A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully…A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie…
A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully not only put away his wife for her adultery, but also marry another. / Wherein both Robert Bellarmin the Jesuits Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a nameless author maintaining the contrary are co[n]futed by John Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Church with error..A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie, but also marrie another. / Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are co[n]futed by Iohn Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Churche with errour..
John Rainolds 1549–1607Dordrecht: printed by George Walters, 1609
[6], 80, 80-94, [1] p. · 40k words · STC 20607 · ESTC S115561
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And 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
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 Quality
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. Now
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 in
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 for
gentleness and meekness. a special ornament of Bishops, weigh both parts together, and ours surpass our adversaries. Amongst whom the Council of Trent accurseth
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 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 Qualitiea 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. Nowb 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 in5 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 forc gentelnes and meekenes. a speciall ornamēt of Byshops, weigh both partes together, and ours surpasse our adversaries. Amongst whom the Councell of Trent accurseth6 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:
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.
Forz himself saith that marriage betokeneth & signifieth Christs conjunction with the faithful soul, as aThomas &b the Pope teach. But Christ's conjunction with the faithful soul is not indissoluble, as him self also saith: the band of marriage therefore (by his own consequence) may be dissolved & loosed. And thus far of his first sophism.
Forz himself saith that marriage betokeneth & signifieth Christs coniūction with the faithful soule, as aThomas &b the Pope teach. But Chricts coniunctiō with the faithful soule is not indissoluble, as him self also saith: the bād of marriage therfore (by his owne cōsequē ce) may be dissolved & loosed. And thus farr of his first sophisme.
The next is that if other marriage were lawful, 4the of-spring should be injured: for the children borne already (saith he) should be evil provided for, who should begin to have a stepfather in steed of a father, a stepmother in steed of a mother. where hence the conclusion secretly inferred, to weer that other marriage therefore is not lawful, would very well follow if his foremost ground & proposition were true, that the children should be injured thereby. For it is not lawful to deal injuriously with any he cthat doth wrong shall receive for it. But how proveth Bel. that they should be injured? His reason ensueth. for they should be evil provided for. what? therefore injured? Is God unjust then, who by taking men out of this present life, doth leave their wives widows; & their children fatherless; both often destitute of help? God forbid (saithd the Apostle) else how shall God judg the world? But the children should be endamaged thereby; & that perhaps will Bell. say was his […]. well. They should be endamaged & evil provided for. Why? Because they should have a stepfather in steed of a father or stepmother in steed of a mother. Then belikee the branches cut of the Olive tree which was wild by nature & grafted contrary to nature in aright Olive tree, are evil provided for & endamaged by it. For as when a gardiner asked why the herbs which he set or sowed do grow and shoot up slowly, where weeds which the earth brought forth of her own accord increased apace,f Aesop said that it was because the earth is the weeds mother, & the herbs step-mother: so the wild Olive tree was the mother that brought forth those branches: the right Olive tree whereinto they were grafted, is their step mother. S. Paul, gwho thought it better for us of the Gentiles to be grafted so, than to continue as we wereh the children of wrath by nature: declareth thati a Christian whose wife being an infidel, an unbeliever, forsaketh him, is free to marry another. Which (considering that he had an eye tok the holy seed, their offspring also) what ⟨p. 83⟩letteth him to have done with this persuasion, that the children, should receive more good & benefit by a believing step-mother, then by an unbelieving mother. Doubtlessl his care of having them brought up in godliness, a thing thatm godly mothers do further very much, &n ungodly hinder, is a great argument he was of this mind.
