Commentaries, Commentary on Judges · Chapter 1 · Verses 12-13

Commentaries · Commentary on Judges · Chapter 1 · Verses 12-13

p. 1812 And Caleb ſayd: He that ſmyteth Kiriath Sepher and taketh it, to him will I geue Hacſah my daughter to wife.

13 And Othoniel the ſonne of Kenatz Chalebs yōger brother toke it: and he gaue him Hacſah his daughter to wife.

Here is wont to be demaunded, how theſe cities Hebron and Debir ſhould be written in the booke of Ioſua to hauehave ben taken of Ioſua, when as it is here put that Chaleb conquered them,Chaleb deſired to hauehave theſe regions aſſigned him for his inheritaunce. whereunto I aunſwere that all that warre was gouerned by the conduicte of Ioſua, who was the chief and principall gouernour of the whole hoſte, but the principall ſettyng forward agaynſt Hebron and other places adioyning thereunto was committed vntounto Chaleb the chief of the tribe of Iudah, and that not without a cauſe. For he, as it is written in the xiiii. chap. of Ioſua, deſired to hauehave that parte aſſigned peculiarly vntounto hym for hys inheritaunce: whiche requeſtes he eaſely obtayned. For he required the ſame, truſting to God hys promiſes:Chaleb was a faithfull eſpye. for when he was ſent with other ſpyes to view the lande of Chanaan, he faithfully made relation of the things as they wer in dede, & not vnfaithfully as his fellowes did. Neither was he an author of the peoples ſeditiō as the other were, yea he rather encouraged the peoples myndes, and diminiſhed thoſe thinges whiche his fellowes had amplified concerning the fence of the cities, of the giaūtes alſo, and of the ſtrength of the Chananites. For he regarded not mās ſtrength, but with a ſingular faith, moſt conſtantly remembred the power, the goodneſſe & promiſes of god. Wherfore god being angry with the reſt, deſtroyed them in the wilderneſſe, ſo that they came not to the promiſed lande. But he promiſed Chaleb for his faithfulneſſe this inheritaunce, whiche when he afterward demaunded, he put Ioſua in remembraunce of the thyng before done, and of the promiſes of God.God promiſed Chaleb the lād whereon he ſhould treade. And the place where the promiſe is contayned is in the 14. chap. of Num. there God promiſed him that land wheron his foote ſhould treade, whiche wordes the Iewes thincke thus to be expoūded. The reſt of the ſpyes being amaſed for feare of the giauntes, and putting ſmall confidence in god durſt not entre into the citie of Hebron, whiche Chaleb him ſelfe ſearched with a valiaunt courage. The promiſe therfore of this poſſeſſion was made vntounto him in the ſecond yeare after the deliuery out of Egypt. Chaleb ſurely declared a valiaunt & noble hart, when as he did not only require the poſſeſſion of theſe places, but he enterpriſed alſo to conquere thē for al that they were fenced & inhabited with moſt ſtrong giaūtes. Wherfore we muſt beleue, that he tooke in hand ſuch & ſo great an enterpriſe not by his owne power but by gods promiſes.

And here ariſeth no ſmall doubt, howe Chaleb being of the tribe of Iudah, Hebron was one of the Cities of refuge.could obtayne y^e citie of Hebron which by lotte belonged to the Leuites. For god had cōmaunded that certain cities as wel beyond Iordane as on this ſide, ſhould be had for refuge ſake,The cities of refuge belōged to the Leuites that thither might flye as many as had ſlayne any man by chaunce, and not of pretenſed purpoſe. And the poſſeſſion of thoſe cities whiche were therfore appoynted belonged to the Leuites. Wherfore it was not lawfull that Hebron ſhould be geuen to Chaleb, The Leuites had the citie of Hebron, but Chaleb had the grounde and Lordſhip.ſeing it was numbred amōg the cities of refuge. Theſe thinges are true, but we muſt vnderſtand in the meane tyme, that the Leuites myght poſſeſſe but their cities only, & the ſuburbes adioyning to the walles of them. But as for the grounde or dominion whiche they call at this day Lordſhip, it was not graunted them to hauehave. Chaleb therfore deſired to poſſeſſe the grounde, but as for the citie whiche he had in his handes, he let to the Leuites as the lawe commaunded. It is moſt certein that there is mention of the citie Hebron in the booke of Gen. when as it is there written, that Abraham liued in the groue of okes of Mamere, & the ſame had (if we may beleue Ierome) a precious turpentine tree, which grew there from the beginnyng of the world, and continued till the time of Conſtantine the great. It is ſaid to be 12000. paces diſtaunte from Ieruſalem. Dauid reigned in it ſome while, before he was anoynted king ouer all Iſrael. Neither hauehave we any thyng to do to write nowe of the auncientneſſe therof, ſeing I hauehave ſomewhat ſpoken of it before.

And Chaleb ſayd: he that ſmiteth. This whole hiſtory is declared in the 15. chap. of the booke of Ioſua, word for word, wherby it appeareth that y^t is moſt certain whiche I before admoniſhed you of,The conqueryng of Debit was harde. namely that all theſe thinges are now mencioned by a certain repeticiō. The conquering of Debir ſemeth to hauehave ben paynefull and daungerous, and meruelouſly much deſired of Chaleb, when as he offreth ſo ample & noble a gift to the conquerour therof: namely his owne daughter to wyfe, being him ſelfe the prince of the moſt noble tribe of Iudah.

And Othoniel the ſonne of Kenaz Chalebs younger brother tooke it. It is certain that Othoniel obtayned the victory: but whether be were Chalebs brother, or his brothers ſonne or ſome other kinne to him it cānot be gathered by theſe words. But how they were kinne it wer good to know, partly for y^e knowledge of the hiſtory & partly to vnderſtand whether the matrimony which followed betwene Othoniel and Achſah were lawfull. In the firſt booke of Paralip. Hefron was called alſo Iephuna.and ſecond chap. the father of Chaleb is called Heſron, whiche man was the third frō Iudah: for Iudah had Pharez by Thamra his ſonnes wife: and Phares begat Hefron, which was called by an other name Iephuna, for which cauſe Chaleb is very often written the ſonne of Iephuna. R. Salomoh.Of whiche thing I can not tell what fonde inuētion R. Salo. writeth, namely that he was ſo called, bycauſe he diſagreed from the mynde and counſell of the other ſpyes. Panah ſignifieth in Hebrew to depart or to decline, wherfore he thincketh that this ſurname was geuen to Chaleb for the cauſe now alledged. Neither maketh that any thing agaynſt it (as he ſayth) that he is called the ſonne of Iephuna, Howe the Hebrues vſe this worde Sonne, ſometymes.when as in the holy ſcriptures it is a cōmon vſe, y^t this phraſe, the ſonne of death & the ſonne of perdition, are all one with theſe, he is worthy of death, and a mā loſt. And by the ſame kynd of ſpeach (ſaith he) y^e ſonne of declination & turning away is all one in this place, as if he had ben called declining & turning away from the counſell & wicked will of the reſt of the ſpyes. I will not deny peraduenture but that this opiniō of R. S. is prety,Many of the Hebrues had two names. What Othoniel was. but yet I thincke it maketh nothing to y^e purpoſe. For other ſeme to ſpeake more ſimply whiche ſay that Heſron was alſo called Iephuna. Wherfore Chaleb was ſometymes called the ſonne of Iephuna and ſometymes the ſonne of Heſron, neither is it a rare thing or vnheard of in y^e holy ſcripture, that ſome one man ſhould be called by two names. Nowe we ſe what Chaleb was, namely the fourth from Iudah the ſonne of Iacob: wherfore we muſt ſpeake ſomewhat of Othoniel. He is here written to be the ſonne of Kenaz, and ſo is he likewiſe in the boke of Ioſua, Othoniel was alſo called Iā hes.and alſo in the firſt booke of Paralip. and iiii. chap. where he is called Iambes alſo, and renowmed to hauehave bene noble and very excellent, his mother called him Iambez, bycauſe ſhe bare him with moſt bitter payne, for ſo doth that name ſignifie in Hebrew: whiche the father as an vnluckye name chaūged, and in ſtead of Iambez named his ſonne Othoniel. We read that the ſame happened vntounto Beniamin, whō the mother as ſhe was dyeng, named Benoni, whiche name bycauſe it was not very pleaſaunt nor luckye, Iacob turned and would hauehave him called Beniamin for Benoni. Neither was Othoniel notable only in ſtrength and feates of warre, but he was very godly and religious, for in the boke of Paralip, and in the place now alledged his prayers are deſcribed, p. 19wherwith he moſt faithfully called vpō God.Three excellēt condicions in Othoniel. Wherfore the ſcripture teſtifieth that his praier was heard, the Hebrues hauehave added therunto y^t he was excellently wel learned in the law of the Lord. And theſe thre vertues in one mā are moſt rare, namely to be a good warriour, to be religious, and learned.

