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
same cause he suffered them to have sundry wives that is to say he did not forbid or hinder it nor punish the same by any Law enacted in his Common-wealth But it follows not therefore that they did not sin in Gods sight and that they did not deserve punishment unlesse they repented Tel. That thing is permitted which is neither punished nor hindred nor forbidden Truly I will not say Moses sinned if to avoid a greater evil and to comport with the hardness of the Jewes hearts he permitted them to have divers wives that is to say he did not punish or hinder them But if he permitted them so as not to forbid them I cannot but say he sinned For Moses ought to have expresly forbidden that any man should have more then one wife which because he has not done we must needs confesse that it is not a thing unlawful Och. The having of many wives was then as it is now so apparently filthy dishonest and vitious that it was needless for Moses to forbid the same Tel. And was it not apparent that Adultery was a thing filthy dishonest vicious yea much more then the having of many wives and yet he expresly forbad adultery But in case it had been unlawful to have many wives he ought to have forbidden that so much the more expresly by how much the unlawfulnesse thereof was lesse manifest then the unlawfulnesse of Adultery was Is it not a clear case that Homicide is unlawful and yet he forbids that In a word What are the ten Commandements but an Expression of the Law of Nature Och. It may be said that God might remit the transgressions against the second Table because he is above not only all Creatures but his own Law and peradventure he might remit the same to all mankind born before the death of Christ and consequently be willing that they might have more wives then one without sin And so it comes to pass that those under the Old Testament that had many wives did not sin and under that consideration God might give many wives to David Though it may also be said that he gave them to him that is permitted him to have them in as much as he neither hindred nor punisht him Tel. That it is unlawful to keep more wives then one if your opinion be true is clear from the word of God who said that two should be made one flesh but that God did so far remit of his Laws that men should not sin in having more does not appear in the word of God that opinion therefore of yours has no foundation Och. If you consider well you shall finde that Lamech a very wicked man was the first that had two Wives Other holy men that preceeded him knowing the will of God had onely one a piece Tel. As if that Abraham Isaac and Iacob were not more holy then those very men you speak of But in the first place I cannot tell how you came to know that Lamech was the first man that had two wives although he be the first man whom the Scripture mentions to have had two But as this is a vain Argument The Scripture no where mentions that Cain had more then one Son therefore doubtlesse he had no more so as vain is this which follows It is no where in Scripture recorded that those men that lived before Lamech had more wives then one therefore none of them had above one wife Moreover where it is said that Lamech had two wives it is not charged upon him as a sin but seems rather to be set down as a thing pleasing to God that a man should have more wives then one seeing by them he gave Lamech such ingenious Sons as proved the inventors of Arts both delightful and profitable Neither can I see how you came informed that Lamech was so wicked a man as you talk of Och. God plagued him by suffering him to fall into the sins of murther and desperation only because he had married two wives Tel. But I cannot see either that he was a murtherer or fell into despair neither does the Scripture teach any such thing if it be rightly interpreted Or if the Scripture had intimated any such thing which I do not grant yet does it not thereby appear that God suffered him so to slip because he had married two wives Och. But we may conjecture that his having two wives displeased God seeing his murther is presently after mentioned Tel. In the first place I have already told you that by the words of that Text if they be rightly understood there is no signification made that either he was a man-slayer or in desperation and if such a thing were intimated it does not therefore follow that his plurality of wives was the cause thereof or that God was offended with him therefore inasmuch as presently upon the mention of his two wives he commends their Sons as if he would give us to understand that he approves of plurality of wives Add hereunto that nothing ought to be affirmed or avouched in the Church of God as necessary to salvation if it cannot otherwise be known save by conjectures only Och. Seeing I cannot convince you out of the old Testament I will try what I can do from the New Tel. You are in an errour if you think the Old Testament is not sufficient to teach us all things necessary to salvation If therefore that be the cause you betake your self to the New you are deceived seeing as Paul writes All Scripture of Divine inspâ—ration is profitable for reprehension correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be made perfect furnished for every good work Now clear it is that Paul in that place speaks of those Scriptures in which Timothy was exercised from a child And because the new Testament was not then written you must be forced to confesse that Paul in that place speaks of the Old The old Testament therefore is profitable not only to assert the truth of such things as are necessary to salvation but also to confute falsities and consequently to render a man perfect For which cause Christ â—peaking thereof said Search the Scriptures for in them is fouâ—â—d 〈◊〉 life Och. Perhaps somethings are forbidden to us in the New Testament which were not forbidden to them in the Old Tel. In moral matters verily what ever is unlawful and to us forbidden was in like manner evermore forbidden to them and whatever was allowed and commanded to them the same is in like manner allowed and commanded to us God was equally Author of the old Testament as well as of the New nor was he ever contrary or unlike himself Och. That was allowed to those under the old Testament because of their imperfection which is not allowed to us in whom carnal desires ought to be much more mortified Tel. You take that for granted which you have not proved viz. That it is unlawful to have more wives then one Moreover you
every man have his own wife that is his own not another mans and nor only one As if some Father making shew of his Daughter should say This is my own Daughter not denying that he has more Daughters that are likewise his own Och. In the same place the same Paul commands That the Wife have her own proper Husband that is to say such a Wife as is proper to him alone and not in common with other wives Whence it follows That as a woman ought to be proper to her husband and not to belong to other husbands so the man ought to be appropriated to his first wife and not common to others provided you will as you ought expound the words of Paul so as he may not contradict himself Tel. Paul does not there dispute whether an husband may have plurulity of wives or no but his intent is to shew that such men as have not the gift of continence should take them wives and that women in the like case should marry Och. Is it possible that you should not see that plurality of wives is repugnant to the matrimonial contract in which the man grants his wife and the woman her husband an honest use of their respective Bodies for ever For which cause also Paul sayes That neither the man nor the woman have power over their own Bodies but each of one anothers And in case a man have given the honest use of his Body to his wife he can no longer give it to another because he has already given it to the first Tel. Yes by the permission of the first he may as Abraham did when by the permission of Sarah he married Hagar and consequently by permission of the first and second he may marry a third which is true of other men as â—ell as Abraham especially the wives being instructed that it is â—o sin for their husbands with their consent to marry other wives Och. Do you believe that David when he married Bathsheba did it with consent of his other wives and that others who married divers wives did so likewise Tel. Suppose they did not yet were not their marriages the less true and lawful For it was then â— thing commonly known and confirmed by example That it was lawful for a man to have many wives Therefore when a man by marriage gave the use of his Body to his wife he did not so â—otally give the same as to bereave himself of all power to give it to other wives also which the wives knew well enough by the publick custome then in force and thereunto the wives did silently give consent seeing their husbands married them with this condition being understood Their marriages therefore were good and lawful Och. An husband cannot marry a second wife without detriment of his first It is not therefore credible that wives did in their hearts consent that their husbands should marry others Tel. It is possible my wife may prove barren in which case it is her duty to consent that I should take another yea and of her own consent to exhort me thereunto as Sarah did of old And if she would not approve thereof this will of hers were unjust and so it were lawful for her husband to marry another contrary to her unjust mind Also when a woman is with Child and sometime after she is brought to bed seeing she is then unfit for procreation as also when she is old and sick her husband may without injury to her have to do with another wife yea though a mans wife were sound and fit for generation yet she ought to take it in good part if enjoying the company of her husband at some certain times as it is with other living Creatures she leave it free for him to enjoy the carnal acquaitance of his other wives Och. Do you think it lawful for one wise to have many husbands Tel. No Och. And yet there are sick Men as well as sick women Also a woman is able to have to do with more men then a man can with women Whence it seems more just for one woman to have divers husbands or at least lesse injust then for a man to have many wives Tel. Nay rather since Matrimony is chiefly ordained for procreation