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
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
Iesuits dealing how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth reasoÌ„ For sith in Christs speach touching Divorcement for whoredome the proposition is affirmative Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrie another doth commit adulterie it foloweth that the exception which denieth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whoredome marrieth another is an exception negative But Bellarmin sayth that this were an exception affirmative Yea which is more straunge in a man learned knowing rules of logique But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgment to their owne lusts and errors he eÌ„titeleth it an exceptioÌ„ affirmative even then and in the same place when where himselfe having set it downe in the words going immediarly next before had given it the marke oÌ„f a negative thus It is not adulterie to marrie another And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone he addeth fault to fault saying that this is an exceptioÌ„ negative When no thing is presently determined touching the cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or no. So first to denie with him was to affirme and next to say nothing now is to deny Yet there is a rule in Law that he who saith nothing denieth not Belike as they coyned vs new Divinity at Rome so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too Howbeit if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie that negative is affirmative to say nought is negative I see not but al heretickes vngodly persons may as well as Iesuits mainteyne what they list impudently face it out with like distinctions For if an adversarie of the H. Ghost should be controuled by that we reade to the CorinthiaÌ„s The things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God His answer after Bellarmins patterne were readie that this proveth not the spirit of God to know those things because it might be a negative exception importing that S. Paul woulde determine nothing presently thereof If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through conscience of his sines trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinners Yee shall all perish except yee repent He might replie thereto that the exceptioÌ„ is negative and this though not in the former poynt yet here were true but to make it serve his humour he must expounde it with Bellarmin that Christ doth not determin what shall become of the repentant If a vsurer should be tolde that he is forbidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie or to take encrease a theefe that he is commanded To labour woorke so to eate his owne breade they might if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin defend their trades both the one by affirming that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it the other that to commande be tokeneth to forbid In a worde whatsoever opinion were reproved as false or action as wicked out of the scriptures denouncing death eternall and paynes of hell thereto the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of by glosing thus vpon them that false is true and wicked holy life ment by death and heaven by hell Or if the papists them-selves would condemne this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places as senselesse and shamelesse then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negative is afirmative and to say nothing is to denie Whiâ—h whether they doe or no I will with the coÌ„sent liking I doâ—bt not of all indifferent iudges and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention conclude that these lying gloses of the Iesuits doe not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a prâ—terition or passing over a thing in silence which if Christ had ment hee could have done with fitt words as wise men are wont but a flat denying of that in on case which the proposition affirmeth in all others it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech them who for whore dome put away their wives denieth that in them which in all others he affirmeth and thereby teacheth vs that the man who putting away his wife for that cause marrieth another doth not commit adulterie The next trick of Sophistrie whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them is that the exception ought to be restreined to the former branche of putting away the wife onely To the which intent they say that there are some words wanting in the text which must be supplied and perfected thus Whosoever shall put away his wife which is not lawfull except it be for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie This devise doth Bellarmin allowe of as probable though not like the foresayd two of negation and negative exception But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all And surely if it were lawfull to foist in these words which is not lawfull the Pamphletter might seeme to have shewed greater skill herein then Bellarmin But men of vnderstanding and iudgmeÌ„t doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circuÌ„stances matter of the text sheweth to bee wanting but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof as pleaseth his conceit and fansie The sundrie interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may to go noe further sufficiently discover the fault and incoÌ„venience of that kinde of dealing For the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wife except it bee for whordome though he marrie not another committeth adulterie and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sorte if he marrie another doth commit adulterie Freier AlphoÌ„sus checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braunch of it sith hee who putteth away his wife not for whoredome although he cause her to commit adulterie yet doth not himselfe commit it vnlesse hee marrie another Wherevpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather Whose putteth away his wife not for other cause but for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie But this though it have not soe many words added as the Bishop of Auilas yet in truth it is more violently forced against the naturall meaning and drift of the text For by adding these words Not for other cause his purpose is to say that whoso putteth away his wife for noe cause but for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if he marrie another much more if heÌ„e marrie having put away his wise for any other cause And so is Christs speech made in effect cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe geve hee saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and the frier forcing him to saie Whosoever shall put
