iure There is noe dowbt but the contract De jure ought neuer to be broken and that there offence is haynous and not to bee excused that doe breake itt But the question is whether de facto it may bee broken because the rule is, let noe man putt a sunder whome god hath coupled together wee may as well conclude that noe man may kill because the rule is thou shalt not kill In which case the magistrate may both kill an offender and iustly kill him, yet is it not to be said that hee but Iustice killeth him so the offender is guiltie of his owne death and not the magistrate Soe if two that are married shall contrary to the ends and causes of marriage insteed of Comfortable helpes become continuall torments vnto each other insteed of mutuall consent doe lyue in continuall vnconscionable dissention and insteed of beinge one flesh by abandoning themselues unto others do become one Flesh with another I see nothinge left like vnto a marriage nor of the substance of marriage nor any danger, by any thinge that I can see in that first institucion for the Magistrate to pronounce that to bee broken which by the faulte of the offendor is indeed broken /. And as God ruleth all sutable to his infinite purenes yett in those rules doth hee allowe some exceptions agreable to the weakenes of our nature for as the rule is Let no man put asunder whom god hath coupled together. Soe wee muste needs confess that in somme cases this rule doeth beare exceptions. For God by Malachy doeth comaund Yf thow hate thy wife put her away And by Moyses where the Children of God are comaunded that yf when they goe to warr they take a bewtifull woman whome they desire that then hee shall take her and marrie her And yf after hee haue noe favor unto her then hee might lett her goe whether shee would only hee might not sell her. And in Deu: 34 when a man married a wife yf soe hee had found no favor in her eies because hee had espied some filthines in her hee was willed to write her a divorse and gyve itt unto her and soe send her owt of his howse which wordes in the hebrewe expressinge divorse the learned in that tonge doe interprett to imply a cuttinge a sunder and dissolucion And nothinge is more plainly by this place and diuers others in the Scriptures then that the diuorse then allowed and practized was was an vtter dissolucion of the bonds of marriage in such sorte that both parties did and might marry with any other And that the Iewes did knowe and acknowledge noe other kinde of divorse but this. And this lawe was especially made in favor of the partie wronged in the contract of marriage That yf either of them owt of the hardnes of theire harts did breake the obligacion wherein they were bound (the which to doe was neuer lawfull) were tollerated that then it should bee tollerated lawfull for them to bee seperated that the partie innocent being defrauded of the true end wherefore they were contracted, the marriage should haue againe the proper due of theire owne bodies which they had conferred vpon another For theise consideracions. and that it should bee free for them to contract with any other by a better choise to make reparacion of their first misfortune / And somuch was done in favor of the innocent party that yf out of the hardnes of his hart his minde were soe alienated though without iust cause from his former choise that hee was allowed to lyue without her least hee should bee tempted to seeke dangerous and more dangerous and wicked meanes to bee ridd of her, And it was permitted vnto him to become sui Iuris by restoringe vnto her the interest that shee had gyven him in her selfe and by marrying any other more agreable to his harte to haue better meanes to serue god in peace which before in warr and dissention hee could neuer in that vocacion doe / Nowe for the Lawe of nature the best expositors of that lawe amongest them whoe had only the light of nature to direct them doe thus dece ryue the begininge of marriage. That man beeing a reasonable and sociable creature desiringe his owne mortall beinge and well being coveteth to preserue his beinge in his posterity which hee could not doe in him selfe; And the well beinge in the society of others which hee could not dooe alone so that as hee could not gyve beinge to his posterity without a woman so could hee neither gyve well being unto them without carefull and good education yf euery man went promiscuously to euery woman no man should knowe his owne children & consequently noe care of theire education wherein consisteth there well beinge Wherefore marriage was contracted betweene one man and one woman that they two beinge