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 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
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 to
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
And thus if I should enter into the comparison of Divines on both sides: first, for the number it is more then likely, that we prevail much. For all whom Bellarmim and the Pamphleteer after him do muster out of the west, I mean whom they claim justly, not who either say against them asd Tertullian, or not with them ase Scotus, all therefore whom they muster so out of the West, aref Jerome the Coū cels ofg Milevis andh Africi Innocentius the firstk Austin, lPrimasius, mIsidore, nBede, the Council ofo Friouli andp Nantes,q Anselm, rPope Alexander the thirds Innocentius the third,t Thomas, Bonaventure. Durand; and other School-men,u Pope Eugenius with his Florentines &x the Council of Trent. which thoughy Gratian, Lombard and whomsoever he might bill, were added to them yet ours out of the west alone perhaps would match them. What if the North, the South, whence Bellarmin hath none? what if the East, whence he hath two or three at the most for hundreds of ours be joined thereunto? Then for Qualitya Came the word of God out from you? saith Paul to the Corinthians; or Came it to you only? Meaning that they ought to reverence the judgement of other Christian Churches being more then they were: but of those chiefly and first (as he placeth them) from whom the Gospel came first. Nowb the Gospel came first out of the East: whose con sent we have in a manner generally. and as we have the first in Country, so in time the ancientest & eldest: our two first Councils in5 Spain, and in France elder an hundred years then their two in Afric, our next far elder yet then their next; and so unto the last: yea, for several Fathers, ancient on both sides, there are more with us in the four or five or six for-foremost ⟨p. 77⟩ages then there are with them. Of soundness in doctrine, of learning, of virtue, of constancy, of consent, it is hard to speak by way of comparison whether excelleth other. Saving that forc gentleness and meekness. a special ornament of Bishops, weigh both parts together, and ours surpass our adversaries. Amongst whom the Council of Trent accurseth6 all such as say that that they do err in this point, into which outrage none of ours hath broken against the contrary minded. As for other graces of the holy Ghost, though Bellarmin have noted sundry spots and blemishes whereby some of ours are touched in credit, and their authority is impeached:
And thus if I should ēter into the comparison of Divines on both sides: first, for the number it is more then likely, that wee prevayle much. For all whom Bellarmim and the Pamphletter after him doe muster out of the west, I meane whō they claime iustly, not who either say against them asd Tertullian, or not with them ase Scotus, all therefore whom they muster so out of the West, aref Ierom the Coū cels ofg Milevis andh Afriquei Innocentius the firstk Austin, lPrimasius, mIsiodore, nBede, the Councel ofo Friouli andp Nantes,q Anselme, rPope Alexander the thirds Innocentius the third,t Thomas, Bonaventure. Durand; and other Schole-men,u Pope Eugenius with his Florentines &x the Councel of Trent. which thoughy
let him cast his eyes upon his own witness's without partiality, and he shall find that we have a Rowland for his Oliver. For where he telleth us that Ambrose did err in yielding greater freedom to men then to women; Luther and Bucer in granting second marriage after divorcement for moe causes then whoredom; Poped Gregory the same for sickness:e Cellestin the same for heresy: we tell him again thatf Clemens Alexandrinus• Athenagoras, Origen (if he be out of theirs) Jerome andg Bede, did likewise err in speaking against all second marriages, andh Clemens withi Origen in sundry weighty points of faith. Wherek he telleth us that Lactantius fell into a number of errors, as being more skilful in Tully then in the scriptures, we tell him again that some of the Schoolmen were, though not more skilful in Tully, then in the scriptures, yet as unskilful in the scriptures,l as in Tully; and there grand-masterm the Master of the sentences is charged by themselves with above a score of errors. Where he telleth us that Luther varieth from himself Melancton agreeth not with him, nor Kemnitius with either of them, because Luther allowed divorcement for moe causes afterward then at the first, and Melancton thinketh that both the divorced parties are free to marry, Kennitius that the Innocent only; we tell him again that neither doth Pope Innocentius the third agree with Pope Alexander, nor Alexander with himself nor neither of them with Athenagoras, seeing Athenagoras condemneth second marriage which then Popes allow, though• Alexander punished one who blessed it;o Innocentius checketh a decree of Alexander that deprived the Innocent party of his ⟨p. 78⟩right, because the offender had sinned thus, or thus: & Alexander, whether in this decree I know not (for it is razed out of thep Decretals) but in other extant overthwarteth himself, as his words alleged on both parties, for Bellarmin & for us, do testify. So Bellarmins objections of human infirmities and wants notwithstanding, they which are of our side excel in estimation those which are of his, for diverse circumstances and respects.
