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
Of Diuorcement A SERMON PREACHED AT Pauls Crosse the 10. of May. 1601. By Iohn Doue Doctor of Diuinitie LONDON Printed by T. C. 1601. The Preface I Had not published my late Sermon the world beeing alreadie so full of bookes had I not bene mistaken by some which vnderstood it not vniustly traduced by others which heard it not reporting of it as they would haue it and not as I deliuered it not so much offended with the Sermon as with the Preacher They take exceptions Against the matter as if the doctrine were not sound Against my words and maner of deliuering it as irreuerend because I presumed not onely to speake against Beza without crauing pardon without ascribing praise and commendation otherwise due to his great deseruings but also to passe him ouer slightly calling him by his bare name without addition as if so doing I did Peccare contrà formam sanorum verborum not keepe the patterne of wholsome words Against the text it selfe as vnseasonable for the time and vnpleasing to the auditory Against my diuision and reading of the text as straunge and insolent the like neuer heard of before as if I had offered violence to the holy scriptures I answere with the Apostle I passe litle to be iudged by you or of mans iudgement I haue builded vpon no other foundation then that which is already laid that is Iesus Christ whether I haue builded gold siluer pearles or timber haye stubble whether my worke will abide and proue such for the which I shall receiue wages or not let it bee made â—aâ—â—est I feare not that day I refuse not the 〈◊〉 tryall which is the onely true iudge of all mens workes The holy Ghost hath taught me in the meane while that the Ministers of Christ must passe through many things honour and dishonour good report and bad report as deceiuers and yet true M. Beza cannot blame me for dissenting from him because he hath done so by S. Augustine and all the Fathers nor for vsing his name without addition because hee hath done the like by S. Paul and all the Apostles I dare not follow S. Paul farther then hee is a follower of Christ and therefore must dissent froÌ„ Beza when he dissenteth from Christ. I was not then ignorant how thanklesse an office it was to speake of him whose authoritie is with some more canonicall then the canonicall scriptures to name Beza before them which haue onely heard of his name but knowe not how to spell it for they call him Bezer as also Bellarmine they call Bellamye they would bee Doctors of the Lawe but knowe not what they speake or whereof they affirme it is very likely they haue read his workes and are able to iudge of his doctrine But I came thither to preach Christ not to commend any man for so had I not beene the seruant of Christe And this I may speake without offence M. Beza hath not deliuered all truth but left some to others to bee deliuered And therefore I exhort them that they would not condemne this doctrine because hee holdeth the contrarye least they immitate the false Prophets which speake euill of the thinges which they knowe not and haue mens persons in admiration whom also they knowe not and so commit grosser Idolatrie by worshipping a man then Saint Iohn did by worshipping an Angell If an Angell from heauen preach new doctrine he is accursed much lesse may the doctrine which any man publisheth be presently receiued without further triall Eô nomine because hee taught it but the spirit must be tried the doctrine must be examined be the credit of the Doctor neuer so great I haue alwaies opposed my selfe against popularitie as an enemie to true godlinesse supposing that they which preach mortification ought their selues to bee mortified from vaine ostentation of great auditories ambitious desire of many followers and glorying in multitudes of Disciples by the example of our Sauiour which withdrew himselfe from the multitude when he sawe they would take him vp and make him a King And therefore haue I refrained to intrude my selfe into such great assemblies as also that I might not defraud mine owne congregation but contented my selfe to keepe my station in mine owne watch-tower ouer that flocke onely ouer which God hath made me an ouerseer I desire his glory and not mine owne I say with Iohn the Baptist he must increase and I must decrease But beeing called to that place of so great expectation I thought it fit to choose mine owne text in which choise if the wiser sort of men will say I haue erred I will craue pardon for mine error I was required by the Magistrate vpon shorter warning then ordinary to supply a course which else had stood voyd so that my tongue was become the pen of a swift writer yet haue I not by reason of haste done the worke of the Lord altogether negligently neither was I with the Disciples carelesse what I should speake looking that it should be giuen me in that houre but my heart did with the Prophet Dauid first indite the matter before I spake it In expounding this text I did as Daniel expounding a dreame vse both prayer and meditation and I assure my selfe I haue according to the Apostles rule shewed my selfe approued vnto God a workeman which needeth not to be ashamed diuiding the word aright And whosoeuer will stand to the Cathechisme and rudiments of Christian religion and submit himself to the rules of Logicke