OF DIVORCE FOR ADVLTERIE AND Marrying againe that there is no sufficient warrant so to do VVITH A NOTE IN THE END that R. P. many yeeres since was answered By EDM. BVNNY Bachelour of Divinitie Printed at Oxford by Joseph Barnes Ann. Dom. 1610. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER in God RICHARD by the grace of God Archbishop of Canterbury one of his Maiesties most Honorable Privie Councell Chancellor of the Vniversitie of Oxford Primate of all England and Metropolitane MAY it please your Grace to vnderstand that although being so little knowne to your Grace as I am it may seem that I make over bold so to present this Treatise ensuing yet as my selfe am persuaded divers good reasons there be that doe occasion me so farre this once to presume on your Graces goodnes therein both in respect of a former interest and of the present matter besides The former interest that now I speake of is that by the place that then he was in your Graces immediate Predecessor had this Treatise in his hands a good while together many yeeres since and to be his if so it should stand with his Graces pleasure and afterward when hee saw his time approued of the publishing of it and so to doe at mine owne discretion Which notwithstanding by occasion I thought not so good thē presently to doe as to awaite a farther opportunity which then began to offer it selfe vnto mee In the meane season it hath pleased God to take him of from his labours and travells here and thus otherwise to furnish the roome that he had In which alteration besides that no way I haue any cause to varie I may not deny but that now I finde iuster cause so to proceed then I had in the other before In the present matter besides it is very plaine that there is some question of it then are such Treatise as are thereof in bounden duty to awaite the censure of such other approued iudgments as to whome in such case it doth appertaine Wherein it having hitherto orderly proceeded to that wherevnto it is come already it was meetest so to finish the course likewise so actually to acknowledge that arising here hence proceeding it was most to submit it selfe vnto and to await your Graces censure It may be also that even in godly pollicie by our Superiors it will be thought meete to take some farther order to prevēt the evill that so free a passage of that other course may seem to threaten thē the better opportunity that God hath givē your G. to such purpose the lesse could I in any duty or reasō haue turn'd aside to any other God long preserue your Grace among vs to the glorie of God to the good of his Church to your owne comfort withall in him Oxford Iuly 3. 1610. Your Graces most humble in the Lord EDM. BVNNY VNTO ALL THOSE THAT EITHER are entered already or hereafter are to enter into the holy estate of wedlocke E. B. wisheth as all other Christian graces whatsoever such as are needfull to every one in his owne proper Calling so now especially rightly to know of what force that bond should be among vs and how fast we ought to hold it IF yet it be doubtful to any what is the corruption of our nature and how often it cōmeth to passe thereby that in many things we are hardly able to conceiue or to finde out that which is sound and right indeede though there be divers other things besides wherein wee might see it plainely enough yet we neede go no farther but only to that which at this present wee haue in hande namely how few of all sorts there are that are able to see how strict insoluble the bond of wedlocke is after that once it be rightly ioined togither 2 The Fathers of old before that yet the law was given had among them the truth of that holy ordinance how it pleased God at the first to ordaine the same of mā and wife to make but one and that he ordeined but onlie two to make vp the vnitie that then he spake of And yet the storie doth plainely shew that not only the common sort of them but even the better also did not account that bond so straight but that they did for divers of thē take others besides though yet notwithstanding it must needs be true withall that they knew wel enough coulde not be ignorant but that therein they swarved cleane frō that patterne that God had given them from the Rule that therein he left them 3 When afterward the law was given to those that followed though nowe that matter were made a great deale more plaine vnto them than it was before yet they also did as little finde what they had to doe therein as did the others that had not the light that was given vnto thē They were Hebrews themselves the Law was given in their own mother-tongue the Text it selfe must needs be very plain unto them some we may hope were diligēt in the study of it that with vnfained desire to know it and in the feare of God withal and yet it appeareth they did not see this that we speake of Curious they were for diverse of them in many things else of lesse importance which without any breach of the law of God they might haue omitted but their diligence watchfull heeding of all those Books words syllables letters characters also or the maner of writing thereof even in the number of many words how oft they were vsed did never yet for ought that we find in any of thē attaine vnto this In one place it is cleere we speake now but of the Original that is of the Hebrew Text it selfe not of the Translations that since haue beene in vse among vs that Moses did no more but only make mention of an vsage that they had among them of putting away their wiues on dislike