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
Howbeit least any place af cavelling be left him and of pretending a differente betweene those who having had the use of marriage lose the benefit of it and those who lose it not having never had it I wil set before him a plaine demonstratipn thereof in married persons Sianus as the Romaine Historie recordeth did put away his wife Aipicata uiustly therby to winne the rather the favour of Livia which was the wife of Drusus Livia being carried a waie with the wicked intisemeÌ„ts of Sianus was not only nought of her body with him but coÌ„seÌ„ted also to make away her husbaÌ„d Drusus with poison Now let Bell. tel us whether of these two were in bettir case Apicata or Livia Lovia the adulteresse and murderesse of her husband beeing free to marry or chaft Apicata being bounde to live solitarie If he say Livia should have ben put to death by the m Romaine law because of her murdnr theÌ„ had shee not beÌ„ in better case theÌ„Apecata for liberty to marrie I reply that likewise by the law of Moses the womaÌ„ whoÌ„ Christ speaketh of should have beeÌ„ put to death because of her adultery so the doubt here ceased n too But the law of Moses being left vnexeâ—uted on the adulterous woman as the Romain was for the tyme of Livia let Bellarmin answer to the poynt not as of Livia onely but of any whor that hath wrought her husbaÌ„ds death and for want of proofe or through the Magistrats fault is suffered to live whether shee bee in better case then an honest chast religious matron that is put away from her husband vnjustly Which if hee dare not saye o considderinge one the one sideÌ„ the plagues that in this life and p in the life to come are layd vp for such miscreants on the other the blessed q promises of them both assured to the Godly then hee hath noe refuge but hee must needs confesse that his argument was fond For the murdering whore is not an aduteresse by the law of Christ though shee take another man her husband being dead and yet the chast Matrone were an adulteresse if shee married while her husband liveth who hath uniustly put her away Wherein this notwithstanding is to be weighed that a chaste womans case is not soe hard in comparson of the whores No Not for marriage neither as Bellarmin by cunning of speeche woulde make it seeme to countenauce therewith his reason For he frameth his words soo as if the chast had no possibility of remedy at all neither by having her former husbaÌ„d nor by marrying another therefore were in worse case theÌ„ the whore who is free to marrie whereas the truth is that by Christs lawe she not r onely may but s ought to have her former husband And why should not shee be as likely to recover her husbands good will to whom shee hadd bene faithfull as a faythlesse whore and infamous strumpett to get a newe husband Chiefly seing that it is to be presumed they loved ech other when they married t and experieÌ„ce sheweth that Failing out of Lovers is a renewing of love But if trough the frowardnes of men on the one side and foolishnes on the other the chaste wife could hardly reconcile her husdaÌ„d the whore get easily a match it fuffiâ—eth that the law of Christ cannot bee justly charâ—d with absurdity though it doe enlarg the vnchast and lewd in some outward thing in which it enlargeth not the chast v No more then the providence of God may be controlled and noted of iniquity though x the evil wiâ—ked enioy certaine earthly blessings in this life which are not graunted the vpright godly Wherefore the first place of Scripture out of S. Mathew and forced by Bell. with his 2 horned argument as the Logitions tearme it doth serve him as much to annoy our cause as the Iron hornes made in Aâ—habs favour by Zedechiah the falce prophet did stand him in stead to push consume the hoste of the Aramiters The second place is written in the tenth of Marke y Who so putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adulterie agaynst her and if a woman put away her husband be married to another shee committeth adulterie The like whereof is also in the sixtenth of Luke z whosoever putteâ—th away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery whoesoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband commiteth adultery These words sayth Bellarmin doe teach generally that marriage contracted perfected betweene the faithfull is never soe dissolved that they maye lawfully ioynin other wedlocke And whereas wee answer that these general sentences are to be expounded with a saving of the exceptioÌ„ mentioned in Mathew because one Evanghelist doth add oftentymes that another ommitteth a and Mathew els where contrary vnto Marke Luke which sith they al wrote as they were moved by the holy-spirit of