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.
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. For
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.
For this Canon following, out of which they gather that to be the meaning, being a Canon of I know not what Gregory, at least Fathered on him, doth no more prove it theno the above alleged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent party while the other lived, doth infer the contrary. And the Councells words mentioning expressly the Innocent parties freedom and liberty to marry, which had been superfluous if they meant of marriage after the others death: make it most probable that the Council uttered them with the same meaning, wherewith others uttered the like, as hath been showed. Hereunto the judgement ofp Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight, sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength and cut the sinews of it, acknowledgeth notwithstanding that it was of one mind with the council of Tribur.3 So was Pope Alexander the third too some time, though Bellarmin allegeq him as of another mind. But let Bellarmin say whether he had two minds and erred in on of them: seeing it is certain he was of this mind once, unless he wrote against his mind. For where as a man that had wedded a wife, did, before he entered the ⟨p. 73⟩marriage-bed with her, enter her mothers bed: Pope Alexander said, that he doing some penance might be dispensed with to marry another wife. Here the Popes favour towards the offender; doth favour of that whichs hath been misliked in Papal dispensations. But he that granted thus much to the incestuous husband, would (I trust) have granted it to the guiltless wife: ast he did also to her that had this injury. The only evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Masters example have recourse, is that the Canonists expound the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse, & her espoused also by words of the time to come, not of the time present.
For this Canō following, out of which they gather that to bee the meaning, being a Canon of I know not what Gregory, at least Fathered on him, doth noe more prove it theno the above alleaged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent partye while the other lived, doth inferre the cōtrarie. And the Councells words mentioning expressely the Innocēt parties freedom and liberty to marry, which had bene superfluous if they meant of marriage after the others death: make it most probable that the Councell vttered them with the same meaning, wherewith others vttered the like, as hath bene shewed. Herevnto the iudgement ofp Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight, sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength and cutt the sinewes of it, acknowledgeth notwithstanding that it was of one minde with the councell of Tribur.3 So was Pope Alexander the third too some tyme, though Bellarmin alleageq him as of another mynde. But let Bellarmin say whether hee had two myndes and erred in on of them: seing it is certaine hee was of this minde once, vnlesse hee wrote against his minde. For where as a man that had wedded a wife, did, before hee entred the ⟨p. 73⟩marriage-bed with her, enter her mothers bed: Pope Alexander sayde, that hee doing some pennance might bee dispensed with to marrie another wife. Here the Popes favour towards the offender; doth favour of that whichs hath bene missliked in Papall dispensations. But he that graunted thus much to the incestuous husband, would (I trust) have graunted it to the guiltlesse wife: ast hee did also to her that had this iniurie. The onely evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Maisters example have recourse, is that the Canonists expoūd the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse, & her espoused also by wordes of the tyme to come, not of the tyme present.
oquod prop• suisti, ead. q
pBibl, Sanct lib, • an not•• under the nane of Synodus • libe•ima the author t•es thought of this CanonBibl, Sanct lib, • an not•• vnder the nāe of Synodus • libe•ima the authour t•es thought of this Canon
3• e Veniens. 1. de eo qui cog consang. ••xoris suae• e Veniens. 1. de eo qui cog cōsang. ••xoris suae
qEx parte extra de spons et matrim.Ex parte extra de spōs et matrim.
sFran• Victoria relect 4 omne• qui petunt afferunt dispensations. In petunt Lee compriseth pendunt, City in ver lib. • et. •.Fran• Victoria relect 4 omne• qui petunt afferunt dispēsationes. In petunt Lee cōpriseth pendunt, Cie in ver lib. • et. •.
tEpist Alexand. […]. ad pict. episc Append Conc, Lateran.Epist Alexand. 〈…〉. ad pict. episc Append Conc, Lateran.
