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
it in like construction even then to wheÌ„ it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it vnto that meaning Wherefore S Austins mistaking of the worde and significatioÌ„ thereof is noe sufficieÌ„t warraÌ„t for Bellarminâ— to ground on that they must be taken so As for that he addeth that albeit both these particles be taken exceptively often times yet may they also be taken otherwise sithâ— one of theÌ„ is vsed in the Revelation as an adversative not an exceptive this maketh much leâ—â—e for proofe of his assertion For what if it be vsed there as an adversative where the matter treated of and 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 questioÌ„n is or doth Bellarmin proove by any circumstance of the text that here it may be taken so No. Neither saith he a worde to this purpose Why menâ—ioneth he then that it may-be takeÌ„ otherwise and is in the Revelation for an adversative particle Truely I know not vnlesse it be to shewe that he can wrangle and play the cavelling sophister in seeming to gainsay and disprove his adversarie when in trueth he doth not Or perhaps though he durst not say for the particular that it is taken here as an adversative which he coulde not but most absurdly Yet he thought it policie to breede a surmise thereof 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 if a Iew beeing pressed by a Christian with the place of Esay Behoulde a virgin shall conceave and bring forth a Sonne should answer that the Hebrue worde translated Virgin may be taken otherwise sith that in the Proverbs it signifieth a married woman at least one that is not a Virgin in deede though shee woulde seeme to be But as the Iew caÌ„not conclude hereof with any reasoÌ„ that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay because the thinge spoken of is a straunge signe it is not straunge for a married womaÌ„ to conceave and bring forth a Sonne so neither can the Iesuite conclude of the former that the particle in Mathew is ment adversatively because the words then doe breede noe sence at all in which sorte to thinkethat any wise man spake were solly that Christ the worde and wisdome of God were impietie Nay if some of Bellarmins schollers shoulde say that words must bee supplied to make it percit sence rather than their maister bee cast of as a wraÌ„gler they would be quickely forced to pluck in this horne or els they might chance to leape which is worse out of the frying pan into the fire For adversative particles import an opposition and contrariety vnto that sentence agaynste which they are brought in Now the sentence is that who so put teth away his wife and marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherefore hee by consequent coÌ„mitteth not adulterie who doth so for whoredome If the particle bee adversative and must have words accordingly supplied vnderstood to make the sence percttt Thus the shift and cavill which Bellarmin hath drawen out of the double meaning of the Greeke worde is either idle and beateth the aire or if it strike any it striketh himselfe giveth his cause a deadly wound Yea that which he principally sought to confute hee hath confirmed thereby For sith the worde hath onely two significations exceptive and adverstive neither durst he say that it is vsed here as an adversative it foloweth he must graunt it to be as an exceptive soe the place rightly translated in our English agreeable to the other in the 5. of Mathew except it be for whoredoe which as in their autheÌ„ticall latin text also doth out of controversie betokeÌ„ an exception Having al passages therefore shutt againste him for scaping this way he sleeth to another starting hole to weete that if the worde be taken exceptively yet may it be an exception negative And this he saieth sufficeth for the maintenance of S. Austins answer For when it is said whosoever shall put away his wife excepting the cause of whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie the cause of woredome may be excepted either because in that case it is not edulâ—erie to marrie another and this is an exception affirmative or because nothing is presâ—tly determined touching that cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe and this is an exceptioÌ„ negative which in that S. Austin imbraced he did well I would to God Bellarmin had S. Austins modestie Then would hee be ashamed to charge such a man with imbracing such whorish silth of his owne fansing as in this distinction of negative and affirmative exception he doth For he handleth it soe lâ—wdly and porversly by calling that affirmative which in deedâ— is negative and by avouching that to be negative which is not as if he had made a covenant with his lipps to lye treadinge in the stepps of those wicked wretches of whom it is written woe vnto them who say that good is evill and evill good For the proofe whereof it is to be noted that an excepton is a particular proposition contradictorie to a generall So that if the generall proposition be affirmative the exception is negative and if the proposition be negative contrarywise the exception is affirmative As for exsamples sake He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lorde onely shal be destroyed saieth Moses in the lawe The proposition is affirmative He that sacrificeth to my Gods shal be destroyed The exception negative He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed There is none good but one even God saith Christ in the Gospell The proposition is negative There is none good The exception affirmative One is good even God I would to God that all layth Paul to Agrippa which heare me this daye were alltogether such as I am except these bonds The proposition affirmative I wish that all which heare me were such as I am altogether The exceptioÌ„ negative I wish not in bonds they were such as I am No Church did communicate with me in the account of giving receiving â—saving you onely sayth the same Paul to the Phillippians The Proposition negative No church did coÌ„municate with me in the account of giving and receiving The exceptioÌ„ affirmative You of Philippi did Likewise in all the rest of excepâ—tions adioyned to generall propositions though the markes and tokens as of generalitie sometymes lye hidden in the proposition soe of denying or affirming doe in the exception Yet it is plaine and certaine that the proposition and exception matched with it are still of contrarie quallitie the one afirmative if the other negative and negative if the other affirmative Which thing beeing soe see now the
Iesuits dealing how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth reasoÌ„ For sith in Christs speach touching Divorcement for whoredome the proposition is affirmative Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrie another doth commit adulterie it foloweth that the exception which denieth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whoredome marrieth another is an exception negative But Bellarmin sayth that this were an exception affirmative Yea which is more straunge in a man learned knowing rules of logique But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgment to their owne lusts and errors he eÌ„titeleth it an exceptioÌ„ affirmative even then and in the same place when where himselfe having set it downe in the words going immediarly next before had given it the marke oÌ„f a negative thus It is not adulterie to marrie another And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone he addeth fault to fault saying that this is an exceptioÌ„ negative When no thing is presently determined touching the cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or no. So first to denie with him was to affirme and next to say nothing now is to deny Yet there is a rule in Law that he who saith nothing denieth not Belike as they coyned vs new Divinity at Rome so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too Howbeit if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie that negative is affirmative to say nought is negative I see not but al heretickes vngodly persons may as well as Iesuits mainteyne what they list impudently face it out with like distinctions For if an adversarie of the H. Ghost should be controuled by that we reade to the CorinthiaÌ„s The things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God His answer after Bellarmins patterne were readie that this proveth not the spirit of God to know those things because it might be a negative exception importing that S. Paul woulde determine nothing presently thereof If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through conscience of his sines trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinners Yee shall all perish except yee repent He might replie thereto that the exceptioÌ„ is negative and this though not in the former poynt yet here were true but to make it serve his humour he must expounde it with Bellarmin that Christ doth not determin what shall become of the repentant If a vsurer should be tolde that he is forbidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie or to take encrease a theefe that he is commanded To labour woorke so to eate his owne breade they might if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin defend their trades both the one by affirming that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it the other that to commande be tokeneth to forbid In a worde whatsoever opinion were reproved as false or action as wicked out of the scriptures denouncing death eternall and paynes of hell thereto the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of by glosing thus vpon them that false is true and wicked holy life ment by death and heaven by hell Or if the papists them-selves would condemne this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places as senselesse and shamelesse then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negative is afirmative and to say nothing is to denie Whiâ—h whether they doe or no I will with the coÌ„sent liking I doâ—bt not of all indifferent iudges and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention conclude that these lying gloses of the Iesuits doe not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a prâ—terition or passing over a thing in silence which if Christ had ment hee could have done with fitt words as wise men are wont but a flat denying of that in on case which the proposition affirmeth in all others it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech them who for whore dome put away their wives denieth that in them which in all others he affirmeth and thereby teacheth vs that the man who putting away his wife for that cause marrieth another doth not commit adulterie The next trick of Sophistrie whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them is that the exception ought to be restreined to the former branche of putting away the wife onely To the which intent they say that there are some words wanting in the text which must be supplied and perfected thus Whosoever shall put away his wife which is not lawfull except it be for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie This devise doth Bellarmin allowe of as probable though not like the foresayd two of negation and negative exception But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all And surely if it were lawfull to foist in these words which is not lawfull the Pamphletter might seeme to have shewed greater skill herein then Bellarmin But men of vnderstanding and iudgmeÌ„t doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circuÌ„stances matter of the text sheweth to bee wanting but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof as pleaseth his conceit and fansie The sundrie interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may to go noe further sufficiently discover the fault and incoÌ„venience of that kinde of dealing For the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wife except it bee for whordome though he marrie not another committeth adulterie and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sorte if he marrie another doth commit adulterie Freier AlphoÌ„sus checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braunch of it sith hee who putteth away his wife not for whoredome although he cause her to commit adulterie yet doth not himselfe commit it vnlesse hee marrie another Wherevpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather Whose putteth away his wife not for other cause but for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie But this though it have not soe many words added as the Bishop of Auilas yet in truth it is more violently forced against the naturall meaning and drift of the text For by adding these words Not for other cause his purpose is to say that whoso putteth away his wife for noe cause but for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if he marrie another much more if heÌ„e marrie having put away his wise for any other cause And so is Christs speech made in effect cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe geve hee saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and the frier forcing him to saie Whosoever shall put
