such an one should not bee said to commit adulterie Vnto which his answere is Exceptionem priori membro additam in posteriori quoque esse repetendam that is that the Exception that is added vnto the former member of the sentence is to bee repeated againe in the latter part of it But this is no more but only saide the proofe doth follow immediatly after in this manner Nam si qui dimittat uxorem extra causam fornicationis facit ut ea moecâ—etur consequitur eum qui uxore propter adulteriuÌ„ repudiata aliam duxerit non facere ut ea moechetur Ex quo tur sum colligitur id quod subijcit apud Matthaeum de repudiata non nisi repetita ex priore membro exceptione intelligendum quoniam Dominus alioqui sibi coÌ„tradixisset that is For if he that putteth away his wife without the cause of fornication maketh her to commit adulterie it followeth saith he but let others iudge whether it doe so or not that hee which putting away his wife for adulterie doth marrie an other doth not make her to commit adulterie Out of which againe it is gathered that that which is there added concerning her that is put away is not to be taken but with the Exception that is in the former member because otherwise the Lord shoulde contradict himselfe or in one part of the sentence should go against that which he setteth downe in another Which proofe of his though he do somewhat further backe against one thing that is in that place obiected besides yet this is all the proofe that hee hath for this very point that nowe wee speake of But if we marke it me thinke it wil soone shew it selfe to be a strange kinde of proofe For admit that the ExceptioÌ„ that now we speak of must needs imply which notwithstanding wee doe not graunt but avow it to bee the thing that lyeth in question betwixt vs that for adultery a man might lawfully put his wife away yet doth it not so necessarily follow that every one might so doe or that no case might be such but that if the wife committed adultery then might her husband lawfully divorce her from him For it is sufficient for the truth of the proposition even in that sense takeÌ„ if any case be such as that for adultery it may lawfully be done As though we may truly say as the Scripture also in many places in effect and meaning doth though not in the same tearmes that God had no peculiar people for those daies in all the worlde except the seede of Abraham or out of that stock or race of his yet doth it not follow that all those were of that fellowship but only that he had none other besides Whereas therefore that exception may bee satisfied with any particular that for adultery as the case may bee it may bee allowed and yet he inferreth a generall vpon it saying that he that putting away his wife for adulterie marrieth another doth not commit adultery for though the proposition in those tearmes be but indefinite yet is it an vniversall by nature hence doth it follow that his proofe is of no better force then an argument may bee that is taken from a particular vnto a generall or froÌ„ the part vnto the whole as God for a time had no people in all the world to bee his peculiar people but only the seed of his servant Abraham ergo all the seed of Abraham were of his peculiar people And therefore it is so much the more strange that Beza inferreth that otherwise Christ had contradicted himselfe as though it were any contradiction to say that for adultery the case might bee such as that the husband might lawfully put away his wife for it and yet that in some other cases he might not His other Obiections as they are the same that Erasmus had gathered before so are they by him sent lightly away with the selfe same answer that Erasmus before had giuen them For vnto that other of the words of Christ that no man should part those whom God hath coupled together whereas Erasmus before had said that such were not parted by man but by God Beza saith likewise Concedo totum illud argumentum sed nego divortij propter adulterium authores esse homines c that is I graunt saith hee that whole argument but I deny that men are to be accounted the authors of that divorce that is for adultery So that thus far and so in the very answere it selfe that they made to this obiection they both agree But then in the confirmation of it they vary M. Beza quite giving over that course that Erasmus is in and betaking himselfe to another Erasmus building vpon disorders that were commonly committed in making of marriages and M. Beza vpon that law of God that adiudgeth adulterers to death and vpon that exception of Christ. Wherein whether M. Beza hath bettered his course or not that I leaue to bee decided by others that will but sure it is that therein he liketh not of that of Erasmus in that himselfe hath taken another For as touching that of Erasmus he saith plainly that he doth not assentiriijs qui putant Magistratibus licere novas divortiorum leges condere that is That hee doth not ioine in opinion with them who thinke that Magistrats may make new lawes of divorcements And the proofe that he wil haue for his opinion in this namely that not meÌ„ but only God must be thought to be the author of that divorce that is for adultery is no more but this Quum Dominus jam olim adeo expresse voluer it adulterio matrimonia dissolvi vt etiam adulteros morte punier it postea rursum Christus consulens conscientijs propter Magistratuum negligentiam adulterium acceperit quum de divortio non licito dissereret that is seeing that the Lorde in times past did so plainely declare that he would haue even the band of matrimony to be dissolued by adultery that hee punished those that so offended even with death and after againe Christ providing for our consciences hath for the Magistrates negligence therein excepted adultery when he treated of such divorce as was not lawfull Concerning both which we plainely see the latter of them to hold no further that that same exception of Christ may bee found to serue his purpose which is the thing that is in question betwixt vs and seeing himselfe knew that so it was it may seeme that he doubted of the other also when as hee went about so hardly to help it in this And the truth is that in the other his reason holdeth but very weakely that seeing God ordained that adulterers should be put to death therefore the husband if his wife haue that way offended may account himselfe loosed now from the band of marriage that was betwixt them because as it is a generall rule with all the learned so Erasmus himselfe his owne partner hath set
So it seemeth even by that which M Beza doth allow him that he was nothing doubtful of it but only that he was therin deceived Again being further pressed that in this case also privat admonitiō should go before at least amōg friends that rather the Church than the Magistrate as themselues are wont to speak or some certaine persons should bee first sought vnto hee both liketh not of that neither and bringeth in certaine reasons to be assistant vnto him therein but yet in the end addeth thus much withal Dixi quid hîc mihi videatur Suū cuique judicium esto modo ex verbo Dei unusquisque sapiat that is I haue said what I mee selfe doe thinke of this matter Let every one iudge as himselfe thinketh good so that no man goe any further then hee hath the word of God to leade him Concerning the latter he first likewise propoūdeth the question and then setteth downe his judgement on it The question is An inforo conscientiae nocentem personam convictam teneatur innocens ablegare an verò poenitentem rursus recipere that is Whether in conscience before God the innocent party be bound quite to put away the offender being once convicted of it or vppon repentance to receiue him againe In which point when first hee hath graunted that many of our great Divines both old and new do little agree among thēselues and in his iudgement illos quidem nimium adversus nocentem rigidos istos verò nimium faciles videri that is That one sort of them seemed to him to bee too rigorous to the partie offending others to be over easie yet thē he so taketh against those that hee accounteth too easy that little or nothing he differeth from those that he thought before too rigorous rather shewing and that rightly in deed that the reasons whereon they grounded that austerity of theirs were to weake to beare it or that those reasons did not so conclude then that hee doth so much dissent from their iudgemēt therein For he findeth no more in them in neither of those whome there he nameth Ierom and Bucet but only the negatiue that the offendor may be retained which he accounteth so great austerity and yet himselfe though in some case he doth qualifie the same yet in some other hee draweth very neere vnto thē His qualificatiō is that he doth not condemn him qui uxorem resipis centem recipiat that is who receiueth his wife vpon her repentance and againe Deinde vt modo dixi non nego posse iterum admitti adulteram resipiscentem that