Councel ordainede it for men of their of their owne province and for that time onely encreaseth the autothorety therof if the precious be severed from the vile the truth from the falshood For why affirmeth hee that they did ordein it for that time oâ—ly The forme of their decree touching al generaly that should offend so not some pâ—rticular person who preseÌ„tly had they speaking of the thing as lawful in it selfe to be observed alike in all cases thir making of other connons to that effect yea another Councell alsoÌ„o peradventure and no limitation of time in any of them doe pesuade the contrary Now whereas they ordained it for men of their owne province their modesty was the greater who did not take uppon theÌ„ as Popes to make lawrs for men of al nations but looked as bishops to thir owne Diocaes And the greater modesty the liker to Christ and the batter to be lâ—ked of ChristiaÌ„s the more reverence to be haerd with and their iudgment to be had in greater estimatioÌ„ Beside that this self-same decree of theirs was establishede also by the Councell of Wormes And at that time Pipinus King of FrauÌ„ce of a great parte of Germamy was preseÌ„t Who as he did keepe a general asseÌ„bly of his Poeple there so by al likelyhood caled Bishops thether out of his whol realm to make decrees for the whol A province of such largnes that couÌ„cels consistiâ—g of pishops asseÌ„bled out of no greater have been tearmed general worthely as Bell. coÌ„fesseth in coÌ„patisoÌ„ of provincial couÌ„cels coÌ„monly so caled wherin there were not bishops of a whole natioÌ„ or Realme Thus Sixtus by striving to lesseÌ„ diminish the credit of the caÌ„non of the couÌ„cel oâ— Tribur hath giveÌ„ us occasioÌ„ to make the more of it â—oÌ„sidering on the on side the modesty of the Bs. who were asseÌ„bled there made decres for their provinâ—e on the other the province for which that decree was made for so large that al the prov. of Italy caÌ„ot matchâ—it though they were linked in one Had it not ben beter for him without this retoriâ—ue to say derectly flatly as Iover doth that the Co. of Trib. made the like decre to the C. cell of wormes which now the Church he meaneth the Popish church receyveth not werher any papist wil take exceptioÌ„ agaynst the Councel of Mason which allowed likewise a certain man whose wife had bene defloured by his brother beefore hee wedded her to put her away and marry another it may bee wee shall know here after But vnto a Councell that made another such decree as Gratian sheweth alle aging it without name Bellarmin taketh two exceptions one that it is lost the other of the Cypress tree Touchching the former not as much as the name thereof sayth he is extant therefor it might be easily contemned sett at nought Why Is it therfor worse then al that have names because it is namelesse Then have c many Cardinals with other learned reverent men bene much to blame for writing so of Rome as if it had a nnmber of wicked lewd propane inhabitants 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 Seculus commendeth very heighly for Godlynes and Humauity yet non of them had any name Horodotus saith Or if this bee a fable as f Plinie sâ—emeth rather to thinke wel it may be yet is it most certayne that Plutarch recordeth as grave wise sayings of Lacedemonians without names as of any whoses names are known And Bellarmin I trust will graunt that in the scriptures there is no lesse account to bee made of the booke of Ioshua theÌ„ of Nehemias of Iob then of the Proverbs though their name who wrote the one be not sett downe as theirs who wrote the other But hee wil say perhaps that of this councell not onely the name is vnknoweÌ„ but alsoe the worke it selfe lost And what if it bee were not those of Varroes workes whiâ—h wee have not as learned as the worke â— of Floccus which wee have Of Tullie of Polibius of Livie Deo Tacitus of infinite writers more are there not as good bookes lost as ther are extraÌ„t The same hath fallen out in Eclesiastical authors specially in councels whereof a great meany are not to befound as they who by occasioÌ„ of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals have dilligently searched through the chiefest liberaries of Europe doe note And a certayne famous and auncient Councel of Ments beeing commeÌ„ded praised above the other by Tretenius Surius who wisheth he might have gotten it to be publyshed sheweth that soome extant are not too 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 Councells Canons meant of Marriage after the former wives death is lyke too prove as false as the profe thereof is frivolous and fond For m these are the wotds 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 weÌ„ll expounded saith Bellarmin by the Doctors and their meaning gathered n out of the like Canon â—ollowing 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 aldulteresse 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 Canon following out of which they gather that to be the meaning being a Canon of I know not what Gregory at least Fathered on him doth no more prove it theÌ„ o the above alleaged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent partye while the other lived doth inferre the coÌ„trarie And the Councells words mentioning expressely the Innocent parties freedom liberty to marry which had bene superfluous if they meaÌ„t 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 p Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength cutt the sinewes of it acknowledgeth not withstaÌ„ding that it was of one minde with the councell of Tribur So was Pope Alexander the third too some tyme though Bell. alleage p him as of another mynde But let Bellarmin say whether hee had two myndes erred in on of them seing it is certaine hee â— was of this minde once vnlesse hee wrote against
