To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
I Desire your advice; which because I conceive you are both able and willing to af∣ford me: therefore it is I ad∣dress my self unto you.
I am indeed willing, pro∣vided it be within the reach of my understanding and ability.
In the first place, I beg of you, That you will faithfully pro∣mise to keep my Counsel.
I am content, if I may do it, without dishonouring God.
I have a Wife not suitable
to my minde, so that I cannot love her, and as far as I can per∣ceive, she is both barren, and un∣healthful; and I finde my self so disposed, that I cannot want the Company of a Woman: also I desire to have Children, both for Posterities sake, and that I may instruct them in the fear of God. I could indeed keep a Con∣cubine or two, but my Conscience will not suffer me: also I could falsly charge my Wife with Adul∣tery, and so put her away; but in so doing, I should both offend God, and blemish mine own, and my Wives reputation, which I will not do. I could also poyson her, which is a thing I abhorre. But a thought is come into my minde, to take another Wife, so as to keep her that I have already, notwithstanding; and I conceive God has put this into my minde, and that I am thereunto called by him: my desire therefore is, that you will tell me whether, accor∣ding to the word of God, I may lawfully do it.
In doubtful cases 'tis fit to take advice, but the case is clear, that a man ought not to have more Wives then one, because the condition of Mariage is such, that it cannot be between more then two.
How can you make that appear?
God at the beginning made out of Adam,* 1.1 only one Woman, and gave her to him; signifying, that he ought to have but one and that Matrimony ought to be only of two persons. If he would have had a Man to have more Wives, he would doubtless have made him more, especially at the be∣ginning of the World, when pro∣pagation was more necessary, then ever afterwards.
I conceive, this Argument is of small validity. God gave to our first Father Adam one Wife, therefore it is unlawful for any man to have more.
If it had been the will of God that he should have more, he
would have given him more, es∣pecially in that state of perfecti∣on, wherein he was pleased to put him.
A bare act of God, with∣out any precept added thereunto, does not obliege us to imitate the same; for if so, then we are bound to weare Coats of Skin, because God so cloathed our first Parents, and it were unlawful to wear Cloth or Silk. For your Argu∣ment would alwayes be of force. God cloathed them with Skins,* 1.2 and he could have cloathed them with Cloth or Silk, if it had been his pleasure, that men should be so cloathed. If an Act of God a∣lone do bind us as much as a pre∣cept, so that Gods giving Adam one Wife only, were as much in effect, as if he had said to him, I will and command, that every man have one only Wife; it would follow, that not only it should be unlawful for a man to have more Wives then one, but that every man that did not take a Wife, it
being in his power so to do, should sin, which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paul.
You must understand, that Paul is not contrary to God. For in that, God gave only one Wife to Adam, it was all one, as if he had said, I would not have a man to have more Wives then one, and it is my pleasure, that he have one, unless I shall call him to a single life,* 1.3 and give him the gift of Cha∣stity, and that is the intent of Paul.
And I for my part must say, that when God gave Adam one Wife, it was as if he had said, It is my pleasure, that a man shall have one Wife; if either he want the gift of continency, or I shall call him to a married condition. It is also my pleasure, that he shall have no more; unless he stand in need of more, or I shall call him to more: which is at this time my condition, who stand in need of, and am called to marrie ano∣ther.
That a single life is plea∣sing to God, the word of God shewes; but we are not thereby taught, that he is pleased, Men should have more then one Wife.
Nay verily, both Gods word, and the Saints example, do reach the same, as we shall shew by and by. But go to; suppose, it had been Gods pleasure, that eve∣ry man should have so many Wives, as it was possible for him rightly to govern, and instruct to∣gether with their Children: how many Wives must he have given Adam, thereby to signifie his pleasure in this point?
You suppose that which cannot be, seeing the having more Wives than one, is repugnant to true Matrimony.
You have not yet made it clear to me, that to have more Wives then one is repugnant to Mariage, otherwise then by say∣ing, that God gave one to Adam, Let us now suppose he had given
him more; doubtless, from that first Institution you could not prove, that a man ought not to have more; nay, it would follow of necessity, that a man might have more. How many Wives therefore in such a case, had it been necessary for God to give Adam, to signifie his pleasure in this point?
Two would have been e∣nough.
Now then, if that Action of his had bin a praecept, as you say, it would have bin unlawful for men to have had more or less then two Wives: which never∣theless, would not have been an∣swerable to his will, seeing his in∣tent was, that they should have as many as they could govern. We must therefore confess, that by a bare act of God: no command be∣ing added, we are not obliged to the imitation thereof. Other∣wise it would be sin for a Minister to celebrate the Lords Supper, un∣less the Communicants were just
so many in number, as the A∣postles of Christ were, when he instituted the same.
Although it does not ne∣cessarily follow, that because God gave one Wife to Adam, there∣fore it is unlawful for a man to have more; yet is it doubtless, a very probable Argument, to per∣swade, & urges strongly, though it be not altogether compulsive.
Nay verily, it urges not at all: since it may be said, that God gave one Wife to Adam, not to shew that his will was, that every man should have but one Wife; but that the rest of man-kind be∣ing born as well of one Mother, as one Father, might love one ano∣ther so much the more: also that Eve being made of the Rib of A∣dam, might be a figure of the holy Church, the onely Spouse of Christ.
Go to, let us come unto the words of the Text. Do you not think that Adam was moved by divine instinct, when he said;
For this cause shall a man leave his Father, and Mother, and cleave to his Wife?
Without doubt.
Do you not see how, in saying, he shall cleave to his Wife, (not, Wives) he teaches us, that a man is to have but one?
Very good, when God commands a man to love his Neighbour, does he oblige him to love one or more?
All that are his Neigh∣bours.
That's false; for he sayes, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour, not thy Neighbours; and there∣fore whoever loves one of his Neighbours, has fulfilled that Command.
Christ, when he said, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour, spoke it in this sense, as if he should ha••e said, Thou shalt love every one that is thy Neighbour.
So likewise Adam, when he said: he shall cleave unto his Wife, did intimate, that he should
cleave unto every one that shall be his Wife; And therefore 〈…〉〈…〉 not be proved by those wor••s, that it is unlawful for a man to have more Wives then one.
But what will you say to those following words of his: and of them twain shall be made one flesh?* 1.4 for he does not say, of three or four. From these words it is doubtless manifest, that God would not have Marriage to be made between more then two.
Adam sayes not, that of them two shall be made one flesh; but, they shall be made one Flesh.
But that was his mean∣ing, as plainly appeares from the words of Christ, who citing the said speech, sayes, that God by A∣dam declared,* 1.5 And they two shall be one Flesh, adding moreover, this following clause: They are no lon∣ger two, but one Flesh.
It is as if he had said, The Husband shall love every one of his Wives, as if she were the same flesh, and the same body with
him; and so likewise, shall every Wife love her Husband.
But God said, they two shall be one: therefore there can∣not be three or foure.
You were in the right, if he had said, They two (only) shall be one. And therefore, as this Argument is of no force; Christ said,* 1.6 If two of you on Earth shall a∣gree about a thing, they shall obtain what they aske: therefore if three or foure shall agree they shall not obtain the same: so is this no good inference; God said, They two shall be one Flesh: therefore if there be three, it is no true Mar∣riage.
It is impossible for more then two, to become one flesh.
In the primitive Church, there were not only two belie∣vers, but they were in great num∣bers, having nevertheless one soul, and one mind; and you believe, if a man had divers Wives, he could not become one flesh with them. If a man, while he cleaves
unto an Harlot, becomes as Paul sayes, one body with her, although he have a Wife, should he not much more become one flesh with her, if he should make her his Wife?