is Moreover as before I said I doe not deny but that an adulteresse if shee repent may bee admitted againe And elswhere he yeeldeth somewhat further also as on other occasion before I noted But as in this place hee yeeldeth thus much so are we to note that he addeth withall that which doth if it be marked not a litle impeach that which is granted and first though there be repētance afterward found in her that had committed adultery before but thē especially if the party offending as yet repent not For though the adulteresse doe repent yet first hee saith that multae aliae justae causae esse possint cur adulteram quantumvis resipis centem in thorum rursus non admittat qui tamen alioqui illatam sibi injuriam ex animo condonavit that is that there may be many iust causes why a man doth not admit his adulterous wife to his bed againe though shee repent never so much who yet notwithstanding from his heart forgiveth the iniurie that is done vnto him Wherein seeing he setteth downe that there be many iust causes and that a forgiuenes from the heart may be betwixt man wife without bedding togither againe though neither he name any of those many causes nor sheweth how such forgiuenes may stand with such strangnes too yet such as are corruptly inclined in those matters may easily finde matter enough to their contentment wherewith to feed that humor of theirs both in the one and in the other so rawly left as there they are Then also hee addeth further that he is not of minde that a man is bound in conscience to receiue the adulteresse againe though shee repent sed post modestam Ecclesiae adhortationem adhibitam unumquēque suae conscientiae relinquendum that is but after some sober exhortation given by the Church that everie one is to be left to his owne conscience and that they vsed the selfe-same order in the Church of Geneva such as most of thē are that stickle so hard for the liberty that now we speake of would in such case lightly desire both in respect of the weaknes of those to restraine any disorder of theirs that M. Beza here meaneth by the Church and especially in respect of that liberty that when the Church hath said what it will then may these notwithstanding freely do as themselues thinke good But before the adulteresse repent his iudgement is plaine that the husband in no wise may receiue her againe little differing from that rigour of those others before For by another occasion speaking of receiuing the offender againe ante resipiscentiae testimonium that is before some proofe of repentance be giuen he plainely saith that fieri non potest quin sceleri faveatur that is that it cannot be done but that wickednesse must needes be favoured A sufficient token that so to receiue an offender againe hath at all no favour with him and thereby also a sword giuen into the handes of those that are of that humor to be long enough avenged on the offender til they may finde tokens to their contentment of true repentance So haue wee hitherto partly seene both how weake reasons they haue and what inconvenient speeches besides they haue now and then interlaced among them 25 Now to examine the places themselues for the true sense and meaning of them for the better vnderstanding of the order ensuing wee are first to acknowledge that when we haue gathered the meaning of them and withall haue made it reasonable plaine even out of the consideration of the places themselues yet is it not vnlikely but that it will hardly sinke in the mindes of others vnlesse some doubts be answered withall which otherwise will much prevaile with many and therefore are we first to set downe the meaning of them then to consider of those doubts that seeme to be so strong against it And to finde out the meaning of them wee are first to set by that which is not then afterward to declare that which is That which is not being first set by both the most of the busines will bee dispatched and the other wil then more plainely appeare but herein also wee are not barely to set downe the negatiue that I meane vnto it but also to adde some such proofe therevnto as may not well bee wanting from it The negatiue that I meane vnto
a great part of the inducement that led them vnto it Concerning which al such like it is cleere inough in it selfe that mistaking the Text whereon they grounded the opinion that they conceiue thereon must needs bee but weake and needeth nothing els to discover the weaknes of it but only to shewe that they mistake the Text it selfe But in Erasmus we haue some things else to note besides First that in these things he rested somewhat on the sense of nature as perilous a guide in the matters that now we speake of as of those that are of some credit a maÌ„ could lightly otherwise haue chosen For being by nature so much given as we are to the lusts of the flesh and to haue variety therein and to be avenged of such displeasures as are done vnto vs especially such as touch vs so neere as now we speake of wee are not to looke for any other but that we may be as easily blinded in this if we leane to our owne iudgement therein as in any thing else that can lightly befal vs. So that in this especiallie he should not haue rested anie thing at all on the sense of nature but haue fought some better guid whom he might more safely haue followed Then also how readily he taketh hold on that permission even onlie for that it was permitted not regarding how farre not howe though himselfe doe finde none other but that it was only for the hardnes of their hearts a sufficient burn to haue discredited the vse of that libertie to all that are godly or that haue any reasonable care even of their honestie before meÌ„ And yet whereas he doth so readily take such hold thereon it may seeme to argue that his store otherwise is but weake Lastly that after a sort abandoning these if they should not be thought meete to serue he taketh hold of an other almost as weake namelie that because there was no punishment set down for it in the Policie of Moses therfore it was after a sort or in some sense permitted vnto them And yet is it sufficiently knowne vnto al that as in al other Policies whatsoever even so in that of Moses also there be divers things that are vnlawful which there haue no punishment at al devised for theÌ„ and therefore that we are not so to reason that seeing it is not punished there as neither it was to haue manie wiues therefore it is no offence to doe it For although such a reason might best hold from thence of any other Policie in al the world besides yet even that also woulde faile vs herein if anie should rest so far vpon it 20 But now if we come to consider how farre they haue gathered amisse vpon those several Textes that they haue vsed what others may thinke I know not but for my selfe I caÌ„not but marvaile at many things that I finde therein Which kinde of gathering when I also had gathered as needful to bee commended vnto the farther consideration of the learned I found them in number to bee so many to proceede from so many great personages also that I thought it sufficient for the matter and meetest also in some other respects to take but some few of them leaving the rest vnto the search of those that desire to looke farther into them and therein also not to deale with al those or many of them that so are minded but only with some few such as the equity of the cause it selfe shal most desire to be called vnto such triall In which respect I haue thought good to resolue on Erasmus for the one and on Mr Beza for the other because that of those that are extant and yet I haue seene those two haue of set purpose discoursed thereof and most largely handled the same And in these also to omit al such collections as elsewhere by occasion may passe them while principallie they intend some other matter I meane to deale but only with those and but with some of theÌ„ neither that belong vnto the chiefe and principal points of the matter that is in question namely how they gather their opinion or iudgement therein and how they answere such ObiectioÌ„s as may be alleaged against it And first as touching Erasmus although he professe no more but only to propouÌ„de it and to commend it to the farther consideration of the learned and to that end more largely sheweth both that divers before haue beene of that minde or at least inclinable vnto it and that such like things they haue in dayly allowance among themselues yet doth he plainely enough professe that for his part he is of that minde himselfe and laboureth also to take away such obiections as seeme to be of force against it As touching the former of them the truth is that as there is none of them all that do build this opinion of theirs on any other Text besides excepting those which they did mistake of which I haue spoke before but only on that exceptioÌ„ which Christ vsed two severall times namely in the fift and in the nineteenth of S. Matthew so he also for that his