The common places of the most famous and renowmed diuine Doctor Peter Martyr diuided into foure principall parts: with a large addition of manie theologicall and necessarie discourses, some neuer extant before. Translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten, one of the sewers of hir Maiesties most honourable chamber.

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

4 Héere haue I matter somewhat hard to be explaned touching polygamie. This place commeth oftentimes to hand in the holie scrip∣tures; therefore it shalbe verie well once to vn∣derstand what we are to iudge of the same. I vndoubtedlie will declare (as in a matter ob∣scure) what may séeme good vnto me; not pre∣scribing anie thing in the meane time to anie man, that can alledge anie better. 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 no∣thing. 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. First therefore we will in∣quire, 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.

5 As concerning the first, there séeme to be arguments strong enough for the proofe of ei∣ther part. First I will bring foorth their argu∣ments, which would haue polygamie to be law∣full. Secondlie, I will shew what may be said on the other part. After that, I will confute the for∣mer arguments. [ 1] First therefore they saie, that they haue examples, not of the common sort of men, but of the most holie men, Abraham, Ia∣cob, Helcana, and Dauid: them (saie they) we fol∣lowe in other things; and whie should it not be lawfull in this matter also? [ 2] Further, if they sin∣ned héerin, it is not likelie that God would haue dissembled that sinne: for he sent Nathan vnto Dauid, to reprehend him of adulterie; and Gad, that should blame him for numbering the peo∣ple. And other offenses of the people were euer reprooued by the prophets. [ 3] 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. [ 4] Besides this, when Nathan reprooued Dauid, he thus vsed his spéech to him, vnder the person of God; I haue annoin∣ted 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. [ 5] Besides this, when God in Exo∣dus gaue expresse warning of a goring oxe, of a tooth smitten out, & of euerie small matter, he ne∣uer forbad polygamie; naie contrariwise, by sup∣position 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, the one that he loueth, the other that he hateth, let him not preferre the sonne of the beloued, be∣fore the sonne of hir that he hateth. Howbeit, this place prooueth not greatlie; for it might be, that the one wife was diuorsed.

[ 6] Furthermore, if a man die without children, God commandeth, 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. [ 7] If polygamie were permitted, so often diuorcements would not be vsed: for husbands doo therefore refuse their first wiues, bicause they may marrie o∣thers. [ 8] Also, the fruitfulnesse, which is chéeflie re∣garded 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 propa∣gation and issue of children. [ 9] Againe, what ac∣count shall we make of those ancient patri∣archs, vnto whom the Iewes haue alwaies at∣tributed so much? Surelie, vnlesse we accept of polygamie, they were begotten either in whoor∣dome, 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. [ 10] Where shall then become that nobilitie so often bosted of? For onelie Rachel was the lawfull wife of Ia∣cob; and of hir onelie two were brought foorth, Ioseph and Beniamin. And of Ioseph were E∣phraim 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. Wher∣fore, all the other patriarchs were bastards.

[ 11] Besides this, Valentinian the elder, a godlie emperour, and a christian, had two wiues togi∣ther, 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. [ 12] 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 Valentini∣an the second borne; and Galla, who afterward married Theodosius the emperour. [ 13] And this al∣so is affirmed by some, touching Charles the great; although others write, that he put awaie the daughter of Desiderius, king of the Lom∣bards, without publication of the cause; and that after the same he tooke to wife a maiden of Sue∣uia a damsell of a noble house. Howsoeuer the matter be, yet all men grant, that he, besides his wiues, had foure concubins. [ 14] Chrysostome vp∣on that place of Paule (The husband of one wife) saith, 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 chri∣stians.

[ 15] 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? [ 16] 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? [ 17] Augustine, in his 22. booke against Faustus the Manichei, when as he dealt in this matter, he so diuided sinne, 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 vn∣to fruitfulnesse; neither against custome, bi∣cause it was now openlie receiued; neither a∣gainst the lawe, séeing there was no caution made by the lawes concerning the same: wher∣fore he concludeth, that polygamie was law∣full. [ 18] The lawe also of marrieng another wife was granted, if anie mans wife became a le∣pre. [ 19] Likewise, there is licence granted vnto those wiues, whose husbands are wandered into far countries, or be fled, touching whom it can∣not 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 ma∣trimonie rested in both: for if the first husband that was far absent returne home, he is compel∣led to take his owne wife, although she be mar∣ried 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.

