A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully…A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie…
A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully not only put away his wife for her adultery, but also marry another. / Wherein both Robert Bellarmin the Jesuits Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a nameless author maintaining the contrary are co[n]futed by John Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Church with error..A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie, but also marrie another. / Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are co[n]futed by Iohn Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Churche with errour..
John Rainolds 1549–1607Dordrecht: printed by George Walters, 1609
[6], 80, 80-94, [1] p. · 40k words · STC 20607 · ESTC S115561
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Or if these writers mistook the authors meaning, & in his opinion no man, howsoever his wife were put away, without or with cause, might lawfully marry another: th•n take this with all, thatq he skarse allowed any second marriage, but controlled the third as a sign of intemperance, & condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom. Which althoughr a Jesuit go about to cover and salve with gentle glosses likes the false prophets. Who when one had built up a mud wall did parged it with unsavoury plaster: yet sith that counterfeit Clements work did flow out of the fountains of the Grecians, as at great historian of Rome hath truly noted, and among the Grecians many, held that error, as it is likewise showed by av great Sorbonist; the likelihood of the matter, and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the natural and proper signification of the words, will not permit their blackness to take any other hue, nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement, to be cleared from plain contradiction tox the word of God. Wherefore the only witness that Bellarmin produceth out of the first hundred years, doth not help him.y Out of the second hundred he produceth three; Justinus, Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus. The first of whom Justinus praising the compendious briefness of Christs speeches rehearseth this amongst them: Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, doth commit adultery. Meaning not as Bellarmin, but as Christ did: who excepting whoredom in the zformer branch of that sentence, understood it likewise in this, as I have showed. And how may we know that Justinus meant so? By his own words, in that
any man being parted from his former wife do marry another he is an adulterer. But Bellarmin must grant with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it untruly: considering that he speaketh of parting even by death too, as well as by divorcement, & teacheth with the
Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is unlawful.
Or if these writers mistooke the authours meaning, & in his opinion no mā, howsoever his wife were put away, without or with cause, might lawfully marrie another: th•n take this with all, thatq hee skarse allowed any second marriage, but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance, & condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom. Which althoughr a Iesuit goe about to cover and salve with gentle gloses likes the false prophets. Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavorie plaister: yet sith that counterfait Clements worke did flowe out of the fountaines of the Gretians, as at great historian of Rome hath truelie noted, and amōg the Gretians many, held that errour, as it is likewise shewed by av great Sorbonist; the likelyhood of the matter, and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall and proper signification of the words, will not permitt their blacknes to take any other hewe, nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement, to be cleared from plaine contradiction tox the word of God. Wherefore the onely witnesse that Bellarmin produceth out of the first hundred yeares, doth not helpe him.y Out of the second hundred he produceth three; Iustinus, Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus. 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 Bellarmin, but as Christ did: who excepting whoredome in the zformer braunche of that sentence, vnderstoode it likewise in this, as I have shewed. And how may wee know that Iustinus meant so? By his owne wordes, in thata hee commendeth a godly Christian woman, who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of dirorcementb such as did loose that band of matrimony, and saith concerning him that4 hee was not her husband afterward. The nextc Athenagoras, affirmeth (I graunt) that if ⟨p. 48⟩any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie another he is an adulterer. But Bellarmin must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly: considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too, as well as by divorcement, & tea•heth with thed Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is vnlawfull.
qApost const lib. 3 cap, 2
rFt. Turrian, an•ct. in Apoconst ClementFt. Turrian, an•ct. in Apoconst Clemēt
Whereupon a famous Parisian Divinee Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth, that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian: and may well be thought to have been inserted into his work by Eucratites. A censure, for the ground thereof, very true, that the said opinion is a Philosophical fancy, yea an heresy: Though the words seem rather to be Athenagonas his own, asf sundry fathers speak dangerously, that way, then thrust in by Encratites, gwho generally rejected all marriage, not second marriage only. Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Jesuits cause. As much doth the last of his witnessesh Clemens Alexandrinus. For both in this point about second marriage ihe matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with unsoundness, and stained with spots of error. Which judgment not onlyk Protestants of German have in our remembrance lately, given of him, though al Jesuitical spirit do traduce them insolently, for it: Butm an ancient Pope of Rome with seventy bishops assembled in a Council above a thousand years since, and a Bishop of Spain a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinity and in the Canon lawn Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same. Now in the third hundred years (to go forward) Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to aver Bellarmins opinion, of whom one questionless controlleth, perhaps both. Foro Tertullian disputing against the heretic Marcion, who falsely objected that Christ is contrary to Moses, because Moses granted divorcement, Christ forbiddeth it, answereth that Christ saying, whosoever shall put away his wife & marry another, committeth adultery, meaneth 5undoubtedly of putting away for that cause, for which it is not lawful for a man to putt away his wife that he may marry another. And likewise for the wife, that he is an adulterer, who marrieth her being put away, 6if she be put away unlawfully: considering that the marriage, which is not rightly broken off, continueth; and ⟨p. 49⟩while the marriage doth continue, it is adultery to marry.
Wherevpon a famons Parisian Divinee Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth, that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian: and may well be thought to have bene 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 Athenagonas his owne, asf sundrie fathers speake dangerously, that way, then thrust in by Encratites, gwho generally reiected all marriage, not se•ond marriage onelie. Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause. As much doth the last of his witnessesh Clemens Alexandrinus. For both in this point about second marriage ihee matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes, and stained with spotts of errour. Which iudgmēt not onelyk Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately, geven of him, though al Iesuitical spirit doe traduce thē insolently, for it: Butm an auncient Pope of Rome with seavētie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since, and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinitie and in the Canon lawn Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same. Now in the third hundred yeares (to goe forward) Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion, of whom one questionlesse controlleth, perhaps both. Foro Tertullian disputing against the heretique Marcion, who falsely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses, because Moses graunted divorcemēt, Christ forbiddeth it, answereth that Christ saying, whosoever shall put away his wife & marrie another, committeth adulterie, meaneth
Which words of Tertullian manifestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully, for the cause excepted by Christ, may marry another, Bellarmin doth very cunningly & finely, cut of with an et caetera, and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement, if there be a just cause, but, did forbid to marry again after divorcement. So directly against the most evident light of the words & tenor of the whole discourse: that learned men of his own side, though holding his opinion yet could not for shame but grant that Tertullian maketh against them in it. Forp bishop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintain that men may lawfully marry again after divorcement for adultery, nameth Tertullian (quoting this place) among them. Andq Sixtus Senensis a man not inferior in learning to Bellarmin, in sincere dealing for this point superior, confesseth on the same place, & on those same words (but recited wholly, not clipped with an etcetera) that Tertullian maketh a certain & undoubted assertion thereof.r Pamelius in deed through a desire of propping up his churches doctrine with Tertullians credit, saith that though he seem here to allow divorcement for adultery in such sort, as that the husband may marry another wife: yet he openeth himself, & holdeth it to be unlawful in his book †of single marriage. Wherein he saith some what, but little to his advantage. For Tertullian wrote this book of single marriage swhen he was fallen away from the Catholic faith unto the heresy of Montanus: & so doth hold therein agreeably to that heresy, that is unlawful to marry a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death. But in that thee wrote, while he was a Catholic, against the heretic Marcion, he teacheth contrariwise the same that we do, as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truly grant. Yea Pamelius himself if he look better to his own notes, doth grant as much. Fort he saith that Tertullian useth the word divorcement in his proper signification, for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife, & marrieth another. But Tertullian saith7 that Christ doth avouch the righteousness of divorcement. Christ therefore avoucheth that for adultery a man may put away his wife and marry another by Tertullians judgment. Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen:
Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully, for the cause excepted by Christ, may marrie another, Bellarmin doth very cunningly & finely, cut of with an et caetera, and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement, if there be a iust cause, but, did forbid to marrie againe after divorcement. So directly agaisnt the most evidēt light of the wordes & tenour of the whole discourse: that learned men of his owne side, though houlding his opinion yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it. Forp byshop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintaine that men may lawfully marrie againe after divorcemēt for adulterie, nameth Tertullian (quoting this place) amōg them. Andq Sixtus Senensis a man not inferiour in learning to Bellarmin, in sincere dealing for this point superiour, cōfesseth on the same place, & on those same words (but recited wholy, not clipped with an etcetera) that Tertullian maketh a certaine & vndoubted assertion thereof.r Pamelius in deede through a desire of propping vp his churches doctrine with Tertulliās credit, saith that though hee seeme here to allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort, as that the husbād may marrie another wife: yet hee openeth himself, & holdeth it to be vnlawfull in his booke †of single marriage. Wh•rein he saith some what, but litle to his advauntage. For Tertullian wrote this booke of single marriage swhē hee was fallē away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus: & so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie, that is vnlawfull to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death. But in that thee wrote, while hee was a Catholique, against the heretique Marcion, hee teacheth cōtrarywise the same that wee doe, as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truely graunt. Yea Pamelius himself if hee looke better to his owne notes, doth graunt as much. Fort 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 Tertulliā saith7
Although ⟨p. 50⟩it be true vhe saith (as Bellarmin citeth him) that certain bishops did permit a woman to marry while her former husband lived, & addeth, they did it against the scripture. For he seemeth to speak of a woman divorced from her husband, not for adultery, but for some other cause, such as the Jews used to put away their wives for, by giving them a bill of divorcement. The matter that he handleth, and cause that he giveth thereof do lead us to this meaning; Approved by the opinion of certain learned men too. For after he had said (according tox the words of Christ which he expoundeth) that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcement did yield unto the weakness of them to whom the law was given; he saith that, the Christian bishops who permitted a woman to marry while her former husband lived, did it perhaps for such weakness. Wherefore sith in saving that, this which they did, they did perhaps for such weakness, he hath relation unto that of Moses, & Moses (as he addeth) did not grant the bill of divorcement for adultery, for that was punished by death it followeth that the Bishops whom Origen chargeth, with doing against the scripture did permit the woman, to marry upon divorcement for some other cause, not for adultery & so his reproving of them doth not touch us, who grant it for adultery only. Thus dothy Erasmus think that Origen meant: concluding it farther, as clear, by the similitude whichz he had used before of Christ, who put away the Synagogue (his former wife as it were) because of her adultery, & married the church. Yeaa Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovā, & of better credit with Papists than Eros•nus saith that the divorcement permitted by those Bishops, whom Origen controleth was a Jewish divorcement. Wherein though he aimed at another mark, to prove an untruth; yet unawares he hi• a truth more than he thought of, & strengthened that by Origen, which he thought to overthrow. Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter can persuade by other likelihoods out of Origen (as he is somewhat dark, & I know not whether irresolute in the point) that the thing reproved by him in those Bishops was the permitting of one to marry again after divorcement for adultery: our cause shall be more advantaged by those sundry Bishops who approved it, than disadvantaged by one Origen, who reproved them for it.
Although ⟨p. 50⟩it be true vhee saith (as Bellarmin citeth him) that certaeine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived, & addeth, they did it agaynst the scripture. For he seemeth to speake of a woman divorced from her husband, not for adulterie, but for some other cause, such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for, bygiving thē a bill of divorcemēt. The matter that he handleth, and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to this meaning; Approved by the opinion of certaine learned men too. For after he had said (according tox the words of Christ which he expoundeth) that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemēt did yeeld vnto the weakenes of thē to whom the law was gevē; he saith that, the Christian byshops who permitted a womā to marrie while her former husbād lived, did it perhaps for such weaknes. Wherefore sith in saving that, this which they did, they did perhaps for such weaknes, he hath relatiō vnto that of Moses, & Moses (as he addeth) did not graūt the bill of divorcemēt for adulterie, for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshops whō Origen chargeth, with doing against the scripture did permitt the womā, to marrie vpon divorcemēt for some other cause, not for adulterie & so his reproving of thē doth not touche vs, who graūt it for adulterie only. Thus dothy Erasmus thinke that Origen meant: concluding it farther, as cleare, by the similitude whichz he had vsed before of Christ, who put away the Synagogue (his former wife as it were) because of her adulterie, & married the churche. Yeaa Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovā, & of better credit with Papists thē Eros•nus saith that the divorcemēt permitted by those Byshops, whō Origen cōtrouleth was a Iewish divorcemēt. Wherein though he aymed at another marke, to prove an vntruth; yet vnwares he hi• a truth more thē hee thought of, & strengthened that by Origen, which he thought to overthrowe. Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter cā persuade by other likelyhoods out of Origen (as he is somewhat darke, & I know not whether irresolute in the point) that the thing reproved by him in those Byshops was the permitting of one to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie: our cause shalbe more advātaged by those sundrie Byshops who approved it, thē disadvātaged by one Origē, who reproved thē for it.
Chiefly seeing Origen impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith, for whi•h ab general Council withc Bellarmins allowance count […] a damned heretic: ⟨p. 51⟩& in this matter byd excluding all such as are twice married out of the Kingdom of heaven, whiche divines of Paris observe & check him for. Whereas those Bishops of whom he maketh mention, were neither stained otherwise, for ought that may be gathered, nor herein did they more then the right believing & Catholic Church all that time thought lawful to be done, as appeareth by Tertullian & Justine the Martyr. In the which respect fPeter Soto (a friar of great account in the Trent Council) […] said that it is plain by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtful in the ancient church allegeth this for proof thereof out of Origen, that many bishops […] married men to marry again after divorcement. This if the two of •thers whom Bellarmin allegeth out of the third hundred years as making for him, do not make against him, which perhaps they do both: yet one of them doth not out of all controversy, & bishops, more in number, in credit greater than the other, agree with him therein. Out of the fourth hundred, the […] which Bellarmin maketh, is a great deal fairer than out of the third: & a number of Fathers, the council of Eliberis S. Am […] S. lerō, a Roman Bishop, & S. Chrysostom are affirmed them •e to join themselves with him. But they are affirmed in the like manner as the former were: skarse on of them avouching the same that he doth, the rest in part seeming to be of other opinion, in part most clearly showing it, & such as show not so much, yet showing their own weakness, & that in this matter their opinion & judgment is of small value. For the foremost of themg the Council of Eliberis, ordained that a woman which forsook her husband because of his adultery & would marry another, should be forbidden to marry, & if she married, she should not receive the communion till he were dead whom she forsook, unless necessity of sickness constrained to give it her. Wherein it is to be noted, first that the Council saith not.8 If any man, so to comprehend & touch generally all both men & women: but they speak peculiarity of the woman alone, & so do not forbid the man to leave his adulterous wife & marry another.
