such an one should not bee said to commit adulterie Vnto which his answere is Exceptionem priori membro additam in posteriori quoque esse repetendam that is that the Exception that is added vnto the former member of the sentence is to bee repeated againe in the latter part of it But this is no more but only saide the proofe doth follow immediatly after in this manner Nam si qui dimittat uxorem extra causam fornicationis facit ut ea moecâ—etur consequitur eum qui uxore propter adulteriuÌ„ repudiata aliam duxerit non facere ut ea moechetur Ex quo tur sum colligitur id quod subijcit apud Matthaeum de repudiata non nisi repetita ex priore membro exceptione intelligendum quoniam Dominus alioqui sibi coÌ„tradixisset that is For if he that putteth away his wife without the cause of fornication maketh her to commit adulterie it followeth saith he but let others iudge whether it doe so or not that hee which putting away his wife for adulterie doth marrie an other doth not make her to commit adulterie Out of which againe it is gathered that that which is there added concerning her that is put away is not to be taken but with the Exception that is in the former member because otherwise the Lord shoulde contradict himselfe or in one part of the sentence should go against that which he setteth downe in another Which proofe of his though he do somewhat further backe against one thing that is in that place obiected besides yet this is all the proofe that hee hath for this very point that nowe wee speake of But if we marke it me thinke it wil soone shew it selfe to be a strange kinde of proofe For admit that the ExceptioÌ„ that now we speak of must needs imply which notwithstanding wee doe not graunt but avow it to bee the thing that lyeth in question betwixt vs that for adultery a man might lawfully put his wife away yet doth it not so necessarily follow that every one might so doe or that no case might be such but that if the wife committed adultery then might her husband lawfully divorce her from him For it is sufficient for the truth of the proposition even in that sense takeÌ„ if any case be such as that for adultery it may lawfully be done As though we may truly say as the Scripture also in many places in effect and meaning doth though not in the same tearmes that God had no peculiar people for those daies in all the worlde except the seede of Abraham or out of that stock or race of his yet doth it not follow that all those were of that fellowship but only that he had none other besides Whereas therefore that exception may bee satisfied with any particular that for adultery as the case may bee it may bee allowed and yet he inferreth a generall vpon it saying that he that putting away his wife for adulterie marrieth another doth not commit adultery for though the proposition in those tearmes be but indefinite yet is it an vniversall by nature hence doth it follow that his proofe is of no better force then an argument may bee that is taken from a particular vnto a generall or froÌ„ the part vnto the whole as God for a time had no people in all the world to bee his peculiar people but only the seed of his servant Abraham ergo all the seed of Abraham were of his peculiar people And therefore it is so much the more strange that Beza inferreth that otherwise Christ had contradicted himselfe as though it were any contradiction to say that for adultery the case might bee such as that the husband might lawfully put away his wife for it and yet that in some other cases he might not His other Obiections as they are the same that Erasmus had gathered before so are they by him sent lightly away with the selfe same answer that Erasmus before had giuen them For vnto that other of the words of Christ that no man should part those whom God hath coupled together whereas Erasmus before had said that such were not parted by man but by God Beza saith likewise Concedo totum illud argumentum sed nego divortij propter adulterium authores esse homines c that is I graunt saith hee that whole argument but I deny that men are to be accounted the authors of that divorce that is for adultery So that thus far and so in the very answere it selfe that they made to this obiection they both agree But then in the confirmation of it they vary M. Beza quite giving over that course that Erasmus is in and betaking himselfe to another Erasmus building vpon disorders that were commonly committed in making of marriages and M. Beza vpon that law of God that adiudgeth adulterers to death and vpon that exception of Christ. Wherein whether M. Beza hath bettered his course or not that I leaue to bee decided by others that will but sure it is that therein he liketh not of that of Erasmus in that himselfe hath taken another For as touching that of Erasmus he saith plainly that he doth not assentiriijs qui putant Magistratibus licere novas divortiorum leges condere that is That hee doth not ioine in opinion with them who thinke that Magistrats may make new lawes of divorcements And the proofe that he wil haue for his opinion in this namely that not meÌ„ but only God must be thought to be the author of that divorce that is for adultery is