Luke 6.35 and verses 39.42 of this chapter § 3. Let him give her a bill of divorcement Sect. 3 What was the use of this Bill Quest First it was a remedy of a greater evill as Answ 1 was shewed before Secondly it was to terrifie them from separation Answ 2 or putting of their wives away because if once they had given them that Bill of divorcement it was then never lawfull afterwards to take them againe § 4. But I say unto you Sect. 4 Whether doth Christ here oppose Moses or the Pharisees Quest First some say that Moses commanded these Answ 1 things but not from God It was Hominis consilium non Dei imperium Hier. s Math. 19. the counsell of man not the command of God as that Father saith but Moses was faithfull in all Gods house and therefore I dare not subscribe to Hieromes opinion Secondly Christ doth not deny that this Answ 2 came from Moses but denies that it was a true rule of direction being indeede but a bare permission as was shewed before § 5. Whosoever shall put away his wife Sect. 5 Bellarmine de Matrim lib. 1. cap 14. saith that it is lawfull for the parties married to bee dismissed each from other for divers causes besides fornication as for heresie for avoiding of offence and for the vow of continencie Christ here saith plainly the contrary Whosoever doth put away his wife except it be for fornication causeth her to commit adultery And therefore whether Christ or the Cardinall deserve better to be beleeved sub judice lis est let the world judge § 6. Except it be for fornication Sect. 6 Is it lawfull for a man to be divorced from his Quest 1 wife for adultery It is of this more amply by and by Answ How many causes were there of this separation Quest 2 among the Jewes Three namely first there was Causa levis Answ a light cause when the wife did not like nor please her husband this was altogether unlawfull Secondly there was Causa necessaria a necessary cause and that in case of murder when the hatred of the man grew so extreme that the woman stood in feare or perill of her life then a divorce was permitted Thirdly there was causa legiâ—ima a lawfull cause of divorce and that was fornication and adultery which was lawful unto the Jewes in the old Testament and is allowable unto us in the new Quest 3 For what causes are married persons now to be divorced First Romulus allowed a man to put away Answ 1 his wife for any of these foure causes to wit either I. If shee were given to drunkennesse Or II. If she got false keyes made for opening of her husbands Doores or Chests or Cup-boordes Or III. If shee went about to Poison him Or IV. If she plaid the harlot Answ 2 Secondly some things dissolve mariage Annihilando by disanulling of it to wit First error which is two-fold First of the sexe if a man marry a man or a woman a woman being deceived by the habit this marriage is void Secondly of the person if a man marry in the darke one for another as Iacob did Leah for Rachel the marriage is annihilated if the errour be perceived before carnall knowledge Secondly affinity and kindred Thus the marriage of King Henry the 8 with Queene Katharine was justly disanulled because it was not lawfull for him to take to wife her who had beene married to his brother Philip Mark 6.18 Thirdly a precontract or former marriage with carnall knowledge makes void the second marriage Disrumpendo by breaking of it viz. First Religion If the unbeleever will depart let him depart saith Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.15 Secondly fornication as in this verse and Mat. 19.9 where for adultery and fornication it is lawfull for a man to put away his wife Cum illa carnem unam fornicando separavit non debet teneri c z Hier. s Math. 19.9 Gualter here includes all greater things as poyson offering to stab and the like but this is doubtfull and the Scripture herein silent and therefore Pet. Mart. 2.10 § holds the contrary Quest 4 Whether is metaphoricall and spirituall fornication namely idolatry and covetousnesse here understood yea is not internall fornication and adultery the lust of the heart and the wanton lookes of the eyes a just cause of divorce and separation Answ Christ here speakes onely of literall fornication and of the breach and dissolution of an actuall bond wherefore the breach must be actuall not intentionall Quest 5 Is it lawfull alwayes for a man to put away his wife for fornication Answ Thomas Aquinas in 1 Cor. 7. following herein Saint Augustine addeth seven cases wherein it is not lawfull for a man to put away his wife for fornication First if he have prostituted her before marriage Secondly if he be also a fornicator Thirdly if he have denyed his body unto her Fourthly if she upon good ground beleeving her husband to be dead hath married with another Fifthly if it hath beene with violence that is if violently against her will shee hath beene ravished Sixthly if another fraudulently hath deceived her under the colour of her husband Seventhly if after the adultery manifestly found out she hath been still detained or carnally known by her husband Object 1 The Papists object against this place that although our Saviour saith here a man must not put away his wife but for adultery yet elsewhere hee saith whosoever shall forsake father or mother or wife c a Mat. â—9 29 where he alloweth commendeth and promiseth to reward those who put away their wives for his sake And therefore diâ—â—â—â—â— for Religion is warrantable and a woman may leave her husband to come unto a Nunnery and a man may leave his wife to come into holy Orders and ought to forsake them being entred into Orders b Bellarm. lib. 1. de Cleric cap. 19. First Christ by forsaking meaneth not that separation which is made by giving a bill of divorcement but that which is caused by imprisonment Answ 1 banishment or death Secondly as the Apostles forsooke not the Answ 2 company of their wives after they were called and chosen of Christ so neither the Ministers of the Gospel ought to renounce abandon and forsweare the society and fellowship of their wives but rather to live with them in all temperance and sobriety for the good example of others Thirdly thâ—s objection is cleane contrary to Answ 3 Scripture as appeares thus First our Saviour saith Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for fornication causeth her to commit adultery in this verse By which rule a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismisse his wife but for fornication And therefore it is not lawfull because of his calling or upon any other colour to send her away Secondly St. Paul saith that married couples should not defraud one another but for a time and that with consent c
1 Cor. 7.5 Therefore if the wife will not consent her husband cannot goe from her nay though there be consent yet they must be separated but for a time lesâ— the Divell should tempt them Whether may the guiltlesse partie being lawfully Quest 6 divorced marry againe during the life of the adulterous or not For no other cause in the world Answ but onely for fornication may there be either a finall separation or cleane dissolution of marriage by way of divorce But for that cause our Saviour hath granted liberty both to dissolve matrimonie and to marry againe Because this is questioned or rather plainely denyed by the Papist I will first confirme it and then answer what they can object against it Our proposition is this In the case of fornication it is not unlawfull to marry againe that is those who are lawfully divorced for fornication and adultery may marry againe with others but never one with another The truth hereof appeares thus First the bond is broken they are not now one flesh d Hier. s and therefore may lawfully contract marriage with others Secondly because under the Law divorce was never without liberty of a new choise Deut. 24.1 2. all that were divorced had freedome to marry againe and therefore in a lawfull divorce this is not debarred under the Gospel Thirdly because otherwise the guiltlesse party should be punished and that grievously It is better to marry than to burne saith the Apostle thereby shewing that marriage is left us by God as a remedy against lust now if the guiltlesse party could not containe neither might marry another neither take her unto him who hath beene divorced Deut. 24.4 then he were necessitated to sinne which the Lord never doth unto any by any law Fourthly we might confirme this from the Fathers Ambros Tertul. 