others because themselues are chaste but themselues beeing sicke mislike their phisition and punish adultery being adulterous themselues like the men which brought the woman to our Sauiour to be stoned their selues being offenders I aske saith he whether it bee lawful to put her to death by the law of the Romanes or to put her away by the lawe of God Si licet melius est vt ab vtroque se temperet a licito illâ peccante supplicio ab illicito illâ viuente coniugio quum eniâ—â— vtrumque secundum legam Christi sit illicitum siuè adulteram occidere siuè illâ viuente aliam ducere ab vtroque est abstinendum nec illicitum prò illicito faciendum If it be lawfull to doo either yet is it better to do neither of theÌ„ Not to do all which in extremitie we may but to abstaine froÌ„ that lawful punishment when she offendeth this vnlawfull marriage while she liueth But seeing both are vnlawfull by the law of Christ which neither determineth that adulterie should be punished with death neither alloweth a man to marry againe while the adulteresse liueth both are to be forborne and one sinne is not to be requited with an other The fiâ—t If the husband may not put away his wife for adulterie and marry an other then must the gap be opened to dishonestie and a chaste man must will he nil he be subiect to an harlot That which he alleadgeth against vs maketh most of all for vs the restraining of marriage after diuorcement is so farre from giuing occasion to be vnchaste as it keepeth many within the bounds of chastitie which otherwise would not containe for who seeth not that if they which bee diuorced may marry againe when husbands and wiues are weary one of an other they will confesse adultry that they may be diuorced mary others The sixt is a decree of an auncieÌ„t Councel that such meÌ„ as take their wiues in adulterie themselues being chaste and are prohibited to marry others should be perswaded to refraine while their wiues are liuing This also maketh for vs for the fathers in that councell were so farre from allowing the second marriage that they withstood it two wayes praecepto consilio both by commaundement and also by aduice by commaundement because they say by lawe it was prohibited by aduice because they vsed perswasion to the contrary hauing power of themselues by their decree to haue made it lawfull had they not held it according to the word of God to be vnlawfull The last is the authoritie of Epiphanius saying that if a man marry a second wife his first beeing diuorced hee is not subiect to the censure of the Church so as hee conuerse but with one and forsake the company of the other but in such case his frailtie is tollerated In which words what doth Epiphanius say more then wee haue saide already that the Church hath sometimes tolerated theÌ„ which haue put away one wife and married an other which practise if it were honest and iust consonant to Gods word what needed a tolleration Moses had not bene said to haue tollerated diuorcement other Magistrates vsurie other stewes other drunkennesse if these things had bene lawfull As for Melancthon which affirmeth that if the husband be vnkinde to his wife and neglect the care of his family the Christian Magistrate may warrant her to marry an other his assertion is like the charters of great Princes which write teste meipso witnesse my self For soundnesse of reason testimony of scriptures grounds of diuinitie he can haue none in the fauour of so monstrous an opinion neither doth he alledge any If he haue any shewe of proofe to ground his absurditie vpon it can bee but this He which careth not for his family hath denied the faith And if the vnbeleeuing husband will needes depart let him for a brother or sister is not subiect in such things But these words were concerning such as were married during the time of their infidelitie before they were coÌ„uerted to the faith of which sort we haue none in Christian Common-wealthes and yet not so as if an vnbeleeuing husband could be forced by the Magistrate to depart onely if he will depart saith the Apostle let him depart but if hee bee content to dwell with her she must not forsake him and still this conclusion standeth firme if he do depart so long as his wife liueth hee may not marry Of the third proposition the woman which is diuorced may not marry Whosoeuer marrieth her which is diuorced committeth adulterie It followeth then that she remaineth stil his wife from whom she was diuorced else it were no adulterie for a man to marry her and if shee remaine his wife then is he still her husband notwithstanding the seperation therefore it is no diuorcement So saith Augustine Illud qui dimissam duxerit maechatur quo modo verum esse potest nisi quia ea quam duxit vxor aliena est priori marito à quô dimissae est