heresie Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagonas his owne as sundrie fathers speake dangerously that way then thrust in by Encratites who generally reiected all marriage not seâ—ond marriage onelie Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause As much doth the last of his witnesses Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage hee matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes and stained with spotts of errour Which iudgmeÌ„t not onely Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately geven of him though a Iesuitical spirit doe traduce theÌ„ insolently for it But an auncient Pope of Rome with seaveÌ„tie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinitie and in the Canon law Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same Now in the third hundred yeares to goe forward Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion of whom one questionlesse controlleth perhaps both For Tertullian disputing against the heretique Marcion who falsely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses because Moses graunted divorcemeÌ„t Christ forbiddeth it answereth that Christ saying whosoever shall put away his wife marrie another committeth adulterie meaneth vndoubtedly of putting away for that cause for which it is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another And likewise for the wife that he is an adulterer who marrieth her being put away if shee be put away vnlawfully considering that the marriage which is not rightly broken off continueth and while the marriage doth continue it is adulterie to marrie Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully for the cause excepted by Christ may marrie another Bellarmin doth very cunningly finely cut of with an et caetera and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement if there be a iust cause but did forbid to marrie againe after divorcement So directly agaisnt the most evideÌ„t light of the wordes tenour of the whole discourse that learned men of his owne side though houlding his opinion yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it For byshop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintaine that men may lawfully marrie againe after divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie nameth Tertullian quoting this place amoÌ„g them And Sixtus Senensis a man not inferiour in learning to Bellarmin in sincere dealing for this point superiour coÌ„fesseth on the same place on those same words but recited wholy not clipped with an etcetera that Tertullian maketh a certaine vndoubted assertion thereof Pamelius in deede through a desire of propping vp his churches doctrine with TertulliaÌ„s credit saith that though hee seeme here to allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort as that the husbaÌ„d may marrie another wife yet hee openeth himself holdeth it to be vnlawfull in his booke of single marriage Whâ—rein he saith some what but litle to his advauntage For Tertullian wrote this booke of single marriage wheÌ„ hee was falleÌ„ away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie that is vnlawfull to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death But in that thee wrote while hee was a Catholique against the heretique Marcion hee teacheth coÌ„trarywise the same that wee doe as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truely graunt Yea Pamelius himself if hee looke better to his owne notes doth graunt as much For he saith that Tertullian vseth the worde divorcement in his proper signification for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife marrieth another But TertulliaÌ„ saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marrie another by Tertullians iudgment Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen Although it be true hee saith as Bellarmin citeth him that certaeine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived addeth they did it agaynst the scripture For he seemeth to speake of a woman divorced from her husband not for adulterie but for some other cause such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for bygiving theÌ„ a bill of divorcemeÌ„t The matter that he handleth and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to this meaning Approved by the opinion of certaine learned men too For after he had said according to the words of Christ which he expoundeth that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemeÌ„t did yeeld vnto the weakenes of theÌ„ to whom the law was geveÌ„ he saith that the Christian byshops who permitted a womaÌ„ to marrie while her former husbaÌ„d lived did it perhaps for such weaknes Wherefore sith in saving that this which they did they did perhaps for such weaknes he hath relatioÌ„ vnto that of Moses Moses as he addeth did not grauÌ„t the bill of divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshops whoÌ„ Origen chargeth with doing against the scripture did permitt the womaÌ„ to marrie vpon divorcemeÌ„t for some other cause not for adulterie so his reproving of theÌ„ doth not touche vs who grauÌ„t it for adulterie only Thus doth Erasmus thinke that Origen meant concluding it farther as cleare by the similitude which he had vsed before of Christ who put away the Synagogue his former wife as it were because of her adulterie married the churche Yea Tapper likewise a great divine of LovaÌ„ of better credit with