ingens Romani Pontificis clementia qui succurrat etiam iis qui apud inferos citra periculum exitii aeterni cruciarentur thereon gathering that seeing his compassion is so greate towardes those that are none of vs now it cannot be but that much rather he wil help those that are so much neerer vnto him Of his praesupposed power he reasoneth likewise two severall waies one waie out of the generall consideration of the whole the other out of a more speciall consideration of it as it hath beene imploied and what force it hath had in matters of much like nature to this Of the former he saith Videbam hoc tribui Pontifici Romano ut Evangelicam Apostolicam doctrinam interpretetur astringat laxet dispenset iuxta quosdam etiam abroget aliqua in parte so gathering thereby that seeing it is so commonly giuen to the Bishop of Rome not only to interpret the holy Scripture but also to enforce the same somewhat further and to let it downe againe when hee thinketh good or to remit some part of it as also to dispense therewith and in the iudgement of some even to abrogate some part of it also then need not he as I doe conceaue him be thought to importune him too much that doth but commēd this to his good consideration no further neither thē himselfe shall thinke good to deale therein In the latter hee doth not only set downe the ground of his reason but himselfe also addeth more then before what it is that he gathereth out of the same The ground of his reasō therein is that he saw per Romanum Pontificem person as reddi inhabiles quos neque natura neque lex divina fecerat inhabiles that is that certaine persons were by the Bishop of Rome made vnable to marry whom neither nature nor the law of God had made vnable That which himselfe doth gather out of the same is that it seemeth to be eiusdem potestatis hominis autoritate vetare ne coeat matrimonium efficere ut dirimatur matrimonium That is of like power that by mans authority mariage may bee prohibited to any and to bring to passe that when it is made it be broken againe Those other matters not vnlike to this decided already out of which he bringeth some reasons also are first the allowance of divorce by men of great reckoning then also the breaking óf both of espousals and mariage also in divers cases For the former of those hee saith Videbam viros olim probatae doctrine sanctimoniae que non fuisse deterritos Evangelij Paulique verbis quo minus admitterent divortium and for further confirmation of their doing he addeth videbam quaedam secus posse exponi quam hactenus exposita sint That is that hee hath noted divers men in times past of vndoubted learning and godlinesse not to haue been terrified by the words of the Gospell and of S. Paul but that they haue sometimes admitted divorce that certaine places belike that seemed most against thē might be otherwise expounded then hitherto they haue beene Which expositions if we may account thē those that himselfe in that Treatice bringeth in thē is it not vnworthy the marking whether most of those that are of that minde doe not since themselues also vrge them vnto vs as the truth indeede without any great examining of them how they stand with other Scripture For the former of the other two espousals I meane he saith that hee saw ob professionem instituti humani ob mutatum pallium sponsum legitimum fraudari sua sponsa that is that for the profession of some ordinance of man even for the changing of the attire a man lawfully espoused or handfast should be defrauded of his espoused wife And for the latter that he saw likewise in that age of his matrimonium dirimi ob errorem personae conditionis etiam consummatum coitu and ob lapsum in haeresim etiam illud dissolvi de quo dubitari non poterat quin verum esset matrimonium That is that he had seene likewise marriage to be accoūted void for the error either of person or condition although it were consummate before with copulation and that for falling into heresie such marriage also was held as brokē which no body might doubt of but that it was true marriage indeed In all which these his last reasons I meane it seemeth that his inference is that if so many waies men make them so bold with that holy ordinance to alter and dispose thereof in such liberty as in these cases they doe thē may no body thinke much with him for no more but propounding of that which he taketh to bee much better warranted even by the doctrine and plaine wordes of Christ himselfe That vpon these his aforesaid reasons he thought good to propounde this matter to bee farther thought on by others and that therevpon hee doth no more but propound it neither may sufficiently appeare both in the words that he vseth withall as namely when a little before his reasons and in the ende of handling the matter it selfe he saith Haec tamen paucis libuit delibare quo doctis a◠studiosis uberiorem cogitandi materiam praeberemus and immediatly after His rebus commota charitas Christiana proposuit ijs qui me plus cernunt dispicerent si qua ratione sermo Evāgelicus ac Pauli dispensari posset ad plurimorum sulutem c. And anon after Quod si hoc quod opto fieri non potest certè illud potest statui ne matrimonia praeter veterum omnium morem praeter aequitatem naturalem tam facilè ne dicātā temerè coeant That is yet these few things I thought good to giue in as a taste that I might giue occasion vnto the learned and studious to thinke better therevpon and which followeth that Christian charity being moved herewith hath propounded thus much to those that doe see farther thā I to the end that they should cōsider whether by any meanes that speech in the Gospell and in S. Paul might be dispensed to the good or safety of manie But if that which I wish may not be obtained yet certainly there might bee order taken that mariages shoulde not hence-forth be so lightly and so rashly made so far vnlik◠to all former good vsage yea and to natural equity it selfe Which things I haue more specially noted for two principall causes one concerning the validitie or force of the reasons he bringeth the other how far he buildeth thereon The force of the reasons the greater it is the iuster cause was there then yet is to helpe forward that motion so well as we can the weaker they are the lesse neede wee to account our selues vrged thereby to follow the course that they may seeme to commende vnto vs. How far he buildeth theron would be marked likewise because he doth proceed no farther thereon but to make this motion only