and marrying againe he doth I say but only speake of it and doeth nothing at all approue it vnto them nor alloweth them so to do and yet a sort of the learned of them in the time of Christ and so belike of old likewise did plainelie shew that they did take it that Moses had allowed them or given thē their liberty so to doe Howbeit there is faire ods betwixt a bare mentioning of an vsage among them though then also he go not against it to approue the same vnto them in many other things there is no question at the least as they might be chosen but themselues would soone haue perceiued a lesser and a daintier difference then this And herein they haue the Text it selfe in plaine tearmes to giue thē over in that which they would build vpon it even the very words themselues chasing thē from that persuasion of theirs 4 In another place indeed the words are for them so far forth that they may seeme to
such an argument as wherein divers of great learning haue already dealt and yet my selfe had done thus much therein many yeeres since though I did never publish it til now I haue thought it needfull gentle Reader to acquaint thee somewhat farther with either of them both how it came to passe that I also haue thus far entermedled therewith and whervpon it was that it hath as it were kept in til now That I haue thus far entermedled therewith it arose first out of the nature of the thing it selfe but then somewhat farther of by occasion The former of these was that a gentleman of those parts wherein most I reside having such a purpose with him and having already gotten into a little paper-book of his the handes of sundrie of the Preachers of those parts came to me also therewith and desired my hand likewise his case there being that for adultery by his wife committed he might sue the divorce marry againe His request I denied gaue him some reason why so I did but perceiving then that I did not content him a while after I wrote vnto him a few sheetes of paper of that matter so rested all the passage that was betwixt vs. The latter of them was that the most reverend Father that in those parts then was being minded to Visit requested me to preach at the beginning of that his visitation wherein among other things more fully prosequuted I gaue a little touch to that point also namely that whereas divers were perswaded that for adultery they might sue the divorce and marry againe some accordingly so did if the matter were wel examined that liberty would not in my iudgement be found to haue any vndoubted warrant at al in the word of God 2 There had beene a few yeeres before of one family but indeed one of the greatest in those parts or thervnto appertaining about fowre several persons and those of some note besides who had thē so gotten divorce were married againe And besides those who it may be had else where mo fellowes also than that heady course any waie deserved an other there was of more speciall reckoning thā they who so got divorce against his wife also married an other on whose behalfe on that my warning then publikely given I found there was more dislike conceived than might well arise on so easie a course as in my iudgement then was taken Wherevpon I then resolved when my time should be to occupie that place again seeing that little warning was thought so strange then so to vnfolde the matter it selfe whence it arose as that the Auditorie might better perceiue there was some reason why it was given That time fell out to be some few months after at which time I only dealt in that matter and made two Sermons of it at that time shewing that the said presupposed liberty so to put away their wiues for adultery to marry againe was altogither without warrant in the word of God and divers other waies faultie besides 3 Herevpon the matter began to worke at home abroad At home though most of the Auditory were glad to heare the matter opened so farre as it was and conceaved wel of it yet there wanted not also who having some of their waies called into some question thereby were much offended one carrying himselfe so inordinatly therin that for it he was for a time committed At which time I meane while that matter was in hearing for which the party aforesaid was committed there fell out this accidēt also The honourable Personage who then was in chiefe place for the execution of iustice there by occasion obiected vnto me that although such liberty had no warrant in the word of God yet did the lawes of our coūtry allow it whervnto I answered againe that his H. might perceiue that was not so for that neither those second womē were allowed any dowrie nor their childrē to be legitimate His H. therin could not be said by me but told me I was much deceived therein till some of the Councel then present told him that it was indeed as I had said 4 See now the good nature plaine dealing of that Noble Gentleman right noble in deede A right learned man and of good parts besides of this our own countrie had before imparted on speciall suit to the gentlemā that before we spake of his iudgement in writing of the same matter not by putting to his hand to the gentlemans bosome-booke as others before nor in some few lines of his owne framing which in such case is likewise vsed but in a Treatice or Book of iust volume the most learned that any yet in that course hath written and so with all of that sort of special reckoning even an vndoubted warrant to hold on the way that themselues so much affected and wished to be allowed vnto thē Wherein he is in