one should preserue each others being & well beinge boeth in theire owne mutuall society and in theire posteritie /. Nowe yf there happen such a marriage where there is noe hope of posterity nor mutuall comfort or society , but the cleane contrary what is there in the Lawe of nature that prohibiteh to dissolue this marriage especially yf it bee done by theire theire consents by whose consents it was contracted. For the Civill lawe which in the generallity appereth neerest to the Lawe of nature saith that nihil est tam naturale quan co genere quod que dissoluere quo collegatum est and all lawes saith that consensus facit matrimonium. And if it be said that the consent of two parties should not preiudice the interest of a third and that god hath an interest in this bond beinge a witnes thereunto it may bee aunswered that all honest promises made by men haue euer God for their witnes and yet are there many that by consent may be dissolued without offence to god And although this bee a promise which more then most contracts doe binde vs carefully to obserue itt yett this is but a contract and magis et minus non diuersificant speciem I doe not conclude out of all this that out of naturall conveniency it was Comely that all persons contracted by this sacred and cyvill bond should vpon any cause or mutuall consent make seperacion of themselues without the cognizaunce of the magistrate because many things that in them selues are lawfull to be done are vnlawfull till they bee iudged fitt to bee done and yf it should be done only by the iudgement of the parties then should they bothe be iudges and parties in theire owne cause which were vniuste and vnnaturall But as I haue herd some of the Fathers of our lawe saye that yf the kinge doe graunte vnder his greate Seale (which is an high contract) any office with fee and comodity absolutly in wordes duringe lyfe without any appearinge exception yet hath the contract this silent condicion included in it, that the partie s shall performe all those duties that are incident to his office the breach whereof doth forfeit his graunt but yet is not the kinge himselfe to take benefit of the forfeiture and libertie to dispose of it to any other vntill it bee iudged soe that as by a solemne record the contract was made soe by a solemne deede it shalbe pronounced to be dissolued, And though a marriage be contracted during life yet may it haue in it a hidden condicion to obserue those duties which are the motiues of each others first consent And though the marriage may be broken vpon the likeinge of them yet is it not fit for either partie to take advantage of it till it bee iudged soe and by the publike iudgement of of it so the cheife naturall end of marriage which was to avoyde promiscuity in generacion and uncertainty in yssue is nowe more sufficiently prouided for then yf they haad contynewed ioyned in that bond and disioynd in harts for such a bond betwene such so distracted in their harts is not only a inticement to adulterie but a cloud to conceale them and a warrant for a woman to intende an adulterous issue into the inheritance of her husband The doinge of which and of many other inconveniencies is clearely avoided by a publique and vtter seperacion / And to inferr that I doe not rashly or impertinently make some comparison betwixt this grant of an office and the contract of marriage which seemeth to bee absolute yett doeth not binde for euer and in all causes euen in this case of marriage I haue the warrant of the comon lawe which doeth allowe a man for fornicacion to put away his wyfe, although when hee were married besides That maine maine contracts hee had sworne not to put her away and the reason is gyven by the same lawe to be because in the same contract and such like this unexpressed condicion must be understood si videlicet illam legem coniungij non peccerat . I haue as I thincke good reason to beleeve that there is nothinge in the first institucion of marriage by the same lawe of God that doth make the bonde of marriage so fast, but that in some cause it may bee diseuered; And the practice of this Church untill the cominge of Christ whoe was dowbtles in many cases to dissolue it: And likewise that it is not contrary to the Lawe of nature for then it must needs haue been contrary to the worde of God. If I haue alleadged noe other reason yet I thinck this very sufficient that whatsoeuer all nations did hold was counted the lawe of Nature and all nations nations till the cominge of Christ did hold divorse to be lawfull. Therefore diuorse was esteemed lawfull by the lawe of nature till the Cominge of