Of Divorcement.  
A SERMON PREACHED AT Paul's Cross the 10. of May. 1601.  
By john Dove, Doctor of Divinity.  
LONDON Printed by T. C. 1601.   

The Preface.  
I Had not published my late Sermon, the world being already so full of books, had I not been mistaken by some which understood it not, & unjustly traduced by others which heard it not, reporting of it, as they would have it, and not as I delivered 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 manner of delivering it, as irreverend, because I presumed not only to speak against Beza without craving pardon, without ascribing praise and commendation otherwise due to his great deservings, but also to pass him over slightly, calling him by his bare name, without addition; as if so doing, I did Peccare contrà formam sanorum verborum, 
1. Tim. 1. 13.  not keep the pattern of wholesome words. Against the text itself, as unseasonable for the time, and unpleasing to the auditory. Against my division and reading of the text, as strange and insolent, the like never heard of before: as if I had offered violence to the holy scriptures.  
I answer with the Apostle: I pass little to be judged by you, 
1. Cor. 4.  or of man's judgement. I have builded upon no other foundation then that which is already laid, 
1. Cor. 3.  that is, jesus Christ: whether I have builded gold, silver, pearls, or timber, hay stubble, whether my work will abide, and prove such for the which I shall receive wages, or not: let it be made ●a●●est, I fear not that day, I refuse not the 〈◊〉 trial, which is the only true judge of all men's works. The holy Ghost hath taught me in the mean while that the Ministers of Christ must pass through many things, 
●. Cor. 6.  honour and dishonour, good report and bad report, as deceivers, 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 using his name without addition, because he hath done the like by S. Paul and all the Apostles. I dare not follow S. Paul farther than he is a follower of Christ, 
1. Cor. 11.  and therefore must dissent from Beza when he dissenteth from Christ. I was not then ignorant how thankless an office it was to speak of him, whose authority is with some, more canonical than the canonical scriptures, to name Beza before them which have only heard of his name, but know not how to spell it, (for they call him Bezer, as also Bellarmine they call Bellamye,) they would be Doctors of the Law, 
1. Tim. 17.  but know not what they speak, or whereof they affirm,) it is very likely they have read his works, and are able to judge of his doctrine. But I came thither to preach Christ, not to commend any man, for so had I not been the servant of Christ. And this I may speak without offence: M. Beza hath not delivered all truth, but left some to others to be delivered. And therefore I exhort them that they would not condemn this doctrine because he holdeth the contrary, 
Epist. judae v. 10. & 16.  lest they imitate the false Prophets which speak evil of the things which they know not, and have men's persons in admiration, whom also they know not, and so commit grosser Idolatry by worshipping a man, than Saint john did by worshipping an Angel.  
If an Angel from heaven preach new doctrine, 
Apoc. 19  he is accursed, 
Gal. 1. 8.  much less may the doctrine which any man publisheth, be presently received without further trial, Eô nomine, because he taught it: 
1. john. 4.  but the spirit must be tried, the doctrine must be examined, be the credit of the Doctor never so great.  
I have always opposed myself against popularity, as an enemy to true godliness, supposing that they which preach mortification, ought their selves to be mortified from vain ostentation of great auditories, ambitious desire of many followers, and glorying in multitudes of Disciples, 
joh. 6. 15.  by the example of our Saviour, which withdrew himself from the multitude, when he saw they would take him up and make him a King. And therefore have I refrained to intrude myself into such great assemblies; as also that I might not defraud mine own congregation, but contented myself to keep my station in mine own watchtower, over that flock only, over which God hath made me an overseer. I desire his glory and not mine own: I say with john the Baptist, 
joh. 3. 30.  he must increase, and I must decrease. But being called to that place of so great expectation, I thought it fit to choose mine own text; in which choice, if the wiser sort of men will say I have erred, I will crave pardon for mine error.  
I was required by the Magistrate, upon shorter warning then ordinary, to supply a course, which else had stood void; so that my tongue was become the pen of a swift writer: yet have I not by reason of haste, 
jer. 48.  done the work of the Lord altogether negligently, neither was I with the Disciples careless what I should speak, 
Math. 10.  looking that it should be given me in that hour; but my heart did with the Prophet David, 
Psal. 45.  first indite the matter before I spoke it. In expounding this text, I did as Daniel expounding a dream, 
Dan. 2.  use both prayer and meditation: and I assure myself, I have according to the Apostles rule, 
1. Tim. 2.  showed myself approved unto God, a workman which needeth not to be ashamed dividing the word aright. And whosoever will stand to the catechism and rudiments of Christian religion, and submit himself to the rules of Logic, will he, nill he, he must confess, that my reading and dividing the text is very natural, and no way forced. Concerning this point, I am to satisfy a kind of men differing from the other of which I spoke before, which will have marriage after divorcement, as well of the party innocent as of the nocent, to be adultery; and yet the divorcement itself, which they grant to be a dissolution of marriage, to be lawful, so that they will build without a foundation, and make a consequent without an antecedent. For how can marriage after divorcement be unlawful, if the divorcement itself stand good? How is it possible to grant a divorce, but with full power to marry again? when the first marriage is lawfully dissolved, what can hinder a second marriage? But to strengthen their error▪ they except against the division of my text: they will have it to be but categorical, which I have said to be hypothetical, they allege that no proposition can be hypothetical unless it be conditional. To oppose themselves against me, they except against the catechism itself, against the grounds of Logic, by which they lay themselves open to no small reproach. Every young scholar which hath learned Seron can tell them that all hypothetical propositions are not conditional, but some copulative, some disjunctive, and that all propositions are hypothetical, which may be resolved into two categoricalls, and that therefore these words as they are set down in Saint Matthew, and more plain in S. Mark, and most plain in S. Luke, the commas and points being in all three alike observed: to wit, Vxor●m dimittens, & aliam ducens, maechatur, That is, both he which divorceth his wife, and he which marrieth an other, committeth adultery, are an hypothetical copulative proposition, and contain in them two categoricalls: Vxorem dimittens maechatur, & uxorem aliam ducens maechatur, Both of them being without exception perfectly true propositions in Logic, according to the definition and form of a proposition. But for as much as I have divided my text according to form, which is the very life of all divisions, my divisions is justified who have divided the whole text into three propositions. The case being clear concerning the form, that this text containeth three true propositions, they can contend with me only about the matter of the first proposition, whether it be Secundum qualitatem in ●e, vera or falsa. They ask how it can be adultery for a man to put away his wife, when he doth not only abstain from the second marriage, from all carnal knowledge, but also from coveting of any other? Adultery say they, consisteth only in carnal knowledge, and in coveting, and no writer of credit will say that there can be any other adultery. By which words they make Saint chrysostom to be a Writer of no credit, 
Dè invent. sanctae crucis. Hom 20.  which saith: Viro casto qualiscunque uxor bona videtur, quia perfecta charitas vitia non sentit. Qui diligit uxorem, de soluendo matrimonio legis praecepta necessaria, non habet, ubi autèm de soluendo matrimonio lex requiritur, illic iam odium demonstratur, ubi odium invenitur, illìc iam fornicatio esse cognoscitur. A chaste man will think well of his wife though faulty, because perfect charity will not espy offences. He which loveth his wife, thinketh the law of divorcement superfluous and very needless: but where advantage of law is required for the undoing of marriage, there hatred appeareth; but where there is hatred of a man's wife, there is also fornication. Again, Quemadmodùm, si videas hominem assiduè amicitias medicorum colentem, exipsâre statim intelligis quià infirmus est: sic & cum videris siuè virum siuè mulierem dè dimittendis uxoribus aut viris legem interrogantes, cognosce quia vit iste lasciws est, & mulier illa meretrix est. Even as that man which continually resorteth to the Physician to ask advise, showeth that his body is not sound: so when man or wife asketh counsel of the Lawyer how they may be divorced, the man so doing is unhonest; the woman so doing, is adulterous. Likewise, they make Vrsinus to be a writer of no credit, which interpreteth this commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, in this manner. The scope and drift of this commandment (saith he) is the preservation of chastity, and the upholding of marriage, and all things are by it forbidden, which any ways are causes, or effects, antecedents, or consequents, contrary to chastity, or contrary to marriage. But say I, by divorcement marriage is dissolved, and therefore not upheld or maintained by such a divorcement as is allowed to be good; and yet with a restraint from a second marriage, men and women are caused to burn in lust, and defrauded of that benefit which God hath appointed to be a remedy against fornication: and therefore by it, chastity is not preserved, and by a consequent adultery is committed. But to answer them in a word, how he which divorceth his wife committeth adultery, he committeth adultery two manner of ways: first as a principal offender, because he breaketh wedlock; for so divorcement is defined the dissolution of marriage, or untying of the knot of sacred wedlock: and the briefest sort of the English and Dutch catechisms, have in stead of thou shalt not commit adultery, in more general terms, thou shalt not break wedlock: whereby it is the judgement of the Churches of England and Germany, that all breach of the law of wedlock is adultery: and wedlock is in no degree so highly broken as by divorcement▪ by which it is dissolved. Secondly he committeth adultery as a party accessary, for he giveth his wife allowance to marry again, which my adversaries do confess to be adultery. That the intent and meaning of divorcement is to undo the first marriage, and give licence to the second marriage, who can speak better than the jews themselves, of whom the Christians did learn it, and the Christian Churches which do receive it and put it in practice? That the divorcement which was permitted by Moses, was with permission also to marry again, it appeareth by Moses himself. Deut. 24. That it is so among the jews, in these days it appeareth by the very form of their Schodule or Bill of divorcement, which hath these words, do uxori meae potesttatem eundi quò velit, nubendi cui velit. I give my wife liberty to go whither she will, and to marry whom she will. That it is so understood among the Christian Churches where divorcement is practised, it is plain by the confession of M. Beza in his book De divortio, as in my Sermon I have declared. As for my manner of reading, let them ready as I have read it, or as it is in the original, all is one in substance, (I did it but for explication sake, as an Interpreter, not as a bare reader) they cannot understand it otherwise then I did read it: let them divide it as I did, or otherwise, it will make a difference in outward form, the doctrine will be the same. Only this advertisement I will be bold to give to some kind of Preachers in our Church: that true preaching doth not consist in heaping up of common places, in prolixity and length of speech, in multitudes of quotations of Authors, chapters and verses, nor in rash delivering of doctrine taken by tradition, upon 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 jews might understand it: the rock in the wilderness which was to be cleft by Moses his rod before water would issue out of it: 
Ex. 17.  the Land of promise, 
Psal. 59  which was not presently discovered: 
1. Reg. 18.  the heaven which was shut up, and opened but by Elias his prayers, before it rained: 
Deut. 25.  the corn which was trodden with the ox's foot, and rubbed by the hands of the Disciples before it was eaten: 
Math. 12.  the book to be unsealed by the Lamb, before the mysteries in it could be revealed: 
Apoc. 5.  the face of Moses, which had a vail or covering before it, 
Ex. 34.  to be removed before his beauty could appear: 
jud. 14. & 15  the tooth in the Ass' jaw-bone, and the lions carcase which required Sampsons' strength, before his thirst could be quenched, before sweetness could be drawn out of the strong, or meat out of the eater: the handling of it may not be trivial or vulgar.  
