The Ivdgement of Martin Bucer concerning divorce written to Edward the sixt, in his second book of the Kingdom of Christ, and now Englisht : wherein a late book restoring the doctrine and discipline of divorce is heer confirm'd and justify'd by the authoritie of Martin Bucer to the Parlament of England.

THE JUDGEMENT OF MARTIN BUCER TOUCHING DIVORCE.

Taken out of the second Book entitl'd Of the kingdom of Christ writt'n by Martin Bucer to Edward the 6^th K. of England.

CHAPTER XV.

The 7^th Law of the sanctifying and ordering of mariage.

BEsides these things, Christ our King, and his Churches * 1.1 require from your sacred Majesty, that you would take upon you the just care of mariages. For it is unspeaka∣ble, how many good consciences are heerby entangl'd, af••licted, and in danger, because there are no just laws, no speedy way constituted, according to Gods Word, touching this holy society and fountain of mankind. For seeing ma∣trimony is a civil thing, men, that they may rightly contract, inviola∣bly keep, and not without extreme necessitie dissolv mariage, are not only to be taught by the doctrine and discipline of the Church, but al∣so are to be acquitted, aided, and compell'd by laws and judicature of the Common-wealth. Which thing pious Emperours acknowledge∣ing, and therin framing themselvs to the law of Nations, gave laws both of contracting and preserving, and also where an unhappy need requir'd, of divorcing mariages. As may be seen in the Code of Justi∣nian the 5 Book, from the beginning through 24 titles. And in the Authentic of Justinian the 22, and some others.

But the Antichrists of Rome, to get the imperial power into thir * 1.2 own hands, first by fraud••lent persuasion, afterwards by force drew to themselvs the whole autority of determining and judging as well in mat••imonial causes, as in most other matters. Therfore it hath bin long beleiv'd, that the care and government therof doth not belong to the civil Magistrate. Yet where the Gospel of Christ is receav'd, the laws of Antichrist should be rejected. If therfore Kings and Go∣vernours take not this care, by the power of law and justice to pro∣vide that mariages be piously contracted, religiously kept, and law∣fully dissolv'd, if need require, who sees not what confusion and trou∣ble is brought upon this holy society; and what a rack is prepar'd, evn for many of the best consciences, while they have no certain laws to follow, no justice to implore, if any intolerable thing happen. And how much it concerns the honour and safety of the Common-wealth, that mariages, according to the will of Christ, be made, maintain'd, and not without just cause dissolv'd, who understands not? for unlesse that first and holi••st society of man and woman be purely constituted, that houshold discipline may be upheld by them according to Gods law, how can wee expect a race of good men. Let your Majesty ther∣fore know that this is your duty, and in the first place, to reassume to your self the just ordering of matrimony, and by firm laws to establish and defend the religion of this first and divine societie among men, as all wise law-givers of old, and Christian Emperours have care∣fully don.

The two next Chapters because they chiefly treat about the degrees of Con∣sanguinity and affinity I omit; only setting down a passage or two concerning the judicial laws of Moses, how fit they be for Christians to imitate rather then any other.

CHAP. XVII. toward the end.

I Confesse that wee beeing free in Christ are not bound to the civil Laws of Moses in every circumstance, yet seeing no laws can be more honest, just, and wholsom, then those which God himself gave, who is eternal wisdom & goodnes, I see not why Christians, in things which no lesse appertain to them, ought not to follow the laws of God, rather then of any men. Wee are not to use circumcision, sacri∣fice, and those bodily washings prescrib'd to the Jews; yet by these things wee may rightly learn, with what purity and devotion both Baptism and the Lords Supper should be administerd and receay'd. How much more is it our duty to observ diligently what the Lord

hath commanded, and taught by the examples of his people concern∣ing mariage; wherof wee have the use no lesse then they.

And because this same worthy Author hath another passage to this purpose in his Comment upon Matthew, Chap. 5. 19. I heer insert it from p. 46.

Since wee have need of civil laws and the power of punishing, it will be wisest not to contemn those giv'n by Moses; but seriously rather to consider what the meaning of God was in them, what he cheifly re∣quir'd, and how much it might be to the good of every Nation, if they would borrow thence thir manner of governing the Common-wealth; yet freely all things and with the Spirit of Christ. For what Solon, or Plato, or Aristotle, what Lawyers or Caesars could make better laws then God? And it is no light argument, that many Magistrates at this day doe not anough acknowledge the kingdom of Christ, though they would seem most Christian, in that they govern thir States by laws so divers from those of Moses.

The 18 Chap. I only mention as determining a thing not heer in question, that mariage without consent of parents ought not to be held good; yet with this qualification fit to be known.

That if parents admit not the honest desires of thir children, but shall persist to abuse the power they have over them, they are to be mollifi'd by admonitions, entreaties, and persuasions, first of thir freinds and kindred, next of the Church Elders. Whom if still the hard parents refuse to hear, then ought the Magistrate to interpose his power: left any by the evil minde of thir parents be detain'd from mariage longer then is meet, or fore't to an unworthy match: in which case the Roman laws also provided. G••de nupt. l. 11. 13. 26.

CHAP. XIX.

Whether it may be permitted to revoke the promise of mariage.

