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
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
not generally of sinne but of sinne being cleaving to a man in spetiall peculiar sort For as the servant that knew his Maisters will and did not according to it shal be beaten with many stripes but he that knew it not and yet did committ things worthy of stripes shal bee beaten with fewe Likewise in traÌ„sgression whereto the punishment auswereth he that knoweth how to doe well doth it not sinne is to him hee hath it he offendeth not ably But he that knoweth not how to doe well doth evill hath not sinne sticking to him his sinne remaineth not hee sinneth not so greatly greivously Wherefore when Bellarmin draweth out of that sentence such a conclusioÌ„ as if S. Iames in saying there is sinne to him had simply meant hee sinneth Bellarmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence which if the text it self cannot informe him his doctors well considered may But take the right meaning the conclusion wil be sound Whosoever doth not good and honest things except it he of ignoraunce he sinneth desperatelie mainely Therefore whoso of ignorance omitteth to doe them he sinneth not desperately And thus our conclusion drawen froÌ„ Christs sentence is rather confirmed theÌ„ preiudiced by this example Yea let even S. Austin whose authoritie Bellarmin doth ground on herein be diligently marked And himself in matching these senteÌ„nces together bewrayeth an oversight which being corrected will helpe the truth with light streÌ„gth For to make the one of theÌ„ like the other hee is faine to fashion Christs speech in this fort To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another to him there is the cryme of committing adulterie Now Christ hath not these words of emphaticall propertie and strong signification whereby he might teach as S. Angustin gathereth that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause save for whoredome and marrieth another comitteth adulterie in an high degree and soe imply by consequence that who soe marrieth another though having put away his former wife for whoredome yet committeth adulterie too a lesse adulterie But that which Christ saith is simple flatt absolute he committeth adulterie And therefore as it may be inferred out of S. Iames that he who omitteth the doing of good through ignoraunce sinneth not with a loftie hand in resolute stifnes of an hardned heart Soe conclude wee rightly out of Christs wordes that hee who having put away his wife for whoredome marrieth another committeth not adulterie in any degree at all The first sentence then alleaged by S. Austin and after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scripturs is soe farr from disprooving that it prooveth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences The seconde and thirde are out of theire owne braynes The one of Bellarmins forging the other of the Pamphletters Bellarmins Hee that stealeth except it bee for neede sinneth The Pamphlctrers Hee that maketh a lyeâ— except it bee for a Vauntagoe doth wilfully sinn Whereof they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence That hee sinneth not who stealeth for neede and hee who lyeth for a Vauntage sinneth not wilfully A badd inferrence indeed But the fault therof is in that these sentences are not like to Christs For Christs is from Heaven full of truth and wisdome These of men fond and imply vntruth They might have disputed as fitly to their purpose and prooved it as forcibly if they had vsed this example All foure-footed beasts except Apes and Monkâ—is are devoyd of reason or this All long-eared Creatures except asses are beasts For hereof it could not bee concluded iustly that Asses are not beasts and Apes are not devoyd of reason No. But this perhaps might bee concluded iustly that he had not muâ—h reason nor was farre from a beast that would make such sentences Considering that all men who write or speake with reason meane that to be denied in the perticular which they doe except from a generall affirmed And therefore sith hee sinneth who stealeth though for neede as the wise man sheweth and hee that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sinne yea the more wilfully somtymes because for a vauntage as when the sâ—ribs bâ—lyed Christ It were a verie fond and witlesse speech to say that Whosoever stealeth except it bee for neede sinneth And whosoever lyeth except it bee for a vauntage doth wilfully sinne Wherefore these senteÌ„ces are no more like to Christs theÌ„ copper is to gould or wormewood to the bread of Heaven Neither shall they ever finde any sentence like to his indeede of which the like conclusioÌ„ may not be inferred as we inferre of that And soe the maine ground of my principall reason proposed in the beginning remayneth sure clearly prooved that he by Christs sentence coÌ„mitteth not adulterie