haue the sense with them also namely that there they are not forbidden to take vnto them any more but one wife at once For the words are but only of taking a sister to the wife that a maÌ„ already hath insomuch that it only may seeme to be forbidden that is a man to take vnto him a couple of sisters to haue them both in marriage together But if the place had beene better considered and conferred with other Scriptures besides then might they haue found that the more likely sense of that place had beene to haue forbidden them when any man had one wife already then to take another vnto her For first that thereby wee should be forbidden to take in marriage two naturall sisters may seeme to be no part of the meaning partly because of somewhat that goeth a little before and partly in respect of some other considerations that here wee haue in this place it selfe That which goeth a little before is for that in the next verse but one before it is forbidden to marry the brothers wife which in equitie may serue for this also to forbid vnto vs our wiues sister Those considerations that we haue in this place it selfe are the reasons that here are given and the limitation that is vsed therewith The reasons are two to afflict her withall and to vncover her shame vpon her Which of all others doe least agree to naturall sisters for that if a woman could brooke any other to be ioined with hâ—r she could best away with her owne sister in those respects the one of that greater loue that by course of nature is betwixt those that are so neere the other for that such are for the most part in all such matters most familiarly acquainted also The limitation so long as shee liveth hath no place without some harder construction of it but only in this sense that now we speake of for that by that former law of the brothers wife which is set downe without any such limitation we are forbidden to match so neere after death likewise But then that this other should seeme to bee the sense of it is much more likely both for that it doth so fitly agree to the institution of marriage it selfe at the first and for that it is not in the law elsewhere forbidden generaly to haue at once more wiues than one Vnto kings it is but not generally vnto al and of it might they haue reasoned that if it were forbidden vnto kings who in divers respects might most of all haue it allowed vnto theÌ„ then were it much more forbiddeÌ„ to al others besides If the maner of speech might be thought iustly to hinder them from coÌ„ceiuing such a sense thereon because the text nameth but a sister though that kinde of speech may bee somewhat strange vnto vs to carry such a meaning with it yet was it not so vnto them for that in their speech it was often vsed as of one swearing to another of curtaines that are fellowes of a paire of wings and of souldiers that march together in their aray In all which and in divers places besides as Arias Montanus and Tremellius and Iunius haue noted the Hebrew word is brother or sister according as the geÌ„der therein doth require for that which we say one another or some such like in things especially that goe by paiers couples or fellowes So that in this also it is a wonder to see that they never found their Polygamie to be forbidden when as yet notwithstanding the institution of wedlock at the first and the proprietie of their own tongue did lead them vnto it and an advised consideration of the place it selfe did so strongly hold theÌ„ of and chace them away from that sense that they would giue it 5 Since which time there is greater light bestowed on vs eveÌ„ on vs al generally for al matters of learning on many of vs the knowledge of the Gospel also in plentiful I measure And yet in this that now I speake of we are almost as blinde as they We doe not see but that it was allowed vnto theÌ„ to put away their wiues in divers cases and to marry againe and make no question but that in one case Christ himselfe doth allow it likewise And wee leane so much vnto this that many of vs are almost persuaded that the other also is no where forbidden vnto vs. At least in this place we never finde it notwithstanding the help that now we haue in the knowledge of the tong it selfe whatsoever diligence we haue in weighing the Text and in conferring one place with another no not when by other occasion as wheÌ„ the question is whether two sisters may be taken in wedlocke one after another we are specially vrged to looke into it In so much that when as for that sense we are something crossed by those reasons and limitation that are ioined withall yet doth that also helpe vs but little to find out the sense that now we speake of Which for my part I cannot see wherevnto we may rather ascribe then to our own corruption of nature being so much giuen as we are to that kind of revenge and our selues to haue change likewise And the lesse marvel when we haue such beames in our eies already if we caÌ„ so hardly see that the bond of mariage should be of any such force vnto vs as it is indeed 6 Herevpon when time was and the present occasion did so require in a Sermon I breefly noted that the libertie that in these our daies many doe take of divorcing their wiues for adulterie and marying of others had not such warrant in the worde of God as they thought that it had and afterward when that was hardly taken I did more fully deliver the same in two other Sermons only of it Which then also being hardly taken by some and not so fully allowed by others as the truth of the doctrine might well haue expected gathering thereby that such were like to be the iudgement of others in that point also and hauing good cause therein to extend that warning further I thought good since to write a little more fully of it and so to let it goe forth vnto all Whether therefore thou be married already or art hereafter to enter into it keepe vnitie now and make thy choice so well as thou canst and I for my part would never wish thee to conceiue any hope at all that wheÌ„ once that knot is rightly knit thou canst afterward haue any vndoubted or certaine warrant that for the adultery of thy wife if it should fall out that thy case should bee so hard thou maist be at liberty to marry againe For the farther opening of which matter I now refer thee to the Treatise it selfe And so in the Lord I hartily bid thee well to fare Bolton-Perey Decemb. 13. 1595. An Advertisement to the Reader 1 COncerning this Treatice wheras it is of
whereon if others since haue set an heavier building by over-ruling that point as a manifest truth that crept in but as it were two daies before as a poore and a doubtful question it seemeth to me either that they haue more and greater reasons wherevpon they are gone so farre or els which I rather thinke that they haue raised more building thereon than the foundation is able to beare 7 What protestations they haue thought good to ioine therevnto belike to qualifie the hardnes of their iudgment therein is so much the more needfull to be coÌ„sidered for that otherwise we might either charge them farther than iustly we may or suffer our selues to be carried farther by them than we ought Both which are so much as we may to be avoided the onâ— for the duty that we owe vnto them the other for the care that we ought to haue of our selues In which although chiefly I meane to rest on Erasmus also for that hee was so much as hee was our leader herein yet shall it not be amisse somwhat to heare some others also especially one that most of all hath advanced that perswasion in these our daies In Erasmus we â—inde some part of those his protestations to appertaine to that whole worke of his wherein his Treatice is of divorce marrying againe his Annotations on the New Testament and some part of them more properlie to belong to that very matter that now we haue in questioÌ„ among vs. Of those that belong to that whole worke of his I haue noted a couple one that sheweth how little he arrogateth vnto himselfe therein an other that doth shew likewise what liberty hee