deed more copious than others to shew that many haue been of the same opinion but in the principles or groundes of that whole building the common reading and iudgment of others so far prevailed with him likewise it seemeth that so his resolution was nothing so sutable to that learning iudgement of his as otherwise it was like to haue beene This Booke fairely written had the same gentleman as I vnderstood delivered to that Noble Personage his Lord and Master so to let him see how cleere and warrantable that course was that he others then were in This Book did that Noble Personage cause one of his attendants thē to fetch and presently he gaue the same vnto me as giving vp therewith all the good liking that of that opinion hee had before conceived 5 Abroad it so wrought likewise that besides diverse others one in the South parts for this that we speake of was done in Yorke in the heart thereof and one of the chiefe in those partes also hearing in some sort what I had there of that matter delivered sent vnto me to be acquainted with my notes which I also accordingly sent and heard that there they were approued But thereby and otherwise perceiving that not only many of the learned were carried away with the oversight preiudice of those learned that were for that presupposed liberty and with the reverēce of their persons which indeed in many good respects was in great measure due vnto thē that some farther notice thereof was needfull to be given to others likewise I therevpon gathered this present Treatise and sent it vp to my Lords Grace of Canterburie that thē was to be published also if so it should stand with his Graces pleasure For the matter his answere I heard was that he was of the same minde himselfe I heard likewise that hee imparted the same to some others of special note place and that they were of the same minde also But as touching the publishing of it that hee thought not good so to doe yet giving no other
see that he was not as some others are so peremptory therein but that he professeth that he would be ready so far to change as at any time he should see any better Beza is more resolute in it and hath more largely handled that argument yet may we see that he also doth something moderate himselfe therein and that both in his Epistle prefixed before the Booke that he wrote and afterward also in a speciall point of the Treatice it selfe In his Epistle it shall be good to consider first what he saith for the matter it selfe then of his owne dealing therein For the matter it selfe he saith that Nihil prohibet de istis quaeri divers as eorū sententias audiri quos apparet veritatis investigandae studio duci modo publica authoritate receptis pertinaciter non obsistatur that is Nothing letteth but that these things may be called in question and the opinions of those be heard who seeme to be led with a desire to search out the truth so that no stubborne resistance be made to such things as are by publike authority already receiued Of his own dealing therein he saith likewise both that he could not satisfy himselfe therein and that his minde was not any way to preiudice the iudgement of others For as touching the former his words be these Neque verò ipse mihi in hoc argumento satisfeci sed doctiorum theologorum studia mihi satis fuit commovisse that is Neither could I in this argument satisfy my selfe but it was enough for me to haue stirred vp the studies of more learned divines As touching the latter he saith likewise Ego quid mihi de istiusmodi multis videatur quasi vnus quispiam exposui nec cuiquam praejudiciū factum volui that is What my mind is cōcerning many such things as these I haue as one of the rest declared and would not that any should be prejudiced thereby That which hee hath in a speciall point of the Treatice it selfe is that there handling the question whether the innocent party bee bound in conscience vtterly to abandon his wife or if shee repent to take her againe though there he acknowledgeth that it is not his part to send them away doubtfull therein yet he taketh hold of an other part of his function also non vt leges cuiquam praescribam that hee was not then to prescribe any lawes vnto them so may seeme thereby to acknowledge that albeit he then declared his mind therein yet meant he no otherwise but to leaue them vnto the freedome of their own iudgement withall Againe Dixi quid mihi hic videatur suum cuique liberum iudicium esto modò ex verbo Dei quisque sapiat that is I haue shewed what is my iudgement thereon let every one be persuaded therein as himselfe thinketh good so that he ground himselfe therein on the word of God 8 Now that we may more orderly gather what wee are to thinke of these resolutions alleaging of reason and protestations so doubtfull so limited and so fensed speaches and how far we are to take the advantage of them and withall to shew why I haue in this place presented a certaine of them vnto the view I am here to admonish first that one way there is wherein it may bee that some will take them which in no wise is meant by me but another there is which willingly I doe acknowledge to bee my meaning indeed That which is not meant by me is if any should so take them as if I had alleaged them in the way of disgrace to those that wrote them a thing of that nature that neither might I iustly doe it neither would I though so I might I might not iustly doe it because there were no cause so to doe For the case being such as it is they could write no more certainely nor more