no more but this Quum Dominus jam olim adeo expresse voluer it adulterio matrimonia dissolvi vt etiam adulteros morte punier it postea rursum Christus consulens conscientijs propter Magistratuum negligentiam adulterium acceperit quum de divortio non licito dissereret that is seeing that the Lorde in times past did so plainely declare that he would haue even the band of matrimony to be dissolued by adultery that hee punished those that so offended even with death and after againe Christ providing for our consciences hath for the Magistrates negligence therein excepted adultery when he treated of such divorce as was not lawfull Concerning both which we plainely see the latter of them to hold no further that that same exception of Christ may bee found to serue his purpose which is the thing that is in question betwixt vs and seeing himselfe knew that so it was it may seeme that he doubted of the other also when as hee went about so hardly to help it in this And the truth is that in the other his reason holdeth but very weakely that seeing God ordained that adulterers should be put to death therefore the husband if his wife haue that way offended may account himselfe loosed now from the band of marriage that was betwixt them because as it is a generall rule with all the learned so Erasmus himselfe his owne partner hath set
note that seeing they are not in that matter more fullie resolved there is no certainety nor any great good likelihood neither for any to ground themselues vpon that gladly would take vp that opinion with them If we had found them so resolute in it that without any doubting and without referring themselues vnto those that might see farther therein they had flatly boldly pronounced that it was the vndoubted word of God though therein also in accepting of it we might haue beene deceived as not looking vnto the matter it selfe with our owne but with other folkes eies yet had that beene a more tollerable error a great deale and more easie by many degrees to be excused especially to those that in such cases are in many things to depend vpon others either for that they are otherwise imploied than that they may giue theÌ„selues to such reading as such matters require or if they may yet haue they not that depth of iudgement that such thinges require But when as themselues whome we are content to make our leaders therin being in other things resolute inough and as bould as Lyons do not set downe their opinion in this but with great warines doubtfulnes feare with so many cautions allegations with such submissions and protestations it would be no final woÌ„der to me but that I know how inclinable to such things we are by nature not only that any should bee so loose as to enter that course but also that any should so much as coÌ„ceiue that such kinde of speeches should be likely to yeeld any such ground as whereon a man that were willing so to do might bee bold to build and to make no doubt but that he had his warrant with him We know wel enough and in many other things strongly hold it against the adherents of the Church of Rome that we may do nothing at all but only that for which wee haue some vndoubted warrant in the written word and yet notwithstanding I will not say that I wote not how it commeth to passe for that it is by our own bad inclination wee are so farre bewitched in this that finding great staggering in those that are the stroÌ„gest for it most forward in defence thereof we neverthelesse conceiue that therein we haue warrant enough So easie a thing it is to bend those that so handsomly crooke to such purpose already in the freedome we haue in Christ so quickly to take holde of an vnseasonable liberty of the flesh But here we must take heed we forget not that is yet we doe not consider what it is that they bring but only that whatsoever it be yet because theÌ„ selues are no better resolved therefore may no body be so bold as to build vpoÌ„ them We wil not yet deny but that for ought wee see yet the truth indeed may bee as they coÌ„ceiue but if themselues bee no better resolved then though they haue the truth therein yet because it is more then themselues doe knowe of even that onely is enough for the time to stay vs vntill wee see farther 9 That other part of that which themselues doe set downe for this matter doth chiefly respect those places aforesaide which they vse to bring in for that opinion of theirs and partly the first foure places of them but then especially the other two For seeing themselues doe rest but little in the first foure of theÌ„ but yet very much in the other two we also may briefly dispatch those others and follow them only in those wherein themselues do thinke that they haue their chiefest strength Those therfore that belong to the first foure of them are no more but these two one coÌ„cerning the nature of those places theÌ„selues the other as touching the gathering of them CoÌ„cerning the nature of those places theÌ„selues it is no more but this that to see to they do make much more against them for that they note such kinde of divorce with so great reproach than any way els they can make for them take them to the best advantage they can