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
wicked wretches of whom it is written s woe unto them that say that good is evil and evil good For the proofe where of it is to be noted that an exception is a particular proposition coÌ„tradictorie to a geneaall So that if the general proposition be affirmative the exception is negative and if the proposition be negative contrariewise the exception is affirmative As for exsamples sake t He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lorde shall be destroyed saith Moses in the lawe The proposition is affirmative He that sacrificeth to any Gods shal be destroyed The exception negative He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed u There is none good but one even God saith Christ in the Gospell The proposition is ngative There is none good The exception affirmative One is good even God x I would to God that all saith Paul to Agrippa which heare me this daye were altogether such as I am except these bonds The proposition affirmative I with that all that heare me were such as I am altogether The exception negatiue I wish not in bonds they were such as I am y No Church did coÌ„municate with me in the account of giving receiving saving you onely sayth the same paule to the Phillippians The Proposition negative No Church did coÌ„municate with me in the account of giving receiving The exception affirmative You of Phillippâ— did Likewise al the rest of expositions adioyned to general propositions though the markes and tokens of generallity sometimes lie hiddeÌ„ in the Proposition soe of denying or affirming doe in the exception Yet it is plaine certain that in the propositioÌ„ exceptioÌ„ matched with it are still of contrarie quallity the one affirmative if the other negative negative if the other affirmative Which being so see now the Iesuits dealing how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth and reason For sith in Christs speach toâ—hing Diuorcement for whoredome the proposition is affirmativeâ—Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrie an other doth commit adulterie it followeth that the exception which denyeth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whordome marieth another is an exception negative but Bellarmin saith that this were an exception affirmative Yea which is more straunge in a man learned and knowing rules of logique But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgemnt to their owne lusts and errors he entiteleth it an exception affirmative even then and in the same place when and where himselfe having set it downe in the wordes goeing immediatlye next before had given it the marke of a negative thus It is not Adulterie to marrie annother And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone he addeth fault to fault saying that this is an exception negative When no thing is presently determined touching the cause whether it be sufficent 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 z Law that he who faith nothing dieneth not Belike as they coyned vs neuw Diviniti at Rome so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too Houbeit if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie that negative is affirmative to say nought is negative I see not but al heretikes vngodly persons may as wel 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 wy reade to the Corinthians a 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 knouw those things because it might be a negative exceptionâ— importing that S. Paul wolude determine nothing presently thereof If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through concience of his sine trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinners b Yee shall all perish except yee repent He migt replie thereto that the exception 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 repentat If a vsurer should be toulde that he c is for bidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie d or to take encrease a theefe that he is e commanded To labour woorke f so to eate his owne breade they might if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin deâ—end their trades both the one by affirming that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it the other that to commande betokeneth to forbid In a worde Whatsoever opinioÌ„ 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 wicked holy life ment by death heaven by hell Or if the Papists them-selves would condemned this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places as sencelesse and shamelesse then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negâ—tive is afirmative and to say nothing is to denie Which whether they doe or not I wil with the conseÌ„t and liking I doubt not of all indifferent iudges and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contencion conclude that these lying gloses of the â—esuits doe not become a Christian And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a preterition 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 propositioÌ„ affirmeth in all others it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech theÌ„ who for whoredome 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 bee for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie This devise doth Bell. 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 iudgmeÌ„t doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the
scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as g Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circuâ—stances and matter of the text sheweth to bee waÌ„ting but what himself listeth to frame such sense ther of 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 inconvenience of that kinde of dealing For h the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wifs 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 Freiâ—r Alphonsus i checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braun hâ—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 Whoso 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 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 buâ— for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if hee marrie another much more if hee marrie having put away his wife for any other cause And so is Christs speach in effect made cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe give he saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it befor whoredom and the Frier â—orceing him to say Whosoe ver shall put a away his wife although it be for whoredom and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie k Nicolas of Lira beeing as in time more auncient then the frier soe more sincere and single in handeling the scripture saith that other words must be interposed to the supplying of it thus Whosever putteth away his wife except it be forâ—whordom sinneth and doth agaiast the lawe of marriage and whoso marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherein though he deale lesse vyolently with the text then doe the frier and the Bishop yet he offendeth also in their licentious humour of adding to the scripture where nothing was wanting making it ther by to speake that which he thinketh wheras he should have learned to thinke that which it speaketh Yea Bell himselfe acknowledgeth that they all were overseene herein albeeit censuring them with gentler words as he is wont his favorits and freinds For the explications saith he which the Bishop of Auila Alphonsus a Castro and others have devised are not so probable But why should these be noted by him as improbable yea denyed unworthy the rehersal and that of his owne though adding in the like sorte which is not lawful be allowed as probable yea magnified as most true by the pamphletter The reason which they both or rather which Bell for the pamphletter doth no more here but Englishe him as neither els where for the most parte though he bragg not thereof the reasons then which Bell. doth presse out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous schollars that this interposition is probable likely are pressed indeed according to the proverb The wringing of the nose causeth bloode to com out For he saith that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shal marry another but streight after those whosoever shall put away and likewise when he added l and whosâ— marrieth her that is put away committeth aâ—â—lterie he did not ioyne thereto Except it be for whoredom to the intent that be might shewe that the cause of whoredom doth onely make the putting away to be lawfull not the celebrating of a newe marriage too And how doth he prove that Christ did so place the exception in the former clause to this intent or to this intent did omit it in the latter Nay he proveth it not it is but his coÌ„iecture like a sicke mans dreame Vnlesse this goe for a proofe that Christ did not so place it before without cause nor omit it afterwarde without cause Which if he meant it should it was for want of a better For Christ did not these things without cause I graunt Therefore he did them for this cause it foloweth not S. Paule having occasion to cite a place of scriptuere doth set it downe thus Com yee out from among theÌ„ m seperate your selves saith the Lorde and touch no unclean thing Herein he hath placed the wordes saith the Lord not after touch noe unclean thing but after seperate your selves This did he not without cause What for this cause therefore that he might restraine the words saith the Lord to the former braunch as not pertaining to the latter also No for it appeareth by the n prophet Esay that they belong to both It is to be thought then that the spirit of God who doth nothing without cause did move Paule for some cause to place them soe Perhaps for perspicuitye comodiousnesse of giving other men therby to understaude the rather that both the wordes goeing before coÌ„ming after were quallified with saith the Lord which is to be likewise thought of the exceptioÌ„ placed by our Saviour betweeÌ„ the two braunches of his speech And that with so much greater reason in my iudgment because if he had placed it after the later And shall marry another the words 3 except for whoredom might have seemed to signifiie that it were lawful for a man having put away his wife for any cause to marrie another â— if hee could not conteine as it is writteÌ„ 4 Because of whoredom let everie man have his wife where now the exception being set before the pharises whose question Christ therein did answer could gather no such poysoÌ„ out of his words to feed their error but they must needs accknowledg this to be his doctrine that a man may not put away his wife for every cause marrie another but for whoredom onely As for Christs omitting of the exceptioÌ„ afterwrd Bell himselfe wil quickly see there might be another cause thereof if he considder how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omitt the exception which neverthelesse must needs be supplyed understoode For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons O the Lordâ— gave coÌ„mandement Let not the wife departe from her husband let not the husband put awaie his wife without adding to either parte except it be for woredom which the Lord did add Bell. greatest p Doctor saith hee omitted it Because it was very well knowen most notorius If then Paul had reason to
