scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as g Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circuâ—stances and matter of the text sheweth to bee waÌ„ting but what himself listeth to frame such sense ther of 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 inconvenience of that kinde of dealing For h the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wifs 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 Freiâ—r Alphonsus i checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braun hâ—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 Whoso 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 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 buâ— for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if hee marrie another much more if hee marrie having put away his wife for any other cause And so is Christs speach in effect made cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe give he saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it befor whoredom and the Frier â—orceing him to say Whosoe ver shall put a away his wife although it be for whoredom and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie k Nicolas of Lira beeing as in time more auncient then the frier soe more sincere and single in handeling the scripture saith that other words must be interposed to the supplying of it thus Whosever putteth away his wife except it be forâ—whordom sinneth and doth agaiast the lawe of marriage and whoso marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherein though he deale lesse vyolently with the text then doe the frier and the Bishop yet he offendeth also in their licentious humour of adding to the scripture where nothing was wanting making it ther by to speake that which he thinketh wheras he should have learned to thinke that which it speaketh Yea Bell himselfe acknowledgeth that they all were overseene herein albeeit censuring them with gentler words as he is wont his favorits and freinds For the explications saith he which the Bishop of Auila Alphonsus a Castro and others have devised are not so probable But why should these be noted by him as improbable yea denyed unworthy the rehersal and that of his owne though adding in the like sorte which is not lawful be allowed as probable yea magnified as most true by the pamphletter The reason which they both or rather which Bell for the pamphletter doth no more here but Englishe him as neither els where for the most parte though he bragg not thereof the reasons then which Bell. doth presse out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous schollars that this interposition is probable likely are pressed indeed according to the proverb The wringing of the nose causeth bloode to com out For he saith that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shal marry another but streight after those whosoever shall put away and likewise when he added l and whosâ— marrieth her that is put away committeth aâ—â—lterie he did not ioyne thereto Except it be for whoredom to the intent that be might shewe that the cause of whoredom doth onely make the putting away to be lawfull not the celebrating of a newe marriage too And how doth he prove that Christ did so place the exception in the former clause to this intent or to this intent did omit it in the latter Nay he proveth it not it is but his coÌ„iecture like a sicke 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 he meant it should it was for want of a better For Christ did not these things without cause I graunt Therefore he did them for this cause it foloweth not S. Paule having occasion to cite a place of scriptuere doth set it downe thus Com yee out from among theÌ„ m seperate your selves saith the Lorde and touch no unclean thing Herein he hath placed the wordes saith the Lord not after touch noe unclean thing but after seperate your selves This did he not without cause What for this cause therefore that he might restraine the words saith the Lord to the former braunch as not pertaining to the latter also No for it appeareth by the n prophet Esay that they belong to both It is to be thought then that the spirit of God who doth nothing without cause did move Paule for some cause to place them soe Perhaps for perspicuitye comodiousnesse of giving other men therby to understaude the rather that both the wordes goeing before coÌ„ming after were quallified with saith the Lord which is to be likewise thought of the exceptioÌ„ placed by our Saviour betweeÌ„ the two braunches of his speech And that with so much greater reason in my iudgment because if he had placed it after the later And shall marry another the words 3 except for whoredom might have seemed to signifiie that it were lawful for a man having put away his wife for any cause to marrie another â— if hee could not conteine as it is writteÌ„ 4 Because of whoredom let everie man have his wife where now the exception being set before the pharises whose question Christ therein did answer could gather no such poysoÌ„ out of his words to feed their error but they must needs accknowledg this to be his doctrine that a man may not put away his wife for every cause marrie another but for whoredom onely As for Christs omitting of the exceptioÌ„ afterwrd Bell himselfe wil quickly see there might be another cause thereof if he considder how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omitt the exception which neverthelesse must needs be supplyed understoode For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons O the Lordâ— gave coÌ„mandement Let not the wife departe from her husband let not the husband put awaie his wife without adding to either parte except it be for woredom which the Lord did add Bell. greatest p Doctor saith hee omitted it Because it was very well knowen most notorius If then Paul had reason to
false Those he draweth to there heads wherof the first hath two braunches one that S. Pauls words are plaine the other that they are ofte repeated For what is more plaine saith he then that if while the man liveth the woman take another man she is called an adulteresse and that g the Woman is bouud by the lawe as longe as her husband liveth Plaine I denie not But this proofe how pithy stronge soever he thought to sett it in his fore-front is already shewed to be no proofe at all sith there are plaine words in like sentences which neverthelesse must be expounded as these are by us For what more plaine then that Who planteth a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof and that Who feadeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke and that No man ever hated his owne flesh but nourisheth cherisheth it and that Noe Warfarring maÌ„ entangleth himself with the affaiers of life and many other such that might be alleaged if in a thing so cleare it weare not superfluous Naye in these sentences the woordes are more playne then in those wee speake of beecause those have noe shuche marke of generality expressed in them as these have Wherefore if soe greate playnnesse of woordes signede with generall tokens as it were importing that they are true in all yet coÌ„vinceth nor that they are meant of all without any exception fully and vniversally how can a lesser playnnesse wanting such efficacie convince the same of those in question Or if it should elswhere by reason of some difference which might supplie by other weight that this waÌ„teth Yet here it cannot possibly because S. m Paule himself as I have declared sheweth that in one case the sayings could not so bee true Morâ—over the n Papists hold that if a married man become a moncke before hee know his wife carnally she may lawfully take anot her husband while he liveth Perphaps further also that the Pope for any very weighty cause maye vpon the same circumstance dispence and loose the band of Marriage At least o themselves tell vs that sundry Popes have done so and p their great Doctors hould wee may Yet is the woman his wife who hath wedded her or espoused her onely though shee hath not entred into his bed hamber For she that is betrothed is accounted a wise by the law q of God coÌ„sent not carnall company maketh Marriage as the civill r Lawiers s Fathers Popes doe reach The Papists then of all man may worst on force the playnesse of S. Panls words agaynst our exposition theÌ„-selves condescending in cases more then wee doe that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth and bee noe adulteresse Where by agayne appeareth how wisely and discreetly the Iesuit Triumpheth with t Austins words These words of the Apostle so oftentymes repeated so ofteÌ„tymes 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 she have ceased to be of the former and shee shall cease to be 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 in sommuch that hee becometh gulty of adulterie who marrieth her thatis put away even for monkery And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were for which so x many Popes have loosed the bande of Marriage thy are all controlled by the sawe censure The woman begâ—nneth not to be the wife of any later husband vnlesse she have ceased th be of the former and shee shall cease to be of the former if her husband die not if a better match be offered or some mislyke be conceived or the Pope dispence and be well freed from it Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the compasse of Aestins reproofe by construiÌ„ng his words so without exception beecause they are true quick founde and plaine For againste his doctrine touching a Susters liberty to marry if she hâ— forsaken of her unbelieving husband the force of S. Austins consequence would inferre in like sorte The woman begineth not to be the wife of any later husband unlesse shee have ceased to be of the former if her husband die not if hee forsake her The Ieâ—uit who useth so often to repeate so often to in culcate the testimonies of the Fathers should dealeper adventure more considerately more charitably out of doubt if before he cite them he weighed their words better whether they may stande with the truth of Scripture with his owne doctrine For y Cham discovered the nakednes of Noah so doth he their blemishes he who alleageth them not wee whom hee enforceth to shew why wâ—ee dissent toÌ„ theÌ„ least our Savious sentence be expounded against us z He that leveth Father or Mother better then me is not worthy of mee But the Iesuits meaning you will say was not to discredit them by laying a necessitie on us to refute them what was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scripturs with the truth whereof their sayings do not stand For I trust he meant not to overthrowe the poynts of his owne doctrine which their sayings crosse unlesse he be of that minde which Tully coÌ„demneth as barbarous sauage expressed in an heathnish verse LET OVR FRIENDS FALL SOE OVR FOES DIE WITHALL Howsoever it be it is plaine that the plaines of S. Pauls words neither doth proove the sence therof to be simply absolutely general the Scripture noteing an exception neither cann be saide by Papists to proove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture addeth more thereto Thus one braunch of Bell firste principall reason being cutt off the other and the rest of his reasons also are cutt off with the same labour and instrument For whereas he saith Certes it were maavell that the Apostel should never add the exceptin of wheredom if it Were to bee added seing he repeated inculcated these things so often Certes wee maye say as wel of thos exceptions which himselfe approveth that it were marvel the Apostel should never add them if they were to be added Though what marvel is it S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredome in all those two places which he
prooved by tradition By which his owne speech if we should take advantage of it he graunteth all that I have saide â—gainste his argumentes drawen-out of the Scripture and so farre forth agreeth with us For what understandeth he by the word traditionâ— â— Doctrine not written as him selfe professeth in his first controversie Where having noted that al though the word tradition bee generall signifieth any doctrine written or vnwritten which one imparreth to another yet divines and almost all the auncient fathers applie it to signifie vnwritten doctrine onely And soe will wee hereafter vse this word saith hee If the point in quistion then may be proved as Bellarmin affirmeth it may by tradition We might conâ—lude it is not written in the scriptures by his owne verdict therefore all the scriptures alleaged by him for it are alleaged falsly But hee semeth to vse the name of tradition in like sort as b Vincentius Lirmensis doth calling the doctrine de livered by the church the Churches tradition This to bee his meaning I gathâ—r by the reason that hee addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it The Pamphleâ—ter in other words but more peremptorily to avouch the proofe thereof by the opiâ—ion censure of all ages affirmeth he will shewe that it was never thought lawfull since Christ for Christiaas divorced for â—ornication to mrrry anie other while both man wife lived That it was never thought lawfull since Christ is a boulder speeche them Bellarmin doth vse though to hitt the marke as it were with his shaft hee must and doth imply as much in that hee saith it may be proved by traditioâ— For tradition hath not forâ—e enough to prove a thing to be true not in the Papists owne iudgment vnles it have bene alwaies approved and agreed on by the generall consent of Fathers as we tearme them Pastors and Doctors of the Church Which I affirne not vpon the generall rule of c Vincentius onelie so greatly and so often praised by them as golden But upon the Canon of the Trent Couâ—cel and pillars of the popish Church subscribing to it For the Councel of Trent commanding that noe man shal expound the Scripture against the sence that the Church houldeth or against the Fathers consenting al in one doth covertly grannt that if the Fathers consent not all in one their opinion may bee false and coÌ„sequently no sure proofe of a pyont inquestion Andradius e doth open avouch the same in his defence of the Councel a worke verye highly commended by f Oserius And Canus sâ—tteth downe for a conclusion that many of them consenting in on can yeld noe firme proofe if the rest though fewer in numbre doe dissent Yea h Bellarmin himselfe saith that there can no certainty be gathered out of their sayings when they agrie not amonge themselves It is a thing graunted theÌ„ by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to proue ought unlesse they al consent in one But the Fathers doe not censent in one about the poynt we treat of as it shal be shewed Our adversaries