Christ till the begininge of the common lawe but that will fall more fitt to bee affirmed in this parte where (h avinge proued divorse a vincul are neither against the lawe of nature nor the nature it selfe) I must now make it appeare that it is not against the lawe of the gospell. to which purpose I will alledge the words of Christ whoe was the lawe-gyver of this caution which hee gyveth himselfe that hee came not to take away the lawe but to fulfill it and as I take it in this case not vtterly to restraine the libertie gyven by the former lawe but to reforme the misvnd= erstandings and abuse of that libertie And though the wordes them selues doe seeme to interprett them selues yett I will declare how I doe vnderstand them & what warrant I haue to understand them them, As God gaue the first lawe of marriage in Parradize to man then beinge in the state of perfection so Christ when hee woulde regenerate vs vnto that perfection ascendinge himselfe and seekinge to drawe vs with him did first speake of marriage in his sermon which is called by the Fathers in monte wherein all his rules are of right and soe full of puritie that they seeme ordinary to such a lyfe as should be the right marke wee should ayme to come vnto as neere as wee could and speakinge of marriage these be the wordes. It hath beene said alsoe whosoeuer shall put away his wyfe let him gyue hir a bill of diuorse, but I say vnto you whosoeuer putte h away his wyfe except it be for fornicacion causeth her to commit adultrie whosoeuer shall marry that is diuorced comitte the adultrie. These wordes I will not only interprett out of my owne spiritt but in the words of Erasmus Paraphrase vpon this place and not only because it is Erasmus interpretacion concordinge with myne but because it agrees with the doctrine and practize of the Church for many hundred yeares after the cominge of Christ with the opinion of most of the antient fathers and with the opinion of most of the Church of Rome and lastly with all or allmost all of the learned and godly writers whome god did vse as blessed instruments for the better reformacion of the Church and these are Erasmus words the lawe of Moises did permitt that the husband offended with any fault with his wyfe should put her away at his pleasure soe that hee gaue vnto her whome hee did put away a bill of diuorse by which shee might marry with another and by which the right in him to assume her againe might bee taken away, and soe he did satisfie the lawe whoe for any cause did repudiate his wyfe yf att her departure hee gaue her such a bill neither should shee bee iudged as an adultress neither should any note her as an adultress notwithstandinge the lawe did with the freindshipp and concord betweene the married continewe to be perpetuall. But knowinge the hardnes of the Iewes and least any thinge More wicked should be comitted as poisninge and other murder, hath permitted diuorse. but I wish that by the professors of the newe lawes marriage be more holy and inviolable and therefore whosoeuer shall putt away his wife vnlesse shee be an adultresse (for then shee shee leaueth to bee a wife when shee hath mingled her selfe with another doeth constraine her selfe to comitt adultrie for yf she marry with another she doeth not marry a husband but an adulterer And hee that doeth marry her that is so repudiated doeth not marry a wife but an adultresse for Erasmus enlarginge the words of Christ to explaine his meaninge and Cardinall Caieton in his Comentaries vpon this place concurringe with this interpretacion upon the words Et quid dimissam duxerit adulteras doth ad vnto dimissam procull dlubio absque fornicacione nota: which is one with Erasmus who vnto dimissam doth ad sic dimissam and doth agree that the puttinge away which by this text is allowed in the case of fornication is such a puttinge away and the vtter dissalowinge of the bond aswell is allowed in the law of moises. I doe not soe farr over vallewe the authorities of theise men although I knowe them to haue bine as learned as any that lyved in theire age as I would Iurare in verba magistri but that they haue said the same which yf I had neuer read them I had so many of theire reasons to say and that in these words they doe make it plaine that in this text a divorse of marriage a vinculo in somme case is not prohibited which is the question I nowe handle I doe inferr by theise words That whosoeuer shall putt away his wyfe (except it be for fornicacion doeth cause her to comitt adultrie) And whosoeuer doeth marry a wyfe soe put away (that is for some sleight cause and not for adultreie) doth committ adultrie, But whosoeuer doth marry a woman lawfully put away and it is lawfull to put her away for that greate cause doth committ adultrie because shee is then noe mans wife and consequently no man wronged yf shee marry to any other. And yf Christ did not in this take away the ould lawe but reforme it hee leaueth the lawe to bee the same that it was in the cases which hee doth in this reformacion except And therefore in the cause of fornicacion the lawe of divorse remaineth still whole as it was in the tyme of Moises and the lawe of divorse was then an vtter seperacion a vinculo. And surely yf theise words of Christ touchinge divorse in this place haue expressed noe exception I see noe reason but in this wee might haue admitted an exception in causes cleane contrary to the nature of marriage as well as wee are forced in most of the absolute preceptes in the chapter read the like in the next verse in lyke manner hee saieth againe you haue heard that it was said to them in ould tyme thow shalt not forsweare thy selfe but shalt performe thy oath vnto the lord but I say vnto you Sweare not att all And yett wee finde out an exception in somme cases to make it lawfull to Sweare And after yf any man will Sue thee at the lawe so take away thy coate let him haue they cloake also alsoe And yett wee finde out an exception to make it lawfull for vs boeth to defend our coates and our cloakes also from the advantage of the lawe and finally he concludeth you shalbe perfect therefore as your father which is in heauen is perfect the which yf wee doe not other waies expound then the letter doth importe wee muste needes confesse to bee impossible for how can a finite and corruptible Creature by infinite degres came neere vnto the perfection of an infinite or infinitly pure creature Creator therefore yf the exception heere in the matter of diuorce and the same in the 19 of Mathew were not, yet might those places in Mark and Luke moue that where there is noe exception of fornicacion expressed but especially now it maketh it plaine for as noe one place of the doctrine of the holy ghost is contrary to another so is the generall rule of expoundinge the scriptures to expound that which is more skant or obscure by other places of the same subiect that are more large and plaine and not to restraine that which is written more large by any other places which doe not expresse so much so that vnto Luke and Marke wee must add the exception which is in the 19th of Mathew and not to take it from those places because it is not in the other But because in the 19 of Mathew this matter of deepe diuorce doth seeme more largely to be handled it wilbe fitt to bringe these words to be considered the Pharises hauinge herd as it is lyke by of the doctrine of Christ against the present opinion and practise of those times came to him with a minde to tempt him in the matter and said to him as it lawfull for a man to putt away his wife upon euery occasion? and hee answered and said vnto them, haue yee yet not read that hee that made them in the begininge made them male and female and said for this cause shall a man leaue father and mother and cleaue vnto his wife and they twoe shalbe one flesh lett noe man therefore putt a sunder those whome God hath coupled togeather. They sayd unto him why then did Moises command us to giue a bill of divorse & put her away the said unto them Moises for the for the hardnes of your harts suffered you to doe soe but from the begininge it was not so I say therefore vnto you whosoeuer shall putt away his wife except it be for fornicacion and marry another comitteth adultreie and whosoeuer marrieth her that is diuorced comitteth adultrie The Pharises as both theire cause and purpose in this busines busines was euill, so dowbtles was boeth theire opinion and practise att that tyme both against the first institucion of marriage and the true meaninge of Moises in this cause of diuorce and therefore as they and theire begininge so informed of the matter did putt the question to Christ so Christ vnto them and to this matter as it was then held and practized doth make the answere and seekinge to reduce them and all men vnto that state of perfeccion in which they were first conceaued doth call them back to the first instutuccion of marriage which was made when man was in paradize in the state of perfeccion and therefore doth answere theire question whether itt were lawfull for a man to putt a way his wyfe vpon euery occasion as they then held and as they verely beleeued to this effect haue you not read in the word of god that god made man and woman at the first in