Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	church_n	roman_a	1,391	5	8.0518	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10322	A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie, but also marrie another. / Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are co[n]futed by Iohn Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Churche with errour..	Rainolds, John, 1549-1607.	1609 (1609)	STC 20607; ESTC S115561	101,833	102

poenitent for it after her second husbands death hee saith that shee lamented bewayled it so as if shee had cōmitted adulterie By which kinde of speech others sutable to it as that he te●●meth her state after divorcement frō her first husband Widdowhood addeth that shee lost the honor of having had but one husbād by marrying the second saith shee thought it better to vndergoe a certaine shadow of pitifull wedlocke then to plaie the whore because it is better saith Paul to marrie then to burne S. Ieron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to doe as shee did yet not such a fault a crime a publique crime as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it No more may it be iustly thought in the opiniō of that Romā Byshop of whō because he put Fabiola to publique penance after her second husband death Bellarmin cōcludeth 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 whordō For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholique Church for marrying againe after their first wives death as Bellarmin observeth out of the Catholique●Councels adding therewith al that although they knewe secōd marriage to be lawfull yet because it is a token of incontinēcie they chastised it with some penāce Wherefore sith it might easilie bee that they who laid some penance vpon no fault would lay publique penance vpō a small fault spetially in women to whō in such cases they were more severe rigorous thē to mē the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her secōd marriage doth not prove sufficiētly that it was accounted thē a publique crime in the Catholique church Howbeit if the tearme of publique crime be vsed in a gētler sense thē cōmonly it is or the Byshop of Rome did never put any but grievous offenders finners to publique penance yet perhaps even so too will Bellarmin come short of his conclusiō still For thereby saith hee we doe not vnderstād that ● if any mā while his wife yet lived married another yea albeit for whordo it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique church at that time if any mā did it As who say the Byshop of Rome must needs hould that if women were not licensed to marrie after divorcement for whordom men could not be neither Whereas he might be of the same opiniō that an aunciēt Councell s●emeth as I shewed to have bene before him and an auncient Father living writing as some thinke in Rome about the same time was I meane that this libertie freedom should be graunted to men but not to women Moreover the delay of Faebiolas penance in that she was not put thereto vntill after her second husbands death yeildeth very strong probable coniecture that it had not bene before thē accoūted any crime at all in the Catholique church not for a woman neither to put away her husbād because of his adulterie to marrie another For that which Fabiola did shee did openly Her self was religious godly well instructed thought it to be lawfull Her husbād by all likelyhood of like minde iudgmēt the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question The Byshop did not execute any Church censure on them Nay sith shee was very yong when they married and never heard of anie fault therein committed as long as her husband lived it may be Rome had many Byshops in the meane time none of whō saw cause why they should blame her for it The example of Fabiola therefore the Roman Byshops dealing in it maketh more a great deale with vs then against vs if it be throughly weighed Now S. Chrysostom maketh absolutely with vs Howsoever Bellarmin affirmeth that hee teacheth the same with S. Ierom yea with S. Ierom simplie condemning all such marriage For what doth S. Chrysostom teach in the sermon that Bellarmin quoteth vpon Mathew Forsooth that by Moses lawe it was permitted that whosoever hated his wife for any cause might put her away and marry another in her roome But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredome What and doth it follow hereof that Chrysostom meant that the husband putting her away for whoredome might not marrie another Rather the cleane contrary Seing that he speaketh of such a putting away as Moses did permitt and maketh this the difference betwene Christs ordinance and the law of Moses that Moses did permitt it for anie cause Christ but for one Which to be his meaning hee sheweth more plainely vpon the first to the Corinthians saying that the marriage is dissolved by whoredom neither is the husband a husband anie longer For hence it appeareth that hee thought the bād of marriage to bee loosed whē they are severed for whoredom therefore consequently the parties free to marrie according to the Apostles rule And other where also though somewhat more obscurely yet conference with this place will shewe him to have taught But what should I stand on farther proofe thereof it being so vndoubted that Byshop Covarrisvias an earnest adversarie of marriage after divorcement and bringing all the Fathers that hee can against it confesseth S. Chrysoctom to stand on the other side against him for it And this in foure hundred yeares after Christ Bellarmin cannot finde one of the Fathers that hee may iustly say is his excepting them which make as much for the Encratites Montanists and Catharists as they doe for Papists In the ages following hee findeth better store now one now moe in eche hundred Yet among them also looke how manie hee nameth of the Easterne Byshops whether expressedly or implyedly hee playeth the Iesuit with him For the first of them Theophylact hee alleageth with the same faith truth that he did Chrysostom whose schollar Theophylact being after Bellarmins owne note did follow his maister And this the two places thēselves that Bellarmin quoteth doe insinuate clearely the former by opening how Christ permitteth not that putting away which Moses did without iust cause nor alloweth any cause as iust but whordom the later by omitting mention of whordō in spesifying the causes for which if a womā depart frō her husbād shee must remaine vnmarried Whereto if Bellarmin neede more light to see it by we may adde a third place in which Theophylact saying that Luke rehersing Christes words against men putting away their wives marrying other must be vnderstood with the exception out of Matthew Vnless it be for whoredom doth shew howfarre he differeth herein from Bellarmin who denyeth flatly that Christes wordes in Luke must be supplyed with that exception The rest of the Easterne Fathers whose testimony is alleaged by Bellarmin though their names not mētioned are such as were assembled in the Councell of Florence For

