28. The tenth Chapter. The seuenth precept; Thou shalt not commit ad

The tenth Chapter. The seuenth precept; Thou shalt not commit adulterie: and first of Matrimonie, and hauing of concubines.

MAtrimonie, wedlocke, ¹ marriages, and wedding, doo signifie all one thing, and matrimonie (as it is in the first booke of the institutes of Iustinian, when mention is made of the power of the father, & in the Digests, ² De ritu nuptiarum ) is defined to be a coniunction of man and woman, an inseparable conuersation of life, and a communicating of the lawe of God and man. But this definition must be made perfect by the holie scriptures. Wherefore we must saie, that this coniunction of man and woman, was instituted by God, for the increasing of children, for the taking awaie of whoredome, and that thereby the life of man might haue helpes and commodities. In this definition, no doubt but the coniunction of man and woman are in stéed of the matter. Vnto the forme apperteineth the inseparable conuersation of life; séeing with this mind and purpose man and wife must marrie togither. For although that copulation be separated by adulterie; yet, when the matrimonie is contract, both man and wife ought to haue this in their mind: that being once ioined, they must abide and liue togither. This also belongeth vnto the forme, that betwéene them two there be a communicating of the lawe of God, and of the lawe of man; sith it behooueth that they should he both of one religion, and that they communicate humane things one with an other. For the wife passeth into the familie of hir husband, and is accounted one flesh with hir husband. Yea and the goods of both the wedded persons, in all respects, be made common to the one & the other. Howbeit, the efficient cause of this ordinance was God himselfe, euen from the beginning, who made a helper vnto Adam. And the end (as we haue said) is the procreation of children: for God said; Increase and multiplie. ³ But as touching the other end; namelie, for the auoiding of whordome, ⁴ Paule hath verie well and plainelie written, in the first to the Corinthians.

If thou wilt demand, whether bonds or writings are required for contracting of matrimonie, we may answer, They be not required: bicause the consent of either parties is sufficient, as may be perceiued in the Authentiks, and in the Code, where it is intreated of marriages. But that, ⁵ which Ierom writeth vnto Oceanus, that thereby a wife is discerned from a concubine; bicause a wife must haue bonds, and a dowrie (which concubins had not) this I saie is not vniuersallie to be receiued; for his saieng is to be extended vnto that wife, which before was a concubine. As touching hir it was néedfull to haue bonds, that she might no more be counted a concubine, and that the children, which she alredie had, or afterward should haue, might be legitimate. But a dowrie is not required of necessitie; bicause (as it is a common saieng) a dowrie hath not place without matrimonie: but matrimonie may consist without a dowrie. For a dowrie is giuen for the easier susteining of the burthen of matrimonie. The canons haue added, and that profitablie, that matrimonies should not be contracted priuilie. ⁶ For if the assent of the man and wife be secret, and without witnesses, iudges can pronounce nothing of such a matrimonie contracted. Wherefore, if their wils should be changed, and after those secret matrimonies, they shuld contract solemne and publike marriages; the first marriages giue place vnto them, and the conscience is kept both doubtfull, and also wounded.

⁷ 2 But to speake of hauing of concubines, two things are to be considered; first, what the Romane lawes ordeined concerning the same; secondlie, in what sort it was vsed among the Hebrues, or what is to be vnderstood, when we read that the fathers had concubins. As concerning the first, the hauing of concubins was by the ciuill lawe a certeine kind of matrimonie: for a concubine was not a harlot prostituted vnto manie men; nor yet a harlot, which was kept togither with a lawfull wife. And how much she differeth from a wife, it shall appéere by the definition of a concubine. ⁸ For a concubine is she, that hath the vse of marriage with one that liueth sole. But for that she is not vnseparable (insomuch as they that are so ioined may easilie be separated) therefore a concubine differeth far from a verie wife. Moreouer, the rites of the lawe are not communicated with hir: for a concubine passeth not into the familie of him, with whom she is conuersant; yea and their goods and faculties are not common togither. Neither are the children, borne of that coniunction, counted lawfull and iust heires; vnlesse they be made legitimate by the benefit of the prince. Howbeit, it is by the Romane lawe forbidden that a man should haue manie concubins at once. And it is prohibited to haue a concubine, togither with a wife. Moreouer, by the Romane lawes, such cannot be counted as concubins, with whom rape may be committed; namelie, a frée borne virgine; and a widowe vnder 25. yéeres of age. For if a man haue carnall companie with them, either it shall be matrimonie, or else iudged whoordome. Yet neuerthelesse, a widowe may be a concubine, if before witnesses it be declared, that she is taken, not for a wife, but for a concubine. And lastlie, there can be no concubine, which may not become a wife: although not in that place where she dwelleth, yet at the leastwise in another place. Which I therefore saie: bicause by the Romane lawe, it was not lawfull for the president to marrie a wife of that prouince where he gouerned: which neuerthelesse he might haue as a concubine.

And if thou wilt demand, ⁹ whether the Romane lawe allowed concubines? I will answer, that they did absolutelie allow of them, bicause they did not condemne the hauing of concubins, as a thing vnlawfull; so that it were vsed in such sort as I haue said. Yet indirectlie it reprooueth that coniunction, when as it suffereth not the children borne of concubins, to be lawfull and iust heires, vnlesse she at the length of a concubine should become his wife; or vnlesse it be by the authoritie of the prince. Howbeit, we must vnderstand, that the children of a concubine were admitted vnto a certeine small portion of inheritance; but yet, not to a like and equall portion with the legitimate: yea and the children borne of a concubine, were not in the iurisdiction of the father. But when of a concubine she was made a wife, then it was necessarie, that there should be tables of matrimonie. If we will reteine the Romane lawe, a handmaiden cannot be made a concubine; séeing by that lawe a handmaiden could not be made a wife. For the coniunction of a frée man with a handmaiden, the Romane lawes called Contubernium, a kind of fellowship: neither did they account it for a iust matrimonie. Howbeit, by handmaidens the Romans vnderstood not hired seruants, but such as they had bought. Which I therfore speake, bicause our hired handmaidens be frée persons: so as it is lawfull to contract iust matrimonie with them.

3 But now let vs consider the lawe of the Hebrues, ¹⁰ and what is to be thought of the concubins of the fathers. In verie déed they were wiues, although oftentimes they were handmaidens: as Agar, Bala, Zilpa, and the concubins of Gedeon. In the plea of court, and as touching the ciuill affaires of the places, in the which those fathers dwelt, it séemeth that frée men might not enter matrimonie with them: and therfore perhaps in the holie scriptures they were called concubins. But yet before GOD, that is, by the lawe of matrimonie instituted by him, they were wiues. Wherefore in the booke of Genesis, ¹¹ Agar, which is called a concubine, is called a wife also. So then there were two differences betwéene the Hebrue lawes, and the Romane lawes; bicause with them, the hauing of concubines was no matrimonie, but with the Iewes it was matrimonie before God: although perhaps in the court of plea, and in ciuill reason, bicause of the seruile condition of the woman, she was not acknowledged for a wife. Further, héerein they differ; bicause the Iewes had handmaidens to their concubines: and the same was not lawfull to the Romans, if we followe that lawe, that she should be a concubine, which may be made a wife; séeing the Romane lawes counted not that for matrimonie, which was contracted with a handmaiden.

Neuerthelesse, this ciuill lawe was not in Ieroms time reteined in the empire of Rome; either bicause the ecclesiasticall lawes had mitigated it, ¹² or else for some other cause. For in an epistle vnto Oceanus, he speaketh of certeine, which had their handmaidens in stéed of wiues, and forbare the name of a wife, bicause they would auoid burthens and charges: who notwithstanding, if they became rich, made their handmaidens wiues. But we must further consider, that where concubines séeme to be allowed and permitted in the decrées, the same should be vnderstood of those, which are in verie déed wiues: although by the Romane lawes, and in place of pleading, they were counted concubines; bicause that woman was not solemnelie married, notwithstanding that there was betwéene them a mutuall consent of matrimonie. This, which I haue alledged, is read in the 34. distinction, in the chapter Is qui & Christiano. Whereof the first is the decrée of the Councell of Toledo: the other is the testimonie of Isidorus, in his book De distantia noui & veteris testamenti. But when in the decrées there is mention made of concubins, ¹³ which in verie déed are not wiues; they are generallie prohibited: and that is, when either partie will not alwaie dwell togither, nor yet acknowledge one an other as man and wife.

Of Polygamie, or the hauing of more wiues than one.

¹⁴ 4 Héere haue I matter somewhat hard to be explaned touching polygamie. This place commeth oftentimes to hand in the holie scriptures; therefore it shalbe verie well once to vnderstand what we are to iudge of the same. I vndoubtedlie will declare (as in a matter obscure) what may séeme good vnto me; not prescribing anie thing in the meane time to anie man, that can alledge anie better. ¹⁵ Polygamie is two maner of waies to be considered of. The first is, that when the first wife is dead, a second or a third is married: as touching this, bicause there is at this daie no doubt, I will saie nothing. The other is, when two, or more wiues be kept in matrimonie. But whether it be lawfull for one woman to haue two husbands at once, I thinke it néedlesse to inquire: for certeine it is, that it was neuer lawfull by anie good laws. This matter may be considered, either simplie and absolutelie, or else according to the nature of the time and place. ¹⁶ First therefore we will inquire, whether polygamie may be simplie and absolutelie prooued. Secondlie, by what right the same was vsed among the fathers in the old lawe of Moses. Lastlie, whether the same libertie may be also transferred vnto vs.

¹⁷ 5 As concerning the first, there séeme to be arguments strong enough for the proofe of either part. First I will bring foorth their arguments, which would haue polygamie to be lawfull. Secondlie, I will shew what may be said on the other part. After that, I will confute the former arguments. First therefore they saie, that they haue examples, not of the common sort of men, but of the most holie men, Abraham, Iacob, Helcana, and Dauid: them (saie they) we followe in other things; and whie should it not be lawfull in this matter also? Further, if they sinned héerin, it is not likelie that God would haue dissembled that sinne: ¹⁸ for he sent Nathan vnto Dauid, to reprehend him of adulterie; and Gad, that should blame him for numbering the people. And other offenses of the people were euer reprooued by the prophets. Moreouer it is not read, that the fathers did repent for such kind of polygamie: wherefore, if it were a sinne, they died without repentance. Besides this, when Nathan reprooued Dauid, he thus vsed his spéech to him, vnder the person of God; ¹⁹ I haue annointed thee king, and giuen thee the house of thy lord, & the wiues of thy lord, into thy bosome. He ment Egla and Rispha, the wiues of Saule; and more were promised him, if these might not séeme sufficient. Besides this, ²⁰ when God in Exodus gaue expresse warning of a goring oxe, of a tooth smitten out, & of euerie small matter, he neuer forbad polygamie; naie contrariwise, by supposition it may be perceiued, that he did permit polygamie. For in the 21. chapter of Deutero. he made this lawe; If anie man haue two wiues, ²¹ the one that he loueth, the other that he hateth, let him not preferre the sonne of the beloued, before the sonne of hir that he hateth. Howbeit, this place prooueth not greatlie; for it might be, that the one wife was diuorsed.

Furthermore, if a man die without children, God commandeth, ²² that the brother of him shuld marrie his wife: neither is there anie exception added; namelie, that vnlesse the same brother haue his owne wife before. Wherefore, God not onelie permitteth, but also commandeth, that there should be polygamie. If polygamie were permitted, so often diuorcements would not be vsed: for husbands doo therefore refuse their first wiues, bicause they may marrie others. Also, the fruitfulnesse, which is chéeflie regarded in matrimonie, would be greater by manie wiues, than by one. And by this reason the Turks at this daie doo defend polygamie; bicause they haue a singular respect vnto propagation and issue of children. Againe, what account shall we make of those ancient patriarchs, vnto whom the Iewes haue alwaies attributed so much? Surelie, vnlesse we accept of polygamie, they were begotten either in whoordome, or in adulterie; sith lawfull matrimonie it cannot appéere to be. And by that meanes should the fathers and authors of the stocke and name of the Iewes be bastards. Where shall then become that nobilitie so often bosted of? For onelie Rachel was the lawfull wife of Iacob; and of hir onelie two were brought foorth, Ioseph and Beniamin. And of Ioseph were Ephraim and Manasses borne. For indéed Lea was a wife, but yet a supposed wife; that is, a concubine: or rather a harlot than a wife. Wherfore, all the other patriarchs were bastards.

Besides this, Valentinian the elder, a godlie emperour, and a christian, had two wiues togither, as Socrates affirmeth in his fourth booke. For when as Seuera his wife had verie much commended vnto him the fauour and beautie of the yoong maid Iustina, whom she had in hir traine: the emperour therewith inflamed, was wholie determined to take hir to wife. Yet did he not put awaie Seuera from him, séeing of hir he begat Gratianus, which afterward did reigne. Howbeit, none of the fathers, which liued in that time (although they were franke of spéech, and excellent men) reprehend him for so dooing. Yea, and of this second matrimonie was Valentinian the second borne; and Galla, who afterward married Theodosius the emperour. And this also is affirmed by some, touching Charles the great; although others write, that he put awaie the daughter of Desiderius, king of the Lombards, without publication of the cause; and that after the same he tooke to wife a maiden of Sueuia a damsell of a noble house. Howsoeuer the matter be, yet all men grant, that he, besides his wiues, had foure concubins. Chrysostome vpon that place of Paule (The husband of one wife) saith, ²³ that Paule added this for their sakes, which came from Iudaisme vnto Christ. For to them it was lawfull to haue manie wiues. Yet (saith he) Paule gaue warning that a bishop should not be chosen from among the number of such. And Ierom likewise followed the same opinion. Wherefore, in those daies, they that had more wiues than one, were suffered among the christians.

And at this daie, if a Turke or a Iew should come vnto Christ with his two wiues, what should be doone as touching them? To plucke either the one or the other awaie, against hir will, were crueltie. But should we permit them both? Moreouer, séeing barrennesse is a cursse of God: if a man cannot by his first wife haue issue, shall he so remaine curssed, or not rather marrie another? ²⁴ Augustine, in his 22. booke against Faustus the Manichei, when as he dealt in this matter, he so diuided sinne, ²⁵ as he said one is against nature, another against custome, and another against lawe. He saith that polygamie is not against nature, for it is a furtherance vnto fruitfulnesse; neither against custome, bicause it was now openlie receiued; neither against the lawe, séeing there was no caution made by the lawes concerning the same: wherfore he concludeth, that polygamie was lawfull. The lawe also of marrieng another wife was granted, if anie mans wife became a lepre. Likewise, there is licence granted vnto those wiues, whose husbands are wandered into far countries, or be fled, touching whom it cannot be knowne or heard, either by letters, or yet by messengers, for a certeine space of time what was become of them. And yet the bond of matrimonie rested in both: for if the first husband that was far absent returne home, he is compelled to take his owne wife, although she be married to another. And after this sort polygamie is permitted. Howbeit, this dooth not much make for the matter; séeing we speake here of those, which vse two wiues both togither.

Furthermore, if a woman for anie cause shall be refused by hir husband, the bond of matrimonie remaineth vndissolued: but she can not returne to hir husband, from whom she is compelled to depart; for she is now become prophane vnto him, yet may she be married to another. In this sort a wife may haue two husbands. Men are woont to refer the originall of polygamie vnto Lamech: but touching him, ²⁶ whatsoeuer others doo thinke, Chrysostome saith, he was a good man and a godlie. It séemeth also to agrée with reason, that whosoeuer will, may yéeld as concerning his right. Why then should not this be lawfull in matrimonie, if the wife be willing to permit it vnto hir husband, séeing by that means there is no iniurie doone vnto anie? For so Sara permitted Agar vnto Abraham: and not onelie she tooke not that fact of hir husband in ill part, but also she did of hir owne accord prouoke him thervnto. Also Caietane vpon Genesis saith; Let the godlie reader consider, that in expresse words there is no lawe written as touching polygamie.

²⁷ 6 But on the contrarie part, to speake plainlie of the thing it selfe, I saie, that polygamie is not lawfull. And to prooue this, I will reason first from the verie institution of matrimonie. For if we will knowe the forme or reason of anie thing, we must haue recourse vnto the beginnings. God at the verie beginning created not thrée or foure; but two, and by the mouth of Adam himselfe pronounced the lawe of marriage; ²⁸ This is now bone of my bones, for this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and shall cleaue to his wife, and they shalbe two in one flesh; that is, They shall be so vnited togither, as they may be one flesh. If we perceiue anie thing hath happened [otherwise] in matrimonie, the same must be reuoked to this originall forme. ²⁹ But if thou wilt saie, that the latter lawes (as the lawiers terme it) doo ouer-rule the former: I answer, that if anie things were brought in, or vsurped afterward, the same be humane inuentions; and that the first institution is the lawe of God. ^{30 31} And if thou wilt likewise contend about the time, the same is also in time the latter: for Christ, in the 19. of Matthew, and in the tenth of Marke, called home the same as it were by a kind of recouerie; Knowe ye not (saith he) that he, who from the beginning made them, said vnto them: For this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and shall cleaue to his wife, and they shalbe two in one flesh? Whom God therefore hath ioined togither, let not man separate. By these words the former lawe of God is repeated, and newlie established.

And if so be that Christ would not suffer, that the first wife, being put awaie, an other should be married; how lesse credible is it, that he would suffer anie man to haue manie wiues at one time? Naie rather, he speaketh more sharplie, that He, which marrieth an other, committeth adulterie. Neither is the matter, which some here obiect, of anie great force, that Marke saith; He committeth adulterie against hir: ³² as though he were not an absolute adulterer, but onelie that he dooth iniurie to his first wife. Yes trulie, he committeth double sinne; first, bicause he is an adulterer; secondlie, for that he dooth iniurie to his wife. Ierom in manie places dooth ponder these words; ³³ They shall be two in one flesh. Against Iouinian he saith; It is written, In one flesh, not in two or thrée. And he addeth, that Lamech was a naughtie man, which diuided one rib into two: but (saith he) he suffered the punishment of his naughtinesse in the flood. The same thing he saith in an epistle vnto Saluina. Although I must néeds grant this, that these reasons prooue not Ieroms purpose: for vnto Saluina and Geruntia, he inueiheth against second marriages. Into the which error Tertullian also fell, when as he erred with the Montanists. Neuerthelesse, these reasons doo verie well serue vs in this place.

But Ierom addeth; And he shall cleaue vnto his wife: Not, vnto wiues (saith he.) I verelie, when I ponder with my selfe these words, In one flesh, I perceiue a great emphasis or force in them. For One flesh, is either by colligation, as when all the members be knit one with an other, or else by continuation. Both the waies make, that all the parts of the bodie doo serue one an other. So the hand dooth his indeuour vnto the mouth, the mouth vnto the bellie, the bellie vnto the whole bodie: as it is more at large described by Galen, De vsu partium. Such kind of flesh is not possible to be co~municated, so as it cannot passe from one liuing creature to an other liuing creature. We sée therefore, that by the force of these words, both adulterie, and polygamie are taken awaie. ³⁴ But thou wilt obiect; Whie then in a diuorse, by reason of adulterie, is it permitted to haue an other marriage? I answer: for that the cause of the vnitie is taken awaie, and that is the fastening togither. ³⁵ Wherefore it is said; And he shall cleaue vnto his wife, and they shalbe two in one flesh. But he which committeth adulterie, cleaueth not vnto his wife; and so he is not one flesh with hir. The verie same is to be iudged, if a faithfull wife, for hir faith sake, be cast off, hir husband being an infidell: for there also is their cleauing togither taken awaie; that is to wit, the cause of vnitie. Wherefore Paule saith; ³⁶ The Lord hath not called vs to bondage. Neither must it be anie let vnto vs, that the name of Two, is not expressed in Genesis: it is sufficient, that Christ hath added that word. And the same must be fullie supplied in Genesis, sith when those things were spoken, there were onelie two; Adam and Eue.

³⁷ But héere is a great doubt put: for if that reason, concerning vnitie of flesh, should be of force, it will also be of force in fornication and adulterie; so as it should not be lawfull for a lewd man to be plucked from hir, with whom he hath committed fornication. ³⁸ In so much as Paule, when he disputed against fornication, saith; ³⁹ Shall I take the member of Christ, and make it the member of an harlot? For it is written (saith he) They shall be two in one flesh. Now is that reason either firme, or not firme: if it be firme, it shall also be of force in fornication: if it be not of force, neither shall it be firme in matrimonie. Some answer, that Paule saith, that indéed the flesh of them, which commit fornication togither, is all one; yet not perpetuallie, but for a time onelie. Howbeit this is nothing: for Paule citeth the same place out of Genesis. Neither dooth he speake of one houre, or another, but absolutelie.

It séemeth that a better answer may be made on this wise; that so far as belongeth to the nature of the thing it selfe, the flesh is altogither one: but séeing that whooremongers come not togither according to the Lords institution, that coniunction is not firme, but may be dissolued. Indéed they are made one and the same flesh, as concerning the fact (as they vse to saie;) howbeit, by stealth, not lawfullie. But in matrimonie both are good: as well the coniunction, as the prescript of the Lord. That did Paule laie hold of, bicause he sawe it made to the purpose: for this hath whooredome common with matrimonie. Which hereby appéereth, for that through such a conuersation with harlots, there ariseth an affinitie: so as it may not be lawfull afterward to contract matrimonie with the parents, or children, or brethren of such a one, as thou hast before vnlawfullie kept companie with. This is euident by the scriptures: ⁴⁰ for when Absolom had kept vnlawfull companie with the wiues of his father; Dauid, when he was afterward restored, would not receiue them vnto him, bicause he did perceiue, that by reason of that ill companie, there was now some affinitie contracted. Howbeit, no lawe is by that meanes procured, whereby the whooremonger may compell the harlot to remaine with him.

⁴¹ 7 Paule vnto the Corinthians writeth verie well of this matter. For first he saith; ⁴² Let euerie man, for auoiding fornication, haue his owne wife; and euerie woman haue hir owne husband. But, Hir owne, is contrarie vnto Him that is common to another. Againe, if the husband haue manie wiues, the wife of necessitie must haue a husband common to others, and not proper to hir selfe. The Logicians haue verie well defined that to be proper, which alwaies and onlie agréeth vnto one alone. Paule addeth; ⁴³ I would not haue you to defraud one another. But in polygamie, one or other must of necessitie be defrauded: for the husband cannot kéepe companie with them all at once. Wherefore Iacob was constreined so to decide the matter, as he by turnes was sometime with Rachel, ⁴⁴ and sometime with Lea: séeing hereof there arise perpetuall contentions and bralles betwixt women. For we sée no liuing creature that is so void of courage, but both in féeding and propagation, would be frée from impediment: and had rather fight, than to be kept from these things.

And in the state of polygamie, although women come not to the field, yet they be at war togither, somtime with chiding and bralling, and oftentimes with their fists and nailes. He that marrieth a wife, giueth his bodie vnto his wife: how can he then deliuer the same afterward to another? It is a great iniustice, when one will not abide by his promise. Neuerthelesse, thou wilt saie; He deliuereth his bodie indéed, yet not altogither. I heare thée: but why then will he haue his wife to giue hir bodie altogither vnto him? In contracts, consideration must be had to both alike. Besides this, the principall point of matrimonie is fréendship; and fréendship dooth chéeflie consist in iustice: if iustice halt, matrimonie must néeds be lame. Paule addeth; that ⁴⁵ The husband hath not power of his owne bodie, but the wife; nor the wife of hir owne bodie, but the husband. Wherefore, the husband cannot marrie a second wife, without iniurie doone vnto the first. He affirmeth also, that the troubles in matrimonie are verie great: ⁴⁶ For such shall haue tribulation of the flesh. And it is not the part of a wise man, to increase his owne troubles, where no néed is: for there be verie few, which be able well to susteine one such kind of crosse as this is.

⁴⁷ 8 Another reason is deriued from the signification or sacrament. Paule saith vnto the Ephesians; ⁴⁸ Husbands loue your wiues, as Christ hath loued his church, &c. And; They shall be two in one flesh. Great (saith he) is this sacrament or mysterie in Christ, I saie, and his church. But Christ hath one onelie church; wherefore, if our actions ought to be correspondent vnto the originall forme, it shall not be lawfull for vs to marrie more wiues than one. This reason Ierom vsed against Iouinian: in which place he earnestlie inueiheth against Lamech, who (as he saith) diuided one rib into two. And so he affirmeth, that the heretiks diuide the church into sundrie conuenticles. This dooth not much trouble me, séeing this reason might serue for polygamie. For Salomon ⁴⁹ had seuen hundred Quéenes, and thrée hundred concubins. And in the Canticles it is read, ⁵⁰ that he had thrée score Quéenes, and foure score concubins: howbeit, one of them was his dooue, one was his perfect one. That dooth Augustine in his treatise De bono coniugali, the 18. chapter, thus interpret; that Christ of all his particular churches, throughout the world, hath collected one church vnto himselfe. I passe ouer, how others doo interpret Rachel to be the church; and Lea the synagog. In verie déed, there was one onelie dooue, that is to saie, one perfect church.

The Schoole-diuines saie, that thrée things speciallie are requisite in matrimonie; fruitfulnesse; dwelling togither, that the man and woman may one helpe another; and the sacrament (as they terme it) that is, the signification. That first good thing touching fruitfulnesse, polygamie nothing hindereth: naie rather, it is an increase to the same. Yet that they can dwell togither in that state, and the husband helpe all his wiues alike, it can hardlie be. In matrimonie there must be a singular charitie. But, both reason it selfe, and Aristotle in the eight booke of his Ethiks, doo teach, that speciall fréendship cannot abide among manie: for among the more in number that fréendship is spred, the slacker it must be toward euerie one in particular. There ought also to be a singular vnitie in wedlocke: for They be two in one flesh. And Paule saith; ⁵¹ Bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. But no one man can be one and the same towards manie. Further, in polygamie, all the rest are oftentimes contemned in comparison of one, and they are counted in the place of handmaids, and that same one dooth beare rule, and command the rest. Neither dooth malice there staie it selfe: sith oftentimes, for that one womans sake, the residue are miserablie afflicted. And this appéereth out of the second chapter of Malachie: ⁵² for there the wiues that were waxed old, when they were despised and wronged by their husbands, by reason they had married other wiues, came into the court of the temple, and complained vnto the Lord. And héerein the husbands committed double sinne, both in that they married others wiues, and bicause they afflicted their former wiues.

It séemeth also, that the hauing of manie wiues, maketh against good manners: sith enimities are not onelie sproong vp among their wiues, but also are bred and increased among their children. For Agar, ⁵³ when she sawe hir selfe to haue conceiued, she despised hir mistres, then she fled; afterward, when she was returned, and could not agrée with Sara, Abraham was constrained to cast hir foorth. ⁵⁴ Touching Iacob, the historie is well knowne. Of Helcan and his wiues, we haue spoken in our Commentaries vpon the first booke of Samuel. ⁵⁵ Epiphanius against the Massalians saith; that The ancient fathers, when they had manie wiues, neuer susteined them togither in one house. ⁵⁶ Whence he tooke that, I knowe not: yet from thence I suppose he had the same; for that Laban, when he pursued Iacob, and sought his idols, it is written, that he first entered into the tent of Rachel, afterward of Lea: whereby it appeareth that they dwelt asunder.

Salomon, although he gaue no good counsell to himselfe, yet by th’inspiration of the holie Ghost he gaue good warning to others. For in the Prouerbs he saith; ⁵⁷ Delight thy selfe with the wife of thy youth, let hir be thy hynd, let hir be thy fawne, satisfie thy selfe alwaies with hir paps. But this cannot he doo, which hath manie wiues. And not onelie Salomon did sée this, but Laban also. For he, although he had forced Iacob to take the two sisters: yet when he ouertooke him flieng into Gilead, and had made a couenant with him, he added this; ⁵⁸ Molest not my daughters, nor yet bring in other wiues vnto them. For this he sawe could not be doone, but that those should be greatlie disquieted. Lamech had two wiues, ⁵⁹ Ada and Sela: and Sela signifieth in Latine, Vmbra eius, that is, His shadowe. For she séemed rather to be the shadowe of a wife, than a wife indéed.

9 Yea and the Comedie also teacheth, that polygamie is a great corrupting of matrimonie: sith in the Comedie Phormio, the old man Chremes, when he had a wife at Athens that was rich, and would marrie an other in Lemnos, was constrained to change his name, and to call him selfe Stilpho. Which vnlesse he had doone, perhaps that second woman of Lemnos would not haue béene married vnto him. Yea, Chremes by the Parasite Phormio is accused of polygamie, as of a gréeuous crime and offense. The Romane lawes could neuer abide, that a man should haue more wiues than one. For in the Code, concerning incests, and vnprofitable marriages, Dioclesian and Maximian decréed, that none should haue manie wiues: and who that did contrarie, should be punished. And they adde, that the same was receiued before the Praetorian edicts. In the Digests Deijs, qui notantur infamia, lawe the first, in the Paraph, at the end; They be noted of infamie, which haue two wiues togither, or be trothed to two at once. The same we find in the Code, Ad legem Iulia~, de adulterijs, in the lawe, Eum qui. ⁶⁰ The which also is the more to be maruelled at, in the Code De Iudaeis, in the law Nemo; Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius decréed, that it should not be lawfull for the Iewes, which liued vnder the Romane empire, to marrie mo. So the godlie emperors, though they did beare with manie other things in that nation, yet would they not suffer this. In the Eliberine Councell (which is also cited in the 31. question, chapter De ijs ) it is decréed, that the ministers should not blesse such kind of marriages. This place hath naughtilie and peruerselie béene wrested vnto second marriages; for the Councell speaketh plainlie of polygamie: which also the Glosser perceiued. The reason is alledged, bicause the priest ought rather to persuade them vnto repentance, than to blesse them. ⁶¹ The same is in the Extrauagant De secundis nuptijs, lawe the first. By these reasons I am mooued to thinke, that polygamie is not absolutelie lawfull. And much lesse doo I allow of them, which thinke, that marriages ought to be common. Such were the Gnostiks, the Valentinians, and the Secundians: of the which opinion some write that Plato also was.

10 Now I come to the second point. ⁶² What wilt thou then saie, shall we thinke of the fathers? Euen thus, that they may two maner of waies be defended. ⁶³ For first I saie, that God, according to the state of those times, dispensed with them, for the lawe which he had made at the beginning. Moreouer, some adde a signification. As touching the first, God could haue raised men out of the sinne of the earth; but séeing he had decréed, that mankind should be spred by procreation, polygamie was necessarie. And this reason dooth the Maister of the sentences followe. For propagation of the flesh was the increase of godlinesse: séeing GOD would, that the people, in whom true religion was planted, should continue euen vnto Christ. So then it was lawfull for them to haue manie wiues, to the intent that that people might be mo in number: ⁶⁴ neither can it appéere that they sinned, when they so did. But here sinne must be distinguished: for if, to sinne, be to straie from most perfect reason, surelie they sinned. Howbeit, if we determine that to be sinne, wherwith God is offended, and is prouoked to reuenge, they sinned not: ⁶⁵ sith God dispensed with his lawe, to the end that the people, of whom hée would be worshipped, might be of the greater number. For although among other nations, some perhaps were good men; yet the publike worshipping of God was no where else but in Iudaea. Further, there séemed to be no new thing brought in by them; for the whole East part vsed polygamie. Wherefore, God prouided, that euen that, which others vsed sinfullie, the Iewes should vse without committing sinne.