leaveth vnto his Reader For the former he saith Nos ad utrumque juxta parati sumus ut vel rationem reddamus si quid rectè monuimus velingenuè confiteamur errorem sicubi lapsi deprehendimur Homines sumus humani nihil alienum à nobis esse ducimus That is We are alike ready to both these either to giue a reasoÌ„ of it if any where we haue advised wel or plainely and readily to acknowledge our error if any where we be found so farre to haue slipped For the latter he saith likewise after that hee craved but such indifferencie as is afforded to all offenders at the Barre generally namely that his booke may first be read before it be condemned by any Legat prius ac inspiciat deinde si videatur damnet ac reijciat That is Let a man first read it and looke into it and then if hee thinke good let him condemne it and cast it from him Of these that doe more properly belong to that very matter that is in question I haue noted likewise a couple in the beginning of that his Treatice one other towards the end In those that he hath in the beginning first he protesteth his own good meaning therin that he doth it but to enquire of the truth and not to bee contentious therein then after he setteth good reasonable bounds for the better deciding of it As touching the former his words are these Ut semel in hujus operis initio sum testatus perpetuò testatum haberi par est in toto opere me nus quam esse velle contentiosi dogmatis autorem tantùm juvandi studio monere studiosos semper inconcusso illabefacto judicio sacrosanctae Ecclesiae et eorum quibus uberius donum eruditionis et sapientiae contigit à Christo that is As once in the beginning of this worke I did acknowledge I thinke it meere to bee acknowledged still that throughout the whole worke I wil never bee author of any contentious opinion and that my meaning is but only to admonish the studious for their help alwaies reseruing the judgement of the holy Church and of those on whome Christ hath bestowed a better gift of learning and wisdome altogether vntouched by me As touching the latter he saith likewise a little after Caeterum si semper hoc bonis viris cordi fuit opinionem in melius commutare leges seu pharmaca coÌ„venit ad morborum habitum rationem accommodare consideremus an hic expediat idem fieri si expedit an liceat ut matrimonia quaedam dirimantur non temere sed gravibus de causis neque per quoslibet sed per Ecclesiae Praefectos aut Iudices legitimos ita dirimantur vt liberum sit utrique cui velit iungi aut alteri certè qui divortio non dedit causam that is But if it ever pleased good men well to change their opinion vnto the better and if it be good to frame our Lawes even as medicines vnto the nature or maner of our diseases let vs coÌ„sider whether in this also it be good so to doe and if it be expedient whether then it be lawfull or permitted vnto vs that certaine marriages may be broken asunder againe not lightly but when the cause is weightie nor by any whomsoever but by the Governors in the Church or other lawfull Iudges and that those marriages may in such sort be broken asunder that it may bee free for either party to marry againe where they thinke good or at least for the one of them the same that gaue no cause of divorce That which he hath towards the end is much like to the former of these and of the same nature with it For wheÌ„ he hath before protested that he did propound this but to whet vp the studious to a further consideration of it hee inferreth therevpon Nec vllo pacto iudicio maiorum ob haec praeire conamur multo minus Ecclesiae Catholicae that is Neither doe we in any wise hereby desire to preveÌ„t the iudgement of our betters much lesse of the Catholike Church Those others that I haue thought good to bring forth to be heard in this cause besides are two Peter Martyr and Beza Peter Martyr though he runne the selfe same course in effect that Erasmus had before propounded and laid it open to those that would yet both hee would haue the Magistrates leaue first obtained as wee saw before hauing then set downe a good peece of his minde before for that matter in fiue whole Sections in the end of the fift he addeth Haec à me sictraduntur ut melius ac sanius consilium perpetuò sim paratus audire atque admittere that is These things are in such sort delivered by me that I am ever ready both to heare and to admit any better sounder advise Which words of his if wee restraine onely to that point that immediately goeth in that place before both I should thinke that wee should doe him manifest wrong and that his owne very wordes not speaking of one but of more would much favour our conviction therin and if we enlarge them vnto the whole or to the drift of his opinion in all those points before delivered then may we
themselues to be excluded froÌ„ all good hope that they are right at least that it is not a thing out of question 15 That consideratioÌ„ that ariseth out of that which themselues haue set downe is no more but this that even their owne manner of handling this matter is such as that divers defects appeare therein both in weake reasoning and in divers inconvenient speeches besides As touching both which before we come to exemplifie or to shewe wherein they do it it shal not be amisse especially to put away such evil surmises as otherwise might arise hereon more distinctly yet briefly to set it down both how farre we may charge them with those defects and how far we may thereby iustly conclude against them As touching the former we are not so farre to charge them as though vpon the principles that they conceiue they had no arguments to be regarded or that orderly did conclude nor that inconvenient speeches with them are so rife as that therein only there is sufficient cause to coÌ„demne the matter it selfe but that they do often vse such as are no good arguments indeed and that divers times they haue inconvenient speeches likewise But yet by their patience now to take in the latter withal they haue both these so much and so often that thereby they may iustly breed suspition in others even in as many as read with iudgment stand indifferent that they are somewhat partial therein are carried not a little with some private affection whatsoever that in vsing so often so weake collections they doe plainly insinuate their store of stronger was not so great and that in adding such inconvenient speeches withall others might iustly doubt that then they were so far out of temper as that they might overshoote themselues even in that also that is in question 16 Wherein these defects of theirs appeare is now to be seene and first how weaklie oft times they reason then what incoÌ„venient speeches they haue besides Those reasons of theirs that now I speake of doe most of them depend either on the things herevnto appertaining or on the authoritie or testimonie of others concerning the same The things herevnto appertaining are either the selfesame that are in question or else certaine others of such a kinde or so neere vnto them that from them they draw certaine reasons to these likewise Of the selfe same that are in question there are two sorts one that is of the substance of them others that are but accidentarie therevnto That which is of the substance of them is the nature both