opinioÌ„ goeth no further but only to it and therevpon buildeth that which he hath thereon conceiued But those words of Christ doth he account to make so plaine for hispurpose that because we allow not on such divorce to marry againe hee chargeth vs that in divortio tam rigidi fimus ut magis etiam astringamus verba Christi that is That in divorce we are so hard or greivous that we do further restraine those words of Christ. And his reason is Etenim quum ille reliquerit marito unam causam repudiandae coningis nos cam multis moâ—is astringimus that is For whereas hee left to the husband one cause for which he might put away his wife wee doe many waies restraine the faine And after againe Iudaei quod Moses â—eriâ—serat de libetto repudiâ— sic interpretabantur quasi maâ—veis jui effet qualibet lecit de causa reijcere coinge c. Id Christus astringit ad unam adulterii causam that is The Iewes did so interpret that which Moses wrote of the bill of divorce as though husbands might put away their wiues for any cause though never so smal That did Christ restraine only vnto the cause of adultery And by and by after Ergo suis Christus unam dunt axat causam indulget divortij that is Therefore Christ alloweth vnto his but only one cause of divorce And in these so far as yet I haue found is his iudgement most plainely declared In which it is good to note those two things first that he buildeth for that matter on no other Scripture but only on that exception then that hee so taketh that exception that thereon he inferreth that for adultery Christ himselfe alloweth divorce If he build vpon no other Scripture but only on that exception theÌ„ our busines lying within
Vpon how weake reasons they haue growne to such resolution Sect. 6. What Protestations they vse withall Sect. 7. What we are to thinke thereof namely that where such things go with all there is no likelyhood to finde any certainety of Doctrine whereon to build especially in so weighty a case as this Sect. 8. Briefly declared that those places do little helpe that they do plainly mistake those two that seemed to be strongest for them Sect. 9. How those places of Scripture are taken by them Sect. 10. That in such sort taking those places it may well be they did mistake them both that of Deutrronomie Sect. 11. And that other of Malachie also Sect. 12. What our selues are to gather on that their so taking of them Sect. 13. In those places that most are for marrying againe that they are so crossed by others that those also are likely to helpe them but little Sect. 14. How farre they may be charged therein namely that their owne defectes are such as well may make their iudgement suspected Sect. 15. How weakely they reason in such things as are in question and so of the substance of the matter it selfe Sect. 16. How weakely they reason likewise in such things as are but accidentarie therevnto Sect. 17. How weakly they reason on certaine other things also as are of such a kinde or so neere vnto thē as that thence they draw certain reasons also Sect. 18. How when they come the word it selfe they much mistake it Sect. 19. That on some places also they gather amisse first Erasmus Sect. 20. Then Mr Beza also Sect. 21. How weakly they do reason likewise on the authority of men Sect. 22. That they haue divers inconvenient and hard speeches besides especially Erasmus who in this age of ours was if not the first yet the greatest motioner of this matter Sect. 23. Then also certaine others of that company Sect. 24. In the places themselues first of that sense that they conceiue of them Sect. 25. Then what we may thinke to be their meaning in deed and first of that in the fift of S. Matthew Sect. 26. Then of that other place in the 19. of the said S. Matthew Sect 27. In such doubts as may be conceived that the Exception in such sense as we conceiue it will nothing at all helpe them Sect. 28. In the sense wherein they conceiue it that it will helpe them but little also Sect. 29. And in such case that they also must be very well advised and take good heed what they do therein Sect. 30. And that they doe nothing against any other Scripture which they haue strong against them Sect. 31. Nor against convenience neither which in that case they cannot avoide Sect. 32. That whereas the Apostle also permitteth the faithfull by an infidell forsaken to marry againe that it also doth nothing helpe them Sect. 33. The Conclusion Sect. 34. OF DIVORCE FOR ADVLTErie and marrying againe WHereas that which heretofore came lightly no farther but only to be disputed among the learned is now growne to so common a practise with many namely to prosecute divorce for adulterie and to marrie againe the greater danger that thereby we may see to grow vp apace towards the overthrowing of such integrity as yet we haue left and to bring in the Turkish libertie of putting awaie such wiues as they like not marrying others the greater cause haue we so much the rather to see vnto it not slightly now but soundly to examine whether it haue any warrant at all in the written word Which that we may the better finde out it shal be good to note that as there be two sorts of places of Scriptures whereon the learned that are for that opinion doe commonly rest some that chiefly respect divorcing or putting away others that do rather respect marrying againe so are the iudgments of the learned in such sort divided likewise all of them to speake of generallie allowing of divorce and manie of them marrying againe in such case to stand by the word of God And yet notwithstanding if we can for a time set aside the iudgement of others and consider of the thing it selfe in what case it standeth in the written word by help of that light that God in these daies hath givē vnto vs I make no doubt of it but that soone we may finde so good matter for the contrary part that whosoever shall indifferently consider of it he will not easily afterwarde thinke that hee findeth in any of that opinion matter of worth to drawe him backe to that perswasion againe Which while we shall endevour to shew because manie themselues being given to that fleshly libertie doe neverthelesse shrowd themselues vnder the iudgment of those learned that favour the same therefore it shall be needful the better to free them frō that preiudice not to dissemble whatsoever weaknes wee finde in the iudgement of those that are for it though otherwise they be by verie good right of that reckoning with vs that we ought to vphold their credit the best that we may But because the truth ought to be much dearer vnto vs and seeing it is a wonted pollicie in Sathan by the principal men so neere as he can to hatch reare vp his errors among vs therefore the dearer the truth is vnto vs the more wee should take heed that we doe not beare with the error of any the bolder may wee be in this case also so farre-forth as the nature of the case shall require to examine their iudgment and not to spare for that smal discredit that vnto them may arise thereby Which that we may do with more perspicuitie vnto the cause that we haue in hand I hold it best that wee consider severally of those two sorts of places of Scripture that before we spake of that so we may more plainely see how little warrant that perswasiō hath in either of thē notwithstanding whatsoever helpe it hath in those learned that are so much for it as they are 2 In the former sort of places therefore wee are to consider not only of the places themselues that are by divers of the learned alleadged in defense of such divorce but also how weakely that same perswasion is grounded on them The places themselues are some of them such as most of the learned doe make little reckoning of them to confirme that doctrine to any but others of them such as they do take to be of speciall force to that end and accordingly leane not a little to them Those that are such as of which most of themselues do make little reckoning to confirme that point of doctrine to anie are two one in Ecclesiasticus the other foūd in the vulgar Latin translation in the Proverbs of Salomon That which is in Ecclesiasticus is diversly read but the effect is this that it willeth the husband if the wife wil not be ruled by him to put her away