HEer ariseth another question concerning Contracts, when they ought to be unchangeable; for religious Emperours decre••'d that the contract was not indissoluble, until the spouse were brought home, and the solemnities perform'd. They thought it a thing un∣worthy of divine and human equitie, and the due consideration of mans infirmitie in deliberating and determining, when space is giv'n to renounce other contracts of much lesse moment, which are not yet confirm'd before the Magistrate, to deny that to the most waighty con∣tract of marriage, which requires the greatest care and consultation. Yet left such a covenant should be brok'n for no just cause, and to the

injury of that person to whom mariage was promis'd, they decreed a fine, that he who deni'd mariage to whom he had promis'd, and for some cause not approv'd by the Judges, should pay the double of that pledge which was giv'n at making sure, or as much as the Judge should pronounce might satisfie the dammage or the hinderance of either parsie. It beeing most certain that ofttimes after contract, just and honest causes of departing from promise, come to be known and found out, it cannot be other then the duty of pious Princes, to give men the s••me liberty of unpromising in these cases, as pious Emperours granted: especially where there is only a promise, and not carnal knowledge. And as there is no true mariage between them, who agree not in true consent of mind, so it will be the part of godly Magi∣strates to procure that no matrimony be among thir Subjects, but what is knit with love and consent. And though your Majesty be not bound to th imperial laws, yet it is the duty of a Christian King to embrace and follow what ever he knows to be any where piously and justly constituted, and to be honest, just and well-pleasing to his people. But why in Gods law and the examples of his Saints nothing heerof is read, no marvell, seeing his ancient people had power, yea a precept, that who so could not bend hismind to the true love of his wife, should give her a bill of divorce, and send her from him, though after carnal knowledge and long dwelling together. This is anough to authorize ag••dly Prince in that indulgence which he gives to the changing of a Contract; b••th because it is certainly the inv••ntion of Antichrist, that the pro••rise of mariage de praesenti as they call it, should be indis∣soluble, and because it should be a Princes care that matrimony be so joyn'd, as God ordain'd; which is, that every one should love his wife with such a love as Adam exprest to Eve: So, as wee may hope that they who marry may become one sl••sh, and one also in the Lord.

CHAP. XX.

Concerns only the celebration of mariage.

CHAP. XXI.

The means of preserving mariage holy and pure.

NOw since there ought not to be lesse care that mariage be religi∣ously kept, then that it be piously and deliberately contracted, it will be meet that to every Church be ordan'd certain grave and god∣ly men, who may have this care upon them, to observ whether the

husband bear himself wisely toward the wife, loving, & inciting her to all piety and the other duties of this life; and whether the wife be subject to her husband, and study to be truly a meet help to him, as first to all godlines, so to every other use of life. And if they shal find each to other failing of their duty, or the one long absent from the other with∣out just and urgent cause, or giving suspicion of irreligious and im∣pure life, or of living in manifest wickednes, let it be admonisht them in time. And if thir autority be contemn'd, let the names of such con∣temners be brought to the Magistrate, who may use punishment to compell such violaters of mariage, to thir duty, that they may abstain from all probable suspicion of transgressing; and if they admit of sus∣pected company; the Magistrate is to forbid them; whom they not therin oboying, are to be punisht as adulterers, according to the law of Justinian, Authont 117. For if holy wedlock the Foun∣tain and Seminary of good subjects, be not vigilantly preserv'd from all blots and disturbances, what can be hop'd, as I said before, of the springing up of good men, and a right reformation of the Common∣wealth. We know it is not anough for Christians to abstain from foul deeds, but from the appearance and suspicion therof.

CHAP. XXII.

Of full divorce▪ what the ancient Churches have thought.

Now we shall speak about that dissolving of mutrimony which may be approv'd, in the sight of God, if any greevous necessity requite. In which thing the Roman Antichrists have knit many a per∣nicious entanglement to distrissed consuiences; for that they might heer also exalt themselvs above God, as if they would be wiser and chaster then God himself is, for no cause, honest, or necessary, will they permit final divorce, in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 while whordoms and adulte∣ries, and wor•• things then these, not duly tolerating in themselvs and others, but therishing, and throwing then headlong into these e∣vils. For although, they also dis-joyn married persons from board and bed, that is, from all conjugall society and communion, and this not only for adultery, but for ill usage, and matrimoniall duties deni'd, yet they forbid thos•• thus parted to joyn in wedlock with others, but, as I said before, any dishonest associating they permit. And they pro∣nounce the bond of that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to remain between those whom they have thus separat. As if the bond of mariage, God so teaching and pro∣nouncing, were not such a league as bindee the maried couple to all so∣ciety

of life, and communion in divine & humane things; and so asso∣ciated keeps them. Somthing indeed out of the latter Fathers they may pretend for this thir tyranny, especially out of Austine and some others, who were much taken w^th a preposterous admiration of sing'e life; yet though the••, Fathers, from the words of Christ not rightly under∣stood, taught that it was unlawfull to marry again, while the former wife liv'd, whatever cause ther had bin either of desertion or divorce, yet if we mark the custom of the Church, and the common judgement which ••oth in their times and afterward prevail'd, we shall perceave that neither these Fathers did ever cast out of the Church any one for marying after a divorce, approv'd by the Imperiall laws.

Nor only the first Christian Emperours, but the lator also, ov'n to Justinian, and after him, did grant for certain causes approv'd by Judges, to make a true divorse; which made and confirm'd by law, it might be lawfull to marry again: which if it could not have bin done without disple sing Christ and his Church, surely it would not have been granted by Christian Emperours, nor had the Fathers then winkt at those doings in the Emperours. Hence ye may see that Jerom also, though zealous of single life more then anough, and such a condemner of second mariage though after the death of either party, yet forc't by plain equity, desended. Fabiola, a noble Matron of Rome, who having refus'd her husband for just causes, was married to another. For that the sending of a divorce to her husband was not blame-worthy, he affirms, because the man was hainously vitious, and that if an adulte∣rous wife may be discarded, an adulterous husband is not to be kept. But that she maried again, while yet her husband was alive, he de∣fends in that the Apostle hath said, It is better to mary then to burn, and that young widows should mary, for such was Fabiola, and could not remain in widowhood.

But some one will object that Jerom there addes, Neither did she know the vigor of the Gospel, wherein all cause of marying i•• debarr'd from women, while thi•• husbands live, and again, while she avoided many wounds of Satan, she receav'd one ere she was aware. Put let the equall Reader minde also what went before; Because, saith he soon after the begin∣ning, there is a rock and storm of slanderers oppos'd against her, I will not praise her converted, unlesse I first absolve her guilty. For why does he call them slanderers who accus'd Fabiola of marying again, if he did not judge it a matter of Christian equity and charity, to passe by and pardon that fact, though in his own opinion he held it a fault. And what can this mean? I will not praise her, unlesse I first absolv her. For

how could he absolv her but by proving that Fabiola neither in reje∣cting her vitious husband, nor in marying another, had committed such a sin, as could be justly condem'd. Nay, he proves both by evi∣dent reason, and cleer testimonies of Scripture, that she avoided sin.