awaye his wife although it bee for whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie Nicolasâ—f â—f Lira beeing as in time more auncient then the frier soe more sincere and single in handling the scripture saith that other words must bee interposed to the supplying of it thus whoso putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome sinneth and doth agaynst the lawe of marriage and whoso marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherein though hee deale lesse vyolently with the text then doe the frier and the Bishop yet hee offendeth also in their liceÌ„tious humour of adding to the scripture where nothing was wanting and making it thereby to speake that which hee thinketh whereas he should have learned to thinke that which it speaketh yea Bellarmin him self acknowledgeth that they all were overseene herein albeeit censuring them with gentler words as he is wont his favorites and freinds For the explicationsl sayth hee which the Bishop of Auila Alphonsus a Castro and others have devised are not soe probable But why should these be noted by him as improbable yea denyed vnworthy the rehersall and that of his owne though adding in the like sorte which is not lawfull be allowed as probable yea magnyfied as most true by the pamphletter The reasons which they both or rather which Ballarmin for the pamphletter doth no more here but English him as neither els where for the most parte though hee bragg not thereof the reasoÌ„s then which Bellarmin doth presse out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous schollers that this interpositoÌ„ is probable and likely are pressed indeed according to the proverb The wringing of the nose causeth bloode to come out For hee sayth that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shall marrie another but straight after those whosoever shall put awaie and likewise when hee added and whoso marrieeth her that is put away committeth adulterie hee did not ioyne thereto Except it bee for whoredome to the intent that hee might shewe that the cause of whoredome doth onely make the putting away to be lawful not the celebrating of a newe marriage too And how doth he prove that Christ did soe place the exception in the former clause to this intent or to this intent did omit it in the latter Nay hee proveth it not it is but his coniecture like a sick mans dreame Vnlesse this goe for a proofe that Christ did not so place it before without cause nor omit it afterwarde without cause Which if hee meant it should it was for want of a better For Christ did not these things without cause I graunt Therefore he did theÌ„ for this cause it foloweth not S. Paule having occasion to cite a place of scripture doth set it downe thus Come yee out from among theÌ„ seperate your selves saith the Lorde and touche noe vncleane thing Herein hee hath placed the words sayth the Lord not after touch noe vncleane thing but after seperate your selves This did he not without cause What for this cause therefore that he might restraine the words sayth the Lord to the former branch as not pertayning to the later also No for it appeareth by the Ptophet Esay that they belong to both It is to be thought then that the spirit of God who doth nothing without cause did move Paul for some cause to place theÌ„ soe perhaps for perspicuity commodiousnesse of geving other men thereby to vnderstand the rather that both the words going before and coÌ„ming after were qualified with sayth the Lord. which is to be likewise thought of the exception placed by our Saviour betweene the two branches of his speech And that with soe much greater reason in my iudgment because if hee had placed it after the later And shall marrie another the words Except for whoredome might have seemed to signifie that it were lawfull for a man having put away his wife for any cause to marrie another if hee could not conteine as it is written because of whoredome let every man have his wife where now the exception being set before the pharisies whose question Christ therein did answer could gather noe such poyson out of his words to feede their error but they must needes acknowledge this to be his doctrine that a man may not put away his wife for everie cause and marry another but for whoredome onely As for Christs omitting of the exception afterward Bellarmin himself will quickly see there might bee another cause thereof if hee consider how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omitt the exception which neverthelesse must needes bee supplyed and vnderstoode For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons the Lorde gave commaudement Let not the wife departe from her husband and let not the husband put away his wife without adding to either parte except it bee for whoredome which the Lord did add Bellarmiâ—s greatest Doctor saith that hee omitted it because itâ—was very well knowne most notorious If then S Paul had reason to omitt it wholy because it was so well knowne How much more iustly might Christ in parte omitt it for the same cause having mentioned it immediatly before made it knowne thereby Chiefly sâ—ing that as hee framed his speech to mens vnderstanding so did he folow the common vse of men therein And if I should say vpon the like occasion whosoever draweth his sword except he be a magistrate and killeth a man committeth murder and whosoever abbetteth him that killeth a man committeth murder what man of sense and reason would not thinke I meant that the exception set downe in the former sentence touching maÌ„quellers pertaineth to the later of there abbetters also and vttered once must serve for both yea even in the former too who would not thinke that my meaning were the exceptioÌ„ should reach vnto both the branuches of drawing the sword killing a man not to bee abridged tyed vp vnto the first as if I had said whosoever draweth his sword which none may doe except he bee a magistrate killeth a man committeth murder yet one who were disposed to play the Iesuites parte might thus expound my speech and say I taught thereby that Peter in deede was iustly reproved for drawing his sword though he killed not But magistrates are authorized to draw it and noe more not to put men to death to take vengeaunce on him that doth evill Neithet should he doe mee greater wrong there in by making mee to speake contrarie to scripture then Bellarmin doth Christ by the like depraving of the like sentence But if all these reasons will not persuade his scholars that in Christs speach the exceptioÌ„ of whordome is to be exteÌ„ded to both the points iointly of putting away marrying that Bellarmin adding these words which is not lawfull did vnlawfully sow a patch of humaine raggs to the whole garment of Gods most precious word behold
their owne doctrine allowed established by the Councel of TreÌ„t shall force them will they nill they to see it acknowledg it For if the exceptioÌ„ be so tyed onely to the former point Then a man may not putt away his wife for any cause save for whoredome no not from bed and boord as they tearme it that is from mutuall coÌ„panie society of life although he marry not another But the Councel of TreÌ„t pronounceth and defineth that there are many causes for the which a man may put away his wife from bed and board wherefore the Papists no remedie must graunt that the exceptioÌ„ cannot so bee tyed vnto the former point onely And therefore whereas Bellarmin sayeth further that he thiÌ„keth it is S. Thomas of Aquines opinioÌ„ that Christs words should bee expounded so Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde the Papists peradventure wil be faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse but Thomas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts chiefest light of the Church of Rome shal be conviuced of errour even by the Councell of Trents verdict And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of another shift which this coosin german to the last intreated of and Bellarmin prayseth it alike To weete that the words committeth adulterie must be supplied and understood in the former parte of Christs sentence thus Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whoredome committeth adulterie and whoso marrieth another committeth adulterie Salomon did wisely iudg that shee was not the mother of the childe who would have it devided but shee who desired it might bee saved entier Surely the Iesuite hath not those bowels of kinde and loving affection towards Christs senteâ—ce that a ChristiaÌ„ should who can finde in his heart to have it devided of one living body naÌ„ely Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whordoÌ„e and marrieth another coÌ„mitteth adulterie made as it were two peeces of a dead carkas the first Whosoever putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome committeth adulterie the secoÌ„d whoso marrieth another coÌ„miteth adultrie Which dealing beside the incoÌ„venieÌ„ce of making the scripture a nose of waxe leadÌ„e rule if men may add what pleaseth theÌ„ spetialy if they may also maÌ„gle senteÌ„ces chop theÌ„ in sundry parts but beside this mischief here it hath a greater that Christ most true and holy is made thereby to speake an vntruth For a man may put away his wife for other cause then for whoredome yet not coÌ„mit adulterie himselfe Yes hee committeth it sayth Bellarmin in his wives adultery whereof hee was the cause by putting her vniustly away But I reply that it is one thing to cause his wife to coÌ„mitt it another to commit it himself And y Christ when hee was minded to note these severall faults did it with severall words expressinge them accordinglye Moreover vnderstandinge the tearme to put away not as the force thereof doth yeeld Christ tooke it for loosing of the baÌ„d of marriage but for a sepe ration from bed and boord onely as Bellarmin vnderstandeth it He cannot allowe the sentence which hee fathereth one Christ though soe expounded without either condemning of the Trent Councel or beeing himself condemned by it For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him but for whoredome doth committ adulterie in causing her to committ it Then is it a sinne to seperate her for any cause save for whoredome If it bee a sinne The Church of Rome erreth in houlding and decreeing that shee may bee seperated for sundrie other causes But whosoever sayth that the Churche erreth herein is accursed by the Councell of Trent The Councell of Trent therefore doth coÌ„sequently curse Bellarmin if hee say that Christ spake his wordesin that sense in which he coÌ„strueth them And doth it notcurse Austin also Theophilact whoÌ„ Bellarmin alleageth as saying the same at least it declareth that in the CouÌ„cels iudgment the fathers missexpouÌ„d the Scrip tures sometymes even those verie places on which the Papists cite theÌ„ assounde interpreters of the scripture Now the speech of Christ being cleared saved entier from all cavils the meaning thereof is playne as I have shewed that he who having put a way his wife for whoredoÌ„e marrieth another coÌ„mitteth not adulterie For soe much importeth the exception negative of the cause of whoredoÌ„e opposed to the generall affirmative propositioÌ„ wherewith our Saviour answered the question of the Pharisies touchcing divorcemeÌ„ts vsed by the Iewes who putting awaye there wives for any cause did marrie others The onely reason of adversaries remayning to bee answered stood vppon and vrged by them as moste effectuall and for cible to the contrarye is an example of like sentences from which sith the like conclusion say they cannot bee inferred as wee inferre of this the inferrence or this is faultye And faultie I graunt they might esteeme it iustly if the like conclusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences But lett the examples which they bring for proofe here of be throughly sifted And it will appeare that either the sentences are vnlike or the like conclusitons may bee inferred of them For of three sentences proposed to this end the the firste is out of Scripture in S. Iames Epistle To him that knoweth how to doe well and doth it not to him there is sinn A sentence though in shewe vnlike to that of Christs for the proposition and exception both yet having in deede the force of the like if it be thus resolved To him that doth not well except hee know not how to doe well there is sinn And why may it not be concluded hereof that there is no sinn to him who knoweth not how to doe well doth it not because there are sinns of ignoraunce saith Bellarmin he who knoweth not how to doe well and doth it not sinneth though lesse then hee that offendeth wittingly I knowe not whether this be a snine of ignorauns in Bellarmin or no that when he should say if he will check the conclusion there is sinne to ignorant he saith as if that were all one the ignoraunt sinneth Betwene which two things there is a great difference in S. Iames his meaning For S. Iames in these words there is sinne to him doth speake emphatically noteth in that man the same that our saviour did in the Pharisies when because they boasted of their sight knowledg he told theÌ„ that they â— had sinne meaning by this Phrase as himself expoundeth it that their sinne remained that is to say continued and stoodt firme setled The custome of the Greeke tongue wherein S. Iames wrote doth geve this Phrase that sense as also the Syriaque the language vsed by Christ translating Christs words after the same manner the matter treated of doth argue that he meant
