Concerning the first proposition, that there can be no diuorcement, and that it is the drift of our Sauiour in this text to disa­null all diuorcements.

I say vnto you, whosoeuer putteth away his wife) I shewed you before, how there was an Elleipsis or want of words to be suppli­ed. Not as though I would by that supply of words serue mine owne turne, or seeke to aduantage my selfe, for I neede not, and if we cōtent our selues with the bare, naked and imperfect words of the Greeke text, which the aduersary vseth for his best and onely aduantage, no diuorce­ment can be prooued ot of them. That I may examine the bare words: who so putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication committeth adulterie: It is no good consequent that therefore if a man put away his wife for fornicatiō, it is no adultery: nor this; hee that putteth away his wife and marrieth an other, com­mitteth adultry, therefore if he put her a­way & marry no other it is no adultry, as it may appeare by the like.Leuit. 1 [...]. 1 [...] Moses saith: Thou shalt not take a wife with her sister while [Page 12] shee liueth: will you therefore argue out of these words, that when a mans wife is dead, he may marrie her sister? Our Saui­our saith:Marc. 16. 16 Whosoeuer beleeueth and is babti­zed, shall be saued. Will you therefore con­clude against S. Ambrose that Theodosius the Emperour which did beleeue and was not baptised, was not saued? The holy Ghost saith:Mat. 1. 18. Ioseph knew not Mary vntill shee had brought foorth her first borne sonne, & that Mary was found with childe before Ioseph and shee came together: will you therefore conclude with Heluidius the Hereticke against S. Ierome, Hieron. cō ­tra [...]eluidiū that Mary was not a perpetuall Virgin, and that shee was the mother of other children? and that after the birth of Christ,Math. 28. Ioseph and Mary came together? Our Sauiour saith, I will be with you till the end of the world. Paul saith, [...]. Cor. 15. Christ shall sit on the right hand of his Father vntill he make his enemies his foote­stoole: Decretal. lib. 5. Tit. 40 cap. 6. verba intelligen­da sunt, non secundum quodsonāt, sed secundū mentem proferentis, will you therefore conclude that Christ shall leaue vs after the end of the world? or cease to sit on his fathers right hand after his enemies are subdued? You will aske me then, if these words: (Except it be for fornication) be no exception, but meerely Idle, why doth our Sauiour vse [Page 13] them?Hilar. Intel­ligentia dic­torum ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermonires, sed reiser­mo est sub­iectus. or how can it stand with the nature of the holy Ghost to speake idlely? These words are not idle, and yet make nothing in fauour of diuorcement. S. Augustine an­swereth in this maner. Si ille maechatur qui dimissâ vxore fornicatrice aliam ducit, cur er­go dominus interposuit causam fornicationis? in [...]mo, cur non dicit simpliciter: qui dimissâ vxore aliam ducit, maechatur? If he which putteth away an adulterous wife and mar­rieth an other,De adulte­rinis con­iugijs. lib. 1. cap. 9. committeth adultery in so doing, why did our Sauiour put in this cau­tion, saying, except it be for fornication? Why did he not say rather absolutely, that he which putteth away his wife and marri­eth an other committeth adulterie? Quiae dominus illud quod grauius adulteriū est com­memorare voluit quam id quod est minus, nam grauius adulteriū est pudicâ vxore dimissa aliā ducere quàm impudicâ, vt Iacobi quarto, sciē ­ti bonū facere & non facienti peccatum est illi, nūquid idcirco peccatum est illi qui nescit bonū facere &, ideo nō facit [...]vtrum (que) peccatum est, sed illud maius istud minus, ita in his adulterijs, sed vtrum (que) est adulterium. Because our Sa­uiour would speake of that adulterie espe­cially which was most heinous, rather then of the other which is a lesse offence, for it [Page 14] is a more grieuous adulterie to put away a chaste wife and marry an other, then to put away a dishonest wife & marry again, euen as according to the Apostle.Iac. 4. 17. To him that knoweth how to do well, & doth it not, to him it is sin. Wil you therfore cōclude, that to him which knoweth not how to doo wel, & therfore doth it not, to him it is no sin? Both are sins, that greater and this les­ser, so both these are adultry, though one be greater & the other lesser. But for your farther satisfaction, mine owne answer is this: These words of our Sauiour (except it be for fornication) do shew that the drift of our Sauiour was two-folde, to shew what was supposed to be lawfull by the permis­siō of Moses, & what was indeed lawful ac­cording to the word of God, for they af­foord two seueral constructions, secundum permissionē Mosaicam & veritatē euangelicā according to the permissiō of Moses, and the truth of the Gospell, according to Moses his permission, which was a man, and did like a man, diuorcement was per­mitted, onely in case of adulterie, but ac­cording to the immutable and incorrupt veritie of the scriptures, Christ denieth diuorcement to be lawfull, as by the ana­logy [Page 15] of this place doth appeare. For, whē our Sauiour saith: wherefore I say vnto you: marke vpon what occasion our Sauiour doth say these things vnto them? conferre the beginning of the Dialogue or confe­rence of the Pharisies and our Sauiour, with the end of the same, and his purpose will appeare. Wherevpon doth our Sa­uiour deliuer this definitiue sentence con­cerning diuorcement vnto them, but vp­on their falsifying and belying the words of Moses, which hee restoreth to the true sence and meaning thereof? In the begin­ning of the cōference, the Pharisies asked Christ tempting him & saying: Is it law­ful for a man to put away his wife for eue­ry fault, making no mention of marrying againe? He answereth, it is not lawfull for any fault, and prooueth his deniall by ar­guments drawne; first from the nature of marriage, that which is but one cannot be diuided, vnitas est indiuisibilis, but the man and wife are one; therefore they cannot be diuided. The Maior is a principle in Arithmaticke,Gen. 2. 14. 1. and cannot be denied: the Minor is Ipse dixit a principle in diuinitie.Cor. 6. 16 Secondly,Eph. 5. 3. frō the definition of diuorce­ment, no man can seuer thē whom God [Page 16] hath ioyned together, but to diuorce, is to seuer man and wife, whom God hath ioy­ned together,Deut. 24. and this in effect is all that may be saide of this question. But, the Pharisies not satisfying themselues with this answere, reply against it, and presse him with the authoritie of the scriptunre. Moyses say they, commaunded the man to giue his wife a Bill of diuorcement and put her away. Hee answereth them, that in so alleadging the words of Moyses, they falsifie the Texte three maner of wayes. First, whereas they say Moyses commaun­ded, it is not so, for Moyses did but suffer them for the hardnesse of theyr hearts;Math. 5. there is great difference betweene a com­maundement and a tolleration, they be of sundrie natures. In deed our Sauiour saith It hath bene said: Let him giue her a Bill of diuorcement. Which words doo import a commaundement, but by whom was it said? only by the Iewes, according to their receiued errour, for God neuer said it, as also in the same place: Yee haue heard how it hath bene said, thou shalt loue they neighbour and hate thine enemie. Math. 5. 43. But if ye read the place of scripture to which it hath relation,Leuit. 19. 18 ye shall finde they haue misreported of it: [Page 17] for there is mention onely of the loue of our neighbour,If any ob­iect that the hi­story is o­therwise related in Marke▪ I answere with Greg▪ Decretal. lib. 5. Tit. 40. cap. 7. Nihil obstat narrandi diuersit as &c. not of the hatred of our enemie, that is but their owne collection. Secondly, whereas they build vpon this tolleration of Moyses, it is no sufficient foundation to ground vpon, because Moy­ses in this his tolleration did not permit di­uorcement as a thing honest and lawfull, but that he did as a man, to beare with the hardnesse of their hearts, dispence with them in this case, contrary to Gods word, where hee saith: From the beginning it was not so. But whatsoeuer is contrary to the first institution of marriage as it was in the beginning appointed of God is adulterie. For we are not to regard the receiued er­rour of the Iewes, but the truth of Iesus Christ▪ as Ignatius saith ad Philadelp.Vrsinus Doctr. Christ. 2. parte, in 7. praecep. Scopus precepti non mae­chaberis, est conser­uatio casti­tatis & mu­nitio coniu­gij. Quic­quid ergò facit ad ca­stitarem & munien­dum coniu­gium, hâc Jege praeci­pitur, con­trarium prohibetur. Sub adulte­rio prohi­bentur om­nia vitia ca­stitati con­traria, & corum cog­natae spe­cies, causae, occasiones, effectus, antece­dentia, con­sequentia.Anti­quitas mea Iesus Christus est. My antiquitie is Iesus Christ. And S. Ambrose: de virgi­nibus: Nos noua quae Christus non docuit iure damnamus, quoniam via fidelibus Christus est, si ergo Christus non docuit quod docemus, nos illud detestabile iudicamus. Wee doo iustly condemne all doctrine as noueltie which Christ hath not taught, because he is the onely teacher whom the faithful must fol­low: if therefore Christ be not the author [Page 18] of that which is taught, wee adiudge it a damnable doctrine that is taught. And Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Si solus Christus audi­endus est, nō debemus attēdere quid aliquis antè nos faciendum putauerit, sed quid qui ante om­nes est Christus prior fecerit ne (que) sequi oportet hominis consuetudinem sed dei veritatem. If the sheepe of Christ doo heare his voyce onely, wee must not bee inquisitiue what others haue done before vs, but what Christ which is before all hath appointed to vs, neither must we follow the customes of man, but the truth of God. Bigamy was permitted to the Patriarkes, yet vnlawfull: so diuorcement to the Iewes, though vn­lawfull. It were very hard if our Sauiour ha­uing thus pronounced diuorcement to bee vnlawfull and repugnant to Gods institu­tion, should in this text being the next verse following after, contradict himselfe and allowe it to be lawful. Thirdly, where­as they falsifie Moses, as if Moses did tolle­rate diuorcement for any cause, saying: Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for a­ny fault? Our Sauiour doth lay before them their errour, affirming that Moses in that place which they alleadge, did not permit diuorcement for any cause but onely for [Page 19] one cause, and that cause is heere specified to be adulterie, where he saith: whosoeuer (according to Moses his permission) putteth away his wife except it be for whoordome, committeth adulterie. And yet he explai­neth that againe saying: that according to truth he cannot put her away for adulte­rie, because he can marry no other, neither can she marry any other, but both shall be adulterous. But, for the better satisfying of your selues, conferre this place of Ma­thew, with that of Deuteronomie, which is the ground of all this disputation, and you shal finde that the Pharisies haue not dealt ingenuously, but very falsely.