excepted For these are his words v To them who are married it is not I that give commaâ—dement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee departe too let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husbaÌ„d let not the husband put away his wife Where in the last braunch Let not the husband put away his wife must needes bee vnderstood except it bee for whoredom because S. Paule saith it is the Lords commandement and x the Lord gave it with that expresse exception This Bellarmyn doth graunt Well Then as the last braunche so the first too let not the wife depart from her husband For the analogie is all one and x etche having interest in the others bodie shee may as lawfully depart from an adulterer as hee from an adulteresse And this doth Beelarmin graunt also But the middle braunche is to bee vnderstood of the same deparâ—ing and likewise qualified as the first Therefore If shee depart too is meant except it be for whoredome Nay not so quoth Bellarmin for the same departing is not meant in both but a farre different in the first an uniust departinge in the next a iuste and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes Not I but the Lord gâ—ve commandement let not the wife depart from her husband to weeâ— without a â—ist cause but if shee goe away to weet having a iust cause let her remayne vnmarried so forth In the refutation of which wrong violence done vnto the sacred text what should I stand when the onely reason whereby out of sâ—ripture hee assayeth to prove it is the disiunctive particle which as I have shewed alreadie hath no ioynt or sinew of proofe to that effect And z the onely father whose testimony hee citeth for it doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture So that his reason being overthrowen his creditt and authoritie by a his owne b approved rule may beare no sway And on the contrarie parte c many other fathers doe expound the second braunches as having reference to the same departing that is for bidden in the first And which is the chief point the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same For the tearmes 7 But if too importe that doing alsoe of that which in the sentence before hee had affirmed ought not to bee done As d the like examples in the same discourse to go no farder shewe yea some having one 8 parâ—icle lesse then this hath to presse it therevnto It is good for the vnmarried widowes if they abide even as I doe 9 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 1 but if the vnbeleeving depart let him depart Art thou â—oused from a wife seeke not a wife 2 Bot then marrie also thou sinnest not This I speake for your profitt that you may doe that which is comely But if aâ—ie man thinke it vncomely for his virgin if shee passe the time of Marriage let him doe what hee will The wiâ—e is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth 4 but if her husband bee dead shee is at libertie and soe forth In all the which sentences sith the clauses brought in with those coniunctions have manifest relation to the things spoken of before touch them in the same sense the braunche that is inquestion having like dependance must in all reason be conserved of same the departing that the former Thus it being proved that S. Paul commanding the wife to remayne vnmarried if shee be parted from her husband did meane Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faultie even in this also that hee nameth whoredome among the iust causes of the wives departing here meant by S. Paul Now in this conâ—lusion inferring herevpon that even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage he is deceitfull as he was false in his proposition For the word Divorcement being vnderstood as it is by him for anie seperation and parting of the man and wife though from bâ—dd onely and for a certayne time There may be sundry causes why such a seperation should be allowed or tollâ—rated when as the band of marriage shall neverthelesse endure still And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmin had concluded a truth to purpose But the poynt where with he should have knit vp his dispute and which hee would have men conceyve and beare away as if these words implyed it is that no iust cause at al of any divâ—rcemeÌ„t doth loose the baÌ„d of marriage therefore neither whoredom The falshood whereoeâ— woulde have bee as cleare as the sunne-shine at noone-day the prpositioÌ„ being so evidently false wheron it is in ferred And this is the arguement that Bell. set his rest on 5 the insoluble argument even altogether insoluble the ground wherof he termeth 6 a demonstration a most invincible demonstration against the which nothing saith he can be obiected but an insufficient reply made by Erasmns to weet that Paule speaketh of an adulterous wifâ— who therfore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay unmarried the innocent party not so charged Which speaches of the Iesuit come from the like veine of a vauntinge spirit as those did of his coÌ„plices who boasted that 8 the Spainyards Armadoes navy should finde but weake silly resistans in England and callede their armay sent to conquer us an invicible armey For as they diminished by untruâ— reports the forâ—es prepared To meete en countere with the spanish power so Bell. by saying that nought can be obiected beside that he specifieth yea fardâ—r by belying and falsefing of Erasmus who contrariewise replieth that Paul doth seeme to speake 9 of lighter displeasiurs for which divorcement then were usual not of such cryms as adultery Moreover by the substance weight of my replye to his insoluble argeument the Godlye wise indifferent eye wil see I trust that the knotts strings therof are loosed brokeÌ„ even as the inviâ—cible armey of the Spainyards was by Gods providence shewed to bee Vinâ—ible without great enâ—ouÌ„tering the carkeses and spoyles of their ships men upon the English Scottish Irish coasts did wittnesse it So let allthyn 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 second pretended proofe for the Paaists doctrine in this poynt is pretended falsly if all be weighed in an even ballance the Fathers check it rather AFter the forsayd testemonies of Scriptur urged by our adversaries in the first place for the coÌ„mending of their errour Secondly the same truth saith the Iesuite may be
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
