A68840:1562
Most fruitful [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermil Florentine, professor of divinity, in the University of Tygure with a very profitable tract of the matter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswell of the matter, as of the words: with an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth & allowed, according to the order appointed in the Queens majesties injunctions.Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure with a very profitable tract of the matter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswel of the matter, as of the wordes: wyth an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth & allowed, accordyng to thorder appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions.
London: printed by John Day, 1564London: printed by Iohn Day, 1564
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But because some Canons make against this decree, therefore they thus moderate the matter, that wheresoever they read that matrimony can not be contracted between such persons, that they understand to be said for some one of these three causes, either because she that is stolen did not consent, or else because she was betrothed before unto an other by words (as they use to spake) of the present tense, for I say not of the future tense, for the husband was not compelled to marry one defiled, or because she was not marriageable.
But bycause some Canons make against this decree, therfore they thus moderate the matter, that wheresoeuer they rede that matrimony cā not be contracted betwene such persons, that they vnderstand to be sayd for some one of these thre causes, either bycause she that is stolen did not consent, or els bycause she was betrouthed before vnto an other by words (as they vse to spake) of ye presēt tense, for I say not of ye future tense, for ye husbād was not cōpelled to mary one defiled, or bicause she was not marigeable.
But in the Code it is far otherwise decreed for stealers away of virgins, namely that matrimony can by no means be contracted between those persons, yea although the father consent unto her that is stolen, and Justinian also in his Authentics, Collation .9. in the title, que raptoribus nubunt, decreeth the same to the detestation of so great a crime. But our Canonists, in gods name do think that matrimonies are lawful even against the parents will, wherefore in the .32. q 2. chap. Mulier, the gloss saith, that the power of the father is broken as touching an oath and matrimony, when ripe age cometh, which sentence the schoolmen also have followed. Of this matter they dispute in the .4. book of Sentences dist. 28. where they define that a man, even the son of the father of the house, hath a certain dominion over his own body, neither is so bound to his parents, but that he may at his own liberty dispose of it, as touching matrimony. And when they read in the Canons that the consent of the parents is required for the contracting of matrimony, they by their interpretation corrupt them, and say that Evaristus, 1Nicolaus, and Leo when they so decreed, did judge that the consent of the parents is required as touching the honesty of matrimony, but not as touching the necessity: which thing peradventure they drew out of the glose Extra de desponsa. impuberum, in the law tua, which is after this sort: That the good will of the parents is to be required, but rather for the comeliness of the marriage, then for the necessity, so that if the parents will not assent, yet are the children free, and may contract matrimony at their own liberty. Yea and the Master of the Sentences also in the distinct .28.2 The consent of the parents (sayeth he) serveth for the comeliness and honesty of marriages, and not for necessity. And he bringeth the words of Evaristus, but he sayeth there is a difference between those things which are required to the substance of marriages, and those things which serve for the honesty and comeliness. And the good will of the parents as he sayeth, pertaineth not to the substance of marriages, he thinketh that without it children may lawfully contract. And for as much as he maketh matrimony a Sacrament, he willeth that ⟨p. 216⟩in such marriages should be the virtue of matrimony, and not the honesty.