But now ſeing his fathers name was Kenaz, What kin Chaleb & Othoniel wer together.& Chaleb had Heſron or Iephuna to his father, how neere of kyn were they then? Some hold opinion that Kenaz, when Heſron or Iephuna was deade, maryed his wife, who had not onelye her with him, but alſo kept her ſonne namely Chaleb, being but a litle one, whō ſhe had by her firſt huſband, then they ſay he had Othoniel by her, whereby they conclude that Othoniel and Chaleb came both of one mother, but not of one father. Wherefore Othoniel was by nature the ſonne of Kenaz, but Chaleb was called alſo the ſonne of Kenaz, bicauſe he & Othoniel were brought vp together with Kenaz. R. D. confuteth thys opinion,R. D. …imhi. bycauſe it is neuer red in the holye ſcriptures that any Iſraelite tooke his ſurname of hys mother, and much leſſe of his Stepfather:The ſurnames among the Iſraelites wer taken of the fathers. For eueryevery one in that publique wealth tooke alwaies their ſurnames of their fathers, as the Gerſonites, Merarites, & Leuites. And by the booke of Paralip. he ſaith may be knowen that that maner was ſo ſtyl kept & obſerued. This reaſon if it be true in dede, as it ſemeth to be probable refelleth a certaine opinion of others, which ſay that Chaleb had a brother, a great deale elder thā him ſelfe, who was called Kenaz, with whom Chaleb was brought vp lyke a ſon together with Othoniel Kenaz ſonne. Wherfore they ſeming after a ſorte to be both of one age, & being nouriſhed vp together, were eaſelye counted brethren, namely the ſōnes of Kenaz, wher as in dede Chaleb was Kenaz brother. Wherfore it came to paſſe that they wer both of them called the ſōnes of Kenaz. This I ſay doth R. D. Kimhi iudge abſurde: for if no man could attayne to any kynde of ſurname by the mother or ſtepfather, then vndoubtedly coulde he not hauehave it by the brother. But the ſame R. D. Kimhi thinketh that they were brethren eueryevery way, bycauſe they had both one father and one mother. And therefore bothe of them are called the ſonnes of Kenaz, but not by their next Parentes, but by the name of the family, ſeyng that both brethren were borne of one and the ſelfe family, what ſhal we then do?The Hebrues and our mē differ among thē ſelues of the kinred of Othoniel & Chaleb. We are not holpen by the hiſtory which we hauehave in hand, & we cannot diſſolue the queſtion by the places conferred eueryevery way together. Yea and the Iewes agree not in it among them ſelues, neither doo they onelyonly vary one from an other, but our writers alſo write nothing like one to an other of it. Lyranus doth vtterly deny that they wer brethren, which neuertheles Paulus Burgenſis affirmeth, yea & that more is, Lyranus agreeth not w^t hym ſelfe, for as in the interpreting of the booke of Ioſua hee denyeth that they were brethren, ſo afterward vponupon the firſt booke of Paral. in the ſecond & fourth chap. he graunteth they wer brethren. But when I more diligētly weigh the reaſon why in the booke of Ioſua he contendeth that they were not brethren, I gather it to be this, bicauſe he thought y^t if they had ben ioyned together with ſo neare a bond of kinred, y^t ther could hauehave ben no mariage, wherby Othoniel ſhould hauehave had to wife Hachſah his brothers daughter, ſeing y^t it was forbidden by y^e lawe (namely y^e .18. & .20. chap of Leuit.) y^t no mā ſhould mary his aunt. Wherfore he thinketh it muſt nedes follow, y^t the niepce by the brother is prohibited, bicauſe that we are ioyned w^t the ſame degree of kinred to the aunt, by which y^e vncle is ioyned to y^e niepce by the brother. But if Hachſah & Othoniel wer brothers children, then ſhal this abſurdity be wholy auoided: for mariage betwene theſe was neuer forbidden by Gods lawes. But Burgenſis a man otherwiſe very wel learned, contendeth y^t they wer vtterly brethren, & ſaith y^t the vncle might by Gods law mary his niepce by y^e brother, & that the Iewes thē ſelues which otherwiſe are moſt diligent obſeruers of outward lawes do kepe this cuſtome at this day. He ſaith moreouer, y^t it cōmeth to paſſe oftentimes, as concerning mariages, y^t in degrees either of conſanguinity or affinity, ther is found the like diſtaūce betwene perſons, of y^e which neuertheles the one is forbiddē, & the other graūted. And often tymes the prerogatiue of the men and baſer condicion of the wyues altereth the thing. For in matrimony man is the head of the woman, as Paule hath ſaid in the firſt to the Corinth. In mariages the fyrſt order of kinred maye not be peruerted.Wherfore ther muſt alwaies bee a regarde had, that in mariage the order of kinred bee kept, leaſt the order which was before ſhould be peruerted. For it is meete that mariages ſhould obſerue and not violate honeſty of order among men. Which honeſty ſhould he violated if eueryevery man might take to wife hys Aunt, his vncles wife, or mothers ſiſter. For bicauſe that women ioyned vntounto vsus by this degree of kynred are to be reuerenced as mothers. But if they be made wyues then by the law of matrimony, they are made ſubiectes, and ar bound to honour, to obey and reuerence their huſbands, whom otherwiſe they ought to hauehave had in place of childrē. Which ſemeth nothing els, than to commit thinges repugnaunt to nature. But if it be contraryly done, then is there no peruerting of order incurred. For hee which is an vncle either by fathers ſyde or mothers ſyde ſhoulde be honoured and reuerenced lyke a father, when he taketh to wyfe his niepce, the huſband is made her head, and ſhalbe honoured and obeyed of her no leſſe than if he wer her vncle, eyther by the fathers ſyde or mothers ſyde, neither commeth there any perturbation of order by coniunction of matrimony. Theſe thinges Burgenſis alledgeth. Wherfore this place doth not onelyonly admoniſh, but in a maner alſo cōpel vsus, ſomwhat to entreate of degrees prohibited in contracts of matrimony. Yet wil I leaue at liberty whether Chaleb & Othoniel wer brethren, or whether they were ioyned with any other affinity together. This is moſt certain if Othoniel wer y^e ſonne of Chaleb his brother, the mariage then was very lawfull. But the ſtate of the queſtion is, whether it wer lawfull for Othoniel by the common lawe to marye hys brothers daughter.