note that seeing they are not in that matter more fullie resolved there is no certainety nor any great good likelihood neither for any to ground themselues vpon that gladly would take vp that opinion with them If we had found them so resolute in it that without any doubting and without referring themselues vnto those that might see farther therein they had flatly boldly pronounced that it was the vndoubted word of God though therein also in accepting of it we might haue beene deceived as not looking vnto the matter it selfe with our owne but with other folkes eies yet had that beene a more tollerable error a great deale and more easie by many degrees to be excused especially to those that in such cases are in many things to depend vpon others either for that they are otherwise imploied than that they may giue theÌ„selues to such reading as such matters require or if they may yet haue they not that depth of iudgement that such thinges require But when as themselues whome we are content to make our leaders therin being in other things resolute inough and as bould as Lyons do not set downe their opinion in this but with great warines doubtfulnes feare with so many cautions allegations with such submissions and protestations it would be no final woÌ„der to me but that I know how inclinable to such things we are by nature not only that any should bee so loose as to enter that course but also that any should so much as coÌ„ceiue that such kinde of speeches should be likely to yeeld any such ground as whereon a man that were willing so to do might bee bold to build and to make no doubt but that he had his warrant with him We know wel enough and in many other things strongly hold it against the adherents of the Church of Rome that we may do nothing at all but only that for which wee haue some vndoubted warrant in the written word and yet notwithstanding I will not say that I wote not how it commeth to passe for that it is by our own bad inclination wee are so farre bewitched in this that finding great staggering in those that are the stroÌ„gest for it most forward in defence thereof we neverthelesse conceiue that therein we haue warrant enough So easie a thing it is to bend those that so handsomly crooke to such purpose already in the freedome we haue in Christ so quickly to take holde of an vnseasonable liberty of the flesh But here we must take heed we forget not that is yet we doe not consider what it is that they bring but only that whatsoever it be yet because theÌ„ selues are no better resolved therefore may no body be so bold as to build vpoÌ„ them We wil not yet deny but that for ought wee see yet the truth indeed may bee as they coÌ„ceiue but if themselues bee no better resolved then though they haue the truth therein yet because it is more then themselues doe knowe of even that onely is enough for the time to stay vs vntill wee see farther 9 That other part of that which themselues doe set downe for this matter doth chiefly respect those places aforesaide which they vse to bring in for that opinion of theirs and partly the first foure places of them but then especially the other two For seeing themselues doe rest but little in the first foure of theÌ„ but yet very much in the other two we also may briefly dispatch those others and follow them only in those wherein themselues do thinke that they haue their chiefest strength Those therfore that belong to the first foure of them are no more but these two one coÌ„cerning the nature of those places theÌ„selues the other as touching the gathering of them CoÌ„cerning the nature of those places theÌ„selues it is no more but this that to see to they do make much more against them for that they note such kinde of divorce with so great reproach than any way els they can make for them take them to the best advantage they can As touching the other that is how these doe gather vpon theÌ„ it is no more but this that from those places it is that they gather some part of their weake coÌ„clusions as elswhere in a fitter place is declared which also is for any thing that yet I haue found the only benefit that to that opinion of theirs they seeke to draw from these foure places Those that beloÌ„g to the latter two only are much like to the others one of them in like sort concerning the nature of those places themselues the other not how weakely they gather on these but how cleane they doe mistake them The nature of those places is such as that although the text therein were such as they conceaue yet even then also do they make but little for any divorce the iudgement of the better sort of the learned being thereon that neither Moses before nor Malachie after did simply allow it vnto theÌ„ but only in respect or to some purpose namely to avoid some further evill But now if they doe mistake them withall so that the Text being better considered can neuer be fouÌ„d to yeeld any such sense as hetherto they haue conceiued nor any thing at all for the opinion that they haue taken then must their case be so much the harder or rather their credit on this behalfe so very much sunke as that their whole iudgement therein may well bee called in question for it 10. This mistaking of theirs therefore being a matter of so speciall importance it shall be good more specially to consider first whether they doe mistake them or not then if it fall out that so they doe what we are to gather thereon concerning the matter wee haue in hande That they doe mistake them indeed will soone appeare if first we marke how they doe take them and then examine that their taking of them with such things as may be able to shew vs the truth therein How they doe take them will best appeare by their owne speeches of that matter First therefore to begin with Erasmus that was so forward therein it shal be good to marke how he mistooke it not only when first he gaue forth his iudgement therein but also when afterward hee was so impugned for it that thereby he might haue taken iust occasion to haue looked better vnto it When first hee gaue forth his iudgement of it Divortium saith hee ipfa lex palam indulget that is The law doth plainely allow of divorce Againe Lex permittat mariâ—is qualibet ex causa repudiare modo dent libellum repudii that is That the law suffereth husbands for every cause to put away their wiues so that they giue them a bil of divorcement Againe Viro permittit ob causam quamlibet mutare vxorem that is He alloweth or suffereth the husband to exchange his wife for whatsoever
themselues to be excluded froÌ„ all good hope that they are right at least that it is not a thing out of question 15 That consideratioÌ„ that ariseth out of that which themselues haue set downe is no more but this that even their owne manner of handling this matter is such as that divers defects appeare therein both in weake reasoning and in divers inconvenient speeches besides As touching both which before we come to exemplifie or to shewe wherein they do it it shal not be amisse especially to put away such evil surmises as otherwise might arise hereon more distinctly yet briefly to set it down both how farre we may charge them with those defects and how far we may thereby iustly conclude against them As touching the former we are not so farre to charge them as though vpon the principles that they conceiue they had no arguments to be regarded or that orderly did conclude nor that inconvenient speeches with them are so rife as that therein only there is sufficient cause to coÌ„demne the matter it selfe but that they do often vse such as are no good arguments indeed and that divers times they haue inconvenient speeches likewise But yet by their patience now to take in the latter withal they haue both these so much and so often that thereby they may iustly breed suspition in others even in as many as read with iudgment stand indifferent that they are somewhat partial therein are carried not a little with some private affection whatsoever that in vsing so often so weake collections they doe plainly insinuate their store of stronger was not so great and that in adding such inconvenient speeches withall others might iustly doubt that then they were so far out of temper as that they might overshoote themselues even in that also that is in question 16 Wherein these defects of theirs appeare is now to be seene and first how weaklie oft times they reason then what incoÌ„venient speeches they haue besides Those reasons of theirs that now I speake of doe most of them depend either on the things herevnto appertaining or on the authoritie or testimonie of others concerning the same The things herevnto appertaining are either the selfesame that are in question or else certaine others of such a kinde or so neere vnto them that from them they draw certaine reasons to these likewise Of the selfe same that are in question there are two sorts one that is of the substance of them others that are but accidentarie therevnto That which is of the substance of them is the nature both of adultery wedlock it selfe in this respect Out of the consideration of which because they doe so vsually reason therefore it shall bee good for vs to note both what reasons they are and of what force wee may take them to be The reasons that thereon they bring are such as bind all vpon this that the nature of Adulterie is such as that it doth quite dissolue whatsoever band there was in marriage before and that that was the cause why Christ made his exception only of it And so they reason not only to take away an obiection that otherwise would bee strong against them but also to expresse their owne opinion or iudgement therein The obiection