Having thus according to my poor talon, delivered that which I hope will not be offensive to the godly, because it is consonant to God's word, nor scandalous to the state, as tending to schism, or maintenance of strife, because it is according to the Decree established the last Parliament, by the general consent of the Clergy; my humble desire is, that the world would so think of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and disposers of the secrets of God, of whom it is required that every one should be found faithful, and to think of me concerning M. Beza, that I do bless and magnify God mightily for all the good parts which are in him, that I am Famulus servorum Dei, touching all the true servants of God, I live to do God and them service. And so I commend them to the gracious protection of him whom they serve.   

A SERMON PREAched at Paul's Cross the 10. of may, 1601.  Math. 19 verse. 9 I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife (except it be for whoredom) and marry an other, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is divorced, committeth adultery. 
AN answer to a question, propounded by the pharisees to our Saviour Christ, concerning divorcement of Wives from their Husbands, and by a consequent, of Husbands from their Wives, whether it be lawful or no? The answer is negative, that no divorcement is lawful. For, first he showeth that no man may put away his Wife for any cause. Secondly he proveth it, for as much as if any man hath put away his wife, he hath done it of fact only, and not of right, and his fact is held unlawful, according to God's word, because he may not marry any other while she liveth. Thirdly, he proveth that he which hath put away his wife can marry no other while she liveth, because she can marry no other while he liveth. For these three conclusions do necessarily follow: The first. If the putting away of a man's wife be of this nature that still she continueth his wife: than it is no divorcement. The second: If the putting away of a man's wife be of that effect that she is no longer his wife: then he is no longer her husband. The third: If she be no more his wife, she may marry an other, and if he be no more her husband, he may marry an other, therefore the knot of matrimony is dissolved, and both are free. But our Saviour teacheth that neither of them is at liberty to marry again, therefore that the bond of matrimony remaineth firm, and therefore that there can be no divorcement. These things are easily apprehended, but the difficulty is, how these conclusions may be collected out of this text.  
May it please you to vouchsafe me your attention, and laying aside all prejudicate opinions, not to pass your censure against me before you have heard all that I will say. For, if you come with prejudice your hearts shallbe made fat, 
●sa. 6. 9 et●.  your ears heavy, your eyes blind, as the Prophet speaketh, that hearing you shall not understand, that seeing plainly you shall not perceive. If ye condemn me before ye have heard me, then do ye not follow the Apostles rule. 
1. Thess. 5. 21.  Omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete. try all things, & hold only that which is good: and then are ye not sincere hearers of God's word, therefore hear and then judge. If ye condemn this doctrine as erroneous because to you it seemeth strange, and you do not sufficiently conceive it (I speak to the unlearned) then do you measure God's truth by your own error, the power of God by your own weakness, the depth of god's wisdom by the shallowness of your own reach. Vrsinus before his Catechism, allegeth six reasons why men reading the scriptures (albeit learned) yet understand then not, whereof one is prejudice, ten why reading they profit but a little, whereof five are these: ignorance of the true drift and scope of that which they read, they follow not the analogy of faith, they contain not themselves within the bounds of divinity, they contemn the judgement of the Interpreters, they stand too peremptorily upon the bare word and letter. Among six rules which he giveth, for the better understanding of any Text, one is a true desire to learn, and zealous intent to go away better instructed. Another I add of mine own observation, which is this: the right understanding of the Text, consisteth much in the true reading of the same; for, if ye mistake in reading, ye cannot but fail in understanding. And because many of this Auditory are defective in all these points, I desire you according to these Premises, to hear me with indifferency, and not with prejudice, as condemning me because Beza and Melancthon and others are of a contrary opinion, to weigh well the true drift of our Saviour in this Text, to follow analogiam fidei & loci, the analogy of faith in general, and of this place in particular, to conteìn yourselves within the bounds of divinity, that ye hearken to the Interpreters, I mean the ancient Fathers which were nearest to Christ, and farthest from corruption: that ye dwell not upon bare and naked letters, that ye hear me with a desire to learn, and according to mine own rule, that ye would hear how to read this Text, because many Divines do not read it rightly, and therefore no marvel though they expound it falsely. For, legere & non intelligere est negligere, to read and not understand, is not truly called reading, but mere negligence: Balthasar could read the Characters written by the hand in a wall, 
Dan. 5. ● 5.  mean tekel peers he hath numbered, he hath weighed, he hath divided: so could the wise men of Babel, but a more exact kind of reading was required of Daniel, that was, to read and understand, and he read it in more ample manner than it was written: God hath numbered thy Kingdom, and finished it, thou art weighed in a balance and found too light, thy Kingdom is divided and given to the Persians. Wherefore let us not read cum neglectu sed cum intellectu, not ignorantly but intelligently; not as Balthasar, but as Daniel; as readers which know what they read, else it is in vain to read.  
I say unto you, etc. In which assertion is a kind of Elleipsis or want of words, which defect, as it is very common in the Greek & Hebrew, so it is commonly supplied by the learned Reader and Translator, by addition of words to make the sense perfect, as Daniel did. Do not entertain so irreligious an opinion of me as if I should add any thing of mine own unto God's word, & yet where the original Text is obscure and unperfect like unto this, somewhat must be added out of God's word, which by the circumstances of the place & very connection and coherence of it, doth appear to be necessarily understood, but so that the addition be printed in other characters, that it may be distinguished from the original. And lest this kind of reading the scriptures should seem strange and insolent, Beza in his Latin translation of the new Testament doth the like, not in so few as an hundred places, we will instance for example sake. S. Paul writeth in this manner. 
2. Thess. 2. 3  Let no man deceive you by any means, for except there come a departure first, and the man of sin be disclosed: which words are so imperfect, that they carry no sense; but Beza in his Latin translation readeth it otherwise, by adding these words in other characters: The day of the Lord shall not come. Let no man deceive you by any means, for the day of the Lord shall not come, unless there be a departure first, and the man of sin be disclosed. Which addition is necessarily understood by the circumstances of the place, for in the next verse going before, he showed that the day of Christ was not so near as the Thessalonians supposed, and in this verse he showeth a reason: because there must come a departure first. Likewise in the same Chapter, S. Paul's words are these: The mystery of iniquity doth already work, 
Vers. 7.  only that which withholdeth, until it be taken away. Which Beza readeth in this manner: The mystery of iniquity doth already work, only that which withholdeth, shall withhold until it be taken away: and so according to the office of a faithful Translator, maketh that plain in the translation which was obscure, by reason of the Elleipsis in the original, and yet was not wanting in the original because it was necessarily understood. In like manner: this Text being elliptical or defective for want of words, and the sense of it obscure and dark; we must add words in the English, but in other Characters, and read in this manner.  