The words of Moses are these.Deut. 24. If a man take a wife, if so be that she find no fauour in his eyes because he hath espied some filth in her. There is the onely cause, hee doth not say any cause, but one cause, which is filth; but filth is according to the Hebrew phrase adulterie, as it appeareth by the fourth verse of the same Chapter, where whoor­dome is called by the generall name of filth. So these words of our Sauiour are not onely a farther explanation of that texte of Deuteronomie which the Phari­sies had corrupted, but also a definitiue [Page 20] sentence, and positiue point of doctrine, that diuorcement being so common, was helde among the hard-hearted Iewes as lawfull, because it was suffered by Moses, contrarie to the commandement of God, and first institution of marriage, which was from the beginning of the world. Moreo­uer, because the Pharisies aske why did Moses command to giue a Bill of diuorce­ment and put her away? and Christ answe­reth; Moses did but permit: some Diuines do grossely mistake the sence thereof, affir­ming these words to include partly a com­maundement, according to the words of the Pharisies, partly a tolleratiō according to the words of Christ; to wit, a tolleration onely to put away their wiues, and a com­maundement that if they would vse the li­bertie of this tolleration graunted vnto them, yet that they should first giue a Bill of diuorcemēt, that all proceedings might be according to order, but they are decei­ued by reading the vulgar translation, and other corrupt Interpreters, for they trans­late it: Let him write her a Bill of diuorce­ment; which translation hath brought them into this errour. But according to the Hebrew, Tremelius translateth in this ma­ner: [Page 21] If a man take a wife and shee finde no fa­uour in his eyes, because he hath espied filth in her, in so much that he do giue her a Bill of di­uorcement, &c. Here is no such commaun­dement, as let him giue her a Bill; but one­ly a supposition, if he doo giue her a Bill of diuorcement, (because vnlesse the Bill were first giuen,Vide Chry­sost. in Lib. de libel. re­pud. the diuorcement was not tollerated) so that Moses is so farre from commaunding, that he doth not so much as tollerate it in expresse words, but onely pèr tacitum consensum, by not forbidding it expresly, & so supposing such an enormi­tie to bee committed according to their practise; onely he commaundeth this, that after it is done, if the woman after her de­parture marrie an other, that then shee shall not returne to her first husband a­gaine.

And, whereas some Diuines take it prò concesso, as a thing graunted, that the for­mall writing a Bill of diuorcement, did ra­tifie the diuorcement & make an act law­full, it is cleane contrary. You will say then, if the Bill could not adde strength to the diuorcement to make it good,L. Ideser, dom. in monte why was it giuen? S. Augustine answereth, that a Bill of diuorcement was first deuised to [Page 22] shewe the Iewes how vngodly a thing di­uorcement was, for as much as it was law­ful for none to write Bills of diuorcement, but onely the Scribes and learned Doc­tors of the Lawe, to whom onely it apper­tained by their office, scribere sacras liter as to write in the holy tongue, and because it was euen among them held for a cru­cell and vnnaturall fact for a man to put a­way his wife, and this Bill of diuorcement could not bee ingrossed suddenly, but it required time and space: when the plaintiue resorted to the Scribes office to haue the Bill drawne, the Scribe was first to lay open to the partie grieued the vnlawfulnesse of such proceedings, and to perswade him by all meanes to desist from so badde a purpose, and bee recon­ciled to his wife againe, and to take better deliberation, and repaire to the office some other time, to trie if the partie grieued could by such delayes be better aduised in colde bloud. But if so be that hee conti­nued obstinate and vntractable, that his hatred towards his wife could not be paci­sied; then of two euils the least was cho­sen, to auoyd a greater mischiefe: rather then the Iewe should murther his wife, it [Page 23] was vltimum refugium, the onely refuge left, to giue a Bill of diuorcement. Treme­lius in his notes vpon this place, obserueth these foure things: First, that this tolleratiō of which we spake, did extend onely to that time present, when they were in the wildernesse, and not to be endured after they should liue vnder a setled estate in the land of Canaan, because it is written in the fourth verse of that Chapter, Thou shalt not suffer the land to sinne, which the Lord shall giue thee to inherit; so that there was an inhibition or restraint against Iosue and his successors that they should suffer no di­uorcements. The second, that this fact was euen then manifestly condemned by Moses when it was permitted, because hee saith in the 4. verse: The woman which is put away and marrieth an other, is pollu­ted by the fact of her husband which did put her away, and so giue her occasion to marry an other, and that is abhomination in the sight of the Lord. The third, that diuorcement is as vnlawfull as poligamy or marriage of many wiues, of which neither haue any warrant out of the word, but that the Iewes liuing then not by precept but by example, not of [Page 24] the godly,Gen. 4. but of the wicked, learned poli­gamy of their fathers, of which the first was Lamech, and diuorcement of the Aegypti­ans, which were Infidels. The fourth, this tolleration of Moses was not in regard of Gods people in generall, but onely of the Iewes in particular, which could not by any arguments be perswaded to renounce the poligamy of their auncestors, or diuorce­ment of the Aegyptians.