This also is hence understood, that Jerom by the vigor of the Gos∣pel, meant that height and perfection of our Saviours precept, which might be remitted to those that burn; for he addes, But if she be accus'd in that she remain'd not unmarried, I shall confesse the fault, so I may relate the necessity. If then he acknowledg'd a necessity, as he did, because she was young, and could not live in Widowhood, certainly he could not impute her second mariage to her much blame: but when he excuses her out of the word of God, does he not openly declare his thoughts, that the second mariage of Fabiola was permitted her by the holy Ghost himself for the necessity which she suffer'd, and to shun the danger of fornication, though she went somwhat aside from the vigor of the Gospel. But if any urge that Fabiola did public penance for her second mariage, which was not impos'd but for great faults. T'is answer'd, she was not enjoyn'd to this pennance. but did it of her own accord, and not till after her second husbands death. As in the time of Cyprian we read that many were wont to doe voluntary pe∣nance for small faults, which were not liable to excommunication.

CHAP. XXIII.

That Mariage was granted by the ancient Fathers, ev'n after the vow of single life.

* 1.3

SOme will say perhaps, whersore all this concerning mariage after vow of single life, when as the question was of mariage after di∣vorse? For this reason, that they whom it so much moves, because some of the Fathers thought mariage after any kind of divorce, to be condemn'd of our Saviour, may see that this conclusion follows not. The Fathers thought all mariage after divorce to be forbidd'n of our Saviour, therfore they thought such mariage was not to be tolerated in a Christian. For the same Fathers judg'd it forbidd'n to marry after vow; yet such mariages they neither dissolv'd nor excommunicated. For these words of our Saviour, and of the holy Ghost, stood in their way; All cannot receav this saying, but they to whom it is giv'n. Every one

hath his proper gifs from God, one after this manner, another after that. It is better to marry then to burn. I will that younger Widows marry, and the like.

So there are many Canons, and Laws extant, wherby Priests, if they maried, were remov'd from their office, yet is it not read that their mariage was dissolv'd, as the Papists now-a-dayes doe, or that they were excommunicated, nay expressly they might communicate as Lay men. If the consideration of human infirmitie, and those testimo∣nies of divine Scripture which grant mariage to every one that wants it, persuaded those Fathers to bear themselvs so humanly to∣ward them who had maried with breach of vow to God, as they be∣leev'd, and with divorce of that mariage wherin they were in a man∣ner joyn'd to God; who doubts, but that the same Fathers held the like humanitie was to be afforded to those who after divorce & faith broken with men, as they thought, enter'd into second mariage: for among suchare also found no lesse weak, and no lesse burning.

CHAP. XXIV.

Who of the ancient Fathers have granted marriage after divorce.

THis is cleer both by what hath bin said, and by that which Origen relates of certain Bishops in his time, Homil. 7. in Matth. I know some, saith he, which are over Churches, who without Scripture have per∣mitted the wife to mary while her former husband liv'd. And did this against Scripture which saith, The wife is bound to her husband so long as he lives, and she shall be call••d an adulteresse, if, her husband living, she take another man, yet did they not permit this without cause, perhaps for the infirmitie of such as had not continence, they permitted evill to avoid worse. Ye see Ori∣gen and the Doctors of his age, not without all cause, permitted wo∣men after divorce to marry, though their former husbands were li∣ving: yet writes that they permitted against Scripture. But what cause could they have to doe so, unlesse they thought our Saviour in his precepts of divorce, had so forbid'n, as willing to remit such per∣fection to his weaker ones, cast into danger of worse faults.

The same thought Leo, Bishop of Rome, Ep. 85. to the African Bi∣shops of Mauritania Caesariensis, wherin cōplaining of a certain Priest, who divorcing his wife, or being divorc't by her, as other copies have it, had maried another, neither dissolvs the matrimony, nor ex∣communicates

him, only unpreists him. The fathers therfore as wee see, did not simple and wholly condemn mariage after divorce.

But as t•• me, this remi••ting of our Saviours precepts, which these ancients allow to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in marrying after vow and divorce, I can in no ways admit; for what so ever plunly consents not with the com∣mandment, cannot, I am certain, be permitted, or suffer'd in any Chri∣stian: for heav'n and earth shall p••sse away, but not a ••le from the commands of God among them who expect ••e eternal. Let us ther∣fore consi••er, and waigh the words of our Lord concerning mariage, and divorce, which he pronounc't both by himself, and by his Apostle, and let us compare them with other Cracles of God; for whatsoever is contrary to these, I shall not persuade the least tolerating therof. But if it can be taught to agree with the Word of God, yea to be com∣manded that most men may have permission giv'n them to divorce and marry again, I must preferre the au••rity of Gods Word before the opinion of Fathers and Doctors, as they themselvs teach.

CHAP. XXV.

The words of our Lord, a••d of the holy Ghost by the Apostle Paul concerning Divorce are explain'd.

BVt the words of our Lord and of the holy Ghost, out of which Au∣stin, and some others of the Fathers think it concluded that our Saviour forbids ma••iage after any divorce are these, Mat. 5. 31, 32. I•• hath bin said &c. And Mat. 19. 7. They say unto him, why did Moses then command, &c. And Mark the 10^th, and Luke the 16. Rom. 7. 1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. 7. 10, 11. H••nce therfore they conclude that all mariage af∣ter divorce is call'd adultery; which to commit beeing no ways to be tolerated in any Christian, they think it follows that second ••a∣riage is in no case to be permitted either to the divorcer or to the di∣vorsed.

But that it may be more fully and plainly perceav'd, what force is in this kind of reasoning, it will be the best cours to lay down certain * 1.4 grounds wher of no Christian can doubt the truth. First it is a wicked∣nes to suspect that our Saviour branded that for adultery, which him∣self in his own Law, which he came to fulfill, and not to dissolv, did not only permit, but also command; for by him the only Mediator was the wh••le law of God giv'n. But that by this law of God mariage was permitted after any divorce is certain by Deut. 24. 1.