I say unto you, that according to the permission of Moses, He that putteth away his Wife unless it be for whoredom, committeth adultery, and if he marry an other, he committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery. Which words, we must of necessity understand to be inserted, because else we shall not only leave the sense maimed and imperfect, but also include a manifest contradiction to that which our Saviour concluded in the words immediately going before, as I shall show unto you. Wherefore our new Divines for want of right reading this Text, do misconstrue it four ways. First, they think our Saviour speaketh affirmatively that divorcement is lawful, whereas he speaketh negatively, that divorcement is not lawful. The second, they take this answer to be particular; as if in some one case, that is, in case of adultery, and for some persons, as when one is nocent and the other innocent, divorcement were lawful, whereas it is universal that no divorcement is lawful, be the case whatsoever, or the persons whosoever. The third, they suppose it to be hypothetical, because he saith: whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for fornication, etc. as if that were aequipollent with this: if a man putteth away his wife for fornication, it is no adultery, whereas it is catagoricall, because this exception in the Parenthesis (unless it be for fornication) is merely void, and no exception at all, as I will make manifest unto you, and of no more validity then if it were left out. The fourth, they think that in these words are comprehended but two propositions, whereas there are three: for, though our Saviour saith: He that putteth away his wife and marrieth an other committeth adultery, naming adultery but once, yet it is twice understood, both in the putting away of his wife, and in the marrying of an other, and therefore all one as if he had said: he that putteth away his wife committeth adultery by putting her away, and if he marry an other, he committeth adultery also by marrying an other, like that saying of our Saviour: He that breaketh the least Commandment and teacheth men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. Which words, do not import only that the breach of the commandment together with so teaching, maketh a man the least in the kingdom of heaven, but also the breach itself, although he do not teach it, as S. james showeth: so he that putteth away his wife committeth adultery, 
jacob. 2. 10.  though he doth not marry any other. Wherefore according to that which I have delivered unto you, I divide my text, as it naturally divideth itself, into three propositions, the first being as a text, the other two as a gloss or exposition; to wit, the second an exposition of the first, & the third an exposition of the second; the first, which is the text, that there can be no divorcement, where he saith: it is adultery for a man to put away his wife although he marry no other: the second, a proof that there can be no divorcement, because he which putteth away his wife can marry no other; where he saith, it is adultery to marry an other; the third, a proof of the second, that he which putteth away his wife can marry 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 divorcement, and that it is the drift of our Saviour in this text to disannul all divorcements.  
I say unto you, whosoever putteth away his wife) I showed you before, how there was an Elleipsis or want of words to be supplied. Not as though I would by that supply of words serve mine own turn, or seek to advantage myself, for I need not, and if we content ourselves with the bare, naked and imperfect words of the Greek text, which the adversary useth for his best and only advantage, no divorcement can be proved ot of them. That I may examine the bare words: who so putteth away his wife except it be for fornication committeth adultery: It is no good consequent that therefore if a man put away his wife for fornication, it is no adultery: nor this; he that putteth away his wife and marrieth an other, committeth adultery, therefore if he put her away & marry no other it is no adultery, as it may appear by the like. 
Leuit. 1●. 1●  Moses saith: Thou shalt not take a wife with her sister while she liveth: will you therefore argue out of these words, that when a man's wife is dead, he may marry her sister? Our Saviour saith: 
Marc. 16. 16  Whosoever believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. Will you therefore conclude against S. Ambrose that Theodosius the Emperor which did believe and was not baptized, was not saved? The holy Ghost saith: 
Mat. 1. 18.  joseph knew not Mary until she had brought forth her first borne son, & that Mary was found with child before joseph and she came together: will you therefore conclude with helvidius the Heretic against S. Jerome, 
Hieron. contra ●eluidium  that Mary was not a perpetual Virgin, and that she was the mother of other children? and that after the birth of Christ, 
Math. 28.  joseph and Mary came together? Our Saviour saith, I will be with you till the end of the world. Paul saith, 
●. Cor. 15.  Christ shall sit on the right hand of his Father until he make his enemies his footstool: 
Decretal. lib. 5. Tit. 40 cap. 6. verba intelligenda sunt, non secundum quodsonant, sed secundum mentem proferentis,  will you therefore conclude that Christ shall leave us after the end of the world? or cease to sit on his father's right hand after his enemies are subdued? You will ask me then, if these words: (Except it be for fornication) be no exception, but merely Idle, why doth our Saviour use them? 
Hilar. Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermonires, sed reisermo est subiectus.  or how can it stand with the nature of the holy Ghost to speak idly? These words are not idle, and yet make nothing in favour of divorcement. S. Augustine answereth in this manner. Si ille maechatur qui dimissâ uxore fornicatrice aliam ducit, cur ergo dominus interposuit causam fornicationis? in●mo, cur non dicit simpliciter: qui dimissâ uxore aliam ducit, maechatur? If he which putteth away an adulterous wife and marrieth an other, 
De adulterinis coniugijs. lib. 1. cap. 9  committeth adultery in so doing, why did our Saviour 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 adultery? Quiae dominus illud quod gravius adulterium est commemorare voluit quam id quod est minus, nam gravius adulterium est pudicâ uxore dimissa aliam ducere quam impudicâ, ut jacobi quarto, scienti bonum facere & non facienti peccatum est illi, numquid idcirco peccatum est illi qui nescit bonum facere &, ideo non facit●vtrumque peccatum est, sed illud maius istud minus, ita in his adulterijs, sed utrumque est adulterium. Because our Saviour would speak of that adultery especially which was most heinous, rather than of the other which is a less offence, for it is a more grievous adultery to put away a chaste wife and marry an other, then to put away a dishonest wife & marry again, even as according to the Apostle. 
jac. 4. 17.  To him that knoweth how to do well, & doth it not, to him it is sin. Will you therefore conclude, that to him which knoweth not how to do well, & therefore doth it not, to him it is no sin? Both are sins, that greater and this lesser, so both these are adultery, though one be greater & the other lesser. But for your farther satisfaction, mine own answer is this: These words of our Saviour (except it be for fornication) do show that the drift of our Saviour was twofold, to show what was supposed to be lawful by the permission of Moses, & what was indeed lawful according to the word of God, for they afford two several constructions, secundum permissionem Mosaicam & veritatem evangelicam according to the permission of Moses, and the truth of the Gospel, according to Moses his permission, which was a man, and did like a man, divorcement was permitted, only in case of adultery, but according to the immutable and incorrupt verity of the scriptures, Christ denieth divorcement to be lawful, as by the analogy of this place doth appear. For, when our Saviour saith: wherefore I say unto you: mark upon what occasion our Saviour doth say these things unto them? confer the beginning of the Dialogue or conference of the pharisees and our Saviour, with the end of the same, and his purpose will appear. Whereupon doth our Saviour deliver this definitive sentence concerning divorcement unto them, but upon their falsifying and belying the words of Moses, which he restoreth to the true sense and meaning thereof? In the beginning of the conference, the pharisees asked Christ tempting him & saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every fault, making no mention of marrying again? He answereth, it is not lawful for any fault, and proveth his denial by arguments drawn; first from the nature of marriage, that which is but one cannot be divided, unitas est indivisibilis, but the man and wife are one; therefore they cannot be divided. The Mayor is a principle in Arithmetic, 
Gen. 2. 14. 1.  and cannot be denied: the Minor is Ipse dixit a principle in divinity. 
Cor. 6. 16  Secondly, 
Eph. 5. 3.  from the definition of divorcement, no man can sever them whom God hath joined together, but to divorce, is to sever man and wife, whom God hath joined together, 
Deut. 24.  and this in effect is all that may be said of this question. But, the pharisees not satisfying themselves with this answer, reply against it, and press him with the authority of the scriptunre. Moses' say they, commanded the man to give his wife a Bill of divorcement and put her away. He answereth them, that in so alleging the words of Moses, they falsify the Text three manner of ways. First, whereas they say Moses commanded, it is not so, for Moses did but suffer them for the hardness of their hearts; 
Math. 5.  there is great difference between a commandment and a toleration, they be of sundry natures. In deed our Saviour saith It hath been said: Let him give her a Bill of divorcement. Which words do import a commandment, but by whom was it said? only by the jews, according to their received error, for God never said it, as also in the same place: Ye have heard how it hath been said, thou shalt love they neighbour and hate thine enemy. 
