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
go no farder shewe yea some having one particle lesse then this hath to pressâ— it therevnto It is good for the vnmarried and widowes if they abide even as I doe But if they doe not conteine let them marry The woman which hath an vnbeleeving husband and hee consenteth to dwell with her let her not put him away but if the vnbeleeving depart let him depart Art thou loosed from a wife seeke not a wife But thou marrie also thou sinnest not This I speake for your profitt that you may doe that which is comely But if anie man thinke it vncomely for his virgin if shee passe the time of Marriage let him doe what he will The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at libertie and so forth In all the which sentences sith the clauses brought in with those coniunctioÌ„s have manifest relation to the things spoken of before and touâ—h theÌ„ in the same sense the braunche that is in questioÌ„ having like dependance must in all reason be conserved of the same departing that the former Thus it being proved that S. Paul commanding the wife to remanie vnmarried if shee departed from her husbaÌ„d did meane Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faultie even in this also that he nameth whoredom among the iust causes of the wives departing here meant by S. Paul Now in his conclusion inferring herevpon that even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage hee is as deceitfull as he was false in his proposition For the word Divorcement being vnderstoode as it is by him for anie seperation and parting of the man and wife though from bedd onely for a certaine time There may be sundry causes why such a seperation should be allowed or tollerated wheÌ„ as the band of marriage shall neverthelesse endure still And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmin had coÌ„cluded a truth to purpose But the point where with he should have knitt vp his dispute and whiâ—h he would have men conceyve beare away as if these words implyed it is that no iust cause at all of any divorcement doth loose the band of marriage and therefore neither whoredo The falsehood whereof would have bene as cleare as the sunne shine at nooneday the proposition being so evidently false whereon it is inferred And this is the argument that Bellarmin set his rest on the insoluble argumeÌ„t eveÌ„ altogether insoluble the ground whereof hee tearmeth a demonstratioÌ„ a most invincible demonstratioÌ„ against the which nothing he saith can be obiected but an insufficieÌ„t reply made by Erâ—smus to weet that Paul speaketh of aÌ„ adulterous wife who therefore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay vnmarried the innocent partie not so charged Which speeches of the Iesuite come froÌ„ the like veine of a vaunting spirit as those did of his complices who boasted that the Spanyards Armadoes navy should finde but weake seely resistance in England and called their army sent to conquere vs an invincible army For as they diminished by vntrue reportes the forces prepared To meete encouÌ„ter with the Spanish power so Bellarmin by saying that nought can be obiected beside that hee specifieth yea farder by belying and falsifying of Erasmus who contrariwise replieth that Paul doth seeme to speake of lighter displeasures for which divorcements then were vsuall not of such crimes as adulterie Moreover by the substance weight of my replie to his insoluble argument the godly wise indifferent eye will see I trust that the knots strings thereof are loosed and broken even as the invincible armie of the Spanyards was by Gods providence shewed to be vincible without great encountring the carkeises spoiles of their shipps meÌ„ vp oÌ„the English Scottish Irish coasts did witnesse it f So let all thine enemies perish O Lord and let them who love him be as the sunne when he goeth forth in his strength THE THIRD CHAPTER The consent of Fathers the seconde pretended proofe for the Papists doctrine in this point is pretended falsly and if all be weighted in an even ballance the Fathers check it rather AFter the foresaid testimonies of scripture vrged by our adversaries in the first place for the commending of their errour Secondly the same truth saith the Iesuit may be proved by tradition By which his owne speeche if we should take advauntage of it he graunteth all that I have said agaynst his arguments drawen out of the scripture and so farre forth agreeth with vs. For what vnderstandeth hee by the word Tradition A doctrine not written as him-self professeth in his first controversie Where having noted that al though the word tradition be generall signifieth any doctrine written or vnwritten which one imparteth to