⁶⁶ But thou wilt obiect; Séeing we confesse, that herein there is some imperfection, why did God suffer it to be in his church, ⁶⁷ which ought to be most perfect? I answer, that in verie déed that church was perfect; but that was according as those times did permit: bicause as yet they killed beasts, and had grosse sacrifices. For they which so defend the fathers, are woont to saie, that the age of the whole world must be so considered of, as the age of one man, in whom is childhood, youth, mans state, and old age. And there be manie things lawfull to children, which would not become an elder age. Augustine noteth, that to weare garments with sléeues, and downe to the ground, among the ancients was a token of nicenesse: but now (saith he) it would be noted, if one should vse a short garment, and without sléeues. Howbeit, thou wilt saie, that those fathers were most perfect, as Abraham and Iacob, as Dauid and others. I grant it. Neuerthelesse, it is one thing to consider a man in himselfe; ⁶⁸ and another thing, as the time serueth. Those fathers were perfect in themselues; yet, by reason of the time they had much imperfection. For they saie, that those times were full of darknesse, if they should be compared with our light. Indéed the Iewes of that time, being compared with the Gentils, were in a maner the light of the whole world: but they were nothing in comparison of our state, after that the holie Ghost was giuen, and the Gospell spred abroad. And there be manie things well doone in the darke, which would not be abidden in the light.

11 Neuerthelesse, thou wilt yet inquire, ⁶⁹ by what scriptures it may be shewed, that God did dispense with his lawe. I answer, that the same may sufficientlie appéere, by the examples of Abraham, Iacob, Dauid, Helcana, and other godlie fathers. But those (thou wilt saie) might erre; and that their fact is not sufficient to confirme the consciences of others. Yes verelie, it ought to séeme sufficient vnto vs, for that we perceiue not, that anie where, they were reprooued by the prophets for this cause. Moreouer, God, when he made the lawe, if anie thing were before doone amisse by the fathers, he amended it. For before that time it was lawfull for Iacob to haue two sisters in wedlocke. But this did God forbid by the lawe, ⁷⁰ and distinguished the degrées: yet did he not reuoke polygamie, although the place may séeme most of all to require it. And this the rather also he alloweth, in that God saith, ⁷¹ that he gaue the wiues of Saule vnto Dauid into his bosome. Wherefore, the fathers sinned not in that matter; for they did it without lust: which we doubt not but manie did. And they kept the faith of wedlocke verie religiouslie: for they had accesse vnto none, but vnto their owne wiues. And by this meanes the issue was prouided for. Howbeit, thou wilt obiect, that if the lawe of God were dispensed with, in consideration of bringing foorth children, the same should chéeflie haue béene doone vnto Adam. Augustine De nuptijs & concupiscentijs, ⁷² the first booke, and ninth chapter answereth, that God would set foorth in Adam the forme of perfect matrimonie. Moreouer, he addeth, that at that time there was no idolatrie: but afterward, when idolaters were increased, it was necessarie that the godlie should also increase; and for that cause God dispensed with his lawe.

Yea (thou wilt saie) but it is the peruersenesse of nature, ⁷³ and therefore not to be ascribed vnto God. Philip Melancthon (whom I name for honour sake) in his Epitome of the Ethiks distinguisheth naturall honestie, and saith, that one is eternall; to wit, that God must be worshipped: that thou oughtest to doo to others, as thou wouldest be doone vnto: for these things be eternall, and cannot be changed without great trouble. The other is that, which somwhat declineth from a perfection: yet not so, as anie great naughtinesse or confusion dooth followe. And of this sort he reckoneth polygamie, which (he saith) God did allow among the Israelites. Euen so was it, for a man to marie the wife of his brother: which for that time God not onelie allowed, but also commanded. Some of the fathers adde, that God did dispense with his lawe, not onelie for propagation sake; but also, that he might by some meanes shadowe that, which should afterward come to passe. ⁷⁴ Ambrose in his first booke, and fourth chapter of Abraham the patriarch, bicause he first had a child by Agar, and afterward by Sara, saith, that therein laie hidden a great mysterie. The verie which thing Ierom also said to Geruntia; to wit, that Sara represented the church, and Agar the synagog. The same they iudge of Rachel and Lea. The same of Anna and Phenenna. Of this mind was Iustinus Martyr, in his conference that he hath with Tryphon; namelie, that it was not lawfull vnto the fathers to haue manie wiues at once, vnlesse it be to describe a mysterie.

⁷⁵ But what the fathers themselues haue held concerning the polygamie of those of old time, it may easilie appéere by their owne testimonies. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his ⟨…⟩, the fourth booke, saith; that God, in those first times did exact polygamie of them. Chrysostome saith, that God granted polygamie vnto them. Ierom to Geruntia saith, that the same was doone according to the varietie of times. Augustine De doctrina christiana, in the third booke, and 12. chapter, saith; that that fact of the fathers must not be regarded, according to the outward action, but after the maner of their lusting. Wherefore he saith, that they sinned not, if they did it onelie for issue sake; but if there were anie, that therein sought after lust, they could not be excused. Indéed Augustine in that place treated of meats: but this he added in the end as touching polygamie, and saith, that the same was blamelesse, bicause of replenishing the world with sufficient issue. The same father against Faustus the Manichei; Séeing saith he, it was then the manner, it was no sinne. And in the same booke De doctrina christiana, the 18. chapter, he saith; They might haue euen manie wiues in chastitie, and one with lust. And he addeth, that they, which had manie for an other cause, that is, for propagation sake, are to be preferred aboue them, which had but onelie one for lust sake. Ambrose of Abraham the patriarch saith, that he did nothing for fulfilling of lust; therefore he may be excused. Finallie, the same thing doth the Maister of sentences affirme, in the fourth booke, distinction 33.

⁷⁶ 12 Thus therefore may the dooings of the fathers be defended. First, bicause those most ancients vnderstood by the spirit of God, wherewith they were indued, that God did dispense with his lawe. Secondlie, bicause the posteritie followed the example of their ancestors, especiallie when they perceiued, that the dooing thereof was neither reproued any where by God, nor yet afterward by any lawe. Others there be, which thinke, that the same was sin, though not verie hainous, & that it was remitted them by reason of their faith. And they thinke, that the same sinne might be eased in them, by reason of probable ignorance: sith probable ignorance may in some part excuse sinne. ⁷⁷ For he that knoweth the will of his Lord, & doth it not, shalbe beaten with manie stripes. Perhaps in those times of darknesse, either they thought not of the lawe, or else they vnderstood it not. Moreouer, they sawe that polygamie was receiued now vsuallie ouer all the East part, so as they thought, that there was no other matter in it, than a ciuill ordinance. And whatsoeuer sinne was therein, GOD made as though he knew not, both for propagation sake, bicause he ment of that stocke to raise vp a great number of people; and also by reason of the ignorance of the same people, (for as yet they were not otherwise instructed;) & lastlie for the figure and mysterie sake. This is an other reason made by the latter men, whereby the polygamie of the fathers may be defended. Both reasons séeme vnto me probable, and so probable, as I sée there be both learned and godlie men, which sometime doo followe the one, and sometime the other.

For Philip Melancthon, ⁷⁸ (vnto whose manifold learning and godlinesse I doo attribute verie much) though in his Ethiks (which place I cited before) he saith that God allowed polygamie in the Israelits; yet in his booke De coniugio, he writeth manifestlie, that matrimonie ought to be a coniunction of one vnto one. And he saith, that God did beare with that imperfection in the fathers; bicause they, although otherwise they were perfect, yet were not without their blemishes. Howbeit, this Melancthon of the trée of consanguinitie more plainelie saith, that the same sinne procéeded of ignorance: yet he addeth, probable; bicause as yet no lawe was extant concerning the same. But what lawe he speaketh of, I doo not perceiue: for the lawe giuen to Adam went long before. Vnlesse perhaps he meane the lawe manifested by Christ; or else that Moses, which put that lawe into writing, was not yet borne: séeing before that time, it was onlie kept by tradition. Or else peraduenture he ment, that that custome was politike; and that in such ciuill ordinances, alwaies something is suffered to be amisse. Howbeit this he saith, that God pardoned their faith, bicause it was not doone against the expresse lawe. But whereas that great learned man inclined to this other reason, it was not of inconstancie; but bicause he perceiued them both to be probable. Vnlesse peraduenture he were alwaies of this mind; and that when in his Ethiks he saith, that God allowed it, he ment, that he forgaue it. The choise shall be in thée (gentle reader) which reason thou haddest rather to followe: both of them be probable; neither of them vngodlie.

⁷⁹ Indéed for my part the first liketh me best: for I sée that God altogither would that his people should be increased. Further, albeit I doubt not, but that those fathers were not void of sin; yet where they may be well defended, I would not charge them ouer-much. Yet Ambrose writeth somwhat of this matter, which I sée not how it may be allowed. ⁸⁰ For he excuseth Abraham; first, for issue sake; secondlie, for the shadowing [of things to come;] lastlie, bicause he comming out of Chaldaea, reteined some gentilisme. This latter reason is not of anie great force: for Abraham had absteined a great while, neither did he ioine Agar to himselfe of his owne accord, but was prouoked therevnto by his wife Sara. Yet dooth Ierom vnto Geruntia report the same of Iacob. He saith it is obiected, that Iacob had two wiues. Indéed (saith he) he had; but that was in Mesopotamia, and vnder Laban. But what answer will he make of Abraham? For he vndoubtedlie was not in Mesopotamia. What will he saie of Dauid? Sith he had his wiues in the middest of Iewrie.

⁸¹ 13 And as touching the third part of that we purposed to speake of; namelie, whether that libertie may be also transferred vnto vs? I answer, that it is in no wise lawfull. For now hath Christ made manifest that lawe of God, and hath called it backe to the first institution. Wherefore, he that now transgresseth the same, dooth against the plaine word of God. Moreouer, the cause being taken awaie, the effect must néeds be taken awaie. And the cause was, the increase of posteritie: wherof there is now no néed, séeing God hath now those that worship him ouer all the world. But before it behooued that the worshipping of God should be reteined among one people, vntill the comming of Christ. And it was verie profitable, that the same lawe should be expounded by Christ: ⁸² for when as Adam was the first man that had one wife, it was méet that Christ the second Adam, of whom the same first was a figure, should ordeine the marriage of one alone. But thou wilt saie, that Christ came not to make lawes, but to preach the Gospell, and to redéeme mankind, & that therefore it behooued him to leaue matrimonie in the state it was in, as well as the sunne, the stars, and other outward things.

I answer, that Christ made no new lawe, but onelie reuoked the old. For he onelie declared the will of his father, and taught nothing anew. Further he tooke awaie sacrifices, so that now he is a wicked man that will kill anie beast for sacrifice. He also brake the strength of the iudiciall lawes, so as no man, that is of sound iudgement, will vrge magistrates to execute those laws against their wils. Neither only did Christ this by himselfe, but also by his apostle Paule. ⁸³ Also he reuoked wholie that matter concerning diuorsement: so that if anie man depart from his wife, & marrie another, he committeth adulterie. But thou wilt obiect; ⁸⁴ By this meanes the forefathers may séeme to be adulterers. I answer, as I haue said before, that God dispensed with his lawe, and that therefore they sinned not: neuerthelesse, the matter being now expounded and declared, he that shall doo otherwise dooth gréeuouslie sinne. And reuoking hath a respect alwaies to the time to come, and not to that which is past; séeing such is the condition of all lawes: otherwise, as concerning the nature of the fact, the same vndoubtedlie did apperteine vnto adulterie. For the ten commandements haue the same respect to vertues and vices, as the ten predicaments haue towards all kind of things: insomuch as there is nothing, but may be reduced to some predicament or other; so there is not anie vertue nor anie vice, which may not be reduced to some precept.

Now then, if we stand vnto that second opinion, which we haue expounded, that there was some vice in polygamie; the same must néeds be adulterie. And although in plaine reason it were not sinne, as in the former opinion I declared; yet was it some reuolting from perfection. Panormitanus (in the title of diuorsements, in the chapter Gaudemus ) saith, that The forefathers, when they had giuen a bill of diuorsement, and had married another, were sufficientlie excused of adulterie: bicause adulterie cannot be committed but by collusion or by couine. And this he declareth by two lawes: the one ecclesiasticall, and the other ciuill. The ecclesiasticall is out of the Triburien Councell, as we read it in the 34. cause, question the second, in the chapter In lectum. A man had a wife, and she a sister, all in one house. When the wife was absent, that same sister went to his bed. Afterward came the husband, and thinking it had béene his wife, had the companie of hir. The Councell absolued the man, vpon condition, that he did it not fraudulentlie: but he was constreined to sweare, that he did that wicked act ignorantlie and vnwittinglie. And it is called a wicked act, not bicause it was so in verie déed, but bicause the matter perteined to wickednes. Thus the fathers are excused, bicause they married not their second wife by collusion: for they perceiued, that the same was accustomed and vsuall among all.

The other lawe ciuill, is in the Digests Ad legem Iuliam, de adulterio, in the last lawe but one. A certeine man put his wife fro~ him, but gaue hir not a iust bill of diuorsement. An other man married hir that was put awaie; he was accused of adulterie: but he was excused, bicause he knew not that there was anie thing lacking vnto a iust diuorse. This I speake, least it should séeme vnto anie man, that Christ accused the fathers, of adulterie. But if God, for propagation sake, dispensed with the forefathers, as touching his lawe; whie (wilt thou saie) may not the same be doone at this time to them which professe the Gospell; séeing, if they be compared with the Papists & Atheists, they be but few in number? Howbeit, the reason is not all alike: bicause it behooued the religion of GOD, vntill the comming of Christ, to be reteined in one nation onlie. Now the succession of godlines is not sought for out of one stocke or line, but is spread ouer the whole world.

⁸⁵ 14 To this opinion of mine doo all the fathers agrée. For Chrysostome in his 56. homilie on Matth. saith; We must not iudge of the fathers according to our owne reason; for at that time it was lawfull, now it is not lawfull. And he addeth, that Christ came, to the end he might bring vs to the state of angels. For now he granteth vs one, till we come to that place, where they are neither married, nor yet marrie wiues. The same father, in his oration De libello repudij, saith, that Christ was therefore come, to lead vs vnto a higher philosophie. The true religion he calleth philosophie, to take awaie the pride of the Graecians, who attributed so much vnto their philosophie. ⁸⁶ Ierom writeth héereof in diuers places to Geruntia, to Eustochius, and against Iouinianus. And among other things, he writeth, that Christ was Alpha & Omega, ⁸⁷ that is, The first & the last. And when the mater was now come to Omega, that is, Vnto the last, the same was reuoked by Christ to Alpha, that is, Vnto the beginning: for that it pleased God (as Paule saith to the Ephesians) to bring althings into one, ⁸⁸ & restore them in Christ; that such things, as yet were vnperfect, might be brought to perfection. Vnto Eustochius he saith; that the world before time was vnreplenished, but when the haruest was ripe, God put to his syth, that is to saie, he cut off such libertie.

The Valentinians and Martionits, by reason of this fact of the old fathers, accused the God of the old testament; but Christ (they said) the sonne of the good God, reuoked this sufferance of the euill god. Ierom answereth; We diuide not the lawe and the Gospell, neither doo we set Christ against his Father: but we worship one God, who would haue it for that time, but now hath decréed against it. For that then was the time to scatter stones abroad, now is the time to gather them vp: then was the time of imbrasing, now is the time to absteine from imbrasings. Bréefelie he saith, that the fathers serued their times. And that that saieng, ⁸⁹ Increase and multiplie, is not in the same force at this daie; for in old time, virginitie was reprochefull: that now Paule writeth; The time is but short, ⁹⁰ and therefore they which haue wiues, let them be as though they had none. And he addeth, that Christ dooth allow of them, ⁹¹ which haue made themselues chast for the kingdome of heauens sake. Also Augustine De doctrina christiana, ⁹² in the third booke and 13. chapter, saith, that Those forefathers were so chast, as if they had happened to be in our daies, they would haue made themselues chast, for the kingdome of heauen.

These things among the fathers must be read with iudgement: for their mind was by all meanes to extoll virginitie, and single life. In verie déed Paule praiseth virginitie; yet so, ⁹³ as if a man perceiue, that by that meanes the kingdome of heauen may be enlarged; or if by dooing otherwise, it may be hindered. He praiseth it I saie, not as a thing, which of his owne force, and of it selfe, pleaseth God; but as a state, wherin we may the more commodiouslie and readilie spred the Gospell. Augustine saith, that now we cannot haue manie wiues, but with lust, bicause it would be against lawes and customes, which cannot be violated without vnlawfull lust. Also against Faustus he saith; Bicause it was then the maner, it was no sinne; but now bicause it is not the maner, it is sinne. ⁹⁴ Clemens in his Stromata, which place I cited before; when he had said, that God in the lawe required polygamie, added afterward, that the same is not now lawfull.

And Iustine against Tryphon saith, ⁹⁵ that now euerie one dooth reioise vnder his vine, that is, Euerie one hath his owne wife, and that is but one onelie. And he reprooueth the Rabbins, who as yet gaue leaue to themselues to haue more than one. Out of Origin we cannot learne anie thing for a certeintie, ⁹⁶ he so plaieth in his allegories; and manie wiues he maketh manie vertues: and he saith, that he is most happie that hath manie. By all these things it appéereth, that polygamie is at this daie forbidden. And to all these, I also adde this, that the Romane laws did neuer permit polygamie: and it is the part of a good citizen to obeie good lawes. Yea and Plutarch saith, that There followed a most gréeuous disturbance of the publike weale, and of the whole world, when that lawe was broken. For after that Antonie (who alreadie had in marriage Octauia the sister of Octauius Caesar ) had also married Cleopatra; the people tooke it in ill part, and Augustus most of all: so as they put themselues in armes one against another, with all their indeuour and power.

15 Now must I confute those arguments, ⁹⁷ which we brought at the beginning for polygamie, Abraham (saie they) and other fathers were holie men, and had manie wiues. Here might I make answer at a word: that we must liue by lawes, and not by examples. But I adde moreouer, that God either willed it, or bare with it. It is therefore a paralogisme, ⁹⁸ or false argument, A secundum quid ad simpliciter, that is, when that which is but in some respect, is put for that which is absolute. God dispensed with them: will he therefore with vs also? Or else it was a good thing in them: is it therfore good of it selfe? But the prophets reprooued not that fact. ⁹⁹ What maruell is it? For they sawe it was either licenced by God, or else doubtlesse permitted. Howbeit, ¹⁰⁰ here there is a false argument, when that which is not the cause, is put for the cause: séeing it was permitted them for propagation, or for figure sake. Now there is no néed, either of so populous a propagation, or else of such a figure. ¹⁰¹ They repented not. It is no maruell: bicause no man can repent him of the fact, which he is ignorant of. For it was a tollerable ignorance, or else (that which I rather beléeue) they sawe it was lawfull for them. GOD gaue the wiues of Saule into the bosome of Dauid. ¹⁰² It was lawfull; insomuch as he had dispensed with his lawe. ¹⁰³ Or if anie man will saie, that God permitted that vnto Dauid onelie: this is the meaning; namelie, that God gaue the kingdome vnto Dauid: then it followed, that he might marrie the wiues of Saule if he would; sith no man could then let him. But the first answer pleaseth me better. ¹⁰⁴ God made no lawe against polygamie. And no maruell; for his will was, that that people should mightilie increase. Afterward by Christ he reuoked it to the first institution. So, that which was wanting in Moses is supplied by Christ.

A brother, although he had a wife, yet he was compelled to marrie the wife of his brother that was dead. ¹⁰⁵ The case is particular, and prerogatiues must not be drawne vnto examples. God would haue that to be doone for certeine causes, not onelie in the lawe, but also before the lawe: as appéereth by the children of Iuda, and [his daughter in lawe] Thamar. Moreouer, the Rabbins saie, that that woman was not counted for the wife of that brother, which remained aliue; but of the husband which was dead, and that the name of the first husband whas giuen to the children which were borne of hir. So as the brother, which remained aliue, was not properlie hir husband; but onelie had accesse vnto hir, that he might raise vp issue vnto hir. ¹⁰⁶ We should haue fewer diuorsements and whooredomes. Neither of them is true: for they which hate their wiues, will shut them out of their house; as they which cannot once abide the sight of them. Nor yet was that the cause, why God permitted a man to haue more wiues than one. And as touching whoordome, certeinlie Dauid, when he had manie, yet he could not temper himselfe from Bersabe.

Greater would the fruitfulnesse be. ¹⁰⁷ I grant it: and therefore God dispensed with his lawe. Howbeit now, when as religion is not tied to one nation onelie, but is dispersed ouer all the world, there is no néed of such fruitfulnesse; séeing now the church hath hir resting places of receipt: although not alwaies in one place, yet wheresoeuer God hath offered occasion. But the marriages of the fathers might séeme to be adulteries. No forsooth; ¹⁰⁸ séeing God either gaue licence, or bare with it. For (as we said out of Panormitane ) adulterie is not committed, but with collusion. And that he prooued by two lawes; the one ciuill, and the other ecclesiasticall. Vndoubtedlie marriages they were, although not so perfect, as that of one man to one woman. But what shall become of that nobilitie of the Iewes? ¹⁰⁹ It shall firmelie abide in his owne state; insomuch as those old patriarchs were borne of lawfull wedlocke. For Zilpha and Bilha, although they were but in the state of seruants, and might be called concubins; yet in verie déed they were wiues: howbeit, they were not mistresses of the house, nor yet were handfasted with Iacob. Neither did that nobilitie depend of the mothers, but of the blessing and promise of God.

Valentinian had two wiues. Admit he had: ¹¹⁰ neuerthelesse, we must sée whether he had them rightlie or no: for although he were a good emperour, yet was he not such a one as could not sinne. Claudius Caesar, when he perceiued that by the lawes it was not lawfull for him to marrie his brothers daughter, made a lawe, that it might be lawfull: but scarselie was there anie one clawe-backe to be found, which would followe that fact. Now both these lawes are vtterlie extinct and forgotten; séeing they be neither in the Pandect, in the Digests, nor yet in the Code. Neuerthelesse, the fathers reprooued not this in Valentinian. How canst thou tell that? ¹¹¹ Surelie (as I haue declared) they haue sufficientlie set forth in their writings what their meaning was. But let vs consider the euent. Iustina that second wife became an Arrian, and did gréeuouslie vex Ambrose. The yoonger Valentinian, which was borne of Galla, the daughter of Iustina, followed the religion of his grandmother, and did vehementlie oppresse the churches: and he laie miserablie slaine in his litter. Chrysostome saith, ¹¹² that Paule added [The husband] of one wife, bicause of them, which hauing manie wiues, were conuerted from Iudaisme vnto Christ. And therof it appéereth, that polygamie also was borne withall euen in the church. I answer, that the same was therefore borne with; ¹¹³ bicause that declaration of the lawe of Christ, was of force, for the time to come, and not for the time past. Howbeit, it was borne with, as a certeine infirmitie, bicause with a good conscience they agréed among themselues.

Yet doo I otherwise vnderstand that place of Paule: for him doo I thinke that Paule called the husband of one wife, who liueth chastlie with his owne, and followeth not the wiues of other men but is altogither of perfect and good fame. And I am led so to thinke, bicause the same Paule saith, that Widowes should be chosen, which had been the wiues of one husband. But it was neuer lawfull for a woman, by anie lawes, to haue two husbands: Paule would haue hir to be a widowe, which should be chast, and well reported of. If the Turke at this daie, with his two wiues, should be conuerted vnto Christ; might that polygamie be suffered in christian religion? Surelie it might be suffered for a time, ¹¹⁴ for they with a good conscience agréed betwéene themselues. Neither must iniurie be doone vnto those wiues: for euerie of them hath right in hir husband. And that lawe, which Christ made, must be of force (as we haue said) for the time to come. That which now is doone with a good conscience and in probable ignorance, cannot be vndoone. Howbeit, an other kind of answer is made héerof, in the Decrées of diuorsements, in the last lawe. If the first wife will dwell togither with hir husband, she shall be counted for the wife, and the rest to be dismissed; if the first will not, the next must be had in that place: and so of the rest.

I doo not héere contend. But yet I woonder at these men: for in the same title, the said Innocentius, being asked his counsell of a Iew, which in matrimonie had his brothers wife? Answereth, that she may be kept still, after that they be contracted in good faith. If this be lawfull, why is not that other lawfull, séeing Christ tooke awaie both? But they might peraduenture answer, that the Iewes had an expresse lawe for marrieng of the brothers wife; but none at all for polygamie. Or else, that the Romane lawes would not suffer more wiues than one; but one they would suffer, although she did not so rightlie marrie. Fruitfulnes is the blessing of God. Be it so, but now (as I haue often said) the same is not so néedfull. ¹¹⁵ Indéed it is a blessing, but yet not so, that he is curssed which hath not children. Augustine saith, that it was neither against the custome, nor against the lawe, nor yet against nature; ¹¹⁶ and yet it is now against the lawe, and against custome. Those things, which were alledged concerning leapres, and them which be far distant, ¹¹⁷ make nothing to this purpose. For neither doo we speake héere of him, which at one time dwelleth and is conuersant togither with manie wiues.

A wife dismissed was married to an other, when as in the meane time the bond of matrimonie was not vndoone. I answer, ¹¹⁸ that a bill of diuorsement did sufficientlie excuse hir from adulterie, especiallie when she did it of probable ignorance. ¹¹⁹ Lamech is commended by Chrysostome. Doubtlesse it is not for polygamie, but for repentance. Yet for what cause so euer it were, others doo not so praise him. A wife, ¹²⁰ if she will, may yéeld of hir owne right. Howbeit, this is not to depart from hir owne right, but from that which is Gods right: for we must not haue respect what the wife would, but what God will. And as concerning that, which Sara did, she did it by the setting on and persuasion of the holie Ghost: wherewith, there is no doubt, but she, and other godlie women were indued. The Schoolemen, among the number of whom we cited Caietanus, saie, that There is not anie lawe extant, which expresselie forbiddeth polygamie; ¹²¹ which although they affirme, yet certeinlie others saie not so. In déed the verie forme thereof in plaine termes is not found and expressed; yet is the same necessarilie gathered by the words both of Christ and Paule. And thus much of this question.

Of Barrennesse.

16 Among the Iewes barrennesse was reprochfull, ¹²² and was accounted a verie gréeuous infamie, and that for manie causes. First, bicause it séemeth to be repugnant vnto that precept, wherein God commanded, both immediatlie after the making of the world, ¹²³ and straitwaie after the floud: saieng, Increase and multiplie. Further, bicause those that be barren, atteine not to that blessing of GOD, which he promised vnto Abraham; to wit, that his séed should be as the starres of heauen, and as the sand of the sea. Againe, they which wanted children, séemed after a sort to be hated of God, in that he would not haue their generation and stocke to be spred anie further abroad. But others thought, that barrennesse was therefore infamous among the Iewes; bicause Messias should procéed from their posteritie. And so euerie one indeuoured to haue manie children, that out of his progenie Messias might one daie be borne. Howbeit, he was promised onelie vnto the tribe of Iuda, and familie of Dauid: so as it behooued onelie these to be carefull of that matter. Howbeit, of that desire there may be brought an other reason much more true. For the true religion and pure woorshipping of GOD, before the comming of Christ, was in publike profession reteined onelie among the Iewes. Wherefore the more that the Iewes increased in number, the greater multitude should be of the worshippers of God. For this cause therefore did holie men studie to haue a large posteritie, that the true God might be worshipped of a great manie. But if to anie man there happened no children, he was noted with a kind of infamie & rebuke. Therefore, when Rachel at the length became great with child; ¹²⁴ The Lord (saith she) hath taken awaie my rebuke. ¹²⁵ And Esaie saith; In that daie shall seuen women take hold of one man, & they shall saie; We will find our selues bread and apparell, onelie take from vs our rebuke.

Moreouer, among Ethniks it was reprochfull to be without children. And among the Romans those, which had begotten manie children, were excused by the ciuill lawe from charge and publike offices: as it is manifestlie set foorth in the title De ijs, qui numero liberorum se excusant. At Rome doubtlesse, thrée were sufficient for an excuse. In Italie were required foure. In the prouinces fiue, so they were not adopted, nor yet were taken of the enimies, nor died out of the wars. Howbeit, this number of children excused onelie from personall offices, not from offices of inheritance: but sixtéene children in number excused from both kinds of offices, as it is in the Digests De iure immunitatis, in the lawe Semper: which was made by Pertinax. Afterward also twelue did excuse, as appéereth in the Code De decurionibus, in the lawe Si quis decurio. Bréeflie, the bearing of children hath alwaies béene an honorable thing among all nations. A certein Lacedaemonian being an old man and vnmarried, as he passed by the high waie, sawe a man that did not rise vp to giue him honour, and he asked of him why he did so? Who answered him; Bicause thou hast left none vnto the Common-weale, that may rise vp vnto me when I am old.

And albeit that among the christians, this kind of rebuke may séeme to be taken awaie: yet must we indeuour to our power, that we may leaue verie manie children vnto the church. But by the example of Anna we are warned, that the lacke of children, and fruitfulnesse, are not to depend onelie of the second causes; séeing they procéed chéeflie from God himselfe. For in the familie of king Abimelech, ¹²⁶ God shut vp the wombes of the women, that they might not bring foorth. Afterward, at the praiers of Abraham they were deliuered, that they might beare children. So as Rachel, when she gréeuouslie afflicted hir selfe, ¹²⁷ and said to hir husband; Giue me children, for else I shall die. Iacob being angrie said; Am I vnto thee in Gods steed? If GOD keepe from thee the fruit of thy wombe, why dooest thou crie vnto me? So on the other side, fruitfulnesse is the gift of GOD. Therefore in Esaie the 66. chapter he saith; ¹²⁸ Am I he that maketh other to beare, and beare not my selfe? And Dauid in the psalme pronounced; It is God that maketh the barren woman to keepe house, ¹²⁹ and to abound with children.

VVhether it be lawfull for children to marrie without the consent of their parents.

17 Now shall it be verie well to sée, ¹³⁰ whether it be lawfull for children to contract matrimonie without consent of their parents. ¹³¹ Certeinlie Samson would not. And it is a matter of much honestie, and of thankfulnesse towards the parents, if matrimonie be not contracted without their knowledge and consent. At the beginning, Adam did not choose himselfe a wife: God was his father, and brought Eue vnto him. ¹³² Abraham, when Isaac was a man, ¹³³ sent his seruants to his kindred, to séeke out a wife there for his sonne. ¹³⁴ Isaac also sent Iacob into Mesopotamia to his vncle, to the end he might get him a wife there. ¹³⁵ Afterward followed the lawe that was giuen of GOD by Moses, that children should honour their parents. But the honour, which must be giuen vnto them, ¹³⁶ is not onelie to vncouer the head, to giue the vpper hand, and to rise vp (yet these things must also be doon, though they be not sufficient;) but they must also susteine their progenitours, if néed shall require, and shew themselues dutifull towards them. Wherefore, ¹³⁷ the power of a father is defined to be a bond of pietie, whereby children are bound to their parents, to performe the duties of humanitie and thankfulnesse.

If so be children in other things ought to obeie their parents, doubtlesse they ought chéeflie to doo it in contracting of matrimonie. Herof there is a peculiar lawe in the 22. chapter of Exodus; If a maiden, which is not betrothed, ¹³⁸ shall be deceiued, he that hath seduced hir, ought to giue hir a dowrie, and to take hir to wife. But it is added; If the father will. Otherwise he shall onelie giue a dowrie; neither shall he haue the maiden to wife against the fathers will. And in the booke of Numbers, the thirtie chapter; ¹³⁹ If a maiden vow a vow, and the father heare it, and letteth it not, the vow shall be firme; but if he gainsaie it, it shall be in vaine. And what is a vow? A promise made vnto God. Howbeit, matrimonie is a promise, which is made vnto man. If God permit a vow made vnto him, to the iudgement of the father; much more will he permit matrimonie vnto him, séeing it is a promise made betwéene men. ¹⁴⁰ In the second booke of Samuel, Thamar answered vnto hir brother Ammon; If thou desire me at my fathers hand, he will not denie me vnto thee. The custome was then, that the daughters were desired of the parents. Héere I dispute not, whether it were lawfull for Dauid to giue to Ammon his sister to wife.