therfor must graunt that the opinion which they hould in this poynt cannot be proovede by Fathars Nay they are in daunger of beeinge enforcede to graunt a farther matter and more importing them by the conseqeÌ„t hereof For through a decree of Pope Pius the fourth the professors of all faculties all that take degrees in any popish schole are bound by solemne oth that they shall never expound take the Scripture but according to the Fathers cousenting all in on Wherfore how will Bell. perhaps the pamphletter also if he have been amongst them and taken any degree but what shift will Bell. and his Puefellows finde to save theÌ„selves from periury when it shall be shewed that many of the Fathers gaiusay that opinioÌ„ which himselfe and his expound the Scriptue for And what if it appear that the greater number of Fathers doe so not the greater onely but the better also and those whose grounds are sure Then all the probability which Fathers can yealde will turne againste the papists and that which our adversaries would proove by Tradition and the consent of all ages wil rather be disproved thereby But howsoever men be diversly persuaded touching the number qualety of the Fathers enclining this or that way by meanes of sundry circuÌ„stance which may breade doupâ— both perticularly of certaine and of the whole summe in generall the maine and principalâ— poynt remaining to be shewed namelly that the Fathers consent not allin one for the papists doctrine is most cleare and evident out of all controversie In soe much that many even of them also whom Bell. aleageth and the pamphletter after him as making for it make indeed against it and those of the chiefest and formast ranckes especially in the first the second the third the fourth hundred yeares after Cheist All the which agree teach with one conseÌ„t that the man forsaking his wife for her adultery is free to marry again save such of them onely as in this verry poynt of doctrine touching marriage are tainted with error by the iudgement and censure of Papists themselves A token of the vanetie folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphletter who by naming one at least in everie age would needs make a shewe of having the cousent 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 Canons of the Apostles k where the man is willed without any exception to bee excommunicated who having put away his wife doth marrie another Nou beside that Clemens vpon whom Bellarmin fathrreth those canons is inriured therein As for the later parte of them l himself sheweth m his friend for the former neither are they of Apostelique antiquitie and authoritie notwithstanding theyr title as n many Fathers estifie and Papists will acknowledge when they are touched by them The author of the Canon had respect therein by all probabilitie to the Apostolique doctrine receyved from Christ and therefore though he made not an expresse exception of divorce for whoredome might as well imply it as I have declared that some of the Euangelists and S. Paule did Which the interpreters also of those Canons p Zonarus and Balsamon thought to bee so likely and more then a coniecture that they expound it so without any sâ—mple Balsamon in saying that hee 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 commit adulterie Or if these writters mistooke the aâ—thours meaning and in his opinion no man howsoever his
wife were put away with out or with cause might lawfully marrie another theÌ„ take this with all that q hee skarse allowed any second marriage but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance and condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom Which although r a Iesuit goe about to cover salve with gentle gloses like s the false prophets Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavoru plaâ—ster yet sith that counterâ—â—it Clemens woorke did flowe out of the fountanies of the Gretians as a t great historian of Rome hath truelie noted and among the Gretians many held that errour as it is likewise shewed by a great Sorbonist the likelyhood of the matter spring whence it procedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall proper signification of the words will not per mitt their blacknes to take any other hewe nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement to be cleared from plaine contradiction to the word of God Wherefore the onely witnesse that Bellermin produceth out of the first hundred yeares doth not helpe him Out of the second hundred he produceth three Iustinus Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus x The first of whom Iustinus praising the compendious briefnes of Christes speeches rehearseth this amongst them Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband doth commit adulterie Meaning not as Bellar but as Christ did who excepting whoredome in the z former braunche of that sentence vnderstoode it likewise in this as I have shewed And how may wee know that Iustinus meant soe By his owne words in thet a hee commendeth a godly Christian woman who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of divorcement b such as did loose that band of matrimony and saith concerning him that hee was not her husband afterward The next c Athenagoras affirmeth I graunt that if any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie aâ—other he is an adulterer But Bellarmâ—n must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too as well as by divorcement teacheth with the d Montanists that whatsoerer second marriage is vnlawfull WherevpoÌ„ a famous Parisian Divine e Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian may wel be thought to have ben inserted into his worke by Eucratites A censure for the ground thereof very true that the said opinion is a Philosophicall fansie yea an heresie Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagoras his owne as sundrie farhers speak dangerously that way theÌ„ thrust in by Encratites g who generally riected all marriage not second marriage onelie Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause As much doth the last of his witnesses h Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage hee marcheth Athenagoras otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundnes i and stained with spott of errour Which iudgment not onely k Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately geven of him though a l Iesuitical spirit doe tradnâ—e theÌ„ insolently for it But m an auncient Pope of Rome with seaventie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skillâ— both in divinitie and in the Canon law n Didacus Covarrâ—vias doth approve the same Now in the third hundred yeares to goe forward Tertullian Oregen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion of whom one question lesse coÌ„trolleth perhaps both For o TertulliaÌ„ disputing against the heretique Marcion who falfely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses because Moses graunted divorcement Christ forbiddeth it answereth that Christ saying whoesoever sholl put away his wife and marrie another committeth adulterie meaneth 5 vndoubtedly of puâ—â—ing away for that cause for which is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another And likewise for the wife that he is an adulterer who marrieth her being put away 6 if shee bee put away vnlawfully considering that the marriage which is not rightly broken off continueth end while the marriage doth continue it is adultarie to marrie Which words of Tertullians manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully for the cause excepted by Christ may marrie another Bellarmin doth very cunningly and finely cut of with an et cetera and saith that there he reacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement if ther be aiust cause but forbâ—d to marrya gnine after divorcement So directly against the most evident light of the woordes tenour of the whole discourse that lerned men of theire owne side though houlding his opinyon yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it For p bishop Covarruvias mentioning the Fathers who maintein that men may lawfully marry againe after diuorcement for adultery nameth Tertullian quoting this place among them q Siictus Senensis a man not in fâ—riour in learning to Bellarmin in sencere dealing for this point superiour confesseth on the same place aâ—d on those same words but recited wholy not clipped with an et cetera that Tertullian maketh a certayne vndoubted assertion thereof r Pamelius indeede through a desire of propping vp his chruches doctrine with Tertullians credit saith that though hâ—e seem hereto allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort as that the husband may marrie another wife yet hee openeth himself holdeth it to vnlawfull in his booke * of single marriage Wherein he saith some what but litle to his advauntage For Tertullian wrote this booke of single mariage when he was falleÌ„ away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus and so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie that is vnlawfull to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death But in that hee wrote while hee was a Catholique against the heretique Marcion he teacheth coÌ„trariwise the same that wee doe as Sixtus Senensis and Covaâ—ruvias truely graunt Yea Pamelius himself if he looke better to his owne notes doth graunt as much For t he saith that Tertullian vseth the worde divorcement in his proper signification for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife marrieth another But Tertullian saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement 7 Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife marrie another by Tertullians iudgment Which also may be probably thought concerning Orige Although it be true hee saith as Bellermin citeth him that certaine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived and addeth they did it agaynst the scriptuâ—re For hee seemeth to speake of a
woman divorâ—ed from her husband not for adulterie but for some other cause such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for by giving them a bill of divorcement The matter that he handleth and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to his meaning Approved by the opinion of certaine learned meÌ„ to For after he had said according to x the words of Christ which he expouÌ„deth that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemeÌ„t did yeeld vnto the wakenes of theÌ„ to whom the law was geveÌ„ he saith that the Christian byshops who permitteth a womaÌ„ to marrie while her former husband liveth did it perhaps for such weaknes wherfor sith in saying that this which they did they did perhaps for such weaknes he hath relatioÌ„ vnto that of Moses Moses as he addeth didnot grauÌ„t the bill of divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshop whom OrigeÌ„ chargeth with doing against the scriptuere did permitt the womaÌ„ to marrie vpoÌ„ divorcemeÌ„t for some other cause not for adulterie so his reproving of theÌ„ doth not touche vs who grauÌ„t for adulterie only Thus doth y Erasmus thinke that OrigeÌ„ meant coÌ„cluding it farther as cleare by similitude which z he had vsed before of Christ who put away the Synagoge his former wife as it were because of her adulterie married the church Yea a Tapper likewise a great divine of LovaÌ„ of better credit with Papists theÌ„Erasmus saith that the divorcemeÌ„t permitted by those Byshops whoÌ„ OrigeÌ„ controuleth was a Iewish divorcement Wherein though he aymed at another marke to prove an vntruth yet vnwares he hit a truth more theÌ„ he thought of strengthened that by OrigeÌ„ which he thought to overthrowe Howbeit if Bell or Bell Inther preter can persuade by other likelyhoods out of OrigeÌ„ as he is somewhat darke and 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 divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie our cause shal be more advantaged by those sundrie Bishops who approved it theÌ„ disadvaÌ„taged by on OrigeÌ„ who reproved for it Chiefly seing OrigeÌ„ impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith for which a b general Councel with c Bell. allowaÌ„ce couÌ„t him damned heretique a in this matter by d excluding al such as are twise married out of the KingdoÌ„ of heaveÌ„ which e divines of Paris observe check him for Wheras those Byshops of whoÌ„ he maketh meÌ„tioÌ„ were neither stayned otherwise for ought that may begathred nor herein did they more theÌ„ the right believing Catholique church all that time thought lawfull to be don as appeareth by TertulliaÌ„ Iustine the Martyr In the which respect f Peter Soto a freir of great account in the Trent Councell having said that it is playne by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtfull in the auncient church alleageth this for proofe thereof out of Origen that many Bishops permitteth married men to marrâ— againe after divorcement Thus if the two fathers whom Bellar. out of the third hundred yeares as making for him doe not make agaiÌ„st him which perhaps they doe both yet one of theÌ„ doth not out of all controversie byshops more in number in credit greater then the other agree with him therein Out of the fowrth huÌ„dred the shewe which Bell maketh is a great deal fayrer theÌ„ out of the third a nuÌ„ber of Fathers the couÌ„cel of Eliberisâ—â— Am S. IeroÌ„ a RomaÌ„ Byshop S. Chriso are affirmed theÌ„â—e to ioyne theÌ„selves with him But they are affirmed in the like manner as the former were skarse one of them avouching the same that hee doth the rest in part seeming to bee of other opinion in part most clearely shewing it and such as shewe not so much yet shewing their owne weakenes that in this matter their opinion iudgement is of small value For the formost of them g the Councell of Eliberis ordained that a woman which forsooke her husband because of his adulterie and would marie another should beforbidden to marrie if shee married shee should not receave the communion til he were dead whoÌ„ shee forsooke vnlesse necessitie of sicknes coÌ„stryned to gâ—ve it her Wheerein it is to be noted first that the coucell saith not 8 If anie man so to comprehend touche generallie all both men womeÌ„ but they speake peculiarlie of the womaÌ„ alone so doe not forbid the man te leave his adulterous wife marrie another Secondly that the womaÌ„ is excommunicated if wheÌ„ shee is forbiddeÌ„ by the church to marrie shee marrie neuerthelesse not if before she be â—orbiddeÌ„ As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self Thirdlie that shee is not debarred all her life time from the communion but for a season onely 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 Councels oversight who made the womaÌ„s case herein worse then the mans both being free alike by Gods lawe yet for the man 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 womaÌ„ this not for that they thought it vnlawfull but vnseemelie perhaps or vnexpedient as h 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 womaÌ„ also marryiÌ„g in such sort that her fact was warraÌ„table by the word of God For els had they not iudged her marriage with this latter maÌ„ to be lawfull they must needs 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 communion in case of daungerous sicknes seeing at the point of death i they denie it to womeÌ„ so continuing yea k to meÌ„ offendâ—ng lesse heynoufly then so With such extremitie of rigour therein that l Barâ—nius noteth their decrees as favouring of the Novation heresie m Bell. layeth it almost as deeply to their charge So farre from all likeliehood is it that they would admitt her in necessitie of sicknes to the communion had they bene persuaded shee lived in adulterie still Therefore it was not without cause that Bell did suppresse this circumstance to gether with the former in citing the decre of the Elibernie Councell least his false illation to weete that they accounted such marriage vnlawfull even for the innocent partie in the cause of adulterie should be descovered and controlled thereby Next is Ambrose brought in whom vpon the 16 chap. of Luke writeth much against them
