if it had a number of wicked lewd prophane in-habitants For by there report the Romans having everye one a name or two should bee worse for the most parte then were the Atlantes a people of Africke whom Diodorus Siculus commendeth verie heighly for Godlynes and Humanity yet non of thē had anie name Herodotus saith Or if this bee a fable as Plinie seemeth rather to thinke and well it may be yet is it most certayne that ◠Plutarch recordeth as grave and wise sayings of Lacedemonyans without names as of any whose names are known And Bellarmin I trust will graunt that in the scriptures there is no lesse account to be made of the booke of Ioshua then of Nehemias of Iob thē of the Proverbs though their names who wrote the one bee not sett downe as theirs who wrote the other But hee will say perhaps that of this Councell not onely the name is vnknowen but also the worke it selfe lost And what if it be were not those of Varroes workes which wee have not as learned as the worke of Floccus which wee have Of Tullie of Polybius of Livie Dio Tacitus of infinite writers more are there not as good bookes lost as there are extant The same hath fallen out in Eclesiasticall authors specially in Councels whereof a great many are not to be found as they who by occasion of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals have dilligently searched through the chiefest liberaaies of Europe doe note And a certaine famous and aunciēt Councel of Ments beeing commended and praised above the other by Tretenius and Surius who wisheth hee might have gotten it to be publyshed sheweth that some extant are not to bee compared with some that are lost wherefore Bellarmins former exception to the Councell that it is not extant no nor the name of it was not worth the nameing The latter that the Councels Canon was meant of Marriage after the former wives death is lyke to prove as false as the profe thereof is frivolous and fond For these are the words of the Canon A certaine woman laye with her husbands brother it is decreed the adulterers shall never bee Married but lawfull Marriage shal be graunted vnto him whose wife the vilenie was wrought with Which words are well expounded saith Bellarmin by the Doctors and their meaning gathered out of the like Canon following a litle after wherein it is ordeined that When the adulterous wife is deceassed her man may marrie whom hee will but her selfe the adulteresse may not marrie at all no not her husband being dead Gratian in deed and the Glosse-writers on him the Doctores meant by Bellarmin doth them wrong in saying they expound it rightly For this Canō following out of which they gather that to bee the meaning being a Canon of I know not what Gregory at least Fathered on him doth noe more prove it then the above alleaged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent partye while the other lived doth inferre the cōtrarie And the Councells words mentioning expressely the Innocēt parties freedom and liberty to marry which had bene superfluous if they meant of marriage after the others death make it most probable that the Councell vttered them with the same meaning wherewith others vttered the like as hath bene shewed Herevnto the iudgement of Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength and cutt the sinewes of it acknowledgeth notwithstanding that it was of one minde with the councell of Tribur So was Pope Alexander the third too some tyme though Bellarmin alleage him as of another mynde But let Bellarmin say whether hee had two myndes and erred in on of them seing it is certaine hee was of this minde once vnlesse hee wrote against his minde For where as a man that had wedded a wife did before hee entred the marriage-bed with her enter her mothers bed Pope Alexander sayde that hee doing some pennance might bee dispensed with to marrie another wife Here the Popes favour towards the offender doth favour of that which hath bene missliked in Papall dispensations But he that graunted thus much to the incestuous husband would I trust have graunted it to the guiltlesse wife as hee did also to her that had this iniurie The onely evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Maisters example have recourse is that the Canonists expoūd the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse her espoused also by wordes of the tyme to come not of the tyme present Which exposition may seeme the more probable because the Popes wordes sett downe in the Decretalls geve her the name of spouse without signification that the man had wedded her But hereof Frier Raymund who compiled clipped the Decretalls must beare the blame as Antonius Contius a learned Lawier of their owne hath well observed For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in the Tomes of Councels declareth that the woman was the mans wedded wife though he did forbeare her companie a while No remedīe there-fore but it must be graunted that in this matter Pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former Councels Now by all the rest whom I aleaged there is none excepted against by anye Papist for ought that I know or as I thinke will bee For Lactantius first avoucheth so the lawfulnes of putting away ◠mās wife for adulterie even with intent to marry another that both Covaruvias and Dominicus Soto graunt him to be cleare from it Next touching the authours mentioned by Gratian as holding the same for one kinde of adulterie who doubted but there were certaine so persuaded when such an adversarie confesseth it Then for Pope Celestin the thirde sith a Pope saith hee thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their parteners in wedlocke for haerisie and marry others I see not how the Papist may denye hee thought it lawful for adulterie more then I shewed they might of Gregory the third And albeit Zacharie byshop of Chrysopolis may seeme to shew rather what other mens opinion was then what his owne yet it is apparant by his manner of handeling that hee ioyned with Ambrose therein whose words hee citeth and fenseth them against authorities that might bee opposed As for the Byshop of Burgos Paul commended heighly by learned men for learning hee sayth that it is manifest by Christs doctrine that whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom commiteth not adulterye though hee marry another Naclantus who was present at the Councel of Trent a Byshop of principall name and price among them affirmeth as directly that a wife being losed from her husband by death or by divorcement is not an adulteresse if shee marrie another To conclude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus Caietan Catharinus Luther Melancton Bucer Calvin Brentius Kemnitius Peter
A DEFENCE OF THE IVDGMENT OF THE REformed churches That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie but also marrie another Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are cōfuted by Iohn Raynolds A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of Religion how he depraveth Scriptures misalleag the fathers and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God and poisoning of his Churche with errour Printed ANNO 1609. The Preface to the Reader GOod Reader my love reverēce to the author living and to his memorie being dead my desire to serve the church of God by other mens woorks who am not able to doe it by myne owne have moved me to publishe this learned treatise which Doctor Rainolds left as many other exquisit travels of his shutt vp in the closett of some private frends as in a fayre prison Because my testimonie or any mans I know is of much lesse waight then the onely name of the author to cōmend the woorke I will say nothing more in praise of it then that it is an vndoupted woorke of that worthie holy man whose learning dilligence abilleties meeknes wisdō pietie made him eminent to vs may perhaps yeeld him more admirable to posteretie which without envie of his person shal view the marks of thies graces in his writings or take them by storie Touching the argument I will onely say that it seemeth the more woorthy such a mans resolution by how much it hath bene formerly or presētly is controverted amongst the learned And if anie man be cōtrarie minded to this which is the common iudgement of the reformed churches he above others shal be my debttor for helping him to so good a meanes of reforming himselfe In matters of opinion chiefly divine he that conquer eth he that is is cōquered devide both honor proffit If any man take good by it let him give praise to God if he take none let him blāe none but himselfe The next page will shew the contents order of the booke The booke it selfe wil shew thee how good it is fare-well THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS The first Chapter The state of the question betwene the church of Rome the reformed churches being first declared the truth is proved by scripture That a man having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another The second Chapter The places of scripture alleaged by our adversaries to disprove the lawful liberty of marriage after divorcemēt for adulterie are proposed exāined proved not to make against it The third Chapter The cōsent of Fathers the second pretēded proofe for the Papistes doctrine in this point is prtēded falsly if all be weighed in an even ballance the Fathers checke it rather The fourth Chapter The conceits of reasōs urged last against vs are oversights proceeding from darknesse not from light reason it self dispelling the mist of Popish probabilties giveth cleare testimonie with the truth of Christe An admonition to the reader ALthough the Printer hath beene carefull supplied sometimes the defects of his coppie yet hath he somtimes fayled not only in mispoyntinge or not poynting or transposing omitting or adding sometimes a letter which the readers iudgment diligence must helpe but in omission or alteration of woords obscuring or perverting the sence which the reader shal doe wel to corect before he reade the booke as they stand herevnder It is like enough there may bee more faults especially in the quotations chiefly in the greeke woords written in a lattin letter concerning which I onely desire that the author whose skill and dilligence were admirable might take no damage by other mēs faults The faults are omissive or coruptions of words The woordes omitted are in the corrections following writtē in another letter Faults escaped in the Printinge Pag. 12. l. 1. reade some other cause Pag. 19. l. 29 reade but incidētly touched Pag. 21. l. 28. reade owne argumēt 39. Marg. 1. Cor 17. 