the state of perfection and therefore able to performe those duties incident to theire creation and also to his particular vocation wherein they were ordained as to be comforters and assistants to each other as well by theire posteritie to increase his churche as by theire mutuall loue and affection to supply to ech other the defects of solitarines and that yf they should fall to be a meanes by theire lawfull ioyninge togeather to avoyd the same which with theire inordinate defects might leade them unto. And therefore shall this bond be so sleightly obserued by you that a man shall leaue Father and mother in respect of his wife and in continuall conuersation and affeccion be ioyned togeather so that they whoe before this mutuall consent were two by this contract be but one flesh let no man therefore breake his faith in not performing the Condicion of this bond nor by seeking any others to become one with another by the which the bond is broken and they are seperated whom god did couple togeather This beinge contrary to that which they conceaued to be lawfull by Moises lawe They asked him againe whi did Moises then comand to gyue a bill of diuorce and put her away to the which hee aunswered that Moises because he knewe that you beinge degenerated from your first perfec tion though the hardnes of your harts which could resist all grace did not only breake of the true endes and condicions of marriage but out of the same hardnes of heart were apt to seeke wicked and bloody meanes to be seperated, ordained a course which by his prouision was lawfull by a bill of diuorce to make it knowne how that was seperated which you by the hardnes of your harts had seperated but from the begininge it was not soe for the seed of discord and discention being then unsowen there was noe breakinge of the bond of marriage and therefore noe cause of diuorce neither should there be any now when you are borne againe to by the like perfeccion and shall haue my grace contyuallyto strengthen you except the hardnes of your harts doe refuse it I say therefore vnto you that whosoeuer shall putteth away his wife and marrieth another except it be for whoredome (which euer I from the begininge that it had bin comitted was so opposite to the nature of marriage, that it did vtterly breake and dissolue it) hee doth comitt adulterie because shee that hee doeth soe putt a way is still his wife because shee is not lawfully and fully putt away whosoeuer marrieth her that is so put away commiteth adultrey because hee doth marry one that beinge not lawfully put away remaineth still the wife of another. And surely but that I am fearefull to add any thinge to the text in the which I haue not apparant warrant I thincke I might expound theis words except it be for fornication and some such other to haue a more large intent then the bare letter doth imply and that the word fornicacion doth imply not only carnall but spirituall fornication and some such other greate causes as are contrary to the nature of marriage for somme causes there must be allowed besides this carnall faulte faulte for howe will elce elce the place of Pawle stand with this wherein he doth pronounce the beleeuinge woman to be free to marry another beinge abandoned by her vnbeleeuinge husband, And some of the Fathers the Masters of the sentences and others of the Church of Rome are forced to that large interpretacion to make good theire titularie diuorce a thoro et mensa which they allowed in diuerse other causes besides adultry) And many learned writers of our church and the ciuill lawes made by most Christian Emperors must either haue that construccion for their warrant for wee must thincke that those Emperours lyeing neerest to the purest tymes of the church (when the church did florish with more extraordinary learninge and pietie And those Emperours not only obedient but also obnoxious to the authoritie of those good men would not promul= gate and practize lawes that were contrary to the word of god I say they were obnoxious because Theodolphus the younger who by his lawes did allow many other vtter causes of diuorse when a Churchman did iniuriously threaten threaten to excomunicate him from denyinge him a suite he did rather chuse to satisfie him then repell his wronge with iust power. The iudgement of the Fathers and stories of those tymes did wittnes much of his extraordinary pietie in dutie and obedience to the Church And Socrates doeth write of him that he spent much of his time in fastinge and prayer that hee did striue aboundantly to keepe the straite rules of the Christian life that his court was lyke a monastery