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
Howbeit least any place af cavelling be left him and of pretending a differente betweene those who having had the use of marriage lose the benefit of it and those who lose it not having never had it I wil set before him a plaine demonstratipn thereof in married persons Sianus as the Romaine Historie recordeth did put away his wife Aipicata uiustly therby to winne the rather the favour of Livia which was the wife of Drusus Livia being carried a waie with the wicked intisemeÌ„ts of Sianus was not only nought of her body with him but coÌ„seÌ„ted also to make away her husbaÌ„d Drusus with poison Now let Bell. tel us whether of these two were in bettir case Apicata or Livia Lovia the adulteresse and murderesse of her husband beeing free to marry or chaft Apicata being bounde to live solitarie If he say Livia should have ben put to death by the m Romaine law because of her murdnr theÌ„ had shee not beÌ„ in better case theÌ„Apecata for liberty to marrie I reply that likewise by the law of Moses the womaÌ„ whoÌ„ Christ speaketh of should have beeÌ„ put to death because of her adultery so the doubt here ceased n too But the law of Moses being left vnexeâ—uted on the adulterous woman as the Romain was for the tyme of Livia let Bellarmin answer to the poynt not as of Livia onely but of any whor that hath wrought her husbaÌ„ds death and for want of proofe or through the Magistrats fault is suffered to live whether shee bee in better case then an honest chast religious matron that is put away from her husband vnjustly Which if hee dare not saye o considderinge one the one sideÌ„ the plagues that in this life and p in the life to come are layd vp for such miscreants on the other the blessed q promises of them both assured to the Godly then hee hath noe refuge but hee must needs confesse that his argument was fond For the murdering whore is not an aduteresse by the law of Christ though shee take another man her husband being dead and yet the chast Matrone were an adulteresse if shee married while her husband liveth who hath uniustly put her away Wherein this notwithstanding is to be weighed that a chaste womans case is not soe hard in comparson of the whores No Not for marriage neither as Bellarmin by cunning of speeche woulde make it seeme to countenauce therewith his reason For he frameth his words soo as if the chast had no possibility of remedy at all neither by having her former husbaÌ„d nor by marrying another therefore were in worse case theÌ„ the whore who is free to marrie whereas the truth is that by Christs lawe she not r onely may but s ought to have her former husband And why should not shee be as likely to recover her husbands good will to whom shee hadd bene faithfull as a faythlesse whore and infamous strumpett to get a newe husband Chiefly seing that it is to be presumed they loved ech other when they married t and experieÌ„ce sheweth that Failing out of Lovers is a renewing of love But if trough the frowardnes of men on the one side and foolishnes on the other the chaste wife could hardly reconcile her husdaÌ„d the whore get easily a match it fuffiâ—eth that the law of Christ cannot bee justly charâ—d with absurdity though it doe enlarg the vnchast and lewd in some outward thing in which it enlargeth not the chast v No more then the providence of God may be controlled and noted of iniquity though x the evil wiâ—ked enioy certaine earthly blessings in this life which are not graunted the vpright godly Wherefore the first place of Scripture out of S. Mathew and forced by Bell. with his 2 horned argument as the Logitions tearme it doth serve him as much to annoy our cause as the Iron hornes made in Aâ—habs favour by Zedechiah the falce prophet did stand him in stead to push consume the hoste of the Aramiters The second place is written in the tenth of Marke y Who so putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adulterie agaynst her and if a woman put away her husband be married to another shee committeth adulterie The like whereof is also in the sixtenth of Luke z whosoever putteâ—th away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery whoesoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband commiteth adultery These words sayth Bellarmin doe teach generally that marriage contracted perfected betweene the faithfull is never soe dissolved that they maye lawfully ioynin other wedlocke And whereas wee answer that these general sentences are to be expounded with a saving of the exceptioÌ„ mentioned in Mathew because one Evanghelist doth add oftentymes that another ommitteth a and Mathew els where contrary vnto Marke Luke which sith they al wrote as they were moved by the holy-spirit of truth is impossibel Bell: replieth that the Evangelists in deed omit or add somewhat now and than which other Evangelists have not omitted or added but they doe never omit in such sort that the sentence is made false A strange kind of speech As if all generall sentences were false from the which some speciality though not expressed in the same place yet by conference with others is understood to be expressed Sure the Civill Lawe which in learned mens opinons hath much truth will then bestained fowlly with untruths lyes For how many sentences rules set downe in it with full generall tearmes whereof not withstaÌ„ding there is none b lightly but suffereth an exception The Canon law also whose credit authority Bellarmin must tender hewsoever he doe the Civill hath store of such axioms and c teacheth accordingly That a perticulaer doth derogate from the generall But what speake I of meÌ„s lawes In the scripture it selfe Iob saith that d the hypocrite shall perish for ever like the dung and David that the e wicked shal turne into hell all nations that forget God Salomon that f Everie proud harted man is an abomination to the Lorde though hand ioyne in hand he shall not be unpunished g These sentences of Iob David Salomon h are true in the beliefe of Christians yet forasmuch as they must be understood with an exception according to the Doctrine of Christ and his servants saing unto sinners Except ye repent Ye shal al perish in the Iesuits iudgement they are made false And Ionas semblably when he preached to the Ninivits i yet forty daies and Ninive shal be overthrowen acused them with an untruth though learned men doe finde a truth in his speech as to be thus takeÌ„ that Niniveh should be overthrowen except it repented k Or if Bellarmin also acknowledg the same which he may not choose unlesse of a Iesuit he wil becom a Iulian and
false Those he draweth to there heads wherof the first hath two braunches one that S. Pauls words are plaine the other that they are ofte repeated For what is more plaine saith he then that if while the man liveth the woman take another man she is called an adulteresse and that g the Woman is bouud by the lawe as longe as her husband liveth Plaine I denie not But this proofe how pithy stronge soever he thought to sett it in his fore-front is already shewed to be no proofe at all sith there are plaine words in like sentences which neverthelesse must be expounded as these are by us For what more plaine then that Who planteth a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof and that Who feadeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke and that No man ever hated his owne flesh but nourisheth cherisheth it and that Noe Warfarring maÌ„ entangleth himself with the affaiers of life and many other such that might be alleaged if in a thing so cleare it weare not superfluous Naye in these sentences the woordes are more playne then in those wee speake of beecause those have noe shuche marke of generality expressed in them as these have Wherefore if soe greate playnnesse of woordes signede with generall tokens as it were importing that they are true in all yet coÌ„vinceth nor that they are meant of all without any exception fully and vniversally how can a lesser playnnesse wanting such efficacie convince the same of those in question Or if it should elswhere by reason of some difference which might supplie by other weight that this waÌ„teth Yet here it cannot possibly because S. m Paule himself as I have declared sheweth that in one case the sayings could not so bee true Morâ—over the n Papists hold that if a married man become a moncke before hee know his wife carnally she may lawfully take anot her husband while he liveth Perphaps further also that the Pope for any very weighty cause maye vpon the same circumstance dispence and loose the band of Marriage At least o themselves tell vs that sundry Popes have done so and p their great Doctors hould wee may Yet is the woman his wife who hath wedded her or espoused her onely though shee hath not entred into his bed hamber For she that is betrothed is accounted a wise by the law q of God coÌ„sent not carnall company maketh Marriage as the civill r Lawiers s Fathers Popes doe reach The Papists then of all man may worst on force the playnesse of S. Panls words agaynst our exposition theÌ„-selves