But in the Code it is farre otherwise decreed for stealers away of virgins, namely that matrimony can by no meanes be contracted betwene those persōs, yea althoughe the father cōsent vnto her that is stolen, and Iustinian also in his Authentiques, Collation .9. in the title, que raptoribus nubunt, decreeth the same to the detestation of so great a crime. But our Canonistes, in gods name do thinke that matrimonyes are lawful euen against the parētes wil, wherfore in the .32. q 2. chap. Mulier, the glose sayth, yt the power of the father is broken as touchyng an othe and matrimony, when rype age cōmeth, which sentence the schoolemen also haue followed. Of this matter they dispute in the .4. boke of Sentēces dist. 28. where they define that a man, euen the sonne of the father of the house, hath a certayne dominion ouer his owne body, neither is so bound to his parentes, but that he may at his owne liberty dispose of it, as touching matrimony. And when they rede in the Canons that the consent of the parentes is required for the contractyng of matrimony, they by theyr interpretation corrupte them, and say that Euaristus, 1Nicolaus, and Leo when they so decreed, dyd iudge that the consent of the parentes is required as touchyng the honesty of matrimony, but not as touchyng the necessity: whiche thynge peraduenture they drewe out of the glose Extra de desponsa. impuberum, in the lawe tua, whiche is after this sorte: That the good will of the parentes is to be required, but rather for the comelynes of the mariage, then for the necessitye, so that if the parentes will not assent, yet are the children free, and maye contracte matrimony at theyr owne liberty. Yea and the Master of the Sentences also in the distinct .28.2 The consent of the parentes (sayeth he) serueth for the comelynes and honesty of mariages, and not for necessity. And he bryngeth the woordes of Euaristus, but he sayeth there is a difference betwene those thynges whiche are required to the substaunce of mariages, and those thynges which serue for the honesty and comelynes. And the good will of the parentes as he sayeth, pertayneth not to the substaunce of mariages, he thynketh that without it chyldren maye lawfully contracte. And for as muche as hee maketh matrimonye a Sacramente, hee wylleth that ⟨p. 216⟩in such mariages should be the vertue of matrimony, and not the honesty.
But because they very much press the words of Evaristus, when he writeth that marriages contracted without the good will of the parents, are whoredoms, fornications and adulteries: the master of the sentences answereth that that is true, not because such marriages are in very deed such, but because they assembling together secretly among themselves, & privily without the parents knowledge, are wont to be counted as whoremongers and adulterers, but yet the matrimony abideth ratified and is firm, because of the words of the present tense which were therein used. Also Thomas Aquinas in the same place,1 is of the same judgement, and unto that which is brought out of Paul unto the Ephesians (where he saith, children obey your parents in all things:) He answereth that that is to be understand of those things, wherein the children have not any liberty, namely as touching familiar and domesticall things. And this reason he addeth: because matrimony is a certain kind of servitude, which the child is not compelled to take upon him against his will. And in that it is written of Abraham, that he sought his son a wife out of his kindred, he answered that that happened, because he knew that that land was promised unto his posterity, and that God had decreed to take it away from the Canaanites. Wherefore he would not have his son contract matrimony with them.
But bycause they very much presse the wordes of Euaristus, when he writeth that mariages contracted without ye good will of the parentes, are whoredomes, fornications and aduoutries: the master of the sentences aunswereth that that is true, not bycause such mariages are in very deede such, but bycause they assemblyng together secretly among thēselues, & priuely without the parents knowledge, are wont to be counted as whoremongers and adulterers, but yet the matrimony abideth ratified and is firme, bicause of the wordes of the present tense which wer therin vsed. Also Thomas Aquinas in the same place,1 is of the same iudgement, and vnto that whiche is brought out of Paul vnto the Ephesians (where he sayth, children obey your parentes in al things:) He answereth that that is to be vnderstand of those things, wherin the children haue not any liberty, namely as touching familiar and domesticall things. And this reason he addeth: bycause matrimony is a certayne kynde of seruitude, which the childe is not compelled to take vpon him agaynst his will. And in that it is written of Abraham, that he sought his sonne a wife out of hys kinred, he aunswered that that happened, bycause he knewe that that lande was promised vnto hys posterity, and that God had decreed to take it awaye from the Chananites. Wherfore he would not haue hys sonne contract matrimony with them.
These fellows in deed speak many things, but they bring not so much as one word out of the holy scriptures: they still contend that children ought to have most full liberty left them, as touching marriages. But that is a mere invention of theirs, which by no means hath his foundation upon the word of God.
These fellowes in deede speake many things, but they bryng not so much as one word out of the holy scriptures: they stil contend that children ought to haue most ful liberty left them, as touchyng mariages. But that is a mere inuention of theirs, whiche by no meanes hath his foundation vpon the worde of God.
