able to receive, and not to know how to measure his stomach.

45. Hitherto we have sufficiently declared, that the abuse of wine is both against the word of God, and also against human reason. Now let us prove the same by examples, that they, which will not believe the sayings before alleged, may yet at the least-wise be taught by examples. Noah, a mighty man, just, and acceptable before God, who saw two states of the world (for he lived both before and after the flood) is set before us, as an example for the utter avoiding of drunkenness; seeing that he, having drunken more wine than was meet, lay in his tabernacle most shamefully naked; and the secret parts of his body, which were wont to be hidden, he left bare and uncovered. And he, which was wont to be a schoolmaster of virtues, became a great offense unto his children. Cham mocked him, his other two sons were of a better and more holy disposition, and were sorry and ashamed to see the shame of their father. By this act it is sufficiently declared, that shame, derision, and offense follow drunkenness.

But of this sin we have a notable example in Lot, who undoubtedly drunk not out of measure, to the end he would abuse his daughters, and commit incest; but to put away cares and griefs, which he had taken, for the overthrow of the five cities, for the loss of his deer wife, and also of his substance. He would also comfort his daughters, that they should not take too much thought; especially for the loss of their mother: but he should have devised another way of comforting. Howbeit, I speak this only, because none should think that he, of a purposed will, did drink too much;

to the intent he might pollute himself with most shameful lusts. Yet for all that, too great abundance of drink was the cause of his most vile incest, otherwise being a man in years, at a very unfit time; when the judgments of God were showed against the lewd lust of the slew cities. Yea and this is to be wondered at, that wine so alienated Lot from himself, that he understood not with what women he had kept unlawful company. Wherefore rightly

(saith Seneca in his 84th epistle before alleged;) They which are drunk, do many things, which afterward, when they be sober, they be ashamed of. Lot sought to make himself merry by wine, and he incurred a perpetual sadness.

Let them therefore, which seek to be made merry with overmuch wine, remember, that they put themselves into a very present danger; and by that means may easily throw themselves headlong into most grievous sins.

Neither is there any cause why any man should excuse, that such events be uncertain; so that a man cannot tell for a certainty, whether he, which drinketh too much, shall fall into these shameful matters; for so much as the thing is so certainly known, that even the daughters of Lot, being yet virgins, understood it; namely, that the old man by wine might be driven to naughty lusts, and be so deceived, as he might have ill company even with his own daughters. Who will therefore say, that he knoweth not that which they understood? Lot was deceived and snared by his own daughters. But they which love too much mirth; to wit, drunken men, do allure themselves, and do fight openly against themselves: neither think they or call to remembrance, that God, with most grievous punishments, taketh vengeance of drunkenness, and suffereth not the abuse of his most precious gift, to be long unpunished.

These bibbers are wont sometimes to bring forth Lot, as a patron of their intemperance. Neither do they mark, that the holy scripture setteth forth the

story of him, as a horrible, and almost a tragical example. God did not lightly punish the drunkenness of that man: for he being coupled with his daughters, they conceived by him, and the thing could not be dissembled.

Incestuous children were born, Ammon and Moab; of whom came the nations of the Ammonits and Moabits, which were both hated of God, and enemies to the Israelites. Lot himself (as it is to be thought) was always in grievous sorrow for the crime which he had committed: he became a byword among men. And seeing the testimony of the holy scriptures is extant, and shall remain unto the end of the world; how often so ever they be read, so often is his infamy noted, and spread abroad. If so be God spared not a man, otherwise holy, the nephew of Abraham, and harborer of angels; what will he do to those gluttons and swine, whom no virtue can persuade, either from sitting or lying drunken both day and night? That which we read happened once to Lot, these men have every day in exercise.

46. But look what our drunkards allege of Lot, the Romans in old time alleged of Cato; because he, being so very a grave man, sometimes in the night recreated his mind: doubtless not in bolling and bibbing immoderately, but in sipping and drinking a little, adding therewith much honest talk. Neither considered they, that the same man was sober all the whole day, and labored much in determining and judging of causes, in consulting with other Senators concerning the public-wealth, in having affairs with the people, in executing the office of a magistrate, in reading and in writing. Such good and honest endeavors ought these men to have imitated. But let us proceed in rehearsing of examples. Amnon, David's son was slain by Absalom: verily not in his sober mood, but when in a banquet he was more merry than was meet, by drinking of too much wine. And (as it is declared in the latter end of the first book of the Machabeis) Simon the

high priest was (with his two sons Mattathias and Judas slain by his son in law,) when in a feast they were in a manner drunken, by swilling in of much wine.

And the history of Judith (although it be not found in the Canon of the Jews) showeth, that Holofernes, otherwise a very fierce general of an army, was so overwhelmed with wine, that without much ado he was beheaded by a silly woman. I might add how Sisera, being drunken, was slain by Jahel; although his drink was milk, and not wine. And if beside these, we will read over the stories of the Ethnics, we shall find many and notable examples of them, which were most grievously hurt by drunkenness. Alexander of Macedonia, the conqueror of the world, was most shamefully overcome with wine, and being drunk, slue Clytus his most valiant and faithful friend, whose diligence, industry, labor, prudence, and strength, he had long time used in the wars, to his great commodity. So, when he had slept his fill, till he was sober again, and had remembered with himself the act which he had committed, he was so sorry and ashamed, that he wished himself dead. But yet he amended not his vice of drunkenness; nay rather, he drunk so much wine in one night, as he fell into a fever; and because he would not temper himself from wine, he (within a while after) died. Wherefore Seneca, in his

84th epistle already alleged, writeth, that Alexander, which had escaped so many dangers, and overcome the hardest enterprises, perished through intemperance of drinking, and by the fatal cup of Hercules.

Marcus Antonius, otherwise a stout and valiant grand captain, and a conqueror in many battles, so laded himself sometimes with wine; that even in a morning, in the tribunal seat, before the people of Rome, whilst he sat to give judgment, he was compelled to vomit. And in Egypt he used much drinking, by reason whereof he could do nothing honorably, but was most

shamefully put to flight by Octavius. What the Poets write of the feast of the Lapiths and Centaurs, it is better known, than should be needful for me to recite at this time. And I think I have now brought examples sufficient, which being diligently considered, serve much for the avoiding of drunkenness.

47. But they, which are not terrified from the filthiness thereof by the word of God, which we have first and foremost showed, and do not abhor the same, being persuaded by those examples now alleged; shall perhaps be won and led from it, by considering those evils, which do spring of the abuse of wine. It is expedient, that the tree be known by his fruits. And assuredly, drunkenness is to be counted such a thing, as the fruits, which spring thereof, be known to be. Howbeit, that we may speak orderly, we will divide the evils by their subjects: for it hurteth the body, vexeth also the mind, wasteth the goods, and is hateful to our neighbors. As touching the body, by drunkenness come oftentimes sudden deaths, the dissolution of the parts of men's body, the falling sickness; and sundry such miserable chances. For the smooth and plain ground unto drunkards is a pit; since they fall, break their legs, their arms, and sometime their necks, and are burnt when they fall into the fire. The liver is inflamed with too much drink, the head aketh, the members are made weak, and do tremble, the senses are corrupted, the natural heat is overcome by overmuch wine; the stomach is annoyed with crudities and intolerable griefs, whiles it is stuffed and farsed above measure: the whole body is in a manner inflamed, and the thirst is augmented. Drunkards lie groveling like blocks, and so are bereaved of their strength, that neither head nor foot can do their office.

Wherefore it is written in the 23rd chapter of the Proverbs; To whom is woe? To whom is sorrow? To whom is strife? To whom is sighing? And to

whom are wounds without cause? Or to whom is the bleariness of the eyes?

Even to them that tarry long at the wine, and to them which go and seek mixed wine. Look not upon the wine, when it is red, and when it showeth his color in the cup, and goeth down pleasantly, in the end it will bite like a serpent, and put out his sting like a cockatrice. Thine eyes shall look upon strange women, and thine heart shall speak lewd things; and thou shalt be like one that sleepeth in the midst of the sea, and as he which sleepeth in the top of the mast of a ship. They have stricken me, and it pained me not; they have bruised me, and I felt it not. When I awake, I will seek it again, &c.

And behold how many punishments God bringeth upon drunkards. Isaiah, in his fifth chapter, agreeth with Solomon. For he also saith; Woe unto those, which are mighty and strong to drink wine. And in the same chapter he saith; that Drunkards regard not the works of the Lord, neither consider the work of his hands. Moreover, to such men belongeth woe; because (as Jerome upon that place writeth) they are most unhappy, who being occupied in drunkenness, gluttony, and sundry pleasures, from morning to night, understand not the works of the Lord in themselves; neither considering wherefore they themselves are created, do in a manner sleep out their whole life. Wherefore Joel cried out unto them; Awake up ye drunkards, weep and howl all ye that drink wine. But drunkards are not wakened by these cries: for they do not only sleep, but seem to be in a manner buried. Wherefore

Virgil aptly said of the city of Troy, that it was buried in wine and sleep.