that otherwise would bee strong against them is that coniunction that God had put betwixt man and wife wherevpon it is inferred by Christ Quod Deus conianxit homo ne separet that is that which God hath coupled let not man put asunder For answer wherevnto Erasmus first saith that nullo negotio solvi potest Hoc Deus coniunxit quod rite coniungitur hoc Deus dirimit quod rite dirimitur that is That doubt saith he may easily be loosed For that saith hee did God ioine together which was rightly ioined and that doth God himselfe put asunder which is well put asunder And Musculus after following the same answereth that illi non rumpunt coniugii vinculum but that the adulteresse sua persidia iam ante adulterando ruperit that is that they who in such case put away their wiues doe not breake the band of marriage but that the adultresse by her disloialty in committing adultery brake it before To expresse their owne opinion or iudgement therein both these and others doe otherwise set downe that same for the truth of their doctrine for that point For first Erasmus saith Divortium Christus astringit ad vnam adulterii causam non quoòd non sint alia flagitia adulterio sceleratiora sed quòd adulterium tota ratione pugnet cum coniugio Matrimonium è duobus vnum facit eam copulam dissecat adulteriuÌ„ Musculus likewise being to shew for what cause marriage may be dissolued saith Vna causa est quam Deus ponit dicendo Nisi causa stupri Nam hoc crimine conjugalis fides dissoluitur Againe Excipit causam stupri significans tuÌ„ licere c. Quia quod Deus conjunxerat per adulterium dividit mariti fidem obnoxiam sibi iam amplius non habet c. Nam nemo alterius improbitate ius suum quod à Deo habet c. amittere debet Againe speaking of an adulterous wife Marito amplius non viuit sedei cui perfida adultera adheret Mr Calvine likewise Meritò abijcitur mulier que perfidè coniugium violauit quia eius culpa abrupto vinculo libertas viro parta est Againe additur tamen exceptio quia mulier scortando se quasi putridum membrum à viro rescindens eum liberat Gualter also being of the same minde maketh his reason to be for that the adulteresse coniugii vinculum perfidè dissolvit or otherwise seeth not but that adulteris scortatoribus coniugii dignitas patrocinabitur quod Deus vt istis vterentur instituit Last of all Beza answering an argument that so it might come to passe that one man should at once haue more wiues Respondeo saith he in hoc argumento esse petitionem principii Praesupponit enim id ipsum de quo quaeritur manere nempe vinculum matrimonij etiam post divortium Concedo igitur vni viro non licere plures vxores habere sed addo vxorem esse desâ—sse quae propter adulterium se à viro separavit And anon after Coniugii vinculum abrupit quisquis factus est scortationis membrum And after that Concludo igitur adulterio abrumpi non tantum vsum sed vinculum quod nisi voluntate innocentis rursum coalescit integram esse eidem innocenti si continere noÌ„ potest novas nuptias inire c. And lastly Convictus adulterii maritus esse desinit The effect of all which concerning the matter that now we speake of is no more but this that in the iudgement of all these by the adultery of either of the parties the bond of matrimonie that was betwixt them is now
others also that are farther of as that the Apostles to pacifie the Iewes tooke order with the Gentiles for certaine of those ceremonies to be observed of the ChristiaÌ„s in Antioche that the Bish of Rome maketh other Bishops thaÌ„ the Apostle alloweth of that the Church hath of late to speak of determined of divers matters that were left at more libertie before as Transubstantiation the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Sonne also the Conception of the blessed Virgin and that the holy Ghost is of the same substance with the Father and the Sonne Al which he alleageth to this ende to shew that it is no new thing in the Church of God as they see occasions to arise so to take farther order in divers matters than by those had been taken that were before them and so would insinuate that in that matter also they might do well to take such order as he coÌ„mended if so be that the word of God would beare it as he was perswaded it would Of the latter divers particulars are likewise alleaged out of that same part of the Sermon of Christ in the MouÌ„taine wherein also we haue the first speech that Christ did vtter concerning this matter out of which both he some others besides doe reason for the opinion they hold in the matter that now we speake of both of the liberty that our selues do take in other such like speeches of Christ and of the perfection of those things that Christ doth there coÌ„mend vnto vs. CoÌ„cerning the liberty that ourselues doe take in other such like speeches of Christ he saith that whereas he forbiddeth vs to sweare to be angry to reproach to presume to come with our offering to God before that we are at one with our brother to go to law to requite displeasures to resist evill and doth farther command vs to loue our enemies to deserue wel of them that deserue ill of vs and to pray for them that curse vs first saith quum eodem in loco plura doceat quae purè germaneque Christianis digna sunt cur in ceteris omnibus recipimus interpretationem in uno divortio tam rigidi sumus ut magis etiam astringamus verba Christi that is When as in the same place he teacheth many things which simply and plainly concerne the dutie of Christians why do we in al things else admit of some interpretation and yet are so crabbed in this one point of Divorce that we do even farther restaine those words of Christ Concerning the perfection of those things that Christ doth there coÌ„mend vnto vs reasoning otherwise on it than others do he saith likewise Christus haec locutus est non turbis sed discipulis idque in monte depingens purissimam illam sui corporis partem quam appellat regnum coelorum cui nullis sit opus legibê° that is Christ spake these things not to the multitude but to his Disciples that in the mouÌ„t painting forth that most pure part of his bodie which he calleth the kingdome of heaven wherevnto there wil bee no need of lawes And by by after Pone talem populum qualem Christus optat nec repudio fuerit opus nec jurejuraÌ„do Quod si ob infirmos quos in tanto numero plurimos habet Etclesia nemo vetatur legibus jus suum persequi nemo vetatur vim à capite repellere nemo vetatur jurare modò ob rem ne pejeret nemo cogitur bene mereri de male merentibus cur vnum hoc de divortio promiscue exigimus ab omnibus That is Admit such a people as Christ wisheth and there shall bee no neede either of Divorce or of swearing But if for the weake whome the Church hath in so greate abundance no body is forbidden to seeke his right by law no body is forbidden to defende himselfe from violence no body is forbiddeÌ„ to sweare so there be cause and that he forsweare not no man is compelled to deserue wel of those that deserue ill of him why do we exact this matter of divorce so generally of all Others there be that because Christ taught such perfection there do therevpoÌ„ gather that if a man put away his wife for adultery and marrie another it may not in any wise be called in questioÌ„ for that it is allowed there where things of so great perfection are taught Those that are as from the lesse vnto the greater are such as these Because that Chrysostome giveth in the reason why the Iew is suffered to put away his wife ne invisam occidat that is least that vpon his hatred of her he also slay her therevpon hee reasoneth Itáne prodesse debet apud Iudaeos flagitiosa sua malitia apud nos non proderit marito sua innocentia That is Shal the Iew haue that benefit of that wicked malice of his and shall not an husband among vs haue like benefit out of his vndefiled and honest dealing The like againe and one straine farther a little after Saltem hoc apud nos detur infoelici innocentiae quod apud Iudaeos datum est perversae maritorum acerbitati quod Paulus indulget vidius intemâ—perantibus ne quid admittant sceleratius that is At least let that be graunted that we also may haue our miserable innocency so farre releiued as the Iews had their perverse crabbednes borne with and so far as S. Paul himselfe bearethwith intemperate widdowes least they commit some further evill Of what force these reasons of his are if now we examine first as touching the opinion of those others for such like matters as he presupposeth that he brought in the reason is sufficient to stop the mouths of those that so hold but not to establish that point of doctrine it selfe That the Apostles themselues and the godly Fathers after determined more plainely of divers things then those that went before them had done they had the word of God for them therein and then not to bee reproued by any but their doing therein may be no argument to moue vs to determine of this but only so farre which appeareth not yet as we may accouÌ„t that we haue the word of God to beare vs out in it But whereas he shuffleth in among the rest divers things that they determined did against the word of God we ought to be so much the more wary in suffering our selues to be led thereby whenas the reason is of that nature as buildeth on falshood as well as on truth As for the liberty that we take in those speeches of Christ we take none in any doctrine that thereof wee hold but such as standeth by good warrant of the word of God in other places and then can that be no sufficient reason to moue vs to do the like in this for which as yet we finde in the word no warrant at all And though much be to be attributed vnto him yet in this it