Chiefly seing Origē impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith, for whi•h ab generall Councell withc Bellarmins allowāce count 〈…〉 a damned heretique: ⟨p. 51⟩& in this matter byd excluding all such as are twise married out of the Kingdō of heavē, whiche divines of Paris observe & check him for. Whereas those Byshops of whō he maketh mentiō, were neither stayned otherwise, for ought that may be gathered, nor herein did they more then the right believing & Catholique Churche all that time thought lawfull to be done, as appeareth by Tertulliā & Iustine the Martyr. In the which respect fPeter Soto (a freir of great account in the Trent Councell) 〈…〉 said that it is plaine by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtfull in the auncient church al•eageth this for proofe thereof out of Origen, that many byshops 〈…〉 married mē to marrie againe after divorcement. This if the two of •thers whō Bellarmin alleageth out of the third hundred years as making for him, doe not make against him, which perhaps they doe both: yet one of thē doth not out of all controversie, & byshops, more in number, in credit greater thē the other, agree with him therein. Out of the fowrth hundred, the 〈…〉 which Bellarmin maketh, is a great deale fayrer thē out of the third: & a number of Fathers, the councell of Eliberis S. Am 〈…〉 S. lerō, a Romā Byshop, & S. Chrysostome are affirmed thē •e to ioyne themselves with him. But they are affirmed in the like māner as the former were: skarse on of thē avouching the same that he doth, the rest in part seeming to be of other opinion, in part most clearely shewing it, & such as shewe not so much, yet shewing their owne weakenes, & that in this matter their opiniō & iudgmēt is of small value. For the formost of them
bSynod 5 Con stan […] collat 8 cap ••. Nicephor lib. 17 cap •8.Synod 5 Cō stan 〈…〉 collat 8 cap ••. Nicephor lib. 17 cap •8.
cTom. 1 con •. 6 lib. c. cap. 1Tom. 1 cō •. 6 lib. c. cap. 1
dHom▪ 17 in Lucam.
eGenebrad. annot marg▪ in eum locū. Espenceus de continent. lib▪ 3 cap 9.Genebrad. annot marg▪ in eum locū. Espenceus de continent. lib▪ 3 cap 9.
fTractat de in•••cut Sacerd c. de matrimon. lect. ••
gCanon. 9.
8Slquis L. […] D. de ve• ber […].Slquis L. 〈…〉 D. de ve• ber 〈…〉.
Secondly, that the woman is excommunicated, if when she is forbidden by the church to marry, she marry nevertheless, not if before she be forbidden: As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self. Thirdly, that sh•e is not debarred all her life time from the ⟨p. 52⟩communion, but for a season only, and in time of need, in dangerous sickness doth receive it: yea, even while the party, whom she forsook liveth. Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councells oversight who made the woman's case herein worse then the mans, both being free alike by Gods law: yet for the man it showeth that they allowed him to marry again after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which we maintain. The next yieldeth likelihood that the Council did forbid the woman this not for that they thought it unlawful, but unseemly perhaps or unexpedient, ash another Council is read to have forbidden the celebrating & solemnizing of marriages at certain times. But the last putteth the matter out of doubt, that they were persuaded of the woman also marrying in such sort, that her fact was warrantable by the word of God. Forels had they, not judged her marriage with this latter man to be lawful, they must needs have judged her to live with him in perpetual adultery. Which if they had thought, it is most improbable they would have admitted her to the communion in case of dangerous sickness: seeing at the point of deathi they deny it to women so continuing, yeak to men offending less heinously then so. With such extremity of rigour therein thatl Baronius noteth their decrees as savouring of the Novatian heresy: &m Bellarmin layeth it almost as deeply to their charge. So far from all likelihood is it that they would admit her in necessity of sickness to the communion had they been persuaded she lived in adultery still. Therefore it was not without cause that Bellarmin did suppress this circū stance together with the former, in citing the decree of the Elibernie Council: least his false illation, to wit that they accounted such marriage unlawful even for the innocent party, & in the cause of adultery, should be discovered & controlled thereby.
Secondly, that the womā is excommunicated, if when shee is forbidden by the church to marrie, shee marrie neverthelesse, not if before shee be forbidden: As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self. Thirdlie, that sh•e is not d•barred all her life time from the ⟨p. 52⟩communion, but for a season onely, and in time of neede, in daungerous sicknes doth receive it: yea, even while the partie, whō shee forsooke liveth. Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councells oversight who made the womans case herein worse then the mans, both being free alike by Gods lawe: yet for the mā 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 woman this not for that they thought it vnlawfull, but vnseemelie perhaps or vnexpedient, ash another Councell is read to have forbiddē the celebrating & solemnizing of marriages at certaine times. But the last putteth the matter out of doubt, that they were persuaded of the woman also marrying in such sort, that her fact was warrātable by the word of God. Forels had they, not iudged her marriage with this latter mā to be lawfull, they must needes 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 communiō in case of daungerous sicknes: seeing at the point of deathi they denie it to womē so continuing, yeak to men offending lesse heynously then so. With such extremitie of rigour therein thatl Baronius noteth their decrees as savouring of the Novatian heresie: &m Bellarmin layeth it almost as deepely to their charge. So farre from all likeliehood is it that they would admitt her in necessitie of sicknes to the communiō had they bene persuaded shee lived in adulterie still. Therefore it was not without cause that Bellarmin did suppresse this circū stance together with the former, in citing the decree of the Elibernie Councell: least his false illatiō, to weete that they accounted such marriage vnlawfull even for the innocent partie, & in the cause of adulterie, should be discovered & controlled thereby.
hConcil. I•e•d. c Non oportet a leptu •gesima. •3 q, 4.
ican. 64.
kCan. 3. 7. 17 18. 47 65 70. 73, & 75.
lAnnal. Eccles •om. 1 ad anū Christ. 57.Annal. Eccles •om. 1 ad anū Christ. 57.
Next is Ambrose brought in, who upon the 16 chapter of Luke, writeth much against them that putting away their wife do marry another, & he calleth that marriage adultery in sundry places: neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith. But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too? Certainly S. Ambrose speaketh9 of such wives as lived without crime &1 whom their husbands were (as he addeth) ⟨p. 53⟩forbidden by the law of God to put away. So that he reproving men for marrying others after they had put away their chaste wives, doth evidently show he meant not of marriage after divorcement for whoredom. And if it be sufficient proof that he supposed they, might not marry again after they had put away a whorish wife because he never excepteth whoredom in that whole discourse of marrying again: then by as sufficient a reason he supposed that2 they, might not put away their wives at all, no not for whoredom, because he never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife. But tha• Papists will grant that a man may lawfully put away his wife, if she commit whoredom. As Bellarmin then will construe S, Ambrose in this branch, so let him in the former. And if he say, that S. Ambrose thinking upon Luke alone whom he expounded, or trusting his memory forgot the exception added by Christ in Matthew, forn putting away the wife: the same slip of memory might loose the same exception foro marrying another. If he think that Ambrose did not forget himself, but understood the exception in the former point, as thep Apostle did, though neither mention it expressly: what reason why, it might not as well be understood in the later also? As for S. Jerome no marvel if he wrote against second marriage after divorcement for whoredomq who wrote against all second marriages in such sort, thatr Espenceus asketh what could have been said more grievously against them by the impure3 Catharists, then is said by him? Ands Vives pronounceth, that he did not only detest second marriages, but also had small liking of the first, nor did much favour matrimony;
Next is Ambrose brought in, who vpō the 16 chapter of Luke, writeth much against thē that putting away their wife doe marrie another, & he calleth that marriage adulterie in sundrie places: neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith. But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too? Certainely S. Ambrose speaketh9 of such wives as lived without crime &1 whom their husbands were (as hee addeth) ⟨p. 53⟩forbidden by the lawe of God to put away. So that hee reproving men for marrying others after they had put away their chaste wives, doth evidently shewe he meant not of marriage after divorcemēt for whordō. And if it be •ufficiēt proofe that hee supposed they, might not marrie againe after they had put away a whorish wife because hee never excepteth whoredō in that whole discourse of marrying againe: then by as sufficiēt a reason hee supposed that2 they, might not put away their wives at all, no not for whordom, because hee never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife. But tha• Papists will graunt that a man may lawfully put away his wife, if shee committ whordom. As Bellarmin then will construe S, Ambrose in this braunch, so let him in the former. And if he say, that S. Ambrose thinking vpō Luke alone whō hee expounded, or trusting his memorie forgot the exception added by Christ in Mathew, forn putting away the wife: the same slipp of memorie might loose the same exception foro marrying another. If he thinke that Ambrose did not forget himself, but vnderstoode the exception in the former point, as thep Apostle did, though neither mentiō it expressely: what reason why, it might not as well be vnderstoode in the later also? As for S. Ierom no marveil if hee wrote against second marriage after divorcemēt for whordomq who wrote against all second marriages in such sort, thatr
9Dimletis •uxorem qua•i jura sin• crimine
1Putas id •ibi l•cere quia •ex humana ••on pr•hibet sed divina pro •ib. •. •.