48. But now must we see how much the soul itself or mind is hurt with drunkenness. Drunkards are ofttimes stricken with the spirit of astonishment, and after a sort are turned into madness: they become like brute beasts, so that there seemeth to remain in them no understanding. It is a grievous thing for a man to wound himself, or to deprive himself of any

member: but to take away his own mind from himself, without compulsion, it is an evil intolerable. In the fourth chapter of the prophet Ose it is justly written; that Wine and drunkenness take away the heart. And we read in the 19th chapter of Ecclesiasticus; that Wine and women make wise men to fly from their profession, so that they are no more their own men: for they be withdrawn from their office and virtue, and do also fall from the right trade of life. And in the same book, in the 31st chapter, it is written; that Wine drunken with excess engendereth bitterness of mind, with chidings and despites. Drunkenness increaseth the courage of a fool, till he offend, but it diminisheth his strength. In these words there is an elegant Antithesis, or contrary comparison; namely, that wine increaseth the courage and spirits, and causeth greater audacity; but it diminisheth and weakeneth the strength.

Wherefore Plato, in his sixth dialogue De justo, at the beginning; A drunkard (saith he) hath a tyrannical heart, for he would rule all men as he list, and not by any reason and law.

Drunkenness also causeth men to forget both law and right. Wherefore Solomon saith in the Proverbs; that Wine must not be given unto kings, least peradventure they drink, and forget the law that is made, and alter the judgment of all the children of the poor. Plato also writeth in his third book

De Republica; that Drunkenness may be suffered in any man, rather than in a magistrate. For a drunken man knoweth not the ground whereon he standeth. If the magistrate be drunken, then hath the keeper need of a keeper. This moreover is to be added, that nothing is kept secret, where drunkenness reigneth; because it discovereth, not only the secret parts of the body, but also of the mind. And in drinking, there be poured out words unshamefast, foolish, unapt, and wicked: so that Horace, describing the effects of drunkenness, saith; What is it that drunkenness committeth not? It

discloseth things secret, it establisheth hope, it thrusteth forward the unarmed man to battle, it taketh away the burden from careful minds, it teacheth arts. Whom have not full cups made eloquent? And whom have they not in extreme poverty made careless?

And Plato, in his first book De legibus, toward the end, saith thus; When a man drinketh wine, at the first it maketh him more cheerful; afterward, the more he drinketh, the greater and better hope he is in, and feeleth himself strong: then, as though he were wise, the man is filled with that confidence, liberty, and audacity, that without fear he both saith and doth whatsoever pleaseth him. The same Plato, in his sixth dialogue De legibus, saith; He which is filled with wine, is stirred up with a madness, as well of the mind as of the body; and both draweth others, and is drawn everywhere himself.

And a drunkard is like a man out of his wit. Seneca, in his second book of natural questions, the 20th chapter, saith; that Drunkenness, till it be dried up, is madness; and by too much heaviness is brought asleep. And in his

60th epistle to Lucillus, toward the end; The drunkenness of one hour; doth recompense his dissolute madness with the tediousness of a long time after.

And in the 84th epistle; Drunkenness draweth out all vice, and both kindleth it, and discovereth it; it putteth away all shamefastness, whose property is to resist evil endeavors. Where too much power of wine possesseth the mind, what evil so ever lay hidden, bursteth out. Drunkenness maketh not vices, but bringeth them to light.

In drunkenness, to the proud man, pride increaseth; to the cruel man, cruelty; to the envious man, malice; and all vices are discovered and show themselves. By it a man forgetteth himself, speaketh doubtful and stammering words. It causeth unconstant eyes, a reeling pace, dizziness in the head, and to seem that the house goeth round about, torments in the

stomach when the wine boileth; and it maketh the bowels to swell. Cruelty, for the most part, followeth drunkenness: for Marcus Antonius wonderfully rejoiced at the heads and members of the condemned men, which were brought him at a feast. Also, in the 20th chapter of the Proverbs, it is written; Wine maketh a mocker, and strong drink a troublesome fellow; whosoever erreth therein, shall never be wise. But because there be some, which boast, that they can drink a great deal of wine, and be still sober, and of a sound judgment; I desire them to hearken unto Seneca, in the epistle now alleged, who saith; Let such men also say, that by drinking of poison they shall not die; and by taking of poppy they shall not sleep, and that by drinking of helleborus, they shall not cast forth and purge out, what so ever is in the inward parts.

49. The discommodities of wine, when it is excessively drunken, the which we have hitherto declared, pertain both unto the body, and unto the mind. But now we must add, how it bringeth hurt to our substance and goods. In the Proverbs, the 21st chapter it is written; He which loveth wine, and fat things, waxeth not rich. And in the same book, the 23rd chapter, it is thus written; Be not thou among the wine-bibbers, and with them which devour flesh: for the bibber and the glutton shall be brought to poverty; and he, which giveth himself to much sleeping, shall wear a torn coat. And how troublesome drunkards are unto their neighbors, it may easily be perceived.

They are injurious, and rail upon those whom they meet: and when in their fury they fall into shameful lusts, they be ready to pollute other men's spouses and wives, and by horrible means they rage against the families of their neighbors. They be an evil example, yea and an offense unto other citizens. And whilst they consume their substance upon wine and drunkenness, they have no regard to provide things necessary for their own

house. Nay rather, while they be in their mad fury, they ill entreat their innocent wives and children, and defraud the poor of their alms; which, by living more thriftily, they might be able to bestow upon them. They make themselves unprofitable for the public-wealth: seeing that drunkards can neither execute the office of a magistrate, nor yet well show obedience to their elders. They trouble also and infame the church, wherefore they are separated from the same. For Paul, in the first to the Corinthians, the fifth chapter, numbereth drunkards among those, with whom we ought not so much as to eat. And there is scarce any evil remaining, to be added unto the pernicious effects of drunkenness.

50. But to conclude the matter, first we grant unto those, which do excuse the vice of drunkenness, by the excellency and use of wine, that it is lawful to use wine for necessity sake, for medicine, and also for mirth; yet so nevertheless, as it must be tempered with sobriety, and that it exceed not a mean: yea and it must agree with time, place, degree, age, and kind. After this manner let holy men rejoice before their God; namely, with giving of thanks, and celebrating with divine praises. And Solomon, in the 23rd of the Proverbs, saith not; Woe unto those that drink wine, but; Woe unto those, which consume their time therein, which give themselves unto nothing but to drinking, contending who can drink most, provoking one another, and compelling others to drink. These men be reproved, and not other, which modestly use the gifts of God. Let men so make themselves merry with wine, that afterward they may be more cheerful to obey God; and to suffer adversities, if need shall require: and let men beware, that they forget not themselves, that they overwhelm not their senses, and choke up their strength. Neither must the holy scripture be ungodly and violently drawn unto the license of the flesh: yea, we ought so to be prepared, that we obey

the apostle, which said; It is good, not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, if it should turn to the offending of the weak brethren. Let us also remember, that The kingdom of God is not meat and drink. Neither are they commended of God, which can drink more wine than the rest. The words of God defend not drunkenness, but detest the same.

We will therefore conclude against these men, with the doctrine of Ecclesiasticus, the 31st chapter, where it is said; Show not thyself a man in wine, that is; Show not thy strength in drinking. For there be some, which try themselves how strong and mighty they be in this intemperance; and also, which with over-much drinking of wine do oppress all the powers both of the body and of the mind. The Wise man goeth forward, and saith; For wine hath destroyed many a man. As the furnace trieth the hardness of the sword in tempering, so doth wine the hearts of the proud when they are drunk. Wine moderately drunken is profitable for the life of man. What life hath he that is overcome with wine? But it was created to make men merry.

Wine, measurably drunken, bringeth gladness and cheerfulness of the mind, &c. These things may easily be taught and answered unto those men, which under the pretense to make themselves merry, labor to defend and maintain drunkenness. Let them consider with themselves, that the gifts of God ought never to be separated from the rule of moderation and temperance. Let them not forget, that the apostle, in his epistle to the Galatians, reckoned

Drunkenness among the works of the flesh. He also admonished the Romans Not to be conversant in chambering, in gluttony, and drunkenness.

And to the Thessalonians he showeth the shamefulness of this vice, when he said; It pertaineth unto the night: they which are drunk (saith he) are drunk in the night. As though he would affirm it, as a thing unworthy to be seen by the light of the day.

Of Dances.

52. Chorea, which signifieth a dance, is so called (as Plato saith) of this word χαρά, which signifieth joy: for that it is a certain testification of joy.

And Servius (when he interpreteth this verse of Virgil, Omnis quam chorus, & socij comitantur ouantes; that is, Whom all the dance and fellows in triumph wise did follow) saith; that Chorus is the singing and dancing of such as be of like age. But from whence dances had their beginning, there be sundry opinions. Some think that men, when they beheld the sundry motions of wandering and fixed stars, invented dancing, whereby the variety of motions might be represented. Other think, that dances rather came of religion; because among the old Ethnics there were in a manner no holy services, wherein was not hopping and dancing. For they led their dances from the left part of the altar to the right, whereby they might resemble the motion of heaven from the east unto the west. Afterward they returned from the right to the left, to express the course of the wandering stars. Which perhaps Virgil signified, when he said, Instaurántque choros, mixed ique altaria circum; that is, And they being mixed together, renewed their dances, compassing about the altars. Yea and the dancing priests of Mars, were had in great honor among the Romans. Some there be also, which refer the beginning of dancing to Hiero, a tyrant of Sicilia. For they say, that he, to establish his tyranny, forbad the people to speak one to another. Wherefore men in Sicilia began to express their meanings and thoughts, by becks and gestures of the body. And that afterward did turn to a use and custom.

