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.
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. And
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 avoucheth
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 Epiphanius saith (his words are read corruptly, but the sense th•reof is plaine of our side, asa 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 avouchethb 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.
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.
of the sacred scripture whereupon he wrote, and what was thereby lawful. Which seemed so evident unto, fPeter Soto, gand Sixtus Senesis, andh the Roman Censors, who oversaw Pope Gregory the thirteenth new edition of the Cannon law, that they confess that Ambrose (meaning this author) doth approve plainly, certainly, undoubtedly, mens liberty of marrying again after divorcement. Bellarmin therefore coming in with his third answer. Yet saith he if these be not so well liked, it may be answered easily: that the author of those Commentaries is not Ambrose, nor any of the renowned Fathers, 4as learned men know. Thus at length this author, if men will not believe that his words are corrupted, or that he spake of the Civill law, shall be granted us with Bellarmins good leave: But then we shall be told that he is not Ambrose, nor any of the renowned Fathers as learned men know. And why could not Bellarmin answer this at first? Why was he so loath to grant that such an author, base, obscure of slender credit, maketh with us? Herein there lieth a mystery. There isi in this authors Commentaries a place, a5 piece of a sentence, which seemeth to speak for the Popes Supremacy: Though perhaps never written by this author, or not with that meaning, as I have showed elsewhere. ⟨p. 63⟩lBellarmin had cited that place for that in6 S. Ambrose his name: andm ma•ie make a feast thereof, as being sure S. Ambroses. Now if he should say, that the author of those Commentaries was neither Ambrose nor Saint: he should gainsay himself. And sith he was learned, when he did cite it so, and therefore knew (by his own words) that it was not Ambrose nor any of the renowned fathers who wrote it: men would see thereby, that he had for the Popes sake against his own knowledge, fathered on S, Ambrose that which is not his. No marvel then if Bellarmin came to this answer as a bear to the stake. At the which though he seem to cast us o•, by saying that the author was no renowned Father, and erred in mistaking S. Paul, as having given more liberty to men then women, whereof in due place afterward: yet in the mean season he is forced to grant that this ancient Father took it to be lawful for men to marry again after divorcement for adultery.
of the sacred scripture wherevpō he wrote, and what was thereby lawfull. Which seemed so evident vnto, fPeter Soto, gand• Sixtus Senesis, andh the Roman Censors, who oversaw Pope Gregorie the thirtenths new edition of the Cannon law, that they confesse that Ambrose (meaning this authour) doth aprove plainely, certainly, vndoubtely, mens liberty of marrying againe after divorcement. Bellarmin therefore comyng in with his third aunswer. Yet saith hee if these be not so well liked, it may be aunswered easilie: that the author of those Commentaries is not Ambrose, nor any of the renowned Fathers, 4as 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 be graunted vs with Bellarmins good leave: But then wee shall be tolde 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 so loath to graunt that such an authour, base, obscure of sclender credit, maketh with vs? Herein there lieth a mysterie. There isi in this authours Commentaries a place, a5 peece of a sentence, which seemeth to speake for the Popes Supremacie: Though perhaps never writen by this authour, or not with that meaning, as I have shewed elswhere. ⟨p. 63⟩lBellarmin had cited that place for that in6 S. Ambrose his name: andm ma•ie make a feast thereof, as being sure S. Ambroses. Now if hee should saie, that the authour of those Cō mentaries was neither Ambrose nor Saint: hee should gainsaie himself. And sith hee was learned, when hee did cite it so, and therefore knewe (by his owne words) that it was not Ambrose nor anie of the renowned fathers who writt it: men would see thereby, that hee had for the Popes sake against his owne knowledg, fathered on S, Ambrose that which is not his. No marveil then if Bellarmin came to this aunswere as a beare to the stake. At the which though hee seeme to cast vs o, by saying that the authour was no renowned Father, and erred in mistaking S. Paul, as having geven more libertie to men then womē, wherof in due place afterward: yet in the meane season hee is forced to graunt that this auncient Father tooke it to be lawfull for men to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie.
fInstit sacerd ca de Matrim Lect. 3.
gBiblioth sare lib. 6. annot 8
hAnnot. in cap. wot. a uro. 32. 97.Annot. in cap. v•ot. a vro. 32. 97.
4Quod er•di•i non ignorant.
iIn epist. 1. ad Tim cap. 3.
5Cujushodie •actor est Da••••.
lTo. 2. conte. • lib. 1 cap 6.
6Beatus Ambrosius where by he meaneth famous Ambrose, bishop of M••ā as the quotations following show.Beatus Ambrosius where by he meneth famous Ambrose, byshop of M••ā as the quotatiōs following shew.