Say what you will; To have more then one Wife, is a thing filthy, dishonest, and quite con∣trary, and destructive to the holy State of Matrimony.
And yet you know, that Abraham had more Wives then one; as also David, and many o∣ther men under the old Testa∣ment; who, in case it had been unlawful for them, to have more then one Wife, they should have sinned in marrying divers Wo∣men; and the Children which they had by all their Wives, ex∣cepting the first; should have been Bastards, because not begotten in lawful Matrimony.
I will sooner grant all that you have said, then I will allow, or grant it lawful for one man to have more then one Wife. Those
Ancients were holy men; yet did they sometimes sin. They were sinners, as being born of A∣dam, as appeares in the example of David; and they should have deceived themselves, if they had denyed themselves to be sin∣ners.
That they sometimes sin∣ned, I shall easily grant; but I will never yield, that they continued in their sins, till their day of death: which nevertheless they did, in case it was unlawful for them to have divers Wives. Whence it would follow, that they were all damned, as those who die while they keep a Con∣cubine. As for us, we cannot hold them for Saints, seeing we know not for certain, that they ever re∣pented. When David had com∣mitted those same Acts of Adulte∣ry and Murther, because he was one of Gods Elect, God sent his Prophet to him, to reprove him: as also when he numbred the People, contrary to the Com∣mand
of God. Credible therefore it is, that if to have divers Wives, had been contrary to the Law of God, God would have used the like proceedings towards him, that he might not be damned. But though you read the whole Bible over, you shall never finde, that God has forbad the having of di∣vers Wives. And yet, if it had bin a thing unlawful, Moses would never have dissembled the matter. Moreover, the Scriptures tell us, that David was a man after Gods own heart, and that he was obe∣dient to all the Lords Comman∣dements, all his life long, save in the matter of Vriah. So that had it been a sin to have divers Wives, seeing that also had been suffici∣ently known, the Authour would have ••••cepted it, or he must doubtless, make himself a lyar; by saying, that David committed only that sin of Homicide, under which his Adultery is compre∣hended. Again, how could that be true, which God said to David,
when blaming him for his un∣thankfulness he told him, that he had given him many Wives? which questionless, must have bin all Whores, except the first, and so it had not bin God, but the De∣vil that gave them unto him. Moreover, you shall finde, that God made a Law, that if any man had two Wives, the one beloved, the other hated; and had by them divers Children, the eldest of which, was the son of the hated Wife, it should not be allowed the Father, to make the Sonne of his beloved Wife his Heire. Now it might fall out, that the beloved Wife might be his first Wife, and so it should come to passe, that though the Husband had Chil∣dren by the latter, sooner then by the first, yet they should be Ba∣stards, if your opinion be true, and born of an Whore, and therefore ought not to be Heires. It is therefore clear by the word of God, that all the Children are le∣gitimate, though sprung from di∣vers
wives by one and the same Husband; and that therefore not only the first, but the following marriages are lawful, seeing God did both approve and blesse them, in those holy men the first Fathers of the world.
The first thing, which you say follows from my opinion, that all which died having many wives should be damned. I an∣swer: If they are dead not having divorced all save their first wife; or without repenting of their sin, they are all damned. But as ma∣ny of them as are saved did repent and put away all but their first and lawful wife.
But, it is not apparent, that ever any did that; and yet if your opinion were true, men∣tion ought to have been made thereof in the holy Scriptures, that we might know and under∣stand, That to keep divers wives, is an abominable thing.
It was already known, ••hat men ought not to have more wives then one, because God had commanded that the Husband and the wife, should of two be∣come one-flesh.
It is not likely that it was unlawful to have divers wives, and that the unlawfulness there∣of was known, and Abraham, and Iacob, and David, and other wor∣thy persons like them, should ne∣vertheless marry more wives then one.
That's a good one! As if many holy men in ancient times did not sin, though they knew what they did, was unlawful.
But they did not continue to their lives end in those sins, as those that married more wives then one, did.
I told you before that if they were of the number of Gods Elect, they did at last repent.
But we ought no longer to reckon the Patriarchs for exam∣ples sake to be Saints, seeing we are assured that they sinned in having many wives; but we are not assu∣red of their repentance.
True, unlesse the word of God assures us that they were Saints: as we know (for exam∣ple sake) Abraham, Isaac, and Ia∣cob to be Saints, because Christ said, that many should come from the East, and from the West, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Ja∣cob, in the Kingdom of Heaven. Now, I conceive, that as Moses because of the hardness of their hearts, suffered the Jews to put away their wives without just cause, so for the same cause he suf∣fered them to have sundry wives, that is to say, he did not forbid or hinder it, nor punish the same by any Law enacted in his Common∣wealth. But it follows not there∣fore, that they did not sin in Gods sight, and that they did not de∣serve
punishment unlesse they re∣pented.
That thing is permitted, which is neither punished, nor hindred, nor forbidden. Truly, I will not say Moses sinned, if to avoid a greater evil, and to com∣port with the hardness of the Jewes hearts, he permitted them to have divers wives; that is to say, he did not punish or hinder them. But if he permitted them so as not to forbid them, I cannot but say, he sinned. For Moses ought to have expresly forbidden, that any man should have more then one wife: which because he has not done, we must needs con∣fesse that it is not a thing un∣lawful.
The having of many wives, was then (as it is now) so appa∣rently filthy, dishonest, and viti∣ous, that it was needless for Mo∣ses to forbid the same.
And was it not appa∣rent, that Adultery was a thing filthy, dishonest, vicious? yea, much more then the having of many wives, and yet he expresly forbad adultery. But in case it had been unlawful to have many wives, he ought to have forbid∣den that, so much the more ex∣presly, by how much the unlaw∣lawfulnesse thereof, was lesse ma∣nifest then the unlawfulnesse of Adultery was. Is it not a clear case, that Homicide is unlawful, and yet he forbids that. In a word, What are the ten Com∣mandements, but an Expression of the Law of Nature?
It may be said, that God might remit the transgressi∣ons against the second Table, be∣cause he is above, not only all Creatures, but his own Law: and peradventure he might remit the same to all mankind born before the death of Christ; and conse∣quently be willing, that they
might have more wives then one, without sin. And so it comes to pass, that those under the Old Te∣stament that had many wives, did not sin; and under that conside∣ration, God might give many wives to David. Though it may also be said, that he gave them to him, that is, permitted him to have them, in as much as he neither hindred, nor punisht him.
That it is unlawful to keep more wives then one, if your opinion be true, is clear from the word of God, who said, that two should be made one flesh; but that God did so far remit of his Laws, that men should not sin in having more, does not appear in the word of God; that opinion therefore of yours, has no foundation.
If you consider well, you shall finde that Lamech a very wicked man, was the first that had two Wives. Other holy men
that preceeded him, knowing the will of God, had onely one a piece.
As if that Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, were not more holy then those very men you speak of. But, in the first place, I cannot tell how you came to know that Lamech was the first man that had two wives, although he be the first man whom the Scripture mentions to have had two. But as this is a vain Argument, The Scripture no where mentions, that Cain had more then one Son; therefore, doubtlesse he had no more: so, as vain is this which follows: It is no where in Scrip∣ture recorded, that those men that lived before Lamech, had more wives then one: therefore none of them had above one wife. Moreover, where it is said, that Lamech had two wives, it is not charged upon him as a sin, but seems rather to be set down as a thing pleasing to God, that a man
should have more wives then one, seeing by them he gave Lamech such ingenious Sons, as pro∣ved the inventors of Arts, both delightful and profitable. Nei∣ther can I see how you came in∣formed, that Lamech was so wick∣ed a man, as you talk of.
