Common Places, Part 2 · Chapter 10 · Section 2
Of Polygamie, or the hauing of more wiues than one.
In 1. Sam. 25, 42.4 Héere hauehave I matter ſomewhat hard to be explaned touching polygamie. This place commeth oftentimes to hand in the holie ſcriptures; therefore it ſhalbe verie well once to vnderſtand what we are to iudge of the ſame. I vndoubtedlie will declare (as in a matter obſcure) what may ſéeme good vntounto me; not preſcribing anie thing in the meane time to anie man, that can alledge anie better. Polygamie of two ſortsPolygamie is two maner of waies to be conſidered of. The firſt is, that when the firſt wife is dead, a ſecond or a third is married: as touching this, bicauſe there is at this daie no doubt, I will ſaie nothing. The other is, when two, or more wiues be kept in matrimonie. But whether it be lawfull for one woman to hauehave 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. The diuiſion of this queſtion.Firſt therefore we will inquire, whether polygamie may be ſimplie and abſolutelie prooued. Secondlie, by what right the ſame was vſed among the fathers in the old lawe of Moſes. Laſtlie, whether the ſame libertie may be alſo tranſferred vntounto vsus.
Arguments for polygamie.5 As concerning the firſt, there ſéeme to be arguments ſtrong enough for the proofe of either part. Firſt I will bring foorth their arguments, which would hauehave polygamie to be lawfull. Secondlie, I will ſhew what may be ſaid on the other part. After that, I will confute the former arguments. Firſt therefore they ſaie, that they hauehave examples, not of the common ſort of men, but of the moſt holie men, Abraham, Iacob, Helcana, and Dauid: them (ſaie they) we followe in other things; and whie ſhould it not be lawfull in this matter alſo? Further, if they ſinned héerin, it is not likelie that God would hauehave diſſembled that ſinne: 2. Sam. 12, 1 Ibid. 24, 12.for he ſent Nathan vntounto Dauid, to reprehend him of adulterie; and Gad, that ſhould blame him for numbering the people. And other offenſes of the people were euer reprooued by the prophets. Moreouer it is not read, that the fathers did repent for ſuch kind of polygamie: wherefore, if it were a ſinne, they died without repentance. Beſides this, when Nathan reprooued Dauid, he thus vſed his ſpéech to him, vnderunder the perſon of God; Ibid. 12, 7.I hauehave annointed thee king, and giuen thee the houſe of thy lord, & the wiues of thy lord, into thy boſome. He ment Egla and Riſpha, the wiues of Saule; and more were promiſed him, if theſe might not ſéeme ſufficient. Beſides this, Exod. 21. 27 28, 29.when God in Exodus gaue expreſſe warning of a goring oxe, of a tooth ſmitten out, & of euerie ſmall matter, he neuer forbad polygamie; naie contrariwiſe, by ſuppoſition it may be perceiued, that he did permit polygamie. For in the 21. chapter of Deutero. he made this lawe; If anie man hauehave two wiues, verſe. 15.the one that he loueth, the other that he hateth, let him not preferre the ſonne of the beloued, before the ſonne of hir that he hateth. Howbeit, this place prooueth not greatlie; for it might be, that the one wife was diuorſed.
Furthermore, if a man die without children, God commandeth, Deut. 25, 5.that the brother of him ſhuld marrie his wife: neither is there anie exception added; namelie, that vnleſſe the ſame brother hauehave his owne wife before. Wherefore, God not onelie permitteth, but alſo commandeth, that there ſhould be polygamie. If polygamie were permitted, ſo often diuorcements would not be vſed: for huſbands doo therefore refuſe their firſt wiues, bicauſe they may marrie others. Alſo, the fruitfulneſſe, which is chéeflie regarded in matrimonie, would be greater by manie wiues, than by one. And by this reaſon the Turks at this daie doo defend polygamie; bicauſe they hauehave a ſingular reſpect vntounto propagation and iſſue of children. Againe, what account ſhall we make of thoſe ancient patriarchs, vntounto whom the Iewes hauehave alwaies attributed ſo much? Surelie, vnleſſe we accept of polygamie, they were begotten either in whoordome, or in adulterie; ſith lawfull matrimonie it cannot appéere to be. And by that meanes ſhould the fathers and authors of the ſtocke and name of the Iewes be baſtards. Where ſhall then become that nobilitie ſo often boſted of? For onelie Rachel was the lawfull wife of Iacob; and of hir onelie two were brought foorth, Ioſeph and Beniamin. And of Ioſeph were Ephraim and Manaſſes borne. For indéed Lea was a wife, but yet a ſuppoſed wife; that is, a concubine: or rather a harlot than a wife. Wherfore, all the other patriarchs were baſtards.
Beſides this, Valentinian the elder, a godlie emperour, and a chriſtian, had two wiues togither, as Socrates affirmeth in his fourth booke. For when as Seuera his wife had verie much commended vntounto him the fauour and beautie of the yoong maid Iuſtina, whom ſhe had in hir traine: the emperour therewith inflamed, was wholie determined to take hir to wife. Yet did he not put awaie Seuera from him, ſéeing of hir he begat Gratianus, which afterward did reigne. Howbeit, none of the fathers, which liued in that time (although they were franke of ſpéech, and excellent men) reprehend him for ſo dooing. Yea, and of this ſecond matrimonie was Valentinian the ſecond borne; and Galla, who afterward married Theodoſius the emperour. And this alſo is affirmed by ſome, touching Charles the great; although others write, that he put awaie the daughter of Deſiderius, king of the Lombards, without publication of the cauſe; and that after the ſame he tooke to wife a maiden of Sueuia a damſell of a noble houſe. Howſoeuer the matter be, yet all men grant, that he, beſides his wiues, had foure concubins. Chryſoſtome vponupon that place of Paule (The husband of one wife) ſaith, 1. Tim. 3, 2.that Paule added this for their ſakes, which came from Iudaiſme vntounto Chriſt. For to them it was lawfull to hauehave manie wiues. Yet (ſaith he) Paule gaue warning that a biſhop ſhould not be choſen from among the number of ſuch. And Ierom likewiſe followed the ſame opinion. Wherefore, in thoſe daies, they that had more wiues than one, were ſuffered among the chriſtians.
