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.
Eor he did not write the Epistle to the Colossians thereby to add ought to that which he had written unto the Ephesians, as he did the later to the Corinthians, or Thessalonians, after the former, but only to reclaim the Colossians from their error, that man is reconciled, and hath access to God by Angels, and to correct their Jewish and Heathenish observations; for oChrysostom pTheophylact, and qOecumenius give this cause. That which Paul therefore saith to the Colossians must be absolutely true, and not depend of that he saith to the Ephesians, unless our meaning be that they were deceived, who read the Epistle to the Colossians without the other. If some Catholic Father (I say) should speak thus, against our interpreting of Scripture by Scripture, would not his children (trow ye) think it strongly & invincibly proved, that they must obey him absolutely in all things? Chiefly, if as Father Robert bringeth Austin, soe he broughtr Cassianus S. Chrysostoms scholar in, who praiseth one Mutius (a novice of an Abbey in Egypt) as a most worthy pattern of obedience to his Abbot or, Father, as you would say, for that he was ready to cast his own natural son a little child, into the River at his commandment & soe as much as lay in him did murder his son, but that some by the Abbots appointment did receive him being caste out of his Fathers hands towards the River, and saved him from drowning. For hes who extolleth this Novices faith and devotion to Heaven, affirming that the Abbot was by revelation straightway advertised, that Mutius had performedt Abraham the Patriarchs work by the obedience, as if there were no difference between thev Lords commandment and an Abbots might have formed a sentence like Austins in defence thereof: Who are we that we should say, Children in some things must obey their Parents, and in some they must not, whereas the Scripture saith. Children obey your Parents in all things. By the which construction whatsoever a mans mother should command him, must be obeyed too, she being comprehended in the name of Parents: and what
any Governor should command, or friend that hath done good, or an old Grey-headed man they being Fathers all, though not by nature, yet by office, benefit, or age.
Eor hee did not write the Epistle to the Collossians thereby to add ought to that which he had writtē vnto the Ephessians, as hee did the later to the Corinthians, or Thessalonians, after the former, but onely to reclayme the Collossians from their errour, that man is reconciled, and hath accesse to God by Angels, and to corect their Iewish and Heathenish observations; for oChrysostō pTheophylact, and qOecumenius geve this cause. That which Paule therefore sayth to the Collossians must bee absolutly true, and not depend of that he sayth to the Ephesians, vnlesse our meaning bee that they were deceived, who read the Epistle to the Collossians without the other. If some Catholique Father (I say) should speake thus, agaynst our interpreting of Scripture by Scripture, would not his children (trow yee) thinke it strongly & invincibly proved, that they must obey him absolutely in all things? Chiefly, if as Father Robert bringeth Austin, soe he broughtr Cassianus S. Chrisostoms scholar in, who prayseth one Mutius (a novice of an Abbey in Egypt) as a most worthy paterne of obedience to his Abbat or, Father, as you would say, for that he was ready to cast his owne natural sonne a litle child, into the River at his commandemēt & soe as much as lay in him did murder his son, but that some by the Abbats appoyntement did receive him beinge caste out of his Fathers hands towards the River, and saved him from drowning. For hees who extolleth this Novices fayth and devotion to Heavē, affirming that the Abbat was by revelation straightway advertised, that Mutius hadd performedt Abraham the Patriarks worke by the obedience, as if there were noe difference between thev Lords commandement and an Abbats might have formed a sent•n•e like Austins in defence thereof: Who are wee that wee should say, Children in some things must obey their Parents, and in some they must not, whereas the Scripture sayth. Children obey your Parents in all things. By the which construction whatsoever a mans mother should command him, must bee obeyed too, shee being comprehended in the name of Parents: and what ⟨p. 29⟩soever a mansx Maister should command, hee beeing also a Father, and whatsoevery any Governour should cōmand, or frend that hath done good, or an olde Gray-headed mā they being Fathers all, though not by nature, yet by office, benefit, or age.
oH•m. • in epist ad colloss.
pArgument, epist,
qArgum. 2 e Theodore••.
rMonast. in stitut lib. 4. cap. 27. • F•r so the Syriaque word Abba (whence Abbot cometh) doth signify Rom 8. •5.Monast. in stitut lib. 4. cap. 27. • F•r so the Syriaque word Abba (whence Abbat cometh) doth signifie Rom 8. •5.
And then had Kingz Asa done evil in putting down his mother Maachah from her state, because she had made an Idol in a grove; & in breaking down her Idol; and stamping it, & burning it. Anda Doeg the Edomite had deserved greater praise then Sauls servants: sith they Would not move their hands to fall upon the Lords Priests, when their Master bid them: which Doeg did and executed his wrath to the uttermost. And theb Apostles had overseen themselves, when they disobeyed the high Priest, and rulers and Elders of Israel; and gave this reason of it We ought rather to obey God then men. Yea that wretched impious & execrable fryer, who did more then barbarously murder his Sovereign Lords the* French King the anointed of the HIGHEST, may then be excused, excused! nay commended and praised by traitorous papists, as having done that which he ought: seeing it is likely that either Pope or Priest, or Jesuit or Abbot, or some of his superiors commanded him to do it. Such absurd consequents of Bellarmins affirming that Marks and Lukes words must be absolutely true, and not depend of Matthew, do show what great reason he had soe to speak. For it is written of the City of Jerusalem, compared with the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites cSuch mother, Such daughter: in like sort may it be said of this construction of the holy Scripture compared with Bellarmins. Such consequence, such antecedent. And thus far of his second place.