10. 34. Marg. in the end Iudg 5. 31. Pag. 59. l. 11. read yet hath he not the generall cōsent Pag. 74. l. 32. read submitteth him selfe expresly Pag. 80. l. 6. reade If notwithstanding The corruptions of woords correct thus Pag. 2. l. 18. reade Canonists for Canoists Pag. 7. l. 24. reade exceptions for excepsitions 16. Marg. in the quotation out of Ioh ' 9. reade verse 41. for 21. Pag. 31. l. 8. reade Coumpts in stead of Counsells of money Pag. 53. l. 10. reade the for that papistes Pag. 57. l. 10. read Calumniously for Calmuniously 59. Marg. at the letter C. reade not extra but tittulo so at the letter D. for those places are not in the extravagants but in the 4. booke of the decretals vnder those titles pag. 60. l. 27. reade yea for yet setteth downe Pag. 60. l. 28. reade specifie them for then Pag. 61. l. 8. reade through error thought for though mende there the poynting Pag. 73. l. 22. read of all for by all the rest Pag. 75. l. 2. reade any Bishop ror my Bishop Pag. 77. l. 19. reade one of theirs for out of theirs Pag. 78. l. 28. reade convicted in stead of corrupted by the texte Pag. 90. l. 13. reade the weaknes for of weaknes The woords corrupted are written in another letter OF THE LAVVFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVVFVL DIVORCE The first Chapter The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by scripture that a mā having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another THe dutye of man and woman ioyned in marriage requireth that they two should bee as one person and cleave ech to other with mutuall love and liking in societie of life vntill it please God who hath coupled them together in this bonde to sett them free from it and to dissociate and sever thē by death But the inordinate fansies desires of our corupt nature have soe inveighled Adams seede in many places that men have accustomed to put awaye their wiues vppon everie trifling mislike discontentment yea the Iewes supposed thēselves to be warrāted by Gods lawe to doe it so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorce mēt This perverse opiniō errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for anie cause save whoredome onely For whosoever saith he shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adulterie Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed morefully by on of the Evangelists by others more sparingly there hath a doubt arisen and diverse men evē from the primative churches time have beē of diverse minds For many of the fathers have gathered therevpon that if a mans wife committed whoredome
fornicatioÌ„ he might not onely put her away but marrie another Some others and amonge them namely S. Augustine have thought that the man might put away his wife but marrie another he might not The Schooledivines of latter years the CanoÌ„ists as for the most parte they were adicted comonly to S. Austins iudgmeÌ„nt did likewise follow him herein the Popes mainteining their doctrine for Catholique have possessed the church of Rome with this opinion But since in our dayes the light of good learning both for artes tongues hath shined more brightly by Gods most gracious goodnes then in the former ages and the holy scriptures by the help thereof have bene the better vnderstoode the Pastors and Doctors of the reformed Churches have percieved shewed that if a mans wife defile her self with fornication he may not onely put her away by Christs Doctrine but also marrie another Wherein that they teach agreeably to the truth and not erroneously as Iesuits Papists doe falsly and vniustly charge them I will make manifest and prove through Gods assistance by expresse words of Christ the truth it self And because our adversaries doe weene that the coÌ„trarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguments and obiecttions which two of their newest writers Bellarmin the Iesuit a namelesse author of an English pamphlet have dilligeÌ„tly laid together For the farther clearing therefore of the matter and taking away of doubts scruples I will set downe all their obiections in order first out of the scriptures then of fathers last of reasons and answer everie one of them particularly So shall it appeare to such as are not blinded with a fore-conceived opinion