Math. 5. 43.  But if ye read the place of scripture to which it hath relation, 
Leuit. 19 18  ye shall find they have misreported of it: for there is mention only of the love of our neighbour, 
If any object that the history is otherwise related in Mark▪ I answer with Greg▪ Decretal. lib. 5. Tit. 40. cap. 7. Nihil obstat narrandi diversit as etc.  not of the hatred of our enemy, that is but their own collection. Secondly, whereas they build upon this toleration of Moses, it is no sufficient foundation to ground upon, because Moses in this his toleration did not permit divorcement as a thing honest and lawful, but that he did as a man, to bear with the hardness of their hearts, dispense with them in this case, contrary to God's word, where he saith: From the beginning it was not so. But whatsoever is contrary to the first institution of marriage as it was in the beginning appointed of God is adultery. For we are not to regard the received error of the jews, but the truth of jesus Christ▪ as Ignatius saith ad Philadelp. 
Vrsinus Doctr. Christ. 2. part, 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.  Antiquitas mea jesus Christus est. My antiquity is jesus Christ. And S. Ambrose: de virginibus: Nos nova quae Christus non docuit iure damnamus, quoniam via fidelibus Christus est, si ergo Christus non docuit quod docemus, nos illud detestabile iudicamus. We do justly condemn all doctrine as novelty which Christ hath not taught, because he is the only teacher whom the faithful must follow: if therefore Christ be not the author of that which is taught, we adjudge it a damnable doctrine that is taught. And Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid aliquis antè nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit neque sequi oportet hominis consuetudinem sed dei veritatem. If the sheep of Christ do hear his voice only, we must not be inquisitive what others have done before us, but what Christ which is before all hath appointed to us, neither must we follow the customs of man, but the truth of God. Bigamy was permitted to the patriarchs, yet unlawful: so divorcement to the jews, though unlawful. It were very hard if our Saviour having thus pronounced divorcement to be unlawful and repugnant to God's institution, should in this text being the next verse following after, contradict himself and allow it to be lawful. Thirdly, whereas they falsify Moses, as if Moses did tolerate divorcement for any cause, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any fault? Our Saviour doth lay before them their error, affirming that Moses in that place which they allege, did not permit divorcement for any cause but only for one cause, and that cause is here specified to be adultery, where he saith: whosoever (according to Moses his permission) putteth away his wife except it be for whoredom, committeth adultery. And yet he explaineth that again saying: that according to truth he cannot put her away for adultery, because he can marry no other, neither can she marry any other, but both shall be adulterous. But, for the better satisfying of yourselves, confer this place of Matthew, with that of Deuteronomie, which is the ground of all this disputation, and you shall find that the pharisees have not dealt ingenuously, but very falsely.  
The words of Moses are these. 
Deut. 24.  If a man take a wife, if so be that she find no favour in his eyes because he hath espied some filth in her. There is the only cause, he doth not say any cause, but one cause, which is filth; but filth is according to the Hebrew phrase adultery, as it appeareth by the fourth verse of the same Chapter, where whoredom is called by the general name of filth. So these words of our Saviour are not only a farther explanation of that text of Deuteronomie which the pharisees had corrupted, but also a definitive sentence, and positive point of doctrine, that divorcement being so common, was held among the hard-hearted jews as lawful, because it was suffered by Moses, contrary to the commandment of God, and first institution of marriage, which was from the beginning of the world. Moreover, because the pharisees ask why did Moses command to give a Bill of divorcement and put her away? and Christ answereth; Moses did but permit: some Divines do grossly mistake the sense thereof, affirming these words to include partly a commandment, according to the words of the pharisees, partly a toleration according to the words of Christ; to wit, a toleration only to put away their wives, and a commandment that if they would use the liberty of this toleration granted unto them, yet that they should first give a Bill of divorcement, that all proceedings might be according to order, but they are deceived by reading the vulgar translation, and other corrupt Interpreters, for they translate it: Let him write her a Bill of divorcement; which translation hath brought them into this error. But according to the Hebrew, Tremelius translateth in this manner: If a man take a wife and she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath espied filth in her, in so much that he do give her a Bill of divorcement, etc. Here is no such commandment, as let him give her a Bill; but only a supposition, if he do give her a Bill of divorcement, (because unless the Bill were first given, 
Vide Chrysost. in Lib. de libel. repud.  the divorcement was not tolerated) so that Moses is so far from commanding, that he doth not so much as tolerate it in express words, but only pèr tacitum consensum, by not forbidding it expressly, & so supposing such an enormity to be committed according to their practice; only he commandeth this, that after it is done, if the woman after her departure marry an other, that then she shall not return to her first husband again.  
And, whereas some Divines take it prò concesso, as a thing granted, that the formal writing a Bill of divorcement, did ratify the divorcement & make an act lawful, it is clean contrary. You will say then, if the Bill could not add strength to the divorcement to make it good, 
L. Ideser, dom. in monte  why was it given? S. Augustine answereth, that a Bill of divorcement was first devised to show the jews how ungodly a thing divorcement was, for as much as it was lawful for none to write Bills of divorcement, but only the Scribes and learned Doctors of the Law, to whom only it appertained by their office, scribere sacras litter as to write in the holy tongue, and because it was even among them held for a crucell and unnatural fact for a man to put away his wife, and this Bill of divorcement could not be engrossed suddenly, but it required time and space: when the plaintive resorted to the Scribes office to have the Bill drawn, the Scribe was first to lay open to the party grieved the unlawfulness of such proceedings, and to persuade him by all means to desist from so bad a purpose, and be reconciled to his wife again, and to take better deliberation, and repair to the office some other time, to try if the party grieved could by such delays be better advised in cold blood. But if so be that he continued obstinate and untractable, that his hatred towards his wife could not be pacisied; then of two evils the least was chosen, to avoid a greater mischief: rather than the jew should murder his wife, it was ultimum refugium, the only refuge left, to give a Bill of divorcement. Tremelius in his notes upon this place, observeth these four things: First, that this toleration of which we spoke, did extend only to that time present, when they were in the wilderness, and not to be endured after they should live under a settled estate in the land of Canaan, because it is written in the fourth verse of that Chapter, Thou shalt not suffer the land to sin, which the Lord shall give thee to inherit; so that there was an inhibition or restraint against joshua and his successors that they should suffer no divorcements. The second, that this fact was even then manifestly condemned by Moses when it was permitted, because he 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 give her occasion to marry an other, and that is abomination in the sight of the Lord. The third, that divorcement is as unlawful as polygamy or marriage of many wives, of which neither have any warrant out of the word, but that the jews living then not by precept but by example, not of the godly, 
Gen. 4.  but of the wicked, learned polygamy of their fathers, of which the first was Lamech, and divorcement of the Egyptians, which were Infidels. The fourth, this toleration of Moses was not in regard of God's people in general, but only of the jews in particular, which could not by any arguments be persuaded to renounce the polygamy of their ancestors, or divorcement of the Egyptians.  
Having spoken of the analogy of this place in particular, to show that the purpose of our Saviour Christ was to disannul divorcement: I come to the analogy of faith in general, to show what faith itself hath taught us to believe concerning this question. Whosoever putteth away his wife, etc. which words give me occasion to define divorcement, and to show what it is for a man to put away his wife. In which definition I must follow the example of Aristotle, which defined the things which were not. For when he had showed how impossible it was, that there should be either vacuum or infinitum, yet defined them both, only supposing those things to be, which the nature of things doth not afford. In like manner I say: Divortium est non ens; divorcement is a thing which is not, nor cannot be, and that the jews did divorce their wives only in their gross imaginations, because being put away, yet they continued their wives, and their separation was breach of wedlock, even as in the story of Elisaeus, they which came to apprehend the Prophet were strooken with blindness, so that when they thought they were at Dothan, 
2. Reg. 6. Gen. 3. 8. jonas. 1.  their eyes being opened they found that they were in Samaria: and as Adam, when he thought to hide himself from God in the thicket, was still in his presence: and as jonas thought himself safe from danger by flying to Tharsis, when he was most in jeopardy: so they think themselves innocent by giving Bills of divorcement, when they live in adultery and are nocent; but supposing that to be which cannot be, I will define divorcement out of the scriptures, to prove that there can be no divorcement. Our Saviour saith: Whom God hath joined let no man separate. In which words, is contained the definition of divorcement, Divortium est seperatio viri & coni●gis authoritate humanâ qui coniuncti sunt authoritate divinâ. Divorcement is a separation of man and wife by the law of man, which are joined together by the law of God. But that is an impossibility that man should make a nullity of that which God will have to continue firm and stable, that man should undo, & make to be of no validity, which God doth ratify & make to stand good: that man's error should make an unity to be a number, an indivisible thing to be divided, truth to be no truth, marriage to be no marriage, something to be nothing, set them at liberty which in nature do, & must continue bound. Our Saviour Christ hath thus defined divorcement as you have heard, and out of his own definition of divorcement, hath argued to prove that there can be no divorcement; and if ye will stand to the definition of our Saviour Christ, you must confess that there can be no divorcement.  
The same may also be proved by the definition of marriage, 
Lo●o come▪ de coniugio.  which Melancthon defineth in this manner. Matrimonium est legitima & in dissolubilis coniunctio unius maris & unius faeminae. Marriage is a lawful and indissoluble joining together of one man and one woman. But, if marriage be such a conjunction as is not capable of any dissolution as he termeth it: 
Loco come▪ de divortio.  he forgetteth himself in the next tract after, where he affirmeth that for adultery a man may put away his wife and marry an other, that if a man be boisterous, froward, cyclopicall, barbarous to his wife, if he be crabbed, rogish, the wife may put him away and marry an other: that if he neglect his family, the Magistrate may warrant her to marry an other. Others do define marriage to the same effect as Melancthon did, but in more words: That marriage is a lawful and perpetual joining together of man and wife by the consent of them both, for the begetting of children, avoiding fornication, and mutual comfort. In which definition, the material cause of marriage is man and woman, the final cause mutual comfort, procreation, avoidance of sin: the efficient cause the mutual consent of them both, but the formal cause which is the very nature, essence, and life of the same, is their lawful and perpeutal joining together, but whatsoever is to a man perpetual, is during life: these things being so, it cannot stand with faith that marriage should be dissolved, 
Rom. 7. 2.  the parties living. The Apostle saith therefore: The woman which is in subjection to the man, is bound by the law to the man while he liveth, but if the man be dead, she is delivered from the law of the man; in which words he showeth how the knot of marriage cannot be untied but by death. 
1. Cor. 7. 16  And to the married I command, not I, but the Lord: let not the wife depart from her husband, but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband: In which words, where he saith: first, let not the wife depart, secondly, if she depart, let her remain unmarried; he intimateth two manner of departures, the first, is a vinculo, a rupture of the knot of marriage: the second a mensâ & thoro, from bed and board; the first he saith may not be, because it is contrary to the institution of marriage; the second, if unhappily it follow, that for the incontinency of the one party, the other party be grieved and cannot be reconciled unless they depart, yet that departure be but for a season, until they can be reconciled again, and that is no divorcement. For there are three departures from the marriage bed which are lawful, two private, the third public: the first with the consent of both parties, 
1. Cor. 7. 5.  one dispensing with the other, where the Apostle saith: Defraud not one an other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and again come together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. The second, in case of necessity, it is lawful for the man to dispense with himself, as if the woman be infected with a contagious disease, that he cannot do the office of an husband without manifest danger of his life, and it is no fraud because it is not voluntary. The third, if the wife be an adulteress woman, because it is a public scandal, he may by the public magistrate be separated from his wife for her chastisement until she show manifest tokens of amendment. And yet as the Magistrate must be very sparing to interpose his authority in such a case, 
Tho. Aqui. in 1. Cor. 7.  as to enter between the bark and the tree: so again, there be seven exceptions which debar the Magistrate from granting any separation from bed and board, although incontinency be evidently proved: as, if the woman be enforced by violence not giving consent, 
Gen. 24.  as Dinah was: if by plain and simple oversight she be deceived, 
Gen. 29.  taking one for an other, as jacob was when Laban put Leah in his bed in steed of Rachel: if the woman by great presumptions in law, and the general view of the world, supposing her husband by his long absence to be dead, do by public allowance without guilt of conscience marry an other: if her husband himself be consenting to her adultery, as Sara gave her maid Agar to lie with Abram, 
Gen. 16.  for than it is his fault as well as hers: if he by refusing to accompany with her hath abused her weakness and so given her occasion to fall, he cannot with a good conscience be a plaintive against her: if he knowing his wife to be incontinent do bear with her for the present time, he ought not afterward to complain, because law doth suppose a reconciliation & forgiveness of the crime, and after forgiveness there ought to be no punishment. But the greatest occasion is this: if the woman be able to plead compensation against her husband; 
john. 8.  that is, if he have been incontinent as well as she, as our Saviour wrote with his finger in the dust concerning the woman taken in the act of adultery: He which will throw the first stone at her must be guiltless himself. 
Grat. decret▪ pars ricausa 32.  The Canon law saith: 
quaest. 6.  Nihil iniquius quam fornicationis causâ dimittere uxorem qui & ipse convincitur fornicari, 
cap. 1. ex Aug. dè ser. in monte.  occurrit enim illud: qui alterum iudicas teipsum condemnas. Qua propter quisquis vult fornicationis causâ dimittere uxorem, 
cap. 8.  prior debet esse à fornicatione purgatus. 
Rom. 8.  Nothing can less stand with justice then that an adulterer should put away an adulteress, for in judging her, according to the rule of the Apostle he condemneth himself; therefore he which will accuse his wife, must first look well that he be clear himself. Again: 
Ro. cap. ●.  Quales vultis uxores vestras invenire, tales sitis & vos, intactam quaeris, intactus esto, puram quaeris, noli esse impurus. Be to your wives as you will that they shall be to you; will you have them continent, yourselves must be chaste; he which will have his wife to be Sara, himself must be Abraham; he which will have his wife to be Rebecca, himself must be Isaac; he which will have his wife to be Rachel, himself must be jacob; he which will have his wife to be Elizabeth, himself must be Zachary. And I counsel all hard-hearted husbands, which seek divorcement from their wives, to consider if they themselves have not been some occasion of that evil which they lay to their charge? whether compensation may justly be pleaded against them or not? and to remember the story of judah, 
Gen. 3●.  which judged his daughter in law Thamar worthy of death for playing the harlot, whom he himself had defiled, not knowing her because her mask was on her face, but upon the sight of a cloak, a staff and a ring which he had left with her, confessed her to be more righteous than himself. But none of these separations which I have rehearsed, can untie the knot of matrimony, neither are they to be intended to continue for ever, but for a time, therefore they are no divorcement. S. chrysostom saith: 
Lib. de libello repudij.  Ne mihi leges ab exteris conditas legas praecipientes dari ●ibellum repudij, & devils. Neque enim juxta illas iudicaturus est te Deus, in illâ diè quâ venturus est, sed secundùm suas, ut ipse statuit. In ●pso formationis modo legem induxit quam ego nùnc scribo. At quaenam illa est? Haec utique: Eam sibi quisque uxorem servet semper quam initio sortitus est, haec lex antìquior est, quam illa dè libello repudij, & in tantùm quantùm Adam ipso Mose. Do not tell me of men's new laws concerning divorcement, but of God's old law concerning marriage, for God at the day of judgement shall not judge thee according to the law which man hath devised, but according to that which his self hath commanded. But the positive law which God prescribed to man in his creation was this, that he should during life cleave unto that wife which he hath at the first taken unto him. And that law of marriage is by so much more ancient than this of divorcement, as innocency is before sin, and Adam before Moses. Again: Quemadmodum servi fugitini etiamsi domum herilem relinquant, catenam secum habent attrahentem: it à & mulieres etiamsi viros relinquant, legem habent prò catenâ se p●rsequentem, & adulterij accusantem, accusantem etiam recipientes. As when a servant runneth from his M. the chain of bondage doth pursue him, and bring him back again to his master, so when a woman leaveth her husband, the law of Matrimony is as a chain to draw her back again to her husband, to lay adultery to her charge for her departure, and adultery to their charge which shall receive her.  
In which words he speaketh plainly, it is adultery for man and wife to depart, and it is adultery for them to marry again. Moreover: Mulier quam 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 law to the man while he liveth, but she which is bound by the law, shall be an adulteress by the law, if she leave her husband, notwithstanding a thousand Bills of divorcement.   

Concerning the second proposition, that he which hath put away his wife can marry no other while she liveth.  
The second followeth the first as a necessary consequent, because a man cannot put away his wife, he cannot marry an other. For, numerosum coniugium, multitude of wives is not permitted, no man may be the husband of two wives. The grounds are laid down already in the handling of the first proposition, so that it shall be sufficient in the second to answer the reasons of them which maintain contrary doctrine, and because in so short a scantling I cannot touch them all, I will speak of some. The differences of opinions which they hold are these; some, that the man by privilege of his Sex may marry again, but the woman may not: others, that the party innocent may marry, but the nocent may not: of which I shall have fitter occasion to speak when I come to the third proposition, and in the handling of this proposition I will answer Beza, which allegeth 7. 
Lib de divortio.  reasons why a man may divorce his wife for incontinency, & that after divorcement is granted, both the man and the woman, the offended and the offendor may marry again.  