The next is that if other marriage were lawful, 4the of-spring should be iniuried: for the childrē borne already (saith he) should be evill provided for, who should begin to have a stepfather in steed of a father, a stepmother in steed of a mother. where hence the conclusiō secretly inferred, to weere that• other marriage therfore is not lawful, would very wel folow if his formost groūd & propositiō were true, that the childrē should be iniuried therby. For it is not lawful to deale iniuriously with any he cthat doth wrong shal receive for it. But how proveth Bel. that they should be iniuri•d? His reason ensueth. for they should be evill provided for. what? therefore iniured? Is God vniust then, who by taking men out of this present life, doth leave their wives widowes; & their children fatherlesse; both often destitute of help? God forbid (saithd the Apostle) els how shall God iudg the world? But the childrē shold be endamaged therby; & that perhaps will Bell. say was his 〈…〉. well. They should be endamaged & evil provided for. Why? Because they should have a stepfather in steed of a father or stepmother in steed of a mother. Then belikee the braūches cut of the Olivtree which was wild by nature & graffed cōtrary to nature in aright Olivetree, are evill provided for & endamaged by it. For as when a gardiner asked why the hearbs which he set or sowed doe grow and shoot vp slowly, where weeds which the earth brought forth of her owne accord encreased apace,f Aesop said that it was because the earth is the weeds mother, & the herbs step-mother: so the wild Olive tree was the mother that brought forth those braūches: the right Olive tree whereinto they were graffed, is their step mother. S. Paul, gwho thought it better for vs of the Gentiles to be graffed so, thē to continue as we wereh the children of wrath by nature: declareth thati a Christiā whose wife being an infidel, an vnbeleelever, forsaketh him, is free to marrie another. Which (cōsidering that he had an ey to
And the son of Catiline, whom thato adulterous wretchp his father murdered to compass the more easily the liking of a woman whom he lusted after, hath left sufficient proofs that some having fathers are no better looked to for things of this life neither, then they should of likelihood, if in steed thereof they had stepfathers. Wherefore sith experience verifieth the same in men which5 in women, that when they have made shipwreck of their chastity, they will not stick at any wickedness: the argument that children should be endamaged & evil provided for, because in steed of adulterous fathers or mothers, they should have stepfathers, stepmothers, chaste, & honest, is6 worse provided for by Bell. then he thought. But suppose it were good, & proved that the children should be endamaged how followeth the conclusion? The children should be endamaged by another marriage: 5therefore the marriage is not lawful? for by this reason a believing husband forsaken by his wife being an unbeliever, may not take another if he had children by the former. Nay no wife or husband having any children may lawfully ever marry again eitherr of them after the others death. And in deed by a law that q Charondas made for his Thurian Citizens, the men who did so were punished. And Marcus Antoninus, an Emperor of Rome, because he was loath to wed a step-mother to his children his wife being dead, kept a concubine. And S.s Jerome speaking as the Catharists did, against second marriage, doth by detestation of a stepfather dissuade a widow from it. Butt the Papists hold agreeably tou scripture that the man is at liberty to marry in the Lord after the woman's death, the woman after the mans: yeax in life time also, if either of them being an infidel & unbeliever forsake the other being a Christian. And Bell. acknowledgeth that they hold both these points, & ought to hold them. Bellar. shall therefore do well to acknowledge that his step-reason, which oppugneth both these points of sound doctrine, savoureth of heresy, neither maketh more for him against us, then for the Catharists against the Catholic fathers. Wherewith he may confess ⟨p. 84⟩too that he hath abused Ambrose in affirming this to be his reason: & avouching him to say, that the Father ought to pardon the Mothers fault for the children's sake. For S.z
And the sonne of Catiline, whom thato adulterous wretchp his father murdered to compasse the more easily the liking of a woman whom he lusted after, hath left sufficient proofes that some havīg fathers are no better looked to for things of this life neither, then they should of likelyhood, if in steed therof they had stepfathers. Wherfore sith experiēce verifieth the same in mē which5 in woemen, that whē they have made shipwracke of their chastity, they will not sticke at any wickednes: the argumēt that childrē should be endmaged & evil provided for, because in steed of adulterous fathers or mothers, they should have stepfathers, stepmothers, chast, & honest, is6 worse provided for by Bell. then he thought. But suppose it were good, & proved that the childrē should be endamaged how followeth the conclusion? The childrē should be endamaged by āother marriage: 5therfore the marriage is not lawful? for by this reason a beleeving husbād forsaken by his wife being an vnbelever, may not take āother if he had childrē by the former. Nay no wife or husbād having any childrē may lawfully ever marry againe eithr of thē after the others death. And in deede by a law that q Charondas made for his Thurian Cityzens, the men who did so were punished. And Marcus Antoninus, an Emperour of Rome, because he was loath to wedd a step-mother to his children his wife being dead, kept a concubine. And S.s Ierom speaking as the Catharists did, against second mariage, doth by detestatiō of a stepfather dissuad a widowe from it. Butt the Papists hold agreeably tou scripture that the man is at liberty to marry in the Lord after the womās death, the womā after the mans: yeax in life tyme also, if either of them being an infidel & vnbeleever forsake the other being a Chistiā. And Bell. acknowledgeth that they hold both these poynts, & ought to hold them. Bellar. shall therfore doe well to acknowledg that his step-reason, which oppugneth both these poynts of sound doctrine, savoureth of heresie, neither maketh more for him against vs, then for the Catharists against the Catholique fathers. Wherewith he may confesse
oCity contr, Ant et Cat•l •n toga cand.Cie cōtr, Ant et Cat•l •n toga cand.