2. From the Councels Concil Mogunt Triburiens 3. From the consent of many Bishops in Origens time 4. From the opinion of the Papists Zach. Papa Cajetan Ambros Compsa 5. Of our men Pet. Mart. 2.10 § 37 38 58. But this I omit comming to the last and best proof Fifthly that it is lawfull for the guiltlesse partie to marry for I now meddle not with the guilty appeares plainly from our Saviours words in this verse and Mat. 19.7 8 9. Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for fornication committeth adultery Therefore for fornication it is lawfull for a man to dismisse his wife Matth. 19.9 Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for wheredome and marry another committeth adultery Therefore for adultery it is lawfull for the man both to put away and renounce his wife and the wife likewise her husband there being the like reason for both and for them to marry againe The Papists hold that married persons may dismisse one another for adultery but neither party may marry againe for any cause during life And because they are sore pressed with this place they object many things both against the place and point by us propounded Object 2 First Durand answereth that when Christ uttered these words the Law of the Jewes was that the adulterous woman should bee put to death and so the husband might have liberty to marry againe Bellarmine overthroweth this answer by a three-fold reason to wit Answ First because Christ here giveth a rule not onely to the Jewes but to all Christians not being ignorant how that in every Nation the law of putting the adultresse to death should not be in force Secondly Christ might as well have excepted other crimes that were punished by death as murder and the like that in those cases they might marrry againe because by the Law their wives were to die as well as in the case of fornication Thirdly Christ speaketh of dismission but properly the wife is not said to bee dismissed when she is put to death And therefore Christ is not thus here to be understood Secondly Bellarmine would have the exception Object 3 except it be for fornication restrained to the first clause in this sense Hee that putteth away his wife which is not lawfull to doe but for fornication so that the crime of fornication maketh it lawfull to dismisse but not after dismission to marry againe First the Jesuite is here contrary unto himselfe Answ 1 for he elsewhere alloweth a separation of matrimony in other cases as of heresie infidelity and vow of continencie but here he saith that separation and dismission is to be made in the case of fornication onely Secondly Christs answer had not satisfied if Answ 2 he had spoken onely of divorce and not of liberty to marry againe for the Pharisees moved the question concerning the manner of divorce permitted by Moses Law after the which it was lawfull for them to marry againe And therefore it was expected that our Savior should answer to both these points both in what cases they might dismisse their wives and marry agaâ—ne Thirdly the Apostle saith If a woman depart Object 4 from her husband let her abide unmarried or bee reconciled 1 Cor. 7.10 11. Therefore it is not lawfull after divorce to marry so long as both parties live The Apostle speakes not there of a lawfull departure or separation to wit Answ by reason of fornication and adultery for then he should diametrally have opposed his Master Christ saying here for adultery there may be a divorce and departure Paul there I command no discedat let not the wife depart from her husband but of a separation for Religions sake or for afflictions or for the cares of those times § 7. Causeth her to commit adultery Sect. 7 How Quest or how many wayes is that Divorce which is not for fornication an occasion of adultery First if she which is divorced being deprived Answ 1 of the company of her husband is not able to containe her selfe but falls unto whoredome her divorce is an occasion of adultery unto her for the separation not being lawfull the bond of matrimony is not broken wherefore her whoredome is adultery Secondly if she which is thus unlawfully Answ 2 that is not for fornication separated marry another husband she commits adultery because she is yet the former mans wife and thus also her divorce is an occasion of adultery Thirdly hee who marries a woman that is Answ 3 thus unlawfully separated from her husband commits adultery because he coupleth himselfe with another mans wife and thus this divorce is unto him an occasion of adultery Fourthly he who puts away his wife but not for fornication and joynes himselfe in marriage Answ 4 unto another doth commit adultery because he is yet the former womans husband and causeth her whom he secondly marries to commit adulterie because shee lyeth with another womans husband And thus we see how an unlawful separation is the cause of much mischiefe Sect. 8 and root of many evils and therefore is carefully to be avoided f Chem. Harm fol 569. fine Object § 8. Whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced committeth adultery Bellarmine de Matrim cap. 16. Arg. 1. urgeth these words for the proofe of their former assertion that for adultery one may dismisse another but neither party can marry againe for any cause during life Christ here saith Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery These words saith the Jesuite must be understood generally without the exception of fornication for if it be lawfull to marry an adultresse who is divorced for adultery and the innocent party who is dismissed but not for adultery then should the case of the adultresse be better than of the other Answ 1 First the adulteresse is not straite way to be admitted to second marriage but it is fit that some restraint should bee made in the discretion of the Magistrate lest it might bee made an usuall practise for incontinent persons to change their Answ 2 wives Therefore in this behalfe the adulteresse case is not so good Secondly the innocent persons case is much Answ 3 better because she is free from so great a sinne as the adulteresse is guiltie of Thirdly the innocent partie may be reconciled to her first husband 1 Corinthians 7.11 Answ 4 Which is better then to have a new husband Fourthly If she cannot be reconciled and the froward partie fall into the sinne of incontinencie as he is most like in this case refusing the company of an honest wife to be given over then hath the innocent partie the same remedie which the adulteresse hath but upon Answ 5 much better conditions then she Fifthly the exception in the first clause of the sentence except it be for fornication must be supplied also in the latter Willet synops fol. 780. Arg. 2. Vers 33 VERS 33. Againe yee have heard that it hath beene said by them of old time Thou shalt not forsweare thy selfe but shalt performe unto the Lord thine oathes Sect. 1 § 1. Thou shalt not forsweare thy selfe Wee see here that Perjurie is so infamous and notorious that it is condemned by the wicked Scribes and Pharisees as a grievous sin Quest 1 What is Perjurie Answ Pejerare non est falsum jurare sed quod ex animi tui sententia juraris id non facere perjurium est Cicero offic 3. Perjurie is not to sweare falsly but not to performe what one hath sworne And this definition evidently appeares to bee true by this verse Thou shalt not forsweare thy selfe but shalt performe unto the Lord thine oathes But of this more by and by How many sorts of Perjurie are there Quest 2 As there are two kindes of oathes Answ so there is a double perjurie namely First Assertorium whose subject is an indicative proposition which shewes something this perjurie is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Obligatorium whose subject is a Promissorie proposition which promiseth to doe some thing and this perjurie is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first of these is more palpable and therefore the Jewes rather taught the second as appeares plainly by this verse But of these more particularly Perjurie J say is two-folde First Apertum manifest and palpable Secondly Palliatum cloaked and palliated First there is Perjurium apertum manifest and palpable Perjurie Why doe men thus forsweare themselves Quest 3 First some doe it for lucres sake using it Answ 1 in buying and selling but this gaine will bring leannesse unto the soule and bee like Geheza's prey which was rewarded with a cleaving Leprosie 2 King 5.27 Secondly some doe it that they may avoide Answ 2 the punishment of the law when they are examined concerning some crime before either Ecclesiasticall or Civill Judges Thirdly some forsweare themselves that so Answ 3 they may be free from paying their debts which they truely owe. Answ 4 Fourthly some that they may not restore things that have beene betrusted unto them to keepe Fifthly some that they may by their perjurie Answ 5 gratifie their friends Sixthly some forsweare themselves out of Answ 6 hatred unto others and although this be a very divelish practise yet it is too ordinary in Warrants for the Peace and diverse the like cases wherein men care not what they sweare so they may but have those punished whom they hate Why must we be thus carefull to avoide this Quest. 