His first argument is this: Christ being asked what he held concerning that divorcement, which in his days was in use & practise among the jews, which was not only a separation from bed and board, but also a dissolution of the knot of marriage, that liberty was given to marry again? answered, that in case of adultery it was lawful. To which I answer, that as Beza allegeth, so our saviour Christ did speak of that divorcement, which was then practised & understood to be a dissolution of marriage, & intended that they might marry again. But how did our Saviour speak of it? not affirmatively, but negatively, as before I showed; so that this argument is a fallacy called petitio principij, and he disputeth ex non coucessis, taking that as granted which from the beginning we have denied: he understandeth the answer of our saviour to be affirmative, which is negative: to be particular, which is universal: to be hypothetical, which is categorical: to contain but two propositions, which comprehendeth three, and so constereth this text contrary to the analogy of faith, and of this place, contrary to the judgement of the soundest Fathers, the Canon law, the practice of Christ his Church, from the Apostles until his own time, yea contrary to the nature of wedlock, to the express words of our Saviour, as I have showed. 
Grat decret 2. pars. 32. causa. 7 quaest. 1. & 2. cap Aug. de bono coniugali▪ cap 7.  The Law saith: Interueniente divortio, non abeletur confaederatio nuptialis, it a ut si coniuges sint seperati, cum illis adulterium committant, quibus etiam fuerint post repudium copulati. They which are separated remain man and wife after separation, and they live in adultery if they marry other, because the knot of marriage abideth firm. 
Dè adult. con●ug. li. 2. cap. 4.  Again saith S. Augustine, even as he which hath once received the Sacrament of baptism, cannot be unbaptized again while he liveth; so they which have entered into the holy estate of marriage, cannot be unmarried again while they live. And as one Council saith: 
Concil.  placuit secundum evangelicam & apostolicam doctrinam, 
Mil●uitan cap. 17.  ut neque dimissus àb uxore nèc dimissa à marito, alteri coniungantur, sèd it à maneant, aut sibi reconcilientur. It is the doctrine of the Apostles and Evangelists, that neither the man nor the woman which are parted, shall marry again, but either refrain from marriage, or reconcile themselves one to the other. Neither must they being reconciled, be married a new as some of late have practised among us, because the knot being not broken the first marriage is firm.  
His second objection: that it is injustice to punish the innocent for the nocent: but if when divorcement is granted, yet the plaintive which hath sued the divorce, shall be restrained from marriage, he must either be in danger of burning in lust, because he cannot contain, or else be compelled to receive again his adulterous wife which was divorced: then is it all one as if there had been no divorcement. So Augustine's answer is: 
Ad Pollentium. lib. 2. cap. 10.  Lex divina non est mutanda proptèr querelas hominum, si querelas incontinentium velimus admittere, necesse est quamplurima adulteriae permittere. Man's complaint of injustice must not alter the law of God. And if the Magistrates ears shall be open to such complaints, the high way shall be laid open to incontinent livers. Innocentius hath said well to the purpose, a woman may be long sick of an infectious disease, which cross is remediless, why cannot the husband as well contain in case of adultery as of sickness? and where Beza replieth that the case is different between a diseased person whom the hand of God hath afflicted, and one which by adultery hath made a voluntary breach of wedlock: that is no reply, because in respect of the plaintive which hath not the gift of continency the gift is all one, and yet sometimes it falleth out, that women have dangerous infections, not only by the hand of GOD, but also by their own misdemeanour of themselves.  
The third, 
1. Cor. 7.  is an allegation of the Apostle: He which cannot abstain, must marry, but a man which is separated from his wife may want chastity, and therefore must marry. I answer S. Paul out of S. Paul, he which cannot contain 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 already; he cannot take a second wife which is not freed from the first: therefore if he cannot contain, let him be reconciled to his wife, that is a present remedy against fornication.  
The fourth: he asketh (whereas S. Augustine saith the man is bound to forgive his wife upon repentance) what if her repentance be but feigned? and what if after forgiveness there be a relapse into adultery again? why should a Christian be bound to such an inconvenience? I answer, that whereas he thinketh it an hard condition for a man to forgive his wife upon repentance, being not assured whether she repent unfeignedly or no; nor resolved whether she will afterward remain chaste or no: The like may be objected against them which are excommunicated by the keys of the Church, which showing themselves penitent do crave absolution, and to be received again into the congregation of the faithful: he which is to pronounce absolution cannot judge of the contrition of the inward man, and yet he must absolve, and leave the rest to God, which knoweth the secrets of the heart. Man can go but by outward appearance, and in charity hope the best. So must a man do by his wife; We must not negare lapsis paenitentiam, despair of them that fall, because they may arise again. 
Mat. 18.  Christ being asked by Peter how often a man must forgive his brother? answered, seventy times seven, but if a brother, much more a wife. Therefore saith S. Augustine: 
Adpoll. l 2.  Durum tibi videtur adulteri coniugi reconciliari? 
cap. 6. & ●.  durum non erit si fides adsit. Cur adhùc deputamus adulteros uèl baptismo lotos vel paenitenta sanatos? Doth it seem an hard condition to thee to be reconciled to thy adulterous wife? If it seem difficult, than faith is wanting: where is charity, if we condemn them still to be adulterous which are cleansed by the water of baptism, and washed by the tears of repentance? He rendereth a reason of this doctrine. In the old Law men were frobidden to receive such women as were polluted by adultery, being so heinous offence as it could not be cleansed by sacrifice, but under the new Testament by the blood of Christ, 
1. Sam. 18.  which is a more worthy sacrifice then all the rest, all offences are forgiven, and therefore David as a figure of the new Testament received Saules daughter an adulterous woman; and since, 
john. 8.  Christ hath said to the woman, I will not condemn thee, sin no more; Quis non videt ignoscere debere maritum cui ignovisse videt Dominum? shall not the husband forgive her whom Christ hath forgiven? or esteem her as polluted whom the blood of Christ hath cleansed? Quibus hoc Christi factum displicet, hos non severos castitas fecit, sed ipsi aegroti medicum reprehendunt, in adulteros adulteri saeviunt. They which like not of this judgement of Christ, are not so severe against others because themselves are chaste, but themselves being sick, mislike their physician; and punish adultery, being adulterous themselves; like the men which brought the woman to our Saviour to be stoned, their selves being offenders. I ask saith he, whether it be lawful to put her to death by the law of the Romans, or to put her away by the law of God? Si licet, melius est ut ab utroque se temperet, & a licito illâ peccante supplicio, & ab illicito illâ vivente coniugio, quum enick utrumque secundum legam Christi sit illicitum, siuè adulteram occidere, siuè illâ vivente aliam ducere, ab utroque est abstinendum, nec illicitum prò illicito faciendum. If it be lawful to do either, yet is it better to do neither of them. Not to do all which in extremity we may, but to abstain from that lawful punishment when she offendeth, & this unlawful marriage while she liveth. But seeing both are unlawful by the law of Christ, which neither determineth that adultery should be punished with death, neither alloweth a man to marry again while the adulteress liveth; both are to be forborn, and one sin is not to be requited with an other.  
The fi●t: If the husband may not put away his wife for adultery and marry an other, then must the gap be opened to dishonesty, and a chaste man must will he, nile he, be subject to an harlot. That which he allegeth against us, maketh most of all for us, the restraining of marriage after divorcement is so far from giving occasion to be unchaste, as it keepeth many within the bounds of chastity, which otherwise would not contain: for who seeth not that if they which be divorced may marry again, when husbands and wives are weary one of an other, they will confess adultery that they may be divorced & marry others?  
The sixth, 
Concil. Aulatensis can. 10.  is a decree of an ancient Council, that such men as take their wives in adultery, themselves being chaste, and are prohibited to marry others should be persuaded to refrain while their wives are living. This also maketh for us, for the fathers in that council were so far from allowing the second marriage, that they withstood it two ways, praecepto & consilio, both by commandment, and also by advice: by commandment, because they say by law it was prohibited: by advice, because they used persuasion to the contrary, having power of themselves by their decree to have made it lawful, had they not held it according to the word of God to be unlawful.  
The last, 
Epiph. co●tra Cathores.  is the authority of Epiphanius, saying: that if a man marry a second wife, his first being divorced, he is not subject to the censure of the Church, so as he converse but with one, and forsake the company of the other: but in such case his frailty is tolerated. In which words, what doth Epiphanius say more than we have said already, that the Church hath sometimes tolerated them which have put away one wife and married an other: which practice if it were honest, and just, & consonant to God's word, what needed a toleration? Moses had not been said to have tolerated divorcement, other Magistrate's usury, other stews, other drunkenness, if these things had been lawful.  