pCic. in Cattle •rat •, Sa tust. •onju• cattle.Cic. in Cat•l •rat •, Sa tust. •ōju• cat•l.
5Neque femi •a am•ssa pu•icitia al•a ab •uerl• Corn•ac•tus annual •. quartoNeque femi •a am•ssa pu•icitia al•a ab •uerl• Corn•ac•tus anual •. quarto
6Adulterorū irgo de serui omn̄ Sen. is Agamemnon,Adulterorū irgo de serui omn̄ Sen. is •gamemnon,
Ambrose blaming the man, who7 puteth away his wife without crime, & marrieth another, an adulteress by so marrying; mislyketh that the children should have such a stepmother having such a mother under whom they might be. And if the mother, being put away so, took another husband, who in this case were an adulterer: S. Ambrose wisheth the children to be under their father, not under such a step-father. And if the Father casting out his wife so, cast out his children with her: S. Ambrose saith the children should rather purchase pardon for8 their mothers fault at their fathers hands, then be cast out for her sake. Wherein he doth no more say that the father ought to pardon the mothers adultery for the children's sake; then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abomination fora Lots sake, when he said thatb the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous, than thec righteous should be destroyed with the wicked. But here peradventure the Pamphleteer will reply that although Bell. author & argument (as himself observed, who there upon cut Bell. shorter) prove not his intent, to wit that another marriage is unlawful: yet they prove such marriage to be inconvenient in respect of the children, to whom there riseth hurt and discommodity by it. For answer whereunto & to the like reasons drawn by him & Bell. from other inconveniences, seven things are to be noted: all such as our adversaries themselves must needs yield to, & yielding thereunto shall set on fire their own chaff. The first that the man whose wife is an adulteress: may putt her absolutely away, for all his lifetime: nor is ever bound to let her dwell with him again, no not though she repent. Which point being plainly implied in ourd saviours answer to the Pharisees,e Bel. avoucheth & maintaineth thence: agreeably to the doctrine of his chiefest guides thef Popes &g Thomas of Aquine. The second that if the woman continue in her wickedness, without repentance & amen dement, the man is by duty bound to put her away. S. Matthew reporteth, of the blessed virgin, that when she was found to be with child of the holy Ghost, before her husband Joseph & she came together, hJoseph being a just man, & not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
Ambrose blaming the man, who7 puteth away his wife without cryme, & marrieth another, an adulteresse by so marrying; mislyketh that the children should have such a stepmother having such a mother vnder whom they might be. And if the mother, being put away so, tooke another husbād, who in this case were an adulterer: S. Ambrose wisheth the childrē to be vnder their father, not vnder such a step-father. And if the Father casting out his wife so, cast out his childrē with her: S. Ambrose saith the children should ratherpurchase pardō for8 their mothers fault at their fathers hands, then bee cast out for her sake. Wherin he doth no more saye that the father ought to pardon the mothers adultery for the childrens sake; then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abhominatiō fora Lots sake, when he said thatb the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous, thē thec righteous should be destroied with the wicked. But here peradvēture the Pāphletter wil reply that although Bell. author & argument (as himself observed, who there vpon cut Bell. shorter) prove not his intent, to weete that another marriage is vnlawful: yet they prove such marriage to be inconvenient in respect of the children, to whom there riseth hurt and discomodity