4 perjurie First because otherwise we shall destroy our Answ 1 soules unprofitably for hee that useth to forsweare himselfe will not bee beleeved nor credited Secondly because if we should be overtaken Answ 2 herewith we should be a disgrace a by-word unto the Papist Turkes and Heathens Amurath perceiving how Vladislans the King of Hungary had shamefully broken Truce with him opened the Booke wherein the League was written and which Vladislans had sworne to observe unto Christ praying him to take notice of the disloyaltie of his servant and to revenge his Perjurie which hee did indeede The Papists bragge but their equivocations and mentall reservations make mee call the truth of it in question that in the dayes and places of Popery men were and are more true of their words and faithfull in their oathes then we Protestants are And therefore if wee desire to adorne that Profession which wee have undertaken wee must carefully avoide Perjurie Answ 3 Thirdly because this is an indignitie which man could not suffer then much lesse God No good or honest man could endure that his name should be thus abused unto perjurie how detestable then is it unto the Lord for men to sweare falsly by his name Answ 4 Fourthly because by perjurie men doe strive with their Maker hoping to deceive him by their fraud and craft They call him to witnesse that which they know to be false thus hoping to beguile the Lord. Answ 5 Fifthly because hee that sweares falsly by Gods name doth call God to avenge himselfe upon him and doth thus hasten judgement which comes upon such wicked men fast enough And therefore let us not by calling God to witnesse our untruthes provoke him unto anger for wee are not stronger then hee is g 1 Cor. 10.22 Answ 6 Sixthly because the Lord will never acquite such an one in Judgement The Lord will not holde him guiltlesse who taketh is name in vaine much lesse him who abuseth it by swearing thereby falsly yea he hath threatned that hee will bee a swift witnesse against the false swearer h Mal. 3.5 And therefore if we desire estimation and credit amongst men if we desire to honour our Profession if wee desire to offâ—r no indignitie to our God by which hee may bee provoked justly to bee angry with us to condemne us and severely to punish us then let us carefully avoide all Perjurie and false swearing Secondly there is perjurium palliatum a palliated and subtile perjurie when men take an oath either in such a forme as they can interpret their oath which way they will or els have their private reservations and craftie equivocations all which are usuall with the
1. God can keepe and preserve all his from all danger whensoever hee will But 2. Ordinarily hee will not neither doth manifest his power in the beginning But 3. Let them fall into danger and then he delivers them Hence a quaere will bee made Quest 2 Why doth not the Lord rather preserve his children from danger at all then first suffer them to come into distresse and then helpe them out Answ 1 I answer first this is more for Gods glory he hereby shewing his power that hee can deliver even out of the jawes of the Lyon and take away the prey from betweene his teeth a 2 Tim. 4.17 Answ 2 Secondly this is better for us sharpe salt makes meate eate the more savourly we know not what temporall blessings are untill we want them Quanta voluptate jamdiu carui said Dionysius when he was throughly hungry before hee could have any thing to eate no meat tasts so well as that which is eaten with hunger sauce and hence it is that the Lord permits his children to fall into affliction that their joy may be the more compleat when they are delivered §. 1. VERRS 6. Vers 6 And thou Bethlehem in the land of Iuda art not the least among the Princes of Iuda for out of thee shall come a Governour that shall rule my people Israel This verse is cited out of the old Testament Sect. 1 where the place here alleadged is read thus in shew contrary to this verse Micah 5. Chapter Reconcil vers 2. But thou Bethlehem Ephratah though thou be litle among the thousands of Iudah yet out of thee shall hee come forth unto me that is to be Shepheard in Israel It will here be demanded Quest how the places may be reconciled I answer first here seemes indeed I confesse Answ 1 to be some apparent changes in the citing of this Prophesie as Micah 5.2 1. Though thou bee little 2. Amōg the thousands of Judah 3. That shall bee shepheard in Israel Mat. 2.6 1. Thou art not the least 2. Among the Princes of Iudah 3. That shall rule my people Israel Secondly the particle of the Prophet is adversative Answ 2 as in the Psalme I am small b Psa 129.141 and despised yet doe I not forget thy law i. e. Although I am small and despised c. So againe Many are my persecutors and enemies yet doe I not decline from thy testimonies c Psa 119.157 i. e. although my enemies be many yet c. So else where the blind man sayth This is a marvellous thing that ye know not from whence hee is and yet hee hath opened mine eies d Ioh. 9.30 i. e. Although he hath opened my eyes yet c. So here the sense is Although thou bee little oh Bethlehem in regard of the Princes of Iudah yet notwithstanding out of thee shall come a Governour that shall rule my people Israel Thirdly what Saint Matthew saith the Answ 3 Prophet Micah insinuates that is Out of thee shall come one who shall not be the least Fourthly Micahs words may bee read thus Answ 4 by an interrogation Art thou the least of the rulers thou art not as Iob saith Wilt thou draw the Whale with a booke That is thou canst not e Iob. 40.30 Fiftly Saint Matthew hath respect unto the Answ 5 end of the Prophesie or unto the dignity that the City Bethlehem should have after the nativity of Christ therein f Bezas Sixtly the Evangelist doth not change the Answ 6 Prophesie but the Pharisees they render it thus changed unto Herod g Iunii Parall Lastly although not the Pharisees but the Answ 7 Evangelist have changed the Prophesie yet it is no reall change but onely verball because he shewes the true sense in other words viz. thou art the least in regard of thy selfe but in this respect thou art not the least h Calvin s And therefore the phrase is prudently changed in regard of the time when it was altered because now Bethlehem was become a noble and a royal City Christ the Messias being now borne there i Tremel s Mich. 5.2 So that from the premisses the sense of the verse seemes to be this that the City Bethlehem amongst the families of Iuda was the least but now by the birth of Christ there it is become to be a thrice noble City Sect. 2 § 2. And thou Bethlehem Iudah There were two Bethlehems Observ the first in the portion of Zabulon k Iosh 19.15 and this Bethlehem was in Galile l Musc Gualt s Secondly in Judah m Iudg. 19.1 And this is is called Bethlehem Ephrata Gen. 35.19 and 48.7 So named from Ephrata one of Calebs wives n 1 Paral. 