In the law are not reherſed all the degrees in which maryages ar prohibited.This ſeemeth firſt to bee agreed vponupon, that in the .18. & .20. chap of Leuit. are not rehearſed al perſons or degrees, in which mariages are prohibited: for there is no mencion made of Graundmother, when as neuertheles al men wyll confeſſe it to be moſt filthy, if anye man ſhoulde take to wife his Graundmother, which is farre aboue him in his yeares. The wife alſo of the Graundfather is not mēcioned of: & though the wife of the vncle by the fathers ſide be ſpoken of, yet is there nothing ſpoken of the wife of the vncle by the mothers ſyde. Yea, & that we more maruayle at, there is no prohibition for the father to marye hys daughter, when as al men confeſſe that theſe mariages are moſt inceſt. Wherfore it is to be thought, that in that place are ſet forth by the holy ghoſt certayne degrees prohibited, & thoſe not many, but yet ſuch, that by them as by certain exquiſite and manifeſt rules we may iudge of the like. Wherfore we muſt thinke that thoſe thinges which are ſpoken of the mother, are alſo commaunded of the Graundfather or Graundmother or wife of the Grandfather, ſeing that al theſe are to bee reckoned for Parentes. Thoſe thinges alſo whych are ſpoken of the wife of the vncle by the fathers ſyde, do manyfeſtly declare, what is to be done with the wife of the vncle by the mothers ſide. For as much as theſe aliaunces or degrees are of one ſpace or diſtaunce one from an other. Wherefore I am of this opinion, that I thinke the prohibitions mencioned in the law, are therefore ſet forth that by them we might euidently vnderſtand, what is meete to doo in the lyke degrees. I graunt neuertheleſſe, concerning Paulus Burgenſis reaſon, that they doo muche more violate the law which do concract matrimonies with perſons forbiddē,Who ſyn more greuouſlye againſt the degrees prohibited. It is vncertain whether the Iewes doo abyde in y^e right obſeruyng of their lawe. and therwithal peruerting alſo the order of kinreds. For it ſemeth to me that he doth farre more vilye which marrieth his Graundmother, than he which marryeth his niexce by the brother, although I thinke that bothe theſe matrimonies are not lawful.

What the Hebrewes do in our time I paſſe not much to know: yea I much doubt of that which Paulus Burgenſis taketh vntounto him as a thing ſure & manyfeſt, namely that the Iewes are at this day moſt diligent in obſeruing of theyr outward lawes. For me thinketh that I ſhould doo well in not geuing to them p. 20more dignity or religion than to Chriſtians. Wherfore as it is manifeſt inough that we hauehave for mens traditions very much ſtraied from the right obſeruation of the comaundementes of God, and alſo from the right knowledge of the ſcriptures: ſo is it alſo lykely that the ſame hath happened vntounto the Iewes, eſpecially in this our age. Wherfore I am not iniurious againſt them, whē as I wyl not geue more to them, than to our ſelues.The Iewes hauehave added mani other degres to the degrees expreſſed of god Neuertheles I wil not omit that the Rabines hauehave added to their prohibited degrees in the law many more as wel in aſcending as deſcending, which I ſee the moſt learned man Paulus Fagius hath declared in his annotacions vponupon Leuit. nether can I be perſwaded that they wer added by them for any other cauſe, but onelyonly bicauſe they thought that thoſe degrees wer comprehended in the degrees expreſſed by God.What we muſt hauehave a reſpecte vntounto, in iudging of degres. Wherefore to geue iudgement of any lawful mariages, that ſhal not be ſufficient in my iudgemēt, if the degree wherin they are contracted, ſhal not be prohibited by manifeſt & proper wordes in the law, neither the order of kinred peruerted, for it maye be that the like degree, & of the ſame diſtaunce be forbidden by authority of the law.The ſcripture declareth not by manyfeſt wordes the peruertyng of order, which is to be taken heede of in mariages. Nether doth the ſcripture as far as I can ſee, alledge in any place y^e reaſon concerning peruerting of order, although (as I hauehave before ſaid) I doo not vtterly abiect that reaſon. Some man peraduenture wil ſaye: what matter is it for vsus of this age, either to know or els to obſerue thoſe preceptes which ar contained in the .18. & .20. chap. of Leuit. ſeing that we after the cōming of Chriſt are no more bounde to the ciuill lawes of the Iewes? I confeſſe that the Chriſtians are not bound to the ciuil preceptes of the law: but yet I aſcribe thoſe preceptes whych are there geuē for mariages not to ciuil lawes, but rather to moral. And I think that I maye bring a reaſon out of the ſame place to confirme my ſentence. For God, when he gaue thoſe lawes, added theſe wordes therunto:The Chananites ar reproued bicauſe thei had defiled thē ſelues with inceſt Take hede therfore, that ye defile not your ſelues with whordomes & ſuch inceſtes, as the Gentiles hauehave done, whom I hauehave driuen out of thoſe regions which I hauehave now geuen vntounto you, for for bicauſe thoſe nations hauehave ben polluted with ſo grieuous wicked actes I hauehave therfore ſo deſtroied them, & will do y^t like vntounto you, except ye ſhal diligently auoid thoſe thinges, which I cōmaund you as touching theſe euils. I thinke no man wil doubt but that the Chananites whych receaued not the law by Moyſes, neither wer Citizens of the publike wealth of the Iſraelites, could not by that law be condemned, bicauſe they obeyed not the lawes of the Hebrues. They wer ſubiect only to the law, which is called morall. Wherfore ſeing God for that cauſe reproueth them, bicauſe they wer defiled with ſuch fylthy luſtes & inceſtes, & affirmeth that for the ſame cauſe he depriued them both of their lande and lyfe: it is manifeſt that theſe lawes muſt bee ioyned not to ciuil preceptes but to morall, which al men are bound to obſerue.

Neuertheles this ſemeth at the firſt ſight to be againſt this ſentence,Abrahā & Amram ſeeme to hauehave maryed prohibited wyues. bicauſe Abraham (a man otherwiſe moſt holy) is thought to hauehave maried his Brothers daughter namely Sara. Amram alſo had Iochabed his aunt to wife, of whom he begat Moyſes, Aaron, & Mary. And it ſemeth that ſo godly & holy mē would not hauehave done this, if the moral law (as we hauehave ſaide) had bene againſt it.The law of nature was darkned by ſynne. To thys we anſwer, firſt y^t the law of nature was much blotted by corruption & wickednes, which ouerwhelmed al mankind ſone after ſynne, & for y^e cauſe they whych contracted ſuch matrimonies, thought peraduenture that the ſame wer lawful, and therfore although they cannot altogether bee excuſed by that ignoraunce, yet it is to be thought that they committed leſſe ſynne, than thoſe which durſt do ſuch thinges after the lawe was geuen. I adde moreouer, that amonge the fathers certaine thinges are now and then ſpoken of,It is not certaine whether Abrahā & Amram maried prohibited wyues. which other men muſt not take example of, whē as they are ſomtimes to be interpreted as prerogatiues or certain priueleges geuen to thē. But how ſoeuer it be, we may not (as I think) much labour to excuſe y^e fathers in althings. Although I know there be which do ſay y^t Sara was not the daughter of Abrahams brother, but ſom other way of and therfore ſhe might be called his ſiſter after the auncient maner of ſpeaking, as though ſhe were of ſome kinred vntounto him, but yet not ſo nere kyn, but that they might mary together. And in like maner they ſay of the kinred of Amram and Iochabed. But I wyl omit theſe thinges, ſeing that the whole matter may be made playne by theſe two kinde of anſwers before alledged.