truth is impossibel Bell: replieth that the Evangelists in deed omit or add somewhat now and than which other Evangelists have not omitted or added but they doe never omit in such sort that the sentence is made false A strange kind of speech As if all generall sentences were false from the which some speciality though not expressed in the same place yet by conference with others is understood to be expressed Sure the Civill Lawe which in learned mens opinons hath much truth will then bestained fowlly with untruths lyes For how many sentences rules set downe in it with full generall tearmes whereof not withstaÌ„ding there is none b lightly but suffereth an exception The Canon law also whose credit authority Bellarmin must tender hewsoever he doe the Civill hath store of such axioms and c teacheth accordingly That a perticulaer doth derogate from the generall But what speake I of meÌ„s lawes In the scripture it selfe Iob saith that d the hypocrite shall perish for ever like the dung and David that the e wicked shal turne into hell all nations that forget God Salomon that f Everie proud harted man is an abomination to the Lorde though hand ioyne in hand he shall not be unpunished g These sentences of Iob David Salomon h are true in the beliefe of Christians yet forasmuch as they must be understood with an exception according to the Doctrine of Christ and his servants saing unto sinners Except ye repent Ye shal al perish in the Iesuits iudgement they are made false And Ionas semblably when he preached to the Ninivits i yet forty daies and Ninive shal be overthrowen acused them with an untruth though learned men doe finde a truth in his speech as to be thus takeÌ„ that Niniveh should be overthrowen except it repented k Or if Bellarmin also acknowledg the same which he may not choose unlesse of a Iesuit he wil becom a Iulian and
an Athenian Citizen agaynst the Persians But men for the most parte are waged publiquely therevnto And that is the poynt which S. Paule respected Againe i Who planteth a Vineyard eateth not of the fruite thereof Hee on whom they father the first occasion of that proverb Many things doe happen between the cupp and the lipp is sayd not to have drunke of the fruite of the Vineyard which himselfe had plaÌ„ted not to have eaten thereof belyke At least seing k old men plant trees for their posterity neither might l the Iewes eate of their fruite in certayn years It is more then likely that many of them did not Some did not questionlesse they namely who sustanied the curse which God denounced vnto them by Moses Thou shalt plant a Vineyard and shalt not vse the finite thereof Yet S. Paule saide wel because such as plant vines doe eniâ—ye theÌ„ commonly Againe who n feedeth a flock eateth not of the milke of the flock They eat not of the milke who doe not milke there sheepe at al there be who doe not for feare of impairing therbye the lambs and woole But it is sufficient for S. Pauls purpose the truth of his speech that men in most o contreis are wont to have them milked p they who under take the paines of feeding flocks are accostomed to eate of the milkes of their flockes Againe q No man ever hated bis owne flesh but nourisheth cherisheth it Cato the younger who slewe himselfe at Vtica was so farr from nourishing cherishing his body that when his bowels being gushed out thereof he was not yet dead he tore theÌ„ in pieces with his owne hands as s Rasias also did Neither would S. Paule have denied this who knew that many t hadd killed themselves and taken awaie al ioyes of life from their flesh Onely he ment that noe man hath ever lightly hated it but every one doth nourish and cherish it rather Noe man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaiers of life because he would please him that hath chosen him to be a souldier What is this false because x rich Crassus being chosen by the Romains to be their Generall in Sirria did without all care of pleasinge them who had chosen him playe the marchand man and occupiede himselfe in councels and mony matters Or because a band of Cam-Panian souldiers who served the King of Sicilie gave theÌ„selves to citezeÌ„s trades and occupations having by treacherie seazed on Mesana dispossessed the townsmen devided their wives goods lands amonge them and a band of Romaines did the like at RhegiuÌ„ to the discontentment of such as chose them to be souldiers No for the APostle who exhorted Tymothy to behave himselfe as good honest souldier of Christe was not to learne that there are some unhonest soldiers retch lesse of their duty But his meaning was that soldiers usualy doe imploy themselves on warrlike exercises not on civil affaiers or domestical busines when they are chosen once to serve and in the same sence did