not generally of sinne but of sinne being cleaving to a man in spetiall peculiar sort For as the servant that knew his Maisters will and did not according to it shal be beaten with many stripes but he that knew it not and yet did committ things worthy of stripes shal bee beaten with fewe Likewise in traÌ„sgression whereto the punishment auswereth he that knoweth how to doe well doth it not sinne is to him hee hath it he offendeth not ably But he that knoweth not how to doe well doth evill hath not sinne sticking to him his sinne remaineth not hee sinneth not so greatly greivously Wherefore when Bellarmin draweth out of that sentence such a conclusioÌ„ as if S. Iames in saying there is sinne to him had simply meant hee sinneth Bellarmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence which if the text it self cannot informe him his doctors well considered may But take the right meaning the conclusion wil be sound Whosoever doth not good and honest things except it he of ignoraunce he sinneth desperatelie mainely Therefore whoso of ignorance omitteth to doe them he sinneth not desperately And thus our conclusion drawen froÌ„ Christs sentence is rather confirmed theÌ„ preiudiced by this example Yea let even S. Austin whose authoritie Bellarmin doth ground on herein be diligently marked And himself in matching these senteÌ„nces together bewrayeth an oversight which being corrected will helpe the truth with light streÌ„gth For to make the one of theÌ„ like the other hee is faine to fashion Christs speech in this fort To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another to him there is the cryme of committing adulterie Now Christ hath not these words of emphaticall propertie and strong signification whereby he might teach as S. Angustin gathereth that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause save for whoredome and marrieth another comitteth adulterie in an high degree and soe imply by consequence that who soe marrieth another though having put away his former wife for whoredome yet committeth adulterie too a lesse adulterie But that which Christ saith is simple flatt absolute he committeth adulterie And therefore as it may be inferred out of S. Iames that he who omitteth the doing of good through ignoraunce sinneth not with a loftie hand in resolute stifnes of an hardned heart Soe conclude wee rightly out of Christs wordes that hee who having put away his wife for whoredome marrieth another committeth not adulterie in any degree at all The first sentence then alleaged by S. Austin and after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scripturs is soe farr from disprooving that it prooveth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences The seconde and thirde are out of theire owne braynes The one of Bellarmins forging the other of the Pamphletters Bellarmins Hee that stealeth except it bee for neede sinneth The Pamphlctrers Hee that maketh a lyeâ— except it bee for a Vauntagoe doth wilfully sinn Whereof they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence That hee sinneth not who stealeth for neede and hee who lyeth for a Vauntage sinneth not wilfully A badd inferrence indeed But the fault therof is in that these sentences are not like to Christs For Christs is from Heaven full of truth and wisdome These of men fond and imply vntruth They might have disputed as fitly to their purpose and prooved it as forcibly if they had vsed this example All foure-footed beasts except Apes and Monkâ—is are devoyd of reason or this All long-eared Creatures except asses are beasts For hereof it could not bee concluded iustly that Asses are not beasts and Apes are not devoyd of reason No. But this perhaps might bee concluded iustly that he had not muâ—h reason nor was farre from a beast that would make such sentences Considering that all men who write or speake with reason meane that to be denied in the perticular which they doe except from a generall affirmed And therefore sith hee sinneth who stealeth though for neede as the wise man sheweth and hee that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sinne yea the more wilfully somtymes because for a vauntage as when the sâ—ribs bâ—lyed Christ It were a verie fond and witlesse speech to say that Whosoever stealeth except it bee for neede sinneth And whosoever lyeth except it bee for a vauntage doth wilfully sinne Wherefore these senteÌ„ces are no more like to Christs theÌ„ copper is to gould or wormewood to the bread of Heaven Neither shall they ever finde any sentence like to his indeede of which the like conclusioÌ„ may not be inferred as we inferre of that And soe the maine ground of my principall reason proposed in the beginning remayneth sure clearly prooved that he by Christs sentence coÌ„mitteth not adulterie who having put a way his wife for whoredome marrieth another Whereof seeing it followeth necessarely that he who hath put away his wife for whordoÌ„e may lawfully marrie another as I there declared it followeth by the like necessity of coÌ„sequeÌ„ce that the popish doctrine mainteined by our adversaries denying the same is contrarie to the scripture doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Sonne of God THE SECOND CHAPTER The places of Scripture alleaged by the adversaries to disproove the Lawfull liberty of Marriage after Divorcement for Adulterie are Proposed Examined and Prooved not to make agaynst it SAinct Austin in his learned bookes of Christian Doctrine wherein hee geves rules how to finde the right and true sence of Scriptures doth well aduise the faithful First to search and marke those things which are set downe in the Scripturs plainly and then to goe in hande with sifting and disâ—ussing of the darke places that the darker speeches may be made evident by Patterns and examples of the more playne manifest and the records of certayne vndoubted setences may take away doubt of the uÌ„certayne This wholsome and iudicious Counsaile of S Augustin if our adversaries had bene as carefull to follow as they are willing to shew they follow him in these things which he hath written lesse advisedly they would not have alleaged and vrged the places of Scripture which they doe agaynst the poynt of doctrine hithâ—rto prooved out of the niententh chapter of S. Mathew For Christ in that place doth open the matter and decide the question most plainly and fully of purpose answering the Pharises In others either it is not handled of purpose incidently touchâ—d or in genâ—rallity sett downe more briefly and soe more darkly and obsâ—urely Wherefore if any of the other places had seemed vnto them to rayse vp a scruple and shew of some repugnancie they should have taken paynes to explayne and levell it by that in S. Mathew the darker by the clearer the brieffer by the largâ—r the vncertaine and ambiguous by the vndoubted and certayne But seeing they have chosen to follow S. Austins oversights rather theÌ„ his best advises
the law of Christ though shee take another man her husband being deade and yet the chast matron were an adulteresse if shee married while her husband liveth who hath vnjustly putt her away Wherein this notwithstaÌ„ding is to be weighed that a chast womans case is not so hard in comparison of the whores No. Not for marriage neither as Bellarmin by cunning of speech would make it seeme to â—ountenâ—unce therewith his reasoÌ„ For he frameth his words so as if the â—hast had no possibility of remedy at all neither by having her former husband nor by marrying another therefore were in worse case theÌ„ the whore who is free to marrie whereas the truth is that by Christs lawe shee not onely may but ought to have her former husband And why should not shee bee as likely to recover her husbands goodwill to whom shee hadd bene faithfull as a faythlesse whore and infamous strumpett to get a newe husband Chiefly seing that it is to bee presumed they loved ech other whâ—n they married and experience sheweth that Falling out of Lovers is a renewing of love But if through the frowardnes of men on the one side foolishnes on the other the chaste wife could hardly recoÌ„cile her husbaÌ„d the whore get easily a match it sufficâ—th that the law of Christ cannot bee justly charged with absurdity though it doe enlarg the vnchast and lewd in some outward thing in which it enlargeth not the chast No more then the providence of God may bee controlled and noted of iniquity though the evill wicked enioy certaine earthly blessings in this life which are not graunted to the vpright godly Wherefore the first place of Scripture out of S. Mathew enforcrd by Bellarmin with his horned argument as the Logitions tearme it doth serve him as much to annoy our cause aâ— the Iron hornes made in Achabs favour by Zedechiah the falce prophet did stand him in stead to push and consume the hoste of the Aramites The second place is written in the tenth of Marke Who so putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adulterie agaynst her and if a woman put away her husband and be married to another shee committeth adulterie The like whereof is also in the sixteenth of Luke whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery These words sayth Bellarmin doe teach generally that marriage coÌ„tracted perfected betweene the faithfull is never so dissolved that they may lawfully ioyne in other wedlocke And whereas wee answer that these general sentences are to be expounded with a saving of the exception mentioned in Mathew because one Evangelist doth add oftentymes that another omitteth Mathew els where contrary vnto Marke and Luke which sith they all wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit of truth is impossible Bellarmin replieth that the Evangelists in deed omitt or add somewhat now and than which other EEvangelists have not omitted or added but they doe never omitt in such sorte that the sentence is made false A straunge kinde of speeche As if all generall sentences were false from the which some spetialtie though not expressed in the same place yet by confâ—reÌ„ce with others is vnderstood to bee expressed Sure the Civill Lawe which in learned mens opinions hath much truth will then bee stayned foully with vntruthes and lyes For how many sentences and rules are set downe in it with full and generall tearmes whereof notwithstaÌ„ding there is none lightly but suffereth an exception The Canon law also whose creditt and authority Bellarmin must tender howsoever he doe the Civill hath store of such axiomes and teacheth accordingly That a particular doth derogate from the generall But what speake I of mens lawes In the Scripture it self Iob sayth that