¹⁴¹ Further, Paule saith to the Ephesians; Children obeie your parents in all things. He excepteth nothing, when he writeth so: but saith, In all things; namelie, which they command not against the word of God. And in his first epistle to the Corinthians the seuenth chapter, ¹⁴² is most manifestlie declared, that it belongeth to the parents to giue their daughters in marriage to husbands. And that was knowne, not onelie by the lawe of God, but also by the light of nature. Which, euen the Comedies of Terence and Plautus manifestlie declare. ¹⁴³ And in Euripides a maiden answereth; Of my marriages my father will haue care, séeing these things are not in me to determine. Which verse certeinlie so liked Ambrose, ¹⁴⁴ as he placed it in his booke of the patriarchs. Further, it serueth verie well for domesticall peace: for the daughter in lawe ought to be to the father in lawe in stéed of a daughter. Contrariwise, of rash marriages rise great discords at home. And for so much as the father ought to helpe his sonne with his goods; it is méete againe, that the sonne should obeie his father in contracting of matrimonie. In other ciuill contracts, the sonne can doo nothing, without the consent of his father; as appéereth in the Digests, De mutuo, ad senatusconsultum Macedonianum. Wherfore it is méet, that the iudgement of the father should be tarried for in so weightie a matter.

¹⁴⁵ The selfe-same thing haue the ciuill lawes decréed. Iustinian in his institutions, in the title De nuptijs, will not that marriages should be firme, without the consent of the parents. And in the Digests De statu hominum, in the law Paulus; If a sonne marrie a wife against the will of his parents, the child, which shalbe borne of those parents, shall not be legitimate. And in the Code De nuptijs, in the lawe Si proponis, the case is diligentlie to be marked. The daughter marrieth by consent of hir father; she afterward being agréeued at hir husband, departeth from him: after that, he returneth into fauour, and she marrieth him againe against hir fathers will. It is answered, that that matrimonie is not lawfull. Héereby it appéereth, how much those lawes estéemed the authoritie of a father. Againe, in the lawe Si furiosi, children (if perhaps their parents be mad, or béerest of their wits) séeing they cannot vse the consent of them in contracting of matrimonie, they shall vse the consent of their tutors.

18 So then it séemeth maruellous, that christians at this daie determine, that marriages are lawfull, without consent of the parents. ¹⁴⁶ And to couer this, they alledge the Canons: of the which I thinke it good bréefelie to declare some. And first I will make mention of the better Canons, which were the more ancient: for the later they were decréed, the more corrupt they were. In the Decrées, cause 30. question 5. chapter Aliter; Matrimonies are then lawfull, when the maidens are desired at the parents hands, and deliuered openlie: otherwise they are not matrimonies, but whoredomes, dishonest companings, adulteries, and fornications. Thus decréed Euaristus. Nicolaus also at the consultation of the Bulgars, ¹⁴⁷ cause 30. question 5. chapter Nostrates; Those matrimonies are firme, which be knit by the consent of them which contract them, and of those in whose power they are. ¹⁴⁸ Leo also the first, in the 30. cause, question 5. chapter Qualis; Then it is to be counted matrimonie, when the maiden is by hir parents deliuered vnto hir husband. And in the 31. cause, question 2. chapter Non omnis; A woman, which marrieth by the consent of hir father, is without blame, if anie man shall afterward find fault withall. And thus Gratianus concludeth that place; ¹⁴⁹ that he saith, In contracting of matrimonie, the consent of the parents is alwaies to be required.

Further, ¹⁵⁰ Ambrose intreating of the place in Genesis, where it is written, that the seruant of Abraham came into Mesopotamia, ¹⁵¹ and found a wife for his masters sonne; the parents of the maid, when they indeuoured to reteine him longer, and he would not tarrie, they called the maide, and asked hir, whether she would go with him. After this maner he saith (as also it is declared in the 23. cause, question 2. chapter Honorandum; ) They asked not hir of the wedding, but onelie of the iornieng with him. For it perteineth not (saith he) to maidenlie shamefastnesse, to choose vnto hir selfe a husband. And the same he affirmed of widows, which be yong. Although (to saie the truth) I cannot héerein agrée vnto Ambrose, that the maiden was not demanded the question; whether she would marrie him. Neither doo I doubt, but she was demanded as touching both maters. For in the 30 cause, question 2. chapter Vbi non est, we read, that There can be no matrimonie, where is not the consent of those, which contract: yea euen in the marriages of the children, which are but seuen yeares of age. And séeing at that age they are thought to vnderstand somewhat of matrimonie, necessarie is the consent of them which contract. And bicause there is mention made of spousages, we thinke good to note this by the waie; that children so contracting, ought to be seuen yeares of age: for otherwise the parents can promise nothing for them. Those children, if they afterward, being of more yeares, shall contract another matrimonie, the same is of effect, and not the [former] espousals: which yet must be vnderstood, if the parents consent to the second matrimonie. Moreouer, in the 31. cause, question the second, chapter Tua; Hormisdas answereth, that children, when they contract after this maner, ought to stand to the will of their parents. And in the Extrauagants De sponsatione impuberum, in the chapter Tua, it is ordeined, that children, when they come to ripe age, ought to obeie their parents, forsomuch as they also gaue their faith, and consented.

¹⁵² 19 I thought it good also to bring foorth somwhat of the Councels. The Councell of Toledo, the fourth cause, question 21. chapter Hoc sanctum, decréeth; If widowes will not professe chastitie, let them marrie to whom they will. And the same it decréeth of a maiden: but it addeth; So that it be not against the will of the parents, or hir owne. Such an addition we sée that Nicolaus the second added, as we find in the 27. cause, question second, chapter Sufficiat, where he writeth after this maner; To ioine matrimonie, the consent of those which contract is sufficient: and it followeth, According to the lawes. Which is added, bicause the matrimonies of children be not acknowledged, if they be made without the consent of the parents. Yet the glose referreth not those words vnto the ciuill lawes, but to the canons: bicause as the Canonists saie, the ciuill lawes are sometimes corrected by the canons. But oftentimes it happeneth, that those canons are in verie déed ⟨…⟩, that is, Rules without rule: as in the Extrauagants, De coniugijs seruorum, chapter the first; If bond-men contract, yea against the will of their lords, such matrimonies shall be ratified. Behold (saith the glose) the canons amend the ciuill lawes: ¹⁵³ for in them it is forbidden, that a bond-man should marrie a wife against the will of his lord. Yea, if a frée man haue verie often recourse vnto another mans bond-woman, he is made a bond-man. And a frée woman, if she haue much accesse vnto another mans bond-man, she also looseth hir fréedome. The glose saith moreouer, that more is attributed vnto matrimonie, than vnto holie orders; bicause it is not lawfull to bring a strange bond-man into orders, but it is lawfull to contract matrimonie with him. Wherefore, it manifestlie appéereth, that the latter canons were corrupted and depraued, which tooke awaie from marriages the consent of parents, as a thing not necessarie.

But now let vs sée what reasons they pretend. In the Extrauagants De sponsalibus, in the chapter Cùm locum, it is said, that in contracting of matrimonie, there ought to be a full libertie. And in the same place, in the chapter Veniens; If anie feare happen therein, the matrimonie should be void. And there is giuen a reason: bicause she cannot long please him, of whom she is hated; and bicause such contracts haue oftentimes vnhappie successe; and that thing is easilie contemned, which is not beloued. Yea it séemeth, that the canons haue so loued libertie in contracting of matrimonie, that the Councell of Paris (as we find in the 30. cause, question the second) decréed, that it is not lawfull to desire a wife, by the rescript of the king: although the same be also ordeined in the Code De nuptijs; lawe the first; chapter Si nuptias ex rescripto. The reason is, ¹⁵⁴ bicause the rescripts of princes are in a maner imperious commandements. Neither doo I disallow that: although I doo not a little maruell, that the canons haue procéeded so farre, that matrimonie may be contracted betwéen him that stealeth awaie a maid, and hir that is stolen. ¹⁵⁵ In the Extrauagants De raptoribus & incendiarijs, in the chapter Cùm causa: A maiden that was stolen awaie out of the house of hir father, and contracted matrimonie with him that did steale hir; the father withstood the marriage.

Here the good Pope answereth; Forsomuch as the maiden consenteth, she cannot séeme to be stolen. Wherefore, he decréed that matrimonie to be good. And in the next chapter Accedens; If anie man had stolen awaie a maiden, not onelie against the will of hir parents, but also against hir owne will (which maiden neuertheles if she afterward agréed with him that stole hir) he decréed, that firme matrimonie might be contracted betwéene them. The same séemeth to be decréed in the 36. cause, question the second, chapter In summa: where is intreated of the stealer, and hir that is stolen. And it is decréed; If she that is stolen, shall consent with him that stealeth, matrimonie may be contracted betwéene them: but yet in such sort, that first they doo some penance. But bicause some canons doo make against this decrée, therefore they moderate the matter thus; That wheresoeuer they read, that matrimonie cannot be contracted betwéene such persons, that, they vnderstand to be said for some one of these thrée causes: either bicause she that is stolen, did not consent; or else, bicause she was betrothed before to another by words (as they vse to speake it) of the present tense (for I saie not of the future tense, bicause the husband was not bound to marrie one defiled;) either else for that she was not marriable.

20 But in the Code it is far otherwise decréed, touching the stealing of virgins; namelie, that matrimonie betwéene these persons may by no maner of meanes be contracted: no not although the father giue his consent vnto hir that is stolen. And Iustinian also in his Authentiks, collation the ninth, in the title Quae raptoribus nubunt, decréeth the same to the detestation of so great a crime. But our Canonists (forsooth) thinke matrimonies to be lawfull, euen against the fathers will. Wherefore in the 32. cause, question 2. chapter Mul⟨…⟩er, the glose saith, that the authoritie of the father is vndoone as touching an oth and matrimonie, when ripe age commeth: which saieng the Schoole-men haue also followed. Of this matter they dispute, in the fourth chapter of sentences, distinction 28. where they define, that a man, euen the sonne of the goodman of the house, hath a certeine dominion ouer his owne bodie: neither is so bound to his parents, but that he may, at his owne libertie, dispose it as touching matrimonie.

And when they read in the Canons, that the consent of the parents is required for the contracting of matrimonie, they, by their interpretation corrupt them, ¹⁵⁶ and saie; that Euaristus Nicolaus, & Leo, when they so decréed, did iudge that the consent of the parents is required touching the honestie of matrimonie, but not in respect of the necessitie. Which peraduenture they drew out of the glose in the Extrauagants De sponsalibus impuberum, in the lawe Tua: which is after this sort; that The good will of the parents must be required, yet rather for the honestie of marriage than for necessitie sake. So that, if the parents will not assent; yet are the children frée, and may contract matrimonie at their owne libertie. ¹⁵⁷ Yea and the Master of sentences, in the 28. distinction, saith, that The consent of parents serueth for the comlinesse and honestie of marriages, and not for necessitie. And he bringeth the words of Euaristus. But he saith; There is a difference betwéene those things, which are required to the substance of marriages, and those things, which serue for honestie and comlinesse. And the good will of the parents (as he saith) perteineth not to the substance of marriages. He thinketh, that without it, children may lawfullie contract. And for so much as he maketh matrimonie a sacrament, he would haue in such marriages the strength of matrimonie, but not the honestie.

21 But bicause they verie much vrge the words of Euaristus, when he writeth that marriages, contracted without the good will of the parents, are whoredoms, fornications, and adulteries. The Master of the sentences answereth, that that is true, not bicause such marriages be so indéed; but for that, they comming secretlie togither among themselues, and priuilie without the parents knowledge, are woont to be counted whormongers and adulterers: but yet that the matrimonie abideth ratified, and is firme, by reason of the words of the present tense which were vsed therein. Also Thomas Aquinas, in the same place, ¹⁵⁸ is of the same mind. And vnto that, ¹⁵⁹ which is alledged out of Paule to the Ephesians (where he saith; Children obeie your parents in all things ) he answereth, that it must be vnderstood of those things, wherein the children haue not anie libertie; namelie, as touching familiar and domesticall things. And this reason he addeth: Bicause matrimonie is a certeine kind of seruitude, which the child is not compelled to take vpon him against his will. And in that it is written of Abraham, ¹⁶⁰ that he sought his sonne a wife out of his owne kindred; he answereth, that the same happened, bicause he knew that land to be promised vnto his posteritie: and that God had decréed to take it awaie from the Chanaanits: so as he would not haue his sonne to contract matrimonie with them. These fellowes indéed speake much, but they bring not so much as one word out of the holie scriptures. They still affirme, that children ought to haue most full libertie left them as touching marriages: but that is a méere inuention of their owne, which by no means hath his foundation vpon the word of God.

22 The ancient fathers were of our mind. ¹⁶¹ But it happened of them, as of the Canons: for the more ancient they were, the better they were and the more new, the more corrupt. ¹⁶² Tertullian in his second booke to his wife, as touching the marriages of Christians with Ethniks, writeth verie well: neither alloweth he of marriages, betwéene persons of a contrarie religion. God (saith he) giueth thée to a husband. And he addeth, Doubtlesse vpon the earth daughters cannot rightlie and iustlie marrie, without the consent of the parents. How therefore w⟨…⟩lt thou marrie, without the consent of thy heauenlie father? Chrysostome vpon Genesis, ¹⁶³ and vpon Matthew, when he intreateth of marriages, remitteth the matter vnto the examples of the fathers in the old testament. Neither is it of great necessitie to recite his words, when as the same father vpon the first epistle to Timothie, in his 9. homilie, treateth manifestlie of that matter. There he exhorteth parents, bicause of the slipperie age of their children, to giue them in marriage: but he exhorteth not the children, that they should choose vnto themselues husbands or wiues. Yet he conuerteth his spéech vnto the parents, that they should prouide marriages for them. ¹⁶⁴ And he addeth a verie notable sentence; If (saith he) they beginne to plaie the harlots before they be married, they will neuer regard their faith in matrimonie.

I will note also by the waie, what he writeth in that place of wedding crownes. For euen at that time, ¹⁶⁵ they vsed crownes or garlands in weddings. What (saith he) signifieth the crowne or garland? Forsooth, that the husband and the wife should declare, that euen vnto that time, they had conquered their lusts. If thou hast béen an adulterer or whoormonger, how bearest thou a crowne or garland? ¹⁶⁶ Augustine in his 133. epistle being desired to make a marriage betwéene a yoong man and a maid; I would doo it (saith he) but that the mother of the child is not present; and thou knowest, that in making of marriages, the mothers good will is necessarie. In this place Augustine writeth more seuerelie than the ciuill lawes: for they will not haue the child to be in the power of his mother. Of Ambrose I will speake nothing at this time: I spake enough of him before. Séeing then the lawe of God, and the lawe of nature, the lawes of cities, and the lawes of families, the fathers, and sincere canons affirme, ¹⁶⁷ that the consent of the parents is necessarie, and the examples of the godlie declare the same; what should let vs to be of that mind?

Neither ought this to séeme gréeuous vnto children: sith it was by the lawes of God so appointed for their commoditie. For yoong persons, in such things, and speciallie women, ofttimes prouide verie ill for themselues. Wherefore, it is written in the Code De sponsalibus; in the lawe Si pater: When the father hath betrothed his daughter, if he afterward die, the gouernour or tutor cannot vndoo the couenant of the father. And a reason is added; Bicause tutors somtimes are woone with monie, & women are carried to their owne discommodities. Also the example of Christ ought to mooue vs, which was giuen of his father, to be the husband of the church: ¹⁶⁸ and he alwaies said, that He did not his owne will, but the will of his father, by whom he was sent. Further, how great a disorder ariseth in the Common-weale, through this corruption? How great a windowe is opened to filthie lusts? In some places, he that can first lie with a maiden, hopeth to obteine hir to wife, euen against hir parents good will.

¹⁶⁹ 23 But now we must answer the reasons, which the contrarie part alledge for themselues. First, as we before said, they crie, that in contracting of matrimonie, there ought to be a full libertie. But (I praie you) what libertie? Of the flesh, or of the spirit? Vndoubtedlie that libertie of the spirit is the greatest, when we obeie the commandements of God: who, if he would haue vs obedient vnto our parents in other things, why not in contracting of matrimonie also? So then they breake the lawe of God, which euen in this thing obeie not the parents. Further, if they will haue the libertie of contracting of matrimonie; why doo they themselues forbid so manie degrées of kindred? Once the Popes would not suffer matrimonie to be contracted, euen vnto the seuenth degrée: but now they conteine themselues within the fourth. Moreouer, why doo they forbid marriages vnto the ministers of the church? Againe, why did God himselfe forbid matrimonies betwéene persons of contrarie religion, if there ought to be so great a libertie in marriage as they feigne to be? But they adde; Children, for feare of their parents, will saie, that that matrimonie pleaseth them, which pleaseth them not. Neuertheles, the sonne is not compelled so to saie: nothing letteth but that he may answer, that the same wife pleaseth him not; and that such a matrimonie will not be agréeable to his mind. And indéed vnlesse his consent be had, matrimonie may in no wise be contracted.

In the Digests De ritu nuptiarum, in the lawe Non cogitur, we read, that the sonne cannot be compelled to marrie a wife. And De sponsalibus, in the lawe Sed ea: If a daughter hold hir peace, she séemeth to consent vnto the father. And there are two causes alledged, wherefore the daughter may gainesaie hir father; if either the father offer hir a husband that is wicked, or that is deformed. Otherwise, if none of these causes be, it is required of hir, that she loue him, whom the father hath chosen. But if she will not assent, when the husband is neither deformed nor euill manered, she incurreth the crime of ingratitude; ¹⁷⁰ which is so great, as the father may disherit hir for it. And in the title De ritu nuptiarum, in the lawe Si cogente patre; Although the sonne haue assented for feare of the father, yet bicause he had rather assent than offend the father, such a matrimonie ought to be firme and ratified. Vnto the former causes I would adde a third; If the father offer a husband, which is of a contrarie religion. And I would euer counsell the parents to doo that, which should be agréeable to their children; vnlesse they should perceiue them to be verie obstinate & vniust. But when the parents behaue themselues tyrannouslie towards their children, and force them to marrie wiues, which they cannot abide; the matter must be brought before the magistrate. ¹⁷¹ It is his part to heare the cause, and to deliuer the sonne from iniurie, if he be ouer sharpelie oppressed. Then, if the sonne marrie a wife by the authoritie of the magistrate, ¹⁷² although it be against the will of the father, it cannot séeme, that he hath married vtterlie without the parents consent. For the magistrate is the father of the countrie.

The same séemeth to be decréed De ritu nuptiarum, in the lawe Qui liberos. And me thinketh, the Schoole-men haue not well said, that the children of the houshold haue power ouer their owne bodie; forsomuch as they owe vnto their parents, euen for the verie being, which they haue. They ought not to be compelled vnto marriages against their will; but that they should marrie without the consent of the parents, it cannot be allowed them. And whereas libertie is so manie times obtruded vnto vs, and the power of the bodie vaunted of; let vs againe replie vpon them with the answer of God, ¹⁷³ as touching the daughters of Zalphead, who saith of them: Let them haue heritage among their brethren, but let them marrie in their owne tribe. These women are compelled to marrie the nighest of their kinne, neither hated they that libertie which these men imagine. ¹⁷⁴ And the brother sometimes was compelled to marrie the wife of his brother being dead: neither could she marrie otherwise. Therefore, so great libertie is not necessarie in marriages, as these men pretend. ¹⁷⁵ And by the ciuill lawe, so great is the authoritie of the father ouer his sonne, that he may sell him, if he fall into gréeuous necessitie. And least it séeme to anie man to be a barbarous point; it is permitted by the lawe of God, ¹⁷⁶ in Exodus the 21. chapter: but yet adding certeine cautions, which I thinke not good héere to repeate. Wherefore, they did not rightlie argue; when they said, that matrimonie is a kind of seruitude: which the sonne ought not to take vpon him at the appointment of his father.

24 And whereas they saie, that the consent of parents is required for the honestie of matrimonie, and not vpon necessitie; it is vaine and friuolous. For what greater necessitie can there be, than that, which the lawe and commandement of God dooth import? ¹⁷⁷ Children are commanded to honor father and mother. Also Paule the apostle prescribeth them to obeie their parents in all things. And the same thing writeth he vnto the Philippians, ¹⁷⁸ the fourth chapter; That which remaineth brethren, whatsoeuer things are true, whatsoeuer are honest, whatsoeuer iust, whatsoeuer pure, whatsoeuer profitable, whatsoeuer things are of good report, doo ye. By these words appeareth, that the things which be honest, must not be separated from the comandements of God. So then, looke how necessarie it is to obey Gods comandements, so necessarie it is, not to marrie without the consent of the parents. And whereas they ad, that the consent of the parents is indéed required; but yet if they will not consent, the matrimonie may be firme: that is nothing else but to deride the parents. For what reproch is it for the sonne, so to desire the consent of his father, as though he be against it, and gainesaie it; yet neuerthelesse he will abide in his purpose, and go through with the same? It were much better not to desire it, than to desire it with that mind. This also séemeth a woonder to me, that the Maister so peruerteth the words of Euaristus, that when he saith, that matrimonies, contracted without the consent of the parents, are whoredoms and fornications, and not matrimonie; he dare expound, that the matter is not so indéed: but bicause they so come togither, as whormongers and adulterers vse to doo. But the saieng of Euaristus is manifest; They are not (saith he) matrimonies. And indéed he addeth what they are; namelie, fornications, adulteries, and whoredomes. And he saieth not that they séem to be these things, but that they are so.

25 There be others, ¹⁷⁹ which obiect the booke of Genesis, where it is written, that Esau married the wiues of the Chanaanits, which his parents tooke in verie ill part: for he had married them contrarie to their commandement; and yet the scripture calleth them wiues. Wherefore it séemeth, that matrimonie may be contracted, euen against the parents will. I grant indéed, that in the holie scriptures they be called wiues; but yet therfore, bicause he so counted them, and bicause the nations, among whom they dwelt, so reputed them. Notwithstanding, it is not gathered héereby, that the scriptures doo confirme such a matrimonie. The same forme of speaking vsed Paule in the first to the Corinthians, the eight chapter; Euen as there be manie gods, ¹⁸⁰ and manie lords. He saith that there be manie gods: not that there are so indéed (for there is but one God) but bicause the most part so beléeued, and common persuasion conceiued that there was an infinite number of gods. Therefore he saith, Manie gods. But to vs, which iudge aright, there is but one God, and one Lord Iesus Christ. It is no vnaccustomed or strange thing in the scriptures, so to call things, as men vse commonlie to speake: yet else-where, when they speake properlie, they call euerie thing by his owne name. Howbeit thou wilt saie; We neuer read, that the children of Esau were not legitimate. I answer, that Esau had indéed a great posteritie; but whether it were lawfull or no, the scripture sheweth not. Wherevnto adde, that by those nations, among whom he liued, they were counted legitimate; for those had not the word of GOD, wherein it is commanded, that this should not be doone: and they had woonderfullie corrupted the lawe of nature.

26 Others crie; ¹⁸¹ What shall we thinke of our forefathers? What also of manie, which liue at this daie, & haue contracted matrimonies without the consent of their parents? Shall we call them matrimonies, or else adulteries? And shall we count their children so borne, for legitimate, or for bastards? I answer: that when as such marriages were had in that time of darkenesse, before the new light of the Gospell; those men in verie déed were not excused from sinne (for it was not lawfull for them to be ignorant of the lawe of God:) but yet, bicause they were doone publikelie, and by the permission of the magistrate; I am persuaded, that such matrimonies are firme and ratified. If they obiect, that in such marriages the consent of the parents wanted: I answer, that it was therein, and it was not therein. For the magistrates had made the ciuill lawes subiect to the canons: which vndoubtedlie they ought not to haue doone. Now in this, all men agrée. And forsomuch as the magistrate hath the authoritie of the people, if he consent vnto anie thing, there, after a sort, is the publike consent of the people. As at this daie in Parleaments, when they assemble for the paiment of some summe of monie: although some priuate men of the people be not contented with it; yet, bicause it is agréed vpon by the magistrate, they also should séeme to haue giuen their consent.

So indéed, the father would not that the matrimonie of his sonne should be firme without his consent. Howbeit, séeing he submitted his will to the iudgement of the magistrate, he should séeme after a sort to haue giuen his consent. But now the truth of the thing being knowne, the magistrate ought to reuoke the error. So as the matrimonies, which hitherto (that is, in darknesse) haue béene contracted against the will of the parents, ought to be firme, and the children borne of them ought to be legitimate. Neuerthelesse, if the lawe should afterward be repealed, then should they be no matrimonies, but onelie presupposed; and in verie déed whooredoms, fornications, and adulteries: euen as Euaristus rightlie iudgeth. Howbeit, while the lawes, which are now in force, are not abrogated, I dissolue not the matrimonies which in the meane time are so contracted. Neither doo I saie, that the children borne of these marriages are bastards; but I declare what dooth séeme most agréeable to the word of God, and to honestie. But Euaristus might iustlie write so; bicause in his time the Romane lawes were of force, which accounted not such coniunctions to be matrimonies. Further, I adde, that fathers are not to be obeied, when they lett the marriages of their children onelie for religion sake; bicause in that cause, God must be obeied in all things, who is the head father of althings. Looke the first to the Corinthians, the seuenth chapter, verse 37.

Of Rauine, or violent taking awaie.

¹⁸² 27 This word Raptus, Rauine, in the Hebrue commeth of Chatath. The Gréekes saie, ⟨…⟩; the Latins Rapere, which is, To take awaie by violence; not after euerie maner of sort, but as it were by a certeine furie and great violence. ¹⁸³ Wherefore rauine differeth from theft; bicause theft may be committed secretlie & without violence. For which cause, in the Digests De iureiurando, in the lawe Duobu⟨…⟩ reis, it is written; If a man sweare he hath not taken anie thing awaie violentlie, yet is he not straitwaie quit of theft. For although that thing, which a man dooth, be not rauine; yet it may be theft. So the ciuill lawe putteth a difference betwéene theft and rauine. But to what things rauine perteineth, it is mentioned in the Digests, De conditione triticiaria, in the lawe the first. Things immooueable, as houses, lands, & farms are entred vpon: but those, which be mooueable, as things not hauing life, beasts & men are violentlie taken awaie. Howbeit, ¹⁸⁴ we treate here of the violent taking awaie of things mooueable: yet neuertheles, not of all, but of mens bodies, that are by violence taken awaie for lusts sake. This is another kind of rauine, but not proper, which Augustine toucheth in the 19. sermon De verbis apostoli: and it is mentioned in the Decrées, ¹⁸⁵ 14 cause, question the fift, in the chapter Si quid inuenisti, where he saith, that things, which be found, must be restored. Which if thou doo not, thou hast taken them awaie forceablie; forsomuch as thou hast doone what thou couldest: so that if thou haddest found more, thou wouldest haue taken awaie more.

There the Glosser verie well declareth, ¹⁸⁶ what is to be doone with things that be found. Either (saith he) the same are counted for things cast awaie: as if the owner haue cast awaie anie thing, the same, if a man reteine, when he hath found it, he committeth not theft; but if that thing, which is found be not forsaken, neither thought to be cast awaie willinglie by the owner (as when a ring is found, or a purse, or anie such thing, which is not woont to be cast awaie) if thou deteine it, it is theft, vnles thou kéepe it by thée with a mind & will to restore it againe. So then, thou must openlie tell that thou hast found these things, whereby the owner may come to his owne againe; as it is decréed in the Digests De furtis, in the lawe Falsus, in the Paraph, Qui alienum. But if thou kéepe it by thée, with a mind not to restore it, it is theft. And this dooth Augustine in the place now alledged reprooue. The verie same is decréed in the Code De thesauro, in the lawe Nemo, and in the institutions De rerum diuisione, where it is ordeined; that If a man find treasure in his house or ground, it shall be his that findeth it. Howbeit, if he find it in another mans soile, either he hath gotten it by chance, or else he sought for it. If he haue gotten it by chance, let it be diuided betwéene the finder and the owner; but if he sought for it, the whole must be yéelded to the owner. If the place were holie, and the treasure found by chance, the finder shall haue it. It is added, ¹⁸⁷ that if a man doo séeke for treasure in his owne ground, and thervnto vse Magike, and arts forbidden; the thing found, ought to be yéelded vnto the common treasurie. For he, which by euill meanes hath sought anie thing, séemeth vnworthie to be possessor thereof. But to returne to Augustine, I affirme that which before I said, that it is not properlie rauine, if a man hold backe that which he hath found of an other mans.

And this dooth Origin plainelie declare in his fourth homilie vpon Leuiticus; Some (saith he) will not restore that, which they haue found: for they saie, that God hath giuen it them. Howbeit, whatsoeuer they saie, it is a crime like vnto rauine. He saith not, that it is rauine, but a certeine thing like vnto it. Although we haue out of the ciuill lawe distinguished theft from rauine, yet may rauine be called theft; but yet so, that there be added a violence. In the Digests De Furtis, in the law Si vendidero, it is thus written; He that taketh awaie by violence, euerie waie committeth theft, and is an open théefe. But omitting these things, let vs returne to that kind whereof we now intreat. Some haue said, that this Latine word Rapere, is nothing els, but Violentlie to lead awaie a maiden from the house of hir father, to the end that he dishonesting hir, may afterward haue hir for his wife. But this definition is not full and absolute, although it be vsed of the Canonists in the 36. cause, question 1 chap. Lex illa, in the Paraph Cùm ergo. For in the historie of iudges, the maidens were violentlie caught awaie, yet were they not taken awaie from their fathers house, but out of the féeld or vineyards. Neither is that true, which is added: namelie, To marrie hir, or to haue hir to his wife, when he hath dishonested hir: for the mind of him that taketh hir awaie by violence, may be to haue hir for his concubine, or t’abuse hir at his pleasure, though he take hir not to wife. Further, this forsaid definition onlie maketh mention of maidens, when as yet neuerthelesse, both married women & widows, frée-maid-seruants & bond-maid-seruants, & also yong children may be violentlie taken awaie. Wherefore the crime extendeth further than that definition dooth import. Onlie harlots séem to be exempted; for they are not said to be carried awaie violentlie, although they be taken awaie by force. And certeinelie, it is then no action of violent taking awaie, but of iniuries onelie. But it is ment, that such persons are violentlie caught awaie from the custodie either of their parents, or of their tutor, gardian, patrone, or lord; to the end there may be vsed an vnlawfull copulation, whether matrimonie followe or no.

¹⁸⁸ 28 Now must we declare what punishments be ordeined for such violent takers. In the Code De Raptu virginum, & viduarum, in the lawe Vnica, Iustinian intreateth at large of that matter, & maketh the taking awaie of the persons, which I haue before rehearsed, guiltie of death: so that the companions also, and they which assisted the raptor, are comprehended in the same punishment. Neither was that thought to be sufficient, but there were other punishments inuented more gréeuous than death. For it is decréed, that not onlie the iudges and magistrates shall put him to death; but also, if the raptor be taken with the wicked déed dooing, either by the parents, brethren, kinsfolke, tutor, gouernor, lord, patrone, or finallie by him, in whose power she is that is taken awaie, they may kill him, and that without anie punishment. It is also ordeined, that they, which are present with the raptor, and defend him in his dishonest act, may also be slaine without anie danger. ¹⁸⁹ He addeth likewise, that violent taking awaie is sometime committed against a mans owne spouse: as if one by violence take awaie hir, whom he hath not yet married. And if a man take awaie an other mans wife, he dooth not onelie commit adulterie, but also rauine. If the raptor be not slaine (as they saie) in the verie heate of the crime, he ought afterward to be put to death by the iudges or magistrates: and so, ¹⁹⁰ that if he appeale vnto a superiour magistrate, he shall not be heard. And that (saith Iustinian ) was ordeined by a lawe made by Constantine.