mThe English college of Rheimes. Annot. on 1. tim. 3. 15
The sundry evasions and shifts whereby the Papists have laboured to wrest the credit of this one •ather out of our hands, do give me occasion to suspect that they will wrangle much more to withdraw from us the first Council of Arles 7being more ancient in time, in credit greater, and (asn one of themselves doth probably conjecture) confirmed by the Pope also. Hereunto the Councels wishing of certain persons not to marry in the case we treat of might serve them for a colour in as much aso it saith concerning them whose wives are taken in adultery, that if they be young men and forbidden to marry,8 advise should be given them, as much as may be not to take other wives while the former live, though adulteresses. But this giving of advise is in truth an argument that the council judged a man no adulterer, if he took another wife. Else would they have given not advise and counsel, but charge and commandment to refrain from it; and (as it is likely) restrained mens transgression therein with sharp discipline, specially consideringp they punish lesser faults with excommunication. Neither it is nothing that they temper also this counsel and advise to be given such, with9 as much as may be. And a further circumstance yet of more importance, they make not this restraint for all men, but for7 young men: ⟨p. 64⟩nor for all young men, but such as are forbidden to marry: meaning (as it seemeth) those who being under the care of their parents were by them forbidden, & could not honestly disobey. For had not this respect or the like moved the Fathers of the Council, why should they have restrained such young men & not other? Nay, why only young men, not rather men, not aged men, or them also? Sith inq Scripture elder women are chosen to be widows, and younger willed to marry. Our adversaries therefore must yield that the Council of Arles is of our side for the point in question. Whereto they shall have greater reason to induce them, if they note with all that the rCouncil of Vans in the same country,2 the age following made this canon. We appoint and ordain, that they who having l•ft their wives, except for whoredom (as it is said in the Gospel) or upon proof made of adultery, marry others, shall be excommunicated; Least 3sins being suffered by our too much gentleness do provoke other men to looseness of transgressing.
The sundrie evasions and shifts whereby the Papists have laboured to wrest the credit of this one •ather out of our hādes, doe geve mee occasion to suspect that they will wrangle much more to withdraw from vs the first Councell of Arles 7being more auncient in time, in credit greater, and (asn one of themselves doth probably coniecture) confirmed by the Pope also. Herevnto the Councels wishing of certaine persons not to marrie in the case wee treat of might serve them for a colour in as much aso it saith concerning them whose wives are taken in adulterie, that if they be yong men and forbidden to marrie,8 advise should be given them, as much as may be not to take other wives while the former live, though adulteresses. But this giving of advise is in truth an argument that the councell iudged a man no adulterer, 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, spetially consideringp they punish lesser faults with excommunication. Neither it is nothing that they temper also this counsail and advise to be geven such, with9 as much as may be. And a farder circumstance yet of more importance, they make not this restraint for all men, but for7 yong men: ⟨p. 64⟩nor for all yong mē, but such as are forbidden to marrie: meaning (as it seemeth) those who being vnder the care of their parents were by them forbidden, & could not honestlie disobey. For had not this respect or the like moved the Fathers of the Councell, why should they have restrained such yong men & not other? Nay, why onelie yong men, not rather men, not aged men, or them also? Sith inq Scripture elder women are chosen to be widowes, and yonger willed to marrie. Our adversaries therefore must yeeld that the Councell 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
7Held in Constantins time about the year• of Christ. 3•0
nBart caran•• in somma con ciliorum.Bart caran•• in somma cō ciliorum.
And this decree I find not any of the Papists that goeth about to shift of▪ Neither can I see how they may possibly: The Council expounding so plainly Christs words of marriage forbidden after divorcement unless it be for whoredom, and accounting marriage after such divorcement not a lesser sin, but no sin at all, as the reason added for strength of their decree showeth, Now for the next, the general Council assembled in the Emperors palace of Constantinople which made the like decree and taught the same doctrine, as I have declared: Bellarmin would persuade us (upon other occasions touching Popery nearer the quick, then this doth) that the western Bishops neither gave countenance thereto with their presence, nor approved the Canons thereof with their consent. To this end he denieth that the said Council was a general Council, & striveth in hiss third controversy to answer some of our reasons which confirm it. But he easeth us of pains to fifth his answers by means that himself in thet fourth controversy, discoursing of general councils purposely, doth reckon it amongst them. For as inv mens laws when they are repugnant one unto another, the later derogateth from the former: so (I trow) when Bellarmin doth contradict himself, his last word must hold. And the more reason it should so in ⟨p. 65⟩this, because bothx Pope Adrian the first of ancient time did call it the sixth Council, declaring thereby he took it to be one of the General Councils whereof he termed it the sixth, and iny the seventh general Council sundry Fathers alleged it by the name of the sixth General, & avouched it to be justly called so. Which sentence of theirs being not controlled by any of that Council, and thez Council it self afterward approving the decrees and Canons of the six general Councils: it is very probable that the western churches yielding their con sent to the seventh Council, and taking it for sound, accounted (asa the Eastern still have done & do) that which they entitled the sixth to be General. Specially seeing that in the West, men of great creditb Ivo andc Gratian andd Pope Innocentius the third and their disciples, the whole school of Canonists have on those authorities of the seventh Council made like reckoning of it.
