Common Places, Part 2 · Chapter 10 · Section 10
Of Diuorſements, and putting awaie of wiues.
In 1. Cor. 7, verſe. 10.52 VntoUnto the Hebrues and Ethniks it was but a light matter to put away their wiues, and it was lawfull vponupon euerie occaſion: but vntounto the Chriſtians it ought not ſo to be. This hath Chriſt declared in the 5. and 19. of Matthew. Matth. 5, 31 and 19, 7.There (when he ſaith) Moſes gaue you a bill of diuorſement) it ought not ſo to be vnderſtood, as though Moſes did this of himſelfe, without the commandement of God: for he was moſt faithfull, Heb. 3, 2.as GOD beareth record of him. And that which is decréed in the lawe, Deut. 24, 1.touching diuorſement, afterward is commanded in Malachie; to wit, Mal. 2, 16.If thou hate thy wife, put hir awale. For the Lord would not, that hatred and enimitie ſhould be reteined in ſo néere fréendſhip. Wherfore, Chriſt calleth vsus hom vntounto the firſt inſtitution.in the new teſtament, Chriſt calleth vsus home vntounto the firſt inſtitution. For inſomuch as now, the ſpirit is more plentifull, and grace more abundant; men ought to vſe greater patience and charitie towards their wiues, and not ſo to deale againſt them, as they ſhould reiect them for euerie cauſe. In like maner there is required of the wiues a greater obedience and modeſtie.
53 Here thou wilt ſaie vntounto me; What if thou ſhalt find at this daie, among Chriſtians, ſuch as be ſo hard-harted, and ſo obſtinate in reteining of hatred and enimitie in wedlocke, as they be not onelie equall to the Iewes, but alſo go beyond them therein? Séeing then the diſeaſe is all one, why is not the ſame remedie left? VntoUnto whom we anſwer, that they, which be of ſuch ſort, be ſtrangers from Chriſt: wherfore we commit them to the Common-weale, to determine of them as it ſhall ſéeme moſt expedient. For when they cannot be amended by the church, let vsus count them for Ethniks and Publicans: let vsus deale with them by the ciuill lawes. Why Paule intermitteth the exception of adulterie. 1. Cor. 7.We hauehave it plainelie enough declared by the word of Chriſt, that a diuorſe ought not to be doone, vnleſſe it be for the cauſe of adulterie. The which exception, if it be intermitted by Paule, it is no maruell: for when Paule ſaith; that he ſpeketh not theſe things, but the Lord, he ſendeth vsus to the Lords owne words: neither dooth he plucke anie thing awaie from his commandement. And when he ſaith, that he commandeth not, but the Lord; he maketh not thoſe things of ſmall force, which he taught before, when they are not read to be [expreſſelie] ſpoken of Chriſt, ſith euen thoſe things are of the Lord: for he ſaith; And I thinke, that I alſo hauehave the ſpirit of God.1. Cor. 7, 40▪
But he therefore ſpeaketh of the commandement of Chriſt to mitigate the ſharpeneſſe of his ſpéech; for it ſéemeth intollerable to the fleſh, that matrimonie cannot be diſſolued. It is euen as much, as if Paule had ſaid; I ſet not before you ſtrange or new things, and ſuch as hauehave not béene heard of before my time; this the Lord hath commanded. Elſe, both this and thoſe things, which the apoſtle wrote before, are firme, and full of authoritie. But this is the difference, that theſe things the Lord ſpake by his owne ſelfe, and repeateth them by Paule; but thoſe other he would to be vttered by the apoſtle onelie. And touching his ſentence, that matrimonie ſhould not be diſſolued, A reaſon of Chriſt why matrimonie muſt not be diſſolued. Gen. 2, 24.Chriſt allowed it by a teſtimonie out of the booke of Geneſis, where it is ſaid; For this cauſe a man ſhall leaue his father and mother, and ſhall cleaue vntounto his wife. Two néere fréendſhips are laid togither in theſe words; the one is betwéene parents and their children; the other betwéene the huſband and the wife. And ſéeing the bond of the father, or of the children is ſuch, as it cannot be ſundered and ſhaken off by anie meanes, much leſſe this bond betwéene man and wife. And as the bond of amitie betwéene the child and the parents endureth perpetuallie, ſo dooth the coniunction betwéene the huſband and the wife. This is Chriſts interpretation of that place, and the reaſon that he bringeth thereof: but yet he will hauehave the cauſe of adulterie to be excepted. And Paule (by whom Chriſt ſpeaketh) excepteth another thing; namelie, if one of the married perſons, in that he is an infidell, will not dwell with the other being faithfull, as it ſhall be declared in place conuenient.
54 But as touching the cauſe of adulterie, Whether onelie the cauſe of adulterie doo make a diuorſe.which Chriſt excepted, ſome doubt whether that be the onelie cauſe; and they are bold to ſaie, that Chriſts meaning was to comprehend therin all other wickedneſſe, which is either equall, or more heinous than adulterie: and they ſaie, that the maner of the holie ſcriptures is, that in one cauſe rehearſed, they include others like vntounto it. Euen as we read in Deuteronomie, Deut. 19, 5.of man-ſlaughter, which is committed by chance, and againſt a mans will: where one onelie reaſon is deſcribed; namelie, when the hatchet flieth off the helme. But what? Shall we not iudge the verie ſame, if in building or carrieng of anie thing, one man ſhall kill an other vnwillinglie? Euen ſo (ſaie they) there are preſentlie manie faults equall, and perhaps more gréeuous than adulterie: ſo as they iudge, that thoſe offenſes doo alſo make a cauſe of diuorſement. Lawes of the emperours for cauſes of diuorſe.Which meaning perhaps cauſed manie emperours, otherwiſe godlie and ſtudious of Chriſtianitis, to expreſſe manie crimes in their lawes, for the which it ſhould be lawfull to make a diuorſe; bicauſe they iudged them to be no leſſe than adulterie. And that other cauſes alſo, beſides the crime of adulterie, are to be admitted; héereby it may appéere, 1. Cor. 7, 15for that Paule added, as touching the vnfaithfull ſpouſe, which will not dwell with the other being faithfull: which caſe Chriſt ſpake not of. Coldneſſe a cauſe of diuorſe.Yea, and at this daie, if a coldneſſe (as they terme it) or other like impediment be perceiued in the parties, which be alreadie married, a iuſt diuorſe is permitted. And yet neuertheles Chriſt excepted onelie the cauſe of adulterie.
Yea, and if we will throughlie conſider what licence the biſhops of Rome hauehave giuen to themſelues héerein, we ſhall perceiue, that they hauehave openlie arrogated vntounto themſelues the power to diſſolue matrimonie alreadie contracted; ſo that there followed not copulation (as they call it.) Yea moreouer it is reported, that there hath béene a Popes diſpenſation ſéene, which hath taken awaie matrimonie; not onelie contracted, but (as they ſaie) finiſhed. Note a licence of Pope Zacharie.And Pope Zacharie, (as it is written in the fourth booke of ſentences) when a certeine man had committed adulterie with his wiues ſiſter, wrote thus vntounto him; Séeing thou haſt committed this horrible act, thou ſhalt hauehave neither of them to wife; both thou and ſhe, whom thou haſt defiled with adulterie, ſhall remaine without hope of marriage, and thine owne wife ſhall marrie in the Lord, with whom ſhe will. In which caſe, thou ſéeſt it manifeſtlie iudged by this biſhop, that a diuorſement made for the cauſe of adulterie, dooth admit a marriage afterward. They will that a miſtaking of the perſon, diſſolueth matrimonieThey will moreouer hauehave matrimonie diſſolued, if there be an error or a miſtaking of the perſon or condition: as if a woman ſhall thinke that ſhe hath a certeine huſband, and ſhall [afterward] prooue the ſame to be an other than ſhe ment to hauehave; or elſe, if ſhe had taken him to be a frée man, and of an honeſt ſtocke, whom ſhe findeth to be a bondman.
