Of Divorce for Adultery, Text (3 of 4)

Of Divorce for Adultery · Text (3 of 4)

p. 9622 Of those reasons of theirs that rely on the authority of men,How weakly they reason on the authoritie of men. we hauehave two sorts likewise: whereof some of them stand on the authority of those that in some sense may seeme to bee with them;First, out of those that may seeme to bee with them. and others againe, on the authority of those that are against them. Those that in some sense may seeme to be with them, are of two sorts also: some that are directly with them; and others besides, p. 97that are not against them. Those that are directly with them, are of two sorts also: some, in their opinions; others in their doings only. Ofboth which by Erasmus, among others of that kind, we hauehave noted vntounto vsus, that first amōg the ancient Fathers non defuerunt qui senserint à recte dirempto matrimonio, licuisse cum alia copulari. that is,Annot. in. 1. Cor. 7, pag. 492.1 Cor 7 That there were who thought that after marriage well dissolved, it was lawfull for them to marry another: and namely, that Origen, Tertullian, Pollentius (whome belike because otherwise he was not to hauehave his place in this company, he tearmeth Gravem & eruditum virum, that is, A graue and a learned man) & Ambrose, were al of the same opinion, or at least did at some time incline vntounto it; and that Augustine, though he wrote against the aforesaid Pollentius about that matter, yet that hee dealt not with him as with an hereticke, but as with an adversary in that opinion only, & did in such sort confute his opinion,Ib. pag. 493▪ that neverthelesse he did not therein charge him with heresy. Againe, that clare pronunciat sceleratius esse extra connubium libidinari, quàm à divortio novo marito junctam vivere, that is, that he cleerely pronounceth, that it is more wicked, out of wedlock to play the harlot, then after divorce to liue in marriage with another husband. Againe, if a woman that after divorce marrieth another, that he doth not simply deny her bujus esse vxorem; sed magis esse illius quem relinquit, quàm cui nupsit: that is, to bee the wife of this man; but rather to be the wife of him whom she left, then of him whom she hath married since. Then also that si recentiorum opiniones excutiamus, Er. pag. 505quibus hactenus plurimum authoritatis & fora & scholae tribuunt, comperiemus inter hos fuisse, qui putarint matrimonium posse dirimi, aut certe qui putarint hoc argumentum esse disputabile. that is, p. 98That if we examine the opinions of the latter writers,Sect. 22. vntounto whom both Courts and Scholes doe attribute much, we shall finde that some there are among those also, who thought that marriage might be dissolued, or at least that it was a disputable argument. Concerning which matter, though he hauehave somewhat in Iohn of Andrew for espowsals or marriage that is not finished by carnal knowledge: yet, in that which is consummate he findeth so little, that he is faine to hold him contented with that same Iohn and two more, which are, Panormitanus, and Hostiensis: and hath no more in them neither, but onelyonly that one of them leaueth it to the iudgemēt of others, hauing first brought arguments both against it, and with it; another but disputeth it only, and thinketh the contrary side to be the more probable: and the third doth but seeme to bee for it also, namely of that opinion, that the Church might doe it. That such things sometimes hauehave bin done, he bringeth in two miserable examples: the one, that Pope Zacharie, in a case of incest allowed the innocent wife of the incestuous husband to marry againe; the other, that that Antonius narrat, sibi conspectum fuisse diploma, quo Ro: Pontifex dirimeb at matrimonium ratum & consummatum, that is, Anthony reporteth, that he had …eene a Bul, wherin the B. of Rome did abolish or dissolue matrimonie that was fully established, and (by carnall knowledge) consummate. And one other of good reckoning among vsus, hath (for the former) added thus much also,D.R. Cap. 1 that the Pastors & Doctors of the reformed Churches hauehave perceiued, & shewed, that in such case a man may put away his wife, and marry another. And true it is that divers of them hauehave resolved on that opinion, and hauehave published the same accordingly: but whether they hauehave perceiued or found it to be p. 99so indeed; and whether they hauehave shewed, or by any sufficient demonstration declared the same, let that (as yet) lie in question betwixt vsus, till we be further advised of it. Againe, that the Fathers do not so fully consent & agree together against it,Ibid. c. 3. as the adversary that hee hath chosen doth beare men in hand that they did: but were many of them for it; especially, for the first foure hundred yeeres. An argument, that the better it can be proued, the stronger it will be indeed; both against that adversary of his, & against all others of that company: but simply to beat out the truth of the question, a reasonable good presumption indeed, but that is all. Of those that Erasmus alleageth as not against him, he is if we mark it little better furnished: and his choice is of those two whom before he alleaged: Iohn of Andrew, and Panormitan. And, seeing, the waight of that matter hangeth not on that pinne, I hauehave not thought good to goe any further, then to so much as himselfe hath gathered. And so as touching the former of thē, the help that he getteth ofhim is this, that proposito casu, an Pōtifex possit indulgere, vt filius unicus Regis monasticus, ducat vxorem, eám que habeat donec gignat prolē masculam: pag. 495.rationibꝰ in utrā que partē adductis, pro neutra pronūciat, rē aliorū arbitrio relinquens. that is, propoūding a case whether the Bishop of Rome, may dispense with a Monke the only son of a King to take a wife, and to hauehave her vntil he hauehave begottē issue male of her, bringing in reasōs on both sids, he determineth for neither, but leaveth it at large to the iudgement of others. Which (we see) is but one speciall case, and doth not concerne this of ours: and yet that in that case also, although hee doth not pronounce against him, yet in that hee maketh such dainty in so speciall a case as this, hee sheweth himselfe plaine enough how p. 100hard hee would bee in the whole generally. And that doth the other more plainely acknowledge, who reciting the same of his, addeth thereto thus much of his own. Ego satis putarem, Ibid.quod nullo casu Papa posset dissolvere matrimonium consummatum inter fideles, ita quod eligerē partem negativam: that is, I should rather thinke, that in no case the Pope might dissolue matrimony consummate both the parties being faithful, so that I shoulde chuse the negatiue part. So that al the helpe which (he conceiveth) he hath in him, is no more but this. Nec hic asseverat, sed argumentum ut disputabile proponit, Ibid.cujus alteram partem ipse putat esse probabiliorem: that is, Neither doth this man affirme it, but he propoūdeth the argumēt, as disputable, himselfe thinking the other part to be more probable. And so likewise by and by after commending one special reason, for that out of it an argument may be taken, quod etiam Ecclesia nō posset illud dissolvere: that is, that even the Church cannot dissolue it, he gathereth thereon, Rursus hîc non affirmat Ecclesiam non posse dirimere matrimonium consummatum, imòpotius innuit posse:Ibid. licet ex hoc capite dicat posse sumi argumentum pro diversa parte. Ne que statim expugnatum est, quod oppugnari potest argumento: that is, Againe hee doth not here affirme, that the Church cannot breake asunder mariage consummate already, yea rather he implyeth that it may: although he say that out of this place an argument may be taken for the contrary side. Neither is it by and by won, that is at any time by reason attēpted. How poore helps these are, I think that every one will soone perceiue: I for my part wil so much spare them, that nothing at al I wil disturbe them. The argument that they take of the authoritie of those that are against them,Then out of those that are against thē, is in effect no more but this, that whatsoever is brought by any against p. 101that cōceived opinion of theirs, it is al but weake & may easily bee answered. And for this point I hauehave thought good to note, not only that iudgement before to hauehave beene in Erasmus abroad: but also, that yet it seemeth in part to remaine in that one of good account among vsus at home (that before I spake of) vponupon whom, diverse I heare doe rest not a little. That Erasmus was of that minde,Pag. 505. his words are plaine; Videbam ea quae objiciuntur, facile posse dilui, citra nostrae religionis injuriam. Videbā rationes quas adducunt hac in causa veteres & neoterici, non esse tam vrgētes, ut adtantam adigant necessitatem hominum genus: that is, I saw that those things that were obiected, might easily bee answered, withou… doing of any wrong to our Religion. I saw that the reasons which the Fathers of old, & the late writers do bring for this matter, are not so vrgent, as to driue mankinde to such extremity. Wherein whether he were deceived or not, or whether hee had but some over-weening conceipt of that his motion, let it rest for me, vntil the cleerenes of the matter it selfe (being first beatē out) may teach vsus both, whether it be so, or not. But true it is, that before hee had noted some things that might seeme to be no smal part of the foundation and ground of that his opinion: as namely, from what authors such perswasion came, and how wrong they were in some things else besides, even the best of them