And at this daie, if a Turke or a Iew ſhould come vntounto Chriſt with his two wiues, what ſhould be doone as touching them? To plucke either the one or the other awaie, againſt hir will, were crueltie. But ſhould we permit them both? Moreouer, ſéeing barrenneſſe is a curſſe of God: if a man cannot by his firſt wife hauehave iſſue, ſhall he ſo remaine curſſed, or not rather marrie another? Auguſtine.Auguſtine, in his 22. booke againſt Fauſtus the Manichei, when as he dealt in this matter, he ſo diuided ſinne, Sinne diuided.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 vntounto fruitfulneſſe; neither againſt cuſtome, bicauſe it was now openlie receiued; neither againſt the lawe, ſéeing there was no caution made by the lawes concerning the ſame: wherfore he concludeth, that polygamie was lawfull. The lawe alſo of marrieng another wife was granted, if anie mans wife became a lepre. Likewiſe, there is licence granted vntounto thoſe wiues, whoſe huſbands are wandered into far countries, or be fled, touching whom it cannot be knowne or heard, either by letters, or yet by meſſengers, for a certeine ſpace of time what was become of them. And yet the bond of matrimonie reſted in both: for if the firſt huſband that was far abſent returne home, he is compelled to take his owne wife, although ſhe be married to another. And after this ſort polygamie is permitted. Howbeit, this dooth not much make for the matter; ſéeing we ſpeake here of thoſe, which vſe two wiues both togither.
Furthermore, if a woman for anie cauſe ſhall be refuſed by hir huſband, the bond of matrimonie remaineth vndiſſolued: but ſhe can not returne to hir huſband, from whom ſhe is compelled to depart; for ſhe is now become prophane vntounto him, yet may ſhe be married to another. In this ſort a wife may hauehave two huſbands. Men are woont to refer the originall of polygamie vntounto Lamech: but touching him, Gen. 4, 19.whatſoeuer others doo thinke, Chryſoſtome ſaith, he was a good man and a godlie. It ſéemeth alſo to agrée with reaſon, that whoſoeuer will, may yéeld as concerning his right. Why then ſhould not this be lawfull in matrimonie, if the wife be willing to permit it vntounto hir huſband, ſéeing by that means there is no iniurie doone vntounto anie? For ſo Sara permitted Agar vntounto Abraham: and not onelie ſhe tooke not that fact of hir huſband in ill part, but alſo ſhe did of hir owne accord prouoke him thervnto. Alſo Caietane vponupon Geneſis ſaith; Let the godlie reader conſider, that in expreſſe words there is no lawe written as touching polygamie.
Arguments againſt polygamie.6 But on the contrarie part, to ſpeake plainlie of the thing it ſelfe, I ſaie, that polygamie is not lawfull. And to prooue this, I will reaſon firſt from the verie inſtitution of matrimonie. For if we will knowe the forme or reaſon of anie thing, we muſt hauehave recourſe vntounto the beginnings. God at the verie beginning created not thrée or foure; but two, and by the mouth of Adam himſelfe pronounced the lawe of marriage; Gen. 2, 23.This is now bone of my bones, for this cauſe ſhall a man leaue father and mother, and ſhall cleaue to his wife, and they ſhalbe two in one fleſh; that is, They ſhall be ſo vnited togither, as they may be one fleſh. If we perceiue anie thing hath happened [otherwiſe] in matrimonie, the ſame muſt be reuoked to this originall forme. An obiection.But if thou wilt ſaie, that the latter lawes (as the lawiers terme it) doo ouer-rule the former: I anſwer, that if anie things were brought in, or vſurped afterward, the ſame be humane inuentions; and that the firſt inſtitution is the lawe of God. An other obiection.verſe. 4. 5.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 vntounto them: For this cauſe ſhall a man leaue father and mother, and ſhall cleaue to his wife, and they ſhalbe two in one fleſh? Whom God therefore hath ioined togither, let not man ſeparate. By theſe words the former lawe of God is repeated, and newlie eſtabliſhed.
And if ſo be that Chriſt would not ſuffer, that the firſt wife, being put awaie, an other ſhould be married; how leſſe credible is it, that he would ſuffer anie man to hauehave manie wiues at one time? Naie rather, he ſpeaketh more ſharplie, that He, which marrieth an other, committeth adulterie. Neither is the matter, which ſome here obiect, of anie great force, that Marke ſaith; He committeth adulterie againſt hir: Ibidem. 11.as though he were not an abſolute adulterer, but onelie that he dooth iniurie to his firſt wife. Yes trulie, he committeth double ſinne; firſt, bicauſe he is an adulterer; ſecondlie, for that he dooth iniurie to his wife. Ierom in manie places dooth ponder theſe words; Gen. 2, 23. The ſhall be two in one fleſh.They ſhall be two in one fleſh. Againſt Iouinian he ſaith; It is written, In one fleſh, not in two or thrée. And he addeth, that Lamech was a naughtie man, which diuided one rib into two: but (ſaith he) he ſuffered the puniſhment of his naughtineſſe in the flood. The ſame thing he ſaith in an epiſtle vntounto Saluina. Although I muſt néeds grant this, that theſe reaſons prooue not Ieroms purpoſe: for vntounto Saluina and Geruntia, he inueiheth againſt ſecond marriages. Into the which error Tertullian alſo fell, when as he erred with the Montaniſts. Neuertheleſſe, theſe reaſons doo verie well ſerue vsus in this place.
But Ierom addeth; And he ſhall cleaue vntounto his wife: Not, vntounto wiues (ſaith he.) I verelie, when I ponder with my ſelfe theſe words, In one fleſh, I perceiue a great emphaſis or force in them. For One fleſh, is either by colligation, as when all the members be knit one with an other, or elſe by continuation. Both the waies make, that all the parts of the bodie doo ſerue one an other. So the hand dooth his indeuour vntounto the mouth, the mouth vntounto the bellie, the bellie vntounto 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. An obiection.But thou wilt obiect; Whie then in a diuorſe, by reaſon of adulterie, is it permitted to hauehave an other marriage? I anſwer: for that the cauſe of the vnitie is taken awaie, and that is the faſtening togither. In what caſes married parties be free.Wherefore it is ſaid; And he ſhall cleaue vntounto his wife, and they ſhalbe two in one fleſh. But he which committeth adulterie, cleaueth not vntounto 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; 1. Cor. 7, 15.The Lord hath not called vsus to bondage. Neither muſt it be anie let vntounto vsus, that the name of Two, is not expreſſed in Geneſis: it is ſufficient, that Chriſt hath added that word. And the ſame muſt be fullie ſupplied in Geneſis, ſith when thoſe things were ſpoken, there were onelie two; Adam and Eue.
An other obieccion.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. Looke par. … pla. 1. art. 4.In ſo much as Paule, when he diſputed againſt fornication, ſaith; 1. Cor. 6, 15Shall I take the member of Chriſt, and make it the member of an harlot? For it is written (ſaith he) They ſhall be two in one fleſh. Now is that reaſon either firme, or not firme: if it be firme, it ſhall alſo be of force in fornication: if it be not of force, neither ſhall it be firme in matrimonie. Some anſwer, that Paule ſaith, that indéed the fleſh of them, which commit fornication togither, is all one; yet not perpetuallie, but for a time onelie. Howbeit this is nothing: for Paule citeth the ſame place out of Geneſis. Neither dooth he ſpeake of one houre, or another, but abſolutelie.
