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.
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.
Paul 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;
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 look
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. mPaule 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; nPaul teacheth. ⟨p. 80⟩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 lookeo 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.
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
Whereas contrariwise; if by means he cannot live single & ummarried, he be constrained to keep the adulteress still, or after separation to receive her again: she is likely tog give her own & her husbands goods to her lover, ash Messalina did to Siluis; or though she take gifts & rewards of him, toi wast all in riot, as thek whores of Catiline's confederacy did. Moreover a woman that can have ⟨p. 88⟩no sons, but daughters only by her husband, may have sons by another man, asl Hippocrates showeth. Which if the adulteress have by her lover, the daughters to whom the inheritance should come are defrauded of it, And if she have but daughters or younger sons by him, the bastards; presumed to be lawful children, defraud the lawful children of so much as them selves get. The Cuckoo hatcheth her eggs in other birds nests, & the eggs she findeth of theirs, she devoureth, asm Aristotle writeth: or, asn Pliny saith, the birds that sitteth abroad upon her own eggs & the Cuckoos, when both their young are bred up, liketh the Cuckoos bird better then her own, & suffereth them to be devoured of him in her own sight. A term in reproach drawn in many languages from the Cuckoos name to note their3 calamity, or (if they suffer it will lingly) dishonesty, who receive other men into their beds & foster up their children, may be a sufficient lesson for a father what comfort & benefit his children are to look for by having such a mother to feed & oversee them. Beside to omit suspicion of bastardy, where by his children also may be discouraged & stained) himselfo shall be counted a bawd unto his wife, & must (by a Canon of thep C. of Nantes) do seven years public penance, & be shut out all that while from the communion, yea want the comfort thereof even at his death too, (by anotherq Co.) if he be of the Clergy. And how can he choose but live still in fear & anguish of mind, least she addr drunkenness to thirst, & murder to adultery: I mean least she serve him ass Clytemnestra did Agamemnon, ast Livia did Drusus asv Mrs. Arden did her husband? or if to avoid these griefs of shame & danger he put her quite away & resolve never to come again in house with her:
Wheras contrarywise; if by means he cānot live single & ūmarried, he be constrained to keepe the adulteresse still, or after seperation to receive her againe: she is likely tog geve her owne & her husbāds goods to her lover, ash Messallina did to Siluis; or though she take gifts & rewards of him, toi wast all in riot, as thek whores of Cattilines cōfederacie did. Moreover a woman that can have ⟨p. 88⟩no sonnes, but daughters onely by her husband, may have sonnes by another man, asl Hippocrates sheweth. Which if the adulteresse have by her lover, the daughters to whō the inheritance should come are defrauded of it, And if she have but daughters or yōger sōnes by him, the bastards; presūed to be lawful childrē, defraude the lawful children of so much as them selves gett. The Cuckow hatcheth her eggs in other birds nests, & the eggs she findeth of theirs, she devowreth, asm Aristotle writeth: or, asn Plinie sayth, the birds that sitteh abroade vpō her owne eggs & the Cuckows, when both their yong are bred vp, liketh the Cuckows bird better then her owne, & suffereth them to be devoured of him in her owne sight. A tearme in reproch drawne in many languages frō the Cuckows name to note their3 calamity, or (if they suffer it wil lingly) dishonesty, who receive other men into their bedds & foster vp their childrē, may be a sufficiēt lesō for a father what cōfort & benefit his childrē are to looke for by having such a mother to feede & oversee them. Beside to omitt suspiciō of bastardy, where by his children also may be discouraged & stained) himselfeo shal be coūted a bawd vnto his wife, & must (by a Canon of thep C. of Nantes) doe seaven yeres publique penance, & be shut out al that while from the cōmunion, yea want the cōfort therof even at his death too, (by another