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
heresie Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagonas his owne as sundrie fathers speake dangerously that way then thrust in by Encratites who generally reiected all marriage not seâ—ond marriage onelie Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause As much doth the last of his witnesses Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage hee matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes and stained with spotts of errour Which iudgmeÌ„t not onely Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately geven of him though a Iesuitical spirit doe traduce theÌ„ insolently for it But an auncient Pope of Rome with seaveÌ„tie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinitie and in the Canon law Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same Now in the third hundred yeares to goe forward Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion of whom one questionlesse controlleth perhaps both For Tertullian disputing against the heretique Marcion who falsely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses because Moses graunted divorcemeÌ„t Christ forbiddeth it answereth that Christ saying whosoever shall put away his wife marrie another committeth adulterie meaneth vndoubtedly of putting away for that cause for which it is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another And likewise for the wife that he is an adulterer who marrieth her being put away if shee be put away vnlawfully considering that the marriage which is not rightly broken off continueth and while the marriage doth continue it is adulterie to marrie Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully for the cause excepted by Christ may marrie another Bellarmin doth very cunningly finely cut of with an et caetera and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement if there be a iust cause but did forbid to marrie againe after divorcement So directly agaisnt the most evideÌ„t light of the wordes tenour of the whole discourse that learned men of his owne side though houlding his opinion yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it For byshop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintaine that men may lawfully marrie againe after divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie nameth Tertullian quoting this place amoÌ„g them And Sixtus Senensis a man not inferiour in learning to Bellarmin in sincere dealing for this point superiour coÌ„fesseth on the same place on those same words but recited wholy not clipped with an etcetera that Tertullian maketh a certaine vndoubted assertion thereof Pamelius in deede through a desire of propping vp his churches doctrine with TertulliaÌ„s credit saith that though hee seeme here to allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort as that the husbaÌ„d may marrie another wife yet hee openeth himself holdeth it to be vnlawfull in his booke of single marriage Whâ—rein he saith some what but litle to his advauntage For Tertullian wrote this booke of single marriage wheÌ„ hee was falleÌ„ away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie that is vnlawfull to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death But in that thee wrote while hee was a Catholique against the heretique Marcion hee teacheth coÌ„trarywise the same that wee doe as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truely graunt Yea Pamelius himself if hee looke better to his owne notes doth graunt as much For he saith that Tertullian vseth the worde divorcement in his proper signification for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife marrieth another But TertulliaÌ„ saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marrie another by Tertullians iudgment Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen Although it be true hee saith as Bellarmin citeth him that certaeine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived addeth they did it agaynst the scripture For he seemeth to speake of a woman divorced from her husband not for adulterie but for some other cause such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for bygiving theÌ„ a bill of divorcemeÌ„t The matter that he handleth and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to this meaning Approved by the opinion of certaine learned men too For after he had said according to the words of Christ which he expoundeth that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemeÌ„t did yeeld vnto the weakenes of theÌ„ to whom the law was geveÌ„ he saith that the Christian byshops who permitted a womaÌ„ to marrie while her former husbaÌ„d lived did it perhaps for such weaknes Wherefore sith in saving that this which they did they did perhaps for such weaknes he hath relatioÌ„ vnto that of Moses Moses as he addeth did not grauÌ„t the bill of divorcemeÌ„t for adulterie for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshops whoÌ„ Origen chargeth with doing against the scripture did permitt the womaÌ„ to marrie vpon divorcemeÌ„t for some other cause not for adulterie so his reproving of theÌ„ doth not touche vs who grauÌ„t it for adulterie only Thus doth Erasmus thinke that Origen meant concluding it farther as cleare by the similitude which he had vsed before of Christ who put away the Synagogue his former wife as it were because of her adulterie married the churche Yea Tapper likewise a great divine of LovaÌ„ of better credit with Papists theÌ„ Erosâ—nus saith that the divorcemeÌ„t permitted by those Byshops whoÌ„ Origen coÌ„trouleth was a Iewish divorcemeÌ„t Wherein though he aymed at another marke to prove an vntruth yet vnwares he hiâ— a truth more theÌ„ hee thought of strengthened that by Origen which he thought to overthrowe Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter caÌ„ persuade by other likelyhoods out of Origen as he is somewhat darke I know not whether irresolute in the point that the thing reproved by him in those Byshops was the permitting of one to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie our cause shal be more advaÌ„taged by those sundrie Byshops who approved it theÌ„ disadvaÌ„taged by one OrigeÌ„ who reproved theÌ„ for it Chiefly seing OrigeÌ„ impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith for whiâ—h a generall Councell with Bellarmins allowaÌ„ce count 〈◊〉 a damned heretique in this matter by excluding all such as are twise married out of the KingdoÌ„ of heaveÌ„ which divines of Paris observe check him for Whereas those Byshops of whoÌ„ he maketh mentioÌ„ were neither stayned otherwise for ought that may be gathered nor herein did they more then