It might alſo be demaunded, if the preceptes of Matrimonye be morall, and pertaine to the lawe of Nature, why God woulde alſo conſtitute them in hys lawes?The ten cōmaū dementes were blotted in the hartes of men before the law. Bycauſe the lyght of nature was come to that poynt that it was not ſufficient, the brightneſſe of it was daylye more and more blotted in the hartes of men: which thing doth manyfeſtlye appeare not onelye in theſe, but alſo in the tenne commaundementes, where it is commaunded that men ſhould abſtayne from theft and murther, and yet we reade in hyſtories that robbyng on the ſea, and alſo on the lande got ſuche dominion,Plato. that they were counted ful of honour and dignity. Plato in hys fyft booke of lawes thought, that concerning procreation of children we ſhould abſtayne from Mothers, Graundmothers, and the degrees aboue them. Again from Daughters, Niepces, & degrees beneath them. But as for other perſons he made free.Ierome. Hierome teſtifieth in his ſeconde booke againſt Iouiniane, that the Scottes in his tyme had no certaine mariages, but they accompanied with their women as they luſted them ſelues, euen ſuche as came firſt to hande. He ſayth moreouer, that the Medes, Indians, Ethiopes, and Perſians confuſedly contracted Matrimonies with their mothers, ſiſters, daughters, and Niepces: which ſemeth neuertheleſſe to diſagree with that which Heroditus writeth of the Perſians. For Cambyſes (as he teſtifieth) deſired to marye hys ſiſter, for the which thing he aſked counſel of his Lawyers and wyſe men, and demaunded of them whether that matrimony wer lawful or no. To whom they anſwered, that they in dede had no law, by the which it myght be lawfull for the Brother to mary the Siſter, but yet they had an other law among them, whereby it was lawful for the king of the Perſians to do what ſo euer him ſelfe luſted. Surely they anſwered wel in their firſt part of their anſwer, but in the latter part they moſt filthily flattered the tyranne. Howbeit the thyngs whych are written by this Hiſtoriographer (although ſometymes he wryte fables) and thoſe thinges which Ierome writeth, vary not. Bycauſe the vulgare people being now corrupted with fylthy and wycked cuſtome, contracted ſuche matrimonies, the wyſer ſorte neuertheleſſe, in whom the lawe of nature dyd ſhyne, vnderſtoode that the ſame were not lawful, althoughe beyng blynded wyth couetouſnes they abſtained not from them. Whom Paule to the Romaines hath greuouſly reprehended, ſaying: which men, though they knowe the righheouſnes of God,Inceſtuous perſons hauehave afterward abhorred thoſe whō they hauehave poluted. not onelyonly doo ſuche thinges, but alſo hauehave pleaſure in them that do them. And theſe matrimonies by their own nature are ſo well knowen to be vnlawfull, that they dryue an exceading great horrour into them whych do heare that ſuch thinges hauehave bene done: yea and they them ſelues which hauehave commytted the ſame, when their luſt aſſwaged, ſemed to abhorre thoſe whom they hauehave polluted.Cynara & Myrrha. The Poetes make mencion of Cynara and Myrrha hys daughter, how after the father vnderſtoode that he had accompanied wyth hys daughter, yea, euen vnwares ſo hated her, that he perſecuted her al that euer he might. Ammō beganne ſo to hate hys ſyſter Thamra whom he had defyled,Inceſt almoſt hauehave euer had horrible endes. Ptholomey. that he commaunded her to bee violentlye thruſt out of hys ſyght. Thou ſhalt alſo neuer almoſte fynde if thou looke in hiſtories, that inceſtuous mariages or carnal copulations came to good ende. Ptholomey kyng of Egipt tooke to wyfe by fraude and guile hys ſyſter Euridices, Anthonius Carocalla. Nero.which the Hiſtoriographers and eſpecially Iuſtine hauehave manifeſtly ſet foorth to hauehave had yl ſucceſſe. Anthonius Caracalla who maryed hys ſtepmother, and Nero whych committed fylthye fornication with hys mother, came not onelye to a moſt vnhappye ende, but according to their deſertes they were wonderfully hated of the people, and were openly called Monſters of humane p. 21nature. Wherefore we graunt both, that theſe commaundementes which do prohibite thoſe ſinnes pertayne to the law of nature, and were for iuſt cauſe renued by God in his morall lawes.

It may alſo be manifeſtly ynough declared by an other reaſon,Romaine lawes forbad y^e mariage of the brothers daughter. y^e inceſtuous mariages were forbidden by the light of nature, ſeing that they were earneſtly forbidden by the Romane lawes, which were counted among the excellenteſt & honeſteſt lawes, & theſe by name, wherby any man ſhould marrye his niepce by the brother. Although Claudius Caeſar whē he would marry his brothers daughter Agrippina, cauſed the fyrſt law to be abrogated, and to be decreed that eueryevery man might hauehave his brothers daughter to wife. But there was neuer a one at Rome except it were one or two which would follow his example. And y^e Romaines obſerued the firſt law which was moſt honeſt.The Romaine lawes in prohibiting mariages had certaine lawes not mentioned by God. Neuertheleſſe we muſte vnderſtand, y^e diuerſe perſons were prohibited by the lawes of the Romanes, of whom the law of god hath made no mention, and yet their prohibition was not without a reaſon. Wherfore the Citizens of Rome were bound to obſerue thē, although by the light of nature they could ſee no cauſe why they ſhould ſo doe, which lawes were wont to be called a peculiar kinde of lawes, bicauſe it ſemeth to be priuate for certain places. I will make the thing more plaine by examples.The tutor might not marry his pupill. The Romaines would not as it is written in Codice that matrimonies ſhoulde be contracted betwene the tutor and pupill committed to his charge. Bycauſe they ſaw that this would eaſely come therby, that that tutor which had conſumed his pupils goodes, leaſt he ſhould be compelled after his tutorſhip to render accompt of thoſe goods, might ſollicite the mayden to mariage, which being obtained, he ſhould be free from geuing accompt of her goods. This ſurely was a good law, but yet it was not perfectly obſerued. Cicero otherwiſe a graue man,Cicero. was euill ſpoken of for the ſame cauſe: for being farre in other mens debt, when he had forſakē his wife Terence, he maried his pupill, of whoſe goods & affayres he had charge ouer as a tutor.