The hipocrite shall perish for ever like the dung and David that the wicked shall turne into hell all nations that forgett God Salomon that Everie provd-harted man is an abomination to the Lord though hand ioyne in hand hee shall not bee vnpunished These sentences of Iob David and Salomon are true in the belief of Christians yet forasmuch as they must bee vnderstood with an exception according to the Doctrine of Christ and his servants saying vnto sinners Except Yee repent Yee shall all perish in the Iesuits iudgement they are made false And Ionas semblablie when hee preached to the Ninivits Yet forty days and Niniveh shal be overthowen abvsed theÌ„ with an vntruth though learned men doe finde a trueth in his speech as being to be thus taken that Niniveh should bee over throwen except it repented Or if Bellarmin also acknowledg the same which hee may not choose vnlesse of a Iesuit hee will become a Iulian and quite renounce the Christian fayth then acknowledgeth hee that hee playeth the parte of a guilefull Sophister or a malitious RhetoriciaÌ„ in signifying that the senteÌ„ce of Christ is made false if it bee expounded and vnderstoode with an exception otherwhere expressed And withall by consequence hee acknowledgeth farther that it is an idle braynsick amplification whiâ—h herevppon heâ— lavisheth out Iesuit like and vaynely mispendeth paynes and tymes about it by saying that els if the sentence forsooth were false the Evangelists had deceived men to whom they delivered their Gospells making noe mention of other Evangelists and that when Marke wrote his gospel at Rome received by the preaching of Peter hee did not send the Romaeines backe to Mathews gospel as to a commentary Nay if Mathews gospel hadd bene then at Rome in the hands of the faythfull it may be wel thought that Marke would not have written and that Marke wrote not to add ought to Mathew as Iohn did afterward but onely that the Romaines might the better remember that which Peter taught For Irenaee Eusebius and Ierom geve this cause and that Luke wrote his Gospel for those nations to whom Paul had preached and vnto whoÌ„ the booke of Mathew and Marke were not yet come but certayne false writings of False Evangelists onely as himself sheweth briefly and it is more clearly gathered out of Ambrose Eusebius and Ierom. And in conclusioÌ„ that the things thâ—refore which Marke and Luke say must be absolutely true not depend of Mathews words vnlesse our meaning bee that they were deceived who did read Marke or Luke without Mathew For by this reason of Bellarmin the words of Iob David Salomon and Ionas must bee absolutely true and not depend of Christs words in Luke or by Esay vnles our meanig be that they were deceived who read the Psalmes of David or Salomons proverbs or heard Iob or Ionas speake without Christ which likewise might receive a gay shewe by saying that els if these sentences were false these holy men had deceived them to whom
the same in his defense of the Councell a worke verie highly commeÌ„ded by Oseruis And Canus setteth it downe for a conclusion that many of them consenting in one can yeild no firme proofe if the rest though fewer in number do dissent Yea Bellarmin himself saith that there can no certaintie be gathered out of their sayings when they agree not among themselves It is a thing graunted theÌ„ by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove ought vnlesse they all consent in one But the fathers do not all consent in one about the point wee treat of as it shal be shewed Our adversaries therefore must graunt that the opinioÌ„ which they holde in this point cannot be proved by Fathers Nay they are in danger of being enforced to graunt a farther matter and more importing them by the consequent hereof For through a decree of Pope Pius the fourth the professors of all faculties all that take degrees in any poopish schoole are bound by solemne oth that they shall never expound and take the scripture but according to the Fathers coÌ„seÌ„ting all in one Wherefore how will Bellarmin perhaps the Pamphletter also if he have bene amongst them and taken any degree but what shift will Bellarmin and his puefellowes finde to save themselves from periurie when it shal be shewed that many of the Fathers gaine say that opinion which him-self and his expound the scripture for And what if it appeare that the greater number of Fathers doe so nor the greater onely but the better also and those whose grounds are surer Then all the probability which Fathers can yeild will turne against the Papists and that which our adversaries would prove by tradition and the consent of all ages will rather be disproved thereby But howsoever men be diversly persuaded touching the number quality of Fathers enclyning this or that way by meanes of sundrie circumstances which may breed doubt both particularly of certaine and of the whole summe in generall the maine and principall point remayning to be shewed namely that the Fathers consent not all in one for the Papists doctrine is most cleare and evident out of all controversie In so much that many even of them also whom Bellarmin alleageth and the Pamphletter after him as making for it make in deed against it and those of the chiefest and formost rankes spetially in the first the second the third the fourth hundred yeares after Christ. All the which agree and teach with one consent that the man forsaking his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe save such of them onely as in this very point of doctrine touching marriage are tainted with error by the iudgement and censure of Papists themselves A token of the vanetie and folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphletter who by naming one at least in everie age would needes make a shewe of having the consent of all ages with them whereas it wil be seene hereby that in many we have the most and best and they either none at all or none sound For in the first hundred yeares after Christ all that Bellarmin sayth they have is the testimony of Clemens in the CanoÌ„s of the Apostles where the maÌ„ is willed without any exception to be excommunicated who having put away his wife doth marrie another Now beside that Clemens vpon whom Bellarmin fathereth those canons is iniured therein As for the later parte of them himself sheweth his friend for the former neither are they of Apostolique antiquitie and authoritie notwithstanding their title as many Fathers testifie and Papists will acknowledg when they are touched by them The author of the Canon had respect therein by all probabilitie to the Apostolique doctrine receyved from Christ therefore though he made not an expresse exceptioÌ„ of divorce for whordom might as well impply it as I have declared that some of the Euangelists and S. Paule did Which the interpreters also of those Canons Zonaras and Balsamon thought to be so likely and more then a coniecture that they expound it so without any scruple Balsamon in saying that he who putteth away his wife without cause may not marrie another and Zonaras that hee who marrieth a woman put away without cause by her husband doth committ adulterie Or if these writers mistooke the authours meaning in his opinion no maÌ„ howsoever his wife were put away without or with cause might lawfully marrie another thâ—n take this with all that hee skarse allowed any second marriage but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom Which although a Iesuit goe about to cover and salve with gentle gloses like the false prophets Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavorie plaister yet sith that counterfait Clements worke did flowe out of the fountaines of the Gretians as a great historian of Rome hath truelie noted and amoÌ„g the Gretians many held that errour as it is likewise shewed by a great Sorbonist the likelyhood of the matter and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall and proper signification of the words will not permitt 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 Bellarmin produceth out of the first hundred yeares doth not helpe him Out of the second hundred he produceth three Iustinus Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus 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 Bellarmin but as Christ did who excepting whoredome in the former braunche of that sentence vnderstoode it likewise in this as I have shewed And how may wee know that Iustinus meant so By his owne wordes in that hee commendeth a godly Christian woman who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of dirorcement such as did loose that band of matrimony and saith concerning him that hee was not her husband afterward The next Athenagoras affirmeth I graunt that if any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie another he is an adulterer But Bellarmin must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too as well as by divorcement teaâ—heth with the Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is vnlawfull Wherevpon a famons Parisian Divine Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian and may well be thought to have bene 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 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
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
the right believing Catholique Churche all that time thought lawfull to be done as appeareth by TertulliaÌ„ Iustine the Martyr In the which respect Peter Soto a freir of great account in the Trent Councell 〈◊〉 said that it is plaine by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtfull in the auncient church alâ—eageth this for proofe thereof out of Origen that many byshops 〈◊〉 married meÌ„ to marrie againe after divorcement This if the two of â—thers whoÌ„ Bellarmin alleageth out of the third hundred years as making for him doe not make against him which perhaps they doe both yet one of theÌ„ doth not out of all controversie byshops more in number in credit greater theÌ„ the other agree with him therein Out of the fowrth hundred the 〈◊〉 which Bellarmin maketh is a great deale fayrer theÌ„ out of the third a number of Fathers the councell of Eliberis S. Am 〈◊〉 S. leroÌ„ a RomaÌ„ Byshop S. Chrysostome are affirmed theÌ„â—e to ioyne themselves with him But they are affirmed in the like maÌ„ner as the former were skarse on of theÌ„ avouching the same that he doth the rest in part seeming to be of other opinion in part most clearely shewing it such as shewe not so much yet shewing their owne weakenes that in this matter their opinioÌ„ iudgmeÌ„t is of small value For the formost of them the Councel of Eliberis ordained that a womaÌ„ which forsooke her husband because of his adulterie would marrie another should be forbidden to marrie if shee married shee should not receave the communion till hee were dead whoÌ„ shee forsooke vnlesse necessitie of sicknes coÌ„strayned to geve it her Wherein it is to be noted first that the Councell saith not If anieman so to comprehend touche generallie all both men women but they speake peculiaritie of the woman alone so doe not forbid the maÌ„ to leave his adulterous wife marrie another Secondly that the womaÌ„ is excommunicated if when shee is forbidden by the church to marrie shee marrie neverthelesse not if before shee be forbidden As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self Thirdlie that shâ—e is not dâ—barred all her life time from the communion but for a season onely and in time of neede in daungerous sicknes doth receive it yea even while the partie whoÌ„ shee forsooke liveth Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councells oversight who made the womans case herein worse then the mans both being free alike by Gods lawe yet for the maÌ„ it sheweth that they allowed him to marrie againe after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which wee maintaine The next yeildeth likeliehood that the Councell did forbid the woman this not for that they thought it vnlawfull but vnseemelie perhaps or vnexpedient as another Councell is read to have forbiddeÌ„ the celebrating solemnizing of marriages at certaine times But the last putteth the matter out of doubt that they were persuaded of the woman also marrying in such sort that her fact was warraÌ„table by the word of God Forels had they not iudged her marriage with this latter maÌ„ to be lawfull they must needes have iudged her to live with him in perpetuall adulterie Which if they had thought it is most