Of Divorce for Adultery — Edmund Bunny

Of Divorce for Adultery · Edmund Bunny

OF DIVORCE FOR ADVLTErie, and marrying againe.Sect. 1.

WHereas that, which heretofore came (lightly) no farther, but only to be disputed among the learned, is now growne to so common a practise with many, namely to prosecute divorce for adulterie, and to marrie againe: the greater danger that thereby we may see to grow vp apace, towards the overthrowing of such integrity as yet we hauehave left,Euthim. Zigabemu…. pag. 35. and to bring in the Turkish libertie of putting awaie such wiues as they like not, & marrying others; the greater cause hauehave we so much the rather to see vntounto it, & not slightly now, but soundly to examine, whether it hauehave any warrant at all in the written word. Which that we may the better finde out, it shalbe good to note, that as there be two sorts of places of Scriptures, whereon the learned that are for that opinion doe commonly rest (some that chiefly respect divorcing or putting away, others that do rather respect marrying againe) so are the iudgments of the learned in such sort divided, likewise: all of them (to speake of) generallie, allowing of divorce; and manie of them, marrying againe, in such case to stand by the word of God. And yet notwithstanding if we can for a time set aside the iudgement of others, and consider of the thing it selfe, in what case it standeth in the written word, by help of that light that God in these daies hath givē vntounto vsus,Sect. 2. I make no doubt of it, but that soone we may finde so good matter for the contrary part, that whosoever shall indifferently consider of it, he will not easily afterwarde thinke, that hee findeth in any of that opinion, matter of worth to drawe him backe to that perswasion againe. Which while we shall endevour to shew, because manie themselues being given to that fleshly libertie, doe neverthelesse shrowd themselues vnderunder the iudgment of those learned that favour the same; therefore it shall be needful (the better to free them frō that preiudice) not to dissemble whatsoever weaknes wee finde in the iudgement of those that are for it: though otherwise they be (by verie good right) of that reckoning with vsus, that we ought to vphold their credit, the best that we may. But because the truth ought to be much dearer vntounto vsus, and seeing it is a wonted pollicie in Sathan, by the principal men (so neere as he can) to hatch & reare vp his errors among vsus: therefore the dearer the truth is vntounto vsus, & the more wee should take heed, that we doe not beare with the error of any, the bolder may wee be in this case also, so farre-forth as the nature of the case shall require, to examine their iudgment, and not to spare for that smal discredit that vntounto them may arise thereby. Which that we may do, with more perspicuitie vntounto the cause that we hauehave in hand, I hold it best, that wee consider severally of those two sorts of places of Scripture that before we spake of, that so we may more plainely see how little warrant that perswasiō hath in either of thē: notwithstanding whatsoever helpe it hath in those learned,What those places are, that be for divorce. that are so much for it as they are.

2 In the former sort of places therefore wee are to consider, not only of the places themselues that are by divers of the learned alleadged in defense of such divorce: but also how weakely that same perswasion is grounded on them. The places themselues are, some of them such, as most of the learned doe make little reckoning of them to confirme that doctrine to any: but others of them such as they do take to be of speciall force to that end; and accordingly leane not a little to them. Those that are such as of which most of themselues do make little reckoning to confirme that point of doctrine to anie, are two: one, in Ecclesiasticus; the other, foūd (in the vulgar Latin translation) in the Proverbs of Salomon. That which is in Ecclesiasticus, is diversly read: but the effect is this, that it willeth the husband if the wife wil not be ruled by him, to put her away. But this booke is not Canonicall:Eccl. 25.35.36. wherevpō as not many of themselues do seeke any helpe thereby, so we also will not waste any needlesse labour about it. The other that (in the vulgar Latine Translation) is found in the Proverbs, is,Pro. 18.22. that qui tenet adulteram stultus est & insipiens: that is, he that keepeth with him an adulteresse, is a foole and vnwise. But because this also is not found in the Originall, and may be vnderstoode of such harlots as divers hold, but not by mariage, therefore as it is of no force in deed, so doe most of them relinquish also the benefit of it: and therefore we likewise will not go any farther against it. Those others that they take to be of special force to that end, and accordingly leane not a little vntounto them, are divers, and all of them found in those Bookes that are Canonicall, and therefore not to be denied to be of sufficient authority so far as they go. But thē we are to note therewith, that whereas there are 6. of them in all, 4. of them they accoūt of lesse importance. And chiefly rest in the other two. Those foure that are of lesse importance are of two sorts, some that hardly censure, that a Priest should marry with a woman divorced; others, that shew the goodnesse of God to be much greater towards them in that kind, then was theirs towards their wiues when so they offended. Those two that doe so hardly censure that a Priest should marry a divorced woman, are Lev. 21.7. & Ezech. 44.22. whereof the former doth plainely forbid it:Lev. 21.7. Ezec. 44.22and the other doth greatly disgrace it also. For the former is, that the Priest (among others) may not marry with any quae repudiata est à marito, quia cōsecratus est Deo suo. &c: that is, such a one as is divorced from her husband, because he is consecrated vntounto his God. The latter likewise is, that the Lord promising such a Priesthood, as should diligently walke in the ordinances that he delivered vntounto them, among other things he reciteth that also, that repudiatas non accipient vxores, that is, that they should not take such as were divorced, to bee their wiues. Those two others that doe shewe the goodnesse of God to bee much greater in that kind towards them, then was theirs towardes their wiues when so they offended, are the one of Is. 50.1. the other ost Ieremiah 3.1. Isa. 50.1.In that of Isaiah, the Lord demādeth, Ubi est libellus repudii matris vestrae, quodimiferim eam? that is, Where is that Bill of divorce with which I sent your mother away? meaning thereby, that hee had never put away his people nor cast them of: alluding to the custome that they had among themselues, divorcing away their wiues from them, which notwithstanding he had not done vntounto them. That of Jeremie doth likewise allude vntounto the same custome of theirs: and sheweth; that although such as had put away their wiues might not hauehave them againe: yet the Lord himselfe would be ready to receaue them. To that end he saith, Valgò dicitur, Sect. 3.Si dimiserit vir vxorem fuam, Ier. 3.1.& recedens ub eo duxerit virum alterum, nunquid revertetur ad eam vltra? nunquid non polluta & contaminata erit mulier illa? that is, It is commonly said, if a man shall put away his wife, & shee departing frō him shal marry an other, shall he ever returne vntounto her any more? shall not that woman bee polluted and defiled. Those two other that chiefly they rest on, are, the one in Deuteronomie▪ the other in Malachie. That in Deuteronomie, as they doe alleage it, is,Deut. 24.1. Si acceperit homo vxorem & habuerit eam, & non invenerit gratiam ante oculos ejus propter aliquam foe ditatem, scribet libellam repudii, & dabit in manu illius, & dimittet eam de domo sua. That is, If a man hauehave taken a wife and hauehave her, and she finde no favor before his eies for some vncleannesse, he shall write her (or, as others translate, thē let him write her) a bill of divorcement, and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house. That of Malachie is much like vntounto it, namely,Mal. 2.16. Cum odio habueris, dimitte, dicit dominas Deus Israel, that is, Seeing thou hatest her (meaning his wife) put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel. By which they conclude that Moses first, and Malachie after, did in plaine words of the Text, in such case allow divorce vntounto them.

3 The places being thus briefly noted,How ready many are vnadvisedly to build thereon. now if wee would see how weakly that persuasion is groūded on thē, it shall not be amisse, first to note, how marvellous ready the common sort of those loose wantons of ours are, to sort themselues to that opinion, & yet how little groūdworke they hauehave, even in their Leaders themselues. How marvellous ready they are to sort themselues to that opinion may sufficiently appeare in this, that when as it is graunted that such places there are, whereon the learned (that are for divorce & marrying againe) doe groūd their opinion, even that only is enough for them, and doth so fully resolue them in it, that hardly can they afford their eares, paciently to heare any more. For as wee are all by course of nature giuen vntounto sinne, and especially, vntounto revenge, & to the inordinate lusts of the flesh: so are there some (and those not a few) that hauehave afforded so hard entertainement vntounto that good spirit of God, whereby only they should be preserved from so dangerous passions, that it is not of such to bee expected, but that, (hee not vouchsafing to tarry with them) easily they would settle themselues vponupon any semblance, that should fit their humor whatsoever it were: which if it be so, then are we so much the lesse to marvel, if, as when meate is set on the table, men commonly vse to fal vntounto that which best doth like them, and, the more that themselves hauehave their stomakes possessed with vnholsome humors, ofttimes vntounto that which is worst of all for them: even so in this likewise when diversity of opinions is broached vntounto vsus, then every one to betake himself vntounto that which best liketh him; and, the more that any as yet abideth vnderunder the power of error or sinne, the more to like the opinion of those, that best of all fiteth his inclination, though otherwi…e it be not so neere the truth as is some other. And as in the one, such is the power of that distēperature, that one that is in such sort distempered, can hardly but thinke that that which he fancieth, is indeed simply the best of all the residue: even so in the other, it is no newes to see, that such as are so strongly possessed of any such passion of humanity whatsoever they find that doth beare a shew of the truth, ad yet doth sort it selfe nearest to that speciall disposition of theirs, doe account that also the best Divinity.