2Noli crgo uxorem dimit tere. Qui dimittit uxorē facit eam m•e cham.Noli crgo vxorem dimit tere. Qui dimittit uxorē facit eam m•e cham.
Beside that himself too, as far as he exceeded the bounds of Godly modesty & truth herein, even by these mens judgments whom Papists do repute learned & Catholic allayeth & correcteth in one of the places, which Bellarmin allegeth, his peremptory censure given in the other. For whereas he saith in his Epistle to Amandus, that the wife who divorced herself from her husband because of his adultery & married another4 was an adulteress for so marrying, and5 her new husband an adulterer: In his epitaph of Fabiola (a noble godly gentlewoman of Rome, who did the like & was penitent for it after her second husbands death) he saith, that she ⟨p. 54⟩lamented & bewailed it so, as if she had committed adultery. By which kind of speech & others suitable to it, as that he te••meth her state after divorcement from her first husband Widowhood; & addeth, that she lost3 the honour of having had but one husband by marrying the second; 4& saith, she thought it better to undergo a certain, shadow of pitiful wedlock,5 then to play the whore, because it is better (saith Paul) to marry then to burn: S. Jeron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to do as she did: yet not such a fault, a crime, a public crime, as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it. No more may it be justly thought in the opinion of that Roman Bishop, of whom, because he put Fabiola to public penance after her second husband death, Bellarmin concludeth that it was accounted a public crime in the Catholic Church at that time, if any man whilst his wife yet lived, married another yea, albeit for whoredom. For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholic Church, for marrying again after their first wives death, as Bellarmin observeth out of the Catholique•Councels: adding therewith all, that although they knew second marriage to be lawful, yet because it is a token of incontinence they chastised it with some penance. Wherefore sith it might easily be that they who laid some penance upon no fault, would lay public penance upon a small fault, specially in women, to whom in such cases they were more severe & rigorous than to men: the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her second marriage doth not prove sufficiently that it was accounted then a public crime in the Catholic church.
Beside that himself too, as farre as hee exceeded the boundes of Godly modestie & truth herein, even by these mens iudgments whō Papists doe repute learned & Catholique allayeth & corecteth in one of the places, which Bellarmin alleageth, his peremptorie censure gevē in the other. For whereas hee saith in his Epistle to Amandus, that the wife who divorced herself from her husband because of his adulterie & marri•d another4 was an adulteresse for so marrying, and5 her newe husbānd an adulterer: In his epitaph of Fabiola (a noble godly gentlewoman of Rome, who did the like & was poenitent for it after her second husbands death) hee saith, that shee ⟨p. 54⟩lamented & bewayled it so, as if shee had cōmitted adulterie. By which kinde of speech & others sutable to it, as that he te••meth her state after divorcement frō her first husband Widdowhood; & addeth, that shee lost3 the honor of having had but one husbād by marrying the second; 4& saith, shee thought it better to vndergoe a certaine, shadow of pitifull wedlocke,5 then to plaie the whore, because it is better (saith Paul) to marrie then to burne: S. Ieron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to doe as shee did: yet not such a fault, a crime, a publique crime, as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it. No more may it be iustly thought in the opiniō of that Romā Byshop, of whō, because he put Fabiola to publique penance after her second husband death, Bellarmin cōcludeth that it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique Church at that time, if any man whilst his wife yet lived, married another yea, albeit for whordō. For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholique Church, for marrying againe after their first wives death, as Bellarmin observeth out of the Catholique•Councels: adding therewith al, that although they knewe secōd marriage to be lawfull, yet because it is a token of incontinēcie they chastised it with some penāce. Wherefore sith it might easilie bee that they who laid some penance vpon no fault, would lay publique penance vpō a small fault, spetially in women, to whō in such cases they were more severe & rigorous thē to mē: the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her secōd marriage doth not prove sufficiētly that it was accounted thē a publique crime in the Catholique church.
4Si non vult adultera reputa•i.
5Non Apellat•r vir sed adulter.
3Vidutiatem […] non poterat.Vidutiatem 〈…〉 non poterat.
4• Sub gloria […]• Sub gloria 〈…〉
5• po• mortē secundi viti • Opera exercised […].• po• mortē secundi viti • Opera exerce•e 〈…〉.
Howbeit if the term of public crime be used in a gentler sense than vcommonly it is, or the Bishop of Rome did never put any but grievous offenders & sinners to public penance: yet perhaps even so too will Bellarmin come short of his conclusion still. For thereby (saith he) we do not understand that • if any man while his wife yet lived, married another, yea albeit for whoredom; it was accounted a public crime in the Catholic church at that time, if any man did it. As who say the Bishop of Rome must needs hold that, if women were not licensed to marry after divorcement for whoredom, men could not be neither. Whereas he might be of the same opinion, that an ancient xCouncil s•emeth (as I showed) to have been before him; and ⟨p. 55⟩an ancienty Father (living & writing asz some think, in Rome about the same time) was; I mean, that this liberty & freedom should be granted to men but not to women. Moreover the delay of Faebiolas penance, in that she was not put thereto until aafter her second husbands death, yieldeth very strong & probable conjecture, that it had not been before them accounted any crime at all in the Catholic church, not for a woman neither to put away her husband because of his adultery, & to marry another. For that which Fabiola did, she did3 openly. Her self was religious, godly, well instructed; & thought it to be lawful. Her husband by all likelihood of like mind & judgment: the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question; The Bishop did not execute any Church censure on them. Nay, sith she was4 very young, when they married, and never heard of any fault therein committed as long as her husband lived: it may be Rome had many Bishops in the mean time, none of whom saw cause why they should blame her for it. The example of Fabiola therefore, & the Roman Bishops dealing in it, maketh more a great deal with us then against us, if it be throughly weighed. Now S. Chrysostom maketh absolutely with us: Howsoever Bellarmin affirmeth that he teacheth the same with S. Jerome yea, withb S. Jerome simply condemning all such marriage. For what doth S. Chrysostom teach in thec sermon that Bellarmin quoteth upon Matthew? Forsooth, that by Moses law it was permitted, that whosoever hated his wife for any cause, might put her away, and marry another in her room:
Howbeit if the tearme of publique crime be vsed in a gētler sense thē vcōmonly it is, or the Byshop of Rome did never put any but grievous offenders & finners to publique penance: yet perhaps even so too will Bellarmin come short of his conclusiō still. For thereby (saith hee) we doe not vnderstād that • if any mā while his wife yet lived, married another, yea albeit for whordo; it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique church at that time, if any mā did it. As who say the Byshop of Rome must needs hould that, if women were not licensed to marrie after divorcement for whordom, men could not be neither. Whereas he might be of the same opiniō, that an aunciēt xCouncell s•emeth (as I shewed) to have bene before him; and ⟨p. 55⟩an auncienty Father (living & writing asz some thinke, in Rome about the same time) was; I meane, that this libertie & freedom should be graunted to men but not to women. Moreover the delay of Faebiolas penance, in that she was not put thereto vntill aafter her second husbands death, yeildeth very strong & probable coniecture, that it had not bene before thē accoūted any crime at all in the Catholique church, not for a woman neither to put away her husbād because of his adulterie, & to marrie another. For that which Fabiola did, shee did3 openly. Her self was religious, godly, well instructed; & thought it to be lawfull. Her husbād by all likelyhood of like minde & iudgmēt: the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question; The Byshop did not execute any Church censure on them. Nay, sith shee was4 very yong, when they married, and never heard of anie fault therein committed as long as her husband lived: it may be Rome had many Byshops in the meane time, none of whō saw cause why they should blame her for it. The example of Fabiola therefore, & the Roman Byshops dealing in it, maketh more a great deale with vs then against vs, if it be throughly weighed. Now S. Chrysostom maketh absolutely with vs: Howsoever Bellarmin affirmeth that hee teacheth the same with S. Ierom yea, with
v[…]〈…〉
xConcil, […]. 9.Concil, 〈…〉. 9.