CHAP. XXVI.

That God in his law did not only grant, but also command divorce to certain men.

DEul. 24. 1. When a man hath taken a wife, &c. But in Mala. 2. 15, 16. is read the Lords command to put her away whom a man hates, in these words. Take heed to your spirit, and let none deal injuri∣ously against the wife of his youth. If he hate, let him put away, saith the Lord God of Israel. And he shall hide thy violence with his garment, that maries her divorc't by thee, saith the Lord of hosts; But take heed to your spirit, and doe no injury. By these testimonies of the divine law, wee see that the Lord did not only permit, but also expres∣ly and earnestly commanded his people, by whom he would that all holiness and faith of mariage convant should be observ'd, that he who could not induce his minde to love his wife with a true conjugal love, might dismisse her that shee might marry to another.

CHAP. XXVII.

That what the Lord permitted and commanded to his ancient people concerning divorce, belongs also to Christians.

NOw what the Lord permitted to his first-borne people, that cer∣tainly he could not forbid to his own among the Gentils, whom he made coheires and into one body with his people, nor could he e∣ver permit, much lesse command ought that was not good for them, at least so us'd, as he commanded. For beeing God, he is not chang'd as man. Which thing who seriously considers, how can he imagine that God would make that wicked to them that beleeve, and serv him under grace, which he granted and commanded to them that serv'd him under the Law. When as the same causes require the same per∣mission. And who that knows but humane matters, and loves the truth, will deny that many mariage•• hang as ill together now, as ever they did among the Jews? So that such mariages are liker to torments then true mariages. As therfore the Lord doth always fuctour and help the oppressed, so he would ever have it provided for injur'd hus∣bands and wives, that under pretence of the mariage-bond, they be not sold to perpetual vexations, instead of the loving and comfortable mariage-duties. And lastly, as God doth always d••te 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and fraud, so neither doth he approvo, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that should be counted mariage, wherin none of those duties remain wher∣by the league of wedlock is chiefly preserv'd. What inconsiderat neg∣lect

then of Gods law is this, that I may not call it worse, to hold that Christ our Lord would not grant the same remedies both of divorce and second mariage to the weak, or to the evil, if they will needs have it so, but especially to the innocent and wronged, when as the same urgent causes remain, as before, when the discipline of the church and Magistrate hath tri'd what may be tri'd.

CHAP. XXVIII.

That our Lord Christ intended not to make new Laws of mariage and divorce, or of any civil matters.

IT is agreed by all who determine of the Kingdom, and offices of * 1.5 Christ by the holy Scriptures, as all godly men ought to doe, that our Saviour upon earth took not on him either to give new laws in ci∣vil affairs, or to change the old. But it is certain that matrimony and divorce are civil things. Which the Christian Emperours knowing, gave conjugal laws; and reserv'd the administration of them to thir own Courts; which no true ancient Bishop ever condemn'd.

Our Savour came to preach repentance, and remission; seeing ther∣fore those who put away thir wives without any just cause, were not toucht with conscience of the sin, through misunderstanding of the law, he recall'd them to a right interpretation, and taught that the woman in the beginning was so joyn'd to the man, that there should be a perpetual union both in body and spirit: where this is not, the matrimony is already broke, before there be yet any divorce made or second mariage.

CHAP. XXIX.

That it is wicked to strain the words of Christ beyond thir purpose.

This is his third Axiom, wherof there needs no explication heer.

CHAP. XXX.

That all places of Scripture about the same thing are to be * 1.6 joyn'd, and compar'd, to avoid Contradictions.

This be demonstrates at large out of sundry places in the Gospel; and prin∣cipally by that precept against swearing, which compar'd with many places of * 1.7 the Law and Prophets, is a flat contradiction of them all, if we follow super∣stitiously the letter. Then having repeated briefly his fo••re Axioms, he thus proceeds.

These things thus preadmonisht, let us enquire what the undoubted meaning is of our Saviours words; and enquire according to the rule which is observ'd by all learned and good men in their expositions; that praying first to God, who is the only opener of our hearts, wee may first with fear and reverence consider well the words of our Savi∣our touching this question. Next, that wee may compare them with all other places of Scripture, treating of this matter, to see how they consent with our Saviours words, and those of his Apostle.

CHAP. XXXI.

This Chapter disputes against Austin and the Papists, who deny second ma∣riage, ev'n to them who divorce in case of adultery, which because it is not controverted among true Protestants, but that the innocent person is easily al∣low'd to marry, I spare the translating.

CHAP. XXXII.

That a manifest adulteresse ought to be divorc't, and cannot lawfully be retain'd in mariage by any true Christian.

This though be prove sufficiently, yet I let passe, because this question was not hindl'd in the Doctrine and discipline of divorce; to which book I bring so much of this Treatise as runs parallel.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

That adultery is to be punisht by death.

This Chapter also I omitt for the reason last alleg'd.

CHAP. XXXIV.

That it is lawfull for a wife to leav an adulterer, and to marry another husband.

This is generally granted, and therfore excuses me the writing out.

CHAP. XXXV.

Places in the Writings of the Apostle Paul touching divorce explain'd.

LEt us consider the answers of the Lord giv'n by the Apostle seve∣rally. Concerning the first which is Rom. 7. 1. Know yet not bre∣thren, for I speak to them that know the law, &c. Ver. 2. The woman is bound

by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. Heer it is certain that the ho∣ly Ghost had no purpose to determine ought of mariage, or divorce, but only to bring an example from the common and ordinary law of wedlock, to shew that as no covnant holds either party beeing dead, so now that wee are not bound to the law, but to Christ our Lord, see∣ing that through him wee are dead to sin, and to the law; and so joyn'd to Christ that wee may bring forth fruit in him from a willing godli∣nes, and not by the compulsion of law, wherby our sins are more exci∣ted, and become more violent. What therfore the holy Spirit heer speaks of matrimony, cannot be extended beyond the general rule.