God plagued him, by suffering him to fall into the sins of murther and desperation, only because he had married two wives.
But I cannot see, either that he was a murtherer or fell into despair; neither does the Scripture teach any such thing, if it be rightly interpreted: Or if the Scripture had intimated any such thing, (which I do not grant) yet does it not thereby appear, that God suffered him so to slip, because he had married two wives.
But we may conjecture, that his having two wives dis∣pleased
God, seeing his murther is presently after mentioned.
In the first place, I have already told you, that by the words of that Text, if they be rightly understood, there is no signification made, that either he was a man-slayer, or in despera∣tion; and if such a thing were intimated, it does not therefore follow, that his plurality of wives was the cause thereof, or that God was offended with him therefore; inasmuch as presently upon the mention of his two wives, he commends their Sons, as if he would give us to understand, that he approves of plurality of wives. Add hereunto, that nothing ought to be affirmed or avouched in the Church of God, as necessary to salvation, if it cannot otherwise be known, save by conjectures only.
Seeing I cannot convince you out of the old Testament, I will try what I can do from the New.
You are in an errour if you think the Old Testament is not sufficient to teach us all things necessary to salvation. If there∣fore that be the cause you betake your self to the New, you are de∣ceived, seeing as Paul writes, All Scripture of Divine insp••ration is profitable for reprehension, correcti∣on and instruction, in righteousness, that the man of, God may be made perfect, furnished for every good work. Now clear it is, that Paul in that place speaks of those Scrip∣tures, in which Timothy was ex∣ercised from a child. And be∣cause the new Testament was not then written, you must be forced to confesse, that Paul in that place speaks of the Old. The old Testament therefore is profitable, not only to assert the truth of such things as are necessary to salvati∣on, but also to confute falsities: and consequently to render a man perfect. For which cause, Christ ••peaking thereof said, Search the Scriptures for in them is fou••••d 〈◊〉〈◊〉 life.
Perhaps somethings are forbidden to us in the New Te∣stament, which were not forbid∣den to them in the Old.
In moral matters, verily what ever is unlawful and to us forbidden, was in like manner evermore forbidden to them; and whatever was allowed and com∣manded to them, the same is in like manner allowed and com∣manded to us. God was equally Author of the old Testament as well as of the New; nor was he ever contrary, or unlike himself.
That was allowed to those under the old Testament, because of their imperfection, which is not allowed to us, in whom car∣nal desires ought to be much more mortified.
You take that for granted which you have not proved, viz. That it is unlawful to have more wives then one. Moreover, you
are deceived, if you think, that it is a bad thing to have one wife, but worse to have two; For as the Act matrimonial, in him that has one wife, is a thing not in it self evil, nor repugnant to those actions, that are necessary to sal∣vation: no more is it to have two wives, provided a man have a call from God to mary them, and be moved, not by the impulse of the flesh, but of the Spirit, that he may have children, and bring them up in the fear of God; his wife likewise doing the same. Whence it follows, that he may be as perfect that has two wives, as he that has but one or none. Nor had Abraham, because he had divers wives lesse Faith, Hope, or Charity, then Priests, Monks, or Friars that have none. Conju∣gal Chastity, is as well the gift of God,* 1.7 as that of a single State, For this cause Paul said, Every one is endued with his own gift from God, some one way, some ano∣ther.
In that place, the Apostle exhorted the Corinthians to a sin∣gle Life, and that for no other cause, but that a married estate has many incumbrances atten∣ding the same: in as much as married people, being intangled with worldly affairs, are not so free to pray, and preach up and down, and do good to others, as single people are. Now, if so be the having of one wife, do bring so many impediments, any one may soon conjecture, what the having of divers wives will do. And therefore to have more wives then one is unlawful.
You are in an error if you think, that the mind of Paul in those words was, that marriage was a stop to mens journey to Heaven, so that married people could not be saved; For then that which God said, would not be true, viz. That it was not good for a man to be alone;* 1.8 but it would rather be an excellent
thing to be alone; and to marry a wife, the worst thing in the world, because in so doing a man should sin. Moreover, I a••d, that not only a married man may be saved, as well as a Bachelour, but be as perfect as he, inasmuch as he may attain as gre••t perfection in Faith, Hope, and Charity as the other. And i•• he cannot perso∣nally performe some externall works which the single man can, as hindred by his married estate, yet he may in mind perform the same, and that is it which God regards.
Though Matrimony do not hinder a man from going to God; yet the having of more wives then one, does.
How prove you that?
From Paul, who speaking of Bishops, sayes, he would have them to be the husbands of one wife, meaning that they should
have no more. It is therefore un∣lawful to have more wives the•• one.
Nay rather when he tell••s them, by name, that they should have one, lest having more, they should be too much distracted with worldly businesse, 'tis easie to see that he allows other men to have more.
Some do thus interpret the mind of Paul, A Bishop is to have but one wife, that is (say they) one Church for his spiritual Spouse.
Many reasons shew that to be a false opinion. First, be∣cause Christ only is the Spouse of Souls and Bridegroome of his Church. And if we that are mi∣nisters be his friends, we ought with Iohn Baptist, as the friends of Christ, the only true Spouse of Souls, to send them to him their Bridegroom: and not to draw
them to our selves. The Churches therefore of Christ are not the Bishops Spouses. And if they were, as the Husband is superiour to his Wife, so should they be to their respective Churches, against which Paul writes to the Corin∣thians, where he sayes, We are not Lords over your faith, or over you, by reason of your Faith. The Church therefore is not Pauls Wife. I confess indeed, that one Church is enough for one Pastor, and he does no small matter, if he can govern that well. In the an∣cient times of Christianity, one Church sometimes had divers Pa∣stors, as appeares from the Epistle to the Philippians, in which Paul salutes the Bishops, which were at Philippi: whereas now a dayes one Bishop has many Churches. Moreover, when Paul sayes. A Bi∣shop ought to have one Wife, he speaks of the manners of him that was fit to be a Bishop. But if he be yet to be chosen, he is no Bishop; and therefore has no Church as
yet, that might be called his wife. Hereby also it is manifest, that by Wife, he did not mean Church, because presently almost after those words, he makes men∣tion of his Children, comman∣ding that he govern his Family well, and have his Children sub∣ject to him, with all Reverence. For if a man cannot govern his own Family, how can he oversee the Church of God? In that place there••ore he speaks of a Wife, and not of a Church.
Some say, that Paul in that place, forbids such men to be cho••en Bishops, who have had divers Wives, though not at one and the same time.
But I do not conceive, that Paul counted it sin after the death of a mans first wife, to take a second; for as much as he him∣self sayes, that after the death of the Husband, the wife is free, and may without blame marry ano∣ther.
So far is it from being un∣lawful for a man, after the death of his wife, to marry another.
They say, 'tis a shameful thing, when a mans first wife is dead, to marry another.
If you weigh the matter rightly, and follow not the Opi∣nion of the blind vulgar people, you shall finde that the matrimo∣nial Act, is as free from turpitude, as the actions of eating and drink∣ing; nor would God have com∣manded Matrimony, if it had bi•• evil, which nevertheless he did, when he said, Increase and propa∣gate.
I condemn not matrimo∣ny; but the Iteration▪ or Repetiti∣on thereof.