founde guilty of adultery and condemned thereof shee is nowe no more vnder a husbād or that having committed adultery shee cannot be one flesh with her husband haue wee here any sufficient ground at al to rest on for the husband to account himselfe before God discharged thenceforth of al such duties as by the reason of that his wedlocke hee was before bound vnto In the latter was it so needfull a point to teach widdows in the Church of Corinth after that the Gospel was now already received among them that had a great part of their light from so many of the ancient people of God conversing among them with whom such marriages were very common the Gentiles also being little behinde them therein that this sentence of the Apostle which otherwise woulde serue vs marvelous wel to giue vs sound direction in this and in diverse such other matters besides must so bee restrained to vviddowes only that we in this case may not looke to haue any benefit of it Truely it is good to care for widdowes it is a thing that is much commended vnto vs not only in the word of God but in all other good learning besides but in al things there is a meane to be kept widdowes themselues it is to be thought wil be content that wiues also haue all their due Or did he so restraine those words of his vnto that which was then most commonly vsed that for the matter now we speake of he would not haue vs to take so much of our direction thence Or did the Apostle presuppose no farther on the behalfe of the faithful as touching their holinesse and constancie in wedlock but only that hardly or scantly they accounted wedlocke to be dissolved among them but only by death or if of the two may not a mā that is careful to finde the truth rather doubt that this is but an hard a scant interpretation of this place of the Apostle That which is of severall force by it selfe is out of this chapter also of that Epistle vnto the Corinthians where the Apostle saith that not hee but the Lord commandeth women not to depart from their husbands and if they do to seeke to be reconciled againe or to abide vnmarried that the husbands put not away their wiues Wherevnto he saith Respondeo Paulum hic nō agere de divortio sed de dissidijs quae propter simultates inter conjuges interdum oriuntur adeo ut interdum una pars ab altera secedat Quod si evenerit nō vult Apostolus ejusmodi discessione solvi matrimonium that is My answere is that Paul did not here speake of divorce but of such contentions or debates as arise sometimes betweene man and wife vpon hart-burning among themselues so that sometime they depart the one from the other Which if at any time it come to passe the Apostle will not that by such departing matrimonie be dissolved betwixt them He proceedeth somewhat farther I grant to confirme his iudgmēt therein I meane that this must be S. Paules meaning and so me thinke he had need in deed For otherwise besides that the Text it selfe doth not in appearācelead vs to that cōstructiō whatsoever it may do by implication wherein we are to see anon how himselfe doth gather thereon it seemeth to me that in either of the Apostles dealing in such matters we haue a great likelyhood that this should be no part of his meaning For it had beene a very great an intolerable disorder and such as not only the people of God but evē all the heathen also generally did ever detest vnlesse it were some speciall od loose persons among thē that now then would not sticke to breake forth to such disorder if that had beene in vse among them and most likely then that the Apostle woulde otherwise haue stormed against them as he did for other matters as for the variance that was betwixt them for those disorders in partaking that holy Communion both which hee might lay to the charge of many of them and for suffering that incestuous person though hee were but one Whereas therefore the Apostle is wont to be so round when occasion was given him and gaue so good experience of it even in this Epistle also in divers things els it may rather seeme that seeing it were such a disorder so easily vpon variance to breake of the bond of marriage betwixt them that that was not the thing that S. Paul there doth speake of but some other thing that was more vsed more tollerable also and yet not to be allowed neither as for the woman so to depart or for the husband to put her awaie either for adultery or at the least vpon some great occasion or cause given whatsoever it was Else I should hope that among them for any matter so apparantly so fowle even among the heathē also the Apostle should not haue neede to haue vsed the name of the Lord therein or at least should thinke as I said before that he would haue set his instrument on some other tune for a matter of lesse importance then it Now the reason that himselfe alleageth why he is persuaded that that is the sense of the Apostle himselfe in this manner giueth in vnto vs. Hoc autem ita esse manifeste indicant Apostoli verba qui inquit in genere Vir vxorem ne dimittito vxor à viro ne discedito Quid si enim adulterio peccarit altera pars annon innocenti licebit saltem à nocente discedere Relinquitur ergo verum esse quod diximus nempe Apostolum de simultatibus rixis non de vero divortio loqui quod mirum est Augustino in mentem non venisse that is But that this is so the wordes of the Apostle doe most plainely declare who generally saith or speaketh to all indifferently Let not the man put away his wife and let not the wife depart from her husband For what if either party shall commit adulterie shall it not bee lawfull for the innocent party at least to depart from the offēder So it must needs be true that we said namely that the Apostle did not speake here of true divorce but only of contentions and brablings which it is marvel that S. Augustine did never thinke of Whether these words of the Apostle do so plainely proue it or not let others iudge for betwixt vs I peceiue very well that in no wise it can be decided For what proofe hath it at all but only which standeth on this principle that the innocent party may in such case at least depart from the other But what warrant any where haue we for that either in the old Testament or in the new In policie I grant and for the hardnesse of our harts it may after a sort bee tolerated among vs and among the Iewes before but where haue we otherwise any one authority for it when it is
himselfe yet I doubt not but that in the end it wil appeare that therein he troubled himselfe more theÌ„ he needed and in the meane season that every one may perceiue that he counteth those such faults but onely in respect of that presupposall that such divorce as he requireth doth vndoubtedly staÌ„d on the authority of the word of God which if it doe not will soone make those great faults of his to be none at all As touching that other that is of the same iudgement likewise he also accounteth that to be weake which is brought against it and accordingly dealeth therein and especially against one whome hee hath made his choice adversary in it for whom also I for my part but so far as he hath the truth will craue no sparing More specially whereas S. Augustine is accounted to be the strongest of all against the liberty of divorce for adultery and marrying againe he noteth more weaknesse in that iudgement of his then others doe that yet I haue seene both in his owne confession after in mistaking a part of the Text. But how far that weakneth the force of his iudgement is not so needfull for vs to discuâ—se as not so materiall but onely to such as rest some parte of their iudgement on him which in this I meane not to doe 23 What inconvenient speeches they haue besides if now we examine the truth is that all of them lightly that I haue seene haue some but yet that Erasmus the leader of them hath therein so far gon beyound them all that none of them so far as yet I haue fouÌ„d haue attained vnto him And because inconvenient speeches though they be no certaine argumeÌ„ts that the cause is not good that is handled by such yet are they faire warnings for any in such case to take heed because they proceed from a troubled mind and most commonly argue a want of the truth and even by that only oftimes are occasioned therfore it shall not be amisse