he may incur as great danger or shame, or both, nay greater, on the other side, by lack of a necessary help for his living, or by state of body subject to certain sicknesses or by incontinency, whether consumingx & burning him without remedy, or forcing himy to damnable remedies of whoresz or worse. Further more his wife, the adulterous mother, may be the boulder to sin, & to returna as the dog to his vomit, & the sow washed to wallowing in the mire, if she know her husband cannot want a wife, & must have her or none, which perhaps moved that Gentlewoman of Rome to be the more licentious,b whom her husband found playing the incestuous whore with their son in law:4 after that she had her ⟨p. 89⟩husband bound by oath that he would never separate & divorce her from him, so to be free to marry another, And why may not she live too in perpetual heaviness & fear, least her husband being chained with such necessity, should seek to get himself liberty of marrying by making her away? There was a certain Spaniard, whose wife driven out by him for her adultery & eftsoons reconciled, was, when she offended again, divorced from him by an Ecclesiastical Judge, at his suite, & shut into a monastery. The husband saying afterward that he loved her, & that he agreed for fear to the divorcement, desired that he might be reconciled to her, & she restored to him, according to thec Civill Lawd Navarus (as famous a man for skill in canon law, among the Papists, as Bell. for Divinity) being asked his judgment what should be done herein, made answer,e that the wife divorced in such sort, is not bound to return again unto her husband, & that the husbands speech of his affection must not be easily believed, because he may feign it to the intent to allure her thereby to dwell with him, that he may slay or poison her,5 through desire of marrying another wife, after her death. Of which thing (saith Navarus) there may suspicion & conjecture rise out of the circumstances of her offence; & his suite: chiefly in a man of the Spanish nation, which is more inclined to bear small love to their wives yea being chaste, then to be reconciled to them being adulteresses, specially after the first time. Now though Spaniards chiefly be prone to work such feats of slaying or poisoning, as this man who knew them (himself a Spaniard) witnesseth:
he may incurre as great daūger or shāe, or both, nay greater, on the other side, by lack of a necessary help for his living, or by state of body subiect to certain sicknesses or by incōtinecie, whether cōsūingx & burning him without remedy, or forcing himy to dānable remedies of whorsz or worse. Further more his wife, the adulterous mother, may be the boulder to sinne, & to returnea as the dog to his vomitt, & the sow washed to wallowing in the myer, if she know her husband canot want a wife, & must have her or none, which perhaps moved that Gētlewomā of Rome to be the more lic̄etious,b whom her husbād foūd plaing the incestuous whore with their sonne in law:4 after that she had her ⟨p. 89⟩husband boūd by oth that he would never seperate & divorce her frō him, so to be free to marry another, And why may not she live too in perpetual heavinesse & feare, least her husbād being chayned with such necessity, should seeke to get himself libery of marrying by making her away? There was a certaine Spanjard, whose wife drivē out by him for her adultery & eftsoons recōciled, was, when she offended againe, divorced frō him by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge, at his suite, & shutt into a monastery. The husbād saying afterward that he loved her, & that he agreed for feare to the divorcemēt, desired that he might be recōciled to her, & she restored to him, according to thec Civill Lawd Navarus (as famous a man for skil in canō law, amōg the Papists, as Bell. for Divinity) being asked his iudgmēt what should be doneheriu, made answer,e that the wife divorced in such sort, is not boūd to returne againe ūto her husbād, & that the husbands speech of his affectiō must not be easily beleeved, because he may faine it to the intēt to allure her therby to dwell with him, that he may slea or poysen her,
yet an Italian fMarquess, who put to death his wife taken in adultery & married another, declareth that6 not only Spaniards will adventure to make their wives away, if finding them unchaste, they must have some and would have better.3 Finally if the wife, not able to have any children by her husband, have some by an adultererg (for this may come to pass also) the brethren,5 or the next of kin to the husband, shall loose his inheritance: & that which they ought to enjoy by right the adulterous seed will intercept & purloin. I let pass the public harms & discommodities which byh such iniquities of private persons were likely to accrue to the common weal. These that I have touched suffice to overweigh our adversaries reason drawn from inconveniences. For if I should stand on the children alone, even those already borne whom7 Bell. expressly mentioneth & nameth: the ⟨p. 90⟩hardness of a stepfather or stepmother lighting on them by the second marriage, cannot counterpoise the loss in education, wealth, inheritance, honour, which an adulterous parent bringeth. Beside that the children to be borne afterward (as Bell. by naming those already borne seemeth to confess) should be evil provided for: whose baseness of birth & discommodities following it Proceeded from restraint of marring again after divorcement for adultery. Wherefore if we put withal in our balance the detriments & harms, that grow to the father, the mother, the brethren & kinsmen of the father I might say to the common weal too: the balance of out adversaries will be tilted up so high by the weight of ours, as if it were lighter then vanity it self.