adhuc viuenti sienim suae non alienae vxori miscetur tùm non maechatur at maechatur ergo aliena est cui miscetur si antèm aliena est tùm non cessat illius essa vxor à quo dimissa est si autem cessat tum huius alterius est cui nupsit et si huius tùm non maechus iudicandus est sed maritus That saying of our Sauiour hee that marrieth her which is diuorced commiteth adultry how can it be true vnlesse because the woman which he hath married is an other mans wife that is his from whom she was diuorced so long as he liueth for if he marry no mans wife but his owne then is it no adultery but it is adultery therefore shee is an other mans wife and not his owne else he could not be iudged an adulterer but her lawfull husband Seruis quidèm licet mutare dominos viuentes vxori autem non licebit viros commutare viuentes alioqui adulterium perpetrabit A seruant hath more libertie in the bondage of his seruice then a woman in the freedome of her wedlocke hee may chaunge maisters shee may not chaunge husbands while her first husband liueth Secundae nuptiae priore marito viuente pollutio sunt non matrimonium For if shee take an other husband she is defiled but she is not married If then he which marrieth her that is diuorced coÌ„mitteth adultery why doth Beza allow her to marry His answere is Whosoeuer marrieth her which is diuorced vnlesse she be diuorced for adultery committeth adultery by marrying her but if she be diuorced for adulterie she may lawfully marry By which answere doo but vouchsafe to take knowledge of the great inconueniences which shall bee brought and burdens which shall be laide vppon a Christian kingdome They which be married wil vpon their discontentments commit fornication that they may be vnmarried then it will bee no more
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
Christians haue learned diuorcement Moses saith If a man take a wife and shee finde no fauour in his eies because he hath espied filthinesse in her in so much that he doo giue ger a Bill of diuorcement and she marry an other and her second husband diuorce her in like maner or die let her not returne to her first husband againe after shee is defiled By which word it is euident that when Moses liued women which were diuorced for adulterie did marry againe as well as their husbands which did diuorce them The second is the set forme of words which the Iewes at this time doo vse in their Bills of diuorcement which is after this manner In the sixt of the Sabaoth the 12. of the moneth of Adar the yeare of the creation of the world 5306. in the Citie of Cremona lying vpon the Riuer of Poe in Italy I Samuel Carmin the sonne of Rabbi Daniel Saphard doo of mine owne vuluntarie motion send away from mee my wife Rachel the daughter of Rabbi Ezra Parizol and do giue her free liberty to depart whether she will and marry whom she will and that there may be no letâ—e or hinderance to the contrary I haue giuen her this Bill of diuorcement subscribed and sealed according to the constitution of Moses and Israel in the presence of these witnesses Mardochi Gabriel Elias Cephat Manuel Pandin The third the definition of diuorcement which is giuen by our Sauiour Christ in the Gospell it is a seperating of them by the lawe of man which are linked together by the law of God which is as much as the vntying of the knotte of marriage so that if the knot be vntied both are free The husbaÌ„d the wife are relatâ— one cannot be without the other if she be bouÌ„d she is some bodies wife theÌ„ he which diuorced her is her husband there caÌ„not be a wife without an husband nor an husband without a wife The 4. wheras they which speak in fauour of the party innocent take aduantage of the words argue thus He which putteth away his wife vnles it be for fornication and taketh an other coÌ„mitteth adultry therefore if it be for fornication it is no adultry If that kinde of arguing bee good I can by the same prooue that the partie nocent may likewise marry thus I argue He which marrieth her which is diuorced vnles shee be diuorced for fornication committeâ—h adultry therefore if he marry her which is diuorced for fornicatioÌ„ it is no adultry Thus haue I prooued that neither man nor woman nocent nor innocent may marry againe and leauing doctrine I come to exhortation S. Paul saith I am a debter to all both to the wise and the vnwise I haue ministred already strong meate vnto theÌ„ which are men I must now giue milk vnto them which are babes and do as the Scribe did which when the Iew did demaund of him a Bill of diuorcement did disswade him So that I may disswade all that intend it and perswade them which haue alreadie done it to receiue their wiues into fauour againe Iohn the Baptist came in the spirit of Elias to turne the hearts of the fathers