will he nill he he must confesse that my reading and diuiding the text is very naturall and no way forced Concerning this point I am to satisfie a kinde of men differing from the other of which I spake before which will haue marriage after diuorcement as well of the partie innocent as of the nocent to be adultery and yet the diuorcement it selfe which they graunt to be a dissolution of marriage to be lawfull so that they will build without a foundation and make a consequent without an antecedent For how can marriage after diuorcement be vnlawfull if the diuorcement it selfe stand good How is it possible to graunt a diuorce but with full power to marry againe when the first mariage is lawfully dissolued what can hinder a second marriage But to strengthen their error they except against the diuision of my text they will haue it to be but categoricall which I haue said to be hypotheticall they alleadge that no proposition can be hypotheticall vnlesse it be conditionall To oppose themselues against me they except against the Cathechisme it self against the grounds of Logicke by which they lay themselues open to no small reproach Euerie young scholler which hath learned Seron can tell theÌ„ that all hypotheticall propositions are not conditionall but some copulatiue some disiunctiue and that all propositions are hypotheticall which may bee resolued into two categoricalls and that therfore
these words as they are set downe in Saint Matthew and more plaine in S. Marke and most plaine in S. Luke the commas and points being in all three alike obserued to wit Vxorâ—m dimittens aliam ducens maechatur That is both he which diuorceth his wife and he which marrieth an other committeth adultry are an hypotheticall copulatiue proposition and containe in them two categoricalls Vxorem dimittens maechatur vxorem aliam ducens maechatur Both of them being without exception perfectly true propositions in Logicke according to the definition and forme of a proposition But for as much as I haue diuided my text according to forme which is the very life of all diuisions my diuisions is iustified who haue diuided the whole text into three propositions The case being cleare concerning the forme that this text conteineth three true propositions they can contend with mee onely about the matter of the first proposition whether it bee Secundum qualitatem in â—e vera or falsa They aske how it can be adulterie for a man to put away his wife when hee dooth not onely abstaine from the second marriage from all carnall knowledge but also from coueting of any other Adulterie say they consisteth onely in carnall knowledge and in coueting and no writer of credit will say that there can bee any other adulterie By which wordes they make Saint Chrysostome to bee a Writer of no credite which saieth Viro casto qualiscunque vxor bona videtur quia perfecta charitas vitia non sentit Qui diligit vxorem de soluendo matrimonio legis praecepta necessaria non habet vbi autèm de soluendo matrimonio lex requiritur illic iam odium demonstratur vbi odium inuenitur illìc iam fornicatio esse cognoscitur A chaste man will thinke well of his wife though faultie because perfect charitie will not espie offences He which loueth his wife thinketh the lawe of diuorcement superfluous and very needlesse but where aduantage of lawe is required for the vndoing of marriage there hatred appeareth but where there is hatred of a mans wife there is also fornication Againe Quemadmodùm si videas hominem assiduè amicitias medicorum colentem exipsâre statim intelligis quià infirmus est sic cùm videris siuè virum siuè mulierem dè dimitteÌ„dis vxoribus aut viris legeÌ„ interrogantes cognosce quia vit iste lasciuus est mulier illa meretrix est Euen as that man which continually resorteth to the Phisitian to aske aduise sheweth that his body is not sound so when man or wife asketh counsell of the Lawyer how they may be diuorced the man so doing is vnhonest the woman so doing is adulterous Likewise they make Vrsinus to be a writer of no credit which interpreteth this commaundement Thou shalt not commit adulterie in this maner The scope and drifâ— of this commaundement saith hee is the preseruation of chastitie and the vpholding of marriage and all things are by it forbidden which any waies are causes or effects antecedents or consequents contrary to chastitie or contrary to marriage But say I by diuorcement marriage is dissolued and therefore not vpheld or maintained by such a diuorcemeÌ„t as is allowed to be good and yet with a restraint from a second marriage men and women are caused to burne in lust and defrauded of that benefit which God hath appointed to be a remedie against fornication and therefore by it chastitie is not preserued and by a consequent adultery is committed But to answere them in a word how hee which diuorceth his wife committeth adultery he committeth adultry two maner of wayes first as a principall offender because he breaketh wedlocke for so diuorcement is defined the dissolution of marriage or vntying of the knot of sacred wedlocke and the briefest sort of the English and Duch Cathechismes haue in stead of thou shalt not commit adultry in more generall termes thou shalt not breake wedlocke whereby it is the iudgement of the Churches of England and Germanie that all breach of the law of wedlocke