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
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
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
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