The second Matrimony, is as true a••d valid as the first; and therefore you cannot condemn the Iteration of Matrimony, but
you must withall, condemn Ma∣trimony it self. Take an Example. A young man marries a Wife, she dies a few dayes after, he is some∣what incontinent, or is again call∣ed to a married condition: who knowes not, that he according to the Precept of Paul, seeing he can∣not contain, ought to take ano∣ther Wife.
Unless second Mariages were filthy, and unlawful, Paul would never, speaking afterwards of Widows, have commanded such to be chosen, as had only one Husband.
Think you that Paul was superstitious?
I do not think he was.
If a young Widow, some∣what incontinent, had asked Pauls advice, what think you Pauls answer would have bin?* 1.9
That she should marry a∣gain, according to his own Do∣ctrine.
It is not therefore unlawful to marry again. Why then should Paul reject such Widows, as had had more Husbands then one? for it was possible that some Wi∣dow having had divers Husbands, might be more holy and honest, then they which had had but one. Also it might fall out, that she which had had divers Husbands, might live but one year with them: whereas the rest that had never had more then one, might have lived with him, thirty or forty years. In such a case truly, I cannot see why they should be more worthy to be chosen then she. I do therefore believe, that the mind of Paul in that place was this, that such Widows were not to be chosen that had had ma∣ny Husbands, that is to say, who being divorced, had married a∣gain: their former Husbands who
divorced them being yet alive. For either they were divorced upon a just ground, and then it was not fit they should be chosen; or up∣on an unjust ground, and so the Matrimony remained good, ha∣ving never bin violated and then the divorced woman had sinned, if she married to another. By which meanes it came to passe, that all women divorced were in∣famous, not only such as married to other men; but such likewise as abstained from Mariage, espe∣cially amongst the Gentiles, who were not wont to divorce them; save for some fault or vitious qua∣lity. Paul therefore did never con∣demn those Women, who their former Husband being dead mar∣ried another, nor did he forbid them to be Bishops, who their former Wi••e being dead, married another, which notwithstanding, the s••perstitious Papists observe, because they understood not t••e meaning of Paul. Though a man have kept divers Wh••res, they
make him a Bishop; but if his first Wife being dead, he marry another, they will not: whence it comes to passe, that Matrimony amongst them is of worse report, then Fornication, Adultery, In∣cest, Sacriledge, Sodomie, and all imaginable abominations. This is therefore the mind of Paul (and this will make the third opinion) as has bin said of Widows, that he who has had divers Wives, be∣cause he divorced one•• ought not to be made a Bishop. For if he di∣vorc't her unjustly, he ought not to be a Bishop in that regard; if justly, yet the Infamy of his wife, redounding upon himself; for that cause Paul would not have him be a Bishop. Howbeit, I like not this Opinion; for he does not say, he must have bin, but that he must be the Husband of one wife: for he sayes, he must be unblamed, viz. as the Husband of one Wife: as he expressed it a little after∣wards, touching Deacons, and writing to Titus about Bishops.
Because a Bishop, in re∣gard of the publick Office he beareth; as also the Deacons, have to do with all persons, not only with Men, but also with Women; to avoid suspicion, Paul would that they should be married; and this perhaps might be the mean∣ing of those words. Also, it may be, that Paul foreseeing the Su∣perstition of the Papists, who would forbid the Mari••ge of Bi∣shops, that they might be with∣out excuse, he said, they ought to be blameless, and to have a wise▪ but that they should have no more then one, he did not say. Or he shewes, that a Bishop ought to have a wife, that is, he ought to be content with her, and not to have any thing to do with other Wo∣men, which is, as if he had said, that he ought to be honest.
The mind of Paul is this, that it is lawful for the generali∣ty of Christians, to have many Wi••es; but for Bishops to have
only every man one, not because it had bin a sin for them to have more; but because the duty of Bishops being to labour for the salvation of others, he feared lest multiplicity of Wives should be a pul-back, and hinder them from performing their Office, as they ought to do. For this cause he would have them to have but one: nor is it therefore unlawful for other men to have more. Yea verily, while he forbids Bishops and Deacons to have more then one, he closely allowes it to other men. Nor is it likely Paul would have forbidd••n Bishops to have more Wives then one, had it not bin the Custom of those times for them to have more. It was there∣fore in the new Testament forbid∣den to Bishops to have many Wives, as it was in the old Testa∣ment forbidden to Kings; not be∣cause it was in it self unlawful,* 1.10 but lest Kings, whose Office was of greatest consequence, being di∣stracted by their Wives, should be
corrupted, as it happened to Solo∣mon; for if Adam, when he had but one, was notwithstanding perverted by her, 'tis easie to con∣jecture what might happen to Kings, if they should have many. Yet do I believe nevertheless, that as in the same place he forbad Kings to have many Horses, that is too great a multitude, least he should put his trust in them, ra∣ther then in God; for otherwise they were allowed to have many Horses; even so, they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 forbid to have many Wives, see∣ing David a most holy man, had many; but that they should not have an immoderate multitude, especially such as were Heathens, and Worshippers of false Gods. To return therefore to our busi∣ness, 'tis not credible, that Paul feared, lest Timothy should choose for Bishops, such as were Gentile's or Iewes, not baptized. There were therefore in the Church of Christ, and among the Christians, such as had more wives then one.
And because from among them a Bishop was to be chosen: he would not have him choose one that had divers wives. But if to keep more wives then one, had bin contrary to the Law of God, as you say it is, and the first Wife only were right and true, the rest Harlots: 'tis not credible, that the Christians would have bapti∣zed any one that had plurality of wives, unless he had put away all saving his first. And if that had bin the practise, it had bin in vain for Paul to command, that he that was to be chosen Bishop, should be the Husband of one Wife, seeing Christians out of the number of whom the Bishop was chosen, had but each of them one a peece. But this I much mar∣vail at, that many who have some∣times written and do believe, that to have more Wives then one, is repugnant to the divine Law, both moral and natural, and yet in expounding Paul, they say, that he writing to Timothy, warns
him to take heed, that he choose not a Bishop that had plurality of wives; whence it follows, that seeing Election was not to be made of any out of the Church of God, that there were in Gods Church such as had more wives then one; and consequent∣ly, counted it not unlawfu••lt have more. Otherwise, if they had counted it unlawful, as they did not Baptize, or admit unto the Lords Supper any man that kept a Concubine, unless he would forsake her: in like manner they would not have Baptized, nor ad∣mitted to the Supper, nor suffer'd amongst them such as had many wives, unless they would divorce all save the first.
But what do you say to Paul who wills and commands, That every man should have his own wife? for in saying his own wife he excludes wives.
Some say, his meaning is,
Let every man have his own wife; that is, his own, not another mans: and nor, only one. As if some Father making shew of his Daughter, should say, This is my own Daughter; not denying that he has more Daughters, that are likewise his own.
In the same place the same Paul commands, That the Wife have her own proper Hus∣band, that is to say, such a Wife as is proper to him alone, and not in common with other wives. Whence it follows, That as a wo∣man ought to be proper to her husband, and not to belong to other husbands: so the man ought to be appropriated to his first wife, and not common to others: provided, you will (as you ought) expound the words of Paul, so as he may not contradict himself.
Paul does not there di∣spute, whether an husband may
have plurulity of wives, or no; but his intent is to shew, that such men as have not the gift of conti∣nence, should take them wives; and that women in the like case should marry.
Is it possible that you should not see, that plurality of wives, is repugnant to the matri∣monial contract, in which the man grants his wife, and the wo∣man her husband, an honest use of their respective Bodies for ever? For which cause also Paul sayes, That neither the man nor the woman have power over their own Bodies, but each of one ano∣thers. And in case a man have given the honest use of his Body to his wife, he can no longer give it to another, because he has al∣ready given it to the first.