yAmbrosia. […] p. 7Ambros•a. 〈…〉 p. 7
zCe••••• Theologorum Lovan in […]. gust lib […] et nor testam To•—Ce••••• Theologorum Lovan in 〈…〉. gust lib 〈…〉 et nor testam To•—
But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredom. What? and doth it follow hereof that Chrysostom, meant that the husband putting her away for whoredom, might not marry another? Rather the clean contrary: Seeing that he speaketh of such a putting away, as Moses did permit, and maketh this the difference between Christs ordinance, and the law of Moses, that Moses did permit it for any cause, Christ but for one. Which to be his meaning he showeth more plainlyd upon the first to the Corinthians, saying that the marriage is dissolved by whoredom, neither is the husband a husband any longer. For hence it appeareth that he thought the band of marriage to be loosed. when they, ⟨p. 56⟩are severed for whoredom: & therefore consequently the parties free to marry according to thee Apostles rule. Andf other where also, though somewhat more obscurely yet conference with this place will show him to have taught. But what should I stand on farther proof thereof, it being so undoubted, thatg Bishop Covarrisvias an earnest adversary of marriage after divorcement, and bringing all the Fathers that he can against it, confesseth S. Chrysostom to stand on the other side against him for it. And this in four hundred years after Christ, Bellarmin cannot find one of the Fathers, that he may justly say is his: excepting them which make as much for the Encratites, Montanists, and Catharists, as they do for Papists. In the ages following he findeth better store: now one, now moe in each hundred. Yet among them also, look how many he nameth of the Eastern Bishops, whether expressedly, or impliedly: he playeth the Jesuit with him. For the first of them Theophylact he allegeth with the same faith & truth, that he did Chrysostom, whose scholar Theophylact being (afterh Bellarmins own note) did follow his master. And this the two places themselves that Bellarmin quoteth, do insinuate clearly:i the former by opening how Christ permitteth not that putting away which Moses did, without just cause, nor alloweth any cause as just but whoredom kthe later by omitting mention of whoredom, in specifying the causes, for which if a woman depart from her husband she must remain unmarried. Whereto (if Bellarmin need more light to see it by) we may add a third place:
But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredome. What? and doth it follow hereof that Chrysostom, meant that the husband putting her away for whoredome, might not marrie another? Rather the cleane contrary: Seing that he speaketh of such a putting away, as Moses did permitt, and maketh this the difference betwene Christs ordinance, and the law of Moses, that Moses did permitt it for anie cause, Christ but for one. Which to be his meaning hee sheweth more plainelyd vpon the first to the Corinthians, saying that the marriage is dissolved by whoredom, neither is the husband a husband anie longer. For hence it appeareth that hee thought the bād of marriage to bee loosed. whē they, ⟨p. 56⟩are severed for whoredom: & therefore consequently the parties free to marrie according to thee Apostles rule. Andf other where also, though somewhat more obscurely yet conference with this place will shewe him to have taught. But what should I stand on farther proofe thereof, it being so vndoubted, thatg Byshop Covarrisvias an earnest adversarie of marriage after divorcement, and bringing all the Fathers that hee can against it, confesseth S. Chrysoctom to stand on the other side against him for it. And this in foure hundred yeares after Christ, Bellarmin cannot finde one of the Fathers, that hee may iustly say is his: excepting them which make as much for the Encratites, Montanists, and Catharists, as they doe for Papists. In the ages following hee findeth better store: now one, now moe in eche hundred. Yet among them also, looke how manie hee nameth of the Easterne Byshops, whether expressedly, or implyedly: hee playeth the Iesuit with him. For the first of them Theophylact hee alleageth with the same faith & truth, that he did Chrysostom, whose schollar Theophylact being (afterh Bellarmins owne note) did follow his maister. And this the two places thēselves that Bellarmin quoteth, doe insinuate clearely:i the former by opening how Christ permitteth not that putting away which Moses did, without iust cause, nor alloweth any cause as iust but whordom k
in whichl Theophylact saying that Luke rehearsing Christs words against men putting away their wives & marrying other must be understood with the exception out of Matthew, 3Unless it be for whoredom, doth show how far he differeth herein from Bellarmin, who denieth flatly that Christs words in Luke must be supplied with that exception. The rest of the Eastern Fathers whose testimony is alleged by Bellarmin though their names not mentioned: are such as were assembled in the Council of Florence. For there came thither to confer with the Pope & the western bishops, albeit many of these holding a general Council at Basil the same time, refused to change the place for the Popes pleasure, who sought his own advantage therein, not the Churches, and undermined the actions ⟨p. 57⟩of the Council of Basil mwhich condemned him of heresy, and deposed him; but there came thithern the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, either themselves in person, or by their deputies, with many Metropolitans and Bishops of Greece of Asia, of Iberia, and other countries of the East. Whose credit and consent how untruly Bellarmin pretē death, for the proof of his false assertion, it is plain by that he saith the Council of Florence did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians. A chapter which is fathered in deed upon the Council by the schismatical Pope Eugenius the fourth, the deviser of it: but fathered unjustly and calumniously as the time argueth, wherein it was begotten. For it is recorded in the same decree, that it was made the6 two and twentieth of November, in the year of Christ a thousand four hundred, thirty & nine. Now the Council ended in July the same year four months before: As botho it self witnesseth, &p Popish stories not•. Wherefore the Council could not be the father of that decree and chapter: no more then a man can be of that child whi•h is borne fourteen months after his death. And the Pope, whose bastard in truth the brat is, by the acknowledgement and record of Papists themselves in theq Tomes of Councils, was so much the more to blame to father it upon the Council of Florence 7the great & general council, and8 date it in a public solemn session thereof; Because neither was it debated in the Council whether marriage after divorcement for adultery were lawful or no;
in whichl Theophylact saying that Luke rehersing Christes words against men putting away their wives & marrying other must be vnderstood with the exception out of Matthew, 3Vnless it be for whoredom, doth shew howfarre he differeth herein from Bellarmin, 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 mētioned: are such as were assembled in the Councell of Florence. For there came thither to conferre with the Pope & the westerne byshops, 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 ⟨p. 57⟩of the Councell of Basil mwhich condemned him of heresie, and deposed him; but there came thithern the Patriarches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem, either themselves in person, or by their deputies, with many Metropolitanes and Byshops of Greece of Asia, of Iberia, and other countries of the East. Whose creditt and consent how vntruely Bellarmin pretē deth, for the proofe of his false assertion, it is plaine by that hee saith the Councell of Florēce did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians. A chapter which is fathered in deed vpō the Councell by the schisimaticall Pope Eugenius the fovorth, the deviser of it: but fathered vniustly and calmuniously as the time argueth, wherein it was begottē. For it is recorded in the same decree, that it was made the6 two and twentieth of November, in the yeare of Christ a thousand foure hundred, thirtie & nine. Now the Councell ended in Iuly the same yeare foure moneths before: As botho it self witnesseth, &p Popish stories not•. Wherefore the Councell could not be the father of that decree and chapter: no more then a man can be of that childe whi•h is borne fouretē moneths after his death. And the Pope, whose bastard in truth the brat is, by the acknowlegment and record of Papists themselves in the
3Parectos logou porneias delade. obscured by the Latin tram slator omitting delade.Parectos logou porneias delade. obscured by the Latin trā slator omitting delade.
