fical canon had enthralled them to, and instead of in- | terpreting a generous and elegant law, made them the drudges of a blockish Rubric.

and peace, a more holy union than that of the flesh; and the dignity of an honest person was regarded not to be held in bondage with one whose ignominy was infectious. To this purpose was constituted Cod. 1. 5, tit. 17, and Authent. collat. 4, tit. i. Novell. 22, where Justinian added three causes more. In the 117 Novell. most of the same causes are allowed, but the liberty of divorcing by consent is repealed: but by whom? by Justinian, not a wiser, not a more religious emperor than either of the former, but noted by judicious writers for his fickle head in making and unmaking laws; and how Procopius, a good historian, and a counsellor of state then living, deciphers him in his other actions, I willingly omit. Nor was the church then in better case, but had the corruption of a hundred declining years swept on it, when the statute of “Consent was called in; which, as I said, gives us every way more reason to suspect this restraint, more than that liberty which therefore in the reign of Justin, the succeeding emperor, was recalled, Novell. 140, and established with a preface more wise and christianly than for those times, declaring the necessity to restore that Theodosian law, if no other means of reconcilement could be found. And by whom this law was abrogated, or how long after, I do not find; but that those other causes remained in force as long as the Greek empire subsisted, and were assented to by that church, is to be read in the canons and edicts compared by Photius the patriarch, with the avertiments of Balsamon and Matthæus Monachus thereon.

:

Theodosius and Valentinian, pious emperors both, ordained that, "as by consent lawful marriages were made, so by consent, but not without the bill of di- | vorce, they might be dissolved; and to dissolve was the more difficult, only in favour of the children." We see the wisdom and piety of that age, one of the purest and learnedest since Christ, conceived no hinderance in the words of our Saviour, but that a divorce, mutually consented, might be suffered by the law, especially if there were no children, or if there were, careful provision was made. And further saith that law, (supposing there wanted the consent of either,) "We design the causes of divorce by this most wholesome law; for as we forbid the dissolving of marriage without just cause, so we desire that a husband or a wife distressed by some adverse necessity, should be freed though by an unhappy, yet a necessary relief." What dram of wisdom or religion (for charity is the truest religion) | could there be in that knowing age, which is not virtally summed up in this most just law? As for those other christian emperors, from Constantine the first of them, finding the Roman law in this point so answerable to the Mosaic, it might be the likeliest cause why they altered nothing to restraint; but if aught, rather to liberty, for the help and consideration of the weaker sex, according as the gospel seems to make the wife mere equal to her husband in these conjugal respects, than the law of Moses doth. Therefore "if a man But long before those days, Leo, the son of Basilius were absent from his wife four years, and in that space Macedo, reigning about the year 886, and for his exnot heard of, though gone to war in the service of the cellent wisdom surnamed the "Philosopher," constiempire," she might divorce, and marry another, by the tuted, " that in case of madness, the husband might eet of Constantine to Dalmatius, Cod. 1. 5, tit. 17. | divorce after three years, the wife after five." Constit. And this was an age of the church, both ancient and Leon. 111, 112. This declares how he expounded our tried up still for the most flourishing in knowledge Saviour, and derived his reasons from the institution, and pious government since the apostles. But to re- which in his preface with great eloquence are set down; turn to this law of Theodosius, with this observation whereof a passage or two may give some proof, though by the way, that still as the church corrupted, as the better not divided from the rest. "There is not,” saith ergy grew more ignorant, and yet more usurping on he," a thing more necessary to preserve mankind, than the magistrate, who also now declined, so still divorce the help given him from his own rib; both God and ew more restrained; though certainly if better times nature so teaching us: which doing so, it was requipermitted the thing that worse times restrained, it site that the providence of law, or if any other care wald not weakly argue that the permission was bet-be to the good of man, should teach and ordain those , and the restraint worse. This law therefore of things which are to the help and comfort of married Theodosius, wiser in this than the most of his succes- persons, and confirm the end of marriage purposed though no wiser than God and Moses, reduced in the beginning, not those things which afflict and the causes of divorce to a certain number, which by bring perpetual misery to them." Then answers the die judicial law of God, and all recorded humanity, objection, that they are one flesh; "If matrimony were left before to the breast of each husband, provided had held so as God ordained it, he were wicked That the dismiss was not without reasonable conditions that would dissolve it. But if we respect this in mathe wife. But this was a restraint not yet come to trimony, that it be contracted to the good of both, mes. For besides adultery, and that not only achow shall he, who for some great evil feared, persuades al, but suspected by many signs there set down, any not to marry though contracted, not persuade to unalt equally punishable with adultery, or equally inmarry, if after marriage a calamity befall? Should we fantas, might be the cause of a divorce. Which in- bid beware lest any fall into an evil, and leave him ferns as how the wisest of those ages understood that helpless who by human errour is fallen therein? This piare in the gospel, whereby not the pilfering of a bewere as if we should use remedies to prevent a disease, evence was considered as the main and only breach but let the sick die without remedy." The rest will be f wedlock, as is now thought, but the breach of love worth reading in the author.