he likewise say that a married woman is bound by the lawe unto her husband while he liveth because the band oÌ„f marriage is not usuallye ordinarely loosed but by death though it may be loosed is sometimes otherwise on rare onwonted cause Which is apparant to have been his meaning by that he teacheth that if an unbeliving man who hath a Christian wife doe forsake her then she is not in bondage For if she be not in bondage she is free to marrie as the words of Scripture imply by the contrary and the b Pope declareth If the be free to marrie the band of the former marriage is loosed els were she bound not free Where fore sith the Popes authentical record doth prove out of S. Paul that a wife in some case is free to marrie another while her husbande liveth the Papists must acknowledg that S. Paul meant the band is nor comonly loosed but by death not that it is never at al loosed otherwise absolutely and simply Bell. to frustrate and avoyde this answer saith that it may be proved by foure reasoÌ„s which he bringeth forth poore unarmed weake ons of his owne mustering with a stroÌ„ge hand puteth them to flight that soe men imagining that these are all that cann be alleaged on our side for the proofe thereof might thinke that out whole force is quite discomfited and Bell. hath wone the feild I have harde saie that there is cunning in daubing Surely there is cunninge in this kinde of dealing Neither is it for nothing that one c of our Glorious Champions doth vaunte that the cooÌ„mon sorte of Catholiques are able to say more for us then wee can for our selves In deede they would bear the common sort in hand that their learned men in handling of questions and controversies of religion doe set downe all obiections that can be made of our parte And I grauÌ„t they set down more theÌ„ ofteÌ„times theÌ„selves can souÌ„dly answer Yet they use discretioÌ„ therein by ther leave â— may a strong reasoÌ„ whiâ—h would troble theÌ„ fowlly if it came in place they are coÌ„teÌ„t to wink at saie nothing of it wherto theiâ— ioyn this policy now theÌ„ also that they take upoÌ„ theÌ„ to be as it were our proctors and attorneys in shewing what may be saied for us under which pretence they bring in such things as having already solution with the obiection and prooving unsound may turne to our causes discredit and to ours So the Iesuit here his arguement beeinge groundede on two places the one to the Romains the other to the Corinthians we countermyning the whole with one answer he saith that our answer maye be proved by fower reasons which he gathereth out of circumstances of the former place al such as the later hath neither any kindred with and discovereth them to be of no vallw But of the reasons which I have brought to prove our answer fitting both the places and partely confirming that S. Paul might wel meane the same in these which in the like he meant partely demonstrating that certainly he did soe becase it were not true els that he teacheth of the libertye of Christians forsaken of the unbelevers these reasons Bellarmin doth not touch No marveil for they are to hot And it is likelye that he studied not what might be most strongly saide in our defence but rather what most weakely that so he might seeme to ioyne bataile with us and yet might be sure to do him selfe noe harme Letting passe therefore the helpe which he offereth in like sorte to us as the Samaritans did unto the Iewes I come unto the iniust false accusation wherewith they sought to hinder the buylding of the Temple I meane the reasons which he untruly saith doe witnesse our answer and exposition to bee
Hath repated inculcated these things so often as Bellarmin so often telleth us when the thinge is mentioned in the former of them by way of a similitude wherein it hath been founde beside the purpose to speake of any exceptioÌ„ and for the later S. Paul hath omitted the same exception c twise where the Scripture sheweth plainely and Bell. coÌ„fesseth it should have beene added or tospeake more properly where al though it needed not to be added yet must it needs bee understoode Now to that Bellarmin doth next alledg the Fathers g Ambrose Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius Primasius Anselmus and others over and besides h Austin i Origen and k Ierom all as bearing witnesse that wee expound the places falsly I could reply that some of these whatsoever they witnesse have small credit with Bellarmin as Ambrose specially some namely Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius and Primasius doe not witnesse that no more then Paul himself doth Nay they all save one are coÌ„trary minded rather as shall appeare in l due place But that which I have sayde already touching Austin may serve for answer to