let him cast his eies vpon his owne witnesse's without partiallitie, and hee shall finde that wee have a Rowland for his Oliver. For where hee telleth vs that Ambrose did erre in yeelding greater freedō to men then to women; Luther and Bucer in graunting second marriage after divorcement for moe causes then whoredome; Poped Gregory the same for sicknes:e Cellestin the same for heresie: wee tell him againe thatf Clemens Alexandrinus• Athenagoras, Origen (if hee bee out of theirs) Ierom andg Bede, did likewise erre in speaking against all second marriages, andh Clemens withi Origen insundrie weightie poynts of fayth. Wherek hee telleth vs that Lactantius fell into a number of errours, as being more skilfull in Tullie then in the scriptures, wee tell him againe that some of the Scholemen were, though not more skilfull in Tullie, then in the scriptures, yet as vnskilfull in the scriptures,l as in Tullie; and there graund-maisterm the Maister of the sentences is charged by themselves with above a score of errours. Where hee telleth vs that Luther varieth from himselfe Melancton agreeth not with him, nor Kemnitius with either of them, because Luther alowed divorcement for moe causes afterward then at the first, and Melancton thinketh that both the divorced parties are free to marrie, Kēnitius that the Inoc̄et onely; wee tell him againe that neither doth Pope Innocentius the third agree with Pope Alexander, nor Alexander with himself nor neither of them with Athenagoras, seing Athenagoras cō demneth second marriage which then Popes allowe, though• Alexander punished one who blessed it;o Innocentius checketh a decree of Alexander that deprived the Innocent partie of his
dBel. tom. 1. cont. 3. lib. 4 Cap. 12.
eIbid, Ca. 14.
fIn the place above quotedIn the place abo ve quoted
And (the most important respect of all others) the ground whereuponq ours do build their doctrine, is the plain evidence & express testimony of our Saviourr Christ, excepting whoredom namely out of the causes for which he denieth a man may put away his wife & marry another. Contrariwise the ground that our adversaries build on is their own conceit, not able to stand without violent wresting, suppressing, or corrupting of Christs exception the proof whereof is seen in three the most peremptory men for this matter, and best accounted of among them, Innocentius the first, the third, & Thomas of Aquin. sThomas in that he answereth that Christs exception pertaineth to the putting away of the wife, & not to the marring of another, also Innocentius the first, in that he omitteth the exception quite,t & citeth Christs words thus: whoso putteth away his wife for whoredom, & marrieth another doth commit adultery vInnocentius the third, in that he depraveth & altereth the exception, affirming that Christ saith7 whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom, & marrieth another, doth commit adultery: whosoever puttieth away his wife for whoredom. A notable corruption by scraping out of the sentence8 the exceptive particle having the force of a negative, to change for this point into an affirmative: & so easily to be corrupted by the text of the Scripture it self, that I doubted whether it were not the Printers or bookewriters error, until I perceived that all the printed copies, which I could get the sight of, did agree therein; even the new one too of Gregory the thirteenth conferred with all the written copies in the Popes library, beside many other, & corrected by them. But of such buildings such must be the groundworks, or equal unto such in force; An untruth will never cleave unto the truth by other kind of mortar. in probability therefore it is to be presumed that not only the greater part of the fathers but the better ⟨p. 79⟩also, and they whose grounds are surer do maintain our doctrine. So the weapon which Bellarmin draweth out of their sheath against us, doth bend back and turn the point against himself:
And (the most important respect of all others) the ground wherevponq ours doe buyld their doctrine, is the plaine evidence & expresse testimony of our Saviourr Christ, excepting whoredō namely out of the causes for which he denieth a man may put away his wife & marrie another. Contrariewise the ground that our adversaries buyld on is their owne cōceit, not able to stand without violent wresting, suppressing, or corrupting of Christs exception the proofe whereof is seene in three the most peremtorie men for this matter, and best accounted of among them, Innocentius the first, the third, & Thomas of Aquin. sThomas in that he answereth that Christs exception pertaineth to the putting away of the wife, & not to the marring of another, also Innocentius the first, in that he omitteth the exception quite,t & citeth Christs words thus: whoso putteth away his wife for whoredom, & marrith another doth commit adulterie vInnocentius the third, in that he depraveth & altereth the exception, affirming that Christ saith7 whosoever putteth away his wife for whordom, & marrieth another, doth commit adulterie: whosoever putieth awaye his wife for whoredom. A notable corruption by scraping out of the sentence8 the exceptive particle having the force of a negative, to change for this point into an affirmative: & so easily to be corrupted by the text of the Scripture it self, that I doubted whether it were not the Printers or bookewriters errour, vntyll I perceived that all the printed copies, which I could gett the sight of, did agree therein; even the newe one too of Gregorye the thirtenth conferred with all the written copies in the Popes liberarie, beside many other, & corrected by them. But of such buyldings such must be the groundworkes, or equall vnto such in force; An vntruth will never cleave vnto the truth by other kinde of morter. in probabillity therefore it is to bee presumed that not onely the greater parte of the fathers but the better ⟨p. 79⟩also, and they whose groundes are surer doe maintayne our doctrine. So the weapon which Bellarmin draweth out of their sheath against vs, doth bend backe and turne the poynt against himself:
qTertul chro mat. Hilar. pol lent conc. Ven et. &c.