The Romanes deceeed alſo,A priſident myght not marry a wife of hys prouince. that no preſident of any prouince ſhould take to wife eyther to himſelfe or to any of hys, any out of the ſame prouince wherein he gouerned. For they knew right wel, that it might ſo happen, that the Pretor Proconſul, or Preſident in a prouince cleauing to his families and kynſfolke cō ming to him by his wife, might make new tumultes, and at length be alienated from the publique wealth. They ſaw alſo a great daunger to hang theron, leaſt he ſhould not be iuſte and ſeuere in geuing iudgement, bycauſe he woulde gratifie his kinſfolke more than others. Laſtly mariages ſhoulde not hauehave remayned at libertie in prouinces, bicauſe Magiſtrates might in a manner compel thē of the prouince to contracte matrimonies either with thēſelues,Felix had a Iew to hys wife. or w^t their frendes. We ſee alſo this moſt honeſt law violated. For Faelix which gouerned Iewrye vnderunder Nero, as it is writtē in the xxiiii. chap. of the actes of the Apoſtles, had Druſilla a Iewe to wife. But what nede I rehearſe that theſe lawes of a ſmall weyght were not obſerued, whē as that people had ſhaken of, euen thoſe lawes which we called morall and are knowen by y^e law of nature?Cicero. The monſtrug luſt of Saſſia. Cicero declareth in his oratiō for Cluentius, y^e one Saſsia a moſt wicked womā, was ſo prouoked w^t filthy luſt, y^t ſhe inſtigated her ſonne in law Aurius Melinus, to whō ſhe had before maried her daughter, to repudiate his wife, wherby he ſhuld marry her ſelf in ſtead of her daughter: which thīg at y^e lēgth ſhe got him to do. And whē y^e dede was coūted ful of diſhoneſty, yet was it not puniſhed by the lawes, neither do we rede that y^e matrimonye, whiche Cicero cōtendeth to be cōtracted by no good grounds, by no authors, & altogether vnluckely, was diſſolued by y^e power & cō maūdemēt of y^e magiſtrates. Wherfore hereof cōmeth a good reaſō alſo, why god would againe inculcate by a law thoſe things whiche by y^e light of nature were iudged honeſt. For y^e bonds, barres, & windowes of nature, were brokē by y^e impotent luſt of mē, therfore it was neceſſary they ſhould be boūd w^t an other bond For the Iſraelites were no more ſhamefaſt in keping of natural honeſtye, than were the Romaines. Neither is this to be left out, y^e god had certaine proper things in his law, whiche may be called peculiar thinges: for all men were not bound vntounto thē by y^e lawe of nature, but the Hebrues onelyonly. For he woulde not hauehave them to contracte matrimony with the Chananites, Hamorrites, Iebuſites, &c. And other people ſeme not to hauehave bene bounde to y^e law, neither ſhould we at this day (if there were ſuch nations ſtill,Matrimonyes ought not to be contracted in cōtrary religiō Auguſtine.) be letted, but that we might ioyne our ſelues in matrimony with them. Although the cauſe of y^e law, ought at this day to be holden: which cauſe is, y^e matrimonies ſhoulde not be contracted with them which be of a contrary religion. For it is not conuenient that the Godlye ſhould be ioyned with the vngodly. I know that Auguſtine writeth concerning vnlawfull mariages to Pollentius in the ſecond booke and of the Sermon of the Lord vponupon the Mountaine, y^t there is not a place in the new Teſtament, wherin by expreſſe words, matrimonies with infidels are prohibited. But of this matter I will not write much at this preſent, ſeing that I hauehave largely entreated of it in the Epiſtle to the Corinthians. This will I ſaye more ouer, that a good man ought in contracting of matrimonyes, to follow chiefly that which is honeſt, and not lightly to depart frō cōmendable orders & vſuall cuſtomes which are not agaynſt y^e word of god. And if there happen peraduenture any doubt, let him not thinke it much to aſke coūcell of his magiſtrate, otherwiſe he ſhal raſhly put both himſelfe, his wife and his children to daunger. For if he be maryed in any of the degrees prohibited by the peculiar law, he ſhal not then be counted a huſband, but a whoremonger, and his wife a harlot, & their childrē baſtardes. Howbeit the magiſtrate, although concerning matrimonie he maye forbid certaine other contractes beſides thoſe which God hath forbidden, yet can he not, neither ought he to remit any of thoſe which God hath commaunded, & whiche he hath prohibited by his law, yea he muſt moſt diligently ſee that he burthē not the people to much,The pope hath grieuouſly ſinned concerning theſe lawes. or without an earneſt cauſe, as we ſee the Pope hath done, who hath two wayes ſinned in this thing: fyrſt in that he durſt vſurpe the office of making of lawes in a common wealth, which vndoubtedly pertaineth not vntounto him, Secondly bicauſe in his lawes he followed not the word of god, but with out reaſon forbad fyrſt al degrees euen to the ſeuenth, which when he ſaw afterward was not obſerued, and al was ful of confuſion, he cut of his prohibitions to the fourth degree. In which thing he is yet conſtant & hardened, if there come no money in, but if money be offred (wherof he muſt hauehave much brought hym to fyl his filthy cofers) he ſetteth at libertie as pleaſeth him, both his own lawes and the word of god.

This we muſt alſo knowe, that God had in his lawes an other decree whiche may lawfully be called peculiar, bycauſe it extendeth no way to other nations, neither ought it to be in force at all tymes. And that was, that when any huſband deceaſed without children, the brother which remained on liue, or ſome other next of kynne, ſhould mary the firſt mans wife left, ſo that the firſt childe which ſhould be begotten of that mariage ſhoulde be counted the ſonne of hym that was dead, and ſhould fully ſuccede him as touching his inheritaunce. For God would not in that publique wealth, that men ſhould altogether be extinguiſhed, and he prouided that the ſame diſtinction of landes ſhoulde be kepte as much as might be. And ſeing the ſame is not vſed in our publique wealthes, neither hath God commaunded that it ſhoulde, it therfore pertayneth nothyng vntounto vsus. Wherfore we muſt keepe oure ſelues vnderunder the generall and common lawe,She that is left of y^e kinneſman ought to he maryed. namely that no man preſume to mary the wife of his brother being dead although he dyed without children.

Let vsus alſo knowe that in the beginning, when onelyonly the familie of Adam lyued on the earth, brethren were not forbidden as they were afterwarde p. 22For brethren were driuen of neceſſity to mary their ſiſters. But afterward whē men were increaſed in number, ſhame ſhewed it ſelfe forth, and they began by the inſtinction of God, or by nature, either to abſtayn from prohibited perſons, or at the leaſt to know that ſuch coniunctions were ful of ignominye. But what tyme they began firſt to abſtaine, it appeareth not by the hiſtory.The Gods of the H… … ried …h… Syſters. Peraduenture the Heathen Poetes hauehave declared that neceſſity of the elders whych compelled the famyly of the firſt Parentes to conſtrayne the brother to mary the Syſter, when as they fable that their Gods had their Syſters to wyues: for the chiefe of them, namelye Iupiter had Iuno, whych in Virgil ſpeaketh thus of her ſelfe: But I whych walke the Quene of the Gods both ſyſter and wyfe to Iupiter.

And although the woorde of God,Cauſes … manye deg…es in mariages a… forbydden. Auguſtine. and inſtincte of nature were ſufficient by them ſelues to make vsus to abſtayne from the foreſayde coninunctions, yet are there many good cauſes of prohibition alledged by diuers wryters. Auguſtine in hys .xv. booke De ciuitate dei and .xvi. chap. writeth that the ſame abſtinence was very profitable to dilate more amplye the bondes of humane fellowſhyp. For if mariages ſhould be included wythin the walles of one family, thē ſhould there come no kynreds with others. Furthermore, it is not meete, that one and the ſelfe man ſhould occupye the perſons of diuers kynredes, namelye that one man ſhould be both vncle and huſband of one woman, and the ſame woman to be both Aunt and wyfe of one man. Which reaſon Cicero alſo hath touched in hys fyft booke Definibus, and alſo Plutarch in his .108. probleme. And they being both Ethnickes could not hauehave ſene this but being illuſtrate by the light of nature. This alſo is the third reaſon, bicauſe theſe perſons, from whom we ſhould abſtain, do dwel together often tymes in one houſe. Wherefore if there ſhoulde be manye maryed folkes together, they woulde not vſe them ſelues ſo grauelye and ſeuerely as domeſtical ſhamefaſtnes requireth.Plutarch. The cauſes of ſtrife betwene kinſfolk ought to be cut of. Plutarch in the place before ſayde, hath ſet forth two other reaſons, beſydes thoſe which we hauehave declared: One is, bycauſe betwene kynſfolkes, diſcordes are to be feared. For they would ſoone complayne that the right of kynred ſhould be taken away: whych ſaying I doo vnderſtand thus, if eyther ſhe or he which ſhould ouerſkyp the nearer degre, and marry with the degree farther of, ſhe which were nearer would thinke that ſhe had iniury done vntounto her, as though in ouerſkipping her, he would put her to ſhame: as it is a common vſe in wylles and Teſtamentes, where they which are nygheſt of kynne maye not nor oughte not to bee forgotten of hym which maketh the wyll. And in the lawe for rayſing vp ſeede to the brother already deceaſed, the fyrſt place muſt be geuen to the nygheſt of kynne, who if hee refuſed to vſe hys right, was made aſhamed, as that law doth more amplye declare the ſame. Wherefore ſeyng diſcordes betwene al men are to be abhorred,Womē for that they are weake ought not to hauehave their patrimonies diminiſhed but increaſed. much more are they vtterly to be deteſted betwene kynſfolkes. Plutarch alſo bryngeth an other reaſon, bycauſe women are weake, and therefore they hauehave neede of many & ſundry patrones, wherefore when they are maryed to ſtraunge men, if they ſhoulde be euyll handled by their huſbandes, as often tymes they are, they hauehave al their kynſfolkes eaſely for Patrones: but if they be wyues to their own kynſfolkes, and happen to be euil entreated of them, they ſhould then hauehave very fewe to defende their cauſe. For other kynſfolkes woulde not bee ſo ready, for their ſakes to fall out with their own kynne, which they woulde not be greued to doo wyth ſtraungers.