that putting away their wife doe marrie another and he calleth that marriage adulterie in sundrie places neither doth he ever except the cause of whordoÌ„ in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too Certainely S. Ambrose speaketh 9 of such wiveÌ„s as lived without crime 1 whom their husbands were as hee addeth forbiddeÌ„ 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 divorcement for whoerdom And if it be sufficieÌ„t proofe that he supposed they might not marrie againe after they had put away a whorish wife because he never excepteth whoâ— doÌ„ in that wholediscourse of marrying againe theÌ„ by as sufficieÌ„t a reason hee supposed that â—2 they might not put awaye their wives at all no not for whordom because he never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife But that Papists will grâ—unt that a maÌ„ may lawfully put away his wife if shee committ whordom As Bellar. then will construe S. Ambrose in this braunch so let him in the former And if he say that S. Ambrose thinking vpon Luke alone whom he expounded or trusting his memorie forgot the exceptioÌ„ added by Christâ— Mathew for n putting away the wife the same slipp of memorie might loose the same exception for o marrying another If he thinke that Ambrose did not forget himself but vnderstoode the exceptioÌ„ in the former point as the p Apostle did though neither mention it expressely what reason why it might not as well be vnderstood in the later also As for S. Ierom no marveâ—l if he wrote against secoÌ„d marriage after divorcement for whordoÌ„ q who wrote against all second marriages in such sort that r Espenceus asketh what could have ben said more greivously against them by the impure 3 Catharists them is said by him And s Vives pronounceth that he did not only detest second marriages but also had small liking of the first nor did much favor matrimonie Beside that himself to as farre as 〈◊〉 exceded the boundes of Godly modestie truth her in even by thesâ—mens iudgments whom Papists doe repute learned Catholique allayeth correctâ—th in one of the places which Bell alleageth his peromptorie consure given 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 married another 4 was an adulteresse for so marrying her newe husband an adulterer In his epitaph of 〈◊〉 a noble godlyâ—g gentlewoman of Rome who did the like was poeniteÌ„t for it after her second husbaÌ„ds death he saith that she lamented bewaryled if soe as if shee had committed adulterie By which kinde of speech others sutable to it as that hee tearmeth her state after divorcement from her first husband Widdowhood addeth that shee lost 8 the honor of having hâ—â—d but on husband by marâ—ying the secoÌ„d saith shee thoughâ—â—â— better to vndergoe a certain shadow of pitifull wedlocke then to plaie the whore because it is better saith Paul to marrie theÌ„ 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 Bell. doctrine maketh it No more may it be iustly thought in the opinion of that Roman Byshop of whom because he put Fabiola to publique penance after her second husbands death Bell concludeth 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 meÌ„ at that time were put to some penance in the Catholique Church for marrying againe after their first wives death as Bell. observeth out of the Catholique t Councels adding therewith al that al though they knewe second marriage to be lawfull yet because it is a token of incontineÌ„cie they chastised it with somepenaÌ„ce Wherefor sith it might easilie be that they who laid some penanâ—e vpon no fault would lay publique penance vpon a smal fault specially in women to whoÌ„ in such cases they were more severe rigorous them to meÌ„ the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her secoÌ„d marriage doth not prove sufficiently that it was accounted then a publique crime in the Catholique church Howbeit if the tâ—arm of publique crime be vsed in a geÌ„tler seÌ„s theÌ„ coÌ„monly it is or the Bishop of Rome did never put aney but grivous offeÌ„ders sinners to publique penance yet perhaps even so to will Bellarmin come short of this conclusion 〈◊〉 For thereby saith he we doe not vnderstand that if any man while his wife yet lived marrie another yea albeit for whoredoÌ„ 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 need should that if womeÌ„ were not lisenced to marrie after divorcement for whordom men could not be neither Whereas he might be of the same opinioÌ„ that an auncien x Councell seemeth as I shewed to have bene before him an auncieÌ„t y Father living writing as z some thinke in Rome about the same time was I meane that this libertie freedoÌ„ should be graunted to men but not to womeÌ„ Moreover the delay of Faviolas penance in that she was not put thereto vntill a after her second husbands death yeledeth very strong probable coÌ„ecture that it had not bene before theÌ„ accouÌ„ted any crime at all in the Catholique church not for a womaÌ„ neither to put away her husbaÌ„d because of his adulterie to marrie another For that which Fabiola did she did opeÌ„ly Her self was religious godly wel instructed thought it to be lawfull Her husbaÌ„d by all lykelyhood of like minde iudgement the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question The Byshop did not execute any Church ceÌ„sure on theÌ„ Nay sith she was 4 yeat yong when they married and never harde of any fault therin coÌ„mitted as long as her husband lived it may be Rome had many bishops in that time none of whom saw cause why they should blaÌ„e her for it The exaÌ„ple of Fabiola therfor the RomaÌ„bs deling in it maketh more a great deale with us then against us if it be throughly waighed Now S. Chrisostom maketh absolutly with us howsoeoer Bell affirmeth that he teacheth the same with S. Ierom yea with b S. Ierom simply comending all such marriage For what doth S. Chrisostom teach in the sermoÌ„ that Bell quotetth upon Math Forsooth that by Moses law it was permitted that whosoever hated his wife for any cause might put her away marry another in her Roome But Christ left the
JUDGMENT OF THE Reformed Churches That a man may lawfully not only put away his Wife for her Adultery but also marry another LONDON Printed for Andrew Crook at the Green Dragon in Pauls Churchyard 1652. OF THE LAWFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVVFVL DIVORCE THE FIRST CHAPTER The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by schriptuere that a man having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another THe dutie of man and woman ioyned in marriage requireth that a they two should be as one person cleave each to other with mutuall love liking in society of life until it please God who hath coupeled them togâ—ther in this bond to set thâ—m free from it and to dissociate sever them by death But the inordinat fansies desires of our corrupt nature have so inveigeled Adams seede in manie places that men have accostomed to put awaie their wives vppon every trifling mislike discontentement yea Ieuwes supposed theÌ„selves to be warranted by Gods b lawe to doe it so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorcement This perverse opinion errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for any cause save whoredome onely For whosoever saith he shall put away his wife except it be for whoredom and shall marry another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her wich is put away doth coÌ„mit adulterie Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed more fully by by on of the c EuaÌ„gelists by d others more sparingly there hath a doubt arisen and diverse men even from the primative churches time have been of diverse mindes For many of the Fathers have gathered thereupon that if a mans wife coÌ„mitted whoredom fornication he might not onely put her a way but marrie another Some others and among them namely S. Austine have thought that the man might put away his wife but marrie another he might not the Scholedevins of later years the Canonists as for most parte they were al adicted to S. Austins iudgment did likewise follow him herein the Popes mainteining their doctrine for Catholique have possessed the Church of Rome with this opinion But since in our daies the light of good learning both for artes and tongues hath shyned more brightly by Gods most gratious goodnes then in the former ages and the holly scriptures by the helpe thereof have been the better understood the Pastors Doctors of the reformed churches have percieved shewed that if a mans wife defile her selfe with fornicatioÌ„ he may nor onely put her away by Christs doctrine but also marrie another Wherein that they teach agreeably to the truth and not erroneously as Iesuits Papists do falsly charge them I will make manifest prove through Gods assistance by expresse words of Christ the truth it selfe And because our adversaries doe weene that the coÌ„trarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguements obiections which two of their newest writers Bell. the Iesuit a namelesse author of an English panphlet have dilligenely laied together For the farther clearing therefore of the matter taking awaie of doubts scruples I will set downe al there obiectioÌ„s in order first out of the scriptures then of fathers last of reasons and answer everie one of them particularly So shall it appeaae to suh as are not blinded with a fore conceived opinion preiudice that whatsoever shew of prbabilities are brought to the contrarie yet the truth deliverd by our Saviour Christ allowetls him whose wife committeth sornication to put her away and to marrie another The proofe hoereof is evidnnt if the words of Christ be waied in the nienteuth Chapter af S Mat. gospel For when the Pharises asking him a question whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every catse received answer that it was not and thereupon saide unto him Why did Moses commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way Our Saviouer sayde unto them Moses suffered you because of the hardnes of your harte to put awaye e your wifes But from the beginning it was not so And I say vnto you that whosoever shal put away his wife except it bee for whoredom and shall marrie another doth comit adultery and who so marrieth her that is put awaie doth coÌ„mit adultery Now this in senteÌ„ce the clause of exception except it be for whoredom doth argue that he committeh not adulterie who having put away his wife for whoredom marrieth another But hee must needs commit it in doeing so unlesse the bande of marriage bee loosed and dissolved For who so marrieth another as long as he is f bound to the former g is an adulterer The band then of marriage is loosed dissolved betwene that man wife who are put assunder and divorced for whoredome And if the band beloosed the man may marry another seing it is written h Art thou loosed from a wife If thou marrie thou sinnest not Therefore it is lawfull for him who hath put away his wife for whoredome to marrie another i This argument doth firmly and necessarily conclude the point in question if the first parte and proposition of it be proved to be true For there is no controversie of any of the rest beinge all grounded on such vndoubted principles of scripture and reason that our adversaries themselves admit and graunt them all The first k they denie to weete that the clause of exception in Christs speech except it befor whordome doth argue that the maÌ„ commiteth not adulterie who having put awaie his wife for whoredome marrieth another And to overthrowe this proposition they doe bring soudry answers and evasions The best of all which as Bellarmin avoucheth is that those words except it be for whoredome are not an exception For Christ saith he ment those words 1 except for whoredome not as an exception but as a negation Soo that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife except for whoredome that is to saie 2 without the cause of whoredome shall marrie another doth coÌ„mit adulterie Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another but nothing is sayde touching him who marrieth another having put away his former wife for whoredome In deede this evasion might have some collour for it if these words of Christ except it be for Whoredome were not an exception But neither hath Bellarmin ought that may suffice for the proofe here of and the verie text of the scripture it selfe is soe cleare against him that he must of necessitie give over his houlde For the principal pillar wherewith he vnderproppeth it is l S. Austins iudgemeÌ„t who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marriages Now of that treatise S. m