And this decree I finde not anie of the Papists that goeth about to shift of▪ Neither can I see how they may possiblie: The Councell expounding so plainely Christes wordes of marriage forbidden after divorcement vnlesse it be 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 Con••antinople 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, then this doth) that the western Byshops neither gave countenaun•e thereto with their presence, nor approved the Canons thereof with their consent. To this end hee denieth that the said Councell was a generall Councell, & striveth in hiss third controversie to aunswer some of our reasons which confirme it. But hee easeth vs of paines to fift his aunsweres by meanes that himself in thet fourth cōtroversie, discoursing of generall councels purposelie, doth reckē it amongst thē. For as inv mēs lawes whē they are repugnāt one vnto another, the later derogateth frō the former: so (I trow) when Bellarmin doth contradict himself, his last word must hold. And the more reasō it should so in ⟨p. 65⟩this, because bothx Pope Adrian the first of auncient tyme did call it the sixth Councell, declaring thereby hee tooke it to be one of the Gēeral Coūcels whereof he tearmed it the sixth, and iny the seaventh generall Councell sūdry Fathers alleaged it by the name of the sixth Generall, & avouched it to bee iustly called so. Which sentence of theirs being not controled by any of that Councell, and thez Councell it self afterwarde approving the decrees and Canons of the sixe generall Councels: it is verie probable that the western churches yeelding their cō sent to the seavēth Coūcel, and taking it for sound, accounted (as
sDe Ro. pont, lib. 2. cap. 27
tDe eccles mi lit. lib. 1. cap 7
vl. fin, D. de constitut princip•m.
xlib. 1 d• imaginib. ad Carol Magn c•p. 35 post N••caen synod 2. et ejus synod•act 2.
And although our younger papists for the most part and some of the elder, perceiving what advantage may be taken thence against many grounds of popery, do cross their predecessors herein with4 silly reasons, such as where of the b•st would infer more forcibly that their Council of Trent was no General Council: yet among them also there are who allow the ancient opinion, ase Caranza namely, and Genebrard and Surius, with whose preface tending to the proof thereof it is recommended & published by papists in the two 5 perfitst and last editions of the Councils. Wherefore whether any of the West were present in person, or by deputies,g and subscribed to it which 9 Balsamon andh Nilus, learned Greek Fathers avouch by old records; or whether it were celebrated by Eastern bishops only, as thei second General Council also was in the same City of Constantinople the consent of the west approving it for General averreth my sayings by a cloud of witnesses of the western Churches. Pope Gregory the third followeth, kHe granteth that if a woman by reason of sickness wherewith she were taken could not perform the duty of a wise to her husband, her husband might put her away and marry another. More then by the doctrine of Christ he had learned to grant for any sickness: but so much the likelier that he ⟨p. 66⟩thought it should be granted for whoredom expressly mentioned by Christ. Whereuponl Joverius a Sorbonist in a work approved by Sorbonists, matcheth his Canon with the like of Councils, who gave the Innocent party leave to marry again after divorcement, while the other lived. Neither doth Bellarmin deny the illation, but the proposition, which the point inferred is grounded upon. For the Doctors (saith he mean ing the Canonists) expound the Canon of such sickness as maketh a woman unfit for Marriage: and so is an impediment dissolving matrimony contracted, by showing it was no true matrimony. But the Doctor of Doctorsm Gratian himself understood it otherwise; of sickness befalling to her, who was an able wife. And those his gloss writers use most that exposition which Bellarmin would have us receive for authentic as the fittest salve; yet rest nthey not upon it. Ando Antonius a great Canonist: Archbishop of Florence correcting Gratians slip of memory for the persons, concludeth with him for the matter.
And although our yonger papists for the most parte and some of the elder, perceyving what advantage may be taken thence agaynst many grounds of popery, doe crosse their predecessours herein with4 seely reasons, such as where of the b•st would inferre more forceablie that their Councell of Trent was no Generall Councel: yet amōg thē also there are who allowe the auncient opinyon, ase Caranza namely, andf Genebrard and Surius, with whose preface tēding to the proofe therof it is recommended & published by papists in the two 5 perfitst and last editions of the Councels. Wherefore whether anye of the West were present in person, or by deputyes,g and subscribed to it which 9 Balsamon andh Nilus, learned Greeke Fathers avouch by olde records; or whether it were celebrated by Eastern byshops onely, as thei second Generall Councell also was in the same City of Constantinople the consent of the west approving it for Generall averreth my sayings by a cloude of witnesses of the western Churches. Pope Gregory the third followeth, kHee graunteth that if a woman by reason of sicknesse wherewith shee were taken could not performe the duty of a wise to her husband, her husband might put her away and marrie another. More then by the doctrine of Christ hee had learned to graunt for any sicknes: but so much the likelyer that he ⟨p. 66⟩thought it should bee graunted for whoredom expressely mentioned by Christ. Wherevponl Ioverius a Sorbonist in a worke approved by Sorbonists, matcheth his Canon with the like of Councels, who gave the Innocent partie leave to marrie againe after divorcement, while the other lived. Neither doth Bellarmin denye the illation, but the proposition, which the poynt inferred is grounded vpon. For the Doctors (sayth hee meā ing the Canonists) expound the Canon of such sicknesse as maketh a woman vnfitt for Marriage: and so is an impediment disolving matrymonye contracted, by shewing it was no true matrimonye. But the Doctor of Doctors
4Urged by Bellarmin of Canus etc. lib. 2. de Rom pont cap. •7.Vrged by Bellarmin of Canus etc. lib. 2. de Rom pont cap. •7.
eIn summa conciliorū, chronograph. lib. 3. conciliorū con stantinopolitanum finitur sub Justinian. Rhinotmeto colectis 227, episcopis in eius palatio. The one of coolen in tō • the other at Venice in 5.In sūma cōciliorū, chrōograph. lib. 3. cōciliorū cō stātinopolitanum finitur sub Iustinian. Rhinotmeto colectis 227, episcopis in eius palatio. The one of coolen in tō • the other at Venice in 5.
nvel intellige vel dic. In c quod proposuisti verbo
oHist, part 2, tit. • Ca. 1, quamvis. where he nameth Englshmē in stead of Germans, & Gregory the 1. instead of Gregory the 3 or 2, as Antonins took it.