As for Melancthon which affirmeth that if the husband be unkind 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, witness myself. For soundness of reason, testimony of scriptures, grounds of divinity, he can have none in the favour of so monstrous an opinion, neither doth he allege any. If he have any show of proof to ground his absurdity upon, it can be but this. 
1. Tim. 5.  He which careth not for his family hath denied the faith. 
1. Cor. 7.  And if the unbelieving husband will needs depart, let him, for a brother or sister is not subject in such things. But these words were concerning such as were married, during the time of their infidelity before they were converted to the faith; of which sort we have none in Christian commonwealths; and yet not so as if an unbelieving husband could be forced by the Magistrate to depart; only if he will depart saith the Apostle, let him depart, but if he be content to dwell with her, she must not forsake him: and still this conclusion standeth firm, if he do depart, so long as his wife liveth he may not marry.   

Of the third proposition, the woman which is divorced may not marry.  
Whosoever marrieth her which is divorced committeth adultery. It followeth then, that she remaineth still his wife from whom she was divorced, else it were no adultery for a man to marry her, and if she remain his wife, then is he still her husband, notwithstanding the separation, therefore it is no divorcement. 
De adule, Coniug. li. 1. cap. 11.  So saith Augustine: Illud qui dimissam duxerit maechatur, quo modo verum esse potest? nisi quia ea quam duxit uxor, aliena est priori marito à quô dimissae est adhuc viventi? sienim suae, non alienae uxori miscetur, tùm non maechatur, at maechatur, ergo aliena est cui miscetur, si antèm aliena est, tùm non cessat illius essa uxor 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 Saviour: he that marrieth her which is divorced committeth adultery: how can it be true? unless because the woman which he hath married, is an other man's wife: that is, his from whom she was divorced, so long as he liveth? for if he marry no man's wife but his own, then is it no adultery: but it is adultery, therefore she is an other man's wife, and not his own, else he could not be judged an adulterer, but her lawful husband. 
Chrysost. de lib. re. pudij.  servis quidèm licet mutare dominos viventes, uxori autem non licebit viros commutare viventes, alioqui adulterium perpetrabit. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  A servant hath more liberty in the bondage of his service, than a woman in the freedom of her wedlock, he may change masters, she may not change husbands, while her first husband liveth. Secundae nuptiae priore marito vivente pollutio sunt non matrimonium. For if she take an other husband she is defiled, but she is not married. If then he which marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery, why doth Beza allow her to marry? His answer is: Whosoever marrieth her which is divorced, unless she be divorced for adultery, committeth adultery by marrying her, but if she be divorced for adultery she may lawfully marry. By which answer do but vouchsafe to take knowledge of the great inconveniences which shall be brought, and burdens which shall be laid upon a Christian kingdom. They which be married, will upon their discontentments commit fornication that they may be unmarried, than it will be no more than this: 〈◊〉 fatuum fateor, quem calceus urget et uxnor, If a man's shoe pinch him, no more but go to the shoemakers shop and buy a new pair of shoes: if a man's wife grieve him, a present remedy, to go to the church & marry a new wife. And then shall the question be, who shall keep the children? S. Augustine is of a contrary judgement to Beza. 
De adult. coniugijs. lib. 1. cap. 9  Qui dicimus: Qui mulierem praetèr fornicationém dimissam ducit maechatur, non ideò maechari negamus qui eanducit quae proptèr fornicationem dimissa est, uterque 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. We which say, he is an adulterer which marrieth her which is divorced, unless she be divorced for adultery: do not therefore deny but he is an adulterer also which marrieth her that is divorced for adultery, for they are both adulterers, whether it be for fornication or not: if they marry 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. Matthew by expressing one adulterer, and concealing the other, hath made it hard to understand, yet other Evangelists speaking in a generality have made it plain, that it is to be understood of both, because Mark saith: 
M●c. 10. 11.  Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if a woman put away her husband and marry an other, 
Luc. 16. 18.  she committeth adultery. And S. Luke hath the same. Qui ergo not sumus ut dicamus: Est qui maechatur uxore dimissa alteram ducens, & est qui hoc faciens non maechatur, quum evangèlium dicat omnem maechari qui hoc facit? Who is man that he should distinguish more subtly than the holy Ghost hath distinguished? saying: some men which put away their wives and marry are adulterers, and others are not, when S. Mark and S. Luke being expositors of S. Matthew, show that all are adulterers which marry them which are put away, be the cause of their divorcement whatsoever? Neither can this answer of Beza satisfy, that in Geneva adultery is punished with death, and so all controversies are ended; for than what needeth divorcement? If when the man hath put away his wife for adultery, the Magistrate do put her to death, the case is clear, he may marry again: not because she is divorced, but because she is dead. But many Christian Lands have no such law as to punish adultery with death, neither are Christians bound to take examples by jews and Turks which did, and do the same. The law of the Gospel hath imposed no such commandment upon us, but every kingdom hath Christian liberty to establish such civil laws, as the wisdom of the land shall see fit for the state to bear. It doth not make against us that by the law of God adultery was punished with death among the jews, no more than that by the jaw of God, theft was not punished with death among the jews, but with restitution of four and five-folde. It was not lawful among the jews to gather the glaynings of their own harvest, 
Ex. 22. 1.  nor to let the bodies of them which are hanged to hang all night to sow two sorts of grain together as Wheat and Rye in one field, 
Leuit. 19 9  for christian's these things are lawful. 
Deut. 21. 23.  God gave three laws unto the jews, one moral which remaineth still in force among all nations the second ceremonial, which was abrogated by the death of Christ: the third judicial for civil government, which did belong to the jews only but punishment of adultery with death was a part of the judicial law, and therefore bindeth not us to obey it which be Christians. But S. Hierome saith: 
Ad Amandum presbyterum.  Omnes occasiones Apostolus amputaens ●partè definit viu●nte viro adulteram asse mulierem si alteri nupserit. The Apostle preventeth all qu●●kes and evasions, setting it down as a positive doctrine, that what woman soever marrieth while her first husband liveth, she committeth adultery: 
Ad Apollent. li. 2. cap. 4.  And S. Angustine: Licitè dimittitur coniux proptèr causam fornicationis, sed manet vinculum prioris proptèr quod reus sit adulterij qui dimissam duxerit, etiam ob causam fornicationis. 
Canon. apost. 47.  A woman may be separated from her husband for fornication, but still she is his wife, and he which marrieth her committeth adultery, although she were put away for fornication. In so great a cloud of witnesses of our side, we may bebolde, notwithstanding the judgement of Beza, and the late writers of the reformed Churches.  
The Libertines of our age, now living, give a prerogative in this case to the man above the woman, because of the Sex, because the one is a man, the other but a woman; as if the one might marry, but not the other, abusing the word of God to their own damnation, turning the grace of God into wantonness. 
Vindiciae contrà tyrannos.  Even as others will prove rebellion and high treason out of the scriptures, that the people are above their King: out of the scirptures, so will they take liberty to themselves out of the scriptures, to maintain their unclean 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 do the like, because, say they, the man may have many wives, but the woman may not have many husbands. Their proof is the saying of Nathan to David. 
●. Sam. 12.  Thus saith the Lord: I anointed thee King over Israel, delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, gave thee thy lords house, and thy lords wives into thy bosom, and if that had not been enough, I would have given thee such and such things: why then hast thou taken Urias his wife? Innocentius the third maketh answer, that David and the patriarchs had by particular dispensation from God, multitude of wives, and were excused of polygamy, which we are not: even as jacob told a lie, 
Gen. 27.  the Israelites rob the Egyptians, 
Ex. 11. 2.  Samson murdered the Philistines, 
jud. 16. 30.  the Levites compassed the walls of jericho, 
josua. 6. 15.  with their Trumpets of Rams horns upon the Sabaoth day, but we may not do the like. But saith he: Christiana religio adulterium in utroque sexu aquali ratione punit. 
Innocentius Epist. 3. ad Exeuperiun. De 10 chordis cap. 3.  Christian religion punisheth adultery in man and woman both alike. And Augustine: Tu exigis hoc ab uxore & non vis reddere hoc uxori? Marriage duties must be kept as well of the man as of the woman.  