of adultery wedlock it selfe in this respect Out of the consideration of which because they doe so vsually reason therefore it shall bee good for vs to note both what reasons they are and of what force wee may take them to be The reasons that thereon they bring are such as bind all vpon this that the nature of Adulterie is such as that it doth quite dissolue whatsoever band there was in marriage before and that that was the cause why Christ made his exception only of it And so they reason not only to take away an obiection that otherwise would bee strong against them but also to expresse their owne opinion or iudgement therein The obiection that otherwise would bee strong against them is that coniunction that God had put betwixt man and wife wherevpon it is inferred by Christ Quod Deus conianxit homo ne separet that is that which God hath coupled let not man put asunder For answer wherevnto Erasmus first saith that nullo negotio solvi potest Hoc Deus coniunxit quod rite coniungitur hoc Deus dirimit quod rite dirimitur that is That doubt saith he may easily be loosed For that saith hee did God ioine together which was rightly ioined and that doth God himselfe put asunder which is well put asunder And Musculus after following the same answereth that illi non rumpunt coniugii vinculum but that the adulteresse sua persidia iam ante adulterando ruperit that is that they who in such case put away their wiues doe not breake the band of marriage but that the adultresse by her disloialty in committing adultery brake it before To expresse their owne opinion or iudgement therein both these and others doe otherwise set downe that same for the truth of their doctrine for that point For first Erasmus saith Divortium Christus astringit ad vnam adulterii causam non quoòd non sint alia flagitia adulterio sceleratiora sed quòd adulterium tota ratione pugnet cum coniugio Matrimonium è duobus vnum facit eam copulam dissecat adulteriuÌ„ Musculus likewise being to shew for what cause marriage may be dissolued saith Vna causa est quam Deus ponit dicendo Nisi causa stupri Nam hoc crimine conjugalis fides dissoluitur Againe Excipit causam stupri significans tuÌ„ licere c. Quia quod Deus conjunxerat per adulterium dividit mariti fidem obnoxiam sibi iam amplius non habet c. Nam nemo alterius improbitate ius suum quod à Deo habet c. amittere debet Againe speaking of an adulterous wife Marito amplius non viuit sedei cui perfida adultera adheret Mr Calvine likewise Meritò abijcitur mulier que perfidè coniugium violauit quia eius culpa abrupto vinculo libertas viro parta est Againe additur tamen exceptio quia mulier scortando se quasi putridum membrum à viro rescindens eum liberat Gualter also being of the same minde maketh his reason to be for that the adulteresse coniugii vinculum perfidè dissolvit or otherwise seeth not but that adulteris scortatoribus coniugii dignitas patrocinabitur quod Deus vt istis vterentur instituit Last of all Beza answering an argument that so it might come to passe that one man should at once haue more wiues Respondeo saith he in hoc argumento esse petitionem principii Praesupponit enim id ipsum de quo quaeritur manere nempe vinculum matrimonij etiam post divortium Concedo igitur vni viro non licere plures vxores habere sed addo vxorem esse desâ—sse quae propter adulterium se à viro separavit And anon after Coniugii vinculum abrupit quisquis factus est scortationis membrum And after that Concludo igitur adulterio abrumpi non tantum vsum sed vinculum quod nisi voluntate innocentis rursum coalescit integram esse eidem innocenti si continere noÌ„ potest novas nuptias inire c. And lastly Convictus adulterii maritus esse desinit The effect of all which concerning the matter that now we speake of is no more but this that in the iudgement of all these by the adultery of either of the parties the bond of matrimonie that was betwixt them is now
quibus verbis nihil planius aut magis perspicuum dici potest Itaque nullus adhuc est quod sciam inter Christianos seu veteres seu recentiores inventus qui non concesserit probato adulterio fas esse innocenti nocentem dimittere sed plerique excogitata distinctione inter separationem à thoro dissolutionem ipsius conjugalis vinculi quod rectè prius constituerant mox evertunt qúaÌ„ novi conjugij potestatem separatis non concedunt Cujus sententiae quum etiam Augustinus ipse fuerit necesse est imprimis ostendere quam firmis rationibus omnia contraria argumenta doctissimi Theologi nostra memoria diluerint that is For wheÌ„ Christ did see that the law of stoning adulterous persons to death as divers other good laws besides were not regarded yet would he provide for the conscience therein and therefore being asked whether as many did vse to doe it were lawfull for every cause to giue a bill of divorcement he so answered that hee did not only deny that for every cause it was lawfull so to doe but also did plainely set down that it was lawful for none other cause but only for adultery then the which nothing can bee more plainely or perspicuously spoken And therefore is there none found as yet that I knowe of among Christians either of olde or of late which hath not allowed that adultery being proued it is lawfull for the innocent party by divorce to put away the offender but divers of them hauing devised a distinction betwixt the separation from bed and the dissolution of the band of marriage it selfe doe by and by overthrow that which rightly they did allow of before seeing that they doe not graunt liberty to marry againe to those that are in such sort sundred Of which opinion seeing even Augustine himselfe was it is specially needfull to shew with how strong reasons the most learned Divines in this age of ours haue clean wipt away all the arguments of the contrary side And so hee presently setteth in hand to answere those Obiections that hee thinketh to stand in the way of that resolution But first let vs see what proofe it is hee hath brought for his owne Forsooth that Christ for that hee saw that the law for stoning adulterous persons to death was despised purposing to provide for the conscience before God he therefore c. What haue wee here but only his owne ghesse that that was the purpose and meaning of Christ Which if it were not as then wee haue herein no proofe at all so if it bee no more but doubtfull for that hee might as likely haue some other meaning which after I trust wil easilie appeare yet then also this coniecture of his may not iustlie stand for any sound proofe neither although for his worthines otherwise his iudgement may be had in special reverence And it is not to be denied but that that which he bringeth in immediatly after of so general a coÌ„sent of al in the allowance of Divorce for adulterie doth much make for that iudgmeÌ„t of his at the first sight but then there is to be considered withall both that they mistooke those places of the Old Testament which they thought to allow of Divorce for lesse matters and that yet they did not allow of such divorce for adultery as might dissolue the bond of marriage For if they did so far mistake those places aforesaid as that then they made no question but that by the word of God divorce was allowed for lesser matters then they might