and the wound it may give, it can not pierce so deep asx that which is sharper then a•y two edged sword, but the wound it may give, it giveth to his own cause, Howbeit if any shall conceive otherwise hereof for the number & quality of the witnesses, as some peradventure will & may by reason of broken conjectures, which the variety of circumstances yeel death, yet no man will (I trust) sure no man of modesty and sense can deny, but the main and principal point I had to show, namely that the Fathers consent not •ll in one for the Papists doctrine, is showed to their shame, whose face & conscience served them to avouch the contrary. Wherefore sith our adversaries do grant that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove a point in question unless they all consent about it: Bellar. with his Pā phletter must consequently grant, that their cursing Trent assertion in this point cannot be proved by Fathers And so the second staff which they have framed themselves to lean upon, is like to that broken staff of reed, 2Egypt, whereupon (saith the scripture) if a man lean, it will go into his hand & pierce it.
and the wound it may geve, it can not pearce so deepe asx that which is sharper then a•y two edged sworde, but the wound it may geve, it geveth to his owne cause, Howbeit if any shall conceive otherwise hereof for the number & quality of the witnesses, as some peradventure will & may by reason of broken coniectures, which the variety of circumstances yeel deth, yet no man will (I trust) sure no man of modestye and sense can denie, but the mayne and principall poynt I hadd to shewe, namely that the Fathers consent not •ll in one for the Papists doctrine, is shewed to their shāe, whose face & cōsciēce served thē to avouch the cōtrary. Wherfore sith our adversaries doe graūt that the Fathers have not strēgth enough to prove a point in questiō vnlesse they all cōsent about it: Bellar. with his Pā phletter must cōsequētly graūt, that their cursing Trēt assertiō in this point cannot be proved by Fathers And so the secōd staffe which they have framed thēselves to leane vpō, is like to that brokē staff of reed, 2Egipt, whervpō (saith the scripture) if a man leane, it wil goe into his hand & pearce it.
The Conceits of Reason, urged last against us, are oversights proceeding from darkness not from light, and Reason it self, dispelling the Mist of Popish probabilities, giveth clear Testimony with the truth of Christ.
The Conceits of Reason, vrged last aganst vs, are oversights proceeding from darknes not from light, and Reason it selfe, dispelling the Mist of Popish probabilities, geveth cleare Testimony with the truth of Christ.