But whatsoever this thing was, dancing's in the old time were not against religion, although afterward they were applied to public mirth. Besides, there was another kind of dancing, whereby young men were trained in

warlike affairs. For they were commanded to make gestures, and to leap, having their armor upon them, that afterward they might be the more nimble to fight for the public-wealth, when need should require. This kind of dancing was called Saltatio Pyrrhica; and because it was exercised in armor, it was called ἐνόπλια. Of this dancing is mention in the civil laws; namely, in the Digests De poenis, in the law Ad damnum. And sometime young men, when they had offended, were not straightway put to death; but were condemned either to hunt upon a stage, or else to dance in armor: and they were called Pyrrhicarij. Also there was another kind of dancing, which was instituted only for pleasure and wantonness sake: and that was called of the Grecians κόρδαξ καί κορδακισμός. But of those dances, which by gestures of the body, expressed the senses of the mind, writeth Lucianus in his book περί ὀρχήσεως: and so doth Athenaeus.

In this kind, men so prevailed at the length, that when at Rome, Demetrius Cynicus derided the dance called Minnica saltatio, (calling it a thing vain and nothing worth) a noble dancer, which then was had in honor at Rome, desired him, that he would only once behold him, while he danced, and afterward to judge and speak his fancy whatsoever he would. He came unto the stage, the dancer called Saltator Mimicus began by gestures to resemble the common fable of Mars, taken in adultery with Venus; wherein he so expressed the Sun, showing the fact, and Vulcan knitting his nets, and Venus overcome with shame, and Mars humbly desiring pardon, that Demetrius being astonished, cried out; ἀκούω ὦ ἄνθρωπε ἅ ποιεῖς, οὐ γάρ ὁρῶ μόνον, αὐταῖς γάρ ταῖς χερσὶν δοκεῖς μοι λαλεῖν: that is; I here O man, the things that thou doest, I do not only see them, for by these thy hands thou seemest to me to speak. About the same time by chance came to Rome the king of Pontus, and when he had seen this dancer make his

gestures upon a stage, being afterward willed by Nero to ask what he most desired to have given him, he desired to have the same Mimus. Nero marveled, (seeing he might have asked other things of much greater price,) and asked him the cause of that his request? He answered; Because I have sundry nations subject unto me, which without an interpreter I cannot understand. And oftentimes it happeneth, that the interpreters do not faithfully enough tell them what I say; nor again, what they say unto me: but this fellow, with his gestures, will express all things very faithfully.

53. Plato, in his third book De legibus, maketh two kinds of dancing's; the one called πολεμικόν, that is, warlike, which before we have called

Pyrrhicum, the other εἰρηνικόν, that is, peaceable, which he calleth εὐμέλειαν. I omit to speak of the shameful kind of dancing, because it is openly condemned by the laws. The pyrrhicall dancing, and that which is done by gestures, may serve to some uses in the public-wealth: but they pertain not to our purpose. Wherefore we must here speak of that which is called εὐμελείᾳ, how far it is lawful: for so much as it is exercised for mirth sake. I think assuredly, that this kind of dancing is not of his own nature vicious or forbidden; because nimbleness and agility of body is the gift of God: and if there be added any art; namely, that the body be moved in order, aptly, in number, with comeliness and decency, I do not see why it ought to be reproved, so that it be done in time, moderately, and without offense.

For, even as it is lawful to sing, and we may use singing, to give thanks unto God, and to celebrate his praises: so likewise, by a moderate dancing, we may testify the joy and mirth of the mind. For David danced openly before the ark of the Lord, and the maidens with dances and songs celebrated his victory against Goliath. Marie also the sister of Moses, when

Pharaoh was overthrown and slain, led dances with other women, and sung

a song of victory. Wherefore seeing godly men, and chaste women, have used dances; we cannot say, that of their own nature they be vicious.

But as it is used in these days, that men should dance mixed together among women, it ought not to be suffered; because these things are nourishments and provocations unto lusts and wantonness. Marie the sister of Moses danced not with young men, but apart by herself among women.

Neither did David dance with women. And the maidens, which celebrated his victory, danced among themselves, and not with men. And now they which love God with all their heart, and with all their strength, ought not only to observe his commandments; but also to cut off all occasions, whereby the observing of them might be letten. But our dances are most evident occasions of transgressing the laws of God: they be snares and offenses, not only unto the dancers, but also to the beholders. For they stir up and inflame the hearts of men, which otherwise be evil enough even from their beginning; and that, which ought with great study and endeavor be kept under, is stirred up by the wanton enticements of dancing.

Undoubtedly, if a man will examine his own self, or have an eye, either unto experience or reason; he shall perceive, that in such spectacles, the lusts of the mind are greatly kindled and inflamed: and he shall note, that men return home from those dances with less virtue; and the women with less chastity. Further, dangers must rather be avoided than nourished: for (as Solomon saith,) He which loveth danger, shall fall therein.

54. But some will object, that whereas dances be so against manners, and do kindle lust; that cometh rashly and by chance: but everything must be judged, not according to those things which happen by chance, but according to those things which be in them of their own nature. There be some so chaste, and uncorrupt, that they can behold these spectacles with a

perfect and chaste mind. I grant, that this may sometime happen. But I add, that all accidents are not of one and the self-same kind: for there be some, which happen very seldom; other some are called ὁπότερ' ἐτυχίω, that is, which by their nature may as well be present with, as absent from anything.

And there be some, which are called ἐπί το πολύ, that is, such as are wont to happen oftentimes, and for the most part. These last accidents ought in everything to be considered, and most diligently weighed. Neither must we note what may be done, but what is wont to be done. Aristippus danced in purple, and being reproved, he made an excuse, that he was made never a whit the worse for that dancing; but might in that delicacy keep still his philosopher's mind. Howbeit, there must be no ear given to such words. For (as Demosthenes saith, and the same is cited by the lawyers;) We must not regard what someone man doth at one time, but what is wont to be done for the most part. Admit we, that there is someone man so chaste, as he is nothing at all moved with such enticements: how in the meantime is the people and multitude provided for? Shall we, for the perfectness and integrity of one or two, suffer all the rest to be in danger? But so (a man will say) take away hear the word of God, and many eat and drink the holy mysteries to their own condemnation.

Here must we understand, that certain things are profitable to the salvation of men, and are commanded by the word of God: and these ought by no means to be taken away. And certain things be indifferent, which if we perceive that they tend to destruction, they must not be suffered. We have the law of God for hearing of sermons, and receiving of the sacraments; but for dancing there is no commandment given. Wherefore, these things must not be compared together. But by means of dancing's and leaping's, some say, that very many honest matrimonies are brought to pass.

It may sometimes be so: but I was never of the opinion, that I would have matrimonies to be contracted by these arts, wherein a regard is only had to the agility and handsomeness of the body. There be other means much more honest, let us use them, and leave these, as being shameful and unchaste.

Let us remember, that although honest matrimonies are sometimes brought to pass by dancing's; yet much more often are adulteries and fornications wont to follow of these spectacles. We ought to follow the example of the godly fathers, who now and then used dancing's: but yet such as were moderate and chaste; so that, the men danced by themselves, and the women apart by themselves. By such kind of dances, they showed forth the gladness of their minds, they sang praises unto God, and gave him thanks for some notable benefit, which they had received. But we read not in the holy scriptures, of mingled dances of men and women together.

But our men say; Who can dance after that sort? In saying so, they discover themselves what they seek for in dancing. Further, let us mark the effects of dancing. It is written in Matthew, that the daughter of Herodias danced at a banquet which the king made, and the king took a pleasure in her, whom without shame he could not openly behold: since she was a manifest testimony of his unlawful matrimony, and of his adultery. For Herod had married the mother of that maiden, being his brother's wife.

Through that dancing it came to pass, that John's head was smitten off.

Many be offended with us, because we cry against dancing's, as against things, which are of their own nature evil and forbidden. On the other side, we say; that things are not always to be weighed by their own nature; but by the disposition and abuse of our flesh. We cannot deny, but that wine of his own nature is good; which nevertheless is not given to one that is in an ague: not that the wine is evil, but because it agreeth not with a body, which

is in that wise affected. When the Jews had made themselves a calf to worship, they sat down, they did eat, they drank, and rose up to play. In which place it seemeth, that to play was nothing else but to dance.

55. But least I should seem to speak and to judge these things of myself, I will add certain testimonies of the fathers. Augustine against Petilianus, the sixth chapter, saith; that The bishops were wont always to restrain idle and wanton dancing's. But now a days there are some bishops, which be present at dances, and dance together with women: so far off are they from restraining this vice. The same Augustine, upon the 32nd Psalm (when he expoundeth these words; Upon an instrument of ten strings I will sing unto thee) maketh those ten strings, the ten commandments. And when he had spoken somewhat of every one of them, at the last he cometh to the sabbath, whereof it is written; Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. I say not (saith he) to live delicately, as the Jews were wont to do. For it is better to dig all the whole day, than to dance on the sabbath day. Chrysostom, in his 56th homily upon Genesis, when he entreateth of the marriage of Jacob;

Ye have heard (saith he) of marriage, but not of dancing, which in that place he calleth devilish: and even there he hath many things which make for our purpose. And among other he writeth, that the bridegroom and bride are corrupted by dancing, and the whole family is defiled. Again, in the 48th homily; Thou seest (saith he) marriages, but thou seest not dances: for at that time, they were not so lascivious as now a days they be. And he hath many things more upon the 14th chapter of Matthew, where he spake to the people of the dancing of the daughter of Herodias. And among other things he saith; At this day the Christians deliver to destruction, not half their kingdom, not another man's head; but even their own souls. And he addeth; that Where wanton dancing is, there the devil danceth together with them.