Hauing spoken of the analogy of this place in particular, to shewe that the pur­pose of our Sauiour Christ was to disanull diuorcement: I come to the analogy of faith in generall, to shew what faith it selfe hath taught vs to beleeue concerning this question. Whosoeuer putteth away his wife, &c. which words giue me occasion to de­fine diuorcement, and to shewe what it is for a man to put away his wife. In which definition I must followe the example of Aristotle, which defined the things which were not. For when hee hadde shew­ed howe impossible it was, that there should be either vacuum or infinitum, yet defined them both, onely supposing those things to bee, which the nature of things doth not afforde. In like maner I say: [Page 25] Diuortium est non ens; diuorcement is a thing which is not, nor cannot bee, and that the Iewes did diuorce their wiues onely in their grosse imaginations, because being put away, yet they continued their wiues, and their seperation was breach of wedlocke, euen as in the story of Elisaeus, they which came to apprehend the Pro­phet were strooken with blindnesse, so that when they thought they were at Dothan, 2. Reg. 6. Gen. 3. 8. Ionas. 1. their eyes being opened they found that they were in Samaria: and as Adam, when he thought to hide himselfe from God in the thicket, was still in his presence: and as Ionas thought himselfe safe from daunger by flying to Tharsis, when he was most in ieopardie: so they thinke themselues inno­cent by giuing Bills of diuorcement, when they liue in adulterie and are nocent; but supposing that to bee which cannot bee, I will define diuorcement out of the scrip­tures, to prooue that there can be no di­uorcement. Our Sauiour saith: Whom God hath ioyned let no man seperate. In which words, is conteined the definition of di­uorcement, Diuortium est seperatio viri & coni [...]gis authoritate humanâ qui coniuncti sūt authoritate diuinâ. Diuorcement is a sepe­ration [Page 26] of man and wife by the law of man, which are ioyned together by the lawe of God. But that is an impossibilitie that man should make a nullitie of that which God will haue to continue firme and stable, that man should vndoo, & make to be of no va­liditie, which God doth ratifie & make to stand good: that mans errour should make an vnitie to be a number, an indiuisible thing to be diuided, truth to be no truth, marriage to be no marriage, something to be nothing, set thē at libertie which in na­ture do, & must continue bound. Our Sa­uiour Christ hath thus defined diuorcemēt as you haue heard, and out of his owne defi­nition of diuorcement, hath argued to prooue that there can be no diuorcement; and if ye will stand to the definition of our Sauiour Christ, you must confesse that there can be no diuorcement.