Papists theÌ„ Erosâ—nus saith that the divorcemeÌ„t permitted by those Byshops whoÌ„ Origen coÌ„trouleth was a Iewish divorcemeÌ„t Wherein though he aymed at another marke to prove an vntruth yet vnwares he hiâ— a truth more theÌ„ hee thought of strengthened that by Origen which he thought to overthrowe Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter caÌ„ persuade by other likelyhoods out of Origen as he is somewhat darke I know not whether irresolute in the point that the thing reproved by him in those Byshops was the permitting of one to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie our cause shal be more advaÌ„taged by those sundrie Byshops who approved it theÌ„ disadvaÌ„taged by one OrigeÌ„ who reproved theÌ„ for it Chiefly seing OrigeÌ„ impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith for whiâ—h a generall Councell with Bellarmins allowaÌ„ce count 〈◊〉 a damned heretique in this matter by excluding all such as are twise married out of the KingdoÌ„ of heaveÌ„ which divines of Paris observe check him for Whereas those Byshops of whoÌ„ he maketh mentioÌ„ were neither stayned otherwise for ought that may be gathered nor herein did they more then
fornicatioÌ„ he might not onely put her away but marrie another Some others and amonge them namely S. Augustine have thought that the man might put away his wife but marrie another he might not The Schooledivines of latter years the CanoÌ„ists as for the most parte they were adicted comonly to S. Austins iudgmeÌ„nt did likewise follow him herein the Popes mainteining their doctrine for Catholique have possessed the church of Rome with this opinion But since in our dayes the light of good learning both for artes tongues hath shined more brightly by Gods most gracious goodnes then in the former ages and the holy scriptures by the help thereof have bene the better vnderstoode the Pastors and Doctors of the reformed Churches have percieved shewed that if a mans wife defile her self with fornication he may not onely put her away by Christs Doctrine but also marrie another Wherein that they teach agreeably to the truth and not erroneously as Iesuits Papists doe falsly and vniustly charge them I will make manifest and prove through Gods assistance by expresse words of Christ the truth it self And because our adversaries doe weene that the coÌ„trarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguments and obiecttions which two of their newest writers Bellarmin the Iesuit a namelesse author of an English pamphlet have dilligeÌ„tly laid together For the farther clearing therefore of the matter and taking away of doubts scruples I will set downe all their obiections in order first out of the scriptures then of fathers last of reasons and answer everie one of them particularly So shall it appeare to such as are not blinded with a fore-conceived opinion and prejudice that whatsoever shewe of probabilities ate brought to the contrarie yet the truth delivered by our Saviour Christ alloweth him whose wife committeth fornication to put her away and marrie another The proofe hier of is evident if Christs wordes be weighed in the niententh Chapter of S. Mathews gospell For when the Pharises asking him a question whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for everie cause received answer that it was not and therevpon saide vnto him Why did Moses then commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way Our Saviour sayde vnto them Moses suffered you because of the hardnes of your harte to put awaye your wifes But from the beginning it was not so And I say vnto you that whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her that is put away doth commit adulterie Now in this sentence the clause of exception except it bee for whoredome doth argue that he commiteth not adulterie who having put away his wife for whoredome marrieth another But he must needes commit it in doing so vnles the band of marrirge be loosed and disolved For who so marrieth another as long as he is bouÌ„de to the former is an adulterer The band then of marriage is loosed dissolved betwene that man and wife who are put assunder and divorced for whoredome And if the band beloosed the man may marry another seing it is written Art thou loosed from a wife If thou marrie thou sinnest not Therefore it is lawfull for him who hath put away his wife for whoredome to marrie another This argument doth firmly and necessarily coÌ„clude the point in question if the first parte proposition of it be proved to be true For there is no controversie of any of the rest beinge all grounded on such vndoubted principles of scripture reason that our adversaries themselves admit and graunt them all The first they denie to weete that the clause of exâ—eption in Christs speech except it be for whoedome doth argue that the maÌ„ committeth not adulterie who having put awaie his wife for whoredome marrieth another And to overthrowe this proposition they doe bring soudry answers and evasions The best of all which as Bellarmin avoucheth is that those words except it bee for whoredome are not an exception For Christ saith he ment those words except for whoredome not as an exception but as a negation So that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife except for whoredome that is to saie without the cause of whoredome shall marrie another doth commit adulteric Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredoe marrieth another but nothing is sayde touching him who marrieth another having put away his former wife for whore dome In deede this evasion might have some collour for it if these words of Christ except it be for whoredome were not an exception But neither hath Bellarmin ought that maye suffice for the proofe hereof and the verie text of the â—cripture it selfe is soe cleare against him that he must of necessitie give over his houlde For the principal pillar wherewith he vnder proppeth it is S. Austins iudgmeÌ„t who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marriages Now of that treatise S. Austin saith himselfe in his retractations I have written two bookes touching adulterous marriages as neere as I could according to the scripturs being desirous to open and loose the knotts of a most difficult question Which whether I have done so that no knott is left therein I know not nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly and throughly although I have opened many creeckes thereof as whosoever readeth with iudgment may discerne S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that there are some wants imperfectioÌ„s in that worke which they may see who reade with iudgment And whether this that Bellarmin doth alleage out of it deserve not to fal within the coÌ„passe of that ceÌ„sure I appeale to their iudgmeÌ„t who have eies to see For S. Augustin thought that the word in the orignial of S. Mathews gospel had by the Proper significatioÌ„ of it imported a negation rather then an exception As he sheweth by saying that where the common Latin translation hath except for whoredome in the Greeke text it is rather read without the cause of whoredome Supposing belike whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight that the same words which were vsed before in the fift Chapter of S. Mathews Gospel to the same purpose were vsed also in this place whereas here they differ and are well expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so well Howbeit if thy had bene the same with the former yet neither so might Bellarmin allowe his opinion considering that the comon latin traÌ„slation which Papists by there Councel of Trent are bound to stande to vnder paine of ourse expresseth those likewise as a plaine exception Which in deede agreeth to the right and naturall meaning of the particle as the like writers vse
their owne doctrine allowed established by the Councel of TreÌ„t shall force them will they nill they to see it acknowledg it For if the exceptioÌ„ be 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 coÌ„panie society of life although he marry not another But the Councel of TreÌ„t pronounceth and 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 exceptioÌ„ cannot so bee tyed vnto the former point onely And therefore whereas Bellarmin sayeth further that he thiÌ„keth it is S. Thomas of Aquines opinioÌ„ that Christs words should bee expounded so Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde the Papists peradventure wil be faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse but Thomas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts chiefest light of the Church of Rome shal be conviuced of errour even by the Councell of Trents verdict And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of another shift which this coosin german to the last intreated of and Bellarmin prayseth it alike To weete that the words committeth adulterie must be supplied and understood in the former parte of Christs sentence thus Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whoredome committeth adulterie and whoso marrieth another committeth adulterie 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 towards Christs senteâ—ce that a ChristiaÌ„ should who can finde in his heart to have it devided of one living body naÌ„ely Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whordoÌ„e and marrieth another coÌ„mitteth adulterie made as it were two peeces of a dead carkas the first Whosoever putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome committeth adulterie the secoÌ„d whoso marrieth another coÌ„miteth adultrie Which dealing beside the incoÌ„venieÌ„ce of making the scripture a nose of waxe leadÌ„e rule if men may add what pleaseth theÌ„ spetialy if they may also maÌ„gle senteÌ„ces chop theÌ„ in sundry parts but beside this mischief here it hath a greater that Christ most true and holy is made thereby to speake an vntruth For a man may put away his wife for other cause then for whoredome yet not coÌ„mit adulterie himselfe Yes hee committeth it sayth Bellarmin in his wives adultery whereof hee was the cause by putting her vniustly away But I reply that it is one thing to cause his wife to coÌ„mitt it another to commit it himself And y Christ when hee was minded to note these severall faults did it with severall words expressinge them accordinglye Moreover vnderstandinge the tearme to put away not as the force thereof doth yeeld Christ tooke it for loosing of the baÌ„d of marriage but for a sepe ration from bed and boord onely as Bellarmin vnderstandeth it He cannot allowe the sentence which hee fathereth one Christ though soe expounded without either condemning of the Trent Councel or beeing himself condemned by it For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him but for whoredome doth committ adulterie in causing her to committ it Then is it a sinne to seperate her for any cause save for whoredome If it bee a sinne The Church of Rome erreth in houlding and decreeing that shee may bee seperated for sundrie other causes But whosoever sayth that the Churche erreth herein is accursed by the Councell of Trent The Councell of Trent therefore doth coÌ„sequently curse Bellarmin if hee say that Christ spake his wordesin that sense in which he coÌ„strueth them And doth it notcurse Austin also Theophilact whoÌ„ Bellarmin alleageth as saying the same at least it declareth that in the CouÌ„cels iudgment the fathers missexpouÌ„d the Scrip tures sometymes even those verie places on which the Papists cite theÌ„ assounde interpreters of the scripture Now the speech of Christ being cleared saved entier from all cavils the meaning thereof is playne as I have shewed that he who having put a way his wife for whoredoÌ„e marrieth another coÌ„mitteth not adulterie For soe much importeth the exception negative of the cause of whoredoÌ„e opposed to the generall affirmative propositioÌ„ wherewith our Saviour answered the question of the Pharisies touchcing divorcemeÌ„ts vsed by the Iewes who putting awaye there wives for any cause did marrie others The onely reason of adversaries remayning to bee answered stood vppon and vrged by them as moste effectuall and for cible to the contrarye is an example of like sentences from which sith the like conclusion say they cannot bee inferred as wee inferre of this the inferrence or this is faultye And faultie I graunt they might esteeme it iustly if the like conclusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences But lett the examples which they bring for proofe here of be throughly sifted And it will appeare that either the sentences are vnlike or the like conclusitons may bee inferred of them For of three sentences proposed to this end the the firste is out of Scripture in S. Iames Epistle To him that knoweth how to doe well and doth it not to him there is sinn A sentence though in shewe vnlike to that of Christs for the proposition and exception both yet having in deede the force of the like if it be thus resolved To him that doth not well except hee know not how to doe well there is sinn And why may it not be concluded hereof that there is no sinn to him who knoweth not how to doe well doth it not because there are sinns of ignoraunce saith Bellarmin he who knoweth not how to doe well and doth it not sinneth though lesse then hee that offendeth wittingly I knowe not whether this be a snine of ignorauns in Bellarmin or no that when he should say if he will check the conclusion there is sinne to ignorant he saith as if that were all one the ignoraunt sinneth Betwene which two things there is a great difference in S. Iames his meaning For S. Iames in these words there is sinne to him doth speake emphatically noteth in that man the same that our saviour did in the Pharisies when because they boasted of their sight knowledg he told theÌ„ that they â— had sinne meaning by this Phrase as himself expoundeth it that their sinne remained that is to say continued and stoodt firme setled The custome of the Greeke tongue wherein S. Iames wrote doth geve this Phrase that sense as also the Syriaque the language vsed by Christ translating Christs words after the same manner the matter treated of doth argue that he meant
might neither would have allowed a man to bee rashly angry with his brother for Christ forbiddeth it But if one were suddenly surprised with rashe anger S. Paul would advise him not to let the sunne goe downe vpon his angry wrath neither 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 willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh whereas Christ commandeth them not to lust at all For S. Paul also condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sinne But seing that the flesh will lust agaynst the Spirit as long as wee are in this mortality he sturreth vp the faythfull that they let 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 from her husbaÌ„d Yet in consideratioÌ„ 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 hee had affirmed that they who haue not the gift of continence should marry and what if shee have it not hee adioyneth farther or let her be reconciled vnto her husband So that although the words may seeme to bee 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 therein done evill forbeare to marry another for that were farre worse yea though shee can not containe in respect where of or of any thing els if shee mislike to live vnmarried shee may not vse the libertye that single folke may who rather ought to marrie then burne but shee must reconcile her self vnto her husband whose wife shee is by duty still And I may say likewise doubtles vnto Bellarmin that hee and his pamphletter should not have mayntained their error in writing but sith they have done it let theÌ„ write no more in defence of it or let them acknowledg that in this poynt they were deceived For whereas they gather of the disjunctive particle Let hor remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled that S. Paul hath put it in the womans choyse left her at liberty either to live seperated still from her husband or to be reconciled vnto him they might as well ground vpon Christs words to the angell of the church of the Laodiceans I would thou werest colde or hot that hee hath put it in our