The old fathers were of our opinion: but of them it happened, as of the Canons,1 for the more ancient they were, the more sincere they were, and the more new, the more corrupt. Tertullian in his .2. book to his wife, as touching the marriages of Christians with Ethnics, writeth very well, neither alloweth he marriages between persons of a contrary religion. God saith he, delivereth thee to a spouse. And he addeth: No not in earth can daughters right and justly marry with out the consent of the parents. How therefore wilt thou marry without the consent of thy heavenly father? Chrysostom upon Genesis and upon Matthew, 2when he entreateth of marriages, remitteth the matter unto the examples of the fathers in the old Testament: neither is it of great necessity to rehearse his words, when as the same father upon the first Epistle to Timo. in his .9. Homely, entreateth very manifestly of that matter: there he exhorteth parents, because of the slippery age of their children, to join them in matrimony, but he exhorteth not the children that they should choose unto themselves husbands or wives, but by Apostrophes he converteth his oration unto the parents, that they should provide for them as touching matrimony: & he addeth a very notable sentence: If (saith he) they begin to play the whoremongers before they be married, they will never be faithful in matrimony. I will note also by the way, what he writeth in the place of wedding crowns or garlands. For even at that time they used crowns or garlands in weddings. What (saith he) signifieth the crown or garland? Forsooth that the husband and the wife should declare, that even to that time they had ben vanquishers of lusts: if thou hast ben an adulterer or whoremonger, how wearest thou a crown or garland? Augustine in his .133. Epistle,3 being desired to make the marriage between a manchild & a womanchild, I would do it (saith he,) but the mother of the child is not present, and thou knowest that to contract the marriage, her good will is necessary. In this place Augustine writeth more severely then the civill laws. For they will not have the child to be in the power of his mother. Of Ambrose I will speak nothing now: I have sufficiently spoken of him before.
The old fathers were of our opinion: but of them it happened, as of the Canōs,
Wherefore seeing the law of God and the law of nature, the civill law and economical law, the fathers and sincere Canons do affirm, that the consent of the parents is necessary, and the examples of the faints declare ⟨image 223⟩the same, what should let but that we should be of the same mind? Neither ought this to seem grievous unto children: for it was for their commodity so appointed by God and by laws. For young persons in such things, and specially women, provide very ill oftentimes for themselves.1 Wherefore it is written in ye Code de sponsalibus in the law si pater: When a father hath betrothed his daughter, if he afterward dye, the governor or tutor cannot undo the covenant of the father, and a reason is added: because tutors sometimes are won with money, and women thorough weakness fall to their own discommodity. The example also of Christ ought to move us, which was given of his father a husband unto the Church, and he alway said that he did not his own will, but the will of his father, of whom he was sent. Farther, how great a disorder ariseth in the public wealth of this depravation and abuse? how great a window is opened unto filthy lusts? He that can first have carnal fellowship with the maiden in some places, hopeth to obtain her to wife, yea even against her parents good will.
Wherfore seyng the lawe of God and the law of nature, the ciuill lawe and eoconomical lawe, the fathers and sincere Canons do affirme, yt the consent of the parentes is necessary, and the examples of the faintes declare ⟨image 223⟩the same, what should let but that we should be of ye same mind? Neither ought this to seeme griuous vnto children: for it was for theyr commodity so appointed by God and by lawes. For young persons in such thinges, and specially wemē, prouide very yll oftentymes for themselues.1 Wherefore it is written in ye Code de sponsalibus in the law si pater: When a father hath betrouthed his daughter, if he afterward dye, ye gouerner or tutor cānot vndoo the couenant of the father, and a reason is added: bycause tutors sometymes are wonne with money, and women thorough weakenes fall to their owne discommodity. The example also of Christ ought to moue vs, whiche was geuen of his father a husbande vnto the Churche, and he alwaye sayd that he did not his own will, but the will of his father, of whō he was sent. Farther, how great a discorder ariseth in ye publique wealth of this deprauation and abuse? how great a window is opened vnto fylthy lustes? He that can first haue carnall fellowship with ye mayden in some places, hopeth to obteyne her to wife, yea euen against her parentes good wil.