And then had Kingz Asa done evill in putting downe his mother Maachah from her state, because shee hadd made an Idole in a grove; & in breaking downe her Idoll; and stamping it, & burning it. Anda Doeg the Edomite had deserved greater prayse then Sauls servants: sith they Would not move their hands to fal vpom the Lords Priests, when their Maister bidd them: which Doeg did and ex•cuted his wrath to the vttermost. And theb Apostles hadd overseene themselves, when they disobeyed the high Priest, and rulers and Elders of Israel; and gave this reason of it Wee ought rather to obey God then men. Yea that wrecthed impious & execrable fryer, who did more then barbarously murder his Soveraigne Lords the* French King the annoynted of the HIGHEST, may then bee excused, excused! nay commended and praysed by trayt•rous papists, as having done that which hee ought: seing it is likely that either Pope or Priest, or Iesuit or Abbat, or some of his superiours commanded him to doe it. Such absurd consequents of Bellarmins affirming that Markes and Lukes words must bee absolutely true, and not depend of Mathew, doe shew what great reason hee had soe to speake. For it is written of the Cittie of Ierusalem, compared with the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites cSuch mother, Such daughter: in like sort may it be sayd of this constructiō of the holy Scripture compared with Bellarmins. Such consequēce, such antecedent. And thus farre of his second place.
The third is in the Epistle to the Romans the seventh chap. dKnow ye not brethren (for I speak to them that know the law) that the law hath Dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman, which is in subjection to a man, is bound by the law to the man while he liveth: but if the man be dead, she is delivered from the law of the man. So then if while the man liveth, she take another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the may be dead she is free from the law, soe that she is not an adulteress, though she take another man. Out of which place and ethe like in the seventh of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, We gather (saith Bellarmin) that the band of marriage ⟨p. 30⟩is never loosed but by death: and that seeing it is not loosed, it remaineth after divorcement too, for whatsoever cause the divorce be made. This doth Bellarmin gather: but gathering soe, he reapeth that which the holy Ghost sowed not. For S. Pauls meaning in those words to the Romans and Corinthians was, that the band of marriage is not loosed commonly and ordinarily while both the parties live; not that absolutely, it is never loosed till one of them die. As in the like case (to open the matter by his own examples) hef saith Who goeth to Warfare any time at his own cost? Now some have served at their own charges without pay sometimes. For soe did theg Roman stock of the Fabij against the Vientians andh Clinias an Athenian Citizen against the Persians. But men for the most part are waged publicly thereunto. And that is the point which S. Paul respected. Againi Who planteth a Vineyard, & eateth not of the fruit thereof? • He on whom they father the first occasion of that proverb Many things do happen between the cup and the lip; is said not to have drunk of the fruit of the Vineyard which himself had planted, nor to have eaten thereof belike. At least seeingk old men plant trees for their posterity, neither mightl the Jews eat of their fruit in certain years: It is more then likely that many of them did not. Some did not questionless: they namely, who sustained the curse which God denounced unto them by Moses. mThou shalt plant a Vineyard, and shalt not use the fruit thereof. Yet S. Paul said well, because such as plant Vines do enjoy them commonly. Again nwho feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
The third is in the Epistle to the Romaines the sevēth chap. dKnowe yee not bretheren (for I speake to thē that knowe the law) that the law hath Dominion over a man as long as hee liveth? For the woman, which is in subiection to a man, is bound by the law to the man while hee liveth: but if the man bee dead, shee is delivered from the law of the man. So then if while the man liveth, shee take another man, shee shalbe called an adulteresse: but if the may be dead shee is free from the law, soe that shee is not an adulteresse, though shee take another man. Out of which place and ethe like in the seaventh of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Wee gather (saith Bellarmin) that the band of marriage ⟨p. 30⟩is never loosed but by death: and that seing it is not loosed, it remayneth after divorcement too, for whatsoever cause the divorce bee made. This doth Bellarmin gather: but gathering soe, hee reapeth that which the holy Ghost sowed not. For S. Pauls meaning in those words to the Romains and Corinthians was, that the band of marriage is not loosed comonly and ordinarily while both the parties live; not that absolutely, it is never loosed till one of thē die. As in the like case (to open the matter by his owne examples) heef sayth Who goeth to Warrfare any tyme at his owne cost? Now some have servd at their owne charges without pay sometymes. For soe did theg Romā stocke of the Fabij agaynst the Vientians andh Clinias an Athenian Citizen agaynst the Persians. But men for the most parte are waged publiquely therevnto. And that is the poynt which S. Paule respected. Againei Who planteth a Vineyard, & eateth not of the fruite thereof? • Hee on whō they father the first occasion of that proverb Many things doe happen between the cupp and the lipp; is sayd not to have drunke of the fruite of the Vineyard which himselfe had planted, nor to have eaten thereof belyke. At least seingk old men plant trees for their posterity, neither mightl