and prejudice that whatsoever shewe of probabilities ate brought to the contrarie yet the truth delivered by our Saviour Christ alloweth him whose wife committeth fornication to put her away and marrie another The proofe hier of is evident if Christs wordes be weighed in the niententh Chapter of S. Mathews gospell For when the Pharises asking him a question whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for everie cause received answer that it was not and therevpon saide vnto him Why did Moses then commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way Our Saviour sayde vnto them Moses suffered you because of the hardnes of your harte to put awaye your wifes But from the beginning it was not so And I say vnto you that whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her that is put away doth commit adulterie Now in this sentence the clause of exception except it bee for whoredome doth argue that he commiteth not adulterie who having put away his wife for whoredome marrieth another But he must needes commit it in doing so vnles the band of marrirge be loosed and disolved For who so marrieth another as long as he is bouÌ„de to the former is an adulterer The band then of marriage is loosed dissolved betwene that man and wife who are put assunder and divorced for whoredome And if the band beloosed the man may marry another seing it is written Art thou loosed from a wife If thou marrie thou sinnest not Therefore it is lawfull for him who hath put away his wife for whoredome to marrie another This argument doth firmly and necessarily coÌ„clude the point in question if the first parte proposition of it be proved to be true For there is no controversie of any of the rest beinge all grounded on such vndoubted principles of scripture reason that our adversaries themselves admit and graunt them all The first they denie to weete that the clause of exâ—eption in Christs speech except it be for whoedome doth argue that the maÌ„ committeth not adulterie who having put awaie his wife for whoredome marrieth another And to overthrowe this proposition they doe bring soudry answers and evasions The best of all which as Bellarmin avoucheth is that those words except it bee for whoredome are not an exception For Christ saith he ment those words except for whoredome not as an exception but as a negation So that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife except for whoredome that is to saie without the cause of whoredome shall marrie another doth commit adulteric Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredoe marrieth another but nothing is sayde touching him who marrieth another having put away his former wife for whore dome In deede this evasion might have some collour for it if these words of Christ except it be for whoredome were not an exception But neither hath Bellarmin ought that maye suffice for the proofe hereof and the verie text of the â—cripture it selfe is soe cleare against him that he must of necessitie give over his houlde For the principal pillar wherewith he vnder proppeth it is S. Austins iudgmeÌ„t who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marriages Now of that treatise S. Austin saith himselfe in his retractations I have written two bookes touching adulterous marriages as neere as I could according to the scripturs being desirous to open and loose the knotts of a most difficult question Which whether I have done so that no knott is left therein I know not nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly and throughly although I have opened many creeckes thereof as whosoever readeth with iudgment may discerne S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that there are some wants imperfectioÌ„s in that worke which they may see who reade with iudgment And whether this that Bellarmin doth alleage out of it deserve not to fal within the coÌ„passe of that ceÌ„sure I appeale to their iudgmeÌ„t who have eies to see For S. Augustin thought that the word in the orignial of S. Mathews gospel had by the Proper significatioÌ„ of it imported a negation rather then an exception As he sheweth by saying that where the common Latin translation hath except for whoredome in the Greeke text it is rather read without the cause of whoredome Supposing belike whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight that the same words which were vsed before in the fift Chapter of S. Mathews Gospel to the same purpose were vsed also in this place whereas here they differ and are well expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so well Howbeit if thy had bene the same with the former yet neither so might Bellarmin allowe his opinion considering that the comon latin traÌ„slation which Papists by there Councel of Trent are bound to stande to vnder paine of ourse expresseth those likewise as a plaine exception Which in deede agreeth to the right and naturall meaning of the particle as the like writers vse