wife were put away with out or with cause might lawfully marrie another theÌ„ take this with all that q hee skarse allowed any second marriage but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance and condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom Which although r a Iesuit goe about to cover salve with gentle gloses like s the false prophets Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavoru plaâ—ster yet sith that counterâ—â—it Clemens woorke did flowe out of the fountanies of the Gretians as a t great historian of Rome hath truelie noted and among the Gretians many held that errour as it is likewise shewed by a great Sorbonist the likelyhood of the matter spring whence it procedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall proper signification of the words will not per mitt their blacknes to take any other hewe nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement to be cleared from plaine contradiction to the word of God Wherefore the onely witnesse that Bellermin produceth out of the first hundred yeares doth not helpe him Out of the second hundred he produceth three Iustinus Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus x The first of whom Iustinus praising the compendious briefnes of Christes speeches rehearseth this amongst them Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband doth commit adulterie Meaning not as Bellar but as Christ did who excepting whoredome in the z former braunche of that sentence vnderstoode it likewise in this as I have shewed And how may wee know that Iustinus meant soe By his owne words in thet a hee commendeth a godly Christian woman who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of divorcement b such as did loose that band of matrimony and saith concerning him that hee was not her husband afterward The next c Athenagoras affirmeth I graunt that if any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie aâ—other he is an adulterer But Bellarmâ—n must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too as well as by divorcement teacheth with the d Montanists that whatsoerer second marriage is vnlawfull WherevpoÌ„ a famous Parisian Divine e Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian may wel be thought to have ben inserted into his worke by Eucratites A censure for the ground thereof very true that the said opinion is a Philosophicall fansie yea an heresie Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagoras his owne as sundrie farhers speak dangerously that way theÌ„ thrust in by Encratites g who generally riected all marriage not second marriage onelie Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause As much doth the last of his witnesses h Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage hee marcheth Athenagoras otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundnes i and stained with spott of errour Which iudgment not onely k Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately geven of him though a l Iesuitical spirit doe tradnâ—e theÌ„ insolently for it But m an auncient Pope of Rome with seaventie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skillâ— both in divinitie and in the Canon law n Didacus Covarrâ—vias doth approve the same Now in the third hundred yeares to goe forward Tertullian Oregen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion of whom one question lesse coÌ„trolleth perhaps both For o TertulliaÌ„ disputing against the heretique Marcion who falfely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses because Moses graunted divorcement Christ forbiddeth it answereth that Christ saying whoesoever sholl put away his wife and marrie another committeth adulterie meaneth 5 vndoubtedly of puâ—â—ing away for that cause for which 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 6 if shee bee put away vnlawfully considering that the marriage which is not rightly broken off continueth end while the marriage doth continue it is adultarie to marrie Which words of Tertullians manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully for the cause excepted by Christ may marrie another Bellarmin doth very cunningly and finely cut of with an et cetera and saith that there he reacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement if ther be aiust cause but forbâ—d to marrya gnine after divorcement So directly against the most evident light of the woordes tenour of the whole discourse that lerned men of theire owne side though houlding his opinyon yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it For p bishop Covarruvias mentioning the Fathers who maintein that men may lawfully marry againe after diuorcement for adultery nameth Tertullian quoting this place among them q Siictus Senensis a man not in fâ—riour in learning to Bellarmin in sencere dealing for this point superiour confesseth on the same place aâ—d on those same words but recited wholy not clipped with an et cetera that Tertullian maketh a certayne vndoubted assertion thereof r Pamelius indeede through