easily be of opinioÌ„ that there was no doubt but that much rather it was allowed for the greater and in that they were so loath to allow that even for it also the bond of marriage shoulde stand as broken it may seeme thereby that although they had in minde those wordes of Christ aswel as these yet how plaine so ever Mr Beza doth account theÌ„ they could not finde that so they might take them Now that S. Augustine was of that minde too that doth weigh so much against him as the credit of his iudgment standeth with any Whether therefore wee may be bold to account that here among these plaine and resolute speeches wee haue any proofe whereon to stay our coÌ„sciences before God or whether nothing could be spoken with greater perspicuitie when as so many and so quicke of sight could never so finde it that do I refer vnto others thinke it needful to be pondred of such as any way haue occasioÌ„ to vse the benefit of sound iudgment therein But belike Mr Beza did not meane much to confirme that to be the sense of the words of Christ that he had gathered for that hee thought that matter cleere enough in it selfe but hastned rather to answere such ObiectioÌ„s as he found to be made against it And so are wee also to see how he contenteth himselfe therein The Obiections therefore that himselfe acknowledgeth to be brought against it are halfe a score where of the one halfe are brought out of the worde of God the other out of other reasons besides As for vs it shal be sufficient to take the assay only of those that are taken out of the word of God and those are the verie same and none other that Erasmus before had brought both for the places of Scripture out of which they are taken for the order disposing of them and excepting the first for the matter also These therefore are likewise taken some of them out of the words of Christ some of theÌ„ out of the Apostle S. Paul And so belike wee haue al this while found nothing more in effect in the worde of God for this matter than Erasmus had found at the first when hee made the motion of it Those places that are of the words of Christ are three but the first two are heere also ioined togither in one and so do both stand but for one the thirde for another by it selfe Those two places of Christ that make but one are those former places out of the 5. and 19. Chapters of S Matthew but the Obiection that Mr Beza gathereth is not like that which Erasmus gathered before but varieth from it For whereas Erasmus gathered out of the austeritie or strictnesse of the whole but that one way or other the strictnes of it was to be mitigated vnto vs Mr Beza on the other side out of the libertie that he supposeth to be given by the one part of it answereth an Obiection that out of another part of it is made against them As touching the Obiection hee saith Primùm opponunt â—lli istud Christi dictum Qui repudiatam duxerit moechatur Nam certe si penitus solutum esset vinculum moechari vir ejusmodi non diceretur that is First they obiect that saying of Christ He that marrieth her that is divorced committeth adulterie For truely if the bond of marriage were cleane broken
it downe in plaine tearmes that in his iudgement dispicere quodagat is qui loquitur that is to consider what is the intent or purpose of him that speaketh is praecipua clavis ad intelligendam mysticam Stripturam that is the chiefe key to open vnto vs the secret sense of Scriptures And then it is plaine that in that law the meaning of God was not to shew when the married might accoūt themselues to bee loosed of that band wherewith they were tied the one to the other but how Magistrates should in such case execute his iudgements among their people Againe whosoever would so resolutely set down that the band of mariage were so cleane dissolued betwixt man and wife only for that when either of the parties are found to haue committed adultery they ought by the law of God to die they had need to be further advised first as touching this presēt crime that now we speake of whether that ought to be the determination of all estates for life generally as when one hath that way deserued death he that is in reversion should then account the right of the thing to be his whether that the Magistrate and laws doe neverthelesse spare him his life or not and whether such as owe any other duty besides as children to their parents servāts to their masters and such like might likewise in such case be allowed to account themselues discharged of it and then as touching some others besides when any men else haue deserued death either by those lawes of God as for blasphemy prophaning the Sabbaoth or whatsoever else or else but by the lawes of the country wherein we dwel though not against the law of God yet further then it in those matters is wont to proceed whether in such cases we were to allow that liberty or otherwise what reason we haue to be so resolute in the one so doubtfull in the other These that are taken out of the Apostle S. Paul are three likewise but two of them as in the others in effect but one the other is of severall force by it selfe These that are in effect but one are those two before noted the one in the seaventh to the Romans that the wife is by the law bound to her husband so long as he liueth the other out of the seauenth likewise of the former to the Corinthians tending to the selfe same ende in sense or meaning And as they are in effect but one so doth he giue in effect likewise one answere to both to the former Atqui Apostolus ibi non agit de causis divortij that is But there the Apostle doth not treate of the causes of divorce and to the latter Respondeo Apostolum ibi non agere de divorij causis that is I answere that the Apostle doth not there treate of the causes of divorce But though this in generall bee the substance of his answere to both yet he proceedeth somewhat further in either of them To the former he addeth first that which he thinketh the Apostle at that time meant namely that he did as it were but catch or pluck to himselfe ex coniugio similitudinem quatenus id argumento proposito conveniebat that is A similitude out of wedlock so far as it agreed to the purpose that he had in hand Then also both that the Apostle doth speake there non de matrimonio per adulterium soluto sed de matrimonio constante that is Not of such matrimony as is dissolued by divorce but of such as is still in force and that a woman condemned of adultery may not bee said to bee vnder her husband for that etsi adhuc is est superstes qui vir ipsius fuit non est tamen amplius vir ipsius nec ipsa potest esse simul mariti adulteri caro that is Albeit he were yet liuing that was her husband yet now he is her husband no more neither can she be the flesh both of her husband an adulterer To the latter he addeth likewise both that he teacheth widdowes there soluto per mortem matrimonio posse bona conscientia ad secundas nuptias convolare that is mariage being dissolued by death they may with good conscience marry againe and that therein he had respect but to the vsuall and ordinary cause praesupposing inter fideles quibus scribebat vix alia ratione quà m morte matrimonia dissolvenda that is that amōg the faithful to whom he wrote marriage could hardly be dissolued but