Vndoubtedlie it is gréeuous, not to be heard if thou appeale. And that is héere decréed. So great a matter did the ciuill lawes make of rauine. In frée-maid-seruants & bond-maid-seruants, the punishment is ended with death: but if a frée-woman be taken awaie by violence, the goods of the raptor, and of those which be present with him, doo turne to hir vse that is taken awaie. Neither can the raptor giue awaie his goods, or bequeath them by his will, but they fall to hir that is so taken awaie: and that not onelie for a time, but also for euer; in such sort, that she may either seb them, alienate them, or giue them for a dowrie. One thing onelie is excepted; to wit, Vnlesse she that is taken awaie, be afterward married to the raptor. The goods of the raptor were giuen hir vpon that condition, that she should not marrie him: and the reason of the lawe is added; bicause in our publike weale, we suffer not, that a man should marrie a wife, after the maner of an enimie. For citizens are woont to marrie their wiues, and not to take them violentlie awaie. But what was doone with them, which although they were not present at such taking awaie; yet were of counsell thereof: or being witting thereof, vttered it not; or else afterward receiued the raptor into their house? Iustinian decréed, that they indéed shuld not loose their goods; but onlie be put to death. Neuertheles, if a bond-man, or bond-woman were taken, either in committing or aiding this crime, it was commanded that they should be burnt with fire.

¹⁹¹ 29 But what if a maid will, by hir owne consent, be taken awaie; yet must no part of the punishment (saith Iustinian ) be diminished: it is euen all one, whether the woman will or will not. And the reason is added; Bicause, if the raptor would absteine from the rapt, it is not verie likelie, that anie woman will offer hir selfe, of hir owne accord, to be taken awaie. Wherefore it séemeth probable, that she was woone by flatteries and deceits. Yea and the parents of the maiden, if they consent to the taking awaie, are commanded to be banished. These things Iustinian decréeth in the Code: who neuerthelesse afterward in the Authentiks (where it is intreated of women taken awaie, which marrie the raptor) was compelled to make the lawe anew; bicause there were some, which cauilled, that if she that was taken awaie did consent to be married, she might possesse the goods of the raptor. For so they interpreted the first lawe, that the goods of the raptor ought to come vnto hir that was taken awaie, if she married him, or if he in his will made hir his heire. But we (saith Iustinian ) ment no such thing: for our lawes doo not appoint rewards for a wicked crime. Besides, neither can he make anie will, forsomuch as he is now condemned to die. Neither doo anie of our lawes suffer anie such matrimonies to be in force. And if it be no matrimonie, how then can she possesse the goods of the raptor, in the name of the dowrie? And so he decréed, that such matrimonies should not be ratified.

What then shall become of the goods of the raptor? If the maid (saith he) haue parents, which haue not therevnto consented, those goods shall come vnto them; but if they haue consented (as I haue alreadie said) they were banished, without anie proprietie of goods or lands. Which kind of punishment was much more gréeuous, than plaine exile. But if the maiden had no parents, or had those which consented, the goods of the raptor were confiscate to the co~mon treasurie. By these things it appéereth, that in those times rauine was counted detestable. Wherevnto I will also adde this; If anie daughter had married against the will of hir parents, or otherwise behaued hir selfe wantonlie and vnchastlie, it was lawfull for the parents to disherit hir: as appéereth in the Code De inofficioso testamento, in the lawe Si filiam. This one thing is excepted: If the father knew that the iust time of matrimonie was past, and would not bestowe his daughter, then hath he nothing to deale against hir, if she marrie without his knowledge, or against his will; naie rather, he is compelled to giue hir a dowrie, as appéereth in the Code, in the same place, in the lawe Si post viginti quinque annos. Whereby it appéereth, that 25. yéeres was the furthest time that matrimonie should be driuen off. The same is mentioned in the Digests, De ritu nuptiarum, in the lawe Qui liberos. Other lawiers determine the same thing, if a woman take awaie a man by violence: although they saie that happeneth but seldome.

30 Now must be added the opinion of the Canonists, ¹⁹² and what they bring out of the scriptures. In the 36. cause, question the first, Gratian bringeth that definition of rapt, which we haue before confuted. But this he addeth: that in rauine, iniurie is sometime doone to the maiden, and not to the parents; and sometime to the parents, and not to the maiden: and sometime to them both. For if the maiden will be taken awaie of hir owne frée will, there is no iniurie doone vnto hir, but vnto hir parents: howbeit, if the parents giue the man power to take awaie their daughter, bicause she will not consent to marrie him; then there is no iniurie doone vnto them, but vnto the daughter. Yet there is iniurie doone to both of them, when the daughter is led awaie from hir parents against their will. And in the same place he bringeth the Councell of Orleance, ¹⁹³ in the chapter De raptoribus, where also he confesseth, that rauine was woont to be punished with death. But it is further said; that If the raptor take the church, he escapeth the punishment of death. How then? If the maiden (saith he) consented vnto the raptor, first she shall be taken from him, and restored to hir parents. Neuerthelesse, she being excused; to wit, a caution being accepted, let hir not be slaine or disherited: but if she consented not, she is by hir selfe sufficientlie purged: yet shall the raptor be compelled to publike penance; as it appéereth in the 36. cause, question the second, chapter Raptores. ¹⁹⁴ But what if he will not doo penance? He shall be excommunicated, according to the Cabylon and Chalcedon Councell.

Notwithstanding, if he doo penance, he shall be punished by the pursse. And herein they saie that they followe the word of God, which is written in Deuteronomie the 22. chapter; ¹⁹⁵ If a man dishonest a maiden, he shall giue vnto hir father fiftie sickles, and shall take hir to wife. And so they condemne the raptor to paie a certeine summe of monie vnto the parents of the maiden: the which summe if he will not paie, or hath not wherewithall, he is driuen to serue the father of the maiden for certeine yéeres (which the Glosser contriueth into fiue:) vpon this condition, that in the meane time he may redéeme himselfe if he will. It is added also; If they consent togither, the matrimonie is firme, so that the father agrée therevnto. And that these matrimonies may be firme betwixt the raptor, and hir that is taken awaie. It also appéereth by the Decretals De raptoribus & incendiarijs, in the chapter Cùm causa, and in the chapter following: which without doubt is against the ciuill lawes, and against the Canons of the better sort. But the Councell Meldenum decréed far otherwise: ¹⁹⁶ for first, it ordeined, that the raptor, and she that is taken awaie, should doo publike penance; afterward it permitteth matrimonie, but yet not betwéene themselues, but with other. And it is added; that If the husband or wife of either of them die, he which hath committed the rauine, or consented vnto the raptor, cannot contract new matrimonie, except the bishop release him. Besides this it is decréed, that by no meanes, anie such matrimonie should be firme, no not although the parents consent therevnto. Yea and the same Gratian confesseth, that the same thing was decréed in the Councell which was held at Aquisgrane; ¹⁹⁷ yet afterward, both he himselfe otherwise defineth, and also the Decretals of the Popes.

What then make they of those Councels? They answer that those Councels ment this, that it should not be lawfull to contract matrimonie in that case, vnlesse open penance be first doone, and the consent of the parents had. And to prooue that sentence, Gratian in the 36. cause, question 2. chapter Tria, ¹⁹⁸ citeth Ierom, who séemeth to acknowledge thrée kinds of matrimonie to be lawfull. One, when a maiden is giuen in matrimonie to a husband by hir parents, or tutors. An other, if a maiden be oppressed of a man, and hir father afterward consent to giue hir to him in matrimonie. The third is, if the father consent not to such marriages, but giue hir vnto an other man. These thrée matrimonies he saith are lawfull in the holie scriptures. But in the 27. cause, question 2. chapter Additur, by the testimonie of Ierom, there is added an other lawfull kind of matrimonie; namelie, when a widowe, which is not vnder the authoritie of the parents, marrieth in the Lord. Héere Gratian gathereth, that Ierom acknowledgeth matrimonie betwéene the raptor, and hir that is taken awaie. But I perceiue, that in the 22. chapter of Exodus, ¹⁹⁹ there is nothing intreated of violent taking awaie; onelie mention is made there of whoredome committed, and not of violent taking awaie. For it is said; If he by flatteries shall allure hir to lie with him, then hath he libertie giuen him that he may take hir to his wife, hauing the consent of the parents. But if a man had taken awaie a maiden, or man-child by violence, then he was iudged by the lawe Plagium, ²⁰⁰ that is, stealing of men: which is in Deuteronomie, and this it testifieth, that Whosoeuer stealeth a woman or man in Israel, should be punished with death. Wherefore there is nothing contained in the holie scriptures (so farre as I sée) touching the firmenesse or establishment of such a matrimonie.

31 But héere some man will obiect, ²⁰¹ that Iacob and his sonnes did consent, that Sichem the sonne of Hemor should haue in matrimonie Dina, Iacobs daughter, being violentlie taken awaie by him, vpon condition, that his subiects would suffer themselues to be circumcised. I grant this: howbeit, that was doone before the lawe of Moses was giuen. Neither doo we read, that the Patriarchs had anie word of God concerning this matter. Neither can it be denied, that before the lawe was published, verie manie things were committed against it. Iacob, ²⁰² of whom we now speake, had at one time two sisters in matrimonie. Amram had to wife his aunt, of whom he begat Moses, Aaron, ²⁰³ and Marie. Which matrimonies, after the lawe was giuen, were not lawfull. So as the example, now brought, prooueth nothing. But if raptors should haue anie hope of matrimonie, there would be opened a wide windowe for wild yoong men to take women violentlie awaie: for they will make no doubt to take women awaie violentlie, if they shall haue anie hope to marrie hir, whom they haue taken awaie. But all occasions of euill must be remooued out of the Common-weale, and the Church. Moreouer, séeing parents must haue great honour doone vnto them, they should susteine a great reproch, if matrimonies should be contracted betwéene the raptor, and hir that is taken awaie against their will.

This also séemeth to be added, that Lucius the Pope writeth vnto the bishop of Burgis, as appéereth in the Extrauagants De raptoribus & incendiarijs, in the chapter Cùm causa, that he decreeth, that If a maiden saie, that before she was taken awaie, there were woords passed betwéen them touching marriage, it cannot properlie be called rauine. What shall then be doone? May she against hir parents will marrie the raptor? Innocentius the third, in the chapter following, decréeth; If a maiden be taken awaie against hir will, and afterward consent to marrie the raptor, that marriage is also firme, yea although it be against the will of hir parents. And he addeth that this is doone, in the honour of matrimonie; when as indéed it openlie appeareth to the contumelie therof, if a man with déeper iudgement weigh the whole matter. In the 27. cause, question 2. chapter Raptor, it appeareth; If a maiden that is taken awaie, be betrothed vnto an other by the woords of the future tense, she must be restored vnto him, if he will receiue hir: and if he will not, it is frée for the maiden, which was taken awaie, to marrie an other. But if she were betrothed by the woords of the present tense, and that she can prooue, that she was taken awaie against hir will: the spouse, if he will not receiue hir, ought to be compelled.

²⁰⁴ 32 The Schoole-diuines write not much disagréeing from this. Thomas in the 22. question toucheth this matter, when he writeth, that violent taking awaie springeth of a vehement lust; whereby the raptor is so troubled, that he neglecteth all dangers. And he will haue hir that is taken awaie, to be rendered to hir spouse, if she haue anie; and if she haue none, vnto hir parents; or if she be without parents, to them in whose power she was. And then, if they will agrée, she may marrie the raptor; but yet so, that there be first made a restitution: bicause in all theft and robberie, restitution is chéeflie required. Yet (saith he) rauine before restitution be made, is a hinderance to the contracting of matrimonie; that is, that they sinne, if they contract matrimonie: neuerthelesse, if it be contracted, it breaketh not the contract. But to the canons, which determine against it, he answereth, that they were made in detestation of the crime: but that the Pope afterward considered the matter better. ²⁰⁵ Howbeit, this was not the part of a godlie man, to worship the Pope for God, and so to flatter him like a bondslaue. And to the end he might séeme to speake rightlie, he bringeth the words of Ierom, which are in Gratian, concerning the thrée kinds of matrimonie. But how that place serueth to this matter we haue in hand, I haue shewed before. Lastlie, he obiecteth vnto himselfe the Meldensian Councell. Howbeit, that place (he saith) must be vnderstood, as if a man will take awaie hir that was married vnto another: as though that were obscure or doubtfull. We néed no canons to vnderstand this.

²⁰⁶ Against Thomas, a certeine Diuine (none of the simpler sort) earnestlie opposeth himselfe in this matter. And where Thomas saith, that the violent taking awaie hindereth not the matrimonie alreadie contracted; he answereth that manie decrées make against that doctrine. Further, he bringeth a reason; namelie, that he, which is excommunicated, cannot receiue the sacraments. Then afterward he addeth, that the raptor is excommunicated: wherefore, vnlesse he doo penance, and reconcile himselfe vnto the church, he cannot contract matrimonie. There Caietane would altogither defend his Thomas; ²⁰⁷ and denieth that he, which is excommunicate, can be partaker of the sacraments. Howbeit, this he confesseth: that he, which is excommunicate, sinneth, if he receiue the sacraments. And he saith further; If an excommunicate be admitted to confirmation, or to holie orders, it cannot be denied, but that he hath receiued the sacraments: neither is it lawfull for him to begin them againe, if he afterward doo penance. Besides he saith, that the Maister of the sentences in the fourth booke, where he reckoneth the impediments, which take awaie matrimonie contracted, maketh no mention at all of rapt.

Moreouer, he teacheth that the raptor, and she that is taken awaie, are not excommunicated Ipso facto, but are to be excommunicated. But bicause he séeth that it is in the canons of the Councell of Chalcedon and Cabylon; Let the raptor, and hir that is taken awaie, be accurssed: he answereth, that the glosse interpreteth that saieng to be of the same force, as if it had béene said; Let them be accurssed. And againe he answereth to the other two things, touching restitution and penance; and saith, that she, which is taken awaie, ought not to be restored: but it is sufficient, if he satisfie the father by some means, although she be not deliuered into his hands; euen as in theft, it is not alwaies of necessitie, that things taken awaie should be restored, but sometimes it is sufficient, that the wrong be recompensed, either by a price, or by a bond. But concerning penance, he saith; The raptor, if he contract without it, he sinneth indéed; but yet after he hath contracted, the matrimonie is firme. Lastlie he saith, that the canons, which decrée to the contrarie, either be abrogated, or else speake of spouses. After this sort Thomas, Caietanus, the Diuines, Ecclesiastiks, and Canonists trifle among themselues, and plaie the parasites with the Pope their god.

33 Now I will declare what the holie scriptures doo determine hereof, ²⁰⁸ or what they will haue vs to iudge of the same. The first place is out of Genesis, the sixt chapter, where it is written; ²⁰⁹ The sonnes of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were faire, tooke them to wiues, such as they liked. I know there are brought sundrie expositions of this place. Some interpret The sonnes of God to be angels, which being inflamed with the beautie of faire women, had fellowship with them. This exposition cannot agrée: for séeing that angels haue no bodies, they cannot burne in such lusts. Others vnderstand by The sonnes of God those, which came of S⟨…⟩h, and were brought vp in the true worshipping of God; who being ouercome with beautie and fairenesse, contracted matrimonie with the daughters of Caine; that is, with idolaters and infidels. Whereby there now remained nothing sound and perfect: and therefore God sending a floud, destroied the whole world. ²¹⁰ The Chalde interpretor saith, that the children of GOD were mightie men, and magistrates; who when they had taken to wiues the daughters of base men, all things were fraughted with vices. Here doo I sée that rapt was committed, which thing the Chalde paraphrast hath signified, whose authoritie among the Hebrues is incredible.

And certeinlie, Moses saith not, that they desired these wiues of their parents, but onelie tooke them whom they liked best. By that place may easilie be noted the course, and as it were the degrée of mans wickednesse. For first they sawe, and then they desired, and at the last they violentlie tooke awaie. Neither were they won by their maners, but onelie by the beautie of the bodie: wherefore God punished that sinne by a floud. And although there were manie other sinnes in men, yet this one is expressed with an emphasis. ²¹¹ Besides, in the 34. chapter of the same booke, Sichem the sonne of Hemor did violentlie take awaie Dina the daughter of Iacob: but what end came of that violent taking awaie, it is not now néedfull to declare. But the cause whie Dina was violentlie taken awaie, was hir curiositie. The maiden would go foorth, and vnderstand the maners of other women. Curiositie was a hurt to hir then, and also will be a hurt alwaies vnto women. ²¹² For if it were hurtfull vnto the familie of Iacob, being so great a patriarch, for a maiden to wander abrode; how much more dangerous is it for other families, which are not so holie nor acceptable vnto God? But the nature of women is greatlie infected with this vice. ²¹³ And therefore Paule to Titus admonisheth women to loue their husbands, to bring vp their children, and to be biders at home. ²¹⁴ And to Timothie, when he intreateth of wanton and yoong widowes; They wander abroad (saith he,) and runne from house to house, and at the last go after Sathan.

Yea and these virgins, of whom there is mention made in the 21. chapter of Iudges, ²¹⁵ when they wandered abroad through the vineyards, and gaue themselues idelie vnto dansings, were intercepted by the Beniamits. Some will saie, ²¹⁶ that the brethren of Dina oppressed the Hemorhits by guile. It is true indéed, but when they were reprooued of their father, they said; Ought they to haue doone, nebata, that is, a foolish and wicked thing in Israel? And that Dina was taken awaie not willinglie, but against hir will, héereby appeareth: bicause it is written, that Sichem, after he had oppressed hir, spake vnto hir hart. Which signifieth no other thing, than that he would by flatterie haue comforted hir. But it may séeme to be a maruell, ²¹⁷ that these Beniamits were not punished for their rauine. And yet we must consider, that they did not properlie commit rauine, bicause they led awaie the maidens, not onelie by their owne counsell, but also by the will of the elders. ²¹⁸ Otherwise, true and proper rauine hath alwaies had an vnluckie end. Io was led awaie by the Phoenicians, Europa by the men of Creta, Medea by Iason, and Helen by Paris. All which violent takings aawaie stirred vp discords and wars, and also the ouerthrowes of publike weals and kingdoms. Also the Sabine women, while they would be curious beholders of publike games, were caught by the Romans. Whereof followed such wars, as both nations were in a maner destroied; ²¹⁹ as Titus Liuius, and Augustine De ciuitate Dei, doo write. Séeing then God will not haue such wicked acts vnpunished, it is méet that from hence foorth we auoid such matrimonies. I am not of the mind, to denie that matrimonis, which haue béene hitherto after that sort contracted, are no matrimonies at all. For it is not my meaning to bring a confusion of things. But these two points I affirme; first, that in contracting, there is sinne, especiallie, if it be doone against the will of the parents: further, that those lawes, whereby such matrimonies are permitted, must be corrected, that héereafter it may not be lawfull to doo the like. For we sée that the order, which God hath set, is peruerted; when as the parents are neglected, by whose counsels matrimonies should be contracted. And by this means yong men are incouraged to violent taking awaie, séeing they hope that they shall marrie the wiues, whom they violentlie take awaie. Besides, that which I speake, is agréeable with the lawes of God, with the lawe of nature, and with the ciuill lawes. Wherefore let the Canonists and Schoole-men take héed, how they iudge the contrarie.

VVhether marriages be lawfull betweene persons of diuers religions.

²²⁰ 34 There be which defend this kind of marriages, and affirme, that they be lawfull. For although God, in the 23. of Exodus, ²²¹ in the seuenth of Deuteronomie, ²²² and in manie other places forbad the contracting of them, that (saie they) must be vnderstood onelie concerning the seuen nations, which were inhabitants of the land of Chanaan. Neither thinke they, that God did forbid, but that the Hebrues might marrie with other nations. They adde also, that as touching the Chanaanits, that lawe might somtime be dispensed with: for Rahab the Chanaanite, bicause she was godlie and fauoured the Israelits, ²²³ became the wife of Salmon, who not onelie was an Hebrue, but a prince of the tribe of Iuda. I omit Iuda, ²²⁴ that went in to a wife of the Chanaanits, bicause he was otherwise vncleane: so then it is not lawfull to ground an argument vpon his example. More probable is that, which is written in the 21. chapter of Deuteronomie; ²²⁵ where GOD gaue leaue vnto the Israelits (if themselues would) to marrie the strange women, which were captiues among them. But first he would, that the head of hir that should be married, should be shauen, hir nailes not pared, hir garment changed, and that she should moorne for hir parents by the space of thirtie daies. Herby they gather, that such marriages were not by all meanes forbidden.

Yea and Boaz married Ruth a Moabite: and Dauid tooke Maacha the daughter of Thalma the king of Gessur. ²²⁶ Salomon also had the daughter of Pharao. Neither for this cause was he reprooued of anie: naie rather, he séemeth to be commended, bicause he loued Iehouah. ²²⁷ I passe ouer Samson, of whose matrimonie with a stranger it is euidentlie written in the booke of Iudges. ²²⁸ Moreouer, there is a place brought out of Paule, in the first to the Corinthians, ²²⁹ wherein is decréed; that It is lawfull for the beléeuer to abide with a wife that is an vnbeléeuer. Hereby they gather, that the diuersitie of religion maketh not, but that marriages may be firme. Yea and Augustine De adulterinis co~iugijs ad Pollentium, in the 23. chapter: and also De fide & operibus, the 19. chapter, affirmeth, that there is no euident place extant in the new testament, that such kind of marriages should not be contracted. Neuerthelesse, Ierom in his first booke against Iouinian, sharpelie inueiheth against this kind of matrimonie; and dooth openlie witnesse and complaine, that such marriages in his time were not eschewed. Also the same Augustine, in the place now alledged De fide & operibus, is sorie, that men did not thinke it to be sin, to contract marriage with them that be of a sundrie religion. But there is a doubt put as touching Salomon; bicause he séemeth not to be altogither cléere of sinne, by reason of these marriages: sith in the 23. chapter of Deuteronomie, ²³⁰ there is mention made, that some nations were altogither to be excluded from the conuersation of the Israelites. For the Ammonites, and the Moabits were perpetuallie to be excluded from the church of the Iewes: but the Idumeans and Aegyptians onelie vnto the third generation. And yet did Salomon immediatelie, in the first generation, admit an Aegyptian woman into the church of the Hebrues.

²³¹ 35 Now on the contrarie part, let vs bring foorth the reasons, which condemne and forbid this kind of matrimonie. And it is prooued not to be lawfull, vnles that partie, which was of the condemned religion, shall depart from the same. For, when as God so oftentimes forbad these kind of matrimonies, he added the cause: ²³² lest the vnbeléeuing partie shuld allure the faithfull partie vnto idolatrie. Bicause, if the vnbeléeuing partie abide in his or hir religion, the other partie dooth put foorth it selfe into great hazard: which the heauenlie father would haue vtterlie to be turned awaie from his children. Wherefore, if the beléeuer thinke that he shall abide stedfast in this kind of wedlocke, he vndoubtedlie séemeth to tempt God. Further, we learne by the example of Salomon (who at length made idols and churches for his outlandish wiues) what successe such matrimonies had. ²³³ And Iosaphat on this behalfe sinned gréeuouslie. ²³⁴ Achab also, though he were an euill prince, yet became he much woorse by reason of Iezabel. ²³⁵ Moreouer, what happened vnto the Israelites, when they shamefully kept companie with the daughters of Moab; in the booke of Numbers it is manifest. ²³⁶ Iacob and Rebecca tooke it in verie ill part, that Esau married strange wiues. ²³⁷ And Esdras, ²³⁸ after his returne out of Babylon, when he perceiued that the Israelites had coupled themselues with the Moabites, and with forreiners of a diuerse religion, he vndid those matrimonies: the which if they had béene stable by the lawe of God, it had not béene lawfull to haue seuered those persons.

Againe, Paule in the second epistle to the Corinthians, the sixt chapter, ²³⁹ when he writeth (Doo not ye beare the yoke with the vnbeleeuers) it may séeme, that he forbad this: and it is thought that he alluded it vnto the lawe of Moses, ²⁴⁰ which forbad that they should not till the ground with an oxe and an asse togither. For when a yoke is put vpon beasts, which be of diuers natures or forms, the worke goeth not well forward. Herewithall the apostle added; For what fellowship hath vnrighteousnesse with righteousnesse, or what partaking hath light with darknes? Some man will saie, that this place séemeth not to be extended vnto matrimonie; séeing Paule dooth there reprooue the Corinthians, bicause they persuaded themselues, that it was lawfull to kéepe companie with the Ethniks in outward things without committing of sinne. Therefore Paule would, that so much as is possible, they should seuer themselues from them: and he brought foorth a sentence, which is vniuersall, and not particular touching matrimonies. But if the sentence were generall, and that he pronounced the same of other affaires; how much rather shall it be of force in the contracting of marriages togither with them? ²⁴¹ Erasmus also in his annotations saith, that the same apostle dooeth not onelie forbid outward dealings togither, but marriage also. And vndoubtedlie reason persuadeth the same: bicause the propertie of marriage is to be a participation of heauenlie and humane things. For if this be attributed vnto fréendship, much more it shall be proper vnto matrimonie, séeing the same is a fréendship most néerelie knit.

36 ²⁴² Cyprian, who is brought foorth by Augustine in the places now cited, in his epistle De lapsis, dooth lament, that the church in those daies was troubled with that detestable vice; euen in like maner as it was about the time of Augustine, and Ierom; They prostitute (saith he) the members of God vnto the Gentils. ²⁴³ And Ierom, in his first booke against Iouinian writeth, that the Christian parents doo prostitute their members vnto the idols. And he further saith, that Christian women, which are so married, become the ribs of the diuell. ²⁴⁴ Yea and Ambrose in his 70. epistle to Vigilius, writeth verie largelie of this mater; where, besides the decrées of the old lawe, he bringeth two other arguments. First, that man and wife ought to receiue blessing vnder the veile of the priest. ²⁴⁵ But and if they shalbe of sundrie religions, how shall they be couered in the church of Christ vnder one veile? By those words we vnderstand, that it was then the maner to haue matrimonies solemnized in temples; and that the husband and wife were couered both with one veile by the minister: to the intent that they, which stood by, might sée they were ioined then togither. Which custome is verie much against secret matrimonie.

Possidonius, vpon the life of Augustine, writeth, that he did verie well like the counsell of Ambrose, who iudged; that If man and wife did consent togither in matrimonie, the minister of the church should be sent for, by whom the couenants of marriage should be established, and the matrimonie should be confirmed. And what the veile was, wherewith the new married folke should be couered, I haue nothing else to affirme, but that (as I thinke) it was an outward signe receiued from the Iewes, who also at this daie reteine the same. ²⁴⁶ And perhaps Ruth had a respect therevnto, when she desired of Boaz that he would couer hir with his cloke; to wit, that he would acknowledge hir for his lawfull wife. An other argument of Ambrose was, that man and wife ought otherwhile to praie togither. And peraduenture he meaneth those kind of praiers, which publikelie are vttered sometime in churches. But if man and wife doo not cleaue both vnto one God, how can they both praie togither? Naie rather, it will easilie happen, that when the one of them hath determined to praie, the other will be minded to feast & make chéere. The same father, in his booke of the Patriarch Abraham, the ninth chapter, warneth the faithfull, that they should diligentlie beware, least they bestowe their daughters vpon Iewes and infidels; or to take wiues among them. And his words are alledged in the decrées, 28. cause, question 1. in the chapter Non oportet.

And in the same question, Paraph Exijs, Ambrose is cited, who saieth; It is no marriage, which is doone without the decrée of GOD, and therefore must be amended, Gratian interpreteth those words, and saith, that It is not decréed, that there is no matrimonie at all among the infidels; but that the marriage betwéene them is not lawfull, séeing it is contracted contrarie to the commandement of God: that is, betwéen such persons, as God would not haue to be coupled togither; namelie, them which be of kindred one to another, within certeine degrées prohibited in the lawe; or else, when the one partie shall be an infidell. Further Ambrose commendeth the old Patriarchs, which sought out wiues of their owne stocke. Tertullian also, in his booke De corona militis, saith; We marrie not vnto Ethniks, least they should compell their wiues to idolatrie, whereat they beginne their marriages. And while he indeuoureth to prooue, that God hath forbidden those marriages, he bringeth the place of Paule in the first to the Corinthians, wherein he saith; ²⁴⁷ If she will marrie, let hir marrie in the Lord. Which saieng neuerthelesse of his, some doo vnderstand to be spoken generallie: as if the apostle had said; Let hir marrie religiouslie, obseruing godlinesse, in the feare of the Lord: as though by these few words he forbad not this kind of matrimonie. And it might be, that Augustine was of the same mind. But I thinke, that the spéech of the apostle, being pronounced generallie, is so to be vnderstood, as thereby marriages also with infidels be forbidden. For how can it be, that a faithfull person should be coupled religiouslie, and in the feare of the Lord, with the enimies of Christ? And certeinlie Tertullian, Ierom, and Ambrose, vnderstood that place after this sort.

Moreouer, Tertullian himselfe wrote vnto his wife, that such marriages cannot be allowed by anie of the holie scriptures. And he added, that therein were manie dangers, and also wounds of faith: dangers, lest the faithfull shuld fall into idolatrie; & wounds of faith, bicause, in so much as otherwise we be weake, we haue the more néed to be supported. But the other partie, being an infidell, will not helpe: and the faithfull partie shall be compelled manie times to heare that will displease him. Morouer, he speaketh more boldlie and fréelie, saieng; that such marriages make men guiltie of adulterie, and that we must not communicate with them in brotherlie fellowship. Wherefore it easilie appeareth, that they, which so had contracted matrimonie in those daies, were excommunicated. And whie they were guiltie of adulterie, he declareth on this wise: God by his lawe forbad such matrimonies; Therefore an infidell, which is giuen in matrimonie, is not fit for that marriage. Then, séeing they be no marriages, there shall be whooredome committed. A strange person is brought in, by whom the temple of God is defiled. Moreouer, this sinne is therefore made the more gréeuous, bicause it is not hard for christians to find out other matches.

Moreouer, he addeth, that if it be true, that Menander & the apostle declared; ²⁴⁸ that Naughtie talke corrupteth good maners: how much more will so vnméet matches make them naught? Vndoubtedlie, he that is a stranger from Christ, will speake no good of him. Besides this, the woorst of all is, to haue the seruant of the diuell so néere at hand. Verelie, the seruants of princes, which would be counted faithfull, can by no meanes abide to haue fellowship with their enimies, or with their enimies seruants. And it cannot be denied, but that they, which ioined themselues to such wiues, passed not to be among the enimies of Christ. Further, it is to be considered, that in those daies, the assemblies of the godlie were had in the night season. And therefore, how could that husband, which was an infidell, suffer his wife to be absent in the night? Againe, it is euident enough, that GOD is the maker of godlie marriages: but such [as those other be] are procured of naughtinesse, that is, by the diuell. Besides, Tertullian bringeth an example taken from things ciuill. For the lawe was verie ancient; that If anie woman kept vnlawfull companie with a bond-man, and being warned did not amend, she should at the length be made the handmaid of the maister of that bond-man, which shée shamefullie loued. ²⁴⁹ Neither did the Romane lawes suffer, that seruants shuld marrie without the consent of their lords. What account then shall we make of Christ, which is the true Lord of vs all?