boldly then they did so long as yet they did not espie how wrong they were in some of the maine principles of it So that in such case they are so far from the desert of iust reproofe for not being resolute but vsing great warines and limitation in all such speeches as thereof they deliver that it rather deserueth right good commendations that in a case so intricate doubtfull strange as they did take it they framed their speeches so sutable vnto it that as those speeches of theirs were sufficient tokens to all how hardly themselues tooke vpon them to goe so far as they did even so might they bee as good warnings to others there to read with the better attention and judgement not so much to imbrace the opinion that such haue conceiued as to examine and ponder the reasons whereby they suffered themselues to be therevnto induced And although it be expected at the hands of all that are to leade others that they be resolute in that which they teach yet if at any time the case be such that iust occasion bee giuen to giue in their iudgement of such things as yet are not among the learned so fully decided then is there no more at their hands expected then to deliuer their minde accordingly In a firme plaine ready beaten way howsoeuer men are wont more freely to ride yet if it be covered with snow rough or stony or yeeld any semblance of quicksands or miers although in such case there are founde sometimes that then also will ride freely enough yet was it ever and ever will bee accounted more wisedome in al such cases to be more warie Examples hereof we haue very many wheresoever the Scriptures haue not so fully declared those thinges that neverthelesse wee thinke are enough decided by them as at what time the Angels were made or when the matters are prophetical and extend to a farther time then is conceived as the manner of Antichrist and of his comming to the Fathers of old and of the calling of the Iewes and Turks to the knowledge of Christ before the last daie to vs now Of which things and some others besides those that haue written even the best of them all may easily be found to haue divers ambiguous and timerous speeches and yet notwithstanding are not therein to be hardly cēsured neither for that as those matters are there was nothing more that iustly might be expected of them And so to come to these others againe as in right I might not seeke their disgrace thereby as having no sufficient groūd worke vnto it so God forbid that if I had yet I shoulde at any time haue that meaning with me being as they are not only partakers of the selfesame Grace with vs but also such instruments to the advancement of the glorie of God and so comfortable lights to all the faithful in these our daies as that the Church of God hath seldome if at any time had for those matters a greater blessing That other which is my meaning indeede is no more but to
little groundworke they haue even in those that are their leaders themselues may partly appeare in that they are so much crossed by others as therein they are but especially in that which thēselues haue set downe for that matter That they haue little groundworke in them if they be so much crossed therein by others as they are may likewise appeare if we consider but these two things first how farre they are crossed therein then what it is that followeth thereon To see how farre they are crossed herein wee shall neede to goe no farther then to the plaine confession of one of themselues Erasmus by name Who immediatly after his very entrance vnto that speciall discourse of his doth plainely acknowledge the generall iudgement of all Christendome to bee against that which he was then to propound to be further examined Scio saith he receptissimum esse inter Christianos ubi semel coijt matrimonium nullo pacto posse dirimi nisi morte alterius I know saith he that it is the generall or most receaved opiniō of all Christians that whē marriage is once made it can no way be broken againe but only by the death of one of the parties And as here in generall tearmes he acknowledgeth the iudgement of the whole Church or of all the people of God generally to be against that presupposed libertie so in the next sentence following descending to particulars he acknowledgeth there likewise that that is the iudgement both of Chrysostome and of the old Latines and of S. Augustine especially and that the same iudgement of theirs is confirmed by the constitution of Bishops and by the authority of the Lawes Decretall and allowed of by the consent of the Schooles of Divinitie So himselfe granteth that hee findeth against that opinion where vnto notwithstāding he inclineth many great Fathers even all the Latines generally the Ecclesiasticall lawes also and in effect Divinity too then the which I thinke we need no more for the reasonable proofe of that assertion then so plaine a testimonie of so speciall a patron of that persuasion Wherein though divers of them besides haue beene more sparing then to slip any so plaine a testimonie belike least so they might further let downe in the minds of many the credit of their cause then themselues were able any way to raise it againe yet neither doe they reproue him for it and besides both Peter Martyr abroad one other of our own at home by very good right of speciall account for many good parts with the learned and godly among vs haue set down somewhat not much abhorring from the same The former of them Non reperies in veteri Testamento ullos celebres aut laudatos viros divortio