Yes, by the permission of the first he may, as Abraham did, when by the permission of Sarah, he married Hagar, and conse∣quently
by permission of the first and second, he may marry a third, which is true of other men as ••ell as Abraham: especially the wives being instructed that it is ••o sin for their husbands, with their consent to marry other wives.
Do you believe, that Da∣vid when he married Bathsheba, did it with consent of his other wives, and that others who mar∣ried divers wives, did so like∣wise.
Suppose they did not, yet were not their marriages the less true and lawful. For it was then •• thing commonly known, and confirmed by example, That it was lawful for a man to have ma∣ny wives. Therefore when a man by marriage, gave the use of his Body to his wife, he did not so ••otally give the same, as to be∣reave himself of all power to give it to other wives also: which the
wives knew well enough by the publick custome then in force; and thereunto the wives did si∣lently give consent, seeing their husbands married them with this condition being understood. Their marriages therefore were good and lawful.
An husband cannot mar∣ry a second wife without detri∣ment of his first. It is not there∣fore credible, that wives did in their hearts consent, that their husbands should marry others.
It is possible my wife may prove barren; in which case, it is her duty to consent that I should take another; yea and of her own consent to exhort me thereunto, as Sarah did of old. And if she would not approve thereof, this will of hers were unjust, and so it were lawful for her husband to marry another, contrary to her unjust mind. Also when a wo∣man is with Child, and some∣time
after she is brought to bed, seeing she is then unfit for procre∣ation, as also when she is old and sick, her husband may without injury to her, have to do with another wife; yea, though a mans wife were sound, and fit for generation, yet she ought to take it in good part, if enjoying the company of her husband at some certain times, as it is with other living Creatures, she leave it free for him to enjoy the carnal ac∣quaitance of his other wives.
Do you think it lawful for one wise to have many hus∣bands?
No.
And yet there are sick Men, as well as sick women. Also a woman is able to have to do with more men, then a man can with women. Whence it seems more just, for one woman to have divers husbands, or at least lesse
injust, then for a man to have many wives.
Nay rather, since Matri∣mony is chiefly ordained for pro∣creation sake, and a man having many wives, may in a short time have many more children, then a woman which has plurality of husbands: it is more equitable, that a man have many wives, then that a woman have many hus∣bands. But the chief causes why women may not have many hus∣bands, and yet men may have many wives, are these. First of all, because, if women should have many husbands, there would follow great disturbance and con∣fusion in the world. For seeing no husband could certainly know that his children are his own, he might alwaies suspect, that they were some other husbands rather then his; and consequently he would not bring them up, nor in∣struct them, nor take such care for them, as ••ow he does, know∣ing
they are his own, though born of divers wives. Perhaps also being unassured that they are his own, he would not make them his Heirs. Another cause, why it is lawful for men to have many wives, but not for women to have many husbands, is this; The hus∣band is his wives Head, and has au∣thority and command over her, as being her Superiour; for which cause he may have divers wi••es, provided he can well rule and in∣struct them all. Nor is it a mon∣strous, but a comely thing for to have many members in one Body, though there he but one Head; but if the Body should have many Heads, it would be a monster: So for one husband to have many wives, is not mōstrous; but for one wife to have many husbands, is monstrous. And therefore, as there would be dissention and discord, ••f in one Body there were many Heads, & they should be of cōtrary minds, as might well happen: so would there be discords, perturba∣••ions, and great inconveniences, if
should have plurality of hus∣bands, seeing it might happen, that they should will things con∣trary, and command their wives to do them.
If we regard discords and inconveniences, we shall finde they have been some••imes excee∣ding great, because one man has had two wives: as we see in the example of Sarah & Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Peninnah, and others, amongst whom were continual dissensions: wch I con∣ceive, God did therefore suffer, to shew that he was not pleased, that one man should have more then one wife.
Although among the first-born, and other brethren, ma∣ny times grievious discords have arose, as appears in Cain and A∣bel; Esau, and Iacob; and many others: it is not therefore dis∣pleasing to God, that Fathers should have many Sons▪ As also
between Mothers in Law, and Daughters in Law, though there is many times little quiet, yet is not Matrimony therefore dis∣pleasing to God. In like manner, although among divers wives of the same Husband, there has sel∣dom bin good agreement, yet cannot either Marriage in gene∣ral, or marriage of sundry wives be condemned; but only those wives, who were not so well dis∣posed as they ought to have bin.
Christians ought in this life to be contemners of plea∣sures, and to have more of the Spirit, then those men had, which lived under the old Testament. And therefore, though They had many wives, one a peece ought verily to content Us.
I have already declared, and told you, to cohabit with plu∣rality of Wives, is no unlawful thing, and that it may consist with the greatest degree of faith and
perfection. And therefore I can∣not tell how you can be assured, that some Christians are not call∣ed by God, to cohabit with divers wives, as well as some Jewes of old were called by Him thereun∣to.
Say what you will, to have more wives then one, is a thing filthy and dishonest.
There are two things which bring you into that error. The first is custome; for if it were the Custom for men to have more then one, it would not seem to you blameworthy. Another is a feigned kind of holiness, which makes the having more wives then one, seem to you unlawful, though it be no whit repugnant to the holy Scriptures. Yea, and those that have more wives then one, are wont to be more grie∣vously punished, then they should be, if they kept a thousand Con∣cubines.
'Tis hard for one man to content one woman, and you would have it lawful for him to have more.
An Husband is not obli∣ged to satisfie all the carnal de∣sires of his wife, but such only as are moderated with reason.
Under the old Testament when there were few men in the world, it was peradventure, ex∣pedient for men to have more wives; but now the world is full of people, it is not expedient.
In the first place you know not, whether men if they had more wives, would have many more Children then they have: or if they should beget more Chil∣dren (as is very likely) how know you that the fruits of the Earth will not suffice to afford them all that shall be necessary for their livelihood, and all other occasi∣ons. For the same God that gave
increase of men,* 1.11 would likewise supply plenty of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to nourish and maintain them. But suppose you were assured they should pe∣rish with famine, yet the souls of men are of so great price, that we should no wayes hinder their ex∣istence, especially if we be called thereto by God, as those holy men of old were, who had plura∣lity of wives.
In these dayes a Christian ought not to have plurality of wives, if for no other cause, at least to avoid the offence which might thence arise, seeing all Christians do account the having of more wives then one, to be a most fil∣thy and Diabolical thing.
Even as, although men should account Matrimony an unlawful thing, yet ought you not to be moved with their offence taken thereat, but to marry, if need were: so ought you to mar∣ry more then one, if need be, or you be called thereunto by di∣vine impulse.
A single man might indeed in such a case marry, to avoid for∣nication, although men should be therewith offended; especially, being called by God thereunto. But he that has one already needs not marry another, nor will God thereunto call him.
Nay verily; if his wife be sick, or other impediments shall happen, so that he cannot enjoy her, and be incontinent, he must of necessity, to avoid fornication, marry another. Add hereunto, that God does not call men to marry, only for the avoidance of fornication; but chiefly for pro∣pagation,
as of old he called A∣braham, and other holy men.
Shall I make it clear and manifest to you, that the having more wives then one, is a thing forbidden? Christ sayes, if any man put away his wife, save for a∣dultery, and shall marry another, he commits adultery. But if a man might have more wives then one▪ he should not commit adul∣tery, as Christ sayes, whether he put away his former wife, or no.