As touching the other that is how these doe gather vpon theÌ„ it is no more but this that from those places it is that they gather some part of their weake coÌ„clusions as elswhere in a fitter place is declared which also is for any thing that yet I haue found the only benefit that to that opinion of theirs they seeke to draw from these foure places Those that beloÌ„g to the latter two only are much like to the others one of them in like sort concerning the nature of those places themselues the other not how weakely they gather on these but how cleane they doe mistake them The nature of those places is such as that although the text therein were such as they conceaue yet even then also do they make but little for any divorce the iudgement of the better sort of the learned being thereon that neither Moses before nor Malachie after did simply allow it vnto theÌ„ but only in respect or to some purpose namely to avoid some further evill But now if they doe mistake them withall so that the Text being better considered can neuer be fouÌ„d to yeeld any such sense as hetherto they haue conceiued nor any thing at all for the opinion that they haue taken then must their case be so much the harder or rather their credit on this behalfe so very much sunke as that their whole iudgement therein may well bee called in question for it 10. This mistaking of theirs therefore being a matter of so speciall importance it shall be good more specially to consider first whether they doe mistake them or not then if it fall out that so they doe what we are to gather thereon concerning the matter wee haue in hande That they doe mistake them indeed will soone appeare if first we marke how they doe take them and then examine that their taking of them with such things as may be able to shew vs the truth therein How they doe take them will best appeare by their owne speeches of that matter First therefore to begin with Erasmus that was so forward therein it shal be good to marke how he mistooke it not only when first he gaue forth his iudgement therein but also when afterward hee was so impugned for it that thereby he might haue taken iust occasion to haue looked better vnto it When first hee gaue forth his iudgement of it Divortium saith hee ipfa lex palam indulget that is The law doth plainely allow of divorce Againe Lex permittat mariâ—is qualibet ex causa repudiare modo dent libellum repudii that is That the law suffereth husbands for every cause to put away their wiues so that they giue them a bil of divorcement Againe Viro permittit ob causam quamlibet mutare vxorem that is He alloweth or suffereth the husband to exchange his wife for whatsoever
others also that are farther of as that the Apostles to pacifie the Iewes tooke order with the Gentiles for certaine of those ceremonies to be observed of the ChristiaÌ„s in Antioche that the Bish of Rome maketh other Bishops thaÌ„ the Apostle alloweth of that the Church hath of late to speak of determined of divers matters that were left at more libertie before as Transubstantiation the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Sonne also the Conception of the blessed Virgin and that the holy Ghost is of the same substance with the Father and the Sonne Al which he alleageth to this ende to shew that it is no new thing in the Church of God as they see occasions to arise so to take farther order in divers matters than by those had been taken that were before them and so would insinuate that in that matter also they might do well to take such order as he coÌ„mended if so be that the word of God would beare it as he was perswaded it would Of the latter divers particulars are likewise alleaged out of that same part of the Sermon of Christ in the MouÌ„taine wherein also we haue the first speech that Christ did vtter concerning this matter out of which both he some others besides doe reason for the opinion they hold in the matter that now we speake of both of the liberty that our selues do take in other such like speeches of Christ and of the perfection of those things that Christ doth there coÌ„mend vnto vs. CoÌ„cerning the liberty that ourselues doe take in other such like speeches of Christ he saith that whereas he forbiddeth vs to sweare to be angry to reproach to presume to come with our offering to God before that we are at one with our brother to go to law to requite displeasures to resist evill and doth farther command vs to loue our enemies to deserue wel of them that deserue ill of vs and to pray for them that curse vs first saith quum eodem in loco plura doceat quae purè germaneque Christianis digna sunt cur in ceteris omnibus recipimus interpretationem in uno divortio tam rigidi sumus ut magis etiam astringamus verba Christi that is When as in the same place he teacheth many things which simply and plainly concerne the dutie of Christians why do we in al things else admit of some interpretation and yet are so crabbed in this one point of Divorce that we do even farther restaine those words of Christ Concerning the perfection of those things that Christ doth there coÌ„mend vnto vs reasoning otherwise on it than others do he saith likewise Christus