[ 20] Furthermore, if a woman for anie cause shall be refused by hir husband, the bond of ma∣trimonie remaineth vndissolued: but she can not returne to hir husband, from whom she is compelled to depart; for she is now become pro∣phane vnto him, yet may she be married to ano∣ther. In this sort a wife may haue two husbands. Men are woont to refer the originall of polyga∣mie vnto Lamech: but touching him, whatsoe∣uer others doo thinke, Chrysostome saith, he was a good man and a godlie. [ 21] It séemeth also to a∣grée with reason, that whosoeuer will, may yéeld as concerning his right. Why then should not this be lawfull in matrimonie, if the wife be wil∣ling 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 hus∣band in ill part, but also she did of hir owne ac∣cord prouoke him thervnto. Also Caietane vpon

Genesis saith; [ 22] Let the godlie reader consider, that in expresse words there is no lawe written as touching polygamie.

6 But on the contrarie part, to speake plain∣lie 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. [ 1] For if we will knowe the forme or reason of a∣nie thing, we must haue recourse vnto the be∣ginnings. God at the verie beginning created not thrée or foure; but two, and by the mouth of Adam himselfe pronounced the lawe of marri∣age; 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 togi∣ther, as they may be one flesh. If we perceiue a∣nie thing hath happened [otherwise] in matri∣monie, the same must be reuoked to this origi∣nall forme. But if thou wilt saie, that the lat∣ter 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 instituti∣on is the lawe of God. 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 se∣parate. By these words the former lawe of God is repeated, and newlie established.

[ 2] 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 sharp∣lie, that He, which marrieth an other, commit∣teth adulterie. Neither is the matter, which some here obiect, of anie great force, that Marke saith; He committeth adulterie against hir: as though he were not an absolute adulterer, but onelie that he dooth iniurie to his first wife. [ 3] Yes trulie, he committeth double sinne; first, bicause he is an adulterer; secondlie, for that he dooth iniu∣rie to his wife. Ierom in manie places dooth ponder these words; 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 diui∣ded 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 Salui∣na. Although I must néeds grant this, that these reasons prooue not Ieroms purpose: for vnto Saluina and Geruntia, he inueiheth against se∣cond 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 vn∣to 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 o∣ther, 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 cōmunicated, 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. But thou wilt obiect; Whie then in a diuorse, by reason of a∣dulterie, is it permitted to haue an other mar∣riage? I answer: for that the cause of the vnitie is taken awaie, and that is the fastening togi∣ther. 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; The Lord hath not called vs to bondage. Neither must it be a∣nie let vnto vs, that the name of Two, is not ex∣pressed 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.

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. In so much as Paule, when he disputed against fornication, saith; Shall I take the member of Christ, and make it the member of an harlot? For it is writ∣ten (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 fornicati∣on: 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 forni∣cation 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 ano∣ther, 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 altogi∣ther one: but séeing that whooremongers come not togither according to the Lords institution, that coniunction is not firme, but may be dissol∣ued. 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 matri∣monie 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 matri∣monie. Which hereby appéereth, for that through such a conuersation with harlots, there ariseth an affinitie: so as it may not be lawfull after∣ward 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: 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, bi∣cause he did perceiue, that by reason of that ill companie, there was now some affinitie con∣tracted. Howbeit, no lawe is by that meanes procured, whereby the whooremonger may com∣pell the harlot to remaine with him.

