strong or meate out of the eater the handling of it may not be triuiall or vulgar Hauing thus according to my poore talent deliuered that which I hope will not be offensiue to the godly because it is cōsonant to Gods word nor scandalous to the state as tending to schisme or maintenance of strife because it is according to the Decree established the last Parliament by the generall consent of the Cleargie my humble desire is that the world would so thinke of vs as of the Ministers of Christ and disposers of the secrets of God of whom it is required that euery one should bee found faithfull and to thinke of mee concerning M. Beza that I do blesse and magnifie God mightily for all the good parts which are in him that I am Famulus seruorum Dei touching all the true seruants of God I liue to do God and them seruice And so I commend them to the gracious protection of him whom they serue A SERMON PREAched at Paules Crosse the 10. of Maye 1601. Math. 19. verse 9. I say vnto you that whosoeuer shall put away his wife except it be for whoordome and marrie an other committeth adulterie and whosoeuer marrieth her which is diuorced committeth adulterie AN answere to a question propounded by the Pharisies to our Sauiour Christ concerning diuorcement of Wiues from their Husbands and by a consequent of Husbands from their Wiues whether it be lawfull or no The answere is negatiue that no diuorcement is lawfull For first he sheweth that no man may put away his Wife for any cause Secondly hee prooueth it for as much as if any man hath put away his wife hee hath done it of fact onely and not of right and his fact is held vnlawfull according to Gods word because hee may not marrie any other while she liueth Thirdly hee prooueth that hee which hath put away his wife can marrie no other while she liueth because shee can marrie no other while he liueth For these three conclusions do necessarily followe The first If the putting away of a mans wife be of this nature that still shee continueth his wife then it is no diuorcement The secōd If the putting away of a mans wife be of that effect that shee is no longer his wife then he is no longer her husband The third If shee be no more his wife shee may marrie an other and if he be no more her husband he may marrie an other therefore the knot of matrimonie is dissolued and both are free But our Sauiour teacheth that neither of them is at libertie to marrie againe therefore that the bond of matrimony remaineth firme and therfore that there can be no diuorcement These things are easily apprehended but the difficultie is how these cōclusions may be collected out of this text May it please you to vouchsafe mee your attention and laying aside all preiudicate opinions not to passe your censure against me before you haue heard all that I will say For if you come with preiudice your harts shal be made fat your ears heauie your eies blinde as the Prophet speaketh that hearing you shal not vnderstād that seeing plainly you shal not perceiue If ye condemne me before ye haue heard me then do ye not followe the Apostles rule Omnia probate quod bonum est tenete trie all things hold onely that which is good and then are ye not sincere hearers of Gods word therefore heare and then iudge If ye cōdemne this doctrine as erronious because to you it seemeth strange and you do not sufficiently conceiue it I speak to the vnlearned then do you measure Gods truth by your owne errour the power of God by your own weaknes the depth of gods wisdome by the shallownes of your owne reach Vrsinus before his Catechisme alledgeth sixe reasons why mē reading the scriptures albeit learned yet vnderstand thē not whereof one is preiudice tenne why reading they profit but a litle whereof fiue are these ignorance of the true drift and scope of that which they read they follow not the analogie of faith they conteine not themselues within the bounds of diuinitie they contemne the iudgement of the Interpreters they stand too peremptorily vpō the bare word and letter Among sixe rules which he giueth for the better vnderstanding of any Text one is a true desire to learne and zealous intent to goe away better instructed Another I adde of mine owne obseruation which is this the right vnderstanding of the Text consisteth much in the true reading of the same for if ye mistake in reading ye cannot but faile in vnderstanding And because many of this Auditory are defectiue in all these points I desire you according to these Premisses to heare me with indifferencie and not with preiudice as condemning me because Beza and Melancthon and others are of a contrarie opinion to waigh well the true drift of our Sauiour in this Text to follow analogiam fidei loci the analogie of faith in generall and of this place in particular to cōteìn your selues within the bounds of diuinitie that ye harken to the Interpreters I meane the auntient Fathers which were nearest to Christ and farthest from corruption that ye dwell not vpon bare and naked letters that ye heare me with a desire to learne and according to mine owne rule that ye would heare how to read this Text because many Diuines do not read it rightly and therefore no maruell though they expound it falsely For legere non intelligere est negligere to read and not vnderstand is not