4 How little groundworke they hauehave,Sect. 4. even in those that are their leaders themselues,Those that are for divorce, and marrying againe, much crossed by others. may partly appeare in that they are so much crossed by others, as therein they are▪ but especially, in that which thēselues hauehave set downe for that matter. That they hauehave little groundworke in them, if they be so much crossed therein by others as they are, may likewise appeare if we consider but these two things: first, how farre they are crossed therein; then, what it is that followeth thereon. To see how farre they are crossed herein, wee shall neede to goe no farther, then to the plaine confession of one of themselues, Erasmus by name.Erasmus. In 1 Cor 7. pag. 491. Who immediatly after his very entrance vntounto that speciall discourse of his, doth plainely acknowledge, the generall iudgement of all Christendome to bee against that which he was then to propound, to be further examined. Scio, saith he, receptissimum esse inter Christianos, ubi semel coijt matrimonium, nullo pacto posse dirimi, nisi morte alterius. I know, saith he, that it is the generall or most receaved opiniō of all Christians, that whē marriage is once made, it can no way be broken againe, but only by the death of one of the parties. And as here, in generall tearmes he acknowledgeth the iudgement of the whole Church, or of all the people of God generally to be against that presupposed libertie: so, in the next sentence following descending to particulars, he acknowledgeth there likewise, that that is the iudgement both of Chrysostome and of the old Latines,Chrysostōe Old Latinesand of S. Ibid.Augustine especially:Augustine. and, that the same iudgement of theirs, is confirmed by the constitution of Bishops, and by the authority of the Lawes Decretall; and allowed of by the consent of the Schooles of Divinitie.Constitutions decretal; & the Schooles against it. So himselfe granteth, that hee findeth against that opinion (where vntounto notwithstāding he inclineth) many great Fathers, even all the Latines generally,All the Latines Eccl. lawes. Divinity. the Ecclesiasticall lawes also, and (in effect) Divinity too: then the which I thinke we need no more for the reasonable proofe of that assertion, then so plaine a testimonie of so speciall a patron of that persuasion. Wherein though divers of them besides hauehave beene more sparing, then to slip any so plaine a testimonie (belike, least so they might further let downe, in the minds of many, the credit of their cause, then themselues were able, any way to raise it againe) yet neither doe they reproue him for it, and besides, both Peter Martyr abroad,P. Martyr. & one other of our own at home (by very good right of speciall account for many good parts, with the learned and godly among vsus) hauehave set down somewhat, not much abhorring from the same. The former of them, Non reperies in veteri Testamento ullos celebres aut laudatos viros divortio vsos esse, Sect. 67. pag. 306.quantum historiae sacrae referant, that is, Thou shalt not finde in the olde Testament, any of the better sort of men to hauehave vsed (the libertie of) divorce, so far as the holy Scriptures doe testify. The latter of them, that S. Augustine, the Schoole Divines,D. R. Cap …. sect. 1, the Canonists, and the Church of Rome, though in case of adulterie they allow of divorce, yet allow they not to marry againe. And it is sufficiently knowne vntounto vsus, that though divers particular persons there be among vsus of other iudgement (and divers of them otherwise, both learned and godly) yet that forme of government which we hauehave all generally agreed vntounto, to bee in such case observed of all (as by our lawes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill appeareth) is directly against such marrying againe, though divorce be for no lesse then for adultery. That which followeth vpō it, is this, that vnlesse those that are for it, hauehave such places for them, as are cleere and without exception, they can prevaile but little therein,Sect. 5. but must needs leaue the better end of the staffe vntounto others. For if themselues wil not deny but that there be many against it, and as many as there be with it, or rather more, then, as the scales when they hang indifferently, doe shew that the things that are weighed therin, are of one & the selfe same weight, but when they vary, that then the one of thē needeth more weight to be added: so howsoever that if our voices were even, or the matter but in quaestion among vsus, & not over-ruled, then the allegations of either partie, might be alike esteemed of those that stand indifferent; yet when as it may very well be doubted, that they are many more against it, then there be for it, and the matter is (with vsus) over-ruled against them, then vnlesse their proofes be the better, they may not looke to evict it from those whome they plainely finde in possession already. The evidence (indeed) may proue tobe such, that neither the greater number of voices, nor possession of old, may stand against it: but vnlesse it be such, whosoever it is that would claime thereby, may looke for no more, thē it will be able, in equitie and truth to win vntounto him.

5 Of that which themselues hauehave set downe for that matter,Their doubtfull resolutions. a good part respecteth most their owne iudgmēt therein: the residue, those places out of which they doe gather it. In so much of it, as most respecteth their owne iudgement therein, we are first to note, what it is that they hauehave brought vsus: then, to advise our selues thereon, how far forth wee may take to our selues the advantage of it. That which they hauehave brought vsus, is of two sorts: either to shew vsus how hardly and doubtfully they are resolued; or such other things as follow thereon, that may be some warning vntounto vsus besides, to take heed that we rest not too much on their iudgement. As touching the former, namely those hard and doubtfull resolutions of theirs, I take it that the best order will be; to take those whome I meane to alleage, in such order of time, as wherein themselues did write.Erasmus. In 1. Cor. 7. And so beginning with Erasmus first, he began his Annotations on the new Testament 1515. in which booke that Treatise of his is, that he wrote of this matter. In which he is so far from allowing of that course absolutely, that he doth no further; plead for it, but whereas the woman is aPag. 495.flagitiis operta, bIbid.quibus (maritus) nec causā dedit, nec mederi possit, and after againe, cIbid.qui nihil est commeritus; after this also, dPag. 504.that nihil non frustra tentatum sit; and yet notwithstanding that then also it be not done by themselues, or any, other private persons, but Pag. 501.ubi res erit acta per Episcopos, aut per probatos & graves Iudices; that is, that the wife (that so must be put away) must bee a very bad woman; that her husband (that may put her away) never gaue her occasion to any lewdnesse, neither is able now any way to help it, nor ever deserved any such ill dealing of her; after this also that first hee must hauehave tried all good meanes, but can doe noe good on her, and that such divorce be never made but by Bishops or other approved and graue Iudges.Musculus. Musculus also setting forth his Commentaries on S. Matthewes Gospel, 1554, though he grāt that divorce may be, stupri causa, that is, for whoredome: yet he addeth withall,In Mat. 5. p. 112. Casus hic habet varias circumstantias, quas hoc loco excutere propositum non est. Sed tamen admonuerim ut quibus tales conjuges divino judicio contingunt, recordentur se esse Christianos. Et primum cogitent de lucranda coniugis salute, si id fieri queat: si vero nequeat, tum demum libertate sua, ne que id sine animi dolore utantur. That is, this case (notwithstanding) hath divers circūstances, which my meaning is not here to sift out. But this would I warne them of, that those to whom by Gods appointment such wiues hauehave falne, woulde remember thē selues that they are Christians. And that first they woulde thinke to bring their wiues to better waies, if it may be: but if that cannot be, that then they take the benefit of their own liberty, but not without their own harts griefe in that case also. Peter Martyr hath two cautions; one, that the man had need to be honest himselfe; the other,P. Martyr. In 1. Cor. 7.1552. & habetur in locis. com. Sect. 68. pag. 306. not to go without authority therein. For the former, periniquū judico, saith he, ut vir exigat ab uxore pudicitiam, quam ipse illi non exhibet (which he saith was the law of Antonius) that is, I take it to be very bad dealing, that the husbande should exact chastity of his wife, who doth not yeeld the same to her himselfe likewise. For the latter,Sect. 56. pag. 302. Si quis autem propter stuprum solus cogatur degere, &c, cum eifacere leges copiam nolint secundarum nuptiarum, &c: certè nō possunt ei occurrere nisi duo remedia: ut &c, jam arbitretur se à Deo vocationem habere ad coelibatum, &c: aut, &c, si putet sibi expedire, ut libertate à Deo concessa utatur, &c: conferat se in regiones ubi hoc liceat. That is, (so much as I thought good to draw out of the place it selfe) But if (by putting away his wife for whoredome) a man be compelled to liue single, as in case, when the laws (of his coūtry) will not suffer him to marry againe, he truely can hauehave his choice but of one of these two remedies: that now he account himselfe to hauehave a calling from God to single life; or if he thinke it expedient for him to vse that libertie that God hath given him, that he then get him into those countries that wil allow him so to doe. Againe, Quin & in his quae Scriptura expressit,Ibid. nihil abs que Magistratus approbatione audendum judico: or, as by and by after he saith, publicis legibus vetantibus, that is, evē in these things that the Scripture hath expresly allowed, I thinke that nothing is to bee attempted without the Magistrates leaue, or whensoever the Lawes of the coūtrie forbid the same. And his reason there, is, for that although marriage be the ordinance of God: yet for the circumstances therevnto appertaining, it hath diverse things that are to be governed by the positiue laws. Kemnisius likewise, writing against that part of the Councill or Chapter of Trent 1566.Kemnisius. Parte 2, sess. 8. can. 7. pag. 2.87. Omnino (saith he) quantum salva conscientia fieri potest, opera danda est, ut divortia etiam legitima caveantur, nexus conjugalis vel indissolubiliter servetur, vel si interruptus fuerit, redintegretur. That is, In anie wise we must take heed, so farre as with good conscience we may, that we take heed, even of lawfull divorces also, and that the bond of marriage either inviolably be kept, or if that be (at any time) broken, that then it be made vp againe. And a little after, Et pijs omnibus probatur, ut non statim ad divortia prosiliatur, sed priùs tententur omnia quae reconciliationi & redintegrationi servire possunt. Ibid, p. 283.Omnia enim mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt, & aedificant, inquit Paulus. That is, And it is thought meete by all good men, that men do not forthwith set in hand with divorce, but that all things be first as…aied, that may helpe forwarde reconciliation, and to make vp the breach againe. For all things are lawful, but not all things expedient, and vntounto edifying,Beza. De repud, & divor. saith the Apostle S. Paul. Beza likewise, in that speciall Treatice of his on this matter published 1573. though he be much harder,Ob. 15. pag. 111:112. than others of his fellowes in this point, and therevpon setteth downe, that although himselfe do pronounce them to be, veluti altero oculo captos, qui in hoc unum ita sunt intenti, ut nocentem innocētireconcilient, ut interim perexiguam habeant innocētis rationē : yet both he disalloweth of the iudgment of those, that hold, that the innocent party is boūd, dimittere potiùs quā illi reconciliari (which is somewhat:) and afterward more liberally he addeth, that of the two, he rather alloweth of them, qui reconciliandis potiùs, quàm sublata omni spe instaurationis, seperandis conjugibus student; (a great matter.) So, his meaning is this, that although he account them al but one-eied men, that in such sort labour to recōcile the party offending vntounto the innocent, that they hauehave but little care how to provide for the innocent also: yet neither is he of the minde of those, who account the innocent partie bound, rather to put away his wife offending, than to be reconciled vntounto her againe; and (that more is) doth also allow, much more of those that labour that attonement, than of those that labour to sunder them, without any hope of any restitution after. Afterward againe both he saith, that it were praise worthy,Pag. 113. Pag. 115. not to doe it without the leaue of the Church, and going against that opinion of Bueer, that seeing the Lord would hauehave an adulteresse put to death, he would not hauehave their husbands to keep them: he answereth, hinc minimè consequi, nefas esse maritis (si cessent Magistratus) uxores resipiscētes ex charitatis Christianae norma recipere. Lex enim illa, quid facere Magistratus, non quid privatos oporteat, praescribit. That is, that it doth not follow thereon, that it were any great offence, vntounto husbāds according to the rule of Christiā charitie, to receiue their offending wiues, when they are penitent. For that Law (saith he) doth prescribe, what Magistrates, not what private men are in such case to do. Lastly, Zegedinus in those common places of his,Zegedinus. De coniug. & divor. which in tables were published 1585, moving the question, whether the innocent partie, if he cannot containe may marry againe, he answereth,Tab. 2. pag. 354. Bona conscientia id facere potest, Sect. 6.at non abs que Ecclesiae, ac etiam pij magistratus venia, ut infirmorum offendiculis occurratur. That is, with good cōscience he may: but not without the Licence of the Church, & of the godly Magistrates too; that the weake be not offēded thereby. In al which we see, that they do not so absolutely allow of divorce and marrying againe, but that themselues also doe something restraine it, lesse or more, as eueryevery one is therein persuaded. So that if in the end it doe fall out (as for my part I thinke that it will) that in the written word they hauehave no warrāt to grant so much as they doe: then shall we lesse marvell to see, that they doe so much abridge and take short the selfe same thing, that otherwise they are so willing to grant.