The same may also be prooued by the definition of marriage,Lo [...]o com▪ de cōiugio. which Melancthon defineth in this maner. Matrimonium est legitima & in dissolubilis coniunctio vnius ma­ris & vnius faeminae. Marriage is a lawfull and indissoluble ioyning together of one man and one woman. But, if marriage be such a coniunction as is not capable of [Page 27] any dissolution as he tearmeth it:Loco com▪ de diuortio. hee for­getteth himselfe in the next tract after, where hee affirmeth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marry an other, that if a man bee boysterous, fro­ward, cyclopicall, barbarous to his wife, if hee bee crabbed, rogish, the wife may put him away and marry an other: that if hee neglect his family, the Magi­strate may warrant her to marry an o­ther. Others doo define marriage to the same effect as Melancthon did, but in more wordes: That marriage is a lawfull and perpetuall ioyning together of man and wife by the consent of them both, for the begetting of children, auoyding fornication, and mutuall comfort. In which definition, the materiall cause of marriage is man and woman, the finall cause mutuall comfort, procreation, auoy­dance of sin: the efficient cause the mutuall consent of them both, but the formal cause which is the very nature, essence, and life of the same, is their lawfull and perpeutal ioy­ning together, but whatsoeuer is to a man perpetuall, is during life: these thinges being so, it cannot stand with faith that marriage should bee dissolued,Rom. 7. 2. the par­ties [Page 28] liuing. The Apostle saith therefore: The woman which is in subiection to the man, is bound by the law to the man while he liueth, but if the man be dead, she is de­liuered from the law of the man; in which words hee sheweth how the knot of marri­age cannot be vntied but by death.1. Cor. 7. 16 And to the married I commaund, not I, but the Lord: let not the wife depart from her husband, but if shee depart, let her remaine vnmarried, or be reconciled vnto her hus­band: In which words, where hee saith: first, let not the wife depart, secondly, if she depart, let her remaine vnmarried; he inti­mateth two maner of departures, the first, is a vinculo, a rupture of the knot of mar­riage: the second a mensâ & thoro, from bed and boord; the first he saith may not bee, because it is contrary to the institution of marriage; the second, if vnhappily it fol­lowe, that for the incontinencie of the one partie, the other partie be grieued and cannot be reconciled vnlesse they depart, yet that departure be but for a season, vntil they can be reconciled againe, and that is no diuorcement. For there are three de­partures from the marriage bedde which are lawfull, two priuate, the third publike: [Page 29] the first with the consent of both parties,1. Cor. 7. 5. one dispensing with the other, where the Apostle saith: Defraud not one an other, ex­cept it be with consent for a time, that yee may giue your selues to fasting and prayer, and a­gaine come together, least Sathan tempt you for your incontinencie. The second, in case of necessitie, it is lawfull for the man to dis­pense with himselfe, as if the woman be in­fected with a contagious disease, that hee cannot doo the office of an husband with­out manifest daunger of his life, and it is no fraude because it is not voluntarie. The third, if the wife be an adulteresse woman, because it is a publike scandall, he may by the publike magistrate be seperated from his wife for her chastisement vntill shee shew manifest tokens of amendment. And yet as the Magistrate must be very sparing to interpose his authoritie in such a case,Tho. Aqui. in 1. Cor. 7. as to enter betweene the barke and the tree: so againe, there be seuen exceptions which debarre the Magistrate from graunting a­ny seperation from bedde and boord, al­though incontinencie be euidently proo­ued: as, if the woman be inforced by vio­lence not giuing consent,Gen. 24▪ as Dinah was: if by plaine and simple ouersight shee bee [Page 30] deceiued,Gen. 29. taking one for an other, as Iacob was when Laban put Leah in his bedde in steed of Rachel: if the woman by great presumptions in lawe, and the generall view of the world, supposing her husband by his long absence to be dead, doo by publike allowance without guilt of con­science marry an other: if her husbande himselfe be consenting to her adultery, as Sara gaue her maide Agar to lie with A­bram, Gen. 16. for then it is his fault as well as hers: if hee by refusing to accompany with her hath abused her weaknesse and so giuen her occasion to fall, he cannot with a good conscience be a plaintiue against her: if he knowing his wife to bee incontinent do beare with her for the present time, hee ought not afterward to complain, because lawe doth suppose a reconciliation & for­giuenesse of the crime, and after forgiue­nesse there ought to bee no punishment. But the greatest occasion is this: if the wo­man be able to plead compensatiō against her husband;Iohn. 8. that is, if he haue bene incon­tinent as well as she, as our Sauiour wrote with his finger in the dust concerning the woman taken in the act of adulterie: Hee which will throwe the first stone at her [Page 31] must be guiltlesse himselfe.Grat. de­cret▪ pars ri­causa 32. The Canon lawe saith:quaest. 6. Nihil iniquius quàm fornicatio­nis causâ dimittere vxorem qui & ipse cōuin­citur fornicari,cap. 1. ex Aug. dè ser. in monte.occurrit enim illud: qui alte­rū iudicas teipsum condemnas. Qua propter quisquis vult fornicationis causâ dimittere vxorē,cap. 8.prior debet esse à fornicatione purgatus. Rom. 8. Nothing can lesse stand with iustice then that an adulterer should put away an adul­teresse, for in iudging her, according to the rule of the Apostle he condemneth him­selfe; therfore he which wil accuse his wife, must first looke well that he be cleare him­selfe. Againe:Ro. cap. [...]. Quales vultis vxores vestras inuenire, tales sitis & vos, intactam quaeris, in­tactus esto, puram quaeris, noli esse impurus. Be to your wiues as you will that they shal be to you; will you haue them continent, your selues must be chaste; he which will haue his wife to be Sara, himselfe must be Abraham; he which will haue his wife to be Rebecca, himselfe must be Isaac; he which will haue his wife to bee Rachel, himselfe must bee Iacob; hee which will haue his wife to bee Elizabeth, himselfe must bee Zachary. And I counsell all hard-hear­ted husbands, which seeke diuorcement from their wiues, to consider if they them­selues [Page 32] haue not bene some occasion of that euill which they lay to their charge? whe­ther compensation may iustly be pleaded against them or not? and to remember the story of Iudah, Gen. 3 [...]. which iudged his daughter in lawe Thamar worthy of death for play­ing the harlot, whom he himselfe had defi­led, not knowing her because her maske was on her face, but vpon the sight of a cloake, a staffe and a ring which hee had left with her, confessed her to be more righteous then himselfe. But none of these seperations which I haue rehearsed, can vn­tie the knot of matrimonie, neither are they to bee intended to continue for euer, but for a time, therefore they are no di­uorcement. S. Chrysostome saith:Lib. de li­bello re­pudij. Ne mihi leges ab exteris cōditas legas praecipientes dari [...]ibellum repudij, & diuell [...]. Ne (que) enim iuxta illas iudicaturus est te Deus, in illâ diè quâ vē ­turus est, sed secundùm suas, vt ipse statuit. In [...]pso formationis modo legem induxit quam ego nùnc scribo. At quaenam illa est? Haec vti (que): Eam sibi quis (que) vxorem seruet semper quam initio sortitus est, haec lex antìquior est, quam illa dè libello repudij, & in tantùm quantùm Adam ipso Mose. Doo not tell me of mens new lawes concerning diuorcement, but [Page 33] of Gods olde lawe concerning marriage, for God at the day of iudgement shall not iudge thee according to the lawe which man hath deuised, but according to that which his selfe hath commaunded. But the positiue lawe which God prescribed to man in his creation was this, that hee should during life cleaue vnto that wife which he hath at the first taken vnto him. And that lawe of marriage is by so much more auncient then this of diuorcement, as innocencie is before sinne, and Adam be­fore Moses. Againe: Quemadmodum serui fugitini etiamsi domum herilem relinquant, catenam secum habent attrahentem: it à & mulieres etiamsi viros relinquant, legem habēt prò catenâ se p [...]rsequentem, & adulterij accu­santē, accusantem etiam recipientes. As when a seruant runneth from his M. the chaine of bondage doth pursue him, and bring him backe againe to his maister, so when a woman leaueth her husband, the lawe of Matrimony is as a chaine to draw her back againe to her husband, to lay adultry to her charge for her departure, and adultery to their charge which shall receiue her.

In which words he speaketh plainly, it is adulterie for man and wife to depart, and [Page 34] it is adulterie for them to marry againe. Moreouer: Mulier quàm diu vixerit ma­ritus subdita est legi, quae autèm subdita est le­gi, etiamsi millies libellum repudij det, adul­terij ligabitur lege. The woman is bound by the lawe to the man while hee liueth, but shee which is bounde by the lawe, shall bee an adultresse by the lawe, if shee leaue her husband, notwithstanding a thousand Bills of diuorcement.

Concerning the second proposition, that hee which hath put away his wife can marrie no other while she liueth.

The second followeth the first as a ne­cessarie consequent, because a man cannot put away his wife, he cannot marrie an o­ther. For, numerosum coniugium, multitude of wiues is not permitted, no man may bee the husband of two wiues. The grounds are laid downe alreadie in the handling of the first proposition, so that it shal be suffi­cient in the second to answere the reasons of them which maintain cōtrary doctrine, and because in so short a scantling I cannot touch them all, I will speake of some. The differences of opinions which they hold [Page 35] are these; some, that the man by priuiledge of his Sexe may marry againe, but the wo­man may not: others, that the partie inno­cent may marry, but the nocent may not: of which I shall haue fitter occasiō to speake when I come to the third proposition, and in the handling of this proposition I will answere Beza, which alleadgeth 7.Lib de di­uortio. reasons why a man may diuorce his wife for incōti­nencie, & that after diuorcement is graun­ted, both the man and the woman, the of­fended and the offendor may marry again.

His first argumēt is this: Christ being as­ked what he held concerning that diuorce­ment, which in his daies was in vse & prac­tise among the Iewes, which was not only a seperation frō bed and boord, but also a dissolution of the knot of marriage, that li­bertie was giuē to marry againe? answered, that in case of adultery it was lawfull. To which I answere, that as Beza alleadgeth, so our sauiour Christ did speak of that diuorce mēt, which was thē practised & vnderstood to be a dissolution of marriage, & intended that they might marry againe. But how did our Sauiour speake of it? not affirmatiue­ly, but negatiuely, as before I shewed; so that this argument is a fallacie called [Page 36] petitio principij, and he disputeth ex non cou­cessis, taking that as graunted which from the beginning we haue denied: he vnder­standeth the answer of our sauiour to be af­firmatiue, which is negatiue: to be particu­lar, which is vniuersall: to be hypotheticall, which is categoricall: to containe but two propositiōs, which comprehendeth three, and so constereth this text contrary to the analogy of faith, and of this place, contrary to the iudgement of the soundest Fathers, the Canon lawe, the practice of Christ his Church, from the Apostles vntill his owne time, yea contrary to the nature of wedlock, to the expresse words of our Sauiour, as I haue shewed.Grat de­cret 2. pars. 32. causa. 7 quaest. 1. & 2. cap Aug. de bono coniugali▪ cap 7. The Lawe saith: Interue­niente diuortio, non abeletur cōfaederatio nup­tialis, it a vt si coniuges sint seperati, cùm illis adulterium committant, quibus etiam fuerint post repudium copulati. They which are se­perated remaine man and wife after sepe­ration, and they liue in adulterie if they marrie other, because the knot of marriage abideth firme.Dè adult. con [...]ug. li. 2. cap. 4. Againe saith S. Augustine, euen as he which hath once receiued the Sa­crament of baptisme, cannot be vnbaptized a­gaine while he liueth; so they which haue en­tred into the holy estate of marriage, cannot be [Page 37] vnmarried againe while they liue. And as one Councell saith:Concil. placuit secundum euan­gelicam & apostolicam doctrinam,Mil [...]uitan cap. 17.vt ne (que) di­missus àb vxore nèc dimissa à marito, alteri cō ­iungantur, sèd it à maneant, aut sibi reconcili­entur. It is the doctrine of the Apostles and Euangelistes, that neither the man nor the woman which are parted, shall marry againe, but either refraine from marriage, or reconcile themselues one to the other. Neither must they beeing reconciled, bee married a new as some of late haue practi­sed among vs, because the knot being not broken the first marriage is firme.