al. For the former of them, Iam ut demus, saith he, conjugiū legis esse divinae, certe plera que quae circa matrimoniorum causas tractantur adjus positivum pertinēt, veluti de gradibus de impedimētis, de rescissionibus. Ne que haec decreta à synodis celebribus profecta sunt ad nos, sed à privatis Pontificum responsis, &c: nonnunquam à seipsis dissentientibus: that is, Now that we grant that wedlocke it selfe is of the law of God, yet many things that are handled p. 102about the causes of matrimony, do appertaine to the positiue lawes, as of degrees, of impediments, of vndoing againe. Neither did these decrees come vntounto vsus from the more famous Councels, but of the private answers of Bishops, disagreeing sometimes even from themselues. For the latter also, Nec mirum est, veteres illos tam iniquos fuisse divortio, quod & apud Ethnicos fuit odiosum, qui conjugium etiam aegre admiserint, aegrius digamiam, that is, Neither is it marvel, that the ancient Fathers were so hard to allow of divorce (which was an odious thing evē among the Heathen also) who did but hardly allow of marriage it selfe, & much hardlier of second mariages. In both which he sheweth himselfe to be of opinion, that this restraint of such divorce as he would plead for, is only of men (one fowle gawle in the argument:) & then, that it proceedeth from such mē also, as whose credit (one way or other) is, in such cases, but very smal; for which I meane not here to cōtēd, but wil rather adiourne it vntounto such accoūt in the end, as the issue of the cause shal then afford it. And yet so far as I am able to see into it, he needeth not so much to trouble himselfe in spying holes in that iudgement of the Fathers of old, as, in this, to defende his owne. In which respect I marvel the more, that he findeth so many faults with that kinde of divorce which only in this case standeth by law among vsus, 1. Primum, saith he, ita licebit divertere, ut posteae vivat castratus & orbus. Pag. 498.2. Deinde si post suspicionem adulterij rem habuerit cum uxore, excidit à jure repudiandi. 3. Adhaet si ipse quo que fuerit adulter, cogetur cū adultera cohaerere. 4. Postremò, particulam exceptionis huc detor quemus, nō ut jus faciat marito repudiandi, sed ut sirepudiet, non facturus sit adulteram, quandoquidem jam adulteram abijcit. Nam id Augustini commentum est: that is, First we hauehave divorce but so far p. 103allowed vntounto vsus, as that whosoever will vse it, he must afterward liue as a gelded man, and without (possibilitie of) children. Then if after suspition of adultery, hee neverthelesse hauehave to do with his wife againe, then is he falne from the right he had to sue the divorce. Besides, if himself hauehave committed adulterie too, then must he stil cleane vntounto his adulterous wife. Last of al, that particle of the Exception we wrest vntounto this, that it shal not giuegive any right to the husband to put away his wife (for adultery) but, if he do it, then he doth not make her an adulteresse, because he doth not put away but such an one as is an adulteresse alreadie. For that is, saith he, Augustines conceipt thereof. Wherein though he did seeme to himselfe, then to hauehave found many faults in that their iudgements; and, in the last, with S. Augustine himselfe: yet I doubt not, but that in the end it wil appeare, that therein he troubled himselfe more thē he needed; and in the meane season, that every one may perceiue that he counteth those such faults, but onelyonly in respect of that presupposall, that such divorce as he requireth, doth vndoubtedly stād on the authority of the word of God, which if it doe not, will soone make those great faults of his to be none at all. As touching that other that is of the same iudgement likewise, he also accounteth that to be weake which is brought against it; and accordingly dealeth therein: and especially against one, whome hee hath made his choice adversary in it, for whom also, I for my part (but so far as he hath the truth) will craue no sparing. More specially whereas S. Augustine is accounted to be the strongest of all against the liberty of divorce for adultery and marrying againe he noteth more weaknesse in that iudgement of his,D.R.C. 1. then others doe that yet I hauehave seene: both in his owne confession after; & in mistaking a p. 104part of the Text.Sect. 23. But how far that weakneth the force of his iudgement is not so needfull for vsus to discu…se: as not so materiall but onelyonly to such as rest some parte of their iudgement on him, which in this I meane not to doe.

23 What inconvenient speeches they hauehave besides, if now we examine,What inconvenient speeches they hauehave besides: Erasmus especially. the truth is, that all of them (lightly that I hauehave seene) hauehave some▪ but yet that Erasmus, the leader of them, hath therein so far gon beyound them all, that none of them (so far as yet I hauehave foūd) hauehave attained vntounto him. And because inconvenient speeches, though they be no certaine argumēts that the cause is not good that is handled by such; yet are they faire warnings for any in such case to take heed, because they proceed from a troubled mind, and most commonly argue a want of the truth, and even by that only oftimes are occasioned: therfore it shall not be amisse that we somewhat consider of them, but first of those that we finde in Erasmus; then, of such as we finde in others. Of those that we finde in Erasmus, there are two sorts: some of his owne, & for which himselfe is to answere; others, that are none of his, but belonging to such authors as himselfe bringeth in to help to beare out his owne persuasion therein.Such as are his own, Those that are his owne, are of two sorts also: some concerning his own iudgement in this matter; others, concerning the Scripture it selfe.Cōcerning his iudgement herein. Concerning his owne iudgement in this matter, he hath in such sort ordered his speech therein, that although he hath not plainely set it downe, yet hee seemeth to incline vntounto it, both that certaine disorders in making of mariages should be good cause to dissolue them again: and that even the wickednesse of a woman, want of children also (belike he meaneth of such as are legitimate; & that he may not so account of those that either he had or p. 105hereafter might hauehave by his adulterous wife) yea & burning lust also, should be good causes likewise to marry againe. For the former he saith. Apud ethnicos nō erat ratum matrimonium, Anot. m. 1. Cor. 7. pag. 499.1 Cor 7nisi parentum aut tutorū authoritate comprobatum, ne apud Iudaeos quidem, & tamen apud utrosque aliquo modo dirimi poterat matrimonium. Apud Christianos facilime coit conjugium, & semel initum nullo modo potest divelli. …urtim inter pueros & puellas per lenones & lenas, inter stultos ac temulentos copulatur matrimonium, & tam turpiter initum indssolubile est, & quod magis est notum, sic initum fit sacramentum. that is, Among the Heathen there is no mariage accounted of force, but that which was approued by the authority of parents or tutors; neither yet among the Iewes: and yet with both those might matrimonie, some way or other, bee dissolued againe. Among Christians marriages are most easily made, and yet being made, may by no meanes be broken off. By stealth betwixt boies and wenches, by bawds and harlots, betweene fooles & drunken persons hauehave mariages beene made: and yet, a marriage being so ilfavourdly made, may not in any wise be dissolued; and, which is the straunger of the two, is become a Sacrament also. To which ende soone after hee doth likewise insinuate,Ibid pag. 500. that if the Magistrate or competent Iudge should dissolue such, then were they rightly dissolved by the Ministers of God, which before were naughtily made by the Deacons of the diuel. For the latter, hee saith likewise, At interim seposita paulisper authoritate scriptoris rem ipsam mecum expendat lector, num hae satis graves sint causae cur innoxius maritus debeat alligari sceleratae mulieri, orbitatis molestiam, & libidinis incendium ferre per omnem vitam: ne vel parum prudens habeatur à quibusdam, quod rem quae non successerit, denuo sit aggressus (quasi turpe sit, qui p. 106semel tempestatem expertus sit, iterare navigationem; aut qui in deligendo amico erraverit, quenquam alium in amicitiam admittere) vel intemperans, aut avarus, qui formam aut dotem mutare voluerit, non vxorem. that is, But setting aside for a while the authority of the writer (meaning S. Ierom) let the reader cōsider with me the thing it selfe, whether these be causes of sufficient importance (that then men would easily take occasion divers waies, to breake of and to marry againe) that the husband should be tied to a wicked woman, or that he should suffer either the griefe of the want of Children or the heate of lust all his life long, least he should be accoūted of divers either vnwise, that hauing taken in hand such a course before as did not fall out well with him, he neverthelesse doth take it in hād againe (as though it were a shame, that hee which once had beene in a tempest, should goe to the seas againe, or he that had beene before deceiued in choice of his friend, should never admit any other into his friendship againe) or intemperate, or covetous, as though he rather desired to make his exchange of (more) beauty or (better) dowry thē of his (so bad a) wife. Which course of his if any people should establish by law among them, it were hard to finde how it might bee avoided, but that for matters of marriage, & all others thereto appertaining, some would all be cleane out of order. For first as