Which exposition may seem the more probable, because the Popes words set down in the Decretals give her the name of spouse without signification that the man had wedded her. But hereof Friar Raymund who compiled & clipped the Decretals must bear the blame, asv Antonius Contius a learned Lawyer of their own hath well observed. For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in thex Tomes of Councils, declareth that the woman was the mans wedded wife, though he did forbear her company a while. No remedy there-fore but it must be granted, that in this matter Pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former Councils. Now by all the rest whom I alleged there is none excepted against by any Papist, for ought that I know, or as I think will be. Fory Lactantius first avoucheth, so the lawfulness of putting away • mans wife for adultery even with intent to marry another that both zCovaruvias anda Dominicus Soto grant him to be clear from it. Nextb touching the authors mentioned by Gratian as holding the same for one kind of adultery: who doubted but there were certain so persuaded, when such an adversary confesseth it. Then for Pope Celestin the third, sithc a Pope saith he thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their partners in wedlock for heresy, and marry others: I see not how the Papist may deny he thought it lawful for adultery, more then I showed they might of Gregory the third. And albeitd Zechariah bishop of Chrysopolis, may seem to show rather what other mens opinion was, then what his own, yet it is apparent by his manner of handling that he joined with ⟨p. 74⟩eAmbrose therein, whose words he citeth, and fenceth them against authorities, that might be opposed. As for the Bishop of Burgos, Paul commended highly byf learned men for learning,g he saith that it is manifest by Christs doctrine, that whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom, commiteth not adultery though he marry another.h Naclantus, who was present at the Council of Trent, a Bishop of principal name and price among them, affirmeth as directly, that a wife being loosed from her husband by death or by divorcement, is not an adulteress if she marry another.
Which exposition may seeme the more probable, because the Popes wordes sett downe in the Decretalls geve her the name of spouse without signification that the man had wedded her. But hereof Frier Raymund who compiled & clipped the Decretalls must beare the blame, asv Antonius Contius a learned Lawier of their owne hath well observed. For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in thex Tomes of Councels, declareth that the woman was the mans wedded wife, though he did forbeare her companie a while. No remedīe there-fore but it must be graunted, that in this matter Pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former Councels. Now by all the rest whom I aleaged there is none excepted against by anye Papist, for ought that I know, or as I thinke will bee. Fory Lactantius first avoucheth, so the lawfulnes of putting away • mās wife for adulterie even with intent to marry another that both zCovaruvias anda Dominicus Soto graunt him to be cleare from it. Nextb touching the authours mentioned by Gratian as holding the same for one kinde of adulterie: who doubted but there were certaine so persuaded, when such an adversarie confesseth it. Then for Pope Celestin the thirde, sithc a Pope saith hee thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their parteners in wedlocke for haerisie, and marry others: I see not how the Papist may denye hee thought it lawful for adulterie, more then I shewed they might of Gregory the third. And albeitd Zacharie byshop of Chrysopolis, may seeme to shew rather what other mens opinion was, then what his owne, yet it is apparant by his manner of handeling that hee ioyned with ⟨p. 74⟩eAmbrose therein, whose words hee citeth, and fenseth them against authorities, that might bee opposed. As for the Byshop of Burgos, Paul commended heighly by
vAnnot•t. de varijs decretal. Epist. compilat e••in praesat Gregorij noni.Annot•t. de varijs decretal. Epist. cōpilat e••in praesat Gregorij noni.
xAppend Conc Later sub Alexand. tert. part 12. cap. 4.Appēd Cōc Later sub Alexand. tert. part 12. cap. 4.
fAust Steuc. recogn vet. Test ad ver Hebr. in Gen 37 Sixth sevens bibl. Sanct. lib. 4.Aust Steuc. recogn vet. Test ad ver Hebr. in Gen 37 Sixt seuēs bibl. Sanct. lib. 4.
To conclude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus, Caietan, Catharinus, Luther, Melancton, Bucer Calvin, Brentius, Kemnitius, Peter Martyr, and in a word all Lutherans and Calvinists, (as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name us poori Nazarenes) agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adultery, Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wound he might give his cause by granting that Erasmus, Caietan, Catharinus three so learned men, and two of them such pillars of the Romish Church a Cardinal & an Arch bishop agree in this point with Lutherans & Calvinists: he addeth that those three differ much from these heretics (meaning By heretics the Nazarenes I spake of,7 whose ring-leader was Paul) in as much as they submit themselves expressly to the churches judgement. And because the church (saith he) hath now opened her mind most evidently, as appeareth by the Council of Trent the 24. session the 7 Canon, where all who think the band of marriage may be loosed for any cause are accursed: therefore it seemeth that those three also, & chiefly the two later, must be thought no otherwise minded in this matter, than 8all the rest of the Catho-Divines are & have been with great agreement & consent. which dispute of Bellar. if it have sufficient ground & strength of reason Erasmus must be counted a catholic in all things For9 in all his writings he submitteth himself to the churches judgement. Then why dothk Bell. call him a demie Christian,l & enrol his name among sectaries & heretics? what are the Fathers of the Council of Trent Demie-christians, sectaries, heretics; thy are (by Bellar. logic) of one mind with Erasmus. Moreover S. Austin the chiefest man of Bellar. side in this question must be counted ours by ⟨p. 75⟩the same logic. Form he taught expressly that himself; yea any bishop even S, Cyprian, yea provincial Counc. too, should yield to the authority of a general Coū. And the 6 general Coū. gram ted liberty of marriage after divorcement, as hath been declared: wherefore if Caietā must be thought no otherwise minded then Papists are, because that church whose judgment he did submit himself to, defined so at Trent2 a good while after his death: S. Austin must be thought no otherwise minded than we are, because our assertion was confirmed likewise by a General Council, whereto he would have yielded.