And thus we have the judgment first of primitive fathers; next of the imperial law not disallowed by the universal church in ages of her best authority; and lastly, of the whole Greek church and civil state, incorporating their canons and edicts together, that divorce was lawful for other causes equivalent to adultery, contained under the word fornication. So that the exposition of our Saviour's sentence here alleged hath all these ancient and great asserters; is therefore neither new nor licentious, as some would persuade the commonalty; although it be nearer truth that nothing is more new than those teachers themselves, and nothing more licentious than some known to be, whose hypocrisy yet shames not to take offence at this doctrine for licence; whenas indeed they fear it would remove licence, and leave them but few companions.

mean while we may note here, that the restraint of divorce was one of the first fair seeming pleas which the pope had, to step into secular authority, and with his antichristian rigour to abolish the permissive law of christian princes conforming to a sacred lawgiver. Which if we consider, this papal and unjust restriction of divorce need not be so dear to us, since the plausible restraining of that was in a manner the first loosening of Antichrist, and, as it were, the substance of his eldest horn. Nor do we less remarkably owe the first means of his fall here in England, to the contemning of that restraint by Henry the VIII, whose divorce he opposed. Yet was not that rigour executed anciently in spiritual courts, until Alexander the IIId, who trod upon the neck of Frederic Barbarossa the emperor, and summoned our Henry IId into Normandy, about the death of Becket. He it was, that the worthy author may be known, who first actually repealed the imperial law of divorce, and decreed this tyrannous de cree, that matrimony for no cause should be dissolved, though for many causes it might separate; as may be seen Decret. Gregor. 1. 4, tit. 19, and in other places But in these western parts of the empire, it will ap- of the canonical tomes. The main good of which inpear almost unquestionable, that the cited law of Theo-vention, wherein it consists, who can tell? but that it dosius and Valentinian stood in force until the blindest and corruptest times of popedom displaced it. For, that the volumes of Justinian never came into Italy, or beyond Illyricum, is the opinion of good antiquaries. And that only manuscript thereof found in Apulia, by Lotharius the Saxon, and given to the states of Pisa, for their aid at sea against the Normans of Sicily, was received as a rarity not to be matched. And although the Goths, and after them the Lombards and Franks, who overrun the most of Europe, except this island, (unless we make our Saxons and Normans a limb of them,) brought in their own customs, yet that they followed the Roman laws in their contracts in marriages, Agathias the historian is alleged. And other testimonies relate, that Alaricus and Theodoric, their kings, writ their statutes out of this Theodosian code, which hath the recited law of divorce. Nevertheless, while the monarchs of christendom were yet barbarous, and but half-christian, the popes took this advantage of their weak superstition, to raise a corpulent law out of the canons and decretals of audacious priests; and presumed also to set this in the front: “That the constitutions of princes are not above the constitutions of clergy, but beneath them." Using this very instance of divorce, as the first prop of their tyranny; by a false consequence drawn from a passage of Ambrose upon Luke, where he saith, though "man's law grant it, yet God's law prohibits it:" whence Gregory the pope, writing to Theoctista, infers that ecclesiastical courts cannot be dissolved by the magistrate. A fair conclusion from a double errour. First, in saying that the divine law prohibited divorce: (for what will he make of Moses?) next, supposing that it did, how will it follow, that whatever Christ forbids in his evangelic precepts, should be haled into a judicial constraint against the pattern of a divine law? Certainly the gospel came not to enact such compulsions. In the defended.