wicked wretches of whom it is written s woe unto them that say that good is evil and evil good For the proofe where of it is to be noted that an exception is a particular proposition coÌ„tradictorie to a geneaall So that if the general proposition be affirmative the exception is negative and if the proposition be negative contrariewise the exception is affirmative As for exsamples sake t He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lorde shall be destroyed saith Moses in the lawe The proposition is affirmative He that sacrificeth to any Gods shal be destroyed The exception negative He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed u There is none good but one even God saith Christ in the Gospell The proposition is ngative There is none good The exception affirmative One is good even God x I would to God that all saith Paul to Agrippa which heare me this daye were altogether such as I am except these bonds The proposition affirmative I with that all that heare me were such as I am altogether The exception negatiue I wish not in bonds they were such as I am y No Church did coÌ„municate with me in the account of giving receiving saving you onely sayth the same paule to the Phillippians The Proposition negative No Church did coÌ„municate with me in the account of giving receiving The exception affirmative You of Phillippâ— did Likewise al the rest of expositions adioyned to general propositions though the markes and tokens of generallity sometimes lie hiddeÌ„ in the Proposition soe of denying or affirming doe in the exception Yet it is plaine certain that in the propositioÌ„ exceptioÌ„ matched with it are still of contrarie quallity the one affirmative if the other negative negative if the other affirmative Which being so see now the Iesuits dealing how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth and reason For sith in Christs speach toâ—hing Diuorcement for whoredome the proposition is affirmativeâ—Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrie an other doth commit adulterie it followeth that the exception which denyeth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whordome marieth another is an exception negative but Bellarmin saith that this were an exception affirmative Yea which is more straunge in a man learned and knowing rules of logique But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgemnt to their owne lusts and errors he entiteleth it an exception affirmative even then and in the same place when and where himselfe having set it downe in the wordes goeing immediatlye next before had given it the marke of a negative thus It is not Adulterie to marrie annother And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone he addeth fault to fault saying that this is an exception negative When no thing is presently determined touching the cause whether it be sufficent 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 z Law that he who faith nothing dieneth not Belike as they coyned vs neuw Diviniti at Rome so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too Houbeit if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie that negative is affirmative to say nought is negative I see not but al heretikes vngodly persons may as wel 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 wy reade to the Corinthians a 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 knouw those things because it might be a negative exceptionâ— importing that S. Paul wolude determine nothing presently thereof If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through concience of his sine trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinners b Yee shall all perish except yee repent He migt replie thereto that the exception 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 repentat If a vsurer should be toulde that he c is for bidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie d or to take encrease a theefe that he is e commanded To labour woorke f so to eate his owne breade they might if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin deâ—end their trades both the one by affirming that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it the other that to commande betokeneth to forbid In a worde Whatsoever opinioÌ„ 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 wicked holy life ment by death heaven by hell Or if the Papists them-selves would condemned this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places as sencelesse and shamelesse then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negâ—tive is afirmative and to say nothing is to denie Which whether they doe or not I wil with the conseÌ„t and liking I doubt not of all indifferent iudges and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contencion conclude that these lying gloses of the â—esuits doe not become a Christian And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a preterition 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 propositioÌ„ affirmeth in all others it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech theÌ„ who for whoredome 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 bee for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie This devise doth Bell. 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 iudgmeÌ„t doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the
omitt it wholly because it was so wel knoweÌ„ Hoe much more iustly might Christ in parte omitt it for the same cause having mencioned it imediatly before made it knoweÌ„ thereby Cheefly seeing that as he framed his speech to mens undestaÌ„ding so did he follow the coÌ„men use of men therein And if I should say upon the like occasioÌ„whosoever draweth his sword except he be a magistrate killeth a man commiteteth murder and whosoever abbetth him that killeth a man committeth murder what man offence and reason would not thinke I ment the exception set downe in the former sentence touching maÌ„qellers perteineth to the later of there abbetters also and uttered once must serve for both yea even in the former too who would not thinke that my meaning were the exceptioÌ„ should reach unto both the braunches of drawing the sword killing a man not to be abridged tyed up unto the first as if I had said whosoever draweth his sword Which none may doe except he be a magistrate and killeth a man comitteth murder yet one who were disposed to play the Iesuits parte q 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 and r to take vengeannce on him that doth evill Neither should he doe mee greater wrong there in by making mee to speake coÌ„trarie 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 exception of whoredome is to bee extended to both the points iointly of putting away marrying and that Bell. adding these words which is not lawfull did vnlawfully sow a patch of humaine raggs to the whole garment of Gods most precioÌ„s word behold their owne doctrine allowed and established by the Councel of Trent shall force them will they nill they to see it acknowledg it For if the exception bee 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 companie society of life s although he marry not another But the Councel of Trent pronounceth 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 exception cannot so bee tyed vnto the former point onely And therefore whereas Bell. sayeth further that he thinketh it is t S. Thomas of Aquines opinion that Christs words should bee expounded so and v Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde the Papists peradventure wil bee faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse but x Thomas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts chiefest light of the Church of Rome shal be convinced of errour even by the Councell of Trents verdict And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of another shift which is coosin german to the last intreated of Bell. prayseth it alike To weete that the words committeth adulterie must be supplied understood in the former parte of Christs sentence thus Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whoredome committeth adulterie whoso marrieth another committeth adulterie x 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 to wards Christs sentence that a Christian should who can finde in his heart to have it devided of one living body namely Whoesoever putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome and marrieth another commiteth adulterie made as it were two peeces of a dead carkas the first whosoever putteth away his wife except it bee for woredome commiteth adulterie the secoÌ„d whoso maraieth another coÌ„miteth adulterie Which dealing beside the incoÌ„venience of making the sâ—rpitn ere a nose of waxe leaden rule if men may add what pleaseth them specially if they may mangle senteces chop them in sundry parts but beside this mischief here it hath a greater that Christ most true and holly is made thereby to speake an untrueth For a man may put away his wife for other cause then for whoredom and yet not commit adulerie himselfe Yes he committeth it saith Bell in his wifes adulterie whereof he was the cause by putting her uniustly away But I replie that it is one thing to cause his wife to coÌ„mit it another to coÌ„mit it him selfe And Christ when he was mynded to note these several faults did it with several words s expressing them accordingly Moreover undrstanding the tearme to put away not as 6 the force thereof doth yeeld Christ tooke it for the loosing of the band of marriage but for a seperation from bed and boord onely as Bell. understandeth it He cannot allowe the senteÌ„ce which he fathereth on Christ though so expounded without either condemning of the Trent Councel er beeing himselfe condemned by it For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him but for whoredome doth commit adulterie in causing her to commit it Then is it a sinne to seperate her for any cause save for whoredome z If it be a sinne the Church of Rome erreth in houlding decreeing that shee may bee seperated for sundry other causes But whosoever saith that the Church erreth herein is accursed by the Councel of a Trent The Councel of Trent therefore doth consequently curse Bellarm. if he say that Christ spake his words in that sence in which he construeth them And doth it not curse b Austin also c Theophilact whom Bell. alleageth as saying the same at least it declareth that in the Councels iudgment the fathers missexpounded the Scriptures sometimes even those verrye places on which the Papists cite them as sounde interpreters of the Scripture Now the speech of Christ being cleared saved entier from all cauils the meaning thereof is plaine as I have shewed that he who having put away his wife for whoredoÌ„ marrieth anothetr coÌ„mitteth not adulterie For so much importeth the exceptoÌ„ negative of the cause of whoredoÌ„ opposed to the general affirmative propositioÌ„ wherwith our Saviour answered the questioÌ„ of the pharisies touching divocremeÌ„ts used by the Iewes who putting awaye there wives for any cause did marrie others The onely reasoÌ„ of adversaries remayning to bee answered stood vppon vrged by them as moste effectuall forcible to the contrarie is an example of like sentences from which sith the like conclusioÌ„ say they cannot be inferred as wee in ferre of this the inferrence of this is faultye And faultie I graunt they might esteeme it iustly
if the like coÌ„clusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences But lett the examples which they bring for poofe here of be throughly sifted it will appeare that either the sentences are vnlike or the like conclusions may bee inferred of them For of three sentences proposed to this end the first is out of Scripture in S Iames Epistle d 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 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 here of 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 doth it not sinneth though lesse then hee that offendeth wittingly I kouw not whether this be a sinne of ignoraunce in Bellarmin or not that when he should say if he will check the coÌ„clusion 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 meauing For S. Iames in the se words 7 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 e he tould theÌ„ that they 8 had sinne meaning by this Pharse 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 lauguage vsed by Christ traÌ„slating Christs words after the same manner the matter treated of doth argue that he meant not generally of sinue but of sinne being cleaving to a man in speciall pecular sort For as f the servant that knew his Maisters will and did not according to it shal be beaten with many strips but he that knewe it not yet did coÌ„mit things worthy of strips shal be beaten with fewe Likewise in transgressioÌ„ whereuÌ„to the punishment answereth hee that knoweth how to doe wel doth it not sinne is to him he hath it he offendeth notably But he that knoweth not how to doe wel doth evil hath not sinne sticking to him his sinne remaineth not he sinneth not so gretly greevously Wherfore wheÌ„Bell draweth out of that sentence such a coÌ„clusioÌ„ as if S Iames in saying there is sinne to him had simply meant he sinneth Bellarmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence which if the text it self cannot in forme him g his doctors well considered may But take the right meaning the conclusion wil be sound Whoesoever doth not good honest things except it be of ignoraunce he sinneth desperatelie mainely Therefore whoso of ignorance ommitteth to doe them he sinneth not desperately And thus our conclusion drawen from Christs sentence is rather confirmed theÌ„ preiudiced by this example Yea let eveÌ„ S. h Austin whose authoritie Bellarmin doth ground on here in be diligently marked himself in matching these sentences together bewrayeth an oversight which being corrected will helpe the truth with light strength For to make the one of theÌ„ like the other hee is faine to fashion Christs speech in this sort To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another 1 to him there is the cry me of committing adulterie Now Christ hath not 2 these words of emphaticall propertie and strong signification whereby he might teach as S Augustin gathereth that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause save for whoredome and marrieth another committeth adulterie in an high degree and so imply by consequence 3 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 ommitteth 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 after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scripturs is soe farr from disprooving that it prooueth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences The seconde and thirde are out of theire owne braynes The one of Bell. forging the other of the Pamphletters Bellarmins Hee that stealeth except it bee for neede siuneth The Phampletters Hee that maketh a lye except it be for a Vauntage doth wilfully sinn Where of they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence That hee sinneth not who stealeth for neede and hee whâ— lyeth for a Vauntage sinneth not wilfully A badd inferrence indeed But the fault there of 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 Monkeis are dâ—voyd of reason or this All longeared Creatures except asses are beasts For hereof it could not be concluded iustly that Asses are not beasts Apes are not devoyd of reasoÌ„ No But this perhaps might bee concluded iustly that hee had not much 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 general affirmed And therefore sith he sinneth who stealeth i though for neede as the wise man sheweth and hee that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sinne yea the more willfully somtymes because for a vauntage as when the scribs belyed 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 sentences are no more like to Christs them copper is to gould or wormewood to the bread of Heaven Neither shall they ever finde any senteÌ„ce like to his indeede of which the like conclusion may not be inferred as we inferre of that And soe the maine ground of my principall reaso proposed in the beginning remayneth sure clearly prooved that he by Christs sentence committeth not adulterie who having put away his wife for whoredoÌ„e marrieth another Whereof seeiÌ„g it followeth necessarely that he who hath put away his wife for whoredome may