[ 4] 7 Paule vnto the Corinthians writeth verie well of this matter. For first he saith; Let eue∣rie man, for auoiding fornication, haue his owne wife; and euerie woman haue hir owne hus∣band. But, Hir owne, is contrarie vnto Him that is common to another. Againe, if the hus∣band haue manie wiues, the wife of necessitie must haue a husband common to others, and not proper to hir selfe. [ 5] The Logicians haue ve∣rie well defined that to be proper, which alwaies and onlie agréeth vnto one alone. Paule addeth; I would not haue you to defraud one another. But in polygamie, one or other must of neces∣sitie be defrauded: for the husband cannot kéepe companie with them all at once. Wherefore Ia∣cob was constreined so to decide the matter, as he by turnes was sometime with Rachel, and sometime with Lea: séeing hereof there arise perpetuall contentions and bralles betwixt wo∣men. For we sée no liuing creature that is so void of courage, but both in féeding and propa∣gation, would be frée from impediment: and had rather fight, than to be kept from these things.

And in the state of polygamie, although wo∣men come not to the field, yet they be at war to∣gither, somtime with chiding and bralling, and oftentimes with their fists and nailes. [ 6] 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 vn∣to him? In contracts, consideration must be had to both alike. [ 7] Besides this, the principall point of matrimonie is fréendship; and fréend∣ship dooth chéeflie consist in iustice: if iustice halt, matrimonie must néeds be lame. Paule addeth; that The husband hath not power of his owne bodie, but the wife; nor the wife of hir owne bo∣die, 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: 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.

[ 8] 8 Another reason is deriued from the signi∣fication or sacrament. Paule saith vnto the E∣phesians; Husbands loue your wiues, as Christ hath loued his church, &c. And; They shall be two in one flesh. Great (saith he) is this sacra∣ment 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 Ie∣rom vsed against Iouinian: in which place he earnestlie inueiheth against Lamech, who (as he saith) diuided one rib into two. And so he affir∣meth, that the heretiks diuide the church into sundrie conuenticles. This dooth not much trou∣ble me, séeing this reason might serue for po∣lygamie. For Salomon had seuen hundred Quéenes, and thrée hundred concubins. And in the Canticles it is read, 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 bo∣no coniugali, the 18. chapter, thus interpret; that Christ of all his particular churches, throughout the world, hath collected one church vnto him∣selfe. I passe ouer, how others doo interpret Ra∣chel to be the church; and Lea the synagog. In verie déed, there was one onelie dooue, that is to saie, one perfect church.

[ 9] The Schoole-diuines saie, that thrée things speciallie are requisite in matrimonie; fruitful∣nesse; dwelling togither, that the man and wo∣man may one helpe another; and the sacrament (as they terme it) that is, the signification. That first good thing touching fruitfulnesse, polyga∣mie nothing hindereth: naie rather, it is an in∣crease

to the same. Yet that they can dwell togi∣ther in that state, and the husband helpe all his wiues alike, it can hardlie be. [ 10] In matrimonie there must be a singular charitie. But, both rea∣son 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. [ 11] There ought also to be a singular vnitie in wedlocke: for They be two in one flesh. And Paule saith; Bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. But no one man can be one and the same towards ma∣nie. Further, in polygamie, all the rest are of∣tentimes 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 appée∣reth out of the second chapter of Malachie: 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 vn∣to the Lord. And héerein the husbands commit∣ted double sinne, both in that they married o∣thers wiues, and bicause they afflicted their for∣mer wiues.

[ 12] It séemeth also, that the hauing of manie wiues, maketh against good manners: sith eni∣mities are not onelie sproong vp among their wiues, but also are bred and increased among their children. For Agar, 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. Touching Iacob, the historie is well knowne. Of Helcan and his wiues, we haue spoken in our Commentaries vpon the first booke of Samuel. Epiphanius a∣gainst the Massalians saith; that The ancient fathers, when they had manie wiues, neuer sus∣teined them togither in one house. Whence he tooke that, I knowe not: yet from thence I sup∣pose he had the same; for that Laban, when he pursued Iacob, and sought his idols, it is writ∣ten, that he first entered into the tent of Ra∣chel, afterward of Lea: whereby it appeareth that they dwelt asunder.

[ 13] 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 Pro∣uerbs he saith; 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. [ 14] 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 fli∣eng into Gilead, and had made a couenant with him, he added this; 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, Ada and Sela: and Sela signifieth in Latine, Vm∣bra eius, that is, His shadowe. For she séemed ra∣ther to be the shadowe of a wife, than a wife in∣déed.