In the council of Laodicea it is written; It is not meet for Christian men to dance at their marriage. Let them dine and sup gravely and moderately, giving thanks unto God for the benefit of marriage. We read also in the same Council; Let not the Clergy come unto shows, either upon the stage, or at weddings. They may indeed be present at marriages: but afterward, when there come in θυμελικοί, that is, singers or players upon instruments, which serve for dancing, let them rise and go their ways; least by their presence, they should seem to allow that wantonness.

In the Ilerden Council, which was held under the Popes Symmachus, and Hormisda, and under Theodoricus the king, the same is decreed; namely, that Christians should not dance at marriages. In the Alliciodoren Council which was held under Pope Deus dedit, this restraint seemeth to be made for the Clergy. For there it is forbidden, that any of the Clergy, should at a feast, either sing or dance; as though in a sort that might be lawful for others. Of the same opinion are certain School-divines, upon the third book of sentences, distinct 37. who refer these prohibitions only unto the holy days. Richardus De media villa saith; that To dance on the holy days, is a sin most grievous, as though on other days it might be permitted. But the opinion of the fathers and sound councils is far more severe than the opinion of these men; who perniciously leave those things at liberty, which should be restrained; seeing therewith is joined a danger unto souls, and not a danger only, but offenses grievously to be lamented. Howbeit, it seemeth, that these men borrowed this their doctrine (wherein they forbid dancing on the holy days) out of the civil laws. For in the Code, in the title De ferijs, in the law Dies festos; In deed we release idleness on the feast days, but we will not have men give themselves unto voluptuousness. Wherefore it shall

not be lawful on the feast days to use dancing's; whether they be done for lusts sake, or for pleasure.

56. But let us see what opinion the Ethnics had of this matter. Aemilius Probus, in the life of Epaminondas, saith; that To sing and dance was not very honorable among the Romans, when as the Grecians had it in estimation. Salust, in his oration against Catiline, wrote; that Sempronia, a certain lascivious and unchaste woman, was taught to sing and dance more delicately than became an honest matron. And there, he calleth those two things, the instruments of lechery. Cicero, in his third book of Offices, writeth; that An honest and good man will not dance in the market place, although by that means he might attain to great possessions. And in his oration, which he made after his return into the senate, he in reproach calleth Aulus Gabinius his enemy, Saltatorem calamistratum; that is, A dancing dizard. It was objected to L. Muraena for a fault; because he had danced in Asia. And even this also was objected against king Deiotarus.

Cicero answereth for Muraena; No man being sober danceth either in the wilderness, or at an honest and moderate banquet, unless perhaps he be out of his wits. The same Cicero, in his Philippiks, among other vices, upbraideth Anthony with dancing. But it appeareth, that the nature and disposition of the men of the East and of the West parts, was not all one.

They are cheerful of mind, and nimble of body, and for that cause delight in dancing's. For (to omit other examples) David the king danced publicly.

And they, which come now unto us out of Syria, do affirm, that the Christians, which live in those regions, do upon the resurrection day, and also upon other famous feast days, come into the temple with harps and viols, and sing psalms among themselves, and dance together. For their spirits are very light, and ours more sad and heavy. Howbeit, they say, they

dance soberly and modestly, the men apart by themselves, and the women by themselves.

Of Garments and Apparel.

57. We see that the Lord did first give unto men, decent and thrifty garments; such as have respect unto a use, and not unto a delicateness, and prodigality. And seeing that in all men, justice, comeliness, and modesty ought to be observed; we be taught here to use the same in our garments, the end whereof is profit and honesty. This must be observed, that therein we pass not our bounds, either as touching the stuff, or as touching the manner and fashion. That these limits are appointed for garments, it appeareth, in that Adam first made himself breeches, for he was ashamed of his nakedness. Therefore, an honesty [must be regarded.] God for this cause appareled man; for that he would cast him out of the distemperature of the weather; therefore utility is to be respected. The Jews had their fringes, and the priests their proper kind of garments. Further, herein it is convenient, that there be a diligent consideration had, of the custom, age, and sex, that there be no rash alteration from the manner of the country. And what custom must be observed, the sundry garments, which were appointed unto priests, do declare: and in that the prophets were clothed after another manner, then the common people. The sex also must be considered: for a woman must not wear the apparel of a man, nor the man of a woman.

Touching age, the youth must go after one sort, and the elder people after another. The use of the country must be regarded: for the Jews wear fringes on their garments.

How greatly men do sin by wearing of wanton apparel, we may guess by the apostles Peter and Paul, who forbad women to wear precious garments, and superfluous decking of their hair, that should be trimmed or braided

with gold or pearl, who nevertheless have a colorable excuse; namely, to please their husbands. Wherefore, how much more must these things be reproved in men? If then the use of garments was devised to withstand the provocation unto wantonness, whereof a shamefastness was given us by God; they are greatly to be blamed, which provoke the same evil by the curious fashion, fineness, and niceness, or vanity of apparel. Also, let all superstitiousness be avoided, neither let there be any virtue or holiness attributed unto garments. And let here the goodness of God be considered, who to help man (that by his own default was made subject unto the untemperateness of the air, to cold and to rain) hath clothed him with garments.

58. And where it is written; that She, which is married, doth care to please her husband: some refer the meaning thereof unto decking and appareling of themselves; the which, no doubt, being kept within the bounds, that it be not (as the apostles said) in curled hair, in golden jewels, or precious garments, is not against the word of God. And the thing in his own nature is neither good nor evil: for we may both use the same well and ill. It is very oftentimes good, and to be used, not for itself sake, but by the fault of the other married parties. Those husbands be somewhat inconstant, which will neither love their wife, if she be not trimly decked, nor yet will be content with her alone. Hester garnished herself, and is not reproved in the scriptures: she did not those things, through her own vanity, or vain desire of pleasing; but by reason of the unperfectness of her husband. So likewise a mother, when her child will not leave crying; oftentimes singeth, and otherwhile danceth; not because these things as they be in themselves do like her, but that she seeth they must be used by reason of the child's fault.

But we must beware of the sins, which may happen by such kind of trimming; that in costs and charges a mean be not exceeded: least peradventure, by ill examples we might be led with vain affection, to cleave thereunto, and provoke the lusts of the beholders. And therefore Hester said, that such kind of appareling was unto her as it had been a defiled cloth.

Even by these words; namely, To please her husband: husbands are noted to be very effeminate, because they dote too much on their wives, and for that cause do many times sin. Wherefore, by Augustine they be called no husbands, but ardent lovers. Howbeit, we must not think, that it should be imputed as a fault unto husbands; if they give some place unto their wives in honest things, seeing they be commanded in the epistle to the Ephesians;

Ye husbands love your wives, as Christ loved his church, who gave himself for the same. In like manner it is the wives part, that she endeavor to do those things which her husband commandeth. After which sort, if she covet to please him, she ought not to be rebuked, but to be praised. All that I have spoken, may be noted in the words of the apostle; to wit, that in matrimony, the husband and wife must be careful to please one another. But again, I give warning, that these things, by themselves, and of their own nature, are not agreeable unto matrimony, when they shall be abused; but then are they joined thereunto rashly, or as they term it by accidents.

Of Counterfeit, Fuke, or false coloring.

59. Now it shall be very meet to dispute somewhat of fuke, or false coloring, whether the same be lawful or no. First, we will begin with the name; afterward we will treat of the matter itself; further, we will bring the reasons, whereby some endeavor to allow the use of this kind of medicine; shortly after, the contrary shall both be affirmed and proved; lastly shall be discussed the reasons at the first alleged. As concerning the first, Fucus

(among the Latins) is a Dorre or Drone, much like unto a be; yea and of some it is thought to be a be imperfect, and not fully absolute: it wanteth a sting, neither doth it work honey, but greedily eateth up the bees honey. And so by translation, they, which be idle and slothful men, be called Fuci, or such as have but the face and show of men: who, notwithstanding that they shun all labor themselves, yet do they eat and drink abundantly; in so much as some thought, that the word was deducted of this word φαγεῖν, which is,

To eat and consume. For this harm sake, the bees drive them from their hive. Wherefore Virgil in his Georgiks saith,

Ignauum fucos pecus à praesepibus arcent; that is, The honey-making bees do drive, The drones an idle beast from hive.

Also Fucus is taken for the color, wherewith cloth and wool is died. As we have it in the first law of the Code, Quae res vendi non possunt. In which law, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius do decree, that upon pain of death, none should sell cloth or wool dyed in purple; because the emperor would be clothed therewith alone. But we here entreat of that kind of counterfeit color, which is a medicine or color, wherewith the face is painted, that it might seem the more beautiful. Of the Hebrews it is called

Puc, of the verb Haphac, which is, To change or turn the right form. And certainly, it is a true and apt etymology; for by such manner of paintings, countenances and faces are turned and altered; seeing they appear to be far otherwise than nature hath appointed. By a general word they are called καλλωπίσματα, ornaments of the face; because they serve for the ornament and decking of women. They call it also φῦκον; whereof (as I think) the Latins derived Fucum; and not of φαγεῖν, as I alleged before out of other

men's opinion. And they call Cerussa, or white lead, particularly by the name of ψιμμύθιον and στίμμι, the which we call Stibium. And Purpurisse they name ἀνδρείκελον, which is a red painting. These things also have another name, whereof Pliny maketh mention in his 23rd book, the 4th chapter: and Tertullian, in his book De cultu foeminarum; namely,

Calliblepharum, so called, because they make the eye lids and brows more beautiful to behold. And thus much touching the names. Now let us come to the matter itself, which cannot be better known, than by the proper causes of the same.