Iesuits dealing how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth reasō For sith in Christs speach touching Divorcement for whoredome the proposition is affirmative Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrie another doth commit adulterie it foloweth that the exception which denieth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whoredome marrieth another is an exception negative But Bellarmin sayth that this were an exception affirmative Yea which is more straunge in a man learned knowing rules of logique But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgment to their owne lusts and errors he ētiteleth it an exceptiō affirmative even then and in the same place when where himselfe having set it downe in the words going immediarly next before had given it the marke ōf a negative thus It is not adulterie to marrie another And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone he addeth fault to fault saying that this is an exceptiō negative When no thing is presently determined touching the cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or no. So first to denie with him was to affirme and next to say nothing now is to deny Yet there is a rule in Law that he who saith nothing denieth not Belike as they coyned vs new Divinity at Rome so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too Howbeit if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie that negative is affirmative to say nought is negative I see not but al heretickes vngodly persons may as well as Iesuits mainteyne what they list impudently face it out with like distinctions For if an adversarie of the H. Ghost should be controuled by that we reade to the Corinthiās The things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God His answer after Bellarmins patterne were readie that this proveth not the spirit of God to know those things because it might be a negative exception importing that S. Paul woulde determine nothing presently thereof If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through conscience of his sines trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinners Yee shall all perish except yee repent He might replie thereto that the exceptiō is negative and this though not in the former poynt yet here were true but to make it serve his humour he must expounde it with Bellarmin that Christ doth not determin what shall become of the repentant If a vsurer should be tolde that he is forbidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie or to take encrease a theefe that he is commanded To labour woorke so to eate his owne breade they might if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin defend their trades both the one by affirming that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it the other that to commande be tokeneth to forbid In a worde whatsoever opinion were reproved as false or action as wicked out of the scriptures denouncing death eternall and paynes of hell thereto the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of by glosing thus vpon them that false is true and wicked holy life ment by death and heaven by hell Or if the papists them-selves would condemne this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places as senselesse and shamelesse then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negative is afirmative and to say nothing is to denie Whi●h whether they doe or no I will with the cōsent liking I do●bt not of all indifferent iudges and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention conclude that these lying gloses of the Iesuits doe not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a pr●terition or passing over a thing in silence which if Christ had ment hee could have done with fitt words as wise men are wont but a flat denying of that in on case which the proposition affirmeth in all others it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech them who for whore dome put away their wives denieth that in them which in all others he affirmeth and thereby teacheth vs that the man who putting away his wife for that cause marrieth another doth not commit adulterie The next trick of Sophistrie whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them is that the exception ought to be restreined to the former branche of putting away the wife onely To the which intent they say that there are some words wanting in the text which must be supplied and perfected thus Whosoever shall put away his wife which is not lawfull except it be for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie This devise doth Bellarmin allowe of as probable though not like the foresayd two of negation and negative exception But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all And surely if it were lawfull to foist in these words which is not lawfull the Pamphletter might seeme to have shewed greater skill herein then Bellarmin But men of vnderstanding and iudgmēt doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circūstances matter of the text sheweth to bee wanting but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof as pleaseth his conceit and fansie The sundrie interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may to go noe further sufficiently discover the fault and incōvenience of that kinde of dealing For the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wife except it bee for whordome though he marrie not another committeth adulterie and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sorte if he marrie another doth commit adulterie Freier Alphōsus checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braunch of it sith hee who putteth away his wife not for whoredome although he cause her to commit adulterie yet doth not himselfe commit it vnlesse hee marrie another Wherevpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather Whose putteth away his wife not for other cause but for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie But this though it have not soe many words added as the Bishop of Auilas yet in truth it is more violently forced against the naturall meaning and drift of the text For by adding these words Not for other cause his purpose is to say that whoso putteth away his wife for noe cause but for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if he marrie another much more if hēe marrie having put away his wise for any other cause And so is Christs speech made in effect cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe geve hee saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and the frier forcing him to saie Whosoever shall put