[ 15] 9 Yea and the Comedie also teacheth, that polygamie is a great corrupting of matrimo∣nie: 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 Lem∣nos, 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. [ 16] 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 Prae∣torian 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 Iuliā, de adulterijs, in the lawe, Eum qui. 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 E∣liberine Councell (which is also cited in the 31. question, chapter De ijs) it is decréed, that the ministers should not blesse such kind of marria∣ges. 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 alled∣ged, bicause the priest ought rather to persuade them vnto repentance, than to blesse them. 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 law∣full. 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. What

wilt thou then saie, shall we thinke of the fa∣thers? Euen thus, that they may two maner of waies be defended. For first I saie, that God, ac∣cording to the state of those times, dispensed with them, for the lawe which he had made at the beginning. Moreouer, some adde a signi∣fication. As touching the first, God could haue raised men out of the sinne of the earth; but sée∣ing he had decréed, that mankind should be spred by procreation, polygamie was necessa∣rie. And this reason dooth the Maister of the sen∣tences 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: 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. How∣beit, if we determine that to be sinne, wherwith God is offended, and is prouoked to reuenge, they sinned not: 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.

But thou wilt obiect; Séeing we confesse, that herein there is some imperfection, why did God suffer it to be in his church, which ought to be most perfect? I answer, that in 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 no∣ted, if one should vse a short garment, and with∣out sléeues. Howbeit, thou wilt saie, that those fa∣thers were most perfect, as Abraham and Ia∣cob, as Dauid and others. I grant it. Neuer∣thelesse, it is one thing to consider a man in him∣selfe; and another thing, as the time serueth. Those fathers were perfect in themselues; yet, by reason of the time they had much imperfecti∣on. 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 com∣pared 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, 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 con∣firme the consciences of others. Yes verelie, it ought to séeme sufficient vnto vs, for that we perceiue not, that anie where, they were reproo∣ued 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, and distinguished the degrées: yet did he not reuoke polygamie, al∣though the place may séeme most of all to re∣quire it. And this the rather also he alloweth, in that God saith, that he gaue the wiues of Saule vnto Dauid into his bosome. Wherefore, the fa∣thers 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 reli∣giouslie: for they had accesse vnto none, but vn∣to their owne wiues. And by this meanes the issue was prouided for. Howbeit, thou wilt ob∣iect, that if the lawe of God were dispensed with, in consideration of bringing foorth children, the same should chéeflie haue béene doone vnto A∣dam. Augustine De nuptijs & concupiscentijs, the first booke, and ninth chapter answereth, that God would set foorth in Adam the forme of per∣fect matrimonie. Moreouer, he addeth, that at that time there was no idolatrie: but after∣ward, when idolaters were increased, it was ne∣cessarie 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, and therefore not to be ascribed vnto God. Philip Melancthon (whom I name for ho∣nour sake) in his Epitome of the Ethiks distin∣guisheth naturall honestie, and saith, that one is eternall; to wit, that God must be worshipped: that thou oughtest to doo to others, as thou woul∣dest 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 naughti∣nesse 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 after∣ward come to passe. Ambrose in his first booke, and fourth chapter of Abraham the patriarch, bi∣cause 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 fa∣thers to haue manie wiues at once, vnlesse it be to describe a mysterie.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 ac∣cording to the varietie of times. Augustine De doctrina christiana, in the third booke, and 12. chap∣ter, 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. In∣déed Augustine in that place treated of meats: but this he added in the end as touching polyga∣mie, and saith, that the same was blamelesse, bi∣cause of replenishing the world with sufficient issue. The same father against Faustus the Ma∣nichei; Séeing saith he, it was then the manner, it was no sinne. And in the same booke De doctri∣na 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 ma∣nie 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 Abra∣ham the patriarch saith, that he did nothing for fulfilling of lust; therefore he may be excused. Finallie, the same thing doth the Maister of sen∣tences affirme, in the fourth booke, distinction 33.