for he spent the morninge with his Sisters in singinge psalmes: hee could repeate all the Scriptures so owt of his owne memory that of those hee would dispute with the Bishopes as yf his function had bin to be one of them hee was a more gatherer of such boekes as contained the whole word of god and of such lyke then euer Ptolomeus Philidelphus was and that he did obserue with all honor the preists of god and those most whome he did knowe to be best and in the end of that chapter which is 22 of his 7 boeke of Ecclesiasticall histories he saith that the whole Cittie for practice and consent was as it were but one church. shall wee then thincke that so those godly and soe learned an Emperour would haue made or suffered a publike lawe which he had thought to haue bine contrary to the word of god or yf the learned men euen of those times had thought it to be contrary to the word of god can it be imagined that they would not haue admonished him of it? it is not likely thaat he whoe bare so much respect vunto them would haue ruled his will to that which they should haue tould him had not it bene the word of god. for in those times, that was the lawe Quod principi placuit. And there was no other difficultie but his will to haue altered it neither did hee make his lawe of diuorce such as they though beinge many other Christians and excellent Emperors in his lawe Concensus lib. 5. tit. 17 he doth restraine the causes of diuorce to suche as he thought of greatest importance and yet out of all this I only conclud that it is lawfull for a man to put away his wife for fornifcacion and to marry another. And that it as much as in this question I desyre to proue, which is, that in somme case the bonde of marriage may be dissolued neither doth Pawle in the 7to the Romans where he saith that the woman which is in subiection to the man is bound by the lawe to the man while he lyueth make any thinge against the doctrine of Christ and therefore theire exceptions (except it be for fornicacion) must be added neither is it his purpose in his law to speake anythinge of diuorce but by the example of a generall rule wherin it was necessarie he should mencion the excepcion , his purpose was to proue another matter for ells hee would neuer haue said knowe you you not brethren for I speake to them that knowe the lawe for they that did knowe the lawe did knowe that generall rules haue an exception and to this effect saith Caitan vpon this place aduerte tamen c aute V ector quod hæc Pawli verba intelli= guntur regularites, seci us veron i casu s ciebat Paulus sciebant et docti in lege Moises quos alloquitu r quod secumdum legem verum est regulariter quod mulier alligata est quam totem quanto tempore viuit vico suc: et cum hoc sciunt, quòd in casu libelli repudij secundum legem mulier soluta erat a lege viri, etiam viuente viro. And wherein the 7 of the first to the Corinthians he saith And to the married I commaund . yet not I . but the lord; let not the wyfe departe from the husband but yf shee departe let her remaine vnmarried or let her be reconsiled to her husband and let not the husband put away his wyfe: Theis must be expounded of such sleight causes, for the which christ doeth prohibitt but to put away an adultres which is allowed to be lawfull by the opinion of all men And therfore there is no dowbt but this place also must be added (except it be for adultre ) for in the next verse he saith if any haue a wife that beleeueth not yf shee be contented to dwell with him let him not forsake her, by which he sheweth that marriage betweene such to be found lawfull and yet hee addeth but if the vnbeleeuinge departe let him depart: A brother or a Sister is not in subiection to such thinges, which I feare the Romish Church doth expound to be free to marry another And from thence doe many learned men of our church conclud that for the cause of discretion it was lawfull for any to marry againe but his leauinge of her, for in the verse going before it appeareth that it was not lawfull for her to leaue him except he did leaue also though hee were an infidell And surely since cohaabitacion ioyned with the other mutuall duties of marraiage is yet adheringe within the first institucion was of the very essence of marriage. I see no reason but he that dothe wickedly and vtterly abandon his wife should by that maker her as free as shee was before shee was married vnto him especially that it be done by order and so pronounced by the magistrate vnto the which I beleeue the magistrate is warranted by the word of God. I could could neuer read nor heare of any other place in the scriptures