60. The end of such curious trimming is, to procure beauty, and to alter the face; whereby one may appear the trimmer, and blemishes may be hidden; or else to bring in a better favor than nature hath wrought. And the chief colors, which the fine doers of these things do practice; is either whiteness, which is done with white lead; or redness, which is brought to pass by Purpurisse; or else blackness, used by the means of the stone

Stibium. Also they color their hair, sometime with safforn, and so they beguile the beholders of them, and with marvelous craft deceive them.

Hereof cometh that, which we have in common talk; namely, that A man casteth a color upon anything, when he deceiveth. And it is wont to be uttered in bargains, in covenants, and agreements; Without color or counterfeiting; that is, Freely, in good faith, absolutely, and plainly. These things of the end.

The efficient and proper cause is the naughty desire of pleasing, the which sometime is stirred up by pride, and sometime by lust. By pride, because they will not have any to surpass them in beauty, but will make a show to be far more beautiful than others. By lust, for that they would seem to be beautiful more and more, than the measure of their own natural favor hath

appointed, and so to allure men to satisfy their lust. I am not ignorant, that the most ancient fathers (especially Cyprian in his book De velandis virginibus) teach; that The devil was the inventor of such manner of trimming. For when (as he thinketh) the evil angels had burned in the desire of women, and had abused their bodies; they, for a reward of the licentious pleasures permitted unto them, made demonstration of these arts and shameful ornaments. Wherefore Cyprian writeth, that these be not the ornaments, which God made; but those which the devil devised. Touching the cause efficient we have spoken enough.

But the matter is nothing else in a manner, but filth; to wit, smoke, soot, foam, and spittle, and such things for the most part, as would loath a man to touch them. Yea, and sometimes poisons are mingled; so that they, with their counterfeit colors, do not only wound the minds of the beholders, but do also hurt their bodies. Of the form I have nothing to say; because these things be tempered an infinite number of ways. And look how many counterfeited women there are, almost so many kinds of false colors there be. They are said also to die their faces, and that is, both to color them, and to deform them. It is also said, that this vice is greater charge to women, than to men: because a woman, through her defiled and corrupt nature, is desirous of beauty, and (as the Greeks say) φιλόκοσμος, that is, desirous to be trim. Howbeit, Paulus the second of that name Pope of Rome, (as Platina writeth) at such time as he should come abroad, abstained not from false coloring; even to the intent he might seem of the more beautiful countenance, as he was very tall of stature. But how shameful a thing it was for the vicar of Christ, as he challenged himself to be, let other men judge.

Certainly, the Ethnic poet pronounced; that It best becometh men to be careless of their beauty. And again; Far from us may such young men be,

which are curiously trimmed like women. For Julius Caesar was desirous to cover his baldness. Wherefore, because of the honors (which were very many that the city had bestowed upon him) he most willingly received the laurel crown, which for this cause he ware in a manner always. And Jerome writeth, that Maximilla the prophetess of Montanus used Stibium: which may note unto us, by what spirit she was led.

The general word of this vice is feigning, and also leasing: since they feign a countenance to themselves as they list, and they counterfeit beauty.

Neither is wantonness far from it; for when by nature they have not the worthiness of beauty, they counterfeit the same as they can. And we will not omit, that there be diverse, which have sometime painted their faces: not to the intent they might appear the better favored and fairer; but because they would seem to be more cruel, fierce, and horrible to behold: as it is written of the Brittons, who died their faces with a kind of herb like unto plantine, as Caesar reporteth in his fifth book of his Commentaries. And in India, where is no small plenty of precious stones, they are wont to make hollow places in their own flesh, that in the hollowness thereof they may close in precious stones, and that as well in the forehead as in the cheeks. These things shall suffice for declaring the nature of false colors. Now remaineth to be said, whether it be lawful to use the same. Some affirm that it is lawful, of whom there be many School-men, who rather favor and make much of vices, than pursue them, and seek to weed them out. First they allege certain testimonies of the holy scriptures, which at the first view seem to be of their side. Secondly, they labor to prove the same by reasons.

61. [ 1] Out of the holy scriptures they allege that, which is written in the first to the Corinthians, the seventh chapter; He that is not married, careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that hath

married a wife, is careful for those things that be of the world, and how he may please his wife. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy, both in body and in spirit: but the married woman careth for those things that be of the world, and how she may please her husband, It is lawful therefore for women to endeavor to please their own husbands, whereby they may retain them still to be content with their own wife. For if they should despise them, they might easily incline to whoredom and adultery. Wherefore (say they) there is some good use even of counterfeit coloring. [ 2] And further, unto this purpose they draw that, which is written in the first of Timothy, the second chapter, ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ, that is, In trim and comely apparel. And they say, that the apostle spake this, when he gave precepts touching women. [ 3] Moreover, they declare, that in the first epistle unto the Corinthians, the twelfth chapter it is written; that Upon those parts of the body, which are less honorable, put we more honor on; and our uncomely parts have more comeliness on. And that therefore, if any deformity be either in the countenance, or in the eyes, it is convenient that we should deck them more costly. And because they be not so very blind and blockish, but that they see this to be a great stop unto them, that men by these paintings and counterfeit colors are provoked unto lust; they have invented certain crafty and subtle shifts, that with them they might shadow and color their error.

62. [ 1] First they say, that we fall into the false argument [which is called] A secundum quid ad simpliciter, that is to say, From that, which is in some respect, unto that which is absolute. For seeing all things that stir men unto lust are sin, we think that all things, which provoke men unto concupiscence, are to be condemned. [ 2] That the case doth not so stand, they also bring an instance of natural beauty, the which out of doubt

kindleth naughty concupiscence with the sight of the same: yet none will say, that the natural appearance of beauty is to be defamed as a sin. [ 3]

Some grant, that sin may happen thereby; howbeit, not through the nature of the thing itself, but by the circumstances adjoined; that is, if they go about to paint their face, to the intent they would be unhonestly loved of those, which behold them. Or else, if they be so proud and haughty, as by such means they endeavor, and are desirous to excel other women in beauty: then (say they) that evil creepeth in by accidental means, and not by the nature of the counterfeited color. Wherefore they affirm, that there be two sorts of provocations unto wantonness; namely, that either it cometh according unto the natural condition, or else through a lewdness of the intent and lust. And in these they grant sin to be, in respect of the corrupt will and dishonest desire: but they admit not that there is sin, by the natural condition of the counterfeit color.

[ 4] And they say moreover, that the effect is to be considered all alike, whether it proceed from nature, or come by art. Whereby they endeavor to prove, that if the fault be not in the natural beauty, no more is it in the artificial beauty. They bring a similitude of the health, that it is all after one nature and manner, whether it grow by temperature, and natural equality of humors; or else, if the same, having been distempered, is restored by the art of physicians. [ 5] Moreover, they put a difference between cause and occasion. And they say, that colored faces be not causes of the ruin and offense taking of the beholders, but are only an occasion: and that things must not be judged by the occasion, but by their own proper nature; otherwise we should in a manner do nothing, but we might be accused of sin. For even the very best things may be occasions of falling unto sin: and that it should not be lawful for any man to show either gold, or silver, or

precious stones; because there would be an occasion given of coveting them. And that by this means it would follow, that a beautiful woman ought never to step out of her house, least she should be an occasion of wicked concupiscence. Wherefore let us reject (say they) the things that come by accidental means, and those things which be occasions; and let us only have respect unto them, which be causes both just and by themselves. And let us remove corrupt nature, and naughty concupiscence, as vice and sin, which be the true causes of dishonest loves, and raging lusts: and let us not blame either feigned colors, or else natural beauty. [ 6] Lastly they say, that we cannot deny, but that God hath made the nature of colors and painting: and that we cannot but grant every creature of God to be good, and that therefore it followeth, that Christian women may use them freely. These are the things which be alleged by these men. But we, on the other part, judge that they be not lawful; the which we will prove, as well by the scripture, as by very likely arguments.

63. [ 1] Paul, when he went about to teach, that the ceremonies of Moses were not necessary to salvation, was ill reported of by the Jews, and by the false apostles: the which they very oftentimes objected against him. But he answered; If I would please men, I should not be Christ's servant. By the which saying he giveth us to understand, that we must not greatly strive to be well liked of men. But those women, which set a false color upon themselves, do labor all the ways they can, to please men. If it were not lawful for Paul to please men in the ceremonies, which were not men's inventions, but had their beginning from the word of God; how much less must we yield to these men, in the thing which proceedeth from the folly of man, from naughty lust, and (as Cyprian saith) from the devil himself? [ 2]

Further, it is chiefly commended to the Christians, that they should embrace

sincerity and truth: for we ought to banquet in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, as Paul very well admonished us; but in feigned colors, neither sincerity nor truth can take place. And Christ saith in the fifth of Matthew, that Men cannot make, no not one hair of their head white or black. [ 3] But they, which practice feigned colors, endeavor by their art to impugn that sentence; when as they die their face and their hair with colors, at their own pleasure. [ 4] Also Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, forbad, that women should dress themselves with curled hair, with gold, and precious stones.

