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
terme them not Fathers onely with the people but the Reverend Fathers the Catholique Fathers the good Fathers of the snciety of the holy name of Iesus this title then applied geven to them all will quickly winne their schollers to thinke that the m obedience commaunded to wards them is obedience in all things Now we protestants teach that neverthelesse supposing they were in deed Fathers not caterpillers of the Churche yet if Priest or Iesuit or the pope himself should commaund a maÌ„ to coÌ„mit murder or whoredome or theft hee might not bee obeyed because it is written in the Epistle to the EphesiaÌ„s n Children obey your Parents in the Lord whence that to the Collosians ought to bee expounded that Parents must bee so farre forth obeyed in all things as standeth with the dewty which children owe to God and in pietie they may But if some Catholique Father should denie this and say like Father Robert that S. Paule in deed ommitteth or addeth some what in one Epistle which hee hath not omitted or added in another but hee doth never omit in such sorte that the sentence is made faulse for els S. Paule hadd deceived the Colossians to whom hee sent theis Epistle making no mention of that other to the Ephesians And surely when hee wrote to the Collosians from Rome he did not sent them back to his Ephesian Epistle as to a commentury nay if that Epistle had bene in their haÌ„ds it may be well thought that hee would not have wâ—itten to them For hee did not write the Epistle to the Collossians thereby to add ought to that which he had written vnto the Ephessians as hee did the later to the Corinthians or Thessalonians after the former but onely to reclayme the Collosians from their errour that man is reconciled hath accesse to God by Angels to corect their Iewish and Heathenish observations for o Chrysostom p Theophylact and q Oecumenius geve this cause That which Paule therefore sayth to the Collossians must be absolutely true not depend of that hee sayth to the Ephesiaus vnlâ—sse our meaning bee that they were deceived who read the Epistle to the Collossians without the other If some Catholique Father I say should speake thus agaynst our interpreting of Scripture by Scripture would not his children trow yee thinke it strongly invincibly proved that they must obey him absolutely in all things Chiefly if as Father Robert bringeth Austin soe he brought r Cassianus S. Chrisostoms scholar in who prayseth one Mutius a novice of an Abbey in Egypt as a most worthy pattern of obedieÌ„ce to his abbat 〈◊〉 Father as you would say for that he was ready to cast his owne natural sonne a litle child into the River at his commandement soe as much as lay in hiÌ„ did murder his sonne but that some by the Abbats appoyntemeÌ„t did râ—caive him beinge caste out of his Fathers hands towards the River saved him from drowning For hee s who extolleth this Novices fayth devotioÌ„ to HeaveÌ„ affirming that the Abbat was by revelation straightway advertised that Mutius hadd performed t Abraham the Patriarks wotke by the obedience as if there were noe difference between the v Lords commandement and â—n Abbats might have formed a sentence like Austins in defence thereof Who are wee that wee should say Children in some things must obey their Parents in some they must not whereas the Scripture sayth Children obey your Parents in all things By the which construction whatsoever a mans mother should command him must be obeyed too she being comprehended in the name of Parents and what soever a mans x Maister should command hee beeing also a Father and whatsoever y any Governour should command or frend that hath done good or an olde Gray-headed man they being Fathers all though not by nature yet by office benefit or age And then had King z Asa done evill in putting downe his mother Maachah from her state because shee hadd made an Idole in a grove in breaking downe her Idoll and stamping it buruing it And a Doeg the Edomite had deserved greater prayse then Sauls servants sith they Would not move their hands to fal vpon the Lords Priests when their Maister bidd them which Doeg did and executed his wrath to the vtter most And the b Apostles hadd overseene themselves when they disobeyed the high Priest and rulers and Elders of Israel and gave this reason of it Wee ought rather to obey God then men Yea that wretched impious execrable fryer who did