another yet divines almost all the auncient fathers applie it to signifie vnwritten doctrine onely And soe will wee hereafter vse this word saith hee If the point in question theÌ„ may be proved as Bellarmin affirmeth it may by tradition We might conclude it is not written in the scriptures by his owne verdict and therefore all the scriptures alleaged by him for it are alleaged falsly But hee seemeth to vse the name of traditioÌ„ in like sort as Vincentius Lirmensis doth calling the doctrine delivered by the church the Churches tradition This to be his meaning I gather by the reason that hee addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it The PaÌ„phletter in other words but more pereÌ„ptorily to avouch the proofe thereof by the opinion and censure of all ages affirmeth he will shewe that it was never thought lawfull since Christ for Christians divorced for fornication to marry anie other while both man and wife lived That it was never thought lawfull since Christ is a boulder speeche them Bellarmin doth vse though to hitt the marke as it were with his shaft hee must and doth imply as much in that hee saith it may be proved by tradition For traditioÌ„ hath not force enough to prove a thing to be true not in the Papists owne iudgment vnles it have bene alwaies approved agreed on by the generall consent of Fathers as we tearme them Pastors and Doctors of the Church Which I affirme not vpon the generall rule of Vincentius onelie so greatly and so often praised by them as golden But vpon the Canon of the Trent councell and pillars of the PopiÌ„sh churche subscribing to it For the councell of Trent commanding that no man shall expound the scripture against the sense that the Churche holdeth or against the Fathers coÌ„senting all in one doth covertly grauÌ„t that if the Fathers consent not all in one their opinion may be false and â—onsequently no sure proofe of a point in question Andradius doth open and avouche
there came thither to conferre with the Pope the westerne byshops albeit many of these houlding a generall Councell at Basil the same time refused to chaunge the place for the Popes pleasure who sought his owne advantage therein not the Churches and vndermined the actions of the Councell of Basil which condemned him of heresie and deposed him but there came thither the Patriarches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem either themselves in person or by their deputies with many Metropolitanes and Byshops of Greece of Asia of Iberia and other countries of the East Whose creditt and consent how vntruely Bellarmin preteÌ„deth for the proofe of his false assertion it is plaine by that hee saith the Councell of FloreÌ„ce did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians A chapter which is fathered in deed vpoÌ„ the Councell by the schisimaticall Pope Eugenius the fovorth the deviser of it but fathered vniustly and calmuniously as the time argueth wherein it was begotteÌ„ For it is recorded in the same decree that it was made the two and twentieth of November in the yeare of Christ a thousand foure hundred thirtie nine Now the Councell ended in Iuly the same yeare foure moneths before As both it self witnesseth Popish stories notâ— Wherefore the Councell could not be the father of that decree and chapter no more then a man can be of that childe whiâ—h is borne foureteÌ„ moneths after his death And the Pope whose bastard in truth the brat is by the acknowlegment and record of Papists themselves in the Tomes of Councells was so much the more to blame to father it vpon the Councell of Florence the great generall councell and date it in a publique solemne session thereof Because neither was it debated in the Councell whether marriage after divorcement for adulterie were lawfull or no and the Easterne byshops mainteyned it to be lawfull when the Pope after the end of the Councell did reprove them for it neither is it likely the contrarie was decreed by all there present of the west Chiefly seing that more theÌ„ half of them were gone when both partes the East West subscribed to the decrees of the Councell in the letters of agreement as appeareth by conferring their number with their names the note thereof Yea the Councell being ended the sixth of Iulie had their subscriptions added vnto it the one twentith Then if of seveÌ„ score or perhaps vpward scarse threescore were remayning at Florence foureteene dayes after the Councell ended What may we thinke there were above foure moneths after But how many soever were present of the West as the Pope can quickly muster an hundred Byshops or more if neede be out of Italie alone to carry away things in Councell by multitude of voices such pollicie hath he vsed for