Besides it is manifest, that the Apostle did allege the law of wedlock, as it was deliver'd to the Jews; for, saith he, I speak to them that know the law. They knew no law of God but that by Moses, which plainly grants divorce for several reasons. It cannot therfore be said that the Apostle cited this generall example out of the law, to abolish the se∣veral exceptions of that law, which God himself granted by giving autority to divorce.

Next when the Apostle brings an example out of Gods law concer∣ning man and wife, it must be necessary that wee understand such for man and wife, as are so indeed according to the same law of God; that is, who are so dispos'd as that they are both willing and able to per∣form the necessary duties of mariage; not those who under a false title of mariage, keep themselves mutually bound to injuries and disgraces; for such twain are nothing lesse then lawfull man and wife.

The like answer is to be giv'n to all the other places both of the Go∣spel and the Apostle, that what ever exception may be prov'd out of Gods law, be not excluded from those places. For the Spirit of God doth not condemn things formerly granted, and allow'd, where there is like cause and reason. Hence Ambrose upon that place, 1 Cor. 7. 15. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; thus expounds; The reverence of mariage is not due to him who abhors the author of mariage; nor is that mariage ratify'd which is without devotion to God: he sins not therfore who is put away for Gods cause, though be joyn himself to another. For the dishonor of the Creator dissolves the right of matrimonl to him who is deserted, that he be not accus'd, though marrying to another. The faith of wed∣lock is not to be kept with him who departs, that he might not hear the God of Christians to be the author of wedlock. For if Ezra caus'd the mis-beleeving wives and husbands to be divorc't, that God might be appeas'd, and not ef∣fended, though they took others of thir own faith, how much more shall it be free, if the mis-beleever depart to marry one of our own Religion. For this is not to be counted matrimony which is against the law of God.

Two things are heer to be observ'd toward the following dis∣course, which truth it self, and the force of Gods word hath drawn from this holy man. For those words are very large, Matrimony is not ratify'd without devotion to God. And the dishonour of the Creator dis∣solvs the right of matrimony. For devotion is farre off, and dishonor is done to God by all who persist in any wickednes and hainous crime.

CHAP. XXXVI.

That although it seem in the Gospel, as if our Saviour granted divorce only for adultery, yet in very deed he granted it for other causes also.

NOw is to be dealt with this question, Whether it be lawful to di∣vorce and marry again for other causes besides adultery, since our Saviour exprest that only. To this question, if we retain our princi∣ples already laid, and must acknowledge it to be a cursed blasphemy, if we say that the words of God doe contradict one another, of neces∣sity we must confesse that our Lord did grant divorce, and mariage af∣ter that for other causes besides adultery, notwithstanding what he said in Matthew. For first, they who consider but only that place, 1 Cor. 7. which treats of beleevers and misbeleevers matcht toge∣ther, must of force confesse, that our Lord granted just divorce, and se∣cond mariage in the cause of desertion, which is other then the cause of fornication. And if there be one other cause found lawfull, then is it most true that divorce was granted not only for fornication.

Next, it cannot be doubted, as I shew'd before, by them to whom it is giv'n to know God and his judgements out of his own word, but that, what means of peace and safety God ever granted and ordain'd to his elected people, the same he grants and ordains to men of all ages who have equally need of the same remedies. And who, that is but a knowing man, dares say there be not husbands and wives now to be found in such a hardnesse of heart, that they will not perform either conjugal affection, or any requis••t duty therof, though it be most de∣serv'd at thir hands.

Neither can any one deferre to confesse, but that God whose pro∣perty it is to judge the cause of them that suffer injury, hath provided for innocent and honest persons wedded, how they might free them∣selvs by lawfull means of divorce, from the bondage and iniquity of those who are falsly term'd thir husbands or thir wives. This is cleer out of Deut, 24. 1. Malach. 2. Matth. 19. 1 Cor. 7. and out of those

principles which the Scripture every where teaches, That God chan∣ges not his minde, dissents not from himself, is no accepter of persons; but allows the same remedies to all men opprest with the same necessi∣ties and infirmities; yea, requires that wee should use them. This he will easily perceave, who considers these things in the Spirit of the Lord.

Lastly, it is most certain, that the Lord hath commanded us to obey the civil laws every one of his own Common-wealth, if they be not against the laws of God.

CHAP. XXXVII.

For what causes divorce is permitted by the civil Law ex 1. consensu Codic. de repudiis.

IT is also manifest that the law of Theodosius and Valentinian, which begins Consensu, &c. touching divorce, and many other decrees of pious Emperours agreeing heerwith, are not contrary to the word of God. And therfore may be recall'd into use by any Christian Prince or Common-wealth, nay ought to be with due respect had to every nation. For whatsoever is equall and just, that in every thing is to be sought and us'd by Christians. Hence it is plain that divorce is granted by divine approbation, both to husbands and to wives, if ei∣ther party can convict the other of these following offences before the Magistrate.

If the husband can prove the wife to be an adulteresse, a witch, a murdresse, to have bought or sold to slavery any one free born, to have violated sepulchers, committed sacrilege, favor'd theevs and robbers, desitous of feasting with strangers, the husband not knowing, or not willing, if she lodge forth without a just and probable cause, or fre∣quant theaters and sights, he forbidding, if she be privie with those that plot against the State, or if she deal•• falsly, or offer blows. And if the wife can prove her husband guilty of any those fore-named crimes, and frequent the company of lewd women in her sight; or if he beat her, she had the like liberty to quit herselfe, with this diffe∣rence, that the man after divorce might forthwith marry again; the woman not till a year after, lest she might chance to have conceav'd.

CHAP. XXXVIII.

An exposition of those places wherein God declares the nature of holy wedlock:

NOw to the end it may be seen that this agrees with the divine law, the first institution of mariage is to be consider'd, and those texts in which God establisht the joyning of male and famale, and de∣scrib'd the duties of them both. When God had determin'd to make woman, and give her as a wife to man, he spake thus, Gen. 2. 18. It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a help meet for him. And A∣dam said, but in the Spirit of God, v. 23. 24. This is now bone of my bone, and slesh of my slesh. Therfore shall a man leav his father and mother, and shall cl••av to his wise, and th y shall be one slesh.

To this first institution did Christ recall his own; when answering the Pharises, he condemn'd the licence of unlawfull divorce. He taught therfore by his example, that we, according to this first institu∣tion, and what God hath spok'n therof, ought to determin what kind of covnant mariage is, how to be kept, and how farre; and lastly, for what cau••s to be dislolv'd. To which decrees of God these also are to be joyn'd, which the holy Ghost hath taught by his Apostle, that neither the husband nor the wife hath power of their own body, but mutu∣ally each of eithers. That the husband shall love the wife as his own body, yea as Christ loves his Church, and that the wife ought to be subject to her hus∣band, as the Church is to Christ.

By these things the nature of holy wedlock is certainly known; whereof if only one be wanting in both or either party, and that either by obstinate malev••lence, or too deep inbred weak••es of minde, or lastly, through incurable impotence of body, it cannot then be said that the covnant of matrimony holds good between such; if we mean that covnant which God instituted and call'd Mariage, and that wher∣of only it must be understood that our Saviour said, Those whom God hath joyn'd, let no man separate.

And hence is concluded, that matrimonv requires continuall coha∣bitation and living together, unlesse the calling of God be otherwise evident; which union if the parties themselves dis-joyn either by mu∣tuall consent, or one against the others will depart, the marriage is then brok'n. Wherein the Papists, as in other things oppose themselvs a∣gainst God; while they ••rate for many causes from bed and board, & yet will have the bond of matrimony remain, as if this covnant could be other then the conjunction and communion not only of bed & board, but of all other loving and helpfull duties. This we may see in these

words; I will make him a help meet for him; bone of his bones, and flesh of his slesh; for this cause shall he leav father and mother, and cleav to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. By which words who discerns not, that God requires of them both so to live together, and to be united not only in body but in mind also, with such an affection as none may be dearer and more ardent among all the relations of mankind, nor of more ef∣ficacy to the mutual offices of love, and loyalty. They must commu∣nicate and consent in all things both divine and human, which have any moment to well and happy living. The wife must honour and obey her husband, as the Church honours and obeys Christ her head. The husband must love and cherish his wife, as Christ his Church. Thus they must be to each other, if they will be true man and wife in the sight of God, whom certainly the Churches ought to follow in thir judgement. Now the proper and ultimate end of mariage is not copulation, or children, for then there was not true matrimony be∣tween Joseph and Mary the mother of Christ, nor between many holy persons more; but the full and proper and main end of mariage, is the communicating of all duties, both divine and humane, each to other, with utmost benevolence and affection.

CHAP. XXXIX.

The properties of a true and Christian mariage, more distinctly repeated.

BY which definition wee may know that God esteems and reckons upon these foure necessary properties to be in every true mariage. 1. That they should live together, unlesse the calling of God require otherwise for a time. 2. That they should love one another to the height of dearnes, and that in the Lord, and in the communion of true Religion. 3. That the husband beare himself as the head and preserver of his wife, instructing her to all godlines and integritie of life; that the wife also be to her husband a help, according to her place, especi∣ally furdering him in the true worship of God, and next in all the oc∣casions of civil life. And 4. That they defraud not each other of con∣jugal benevolence, as the Apostle commands, 1 Cor. 7. Hence it fol∣lows according to the sentence of God, which all Christians ought to be rul'd by, that between those who either through obstinacy, or help∣les inabilitie, cannot or will not perform these repeated duties, be∣tween those there can be no true matrimony, nor ought they to b•• counted man and wife.

CHAP. XL.

Whether those crimes recited Chap. 37. out of the civil law dissolv matrimony in Gods account.

NOw if a husband or wife be found guilty of any those crimes, which by the law consensu are made causes of divorce, tis manifest that such a man cannot be the head, and preserver of his wife, nor such a woman be a meet help to her husband, as the divine law in true wedlock requires; for these faults are punisht either by death, or de∣portation, or extream infamy, which are directly opposite to the covnant of mariage. If they deserve death, as adultery and the like, doubtles God would not that any should live in wedlock with them whom he would not have to live at all. Or if it be not death, but the incurring of notorious infamy, certain it is neither just, nor expedient, nor meet, that an honest man should be coupl'd with an infamous wo∣man, nor an honest matron with an infamous man. The wise Roman Princes had so great regard to the equal honour of either wedded per∣son, that they counted those mariages of no force which were made between the one of good repute, and the other of evill note. How much more will all honest regard of Christian expedience and comlines be∣seem & concern those who are set free and dignify'd in Christ, then it could the Roman Senate, or thir sons, for whō that law was provided.

And this all godly men will soon apprehend, that he who ought to be the head and preserver not only of his wife, but also of his children and family, as Christ is of his Church, had need be one of honest name: so likewise the wife which is to be the meet help of an honest and good man, the mother of an honest off-spring and family, the glory of the man, ev'n as the man is the glory of Christ, should not be tainted with ignominy; as neither of them can avoid to be, having bin justly ap∣peacht of those forenamed crimes; and therfore cannot be worthy to hold thir place in a Christian family: yea they themselvs turn out themselvs and dissolv that holy covnant. And they who are true bre∣thren and sisters in the Lord, are no more in bondage to such violaters of mariage.

But heer the Patrons of wickednes and dissolvers of Christian disci∣pline will object, that it is the part of man and wife to bear one ano∣thers crosse, whether in calamit••e, or infamy, that they might gain each other, if not to a good name, yet to repentance and amendment. But they who thus object, seek the impunity of wickednes, and the fa∣vour of wicked men, not the duties of true charity; which preferrs

public honesty before private interest; and had rather the remedies of wholsom punishment appointed by God should be in use, then that by remisness the licence of evil doing should encrease. For if they who by committing such offences, have made void the holy knott of mariage, be capable of repentance, they will be sooner mov'd when due punish∣ment is executed on them; then when it is remitted.

Wee must ever beware, lest, in contriving what will be best for the souls health of delinquents, wee make our selvs wiser and discreeter then God. He that religiously waighs his oracles concerning mariage, cannot doubt that they who have committed the foresaid transgressi∣ons, have lost the right of matrimony, and are unworthy to hold thir dignity in an honest and Christian family.