And the flower of Lovanq Tapper, the Chancellor of their viniversity, approveth this of Antonius. Andr the learned men who were over-seers of the last edition of the Councils do witness by controlling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not'6 that Gregory meant of sickness happening unto lawful wives in their judgement And the Pope himself (ass Bellarmin noteth else where) declareth that he took it to be true matrimony, by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of aid, that is, ought to maintain, & find her as his wife still. Wherefore if no Catholic bishop would imagine that a man may lawfully put away his sick wife, and marry another, unless he thought the same much more to be lawful in an adulterous wife, as we are to presume: then must the Papists by consequent acknowledge that the point in Question is proved and allowed by Gregory the third. A plainer and directer allowance thereof, appeareth in a Canon of his successor t Zechariah, who when a certain man had defiled himself incestuously with his wives sister, granted that his wife should be divorced from him: and (unless she were privy to that wicked act by counselling or procuring it) might marry in the Lord if she could not contain. This so clear a testimony of an7 ancient Pope ⟨p. 67⟩authorizing the divorced woman to marry, Bellarmin would elude, by saying that he meant she might marry another, after the former husbands death. As who say, the Pope enjoining the8 man and the whore for a punishment to stay and abide without hope of marriage, were likely to mean by liberty of marrying granted the guiltless for a benefit, that while the guilty lived, who might overlive her, she should not marry no more then he. Or as though there had been need for the Pope then to grant it with exception,9 If she will not contain Let her marry in the Lord. Whereby it seemeth that he rather wished her to refrain from marriage, if she might be induced thereto, which he had no cause to wish on this occasion after the mans death, she being v then simply free,u and willed to marry xsuch might her age be. But what do I reason out of the circumstances in a thing so certain and clear of it self, that although they great masters whom Bellarmin alleged before & followed here, have assayed to darken the light thereof by this mist:z
And the flower of Lovanq Tapper, the Chauncelour of their viniversity, approveth this of Antonius. Andr the learned men who were over-seers of the last edition of the Councels doe witnesse by cōtrolling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not'6 that Gregory meant of sickenesse happ•ning vnto lawfull wives in their iudgement And the Pope himselfe (ass Bellarmin noteh els where) declareth that hee tooke it to bee true matrymonie, by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of ayde, that is, ought to maynteyne, & 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 bee lawfull in an adulterous wife, as wee are to presume: then must the Papists by consequent acknowledg that the poynt in Question is prooved and allowed by Gregory the third. A playner and directer allowance thereof, appeareth in a Canon of his successor t Zacharie, who whē a certayne man had defiled himself incestiously with his wives sister, graunted that his wife should be divorced from him: and (vnlesse shee were privie to that wicked act by counsayling or procuring it) might marry in the Lord if shee could not conteine. This so cleare a testimony of an7 auncient Pope ⟨p. 67⟩authorizing the divorced woman to marrie, Bellarmin would elude, by saying that hee meant shee might marrie another, after the former husbands death. As who say, the Pope inioyning the8 man and the whore for a punishment to stay and abyde without hope of mariage, were likly to meāe by liberty of marriyng 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 the Pope then to graunt it with exception,9 If she will not conteine Let her marrie in the Lord. Whereby it seemeth that hee rather wished her to refrayne from marriage, if shee might be induced thereto, which hee had no cause to wish on this occasion after the mans death, she being v then simply free,
qExplicat articul. Lovan. art. 19.
rConcilior, Tō. 3. annotat mar. ad liunc locum,Cōcilior, Tō. 3. annotat mar. ad liūc locum,
6Istuc he die ecclesiae non servat.
sTom 1 cont 3 lib. 4 Cap 12. 3. q•. c. concubuisti.
7About the year of Christ 740About the yeare of Christ 740
8Sinespe con jugij permane atis.Sinespe cō jugij permane atis.
9Size continere non vult.Si se continere nō vult.
yet Sixtus Senensis confesseth that Pope Zechariah decreed that the women if she would not contain, should marry another husband while the former lived. It is true that Sixtus seeketh to help the matter another way somewhat, by yoking the Pope with provincial Councils: who (he saith) allowed & decreed it, not by a general and perpetual ordinance, but for a time, & to certain nations; & that in such heinous crimes as incest only, But will the Papists stand to this doctrine, that the Popes decrees bind not all nations generally, nor are perpetually to last? Then must they acknowledge (which would touch the Papacy & Popery very nearly) that the Popes supremacy is falsely pretended, he hath his certain limits as Metropolitans have: and some will reason also that the laws of Popes were to last for a time until Luther rose, but for a time only, there date is out now. As for the crime of incest, whereupon the Pope allowed the innocent party to put away her husband and to marry another: that confirmeth rather the point in Question then disproveth it. For he had no warrant to allow this by, but oura Saviours doctrine forbidding such divorcement, except it were for whoredom: so that he might not have granted it for incest, unless he had thought it lawful for adultery; ⟨p. 68⟩bNeither did he consider the crime but as comprised under adultery too: Whereof (in a general sense meant by the 6law) incest is a kind. And therefore in speaking of her with whom the detestable act was committed, he termed her1 the Adulteress not the incestuous person. Thus it is apparent, that in this matter Pope Zechariah was no papist. No more was the Council of c Worms which showed their judgment to the like effect to wit, that a man who could prove his wife to have been of counsel with such as sought his death, might put her away and marry another if he would. Presuming that belike, which they might justly, as2 examples teach us, that she was nought of her body with some of the conspiracy. For else had the Council expressly authorized the same thatd Christ condemn neth, if for any other cause then for adultery they had allowed the man to marry. Thereforee Covaruvias reckoneth3 up this Council among them who held that a man having lawfully put away his wife for her whoredom, might take another while she lived.