There is added alſo the cauſe of the degrée of kindred, euen of the degrée not forbidden by the lawe of God, when they would hauehave the matrimonie that is contracted to be cut off. So it appéereth, that it was not ſo ſtraitlie iudged, that the ſame onlie cauſe, which Chriſt dooth expreſſe, maketh a diuorſe. Otherwiſe, ſéeing Chriſt expreſſed one onlie cauſe; how commeth it to paſſe that emperours being chriſtians, and men alſo which be of the church, hauehave added ſo manie other cauſes? Certeinlie it was euen this, that they thought, that in that one onlie cauſe, Chriſt ment to be conteined both the offenſes which be equall, and thoſe which be more gréeuous. Eraſmus.Eraſmus (who treated héereof at large) added; When the Lord commandeth that thou ſweare not, that thou be not angrie, that thou ſaie not Racha, Matt. 5.if a man ſhall ſtrike thée vponupon the one chéeke, turne vntounto him the other, if one will take awaie thy cloke, giuegive him alſo thy cote, and ſuch like; we admit interpretations, that we may vnderſtand theſe things to be ſpoken oftentimes of the preparation of the mind; to wit, that it be not doone raſhlie or lightlie, nor without a iuſt cauſe: and ſhall we be héere ſo hard and preciſe, that we cannot admit anie interpretation or expoſition?
55 And the reaſon whie Chriſt did expreſſe but one onelie cauſe of adulterie, ſéemeth to be, Why Chriſt expreſſed onelie the cauſe of adulterie. Gen. 2, 24.for that there is nothing ſo great an enimie vntounto matrimonie as this miſchéefe is. They ſhall (ſaith the ſcripture) be one fleſh. But he that committeth whoredome, dooth ſo ioine himſelfe to other fleſh, as he is plucked awaie from his owne wife: for; 1. Cor. 6, 15.Shall I (ſaith Paule) take the member of Chriſt, and make it the member of an harlot? This (as I hauehave declared) is the opinion of ſome, which although it be not wicked, and perhaps it cannot eaſilie be confuted: yet for my part, as I with all my hart imbraſe thoſe cauſes, which be expreſſed in the ſcriptures; ſo can I hardlie indure, that diuorſement ſhould ſtretch beyond theſe bonds. And in verie déed, as touching ſuch crimes as the ſcripture ſpeaketh of; if a magiſtrate, being a Chriſtian, ſhould vſe the ſeueritie, which both the diuine lawes, and the Romane lawes hauehave decréed to be moſt iuſt, Naturall lets whereby matrimonie can no longer conſiſt.we ſhuld not be troubled with theſe diſcommodities. I ſpeake not now of the impediments of nature, which may happen ſo to be, and be ſent in ſuch ſort by God, as matrimonie cannot anie longer conſiſt. That which I hauehave declared, I would hauehave it to be vnderſtood onelie as touching wicked acts, which of manie are thought to make matrimonie void. Thoſe things I ſaie cannot (in my iudgement) be eaſilie knowne, otherwiſe than by the holie ſcriptures.
56 Yea moreouer, and in thoſe things which the ſcripture hath expreſſed, I thinke that nothing ought to be aduentured, except the magiſtrate doo ratifie the ſame. For matrimonie, although it be ordeined by God; yet, as touching the circumſtances, it hath manie things belonging vntounto the ciuill lawes and cuſtomes. Wherefore they, which contrarie vntounto the magiſtrates mind, and againſt the common lawes, doo contract new matrimonies, the firſt wife being diſmiſſed, doo incur excéeding great dangers. They giuegive the children, which be borne of the latter matrimonie ſuch a blemiſh of infamie, as they be commonlie taken for baſtards: and vntounto ſuch a ſhame doo they deliuer the wife, whom they hauehave married, as ſhe is accounted an adultereſſe and an harlot; and doo cauſe that they themſelues alſo are noted with the ſame diſhoneſtie. We muſt praie therefore, The magiſtrate muſt be intreated to determin of this thing.and by all meanes intreat the magiſtrate, that he being faithfull, will determine herof; and that he will applie his lawes to the word of God. And it muſt be foreſéene, that it be ſo determined, as a windowe be not ſet open to horrible offenſes, whereby matrimonies are in manie places raſhlie diſſolued. And on the other part they muſt take héed, leaſt while they will defend a diuorſement ſo made, whereof the holie ſcriptures neuer giuegive anie teſtimonie, that the bond of wedlocke ſtill remaineth (the huſband and the wife being ſeuered, and ſo ſeuered, as they cannot dwell togither;) I ſaie héed muſt be taken, that no occaſion be giuen vntounto fraile luſts, and companie of harlots.
And if ſo be that anie, for fornication ſake, or bicauſe that he will not by anie meanes that his wife ſhould dwell with him (as Paule writeth of the infidell) is conſtreined to abide ſole, 1. Cor. 7, 15.and liue continuallie without a wife, he remaining in a doubt, and not knowing what he ought to doo, when the lawes will giuegive him no libertie to marrie a ſecond perſon; certeinlie there are but two remedies, which he muſt hauehave recourſe vntounto; that either, when he is driuen to this ſtreict, he may now thinke that he is called vntounto this ſingle life by God, whom by continuall praiers he ought to mooue and ſollicit, that he will be preſent with him, whereby he may liue chaſtlie and purelie; and when he perceiueth that iniurie is doone vntounto him by the lawes, let him commend his cauſe vntounto God, for that he did not wilfullie, and of his owne accord, caſt himſelfe into this ſtate, but being vrged of neceſſitie, is conſtreined to reteine this lot. But and if he ſhall altogither perceiue, that he is not able to liue a chaſt and continent life, and that he cannot be perſuaded in his mind to liue ſingle and without a wife; and thinketh it expedient for him to vſe the libertie, which God hath appointed, leaſt he ſhould doo it againſt the will of his owne magiſtrate, and againſt the common lawes; let him depart, and get himſelfe into other countries, where this may be lawfull: there let him marrie, and addict himſelfe vntounto that Common-weale, by whoſe lawes it is permitted him. Theſe things are in ſuch ſort taught by me, as I am readie alwaies to heare and admit that counſell, which ſhall be better, and more perfect.
57 But of this I maruell oftentimes with my ſelfe, how it came to paſſe, that Valentinian, Theodoſius, and Iuſtinian, otherwiſe moſt chriſtian princes, partlie made lawes themſelues of diuorſements, and partlie by their authoritie confirmed them which were made of old; and that ſuch lawes were not openlie withſtood by the moſt godlie biſhops, which liued in thoſe daies: ſéeing otherwiſe, Ambroſe procured Theodoſius to make a new lawe.Ambroſe procured Theodoſius to make a lawe of deferring the puniſhment of death for certeine daies, and found meanes by his authoritie, that the decrées, which Symmachus would hauehave eſtabliſhed, tooke no place. Séeing therefore that thoſe princes, which were verie godlie, durſt ordeine ſuch things by their lawes, and that the church withſtood not the ſame; how commeth it to paſſe, that magiſtrates at this daie doo ſtand in doubt to determine hereof? Peraduenture they would ſaie, that there would then be great ſtore of diuorſements. Which is not verie likelie, ſéeing among the Hebrues, Graecians, and Romans, where diuorſements were lawfull, we read not that there was anie great number. But and if ſo be they thinke, that our men be woorſe in theſe daies, than either the Hebrues or Ethniks were in old time; both they doo iniurie vntounto the name of chriſtianitie, and by this means are brought, that they the rather condeſcend vntounto diuorſement; bicauſe it was permitted as a remedie of wickedneſſe. For who will hauehave a medicine to be taken awaie, while he perceiueth the diſeaſe ſtill to reigne?