sake and a man having many wives may in a short time have many more children then a woman which has plurality of husbands it is more equitable that a man have many wives then that a woman have many husbands But the chief causes why women may not have many husbands and yet men may have many wives are these First of all because if women should have many husbands there would follow great disturbance and confusion in the world For seeing no husband could certainly know that his children are his own he might alwaies suspect that they were some other husbands rather then his and consequently he would not bring them up nor instruct them nor take such care for them as â—ow he does knowing they are his own though born of divers wives Perhaps also being unassured that they are his own he would not make them his Heirs Another cause why it is lawful for men to have many wives but not for women to have many husbands is this The husband is his wives Head and has authority and command over her as being her Superiour for which cause he may have divers wiâ—es provided he can well rule and instruct them all Nor is it a monstrous but a comely thing for to have many members in one Body though there he but one Head but if the Body should have many Heads it would be a monster So for one husband to have many wives is not moÌ„strous but for one wife to have many husbands is monstrous And therefore as there would be dissention and discord â—f in one Body there were many Heads they should be of coÌ„trary minds as might well happen so would there be discords perturbaâ—ions and great inconveniences if should have plurality of husbands seeing it might happen that they should will things contrary and command their wives to do them Och. If we regard discords and inconveniences we shall finde they have been someâ—imes exceeding great because one man has had two wives as we see in the example of Sarah Hagar Leah and Rachel Hannah and Peninnah and others amongst whom were continual dissensions wch I conceive God did therefore suffer to shew that he was not pleased that one man should have more then one wife Tel. Although among the first-born and other brethren many times grievious discords have arose as appears in Cain and Abel Esau and Iacob and many others it is not therefore displeasing to God that Fathers should have many Sons As also between Mothers in Law and Daughters in Law though there is many times little quiet yet is not Matrimony therefore displeasing to God In like manner although among divers wives of the same Husband there has seldom bin good agreement yet cannot either Marriage in
man But if you observe you shall find that one Cock has many Hens one Bull many Covves and so in other Creatures which are profitable to mankind If therefore God has ordained for the Commodity of Man-kind that one Cock should have many Hens much more has he ordained that one man should have many wives for the propagation of men whom he so highly prizes and so dearly loâ—es Och. If none of those live-Creatures you speak of were guelt and they should all converse together you should finde every male with his proper female and men ought to do the same much more But now many of the males being guelt and separated if one male couple with divers females it followes not therefore that it should be lawful for one man to have many Wives God put into the Ark of Noah just so many males as females to shew that every male ought to have only his own single female Tel. If there were in the world as many Men as Women I confess it were expedient that every man should have his own single Wife But seeing the number of Women is greater I conceive it fit that one man have many Wives for it is not in vain that God makes more Women If there were in the World for example sake only three hundred Women and as many men and every man should have one Woman they could not so soon propagate their kind as if of six hundred four hundred were Women and two hundred men every one of which should have divers Women For this cause therefore God ordained that the number of Women should be greater then the number of Men The life of one Man equalls that of two Women Och. In the first place I do not believe that you know there are more Women in the World then men Perhaps it seemes so to you because commonly we rejoyce at the birth of Boyes and grieve at the birth of Girles But though there be more Women born into the World yet they live not long for the most part by reason of the more tender constitution of their bodies Add hereunto that many more men perish then women by Warres Shipwrack and the Sword of justice that reason therefore does not prove Polygamy or plurality of Wives Moreover the love of carnal society is a most violent passion and if dishonest love cannot endure a Rival much lesse can that which is honest Tel. Holy love rather extends to all even our enemies Och. Iacob was an holy man and he loved barren Rachel more then fruitful Leah So also Helkanah loved Hannah that was barren more then Peninnah that was fruitful Solomon also said that his beloved was one It is therefore an hard thing to share out a mans love amongst many Wives which notwithstanding must be done in Polygamy When a man has but one Wife