by it. For answer whervnto & to the like reasōs drawen by him & Bell. from other inconveniences, seven things are to be noted: al such as our adversaries themselves must needes yeeld to, & yeelding therevnto shall set on fire their owne chaffe. The first that the man whose wife is an adulteresse: may putt her absolutly away, for al his liftyme: nor is ever boūd to let her dwel with him againe, noe not though she repent. Which point being plainly implied in ourd saviours answer to the Pharises,e Bel. avoucheth & maintaineth thēce: agreably to the doctrin of his chiefest guids thef Popes &g Thomas of Aquine. The second that if the woman continue in her wickednes, without repentance & amē dement, the man is by duty bound to put her away. S. Mathew reporteth, of the blessed virgin, that when she was found to be with child of the holy Ghost, before her husband Ioseph & she came together,
8culpam which he seē eth also to distinguish from crime, neither to mean adultery thereby but lighter of fences: such as honest wives sometimes do commit through oversight of shrewishnes noted by S. Ambrose before in these words, u•ori os debes toller are et emenda re mores and by antquity in the Proverb Qui nō litigat caeleb. est.culpam which he seē eth also to distinguish frō crime, neither to meane adultery therby but lighter of fences: such as honest wives sometims doe cōmitt through oversight of shrewishnes noted by S. Ambrose before in these wordes, u•ori os debes toller are et emenda re mores and by antquity in the Proverb Qui nō litigat caeleb. est.
Of which words importing that ⟨p. 85⟩justice moved him to put her away, goodwill to do it secretly, it seemeth to follow, that such a woman as Joseph misdeemed her to be, to wit an adulteress, cannot be kept without sin, whether she repent or no. Andi Cornelius Jansenius a learned bishop of the Papists granteth hereupon, that it was so in the old Testament. But in the new Testament, he saith, if she repent she may be kept with out sin: acknowledging that she may not in the new Test. neither unless she repent. Whereunto the Canonists & Schoolmen do accord; expounding a sentence cited by manyk Fathers out of the Proverbs of Solomon, lHe that keepeth an adulteress, is a fool and a wicked man; a sentence found in the Greek text of the Proverbs albeit not expressed out of the Hebrew Fountain, but added by the Seventy Interpreters, or other, perhaps to show that Solomon commending a wife, did mean a chaste wife in their Judgment, but added in the Greek, & thence translated also into the common Latin edition called S. Jeromes, so that it goeth for Scripture with Papists by theirm Trent Canon; this sentence I say, &n the Canons of the Fathers that urge it undistinctly against whosoever keepeth an adulteress, whether repentant or unrepentant, in like sort as theo Civill Law condemned all such,p the Canonists &q School-men distinguish & expound of such as keep adulteresses, which do not repent & amend their lives. Now granting that a man may keep an adulteress in matrimony if she repent, or being divorced from her, may take her again: yet (which is the third point) he may not do it often least impunity increase inequity. And this is agreed on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome, ther Canon ists &s School-men.t Hermes out of whom the Master of the shem tences allegeth & avoucheth it, meant (as his reason brought to prove it argueth) that the man may take her so again but once. Which doctrine the Papists can make Canonical if they list, unless uStapleton lie, who saith their Catholic Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Canonical Scriptures that bool• of Hermes, written in the Apostles time by S. Pauls scholar, not only cited much but commended too by many & most ancient Fathers, Clemens, Ireneus, Origen, Athanasius,, Eusebius, & Jerome.