who having put a way his wife for whoredome marrieth another Whereof seeing it followeth necessarely that he who hath put away his wife for whordoÌ„e may lawfully marrie another as I there declared it followeth by the like necessity of coÌ„sequeÌ„ce that the popish doctrine mainteined by our adversaries denying the same is contrarie to the scripture doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Sonne of God THE SECOND CHAPTER The places of Scripture alleaged by the adversaries to disproove the Lawfull liberty of Marriage after Divorcement for Adulterie are Proposed Examined and Prooved not to make agaynst it SAinct Austin in his learned bookes of Christian Doctrine wherein hee geves rules how to finde the right and true sence of Scriptures doth well aduise the faithful First to search and marke those things which are set downe in the Scripturs plainly and then to goe in hande with sifting and disâ—ussing of the darke places that the darker speeches may be made evident by Patterns and examples of the more playne manifest and the records of certayne vndoubted setences may take away doubt of the uÌ„certayne This wholsome and iudicious Counsaile of S Augustin if our adversaries had bene as carefull to follow as they are willing to shew they follow him in these things which he hath written lesse advisedly they would not have alleaged and vrged the places of Scripture which they doe agaynst the poynt of doctrine hithâ—rto prooved out of the niententh chapter of S. Mathew For Christ in that place doth open the matter and decide the question most plainly and fully of purpose answering the Pharises In others either it is not handled of purpose incidently touchâ—d or in genâ—rallity sett downe more briefly and soe more darkly and obsâ—urely Wherefore if any of the other places had seemed vnto them to rayse vp a scruple and shew of some repugnancie they should have taken paynes to explayne and levell it by that in S. Mathew the darker by the clearer the brieffer by the largâ—r the vncertaine and ambiguous by the vndoubted and certayne But seeing they have chosen to follow S. Austins oversights rather theÌ„ his best advises
shee hath not entred into his bed-chamber For shee that is betrothed is accounted a wife by the law of God and consent not carnall company maketh Marriage as the civill Lawiers Fathers Popes doe teach The Papists then of all men may worst enforce the playnesse of S. Pauls words agaynst our exposition thē selves condescending in cases more then wee doe that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth and bee noe adulteresse Whereby agayne appeareth how wisely discreetly the Iesuit Triumpheth with S. Austins words These words of the Apostle so oftentymes repeated so oftentymes inculcated are true are quick are sound are playne The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if he playe the whoremonger The wife then is lawfully putt away for whordom but the band of the former lasteth in somuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom For if these words of Austin bee quick and sound against vs then touch they Poperie at the quick sith it may be sayd by the same reason The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if hee waxe a Monke Admitt then that the wife bee put away for monkery yet the band of the former lasteth insomuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie who marrieth her that is put away even for monkery And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were for which so many Popes have loosed the bande of Marriage they are all controlled by the same censure The woman beginneth not to be bee the wife of any later husband unlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if a better match be offered or some mislyke bee conceived or the Pope dispense and bee well freed from it Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the cōpasse of Austins reprofe by construing his words so without exception because they are true and quick and sound and playne For against his doctrine towching a Susters liberty to marry if shee be forsaken of her vnbeleeving husband the force of S. Austins consequence would inferre in like sorte The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband vnlesse shee have ceased to be of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if hee forsake her The Iesuit who vseth so often to repeat so often to inculcate the testimonies of the Fathers should deale peradventure more considerately more charitably out of doubt if before hee cite them hee weighed their words better whether they may stand with the truth of Scripture with his owne doctrine For els as C ham discovered the nakednes of Noah so doth hee their blemishes hee who aleageth them not wee whom hee enforceth to shewe why wee dissent from them least our Saviours sentence bee pronounced agaynst vs Hee that loueth Father or Mother more then