prooved by tradition By which his owne speech if we should take advantage of it he graunteth all that I have saide â—gainste his argumentes drawen-out of the Scripture and so farre forth agreeth with us For what understandeth he by the word traditionâ— â— Doctrine not written as him selfe professeth in his first controversie Where having noted that al though the word tradition bee generall signifieth any doctrine written or vnwritten which one imparreth to another yet divines and 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 quistion then may be proved as Bellarmin affirmeth it may by tradition We might conâ—lude it is not written in the scriptures by his owne verdict therefore all the scriptures alleaged by him for it are alleaged falsly But hee semeth to vse the name of tradition in like sort as b Vincentius Lirmensis doth calling the doctrine de livered by the church the Churches tradition This to bee his meaning I gathâ—r by the reason that hee addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it The Pamphleâ—ter in other words but more peremptorily to avouch the proofe thereof by the opiâ—ion censure of all ages affirmeth he will shewe that it was never thought lawfull since Christ for Christiaas divorced for â—ornication to mrrry anie other while both man 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 traditioâ— For tradition hath not forâ—e enough to prove a thing to be true not in the Papists owne iudgment vnles it have bene alwaies approved and agreed on by the generall consent of Fathers as we tearme them Pastors and Doctors of the Church Which I affirne not vpon the generall rule of c Vincentius onelie so greatly and so often praised by them as golden But upon the Canon of the Trent Couâ—cel and pillars of the popish Church subscribing to it For the Councel of Trent commanding that noe man shal expound the Scripture against the sence that the Church houldeth or against the Fathers consenting al in one doth covertly grannt that if the Fathers consent not all in one their opinion may bee false and coÌ„sequently no sure proofe of a pyont inquestion Andradius e doth open avouch the same in his defence of the Councel a worke verye highly commended by f Oserius And Canus sâ—tteth downe for a conclusion that many of them consenting in on can yeld noe firme proofe if the rest though fewer in numbre doe dissent Yea h Bellarmin himselfe saith that there can no certainty be gathered out of their sayings when they agrie not amonge themselves It is a thing graunted theÌ„ by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to proue ought unlesse they al consent in one But the Fathers doe not censent in one about the poynt we treat of as it shal be shewed Our adversaries therfor must graunt that the opinion which they hould in this poynt cannot be proovede by Fathars Nay they are in daunger of beeinge enforcede to graunt a farther matter and more importing them by the conseqeÌ„t hereof For through a decree of Pope Pius the fourth the professors of all faculties all that take degrees in any popish schole are bound by solemne oth that they shall never expound take the Scripture but according to the Fathers cousenting all in on Wherfore how will Bell. perhaps the pamphletter also if he have been amongst them and taken any degree but what shift will Bell. and his Puefellows finde to save theÌ„selves from periury when it shall be shewed that many of the Fathers gaiusay that opinioÌ„ which himselfe and his expound the Scriptue for And what if it appear that the greater number of Fathers doe so not the greater onely but the better also and those whose grounds are sure Then all the probability which Fathers can yealde will turne againste the papists and that which our adversaries would proove by Tradition and the consent of all ages wil rather be disproved thereby But howsoever men be diversly persuaded touching the number qualety of the Fathers enclining this or that way by meanes of sundry circuÌ„stance which may breade doupâ— both perticularly of certaine and of the whole summe in generall the maine and principalâ— poynt remaining to be shewed namelly that the Fathers consent not allin one for the papists doctrine is most cleare and evident out of all controversie In soe much that many even of them also whom Bell. aleageth and the pamphletter after him as making for it make indeed against it and those of the chiefest and formast ranckes especially in the first the second the third the fourth hundred yeares after Cheist All the which agree teach with one conseÌ„t that the man forsaking his wife for her adultery is free to marry again save such of them onely as in this verry poynt of doctrine touching marriage are tainted with error by the iudgement and censure of Papists themselves A token of the vanetie folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphletter who by naming one at least in everie age would needs make a shewe of having the cousent 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 Canons of the Apostles k where the man is willed without any exception to bee excommunicated who having put away his wife doth marrie another Nou beside that Clemens vpon whom Bellarmin fathrreth those canons is inriured therein As for the later parte of them l himself sheweth m his friend for the former neither are they of Apostelique antiquitie and authoritie notwithstanding theyr title as n many Fathers estifie and Papists will acknowledge when they are touched by them The author of the Canon had respect therein by all probabilitie to the Apostolique doctrine receyved from Christ and therefore though he made not an expresse exception of divorce for whoredome might as well imply it as I have declared that some of the Euangelists and S. Paule did Which the interpreters also of those Canons p Zonarus and Balsamon thought to bee so likely and more then a coniecture that they expound it so without any sâ—mple Balsamon in saying that hee 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 commit adulterie Or if these writters mistooke the aâ—thours meaning and in his opinion no man howsoever his