truly called reading but mere negligence Balthazar could read the Characters written by the hand in a wall mene tekel peres hee hath numbred he hath weighed hee hath diuided so could the wise men of Babell but a more exact kinde of reading was required of Daniel that was to read and vnderstand and he read it in more ample maner then it was written God hath numbred thy Kingdome and finished it thou art weighed in a ballance and found too light thy Kingdome is diuided and giuen to the Persians Wherefore let vs not read cum neglectu sed cum intellectu not ignorantly but intelligently not as Balthazar but as Daniel as readers which know what they read else it is in vaine to read I say vnto you c. In which assertion is a kind of Elleipsis or want of words which defect as it is verie common in the Greeke Hebrew so it is commonly supplied by the learned Reader and Translator by addition of words to make the sence perfect as Daniel did Do not entertaine so irreligious an opinion of me as if I should adde any thing of mine owne vnto Gods word yet where the originall Text is obscure and vnperfect like vnto this somewhat must be added out of Gods word which by the circumstances of the place very cōnectiō and coherence of it doth appeare to be necessarily vnderstood but so that the additiō be
putauerit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit neque sequi oportet hominis consuetudinem sed dei veritatem If the sheepe of Christ doo heare his voyce onely wee must not bee inquisitiue what others haue done before vs but what Christ which is before all hath appointed to vs neither must we follow the customes of man but the truth of God Bigamy was permitted to the Patriarkes yet vnlawfull so diuorcement to the Iewes though vnlawfull It were very hard if our Sauiour hauing thus pronounced diuorcement to bee vnlawfull and repugnant to Gods institution should in this text being the next verse following after contradict himselfe and allowe it to be lawful Thirdly whereas they falsifie Moses as if Moses did tollerate diuorcement for any cause saying Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for any fault Our Sauiour doth lay before them their errour affirming that Moses in that place which they alleadge did not permit diuorcement for any cause but onely for one cause and that cause is heere specified to be adulterie where he saith whosoeuer according to Moses his permission putteth away his wife except it be for whoordome committeth adulterie And yet he explaineth that againe saying that according to truth he cannot put her away for adulterie because he can marry no other neither can she marry any other but both shall be adulterous But for the better satisfying of your selues conferre this place of Mathew with that of Deuteronomie which is the ground of all this disputation and you shal finde that the Pharisies haue not dealt ingenuously but very falsely The words of Moses are these If a man take a wife if so be that she find no fauour in his eyes because he hath espied some filth in her There is the onely cause hee doth not say any cause but one cause which is filth but filth is according to the Hebrew phrase adulterie as it appeareth by the fourth verse of the same Chapter where whoordome is called by the generall name of filth So these words of our Sauiour are not onely a farther explanation of that texte of Deuteronomie which the Pharisies had corrupted but also a definitiue sentence and positiue point of doctrine that diuorcement being so common was helde among the hard-hearted Iewes as lawfull because it was suffered by Moses contrarie to the commandement of God and first institution of marriage which was from the beginning of the world Moreouer because the Pharisies aske why did Moses command to giue a Bill of diuorcement and put her away and Christ answereth Moses did but permit some Diuines do grossely mistake the sence thereof affirming these words to include partly a commaundement according to the words of the Pharisies partly a tolleratiō according to the words of Christ to wit a tolleration onely to put away their wiues and a commaundement that if they would vse the libertie of this tolleration graunted vnto them yet that they should first giue a Bill of diuorcemēt that all proceedings might be according to order but they are deceiued by reading the vulgar translation and other corrupt Interpreters for they translate it Let him write her a Bill of diuorcement which translation hath brought them into this errour But according to the Hebrew Tremelius translateth in this maner If a man take a wife and shee finde no fauour in his eyes because he hath espied filth in her in so much that he do giue her a Bill of diuorcement c. Here is no such commaundement as let him giue her a Bill but onely a supposition if he doo giue her a Bill of diuorcement because vnlesse the Bill were first giuen the diuorcement was not tollerated so that Moses is so farre from commaunding that he doth not so much as tollerate it in expresse words but onely pèr tacitum consensum by not forbidding it expresly so supposing such an enormitie to bee committed according to their practise onely he commaundeth this that after it is done if the woman after her departure marrie an other that then shee shall not