general or marriage of sundry wives be condemned but only those wives who were not so well disposed as they ought to have bin Och. Christians ought in this life to be contemners of pleasures and to have more of the Spirit then those men had which lived under the old Testament And therefore though They had many wives one a peece ought verily to content Us Tel. I have already declared and told you to cohabit with plurality of Wives is no unlawful thing and that it may consist with the greatest degree of faith and perfection And therefore I cannot tell how you can be assured that some Christians are not called by God to cohabit with divers wives as well as some Jewes of old were called by Him thereunto Och. Say what you will to have more wives then one is a thing filthy and dishonest Tel. There are two things which bring you into that error The first is custome for if it were the Custom for men to have more then one it would not seem to you blameworthy Another is a feigned kind of holiness which makes the having more wives then one seem to you unlawful though it be no whit repugnant to the holy Scriptures Yea and those that have more wives then one are wont to be more grievously punished then they should be if they kept a thousand Concubines Och. 'T is hard for one man to content one woman and you would have it lawful for him to have more Tel. An Husband is not obliged to satisfie all the carnal desires of his wife but such only as are moderated with reason Och. Under the old Testament when there were few men in the world it was peradventure expedient for men to have more wives but now the world is full of people it is not expedient Tel. In the first place you know not whether men if they had more wives would have many more Children then they have or if they should beget more Children as is very likely how know you that the fruits of the Earth will not suffice to afford them all that shall be necessary for their livelihood and all other occasions For the same God that gave increase of men would likewise supply plenty of 〈◊〉 to nourish and maintain them But suppose you were assured they should perish with famine yet the souls of men are of so great price that we should no wayes hinder their existence especially if we be called thereto by God as those holy men of old were who had plurality of wives Och In these dayes a Christian ought not to have plurality of wives if for no other cause at least to avoid the offence which might thence arise seeing all Christians do account the having of more wives then one to be a most filthy and Diabolical thing Tel. Even as although men should account Matrimony an unlawful thing yet ought you not to be moved with their offence taken thereat but to marry if need were so ought you to marry more then one if need be or you be called thereunto by divine impulse Och. A single man might indeed in such a case marry to avoid fornication although men should be therewith offended especially being called by God thereunto But he that has one already needs not marry another nor will God thereunto call him Tel. Nay verily if his wife be sick or other impediments shall happen so that he cannot enjoy her and be incontinent he must of necessity to avoid fornication marry another Add hereunto that God does not call men to marry only for the avoidance of fornication but chiefly for propagation as of old he called Abraham and other holy men Och. Shall I make it clear and manifest to you that the having more wives then one is a thing forbidden Christ sayes if any man put away his wife save for adultery and shall marry another he commits adultery But if a man might have more wives then one he should not commit adultery as Christ sayes whether he put away his former wife or no Tel. No man can expound those words of Christ better then Christ himself who in another place explaining the said words sayes Whosoever shall put away his wife save for adultery causes her to commit adultery that is to say he gives occasion to his wife so unjustly put away to commit Adultery For the wife being by that meanes deprived of her true Husband cannot marry any other her former Husband living but she shall commit adultery Christ does not therefore say If any man put away his wife not for adultery and marries another he commits adultery but that he gives occasion to his repudiated wife to commit adultery Och. Both Matthew Mark and Luke record that Christ said If any man put away his wife and marry another he commits adultery that is to say by marrying that other But if his intent was to shew that by unjustly putting her away he gave her occasion to commit adultery it had been sufficient to have said If any one put away his wife not adding and marry another Christ therefore by those words of his in the fifth of Matthew did not intend to explain that passage which is recorded in the 19. Chapter of the said Evangelist only he said If any put away his wife not for adultery he makes her to commit adultery But in the 19. of Matâ—hew he sayes another thing viz. that if he marry another in the same kind he commits Aduâ—tery because the first was his wife and he ought not to have more then one Add hereunto that the words of Christ in his Sermon upon the Mount were uttered before those were by which he answered the Pharises when they asked him Whether a man for every cause might put away his wife Those former words therefore cannot be an Exposition of those were spoke afterwards Tel. Whether the latter words were an Exposition of the former or no it satisfies me that his meaning is one and the same in both places viz. that if any man put away his wife without just cause he occasions her to commit Adultery And as for those words which in the 19. Chapter are added over and above Christ added them to shew that a wife unjustly divorced if she marry another man commits adultery though at the same time her former Husband marry another wife seeing the first Matrimony is not void but remains in full force His meaning therefore is this If he put her away unjustly though he marry another yet he gives her that is put away occasion to commit adultery Och. This interpretation of yours is so forced and strained that it is in danger of breaking Moreover we may see in Creatures irrational that the Males have their Females with whom alone they couple as we see in Birds and much fitter it is for men especially Christians to have the like Tel. That is true only in such like Creatures vvhose propagation is not very needful to the maintâ—nance of the life of
said and did and suffered for the profit and good not of the Jewes only but of all Mankinde And therefore as Christ forbad it to all men though principally to the Jewes even so also Matthew wrote his Gospel to all Otherwise we must confesse that the other Evangelists also wrote only to the Gentiles and not to the Jewes likewise Yea verily and the Epistle which Paul wrote unto the Romans seeing it was not written concerning matters belonging to them alone both was and will be useful to the whole world Even so the Doctrine of each of the Evangelists is profitable for all men Add hereunto that if what you have said be true it should be lawful for Jewes being turned Christians to put away their wives for Adultery but not for the Gentiles and so Christ should not have taken away the partition wall through his flesh nor abolished the enmity even the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances for to make in himself oâ—twain one new man so making peace and that he might reconcile both unto God in one Body Also that should be false which Paul writes where he saies that in Christ Iesus there is neither Iew nor Gentile Mesch Are you ignorant that Christ wills and commands that whom God has joyned together in Marriage no man should separate And will you say That it is lawfull for me to put away my wife Och. Is not the Pope a man Mesch Without all question Och. How comes it then to passe that he separates whom God has joyned together in Marriage Mesch After what manner Och. Suppose an honest and creditable Virgin have with her Parents consent married a young man sutable to her condition If after the marriage has bin solemnized with all the rites Ceremonies thereto belonging a â—oy shall take that young man in the Head to become a Fryar after that he is received into the religious fraternity â—nd has made profession thereof the Pope will dissolve the said Marriage so that it shall be lawful for the said Virgin to marry another man provided there have been no carnal conjunction between them Mesch But in this case which you suppose it is not the Pope but Christ that frustrates the Marriage Och. How I pray you Mesch Know ye not that Christ being at the wedding did make void the Marriage of the Evangelist Iohn who was the Bridegroome because he took up a resolution to follow Christ So also the same Christ undoes the matrimony of such as have resolved to follow him and to become Monks and Fryars Och. I for my part never knew that Iohn the Evangelist was the Bridegroome at that marriage where Christ was a guest nor can I devise how you came to the knowledge of such a secret Nay verily I cannot tell how you should know so much as that the foresaid Marriage was dissolved and that by Christ I have thought that Christ was present at that marriage not to dissolve but approve of holy Matrimony Nor do I beâ—ieve that to â—ollow Christ it is necessary to become a Monk or Friar rather I know for certain a man may be both an Husband and an Apostle as Peter was and that Marriage is not repugnant to perfect Faith Hope and Charity Mesch Marriage is such a band as couples and binds men and women together so long as they live and therefore the one party being dead the band is loosed so that the party surviving is free and unrestrained from marrying again with any other as Paul writes If therefore natural death dissolve Matrimony we are doubtâ—esse to think that it is much more dissolved by spiritual death And because he that becomes a Monk or Fryer is spiritually dead unto the World we must needs confess that the marriage of such an one is dissolved and that the woman is free neither is the marriage dissolved by man but by death Och. They likewise that are baptized are dead to the World yea and buried with Christ and yet their Marriage is not dissolved because two persons may be married together the one of which is dead to the World and alive to God and yet their Marriage held good and firm yea and supposing both the parties be dead unto the World yet is not their Marriage frustrate If Matrimony were a thing naught and vitious I should then confeâ—s it could not be practised by good Christians who are dead unto the World But Marriage is a thing so holy that it is not repugnant to Christian perfeâ—tion and the same man may be both in the highest degree spiritual and a married man nevertheless Nor do I truly believe that men are made dead to the World and alive to Christ by Monkery more then by Christianity But to return to the point in hand where as you have alledged that saying of Christ which forbids men to seperate whom God has joyned together viz. by Marriage I answer If the Woman be an Adulteress and therefore put away by her Husband in such a case the Marriage is not dissolved by man but by God whose pleasure it is that for Adultery it should be dissolved And therefore as in every lawful Marriage God is he that joynes us together so whereever Marriage is lawfully dissolved God is he that dissolves the same And again When Marriages are unlawful the Devil is the maker and joyner of them and he it is that dissolves them when they are dissolved without just cause Add hereunto that seeing by marriage of two one flesh is made if either of them commits Adultery that party breaking his or her plighted faith by joyning him or her self unto another and disjoyning him or her self from his or her respective Wife or Husband dissolves the Marriage And therefore if the Wife have committed Adultery and for that cause her Husband marries another in such case the marriage is not dissolved by the man though he marry another but by the woman who by her Adultery has disannulled the marriage Therefore Christ when he forbids Man to seperate whom God has joyned together he does not only declare that a man ought not without just cause to put away his wife but also that neither of the parties should commit Adultery because he or she that commits adultery does for his or her part dissolve the marriage Mes. But you do not understand the mind of Christ when he denies that a man ought to put away his wife save for adultery For his intent is not that a man by his wives adultery becomes so free that he may marry another woman his meaning being only this that a man in regard of his wives adultery may be so seperated from her as to deny her conjugal benevolence the holy band of matrimony remaining nevertheless entire betwixt them Och. When the Jewes divorced their wives the matrimony was dissolved so that not only they which divorced them might marry other women but the divorced wives might likewise be married to other Husbands Otherwise it