haec locutus est non turbis sed discipulis idque in monte depingens purissimam illam sui corporis partem quam appellat regnum coelorum cui nullis sit opus legibê° that is Christ spake these things not to the multitude but to his Disciples that in the mouÌ„t painting forth that most pure part of his bodie which he calleth the kingdome of heaven wherevnto there wil bee no need of lawes And by by after Pone talem populum qualem Christus optat nec repudio fuerit opus nec jurejuraÌ„do Quod si ob infirmos quos in tanto numero plurimos habet Etclesia nemo vetatur legibus jus suum persequi nemo vetatur vim à capite repellere nemo vetatur jurare modò ob rem ne pejeret nemo cogitur bene mereri de male merentibus cur vnum hoc de divortio promiscue exigimus ab omnibus That is Admit such a people as Christ wisheth and there shall bee no neede either of Divorce or of swearing But if for the weake whome the Church hath in so greate abundance no body is forbidden to seeke his right by law no body is forbidden to defende himselfe from violence no body is forbiddeÌ„ to sweare so there be cause and that he forsweare not no man is compelled to deserue wel of those that deserue ill of him why do we exact this matter of divorce so generally of all Others there be that because Christ taught such perfection there do therevpoÌ„ gather that if a man put away his wife for adultery and marrie another it may not in any wise be called in questioÌ„ for that it is allowed there where things of so great perfection are taught Those that are as from the lesse vnto the greater are such as these Because that Chrysostome giveth in the reason why the Iew is suffered to put away his wife ne invisam occidat that is least that vpon his hatred of her he also slay her therevpon hee reasoneth Itáne prodesse debet apud Iudaeos flagitiosa sua malitia apud nos non proderit marito sua innocentia That is Shal the Iew haue that benefit of that wicked malice of his and shall not an husband among vs haue like benefit out of his vndefiled and honest dealing The like againe and one straine farther a little after Saltem hoc apud nos detur infoelici innocentiae quod apud Iudaeos datum est perversae maritorum acerbitati quod Paulus indulget vidius intemâ—perantibus ne quid admittant sceleratius that is At least let that be graunted that we also may haue our miserable innocency so farre releiued as the Iews had their perverse crabbednes borne with and so far as S. Paul himselfe bearethwith intemperate widdowes least they commit some further evill Of what force these reasons of his are if now we examine first as touching the opinion of those others for such like matters as he presupposeth that he brought in the reason is sufficient to stop the mouths of those that so hold but not to establish that point of doctrine it selfe That the Apostles themselues and the godly Fathers after determined more plainely of divers things then those that went before them had done they had the word of God for them therein and then not to bee reproued by any but their doing therein may be no argument to moue vs to determine of this but only so farre which appeareth not yet as we may accouÌ„t that we haue the word of God to beare vs out in it But whereas he shuffleth in among the rest divers things that they determined did against the word of God we ought to be so much the more wary in suffering our selues to be led thereby whenas the reason is of that nature as buildeth on falshood as well as on truth As for the liberty that we take in those speeches of Christ we take none in any doctrine that thereof wee hold but such as standeth by good warrant of the word of God in other places and then can that be no sufficient reason to moue vs to do the like in this for which as yet we finde in the word no warrant at all And though much be to be attributed vnto him yet in this it
a great part of the inducement that led them vnto it Concerning which al such like it is cleere inough in it selfe that mistaking the Text whereon they grounded the opinion that they conceiue thereon must needs bee but weake and needeth nothing els to discover the weaknes of it but only to shewe that they mistake the Text it selfe But in Erasmus we haue some things else to note besides First that in these things he rested somewhat on the sense of nature as perilous a guide in the matters that now we speake of as of those that are of some credit a maÌ„ could lightly otherwise haue chosen For being by nature so much given as we are to the lusts of the flesh and to haue variety therein and to be avenged of such displeasures as are done vnto vs especially such as touch vs so neere as now we speake of wee are not to looke for any other but that we may be as easily blinded in this if we leane to our owne iudgement therein as in any thing else that can lightly befal vs. So that in this especiallie he should not haue rested anie thing at all on the sense of nature but haue fought some better guid whom he might more safely haue followed Then also how readily he taketh hold on that permission even onlie for that it was permitted not regarding how farre not howe though himselfe doe finde none other but