6 When in this sort they hauehave resolued; then are we to see,VponUpon how weake reasons they hauehave grown to this resolution. what other things they hauehave besides, which may be some warning vntounto vsus, to take heed, that we rest not too much on their iudgements: and those may wee account to be of two chief & principal sorts. First the reasōs alleaged to hauehave induced them so to determine: then, the Protestations that they hauehave ioined therevnto; and, as it may seeme to qualifie the hardnes of their iudgement therein. As touching the reasōs that induced thē so to determine, Erasmus, Erasmus.when first he opened that passage (to himselfe & to those that would follow) was so carefull to set them downe, that it seemeth others did not after thinke it needfull, to prosecute the same any farther: and so shall we also contēt our selues to goe no farther, but only to alleage such reasons as he thought meetest to vse. And those reasons that he alleageth, me think, we may reduce vntounto two principall sorts: whereof some there are, that simply arise out of the matter that is in question; others, that stand but only by the way of comparison. Those that simply arise out of the matter that is in quaestion, doe some of thē more specially concerne the substance of it: others againe, that are taken of such matters as are but accedētary therevnto. Those that concerne the substance of it, are all such discommodities as commonly haūt disorderly marriages (especially those, wherein the bond of wedlocke is brokē) which he thinketh to be so many and great, that S. Paule himselfe would hauehave borne more with them in that matter, as he is persuaded, if it had beene propounded vntounto him.Pag. 504. Quod si Paulo (saith he) proposita fuisset huiusmodi causa, stultus cum stulta, puer cum puella contraxit, intercesserunt lenae, vinum, temeritas, arte in nassam inducti sunt &c, nihil inter coniunctos convenit, tunta est morum & ingeniorum dissimilit udo, rixae iuges, odium immedicabile, timetur venenum, timentur caedes, nihil nō malorum expectatur, neuter coelebs potest vivere, &c.: fortassis pro causae circumstantiis, aliud responderet Apostolus, & nonnihil relaxaret de rigore cō silii superioris, suá que scripta civilius opinor nobis interpretaretur, quàm nos interpretamur. that is, But if this case had bin propounded to Paule, one foole with another, a boy and a wench hauehave married together; bawdes, drunkennesse, & rashnesse were doers therein; by craft they were so far intangled: being so married, now they agree not, so divers are they in their waies and disposition: continuall chidings, extreame hatred; poisoning, and murder are feared also, and they looke for none other but for all manner of evill (each from other;) neither of them can liue single: it may be, that according as the circumstances of the case should require, the Apostle would giuegive some other answere, & would let downe a good part of the rigor of his former advise, and would interpret his writings vntounto vsus more curteously then we our selues doe. In which his speech though there be some inconvenience besides: yet (leaving that to his proper place) now I bring it in but only to this end, to shew of what force he tooke the calamities of disorderly marriages to be to the matter he hath in hand; namely, to breake of, and to marry againe. For so he saith,Ibid. Si cohaerent, bis perit uter que : si mutetur coniugium, spes est utrum que fore incolumem. that is, If still they abide together, each of them doth certainely perish: if they may breake óf, and marry againe, there is good hope, that both shall be safe. Those matters that are but accidentarie therevnto, and out of which he draweth some reasons likewise, are the Scriptures therevnto appertaining: and the iudgement of others thereon. Of the Scripture he saith,Pag. 505. videbam Scripturam hac in parte, vt pleris que esse perplexam, & ancipitem, that is, that he saw the Scripture to be in this point, as in many others, intricate, and doubtfull: and therevpon (belike) accounted that he might bee the boulder to afford his patronage to this, when as hee thought that the Scripture would not bee against him therein. Out of the iudgement of others he chuseth out two severall considerations: one, that the olde and the new did not agree together; the other, that such things as were obiected by those that were of the cōtrary minde might easily be answered.Ibid. For the former he saith, Videbam veteres interpretes doctissimos, à recentioribus dissidere; and for the latter,Ibid. that he saw likewise, ea quae obijciuntur, facilè posse dilui, citra nostrae religionis injuriam: and so reasoning from these (as I doe conceaue him) out of the former, that it should be no new, nor absurd thinge for him neither, to dissent from others herein; and out of the latter, that there were no danger of hurt to come thereby, when as, by it, our religion should be nothing impaired. Those reasons of his that doe stand only by the way of comparison, are of two sorts also: some, that stand in comparisō of persons only; others, that compare the matter in quaestion with others not vnlike decided already. The persons are of two sorts likewise: the Church or whole Body of the faithfull; and the Bishop of Rome, then the supposed Head of the same in earth among vsus. From the Church he draweth two reasons: one, of the authoritie of it, that Christ did giuegive it; the other, of the good direction that it hath by the Spirit of Christ her husband. For the former he saith,Ibid. Videbam quanta sit authoritas Ecclesiae à Christo tributa, cui dederit claves regni coelorum; and so, that she might well set it downe, by the authority to her committed: and for the latter, that hee accounted with himselfe, Ecclesiam habere sui sponsi Spiritum, ne que posse non rectè statui, quod ad hominum salutem, illo authore statueretur;Ibid. and so gathering thereby, that if shee should take such order, it must needs be well ordained. From the Pope, hee draweth other two reasons likewise: one, of a speciall good likelyhood, that he would be most willing to helpe in time of need: the other, of the abilitie or power that he conceaueth him to hauehave to doe good therein. Of the former of these he saith,Ibid. Videbam quàm esset ingens Romani Pontificis clementia, qui succurrat etiam iis qui apud inferos, citra periculum exitii aeterni, cruciarentur, thereon gathering, that seeing his compassion is so greate towardes those that are none of vsus now, it cannot be, but that much rather he wil help those that are so much neerer vntounto him Of his praesupposed power, he reasoneth likewise two severall waies: one waie, out of the generall consideration of the whole; the other, out of a more speciall consideration of it, as it hath beene imploied, and what force it hath had in matters of much like nature to this. Of the former he saith,Ibid. Videbam hoc tribui Pontifici Romano, ut Evangelicam & Apostolicam doctrinam interpretetur, astringat, laxet, dispenset, & iuxta quosdam etiam abroget aliqua in parte: so gathering thereby, that seeing it is so commonly giuen to the Bishop of Rome, not only to interpret the holy Scripture, but also to enforce the same somewhat further, and to let it downe againe when hee thinketh good, or to remit some part of it, as also to dispense therewith, and (in the iudgement of some) even to abrogate some part of it also; then need not he (as I doe conceaue him) be thought to importune him too much, that doth but commēd this to his good consideration, & no further neither thē himselfe shall thinke good to deale therein. In the latter hee doth not only set downe the ground of his reason: but himselfe also addeth (more then before) what it is that he gathereth out of the same. The ground of his reasō therein is,Ibid. that he saw; per Romanum Pontificem person as reddi inhabiles, quos ne que natura, ne que lex divina fecerat inhabiles: that is, that certaine persons were by the Bishop of Rome made vnable (to marry) whom neither nature, nor the law of God had made vnable. That which himselfe doth gather out of the same, is, that it seemeth to be eiusdem potestatis, hominis autoritate vetare ne coeat matrimonium; & efficere, ut dirimatur matrimonium. That is, of like power that by mans authority mariage may bee prohibited to any, and to bring to passe, that when it is made, it be broken againe. Those other matters not vnlike to this, decided already, out of which he bringeth some reasons also, are first the allowance of divorce by men of great reckoning: then also the breaking óf, both of espousals and mariage also, in divers cases. For the former of those hee saith, Videbam viros olim probatae doctrine, sanctimoniae que, Ibid.non fuisse deterritos Evangelij, Paulique verbis, quo minus admitterent divortium: and (for further confirmation of their doing) he addeth, videbam quaedam secus posse exponi, quam hactenus exposita sint. That is, that hee hath noted divers men in times past, of vndoubted learning and godlinesse, not to hauehave been terrified by the words of the Gospell, and of S. Paul, but that they hauehave (sometimes) admitted divorce: & that certaine places (belike that seemed most against thē) might be otherwise expounded, then hitherto they hauehave beene. (Which expositions if we may account thē those, that himselfe in that Treatice bringeth in, thē is it not vnworthy the marking, whether most of those that are of that minde, doe not since themselues also vrge them vntounto vsus, as the truth indeede, without any great examining of them, how they stand with other Scripture.) For the former of the other two, espousals I meane, he saith that hee saw, ob professionem instituti humani, ob mutatum pallium, sponsum legitimum fraudari sua sponsa: that is, that for the profession of some ordinance of man, even for the changing of the attire, a man lawfully espoused or handfast, should be defrauded of his espoused wife. And for the latter, that he saw likewise in that age of his, matrimonium dirimi ob errorem personae & conditionis, etiam consummatum coitu: and, ob lapsum in haeresim, etiam illud dissolvi, de quo dubitari non poterat, quin verum esset matrimonium. That is, that he had seene likewise, marriage to be accoūted void, for the error either of person or condition, although it were consummate before with copulation: and that, for falling into heresie, such marriage also was held as brokē, which no body might doubt of, but that it was true marriage indeed. In all which (these his last reasons I meane) it seemeth that his inference is, that if so many waies men make them so bold with that holy ordinance, to alter and dispose thereof in such liberty, as in these cases they doe: thē may no body thinke much with him, for no more but propounding of that, which he taketh to bee much better warranted, even by the doctrine, and plaine wordes of Christ himselfe. That vponupon these his aforesaid reasons he thought good to propounde this matter to bee farther thought on by others, and that therevpon hee doth no more but propound it neither, may sufficiently appeare both in the words that he vseth withall: as namely, when a little before his reasons, and in the ende of handling the matter it selfe, he saith, Haec tamen paucis libuit delibare, quo doctis a… studiosis uberiorem cogitandi materiam praeberemus: and immediatly after, His rebus commota charitas Christiana, proposuit ijs qui me plus cernunt, dispicerent, si qua ratione sermo Evāgelicus ac Pauli dispensari posset ad plurimorum sulutem, &c. And anon after, Quod si hoc quod opto, fieri non potest, certè illud potest statui, ne matrimonia praeter veterum omnium morem, praeter aequitatem naturalem tam facilè, ne dicātā temerè, coeant. That is, yet these few things I thought good to giuegive in as a taste, that I might giuegive occasion vntounto the learned and studious, to thinke better therevpon: and, which followeth, that Christian charity being moved herewith, hath propounded thus much to those that doe see farther thā I, to the end that they should cōsider, whether by any meanes that speech in the Gospell, and in S. Paul, might be dispensed, to the good or safety of manie. But if that which I wish may not be obtained, yet certainly there might bee order taken, that mariages shoulde not hence-forth be so lightly, and so rashly made, so far vnlik… to all former good vsage, yea and to natural equity it selfe.Sect. 7. Which things I hauehave more specially noted for two principall causes: one, concerning the validitie or force of the reasons he bringeth the other, how far he buildeth thereon. The force of the reasons the greater it is, the iuster cause was there then, & yet is, to helpe forward that motion so well as we can: the weaker they are, the lesse neede wee to account our selues vrged thereby, to follow the course that they may seeme to commende vntounto vsus. How far he buildeth theron would be marked likewise, because he doth proceed no farther thereon, but to make this motion only: whereon, if others since hauehave set an heavier building, by over-ruling that point as a manifest truth, that crept in but (as it were) two daies before, as a poore and a doubtful question, it seemeth to me, either that they hauehave more and greater reasons wherevpon they are gone so farre; or els (which I rather thinke) that they hauehave raised more building thereon, than the foundation is able to beare.