condescending in cases more then wee doe that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth and bee noe adulteresse Where by agayne appeareth how wisely and discreetly the Iesuit Triumpheth with t Austins words These words of the Apostle so oftentymes repeated so ofteÌ„tymes inculcated are true are quick are sound are playne The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die not if he playe the whoremonger The wife then is lawfully putt away for whordom but the band of the former lasteth in somuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom For if these words of Austin bee quick and sound against vs then touch they poperie at the quick sith it may be sayd by the same reason The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband vnlesse she have ceased to be of the former and shee shall cease to be of the former if her husband die not if hee waxe a Monke Admitt then that the wife bee put away for monkery yet the band of the former lasteth in sommuch that hee becometh gulty of adulterie who marrieth her thatis put away even for monkery And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were for which so x many Popes have loosed the bande of Marriage thy are all controlled by the sawe censure The woman begâ—nneth not to be the wife of any later husband vnlesse she have ceased th be of the former and shee shall cease to be of the former if her husband die not if a better match be offered or some mislyke be conceived or the Pope dispence and be well freed from it Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the compasse of Aestins reproofe by construiÌ„ng his words so without exception beecause they are true quick founde and plaine For againste his doctrine touching a Susters liberty to marry if she hâ— forsaken of her unbelieving husband the force of S. Austins consequence would inferre in like sorte The woman begineth not to be the wife of any later husband unlesse shee have ceased to be of the former if her husband die not if hee forsake her The Ieâ—uit who useth so often to repeate so often to in culcate the testimonies of the Fathers should dealeper adventure more considerately more charitably out of doubt if before he cite them he weighed their words better whether they may stande with the truth of Scripture with his owne doctrine For y Cham discovered the nakednes of Noah so doth he their blemishes he who alleageth them not wee whom hee enforceth to shew why wâ—ee dissent toÌ„ theÌ„ least our Savious sentence be expounded against us z He that leveth Father or Mother better then me is not worthy of mee But the Iesuits meaning you will say was not to discredit them by laying a necessitie on us to refute them what was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scripturs with the truth whereof their sayings do not stand For I trust he meant not to overthrowe the poynts of his owne doctrine which their sayings crosse unlesse he be of that minde which Tully coÌ„demneth as barbarous sauage expressed in an heathnish verse LET OVR FRIENDS FALL SOE OVR FOES DIE WITHALL Howsoever it be it is plaine that the plaines of S. Pauls words neither doth proove the sence therof to be simply absolutely general the Scripture noteing an exception neither cann be saide by Papists to proove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture addeth more thereto Thus one braunch of Bell firste principall reason being cutt off the other and the rest of his reasons also are cutt off with the same labour and instrument For whereas he saith Certes it were maavell that the Apostel should never add the exceptin of wheredom if it Were to bee added seing he repeated inculcated these things so often Certes wee maye say as wel of thos exceptions which himselfe approveth that it were marvel the Apostel should never add them if they were to be added Though what marvel is it S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredome in all those two places which he
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 wife were put away
with out or with cause might lawfully marrie another theÌ„ take this with all that q hee skarse allowed any second marriage but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance and condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom Which although r a Iesuit goe about to cover salve with gentle gloses like s the false prophets Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavoru plaâ—ster yet sith that counterâ—â—it Clemens woorke did flowe out of the fountanies of the Gretians as a t great historian of Rome hath truelie noted and among the Gretians many held that errour as it is likewise shewed by a great Sorbonist the likelyhood of the matter spring whence it procedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall proper signification of the words will not per mitt their blacknes to take any other hewe nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement to be cleared from plaine contradiction to the word of God Wherefore the onely witnesse that Bellermin produceth out of the first hundred yeares doth not helpe him Out of the second hundred he produceth three Iustinus Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus x The first of whom Iustinus praising the compendious briefnes of Christes speeches rehearseth this amongst them Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband doth commit adulterie Meaning not as Bellar but as Christ did who excepting whoredome in the z former braunche of that sentence vnderstoode it likewise in this as I have shewed And how may wee know that Iustinus meant soe By his owne words in thet a hee commendeth a godly Christian woman who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of divorcement b such as did loose that band of matrimony and saith concerning him that hee was not her husband afterward The next c Athenagoras affirmeth I graunt that if any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie aâ—other he is an adulterer But Bellarmâ—n must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too as well as by divorcement teacheth with the d Montanists that whatsoerer second marriage is vnlawfull WherevpoÌ„ a famous Parisian Divine e Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian may wel be thought to have ben inserted into his worke by Eucratites A censure for the ground thereof very true that the said opinion is a Philosophicall fansie yea an heresie Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagoras his owne as sundrie farhers speak dangerously that way theÌ„ thrust in by Encratites g who generally riected all marriage not second marriage onelie Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause As much doth the last of his witnesses h Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage hee marcheth Athenagoras otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundnes i and stained with spott of errour Which iudgment not onely k Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately geven of him though a l Iesuitical spirit doe tradnâ—e theÌ„ insolently for it But m an auncient Pope of Rome with seaventie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skillâ— both in divinitie and in the Canon law n Didacus Covarrâ—vias doth approve the same Now in the third hundred yeares to goe forward Tertullian Oregen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion of whom one question lesse coÌ„trolleth perhaps both For o TertulliaÌ„ disputing against the heretique Marcion who falfely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses because Moses graunted divorcement Christ forbiddeth it answereth that Christ saying whoesoever sholl put away his wife and marrie another committeth adulterie meaneth 5 vndoubtedly of puâ—â—ing away for that cause for which 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 6 if shee bee put away vnlawfully considering that the marriage which is not rightly broken off continueth end while the marriage doth continue it is adultarie to marrie Which words of Tertullians manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully for the cause excepted by Christ may marrie another Bellarmin doth very cunningly and finely cut of with an et cetera and saith that there he reacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement if ther be aiust cause but forbâ—d to marrya gnine after divorcement So directly against the most evident light of the woordes tenour of the whole discourse that lerned men of theire owne side though houlding his opinyon yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it For p bishop Covarruvias mentioning the Fathers who maintein that men may lawfully marry againe after diuorcement for adultery nameth Tertullian quoting this place among them q Siictus Senensis a man not in fâ—riour in learning to Bellarmin in sencere dealing for this point superiour confesseth on the same place aâ—d on those same words but recited wholy not clipped with an et cetera that Tertullian maketh a certayne vndoubted assertion thereof r Pamelius indeede through a desire of propping vp his chruches doctrine with Tertullians credit saith that though hâ—e seem hereto allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort as that the husband may marrie another wife yet hee openeth himself holdeth it to vnlawfull in his booke * of single marriage Wherein he saith some what but litle to his advauntage For Tertullian wrote this booke of single mariage when he was falleÌ„ away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus and 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 hee wrote while hee was a Catholique against the heretique Marcion he teacheth coÌ„trariwise the same that wee doe as Sixtus Senensis and Covaâ—ruvias truely graunt Yea Pamelius himself if he looke better to his owne notes doth graunt as much For t 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 Tertullian saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement 7 Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife marrie another by Tertullians iudgment Which also may be probably thought concerning Orige Although it be true hee saith as Bellermin citeth him that certaine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived and addeth they did it agaynst the scriptuâ—re For hee seemeth to speake of a