choise and left vs at libertie either to bee colde in faith and love as flesh is or to bee fervent in the spirit Yet Christ had no such meaning For he commaundeth vs to bee servent and that verie angell hee saith to everie faith full men Be hot Zealous But because the partie was luke warme a wordling who had receyved the seede of the word but bare not fruite who knew his maisters will but did it not there by sinned most grievously Christ wisheth that he 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 did by all likelyhood of circumstaÌ„ces of the text wishe simply and chiefly 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 senteÌ„ce 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 whether shee listed And thus it appeareth how certaine and vndoubted that principle is which vpon this proofe Bellarmin avoucheth to bee most certaine vndoubted that S. Pauls words touching the wife If shee depart are ment of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divorcement Howbeit if they had bene meant of her onely yet must they have touched such wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause not for whoredom An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin that in exemplising the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should bee restrayned hee nameth whoredom first as prncipally comprised in S. Pauls precept whereas S. Paule meant that it and it alone should bee excluded and excepted For these are his words To them who are married it is not I that geve commandement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee departe too let her remaine vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husband and let not the husband put away his wife Where in the last braunch Let not the husband put away his wife must needes bee vnderstood except it bee for whoredom because S. Paule saith it is the Lords commandement and the Lord gave it with that expresse exception This Bellarmyn doth graunt Well Then as the last braunche so the first too Let not the wife depart from her husband For the analogie is all one and yeche having interest in the others bodie shee may as lawfully depart from an adulterer as hee from an adulteresse And this doth Bellarmin graunt also But the middle braunche is to be vnderstood of the same departing and likewise qualified as the first Therefore If shee depart too is meant except it be for whoredome Nay not so quoth Bellarmin for the same departing is not meant in both but a farre different in the first an uniust departing in the next a just and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes Not I but the Lord geve commandement let not the wife depart from her husbaÌ„d to weet without a just cause but if shee goe away to weet having a just cause let her remaine vnmarried so forth In the refutation of which wrong violence done vnto the sacred text what should I stand wheÌ„ the onely reason whereby out of scripture hee assayeth to prove it is the disiunctive particle which as I have shewed alreadie hath no ioynt or sinew of proofe to that effect And the onely father whose testimony hee citeth for it doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture So that his reason being overthrowâ—n his â—reditt and authoritie by his owne approved rule may beare no sway And on the contrarie parte many other fathers doe expound the second braunche as having refereÌ„ce to the same departing that is forbidden in the first And which is the chief point the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same For the tearmes But if too importe that doing also of that which in the sentence before he had affirmed ought not to be done As the like examples in the same discourse to
if it had a number of wicked lewd prophane in-habitants For by there report the Romans having everye one a name or two should bee worse for the most parte then were the Atlantes a people of Africke whom Diodorus Siculus commendeth verie heighly for Godlynes and Humanity yet non of thē had anie name Herodotus saith Or if this bee a fable as Plinie seemeth rather to thinke and well it may be yet is it most certayne that ◠Plutarch recordeth as grave and wise sayings of Lacedemonyans without names as of any whose names are known And Bellarmin I trust will graunt that in the scriptures there is no lesse account to be made of the booke of Ioshua then of Nehemias of Iob thē of the Proverbs though their names who wrote the one bee not sett downe as theirs who wrote the other But hee will say perhaps that of this Councell not onely the name is vnknowen but also the worke it selfe lost And what if it be were not those of Varroes workes which wee have not as learned as the worke of Floccus which wee have Of Tullie of Polybius of Livie Dio Tacitus of infinite writers more are there not as good bookes lost as there are extant The same hath fallen out in Eclesiasticall authors specially in Councels whereof a great many are not to be found as they who by occasion of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals have dilligently searched through the chiefest liberaaies of Europe doe note And a certaine famous and aunciēt Councel of Ments beeing commended and praised above the other by Tretenius and Surius who wisheth hee might have gotten it to be publyshed sheweth that some extant are not to bee compared with some that are lost wherefore Bellarmins former exception to the Councell that