58 This moreouer ought to be certeine, Chriſt ment ſuch a diuorſe wherin might be licence of new marriage.that Chriſt, when he excepted the cauſe of adulterie, ment not a diuorſe, wherewith the wife and the huſband ſhould be ſeparated onelie (as they ſaie) from the bed and boord, and that the bond of wedlocke ſhould ſtill remaine. The Lord ſpake vntounto the Hebrues, wherefore his words are to be vnderſtood of the vſuall diuorſe amongſt that people. Alſo the Ethniks, Such and no other diuorſe had the Romans and Grecians.as well Romans as Graecians, had onelie this ſort of diuorſe knowne among them; that the one married perſon was ſo looſed from the other, as new marriages might be lawfull. And if ſo be that Chriſt had otherwiſe ment it, he ſhould hauehave ſéemed not to hauehave anſwered vntounto the queſtion propounded vntounto him: for they reaſoned then of that kind of diuorſe, for the which a bill of putting awaie a mans wife was granted by the lawe. The diſputation was of that, wherefore the words of Chriſt ought ſo to be vnderſtood. For whether is it more likelie, that the Iewes inquired of the diuorſe, which they were ignorant of; or rather of that, which Moſes had granted to them in the lawe? I thinke that no man is doubtfull, whether they aſked of the thing, which was vſuall among them.
59 What alſo the ancient fathers in the church hauehave iudged hereof, it is no difficult thing to perceiue. Origin granteth, Origin.that ſome biſhops gaue leaue vntounto wiues (being ſeparated from their huſbands) to marrie others: which fact of theirs he ſaith, was againſt the ſcriptures, and yet he excuſeth the biſhops, that they did it not without conſideration. Of the ſame mind ſhalt thou find Ierom to be, in the Epitaph of Fabiola, which was married to an other, while hir former huſband yet liued. Ierom.Ierom there confeſſeth, that ſhe did not well therein; but yet in the meane time he excuſeth hir fact, by ſundrie and manifold reaſons. And it appéereth manifeſtlie, that the other marriage of this woman was not quite cut off. The biſhops therefore of thoſe times did not giuegive counſell to hauehave new marriages; but it ſéemeth that they did bear with thoſe, which happened in the meane time. Albeit (as we hauehave recited out of Origin) ſome of them gaue licence to marrie againe. But we are to beléeue, that the greater part did rather ſuffer than perſuade.
A Canon of the councell of Neoceſaria.Wherefore I vnderſtand the Canon of the councell of Neocaeſaria (wherin miniſters of the church are forbidden to be preſent to bleſſe the ſecond marriages) to be ment as touching this ſort, and not of thoſe which are renewed after the death of the other ſpouſe; forſomuch as theſe marriages are good and godlie, and are commanded by Paule, vntounto whom ſo euer they ſhall be néedfull, ſéeing he ſaith vntounto Timothie, that he would hauehave The yonger widowes to marrie, and to bring foorth children. 1. Tim. 5, 14.But thoſe other marriages (in ſo much as the other married partie was liuing) were taken for ſuſpected; although they were borne withall: and therefore the eccleſiaſticall bleſſing was not giuen to to them. And this dooth the reaſon ſhew, which is added to the Canon: The foreſaid Canon expounded.for it is ſaid; For how can they inioine repentance for theſe marriages? Whereas it is not read, that euer anie repentance was inioined for ſecond marriages, after the death of the huſband or wife, as though they had béene ſinne. But for matrimonie, which hath béene doone, the huſband being yet aliue, it is manifeſtlie ſhewed in the epiſtle of Ierom, which we euen now ſpake of. There was repentance inioined to Fabiola, although (as I hauehave ſaid) we read, that that matrimonie was neither diſſolued, neither yet counted vnlawfull; for that woman was with the latter huſband ſo long as he liued.
Ambroſe admitteth three cauſes for a wife to depart from hir huſband60 And as concerning Ambroſe, how little he miſliked ſecond marriages, the one partie being aliue, his expoſition vponupon the ſecond to the Corinthians, the ſeuenth chapter, dooth plainelie teſtifie: where he vnderſtandeth, that the wife may depart from hir huſband for thrée cauſes. The one, if he be an adulterer; another, if he be a backe-ſlider from the [true] religion; the third, if he would abuſe his wife through luſt, contrarie vntounto the iuſt vſe and cuſtome of nature: for theſe cauſes (ſaith he) let a woman depart, but let hir remaine vnmarried; ſith that is not lawfull to hir, which is lawfull to the huſband. For if the huſband put awaie his wife for fornication ſake, he may marrie an other. And he ſaith verie plainlie, that the mans cauſe in this reſpect is better than the womans, and the reaſon he allegeth; bicauſe Man is the womans head: 1. Cor. 11, 3.and that therefore it is not méet he ſhould be tied by ſuch ſtreict lawes. Peraduenture, beſides this reaſon, which he brought, he had reſpect vntounto the lawe of the old teſtament, Deut. 24. 1.where it ſéemeth to hauehave béene lawfull onlie vntounto the men, to giuegive a bill of diuorſement. Which héereby is prooued; bicauſe at no time in the ſcriptures, there is anie mention made of women, that they ſhould giuegive a bill of diuorſement vntounto their huſbands. And in the prophet Malachie, Mal. 2. 16. It is confirmed by the prophet Malachie.when God dooth complaine of the crueltie of huſbands towards their wiues, (which dailie lamented in the temple, and wept in their praiers, making relation what they indured at their huſbands hands) he commandeth, that he which hateth his wife, ſhould giuegive hir licence to depart.
But and if ſo be it had béene permitted vntounto women, to giuegive vntounto their huſbands a bill of diuorſement; they would not hauehave indured ſuch crueltie, and ſo hard a ſtate of life. They would hauehave departed of themſelues, and would not hauehave waited for an admonition from the Lord, which ſhould ſaie by his prophet; If thou hate thy wife, put hir awaie. And vndoubtedlie, God ſéemeth in the old teſtament, for ſinnes ſake, to hauehave ſubiected the woman vntounto the man, by a certeine kind of ſeruitude; ſo as hir ſtate in manie things ſhould be woorſe than the ſtate of man. Num. 5, 12It was lawfull vntounto the huſband (if he had béen gelous) to make triall of hir by publike and ſolemne ceremonie: which was not lawfull for women againſt their huſbands. Polygamie, or to hauehave more wiues than one, was ſometime granted vntounto men: which was not permitted vntounto women. And we might reckon vp manie ſuch like things, which notwithſtanding were not without conſideration appointed by the law of GOD, which would be now ouerlong to rehearſe. Yea and among the Romans, Among the Romans alſo it was more lawfull to the men than to the women.there was no ſuch puniſhment of luſts vſed againſt men, as was againſt women. The woman was condemned of adulterie, with what man ſo euer ſhe had kept vnlawfull companie; but there was no puniſhment vſed againſt the man, except when he had plaid the harlot in a ſtrange bed, or had rauiſhed thoſe which were honeſt and frée borne; but if he had doone wickedlie in harlots houſes, or againſt his owne handmaids, there was no puniſhment for him.