[ 5] And even thereof doth Peter, in his epistle, give warning. Wherefore the part of Christians is to obey so great masters of the church. And if so be thou wilt say, that they made no mention of counterfeiting or coloring: I answer, that there is less naughtiness in gold, silver, and precious stone, than in false colors. Which I alone do not speak, but I have Augustine for my warrant, in his epistle to Possidius. I have also Chrysostom, in the 31st homily upon Matthew. Now, for so much as the apostles forbad that which is the less evil, we must consider, that they also removed that which is counted for the more grievous fault. [ 6] Also it is read in Deuteronomy, the 22nd chapter, that God commanded that men should not be clothed in women's apparel, nor women in men's: for because that is to hide the sex given by nature, and to show themselves to be of another sort, then God did create them. Seeing therefore this dissimulation is forbidden to be done in garments, why shall it be granted, that we may feign and alter the form and favor of our countenance? [ 7] To these things add, that Paul did forbid

Christian women to go with their heads uncovered, least in very deed by the comeliness of their long hair, they might be an occasion of offense unto men. Wherefore, seeing he forbad, that they should lay before men's eyes

the beauty of their hair, how much rather must we understand, that he forbad them to make that ostentation of beauty, whereof they be destitute by nature?

[ 8] And whereas we, by the divine Oracles, are commanded, not only to provide for our own salvation; but for other men's also, how may there be safely used any feigned colors, which be swords, poisons, and fiery flames unto young men, who are beholders thereof? Where is the observing of that commandment; Thou shalt love thy neighbors as thyself? [ 9] Paul, when he had in many words preached unto the Corinthians, touching fornication, in the end concluded; Magnify or glorify ye God in your bodies. And God is magnified in our bodies, not only through chastity, but even by the very habit or disposition of chastity. [ 10] Further than this, let us consider the manner of our creation. God at the beginning made men trimmed only in their natural attire, so as they went altogether naked: but after sin was committed, they put on coverings of leaves, whom afterward God covered, not with purple or silk, but with a most plain garment of skins. Whereby may be perceived, that superfluous ornaments did not proceed from God.

[ 11] Again, let us consider, that by false colorings, the picture of God is put away, and the picture of a harlot taken on. But Paul said; Shall I take the member of Christ, and make thereof the member of a harlot? And so we may infer; Shall I take the face, figure, and lineaments of God, and bring in the lineaments, colors, and show of an harlot? [ 12] So likewise Christ reproved the hypocrites, because they obscured their faces, and deformed their visages, to appear that they had fasted; when nevertheless the fasting, which they did feign, might in his kind be an honest and just thing. How much less can it be allowed, that these women should alter their faces; to the intent they may allure unto dishonesty? [ 13] Also in the third chapter of

Isaiah, God doth earnestly reprove the daughters of Zion, for their superfluous ornaments; and threateneth them, that they should be most grievously punished, in such sort, as all those things should be turned into their great reproach. [ 14] Lastly, it is not the part of Christians to glory in the flesh. But these, what do they else seek by painting of themselves, but the pleasure and glory of the flesh? I might allege very many other testimonies out of the holy scriptures; but these I take to be sufficient unto the minds that be godly, and not obstinate. Now will I bring in probable arguments, whereof least I should seem altogether to be the author, I will declare what the fathers have written touching this matter.

64. Tertullian wrote two little books, the one was of decking, the other of women's attire. And in the first he writeth, that men, by feigned colors, are allured to lust; and that a way to temptations is opened, the which should rather have been shut. Moreover, he reproveth painted women for their folly; because the more that foulness is hidden, the more it is discovered.

And when he testifieth, that God did not at the first create men, either painted, or with feigned color; he demandeth, whether they shall at the latter day rise up from the dead with these counterfeit and painted colors?

Which being a matter incredible, he adviseth them to refrain from the same; seeing such things are neither agreeable unto the resurrection, nor yet to the first creation. Were these kind of ornaments (saith he) forgotten by God, in that he gave them not at the time of creation? Certainly he might have seen these things, which ye have invented; but he gave them not, because they displeased him. Doubtless Tertullian persuadeth not, that a woman should go altogether unhandsomely trimmed, and to be uncleanly; but he teacheth, that the trimming up of women must consist in a plain and simple cleanliness. And assuredly (saith he) Christians do profess modesty and

humility: but these kind of ornaments have altogether respect unto pride.

Also he saith; that There cannot be showed any godly woman, and which hath been commended in the holy scriptures, that hath decked herself on this manner: wherefor it followeth, that the same is a vice, which cannot be defended by any good example.

And as Paul said, that There is a difference between a married woman, and a virgins: so we may say, that there is a difference between the handmaidens of Christ, and the handmaidens of the devil. The handmaidens of the devil, seeing they be unchaste, do use these paintings. Wherefore the handmaidens of Christ ought to eschew those things; that they may show themselves the more unlike unto the other. Undoubtedly, if Christian women would so color and counterfeit themselves; wherein (I beseech you) should matrons differ from harlots? For even they do chiefly set forth their own beauty with these feigning's and lies. He teacheth moreover, that it doth not suffice unto Christian chastity, that the same be assuredly kept and had; but that it is also required, that it may appear and break forth in their attire and countenance: and that the power of faith ought to be so great, as the same may break out from the heart unto the habit or countenance of the body. And he saith, that Christian women are therefore fallen into colors, and counterfeit decking's; because faith is become weak and feeble in them.

Origin, in his second Tome, and fourth homily of sundry places of the scriptures, among other things reproveth women, which have forged colors set upon them; especially alleging against them, that they paint their lively faces with dead colors: and he affirmeth, that they do these things in reproach of the Creator.

65. Cyprian also writeth of this matter in his fifth sermon De lapsis, and in his book De habitu virginum. He imitated Tertullian, from whence also

he took many things word for word: although it should appear, that he wrote upon another purpose; for he speaketh only of the holy virgins, but Tertullian spake generally; to wit, of women's attire, and of the habit of all women. This father, in reproving of this vice, brought a very elegant similitude deducted from a painter. A painter, if he shall earnestly draw any sign, and another man come after him, and add other colors and lines thereto, he perceiving this, will take it to be done in great disdain: even so (saith he) seeing God hath fashioned our bodies after his own mind, he detesteth and cannot abide counterfeit and strange colors, which are brought in by men, over and besides that which he hath done; since these things may seem to have a respect of mending his work, or rather an impugning of the same. With black powder (saith he) doest thou paint out the lineaments of thine eyes, whereas God made thee otherwise. And that which is more vehement, he addeth; Which women, if they on this wise paint themselves, cannot put on Christ: for he maketh them to be alienated from salvation, when he separateth them from the holy unction of Christ. And against those, which make a show of themselves, to have a continent and chaste mind, he writeth: And if thou knowest a drink or meat to be poisoned, and shouldest see any man endeavor to eat or drink of the same; couldest thou hold thy peace, and sin not? Nay verily, thou not only holdest thy peace; but thou drinkest unto them the poison and liquor of death, and layest it before men's eyes to be drunk. Further, there be other such like sayings in Cyprian, which for brevity sake I mind to pass over.

Ambrose, in his book De virginibus, when he reproveth this vice; saith, That through counterfeiting of the countenance, they devise how to corrupt their chastity. Also he reproveth their madness, when he addeth; While they stand in fear, how their husbands will judge of them, they bewray their own

judgment of themselves: and they, which endeavor to please others, first displease themselves. For unless they had displeased themselves, and had been desirous of something in themselves, they had not desired to better their faces with feigned colors. Afterward he added (me thinketh) a certain hyperbolical speech; since as the words sound, it is not true. For he saith, that outward adulteries; to wit, of the body, are more tolerable than adulteries of the countenance: because chastity is corrupted in this, but nature in the other. And in the sixth book he writeth; It is a painting of vice, not of comeliness; of fraud, not of simplicity; it beguileth and deceiveth.

And she that garnisheth herself on this sort, contenteth not her husband, who knoweth that the same is counterfeit, and not his wives own.

66. And Chrysostom, in his 31st homily upon Matthew, exhorteth the husband to terrify his wife from this vice; by showing unto her, after a courteous manner, that colored faces please not him, but that he is an utter enemy to them: because the property of such kind of paintings, is rather to deface the well-favoredness of women, than to beautify them. And moreover he saith; that It is a great delight, to see the face to be such a one, as God hath created it; when as on the contrary part, a visage disordered from his own nature, with red chalk and white lead, is misliked. And he showeth, that that deformity cometh by this means; namely, when the lips be died with purple, they resemble the cruel grinning of a bear; if the overbrows be made black, they will seem as if they had been rubbed against a pot in the kitchen; the cheeks whited, will show like the wall of a whited sepulcher. But if so be a man will say, that some women be so foul, as without counterfeit colors, they have no audacity to come abroad; he answereth, that in vain they do use those things; because nature beareth rule over art. And if they be foul of favor, they cannot bring to pass by painting,

but that they will be known at length what they be. Furthermore, deformity itself is void of rebuke: but counterfeited coloring, being perceived, is continually noted with infamy.

It is written in the eleventh chapter of Ecclesiasticus; Despise thou not a man in his outward appearance, neither commend thou a man in his beauty.