a desire of propping vp his chruches doctrine with Tertullians credit saith that though hâ—e seem hereto allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort as that the husband may marrie another wife yet hee openeth himself holdeth it to vnlawfull in his booke * of single marriage Wherein he saith some what but litle to his advauntage For Tertullian wrote this booke of single mariage when he was falleÌ„ away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus and 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 hee wrote while hee was a Catholique against the heretique Marcion he teacheth coÌ„trariwise the same that wee doe as Sixtus Senensis and Covaâ—ruvias truely graunt Yea Pamelius himself if he looke better to his owne notes doth graunt as much For t 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 Tertullian saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement 7 Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife marrie another by Tertullians iudgment Which also may be probably thought concerning Orige Although it be true hee saith as Bellermin citeth him that certaine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived and addeth they did it agaynst the scriptuâ—re For hee seemeth to speake of a
Theodoret affirming that Christ hath set downe one cause wherby the hand of Marriage should be dissolved onely rent asunder in that he did except whoredom And a generall c CouÌ„cel wherin ther were above 220. bishops of the East gathered together doth implye as much in saying that He who his â— wife having keept the lawe of wedlocke being faithfull to him yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentene guilty of adultery So doth d Oecumenius in applying the precept of abyding unmarried to 〈◊〉 has should not have departed in abridging Chrisostoms words after his manner whose schollar e Bell. therefore tearmeth him So doth f Euthymimius Choysostoms schollar too in charging the man with adulterie g who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordom froÌ„ her husband So doth Nicephoras in copyinge coÌ„meding that out of Eusebius which he had out of Iustin the Martyr To be short the Grecians 3 which name compriseth many natioÌ„s the East all whom the h Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe put the same doctrine receyved from their aunstours in practise even at this day allowing married folke not onely to sperâ—te and divorce themselves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others as Bellarman confesseth Wherefore his opinion hath not the consent of the Eastern bishops neither hath had it any age since Christ Much less can he shewe the consent of the South i the Aethiopians an Abessines or of the k Moscovites Russes in the North both which as they receyved their faith from the East so vse they like freedom libertie for this matter No not in the west it self though he have many then agreeing with him yet hath hee the generall consent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half if an exact count might betaken of them â—or besides Tertullian the Councell of Eliberis c. to let passe Ambrose on Byshop of Rome or more alreadie shewed to have thought that â— a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe thâ—re are of the same minde l Lactantius m Chromatius n Hilarie o PolleÌ„tius p the auther of the CoÌ„mentaries in Ambrose his name vpon S. Pauls epistles q the first Councell of Arles r the couÌ„cell of Vannes they who either were at or agreed to the s sixth generall couÌ„cell the secoÌ„d time asseÌ„bled t Pope Gregorie the third â—Pope Zacharie the councell of x Wormes of y Tribur of z Mascon a councel alleaged by a Gratian without name and other learned meÌ„ alleaged likewise by b him c Pope Alexander the third d Celestin the 3 e Zacharie f Paul byshop the one of Chrisopolis the other of Burgose g Erasmus h Cardinal Cajetan Archbishop Catharinus k Naclantus byshop of Clugia finalli the teachers of the reformed churches in l Eng. m Scot n Ger. o France and p other countris for why should not I name these of our professioÌ„ faith amoÌ„g the Fathers as well as Bell. nameth the popish councell of Trent on the contrarie 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 answer doe graunt that sundrie of them were such as they graunt not the light of truth reasoÌ„ will either make them graunt or â—hame them for denying it As q 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 adultesse liveth Now weigh their owne wordes it wil appeare that Sixtus iniurieth them therein For r Chromatius saith that they who having put away their wives for any cause save for whoredom presume to marrie others doe against the will of God and are condemned Wherein with what sence could hee except whoredom vnlesse hee thought them guiltlesse who having put away their wives for it doe marrie others And s Hilarie affirming Christ to have prescribed no other causeâ— of ceasing from matrimony but that sheweth that the baud of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmeÌ„t Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the vse therof for other causes the occasioÌ„ tenour of the speech doe argue that he meaÌ„t such a seperatioÌ„ as yeel deth liberty of new marriag In like sorte or rather more plainly expressely did Pollentius holde maintaine the same As Austin whoÌ„ in this point hee dissented from doth repote and testifie Yet Bellarmin a