Of diuorcement A sermon preached at Pauls Crosse the 10. of May. 1601. By Iohn Doue, Doctor of Diuinitie. Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618. 1601 Approx. 98 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 39 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A20684 STC 7083 ESTC S116967 99852182 99852182 17491 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A20684) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 17491) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1446:20) Of diuorcement A sermon preached at Pauls Crosse the 10. of May. 1601. By Iohn Doue, Doctor of Diuinitie. Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618. [14], 62 p. Printed by T. C[reede], London : 1601. Printer's name supplied by STC. A sermon. Reproduction of the original in the Union Theological Seminary (New York, N.Y.). Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Divorce -- Early works to 1800. Sermons, English -- 17th century. 2003-12 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-07 Rachel Losh Sampled and proofread 2004-07 Rachel Losh Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 ●a●●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 frō 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 thē 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 , Vxor●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 ●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 dimittēdis vxoribus aut viris legē 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 drif● 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 diuorcemēt 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 thē 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 quotatiōs 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 heauē 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 ? in●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 adulteriū est commemorare voluit quam id quod est minus , nam grauius adulteriū est pudicâ vxore dimissa aliā ducere quàm impudicâ , vt Iacobi quarto , sciēti bonū facere & non facienti peccatum est illi , nūquid idcirco peccatum est illi qui nescit bonū facere & , ideo nō facit●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 cōclude , 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 permissiō of Moses , & what was indeed lawful according to the word of God , for they affoord two seueral constructions , secundum permissionē Mosaicam & veritatē euangelicā according to the permissiō 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 , whē 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 cōference , 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 , frō the definition of diuorcement , no man can seuer thē 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 , nō debemus attēdere 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 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 & coni●gis authoritate humanâ qui coniuncti sūt 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 thē at libertie which in nature do , & must continue bound . Our Sauiour Christ hath thus defined diuorcemēt 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 , 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 compensatiō 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 quàm fornicationis causâ dimittere vxorem qui & ipse cōuincitur fornicari , occurrit enim illud : qui alterū iudicas teipsum condemnas . Qua propter quisquis vult fornicationis causâ dimittere vxorē , 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 cōditas legas praecipientes dari ●ibellum repudij , & diuell● . Neque enim iuxta illas iudicaturus est te Deus , in illâ diè quâ vēturus est , sed secundùm suas , vt ipse statuit . In ●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 habēt prò catenâ se p●rsequentem , & adulterij accusantē , 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 quàm 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 cōtrary 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 occasiō 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 incōtinencie , & that after diuorcement is graunted , both the man and the woman , the offended and the offendor may marry again . His first argumēt 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 frō 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 àb 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 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 eni●● 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 thē . Not to do all which in extremitie we may , but to abstaine frō 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 fi●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 aunciēt Councel , that such mē 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 thē 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 cōuerted 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 cōmitteth 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 : 〈◊〉 fatuū 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 thē shal the questiō be , who shal keep the children ? S. Augustine is of a cōtrary iudgemēt to Beza . Qui dicimus : Qui mulierem praetèr fornicationém dimissam ducit maechatur , nō ideò maechari negamus qui eāducit quae proptèr fornicationē dimissa est , vterque enim est maechus , qui ob fornicationem dimittit & aliam ducit , & etiàm 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 , quū 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 ●partè definit viu●nte viro adulteram asse mulierem si alteri nupserit . The Apostle preuenteth all qu●●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 vinculū prioris proptèr quod reus sit adulterij qui dimissam duxerit , etiā 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 let●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 husbād & the wife are relat● , one cannot be without the other : if she be boūd , she is some bodies wife , thē he which diuorced her is her husband : there cānot 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 , cōmitteth 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 , committe●h adultry ▪ therefore if he marry her which is diuorced for fornicatiō , 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 thē 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 w●●●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 husband● 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 cōcerning thrift , secondly cōcerning 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 , thē in the bodie which hath but vegetatiō & 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 thē are beastes , therefore they must liue discreetly with their wiues , but a discreet man will of himselfe cōsider , 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 ●as a belee●ing 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 ●●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 an●one with the spirit of meeknes , considering ●est thou also be tempted , beare one an others burden ▪ 〈◊〉 fulfil the law of Christ. We haue 〈…〉 examples of womē 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 h●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 hād & his left , her husb̄d could not . Salomons wiues corrupted him , he corrupted them not . Sampsons wife betraied him , he betraied not her . Some of these offen●● were worse thē 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 . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A20684-e80 1. Tim. 1. 13. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 3. ● . 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 Notes for div A20684-e880 ●sa . 6. 9. et● ▪ 1. Thess. 5. 21. Dan. 5. ● 5. 2. Thess. 2. 3 Vers. 7. Iacob . 2. 10. Leuit. 1● . 1● Marc. 16. 16 Mat. 1. 18. Hieron . cōtra ●eluidiū Math. 28. ● . Cor. 15. Decretal . lib. 5. Tit. 40 cap. 6. verba intelligenda sunt , non secundum quodsonāt , sed secundū 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. Lo●o com ▪ de cōiugio . 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. ● . Gen. 3● . 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 . con●ug . li. 2. cap. 4. Concil . Mil●uitan cap. 17. Ad Pollentium . lib. 2. cap. 10. 1. Cor. 7. Mat. 18. Adpoll . l 2. cap. 6. & ● . 1. Sam. 18. Iohn . 8. Concil . Aulatensis can . 10. Epiph. co●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. M●c . 10. 11. Luc. 16. 18. Ex. 22. 1. Leuit. 19. 9 Deut. 21. 23. Ad Amandum presbyterum . Ad Apollēt . li. 2. cap. 4. Canon . apost . 47. Vindiciae contrà tyrannos . ● . 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 d● Co●i . Rom. ● Mal. 4. 1. Pat. ● . 7. 1. Cor. ● . 1. Tim. 5. Ephe. 5. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Pet. 2. 1. Cor. 1● ▪ Gala ▪ 5. 〈◊〉 . Gen. 3. 3. Tim. ● . Gen. 18. Gen. 19. Exod. 4. Gen. 21. 1. Reg. 21. Math. 20. 1. Reg. 21. Iudg. 1● . and 16. 〈…〉 1. Tim. 2. Pro. 18. Iosua . Luc. 1. Deut. ●2 .