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
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
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
lawfully marrie another as I there declared it followeth by the like necessity of coÌ„sequence that the popish doctrine mainteined by our adversaries denying the same iâ— contrarie to the schriptuere and doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Sonne of God THE SCCOND CHAPTER The places of Scripture aleadged by our adversaries to disproove the Lawfull liberty of Marriage after Divorcement for Adulterie are Proposed Examined and prooved not to make against it SAinct Austin in his learned bookes of Christian Doctrine wherin he geves rules how to finde the right true sence of Scriptures doth wel a advise the faithful First to search marke those things which are set downe in the Scriptures plainely and then to goe in hande with sifting discussing of the darke places that the darker speaches may beâ— made evident by Patterns examples of the more plaine manifest the records of certaine undoubted sentences may take away doubt of the uncertaine This wholesome iudicious Counsaile of S Austin if our adversaries had bin as careful to follow as they are willing to shew the follow him in these things which he hath written lesse advisedly they would not have alleadged urged the places of Scripture which they doe against the poynt of doctrine hitherto prooved out of the 19. of S. Mathew For Christ in that place doth open the matter decide the question most plainely fully of purpose answering the Pharises In others either it is not handled of of purpose but incidetly touched or in generallity set downe more briefly soe more darkely obscurely Wherefore if any of the other places had seemed unto theÌ„ to raise a scruple and shewe of some repugnacie they should have taken paines to explaine level it by that in S. Math. the darker by the clearer the brieffer by the larger the uncertein ambigguous by the undoubted certeine But seeing they have chosen to follow S. Austins oversights rather then his best advises in like sorte as Furrius an orator of Rome did imitate Fimbria whose force of speech and arguements he attained not to but pronounced broadlye set his mouth awry like him wee must say of them as Christ of the Phareses â—Let them alone thy are blind leaders of the blind and our selves endevour to follow S. Austin in that he followed Christ who cleared the b darker place of Moses by c the plainer word ordinance of God d The which if we doe we shall by Gods grace easily percieve e that none of al the places aleadged by our adversaris doth make against the doctrine alredy proved coÌ„cluded For the first of them is in the 5. of Math. Whosoever shal put away his wife except it he for whoredome doth cause her to commit adultery And whoso marrieth her that input away doth commit adultery These words saith Bell. and looke what Bell. saith the the pamphletter saith with him so that one of their names may serve for both and reason Bellarmin have the honour These words And whose marrieth her that is put away doth commit adtltery must be either generally taken without exception or with the exception Except it be for whoredom If generally then he who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom too doth commit adultery The hand then marriage is not dissolved and loosed by her putting away but company debarred onely For he that marrieth her should not commit adulterie vnlesse shee were bound yet to her former husbaÌ„d And thus farr Bellarmin sayth well but superfluously For the words may not be generaly taken sith they have relation to the former sentenâ—e whereto they are coupelld and that sentence speaketh of her which is pnt away except for whordom Their meaniug then must needs be that he who marrieth her which is so put away doth commit adulterie Neither could Bell. be ignorant hereof or doubt with any likelyhoode but that this is our iudgmeÌ„t would be our answâ—r Wherefore his two forked dispute about the words was aflourish onely to make us afrayde as if hee fought with a two hande sword which would kill al that came in his way But now he goeth fore warde upon his enemies pike an saieth about him on the other side If the words must be taken with the exception then he that marrieth a whore put away from her husband coÌ„mitteth not adulterie consequently the whore is in better case then the innocent chast For the whore is free may be married whereas the innocent that is uniustly put away can neither have her former husband nor marrie another But this most absurd that the lawe of Christ being most iust would have her to be in better case state that is iustly put away then her that is uniustly For answer unto which reason of Bell. I would spurr him a question whether by the Popes law which forbiddeth a man that g hath been twise married or h hath married a widow to take holly orders admitteth on thereto that hath kept or happely keepeth many concubines a whormoÌ„ger be in better case theÌ„ an honest man and if a whoremoger be so by the Popes lawe whether we ought to i iugde that this is most absurd or noe Here if he should answer that the Popes lawe is not most iust therefor noe marvel if it have some such things as were moste absurd to be imagined by Christs law I must ackowledge he spake reason Wel I would spurr him theÌ„ another question whether he thinke that I ame in better case theÌ„ any Iesuit yea then the best of them all Phy he will answer there is noe comparison The best nay the worst of them is in better case then I am k Yet I may marrie if I list and none of them may because of their vowe Belike this Vow-Doctrine was not establishede by the lawe of Christ Which is moste iuste but by the popes lawe rather Or it is most absurde that a poore Christiane shoulde hee in better case l then the provdest Iesuit But heere peradventure the man will say rather that wee are Hâ—retiquâ—s and they Catholiques and the meanest Catholique is in better case even for his faiths sake then any Heretique watsoever which if he doe as it is likely neither can hee say ought with probability but to this effect then hath hee confuted and overthrowen his argument For by this answere hee cannot chuse but graunt that the simplest woman being put away vniustly from her husband is in better case for her chastities sake though shee may not marrie theu watsoever whore that may And I hope hee will not say that the stewes and cuttizans at Rome are in better case then honest matrons there divorced from their husbands Yet may none of these while their husbans live bee ioyned to others whereas the curtizaus are free to marrie whom they will if any will marrie them who are soe free