it is not extant no nor the name of it was not worth the nameing The latter that the Councels Canon was meant of Marriage after the former wives death is lyke to prove as false as the profe thereof is frivolous and fond For these are the words of the Canon A certaine woman laye with her husbands brother it is decreed the adulterers shall never bee Married but lawfull Marriage shal be graunted vnto him whose wife the vilenie was wrought with Which words are well expounded saith Bellarmin by the Doctors and their meaning gathered out of the like Canon following a litle after wherein it is ordeined that When the adulterous wife is deceassed her man may marrie whom hee will but her selfe the adulteresse may not marrie at all no not her husband being dead Gratian in deed and the Glosse-writers on him the Doctores meant by Bellarmin doth them wrong in saying they expound it rightly For this Canō following out of which they gather that to bee the meaning being a Canon of I know not what Gregory at least Fathered on him doth noe more prove it then the above alleaged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent partye while the other lived doth inferre the cōtrarie And the Councells words mentioning expressely the Innocēt parties freedom and liberty to marry which had bene superfluous if they meant of marriage after the others death make it most probable that the Councell vttered them with the same meaning wherewith others vttered the like as hath bene shewed Herevnto the iudgement of Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength and cutt the sinewes of it acknowledgeth notwithstanding that it was of one minde with the councell of Tribur So was Pope Alexander the third too some tyme though Bellarmin alleage him as of another mynde But let Bellarmin say whether hee had two myndes and erred in on of them seing it is certaine hee was of this minde once vnlesse hee wrote against his minde For where as a man that had wedded a wife did before hee entred the marriage-bed 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 favour of that which hath bene missliked in Papall dispensations But he that graunted thus much to the incestuous husband would I trust have graunted it to the guiltlesse wife as 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 expoūd the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse 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 Decretalls geve her the name of spouse without signification that the man had wedded her But hereof Frier Raymund who compiled clipped the Decretalls must beare the blame as Antonius Contius a learned Lawier of their owne hath well observed For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in the Tomes of Councels declareth that the woman was the mans wedded wife though he did forbeare her companie a while No remedīe 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 anye Papist for ought that I know or as I thinke will bee For Lactantius first avoucheth so the lawfulnes of putting away ◠mās wife for adulterie even with intent to marry another that both Covaruvias and Dominicus Soto graunt him to be cleare from it Next touching the authours mentioned by Gratian as holding the same for one kinde of adulterie who doubted but there were certaine so persuaded when such an adversarie confesseth it Then for Pope Celestin the thirde sith a Pope saith hee thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their parteners in wedlocke for haerisie and marry others I see not how the Papist may denye hee thought it lawful for adulterie more then I shewed they might of Gregory the third And albeit Zacharie byshop of Chrysopolis may seeme to shew rather what other mens opinion was then what his owne yet it is apparant by his manner of handeling that hee ioyned with Ambrose therein whose words hee citeth and fenseth them against authorities that might bee opposed As for the Byshop of Burgos Paul commended heighly by learned men for learning hee sayth that it is manifest by Christs doctrine that whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom commiteth not adulterye though hee marry another Naclantus who was present at the Councel of Trent a Byshop of principall name and price among them affirmeth as directly that a wife being losed from her husband by death or by divorcement is not an adulteresse if shee marrie another To conclude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus Caietan Catharinus Luther Melancton Bucer Calvin Brentius Kemnitius Peter
the same in his defense of the Councell a worke verie highly commeÌ„ded by Oseruis And Canus setteth it downe for a conclusion that many of them consenting in one can yeild no firme proofe if the rest though fewer in number do dissent Yea Bellarmin himself saith that there can no certaintie be gathered out of their sayings when they agree not among themselves It is a thing graunted theÌ„ by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove ought vnlesse they all consent in one But the fathers do not all consent in one about the point wee treat of as it shal be shewed Our adversaries therefore must graunt that the opinioÌ„ which they holde in this point cannot be proved by Fathers Nay they are in danger of being enforced to graunt a farther matter and more importing them by the consequent hereof For through a decree of Pope Pius the fourth the professors of all faculties all that