had bin needless for God by Moses to forbid Priests to marry women that had bin divorced in case such women had not bin allowed to marry and yet God by Moses forbad the Priests to marry women that had bin divorced from their Husbands Christ therefore speaks after this manner It has bin said viz. by Moses whosoever will put away his wife let him give her a Bill of Divorce namely to the intent the Husband may not marry her again and that she may be free and in a capacity to marry to another man and that marriage of hers may become firm and stable But I sayes Christ speaking after another manner do tell you whosoever does put away his wife that is to say as the Jewes were wont to put away theirs who having given them a Bill of divorce were freed and inabled to marry others he is an aduâ—terer Therefore it is lawful for a man to put away his wife and marry another only in case his wife be an Adulteress Marriage may therefore according to the Doctrine of Christ be dissolved for Adultery in such manner as the Jews were wont for every cause to dissolve their Marriages not only so as that they should not have to do one with another in a conjugal way but also that each party should be so free as they might marry with any other Neither indeed is it a true divorce unless the Matrimony be dissolved neither were the Jews acquainted with any other kind of divorcing or putting away of wives saving that which did abrogate and nullifie the marriage and of such a putting away or divorcing it was which Christ spake which is apparent from these words by him subjoyned If the Husband save in the case of his wives commiting Adultery does put her away â—nd marry another he commits adultery Therefore if he put aaway his wife for adultery and marry another he does not in so doing commit adultery VVe must therefore from the words of Christ be forced to confess that the marriage is made void by the wives adultery seeing it is in this case lawful for a man to marry another And that you may clearly see that Christ there speaks only of such a divorce as disannuls the marriage do but consider how the Pharises tempting him and asking him if for every cause a man may put away or divorce his wife viz. in such wiâ—e as the Jews did by dissolving the matrimonial Contract he answers them that it is not lawful save for adultery Marriage is therefore dissolved by adultery otherwise the answer of Christ were impertinent Nor shall I stand to say that if Christ by the terme of divorcing or putting away had intended only an abstinence from conjugal embracements so as that the marriage was nevertheless to continue firm that Exception had contained in it matter of untruths for it is all one as if he had said a man may divorce his wife onely for adultery Now that it should be unlawful for a man so to put away his wife as to stain from her bed save in case of adultery is false for it is clear a man may lawfully do that for many causes Mes. Let us suppose and take for granted that Christ by the termes of putting away and divorce did intend the abrogation and dissolution of marriage yet shall you never be able to make it appear that a man by reason of his wives adultery may marry another the cause whereof is this The speech of Christ has two members each of which is true and the first member is this whosoever puts away his wife save for adultery he makes her commit adultery that is gives her occasion of so doing because he puts her away not being an Adulterss For if he should put her away being an Adulteress he should not give her occasion of adulterating because she was adulterated before The other member is likewise true being rightly understood that is to say without any exception viz. after this manner whosoever marries her that is put away vâ—z unjustly commits Adultery You see how the truth of Christ his Speech stands firm nor can we conclude from his words thus understood That Marriage is abrogated and nullified by Adultery Och. According to your opinion therefore Christ intimates That if any man puts away his wife not being an Adultâ—esse he gives her occasion to commit Adultery unlesse she were adulterated before For in such a case seeing she is already adulterated she cannot be made an Adultress Now if this be the mind of Christ What great matter has he taught us For who knows not That he which puts away his wife being already an Adultresse does not give her occasion to commit her first Adultery because the same has bin already by her committed It seems you have so low an opinion of Christ as to believe that he should utter so frivolous a speech Though an Husband divorcing his adulterous wife does not give her occasion to commit her first Adultery yet questionlesse if it be unlawful for him to put her away for Adultery and if the marriage be not thereby dissolved he that puts her away gives her occasion to commit new adulteries from which to terrifie us Christ would doubtless have said That she ought not to be put away for any cause no not though she should have committed Adultery for as much as even thereby the Marriage could not be dissolved It is therefore clear that as to the first member of the speech this is the mind of Christ If an husband put away his wife only because she is an Adultresse he gives her no occasion to commit Adultery because that she marrying upon these tearms the former marriage being dissolved does not commit Adultery but becomes the lawful wife of her latter husband the marriage which she had made with her former husband being by her adultery dissolved Certain likewise it is that those words of exception used by Christ are likewise to be accommodâ—ted to the second member of the speech so that the sense of Christ in that member may be this that if any man marry her that is put away he commits Adultery unlesse she were put away for Adultery And that this is the intent of Christ is apparent not only from the tenor of his words but also much more from what he faies in another place explaining the said words Whosoever quoth he puts away his wife save for Adultery and marries another commits Adultery And so does he that marries her that is put away Here it is manifestly apparent that the exception is to be accommodated to each member of the speech and that the meaning thereof is this That he sins not who having divorced his wife for Adultery marries another and that he likewise does not sin who marries her that has been divorced or put away for Adultery Mesch Will you make Christ to contradict Paul who thus speaks Unto the married I command yet not I but the
it might fall out that she which had had divers Husbands might live but one year with them whereas the rest that had never had more then one might have lived with him thirty or forty years In such a case truly I cannot see why they should be more worthy to be chosen then she I do therefore believe that the mind of Paul in that place was this that such Widows were not to be chosen that had had many Husbands that is to say who being divorced had married again their former Husbands who divorced them being yet alive For either they were divorced upon a just ground and then it was not fit they should be chosen or upon an unjust ground and so the Matrimony remained good having never bin violated and then the divorced woman had sinned if she married to another By which meanes it came to passe that all women divorced were infamous not only such as married to other men but such likewise as abstained from Mariage especially amongst the Gentiles who were not wont to divorce them save for some fault or vitious quality Paul therefore did never condemn those Women who their former Husband being dead married another nor did he forbid them to be Bishops who their former Wiâ—e being dead married another which notwithstanding the sâ—perstitious Papists observe because they understood not tâ—e meaning of Paul Though a man have kept divers Whâ—res they make him a Bishop but if his first Wife being dead he marry another they will not whence it comes to passe that Matrimony amongst them is of worse report then Fornication Adultery Incest Sacriledge Sodomie and all imaginable abominations This is therefore the mind of Paul and this will make the third opinion as has bin said of Widows that he who has had divers Wives because he divorced oneâ— ought not to be made a Bishop For if he divorc't her unjustly he ought not to be a Bishop in that regard if justly yet the Infamy of his wife redounding upon himself for that cause Paul would not have him be a Bishop Howbeit I like not this Opinion for he does not say he must have bin but that he must be the Husband of one wife for he sayes he must be unblamed viz. as the Husband of one Wife as he expressed it a little afterwards touching Deacons and writing to Titus about Bishops Och. Because a Bishop in regard of the publick Office he beareth as also the Deacons have to do with all persons not only with Men but also with Women to avoid suspicion Paul would that they should be married and this perhaps might be the meaning of those words Also it may be that Paul foreseeing the Superstition of the Papists who would forbid the Mariâ—ge of Bishops that they might be without excuse he said they ought to be blameless and to have a wise but that they should have no more then one he did not say Or he shewes that a Bishop ought to have a wife that is he ought to be content with her and not to have any thing to do with other Women which is as if he had said that he ought to be honest Tel. The mind of Paul is this that it is lawful for the generality of Christians to have many Wiâ—es but for Bishops to have only every man one not because it had bin a sin for them to have more but because the duty of Bishops being to labour for the salvation of others he feared lest multiplicity of Wives should be a pul-back and hinder them from performing their Office as they ought to do For this cause he would have them to have but one nor is it therefore unlawful for other men to have more Yea verily while he forbids Bishops and Deacons to have more then one he closely allowes it to other men Nor is it likely Paul would have forbiddâ—n Bishops to have more Wives then one had it not bin the Custom of those times for them to have more It was therefore in the new Testament forbidden to Bishops to have many Wives as it was in the old Testament forbidden to Kings not because it was in it self unlawful but lest Kings whose Office was of greatest consequence being distracted by their Wives should be corrupted as it happened to Solomon for if Adam when he had but one was notwithstanding perverted by her 't is easie to conjecture what might happen to Kings if they should have many Yet do I believe nevertheless that as in the same place he forbad Kings to have many Horses that is too great a multitude least he should put his trust in them rather then in God for otherwise they were allowed to have many Horses even so they were 〈◊〉 forbid to have many Wives seeing David a most holy man had many but that they should not have an immoderate multitude especially such as were Heathens and Worshippers of false Gods To return therefore to our business 't is not credible that Paul feared lest Timothy should choose for Bishops such as were Gentile's or Iewes not baptized There were therefore in the Church of Christ and among the Christians such as had more wives then one And because from among them a Bishop was to be chosen he would not have him choose one that had divers wives But if to keep more wives then one had bin contrary to the Law of God as you say it is and the first Wife only were right and true the rest Harlots 't is not credible that the Christians would have baptized any one that had plurality of wives unless he had put away all saving his first And if that had bin the practise it had bin in vain for Paul to command that he that was to be chosen Bishop should be the Husband of one Wife seeing Christians out of the number of whom the Bishop was chosen had but each of them one a peece But this I much marvail at that many who have sometimes written and do believe that to have more Wives then one is repugnant to the divine Law both moral and natural and yet in expounding Paul they say that he writing to Timothy warns him to take heed that he choose not a Bishop that had plurality of wives whence it follows that seeing Election was not to be made of any out of the Church of God that there were in Gods Church such as had more wives then one and consequently counted it not unlawfuâ—lt have more Otherwise if they had counted it unlawful as they did not Baptize or admit unto the Lords Supper any man that kept a Concubine unless he would forsake her in like manner they would not have Baptized nor admitted to the Supper nor suffer'd amongst them such as had many wives unless they would divorce all save the first Och. But what do you say to Paul who wills and commands That every man should have his own wife for in saying his own wife he excludes wives Tel. Some say his meaning is Let