the rest chiefly sith the Papists in whose behalf they are aleaged will rather yeald that all the Fathers might erre then any of their Popes m who yet must have erred in more then one Canon if this were true which Bell fathereth on the Fathers Finally concerning that for the vpshoote hee vrgeth Pauls similytude as if it he drift of it did absoiutely require that the man and wife can not bee made free from the band of Marriage by any seperatioÌ„ but by death onely because while the law had life as it were and stoode in force till Christe the Iewes could never shake off the Yoke thereof from theÌ„ although they endevored to seperate them-selves from it by committing whoredoÌ„ with sundry lawes of salfe Gods the rest of S. Pauls similytudes which I meÌ„cioned doe bewary the lamenesse and halting of this inference seing that the drift of them requireth absolutely by the same reason that no man went to warfare at his owne cost or planted Vynes or fedd sheepe without relief thereby because o all they p Who preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel And likewise that no man did ever hurt his owne body because q Every husbaÌ„d ought to love his owne wife r as Christ loved the Church and likewise that no souldier hath ever entangled him-self with the affayres of life because Timothee should bee stil about those actions s whereto the Lord t who choose him to be a souldier did call him Nay to goe no farther then the drift it self or the similytude which Bellarmin doth vrge if it requier absolutely that the band of Marriage may bee no way loosed but onely by the husbands or the wives death then neither is it loosed if the vnbele ever doe for sake the Christian neither if the husband become a Monke or the wife a Nunne neither if the Pope see cause to dispence with either of them And will not this fansie of his about that drift drive him in to greater inconvenieence yet to weet that every woman whose husband is dead ought to marry another because the Iewes were bound to become ChristiaÌ„s after the death of the Lawe or of the other side that the Iewes are not bound vnder payne of damnatioÌ„ to become Christians because no widowe is bound vnder payne of death to take another husband or if these absurdities bee not great enough that dead men ought to marry because The Iewes by duty should be vnto Christ wheÌ„ they were dead to the Lawe or that the men of Rome to whom S. Paul wrote should rather not beleeve in Christ because x he wished widowes rather not to marry Of the wich consequences if some bee esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed onely but are so in deede the most have impious folly ioyned with vnttuth Let Bellarmin acknowledg that similitndes must not be sett vpon the racke nor the drift thereof bee stretched and pressed in such sorte as if they ought iust in length bredth and depth to match fitt that where to they are resembled It sufficeth if in a generall analogy and proportion of the principall poynt wherein things matched and compared together they bee eche like to other and both agree in one qualitie Which here is observed in S. Pauls comparison of the state of Marriage with the state of man before and after regeneration because y as a wife her husband and being dead doth lawfully take another and is not an adulteresse in having his company to bring forth fruite of her body to him soe regenerate persons their naturall corruption prouoked by the law to sinne and flesh being mortified are ioyned to the Spirit the force of Christ working in them as it were to a second husband that they should bring forth fruite the fruites of the Spirit vnto God And thus seing neither the drift of the similytude nor the iudgement of the Fathers nor the playnesse of the wordes so oftentymes repeated doe disprove our answer and exposition of the place our answer proved by Scripture standeth firme and sure therefore the third place by our adversaries is sutable to the former So is the fourth last taken out of the first to the Corinthians the seaventh Chapter a To them who are Married it is not I that givs commaudement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if she depart too let her remayne vnmarried or bee recconciled vnto her husband Who rein as Bellarmin reasoneth the words of S. Paul If she depart so forth are meant of a woman which parteth from her husband vpon a cause of iust divorcement as namely for whoredom haeresie and the rest whatsoever they bee not of her which parteth without any such cause But concerning her of whom the word are meant S. Paul sayth most playne ly shee may not marrie another Therefore even a cause of iust divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawfull for married folckes to marry others al though