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
husbaÌ„d one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredom What doth it folow hereof that Chrisost. meant that the husbaÌ„d putting her away for whoredoÌ„ might not marry another Rather the clean contrary Seing he speaketh of such a puting away as Moses did permit maketh this the differeÌ„ce betweene Christs ordinance and the lawe of Moses that Moses did permit it for any cause Christ but for one Which to be his meaning he sheweth more plainely upon the first to the CorinthiaÌ„s saying that the marriage is dissolved by whordom neither is the husband a husband any longer For hence it appeareth that he thought the band of marriage to be loosed when they are severed for woredoÌ„ and therefore coÌ„sequently the parties are free to marry according to the Apostles rule And other where also though somewhat more obscurely yet coÌ„ferrence with this place will shew him to have taught But what should I stande on farther proofe therof it being so undoubted g that bishope Covaruvias an ernest adversary of marriage after divorcement bringing al the Fathers that he can against it confesseth S. Chrisost. to stand on the other side against him for it And this in four hundred years after Christ Bell. caÌ„ot finde on of the Fathers that he may iustly say is his excepting them which make as much for the Encratites Montanistes and Catharists as they doe for Papists In the ages followiâ—g he findeth better store now one now moe in the hundred Yet among theÌ„ also looke how many he nameth of the Eastern bishops whether expressedly or implyedly he playeth the Iesâ—it with him For the firste of them Theophylact he alleageth with the same faith truth that he did Chrisost h whose schollar Theophylact being after Bellarmins owne note did follow his maister And this the two places themselves that Bellarmin quoteth doe insinuate clearelye i The former by oppening how Christ permitteth not the putting awaye which Moses did without iuste cause nor alloweth any cause as iust but whordom k the 〈◊〉 by omitting mention of whordom in spesifying the causes for which if a woman depart froÌ„ her husband shee must remaine vnmarried Whereto if Bell. neede more light to see it by we may adde a third place in which l Theophylact saying that Luke rehersing Christes words against men putting away their wives marrying other must be vnderstood with the exception out of Mathew 3 Vnless it be for whordom doth shew howfarre he differeth herein from Bell. who denyeth flatly that Christes wordes in Luke must be supplyed with that exception The rest of the Easterne Fathers whose testimony is alleaged by Bellarmin though their names not mentioned are such as were assembled in the Councell of Florence For there came thither to conferre with the Pope and the westerne by shops albeit many of these houlding a generall Councell at Basil the same time refused to chaunge the place for the Popes pleasure who sought his owne advantage therein not the Churches and vndermined the actions of the Councell of Basil m which condemned him of heresie and deposed him but there came thither n the Patriarches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem either themselves in person or by their deputies with many Metropolitanes and Bishops of Greece of Asia of Iberia and other countries of the East Whose creditt and consent how vutruely Bellar. pretendeth for the proofe of his false assertion it is plaine by that hee saith the Counâ—al of Florens did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians A chapter which is fathered indeed upon the CouÌ„cell by the schismatical pope Eugenius the fourth the deviser of it but fathered uniustly and calumniously as the time agreeth wherein it was begotten For it is accorded in the same decree that it was made the 6 two and twentith of November in theyeare of Christ a thousand four hundred thirty nine Now the Councel ended in Iuly the same year four moneths before As both o it self witnessâ—th p Popish stories note Wherefore the Councell could not be the farther of that decree and chapter noe more then a man can bee of that childe which is borne foureteÌ„ moneths after his death And the pope whose bastard in truth the brat is by the acknowlegment and record of Papists them selves in the q Tomes of Concells was so much the more to blame to father it vpon the Councel of Florence the great generall councell and 8 date it in a publique solemne session therof because neither was it debated in the Councel whether marriage after divorcement for adulterie were lawfull or no the r Easterne byshops mainteyned it to be lawfull wheÌ„ the pope after the end of the councel did reprove theÌ„ fore its neither is it likely the contrarie was decreed by al there present of the west Chiefly seing that more theÌ„half of theÌ„ were gone wheÌ„ both partes the East West s subscribed to the decrees of the Councell in the leters of agreement as appeareth by conferring their number with t their names the note thereof Yea the Councell being ended the sixth of Iuly had their superscriptious added unto it the one twentith Then if of 7 score perhaps upward scarse 3. score were remaining at Florence 14. daies after the CouÌ„cel ended What may we thinke there were above 4. moniths after But how many soever were present of the West as the Pope can quickely mustâ—r up an 100 bishops or more if need be out of Italie alone to carry awy things in Co. by multitud of voyces such policie hath he used for that but how many soever ItaliaÌ„s he baÌ„ded to couÌ„tenance his decree the bishops of the East agreed not therto neither was it the councels act Thus al the Fathers of the Eastern churches whom Bell alleageth may urge with credit their doctrine towards marriage doe not onely not say with him but gainsay him Wherin there have soe many others followede them from age to age till our tyme that it is apparant they allow with greater consent a mans marriage after divorcement for adulterie theâ— Fathers of the Western churches dissalow it For Eusebius treatinge of Iustin the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that he had done the story of the Christian woman who divorced her self from her adulterous husband And S. x Basils cannons approved by y general couÌ„cells doe not onely authorieze the man to marrie another whose wifâ— is an adulteresse but also check the custom which yeelded not like favour in like case to the woman And Epiphaâ—ius z saith his wordes are read corruptly but the sence thereof is Plaine of our side as a Covarievs as grauÌ„teth Epiphanius saith therfore that Sepration being made for whordom a man may take a second wife or a woman a second husband and the same in effect avoucheth b