Of which words importing that ⟨p. 85⟩iustice moved him to put her away, goodwill to doe it secretly, it seemeth to follow, that such a woman as Ioseph misdeemed her to be, to weete an adulteresse, cānot be kept without sinne, whether she repent or no. Andi Cornelius Iansenius a learned byshop of the Papists graunteth herevpon, that it was so in the old Testament. But in the new Testamēt, he saith, if she repēt she may be kept with out sinne: acknowledging that she may not in the new Test. neither vnlesse she repent. Whervnto the Canonists & Schoolemen doe accord; expounding a sentence cited by manyk Fathers out of the Proverbs of Salomon, lHe that keepeth an adulteresse, is a foole and a wicked man; a sentence found in the Greeke text of the Proverbs albeit not expressed out of the Hebrue Fountaine, but added by the Seventie Interpreters, or other, perhaps to shew that Salomon cōmending a wife, did meane a chast wife in their Iudgment, but added in the Greeke, & thence translated also into the common Latin edition called S. Ieroms, so that it goeth for Scripture with Papists by theirm Trent Canon; this sentence I say, &n the Canons of the Fathers that vrge it vndistinctly against whosoever kepeth an adulteresse, whether repentāt or vnrepentāt, in like sorte as theo Civill Law cōdēned all such,p the Canonists &q School-mē distinguish & expoūd of such as kepe adulteresses, which doe not repent & amend their lives. Now graunting that a man may keepe an adultereffe in matrimony if shee repent, or being divorced from her, may take her again: yet (which is the third point) hee may not doe it often least impunitie encrease inequitie. And this is agred on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome, ther Canō ists &s
iComment. in proverb. cap 18.Comment. in p•roverb. cap 18.
kHiéron. in Matt. cap. 19. Basil and Amphiloe. can. 9. et •1. Sent. synod. in Trull. can. •8 Innocent. ter•. lib. 1. de contempt. mundi. cap. 18
lProverb. 18. 22.
mConcil. Trident, sess. 4
nC. sieut crudelis. c. Dixit. Dominus 32. q. 1.
oL. 2 Lenocinij De ad Legem Juliani de adult. l crimen leno cinij, c, eo.L. 2 Lenocinij De ad Legem Iuliani de adult. l crimen leno cinij, c, eo.
At least the chiefest part of the Canon Lawx compiled by the direction and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth, setting down the very same out of ay Council that Peter Lombard out ⟨p. 86⟩of Hermes: the Papists though they will not (I trow) be of Stapletons mind for1 Hermes book, yet may think it likely that the Coū cel & Pope approved his meaning in this point. Chiefly sithz Panormitan, the flower of the Canonists having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned, because sins unpunished do become examples, citeth an excellent proof & light thereof a law of worthy Emperors, Valentinianus, Theodosius, & Arcadius. awho gram ting a general pardon for smaller trespasses extended it to none2 committed oftener than once; accounting such unworthy of their Princely favour, as grew by their former forgiveness to a custom of sinning rather then to amendment. But whether the Papists will judge those Christian Emperors to have been to strict, & say that adultery deserveth pardon oftener than lesser faults with them, or whether they think it sufficient to pardon once so great a crime, which the Emperors excepted by name out of their pardon, & willed it to be punished even the first time: the Papists do agree that a husband must not forgive it to his wife often. The fourth thing to be noted is, that the woman being putt away so, doth lose her dowry too by law. Which punishment asb God hath threatened by his law to men that go a whoring from him, though they have not any dowry of their own neither, but of his gift: so thec Civil Law hath inflicted it on adulterous wives, &d the Canon Law in looser times also. The fifth, that many persons mistake thee help prepared of God, & marry or do worse: considering that some cannot contain, as Popef Gregory noteth touching men S.g Ambrose touching women, theh Scripture touching both; some, though they could perhaps, yet should hurt their bodies by sickness, if they did, asi physique &k Philosophy teach; some though neither chastity nor health enforce them to marry, yet need it for their state of living, asl Dominicus Soto doth prove by certain poor husband-men & labourers. The sixth, that if a man die & have no son, his inheritance ought to come to his daughter by them Law of Moses and if he have no daughter, it ought to come to his brethren;
At least the chiefest part of the Canon Lawx cōpiled by the directiō and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth, setting downe the verie same out of ay Councel that Peter Lombard out ⟨p. 86⟩of Hermes: the Papists though they will not (I trow) be of Stapletons minde for1 Hermes booke, yet may think it likely that the Coū cel & Pope approved his meaning in this point. Chiefly sithz Panormitan, the flouer of the Canonists having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned, because sinnes vnpūished doe becom examples, citeth an excelent proofe & light therof a lawe of worthy Emperors, Valētinianus, Theodosius, & Arcadius. awho graū ting a generall pardon for smaler trespasses extended it to none2 cōmitted oftner thē once; accoūting such vnworthy of their Princilie favour, as grew by their former forgivenesse to a custome of sinning rather then to amendement. But whether the Papists will iudge those Christian Emperours to have bene to strickt, & saie that adulterie deserveth pardon oftener thē lesser faults with thē, or whether they thinke it sufficient to pardon once so great a crime, which the Emperours excepted by name out of their pardon, & willed it to be punished even the first tyme: the Papists doe agre that a husbād must not forgive it to his wife oftē. The fourth thing to be noted is, that the womā being putt away so, doth lose her dowry too by law. Which pūishmēt asb God hath threatned by his law to men that goe a whoring frō him, though they have not any dowrie of their owne neither, but of his gift: so thec Civil Law hath īsticted it on adultrous wives, &d the Canō Law ī looser tymes also. The fifth, that many persons mistake thee
xPrefat, Grec 9. in libro S quinque Decretalium,
yThe Councel of Arles as most copies read: or of Orleans as otner.The Coūcel of Arles as most copies reade: or of Orleans as otner.