It ſéemeth that a better anſwer may be made on this wiſe; that ſo far as belongeth to the nature of the thing it ſelfe, the fleſh is altogither one: but ſéeing that whooremongers come not togither according to the Lords inſtitution, that coniunction is not firme, but may be diſſolued. Indéed they are made one and the ſame fleſh, as concerning the fact (as they vſe to ſaie;) howbeit, by ſtealth, not lawfullie. But in matrimonie both are good: as well the coniunction, as the preſcript of the Lord. That did Paule laie hold of, bicauſe he ſawe it made to the purpoſe: for this hath whooredome common with matrimonie. Which hereby appéereth, for that through ſuch a conuerſation with harlots, there ariſeth an affinitie: ſo as it may not be lawfull afterward to contract matrimonie with the parents, or children, or brethren of ſuch a one, as thou haſt before vnlawfullie kept companie with. This is euident by the ſcriptures: 2. Sam. 20, 3for when Abſolom had kept vnlawfull companie with the wiues of his father; Dauid, when he was afterward reſtored, would not receiue them vntounto him, bicauſe he did perceiue, that by reaſon of that ill companie, there was now ſome affinitie contracted. Howbeit, no lawe is by that meanes procured, whereby the whooremonger may compell the harlot to remaine with him.
The fourth argument.7 Paule vntounto the Corinthians writeth verie well of this matter. For firſt he ſaith; 1. Cor. 7, 2.Let euerie man, for auoiding fornication, hauehave his owne wife; and euerie woman hauehave hir owne huſband. But, Hir owne, is contrarie vntounto Him that is common to another. Againe, if the huſband hauehave manie wiues, the wife of neceſſitie muſt hauehave a huſband common to others, and not proper to hir ſelfe. The Logicians hauehave verie well defined that to be proper, which alwaies and onlie agréeth vntounto one alone. Paule addeth; verſe. 5.I would not hauehave you to defraud one another. But in polygamie, one or other muſt of neceſſitie be defrauded: for the huſband cannot kéepe companie with them all at once. Wherefore Iacob was conſtreined ſo to decide the matter, as he by turnes was ſometime with Rachel, Gen. 30, 15.and ſometime with Lea: ſéeing hereof there ariſe perpetuall contentions and bralles betwixt women. For we ſée no liuing creature that is ſo void of courage, but both in féeding and propagation, would be frée from impediment: and had rather fight, than to be kept from theſe things.
And in the ſtate of polygamie, although women come not to the field, yet they be at war togither, ſomtime with chiding and bralling, and oftentimes with their fiſts and nailes. He that marrieth a wife, giueth his bodie vntounto 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 hauehave his wife to giuegive hir bodie altogither vntounto him? In contracts, conſideration muſt be had to both alike. Beſides this, the principall point of matrimonie is fréendſhip; and fréendſhip dooth chéeflie conſiſt in iuſtice: if iuſtice halt, matrimonie muſt néeds be lame. Paule addeth; that verſe. 4.The husband hath not power of his owne bodie, but the wife; nor the wife of hir owne bodie, but the husband. Wherefore, the huſband cannot marrie a ſecond wife, without iniurie doone vntounto the firſt. He affirmeth alſo, that the troubles in matrimonie are verie great: verſe. 28.For ſuch ſhall hauehave 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.
The eight argument.8 Another reaſon is deriued from the ſignification or ſacrament. Paule ſaith vntounto the Epheſians; Epheſ. 5, 25.Husbands louelove your wiues, as Chriſt hath loued his church, &c. And; They ſhall be two in one fleſh. Great (ſaith he) is this ſacrament or myſterie in Chriſt, I ſaie, and his church. But Chriſt hath one onelie church; wherefore, if our actions ought to be correſpondent vntounto the originall forme, it ſhall not be lawfull for vsus to marrie more wiues than one. This reaſon Ierom vſed againſt Iouinian: in which place he earneſtlie inueiheth againſt Lamech, who (as he ſaith) diuided one rib into two. And ſo he affirmeth, that the heretiks diuide the church into ſundrie conuenticles. This dooth not much trouble me, ſéeing this reaſon might ſerue for polygamie. For Salomon 1. Kin. 11, 3.had ſeuen hundred Quéenes, and thrée hundred concubins. And in the Canticles it is read, Cant. 6, 7, and 8.that he had thrée ſcore Quéenes, and foure ſcore concubins: howbeit, one of them was his dooue, one was his perfect one. That dooth Auguſtine in his treatiſe De bono coniugali, the 18. chapter, thus interpret; that Chriſt of all his particular churches, throughout the world, hath collected one church vntounto himſelfe. I paſſe ouer, how others doo interpret Rachel to be the church; and Lea the ſynagog. In verie déed, there was one onelie dooue, that is to ſaie, one perfect church.
The Schoole-diuines ſaie, that thrée things ſpeciallie are requiſite in matrimonie; fruitfulneſſe; dwelling togither, that the man and woman may one helpe another; and the ſacrament (as they terme it) that is, the ſignification. That firſt good thing touching fruitfulneſſe, polygamie nothing hindereth: naie rather, it is an increaſe to the ſame. Yet that they can dwell togither in that ſtate, and the huſband helpe all his wiues alike, it can hardlie be. In matrimonie there muſt be a ſingular charitie. But, both reaſon it ſelfe, and Ariſtotle in the eight booke of his Ethiks, doo teach, that ſpeciall fréendſhip cannot abide among manie: for among the more in number that fréendſhip is ſpred, the ſlacker it muſt be toward euerie one in particular. There ought alſo to be a ſingular vnitie in wedlocke: for They be two in one fleſh. And Paule ſaith; Ephe. 5, 30.Bone of his bone, and fleſh of his fleſh. But no one man can be one and the ſame towards manie. Further, in polygamie, all the reſt are oftentimes contemned in compariſon of one, and they are counted in the place of handmaids, and that ſame one dooth beare rule, and command the reſt. Neither dooth malice there ſtaie it ſelfe: ſith oftentimes, for that one womans ſake, the reſidue are miſerablie afflicted. And this appéereth out of the ſecond chapter of Malachie: verſe. 14.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 vntounto the Lord. And héerein the huſbands committed double ſinne, both in that they married others wiues, and bicauſe they afflicted their former wiues.
It ſéemeth alſo, that the hauing of manie wiues, maketh againſt good manners: ſith enimities are not onelie ſproong vp among their wiues, but alſo are bred and increaſed among their children. For Agar, Gen. 16, 4.when ſhe ſawe hir ſelfe to hauehave 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. Ibid. 21, 14.Touching Iacob, the hiſtorie is well knowne. Of Helcan and his wiues, we hauehave ſpoken in our Commentaries vponupon the firſt booke of Samuel. Epiphanius.Epiphanius againſt the Maſſalians ſaith; that The ancient fathers, when they had manie wiues, neuer ſuſteined them togither in one houſe. Gen. 31, 33.Whence he tooke that, I knowe not: yet from thence I ſuppoſe he had the ſame; for that Laban, when he purſued Iacob, and ſought his idols, it is written, that he firſt entered into the tent of Rachel, afterward of Lea: whereby it appeareth that they dwelt aſunder.