is adultery and wedlocke is in no degree so highly broken as by diuorcement by which it is dissolued Secondly he committeth adulterie as a partie accessary for he giueth his wife allowance to marry againe which my aduersaries do confesse to be adultery That the intent and meaning of diuorcement is to vndoo the first marriage and giue license to the second marriage who can speake better theÌ„ the Iewes themselues of whom the Christians did learne it and the Christian Churches which doo receiue it and put it in practise That the diuorcement which was permitted by Moyses was with permission also to marry again it appeareth by Moses himself Deut. 24. That it is so among the Iewes in these dayes it appeareth by the very forme of their Schodule or Bill of diuorcement which hath these words do vxori meae potesttatem eundi quò velit nubendi cui velit I giue my wife libertie to goe whither she will and to marry whom she will That it is so vnderstood among the Christian Churches where diuorcement is practised it is plaine by the confession of M. Beza in his booke De diuortio as in my Sermon I haue declared As for my maner of reading let them readie as I haue read it or as it is in the originall all is one in substance I did it but for explication sake as an Interpretor not as a bare reader they cannot vnderstand it otherwise then I did read it let them diuide it as I did or otherwise it will make a difference in outward forme the doctrine will be the same Onely this aduertisement I will be bold to giue to some kind of Preachers in our Church that true preaching doth not consist in heaping vp of common places in prolixitie and length of speech in multitudes of quotatioÌ„s of Authors chapters and verses nor in rash deliuering of doctrine taken by tradition vpon the bare relation credit of others without further examination But he which will expound such a text as this is must suppose it to be like the Hebrew Bible which needed the Chalde paraphrase that the Iewes might vnderstand it the rocke in the wildernesse which was to bee cleft by Moses his rodde before water would issue out of it the Land of promise which was not presently discouered the heaueÌ„ which was shut vp and opened but by Elias his prayers before it rayned the corne which was troden with the oxes foote and rubbed by the hands of the Disciples before it was eaten the booke to be vnsealed by the Lambe before the mysteries in it could be reuealed the face of Moses which had a vaile or couering before it to bee remooued before his beautie could appeare the tooth in the Asses iaw-bone and the Lyons carkasse which required Sampsons strength before his thirst could bee quenched before sweetnesse could be drawne out of the
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
printed in other characters that it may be distinguished from the originall And least this kinde of reading the scriptures should seeme straunge and insolent Beza in his Latine translation of the new Testament dooth the like not in so fewe as an hundred places wee will instance for example sake S. Paul writeth in this maner Let no man deceiue you by any meanes for except there come a departure first and the man of sinne be disclosed which words are so imperfect that they carrie no sence but Beza in his Latine translation readeth it otherwise by adding these words in other characters The day of the Lord shall not come Let no man deceiue you by any meanes for the day of the Lord shal not come vnlesse there be a departure first and the man of sinne bee disclosed Which addition is necessarily vnderstood by the circumstances of the place for in the next verse going before hee shewed that the day of Christ was not so neare as the Thessalonians supposed and in this verse he sheweth a reason because there must come a departure first Likewise in the same Chapter S. Paules words are these The mistery of iniquitie doth alreadie worke onely that which withholdeth vntill it be taken away Which Beza readeth in this maner The misterie of iniquitie doth alreadie worke onely that which withholdeth shall withholde vntill it bee taken away and so according to the office of a faithfull Trāslator maketh that plaine in the translation which was obscure by reason of the Elleipsis in the originall and yet was not wanting in the originall because it was necessarily vnderstood In like manner this Text being Elleipticall or defectiue for want of words and the sence of it obscure and darke wee must adde words in the English but in other Characters and read in this maner I say vnto you that according to the permission of Moyses He that putteth away his Wife vnlesse it be for whoordome committeth adulterie and if he marrie an other he committeth adulterie and whosoeuer marrieth her that is diuorced committeth adulterie Which words we must of necessitie vnderstand to be inserted because else wee shall not onely leaue the sence maimed and imperfect but also include a manifest contradiction to that which our Sauiour concluded in the words immediately going before as I shall shewe vnto you Wherefore our new Diuines for want of right reading this Text do misconster it foure wayes First they thinke our Sauiour speaketh affirmatiuely that diuorcement is lawfull whereas he speaketh negatiuely that diuorcement is not lawfull The second they take this answer