Moreouer, if we come vnto strange women, we shall at length fall into the hands of their maister, which is the diuell. Indéed the reasons, which this writer maketh, be verie strong: the which neuerthelesse persuaded not the women of that time, especiallie the richer sort, bicause they were not willing to ioine themselues in matrimonie to poore christian men; but contrariwise, they sought after large houses, which might receiue their substance. Afterward he added a notable sentence, and saith; that Faithfull men must desire marriages of the church, that there may be one desire, one faith, hope, and discipline betwéene man and wife. The which when Christ séeth, he will reioise, and will send his peace among them. And contrariewise, without this, they shall neuer liue peaceablie. At the last, he concludeth with his owne iudgement, affirming, that such marriages are not lawfull. And he addeth; that Although they were lawfull, yet that they be not expedient. Certeinlie in other matters and proprieties, that sentence is verie greatlie regarded; Take thou thine equall. How much rather in matrimonie ought there to be a consent, as touching religion?

²⁵⁰ 37 There might be other of the fathers also brought; but passing ouer them, I affirme, that the Councels haue iudged the verie same thing. ²⁵¹For the Councell Agathense, not onelie forbiddeth marriages with infidels, but also inditeth them with heretiks. ²⁵² Also the Councell of Vrbin, as it is brought in the 28. cause, question the first, in the chapter Si Iudaicae, &c. hath ordeined the verie same. ²⁵³ In like maner hath the Councell of Laodicea, Canon the 10. and 21. But I maruell that many of the Canonists dare write, that the Pope can dispense with this lawe: bicause it is (as they terme it) positiue, that is, euill. Certeinlie they be deceiued: ²⁵⁴ for (as it is prooued) this is a diuine institution, neither is it lawfull for men to dispense with it, bicause God himselfe commanded it. Yet must we adde, that with Ethniks matrimonies are lawfull, so that they be conuerted vnto Christ, and to the worship of the true God. So I thinke, ²⁵⁵ that Moses married his Aethiopian wife, ²⁵⁶ and Iacob the daughter of Laban. But bicause there is mention made of matrimonie with heretiks, what shall we saie is to be doone at this daie, when as Papists are sometime ioined to the professors of the Gospell, and professors of the Gospell contract themselues with Papists? Hostiensis said, ²⁵⁷ that this ought not to be doone; but yet, that if such be ioined togither in matrimonie, they be man and wife, and the marriages of force.

Yea and Thomas, ²⁵⁸ in the fourth booke of the sentences, séemeth not to mislike this opinion. But these fellowes doo soone vtter what they thinke: yet they prooue not that, which they speake. While they thus affirme, they cast themselues into a verie great absurditie. For if that partie, which is an heretike, prouoke to heresie the faithfull and sincere partie: if the faithfull will not assent, nor yet dwell with the other partie; or if he will dwell togither, he dooth it not without perpetuall contumelie to Christ, what shall be doone? They answer; ²⁵⁹ If the matter come to that point, let them be separated; howbeit, from the bed, but not from the bond of matrimonie. And so they imagine a kind of diuorsement, vtterlie vnknowne vnto the holie scriptures. Wherefore I leane to the contrarie part, and am led by these reasons. In the historie of Kings, ²⁶⁰ and in the latter booke of Paralipomenon, the 18. chapter, Iehosaphat (otherwise a most commendable prince) is accused by the word of God; bicause he entered into affinitie with Achab, an idolatrous king. For he coupled Athalia the daughter of Achab vnto his sonne [Ioram:] wherevpon he was afterward sharpelie reprooued by Iehu the sonne of Ananie, as it appéereth there in the 19. chapter. ²⁶¹

38 Let vs consider moreouer, how great mischéefe followed thereof. ²⁶² Ioram the sonne of a ²⁶³ good father (namelie of Iosaphat ) casting aside the worshipping of the true God, did imitate the kings of Israel: Athalia his wife vrging him therevnto. Now let vs compare togither the Israelits and the Iewes, betwéene whom there is the same consideration to be had, that is betwéene the heretiks and the Christians. For the Israelits did professe the lawe of Moses, they had circumcision: neither were they by all meanes strange from the faith of the Iewes, and yet notwithstanding was the amitie, which the kings of Iuda had with them, reprooued; ²⁶⁴ and by the will of God their ships were broken, while they ioined togither in fréendship. What shall we then saie concerning heretiks? In the third to Titus it is written; ²⁶⁵ Shun thou an heretike, after the first and second admonition. Doost thou giue eare vnto the apostle, if thou marrie such a one? Such were the Israelits in times past, being compared with the Iewes; such are the Papists and Anabaptists; if thou compare them with the professors of the Gospell. Adde héerevnto, that in Iohn the fourth chapter, ²⁶⁶ it is written, that the Samaritans had no conuersation with the Iewes.

These reasons doo verie much mooue me: howbeit, I would that the matter should be so mitigated, as we might not be more carefull than reason would, about the easier sort of controuersies and disagréements. But let vs chéefelie examine, whether the parties, which are to be ioined in matrimonie, doo agrée togither in the chéefest points of religion; namelie, Whether they beléeue in one verie God, as touching the essence, and thrée persons togither in one substance; Whether they beléeue, that for our sinnes we haue néed of Christ to be an onlie mediatour; in whom be two perfect natures, diuine and humane, the properties of them being preserued; Whether they beléeue that we be iustified by faith without works; That there shalbe as well a resurrection, as a generall iudgement: and other things of like sort? Which I adde héerin, bicause it were an infinite thing to descend vnto more particularities. But admit, that when the marriage is made; the husband and the wife doo agrée in religion; what must afterward be doone, if the one of them shall fall into heresie? The Papists answer: They must be separated from the bed, as we said before, but not from the bond of matrimonie.

²⁶⁷ But Coelestinus iudged, that those matrimonies should vtterlie be vndoone, and a licence of new marriage granted them. Innocentius, which followed after, abolished this decrée: saieng; It may be, that they, coueting to be at libertie from the marriage which they mislike, would accuse their wiues as heretikes, or would faine themselues to be heretikes: as appéereth in the Extrauagants De diuortijs, in the chapter Quando te, &c. But I acknowledge no diuorse, but that which is frée, wherein libertie to marrie againe may be at the least wise granted to the partie offended. Neither doo the holie scriptures shew of anie other kind of diuorse. Howbeit I would answer Innocentius, that the one married partie must not be beléeued, that accuseth the other of heresie, vnlesse the mater be prooued by iust and lawfull examination. Moreouer, ²⁶⁸ I thinke it best, that such punishments be laid vpon heretiks, as none may lightlie be led to professe heresie. Wherfore we must determine, that the surest waie is, to take héed of such marriages at the beginning. And if it happen afterward, that there arise anie heresie of great importance among them, which is tried out by lawfull examination, let there be waies and meanes attempted, wherby the infected partie may repent. Which if it take no place, ²⁶⁹ and that the infected partie will not dwell with the faithfull: or else is not readie to doo this, without committing blasphemies and contumelies against Christ: they must be separated with a frée diuorse. Now remaineth, that we answer to the arguments, which séemed to make against our opinion.

39 First it was said; that God ment such matrimonies [of vnlike religion] onelie as touching the seuen nations of the land of Chanaan. ²⁷⁰ I answer, that the cause, ²⁷¹ which is afterward added, is generall; namelie: least men should turne from the true GOD, and from the right worshipping of him. But héere we will demand, that if turning vnto the true God had happened among them; whether it were lawfull for the Hebrues to contract with those nations? I thinke it had not béene lawfull, without some speciall dispensation of God; bicause God had wholie cast out those nations. And as for that, which was brought touching matrimonie licenced with a captiue woman, ²⁷² I first saie, that if a man will more narrowlie behold that lawe, he shall easilie perceiue, that such matrimonie was not allowed by God: the which neuerthelesse he granted to the Hebrues, by reason of their incredible follie. Which I héereby gather, bicause he willed, that the head of a strange captiue woman should be shauen: that if perhaps she pleased an Hebrue, by reason of hir beautifull haire, now being shauen, he might beginne to mislike of hir. He also ordeined that hir garments shuld be changed; bicause euen those (as often it commeth to passe) might procure that loue. He also commanded that they should let their nailes growe, to make them the more deformed. And he willed, that there should be a moorning for thirtie daies; that if she were loued before for hir mirth and amiablenesse, now she should lesse please for hir moorning and vnhandsomnesse. With these conditions GOD indeuoured to make a medicine for raging loue. Ouer this, there is added a great burthen, that if she began to be misliked, he ought not to haue hir for a bondslaue, or else sell hir to another: but he was commanded after a diuorse was made to let hir go frée. Those conditions being obserued, at the last he condescended, that she should be a wife: which must be vnderstood (although it be not expressed) that she should be first well instructed in religion, and should be conuerted vnto the true GOD.

But touching those examples brought of them, ²⁷³ which in old time married such women; I confesse, that some such were married, who neuerthelesse did first admit the true and sound religion. But I iudge, that Salomon had perhaps doone better, if he had refreined from the daughter of the Aegyptian; bicause I doo not thinke that Pharao was much better than Achab, with whom the matrimonie being made was reprooued by God. ²⁷⁴ And whereas it is written in the historie, that Salomon loued Iehoua; that I doo vnderstand was ment by the loue, which he had at the first, before he was yet corrupted. For afterward, when he was growne to old age, his hart, through strange women, was alienated from God. And as concerning Augustine, which said, that in the new testament there is no expresse commandement extant, whereby such kind of marriages are forbidden; ²⁷⁵ I set against him Tertullian, Ierom, and other fathers, who refer to this place the words of Paule to the Corinthians, the second epistle, and sixt chapter, which I alledged before. And that which he wrote in the former epistle (Let him marrie in the Lord) they refer vnto this place, ²⁷⁶ and shew, that they were spoken against this kind of matrimonie. And where it is alledged, that manie in old time did not absteine from the marriages, neither did thinke that they sinned thereby: that haue not we to doo with. For while Paule liued, there were manie, which had recourse to idolatrie, and thought not that they did ill therein; euen as manie thought that whooredome was not to be reckoned a fault: which neuerthelesse, the apostle dooth earnestlie reprooue, and sheweth it to be sinne.

And that, which to the Corinthians is decréed by the same apostle, ²⁷⁷ that The beleeuing husband may dwell with the vnbeleeuing wife, if he will, and be contented therewith: we answer, that we in this place doo reason of marriages to be made, and not of such as be alreadie made. So as the apostle saith there; He or she that hath an vnbeléeuing spouse. Whereby it appéereth, that he speaketh of matrimonie that was contracted before. But touching Salomon, whether he brake the lawe, which is in Deuteronomie, ²⁷⁸ of the not bringing in of nations into the church of the Iewes, either neuer, or else till manie generations were past: I saie, that that lawe must be more diligentlie weighed, and more narrowlie scand, what is, To enter into the church. ²⁷⁹ For (as I thinke) we must not beléeue, that a man being a proselyte, and conuerted vnto the true God, and circumcised, should wait so long after he were iustified, to be admitted vnto offering of sacrifices and common praiers. Wherefore it is verie likelie, that in the lawe was ment their infranchising into the citie, whereby they might be in possibilitie to execute offices, and to be in the state of marrieng wiues of the tribes of Israel. And so, as concerning this, Salomon shuld not be accused for breaking the lawe, séeing the same prouideth it for men and not for women. I thinke therefore, that matrimonies of this kind are not to be made, bicause they be rather snars than marriages.

Of Degrees forbidden to make contract in marriage.

40 This séemeth first to be agréed vpon, ²⁸⁰ that in the 18. and 20. chapters of Leuiticus, are not rehearsed all persons or degrées, in whom marriages are forbidden. For there is no mention made of grandmother: when as neuerthelesse all men will confesse it to be most shamefull, if anie man should take his grandmother to wife who is so far aboue him in yéeres. The wise also of the grandfather is not mentioned. And though the wife of the vncle, by the fathers side, be spoken of; yet is there nothing spoken concerning the wife of the vncle by the mothers side. Yea and (that we more maruell at) there is no prohibition for the father to marie his daughter: when as all men confesse, that those marriages be most incestuous. So as it is to be thought, that in that place are set foorth by the holie Ghost certeine degrées prohibited: and those not manie but yet such, that by them (as by certeine exquisite and manifest rules) we may iudge of the like. Wherefore we must thinke, that whatsoeuer is spoken as touching the mother, is also commanded as touching the grandfather, or grandmother: séeing that all these are reckoned to be parents. Those things also, which are spoken as touching the wife of the vncle by the fathers side, doo manifestlie shew what is to be doone as concerning the wife of the vncle by the mothers side: forsomuch as these affinities or degrées haue by the same space or distance, relation one to another. So that I am of this mind, that I thinke the prohibitions mentioned in the lawe, are therefore set foorth, that by them we might euidentlie vnderstand, what is méet to doo in the like degrées.

²⁸¹ I grant neuerthelesse, concerning Paulus Burgensis reason, that they much more breake the lawe, which doo contract matrimonies with persons forbidden: and that they also peruert the order of kindreds. For vnto me he séemeth to doo farre woorsse, which marrieth his grandmother, than he which marrieth his néece of his brothers side: although I thinke, that both these matrimonies are vnlawfull. What the Hebrues of our time doo, I passe not much; yea, I much doubt of that, which Paulus Burgensis assureth himselfe, as a thing plaine and manifest; namelie, that the Iewes at this daie are most diligent in obseruing of their outward lawes. For me thinketh I should doo well, in not giuing to them more dignitie or religion than to Christians. Wherefore, as it is manifest enough, that we haue for mens traditions, straied verie much from the right obseruation of the commandements of GOD, and also from the right knowledge of the scriptures: so is it also likelie that the same hath happened to the Iewes, especiallie in this our age. So as I am not iniurious against them, when I will not yéeld more vnto them, than vnto our selues.

²⁸² Neuerthelesse, I will not let to declare, that their Rabbins haue added to the degrées forbidden in the lawe, manie more as well in descending as ascending: which thing I vnderstand the great learned man Paulus Phagius hath declared in his annotations on Leuiticus. Neither can I be persuaded, that they were added by them for anie other cause; but onelie for that they thought that those degrées were comprehended in the degrées expressed by God. Wherfore that (as I thinke) will not be sufficient for iudging of lawfull marriages, if the degrée, wherein they are contracted, shall not by manifest and proper words in the lawe be forbidden, nor yet the order of kindred peruerted: for it may be, that the like degrée, and of the same distance, is forbidden by authoritie of the lawe. Neither dooth the scripture (so far as I can sée) alledge in anie place such a reason, as belongeth to the peruerting of order, although (as I haue said before) I will not vtterlie reiect the same.

41 Some man peraduenture will saie; What matter is it for vs of this age, either to knowe or to marke those precepts, which are conteined in the 18. and 20. chapters of Leuiticus; séeing that we, after the comming of Christ, are no more bound to the ciuill laws of the Iewes? I grant that the Christians are not bound to the ciuill precepts of the lawe: but yet I ascribe those precepts, which are there giuen for marriages, not to ciuill lawes, but rather to morall. And I thinke, that I may bring a reason out of the same place to confirme my saieng. For God when he gaue those lawes, added these words therevnto; ²⁸³ Take heed therefore that ye defile not your selues with whooredoms, and such incests, as the Gentils haue doone, whom I haue driuen out of those lands, which I haue now giuen vnto you: for seeing those nations haue beene polluted with so greeuous wicked acts, I haue therefore so destroied them, and will doo the like vnto you, except you shall diligentlie shunne those things, which I command you, as touching these euils. I thinke no man will doubt, but that the Chanaanits, which receiued not the lawe by Moses, neither were citizens of the publike weale of the Israelits, could not by that lawe be condemned; bicause they obeied not the lawes of the Hebrues. They were subiect onelie to the lawe, which is called morall. Séeing then God reproueth them for that cause, that they were so defiled with such filthie lusts and incests, and affirmeth, that for the same cause he depriued them both of their land and life: it is manifest, that these laws must be ioined, not to ciuill precepts, but to morall, which all men are bound to obserue.

Neuerthelesse, it séemeth at the first sight to be against this doctrine, ²⁸⁴ in that Abraham (a man otherwise most holie) is thought to haue married his brothers daughter; namelie, Sara. Amram had also Iochabed his aunt to wife, of whom he begat Moses, Aaron, and Marie. And it séemeth, ²⁸⁵ that so godlie and holie men would not haue doone this, if the morall lawe (as we haue said) had béene against it. To this we answer: first, ²⁸⁶ that the lawe of nature was much blotted by corruption and wickednesse, which ouerwhelmed all mankind soone after sinne: and for that cause they, which contracted such matrimonies, thought peraduenture that the same was lawfull. And therefore, although they cannot altogither be excused by that ignorance; yet it is to be thought that they committed lesse sinne than those, which durst doo such things, after the lawe was giuen. I adde moreouer, that among the facts of the fathers, certeine things are now and then spoken of, by which other men must not take example, séeing they are sometimes to be interpreted as prerogatiues, or certeine priuiledges giuen them. But how so euer it be, we must not (as I thinke) much labour to excuse the fathers in all things. Although I knowe there be, which saie, ²⁸⁷ that Sara was not the daughter of Abrahams brother, but of kin some other waie. And therefore she might be called his sister, after the ancient maner of speaking; as though she were of some kindred vnto him, but yet not so néere of kinne, but that they might marrie togither. And in like maner they saie of the kindred of Amram and Iochabed. Howbeit, I will omit these things, séeing the whole matter may be made plaine by these two kind of answers before alledged.

²⁸⁸ 42 It might also be demanded, that if the precepts of matrimonies be morall, and doo apperteine to the lawe of nature, why God would also establish them in his lawes? Bicause the light of nature was come to that point, that it was not sufficient. The brightnesse thereof was dailie more and more defaced in the harts of men. Which dooth manifestlie appéere, ²⁸⁹ not onelie in these, but also in the tenne commandements: where it is commanded, that men should absteine from theft and murther. And yet we read in the histories, that robbing on the sea, and also on the land preuailed in such sort, as they might séeme to be full of honour and dignitie. Plato, ²⁹⁰ in his first booke of lawes, thought, that concerning procreation of children, we should absteine from mothers, grandmothers, and the degrées aboue them; againe, from daughters, néeces, and degrées beneath them: but as for other persons he made frée. Ierom against Iouinian, in his second booke testifieth, that the Scots in his time had no certeine marriages: but accompanied with their women, as they lusted themselues, euen with such as came first to hand. He saith moreouer, that the Meds, Indians, Aethiopians, and Persians, confusedlie contracted matrimonies with their mothers, sisters, daughters, and néeces.

Which séemeth neuerthelesse to disagrée with that, which Herodotus writeth of the Persians. For Cambyses (as he testifieth) desired to marrie his sister, for the which he asked counsell of the lawiers and wise men: and demanded of them, whether that matrimonie were lawfull or no. To whom they answered, that they indéed had no lawe for the brother to marrie his sister: but yet they had another lawe among them, whereby it was lawfull for the king of the Persians to doo whatsoeuer himselfe lusted. Surelie they answered well in the first part of their answer, but in the latter part they most shamefullie flattered the tyrant. Howbeit, the things, which be written by this historiographer (though sometimes fabulous) and those that Ierom bringeth, varie not. For the common sort, being now corrupted with shamefull and wicked custome, contracted such matrimonies: howbeit, the wiser sort, in whom the lawe of nature did shine, perceiued that those matrimonies were not lawfull; although, being ouercome with couetousnesse, they would not forbeare them. Whom Paule to the Romans hath sharpelie reprooued, saieng; ²⁹¹ Which men, notwithstanding that they knowe the righteousnesse of God, they not onelie doo such things, but also they consent vnto those which doo them. And these matrimonies are knowne as it were in their owne nature to be so vnlawfull, as they, which heare relation made of such things, be striken with an excéeding great horror. Yea and they themselues, which haue committed such things in the heate of their lust, séeme to detest those whom they haue defiled.

The poets make mention of Cynara and Myrrha his daughter, ²⁹² with whom hir father perceiuing that he had vnwares kept vnlawfull companie, he so hated hir, that he persecuted hir, all that euer he might. ²⁹³ Amnon began so to hate his sister, whom he had dishonested, that he commanded hir to be violentlie thrust out of his sight. ²⁹⁴ Thou shalt also neuer in a maner find (if thou looke into histories) that incestuous marriages, or carnall copulations came to good end. Ptolome king of Aegypt tooke to wife, by fraud and guile, his sister Euridice. What ill successe came therof, the histories, and (speciallie Iustine ) haue plainlie set foorth. Antonius Caracalla, ²⁹⁵ who married his stepmother; and Nero, that committed abhomination with his mother, not onlie came to a most vnhappie end, but (according to their deserts) were woonderfullie hated of the people, and were openlie called monsters of mankind. Wherefore we grant, both that these commandements, which doo prohibit those sins, perteine to the lawe of nature; and also, that they were for iust cause renewed by God in his morall lawes.

43 It may also be plainelie enough declared by another reason, that incestuous marriages are forbidden by the light of nature; ²⁹⁶ séeing that they were earnestlie forbidden by the Romane lawes, which were counted among the most excellent and honest lawes: and those marriages were speciallie named, wherein anie man had married his néece by the brothers side. Although Claudius Caesar, when he would marrie his brothers daughter Agrippina, caused the first lawe to be abrogated; and to be decréed, that it might be lawfull for euerie man to haue his brothers daughter to wife: but there was none at Rome, except it were one or two, that would followe his example. But the first lawe, which was the best, was obserued among the Romans. Howbeit, we must vnderstand, that there were certeine persons prohibited by the laws of the Romans, whereof Gods laws made no mention; and yet their prohibition was not without reason. So as the citizens of Rome were bound to obserue them, although by the light of nature they could sée no cause why they should so doo. Which kind of lawes was woont to be called peculiar, bicause it séemeth to be a thing priuate vnto certeine persons. I will make the thing more plaine by examples.

The Romans (as may be séene in the Code) would not that matrimonies should be made betwéene the gardian & the pupill; ²⁹⁷ bicause they sawe it would easilie come to passe thereby, that the gardian, which had consumed the goods of his pupill, least he should be constrained after the time of his tutelship, to render an account of those goods, would sollicit the maiden to marriage: which being obteined, he should be frée from rendering an account of hir goods. Surelie the lawe was good, but yet it was not perfectlie obserued. ²⁹⁸ Cicero (otherwise a graue man) was ill reported of for the same cause: for being farre in other mens debt, when he had forsaken his wife Terentia, he married his pupill, of whose goods and affaires he had the charge as gardian. Also the Romans decréed, that no president of anie prouince should take to wife, either to himselfe, or to anie of his, anie woman within the same prouince, wherein he gouerned. For they knew right well, that it might so happen, that the Pretor, Proconsull, or President in a prouince, hauing affiance in the families and kinsfolkes comming to him by his wife, might conspire new matters, and at last alienate themselues fro~ the Common-weale. They also saw a great danger to hang therevpon, lest he should not be iust and seueare in giuing of iudgement; bicause he would gratifie his kinsfolks more than others. Lastlie, it should not be frée for them to haue marriages within the prouinces; bicause magistrates might in a maner compell them of the prouinces, to contract matrimonies either with themselues, or with their fréends.

²⁹⁹ We sée also this excellent lawe violated. For Felix, which gouerned Iurie vnder Nero, (as it is written in the 24. chapter of the Acts of the apostles) had Drusilla a Iew to wife. But what néed is it to rehearse, that these lawes of lesse weight were not obserued, when as that people had shaken off euen those lawes, which we called morall, and are knowne by the lawe of nature? Cicero declareth in his Oration for Cluentius, that Sassia, ³⁰⁰ a certeine wicked woman, was so inflamed with wicked lust, that she instigated hir sonne in lawe Aurius Melinus, ³⁰¹ (to whom she had before married hir daughter) to refuse his wife, that he might take hir to wife in stéed of hir daughter: which at the length she brought to passe. And whereas that déed was accounted full of dishonestie, yet was it not punished by the lawes. Neither doo we read that the matrimonie (which Cicero affirmeth was vnluckilie contracted without order or authoritie) was dissolued by the power and commandement of the magistrates. Wherefore, there is héere also offered a good reason, whie God would againe inculcate by a new lawe, those things, which by the light of nature were iudged to be honest: for the bounds, bars, & closures of nature were broken, by the impotent lust of men; and therefore they were to be made surer by another bond. For the Israelits were no more shamefast in kéeping of naturall honestie, than the Romans were.

44 Neither is this to be forgotten, that God had certeine proper things in his lawe, which may be called peculiar: séeing all men were not bound vnto them by the lawe of nature, but the Hebrues onelie. For he would not haue them to contract matrimonie with the Chanaanits, ³⁰² Ammorhites, Iebusits, for other people séeme not to haue béene bound to that lawe. Neither should we at this daie (if there were such nations still) be letted, but that we might ioine our selues in matrimonie with them. Although the cause of that lawe ought at this daie to be holden: which cause is, ³⁰³ that matrimonies should not be contracted with them that be of a contrarie religion; for we must beware, that the godlie be not ioined with the wicked. I knowe that Augustine, concerning vnlawfull mariages, writeth to Pollentius, in the second booke, and De sermone Domini in monte; that There is not a place in the new testament, wherein by expresse words, matrimonies with infidels are forbidden. But of this matter I will not write much at this present, séeing I haue largelie intreated thereof vpon the epistle to the Corinthians. This will I saie moreouer, that a good man, in contracting of matrimonies, ought to followe chéeflie that which is honest; & not lightlie to depart from commendable orders, & vsuall customs, which are not against the word of God. And if there happen peraduenture anie doubt, let him not thinke it much to aske his magistrate: otherwise he shall rashlie put foorth himselfe, his wife, and his children into danger.

For if he be married in anie of the degrées prohibited, he shall not be counted a husband, but a whooremonger; and his wife shall be called a harlot; and the children, in that marriage begotten, shall be taken for bastards. Howbeit, the magistrate, although he may not, concerning matrimonie, forbid certeine other contracts, besides those which God hath forbidden: yet can he not, neither ought he to remit anie of those, which God hath commanded, and which he hath forbidden by his lawe. Yea, he must most diligentlie take héed, that he burthen not the people too much, or without an earnest cause; as we sée that the Pope hath doone, who hath two waies sinned therein. First, ³⁰⁴ in that he durst vsurpe the office of making lawes in a Common wealth; which vndoubtedlie perteineth not vnto him. Secondlie, bicause in his lawes he followed not the word of God; but without reason forbad first all degrées, euen to the seuenth, which he perceiuing afterward not to be obserued, and that all things were full of confusion, he restrained his prohibitious to the fourth degrée. Wherein he is constant and obstinate, if there come no monie in: but if monie be offered (whereof he must haue much brought him to fill his gréedie desire) he dispenseth as pleaseth him, both with his owne lawes, and the word of God.

45 This also must be knowne, that God hath in his lawes another decrée, which we may call peculiar; bicause it should not extend to other nations: neither ought it to be in force at all times. ³⁰⁵ And that was, that when anie husband did die without children, the brother that remained aliue, ³⁰⁶ or some other next of kin, should marrie hir that was left: so that the first, which shuld be procreated of that marriage, should be counted the sonne of him that was dead, and as in the inheritance should fullie succéed him. For God would not in that Common-weale, that men should altogither be extinguished. And he prouided, that this diuision of lands should be kept as much as might be. And séeing the same is not vsed in our publike weales, neither that God hath commanded it; therefore it dooth nothing apperteine vnto vs. Wherefore we must kéepe our selues vnder the generall and common lawe; namelie, that no man presume to marrie the wife of his brother being dead, although he died without children.

And be it knowne vnto vs, that in the beginning, when onelie the familie of Adam liued on the earth, brethren were not forbidden, as they were afterward: for brethren were driuen of necessitie to marrie their sisters. Howbeit, afterward, when as men were increased in number, they began to be ashamed, and by the instinction of God, or nature, either to absteine from prohibited persons, or at the least-wise to knowe that such coniunctions were full of ignominie. But what time they began first to absteine, it appéereth not by the historie. The heathen poets perhaps shewed that necessitie of them in old time, which vrged the familie of the first parents to match the brother and sister togither, when they feine, that their gods had their sisters to wiues. ³⁰⁷ For the chéefe of them; namelie, Iupiter had Iuno, who in Virgil thus speaketh of hir selfe; But I, which walke the Queene of gods, both sister and wife to Ioue.

³⁰⁸ 46 And though the word of God, and the instinct of nature, should be sufficient of it selfe to make vs absteine from the foresaid coniunctions; ³⁰⁹ yet are there brought by diuers writers, causes fit enough to forbid the same. Augustine, in his 15. booke De ciuitate Dei, and 16. chapter, writeth; that That abstinence dooth verie much helpe to inlarge the bonds of humane societie. For if marriages should be concluded betwéen the parents of one familie, there would be no kindreds betwéene others. Furthermore, it is not conuenient, that one and the same man should susteine the persons of sundrie kindreds; to wit, that one man should both be the vncle and husband of anie one woman; and that one woman should both be the aunt and also the wife of anie one man. ³¹⁰ Which reason also Cicero made in his fift booke De finibus; ³¹¹ and Plutarch in his 108. probleme. And séeing both these men were Ethniks, they could not perceiue this, vnlesse they had béene illuminated with the light of nature. Also the third reason is added; bicause these persons, from whom we must absteine, doo for the most part dwell togither in one house. So if they should haue leaue to ioine in matrimonie togither, they would not so grauelie & modestlie be conuersant one with another, as domesticall ciuilitie requireth.

Plutarch, in the place now alledged, ³¹² hath shewed two other reasons, besides these, which wée haue brought. One is, ³¹³ that betwéene néere cousins, dissentions were to be feared: for they would soone complaine, that the right of kindred were taken awaie. Which saieng I thus vnderstand: If either she that were to be married, or he that would marrie, should ouerskip the néerer of kin, for to marrie one of further aliance: then that partie, which were néerer of kin, would take it to be an iniurie receiued; as if by ouerskipping, it had béene purposelie doone, to put the other partie to shame. Euen as it commeth to passe in making of wils, wherein they, which be the néerer of kin, neither may nor ought to be forgotten. And in the lawe, touching the raising of séed vnto the brother alreadie dead, the first place was to be granted vnto him that was néerest of kin; who, if he would not vse his owne right, was made ashamed: as that lawe more at large dooth declare. Wherefore, séeing that disorders betwéene all sorts are to be hated, then those betwéene kindreds must be detested. Also Plutarch bringeth another reason; namelie, ³¹⁴ that women be weake, and therefore haue néed of manie and sundrie vpholders. So that in marrieng with strangers, if they be afflicted by them as it commeth to passe, they haue all their owne kinsmen to be their patrones and defenders: but if they should be wiues vnto their owne kindred, and be ill intreated of them, they should haue a verie few to defend their cause; sith other kinsfolke would not be verie readie for their sakes, to fall at controuersie with their owne kin: which would not gréeue them to doo against strangers.

47 But séeing now I am in hand with Plutarch, I remember that, which he hath written in the sixt probleme: and I thinke it not vnprofitable to rehearse the same, séeing it appéereth to be against that, ³¹⁵ which Augustine hath in his 15. booke De ciuitate Dei, and 16. chapter, touching the marriage of cousins germane. For he affirmeth there, ³¹⁶ that the same was lawfull before his time; although such kind of matrimonies séemed verie rare, bicause men did in a maner forbeare to contract with persons so néere of bloud. But he saith, that afterward that libertie was taken awaie. Which in verie déed I cannot perceiue in the Romane lawes, which were publikelie receiued and allowed: and yet neuerthelesse, those lawes were in force through out Aphrica. So as it may séeme obscure to some, of which lawes Augustine speaketh: vnto whom he saith, that matrimonies of this kind were forbidden in his time. But it must be vnderstood, that when Augustine liued, the lawe of Theodosius the elder was in force, who first among the Caesars (so far as I know) forbad this sort of matrimonie. ³¹⁷ Which also Aurelius Victor, and Paulus Diaconus doo testifie. And the same we find at this daie in the Code of Theodosius, concerning incestuous marriages, the sentence as touching these persons remaining in these words; He that shall violate himselfe with the marriage of his cousine germane, either of his sisters or brothers daughter, or of his wiues daughter; lastlie, of anie the marriages of whom is forbidden and condemned.