Lucretia not she I spake of but such a Lucretia as the popes daughter was having lost not onely chastety but also wealth good name Gods favour the promise both of this life the life to come yet if being put away from her husband she may take another hath gained by her losses because she may be married to her Tarquinuus match a gracelesse whore witha a shamlesse beast As for the last of Bell. points of inconvenience that many would coÌ„mit adulterie of purpose to the intent of being set free froÌ„ their former wives they might marie others it may be some would I have read of a woman that had a desire to be beaten of her husband which she found means also as she was wittie to obtein in so much that shee put it oft in practise til having cruely beateÌ„ her at length he killed her The man who of purpose to get anew wife would cowmit adulterie should dessire more strips then that woman meant die a death infinitely more grevous then she did But if as wise almost as she was should long after scourges must they who deserv by lawe to be whipped be denied it because a foole desired it without desert The Romaius had an auncient law that whosoever did a man injury should by way of punishmeÌ„t paie about shilling There was a lewd losel a yoÌ„thly harebrined Ruffian who having wealth enough at wil taking a desire in giving honest men boxes on the eares would walke up down with a purse full of shillings which his slave atteÌ„ding an him did carry giving on a boxe would bid his slave geve him a shillinge another boxe a shilling What was in this case to be done for remedy If Bell. had lived there bene of the counsaile to the state wee see the advise he would geve namly that the amercimeÌ„t shold be takeÌ„ away because some would doe men iniurie of purpose to fulfil their lusts with paing of a shilling or two But the Romaine governour stoke coÌ„trary order to encrease the amercement according to the discretion arbitrement of Iudges that evel desposed persons might be deterred from trespassing by sharpnes of the punishment to be inflicted on them for it Whose wisdome therein it is to be wished that Princes Rulers remeÌ„bering them selves to be ordained as David betymes to destroy all the wicked of the Lande would follow by encreasing the punishment of adulterie And then should Bell. mouth be the sooner stopped for his fourth reason Which yet in the mean while doth no better prove that fafthfull husbands seperated from adulterous wives may not marry again then userers extorcionars procuring wealth by wicked ungodly means doe prove that honest men may not enioy the goods which by lawfull trades vertuous industrie they get The fifth last is that even among the Heathen too where good orders flourished no divorces were made For no bill of divorcement was written at Rome for the space almost of six hundred yeares after the City was buylt but afterward good orders beeing overthrowen divorces alsoe were brought in with other vices And this reason Bellarmim doth lard after his manner with Tertullians name to season it thereby give it some verdure But it is such caraine that the lard is lost all the cookery cast away For the first divorce which was made at RoÌ„e was of a chast wife put away by her husbaÌ„d because she was barin did not bear him childreÌ„ Now to seperate husbaÌ„ds wives for such causes we grauÌ„t it is uÌ„lawful our Savior allowing it for whordoÌ„ only The example therefore of the wel ordared RomaÌ„s is in vain aleaged out of Tertul. against us But neither was there any divorce for adultery made above 500 years among theÌ„ wil Bell. perhaps say I grauÌ„t And I wil help with a stroÌ„ger argumeÌ„t that among the Cains a state wel ordered too 700 years did passe befor any divorcemeÌ„t was made for adultery For as Plutarch writeth there was no adultry coÌ„mited by the space of soe many yeares among theÌ„ But among the RoÌ„ans wil Bell. perhaps reply it is likely that some was coÌ„mitted within 500 years True But the husband then might put his wife to death being convicted first of adultery without al publique iudgmeÌ„t So that if Bell. words have any force this is theire effect Among the heathen RomaÌ„s while good orders florished the womaÌ„ that coÌ„mitted adultery suffered death afterward good orders being overthroweÌ„ she was divorced onely But whether shee were put away by death or by divorcemeÌ„t the man might marry again Wherfoore the exaÌ„ple of the heatheÌ„ RomaÌ„s both wel evel ordered fight against the popish RomaÌ„s their ChaÌ„pion Hereto the example of all other heathens whose orders were but so good that they allowed second marriage may be adioyned Which I do not so much affirme on myne owne knowledge though for ought that I have read remeÌ„ber it is true as on Bell. secret coÌ„fefsioÌ„ silence a maÌ„ of greater reading having used many mens pains in search of these things Beside when christiaÌ„ faith came among the heathens the Emperours did punish adultery first by death afterward Iustinian mittigating that lawe did puÌ„ish it by divorcement But in both these cases the man being severed from his adulterous wife is free to marry againe Bellarmins speech therfore touching wel ordered heathens came in evil season to raise both them others yea ChristiaÌ„s too against him So his last reason nay his reasons all are growen to worse plight then were the seaven later kyne in Pharaos dream the seauen poore evil favored lean fleshede kyne that devowred the the seaveÌ„ former fatt well favoured therby saved their life For the thin carkeiss dreamed of by Bellarmin have noâ— strength enough to overmaister eat up the sounde bodies of reasons standing ther against but gasping after them in vaine they dye with famin And thus having proved that neither light of reson nor consent of Fathers nor authority of Scripture disproveth our assertioÌ„ I coÌ„clude that the point demoÌ„strated at first by the word of truth the doctrine of Christ That a man having put away his wife for her adultery may lawfully marry another a Gene. 2. 〈◊〉 Mat. 19. 5. b Deu 24. 1 Mat. 5. 31. c Mâ—th. 10. 9 d Mâ—â—â— 1. Luk. 6. 18. e Mat. 19. 1. f Rom. 7. 2 g vers. 3. h 〈…〉 i vers. 28. k Belâ—armin Tom 2 〈◊〉 4 libâ— de maâ—râ—mon 〈◊〉 cap 15. 〈…〉 The Pampâ—â—etter in his tefâ—â—tation of the discourse toâ—ening the lawfulnesse of marriadgge after divorcâ— for whoredone 1 Ni fiob 〈◊〉 cattonem 2 Extra coâ—â—â—ornicatinis l De adulteriâ— conjâ—g lib. 1 cap 9. m Retractat lib. â— cap. 57. n 〈◊〉 adulter coâ—â—ng lib. 1. cap 11. 3 Nisi ob Fornicationem 4 Praeter causa Fornicationis 5 Parectós Lògon por neias 6 eiâ— my epi potneia
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
so what errour soe absurd that may not be defended by perverse wranglers what cause soe oniust that vnrighteous iudges may not geve senteÌ„ce with For whatsoever words be enforced against them out of the law of God or man our of anie evidence or record of writers witnesses worthie credit they may with Peter LoÌ„bard Gratian replie that the place alleged is said or thought to have bene thrust into those monuments by some corrupters of writings And in replying thus they should speake trueli though it were said or thought by nome beside themselves but how reasonably they should speake therein let men of sense reason iudge Surelie though Peter LoÌ„bard rest vpoÌ„ that aunswer for waÌ„t of a better yet Gratian whether â—â—aring the siâ—klie state thereof doth leave it and seeketh himself a new patron saying that Ambroses words are thus meant that a man may lawfullie marrie another wife after the death of the adulteresse but not while she liveth which aunswer is mote absurd theÌ„ the former In so much that a Covarruvias speaking of th former onely as verdict as anie said that this repugneth manifestlie to Ambrose A verie true verdict as anie maÌ„ not blind may see by Ambrose wordes And Bellarmin coufâ—ssâ—th the same in effect by passing it over in silâ—nee as ashamed of it But others sayth hee secondlie doe aunswer that this author speaketh of the Civil law the law of Emperous To weet that by the Emperours Lawes it is lawfull for men but not for women having put away their mate to marrie another and that Paul therefore least he should offend the Emperour b would not say expressely If a man put away his wife let him a bide so or bereconciled to his wife Now Gratians second answer was no lesse worthy to have bene mentioned then this of c William Lindam patched vp by Bell. For the d civill law prononceth the band of marriage to be loosed as wel by divorcement as death and alloweth women to take other hushands their former being put awaie as it alloweth men to take others wives So that is a fond and vnlearned conceit to imagin that Paul would not say of husbands as hee did of wives least hee should offend the Emperour by speaking expresselie against that which his law allowed For e hee did expressely controll the Emperours law in saying of the wife If shee dedart from her husband let her remaine vnmarried or bee reconciled to her husband And the authours wordes doe shewe that hee meant to speake not of humaine lawes but of divine of the sacred scripture where vpon he wrote and what was thereby lawfull Which seemed soe evident vnto f Peter Soto g Sixtus Senesis and h the Roman Censors who oversaw Pope Gregorie the thirtenths tenths new edition of the Cannon law that they confesse that Ambrose meaning this authour doth a prove plainly certainly vndoubtely mens libertye of marrying againe after divorcement Bellarmin therfore comyng in with his third aunswer Yet saith hee if these bee not so well liked it may be aunswered easilie that the author of those Commentaries is not Ambrose nor any of the renowned Fathers 4 as learned men know Thus at length this authour if men will not beleeve that his wordes are corrupted or that hee spake of the Civill law shall bee graunted vs with Bellarmins good leave But then wee shall bee told that hee is not Ambrose nor anie of the renowned Fathers as learned men know And why could not Bellarmin aunswere this at first Why was hee soe loath to graunt that such an authour base obscure of sclendâ—r crâ—ditt maketh with vs Hâ—rein thâ—re 〈◊〉 a mysterie There is i in this authours