that with any apparance is alledged against my conclusion, And therefore since the dissoluing of the bond of marriage in some cases doth appeare neither to be against the first institucion of marr iage nor to be against the doctrine of Christ I may conclud that it is not prohibited by the word of god that marriage lawfully contracted and consum ated may in some cases be dissolued from the bond during the lyfe of both parties that were so married. And thought to inferr so much it is enough to haue alleaged the word of god yet I will as breefely as I cann touch the Censure and practise of the Church touchinge the matter from the tyme of Christ vntill nowe not mindinge to alledge all that hath bine controuersed by some excellent men but rather to give some light how the state of this question hath bene held and haue led untill the begininge of the Com on lawe. The Civill lawe which was the law of our Christian world did allowe in somme causes divorce a vinculo and none of the Fathers. vntill the tyme of St Ierome and St Augustine did directly impinge but many directly allowe allow It is true that in some of them there may be some what gathered of theire dislike of the abuse of divorce and of such as did rashly conuolare ad secundas nuptias. But was it heard thaat till the com on lawe any marriag made after divorce was by the iudgement of any of them dissolued St Ierome and St Augustine were the first that seeme dogmatically to dissalowe the dissolucion of marriage a vinculo. and from them is deryved the divorce (which is indeed noe divorce) A thore atque mensa which nowe the Church of Rome doth allowe. These holy Fathers out of theire exceedinge loue of puritie (but especially Ierome) did a litle to hardly censure even the holy state of marriage it selfe and so carefull were they in this and in many other things that Ethnickes and Heretiques should see nothinge foule that they somtimes rather admitt a hidden sore in the bodie then a moate in the face of the Church but how strongly soeuer St Ierome handled this matter whose strongest arguments may aswell be vrged against second marriage after diuorce yet hee doeth even extoll Fabriola for her pietie as a miracle and excuse her fact whoe duringe the life of her husband had married another and though after the death of her second husband shee did voluntarylie penance (It was often done for ordinary faults) yet was the marriage neuer dissolued and the pennance because that without the authoritie of the Church shee did putt away her husband and not because shee did it And for that St Augustine after to proue his purpose hee hath made such interpretacions of the scriptures as will hardly satisfie any man that is not more moved by his authoritie then by his reasons yet in the end hee is forced that that in his boeke de fule et operibus to conclude this matter. Quis quis vxorem in adulterio deprehensam dimiseret et aliam duxerit non videtur æquandus eis exepta causa adulterij dimittunt et ducunt. et in ipsis diuinis sententijs ita est obscurum ut iste equidem siue dubio adulteram licet dimittere adulter tamen habentur si alteram duxerit ut quantum existimo Veni aliter quisquis salli tur. And let that Reverend Father pardon me yf I bee not satisfied with his boeke of this matter since it seemeth hee was skant satisfied, with them himselfe for thus he write of them in his retractions scripsi duos libris de coniungijs adulterinis quantum secundum scripturas cupiens soluere difficillimam questionem quod verum emendatissime fecerim nescio imo vero me non peruenisse ad huius rei perfectionem sentio. But howsoeuer by the boekes it appeareth that Polotimus a godly Father was of the contrary opinion, I conceaue it may be gathered by that treatise of Polotimus written to him to knowe the reason of his opinion as beinge newe and diuerse from that which was held at that time I will not alledge all the authorities of the autient Fathers that to make for my conclusion but repeate even out of Sixtus Serensis an aduersarie to this cause that Ambrose Tertulian Hillari a uthor operis in perfecti, Crisostom Enthunius Theophil actus Chromatius Pope L achary the first and the Fathers of the Eube rtine Mogientine and Tibertine counsells doe seeme to be of that opinion besides suche of the Fathers as wee whome hee calleth heritiques doe alledge in this cause but it is noe wonder that the Com on Lawe should err in this matter which in many things but especially in this of marriage hath so many errors that haue noe appearance to warrant them that none but a iudgement captiuated and obnoxious to the Church of Rome cann