they be severed put a sunder by iust divorcement And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insolnble In saying whereof he seemeth to confesse that none of the former arguments were so but might bee answered and confuted His confessioÌ„ touching them hath reason with it I must needs approve it But his vaunt of this is like that of b â—enhadads that the dust of Samaria would not bee enough to all the people that followed him for every man an handfull To whom the King of Israel sayde Let not him that girdeth his harmes boast him self as bee that putteth it off Bellamin hath skarâ—ly girt his harneis yet that which hee hath girt is vnservisable â—ad harneis too For the formost parte there of his
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
in question Whereto they shall have greater reason to induce them if they note with al that the Councell of Vames in the same contrie a the age following made this canon 3 Wee appoint and ordeine that they who having left their wives except for whoredom as it is said in the Gospel or vpon proofe mad of adulterie marrie others shal be excommunicated Least finnes being suffered by oâ—r too much gentlenes doe provoke other men to loosenes of transgressing And this decree I finde not anie of the Papists that goeth about to shift of Neither caÌ„ I see how they may possiblie The ConÌ„cell expouÌ„ding so playnly Christs wordes of marriage forbidden after divorcement unlesse it bee for whoredome and accompting marriage after such divorcement not a lesser sinne but no sinne at all as the reason added for strength of their decree sheweth Now for the next the generall Councell assembled in the Emperours palace of Constantinople which made the like decree and taught the same doctrine as I have declared Bellarmin would persuade vs vpon other occasions touching Poperie nearer the quick theÌ„ this doth that the western Byshops neither gave countenaunce thereto with their presence nor approved the Canons there of with their consent To this end he denieth that the said Councell was a generall Councell striveth in his s third controversie to aunswer some of our reasons which confirme it But he easeth vs of paines to fist his aunsweres by meanes that himself in the t fourth controversie discoursing of generall councels purposelie doth reckeÌ„ it amongst theÌ„ For as in v meÌ„s lawes wheÌ„ they are repugnaÌ„t on vnto another the later derogateth from the former x so I trow when Bellarmin doth contradict himself his last word must hould And the more reason it should so in this because both Pope Adrian the first of auncient tyme did cal it the sixth Councel declaring therby he tooke it to bee of the Generall Councels whereof he tearmed it the sixth and in the seaventh General Councel sundry Fathers alleadged it by the name of the sixth Generall and avouched it to be iustely called so Which sentence of theirs being uncontroled by any of that Councell z and the Councell it selfe afterward approoving the decrees and canons of the sixe generall Councels a it is very probable that the Western churches yealding their consent to the seaventh councell and taking it for fouÌ„d accounted as the Eastern have done doe that which they entiteled the sixth to be generall Specially seing that in the West men of great credit Ivo Gratian and Pope Ionoceutius the third and their disciples the whol schole of caÌ„onists have on those autorities of the seaveth couÌ„cel made like reckouing of it b And although our yonger Papists for the most parte and some of the elder perceiving what advantage may be taken thence against many grounds of popery c doe crosse thâ—er predecessors herein with seely reasons such as whereof the best would inferre more forcibly that their councell of Trent was noe Generall coÌ„cell yet among theÌ„ also ther are who allow the auncient opinion as Caranza namely and Genebrard and Surrius with whose preface tending to the proofe thereof it is recoÌ„mended published by papists in the two perfectest and last editions of the councels Wherefore whether auy of the West were present in persoÌ„ orby deputys subscribed to it which Belsamon and Nilus learned Greeke Fathers avouch by oulde recordes or whether it were celebrated by Estern bishops onelye as the second Generall Councell also was in the same city of Constantinople the consent of the West approving it for Geuerall averreth my saiings by a cloud of wittnesses of the Western Churches f pope Gregory the thirde followeth He graunteth that if a womaÌ„ by reason of siicnesse wherewith she were taken could not performe the dutye of a wif to her husdand her hâ—sband might put her awaye and marry another More then by the doctrine of Christ he had learned to graunt for sickenesse but so