touching so large a liberty of divorcing their wiues away from them, vponupon any of those so many braunches of disorderly marriage, we may plainely see, that it would lay open a ready way to many divorces: for because those disorders are such, as that wee may conceiue no hope, that either they will or may be amended. So likewise for marrying againe therevpon, if but the two first causes onelyonly might bee allowed p. 107soone should we see, that such a liberty, so freely graunted, would be (by many) as freely vsed: but then, if the third should be added withall, that so oft as it would require, it should still be allowed a new and fresh marriage, and not beaten back to the former againe, then as we hauehave a proverbe in another matter, so should wee quickly finde it in this (to the shame of our faces that had so taught them) that but set a begger on horsback, & we may be sure, that he will ride. Concerning both which, although it may be that if Erasmus had beene, derectly demaunded, whe…her he would hauehave allowed suchliberty or not, he would hauehave bethought himselfe better, & in the ende would hauehave denied: yet seeing he hath fensed his speeches no better, but that in the heate of his reasoning for the other, hee hath so farre overslipped himselfe in these, that the reader may probably gather, that he was of that iudgement indeed, therefore must he now be content, that these also bee taken for part of his inconvenient speeches. Concerning the Scripture it selfe, he hath so many hard speeches of the same (such I meane as may be taken ill,Cōcerning the Scripture it selfe. and in appearance doe most incline therevnto) that it may seeme, that both he found that new motion of his to bee very much crossed thereby, and that hee could not quietly beare it, that so it should, and therevpon vttered those speeches of it: somewhat of the whole generally; but much more, of Saint Paule more especially. Of that which hee vttered of the whole generally, I hauehave noted no more but this, and that but only towardes the ende of his Treatice. Videbam Scripturam, saith hee, hac in parte, ut plerisque, Pag. 505.esse perplexam & ancipitē. That is, I saw that the Scripture was in this point, as in many others, intricate and doubtful. Of which, for this point, albeit he had some probability p. 108so to say, so long as those places aforesaide were so much mistaken, & by so many, as they were: yet those places being duly considered, we may now plainly perceiue, that the Scripture is plaine inough for the negatiue of that Motion of his; and that al the hardnes and doubtfulnesse of it, is for his Affirmatiue only. Which might and should (I thinke) hauehave taught him, rather to hauehave suppressed that his doubtful motiō, than for it so hardly to speake of the Scripture it selfe. That which he vttered of S. Paul more specially is dispersed almost throughout this whole Treatice, especially while he answereth the places (after this manner) that are brought against that opinion of his. For in answering the fifth of Matthew, Non probat Paulus, saith he,Pag. 499. digamiam: & tamen, ob incontinentiam permittit, quod non audet exigere: satius esse judicans, nubere quàm uri. Et nos de rigore divortij, nihil omnino relaxamus? that is, Paul doth not allow the second mariage, or a widdow to marrie againe: and yet for incontinencie he suffereth (as I take it) the second marriage, which he dareth not require (or as I take it, as more agreable vntounto his meaning, howsoever the words do somwhat vary, that he alloweth to marry againe; because he dare not so strictly require that they containe) thinking it better to marry, than to burne. And do we release nothing at al, of the hardnes or rigor of divorce? In which speach of his the inconveniencie that I speake of, resteth especially in these two points: that Saint Paul allowed not of widdowes marriage; &, that himselfe accoūted, that to allow of divorce no farther than it was then (which notwithstanding was as much, as any of vsus may lawfully challendge) was too hard and rigorous dealing. The text is the 19. of Matthew, wherein while he dealeth,Pag. 499. there he saith againe, Paulus indulget humanae fragilitati, p. 109relaxans saepenumero Domini praeceptum. Cur nō idem facere possit Romanus Pontifex? That is, Paul beareth with the weaknes of man, releasing oftimes the Lords commaundement (what? often: where once?) Why may not the Bishop of Rome do so likewise? what else? Cōming to those places that the Apostle hath, and beginning with that which he hath in the seaventh to the Romans, there he findeth his motion so probably at least, but I would rather say so strongly crossed, that it must be, Paulo peculiare, Pag. 502.nihil non torquere ad Evāgelij negotium, pia, Christianá que vafricie, &c: that is, Pauls fashion, to wrest any thing for the Gospels sake, with a godly and Christian subteltie. And anon after, on that other place in the seaventh of the first to the Corinthians, in effect al one with that to the Romans, he also is the same that he was before. For there the Apostle (with him) must be lubricus in disputando, nunc huc se proripiens nunc illuc: that is, slipperie in disputing,Pag. 503. shifting himselfe, now hither now thither: therein alleadging Origen besides, something to accord to his iudgmēt therein. And on the latter of those two places in that epistle to the Corinthians (which though it be in the Text before, yet is it cōmonly taken after as a several place by it selfe) there also both he calleth the law of God, the Apostles law, & by & by after, he doth charge him with rigor also. For as touching the former he saith, verùm haud scio, an Paulus tribuerit hac in parte nonnihil suae legi, &c: that is, But I know not, whether Paul in this point did attribute much to his owne Law: and for the other, Quod si Paulus tribuerit hac in parte nonnihil suae legi, &c: that is, But I know not, whether Paul in this point did attribute much to his own law: and for the other, Quod si Paulo proposita fuisset hujus modi causa, stultus cum stulta, puer cam puella cōtraxit, &c: fortasse p. 110pro causae circumstantijs aliud responderet Apostolus, & nonnihil relaxaret de rigore consilij superioris, sua scripta civiliùs nobis interpretaretur, quàm nos interpretamur: that is, But if such a case had beene to Paul propoūded, one foole with another, a boy and a wench hauehave married togither, &c: it may be that the Apostle, according to the circumstances of such a case, would giuegive vsus some other answer, & would remit vntounto vsus no smal part of the rigour of that his advise, and would interpret his writings more civilly vntounto vsus, thā we our selues are wont to take them. Where also we may farther note, that he tearmeth it (if hee keepe to his place) but the Apostles advise or coūcell, which the Apostle himselfe calleth the Lords commandement: and that hee doth something insinuate farther, both that the Apostles rule was not absolute (for that, in the case that he did put, hee thinketh that he might hauehave given it another answere) & that the Apostle himselfe were so flexible, that in curtesie he would hauehave yeelded something vntounto them in that matter. And last of al, towards the end of that Annotation or Treatice of his (that yet he may part with him in friendlie manner) he giveth this speciall commendation vntounto him, that he is so careful of the salvation of others, that to that end,pag. 506. nonnunquam etiam detorquet sacras literas, that is, hee often even wresteth the holy Scriptures. But the Scriptures, it is wel enough knowne, do so directly tend to the salvation of vsus and therefore need so little to be wrested to that end, that we hauehave heere mo wonders thā one: first, that Erasmus could ever so write of the Apostle, and did not rather suspect his own motion, when he saw whether it brought him; then also, that others, so many, and of so speciall reckoning, did not take that as a warning to them to hauehave seene somewhat better vntounto it, that therein p. 111they had not followed him so much as they did.Sect. 24. As for those others, that are none of his own, but found in those Authors that himselfe bringeth in to helpe to beare out his owne persuasion, I note no more but this,Such as are in the Authors whome hee alleageth. Pag, 492, 493. that whereas there he alleageth but only three of the ancient Fathers (Origen, Tertullian, & Ambrose) yet even in those, & in every of them, himselfe hath noted somewhat withall, that may crack their credit for this matter: a crasie point of doctrine belike to bee tried by the Fathers, if it had no better help then he then knewe of. And though he might hauehave made better choice then so, yet that also, in this case had little holpen, because it is not by them, that the estate of the question standeth, as now wee set it. So, for these we shall not need so much as to recite them, but may better referre those that would see them to the place it selfe; yet this notwithstāding is worthy the marking, that most of the learned (that yet I hauehave seene) that since hauehave followed that course, do in like sort rest on those Fathers also and lightly goe no further neither:D R. in all his third Chapter. whereas we hauehave one of our owne, that hath so far inriched that point beyond them all, that although it be not such as is thought meete to be published, and was written but on speciall occasion; yet therein we may see more learning vttered for that matter, then in any of those that in other countries hauehave written thereon, though we (in our wonted humor) hauehave them in better account.