improbable they would have admitted her to the communioÌ„ in case of daungerous sicknes seeing at the point of death they denie it to womeÌ„ so continuing yea to men offending lesse heynously then so With such extremitie of rigour therein that Baronius noteth their decrees as savouring of the Novatian heresie Bellarmin layeth it almost as deepely to their charge So farre from all likeliehood is it that they would admitt her in necessitie of sicknes to the communioÌ„ had they bene persuaded shee lived in adulterie still Therefore it was not without cause that Bellarmin did suppresse this circuÌ„stance together with the former in citing the decree of the Elibernie Councell least his false illatioÌ„ to weete that they accounted such marriage vnlawfull even for the innocent partie in the cause of adulterie should be discovered controlled thereby Next is Ambrose brought in who vpoÌ„ the 16 chapter of Luke writeth much against theÌ„ that putting away their wife doe marrie another he calleth that marriage adulterie in sundrie places neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too Certainely S. Ambrose speaketh of such wives as lived without crime whom their husbands were as hee addeth forbidden by the lawe of God to put away So that hee reproving men for marrying others after they had put away their chaste wives doth evidently shewe he meant not of marriage after divorcemeÌ„t for whordoÌ„ And if it be â—ufficieÌ„t proofe that hee supposed they might not marrie againe after they had put away a whorish wife because hee never excepteth whoredoÌ„ in that whole discourse of marrying againe then by as sufficieÌ„t a reason hee supposed that they might not put away their wives at all no not for whordom because hee never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife But thaâ— Papists will graunt that a man may lawfully put away his wife if shee committ whordom As Bellarmin then will construe S Ambrose in this braunch so let him in the former And if he say that S. Ambrose thinking vpoÌ„ Luke alone whoÌ„ hee expounded or trusting his memorie forgot the exception added by Christ in Mathew for putting away the wife the same slipp of memorie might loose the same exception for marrying another If he thinke that Ambrose did not forget himself but vnderstoode the exception in the former point as the Apostle did though neither mentioÌ„ it expressely what reason why it might not as well be vnderstoode in the later also As for S. Ierom no marveil if hee wrote against second marriage after divorcemeÌ„t for whordom who wrote against all second marriages in such sort that EspeÌ„ceus asketh what could have bene said more greivously against them by the impure Catharists then is said by him And Vives pronounceth that hee did not onely detest second marriages but also had small liking of the first nor did much favor matrimonie Beside that himself too as farre as hee exceeded the boundes of Godly modestie truth herein even by these mens iudgments whoÌ„ Papists doe repute learned Catholique allayeth corecteth in one of the places which Bellarmin alleageth his peremptorie censure geveÌ„ in the other For whereas hee saith in his Epistle to Amandus that the wife who divorced herself from her husband because of his adulterie marriâ—d another was an adulteresse for so marrying and her newe husbaÌ„nd an adulterer In his epitaph of Fabiola a noble godly gentlewoman of Rome who did the like was
shee hath not entred into his bed-chamber For shee that is betrothed is accounted a wife by the law of God and consent not carnall company maketh Marriage as the civill Lawiers Fathers Popes doe teach The Papists then of all men may worst enforce the playnesse of S. Pauls words agaynst our exposition thē selves condescending in cases more then wee doe that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth and bee noe adulteresse Whereby agayne appeareth how wisely discreetly the Iesuit Triumpheth with S. Austins words These words of the Apostle so oftentymes repeated so oftentymes inculcated are true are quick are sound are playne The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if he playe the whoremonger The wife then is lawfully putt away for whordom but the band of the former lasteth in somuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom For if these words of Austin bee quick and sound against vs then touch they Poperie at the quick sith it may be sayd by the same reason The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if hee waxe a Monke Admitt then that the wife bee put away for monkery yet the band of the former lasteth insomuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie who marrieth her that is put away even for monkery And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were for which so many Popes have loosed the bande of Marriage they are all controlled by the same censure The woman beginneth not to be bee the wife of any later husband unlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if a better match be offered or some mislyke bee conceived or the Pope dispense and bee well freed from it Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the cōpasse of Austins reprofe by construing his words so without exception because they are true and quick and sound and playne For against his doctrine towching a Susters liberty to marry if shee be forsaken of her vnbeleeving husband the force of S. Austins consequence would inferre in like sorte The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband vnlesse shee have ceased to be of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if hee forsake her The Iesuit who vseth so often to repeat so often to inculcate the testimonies of the Fathers should deale peradventure more considerately more charitably out of doubt if before hee cite them hee weighed their words better whether they may stand with the truth of Scripture with his owne doctrine For els as C ham discovered the nakednes of Noah so doth hee their blemishes hee who aleageth them not wee whom hee enforceth to shewe why wee dissent from them least our Saviours sentence bee pronounced agaynst vs Hee that loueth Father or Mother more then mce is not worthy of mee But the Iesuites meaning you wil say was not to discredit them by laying a necessitie on vs to refute them what was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scripturs with the truth whereof their sayings doe not stand For I trust hee meant not to overthrowe the poynts of his owne doctrine which their sayings crosse vnlesse hee bee of that mynde which Tullie condemneth as barbarous and savage expressed in an heathnish verse LET OVR FRIENDS FALL SOE THAT OVR FOES DIE WITHALL Howsoever it be it is plain that the plaines of S Pauls words neither doth prove the sence thereof to be simply absolutely general the Scripture noting an exception neither cann bee sayde by Papists to prove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture addeth more thereto Thus one braunch of Bellarmins first and principall reason being cutt of the other and the rest of his reasons also are cutt of with the same labour and instrument For whereas hee sayth Certes it were marvell that the Apostle should never ad the exception of whoredom if it were to be added seing hee repeated and inculcated these things so often Certes wee may say as well of those exceptions which himself approveth that it Were marvell the Apostle should never add them if they were to bee added Though what marvell is it if S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredom in all those two places which hee Hath repeated and inculcated these things so often as Bellarmin so often telleth vs when the thing is mentioned in the former of them by way of a similytude wherein it had bene fond and beside the purpose to speake of any exception and for the later S. Paul hath omitted the same exception twise where the Scripture sheweth and Bellarmin confesseth it should have bene added or to speake more properly where although it needed not to bee added yet must it needs bee vnderstoode Now to that Bellarmin doth next alledg the Fathers Ambrose Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius Primasius Anselmus and others over and besides Austin Origen and Ierom all as bearing witnesse that wee expound the places falsly I could reply that some of these whatsoever they witnesse have small credit with Bellarmin as Ambrose specially some namely Chrysostō Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius and Primasius doe not witnesse that no more then Paul himself doth Nay they all save one are contrary minded rather as shall appeare in due place But that which I have sayde already touching Austin may serve for answer to the rest chiefly sith the Papists in whose behalf they are aleaged will rather yeald that all the Fathers might erre thē any of their Popes who yet must have erred in more thē one Canon if this were true which Bellarmin fathereth on the Fathers Finally concerning that for the vpshoote hee vrgeth Pauls similytude as if the drift of it did absolutely require that the man and wife can not bee made free from the band of Mariage by any seperatiō but by death onely because while the law had life as it were and stoode in force till Christ the Iewes could never shake off the Yoke thereof from them although they endevored to seperate them-selves from it by committing whoredom with sundry lawes of salfe Gods the rest of S. Pauls similytudes which I mencioned doe bewray the lamenesse and halting of this inference seing that the drift of thē requireth absolutely by the same reason that noe man went to warfare at his owne cost or planted Vynes or fedd sheepe without relief thereby because all they Who preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel And likewise that no
man did ever hurt his owne body because Every husband ought to loue his owne wife as Christ loved the Church and likewise that no souldier hath ever entangled him-self with the assayres of life because Tymothee should bee still about those actions whereto the Lord who choose him to hee a souldier did call him Nay to goe no farther then the drift it self of the samilytude which Bellarmin doth vrge if it requier absolutely that the band of Marriage may bee no way loosed but onely by the husbands or the wives death then neither is it loosed if the vnbeleever doe for sake the Christian neither if the husbād become a Monke or the wife a Nunne neither if the Pope see cause to dispence with either of them And will not this fansie of his about that drift drive him into greater inconvenience yet to weet that every woman whose husband is dead ought to marry another because the Iewes were bound to become Christiās after the death of the Lawe or of the other side that the Iewes are not bound vnder payne of damnation to become Christians because no widowe is bound vnder payne of death to take another husband or if these absurdities bee not great enough that dead men ought to marry because The Iewes by duty should bee vnto Christ when they were dead to the Lawe or that the men of Rome to whom S. Paul wrote should rather not beleeve in Christ because he wished widowes rather not to marry Of the which consequences if some bee esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed onely but are so in deede the most have impious folly ioyned with vntruth Let Bellarmin acknowledg that similitudes must not bee sett vpon the racke nor the drift thereof bee stretched and pressed in such sorte as if they ought iust in length bredth and depth to match and fitt-that whereto they are resembled It sufficeth if in a generall analogy and proportion of the principall poynt wherein things are matched and compared together they bee eche like to other and both agree in one qualitie Which here is observed in S. Pauls comparisō of the state of Marriage with the state of man before and after regeneration because as a wife her husband being dead doth lawfully take another and is not an adulteresse in having his company to bring forth fruite of her body to him soe regenerate persons their naturall corruption provoked by the law to sinne and flesh being mortified are ioyned to the Spirit the force of Christ working in them as it were to a second husband that they should bring forth fruite the fruites of the Spirit vnto God And thus seing neither the drift of the similytude nor the iudgment of the Fathers nor the playnnesse of the wordes so