that but how many soever Italians he banded to countenance his decree the Byshops of the East agreed not thereto neither was it the Councells act Thus all the Fathers of the Eastern churches whom Bellarmin alleadgeth and may vrge with creditt their doctrine touching marriage doe not onely not say with him but gainsay him Wherein their have so many others followe them from age to age till our time that it is apparant they allowe with greater consent a maÌ„s marriage after divorcement for adulterie then Fathers of the western churches disallow it For Eusebius treating of Iustine the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that hee had done the storie of the Christian woman who divorced her self froÌ„ her adulterous husband And S. Basils canons approved by generall Councels doe not onely authorize the maÌ„ to marrie another whose wife is an adulteresse but also check the custome which yeelded not like favour in like case to the woman And Epiphanius saith his words are read corruptly but the sense thâ—reof is plaine of our side as Covarruvias graunteth Epiphanius therefore saith that SeperatioÌ„ being made for whoredo a maÌ„ may take a secoÌ„d wife or a woman a second husband And the same avoucheth Theodoret in effect affirming that Christ hath sett downe one cause whereby the band of Marriage should be dissolved and wholy rent a sunder in that hee did except whordom And a generall Councell wherein there were above two hundred and twentie byshops of the East gathered together doth imply as much in saying that Hee who his wife 2 having kept the lawe of wedlocke and being faithfull to him yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentence guiltie of adulterie So doth Oecumenius in applying the precept of abiding vnmarried to such as should not have departed and in abridging ChrysostoÌ„s words after his manner whose scholar Bellarmin therefore tearmeth him So doth Euthymius Chrysostoms schollar too in â—harging that maÌ„ with adulterie who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordoÌ„ from her husbaÌ„d So doth Nicephoras in copying coÌ„mending that out of Eusebius which he had out of Iustin the Martyr To be short the Grecians which nam compriseth many nations of the East all whoÌ„ the Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe put the same doctrine receyved from their auncestours in practise even at this day allowing married folke not onely to sperate divorce theÌ„selves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others as Bellarmin confesseth Wherefore his opinioÌ„ hath not the consent of the Eastern byshops neither hath had it any age since Christ. Much lesse can he shewe the consent of the South the Aethiopians Abessines or of the Moscovites Russes in the North both which as they receyved their faith froÌ„ the East so vse they like freedome libertie for this matter No not in the west it self though he have many theÌ„ce agreeing with him yet hath hee the generall coÌ„sent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half if an exact count might be taken of them For besides Tertullian the Councell of Eliberis and to let passe Ambrose one Byshop of Rome or more alreadie shewed to have thought that a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe there are of the same minde Lactantius Chromatius Hilaric Pollentius the author of the Comentaries in Ambrose his name vpon S. Pauls epistles the first Councell of Arles the couÌ„cell of VaÌ„nes they who either were at or agreed to the sixth generall couÌ„cell the secoÌ„d time asseÌ„bled Pope Gregorie the third Pope Zacharie the councell of Wormes of Trybur of Mascon a councell alleaged by Gratian without name other learned men alleaged likewise by him Pope Alexander the third Celestin the 3 Zacharie and Paul byshops the one of Chrysopolis the other of Burgos Erasmus Cardinal Cajetan Archbyshop Catharinus Naclantus byshop of
Martyr and in aworde all Lutherans and Calvinists as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name vs poore Nazarens agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adulterie Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wounde hee might geve his cause by graunting that Erasmus Caietan Catharinus three so learned men and two of thē such pillars of the Romish Church a Cardinall an Arch byshop agree in this poynt with Lutherans Caluinicts he addeth that those three differ much frō these hertiques meāing By heretiques the Nazarens I spake of whose ring-leader was Paul in as much as they submitt thēselves expressely to the churches iudgement And because the church saith he hath now opened her minde most evidently as appeareth by the Coūcel of Trēt the 24. sessiō the 7 Canō where all who