1But now must we answer the reasons which the contrary party allege for themselves. First, as we before said, they cry that in contracting of matrimony, there ought to be full liberty. But I pray you what liberty? Of the flesh, or of the spirit? Undoubtedly that liberty of the spirit is the greatest, when we obey the commandments of god,2 who if he would have us obedient unto our parents in other things, why not also in contracting of matrimony? Wherefore they break the law of God, which obey not the parents also in this thing. Farther, if they will have the liberty of contracting of matrimony to be so great, why do they themselves prohibit so many degrees of marriages, which God never prohibited? Once the Popes would not suffer matrimony to be contracted, even unto the seventh degree, but now they contain within the fourth: moreover why do they forbid marriages unto the ministers of the Church? Farther, why did God himself forbid matrimonies between persons of contrary religion, if in marriage there ought to be so great a liberty as they feign to be? But they add: Children for fear of their parents will say that that matrimony pleaseth them, which pleaseth them not. But the son is not compelled so to say: nothing letteth but that he may answer, that that wife pleaseth him not, and that such a matrimony he can not abide. And in deed without his consent matrimony can be by no means contracted. In the digestes de ritu nuptiarū, in the law non cogitur, we read that the son can not be compelled to marry a wife, & de sponsalibus, in the law sed ea, if the daughter hold her peace, she seemeth to consent unto the father: & there are two causes ascribed wherefore the daughter may resist her father, if either the father offer her a wicked husband, or a disfigured husband. Otherwise, if there be none of these causes, it is required of her to love him whom the father hath chosen. If she will not assent, when the husband hath neither wicked manners, nor is misshapen,3 she incurreth the crime of ingratitude: which is so great that the father may disinherit her for it. And in ye title de ritu nuptiarum, in the law si cogent patre. Although the son have assented for fear of the father, yet because he had rather assent then offend his father, such a matrimony ought to be firm and ratified.
I would add unto the former cause the third, if the father offer a husband which is of a contrary religion: and I would ever counsel the parents to gratify their children,1 unless they see them to obstinate and unjust. But when the parents deal to tyrannically with their children, & compel them to marry wives whom they can not abide, the matter ought to be brought before the Magistrate, whose office is to hear the cause, and to deliver the son from injury, if he be to cruelly oppressed. Then if the son marry a wife by the authority of the Magistrate, yea against the will of the father, he can not seem utterly to have married without his fathers consent.2 For the Magistrate is the father of the country. The same thing seemeth to be decreed de ritu nuptiarū, in the law qui liberos. And methinketh the schoolmen have not well said, that the children of the household ⟨p. 217⟩have dominion over their own body. For as much as they owe unto their parents that they are. They ought not to be compelled to marriages against their will, but that they should marry without the consent of the parents, it can not be granted them. And when they so often obtrude unto us liberty,3 & allege the dominion of their body, we lay against it the answer of god as touching the daughters of Zalphead, who saith of them: Let them have heritage among their brethren, but let them marry in their own tribe. These women are compelled to marry their nighest of kin, neither had they that liberty which these men feign. And the brother was sometimes compelled to marry the wife of his brother being dead, neither could she marry an other: therefore so great liberty is not necessary in marriages, as these men pretend. And by the civill law,4 so great is the power of the father over the son, that he may sell him if he fall into grievous necessity. And least that should seem barbarous unto any man, the same thing is permitted by the law of God in Exodus the .21. chap, but yet adding certain cautions, which I think not good here to repeat. Wherefore they did not rightly argue, when they said, that matrimony is a kind of servitude, which the son ought not to take upon him at the appointment of his father.