to the children I pray God that I may come also in the spirit of Elias and Iohn the Baptist to turne not onely the hearts of the fathers to the children but also the husbandes to theyr wiues which dooing I shall doo a worke of charitie a peece of seruice acceptable vnto God Why should a man diuorce his wife why should hee not vpon her repentance receiue her againe after shee is put away S. Peter wâ—â—â—eth to all husbandes in this manner Ye husbands dwell with your wiues as men of knowledge giuing honour vnto the woman as vnto the weaker vessell euen as they which are heires together of the grace of life that your prayers bee not interrupted In which I obserue the generallitie that husbands must dwell with their wiues and not depart from them the fiue particulars how they must dwell with them as men of knowledge Wherein doth this knowledge or discretion consist in giuing honour to the woman why should the man giue honour to the woman because shee is the weaker vessell Why should her weaknes be so much respected as that honour should be giuen to her fragilitie because notwithstanding her weaknes infirmity she is an heire co-heire of saluation as well as her husband and therfore he must respect her as himselfe What is the mischiefe and inconuenience which else may followe God cannot be well serued betweene them both because their praiers will be interrupted The Husbandes then must dwell with their wiues what that is it is explaned by Saint Paul the best expositor of Saint Peter Be it spoken with circumcised hearts The husband saith Paul must giue due benevolence to the wife the wife to the husbandâ— what that is he sheweth afterward let no man thinke that vncleane which the holy Ghost hath spoken The wife hath not power ouer her owne bodie but the man and the man hath not power ouer his owne bodie but the woman Againe Defraude not one an other except it be for a time that yee may giue your selues to fasting and praier and come together againe least sathan tempt you for your incontinency To dwell with a mans wife is to be an helpe vnto her as Ioseph was to Mary hee which hath not a care of his familie hath denied the faith but he which forsaketh the company of his wife doth neglect his family two manner of wayes first coÌ„cerning thrift secondly coÌ„cerning good name and same because both of them shall be suspected to be incontinent liuers Husbands must dwell with their wiues as men of knowledge The man is the womans head as Christ is the mans head and God is Christs head the woman is but the Image of the man as the man is the Image of God But there must needes be more perfection in the head wherein are all the senses vegetation vnderstanding theÌ„ in the bodie which hath but vegetatioÌ„ one only sense that is feeling in the body then in the shadowe in the archetypus or first forme then in the Image of the same All beasts in the old lawe were vncleane and vnfit for sacrifice which did not ruminate and chewe the cudde there was represented discretion but men must be better theÌ„ are beastes therefore they must liue discreetly with their wiues but a discreet man will of himselfe coÌ„sider that by how much he excelleth his wife in knowledge vnderstanding and all maner of perfection so he ought to conceale many infirmities in the woman to deuour and as it were swallow vp many indignities which do arise of her weakenesse God saith Hencefoorth my spirit shall not 〈◊〉 with man because bee is flesh you 〈…〉 set your wit to theirs they are but flesh and you in comparison of them are spirit And â—as a beleeâ—ing
as Dinah was if by plaine and simple ouersight shee bee deceiued taking one for an other as Iacob was when Laban put Leah in his bedde in steed of Rachel if the woman by great presumptions in lawe and the generall view of the world supposing her husband by his long absence to be dead doo by publike allowance without guilt of conscience marry an other if her husbande himselfe be consenting to her adultery as Sara gaue her maide Agar to lie with Abram for then it is his fault as well as hers if hee by refusing to accompany with her hath abused her weaknesse and so giuen her occasion to fall he cannot with a good conscience be a plaintiue against her if he knowing his wife to bee incontinent do beare with her for the present time hee ought not afterward to complain because lawe doth suppose a reconciliation forgiuenesse of the crime and after forgiuenesse there ought to bee no punishment But the greatest occasion is this if the woman be able to plead compensatioÌ„ against her husband that is if he haue bene incontinent as well as she as our Sauiour wrote with his finger in the dust concerning the woman taken in the act of adulterie Hee which will throwe the first stone at her must be guiltlesse