thinke the band of marriage maye be loosed for any cause are acursed therefore it seemeth that those three also chiefly the two later must be thought no otherwise minded in this matter thē all the rest of the Catho-Divines are have bene with great agreemēt cōsent which dispute of Bellar. if it have sufficiēt groūd strength of reasō Erasmus must be coūted a catholique in al things For in al his writings he submitteth himself to the churches iudgemēt Thē why doth Bell. cal him a demie Christiā enrol his nāe amōg sectaries hertiques what are the Fathers of the Coūcel of Trēt Demie-christiās sectaries heretiques thy are by Bellar. logique of one minde with Erasmus Moreover S. Austin the ciefeft mā of Bellar. side in this questiō must be coūted ours by the same logique For he taught expressely that himself yea any byshop evē S Cipriā yea provincial Coūc. too should yeeld to the authority of a general Coū And the 6 general Coū graūted liberty of mariage after divorcmēt as hath bene declared wherfore if Caietā must be thought no otherwise mynded then Papists are because that church whose iudgmēt he did submitt himself to defined so at Trēt a good while after his death S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded thē we are because our assertiō was cōfirmed likewise by a General Coūcell whereto hee would have yeelded Chiefly sith of liklyhood hee would have more easily yeelded therūto thē Caietan to his churches because Caietā sheweth hee was stiffe in holding fast his owne opiniō whē for feare of Church-mē he durst not say all that he thought in this very point though submitt̄ig hīself to the See of Rome as wel as to the church he eludeth decrees of popes that make against him so resolute he was in it Sr. Austin cōtrariwise vsed very modestly willingly to retract things that he had writtē evē whē he lighted on ought in an heretike that seemed better truer this point he thought so darke in the Scripturs hard to be discerned that his opiniō was not hard to be removed if he had seē strōger reason broght against it or greater authority Now if S. Anstin come over to our side by that quirck of Bellar. ◠a band of Bellar. wittnesses is like to come with him namly the coūcel of Melevis Affrique which he was presēt at swaied much with perhaps Primasius also were he Austins scholar Bede with a nūber of Canōists and schoolemē who folowed most S. Austin But Bellarmin will never resigne all these vnto vs to gaine the other three frō vs. For as our Bee-hive saith Men live not by losses He must suffer therefore Erasmus Caietan Catharinus specially who beside the place that Bellar. hath quoted doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely thereof more throughly exactly then Erasmus or Caietan Bellarmin I say must suffer them to be counted of that minde which they were of while thēselves lived not cavill as if they were of that which peradventure they would have bene had they not died before the Councell of Trēt taught so Vnlesse he thinke which he may by as good reasō that whereas they were deceased above x. yeares yer the C. Trent made that new canon wee ought to count them alive all that while because they did submitt them-selves to Physitiās and would have lived perhaps till then had arte bene able to cure disseases How much more agreablye to singelnes truth doe Sixtus Covarruvias and Domenicus Soto acknowledge the two former touching Catharinus the last for Erasmus all concerning Caietan that in this question of marriage agayne after divorcement for adulterie their doctrine is the same with those auncient Fathers whom our yonger teachers of the reformed Churches follow And thus if I should ēter into the comparison of Divines on both sides first for the number it is more then likely that wee prevayle much For all whom Bellarmim and the Pamphletter after him doe muster out of the west I meane whō they claime iustly not who either say against them as Tertullian or not with them as Scotus all therefore whom they muster so out of the West are Ierom the Coūcels of Milevis and Afrique Innocentius the first Austin Primasius Isiodore Bede the Councel of Friouli and Nantes Anselme Pope Alexander the third Innocentius the third Thomas Bonaventure Durand and other Schole-men Pope Eugenius with his Florentines the Councel of Trent which though Gratian Lombard and whomsoever he might bill were added to them yet ours out of the west alone pehaps would match them What if the North the South whence Bellarmin hath none what if the East whence hee hath two or three at the most for hunderds of ours bee ioyned therevnto Then for Qualitie Came the worde of God out from you saith Paule to the Corinthians or Came it to you onely Meaning that they