Howbeit, at this daie the lawe is not extant in the Digests, nor in the Code, nor yet in the Authentiks. Which neuerthelesse king Clotherius followed, as it is read in the Almane lawes, in the title De illicitis nuptijs: yea and it is confirmed by the ecclesiasticall Canons and Decrées, by Gratian 35. question 2. and 3: out of the Agathen Councell, the 61. Canon. And Gregorie the first, in that place, is found to be of the verie same opinion: in the chapter Quaedam lex Romana, &c. ³¹⁸ These things he answereth vnto the sixt interrogatiue of Augustine the bishop of Canturburie. And he affirmeth, that they which ioine togither in the degrée of cousins germane, ought to refraine from contracting of matrimonie betwéene themselues. And Ambrose also long before Gregorie, in his 66. epistle to Paternus, condemned marriage betwéene brothers and sisters children; and witnesseth, that the same was forbidden by Theodosius lawe: which I also haue alreadie alledged. And if it be lawfull to vse coniecture, I thinke that Theodosius did it at the request of Ambrose, who had a maruellous respect to publike honestie. Yet neuerthelesse was not that lawe so seuere in those daies, but that the same might sometime be dispensed with; as the epistle to Paternus dooth shew. And in that Ambrose affirmeth there, that such kind of marriage was forbidden by the lawe of GOD; it cannot be prooued vnto anie, which throughlie consider the words of the lawe, and the acts of the fathers.

How the Romans ordered themselues in ancient time, as touching the marriage of cousins germane, this I haue obserued. In the second booke, & fift Decade of Liuie: Ligustinus saith, that his father gaue him to wife his vncles daughter. Cicero also, in an oration for Cluentius, writeth, that Cluentia was lawfullie married to M. Aurius hir cousine germane. And M. Antonius the philosopher married Faustine his cousine germane; as Iulius Capitolinus writeth. And before the building of Rome, there is mention made of the marriage betwéene Turnus and Lauinia, who descended of two sisters. Yet Plutarch, in the place before cited, saieth, that in the former times at Rome it was prouided by lawe, that they which were néere of kin should not be ioined in marriage: but that the same lawe was afterward released vpon this occasion. For a certeine man, which both was honest, and of good reputation among the people of Rome, being verie much pressed with penurie, maried a cousine germane of his, which was verie rich and wealthie: for which cause he was accused of incest. But his cause being heard, he (by the iudgement of the people of Rome ) was absolued. For fauour bare a great stroke in the citie. By meanes whereof, there was a lawe made by the people, that from thence forward it should be lawfull for cousine germans to marrie. These things I thought good to declare of this kind of marriage, both out of the laws of God, out of the laws of the Romans both ancient and later, and also out of the fathers & ecclesiasticall Canons.

Wherevnto I will adde, that there be manie cities acknowledging the Gospell, which doo not allow the marriage of brothers and sisters children; namelie, Zuricke, Berna, Basil, Schaphusium, Sangal, Bienna, &c. Also in the kingdome of England (where I was) there this degrée was excluded from marriage. So as in places, where the magistrate dooth forbid these marriages, the faithfull sort must forbeare them; for those reasons, which I haue before declared. But Othniel, if he were the cousine germane to Achsa, he might marrie hir by the lawe of God: but if he were hir vncle, he might not doo it by the common lawe; howbeit, he married hir. Wherefore one of these two things we must saie; either that there was a fault in him (for the fathers, as we haue alreadie said, were not alwaies frée from sinne) or else, that God, by a certeine priuiledge or prerogatiue, would haue these things to be doone: which neuerthelesse must not be challenged for an example. Neither must we forget, that by a custome verie vsuall in the scriptures, ³¹⁹ they which by anie meanes were ioined in bloud were called brethren. Euen as Lot is called the brother of Abraham; and the kinsmen of Iesu Christ the sonne of God, in the euangelicall historie, be called his brethren. So likewise in this place it may be, that Othoniel is called the brother of Caleb, when he was onelie ioined vnto him by some néere kindred. And this exposition the interpretors, for the most part, doo vse: the which I would not mislike, vnlesse I sawe added in the text this particle (The yoonger) which is not accustomed to be added, but when brethren or sisters are in verie déed compared togither.

VVhether anie dispensation may be made in degrees of kindred prohibited by God.

³²⁰ 48 Now let vs declare, whether anie dispensing may be in the degrées forbidden by the law of God. For at this daie, those which would be counted christians, being matched in the degrées forbidden, doo saie; Let vs go to the Pope, let vs talke with him, he will dispense with vs, so we reward him with monie. Neither doo the common sort onelie saie this, but our maisters, which be the Schoole-diuines, ³²¹ in the fourth booke of sentences, the 34. distinction, concerning matrimonie write, that the Pope can dispense. And they indeuour to prooue that this he may doo. For they saie, that those precepts, which be in the 18. and 20. chapter of Leuiticus, ³²² touching degrées forbidden, partlie be morall, and partlie iudiciall. The morall and naturall are, that the father may not marrie his daughter, nor the sonne his mother. Here they saie is such an indecencie, as by no meanes it can be taken awaie; but that it should be a perpetuall impediment. For they saie, that the father and the daughter, the mother and hir sonne be one flesh. Notwithstanding, in matrimonie it behooueth, that one flesh become another than it was: howbeit, those are not seuered.

But if the reason were firme, Adam might not haue married Eue: she was his flesh, for he saith; ³²³ This is now flesh of my flesh. They answer, that Eue was the flesh of Adam; not by waie of nature, but by miracle; sith God so framed Adams rib, as it was made a woman. Howbeit, when kindred is defined, we haue no recourse to miracles: but it is said to be a bond of those persons, which be deriued from one beginning by procreation; so Eue might not be called a kinswoman of Adam. Wherefore they saie, that in those precepts, which be in Leuiticus, the indecencie betwéene father and daughter, mother and sonne, is naturall, morall, and perpetuall: and that the rest of the degrées doo apperteine to the iudiciall lawes. Some indecencie they would haue to be there, but yet not so much as hath béene alwaies forbidden. ³²⁴ For brethren & sisters did at the first time marrie one to another: yea and the sister of the brother departed, was married in the lawe, ³²⁵ for the raising vp of séed. Iacob had two sisters in wedlocke; Amram had his aunt; Abraham had Sara, ³²⁶ whom he called sister. Wherefore (saie they) these degrées; namelie, the father and the daughter, the mother and the sonne, are after a sort perpetuallie forbidden by the lawe of nature, and by the morall lawe: but other persons, which be forbidden by God, were kept backe from marriages; howbeit, that was by the iudiciall lawes.

But those lawes endured so long, as the ciuill regiment of the Iewes continued: which being decaied, we are not tied to those lawes anie further, than the church hath allowed of them; so as vnto vs they be lawes of the church, and not morall lawes: neither are they laid vpon vs by the lawes of God, but by the lawes ecclesiasticall and positiue. And whereas they make the Pope to be president ouer the whole church, they saie it is in his power, for certeine iust causes, to release these impediments. They so flatter the Pope, that Caietane Secunda secundae Thomae, question 154. article the ninth, saith, that the Pope dooth for iust causes dispense in all those degrées (except for marriage betwéene the father and the daughter, and betwéene the mother and hir sonne;) not by a common lawe alreadie ordeined, but by the Popes licence. This he assigneth to be the cause, for that they be iudicials. Experience teacheth, ³²⁷ that these things haue sometimes happened. Emanuel the king of Portugall married two sisters, Catharine Quéene of England two brethren, ³²⁸ Ferdinandus the king of Naples married his aunt: Pope Alexander the sixt allowing the same. I haue read, ³²⁹ that Martin the fift gaue licence to marrie with a naturall sister: whereof manie of the Canonists saie, that it is to be doubted, whether it were lawfull or no. This licence is horrible. Ye sée how great matters these men challenge vnto themselues.

I am of another mind: and those things, which be conteined in Leuiticus, touching degrées forbidden, I estéeme them to be morall. Such marriages séeme rather beastlie than humane. ³³⁰ And that the same [prohibition of degrées] is rather naturall and morall, I prooue by the verie words of those lawes. When GOD made those lawes, he spake on this wise; Obserue ye these things, ³³¹ and defile not your selues with these abhominations, as the Chanaanites, which were before you, and I did cast them out. If ye shall imitate them, and shall defile your selues, the earth also shall cast you out. Thus I reason; The Chanaanites were not the people of Israel, God did not giue lawes vnto them by Moses, yet were they punished for such kind of marriages; wherefore they were bound to these precepts. If they were bound, they were bound by the light of nature; and the precepts did also perteine to other nations. A nature being well instituted, might perceiue that shamefulnesse. The Lord said, that he for that cause hated the Chanaanits. So then it should not be conuenient for vs, that those precepts were but of small value, perishing togither with the ciuill administration of the people of Israell.

³³² What doo they speake of the children of Adam? Our cause and theirs is not all one. Their cause stood vpon great necessitie. Moreouer, God dispensed, saieng; Increase and multiplie, and fill the earth. And God can dispense when he will. It was not his pleasure to bring foorth other women. That this should be doone without such a necessitie as that was, we haue not a word to shew it. ³³³ In that it was once doone, men must not imitate the same. True it is, that Iacob married two sisters: but publike honestie was after a sort defaced in Mesopotamia, and elsewhere. Neither were all things well doone, which the fathers did: vnlesse we can saie; that the spirit of GOD would this to be doone peculiarlie. We speake of the common lawe, and vsuall course. Iacob had two sisters against his will: his will was to haue had but onelie one: but through the wiles of Laban, the one was put to him against his will, and the other died by the waie, before he entred into the holie land. The Hebrues saie, that God would not that so great wickednesse should be in the land of promise.

³³⁴ Against that example we alledge the lawe of God. We must not liue by examples, but by lawes. There were such things in other nations also, but not to be allowed therfore. Eusebius Caesariensis, in Praeparatione euangelica, writeth, that the Persians had marriages betwéene the father and the daughter, and betwéene the mother and the sonne. Berosus writeth, that giants before the floud did not refraine from such marriages. Caracalla said to his stepmother; If it were lawfull. The vnchast woman answered; If it like thée it is lawfull; An Emperour giueth lawes, he taketh none. Among the Atheniens it was lawfull to marrie sisters. These things be shamfull. Against those shamfull things, let vs oppose the good lawes of the Romans. As touching this matter we sée things verie repugnant in the Popes licences. By a common and forbidden lawe, they abridge the libertie of marriage, and forbid more degrees than God did appoint. For once they forbad the seuenth degrée, within a while the fourth degree; afterward they so licence at their owne pleasure, as they except onlie the first degree. So will I, so doo I command, Let will for reason stand.

I denie not, but that in these contracts, the incest is greater in one degrée than in an other: but what things soeuer God hath forbidden, be vnhonest. If they saie that they doo this by a fulnesse of power: ³³⁵ let them saie (saith Baldus ) by a fulnesse of tempest, wherewith the church is troubled and corrupted. Doo not thinke that anie man (God I will except) can giue licence, that the brother should marrie his sister.

Of Dowries; In the Commentaries vpon Iudges, the first chapter, and the 14. verse.

49 But whether husbands receiued dowries of their wiues, before the lawe, it is vncerteine. ³³⁶ The seruant of Abraham rather gaue gifts vnto Rebecca, than receiued; for so much as he brought with him golden and siluer vessels, in the name of Abraham and Isaac, which were to be giuen to the spouse. But there is no mention made of the maidens dowrie. Also Iacob serued for his wiues, so farre was he from receiuing anie thing of them in the name of a dowrie. Sichem also, the sonne of Hemor, inordinatelie louing Dina the daughter of Iacob, with whom he had committed fornication, said vnto the sonnes of Iacob; Increase hir dowrie as ye list, I will refuse no condition, so I may haue your sister to be my wife. Howbeit, I cannot tell how the custome of the ancient fathers, in not taking but giuing dowries to wiues, which they should marrie, ought to be commended: yet I thought good to recite those things, which I haue read héereof by the waie. And to begin with Megadorus in Plautus Comedie Aulularia, when he should take to wife the daughter of a poore man, being also without dowrie, commended his counsell by those words; If (saith he) other men would doo after my example, the citie would then be in better concord, and enuie shuld not be so rife among vs as it is. They (namelie the wiues) will feare vs the more, and we shall kéepe them with much lesse cost, &c.

When I consider these things, they séeme to be verie wiselie spoken. For now and then it happeneth, that one citie is after a sort diuided into two parts; when as the daughters of poore men are without hope to marrie with them that be of the richer sort, either for the slendernesse of their dowrie, or else bicause they haue no dowrie at all: for they atteine not thereto, except it be by chance, or else verie sildome. Wherefore the richer and mightier sort are much enuied, and gréeuouslie hated of the poorer. Besides this, wiues, which haue good dowries, stand in the lesse awe of their husbands: yea rather, they despise and set nought by them, counting them as vnwoorthie to be matched with them. Lastlie, their decking and lusts cannot be satisfied, but with extreme charges. ³³⁷ Plutarch in his Apophthegs of Lycurgus, when he was asked wherefore he had commanded that virgins should marrie without dowrie, answered; To the intent that some should not be left vnmarried for pouertie sake, or other some should be ouer-much desired or wooed for their wealth; but that euerie man diligentlie considering the maidens conditions, might choose him a wife for vertue sake. He sheweth also, in the thirtie probleme, that the bride brought to the bridegroomes house onelie a distaffe and a spindle. ³³⁸ The Decemuiri of Rome decréed also, by the lawes of Solon, that a woman should be without a dowrie, and should bring from hir fathers house onelie thrée garments, and also certeine vessels of small price; bicause they would declare, that the fellowship of marriage is not confirmed by riches, but through the loue of children.

Certeinlie these things doo verie well agrée with that, which is written by Paulus and Vlpianus, in the Pandects, as concerning the frée gift betwéene the husband and wife. ³³⁹ It is written also of the Aegyptians, that if they receiued dowrie of their wiues, they should then be counted as their wiues bond-men. Which custome did sufficientlie teach, that it séemeth both infamous and vnprofitable to séeke a dowrie of our wiues; when as nothing is more noble than libertie. And nature hath ordeined, that the husband should rule the wife. ³⁴⁰ And it is written, that the Spaniards had a custome, that the wiues should bring to their husbands a distaffe woond with flar, in stéed of a dowrie. I might reherse a great manie besides, to signifie, that all the men in old time allowed not, that husbands should haue dowries giuen them, when they married their wiues. But in verie déed the lawes of GOD make mention verie often of dowrie. And yet I am assured, that the same was some-where vsed before the lawe. In Exodus, he which had defiled a virgine, was bound to marrie hir, so that hir father were content; but if he would not marrie hir, then he was forced to giue hir a dowrie, euen as the lawe appointeth the dowrie of virgins to be. Moreouer, in the first booke of Kings, the ninth chapter; Pharao gaue for a dowrie vnto Salomon, who had married his daughter, the citie Gazar, which he had taken from the Chanaanites. Beside this, the Romane lawes, which otherwise be most indifferent of all other, doo make verie much mention of dowries; and haue manie whole titles, wherein this matter onelie is treated.

³⁴¹ 50 But séeing we are now come thus far, it séemeth méete to define a dowrie, that thereby we may the easilier knowe, how much must be attributed thereto by godlie men, in the contracting of matrimonies. A dowrie is a right to vse things, which are giuen to the husband by his wife; or by others in hir name, to susteine the burthens of matrimonie. And although a dowrie be properlie said a right of vsing; yet notwithstanding, those things, which are giuen vnto the man, are oftentimes called by this name dowrie. Howbeit, the end is chéeflie to be noted in this definition; namelie, to susteine the burthens of matrimonie. It séemeth also, that séeing the husband bestoweth verie much in nourishing of his wife, and in the honest maintenance of hir, iustice and equitie would, that somwhat in like maner be yéelded vnto him. Then, séeing a dowrie hath this foundation of iustice, there is no doubt, but that it is a thing lawfull. Neuerthelesse, therein is an error not to be suffered; bicause some are not ashamed to saie, that by a dowrie, concord betwéene man and wife is easilie obteined. This, ³⁴² both reason and experience teacheth to be most false. Who is ignorant, that that kind of fréendship (which hath respect onelie vnto profit, and which is grounded onelie vpon pleasure) is verie fraile and transitorie?

Moreouer, experience teacheth, that mariages which be so contracted, as there is no other consideration had therein, but onlie the wiues beautie and hir dowrie, haue verie ill successe. Wherfore these are reprooued by the common prouerbe; Qui vxores oculis & digitis ducunt, Such as marrie wiues with their eies and fingers, that is, which are mooued onelie with beautie and monie. ³⁴³ So then it behooueth iust lawes not altogither to take dowries awaie, but rather streictlie to prouide, that they be not ouer-much increased, nor doone without right or reason. And for this cause the Romane lawes commanded those dowries to be cut off, which were greater than the abilitie of the giuer might beare: as we read in the Digests De iure dotium. And contrariewise, we must take héed, that neither parents nor tutors, being ouercome with couetousnesse, giue lesse than honestie requireth: as it is written in the title De dote inofficiosa. And bicause dowries be giuen, to susteine the charges of matrimonie; those cannot be excused, which hauing receiued them of their wiues, afterward dare vse their wiues miserablie. Besides that, they be vniust, bicause they violate the lawe of God, whereby they ought to loue their wiues as themselues, and as their owne proper bodie; when as they will not conuenientlie helpe them with their owne goods.

Yea there be some, which if they were not lett by publike lawes, would consume, sell, and vtterlie alienate their wiues dowries. And that this might not be, the lawes, especiallie of the Romans, haue carefullie prouided. For they decrée, that the state or title of the dowrie should remaine with the wiues, although the husbands had the fruit and vse thereof, so long as the marriage should last. But what (I praie you) shall we saie of them, which suffer so gréeuous and intollerable burdens of matrimonie to be dailie augmented, while they too much flatter and cocker their wiues? Surelie they sinne verie gréeuouslie: forsomuch as now, neither their owne patrimonie, neither their wiues dowries can be sufficient; bicause they excéed so much in sumptuous attire. Certeinlie, among godlie husbands and good wiues, all things ought to be vsed with moderation and temperance. But wherefore (thinke we) haue the lawes ordeined so manie things, and by so manie waies concerning dowries? Euen bicause they would kéepe the citizens without hurt or damage, when as they marrie and are ioined togither in matrimonie. ³⁴⁴ For it is expedient for the weale publike that if the husband die, the dowrie should remain whole vnto the wife; wherewith if she will, she may marrie againe: or if the wife die first, that the dowrie should serue to nourish, apparell, and bring vp the children, which are begotten in matrimonie.

51 Notwithstanding, thou wilt demand; Whie are dowries said to be giuen vnder this title, of susteining the burdens of matrimonie? Euen least the same dowrie should be counted a price: ³⁴⁵ as though wiues and marriages were things to be sold. For the which cause, in the Digests, gifts betwéene husband and wife are prohibited; to wit, that in matrimonies & contracts, gifts betwéene man & wife be neither giuen nor receiued. Furthermore, when as diuorsements were giuen in manie places by that ciuill lawe, if gifts betwéene man and wife had béene lawfull, marriages would verie easilie haue béene dissolued. Séeing if one of the married parties would not giue vnto the other, so much as he demanded; that partie should foorthwith haue béene refused. The men in déed might giue certeine gifts vnto their wiues, ³⁴⁶ before the marriages, which were called iointures, as some certeiye recompensings of the dowrie. Yet neuerthelesse, when they were once married togither, the Romane lawes permitted not, that they should giue gifts one to an other.

³⁴⁷ Whereof Plutarch also hath made mention; out of whom neuerthelesse is brought an other reason than that, which I declared to be taken of the verie laws. These be the words, in the 35. and 36. precept of matrimonie: Certeine bodies are said to consist of seuered things, as an armie, and a nauie; other bodies, of things ioined togither, as a house and a ship; and other some are vnited and compact togither, as all liuing creatures are. Wherefore matrimonie, which consisteth of liuing creatures, is vnited and compact: but the matrimonie, which is made either for dowrie sake, or for children, belongeth to bodies ioined togither. And that which consisteth for pleasure or carnall copulation, thou maist number among the seuered bodies: for there man and wife may be said to dwell togither, but not to liue togither. And as in liuing creatures, the temperatures of humors runne through all parts: so marriage must mingle bodies, monie, friends and kinsfolke togither. And the maker of the Romane lawes forbad persons coupled in matrimonie, to take or to giue gifts one to an other: not to the intent they should not be partakers of anie one thing; but that they should thinke all things to be common.

Howbeit, these things are to be vnderstood of frée gifts, and not of dowries: ³⁴⁸ which otherwise were both lawfull and much vsed in the Romane publike wele. For the daughters of Scipio, Curius, and Cincinnatus had dowries out of the treasurie; bicause of the pouertie of their parents, to the intent they should not be married without dowries. ³⁴⁹ Yea and the generall Councell of Arls, as it is rehearsed in the thirtie question, the fift chapter Nullum sine, decréed, that no matrimonie should be contracted without a dowrie. Let the dowrie (saith it) be according to the abilitie, neither let anie woman presume to take a husband, or anie husband a wife, without publike marriage. This canon I willinglie allow, in that it condemneth secret marriages: but where it decréeth, that marriages cannot be contracted without a dowrie, séeing that is not confirmed by the testimonie of Gods word, I cannot admit. For there are and haue béene verie manie, which haue married wiues altogither without dowrie; yea and these men of so great honestie and authoritie (as it should séeme) a rash part to condemne their dooing, séeing the holie scriptures are not against it. Neither doo I iudge, that matrimonie should by anie meanes be denied to those women, which are without a dowrie, if marriage be necessarie for them.

Moreouer, Paule testifieth, ³⁵⁰ that matrimonie dooth shadowe the coniunction that Christ hath with his church. Wherfore, if the truth of the matter be well considered, the church had nothing to offer vnto Christ in the name of a dowrie: naie rather (as Ezechiel teacheth) the same was found wrapped in bloud and mire. ³⁵¹ Also the fathers in the old testament séeme sometimes to haue had wiues without dowries. So then it séemeth méet to be decréed, that men may, and that it is lawfull to receiue dowries, when they are giuen, and that the same custome is honest, so that a iust measure be not excéeded, and that he which marrieth, be not allured therevnto through the name of the dowrie, as being the principall cause. The maners and godlinesse of the wife ought chéeflie to be regarded. Neither ought anie man foorthwith to persuade himselfe; If I shall marrie a wife without a dowrie, I shall therefore haue hir the better, and the more at quiet, ³⁵² sith (as Ierom declareth in his first booke against Iouinian) Cato Censorius had Actoria Paula to wife, ³⁵³ borne of a base kindred, who was poore also and without a dowrie; and yet neuerthelesse she was a droonkard, impotent, and behaued hir selfe proudlie toward Cato.

Of Diuorsements, and putting awaie of wiues.

³⁵⁴ 52 Vnto the Hebrues and Ethniks it was but a light matter to put away their wiues, and it was lawfull vpon euerie occasion: but vnto the Christians it ought not so to be. This hath Christ declared in the 5. and 19. of Matthew. ³⁵⁵ There (when he saith) Moses gaue you a bill of diuorsement ) it ought not so to be vnderstood, as though Moses did this of himselfe, without the commandement of God: for he was most faithfull, ³⁵⁶ as GOD beareth record of him. And that which is decréed in the lawe, ³⁵⁷ touching diuorsement, afterward is commanded in Malachie; to wit, ³⁵⁸ If thou hate thy wife, put hir awale. For the Lord would not, that hatred and enimitie should be reteined in so néere fréendship. Wherfore, ³⁵⁹ in the new testament, Christ calleth vs home vnto the first institution. For insomuch as now, the spirit is more plentifull, and grace more abundant; men ought to vse greater patience and charitie towards their wiues, and not so to deale against them, as they should reiect them for euerie cause. In like maner there is required of the wiues a greater obedience and modestie.

53 Here thou wilt saie vnto me; What if thou shalt find at this daie, among Christians, such as be so hard-harted, and so obstinate in reteining of hatred and enimitie in wedlocke, as they be not onelie equall to the Iewes, but also go beyond them therein? Séeing then the disease is all one, why is not the same remedie left? Vnto whom we answer, that they, which be of such sort, be strangers from Christ: wherfore we commit them to the Common-weale, to determine of them as it shall séeme most expedient. For when they cannot be amended by the church, let vs count them for Ethniks and Publicans: let vs deale with them by the ciuill lawes. ³⁶⁰ We haue it plainelie enough declared by the word of Christ, that a diuorse ought not to be doone, vnlesse it be for the cause of adulterie. The which exception, if it be intermitted by Paule, it is no maruell: for when Paule saith; that he speketh not these things, but the Lord, he sendeth vs to the Lords owne words: neither dooth he plucke anie thing awaie from his commandement. And when he saith, that he commandeth not, but the Lord; he maketh not those things of small force, which he taught before, when they are not read to be [expresselie] spoken of Christ, sith euen those things are of the Lord: for he saith; And I thinke, that I also haue the spirit of God. ³⁶¹

But he therefore speaketh of the commandement of Christ to mitigate the sharpenesse of his spéech; for it séemeth intollerable to the flesh, that matrimonie cannot be dissolued. It is euen as much, as if Paule had said; I set not before you strange or new things, and such as haue not béene heard of before my time; this the Lord hath commanded. Else, both this and those things, which the apostle wrote before, are firme, and full of authoritie. But this is the difference, that these things the Lord spake by his owne selfe, and repeateth them by Paule; but those other he would to be vttered by the apostle onelie. And touching his sentence, that matrimonie should not be dissolued, ³⁶² Christ allowed it by a testimonie out of the booke of Genesis, where it is said; For this cause a man shall leaue his father and mother, and shall cleaue vnto his wife. Two néere fréendships are laid togither in these words; the one is betwéene parents and their children; the other betwéene the husband and the wife. And séeing the bond of the father, or of the children is such, as it cannot be sundered and shaken off by anie meanes, much lesse this bond betwéene man and wife. And as the bond of amitie betwéene the child and the parents endureth perpetuallie, so dooth the coniunction betwéene the husband and the wife. This is Christs interpretation of that place, and the reason that he bringeth thereof: but yet he will haue the cause of adulterie to be excepted. And Paule (by whom Christ speaketh) excepteth another thing; namelie, if one of the married persons, in that he is an infidell, will not dwell with the other being faithfull, as it shall be declared in place conuenient.

54 But as touching the cause of adulterie, ³⁶³ which Christ excepted, some doubt whether that be the onelie cause; and they are bold to saie, that Christs meaning was to comprehend therin all other wickednesse, which is either equall, or more heinous than adulterie: and they saie, that the maner of the holie scriptures is, that in one cause rehearsed, they include others like vnto it. Euen as we read in Deuteronomie, ³⁶⁴ of man-slaughter, which is committed by chance, and against a mans will: where one onelie reason is described; namelie, when the hatchet flieth off the helme. But what? Shall we not iudge the verie same, if in building or carrieng of anie thing, one man shall kill an other vnwillinglie? Euen so (saie they) there are presentlie manie faults equall, and perhaps more gréeuous than adulterie: so as they iudge, that those offenses doo also make a cause of diuorsement. ³⁶⁵ Which meaning perhaps caused manie emperours, otherwise godlie and studious of Christianitis, to expresse manie crimes in their lawes, for the which it should be lawfull to make a diuorse; bicause they iudged them to be no lesse than adulterie. And that other causes also, besides the crime of adulterie, are to be admitted; héereby it may appéere, ³⁶⁶ for that Paule added, as touching the vnfaithfull spouse, which will not dwell with the other being faithfull: which case Christ spake not of. ³⁶⁷ Yea, and at this daie, if a coldnesse (as they terme it) or other like impediment be perceiued in the parties, which be alreadie married, a iust diuorse is permitted. And yet neuertheles Christ excepted onelie the cause of adulterie.

Yea, and if we will throughlie consider what licence the bishops of Rome haue giuen to themselues héerein, we shall perceiue, that they haue openlie arrogated vnto themselues the power to dissolue matrimonie alreadie contracted; so that there followed not copulation (as they call it.) Yea moreouer it is reported, that there hath béene a Popes dispensation séene, which hath taken awaie matrimonie; not onelie contracted, but (as they saie) finished. ³⁶⁸ And Pope Zacharie, (as it is written in the fourth booke of sentences) when a certeine man had committed adulterie with his wiues sister, wrote thus vnto him; Séeing thou hast committed this horrible act, thou shalt haue neither of them to wife; both thou and she, whom thou hast defiled with adulterie, shall remaine without hope of marriage, and thine owne wife shall marrie in the Lord, with whom she will. In which case, thou séest it manifestlie iudged by this bishop, that a diuorsement made for the cause of adulterie, dooth admit a marriage afterward. ³⁶⁹ They will moreouer haue matrimonie dissolued, if there be an error or a mistaking of the person or condition: as if a woman shall thinke that she hath a certeine husband, and shall [afterward] prooue the same to be an other than she ment to haue; or else, if she had taken him to be a frée man, and of an honest stocke, whom she findeth to be a bondman.

There is added also the cause of the degrée of kindred, euen of the degrée not forbidden by the lawe of God, when they would haue the matrimonie that is contracted to be cut off. So it appéereth, that it was not so straitlie iudged, that the same onlie cause, which Christ dooth expresse, maketh a diuorse. Otherwise, séeing Christ expressed one onlie cause; how commeth it to passe that emperours being christians, and men also which be of the church, haue added so manie other causes? Certeinlie it was euen this, that they thought, that in that one onlie cause, Christ ment to be conteined both the offenses which be equall, and those which be more gréeuous. ³⁷⁰ Erasmus (who treated héereof at large) added; When the Lord commandeth that thou sweare not, that thou be not angrie, that thou saie not Racha, ³⁷¹ if a man shall strike thée vpon the one chéeke, turne vnto him the other, if one will take awaie thy cloke, giue him also thy cote, and such like; we admit interpretations, that we may vnderstand these things to be spoken oftentimes of the preparation of the mind; to wit, that it be not doone rashlie or lightlie, nor without a iust cause: and shall we be héere so hard and precise, that we cannot admit anie interpretation or exposition?

55 And the reason whie Christ did expresse but one onelie cause of adulterie, séemeth to be, ³⁷² for that there is nothing so great an enimie vnto matrimonie as this mischéefe is. They shall (saith the scripture) be one flesh. But he that committeth whoredome, dooth so ioine himselfe to other flesh, as he is plucked awaie from his owne wife: for; ³⁷³ Shall I (saith Paule) take the member of Christ, and make it the member of an harlot? This (as I haue declared) is the opinion of some, which although it be not wicked, and perhaps it cannot easilie be confuted: yet for my part, as I with all my hart imbrase those causes, which be expressed in the scriptures; so can I hardlie indure, that diuorsement should stretch beyond these bonds. And in verie déed, as touching such crimes as the scripture speaketh of; if a magistrate, being a Christian, should vse the seueritie, which both the diuine lawes, and the Romane lawes haue decréed to be most iust, ³⁷⁴ we shuld not be troubled with these discommodities. I speake not now of the impediments of nature, which may happen so to be, and be sent in such sort by God, as matrimonie cannot anie longer consist. That which I haue declared, I would haue it to be vnderstood onelie as touching wicked acts, which of manie are thought to make matrimonie void. Those things I saie cannot (in my iudgement) be easilie knowne, otherwise than by the holie scriptures.