Others there be, which make a distinction between the party innocent and the party nocent; as if the one might marry, but not the other. But that the party nocent may marry as well as the innocent, I prove by these four reasons. The first, the custom and practice of the jewish Church when Moses lived, from whence the Christians have learned divorcement, Moses saith: 
Deut. 24.  If a man take a wife, and she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath espied filthiness in her, in so much that he do give her a Bill of divorcement, and she marry an other, and her second husband divorce her in like manner, or die, let her not return to her first husband again, after she is defiled. By which word it is evident, that when Moses lived, women which were divorced for adultery did marry again, as well as their husbands which did divorce them. The second, is the set form of words which the jews at this time do use in their Bills of divorcement, which is after this manner. In the sixth of the Sabaoth, the 12. of the month of Adar, the year of the creation of the world, 5306. in the City of Cremona, lying upon the River of Poe in Italy; I Samuel Carmin, the son of Rabbi Daniel Saphard, do of mine own vuluntarie motion send away from me, my wife Rachel, the daughter of Rabbi Ezra Parizol, and do give her free liberty to depart whether she will, and marry whom she will: and that there may be no let●e or hindrance to the contrary: 
Sixti senensis Biblioth. sanct. lib. 2. ex libro Rabbi Mosis d● Co●i.  I have given her this Bill of divorcement, 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 divorcement, which is given by our Saviour Christ in the Gospel: it is a separating of them by the law of man, which are linked together by the law of God, which is as much as the untying of the knot of marriage so that if the knot be untied, both are free. The husband & the wife are relat●, one cannot be without the other: if she be bound, she is some body's wife, then he which divorced her is her husband: there cannot be a wife without an husband, nor an husband without a wife. The 4. whereas they which speak in favour of the party innocent, take advantage of the words, & argue thus: He which putteth away his wife, unless it be for fornication, and taketh an other, committeth adultery▪ therefore if it be for fornication, it is no adultery. If that kind of arguing be good, I can by the same, prove that the party nocent may likewise marry, & thus I argue: He which marrieth her which is divorced, unless she be divorced for fornication, committeth adultery▪ therefore if he marry her which is divorced for fornication, it is no adultery. Thus have I proved that neither man nor woman, nocent nor innocent, may marry again: and leaving doctrine, I come to exhortation.  
S. Paul saith: I am a debtor to all, 
Rom. ●  both to the wise and the unwise, I have ministered already strong meat unto them which are men, I must now give milk unto them which are babes, and do as the Scribe did▪ which when the jew did demand of him a Bill of divorcement, did dissuade him: So, that I may dissuade all that intent it, and persuade them which have already done it, to receive their wives into favour again. john the Baptist came in the spirit of Elias, 
Mal. 4.  to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. I pray God that I may come also in the spirit of Elias and john the Baptist, to turn, not only the hearts of the fathers to the children, but also the husbands to their wives: which doing, I shall do a work of charity, a piece of service acceptable unto God. Why should a man divorce his wife? why should he not upon her repentance receive her again after she is put away? S. Peter w●●●eth to all husbands in this manner. 
1. Pat. ●. 7.  Ye husbands, dwell with your wives as men of knowledge, giving honour unto the woman as unto the weaker vessel, even as they which are heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not interrupted▪ In which I observe the generality that husbands must dwell with their wives, and not depart from them: the five particulars, how they must dwell with them; as men of knowledge. Wherein doth this knowledge or discretion consist? in giving honour to the woman? why should the man give honour to the woman? because she is the weaker vessel. Why should her weakness be so much respected, as that honour should be given to her fragility? because notwithstanding her weakness & infirmity, she is an heir & coheir of salvation as well as her husband, and therefore he must respect her as himself. What is the mischief and inconvenience which else may follow? God cannot be well served between them both, because their prayers will be interrupted.  
The Husbands than must dwell with their wives, what that is, it is explained by Saint Paul, the best expositor of Saint Peter; (Be it spoken with circumcised hearts) The husband (saith Paul) must give due benevolence to the wife, 
1. Cor. ●.  & the wife to the husband's what that is he showeth afterward, (let no man think that unclean which the holy Ghost hath spoken) The wife hath not power over her own body but the man; and the man hath not power over his own body, but the woman. Again: Defraud not one an other except it be for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, lest sathan tempt you for your incontinency. To dwell with a man's wife, is to be an help unto her, as joseph was to Mary▪ he which hath not a care of his family, 
1. Tim. 5.  hath denied the faith: but he which forsaketh the company of his wife, doth neglect his family two manner of ways: first concerning thrift, secondly concerning good name and same, because both of them shall be suspected to be incontinent livers.  
Husband's must dwell with their wives as men of knowledge. 
Ephe. 5.  The man is the woman's head, 
1. Cor. 11.  as Christ is the man's head, and God is Christ's head, the woman is but the Image of the man, as the man is the Image of God. But there must needs be more perfection in the head wherein are all the senses, vegetation & understanding, them in the body which hath but vegetation & one only sense, that is feeling; in the body, then in the shadow; in the archetypus or first form, then in the Image of the same. All beasts in the old law were unclean, and unfit for sacrifice, which did not ruminate and chew the cud: there was represented discretion, but men must be better than are beasts, therefore they must live discreetly with their wives, but a discreet man will of himself consider, that by how much he excelleth his wife in knowledge understanding and all manner of perfection, so he ought to conceal many infirmities in the woman, to devour, and as it were swallow up many indignities which do arise of her weakness. God saith: Henceforth my spirit shall not 〈◊〉 with man because be 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 sanctify & 〈◊〉 an unbelieving wife 〈◊〉 so discreet man may reform an undiscreet wife, even as when the body is out of temper, it is in the wisdom of the head to cure the body, and bring the disordered members into order.  
Husband's must give honour unto their wives. There is one honour which the inferior doth owe to his supeririour, 
1. Pet. 2.  Fear God, and honour the King. Another which superiors owe to their inferiors, and all one to another, 
1. Cor. 1●.  Honour all men. In giving honour, go before one an other. All members (saith Paul) are not alike, but on those members which we think most dishonest, we put most honesty on: upon our uncomely parts we put most comeliness on, for our comely parts need it not, but God hath tempered the body together, and given more honour to the member that lacketh. And so must husbands do to their wives.  
The woman is the weaker vessel, and the man himself is but a vessel, and notwithstanding his strength he is but weak. He doth not say: Give honour to the ●●man because she is good, but because she is weak: not for her virtue, but for her fragility: for yourselves are so, or may be so Brethren saith Paul, 
Gala.▪ 5. 〈◊〉.  If a man be suddenly taken in an offence, you which be spiritual, must restore such an●one with the spirit of meekness, considering ●est thou also be tempted, bear one an others burden▪ 〈◊〉 fulfil the law of Christ. We have 〈…〉 examples of women which were 〈◊〉 vessels. 
Gen. 3.  The woman was the first in the prevarication and not the man. Abraham believed the Angel when Sara laughed. 
3. Tim. ●.  Lot's wife did look back towards Sodom, 
Gen. 18.  Lot did not. 
Gen. 19  Moses his wife repined at her child's circumcision, himself did not. 
Exod. 4.  Sara was so hard hurted as to turn Agar out of doors, 
Gen. 21.  Abraham was not. jezabel could without remorse of conscience set down the whole plot and project how Naboth should lose his life and his vineyard, 
1. Reg. 21.  Achab could not. 
Math. 20.  The wife of Zebedeus could audaciously ask of our Saviour Christ that her sons might sit on his right hand & his left, her husbnd could not. Salomon's wives corrupted him, 
1. Reg. 21.  he corrupted them not. 
judg. 1●. and 16.  Sampsons' wife betrayed him, he betrayed not her. Some of these offen●● were worse than adultery, yet their husband did not nourish hatred against them.  
Though they be weak vessels; yet are they heirs of the kingdom of heaven as well as their husbands. 
〈…〉  Christ was borne a man, 
1. Tim. 2.  but borne of woman, that he might sanctify both man and woman; through childbirth the woman shallbe saved, if they continue in the faith, and love, and holiness, with modesty. The word of God hath given precepts of godly life unto women, that living godlily as did Elizabeth, Sara, Anna, Rebecca, they might be saved, The man and wife are to live together in the life to come, not as a man and wife, but as the Angels and Saints in heaven, why then shall they live asunder upon the earth?  
If they live not together, their prayers shallbe interrupted. This reason alone is sufficient to compose and qualify all grievances between man & wife. They ought to pray together, for prayer is a principal part of God's service; and if they will have God to be devoutly served, all grudges and quarrels must be laid aside. 
Pro. 18.  God heareth not the prayers of them which be sinful: no greater sin then continual fostering of hatred and inward malice. 
josua.  josua saith, I and my house will serve the Lord: 
Luc. 1.  Zacharie and his wife with him walked in the ordinances of God without reproof. And it is the manner of you Citizens when you are dead, to have your wives and yourselves pictured upon your graves, lifting up your hands and praying together. But it is plain mockery to be pictured praying together upon your graves when you are dead, if so be that you do not pray together in your houses while you are alive: and therefore learn by the marble monuments and pictures of the dead, what ye ought to do while ye are alive. 
Deut. ●2.  I end with Moses, beseeching God that my doctrine may be as the rain, and my speech as the dew of heaven and the shower upon the herbs, and as the great rain upon the grass, For I will publish the name of the Lord: give ye glory unto our God. To this God the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, be all power, glory and dominion, both now and for evermore. Amen.  
FINIS.