only by death In the answere vnto both which what haue wee else to ground vpon but only his own opinion avouched againe and here also but weakely confirmed Hee saith the Apostle doth not here speake of the causes of divorce Who saith that hee doth What is that to the purpose that of them he speaketh not now By other occasion he speaketh that which may shew vs how vnadvised we are in this And why should hee speake of that which was not We praesuppose that divorce was by the law of God allowed vnto them and the latter Iewes in the time of Christ seeme much to be of the same minde also though they might so say to some other purpose But there was no such liberty giuen them indeed and therefore we may not looke that the Apostle shoulde speake of it And should we never suffer our selues to be better led or our iudgements to be rectified by any Scripture but only by such as specially treateth of the matter wee haue in hand If Sathan might so far prevaile by any special ones amōg vs he would not only depriue vs of a good part of that direction that wee haue by the word of God but also might haue an easie way therein besides to bring in and settle many errors among vs. When God spake to Moses out of the bush and said I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Iacob was it his meaning then to deliver the doctrine of the Resurrection and yet doth not Christ even only out of it notably deliver the same vnto vs When God forbad the Israelites to muzzell vp the mouth of the Oxe that trod out their corne was it his meaning then to teach men howe careful they ought to be to maintaine a Ministery among them and yet doth not the Apostle wel apply it therevnto But there were no end of such examples In the former of them he addeth farther that he doth but borrow a similitude thence so far as belonged vnto the purpose he had in hand What then Could his reason be good therein vnlesse that same from whence hee taketh the force of his reason were sound it selfe And if he cā thus put of his Readers to say that he doth speake of a marriage that stādeth in force by adulterie is not dissolved doth it therefore follow that marriage may be by adulterie dissolved If it be resolved and set downe by him that being
himselfe yet I doubt not but that in the end it wil appeare that therein he troubled himselfe more theÌ„ he needed and in the meane season that every one may perceiue that he counteth those such faults but onely in respect of that presupposall that such divorce as he requireth doth vndoubtedly staÌ„d on the authority of the word of God which if it doe not will soone make those great faults of his to be none at all As touching that other that is of the same iudgement likewise he also accounteth that to be weake which is brought against it and accordingly dealeth therein and especially against one whome hee hath made his choice adversary in it for whom also I for my part but so far as he hath the truth will craue no sparing More specially whereas S. Augustine is accounted to be the strongest of all against the liberty of divorce for adultery and marrying againe he noteth more weaknesse in that iudgement of his then others doe that yet I haue seene both in his owne confession after in mistaking a part of the Text. But how far that weakneth the force of his iudgement is not so needfull for vs to discuâ—se as not so materiall but onely to such as rest some parte of their iudgement on him which in this I meane not to doe 23 What inconvenient speeches they haue besides if now we examine the truth is that all of them lightly that I haue seene haue some but yet that Erasmus the leader of them hath therein so far gon beyound them all that none of them so far as yet I haue fouÌ„d haue attained vnto him And because inconvenient speeches though they be no certaine argumeÌ„ts that the cause is not good that is handled by such yet are they faire warnings for any in such case to take heed because they proceed from a troubled mind and most commonly argue a want of the truth and even by that only oftimes are occasioned therfore it shall not be amisse that we somewhat consider of them but first of those that we finde in Erasmus then of such as we finde in others Of those that we finde in Erasmus there are two sorts some of his owne for which himselfe is to answere others that are none of his but belonging to such authors as himselfe bringeth in to help to beare out his owne persuasion therein Those that are his owne are of two sorts also some concerning his own iudgement in this matter others concerning the Scripture it selfe Concerning his owne iudgement in this matter he hath in such sort ordered his speech therein that although he hath not plainely set it downe yet hee seemeth to incline vnto it both that certaine disorders in making of mariages should be good cause to dissolue them again and that even the wickednesse of a woman want of children also belike he meaneth of such as are legitimate that he may not so account of those that either he had or hereafter might haue by his adulterous wife yea burning lust also should be good causes likewise to marry againe For the former he saith Apud ethnicos noÌ„ erat ratum matrimonium nisi parentum aut tutoruÌ„ authoritate comprobatum ne apud Iudaeos quidem tamen apud utrosque aliquo modo dirimi poterat matrimonium Apud Christianos facilime coit conjugium semel initum nullo modo potest divelli â—urtim inter pueros puellas per lenones lenas inter stultos ac temulentos copulatur matrimonium tam turpiter initum indssolubile est quod magis est notum sic initum fit sacramentum that is Among the Heathen there is no mariage accounted of force but that which was approued by the authority of parents or tutors neither yet among the Iewes and yet with both those might matrimonie some way or other bee dissolued againe Among Christians marriages are most easily made and yet being made may by no meanes be broken off By stealth betwixt boies and wenches by bawds and harlots betweene fooles drunken persons haue mariages beene made and yet a marriage being so ilfavourdly made may not in any wise be dissolued and which is the straunger of the two is become a Sacrament also To which ende soone after hee doth likewise insinuate that if the Magistrate or competent Iudge should dissolue such then were they rightly dissolved by the Ministers of God which before were naughtily made by the Deacons of the diuel For the latter hee saith likewise At interim seposita paulisper authoritate scriptoris rem ipsam mecum expendat lector num hae satis graves sint causae cur innoxius maritus debeat alligari sceleratae mulieri orbitatis molestiam libidinis incendium ferre per omnem vitam ne vel parum prudens habeatur à quibusdam quod rem quae non successerit denuo sit aggressus quasi turpe sit qui semel tempestatem expertus sit iterare navigationem aut qui in deligendo amico erraverit quenquam alium in amicitiam admittere vel intemperans aut avarus qui formam aut dotem mutare voluerit non vxorem that is But setting aside for a while the authority of the writer meaning S. Ierom let the reader coÌ„sider with me the thing it selfe whether these be causes of sufficient importance that then men would easily take occasion divers waies to breake of and