No man can expound those words of Christ, better then Christ himself, who in another place ex∣plaining the said words, sayes, Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for adultery, causes her to commit adultery, that is to say, he gives occasion to his wife, so unjustly put away, to commit A∣dultery. For the wife being by that meanes deprived of her true Husband, cannot marry any o∣ther, her former Husband living;
but she shall commit adultery. Christ does not therefore say, If a∣ny man put away his wife, not for adultery, and marries another, he commits adultery; but that he gives occasion to his repudiated wife to commit adultery.
Both Matthew, Mark, and Luke record, that Christ said▪ If any man put away his wife, and marry another, he commits adul∣tery, that is to say, by marrying that other. But if his intent was to shew, that by unjustly putting her away, he gave her occasion to commit adultery; it had been suf∣ficient to have said, If any one put away his wife; not adding, and marry another. Christ therefore by those words of his in the fifth of Matthew, did not intend to ex∣plain that passage, which is recor∣ded in the 19. Chapter of the said Evangelist: only he said, If any put away his wife, not for adulte∣ry, he makes her to commit adul∣tery. But in the 19. of Mat••hew,
he sayes another thing, viz. that if he marry another in the same kind, he commits Adu••tery, be∣cause the first was his wife, and he ought not to have more then one. Add hereunto, that the words of Christ in his Sermon upon the Mount, were uttered before those were, by which he answered the Pharises, when they asked him, Whether a man for every cause might put away his wife. Those former words therefore cannot be an Exposition of those were spoke afterwards.
Whether the latter words were an Exposition of the former or no; it satisfies me; that his meaning is one and the same in both places, viz. that if any man put away his wife without just cause, he occasions her to commit Adultery. And as for those words, which in the 19. Chapter, are ad∣ded over and above: Christ ad∣ded them to shew, that a wife un∣justly divorced, if she marry ano∣ther
man, commits adultery, though at the same time her for∣mer Husband marry another wife, seeing the first Matrimony is not void; but remains in full force. His meaning therefore is this; If he put her away unjustly, though he marry another, yet he gives her that is put away, occasion to com∣mit adultery.
This interpretation of yours, is so forced and strained, that it is in danger of breaking. Moreover, we may see in Crea∣tures irrational, that the Males have their Females, with whom alone they couple, as we see in Birds; and much fitter it is for men, especially Christians, to have the like.
That is true only in such like Creatures, vvhose propagati∣on is not very needful, to the maint••nance of the life of man. But if you observe, you shall find, that one Cock has many Hens, one Bull many Covves; and so in o∣ther
Creatures which are profita∣ble to mankind. If therefore God has ordained for the Commodi∣ty of Man-kind, that one Cock should have many Hens, much more has he ordained, that one man should have many wives, for the propagation of men, whom he so highly prizes, and so dearly lo••es.
If none of those live-Crea∣tures you speak of were guelt, and they should all converse together, you should finde every male with his proper female; and men ought to do the same much more. But now, many of the males being guelt and separated, if one male couple, with divers females; it followes not therefore, that it should be lawful for one man to have many Wives. God put into the Ark of Noah, just so many males as females, to shew that e∣very male ought to have only his own single female.
If there were in the world as many Men as Women, I con∣fess it were expedient, that every man should have his own single Wife. But seeing the number of Women is greater, I conceive it fit, that one man have many Wives; for it is not in vain, that God makes more Women. If there were in the World, for ex∣ample sake, only three hundred Women, and as many men, and every man should have one Wo∣man, they could not so soon pro∣pagate their kind: as if of six hun∣dred, four hundred were Women, and two hundred men, every one of which should have divers Wo∣men. For this cause therefore, God ordained, that the number of Women, should be greater then the number of Men. The life of one Man equalls that of two Wo∣men.
In the first place, I do not believe that you know there are more Women in the World then men. Perhaps it seemes so to you, because commonly we rejoyce at the birth of Boyes, and grieve at the birth of Girles. But though there be more Women born into the World, yet they live not long for the most part, by reason of the more tender constitution of their bodies. Add hereunto, that many more men perish then women, by Warres, Shipwrack, and the Sword of justice: that reason therefore does not prove Polygamy or plu∣rality of Wives. Moreover, the love of carnal society, is a most vi∣olent passion: and if dishonest love cannot endure a Rival, much lesse can that which is honest?
Holy love rather extends to all, even our enemies.
Iacob was an holy man, and he loved barren Rachel, more then fruitful Leah. So also Helka∣nah
loved Hannah that was bar∣ren, more then Peninnah that was fruitful. Solomon also said, that his beloved was one. It is therefore an hard thing, to share out a mans love, amongst many Wives, which notwithstanding, must be done in Polygamy. When a man has but one Wife, mutual love is better preserved, then if he had more; and if any falling out happen, re∣conciliation is more easily made. Where there are many Wives, there are divers understandings, divers Constitutions, Distractions and Discords.
If there were a call from God, there would be his blessing. Polygamy is no enemy to charity. And therefore if any man should have plurality of Wives, and love were wanting between them, that were not the fault of Polygamy, but of the said Wives.
If the filthy love of an Harlot, is oftentimes the cause,
that a man is content with her a∣lone, much more ought the holy love of Wedlock, work the same effect.
We see that filthy love is more effectual in some persons, then holy love is in others: as al∣so in like manner, superstition produces more good works in some, then true Religion in o∣thers: all which comes to passe, by the instinct of Sathan.
That plurality of Wives, is a thing contrary to natural Reason, hereby appears, in that all Nations have alwayes abstain∣ed therefrom, as from a thing un∣lawful.
You know that the light of nature, that is to say, the Law which is imprinted in the hearts of men, is the gift of God, and that it is just, and that the Law of Moses is not contrary thereunto, but an explanation thereof For if
the Law of Moses were contrary thereunto, God would be contra∣ry to himself, seeing both proceed from God, or rather, both are one and the same Law. And therefore if plurality of Wives, had bin con∣trary to the judgement of right Reason: neither would Moses ve∣rily have dissembled the same; neither would those most holy Patriarchs have used the same▪ nor would God have born with it. God by Moses commanding the Iewes, that when they came into the borders of the Gentiles, they should not imitate their vices, would have named Polygamy, a∣mong other vices, if it had bin unlawful; and he would have for∣bidden the same by Moses, which nevertheless, he did not do. We no where read, that ever God punished any man for having plu∣rality of Wives, nor that he ever did by his Prophets, threaten such as had many Wives. If you would have the manners of the Gen∣tiles, to be your rule and law, you
shall finde amongst them much wickedness. And whereas you said, that all Nations abhorred Polygamy, that is false, as appeares by the Iewes. Also Chremes had two Wives, if we will believe Te∣rence: also Bocc••••, as Salust re∣lates; in a word, Socrates himself, who notwithstanding, was the wi∣sest of men, and had much of the light of nature.
Even wise men some∣times do amiss.
Never any man condem∣ned, or reprehended Socrates, for having two Wives, although for other things he hath been con∣demned. What needs many words? Polygamy was used as a good thing, and very profitable to Man-kind, by furthering propa∣gation; not only among the Iewes, but also among the Persians, and the Turks likewise. Only in Eu∣rope it has been hateful; in which Europe, vice has abounded, if not
more, yet not a whit lesse, then in all other parts of the world. Nay, & in the days of old, Polygamy was commended, even in Europe. On∣ly they would not have in one house many Mistresses to rule the Family, which was a thing con∣venient to avoid confusion.
I will never confess, that it is a good thiug, to have many wives.