His second obiection: that it is iniu­stice to punish the innocent for the no­cent: but if when diuorcement is graun­ted, yet the plaintiue which hath sued the diuorce, shall be restrained from marriage, he must either be in daunger of burning in lust, because he cannot containe, or else be compelled to receiue again his adulterous wife which was diuorced: then is it all one as if there had bene no diuorcement. So Augustines answere is:Ad Pollen­tium. lib. 2. cap. 10. Lex diuina non est mutanda proptèr querelas hominum, si quere­las incontinentium velimus admittere, necesse est quamplurima adulteriae permittere. Mans [Page 38] complaint of iniustice must not alter the law of God. And if the Magistrates eares shall bee open to such complaintes, the high way shall bee laide open to inconti­nent liuers. Innocentius hath sayd well to the purpose, a woman may bee long sicke of an infectious disease, which crosse is re­medilesse, why cannot the husband as well conteine in case of adulterie as of sick­nesse? and where Beza replieth that the case is different betweene a diseased person whom the hand of God hath af­flicted, and one which by adulterie hath made a voluntarie breach of wedlocke: that is no replye, because in respect of the plaintiue which hath not the gift of continencie the gift is all one, and yet sometimes it falleth out, that wo­men haue daungerous infections, not onely by the hand of GOD, but also by theyr owne misdemeanour of them­selues.

The third,1. Cor. 7. is an allegation of the Apo­stle: He which cannot abstaine, must marry, but a man which is seperated from his wife may want chastitie, and therefore must mar­ry. I answere S. Paul out of S. Paul, hee which cannot containe let him marry, but [Page 39] let him marry in the Lord, nubat in domino, not otherwise, but he cannot marry in the Lord which is married alreadie; hee can­not take a second wife which is not freed from the first: therefore if he cannot con­taine, let him bee reconciled to his wife, that is a present remedie against fornica­tion.

The fourth: hee asketh (whereas S. Augustine saith the man is bound to for­giue his wife vppon repentance) what if her repentance bee but fayned? and what if after forgiuenesse there bee a relapse into adulterye againe? why should a Christian bee bounde to such an inconuenience? I answere, that where­as hee thinketh it an hard condition for a man to forgiue his wife vppon repen­tance, beeing not assured whether shee repent vnfainedly or no; nor resolued whether shee will afterwarde remaine chaste or no: The like may bee obiected against them which are excommunica­ted by the keyes of the Church, which shewing themselues penitent doo craue absolution, and to bee receiued againe into the congregation of the faithfull: hee which is to pronounce absolution can­not [Page 40] iudge of the contrition of the inward man, and yet hee must absolue, and leaue the rest to God, which knoweth the se­crets of the heart. Man can goe but by outward appearance, and in charitie hope the best. So must a man doo by his wife; We must not negare lapsis paenitentiam, dis­paire of them that fall, because they may arise againe.Mat. 18. Christ beeing asked by Pe­ter how often a man must forgiue his bro­ther? answered, seuentie times seuen, but if a brother, much more a wife. There­fore saith S. Augustine:Adpoll. l 2.Durum tibi videtur adulteri coniugi reconciliari?cap. 6. & [...].durum non erit si fides adsit. Cur adhùc deputamus adulteros vèl baptismo lotos vel paenitenta sanatos? Doth it seeme an hard condition to thee to be reconciled to thy adulterous wife? If it seeme difficult, then faith is wanting: where is charitie, if we condemne them still to bee adulterous which are cleansed by the water of baptisme, and washed by the teares of repentance? He rendereth a reason of this doctrine. In the olde Lawe men were frobidden to receiue such wo­men as were polluted by adulterie, beeing so hainous offence as it could not be clean­sed by sacrifice, but vnder the new Testa­ment [Page 41] by the bloud of Christ,1. Sam. 18. which is a more worthy sacrifice then all the rest, all offences are forgiuen, and therefore Dauid as a figure of the new Testament receiued Saules daughter an adulterous woman; and since,Iohn. 8. Christ hath said to the woman, I will not condemne thee, sinne no more; Quis non videt ignoscere debere maritum cui igno­uisse videt Dominum? shal not the husband forgiue her whom Christ hath forgiuen? or esteeme her as polluted whom the bloud of Christ hath cleansed? Quibus hoc Christi factum displicet, hos non seueros casti­tas fecit, sed ipsi aegroti medicum reprehendunt, in adulteros adulteri saeuiunt. They which like not of this iudgement of Christ, are not so seuere against others because them­selues are chaste, but themselues beeing sicke, mislike their phisition; and punish adultery, being adulterous themselues; like the men which brought the woman to our Sauiour to be stoned, their selues being of­fenders. I aske saith he, whether it bee lawful to put her to death by the law of the Romanes, or to put her away by the lawe of God? Si licet, melius est vt ab vtro (que) se temperet, & a licito illâ peccante supplicio, & ab illicito illâ viuente coniugio, quum eni [...] [Page 42] vtrum (que) secundum legam Christi sit illicitum, siuè adulteram occidere, siuè illâ viuente aliam ducere, ab vtro (que) est abstinendum, nec illicitum prò illicito faciendum. If it be lawfull to doo either, yet is it better to do neither of thē. Not to do all which in extremitie we may, but to abstaine frō that lawful punishment when she offendeth, & this vnlawfull mar­riage while she liueth. But seeing both are vnlawfull by the law of Christ, which nei­ther determineth that adulterie should be punished with death, neither alloweth a man to marry againe while the adulteresse liueth; both are to be forborne, and one sinne is not to be requited with an other.

The fi [...]t: If the husband may not put away his wife for adulterie and marry an other, then must the gap be opened to dis­honestie, and a chaste man must will he, nil he, be subiect to an harlot. That which he alleadgeth against vs, maketh most of all for vs, the restraining of marriage after di­uorcement is so farre from giuing occasion to be vnchaste, as it keepeth many within the bounds of chastitie, which otherwise would not containe: for who seeth not that if they which bee diuorced may marry a­gaine, when husbands and wiues are weary [Page 43] one of an other, they will confesse adultry that they may be diuorced & mary others?