Salomon, although he gaue no good counſell to himſelfe, yet by th'inſpiration of the holie Ghoſt he gaue good warning to others. For in the Prouerbs he ſaith; Prou. 5, 19.Delight thy ſelfe with the wife of thy youth, let hir be thy hynd, let hir be thy fawne, ſatiſfie thy ſelfe alwaies with hir paps. But this cannot he doo, which hath manie wiues. And not onelie Salomon did ſée this, but Laban alſo. For he, although he had forced Iacob to take the two ſiſters: yet when he ouertooke him flieng into Gilead, and had made a couenant with him, he added this; Gen. 31, 50.Moleſt not my daughters, nor yet bring in other wiues vntounto them. For this he ſawe could not be doone, but that thoſe ſhould be greatlie diſquieted. Lamech had two wiues, Gen. 4, 19.Ada and Sela: and Sela ſignifieth in Latine, Vmbra eius, that is, His ſhadowe. For ſhe ſéemed rather to be the ſhadowe of a wife, than a wife indéed.
9 Yea and the Comedie alſo teacheth, that polygamie is a great corrupting of matrimonie: ſith in the Comedie Phormio, the old man Chremes, when he had a wife at Athens that was rich, and would marrie an other in Lemnos, was conſtrained to change his name, and to call him ſelfe Stilpho. Which vnleſſe he had doone, perhaps that ſecond woman of Lemnos would not hauehave béene married vntounto him. Yea, Chremes by the Paraſite Phormio is accuſed of polygamie, as of a gréeuous crime and offenſe. The Romane lawes could neuer abide, that a man ſhould hauehave more wiues than one. For in the Code, concerning inceſts, and vnprofitable marriages, Diocleſian and Maximian decréed, that none ſhould hauehave manie wiues: and who that did contrarie, ſhould be puniſhed. And they adde, that the ſame was receiued before the Praetorian edicts. In the Digeſts Deijs, qui notantur infamia, lawe the firſt, in the Paraph, at the end; They be noted of infamie, which hauehave 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 Romans forbad polygamie to the Iewes.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 vnderunder the Romane empire, to marrie mo. So the godlie emperors, though they did beare with manie other things in that nation, yet would they not ſuffer this. In the Eliberine Councell (which is alſo cited in the 31. queſtion, chapter De ijs) it is decréed, that the miniſters ſhould not bleſſe ſuch kind of marriages. This place hath naughtilie and peruerſelie béene wreſted vntounto ſecond marriages; for the Councell ſpeaketh plainlie of polygamie: which alſo the Gloſſer perceiued. The reaſon is alledged, bicauſe the prieſt ought rather to perſuade them vntounto repentance, than to bleſſe them. The concluſion of theſe arguments.The ſame is in the Extrauagant De ſecundis nuptijs, lawe the firſt. By theſe reaſons I am mooued to thinke, that polygamie is not abſolutelie lawfull. And much leſſe doo I allow of them, which thinke, that marriages ought to be common. Such were the Gnoſtiks, the Valentinians, and the Secundians: of the which opinion ſome write that Plato alſo was.
10 Now I come to the ſecond point. Looke In Gen. 29, 27.What wilt thou then ſaie, ſhall we thinke of the fathers? Euen thus, that they may two maner of waies be defended. What we are to iudge of the polygamie of the fathers.For firſt I ſaie, that God, according to the ſtate of thoſe times, diſpenſed with them, for the lawe which he had made at the beginning. Moreouer, ſome adde a ſignification. As touching the firſt, God could hauehave raiſed men out of the ſinne of the earth; but ſéeing he had decréed, that mankind ſhould be ſpred by procreation, polygamie was neceſſarie. And this reaſon dooth the Maiſter of the ſentences followe. For propagation of the fleſh was the increaſe of godlineſſe: ſéeing GOD would, that the people, in whom true religion was planted, ſhould continue euen vntounto Chriſt. So then it was lawfull for them to hauehave manie wiues, to the intent that that people might be mo in number: Whether the Iewes ſinned by polygamie.neither can it appéere that they ſinned, when they ſo did. But here ſinne muſt be diſtinguiſhed: for if, to ſinne, be to ſtraie from moſt perfect reaſon, ſurelie they ſinned. Howbeit, if we determine that to be ſinne, wherwith God is offended, and is prouoked to reuenge, they ſinned not: God diſpenſed with his lawe for propagation ſake.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.
An obiection.But thou wilt obiect; Séeing we confeſſe, that herein there is ſome imperfection, why did God ſuffer it to be in his church, Why God beare with this imperfection 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 noted, if one ſhould vſe a ſhort garment, and without ſléeues. Howbeit, thou wilt ſaie, that thoſe fathers were moſt perfect, as Abraham and Iacob, as Dauid and others. I grant it. Neuertheleſſe, it is one thing to conſider a man in himſelfe; How the fathers were perfect.and another thing, as the time ſerueth. Thoſe fathers were perfect in themſelues; yet, by reaſon of the time they had much imperfection. For they ſaie, that thoſe times were full of darkneſſe, if they ſhould be compared with our light. Indéed the Iewes of that time, being compared with the Gentils, were in a maner the light of the whole world: but they were nothing in compariſon of our ſtate, after that the holie Ghoſt was giuen, and the Goſpell ſpred abroad. And there be manie things well doone in the darke, which would not be abidden in the light.
11 Neuertheleſſe, thou wilt yet inquire, Whence it appeereth that God diſpenſed with his lawe.by what ſcriptures it may be ſhewed, that God did diſpenſe with his lawe. I anſwer, that the ſame may ſufficientlie appéere, by the examples of Abraham, Iacob, Dauid, Helcana, and other godlie fathers. But thoſe (thou wilt ſaie) might erre; and that their fact is not ſufficient to confirme the conſciences of others. Yes verelie, it ought to ſéeme ſufficient vntounto vsus, for that we perceiue not, that anie where, they were reprooued by the prophets for this cauſe. Moreouer, God, when he made the lawe, if anie thing were before doone amiſſe by the fathers, he amended it. For before that time it was lawfull for Iacob to hauehave two ſiſters in wedlocke. But this did God forbid by the lawe, Leuit. 18.and diſtinguiſhed the degrées: yet did he not reuoke polygamie, although the place may ſéeme moſt of all to require it. And this the rather alſo he alloweth, in that God ſaith, 2. Sam. 12, 8that he gaue the wiues of Saule vntounto Dauid into his boſome. Wherefore, the fathers ſinned not in that matter; for they did it without luſt: which we doubt not but manie did. And they kept the faith of wedlocke verie religiouſlie: for they had acceſſe vntounto none, but vntounto their owne wiues. And by this meanes the iſſue was prouided for. Howbeit, thou wilt obiect, that if the lawe of God were diſpenſed with, in conſideration of bringing foorth children, the ſame ſhould chéeflie hauehave béene doone vntounto Adam. Auguſtine De nuptijs & concupiſcentijs, Why this lawe was not licenced vntounto Adam.the firſt booke, and ninth chapter anſwereth, that God would ſet foorth in Adam the forme of perfect matrimonie. Moreouer, he addeth, that at that time there was no idolatrie: but afterward, when idolaters were increaſed, it was neceſſarie that the godlie ſhould alſo increaſe; and for that cauſe God diſpenſed with his lawe.