Wherefore a blemish or foulness of the face, is not so greatly to be abhorred. For (as he saith;) If that a fair and a foul woman were both weighed in a balance, and the discommodities weighed, as well of the one as of the other; we should not easily perceive, that the foul woman hath more discommodities than the fair woman. Moreover, if they can teach husbands to love women, which be in such wise counterfeited; they shall not allure them to themselves, but rather set them forward unto harlots, who are cunningly instructed in such arts. He writeth, that women, which paint their faces, do even as if they should sprinkle a gold image with mire and slime. Undoubtedly, the form, which is like unto God, cannot be expressed in counterfeit paintings, and outward colors: which colors assuredly are to be taken of no other thing, but of the stone called Stibium, or of white lead, or of the red painting called Purpurisse. Seeing it is not lawful to counterfeit the wares, which men buy and sell: how much less to counterfeit the visage [which God hath framed?] And if so be, that when fault is found

[with ware] after it is bought; the bargain is broken, and the seller compelled by action at law to take his ware again: no doubt, but if any man buy a virgins, meaning, if she had been no virgins, he would not have bought her; if afterward he perceive she was deflowered, the bargain is void; and an action is granted against the seller, for the taking of her again.

But do these women think to scape unpunished, for deceiving of men, who

being beguiled through counterfeit colors, think they marry beautiful women; when they take deformed wives?

67. Jerome against Heluid; writeth; This woman is painted out by a glass, and to the reproach of the Creator she endeavoreth to be fairer than she was by birth. And in his epistle to Laeta, touching the bringing up of her daughter, wherein he, reciting the history of a certain woman, that was sore stricken for anointing her daughter with painting colors, calleth them which use such things, Violators of the temple of Christ. And in his epistle to Furia, of the keeping of widowhood, he showeth; that Counterfeiting of the face with colors, is an enemy unto repentance, whereunto Christians ought to apply themselves all their life long. And he bringeth an example of the woman being a sinner, who with her tears flowing abundantly, washed the feet of the Lord, and wiped them with the hair of her head. She had them not (saith he) burnished with the stone called Stibium. Moreover, he calleth white lead, and the red painting called Purpurissa; The fires of young men, the nourishments of lusts, and the tokens of an unchaste mind.

But to Augustine I come, who purposely treated of this matter in his epistle to Possidius. He had propounded a question unto him; Whether all kind of ornaments should be forbidden unto women? He answereth, that he would not that he should have too forward a judgment, touching the ornaments of gold and of precious apparel; to wit, that he should forbid them unto all women. But he saith; To be colored with paintings, whereby a woman may appear either whiter or redder, is an adulterous and crafty deceit, whereby I doubt not, but that the husbands themselves will not be deceived. Herby we easily gather, that it is not lawful for to use such paintings, seeing they be counterfeit deceits; and not only counterfeit, but also pernicious: because they be set forth to deceive the beholders.

Moreover, it must needs be a vicious thing in a woman, that she would beguile a man. Thus much Augustine. Whereunto I add, by the judgment of Paul; that We must not only eschew evil, but also the very show of evil. But in false coloring, there is so manifest a show of evil, as it cannot be denied.

Undoubtedly, in the holy scriptures, the coloring with Stibium is never taken in good part. In the fourth chapter of Jeremiah, and in the 23rd of Ezekiel, when God bringeth the idolatry of the Jews into hatred, he useth the metaphor of whoredom, and saith; that He will bring the enemies against that people, who for their sakes had before painted their faces with Stibium; to the intent they might commit shameful whoredom with them.

Seeing therefore the scriptures bear record, that these colors are procured for whoredom sake, we must not give ear unto fond painted women, which protest, that they have a chaste heart and mind. Now that we have brought testimonies enow out of the word of God, and plenty and sufficient reasons out of the fathers; what must we then conclude? Not that every ornament should be utterly taken away from women. Let them (in God's name) endeavor to please their own husbands honestly; let them not be altogether unhandsome, and foully attired; let them wash away uncleanliness; let them cleanse away filth: but let them not be painted with white lead, with Purpurisse, with Stibium, and finally with any counterfeit colors. For that is to put on vizards, and to play the maskers, to beguile, to deceive, and also to stir up lusts. But what my judgment is concerning gold, jewels, and sumptuous garments, I did not purpose at this time to have disputed; howbeit, because they are things near agreeing together, I will briefly entreat somewhat of them. By the saying of Augustine even now alleged, it appeareth, that those ornaments are not rashly to be condemned, and utterly to be taken away. For there be diverse degrees, and sundry states of men.

There be in the world not only common people, and such as are not in honor; but there be also Emperors, Caesar's, Kings, Queens, Princes,

Lord's, and Ladies: unto whom after a sort those ornaments be necessary.

68. Howbeit, thou wilt say, that Peter and also Paul do seem to have forbidden these things: but what their meaning was, that are we to consider of. Their mind was to withdraw Christian women from vanity, pride, superfluity, and too much sumptuousness; and to lead them away from that opinion, wherein they judged these things to be the proper, true, and principal ornaments of women. So that they being adorned on this wise, thought that no other thing should be sought for: as though in these ornaments consisteth the whole sum and effect of all. Wherefore they forbid these things, not absolutely; but by way of comparison. In like manner, as when the same Paul saith; that Our striving is not against flesh and blood; denieth not, but that we must also strive against these things: but he showeth that these strivings are very small, in comparison of the powers of our adversaries, which continually assault us. And even as when Christ, in talking of John, said; that They which are clothed in soft garments, be in king's houses, took not soft and precious garments out of the world, but showed for whom they were meet. Moreover, we must consider unto whom the apostles wrote; namely, unto them of small estimation, to the common sort, to those which were obscure and abjects: seeing the church for the most part at that time consisted of such. Wherefore Paul said in the first epistle to the Corinthians; Brethren, have an eye unto your calling, not many noble men, &c. To the intent therefore that Christian women should avoid superfluity, and too much sumptuousness, and not use such ornaments for things indifferent, and think that they might use them as they list; they call them back from those things, that leaving their affection

towards them, they should seek for better: the which would be overlong now to recite. For they are easy to be found in the very writings of the apostles, and almost in the whole scripture besides. These things being on this wise ordered, we will answer the arguments brought out of the scriptures by our adversaries.

69. [ 1] First, out of the first epistle to the Corinthians, the first chapter, it was alleged; that married women do care for those things that be of the world, to the intent they may please their husbands. But this we deny not: let them have a care to please their husbands, so they do it without dissimulation and lying. And let them think of themselves, whether they would be so deceived and beguiled, as instead of a comely and well-favored man, they should marry him that were foul and deformed. [ 2] They said also, that if men should be alienated from their wives, for deformity sake, they might easily fall into adulteries. Hereunto I answer, that honest husbands, by false paintings, are rather alienated than won unto their wives.

Moreover, if they abstain not from adulteries, for the fear that they have of God, and are urged by the authority of his word; neither yet be moved by the laws of men, and terrified with grievous perils: much less will they stay for such counterfeit painting. [ 3] And whereas it was alleged out of the epistle unto Timothy, that it is lawful for women to go in comely apparel, it is not rightly expounded by our adversaries: because κόσμιον in that place is modest and honest: which the word following doth declare, for it is afterward added; In shamefastness. But in feigned colors there is no shamefastness, nay rather, there is intolerable impudency.

[ 4] Furthermore, there was a place brought out of the first to the Corinthians; that Upon those parts, which be most dishonest, put we more honesty on: whereupon it was concluded, that if any blemish be in the body,

or in the countenance, it is lawful to adorn and to color the same. First let us consider what mind the apostle had, when he wrote these things. In very deed he meant nothing else, but that the weaker sort in the church, which seem to be the unworthier and obscure members of Christ, should not be rejected and trodden under feet; but rather cherished and adorned: the similitude being drawn from hence, to wit, that it hath been so used in the outward body. And whereas the apostle speaketh of honor to be put upon those parts which are less honest; it cannot appertain unto counterfeit colors: for they are no ornaments, but rather feigned devises and deceits. I pray you moreover, what honor is there given unto the parts that be less honest? Even to cover them: for we provide that they should not be seen or open unto others. So then let them cover their face, if they think it to be foul or less decent. But they will say, that it is not the custom in all countries, that women should go with their faces covered. If this may not be, let them abide the foulness and indecency laid upon them by God. What if so be they had been born lame, or with a crooked back? Certainly they might not have amended these things; but should have suffered them. Let them therefore, which be deformed by nature, endeavor to make themselves commendable and approved for their virtue and honest conditions. Thus much for answer unto the places of the scripture alleged by them. Now must we confute their subtleties.

70. [ 1] First they say, that we offend by a false argument, A secundum quid ad simpliciter, from that which is after a sort, to that which is absolute.