56 Yea moreouer, and in those things which the scripture hath expressed, I thinke that nothing ought to be aduentured, except the magistrate doo ratifie the same. For matrimonie, although it be ordeined by God; yet, as touching the circumstances, it hath manie things belonging vnto the ciuill lawes and customes. Wherefore they, which contrarie vnto the magistrates mind, and against the common lawes, doo contract new matrimonies, the first wife being dismissed, doo incur excéeding great dangers. They giue the children, which be borne of the latter matrimonie such a blemish of infamie, as they be commonlie taken for bastards: and vnto such a shame doo they deliuer the wife, whom they haue married, as she is accounted an adulteresse and an harlot; and doo cause that they themselues also are noted with the same dishonestie. We must praie therefore, ³⁷⁵ and by all meanes intreat the magistrate, that he being faithfull, will determine herof; and that he will applie his lawes to the word of God. And it must be foreséene, that it be so determined, as a windowe be not set open to horrible offenses, whereby matrimonies are in manie places rashlie dissolued. And on the other part they must take héed, least while they will defend a diuorsement so made, whereof the holie scriptures neuer giue anie testimonie, that the bond of wedlocke still remaineth (the husband and the wife being seuered, and so seuered, as they cannot dwell togither;) I saie héed must be taken, that no occasion be giuen vnto fraile lusts, and companie of harlots.

And if so be that anie, for fornication sake, or bicause that he will not by anie meanes that his wife should dwell with him (as Paule writeth of the infidell) is constreined to abide sole, ³⁷⁶ and liue continuallie without a wife, he remaining in a doubt, and not knowing what he ought to doo, when the lawes will giue him no libertie to marrie a second person; certeinlie there are but two remedies, which he must haue recourse vnto; that either, when he is driuen to this streict, he may now thinke that he is called vnto this single life by God, whom by continuall praiers he ought to mooue and sollicit, that he will be present with him, whereby he may liue chastlie and purelie; and when he perceiueth that iniurie is doone vnto him by the lawes, let him commend his cause vnto God, for that he did not wilfullie, and of his owne accord, cast himselfe into this state, but being vrged of necessitie, is constreined to reteine this lot. But and if he shall altogither perceiue, that he is not able to liue a chast and continent life, and that he cannot be persuaded in his mind to liue single and without a wife; and thinketh it expedient for him to vse the libertie, which God hath appointed, least he should doo it against the will of his owne magistrate, and against the common lawes; let him depart, and get himselfe into other countries, where this may be lawfull: there let him marrie, and addict himselfe vnto that Common-weale, by whose lawes it is permitted him. These things are in such sort taught by me, as I am readie alwaies to heare and admit that counsell, which shall be better, and more perfect.

57 But of this I maruell oftentimes with my selfe, how it came to passe, that Valentinian, Theodosius, and Iustinian, otherwise most christian princes, partlie made lawes themselues of diuorsements, and partlie by their authoritie confirmed them which were made of old; and that such lawes were not openlie withstood by the most godlie bishops, which liued in those daies: séeing otherwise, ³⁷⁷ Ambrose procured Theodosius to make a lawe of deferring the punishment of death for certeine daies, and found meanes by his authoritie, that the decrées, which Symmachus would haue established, tooke no place. Séeing therefore that those princes, which were verie godlie, durst ordeine such things by their lawes, and that the church withstood not the same; how commeth it to passe, that magistrates at this daie doo stand in doubt to determine hereof? Peraduenture they would saie, that there would then be great store of diuorsements. Which is not verie likelie, séeing among the Hebrues, Graecians, and Romans, where diuorsements were lawfull, we read not that there was anie great number. But and if so be they thinke, that our men be woorse in these daies, than either the Hebrues or Ethniks were in old time; both they doo iniurie vnto the name of christianitie, and by this means are brought, that they the rather condescend vnto diuorsement; bicause it was permitted as a remedie of wickednesse. For who will haue a medicine to be taken awaie, while he perceiueth the disease still to reigne?

58 This moreouer ought to be certeine, ³⁷⁸ that Christ, when he excepted the cause of adulterie, ment not a diuorse, wherewith the wife and the husband should be separated onelie (as they saie) from the bed and boord, and that the bond of wedlocke should still remaine. The Lord spake vnto the Hebrues, wherefore his words are to be vnderstood of the vsuall diuorse amongst that people. Also the Ethniks, ³⁷⁹ as well Romans as Graecians, had onelie this sort of diuorse knowne among them; that the one married person was so loosed from the other, as new marriages might be lawfull. And if so be that Christ had otherwise ment it, he should haue séemed not to haue answered vnto the question propounded vnto him: for they reasoned then of that kind of diuorse, for the which a bill of putting awaie a mans wife was granted by the lawe. The disputation was of that, wherefore the words of Christ ought so to be vnderstood. For whether is it more likelie, that the Iewes inquired of the diuorse, which they were ignorant of; or rather of that, which Moses had granted to them in the lawe? I thinke that no man is doubtfull, whether they asked of the thing, which was vsuall among them.

59 What also the ancient fathers in the church haue iudged hereof, it is no difficult thing to perceiue. Origin granteth, ³⁸⁰ that some bishops gaue leaue vnto wiues (being separated from their husbands) to marrie others: which fact of theirs he saith, was against the scriptures, and yet he excuseth the bishops, that they did it not without consideration. Of the same mind shalt thou find Ierom to be, in the Epitaph of Fabiola, which was married to an other, while hir former husband yet liued. ³⁸¹ Ierom there confesseth, that she did not well therein; but yet in the meane time he excuseth hir fact, by sundrie and manifold reasons. And it appéereth manifestlie, that the other marriage of this woman was not quite cut off. The bishops therefore of those times did not giue counsell to haue new marriages; but it séemeth that they did bear with those, which happened in the meane time. Albeit (as we haue recited out of Origin ) some of them gaue licence to marrie againe. But we are to beléeue, that the greater part did rather suffer than persuade.

³⁸² Wherefore I vnderstand the Canon of the councell of Neocaesaria (wherin ministers of the church are forbidden to be present to blesse the second marriages) to be ment as touching this sort, and not of those which are renewed after the death of the other spouse; forsomuch as these marriages are good and godlie, and are commanded by Paule, vnto whom so euer they shall be néedfull, séeing he saith vnto Timothie, that he would haue The yonger widowes to marrie, and to bring foorth children. ³⁸³ But those other marriages (in so much as the other married partie was liuing) were taken for suspected; although they were borne withall: and therefore the ecclesiasticall blessing was not giuen to to them. And this dooth the reason shew, which is added to the Canon: ³⁸⁴ for it is said; For how can they inioine repentance for these marriages? Whereas it is not read, that euer anie repentance was inioined for second marriages, after the death of the husband or wife, as though they had béene sinne. But for matrimonie, which hath béene doone, the husband being yet aliue, it is manifestlie shewed in the epistle of Ierom, which we euen now spake of. There was repentance inioined to Fabiola, although (as I haue said) we read, that that matrimonie was neither dissolued, neither yet counted vnlawfull; for that woman was with the latter husband so long as he liued.

³⁸⁵ 60 And as concerning Ambrose, how little he misliked second marriages, the one partie being aliue, his exposition vpon the second to the Corinthians, the seuenth chapter, dooth plainelie testifie: where he vnderstandeth, that the wife may depart from hir husband for thrée causes. The one, if he be an adulterer; another, if he be a backe-slider from the [true] religion; the third, if he would abuse his wife through lust, contrarie vnto the iust vse and custome of nature: for these causes (saith he) let a woman depart, but let hir remaine vnmarried; sith that is not lawfull to hir, which is lawfull to the husband. For if the husband put awaie his wife for fornication sake, he may marrie an other. And he saith verie plainlie, that the mans cause in this respect is better than the womans, and the reason he allegeth; bicause Man is the womans head: ³⁸⁶ and that therefore it is not méet he should be tied by such streict lawes. Peraduenture, besides this reason, which he brought, he had respect vnto the lawe of the old testament, ³⁸⁷ where it séemeth to haue béene lawfull onlie vnto the men, to giue a bill of diuorsement. Which héereby is prooued; bicause at no time in the scriptures, there is anie mention made of women, that they should giue a bill of diuorsement vnto their husbands. And in the prophet Malachie, ³⁸⁸ when God dooth complaine of the crueltie of husbands towards their wiues, (which dailie lamented in the temple, and wept in their praiers, making relation what they indured at their husbands hands) he commandeth, that he which hateth his wife, should giue hir licence to depart.

But and if so be it had béene permitted vnto women, to giue vnto their husbands a bill of diuorsement; they would not haue indured such crueltie, and so hard a state of life. They would haue departed of themselues, and would not haue waited for an admonition from the Lord, which should saie by his prophet; If thou hate thy wife, put hir awaie. And vndoubtedlie, God séemeth in the old testament, for sinnes sake, to haue subiected the woman vnto the man, by a certeine kind of seruitude; so as hir state in manie things should be woorse than the state of man. ³⁸⁹ It was lawfull vnto the husband (if he had béen gelous) to make triall of hir by publike and solemne ceremonie: which was not lawfull for women against their husbands. Polygamie, or to haue more wiues than one, was sometime granted vnto men: which was not permitted vnto women. And we might reckon vp manie such like things, which notwithstanding were not without consideration appointed by the law of GOD, which would be now ouerlong to rehearse. Yea and among the Romans, ³⁹⁰ there was no such punishment of lusts vsed against men, as was against women. The woman was condemned of adulterie, with what man so euer she had kept vnlawfull companie; but there was no punishment vsed against the man, except when he had plaid the harlot in a strange bed, or had rauished those which were honest and frée borne; but if he had doone wickedlie in harlots houses, or against his owne handmaids, there was no punishment for him.

61 But Ierom in the epistle to Oceanus hath otherwise, and he saith; ³⁹¹ that That which the holie scripture commandeth the man, the same dooth also redound to the woman: and he will haue the like decrée of both. Further, as touching the Romane lawes he saith; In one sort speaketh Caesar, and in another sort Christ; one waie Paule, and another waie Papinianus. For my part, although I cannot denie, but in the lawe of Moses the condition of women and men was vnlike in respect of manie things; yet in this cause, as the state of our time standeth, I would not subscribe vnto Ambrose: against whom also Augustine is, ³⁹² is, who, in the second booke and eight chapter to Pollentius De adulterinis coniugijs, maketh both their states alike. Notwithstanding that, ³⁹³ which the Maister of the sentences bringeth, is most vaine; whose iudgement is, that these things are pact into Ambrose his books by heretiks. But so might all controuersies be easilie dissolued, and we might saie, that those things, which make against vs in the fathers, were thrust in by heretiks. Howbeit, the same Ambrose afterward giueth the scope of new marriages vnto women also, ³⁹⁴ if the vnbeléeuer will not dwell togither with hir. Which in verie déed standeth me in stéed of a reason to prooue, that the libertie of both is alike. For if the cause, which the apostle sheweth, extend it selfe vnto both the man and wife; it shall no lesse be granted in the cause of fornication, which Christ expressed.

Moreouer, that which is permitted vnto the man, shall no otherwise be, but that matrimonie is dissolued, bicause of fornication. But if so be it be dissolued, and the woman loosed from the same; why shall it not also be lawfull for hir to be married vnto another? Last of all we sée, that the lawes of the bishops doo grant vnto a woman hir diuorse, if she prooue that hir husband is verie cruell vnto hir. Which séeing they doo as touching hir diuorse, how dare they denie that it may not be doone in a man? In the old lawe it was not lawfull for wiues to giue a bill of diuorsement; bicause it was giuen for euerie cause. And séeing women be inconstant, it is not méet that they should depart from men for euerie cause. But now if the certeine causes were limited, we might easilie be rid of that inconuenience. I will also adde, that the time is not easie to be knowne, wherin it began among the Romans to be lawfull for women to put awaie their husbands, vnlesse it be in those questions mixed togither of the old and new testament, ³⁹⁵ which are intituled to Augustine. In the question 115. it is written, that vnder Iulian this began to be lawfull for them. For then leaue was giuen vnto women; that they might put awaie their husbands. Notwithstanding, who this Iulian was, it appéereth not; séeing we read of two emperours of that name.

62 But these were woont to be counted the causes, why the fathers would, ³⁹⁶ that new marriages should not be lawfull, after a diuorse was made for fornicatio~ sake. First, for that it might séeme that the husband lusting after a new wife, would inuent a feigned crime of adulterie against the first. Further, for that it might séeme no wise mans part, that when it hapned ill with him before, he would trie the same lucke againe, & after a sort séeke the same infelicitie. Besides these, there are brought in the places, as well to the Romans as to the Corinthians, ³⁹⁷ where the apostle séemeth to be of that mind; that a wife, so long as hir husband shall liue, is bound to his lawe. The latter writers also doo cauill, that matrimonie is a sacrament, and that therefore it cannot be made void. And Innocentius, when he decréed that it is not lawfull for the one partie married, to enter into new matrimonie, if the other shall be fallen into heresie, addeth this reason; that There would be a doore open vnto great inconuenience: for anie man would soone feine himselfe to be an heretike, that he might be deliuered of his wife, and obteine another. Further, they be woont to vrge this saieng; ³⁹⁸ That which God hath coupled togither, let no man separate.

These reasons Erasmus dooth plainelie confute. Touching the first; ³⁹⁹ If a seuere iudgement be appointed by bishops and magistrates, false reports might easilie be preuented, neither will there be anie leaue giuen of diuorse, vnlesse that fornication shall plainlie and euidentlie be prooued. Of the other reason it is said; That which is obiected, is verie ridiculous, séeing we oftentimes sée, that those which haue sailed once without good successe, and haue abidden shipwracke, doo returne againe to shipping. And the partie, which is innocent, while he endureth prickings and burnings, and cannot easilie kéepe himselfe chast; what maruell is it, if he cast in his mind to marrie againe? Touching the place to the Romans it may easilie be answered; The apostle did not there dispute, whether diuorsements might be by anie meanes admitted; but it sufficed him, that he shewed vnto the beléeuing Iewes, and to them which were conuerted to our religion, that it was now lawfull to marrie againe in Christ, after that death was come, which is the certeine and vndoubted cause of dissoluing matrimonie: wherein, although there were a singular coniunction and peace betwéen man and wife, yet by death the same is dissolued. Verie wiselie therefore did Paule in that place put onelie that cause of dissoluing matrimonie, which of necessitie he was to grant; although no other cause had hapned in the meane while. So vnto the Corinthians he would shew, that it was lawfull for a widowe to contract new marriages, if she would; bicause hir first husband was dead. He reasoneth not there, whether a diuorse may be made for anie other cause; but onelie sheweth, that there is no cause whie second marriages be not lawfull, when either the husband or the wife happen to die.

⁴⁰⁰ 63 But whether matrimonie be a sacrament or no, it is not hard to be answered. If thou vnderstand the name of a sacrament generallie, and at large, for euerie such thing as signifieth some holie thing, we will not denie, but that matrimonie may be a sacrament; séeing it resembleth vnto vs, the coniunction of Christ with his church: whereof we haue a testimonie in the epistle to the Ephesians. ⁴⁰¹ But after this maner thou art forced to appoint, not onelie seuen, but an infinite number of sacraments: such as are the washing of féete, the shaking of dust from the féete, the imbrasing of yong children in armes, and in a maner all the actions of Christ. But if thou wilt drawe the name of a sacrament to those things, which not onelie betoken spirituall things, but also are vsed to be doone by certeine words, and of which there is a commandement extant, that they should be doone: in this sense thou canst not appoint matrimonie [to be a sacrament. ⁴⁰² ] I passe ouer, that Dionysius in his treatise De ecclesiastica Hierarchia, reckoneth it not among the rest of the sacraments. ⁴⁰³ Neither would Iouinian haue escaped this argument, which left not anie small thing vntouched, whereby he might extoll matrimonie. Further, what sort of sacrament soeuer this be, the reason furthereth not the purpose of our aduersaries. For Christ, whom they would signifie to be ioined vnto the church, hath made a diuorse from the synagog, and hath coupled our church vnto him. But if peraduenture they shall saie, that this is not doone but by his death: I will answer, that the diuine nature in Christ, for the which this matrimonie is especiallie agréeable vnto him, neither died, nor yet possiblie can die. And yet (as Esaie writeth) God gaue a bill of diuorsement vnto the people of Israel, ⁴⁰⁴ and by reason of their sinnes he reiected them from his companie.

64 A slender reason also is it that Innocentius brought: for by the like and the same reason might anie man faine himselfe to be a seruant, when otherwise he were frée; to the intent he might vndoo the matrimonie contracted, and procure himselfe an other wife. And if that the error of their state were so great a matter to them, that it dissolued matrimonie; whie should not that be of more force, which Christ himselfe and the apostle did except? Neither dooth that greatlie trouble vs, which they vttered in the last place; namelie, that it is not mans part, to separate them whom GOD hath put togither. For when such causes, as these be, doo happen; it is God which diuideth, and not men: forsomuch as he, by his word, hath giuen this power. Vndoubtedlie men should then separate, if for euerie cause not expressed by God, they should attempt to vndoo matrimonie. And Paule, when he said; ⁴⁰⁵ Let hir remaine vnmarried, speaketh of them, which being led by light causes, departed from their husbands. It was a custome among the Hebrues, to giue a bill of diuorsement vpon anie cause. And diuorsements were so common and vsuall vnto the Ethniks, as Iuuenal said; So are there eight husbands made, fiue for the haruest time, &c. Wherefore, not without cause the apostle writeth these things vnto the Corinthians. The Romans were not so readie to put awaie their wiues. For the first, which made a diuorse, was Spurius Seruilius, and that bicause of barrennesse of the wife; in the two hundred and thirtie yeare after the building of the citie: as Plutarch mentioneth in the life of Romulus.

Paule therefore speaketh not of the cause of fornication: for as touching that, he disagréeth not from Christ, who (as we haue prooued) did grant there a iust diuorse. ⁴⁰⁶ Neither must the apostle be vnderstood, as though he allowed those departings of married folkes one from an other: verelie he condemneth them, and would not haue them so rashlie, and vpon such trifeling causes to depart one from an other. But as a good minister he prouideth, least perhaps, if they fall into this vice, they may commit an other more gréeuous; namelie, to be married vnto an other. Let hir (saith he) remaine vnmarried, or else let hir be reconciled vnto hir husband. And he séemeth in this place, not so greatlie to reprooue & blame the crime of departing one from an other, as it deserueth. For he sawe, that sometimes it happeneth that women be not separated of their owne accord; but cast foorth by their husbands, in such sort, as if they would returne, yet is there no present meanes for them to doo it. Howbeit the magistrate ought to prouide for such afflicted soules by approoued and good lawes.

65 But now I thought good to weigh and examine certeine things, which be spoken by Augustine, in his two little bookes De adulterinis coniugijs vnto Pollentius, ⁴⁰⁷ according as I shall iudge them to serue vnto the purpose of this place. He thought in verie déed, that it was not lawfull for him, that should put awaie his wife for the cause of adulterie, to marrie an other. ⁴⁰⁸ But whereas in Matthew that cause is excepted, he answereth, that either of them both is an adulterer; as well he which for adulterie sake, as he that without that cause, putteth his wife from him, and marrieth an other. And he saith, that Matthew expresseth onelie one of them, to note him which committeth the greater sinne. Both of them doo commit adulterie, by putting awaie their wife, and marrieng of an other; but he more gréeuouslie, that shall doo this without cause of fornication. And so he would, that the same exception should onelie be of force to moderate the crime of adulterie: but not to this effect, that it should be quite taken awaie. And this he thinketh that he can shew by the word of God: for Luke and Marke vttered the same sentence absolutelie, and without anie exception. ⁴⁰⁹ They saie; Euerie man, which shall put awaie his wife, and marrie another, committeth adulterie: therefore he concludeth generallie, that the saieng of Christ must be vnderstood as Luke and Marke wrote. But Matthew (saith he) noteth him, that shall doo it for fornication sake, that it may be vnderstood he sinneth the lesse.

But certeinlie I would iudge this kind of argument to be most weake: ⁴¹⁰ for it séemeth wée should rather saie, that Luke and Marke wrote not the perfect or compleat sentence of she Lord, which we ought to gather out of Matthew, and to vnderstand it definitelie. Which rule he himselfe vseth, and that not once, in his booke De consensu euangelistarum, where he plainelie saith; that Verie oftentimes in the other euangelists, some things are spoken not verie plainelie and perfectlie. The which ought more perfectlie to be gathered out of Matthew. And it is to be woondered at, how he can alwaies séeme to vnderstand that departure, whereof the apostle speaketh, for that which may be lawfull, séeing the apostle plainelie said; ⁴¹¹ Let not the wife be separated from hir husband. So as it is manifest, that the apostle speaketh of that departing, which is not lawfull; séeing he forbiddeth the same. Whereby it easilie appéereth, that héere is no spéech touching the cause of fornication. But in that case the apostle would not command, that the wife should not depart from hir husband: for that were to nourish brothelrie, if adulterie should be suffered, the wife being present and abiding with hir husband.

Wherfore Paule commandeth, that she should not depart for these small causes, séeing that is not lawfull. And if perhaps she doo depart, hée commandeth that she should remaine vnmarried; or else that she be reconciled vnto hir husband. Euerie one is bound to put awaie euill from among his owne familie. How should a husband but exclude his wife, when he findeth hir in adulterie? ⁴¹² And yet the apostle saith; Let not a man put awaie his wife. Ought he therefore to harbour hir adulterie? Hereby is sufficientlie shewed, of what maner of departing and eiection these things be ment. ⁴¹³ And in this place thou hast Chrysostome, who is of our opinion: for he saith; Sometimes they depart one from another by reason of contentions, or faint courage, or else for continencie, or for other pretenses: neither dooth he make anie mention of adulterie. Tertullian, in his fourth booke against Martion, saith; ⁴¹⁴ that Iustice hath the Lord to be a defender of diuorse. By which words he sheweth, that Christ did confirme diuorse, and that he tooke it not vtterlie awaie. For by this reason the heretiks went about to prooue, that Christ was contrarie to God in the old testament, for condemning of those things, which he ordeined. Which sentence of Tertullian should not be true, if iust diuorsements (as the Hebrues vsed) shuld not be admitted among the Christians.

66 Neither ought this to trouble vs much, that in the old testament, a bill of diuorsement was permitted for euerie cause; séeing now Christ draweth the matter into so streict a roome: this is no cause, why thou shouldest thinke him to be against the decrées and lawes of his father. But this thou must consider, that in those daies, the same lawe of giuing a bill of diuorsement, ⁴¹⁵ which was ordeined in the 24. of Deuteronomie, was ciuill: ⁴¹⁶ and Christ dealt not as touching the ciuill affaires. They, which gouerne a Common-weale, appoint themselues such a scope, as if two euils or discommodities be offered, the lesse must be permitted, lest they should fall into the greater. ⁴¹⁷ Which may easilie be shewed in harlots, whom they suffer to liue in cities, least more heinous crimes should be committed. Which neuerthelesse, the lawe of the Lord in his Common-weale did not permit. But now I bring this as an example, which although it be not doone according to christianitie; yet is it to be séene here and there in manie Common weales. Euen so, as concerning the affaires of matrimonie, when the matches be vntoward, one of the two discommodities séemed necessarie; that they, which hated their wiues, either they would perpetuallie afflict them, and at length kill them; or else a licence of diuorsement was to be giuen them.

This latter euill séemed more tollerable, wherfore GOD granted the same to be in his Common-weale: but yet he so granted it, ⁴¹⁸ as a bill of diuorsement should be written. Wherewith a sharpe and vntractable man, euen in writing of it, might some waies be mooued, & might more déepelie ponder how dishonest a part it should be, to driue hir awaie from him, with whom euen from the beginning he had liued most familiarlie. For we be woont more attentiuelie to ponder those things, which we write, than those things which we speake. Moreouer, he commanded, that when she should be cast out by a bill of diuorsement; she might neuer be receiued againe into matrimonie by hir first husband. So as in these politicall lawes, let a christian and godlie man so behaue himselfe, that he vse not this leaue, which he séeth is granted him, least we fall into more heinous euils: sith he may perceiue that it hath some euill also ioined with it, although it be the lesser. Wherefore our redéemer hath appointed decrées vnto his people, both of pietie and religion. In the meane time he condemned not the counsell of GOD, which he vsed in the Common-welth of the Hebrues, for restraining of more gréeuous sinnes.

67 Thou shalt not find in the old testament anie men of praise or renowme (so far as the holie histories make mention) that vsed a diuorse Do not obiect Abraham, which put awaie Agar, and Ismael hir child from him: ⁴¹⁹ for this he did not of his owne accord, but at the sute of his wife, ⁴²⁰ and commandement of God. Also Augustine, in the place abooue recited, did write; that It is vnbeséeming for Christian husbands, to take the matter so gréeuouslie, that they should not be reconciled to their wiues (which fall into adulterie) when they be penitent, and shew hope of amendement of their life. They must (saith he) consider with themselues, that they be christians whose part is to incline to mercie, and not to be hard-harted. ⁴²¹ Dauid (he saith) tooke Michol to him againe, who neuerthelesse was coupled to an other man. But this example of his séemeth not verie effectuall, bicause Michol committed not a full and compleat adulterie: for the yoong woman was compelled by hir father, who was king, to match hir selfe with an other man. So that she was driuen vnto that latter matrimonie, not onelie by the lawe of the countrie, but also by the commandement of the king. ⁴²² In the second place he bringeth in the example of Christ, who séemeth to haue pardoned the adulteresse: which (no doubt) is of force to persuade the minds of husbands vnto mercie towards their penitent wiues. Yet dooth it not prooue, that adulterers should not be punished by lawes and magistrates with death. For Christ, by that action, did not take anie thing awaie from the ciuill lawes, or from the seueritie of publike iudgements. Bitter men (saith Augustine ) did so hate that chapter of Iohn, as they blotted it out of his place. By which words he séemeth to note (as the thing it selfe declareth) that the same chapter was not found in all the copies. Certeinlie these men ought to haue remembred their owne frailenesse, and to marke how oftentimes they them selues fell into sundrie mischéefes; and sometime perchance into the verie same kind of sinne, of violating the faith of marriage.

68 They moreouer, which so obstinatelie hate their wiues, saie it is not méet, that husbands who be the heads, and wiues, should be both vnder one lawe. ⁴²³ Naie rather (saith Augustine ) séeing the man is the womans head, hir ruler & guide; therfore it had béene méet he should excell hir in vertue. ⁴²⁴ And he citeth the lawe of Antonius the emperour, which he saith, he read in Gregories booke, which is on this wise; I iudge it to be verie vniust, that a man should require chastitie of his wife, which he himselfe performeth not to hir. Where vpon he decréed, that she should not be condemned of adulterie, which prooued hir husband either guiltie of that crime, or else that he gaue hir an occasion of falling. By these and such other meanes, Augustine exhorteth men to pardon their wiues, when they haue offended. Which I verie well allow, when there is hope of true repentance, and change of life. So then, if the magistrate once applie his mind to take awaie these euils, and to reforme the faults that be in matrimonie; let him prouide, that husbands, which complaine of their wiues naughtines, being proued in the same fault themselues, escape not vnpunished: and let him prouide by good lawes, that husbands giue vnto their wiues no occasion of sinning.

69 But when the apostle saith; ⁴²⁵ Vnto the remnant speake I, not the Lord. If anie brother haue a wife that is an infidell, and shee is content to dwell with him, let him not put hir awaie, &c. thou shalt note, that dwelling togither is required to a iust matrimonie. ⁴²⁶ Wherefore the Lord said, that he would appoint man a wife to be a helper vnto him. Which I speake not, to the intent it should neuer be lawfull for man and wife to be one from an other, either by occasion of sicknesse, or else for other great and vrgent necessities: but that married folkes may vnderstand, that there should be no let in them to dwell togither, and that they should not shunne to liue one with an other. Thou wilt demand perhaps; If the vnbeléeuing partie be prooued altogither an Atheist, an Epicure, & which hath no regard of religion, so as there is despaire of his saluation; whether in that case the partie that beléeueth, ought to remaine in wedlocke? We answer: Certeinlie, when the partie married is past all hope of saluation, a separation may be made; for the effect being remooued, there is left no place for the cause. All the reason of abiding togither, was for charitie sake; that the faithfull man might win his wife vnto Christ.

But bicause it is not lawfull to despaire of anie man, while he liueth; ⁴²⁷ and he that this daie is an Atheist, an Epicure, and contemner of religion, to morrowe perhaps will not be so; séeing God hath the hearts of men in his hands: therefore, vnlesse there happen to be a manifest and speciall reuelation of the condemnation of such a one, there ought not to be a departing. But if the same partie in the meane time shalbe a blasphemer, and a cursser of Christ; so as the beléeuer cannot remaine in matrimonie, without the contumelie of Christ (for perhaps the husband cannot abide to be reprehended of blasphemie;) or else that the truth of Christ must be defended by confession: is it lawfull then to depart? Yea verelie; for he, which honoreth Christ, if he doo not deliuer his name from contumelie, if he may; or at the least-wise passeth not whether he séeme to consent vnto the iniurie doone vnto him, he sinneth gréeuouslie, and in vaine taketh himselfe to be a christian. Wherefore prudentlie dooth the apostle write; (If the vnbeleeuer will dwell togither with the beleeuer:) bicause he is not iudged to be willing, which dooth detest the religion of his spouse; who dooth reuile his GOD with blasphemies, and suffereth not that his conscience may rest in tranquillitie and quietnesse. This is not to dwell togither, but to torment the other partie, to raise vp strife, and vtterlie to ouerthrowe all domesticall peace.

70 Also, if it happen, that the faithfull partie be weake, and perceiueth him selfe, by meanes of that matrimonie, to fall awaie by little and little from christian religion; so that he is almost led awaie from the faith, and readie to fall headlong into idolatrie, by being with idolaters, what shall he then doo? He ought not to abide: for that sentence must stand sure and vnshaken; We must not doo euill, ⁴²⁸ that good may come thereof. Neither is there anie hope then remaining, that the vnbeléeuing partie can be conuerted, which was the cause of reteining matrimonie: naie rather it now happened contrariwise, that the beléeuing partie shuld be put in ieopardie of inclining to infidelitie. And this was the reason why God, in the old testament, appointed matrimonie, which was contracted with infidels, ⁴²⁹ to be dissolued by Esdras: bicause men were by that meanes stirred vp vnto such worshippings, as were forbidden; so far off were they from winning their wiues vnto the Iewes religion. ⁴³⁰ Augustine, in the place now cited, reasoneth on this wise; For this cause Paule wrote these things, for that it was to be feared, that if through the Gospell begun, the matrimonies contracted should be made void, christian religion would be condemned; as though it troubled the Common-weales, and did cut in sunder honest and lawfull contracts.

And there was added another discommoditie; namelie, that the vnbeléeuing partie, suffering a repulse of hir husband for religion sake, intangled hirselfe with new marriages, whereby hir mind might be the more vehementlie hardened in infidelitie, and more and more become strange vnto christian religion. Which would not haue happened, if the faithfull wife had tarried with him. ⁴³¹ So as it séemeth good, that all meanes be attempted, before a departure be had. Hereby therefore we sée, that Paule dooth giue leaue to depart, not for religion sake onelie; but in case that the vnbeléeuing partie will not dwell togither [with the beléeuer.] So as he maketh the obstinate will, to be the cause of departing, rather than vnlikenes of religion: séeing he teacheth, that the same after a sort might be abidden. And it appéereth, that the sentence of Christ, wherein he onelie excepteth whooredome, ⁴³² was not compleat: séeing the apostle here added another.