ought to reverence the iudgemēt of other Christian Churches being more then they were but of those chiefly and first as hee placeth them from whō the Gospell came first Now the Gospell came first out of the East whose cōsent wee have in a manner generally and as wee have the first in Countrie so in tyme the auncientest eldest our two firste Councels in Spayne and in Fraunce elder an hundred yeares then their two in Africque our next farre elder yet then their next and so vnto the last yea for several Fathers aunciēt on both sides ther are more with vs in the foure or five or sixe for-formost ages then there are with them Of soundnes in docttrine of learning of vertue of constancie of consent it is hard to speake by way of comparison whether excelleth other Saving that for gentelnes and meekenes a speciall ornamēt of Byshops weigh both partes together and ours surpasse our adversaries Amongst whom the Councell of Trent accurseth all such as
A DEFENCE OF THE IVDGMENT OF THE REformed churches That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie but also marrie another Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are cōfuted by Iohn Raynolds A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of Religion how he depraveth Scriptures misalleag the fathers and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God and poisoning of his Churche with errour Printed ANNO 1609. The Preface to the Reader GOod Reader my love reverēce to the author living and to his memorie being dead my desire to serve the church of God by other mens woorks who am not able to doe it by myne owne have moved me to publishe this learned treatise which Doctor Rainolds left as many other exquisit travels of his shutt vp in the closett of some private frends as in a fayre prison Because my testimonie or any mans I know is of much lesse waight then the onely name of the author to cōmend the woorke I will say nothing more in praise of it then that it is an vndoupted woorke of that worthie holy man whose learning dilligence abilleties meeknes wisdō pietie made him eminent to vs may perhaps yeeld him more admirable to posteretie which without envie of his person shal view the marks of thies graces in his writings or take them by storie Touching the argument I will onely say that it seemeth the more woorthy such a mans resolution by how much it hath bene formerly or presētly is controverted amongst the learned And if anie man be cōtrarie minded to this which is the common iudgement of the reformed churches he above others shal be my debttor for helping him to so good a meanes of reforming himselfe In matters of opinion chiefly divine he that conquer eth he that is is cōquered devide both honor proffit If any man take good by it let him give praise to God if he take none let him blāe none but himselfe The next page will shew the contents order of the booke The booke it selfe wil shew thee how good it is fare-well THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS The first Chapter The state of the question betwene the church of Rome the reformed churches being first declared the truth is proved by scripture That a man having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another The second Chapter The places of scripture alleaged by our adversaries to disprove the lawful liberty of marriage after divorcemēt for adulterie are proposed exāined proved not to make against it The third Chapter The cōsent of Fathers the second pretēded proofe for the Papistes doctrine in this point is prtēded falsly if all be weighed in an even ballance the Fathers checke it rather The fourth Chapter The conceits of reasōs urged last against vs are oversights proceeding from darknesse not from light reason it self dispelling the mist of Popish probabilties giveth cleare testimonie with the truth of Christe An admonition to the reader ALthough the Printer hath beene carefull supplied sometimes the defects of his coppie yet hath he somtimes fayled not only in mispoyntinge or not poynting or transposing omitting or adding sometimes a letter which the readers iudgment diligence must helpe but in omission or alteration of woords obscuring or perverting the sence which the reader shal doe wel to corect before he reade the booke as they stand herevnder It is like enough there may bee more faults especially in the quotations chiefly in the greeke woords written in a lattin letter concerning which I onely desire that the author whose skill and dilligence were admirable might take no damage by other mēs faults The faults are omissive or coruptions of words The woordes omitted are in the corrections following writtē in another letter Faults escaped in the Printinge Pag. 12. l. 1. reade some other cause Pag. 19. l. 29 reade but incidētly touched Pag. 21. l. 28. reade owne argumēt 39. Marg. 1. Cor 17. 