The third and last objection, whereupon the Jesuit and his scholar stand, is1 conceit of reason: divided into five branches as it were, or Riverets issuing from one spring. The water whereof how unlike it is toa the water of Siloah, & savouring of that puddle of which the Roman Deputy Gallo did draw when having undertaken to dob according to reasonc he spake profanely of Religion, &d suffered one to be wrongfully vexed for regarding it, as if to do Justice in that case were against reason, I leave it to be judged and considered by them who say thate our reason is naturally dark, andf leadeth her wise men into sottish follies, neither can discern the things which are of God till it be lightened by his spirit.g For although the Papists have some glimpse of light & see more then theh Heathens, asi the Pharisees didk whose words (I am afraid) they will use likewise: are we also blind? yet asl the Pharisees were overseen foully in many of their arguments grounded upon reason, so the Papists may be. And that they not only may be overseen, but are in the reasons which their puddle-water hath yielded unto Bellarmins cisterns in this point: the beans of reason lightened from above shall open & descry; let such as love not darkness more then light be judges. For he reasoneth first thus: The Marriage of the faithful is a singe of Christs conjunction with the Church, as St. mPaul teacheth. But that Conjunction is indissoluble, and cannot be loosed, The band of Marriage is therefore indissoluble too. As if a rebel should say. The joining of the Head with the Body in man resembleth the Conjunction of Christ with the Church as St; nPaul teacheth. ⟨p. 80⟩But Christ & the Church can never be parted, there fore the head may never be cut from the body. A happy conclusion for Traitors, if it were true. But if it be false where then is Bellarmyns reason? which will take the greater overthrow by this because looko how Christ is the head of the Church, semblably the husband is the wives head. So that notwithstanding the similitude of Christs head-ship, the joint whereby a traitorous head is knit unto his body may feel the axe of Justice, as Bell. will grant: the marriage band that coupleth a man to an adulterous wife may be loosed by •he like reason, notwithstanding marriage is a sign of Christs conjunction with the Church.
THe third and last obiection, wherevppon the I•suit and his schollar stand, is1 conceit of reason: devided into five braunches as it were, or Riverets issuing frō one spring. The water whereof how vnlike it is toa the water of Siloah, & savoring of that puddle of which the Romā Deputie Gallo did draw when having vndertaken to doeb according to reasonc he spake prophanely of Religion, &d suffered one to bee wrōgfully vexed for regarding it, as if to doe Iustice in that case were against reason, I leave it to bee iudged and considered by them who saye thate our reason is naturally darke, andf leadeth her wise men into sottish follies, neither can discerne the things which are of God till it bee lightened by his spirit.g For although the Papists have some glimse of light & see more then theh Heathēs, asi the Pharises didk whose wordes (I am afraied) they will vse likewise: are wee also blinde? yet asl the Pharises were overseene fowlly in many of their argumēts grounded vpon reason, so the Papists may bee. And that they not onely may be overseene, but are in the reasons which their puddle-water hath yelded vnto Bellarmins cisternes in this poynt: the beāes of reasō lightēed frō above shall opē & descrie; let such as love not darknes more then light bee iudges. For hee reasoneth first thus: The Marriage of the faithfull is a singe of Christs coniunction with the Church, as St. m
And if this suffice not to make him acknowledge the looseness & fondness of his sophistical syllogism, let him observe further that the separation which themselves allow in case of adultery is condemned by it. For Christ dot continue with his Churchp alway, & cherisheth herq for ever with his spirit of comfort, & he is so far from despoiling her of her own wealth, if she had any, that ofr his gifts & graces still he leaveth with her. Now thes papists teach that a man may lawfully withdraw himself from ever dwelling with his wife, & from yielding husband-like love & duty to her, yeat may still with-hold her own dowry from her, if she be an adulteress. Which doctrine how could Bell. cleanse from stain of error, if some whore of Rome should touch it with this reason. The marriage of the faithful is a sign of Christs conjunction with the Church, as Paulu teacheth? but Christ doth still assist relieve, & enrich the Church with his graces: therefore must the husband dwell still with his wife & find her maintenance & wealth. Wouldx hey say the C. of Trent accurseth all who make such Jesuitical syllogisms & sophisms against their sacred canon. Certainly the harlot's reason must be good unless the Jesuits be naught. But he goeth onward, & addeth that albeit some parts of the Church, to wit, some faithful folk do commit spiritual whoredom now & then, & make a divorcement yet it is not lawful for them to change their God. What a speech is this? As who say, our Saviour could deserve at our hands that we should forsake him, & g•t ourselves a new bridegroom. Neither doth God cast them so away (saith Bell) that he will not be reconciled, nay he doth exhort to reconcilement 3still; Still? To whom thenz sware he, they should not enter into his rest? whata were they whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? whence came the man of Godb who willed them ⟨p. 81⟩that commit idolatry to be slain? where lived thec Prophet who says Thou destroyest all them that go a whoring from thee: The Israelites whom God did shut out of the promised land, of whom he took many thousands away by sundry plagues, to whom dthe law speaketh as being under the law, did they not profess that faith & use those Sacram. which all that do are faithful folk & parts of the church ine Bell. phrase & meaning?