to marry againe that the husband should be tied to a wicked woman or that he should suffer either the griefe of the want of Children or the heate of lust all his life long least he should be accouÌ„ted of divers either vnwise that hauing taken in hand such a course before as did not fall out well with him he neverthelesse doth take it in haÌ„d againe as though it were a shame that hee which once had beene in a tempest should goe to the seas againe or he that had beene before deceiued in choice of his friend should never admit any other into his friendship againe or intemperate or covetous as though he rather desired to make his exchange of more beauty or better dowry theÌ„ of his so bad a wife Which course of his if any people should establish by law among them it were hard to finde how it might bee avoided but that for matters of marriage all others thereto appertaining some would all be cleane out of order For first as touching so large a liberty of divorcing their wiues away from them vpon any of those so many braunches of disorderly marriage we may plainely see that it would lay open a ready way to many divorces for because those disorders are such as that wee may conceiue no hope that either they will or may be amended So likewise for marrying againe therevpon if but the two first causes onely might bee allowed soone should we see that such a liberty so freely graunted would be by many as freely vsed but then if
be doubted that they haue some Scripture against it and that in large and plentifull measure I accoūt it to be so plaine in it selfe that I doe not thinke it needful to go any further but only in breefe and short manner to point vnto it and that not onely when regard is had to those places that directly treate of that matter that is in question and so are held by very many as learned godly as any others but also if recourse be had to some other places which are more generall and yet may specially bee applied to this likewise Those that directly treate of the matter that is in question and so are held by very many as learned and godly as any others are such as either set downe the nature of marriage as God ordained the same at the first or else do teach vs the nature of it after that once it is so ordained Those that set downe the nature of marriage as God ordained the same at the first are of two sorts whereof one onely is the Originall the others are references therevnto That which is the originall is that knowne place in the second of Genesis how God cast Adam a sleepe tooke a rib out of his side made a woman thereof brought her to Man and so ioined them both together Of whome it doth immediatly follow that shee was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh and that in respect of that so neere a coniunction in that she was taken out of man to him delivered by God himselfe a man should leaue Father and Mother and cleaue to his wife and that they two should become one flesh Those others that are references therevnto are divers as namely that of Christ wherin he repeateth the same againe and then addeth therevnto whom God hath coupled together let no man put a sunder and divers others elsewhere besides which wee need not here to reckō Those that teach vs the nature of wedlock I meane for this matter after that once it is ordained are divers likewise as namely when the Apostle teacheth that the woman so long as her husband liueth is tied vnto him c and elsewhere likewise that the wife may not depart from her husband c nor the husband put away his wife Which also wee neede not to gather together for that there is no body that doth bring any of them against the doctrine that herein we are to set downe but shun them rather as altogether going against them or otherwise when they are pressed with them then secke to qualifie them so well as they can Those that in this respect are but generall and yet may specially herevnto bee applied are divers some that concerne one point of our duty towards God others that concerne certaine duties of ours towards our neighbour Those which concern one point of our duty towards God are al such as reach vs patiently to beare the crosse that he layeth on vs. Those that concern certaine duties of ours towards our neighbour are of two sorts some that teach vs that wee be ready to forgiue him his offences to vs others that call vpon vs to bring on so well as we can to all Christian integrity those whome God hath to our charge committed Having therefore these Scriptures against them and divers others such like as these I see not how they can avoid it but that they are hereby forbidden in such sense to take that Exception vnto them For they both are one flesh even in the neerest society of al coupled together by God himselfe and therefore not to bee sundred by any the wife to keepe to her husband so long as shee liveth and the husband not to put away his wife If by our vnadvisednesse before or negligence after or howsoever else it so fall out that herein God hath laid a crosse vpon vs what better service can wee in such case doe vnto him then truly and quietly to beare it til he be disposed to ease vs of it If therein there bee offences committed against vs we knowe who it is that hath forbidden vs al revenge and hath willed vs freely to pardon If we haue an vntoward peece in our handes to make any good workmanship of yet if we doe our best indeavor hee will hold vs excused but not if wee cast it out of our hands and the worse that any such is the more doth every such party need that the other should deale accordingly with it and the more worke may the other see that God hath laid him forth therein So if we cast our eies vnto these either such as I haue thus breefly remembred or any others that are of that nature we are so far from finding any sufficient warrant at all to that presupposed liberty of these wātons of ours in such sense to take this exception we speak of that we rather are flatly beaten not only from hope of finding any helpe in these but also even from all expectation of it any where else 32 That if there were no Scripture against it yet that it were not convenient for vs I take it to bee though disputed by some yet so generally graunted almost by all that whatsoever inward conceipts divers may nourish for the common corruption of nature in vs worketh in that kind strong strange fancies in many yet outwardly very few or none of them all will seeme to deny it But then the truth is that they pretend to haue this meaning withall that thereby they would occasion the Magistrate to punish that sinne by death so to make an end of this questiō betwixt vs or else that on him should rest the blame of such inconvenience First therefore it shal be good to consider how inconvenient the thing it selfe would be among vs then how little cause there is vnder such pretense so far to take that liberty vnto them How inconvenient a thing it would be with vs may soone appeare first in respect of the Publike cause of all then in respect of certaine private persons besides In respect of the publike cause of all it would be an incōvenient thing with vs partly for that we haue already taken other order amōg vs but especialy for the disorder that would come in vpon vs thereby The other order that wee haue already taken among vs is that part of the forme of our solēnization of marriage whereby each partie is directed to take the other for better for worse which being the generall act of vs all alloweth no particular persons so farre to breake it or to call it in question but that it concludeth such doing to be more thē any such may well set abroach among vs. The disorder that would come in vpō vs thereby is that it would open too wide a gap to al discontēted couples to breake of and to marry againe to their better liking so long as we should haue no stronger