oftentymes repeated doe disprove our answer and exposition of the place our answer proved by Scripture standeth firme and sure and therefore the third place vrged by our adversaries is sutable to the former So is the fourth last taken out of the first to the Corithians the seaventh Chaptera To them who are Married it is not I that give commandement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee depart too let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husband Wherein as Bellarmin reasoneth the words of S. Paul If shee depart and so forth are meant of a woman which parteth from her husband vpon a cause of iust divocement as namely for whordom haeresie and the rest whatsoever they be not of her which parteth without any such cause But concerning her of whom the words are meant S. Paul sayth most playnely shee may not marrie another Therefore even a cause of iust divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawfull for married folckes to marry others although they beesevered and put asunder by iust divorcemēt And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insoluble In saying whereof hee seemeth to confesse that none of the former arguments were so but might bee answered and confuted His confession touching them hath reason with it I must needs approve it But his vaunt of this is like that of Ben hadads that the dust of Samaria would not bee enough to all the people that followed him for every man an handfull To whom the King of Israel sayde Let not him that girdeth his harnies boast himself as hee that putteth it off Bellarmin hath skarcly girt his harneis yet that which hee hath girt is vnservisable bad harneis too For the formost parte thereof his proposition a vouching that the words If shee depart and so forth are meant of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divocement as namely for whordom heresie and such like is faulty sundry wayes seing they are neither meant of her onely which parteth for a iust cause and though they bee also meant of her which parteth for any other iust cause yet not of her which for whoredom Moreover the conclusion knitting vpp his argument with Therefore even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage is guilfully sett downe being vttered in the forme of a particular and true so taking divorcement as hee doth but intended to carry the force of a generall so by fraude and faulshood to beare away the poynt in questiō Of both the which to treat in ordre his proposition hee presumeth of as most certayne because in his iudgment Paule would not have sayde of her who departed without some such cause Let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husband but hee would have sayde Let her remayne vnmarried till shee bee reconciled vnto her husband let her come agayne vnto her husband in any case And why doth Bellarmin thynke so His reasons follow For Paul could not permitt an vniust divorcemnt agaynst the expresse commandement of the Lord. And if in the same Chapter Paul permitteth not the man and wife to refrayne from carnall company for prayers fake and for a tyme except it bee with consent How should bee permitt the wife to remayne seperated from her husband agaynst his will without any cause of iust divorcement In deede if it had lyen in S. Pauls power to stay refraine the wife from remayning so no doubt hee neither would nor might have permitted it which himself sufficiently shewed in forbidding her to depart at all much more to continue parted from her husband But if notwithstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave her husband vpon some lighter cause or perhaps weightyer though not weighty enough for a iust divorcement then Paul in duty ought and might I hope with reason requier and exhorte her to remayne vnmarried and not to ioyne her selfe in wedlocke with another a thing that Greekes and Romayns whose of-spring the Corinthians were vsed to doe as to make it playner by the like examples S. Paul neither
poenitent for it after her second husbands death hee saith that shee lamented bewayled it so as if shee had coÌ„mitted adulterie By which kinde of speech others sutable to it as that he teâ—â—meth her state after divorcement froÌ„ her first husband Widdowhood addeth that shee lost the honor of having had but one husbaÌ„d by marrying the second saith shee thought it better to vndergoe a certaine shadow of pitifull wedlocke then to plaie the whore because it is better saith Paul to marrie then to burne S. Ieron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to doe as shee did yet not such a fault a crime a publique crime as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it No more may it be iustly thought in the opinioÌ„ of that RomaÌ„ Byshop of whoÌ„ because he put Fabiola to publique penance after her second husband death Bellarmin coÌ„cludeth that it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique Church at that time if any man whilst his wife yet lived married another yea albeit for whordoÌ„ For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholique Church for marrying againe after their first wives death as Bellarmin observeth out of the Catholiqueâ—Councels adding therewith al that although they knewe secoÌ„d marriage to be lawfull yet because it is a token of incontineÌ„cie they chastised it with some penaÌ„ce Wherefore sith it might easilie bee that they who laid some penance vpon no fault would lay publique penance vpoÌ„ a small fault spetially in women to whoÌ„ in such cases they were more severe rigorous theÌ„ to meÌ„ the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her secoÌ„d marriage doth not prove sufficieÌ„tly that it was accounted theÌ„ a publique crime in the Catholique church Howbeit if the tearme of publique crime be vsed in a geÌ„tler sense theÌ„ coÌ„monly it is or the Byshop of Rome did never put any but grievous offenders finners to publique penance yet perhaps even so too will Bellarmin come short of his conclusioÌ„ still For thereby saith hee we doe not vnderstaÌ„d that â— if any maÌ„ while his wife yet lived married another yea albeit for whordo it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique church at that time if any maÌ„ did it As who say the Byshop of Rome must needs hould that if women were not licensed to marrie after divorcement for whordom men could not be neither Whereas he might be of the same opinioÌ„ that an auncieÌ„t Councell sâ—emeth as I shewed to have bene before him and an auncient Father living writing as some thinke in Rome about the same time was I meane that this libertie freedom should be graunted to men but not to women Moreover the delay of Faebiolas penance in that she was not put thereto vntill after her second husbands death yeildeth very strong probable coniecture that it had not bene before theÌ„ accouÌ„ted any crime at all in the Catholique church not for a woman neither to put away her husbaÌ„d because of his adulterie to marrie another For that which Fabiola did shee did openly Her self was religious godly well instructed thought it to be lawfull Her husbaÌ„d by all likelyhood of like minde iudgmeÌ„t the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question The Byshop did not execute any Church censure on them Nay sith shee was very yong when they married and never heard of anie fault therein committed as long as her husband lived it may be Rome had many Byshops in the meane time none of whoÌ„ saw cause why they should blame her for it The example of Fabiola therefore the Roman Byshops dealing in it maketh more a great deale with vs then against vs if it be throughly weighed Now S. Chrysostom maketh absolutely with vs Howsoever Bellarmin affirmeth that hee teacheth the same with S. Ierom yea with S. Ierom simplie condemning all such marriage For what doth S. Chrysostom teach in the sermon that Bellarmin quoteth vpon Mathew Forsooth that by Moses lawe it was permitted that whosoever hated his wife for any cause might put her away and marry another in her roome But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredome What and doth it follow hereof that Chrysostom meant that the husband putting her away for whoredome might not marrie another Rather the cleane contrary Seing that he speaketh of such a putting away as Moses did permitt and maketh this the difference betwene Christs ordinance and the law of Moses that Moses did permitt it for anie cause Christ but for one Which to be his meaning hee sheweth more plainely vpon the first to the Corinthians saying that the marriage is dissolved by whoredom neither is the husband a husband anie longer For hence it appeareth that hee thought the baÌ„d of marriage to bee loosed wheÌ„ they are severed for whoredom therefore consequently the parties free to marrie according to the Apostles rule And other where also though somewhat more obscurely yet conference with this place will shewe him to have taught But what should I stand on farther proofe thereof it being so vndoubted that Byshop Covarrisvias an earnest adversarie of marriage after divorcement and bringing all the Fathers that hee can against it confesseth S. Chrysoctom to stand on the other side against him for it And this in foure hundred yeares after Christ Bellarmin cannot finde one of the Fathers that hee may iustly say is his excepting them which make as much for the Encratites Montanists and Catharists as they doe for Papists In the ages following hee findeth better store now one now moe in eche hundred Yet among them also looke how manie hee nameth of the Easterne Byshops whether expressedly or implyedly hee playeth the Iesuit with him For the first of them Theophylact hee alleageth with the same faith truth that he did Chrysostom whose schollar Theophylact being after Bellarmins owne note did follow his maister And this the two places theÌ„selves that Bellarmin quoteth doe insinuate clearely the former by opening how Christ permitteth not that putting away which Moses did without iust cause nor alloweth any cause as iust but whordom the later by omitting mention of whordoÌ„ in spesifying the causes for which if a womaÌ„ depart froÌ„ her husbaÌ„d shee must remaine vnmarried Whereto if Bellarmin neede more light to see it by we may adde a third place in which Theophylact saying that Luke rehersing Christes words against men putting away their wives marrying other must be vnderstood with the exception out of Matthew Vnless it be for whoredom doth shew howfarre he differeth herein from Bellarmin who denyeth flatly that Christes wordes in Luke must be supplyed with that exception The rest of the Easterne Fathers whose testimony is alleaged by Bellarmin though their names not meÌ„tioned are such as were assembled in the Councell of Florence For