mutual love is better preserved then if he had more and if any falling out happen reconciliation is more easily made Where there are many Wives there are divers understandings divers Constitutions Distractions and Discords Tel. If there were a call from God there would be his blessing Polygamy is no enemy to charity And therefore if any man should have plurality of Wives and love were wanting between them that were not the fault of Polygamy but of the said Wives Och. If the filthy love of an Harlot is oftentimes the cause that a man is content with her alone much more ought the holy love of Wedlock work the same effect Tel. We see that filthy love is more effectual in some persons then holy love is in others as also in like manner superstition produces more good works in some then true Religion in others all which comes to passe by the instinct of Sathan Och. That plurality of Wives is a thing contrary to natural Reason hereby appears in that all Nations have alwayes abstained therefrom as from a thing unlawful Tel. You know that the light of nature that is to say the Law which is imprinted in the hearts of men is the gift of God and that it is just and that the Law of Moses is not contrary thereunto but an explanation thereof For if the Law of Moses were contrary thereunto God would be contrary to himself seeing both proceed from God or rather both are one and the same Law And therefore if plurality of Wives had bin contrary to the judgement of right Reason neither would Moses verily have dissembled the same neither would those most holy Patriarchs have used the same nor would God have born with it God by Moses commanding the Iewes that when they came into the borders of the Gentiles they should not imitate their vices would have named Polygamy among other vices if it had bin unlawful and he would have forbidden the same by Moses which nevertheless he did not do We no where read that ever God punished any man for having plurality of Wives nor that he ever did by his Prophets threaten such as had many Wives If you would have the manners of the Gentiles to be your rule and law you shall finde amongst them much wickedness And whereas you said that all Nations abhorred Polygamy that is false as appeares by the Iewes Also Chremes had two Wives if we will believe Terence also Boccâ—â— as Salust relates in a word Socrates himself who notwithstanding was the wisest of men and had much of the light of nature Och. Even wise men sometimes do amiss Tel. Never any man condemned or reprehended Socrates for having two Wives although for other things he hath been condemned What needs many words Polygamy was used as a good thing and very profitable to Man-kind by furthering propagation not only among the Iewes but also among the Persians and the Turks likewise Only in Europe it has been hateful in which Europe vice has abounded if not more yet not a whit lesse then in all other parts of the world Nay in the days of old Polygamy was commended even in Europe Only they would not have in one house many Mistresses to rule the Family which was a thing convenient to avoid confusion Och. I will never confess that it is a good thing to have many wives Tel. That is because you conceive it is an unlawful conjunction and you are over-powered with an old custome among the vulgar which in tract of time has wone the favour of the common people and the Magistrates by which it comes to passe that the common opinion prevails more with you then the truth it self Och. But what do you say to the Imperial Laws which are against you Tel. In what place Och. First of all the Emperors Dâ—ocletianus and Maximinus do fordid Polygamy in these words That no man within the jurisdâ—ction of the Roman Empire can have two wives seeing also in the Edict of the Praetor such men are branded with infamy which thing a just Iudge will not suffer to go unpunished Also in the same Code That man doubtless that has two
are regenerate spiritual and Evangelical men marry more wives then one Tel. Just And how honest that single life of theirs is all the World takes notice The Law it self condemns barren Matrimony so far is it from not condemning voluntary and barren single life Now I speak expresly of such as have not the gift of continency nor are called to a single life The Romans did punish such as lived single and rewarded those who by abundance of Children did augment the Common-wealth and Lycurgus also and Ulpianus decreed the same Now what more blessed a thing can there be then the preservation of humane kinde which would wholly perish were it not for Marriage A man cannot transmit to posterity a more honourable memorial of his name then by leaving behind him Children virtuously educated And what greater folly can be imagined then under a shew of holiness to shun holy Matrimony as a thing profane which notwithstanding has bin ordained by God is dictated by nature perswaded by reason confirmed by Christ praised by Authours sacred and profane commended by the Lawes approved by the consent of all Nations and whereunto we are invited by the Examples of good and holy men What more barbarous and inhumane then to loath Matrimony the desire whereof is implanted in us by nature VVhat more unthankful