12 Thus therefore may the dooings of the fathers be defended. First, bicause those most ancients vnderstood by the spirit of God, where∣with they were indued, that God did dispense with his lawe. Secondlie, bicause the posteritie followed the example of their ancestors, especial∣lie 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. For he that knoweth the will of his Lord, & doth it not, shalbe beaten with ma∣nie stripes. Perhaps in those times of darknesse, either they thought not of the lawe, or else they vnderstood it not. Moreouer, they sawe that po∣lygamie 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 ig∣norance 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, (vnto whose mani∣fold learning and godlinesse I doo attribute ve∣rie much) though in his Ethiks (which place I ci∣ted 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 blemi∣shes. Howbeit, this Melancthon of the trée of consanguinitie more plainelie saith, that the same sinne procéeded of ignorance: yet he ad∣deth, probable; bicause as yet no lawe was ex∣tant concerning the same. But what lawe he speaketh of, I doo not perceiue: for the lawe gi∣uen to Adam went long before. Vnlesse per∣haps he meane the lawe manifested by Christ; or else that Moses, which put that lawe into wri∣ting, was not yet borne: séeing before that time, it was onlie kept by tradition. Or else per∣aduenture he ment, that that custome was poli∣tike; and that in such ciuill ordinances, alwaies something is suffered to be amisse. Howbeit this he saith, that God pardoned their faith, bi∣cause 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 proba∣ble. 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.

Indéed for my part the first liketh me best: for I sée that God altogither would that his peo∣ple 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 wri∣teth somwhat of this matter, which I sée not how it may be allowed. 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 A∣braham 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 vn∣doubtedlie was not in Mesopotamia. What will he saie of Dauid? Sith he had his wiues in the middest of Iewrie.

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 an∣swer, 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. Where∣fore, 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 wor∣shipping of God should be reteined among one people, vntill the comming of Christ. And it was verie profitable, that the same lawe should be ex∣pounded by Christ: 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 be∣hooued 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 iudi∣ciall lawes, so as no man, that is of sound iudge∣ment, will vrge magistrates to execute those laws against their wils. Neither only did Christ this by himselfe, but also by his apostle Paule. Also he reuoked wholie that matter concerning diuorsement: so that if anie man depart from his wife, & marrie another, he committeth adul∣terie. But thou wilt obiect; By this meanes the forefathers may séeme to be adulterers. I an∣swer, as I haue said before, that God dispensed with his lawe, and that therefore they sinned not: neuerthelesse, the matter being now ex∣pounded and declared, he that shall doo other∣wise 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 na∣ture of the fact, the same vndoubtedlie did apper∣teine vnto adulterie. For the ten commande∣ments haue the same respect to vertues and vi∣ces, 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 opi∣nion, 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 de∣clared; yet was it some reuolting from perfecti∣on. Panormitanus (in the title of diuorsements, in the chapter Gaudemus) saith, that The forefa∣thers, when they had giuen a bill of diuorse∣ment, and had married another, were suffici∣entlie excused of adulterie: bicause adulterie cannot be committed but by collusion or by co∣uine. And this he declareth by two lawes: the one ecclesiasticall, and the other ciuill. The ec∣clesiasticall 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. After∣ward 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 con∣streined 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 mar∣ried 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 le∣gem Iuliam, de adulterio, in the last lawe but one. A certeine man put his wife frō him, but gaue

hir not a iust bill of diuorsement. An other man married hir that was put awaie; he was accu∣sed 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 fa∣thers, 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 com∣ming of Christ, to be reteined in one nation on∣lie. Now the succession of godlines is not sought for out of one stocke or line, but is spread ouer the whole world.

