JUDGMENT OF THE Reformed Churches That a man may lawfully not only put away his Wife for her Adultery but also marry another LONDON Printed for Andrew Crook at the Green Dragon in Pauls Churchyard 1652. OF THE LAWFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVVFVL DIVORCE THE FIRST CHAPTER The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by schriptuere that a man having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another THe dutie of man and woman ioyned in marriage requireth that a they two should be as one person cleave each to other with mutuall love liking in society of life until it please God who hath coupeled them togâ—ther in this bond to set thâ—m free from it and to dissociate sever them by death But the inordinat fansies desires of our corrupt nature have so inveigeled Adams seede in manie places that men have accostomed to put awaie their wives vppon every trifling mislike discontentement yea Ieuwes supposed theÌ„selves to be warranted by Gods b lawe to doe it so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorcement This perverse opinion errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for any cause save whoredome onely For whosoever saith he shall put away his wife except it be for whoredom and shall marry another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her wich is put away doth coÌ„mit adulterie Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed more fully by by on of the c EuaÌ„gelists by d others more sparingly there hath a doubt arisen and diverse men even from the primative churches time have been of diverse mindes For many of the Fathers have gathered thereupon that if a mans wife coÌ„mitted whoredom fornication he might not onely put her a way but marrie another Some others and among them namely S. Austine have thought that the man might put away his wife but marrie another he might not the Scholedevins of later years the Canonists as for most parte they were al adicted to S. Austins iudgment 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 daies the light of good learning both for artes and tongues hath shyned more brightly by Gods most gratious goodnes then in the former ages and the holly scriptures by the helpe thereof have been the better understood the Pastors Doctors of the reformed churches have percieved shewed that if a mans wife defile her selfe with fornicatioÌ„ he may nor 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 do falsly charge them I will make manifest prove through Gods assistance by expresse words of Christ the truth it selfe And because our adversaries doe weene that the coÌ„trarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguements obiections which two of their newest writers Bell. the Iesuit a namelesse author of an English panphlet have dilligenely laied together For the farther clearing therefore of the matter taking awaie of doubts scruples I will set downe al there obiectioÌ„s in order first out of the scriptures then of fathers last of reasons and answer everie one of them particularly So shall it appeaae to suh as are not blinded with a fore conceived opinion preiudice that whatsoever shew of prbabilities are brought to the contrarie yet the truth deliverd by our Saviour Christ allowetls him whose wife committeth sornication to put her away and to marrie another The proofe hoereof is evidnnt if the words of Christ be waied in the nienteuth Chapter af S Mat. gospel For when the Pharises asking him a question whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every catse received answer that it was not and thereupon saide unto him Why did Moses commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way Our Saviouer sayde unto them Moses suffered you because of the hardnes of your harte to put awaye e your wifes But from the beginning it was not so And I say vnto you that whosoever shal put away his wife except it bee for whoredom and shall marrie another doth comit adultery and who so marrieth her that is put awaie doth coÌ„mit adultery Now this in senteÌ„ce the clause of exception except it be for whoredom doth argue that he committeh not adulterie who having put away his wife for whoredom marrieth another But hee must needs commit it in doeing so unlesse the bande of marriage bee loosed and dissolved For who so marrieth another as long as he is f bound to the former g is an adulterer The band then of marriage is loosed dissolved betwene that man wife who are put assunder and divorced for whoredome And if the band beloosed the man may marry another seing it is written h 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 i This argument doth firmly and necessarily conclude the point in question if the first parte and 