strangeâ—thing in a case so cleare but nothing strange to Iesuits saith that Pollentius o did not gainsaie Austin but asked his iudgment of the matter and for proofe here of referreth vs to the beginnings of both the bookes of Austin Even t to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured too prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another Pollentius wrot vnto him as it were by way of asking his iudgmeÌ„t 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 minde I of that and saith of Pollentius againe and againe that 8 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 u Sixtus Senenses a man as vnwilling as Bellarmin to weaken anie of their Trent points with graunting more then hee must needes confesseth that Poeleutius thought hereof as we doe v Belike because Sixtus Seuensis honoureth him with the praise title of a 9 most godie man Bell. thought it better to lie then to graunt that they have such an adversarie Hee would faine avoid too another aâ—ncient father bearing the name ef Ambrose x Ambrose might his name be though he 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 heâ— by missetaking S. Paul throâ—gh errour y though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere First Gratian saith hee and Peeter z Lambard doe affirme that those word â—swere thrust into this authors Commentarie by some corrupters of writtings In deede the one of them affirmeth 2 it is said so the other 3 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
say if it be for God gave time of repeÌ„taÌ„ce to Ioab a wilâ—ul murderer who the magistrat shold have put to death presently God gave time of repentaÌ„â—e to Idolatrous wives of the Iewes whoÌ„ their husbaÌ„ds ought not to have spared so if therefore Gods actioÌ„ herein be set douÌ„e for our imitatioÌ„ the man that can coÌ„teine be without a wife as God without our serviâ—e may like wise in mâ—rcie waite for her repentance when he perceiveth it to be be unfained take her againe to be his wife But hâ— who can not or wil not render such kindnes for such unkindnes and wickednes may in iustice alsoe put her soe away that noe place or hope of reconcilement bee left her as Bellarmin owne reason in this similitude teacheth For God is not bound to give vnto prophane dispisers of his grace breakers of his covenant place of repentaÌ„ce reconciliation Nay he may in iustice absolutely denye it them oftentyms doth as the examples of Cain of Esau of Corah Dathau and Abiram of Zimri of Acan of Auanias Saphira of infinit other that have either presently dyed in their sinnes or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against theÌ„ doe argue wherfor wheÌ„Bell coÌ„cludeth this resoÌ„ with sayin that S. Austin vrgeth it greatly in his book of the Good of marriag â—e dealeth as Cooks do in larding leane meate to give that a relish which of it self woul be vnsavoury Though eveÌ„ for the lard to perhaps it agreeth not half so wel herwith as this ItaliaÌ„ cook would have vs think 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 Polâ—tius who gainfaied him in it was it because he saw that he had vrged it more then it would bear wel or that he perceived it would not hould against an adversarye though without an adversarie it were a pretie allusioÌ„ At least whatsoever meÌ„ deem of the lard the meat is naught questioÌ„les such that the cook be coÌ„teÌ„t to eate the driest morsel of it yet must he needs graunt that it hath not tast not as much as th white of an egg hath For himself saith that marriag betokeneth signifieth Christs coniuÌ„ction with the faithful soule as Thomas the Pope reach But Christs coniunctioÌ„ with the faithful soule is not indâ—ssoluble as him felf also saith the band of marriage therfor by his owne consequeÌ„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 â—e evilll provided for who should begin to have a stepfather in steed of a father a stepmother in steed of a mother Wher hence the conclusioÌ„ secretly inferred to weet that other marriage therfore is not lawful would very wel folow if his formost ground propositioÌ„ werr true that the childreÌ„ should be iniured therby For it is not lawful to deale iniuriously with any he that doth wrong shal receive for it But how proveth Bel. that they should be iniuried his reasoÌ„ ensueth for they should be evil provided for what therfor Is God vniust theÌ„ who by taking meÌ„ out of this preseÌ„t life doth leave their wives widowes their children fatherless both often destitute of help God forbid saith the Apostle els how shall God iudg the world But the childeren shold be endamaged therby that perhaps wil Bell say was his meaÌ„ing wel they shold be endamaged evil provided for Why Because they sholâ— have a step father insteed of a father or step-mother in steed of a mother Then belike the brauÌ„heâ— cut of the Olivtre which was wild by nature graffed coÌ„trari to nature in aright olive tree are evil provided for endaÌ„aged by it For as when a gardenar asked why the hearbs which he set or sowed doe growe shoot up so slowly where weeds which the earth brought forth of her owne accord encreased a pace Aesop said that it was because the earth is the weeds mother and the hearbs steepe-mother so the wild Olive tree was the mother that brought forth such brauches the right Olive tree whereinto they were graffed is their stestmother S Paul who thought it better for vs of the GeÌ„tiles to be graffed so theÌ„ to