Yea (thou wilt ſaie) but it is the peruerſeneſſe of nature, Whether it be a peruerſeneſſe of nature.and therefore not to be aſcribed vntounto God. Philip Melancthon (whom I name for honour ſake) in his Epitome of the Ethiks diſtinguiſheth naturall honeſtie, and ſaith, that one is eternall; to wit, that God muſt be worſhipped: that thou oughteſt to doo to others, as thou wouldeſt be doone vntounto: for theſe things be eternall, and cannot be changed without great trouble. The other is that, which ſomwhat declineth from a perfection: yet not ſo, as anie great naughtineſſe or confuſion dooth followe. And of this ſort he reckoneth polygamie, which (he ſaith) God did allow among the Iſraelites. Euen ſo was it, for a man to marie the wife of his brother: which for that time God not onelie allowed, but alſo commanded. Some of the fathers adde, that God did diſpenſe with his lawe, not onelie for propagation ſake; but alſo, that he might by ſome meanes ſhadowe that, which ſhould afterward come to paſſe. That in polygamie there was hidden a myſterie.Ambroſe in his firſt booke, and fourth chapter of Abraham the patriarch, bicauſe he firſt had a child by Agar, and afterward by Sara, ſaith, that therein laie hidden a great myſterie. The verie which thing Ierom alſo ſaid to Geruntia; to wit, that Sara repreſented the church, and Agar the ſynagog. The ſame they iudge of Rachel and Lea. The ſame of Anna and Phenenna. Of this mind was Iuſtinus Martyr, in his conference that he hath with Tryphon; namelie, that it was not lawfull vntounto the fathers to hauehave manie wiues at once, vnleſſe it be to deſcribe a myſterie.
What the fathers iudged touching polygamie.But what the fathers themſelues hauehave held concerning the polygamie of thoſe of old time, it may eaſilie appéere by their owne teſtimonies. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his foreign, the fourth booke, ſaith; that God, in thoſe firſt times did exact polygamie of them. Chryſoſtome ſaith, that God granted polygamie vntounto them. Ierom to Geruntia ſaith, that the ſame was doone according to the varietie of times. Auguſtine De doctrina chriſtiana, in the third booke, and 12. chapter, ſaith; that that fact of the fathers muſt not be regarded, according to the outward action, but after the maner of their luſting. Wherefore he ſaith, that they ſinned not, if they did it onelie for iſſue ſake; but if there were anie, that therein ſought after luſt, they could not be excuſed. Indéed Auguſtine in that place treated of meats: but this he added in the end as touching polygamie, and ſaith, that the ſame was blameleſſe, bicauſe of repleniſhing the world with ſufficient iſſue. The ſame father againſt Fauſtus the Manichei; Séeing ſaith he, it was then the manner, it was no ſinne. And in the ſame booke De doctrina chriſtiana, the 18. chapter, he ſaith; They might hauehave euen manie wiues in chaſtitie, and one with luſt. And he addeth, that they, which had manie for an other cauſe, that is, for propagation ſake, are to be preferred aboue them, which had but onelie one for luſt ſake. Ambroſe of Abraham the patriarch ſaith, that he did nothing for fulfilling of luſt; therefore he may be excuſed. Finallie, the ſame thing doth the Maiſter of ſentences affirme, in the fourth booke, diſtinction 33.
A defenſe of the old fathers touching polygamie.12 Thus therefore may the dooings of the fathers be defended. Firſt, bicauſe thoſe moſt ancients vnderſtood by the ſpirit of God, wherewith they were indued, that God did diſpenſe with his lawe. Secondlie, bicauſe the poſteritie followed the example of their anceſtors, eſpeciallie when they perceiued, that the dooing thereof was neither reproued any where by God, nor yet afterward by any lawe. Others there be, which thinke, that the ſame was ſin, though not verie hainous, & that it was remitted them by reaſon of their faith. And they thinke, that the ſame ſinne might be eaſed in them, by reaſon of probable ignorance: ſith probable ignorance may in ſome part excuſe ſinne. Luke. 12, 47For he that knoweth the will of his Lord, & doth it not, ſhalbe beaten with manie ſtripes. Perhaps in thoſe times of darkneſſe, either they thought not of the lawe, or elſe they vnderſtood it not. Moreouer, they ſawe that polygamie was receiued now vſuallie ouer all the Eaſt part, ſo as they thought, that there was no other matter in it, than a ciuill ordinance. And whatſoeuer ſinne was therein, GOD made as though he knew not, both for propagation ſake, bicauſe he ment of that ſtocke to raiſe vp a great number of people; and alſo by reaſon of the ignorance of the ſame people, (for as yet they were not otherwiſe inſtructed;) & laſtlie for the figure and myſterie ſake. This is an other reaſon made by the latter men, whereby the polygamie of the fathers may be defended. Both reaſons ſéeme vntounto 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, Melancthons opinion of this thing.(vntounto whoſe manifold learning and godlineſſe I doo attribute verie much) though in his Ethiks (which place I cited before) he ſaith that God allowed polygamie in the Iſraelits; yet in his booke De coniugio, he writeth manifeſtlie, that matrimonie ought to be a coniunction of one vntounto one. And he ſaith, that God did beare with that imperfection in the fathers; bicauſe they, although otherwiſe they were perfect, yet were not without their blemiſhes. Howbeit, this Melancthon of the trée of conſanguinitie more plainelie ſaith, that the ſame ſinne procéeded of ignorance: yet he addeth, probable; bicauſe as yet no lawe was extant concerning the ſame. But what lawe he ſpeaketh of, I doo not perceiue: for the lawe giuen to Adam went long before. Vnleſſe perhaps he meane the lawe manifeſted by Chriſt; or elſe that Moſes, which put that lawe into writing, was not yet borne: ſéeing before that time, it was onlie kept by tradition. Or elſe peraduenture he ment, that that cuſtome was politike; and that in ſuch ciuill ordinances, alwaies ſomething is ſuffered to be amiſſe. Howbeit this he ſaith, that God pardoned their faith, bicauſe it was not doone againſt the expreſſe lawe. But whereas that great learned man inclined to this other reaſon, it was not of inconſtancie; but bicauſe he perceiued them both to be probable. Vnleſſe peraduenture he were alwaies of this mind; and that when in his Ethiks he ſaith, that God allowed it, he ment, that he forgaue it. The choiſe ſhall be in thée (gentle reader) which reaſon thou haddeſt rather to followe: both of them be probable; neither of them vngodlie.