vsos esse quantum historiae sacrae referant that is Thou shalt not finde in the olde Testament any of the better sort of men to haue vsed the libertie of divorce so far as the holy Scriptures doe testify The latter of them that S. Augustine the Schoole Divines the Canonists and the Church of Rome though in case of adulterie they allow of divorce yet allow they not to marry againe And it is sufficiently knowne vnto vs that though divers particular persons there be among vs of other iudgement and divers of them otherwise both learned and godly yet that forme of government which we haue all generally agreed vnto to bee in such case observed of all as by our lawes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill appeareth is directly against such marrying againe though divorce be for no lesse then for adultery That which followeth vpō it is this that vnlesse those that are for it haue such places for them as are cleere and without exception they can prevaile but little therein but must needs leaue the better end of the staffe vnto others For if themselues wil not deny but that there be many against it and as many as there be with it or rather more then as the scales when they hang indifferently doe shew that the things that are weighed therin are of one the selfe same weight but when they vary that then the one of thē needeth more weight to be added so howsoever that if our voices were even or the matter but in quaestion among vs not over-ruled then the allegations of either partie might be alike esteemed of those that stand indifferent yet when as it may very well be doubted that they are many more against it then there be for it and the matter is with vs over-ruled against them then vnlesse their proofes be the better they may not looke to evict it from those whome they plainely finde in possession already The evidence indeed may proue tobe such that neither the greater number of voices nor possession of old may stand against it but vnlesse it be such whosoever it is that would claime thereby may looke for no more thē it will be able in equitie and truth to win vnto him 5 Of that which themselues haue set downe for that matter a good part respecteth most their owne iudgmēt therein the residue those places out of which they doe gather it In so much of it as most respecteth their owne iudgement therein we are first to note what it is that they haue brought vs then to advise our selues thereon how far forth wee may take to our selues the advantage of it That which they haue brought vs is of two sorts either to shew vs how hardly and doubtfully they are resolued or such other things as follow thereon that may be some warning vnto vs besides to take heed that we rest not too much on their iudgement As touching the former namely those hard and doubtfull resolutions of theirs I take it that the best order will be to take those whome I meane to alleage in such order of time as wherein themselues did write And so beginning with Erasmus first he began his Annotations on the new Testament 1515. in which booke that Treatise of his is that he wrote of this matter In which he is so far from allowing of that course absolutely that he doth no further plead for it but whereas the woman is flagitiis operta quibus maritus nec causā dedit nec mederi possit and after againe qui nihil est commeritus after this also that nihil non frustra tentatum sit and yet notwithstanding that then also it be not done by themselues or any other private persons but ubi res erit acta per Episcopos aut per probatos graves Iudices that is that the wife that so must be put away must bee a very bad woman that her husband that may put her away never gaue her occasion to any lewdnesse neither is able now any way to help it nor ever deserved any such ill dealing of her after this also that first hee must haue tried all good meanes
in divers places on the 1. Cor. 7. 7. and as it is placed in his Common Places Sect. 52. and 66. pag. 301 3 5 6. Calvine in his Com on the Harm of the Gospels on Mat. 5.31 and 19 7. Gualter on Marke 10 Malachie the 2. fol. 399.8 Chemnicius in his second part of the Exam of the coūcel of Trent Sess. 8. Can. 7. pag. 286 8. Beza in divers places of his Booke de repudijs divortijs among his Opusc. vol. 2. pag. 113 15 17. And last of all Steph. Szegedinus in his Tables of Common places pag. 348.49 For that of Malachie I haue not noted that Erasmus hath medled with it but Musculus Peter Martyr Calvin and Gualter in the places before recited and all others generally that are for divorce marrying againe so many of them as yet are extant that I haue seene doe even so take it after one and the selfe same manner 11 That in such sort taking those Texts they doe it may wel be and is most likely cleane mistake them it will best appeare by the several consideratiō of either of thē first that of Deuteronomy then that other of Malachie also For that of Deuteronomie first we haue certaine probabilities that it was never intended there to giue any licence of such Divorce then also as I doe take it much other good proofe besides Those probabilities that we haue are some of them out of the Text it selfe and one besides out of the practice of the godlier sort amōg them Those that we haue out of the Text are two one out of that place of Deuteronomie the other out of the fift of Numbers In that place of Deuteronomie we plainely see a kinde of punishment to be cast on him that so had put away his wife namely that if shee had marryed another hee