To conclude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus, Caietan, Catharinus, Luther, Melancton, Bucer Calvin, Brentius, Kemnitius, Peter Martyr, and in aworde all Lutherans and Calvinists, (as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name vs poorei Nazarens) agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adulterie, Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wounde hee might geve his cause by graunting that Erasmus, Caietan, Catharinus three so learned men, and two of thē such pillars of the Romish Church a Cardinall & an Arch byshop agree in this poynt with Lutherans & Caluinicts: he addeth that those three differ much frō these hertiques (meāing By heretiques the Nazarens I spake of,7 whose ring-leader was Paul) in as much as they submitt thēselves expressely to the churches iudgement. And because the church (saith he) hath now opened her minde most evidently, as appeareth by the Coūcel of Trēt the 24. sessiō the 7 Canō, where all who thinke the band of marriage maye be loosed for any cause are acursed: therefore it seemeth that those three also, & chiefly the two later, must be thought no otherwise minded in this matter, thē 8all the rest of the Catho-Divines are & have bene with great agreemēt & cōsent. which dispute of Bellar. if it have sufficiēt groūd & strength of reasō Erasmus must be coūted a catholique in al things For9 in al his writings he submitteth himself to the churches iudgemēt. Thē why dothk Bell. cal him a demie Christiā,l & enrol his nāe amōg sectaries & hertiques? what are the Fathers of the Coūcel of Trēt Demie-christiās, sectaries, heretiques; thy are (by Bellar. logique) of one minde with Erasmus. Moreover S. Austin the ciefeft mā of Bellar. side in this questiō must be coūted ours by ⟨p. 75⟩the same logique. Form he taught expressely that himself; yea any byshop evē S, Cipriā, yea provincial Coūc. too, should yeeld to the authority of a general Coū. And the 6 general Coū. graū ted liberty of mariage after divorcmēt, as hath bene declared: wherfore if Caietā must be thought no otherwise mynded then Papists are, because that church whose iudgmēt he did submitt himself to, defined so at Trēt
iAct• 24. 5.
7Te• ton Nazora•en […] protestatiaTe• ton Nazora•en 〈…〉 protestatia
8reliquorū omiū The o•og or catholicorū communissima sentēreliquorū omiū The o•og or catholicorū cōmunissima sentē
9Ubiqne test atū esse volumus nos nusquam a judicio ecclae catholicae velungué aut digit um latū velle descedere. Quod si quid usquam ejus modideprehendatur id jam nunc pro•ecantat volumus haberi, In capitū Argument, contt. moros•s quosdam et indoctos prefix nov Test. excus con Aunot. edict 4. et 5 Ibidē in 1. cor. 7. ad hunc ipsū locū semper inquit illabefacto. eccl catholicae uidicioVbiqne test atū esse volumus nos nusquam a iudicio ecclae catholicae velungué aut digit um latū velle descedere. Quod si quid usquam ejus modideprehēdatur id jam nūc pro•ecantat volumus haberi, In capitū Arg umēt, cōtt. moros•s quosdam et indoctos prefix nov Test. excus cū Aunot. edict 4. et 5 Ibidē in 1. cor. 7. ad hūc ipsū locū semper inquit illabefacto. eccl catholicae uidicio
kTō, •. cont, •, lib. l. c. •.Tō, •. cōt, •, lib. l. c. •.
