A68840:1568
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.
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.
1But now must we answere the reasons whiche the contrary party alledge for themselues. First, as we before sayd, they cry that in contractyng of matrimony, there ought to be full liberty. But I pray you what liberty? Of the fleshe, or of the spirit? Vndoubtedly that liberty of the spirite is the greatest, when we obey the cōmaundemētes of god,2 who if he would haue vs obedient vnto our parētes in other thinges, why not also in contractyng of matrimony? Wherefore they breake the lawe of God, which obey not the parents also in this thing. Farther, if they will haue the liberty of contracting of matrimony to be so great, why doo they themselues prohibite so many degrees of mariages, whiche God neuer prohibited? Once the Popes would not suffer matrimony to be cōtracted, euē vnto the seuenth degree, but now they contayne within the fourth: moreouer why do they forbid mariages vnto the ministers of the Churche? Farther, why did God himself forbid matrimonies betwene persons of contrary religion, if in mariage there ought to be so great a liberty as they fayne to be? But they adde: Children for feare of their parentes will saye that that matrimony pleaseth them, whiche pleaseth them not. But the sonne is not compelled so to say: nothyng letteth but that he may answere, that that wife pleaseth him not, and that such a matrimony he can not abyde. And in deede without his consent matrimony can be by no meanes contracted. In the digestes de ritu nuptiarū, in the lawe non cogitur, we rede yt the sonne cā not be cōpelled to mary a wyfe, & de sponsalibus, in the lawe sed ea, if ye doughter hold her peace, she seemeth to cōsent vnto the father: & there are two causes ascribed wherfore the doughter may resiste her father, if either ye father offer her a wicked husband, or a disfigured husbād. Otherwise, if there be none of these causes, it is required of her to loue him whom the father hath chosē. If she wil not assent, when the husbād hath neither wicked maners, nor is mishapen,3 she incurreth the crime of ingratitude: whiche is so great that the father may disinherite her for it. And in ye title de ritu nuptiarum, in the law si cogente patre. Although the sonne haue assented for feare of the father, yet bicause he had rather assent then offend his father, such a matrimony ought to be firme 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.
The elegance of the riddle consisteth in contraries, for he which eateth, & he ye giveth meat,1 & he that is fierce, & he that is swear, are contraries. Such a riddle was not only put forth to quicken the wits, but also the holy ghost would by it signify things to come. At that time the Philistines ruled over the Jews, & oppressed them with tyranny, & after a sort devoured them. Therefore by the riddle is signified that at the length they should be overcome, & be eaten of the Jews: & for as much as they were most fierce, they should be at the last not hurtful, but great commodity unto the Hebrews.2 Augustine upon the .70. Psalm referreth these things unto an Allegory of Christ & princes of the earth. For when the Gospel began first to be preached, princes ran upon Christians, like Lions, withal their might to devour them. But our sun, that is Christ, was present, & toke away the Lions, whom yet he did not so deject that they should not be, but that for devourers of the flock, they should be nourishers of the Church, and defenders of the Gospel. This is a very elegant allegory, and the foundation thereof, is the killing of the Lion, whereby we first understand what should happen in the people of the Jews, & then what should come to pass in Christ.3 Ambrose demandeth the cause why Samson put out this riddle, and he answereth: because in feasts men are sometimes wont when they have well drunk, to be somewhat full of talk, & somewhat to intemperately to rebuke others, which things turneth for the most part into brawlings & chidings. And to avoid that, grave men were wont to put forth riddles or problems, omitting dangerous talk, & turning their mind to the exposition of the things put forth. Whose example Samson followed, & set forth a reward for him, which should expound his question: as though the knowledge and sharpness of the mind ought to be rewarded, & contrarily punishment is instituted for ignorance & sluggishness. The Ethnics also in the old time were wont so to do.4 Wherefore the Poets fable that Sphinx was wont to set forth a reward, namely if a man had absolved his riddle, he should have ben let goo free. But if he had failed, he should have ben thrown headlong down a rock. What the Poets would by this fable signify, I will not at this present declare.