and ther Eastern bishops maintained it to be lawful, when the Pope after the end of the Council did reprove them for it: neither is it likely the contrary was decreed by all there present of the west. Chiefly seeing that more than half of them were gone when both parts the East & West, subscribed to the decrees of the Council in the letters of agreement: as appeareth by conferrings their number witht their names & the note thereof. Yea the Council being ended the sixth of Julie, had their subscriptions added unto it the one & twentieth. Then if of seven score or perhaps upward, scarce threescore were remaining at Florence, fourteen days after the Council ended: What may we think there were above four months after? But how many soever were present of the West, as the ⟨p. 58⟩9Pope can quickly muster an hundred Bishops or more, if need be out of Italy alone,1 to carry away things in Council by multitude of voices, such policy hath he used for that; but how many soever Italians he banded to countenance his decree, the Bishops of the East agreed not thereto, neither was it the Councells act. Thus all the Fathers of the Eastern churches, whom Bellarmin allegeth, and may urge with credit their doctrine touching marriage, do not only not say with him, but gainsay him. Wherein their have so many others follow them from age to age till our time, that it is apparent they allow with greater consent a mans marriage after divorcement for adultery then Fathers of the western churches disallow it. Forv Eusebius treating of Justine 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. xBasils canons approved byy general Councils, do not only authorize the man to marry another, whose wife is an adulteress, but also check the custom which yielded not like favour in like case to the woman. Andz Epiphanius saith (his words are read corruptly, but the sense thereof is plain of our side, asa Covarruvias granteth, Epiphanius therefore saith that Separation being made for whoredom, a man may take a second wife, or a woman a second husband. And the same avouchethb Theodoret in effect, affirming that Christ hath set down one cause: whereby the band of Marriage should be dissolved, and wholly rent a sunder, in that he did except whoredom.
and ther Easterne byshops mainteyned it to be lawfull, when the Pope after the end of the Councell did reprove them for it: neither is it likely the contrarie was decreed by all there present of the west. Chiefly seing that more thē half of them were gone when both partes the East & West, subscribed to the decrees of the Councell in the letters of agreement: as appeareth by conferrings their number witht their names & the note thereof. Yea the Councell being ended the sixth of Iulie, had their subscriptions added vnto it the one & twentith. Then if of sevē score or perhaps vpward, scarse threescore were remayning at Florence, foureteene dayes after the Councell ended: What may we thinke there were above foure moneths after? But how many soever were present of the West, as the ⟨p. 58⟩9Pope can quickly muster an hundred Byshops or more, if neede be out of Italie alone,1 to carry away things in Councell by multitude of voices, such pollicie hath he vsed for that; but how many soever Italians he banded to countenance his decree, the Byshops of the East agreed not thereto, neither was it the Councells act. Thus all the Fathers of the Eastern churches, whom Bellarmin alleadgeth, and may vrge with creditt their doctrine touching marriage, doe not onely not say with him, but gainsay him. Wherein their have so many others followe them from age to age till our time, that it is apparant they allowe with greater consent a mās marriage after divorcement for adulterie then Fathers of the western churches disallow it. Forv Eusebius treating of Iustine the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that hee had done, the storie of the Christian woman, who divorced her self frō her adulterous husband. And S. xBasils canons approved byy generall Councels, doe not onely authorize the mā to marrie another, whose wife is an adulteresse, but also check the custome which yeelded not like favour in like case to the woman. Andz
rSynod Florent sess. ult.
sIn proamio
tSess. ult.
9There are about o• by shops seas in Italy, Leand. Al•ert in descript, Italy.There are about o• by shops seas in Italie, Leand. Al•ert in descript, Italie.
1Eneas Sylv• us de ge••s Basiliensis concil. lib. Clā dius Esp•ceus in epist ad Titam cap 1.Eneas Sylv• us de ge••s Basiliensis concil. lib. Clā dius Esp•ceus in epist ad Titam cap 1.
vHist. eccl lib. 4 cap. 17.
xCan 9. et 21.
ySynod sext. in Trull can. 2 c Quoniam […] Synod, sept can. 1.Synod sext. in Trull can. 2 c Quoniam 〈…〉 Synod, sept can. 1.
And ac general Council, wherein there were above two hundred and twenty bishops of the East gathered together, doth imply as much; in saying that He, who his wife 2 having kept the law of wedlock, and being faithful to him, yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentence guilty of adultery. So dothd Oecumenius in applying the precept of abiding unmarried to such as should not have departed, and in abridging Chrysostom's words after his manner, whose scholare Bellarmin therefore termeth him. So dothf Euthymius Chrysostoms scholar too, in charging that man with adultery, who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whoredom from her husband. So doth Nicephoras, in copying & commending that out of Eusebius, which he had out of Justin the Martyr. To be short, the Grecians, 3which namg compriseth many nations of the East, all whom theh Florentine Council calleth the Eastern Church do ⟨p. 59⟩put the same doctrine received from their ancestors in practise even at this day, allowing married folk not only, to sperate & divorce themselves in case of adultery but also to marry others, as Bellarmin confesseth. Wherefore his opinion hath not the consent of the Eastern bishops: neither hath had it any age since Christ. Much less can he show the consent of the Southi the Ethiopians, & Abessines, or of thek Muscovites & Ruses in the North: both which as they received their faith from the East, so use they like freedom & liberty for this matter. No, not in the west it self, though he have many thence agreeing with him, yet hath he the general consent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half, if an exact count might be taken of them. For besides Tertullian, the Council of Eliberis and to let pass Ambrose) one Bishop of Rome, or more already showed to have thought that a man being divorced from his wife for her adultery, is free to marry again: there are of the same mindl Lactantius, mChromatius, nHilary, oPollentius, pthe author of the Commentaries in Ambrose his name upon S.
And ac generall Councell, wherein there were above two hundred and twentie byshops of the East gathered together, doth imply as much; in saying that Hee, who his wife 2 having kept the lawe of wedlocke, and being faithfull to him, yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentence guiltie of adulterie. So dothd Oecumenius in applying the precept of abiding vnmarried to such as should not have departed, and in abridging Chrysostōs words after his manner, whose scholare Bellarmin therefore tearmeth him. So dothf Euthymius Chrysostoms schollar too, in •harging that mā with adulterie, who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordō from her husbād. So doth Nicephoras, in copying & cōmending that out of Eusebius, which he had out of Iustin the Martyr. To be short, the Grecians, 3which namg compriseth many nations of the East, all whō theh Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe ⟨p. 59⟩put the same doctrine receyved from their auncestours in practise even at this day, allowing married folke not onely, to sperate & divorce thēselves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others, as Bellarmin confesseth. Wherefore his opiniō hath not the consent of the Eastern byshops: neither hath had it any age since Christ. Much lesse can he shewe the consent of the Southi the Aethiopians, & Abessines, or of thek Moscovites & Russes in the North: both which as they receyved their faith frō the East, so vse they like freedome & libertie for this matter. No, not in the west it self, though he have many thēce agreeing with him, yet hath hee the generall cōsent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half, if an exact count might be taken of them. For besides Tertullian, the Councell of Eliberis and to let passe Ambrose) one Byshop of Rome, or more alreadie shewed to have thought that a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie, is free to marrie againe: there are of the same minde
cSext Synod. Constant. no in Trull can. 8• Nomon synap theisan translated otherwise by some but meant thus by the councell as men•oi with the antithelis going before it showeth, & their use o• the word Synap testes Can. 13. d•t. • c Q•o•niamSext Synod. Constant. no in Trull cā. 8• Nomon synap theisan translated otherwise by some but mēt thus by the councell as men•oi with the antithelis going before it sheweth, & their vse o• the word Synap testes Can. 13. d•t. • c Q•o•niam
Pauls epistles,q the first Council of Arles, rthe council of Vans, they who either were at or agreed to thes sixth general council the second time assembledt Pope Gregory the third vPope Zechariah, the council ofx Worms ofy Trybur, ofz Mascon, a council alleged bya Gratian without name, & other learned men alleged likewise byb him,c Pope Alexander the third,d Celestin the 3,e Zechariah andf Paul bishops, the one of Chrysopolis, the other of Burgos, gErasmus, hCardinal Cajetan: iArchbishop Catharinus, kNaclantus bishop of Clugia, finally the teachers of the reformed churches inl England, mScotland, nGermany, oFrance &p other countries, for why should not I name these of our profession & faith among the Fathers as well as Bellarmin nameth the Popish council of Trent on the contrary side? But the Papists (will some man peradventure say, do not grant that all, whom you have rehearsed, were of this opinion. But the Papists (I answer) do grant that sundry of them were? and such as they grant not, the light of truth & reason will either make them grant, or shame them for denying it. As2 Sixtus Senensis, namely doth deny that Hilary and Chromantius allow a man to marry ⟨p. 60⟩another wife after divorcement: or teach that he is loosed from the band of matrimony, while his former wife though an adulteress liveth. Now weigh their own words, & it will appear that Sixtus injurieth them therein. For25 Chromatius saith that they who having putt away their wives4 for any cause save for whoredom, presume to marry others, do against the will of God, and are condemned. Wherein, with what sense could he except whoredom, unless he thought them guiltless, who having put away their wives for it do marry others? Ands Hilary affirming Christ to have prescribed no other cause5 of ceasing from matrimony, but that; she weth that the band of matrimony is loosed thereby in his judgment. Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the use thereof, for other causes: & the occasion and tenor of the speech do argue that he meant of such a separation as yieldeth liberty of new marriage. In like sort, or rather more plainly and expressly did Pollentius hold and maintain the same: As Austin (whom in this point he dissented from) doth report and testify.