But if any husband or wife••see such sigues of repentance in thir transgressor, as that they doubt not to regain them by continuing with them, and partaking of thir miseries and attaintures, they may be left to thir own hopes, and thir own mind, saving ever the right of Church and Common-wealth, that it receav no scandal by the neglect of due severity, and thir children no harm by this invitation to licence, and want of good education.

From all these considerations, if they be thought on, as in the pre∣sence of God, and out of his Word, any one may perceav, who desires to determine of these things by the Scripture, that those causes of law∣full divorce, which the most religious Emperours Tbeodosius and Va∣lentinian set forth in the forecited place, are according to the law of God, and the prime institution of mariage. And were still more and more straitn'd, as the Church and State of the Empire still more and more corrupted and degenerated. Therfore pious Princes & Common-wealths both may and ought establish them again, if they have a mind to re∣store the honour, sanctitie, and religion of holy wedlock to thir peo∣ple, and dis-intangle many consciences from a miserable and perilous condition, to a chaste and honest life.

To those recited causes wherfore a wife might send a divorce to her husband, Justinian added foure more, Constit, 117. And foure more, for which a man might put away his wife. Three other causes were added in the Code derepudiis l. Jubemus. All which causes are so cleerly contrary to the first intent of mariage, that they plainly dissolv it. I set them not down beeing easie to be found in the body of the civil Law.

It was permitted also by Christian Emperours, that they who would divorce by mutuall conscnt, might without impediment. Or if there were any difficulty at all in it, the law expresses the reason, that it was only

in favour of the children, so that if there were none, the law of those godly Em∣perours made no other difficulty of a divorce by consent. Or if any were mind∣ed without consent of the other to divorce, and without those causes which have bin nam'd, the Christian Emperours laid no other punish∣ment upon them, then that the husband wrongfully divorcing his wife should give back her dowry, and the use of that which was call'd Do∣n••tio propter nuptias; or if there were no dowry nor no donation, that he should then give her the fourth part of his goods. The like penalty was inflicted on the wife departing without just cause. But that they who were once maried should be compe••l'd to remain so ever against thir wills, was not exacted. Wherin those pious Princes follow'd the law of God in Deut. 24. 1. and his expresse charge by the Profet Mala∣chy to dismisse from him the wife whom he hates. For God never meant in mariage to give to man a perpetuall torm••, instead of a meet help. Neither can God approve that to the violation of this holy league (which is violated as soon as true affection ceases and is lost,) should be added murder, which is already committed by either of them who res••lvedly hates the other, as I shew'd out of 1 John 15. Who so hateth his brother is a murderer.

CHAP. XLI.

Whether the husband or wife deserted may marry to another.

THe wives desertion of her husband the Christian Emperours plainly decreed to be a just cause of divorce, when as they gran∣ted him the right therof, if she had but lain out one night against his will without pr••ble ••use. But of the man deserting his wife they did not so determine: Yet if we look into the Word of God, wee shall find, that he who though but for a year without just cause forsakes his wife, and neither provides for her maintenance, nor signifies his pur∣pose of returning, and good will towards her, when as he may, hath forfe••ted hi•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in ••er s•• for••ak'n. For the Spirit of God speaks plainly, th••t both man and wife hath such power over one anothers person as that they cannot deprive each other of ••iving together, but by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and for a time.

H•• may b•• added that the holy Spirit grants desertion to be a cause of divorce, in those answers giv'n to the Corin••hians concerning ab•• ther o•• sister d••d by a ••is-beleever. If he depart, let him de∣part, a brother 〈◊〉〈◊〉 siste•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not under bondage in such cases. In which words, who sees•• of that the holy Ghost openly pronoune't, that th•• party without c••e deserted, is not bound for anothers wilfull defe••ion, to abstain from mariage, if he have need therof.

But some will say, that this is spok'n of a mis-beleever departing. But I beseech yee, doth not he reject the faith of Christ in his deeds, who rashly breaks the holy covnant of wedlock instituted by God? And besides this, the holy Spirit does not make the mis-beleeving of him who departs, but the departing of him who mis-beleevs to be the just cause of freedom to the brother or sister.

Since therfore it will be agreed among Christians, that they who de∣part from wedlock without just cause, doe not only deny the faith of matrimony, but of Christ also, what ever they professe with thir mouths, it is but reason to conclude, that the party deserted is not bound in case of causlesse desertion, but that he may lawfully seek ano∣ther consort, if it be needfull to him toward a pure and blameles con∣versation.

CHAP. XLII.

That impotence of body, leprosie, madnes, &c. are just causes of divorce.

OF this, because it was not disputed in the doctline and discipline of divorce, him that would know furder I commend to the La∣tin original.

CHAP. XLIII.

That to grant divorce for all the causes which have bin hitherto brought, disagrees not from the words of Christ naming only the cause of adultery.

NOw wee must see how these things can stand with the words of our Saviour, who seems directly to forbid all divorce excepti be for adultery. To the understanding wherof, wee must ever remember this: That in the words of our Saviour there can be no contrarietie. That his words and answers are not to be stretcht beyond the question propos'd. That our Saviour did not there purpose to treat of all the causes for which it might be lawfull to divor•• and marry again; for then that in the Co••hiaus of marrying again with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 guilt of adultery could not be added. That it is not good for that man to be alone who hath not the special gift from above. That it is good for every such one to be married, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he may sh•• fornication.