yet Sixtus Senensis confesseth that Pope Zachary decreed that the women if shee would not conteine, should marry another husband while the former lived. It is true that Sixtus seeketh to helpe the matter another way somwhat, by yoking the Pope with provinciall Councels: who (hee sayth) allowed & decreed it, not by a generall and perpetuall ordinance, but for a tyme, & to certaine nations; & that in such heynous crymes as incest onely, But will the Papists stand to this doctrine, that the Popes decrees bynde not al nations generally, nor are perpetually to last? Thē must they acknowledg (which would touch the Papacie & Popery verry neerely) that the Popes supremacie is falsly pretended, hee hath his certeyn limits as Metropolitanes have: and some will reason also that the lawes of Popes were to last for a tyme vntil Luther rose, but for a tyme onely, there date is out now. As for the cryme of incest, wherevpon the Pope allowed the innocent partie to put away her husband and to marrie another: that confirmeth rather the poynt in Question then disproveth it. For hee had no warrant to allow this by, but oura Saviours doctrine forbidding such divorcement, except it were for whoredom: so that he might not have graunted it for incest, vnlesse hee had thought it lawfull for adulterie; ⟨p. 68⟩bNeither did hee consider the cryme but as comprised vnder adulterie too: Whereof (in a generall sense meant by the 6law) incest is a kinde. And therefore in speaking of her with whom the detestable act was committed, hee tearmed her1 the Adulteresse not the incestious person. Thus it is apparant, that in this matter Pope Zacharie was no papist. No more was the Councel of c Wormes which shewed their iudgment to the like effect to weet, that a man who could prove his wife to have been of counsail with such as sought his death, might put her away and marry another if hee would. Presuming that belike, which they might iustely, as2 examples teach vs, that shee was nought of her body with some of the conspiracie. For els had the Councell expressely authorized the same thatd Christ condē neth, if for any other cause then for adulterie they had allowed the man to marrie. Thereforee
Yet a certain Spanish Friar named Raymund, one of Pope Gregory the ninths special State-men, the compiler of his Decretals, fwould avoid it also after Gratians manner, by false exposition as if the Council had meant, a man might take another wife after the death of the former. To the more effectual persuading whereof, that questionless they meant so: he useth a special trick of popish cunning. For, making show of registering the Councels own decr•e, in steed of those words4 He may put away his wife and marry another, if he will: the Friar setteth down these5 He may after his wives death marry another, if he will. And whereas the Council had said,6 as we think, which words had been absurdly put in, if they had meant after his wives death he might marry another, a thing agreed on and undoubted: The Friar (as thieves are wont to deface and suppress the marks of things which they have stolen, least they be taken thereby) leaveth that clear out. But by the mouth of two witnessesg Burchardus Bishop of worms, andh Gratian or7 Palea, both elder then the Friar, and from whom of likelihood he received this Canon of the Council of Worms his false and irreligious dealing is bewrayed. Whereto may the confession of the third be added, though in years younger, yet ⟨p. 69⟩greater in credit for things against Papists, himself a popish Doctor and burning light of Paris, i Joverius I mean: who saith of that Council, that it allowed the innocent party to marry again after divorcement, the other being yet alive. And the Council it self maketh further proof that they are not unjustly charged by Joveruis and Covariuvias with this judgement.
Yet a certaine Spanish Frier named Raymund, one of Pope Gregory the nynthes speciall State-men, the compiler of his Decretals, fwould avoyd it also after Gratians manner, by false exposition as if the Councell had meant, a man might take another wife after the death of the former. To the more effectuall perswading whereof, that questionlesse they meant so: hee vseth a speciall trick of popish cunning. For, making shewe of registering the Councels owne decr•e, in steed of those wordes4 Hee may put away his wife and marry another, if he will: the Frier setteth downe these5 Hee may after his wives death marrie annother, if hee will. And whereas the Councell had sayd,6 as we thinke, which wordes had bene absurdely put in, if they hadd meant after his wives death hee might marrie another, a thing agreed on and vndoubted: The Frier (as theeves are wont to deface and suppresse the markes of things which they have stolen, least they be taken thereby) leaveth that cleare out. But by the mouth of two witnessesg Burchardus Byshop of wormes, andh Gratian or7 Palea, both elder then the Frier, and from whom of likelyhod hee receaved this Canon of the Councell of Wormes his false and irreligious dealing is bewrwayed. Whereto may the confession of the third bee added, though in years yonger, yet ⟨p. 69⟩greater in credit for things agaynst Papists, himself a popish Doctor and burning light of Paris, i Ioverius I meane: who sayth of that Councell, that it allowed the innocent partye to marrie agayne after divorcemēt, the other being yet alive. And the Councell it self maketh farder proofe that they are not vniustely charged by Ioveruis and Covariuvias with this iudgemēt.
fcap. Si qua mu. ser extra de divortijs,
4Potest ipsā uxorem digit tere e., si vosuerit al••m ducare•Potest ipsā uxorem di•it tere e., si vosuerit al••m ducare•
5Potest ipse potest axoris li voluer•t alid ducere
6Ut vobis videtur.Vt vobis videtur.
gDere•or. lib 6. cap. 41.
h•i, ua mul•e• 3. q. 1.