⁴³³ 71 Here arise thrée great doubts. First it séemeth, that Paule laieth open the partie that beléeueth vnto great perill: for he persuadeth him to remaine with an infidell, whereby he perhaps might fall into idolatrie; for it is an easie matter to be seduced of the vnbeléeuing partie. But it is answered, that it is not so: for, God being then mooued by praiers, will helpe the faithfull partie, when he perceiueth him to followe his vocation, and that he did not willinglie, and of his owne accord, procure those dangers. Which had béene as much as to tempt God, who séeth, that he abideth not in this kind of marriage by his owne will, or for his owne commoditie sake; but that he may obeie the commandement of God, and therfore will helpe him. Moreouer, if it happen that the beléeuer, being weake, perceiueth himselfe to be led from Christ, he hath leaue to depart; as we haue instructed before.

The second doubt is, for that in committing of whooredome, we therefore sinne; bicause we take the member of Christ, and make the same the member of an harlot. How happeneth it here, that sinne is not committed, when as we make the member of Christ (I meane the partie that beléeueth) to be a member of idolatrie? ⁴³⁴ It is soone answered; that we doo it not: he was the member of his wife before. Onlie this must be holden, that there should be no parting for the Gospell sake. There is no leaue giuen to him, which alreadie is the member of Christ, that he should become the member of an idolatrous woman, to marrie with one that is an infidell: but it is onelie said, that he should not rashlie depart. But in committing of fornication, we which alreadie be the members of Christ, are pulled from him; and make our selues the members of an harlot. Thou séest that the reason is vnlike. Furthermore, it commeth to passe, that in coupling with an harlot, either partie is vnpure; as well the harlot, as he which hath the companie of hir. So is it not in marriage of persons of vnsemblable religion, where the one partie; namelie, the beléeuer is pure. For he, which committeth whoordome, is not onlie mingled in bodie with an harlot, but also he consenteth with hir in the wicked desire of fornication. So that both of them, as well touching the mind, as the bodie, are defiled. But here, in marriages of contrarie religion, they are not coupled togither in respect of faith; but in bodies onelie: and Paule testifieth, that from the bodie of the infidell, vncleannesse is taken awaie, that the other partie may not be contaminated. In the meane time, faith remaineth sound, and the mind pure, in the partie sanctified: which faith hath no place in committing of whoredome.

The last doubt is; if a Christian husband dwell with an idolatrous and an vnbeléeuing wife, and that he ought not rashlie to depart, and yet may depart from an adulteresse; it séemeth to follow, that adulterie is a more gréeuous sinne, and more intollerable than idolatrie is. Chrysostome answereth, ⁴³⁵ that God is so verie good, as sometime he preferreth our commodities before his owne: for he willeth, that the sacrifice be left at the altar, ⁴³⁶ and before we doo offer sacrifice, a reconciliation is to be made with our neighbours. He sometime forbeareth to haue a debt paid vnto him, and forgiueth the same: but vs he will not absolue, vnlesse we satisfie our neighbour. Wherefore the argument is but féeble, wherein thou didest gather, that idolatrie is a lesser sinne than adulterie; bicause the spouse is permitted [to tarrie] with the idolatrous wife, and from adulterie he may depart. But it appeareth, that we may make a more perfect answer; ⁴³⁷ that in verie déed idolatrie, in his owne nature, is a more gréeuous sinne than adulterie: but that adulterie is more repugnant to wedlocke than idolatrie, ⁴³⁸ wherein man and wife should be one flesh, and by adulterie be drawne one from an other. It is true indéed, that idolatrie is more repugnant vnto God than adulterie is; but adulterie is a greater enimie to marriage than idolatrie. Which dooth héereby appeare, for that marriages are had betwéene idolaters and Mahumets.

72 But whether Dauid did well, in taking of the Synamite to wife, ⁴³⁹ it appeareth doubtfull vnto some. For those that are cold [of nature] when they marrie wiues, they séeme not to doo the part of a married man, bicause according to humane laws, such marriages be not firme: for cold persons doo inforce themselues to performe that which they are not able. ⁴⁴⁰ Certeinlie, there haue béene manie things decréed touching this matter, as well by the Ciuill as by the Canon lawes. First they decrée, that if there be a continuall defect; those which be contracted, ought to be separated; so that the partie, which sueth for separation, had no foreknowledge of that disease. For if the woman, contracting with a man in ill state, did know therof before, she cannot for that cause step backe from hir husband. There is a lawe had concerning spousages, in the lawe Mulier, which ordeined in this wise; If before matrimonie contracted, the wife knew of the infamie or the impotencie of the man, let hir impute it to hir owne selfe, she cannot séeke for diuorse. In the Digests Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs, in the lawe Si vxor, about the end it is said; If anie man knowe that a woman hath committed adulterie, and shall afterward marrie hir, he cannot accuse hir of adulterie: for séeing he tooke hir to wife, and had knowledge of it, he séemed to allow of hir conditions.

The same hath the Canon lawe determined, as in the 33. cause, question 1. in the chapter Requisisti, the Glosse saith; If the woman knew the impediment of the man, and contract with him, she cannot step backe. But admit she knew it not, shall the matrimonie be firme? Gregorie, in the Canon alledged, did counsell, that they should dwell togither; to the intent the woman, if she cannot be a wife, may be a sister. But this he speaketh by counsell, not by commandment. For if she denie with lowd voice, and saie, that she would be a mother, and beare children; she is heard. Howbeit, they make a condition; namelie, that she shall gaine-saie it within the space of two moneths (as appeareth in the Extrauagants De frigidis & maleficiatis, in the first Canon;) séeing if she abide long, she séemeth by hir owne consent to haue confirmed the marriage. But the rigor of this lawe is not obserued at this daie, but a longer space of time is appointed, and that iustlie: for he perhaps may séeme cold at the beginning, which will not be so afterward. What shall be doone then, if she gaine-saie it, and yet allow it? If the husband will stand at deniall, he must be credited: but if he confesse it, they shall be separated, and leaue is giuen vnto the woman, to prouide an other marriage.

Which neuerthelesse ought not to be doone ouer hastilie: for they will haue the space of thrée yeares to be expected; to the end a longer, and a more sure experience may be had. The same haue the ciuill lawes iudged. Iustinian De repudijs, in the lawe In causis, first assigneth two yeares; but there in the Paraph Sed bodie, he assigneth thrée yeares, and it dooth verie well agrée with the Popes Canons. The same he hath in the Authentikes, in Collatione 4. in the Paraph Per occasionem; namelie, that thrée yeares be giuen. Howbeit, this must be vnderstood on this wise; Vnlesse a plaine proofe therof can be had before, bicause it ought not then to be deferred. But some men saie; that It is possible, that iudges may be deceiued, that the disease may somtime be cured, and that the space of thrée yeares séemeth not to be sufficient, that he might marrie with an other, and haue children, & that in conuersation they might both of them sometimes confesse their coldnesse, bicause they might find the meanes to be separated. If this should happen, they would that the man, being afterward found fit for procreation, should renew his former marriage. But this is not obserued. The same doo they affirme of them, which be hindered by diuelish practises. But bicause the diuell dooth sometimes hinder, so as a man is able to vse the companie of one woman, and not of another; therefore matrimonie is assigned to be with hir, from whom he is not lett. These things are said touching women.

⁴⁴¹ 73 But if the man doo either knowe, or be ignorant that he is cold, what then shalbe doon? If he be ignorant of it, he is after a sort excused; & it is lawfull for him to aske a diuorse, whereby he may be eased of the charges of marriage. But if he knowe before, that he had the disease of coldnesse, he is compelled to find and mainteine his wife, whom he deceiued. The Popes canons decrée, that he should marrie no more: as it is read in the place a little before alledged, De frigidis & maleficiatis. Howbeit, there be some, which saie; If he can find anie that will haue him to hir husband, so he make knowne this imperfection, hée may contract matrimonie with hir. But what maner of marriage will that be, when it is doone neither for procreation of children, neither for auoiding of whooredome? Vnto this they answer, according to the saieng of Augustine, which we read in the 27. cause, question the first, in the chapter Nupt⟨…⟩arum: and it is written in the eight chapter De bono con⟨…⟩ugali. In the old time, marriage was an obedience of the lawe; now it is for the redresse of our infirmitie, and for the comfort of mankind. But the place is ambiguous, for the comfort of mankind may haue a respect vnto procreation of children; sith thereby the parents conceiue no small pleasure, wherin they delite themselues. Howbeit, at this daie, they admit this kind of marriage: and there be manie found, which doo peaceablie liue togither.

They, which intreat of these things, haue considered, that there is a great difference betwéene coldnesse and old age. And they define, that old age must neuer be driuen from marriage. ⁴⁴² In ancient time was made the lawe called Papia, or Papaea, vnder Tiberius Caesar (whereof Tranquillus in Claudio maketh mention, and so dooth Lactantius; ) whereby it was prouided, that they which were past thrée score yéeres of age, should not marrie wiues; and that the women should not be married, which did excéed the age of fiftie yéeres. But these lawes were abolished by Iustinian: as is to be found in the Code De nuptijs, in the lawe Sancimus. For this coldnesse is not in all persons alike. Howbeit, neither the lawes of emperours, nor of bishops gaue libertie to them, which were gelded men indéed, to marrie. Yet it behooueth, that that coldnesse or diuelish practises, which may dissolue matrimonie, shuld be perpetuall. For skilfull men doo sometime make a remedie for things, which hurt but for a time. Besides this, it is necessarie, ⁴⁴³ that the impediment be before the contracting of matrimonie: for if they once become one flesh, marriage is not vndoone. Of this matter also wrote the Maister of the sentences, in the fourth booke, the 34. distinction.

74 Now remaineth that we intreat particularlie of the matrimonie of Dauid. And this will we first note, that he was not mooued vnto that marriage, of his owne accord, neither of lust, or of naughtie desire; but by the aduise of his noble men, and by the prudent counsell of physicians. Neuerthelesse, thou wilt saie, that a naughtie aduise and a wicked, must not be admitted. This in verie déed is true: but in this matter (so far as may appéere) neither lewdnes of mind, nor naughtie desire can be prooued. First, old age nothing hindered, but that the king might contract matrimonie: who perhaps also was thought, that as touching coldnesse, he might be restored; although not to the strength; which he was woont to haue, yet so, as should be fit for his old bodie. Certeinlie Abraham was restored, when he was an hundred yéeres of age: so that after the death of Sara he married another, and by hir he did beget children. Neither was there wanting naturall helps to Dauid, wherewith the physicians thought they might restore him. Moreouer, if they declared vnto the damsell the old mans impediment, and the same being knowen, she gaue hir consent, she susteined no iniurie. It might be added, that hir mind was persuaded by God, that she should consent for the benefit of the whole kingdome. Notwithstanding, if she were mooued thereto by ambition; the counsell had not béene good. But to iudge rashlie of these points, it standeth neither with our godlinesse, nor yet with our authoritie. Séeing these things might be doone of a sincere mind, and by the will of GOD; I thinke they ought rather to be taken in good part. This dooth the historie teach, that this damsell was not long with the king; bicause within a while after he died: howbeit, his life, which was verie necessarie for the Common-weale, was prolonged for a while. Yet thus much I will admonish, that we néed not labour so much to excuse the fathers of blame; who also ought not to be charged, vnlesse the historie compell therevnto. Neither will we passe it ouer, that GOD vsed the occasion of this damsell to oppresse Adonias, ⁴⁴⁴ and to establish the kingdome of Salomon.

---

← 27. The ninth Chapter. Wherein is treated · Contents · 29. The eleuenth Chapter. Of Whoredome →

Footnotes

1. In Iud. 8. verse. 31. Of matrimonie. ↩

2. A definition of Matrimonie. Looke In 1. Sa. 18. 20. ↩

3. Gen. 1, 28. ↩

4. 1. Cor. 7, 2.
   ↩

5. Ierom. ↩

6. Against secret marriages. ↩

7. Of hauing concubins. ↩

8. The definition of concubine. ↩

9. Whether the Roman lawe allowed of concubins. ↩

10. Looke vpon Gen 16. at the end, and 25. at the beginning. ↩

11. Gen. 16, 3. ↩

12. Ierom. ↩

13. Looke In Gen. 16. at the end, and 21. at the beginning. ↩

14. In 1. Sam. 25, 42. ↩

15. Polygamie of two sorts ↩

16. The diuision of this question. ↩

17. Arguments for polygamie. ↩

18. 2. Sam. 12, 1 Ibid. 24, 12.
    ↩

19. Ibid. 12, 7. ↩

20. Exod. 21. 27 28, 29. ↩

21. verse. 15. ↩

22. Deut. 25, 5. ↩

23. 1. Tim. 3, 2.
    ↩

24. Augustine. ↩

25. Sinne diuided. ↩

26. Gen. 4, 19. ↩

27. Arguments against polygamie. ↩

28. Gen. 2, 23. ↩

29. An obiection. ↩

30. An other obiection. ↩

31. verse. 4. 5. ↩

32. Ibidem. 11. ↩

33. Gen. 2, 23. The shall be two in one flesh. ↩

34. An obiection. ↩

35. In what cases married parties be free. ↩

36. 1. Cor. 7, 15.
    ↩

37. An other obieccion. ↩

38. Looke par. ⟨…⟩ pla. 1. art. 4. ↩

39. 1. Cor. 6, 15
    ↩
40. 2. Sam. 20, 3
    ↩

41. The fourth argument. ↩

42. 1. Cor. 7, 2.
    ↩

43. verse. 5. ↩

44. Gen. 30, 15. ↩

45. verse. 4. ↩

46. verse. 28. ↩

47. The eight argument. ↩

48. Ephes. 5, 25. ↩

49. 1. Kin. 11, 3.
    ↩

50. Cant. 6, 7, and 8. ↩

51. Ephe. 5, 30. ↩

52. verse. 14. ↩

53. Gen. 16, 4. ↩

54. Ibid. 21, 14. ↩

55. Epiphanius. ↩

56. Gen. 31, 33. ↩

57. Prou. 5, 19. ↩

58. Gen. 31, 50. ↩

59. Gen. 4, 19. ↩

60. The Romans forbad polygamie to the Iewes. ↩

61. The conclusion of these arguments. ↩

62. Looke In Gen. 29, 27. ↩

63. What we are to iudge of the polygamie of the fathers. ↩

64. Whether the Iewes sinned by polygamie. ↩

65. God dispensed with his lawe for propagation sake. ↩

66. An obiection. ↩

67. Why God beare with this imperfection in his church. ↩

68. How the fathers were perfect. ↩

69. Whence it appeereth that God dispensed with his lawe. ↩

70. Leuit. 18. ↩

71. 2. Sam. 12, 8
    ↩

72. Why this lawe was not licenced vnto Adam. ↩

73. Whether it be a peruersenesse of nature. ↩

74. That in polygamie there was hidden a mysterie. ↩

75. What the fathers iudged touching polygamie. ↩

76. A defense of the old fathers touching polygamie. ↩

77. Luke. 12, 47 ↩

78. Melancthons opinion of this thing. ↩

79. Peter Martyrs owne iudgement hereof. ↩

80. What Ambrose and Augustine iudged herof. ↩

81. The licence that the forefathers had must not be transferred vnto vs. Matth. 19. ↩

82. Christ altered not the lawe, but reduced sole marriage to the first institution. ↩

83. 1. Cor. 7, 2.
    ↩

84. How the forefathers may seeme to be adulterers. ↩

85. The fathers opinion heereof. Chrysost. ↩

86. Ierom. ↩

87. Apoc. 1, 8. ↩

88. Ephe. 1. 10. ↩

89. Gen. 1, 28. ↩

90. 1. Cor. 7, 29
    ↩

91. Matt. 19, 12 ↩

92. Augustine ↩

93. 1. Cor. 7, 26. The reason of Pauls praising virginitie.
    ↩

94. Clemens. ↩

95. Iustine. ↩

96. Origin. ↩

97. An answer vnto the reasons making for polygamie. To the first reason. ↩

98. A paralogisme. ↩

99. To the second. ↩

100. A paralogisme. ↩

101. To the third. ↩

102. 2. Sam. 12, 8
     ↩

103. To the fourth. ↩

104. To the fift. ↩

105. To the sixt. ↩

106. To the seuenth. ↩

107. To the eight. ↩

108. To the ninth. ↩

109. To the tenth. ↩

110. To the 11. ↩

111. To the 12. ↩

112. 1. Tim. 3, 2.
     ↩

113. To the 13, ↩

114. To the 14. ↩

115. To the 15. ↩

116. To the 16. ↩

117. To the 17. ↩

118. To the 18. ↩

119. Gen. 4. 19. To the 19. ↩

120. To the 20. ↩

121. To the 21. ↩

122. In 1. Sam. 1. 10. ↩

123. Gen. 1, 22. &, 28. & 8, 17, & 9, 1. ↩

124. Gen. 30, 23. ↩

125. Esaie. 4, 1. ↩

126. Gen. 2, 18. ↩

127. Gen. 30. 1. ↩

128. verse. 9. ↩

129. Psal. 113, 9. ↩

130. In Iudges. 14, verse. 5. ↩

131. An example of the forefathers. ↩

132. Gen. 2, 22. ↩

133. Gen. 24, 3. ↩

134. Gen. 28, 1. ↩

135. The lawe of God. ↩

136. Wherein standeth the honoring of parents. ↩

137. The power of a father defined. ↩

138. verse. 16. ↩

139. verse. 4. ↩

140. 2. Sa. 13, 13.
     ↩

141. Ephe. 6, 1. ↩

142. verse. 36. ↩

143. Euripides. ↩

144. Ambrose. ↩

145. The ciuill lawes touching this point. ↩

146. What the Canons determine hereof. ↩

147. Euaristus, Nicolaus. ↩

148. Leo. ↩

149. Gratian. ↩

150. Ambrose. ↩

151. Gen. 24, 47. ↩

152. The Councels concerning this thing. ↩

153. A disagreement betweene the canons and ciuill lawes touching the matrimonie of seruants. ↩

154. Marriages by the letter of a king not to be liked, and why. ↩

155. Marriage with a stolen maid. ↩

156. How the papists vnto matrimonie require a consent of parents. ↩

157. Peter Lombard. ↩

158. Thomas Aquinas. ↩

159. Ephe. 6, 1. ↩

160. Gen. 24, 3. ↩

161. The elder fathers ⟨…⟩p⟨…⟩ nion h⟨…⟩reof. ↩

162. Tertullian. ↩

163. Chrysost. ↩

164. Beware of whoring before marriage. ↩

165. Wedding crownes vsed in marriages. ↩

166. Augustine. ↩

167. The consent of parents is profitable for the children. ↩

168. Iohn. 6, 38. ↩

169. An answer vnto reasons on the contrarie part. ↩

170. The punishment of ingratitude. ↩

171. A remedie against the harder sort of parents. ↩

172. The magistrate is the father of the countrie. ↩

173. The daughters of Zalphead. Num. 36, 6. ↩

174. Deut. 25, 5. ↩

175. Parents had leaue to sell their children. ↩

176. Exod. 21, 7. ↩

177. Exo. 20, 12. Ephe. 6, 1. ↩

178. verse. 8. ↩

179. Gen. 28, 8. The marriage of Esau ↩

180. verse. 5. ↩

181. What we are to account of marriages made without the consent of parents. ↩

182. In Iudges. 21. about the end. ↩

183. Wherein rape differeth from their. ↩

184. What kind of rapt is here intreated of. ↩

185. Augustine. ↩

186. What is to be doone concerning things found. ↩

187. Against Magike and arts forbidden. ↩

188. Of punishments made against raptors. ↩

189. One may commit a rapt against his owne spouse ↩

190. From raptors is taken awaie the libertie of appealing. ↩

191. In rapt the punishment is all one, though the maid consent. ↩

192. The opinion of the Canonists. ↩

193. The Councell of Orleance. ↩

194. The Councell of Chalcedon and Cabylon. ↩

195. Deut. 22, 28 ↩

196. The Councell Meldenum. ↩

197. The Councell of Aquisgrane. ↩

198. Ierom. ↩

199. verse. 26. ↩

200. Exo. 21, 16. ↩

201. Gen. 34, 14. The rapting of Dina. ↩

202. Gen. 29. ↩

203. Exod. 6, 20. ↩

204. What the Schoolmen iudge hereof. Thomas Aquinas. ↩

205. The Pope worshipped as God. ↩

206. One papist against another. ↩

207. Caietane. ↩

208. What the scriptures determine hereof. ↩

209. Gen. 6, 2. ↩

210. The Chalde interpretor. ↩

211. Gen. 34, 2. ↩

212. Looke In Gen. 34, at the beginning. ↩

213. Titus. 2, 5. ↩

214. 1. Tim. 5, 13.
     ↩

215. verse. 21, ↩

216. verse. 7. ↩

217. The Beniamits did not properlie commit rapt. ↩

218. What vnluckie ends haue come of raptings. ↩

219. Liuie. Augustine. ↩

220. In 1. Kings at the beginning. ↩

221. verse. 32. ↩

222. verse. 3. ↩

223. Matt. 1, 5. ↩

224. Gen. 38, 2. ↩

225. verse. 11. ↩

226. Ruth. 4, 13. 2. Sam. 3, 3. ↩

227. 1. King. 3, 1. and 3.
     ↩

228. Iudg. 14, 1. ↩

229. 1. Cor. 7, 12.
     ↩

230. verse. 3, & 8. ↩

231. Looke In 1. King. 11, 1. and Gen. 24 at the end. ↩

232. verse. 4. ↩

233. 1. King. 11, 4
     ↩
234. 2. Chr. 18, 1. and 21, 6.
     ↩

235. 1 King. 16, verse. 31. ↩

236. Num. 25, 1. ↩

237. Gen. 27, 46. ↩

238. Esdr. 10, 10. ↩

239. verse. 14. ↩

240. Deut. 22, 1⟨…⟩ ↩

241. Erasmus. ↩

242. Cyprian. ↩

243. Ierom. ↩

244. Ambrose. ↩

245. A rite of solemnizing matrimonie ↩

246. Ruth. 3, 9. What Ruth ment in desiring to be couered with Boaz cloke. ↩

247. 1. Cor. 7, 39.
     ↩
248. 1. Co. 15, 33.
     ↩

249. The Roman lawes. ↩

250. The decrees of Councels touching marriage. ↩

251. The Councell Agathense. ↩

252. The Councell of Vrbin. ↩

253. Laodicea. ↩

254. Whether the Pope can dispense with this lawe. ↩

255. Num. 12, 1. ↩

256. Gen. 29. ↩

257. Hostiensis. ↩

258. Thomas. ↩

259. A diuorse deuised by the Papists. ↩

260. 1. Kin. 22, 2. 2. Par. 18, 3.
     ↩

261. verse. 2. ↩

262. 2. King. 8, 16
     ↩

263. The example of Iosaphat. ↩

264. 2. Kin. 20, 36
     ↩

265. Titus. 3, 10. ↩

266. verse. 9. ↩

267. Two popes of contrarie opinion. ↩

268. Punishments must be laid vpon heretiks. ↩

269. A free diuorse betweene an heretike and true professor. ↩

270. Deut. 7, 3. ↩

271. An answer. ↩

272. Deut. 21, 11 ↩

273. Matth. 1, 5. Ruth. 4, 15. 2. Sam. 3, 3. 1. Kings. 3. 1 ↩

274. How it is ment that Salomon loued Iehoua. ↩

275. Tertullian and other fathers are put for an answer to Augustine. ↩

276. verse. 14. ↩

277. 1. Cor. 7, 12.
     ↩

278. Deut. 23, 3. and 8. ↩

279. What was to enter into the church of the Iewes. ↩

280. In Iudg. 1. Looke In Gen. 19, at the end, and 38, 11. and 2. Sam. 13, at the beginning. Leuit. 18. 20 ↩

281. Who more than others offend against the degree forbidden. ↩

282. Vnto the degrees expressed by God, the Iewes haue added manie more. ↩

283. Leuit. 18, 2⟨…⟩ &. 20. 23. ↩

284. Gen. 20, 12. ↩

285. Exod. 6, 20 ↩

286. The lawe of nature was darkened through sinne. ↩

287. The fathers must not in all things be excused from sinne. ↩

288. Why God by his laws established matrimonies. ↩

289. The ten commandements were obscured in the harts of men before the lawe. ↩

290. Plato. ↩

291. Rom. 1, 32. ↩

292. Cynara and Myrrha. ↩

293. 2. Sa. 13, 15.
     ↩

294. Incests haue in a maner alwaies had vnhappie ends. Ptolome. ↩

295. Anthonie Caracalla. Nero. ↩

296. The Romane laws forbad to marrie the brothers. ↩

297. The gardian might not marrie his pupill. ↩

298. Cicero. ↩

299. Felix was married to a Iew. Acts. 24, 25. ↩

300. Cicero. ↩

301. The prodigious loue of Sassia. ↩

302. Exod. 34, 16 ↩

303. The godlie must not ioine in marriage with the vngodlie. Augustine. ↩

304. The Pope hath two waies erred touching these laws. ↩

305. Deut. 25, 5. ↩

306. Of marrieng a widowe to the next of kin. ↩

307. The gods of the Ethniks married their sisters. ↩

308. Looke In Sam. 13, 1. ↩

309. Augustine. ↩

310. Cicero. ↩

311. Plutarch. ↩

312. Plutarch. ↩

313. The causes of dissention between kinsfolks is to be cut off. ↩

314. Women by marrieng of their kin are the better vpholden. ↩

315. Augustine. ↩

316. Of marriage betweene cousins germane. ↩

317. Aurelius Victor. Paulus Diaconus. ↩

318. Augustine the bishop of Canturburie. ↩

319. In the scriptures kinsmen are called brethren. ↩

320. In 2. Sam. 13, verse, 6. ↩

321. The schoolmen defend the Popes dispensations. ↩

322. Leuit. 18, and 20. ↩

323. Gen. 2, 23. ↩

324. Deut. 25, 5. ↩

325. Gen. 29. ↩

326. Exod. 6, 20. Gen. 20, 12 ↩

327. Emanuel king of Portugall. ↩

328. Catharine Queene of England. ↩

329. Incestuous marriages. ↩

330. The prohibition of degrees in Leuiticus 18. is morall. ↩

331. Leui. 18, 24. ↩

332. Of the children of Adam. ↩

333. Gen. 29. The example of Iacobs two wiues. ↩

334. We must not liue by examples, but by lawes. ↩

335. Baldus. ↩

336. Looke In 1. Sam. 18, verse, 23. Whether husbands in old time receiued dowries of their wiues. ↩

337. Plutarch. ↩

338. A lawe of the Decemuiri. ↩

339. A custome of the Aegyptians. ↩

340. A custome of the Spaniards. ↩

341. The definition of a dowrie. ↩

342. An error touching dowrie. ↩

343. Dowries must be giuen with moderation and reason. ↩

344. Why the dowrie should remaine whole to the wife. ↩

345. A dowrie is no price of marriage ↩

346. Iointures called ⟨…⟩. ↩

347. Plutarch. ↩

348. Dowries of maides giuen out of the common treasurie. ↩

349. The councell of Arls made a false decree. ↩

350. Ephes. 5, 23. ↩

351. Ezec. 16, 30 ↩

352. Ierom. ↩

353. The wife of Cato. ↩

354. In 1. Cor. 7, verse. 10. ↩

355. Matth. 5, 31 and 19, 7. ↩

356. Heb. 3, 2. ↩

357. Deut. 24, 1. ↩

358. Mal. 2, 16. ↩

359. Christ calleth vs hom vnto the first institution. ↩

360. Why Paule intermitteth the exception of adulterie. 1. Cor. 7. ↩

361. 1. Cor. 7, 40.
     ↩

362. A reason of Christ why matrimonie must not be dissolued. Gen. 2, 24. ↩

363. Whether onelie the cause of adulterie doo make a diuorse. ↩

364. Deut. 19, 5. ↩

365. Lawes of the emperours for causes of diuorse. ↩

366. 1. Cor. 7, 15
     ↩

367. Coldnesse a cause of diuorse. ↩

368. Note a licence of Pope Zacharie. ↩

369. They will that a mistaking of the person, dissolueth matrimonie ↩

370. Erasmus. ↩

371. Matt. 5. ↩

372. Why Christ expressed onelie the cause of adulterie. Gen. 2, 24. ↩

373. 1. Cor. 6, 15.
     ↩

374. Naturall lets whereby matrimonie can no longer consist. ↩

375. The magistrate must be intreated to determin of this thing. ↩

376. 1. Cor. 7, 15.
     ↩

377. Ambrose procured Theodosius to make a new lawe. ↩

378. Christ ment such a diuorse wherin might be licence of new marriage. ↩

379. Such and no other diuorse had the Romans and Grecians. ↩

380. Origin. ↩

381. Ierom. ↩

382. A Canon of the councell of Neocesaria. ↩

383. 1. Tim. 5, 14.
     ↩

384. The foresaid Canon expounded. ↩

385. Ambrose admitteth three causes for a wife to depart from hir husband ↩

386. 1. Cor. 11, 3.
     ↩

387. Deut. 24. 1. ↩

388. Mal. 2. 16. It is confirmed by the prophet Malachie. ↩

389. Num. 5, 12 ↩

390. Among the Romans also it was more lawfull to the men than to the women. ↩

391. Ierom. ↩

392. Augustine. ↩

393. A vaine deuise of the Maister of the sentences. ↩

394. Ambrose. ↩

395. Augustine. ↩

396. The causes why they would admit no new marriages after diuorse in case of adulterie. ↩

397. Rom. 7, 2. 2. Cor. 7, 11. ↩

398. Matt. 19, 6. 1. Cor. 7, 8. ↩

399. Erasmus. ↩

400. Whether matrimonie be a sacrament. Looke par. 3 pla. 8. art. 15 ↩

401. Ephe. 5, 32. ↩

402. Dionysius. ↩

403. Iouinian. ↩

404. Esaie. 50, 1. ↩

405. 1. Cor. 7, 11.
     ↩

406. Paule alloweth not these departings. ↩

407. Augustin De adulterinis coniugijs. ↩

408. Matt. 5, 32. ↩

409. Mark. 10, 4. Luke. 16, 18 ↩

410. Matthew vseth to explicate that which Marke and Luke spake more obscurelie. ↩

411. 1. Cor. 7, 10.
     ↩

412. Ibidem. 11. ↩

413. Chrysostom seemeth to interpret this place as we doo. ↩

414. Tertullian admitteth iust diuorsements. ↩

415. verse. 1. ↩

416. Christ dealt not touching the ciuill affaires. ↩

417. A similitude. ↩

418. Vnder what cautions God granted a diuorse. ↩

419. Gen. 21, 14. ↩

420. Augustine. ↩

421. Michol the daughter of Saule. 2 Sam. 3, 14 ↩

422. Iohn. 8. 11. Christ pardoneth an adulteresse. ↩

423. Augustine. ↩

424. The law of Antonius. Gregories booke. ↩

425. In 1. Cor. 7, verse. 12. ↩

426. To a iust matrimonie is required a dwelling togither. ↩

427. We ought to despaire of no man while he liueth. ↩

428. Rom. 3, 8. ↩

429. Esdr. 10, 11. ↩

430. Augustine. ↩

431. All meanes must be attempted before a diuorse be made. ↩

432. Matth. 5, 32 ↩

433. Three gret doubts. ↩

434. 1. Cor. 6, 15.
     ↩

435. Chrysost. ↩

436. Matth. 5, 32 ↩

437. Idolatrie a greater sin than adulterie. ↩

438. Adulterie more against wedlocke than idolatrie. ↩

439. In 7. Kin. 1. at the beginning. ↩

440. Whether matrimonie is to be cut off for the impotencie of the man. ↩

441. If the husband were ignorant before of his coldnes he may require a diuorse. ↩

442. A lawe that forbad old age to marrie. ↩

443. Which be the verie impediments of matrimonie. ↩

444. 1. King. 2, 17
     ↩