heresie Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagonas his owne as sundrie fathers speake dangerously that way then thrust in by Encratites who generally reiected all marriage not seâ—ond marriage onelie Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause As much doth the last of his witnesses Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage hee matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes and stained with spotts of errour Which iudgmeÌ„t not onely Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately geven of him though a Iesuitical spirit doe traduce theÌ„ insolently for it But an auncient Pope of Rome with seaveÌ„tie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinitie and in the Canon law Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same Now in the third hundred yeares to goe forward Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion of whom one questionlesse controlleth perhaps both For Tertullian disputing against the heretique Marcion who falsely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses because Moses graunted divorcemeÌ„t Christ forbiddeth it answereth that Christ saying whosoever shall put away his wife marrie another committeth adulterie meaneth vndoubtedly of putting away for that cause for which it is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another And likewise for the wife that he is an adulterer who marrieth her being put away if shee be put away vnlawfully considering that the marriage which is not rightly broken off continueth and while the marriage doth continue it is adulterie to marrie Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully for the cause excepted by Christ may marrie another Bellarmin doth very cunningly finely cut of with an et caetera and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement if there be a iust cause but did forbid to marrie againe after divorcement So directly agaisnt the most evideÌ„t light of the wordes tenour of the whole discourse that learned men of his owne side though houlding his opinion yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it For byshop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintaine that men may lawfully marrie againe after divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie nameth Tertullian quoting this place amoÌ„g them And Sixtus Senensis a man not inferiour in learning to Bellarmin in sincere dealing for this point superiour coÌ„fesseth on the same place on those same words but recited wholy not clipped with an etcetera that Tertullian maketh a certaine vndoubted assertion thereof Pamelius in deede through a desire of propping vp his churches doctrine with TertulliaÌ„s credit saith that though hee seeme here to allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort as that the husbaÌ„d may marrie another wife yet hee openeth himself holdeth it to be vnlawfull in his booke of single marriage Whâ—rein he saith some what but litle to his advauntage For Tertullian wrote this booke of single marriage wheÌ„ hee was falleÌ„ away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie that is vnlawfull to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death But in that thee wrote while hee was a Catholique against the heretique Marcion hee teacheth coÌ„trarywise the same that wee doe as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truely graunt Yea Pamelius himself if hee looke better to his owne notes doth graunt as much For he saith that Tertullian vseth the worde divorcement in his proper signification for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife marrieth another But TertulliaÌ„ saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marrie another by Tertullians iudgment Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen Although it be true hee saith as Bellarmin citeth him that certaeine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived addeth they did it agaynst the scripture For he seemeth to speake of a woman divorced from her husband not for adulterie but for some other cause such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for bygiving theÌ„ a bill of divorcemeÌ„t The matter that he handleth and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to this meaning Approved by the opinion of certaine learned men too For after he had said according to the words of Christ which he expoundeth that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemeÌ„t did yeeld vnto the weakenes of theÌ„ to whom the law was geveÌ„ he saith that the Christian byshops who permitted a womaÌ„ to marrie while her former husbaÌ„d lived did it perhaps for such weaknes Wherefore sith in saving that this which they did they did perhaps for such weaknes he hath relatioÌ„ vnto that of Moses Moses as he addeth did not grauÌ„t the bill of divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshops whoÌ„ Origen chargeth with doing against the