Peter Martyrs owne iudgement hereof.Indéed for my part the firſt liketh me beſt: for I ſée that God altogither would that his people ſhould be increaſed. Further, albeit I doubt not, but that thoſe fathers were not void of ſin; yet where they may be well defended, I would not charge them ouer-much. Yet Ambroſe writeth ſomwhat of this matter, which I ſée not how it may be allowed. What Ambroſe and Auguſtine iudged herof.For he excuſeth Abraham; firſt, for iſſue ſake; ſecondlie, for the ſhadowing [of things to come;] laſtlie, bicauſe he comming out of Chaldaea, reteined ſome gentiliſme. This latter reaſon is not of anie great force: for Abraham had abſteined a great while, neither did he ioine Agar to himſelfe of his owne accord, but was prouoked therevnto by his wife Sara. Yet dooth Ierom vntounto 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 vnderunder Laban. But what anſwer will he make of Abraham? For he vndoubtedlie was not in Meſopotamia. What will he ſaie of Dauid? Sith he had his wiues in the middeſt of Iewrie.
The licence that the forefathers had muſt not be tranſferred vntounto vsus. Matth. 19.13 And as touching the third part of that we purpoſed to ſpeake of; namelie, whether that libertie may be alſo tranſferred vntounto vsus? I anſwer, that it is in no wiſe lawfull. For now hath Chriſt made manifeſt that lawe of God, and hath called it backe to the firſt inſtitution. Wherefore, he that now tranſgreſſeth the ſame, dooth againſt the plaine word of God. Moreouer, the cauſe being taken awaie, the effect muſt néeds be taken awaie. And the cauſe was, the increaſe of poſteritie: wherof there is now no néed, ſéeing God hath now thoſe that worſhip him ouer all the world. But before it behooued that the worſhipping of God ſhould be reteined among one people, vntill the comming of Chriſt. And it was verie profitable, that the ſame lawe ſhould be expounded by Chriſt: Chriſt altered not the lawe, but reduced ſole marriage to the firſt inſtitution.for when as Adam was the firſt man that had one wife, it was méet that Chriſt the ſecond Adam, of whom the ſame firſt was a figure, ſhould ordeine the marriage of one alone. But thou wilt ſaie, that Chriſt came not to make lawes, but to preach the Goſpell, and to redéeme mankind, & that therefore it behooued him to leaue matrimonie in the ſtate it was in, as well as the ſunne, the ſtars, and other outward things.
I anſwer, that Chriſt made no new lawe, but onelie reuoked the old. For he onelie declared the will of his father, and taught nothing anew. Further he tooke awaie ſacrifices, ſo that now he is a wicked man that will kill anie beaſt for ſacrifice. He alſo brake the ſtrength of the iudiciall lawes, ſo as no man, that is of ſound iudgement, will vrge magiſtrates to execute thoſe laws againſt their wils. Neither only did Chriſt this by himſelfe, but alſo by his apoſtle Paule. 1. Cor. 7, 2.Alſo he reuoked wholie that matter concerning diuorſement: ſo that if anie man depart from his wife, & marrie another, he committeth adulterie. But thou wilt obiect; How the forefathers may ſeeme to be adulterers.By this meanes the forefathers may ſéeme to be adulterers. I anſwer, as I hauehave ſaid before, that God diſpenſed with his lawe, and that therefore they ſinned not: neuertheleſſe, the matter being now expounded and declared, he that ſhall doo otherwiſe dooth gréeuouſlie ſinne. And reuoking hath a reſpect alwaies to the time to come, and not to that which is paſt; ſéeing ſuch is the condition of all lawes: otherwiſe, as concerning the nature of the fact, the ſame vndoubtedlie did apperteine vntounto adulterie. For the ten commandements hauehave the ſame reſpect to vertues and vices, as the ten predicaments hauehave 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 vntounto that ſecond opinion, which we hauehave expounded, that there was ſome vice in polygamie; the ſame muſt néeds be adulterie. And although in plaine reaſon it were not ſinne, as in the former opinion I declared; yet was it ſome reuolting from perfection. Panormitanus (in the title of diuorſements, in the chapter Gaudemus) ſaith, that The forefathers, when they had giuen a bill of diuorſement, and had married another, were ſufficientlie excuſed of adulterie: bicauſe adulterie cannot be committed but by colluſion or by couine. And this he declareth by two lawes: the one eccleſiaſticall, and the other ciuill. The eccleſiaſticall is out of the Triburien Councell, as we read it in the 34. cauſe, queſtion the ſecond, in the chapter In lectum. A man had a wife, and ſhe a ſiſter, all in one houſe. When the wife was abſent, that ſame ſiſter went to his bed. Afterward came the huſband, and thinking it had béene his wife, had the companie of hir. The Councell abſolued the man, vponupon condition, that he did it not fraudulentlie: but he was conſtreined to ſweare, that he did that wicked act ignorantlie and vnwittinglie. And it is called a wicked act, not bicauſe it was ſo in verie déed, but bicauſe the matter perteined to wickednes. Thus the fathers are excuſed, bicauſe they married not their ſecond wife by colluſion: for they perceiued, that the ſame was accuſtomed and vſuall among all.
The other lawe ciuill, is in the Digeſts Ad legem Iuliam, de adulterio, in the laſt lawe but one. A certeine man put his wife frō him, but gaue hir not a iuſt bill of diuorſement. An other man married hir that was put awaie; he was accuſed of adulterie: but he was excuſed, bicauſe he knew not that there was anie thing lacking vntounto a iuſt diuorſe. This I ſpeake, leaſt it ſhould ſéeme vntounto anie man, that Chriſt accuſed the fathers, of adulterie. But if God, for propagation ſake, diſpenſed with the forefathers, as touching his lawe; whie (wilt thou ſaie) may not the ſame be doone at this time to them which profeſſe the Goſpell; ſéeing, if they be compared with the Papiſts & Atheiſts, they be but few in number? Howbeit, the reaſon is not all alike: bicauſe it behooued the religion of GOD, vntill the comming of Chriſt, to be reteined in one nation onlie. Now the ſucceſſion of godlines is not ſought for out of one ſtocke or line, but is ſpread ouer the whole world.