2.19 This is the opinion of Tremell s Micah 5.2 as also of Lyranus è Rabbi Solomone that hence it was called Ephrata after which name was added Bethlehem for the abundance of corne that it brought forth after that great barrennesse that was in the dayes of Elimelech o Ruth 1. Thus thinke the forenamed authors But I cannot admit of this for these two causes First because that Caleb who had so many wives dyed before Moses and Caleb the sonne of Iephuneh it was not Numb 14. Iosh 14. Secondly the name Bethlehem was knowne to Moses because it is mentioned in Genesis and therfore it was not brought into the land of promise after his death Quest Answ Why was Christ borne in Bethlehem Answer because the promise of the Messias was made to David Bethlehem was a City of David p 1 Sam. 16.1 and therefore it is called the City of David by the Evangelists q Luk 2 4. and Ioh. 7.47 Vers 7 VERS 7. Then Herod when hee had privily called the Wise men enquired of them diligently what time the starre appeared Quest It may here bee questioned why doth Herod call the Wise men secretly Answ Because he calls them for evill he had a wicked purpose in his malicious heart towards Christ and therefore he calls them secretly asking their counsell but hiding his intent from them Observ Teaching us that it is the nature of wicked men to hid their Counsell that they may the better hurt the religious a Pro. 1.11 Obiect It may bee objected it is lawfull for a man to hide his Counsels Salomon saith Hee that is of a faithfull spirit concealeth the matter b Pro. 11.3 Answ I answer there are divers sorts of hiders or concealers First some hide their Counsels least they themselves should be harmed of others by the revealing of their Counsell this is prudence and good providence both allowable and lawfull for a man to be cautelous warie of revealing his secrets unto others least so he bring himselfe into danger Secondly some hide their counsells and conceale their secrets least their friends should be hurt by the revealing of them this is honesty and that which Salomon speakes of in
by omitting some thing as the Divell doth here It is written saith he God will give his Angels charge to keepe thee that thou dash not thy foote against a stone but he leaves out the maine thing in vijs tuis c Psa 91.11 to keepe thee in thy wayes now hee tempted Christ to an unwarrantable tempting of Gods providence and therefore would have had him thus to goe out of his way wherefore fraudulently he keepes backe that particular in thy wayes Secondly this may be done falsò explicando by a wrong sense and interpretation or by a false explication of the words Thus Usurers abuse the parable of the talents and Papists falsly explicate these Scriptures He gave to every man a penny Mat. 20. And he shall not come out untill he have paid the uttermost Farthing And behold here are two swords And avoid an heretike and divers others of which God assisting me in their proper places Thirdly this is done falsò applicando by a false application of the Scripture or by a wrong deduction by a begging of the question Thus the Papists abuse Daniel God is called by him the Ancient of dayes therefore they may paint him like an old man the Jewes say it is blasphemy for man to equall himselfe with God therefore Christ blasphemes Who can recko◠up the genealogie of the Messias but they ca◠reckon up Christs as Matthew and Luke doe both by Ioseph and Mary and therefore he is not the Messias Thus errours may be built upon the Scripture by a false application of them And therefore we had need be very wary and cautelous both how we read and heare and expound and apply the Scriptures and when any false teachers or Sathan or our owne corrupt heart would teach us to finde out Scripture for the strengthning or maintaining of sinne or errour let us say as old Isaac said this is Iacobs smooth voice but Esaus rough hands The words are Gods but this sense explication and application is the Divells § 3. He will give his Angells charge ever thee Sect. 3 c. The Divells scope is here to draw Christ unto presumption and he endeavours it by faire glosses and sweete blandishments viz. First saith he there is no danger in the thing at all neither any cause of feare for thou shalt be kept and preserved by the Angells Yea Secondly thou maist be assured of it for Deus jussit God hath commanded his Angels concerning thee and therefore they dare not but looke carefully unto thee wherefore mitte te deorsum cast thy selfe downe From whence wee may observe Observ that the Divell makes all sinne to appeare beautifull to our sight and sweete to our tast like the forbidden apple which was faire to looks upon and good for food and the end was good also being knowledge and honour a Gen. 3.4.5 Hence unlawfull delights are called the pleasures of sinne because sinne seemes full of pleasure and delight the divell is a subtle fowler that deceives us with his sweete musicke and like the Panther hides his devouring jawes letting us see nothing but a faire delectable and sweet smelling skin he can cry like a Crocodile untill he have drawne us out of our way he will embrace us with a Ioabs arme and salute us with a Iudases kisse yea his care is not to terrifie us but to allure us Quest How doth the Divell allure and intice us Answ By these two wayes and meanes First by propounding unto us the sweetnesse of sin hee makes sinne seeme sweet to every sinner Drunkennesse seems sweet to the drunkard although it be hurtfull to the body to the estate to the reputation and credit Adultery seemes delightfull although it be the cause of bastards ignominy disgrace and most loathsome diseases lying bragging boasting dissembling please many a man although others deride them and flout them for it and will not believe them yea swearing and blaspheming although it be neither any way pleasing or profitable yet our corrupt nature delights too much in it as appeares by the too frequent use of it and therefore let us not be deluded with an outward shew but remember that although the face seemes faire yet it is but painted and if the vizard were taken of sin would appeare out of measure sinfull though the Cup seeme of Gold yet the draught therein is poyson the wayes of sinne being death b Rom. 6.23 and no better then Circes cup which of men will make us beasts and therefore let us withstand all the temptations of Sathan with the consideration of the end of sinne Secondly the divell deludes and deceives us by making us to presume of pardon hee tells us Si quoties peccant homines sua fulmina mittat if God were as severe as some make him none could be saved but he is not ready to punish but rather to pardon hee will accept of us at any time though at the last gaspe as he did the thiefe upon the crosse yea if we wil believe him he wil tell us that wee need not feare though our sinnes be great for great Saints have beene as great sinners as wee are David was an adulterer Noah a drunkard Lot an incestuous person yea Christ came to save sinners and therefore thou maist presume of pardon But we must remember that Christ came to save onely penitent sinners not impenitent there were many theeves adulterers drunkards incestuous persons c. whereof were saved vel duo vel nem◠very few there were many widowes in Israel but the Prophet was sent to none but to her alone of Sarepta Why did Christ save one theefe upon the Crosse Because none should despaire of mercy upon the condition of true repentance Why did Christ save but onely one that we read of at lifes last period Because he would have none to presume of mercy and to procrastinate their repentance VERS 7. Iesus said unto him It is written againe Vers 7 thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God § 1. It is written againe Is the Scripture contrary Sect. 1 to it selfe or one place therein unto Quest 1 another that our Saviour saith it is written againe No but our Lord hereby shewes Answ that the Divell concludes falsly because hee gives the Obser 1 sense contrary to another Scripture Teaching two things hereby unto us first that from the Scriptures by a false collection and deduction may bee drawne things contrary unto religion but of this in the former verse Secondly that Obser 2 is not the true sense of any Scripture which doth thwart and crosse or contradict any other Scripture and therefore the true sense of the word is to be drawne from the same harmony God is not mutable c Numb 23.19 neither are his words our words d Esa 55.8 and therefore his words remaine the same for ever e Esa 40. one sentence of Scripture is not contrary to another but they all make up one truth and all proceede from