every man have his own wife that is his own not another mans and nor only one As if some Father making shew of his Daughter should say This is my own Daughter not denying that he has more Daughters that are likewise his own Och. In the same place the same Paul commands That the Wife have her own proper Husband that is to say such a Wife as is proper to him alone and not in common with other wives Whence it follows That as a woman ought to be proper to her husband and not to belong to other husbands so the man ought to be appropriated to his first wife and not common to others provided you will as you ought expound the words of Paul so as he may not contradict himself Tel. Paul does not there dispute whether an husband may have plurulity of wives or no but his intent is to shew that such men as have not the gift of continence should take them wives and that women in the like case should marry Och. Is it possible that you should not see that plurality of wives is repugnant to the matrimonial contract in which the man grants his wife and the woman her husband an honest use of their respective Bodies for ever For which cause also Paul sayes That neither the man nor the woman have power over their own Bodies but each of one anothers And in case a man have given the honest use of his Body to his wife he can no longer give it to another because he has already given it to the first Tel. Yes by the permission of the first he may as Abraham did when by the permission of Sarah he married Hagar and consequently by permission of the first and second he may marry a third which is true of other men as â—ell as Abraham especially the wives being instructed that it is â—o sin for their husbands with their consent to marry other wives Och. Do you believe that David when he married Bathsheba did it with consent of his other wives and that others who married divers wives did so likewise Tel. Suppose they did not yet were not their marriages the less true and lawful For it was then â— thing commonly known and confirmed by example That it was lawful for a man to have many wives Therefore when a man by marriage gave the use of his Body to his wife he did not so â—otally give the same as to bereave himself of all power to give it to other wives also which the wives knew well enough by the publick custome then in force and thereunto the wives did silently give consent seeing their husbands married them with this condition being understood Their marriages therefore were good and lawful Och. An husband cannot marry a second wife without detriment of his first It is not therefore credible that wives did in their hearts consent that their husbands should marry others Tel. It is possible my wife may prove barren in which case it is her duty to consent that I should take another yea and of her own consent to exhort me thereunto as Sarah did of old And if she would not approve thereof this will of hers were unjust and so it were lawful for her husband to marry another contrary to her unjust mind Also when a woman is with Child and sometime after she is brought to bed seeing she is then unfit for procreation as also when she is old and sick her husband may without injury to her have to do with another wife yea though a mans wife were sound and fit for generation yet she ought to take it in good part if enjoying the company of her husband at some certain times as it is with other living Creatures she leave it free for him to enjoy the carnal acquaitance of his other wives Och. Do you think it lawful for one wise to have many husbands Tel. No Och. And yet there are sick Men as well as sick women Also a woman is able to have to do with more men then a man can with women Whence it seems more just for one woman to have divers husbands or at least lesse injust then for a man to have many wives Tel. Nay rather since Matrimony is chiefly ordained for procreation sake and a man having many wives may in a short time have many more children then a woman which has plurality of husbands it is more equitable that a man have many wives then that a woman have many husbands But the chief causes why women may not have many husbands and yet men may have many wives are these First of all because if women should have many husbands there would follow great disturbance and confusion in the world For seeing no husband could certainly know that his children are his own he might alwaies suspect that they were some other husbands rather then his and consequently he would not bring them up nor instruct them nor take such care for them as â—ow he does knowing they are his own though born of divers wives Perhaps also being unassured that they are his own he would not make them his Heirs Another cause why it is lawful for men to have many wives but not for women to have many husbands is this The husband is his wives Head and has authority and command over her as being her Superiour for which cause he may have divers wiâ—es provided he can well rule and instruct them all Nor is it a monstrous but a comely thing for to have many members in one Body though there he but one Head but if the Body should have many Heads it would be a monster So for one husband to have many wives is not moÌ„strous but for one wife to have many husbands is monstrous And therefore as there would be dissention and discord â—f in one Body there were many Heads they should be of coÌ„trary minds as might well happen so would there be discords perturbaâ—ions and great inconveniences if should have plurality of husbands seeing it might happen that they should will things contrary and command their wives to do them Och. If we regard discords and inconveniences we shall finde they have been someâ—imes exceeding great because one man has had two wives as we see in the example of Sarah Hagar Leah and Rachel Hannah and Peninnah and others amongst whom were continual dissensions wch I conceive God did therefore suffer to shew that he was not pleased that one man should have more then one wife Tel. Although among the first-born and other brethren many times grievious discords have arose as appears in Cain and Abel Esau and Iacob and many others it is not therefore displeasing to God that Fathers should have many Sons As also between Mothers in Law and Daughters in Law though there is many times little quiet yet is not Matrimony therefore displeasing to God In like manner although among divers wives of the same Husband there has seldom bin good agreement yet cannot either Marriage in
are regenerate spiritual and Evangelical men marry more wives then one Tel. Just And how honest that single life of theirs is all the World takes notice The Law it self condemns barren Matrimony so far is it from not condemning voluntary and barren single life Now I speak expresly of such as have not the gift of continency nor are called to a single life The Romans did punish such as lived single and rewarded those who by abundance of Children did augment the Common-wealth and Lycurgus also and Ulpianus decreed the same Now what more blessed a thing can there be then the preservation of humane kinde which would wholly perish were it not for Marriage A man cannot transmit to posterity a more honourable memorial of his name then by leaving behind him Children virtuously educated And what greater folly can be imagined then under a shew of holiness to shun holy Matrimony as a thing profane which notwithstanding has bin ordained by God is dictated by nature perswaded by reason confirmed by Christ praised by Authours sacred and profane commended by the Lawes approved by the consent of all Nations and whereunto we are invited by the Examples of good and holy men What more barbarous and inhumane then to loath Matrimony the desire whereof is implanted in us by nature VVhat more unthankful to the common nature of the World and Mankind then not to beget Children as our Ancestors and Parents have begotten us For my part I make account that such men are murtherers of as many as they might have begotten in case they had embraced Matrimony unless peradventure they are carried by a Divine Impulse to live single Questionless it is a kind of Man-slaughter not only by Medicaments to cause abortion and barrenness but also without very just cause to shun Marriage Och. I do not condemn Matrimony namely the having of one Wife but the having of two or more Tel. But what advice will you give me Och. That you marry no more Wives but pray to God for the gift of continence Tel. What if he will not give it me Och. He will if you pray in Faith Tel. What if he neither give me the gift nor faith to ask it Och. If you shall then do that to which God shall encline you so that you be sure you are led by divine Instigation you shall not sin For it can be no Errour to obey God Other advice I cannot give you And therefore I bid you farwel and promise you that I will seek God in your behalf Tel. And that is it which I beseech you to do that I may not offend God but that I may give him all honour and glory through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen A DIALOGUE OF Divorce Between OCHINUS and MESCHINUS Ochinus I See my most dear friend Meschinus coming towards me and he seems to me by his carriage to be exceeding sad I have a great mind to go meet him and see whether or no I am mistaken in my conjecture I wish you an happy day Sir Mesch Hitherto truly I have found it very unhappy Och. Why so Mesch I am brim-full of grief nor was I ever in my life so possessed with trouble and sadnesse as now I am And this evil is added to all the rest that I cannot lay open my grief for if I could open my heart unto you and discover that which perplexes me I should seem in some measure to be disburthened and refreshed But my calamity is so foul that it is not fit to be related to any man but ought rather to be buried in silence Och. Are you ignorant that you and I are all one and that all affairs both prosperous and adverse ought to be common among friends And therefore if you communicate your secrets to me you do not acquaint another therewith but your own self Mesch But there is no remedy in the world for my calamity Och. Perhaps there is Do but open your mind to me for you shall finde me your secret and faithul friend Mesch I took my wife in the act of Adultery with another man which torments me the more because I alwaies loved her and should have believed any thing rather then that she would have dealt so by me Och. Oh strange Truly I am exceedingly sorrowful but there is a Remedy Mesch What is that Och. Divorce Mesch If I might do it religiously Och. Why so Mesch Because sacred Matrimony cannot be dissolved Och. True if there be no adultery committed Mesch Dare you then say that Marriage a thing so holy and divine may be dissolved by Adultery so that men being thereby freed may marry other women Och. I for my part have said it will say it again and stand to it that you may perceive the truth of what I say I will shew you the reason of it A woman in the matrimoniall contract gives up the honest use of her Body to her husband promising that no man while he lives shall have the use thereof besides himself and the man does the like by his wife For this cause Paul saies that the wife has not power over her own body but the husband and likewise that the husband has not power over his own body but the wife If therefore the wife break her promise and faith made to her husband as yours has done having given the use of her Body to another contrary to her Covenant made with you in this case the husband is free and disingaged so that he may grant the honest use of his Body to another woman joyned to him in Marriage Mesch When men in covenanting do give or promise any thing upon condition there is no question but the condition being unperformed the promise or donation becomes invalid But if the Promise or Donation be made without any condition it is alwaies valid though one of the parties break their faith And because in Matrimony an honest use of the Body is promised both by the wife and husband without any manner of condition it follows That though the one falsifies his or her faith yet is not the other party freed from the Engagement Och. Do you then think that the husband promises the use of his Body to his wife perpetually without any condition viz. Though she shall behave her self perfidiously towards her husband Mesch Yes Och. But in the matrimoniall contract doubtlesse neither saies to the other I do for ever give you the use of my Body notwithstanding that you prove unfaithful to me Mesch Nor is it thus said I give you the use of my Body for ever upon this condition That you prove faithful to me But this doubtless ought to be the mind of each of them viz. to give the other the use of his or her Body for ever whether he or she shall prove faithful or no Och. And how know you that I pray you If it were necessary that Marriage should be contracted in such a sense it ought to be so expressed in the