The fathers opinion heereof. Chryſoſt.14 To this opinion of mine doo all the fathers agrée. For Chryſoſtome in his 56. homilie on Matth. ſaith; We muſt not iudge of the fathers according to our owne reaſon; for at that time it was lawfull, now it is not lawfull. And he addeth, that Chriſt came, to the end he might bring vsus to the ſtate of angels. For now he granteth vsus 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 vsus vntounto a higher philoſophie. The true religion he calleth philoſophie, to take awaie the pride of the Graecians, who attributed ſo much vntounto their philoſophie. Ierom.Ierom writeth héereof in diuers places to Geruntia, to Euſtochius, and againſt Iouinianus. And among other things, he writeth, that Chriſt was Alpha & Omega, Apoc. 1, 8.that is, The firſt & the laſt. And when the mater was now come to Omega, that is, VntoUnto the laſt, the ſame was reuoked by Chriſt to Alpha, that is, VntoUnto the beginning: for that it pleaſed God (as Paule ſaith to the Epheſians) to bring althings into one, Ephe. 1. 10.& reſtore them in Chriſt; that ſuch things, as yet were vnperfect, might be brought to perfection. VntoUnto Euſtochius he ſaith; that the world before time was vnrepleniſhed, but when the harueſt was ripe, God put to his ſyth, that is to ſaie, he cut off ſuch libertie.
The Valentinians and Martionits, by reaſon of this fact of the old fathers, accuſed the God of the old teſtament; but Chriſt (they ſaid) the ſonne of the good God, reuoked this ſufferance of the euill god. Ierom anſwereth; We diuide not the lawe and the Goſpell, neither doo we ſet Chriſt againſt his Father: but we worſhip one God, who would hauehave it for that time, but now hath decréed againſt it. For that then was the time to ſcatter ſtones abroad, now is the time to gather them vp: then was the time of imbraſing, now is the time to abſteine from imbraſings. Bréefelie he ſaith, that the fathers ſerued their times. And that that ſaieng, Gen. 1, 28.Increaſe and multiplie, is not in the ſame force at this daie; for in old time, virginitie was reprochefull: that now Paule writeth; The time is but ſhort, 1. Cor. 7, 29and therefore they which hauehave wiues, let them be as though they had none. And he addeth, that Chriſt dooth allow of them, Matt. 19, 12which hauehave made themſelues chaſt for the kingdome of heauens ſake. Alſo Auguſtine De doctrina chriſtiana, Auguſtinein the third booke and 13. chapter, ſaith, that Thoſe forefathers were ſo chaſt, as if they had happened to be in our daies, they would hauehave made themſelues chaſt, for the kingdome of heauen.
Theſe things among the fathers muſt be read with iudgement: for their mind was by all meanes to extoll virginitie, and ſingle life. In verie déed Paule praiſeth virginitie; yet ſo, 1. Cor. 7, 26. The reaſon of Pauls praiſing virginitie.as if a man perceiue, that by that meanes the kingdome of heauen may be enlarged; or if by dooing otherwiſe, it may be hindered. He praiſeth it I ſaie, not as a thing, which of his owne force, and of it ſelfe, pleaſeth God; but as a ſtate, wherin we may the more commodiouſlie and readilie ſpred the Goſpell. Auguſtine ſaith, that now we cannot hauehave manie wiues, but with luſt, bicauſe it would be againſt lawes and cuſtomes, which cannot be violated without vnlawfull luſt. Alſo againſt Fauſtus he ſaith; Bicauſe it was then the maner, it was no ſinne; but now bicauſe it is not the maner, it is ſinne. Clemens.Clemens in his Stromata, which place I cited before; when he had ſaid, that God in the lawe required polygamie, added afterward, that the ſame is not now lawfull.
And Iuſtine againſt Tryphon ſaith, Iuſtine.that now euerie one dooth reioiſe vnderunder 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 hauehave more than one. Out of Origin we cannot learne anie thing for a certeintie, Origin.he ſo plaieth in his allegories; and manie wiues he maketh manie vertues: and he ſaith, that he is moſt happie that hath manie. By all theſe things it appéereth, that polygamie is at this daie forbidden. And to all theſe, I alſo adde this, that the Romane laws did neuer permit polygamie: and it is the part of a good citizen to obeie good lawes. Yea and Plutarch ſaith, that There followed a moſt gréeuous diſturbance of the publike weale, and of the whole world, when that lawe was broken. For after that Antonie (who alreadie had in marriage Octauia the ſiſter of Octauius Caeſar) had alſo married Cleopatra; the people tooke it in ill part, and Auguſtus moſt of all: ſo as they put themſelues in armes one againſt another, with all their indeuour and power.
15 Now muſt I confute thoſe arguments, An anſwer vntounto the reaſons making for polygamie. To the firſt reaſon.which we brought at the beginning for polygamie, Abraham (ſaie they) and other fathers were holie men, and had manie wiues. Here might I make anſwer at a word: that we muſt liue by lawes, and not by examples. But I adde moreouer, that God either willed it, or bare with it. It is therefore a paralogiſme, A paralogiſme.or falſe argument, A ſecundum quid ad ſimpliciter, that is, when that which is but in ſome reſpect, is put for that which is abſolute. God diſpenſed with them: will he therefore with vsus alſo? Or elſe it was a good thing in them: is it therfore good of it ſelfe? But the prophets reprooued not that fact. To the ſecond.What maruell is it? For they ſawe it was either licenced by God, or elſe doubtleſſe permitted. Howbeit, A paralogiſme.here there is a falſe argument, when that which is not the cauſe, is put for the cauſe: ſéeing it was permitted them for propagation, or for figure ſake. Now there is no néed, either of ſo populous a propagation, or elſe of ſuch a figure. To the third.They repented not. It is no maruell: bicauſe no man can repent him of the fact, which he is ignorant of. For it was a tollerable ignorance, or elſe (that which I rather beléeue) they ſawe it was lawfull for them. GOD gaue the wiues of Saule into the boſome of Dauid. 2. Sam. 12, 8It was lawfull; inſomuch as he had diſpenſed with his lawe. To the fourth.Or if anie man will ſaie, that God permitted that vntounto Dauid onelie: this is the meaning; namelie, that God gaue the kingdome vntounto 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. To the fift.God made no lawe againſt polygamie. And no maruell; for his will was, that that people ſhould mightilie increaſe. Afterward by Chriſt he reuoked it to the firſt inſtitution. So, that which was wanting in Moſes is ſupplied by Chriſt.
A brother, although he had a wife, yet he was compelled to marrie the wife of his brother that was dead. To the ſixt.The caſe is particular, and prerogatiues muſt not be drawne vntounto examples. God would hauehave that to be doone for certeine cauſes, not onelie in the lawe, but alſo before the lawe: as appéereth by the children of Iuda, and [his daughter in lawe] Thamar. Moreouer, the Rabbins ſaie, that that woman was not counted for the wife of that brother, which remained aliue; but of the huſband which was dead, and that the name of the firſt huſband whas giuen to the children which were borne of hir. So as the brother, which remained aliue, was not properlie hir huſband; but onelie had acceſſe vntounto hir, that he might raiſe vp iſſue vntounto hir. To the ſeuenth.We ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave more wiues than one. And as touching whoordome, certeinlie Dauid, when he had manie, yet he could not temper himſelfe from Berſabe.