more then barbarously murder his Soveraigne Lorde the * French King the annoynted of the HIGHEST may then bee excused excused nay commended and praysed by trayterous papists as having done that which hee ought seing it is likely that either Pope or Priest or Iesuit or Abbat or some of his superiours commanded him to doe it Such absurd consequents of Bellarmins affirming that Markes and Lukes words must bee absolutely true and not depend of Mathew doe shew what great reason hee had soe to speake For it is written of the Cittie of Ierusalem compared with the Canaanites Amorites and Hittites c Such mother Such daughter in like sort may it be sayd of this construction of the holy Scripture compared with Bellar. Such consequence such antecedent And this farre of his second place The third is in the Epistle to the Romaines the seveÌ„th chap. d Knowe yee not bretheren for I speake to them that knowe the law that the law hath Dominion over a man as long as hee liveth For the woman which is in subiection to a man is bound by the law to the man while hee liveth but if the man bee dead shee is delivered from the law of the man So then if while the man liveth shee take another man shee shal be called an adulteresse but if the man bee dead shee is free from the law soe that shee is not an adulteresse though shee take another man Out of which place and e the like in the seaventh of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Wee gather saith Bellarmin that the band of marriage is never loosed but by death and that seing it is not loosed it remayneth after divorcement too for whatsoever cause the divorce bee made This doth Bellarmin gather but gathering so he reapeth that which the holy Ghost sowed not For S. Pauls meaning in those words to the Romains and Corinthians was that the band of marriage is not loosed comonly and ordinarily while both the parties live not that absolutely it is never loosed till one of theÌ„ die As in the like case to open the matter by his owne examples hee f sayth Who goes to Warrfare any tyme at his owne cost Now some have served at their owne charges without pay sometymes For so did the g Roman stocke of the Fabij agaynst the Vientians and h Clinias
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
Lucretia not she I spake of but such a Lucretia as the popes daughter was having lost not onely chastety but also wealth good name Gods favour the promise both of this life the life to come yet if being put away from her husband she may take another hath gained by her losses because she may be married to her Tarquinuus match a gracelesse whore witha a shamlesse beast As for the last of Bell. points of inconvenience that many would coÌ„mit adulterie of purpose to the intent of being set free froÌ„ their former wives they might marie others it may be some would I have read of a woman that had a desire to be beaten of her husband which she found means also as she was wittie to obtein in so much that shee put it oft in practise til having cruely beateÌ„ her at length he killed her The man who of purpose to get anew wife would cowmit adulterie should dessire more strips then that woman meant die a death infinitely more grevous then she did But if as wise almost as she was should long after scourges must they who deserv by lawe to be whipped be denied it because a foole desired it without desert The Romaius had an auncient law that whosoever did a man injury should by way of punishmeÌ„t paie about shilling There was a lewd losel a yoÌ„thly harebrined Ruffian who having wealth enough at wil taking a desire in giving honest men boxes on the eares would walke up down with a purse full of shillings which his slave atteÌ„ding an him did carry giving on a boxe would bid his slave geve him a shillinge another boxe a shilling What was in this case to be done for remedy If Bell. had lived there bene of the counsaile to the state wee see the advise he would geve namly that the amercimeÌ„t shold be takeÌ„ away because some would doe men iniurie of purpose to fulfil their lusts with paing of a shilling or two But the Romaine governour stoke coÌ„trary order to encrease the amercement according to the discretion arbitrement of Iudges that evel desposed persons might be deterred from trespassing by sharpnes of the punishment to be inflicted on them for it Whose wisdome therein it is to be wished that Princes Rulers remeÌ„bering them selves to be