more Wives then one because the condition of Mariage is such that it cannot be between more then two Tel. How can you make that appear Och. God at the beginning made out of Adam only one Woman and gave her to him signifying that he ought to have but one and that Matrimony ought to be only of two persons If he would have had a Man to have more Wives he would doubtless have made him more especially at the beginning of the World when propagation was more necessary then ever afterwards Tel. I conceive this Argument is of small validity God gave to our first Father Adam one Wife therefore it is unlawful for any man to have more Och. If it had been the will of God that he should have more he would have given him more especially in that state of perfection wherein he was pleased to put him Tel. A bare act of God without any precept added thereunto does not obliege us to imitate the same for if so then we are bound to weare Coats of Skin because God so cloathed our first Parents and it were unlawful to wear Cloth or Silk For your Argument would alwayes be of force God cloathed them with Skins and he could have cloathed them with Cloth or Silk if it had been his pleasure that men should be so cloathed If an Act of God alone do bind us as much as a precept so that Gods giving Adam one Wife only were as much in effect as if he had said to him I will and command that every man have one only Wife it would follow that not only it should be unlawful for a man to have more Wives then one but that every man that did not take a Wife it being in his power so to do should sin which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paul Och. You must understand that Paul is not contrary to God For in that God gave only one Wife to Adam it was all one as if he had said I would not have a man to have more Wives then one and it is my pleasure that he have one unless I shall call him to a single life and give him the gift of Chastity and that is the intent of Paul Tel. And I for my part must say that when God gave Adam one Wife it was as if he had said It is my pleasure that a man shall have one Wife if either he want the gift of continency or I shall call him to a married condition It is also my pleasure that he shall have no more unless he stand in need of more or I shall call him to more which is at this time my condition who stand in need of and am called to marrie another Och. That a single life is pleasing to God the word of God shewes but we are not thereby taught that he is pleased Men should have more then one Wife Och. Nay verily both Gods word and the Saints example do reach the same as we shall shew by and by But go to suppose it had been Gods pleasure that every man should have so many Wives as it was possible for him rightly to govern and instruct together with their Children how many Wives must he have given Adam thereby to signifie his pleasure in this point Och. You suppose that which cannot be seeing the having more Wives than one is repugnant to true Matrimony Tel. You have not yet made it clear to me that to have more Wives then one is repugnant to Mariage otherwise then by saying that God gave one to Adam Let us now suppose he had given him more doubtless from that first Institution you could not prove that a man ought not to have more nay it would follow of necessity that a man might have more How many Wives therefore in such a case had it been necessary for God to give Adam to signifie his pleasure in this point Och. Two would have been enough Tel. Now then if that Action of his had bin a praecept as you say it would have bin unlawful for men to have had more or less then two Wives which nevertheless would not have been answerable to his will seeing his intent was that they should have as many as they could govern We must therefore confess that by a bare act of God no command being added we are not obliged to the imitation thereof Otherwise it would be sin for a Minister to celebrate the Lords Supper unless the Communicants were just so many in number as the Apostles of Christ were when he instituted the same Och. Although it does not necessarily follow that because God gave one Wife to Adam therefore it is unlawful for a man to have more yet is it doubtless a very probable Argument to perswade urges strongly though it be not altogether compulsive Tel. Nay verily it urges not at all since it may be said that God gave one Wife to Adam not to shew that his will was that every man should have but one Wife but that the rest of man-kind being born as well of one Mother as one Father might love one another so much the more also that Eve being made of the Rib of Adam might be a figure of the holy Church the onely Spouse of Christ Och. Go to let us come unto the words of the Text Do you not think that Adam was moved by divine instinct when he said For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife Tel. Without doubt Och. Do you not see how in saying he shall cleave to his Wife not Wives he teaches us that a man is to have but one Tel. Very good when God commands a man to love his Neighbour does he oblige him to love one or more Och. All that are his Neighbours Tel. That 's false for he sayes Thou shalt love thy Neighbour not thy Neighbours and therefore whoever loves one of his Neighbours has fulfilled that Command Och. Christ when he said Thou shalt love thy Neighbour spoke it in this sense as if he should haâ—e said Thou shalt love every one that is thy Neighbour Tel. So likewise Adam when he said he shall cleave unto his Wife did intimate that he should cleave unto every one that shall be his Wife And therefore 〈…〉 not be proved by those worâ—s that it is unlawful for a man to have more Wives then one Och. But what will you say to those following words of his and of them twain shall be made one flesh for he does not say of three or four From these words it is doubtless manifest that God would not have Marriage to be made between more then two Tel. Adam sayes not that of them two shall be made one flesh but they shall be made one Flesh Och. But that was his meaning as plainly appeares from the words of Christ who citing the said speech sayes that God by Adam declared And they two shall be one Flesh adding moreover this following
same cause he suffered them to have sundry wives that is to say he did not forbid or hinder it nor punish the same by any Law enacted in his Common-wealth But it follows not therefore that they did not sin in Gods sight and that they did not deserve punishment unlesse they repented Tel. That thing is permitted which is neither punished nor hindred nor forbidden Truly I will not say Moses sinned if to avoid a greater evil and to comport with the hardness of the Jewes hearts he permitted them to have divers wives that is to say he did not punish or hinder them But if he permitted them so as not to forbid them I cannot but say he sinned For Moses ought to have expresly forbidden that any man should have more then one wife which because he has not done we must needs confesse that it is not a thing unlawful Och. The having of many wives was then as it is now so apparently filthy dishonest and vitious that it was needless for Moses to forbid the same Tel. And was it not apparent that Adultery was a thing filthy dishonest vicious yea much more then the having of many wives and yet he expresly forbad adultery But in case it had been unlawful to have many wives he ought to have forbidden that so much the more expresly by how much the unlawfulnesse thereof was lesse manifest then the unlawfulnesse of Adultery was Is it not a clear case that Homicide is unlawful and yet he forbids that In a word What are the ten Commandements but an Expression of the Law of Nature Och. It may be said that God might remit the transgressions against the second Table because he is above not only all Creatures but his own Law and peradventure he might remit the same to all mankind born before the death of Christ and consequently be willing that they might have more wives then one without sin And so it comes to pass that those under the Old Testament that had many wives did not sin and under that consideration God might give many wives to David Though it may also be said that he gave them to him that is permitted him to have them in as much as he neither hindred nor punisht him Tel. That it is unlawful to keep more wives then one if your opinion be true is clear from the word of God who said that two should be made one flesh but that God did so far remit of his Laws that men should not sin in having more does not appear in the word of God that opinion therefore of yours has no foundation Och. If you consider well you shall finde that Lamech a very wicked man was the first that had two Wives Other holy men that preceeded him knowing the will of God had onely one a piece Tel. As if that Abraham Isaac and Iacob were not more holy then those very men you speak of But in the first place I cannot tell how you came to know that Lamech was the first man that had two wives although he be the first man whom the Scripture mentions to have had two But as this is a vain Argument The Scripture no where mentions that Cain had more then one Son therefore doubtlesse he had no more so as vain is this which follows It is no where in Scripture recorded that those men that lived before Lamech had more wives then one therefore none of them had above one wife Moreover where it is said that Lamech had two wives it is not charged upon him as a sin but seems rather to be set down as a thing pleasing to God that a man should have more wives then one seeing by them he gave Lamech such ingenious Sons as proved the inventors of Arts both delightful and profitable Neither can I see how you came informed that Lamech was so wicked a man as you talk of Och. God plagued him by suffering him to fall into the sins of murther and desperation only because he had married two wives Tel. But I cannot see either that he was a murtherer or fell into despair neither does the Scripture teach any such thing if it be rightly interpreted Or if the Scripture had intimated any such thing which I do not grant yet does it not thereby appear that God suffered him so to slip because he had married two wives Och. But we may conjecture that his having two wives displeased God seeing his murther is presently after mentioned Tel. In the first place I have already told you that by the words of that Text if they be rightly understood there is no signification made that either he was a man-slayer or in desperation and if such a thing were intimated it does not therefore follow that his plurality of wives was the cause thereof or that God was offended with him therefore inasmuch as presently upon the mention of his two wives he commends their Sons as if he