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 divorcement â— 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 loaseth 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 â—orce of a generall so by fraude and faulshood to beare away the poynt in question Of both the which to treat in ordre his proposition he presumeth of as most certayne because in his iudgment Paule would not have sayde of her who departed without some such cause Let her ramayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husbaÌ„d 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 divorcement 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 sake and for a tyme except it bee with consent How should hee permitt the wife to remayne seperated from her husband agaynst his will without any case of iust divorcement In deede if it had â—yen in S. Pauls power to stay refraine the wife from remayning soo no doubt hee nâ—ither would not might have permitted which himself sufficiently shewed in forbidding her to depart at all much more to coÌ„tinue parted from her husband But d if not withstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave hâ—r husband vpon some lighter cause or perhaps weightyer though weighty enough for a iust divorcemeÌ„t theÌ„Paul in duty ought and might I hope with reason requier and exhorte her to remayne vnmarried and not to ioyne her self in wedlok with another a thing that e Greekes and f Romayns whose of-spring the g CorinthiaÌ„s were vsed to doe As to make it playne by the like examples S. Pau neither might neither wold have allowed a maÌ„ to be rashly angry with his brother for h Christ forbiddeth it But if one were suddenly surprised with rashe anger S. Paul wold advise him i not to let the sunne goe downe vpon his angry wrath neithe might hee therevpon bee iustly charged with permitting wrath vntill the sunne sett agaynst Christs commandement No more might hee with graunting liberty to lust because he k willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh whereas l Christ coÌ„mandeth theÌ„ not to lust at alâ— For S. Paul m condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sinne But seing that the flesh will lust agaynst the Spirit as loÌ„g as wee are in this mortality he stirreth vp the faythfull that they o 〈◊〉 not sinne raigne in their mortall bodyes nor doe fulfill the lust of the flesh In the same sort therefore hee giveth charge with Christ that the wife departe not froÌ„ her husband Yet in considration of humaine infirmity he addeth But if shee departe too let her bee vnmarried And to meete with a doubt which herevpon might rise sith in the next words before he had affirmed that they who have not the gift of coutinence should marry and what if she have it not hee adioyneth farther p or let her be reconciled vnto her husband So that although the words may seeme to be vttered in the same sorte as if they did imply and import a permission yet are they not permissive but imperative in truth and an expresse precept that the wife having forsaken her husband and there in downe evill forbeare to marry another for that were farre worse yea though shee can not contain in respect whereof or of any thinge else if shee mislike to livâ—â— vnmaried shee may not use the liberty that single folke may who reather ought to marrie then burne but shee â— must reconcile her self vnto her husband whose wife shee is by duty still And I may say likewise doubtles vnto Bellarmin that he his pamphletter should not have mayntâ—yned their error in writting but sith they have done it let theÌ„ write no more in defence of it or let them aâ—knowledg that in this poynt they were deceived For whereas q they gather of the disjuctive particle Let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled that S. Paul hath put it in the womans choyse lâ—ft her at libâ—aty either to live seperated still from her husband or to be reconcilâ—d vnto him they might as well ground vpoÌ„Christs words to the angell of the church of the Laâ—diaÌ„s I would thou werest cold or â—hat that hee hath put it in our choise left vs at libertie either to bee colde in faith and love as flesh is or to bee fervent in the spirit 4 Yet Christ had no such meaning For he commaundeth vs to bee ferveÌ„t in that verie angell he saith to everi faithfull maÌ„ Be hot ZealoÌ„s But because the partye was luke warme a wordling who had recyved the 〈◊〉 of the word but bare not fruite who t knew his maisters will but did it not and there by sinned most grievously Christ wisheth that hee were colde and sinned lesse sith hee did sinne or that hee were hot and free from both these faults the later wishe made simply the former in comparison After the which manner seing Paul might well and did by all likelyhood of circumstances of the text wiâ—hee simply and cheifly that the wife estranged were reconciled to her husband next that shee continued rather parted from him then married to another as a lesse evill in comparison the vttering of his sâ—ntence with a disjunctive particle Let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled doth not prove hee put it in the womans choyse and left her at liberty to doe wether shee listed And thus it appeareth how certaine and vndoubted that principle is which vpon this proofe Bellarmin avoucheth to bee most certaine and vndoubted that S. Pauls words touching the wise If shee depart are ment of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divorcement How be it if they had bene meant of her onely yet must they have touched suâ—h wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause and not for whoredom An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin that in exemplifing the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should be restrayned hee nameth whoredom first as principally comprised in S. Pauls precept where as S. Paul meant that it and it alone should be excluded and
husbaÌ„d one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredom What doth it folow hereof that Chrisost. meant that the husbaÌ„d putting her away for whoredoÌ„ might not marry another Rather the clean contrary Seing he speaketh of such a puting away as Moses did permit maketh this the differeÌ„ce betweene Christs ordinance and the lawe of Moses that Moses did permit it for any cause Christ but for one Which to be his meaning he sheweth more plainely upon the first to the CorinthiaÌ„s saying that the marriage is dissolved by whordom neither is the husband a husband any longer For hence it appeareth that he thought the band of marriage to be loosed when they are severed for woredoÌ„ and therefore coÌ„sequently the parties are free to marry according to the Apostles rule And other where also though somewhat more obscurely yet coÌ„ferrence with this place will shew him to have taught But what should I stande on farther proofe therof it being so undoubted g that bishope Covaruvias an ernest adversary of marriage after divorcement bringing al the Fathers that he can against it confesseth S. Chrisost. to stand on the other side against him for it And this in four hundred years after Christ Bell. caÌ„ot finde on of the Fathers that he may iustly say is his excepting them which make as much for the Encratites Montanistes and Catharists as they doe for Papists In the ages followiâ—g he findeth better store now one now moe in the hundred Yet among theÌ„ also looke how many he nameth of the Eastern bishops whether expressedly or implyedly he playeth the Iesâ—it with him For the firste of them Theophylact he alleageth with the same faith truth that he did Chrisost h whose schollar Theophylact being after Bellarmins owne note did follow his maister And this the two places themselves that Bellarmin quoteth doe insinuate clearelye i The former by oppening how Christ permitteth not the putting awaye which Moses did without iuste cause nor alloweth any cause as iust but whordom k the 〈◊〉 by omitting mention of whordom in spesifying the causes for which if a woman depart froÌ„ her husband shee must remaine vnmarried Whereto if Bell. neede more light to see it by we may adde a third place in which l Theophylact saying that Luke rehersing Christes words against men putting away their wives marrying other must be vnderstood with the exception out of Mathew 3 Vnless it be for whordom doth shew howfarre he differeth herein from Bell. 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 mentioned are such as were assembled in the Councell of Florence For there came thither to conferre with the Pope and the westerne by shops 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 m which condemned him of heresie and deposed him but there came thither n the Patriarches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem either themselves in person or by their deputies with many Metropolitanes and Bishops of Greece of Asia of Iberia and other countries of the East Whose creditt and consent how vutruely Bellar. pretendeth for the proofe of his false assertion it is plaine by that hee saith the Counâ—al of Florens did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians A chapter which is fathered indeed upon the CouÌ„cell by the schismatical pope Eugenius the fourth the deviser of it but fathered uniustly and calumniously as the time agreeth wherein it was begotten For it is accorded in the same decree that it was made the 6 two and twentith of November in theyeare of Christ a thousand four hundred thirty nine Now the Councel ended in Iuly the same year four moneths before As both o it self witnessâ—th p Popish stories note Wherefore the Councell could not be the farther of that decree and chapter noe more then a man can bee of that childe which is borne foureteÌ„ moneths after his death And the pope whose bastard in truth the brat is by the acknowlegment and record of Papists them selves in the q Tomes of Concells was so much the more to blame to father it vpon the Councel of Florence the great generall councell and 8 date it in a publique solemne session therof because neither was it debated in the Councel whether marriage after divorcement for adulterie were lawfull or no the r Easterne byshops mainteyned it to be lawfull wheÌ„ the pope after the end of the councel did reprove theÌ„ fore its neither is it likely the contrarie was decreed by al there present of the west Chiefly seing that more theÌ„half of theÌ„ were gone wheÌ„ both partes the East West s subscribed to the decrees of the Councell in the leters of agreement as appeareth by conferring their number with t their names the note thereof Yea the Councell being ended the sixth of Iuly had their superscriptious added unto it the one twentith Then if of 7 score perhaps upward scarse 3. score were remaining at Florence 14. daies after the CouÌ„cel ended What may we thinke there were above 4. moniths after But how many soever were present of the West as the Pope can quickely mustâ—r up an 100 bishops or more if need be out of Italie alone to carry awy things in Co. by multitud of voyces such policie hath he used for that but how many soever ItaliaÌ„s he baÌ„ded to couÌ„tenance his decree the bishops of the East agreed not therto neither was it the councels act Thus al the Fathers of the Eastern churches whom Bell alleageth may urge with credit their doctrine towards marriage doe not onely not say with him but gainsay him Wherin there have soe many others followede them from age to age till our tyme that it is apparant they allow with greater consent a mans marriage after divorcement for adulterie theâ— Fathers of the Western churches dissalow it For Eusebius treatinge of Iustin the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that he had done the story of the Christian woman who divorced her self from her adulterous husband And S. x Basils cannons approved by y general couÌ„cells doe not onely authorieze the man to marrie another whose wifâ— is an adulteresse but also check the custom which yeelded not like favour in like case to the woman And Epiphaâ—ius z saith his wordes are read corruptly but the sence thereof is Plaine of our side as a Covarievs as grauÌ„teth Epiphanius saith therfore that Sepration being made for whordom a man may take a second wife or a woman a second husband and the same in effect avoucheth b