coÌ„tinue as we were the childreÌ„ of wrath by nature declareth that a ChristiaÌ„ whose wife being an infidel an nnbelever forsaketh him is free to marry anothâ—r Which coÌ„sidering that he had an eie to the holly seede their offspring also what letteth him to have done with this perswasion that the children shold receive more good benefit by a beleeving step-mother then by an uÌ„beleeving mother Doubtlesse his care of having theÌ„ brought up in godlines a thing that godly mothers do furder verye muche and ungodely hinder is argueat agnement that hee was of this minde And the soune of Catelyne whom that adulterous wretch his father murdered to compasse the more easily the liking of a woman whom he lusted after hath left snfficient proofes that som having fathers are no better looked to for things of this life neither theÌ„ they should of liklyhood if in steed therof they had stepfathers Wherfor sith experieÌ„ce varifieth the same in meÌ„ which in woemeÌ„ that when they have made shipwracke of their chastity they wil not sticke at any wickednes the argumeÌ„t that childreÌ„ shold be endamaged evil provided for because in steed of adulterours fathers or mothers they should have stepfathers stepmothers chast honest is worse provided for by Bell. theÌ„ he thought But suppose it were good proved that the children should be endamaged how followeth the conclusion The childreÌ„ shold be endamaged by marriag another eitherefore the marriage is not lawful â—or by this reason a beleeving husband forsaken by his wife being an vnbelever may not take another if he had children by the former Nay no wife or husbaÌ„d having any children may lawfully ever marry again either of them after the others death And in deede by a law that Charondas made for his Thurian Cityzens the men who did so were punished And Mar. Antonius an Emperour of Rome because he was loath to wedd a step-mother to his children his wife being dead kept a concubine And S. Ierom speaking as the Catharists did against second mariage doth by detestation of a stepfarther dâ—ssuad a widowe from it But the Papists hold agreeably to Scripture that the man is at liberty to marry in the Lord after the womans death the woman after the mans yea in life tyme also if either of them being an infidel vnbeleever forsake the other being a Christiam And Bell. acknowledgeth that they hold both these poynts ought to hold them Bell. shall therfor doe well to acknowledg that his step-reasâ—n which oppugneth both these poynts of sound doctrine
savoureth of haeresie neither maketh more for him against vs then â—or the Catharists against the Catholique Fathers Wherewith he may confesse to that he hath abused Ambrose in affirming this to be his reason avouching him to say that the Father ought to pardoÌ„ the Mothers fault for the childrens sake For S Amb. blaming the man who puteth away his wife without cryme and marrieth another an adulteresse by so marrying mislyketh that the childreÌ„ should have such a stepmother having such a mother vnder whoÌ„ they might be And if the mother being put away so took another husbaÌ„d who in this case were an adulterer S. Ambr wisheth the children to be vnder their father not vnder such a step-father And if the Fathâ—r casting out his wife so cast out his childreÌ„ with her S. Amb. saith the children should rather purchase pardom for their mothers fault at their fathers hands then bee cast out for her sake Wherin hee doth no more saye that the father ought to pardoÌ„ the mothers adultery for the childrens sake then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abhomination for Lots sake when he said that the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous them the righteous should bee destroied with the wicked But here peradventure the Pamphletter will reply that although Bell. author argumeÌ„t as himself observed who there vpon cut Bell. shorter prove not his intent to weete that another marriage is vnlawful yet they prove such marriage to be inconvenieur in respect of the childeren to whom there riseth hurt discomodity by it For answer whervnto to the like reasoÌ„s drawen by him Bell. from other inconveniences 7 things are to be noted al such as our adversaries themselves must nâ—eds yeeld to yeelding therevnto shal set on fire their owne chaffe The first that the man whose wife is an adulteresse may put her absolutly away for al his liftyme nor is ever bouÌ„d to let her dwelwith him again no not though shâ— repent Which point being plainly implied in our saviours answer to the Pharises Bel. avoucheth and maintaineth thence agreably to the doctrin of his chiefest guids the Popâ—s Thom. of Aquine The second that if the woman coÌ„tinue in her wickednes without repentance amendement the man is by duty bound to put her away S. Mat. reporteth of the blessed virgin that when she was found to be with child of the holy Ghost before her husband Ioseph she came together Ioseph being a iust man not willing to make her a publicke example was minded to put her away secretly Of which words impotting that iustice movâ—d him to put her away goodwill to doe it secretly it seemeth to follow that such a woman as Ioseph misdeemed her to be to weet an adulteresse caÌ„not be kept without sinne whether she repent or no And Cornelius Iansenius a learned bushop of the Papists graunteth herevpoÌ„ that it was so in the old Testament But in the new Testament he saith if she repent she