scripture did permitt the womaÌ„ to marrie vpon divorcemeÌ„t for some other cause not for adulterie so his reproving of theÌ„ doth not touche vs who grauÌ„t it for adulterie only Thus doth Erasmus thinke that Origen meant concluding it farther as cleare by the similitude which he had vsed before of Christ who put away the Synagogue his former wife as it were because of her adulterie married the churche Yea Tapper likewise a great divine of LovaÌ„ of better credit with Papists theÌ„ Erosâ—nus saith that the divorcemeÌ„t permitted by those Byshops whoÌ„ Origen coÌ„trouleth was a Iewish divorcemeÌ„t Wherein though he aymed at another marke to prove an vntruth yet vnwares he hiâ— a truth more theÌ„ hee thought of strengthened that by Origen which he thought to overthrowe Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter caÌ„ persuade by other likelyhoods out of Origen as he is somewhat darke I know not whether irresolute in the point that the thing reproved by him in those Byshops was the permitting of one to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie our cause shal be more advaÌ„taged by those sundrie Byshops who approved it theÌ„ disadvaÌ„taged by one OrigeÌ„ who reproved theÌ„ for it Chiefly seing OrigeÌ„ impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith for whiâ—h a generall Councell with Bellarmins allowaÌ„ce count 〈◊〉 a damned heretique in this matter by excluding all such as are twise married out of the KingdoÌ„ of heaveÌ„ which divines of Paris observe check him for Whereas those Byshops of whoÌ„ he maketh mentioÌ„ were neither stayned otherwise for ought that may be gathered nor herein did they more then
Clugia finallie the teachers of the reformed churches in EnglaÌ„d ScotlaÌ„t Germanie France other countris for why should not I name these of our professioÌ„ faith amoÌ„g the Fathers as well as Bellarmin nameth the Popish councell of TreÌ„t on the coÌ„trarie side But the Papists will some maÌ„ peradventure say doe not graunt that all whom you have rehearsed were of this opinioÌ„ But the Papists I aunswer doe graunt that sundrie of them were and such as they graunt not the light of truth reason will either make them graunt or shame them for denying it As Sixtus Senensis namely doth deny that Hilarie and Chromantius allowe a man to marrie another wife after divorcement or teach that hee is loosed from the band of matrimonie while his former wife though an adulteresse liveth Now weigh their owne wordes it will appeare that Sixtus iniurieth them therein For Chromatius saith that they who having putt away their wives for any cause save for whorâ—dom presume to marrie others doe against the will of God and are condemned Wherein with what sense could hee except whoredom vnlesse he thought them guiltlesse who having put away their wives for it doe marrie others And Hilarie affirming Christ to have prescribed no other cause of ceasing from matrimony but that she weth that the band of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmeÌ„t Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the vse thereof for other causes the occasion and tenour of the speech doe argue that he meant of such a seperation as yeeldeth libertie of newe marriage In like sorte or rather more plainely and expressely did Pollentius holde and maintaine the same As Austin whom in this point hee dissented from doth reporte and testifie Yet Bellarmin a strange thing in a case so cleare but nothing strange to Iesuits saith that Pollentius did not gainsaie Austin but asked his iudgment of the matter and for proofe hereof referreth vs to the beginnings of both the bookes of Austin Even to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured to prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another Pollentius wrote vnto him as it were by way of asking his iudgment and shewed hee thought the contrarie yet shewed it in such sorte that Austin setting downe both their opinions doth specifie then as flatly crossing one the other You are of this mynde I of that and saith of Pollentius againe and againe that hee was of this mynde which Bellarmin denieth hee was of Wherein the Iesuits dealing is more shamefull for that beside the evidence of the thing it self so often repeated in the verie same places that hee citeth Sixtus Senenses a man as vnwilling as Bellarmin to weaken anie of their Trent points with graunting more then hee must needes confesseth that Pollentius thought hereof as we doe Belike because Sixtus Senensis honoreth him with the praise and title of a most godlie man Bellarmin thought it better to lie then to graunt that they have such an adversarie Hee would faine avoid too another auncient father bearing the name of Ambrose Ambrose might his name be though hee were not famous Ambrose Byshop of Milan But whether hee were named so or otherwise which perhaps is truer vnto his testimonie pronouncing it lawfull by S. Paules doctrine for a man iustly divorced