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 ad∣deth, 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 Graeci∣ans, who attributed so much vnto their philoso∣phie. Ierom writeth héereof in diuers places to Geruntia, to Eustochius, and against Iouinianus. And among other things, he writeth, that Christ was Alpha & Omega, 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 Ephesi∣ans) to bring althings into one, & 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 vnreple∣nished, 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 ga∣ther 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, Increase and mul∣tiplie, 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, and there∣fore they which haue wiues, let them be as though they had none. And he addeth, that Christ dooth allow of them, which haue made themselues chast for the kingdome of heauens sake. Also Augustine De doctrina christiana, in the third booke and 13. chapter, saith, that Those fore∣fathers were so chast, as if they had happened to be in our daies, they would haue made them∣selues 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, as if a man perceiue, that by that meanes the king∣dome of heauen may be enlarged; or if by doo∣ing 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, wher∣in we may the more commodiouslie and readi∣lie spred the Gospell. Augustine saith, that now we cannot haue manie wiues, but with lust, bi∣cause 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. Clemens in his Stromata, which place I cited before; when he had said, that God in the lawe required poly∣gamie, added afterward, that the same is not now lawfull.

And Iustine against Tryphon saith, 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, he so plaieth in his allego∣ries; and manie wiues he maketh manie ver∣tues: 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 grée∣uous 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, which we brought at the beginning for polyga∣mie,

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 more∣ouer, that God either willed it, or bare with it. It is therefore a paralogisme, or false argu∣ment, 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. What maruell is it? For they sawe it was either li∣cenced by God, or else doubtlesse permitted. Howbeit, 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 fi∣gure. They repented not. It is no maruell: bi∣cause no man can repent him of the fact, which he is ignorant of. For it was a tollerable igno∣rance, 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. It was lawfull; insomuch as he had dispensed with his lawe. Or if anie man will saie, that God per∣mitted that vnto Dauid onelie: this is the mea∣ning; 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. God made no lawe against polygamie. And no maruell; for his will was, that that people should mightilie increase. Af∣terward by Christ he reuoked it to the first in∣stitution. 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. The case is particular, and preroga∣tiues 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 Rab∣bins 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 chil∣dren 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. 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 tou∣ching whoordome, certeinlie Dauid, when he had manie, yet he could not temper himselfe from Bersabe.

Greater would the fruitfulnesse be. 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; sée∣ing now the church hath hir resting places of re∣ceipt: 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; 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 ecclesiasti∣call. Vndoubtedlie marriages they were, al∣though not so perfect, as that of one man to one woman. But what shall become of that nobili∣tie of the Iewes? 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 hand∣fasted with Iacob. Neither did that nobilitie de∣pend of the mothers, but of the blessing and pro∣mise of God.

Valentinian had two wiues. Admit he had: neuerthelesse, we must sée whether he had them rightlie or no: for although he were a good em∣perour, 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 mar∣rie his brothers daughter, made a lawe, that it might be lawfull: but scarselie was there anie one clawe-backe to be found, which would fol∣lowe that fact. Now both these lawes are vtter∣lie 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? Surelie (as I haue declared) they haue suffici∣entlie set forth in their writings what their mea∣ning was. But let vs consider the euent. Iustina that second wife became an Arrian, and did gréeuouslie vex Ambrose. The yoonger Valenti∣nian, which was borne of Galla, the daughter of Iustina, followed the religion of his grandmo∣ther, and did vehementlie oppresse the churches: and he laie miserablie slaine in his litter. Chry∣sostome saith, that Paule added [The husband] of one wife, bicause of them, which hauing ma∣nie wiues, were conuerted from Iudaisme vn∣to Christ. And therof it appéereth, that polygamie also was borne withall euen in the church. I an∣swer,

that the same was therefore borne with; 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 consci∣ence 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 repor∣ted 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, for they with a good conscience agréed betwéene them∣selues. Neither must iniurie be doone vnto those wiues: for euerie of them hath right in hir hus∣band. 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 héer∣of, 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 Inno∣centius, being asked his counsell of a Iew, which in matrimonie had his brothers wife? Answe∣reth, 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 marri∣eng of the brothers wife; but none at all for po∣lygamie. 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. Indéed it is a blessing, but yet not so, that he is curssed which hath not children. Au∣gustine saith, that it was neither against the cu∣stome, nor against the lawe, nor yet against na∣ture; and yet it is now against the lawe, and a∣gainst custome. Those things, which were alled∣ged concerning leapres, and them which be far distant, make nothing to this purpose. For nei∣ther 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 matri∣monie was not vndoone. I answer, that a bill of diuorsement did sufficientlie excuse hir from a∣dulterie, especiallie when she did it of probable ignorance. Lamech is commended by Chryso∣stome. 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, 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 Schoole∣men, among the number of whom we cited Cai∣etanus, saie, that There is not anie lawe extant, which expresselie forbiddeth polygamie; which al∣though 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 que∣stion.