1Liber qu• appellatur Pastoris, Apocryphus dist. 15 c. Sancta Romana B•l, Tom. • cont. 1 lib, 1. cap. ult.
zIn c. si vir sciens de adult.
aL 3. c. de episcop audientL 3. c. de episcop audiēt
2Remissionē veniae crimina nisi simel commissa non habeant.Remissionē veniae crimina nisi simel commissa non habeant.
and if he have no brethren, to his Fathers brethren, and so forth to the next kinsman of his family. Unto which ordinance: the laws of all well nordered states & common weals are, though in certain circū stances different, yet in substance suitable. The seventh, that it is sundry ways incommodious for a child to be unlawfully begotten, ⟨p. 87⟩and (as we term it) base borne because both theo ignominy thereof is a blemish, &p that blemish breedeth baseness of courage; &q bastards are not brought up so well by their parents as lawful children use to be: neither are they privileged a like; & preferred tor place of public government, ors Benefit of inheritance, by Laws divine or humane. And these things being weighed well show that Bellarmins reason corrected by the Pamphleteer needeth a new correction: & if inconveniences might decide our question which they cannot do fort many things are lawful that are not expedient but if they might decide it, they would sway with us rather then against us. For in case the man, burning with jealousy & ragev which is usual in this kind of injury or the woman being (asx adulteresses commonly are) wicked, impudent, once naught & always naught, he will not, or may not keep or take her again, the children missing her, are destitute of a mother to look to their education. And then it were better for them that their father took a second wife to bring them up, asy Plato thought. Wherein another man might have the like success that Poris (a gentleman of Macedonia) had,z whose former wives children were brought up as well and carefully by their stepmother as her own children were. But if it fall not out with many as with him, and the children find more sharp & hard usage at their stepmothers hands, who knoweth whether it may not turn to their more good. Chiefly sith the tender indulgence of Parents dotha nourish wanton wickedness, in the sons of Eli, bambition in Adonia, ctransgressions in whom not? andd moderate severity would restrain the same? ase one who said he had a cruel stepmother & a father,f another who found like fault with his father & mother, both for fear restraining themselves from tricks of unthrifts did show by their examples. Here is a further help too for the children's benefit, that their father having their mothers whole dowry, beside whatsoever the second wife bringeth is able to do more for them.