would give us to understand that he approves of plurality of wives Add hereunto that nothing ought to be affirmed or avouched in the Church of God as necessary to salvation if it cannot otherwise be known save by conjectures only Och. Seeing I cannot convince you out of the old Testament I will try what I can do from the New Tel. You are in an errour if you think the Old Testament is not sufficient to teach us all things necessary to salvation If therefore that be the cause you betake your self to the New you are deceived seeing as Paul writes All Scripture of Divine inspâ—ration is profitable for reprehension correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be made perfect furnished for every good work Now clear it is that Paul in that place speaks of those Scriptures in which Timothy was exercised from a child And because the new Testament was not then written you must be forced to confesse that Paul in that place speaks of the Old The old Testament therefore is profitable not only to assert the truth of such things as are necessary to salvation but also to confute falsities and consequently to render a man perfect For which cause Christ â—peaking thereof said Search the Scriptures for in them is fouâ—â—d 〈◊〉 life Och. Perhaps somethings are forbidden to us in the New Testament which were not forbidden to them in the Old Tel. In moral matters verily what ever is unlawful and to us forbidden was in like manner evermore forbidden to them and whatever was allowed and commanded to them the same is in like manner allowed and commanded to us God was equally Author of the old Testament as well as of the New nor was he ever contrary or unlike himself Och. That was allowed to those under the old Testament because of their imperfection which is not allowed to us in whom carnal desires ought to be much more mortified Tel. You take that for granted which you have not proved viz. That it is unlawful to have more wives then one Moreover you
are deceived if you think that it is a bad thing to have one wife but worse to have two For as the Act matrimonial in him that has one wife is a thing not in it self evil nor repugnant to those actions that are necessary to salvation no more is it to have two wives provided a man have a call from God to mary them and be moved not by the impulse of the flesh but of the Spirit that he may have children and bring them up in the fear of God his wife likewise doing the same Whence it follows that he may be as perfect that has two wives as he that has but one or none Nor had Abraham because he had divers wives lesse Faith Hope or Charity then Priests Monks or Friars that have none Conjugal Chastity is as well the gift of God as that of a single State For this cause Paul said Every one is endued with his own gift from God some one way some another Och. In that place the Apostle exhorted the Corinthians to a single Life and that for no other cause but that a married estate has many incumbrances attending the same in as much as married people being intangled with worldly affairs are not so free to pray and preach up and down and do good to others as single people are Now if so be the having of one wife do bring so many impediments any one may soon conjecture what the having of divers wives will do And therefore to have more wives then one is unlawful Tel. You are in an error if you think that the mind of Paul in those words was that marriage was a stop to mens journey to Heaven so that married people could not be saved For then that which God said would not be true viz. That it was not good for a man to be alone but it would rather be an excellent thing to be alone and to marry a wife the worst thing in the world because in so doing a man should sin Moreover I aâ—d that not only a married man may be saved as well as a Bachelour but be as perfect as he inasmuch as he may attain as greâ—t perfection in Faith Hope and Charity as the other And iâ— he cannot personally performe some externall works which the single man can as hindred by his married estate yet he may in mind perform the same and that is it which God regards Och. Though Matrimony do not hinder a man from going to God yet the having of more wives then one does Tel. How prove you that Och. From Paul who speaking of Bishops sayes he would have them to be the husbands of one wife meaning that they should have no more It is therefore unlawful to have more wives theâ— one Tel. Nay rather when he tellâ—s them by name that they should have one lest having more they should be too much distracted with worldly businesse 't is easie to see that he allows other men to have more Och. Some do thus interpret the mind of Paul A Bishop is to have but one wife that is say they one Church for his spiritual Spouse Tel. Many reasons shew that to be a false opinion First because Christ only is the Spouse of Souls and Bridegroome of his Church And if we that are ministers be his friends we ought with Iohn Baptist as the friends of Christ the only true Spouse of Souls to send them to him their Bridegroom and not to draw them to our selves The Churches therefore of Christ are not the Bishops Spouses And if they were as the Husband is superiour to his Wife so should they be to their respective Churches against which Paul writes to the Corinthians where he sayes We are not Lords over your faith or over you by reason of your Faith The Church therefore is not Pauls Wife I confess indeed that one Church is enough for one Pastor and he does no small matter if he can govern that well In the ancient times of Christianity one Church sometimes had divers Pastors as appeares from the Epistle to the Philippians in which Paul salutes the Bishops which were at Philippi whereas now a dayes one Bishop has many Churches Moreover when Paul sayes A Bishop ought to have one Wife he speaks of the manners of him that was fit to be a Bishop But if he be yet to be chosen he is no Bishop and therefore has no Church as yet that might be called his wife Hereby also it is manifest that by Wife he did not mean Church because presently almost after those words he makes mention of his Children commanding that he govern his Family well and have his Children subject to him with all Reverence For if a man cannot govern his own Family how can he oversee the Church of God In that place thereâ—ore he speaks of a Wife and not of a Church Och. Some say that Paul in that place forbids such men to be choâ—en Bishops who have had divers Wives though not at one and the same time Tel. But I do not conceive that Paul counted it sin after the death of a mans first wife to take a second for as much as he himself sayes that after the death of the Husband the wife is free and may without blame marry another So far is it from being unlawful for a man after the death of his wife to marry another Och. They say 't is a shameful thing when a mans first wife is dead to marry another Tel. If you weigh the matter rightly and follow not the Opinion of the blind vulgar people you shall finde that the matrimonial Act is as free from turpitude as the actions of eating and drinking nor would God have commanded Matrimony if it had biâ— evil which nevertheless he did when he said Increase and propagate Och. I condemn not matrimony but the Iteration or Repetition thereof Tel. The second Matrimony is as true aâ—d valid as the first and therefore you cannot condemn the Iteration of Matrimony but you must withall condemn Matrimony it self Take an Example A young man marries a Wife she dies a few dayes after he is somewhat incontinent or is again called to a married condition who knowes not that he according to the Precept of Paul seeing he cannot contain ought to take another Wife Och. Unless second Mariages were filthy and unlawful Paul would never speaking afterwards of Widows have commanded such to be chosen as had only one Husband Tel. Think you that Paul was superstitious Och. I do not think he was Tel. If a young Widow somewhat incontinent had asked Pauls advice what think you Pauls answer would have bin Och. That she should marry again according to his own Doctrine Tel. It is not therefore unlawful to marry again Why then should Paul reject such Widows as had had more Husbands then one for it was possible that some Widow having had divers Husbands might be more holy and honest then they which had had but one Also
wives at once is accompanyed with infamy Tel. The Authors of the first Law as you say were Diocletianus and Maximinus the other is taken out of a certain Rescript of Valerianus and Galienus Och. It is sufficient that being Emperors they had power to make Laws It is to be observed that in their daies the condition of Matrimony in the Heathenish Empire was such that any man might put away his wife for light and frivolous causes and keep Concubines without any shame Howbeit they had neither the name nor authority of wives The Emperors therefore thus decreed not because they thought Polygamy was unlawful seeing they allowed many lawful Concubines but they judged it fit that only the first should have the title and authority of a wife especially seeing they might Divorce her if she pleased them not Och. But we see that Concubines were forbidden by the Emperor Constantine Tel. If you well weigh his words you will find that his intent was that it should be unlawful for him that had a wife to have Concubines not that it was wholly unlawful but he might not have them with him that is in his own House where his wife dwelt viz to avoid brawlings discords and countentions But out of his house he might have as many as he would Moreover the Roman-Emperor Valentianus having the same Authority and power did not only permit such as had wives to keep Concubines but many wives also at the same time in the same house all dignifyed by the same name and of equal authority and Valentianus himself at the same time had divers wives and therefore by the Law of Valentianus which was afterwards made the former Law of Constantine was abrogated Och. But Justinian in his Code makes no mention of that Law of Valentianus Tel. Yet that Law of his was doubtless published as appears by the Histories Add hereunto that besides Valentianus it is apparent that Constantius also the Son of Constantine the great had many wives Clotarius also King of France and Heribertus and Hypericus his Sons had plurality of wives I add Pipâ—n and Charles the Great of whom Urspergensis witnesseth that they had more wives then one Yea and Lotarius and the son of Lotarius as also Arnolphus the seventh Emperor of Germany and Frederick Barbarossa and Philippus Deodatus King of France and many more Nor will I deny that it is a wicked thing to do as some do who having wives leave them travel into strange Countries and marry others But I speak of such as take care of both their wives and are thereunto called by God Och. You suppose that which never was in the world viz. That any man should be called by God to have two wives Tel. Even as Abraham Jacob and many others were called by God thereunto so may we Nor do I see why they had more need of this Remedy then we nor why it was rather their duty to beget and bring up a numerous progenie then ours Och. Constantine will not have men to keep plurality of wives nor will the Emperor that now reigns Tel. Tell me what is just and fit and not what men will The Law of nature is unchangeable And if in the daies of Abraham it was agreeable to reason to have plurality of wives as a thing honest and just otherwise we may assure our selves Abraham would not have married above one and therefore we must confesse That it is at this day a thing fit and just and so it was in the daies of Constantine For though he were an Emperour yet could he not make that to be unjust which was just in it self Doubtless that ancient Church of Christ had the knowledge of divine matters and yet neither that Church nor the Emperors of those times did condemn or punish Polygamy But men had ratâ—er seem to be good then be so indeed since they are so great haters of plurality of Wives but not of Adultery Finally to condemn Polygamy is for a man to prefer himself before God who never condemned the same and to strive to be more perfect then he I spare to say that I may not allow of the Lawes of the Emperors in cases of Matrimony seeing they refer the business to the Ecclesiastick Lawes Och. If you will be tryed by them I am Victor Tel. Bring one Canon that makes for you Och. In the times of the Fathers Polygamy