himselfe The Canon lawe saith Nihil iniquius quà m fornicationis causâ dimittere vxorem qui ipse coÌ„uincitur fornicari occurrit enim illud qui alteruÌ„ iudicas teipsum condemnas Qua propter quisquis vult fornicationis causâ dimittere vxoreÌ„ prior debet esse à fornicatione purgatus Nothing can lesse stand with iustice then that an adulterer should put away an adulteresse for in iudging her according to the rule of the Apostle he condemneth himselfe therfore he which wil accuse his wife must first looke well that he be cleare himselfe Againe Quales vultis vxores vestras inuenire tales sitis vos intactam quaeris intactus esto puram quaeris noli esse impurus Be to your wiues as you will that they shal be to you will you haue them continent your selues must be chaste he which will haue his wife to be Sara himselfe must be Abraham he which will haue his wife to be Rebecca himselfe must be Isaac he which will haue his wife to bee Rachel himselfe must bee Iacob hee which will haue his wife to bee Elizabeth himselfe must bee Zachary And I counsell all hard-hearted husbands which seeke diuorcement from their wiues to consider if they themselues haue not bene some occasion of that euill which they lay to their charge whether compensation may iustly be pleaded against them or not and to remember the story of Iudah which iudged his daughter in lawe Thamar worthy of death for playing the harlot whom he himselfe had defiled not knowing her because her maske was on her face but vpon the sight of a cloake a staffe and a ring which hee had left with her confessed her to be more righteous then himselfe But none of these seperations which I haue rehearsed can vntie the knot of matrimonie neither are they to bee intended to continue for euer but for a time therefore they are no diuorcement S. Chrysostome saith Ne mihi leges ab exteris coÌ„ditas legas praecipientes dari â—ibellum repudij diuellâ— Neque enim iuxta illas iudicaturus est te Deus in illâ diè quâ veÌ„turus est sed secundùm suas vt ipse statuit In â—pso formationis modo legem induxit quam ego nùnc scribo At quaenam illa est Haec vtique Eam sibi quisque vxorem seruet semper quam initio sortitus est haec lex antìquior est quam illa dè libello repudij in tantùm quantùm Adam ipso Mose Doo not tell me of mens new lawes concerning diuorcement but of Gods olde lawe concerning marriage for God at the day of iudgement shall not iudge thee according to the lawe which man hath deuised but according to that which his selfe hath commaunded But the positiue lawe which God prescribed to man in his creation was this that hee should during life cleaue vnto that wife which he hath at the first taken vnto him And that lawe of marriage is by so much more auncient then this of diuorcement as innocencie is before sinne and Adam before Moses Againe Quemadmodum serui fugitini etiamsi domum herilem relinquant catenam secum habent attrahentem it à mulieres etiamsi viros relinquant legem habeÌ„t prò catenâ se pâ—rsequentem adulterij accusanteÌ„ accusantem etiam recipientes As when a seruant runneth from his M. the chaine of bondage doth pursue him and bring him backe againe to his maister so when a woman leaueth her husband the lawe of Matrimony is as a chaine to draw her back againe to her husband to lay adultry to her charge for her departure and adultery to their charge which shall receiue her In which words he speaketh plainly it is adulterie for man and wife to depart and it is adulterie for them to marry againe Moreouer Mulier quà m diu vixerit maritus subdita est legi quae autèm subdita est legi etiamsi millies libellum repudij det adulterij ligabitur lege The woman is bound by the lawe to the man while hee liueth but shee which is bounde by the lawe shall bee an adultresse by the lawe if shee leaue her husband notwithstanding a thousand Bills of diuorcement Concerning the second proposition that hee which hath put away his wife can marrie no other while she liueth The second followeth the first as a necessarie consequent because a man cannot put away his wife he cannot marrie an other For numerosum coniugium multitude of wiues is not permitted no man may bee the husband of two wiues The grounds are laid downe alreadie in the handling of the first proposition so that it shal be sufficient in the second to answere the reasons of them which maintain coÌ„trary doctrine and because in so short a scantling I cannot touch them all I will speake of some The differences of opinions which they hold are these some that the man by priuiledge of his Sexe may marry againe but the woman may not others that the partie innocent may marry but the nocent may not of which I shall haue fitter occasioÌ„ to speake when I come to the third proposition and in the handling of this proposition I will answere Beza which alleadgeth 7. reasons why a man may diuorce his wife for incoÌ„tinencie that after diuorcement is graunted both the man and the woman the offended and the offendor may marry again His first argumeÌ„t is this Christ being asked what he held concerning that diuorcement which in his daies was in vse practise among the Iewes which was not only a seperation froÌ„ bed and boord but also a dissolution of the knot of marriage that