The sixt,Concil. Au­latensis can. 10. is a decree of an aunciēt Coun­cel, that such mē as take their wiues in adul­terie, themselues being chaste, and are pro­hibited to marry others should be perswa­ded to refraine while their wiues are liuing. This also maketh for vs, for the fathers in that councell were so farre from allowing the second marriage, that they withstood it two wayes, praecepto & consilio, both by commaundement, and also by aduice: by commaundement, because they say by lawe it was prohibited: by aduice, be­cause they vsed perswasion to the contra­ry, hauing power of themselues by their decree to haue made it lawfull, had they not held it according to the word of God to be vnlawfull.

The last,Epiph. co [...] tra Ca­thores. is the authoritie of Epiphani­us, saying: that if a man marry a second wife, his first beeing diuorced, hee is not subiect to the censure of the Church, so as hee conuerse but with one, and forsake the company of the other: but in such case his frailtie is tollerated. In which words, what doth Epiphanius say more then wee haue saide already, that [Page 44] the Church hath sometimes tolerated thē which haue put away one wife and marri­ed an other: which practise if it were ho­nest, and iust, & consonant to Gods word, what needed a tolleration? Moses had not bene said to haue tollerated diuorcement, other Magistrates vsurie, other stewes, o­ther drunkennesse, if these things had bene lawfull.

As for Melancthon which affirmeth that if the husband be vnkinde to his wife, and neglect the care of his family, the Christian Magistrate may warrant her to marry an other: his assertion is like the charters of great Princes, which write teste meipso, wit­nesse my self. For soundnesse of reason, te­stimony of scriptures, grounds of diuinitie, he can haue none in the fauour of so mon­strous an opinion, neither doth he alledge any. If he haue any shewe of proofe to ground his absurditie vpon, it can bee but this.1. Tim. 5. He which careth not for his family hath denied the faith. 1. Cor. 7. And if the vnbeleeuing husband will needes depart, let him, for a brother or sister is not subiect in such things. But these words were concerning such as were married, during the time of their infidelitie before they were cōuerted [Page 45] to the faith; of which sort we haue none in Christian Common-wealthes; and yet not so as if an vnbeleeuing husband could be forced by the Magistrate to depart; onely if he will depart saith the Apostle, let him depart, but if hee bee content to dwell with her, she must not forsake him: and still this conclusion standeth firme, if he do depart, so long as his wife liueth hee may not marry.

Of the third proposition, the woman which is diuorced may not marry.

Whosoeuer marrieth her which is diuorced committeth adulterie. It followeth then, that she remaineth stil his wife from whom she was diuorced, else it were no adulterie for a man to marry her, and if shee remaine his wife, then is he still her husband, not­withstanding the seperation, therefore it is no diuorcement.De adule, Coniug. li. 1. cap. 11.So saith Augustine: Illud qui dimissam duxerit maechatur, quo modo ve­rum esse potest? nisi quia ea quam duxit vxor, aliena est priori marito à quô dimissae est adhuc viuenti? sienim suae, non alienae vxori miscetur, tùm non maechatur, at maechatur, ergo aliena est cui miscetur, si antèm aliena est, tùm non [Page 46] cessat illius essa vxor à quo dimissa est, si autem cessat, tum huius alterius est cui nupsit, et si hu­ius, tùm non maechus iudicandus est sed mari­tus. That saying of our Sauiour: hee that marrieth her which is diuorced commiteth adultry: how can it be true? vnlesse because the woman which he hath married, is an o­ther mans wife: that is, his from whom she was diuorced, so long as he liueth? for if he marry no mans wife but his owne, then is it no adultery: but it is adultery, therefore shee is an other mans wife, and not his owne, else he could not be iudged an adul­terer, but her lawfull husband.Chrysost. de lib. re. pudij. Seruis quidèm licet mutare dominos viuentes, vxori autem non licebit viros commutare viuen­tes, alioqui adulterium perpetrabit. [...] A ser­uant hath more libertie in the bondage of his seruice, then a woman in the free­dome of her wedlocke, hee may chaunge maisters, shee may not chaunge husbands, while her first husband liueth. Secundae nuptiae priore marito viuente pollutio sunt non matrimonium. For if shee take an other husband she is defiled, but she is not marri­ed. If then he which marrieth her that is di­uorced cōmitteth adultery, why doth Beza allow her to marry? His answere is: Who­soeuer [Page 47] marrieth her which is diuorced, vn­lesse she be diuorced for adultery, com­mitteth adultery by marrying her, but if she be diuorced for adulterie she may law­fully marry. By which answere doo but vouchsafe to take knowledge of the great inconueniences which shall bee brought, and burdens which shall be laide vppon a Christian kingdome. They which be mar­ried, wil vpon their discontentments com­mit fornication that they may be vnmar­ried, then it will bee no more then this: [...] fatuū fateor, quem calceus vrget et vxnor, If a mans shooe pinch him, no more but goe to the shoomakers shop and buy a new paire of shooes: if a mans wife grieue him, a present remedy, to go to the church & ma­ry a new wife. And thē shal the questiō be, who shal keep the children? S. Augustine is of a cōtrary iudgemēt to Beza.De adult. coniugijs. lib. 1. cap. 9.Qui dicimus: Qui mulierem praetèr fornicationém dimissam ducit maechatur, nō ideò maechari negamus qui eāducit quae proptèr fornicationē dimissa est, v­ter (que) enim est maechus, qui ob fornicationem di­mittit & aliam ducit, & etiàm qui citrà forni­cationem dimittit & aliam ducit, non enim ex hoc alter maechus negatur quoniam alter maechus exprimitur. Wee which say, hee is [Page 48] an adulterer which marrieth her which is diuorced, vnlesse she be diuorced for adul­terie: doo not therefore denie but he is an adulterer also which marrieth her that is diuorced for adulterie, for they are both adulterers, whether it be for fornication or not: if they marrie her which is put away. For the affirmation of the one to be an adulterer, is not a denial but that the other also is an adulterer. Although saith he, S. Mathew by expressing one adulterer, and concealing the other, hath made it hard to vnderstand, yet other Euangelists speaking in a generalitie haue made it plaine, that it is to be vnderstood of both, because Marke saith:M [...]c. 10. 11. Whosoeuer shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adulterie against her: and if a woman put away her husband and marrie an other,Luc. 16. 18.she committeth adultery. And S. Luke hath the same. Qui ergo not sumus vt dicamus: Est qui maechatur vxore dimissa alteram ducens, & est qui hoc faciens non maechatur, quū euangèlium dicat omnem maechari qui hoc facit? Who is man that hee should distinguish more subtilly then the holy Ghost hath distinguished? saying: some men which put away their wiues and marry are adulterers, and others are not, [Page 49] when S. Marke and S. Luke being exposi­tors of S. Mathew, shewe that all are adul­terers which marry them which are put a­way, bee the cause of their diuorcement whatsoeuer? Neither can this answere of Beza satisfie, that in Geneua adultery is pu­nished with death, and so all controuersies are ended; for then what needeth diuorce­ment? If when the man hath put away his wife for adultery, the Magistrate doo put her to death, the case is cleare, he may mar­ry againe: not because shee is diuorced, but because she is dead. But many Chri­stian Lands haue no such lawe as to punish adulterie with death, neither are Christi­ans bound to take examples by Iewes and Turkes which did, and do the same. The lawe of the Gospell hath imposed no such commaundement vpon vs, but euery king­dome hath Christian libertie to establish such ciuill lawes, as the wisedome of the land shall see fit for the state to beare. It doth not make against vs that by the lawe of God adultery was punished with death among the Iewes, no more then that by the Iawe of God, theft was not punished with death among the Iewes, but with re­stitution of foure and fiue-folde. It was [Page 50] not lawfull among the Iewes to gather the glaynings of their owne haruest,Ex. 22. 1. nor to let the bodies of them which are hanged to hang all night to sowe two sorts of graine together as Wheat and Rye in one field,Leuit. 19. 9 for Christians these things are lawful.Deut. 21. 23. God gaue three lawes vnto the Iewes, one mo­ral which remaineth stil in force among all nations the second ceremoniall, which was abrogated by the death of Christ: the third iudiciall for ciuill gouernment, which did belong to the Iewes only but punishment of adultery with death was a part of the iu­diciall lawe, and therefore bindeth not vs to obey it which be Christians. But S. Hie­rome saith:Ad Aman­dum pres­byterum. Omnes occasiones Apostolus am­putaens [...]partè definit viu [...]nte viro adulteram asse mulierem si alteri nupserit. The Apo­stle preuenteth all qu [...]kes and euasions, setting it downe as a positiue doctrine, that what woman soeuer marrieth while her first husband liueth, she committeth adul­tery:Ad Apollēt. li. 2. cap. 4. And S. Angustine: Licitè dimittitur coniux proptèr causam fornicationis, sed ma­net vinculū prioris proptèr quod reus sit adul­terij qui dimissam duxerit, etiā ob causam for­nicationis. Canon. apost. 47. A woman may bee seperated from her husband for fornication, but still [Page 51] shee is his wife, and he which marrieth her committeth adultry, although she were put away for fornication. In so great a cloude of witnesses of our side, wee may be­bolde, notwithstanding the iudgement of Beza, and the late writers of the refor­med Churches.