heresie Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagonas his owne as sundrie fathers speake dangerously that way then thrust in by Encratites who generally reiected all marriage not se●ond marriage onelie Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause As much doth the last of his witnesses Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage hee matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes and stained with spotts of errour Which iudgmēt not onely Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately geven of him though a Iesuitical spirit doe traduce thē insolently for it But an auncient Pope of Rome with seavētie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinitie and in the Canon law Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same Now in the third hundred yeares to goe forward Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion of whom one questionlesse controlleth perhaps both For Tertullian disputing against the heretique Marcion who falsely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses because Moses graunted divorcemēt Christ forbiddeth it answereth that Christ saying whosoever shall put away his wife marrie another committeth adulterie meaneth vndoubtedly of putting away for that cause for which it is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another And likewise for the wife that he is an adulterer who marrieth her being put away if shee be put away vnlawfully considering that the marriage which is not rightly broken off continueth and while the marriage doth continue it is adulterie to marrie Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully for the cause excepted by Christ may marrie another Bellarmin doth very cunningly finely cut of with an et caetera and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement if there be a iust cause but did forbid to marrie againe after divorcement So directly agaisnt the most evidēt light of the wordes tenour of the whole discourse that learned men of his owne side though houlding his opinion yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it For byshop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintaine that men may lawfully marrie againe after divorcemēt for adulterie nameth Tertullian quoting this place amōg them And Sixtus Senensis a man not inferiour in learning to Bellarmin in sincere dealing for this point superiour cōfesseth on the same place on those same words but recited wholy not clipped with an etcetera that Tertullian maketh a certaine vndoubted assertion thereof Pamelius in deede through a desire of propping vp his churches doctrine with Tertulliās credit saith that though hee seeme here to allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort as that the husbād may marrie another wife yet hee openeth himself holdeth it to be vnlawfull in his booke of single marriage Wh●rein he saith some what but litle to his advauntage For Tertullian wrote this booke of single marriage whē hee was fallē away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie that is vnlawfull to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death But in that thee wrote while hee was a Catholique against the heretique Marcion hee teacheth cōtrarywise the same that wee doe as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truely graunt Yea Pamelius himself if hee looke better to his owne notes doth graunt as much For he saith that Tertullian vseth the worde divorcement in his proper signification for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife marrieth another But Tertulliā saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marrie another by Tertullians iudgment Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen Although it be true hee saith as Bellarmin citeth him that certaeine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived addeth they did it agaynst the scripture For he seemeth to speake of a woman divorced from her husband not for adulterie but for some other cause such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for bygiving thē a bill of divorcemēt The matter that he handleth and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to this meaning Approved by the opinion of certaine learned men too For after he had said according to the words of Christ which he expoundeth that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemēt did yeeld vnto the weakenes of thē to whom the law was gevē he saith that the Christian byshops who permitted a womā to marrie while her former husbād lived did it perhaps for such weaknes Wherefore sith in saving that this which they did they did perhaps for such weaknes he hath relatiō vnto that of Moses Moses as he addeth did not graūt the bill of divorcemēt for adulterie for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshops whō Origen chargeth with doing against the scripture did permitt the womā to marrie vpon divorcemēt for some other cause not for adulterie so his reproving of thē doth not touche vs who graūt it for adulterie only Thus doth Erasmus thinke that Origen meant concluding it farther as cleare by the similitude which he had vsed before of Christ who put away the Synagogue his former wife as it were because of her adulterie married the churche Yea Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovā of better credit with Papists thē Eros●nus saith that the divorcemēt permitted by those Byshops whō Origen cōtrouleth was a Iewish divorcemēt Wherein though he aymed at another marke to prove an vntruth yet vnwares he hi● a truth more thē hee thought of strengthened that by Origen which he thought to overthrowe Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter cā persuade by other likelyhoods out of Origen as he is somewhat darke I know not whether irresolute in the point that the thing reproved by him in those Byshops was the permitting of one to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie our cause shal be more advātaged by those sundrie Byshops who approved it thē disadvātaged by one Origē who reproved thē for it Chiefly seing Origē impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith for whi●h a generall Councell with Bellarmins allowāce count 〈◊〉 a damned heretique in this matter by excluding all such as are twise married out of the Kingdō of heavē which divines of Paris observe check him for Whereas those Byshops of whō he maketh mentiō were neither stayned otherwise for ought that may be gathered nor herein did they more then