there came thither to conferre with the Pope the westerne byshops albeit many of these houlding a generall Councell at Basil the same time refused to chaunge the place for the Popes pleasure who sought his owne advantage therein not the Churches and vndermined the actions of the Councell of Basil which condemned him of heresie and deposed him but there came thither the Patriarches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem either themselves in person or by their deputies with many Metropolitanes and Byshops of Greece of Asia of Iberia and other countries of the East Whose creditt and consent how vntruely Bellarmin preteÌ„deth for the proofe of his false assertion it is plaine by that hee saith the Councell of FloreÌ„ce did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians A chapter which is fathered in deed vpoÌ„ the Councell by the schisimaticall Pope Eugenius the fovorth the deviser of it but fathered vniustly and calmuniously as the time argueth wherein it was begotteÌ„ For it is recorded in the same decree that it was made the two and twentieth of November in the yeare of Christ a thousand foure hundred thirtie nine Now the Councell ended in Iuly the same yeare foure moneths before As both it self witnesseth Popish stories notâ— Wherefore the Councell could not be the father of that decree and chapter no more then a man can be of that childe whiâ—h is borne foureteÌ„ moneths after his death And the Pope whose bastard in truth the brat is by the acknowlegment and record of Papists themselves in the Tomes of Councells was so much the more to blame to father it vpon the Councell of Florence the great generall councell and date it in a publique solemne session thereof Because neither was it debated in the Councell whether marriage after divorcement for adulterie were lawfull or no and the Easterne byshops mainteyned it to be lawfull when the Pope after the end of the Councell did reprove them for it neither is it likely the contrarie was decreed by all there present of the west Chiefly seing that more theÌ„ half of them were gone when both partes the East West subscribed to the decrees of the Councell in the letters of agreement as appeareth by conferring their number with their names the note thereof Yea the Councell being ended the sixth of Iulie had their subscriptions added vnto it the one twentith Then if of seveÌ„ score or perhaps vpward scarse threescore were remayning at Florence foureteene dayes after the Councell ended What may we thinke there were above foure moneths after But how many soever were present of the West as the Pope can quickly muster an hundred Byshops or more if neede be out of Italie alone to carry away things in Councell by multitude of voices such pollicie hath he vsed for that but how many soever Italians he banded to countenance his decree the Byshops of the East agreed not thereto neither was it the Councells act Thus all the Fathers of the Eastern churches whom Bellarmin alleadgeth and may vrge with creditt their doctrine touching marriage doe not onely not say with him but gainsay him Wherein their have so many others followe them from age to age till our time that it is apparant they allowe with greater consent a maÌ„s marriage after divorcement for adulterie then Fathers of the western churches disallow it For Eusebius treating of Iustine the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that hee had done the storie of the Christian woman who divorced her self froÌ„ her adulterous husband And S. Basils canons approved by generall Councels doe not onely authorize the maÌ„ to marrie another whose wife is an adulteresse but also check the custome which yeelded not like favour in like case to the woman And Epiphanius saith his words are read corruptly but the sense thâ—reof is plaine of our side as Covarruvias graunteth Epiphanius therefore saith that SeperatioÌ„ being made for whoredo a maÌ„ may take a secoÌ„d wife or a woman a second husband And the same avoucheth Theodoret in effect affirming that Christ hath sett downe one cause whereby the band of Marriage should be dissolved and wholy rent a sunder in that hee did except whordom And a generall Councell wherein there were above two hundred and twentie byshops of the East gathered together doth imply as much in saying that Hee who his wife 2 having kept the lawe of wedlocke and being faithfull to him yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentence guiltie of adulterie So doth Oecumenius in applying the precept of abiding vnmarried to such as should not have departed and in abridging ChrysostoÌ„s words after his manner whose scholar Bellarmin therefore tearmeth him So doth Euthymius Chrysostoms schollar too in â—harging that maÌ„ with adulterie who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordoÌ„ from her husbaÌ„d So doth Nicephoras in copying coÌ„mending that out of Eusebius which he had out of Iustin the Martyr To be short the Grecians which nam compriseth many nations of the East all whoÌ„ the Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe put the same doctrine receyved from their auncestours in practise even at this day allowing married folke not onely to sperate divorce theÌ„selves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others as Bellarmin confesseth Wherefore his opinioÌ„ hath not the consent of the Eastern byshops neither hath had it any age since Christ. Much lesse can he shewe the consent of the South the Aethiopians Abessines or of the Moscovites Russes in the North both which as they receyved their faith froÌ„ the East so vse they like freedome libertie for this matter No not in the west it self though he have many theÌ„ce agreeing with him yet hath hee the generall coÌ„sent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half if an exact count might be taken of them For besides Tertullian the Councell of Eliberis and to let passe Ambrose one Byshop of Rome or more alreadie shewed to have thought that a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe there are of the same minde Lactantius Chromatius Hilaric Pollentius the author of the Comentaries in Ambrose his name vpon S. Pauls epistles the first Councell of Arles the couÌ„cell of VaÌ„nes they who either were at or agreed to the sixth generall couÌ„cell the secoÌ„d time asseÌ„bled Pope Gregorie the third Pope Zacharie the councell of Wormes of Trybur of Mascon a councell alleaged by Gratian without name other learned men alleaged likewise by him Pope Alexander the third Celestin the 3 Zacharie and Paul byshops the one of Chrysopolis the other of Burgos Erasmus Cardinal Cajetan Archbyshop Catharinus Naclantus byshop of
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
there are who allowe the auncient opinyon as Caranza namely and f Genebrard and Surius with whose preface teÌ„ding to the proofe therof it is recommended published by papists in the two 5 perfitst and last editions of the Councels Wherefore whether anye of the West were present in person or by deputyes and subscribed to it which 9 Balsamon and Nilus learned Greeke Fathers avouch by olde records or whether it were celebrated by Eastern byshops onely as the second Generall Councell also was in the same City of Constantinople the consent of the west approving it for Generall averreth my sayings by a cloude of witnesses of the western Churches Pope Gregory the third followeth Hee graunteth that if a woman by reason of sicknesse wherewith shee were taken could not performe the duty of a wise to her husband her husband might put her away and marrie another More then by the doctrine of Christ hee had learned to graunt for any sicknes but so much the likelyer that he thought it should bee graunted for whoredom expressely mentioned by Christ. Wherevpon Ioverius a Sorbonist in a worke approved by Sorbonists matcheth his Canon with the like of Councels who gave the Innocent partie leave to marrie againe after divorcement while the other lived Neither doth Bellarmin denye the illation but the proposition which the poynt inferred is grounded vpon For the Doctors sayth hee meaÌ„ing the Canonists expound the Canon of such sicknesse as maketh a woman vnfitt for Marriage and so is an impediment disolving matrymonye contracted by shewing it was no true matrimonye But the Doctor of Doctors Gratian himself vnderstood it otherwise of sicknsse befalling to her who was an able wife And those his glosse writers vse most that exposition which Bellarmin would have vs recieve for authentick as the fittest salve yet rest they not vpon it And Antonius a great Canonist Archbyshop of FloreÌ„ce correcting p Gratians slipp of memorie for the persons concludeth with him for the matter And the flower of Lovan Tapper the Chauncelour of their viniversity approveth this of Antonius And the learned men who were over-seers of the last edition of the Councels doe witnesse by coÌ„trolling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not ' that Gregory meant of sickenesse happâ—ning vnto lawfull wives in their iudgement And the Pope himselfe as Bellarmin noteh els where declareth that hee tooke it to bee true matrymonie by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of ayde that is ought to maynteyne finde her as his wife still Wherfore if no Catholique byshop would imagin that a man may lawfully put away his sick wife and marrie another vnlesse hee thought the same much more to bee lawfull in an adulterous wife as wee are to presume then must the Papists by consequent acknowledg that the poynt in Question is prooved and allowed by Gregory the third A playner and directer allowance thereof appeareth in a Canon of his successor t Zacharie who wheÌ„ a certayne man had defiled himself incestiously with his wives sister graunted that his wife should be divorced from him and vnlesse shee were privie to that wicked act by counsayling or procuring it might marry in the Lord if shee could not conteine This so cleare a testimony of an auncient Pope authorizing the divorced woman to marrie Bellarmin would elude by saying that hee meant shee might marrie another after the former husbands death As who say the Pope inioyning the man and the whore for a punishment to stay and abyde without hope of mariage were likly to meaÌ„e by liberty of marriyng graunted the guyltlesse for a benefite that while the guilty lived who might overlive her shee should not marrye no more then hee Or as though there had bene neede for the Pope then to graunt it with exception If she will not conteine Let her marrie in the Lord. Whereby it seemeth that hee rather wished her to refrayne from marriage if shee might be induced thereto which hee had no cause to wish on this occasion after the mans death she being v then simply free and willed to marrie such might her age be But what doe I reason out of the circumstances in a thing so certayne and cleare of it self that although the great maisters whom Bellarmin alleaged before followed here have assayed to darken the light thereof by this mist yet Sixtus Senensis confesseth that Pope Zachary decreed that the women if shee would not conteine should marry another husband while the former lived It is true that Sixtus seeketh to helpe the matter another way somwhat by yoking the Pope with provinciall Councels who hee sayth allowed decreed it not by a generall and perpetuall ordinance but for a tyme to certaine nations that in such heynous crymes as incest onely But will the Papists stand to this doctrine that the Popes decrees bynde not al nations generally nor are perpetually to last TheÌ„ must they acknowledg which would touch the Papacie Popery verry neerely that the Popes supremacie is falsly pretended hee hath his certeyn limits as Metropolitanes have and some will reason also that the lawes of Popes were to last for a tyme vntil Luther rose but for a tyme onely there date is out now As for the cryme of incest wherevpon the Pope allowed the innocent partie to put away her husband and to marrie another that confirmeth rather the poynt in Question then disproveth it For hee had no warrant to allow this by but our Saviours doctrine forbidding such divorcement except it were for whoredom so that he might not have graunted it for incest vnlesse hee had thought it lawfull for adulterie Neither did hee consider the cryme but as comprised vnder adulterie too Whereof in a generall sense meant by the law incest is a kinde And therefore in speaking of her with whom the detestable act was committed hee tearmed her the Adulteresse not the incestious person Thus it is apparant that in this matter Pope Zacharie was no papist No more was the Councel of c Wormes which shewed their iudgment to the like effect to weet that a man who could prove his wife to have been of counsail with such as sought his death might put her away and marry another if hee would Presuming that belike which they might iustely as examples teach vs that shee was nought of her body with some of the conspiracie For els had the Councell expressely authorized the same that Christ condeÌ„neth if for any other cause then for adulterie they had allowed the man to marrie Therefore Covaruvias reckoneth vp this Councell among theÌ„ who held that a man having lawfully put away his wife for her whoredom might take another while shee lived Yet a certaine Spanish Frier named Raymund one of Pope Gregory the nynthes speciall State-men the compiler of