And if this suffice not to make him acknowledg the loosnes & fondnes of his sophistical syllogisme, let him observe farder that the seperatiō which thēselves allowe in case of adultery is condēned by it. For Christ dot cōtinue with his Churchp alway, & cherisheth herq for ever with his spirit of cōfort, & he is so farre frō dispoyling her of her owne wealth, if shee had any, that ofr his gifts & graces still he leaveth with her. Now thes papists teach that a man may lawfully withdraw himself frō ever dwelling with his wife, & frō yeelding husband-like love & duty to her, yeat may stil with-hould her owne dowry frō her, if shee be an adulteresse. Which doctrine how could Bell. cleanse frō stayn of errour, if some whore of Rome should touch it with this reasō. The marriage of the faithful is a signe of Christs cōiū ction with the Church, as Pavlu teacheth? but Christ doth stil assist relieve, & enrich the Church with his graces: therefore must the husbād dwel stil with his wife & finde her maintenāce & wealth. Wouldx hey say the C. of Trent accurseth al who make such Iesuitical syllogismes & sophymes against their sacred canō. Certainly the harelots reasō must be good vnlesse the Iesuits be naught. But he goeth onward, & addeth that albeit some partes of the Church, to weete, some faithful folke doe comit spiritual whordō now & then, & make a divorcemēt yet it is not lawfull for them to chāge their God. What a spech is this? As who say, our Saviour could deserve at our hands that we should forsake him, & g•t ourselves a newe bridgrō. Neither doth God cast thē so away (saith Bell) that he wil not be recōciled, nay he doth exhort to recōcilemēt 3still; Still? To whom thenz sware he, they should not enter into his rest? what
I grant thatf God offereth to be reconciled sometimes to such offenders, & waiteth in mercy long for their amendment. which if it be a pattern for us to follow herein, I say, if it be, for God gave time of repentance tog Joab a will-full murderer, whom theh magistrate should have put to deathi presently: God gave time of repentance tok idolatrous wives of the Jews, whoml their husbands ought not to have spared so: if therefore Gods action herein be set down for our imitation, the man that can contain, & be without a wife, as God without our service, may likewise in mercy wait for her repentance, & when he perceiveth it to be unfeigned, take her again to be his wife. But he who can not, or will not render such kindness for such unkindness & wickedness, may in justice also put her so away that no place or hope of reconcilement be left her, as Bell. own reason in this similitude teacheth. For God is not bound to give unto profane despisers of his grace & breakers of his covenant place of repentance & reconciliation: Nay he may in justice absolutely deny it them, & oftentimes doth as the examples ofm Cain, ofn Esau, ofo Corah, Dathan & Abiram, ofp Zimri. ofq Acan, ofr Ananias & Sapphira, of sinfinit other, that have either presently dyed in their sinns, or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against them, do argue. wherefore when Bell. concludeth this reason with saying that S.t Austin urgeth it greatly in his book of the Good of marriage: he dealeth as Cooks do in larding lean-meat to give that a relish, which of it self would be unsavoury. Though even for the lard too perhaps it agreeth not half so well herewith, as this Italian cook would have us think it doth. For why did not S. Austin urge the same likewise in hisu books of adulterous marriages written xafterward & purposely maintaining this Point against Polenti••s who gainsaid him in it? was it because he saw that he had urged it more than it would bear well? or that he perceived it would not hold against an adversary: though without an adversary it were a pretty allusion? At least whatsoever men d•eme of the ⟨p. 82⟩lard, the meat is naught questi•les: & such that though the cook be content to eat the driest morsel of it, yet must he needs grant that it hath not taste, not as much asy the white of an egg hath.
I graūt thatf God offereth to be recō ciled somtymes to such offenders, & waiteth in mercie long for their amēdement. which if it be a pattern for vs to follow herein, I say, if it be, for God gave tyme of repētance tog Ioab a will-full murderer, whō theh magistrate should have put to deathi presētly: God gave tyme of repentāce tok idolatrous wives of the Iewes, whoml their husbands ought not to have spared so: if therefore Gods actiō herin be set downe for our imitatiō, the mā that can conteyne, & be without a wife, as God without our service, maye likewise in mercie waite for her repentance, & when he perceyveth it to be vnfayned, take her againe to be his wife. But he who can not, or will not render such kindnes for such vnkindnes & wickednes, may in iustice also put her so away that no place or hope of reconcilemēt be left her, as Bell. owne reason in this similitude teacheth. For God is not bound to give vnto prophane dispisers of his grace & breakers of his covenāt place of repentāce & reconciliatiō: Nay he may in iustice absolutely denye it them, & oftentymes doth as the examples ofm Cain, ofn Esau, ofo Corah, Dathan & Abiram, ofp Zimri. ofq Acan, ofr Ananias & Saphira, of sinfinit other, that haue either presētly dyed in their sinnes, or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against thē, doe argue. wherefore when Bell. cōcludeth this reasō with saying that S.