allowe them and the comon lawe is the fountaine of that hath corrupted the torrent of the doctors since that tyme with the which even they were carried that in theire owne iudgement did otherwaise beleeue since it was so dangerous for them to striue against the streame And yet I may say by the authority of Cardinall Caiton whome I had rather alleadge in this matter matter then our owne writers who doeth protest boeth against the Contrary doeth p doctrine and parties that professed it that this matter was neuer dogmat tically defined by the church of Rome to be as a matter of faith contrary to the word of god but iudicially to be determined as fitt to be as a matter obserued. in fact as theis are his wordes upon the 19 of Mathew. Intellig go i egitur exhac D. Jesu in Christi lege tutum licitum esse Christiano admittere vxorem ob fornicationem carnalem ipsius vis, & posse ducere aliam em: Salva sedmer Ecclesiæ nitione, quæ hac tenus non apparet: nam decretales Pontificiæ de hac re materia non sunt definitiuæ quo Fidei sed adjudiciales Facti. And Catharinus Bisshop of Compfar when in the first edicion of his booke of annotacions upon Cajetans Commentaries hee had with much bitternes taxed him for many things doth overpresse this opinion with silence: But in his second edition in his 5 booke he dooth confesse that hee did it because (as he saith) nec poteram prudenter reprehendere, quod nesciebam etiam idonte confutare. And hee that in all things did quarrell with Cajetan doeth concurr with him in this opinion and confirme it with many (and I doe thincke soe stra onge) reasons as can noe way be answered; and doeth much like to the other conclude in these words; Scio, quod aliter docent nunc uniuersaliter scholæ, et ego cum illis sentio, ex fide cogor, et captiuam reddo intellectum meum: hoc tamen precor, neminis facile censuram adhibeant. satis est, quòd decretis Pontificum hanc per soluo reuerentiam, ut iuxta illa doceam atque cosulum Here is a much illegible : Out of which out which is in a prayer exposition with my owne hand he out of which I do inferr it Owt of which I do inferr ... vuniust then prohibite them to marry for marriage is the lawfull remedy that god hath apointed & prouided for such as cannot lyve in Chastitie and as Austine saieth of marriage Quod sanis fuit in offensam, ægrotis dictum est in remedium , And if our Sauior Christ left his whole flocke for to seeke pne lost sheepe, shall wee put a poore lost sheepe out of the right way wherein it desireth to retorne againe to the Shephard? what were this, but to punish sinne with sinne and to deny vnto them, whome wee would reclaime to saluation the meanes to lead them vnto it? and therefore I will only say with Caluin (whoe in this agrees with Luther, Malanchton, Bucer, Hemmingiums , Beda, Vinitus Vicetus and most of all the godly doctors;) quia hac tenus (non tamen temere, ue dicebat) animaduersum fuit in adulterio, ut eorum vitæ parcatur, qui violant fidem coniu gij: durum esset, virum quo cum diuortium fecit vxor adulterij causa, aut mulierem a marito repudiatam, si incontentia laborant, in totam vitam à coniuggio arcere: Haque necesse est, ut indulgentia vna alteram trahat. / Nowe since it doeth not appeare thaat it is prohibited by the word; and that all marriages by our lawes are pronounced lawfull that are not prohibited by the word of god: I may conclud that the marriage between twoe, of whome one of them was diuorced; from from another, duringe the lyfe of that other is lawfull by the lawe of god and of man. And if it not it being contrary to the lawe of god it were contrary to the positiue lawe of this land the Prince might in some particuler case dispence with the generall rule and neither against the nature of all humane lawes in which the equitie of all particular causes cannot be sufficiently prouided for nor against the iustice of this Realme since (as I take it) that power is gyven by a Statute of the 25, of H.8. Chapter 21. even in this Cause of marriage. And yf upon greate Consideracion hatefull and cryinge since of treason which is neuer without blood and breach of faith wherein not only the prince but euery subiect hath an interest and not only gyven of the offendors lyfe but restored them and theire posteritie from infamie; what offence can the like indulgence giue in a fault of weaknes? especially if it fall out that it be not accompanied with any other injury; for yf botth parties doe desire suche a separacion and content with a newe voleneti non sit iniuria. /

habeat itaque et Christum assertatorem Iusti diuorcij. Tertulliam lib: aduersus Marcionem. . finis