libertie was giuē to marry againe answered that in case of adultery it was lawfull To which I answere that as Beza alleadgeth so our sauiour Christ did speak of that diuorce mēt which was thē practised vnderstood to be a dissolution of marriage intended that they might marry againe But how did our Sauiour speake of it not affirmatiuely but negatiuely as before I shewed so that this argument is a fallacie called petitio principij and he disputeth ex non coucessis taking that as graunted which from the beginning we haue denied he vnderstandeth the answer of our sauiour to be affirmatiue which is negatiue to be particular which is vniuersall to be hypotheticall which is categoricall to containe but two propositiōs which comprehendeth three and so constereth this text contrary to the analogy of faith and of this place contrary to the iudgement of the soundest Fathers the Canon lawe the practice of Christ his Church from the Apostles vntill his owne time yea contrary to the nature of wedlock to the expresse words of our Sauiour as I haue shewed The Lawe saith Interueniente diuortio non abeletur cōfaederatio nuptialis it a vt si coniuges sint seperati cùm illis adulterium committant quibus etiam fuerint post repudium copulati They which are seperated remaine man and wife after seperation and they liue in adulterie if they marrie other because the knot of marriage abideth firme Againe saith S. Augustine euen as he which hath once receiued the Sacrament of baptisme cannot be vnbaptized againe while he liueth so they which haue entred into the holy estate of marriage cannot be vnmarried againe while they liue And as one Councell saith placuit secundum euangelicam apostolicam doctrinam vt neque dimissus à b vxore nèc dimissa à marito alteri cōiungantur sèd it à maneant aut sibi reconcilientur It is the doctrine of the Apostles and Euangelistes that neither the man nor the woman which are parted shall marry againe but either refraine from marriage or reconcile themselues one to the other Neither must they beeing reconciled bee married a new as some of late haue practised among vs because the knot being not broken the first marriage is firme His second obiection that it is iniustice to punish the innocent for the nocent but if when diuorcement is graunted yet the plaintiue which hath sued the diuorce shall be restrained from marriage he must either be in daunger of burning in lust because he cannot containe or else be compelled to receiue again his adulterous wife which was diuorced then is it all one as if there had bene no diuorcement So Augustines answere is Lex diuina non est mutanda proptèr querelas hominum si querelas incontinentium velimus admittere necesse est quamplurima adulteriae permittere Mans complaint of iniustice must not alter the law of God And if the Magistrates eares shall bee open to such complaintes the high way shall bee laide open to incontinent liuers Innocentius hath sayd well to the purpose a woman may bee long sicke of an infectious disease which crosse is remedilesse why cannot the husband as well conteine in case of adulterie as of sicknesse and where Beza replieth that the case is different betweene a diseased person whom the hand of God hath afflicted and one which by adulterie hath made a voluntarie breach of wedlocke that is no replye because in respect of the plaintiue which hath not the gift of continencie the gift is all one and yet sometimes it falleth out that women haue daungerous infections not onely by the hand of GOD but also by theyr owne misdemeanour of themselues The third is an allegation of the Apostle He which cannot abstaine must marry but a man which is seperated from his wife may want chastitie and therefore must marry I answere S. Paul out of S. Paul hee which cannot containe let him marry but let him marry in the Lord nubat in domino not otherwise but he cannot marry in the Lord which is married alreadie hee cannot take a second wife which is not freed from the first therefore if he cannot containe let him bee reconciled to his wife that is a present remedie against fornication The fourth hee asketh whereas S. Augustine saith the man is bound to forgiue his wife vppon repentance what if her repentance bee but fayned and what if after forgiuenesse there bee a relapse into adulterye againe