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.