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 and reason that our adversaries themselves admit and graunt them all The first k they denie to weete that the clause of exception in Christs speech except it befor whordome doth argue that the maÌ„ commiteth 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 be for whoredome are not an exception For Christ saith he ment those words 1 except for whoredome not as an exception but as a negation Soo that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife except for whoredome that is to saie 2 without the cause of whoredome shall marrie another doth coÌ„mit adulterie Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another but nothing is sayde touching him who marrieth another having put away his former wife for whoredome 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 may suffice for the proofe here of and the verie text of the scripture it selfe is soe cleare against him that he must of necessitie give over his houlde For the principal pillar wherewith he vnderproppeth it is l S. Austins iudgemeÌ„t who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marriages Now of that treatise S. m
woman divorâ—ed from her husband not for adulterie but for some other cause such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for by giving them a bill of divorcement The matter that he handleth and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to his meaning Approved by the opinion of certaine learned meÌ„ to For after he had said according to x the words of Christ which he expouÌ„deth that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemeÌ„t did yeeld vnto the wakenes of theÌ„ to whom the law was geveÌ„ he saith that the Christian byshops who permitteth a womaÌ„ to marrie while her former husband liveth did it perhaps for such weaknes wherfor sith in saying that this which they did they did perhaps for such weaknes he hath relatioÌ„ vnto that of Moses Moses as he addeth didnot grauÌ„t the bill of divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshop whom OrigeÌ„ chargeth with doing against the scriptuere did permitt the womaÌ„ to marrie vpoÌ„ divorcemeÌ„t for some other cause not for adulterie so his reproving of theÌ„ doth not touche vs who grauÌ„t for adulterie only Thus doth y Erasmus thinke that OrigeÌ„ meant coÌ„cluding it farther as cleare by similitude which z he had vsed before of Christ who put away the Synagoge his former wife as it were because of her adulterie married the church Yea a Tapper likewise a great divine of LovaÌ„ of better credit with Papists theÌ„Erasmus saith that the divorcemeÌ„t permitted by those Byshops whoÌ„ OrigeÌ„ controuleth was a Iewish divorcement Wherein though he aymed at another marke to prove an vntruth yet vnwares he hit a truth more theÌ„ he thought of strengthened that by OrigeÌ„ which he thought to overthrowe Howbeit if Bell or Bell Inther preter can persuade by other likelyhoods out of OrigeÌ„ as he is somewhat darke and 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 divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie our cause shal be more advantaged by those sundrie Bishops who approved it theÌ„ disadvaÌ„taged by on OrigeÌ„ who reproved for it Chiefly seing OrigeÌ„ impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith for which a b general Councel with c Bell. allowaÌ„ce couÌ„t him damned heretique a in this matter by d excluding al such as are twise married out of the KingdoÌ„ of heaveÌ„ which e divines of Paris observe check him for Wheras those Byshops of whoÌ„ he maketh meÌ„tioÌ„ were neither stayned otherwise for ought that may begathred nor herein did they more theÌ„ the right believing Catholique church all that time thought lawfull to be don as appeareth by TertulliaÌ„ Iustine the Martyr In the which respect f Peter Soto a freir of great account in the Trent Councell having said that it is playne by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtfull in the auncient church alleageth this for proofe thereof out of Origen that many Bishops permitteth married men to marrâ— againe after divorcement Thus if the two fathers whom Bellar. out of the third hundred yeares as making for him doe not make agaiÌ„st him which perhaps they doe both yet one of theÌ„ doth not out of all controversie byshops more in number in credit greater then the other agree with him therein Out of the fowrth huÌ„dred the shewe which Bell maketh is a great deal fayrer theÌ„ out of the third a nuÌ„ber of Fathers the couÌ„cel of Eliberisâ—â— Am S. IeroÌ„ a RomaÌ„ Byshop S. Chriso are affirmed theÌ„â—e to ioyne theÌ„selves with him But they are affirmed in the like manner as the former were skarse one of them avouching the same that hee doth the rest