to bee particular as if in some one case that is in case of adulterie and for some persons as when one is nocent and the other innocent diuorcement were lawfull whereas it is vniuersall that no diuorcement is lawfull be the case whatsoeuer or the persons whosoeuer The third they suppose it to be hypotheticall because he saith whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication c. as if that were aequipollent with this if a man putteth away his wife for fornication it is no adulterie whereas it is catagoricall because this exception in the Parenthesis vnlesse it be for fornication is meerely voyd and no exception at all as I will make manifest vnto you and of no more validitie then if it were left out The fourth they thinke that in these words are comprehended but two propositions whereas there are three for though our Sauiour saith Hee that putteth away his wife and marrieth an other committeth adulterie naming adulterie but once yet it is twise vnderstood both in the putting away of his wife and in the marrying of an other and therfore all one as if he had said he that putteth away his wife committeth adulterie by putting her away and if he marrie an other he committeth adulterie also by marrying an other like that saying of our Sauiour He that breaketh the least Commaundement and teacheth men so shall be called the least in the kingdome of Heauen Which words do not import onely that the breach of the commandemēt together with so teaching maketh a man the least in the kingdome of heauē but also the breach it self although he do not teach it as S. Iames sheweth so he that putteth away his wife committeth adultry though he doth not marry any other Wherfore according to that which I haue deliuered vnto you I diuide my text as it naturally diuideth it selfe into three propositions the first beeing as a text the other two as a glosse or exposition to wit the second an exposition of the first the third an expositiō of the second the first which is the text that there can be no diuorcement where he saith it is adultery for a man to put away his wife although he marry no other the second a proofe that there can be no diuorcemēt because he which putteth away his wife can marry no other where he saith it is adultry to marrie an other the third a proofe of the second that he which putteth away his wife can marrie no other because his wife which is put away can marry no other And of these three propositions in they due place Concerning the first proposition that there can be no diuorcement and that it is the drift of our Sauiour in this text to disanull all diuorcements I say vnto you whosoeuer putteth away his wife I shewed you before how there was an Elleipsis or want of words to be supplied Not as though I would by that supply of words serue mine owne turne or seeke to aduantage my selfe for I neede not and if we cōtent our selues with the bare naked and imperfect words of the Greeke text which the aduersary vseth for his best and onely aduantage no diuorcement can be prooued ot of them That I may examine the bare words who so putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication committeth adulterie It is no good consequent that therefore if a man put away his wife for fornicatiō it is no adultery nor this hee that putteth away his wife and marrieth an other committeth adultry therefore if he put her away marry no other it is no adultry as it may appeare by the like Moses saith Thou shalt not take a wife with her sister while shee liueth will you therefore argue out of these words that when a mans wife is dead he may marrie her sister Our Sauiour saith Whosoeuer beleeueth and is babtized shall be saued Will you therefore conclude against S. Ambrose that Theodosius the Emperour which did beleeue and was not baptised was not saued The holy Ghost saith Ioseph knew not Mary vntill shee had brought foorth her first borne sonne that Mary was found with childe before Ioseph and shee came together will you therefore conclude with Heluidius the Hereticke against S. Ierome that Mary was not a perpetuall Virgin and that shee was the mother of other children and that
after the birth of Christ Ioseph and Mary came together Our Sauiour saith I will be with you till the end of the world Paul saith Christ shall sit on the right hand of his Father vntill he make his enemies his footestoole will you therefore conclude that Christ shall leaue vs after the end of the world or cease to sit on his fathers right hand after his enemies are subdued You will aske me then if these words Except it be for fornication be no exception but meerely Idle why doth our Sauiour vse them or how can it stand with the nature of the holy Ghost to speake idlely These words are not idle and yet make nothing in fauour of diuorcement S. Augustine answereth in this maner Si ille maechatur qui dimissâ vxore fornicatrice aliam ducit cur ergo dominus interposuit causam fornicationis inâ—mo cur non dicit simpliciter qui dimissâ vxore aliam ducit maechatur If he which putteth away an adulterous wife and marrieth an other committeth adultery in so doing why did our Sauiour put in this caution saying except it be for fornication Why did he not say rather absolutely that he which putteth away his wife and marrieth an other committeth adulterie Quiae dominus illud quod grauius