that it was only for the hardnes of their hearts a sufficient burn to haue discredited the vse of that libertie to all that are godly or that haue any reasonable care even of their honestie before meÌ„ And yet whereas he doth so readily take such hold thereon it may seeme to argue that his store otherwise is but weake Lastly that after a sort abandoning these if they should not be thought meete to serue he taketh hold of an other almost as weake namelie that because there was no punishment set down for it in the Policie of Moses therfore it was after a sort or in some sense permitted vnto them And yet is it sufficiently knowne vnto al that as in al other Policies whatsoever even so in that of Moses also there be divers things that are vnlawful which there haue no punishment at al devised for theÌ„ and therefore that we are not so to reason that seeing it is not punished there as neither it was to haue manie wiues therefore it is no offence to doe it For although such a reason might best hold from thence of any other Policie in al the world besides yet even that also woulde faile vs herein if anie should rest so far vpon it 20 But now if we come to consider how farre they haue gathered amisse vpon those several Textes that they haue vsed what others may thinke I know not but for my selfe I caÌ„not but marvaile at many things that I finde therein Which kinde of gathering when I also had gathered as needful to bee commended vnto the farther consideration of the learned I found them in number to bee so many to proceede from so many great personages also that I thought it sufficient for the matter and meetest also in some other respects to take but some few of them leaving the rest vnto the search of those that desire to looke farther into them and therein also not to deale with al those or many of them that so are minded but only with some few such as the equity of the cause it selfe shal most desire to be called vnto such triall In which respect I haue thought good to resolue on Erasmus for the one and on Mr Beza for the other because that of those that are extant and yet I haue seene those two haue of set purpose discoursed thereof and most largely handled the same And in these also to omit al such collections as elsewhere by occasion may passe them while principallie they intend some other matter I meane to deale but only with those and but with some of theÌ„ neither that belong vnto the chiefe and principal points of the matter that is in question namely how they gather their opinion or iudgement therein and how they answere such ObiectioÌ„s as may be alleaged against it And first as touching Erasmus although he professe no more but only to propouÌ„de it and to commend it to the farther consideration of the learned and to that end more largely sheweth both that divers before haue beene of that minde or at least inclinable vnto it and that such like things they haue in dayly allowance among themselues yet doth he plainely enough professe that for his part he is of that minde himselfe and laboureth also to take away such obiections as seeme to be of force against it As touching the former of them the truth is that as there is none of them all that do build this opinion of theirs on any other Text besides excepting those which they did mistake of which I haue spoke before but only on that exceptioÌ„ which Christ vsed two severall times namely in the fift and in the nineteenth of S. Matthew so he also for that his opinioÌ„ goeth no further but only to it and therevpon buildeth that which he hath thereon conceiued But those words of Christ doth he account to make so plaine for hispurpose that because we allow not on such divorce to marry againe hee chargeth vs that in divortio tam rigidi fimus ut magis etiam astringamus verba Christi that is That in divorce we are so hard or greivous that we do further restraine those words of Christ. And his reason is Etenim quum ille reliquerit marito unam causam repudiandae coningis nos cam multis moâ—is astringimus that is For whereas hee left to the husband one cause for which he might put away his wife wee doe many waies restraine the faine And after againe Iudaei quod Moses â—eriâ—serat de libetto repudiâ— sic interpretabantur quasi maâ—veis jui effet qualibet lecit de causa reijcere coinge c. Id Christus astringit ad unam adulterii causam that is The Iewes did so interpret that which Moses wrote of the bill of divorce as though husbands might put away their wiues for any cause though never so smal That did Christ restraine only vnto the cause of adultery And by and by after Ergo suis Christus unam dunt axat causam indulget divortij that is Therefore Christ alloweth vnto his but only one cause of divorce And in these so far as yet I haue found is his iudgement most plainely declared In which it is good to note those two things first that he buildeth for that matter on no other Scripture but only on that exception then that hee so taketh that exception that thereon he inferreth that for adultery Christ himselfe alloweth divorce If he build vpon no other Scripture but only on that exception theÌ„ our busines lying within