Pauls epistles,q the first Councell of Arles, rthe coūcell of Vānes, they who either were at or agreed to thes sixth generall coūcell the secōd time assēbledt Pope Gregorie the third vPope Zacharie, the councell ofx Wormes ofy Trybur, ofz Mascon, a councell alleaged bya Gratian without name, & other learned men alleaged likewise byb him,c Pope Alexander the third,d Celestin the 3,e Zacharie andf Paul byshops, the one of Chrysopolis, the other of Burgos, gErasmus, hCardinal Cajetan: iArchbyshop Catharinus, kNaclantus byshop of Clugia, finallie the teachers of the reformed churches inl Englād,
qcan •0.
rcau. •
sCon •antinop in Trullo can. 8•. gr 8• lat.Cō •antinop in Trullo can. 8•. gr 8• lat.
tEpist 4 ad Bo•sacium
v32. q 7 c. con cubuisti.32. q 7 c. cō cubuisti.
xcap. 3. et 10. Bu•chard. decretor l6. c. 4• et l. 17. cap. 17. et 10.
y32. q. 7. c. Si quis cum noverca Burchar. lib. 17. c. 17. et 18.
zca. 5 Burchar lib. 17. c. 15.
a32. • 7. c quae dam
bSed illudead caus et quest.
c• Vemens 1. extt. de eo qui cogu consang uxoris suae.• Vemens 1. extt. de eo qui cogu consang vxoris suae.
d• Quanto. extra. de divo. tljs
ede concord Evang. cap. 100.de cōcord Euang. cap. 100.
Yet Bellarmin (a strange thing in a case so clear, but nothing strange to Jesuits) saith that Pollentius 6did not gainsay Austin, but asked his judgment of the matter: and for proof hereof referreth us to the beginnings of both the books of Austin. Event to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured to prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another, Pollentius wrote unto him7 as it were by way of asking his judgment, and showed he thought the contrary: yet showed it in such sort, that Austin setting down both their opinions, doth specify then as flatly crossing one the other: You are of this mind, I of that: and saith of Pollentius again and again that8 he was of this mind, which Bellarmin denieth he was of. Wherein the Jesuits dealing is more shameful, for that beside the evidence of the thing it self so often repeated in the very same places that he citethv Sixtus Senenses a man as unwilling as Bellarmin to weaken any of their Trent points with granting more then he must needs confesseth that Pollentius thought hereof as we do. Belike because Sixtus Senensis honoureth him with the praise and title of a9 most godly man: Bellarmin thought it better to lie, then ⟨p. 61⟩to grant that they have such an adversary. He would fain avoid too another ancient father bearing the name of Ambrose; &x Ambrose might his name be, though he were not famous Ambrose Bishop of Milan. But whether he were named so, or otherwise (which1 perhaps is truer) unto his testimony pronouncing it lawful by S. Pauls doctrine for a man justly divorced to marry again (though not for a woman, as he, by mistaking S; Paul, through error,x though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answer. Firsty Gratian (saith he) and Peter zLombard do affirm that those words were thrust into this authors Commentary, by some corrupters of writings. Indeed the one of them affirmeth:2 it is said so; the other,3 it is thought so. But if it be sufficient to affirm barely, without any ground of proof or probability, that it is said or thought so: what error so absurd that may not be defended by perverse wranglers? what cause so unjust, that unrighteous judges may not give sentence with?
Yet Bellarmin (a strange thing in a case so cleare, but nothing strange to Iesuits) saith that Pollentius 6did not gainsaie Austin, but asked his iudgment of the matter: and for proofe hereof referreth vs to the beginnings of both the bookes of Austin. Event to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured to prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another, Pollentius wrote vnto him7 as it were by way of asking his iudgment, 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 mynde, I of that: and saith of Pollentius againe and againe that8 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 citethv Sixtus Senenses a man as vnwilling as Bellarmin to weaken anie of their Trent points with graunting more then hee must needes confesseth that Pollentius thought hereof as we doe. Belike because Sixtus Senensis honoreth him with the praise and title of a9 most godlie man: Bellarmin thought it better to lie, then ⟨p. 61⟩to graunt that they have such an adversarie. Hee would faine avoid too another auncient father bearing the name of Ambrose; &x Ambrose might his name be, though hee were not famous Ambrose Byshop of Milan. But whether hee were named so, or otherwise (which1 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 hee, by missetaking S; Paul, through errour,x though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere. First
6Non contra dixit Augustino sed eum consuluit.
tDe adult cō jug ad Pollent. lib 1. cap. •. et lib. 2. cap 2.De adult cō jug ad Pollēt. lib 1. cap. •. et lib. 2. cap 2.