to marrie againe though not for a woman as hee by missetaking S Paul through errour though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere First Gratian saith hee and Peter Lombard doe affirme that those wordes were thrust into this authours Commentarie by some corrupters of writings Indeede the one of them affirmeth it is said so the other it is thought so But if it be sufficient to affirme barely without anie ground of proofe or probabilitie that it is said or thought so what errour so absurd that may not be defended by perverse wranglers what cause so vniust that vnrighteous iudges may not geve sentence with For whatsoever wordes be enforced against them out of the law of God or man out of anie evideÌ„ce or record of writers witnesses worthie credit they may with Peter Lombard and Gratian replie that the place alleaged is said or thought to have bene thrust into those monumeÌ„ts by some corrupters of writiÌ„gs And in replying thus they should speake truelie though it were said or thought by none beside themselves but how reasonably they should speake therein let men of sense reason iudge Surelie though Peter Lombard rest vpoÌ„ that aunswer for want of a better yet Gratian whether fearing the sicklie state thereof doth leave it seeketh himself a new patron saying that Ambrose words are thus meant that a man may lawfullie marrie another wife after the death of the adulteresse but not while shee liveth which aunswer is more absurd then the former In so much that Covarruvias speaking of the former onelie as vncertaine saith that this repugneth manifestlie to Ambrose A verie true verdict as aâ—ie man not blind may see by Ambrose wordes And Bellarmin confesseth the same in effect by passing it over insilence as ashamed of it But others sayth hee secondlie doe aunswer that this authour speaketh of the Civil law the law of Emperours To weete that by the Emperours Lawes it is lawfull for men but not for women having put away their mate to marrie another and that Paul therefore least he should offend the Emperour would not say expressely If a man put away his wife let him abide so or be reconciled to his wife Now Gratians second aunswer was no lesse worthy to have bene mentioned then this of William Lindan patched vp by Bellarmin For the civill law pronounceth the band of marriage to be loosed as well by divorcement as by death and alloweth women to take other husbands their former being put awaie as it alloweth men to take others wives So that it is a fond and vnlearned conceit to imagin that Paul would not say of husbands as hee did of wives least hee should offend the Emperour by speaking expresselie against that which his law allowed For hee did expressely controll the Emperoâ—rs law in saying of the wife If shee depart from her husband let her remaine vnmarried or be reconciled to her husband And the authours wordes doe shewe that hee meant to speake not of humaine lawes but of divine of the sacred scripture wherevpoÌ„ he wrote and what was thereby lawfull Which seemed so evident vnto Peter Soto andâ— Sixtus Senesis and the Roman Censors who oversaw Pope Gregorie the thirtenths new edition of the Cannon law that they confesse that Ambrose meaning this authour doth aprove plainely certainly vndoubtely mens liberty of marrying againe after divorcement Bellarmin therefore comyng in with his third aunswer Yet saith hee if
argumeÌ„ts grounded vpon reason so the Papists may bee And that they not onely may be overseene but are in the reasons which their puddle-water hath yelded vnto Bellarmins cisternes in this poynt the beaÌ„es of reasoÌ„ lighteÌ„ed froÌ„ above shall opeÌ„ descrie let such as love not darknes more then light bee iudges For hee reasoneth first thus The Marriage of the faithfull is a singe of Christs coniunction with the Church as St. Paule teacheth But that Coniunction is indissoluble and cannot bee loosed The band of Marriage is threfore indissoluble too As if a rebell should say The ioyning of the Head with the Body in man resembleth the ConiuÌ„ction of Christ with the Church as St Paul teacheth But Christ the Church can never bee parted there fore the head maye never bee cut from the bodye A happye coÌ„clusion for Traytors if it were true But if it bee faulse where then is Bellarmyns reason which will take the greater overthrow by this because looke how Christ is the head of the Church semblably the husband is the wives head So that notwithstanding the similytude of Christs head-ship the ioynt whereby a traytorous head is knit vnto his bodye may feele the axe of Iustice as Bell. will grauÌ„t the marriage band that coupleth a man to an adulterous wife may be loosed by â—he like reasoÌ„ notwithstaÌ„ding marriage is a signe of Christs coÌ„iunctioÌ„ with the Church And if this suffice not to make him acknowledg the loosnes fondnes of his sophistical syllogisme let him observe farder that the seperatioÌ„ which theÌ„selves allowe in case of adultery