20.2 and Ahaziah is blamed for this because he sought not unto God in his sicknesse but to the Physitians d 2 King 1.3 Fourthly off-spring and children come from the Lord thus the Psalmist Children are an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the wombe is his reward e Psal 127 3. and it is he onely that opens the wombe making the barren to bring forth for which cause Anna repaires unto him praying for a child f 1 Sam. 1 10. Fiftly Marriages are disposed by God and a good wife comes from him g Prov. 19 14. and therefore Abrahams servant prayes unto him so to direct his journey that he may obtaine a wife for his Masters sonne h Gen. 24.12 c. and v. 50. Sixtly Food and Raiment comes from the Lord and therefore Iacob not knowing what would become of him in the place to which hee went he desires God to provide him meat to eat and cloathes to put on i Gen. 28.20 Seventhly the Lord prospereth buildings and therefore Nehemiah fearing lest the worke should be hindred prayeth unto God to prosper it which he doth k Nehem. 4.9 Eightly Raine in time of drought comes from the Lord and therefore Elias prayes unto him for it l 1 King 18.42 Thus the Lord is our cornucopia that affords unto us whatsoever is good in him dwelling all fulnesse and therefore in all our necessityes let us repaire unto him begging from him what wee stand in need of observing these two cautions I. In petendo in thy supplications crave first those things that are most worthy and temporal things onely in the second place m Mat. 6.33 II. In sperando in our hope to be heard let us first labour to bee converted from sinne unto God and then we have a promise to be heard n Malach. 3.10 otherwise none o Ierem. 5.25 Thirdly Christ chooseth to heale cure and the like that in a type hee might shew that hee onely cures the diseases and maladies of the soule but of this wee have elsewhere amply to treat of and therefore here I omit it § 6. Healing their sicknesses and Sect. 6 diseases How doe these differ Quest First some say by sickenesse is meant the infirmities Answ 1 of the body but by diseases the maladies of the soule thus thinkes Chrysost if it be his worke op imperf s Answ 2 Secondly others thinke that they both are to be referred to the body and are either Synonyma both signifying one and the same thing or that the one signifies great infirmities and the other little Thirdly it is onely to bee understood of bodily Answ 3 infirmities griefes historically or literally but typically it may imply spirituall diseases and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the greater maladies and more grievous and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lesser and more easie to be borne which is therefore added to shew that Christ cured the least as well as the greatest or that he vouchsafed to helpe all that were in any sort distressed that either came or were brought unto him but of this in the next section Omnes all diseases and all sickenesses How did Sect. 7 Christ heale all Quest 1 Not collectivè as they say as though hee Answ 1 left none sicke in all Galilee or in any place where he came but distributivè that hee cured some of all sorts of diseases Thus answers Calvin Secondly I rather thinke that is to be understood Answ 2 collectivè then distributivè that is both of persons and maladies that all persons whatsoever and howsoever diseased that either came or were brought unto him were cured by him no person or plague sent away without redresse Wherein two things are held forth unto our view first that nothing is impossible unto Christ for he can cure all and all manner of sicknesses and diseases Secondly that Christ cures all our sicknesses and all our sores or Christ perfectly cures all our sinnes What sinnes doth Christ cure Quest 2 All whatsoever Answ though our sinnes were as blood yet they shall bee cleane washed away Isai 1.18 read Ezec. 18.22 Ier. 50.20 Mich. 7.19 and 1 Ioh. 1.7 The blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sinnes How doth this appeare that Christ purgeth us Quest 3 from all sinnes First it appeares robore agentis by the omnipotency Answ 1 of the work-man Christ doth nothing imperfectly Secondly this appeares valore pretij by the Answ 2 worth and value of the price paid by Christ his blood was a satisfaction to the full for all our sinnes Thirdly this appeares modo agendi by the Answ 3 manner of working Non tollit ut non sint sed ut non imputentur Hee hath cured and healed all our sinnes not so as that we have no sinne inhering in us but that none we commit shall be imputed unto us And therefore if we have Christ we have enough we need not the merit of the Saints to bring us to heaven as the Papists teach But they object Object that they desire not the merits of the Saints to bring them to glory but only the intercession of the Saints for them unto Christ and some simple Papists thinke this to be all that they believe or that their Church teacheth First suppose it were thus yet there is no necessity Answ 1 of this for Christ is more full of mercy and love towards his then either man or Saint or Angell can bee they dare avouch indeed the Blessed Virgin to be more mercifull then Christ but this is no lesse then plaine blasphemy as shall elswhere be shewed I say there is no need of any intercessours unto Christ nay there ought to be none because intercession is the office of Christ And hence the Wise Men being instructed by the Holy Spirit as was shewed before fall downe before Christ not before the Virgin and worship him not her Answ 2 Secondly the objection is false for besides their invocation of Saints they doe offer up the Merits of the Saints unto God with manifold blasphemies as for example First they offer unto God the Merits of the Saints or more plainly they pray unto God to heare them for the Saints sake Quaesumus domine ut per merita Christoferi Erasmi Thomae c. Wee beseech thee oh Lord to heare us for the Merits of Saint Christopher Erasmus Thomas Becket Damian Hierome Martha Gertrude c. a Chemnit exam p. 3. 154. Yea most plainely Supplicamus domine ut meritis Rochae ab aeternà morte liberemur b Ibid. f. 153. b. b. That is heare us good Lord by the Merits of Saint Roch deliver us from eternall death and divers the like blasphemies c Lege f. 158. a. Secondly they desire protection and preservation from the Saints they have a prayer unto Saint Andrew O tuis meritis me a futurà irâ defendas Oh holy Saint Andrew defend me by thy merits from the wrath to
not at things which are seene but at things which are not seene l 2 Cor. 4.18 Where wee may observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so to looke as the Archer looketh to the marke hee that beholdeth a woman thus hath an adulterous eye yea the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not onely to looke with the eye but with the heart signifying more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this onely signifies the beholding of an object simply which way a man may behold a woman without sinne but that signifies the intention of the minde which goes along with the eye and thus to behold a woman with the sight of the eye and the lust of the heart as evill is here forbidden If the sight of the eye be thus dangerous and readie to conveye lust unto the Quest 2 heart is it not then good to plucke out or put out our eyes First some of the Heathen knowing how unruly the eye was have pulled out their eyes Answ 1 thinking them most happy who were so blinde of which minde was Seneca when he said Nonne intèlligis partem foelicitatis nostroe esse coecitatem It addes no small deale unto our happinesse that wee are blinde Secondly these were mistaken for Christ requireth not this of us to plucke out our bodily Answ 2 seeing eyes but to pull out our sinfull eye in the next verse that is to take lust from our eye which is a Member of our sinfull body and then the eye of it selfe is a good member of the body § 2. Hee that looketh upon a woman to lust after hath committed adulterie with her already Sect. 2 in his heart Quest It is questioned here by many Whether the