The Libertines of our age, now liuing, giue a prerogatiue in this case to the man aboue the woman, because of the Sexe, because the one is a man, the other but a woman; as if the one might marrie, but not the other, abusing the word of God to their owne damnation, turning the grace of God into wantonnesse.Vindiciae contrà ty­rannos. E­uen as others will prooue rebellion and high treason out of the scriptures, that the people are aboue their King: out of the scirptures, so will they take libertie to themselues out of the scriptures, to maintaine theyr vncleane and licentious life, as that the man may put away the woman and not commit adultery in mar­rying an other, but the woman may not doo the like, because, say they, the man may haue many wiues, but the woman may not haue many husbandes. Theyr proofe is the saying of Nathan [Page 52] to Dauid. [...]. Sam. 12. Thus sayth the Lord: I an­noynted thee King ouer Israel, deliuered thee out of the hand of Saule, gaue thee thy Lordes house, and thy Lordes wiues into thy bosome, and if that hadde not beene inough, I would haue giuen thee such and such things: why then hast thou taken Vrias his wife? Innocentius the third maketh answere, that Dauid and the Pa­triarkes hadde by particular dispensation from God, multitude of wiues, and were excused of poligamy, which wee are not: euen as Iacob tolde a lye,Gen. 27. the Israelites rob­bed the Aegyptians,Ex. 11. 2. Sampson murthered the Philistines,Iud. 16. 30. the Leuites compassed the walles of Iericho, Iosua. 6. 15. with their Trumpets of Rammes hornes vpon the Sabaoth day, but wee may not do the like. But saith he: Christiana religio adulterium in vtro (que) sexu aquali ratione punit. Innocenti­us Epist. 3. ad Exeupe­riun. De 10 chordis cap. 3. Christian religion pu­nisheth adulterie in man and woman both alike. And Augustine: Tu exigis hoc ab vx­ore & non vis reddere hoc vxori? Marriage duties must be kept as well of the man as of the woman.

Others there be, which make a distinc­tion betweene the partie innocent and the partie nocent; as if the one might marry, [Page 53] but not the other. But that the partie no­cent may marry as well as the innocent, I prooue by these foure reasons. The first, the custome and practise of the Iewish Church when Moses liued, from whence the Christians haue learned diuorcement, Moses saith:Deut. 24. If a man take a wife, and shee finde no fauour in his eies, because he hath espi­ed filthinesse in her, in so much that he doo giue ger a Bill of diuorcement, and she marry an o­ther, and her second husband diuorce her in like maner, or die, let her not returne to her first husband againe, after shee is defiled. By which word it is euident, that when Mo­ses liued, women which were diuorced for adulterie did marry againe, as well as their husbands which did diuorce them. The second, is the set forme of words which the Iewes at this time doo vse in their Bills of diuorcement, which is after this manner. In the sixt of the Sabaoth, the 12. of the moneth of Adar, the yeare of the creation of the world, 5306. in the Citie of Cre­mona, lying vpon the Riuer of Poe in Italy; I Samuel Carmin, the sonne of Rabbi Da­niel Saphard, doo of mine owne vuluntarie motion send away from mee, my wife Ra­chel, the daughter of Rabbi Ezra Parizol, [Page 54] and do giue her free liberty to depart whe­ther she will, and marry whom she will: and that there may be no let [...]e or hinde­rance to the contrary:Sixti senen­sis Biblioth. sanct. lib. 2. ex libro Rabbi Mo­sis d [...] Co [...]i. I haue giuen her this Bill of diuorcement, subscribed and sealed according to the constitution of Moses and Israel, in the presence of these witnesses: Mardochi Gabriel, Elias Cephat, Manuel Pandin. The third, the definition of diuorcement, which is giuen by our Sa­uiour Christ in the Gospell: it is a sepera­ting of them by the lawe of man, which are linked together by the law of God, which is as much as the vntying of the knotte of marriage so that if the knot be vntied, both are free. The husbād & the wife are relat [...], one cannot be without the other: if she be boūd, she is some bodies wife, thē he which diuorced her is her husband: there cānot be a wife without an husband, nor an husband without a wife. The 4. wheras they which speak in fauour of the party innocent, take aduantage of the words, & argue thus: He which putteth away his wife, vnles it be for fornication, and taketh an other, cōmitteth adultry▪ therefore if it be for fornication, it is no adultry. If that kinde of arguing bee good, I can by the same, prooue that the [Page 55] partie nocent may likewise marry, & thus I argue: He which marrieth her which is diuorced, vnles shee be diuorced for forni­cation, committe [...]h adultry▪ therefore if he marry her which is diuorced for fornicatiō, it is no adultry. Thus haue I prooued that neither man nor woman, nocent nor inno­cent, may marry againe: and leauing doc­trine, I come to exhortation.

