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
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
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
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
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
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