For whatsoever words be enforced against them out of the law of God or man, out of any evidence or record of writers & witnesses worthy credit: they may with Peter Lombard and Gratian reply that the place alleged is said or thought to have been thrust into those monuments by some corrupters of writings. And in replying thus they should speak truly, though it were said or thought by none beside themselves: but how reasonably they should speak therein, let men of sense & reason judge. Surely though Peter Lombard rest upon that answer; for want of a better, yet Gratian (whether fearing the sickly state thereof) doth leave it, & seeketh himself a new patron, saying that Ambrose words are thus meant, that a man may lawfully marry another wife after the death of the adulteress, but not while she liveth, which answer is more absurd then the former. In so much thata Covarruvias speaking of the former only as uncertain, saith that this repugneth manifestly to Ambrose. A very true verdict, as a•ie man not blind may see by Ambrose words: And Bellarmin confesseth the same in effect, by passing it over in silence as ashamed of it. But others (saith he secondly) do answer that this author speaketh of the Civil law, the law of Emperors: To wit, that by the Emperors Laws it is lawful for men, but not for women, ⟨p. 62⟩having put away their mate, to marry another: and that Paul therefore least he should offend the Emperor bwould not say expressly. If a man put away his wife, let him abide so or be reconciled to his wife. Now Gratians second answer was no less worthy to have been mentioned, then this ofc William Lindan, patched up by Bellarmin. For thed civill law pronounceth the band of marriage to be loosed as well by divorcement as by death: and alloweth women to take other husbands, their former being put away, as it alloweth men to take others wives. So that it is a fond and unlearned conceit to imagine that Paul would not say of husbands as he did of wives, least he should offend the Emperor by speaking expressly against that which his law allowed. Fore he did expressly control the Emperors law in saying of the wife. If she depart from her husband, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And the authors words do show that he meant to speak, not of human laws, but of divine:
For whatsoever wordes be enforced against them out of the law of God or man, out of anie evidēce or record of writers & witnesses worthie credit: they may with Peter Lombard and Gratian replie that the place alleaged is said or thought to have bene thrust into those monumēts by some corrupters of writīgs. And in replying thus they should speake truelie, though it were said or thought by none beside themselves: but how reasonably they should speake therein, let men of sense & reason iudge. Surelie though Peter Lombard rest vpō that aunswer; for want of a better, yet Gratian (whether fearing the sicklie state thereof) doth leave it, & seeketh himself a new patron, saying that Ambrose words are thus meant, that a man may lawfullie marrie another wife after the death of the adulteresse, but not while shee liveth, which aunswer is more absurd then the former. In so much thata Covarruvias speaking of the former onelie as vncertaine, saith that this repugneth manifestlie to Ambrose. A verie true verdict, as a•ie man not blind may see by Ambrose wordes: And Bellarmin confesseth the same in effect, by passing it over insilence as ashamed of it. But others (sayth hee secondlie) doe aunswer that this authour speaketh of the Civil law, the law of Emperours: To weete, that by the Emperours Lawes it is lawfull for men, but not for women, ⟨p. 62⟩having put away their mate, to marrie another: and that Paul therefore least he should offend the Emperour bwould not say expressely. If a man put away his wife, let him abide so or be reconciled to his wife. Now Gratians second aunswer was no lesse worthy to have bene mentioned, then this ofc William Lindan, patched vp by Bellarmin. For thed civill law pronounceth the band of marriage to be loosed as well by divorcement as by death: and alloweth women to take other husbands, their former being put awaie, as it alloweth men to take others wives. So that it 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. Fore hee did expressely controll the Empero•rs law in saying of the wife. If shee depart from her husband, let her remaine vnmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And the authours wordes doe shewe that hee meant to speake, not of humaine lawes, but of divine:
ds •. D. de divort et. repud, • si ex lege ad legē sul de adul• l Consensus si constan •e c. de repudijs.s •. D. de divort et. repud, • si ex lege ad legē sul de adul• l Cōsensu• si constan •e c. de repudijs.
vndoubtedly of putting away for that cause, for which it is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another. And likewise for the wife, that he is an adulterer, who marrieth her being put away,
if shee be put away vnlawfully: considering that the marriage, which is not rightly broken off, continueth; and
⟨p. 49⟩
while the marriage doth continue, it is adulterie to marrie.
〈…〉 dimiss•m. Mane•e• mat•imoni quod non 〈…〉 d•ē pt▪ um est.
that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement. Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marrie another by Tertullians iudgment. Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen:
the Councel of Eliberis, ordained that a womā which forsooke her husband because of his adulterie & would marrie another, should be forbidden to marrie, & if shee married, shee should not receave the communion till hee were dead whō shee forsooke, vnlesse necessitie of sicknes cōstrayned to geve it her. Wherein it is to be noted, first that the Councell saith not.
If anieman, so to comprehend & touche generallie all both men & women: but they speake peculiaritie of the woman alone, & so doe not forbid the mā to leave his adulterous wife & marrie another.
Espēceus asketh what could have bene said more greivously against them by the impure
Vives pronounceth, that hee did not onely detest second marriages, but also had small liking of the first, nor did much favor matrimonie;
Who cōdemned second marrig•s Epiphan. •aerel. 59 •ugust •e hae resib cap. 38.
sIn August de civit. dei lib. 16. cap 34. The divines of Lovan in in their edition of Austen, printed at Antwerp and Paris have lest this sentence out beyond the prescript of index expurgatorius.In August de civit. dei lib. 16. cap 34. The divines of Lovan in in their ed•tiō of Austen, printed at Antwerp and Paris have lest this sentence out beyond the prescript of index expurgatorius.
sermon that Bellarmin quoteth vpon Mathew? Forsooth, that by Moses lawe it was permitted, that whosoever hated his wife for any cause, might put her away, and marry another in her roome:
the later by omitting mention of whordō, in spesifying the causes, for which if a womā depart frō her husbād shee must remaine vnmarried. Whereto (if Bellarmin neede more light to see it by) we may adde a third place:
date it in a publique solemne session thereof; Because neither was it debated in the Councell whether marriage after divorcement for adulterie were lawfull or no;
Epiphanius saith (his words are read corruptly, but the sense th•reof is plaine of our side, as
Covarruvias graunteth, Epiphanius therefore saith that Seperatiō being made for whoredo, a mā may take a secōd wife, or a woman a second husband. And the same avoucheth
Theodoret in effect, affirming that Christ hath sett downe one cause: whereby the band of Marriage should be dissolved, and wholy rent a sunder, in that hee did except whordom.
other countris, for why should not I name these of our professiō & faith amōg the Fathers as well as Bellarmin nameth the Popish councell of Trēt on the cōtrarie side? But the Papists (will some mā peradventure say, doe not graunt that all, whom you have rehearsed, were of this opiniō. But the Papists (I aunswer) doe graunt that sundrie of them were? and such as they graunt not, the light of truth & reason will either make them graunt, or shame them for denying it. As
Sixtus Senensis, namely doth deny that Hilarie and Chromantius allowe a man to marrie
⟨p. 60⟩
another wife after divorcement: or teach that hee is loosed from the band of matrimonie, while his former wife though an adulteresse liveth. Now weigh their owne wordes, & it will appeare that Sixtus iniurieth them therein. For
for any cause save for whor•dom, presume to marrie others, doe against the will of God, and are condemned. Wherein, with what sense could hee except whoredom, vnlesse he thought them guiltlesse, who having put away their wives for it doe marrie others? And
of ceasing from matrimony, but that; she weth that the band of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmēt. Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the vse thereof, for other causes: & the occasion and tenour of the speech doe argue that he meant of such a seperation as yeeldeth libertie of newe marriage. In like sorte, or rather more plainely and expressely did Pollentius holde and maintaine the same: As Austin (whom in this point hee dissented from) doth reporte and testifie.
lTyndale. on mat 5 Bucer. de regno Christ lib 2. ca 43. P Martyr in 1. cor. 7 Bea•on et?Tindal. on mat 5 Bucer. de regno Christ lib 2. ca 43. P Martyr in 1. cor. 7 Bea•on et?
mIn the confession of their faith pref.
nLuther inarrat. in mat. 5 et cor 7 conf Saxon in Harmon conf. sect. 18. art de conj. conf. wirtemb ibid hist. Magdeburg. cent. • li. 1 ca. •, Kennic exam, conc Trident part▪Luther inarrat. in mat. 5 et cor 7 conf Saxon in Harmō conf. sect. 18. art de conj. conf. wirtēb ibid hist. Mag deburg. cent. • li. 1 ca. •, Kēnic exam, conc Trident part▪
ocalvin Instit. Christianli▪ 4, ca. 19, ult. eccl. gall, in Harmou conf.calvin Instit. Christiāli▪ 4, ca. 19, ult. eccl. gall, in Harmou conf.
pEccl. Belg. in Harm. conf. Muscul in mat. 5. Bullin, decad. 2. serm, 10. Saeged in lacorcom de divor […]Eccl. Belg. in Harm. cōf. Muscul in mat. 5. Bullin, decad. 2. serm, 10. Saeged in lacorcom de divor 〈…〉
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 so: what errour so absurd that may not be defended by perverse wranglers? what cause so vniust, that vnrighteous iudges may not geve sentence with?