That is, because you con∣ceive it is an unlawful conjuncti∣on, and you are over-powered with an old custome among the vulgar; which in tract of time, has wone the favour of the com∣mon people, and the Magistrates: by which it comes to passe, that the common opinion prevails more with you then the truth it self.
But what do you say to the Imperial Laws, which are against you?
In what place?
First of all, the Emperors D••ocletianus and Maximinus, do fordid Polygamy, in these words: That no man within the jurisd••ction of the Roman Empire can have two wives: seeing also in the Edict of the Praetor, such men are branded with infamy: which thing a just Iudge, will not suffer to go unpunished. Al∣so, in the same Code: That man doubtless that has two wives at once, is accompanyed with infamy.
The Authors of the first Law, as you say, were Diocletianus and Maximinus; the other is ta∣ken out of a certain Rescript of Valerianus and Galienus.
It is sufficient, that being Emperors, they had power to make Laws.
It is to be observed, that in their daies, the condition of Ma∣trimony,
in the Heathenish Em∣pire was such, that any man might put away his wife for light and frivolous causes, and keep Concubines without any shame. Howbeit, they had neither the name, nor authority of wives. The Emperors therefore thus de∣creed, not because they thought Polygamy was unlawful, seeing they allowed many lawful Con∣cubines; but they judged it fit, that only the first should have the title and authority of a wife, espe∣cially seeing they might Divorce her, if she pleased them not.
But we see that Concu∣bines were forbidden by the Em∣peror Constantine.
If you well weigh his words, you will find that his in∣tent was, that it should be unlaw∣ful for him that had a wife to have Concubines; not that it was wholly unlawful, but he might not have them with him, that is,
in his own House, where his wife dwelt, viz, to avoid brawlings, discords and countentions. But out of his house, he might have as many as he would, Moreover, the Roman-Emperor Valentianus, having the same Authority and power, did not only permit such as had wives to keep Concubines, but many wives also at the same time, in the same house, all dig∣nifyed by the same name and of equal authority: and Valentia∣nus himself, at the same time had divers wives; and therefore by the Law of Valentianus, which was afterwards made, the former Law of Constantine was abrogated.
But Justinian in his Code, makes no mention of that Law of Valentianus.
Yet that Law of his was, doubtless, published, as appears by the Histories. Add hereunto, that besides Valentianus, it is ap∣parent, that Constantius also the
Son of Constantine the great, had many wives. Clotarius also King of France, and Heribertus and Hy∣pericus his Sons, had plurality of wives. I add Pip••n and Charles, the Great, of whom Urspergensis witnesseth, that they had more wives then one; Yea, and Lota∣rius, and the son of Lotarius: as also Arnolphus the seventh Empe∣ror of Germany, and Frederick Bar∣barossa, and Philippus Deodatus King of France, and many more. Nor will I deny, that it is a wick∣ed thing to do as some do, who having wives, leave them, travel into strange Countries, and mar∣ry others. But I speak of such as take care of both their wives, and are thereunto called by God.
You suppose that which never was in the world, viz. That any man should be called by God to have two wives.
Even as Abraham, Jacob, and many others were called by
God thereunto, so may we. Nor do I see, why they had more need of this Remedy then we, nor why it was rather their duty to beget and bring up a numerous progenie, then ours.
Constantine will not have men to keep plurality of wives, nor will the Emperor that now reigns.
Tell me what is just and fit, and not what men will. The Law of nature is unchangeable. And if in the daies of Abraham, it was agreeable to reason, to have plurality of wives, as a thing ho∣nest and just; otherwise, we may assure our selves Abraham would not have married above one; and therefore we must confesse, That it is at this day a thing fit and just, and so it was in the daies of Constantine, For though he were an Emperour, yet could he not make that to be unjust which was just in it self; Doubtless that
ancient Church of Christ, had the knowledge of divine matters; and yet neither that Church, nor the Emperors of those times, did condemn or punish Polygamy. But men had rat••er seem to be good, then be so indeed, since they are so great haters of plurality of Wives, but not of Adultery. Fi∣nally, to condemn Polygamy, is for a man to prefer himself before God, who never condemned the same, and to strive to be more perfect then he. I spare to say, that I may not allow of the Lawes of the Emperors, in cases of Matri∣mony; seeing they refer the busi∣ness to the Ecclesiastick Lawes.
If you will be tryed by them, I am Victor.
Bring one Canon that makes for you.
In the times of the Fa∣thers, Polygamy was accounted so filthy, and so notoriously and ma∣nifestly abominable, that they did
not think fit to condemn it by words.
But I, for my part, am ve∣rily perswaded, that those Fathers of the ancient Church, were con∣tented with the Canon of Paul, who would have the Ministers of the Church, to be contented with one Wife; not because, it was in it self unlawful to have more, but that they might the better execute their Office: but he allowed o∣thers to live, according as they found themselves inwardly mo∣ved by God.
And yet plurality of wives was forbidden in the third and se∣venth Neo••aesariensian Councel.
I say, it was never for∣bidden, neither in them, nor in any other.
Sure I am, they ordained a penalty for Polygamists, which they would never have done, un∣less
they had counted it unlawful to have more Wives then one. Moreover, they forbad all Priests to be present at the mariage of him, that would have more wives then one.
True, but they did not forbid Polygamy it self.
They forbid it sufficient∣ly, when they ordained punish∣ments for it.
Though you read all the Councels over, you shall never finde Polygamy forbidden. Nor can that be said to be the reason, because they conceived, it was forbidden in the holy Scriptures. For, neither is it forbidden, as we have showne already: and in the 17. Canon of the Apostles, it is decreed, that a man having two Wives, should be removed from the Episcopal and Priestly Functi∣on, and from all other Ecclesiasti∣call Offices. But if the Authours
of those Canons, had seen that Polygamy was repugnant to the Scriptures, to charity, and the common good of mankind; they would have excommunicated such as had two Wives▪ nor would they only have kept them from the Communion; but they would have also punished them grie∣vously. But those Apostolical per∣sons, as Paul had done before them, did only forbid the Mini∣sters of the Church to have more Wives then one, not as if it were a thing repugnant to common honesty; but because it would draw them away, and divert them from spiritual exercises. But be∣cau••e afterward, men began by little and little, to turn aside from the right way, so that many now fell to account Marriage unlaw∣ful; they were not ashamed to write, That a mans first Wife be∣ing dead, it was Adultery and not Marriage, to take another: touch∣ing which matter, you may see what Gratian writes. So also Hie∣rome,
and Tertullian interpret that saying of Paul and the Apostles, as if his intent had been, that he which had two Wives, though one after another, might not be a Minister in the Church of God: as also he that married a Widow, or a divorced Wife, which is obser∣ved at this day, by those most ho∣ly men (Sir Reverence) the Pa∣pists, who notwithstanding, cre∣ate men of extraordinary and no∣ted filthiness for their Bishops. But mark what I sha••l say: the life of a Courtier and a Souldier, is not sinful in it self, but many may be ca••led by God to embrace the same; and yet in the twelfth Ca∣non of the Nicene Councel it was decreed, ••hat those men should be severely punished, who having left the Warres, should become Souldiers again; notwithstanding in those times, Warre was seldom made, sa••ing against Idolaters & In∣fidels. In like manner, though they decreed penalties for such as had 2. Wives; yet is not Bigamy there∣fore
sinful, nor does it follow, but that many may by divine instinct, be called thereunto. There are many such Canons; especially, concerning Matrimony, which want amendment; nor are we tyed by any Canons, but such as have their foundation in the word of God. The Fathers have ma∣ny times erred, as being men, and sometimes swarving from the rule of Gods word. Moreover, we ought to believe, that Paul taught the Ephesians (for examples sake) and the rest of the Churches, all things necessary to salvation, as himself testifies; and yet he taught them not, that any were to be tyed to one Wife, excepting Ministers of the Church.