was accounted so filthy and so notoriously and manifestly abominable that they did not think fit to condemn it by words Tel. But I for my part am verily perswaded that those Fathers of the ancient Church were contented with the Canon of Paul who would have the Ministers of the Church to be contented with one Wife not because it was in it self unlawful to have more but that they might the better execute their Office but he allowed others to live according as they found themselves inwardly moved by God Och. And yet plurality of wives was forbidden in the third and seventh Neoâ—aesariensian Councel Tel. I say it was never forbidden neither in them nor in any other Och. Sure I am they ordained a penalty for Polygamists which they would never have done unless they had counted it unlawful to have more Wives then one Moreover they forbad all Priests to be present at the mariage of him that would have more wives then one Tel. True but they did not forbid Polygamy it self Och. They forbid it sufficiently when they ordained punishments for it Tel. Though you read all the Councels over you shall never finde Polygamy forbidden Nor can that be said to be the reason because they conceived it was forbidden in the holy Scriptures For neither is it forbidden as we have showne already and in the 17. Canon of the Apostles it is decreed that a man having two Wives should be removed from the Episcopal and Priestly Function and from all other Ecclesiasticall Offices But if the Authours of those Canons had seen that Polygamy was repugnant to the Scriptures to charity and the common good of mankind they would have excommunicated such as had two Wives nor would they only have kept them from the Communion but they would have also punished them grievously But those Apostolical persons as Paul had done before them did only forbid the Ministers of the Church to have more Wives then one not as if it were a thing repugnant to common honesty but because it would draw them away and divert them from spiritual exercises But becauâ—e afterward men began by little and little to turn aside from the right way so that many now fell to account Marriage unlawful they were not ashamed to write That a mans first Wife being dead it was Adultery and not Marriage to take another touching which matter you may see what Gratian writes So also Hierome and Tertullian interpret that saying of Paul and the Apostles as if his intent had been that he which had two Wives though one after another might not be
Contract which notwithstanding is not done And if it were so that these words should be used I give thee the use of my Body for ever though thou shouldest prove unfaithful to me thâ—râ— would be very few that could be content so to be bound Mesch Therefore it is that no such expression is used lest one should give the other occasion of breach of faith and to think Although I shall break my troth plighted yet cannot he or she deny me the use of his or her Body seeing it has been given me without any condition But they ought doubtlesse both of them to be of that mind Och. But I believe there are few that contract Matrimony in such a sense as that they will never deny the use of their Body to the party with whom they contract though that party should prove unfaithful But go to think you not that it is lawful for you after you have taken her in Adultery to separate your self from her for a time and not to meddle with her but to deny her the use of your Body yet â—o as to remain bound as before in the bonds of Matrimony not being in a capacity to marry another woman Mesch That I conceive I may lawfully do provided that the Matrimony be not dissolved Och. Yet according to your own words you married her upon such tearms and with such a mind as that you gave her the use of your Body without any condition so that you could not deny the same though she should prove unfaithful unto you Mesch In the matrimoniall Contract I gave my wife the use of my Body both without condition and upon condition as she also did to me Without condition in as much as I promised that I would neâ—er she living engage the use of my Body noâ— once grant the same to another although my wife should carry her self unfaithfully towards me Again I gave the same upon condition in as much as I gave it with this Proviso that she should be faithful to me otherwise that it should be in my power to deprive her thereof for a time and the self same my wife promised to me And this ought to be enough to preserve such as marry from Adultery besides other causeâ— both Divine and humane wherewith they ought to be moved to abstain from so great a wickednesse Och. But this imagination of yours is built and founded in the Aire and contrary both to the holy Scriptures and right Reason And that it is in the first place contrary to the word of God is clearly seen from the words of Christ who thus speakes You have heard how it is said He that will put away his wife let him give her a Bâ—ll of Divorce But I say unto you he that shall put away his wife save in the case of Adultery causes her to commit Adultery and he that marries her that is put away commits Adultery From these words of Christ it follows that if the wife be an adultress the marriage is dissolâ—ed and the Man may without sinne marry another woman which he could not do if he should put her away for other causes besides Adultery Mesch But there is no mention of this matter in the Gospel of Iohn Och. And what then I pray you Will you therefore deny that those words were spoken by Christ and accuse the other Evangelists for liars Christ wrought many miracles which are not written in the Gospel of John and did not Christ therefore work the said miracles because John has made no mention of them John in his Gospel did not write all the miracles and workes that Christ did nor all the words which he said yet ought we not a whit the lesse to believe that he did those miracles and workes and spake those words of which the other Evangelists have made mention than if they were likewise written in the Gospel of John Misch But what will you answer to this that it is by Mark and Luke reported that Christ should say If any man shall put away his wife and marry another he is an Adulterer without adding any exception of Adultery or any other thing Och. And what of all that Will you therefore say that Matthew added that exception touching the wives adultery from his own head Mesch Nay rather Will you say that those other two Evangelists have so delivered in writing the sentence of Christ in a matter of such moment as to leave his speech maimed and detract from his words Och. Matthew relates that Christ said touching Iohn Baptist that among all born of women none was greater then he And Luke that no Prophet had been greater then he Now if Christ had uttered those words twice it might be alledged That at one time he said a greater and at another time a greater Prophet But like it is that he spake those words but once And therefore we must think that eithâ—r Luke added that word Prophet of his own head or that Matthew omitted the same And because it is more credible that Matthew omitted somewhat then that Luke should add any thing we are to believe that Christ said there had been no greater Prophet Likewise in this case we ought rather to think that those two Evangelists omitted that exception touching Adultery then that Matthew did add the same So that we must confesse that it was uttered by Christ But let us suppose that Christ said it not and that Matthew added it in such a case we must certainly confesse either that Matthew wrote by the Instinct of Christ as his Instrument and Member and that it is therefore of as much authority as if Christ himself had said it or that Matthew added it of his own head and so all the authority of the Evangelists falls to the ground which were a great wickednesse to say And therefore we must confess that those words are true as they are recorded by Matthew Mesch That we may rightly understand the holy Scriptures the circumstances are diligently to be considered Matthew wrote his Gospel to the Jewes who because they were accustomed to Divorce their wives at pleasure he gave allowance to them as men unperfect to put away their wiâ—es for Adultery But Mark and Luke because they wrote to the Greeks and Gentiles who were not wont upon such slight terms to put away their wives as the Jewes were they did not permit them to put them away And because we are sprung from the Gentiles it is unlawful for us to put them away Och. In the first place How you come to know that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew I know not But suppose it be so as some give out it does not therefore follow that he wrote only to the Jewes If Matthew when he wrote his Gospel had wrote an Epistle to the Jewes and that touching matters concerning them alone there were somewhat in that you say But he in his Gospel relates the Nativity Life Death and Resurrection of Christ what he
Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband And then without any manner of exception he adds this following speech And let not the husband put away his wife And therefore it is unlawful for a man to Divorce his wife for Adultery Och. Do you believe that it is Pauls meaning that it is not lawful for a man upon any occasion whatsoever to put away his wife and marry another no not for Adultery Mesch I believe it Och. But I have shewn already That the sentence and judgment of Christ is That a man may lawfully put away his wife for Adultery and marry another How can it therefore be that Paul should faithfully declare the Commands of Christ as he saies of himself that he did if his mind was to speak contrary to what had been said by Christ viz. That a man ought not to Divorce his wife no not for Adultery For if this be his sense certainly Paul was no faithful Messenger of Christ And therefore if we will grant That Paul faithfully delivered the mind of Christ we must confesse that by him Adultery was excepted as well as by Christ although Paul did not in words expresse so much For this cause Ambrose conceived that in the words of Paul the exception of adultery must be understood left Paul should be contrary to Christ Add hereunto That seeing Paul in this place exhorts to reconciliation it is clear that he speaks not of Adultery but of other smaller injuries for which the Greeks were wont to make Divorce and which might easily be reconciled for which kind of injuries Paul would not by any means have married people to Divorce It may likewise be said That although the mind of Christ is That he who puts away his wife that has committed adultery and marries another is not an Adulterer because in such a case the second Matrimony is good and valid as the first was yet he did not think it was alwaies rightly done and that Husbands of Adulterous wives ought alwaies to Divorce them and marry others But rather that it may sometimes so happen that the wife being an Adulteress her husband may neverthelesse sin if he put her away and take another For in case a Wife have committed adultery and the Husband be so minded as to judge that it makes more for the Glory of God not to put her away and to take another than the contrary supposing it probable That if he take the Adulteress again she will be reclaimed but if he put her quite away she will grow worse he ought not to Divorce her and if he marry another he sins not because the second is no true marriage but because in refusing and divoreing her and marrying another he hath sinned against Charity and his own Conscience And because 't is likely that many times 't is the best way not to Divorce them Paul gave order in the name of Christ That they should not be divorced although they did commit adultery in case the husbands believe that it will make more for the Glory of God not to Divorce them But if the husband judge That in case he be reconciled to her both she and other wives by her example will become more insolent and depraved to the great dishonour of God he ought to put her away by Divorce Mesch Paul in another place saies That the wife is bound to her husband by the Law so long as he lives so that if she marry another man she becomes an Adultresse which holds not he being dead for then being freed by the death of her husband she is by the Law allowed to marry another And therefore a Wife cannot so long as her Husband lives any waies be freed from the band of Matrimony and marry another