uncleane desires of the heart bee a breach of this Commandement thou shalt not commit adultery or of the last Thou shalt not covet Answ 1 First some of the Fathers have thought that the uncleannesse of the heart doth not belong unto this seaventh Precept God doth not by this Commandement cut off the sinfull thoughts but the sinfull act said Gregor in Ezech hom 13. Yea Augustine also is of this opinion That in this seaventh Commandement the worke of uncleannesse onely is noted but in the tenth the very concupiscence m Aug. in qu 71. in Exod. Answ 2 Secondly the inward sanctimonie and purity of the minde is here commanded and the contrary forbidden as appeares by these particulars First by the definition of puritie and chastitie which is to be holy both in body and spirit thus Saint Paul describeth a true Virgin n 1 Cor. 7 34. And thus he exhorts us to bee o 1 Thes 5. â—3 Secondly both the soules and bodies of thâ— faithfull are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and therefore ought to be kept holy p 1 Cor. 3 16. Thirdly Chrysostome urgeth these foure reasons I. From the interpretation of our blessed Saviour who sheweth that this Commandement is broken in the very inward lust and concupiscence in this verse II. From the analogie and correspondencie which it hath with other Commandements To bee angry with our brother without a cause is a breach of the precedent Commandement Thou shalt not kill So to desire a strange woman though the act of concupiscence follow not is against this Precept III. In respect of God who doth not so much looke to the worke of man as to his heart IV. Because concupiscence is the cause of adulterie all adultery proceeding from concupiscence q Mark 7.21 Chrysostom hom 12. in Mat. And therefore seeing the effect that is adultery and outward uncleannesse is forbidden in this Precept it followeth also that the very cause thereof which is concupiscence should be restrained Sect. 3 § III. Whosoever shall looke upon a woman c. hath committed adultery with her Quest 1 Why doth our Saviour here ascribe Adultery to the eye and a wanton looke Answ 1 First because the sence provokes unto act as the Apostle saith he plants and Apollo waters unto good 1 Cor. 3.6 So we may say the eye plants and the tongue and speech waters unto impurity and uncleannesse Secondly because the eye is the most quick Answ 2 sense ut vidi ut perij sometimes a glade of the eye brings a glance to the heart which sets on fire the whole course of nature Observe here that a man hath two eyes to wit I. Oculus informans the right eye whereby sometimes he casually beholds a woman this is not simply condemned as was shewed before § 1. II. There is Oculus depascens the left eye which delights in the beholding of beauty and is never glutted therewith this is faultie and here forbidden as was shewed before Indeede the first sight is sometimes a baite and proves at last mortall as we see in Evah whose sight of the Apple cost the world deare r Gen. 3.6 afterwards the sight of women caused those sinnes that at length brought the Dleuge Å¿ Gen. 6.2 The sight of Dinaâ— cost the Shechemites their lives t Gen. 34.2 And the sight of Joseph unto his Mistresse brought her to forget all woman-hood u Gen 39.7 And Davids eye first casually beholding Bathsheba occasioned adultery subornation to drunkennesse and murder Thirdly because the beholding of beautie Answ 3 is evill and doth pollute in it selfe if it be with delight and desire after it And hence in the law the brother and sister were to be cut off if they saw and did contemplate that is willingly and with delight one anothers nakednesse v Levit. 20.17 And therefore with Iob we should make a covenant with our eyes and not give way to alascivioâ—s looke What lookes must we principally avoide Quest 2 There is a three-fold aspect of women Answ namely First there is Visus solicitans a sight which perswadeth and counselleth unto evill and this is wicked Solomon saith He winketh with his eyes w Pro. 6.13 that is he laboures by wanton lookes winkes smiles and the like to seduce and allure These as absolutely wicked are to bee avoided Secondly there is Visus ruminans a pleasing and delightfull looke this Solomon forbids Let not thine eyes behold strange women x Pro. 23.33 And his father David telleth us it is a vanitie and therefore we should turne our face from it y Psal 119.37 This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very thing which is here forbidden Noli aspicere quod non licet concupiscere Doe not looke earnestly upon that which it is not lawfull for thee at all to covet Bern. Oculus impudicus impudici cordis nuntius Augustin Such lookes are often the fore-runners of unchaste actions and doe presage an unchaste heart Thirdly there is Visus casualis an accidentall or casuall aspect this is not evill in it selfe yet even in this wee must be warie and watchfull and not let our heart goe along with our eye § 4. To lust
pueros Antipa Iohanem Agrippa Iacobum clauditque in carcere Petrum Vers 2 VERS 2. And said unto his Servants This is Iohn the Baptist hee is risen from the dead and therefore mighty workes doe shew forth themselves in him Sect. 1 § 1. This is Iohn the Baptist Quest 1 What is the sense and meaning of these words Answ This is Iohn Baptist that is this Christ which teacheth so powerfully and worketh such great Miracles seems to me to be no other then Iohn the Baptist Now this may be two manner of waies understood namely First thus this is Iohn Baptist that is in both of them there is the like pietie the like Doctrine the like freedome liberty in reproving of vices and their manner of life is not much unlike and therefore in Christ Iohn may bee lively seene But Secondly it seemes rather that Herod by these words was of Pythagoras his opinion who held the transmigration of the soule or that the soules of the dead did passe into new bodies This Doctrine is ascribed to Pythagoras but Volaterranus shewes that it had other authors before him from whom Plato learned it as hee chanced to Travell along with them Now it is evident Plato held this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from many places of his workes For Ad finem lib. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee tels us That through the hatred of a woman the soule of Orpheus went into a Swan and the soule of Thamyrus went into a Nightingall and the soul of Ajax into a Lyon and the soule of Agamemnon into an Eagle with divers other examples So againe In fine Timai Dialogi he tels us that the soules of unjust men passe into women and the soule of those who contemne Philosophy into Cattell and the souls of men who are wholly given to the world and worldly things into Fishes Many examples more hee hath in Phaedro which I omit Quest 2 Whether is this opinion to be embraced received or not And if not then why not Answ 1 First it is to be exploded because to the production of any creature whether man or beast there is necessarily required a Conjunction or copulation of the Male and Female of the same kind or Species that that is of which is produced according to the old principle Omne simile gignit suum simile Every creature begets his like And therfore how can the soule of a man goe out of a man into the body of a Beast Answ 2 Secondly this Doctrine is to be rejected because they themselves cannot tell what or whose soule passeth into the body of a Monster seeing by reason of the uncouth deformitie thereof no certaine Species can be defined No living creature say they can live without a soule nor no soule can animate any Body but the soule of an Individuum which hath a Species And therfore seeing there are many monstrous births unlike to al the several Species of living creatures in the world this must needs be an errour and as grosly false forsaken and avoided Answ 3 Thirdly this opinion is not to bee received for the absurdity of it For if a soule passe from one body to another then I demand whether it enter into a body already perfect and absolute or into some little Particle from which the body begins to be formed and fashioned The first the Pythagoreans dare not avouch because they know that I. A body cannot come unto maturity and perfection without a soule neither II. That two soules can live in one body Nor III. Can they tell how that soule which first is in the body doth depart out of it when the body is perfect that so a strange soule may come in because when the soule departs from any body the body dies Now if they say the second that the soule passeth into the body when the body is but small and newly begun to be fashioned then I would know how the soule which was even now most ample in an ample and large body can be contracted in so small a roome Fourthly it were a most absurd thing to embrace Answ 4 such an absurd opinion as this is or to say that of onebody are begot many bodies of divers Species and that one and the same soule can passe into many bodies of divers species Fifthly if the soule of a wise man and great Answ 5 learned Scholler passe into another man it neither reveales to him into whom it is entred nor remembers any thing it self of those things which it knew so well before which is most straâ—ge that the soule should be so forgetfull and therefore as a Tenet false and absurd is utterly to be rejected Now against this it will be objected Object that Christ himself Matth. 