With regard to these principle let us see what our Lord answer'd to the tempting Pharises about divorce, and second ma••iage, and how ••rre his answer doth extend

First, No man who is not very contentious, will deny that the Pha∣rises

askt our Lord whether it were lawfull to put away such a wife, as was truly, and according to Gods law, to be counted a wife; that is, such a one as would dwell with her husband, and both would & could perform the necessary duties of wedlock tolerably. But shee who will not dwell with her husband, is not put away by him, but goes of her self: and sh••e who denies to be a meet help, or to be so, hath made her self unsit by open misd••meanours, or through incurable impotencies cannot be able, is not by the law of God to be esteem'd a wife; as hath bin shewn both from the first institution, and other places of Scripture. Neither certainly would the Pharises propound a question concerning such an unconjugall wife; for thir depravation of the law had brought them to that passe, as to think a man bad right to put away his wife for any cause, though never so slight. Since therfore it is manifest that Christ an∣swer'd the Pharises concerning a sit and meet wife according to the law of God, whom he forbid to divorce for any cause but fornication. Who sees not that it is a wickednes so to wrest and extend that an∣swer of his, as if it forbad to divorce her who hath already forsak'n, or hath lost the place and dignitie of a wife by deserved infamy, or hath undertak'n to be that which she hath not naturall ability to be.

This truth is so powerfull that it hath mov'd the Papists to grant their kind of divorce for other causes besides adultery, as for ill usage, and the not performing of conjugal dutie; and to separate from b••d and board for these causes, which is as much divorce, as they grant for adultery.

But some perhaps will object, that though it be yeilded, that our Lord granted divorce not only for adultery, yet it is not certain that he permitted mariage after divorce, unlesse for that only cause. I an∣swer, first, that the sentence of divorce, and second mariage, is one and the same. So that when the right of divorce is evinc't to belong not only to the cause of fornication, the power of second mariage is also prov'd to be not limited to that cause only; and that most evidently, when as the holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 7. so frees the deserted party from bondage, as that he may not only send a just divorce in case of deserti∣on, but may seek another marriage.

Lastly, Seeing God will not that any should live in danger of for∣nication and utter ruine for the default of another, and hath comman∣ded the husband to send away with a bill of divorce her whom he could not love, it is impossible that the charge of adultery should be∣long to him who for lawfull causes divorces and marries, or to her who marries after she hath bin unjustly rejected, or to him who re∣ceavs

her without all fraud to the former wedlock. For this were a horrid blasphemy against God, so to interpret his words, as to make him dissent from himself; for who sees not a flat contradiction in this, to enthrall blameles men and women to mis••ries and injuries, under a false and soothing title of mariage, and yet to declare by his Apostie that a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. No lesse doe these two things conflict with themselvs, to enforce the innocent and faultles to endure the pain and misery 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nothers perversnes, or els to live in unavoidable temptation; and to affirm elswhere that he lays on no man the burden of another mans sin, nor doth constrain any man to the endangering of his soul.

CHAP. XLIV.

That to those also who are justly divorc't, second mariage ought to be permitted.

This although ••t be well prov'd, yet because it concerns only the offendor, I leav him to search out his own charter himself in the Author.

CHAP. XLV.

That some persons are so ordain'd to mariage, as that they cannot obtain the gift of continence, no not by earnest prayer, and that therin every one is to be left to his own judgement, and conscience, and not to have a burden laid upon him by any other.

CHAP. XLVI.

The words of the Apostle concerning the praise of single life unfolded.

THese two Chapters not so immediatly debating the right of di∣vorce, I chose rather not to insert.

CHAP. XLVII.

The Conclusion of this Treatise.

THese things, most renowned King, I have brought together, both to explain for what causes the unhappy, but sometimes most ne∣cessary help of divorce ought to be granted, according to Gods Word, by Princes and Rulers: as also to explain how the words of Christ d••e consent with such a grant. I have bin large indeed both in handling

those Oracles of God, and in laying down those certain principles, which he who will know what the mind of God is in this matter, must ever think on, and remember. But if wee consider what mist and ob∣scuritie hath bin powrd out by Antichrist upon this question, and how deep this pernicious contempt of wedlock, and admiration of single life, ev'n in those who are not call'd therto, hath sunk into many mens persuasions, I fear lest all that hath bin said, be hardly anough to per∣suade such that they would cease at length to make themselvs wiser & holier then God himself, in beeing so severe to grant lawfull mariage, and so easie to connive at all, not only whordoms, but deflowrings, and adulteries. When as among the people of God, no whordom was to be tolerated.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who came to destroy the works of Satan, send down his Spiritupon all Christians, and principally upon Chri∣stian Governours both in Church and Common-wealth (for of the cleer judgement of your royall Majesty I nothing doubt, revolving the Scripture so often as yee doe) that they may acknowledge how much they provoke the anger of God against us, when as all kind of uncha∣stity is tolerated, fornications and adulteries winkt at: But holy and honourable wedlock is oft withheld by the meer persuasion of Anti∣christ, from such as without this remedy, cannot preserve themselves from damnation! For none who hath but a spark of honesty will deny that Princes and States ought to use diligence toward the maintaining of pure and honest life among all men, without which all justice, all fear of God, and true religion decayes.

And who knows not that chastity and purenes of life, can never be restor'd, or continu'd in the Common-wealth, unlesse it be first esta∣blisht in private houses, from whence the whole breed of men is to come forth. To effect this, no wise man can doubt that it is necessary for Princes and Magistrates first with severity to punish whordom and adultery; next to see that mariages be lawfully contracted, and in the Lord, then that they be faithfully kept; and lastly, when that unhap∣pines urges, that they be lawfully dissolv'd, and other mariage gran∣ted, according as the law of God, and of nature, and the Constitutions of pious Princes have decreed; as I have shewn both by evident au∣torities of Scripture, together with the writings of the ancient Fathers, and other testimonies. Only the Lord grant that we may learn to pre∣ferre his ever just and saving Word, before the Comments of Anti∣christ, too deeply rooted in many, and the false and blasphemous ex∣position of our Saviours words.

Amen.

The end

Notes

• * 1.1

  That the ••dering of ••riage belo•• to the civi•• power.
• * 1.2

  The Popes have invaded by fraud and force the or∣dering of ma∣••iage.
• * 1.3

  I omit his testimonies out of Cyprian, Gelasius, Epiphanius, contented only to relate what he thence collects to the present purpose.
• * 1.4

  The 1. axion•• that Christ could not' condemn of adultery that which he once commanded.
• * 1.5

  The second Axiom.
• * 1.6

  Axiom 4.
• * 1.7

  Mat. 5. 34.