24 Of those that wee finde in others,Inconveniēt speeches in others. there bee two sorts: one, that is common generally vntounto all; and others that are proper only to certaine of them. That one that is common generally vntounto them all, is, that they doe so resolutely make it to bee the duty of the Magistrate to punish adultery by death,General to all. & account it his negligence p. 112if he do it not. All which kinde of speeches I account inconvenient in two respects: first, because so they doe imply (withall) a point of doctrine, more then they ought; then also, for that most of the Magistrats of all Christendome are such, as, if it were wrong, yet could they not help it would they never so faine. That point of doctrine which those speeches do implie (withall) more then they ought, is, that the Judicialls of Moses should of necessity be obserued in our government also; or, that Christian Princes are bound to obserue the same: a point of doctrine that divers are oftimes leaning vntounto, but such as may not be vniuersally held (I meane, for all those Judicials) neither is it further vrged by the better sort but according to the equity of them, & the negatiue plainely held by this Church of ours.Art. 7. That most of the Magistrates of all Christendome are such, as that, if it were wrong, yet could they not help would they never so faine, it is plaine enough in it selfe, for that they deale with no power over those that are vnderunder them, for lands nor goods, life nor lim, but so far as those lands by which they govern allow vntounto them: & that no lawes are allow'd to stand in force among vsus, but only such, as wherevnto all the estates doe first condescend. And then, if the Magistrate (although it were a thing to be wished, and himselfe were, for his part so inclined also) be so little able to doe it, they do by such speeches, not onelyonly farther charge him then there is on his part any cause, but also let downe no small part of his credit or honour among the people, which they should rather seeke to maintaine, knowing that the people are ready enough (of themselues) to thinke so meanely of their Superiors, that they need no such provocation vntounto it.More speciall to certain of thē. Those that are more proper to certaine of them, are p. 113two: one, that they bring in so many things else, to dissolue the band of marriage; the other, that some of them accoūt it so much against duty, to forgiue their offending wife.More causes of diuorce. If many waies else marriage may be dissolued in the iudgement of divers of them, then (in their iudgement) were it but a loose and a slender band: which notwithstanding the word it selfe maketh to be the strongest and fastest of all others, aboue that which is betwixt neighbours and friends, yea and betwixt Parents and their children, either by the duty of the one, or by the naturall louelove of the other. That divers of thē account that many waies the bond of wedlock may be dissolued, Peter Martyr is of that credit among vsus,P. Martyr. that his only voice may stand for many, and teach vsus also to conclude, that if he be a Patron of that opinion, then is hee not likely to want other followers besides. He therefore,In 1. Cor. 7. & in loc. com. clas. 2. c. 10. sect. 69. p. 3061 Cor 7 when he is handling of that point, that man & wife must keep together, addeth therevnto, that he doth not so say, quasi nunquam liceat conjugibus quando que à se invicem dividi, vel per morbum, vel per aliquas graves incidentes necessitates: sed ut cōjuges intelligant, nihil per suam voluntatē debere obstare, quin simul habitent, ne que refugere debent, ut unà vivant. that is, As though it were never lawfull for married folk to be sundred againe the one from the other; either by disease, or by some other speciall necessities that may befall them: but that maried folke vnderstand, that, by their owne good will nothing should let, but that still they cohabit, and that never they ought to shrinke from living together. And by and by after, putting the case of an Atheist, though a while he make some question thereof, quia non licet de quopiam, dū vivit animum despondere, &c. that is, because we may not dispaire of any man while he liueth, nisi manifesta & praecipua p. 114revelatio de damnatione illius intercesserit. that is, Vnlesse some manifest and principall revelation shall bee given of his condemnation (an hard case to bee found:) yet afterward he plainely concludeth, that a faithfull woman may depart from such an atheist husband, if in the meane season he blespheme and curse Christ, and will not suffer, either that himselfe bee therein reproued, or the truth of Christ be by her acknowledged. But in the next two Sections following, Ibid. Sect. 70, 71,both he setteth downe the same liberty for the one that is weake, and by the other partie drawne from that faith by little and little: and and answereth besides divers obiections that he taketh to be strong against it. Item si contingat, saith he, ut conjux fidelis debilis sit, & sentiat ex eo matrimonio se de religione Christiana paulatim deijci ita ut abducatur quodammodo à fide, ac in idololatriam ex idololatrarum convictu in procliui sit ut ruat. that is, Also, if it fall out that the party faithfull be weake, & findeth it selfe, by the reason of that matrimonie, by little & little to be carried away from Christian religion, so that he bee after a sort led away from the faith, and be in some special danger to fall vntounto adulterie, by the reason of his conversing with idolaters: in this case his resolution is, Non opor tet ut maneat, that is, he is not bound in …uch case to tarry: and his reason is, for that we may not doe evill that good may follow. To which ende also, vponupon that place of the Apostle he added further, that it is apparant, sententiam Christi, quae tantum excipit scortationem, non esse completam, cum hîc Apostolus alteram adjecerit: that is, that the sentence of Christ, whereby hee excepteth no more but fornication only, is not complete or full, whēas the Apostle doth here adde another cause besides; hee meaneth, when the infidel departeth from the faithfull, in cause of p. 115religiō. Zegedinus followeth the selfe same course to speak of, first in that same sentence of Christ:Zegedinus. In loc. com. p…o leg. in …ab. 1. de divortio. then in that presupposed libertie of divorce. On that sentence of Christ, Quidam, saith hee, literae, seu dicto Christi mordicus inhaerentes, clamant propter solam fornicationem matrimonia dirimi posse. Verum, cum Paulus permittat repudium palam mulieri fideli, si propter religionem negligatur, & abjiciatur à viro infideli, ac significet, nō in fornicationis tantum & infidelitatis casibus, fratrem aut sororem ab altero separari posse sed & in similibus (ait enim, non est servituti subjectus frater aut soror in hujusmodi, ubi paria peccata intelligit) liquidè ex his constat, Christum fornicationis nomen in genere accepisse per metonymiam, ac nomine fornicationis seu stupri includere ea scelera quae fornicationi paria, aut certè majora sunt, excludere autem minora: that is, divers cleaving vntounto the letter or speech of Christ over-precisely will needs hauehave it, that marriage may be dissolved, for no cause else, but only for adultery. But seeing Paul doth plainly allow of divorce vntounto a faithful woman, if for religion she be despised, and cast out by her vnbeleeving husband; and signifieth withal, that a brother or a sister may bee separated againe, not only in case of fornication and infidelitie, but also in others such like besides (for he saith, that a brother or a sister is not brought into bondage in such things as these, where he vnderstandeth such like sinnes:) it doth plainly appeare by these, that Christ by the figure of Metonymia did largely take the name of fornication, & that vnderunder the name of whoredome hee did include all such crimes, as were as great, or greater than it, and that he did exclude or shut out of the same but only the lesse, and his reason is, Qui enim posset Apostolus contra praeceptorem suum docere? that is, For how can the Apostle teach that, which p. 116would be contrary to his Masters doctrine? In that presupposed liberty of divorce hee saith likewise,In append. ad tab 1. de divortio. p. 348. Fieri non potest, ut rei foedae nomine intelligantur leves causae, ut vel morū culpa, vel corporis vitium quo maritus offendatur: excludantur verò majores causae, quibus matrimonia magis dirimi possunt: that is, It cannot be that vnderunder the name of some vncleane thing (spoken of, Deut. 24.1.) smal matters should be ment, as some fault in behavior or manners, or some deformitie in the body, wherewith the husband may be offended: and that