10. 34. Marg. in the end Iudg 5. 31. Pag. 59. l. 11. read yet hath he not the generall cōsent Pag. 74. l. 32. read submitteth him selfe expresly Pag. 80. l. 6. reade If notwithstanding The corruptions of woords correct thus Pag. 2. l. 18. reade Canonists for Canoists Pag. 7. l. 24. reade exceptions for excepsitions 16. Marg. in the quotation out of Ioh ' 9. reade verse 41. for 21. Pag. 31. l. 8. reade Coumpts in stead of Counsells of money Pag. 53. l. 10. reade the for that papistes Pag. 57. l. 10. read Calumniously for Calmuniously 59. Marg. at the letter C. reade not extra but tittulo so at the letter D. for those places are not in the extravagants but in the 4. booke of the decretals vnder those titles pag. 60. l. 27. reade yea for yet setteth downe Pag. 60. l. 28. reade specifie them for then Pag. 61. l. 8. reade through error thought for though mende there the poynting Pag. 73. l. 22. read of all for by all the rest Pag. 75. l. 2. reade any Bishop ror my Bishop Pag. 77. l. 19. reade one of theirs for out of theirs Pag. 78. l. 28. reade convicted in stead of corrupted by the texte Pag. 90. l. 13. reade the weaknes for of weaknes The woords corrupted are written in another letter OF THE LAVVFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVVFVL DIVORCE The first Chapter The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by scripture that a mā having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another THe dutye of man and woman ioyned in marriage requireth that they two should bee as one person and cleave ech to other with mutuall love and liking in societie of life vntill it please God who hath coupled them together in this bonde to sett them free from it and to dissociate and sever thē by death But the inordinate fansies desires of our corupt nature have soe inveighled Adams seede in many places that men have accustomed to put awaye their wiues vppon everie trifling mislike discontentment yea the Iewes supposed thēselves to be warrāted by Gods lawe to doe it so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorce mēt This perverse opiniō errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for anie cause save whoredome onely For whosoever saith he shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adulterie Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed morefully by on of the Evangelists by others more sparingly there hath a doubt arisen and diverse men evē from the primative churches time have beē of diverse minds For many of the fathers have gathered therevpon that if a mans wife committed whoredome
poenitent for it after her second husbands death hee saith that shee lamented bewayled it so as if shee had coÌ„mitted adulterie By which kinde of speech others sutable to it as that he teâ—â—meth her state after divorcement froÌ„ her first husband Widdowhood addeth that shee lost the honor of having had but one husbaÌ„d by marrying the second saith shee thought it better to vndergoe a certaine shadow of pitifull wedlocke then to plaie the whore because it is better saith Paul to marrie then to burne S. Ieron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to doe as shee did yet not such a fault a crime a publique crime as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it No more may it be iustly thought in the opinioÌ„ of that RomaÌ„ Byshop of whoÌ„ because he put Fabiola to publique penance after her second husband death Bellarmin coÌ„cludeth 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 men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholique Church for marrying againe after their first wives death as Bellarmin observeth out of the Catholiqueâ—Councels adding therewith al that although they knewe secoÌ„d marriage to be lawfull yet because it is a token of incontineÌ„cie they chastised it with some penaÌ„ce Wherefore sith it might easilie bee that they who laid some penance vpon no fault would lay publique penance vpoÌ„ a small fault spetially in women to whoÌ„ in such cases they were more severe rigorous theÌ„ to meÌ„ the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her secoÌ„d marriage doth not prove sufficieÌ„tly that it was accounted theÌ„ a publique crime in the Catholique church Howbeit if the tearme of publique crime be vsed in a geÌ„tler sense theÌ„ coÌ„monly it is or the Byshop of Rome did never put any but grievous offenders finners to publique penance yet perhaps even so too will Bellarmin come short of his conclusioÌ„ still For thereby saith hee we doe not vnderstaÌ„d that â— if any maÌ„ while his wife yet lived married another