Theodoret affirming that Christ hath set downe one cause wherby the hand of Marriage should be dissolved onely rent asunder in that he did except whoredom And a generall c CouÌ„cel wherin ther were above 220. bishops of the East gathered together doth implye as much in saying that He who his â— wife having keept the lawe of wedlocke being faithfull to him yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentene guilty of adultery So doth d Oecumenius in applying the precept of abyding unmarried to 〈◊〉 has should not have departed in abridging Chrisostoms words after his manner whose schollar e Bell. therefore tearmeth him So doth f Euthymimius Choysostoms schollar too in charging the man with adulterie g who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordom froÌ„ her husband So doth Nicephoras in copyinge coÌ„meding that out of Eusebius which he had out of Iustin the Martyr To be short the Grecians 3 which name compriseth many natioÌ„s the East all whom the h Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe put the same doctrine receyved from their aunstours in practise even at this day allowing married folke not onely to sperâ—te and divorce themselves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others as Bellarman confesseth Wherefore his opinion hath not the consent of the Eastern bishops neither hath had it any age since Christ Much less can he shewe the consent of the South i the Aethiopians an Abessines or of the k Moscovites Russes in the North both which as they receyved their faith from the East so vse they like freedom libertie for this matter No not in the west it self though he have many then agreeing with him yet hath hee the generall consent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half if an exact count might betaken of them â—or besides Tertullian the Councell of Eliberis c. to let passe Ambrose on Byshop of Rome or more alreadie shewed to have thought that â— a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe thâ—re are of the same minde l Lactantius m Chromatius n Hilarie o PolleÌ„tius p the auther of the CoÌ„mentaries in Ambrose his name vpon S. Pauls epistles q the first Councell of Arles r the couÌ„cell of Vannes they who either were at or agreed to the s sixth generall couÌ„cell the secoÌ„d time asseÌ„bled t Pope Gregorie the third â—Pope Zacharie the councell of x Wormes of y Tribur of z Mascon a councel alleaged by a Gratian without name and other learned meÌ„ alleaged likewise by b him c Pope Alexander the third d Celestin the 3 e Zacharie f Paul byshop the one of Chrisopolis the other of Burgose g Erasmus h Cardinal Cajetan Archbishop Catharinus k Naclantus byshop of Clugia finalli the teachers of the reformed churches in l Eng. m Scot n Ger. o France and p other countris for why should not I name these of our professioÌ„ faith amoÌ„g the Fathers as well as Bell. nameth the popish councell of Trent on the contrarie side But the Papists will some maÌ„ peradventure say doe not graunt that all whom you have rehearsed were of this opinioÌ„ But the Papists I answer doe graunt that sundrie of them were such as they graunt not the light of truth reasoÌ„ will either make them graunt or â—hame them for denying it As q Sixtus Senensis namely doth deny that Hilarie and Chromantius allowe a man to marrie another wife after divorcement or teach that hee is loosed from the band of matrimonie while his former wife though an adultesse liveth Now weigh their owne wordes it wil appeare that Sixtus iniurieth them therein For r Chromatius saith that they who having put away their wives for any cause save for whoredom presume to marrie others doe against the will of God and are condemned Wherein with what sence could hee except whoredom vnlesse hee thought them guiltlesse who having put away their wives for it doe marrie others And s Hilarie affirming Christ to have prescribed no other causeâ— of ceasing from matrimony but that sheweth that the baud of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmeÌ„t Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the vse therof for other causes the occasioÌ„ tenour of the speech doe argue that he meaÌ„t such a seperatioÌ„ as yeel deth liberty of new marriag In like sorte or rather more plainly expressely did Pollentius holde maintaine the same As Austin whoÌ„ in this point hee dissented from doth repote and testifie Yet Bellarmin a strangeâ—thing in a case so cleare but nothing strange to Iesuits saith that Pollentius o did not gainsaie Austin but asked his iudgment of the matter and for proofe here of referreth vs to the beginnings of both the bookes of Austin Even t to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured too prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another Pollentius wrot vnto him as it were by way of asking his iudgmeÌ„t and shewed hee thought the contrarie yet shewed it in such sorte that Austin setting downe both their opinions doth specifie then as flatly crossing one the other You are of this minde I of that and saith of Pollentius againe and againe that 8 hee was of this mynde which Bellarmin denieth hee was of wherein the Iesuits dealing is more shamefull for that beside the evidence of the thing it self so often repeated in the verie same places that hee citeth u Sixtus Senenses a man as vnwilling as Bellarmin to weaken anie of their Trent points with graunting more then hee must needes confesseth that Poeleutius thought hereof as we doe v Belike because Sixtus Seuensis honoureth him with the praise title of a 9 most godie man Bell. thought it better to lie then to graunt that they have such an adversarie Hee would faine avoid too another aâ—ncient father bearing the name ef Ambrose x Ambrose might his name be though he were not famous Ambrose Byshop of Milan But whether hee were named so or otherwise which perhaps is truer vnto his testimonie pronouncing it lawfull by S Paules doctrine for a man iustly divorced to marrie againe though not for a woman as heâ— by missetaking S. Paul throâ—gh errour y though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere First Gratian saith hee and Peeter z Lambard doe affirme that those word â—swere thrust into this authors Commentarie by some corrupters of writtings In deede the one of them affirmeth 2 it is said so the other 3 it is thought so But if it be sufficient to affirme barely without anie ground of proofe or probabilitie that it is said or thought
Austin saith himselfe in his retractatioÌ„s I have writteÌ„ two bookes touching adulterous mariages as neere as I could according to the scriptuers being desirous to open loose the knotts of a most difficult quests on Which whether I have done soe that no knott is left therein I know not nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly and throughly al though I have opened many creeckes thereof as whosoever readeth with iudgment may discerne S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that there are some wants and imperfections in that worke which they may see who reade with iudgment And whether this that Bellarmin doth alleage out of it deserve not to fal within the compasse of that censure I appeale to their iudgment who have eies to see For S. Augustin thought that the worde in th original of S. Math gospel had by the proper signification of it imported a negation rather then an exception And n he sheweth by saying that where the Latin translation hath 3 except for whoredom in the Grieke text it is rather read 4 without the cause of whoredoÌ„ Supposing belike whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight 5 that the same words which were used before in the fift Chapter of S. Math. Gospel to the same purpose were used also in this place wher as here they 6 differ and are wel expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so wel Houbeit if they had been the same with the former yet neither so might Bell. allowe his opinion considering that the coÌ„mon latin translation which Papists by their Councel of Trent are bound to stand to under payne of curse expresseth 7 those likewise as a plaine exception Which in deâ—de agreeth to the right and natural meaning of the 8 particle as O the like writers use it in like construction even then to wheÌ„ it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it unto that meaning Wherefore S. Austins mistaking of the worde signification thereof is noe sufficient warrant for Bell. to ground on that they must betaken so As for that he addeth that albeit 9 both these particles be taken excâ—ptively ofteâ— times yet may they also be taken otherwise sith on of them is used in the RevelatioÌ„as an adversative not an exceptiveâ— this maketh much lesse for proofe of his asâ—ertion For what if it be used there as an adversative where the matter treated of the tenour of the sentence doe manifestly argue that it must be taken so Must it therefore be taken so in this place whereof our question is or doth Bellar. prove by any circumstance of the text that here it may be taken so No Neither saith he a worde to this purpose Why men ioneth he then that it may be taken otherwise and is in the Revelaton for an adversative particle Truly I know not unlesse it be to shew that he can wranglâ— and plaie the cavelling sophister in seeming to gainsay disprove his adversarie when in truth he doth not Or perhaps though he durst not say for the particular that it is takeÌ„ here as an adversative which he could not but most absurdly Yet he thouâ—ht it policie to breed a surmise there of for the generall that shallower conceits might imagin another sence therein they knew not what and they whose brasen faces should serve them thereto might impudently brable that our sence is not certaine because another is possible eveÌ„ as a Iew being pressed by a ChristiaÌ„ with the place of q Esay Behoulde a vâ—gin shall conceive and bring forth a Sonne should answer that the Hâ—brue worde translated Virgin may be taken othrwise sith that in the Proverbs it signifieth a married womaÌ„ at least one that is not a Virgin in deede though she would seeme to be But as the Iew cannot conclude hereof with any reason that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay because the thing spoken of is a straunge signe and it is not straunge for a married wommen to coceave and bring forth a Sonne so neither can the Iesuite conclude of the former that the particle in Math. is meaÌ„t adversatively because the words then doe beare noe sence at all in which sorte to thinke that any wiseman spake were folly that Christ the word and wisdome of God were impietie Nay if some of Bell. schollars should say that words must be supplied to make it perfect sence rather than their Maiester bee cast of as a wrangeler they would be quickely inforced to pluck in this horn or els they might chance to leape which is worse out of the frying pan into the fire For adversative particles import an opposition contrariety unto the sentence against which they are brought in Now the sentence is that who so putteth away his wife marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherefore he by consequent committeth not adulterie who doth so for whorâ—dome If the particle be adversative and must have words accordingly supplied understood to make the sence perfect Thus the shift cavil which Bell. hath drawen out ef the double meaning of the Greike worde is either ydle beateth the aier or if it strike any it striketh himselfe and giueth his cause a deadly wound Yea that which he sought to confute he hath confirmed thereby For sith the worde hath onely two significations exceptive adversative neither durst he say that it is vsed here as an adversative it followeth he must grauÌ„te it to be an exceptive so the place rightly translated in our Enhelish agree able to the other in the 5. of Math. exoept it be for whoredom which as in their authenticall latin text also doth out of conitoversie betoken an exception Having all passages therefore shutt against him for scaping this way he fleeth to annother starting hole to weet that if the worde betaken exceptively yet may it be an exception negative And this he saith sufficeth for the maintnance of S. Aust. answer For when it is sayd whosoever shal put away his wife excepting the cause of whoredoÌ„ and shall marry another doth commit adulterie the cause of whoredom may be excepted either because in that case it is not adulterie to marrie another this is an exception affirmative or because nothing is presently determined touching that cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe and this is an exception negative which in that S. Aust. imbraced he did wel I would toe God Bell. had S. Aust. modesty Then would he be ashamed to chargs such a man wiith imbracing such whorish filth of his owne facsing ar in distinction of negative and affirmrtive exception he doth Foâ— hâ—e handeleth it soe lewdely and pervâ—rsely by calling that affirmative which in deede is negative by aâ—ouching that to bee negative which is not as if he had made a covenaÌ„t with his lips to lye treading in the steps of those
Howbeit least any place af cavelling be left him and of pretending a differente betweene those who having had the use of marriage lose the benefit of it and those who lose it not having never had it I wil set before him a plaine demonstratipn thereof in married persons Sianus as the Romaine Historie recordeth did put away his wife Aipicata uiustly therby to winne the rather the favour of Livia which was the wife of Drusus Livia being carried a waie with the wicked intisemeÌ„ts of Sianus was not only nought of her body with him but coÌ„seÌ„ted also to make away her husbaÌ„d Drusus with poison Now let Bell. tel us whether of these two were in bettir case Apicata or Livia Lovia the adulteresse and murderesse of her husband beeing free to marry or chaft Apicata being bounde to live solitarie If he say Livia should have ben put to death by the m Romaine law because of her murdnr theÌ„ had shee not beÌ„ in better case theÌ„Apecata for liberty to marrie I reply that likewise by the law of Moses the womaÌ„ whoÌ„ Christ speaketh of should have beeÌ„ put to death because of her adultery so the doubt here ceased n too But the law of Moses being left vnexeâ—uted on the adulterous woman as the Romain was for the tyme of Livia let Bellarmin answer to the poynt not as of Livia onely but of any whor that hath wrought her husbaÌ„ds death and for want of proofe or through the Magistrats fault is suffered to live whether shee bee in better case then an honest chast religious matron that is put away from her husband vnjustly Which if hee dare not saye o considderinge one the one sideÌ„ the plagues that in this life and p in the life to come are layd vp for such miscreants on the other the blessed q promises of them both assured to the Godly then hee hath noe refuge but hee must needs confesse that his argument was fond For the murdering whore is not an aduteresse by the law of Christ though shee take another man her husband being dead and yet the chast Matrone were an adulteresse if shee married while her husband liveth who hath uniustly put her away Wherein this notwithstanding is to be weighed that a chaste womans case is not soe hard in comparson of the whores No Not for marriage neither as Bellarmin by cunning of speeche woulde make it seeme to countenauce therewith his reason For he frameth his words soo as if the chast had no possibility of remedy at all neither by having her former husbaÌ„d 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 she not r onely may but s ought to have her former husband And why should not shee be as likely to recover her husbands good will to whom shee hadd bene faithfull as a faythlesse whore and infamous strumpett to get a newe husband Chiefly seing that it is to be presumed they loved ech other when they married t and experieÌ„ce sheweth that Failing out of Lovers is a renewing of love But if trough the frowardnes of men on the one side and foolishnes on the other the chaste wife could hardly reconcile her husdaÌ„d the whore get easily a match it fuffiâ—eth that the law of Christ cannot bee justly charâ—d with absurdity though it doe enlarg the vnchast and lewd in some outward thing in which it enlargeth