7 What protestations they hauehave thought good to ioine therevnto,What protestations they vie withall. (& belike to qualifie the hardnes of their iudgment therein) is so much the more needfull to be cō sidered, for that otherwise we might either charge them farther than iustly we may, or suffer our selues to be carried farther by them than we ought. Both which are (so much as we may) to be avoided▪ the on…, for the duty that we owe vntounto them; the other, for the care that we ought to hauehave of our selues. In which although chiefly I meane to rest on Erasmus, also for that hee was (so much as hee was) our leader herein: yet shall it not be amisse, somwhat to heare some others also, especially one, that most of all hath advanced that perswasion in these our daies. In Erasmus (we …inde, some part of those his protestations to appertaine to that whole worke of his wherein his Treatice is of divorce, & marrying againe (his Annotations on the New Testament) and some part of them more properlie to belong to that very matter, that now we hauehave in questiō among vsus. Of those that belong to that whole worke of his, I hauehave noted a couple: one, that sheweth how little he arrogateth vntounto himselfe therein; an other that doth shew likewise, what liberty hee leaveth vntounto his Reader. For the former he saith,In praefat. pag. ulc. Nos ad utrum que juxta parati sumus, ut vel rationem reddamus si quid rectè monuimus, velingenuè confiteamur errorem sicubi lapsi deprehendimur. Homines sumus, & humani nihil alienum à nobis esse ducimus. That is, We are alike ready to both these, either to giuegive a reasō of it, if any where we hauehave advised wel, or plainely and readily to acknowledge our error, if any where we be found so farre to hauehave slipped. For the latter he saith likewise (after that hee craved but such indifferencie as is afforded to all offenders at the Barre generally, namely, that his booke may first be read, before it be condemned by any.) Legat prius ac inspiciat, deinde si videatur, damnet, ac reijciat. That is,Ibid. Let a man first read it and looke into it, and then, if hee thinke good let him condemne it, and cast it from him. Of these that doe more properly belong to that very matter that is in question, I hauehave noted likewise a couple in the beginning of that his Treatice: & one other, towards the end. In those that he hath in the beginning first he protesteth his own good meaning therin, that he doth it but to enquire of the truth, and not to bee contentious therein: then after, he setteth good reasonable bounds for the better deciding of it. As touching the former, his words are these,In 1. Co… ▪ 7. pag. 491 Ut semel in hujus operis initio sum testatus, perpetuò testatum haberi par est, in toto opere me nus quam esse velle contentiosi dogmatis autorem; tantùm juvandi studio monere studiosos: semper inconcusso, & illabefacto judicio sacrosanctae Ecclesiae; et eorum quibus uberius donum eruditionis et sapientiae contigit à Christo: that is, As once in the beginning of this worke I did acknowledge, I thinke it meere to bee acknowledged still, that throughout the whole worke I wil never bee author of any contentious opinion, and that my meaning is but only to admonish the studious for their help: alwaies reseruing the judgement of the holy Church, and of those on whome Christ hath bestowed a better gift of learning and wisdome, altogether vntouched by me. As touching the latter he saith likewise a little after, Caeterum, si semper hoc bonis viris cordi fuit, Ibid.opinionem in melius commutare, & leges seu pharmaca cōvenit ad morborum habitum & rationem accommodare, consideremus an hic expediat idem fieri: &, si expedit, an liceat ut matrimonia quaedam dirimantur, non temere, sed gravibus de causis, neque per quoslibet, sed per Ecclesiae Praefectos, aut Iudices legitimos: & ita dirimantur vt liberum sit utri que cui velit iungi, aut alteri certè, qui divortio non dedit causam. that is, But if it ever pleased good men well, to change their opinion vntounto the better, and if it be good to frame our Lawes even as medicines vntounto the nature or maner of our diseases, let vsus cō sider, whether in this also it be good so to doe: and if it be expedient, whether (then) it be lawfull or permitted vntounto vsus, that certaine marriages may be broken asunder againe not lightly, but when the cause is weightie, nor by any whomsoever but by the Governors in the Church, or other lawfull Iudges: and that those marriages may in such sort be broken asunder, that it may bee free for either party to marry againe where they thinke good, or at least for the one of them, the same that gaue no cause of divorce. That which he hath towards the end, is much like to the former of these, and of the same nature with it. For whē he hath before protested, that he did propound this but to whet vp the studious to a further consideration of it, hee inferreth therevpon,Ibid. pag. 505. Nec vllo pacto iudicio maiorum ob haec praeire conamur, multo minus Ecclesiae Catholicae. that is, Neither doe we in any wise hereby desire, to prevēt the iudgement of our betters, much lesse of the Catholike Church. Those others that I hauehave thought good to bring forth to be heard in this cause besides, are two: Peter Martyr; and Beza.P. Martyr. Peter Martyr though he runne the selfe same course in effect, that Erasmus had before propounded and laid it open to those that would: yet both hee would hauehave the Magistrates leaue first obtained as wee saw before, & hauing then set downe a good peece of his minde before for that matter, in fiue whole Sections, in the end of the fift he addeth,In 1 Cor. 7. & 7. et in Loc. com. Sect. 56. p. 302. Haec à me sictraduntur, ut melius, ac sanius consilium perpetuò sim paratus, & audire, atque admittere. that is, These things are in such sort delivered by me, that I am ever ready, both to heare and to admit any better & sounder advise. Which words of his if wee restraine onelyonly to that point that immediately goeth (in that place) before, both I should thinke that wee should doe him manifest wrong, and that his owne very wordes (not speaking of one, but of more) would much favour our conviction therin: and if we enlarge them vntounto the whole, or to the drift of his opinion in all those points before delivered, then may we see that he was not (as some others are) so peremptory therein, but that he professeth that he would be ready so far to change, as at any time he should see any better. Beza is more resolute in it, and hath more largely handled that argument; yet may we see, that he also doth something moderate himselfe therein: and that, both in his Epistle prefixed before the Booke that he wrote; and afterward also, in a speciall point of the Treatice it selfe. In his Epistle it shall be good to consider, first what he saith for the matter it selfe: then, of his owne dealing therein. For the matter it selfe he saith,Opusc. vol. 2. pag. 3. that Nihil prohibet de istis quaeri & divers as eorū sententias audiri, quos apparet veritatis investigandae studio duci, modo publica authoritate receptis pertinaciter non obsistatur. that is, Nothing letteth, but that these things may be called in question, and the opinions of those be heard, who seeme to be led with a desire to search out the truth, so that no stubborne resistance be made to such things, as are by publike authority already receiued. Of his own dealing therein he saith likewise, both that he could not satisfy himselfe therein: and that his minde was not, any way to preiudice the iudgement of others. For as touching the former, his words be these, Ne que verò ipse mihi in hoc argumento satisfeci: sed doctiorum theologorum studia mihi satis fuit commovisse. that is,Ibid. Neither could I in this argument satisfy my selfe: but it was enough for me, to hauehave stirred vp the studies of more learned divines. As touching the latter, he saith likewise, Ego, quid mihi de istiusmodi multis videatur, quasi vnus quispiam exposui, nec cuiquam praejudiciū factum volui. that is,Ibid. pag. 4. What my mind is cōcerning many such things as these, I hauehave, as one of the rest, declared and would not that any should be prejudiced thereby. That which hee hath in a speciall point of the Treatice it selfe, is, that there handling the question, whether the innocent party bee bound in conscience vtterly to abandon his wife, or if shee repent, to take her againe,Sect. 8. though there he acknowledgeth that it is not his part to send them away doubtfull therein: yet he taketh hold of an other part of his function also (non vt leges cuiquam praescribam) that hee was not then to prescribe any lawes vntounto them,De repud. & divort. pag. 114. & so may seeme thereby to acknowledge, that albeit he then declared his mind therein, yet meant he no otherwise, but to leaue them vntounto the freedome of their own iudgement withall. Againe Dixi quid mihi hic videatur: suum cui que liberum iudicium esto, modò ex verbo Dei quis que sapiat. that is, I hauehave shewed what is my iudgement thereon: let every one be persuaded therein as himselfe thinketh good, so that he ground himselfe therein, on the word of God.