take degrees in any poopish schoole are bound by solemne oth that they shall never expound and take the scripture but according to the Fathers coÌ„seÌ„ting all in one Wherefore how will Bellarmin perhaps the Pamphletter also if he have bene amongst them and taken any degree but what shift will Bellarmin and his puefellowes finde to save themselves from periurie when it shal be shewed that many of the Fathers gaine say that opinion which him-self and his expound the scripture for And what if it appeare that the greater number of Fathers doe so nor the greater onely but the better also and those whose grounds are surer Then all the probability which Fathers can yeild will turne against the Papists and that which our adversaries would prove by tradition and the consent of all ages will rather be disproved thereby But howsoever men be diversly persuaded touching the number quality of Fathers enclyning this or that way by meanes of sundrie circumstances which may breed doubt both particularly of certaine and of the whole summe in generall the maine and principall point remayning to be shewed namely that the Fathers consent not all in one for the Papists doctrine is most cleare and evident out of all controversie In so much that many even of them also whom Bellarmin alleageth and the Pamphletter after him as making for it make in deed against it and those of the chiefest and formost rankes spetially in the first the second the third the fourth hundred yeares after Christ. All the which agree and teach with one consent that the man forsaking his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe save such of them onely as in this very point of doctrine touching marriage are tainted with error by the iudgement and censure of Papists themselves A token of the vanetie and folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphletter who by naming one at least in everie age would needes make a shewe of having the consent of all ages with them whereas it wil be seene hereby that in many we have the most and best and they either none at all or none sound For in the first hundred yeares after Christ all that Bellarmin sayth they have is the testimony of Clemens in the CanoÌ„s of the Apostles where the maÌ„ is willed without any exception to be excommunicated who having put away his wife doth marrie another Now beside that Clemens vpon whom Bellarmin fathereth those canons is iniured therein As for the later parte of them himself sheweth his friend for the former neither are they of Apostolique antiquitie and authoritie notwithstanding their title as many Fathers testifie and Papists will acknowledg when they are touched by them The author of the Canon had respect therein by all probabilitie to the Apostolique doctrine receyved from Christ therefore though he made not an expresse exceptioÌ„ of divorce for whordom might as well impply it as I have declared that some of the Euangelists and S. Paule did Which the interpreters also of those Canons Zonaras and Balsamon thought to be so likely and more then a coniecture that they expound it so without any scruple Balsamon in saying that he who putteth away his wife without cause may not marrie another and Zonaras that hee who marrieth a woman put away without cause by her husband doth committ adulterie Or if these writers mistooke the authours meaning in his opinion no maÌ„ howsoever his wife were put away without or with cause might lawfully marrie another thâ—n take this with all that hee skarse allowed any second marriage but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom Which although a Iesuit goe about to cover and salve with gentle gloses like the false prophets Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavorie plaister yet sith that counterfait Clements worke did flowe out of the fountaines of the Gretians as a great historian of Rome hath truelie noted and amoÌ„g the Gretians many held that errour as it is likewise shewed by a great Sorbonist the likelyhood of the matter and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall and proper signification of the words will not permitt 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 Bellarmin produceth out of the first hundred yeares doth not helpe him Out of the second hundred he produceth three Iustinus Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus 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 Bellarmin but as Christ did who excepting whoredome in the former braunche of that sentence vnderstoode it likewise in this as I have shewed And how may wee know that Iustinus meant so By his owne wordes in that hee commendeth a godly Christian woman who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of dirorcement such as did loose that band of matrimony and saith concerning him that hee was not her husband afterward The next Athenagoras affirmeth I graunt that if any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie another he is an adulterer But Bellarmin must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too as well as by divorcement teaâ—heth with the Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is vnlawfull Wherevpon a famons Parisian Divine Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian and may well be thought to have bene inserted into his worke by Eucratites A censure for the ground thereof very true that the said opinion is a Philosophicall fansie yea an