61 But Ierom in the epiſtle to Oceanus hath otherwiſe, and he ſaith; Ierom.that That which the holie ſcripture commandeth the man, the ſame dooth alſo redound to the woman: and he will hauehave the like decrée of both. Further, as touching the Romane lawes he ſaith; In one ſort ſpeaketh Caeſar, and in another ſort Chriſt; one waie Paule, and another waie Papinianus. For my part, although I cannot denie, but in the lawe of Moſes the condition of women and men was vnlike in reſpect of manie things; yet in this cauſe, as the ſtate of our time ſtandeth, I would not ſubſcribe vntounto Ambroſe: againſt whom alſo Auguſtine is, Auguſtine.is, who, in the ſecond booke and eight chapter to Pollentius De adulterinis coniugijs, maketh both their ſtates alike. Notwithſtanding that, A vaine deuiſe of the Maiſter of the ſentences.which the Maiſter of the ſentences bringeth, is moſt vaine; whoſe iudgement is, that theſe things are pact into Ambroſe his books by heretiks. But ſo might all controuerſies be eaſilie diſſolued, and we might ſaie, that thoſe things, which make againſt vsus in the fathers, were thruſt in by heretiks. Howbeit, the ſame Ambroſe afterward giueth the ſcope of new marriages vntounto women alſo, Ambroſe.if the vnbeléeuer will not dwell togither with hir. Which in verie déed ſtandeth me in ſtéed of a reaſon to prooue, that the libertie of both is alike. For if the cauſe, which the apoſtle ſheweth, extend it ſelfe vntounto both the man and wife; it ſhall no leſſe be granted in the cauſe of fornication, which Chriſt expreſſed.
Moreouer, that which is permitted vntounto the man, ſhall no otherwiſe be, but that matrimonie is diſſolued, bicauſe of fornication. But if ſo be it be diſſolued, and the woman looſed from the ſame; why ſhall it not alſo be lawfull for hir to be married vntounto another? Laſt of all we ſée, that the lawes of the biſhops doo grant vntounto a woman hir diuorſe, if ſhe prooue that hir huſband is verie cruell vntounto hir. Which ſéeing they doo as touching hir diuorſe, how dare they denie that it may not be doone in a man? In the old lawe it was not lawfull for wiues to giuegive a bill of diuorſement; bicauſe it was giuen for euerie cauſe. And ſéeing women be inconſtant, it is not méet that they ſhould depart from men for euerie cauſe. But now if the certeine cauſes were limited, we might eaſilie be rid of that inconuenience. I will alſo adde, that the time is not eaſie to be knowne, wherin it began among the Romans to be lawfull for women to put awaie their huſbands, vnleſſe it be in thoſe queſtions mixed togither of the old and new teſtament, Auguſtine.which are intituled to Auguſtine. In the queſtion 115. it is written, that vnderunder Iulian this began to be lawfull for them. For then leaue was giuen vntounto women; that they might put awaie their huſbands. Notwithſtanding, who this Iulian was, it appéereth not; ſéeing we read of two emperours of that name.
62 But theſe were woont to be counted the cauſes, why the fathers would, The cauſes why they would admit no new marriages after diuorſe in caſe of adulterie.that new marriages ſhould not be lawfull, after a diuorſe was made for fornicatiō ſake. Firſt, for that it might ſéeme that the huſband luſting after a new wife, would inuent a feigned crime of adulterie againſt the firſt. Further, for that it might ſéeme no wiſe mans part, that when it hapned ill with him before, he would trie the ſame lucke againe, & after a ſort ſéeke the ſame infelicitie. Beſides theſe, there are brought in the places, as well to the Romans as to the Corinthians, Rom. 7, 2. 2. Cor. 7, 11.where the apoſtle ſéemeth to be of that mind; that a wife, ſo long as hir huſband ſhall liue, is bound to his lawe. The latter writers alſo doo cauill, that matrimonie is a ſacrament, and that therefore it cannot be made void. And Innocentius, when he decréed that it is not lawfull for the one partie married, to enter into new matrimonie, if the other ſhall be fallen into hereſie, addeth this reaſon; that There would be a doore open vntounto great inconuenience: for anie man would ſoone feine himſelfe to be an heretike, that he might be deliuered of his wife, and obteine another. Further, they be woont to vrge this ſaieng; Matt. 19, 6. 1. Cor. 7, 8.That which God hath coupled togither, let no man ſeparate.
Theſe reaſons Eraſmus dooth plainelie confute. Touching the firſt; Eraſmus.If a ſeuere iudgement be appointed by biſhops and magiſtrates, falſe reports might eaſilie be preuented, neither will there be anie leaue giuen of diuorſe, vnleſſe that fornication ſhall plainlie and euidentlie be prooued. Of the other reaſon it is ſaid; That which is obiected, is verie ridiculous, ſéeing we oftentimes ſée, that thoſe which hauehave ſailed once without good ſucceſſe, and hauehave abidden ſhipwracke, doo returne againe to ſhipping. And the partie, which is innocent, while he endureth prickings and burnings, and cannot eaſilie kéepe himſelfe chaſt; what maruell is it, if he caſt in his mind to marrie againe? Touching the place to the Romans it may eaſilie be anſwered; The apoſtle did not there diſpute, whether diuorſements might be by anie meanes admitted; but it ſufficed him, that he ſhewed vntounto the beléeuing Iewes, and to them which were conuerted to our religion, that it was now lawfull to marrie againe in Chriſt, after that death was come, which is the certeine and vndoubted cauſe of diſſoluing matrimonie: wherein, although there were a ſingular coniunction and peace betwéen man and wife, yet by death the ſame is diſſolued. Verie wiſelie therefore did Paule in that place put onelie that cauſe of diſſoluing matrimonie, which of neceſſitie he was to grant; although no other cauſe had hapned in the meane while. So vntounto the Corinthians he would ſhew, that it was lawfull for a widowe to contract new marriages, if ſhe would; bicauſe hir firſt huſband was dead. He reaſoneth not there, whether a diuorſe may be made for anie other cauſe; but onelie ſheweth, that there is no cauſe whie ſecond marriages be not lawfull, when either the huſband or the wife happen to die.
Whether matrimonie be a ſacrament. Looke par. 3 pla. 8. art. 1563 But whether matrimonie be a ſacrament or no, it is not hard to be anſwered. If thou vnderſtand the name of a ſacrament generallie, and at large, for euerie ſuch thing as ſignifieth ſome holie thing, we will not denie, but that matrimonie may be a ſacrament; ſéeing it reſembleth vntounto vsus, the coniunction of Chriſt with his church: whereof we hauehave a teſtimonie in the epiſtle to the Epheſians. Ephe. 5, 32.But after this maner thou art forced to appoint, not onelie ſeuen, but an infinite number of ſacraments: ſuch as are the waſhing of féete, the ſhaking of duſt from the féete, the imbraſing of yong children in armes, and in a maner all the actions of Chriſt. But if thou wilt drawe the name of a ſacrament to thoſe things, which not onelie betoken ſpirituall things, but alſo are vſed to be doone by certeine words, and of which there is a commandement extant, that they ſhould be doone: in this ſenſe thou canſt not appoint matrimonie [to be a ſacrament. Dionyſius.] I paſſe ouer, that Dionyſius in his treatiſe De eccleſiaſtica Hierarchia, reckoneth it not among the reſt of the ſacraments. Iouinian.Neither would Iouinian hauehave eſcaped this argument, which left not anie ſmall thing vntouched, whereby he might extoll matrimonie. Further, what ſort of ſacrament ſoeuer this be, the reaſon furthereth not the purpoſe of our aduerſaries. For Chriſt, whom they would ſignifie to be ioined vntounto the church, hath made a diuorſe from the ſynagog, and hath coupled our church vntounto him. But if peraduenture they ſhall ſaie, that this is not doone but by his death: I will anſwer, that the diuine nature in Chriſt, for the which this matrimonie is eſpeciallie agréeable vntounto him, neither died, nor yet poſſiblie can die. And yet (as Eſaie writeth) God gaue a bill of diuorſement vntounto the people of Iſrael, Eſaie. 50, 1.and by reaſon of their ſinnes he reiected them from his companie.