How far we may gather hereon: nothing at all to their disgrace; but only to our own better instruction.8 Now that we may more orderly gather what wee are to thinke of these resolutions, alleaging of reason, and protestations, so doubtfull, so limited, and so fensed speaches, and how far we are to take the advantage of them, and withall to shew, why I hauehave in this place presented a certaine of them vntounto the view: I am here to admonish; first that one way there is, wherein it may bee that some will take them, which in no wise is meant by me, but another there is, which willingly I doe acknowledge to bee my meaning indeed. That which is not meant by me, is, if any should so take them, as if I had alleaged them in the way of disgrace to those that wrote them: a thing of that nature, that neither might I iustly doe it: neither would I though so I might. I might not iustly doe it, because there were no cause so to doe. For the case being such as it is, they could write no more certainely, nor more boldly then they did so long as yet they did not espie how wrong they were, in some of the maine principles of it. So that in such case they are so far from the desert of iust reproofe, for not being resolute, but vsing great warines and limitation in all such speeches as thereof they deliver, that it rather deserueth right good commendations, that in a case so intricate, doubtfull & strange (as they did take it) they framed their speeches so sutable vntounto it: that as those speeches of theirs were sufficient tokens to all, how hardly themselues tooke vponupon them to goe so far as they did; even so might they bee as good warnings to others, there to read with the better attention and judgement, & not so much to imbrace the opinion that such hauehave conceiued, as to examine and ponder the reasons, whereby they suffered themselues to be therevnto induced. And although it be expected at the hands of all that are to leade others, that they be resolute in that which they teach: yet if at any time the case be such, that iust occasion bee giuen to giuegive in their iudgement of such things as yet are not (among the learned) so fully decided, then is there no more at their hands expected, then to deliuer their minde accordingly. In a firme, plaine, ready, & beaten way, howsoeuer men are wont more freely to ride: yet if it be covered with snow, rough, or stony, or yeeld any semblance of quicksands or miers, although in such case there are founde sometimes, that then also will ride freely enough; yet was it ever, and ever will bee accounted more wisedome, in al such cases to be more warie. Examples hereof we hauehave very many, wheresoever the Scriptures hauehave not so fully declared those thinges that neverthelesse wee thinke are enough decided by them; as, at what time the Angels were made: or, when the matters are prophetical, and extend to a farther time then is conceived; as, the manner of Antichrist and of his comming to the Fathers of old, and of the calling of the Iewes and Turks to the knowledge of Christ before the last daie, to vsus now. Of which things (and some others besides) those that hauehave written (even the best of them all) may easily be found to hauehave divers ambiguous and timerous speeches: and yet notwithstanding are not therein to be hardly cē sured neither, for that (as those matters are) there was nothing more that iustly might be expected of them. And so to come to these others againe, as in right I might not seeke their disgrace thereby, as having no sufficient groūd worke vntounto it: so God forbid, that if I had, yet I shoulde at any time hauehave that meaning with me, being as they are, not only partakers of the selfesame Grace with vsus; but also such instruments to the advancement of the glorie of God, and so comfortable lights to all the faithful in these our daies, as that the Church of God hath seldome (if at any time) had, for those matters, a greater blessing. That other which is my meaning indeede, is, no more but to note, that seeing they are not, in that matter, more fullie resolved, there is no certainety (nor any great good likelihood neither) for any to ground themselues vponupon, that gladly would take vp that opinion with them. If we had found them so resolute in it, that, without any doubting, and without referring themselues vntounto those that might see farther therein, they had flatly & boldly pronounced, that it was the vndoubted word of God, though therein also (in accepting of it) we might hauehave beene deceived, as not looking vntounto the matter it selfe, with our owne, but with other folkes eies: yet had that beene a more tollerable error a great deale, and more easie (by many degrees) to be excused, especially to those▪ that in such cases are (in many things) to depend vponupon others, either for that they are otherwise imploied, than that they may giuegive thēselues to such reading as such matters require, or, if they may, yet hauehave they not that depth of iudgement, that such thinges require. But when as themselues, whome we are content to make our leaders therin, being in other things resolute inough, and as bould as Lyons, do not set downe their opinion in this, but with great warines, doubtfulnes & feare, with so many cautions & allegations, with such submissions and protestations▪ it would be no final wōder to me (but that I know, how inclinable to such things we are by nature) not only that any should bee so loose as to enter that course, but also that any should so much as cō ceiue, that such kinde of speeches should be likely to yeeld any such ground, as whereon a man that were willing so to do, might bee bold to build, and to make no doubt but that he had his warrant with him. We know wel enough (and in many other things strongly hold it against the adherents of the Church of Rome) that we may do nothing at all but only that, for which wee hauehave some vndoubted warrant in the written word: and yet notwithstanding (I will not say that I wote not how it commeth to passe for that it is by our own bad inclination) wee are so farre bewitched in this that finding great staggering in those that are the strōgest for it, & most forward in defence thereof, we neverthelesse conceiue, that therein we hauehave warrant enough. So easie a thing it is to bend those, that so handsomly crooke to such purpose already: &, in the freedome we hauehave in Christ so quickly to take holde, of an vnseasonable liberty of the flesh. But here we must take heed we forget not that is yet we doe not consider what it is that they bring but only, that whatsoever it be yet because thē selues are no better resolved, therefore may no body be so bold as to build vpō them. We wil not yet deny, but that, for ought wee see yet,Sect. 9. the truth indeed may bee as they cōceiue: but if themselues bee no better resolved, then though they hauehave the truth therein, yet because it is more then themselues doe knowe of, even that onelyonly is enough for the time to stay vsus, vntill wee see farther.