Commentaries a place a 5 peece of a sentenâ—e whiâ—h seemeth to speake for he Popes Supremacie Though perhaps never written by this authour or not with that meaning as I have he wed els where j Bellarmin had cited that place for that in 6 S. Ambrose his name and m manie make a feast thereof as being fare S. Ambroses Now if he should saie that the author of those Commentaries was neither Ambrose nor Saint hee should gainsaie himself And sith hee was learned when he did cite it soe and therefore knewe by his owne words that it was not Ambrose not anie of the renowned fathers who writt it men would see thereby that he had for the Popâ—s sake against his owne knowledg fathered on S. Ambrose that which is not his No marveil then if Bellarmin came to his aunswere as a beare to the stake At the which though hee seeme to cast vs of by saying that the authour was no renowed Father and erred in mistaking S. Paul as having geven more libertie to men then women whereof in due place afterward yet in the meane season hee is forced to graunt that this auncient Father tooke it to bee lawfull for men to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie The sundrie evasions shifts whereby the Papists have laboured to wrest the credit of this one Father out of our handes doe geve mee occasion to suspect that they will wrangel much more to withdraw from vs the first Councell of Arles ' being more auncient in time in credit greater and as n one of themselves doth probably coniecture confirmed by the Pope also Herevente the Councele wishing of certaine persons not to marrie in the case wee treat of might serve them for a colour in as muâ—h as o it saith concerning them whose wives are taken in adulterie that if they bee yong men and forbidden to marrie 8 advise should bee given the as much as may bee not to take other wiâ—es while the former live though adulteresses But this giving of advise is in truth an argument that the councell iudged a man no adulteter if hee tooke another wife Els would they have given not advise and counsail but charge and commandement to refraine from it and as it is likely restrained mens transgression therein with sharpe discipline specially coÌ„sidering p they punish lesser faults with excommunication Neither is it nothing that they temper also this counsail and advise to be geven such with 9 as much as may bee And a farder circumstance yet of more importance they make not this restraint for all men but for â—young men nor â—or all yong men but such as are forbidden to marrie meaning as it seemeth thoose who being vnder the care of their parents were by them forbidden and could not honestilie disobey For had not this respect or the like moved the Fathers of the Councel why should they have restrained such yong men and not otâ—er Nay why onelie yong men not rather men not aged men or theÌ„ also Sith in p q S. hripture elder women are chosen to be widowes and yonger willed to marrie Our adversaries therefore must yeeld that the couÌ„cell of Arles is of our side for the point
in question Whereto they shall have greater reason to induce them if they note with al that the Councell of Vames in the same contrie a the age following made this canon 3 Wee appoint and ordeine that they who having left their wives except for whoredom as it is said in the Gospel or vpon proofe mad of adulterie marrie others shal be excommunicated Least finnes being suffered by oâ—r too much gentlenes doe provoke other men to loosenes of transgressing And this decree I finde not anie of the Papists that goeth about to shift of Neither caÌ„ I see how they may possiblie The ConÌ„cell expouÌ„ding so playnly Christs wordes of marriage forbidden after divorcement unlesse it bee for whoredome and accompting marriage after such divorcement not a lesser sinne but no sinne at all as the reason added for strength of their decree sheweth Now for the next the generall Councell assembled in the Emperours palace of Constantinople which made the like decree and taught the same doctrine as I have declared Bellarmin would persuade vs vpon other occasions touching Poperie nearer the quick theÌ„ this doth that the western Byshops neither gave countenaunce thereto with their presence nor approved the Canons there of with their consent To this end he denieth that the said Councell was a generall Councell striveth in his s third controversie to aunswer some of our reasons which confirme it But he easeth vs of paines to fist his aunsweres by meanes that himself in the t fourth controversie discoursing of generall councels purposelie doth reckeÌ„ it amongst theÌ„ For as in v meÌ„s lawes wheÌ„ they are repugnaÌ„t on vnto another the later derogateth from the former x so I trow when Bellarmin doth contradict himself his last word must hould And the more reason it should so in this because both Pope Adrian the first of auncient tyme did cal it the sixth Councel declaring therby he tooke it to bee of the Generall Councels whereof he tearmed it the sixth and in the seaventh General Councel sundry Fathers alleadged it by the name of the sixth Generall and avouched it to be iustely called so Which sentence of theirs being uncontroled by any of that Councell z and the Councell it selfe afterward approoving the decrees and canons of the sixe generall Councels a it is very probable that the Western churches yealding their consent to the seaventh councell and taking it for fouÌ„d accounted as the Eastern have done doe that which they entiteled the sixth to be generall Specially seing that in the West men of great credit Ivo Gratian and Pope Ionoceutius the third and their disciples the whol schole of caÌ„onists have on those autorities of the seaveth couÌ„cel made like reckouing of it b And although our yonger Papists for the most parte and some of the elder perceiving what advantage may be taken thence against many grounds of popery c doe crosse thâ—er predecessors herein with seely reasons such as whereof the best would inferre more forcibly that their councell of Trent was noe Generall coÌ„cell yet among theÌ„ also ther are who allow the auncient opinion as Caranza namely and Genebrard and Surrius with whose preface tending to the proofe thereof it is recoÌ„mended published by papists in the two perfectest and last editions of the councels Wherefore whether auy of the West were present in persoÌ„ orby deputys subscribed to it which Belsamon and Nilus learned Greeke Fathers avouch by oulde recordes or whether it were celebrated by Estern bishops onelye as the second Generall Councell also was in the same city of Constantinople the consent of the West approving it for Geuerall averreth my saiings by a cloud of wittnesses of the Western Churches f pope Gregory the thirde followeth He graunteth that if a womaÌ„ by reason of siicnesse wherewith she were taken could not performe the dutye of a wif to her husdand her hâ—sband might put her awaye and marry another More then by the doctrine of Christ he had learned to graunt for sickenesse but so much the likelyer that he thought it should be graÌ„ted for whoredom expressely mentioned by Christ Whereupon Ioverius a sorbonist in a woorke approved by Sorbonists g matcheth this Cannon with the like of Councels who gave the innocent party leave to marey againe after divorcement while the other lived Neither doth Bellarmin deny the illation but the proposition which the poynt inferrede is grounded upon For the Doctores sayth hee meaning the Canonists expound the Canon of such sicknesse as maketh a woman vnfitt for Marriage and foe is an impediment disolving matrymonye contracted by shewing it was no true matrimonye But the Doctor of Doctors m Gratian himself vnderstood it otherwise of sicknesse befalling to her who was an able wife And those his glosse writers vse most that exposition which Bellarmin would have vs receive for authentick as the fittest salve yet rest n they not vpon it And o Antouius a great Canonist Archbyshop of Florence correcting p Gratians slipp of memorie for the persons concludeth with him for the matter And the slower of Lovan q Tapper the Chauncelour of their viniversity approveth this of Antonius And r the learned men who were over-seers of the last edition of the Councels doe witnessâ— by controlling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not 6 that Gregory meant of sicknesse happening vnto lawfull wives in their iudgemeÌ„t And the Pope himselfe as s Bellarmin noteth elswhere declareth that hee tooke it to be true matrymonie by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of ayde that is ought to maynteine finde her as his wife still Wherfore if no Catholique byshop would imagin that a man may lawfully put away his sick wife and marrie another vnlesse hee thought the same much more to be lawfull in an adulterous wife as wee are to presume then must the Papists by consequent acknowledg that the poynt in Question is proved and allowed by Gregory the third A playner and directer allowance thereof appeareth in a Canon of his successor â—Zacharie who when a certayne man had dâ—fiâ—ed himself incestiously with his wives sister graunted that his wife should bee divorced from him and vnlesse shee were privie to that wicked act by cousayling or proâ—uting it might marry in the Lord if shee could not conteine This so cleare a testimony of an 7 auncient Pope authorizing the divorced woman to marrie Bellarmin would elude by saying that hee meant shee might marrie another after the formâ—r husbands death As who say the Pope inioyning the 8 man and the whore for a punishment to stay and abyde without hope of marriage were likelye to meane by liberty of marrying graunted the guyltlesse for a benefite that while the guilty lived who might overlive her shee should not marrye no more then hee Or as though there had bene neede for