returne to her first husband againe And whereas some Diuines take it prò concesso as a thing graunted that the formall writing a Bill of diuorcement did ratifie the diuorcement make an act lawfull it is cleane contrary You will say then if the Bill could not adde strength to the diuorcement to make it good why was it giuen S. Augustine answereth that a Bill of diuorcement was first deuised to shewe the Iewes how vngodly a thing diuorcement was for as much as it was lawful for none to write Bills of diuorcement but onely the Scribes and learned Doctors of the Lawe to whom onely it appertained by their office scribere sacras liter as to write in the holy tongue and because it was euen among them held for a crucell and vnnaturall fact for a man to put away his wife and this Bill of diuorcement could not bee ingrossed suddenly but it required time and space when the plaintiue resorted to the Scribes office to haue the Bill drawne the Scribe was first to lay open to the partie grieued the vnlawfulnesse of such proceedings and to perswade him by all meanes to desist from so badde a purpose and bee reconciled to his wife againe and to take better deliberation and repaire to the office some other time to trie if the partie grieued could by such delayes be better aduised in colde bloud But if so be that hee continued obstinate and vntractable that his hatred towards his wife could not be pacisied then of two euils the least was chosen to auoyd a greater mischiefe rather then the Iewe should murther his wife it was vltimum refugium the onely refuge left to giue a Bill of diuorcement Tremelius in his notes vpon this place obserueth these foure things First that this tolleratiō of which we spake did extend onely to that time present when they were in the wildernesse and not to be endured after they should liue vnder a setled estate in the land of Canaan because it is written in the fourth verse of that Chapter Thou shalt not suffer the land to sinne which the Lord shall giue thee to inherit so that there was an inhibition or restraint against Iosue and his successors that they should suffer no diuorcements The second that this fact was euen then manifestly condemned by Moses when it was permitted because hee saith in the 4. verse The woman which is put away and marrieth an other is polluted by the fact of her husband which did put her away and so giue her occasion to marry an other and that is abhomination in the sight of the Lord. The third that diuorcement is as vnlawfull as poligamy or marriage of many wiues of which neither haue any warrant out of the word but that the Iewes liuing then not by precept but by example not of the godly but of the wicked learned poligamy
then this 〈◊〉 fatuuÌ„ fateor quem calceus vrget et vxnor If a mans shooe pinch him no more but goe to the shoomakers shop and buy a new paire of shooes if a mans wife grieue him a present remedy to go to the church mary a new wife And theÌ„ shal the questioÌ„ be who shal keep the children S. Augustine is of a coÌ„trary iudgemeÌ„t to Beza Qui dicimus Qui mulierem praetèr fornicationém dimissam ducit maechatur noÌ„ ideò maechari negamus qui eaÌ„ducit quae proptèr fornicationeÌ„ dimissa est vterque enim est maechus qui ob fornicationem dimittit aliam ducit etià m qui citrà fornicationem dimittit aliam ducit non enim ex hoc alter maechus negatur quoniam alter maechus exprimitur Wee which say hee is an adulterer which marrieth her which is diuorced vnlesse she be diuorced for adulterie doo not therefore denie but he is an adulterer also which marrieth her that is diuorced for adulterie for they are both adulterers whether it be for fornication or not if they marrie her which is put away For the affirmation of the one to be an adulterer is not a denial but that the other also is an adulterer Although saith he S. Mathew by expressing one adulterer and concealing the other hath made it hard to vnderstand yet other Euangelists speaking in a generalitie haue made it plaine that it is to be vnderstood of both because Marke saith Whosoeuer shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adulterie against her and if a woman put away her husband and marrie an other she committeth adultery And S. Luke hath the same Qui ergo not sumus vt dicamus Est qui maechatur vxore dimissa alteram ducens est qui hoc faciens non maechatur quuÌ„ euangèlium dicat omnem maechari qui hoc facit Who is man that hee should distinguish more subtilly then the holy Ghost hath distinguished saying some men which put away their wiues and marry are adulterers and others are not when S. Marke and S. Luke being expositors of S. Mathew shewe that all are adulterers which marry them which are put away bee the cause of their diuorcement whatsoeuer Neither can this answere of Beza satisfie that in Geneua adultery is punished with death and so all controuersies are ended for then what needeth diuorcement If when the man hath put away his wife for adultery the Magistrate doo put her to death the case is cleare he may marry againe not because shee is diuorced but because she is dead But many Christian Lands haue no such lawe as to punish adulterie with death neither are Christians bound to take examples by Iewes and Turkes which did and do the same The lawe of the Gospell hath