Greater would the fruitfulneſſe be. To the eight.I grant it: and therefore God diſpenſed with his lawe. Howbeit now, when as religion is not tied to one nation onelie, but is diſperſed ouer all the world, there is no néed of ſuch fruitfulneſſe; ſéeing now the church hath hir reſting places of receipt: although not alwaies in one place, yet whereſoeuer God hath offered occaſion. But the marriages of the fathers might ſéeme to be adulteries. No forſooth; To the ninth.ſéeing God either gaue licence, or bare with it. For (as we ſaid out of Panormitane) adulterie is not committed, but with colluſion. And that he prooued by two lawes; the one ciuill, and the other eccleſiaſticall. Vndoubtedlie marriages they were, although not ſo perfect, as that of one man to one woman. But what ſhall become of that nobilitie of the Iewes? To the tenth.It ſhall firmelie abide in his owne ſtate; inſomuch as thoſe old patriarchs were borne of lawfull wedlocke. For Zilpha and Bilha, although they were but in the ſtate of ſeruants, and might be called concubins; yet in verie déed they were wiues: howbeit, they were not miſtreſſes of the houſe, nor yet were handfaſted with Iacob. Neither did that nobilitie depend of the mothers, but of the bleſſing and promiſe of God.
Valentinian had two wiues. Admit he had: To the 11.neuertheleſſe, we muſt ſée whether he had them rightlie or no: for although he were a good emperour, yet was he not ſuch a one as could not ſinne. Claudius Caeſar, when he perceiued that by the lawes it was not lawfull for him to marrie his brothers daughter, made a lawe, that it might be lawfull: but ſcarſelie was there anie one clawe-backe to be found, which would followe that fact. Now both theſe lawes are vtterlie extinct and forgotten; ſéeing they be neither in the Pandect, in the Digeſts, nor yet in the Code. Neuertheleſſe, the fathers reprooued not this in Valentinian. How canſt thou tell that? To the 12.Surelie (as I hauehave declared) they hauehave ſufficientlie ſet forth in their writings what their meaning was. But let vsus conſider the euent. Iuſtina that ſecond wife became an Arrian, and did gréeuouſlie vex Ambroſe. The yoonger Valentinian, which was borne of Galla, the daughter of Iuſtina, followed the religion of his grandmother, and did vehementlie oppreſſe the churches: and he laie miſerablie ſlaine in his litter. Chryſoſtome ſaith, 1. Tim. 3, 2.that Paule added [The husband] of one wife, bicauſe of them, which hauing manie wiues, were conuerted from Iudaiſme vntounto Chriſt. And therof it appéereth, that polygamie alſo was borne withall euen in the church. I anſwer, that the ſame was therefore borne with; To the 13,bicauſe that declaration of the lawe of Chriſt, was of force, for the time to come, and not for the time paſt. Howbeit, it was borne with, as a certeine infirmitie, bicauſe with a good conſcience they agréed among themſelues.
Yet doo I otherwiſe vnderſtand that place of Paule: for him doo I thinke that Paule called the huſband of one wife, who liueth chaſtlie with his owne, and followeth not the wiues of other men but is altogither of perfect and good fame. And I am led ſo to thinke, bicauſe the ſame Paule ſaith, that Widowes ſhould be choſen, which had been the wiues of one husband. But it was neuer lawfull for a woman, by anie lawes, to hauehave two huſbands: Paule would hauehave hir to be a widowe, which ſhould be chaſt, and well reported of. If the Turke at this daie, with his two wiues, ſhould be conuerted vntounto Chriſt; might that polygamie be ſuffered in chriſtian religion? Surelie it might be ſuffered for a time, To the 14.for they with a good conſcience agréed betwéene themſelues. Neither muſt iniurie be doone vntounto thoſe wiues: for euerie of them hath right in hir huſband. And that lawe, which Chriſt made, muſt be of force (as we hauehave ſaid) for the time to come. That which now is doone with a good conſcience and in probable ignorance, cannot be vndoone. Howbeit, an other kind of anſwer is made héerof, in the Decrées of diuorſements, in the laſt lawe. If the firſt wife will dwell togither with hir huſband, ſhe ſhall be counted for the wife, and the reſt to be diſmiſſed; if the firſt will not, the next muſt be had in that place: and ſo of the reſt.
I doo not héere contend. But yet I woonder at theſe men: for in the ſame title, the ſaid Innocentius, being aſked his counſell of a Iew, which in matrimonie had his brothers wife? Anſwereth, that ſhe may be kept ſtill, after that they be contracted in good faith. If this be lawfull, why is not that other lawfull, ſéeing Chriſt tooke awaie both? But they might peraduenture anſwer, that the Iewes had an expreſſe lawe for marrieng of the brothers wife; but none at all for polygamie. Or elſe, that the Romane lawes would not ſuffer more wiues than one; but one they would ſuffer, although ſhe did not ſo rightlie marrie. Fruitfulnes is the bleſſing of God. Be it ſo, but now (as I hauehave often ſaid) the ſame is not ſo néedfull. To the 15.Indéed it is a bleſſing, but yet not ſo, that he is curſſed which hath not children. Auguſtine ſaith, that it was neither againſt the cuſtome, nor againſt the lawe, nor yet againſt nature; To the 16.and yet it is now againſt the lawe, and againſt cuſtome. Thoſe things, which were alledged concerning leapres, and them which be far diſtant, To the 17.make nothing to this purpoſe. For neither doo we ſpeake héere of him, which at one time dwelleth and is conuerſant togither with manie wiues.
A wife diſmiſſed was married to an other, when as in the meane time the bond of matrimonie was not vndoone. I anſwer, To the 18.that a bill of diuorſement did ſufficientlie excuſe hir from adulterie, eſpeciallie when ſhe did it of probable ignorance. Gen. 4. 19. To the 19.Lamech is commended by Chryſoſtome. Doubtleſſe it is not for polygamie, but for repentance. Yet for what cauſe ſo euer it were, others doo not ſo praiſe him. A wife, To the 20.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 hauehave reſpect what the wife would, but what God will. And as concerning that, which Sara did, ſhe did it by the ſetting on and perſuaſion of the holie Ghoſt: wherewith, there is no doubt, but ſhe, and other godlie women were indued. The Schoolemen, among the number of whom we cited Caietanus, ſaie, that There is not anie lawe extant, which expreſſelie forbiddeth polygamie; To the 21.which although they affirme, yet certeinlie others ſaie not ſo. In déed the verie forme thereof in plaine termes is not found and expreſſed; yet is the ſame neceſſarilie gathered by the words both of Chriſt and Paule. And thus much of this queſtion.