not the chast v No more then the providence of God may be controlled and noted of iniquity though x the evil wiâ—ked enioy certaine earthly blessings in this life which are not graunted the vpright godly Wherefore the first place of Scripture out of S. Mathew and forced by Bell. with his 2 horned argument as the Logitions tearme it doth serve him as much to annoy our cause as the Iron hornes made in Aâ—habs favour by Zedechiah the falce prophet did stand him in stead to push consume the hoste of the Aramiters The second place is written in the tenth of Marke y Who so putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adulterie agaynst her and if a woman put away her husband be married to another shee committeth adulterie The like whereof is also in the sixtenth of Luke z whosoever putteâ—th away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery whoesoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband commiteth adultery These words sayth Bellarmin doe teach generally that marriage contracted perfected betweene the faithfull is never soe dissolved that they maye lawfully ioynin other wedlocke And whereas wee answer that these general sentences are to be expounded with a saving of the exceptioÌ„ mentioned in Mathew because one Evanghelist doth add oftentymes that another ommitteth a and Mathew els where contrary vnto Marke Luke which sith they al wrote as they were moved by the holy-spirit of truth is impossibel Bell: replieth that the Evangelists in deed omit or add somewhat now and than which other Evangelists have not omitted or added but they doe never omit in such sort that the sentence is made false A strange kind of speech As if all generall sentences were false from the which some speciality though not expressed in the same place yet by conference with others is understood to be expressed Sure the Civill Lawe which in learned mens opinons hath much truth will then bestained fowlly with untruths lyes For how many sentences rules set downe in it with full generall tearmes whereof not withstaÌ„ding there is none b lightly but suffereth an exception The Canon law also whose credit authority Bellarmin must tender hewsoever he doe the Civill hath store of such axioms and c teacheth accordingly That a perticulaer doth derogate from the generall But what speake I of meÌ„s lawes In the scripture it selfe Iob saith that d the hypocrite shall perish for ever like the dung and David that the e wicked shal turne into hell all nations that forget God Salomon that f Everie proud harted man is an abomination to the Lorde though hand ioyne in hand he shall not be unpunished g These sentences of Iob David Salomon h are true in the beliefe of Christians yet forasmuch as they must be understood with an exception according to the Doctrine of Christ and his servants saing unto sinners Except ye repent Ye shal al perish in the Iesuits iudgement they are made false And Ionas semblably when he preached to the Ninivits i yet forty daies and Ninive shal be overthrowen acused them with an untruth though learned men doe finde a truth in his speech as to be thus takeÌ„ that Niniveh should be overthrowen except it repented k Or if Bellarmin also acknowledg the same which he may not choose unlesse of a Iesuit he wil becom a Iulian and
an Athenian Citizen agaynst the Persians But men for the most parte are waged publiquely therevnto And that is the poynt which S. Paule respected Againe i Who planteth a Vineyard eateth not of the fruite thereof Hee on whom they father the first occasion of that proverb Many things doe happen between the cupp and the lipp is sayd not to have drunke of the fruite of the Vineyard which himselfe had plaÌ„ted not to have eaten thereof belyke At least seing k old men plant trees for their posterity neither might l the Iewes eate of their fruite in certayn years It is more then likely that many of them did not Some did not questionlesse they namely who sustanied the curse which God denounced vnto them by Moses Thou shalt plant a Vineyard and shalt not vse the finite thereof Yet S. Paule saide wel because such as plant vines doe eniâ—ye theÌ„ commonly Againe who n feedeth a flock eateth not of the milke of the flock They eat not of the milke who doe not milke there sheepe at al there be who doe not for feare of impairing therbye the lambs and woole But it is sufficient for S. Pauls purpose the truth of his speech that men in most o contreis are wont to have them milked p they who under take the paines of feeding flocks are accostomed to eate of the milkes of their flockes Againe q No man ever hated bis owne flesh but nourisheth cherisheth it Cato the younger who slewe himselfe at Vtica was so farr from nourishing cherishing his body that when his bowels being gushed out thereof he was not yet dead he tore theÌ„ in pieces with his owne hands as s Rasias also did Neither would S. Paule have denied this who knew that many t hadd killed themselves and taken awaie al ioyes of life from their flesh Onely he ment that noe man hath ever lightly hated it but every one doth nourish and cherish it rather Noe man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaiers of life because he would please him that hath chosen him to be a souldier What is this false because x rich Crassus being chosen by the Romains to be their Generall in Sirria did without all care of pleasinge them who had chosen him playe the marchand man and occupiede himselfe in councels and mony matters Or because a band of Cam-Panian souldiers who served the King of Sicilie gave theÌ„selves to citezeÌ„s trades and occupations having by treacherie seazed on Mesana dispossessed the townsmen devided their wives goods lands amonge them and a band of Romaines did the like at RhegiuÌ„ to the discontentment of such as chose them to be souldiers No for the APostle who exhorted Tymothy to behave himselfe as good honest souldier of Christe was not to learne that there are some unhonest soldiers retch lesse of their duty But his meaning was that soldiers usualy doe imploy themselves on warrlike exercises not on civil affaiers or domestical busines when they are chosen once to serve and in the same sence did he likewise say that a married woman is bound by the lawe unto her husband while he liveth because the band oÌ„f marriage is not usuallye ordinarely loosed but by death though it may be loosed is sometimes otherwise on rare onwonted cause Which is apparant to have been his meaning by that he teacheth that if an unbeliving man who hath a Christian wife doe forsake her then she is not in bondage For if she be not in bondage she is free to marrie as the words of Scripture imply by the contrary and the b Pope declareth If the be free to marrie the band of the former marriage is loosed els were she bound not free Where fore sith the Popes authentical record doth prove out of S. Paul that a wife in some case is free to marrie another while her husbande liveth the Papists must acknowledg that S. Paul meant the band is nor comonly loosed but by death not that it is never at al loosed otherwise absolutely and simply Bell. to frustrate and avoyde this answer saith that it may be proved by foure reasoÌ„s which he bringeth forth poore unarmed weake ons of his owne mustering with a stroÌ„ge hand puteth them to flight that soe men imagining that these are all that cann be alleaged on our side for the proofe thereof might thinke that out whole force is quite discomfited and Bell. hath wone the feild I have harde saie that there is cunning in daubing Surely there is cunninge in this kinde of dealing Neither is it for nothing that one c of our Glorious Champions doth vaunte that the cooÌ„mon sorte of Catholiques are able to say more for us then wee can for our selves In deede they would bear the common sort in hand that their learned men in handling of questions and controversies of religion doe set downe all obiections that can be made of our parte And I grauÌ„t they set down more theÌ„ ofteÌ„times theÌ„selves can souÌ„dly answer Yet they use discretioÌ„ therein by ther leave â— may a strong reasoÌ„ whiâ—h would troble theÌ„ fowlly if it came in place they are coÌ„teÌ„t to wink at saie nothing of it wherto theiâ— ioyn this policy now theÌ„ also that they take upoÌ„ theÌ„ to be as it were our proctors and attorneys in shewing what may be saied for us under which pretence they bring in such things as having already solution with the obiection and prooving unsound may turne to our causes discredit and to ours So the Iesuit here his arguement beeinge groundede on two places the one to the Romains the other to the Corinthians we countermyning the whole with one answer he saith that our answer maye be proved by fower reasons which he gathereth out of circumstances of the former place al such as the later hath neither any kindred with and discovereth them to be of no vallw But of the reasons which I have brought to prove our answer fitting both the places and partely confirming that S. Paul might wel meane the same in these which in the like he meant partely demonstrating that certainly he did soe becase it were not true els that he teacheth of the libertye of Christians forsaken of the unbelevers these reasons Bellarmin doth not touch No marveil for they are to hot And it is likelye that he studied not what might be most strongly saide in our defence but rather what most weakely that so he might seeme to ioyne bataile with us and yet might be sure to do him selfe noe harme Letting passe therefore the helpe which he offereth in like sorte to us as the Samaritans did unto the Iewes I come unto the iniust false accusation wherewith they sought to hinder the buylding of the Temple I meane the reasons which he untruly saith doe witnesse our answer and exposition to bee
excepted For these are his words v To them who are married it is not I that give commaâ—dement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee departe too let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husbaÌ„d let not the husband put away his wife Where in the last braunch Let not the husband put away his wife must needes bee vnderstood except it bee for whoredom because S. Paule saith it is the Lords commandement and x the Lord gave it with that expresse exception This Bellarmyn doth graunt Well Then as the last braunche so the first too let not the wife depart from her husband For the analogie is all one and x etche having interest in the others bodie shee may as lawfully depart from an adulterer as hee from an adulteresse And this doth Beelarmin graunt also But the middle braunche is to bee vnderstood of the same deparâ—ing and likewise qualified as the first Therefore If shee depart too is meant except it be for whoredome Nay not so quoth Bellarmin for the same departing is not meant in both but a farre different in the first an uniust departinge in the next a iuste and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes Not I but the Lord gâ—ve commandement let not the wife depart from her husband to weeâ— without a â—ist cause but if shee goe away to weet having a iust cause let her remayne vnmarried so forth In the refutation of which wrong violence done vnto the sacred text what should I stand when the onely reason whereby out of sâ—ripture hee assayeth to prove it is the disiunctive particle which as I have shewed alreadie hath no ioynt or sinew of proofe to that effect And z the onely father whose testimony hee citeth for it doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture So that his reason being overthrowen his creditt and authoritie by a his owne b approved rule may beare no sway And on the contrarie parte c many other fathers doe expound the second braunches as having reference to the same departing that is for bidden in the first And which is the chief point the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same For the tearmes 7 But if too importe that doing alsoe of that which in the sentence before hee had affirmed ought not to bee done As d the like examples in the same discourse to go no farder shewe yea some having one 8 parâ—icle lesse then this hath to presse it therevnto It is good for the vnmarried widowes if they abide even as I doe 9 But if they doe not conteine let them marry The woman which hath an vnbeleeving husband and hee consenteth to dwell with her let her not put him away 1 but if the vnbeleeving depart let him depart Art thou â—oused from a wife seeke not a wife 2 Bot then marrie also thou sinnest not This I speake for your profitt that you may doe that which is comely But if aâ—ie man thinke it vncomely for his virgin if shee passe the time of Marriage let him doe what hee will The wiâ—e is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth 4 but if her husband bee dead shee is at libertie and soe forth In all the which sentences sith the clauses brought in with those coniunctions have manifest relation to the things spoken of before touch them in the same sense the braunche that is inquestion having like dependance must in all reason be conserved of same the departing that the former Thus it being proved that S. Paul commanding the wife to remayne vnmarried if shee be parted from her husband did meane Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faultie even in this also that hee nameth whoredome among the iust causes of the wives departing here meant by S. Paul Now in this conâ—lusion inferring herevpon that even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage he is deceitfull as he was false in his proposition For the word Divorcement being vnderstood as it is by him for anie seperation and parting of the man and wife though from bâ—dd onely and for a certayne time There may be sundry causes why such a seperation should be allowed or tollâ—rated when as the band of marriage shall neverthelesse endure still And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmin had concluded a truth to purpose But the poynt where with he should have knit vp his dispute and which hee would have men conceyve and beare away as if these words implyed it is that no iust cause at al of any divâ—rcemeÌ„t doth loose the baÌ„d of marriage therefore neither whoredom The falshood whereoeâ— woulde have bee as cleare as the sunne-shine at noone-day the prpositioÌ„ being so evidently false wheron it is in ferred And this is the arguement that Bell. set his rest on 5 the insoluble argument even altogether insoluble the ground wherof he termeth 6 a demonstration a most invincible demonstration against the which nothing saith he can be obiected but an insufficient reply made by Erasmns to weet that Paule speaketh of an adulterous wifâ— who therfore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay unmarried the innocent party not so charged Which speaches of the Iesuit come from the like veine of a vauntinge spirit as those did of his coÌ„plices who boasted that 8 the Spainyards Armadoes navy should finde but weake silly resistans in England and callede their armay sent to conquer us an invicible armey For as they diminished by untruâ— reports the forâ—es prepared To meete en countere with the spanish power so Bell. by saying that nought can be obiected beside that he specifieth yea fardâ—r by belying and falsefing of Erasmus who contrariewise replieth that Paul doth seeme to speake 9 of lighter displeasiurs for which divorcement then were usual not of such cryms as adultery Moreover by the substance weight of my replye to his insoluble argeument the Godlye wise indifferent eye wil see I trust that the knotts strings therof are loosed brokeÌ„ even as the inviâ—cible armey of the Spainyards was by Gods providence shewed to bee Vinâ—ible without great enâ—ouÌ„tering the carkeses and spoyles of their ships men upon the English Scottish Irish coasts did wittnesse it So let allthyn enemies perish O Lord and let them who love him be as the sunne when he goeth forth in his strength The third Chapter The consent of Fathers the second pretended proofe for the Paaists doctrine in this poynt is pretended falsly if all be weighed in an even ballance the Fathers check it rather AFter the forsayd testemonies of Scriptur urged by our adversaries in the first place for the coÌ„mending of their errour Secondly the same truth saith the Iesuite may be