Och. They which hold it lawful for a man because of his wives adultery to marry another do not therefore think it lawful for a woman by reason of her husbands adultery to marry another man I may therefore grant you that which Paul writes viz. That it is in no wise lawful for the wife during her husbands life to marry another though her husband be an Adulterer But it does not therefore follow that the husband cannot Divorce his adulterous wife and marry another And therefore though the husband has power to put away his wife having played the Adulteress yet has not the woman the same power to Divorce her husband in case he prove an Adulterer and marry another man Mesch But what arguments do those men bring to maintain this their opinion Och. The very words of Christ who saies expresly That it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for adultery but that it should be lawful for a woman to put away or refuse her husband for adultery he has not said Neither did ever Moses speak so much as one word of the divorcing of men They add also this Argument because the husband is Head of his wife and has authority over her he may upon the occasion aforesaid put her away which the wife cannot do to the husband as having no such authority Mesch If Marriage be dissolved by adultery so that of two there is no longer one flesh made as there was by Matrimony seeing the husbands adultery is as much adultery as the wives I admire that Marriage is abrogated and dissolved by the womans adultery and not by the mans likewise Och. Marriage is not so dissolved by adultery that as soon as the adultery is committed the band of Matrimony is loosed and broken a sunder so that neither the woman is any longer his true wife nor the man her true husband For supposing the case to be so it were necessary that they should be married again to the end they might enjoy one another in a conjugal way without sin And therefore the Marriage is not dissolved by the Act of Adultery but by the womans Adultery it comes to passe that the Man has power to Divorce her and she being divorced the Matrimony is dissolved which does not so come to passe by the mans Adultery for as much as the wife does not thereby acquire any power to put away her husband or Divorce her self from him Mesch Nay but a wife may also put away her husband if he be an Adulterer although neither Christ nor Moses have expressed so much nor the Jewes ever practised the same Och. I will give you another answer to the words of Paul and say That it is not necessary that Similitudes Comparisons should in all points agree but it is enough if they agree in that particular for which they are brought As when Christ saies to his Apostles I am the Vine ye are the Branches his meaning is by that similitude to declare That as the Vine-branches cannot bear fruit without the Vine neither can they without Christ and if in that point the similitude hold it is enough But he does
not likewise intimate this That as the branches of the Vine bear fruit only once a year so they should bring forth the fruits of righteousnesse only once a year So Paul in the place before alledged wouâ—d declare to the Jewes converted to Christ That they were not now under the Law seeing by Christ the carnal man was killed in them who stood in need of the Law and brings the Example of a woman who may lawfully marry againe her husband being dead It is therefore sufficient if in this particular the comparison hold as it doth That as by the death of her husband a wife is freed from the Law of Marriage so that she may be married to another man even so we by the death of the carnal man are made free from the Law of Moses seeing that we now operate not by command of the Law but by impulse of the Spirit and are no longer under the Law but under Grace Yet is it not unlawful therefore for a wife to marry again her former husband being yet alive in case she be by him divorced Mâ—sch And yet Paul saies While he lives she cannot marry another without being thereby an Adulteress Och. I answer In that place the saying of Paul runs thus I speak to such as know the Law viz. the Jewes that are already baptized who know the Law allows a man to put away his wife by giving her a Bill of Divorce by which means she being freed may marry another man This therefore was the mind of Paul that she might not marry another during her husbands life unlesse she be first divorced from him and therefore during her husbands life it is not in her power to marry though she be an adultresse because the power of divorcing is not in her but in her husband And I am of the same opinion touching what the same Paul writes in another 〈◊〉 The wiâ—e quoth he is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth that is to say she cannot marry to another unlesse her husband put her away for Adultery But if her husband dye she is freed from that Law Mesch As God allowed the Jews by reason of their imperfection and to give a little way to the hardness of their hearts to Divorce their wives when they pleased so we must needs confesse that he has denied this liberty to Christians because they are perfect Och. This indeed is manifest Unlesse sin had been in the world there would never have been any Divorce and unto Christians who ought to be perfect Divorce may be in such a sense said to be forbidden in as much as Adultery is forbidden But if a woman be an Adulteress her husband is allowed to put her away and to marry another Even as if there had never been any sin Parents would never have cast off or renounced and disinherited their children and Christians as those that should be perfect are so far forbidden to renounce their children for as much as those causes are forbidden for which they may justly renounce them But if children be such that their Pa-Parents may justly renounce them it is allowed to Parents both to renounce them and to adopt others in their stead Mesch As the Jewes offended in divorcing their wives so do also the Christians and indeed much more Och. If at any time the Jewes did Divorce them upon a just ground they sinned not no more do the Christians Mesch There can be no just cause of Divorce by reason of those mighty inconveniences which follow the same Och. Christ it seems was not aware of those so great inconveniences which Divorce as you say brings along with it or you are more careful to preserve sanctity then Christ was If Divorce drew so many inconveniences after it as you say we ought to confesse that Christ did ill who allowed a man to practise it by reason of his wives adultery Mesch If Christ did permit it he permitted it only as an evil thing Och. That he permitted it to a man in case of his wives adultery is apparent out of his words which we have formerly heard But whether he did well or ill in permitting the same that is a thing truly which I would learn of you Nor do I take you to be so shameless as to say that he did not well in permitting the same Mesch He did well to permit it Och. If he did well to permit it for adultery it follows That they do not well and are contrary to Christ who deny the same though a mans wife be an Adultress Mesch They do it to a good intent that those inconveniences may be avoided which are wont to spring from Divorces Och. If greater inconveniences arise from the allowance then from the forbidding of Divorce Christ did ill to permit the same and they have done well that have forbidden it But because it were wickedness to say That Christ did ill to permit it we must confesse that they have erred that forbad it and that greater inconveniences arise from denying then from permitting the same Therefore it is rightly permitted by Christ seeing of two evils if one must be chosen we ought to choose the least But let us take this course do you reckon up the inconveniences which arise from divorcing wives for Adultery and I will recount such as spring from forbidding to Divorceâ— them which evils being afterwards put into the ballance one against another we shall see which are the greater Mesch I am content And in the first place If it were lawful for men to put away their wives for Adultery seeing the number of unchast women is great there would be a world of divorces from whence infinite inconveniences would arise Och. In the first place I believe there are many chast women and if some prove unchast I am sure there will be the fewer if they shall know they may be divorced for adultery and shall suffer the just penalties thereof Add hereunto That I do not say that a man may put away his Wife for every suspition no not if he shall see her play the Adulteresse with his own eyes but only if he shall convict her of adultery before Judges appointed to hear such cases Nor is the Husband in such case bound to put her away nay but it is lawful for him not only not to put her away in such a case but to be reconciled to her Yea and he is bound to do it if for some cause which may sometimes happen he shall fore-see that it will be more for the Glory of God to be reconciled I add this also Although the woman be convicted of adultery yet is it not lawful for the man to Divorce her and to marry another without the Magistrates consent who may sometimes determine that he shall not Divorce her as if for example sake he fears lest if he should Divorce her the womans Parents should raise great tumults and there should be danger of much blood-shed
And therefore there would not be in this case so many Divorces as you have intimated Mesch If the Magistrate in such a Case as you have propounded wouâ—d not suffer her to be divorced by her Husband he should then according to your judgement go contrary to Christ and therefore the Husband ought not to obey him Och. Nay but he ought for he should not go contrary to Christ For Christ does not command that a man should put away his wife for adultery he only grants that he may do it And the man ought doubtlesse to Divorce her if that shall tend more to the Glory of God But if to Divorce be more dishonourable to God then not to Divorce as it is in that Case by me propounded he ought not to Divorce her The Magistrate therefore is noâ— therein contrary to Christ but agrees with him and the Husband ought to obey him and not to Divorce her because Christ would have offences and the dishonour of God avoided Mesch Put the case that it is no dishonour to God to Divorce her and the husband believe as much but the Magistrate refuses for some humane consideration having no regard to God What shall the poor Husband do in this case Och. Not Divorce her Mesch But what if he shall contrary to the mind of the Magistrate Divorce her and marry another Och. He shall sin that marries another and deserves to be punished Mesch Suppose he cannot contain What shall he then do Och. Pray to God to give him the gift of continency Mesch What if God shall not grant his request Och. There are divers Remedies In the first place let him be reconciled to his wife Mesch What if she be afraid to have â—o do with him again Och. Let him relate the whole businesse to the Magistrate and make it appear that he wants the gift of Continence Mesch What if the Magistrate will allow him no remedy Och. Let him marry another with all possible secrecy and if it happen to come to light yet can he not justly be punished But it were better for him to go into some other jurisdiction where he might be allowed to marry another openly Mesch If Husbands ought to obey the Magistrate in not putting away their Wives though he unjustly forbid them Why ought they not to obey the Pope who would have them put away for no cause no not for adultery notwithstanding that Precept of his be unjust Och. In such a case as I propounded the Magistrate ought to be obeyed and not the Pope and that for this Reason The authority which Magistrates have is not contrary to Christ but agreeable to the will of God and therefore they ought not by refractorinesse to be contemned but to be honoured by Obedience But the authority of the Pope is point blank contrary to the Authority of Christ ought therefore to be contemned and opposed And that this is so I thus demonstrate The godly and Christian Magistrate has a power of taking cognizance whether women accused of adultery are indeed and in truth Adulteresses or not And in case they shall be lawfully convict of adultery they have the power of judging by sundry circumstances whether it is best they should be divorced or not And in case they may sometimes erre in their