much the likelyer that he thought it should be graÌ„ted for whoredom expressely mentioned by Christ Whereupon Ioverius a sorbonist in a woorke approved by Sorbonists g matcheth this Cannon with the like of Councels who gave the innocent party leave to marey againe after divorcement while the other lived Neither doth Bellarmin deny the illation but the proposition which the poynt inferrede is grounded upon For the Doctores sayth hee meaning the Canonists expound the Canon of such sicknesse as maketh a woman vnfitt for Marriage and foe is an impediment disolving matrymonye contracted by shewing it was no true matrimonye But the Doctor of Doctors m Gratian himself vnderstood it otherwise of sicknesse befalling to her who was an able wife And those his glosse writers vse most that exposition which Bellarmin would have vs receive for authentick as the fittest salve yet rest n they not vpon it And o Antouius a great Canonist Archbyshop of Florence correcting p Gratians slipp of memorie for the persons concludeth with him for the matter And the slower of Lovan q Tapper the Chauncelour of their viniversity approveth this of Antonius And r the learned men who were over-seers of the last edition of the Councels doe witnessâ— by controlling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not 6 that Gregory meant of sicknesse happening vnto lawfull wives in their iudgemeÌ„t And the Pope himselfe as s Bellarmin noteth elswhere declareth that hee tooke it to be true matrymonie by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of ayde that is ought to maynteine finde her as his wife still Wherfore if no Catholique byshop would imagin that a man may lawfully put away his sick wife and marrie another vnlesse hee thought the same much more to be lawfull in an adulterous wife as wee are to presume then must the Papists by consequent acknowledg that the poynt in Question is proved and allowed by Gregory the third A playner and directer allowance thereof appeareth in a Canon of his successor â—Zacharie who when a certayne man had dâ—fiâ—ed himself incestiously with his wives sister graunted that his wife should bee divorced from him and vnlesse shee were privie to that wicked act by cousayling or proâ—uting it might marry in the Lord if shee could not conteine This so cleare a testimony of an 7 auncient Pope authorizing the divorced woman to marrie Bellarmin would elude by saying that hee meant shee might marrie another after the formâ—r husbands death As who say the Pope inioyning the 8 man and the whore for a punishment to stay and abyde without hope of marriage were likelye to meane by liberty of marrying graunted the guyltlesse for a benefite that while the guilty lived who might overlive her shee should not marrye no more then hee Or as though there had bene neede for
say if it be for God gave time of repeÌ„taÌ„ce to Ioab a wilâ—ul murderer who the magistrat shold have put to death presently God gave time of repentaÌ„â—e to Idolatrous wives of the Iewes whoÌ„ their husbaÌ„ds ought not to have spared so if therefore Gods actioÌ„ herein be set douÌ„e for our imitatioÌ„ the man that can coÌ„teine be without a wife as God without our serviâ—e may like wise in mâ—rcie waite for her repentance when he perceiveth it to be be unfained take her againe to be his wife But hâ— who can not or wil not render such kindnes for such unkindnes and wickednes may in iustice alsoe put her soe away that noe place or hope of reconcilement bee left her as Bellarmin owne reason in this similitude teacheth For God is not bound to give vnto prophane dispisers of his grace breakers of his covenant place of repentaÌ„ce reconciliation Nay he may in iustice absolutely denye it them oftentyms doth as the examples of Cain of Esau of Corah Dathau and Abiram of Zimri of Acan of Auanias Saphira of infinit other that have either presently dyed in their sinnes or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against theÌ„ doe argue wherfor wheÌ„Bell coÌ„cludeth this resoÌ„ with sayin that S. Austin vrgeth it greatly in his book of the Good of marriag â—e dealeth as Cooks do in larding leane meate to give that a relish which of it self woul be vnsavoury Though eveÌ„ for the lard to perhaps it agreeth not half so wel herwith as this ItaliaÌ„ cook would have vs think it doth For why did not S. Austin vrge the same likewise in his bookes of adulterous marriages writteÌ„ afterward purposely maintaining this Point against Polâ—tius who gainfaied him in it was it because he saw that he had vrged it more then it would bear wel or that he perceived it would not hould against an adversarye though without an adversarie it were a pretie allusioÌ„ At least whatsoever meÌ„ deem of the lard the meat is naught