ordained as David betymes to destroy all the wicked of the Lande would follow by encreasing the punishment of adulterie And then should Bell. mouth be the sooner stopped for his fourth reason Which yet in the mean while doth no better prove that fafthfull husbands seperated from adulterous wives may not marry again then userers extorcionars procuring wealth by wicked ungodly means doe prove that honest men may not enioy the goods which by lawfull trades vertuous industrie they get The fifth last is that even among the Heathen too where good orders flourished no divorces were made For no bill of divorcement was written at Rome for the space almost of six hundred yeares after the City was buylt but afterward good orders beeing overthrowen divorces alsoe were brought in with other vices And this reason Bellarmim doth lard after his manner with Tertullians name to season it thereby give it some verdure But it is such caraine that the lard is lost all the cookery cast away For the first divorce which was made at RoÌ„e was of a chast wife put away by her husbaÌ„d because she was barin did not bear him childreÌ„ Now to seperate husbaÌ„ds wives for such causes we grauÌ„t it is uÌ„lawful our Savior allowing it for whordoÌ„ only The example therefore of the wel ordared RomaÌ„s is in vain aleaged out of Tertul. against us But neither was there any divorce for adultery made above 500 years among theÌ„ wil Bell. perhaps say I grauÌ„t And I wil help with a stroÌ„ger argumeÌ„t that among the Cains a state wel ordered too 700 years did passe befor any divorcemeÌ„t was made for adultery For as Plutarch writeth there was no adultry coÌ„mited by the space of soe many yeares among theÌ„ But among the RoÌ„ans wil Bell. perhaps reply it is likely that some was coÌ„mitted within 500 years True But the husband then might put his wife to death being convicted first of adultery without al publique iudgmeÌ„t So that if Bell. words have any force this is theire effect Among the heathen RomaÌ„s while good orders florished the womaÌ„ that coÌ„mitted adultery suffered death afterward good orders being overthroweÌ„ she was divorced onely But whether shee were put away by death or by divorcemeÌ„t the man might marry again Wherfoore the exaÌ„ple of the heatheÌ„ RomaÌ„s both wel evel ordered fight against the popish RomaÌ„s their ChaÌ„pion Hereto the example of all other heathens whose orders were but so good that they allowed second marriage may be adioyned Which I do not so much affirme on myne owne knowledge though for ought that I have read remeÌ„ber it is true as on Bell. secret coÌ„fefsioÌ„ silence a maÌ„ of greater reading having used many mens pains in search of these things Beside when christiaÌ„ faith came among the heathens the Emperours did punish adultery first by death afterward Iustinian mittigating that lawe did puÌ„ish it by divorcement But in both these cases the man being severed from his adulterous wife is free to marry againe Bellarmins speech therfore touching wel ordered heathens came in evil season to raise both them others yea ChristiaÌ„s too against him So his last reason nay his reasons all are growen to worse plight then were the seaven later kyne in Pharaos dream the seauen poore evil favored lean fleshede kyne that devowred the the seaveÌ„ former fatt well favoured therby saved their life For the thin carkeiss dreamed of by Bellarmin have noâ— strength enough to overmaister eat up the sounde bodies of reasons standing ther against but gasping after them in vaine they dye with famin And thus having proved that neither light of reson nor consent of Fathers nor authority of Scripture disproveth our assertioÌ„ I coÌ„clude that the point demoÌ„strated at first by the word of truth the doctrine of Christ That a man having put away his wife for her adultery may lawfully marry another a Gene. 2. 〈◊〉 Mat. 19. 5. b Deu 24. 1 Mat. 5. 31. c Mâ—th. 10. 9 d Mâ—â—â— 1. Luk. 6. 18. e Mat. 19. 1. f Rom. 7. 2 g vers. 3. h 〈…〉 i vers. 28. k Belâ—armin Tom 2 〈◊〉 4 libâ— de maâ—râ—mon 〈◊〉 cap 15. 〈…〉 The Pampâ—â—etter in his tefâ—â—tation of the discourse toâ—ening the lawfulnesse of marriadgge after divorcâ— for whoredone 1 Ni fiob 〈◊〉 cattonem 2 Extra coâ—â—â—ornicatinis l De adulteriâ— conjâ—g lib. 1 cap 9. m Retractat lib. â— cap. 57. n 〈◊〉 adulter coâ—â—ng lib. 1. cap 11. 3 Nisi ob Fornicationem 4 Praeter causa Fornicationis 5 Parectós Lògon por neias 6 eiâ— my epi potneia