mce is not worthy of mee But the Iesuites meaning you wil say was not to discredit them by laying a necessitie on vs to refute them what was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scripturs with the truth whereof their sayings doe not stand For I trust hee meant not to overthrowe the poynts of his owne doctrine which their sayings crosse vnlesse hee bee of that mynde which Tullie condemneth as barbarous and savage expressed in an heathnish verse LET OVR FRIENDS FALL SOE THAT OVR FOES DIE WITHALL Howsoever it be it is plain that the plaines of S Pauls words neither doth prove the sence thereof to be simply absolutely general the Scripture noting an exception neither cann bee sayde by Papists to prove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture addeth more thereto Thus one braunch of Bellarmins first and principall reason being cutt of the other and the rest of his reasons also are cutt of with the same labour and instrument For whereas hee sayth Certes it were marvell that the Apostle should never ad the exception of whoredom if it were to be added seing hee repeated and inculcated these things so often Certes wee may say as well of those exceptions which himself approveth that it Were marvell the Apostle should never add them if they were to bee added Though what marvell is it if S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredom in all those two places which hee Hath repeated and inculcated these things so often as Bellarmin so often telleth vs when the thing is mentioned in the former of them by way of a similytude wherein it had bene fond and beside the purpose to speake of any exception and for the later S. Paul hath omitted the same exception twise where the Scripture sheweth and Bellarmin confesseth it should have bene added or to speake more properly where although it needed not to bee added yet must it needs bee vnderstoode Now to that Bellarmin doth next alledg the Fathers Ambrose Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius Primasius Anselmus and others over and besides Austin Origen and 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 Chrysostō Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius and Primasius doe not witnesse that no more then Paul himself doth Nay they all save one are contrary minded rather as shall appeare in 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 thē any of their Popes who yet must have erred in more thē one Canon if this were true which Bellarmin fathereth on the Fathers Finally concerning that for the vpshoote hee vrgeth Pauls similytude as if the drift of it did absolutely require that the man and wife can not bee made free from the band of Mariage by any seperatiō but by death onely because while the law had life as it were and stoode in force till Christ the Iewes could never shake off the Yoke thereof from them although they endevored to seperate them-selves from it by committing whoredom with sundry lawes of salfe Gods the rest of S. Pauls similytudes which I mencioned doe bewray the lamenesse and halting of this inference seing that the drift of thē requireth absolutely by the same reason that noe man went to warfare at his owne cost or planted Vynes or fedd sheepe without relief thereby because all they Who preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel And likewise that no
that such a woman as Ioseph misdeemed her to be to weete an adulteresse cānot be kept without sinne whether she repent or no. And Cornelius Iansenius a learned byshop of the Papists graunteth herevpon that it was so in the old Testament But in the new Testamēt he saith if she repēt she may be kept with out sinne acknowledging that she may not in the new Test. neither vnlesse she repent Whervnto the Canonists Schoolemen doe accord expounding a sentence cited by many Fathers out of the Proverbs of Salomon He that keepeth an adulteresse is a foole and a wicked man a sentence found in the Greeke text of the Proverbs albeit not expressed out of the Hebrue Fountaine but added by the Seventie Interpreters or other perhaps to shew that Salomon cōmending a wife did meane a chast wife in their Iudgment but added in the Greeke thence translated also into the common Latin edition called S. Ieroms so that it goeth for Scripture with Papists by their Trent Canon this sentence I say the Canons of the Fathers that vrge it vndistinctly against whosoever kepeth an adulteresse whether repentāt or vnrepentāt in like sorte as the Civill Law cōdēned all such the Canonists School-mē distinguish expoūd of such as kepe adulteresses which doe not repent amend their lives Now graunting that a man may keepe an adultereffe in matrimony if shee repent or being divorced from her may take her again yet which is the third point hee may not doe it often least impunitie encrease inequitie And this is agred on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome the Canō ists Schoole-mē Hermes out of whō the Maister of the sētences aleageth avoucheth it meant as his reason brought to prove it argueth that the man may take her so againe but once Which doctrine the Papists can make Canonicall if they list vnlesse Stapleton lie who saith their Catholique Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Cāonicall Scriptures that bool◠of Hermes written in the Apostles tyme by S. Pauls schollar not onely cited much but cōmended too by many most aūcient Fathers Clemens Ireneus Origen Athanasius Eusebius Ierom. At least the chiefest part of the Canon Law cōpiled by the directiō and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth setting downe the verie same out of a Councel that Peter Lombard out of Hermes the Papists though they will not I trow be of Stapletons minde for Hermes booke yet may think it likely that the Coūcel Pope approved his meaning in this point Chiefly sith Panormitan the flouer of the Canonists having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned because sinnes vnpūished doe becom examples citeth an excelent proofe light therof a lawe of worthy Emperors Valētinianus Theodosius Arcadius who graūting a generall pardon for smaler trespasses extended it to none cōmitted oftner thē once accoūting such vnworthy of their Princilie favour as grew by their former forgivenesse to a custome of sinning rather then to amendement But whether the Papists will iudge those Christian Emperours to have bene to strickt saie that adulterie deserveth pardon oftener thē lesser faults with thē or whether they thinke it sufficient to pardon once so great a crime which the Emperours excepted by name out of their pardon willed it to be punished even the first tyme the Papists doe agre that a husbād must not forgive it to his wife oftē The fourth thing to be noted is that the womā being putt away so doth lose her dowry too by law Which pūishmēt as God hath threatned by his law to men that goe a whoring frō him though they have not any dowrie of their owne neither but of his gift so the Civil Law hath īsticted it on adultrous wives the Canō Law ī looser tymes also The fifth that many persons mistake the help prepared of God marry or doe worse cōsidering that some cannot conteine as Pope Goegory noteth touching men S. Ambrose touching wemen the Scripture touching both some though they could perhaps yet should hurt their bodies by sicknesse if they did as physique Phylosophie teach some though neither chastity nor health enforce thē to marry yet need it for their state of living as Dominicus Soto doth prove by certain poore husbād-men labourers The sixth that if a man die have no sonne his inheritāce ought to come to his daughter by the Law of Moses and if he have no daughter it ought to come to his bretherē and if he have no brethereē to his Fathers bretherē and so forth to the next kinsman of his familie Vnto which ordināce the lawes of al wel ordred states cōmon weaks are though in certaine circūstaunces different yet in substance sutable The seavēth that it is sundry wayes incōmodious for a child to be vnlawfully begottē and as we tearme it base borne because both the ignomenie thereof is a blemish that blemish bredeth basenes of courage bastards are not brought vp so well by their parents as lawfull children vse to be neither are they priviledged a like preaferred to place of publique government or Benefit of inheritance by Lawes divine or humane And these things being weighed well shew that Bellarmins reason corrected by the Pamphleter needeth a new correction if inconveniences might decide our question which they cannot doe for manie things are lawfull that are not expedient but if they might decide it they would swaie with vs rather then against vs. For in case the man burning with iealousie rage which is vsuall in this kinde of iniurie or the woman beeing as adulteresses commonlye are wicked impudent once naught alwaies naught hee will not or maie not keepe or take her againe the childrē missing her are destitute of a mother to looke to their education And then it were better for thē that their father tooke a second wife to bring thē vp as Plato thought Wherein another man might have the like successe that Poris a gentlemā of Macedōia had whose former wives childrē were brought vp as wel and carefully by their stepmother as her owne children were But if it fall not out with many as with him and the childrenfind more sharp hard vsage at their stepmothers hands who knoweth whether it may not turne to their more good Chiefly fith the tender indulgēce of Parēts doth nourish wanton wickednesse in the sonnes of Eli ambition in Adonia trāsgressions in whō not and moderat severitye would restrayne the same as one who sayde he had a cruel stepmother a father another who foūd like fault with his father mother both for feare restraīng thēselves from tricks of ūthrifts