in part seeming to bee of other opinion in part most clearely shewing it and such as shewe not so much yet shewing their owne weakenes that in this matter their opinion iudgement is of small value For the formost of them g the Councell of Eliberis ordained that a woman which forsooke her husband because of his adulterie and would marie another should beforbidden to marrie if shee married shee should not receave the communion til he were dead whoÌ„ shee forsooke vnlesse necessitie of sicknes coÌ„stryned to gâ—ve it her Wheerein it is to be noted first that the coucell saith not 8 If anie man so to comprehend touche generallie all both men womeÌ„ but they speake peculiarlie of the womaÌ„ alone so doe not forbid the man te leave his adulterous wife marrie another Secondly that the womaÌ„ is excommunicated if wheÌ„ shee is forbiddeÌ„ by the church to marrie shee marrie neuerthelesse not if before she be â—orbiddeÌ„ As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self Thirdlie that shee is not debarred all her life time from the communion but for a season onely in time of neede in daungerous sicknes doth receive it yea even while the partie whoÌ„ shee forsooke liveth Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councels oversight who made the womaÌ„s case herein worse then the mans both being free alike by Gods lawe yet for the man it sheweth that they allowed him to marrie againe after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which wee maintaine The next yeildeth likeliehood that the Councell did forbid the womaÌ„ this not for that they thought it vnlawfull but vnseemelie perhaps or vnexpedient as h another Councell is read to have forbiddeÌ„ the celebrating solemnizing of marriages at certaine times But the last putteth the matter out of doubt that they were persuaded of the womaÌ„ also marryiÌ„g in such sort that her fact was warraÌ„table by the word of God For els had they not iudged her marriage with this latter maÌ„ to be lawfull they must needs have iudged her to live with him in perpetuall adulterie Which if they had thought it is most improbable they would have admitted her to the communion in case of daungerous sicknes seeing at the point of death i they denie it to womeÌ„ so continuing yea k to meÌ„ offendâ—ng lesse heynoufly then so With such extremitie of rigour therein that l Barâ—nius noteth their decrees as favouring of the Novation heresie m Bell. layeth it almost as deeply to their charge So farre from all likeliehood is it that they would admitt her in necessitie of sicknes to the communion had they bene persuaded shee lived in adulterie still Therefore it was not without cause that Bell did suppresse this circumstance to gether with the former in citing the decre of the Elibernie Councell least his false illation to weete that they accounted such marriage vnlawfull even for the innocent partie in the cause of adulterie should be descovered and controlled thereby Next is Ambrose brought in whom vpon the 16 chap. of Luke writeth much against them
Theodoret affirming that Christ hath set downe one cause wherby the hand of Marriage should be dissolved onely rent asunder in that he did except whoredom And a generall c CouÌ„cel wherin ther were above 220. bishops of the East gathered together doth implye as much in saying that He who his â— wife having keept the lawe of wedlocke being faithfull to him yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentene guilty of adultery So doth d Oecumenius in applying the precept of abyding unmarried to 〈◊〉 has should not have departed in abridging Chrisostoms words after his manner whose schollar e Bell. therefore tearmeth him So doth f Euthymimius Choysostoms schollar too in charging the man with adulterie g who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordom froÌ„ her husband So doth Nicephoras in copyinge coÌ„meding that out of Eusebius which he had out of Iustin the Martyr To be short the Grecians 3 which name compriseth many natioÌ„s the East all whom the h Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe put the same doctrine receyved from their aunstours in practise even at this day allowing married folke not onely to sperâ—te and divorce themselves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others as Bellarman confesseth Wherefore his opinion hath not the consent of the Eastern bishops neither hath had it any age since Christ Much less can he shewe the consent of the South i the Aethiopians an Abessines or of the k Moscovites Russes in the North both which as they receyved their faith from the East so vse they like freedom libertie for this matter No not in the west it self though he have many then agreeing with him yet hath hee the generall