why should a Christian bee bounde to such an inconuenience I answere that whereas hee thinketh it an hard condition for a man to forgiue his wife vppon repentance beeing not assured whether shee repent vnfainedly or no nor resolued whether shee will afterwarde remaine chaste or no The like may bee obiected against them which are excommunicated by the keyes of the Church which shewing themselues penitent doo craue absolution and to bee receiued againe into the congregation of the faithfull hee which is to pronounce absolution cannot iudge of the contrition of the inward man and yet hee must absolue and leaue the rest to God which knoweth the secrets of the heart Man can goe but by outward appearance and in charitie hope the best So must a man doo by his wife We must not negare lapsis paenitentiam dispaire of them that fall because they may arise againe Christ beeing asked by Peter how often a man must forgiue his brother answered seuentie times seuen but if a brother much more a wife Therefore saith S. Augustine Durum tibi videtur adulteri coniugi reconciliari durum non erit si fides adsit Cur adhùc deputamus adulteros vèl baptismo lotos vel paenitenta sanatos Doth it seeme an hard condition to thee to be reconciled to thy adulterous wife If it seeme difficult then faith is wanting where is charitie if we condemne them still to bee adulterous which are cleansed by the water of baptisme and washed by the teares of repentance He rendereth a reason of this doctrine In the olde Lawe men were frobidden to receiue such women as were polluted by adulterie beeing so hainous offence as it could not be cleansed by sacrifice but vnder the new Testament by the bloud of Christ which is a more worthy sacrifice then all the rest all offences are forgiuen and therefore Dauid as a figure of the new Testament receiued Saules daughter an adulterous woman and since Christ hath said to the woman I will not condemne thee sinne no more Quis non videt ignoscere debere maritum cui ignouisse videt Dominum shal not the husband forgiue her whom Christ hath forgiuen or esteeme her as polluted whom the bloud of Christ hath cleansed Quibus hoc Christi factum displicet hos non seueros castitas fecit sed ipsi aegroti medicum reprehendunt in adulteros adulteri saeuiunt They which like not of this iudgement of Christ are not so seuere against
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
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
husband may sanctifie 〈◊〉 an vnbeleeuing wife 〈◊〉 so discreet man may reforme an vndiscreet wife euen as when the bodie is out of temper it is in the wisedome of the head to cure the bodie and bring the disordered members into order Husbands must giue honour vnto their wiues There is one honour which the inferiour doth owe to his supeririour Feare God and honour the King Another which superiours owe to their inferiours and all one to another Honour all men In giuing honour goe before one an other All members saith Paule are not alike but on those members which we thinke most dishonest we put most honestie on vpon our vncomely parts we put most comelines on for our comely parts need it not but God hath tempered the bodie together and giuen more honour to the member that lacketh And so must husbands do to their wiues The woman is the weaker vessell and the man himselfe is but a vessell and notwithstanding his strength hee is but weake He doth not say Giue honour to the â—â—man because she is good but because she is weake not for her vertue but for her fragilitie for your selues are so or may be so Brethren saith Paul If a man be suddenly taken in an offence you which be spirituall must restore such anâ—one with the spirit of meeknes considering â—est thou also be tempted beare one an others burden 〈◊〉 fulfil the law of Christ. We haue 〈…〉 examples of womeÌ„ which were 〈◊〉 vessels The woman was the first in the preuarication and not the man Abraham beleeued the Angell when Sara laughed Lots wife did looke back towards Sodome Lot did not Moses his wife repined at her childes circumcision himselfe did not Sara was so hard hâ—rted as to turne Agar out of doores Abraham was not Iezabel could without remorse of conscience set downe the whole plot and proiect how Naboth should loose his life and his vineyard Achab could not The wife of Zebedeus could audaciously aske of our Sauiour Christ that her sonnes might sit on his right haÌ„d his left her husbÌ„d could not Salomons wiues corrupted him he corrupted them not Sampsons wife betraied him he betraied not her Some of these offenâ—â— were worse theÌ„ adultery yet their husband did not nourish hatred against them Though they be weake vessells yet are they heires of the kingdome of heauen as well as their husbands Christ was borne a man