Of the places themselues.9 That other part of that which themselues doe set downe for this matter, doth chiefly respect those places aforesaide, which they vse to bring in for that opinion of theirs: and partly the first foure places of them; but then especially, the other two. For seeing themselues doe rest but little in the first foure of thē, but yet very much in the other two we also may briefly dispatch those others, and follow them only in those wherein themselues do thinke that they hauehave their chiefest strength. Those therfore that belong to the first foure of them, are no more but these two:The first 4. of them. one, cōcerning the nature of those places thēselues; the other, as touching the gathering of them. Cōcerning the nature of those places thēselues, it is no more but this, that, to see to, they do make much more against them (for that they note such kinde of divorce with so great reproach) than any way els they can make for them; take them to the best advantage they can. As touching the other, that is, how these doe gather vponupon thē, it is no more but this, that from those places it is, that they gather some part of their weake cōclusions, as elswhere in a fitter place is declared: which also is, for any thing that yet I hauehave found, the only benefit that to that opinion of theirs, they seeke to draw from these foure places.The two latter. Those that belōg to the latter two only, are much like to the others: one of them, in like sort concerning the nature of those places themselues; the other, not how weakely they gather on these, but how cleane they doe mistake them. The nature of those places is such,Sect. 10. as that although the text therein were such as they conceaue, yet even then also do they make but little for any divorce: the iudgement of the better sort of the learned being thereon, that neither Moses before, nor Malachie after, did simply allow it vntounto thē but only in respect, or to some purpose, namely, to avoid some further evill. But now, if they doe mistake them withall, so that the Text (being better considered) can neuer be foūd to yeeld any such sense, as hetherto they hauehave conceiued, nor any thing at all for the opinion that they hauehave taken, then must their case be so much the harder, or rather their credit, on this behalfe, so very much sunke, as that their whole iudgement therein, may well bee called in question for it.

10. This mistaking of theirs therefore being a matter of so speciall importance,How the places of Scripture were taken by them. it shall be good more specially to consider, first, whether they doe mistake them, or not; then, if it fall out that so they doe, what we are to gather thereon, concerning the matter wee hauehave in hande. That they doe mistake them indeed, will soone appeare, if first we marke how they doe take them: and then examine that their taking of them, with such things as may be able to shew vsus the truth therein. How they doe take them will best appeare by their owne speeches of that matter. First therefore to begin with Erasmus, By Erasmus when first he gaue forth his iudgement on them.that was so forward therein, it shal be good to marke how he mistooke it, not only when first he gaue forth his iudgement therein: but also, when afterward hee was so impugned for it, that thereby he might hauehave taken iust occasion to hauehave looked better vntounto it. When first hee gaue forth his iudgement of it, Divortium, saith hee, ipfa lex palam indulget: that is, The law doth plainely allow of divorce. Againe, Lex permittat mari…is qualibet ex causa repudiare, modo dent libellum repudii:In Annot. in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 503. that is, That the law suffereth husbands for every cause to put away their wiues, so that they giuegive them a bil of divorcement. Againe, Viro permittit▪ ob causam quamlibet, mutare vxorem. that is, He alloweth or suffereth the husband, to exchange his wife, for whatsoever cause he will. The same hee hath in so many other places besides (or at least the effect thereof) that it is evidēt, that it was not a slip in him against his own knowledge or wil: but his owne very iudgement, as he did then think that the Text it selfe would beare. As this one place more will sufficiently declare, wherein hee doth not only affirme it, as before, but also doth further reason vponupon it. At mihi, saith he, non fit verisimile peccaturum fuisse Iudaeum si vxorem egregie soe leratam abiecisset, Ibid. p. 505.& alteram duxisset domum: quum id lex palam concederet, nihil addens, hoc datum duritiei cordis, praesertim cum ex sensu naturae, non posset fieri, quod nos interpretamur. Et si concessum est duritiei cordis, uti que licet, quod concedit Deus: praesertim si nullo signo declaret eos peecare, qui permisso vtātur. that is, But it should not seeme likely to me that a Iew should sinne, who had cast away his wife being a very wicked woman, and married another, when as the law did plainely graunt it, not adding therevnto, that that was granted but for the hardnesse of their harts, especially when as, by naturall sense, that cannot be knowne, that we gather of it (meaning, as I take it, that it was graunted but for the hardnesse of their hearts, which wee Christians knowe by Christ, but they could not knowe by naturall reason.) And if it bee graunted vntounto the hardnesse of their harts, yet it is lawfull that God hath graunted: at least, if by no signe he declare, that those doe offend which vse the libertie graunted vntounto them. By these wee may see, that Erasmus, Erasmus.when he wrote that Treatice of his for divorce for adultery and marrying againe, did plainly take it, that Moses in that place of Deuteronomie, had expresly or in plaine words allowed husbands to put away their wiues from them vponupon dislike, so that they gaue them bills of divorcement withall. When afterward hee was so impugned for it,When afterward he was impugned for it. that thereby hee might hauehave taken iust occasion to hauehave looked better vntounto it, yet then also, I doe not finde that ever hee espyed his former error, but that still he continued in it. Of those that did reproue him for it, we finde that he doth complaine of divers, and defendeth his doings against them so well as he can, as against Natalis Bedda, and another whome he doth not name, but he giueth a by-name vntounto him,Nat. Bedd… Tom. 9. p. 366. Ibid. pag. 775▪ as him selfe thinketh good. Among all which (for no doubt there were many more besides those) it shall not bee amisse to consider somewhat more specially of his dealing about that matter, with one of thē, who may serue as a patterne thereof with the rest: as also I make choice of him rather then of any other, for that he was our owne Countrimā, and by Erasmus but vnthankfully vsed. It was one Master Edward Lee, at that time soiourning at Lovain for learning sake, and of so good towardnesse therein,Ed. Lee: In Apolog. sua Lovanii 4 Calend. Ian. 1519. that Erasmus himselfe when he came thither, sought his acquaintance, and imparted vntounto him, that hauing set forth his annotations of the new Testament before, he was purposed now to set them forth againe, he craued his helpe to note vntounto him whatsoever hee thought might bee amended. Which while M. Le did, and (as those daies were) in very good maner (as it seemeth by his owne defense, in his Apologie in the front of his Booke, in divers of his Censures on Erasmus Annotations, and in his answere to a couple of Erasmus Epistles in the ende) Erasmus shewed himselfe to bee so netled therewith,Sect. 8. that even that only doth much insinuate, that himselfe did now see, that in some things he had lost the advantage. Else would he never so much hauehave sought to shake him of with contempt as he did,In responsione ad Annotationes Ed. Leinovas ad annot 17. Tom. 9. pa. 221. charging him, that nondum vllum in professione Theologica gradum adeptus est, nec aliud quam artium liberalium septem professor, that is, that as yet he had taken no degree at all in Divinity, but only was a professor of the seaven liberall Sciences, or as wee comonly say, a Master of Art. As shortly after he giueth this frump withall, that whereas M. Lee had said, that he had left the study of those liberall Sciences, and had bid them farwell, eodem opinor tempore, saith he, quo dixit illis salve: that is even the selfe same time, I thinke, wherein first he bad them good-morrow: meaning thereby, that therein also he had profited nothing at all, as presently he saith more plainely (if more plaine may bee) that in those things that he had written against him, there was nullum vestigium honestae disciplina, that is, not so much as any one token of good learning in him: cleane contrary to that which every one may see, that shall read M. Lees writings against him. M. Lee himselfe doth also charge him with much other base dealing besides in that quarrel, and such as did not become the order it selfe, whereof they were both alike partakers. Vt caetera, In resp. ad Epistolas Erasmi fol. 140.saith he, omittam, quae non tam contemptim haberi oportuit, vel hujus Sacerdotii ratio fuerat habenda tibi, quo ne me Christū Domini, ipse etiā Domini, tam sordidè foedares. that is, Omitting other considerations, in respect whereof you should not hauehave had me in so deepe cōtempt, you ought to hauehave made some better accompt even on the order of Priesthood (only, though there were nothing els besides) than that you being annointed of the Lorde your selfe,Sect. 10. should so fowly bewray me an (other such like) Annointed of the Lord likewise. But for the quarrel that was betwixt them, I meddle not with it: but leaue them both to their best advantage therein. Only thus much I gather, that whereas M^r Le was of such towardnes then, that Erasmus himselfe desired his acquaintance for his learning sake, and his special helpe therein, and not many yeares after became Archbishop of Yorke besides, it seemeth to me, that some where or other (and as likely in this as in any where els) Erasmus did leese some speciall advantage to Master Le, and so had he found in this I perceiue if Master Le had taken the advantage of it, and had called his adversarie vntounto the Originall. But Erasmus himselfe also being thus provoked, and much more thā so, yet he neither maketh his recourse vntounto the Original: which notwithstanding in this case had beene much better, than so to labour the disgrace of those, that so wel had occasioned him to take that course. And nowe not to trouble the Reader with the like sentences of others (which notwithstanding I thought to hauehave done, & had provided them accordingly) least so I might hauehave growne tedious therein, I will no more but note whō I hauehave noted besides so to hauehave missed, & the places where those misses of theirs are to bee found: namely Musculus, Musculu….on the fift of Matthew, pag. 111. Peter Martyr, P. Martyr.in divers places, on the 1. Cor. 7. 7. and, as it is placed in his Common Places Sect. 52. and 66. pag. 301, 3, 5, & 6. Calvine, Calvine.in his Com: on the Harm. of the Gospels, on Mat. 5.31. and 19, 7. Gualter, Gua…ter.on Marke 10, & Malachie the 2. fol. 399.8. Chemnicius in his second part of the Exam:Mart. Chē nicius. of the coūcel of Trent. Sess. 8. Can. 7. pag. 286, 8. Beza, Beza.in divers places of his Booke de repudijs & divortijs, among his Opusc. vol. 2. pag. 113, 15, & 17. Sect. 11.And last of all Steph. Szegedinus in his Tables of Common places. pag. 348.49.Steph. Szegedinus. For that of Malachie, I hauehave not noted that Erasmus hath medled with it, but Musculus, Peter Martyr, Calvin and Gualter in the places before recited, and all others generally that are for divorce & marrying againe (so many of them as yet are extant that I hauehave seene) doe even so take it, after one and the selfe same manner.