greater matters should be excluded, for which marriages might be much rather dissolved.Not to receiue againe the wife offending Beza. That it should be so much against duty, to forgiue the wife that so hath offended, M^r Beza is both very plaine and copious therein, as having of purpose handled the same: and yet more moderate therein than some other are, and therefore I rest only on him for this matter. And of this matter he setteth two principal questions: the one, of detecting such a wife to the Magistrate; the other, of receiving her againe to favor. Concerning the former,De Repud. & divo…, p. 113.114. first he setteth the question, An teneatur innocens persona nocētem deferre, that is, Whether it be the duty of the innocent party, to accuse the other that hath offended vntounto the Magistrate. And his answere (in effect) is, Magistratui inprimis indicare maritum vel uxorem praecipue decet, ne dum praepostera charitate alienum peccatum fovent, justam lenocinij suspitionem incurrant: that is, that right wel or chiefly it becommeth either the husbād or the wife to complaine thereof to the Magistrate, least while they with a preposterous louelove do cherish the fault of the other, they incurre a just suspition, that they are no better than bawds themselues. And being then farther demanded, whether we may not privatam injuriam condonare, that is, forgiue our owne private iniurie, hee so far intitleth p. 117the Common-wealth vntounto it, & maketh it to come so neere vntounto Anabaptistrie, that he cannot allowe it: and he addeth in the end, Nā certè Christiana charitas malis non favet, that is, For certainely Christian charitie favoureth not (either evil things, or as I should rather take it) those that are evil. So likewise, being further vrged with the example of Ioseph, that did not deale so hardly with Marie his espowsed wife, and that he was commended for that his moderate dealing, he answereth that it was but doubtful in him, and that hee had no certainty of it, and therefore, that in that respect, he did the best, as his case was. But what letteth, but that a man might rather thinke, that Ioseph made no doubt of the matter (as then also himselfe had gon too far) but thought himselfe very certaine of it? then is this obiectiō vnanswered as yet. And M^r Beza him selfe alloweth Ioseph thus much to put him out of doubte of the matter (if that may serue) that uterus eminens praegnantem esse demonstrat, that is, that her belly being growne so great as it was did plainely shew her to be with child: & so, that he, ejus videlicet rei quae extra ordinem contigerat ignarus, that is, ignorant of that matter which had befalne her extraordinarily, might wel hauehave thought (& without any doubting, with himselfe) omnino ab aliquo gravidatam esse, that is, that certainely (omnino) shee had by some body beene gottē with child. So it seemeth (even by that which M Beza doth allow him) that he was nothing doubtful of it: but only that he was therin deceived. Again, being further pressed, that in this case also privat admonitiō should go before, at least amōg friends, & that rather the Church than the Magistrate (as themselues are wont to speak) or some certaine persons should bee first sought vntounto, hee both liketh not of that neither, and bringeth in certaine p. 118reasons to be assistant vntounto him therein: but yet in the end addeth thus much withal, Dixi quid hîc mihi videatur. Suū cui que judicium esto, modo ex verbo Dei unusquis que sapiat ▪ that is, I hauehave said what I mee selfe doe thinke of this matter. Let every one iudge as himselfe thinketh good, so that no man goe any further then hee hath the word of God to leade him.Ibid. Concerning the latter, he first likewise propoūdeth the question: and then setteth downe his judgement on it. The question is, An, inforo conscientiae, nocentem personam convictam teneatur innocens ablegare; an verò poenitentem rursus recipere. that is, Whether in conscience (before God) the innocent party be bound, quite to put away the offender being once convicted of it; or vppon repentance to receiue him againe. In which point, when first hee hath graunted that many of our great Divines, both old and new, do little agree among thēselues, and, in his iudgement, illos quidem nimium adversus nocentem rigidos, istos verò nimium faciles videri, that is, That one sort of them seemed to him to bee too rigorous to the partie offending, & others to be over easie: yet thē he so taketh against those that hee accounteth too easy, that little or nothing he differeth from those that he thought before too rigorous; rather shewing (and that rightly in deed) that the reasons whereon they grounded that austerity of theirs were to weake to beare it, or, that, those reasons did not so conclude; then that hee doth so much dissent from their iudgemēt therein. For he findeth no more in them (in neither of those whome there he nameth, Ierom, and Bucet) but only the negatiue, that the offendor may be retained (which he accounteth so great austerity) and yet himselfe, though in some case he doth qualifie the same, yet in some other hee draweth very neere vntounto thē. p. 119His qualificatiō is, that, he doth not condemn him, qui uxorem resipis centem recipiat, that is,Ibid. p. 115. who receiueth his wife vponupon her repentance▪ and againe, Deinde, vt modo dixi, non nego posse iterum admitti adulteram resipiscentem, that is, Moreover, as before I said, I doe not deny, but that an adulteresse, if shee repent, may bee admitted againe. And elswhere he yeeldeth somewhat further also, as on other occasion before I noted. But as in this place hee yeeldeth thus much, so are we to note that he addeth withall that which doth (if it be marked) not a litle impeach that which is granted: and first, though there be repētance afterward found, in her that had committed adultery before; but thē especially, if the party offending as yet repent not. For though the adulteresse doe repent, yet first hee saith, that multae aliae justae causae esse possint, cur adulteram quantumvis resipis centem, in thorum rursus non admittat, qui tamen alioqui illatam sibi injuriam ex animo condonavit: that is, that there may be many iust causes, why a man doth not admit his adulterous wife to his bed againe, though shee repent never so much, who yet notwithstanding from his heart forgiveth the iniurie that is done vntounto him. Wherein seeing he setteth downe, that there be many iust causes, and that a forgiuenes from the heart may be (betwixt man & wife) without bedding togither againe; though neither he name any of those many causes, nor sheweth how such forgiuenes may stand with such strangnes too: yet such as are corruptly inclined in those matters, may easily finde matter enough to their contentment, wherewith to feed that humor of theirs, both in the one, and in the other, so rawly left as there they are. Then also hee addeth further, that he is not of minde, that a man is bound in conscience to receiue the adulteresse againe, though shee repent, sed, p. 120post modestam Ecclesiae adhortationem adhibitam, Sect. 25.unumquē que suae conscientiae relinquendum, that is, but after some sober exhortation given by the Church, that everie one is to be left to his owne conscience, and that they vsed the selfesame order in the Church of Geneva: (such as most of thē are, that stickle so hard for the liberty that now we speake of) would in such case lightly desire, both in respect of the weaknes of those (to restraine any disorder of theirs) that M. Beza here meaneth by the Church; and especially in respect of that liberty, that when the Church hath said what it will, then may these notwithstanding freely do as themselues thinke good. But before the adulteresse repent, his iudgement is plaine, that the husband in no wise may receiue her againe: little differing from that rigour of those others before. For by another occasion speaking of receiuing the offender againe, ante resipiscentiae testimonium ▪ that is, before some proofe of repentance be giuen, he plainely saith that fieri non potest, quin sceleri faveatur, that is, that it cannot be done, but that wickednesse must needes be favoured. A sufficient token, that so to receiue an offender againe, hath at all no favour with him: and thereby also a sword giuen into the handes of those that are of that humor, to be long enough avenged on the offender, til they may finde tokens (to their contentment) of true repentance. So hauehave wee hitherto partly seene, both how weake reasons they hauehave, and what inconvenient speeches (besides) they hauehave now and then interlaced among them.The meaning of the places themselues: & first that such is not the meaning of them as they would hauehave it.