64 A ſlender reaſon alſo is it that Innocentius brought: for by the like and the ſame reaſon might anie man faine himſelfe to be a ſeruant, when otherwiſe he were frée; to the intent he might vndoo the matrimonie contracted, and procure himſelfe an other wife. And if that the error of their ſtate were ſo great a matter to them, that it diſſolued matrimonie; whie ſhould not that be of more force, which Chriſt himſelfe and the apoſtle did except? Neither dooth that greatlie trouble vsus, which they vttered in the laſt place; namelie, that it is not mans part, to ſeparate them whom GOD hath put togither. For when ſuch cauſes, as theſe be, doo happen; it is God which diuideth, and not men: forſomuch as he, by his word, hath giuen this power. Vndoubtedlie men ſhould then ſeparate, if for euerie cauſe not expreſſed by God, they ſhould attempt to vndoo matrimonie. And Paule, when he ſaid; 1. Cor. 7, 11.Let hir remaine vnmarried, ſpeaketh of them, which being led by light cauſes, departed from their huſbands. It was a cuſtome among the Hebrues, to giuegive a bill of diuorſement vponupon anie cauſe. And diuorſements were ſo common and vſuall vntounto the Ethniks, as Iuuenal ſaid; So are there eight husbands made, fiue for the harueſt time, &c. Wherefore, not without cauſe the apoſtle writeth theſe things vntounto the Corinthians. The Romans were not ſo readie to put awaie their wiues. For the firſt, which made a diuorſe, was Spurius Seruilius, and that bicauſe of barrenneſſe of the wife; in the two hundred and thirtie yeare after the building of the citie: as Plutarch mentioneth in the life of Romulus.
Paule therefore ſpeaketh not of the cauſe of fornication: for as touching that, he diſagréeth not from Chriſt, who (as we hauehave prooued) did grant there a iuſt diuorſe. Paule alloweth not theſe departings.Neither muſt the apoſtle be vnderſtood, as though he allowed thoſe departings of married folkes one from an other: verelie he condemneth them, and would not hauehave them ſo raſhlie, and vponupon ſuch trifeling cauſes to depart one from an other. But as a good miniſter he prouideth, leaſt perhaps, if they fall into this vice, they may commit an other more gréeuous; namelie, to be married vntounto an other. Let hir (ſaith he) remaine vnmarried, or elſe let hir be reconciled vntounto hir husband. And he ſéemeth in this place, not ſo greatlie to reprooue & blame the crime of departing one from an other, as it deſerueth. For he ſawe, that ſometimes it happeneth that women be not ſeparated of their owne accord; but caſt foorth by their huſbands, in ſuch ſort, as if they would returne, yet is there no preſent meanes for them to doo it. Howbeit the magiſtrate ought to prouide for ſuch afflicted ſoules by approoued and good lawes.
65 But now I thought good to weigh and examine certeine things, which be ſpoken by Auguſtine, in his two little bookes De adulterinis coniugijs vntounto Pollentius, Auguſtin De adulterinis coniugijs.according as I ſhall iudge them to ſerue vntounto the purpoſe of this place. He thought in verie déed, that it was not lawfull for him, that ſhould put awaie his wife for the cauſe of adulterie, to marrie an other. Matt. 5, 32.But whereas in Matthew that cauſe is excepted, he anſwereth, that either of them both is an adulterer; as well he which for adulterie ſake, as he that without that cauſe, putteth his wife from him, and marrieth an other. And he ſaith, that Matthew expreſſeth onelie one of them, to note him which committeth the greater ſinne. Both of them doo commit adulterie, by putting awaie their wife, and marrieng of an other; but he more gréeuouſlie, that ſhall doo this without cauſe of fornication. And ſo he would, that the ſame exception ſhould onelie be of force to moderate the crime of adulterie: but not to this effect, that it ſhould be quite taken awaie. And this he thinketh that he can ſhew by the word of God: for Luke and Marke vttered the ſame ſentence abſolutelie, and without anie exception. Mark. 10, 4. Luke. 16, 18They ſaie; Euerie man, which ſhall put awaie his wife, and marrie another, committeth adulterie: therefore he concludeth generallie, that the ſaieng of Chriſt muſt be vnderſtood as Luke and Marke wrote. But Matthew (ſaith he) noteth him, that ſhall doo it for fornication ſake, that it may be vnderſtood he ſinneth the leſſe.
But certeinlie I would iudge this kind of argument to be moſt weake: Matthew vſeth to explicate that which Marke and Luke ſpake more obſcurelie.for it ſéemeth wée ſhould rather ſaie, that Luke and Marke wrote not the perfect or compleat ſentence of ſhe Lord, which we ought to gather out of Matthew, and to vnderſtand it definitelie. Which rule he himſelfe vſeth, and that not once, in his booke De conſenſu euangelistarum, where he plainelie ſaith; that Verie oftentimes in the other euangeliſts, ſome things are ſpoken not verie plainelie and perfectlie. The which ought more perfectlie to be gathered out of Matthew. And it is to be woondered at, how he can alwaies ſéeme to vnderſtand that departure, whereof the apoſtle ſpeaketh, for that which may be lawfull, ſéeing the apoſtle plainelie ſaid; 1. Cor. 7, 10.Let not the wife be ſeparated from hir husband. So as it is manifeſt, that the apoſtle ſpeaketh of that departing, which is not lawfull; ſéeing he forbiddeth the ſame. Whereby it eaſilie appéereth, that héere is no ſpéech touching the cauſe of fornication. But in that caſe the apoſtle would not command, that the wife ſhould not depart from hir huſband: for that were to nouriſh brothelrie, if adulterie ſhould be ſuffered, the wife being preſent and abiding with hir huſband.
Wherfore Paule commandeth, that ſhe ſhould not depart for theſe ſmall cauſes, ſéeing that is not lawfull. And if perhaps ſhe doo depart, hée commandeth that ſhe ſhould remaine vnmarried; or elſe that ſhe be reconciled vntounto hir huſband. Euerie one is bound to put awaie euill from among his owne familie. How ſhould a huſband but exclude his wife, when he findeth hir in adulterie? Ibidem. 11.And yet the apoſtle ſaith; Let not a man put awaie his wife. Ought he therefore to harbour hir adulterie? Hereby is ſufficientlie ſhewed, of what maner of departing and eiection theſe things be ment. Chryſoſtom ſeemeth to interpret this place as we doo.And in this place thou haſt Chryſoſtome, who is of our opinion: for he ſaith; Sometimes they depart one from another by reaſon of contentions, or faint courage, or elſe for continencie, or for other pretenſes: neither dooth he make anie mention of adulterie. Tertullian, in his fourth booke againſt Martion, ſaith; Tertullian admitteth iuſt diuorſements.that Iuſtice hath the Lord to be a defender of diuorſe. By which words he ſheweth, that Chriſt did confirme diuorſe, and that he tooke it not vtterlie awaie. For by this reaſon the heretiks went about to prooue, that Chriſt was contrarie to God in the old teſtament, for condemning of thoſe things, which he ordeined. Which ſentence of Tertullian ſhould not be true, if iuſt diuorſements (as the Hebrues vſed) ſhuld not be admitted among the Chriſtians.
66 Neither ought this to trouble vsus much, that in the old teſtament, a bill of diuorſement was permitted for euerie cauſe; ſéeing now Chriſt draweth the matter into ſo ſtreict a roome: this is no cauſe, why thou ſhouldeſt thinke him to be againſt the decrées and lawes of his father. But this thou muſt conſider, that in thoſe daies, the ſame lawe of giuing a bill of diuorſement, verſe. 1.which was ordeined in the 24. of Deuteronomie, was ciuill: Chriſt dealt not touching the ciuill affaires.and Chriſt dealt not as touching the ciuill affaires. They, which gouerne a Common-weale, appoint themſelues ſuch a ſcope, as if two euils or diſcommodities be offered, the leſſe muſt be permitted, leſt they ſhould fall into the greater. A ſimilitude.Which may eaſilie be ſhewed in harlots, whom they ſuffer to liue in cities, leaſt more heinous crimes ſhould be committed. Which neuertheleſſe, the lawe of the Lord in his Common-weale did not permit. But now I bring this as an example, which although it be not doone according to chriſtianitie; yet is it to be ſéene here and there in manie Common weales. Euen ſo, as concerning the affaires of matrimonie, when the matches be vntoward, one of the two diſcommodities ſéemed neceſſarie; that they, which hated their wiues, either they would perpetuallie afflict them, and at length kill them; or elſe a licence of diuorſement was to be giuen them.