Chiefly sith of likelihood he would have more easily yielded thereunto, than Caietan to his churches becausen Caietā showeth he was stiff in holding fast his own opinion,3 when for fear of Church-men he durst not say all that he thought; & in this very point, thougho submitting himself to the See of Rome as well as to the church,p he eludeth decrees ofq popes that make against him,r so resolute he was in it. Sr. Austin contrariwise used very modestly & willingly to retract things that he had written, even when she lighted on ought in an heretic that seemed better & truer, & this point he thoughtt so dark in the Scriptures, & hard to be discerned, that his opinion was not hard to be removed; if he had seen stronger reason brought against it, or greater authority. Now if S. Austin come over to our side by that quirk of Bellar. • a band of Bellar. witnesses is like to come with him: namely the council of Melevis & Afric,u which he was present at, & swayed much with: perhaps Primasius also (x were he Austins scholar) & Bede with a number of Canonists, and schoolmen, who followed most S. Austin. But Bellarmin will never resign all these unto us, to gain the other three from us. For (y as our Be-hive saith) Men live not by losses. He must suffer therefore Erasmus, & Caietan, & Catharinus specially, who (beside thez place that Bellar. hath quoted) doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely thereof, more throughly & exactly then Erasmus or Caietan; Bellarmin I say must suffer them to be counted of that mind which they were of, while themselves lived; not cavil as if they were of that which peradventure they would have been4 had they not died before the Council of Trent taught so. Unless he think (which he may by as good reason that whereas they were deceased above x. years ere the C. ⟨p. 76⟩Trent made that new canon, we ought to count them alive all that while, because they did submit them-selves to Physicians and would have lived perhaps till then, had art been able to cure diseases. How much more agreeably to singleness & truth doa Sixtus, bCovarruvias, andc Domenicus Soto acknowledge (the two former touching Catharinus the last for Erasmus, all concerning Caietan) that in this question of marriage again after divorcement for adultery, their doctrine is the same with those ancient Fathers whom our younger teachers of the reformed Churches follow.
Chiefly sith of liklyhood hee would have more easily yeelded therūto, thē Caietan to his churches becausen Caietā sheweth hee was stiffe in holding fast his owne opiniō,3 whē for feare of Church-mē he durst not say all that he thought; & in this very point, thougho submitt̄ig hīself to the See of Rome as wel as to the church,p he eludeth decrees ofq popes that make against him,r so resolute he was in it. Sr. Austin cōtrariwise vsed very modestly & willingly to retract things that he had writtē, evē whē she lighted on ought in an heretike that seemed better & truer, & this point he thoughtt so darke in the Scripturs, & hard to be discerned, that his opiniō was not hard to be removed; if he had seē strōger reason broght against it, or greater authority. Now if S. Anstin come over to our side by that quirck of Bellar. • a band of Bellar. wittnesses is like to come with him: namly the coūcel of Melevis & Affrique,u which he was presēt at, & swaied much with: perhaps Primasius also (x were he Austins scholar) & Bede with a nūber of Canōists, and schoolemē, who folowed most S. Austin. But Bellarmin will never resigne all these vnto vs, to gaine the other three frō vs. For (y as our Bee-hive saith) Men live not by losses. He must suffer therefore Erasmus, & Caietan, & Catharinus specially, who (beside thez place that Bellar. hath quoted) doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely thereof, more throughly & exactly then Erasmus or Caietan; Bellarmin I say must suffer them to be counted of that minde which they were of, while thēselves lived; not cavill as if they were of that which peradventure they would have bene
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.
hee sayth that it is manifest by Christs doctrine, that whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom, commiteth not adulterye though hee marry another.
Naclantus, who was present at the Councel of Trent, a Byshop of principall name and price among them, affirmeth as directly, that a wife being losed from her husband by death or by divorcement, is not an adulteresse if shee marrie another.
a good while after his death: S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded thē we are, because our assertiō was cōfirmed likewise by a General Coūcell, whereto hee would have yeelded.
ex semichristiā. l. Tō. 2. Jud. sectar. & haeret.ex semichristiā. l. Tō. 2. Iud. sectar. & haeret.
2In the year 1563. caj•tan being dead a 30 years before Sixtus se•enst• bib sact. lib. 4.In the yeare 1563. caj•tan being dead a 30 years before Sixtus se•ēst• bib sact. lib. 4.
had they not died before the Councell of Trēt taught so. Vnlesse he thinke (which he may by as good reasō that whereas they were deceased above x. yeares yer the C.
⟨p. 76⟩
Trent made that new canon, wee ought to count them alive all that while, because they did submitt them-selves to Physitiās and would have lived perhaps till then, had arte bene able to cure disseases. How much more agreablye to singelnes & truth doe
Domenicus Soto acknowledge (the two former touching Catharinus the last for Erasmus, all concerning Caietan) that in this question of marriage agayne after divorcement for adulterie, their doctrine is the same with those auncient Fathers whom our yonger teachers of the reformed Churches follow.
zAnnot in eo meant cajctan. lib. 5.Annot in eo mēt cajctan. lib. 5.
4catharinus, died in the year 552. Sixtus. senens. lib. 4. Erasm. in the year. 1•36, •lend. l. ••.catharinus, died in the yeare 552. Sixtus. senēs. lib. 4. Erasm. in the yeare. 1•36, •lēd. l. ••.