the Pope then to graunt it with exâ—eptioÌ„ 9 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 bee induced thereto which hee had no cause too wish on this occasion after the mans death she being v then simply fre willed to marrie x 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 Bell. alleaged before solloed here have assaied to darken the light thereof by this mist yet Sixtus Senefis confesseth that Pope Zachary decreed that the womaÌ„ if she would not conteine y should marrie another husband while the formrr liv'd It is true that Sixtus seketh to helpe the matter another waye somewhat by yoking the Pope with provinciall Councels z who saith he alowed and decreed it not by a general pereptual ordinance but for a time and to certein nations and that in such heynous cryms as incest onely But wil the Papists stand to this doctrine that the popes decres binde not al nations generally nor are perpetual to last Then muste they acknowledg which would touch papcie popery verie nerely that the Popes supremacie is faulsly pretended he hath his certaine limites as Metroplitanes have and some wil reason also that the lawes of Popes were to last for a time untl Luther rose but for a time onely there date is out now As for the time of incest whereupon the Pope allowed the innocent party to put away her husband to marry another that confirmeth rather the point in question theÌ„ disproveth it For he had noe warrant to allow this by but our Saviours doctrine forbidding such divorcemeÌ„t a except it were for whoredoÌ„ so that hâ—e might not have grauÌ„ted for incest unlesse he had thought it lawefull for adulterie Neither did he consider the crime but as coÌ„prised under adultery too Whereof in a general sense meant by the lawe incest is a kinde And therefore in speaking of her with whom the detestable acte was coÌ„mitted e he tearmed her the Adulteresse nor the incestious person Thus it is apparant that in this manner Pope Zachary was noe papist No more was the Councell of Wormes which shewed their iudgment to the like effect to weet that a man who could proove his wife to have been of counsail with such as sought his death might put her away marry another if he would PresuÌ„ing that belike which they might iustly as exaÌ„ples teach us that she was uought of her body with some of the conspiracie d Forels had the Councell expessâ—ly authorized the same which Christ coÌ„demneth e if for any other cause theÌ„ for adultery they had allowed the man to marrie Therefore Covauâ—vias reckoneth up this Councell among them who held that a man having lawfully put away his wife for her whoredom might take another while shee lived Yet a certain spanish Frier named Raymund one of Pope Gregory the ninths speciall State-men the compiller of his Decretals f would avoyde it also after Gratanus manner by false exposition as if the councel had meant a man might take another wife afte the death of the former To the more effectu II devswadâ—ng whereof that questionlesse they meant soe Hee useth a speciall trick of Popish cunning For making shewe of registering the Councells owne decree in steed of those wordes 4 Hee may put away his wife and marry another if he wil the Frier setteth downe theses He may after his wives death marrie another if hee will And where as the CouÌ„cel had sayd f as we thinke which wordes had beue absurdely pnt in if they hadd meant after his wives death hee might marrie another a thing agreed on and vndoubted The Frier as theeves are wont to deface and suppresse the markes of things which they have stolen least they betaken thereby leaveth that cleare out But by the mouth of two witnesses g Burchardus Byshop of worms h Gratian or Palea both elder theÌ„ the Frier and from whom of likelyhoode hee receaved this Canon of the Councell of Whormes his false and irreligious dealing is bewrayed Whereto may the confession of the third bee added though in years yonger yet greater in credit for things agaynst Papists himselfe a Popish Doctor and burning light of Paris â—Ioverius I meane who sayth of that Councell that it allowed the innocent partye to marrie agayn after divorcemeÌ„t the other being yet alive And the Councel it self maketh farder proofe that they are not on iustely charged by Ioverius and Covariuvias with this iudgement For if any man had committed wickednesse with his dangter in lawe the daughter of his wife by her former husbaÌ„d h they agreed that hee should keepe neither of them but his wife might marrie an other if shee would if shee coulde not conteyne and if she had not carnall coÌ„pany with him after that she knew of his adulterie with her daughter The last clause whereof sheweth that they meÌ„t of liberty grauÌ„ted her to take another husbaÌ„d while the former lived sith it caÌ„not bee thought with reason but they iudged shee might take another the former being dead though shee had continued with him as his wife after shee knew of his adulterie The l Conncell of Tribur did maynteyne the same ordeyning that if any committed vilany with his mother in law her husband may take another wife if hee will if hee cannot conteine and the like order is to bee observed if with his daughter in law or his â—ives sister Bellarmin like the m paynter who being good at purtraof a Cypresse tree when one gave him money to draw and represent a shipwrack in a table asked if he would have a Cypresse in dispaiting to doe ought worth perhaps vnlesse that helped saith that all such Canons all not onely this of the Triburian Councell are vnderstood of marriage graunted to the innocent party after the death of the former wife or husband An answer no fitter for this and all such CanoÌ„s then a Cypresse tree is for a shipwrackin those of Pope Zacharie and the Councell of wormes the former whereof he granisheth also with this Cypresse tree doe argue For the same reasons which prooved Zachries cannon to be meant of the womans marriage while the man liued proue the Councel of Tribur to be likewise meant of the mans in the womans life time The punishment inflicted therin on the offenders doe equally enlarge the benefit to the innocent The exception added to the enlargemeÌ„t is stronger implying they would have him stay unmarried rather if he can conteine The testemony of Sixtus is all one for both neither doth the quallity of the cryme of incest more inferring the argument here then it did there And this extenuation that the Councel being a provinciall
his minde For whereas a man that had wedded a wife did before hee entred the marriagebed with her enter her mothers bed Pope Alexander sayde that hee doing some pennance might bee dispensed with to marrie another wife Here the Popes favour towards the offender doth savour of that which â— hath bene missliked in papall dispensations But hee that graunted thus much to the incestuous husband would I trust have graunted it to the guiltlesse wife as â— hee did also to her that had this iniurie The onely evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Maisters example have recourse is that the Canonists expound the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse and her espoused also by wordes of the tyme to come not of the tyme present Which exposition may seeme the more probable because the Popes wordes sett downe in the Dâ—cretalls geve her the name of spouse without sinification that the maÌ„ had wedded her But hereof Frier Raymund who compiled clipped the Decâ—lls must 〈◊〉 the blame as v Antonius Contiuâ— a learned Lawier of their owne hath well observed For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in the x Tomes of Councels declareth that the woman was the mans wedded wife though he did forbeare her companie a while No remedie there-fore but it must be graunted that in this matter pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former Councels Now by all the rest whom I aleaged there is none excepted against by a â—nye Papist for ought that I know or as I thinke will bee For y Lactantius first avoucheth soe the lawfulnes of putting away a mans wife for adulterie even with intent to marry another that both z Covaruvias a Dominicus Soto grauÌ„t him to be cleare from it Next b toyching the authours mentioned by Gratâ—an as holding the same for one kinde of adulterie who doubted but there were ceertaine so persuaded when such an adversarie conâ—â—sseth it Then for Pope Celestin the thirde sith c a Pope saith he thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their parteners in wedlocke for haerisie and marry others I see not how the Papists may denyâ— hâ—e thought it lawful for adulterie more then I shewed they might of Gregorie the third And albeit â— Zacharie Byshop of Chrysopolis may seeme to shâ—w rather what other mâ—ns opinion was then what his owne yet it is apparant by this manner of handeling that hee ioyned with Ambrose therein whosâ— words hee eiteth and fenseth them against autorities that might bee opposed As for the Byshop of Burgos Paul coÌ„mended heighly by f learned meÌ„ for learning g he saith that it is manyfest by Christs doctrine that whoesoever putteth away his wife for whoredom commiteth not adulterye though he marry another Naclantus who was present at the counâ—ell of Trent a Byshop of principall name and price among them affirmeth as directly that a wife being loosed from her husband by death or by divorcement is not an adultâ—resse if shee marrie another Too conclude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus Caietan Catharinus Lnther Melancton Bucer Calvin Brâ—utius Kemnitius Peeter Martyr and in a worde all Lutherans Calvâ—nists as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name vs poore i Nazarens agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adulterie Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wounnde hee might geve his cause by graunting that Erasmus Cautâ—m Catharinus three soe learned man and two of them such pillars of the Romish Church a Carpinall and an Arch byshop agree in this poynt with Lutherens Caliunicâ— 8 he addeth that those three differ much froÌ„ these hertiques meaÌ„ing By hertiques the Nazareâ—s I speake of 7. whose ring-leader was Prul in as much as they submitt theÌ„selves expressely to the churches iudgement 9 And because the church saith hee hath now opened her minde most evidently as appeareth by the Councel of Trent the 24 session the 7 Canon where all who thinke the band of marriage maye be loosed for any cause are a cursed therfor it seemeth that those thre also chiefly the two later must be thought no other wise minded in this matter theÌ„8 all the rest of the Catho Divines are have bene with great agreemet coÌ„sent which dispute of Bell. if it have sufficieÌ„ grouÌ„d strength of reasoÌ„Eras must be counted a catholique in al things For â— in alâ— his writting he submitteth himself to the churches iudgemeÌ„t TheÌ„ why doth k Bell. cal him al demie ChristiaÌ„ enrol his naÌ„e amoÌ„g sectaries hertiques what are the Fathers of the CouÌ„cel of TreÌ„t Demie-christiaÌ„s sâ—ctaries heretiques they are by Bell. logique of one minde with Erasmus Moreover S. Austin the ciefest maÌ„ of Bell. side in this questioÌ„ must be counted ours by the same logique For m he taught expressely that himself yea any byshop eveÌ„ S. CipriaÌ„ yea provincial CouÌ„c. to should yeeld to the authority of a general Coun. the 6 general CouÌ„ grauÌ„ted liberty of mariage after divorcemeÌ„t as hath ben declared wherfor if CaietaÌ„ must be thought no other wise mynded theÌ„ Papists are because that church whoâ—e iudgmeÌ„t he did submitt himself to defiâ—ed so at TreÌ„t a good while after his death S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded theÌ„ we are because our assertioÌ„ was coÌ„firmed likewise by a General Counc. whereto hee would haye yeelded Chiefly sith of liklyhood he would have more easily yeâ—lded therunto theÌ„Caietan to his churches because u CaietaÌ„ sheweth hee was stiffe in holding fast his owne opinioÌ„ â— wheÌ„for feare of churchmeÌ„ he durst not say all that he thought in this very point though â— submitting himself to the See of RoÌ„e as wel as to the church p he eludeth decrees of q popes that make against him so resolut he was in it S. Austin coÌ„trariwise vsed very modestly willingly to retract things that he had writteÌ„ eveÌ„ wheÌ„ he lighted on ought in an heretike that seemed better truer this point he thought t so darke in the Scripturs hard to be discerned that his opinion was not hard to be removed if he had seeÌ„ stroÌ„ger reason broght against it or greater authority Now if S Austin come over to our side by that quirck of Bell. a band of Bellar. wittnesses is like to come with him namly the councel of Melevis Affrique â— which he was present at swaied much with perhaps Primasius also were he Austins fâ—hoÌ„lar Bede with a nuÌ„ber of Canonists sâ—hool men who folowed most S. Austin But Bella will never resigne all these vnto vs to gaine the other three from vs For as our Bee-hive saith Men live not by losses He must suffer therefore Erasmus Caietan Catharinus specially who beside the z place that Bellarmin hath quoted doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely there of more throughly exactly then