For seeing there be many things found, which provoke lusts, which cannot be denied to be sin; therefore that we judge all things to be vicious, which move or stir our evil concupiscence's. [ 2] But this they affirm to be false, and bring an instance of natural beauty, which inflameth those that look

thereupon, and yet will none say that there is fault therein. To this false surmise we answer, that one and the like consideration is not to be had of beauty natural, and of that which is counterfeit. Because natural beauty cannot be accused of sin, seeing it is the work of God. Again, she that is beautiful by nature, endeavored not to obtain this gift: but they, which paint their faces, seek it as much as they can; that being not beautiful, yet at the least wise they may seem to be such, and therewithal discover their own corrupt mind, and show signs of a naughty concupiscence. [ 3]

Furthermore, they said, that we use a false syllogism of the accident, in that we judge of the action, not according to the nature thereof, but according to the accident which followeth the same; that is, by the circumstances which are about the matter, and happen thereunto. Hereunto it is said, that whereas of accidences or circumstances there be two kinds; one common, (because either for the most part, or now and then it is separated from the thing) and others so fixed and constant, as they be not dissevered: by these of this second kind, men's actions are justly and upon good cause allowed or disallowed. Even as, for that it is a thing necessarily incident unto surfeiting, to overcharge the heart; therefore it is condemned as sin.

Drunkenness also, because it taketh away the heart of man, provoketh him to lust; and otherwhile also stirreth up unto fury: therefore it is accounted sin.

This in like manner they have alleged, that sin is in things, either by a natural condition, or else by an affection of those persons, which use them: but that in counterfeit color, there is no evil by a natural condition; but that sin doth only happen, through the corrupt will of them that practice these things. Howbeit, if we should follow this as a continual and certain rule, we should defend many acts wickedly done, to be things indifferent: which

nevertheless, by the scriptures, and by the judgment of sound men, are condemned. For in adultery, if thou have respect unto the condition of nature; what else (I pray you) is there but a conjunction of man and woman? Shall we therefore say, that such a conjunction is not sin? Nay verily, it is a most grievous wickedness: because men are not there coupled with their own, but with other men's. The which condition is so annexed unto adultery, as without the same, it cannot be committed. Theft also, if thou look upon the natural action, is to carry away a thing from place to place, and to translate it from someone person unto another. But in these actions, theft is not committed; unless the goods belong to another man, and be taken away against the will of the owner. Wherefore the circumstances, or fixed accidents are of so great importance, as in them that which is done, is judged to be sin: yea and in them it resteth oftentimes, that the form of sin is changed. For if that, which belongeth to another man, be taken away from the owner, against his will, theft is committed; but if thou take away a holy thing, or remove it from a holy place; now it is not theft, but sacrilege.

71. [ 4] Moreover, they took it as granted, that a thing, whether it proceed of nature, or of art, is all of one sort: and therefore, when there is both a natural beauty given, and an artificial, seeing the one cannot be reproved as a sin, neither ought the other to be disallowed. And that the things natural and artificial have one and the self-same respect: hereby they prove, because the health, which is natural, and that which physicians restore by their art, be both of one condition and property. But in arguing in that sort they are deceived: for it is not true, that things natural and artificial are both of one condition. And the similitude brought doth prove nothing: for the health, which is restored by physicians, is not artificial, but natural. It is nature itself that bringeth forth the same, being aided by medicines and

physic. Wherefore the physician is called the minister of nature. And if so be that nature do so faint, and be utterly destitute of strength, the physician can bring nothing to pass. But because I will not seem to cavil, admit we them to be of one condition, then will I ask; Because natural beauty doth provoke unto lusts, therefore must we study to do it more vehemently by painting and coloring? Further, it is not true, that semblable effects are brought forth in them both: for natural temperature maketh true beauty; but counterfeit colors and painting do make it dissembled, feigned, and counterfeit.

[ 5] They contended, that the true cause ought to be distinguished and separated from the occasion. This will we easily grant, denying nevertheless that, which they affirm; to wit, that we should not judge of the actions, according to the occasions. For although it so happen sometime, yet is it not always true; forsomuch as occasions have a great force, and (according to their difference) many things are allowed, and also dispraised. So great respect had God unto occasions, as for them he made many laws.

Wherefore would he have his people of Israel to meet together all in one place, to sacrifice and to worship? Assuredly, even because there should be no occasion given of schism in religion, if men had assembled together in diverse places at their own pleasure. For in sundry places, every man would have served God after his own mind, and not by the prescript law of God.

Neither did he, for any other cause, permit a divorcement; but to take away the occasion from cruel husbands, of murdering their wives. He also forbad matrimony with idolaters and strangers, for fear of corrupting sound religion.

72. Hereby we may easily see, what account God made of occasions. And it appeareth not to be true, which these men suppose, that we must not

judge of men's actions according to the occasions. Also, how we are to esteem of occasions, the Roman laws do teach. For in the book of the Digests, in the title Si quadrupes pauperiem fecisse dicatur, it is decreed; that The owner of the four-footed beast shall either deliver the same beast that hath done the hurt, or else pay the value of the harm. And in the title Ad legem Aquiliam, many punishments are provided against occasions, and against those things, which are done by chance. If a master shall be overcruel to his scholar, so as afterward he put him in peril of his life, he is in the danger of that law; although his mind was to teach, and not to hurt or wound. Also the physician standeth in danger, if he cut not a servant as he ought to do; when as there is no doubt made touching his will in the doing of it. Likewise, that man, which shall take mules to be handled and governed, and afterward, either for his unskillfulness, or for his weakness is not able to restrain their violence, whereby there is harm done, he is punished; when as yet his weakness and want of skill doth after a sort lighten his offense. But the laws have a consideration, that he, knowing his own infirmity and want of skill, should not have taken that charge upon him. And they that in throwing darts, or shooting of arrows in game, happen to kill a servant passing by the high way, they be in danger of the law

Aquilia. Also they, which make pitfalls for to take wild harts or bears, if men or cattle fall therein by chance, those men be punished. In like manner, if he that is appointed to be the keeper of a burning furnace, fall asleep, and the fire breaking out setteth all on fire, he is punished; though he were the occasion, not the cause of the burning. Hereby it appeareth, that even the occasions of harms are judged to be offenses. Wherefore it is a common saying, that He that giveth the cause, seemeth to have done the harm.

But our adversaries will say; We reason not of the cause, but of the occasion. But (I beseech you) let these men tell me, what is occasion. The same undoubtedly is a cause also, although not so full and perfect. For, even as an offense is of two sorts (given I mean and taken) even so we say, that occasions is of two sorts; namely, taken and given. It shall be called an occasion taken, in respect that when a man endeavoreth to do well, and (according to the precept of the law) others take occasion of defaming and slandering his good purposes: in this case he that doth well, is not to be accused of sin; neither must he leave off from his good enterprise, because of them which speak evil. But he is said to give an occasion, which by doing of evil, or by not abstaining from such things as he might; either by his example, or by some other means, doth stir up some man to sin.

Besides, in this degree are women that paint themselves to be reckoned; because they offend, and give offense by their dishonest doing; and by not desisting from that, from which they might easily temper themselves. For whereas it is not unknown unto them, that many of the beholders be inflamed and perish, through their counterfeit colors, yet will they not refrain from them; specially, seeing that in those things a small fault, yea sometimes no fault almost at all is condemned. Even as there is no doubt, but that a master, which seeth his servant strike or kill another, is in danger of the law Aquilia: as saith Ulpianus in Lege Aquilia, in the Digests, in the same title. For that the knowledge and sight is taken for the suffering, since he did not forbid it, when he might; as Paul the lawyer showeth, in the law following, in the Digests, in the same title. Therefore it is not true, that these men affirm; that we should never judge by occasions, seeing they ought to avoid all things, which may give occasion and offense: as I have declared.

73. [ 6] They said moreover, that in following of our opinion, it might not be lawful to make show either of gold or of jewels; least the beholders thereof should fall into naughty desires, and should wish them to be theirs; although it were by wrong means. Hereunto we answer, that there is great difference between counterfeit colors, and natural beauty; such as is in gold, silver, and precious stones, which sometimes are necessary to be showed forth to the eye: as in the crown of a king, in principal banquets, and upon certain other causes. [ 7] Further, it was objected, that if the matter should be thus, it might never be lawful for a woman, endued with natural beauty, to step out of her house; least she should give an occasion of naughty desires. Hereunto we answer, that it should be very well done of fair maidens, and comely matrons, to keep at home, so much as is possible.

Whereupon the snail, among the Ethnics, was an honest matrons cognizance; because that creature doth continually hide itself in his shell.

And Paul reproveth the widows, which wander from house to house. Let them remember the ill hap of Dinah, which gadded abroad to be acquainted with the manners and qualities of strange women. Solomon also saith; that The unchaste woman is a wanderer up and down, but the honest woman settleth herself at home.

But thou wilt say, that she must sometimes go abroad unto godly sermons, to comfort the afflicted, and them that be sick; specially if they be of her kindred. I grant that these be necessary duties; in the doing whereof, let women so wisely behave themselves, as they brag not of their beauty, but let them rather modestly dissemble it: that if there happen any evil afterward, they may be excused, because they gave not their endeavor to any lewd or forbidden thing. Lastly, it was objected, that these things be the creatures of God; and therefore indifferent: whereupon it was concluded,

that we may use them. But we reply, that we may use them rightly; but not abuse them. If this were a strong argument, gluttons and drunkards should be excused. For they would say, that bread, and other victuals, and also wine, be the works of God; and therefore we take our pleasure of them.

Also the workers of idols would pretend, that the marble stone, ivory, gold, silver, and wood, are the creatures of God; and hereby would say, that it should be lawful for them to use them at their own pleasure. Paul said; All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient. For whatsoever we do, it ought to be a furtherance unto the glory of God's name, and to the edifying of our neighbors. Let these things suffice for answer, unto the arguments and sophistical reasons of our adversaries.

↑ Back to top