S. Paul saith: I am a debter to all,Rom. [...] both to the wise and the vnwise, I haue mini­stred already strong meate vnto thē which are men, I must now giue milk vnto them which are babes, and do as the Scribe did▪ which when the Iew did demaund of him a Bill of diuorcement, did disswade him: So, that I may disswade all that intend it, and perswade them which haue alreadie done it, to receiue their wiues into fauour againe. Iohn the Baptist came in the spi­rit of Elias, Mal. 4. to turne the hearts of the fa­thers to the children. I pray God that I may come also in the spirit of Elias and Iohn the Baptist, to turne, not onely the hearts of the fathers to the children, but also the husbandes to theyr wiues: which dooing, I shall doo a worke of charitie, a peece of seruice acceptable vnto God. [Page 56] Why should a man diuorce his wife? why should hee not vpon her repentance re­ceiue her againe after shee is put away? S. Peter w [...]eth to all husbandes in this manner.1. Pat. [...]. 7. Ye husbands, dwell with your wiues as men of knowledge, giuing honour vnto the woman as vnto the weaker vessell, euen as they which are heires together of the grace of life, that your prayers bee not interrupted▪ In which I obserue the generallitie that husbands must dwell with their wiues, and not depart from them: the fiue particu­lars, how they must dwell with them; as men of knowledge. Wherein doth this knowledge or discretion consist? in giuing honour to the woman? why should the man giue honour to the woman? because shee is the weaker vessell. Why should her weaknes be so much respected, as that ho­nour should be giuen to her fragilitie? be­cause notwithstanding her weaknes & in­firmity, she is an heire & co-heire of saluati­on as well as her husband, and therfore he must respect her as himselfe. What is the mischiefe and inconuenience which else may followe? God cannot be well serued betweene them both, because their praiers will be interrupted.

[Page 57] The Husbandes then must dwell with their wiues, what that is, it is explaned by Saint Paul, the best expositor of Saint Pe­ter; (Be it spoken with circumcised hearts) The husband (saith Paul) must giue due bene­volence to the wife,1. Cor. [...].& the wife to the husband [...] what that is he sheweth afterward, (let no man thinke that vncleane which the holy Ghost hath spoken) The wife hath not power ouer her owne bodie but the man; and the man hath not power ouer his owne bodie, but the woman. Againe: Defraude not one an other except it be for a time, that yee may giue your selues to fasting and praier, and come together againe, least sathan tempt you for your inconti­nency. To dwell with a mans wife, is to be an helpe vnto her, as Ioseph was to Mary▪ hee which hath not a care of his familie,1. Tim. 5. hath denied the faith: but he which forsa­keth the company of his wife, doth neg­lect his family two manner of wayes: first cōcerning thrift, secondly cōcerning good name and same, because both of them shall be suspected to be incontinent liuers.

Husbands must dwell with their wiues as men of knowledge.Ephe. 5. The man is the wo­mans head,1. Cor. 11. as Christ is the mans head, and God is Christs head, the woman is but the [Page 58] Image of the man, as the man is the Image of God. But there must needes be more perfection in the head wherein are all the senses, vegetation & vnderstanding, thē in the bodie which hath but vegetatiō & one only sense, that is feeling; in the body, then in the shadowe; in the archetypus or first forme, then in the Image of the same. All beasts in the old lawe were vncleane, and vnfit for sacrifice, which did not ruminate and chewe the cudde: there was represen­ted discretion, but men must be better thē are beastes, therefore they must liue dis­creetly with their wiues, but a discreet man will of himselfe cōsider, that by how much he excelleth his wife in knowledge vnder­standing and all maner of perfection, so he ought to conceale many infirmities in the woman, to deuour, and as it were swallow vp many indignities which do arise of her weakenesse. God saith: Hencefoorth my spirit shall not [...] with man because bee is flesh: you [...] set your wit to theirs, they are but flesh, and you in comparison of them are spirit. And [...]as a belee [...]ing hus­band may sanctifie & [...] an vnbelee­uing wife [...] so discreet man may reforme an vndiscreet wife, euen as when the bodie [Page 59] is out of temper, it is in the wisedome of the head to cure the bodie, and bring the disordered members into order.

Husbands must giue honour vnto their wiues. There is one honour which the in­feriour doth owe to his supeririour,1. Pet. 2. Feare God, and honour the King. Another which superiours owe to their inferiours, and all one to another,1. Cor. 1 [...] ▪ Honour all men. In giuing honour, goe before one an other. All mem­bers (saith Paule) are not alike, but on those members which we thinke most dishonest, we put most honestie on: vpon our vncomely parts we put most comelines on, for our comely parts need it not, but God hath tempered the bodie together, and giuen more honour to the mem­ber that lacketh. And so must husbands do to their wiues.

The woman is the weaker vessell, and the man himselfe is but a vessell, and notwithstanding his strength hee is but weake. He doth not say: Giue honour to the [...] ­man because she is good, but because she is weake: not for her vertue, but for her fra­gilitie: for your selues are so, or may be so Brethren saith Paul,Gala▪ 5. [...].If a man be suddenly ta­ken in an offence, you which be spirituall, must restore such an [...]one with the spirit of meeknes, [Page 60] considering [...]est thou also be tempted, beare one an others burden▪ [...] fulfil the law of Christ. We haue [...] examples of womē which were [...] vessels.Gen. 3. The woman was the first in the preuarication and not the man. Abraham beleeued the Angell when Sara laughed.3. Tim. [...]. Lots wife did looke back towards Sodome,Gen. 18.Lot did not.Gen. 19. Moses his wife repi­ned at her childes circumcision, himselfe did not.Exod. 4. Sara was so hard h [...]rted as to turne Agar out of doores,Gen. 21. Abraham was not. Ie­zabel could without remorse of conscience set downe the whole plot and proiect how Naboth should loose his life and his vine­yard,1. Reg. 21. Achab could not.Math. 20. The wife of Zebe­deus could audaciously aske of our Saui­our Christ that her sonnes might sit on his right hād & his left, her husb̄d could not. Salomons wiues corrupted him,1. Reg. 21. he corrup­ted them not.Iudg. 1 [...]. and 16. Sampsons wife betraied him, he betraied not her. Some of these offen­ [...] were worse thē adultery, yet their hus­band did not nourish hatred against them.

Though they be weake vessells; yet are they heires of the kingdome of heauen as well as their husbands. [...] Christ was borne a man,1. Tim. 2. but borne of woman, that he might sanctifie both man and woman; through [Page 61] childbirth the woman shalbe saued, if they continue in the faith, and loue, and holi­nesse, with modestie. The word of God hath giuen precepts of godly life vnto wo­men, that liuing godlily as did Elizabeth, Sara, Anna, Rebecca, they might be saued, The man and wife are to liue together in the life to come, not as a man and wife, but as the Angels and Saints in heauen, why then shal they liue asunder vpon the earth?

If they liue not together, theyr prayers shalbe interrupted. This reason alone is sufficient to compose and qualifie all gree­uances between man & wife. They ought to pray together, for prayer is a principall part of Gods seruice; and if they will haue God to be deuoutly serued, al grudges and quarrels must be layd aside.Pro. 18. God heareth not the prayers of them which be sinfull: no greater sinne then continuall fostering of hatred and inward malice.Iosua. Iosua saith, I and my house will serue the Lord:Luc. 1.Zacharie and his wife with him walked in the ordi­nances of God without reproofe. And it is the maner of you Citizens when you are dead, to haue your wiues and your selues pictured vpon your graues, lifting vp your hands and praying together. But it is plaine [Page 62] mockery to be pictured praying together vpon your graues when you are dead, if so be that you doo not pray together in your houses while you are aliue: and therefore learne by the marble monuments and pic­tures of the dead, what yee ought to doo while ye are aliue.Deut. [...]2. I ende with Moses, be­seeching God that my doctrine may be as the raine, and my speech as the deawe of heauen and the showre vpon the hearbes, and as the great raine vpon the grasse, For I will publish the name of the Lord: giue ye glory vnto our God. To this God the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, be all power, glory and dominion, both now and for euer­more. Amen.