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 others but his disciples too and the best of theÌ„ 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 haue them somewhat stroÌ„ger before they should meddle with them How plainely doth himselfe likewise tel them that hee had many things to speake vnto them but that they were not able then to beare theÌ„ for that cause as then he did not trouble theÌ„ any farther with theÌ„ How quietlie also doth hee put vp that dogged waywardnes of the elder brother 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 that thought he had so fully kept al those commandements of God that frowarde wraÌ„gling of those that though they had their ful due yet were they not well only because others had as much as they that vnseasonable straÌ„ge ambitioÌ„ of those two Apostles and the repining of the rest against theÌ„ Al which though of divers kindes yet eveÌ„ by it also do so much the more plainely declare that the infirmity or weakenes of man is alwaies almost very favourably regarded not only of good men but also of God That one obiection that properly to this place appertaineth is that in this place Christ was in hand to commend vnto them a more strict observation of the lawes of God than the better sort of them in common account had inured themselues vnto or thought they needed to haue done and then that it should seeme thereby that taking the Exception in that sense that they would haue 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 vnto vs but when it is in strictest manner exacted of vs. 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 Thou shalt not kil the other thou shalt not coÌ„mit adultery In both which hee discovereth much more than they in that loose time regarded but nothing so much as those lawes require of vs. For in the former hee speaketh but of certaine other branches that are likewiâ—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 many others as farre from the common loosenes of meÌ„ 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 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 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 reveÌ„ging desire or at least that they might lawfully craue so much of the Magistrate 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 loue but vnto 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 meÌ„ which is doing of our almes the others some part of our duty to God 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 them both how to pray and to remember that so oft as they seeke forgiuenes of God they also forgiue such trespasses as others do vnto them ThaÌ„ the which it is sufficiently known vnto 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 27 In that other of the 19 of Matthew we are to go thus farre also both to search out the sense and meaning of those words of his there and then to see what reasons we haue for to induce vs so to take them As touching the sense of those his words it seemeth to be not so much to teach any point of doctrine as to elude that subtle practice of the adversarie and withal to stop their mouthes The reasons that we haue to induce vs so to take it are divers first because the authority or iudgement of others doth so direct vs then also for that the circumstances of the Text it selfe doe altogither seeme to leane that way also Concerning the iudgment of others Saint Ierome is reasonable plaine therein Igitur Dominus saith hee sic responsioneÌ„ temperat vt decipulam cor um transeat Scripturam sanctam adducens in testimonium naturalem legem primámque Dei sententiam secundae opponens quae non voluntate Dei sed peccantium necessitate concessa est that is Therefore the Lord doth so temper his answere as
cuâ—se vs S. 18. Iâ— and marrying againe theron conceived to be some specâ—all perfection Ibid That it was permitted but only for the hardnes of their heartes to be more theÌ„ may be gathered by sense of nature S 19. That wee need it as much as they and therefore should haue it as much as they Ibid. It not to be made by the parties themselues but by such as are in authoritie S â—0 Vrged for many more causes therâ—forâ— adulterie Ibid. By the free leage of it eight husbands in fiue yeeres Ib. That vpon divorce for adultery a man may put away his wife to be the thing that doth lie in question betwixt vs. S 21 Of our kinde of divorce how faulty they doe account it to be S. 21. Marrying againe hereon misliked by M. Calvine Sec. 25. A reproach to the parttie that takeththe advantage of it S. 23. Never any good or honest maÌ„ though but in a second or third degree thought to haue done it Ib. The nature of wedlock not to beare it Ibid. To account that lawfully they doe it to bee little better then to make God the author of their villaine Ib. Those that are such to be like vnto Iohanan and Balaam Ib To be conceiued as it may seeme to bee a matter of speciall godlinesse S 26. Nothing at all for it but that which caÌ„ little availe it S. 34. See also Aim Bond Christ twice Erasmus Husband Lyranus Marrying againe Speeches Vnlawfull warrant To bee iustly Doubted that there is Scripture against it S. 31. Doubtfull speeches how ill to build vpon S. 8 yet see