but borne of woman that he might sanctifie both man and woman through childbirth the woman shal be saued if they continue in the faith and loue and holinesse with modestie The word of God hath giuen precepts of godly life vnto women that liuing godlily as did Elizabeth Sara Anna Rebecca they might be saued The man and wife are to liue together in the life to come not as a man and wife but as the Angels and Saints in heauen why then shal they liue asunder vpon the earth If they liue not together theyr prayers shal be interrupted This reason alone is sufficient to compose and qualifie all greeuances between man wife They ought to pray together for prayer is a principall part of Gods seruice and if they will haue God to be deuoutly serued al grudges and quarrels must be layd aside God heareth not the prayers of them which be sinfull no greater sinne then continuall fostering of hatred and inward malice Iosua saith I and my house will serue the Lord Zacharie and his wife with him walked in the ordinances of God without reproofe And it is the maner of you Citizens when you are dead to haue your wiues and your selues pictured vpon your graues lifting vp your hands and praying together But it is plaine mockery to be pictured praying together vpon your graues when you are dead if so be that you doo not pray together in your houses while you are aliue and therefore learne by the marble monuments and pictures of the dead what yee ought to doo while ye are aliue I ende with Moses beseeching God that my doctrine may be as the raine and my speech as the deawe of heauen and the showre vpon the hearbes and as the great raine vpon the grasse For I will publish the name of the Lord giue ye glory vnto our God To this God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost be all power glory and dominion both now and for euermore Amen FINIS 1. Tim. 1. 13. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 3. â— Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Tim. 17. Epist. Iudae v. 10. 16. Apoc. 19. Gal. 1. 8. 1. Iohn 4. Ioh. 6. 15. Ioh. 3. 30. Ier. 48. Math. 10 Psal. 45. Dan. 2. 1. Tim. 2. Dè inuent sanctae crucis Hom 20. Ex. 17. Psal. 59. 1. Reg. 18. Deut. 25. Math. 12. Apoc. 5. Ex. 34. Iud. 14. 15 â—sa 6. 9. etâ— 1. Thess. 5. 21. Dan. 5. â— 5. 2. Thess. 2. 3 Vers. 7. Iacob 2. 10. Leuit. 1â— 1â— Marc. 16. 16 Mat. 1. 18. Hieron coÌ„tra â—eluidiuÌ„ Math. 28. â— Cor. 15. Decretal lib. 5. Tit. 40 cap. 6. verba intelligenda sunt non secundum quodsonaÌ„t sed secunduÌ„ mentem proferentis Hilar. Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi quia non sermonires sed reisermo est subiectus De adulterinis coniugijs lib. 1. cap. 9. Iac. 4. 17. Gen. 2. 14. 1. Cor. 6. 16 Eph. 5. 3. Deut. 24. Math. 5. Math. 5. 43. Leuit. 19. 18 If any obiect that the history is otherwise related in Marke I answere with Greg Decretal lib. 5. Tit. 40. cap. 7. Nihil obstat narrandi diuersit as c. Vrsinus Doctr. Christ. 2. parte in 7. praecep Scopus precepti non maechaberis est conseruatio castitatis munitio coniugij Quicquid ergò facit ad castitarem muniendum coniugium hâc Jege praecipitur contrarium prohibetur Sub adulterio prohibentur omnia vitia castitati contraria corum cognatae species causae occasiones effectus antecedentia consequentia Deut. 24. Vide Chrysost in Lib. de libel repud L. Ideser dom in monte Gen. 4. 2. Reg. 6. Gen. 3. 8. Ionas 1. Loâ—o com de coÌ„iugio Loco com de diuortio Rom. 7. 2. 1. Cor. 7. 16 1. Cor. 7. 5. Tho. Aqui. in 1. Cor. 7. Gen. 24 Gen. 29. Gen. 16. Iohn 8. Grat. decret pars ricausa 32. quaest 6. cap. 1. ex Aug. dè ser. in monte cap. 8. Rom. 8. Ro. cap. â— Gen. 3â— Lib. de libello repudij Lib de diuortio Grat decret 2. pars 32. causa 7 quaest 1. 2. cap Aug. de bono coniugali cap 7. Dè adult conâ—ug li. 2. cap. 4. Concil Milâ—uitan cap. 17. Ad Pollentium lib. 2. cap. 10. 1. Cor. 7. Mat. 18. Adpoll l 2. cap. 6. â— 1. Sam. 18. Iohn 8. Concil Aulatensis can 10. Epiph. coâ—tra Cathores 1. Tim. 5. 1. Cor. 7. De adule Coniug li. 1. cap. 11. Chrysost. de lib. re pudij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De adult coniugijs lib. 1. cap. 9. Mâ—c 10. 11. Luc. 16. 18. Ex. 22. 1. Leuit. 19. 9 Deut. 21. 23. Ad Amandum presbyterum Ad ApolleÌ„t li. 2. cap. 4. Canon apost 47. Vindiciae contrà tyrannos â— Sam. 12. Gen. 27. Ex. 11. 2. Iud. 16. 30. Iosua 6. 15. Innocentius Epist. 3. ad Exeuperiun De 10 chordis cap. 3. Deut. 24. Sixti senensis Biblioth sanct lib. 2. ex libro Rabbi Mosis dâ— Coâ—i Rom. â— Mal. 4. 1. Pat. â— 7. 1. Cor. â— 1. Tim. 5. Ephe. 5. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Pet. 2. 1. Cor. 1â— Gala 5. 〈◊〉 Gen. 3. 3. Tim. â— Gen. 18. Gen. 19. Exod. 4. Gen. 21. 1. Reg. 21. Math. 20. 1. Reg. 21. Iudg. 1â— and 16. 〈…〉 1. Tim. 2. Pro. 18. Iosua Luc. 1. Deut. â—2