That so taking thē, they did mistake thē11 That in such sort taking those Texts, they doe (it may wel be, and is most likely) cleane mistake them, it will best appeare by the several consideratiō of either of thē: first, that of Deuteronomy; then, that other of Malachie also. For that of Deuteronomie, First that place of Deuteronomie. 24: … ▪ 4.first we hauehave certaine probabilities, that it was never intended there, to giuegive any licence of such Divorce: then also (as I doe take it) much other good proofe besides. Those probabilities that we hauehave, are some of them, out of the Text it selfe: and one besides, out of the practice of the godlier sort amōg them. Those that we hauehave out of the Text, are two: one, out of that place of Deuteronomie; the other, out of the fift of Numbers. In that place of Deuteronomie we plainely see, a kinde of punishment to be cast on him that so had put away his wife, namely, that if shee had marryed another, hee then should never hauehave her againe: and, to be givē in, in reason thereof,Per eū factū …st &c. Trem. Iunius. that thereby shee is defiled; and that her defiling, in the iudgement of some, laid vntounto his charge also. If thē the selfe same Text doe not only something punish him for it, but also charge him with defiling of his wife besids, evē only by that putting of her away at the first, it is most likely, that no such thing is in that place allowed. That other out of the first of Numbers, is that lawe of Iealousie, which (being an harder course than this,Num. 5▪ 13▪ …1. and a great deale more busie; and a peculiar remedie ordained when a man hath his wife in suspition of adulterie, or when as it was so indeed, but without any witnes; and not allowing the man to go any farther, but to hold himselfe cōtent, if she, in such sort as there is set downe, should make her purgation) doth every way, me thinke, insinuate, that then there was no so easie a way as this, for a man (for lighter matters) to be rid of his wife when he would, and the same to stand good by the word of God.P. Martyr. That which wee hauehave out of the practice of the better sort among them, is that same which the learned hauehave noted (as before I hauehave partly touched) that in al the Scripture we never read of anie of the better sort, that ever vsed the helpe of divorce: which notwithstāding, it is most likely, that many would hauehave done, if they had taken it, to hauehave beene so plainely, by God himselfe, permitted vntounto them. That other good proofe that we hauehave besides, is the Originall or Hebrew Text and that by the iudgement of divers learned; & some of those that were for this Divorce and marrying againe, but since hauehave amended the mistaking that they had of the Text. The proofe that we hauehave in the Original or Hebrew Text, and that by the iudgement of divers learned, is, that now it is foūd to be otherwise in the Hebrew, thā our Trāslators, either old or new (a few excepted) of long hauehave borne vsus in hand that it was: namely, that it is not, he shall write a bill of divorcement, or, let him write a bill of divorcement; but only, that he putteth the case if so a man should doe, and not that it alloweth the same. And the learned that now hauehave mended this oversight of old that long hath stood as currant among vsus, are these. First,Imprinted by Robert. Stephanus. 1557. to my knowledge Franciscus Vatablus the professor of the Hebrew tongue at Paris,F. Vatablus and after him Benedictus Arias Montanus a Spaniard, that had the chiefe oversight of the setting forth of that great Bible at the charges of the King of Spaine,Ar. Montanus. and last of all Immanuel Tremellius, Im. Tremel.and Franciscus Iunius together.Fra. Iunius. All which in their Translations hauehave very plainely amended the same: & declared withall, that in that place there is no mention at all, of any divorce allowed vntounto them, if recourse bee had to the Hebrew it selfe. Those that were for divorce & marrying againe, and that first hauing erred in this Text that now we speake of hauehave since amended the same againe, are two, and those of speciall account among vsus, as of good right they ought to be: M. Calvine,M. Calvine. the one; and M. Beza likewise the other. As touching the former of them, whereas, setting forth his Commentaries on the Harmonie of the Gospels in the yeare 1555. he then was of opinion (as before I hauehave noted, and is there to be seene of any) that Moses had commanded, a Bill of divorce should in such case bee giuen to the wife: afterward, hauing further occasion to looke better vntounto it, by gathering foure of the Bookes of Moses into an Harmonie also, which accordingly he did, and published it about eight yeares after, in the yeare 1563. he did then amend his former reading of the Text it selfe, and in his Commentarie therevpon did set downe his iudgemēt accordingly also. As, among other things of that nature, he cōmeth in with these words following. Quidam interpretes non legunt hos tres versus vno contextu, In Harm. in I…. Legis. p. 364.sed plenam sententiam esse volunt, vt maritus testetur se divortium facere cum vxore, non ob crimen, sed quid formae venustas eius libidini, non satisfaciat. Si quis tamen propiùs attendat, facile videbit, vnum esse duncaxat Legis caput, nempe, vbi quis vxorem repudiaverit, fas nō esse iterum eam ducere si alteri nupserit. that is, Certaine interpreters (among whome himselfe was one, a few yeares before) do not read these three verses (there be foure in all, & so doth himselfe ioine thē) in one period: but will hauehave one full sentence to bee, that the husband testifie, that he doth not divorce his wife for any crime, but because her beauty or favour did not content him. But if any do better mark it, hee shall plainely see that the law that there is set down, hath but one braunch only, which is, that whē any hath once put away his wife, it should not be lawful for him to take her againe, if in the meane season shee had married another (albeit the other were now dead, or had put her away likewise.) Where also it is to be noted, that now he accounted it to bee verie plaine, for that hee saith, that a man that heedeth it, may plainely perceiue it; and that so he insinuateth, that it was but want of heede taking that therein deceived many before, as yet also it doth, where it is not the better heeded. Yet divers then began to espie it, and in Vatablus his Bible of 1557. it was plainely noted, aboue fiue years, before that M. Calvine published this that now wee speake of. Master Beza,M^r Beza. for any thing that yet I hauehave found, is not so plaine herein, as is M. Calvine, yet hath he enough of this also, to content any reasonable man. For whereas in that Treatice of his, De repudiis & divortiis, which he published 1573. he sheweth himselfe divers times so to hauehave mistaken that place, as others before were wont to doe, and that so strongly, that out of the same hee reasoneth also, that it could not bee that a man was bound to forgiue his adulterous wife (by that example of God obiected out of …he 3. Chapter of Ieremie,Ib. pag. 115 and the first verse of it) for that then it should follow, illos peccasse quilegem illam Mosis servarunt, cuius ibi facit mentionem Ieremias, quod absurdum est dicere, quum eam è contrario servari oportuerit: that is, that they should sinne which did not obserue that law of Moses, whereof mention is made Ier. 3.1. which were absurd to say, when as, on the otherside, it was to bee obserued. (which whence it cometh, was apparant enough, if it be tried by the rule which M. Calvine before set down; and then so much the rather to bee condemned thereby, as we may plainely see, by the consideration of the time, that that wonted oversight of mistaking that place was espied, & noted so neere vntounto him, sixteene yeares before that he did publish this booke of his:) yet afterward (whē Benedictus Arias Montanus also had publikely noted that wonted oversight againe,Ben. Ar. Mont. two yeares before) hee, in the yeare 1577, in that booke of his which is intituled Lex Dei moralis, Lex Dei etc. Pag. 75. Fr. Vatab. Tremel. Iun.caeremonialis, politica, so setteth downe the Text it selfe, as Vatablus, and Arias had done before, and Tremellius and Iunius since (and according as the Hebrew it selfe is) saving that he maketh a full period at the ende of the first sentence, whereas there is none indeed, nor ought to be, till the ende of the fourth, which might easily bee the fault of his Printer. And so, by his owne reading now, it is no absurd thinge to say, that those of the Iewes sinned which then did put away their wiues; neither was that law so to be kept, neither did Ieremie make mention of any such law of Moses, neither did Moses ever make it. Thē the which, I thinke we neede no more for this matter. But if we doe, then himselfe also, even in that his Booke de repudiis & divortiis doth acknowledge withall, that eiusmodi divortia etsi lege civili tolerabantur, tamen in foro conscientiae nunquam licuerunt. Ib. pag. 115.that is, that such divorces, although they were tolerated by the Civill Law, yet in court of conscience they were never lawfull. Where we may note, that although it bee restrained only to such divorces; yet now he graunteth,Sect. 12. that which he accounted the law of God before, is of no force in the court of conscience: a matter sufficient, being well considered, mainely to crosse the force of the other.