This latter euill ſéemed more tollerable, wherfore GOD granted the ſame to be in his Common-weale: but yet he ſo granted it, VnderUnder what cautions God granted a diuorſe.as a bill of diuorſement ſhould be written. Wherewith a ſharpe and vntractable man, euen in writing of it, might ſome waies be mooued, & might more déepelie ponder how diſhoneſt a part it ſhould be, to driue hir awaie from him, with whom euen from the beginning he had liued moſt familiarlie. For we be woont more attentiuelie to ponder thoſe things, which we write, than thoſe things which we ſpeake. Moreouer, he commanded, that when ſhe ſhould be caſt out by a bill of diuorſement; ſhe might neuer be receiued againe into matrimonie by hir firſt huſband. So as in theſe politicall lawes, let a chriſtian and godlie man ſo behaue himſelfe, that he vſe not this leaue, which he ſéeth is granted him, leaſt we fall into more heinous euils: ſith he may perceiue that it hath ſome euill alſo ioined with it, although it be the leſſer. Wherefore our redéemer hath appointed decrées vntounto his people, both of pietie and religion. In the meane time he condemned not the counſell of GOD, which he vſed in the Common-welth of the Hebrues, for reſtraining of more gréeuous ſinnes.
67 Thou ſhalt not find in the old teſtament anie men of praiſe or renowme (ſo far as the holie hiſtories make mention) that vſed a diuorſe Do not obiect Abraham, which put awaie Agar, and Iſmael hir child from him: Gen. 21, 14.for this he did not of his owne accord, but at the ſute of his wife, Auguſtine.and commandement of God. Alſo Auguſtine, in the place abooue recited, did write; that It is vnbeſéeming for Chriſtian huſbands, to take the matter ſo gréeuouſlie, that they ſhould not be reconciled to their wiues (which fall into adulterie) when they be penitent, and ſhew hope of amendement of their life. They muſt (ſaith he) conſider with themſelues, that they be chriſtians whoſe part is to incline to merciemercy, and not to be hard-harted. Michol the daughter of Saule. 2 Sam. 3, 14Dauid (he ſaith) tooke Michol to him againe, who neuertheleſſe was coupled to an other man. But this example of his ſéemeth not verie effectuall, bicauſe Michol committed not a full and compleat adulterie: for the yoong woman was compelled by hir father, who was king, to match hir ſelfe with an other man. So that ſhe was driuen vntounto that latter matrimonie, not onelie by the lawe of the countrie, but alſo by the commandement of the king. Iohn. 8. 11. Chriſt pardoneth an adultereſſe.In the ſecond place he bringeth in the example of Chriſt, who ſéemeth to hauehave pardoned the adultereſſe: which (no doubt) is of force to perſuade the minds of huſbands vntounto merciemercy towards their penitent wiues. Yet dooth it not prooue, that adulterers ſhould not be puniſhed by lawes and magiſtrates with death. For Chriſt, by that action, did not take anie thing awaie from the ciuill lawes, or from the ſeueritie of publike iudgements. Bitter men (ſaith Auguſtine) did ſo hate that chapter of Iohn, as they blotted it out of his place. By which words he ſéemeth to note (as the thing it ſelfe declareth) that the ſame chapter was not found in all the copies. Certeinlie theſe men ought to hauehave remembred their owne fraileneſſe, and to marke how oftentimes they them ſelues fell into ſundrie miſchéefes; and ſometime perchance into the verie ſame kind of ſinne, of violating the faith of marriage.
68 They moreouer, which ſo obſtinatelie hate their wiues, ſaie it is not méet, that huſbands who be the heads, and wiues, ſhould be both vnderunder one lawe. Auguſtine.Naie rather (ſaith Auguſtine) ſéeing the man is the womans head, hir ruler & guide; therfore it had béene méet he ſhould excell hir in vertue. The law of Antonius. Gregories booke.And he citeth the lawe of Antonius the emperour, which he ſaith, he read in Gregories booke, which is on this wiſe; I iudge it to be verie vniuſt, that a man ſhould require chaſtitie of his wife, which he himſelfe performeth not to hir. Where vponupon he decréed, that ſhe ſhould not be condemned of adulterie, which prooued hir huſband either guiltie of that crime, or elſe that he gaue hir an occaſion of falling. By theſe and ſuch other meanes, Auguſtine exhorteth men to pardon their wiues, when they hauehave offended. Which I verie well allow, when there is hope of true repentance, and change of life. So then, if the magiſtrate once applie his mind to take awaie theſe euils, and to reforme the faults that be in matrimonie; let him prouide, that huſbands, which complaine of their wiues naughtines, being proued in the ſame fault themſelues, eſcape not vnpuniſhed: and let him prouide by good lawes, that huſbands giuegive vntounto their wiues no occaſion of ſinning.
69 But when the apoſtle ſaith; In 1. Cor. 7, verſe. 12.VntoUnto the remnant ſpeake I, not the Lord. If anie brother hauehave a wife that is an infidell, and ſhee is content to dwell with him, let him not put hir awaie, &c. thou ſhalt note, that dwelling togither is required to a iuſt matrimonie. To a iuſt matrimonie is required a dwelling togither.Wherefore the Lord ſaid, that he would appoint man a wife to be a helper vntounto him. Which I ſpeake not, to the intent it ſhould neuer be lawfull for man and wife to be one from an other, either by occaſion of ſickneſſe, or elſe for other great and vrgent neceſſities: but that married folkes may vnderſtand, that there ſhould be no let in them to dwell togither, and that they ſhould not ſhunne to liue one with an other. Thou wilt demand perhaps; If the vnbeléeuing partie be prooued altogither an Atheiſt, an Epicure, & which hath no regard of religion, ſo as there is deſpaire of his ſaluation; whether in that caſe the partie that beléeueth, ought to remaine in wedlocke? We anſwer: Certeinlie, when the partie married is paſt all hope of ſaluation, a ſeparation may be made; for the effect being remooued, there is left no place for the cauſe. All the reaſon of abiding togither, was for charitie ſake; that the faithfull man might win his wife vntounto Chriſt.
But bicauſe it is not lawfull to deſpaire of anie man, while he liueth; We ought to deſpaire of no man while he liueth.and he that this daie is an Atheiſt, an Epicure, and contemner of religion, to morrowe perhaps will not be ſo; ſéeing God hath the hearts of men in his hands: therefore, vnleſſe there happen to be a manifeſt and ſpeciall reuelation of the condemnation of ſuch a one, there ought not to be a departing. But if the ſame partie in the meane time ſhalbe a blaſphemer, and a curſſer of Chriſt; ſo as the beléeuer cannot remaine in matrimonie, without the contumelie of Chriſt (for perhaps the huſband cannot abide to be reprehended of blaſphemie;) or elſe that the truth of Chriſt muſt be defended by confeſſion: is it lawfull then to depart? Yea verelie; for he, which honoreth Chriſt, if he doo not deliuer his name from contumelie, if he may; or at the leaſt-wiſe paſſeth not whether he ſéeme to conſent vntounto the iniurie doone vntounto him, he ſinneth gréeuouſlie, and in vaine taketh himſelfe to be a chriſtian. Wherefore prudentlie dooth the apoſtle write; (If the vnbeleeuer will dwell togither with the beleeuer:) bicauſe he is not iudged to be willing, which dooth deteſt the religion of his ſpouſe; who dooth reuile his GOD with blaſphemies, and ſuffereth not that his conſcience may reſt in tranquillitie and quietneſſe. This is not to dwell togither, but to torment the other partie, to raiſe vp ſtrife, and vtterlie to ouerthrowe all domeſticall peace.