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. ••.
Gratian, Lombard and whomsoever he might bill, were added to them yet ours out of the west alone pehaps would match them. What if the North, the South, whence Bellarmin hath none? what if the East, whence hee hath two or three at the most for hunderds of ours bee ioyned therevnto? Then for Qualitie
Came the worde of God out from you? saith Paule to the Corinthians; or Came it to you onely? Meaning that they ought to reverence the iudgemēt of other Christian Churches being more then they were: but of those chiefly and first (as hee placeth them) from whō the Gospell came first. Now
the Gospell came first out of the East: whose cō sent wee have in a manner generally. and as wee have the first in Countrie, so in tyme the auncientest & eldest: our two firste Councels in
Spayne, and in Fraunce elder an hundred yeares then their two in Africque, our next farre elder yet then their next; and so vnto the last: yea, for several Fathers, aunciēt on both sides, ther are more with vs in the foure or five or sixe for-formost
⟨p. 77⟩
ages then there are with them. Of soundnes in docttrine, of learning, of vertue, of constancie, of consent, it is hard to speake by way of comparison whether excelleth other. Saving that for
gentelnes and meekenes. a speciall ornamēt of Byshops, weigh both partes together, and ours surpasse our adversaries. Amongst whom the Councell of Trent accurseth
all such as say that that they doe erre in this poynt, into which outrage none of ours hath broken against the contrarie minded. As for other graces of the holy Ghost, though Bellarmin have noted sundrie spotts and blemishes wherby some of ours are touched in credit, and their authority is impeached:
Decretals) but in other extant overthwarteth himself, as his words aleaged on both parties, for Bellarmin & for vs, doe testefie. So Bellarmins obiections of humaine infirmities and wants notwithstanding, they which are of our side excel in estimation those which are of his, for diverse circumstaunces and respects.
Paule teacheth. But that Coniunction is indissoluble, and cannot bee loosed, The band of Marriage is threfore indissoluble too. As if a rebell should say. The ioyning of the Head with the Body in man resembleth the Coniūction of Christ with the Church as St;
But Christ & the Church can never bee parted, there fore the head maye never bee cut from the bodye. A happye cōclusion for Traytors, if it were true. But if it bee faulse where then is Bellarmyns reason? which will take the greater overthrow by this because looke
how Christ is the head of the Church, semblably the husband is the wives head. So that notwithstanding the similytude of Christs head-ship, the ioynt whereby a traytorous head is knit vnto his bodye may feele the axe of Iustice, as Bell. will graūt: the marriage band that coupleth a man to an adulterous wife may be loosed by •he like reasō, notwithstāding marriage is a signe of Christs cōiunctiō with the Church.
Prophet who saies Thou distroyest all thē that goe a whoring frō thee: The Israelites whō God did shut out of the promised land, of whō he tooke many thousāds away by sūdry plagues, to whō
the lawe speaketh as being vnder the law, did they not professe that faith & vse those Sacram. which al that doe are faithful folk & partes of the church in
Austin vrgeth it greatly in his booke of the Good of marriage: he dealeth as Cookes do in larding leane-meate to give that a relish, which of it self would be vnsavoury. Though even for the lard too perhaps it agreeth not half so wel herewith, as this Italiā cook would have vs thinke it doth. For why did not S. Austin vrge the same likewise in his
afterward & purposely maintaining this Point against Polēti••s who gainsaied him in it? was it because he saw that he had vrged it more thē it would beare wel? or that he perceived it would not hould against an adversarie: though without an adversairye it were a pretie allusion? At least whatsoever men d•eme of the
⟨p. 82⟩
lard, the meat is naught questi•les: & such that though the cook be contēt to eate the driest morsel of it, yet must he nedes graunt that it hath not tast, not as much as