That the pope's canon law, encroaching upon civil magistracy, abolished all divorce even for adultery. What the reformed divines have recovered; and that the famousest of them have taught according to the assertion of this book.

hath one virtue incomparable, to fill all christendom
with whoredoms and adulteries, beyond the art of Ba-
laams, or of devils. Yet neither can these, though so
perverse, but acknowledge that the words of Christ,
under the name of fornication, allow putting away for
other causes than adultery, both from “bed and board,”
but not from the "bond;" their only reason is, be-
cause marriage they believe to be a “sacrament.” But
our divines, who would seem long since to have re-
nounced that reason, have so forgot themselves, as yet
to hold the absurdity, which but for that reason, unless
there be some mystery of Satan in it, perhaps the pa-
pist would not hold. It is true, we grant divorce for
actual and proved adultery, and not for less than many
tedious and unrepairable years of desertion, wherein a
man shall lose all his hope of posterity, which great
and holy men have bewailed, ere he can be righted:
when
and then perhaps on the confines of his old
age,
all is not worth the while. But grant this were sea-
sonably done; what are these two cases to many other.
which afflict the state of marriage as bad, and yet find
no redress? What hath the soul of man deserved, if it
be in the way of salvation, that it should be mortgag
thus, and may not redeem itself according to conscience
out of the hands of such ignorant and slothful teachers
as these, who are neither able nor mindful to give de
tendance to that precious cure which they rashly un
dertake; nor have in them the noble goodness, to con
sider these distresses and accidents of man's life. b
are bent rather to fill their mouths with tithe and
lation? Yet if they can learn to follow, as well as the
can seek to be followed, I shall direct them to a fa
number of renowned men, worthy to be their leader
who will commend to them a doctrine in this poi
wiser than their own; and if they be not impatic
it will be the same doctrine which this treatise has

Wickliff, that Englishman honoured of God to be the first preacher of a general reformation to all Europe, was not in this thing better taught of God, than to teach among his chiefest recoveries of truth," that divorce is lawful to the Christian for many other causes equal to adultery." This book indeed, through the poverty of our libraries, I am forced to cite from "ArniSeus of Halberstad on the Rite of Marriage," who cites it from Corasius of Toulouse, c. 4. Cent. Sect. and he from Wickliff, 1. 4. Dial. c. 21. So much the sorrier, for that I never looked into an author cited by his adversary upon this occasion, but found him more conducible to the question than his quotation rendered him. Next, Luther, how great a servant of God! in his book of "Conjugal Life" quoted by Gerard out of the Dutch, allows divorce for the obstinate denial of conjugal duty; and "that a man may send away a proud Vashti, and marry an Esther in her stead." It seems, if this example shall not be impertinent, that Luther Fagius, ranked among the famous divines of Germeant not only the refusal of benevolence, but a stub- many, whom Frederic, at that time the Palatine, sent born denial of any main conjugal duty; or if he did for to be the reformer of his dominion, and whom afternot, it will be evinced from what he allows. For outwards England sought to, and obtained of him to come of question, with men that are not barbarous, love, and peace, and fitness, will be yielded as essential to marrage, as corporal benevolence. "Though I give my hody to be burnt," saith St. Paul," and have not charity, it profits me nothing." So though the body prostitute itself to whom the mind affords no other love or peace, but constant malice and vexation, can this bodily benevolence deserve to be called a marriage between Christians and rational creatures?