then should never haue her againe and to be givē in in reason thereof that thereby shee is defiled and that her defiling in the iudgement of some laid vnto his charge also If thē the selfe same Text doe not only something punish him for it but also charge him with defiling of his wife besids evē only by that putting of her away at the first it is most likely that no such thing is in that place allowed That other out of the first of Numbers is that lawe of Iealousie which being an harder course than this and a great deale more busie and a peculiar remedie ordained when a man hath his wife in suspition of adulterie or when as it was so indeed but without any witnes and not allowing the man to go any farther but to hold himselfe cōtent if she in such sort as there is set downe should make her purgation doth every way me thinke insinuate that then there was no so easie a way as this for a man for lighter matters to be rid of his wife when he would and the same to stand good by the word of God That which wee haue out of the practice of the better sort among them is that same which the learned haue noted as before I haue partly touched that in al the Scripture we never read of anie of the better sort that ever vsed the helpe of divorce which notwithstāding it is most likely that many would haue done if they had taken it to haue beene so plainely by God himselfe permitted vnto them That other good proofe that we haue besides is the Originall or Hebrew Text and that by the iudgement of divers learned some of those that were for this Divorce and marrying againe but since haue amended the mistaking that they had of the Text. The proofe that we haue in the Original or Hebrew Text and that by the iudgement of divers learned is that now it is foūd to be otherwise in the Hebrew thā our Trāslators either old or new a few excepted of long haue borne vs in hand that it was namely that it is not he shall write a bill of divorcement or let him write a bill of divorcement but only that he putteth the case if so a man should doe and not that it alloweth the same And the learned that now haue mended this oversight of old that long hath stood as currant among vs are these First to my knowledge Franciscus Vatablus the professor of the Hebrew tongue at Paris and after him Benedictus Arias Montanus a Spaniard that had the chiefe oversight of the setting forth of that great Bible at the charges of the King of Spaine and last of all Immanuel Tremellius and Franciscus Iunius together All which in their Translations haue very plainely amended the same declared withall that in that place there is no mention at all of any divorce allowed vnto them if recourse bee had to the Hebrew it selfe Those that were for divorce marrying againe and that first hauing erred in this Text that now we speake of haue since amended the same againe are two and those of speciall account among vs as of good right they ought to be M. Calvine the one and M. Beza likewise the other As touching the former of them whereas setting forth his Commentaries on the Harmonie of the Gospels in the yeare 1555. he then was of opinion as before I haue noted and is there to be seene of any that Moses had commanded a Bill of divorce should in such case bee giuen to the wife afterward hauing further occasion to looke better vnto it by gathering foure of the Bookes of Moses into an Harmonie also which accordingly he did and published it about eight yeares after in the yeare 1563. he did then amend his former reading of the Text it selfe and in his Commentarie therevpon did set downe his iudgemēt accordingly also As among other things of that nature he cōmeth in with these words following Quidam interpretes non legunt hos tres versus vno contextu sed plenam sententiam esse volunt vt maritus testetur se divortium facere cum vxore non ob crimen sed quid formae venustas eius libidini non satisfaciat Si quis tamen propiùs attendat facile videbit vnum esse duncaxat Legis caput nempe vbi quis vxorem repudiaverit fas nō esse iterum eam ducere si alteri nupserit that is Certaine interpreters among whome himselfe was one a few yeares before do not read these three verses there be foure in all so doth himselfe ioine thē in one period but will haue one full sentence to bee that the husband testifie that he doth not divorce his wife for any crime but because her beauty or favour did not content him But if any do better mark it hee shall plainely see that the law that there is set down hath but one braunch only which is that whē any hath once put away his wife it should not be lawful for him to take
her againe if in the meane season shee had married another albeit the other were now dead or had put her away likewise Where also it is to be noted that now he accounted it to bee verie plaine for that hee saith that a man that heedeth it may plainely perceiue it and that so he insinuateth that it was but want of heede taking that therein deceived many before as yet also it doth where it is not the better heeded Yet divers then began to espie it and in Vatablus his Bible of 1557. it was plainely noted aboue fiue years before that M. Calvine published this that now wee speake of Master Beza for any thing that yet I haue found is not so plaine herein as is M. Calvine yet hath he enough of this also to content any reasonable man For whereas in that Treatice of his De repudiis divortiis which he published 1573. he sheweth himselfe divers times so to haue mistaken that place as others before were wont to