25 Now to examine the places themselues (for the true sense and meaning of them) for the better vnderstanding of the order ensuing, wee are first to acknowledge, that when we hauehave gathered the meaning of them, and p. 121withall hauehave made it reasonable plaine, even out of the consideration of the places themselues, yet is it not vnlikely, but that it will hardly sinke in the mindes of others, vnlesse some doubts be answered withall, which otherwise will much prevaile with many: and therefore are we first to set downe the meaning of them; then, to consider of those doubts that seeme to be so strong against it. And to finde out the meaning of them, wee are first to set by that which is not: then, afterward to declare that which is. That which is not, being first set by, both the most of the busines will bee dispatched, and the other wil then more plainely appeare: but herein also wee are not barely to set downe the negatiue, that I meane vntounto it; but also to adde some such proofe therevnto as may not well bee wanting from it. The negatiue that I meane vntounto it is this, that whatsoever Christ by those wordes meant; yet this, in no wise, seemeth to bee his meaning therein, that thereby hee would giuegive them liberty, so to divorce themselues the one from the other. That which I thought needfull to ad therevnto, & is not meete to be wanting from it, least so it should stand as a bare negation, resteth on two principall grounds: one, that Christ himselfe should not seeme to bee so favourable vntounto it; the other, that the nature of wedlocke doth not well beare it.For that Christ himselfe is not like to bee so favourable vntounto it. That Christ himselfe should not seeme to be so favorable vntounto it, seemeth to be a cleere case, being well considered, for that we shall finde, that there was never any such allowed before, nor after neither: namely that for adultery men might so part with their wiues, as that therby theywere at liberty to mary others. In thenew Testamēt we never thought that we had any such liberty but only so far as these words of his would help vsus. But p. 122in the old Testament we thought wee had many; at least those two: the one in Deuteronomie; the other, in Malachie. And therefore so long as those stood in that credit with vsus, wee thought the sense of this Exception of Christ might well be, that hee allowed that liberty for adultery to all, that was allowed by Moses and Malachie, for lesser matters, to the Iewes before. And indeed that collection had beene very good, for that both Moses and Malachie also wrote those things not of their owne private motion, but as they were therein directed by Gods holy Spirit, which spake by the Prophets. But now if we finde, that these also doe faile vsus, then must wee graunt, that now wee hauehave none: and so consequently, that, if Christ in this exceptiō hath allowed that liberty vntounto vsus, it is such a thing as himselfe hath only done, and not one of his Prophets before, nor Apostles since. Which thing (for my part) I thinke would proue a strange assertiō, that Christ in his holynesse should giuegive further liberty to that natural inclination of ours, then ever any other of his servants had done, before, or after. And for that matter wee neede go no further, then to themselues, that are for such divorce and marrying againe: and not vntounto all them neither, for that fewer wil serue our turne. M^r Calvine therefore insteed of the rest (and one that in weight may well stād, in matters of iudgmēt, in most of his writings, formany of them) even in his Harmonie on the Gospels (which was, as I noted already, some few yeares before that wee find that he had noted how that place of Deuteronomie was mistakē) saith reasonably wel for that matter.In Mat. 19, 3.Matt 19:3 Duobus capitibus (saith he) rem totam concludit: or dinem creationis debere esse instar Legis, ut vir conjugalem fidem tota vita co…at. Divortia autem esse permissa, non quod licita sint, sed quia p. 123cum praefracto & indocili populo negotium erat. that is, Hee shutteth vp (meaning of Christ) the whole matter in two principall points: (one) that the order of creation should be insteed of a law, that the husband al his life long should keepe his promise made in marriage; (the other) that divorces are suffered, not as though they were lawfull, but because they had to doe with a stubborne and vntoward people. But yet more fully, on that place it selfe in Deuteronomie. In the beginning of that his Treatice, Quod ad divortia spectat, saith he,I…. Harm. i… lib. Mos…s, in Praeceptum. quamvis per indulgentiam concessum fuerit Iudaeis, pronunciat tamen Christus nunquam fuisse legitimum, quia primae dei institutioni, ex qua perpetua & inviolabilis petenda est regula, palàm repugnat. that is, Concerning divorce, although by sufferance it were graunted vntounto the Iewes, yet Christ pronounceth, that it was never allowed vntounto them as lawfull, because it doth plainely crosse the first ordinance of God, out of which the rule of our life is to bee taken, and ever inviolably to bee kept. Againe, Et certè scheda vel libellus divortij marito nonnihil asper gebat dedecoris, that is, And truely that instrument or bill of divorce did not a little discredit the husband. Lastly, even in the end, Ita admoniti fuerunt Israëlitae, quamvis impunè vxores reijcerent, licentiam tamen hanc minimè coràm Deo excusari. that is, So were the Israelites admonished that although they put away their wiues without any danger of punishment for it, to bee inflicted on them by law, yet that so to hauehave vsed their libertie, they could in no wise excuse vntounto God. Quibus adijci potest, saith Gualter, viros saltem in speciem bonos & honestos, In Marc. 10.Mark 10libellos repudij non facilè dedisse. that is, Wherevnto may bee added, that such men as but in shew (or as they would themselues bee accounted) were good and honest did not easily p. 124giuegive those bills of divorcement. By which speeches, and their hard (but iust) censure of divorce, it appeareth, not onelyonly that no man of reasonable honestie did lightly vse the benefit of it: but also that it was not thought a thing lawful neither before God. And may we then thinke, that Christ would grant any such? For if they reply that that divorce that they vsed was ofti…es for smal matters, & so not this that now is spoken of which is for adultery: true indeed that they vsed it for smal matters oftimes (but then much rather, by al likelyhoode, for this also, seeing the iudgement of death was so little executed amōg them) but yet that we know of none other besides; & then, that stil it remaineth true which I said before, that if Christ allowed of such a divorce, himselfe is both the first & the last that hath done it.And for that the nature of wedlock cannot wel bea… it. That the nature of wedlocke doth not wel beare it, it may appeare by that which is said before of the weak reasoning of those, that cōclude the bond of matrimony to be by adulterie broken, which is notwithstanding but the offence of the one part onlie. Concerning which, although M^r Calvine tooke not to himselfe the benefit of it, as wee saw before: yet did hee there set downe both a very good rule; and a reason for it besides.Harm in Mat. 5.31.Matt 5:31 The rule is this, Sanctius est conjugij vinculum, quàm ut hominū arbitrio vel potius libidine solvatur: that is, The bond of Marriage is a more sacred thing, than that it may be dissolved againe, when a man thinketh good, or rather when his lust doth sollicite him vntounto it. His reason is, Tametsi enim mutuo consensu sese conjungunt vir et uxor, Deus tamē nodo indissolubili eos astringit, ne postea liberum sit difcedere. Additur tamen exceptio, &c.: that is, for although mā and wife doe ioine themselues togither with their owne mutual consent: yet doth God (otherwise) tie thē togither p. 125with such a knot, as may not bee loosed,Sect. 24. that afterwarde they may not sunder themselues againe. But yet there is added (saith he) an exception, &c.: meaning this that nowe we speake of, and so himselfe doth make little vse of the benefit of that his good observation that he leaveth to vsus. For howsoever men & women may of themselues ioine togither in holy wedlocke: yet when so they are coupled, thē are they also in such sort ioined togither by God himselfe, that themselues cānot breake the bond againe, as before is declared. As M^r Calvine againe saith elsewhere,In 1. Cor. 7… 11.1 Cor 7:11 Penes virum non est, matrimonium facere irritum: that is, It is not in the husbands power, to make void his matrimony: though himselfe there also, desire no farther advantage of this general rule, but only that marriage by domestical cō tention bee not dissolved: a small matter in comparison of that, which therevpon hee might iustly require. And therefore the councel that in another place he giveth,In Mat. 19.7.Matt 19:7 is so much the rather in this case to be regarded, for that we may hauehave good hope therby, that this Exceptiō of Christ wil rather sort it selfe to some other meaning, than to allow vsus so strāge a liberty. Sed videant privati homines, saith he, ne sua vitia legum patrocinio tegentes, culpam eorum duplicent. Nam hic Dominus obliquè Iudaeos increpat, quasi ipsis non sufficiat impunè suam proterviam tolerari, nisi Deum iniquitatis suae authorem inscribāt: that is, But let private men take heed, that while they seek to cover their sinnes vnderunder the patronage of lawes, they so make not a double fault. For here the Lorde doth covertly reproue the Jewes, as though it were not sufficient for thē, to hauehave their naughtines (therein) to be without punishmēt, vnlesse they made God also to be the author of that iniquity of theirs. As Iohanan and his company,Ier. 42.20.Jer 42:20 being purposed before to go p. 126downe into Egypt,Sect. 26. yet would see if they coulde hauehave obtained the consent of Ieremie so to doe, that so they might seeme for to hauehave done it, if not with the Lords direction, yet at the least with his good leaue and licence first obtained.Num. 22, 10.19, &c.Num 22:10Num 22:19 As Balaam also would faine hauehave gratified the king of Moab in that his bad suit; but yet woulde first very gladly hauehave had the Lords allowance therevnto, if by any intreaty he could hauehave obtained it: but hee, for greedines of the reward; and these, for the louelove of their wanton pleasures.