Bucer, (whom our famous Dr. Rainolds was wont to prefer before Calvin,) in his comment on Matthew, and in his second book "of the Kingdom of Christ," treats of divorce at large, to the same effect as is written in "the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce" lately published, and the translation is extant: whom, lest I should be thought to have wrested to mine own purpose, take something more out of his 49th chapter, which I then for brevity omitted. "It will be the duty of pious princes, and all who govern church or commonwealth, if any, whether husband or wife, shall affirm their want of such, who either will or can tolerably perform the necessary duties of married life, to grant that they may seek them such, and marry them; if they make it appear that such they have not." This book he wrote here in England, where he lived the greatest admired man; and this he dedicated to Edward the VIth.

and teach her, differs not in this opinion from Bucer, as his notes on the Chaldee Paraphrast well testify.

The whole church of Strasburgh in her most flourishing time, when Zellius, Hedio, Capito, and other great divines, taught there, and those two renowned magistrates, Farrerus and Sturmius, governed that commonwealth and academy to the admiration of all Germany, hath thus in the 21st article: "We teach, that if according to the word of God, yea, or against it, divorces happen, to do according to God's word, Deut. xxiv. 1. Matt. xix. 1 Cor. vii. and the observation of the primitive church, and the christian constitution of pious Cæsars."

Melancthon, the third great luminary of reformation, in his book " concerning Marriage," grants divorce for cruel usage, and danger of life, urging the authority of that Theodosian law, which he esteems written with the grave deliberation of godly men; "and that they Peter Martyr seems in word our easy adversary, but who reject this law, and think it disagreeing from the is indeed for us: toward which, though it be something gospel, understand not the difference of law and gos- when he saith of this opinion, " that it is not wicked, pel; that the magistrate ought not only to defend life, and can hardly be refuted," this which follows is much but to succour the weak conscience; lest, broke with more; " I speak not here," saith he," of natural imgrief and indignation, it relinquish prayer, and turn to pediments, which may so happen, that the matrimony some unlawful thing." What if this heavy plight of can no longer hold:" but adding, that he often wondespair arise from other discontents in wedlock, which dered "how the ancient and most christian emperors may go to the soul of a good man more than the dan-established those laws of divorce, and neither Ambrose, ger of his life, or cruel using, which a man cannot be who had such influence upon the laws of Theodosius, bable to? suppose it be ingrateful usage, suppose it nor any of those holy fathers found fault, nor any of be perpetual spite and disobedience, suppose a hatred; the churches, why the magistrates of this day should shall not the magistrate free him from this disquiet be so loth to constitute the same. Perhaps they fear which interrupts his prayers, and disturbs the course of an inundation of divorces, which is not likely; whenhis service to God and his country all as much, and as we read not either among the Hebrews, Greeks, or brings him such a misery, as that he more desires to Romans, that they were much frequent where they leave his life, than fears to lose it? Shall not this were most permitted. If they judge christian men equally concern the office of civil protection, and much worse than Jews or pagans, they both injure that more the charity of a true church, to remedy? name, and by this reason will be constrained to grant Erasmus, who for learning was the wonder of his divorces the rather; because it was permitted as a age, both in his Notes on Matthew, and on the first to remedy of evil, for who would remove the medicine, the Corinthians, in a large and eloquent discourse, and while the disease is yet so rife?" This being read both in his answer to Phimostomus, a papist, maintains (and in "his Commonplaces," and on the first to the Corinthito protestant then living contradicted him) that the ans, with what we shall relate more of him yet ere the words of Christ comprehend many other causes of di- end, sets him absolutely on this side. Not to insist that in both these, and other places of his commentaries, he

vorce under the name of fornication.