24. Some againe beloÌ„ging to all others but to certain of them Ib. Others â—ow the innocent partie is to deale with the offender Ib. Though it might be done yet that it were inconveâ—ient both in respect of the publike cause of all in â—espect of many private persons besides S 32. See likewise Erasmus and Weake reasoning Indifferencie see Erasmus Things Indifferent a Rule for them S. 29. Innocent partie whether bound to seeke to the Magistrate for the punishment of the offender discoursed by Beza S. 24. So likewise whether againe to receiue â—he offender into favour Ibid. See also Inconvenience and Inconvenient Their Innocent partie see Odâ— Innocencie see Malice Insufficienâ—ie see weaknesse Intemperatenesse of a widdow see Malice Vnwonted Interpretations whà t is to be gathered out of them S. 13. The interpretation to be favorable otherwise the dispensation will be needfull S. 20. Corrupt inâ—erpretation Ib See also Heed Iohanan see Divorcers Ioseph for Marry called in question S. 24. Isaâ—0 â—0 1. God not divorcing his people S. â— Iudgements of God divers and fearefull against those that in doubtfull cases haue neglected first to seeke vnto him S 30. And for iudgement see Opinion Iudicialls of Moâ—es of what force to bind others S. 24. Iunius see Translation and Tremellius Iustifie S Basils Rule see Examples Iuvenall S. 20. K. Kemnizius see Chemnizius See likewise Musculus and speeches of others L LAndâ— of an adulterous woman remaining with her husband and by vertue of marriage argue the bond not to be altogether broken S. 16. The old Latâ—â—â—â— acknowledged by Erasmus himselfe not to to be of his minde S. 4. Lawes Those that be decretall to bee against Erasmus S. 4 That any also are laid not to bee needfull for true Christians had need to be warily taken S. 18. To be Lawfull which God alloweth how far vrged by Erasmus S. 19. That also sometimes to bee lawfull which the law punisheth not Ibid. Lawing see Divorce Ed. Le about this matter vncurteously vsed by Erasmus S. 10. Afterward Archbishop of Yorke Ib. Leà ue out see ground Of the more Learned that generally they mistooke the Text whereon they builded and that certaine of the chiefe oâ— them haue so acknowledged since S. 34. Lending on vsurie see Examples Lev. 21.7 A divorced woman not meet for any Priest to marry S. 2 Letting loosse to fleshly Liberty not likely to be any worke of Christ. S 13 And for such kind of liberty Farther see divorce and Flesh. Like to this see other things Eras. how he Limiteth his iudgement of divorce S 19 Pope Lion see Bond Loue see Enimies Lyranus such for divorce as for vsurie S. 28 His iudgment for vsurie how to be applied against divorce Ib. See divorce M MAgistrats see Adulterie Bond Innocent party and Pâ—etense Making Bishops see divorce The Mallice of the Iew the intemperatenes of the widdow thought by these to bee more fauoured then the innocencie of the partie not offending S 18 Mal. 2 16. If they hate them to put them away S. 2. v 7. Erasmus not noted to haue medled with it S. 10. In what sense taken by Musculus Martyr Calvine Gualter S 10. The place it selfe not to yeeld so much in the letter but more in the sense S. 12. See also Words Many see wiues Of Marriages disorderly made divers noted S 6 again see Bond disorderly twice Divorce Inconvenience Marry That neither the maÌ„ is punâ—shed if he mary another neither divorced women forbidden to marry both these by Erasmus pleaded S 19 see also Christ Divorce Marrying againe on divorce for adultery held by many of speciall account S. 1 But many mo of the learned against it then with it S 14. such placeâ— as seeme to be for it Ib. again see August dovorce 4. times warrant Marrying two sisters see Beza and Examples P Martyr that no men of any good sort ever vsed divorce S 4. How he protesteth S. 7. many waies to dissolv maryage S. 4 see also Adultery Dâ—ut 24. Mal. 2. speeches of theirs Mat. 5.31 32. what wee may rather take to bee the meaning thereof S. 26. See also Erasmus Politicall Mat 19.3 9. what may seeme to bee the meaning of this S. 27. See also Erasmus Meaning see Mat 5. Circumstances Perfection Not Medled with see divers places Medling see collections Misliked see Calvin How far they Mistake farther declared S 10 See also Places Moderate see Beza Ari. Montanus on that place of Mal. not suerving froÌ„ the wonted reading S. 12. See also Translation How Musculus reasoneth on certaine authorities of the word of God S. 19. Vrged by Musculus first and Chemniziusafter out of that law that a Priest might not marry a divorced woman that it was lawful for a divorced woman to mary againe S. 19. Againe see Adulterie came to tempt Deut 24. Malae 2 Meaning Obiection Politicall and Speaches of others N Natalis Bedda see Erasmus Num. 5.13.31 A probabilitie that Deut 24.1.4 is not so to be taken S. 11. O An Obiection strong against them how Erasmus and Musculus doe answere S. 16. In that Obiection that they gather out of the Apostle allowing the forsaken to mary againe as the case may be the matter to bee cleere that the case is not like the one being altogether deprived of the benefite of mariage but not the other S. 33. Obiections but the same that Erasmus had gathered before S. 21. Some out of the words of Christ others out of the Apostle S. Paul Ibid Obiections a couple the former of them of the exception vsed therein S. 28 See also Beza and opinion Occasion of this Treatise S 1. Ods see Great Offender see Innocent How they gather their owne Opinion or iudgemâ—nt and how they answere such obiections as stand against them S 20. The opinion of divers learned men that way inclining S 34. Order see Inconvenient Of the ancient Fathers Origen Tertullian Pollentius by his welwillers in this cause said to be a graue and learned man and Ambrose all noted to be at least inclining to this opinion of theirs S. 22. The Originall or Hebrew Text against that â—ense of Deut â—4 1 4. S. 11 Divers Other things which they conceiue to be like vnto this S. 18. Otherwise taken see Groundworke Others see private persons One of our Owne see Erasmus P. Panormitanus see Ioan. Andrez Pardâ—n see Innocent Particulers see divorce Parties see Bond Parties themselues see Divorce S. Paul noted to let downe oftimes the rigor of that which Christ requireth S. 20 Perfection to what end commended vnto vs S 18. That Christ in that his discoursedid not mean to teâ—câ— it but to lead them on somewhat farther to appearâ— by those exaÌ„ples that there are aleaged 526 se divorce A Perilous point see Bond. Persons see Circumstances How ready men are to sort themselues to that Persuasion S 3. Pharises tempting see Circumstances Some such Places as the