But nowe that I am in hande wyth Plutarch, I remember that whych he hath wrytten in the ſyxt probleme,Of the matrimoni of brethrē and Syſters chyldren. Plutarch. and I thinke it is … vnprofitable to declare it, although it ſeme to diſagree from that whych Auguſtine wryteth in hys .xv. booke De ciuitate dei .xvi. chapter of the matrimony of Brothers and Syſters chyldren. For he affirmeth there, that before hys tyme, the ſame was lawfull, although thoſe kyndes of maryages ſemed very rare, bycauſe men after a ſorte eſchewed to contracte with perſons ſo nigh: but he ſaith that y^e licence was afterward taken away. Which I ſurely can not perceaue in y^e Romane lawes, which were publikely receaued & allowed: which yet wer vſed thorough out Aphrica. Wherefore it maye ſeme obſcure to ſome of what lawes Auguſtine ſpeaketh, wherby he ſayth that in his time thoſe kindes of matrimonyes were prohibited. But we muſt vnderſtand, that in his time the law of Theodoſius the elder was of force, who was the fyrſt among the Emperoures that I know of, which prohibited matrimonye of this degree. Which alſo Aurelius Victor and Paulus Diaconus do teſtifye. And that is found at this day writtē in the boke called Codex Theodoſianus, concerning inceſtuous mariages, by theſe wordes. Let this ſentence remaine concerning them, whoſoeuer from henceforth ſhall defyle hymſelf with the mariage of his couſin Germaine, or of his ſiſters daughter, or of his brothers daughter, or of his wiues daughter, laſtly of al whoſe mariage is forbidden and condemned. But that law is not in theſe dayes found in y^e Digeſtes, neither in the booke of the Code, nor in the Authentikes. Which neuertheleſſe Clother the king followed, as it is red in the lawes of the Almaines, entituled of vnlawfull mariages, yea and it is confirmed by the eccleſiaſticall Canons and decrees in Gracian. 35. Queſtion the ſecond and third, alſo by the counſel of Agathen in the 61. Canon. And Gregorye the fyrſt in the ſame place is found to be of the ſame opinion in the chap. Quaedam ex Romana, &c. This anſwereth to the ſixth interrogation of Auguſtine Biſhop of Cantorbury, and affyrmeth that thoſe which be ioyned by the degree of couſin Germaines, ought to abſtaine from contracting of matrimony one with an other. Yea and long before Gregorye his time, Ambroſe hath in his 66. Epiſtle ad Paternum, condemned the mariage of brethrens children, & he teſtifieth that it was forbiddē by the law of Theodoſius which I hauehave alſo brought. And if I ſhould vſe coniecture, I thinke Theodoſius did it by the perſuaſion of Ambroſe, who had a ſingular reſpecte to publique honeſtie. Neither was that law ſo ſeuere at that time, but that ſometimes it might be releaſed as he declareth in that Epiſtle to Paternus. In that Ambroſe affyrmeth there that ſuch mariages were prohibited by Gods lawe, It can be made probable to none, which ſhall attentiuely conſider the wordes of the law of god, and doings of the fathers. How the Romanes hauehave behaued themſelues, toward their couſins, as concernyng matrimonyes in the old time, this I hauehave obſerued Liguſtine ſayth in the 2. booke and 5. decade of Liuy, that his father gaue him his Vncles daughter to wife. Cicero alſo writeth in hys oration for Cluentius, that Cluentia had lawfully maryed her couſin Germaine M. Aurius. And M. Anthonius the Philoſopher tooke to wife Fauſtina his couſin Germaine, as Iulius Capitolinus teſtifieth. And before Rome was builded the mariages of Turnus and Lauinia were in hand, which came of two ſiſters. Howbeit Plutarch writeth in the place aboue mentioned, that at the fyrſt when Rome was builte, it was forbidden by a lawe, that they whiche were nighe of kinne ſhoulde not marrye together. But yet he writeth that the lawe for brethren and ſiſters children, was vppon thys occaſion releaſed, bycauſe a certayne man beyng both honeſte, and alſo well beloued of the people of Rome, when he was greuouſlye oppreſſed with pouertye toke to wife his ſiſters daughter which was ryche, and welthye, for the whiche cauſe he was accuſed of inceſte. But the matter being decided, he was quyted by the iudgemente of the people of Rome: for he was greatly fauoured in the citye. Then after that, it was decreed by the conſent of the people of Rome that from thence forth it ſhoulde be lawfull for brethren and ſiſters children to marry together. Theſe thinges I thought good to declare of this kinde of matrimonye both out of Gods lawes, and the old & new lawes of the Romanes, and alſo out of the fathers and eccleſiaſticall Canons. p. 23Whereunto I will adde that there be very many Cities profeſſing the goſpell whiche do not admitte the mariages of brethren and ſiſters children, as Surike, Berna, Baſile, Schapuſin, Sangallum, Biema, &c. In the kingdome alſo of England when I was there, that degree was excluded from matrimony. Wherfore in places where the magiſtrate forbyddeth theſe mariages the faithful ought for thoſe cauſes whiche I hauehave before declared to abſtayne from them.

But now I will go to the preſent matter, If Othoniel as I hauehave before ſayd were couſin vntounto Achſa, he might mary her by the lawe of God: but if he were her vnckle, it was not lawful by the cōmō lawe. But he maried her. Wherfore we muſt nedes ſaye one of theſe two thinges: either that it was a faulte, for the fathers as we hauehave before ſayd were not alwayes free from ſinne: or elles that god would hauehave this done by a priuilege or certain prerogatiue, whiche we may not for all that take example by. Neither is this to be forgottē, that after the accuſtomed manner of Scriptures,Kinſfolkes in ſcriptures are called brethren they whiche were any way of kinne together were called brethren, as Loth is called the brother of Abraham, & the kinſfolkes of Ieſus Chriſt the ſonne of God are called in the hiſtory of the goſpel his brethrē. So may it alſo be in this place that Othoniel may be called the brother of Chaleb, when as he was but only ſome other waye of kinne vntounto him. And the interpretours do vſe this expoſitiō oftē times, which I would not diſallow, but y^t I ſe this particle in the texte, The yonger, whiche is not wont to be added, but when ſiſters and brethren in dede are compared together. But now wil I go to other thinges whiche are to be conſidered in this hiſtory.

Chaleb had promiſed him which ſhould cōquere the citie of Debir, Whether Chalebs promiſſe were a raſhe promiſſe.his daughter to wife. What if any wicked perſone had performed that, ſhould he by the vertue of the promiſe hauehave ben made y^e ſonne in law of Chaleb? ſurely it ſemeth not. For what other thing had this ben, than to betraye his daughter? Therfore it may appeare that he promiſed raſhly. For a wiſe man ought to foreſee thoſe thinges whiche might happen. How be it we muſt conſider that there were not at that tyme ſuch wicked and flagitious men among the Iſraelites, for as long as thoſe elders lyued, whiche gouerned the publicque wealth together with Ioſua, as it ſhalbe declared in this hyſtory, the people feared god. Wherfore it followeth, that they vſed to put thoſe to death by the lawe whiche were guiltie of very grieuous crimes. Therfore there was no daunger leſt any ſuch mā ſhould conquere the citie, to whom for that act Hacſah ſhould be geuen to wife of duetye. But if there remayned certaine ſmal and common faultes in him which had conquered it, the ſame might be recompenced by his other vertues. For there is is none ſo abſolute and perfect, but that ſome times he may fal. Moreouer there were ſome hope of amendement of life. And the conquerour might be ſo nighe of kynne, as peraduēture this Othoniel was, that he could not mary the daughter of Chaleb. Wherfore it ſeemeth that at the leaſt in that part it was a raſhe promiſe. But I do not thincke it can be accuſed of raſheneſſe,A conſtant rule of all humane promiſes. for as much as all promiſes ought among the godly ſo farre forth to be of force, as they do agree with the word of god, which thing if Iepthe had diligently conſidered, he would neuer hauehave ſuffred hym ſelfe to hauehave committed ſo vnworthy thinges agaynſt his daughter. This cōdition ſurely in all couenaunts and promiſes ought to be counted for a moſt conſtant rule.