may bee kept with out sinne acknowledging that she may not in the new Test neither vnless she repeÌ„t Whervnto the Canonists and Schoolemen doe accord expounding a sentence cited by many Fathers our of the Prov. of Salo. He that keepeth an adulteresse is a fâ—nle a wicked maÌ„ a sentence â—ound in the Greeke text of the Prov. albeit not expressed out of the Hebrue Fountaine but addâ—d by the Seventie Interpreters or other perhaps to shew that Salo. commending a wife did meane a chast wife in their Iudgment but added in the Greeke thence translated also into the commo Latin edition called S. Ieroms soe that it goet for Scripture with Papists by their Trent Canon this sentence I say the Canons of the Fathers that vrge it vndi Sinctly against whosoever kepeth an adulteresse whether repentant or vnrepentant in like sorte as the Civill Law condemned all such the Canonists SchoolmeÌ„ distinguish expound of such as kepe adulteresses which doe nor repent amend their lives Now graunting that a man may kepe an adulteresse in matrimony if shee repent or being divorced from her may take her again yet which is the third point he may not doe it often least impunitie encrease inequitie And this is agred on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome the CanoÌ„ists Schoolemen Hermes out of whom the Maister of the sentences aleageth avoucheth it meant as his reason brought to prove it argueth that the man may take her so againe but once Which doctrine the Papists caÌ„ make Canonicall if they list vnlesse Stapleton lie who saith their Catholique Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Canonicall Scriptures that book of Hermes writteÌ„ in the Apostles tyme by S. Pauls schollar not only cited much but commended to by many most auncient Fathers Clemens Ireneus Origen Athanasius Eusebius Ierom. At least the chiefest part of the Canon Law compiled by the direction and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth setting downe the verie same out of a Councel that Peter Lombard out of Hermes the Papists though they will not I trow be of Stapletons minde for Hermes booke yet may think it likly that the CouÌ„cel Pope approved his meaning in this point Chiefly sith Panormitan the flouer of the Canontsts having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned because sinnes vnpunished doe becoÌ„ examples citeth an exceleÌ„t proof light therof a lawe of worthy Emperors Valentinianus Theodosius Arcadius who grauÌ„ting a generall pardon for smaler trespasses extended it to noÌ„ coÌ„mitted oftner theÌ„ once accouÌ„tiÌ„g such vnworthy of their Princilie favour as grew by their former forgivenesse to a custom of sinning rather theÌ„ to amendemeÌ„t But whether the Papists will iudge those Christian Emperours to have bene to strickt saie that adulterie deserpardon oftener then lesses faults with them or whether they thinke it sufficient to pardon on so great a crime which the Emperours except-by name out of their pardon willed it to be punished euen the first time The papists doe agree that a husband must not forgeve it to his wife often The fourth thing to be noted is that a woman being put a waye so doth loose her dowry too by lawe Which punishmeÌ„t as God hath threatned by his law to men that goe awhoreing froÌ„ him thogh they have not any dowry of their owne neither but of his gift so the Civil law hath inflicted it on adulterous wives the CaÌ„non law in looser times also The fifth that many persons mistake the help prepared of God and marry or doe worse coÌ„sidering that some caÌ„ot coÌ„teine as Pope Gregory noteth touching men S Ambrose touching woemen the scripture touching both some though they could perhaps yet shoâ—ld hâ—ut their bodies with sickues if they did as phisique phylosophie teach some though neither chastity nor health enforce
JUDGMENT OF THE Reformed Churches That a man may lawfully not only put away his Wife for her Adultery but also marry another LONDON Printed for Andrew Crook at the Green Dragon in Pauls Churchyard 1652. OF THE LAWFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVVFVL DIVORCE THE FIRST CHAPTER The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by schriptuere that a man having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another THe dutie of man and woman ioyned in marriage requireth that a they two should be as one person cleave each to other with mutuall love liking in society of life until it please God who hath coupeled them togâ—ther in this bond to set thâ—m free from it and to dissociate sever them by death But the inordinat fansies desires of our corrupt nature have so inveigeled Adams seede in manie places that men have accostomed to put awaie their wives vppon every trifling mislike discontentement yea Ieuwes supposed theÌ„selves to be warranted by Gods b lawe to doe it so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorcement This perverse opinion errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for any cause save whoredome onely For whosoever saith he shall put away his wife except it be for whoredom and shall marry another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her wich is put away doth coÌ„mit adulterie Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed more fully by by on of the c EuaÌ„gelists by d others more sparingly there hath a doubt arisen and diverse men even from the primative churches time have been of diverse mindes For