Then what we may thinke to be their meaning indeed, and first of that in the fift of Saint Matthew.26 What then should be the meaning of these tvvo places that now we speake of, to the end that we may the better finde, because they do something varie, therefore it is needful, that we take them severally. First therefore to begin with that in the fift chapter of S. Matthews gospell, there will it bee needeful, first to search out his meaning therein: then to answere one speciall Obiection that properly to this place appertaineth.The sense of the Place first set down To search out the meaning of Christ herein, we had neede to consider not onlie how we may safeliest take it: but also, what we hauehave to induce vsus so to do. As touching the former it cannot be denied (neither is it, that I know of, by any) but that in that notable sermon of Christ on the Mountaine, calling his auditory from the loosenesse of those daies, among other things of that nature, he also tolde them, that whereas it had been said of old, that whosoever did put away his wife, should giuegive her a bill of divorcement, he now saide vntounto thē, that whosoever did put away his wife except it be for fornication, should cause her to commit adulterie, & that whosoever married her that was divorced, shoulde cōmit adultery also. Which words, as it seemeth to me, we may safeliest take in this only sense, that Christ did shewe himselfe thereby, at that time to seeke no more at their hands, p. 127but only so far to restraine that liberty of divorcing their wiues, as that they did it but only for adultery: not meaning to shew that hee would allow that liberty vntounto thē; but only that now he would so far restraine it. That which we hauehave to induce vsus herevnto, I meane, so only to take it, and not to stretch it further, resteth on two principall cō siderations: one, certaine circumstances of this present place; the other, such like in many other places of the Scripture besides. The circumstāces of this present place, are two: one, of the time; the other, of the persons who were his Auditory at this present. The time was shortlie after that first he began to preach, having gathered manie of his disciples, and done such miracles, that now the people began to resort apace vntounto him. At which time Christ might wel thinke good, so far to beare with their weakenes and rudenes, as not to require (at that time) of them, the vttermost of that which rightly he might. His Auditory consisted on two sorts: the common multitude; and those his disciples that then were. The cōmon multitude we may very wel thinke to hauehave beene so rude then, that wel his wisdome might so farre forbeare them. The disciples were of the common sort before, & but lately come to Christ: and so consequently not vnlikely to bee almost as ignorant yet, as they were before; and almost as much wedded vntounto such libertie, as in the loosenes of that time had growne vp among them, as the residue for the most part were. His Auditorie therefore consisting of such, it is no absurd thing to conceiue, that hee meant hereby to presse them no farther than so, and not to grant as allowed vntounto thē, whatsoever now hee thought good, to leaue out of the bounds, that so he named. As, whē men are disposed sometime to take in some part of their land that lyeth p. 128towards the land of others, though vponupon some speciall consideration they set not out their …ense so far as they might, yet doth not that by and by import, that they abā don the rest, or leaue it to others. For in such case they may so take in that which in such sort they compasse about with their …ense, that neverthelesse they doe not meane to disclaime in the other neither. So in this, Christ may in such sort restraine that loosnesse of theirs, within those boūds that there hee set downe: that neverthelesse there may bee much without them also, that hee will not allow vntounto thē. And the rule is good, that wee take good heed, how we doe gather any thing that is not said, out of that which is at any time said vntounto vsus. For, seeing it pleaseth God, not only to lead those, that seeke vntounto him for the same, to all the parts of such holynesse and righteousnesse as is accepted with him, but sometimes also, in an easier course to deale with the common sort, and so to restraine some things vntounto them, that neverthelesse he leaveth them further libertie out of the restraint, then hee can like of that they shall vse: it may very well bee, that Christ did not meane hereby to teach the vttermost perfection in that matter; but onelyonly as Civile Magistrates doe, restraining such things as they hope they may obtaine, winking at others, and altogether passing over thē in silence, if they feare that they can do no good therein. And seeing it is graunted of all, that that presupposed law of Moses was political, what letteth but that this ofChrist may be so too? Zegedinus, one of those that is for divorce and marrying againe, doth plainely say it, though vntounto another ende. Potest, saith he, & hoc responderi, dictum Christi de repudio, In loc. com. prol. pag. 347.ad legem judicialem pertinere: quae pro ratione temporis, loci, personarum, seu subditorum mutari, aut saltem p. 129mitigari potest. that is, This also (saith hee) may be answered, that that speech of Christ which is of divorce, belongeth to the Iudiciall law: which, according as the time, place, and persons shall require may be either cleane chā ged; or, at least, made more easie to beare. And then, if we may take it to appertaine vntounto the Iudicialls, and to bee politicall (as no doubt it is the fairest, in that sense that before I noted, neither can there be any thing of moment, I am fully persuaded, brought against it) first Musculus, another of them, plainely faith, Civiles leges multa non bona permittunt, propter subditorum malitiam, In Mat. 5.Matt 5ne status publicus perturbetur: againe, nec omnia mala vetant, nec omnia bona praecipiunt. that is, Civill lawes allow of many things that are not good, because of the vntowardnesse of the people, least otherwise that publike estate should bee hurt thereby. And those lawes doe neither forbid all things that are ill, nor giuegive in charge all things that are good. Master Calvine also, another of them, Perperam, Harm. in Mat 5.31.Matt 5:31saith hee, sumebant piè sanctéque vivendi regulam ex jure civili. Nam leges politicae interdum ad hominum mores flectuntur: Deus verò, legem spiritualem ferendo, non respexit quid homines possint, sed quid debeant. that is, They did il to take the rule of holy and godly life out of the Civill law (meaning the Iudicialls of Moses.) For politicall lawes are sometimes framed to the waies or maners of men: but God in giuing forth the spirituall law, did not respect what men are able to doe, but what men ought to doe.Idem in Mal. 2.Mal 2 Againe, Magistratus multa quae non probabit, cogetur tamen ferre: quia nunquam ita praeclare agetur cum genere humano ut cohibeantur omnia vitia. Est quidem hoc optandum, ut nullum vitium toleretur: sed videndum quid fieri possit. that is, The Magistrate shall be compelled to suffer many things which he cannot allow: because it wil never goe so well p. 130with mankind that all sin may bee restrained. It is indeed to be wished, that no sinne at all were suffered among vsus: but we must consider, what we may bee able to doe. And therefore as Musculus saith againe, of that praesupposed Law of Moses, that Christ did teach, that it was not giuegive… to any such ende, ut quod in se illicitum, coram Deo reddat licitum, that is, To make that lawfull before God, that is vnlawfull in it selfe: even so, not only wee may safely take this exception of Christ; but also it will soone be found, as I doe take it, to bee the most approued sense that any way else we are able to finde, if indifferently we consider thereof as we ought to doe. In many other such like places of Scripture besides, we may so plainely find such sparing of the rude and ignorant people to be of God, as that it need not to be thought any derogation to the glorie of Christ, if so be wee take that onelyonly to bee his meaning therein▪ and first, in the old Testament; then, in the new. In the old Testament wee finde such like dealing in two speciall Prophets: Moses the one; and Elizeus, or Elisha the other.Exod. 34:29.…5.Exod 34:29Exod 34:5 Moses, so soone as ever he found, that God had put on him some special glorie, that the people were not able to behold his countenance for the brightnesse or shining of it, by and by put a vail on his face while he was with the people: which notwithstanding hee did put off againe, when hee talked with God. Afterward, when hee gaue them lawes, and was not ignorant of their greate loosnesse in many of their waies, and namely in taking more wiues then one,De…t 21, 15.24.1. and in divorcing such as they had, albeit he knew them wel enough, and spake of them too: yet did hee make no law against them, nor so much as reproue them neither.2. King. 51.17.