We gather alſo hereby, that it is lawfull to go about a wife by iuſt wayes and meanes, as we ſe Othoniel now to hauehave done: and as alſo holy Dauid did,A man by iuſte meanes may go about a wife. who did not only kill Goliah the giaūt, but alſo he gaue Saule an hundreth forekynnes of the Philiſtianes, for the obteyning of Michol to wife. We are hereby taught alſo, that wiſe parentes ought to ſeke them a ſonne in law, not by riches not by power or nobilitie, but by vertue. Now of days they do not ſo,Howe a ſonne in a lawe ſhould be ſought. and therfore the miſerable daughters are very often tymes betrayed by their parentes, and very many mariages hauehave vnhappy ſucceſſe. Wherfore I can not diſcommend the ſayeng of Themiſtocles, The ſayeng of Themiſtocles.who being demaunded why he had preferred a poore man to be his ſonne in law before a riche and wealthy man, he aunſwered: that he had rather hauehave a ſonne in law whiche wanted money, thā to hauehave money wanting a man.

It is lawfull to ſet rewardes for good dedesWe learne moreouer by this hiſtory, that it is lawfull for princes to ſtirre vp men couragiouſly to enterpriſe honeſt actes, and whiche they ought otherwiſe of dutye to hauehave done, to ſet forth vntounto them ſome rewardes. For we ſee that Chaleb did ſo nowe, and alſo Saul, when he promiſed his daughter to hym whiche could kill Goliah, and we remember Chriſt hath promiſed them an hundreth fold in this life,Good & honeſt actions are of them ſelues to be ſought for. whiche for his ſake ſhould leaue father and mother, children and brothers. Wherfore we muſt knowe that good & honeſt actions, are by them ſelues ſufficient to be ſought for, for aſmuch as in this worlde nothyng can happen more ſweater, thā to obey god, & with a good conſcience to be ioyned vntounto him, in liuing vprightly according to his cōmaundementes. Wherfore admitte we ſhould obtayne no other thing, yet a ſufficient reward & gayne ſhould be rendred vntounto vsus,Why God ſet forth rewardes and giftes. if we may hauehave a quiet and pacified conſcience, and be inwardly filled with ſpirituall ioye, but god (ſuch is his goodneſſe) would moreouer ſet forth vntounto vsus giftes and rewardes. For he ſeeth the diſpoſition & nature of a mā to be feable and flowe to all thinges that be good, healthfull and honeſt: he would therfore ſtirre vp the ſame by promiſing manifold & ſondry rewardes, whiche kinde of remedy we had not neded, if we had continued perfect and abſolute, as we were created. Who I pray you, nedeth with reward to be ſtirred vp to drincke whē he is thurſty, or to eate whē he is hūgry? ſurely no body. Wherfore neither nede men, if they hungred and thruſted for righteouſneſſe, (as they ought to do) a rewarde to ſtirre them vp to it. A mother alſo vſeth not to be intiſed with rewardes to geue ſucke, to feede, and care for her own child, that it periſh not.Promiſes and threatnynges are added in y^e lawe to the cō maundements. Wherfore the promiſes of god are therfore neceſſary vntounto men, bicauſe they by reaſon of ſynne hauehave waxed colde from a vehement affection and zeale toward godly and holy workes, we be altogether dull and ſluggiſhe to the offices of godlineſſe and righteouſneſſe: wherfore God of his gētleneſſe would adde ſpurres of promiſes: which appeareth moſt manifeſtly in the law, where almoſt for eueryevery cōmaundement are both threatninges & alſo promiſes added. Wherfore ſeing holy men hauehave done this oftentimes, ſeing alſo the lawe of God hath done ſo, and the ſame is found in the new teſtament, we may conclude without doubte that it is lawfull. For then is that whiche we do, to be allowed, when it agreeth with the example of god him ſelfe, and rule of the ſcriptures, or els with the excellent actes of holy men.

Whether it be lawfull to do good for rewardes ſake.But now muſt we ſe, whether he whiche doth good workes, and performeth y^e whiche he is bounde to do by the lawe of God, ought to be moued with hope of the reward, or whether rather he ſhould only hauehave a regard to goodneſſe, righteouſneſſe and gods pleaſure? To aunſwere to this queſtion, I thincke that thys muſt be the firſt grounde, that a man is not only appoynted to ſome certein end, whē as god doeth nothing raſhly or by chaunce, but alſo he is appoynted to many endes, which neuertheleſſe are ſo ioyned together, y^t they do mutually ſerue and helpe one an other by a certain order.How mā is appointed to an end. Firſt we are created to ſet forth the glory of God: then that by the ſight and perfect knowledge of God we ſhoulde come to be happy: and that whileſt we liue here, we ſhould lyue together among our ſelues in an acceptable fellowſhip to God. Souldiours do therfore beare weapons and make warres, to defende honeſt and iuſt cauſes, and that in that ſorte by whiche God in his lawes hath commaunded to be defended, which men moreouer ought ſo to be encouraged to bring this thing to paſſe, that thoughe there were no other reward or gift comming vntounto them, yet ought they to enterpriſe it. Moreouer men vſe to fight to defend their country, wiues, children, kinſfolkes, & friendes. And if ſo be that they beſides theſe looke for iuſt ſtipēdes, p. 24whereby they may honeſtly noriſhe both thē ſelues & theirs, no man will counte that for a vice in them.For what things we may auoyde wicked actes. For the Apoſtle hath ſayd in the firſt Epiſtle to the Cor. Who goeth on warfarre at his owne coſt? But now to deſcend to things more perticular, when any mā tempereth him ſelfe from any grieuous wicked act, he ought to do y^e firſt to the entent he may obey the cōmaundementes of God, as it is mete. Then that therby he may eſcape either eternal or ciuile puniſhementes. Moreouer that he may not offend the myndes of the brethren, and plucke them backe from a holy conuerſation and pure life, by his wicked example, and finally that by his wickedneſſe he prouoke not the wrath of God, either againſt him ſelfe or his familye, or againſt the people. Wherfore it is manifeſt, that the end of our actions is not ſimple, but ſundry and manifolde.