is condeÌ„ned by it For Christ dot coÌ„tinue with his Church alway cherisheth her for ever with his spirit of coÌ„fort he is so farre froÌ„ dispoyling her of her owne wealth if shee had any that of his gifts graces still he leaveth with her Now the papists teach that a man may lawfully withdraw himself froÌ„ ever dwelling with his wife froÌ„ yeelding husband-like love duty to her yea may stil with-hould her owne dowry froÌ„ her if shee be an adulteresse Which doctrine how could Bell. cleanse froÌ„ stayn of errour if some whore of Rome should touch it with this reasoÌ„ The marriage of the faithful is a signe of Christs coÌ„iuÌ„ction with the Church as Pavl teacheth but Christ doth stil assist relieve enrich the Church with his graces therefore must the husbaÌ„d dwel stil with his wife finde her maintenaÌ„ce wealth Would he say the C. of Trent accurseth al who make such Iesuitical syllogismes sophymes against their sacred canoÌ„ Certainly the harelots reasoÌ„ must be good vnlesse the Iesuits be naught But he goeth onward addeth that albeit some partes of the Church to weete some faithful folke doe comit spiritual whordoÌ„ now then make a divorcemeÌ„t yet it is not lawfull for them to chaÌ„ge their God What a spech is this As who say our Saviour could deserve at our hands that we should forsake him gâ—t ourselves a newe bridgroÌ„ Neither doth God cast theÌ„ so away saith Bell that he wil not be recoÌ„ciled nay he doth exhort to recoÌ„cilemeÌ„t still Still To whom then sware he they should not enter into his rest what were they whose carkeises fell in the wildernes whence came the man of God who willed theÌ„ that coÌ„mit idolatry to be slayne where lived the Prophet who saies Thou distroyest all theÌ„ that goe a whoring froÌ„ thee The Israelites whoÌ„ God did shut out of the promised land of whoÌ„ he tooke many thousaÌ„ds away by suÌ„dry plagues to whoÌ„ the lawe speaketh as being vnder the law did they not professe that faith vse those Sacram. which al that doe are faithful folk partes of the church in Bell. phrase meaning I grauÌ„t that God offereth to be recoÌ„ciled somtymes to such offenders waiteth in mercie long for their ameÌ„dement which if it be a pattern for vs to follow herein I say if it be for God gave tyme of repeÌ„tance to Ioab a will-full murderer whoÌ„ the magistrate should have put to death preseÌ„tly God gave tyme of repentaÌ„ce to idolatrous wives of the Iewes whom their husbands ought not to have spared so if therefore Gods actioÌ„ herin be set downe for our imitatioÌ„ the maÌ„ that can conteyne be without a wife as God without our service maye likewise in mercie waite for her repentance when he perceyveth it to be vnfayned take her againe to be his wife But he who can not or will not render such kindnes for such vnkindnes wickednes may in iustice also put her so away that no place or hope of reconcilemeÌ„t be left her as Bell. owne reason in this similitude teacheth For God is not bound to give vnto prophane dispisers of his grace breakers of his covenaÌ„t place of repentaÌ„ce reconciliatioÌ„ Nay he may in iustice absolutely denye it them oftentymes doth as the examples of Cain of Esau of Corah Dathan Abiram of Zimri of Acan of Ananias Saphira of sinfinit other that haue either preseÌ„tly dyed in their innes or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against theÌ„ doe argue wherefore when Bell. coÌ„cludeth this reasoÌ„ with saying that S. Austin vrgeth it greatly in his booke of the Good of marriage he dealeth as Cookes do in larding leane-meate to give that a relish which of it self would be vnsavoury Though even for the lard too perhaps it agreeth not half so wel herewith as this ItaliaÌ„ cook would have vs thinke it doth For why did not S. Austin vrge the same likewise in his bookes of adulterous marriages writteÌ„ afterward purposely maintaining this Point against PoleÌ„tiâ—â—s who gainsaied him in it was it because he saw that he had vrged it more theÌ„ it would beare wel or that he perceived it would not hould against an adversarie though without an adversairye it were a pretie allusion At least whatsoever men dâ—eme of the lard the meat is naught questiâ—les such that though the cook be conteÌ„t to eate the driest morsel of it yet must he nedes graunt that it hath not tast not as much as the white of an egg hath For himself saith that marriage betokeneth signifieth Christs coniuÌ„ction with the faithful soule as Thomas the Pope teach But Chricts coniunctioÌ„ with the faithful soule is not indissoluble as him self also saith the baÌ„d of marriage therfore by his owne coÌ„sequeÌ„ce may be dissolved loosed And thus farr of his first sophisme The next is that if other marriage were lawful the of-spring should be iniuried for the childreÌ„ borne already saith he should be evill provided for who should begin to have a stepfather in steed of a father a stepmother in steed of a mother where hence the conclusioÌ„ secretly inferred