that we somewhat consider of them but first of those that we finde in Erasmus then of such as we finde in others Of those that we finde in Erasmus there are two sorts some of his owne for which himselfe is to answere others that are none of his but belonging to such authors as himselfe bringeth in to help to beare out his owne persuasion therein Those that are his owne are of two sorts also some concerning his own iudgement in this matter others concerning the Scripture it selfe Concerning his owne iudgement in this matter he hath in such sort ordered his speech therein that although he hath not plainely set it downe yet hee seemeth to incline vnto it both that certaine disorders in making of mariages should be good cause to dissolue them again and that even the wickednesse of a woman want of children also belike he meaneth of such as are legitimate that he may not so account of those that either he had or hereafter might haue by his adulterous wife yea burning lust also should be good causes likewise to marry againe For the former he saith Apud ethnicos noÌ„ erat ratum matrimonium nisi parentum aut tutoruÌ„ authoritate comprobatum ne apud Iudaeos quidem tamen apud utrosque aliquo modo dirimi poterat matrimonium Apud Christianos facilime coit conjugium semel initum nullo modo potest divelli â—urtim inter pueros puellas per lenones lenas inter stultos ac temulentos copulatur matrimonium tam turpiter initum indssolubile est quod magis est notum sic initum fit sacramentum that is Among the Heathen there is no mariage accounted of force but that which was approued by the authority of parents or tutors neither yet among the Iewes and yet with both those might matrimonie some way or other bee dissolued againe Among Christians marriages are most easily made and yet being made may by no meanes be broken off By stealth betwixt boies and wenches by bawds and harlots betweene fooles drunken persons haue mariages beene made and yet a marriage being so ilfavourdly made may not in any wise be dissolued and which is the straunger of the two is become a Sacrament also To which ende soone after hee doth likewise insinuate that if the Magistrate or competent Iudge should dissolue such then were they rightly dissolved by the Ministers of God which before were naughtily made by the Deacons of the diuel For the latter hee saith likewise At interim seposita paulisper authoritate scriptoris rem ipsam mecum expendat lector num hae satis graves sint causae cur innoxius maritus debeat alligari sceleratae mulieri orbitatis molestiam libidinis incendium ferre per omnem vitam ne vel parum prudens habeatur à quibusdam quod rem quae non successerit denuo sit aggressus quasi turpe sit qui semel tempestatem expertus sit iterare navigationem aut qui in deligendo amico erraverit quenquam alium in amicitiam admittere vel intemperans aut avarus qui formam aut dotem mutare voluerit non vxorem that is But setting aside for a while the authority of the writer meaning S. Ierom let the reader coÌ„sider with me the thing it selfe whether these be causes of sufficient importance that then men would easily take occasion divers waies to breake of and to marry againe that the husband should be tied to a wicked woman or that he should suffer either the griefe of the want of Children or the heate of lust all his life long least he should be accouÌ„ted of divers either vnwise that hauing taken in hand such a course before as did not fall out well with him he neverthelesse doth take it in haÌ„d againe as though it were a shame that hee which once had beene in a tempest should goe to the seas againe or he that had beene before deceiued in choice of his friend should never admit any other into his friendship againe or intemperate or covetous as though he rather desired to make his exchange of more beauty or better dowry theÌ„ of his so bad a wife Which course of his if any people should establish by law among them it were hard to finde how it might bee avoided but that for matters of marriage all others thereto appertaining some would all be cleane out of order For first as touching so large a liberty of divorcing their wiues away from them vpon any of those so many braunches of disorderly marriage we may plainely see that it would lay open a ready way to many divorces for because those disorders are such as that wee may conceiue no hope that either they will or may be amended So likewise for marrying againe therevpon if but the two first causes onely might bee allowed soone should we see that such a liberty so freely graunted would be by many as freely vsed but then if
of resteth but in these two points one the Obiection that is gathered thereon the other the answere that may be given it The Obiection that is gathered theron is this that seeing the Apostle doth so plainely allowe in case of infidelitie that if the partie that doth not beleeue wil forsake the partie beleeving that in such things a brother or sister is not in bondage or must of necessitie be forced to liue without the help of wedlock therefore if in this the bond of matrimonie may bee so broken that the party forsaken may marry againe it should seeme to be much more likely that by adultery the bond should be much rather broken For answere wherevnto I thinke we need no more but this that there is not the like reason in the one as in the other whether wee respect the offense that is committed or the inconvenience that redoundeth vnto the other thereby The offense that is committed is adultery a very foul and great sinne both odious to God and exceeding grievous to man even intolerable almost vnto many in that forsaking that the Apostle speaketh of an vtter breaking óf of the knot of wedlock that was betwixt them so far as in that partie doth lie The former of which sometimes proceedeth but of infirmitie the latter of them is an hatred to Religion it selfe Though therefore the Apostle allow the forsaken partie to marry againe especially when it is for hatred of the Truth and where the other hath broken of already from the bond that was betwixt them yet it may be he would not allow or at least it cānot hence be gathered that he would allow of marrying againe where the party offending hath but only sinned against that holy ordinance and therein was not purposed nor yet is to breake of from the other and when that sinne it may bee was done by infirmitie also and much provoked by some inordinate dealing of the other The inconvenience that redoundeth vnto the other partie thereby is by such forsaking much greater in this kind then is that other of committing adulterie For by such forsaking it commeth to passe that the partie forsaken is altogether deprived not onely of a comfortable fruition of the good things of wedlocke but also of the things themselues of that needfull preservation from sin of children likewise and mutuall help But it is not so by adulterie for that the innocent partie notwithstanding it may haue all those of the offendor in some tolerable measure though not in so good and comfortable maner as were expedient he may haue that needfull help to preserue him from sinne and to accomplish divers of his affaires and propagation of children likewise If hee cannot take the benefit of anie such helpe of the other that hath beene so vnfaithfull vnto him that is like enough to proceede but only of such perturbation of mind as some way casteth how to reveng or cannot yet digest so great a displeasure done vnto him which indeed is iustly deserved by the offendour but not iustly entertained by the innocent partie for that he which hath forgiven vs more hath willed vs also for his sake to forgiue And therefore such perturbation is to be remoued or at least bridled not any cōceipt thereon to be nourished that now there can no such help be had of the partie offending His children I graunt may be somewhat doubtful whether they be his or not but that is so general a case withall that mē must rather hold themselues contented with that general determination of law that by marriage doth make them theirs which also is their own act too then suffer themselues to be so carried away from the opinion that they are theirs by such suspition as il likelyhoods may easily breed Else if any will needs be so peremptorie let them first shew that their own discent is vtterly void of all suspition of any such blemish before they deale so strictly with others Albeit therefore the Apostle allow of marrying againe to such as vtterly are deprived of all such good things as by marriage God ordained for men yet is there no reason why any mā should therevpon gather that the like liberty were likewise to be graunted to those that may haue the vse of those things in some tolerable measure but so far as their owne troubled affections doe hinder them of it That other thing that belongeth not vnto this that now we speake of but ariseth by occasion of it is that hence it seemeth to me we may haue