savoureth of haeresie neither maketh more for him against vs then â—or the Catharists against the Catholique Fathers Wherewith he may confesse to that he hath abused Ambrose in affirming this to be his reason avouching him to say that the Father ought to pardoÌ„ the Mothers fault for the childrens sake For S Amb. blaming the man who puteth away his wife without cryme and marrieth another an adulteresse by so marrying mislyketh that the childreÌ„ should have such a stepmother having such a mother vnder whoÌ„ they might be And if the mother being put away so took another husbaÌ„d who in this case were an adulterer S. Ambr wisheth the children to be vnder their father not vnder such a step-father And if the Fathâ—r casting out his wife so cast out his childreÌ„ with her S. Amb. saith the children should rather purchase pardom for their mothers fault at their fathers hands then bee cast out for her sake Wherin hee doth no more saye that the father ought to pardoÌ„ the mothers adultery for the childrens sake then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abhomination for Lots sake when he said that the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous them the righteous should bee destroied with the wicked But here peradventure the Pamphletter will reply that although Bell. author argumeÌ„t as himself observed who there vpon cut Bell. shorter prove not his intent to weete that another marriage is vnlawful yet they prove such marriage to be inconvenieur in respect of the childeren to whom there riseth hurt discomodity by it For answer whervnto to the like reasoÌ„s drawen by him Bell. from other inconveniences 7 things are to be noted al such as our adversaries themselves must nâ—eds yeeld to yeelding therevnto shal set on fire their owne chaffe The first that the man whose wife is an adulteresse may put her absolutly away for al his liftyme nor is ever bouÌ„d to let her dwelwith him again no not though shâ— repent Which point being plainly implied in our saviours answer to the Pharises Bel. avoucheth and maintaineth thence agreably to the doctrin of his chiefest guids the Popâ—s Thom. of Aquine The second that if the woman coÌ„tinue in her wickednes without repentance amendement the man is by duty bound to put her away S. Mat. reporteth of the blessed virgin that when she was found to be with child of the holy Ghost before her husband Ioseph she came together Ioseph being a iust man not willing to make her a publicke example was minded to put her away secretly Of which words impotting that iustice movâ—d him to put her away goodwill to doe it secretly it seemeth to follow that such a woman as Ioseph misdeemed her to be to weet an adulteresse caÌ„not be kept without sinne whether she repent or no And Cornelius Iansenius a learned bushop of the Papists graunteth herevpoÌ„ that it was so in the old Testament But in the new Testament he saith if she repent she may bee kept with out sinne acknowledging that she may not in the new Test neither vnless she repeÌ„t Whervnto the Canonists and Schoolemen doe accord expounding a sentence cited by many Fathers our of the Prov. of Salo. He that keepeth an adulteresse is a fâ—nle a wicked maÌ„ a sentence â—ound in the Greeke text of the Prov. albeit not expressed out of the Hebrue Fountaine but addâ—d by the Seventie Interpreters or other perhaps to shew that Salo. commending a wife did meane a chast wife in their Iudgment but added in the Greeke thence translated also into the commo Latin edition called S. Ieroms soe that it goet for Scripture with Papists by their Trent Canon this sentence I say the Canons of the Fathers that vrge it vndi Sinctly against whosoever kepeth an adulteresse whether repentant or vnrepentant in like sorte as the Civill Law condemned all such the Canonists SchoolmeÌ„ distinguish expound of such as kepe adulteresses which doe nor repent amend their lives Now graunting that a man may kepe an adulteresse in matrimony if shee repent or being divorced from her may take her again yet which is the third point he may not doe it often least impunitie encrease inequitie And this is agred on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome the CanoÌ„ists Schoolemen Hermes out of whom the Maister of the sentences aleageth avoucheth it meant as his reason brought to prove it argueth that the man may take her so againe but once Which doctrine the Papists caÌ„ make Canonicall if they list vnlesse Stapleton lie who saith their Catholique Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Canonicall Scriptures that book of Hermes writteÌ„ in the Apostles tyme by S. Pauls schollar not only cited much but commended to by many most auncient Fathers Clemens Ireneus Origen Athanasius Eusebius Ierom. At least the chiefest part of the Canon Law compiled by the direction and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth setting downe the verie same out of a Councel that Peter Lombard out of Hermes the Papists though they will not I trow be of Stapletons minde for Hermes booke yet may think it likly that the CouÌ„cel Pope approved his meaning in this point Chiefly sith Panormitan the flouer of the Canontsts having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned because sinnes vnpunished doe becoÌ„ examples citeth an exceleÌ„t proof light therof a lawe of worthy Emperors Valentinianus Theodosius Arcadius who grauÌ„ting a generall pardon for smaler trespasses extended it to noÌ„ coÌ„mitted oftner theÌ„ once accouÌ„tiÌ„g such vnworthy of their Princilie favour as grew by their former forgivenesse to a custom of sinning rather theÌ„ to amendemeÌ„t But whether the Papists will iudge those Christian Emperours to have bene to strickt saie that adulterie deserpardon oftener then lesses faults with them or whether they thinke it sufficient to pardon on so great a crime which the Emperours except-by name out of their pardon willed it to be punished euen the first time The papists doe agree that a husband must not forgeve it to his wife often The fourth thing to be noted is that a woman being put a waye so doth loose her dowry too by lawe Which punishmeÌ„t as God hath threatned by his law to men that goe awhoreing froÌ„ him thogh they have not any dowry of their owne neither but of his gift so the Civil law hath inflicted it on adulterous wives the CaÌ„non law in looser times also The fifth that many persons mistake the help prepared of God and marry or doe worse coÌ„sidering that some caÌ„ot coÌ„teine as Pope Gregory noteth touching men S Ambrose touching woemen the scripture touching both some though they could perhaps yet shoâ—ld hâ—ut their bodies with sickues if they did as phisique phylosophie teach some though neither chastity nor health enforce
Theodoret affirming that Christ hath set downe one cause wherby the hand of Marriage should be dissolved onely rent asunder in that he did except whoredom And a generall c CouÌ„cel wherin ther were above 220. bishops of the East gathered together doth implye as much in saying that He who his â— wife having keept the lawe of wedlocke being faithfull to him yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentene guilty of adultery So doth d Oecumenius in applying the precept of abyding unmarried to 〈◊〉 has should not have departed in abridging Chrisostoms words after his manner whose schollar e Bell. therefore tearmeth him So doth f Euthymimius Choysostoms schollar too in charging the man with adulterie g who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordom froÌ„ her husband So doth Nicephoras in copyinge coÌ„meding that out of Eusebius which he had out of Iustin the Martyr To be short the Grecians 3 which name compriseth many natioÌ„s the East all whom the h Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe put the same doctrine receyved from their aunstours in practise even at this day allowing married folke not onely to sperâ—te and divorce themselves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others as Bellarman confesseth Wherefore his opinion hath not the consent of the Eastern bishops neither hath had it any age since Christ Much less can he shewe the consent of the South i the Aethiopians an Abessines or of the k Moscovites Russes in the North both which as they receyved their faith from the East so vse they like freedom libertie for this matter No not in the west