and if he have no brethereē, to his Fathers bretherē, and so forth to the next kinsman of his familie. Vnto which ordināce: the lawes of al wel nordred states & cōmon weaks are, though in certaine circū staunces different, yet in substance sutable. The seavēth, that it is sundry wayes incōmodious for a child to be vnlawfully begottē, ⟨p. 87⟩and (as we tearme it) base borne because both theo ignomenie thereof is a blemish, &p that blemish bredeth basenes of courage; &q bastards are not brought vp so well by their parents as lawfull children vse to be: neither are they priviledged a like; & preaferred tor place of publique government, ors Benefit of inheritance, by Lawes divine or humane. And these things being weighed well shew that Bellarmins reason corrected by the Pamphleter needeth a new correction: & if inconveniences might decide our question which they cannot doe fort manie things are lawfull that are not expedient but if they might decide it, they would swaie with vs rather then against vs. For in case the man, burning with iealousie & ragev which is vsuall in this kinde of iniurie or the woman beeing (asx adulteresses commonlye are) wicked, impudent, once naught & alwaies naught, hee will not, or maie not keepe or take her againe, the childrē missing her, are destitute of a mother to looke to their education. And then it were better for thē that their father tooke a second wife to bring thē vp, asy Plato thought. Wherein another man might have the like successe that Poris (a gentlemā of Macedōia) had,z
nOf the Grecians, of the Romans, of our own country and the rest.Of the Gr•tians, of the Romans, of our owne countrie and the rest.
oIsaiah •7. 3. Chrysost in e• ist. ad Rom. hom. 24.Esay •7. 3. Chrysost in e• ist. ad Rom. hom. 24.
pPlutarch de liberor eō ••atPlutarch de liberor eō ••at
qHeb 12. •. Chrysostom in epist ad Hebr. Rom. 29 c si gens Anglot. dist 36.Heb 12. •. Ch•ysostom in epist ad Hebr. Rom. 29 c si gens Anglot. dist 36.
rDeut. 12. 2. Conc. Pict, c. 1. extra. de filijs presbyt Concil. Lateran. sub. Alexandro Tertio cap 3. L generaliter. Sparios D. de DceurionibusDeut. 12. 2. Conc. Pict, c. 1. extra. de filijs presbyt Cōcil. Lateran. sub. Alexandro Tertio cap 3. L generaliter. Sparios D. de Dceurionibus
sJudg. 11. 2. L. 3 D. de lib et past L ult c. de naturalib. lib. 1. l. ex cō plexu. c. de incestis nuprijsIudg. 11. 2. L. 3 D. de lib et past L ult c. de naturalib. lib. 1. l. ex cō plexu. c. de incestis nuprijs
tCor. 6. 12.
v
The author
John Rainolds 1549–1607
PuritansEngland
President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Transcription key
•
an illegible letter
〈…〉
illegible words
〈non-Latin alphabet〉
Greek or Hebrew the transcribers did not key
▪
illegible punctuation
⟨p. 12⟩
a page break in the printed book
⟨p. 78⟩
right, because the offendour had sinned thus, or thus: & Alexander, whether in this decree I knowe not (for it is razed out of the
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
letteth him to have done with this persuasion, that the children, should receive more good & benefit by a beleeuing step-mother, then by an vnbeleeving mother. Doubtlesse
vngodly hinder, is a great argumēt he was of this minde.
⟨p. 84⟩
too that he hath abused Ambrose in affirming this to be his reasō: & avouching him to say, that the Father ought to pardō the Mothers fault for the childrens sake. For S.
Hermes out of whō the Maister of the sē tences aleageth & avoucheth it, meant (as his reason brought to prove it argueth) that the man may take her so againe but once. Which doctrine the Papists can make Canonicall if they list, vnlesse
Stapleton lie, who saith their Catholique Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Cāonicall Scriptures that bool• of Hermes, written in the Apostles tyme by S. Pauls schollar, not onely cited much but cōmended too by many & most aūcient Fathers, Clemens, Ireneus, Origen, Athanasius,, Eusebius, & Ierom.
help prepared of God, & marry or doe worse: cōsidering that some cannot conteine, as Pope
Dominicus Soto doth prove by certain poore husbād-men & labourers. The sixth, that if a man die & have no sonne, his inheritāce ought to come to his daughter by the
whose former wives childrē were brought vp as wel and carefully by their stepmother as her owne children were. But if it fall not out with many as with him, and the childrenfind more sharp & hard vsage at their stepmothers hands, who knoweth whether it may not turne to their more good. Chiefly fith the tender indulgēce of Parēts doth
another who foūd like fault with his father & mother, both for feare restraīng thēselves from tricks of ūthrifts did shew by their examples. Here is a farder help too for the childrens benefite, that their father having their mothers whole dowry, beside whatsoever the second wife bringeth is able to doe more for thē.