11 14. saith of Iohn Baptist This is Elias the same soule which of old was in Elias is now in Iohn Baptist First Iohn being asked whether he were Elias Answ or not answers no hâ— is not And therefore from the Scripture this expâ—siâ—ion is fâ—lse Secondly the meaning of our Saviours worâ—s Answ may be gathered from the An els speech 〈◊〉 â—â—chary Hee shall saith he convert many of the Châ—â—â—â—â—â— of Israel to the Lord their God and he shall goe before 〈◊〉 Messiah in the Spirit and power of Elias that he mâ—â— turne the hearts of the Fathers to the Children Luke 1.16.17 Now it is one thing to have the soul of Elias and another to come into the Spirit and power of Elias Yea it is worth observing that the Angâ—ll doth not onely say that he shall come in the Spirit of Elias lest some by Spirit had understood the soul but also in the Spirit and power Pamphylus martyr ex Orig. lib. 7. in Evang. Matth. Thirdly our Saviour in the place objected Answ 3 saith that Iohn was the Elias which was to come And therefore there was one Elias who of old preached in Achabs time another which was to come in the time of Christ and which was foretold by the Prophet Malachi Fourthly how can the soule of Elias be imagined Answ 4 to passe into the body of Iohn Baptist when the Scripture witnesseth that he laid not aside his soule at all neither died but was translated both with his body and soule into heaven that so to succeeding ages he might be in example or proof of the immortality of the soule and of a better yea an Eternall life VERS 3.4 Vers 3.4 For Herod had laid hold on Iohn and bound him and put him in prison for Herodias sake his brother Philips wife For Iohn said unto him It is not lawfull for thee to have her Many great causes the Baptist had to reprove Herod because many sins did concur in this one fact of his in taking his Brothers wife namely First Adultery in lying with another mans wife Secondly Injustice in rejecting and casting off an innocent wife for he was married when he fell in love with his brother Philips wife and then cast his
evill servant his Lord was wroth with him and delivered him to the Tormentors c. verse 34. IV. The Parable being expounded Christ forthwith doth explicate what his scope is in this Parable saying So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you if yee from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses Answ 3 Thirdly from these words of our Saviours in the Parable therfore we must not infer that God will impute unto us and punish us for those sins which once he had clean remitted and done away because this doctrin is contrary to divers plain places of Scripture as hath else-wher been shewed but wee must marke how Christ concludes onely one thing from the whole Parable and that conditionally and therefore unlesse we remit and forgive our brethren who injure and wrong us wee shall bee punished by God for those offences committed against him In a word Christ by this Parable would shew that they are miserably mistaken and deplorably deceived who thinke that either God hath forgiven or will forgive them their sinnes although they neither have forgiven nor will forgive their brethren their trespasses Zanch. miscel de remis peccat pag. 288. Initio CHAP. XIX Vers 3 4 5 6 VERS 3 4 5 6. The Pharisees came unto Christ tempting him and saying unto him is it lawfull for a man to put away his Wife for every cause And hee answered and said unto them Have yee not read that hee which made them at the beginning made them male and female And said For this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and shall cleave to his wife and they twaine shall bee one flesh Wherefore they are no more twaine but one flesh What therefore God hath joyned together let not man put asunder Sect. 1 THe Pharisees demanded of Christ whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his Wife for every cause Quest The Pharisees here propound a question unto CHRIST concerning Divorce Whether for every cause a man may put away his wife or not Answ To this Christ answers negatively that for every cause a divorce is not lawfull And this hee proves by divers Arguments or reasons namely First from the authority of the Institutor of Marriage which was God vers 6. Whom God hath joyned together let no man put asunder Secondly from the Antiquity of the institution of marriage which was from the beginning Vers 4. At the beginning God made them male and female and joyned them in marriage together Thirdly from the manner of the conjunction and union which is betwixt a man and his wife vers 5. Twaine shall bee one flesh Fourthly from the excellency of the conjugall bond and tye vers 5. A man shall leave Father and Mother and shall cleave to his wife Sect. 2 § 2. And they twaine shall be one Flesh Quest 1 Whether is Polygamie and Digamie lawfull or not That is whether is it lawfull for a man to marry two wives or more then two Answ 1 First Polygamie is unlawfull for after marriage the man hath no more power over his body but his wife neither hath the wife power over her owne body but her husband but it was never lawfull for the wife to have more husbands then one at once therefore it was never lawfull for the man to have more wives then one at once Answ 2 Secondly there are two sorts of Digamie namely I. Lawfull and improperly so called and this is when men have had more wives then one but not at once but successively one after the death or lawfull divorce of another II. Unlawfull and this is two-fold to wit either First direct Digamie when men have two wives at one time And Secondly indirect Digamie and this is when a man having put away one wife unjustly marries another and of this sort of Digamie the Apostle speakes 1 Tim. 5.9 Shee must be the wife of one husband A wife might not by the law of God if shee had not violated her faith to her husband nor stained the marriage bed bee divorced from her husband but it was permitted amongst the Iewes Now such a woman as was unjustly divorced from her husband and married to another was the wife of two husbands that is I. Shee was the wife of the first husband still Iure divino by the law of God And II. Shee was the wife of the second husband onely Iure humano by humane Law What manner of union is betwixt man and Quest 2 wife that our Saviour here saith they are but one This union and conjunction of the husband and the wife Answ by which they become to be but one flesh may be easily understood if wee doe but turne our eyes to the end of that Union Now the end of this union was that man might have a helper and assistant in readinesse yea and that like unto himselfe Now man stood in need of such a helper in many regards viz. First for the procreation of Children and issues sake Now although properly the Father be Genitor the begetter yet he cannot beget a child alone And hence it is that the off-spring which is brought forth must acknowledge both Father and Mother but not as two but as one Parent Vnus enim ab uno est Secondly man stood in need of a helper for the education of children Now it is impossible ordinarily for a man to have any