it self though he have many then agreeing with him yet hath hee the generall consent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half if an exact count might betaken of them â—or besides Tertullian the Councell of Eliberis c. to let passe Ambrose on Byshop of Rome or more alreadie shewed to have thought that â— a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie is free to marrie againe thâ—re are of the same minde l Lactantius m Chromatius n Hilarie o PolleÌ„tius p the auther of the CoÌ„mentaries in Ambrose his name vpon S. Pauls epistles q the first Councell of Arles r the couÌ„cell of Vannes they who either were at or agreed to the s sixth generall couÌ„cell the secoÌ„d time asseÌ„bled t Pope Gregorie the third â—Pope Zacharie the councell of x Wormes of y Tribur of z Mascon a councel alleaged by a Gratian without name and other learned meÌ„ alleaged likewise by b him c Pope Alexander the third d Celestin the 3 e Zacharie f Paul byshop the one of Chrisopolis the other of Burgose g Erasmus h Cardinal Cajetan Archbishop Catharinus k Naclantus byshop of Clugia finalli the teachers of the reformed churches in l Eng. m Scot n Ger. o France and p other countris for why should not I name these of our professioÌ„ faith amoÌ„g the Fathers as well as Bell. nameth the popish councell of Trent on the contrarie side But the Papists will some maÌ„ peradventure say doe not graunt that all whom you have rehearsed were of this opinioÌ„ But the Papists I answer doe graunt that sundrie of them were such as they graunt not the light of truth reasoÌ„ will either make them graunt or â—hame them for denying it As q Sixtus Senensis namely doth deny that Hilarie and Chromantius allowe a man to marrie another wife after divorcement or teach that hee is loosed from the band of matrimonie while his former wife though an adultesse liveth Now weigh their owne wordes it wil appeare that Sixtus iniurieth them therein For r Chromatius saith that they who having put away their wives for any cause save for whoredom presume to marrie others doe against the will of God and are condemned Wherein with what sence could hee except whoredom vnlesse hee thought them guiltlesse who having put away their wives for it doe marrie others And s Hilarie affirming Christ to have prescribed no other causeâ— of ceasing from matrimony but that sheweth that the baud of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmeÌ„t Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the vse therof for other causes the occasioÌ„ tenour of the speech doe argue that he meaÌ„t such a seperatioÌ„ as yeel deth liberty of new marriag In like sorte or rather more plainly expressely did Pollentius holde maintaine the same As Austin whoÌ„ in this point hee dissented from doth repote and testifie Yet Bellarmin a strangeâ—thing in a case so cleare but nothing strange to Iesuits saith that Pollentius o did not gainsaie Austin but asked his iudgment of the matter and for proofe here of referreth vs to the beginnings of both the bookes of Austin Even t to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured too prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another Pollentius wrot vnto him as it were by way of asking his iudgmeÌ„t and shewed hee thought the contrarie yet shewed it in such sorte that Austin setting downe both their opinions doth specifie then as flatly crossing one the other You are of this minde I of that and saith of Pollentius againe and againe that 8 hee was of this mynde which Bellarmin denieth hee was of wherein the Iesuits dealing is more shamefull for that beside the evidence of the thing it self so often repeated in the verie same places that hee citeth u Sixtus Senenses a man as vnwilling as Bellarmin to weaken anie of their Trent points with graunting more then hee must needes confesseth that Poeleutius thought hereof as we doe v Belike because Sixtus Seuensis honoureth him with the praise title of a 9 most godie man Bell. thought it better to lie then to graunt that they have such an adversarie Hee would faine avoid too another aâ—ncient father bearing the name ef Ambrose x Ambrose might his name be though he were not famous Ambrose Byshop of Milan But whether hee were named so or otherwise which perhaps is truer vnto his testimonie pronouncing it lawfull by S Paules doctrine for a man iustly divorced to marrie againe though not for a woman as heâ— by missetaking S. Paul throâ—gh errour y though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere First Gratian saith hee and Peeter z Lambard doe affirme that those word â—swere thrust into this authors Commentarie by some corrupters of writtings In deede the one of them affirmeth 2 it is said so the other 3 it is thought so But if it be sufficient to affirme barely without anie ground of proofe or probabilitie that it is said or thought
Councel ordainede it for men of their of their owne province and for that time onely encreaseth the autothorety therof if the precious be severed from the vile the truth from the falshood For why affirmeth hee that they did ordein it for that time oâ—ly The forme of their decree touching al generaly that should offend so not some pâ—rticular person who preseÌ„tly had they speaking of the thing as lawful in it selfe to be observed alike in all cases thir making of other connons to that effect yea another Councell alsoÌ„o peradventure and no limitation of time in any of them doe pesuade the contrary Now whereas they ordained it for men of their owne province their modesty was the greater who did not take uppon theÌ„ as Popes to make lawrs for men of al nations but looked as bishops to thir owne Diocaes And the greater modesty the liker to Christ and the batter to be lâ—ked of ChristiaÌ„s the more reverence to be haerd with and their iudgment to be had in greater estimatioÌ„ Beside that this self-same decree of theirs was establishede also by the Councell of Wormes And at that time Pipinus King of FrauÌ„ce of a great parte of Germamy was preseÌ„t Who as he did keepe a general asseÌ„bly of his Poeple there so by al likelyhood caled Bishops thether out of his whol realm to make decrees for the whol A province of such largnes that couÌ„cels consistiâ—g of pishops asseÌ„bled out of no greater have been tearmed general worthely as Bell. coÌ„fesseth in coÌ„patisoÌ„ of provincial couÌ„cels coÌ„monly so caled wherin there were not bishops of a whole natioÌ„ or Realme Thus Sixtus by striving to lesseÌ„ diminish the credit of the caÌ„non of the couÌ„cel oâ— Tribur hath giveÌ„ us occasioÌ„ to make the more of it â—oÌ„sidering on the on side the modesty of the Bs. who were asseÌ„bled there made decres for their provinâ—e on the other the province for which that decree was made for so large that al the prov. of Italy caÌ„ot matchâ—it though they were linked in one Had it not ben beter for him without this retoriâ—ue to say derectly flatly as Iover doth that the Co. of Trib. made the like decre to the C. cell of wormes which now the Church he meaneth the Popish church receyveth not werher any papist wil take exceptioÌ„ agaynst the Councel of Mason which allowed likewise a certain man whose wife had bene defloured by his brother beefore hee wedded her to put her away and marry another it may bee wee shall know here after But vnto a Councell that made another such decree as Gratian sheweth alle aging it without name Bellarmin taketh two exceptions one that it is lost the other of the Cypress tree Touchching the former not as much as the name thereof sayth he is extant therefor it might be easily contemned sett at nought Why Is it therfor worse then al that have names because it is namelesse Then have c many Cardinals with other learned reverent men bene much to blame for writing so of Rome as if it had a nnmber of wicked lewd propane inhabitants For by there report the Romans having everye one a name or two should bee worse for the most parte then were the Atlantes a people of Africke whom Diodorus Seculus commendeth very heighly for Godlynes and Humauity yet non of them had any name Horodotus saith Or if this bee a fable as f Plinie sâ—emeth rather to thinke wel it may be yet is it most certayne that Plutarch recordeth as grave wise sayings of Lacedemonians without names as of any whoses names are known And Bellarmin I trust will graunt that in the scriptures there is no lesse account to bee made of the booke of Ioshua theÌ„ of Nehemias of Iob then of the Proverbs though their name who wrote the one be not sett downe as theirs who wrote the other But hee wil say perhaps that of this councell not onely the name is vnknoweÌ„ but alsoe the worke it selfe lost And what if it bee were not those of Varroes workes whiâ—h wee have not as learned as the worke â— of Floccus which wee have Of Tullie of Polibius of Livie Deo Tacitus of infinite writers more are there not as good bookes lost as ther are extraÌ„t The same hath fallen out in Eclesiastical authors specially in councels whereof a great meany are not to befound as they who by occasioÌ„ of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals have dilligently searched through the chiefest liberaries of Europe doe note And a certayne famous and auncient Councel of Ments beeing commeÌ„ded praised above the other by Tretenius Surius who wisheth he might have gotten it to be publyshed sheweth that soome extant are not too bee compared with some that are lost wherefore Bellarmins former exception to the Councell that it is not extant no nor the name of it was not worth the nameing The latter that the Councells Canons meant of Marriage after the former wives death is lyke too prove as false as the profe thereof is frivolous and fond For m these are the wotds of the Canon A certaine woman laye with her husbands brother it is decreed the adulterers shall never bee Married but lawfull Marriage shal be graunted vnto him whose wife the vilenie was wrought with Which words are weÌ„ll expounded saith Bellarmin by the Doctors and their meaning gathered n out of the like Canon â—ollowing a litle after wherein it is ordeined that When the adulterous wife is deceassed her man may marrie whom hee will but her selfe the aldulteresse may not marrie at all no not her husband being dead Gratian in deed and the Glosse-writers on him the Doctores meant by Bellarmin doth them wrong in saying they expound it rightly For this Canon following out of which they gather that to be the meaning being a Canon of I know not what Gregory at least Fathered on him doth no more prove it theÌ„ o the above alleaged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent partye while the other lived doth inferre the coÌ„trarie And the Councells words mentioning expressely the Innocent parties freedom liberty to marry which had bene superfluous if they meaÌ„t of marriage after the others death make it most probable that the Councell vttered them with the same meaning wherewith others vttered the like as hath bene shewed Herevnto the iudgement of p Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength cutt the sinewes of it acknowledgeth not withstaÌ„ding that it was of one minde with the councell of Tribur So was Pope Alexander the third too some tyme though Bell. alleage p him as of another mynde But let Bellarmin say whether hee had two myndes erred in on of them seing it is certaine hee â— was of this minde once vnlesse hee wrote against
his minde For whereas a man that had wedded a wife did before hee entred the marriagebed with her enter her mothers bed Pope Alexander sayde that hee doing some pennance might bee dispensed with to marrie another wife Here the Popes favour towards the offender doth savour of that which â— hath bene missliked in papall dispensations But hee that graunted thus much to the incestuous husband would I trust have graunted it to the guiltlesse wife as â— hee did also to her that had this iniurie The onely evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Maisters example have recourse is that the Canonists expound the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse and her espoused also by wordes of the tyme to come not of the tyme present Which exposition may seeme the more probable because the Popes wordes sett downe in the Dâ—cretalls geve her the name of spouse without sinification that the maÌ„ had wedded her But hereof Frier Raymund who compiled clipped the Decâ—lls must 〈◊〉 the blame as v Antonius Contiuâ— a learned Lawier of their owne hath well observed For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in the x Tomes of Councels declareth that the woman was the mans wedded wife though he did forbeare her companie a while No remedie there-fore but it must be graunted that in this matter pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former Councels Now by all the rest whom I aleaged there is none excepted against by a â—nye Papist for ought that I know or as I thinke will bee For y Lactantius first avoucheth soe the lawfulnes of putting away a mans wife for adulterie even with intent to marry another that both z Covaruvias a Dominicus Soto grauÌ„t him to be cleare from it Next b toyching the authours mentioned by Gratâ—an as holding the same for one kinde of adulterie who doubted but there were ceertaine so persuaded when such an adversarie conâ—â—sseth it Then for Pope Celestin the thirde sith c a Pope saith he thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their parteners in wedlocke for haerisie and marry others I see not how the Papists may denyâ— hâ—e thought it lawful for adulterie more then I shewed they might of Gregorie the third And albeit â— Zacharie Byshop of Chrysopolis may seeme to shâ—w rather what other mâ—ns opinion was then what his owne yet it is apparant by this manner of handeling that hee ioyned with Ambrose therein whosâ— words hee eiteth and fenseth them against autorities that might bee opposed As for the Byshop of Burgos Paul coÌ„mended heighly by f learned meÌ„ for learning g he saith that it is manyfest by Christs doctrine that whoesoever putteth away his wife for whoredom commiteth not adulterye though he marry another Naclantus who was present at the counâ—ell of Trent a Byshop of principall name and price among them affirmeth as directly that a wife being loosed from her husband by death or by divorcement is not an adultâ—resse if shee marrie another Too conclude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus Caietan Catharinus Lnther Melancton Bucer Calvin Brâ—utius Kemnitius Peeter Martyr and in a worde all Lutherans Calvâ—nists as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name vs poore i Nazarens agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adulterie Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wounnde hee might geve his cause by graunting that Erasmus Cautâ—m Catharinus three soe learned man and two of them such pillars of the Romish Church a Carpinall and an Arch byshop agree in this poynt with Lutherens Caliunicâ— 8 he addeth that those three differ much froÌ„ these hertiques meaÌ„ing By hertiques the Nazareâ—s I speake of 7. whose ring-leader was Prul in as much as they submitt theÌ„selves expressely to the churches iudgement 9 And because the church saith hee hath now opened her minde most evidently as appeareth by the Councel of Trent the 24 session the 7 Canon where all who thinke the band of marriage maye be loosed for any cause are a cursed therfor it seemeth that those thre also chiefly the two later must be thought no other wise minded in this matter theÌ„8 all the rest of the Catho Divines are have bene with great agreemet coÌ„sent which dispute of Bell. if it have sufficieÌ„ grouÌ„d strength of reasoÌ„Eras must be counted a catholique in al things For â— in alâ— his writting he submitteth himself to the churches iudgemeÌ„t TheÌ„ why doth k Bell. cal him al demie ChristiaÌ„ enrol his naÌ„e amoÌ„g sectaries hertiques what are the Fathers of the CouÌ„cel of TreÌ„t Demie-christiaÌ„s sâ—ctaries heretiques they are by Bell. logique of one minde with Erasmus Moreover S. Austin the ciefest maÌ„ of Bell. side in this questioÌ„ must be counted ours by the same logique For m he taught expressely that himself yea any byshop eveÌ„ S. CipriaÌ„ yea provincial CouÌ„c. to should yeeld to the authority of a general Coun. the 6 general CouÌ„ grauÌ„ted liberty of mariage after divorcemeÌ„t as hath ben declared wherfor if CaietaÌ„ must be thought no other wise mynded theÌ„ Papists are because that church whoâ—e iudgmeÌ„t he did submitt himself to defiâ—ed so at TreÌ„t a good while after his death S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded theÌ„ we are because our assertioÌ„ was coÌ„firmed likewise by a General Counc. whereto hee would haye yeelded Chiefly sith of liklyhood he would have more easily yeâ—lded therunto theÌ„Caietan to his churches because u CaietaÌ„ sheweth hee was stiffe in holding fast his owne opinioÌ„ â— wheÌ„for feare of churchmeÌ„ he durst not say all that he thought in this very point though â— submitting himself to the See of RoÌ„e as wel as to the church p he eludeth decrees of q popes that make against him so resolut he was in it S. Austin coÌ„trariwise vsed very modestly willingly to retract things that he had writteÌ„ eveÌ„ wheÌ„ he lighted on ought in an heretike that seemed better truer this point he thought t so darke in the Scripturs hard to be discerned that his opinion was not hard to be removed if he had seeÌ„ stroÌ„ger reason broght against it or greater authority Now if S Austin come over to our side by that quirck of Bell. a band of Bellar. wittnesses is like to come with him namly the councel of Melevis Affrique â— which he was present at swaied much with perhaps Primasius also were he Austins fâ—hoÌ„lar Bede with a nuÌ„ber of Canonists sâ—hool men who folowed most S. Austin But Bella will never resigne all these vnto vs to gaine the other three from vs For as our Bee-hive saith Men live not by losses He must suffer therefore Erasmus Caietan Catharinus specially who beside the z place that Bellarmin hath quoted doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely there of more throughly exactly then