70 Alſo, if it happen, that the faithfull partie be weake, and perceiueth him ſelfe, by meanes of that matrimonie, to fall awaie by little and little from chriſtian religion; ſo that he is almoſt led awaie from the faith, and readie to fall headlong into idolatrie, by being with idolaters, what ſhall he then doo? He ought not to abide: for that ſentence muſt ſtand ſure and vnſhaken; We muſt not doo euill, Rom. 3, 8.that good may come thereof. Neither is there anie hope then remaining, that the vnbeléeuing partie can be conuerted, which was the cauſe of reteining matrimonie: naie rather it now happened contrariwiſe, that the beléeuing partie ſhuld be put in ieopardie of inclining to infidelitie. And this was the reaſon why God, in the old teſtament, appointed matrimonie, which was contracted with infidels, Eſdr. 10, 11.to be diſſolued by Eſdras: bicauſe men were by that meanes ſtirred vp vntounto ſuch worſhippings, as were forbidden; ſo far off were they from winning their wiues vntounto the Iewes religion. Auguſtine.Auguſtine, in the place now cited, reaſoneth on this wiſe; For this cauſe Paule wrote theſe things, for that it was to be feared, that if through the Goſpell begun, the matrimonies contracted ſhould be made void, chriſtian religion would be condemned; as though it troubled the Common-weales, and did cut in ſunder honeſt and lawfull contracts.
And there was added another diſcommoditie; namelie, that the vnbeléeuing partie, ſuffering a repulſe of hir huſband for religion ſake, intangled hirſelfe with new marriages, whereby hir mind might be the more vehementlie hardened in infidelitie, and more and more become ſtrange vntounto chriſtian religion. Which would not hauehave happened, if the faithfull wife had tarried with him. All meanes muſt be attempted before a diuorſe be made.So as it ſéemeth good, that all meanes be attempted, before a departure be had. Hereby therefore we ſée, that Paule dooth giuegive leaue to depart, not for religion ſake onelie; but in caſe that the vnbeléeuing partie will not dwell togither [with the beléeuer.] So as he maketh the obſtinate will, to be the cauſe of departing, rather than vnlikenes of religion: ſéeing he teacheth, that the ſame after a ſort might be abidden. And it appéereth, that the ſentence of Chriſt, wherein he onelie excepteth whooredome, Matth. 5, 32was not compleat: ſéeing the apoſtle here added another.
Three gret doubts.71 Here ariſe thrée great doubts. Firſt it ſéemeth, that Paule laieth open the partie that beléeueth vntounto great perill: for he perſuadeth him to remaine with an infidell, whereby he perhaps might fall into idolatrie; for it is an eaſie matter to be ſeduced of the vnbeléeuing partie. But it is anſwered, that it is not ſo: for, God being then mooued by praiers, will helpe the faithfull partie, when he perceiueth him to followe his vocation, and that he did not willinglie, and of his owne accord, procure thoſe dangers. Which had béene as much as to tempt God, who ſéeth, that he abideth not in this kind of marriage by his owne will, or for his owne commoditie ſake; but that he may obeie the commandement of God, and therfore will helpe him. Moreouer, if it happen that the beléeuer, being weake, perceiueth himſelfe to be led from Chriſt, he hath leaue to depart; as we hauehave inſtructed before.
The ſecond doubt is, for that in committing of whooredome, we therefore ſinne; bicauſe we take the member of Chriſt, and make the ſame the member of an harlot. How happeneth it here, that ſinne is not committed, when as we make the member of Chriſt (I meane the partie that beléeueth) to be a member of idolatrie? 1. Cor. 6, 15.It is ſoone anſwered; that we doo it not: he was the member of his wife before. Onlie this muſt be holden, that there ſhould be no parting for the Goſpell ſake. There is no leaue giuen to him, which alreadie is the member of Chriſt, that he ſhould become the member of an idolatrous woman, to marrie with one that is an infidell: but it is onelie ſaid, that he ſhould not raſhlie depart. But in committing of fornication, we which alreadie be the members of Chriſt, are pulled from him; and make our ſelues the members of an harlot. Thou ſéeſt that the reaſon is vnlike. Furthermore, it commeth to paſſe, that in coupling with an harlot, either partie is vnpure; as well the harlot, as he which hath the companie of hir. So is it not in marriage of perſons of vnſemblable religion, where the one partie; namelie, the beléeuer is pure. For he, which committeth whoordome, is not onlie mingled in bodie with an harlot, but alſo he conſenteth with hir in the wicked deſire of fornication. So that both of them, as well touching the mind, as the bodie, are defiled. But here, in marriages of contrarie religion, they are not coupled togither in reſpect of faith; but in bodies onelie: and Paule teſtifieth, that from the bodie of the infidell, vncleanneſſe is taken awaie, that the other partie may not be contaminated. In the meane time, faith remaineth ſound, and the mind pure, in the partie ſanctified: which faith hath no place in committing of whoredome.
The laſt doubt is; if a Chriſtian huſband dwell with an idolatrous and an vnbeléeuing wife, and that he ought not raſhlie to depart, and yet may depart from an adultereſſe; it ſéemeth to follow, that adulterie is a more gréeuous ſinne, and more intollerable than idolatrie is. Chryſoſtome anſwereth, Chryſoſt.that God is ſo verie good, as ſometime he preferreth our commodities before his owne: for he willeth, that the ſacrifice be left at the altar, Matth. 5, 32and before we doo offer ſacrifice, a reconciliation is to be made with our neighbours. He ſometime forbeareth to hauehave a debt paid vntounto him, and forgiueth the ſame: but vsus he will not abſolue, vnleſſe we ſatiſfie our neighbour. Wherefore the argument is but féeble, wherein thou dideſt gather, that idolatrie is a leſſer ſinne than adulterie; bicauſe the ſpouſe is permitted [to tarrie] with the idolatrous wife, and from adulterie he may depart. But it appeareth, that we may make a more perfect anſwer; Idolatrie a greater ſin than adulterie.that in verie déed idolatrie, in his owne nature, is a more gréeuous ſinne than adulterie: but that adulterie is more repugnant to wedlocke than idolatrie, Adulterie more againſt wedlocke than idolatrie.wherein man and wife ſhould be one fleſh, and by adulterie be drawne one from an other. It is true indéed, that idolatrie is more repugnant vntounto God than adulterie is; but adulterie is a greater enimie to marriage than idolatrie. Which dooth héereby appeare, for that marriages are had betwéene idolaters and Mahumets.
72 But whether Dauid did well, in taking of the Synamite to wife, In 7. Kin. 1. at the beginning.it appeareth doubtfull vntounto ſome. For thoſe that are cold [of nature] when they marrie wiues, they ſéeme not to doo the part of a married man, bicauſe according to humane laws, ſuch marriages be not firme: for cold perſons doo inforce themſelues to performe that which they are not able. Whether matrimonie is to be cut off for the impotencie of the man.Certeinlie, there hauehave béene manie things decréed touching this matter, as well by the Ciuill as by the Canon lawes. Firſt they decrée, that if there be a continuall defect; thoſe which be contracted, ought to be ſeparated; ſo that the partie, which ſueth for ſeparation, had no foreknowledge of that diſeaſe. For if the woman, contracting with a man in ill ſtate, did know therof before, ſhe cannot for that cauſe ſtep backe from hir huſband. There is a lawe had concerning ſpouſages, in the lawe Mulier, which ordeined in this wiſe; If before matrimonie contracted, the wife knew of the infamie or the impotencie of the man, let hir impute it to hir owne ſelfe, ſhe cannot ſéeke for diuorſe. In the Digeſts Ad legem Iuliam de adulterijs, in the lawe Si vxor, about the end it is ſaid; If anie man knowe that a woman hath committed adulterie, and ſhall afterward marrie hir, he cannot accuſe hir of adulterie: for ſéeing he tooke hir to wife, and had knowledge of it, he ſéemed to allow of hir conditions.