who will bee more tender and carefull over his children then his wife shee being Mother unto them Thirdly man stands in need of a helper and assistant that may communicate and partake with him both of weale and woe both of prosperity and adversity For our joy is encreased when wee have others who rejoyce with us esteeming our joy their rejoycing and our good their glee and our sorrow is decreased when wee have copartners who mourne and weepe with us bearing a part of our burden as though our griefe were theirs Now ordinarily there is not a greater fellow-feeling of one anothers affaires or occurrences betweene any then there is betwixt the husband and wife Fourthly this union of the husband and the Wife is seene in the communion of all things all things being common betwixt them If the studious Reader would see these two last particulars amplified and enlarged let him reade Cameron Myrothec Pag. 96.97 § 3. Those whom God hath joyned together let no man put a sunder Sect. 3 Some object this place thus against marriage after a lawfull divorce Object CHRIST saith Whom God hath joyned let no man separate therefore after divorce they still remaine man and wife before God and may not marry to others Answ The party offending breakes the bond of marriage and so sinneth grievously both against God and the yoke-fellow but the innocent party marrying againe after lawfull divorce onely taketh the benefit of that liberty whereto God hath set him free through the unlawfull breaking of the bond by the party offending Perkins It is controverted
betwixt us and the Church of Rome whether there are more causes of divorce then Fornication only and they hold the affirmative and wee the negative Separation from bed and board may be admitted say they for divers causes Concil Trid. sess 24. can 8. Bellarm. lib. 1 de Matrim c. 14. Now against this their opinion we urge this Argument drawne from this place Argum. What God hath joyned together man must not separate But the Papists in devising so many separations as they doe from bed and board doe put asunder those whom God hath coupled for where the duties of marriage are broken off there marriage it selfe is also dissolved if the man and wife be no longer bound to render the carnall debt one to another and other services of love the bond of marriage it selfe is loosed betweene them and consequently they are divided whom God hath coupled This is Chemnitius his Argument and is opposed by Bellarmine and amply answered by Dr. Willet synops 777. 778. To which place I referre the Reader It is controverted also betweene us and the Church of Rome Whether the Pope can dispense with those who are married and both the practice of the Pope and the opinion of the Popish writers shew that by his dispensation he can dissolve lawfull and perfect Matrimony Now against this we produce this place That which God hath joyned Argum. man must not separate or put asunder Hereunto we may adde Luk. 16.18 and 1 Cor. 7.10 In which places both Christ and St. Paul say That man and wife joyned by Christ must abide during life together or live unmarried and not be severed by the Popes dispensation Answ Bellarmine Lib. 2. de Monach. Cap. 28. and divers others say That those who are married may be separated if the one party be desirous to enter into holy Orders though the other be not agreed if their marriage be not consummate by carnall copulation but was only publikely ratified and confirmed by the rites of the Church and the consent of both parties More plainely their opinion is this The Pope by his dispensation may dissolve a marriage in these two cases to wit First if either the man desire to become a Monke or the woman a Nunne And Secondly if the marriage have been onely publikely ratified but not consummate by carnall knowledge and the reason to prove this which is given both by Bellarmine and others is That CHRIST speakes here onely de matrimonio consummate and that Matrimonium râ—turâ— with which the Pope dispenseth is not de jure divine Hereunto we reply First CHRIST speaketh here absolutely and Reply 1 maketh no mention at all of copulation or Popish consummation Secondly Matrimonie with Papists is a divine Reply 2 Sacrament and consequently it both is perfect without carnall copulation and also indispensable by the power of man If we may beleeve their owne famous Iesuits Melchior Canus who saith Spiritus sanctus et Sacramenti gratia per coitum non datur Canus de locis Lib. 8. Cap. 5. Pag. 246. The holy Ghost and the grace of Sacrament is not given by copulation Thirdly it is absurd to say that marriage begins Reply 3 to be a sacrament by carnall copulation and was not a sacrament by the Priests action Fourthly it followeth hereupon that there Reply 4 was not perfect matrimonie betweene Adam and Eve for their matrimonie was in the state of innocencie and before all carnall knowledge Fifthly it followeth hereupon that the marriage betweene Ioseph and Mary was not perfect matrimonie for there doubtlesse wanted carnall copulation and yet the Angell of God feared not to call her Iosephs wife Sixthly both the Pope hath dispensed with marriages or by his dispensation dissolved them even after copulation and also many popish Doctors deny that he may give dispensation for the dissolving of those marriages which are ratified and performed according to the rites of the Church with the consent of both parties although not consummate by carnall copulation If the learned Reader would see this to the life prosecuted and proved I referre him to B. Davenant De Iudice controv pa. 138. 139. and Mr. Bels bold challenge pag. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. VERS 7.8.9 They say vnto him Vers 7.8 9. why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away He saith vnto them Moses because of the hardnesse of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives but from the beginning it was not so And I say unto you whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth adultery and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery § 1. They say vnto him Sect. 1 The Pharisees here demand of Christ Quest whether Moses coÌ„manded that which was unlawfull Hereunto our Saviour answers these things namely First Answ he denies not but that Moses gave a commandement concerning a bill of Divorcement Secondly he grants that Moses did permit them to put away their wives but he denies that Moses gave any such commandement Thirdly he gives the reason why Moses did permit that which in it selfe was unlawfull viz. because of the hardnes of their hearts for the avoyding of a greater inconvenience namely murder as was shewed before Chap. 5.31 Fourthly he shewes the true and onely cause or the onely true cause of divorce namely adultery Whosoever putteth away his wife except iâ— be for fornication c. Sect. 2 § 2. Why did Moses command to give a writing of divorce and to put her away What is the difference betweene Repudium a putting away of a wife and Divorsium a Divorce Modestius saith they differ thus Repudium a putting away hath place belongs unto those who are contracted thus after Ioseph and Mary were contracted he thinking her to be with child was minded Repudiare to put her away Math. 1.19 but Divortium a Divorce is a separation of man and wife after that matrimonie is consummated both by publike legall rites and carnall knowledge Reupdium Inquit est inter contractos at Divortium inter maritum et uxorem Post matrimonium consumatum Sect. 3 § 3. But from the beginning it was not so Bishop Cowper in his seven dayes conference observes hence That if controversies of Religion were decided as our Saviour decided the question concerning Divorcement the quarrell betweene us and the Church of Rome were soone ended For being demanded whether men might put away their wives as Moses permitted them He answers no because from the beginning it was not so caving this to us as a Maxime in Religion and a most sure rule whereby to try trueth from falsehood What hath not beene from the beginning let it be rejected as a noueltie Now how many novelties there are in the Church of Rome which cannot be proved to have been from the beginning is proved by B. Cowper pag. 7. 8. 9. c. And divers of our owne learned * See Bp.