excusable For doubtfull cases see Examples and iudgements E. ECclesiasticus 25.35 36. of a disobedient woman S. 2 To loue our Enimies see divorce One farther Enquirie as touching divorce what it was that Christ said vnto them S. 27. Euthimius Zigabenus S. 1 v. 1 Erasmus his opinion how farre crossed by others S. 4 How he proteâ—teth S. 7. What indifferencie he offereth Ibid. p 31. For that opinion of his reproued by Natalis Bedda S 16. Himselfe doth better interpret one of those his venterous speeches but yet is little followed therein by others of his opinion Ibid. How hee reasoneth for the dissolving or breach of marriage on such inconveniences as doe follow disorderly marriages S. 17 How hee reasoneth on certaine places of the word of God S. 19. Of that companie but only himselfe and M. Beza called to triall S. 20. That he resteth on Mat. 5 31 32 19.8 9. to haue his opinion thence S. 20. The places vsed for his defence not only those oâ— Christ but some of the Apostle also â—b Somewhat disposed to ride it seemeth Ib vrging divorce for so many causes as hee doth hee hâ—th al men almost against him Ib. How for hiâ— defense he gathereâ—h of the Apostle Ibid. His owne beâ—pâ—s how weake they are S. 22. Of certaine disorders going before and certaine discontentments after S. 23. Certain wondersin those speeches that hee hath of the Scriptures Ib. No more Faâ—hers lighâ— fâ—und by the forraine patrons of that opinion then himselfe had first a leaued but one of our owne to haue gon much â—arther in and in kind though defectiue too more commendably alâ—o Ib See likewise Adulterie Beddâ— Deut. â—4 Disorderly Divorce Hardnesse â—f hart Lawfull twice Eâ—w Le Mal. 2.16 Marry againe Obiâ—ction Reasons Speecheâ— and weaknesse More Examples then are alleaged Sect. 20 That such things haue sometimes bin done hee bringeth in two poore examples S. 22. Divers others to iustifie or make good the Rule of S. Basil as of many wiues much treasure of vserie and of marrying two sisters S â—â— Others likewise to shew how carefully in doubtfull cases the Lord is first to be sought vnto S. 30. See also Testimonies The Exception in some sort waived Sect. 20. This iâ— though they had it in their owne sense yet that in somâ— cases might be it would be for them and not so generally as they would haue it S 29. Theâ—efore that in that case also they be very warie S. 30 See also Obiections Excusable notwithstanding even those Resolutions Allegations Protestations al sorts of their doubtful speeches S. 8. Ezechiel 44.22 Priests not marrying with divorced women S. 2. F. In the ancient Fathers but littlâ— for them that themselues doe to acknowledge Sect. 22. See also Erasmus Favorable seâ— interpretation Fearefull see iudgements SoÌ„e Few of those gaâ—herings of theirs only noted S. 20 Any liberty of the Flesh some taken hold on by vs S. 8 Fleshly see liberty Generally Forbidding and generaly commaunding or requiring to haue a special difference betwixt theÌ„ S. 29 In such sort to proceed or deale but as it were a Forcible entrie and that the adversarie much graunt vnto them whereon to proceed S 20 The Former see obiections Foure see Bonds and Places G How far they haue Gathered amisse on those places that they haue vsed somwhat strange to consider S 20. Such Scriptures as in that respect are but General see Advised Generally see forbidden Geneva see Seely A Ghesse instead of proofe what should be the meaning of those words of Christ. S. 21. Also see Beza God see Bond. To doe Good vnto those that doe evill vnto vs see divorce Great ods betwixt their innocent partie and the Apostles forsaken S. 33. Ground see Principle Their Groundworke to bee so farre weake and those words may be otherwise taken and cleere it is that so they may S. 20. Gualter see â—dulterie Deuâ— 24. Mal. 2. H Somewhat vâ—ged by Erasmus that where he accounteth divorce to be first permitted it is not there added that it was but for the Hardnesse of their hearts S. 19 And sâ—e Divorce Heedâ—o â—o be taken to that interpretation of his S. 16 and sâ—e Advâ—sed Examples and Exception Hâ—lâ—â— see divorce and Seely Honest man see divorce Hostiensis see Ioan. Andreae and Bond. One of his helps not to stand but that the Hosâ—â—ensis must be no husband S. 21. Not to bee in the power of 〈◊〉 husband â—o breake the bond of marryage with his 〈◊〉 S. â—5 I. 〈◊〉 a law thereof S 11. Much against the sense that they conceiue of Deut. 24.1.4 Ibid. Ier. 32.1 God ready to receiue S. 2. S. Ierom how he setteth downe the Septuagint in â—hat place of Malachie S. 12. He and Bucer misliked by â—eza S. 24. See Came to tempt The Iewes whether to bee called before the comâ—ing of Christ not so certainely knowne S. 8. Inconveniences following after disorderly mariages â— 17. Such as concerne the innocent parâ—ie Ibid. such as concerne both parties Ibid Such as by disorderly marâ—iage doe reach vnto others Ibid. Such to bee taken yeed of before and marriage not to bee for them disâ—olued Ib. Inconvenienâ— speeches much mingled withall S. 15. Much found in those that opinion S. 23. Some of them of the Scriptures Ib. Oâ—hers that they talke of so many waies to dissolue marriage S.