12 Concerning that other of Malachie,Then that …ther pla…e of Malachy 2:16. we hauehave not so much for it, in respect of the words or letter of it: but yet somewhat more, if we goe to the meaning, as there it is applied against the people then. For as touching the words or letter of it, neither Vatablus,V. tab. Mont. nor Arias Montanus did for this matter swarne from the wonted reading: but then we hauehave, both the judgement of the Septuagint of old, and Tremellius & Iunius of late that doe.Septuag. Trem. un. Tom, 6▪ fol. 13…. The Septuagint read thus (as Ierome himselfe doth set downe;) Si odio habens dimiseris eam, dicit Dominus Deus Israel, operiet impietas cogitationes tuas, dicit Dominus omnipotens. that is, If hating (her) thou shalt put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel: impiety shall cover thy thoughts, saith the Lord Almighty. By which reading of theirs wee may plainely see, that they giuegive not liberty vntounto him that hateth his wife to put her away: but plainely shew, that the Lord misliketh it, if so he doe. But Tremellius and Iunius doe plainely alter the reading also, referring the hating that there is spoken of, vntounto the Lord, that he doth hate al such putting away of their wiues. For whereas the common and wonted reading of the place is, If thou hatest her put her away saith the Lord God of Israel: their reading now is, Sibi odio esse dimissionem ait Iehova Deus Israelis. that is, That the Lord God of Israel saith, that he hateth such putting away. As touching the sense or meaning of this place notwithstanding the reading stand as it was wont, Siodio habeas dimitte &c, First M^r Calvine saith thereon, Hic rursus Prophet a exaggerat crimen illud, In Mal. 2… 16. pag 77…quod pro nihilo ducebāt Sacerdotes, Sect. 13.dicit enim gravius eos peccare quàm si vxores repudiarent. Scimus tamen repudium nunquam fuisse permissum divinitus, proprie loquendo, nam etsi fuit impunitas sub Lege, non tamen fuit permissic that is, Here againe doth the Prophet exaggerate that crime, that the Priests did make so little account of, for he saith that they sinne more grevously, then if they had put their wiues away. But divorce we knowe was never permitted of God, if we speake properly. For although there was no punishment for it vnderunder the law: yet was it never permitted. And after againe, Haec igitur ratio est cur Propheta nunc dicat, Si odio habeas dimitte: non quod veniam concedat repudio, quēadmodum diximus: sed vt hac circumstantia crimen augeat. that is, This therefore is the reason why the Prophet doth now say, If thou hate (her) put her away; not that he giueth them leaue to divorce, as before we said; but that by this circū stance hee sheweth the fault to bee so much the greater. Which also is the iudgement of others. So in the former of these two places we finde, not only the Hebrew it selfe and divers of the learned (of speciall account) to shew that the place was cleane mistaken before: but also, some of the chiefe of those that are for divorce and marrying againe, in effect to acknowledge their former oversight therein. In the latter we hauehave, both those seaventie Interpreters of old; & two of speciall account of late, to shew the very letter therein also to be mistaken: and, though it doe stand after the wonted manner of mistaking; yet that the sense is such, as in no wise alloweth them so to doe, as the words doe seeme to leaue vntounto them.How far this mistaking of theirs is to be vrged against thē.

13 What we are to gather thereon, concerning the matter that we hauehave in hand, is now to be seene: a matter that may be in few words sufficiētly opened; but yet notwithstanding so much the meeter to hauehave a distinct place by it selfe, as it is good that it should appeare how farre it stretcheth, or what bounds they are we prescribe vntounto it. For otherwise it might arise in the conceit of some to thinke, that my meaning is, out of the credite or learning of these that I hauehave brought in, to shew how farre tho…e that are for divorce and marrying againe, hauehave mistaken these places aforesaid, to conclude that those places must needs be so as these others hauehave now translated them; or at least, that their opiniō therein is the likelier of the two: and therefore that those that otherwise tooke them, were therein without question deceived; or at least, of the two, most likeliest to be. And the truth is, that my selfe am so persuaded, as I hauehave already declared: & hauehave no doubt, but that therein I am not wrong. But yet that is not the thing that now herevpō I mean to infer, because I hauehave no need at all so far to vrge either their credite or learning therein. My purpose therefore is no more but this: to shew that such as think they hauehave warrāt enough in the word of god to put away their wiues for adultery & to marry againe, for that so many of the learned (& of the reformed Churches, as some do like rather to say, though in this there be no reformation at al) are of the same iudgement likewise; may neverthelesse finde hereby, that their warrant is not so sure, as they before had thought that it was. VntoUnto which (so lōg as we go no father thē so) we hauehave no need so farre to vrge them; but may wel enough content our selues with this, that those places are not so taken by all, but that there is, among the learned themselues, a manifest diversitie of iudgment therein: leaving the deciding, or the over-ruling of the question it selfe, to fall out vntounto those that shal hauehave the better part in it; and the desire of it, to those likewise that shal need it more than we. It is enough for vsus, vntounto the purpose that now we hauehave in hād, to be able to shew, that divers of the learned (and those of good accoūt likewise) do not allow such help vntounto them, as out of those places they thought that they had. Now, whether those that do allow it, or those that now withdraw it frō them, are the righter, or neerer vntounto the truth therein, that wil we not sticke to refer to a farther time to be farther decided (if neede be) among the learned themselues▪ vrging it no farther at this present, but that it is not to be accoūted an vndoubted truth, or a point out of question, that any liberty was at any time given, by the law of God, so easily to put away their wiues, as those places imported, as hitherto for the most part they were delivered vntounto vsus. For so wil it plainely enough fal out, that whereas the most of our learned that are for this kinde of divorce and marrying againe, doe much the rather, as I doe take it, incline therevnto vponupon supposal that Moses first, & Malachie after, had allowed it for lesser causes vntounto the Iewes (so inferring, that then those words of Christ, that are of that matter, might wel inough be takē, as if Christs meaning therein had beene, that for adultery himselfe also did allow it vntounto vsus:) now finding, that it is not certaine, that any such liberty, was at any time; by any word of God granted to any, it is not vnlikely, but that themselues will be better advised of it, and rather search out some other meaning of those words of Christ, than to make him (as els they must be faine to do; and as after I trust to make it more plainely to appeare) both the first and the last in all Scripture, that ever allowed any divorce and marrying againe, and the only man of al the Prophets that went before, & of al the Apostles that followed after, vponupon whō not only that marrying againe,Sect. 14. but even divorce it selfe must stande; especially, when as they know, and readily grant, that he came to vphold al the whole righteousnesse of the law of God, and to loose none (though never so little) to any one iot of fleshly liberty whatsoever.

Of Divorce for Adultery, Text (1 of 4)

p. 1OF DIVORCE FOR ADVLTErie, and marrying againe.Sect. 1.

OF DIVORCE FOR ADVLTErie, and marrying againe.Sect. 1.