many of the Fathers have gathered thereupon that if a mans wife coÌ„mitted whoredom fornication he might not onely put her a way but marrie another Some others and among them namely S. Austine have thought that the man might put away his wife but marrie another he might not the Scholedevins of later years the Canonists as for most parte they were al adicted to S. Austins iudgment 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 daies the light of good learning both for artes and tongues hath shyned more brightly by Gods most gratious goodnes then in the former ages and the holly scriptures by the helpe thereof have been the better understood the Pastors Doctors of the reformed churches have percieved shewed that if a mans wife defile her selfe with fornicatioÌ„ he may nor 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 do falsly charge them I will make manifest prove through Gods assistance by expresse words of Christ the truth it selfe And because our adversaries doe weene that the coÌ„trarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguements obiections which two of their newest writers Bell. the Iesuit a namelesse author of an English panphlet have dilligenely laied together For the farther clearing therefore of the matter taking awaie of doubts scruples I will set downe al there obiectioÌ„s in order first out of the scriptures then of fathers last of reasons and answer everie one of them particularly So shall it appeaae to suh as are not blinded with a fore conceived opinion preiudice that whatsoever shew of prbabilities are brought to the contrarie yet the truth deliverd by our Saviour Christ allowetls him whose wife committeth sornication to put her away and to marrie another The proofe hoereof is evidnnt if the words of Christ be waied in the nienteuth Chapter af S Mat. gospel For when the Pharises asking him a question whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every catse received answer that it was not and thereupon saide unto him Why did Moses commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way Our Saviouer sayde unto them Moses suffered you because of the hardnes of your harte to put awaye e your wifes But from the beginning it was not so And I say vnto you that whosoever shal put away his wife except it bee for whoredom and shall marrie another doth comit adultery and who so marrieth her that is put awaie doth coÌ„mit adultery Now this in senteÌ„ce the clause of exception except it be for whoredom doth argue that he committeh not adulterie who having put away his wife for whoredom marrieth another But hee must needs commit it in doeing so unlesse the bande of marriage bee loosed and dissolved For who so marrieth another as long as he is f bound to the former g is an adulterer The band then of marriage is loosed dissolved betwene that man wife who are put assunder and divorced for whoredome And if the band beloosed the man may marry another seing it is written h 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 i This argument doth firmly and necessarily conclude the point in question if the first parte and 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 and reason that our adversaries themselves admit and graunt them all The first k they denie to weete that the clause of exception in Christs speech except it befor whordome doth argue that the maÌ„ commiteth 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 be for whoredome are not an exception For Christ saith he ment those words 1 except for whoredome not as an exception but as a negation Soo that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife except for whoredome that is to saie 2 without the cause of whoredome shall marrie another doth coÌ„mit adulterie Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another but nothing is sayde touching him who marrieth another having put away his former wife for whoredome 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 may suffice for the proofe here of and the verie text of the scripture it selfe is soe cleare against him that he must of necessitie give over his houlde For the principal pillar wherewith he vnderproppeth it is l S. Austins iudgemeÌ„t who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marriages Now of that treatise S. m
Austin saith himselfe in his retractatioÌ„s I have writteÌ„ two bookes touching adulterous mariages as neere as I could according to the scriptuers being desirous to open loose the knotts of a most difficult quests on Which whether I have done soe that no knott is left therein I know not nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly and throughly al though I have opened many creeckes thereof as whosoever readeth with iudgment may discerne S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that there are some wants and imperfections 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 compasse of that censure I appeale to their iudgment who have eies to see For S. Augustin thought that the worde in th original of S. Math gospel had by the proper signification of it imported a negation rather then an exception And n he sheweth by saying that where the Latin translation hath 3 except for whoredom in the Grieke text it is rather read 4 without the cause of whoredoÌ„ Supposing belike whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight 5 that the same words which were used before in the fift Chapter of