And in that they say, that the consent of the parents is required for the honesty §3of matrimony, and not for necessity, it is frivolous and vain. For what greater necessity can there be, then that which the law and commandments of God bring with them? Children are commanded to honour father and mother. Also Paul the Apostle prescribeth them to obey their parents in all things. And the same thing writeth he unto the Philippians the .4. chapter. That which remaineth brethren: What soever things are true, whatsoever are honest, whatsoever just, whatsoever pure, whatsoever profitable, whatsoever lucky, these things do ye. &c. By these words appeareth that the things which are honest, must not be separated from the commandments of God. Wherefore look how necessary it is to obey the commandments of God, so necessary is it not to marry without the consent of the parents. And that which they add that the consent of the parents is in deed §4required, but yet if they will not consent, the matrimony may be firm: That is nothing else then to deride the parents. For what contumely is it, for the son in such sort to desire the consent of his parents, that though he be against it and gainsay it, yet notwithstanding will he abide in his purpose, and execute it? It were much better not to desire it, then to desire it with that mind. This also seemeth wonderful unto me, that the master so perverteth the words of Evaristus: that when Evaristus sayeth that matrimonies contracted without the consent of the parents are whoredoms, and fornications, and not matrimony, he dare expound that the matter is not so in deed, but because they so assemble rogether, as whoremongers and adulterers use to do. But the sentence of Evaristus is manifest. They are not (sayeth he) matrimonies, and he addeth what in deed they are, namely fornications, adulteries, and whoredoms. And he sayeth not that they seem to be these things, but that they are.
And in that they saye, that the consent of the parentes is required for the honesty §3of matrimony, and not for necessity, it is friuolous and vayne. For what greater necessity can there bee, then that whiche the lawe and commaundementes of God bryng with them? Children are commaunded to honour father and mother. Also Paul the Apostle prescribeth them to obey their parentes in all thinges. And the same thyng writeth he vnto the Phillipians the .4. chapter. That whiche remayneth brethren: What soeuer thynges are true, whatsoeuer are honest, whatsoeuer iuste, whatsoeuer pure, whatsoeuer profitable, whatsoeuer lucky, these thinges do ye. &c. By these woordes appeareth that the thynges whiche are honest, muste not bee separated from the commaundementes of God. Wherefore looke howe necessary it is to obey the commaundementes of God, so necessary is it not to mary without the consent of the parentes. And that whiche they adde that the consent of the parentes is in deede
There are other which object unto us the book of Genesis, where it is written that Esau married Canaanitish wives, which his parents took in very ill part, for he had married them contrary to their commandment. And yet the Scripture calleth them wives. Wherefore it seemeth that matrimony may be contracted even against the parents will. I grant in deed that in the holy Scriptures they are called wives. But yet for that cause, because he so counted them, & because the nations among whom he dwelled, counted them for wives. But hereby is not gathered, that the scriptures do confirm such matrimony. The same form of speaking used Paul in the first to the Corinthians the eight chapter: Even as there are many gods and many Lords. He sayeth that there are many ⟨image 224⟩gods, not ye there are so in deed (for there is but one God,) but because the most part so believed, and public persuasion thought that there was an infinite number of gods. Therefore he saith many gods, but to us that think rightly, there is but one God,1 & one Lord Jesus Christ. It is no unaccustomed or strange thing in the scriptures so to call things as men use commonly to speak: yet in an other place, when they speak properly, they call every thing by his own name. But thou wilt say, we never read that the children of Esau were not legitimate. I answer, that Esau had in deed a great posterity, but whether it were legitimate or otherwise the Scripture declareth not. Whereunto add, that with those nations among whom he dwelled they were counted legitimate. For they had not the word of God, wherein it is commanded that that should not be done: and they had wonderfully corrupted the law of nature.