He might therefore per∣ad••enture do that, to the intent, that others by their example, might by little and little, be brought to practise the same.
In the first place, that which you say, is not founded up∣on any word of God; without which, it seems to me an impious thing to bind mens Consciences. Moreover, every thing that is convenient for Bishops, ought not to be propounded, as an ex∣ample for all to follow.
Yet is it much, to say that the Church has erred, for the space now of a thousand two hun∣dred years, in punishing Bigamy.
That error is not to be at∣tributed to the Church of God, but to men, who in the Church, have as much erred in forbidding Priests to marry; yea, and I would have you to take notice, that the Neocaesariensian Councel decreed not, that the second Wife should be divorced, nor that the second was no true Marriage.
The Councel declared that sufficiently, by decreeing penal∣ties for such as had two Wives.
Austin judges that man to sin, who, having made a vow of chastity, marries a wife; and yet he accounts it true marriage, and that it ought not to be made void. This Arg••ment therefore, is of no force; the Councel enacted penalties for such as had two wives; and therefore the second was no true Marriage. Moreover, though above a thousand years are passed, since penalties were en∣acted against such as had two wives: yet is it not above four hundred years, since that decree was first received by the Italians, Spaniards, and Germans. For it is but an humane constitution; and the Bishops would have exclaim∣ed against Valentianus, for his plu∣rality of wives; but that he had the holy Scriptures on his side. And notwithstanding, they re∣prehended such as had more then
one wife, as Austin and Boniface did, as persons that seemed over indulgent to the flesh; they did not therefore excommunicate them, or reckon them for such as could not be saved. Ambrose was a very sharp Reprover of sin; yet do we not any where read, that he reproved Valentinianus, for ha∣ving two wives. Yea, and the said Ambrose, reprehending Iustina his second wife; for being an Ar∣rian, must have reproved her also for being no true wife, but a Con∣cubine, which notwithstanding he did not do. It is likewise recor∣ded that Leo the fifth, when he heard that a certain Bishop in A∣frica had two wives, he only de∣creed, that by reason of the words of Paul, he should be degraded from that honour; but not that he should put away his second wife, or be otherwise punished for having two. Gregory likewise, Bishop of Rome, writing to Boni∣face, who was sent into Germany, to ••e••ch Christianity, an hundred
and twenty years after the Nati∣vity of Christ, beseeches him to take care, that such as had many wives, and all were dead save one, might content themselves with her alone, and marry no more. So that he exhorts men to shun plu∣rality of Wives, just as he should exhort them to embrace a single life; which can be understood of none, but such as are called by God, to such a kind of life. The true Ecclesiastical Canons, which oblige us to their observance, are such as have their foundation in Gods word. But go to; read that Epistle which Gregory the third of that name, Bishop of Rome, wrote to the foresaid Bonifacius, there you shall find him write, to this effect.
If any Man have a Wife, which by reason of some bodily infirmi∣ty, cannot afford her Husband due benevolence, he shall do well to abstain from her. But if he can∣not contain (for that is a gift of
God not given to all) it is better, that he should marry another Wife, then burn; provided, he allow his first Wife all necessary maintenance. Than which, what could be expressed more clear∣ly?
All that you can say, though you talk till Doomsday, will never make me think it fit, and lawful for a Man to have more then one Wife.
Suppose there are more Women then Men, what shall the poor Women do in this case?
They must do, just as the men should do, in case there were many more Men then Women, viz. pray to God to give them the gift of continence.
In case a man is by God called to a married condition, and hath not the gift of continence, to
live a single life, it would be in vain for him to pray to God, that he might have the gift to live without a Wife; for in my Opi∣nion, he would never obtain his request, seeing God calls him to marry.
The whole World has be∣lieved, that plurality of Wives is unlawful, nor can any man have more then one Wife, without giving the greatest offence imagi∣nable, which all men ought to shun. Moreover, it is the will of God, that we obey our Magi∣strates; and they are so far from consenting to Polygamy, that they will put him to death, that shall have more then one wife.
But not, if he have many Concubines, or Whores. If any man being moved by divine in∣stinct, to marry divers Wives, and it should be no sin so to do; if he married them, it were a scandal taken (as the Schools speak) and
not given. Also he might, to avoid scandal, marry his second Wife privately.
But such things are hardly practicable; and if he should be often seen in Company of his se∣cond Wife, men would take of∣fence, as supposing her to be his Concubine. I shall therefore con∣tinually exhort all men to avoid Polygamy; and truly I exhort you to do the same. The Papists them∣selves do vow to live single, and shall we that are regenerate, spiri∣tual, and Evangelical men, marry more wives then one?
Just; And how honest, that single life of theirs is, all the World takes notice. The Law it self condemns barren Matrimo∣ny; so far is it from not condem∣ning voluntary and barren single life. Now I speak expresly, of such as have not the gift of continen∣cy, nor are called to a single life. The Romans did punish such as
lived single, and rewarded those, who by abundance of Children, did augment the Common∣wealth; and Lycurgus also, and Ulpianus decreed the same. Now what more blessed a thing can there be, then the preservation of humane kinde? which would wholly perish, were it not for Marriage. A man cannot trans∣mit to posterity, a more honoura∣ble memorial of his name, then by leaving behind him Children, virtuously educated. And what greater folly can be imagined, then under a shew of holiness, to shun holy Matrimony, as a thing profane▪ which notwithstanding, has bin ordained by God, is dicta∣ted by nature, perswaded by rea∣son, confirmed by Christ, praised by Authours, sacred and profane, commended by the Lawes, ap∣proved by the consent of all Nati∣ons; and whereunto we are invi∣ted by the Examples of good, and holy men? What more barbarous and inhumane, then to loath Ma∣trimony,
the desire whereof is implanted in us by nature? VVhat more unthankful to the common nature of the World and Man∣kind, then not to beget Children, as our Ancestors and Parents have begotten us? For my part I make account, that such men are mur∣therers of as many as they might have begotten, in case they had embraced Matrimony; unless per∣adventure, they are carried by a Divine Impulse to live single.
Questionless, it is a kind of Man-slaughter, not only by Medi∣caments, to cause abortion and barrenness; but also, without ve∣ry just cause, to shun Marri∣age.
I do not condemn Ma∣trimony, namely, the having of one Wife; but the having of two, or more.
But what advice will you give me?
That you marry no more Wives, but pray to God for the gift of continence.
What if he will not give it me?
He will, if you pray in Faith.
What if he neither give me the gift, nor faith to ask it?
If you shall then do that, to which God shall encline you, so that you be sure you are led by divine Instigation, you shall not sin. For it can be no Errour, to obey God. Other advice I cannot give you. And therefore I bid you farwel, and promise you, that I will seek God in your be∣half.
And that is it which I be∣seech you to do, that I may not offend God; but that I may give him all honour and glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
Gen. 2.
Gen. 3.
1 Cor. 7.
Gen. 2.
Mat. 19.
Mat. 18.
1 Cor. 7.
Gen, 2.
1▪ Tim. 5.
Deut. 17.
Our Au∣thour seems not to have heard▪ or not to have thought, when he wrote thus, of the New∣found World, nor of many large Tracts of ground in Hungaria, and other parts of Eu∣rope unpeopled.