Notes

• In 1. Sam. 25, 42.
• Polygamie of two sorts
• The diuisi∣on of this question.
• Arguments for polyga∣mie.
• 2. Sam. 12, 1 Ibid. 24, 12.
• Ibid. 12, 7.
• Exod. 21. 27 28, 29.
• verse. 15.
• Deut. 25, 5.
• 1. Tim. 3, 2.
• Augustine.
• Sinne di∣uided.
• Gen. 4, 19.
• Arguments against po∣lygamie.
• Gen. 2, 23.
• An obiecti∣on.
• An other obiection.
• verse. 4. 5.
• Ibidem. 11.
• Gen. 2, 23. The shall be two in one flesh.
• An obiecti∣on.
• In what ca∣ses married parties be free.
• 1. Cor. 7, 15.
• An other obieccion.
• Looke par. •• pla. 1. art. 4.
• 1. Cor. 6, 15
• 2. Sam. 20, 3
• The fourth argument.
• 1. Cor. 7, 2.
• verse. 5.
• Gen. 30, 15.
• verse. 4.
• verse. 28.
• The eight argument.
• Ephes. 5, 25.
• 1. Kin. 11, 3.
• Cant. 6, 7, and 8.
• Ephe. 5, 30.
• verse. 14.
• Gen. 16, 4.
• Ibid. 21, 14.
• Epipha∣nius.
• Gen. 31, 33.
• Prou. 5, 19.
• Gen. 31, 50.
• Gen. 4, 19.
• The Ro∣mans for∣bad polyga∣mie to the Iewes.
• The conclu∣sion of these arguments.
• Looke In Gen. 29, 27.
• What we are to iudge of the poly∣gamie of the fathers.
• Whether the Iewes sinned by polygamie.
• God dispen∣sed with his lawe for propagati∣on sake.
• An obiec∣tion.
• Why God beare with this imper∣fection in his church.
• How the fathers were per∣fect.
• Whence it appeereth that God dispensed with his lawe.
• Leuit. 18.
• 2. Sam. 12, 8
• Why this lawe was not licen∣ced vnto Adam.
• Whether it be a per∣uersenesse of nature.
• That in po∣lygamie there was hidden a mysterie.
• What the fathers iud∣ged tou∣ching poly∣gamie.
• A defense of the old fathers tou∣ching poly∣gamie.
• Luke. 12, 47
• Melanc∣thons opi∣nion of this thing.
• Peter Mar¦tyrs owne iudgement hereof.
• What Am∣brose and Augustine iudged her∣of.
• The licence that the fore¦fathers had must not be transferred vnto vs. Matth. 19.
• Christ al∣tered not the lawe, but reduced sole marri∣age to the first insti∣tution.
• 1. Cor. 7, 2.
• How the forefathers may seeme to be adul∣terers.
• The fathers opinion heereof. Chrysost.
• Ierom.
• Apoc. 1, 8.
• Ephe. 1. 10.
• Gen. 1, 28.
• 1. Cor. 7, 29
• Matt. 19, 12
• Augustine
• 1. Cor. 7, 26. The reason of Pauls praising virginitie.
• Clemens.
• Iustine.
• Origin.
• An answer vnto the reasons making for polygamie. To the first reason.
• A paralo∣gisme.
• To the se∣cond.
• A paralo∣gisme.
• To the third.
• 2. Sam. 12, 8
• To the fourth.
• To the fift.
• To the sixt.
• To the se∣uenth.
• To the eight.
• To the ninth.
• To the tenth.
• To the 11.
• To the 12.
• 1. Tim. 3, 2.
• To the 13,
• To the 14.
• To the 15.
• To the 16.
• To the 17.
• To the 18.
• Gen. 4. 19. To the 19.
• To the 20.
• To the 21.