to the common nature of the World and Mankind then not to beget Children as our Ancestors and Parents have begotten us For my part I make account that such men are murtherers of as many as they might have begotten in case they had embraced Matrimony unless peradventure they are carried by a Divine Impulse to live single Questionless it is a kind of Man-slaughter not only by Medicaments to cause abortion and barrenness but also without very just cause to shun Marriage Och. I do not condemn Matrimony namely the having of one Wife but the having of two or more Tel. But what advice will you give me Och. That you marry no more Wives but pray to God for the gift of continence Tel. What if he will not give it me Och. He will if you pray in Faith Tel. What if he neither give me the gift nor faith to ask it Och. If you shall then do that to which God shall encline you so that you be sure you are led by divine Instigation you shall not sin For it can be no Errour to obey God Other advice I cannot give you And therefore I bid you farwel and promise you that I will seek God in your behalf Tel. And that is it which I beseech you to do that I may not offend God but that I may give him all honour and glory through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen A DIALOGUE OF Divorce Between OCHINUS and MESCHINUS Ochinus I See my most dear friend Meschinus coming towards me and he seems to me by his carriage to be exceeding sad I have a great mind to go meet him and see whether or no I am mistaken in my conjecture I wish you an happy day Sir Mesch Hitherto truly I have found it very unhappy Och. Why so Mesch I am brim-full of grief nor was I ever in my life so possessed with trouble and sadnesse as now I am And this evil is added to all the rest that I cannot lay open my grief for if I could open my heart unto you and discover that which perplexes me I should seem in some measure to be disburthened and refreshed But my calamity is so foul that it is not fit to be related to any man but ought rather to be buried in silence Och. Are you ignorant that you and I are all one and that all affairs both prosperous and adverse ought to be common among friends And therefore if you communicate your secrets to me you do not acquaint another therewith but your own self Mesch But there is no remedy in the world for my calamity Och. Perhaps there is Do but open your mind to me for you shall finde me your secret and faithul friend Mesch I took my wife in the act of Adultery with another man which torments me the more because I alwaies loved her and should have believed any thing rather then that she would have dealt so by me Och. Oh strange Truly I am exceedingly sorrowful but there is a Remedy Mesch What is that Och. Divorce Mesch If I might do it religiously Och. Why so Mesch Because sacred Matrimony cannot be dissolved Och. True if there be no adultery committed Mesch Dare you then say that Marriage a thing so holy and divine may be dissolved by Adultery so that men being thereby freed may marry other women Och. I for my part have said it will say it again and stand to it that you may perceive the truth of what I say I will shew you the reason of it A woman in the matrimoniall contract gives up the honest use of her Body to her husband promising that no man while he lives shall have the use thereof besides himself and the man does the like by his wife For this cause Paul saies that the wife has not power over her own body but the husband and likewise that the husband has not power over his own body but the wife If therefore the wife break her promise and faith made to her husband as yours has done having given the use of her Body to another contrary to her Covenant made with you in this case the husband is free and disingaged so that he may grant the honest use of his Body to another woman joyned to him in Marriage Mesch When men in covenanting do give or promise any thing upon condition there is no question but the condition being unperformed the promise or donation becomes invalid But if the Promise or Donation be made without any condition it is alwaies valid though one of the parties break their faith And because in Matrimony an honest use of the Body is promised both by the wife and husband without any manner of condition it follows That though the one falsifies his or her faith yet is not the other party freed from the Engagement Och. Do you then think that the husband promises the use of his Body to his wife perpetually without any condition viz. Though she shall behave her self perfidiously towards her husband Mesch Yes Och. But in the matrimoniall contract doubtlesse neither saies to the other I do for ever give you the use of my Body notwithstanding that you prove unfaithful to me Mesch Nor is it thus said I give you the use of my Body for ever upon this condition That you prove faithful to me But this doubtless ought to be the mind of each of them viz. to give the other the use of his or her Body for ever whether he or she shall prove faithful or no Och. And how know you that I pray you If it were necessary that Marriage should be contracted in such a sense it ought to be so expressed in the
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