And this being thus finiſhed and concluded, we muſt diligently take hede,Whiche end is to be preferred before the reſt. that when many endes are ſet before vsus, we may preferre that before the reſt, whiche by good right excelleth the reſt. For if it ſhould be otherwiſe done, and if thoſe thinges whiche are hindermoſt and of ſmaller valew ſhould be preferred before the better, we ſhould be iuſtly condemned for peruertyng the order of thinges. Wherfore we muſt take hede, that we directe not God him ſelfe or the worſhipping of him, either to our owne commoditie, or els to any other endes. For thē ſhould that ſurely happen vntounto vsus which Auguſtine doth ſo ſore deteſt,Auguſtine. y^t we ſhould hauehave the fruition of thoſe things which we only ought to vſe, & contrariwiſe we ſhould vſe thoſe things which we ſhould hauehave the fruition of, than which peruerſeneſſe in humane actions no worſe thyng cā be thought.What is the chief peruerſenes of humane actions. Wherfore when it is demaūded, whether it be lawful in well doyng to hauehave a reſpect to the gayne or rewarde. We can not well deny but y^t it is lawfull: for as much as god him ſelfe hath promiſed a reward to them whiche lyue godly: neither did God that for any other cauſe thā by his giftes and allurements to ſtirre vp men to iuſt, good, godly and holy workes.Neither is the rewarde onelyonly to be deſired, neither y^e chief partes muſt be aſcribed vntounto it But although we do not vniuſtly in hauing a regarde vntounto the reward offred vsus by God, whē we are occupied in good workes: yet this is diligently to be taken hede of, that we be not moued onelyonly bycauſe of the rewarde whiche is offred vsus. Neither is this ſufficient, for if a mā would ſay that he would in doing good both obtayne the rewarde ſet forth, and by the ſame worke obey God, he muſt take hede, that he attribute not the chiefeſt partes to the gift or rewarde, bycauſe alwayes (as I hauehave already ſayd) that among the endes eche of them as he is more excellent by nature, ſo ought it to be preferred in the firſt place. And in this there nedeth a ſingular diligence: bycauſe it oftentimes happeneth, that we deceaue our ſelues, falſly ſuppoſing that nothing is more excellent or dearer to our mindes than god, from whom neuertheleſſe we are by litle and litle withdrawen and plucked backe by reaſon of to much deſire and delite of reward or gift. Wherfore it afterward happeneth,If we preferre other things before god we incurre into grieuous puniſhementes. that we come to great miſeries therby: For when god perceaueth y^t we more eſteme thoſe thinges, whiche ought to be of leſſe eſtimation with vsus, he withdraweth them away, leſt they ſhould more and more plucke vsus away from him. Whiche thing happened many tymes to the Iſraelites, frō whom God ſometymes toke away riches, libertie, and the promiſed lande, to call them agayne to him ſelfe, whom they leſſe eſtemed than their riches, poſſeſſions, and alſo Idols. Wherfore thoſe thinges being marked and obſerued whiche I hauehave rehearſed, I doubt not but that it is lawfull for godly men after the ſincere & earneſt deſire of God to do good for rewarde and gift.

Neither am I ignoraunt that Bernarde writeth in his litle booke of louyng of God, that charitie by it ſelfe can not be empty, althoughe it behold no reward.Bernarde. &c. By which words he putteth vsus in mynde of two things: both that y^e workes of charitie in them ſelues hauehave ſo much delectatiō, pleaſure and commoditie, as may be ſufficient for them whiche lyue well, although of that their well doyng they ſhould hauehave no other rewarde geuen them of God. And that we in louyng of God ſhould looke for no other reward, but this, that he according to his goodneſſe wil not ſuffer, but faithfully to rendre thoſe things which are to be rēdred vntounto vsus. And therfore no man ought chiefly to be moued with the deſyre of the rewarde.A compariſon of the louelove of the children & of the wife. And he addeth, that he doth farre preferre the louelove of the wyfe toward her huſband before the louelove and obeyſaunce wherwith the children louelove the father. For as much as the ſonnes do ſo louelove their father, bycauſe they hope they ſhalbe enriched of him by his inheritaunce: wherfore their louelove (as he thincketh) is not ſo pure. But the wife if ſhe be ſuch a one as ſhe ought to be, ſhe wiſheth good to her huſband for his owne cauſe and his owne ſake, although ſhe hopeth or looketh to obtayne no good at his hand. Many hauehave thought that the ſentēce of this father ought to be allowed, & hauehave gone about to make playne the ſame by a certain diſtinction not ſo circumſpectly inuēted by them in my opinion: for they affirme that we may meaſure God or his nature by our worthynes, or that we may beholde him, according as our perfection & vprightneſſe is. Moreouer they ſay that we muſt do what ſoeuer we do, for his ſake in the firſt conſideration, and not in reſpect that he is our chief goodneſſe and felicitie. And this they thincke that Bernarde ment by the wordes now alledged. For they bryng theſe words which he writeth in another place,We muſt worſhip god alſo in that he is our felicitie & bleſſedneſſe. namely that he ſuſpected al that louelove wherewith we louelove any thing beſides God. But theſe men do not marke that by this diſtinction, which is founde out rather by the iudgement of men, thā by the veritie of the Scriptures, that they are agaynſt the ſentence of God. For he ſayd vntounto Abraham as it is written in Gen. I am thy reward and that very ample: walke thou therfore before me, & be perfect, vndoubtedly by theſe wordes God offreth him ſelfe vntounto vsus, not imagined by him ſelfe, or plucked away from our commodities, but in reſpect that he is our rewarde.

Moreouer, as I ſayd now at the firſt, god would not adioyne promiſes, gifts and rewardes to his commaundementes, in vayne or without effect, but aduiſedly and moſte wiſely. Did he that I praye thee that we ſhould cloſe our eyes and ouerſkip them?To looke for a rewarde ſet forth vntounto vsus by God is not only of ſuch as are vnperfecte. I thincke not. Neither canſt thou ſay that they ſerue for the ruder ſorte, and ſuch as be not yet abſolute and perfect: for I will demaunde ſtrayght waye of thee, whether Abraham, Moyſes, Dauid, the Prophetes and Apoſtles were not ſo perfect, as either the nature of men in this life can be, or is required of vsus? If thou wilt ſay they were imperfect, then can not I tell what excellencye or perfection of men thou fayneſt to thy ſelfe. Paul certainly ſetteth forth him ſelfe vntounto ythers as a perfect man, in ſuch ſorte, as a man may in this lyfe be perfect, when he wrote be ye perfect as I am perfect. I ſpeake not how the Scripture yea god him ſelfe pronounceth Moyſes to be moſt meeke, he commendeth Dauid alſo that he was made accordyng to his will and harte. Wherfore if thou wilt graunt that theſe were notable excellent and perfect men (as men may be in this world) neither canſt thou deny the promiſes and rewardes offred to them of god. This without doubte followeth that men of the excellenter ſorte may in well lyuing and doyng lift vp their eyes to the rewarde.

Auguſtine.And I thincke Auguſtine hath trimely made manifeſt this thing where as he ſayth in his booke of confeſſions, he loueth thee not (ſpeaking to God) whiche loueth any thing beſides thee,We may louelove gayne and rewardes for gods ſake. which he loueth not for thy ſake. By theſe words is gathered, that we may louelove gayne and rewardes for gods ſake: for it is lawfull to embrace the meane endes for the laſt and chief goodneſſe. Neither are we forbidden but that we may ſometymes wiſhe for meat, drincke, and cloth, and ſuch thinges as are nedefull for this lyfe, yea and Chriſt hath commaunded by expreſſe wordes that we ſhould aſke them, and he hath promiſed them to thoſe whiche ſeke for the kyngdome of God: for he hath ſayd, firſt ſeke the kingdome of God and theſe thinges ſhalbe miniſtred vntounto you. Wherfore it is true, that theſe may be ſo hoped for, regarded and receaued of God as gifts and rewardes, and not as the principall thinges. For they alſo are to be referred to a farther p. 25end, according to Paules moſt wholeſome admonition, who hath written: whether we eat, or whether we drinke, or whether we do any other thing, let vsus do it to the glory of God. And finally ſeyng God him ſelfe, his glory,What is the foundation of earthly promiſes. beneuolence & fauour are the roote and foundation of other promiſes, and of eueryevery rewarde, ſo often as we ſhall beholde theſe other thinges, for as much as they are comprehended in thoſe former thynges, we muſt neuer ſuffer to hauehave one ſeparated from an other, but in the latter continually looke vponupon thoſe whiche are firſt. Wherby as Auguſtine hath geuen vsus counſell, we ſhall louelove nothyng beſides God which for his ſake we ſhould not louelove. And thus much of this ſaid queſtion,In latter promiſes the firſte are continually to be beholden. now we will returne to the hiſtory. For as muche as it is now manifeſt that it was lawfull for Chaleb to ſet forth a rewarde to all them, whiche ſhould conquere the citie of Debir, to encourage them to performe that, whiche they ought otherwiſe of duety to hauehave done: it was counted no ſinne in Othoniel (of whome we now entreate) couragiouſly to fight for the obtayning of a wife, whiche he knew otherwiſe to be acceptable to God.