yet an Italiā fMarques, who put to death his wife taken in adulttry & married another, declareth that6 not only Spanjards wil adventure to make their wives away, if finding thē vnchast, they must have some and would have better.3 Finally if the wife, not able to have any childrē by her husband, have some by an adultererg (for this may come to passe also) the brethren,5 or the next of kinne to the husband, shal loose his inheritance: & that which they ought to enioy by right the adulterous seede will intercept & putloine. I let passe the publike harmes & discōmoditis which byh such iniquities of private persons were likely to accrew to the comō weale. These that I have touched suffice to overweigh our adversaries reason drawen frō incōveniēces. For if I should stand on the childrē alone, evē those alreadie borne whom7 Bell. expressely mētioneth & nameth: the ⟨p. 90⟩hardnes of a stepfather or stepmother lighting on them by the second marriage, can̄ot cōuterpeise the losse in educatiō, wealth, inheritance, honour, which an adulterous parent bringeth. Beside that the children to be borne afteward (as Bell. by naming those already borne seemeth to confesse) should be evil provided for: whose basenes of birth & discōmodities following it Proceeded frō restraint of maring again after divorcemēt for adultery. Wherfore if we put withall in our ballāce the detrimēts & harmes, that grow to the father, the mother, the brethrē & kinsmē of the father I might say to the cōmon weale too: the balāce of out adversaries wilbe tilted vp so high by the weight of ours, as if it were lighter then vanity it selfe.
fFerrara. Laon. Chaco•end derebus Tu•e lib. 6.
6E. mounol phileous a•ox ous meropon anthropon Atreidas […] omer lliad •. L. si. uxor D. ad leg. •ul. de adulter.E. mounol phileous a•ox ous meropon anthropon Atreidas 〈…〉 omer lliad •. L. si. uxor D. ad leg. •ul. de adulter.
3Pollaki ka i •umpasa p••is kahou a• dross e paurel. Hefiod. ope•ib et d•eb.Pollaki ka i •umpasa p••is kahou a• dros e paurel. Hefiod. ope•ib et d•eb.
gHippocras de gē •is.Hippocras de gē •is.
5• pollaki Ka i •••m pasa po••is Kahou an•dros e paurel. Hesiod ope••ib et dieb.
And thus by the way, of weakness of Bell. third & fourth reasons is descried & daunted. The third that if the marriage we treat of were lawful, a gap would be opened to infinite divorcements, yea urongful & unjust. The fourth, that if the innocent party may marry, the nocent also may, who then should gain by his sin, & many would sin of purpose that thy might marry others. For as one of the wisest, & best learned Popesi Pius the 2 said, that marriage was taken away from Priests for great cause, but ought to be restored to them for greater: so may a judicious & discrete Papist supposing these reasons of Bell. to be sound, say that marriage after divorcement for adultery was taken away from men upon many & good considerations: but ought to be restored unto them again upon more & better. Howbeit I must add thereunto that although his reasons be confuted sufficiently with this supposal, let them be tried also by the rules of reason, & it will appear they are a great deal sounder in show then in deed. Fork the divorcement of an adulteress from her husband is punishment of her sin: as hanging with us is a punishment of thieves, of cutpurses, & burning through the ear of rogues. So that Bell. reason concluding the marriage in question to be unlawful, because a gap would be opened to infinite divorcements, is like as if a libertine or vagabond should say, that it is unlawful for Judges to do justice on rogues, thieves, & cutpurses, because there would be opened a gap to infinite hangings, & burnings through the ears. But some men (saith Bell.) would sow debates, pick quarrels, devise false accusations against their wives being innocent: & so a gap would be opened to wrongful divorcements, not to divorcements only. What? must no often ⟨p. 91⟩no traitor, no blasphemer then be put to death because many thousands ofl innocent persons, yeam innocency it self, have been accused falsely, & putt to death wrongfully? Or if Bell. grant, that although somen sitting to judge according to the law, do manifest wrong to guiltless men against law, yet must wicked miscreants be executed by the Magistrate owho beareth not the sword in vain: he granteth it is cavilling captiousness & sophistry to conclude that men divorced lawfully may not marry because some would therefore be divorced unlawfully. The greater was his fault to say that this reason is touched by, S. pJerome:
And thus by the way, of weaknes of Bell. third & fourth reasōs is descryed & daūted. The third that if the marriage wee treat of were lawful, a gapp would be opēed to infinit divorcemēts, yea urōgful & vniust. The fourth, that if the innocēt party may marry, the nocent also may, who thē should gaine by his sinne, & many would sinne of purpose that thy might marry others. For as one of the wisest, & best learned Popesi Pius the 2 said, that marriage was taken away frō Priests for great cause, but ought to be restored to them for greater: so may a iudicious & discrete Papist supposing these reasos of Bell. to be soūd, say that marriage after devorcemēt for adulterie was taken away from men vppon many & good cōsideratiōs: but ought to be restored vnto them again vpon more & better. Howbeit I must add thervnto that although his reasons be cōfuted sufficiētly with this supposali, lett them be tried also by the rules of reason, & it wil appeare they are a great deale soūder in shew then in deede. Fork the divorcemēt of an adulteresse from her husbād is pūishmēt of her sinn: as hāging with vs is a pūishmēt of theeves, of cutpurses, & burning through the eare of rogues. So that Bell. reasō cōcluding the marriage in question to be vnlawful, because a gap would be opened to infinite divorcemēts, is like as if a libertine or vagabond should say, that it is vnlawful for Iudges to do iustice on rogues, theeves, & cutputses, because there would be opened a gap to infinite hangings, & burnings through the eares. But some men (sayth Bell.) would sowe debates, pick quarels, devise faulse accusatiōs against their wives being innocent: & so a gap would be opened to wrōgfull divorcemēts, not to divorcemēts onely. What? must no offen ⟨p. 91⟩no traytour, no blasphemer then be put to death because many thousands ofl innocent persons, yeam innocēcie it self, have bene accused falsely, & putt to death wrōgfullie? Or if Bell. graunt, that although somen sitting to iudge according to the law, doe manifest wrong to guiltlesse men against law, yet must wicked miscreants be exeqūted by the Magistrate owho beareth not the sworde in vaine: he graunteth it is cavilling captiousnes & sophistrie to conclude that mē divorced lawfulie may not marry because some would therefore be divorced vnlawfully. The greater was his fault to say that this reason is touched by, S.
iPlatina de vitis p•ntificum. in Pio. •
kIn nocen• quart in. c. size duxerit. extra de adult Hostièns sum de adult. 7.In nocen• quart in. c. si se duxerit. extra de adult Hostièns sum de adult. 7.
l1. King 2. 13. Act. 6. 13. et. 7 58. The magtirs spoken of in the books of Maccabees, Eusebius, Victor Mr. Fox. and others.1. King 2. 13. Act. 6. 13. et. 7 58. The magtirs spoken of in the bookes of Machabees, Eusebius, Victor Mr. Fox. and others.
whose oversight he should have done better to acknowledge & friendly to excuse it by his haste in writing; for haste is unadvised & blind (asq one said well) than by his name to countenance so weak a reason in it self, so dangerous in consequence, which overthroweth all administering of Justice & judgment. And sithr himself teacheth against S.s Jeromes judgment that a man whose wife enticeth him to heresy, or to wicked deeds, may be divorced from her because although the woman's chastity should come thereby into hazard, yet less is the peril & hurt of her adultery then of his wickedness or heresy, & the church provideth rather for the innocent party, then for the nocent: he might with a little indifferency & equity of an unpartial eye, have seen that the Church should by the same reason allow the innocent to marry: at least that S. Jeromes credit cannot prejudice us more in the one point than him in the other. True is that (I cannot deny) which he addeth true, most true & certain, that the8 offenders should gain by their sin, if they might also marry, as well as the innocent. They should gain in deed. But ast Daniel said unto Nebuchadnezzar; the dream be to them that hate thee & the interpretation thereof to thine enemies: In like sort may I say, this gain be to the enemies of God & of his Church. For adulterers & adulteresses do gain. first, dishonesty,u defiling their bodies & souls with an heinous & detestable crime. Thenx hardly scape they, but they gain beggary too: the man if he be a whoremonger, wasting all commonly as they prodigal child did; the woman losing her dowry. Besidez they gain infamy; a gain of greater value than beggary by much: fora a good name is to be chosen above great riches. Last of all theyb gain the heavy wrath of God, & his just vengeance: they lose the inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven, & purchase to ⟨p. 92⟩to themselves the chains of darkness for ever Lucretia a matron of Rome in time of paganism, having suffered violence of Sextus Tarquinius, when her husband being sent for to come unto her9 did ask her Is all well? No quoth she; for what is well with a woman, her chastity being lost? yet she if better judgement might have prevailed with her, had not lost her chastity: her body being only defiled by force, her mind undefiled. But now a Christian man, if yet a Christian;