7[…] it were a Cardinal or other author soe named: as they who wrote the notes on Gratian of Gregory the 13 edition al•ag out of sundry lawyers that it was praesoliū lect sacer ec•lessiast. class. sect • praemō it. de Can. Conc apud Vermer.〈…〉 it were a Cardinal or other author soe named: as they who wrote the notes on Gratian of Gregorie the 13 editiō al•ag out of sūdry lawiers that it was praesoliū lect sacer ec•lessiast. class. sect • praemō it. de Can. Conc apud Vermer.
For if any man had committed wickedness with his daughter in law, the daughter of his wife by her former husband:k they agreed that he should keep neither of them: but his wife might marry another if she would, if she could not contain and if she had not carnal company with him, after that she knew of his adultery with her daughter. The last clause whereof showeth that they meant of liberty granted her to take another husband while the former lived: sith it cannot be thought with reason, but they judged she might take another the former b•ing d•ad: though she had continued with him as his wife, after she knew of his adultery. Thel Council of Tribur did maintain the same: ordaining that if any committed villainy with his mother in law, her husband may take another wife if he will, if he cannot contain: and the like order is to be observed, if with his daughter in law or his wives sister. Bellarmin like them painter, who being good at portraying of a Cypress tree, when one gave him money to draw and represent a shipwreck in a table asked if he would have a Cypress in, despairing to do ought worth perhaps, unless that helped: saith that all such Canons (all not only this of the Triburian Council) are understood of marriage granted to the innocent party after the death of the former wife or husband. An answer no fitter for this and all such Canons, then a Cypress tree is for a shipwreck, as those of Pope Zechariah & the Council of worms the former whereof he garnisheth also with this Cypress tree, do argue. For the same reasons which proved Zacharies Can on to be meant of the woman's marriage while the man lived, prove the Council of Triburs to be likewise meant of of the mans in the woman's life-time. The punishment inflicted therein 8on the offenders do equally enlarge the benefit to the Innocent. The9 exception added to the enlargement, is stronger: implying they would have him stay unmarried rather, if he can contain. The testimony of n Sixtus is all one for both: neither ⟨p. 70⟩doth the quality of the crime of incest more infringe the argument here then it did there. And this extenuation that the Council being a provincial Council ordained it for men of their own province, and for that time only, increaseth the authority thereof, if the precious be severed from the vile, the truth from the falsehood.
For if any man had committed wickednesse with his daughter in lawe, the daughter of his wife by her former husband:k they agreed that hee should keepe neither of thē: but his wife might marrie another if shee would, if shee could not conteyne and if shee had not carnall company with him, after that she knew of his adulterie with her daughter. The last clause whereof sheweth that they ment of liberty graunted her to take another husband while the former lived: sith it cannot be thought with reason, but they iudged shee might take another the former b•ing d•ad: though shee had continnued with him as his wife, after shee knew of his adulterie. Thel Councell of Tribur did maynteyne the same: ordeyning that if any committed vilany with his mother in law, her husband may take another wife if hee will, if hee cannot conteine: and the like order is to bee observed, if with his daughter in law or his wives sister. Bellarmin like them paynter, who being good at purtraing of a Cypresse tree, when one gave him money to draw and represent a shipwrack in a table asked if hee would have a Cypresse in, dispairing to doe ought worth perhaps, vnlesse that helped: saith that all such Canons (all not onely this of the Triburian Councell) are vnderstood of marriage graunted to the innocent party after the death of the former wife or husband. An answer no fitter for this and all such Canons, then a Cypresse tree is for a shipwrack, as those of Pope Zachary & the Councell of wormes the former whereof hee garnisheth also with this Cypresse tree, doe argue. For the same reasons which proved Zacharies Can on to bee meant of the womans marriage while the man lived, prove the Councel of Triburs to bee likewise meant of of the mans in the womans life-tyme. The punishment inflicted therein 8on the offēders doe equally enlarge the benifit to the Innocent. The9 exception added to the enlargemēt, is stronger: implying they would have him staye vnmarried rather, if he can conteyne. The testimonye of n Sixtus is all one for both: neither ⟨p. 70⟩doth the quallity of the cryme of incest more infringe the argument heere then it did there. And this extenuation that the Councell beeng a provinciall Councell ordeined it for men of their owne province, and for that tyme onely, encreaseth the authority thereof, if the precious bee severed from the vile, the truth from the falshood.
kcap 10. Butchard. lib. 17. cap. 10.
l32. p. 7. c. fi Quis cum No verca.
mHorat de arte Poet.