adulteriuÌ„ est commemorare voluit quam id quod est minus nam grauius adulteriuÌ„ est pudicâ vxore dimissa aliaÌ„ ducere quà m impudicâ vt Iacobi quarto scieÌ„ti bonuÌ„ facere non facienti peccatum est illi nuÌ„quid idcirco peccatum est illi qui nescit bonuÌ„ facere ideo noÌ„ facitâ—vtrumque peccatum est sed illud maius istud minus ita in his adulterijs sed vtrumque est adulterium Because our Sauiour would speake of that adulterie especially which was most heinous rather then of the other which is a lesse offence for it is a more grieuous adulterie to put away a chaste wife and marry an other then to put away a dishonest wife marry again euen as according to the Apostle To him that knoweth how to do well doth it not to him it is sin Wil you therfore coÌ„clude that to him which knoweth not how to doo wel therfore doth it not to him it is no sin Both are sins that greater and this lesser so both these are adultry though one be greater the other lesser But for your farther satisfaction mine owne answer is this These words of our Sauiour except it be for fornication do shew that the drift of our Sauiour was two-folde to shew what was supposed to be lawfull by the permissioÌ„ of Moses what was indeed lawful according to the word of God for they affoord two seueral constructions secundum permissioneÌ„ Mosaicam veritateÌ„ euangelicaÌ„ according to the permissioÌ„ of Moses and the truth of the Gospell according to Moses his permission which was a man and did like a man diuorcement was permitted onely in case of adulterie but according to the immutable and incorrupt veritie of the scriptures Christ denieth diuorcement to be lawfull as by the analogy of this place doth appeare For wheÌ„ our Sauiour saith wherefore I say vnto you marke vpon what occasion our Sauiour doth say these things vnto them conferre the beginning of the Dialogue or conference of the Pharisies and our Sauiour with the end of the same and his purpose will appeare Wherevpon doth our Sauiour deliuer this definitiue sentence concerning diuorcement vnto them but vpon their falsifying and belying the words of Moses which hee restoreth to the true sence and meaning thereof In the beginning of the coÌ„ference the Pharisies asked Christ tempting him saying Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for euery fault making no mention of marrying againe He answereth it is not lawfull for any fault and prooueth his deniall by arguments drawne first from the nature of marriage that which is but one cannot be diuided vnitas est indiuisibilis but the man and wife are one therefore they cannot be diuided The Maior is a principle in Arithmaticke and cannot be denied the Minor is Ipse dixit a principle in diuinitie Secondly froÌ„ the definition of diuorcement no man can seuer theÌ„ whom God hath ioyned together but to diuorce is to seuer man and wife whom God hath ioyned together and this in effect is all that may be saide of this question But the Pharisies not satisfying themselues with this answere reply against it and presse him with the authoritie of the scriptunre Moyses say they commaunded the man to giue his wife a Bill of diuorcement and put her away Hee answereth them that in so alleadging the words of Moyses they falsifie the Texte three maner of wayes First whereas they say Moyses commaunded it is not so for Moyses did but suffer them for the hardnesse of theyr hearts there is great difference betweene a commaundement and a tolleration they be of sundrie natures In deed our Sauiour saith It hath bene said Let him giue her a Bill of diuorcement Which words doo import a commaundement but by whom was it said only by the Iewes according to their receiued errour for God neuer said it as also in the same place Yee haue heard how it hath bene said thou shalt loue they neighbour and hate thine enemie But if ye read the place of scripture to which it hath relation ye shall finde they haue misreported of it for there is mention onely of the loue of our neighbour not of the hatred of our enemie that is but their owne collection Secondly whereas they build vpon this tolleration of Moyses it is no sufficient foundation to ground vpon because Moyses in this his tolleration did not permit diuorcement as a thing honest and lawfull but that he did as a man to beare with the hardnesse of their hearts dispence with them in this case contrary to Gods word where hee saith From the beginning it was not so But whatsoeuer is contrary to the first institution of marriage as it was in the beginning appointed of God is adulterie For we are not to regard the receiued errour of the Iewes but the truth of Iesus Christ as Ignatius saith ad Philadelp Antiquitas mea Iesus Christus est My antiquitie is Iesus Christ. And S. Ambrose de virginibus Nos noua quae Christus non docuit iure damnamus quoniam via fidelibus Christus est si ergo Christus non docuit quod docemus nos illud detestabile iudicamus Wee doo iustly condemne all doctrine as noueltie which Christ hath not taught because he is the onely teacher whom the faithful must follow if therefore Christ be not the author of that which is taught wee adiudge it a damnable doctrine that is taught And Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est noÌ„ debemus atteÌ„dere quid aliquis antè nos faciendum
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