yea albeit for whordo it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique church at that time if any maÌ„ did it As who say the Byshop of Rome must needs hould that if women were not licensed to marrie after divorcement for whordom men could not be neither Whereas he might be of the same opinioÌ„ that an auncieÌ„t Councell sâ—emeth as I shewed to have bene before him and an auncient Father living writing as some thinke in Rome about the same time was I meane that this libertie freedom should be graunted to men but not to women Moreover the delay of Faebiolas penance in that she was not put thereto vntill after her second husbands death yeildeth very strong probable coniecture that it had not bene before theÌ„ accouÌ„ted any crime at all in the Catholique church not for a woman neither to put away her husbaÌ„d because of his adulterie to marrie another For that which Fabiola did shee did openly Her self was religious godly well instructed thought it to be lawfull Her husbaÌ„d by all likelyhood of like minde iudgmeÌ„t the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question The Byshop did not execute any Church censure on them Nay sith shee was very yong when they married and never heard of anie fault therein committed as long as her husband lived it may be Rome had many Byshops in the meane time none of whoÌ„ saw cause why they should blame her for it The example of Fabiola therefore the Roman Byshops dealing in it maketh more a great deale with vs then against vs if it be throughly weighed Now S. Chrysostom maketh absolutely with vs Howsoever Bellarmin affirmeth that hee teacheth the same with S. Ierom yea with S. Ierom simplie condemning all such marriage For what doth S. Chrysostom teach in the sermon that Bellarmin quoteth vpon Mathew Forsooth that by Moses lawe it was permitted that whosoever hated his wife for any cause might put her away and marry another in her roome But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredome What and doth it follow hereof that Chrysostom meant that the husband putting her away for whoredome might not marrie another Rather the cleane contrary Seing that he speaketh of such a putting away as Moses did permitt and maketh this the difference betwene Christs ordinance and the law of Moses that Moses did permitt it for anie cause Christ but for one Which to be his meaning hee sheweth more plainely vpon the first to the Corinthians saying that the marriage is dissolved by whoredom neither is the husband a husband anie longer For hence it appeareth that hee thought the baÌ„d of marriage to bee loosed wheÌ„ they are severed for whoredom therefore consequently the parties free to marrie according to the Apostles rule And other where also though somewhat more obscurely yet conference with this place will shewe him to have taught But what should I stand on farther proofe thereof it being so vndoubted that Byshop Covarrisvias an earnest adversarie of marriage after divorcement and bringing all the Fathers that hee can against it confesseth S. Chrysoctom to stand on the other side against him for it And this in foure hundred yeares after Christ Bellarmin cannot finde one of the Fathers that hee may iustly say is his excepting them which make as much for the Encratites Montanists and Catharists as they doe for Papists In the ages following hee findeth better store now one now moe in eche hundred Yet among them also looke how manie hee nameth of the Easterne Byshops whether expressedly or implyedly hee playeth the Iesuit with him For the first of them Theophylact hee alleageth with the same faith truth that he did Chrysostom whose schollar Theophylact being after Bellarmins owne note did follow his maister And this the two places theÌ„selves that Bellarmin quoteth doe insinuate clearely the former by opening how Christ permitteth not that putting away which Moses did without iust cause nor alloweth any cause as iust but whordom the later by omitting mention of whordoÌ„ in spesifying the causes for which if a womaÌ„ depart froÌ„ her husbaÌ„d shee must remaine vnmarried Whereto if Bellarmin neede more light to see it by we may adde a third place in which Theophylact saying that Luke rehersing Christes words against men putting away their wives marrying other must be vnderstood with the exception out of Matthew Vnless it be for whoredom doth shew howfarre he differeth herein from Bellarmin who denyeth flatly that Christes wordes in Luke must be supplyed with that exception The rest of the Easterne Fathers whose testimony is alleaged by Bellarmin though their names not meÌ„tioned are such as were assembled in the Councell of Florence For
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