whose oversight he should have done better to acknowledg & friendly to excuse it by his haste in writing; for haste is unadvised & blinde (asq one said well) thē by his name to countenance so weake a reason in it self, so daungerous in cōsequence, which overtroveth all administring of Iuctice & iudgmēt. And sithr himself teacheth against S.s Ieroms iudgmēt that a man whose wife entiseth him to heresie, or to wicked deedes, may be divorced from her because although the womans chastitie should come thereby into hazard, yet lesse is the perill & hurt of her adulterie then of his wickednes or heresie, & the churche provideth rather for the innocent partie, then for the nocent: hee might with a litle indifferēcie & equitie of an vnpartial eye, have seene that the Church should by the same reason allowe the innocent to marrie: at least that S. Ieroms creditt cannot preiudice vs more in the one point thē him in the other. True is that (I cannot denie) which hee addeth true, most true & certaine, that the8 offendours should gaine by their sinne, if they might also marrie, as well as the innocent. They should gaine in deede. But ast Daniel said vnto Nabuchodonosor; the dreame be to thē that hate thee & the interpretatiō therof to thine enemies: In like sort may I say, this gaine be to the enemies of God & of his Church. For adulterers & adulteresses doe gaine. first, dishonesty,u defiling their bodies & soules with an heynous & detestable crime. Thenx hardely scape they, but they gaine beggary too: the man if he be a whormōger, wasting all cōmonly as they prodigal child did; the womā losing her dowry. Besidez they gaine infamy; a gaine of greater value thē beggary by much: fora a good name is to be chosen above great riches. Last of al they
qLivij lib. 12
rDe matrim. Sacram. cap. 14.
sIn eundem locum Matt.
8Commodū ex peccato suo adulter repor ta•et.Commodū ex peccato suo adulter repor ta•et.
sure a Jesuit, the chiefest instructor of the youth of Rome & of the Komanists through all Christendom, doth maintain in print that Lucretia, not she I spake of but suchl a Lucretia as the 2Popes daughter was having lost not only chastity but also wealth, good name, Gods favour,c the promise both of this life & the life to come, yet if being put away from her husband she may take another, hath gained by her losses, because she may be married to her Tarquinius, & match a graceless whore with a shameless beast.
sure a Iesuit, the chiefest instructer of the youth of Rome & of the Komanists through al Christendō, doth mainteyn in print that Lucretia, not she I spake of but suchl a Lucretia as the 2Popes daughter was having lost not onely chastety but also wealth, good name, Gods favour,c the promise both of this life & the life to come, yet if being put away from her husbād she may take another, hath gained by her losses, because she may be married to her Tarquinius, & match a gracelesse whore with a shamlesse beast.
lLucretia […] mine sed re Thais Alexandri filia sponsa nuru• Sanazor in epigram•.Lucretia 〈…〉 mine sed re Thais Alexandri filia sponsa nuru• Sanazor in epigram•.
2Pope Alexander the Sixth of whom the Epigram goeth. Sextus Tarqu• n, Sextus Ne to Sextaset fu• est Sempere• a Sextu. diruta Roma facePope Alexander the Sixth of whō the Epigrā goeth. Sextus Tarqu• n, Sextus Ne to Sextaset fu• est Sempere• a Sextu. diruta Roma face
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.
through desire of marrying another wife, after her death. Of which thing (saith Navarus) there may suspiciō & cōiecture rise out of the circūstances of her offence; & his suite: cheifly in a man of the Spanish natiō, which is more inclined to beare smal love to their wives yea being chast, then to be reconciled to thē being adulteresses, specially after the first tyme. Now though Spanjards chiefly be prone to worke such feats of slaying or poysoning, as this man who knew thē (himself a Spanjard) witnesseth:
gaine the heavie wrath of God, & his iust vēgeāce: they lose the inherttāce of the kingdō of Heaven, & purchase to
⟨p. 92⟩
to thēselves the chaines of darknes for ever Lueretia a matrone of Rome in tyme of pagāisme, having suffered violence of Sextus Tarquinius, when her husband being sent for to come vnto her
did aske her Is all well? No quoth she; for what is well with a woman, her chastity being lost? yet she if better iudgemēt might have prevailed with her, had not lost her chastity: her body being onely defiled by force, her mind vndefiled. But now a Christian man, if yet a Christian;