There are other whiche obiecte vnto vs the booke of Genesis, where it is wrytten that Esau maried Chananitishe wyues, whiche his parentes tooke in very yll part, for he had maryed them contrary to their cōmaundement. And yet the Scripture calleth them wyues. Wherefore it seemeth that matrimony may be contracted euen agaynst the parentes will. I graunt in deede that in the holy Scriptures they are called wiues. But yet for that cause, bycause he so coūted thē, & bycause the nations amōg whom he dwelled, counted thē for wyues. But hereby is not gathered, yt the scriptures do confirme such matrimony. The same forme of speakyng vsed Paul in the firste to the Corinthians the eyght chapter: Euen as there are many gods and many Lordes. He sayeth that there are many
Other cry: What shall we think of our elders? what also of many which live now, and have contracted matrimonies without the consent of their parents? Shall we call them marriages or adulteries? And shall we count their children for legitimate or for bastards? I answer, when such marriages were had in those darkness before the new light of the Gospel, those men were not in deed excused from sin (for it was not lawful for them to be ignorant of the law of God) but yet because they were done publicly, & the Magistrate permitting them, I am persuaded that such contracts are firm and ratified. If they object that in such marriages the consent of the parents wanted, I answer that it was there, & not there. For the Magistrates had made their civill laws subject unto the Canons, which undoubtedly they ought not to have done. And in this thing all men agree. And for as much as the Magistrate hath authority over the people, if he consent to any thing, there after a sort is the public consent of the people. As at this day in assemblies, when they assemble, that some sum of money should be paid, although some private man of the people do take it in evil part, yet because it is agreed upon by the Magistrate, he ought to seem to have con scented: So the father would not that the matrimony of his son should be firm without his consent, yet because he hath made his own will subject unto the judgement of the Magistrate, he ought to seem after a sort to have consented. But now the truth of the thing being known, the Magistrates ought to revoke the error. Wherefore the matrimonies which have been hitherto, that is in darkness contracted against the will of the parents, ought to be firm, and the children borne of them ought to be counted legitimate. But if the law should afterward be revoked, then should they not be matrimonies, but only be presumption, but in very deed fornications, whoredoms, and adulteries, as Evaristus rightly judgeth. But whilst the laws which are now of force, are not abrogated: I do not dissolve the matrimonies which are so contracted, neither do I say that the children borne of those marriages are bastards: but I declare what seemeth more agreeable unto the word of GOD, and unto honesty.
Other crye: What shall we thinke of our elders? what also of many whiche lyue nowe, and haue contracted matrimonyes without the consent of their parentes? Shall we call them mariages or adulteryes? And shall we counte theyr children for legitimate or for bastardes? I aunswere, when such mariages were had in those darkenes before the new light of the Gospell, those men were not in dede excused from synne (for it was not lawfull for them to be ignoraunt of the law of God) but yet bycause they were done publikely, & the Magistrate permitting them, I am persuaded that such contractes are firme and ratified. If they obiect that in such mariages the consent of the parentes wanted, I aunswere that it was there, & not there. For the Magistrates had made their ciuill lawes subiect vnto the Canons, whiche vndoubtedly they ought not to haue done. And in this thing all mē agree. And for as much as the Magistrate hath authority ouer the people, if he consent to any thing, there after a sorte is the publique cōsent of the people. As at this day in assemblyes, when they assēble, that some summe of money should be payd, although some priuate mā of the people do take it in euill part, yet bycause it is agreed vpō by the Magistrate, he ought to seme to haue cō sented: So the father would not that the matrimony of his sonne should be firme without his cōsent, yet bycause he hath made his owne wil subiect vnto the iudgement of the Magistrate, he ought to seme after a sorte to haue consented. But now the truth of the thyng beyng knowen, the Magistrates ought to reuoke the errour. Wherfore the matrimonyes whiche haue bene hitherto, that is in darknes contracted agaynst the will of the parentes, ought to bee firme, and the children borne of them ought to be counted legitimate. But if the lawe should afterwarde bee reuoked, then should they not be matrimonyes, but onely be presumption, but in very deede fornications, whoredomes, and aduoutryes, as Euaristus ryghtly iudgeth. But whylest the lawes whiche are nowe of force, are not abrogated: I doo not dissolue the matrimonyes whiche are so contracted, neyther doo I saye that the children borne of those mariages are bastardes: but I declare what seemeth more agreable vnto the woord of GOD, and vnto honesty.