questioÌ„les such that the cook be coÌ„teÌ„t to eate the driest morsel of it yet must he needs graunt that it hath not tast not as much as th white of an egg hath For himself saith that marriag betokeneth signifieth Christs coniuÌ„ction with the faithful soule as Thomas the Pope reach But Christs coniunctioÌ„ with the faithful soule is not indâ—ssoluble as him felf also saith the band of marriage therfor by his owne consequeÌ„ce may be dissolved loosed And thus farr of his first sophisme The next is that if other marriage were lawful the of-spring should be iniuried for the childreÌ„ borne already saith he should â—e evilll provided for who should begin to have a stepfather in steed of a father a stepmother in steed of a mother Wher hence the conclusioÌ„ secretly inferred to weet that other marriage therfore is not lawful would very wel folow if his formost ground propositioÌ„ werr true that the childreÌ„ should be iniured therby For it is not lawful to deale iniuriously with any he that doth wrong shal receive for it But how proveth Bel. that they should be iniuried his reasoÌ„ ensueth for they should be evil provided for what therfor Is God vniust theÌ„ who by taking meÌ„ out of this preseÌ„t life doth leave their wives widowes their children fatherless both often destitute of help God forbid saith the Apostle els how shall God iudg the world But the childeren shold be endamaged therby that perhaps wil Bell say was his meaÌ„ing wel they shold be endamaged evil provided for Why Because they sholâ— have a step father insteed of a father or step-mother in steed of a mother Then belike the brauÌ„heâ— cut of the Olivtre which was wild by nature graffed coÌ„trari to nature in aright olive tree are evil provided for endaÌ„aged by it For as when a gardenar asked why the hearbs which he set or sowed doe growe shoot up so slowly where weeds which the earth brought forth of her owne accord encreased a pace Aesop said that it was because the earth is the weeds mother and the hearbs steepe-mother so the wild Olive tree was the mother that brought forth such brauches the right Olive tree whereinto they were graffed is their stestmother S Paul who thought it better for vs of the GeÌ„tiles to be graffed so theÌ„ to coÌ„tinue as we were the childreÌ„ of wrath by nature declareth that a ChristiaÌ„ whose wife being an infidel an nnbelever forsaketh him is free to marry anothâ—r Which coÌ„sidering that he had an eie to the holly seede their offspring also what letteth him to have done with this perswasion that the children shold receive more good benefit by a beleeving step-mother then by an uÌ„beleeving mother Doubtlesse his care of having theÌ„ brought up in godlines a thing that godly mothers do furder verye muche and ungodely hinder is argueat agnement that hee was of this minde And the soune of Catelyne whom that adulterous wretch his father murdered to compasse the more easily the liking of a woman whom he lusted after hath left snfficient proofes that som having fathers are no better looked to for things of this life neither theÌ„ they should of liklyhood if in steed therof they had stepfathers Wherfor sith experieÌ„ce varifieth the same in meÌ„ which in woemeÌ„ that when they have made shipwracke of their chastity they wil not sticke at any wickednes the argumeÌ„t that childreÌ„ shold be endamaged evil provided for because in steed of adulterours fathers or mothers they should have stepfathers stepmothers chast honest is worse provided for by Bell. theÌ„ he thought But suppose it were good proved that the children should be endamaged how followeth the conclusion The childreÌ„ shold be endamaged by marriag another eitherefore the marriage is not lawful â—or by this reason a beleeving husband forsaken by his wife being an vnbelever may not take another if he had children by the former Nay no wife or husbaÌ„d having any children may lawfully ever marry again either of them after the others death And in deede by a law that Charondas made for his Thurian Cityzens the men who did so were punished And Mar. Antonius an Emperour of Rome because he was loath to wedd a step-mother to his children his wife being dead kept a concubine And S. Ierom speaking as the Catharists did against second mariage doth by detestation of a stepfarther dâ—ssuad a widowe from it But the Papists hold agreeably to Scripture that the man is at liberty to marry in the Lord after the womans death the woman after the mans yea in life tyme also if either of them being an infidel vnbeleever forsake the other being a Christiam And Bell. acknowledgeth that they hold both these poynts ought to hold them Bell. shall therfor doe well to acknowledg that his step-reasâ—n which oppugneth both these poynts of sound doctrine