which alienates from him to whom obedience is due, | mittee of two and thirty chosen men, divines and lawand that the primitive church interpreted so." yers, of whom Cranmer the archbishop, Peter Martyr, Grotius, yet living, and of prime note among learned and Walter Haddon, (not without the assistance of Sir men, retires plainly from the canon to the ancient ci- John Cheeke the king's tutor, a man at that time vility, yea, to the Mosaic law, " as being most just and counted the learnedest of Englishmen, and for piety undeceivable." On the 5th of Matth. he saith, "That not inferior,) were the chief, to frame anew some ecChrist made no civil laws, but taught us how to use clesiastical laws, that might be instead of what was law: that the law sent not a husband to the judge abrogated. The work with great diligence was finishabout this matter of divorce, but left him to his own ed, and with as great approbation of that reforming conscience; that Christ therefore cannot be thought to age was received; and had been doubtless, as the send him; that adultery may be judged by a vehe- learned preface thereof testifies, established by act of ment suspicion; that the exception of adultery seems parliament, had not the good king's death, so soon enan example of other like offences;" proves it" from suing, arrested the further growth of religion also, from the manner of speech, the maxims of law, the reason that season to this. Those laws, thus founded on the of charity, and common equity." memorable wisdom and piety of that religious parliaThese authorities, without long search, I had to pro- ment and synod, allow divorce and second marriage, duce, all excellent men, some of them such as many "not only for adultery or desertion, but for any capital ages had brought forth none greater: almost the mean- enmity or plot laid against the other's life, and likeest of them might deserve to obtain credit in a singu- wise for evil and fierce usage:" nay the twelfth chaplarity; what might not then all of them joined in an ter of that title by plain consequence declares, “that opinion so consonant to reason? For although some lesser contentions, if they be perpetual, may obtain dispeak of this cause, others of that, why divorce may vorce:" which is all one really with the position by be, yet all agreeing in the necessary enlargement of me held in the former treatise published on this arguthat textual straitness, leave the matter to equity, not ment, herein only differing, that there the cause of to literal bondage; and so the opinion closes. Nor perpetual strife was put for example in the unchangecould I have wanted more testimonies, had the cause able discord of some natures; but in these laws inneeded a more solicitous inquiry. But herein the satis- tended us by the best of our ancestors, the effect of faction of others hath been studied, not the gaining of continual strife is determined no unjust plea of divorce, more assurance to mine own persuasion: although au- whether the cause be natural or wilful. Whereby the thorities contributing reason withal be a good confirm-wariness and deliberation, from which that discourse ation and a welcome. But God (I solemnly attest proceeded, will appear, and that God hath aided us to him withheld from my knowledge the consenting make no bad conclusion of this point; seeing the judgment of these men so late, until they could not be opinion, which of late hath undergone il censures my instructors, but only my unexpected witnesses to among the vulgar, hath now proved to have done no partial men, that in this work I had not given the worst violence to Scripture, unless all these famous authors experiment of an industry joined with integrity, and alleged have done the like; nor hath affirmed aught the free utterance, though of an unpopular truth. more than what indeed the most nominated fathers of Which yet to the people of England may, if God so the church, both ancient and modern, are unexpectplease, prove a memorable informing; certainly a bene-edly found affirming; the laws of God's peculiar peoft which was intended them long since by men of ple, and of primitive christendom found to have prachighest repute for wisdom and piety, Bucer and Eras- tised, reformed churches and states to have imitated, mus. Only this one authority more, whether in place and especially the most pious church-times of this or out of place, I am not to omit; which if any can kingdom to have framed and published, and, but for think a small one, I must be patient, it is no smaller sad hinderances in the sudden change of religion, had then the whole assembled authority of England both enacted by the parliament. Henceforth let them, who church and state; and in those times which are on recondemn the assertion of this book for new and liceneerd for the purest and sincerest that ever shone yet on tious, be sorry; lest, while they think to be of the the reformation of this island, the time of Edward the graver sort, and take on them to be teachers, they exSerth. That worthy prince, having utterly abolished pose themselves rather to be pledged up and down by the canon law out of his dominions, as his father did men who intimately know them, to the discovery and before him, appointed by full vote of parliament a com- contempt of their ignorance and presumption.