doe and that so strongly that out of the same hee reasoneth also that it could not bee that a man was bound to forgiue his adulterous wife by that example of God obiected out of â—he 3. Chapter of Ieremie and the first verse of it for that then it should follow illos peccasse quilegem illam Mosis servarunt cuius ibi facit mentionem Ieremias quod absurdum est dicere quum eam è contrario servari oportuerit that is that they should sinne which did not obserue that law of Moses whereof mention is made Ier. 3.1 which were absurd to say when as on the otherside it was to bee obserued which whence it cometh was apparant enough if it be tried by the rule which M. Calvine before set down and then so much the rather to bee condemned thereby as we may plainely see by the consideration of the time that that wonted oversight of mistaking that place was espied noted so neere vnto him sixteene yeares before that he did publish this booke of his yet afterward wheÌ„ Benedictus Arias Montanus also had publikely noted that wonted oversight againe two yeares before hee in the yeare 1577 in that booke of his which is intituled Lex Dei moralis caeremonialis politica so setteth downe the Text it selfe as Vatablus and Arias had done before and Tremellius and Iunius since and according as the Hebrew it selfe is saving that he maketh a full period at the ende of the first sentence whereas there is none indeed nor ought to be till the ende of the fourth which might easily bee the fault of his Printer And so by his owne reading now it is no absurd thinge to say that those of the Iewes sinned which then did put away their wiues neither was that law so to be kept neither did Ieremie make mention of any such law of Moses neither did Moses ever make it TheÌ„ the which I thinke we neede no more for this matter But if we doe then himselfe also even in that his Booke de repudiis divortiis doth acknowledge withall that eiusmodi divortia etsi lege civili tolerabantur tamen in foro conscientiae nunquam licuerunt that is that such divorces although they were tolerated by the Civill Law yet in court of conscience they were never lawfull Where we may note that although it bee restrained only to such divorces yet now he graunteth that which he accounted the law of God before is of no force in the court of conscience a matter sufficient being well considered mainely to crosse the force of the other 12 Concerning that other of Malachie we haue not so much for it in respect of the words or letter of it but yet somewhat more if we goe to the meaning as there it is applied against the people then For as touching the words or letter of it neither Vatablus nor Arias Montanus did for this matter swarne from the wonted reading but then we haue both the judgement of the Septuagint of old and Tremellius Iunius of late that doe The Septuagint read thus as Ierome himselfe doth set downe Si odio habens dimiseris eam dicit Dominus Deus Israel operiet impietas cogitationes tuas dicit Dominus omnipotens that is If hating her thou shalt put her away saith the Lord God of Israel impiety shall cover thy thoughts saith the Lord Almighty By which reading of theirs wee may plainely see that they giue not liberty vnto him that hateth his wife to put her away but plainely shew that the Lord misliketh it if so he doe But Tremellius and Iunius doe plainely alter the reading also referring the hating that there is spoken of vnto the Lord that he doth hate al such putting away of their wiues For whereas the common and wonted reading of the place is If thou hatest her put her away saith the Lord God of Israel their reading now is Sibi odio esse dimissionem ait Iehova Deus Israelis that is That the Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth such putting away As touching the sense or meaning of this place notwithstanding the reading stand as it was wont Siodio habeas dimitte c First Mr Calvine saith thereon Hic rursus Prophet a exaggerat crimen illud quod pro nihilo ducebaÌ„t Sacerdotes dicit enim gravius eos peccare quà m si vxores repudiarent Scimus tamen repudium nunquam fuisse permissum divinitus proprie loquendo nam etsi fuit impunitas sub Lege non tamen fuit permissic that is Here againe doth the Prophet exaggerate that crime that the Priests did make so little account of for he saith that they sinne more grevously then if they had put their wiues away But divorce we knowe was never permitted of God if we speake properly For although there was no punishment for it vnder the law yet was it never permitted And after againe Haec igitur ratio est cur Propheta nunc dicat Si odio habeas dimitte non quod veniam concedat repudio queÌ„admodum diximus sed vt hac circumstantia crimen augeat that is This therefore is the reason why the Prophet doth now say If thou hate her put her away not that he giueth them leaue to divorce as before we said but that by this circuÌ„stance hee sheweth the fault to bee so much the greater Which also is the iudgement of others So in the former of these two places we finde not only the Hebrew it selfe and divers of the learned of speciall account to shew that the place was cleane mistaken before but also some of the chiefe of those that are for divorce and marrying againe in effect to acknowledge their former oversight therein In the latter we haue both those seaventie Interpreters of old two of speciall account of late to shew the very letter therein also to be mistaken and though it doe stand after the wonted manner of mistaking yet that the