…9. Elizeus also, when his new convert Naaman did seeke to hauehave the Prophets approbation, p. 131that he might (in one case) a little halt betwixt God and Baal (at least, as it seemeth that his wordes did therevnto tend) the Prophet did nothing at all reproue him, but after the vsuall maner did bid him farewell. In the new Testament we hauehave the like, not only in divers of his servāts: but also, in the Master himselfe. In his servants wee hauehave such things, both in divers of them severally: and in the whole body of the chiefe of them all, iointly together. Of those that are severall,Ioh. 1.21.John 1:21 first we hauehave that faithfull one that came before him, vtterly denying (for the peoples weaknesse, whom hee found to bee ready to hauehave him in over great admiration) that hee was Elias:Mat. 11.14. & 17.10.13.Matt 11:14Matt 17:10Matt 17:13 which notwitstanding in two severall places Christ doth as plainely ascribe vntounto him. An other that followed,Heb. 5.11▪4▪Heb 5:11Heb 5:4 being in hand to speak of Melchisedek, and then remembring that such things as were to be spoken of him, were many of them hard to be vttered, and withall that those to whom hee should vtter them, were of a dul & hard vnderstanding, doth suddainly breake off the course of his speech, even in respect of that weaknes of theirs because yet they were not capable of so high points of doctrine as those. In the whole body of the chiefe of them all iointly together (I meane the Apostles and many other of the faithfull assembled together, in a Councell at Ierusalem,Act. 15.28, …9Acts 15:28Acts 15:9 about the schisme that a little before sprang vp at Antioche) we hauehave an example of wonderfull bearing with the peoples weaknesse, prescribing in a manner nothing else vntounto them, but onelyonly that which tended therevnto, and that not only in forbidding vntounto them, but such meates as had before beene offered to idols (which notwithstanding may well be eaten but when offense thereat may be taken) and therewithall both blood and strangled (both which were but ceremoniall,1. Cor. 8, 1, ….…1 Cor 8:1 p. 132& by the death of Christ, with the rest of that kinde cried down alreadie, though the time seru'd not thē by & by to proceed for the funeral of thē, or to hauehave their dead carkasies vntounto the graue:) but also, in setting downe fornication (by the reason of the great loosenes of the people therin) yet in like degree with those others, which notwithstanding is a great deale more odious by manie degrees. So much were they led by the Spirit of God to beare with the weaknes of the people then: so carefully they covered the brightnes of their faces, least it shoulde dazle (if not cleane put out) the weake sighted eies of the ignorant people. In the Master of al, how oft do we finde, that hee forbiddeth, not only aaMar. 44, 7, 36,others, but his bbMat. 16.20.Matt 16:20disciples too, and the ccMat. 17, 9.Matt 17:9best of thē al, not to be so much as acknown of divers things of special importance, vntil they shoulde bee farther strengthened therein? not that those things might not be by them declared, but that hee woulde hauehave them somewhat strōger, before they should meddle with them.Iob. 16.1….Job 16:1 How plainely doth himselfe likewise tel them, that hee had many things to speake vntounto them, but that they were not able then to beare thē? & for that cause (as then) he did not trouble thē any farther with thē. How quietlie also doth hee put vp that dogged waywardnes of the elder brother,Luc. 15.…8, 31Luke 15:8Luke 15:31 only for that his father was so good to the younger, when he so little deserved the same, that sweete (but foolish) conceipt of him,Luc. …8, 2…, 22Luke 8:2Luke 8:22 that thought he had so fully kept al those commandements of God:Mat. 20, 12 16.Matt 20:12 that frowarde wrāgling of those, that though they had their ful due, yet were they not well, only because others had as much as they:Mat. 10.35.45.Matt 10:35Matt 10:45 that vnseasonable & strāge ambitiō of those two Apostles, and, the repining of the rest against thē? Al which, though of divers kindes, yet evē by it also, do so much the p. 133more plainely declare, that the infirmity or weakenes of man is alwaies almost very favourably regarded, not only of good men, but also of God.Then a certaine obiection answered. That one obiection that properly to this place appertaineth, is, that in this place Christ was in hand to commend vntounto them a more strict observation of the lawes of God, than the better sort of them (in common account) had inured themselues vntounto, or thought they needed to hauehave done: and then, that it should seeme thereby, that taking the Exception in that sense that they would hauehave it in, and themselues vsing that liberty of it; they shoulde therein doe nothing against the rule of godlines, no, not only when it is but easily or with great liberty delivered vntounto vsus, but when it is in strictest manner exacted of vsus. Howbeit whosoever advisedly shal consider of the place it selfe, may plainely see that it doth not afford any such argument, because we may see, that it was not the meaning of Christ to teach the vttermost of perfection in those matters that he spake of, but onlie to cal them on much farther therein, than they thought anie need to require, or at least that they in their waies regarded. This may sufficiently appeare, in those other examples, that there he bringeth: whereof some there be that goe before this that now we speake of; & others, that follow. Those that goe before, are two: one,Mat, 5.2…, 27 Thou shalt not kil, the other thou shalt not cōmit adultery. In both which hee discovereth much more than they in that loose time regarded, but nothing so much as those lawes require of vsus. For in the former hee speaketh but of certaine other branches that are likewi…e forbidden; and nothing at al of any of those that are required, which notwithstanding are both many, and of special importance besides: and in the latter he speaketh but of one braunch only, and omitteth p. 134many others, as farre from the common loosenes of mē, as that which he nameth (and some of them further) and all those that are required. Those that follow are some of them in this fift chapter: and some in the next. In this fift Chapter there are three: one, of a severall kinde by it selfe; the other two, being both in a manner, of one kinde.Mat. 5.33.Matt 5:33 That which is of a severall kinde by it selfe is that of Not swearing: wherein hee forbiddeth divers other branches also that are forbidden; but yet leaveth many others of those, and all on the other side that are required, vntouched likewise. In those two others that are in a manner of one kinde, hee doth but reforme their bad misconstruing of two special places:Mat. 5.…8.Matt 5:8 one, that because Magistrates were appointed & allowed to inflict the like punishment on the offendor, as hee in the way of private wrath or revenge had inflicted on an other, as eie for eie, and tooth for tooth, therevpon they gathered, that so far they might in their private quarrels prosecute their own revēging desire, or at least that they might lawfully craue so much of the Magistrate,Mat. 5.43.Matt 5:43 though but to satisfie their owne desire; the other (not altogither vnlike to the maine point that now we speak of) that because the letter of the law did require their louelove but vntounto their neighbours, they thought therefore that they were allowed to hate their enimies. Those that follow in the next chapter, are other three likewise: one of them respecting some part of our duty towards mē, which is doing of our almes; the others some part of our duty to God,Mat. 6.1. Mat. 6, 5.16.Matt 6:1Matt 6:5Matt 6:16 which are Praier, and Fasting. In the first and last of which both he rebuketh the ostentation of it, and teacheth them how to behaue themselues for that matter: and in the middlemost he rebuketh but it againe, and vaine babling withal; and then teacheth p. 135them, both how to pray, and to remember,Sect. 27. that so oft as they seeke forgiuenes of God, they also forgiue such trespasses as others do vntounto them. Thā the which it is sufficiently known vntounto al, that there be in every of them many things else, that the rule of godlines, as it is set downe in the word of God, doth also require: and then, there is nothing in this to the contrary, but that, although Christ cal them here to greater godlines, yet may such as put awaie their wiues and marrie againe (though it were for adulterie) account that they may well enough bee great sinners therein.