consent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half if an exact count might betaken of them â—or besides Tertullian the Councell of Eliberis c. to let passe Ambrose on Byshop of Rome or more alreadie shewed to have thought that â— a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe thâ—re are of the same minde l Lactantius m Chromatius n Hilarie o PolleÌ„tius p the auther of the CoÌ„mentaries in Ambrose his name vpon S. Pauls epistles q the first Councell of Arles r the couÌ„cell of Vannes they who either were at or agreed to the s sixth generall couÌ„cell the secoÌ„d time asseÌ„bled t Pope Gregorie the third â—Pope Zacharie the councell of x Wormes of y Tribur of z Mascon a councel alleaged by a Gratian without name and other learned meÌ„ alleaged likewise by b him c Pope Alexander the third d Celestin the 3 e Zacharie f Paul byshop the one of Chrisopolis the other of Burgose g Erasmus h Cardinal Cajetan Archbishop Catharinus k Naclantus byshop of Clugia finalli the teachers of the reformed churches in l Eng. m Scot n Ger. o France and p other countris for why should not I name these of our professioÌ„ faith amoÌ„g the Fathers as well as Bell. nameth the popish councell of Trent on the contrarie side But the Papists will some maÌ„ peradventure say doe not graunt that all whom you have rehearsed were of this opinioÌ„ But the Papists I answer doe graunt that sundrie of them were such as they graunt not the light of truth reasoÌ„ will either make them graunt or â—hame them for denying it As q Sixtus Senensis namely doth deny that Hilarie and Chromantius allowe a man to marrie another wife after divorcement or teach that hee is loosed from the band of matrimonie while his former wife though an adultesse liveth Now weigh their owne wordes it wil appeare that Sixtus iniurieth them therein For r Chromatius saith that they who having put away their wives for any cause save for whoredom presume to marrie others doe against the will of God and are condemned Wherein with what sence could hee except whoredom vnlesse hee thought them guiltlesse who having put away their wives for it doe marrie others And s Hilarie affirming Christ to have prescribed no other causeâ— of ceasing from matrimony but that sheweth that the baud of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmeÌ„t Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the vse therof for other causes the occasioÌ„ tenour of the speech doe argue that he meaÌ„t such a seperatioÌ„ as yeel deth liberty of new marriag In like sorte or rather more plainly expressely did Pollentius holde maintaine the same As Austin whoÌ„ in this point hee dissented from doth repote and testifie Yet Bellarmin a strangeâ—thing in a case so cleare but nothing strange to Iesuits saith that Pollentius o did not gainsaie Austin but asked his iudgment of the matter and for proofe here of referreth vs to the beginnings of both the bookes of Austin Even t to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured too prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another Pollentius wrot vnto him as it were by way of asking his iudgmeÌ„t and shewed hee thought the contrarie yet shewed it in such sorte that Austin setting downe both their opinions doth specifie then as flatly crossing one the other You are of this minde I of that and saith of Pollentius againe and againe that 8 hee was of this mynde which Bellarmin denieth hee was of wherein the Iesuits dealing is more shamefull for that beside the evidence of the thing it self so often repeated in the verie same places that hee citeth u Sixtus Senenses a man as vnwilling as Bellarmin to weaken anie of their Trent points with graunting more then hee must needes confesseth that Poeleutius thought hereof as we doe v Belike because Sixtus Seuensis honoureth him with the praise title of a 9 most godie man Bell. thought it better to lie then to graunt that they have such an adversarie Hee would faine avoid too another aâ—ncient father bearing the name ef Ambrose x Ambrose might his name be though he were not famous Ambrose Byshop of Milan But whether hee were named so or otherwise which perhaps is truer vnto his testimonie pronouncing it lawfull by S Paules doctrine for a man iustly divorced to marrie againe though not for a woman as heâ— by missetaking S. Paul throâ—gh errour y though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere First Gratian saith hee and Peeter z Lambard doe affirme that those word â—swere thrust into this authors Commentarie by some corrupters of writtings In deede the one of them affirmeth 2 it is said so the other 3 it is thought so But if it be sufficient to affirme barely without anie ground of proofe or probabilitie that it is said or thought