This thing every man may easily understand, that the wit of man is so composed by nature, that it is not easily stirred up, but either by setting forth reward, or danger. Which also we may easily see in children. Farther, let us note that it is one thing to put a mans money to hazard or chance, and an other thing to contend for wit. But in this contention which Samson instituted, there was no place for chance, but it was a certain kind of play, civilly, honest, and laudable.
This thing euery man may easely vnderstand, that the witte of mā is so composed by nature, that it is not easely stirred vp, but either by setting foorth rewarde, or daunger. Whiche also we may easely see in children. Farther, let vs note that it is one thyng to put a mans money to hasard or chaunce, and an other thing to contend for wyt. But in this contention whiche Samson instituted, there was no place for chaunce, but it was a certayne kinde of play, ciuily, honest, and laudable.
And because we are fallen into mention of play, I think it good somewhat to speak thereof.
ANd bycause we are fallen into mention of playe, I thinke it good somwhat to speake therof.
1Some of the fathers seem to abhor from all kind of plays. Ambrose in his 1. book de officiis, chapter .23. Plays (saith he,) and pastimes seem sweet and and pleasant, when as yet they are contrary to the rule of a Christian. For it is not found in the holy Scriptures,2 how they ought to be used. Chrysostom upon Matthew the .6. Homily, sayeth that GOD invented not play, but the devil. For the people sat to eat and drink, and rose up to play, in the honour of a most filthy idol. For when they had worshipped the calf and incurred idolatry, they seemed to have obtained this reward of the devil, namely to play. Peradventure Chrysostom alludeth to that which Plato wrote in Phedro, that Theut the demon of the Egyptians found out Numbers, Geometry, Astrology, 3letters, and dice. But Augustine in hys .2. book de Musica, sayeth that it is a part of a wise man to revoke the mind from earnest matters: and that is chiefly done by play. Wherefore it seemeth to be lawful. But how so great ⟨p. 219⟩an oblectation riseth of play, it is not heard to understand. Aristotle in his .2.4 book of Rhetorics putteth victory or hope of victory among the causes of oblectation. But when we play, either we obtain the victory, or else we are in some hope thereof. Wherefore they which defend play,5 do determine with themselves, that the mind ought sometimes to be no less refreshed, then the body: and as the body is renewed by rest or quietness,6 so they say the mind is recreated by play. By which means they think to prove that there must some place be left for plays: adding yet certain cautions. First, that there §1be no filthy and unhonest words used in plays.7 It is not seldom seen that in playing both filthy and also blasphemous words do happen. We must also take heed, that there be not used to much lightness, and dissolution of gravity
Sarah saw Isaac play with Ismael, which she took in evil part, not undoubtedly because he played, but because he played together with the son of a bondwoman. David also danced & played before the ark of the Lord. And the maidens sang in their dances, Saul hath overcome in his thousands, & David in his .x. thousands. And Christ complained that the Jews were like unto children playing in the streets and saying: We have song unto you, &c. And although of these things there be no certain rules manifestly written in the holy Scriptures, yet are they set forth in the civill laws.
Sara saw Isaac play with Ismaell, which she tooke in euill parte, not vndoubtedly bycause he played, but bycause he played together with the sonne of a bondewoman. Dauid also daunced & played before the arke of the Lord. And the maydens sang in their daunces, Saull hath ouercome in his thousandes, & Dauid in his .x. thousandes. And Christ complayned that the Iewes were like vnto children playing in the streetes and saying: We haue songe vnto you, &c. And although of these thynges there be no certayne rules manifestly wrytten in the holy Scriptures, yet are they set foorth in the ciuill lawes.
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.