But Evaristus might justly write so, because in his time the Roman laws were of force, which counted not such conjunctions for matrimonies. Farther, I add that fathers are not to be obeyed, when they let the marriages of their children, only for religion sake, because in that case God is to be obeyed above all things, who is the chief father of all men.
But Euaristus myght iustly write so, bycause in hys tyme the Romane lawes were of force, whiche counted not suche coniunctions for matrimonyes. Farther, I adde that fathers are not to bee obeyed, when they let the mariages of their children, onely for religion sake, bycause in that case God is to be obeyed aboue all thynges, who is the chief father of all men.
7 He went down I say, and talked with the woman, which pleased the eyes of Samson. 8 And within a few days when he returned to receive her, he went aside to see the carcass of the Lyon. And behold there was a swarm of bees, and honey in the body of the Lyon. ⟨p. 218⟩9 And he toke thereof in his hands, and went eating, and came to his father & to his mother, and gave unto them, & they did eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the body of the Lion. 10 So his father went down unto the woman, & Samson made there a feast. For so used the young men to do. 11 And when they saw him, they took 30. companions, and they were with him.
7 He went downe I say, and talked with the woman, which pleased the eyes of Samson. 8 And within a fewe dayes when he returned to receaue her, he went aside to see the carkase of the Lyon. And beholde there was a swarme of bees, and hony in the body of the Lyon. ⟨p. 218⟩9 And he toke therof in his handes, and went eatyng, and came to his father & to his mother, and gaue vnto thē, & they did eate: but he told not them that he had taken the hony out of the body of the Liō. 10 So his father went downe vnto the woman, & Samson made there a feast. For so vsed the yonge men to do. 11 And when they sawe hym, they tooke 30. companions, and they were with him.
In this place the Lion is not called Cepher as he was before, but Ariah: because that difference which I have before showed is not always observed. The matrimony of Samson is celebrated: wherein the providence of God prepareth occasion, whereby he should do some violence unto the Philistines. And that occasion was, because as he returned he remembered the Lyon which he had slain. He went a little aside, to look upon the carcass of the Lyon. And he found therein a swarm of bees, and a comb of honey. And this is such a strange thing as hath not been heard of: for it is in no other place, that I wot of, either showed or red, that bees have made honey in the carcass of a Lion.1 Pliny and Virgil in his .4. book of Georgics teach that of dead bullocks or oxen do come bees, as of a horse Wasps, and of an ass Hornets. Plutarch in the life of Cleomenes saith, even as of a horse do engender Wasps, of an ass Hornets, of an ox bees: so also of the carcass of a man, and especially of the marrow & humour which falleth upon the earth, are brought forth serpents. For that cause the elders were wont to consecrate serpents unto noble men. But we never read any such thing of a Lion, wherefore this ought we to judge, that this was done by the singular providence of God.2 Ambrose thinketh that the place where Samson had cast the Lion, was a pleasant and fertile place, and the bees flied thither for flowers, and made honey in the carcass of the Lion. But I (as I save said) do attribute all this unto the providence of God. Pliny in his .7. book saith,3 that bees use not to make honey, except it be in the hive, or in a tree, or in caves under the earth, & he affirmeth ye above all things they fly from evil savours. Farther, he saith ye hornets and wasps do eat dead carcasses, but bees touch them not. Ambrose saith that Samson turned aside to the Lion, to take his skin, that being clothed with it, he might come unto the feast as a great valiant man, as afterward did Hercules. But because he saw that that apparel was not very handsome for wedding apparel, he took rather thereout the honey combs, of the which he might give part unto his parents, and part unto his wife.