Martyr and in aworde all Lutherans and Calvinists as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name vs poore Nazarens agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adulterie Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wounde hee might geve his cause by graunting that Erasmus Caietan Catharinus three so learned men and two of thē such pillars of the Romish Church a Cardinall an Arch byshop agree in this poynt with Lutherans Caluinicts he addeth that those three differ much frō these hertiques meāing By heretiques the Nazarens I spake of whose ring-leader was Paul in as much as they submitt thēselves expressely to the churches iudgement And because the church saith he hath now opened her minde most evidently as appeareth by the Coūcel of Trēt the 24. sessiō the 7 Canō where all who thinke the band of marriage maye be loosed for any cause are acursed therefore it seemeth that those three also chiefly the two later must be thought no otherwise minded in this matter thē all the rest of the Catho-Divines are have bene with great agreemēt cōsent which dispute of Bellar. if it have sufficiēt groūd strength of reasō Erasmus must be coūted a catholique in al things For in al his writings he submitteth himself to the churches iudgemēt Thē why doth Bell. cal him a demie Christiā enrol his nāe amōg sectaries hertiques what are the Fathers of the Coūcel of Trēt Demie-christiās sectaries heretiques thy are by Bellar. logique of one minde with Erasmus Moreover S. Austin the ciefeft mā of Bellar. side in this questiō must be coūted ours by the same logique For he taught expressely that himself yea any byshop evē S Cipriā yea provincial Coūc. too should yeeld to the authority of a general Coū And the 6 general Coū graūted liberty of mariage after divorcmēt as hath bene declared wherfore if Caietā must be thought no otherwise mynded then Papists are because that church whose iudgmēt he did submitt himself to defined so at Trēt a good while after his death S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded thē we are because our assertiō was cōfirmed likewise by a General Coūcell whereto hee would have yeelded Chiefly sith of liklyhood hee would have more easily yeelded therūto thē Caietan to his churches because Caietā sheweth hee was stiffe in holding fast his owne opiniō whē for feare of Church-mē he durst not say all that he thought in this very point though submitt̄ig hīself to the See of Rome as wel as to the church he eludeth decrees of popes that make against him so resolute he was in it Sr. Austin cōtrariwise vsed very modestly willingly to retract things that he had writtē evē whē he lighted on ought in an heretike that seemed better truer this point he thought so darke in the Scripturs hard to be discerned that his opiniō was not hard to be removed if he had seē strōger reason broght against it or greater authority Now if S. Anstin come over to our side by that quirck of Bellar. ◠a band of Bellar. wittnesses is like to come with him namly the coūcel of Melevis Affrique which he was presēt at swaied much with perhaps Primasius also were he Austins scholar Bede with a nūber of Canōists and schoolemē who folowed most S. Austin But Bellarmin will never resigne all these vnto vs to gaine the other three frō vs. For as our Bee-hive saith Men live not by losses He must suffer therefore Erasmus Caietan Catharinus specially who beside the place that Bellar. hath quoted doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely thereof more throughly exactly then Erasmus or Caietan Bellarmin I say must suffer them to be counted of that minde which they were of while thēselves lived not cavill as if they were of that which peradventure they would have bene had they not died before the Councell of Trēt taught so Vnlesse he thinke which he may by as good reasō that whereas they were deceased above x. yeares yer the C. Trent made that new canon wee ought to count them alive all that while because they did submitt them-selves to Physitiās and would have lived perhaps till then had arte bene able to cure disseases How much more agreablye to singelnes truth doe Sixtus Covarruvias and Domenicus Soto acknowledge the two former touching Catharinus the last for Erasmus all concerning Caietan that in this question of marriage agayne after divorcement for adulterie their doctrine is the same with those auncient Fathers whom our yonger teachers of the reformed Churches follow And thus if I should ēter into the comparison of Divines on both sides first for the number it is more then likely that wee prevayle much For all whom Bellarmim and the Pamphletter after him doe muster out of the west I meane whō they claime iustly not who either say against them as Tertullian or not with them as Scotus all therefore whom they muster so out of the West are Ierom the Coūcels of Milevis and Afrique Innocentius the first Austin Primasius Isiodore Bede the Councel of Friouli and Nantes Anselme Pope Alexander the third Innocentius the third Thomas Bonaventure Durand and other Schole-men Pope Eugenius with his Florentines the Councel of Trent which though Gratian Lombard and whomsoever he might bill were added to them yet ours out of the west alone pehaps would match them What if the North the South whence Bellarmin hath none what if the East whence hee hath two or three at the most for hunderds of ours bee ioyned therevnto Then for Qualitie Came the worde of God out from you saith Paule to the Corinthians or Came it to you onely Meaning that they ought to reverence the iudgemēt of other Christian Churches being more then they were but of those chiefly and first as hee placeth them from whō the Gospell came first Now the Gospell came first out of the East whose cōsent wee have in a manner generally and as wee have the first in Countrie so in tyme the auncientest eldest our two firste Councels in Spayne and in Fraunce elder an hundred yeares then their two in Africque our next farre elder yet then their next and so vnto the last yea for several Fathers aunciēt on both sides ther are more with vs in the foure or five or sixe for-formost ages then there are with them Of soundnes in docttrine of learning of vertue of constancie of consent it is hard to speake by way of comparison whether excelleth other Saving that for gentelnes and meekenes a speciall ornamēt of Byshops weigh both partes together and ours surpasse our adversaries Amongst whom the Councell of Trent accurseth all such as
say that that they doe erre in this poynt into which outrage none of ours hath broken against the contrarie minded As for other graces of the holy Ghost though Bellarmin have noted sundrie spotts and blemishes wherby some of ours are touched in credit and their authority is impeached let him cast his eies vpon his owne witnesse's without partiallitie and hee shall finde that wee have a Rowland for his Oliver For where hee telleth vs that Ambrose did erre in yeelding greater freedoÌ„ to men then to women Luther and Bucer in graunting second marriage after divorcement for moe causes then whoredome Pope Gregory the same for sicknes Cellestin the same for heresie wee tell him againe that Clemens Alexandrinusâ— Athenagoras Origen if hee bee out of theirs Ierom and Bede did likewise erre in speaking against all second marriages and Clemens with Origen insundrie weightie poynts of fayth Where hee telleth vs that Lactantius fell into a number of errours as being more skilfull in Tullie then in the scriptures wee tell him againe that some of the Scholemen were though not more skilfull in Tullie then in the scriptures yet as vnskilfull in the scriptures as in Tullie and there graund-maister the Maister of the sentences is charged by themselves with above a score of errours Where hee telleth vs that Luther varieth from himselfe Melancton agreeth not with him nor Kemnitius with either of them because Luther alowed divorcement for moe causes afterward then at the first and Melancton thinketh that both the divorced parties are free to marrie KeÌ„nitius that the InocÌ„et onely wee tell him againe that neither doth Pope Innocentius the third agree with Pope Alexander nor Alexander with himself nor neither of them with Athenagoras seing Athenagoras coÌ„demneth second marriage which the Popes allowe thoughâ— Alexander punished one who blessed it o Innocentius checketh a decree of Alexander that deprived the Innocent partie of his right because the offendour had sinned thus or thus Alexander whether in this decree I knowe not for it is razed out of the Decretals but in other extant overthwarteth himself as his words aleaged on both parties for Bellarmin for vs doe testefie So Bellarmins obiections of humaine infirmities and wants notwithstanding they which are of our side excel in estimation those which are of his for diverse circumstaunces and respects And the most important respect of all others the ground wherevpon ours doe buyld their doctrine is the plaine evidence expresse testimony of our Saviour Christ excepting whoredoÌ„ namely out of the causes for which he denieth a man may put away his wife marrie another Contrariewise the ground that our adversaries buyld on is their owne coÌ„ceit not able to stand without violent wresting suppressing or corrupting of Christs exception the proofe whereof is seene in three the most peremtorie men for this matter and best accounted of among them Innocentius the first the third Thomas of Aquin. Thomas in that he answereth that Christs exception pertaineth to the putting away of the wife not to the marring of another also Innocentius the first in that he omitteth the exception quite citeth Christs words thus whoso putteth away his wife for whoredom marrith another doth commit adulterie Innocentius the third in that he depraveth altereth the exception affirming that Christ saith whosoever putteth away his wife for whordom marrieth another doth commit adulterie whosoever putieth awaye his wife for whoredom A notable corruption by scraping out of the sentence the exceptive particle having the force of a negative to change for this point into an affirmative so easily to be corrupted by the text of the Scripture it self that I doubted whether it were not the Printers or bookewriters errour vntyll I perceived that all the printed copies which I could gett the sight of did agree therein even the newe one too of Gregorye the thirtenth conferred with all the written copies in the Popes liberarie beside many other corrected by them But of such buyldings such must be the groundworkes or equall vnto such in force An vntruth will never cleave vnto the truth by other kinde of morter in probabillity therefore it is to bee presumed that not onely the greater parte of the fathers but the better also and they whose groundes are surer doe maintayne our doctrine So the weapon which Bellarmin draweth out of their sheath against vs doth bend backe and turne the poynt against himself and the wound it may geve it can not pearce so deepe as that which is sharper then aâ—y two edged sworde but the wound it may geve it geveth to his owne cause Howbeit if any shall conceive otherwise hereof for the number quality of the witnesses as some peradventure will may by reason of broken coniectures which the variety of circumstances yeel deth yet no man will I trust sure no man of modestye and sense can denie but the mayne and principall poynt I hadd to shewe namely that the Fathers consent not â—ll in one for the Papists doctrine is shewed to their shaÌ„e whose face coÌ„scieÌ„ce served theÌ„ to avouch the coÌ„trary Wherfore sith our adversaries doe grauÌ„t that the Fathers have not streÌ„gth enough to prove a point in questioÌ„ vnlesse they all coÌ„sent about it Bellar. with his PaÌ„phletter must coÌ„sequeÌ„tly grauÌ„t that their cursing TreÌ„t assertioÌ„ in this point cannot be proved by Fathers And so the secoÌ„d staffe which they have framed theÌ„selves to leane vpoÌ„ is like to that brokeÌ„ staff of reed Egipt whervpoÌ„ saith the scripture if a man leane it wil goe into his hand pearce it THE FOVRTH CHAPTER The Conceits of Reason vrged last aganst vs are oversights proceeding from darknes not from light and Reason it selfe dispelling the Mist of Popish probabilities geveth cleare Testimony with the truth of Christ. THe third and last obiection wherevppon the Iâ—suit and his schollar stand is conceit of reason devided into five braunches as it were or Riverets issuing froÌ„ one spring The water whereof how vnlike it is to the water of Siloah savoring of that puddle of which the RomaÌ„ Deputie Gallo did draw when having vndertaken to doe according to reason he spake prophanely of Religion suffered one to bee wroÌ„gfully vexed for regarding it as if to doe Iustice in that case were against reason I leave it to bee iudged and considered by them who saye that our reason is naturally darke and leadeth her wise men into sottish follies neither can discerne the things which are of God till it bee lightened by his spirit For although the Papists have some glimse of light see more then the HeatheÌ„s as the Pharises did whose wordes I am afraied they will vse likewise are wee also blinde yet as the Pharises were overseene fowlly in many of their