The elegācy of ye riddell consisteth in contraryes, for he which eateth, & he ye geueth meate,1 & he yt is fierce, & he that is swere, are contraryes. Such a ridle was not onely put forth to quicken the wittes, but also the holy ghost would by it signify things to come. At that time the Philistines ruled ouer the Iewes, & oppressed them with tyrāny, & after a sort deuoured them. Therfore by the ridle is signified that at the length they should be ouercome, & be eaten of the Iewes: & for as much as they were most fierce, they should be at ye last not hurtfull, but great cōmodity vnto ye Hebrues.2 Augustine vpon ye .70. Psalme referreth these things vnto an Allegory of Christ & princes of the earth. For when ye Gospel begā first to be preached, princes ran vpon Christiās, like Lions, withal their might to deuoure them. But our sunne, that is Christ, was present, & toke away the Liōs, whom yet he did not so deiect that they should not be, but that for deuourers of the flocke, they should be noorishers of the Church, and defenders of the Gospel. This is a very elegant allegory, and the foundation therof, is the kylling of the Lion, wherby we first vnderstād what should happen in the people of ye Iewes, & then what should come to passe in Christ.3 Ambrose demaundeth the cause why Samson put out this ridle, and he aunswereth: bycause in feastes men are sometymes wont when they haue well dronke, to be somewhat full of talke, & somewhat to intemperatly to rebuke others, which things turneth for the most part into braulyngs & chidinges. And to auoyde that, graue mē wer wont to put forth ridles or problemes, omitting dangerous talke, & turning their mind to the exposition of the things put forth. Whose example Samson followed, & set forth a reward for him, which should expound his question: as though the knowledge and sharpenes of the minde ought to be rewarded, & contraryly punishmēt is instituted for ignoraūce & sluggishenes. The Ethnikes also in the old tyme were wont so to do.4 Wherfore the Poets fable that Sphing was wont to set forth a reward, namely if a mā had absolued his ridle, he should haue ben let goo free. But if he had failed, he should haue ben throwen hedlong downe a rocke. What ye Poetes would by this fable signify, I will not at this present declare.
1Some of the fathers seme to abhorre from all kynde of playes. Ambrose in his 1. booke de officiis, chapter .23. Playes (sayth he,) and pastymes seme sweete and and pleasaunt, when as yet they are contrary to the rule of a Christian. For it is not founde in the holy Scriptures,2 howe they ought to be vsed. Chrisostome vpon Mathewe the .6. Homelye, sayeth that GOD inuented not playe, but the deuill. For the people sat to eate and drinke, and rose vp to play, in the honour of a most filthy idole. For when they had worshipped the calfe and incurred idolatrye, they seemed to haue obtayned thys rewarde of the deuill, namely to play. Peraduenture Chrisostome alludeth to that which Plato wrote in Phedro, that Theut the demon of the Egyptians found out Numbers, Geometry, Astrology, 3letters, and dyse. But Augustine in hys .2. booke de Musica, sayeth that it is a parte of a wyseman to reuoke the mynde from earnest matters: and that is chiefely done by playe. Wherefore it semeth to be lawfull. But howe so great ⟨p. 219⟩an oblectation ryseth of playe, it is not heard to vnderstande. Aristotle in hys .2.4 booke of Rhethoriques putteth victory or hope of victorye among the causes of oblectation. But when we playe, either we obtayne the victory, or elles we are in some hope thereof. Wherefore they whiche defend playe,5 doo determine with themselues, that the mynde ought sometymes to bee no les refreshed, then the body: and as the body is renewed by rest or quietnes,6 so they say the mynde is recreated by playe. By whiche meanes they thinke to proue that there muste some place bee lefte for playes: addyng yet certayne cautions. Firste, that there §1be no filthy and vnhonest woordes vsed in playes.7 It is not seldome sene that in playing both filthy and also blasphemous wordes do happen. We must also take hede, that there be not vsed to muche lyghtnes, and dissolution of grauity §2and comelynes. For oftentymes it commeth to passe, that men do so vtterly geue themselues to playe, that afterward, they are able to do nothyng grauely. Farther, the circumstances are diligently to be marked, of the person (I say) the §3place, and the tyme. It is certayn in deede that in the holy scriptures there is no rule or forme prescribed cōcerning playes,8 although in thē are read many kinds of playes. In Genesis the aungell wrastled the whole night with Iacob.