S. Math. Gospel to the same purpose were used also in this place wher as here they 6 differ and are wel expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so wel Houbeit if they had been the same with the former yet neither so might Bell. allowe his opinion considering that the coÌ„mon latin translation which Papists by their Councel of Trent are bound to stand to under payne of curse expresseth 7 those likewise as a plaine exception Which in deâ—de agreeth to the right and natural meaning of the 8 particle as O the like writers use it in like construction even then to wheÌ„ it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it unto that meaning Wherefore S. Austins mistaking of the worde signification thereof is noe sufficient warrant for Bell. to ground on that they must betaken so As for that he addeth that albeit 9 both these particles be taken excâ—ptively ofteâ— times yet may they also be taken otherwise sith on of them is used in the RevelatioÌ„as an adversative not an exceptiveâ— this maketh much lesse for proofe of his asâ—ertion For what if it be used there as an adversative where the matter treated of the tenour of the sentence doe manifestly argue that it must be taken so Must it therefore be taken so in this place whereof our question is or doth Bellar. prove by any circumstance of the text that here it may be taken so No Neither saith he a worde to this purpose Why men ioneth he then that it may be taken otherwise and is in the Revelaton for an adversative particle Truly I know not unlesse it be to shew that he can wranglâ— and plaie the cavelling sophister in seeming to gainsay disprove his adversarie when in truth he doth not Or perhaps though he durst not say for the particular that it is takeÌ„ here as an adversative which he could not but most absurdly Yet he thouâ—ht it policie to breed a surmise there of for the generall that shallower conceits might imagin another sence therein they knew not what and they whose brasen faces should serve them thereto might impudently brable that our sence is not certaine because another is possible eveÌ„ as a Iew being pressed by a ChristiaÌ„ with the place of q Esay Behoulde a vâ—gin shall conceive and bring forth a Sonne should answer that the Hâ—brue worde translated Virgin may be taken othrwise sith that in the Proverbs it signifieth a married womaÌ„ at least one that is not a Virgin in deede though she would seeme to be But as the Iew cannot conclude hereof with any reason that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay because the thing spoken of is a straunge signe and it is not straunge for a married wommen to coceave and bring forth a Sonne so neither can the Iesuite conclude of the former that the particle in Math. is meaÌ„t adversatively because the words then doe beare noe sence at all in which sorte to thinke that any wiseman spake were folly that Christ the word and wisdome of God were impietie Nay if some of Bell. schollars should say that words must be supplied to make it perfect sence rather than their Maiester bee cast of as a wrangeler they would be quickely inforced to pluck in this horn or els they might chance to leape which is worse out of the frying pan into the fire For adversative particles import an opposition contrariety unto the sentence against which they are brought in Now the sentence is that who so putteth away his wife marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherefore he by consequent committeth not adulterie who doth so for whorâ—dome If the particle be adversative and must have words accordingly supplied understood to make the sence perfect Thus the shift cavil which Bell. hath drawen out ef the double meaning of the Greike worde is either ydle beateth the aier or if it strike any it striketh himselfe and giueth his cause a deadly wound Yea that which he sought to confute he hath confirmed thereby For sith the worde hath onely two significations exceptive adversative neither durst he say that it is vsed here as an adversative it followeth he must grauÌ„te it to be an exceptive so the place rightly translated in our Enhelish agree able to the other in the 5. of Math. exoept it be for whoredom which as in their authenticall latin text also doth out of conitoversie betoken an exception Having all passages therefore shutt against him for scaping this way he fleeth to annother starting hole to weet that if the worde betaken exceptively yet may it be an exception negative And this he saith sufficeth for the maintnance of S. Aust. answer For when it is sayd whosoever shal put away his wife excepting the cause of whoredoÌ„ and shall marry another doth commit adulterie the cause of whoredom may be excepted either because in that case it is not adulterie to marrie another this is an exception affirmative or because nothing is presently determined touching that cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe and this is an exception negative which in that S. Aust. imbraced he did wel I would toe God Bell. had S. Aust. modesty Then would he be ashamed to chargs such a man wiith imbracing such whorish filth of his owne facsing ar in distinction of negative and affirmrtive exception he doth Foâ— hâ—e handeleth it soe lewdely and pervâ—rsely by calling that affirmative which in deede is negative by aâ—ouching that to bee negative which is not as if he had made a covenaÌ„t with his lips to lye treading in the steps of those