a special good light whereby we may see how to determin of one other point that in all ages hath much troubled the learned and yet doth namely for what causes divorce may be had marrying againe thereon allowed For many there are and those of special account withal that allow of no divorce but onlie for adulterie and thinke that those that go any farther do make themselues wiser than their Master nor of marrying againe but onlie in that of adulterie and in this of being forsaken others againe that allow both of divorce and marrying therevpon for divers other causes besides In which extending of that libertie there are of those that professe and teach the Gospel that maie wel be doubted to go over far as on the other side the Papists generally are for divorce so very liberall that they without questiō stand in great need to be better shod for their so far over-reaching therein But of this matter I meane not to treate which would be sufficient it selfe to occupie another Treatice much greater then this The thing that now I meane to deliver is no more but this that whereas the Apostle doth so plainely insinuate that the party that is in such sort forsaken may marrie againe and then doeth not altogether relie on that case neither but taketh in some other withall hence it seemeth may best be decided in what cases it may be permitted to marry again so that the rule be not in this point exceeded to graunt it to such as haue such vse of marriage already as need requireth For we doe not here finde that the Apostle doth allow it to any but only to such as otherwise were altogether deprived of it and though hee take in such like withall yet must we therein haue a good eie vnto the originall or patterne giuen and not account any like vnto it but only wherein the one of the parties is as much otherwise deprived of the vse or benefit of marriage as in the case that the Apostle himselfe hath put For howsoever divers such there may bee or at least some few wherein it may be allowed to marry againe yet certaine it is that hauing none other Scripture for it but this we haue then no warrant at all to goe any further or to extend that liberty to any other besides whatsoever 34 But as touching the main if now we gather the cheefest and principall points together of all that
cuâ—se vs S. 18. Iâ— and marrying againe theron conceived to be some specâ—all perfection Ibid That it was permitted but only for the hardnes of their heartes to be more theÌ„ may be gathered by sense of nature S 19. That wee need it as much as they and therefore should haue it as much as they Ibid. It not to be made by the parties themselues but by such as are in authoritie S â—0 Vrged for many more causes therâ—forâ— adulterie Ibid. By the free leage of it eight husbands in fiue yeeres Ib. That vpon divorce for adultery a man may put away his wife to be the thing that doth lie in question betwixt vs. S 21 Of our kinde of divorce how faulty they doe account it to be S. 21. Marrying againe hereon misliked by M. Calvine Sec. 25. A reproach to the parttie that takeththe advantage of it S. 23. Never any good or honest maÌ„ though but in a second or third degree thought to haue done it Ib. The nature of wedlock not to beare it Ibid. To account that lawfully they doe it to bee little better then to make God the author of their villaine Ib. Those that are such to be like vnto Iohanan and Balaam Ib To be conceiued as it may seeme to bee a matter of speciall godlinesse S 26. Nothing at all for it but that which caÌ„ little availe it S. 34. See also Aim Bond Christ twice Erasmus Husband Lyranus Marrying againe Speeches Vnlawfull warrant To bee iustly Doubted that there is Scripture against it S. 31. Doubtfull speeches how ill to build vpon S. 8 yet see excusable For doubtfull cases see Examples and iudgements E. ECclesiasticus 25.35 36. of a disobedient woman S. 2 To loue our Enimies see divorce One farther Enquirie as touching divorce what it was that Christ said vnto them S. 27. Euthimius Zigabenus S. 1 v. 1 Erasmus his opinion how farre crossed by others S. 4 How he proteâ—teth S. 7. What indifferencie he offereth Ibid. p 31. For that opinion of his reproued by Natalis Bedda S 16. Himselfe doth better interpret one of those his venterous speeches but yet is little followed therein by others of his opinion Ibid. How hee reasoneth for the dissolving or breach of marriage on such inconveniences as doe follow disorderly marriages S. 17 How hee reasoneth on certaine places of the word of God S. 19. Of that companie but only himselfe and M. Beza called to triall S. 20. That he resteth on Mat. 5 31 32 19.8 9. to haue his opinion thence S. 20. The places vsed for his defence not only those oâ— Christ but some of the Apostle also â—b Somewhat disposed to ride it seemeth Ib vrging divorce for so many causes as hee doth hee hâ—th al men almost against him Ib. How for hiâ— defense he gathereâ—h of the Apostle Ibid. His owne beâ—pâ—s how weake they are S. 22. Of certaine disorders going before and certaine discontentments after S. 23. Certain wondersin those speeches that hee hath of the Scriptures Ib. No more Faâ—hers lighâ— fâ—und by the forraine patrons of that opinion then himselfe had first a leaued but one of our owne to haue gon much â—arther in and in kind though defectiue too more commendably alâ—o Ib See likewise Adulterie Beddâ— Deut. â—4 Disorderly Divorce Hardnesse â—f hart Lawfull twice Eâ—w Le Mal. 2.16 Marry againe Obiâ—ction Reasons Speecheâ— and weaknesse More Examples then are alleaged Sect. 20 That such things haue sometimes bin done hee bringeth in two poore examples S. 22. Divers others to iustifie or make good the Rule of S. Basil as of many wiues much treasure of vserie and of marrying two sisters S â—â— Others likewise to shew how carefully in doubtfull cases the Lord is first to be sought vnto S. 30. See also Testimonies The Exception in some sort waived Sect. 20. This iâ— though they had it in their owne sense yet that in somâ— cases might be it would be for them and not so generally as they would haue it S 29. Theâ—efore that in that case also they be very warie S. 30 See also Obiections Excusable notwithstanding even those Resolutions Allegations Protestations al sorts of their doubtful speeches S. 8. Ezechiel 44.22 Priests not marrying with divorced women S. 2. F. In the ancient Fathers but littlâ— for them that themselues doe to acknowledge Sect. 22. See also Erasmus Favorable seâ— interpretation Fearefull see iudgements SoÌ„e Few of those gaâ—herings of theirs only noted S. 20 Any liberty of the Flesh some taken hold on by vs S. 8 Fleshly see liberty Generally Forbidding and generaly commaunding or requiring to haue a special difference betwixt theÌ„ S. 29 In such sort to proceed or deale but as it were a Forcible entrie and that the adversarie much graunt vnto them whereon to proceed S 20 The Former see obiections Foure see Bonds and Places G How far they haue Gathered amisse on those places that they haue vsed somwhat strange to consider S 20. Such Scriptures as in that respect are but General see Advised Generally see forbidden Geneva see Seely A Ghesse instead of proofe what should be the meaning of those words of Christ. S. 21. Also see Beza God see Bond. To doe Good vnto those that doe evill vnto vs see divorce Great ods betwixt their innocent partie and the Apostles forsaken S. 33. Ground see Principle Their Groundworke to bee so farre weake and those words may be otherwise taken and cleere it is that so they may S. 20. Gualter see â—dulterie Deuâ— 24. Mal. 2. H Somewhat vâ—ged by Erasmus that where he accounteth divorce to be first permitted it is not there added that it was but for the Hardnesse of their hearts S. 19 And sâ—e Divorce Heedâ—o â—o be taken to that interpretation of his S. 16 and sâ—e Advâ—sed Examples and Exception Hâ—lâ—â— see divorce and Seely Honest man see divorce Hostiensis see Ioan. Andreae and Bond. One of his helps not to stand but that the Hosâ—â—ensis must be no husband S. 21. Not to bee in the power of 〈◊〉 husband â—o breake the bond of marryage with his 〈◊〉 S. â—5 I. 〈◊〉 a law thereof S 11. Much against the sense that they conceiue of Deut. 24.1.4 Ibid. Ier. 32.1 God ready to receiue S. 2. S. Ierom how he setteth downe the Septuagint in â—hat place of Malachie S. 12. He and Bucer misliked by â—eza S. 24. See Came to tempt The Iewes whether to bee called before the comâ—ing of Christ not so certainely knowne S. 8. Inconveniences following after disorderly mariages â— 17. Such as concerne the innocent parâ—ie Ibid. such as concerne both parties Ibid Such as by disorderly marâ—iage doe reach vnto others Ibid. Such to bee taken yeed of before and marriage not to bee for them disâ—olued Ib. Inconvenienâ— speeches much mingled withall S. 15. Much found in those that opinion S. 23. Some of them of the Scriptures Ib. Oâ—hers that they talke of so many waies to dissolue marriage S.