Judgement their authority is not therefore contrary to Christ as the Popes is for their business is not to hinder all Divorces but providently to consider when they may be allowed or not allowed being well assured that it may often so fall out that they may be lawful and fitting But the Popes work is to prohibit all Divorces as if to Divorce were never lawful contrary to the Doctrine of Christ who taught That a Wife may lawfully be divorced for adultery It is therefore fit in this casâ— to contemn the authority of the Pope as pernicious and contrary to Christ and on the otherside to honour the authority of Magistrates and obey the same as being useful in it self and agreeable to the mind of Christ though they may sometimes abuse the same But to return to our matter in hand Do you go on to declare the inconveniences which altered Divorce Mesch When women are not pleased with their Husbands they will commit adulteries that their Husbands may Divorce them to the End that being at their own dispose they may at pleasure marry to other Men Och. But this would very seldom happen In the first place because they would understand that possibly they might not be divorced though they should prove Adulteresses Again because although they were divorced being made infamous hardly any men would marry them Add hereunto That if just Lawes were in force they should be put to death or be at least so punished as it would be impossible for them to marry Mesch If a Man might put away his Wife for adultery and marry another his marrying another wife would shew that he divorced the former not so much because offended with her adultery as because he was allured by love of the second Ochinus Holy men can do nothing so uprightly but that wicked persons may at least calumniate their intentions yet ought they neverthelesse to persist in that which is right If Divorce should be exercised for adultery according to Gods word when ever it were done by order of the Magistrate it would give occasion of offence to no Man And if so be neverthelesse some wicked person should by such Divorce take offence where none was given it were not therefore just to compel the innocent Husband to hold society with so wicked a Woman to his great disgrace and infamy as in such a case would happen or to live single all his life after whether he were endued with the gift of Continence or not But go to consider with your self how many inconveniences have hitherto arisen upon this ground viz because it has been wholly forbidden to Divorce for Adultery In the first place Many men have killed their Wives whom they have taken in Adultery that they might free themselves from so shamelesse a companion and have by that means liberty to marry another which they would not have done if they might have been allowed to Divorce them Moreover many Husbands offended by their Wives Adultery and loathing to hold society with them have given them Poyson privatly or have run away from them and many times the Wives themselves for fear of death have abstained from the society of their Husbands in such cases and wanting peradventure the virtue of Continency have committed innumerable crimes which they had not done if being made each of them free by Divorce they might have joyned themselves to some other in Marriage And these were the fruits of Sir reverence those holy Interdictions of the Pope forbidding Divorce for Adultery and License to the divorced to marry again Meschinus As Christ sticks close to his Church and cannot be separated from her being his Spouse So a man ought to cleave unto his Wife without any possibility of separation Ochinus Nay rather As Christ divorced the Jewish Common-wealth because she brake her Covenant with him and had played the Harlot with many Lovers So a Man may Divorce his Adulteress Wife and marry another Meschinus No man marries a Wife to Divorce her Ochinus Nor does any man marry a Wife for her to play the Adulteresse Mesch But all men know when they marry Wives that they cannot Divorce them although they should prove Adulteresses and they marry them with such a mind as not to Divorce them Whence it follows That it is not lawful for them to Divorce them Ochinus Seeing it is false That they may not be divorced for Adultery and that which is false cannot be known it follows That Men when they marry do not know that their Wives may in no case be divorced They had indeed such a false perswasion but their Error being removed they may lawfully and honestly Divorce them though through erroneous perswasion they promised the contrary Meschinus You can never reckon up all the causes for which Divorce ought to be made and therefore it is better wholly to forbid it Ochinus Truly you reason most excellently just as if you should say You shall never be able to reckon up all the Causes for which men ought to be punished and therefore 't is the best way to forbid all punishment of wicked men But I for my part in the first place do assuredly know from the words of Christ That a Wife may be divorced for Adultery I know likewise that Magistrates may and ought to put in execution these Divorces for Adultery so oft as they see it may make to the Glory of God I know also that Divorce may be made for infidelity because Paul has so said Meschinus You shall never make me believe that while I live Ochinus Peradventure I may perswade you neverthelesse But because dinner time is already past and I find my stomach crave refreshment you shall dine with me After dinner we shall have time enough to consider Whether or no a Man may Divorce his Wife for Infidelity Mesch Content The End * In his Book of Wisdom Gen. 2. Gen. 3. 1 Cor. 7. Gen. 2. Mat. 19. Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 7. Gen 2. 1 Tim. 5. Deut. 17. Our Authour seems not to have heard or not to have thought when he wrote thus of the New-found World nor of many large Tracts of ground in Hungaria and other parts of Europe unpeopled Matth. 5 Eph. 2. Gal. 3. Rom. 7. Lev. 21. Mat. 5. 19. Deut. 24. Mat. 19. Matt. 19 1 Cor. 7. Rom. 7. 1 Cor. 7.
clause They are no longer two but one Flesh Tel. It is as if he had said The Husband shall love every one of his Wives as if she were the same flesh and the same body with him and so likewise shall every Wife love her Husband Och. But God said they two shall be one therefore there cannot be three or foure Tel. You were in the right if he had said They two only shall be one And therefore as this Argument is of no force Christ said If two of you on Earth shall agree about a thing they shall obtain what they aske therefore if three or foure shall agree they shall not obtain the same so is this no good inference God said They two shall be one Flesh therefore if there be three it is no true Marriage Och. It is impossible for more then two to become one flesh Tel. In the primitive Church there were not only two believers but they were in great numbers having nevertheless one soul and one mind and you believe if a man had divers Wives he could not become one flesh with them If a man while he cleaves unto an Harlot becomes as Paul sayes one body with her although he have a Wife should he not much more become one flesh with her if he should make her his Wife Och. Say what you will To have more then one Wife is a thing filthy dishonest and quite contrary and destructive to the holy State of Matrimony Tel. And yet you know that Abraham had more Wives then one as also David and many other men under the old Testament who in case it had been unlawful for them to have more then one Wife they should have sinned in marrying divers Women and the Children which they had by all their Wives excepting the first should have been Bastards because not begotten in lawful Matrimony Och. I will sooner grant all that you have said then I will allow or grant it lawful for one man to have more then one Wife Those Ancients were holy men yet did they sometimes sin They were sinners as being born of Adam as appeares in the example of David and they should have deceived themselves if they had denyed themselves to be sinners Tel. That they sometimes sinned I shall easily grant but I will never yield that they continued in their sins till their day of death which nevertheless they did in case it was unlawful for them to have divers Wives Whence it would follow that they were all damned as those who die while they keep a Concubine As for us we cannot hold them for Saints seeing we know not for certain that they ever repented When David had committed those same Acts of Adultery and Murther because he was one of Gods Elect God sent his Prophet to him to reprove him as also when he numbred the People contrary to the Command of God Credible therefore it is that if to have divers Wives had been contrary to the Law of God God would have used the like proceedings towards him that he might not be damned But though you read the whole Bible over you shall never finde that God has forbad the having of divers Wives And yet if it had bin a thing unlawful Moses would never have dissembled the matter Moreover the Scriptures tell us that David was a man after Gods own heart and that he was obedient to all the Lords Commandements all his life long save in the matter of Vriah So that had it been a sin to have divers Wives seeing that also had been sufficiently known the Authour would have â—â—cepted it or he must doubtless make himself a lyar by saying that David committed only that sin of Homicide under which his Adultery is comprehended Again how could that be true which God said to David when blaming him for his unthankfulness he told him that he had given him many Wives which questionless must have bin all Whores except the first and so it had not bin God but the Devil that gave them unto him Moreover you shall finde that God made a Law that if any man had two Wives the one beloved the other hated and had by them divers Children the eldest of which was the son of the hated Wife it should not be allowed the Father to make the Sonne of his beloved Wife his Heire Now it might fall out that the beloved Wife might be his first Wife and so it should come to passe that though the Husband had Children by the latter sooner then by the first yet they should be Bastards if your opinion be true and born of an Whore and therefore ought not to be Heires It is therefore clear by the word of God that all the Children are legitimate though sprung from divers wives by one and the same Husband and that therefore not only the first but the following marriages are lawful seeing God did both approve and blesse them in those holy men the first Fathers of the world Och. The first thing which you say follows from my opinion that all which died having many wives should be damned I answer If they are dead not having divorced all save their first wife or without repenting of their sin they are all damned But as many of them as are saved did repent and put away all but their first and lawful wife Tel. But it is not apparent that ever any did that and yet if your opinion were true mention ought to have been made thereof in the holy Scriptures that we might know and understand That to keep divers wives is an abominable thing Och. It was already known â—hat men ought not to have more wives then one because God had commanded that the Husband and the wife should of two become one-flesh Tel. It is not likely that it was unlawful to have divers wives and that the unlawfulness thereof was known and Abraham and Iacob and David and other worthy persons like them should nevertheless marry more wives then one Och. That 's a good one As if many holy men in ancient times did not sin though they knew what they did was unlawful Tel. But they did not continue to their lives end in those sins as those that married more wives then one did Och. I told you before that if they were of the number of Gods Elect they did at last repent Tel. But we ought no longer to reckon the Patriarchs for examples sake to be Saints seeing we are assured that they sinned in having many wives but we are not assured of their repentance Och. True unlesse the word of God assures us that they were Saints as we know for example sake Abraham Isaac and Iacob to be Saints because Christ said that many should come from the East and from the West and sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven Now I conceive that as Moses because of the hardness of their hearts suffered the Jews to put away their wives without just cause so for the