8Neuter ad conjugiū potest pervenireNeuter ad cōjugiū potest pervenire
9si se continere non potestsi se cōtinere non potest
For why affirmeth he that they did ordain it for that time only? The form of their decree touching 1all generally that should offend so, not some particular person, who presently had; they speaking of the thing as2 lawful in it self, and3 to be observed alike in like cases; their making ofo other Canons to that effect: yeap another Council also peradventure, & no limitation of time in any of them; do persuade the contrary. Now, whereas they ordained it for men of their own province, their modesty was the greater: who did not take upon them as Popes to make laws for men of all nations, but looked as Bishops to their own dioceses. And the greater modesty, the liker toq Christ, and the better to be liked ofr Christians, the more reverence to bes heard with, and their judgment had in greater estimation. Beside that, this self-same decree of theirs was established also byt the Council of Worms.
For why affirmeth hee that they did ordeyn it for that tyme onely? The forme of their decree touching 1all generally that should offend so, not some particular person, who presently had; they speaking of the thinge as2 lawfull in it self, and3 to bee observed alike in like cases; their makinge ofo other Canons to that effect: yeap another Councel also peradventure, & no limitatiō of tyme in any of them; doe persuade the contrarie. Now, whereas they ordeyned it for men of their owne province, their modesty was the greater: who did not take vpon them as Popes to make lawes for men of all nations, but looked as Byshops to their owne diosaes. And the greater modesty, the liker toq Christ, and the better to be liked ofr Christians, the more reverence to bes heard with, and their iudgmēt had in greater estimation. Beside that, this self-same decree of theirs was establyshed also byt the Councell of Wormes.
1Si quis dormie• it
2Potest for id •ossumus qu•d •ureposssu•us
3Sim literob se•andū est.Sim literob se•andū est.
Andu at that time Pipinus (King of France, and of a great part of Germany) was present. Who as he did keep a general assembly of his people4 there: so by all likelihood called Bishops thither out of his whole realm, to make decrees for the whole. A province of such largeness, thatx Councils consisting of Bishops assembled, out of no greater, have been termed General: and worthily (asy Bellarmin confesseth) in comparison of Provincial Councils commonly so called, wherein there were not Bishops of a whole Nation or Realm. Thus Sixtus by striving to lessen & diminish the credit of the canon of the council of Tribur, hath given us occasion to make the more of it: considering on the one side the modesty of the Bishops who were assembled there, and made decrees for their province; on the other the Province which that decree was made for, so large that all the Provinces of Italy cannot match it, though they were linked in one. Had it not been better for him, with out this Rhetoric to say directly and flatly asz Joverius doth, that the Council of Tribur made the like decree to the Council ⟨p. 71⟩of worms, which now the Church (he meaneth the Popish Church) receiveth not? whether any Papist will take exception against the Council of Mascon,a which allowed likewise a certain man, whose wife had been deflowered by his brother before he wedded her to put her away and marry another it may be we shall know hereafter. But unto a Council that made another such decree, asb Gratian showeth alleging it without name, Bellarmin taketh two exceptions: one, that it is lost; the other of the Cypress tree. Touching the former, not as much as the name thereof (saith he) is extant: therefore it might be easily contemned & set at nought. Why? Is it therefore worse then all that have names, because it is nameless? Then havec many Cardinals with other learned reverent men been much to blame, for writing so of Rome as if it had a number of wicked lewd profane in-habitants. For by there report the Romans having every one a name or two, should be worse for the most part, then were the Atlantes, a people of Africa, whomd Diodorus Siculus commendeth very highly for Godliness and Humanity, yet non of them had any name,e Herodotus saith. Or if this be a fable, asf Pliny seemeth rather to think, and well it may be;
Andu at that tyme Pipinus (King of Fraunce, and of a great parte of Germany) was present. Who as hee did keep a generall assembly of his people4 there: so by all likelyhoode called Byshops thither out of his whole realme, to make decrees for the whole. A province of such largenesse, thatx Councells cō sisting of Byshops assembled, out of no greater, have bene tearmed Generall: and woorthely (asy Bellarmin confesseth) in comparison of Provinciall Councells commonly so called, wherin there were not Byshops of a whole Nation or Realme. Thus Sixtus by striving to lessen & diminish the credit of the canō of the coūcel of Tribur, hath givē vs occasiō to make the more of it: cōsidering on the one side the modestie of the Byshops who were assembled there, and made decrees for their province; on the other the Province which that decree was made for, so large that all the Provinces of Italie cannot match it, though they were lincked in one. Had it not bene better for him, with out this Retorique to say directly and flattly asz Ioverius doth, that the Councell of Tribur made the like decre to the Councell ⟨p. 71⟩of wormes, which now the Church (hee meaneth the Popish Church) receyveth not? whether any Papist wil take excptiō agaynst the Councell of Mascon,a 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 hereafter. But vnto a Councell that made another such decree, asb Gratian sheweth alleaging it without name, Bellarmin taketh two exceptions: one, that it is lost; the other of the Cypresse tree. Touching the former, not as much as the name thereof (sayth hee) is extant: therefore it might be easily contemned & sett at nought. Why? Is it therefore worse then all that have names, because it is namelesse? Then havec manye Cardinals with other learned reverent men bene much to blame, for writing so of Rome as if it had a number of wicked lewd prophane in-habitants. 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
u•9. 42. c. Si quis in genuus
4In wormatia civita•e Almein de gestis Francor. lib. 4. cap 66.