imposed no such commaundement vpon vs but euery kingdome hath Christian libertie to establish such ciuill lawes as the wisedome of the land shall see fit for the state to beare It doth not make against vs that by the lawe of God adultery was punished with death among the Iewes no more then that by the Iawe of God theft was not punished with death among the Iewes but with restitution of foure and fiue-folde It was not lawfull among the Iewes to gather the glaynings of their owne haruest nor to let the bodies of them which are hanged to hang all night to sowe two sorts of graine together as Wheat and Rye in one field for Christians these things are lawful God gaue three lawes vnto the Iewes one moral which remaineth stil in force among all nations the second ceremoniall which was abrogated by the death of Christ the third iudiciall for ciuill gouernment which did belong to the Iewes only but punishment of adultery with death was a part of the iudiciall lawe and therefore bindeth not vs to obey it which be Christians But S. Hierome saith Omnes occasiones Apostolus amputaens â—partè definit viuâ—nte viro adulteram asse mulierem si alteri nupserit The Apostle preuenteth all quâ—â—kes and euasions setting it downe as a positiue doctrine that what woman soeuer marrieth while her first husband liueth she committeth adultery And S. Angustine Licitè dimittitur coniux proptèr causam fornicationis sed manet vinculuÌ„ prioris proptèr quod reus sit adulterij qui dimissam duxerit etiaÌ„ ob causam fornicationis A woman may bee seperated from her husband for fornication but still shee is his wife and he which marrieth her committeth adultry although she were put away for fornication In so great a cloude of witnesses of our side wee may bebolde notwithstanding the iudgement of Beza and the late writers of the reformed Churches The Libertines of our age now liuing giue a prerogatiue in this case to the man aboue the woman because of the Sexe because the one is a man the other but a woman as if the one might marrie but not the other abusing the word of God to their owne damnation turning the grace of God into wantonnesse Euen as others will prooue rebellion and high treason out of the scriptures that the people are aboue their King out of the scirptures so will they take libertie to themselues out of the scriptures to maintaine theyr vncleane and licentious life as that the man may put away the woman and not commit adultery in marrying an other but the woman may not doo the like because say they the man may haue many wiues but the woman may not haue many husbandes Theyr proofe is the saying of Nathan to Dauid Thus sayth the Lord I annoynted thee King ouer Israel deliuered thee out of the hand of Saule gaue thee thy Lordes house and thy Lordes wiues into thy bosome and if that hadde not beene inough I would haue giuen thee such and such things why then hast thou taken Vrias his wife Innocentius the third maketh answere that Dauid and the Patriarkes hadde by particular dispensation from God multitude of wiues and were excused of poligamy which wee are not euen as Iacob tolde a lye the Israelites robbed the Aegyptians Sampson murthered the Philistines the Leuites compassed the walles of Iericho with their Trumpets of Rammes hornes vpon the Sabaoth day but wee may not do the like But saith he Christiana religio adulterium in vtroque sexu aquali ratione punit Christian religion punisheth adulterie in man and woman both alike And Augustine Tu exigis hoc ab vxore non vis reddere hoc vxori Marriage duties must be kept as well of the man as of the woman Others there be which make a distinction betweene the partie innocent and the partie nocent as if the one might marry but not the other But that the partie nocent may marry as well as the innocent I prooue by these foure reasons The first the custome and practise of the Iewish Church when Moses liued from whence the
of their fathers of which the first was Lamech and diuorcement of the Aegyptians which were Infidels The fourth this tolleration of Moses was not in regard of Gods people in generall but onely of the Iewes in particular which could not by any arguments be perswaded to renounce the poligamy of their auncestors or diuorcement of the Aegyptians Hauing spoken of the analogy of this place in particular to shewe that the purpose of our Sauiour Christ was to disanull diuorcement I come to the analogy of faith in generall to shew what faith it selfe hath taught vs to beleeue concerning this question Whosoeuer putteth away his wife c. which words giue me occasion to define diuorcement and to shewe what it is for a man to put away his wife In which definition I must followe the example of Aristotle which defined the things which were not For when hee hadde shewed howe impossible it was that there should be either vacuum or infinitum yet defined them both onely supposing those things to bee which the nature of things doth not afforde In like maner I say Diuortium est non ens diuorcement is a thing which is not nor cannot bee and that the Iewes did diuorce their wiues onely in their grosse imaginations because being put away yet they continued their wiues and their seperation was breach of wedlocke euen as in the story of Elisaeus they which came to apprehend the