The ſame hath the Canon lawe determined, as in the 33. cauſe, queſtion 1. in the chapter Requiſisti, the Gloſſe ſaith; If the woman knew the impediment of the man, and contract with him, ſhe cannot ſtep backe. But admit ſhe knew it not, ſhall the matrimonie be firme? Gregorie, in the Canon alledged, did counſell, that they ſhould dwell togither; to the intent the woman, if ſhe cannot be a wife, may be a ſiſter. But this he ſpeaketh by counſell, not by commandment. For if ſhe denie with lowd voice, and ſaie, that ſhe would be a mother, and beare children; ſhe is heard. Howbeit, they make a condition; namelie, that ſhe ſhall gaine-ſaie it within the ſpace of two moneths (as appeareth in the Extrauagants De frigidis & maleficiatis, in the firſt Canon;) ſéeing if ſhe abide long, ſhe ſéemeth by hir owne conſent to hauehave confirmed the marriage. But the rigor of this lawe is not obſerued at this daie, but a longer ſpace of time is appointed, and that iuſtlie: for he perhaps may ſéeme cold at the beginning, which will not be ſo afterward. What ſhall be doone then, if ſhe gaine-ſaie it, and yet allow it? If the huſband will ſtand at deniall, he muſt be credited: but if he confeſſe it, they ſhall be ſeparated, and leaue is giuen vntounto the woman, to prouide an other marriage.
Which neuertheleſſe ought not to be doone ouer haſtilie: for they will hauehave the ſpace of thrée yeares to be expected; to the end a longer, and a more ſure experience may be had. The ſame hauehave the ciuill lawes iudged. Iuſtinian De repudijs, in the lawe In cauſis, firſt aſſigneth two yeares; but there in the Paraph Sed bodie, he aſſigneth thrée yeares, and it dooth verie well agrée with the Popes Canons. The ſame he hath in the Authentikes, in Collatione 4. in the Paraph Per occaſionem; namelie, that thrée yeares be giuen. Howbeit, this muſt be vnderſtood on this wiſe; Vnleſſe a plaine proofe therof can be had before, bicauſe it ought not then to be deferred. But ſome men ſaie; that It is poſſible, that iudges may be deceiued, that the diſeaſe may ſomtime be cured, and that the ſpace of thrée yeares ſéemeth not to be ſufficient, that he might marrie with an other, and hauehave children, & that in conuerſation they might both of them ſometimes confeſſe their coldneſſe, bicauſe they might find the meanes to be ſeparated. If this ſhould happen, they would that the man, being afterward found fit for procreation, ſhould renew his former marriage. But this is not obſerued. The ſame doo they affirme of them, which be hindered by diueliſh practiſes. But bicauſe the diuell dooth ſometimes hinder, ſo as a man is able to vſe the companie of one woman, and not of another; therefore matrimonie is aſſigned to be with hir, from whom he is not lett. Theſe things are ſaid touching women.
If the huſband were ignorant before of his coldnes he may require a diuorſe.73 But if the man doo either knowe, or be ignorant that he is cold, what then ſhalbe doon? If he be ignorant of it, he is after a ſort excuſed; & it is lawfull for him to aſke a diuorſe, whereby he may be eaſed of the charges of marriage. But if he knowe before, that he had the diſeaſe of coldneſſe, he is compelled to find and mainteine his wife, whom he deceiued. The Popes canons decrée, that he ſhould marrie no more: as it is read in the place a little before alledged, De frigidis & maleficiatis. Howbeit, there be ſome, which ſaie; If he can find anie that will hauehave him to hir huſband, ſo he make knowne this imperfection, hée may contract matrimonie with hir. But what maner of marriage will that be, when it is doone neither for procreation of children, neither for auoiding of whooredome? VntoUnto this they anſwer, according to the ſaieng of Auguſtine, which we read in the 27. cauſe, queſtion the firſt, in the chapter Nupt…arum: and it is written in the eight chapter De bono con…ugali. In the old time, marriage was an obedience of the lawe; now it is for the redreſſe of our infirmitie, and for the comfort of mankind. But the place is ambiguous, for the comfort of mankind may hauehave a reſpect vntounto procreation of children; ſith thereby the parents conceiue no ſmall pleaſure, wherin they delite themſelues. Howbeit, at this daie, they admit this kind of marriage: and there be manie found, which doo peaceablie liue togither.
They, which intreat of theſe things, hauehave conſidered, that there is a great difference betwéene coldneſſe and old age. And they define, that old age muſt neuer be driuen from marriage. A lawe that forbad old age to marrie.In ancient time was made the lawe called Papia, or Papaea, vnderunder Tiberius Caeſar (whereof Tranquillus in Claudio maketh mention, and ſo dooth Lactantius;) whereby it was prouided, that they which were paſt thrée ſcore yéeres of age, ſhould not marrie wiues; and that the women ſhould not be married, which did excéed the age of fiftie yéeres. But theſe lawes were aboliſhed by Iuſtinian: as is to be found in the Code De nuptijs, in the lawe Sancimus. For this coldneſſe is not in all perſons alike. Howbeit, neither the lawes of emperours, nor of biſhops gaue libertie to them, which were gelded men indéed, to marrie. Yet it behooueth, that that coldneſſe or diueliſh practiſes, which may diſſolue matrimonie, ſhuld be perpetuall. For ſkilfull men doo ſometime make a remedie for things, which hurt but for a time. Beſides this, it is neceſſarie, Which be the verie impediments of matrimonie.that the impediment be before the contracting of matrimonie: for if they once become one fleſh, marriage is not vndoone. Of this matter alſo wrote the Maiſter of the ſentences, in the fourth booke, the 34. diſtinction.
74 Now remaineth that we intreat particularlie of the matrimonie of Dauid. And this will we firſt note, that he was not mooued vntounto that marriage, of his owne accord, neither of luſt, or of naughtie deſire; but by the aduiſe of his noble men, and by the prudent counſell of phyſicians. Neuertheleſſe, thou wilt ſaie, that a naughtie aduiſe and a wicked, muſt not be admitted. This in verie déed is true: but in this matter (ſo far as may appéere) neither lewdnes of mind, nor naughtie deſire can be prooued. Firſt, old age nothing hindered, but that the king might contract matrimonie: who perhaps alſo was thought, that as touching coldneſſe, he might be reſtored; although not to the ſtrength; which he was woont to hauehave, yet ſo, as ſhould be fit for his old bodie. Certeinlie Abraham was reſtored, when he was an hundred yéeres of age: ſo that after the death of Sara he married another, and by hir he did beget children. Neither was there wanting naturall helps to Dauid, wherewith the phyſicians thought they might reſtore him. Moreouer, if they declared vntounto the damſell the old mans impediment, and the ſame being knowen, ſhe gaue hir conſent, ſhe ſuſteined no iniurie. It might be added, that hir mind was perſuaded by God, that ſhe ſhould conſent for the benefit of the whole kingdome. Notwithſtanding, if ſhe were mooued thereto by ambition; the counſell had not béene good. But to iudge raſhlie of theſe points, it ſtandeth neither with our godlineſſe, nor yet with our authoritie. Séeing theſe things might be doone of a ſincere mind, and by the will of GOD; I thinke they ought rather to be taken in good part. This dooth the hiſtorie teach, that this damſell was not long with the king; bicauſe within a while after he died: howbeit, his life, which was verie neceſſarie for the Common-weale, was prolonged for a while. Yet thus much I will admoniſh, that we néed not labour ſo much to excuſe the fathers of blame; who alſo ought not to be charged, vnleſſe the hiſtorie compell therevnto. Neither will we paſſe it ouer, that GOD vſed the occaſion of this damſell to oppreſſe Adonias, 1. King. 2, 17and to eſtabliſh the kingdome of Salomon.