xConcil Carthag 4. et Milevet in […] conc. African. Epist. ad Celestin Conc Tolet 3. cap. 18Concil Carthag 4. et Milevet in 〈…〉 conc. African. Epist. ad Celestin Cōc Tolet 3. cap. 18
yet is it most certain that • Plutarch recordeth as grave and wise sayings of Lacedaemonians without names, as of any whose names are known. And Bellarmin (I trust) will grant that in the scriptures there is no less account to be made of the book of Joshua, then of Nehemiah, of Job, than of the Proverbs: though their names who wrote the one be not set down, as theirs who wrote the other. But he will say perhaps that of this Council not only the name is unknown, but also the work it self lost. And what if it be? were noth those of Varro's works, which we have not, as learned as the work5 of Floccus which we have? Of Tully, of Polybius, of Livy, Dio, Tacitus, of infinite writers more, are there not as good books lost, as there are extant.i The same hath fallen out in Ecclesiastical authors specially in Councils: whereof a great many are not to be found: as they who by occasion of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals, have diligently searched through the chiefest libraries of Europe, do note. And a certain famous and ancient Council of Ments ⟨p. 72⟩being commended and praised above the other, byk Tretenius and Surius, 5who wisheth he might have gotten it to be published, showeth that some extant, are not to be compared with some that are lost, wherefore Bellarmins former exception to the Council that it is not extant, no nor the name of it, was not worth the naming. The latter that the Councels Canon was meant of Marriage after the former wives death: is like to prove as false as the proof thereof is frivolous and fond. For mthese are the words of the Canon: A certain woman lay with her husbands brother: it is decreed the adulterers shall never be Married: but lawful Marriage shall be granted unto him, whose wife the villainy was wrought with. Which words are well expounded (saith Bellarmin) by the Doctors, and their meaning gathered nout of the like Canon following a little after: wherein it is ordained, that When the adulterous wife is deceased, her man may marry whom he will; but her self the adulteress may not marry at all, no not her husband being dead. Gratian in deed, and the Gloss-writers on him (the Doctores meant by Bellarmin) doth them wrong in saying they expound it rightly.
yet is it most certayne that • Plutarch recordeth as grave and wise sayings of Lacedemonyans without names, as of any whose names are known. And Bellarmin (I trust) will graunt that in the scriptures there is no lesse account to be made of the booke of Ioshua, then of Nehemias, of Iob, thē of the Proverbs: though their names who wrote the one bee not sett downe, as theirs who wrote the other. But hee will say perhaps that of this Councell not onely the name is vnknowen, but also the worke it selfe lost. And what if it be? were noth those of Varroes workes, which wee have not, as learned as the worke5 of Floccus which wee have? Of Tullie, of Polybius, of Livie, Dio, Tacitus, of infinite writers more, are there not as good bookes lost, as there are extant.i The same hath fallen out in Eclesiasticall authors specially in Councels: whereof a great many are not to be found: as they who by occasion of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals, have dilligently searched through the chiefest liberaaies of Europe, doe note. And a certaine famous and aunciēt Councel of Ments ⟨p. 72⟩beeing commended and praised above the other, byk Tretenius and Surius, 5who wisheth hee might have gotten it to be publyshed, sheweth that some extant, are not to 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 Councels Canon was meant of Marriage after the former wives death: is lyke to prove as false as the profe thereof is frivolous and fond. For mthese are the words of the Canon: A certaine woman laye with her husbands brother: it is decreed the adulterers shall never bee Married: but lawfull Marriage shalbe graunted vnto him, whose wife the vilenie was wrought with. Which words are well expounded (saith Bellarmin) by the Doctors, and their meaning gathered nout of the like Canon following 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 adulteresse 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.
hde civit, Del lib 9, cap 2
5Dominicus Floceus Floren tinus ser forth under the nam of L […] & sacerd tis RomainisDominicus Floceus Floren tinus ser forth vnder the nam of L 〈…〉 & sacerd tis Romainis
iThe writers of the Notes on Gregories ed•tion-xtra de & qui c•gn consangu uxoris suae, •si quis verbo Metiam.
kchro monast. hirsan•g.chro mōast. hirsan•g.
5• concilior. rom 3 post syuod. Mogunt sub Rubano.• cōcilior. rom 3 post syuod. Mogūt sub Rubano.
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?
the age following made this canon. Wee appoint and ordeine, that they who having l•ft their wives, except for whoredom (as it is said in the Gospel) or vpon proofe made of adulterie, marrie others, shalbe excommunicated; Least
Pope Innocentius the third and their disciples, the whole schoole of Cannonists have on those authorityes of the seaventh Councell made like reckoning of it.
Gratian himself vnderstood it otherwise; of sicknsse befalling to her, who was an able wife. And those his glosse writers vse most that exposition which Bellarmin would have vs recieve for authentick as the fittest salve; yet rest
Antonius a great Canonist: Archbyshop of Florēce correctingp Gratians slipp of memorie for the persons, concludeth with him for the matter.
•
Hist, part 2, tit. • Ca•. 1, quamvis. where he nameth Englshmē in sted of Germanes, & Gregorye the 1. insteed of Gregorie the 3 or 2, as Antonins tooke it.