Prophet were strooken with blindnesse so that when they thought they were at Dothan their eyes being opened they found that they were in Samaria and as Adam when he thought to hide himselfe from God in the thicket was still in his presence and as Ionas thought himselfe safe from daunger by flying to Tharsis when he was most in ieopardie so they thinke themselues innocent by giuing Bills of diuorcement when they liue in adulterie and are nocent but supposing that to bee which cannot bee I will define diuorcement out of the scriptures to prooue that there can be no diuorcement Our Sauiour saith Whom God hath ioyned let no man seperate In which words is conteined the definition of diuorcement Diuortium est seperatio viri coniâ—gis authoritate humanâ qui coniuncti suÌ„t authoritate diuinâ Diuorcement is a seperation of man and wife by the law of man which are ioyned together by the lawe of God But that is an impossibilitie that man should make a nullitie of that which God will haue to continue firme and stable that man should vndoo make to be of no validitie which God doth ratifie make to stand good that mans errour should make an vnitie to be a number an indiuisible thing to be diuided truth to be no truth marriage to be no marriage something to be nothing set theÌ„ at libertie which in nature do must continue bound Our Sauiour Christ hath thus defined diuorcemeÌ„t as you haue heard and out of his owne definition of diuorcement hath argued to prooue that there can be no diuorcement and if ye will stand to the definition of our Sauiour Christ you must confesse that there can be no diuorcement The same may also be prooued by the definition of marriage which Melancthon defineth in this maner Matrimonium est legitima in dissolubilis coniunctio vnius maris vnius faeminae Marriage is a lawfull and indissoluble ioyning together of one man and one woman But if marriage be such a coniunction as is not capable of any dissolution as he tearmeth it hee forgetteth himselfe in the next tract after where hee affirmeth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marry an other that if a man bee boysterous froward cyclopicall barbarous to his wife if hee bee crabbed rogish the wife may put him away and marry an other that if hee neglect his family the Magistrate may warrant her to marry an other Others doo define marriage to the same effect as Melancthon did but in more wordes That marriage is a lawfull and perpetuall ioyning together of man and wife by the consent of them both for the begetting of children auoyding fornication and mutuall comfort In which definition the materiall cause of marriage is man and woman the finall cause mutuall comfort procreation auoydance of sin the efficient cause the mutuall consent of them both but the formal cause which is the very nature essence and life of the same is their lawfull and perpeutal ioyning together but whatsoeuer is to a man perpetuall is during life these thinges being so it cannot stand with faith that marriage should bee dissolued the parties liuing The Apostle saith therefore The woman which is in subiection to the man is bound by the law to the man while he liueth but if the man be dead she is deliuered from the law of the man in which words hee sheweth how the knot of marriage cannot be vntied but by death And to the married I commaund not I but the Lord let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee depart let her remaine vnmarried or be reconciled vnto her husband In which words where hee saith first let not the wife depart secondly if she depart let her remaine vnmarried he intimateth two maner of departures the first is a vinculo a rupture of the knot of marriage the second a mensâ thoro from bed and boord the first he saith may not bee because it is contrary to the institution of marriage the second if vnhappily it followe that for the incontinencie of the one partie the other partie be grieued and cannot be reconciled vnlesse they depart yet that departure be but for a season vntil they can be reconciled againe and that is no diuorcement For there are three departures from the marriage bedde which are lawfull two priuate the third publike the first with the consent of both parties one dispensing with the other where the Apostle saith Defraud not one an other except it be with consent for a time that yee may giue your selues to fasting and prayer and againe come together least Sathan tempt you for your incontinencie The second in case of necessitie it is lawfull for the man to dispense with himselfe as if the woman be infected with a contagious disease that hee cannot doo the office of an husband without manifest daunger of his life and it is no fraude because it is not voluntarie The third if the wife be an adulteresse woman because it is a publike scandall he may by the publike magistrate be seperated from his wife for her chastisement vntill shee shew manifest tokens of amendment And yet as the Magistrate must be very sparing to interpose his authoritie in such a case as to enter betweene the barke and the tree so againe there be seuen exceptions which debarre the Magistrate from graunting any seperation from bedde and boord although incontinencie be euidently prooued as if the woman be inforced by violence not giuing consent