In this place the Lion is not called Cepher as he was before, but Ariah: bycause that difference whiche I haue before shewed is not alwayes obserued. The matrimony of Samson is celebrated: wherein the prouidence of God prepareth occasion, whereby he should doo some violence vnto the Philistines. And that occasion was, bycause as he returned he remembred the Lyon whiche he had slayne. He went a litle aside, to looke vpon the carkase of the Lyon. And he founde therein a swarme of bees, and a combe of hony. And this is such a straunge thyng as hath not bene heard of: for it is in no other place, that I wot of, eyther shewed or red, that bees haue made hony in the carkase of a Lion.
They took thirty companions. Some think that these thirty companions were joined unto Samson for to do him honour. But some of the Hebrew interpreters suspect that the Philistines, when they perceived that he was a strong and valiant man, brought these men to be keepers for him, least thorough the show of marriage, he should make some commotion.
They tooke thirty companions. Some thinke that these thirty companions were ioyned vnto Samson for to doo hym honour. But some of the Hebrewe interpreters suspecte that the Philistines, when they perceaued that he was a strong and valiant man, brought these men to be kepers for hym, least thorough the shewe of mariage, he should make some commotion.
12 Then Samson said unto them: I will now put forth a riddle unto you: and if ye can declare it me within seven days of the feast, I will give you 30. sheets, and 30. change of garments. 13 But if ye can not declare it me, then shall ye give me .30. sheets, and .30, change of garments. And they answered him: put forth thy riddle that we may hear it. 14 And he said unto them: Out of the eater came meat, and out of the strong came sweetness: and they could not in three days expound the riddle.
12 Then Samson sayd vnto them: I wil now put forth a ridle vnto you: and if ye can declare it me within seuen dayes of the feast, I will geue you 30. sheetes, and 30. chaunge of garmentes. 13 But if ye can not declare it me, then shal ye geue me .30. sheetes, and .30, change of garmentes. And they aunswered hym: put foorth thy ridle that we may heare it. 14 And he sayde vnto them: Out of the eater came meate, and out of the stronge came sweetenes: and they coulde not in three dayes expounde the rydle.
I would adde vnto the former cause the third, if the father offer a husband whiche is of a contrary religion: and I would euer counsell the parentes to gratifie their children,1 vnles they see them to obstinate and vniust. But when the parentes deale to tyrānically with their children, & compell them to mary wiues whom they cā not abyde, the matter ought to be brought before the Magistrate, whose office is to heare the cause, and to delyuer the sonne from iniury, if he be to cruelly oppressed. Then if the sonne mary a wife by the authority of the Magistrate, yea agaynst the will of the father, he can not seme vtterly to haue maried without his fathers cōsent.2 For the Magistrate is the father of the coūtrey. The same thing semeth to be decreed de ritu nuptiarū, in the lawe qui liberos. And methinketh the schoolemen haue not well sayd, that the children of the householde ⟨p. 217⟩haue dominion ouer their owne body. For as much as they owe vnto their parentes that they are. They ought not to be compelled to mariages agaynst their wil, but that they should mary without the consent of the parentes, it can not be graunted thē. And when they so often obtrude vnto vs liberty,3 & alledge ye dominiō of their body, we lay against it ye answer of god as touching ye daughters of Zalphead, who sayth of them: Let them haue heritage among their brethren, but let them mary in their own tribe. These wemē are compelled to mary their nyest of kynne, neither had they that liberty whiche these men fayne. And the brother was sometymes compelled to mary the wyfe of his brother beyng dead, neither could she mary an other: therfore so great liberty is not necessary in mariages, as these men pretend. And by the ciuill lawe,4 so great is the power of the father ouer the sonne, that he may sell hym if he fall into greuous necessity. And least that should seeme barbarous vnto any man, the same thyng is permitted by the lawe of God in Exodus the .21. chap, but yet adding certayne cautions, whiche I thinke not good here to repeate. Wherefore they did not rightly argue, when they sayd, that matrimony is a kynde of seruitude, which the sonne ought not to take vpon him at the appointement of his father.