They eat not of the milk, who do not milk their sheep at all: ando there be who do not, for fear of impairing thereby the lambs or wool. But it is sufficient for S. Pauls purpose, & the truth of his speech, that men in mostp countries are wont to have them milked: & they who undertake the pains of feeding flocks, are accustomed to eat of the milks of the flocks. Againq No man ever hated his own flesh but nourisheth & cherisheth it▪ Cato the younger, who slew himself at Utica, rwas so far from nourishing and cherishing his body, that when his bowels being gushed out thereof, he was not yet dead, he tore them in pieces with his own hands ass Rasias also did. Neither would S. Paul have denied this: who knew thatt many had ⟨p. 31⟩killed themselves, and taken away all joys of life from their flesh. Only he meant that no man hath ever lightly hated it, but every one doth nourish and cherish it rather. uNoah man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of life, because he would please him that hath chosen him to be a Soldier. What? is this false, because xthe rich Crassus being chosen by the Romans to be their General in Syria, did without all care of pleasing them, who chose him, play the merchant man and occupied himself in counsels & money matters? Or because ay band of Campanian soldiers, who served the king of Sicily gave themselves to citizens trades and occupations, having by treachery seized on Messana, dispossessed the townsmen, divided their wives, goods and lands among them, & a band of Romans did the like in Rhegiū, to the discontentment of such as chose them to be soldiers, No. for the Apostle who exhorted Timothy zto behave himself as a good & honest sold ere of Christ, was not to learn that there are some unhonest sold years & reckless of their duty. But his meaning was, that soldiers usually do employ themselves on warlike exercises, not on civill affairs, or domesticall business, when they are chosen once to serve, & in the same sense did he likewise say, that a married woman is bound by the law unto her husband while he liveth: because the band of marriage is not usually and ordinarily loosed, but by death, though it may be loosed, and is sometimes otherwise, on rare unwonted causes.
They eat not of the milke, who doe not milke their sheepe at all: ando there bee who doe not, for feare of impayring thereby the lambs or woole. But it is sufficient for S. Pauls purpose, & the truth of his speech, that men in mostp cuntreis are wont to have thē milked: & they who vndertake the paines of feeding flockes, are accustomed to eate of the milkes of the flockes. Againeq No man ever hated his owne flesh but nourisheth & cherisheth it▪ Cato the yonger, who slewe himself at Vtica, rwas so farr from nourishing and cherishing his body, that when his bowels being gushed out thereof, hee was not yet dead, hee tore them in pieces with his owne hands ass Rasias also did. Neither would S. Paule have denied this: who knewe thatt many hadd ⟨p. 31⟩killed themselves, and taken away all ioyes of life frō their flesh. Onely he meant that noe man hath ever lightly hated it, but every one doth nourish and cherish it rather. uNoe man that warreth entangleth himself with the affaiers of life, because he would please him that hath chosen him to be a Souldier. What? is this false, because xthe rich Crassus being chosen by the Romains to bee their Generall in Syria, did without all care of pleasing them, who chose him, plaie the marchant man and occupied himself in councels & money matters? Or because ay band of Campanian souldyers, who served the king of Sicilie gave themselves to citizens trades and occupations, having by treachery seazed on Messana, dispossessed the townesmen, devided their wives, goods and lands among thē, & a bād of Romans did the like in Rhegiū, to the discōtentmēt of such as chose thē to be soldiers, No. for the Apostle who exhorted Timothy z
oVarr lib. 2. c. 2 de re Rust Columell. l. 7. c. 4.
pDeut 3•. 14 Hom odyss. li 9. Arist. de hist a•alium lib. 3. Cato de re rust. cap 13. virgil. Elag. 3.
Which is apparent to have been his meaning by that he teachetha that if an unbelieving man, who hath a Christian wife, do forsake her, then 5she is not in bondage. For if she be not in bondage, she isb free to marry: as the words of Scripture imply by the contrary, and the6 Pope declareth. If she be free to marry the band of the former marriage is loosed, else were she bound and not free. Wherefore sith the popes authentical record doth prove out of S. Paul, that a wife in some case is free to marry another while her husband liveth, the Papists must acknowledge that S. Paul meant, the band is not commonly loosed but by death, not that it is never at all loosed otherwise absolutely and simply. Bellarmin to frustrate and avoid this answer, saith that it may be proved by four reasons: which he bringeth forth poor, unarmed, weak ones of his own mustering, and with a strong hand putteth them to flight: ⟨p. 32⟩that soe men imagining these are all that can be alleged on our side for the proof thereof, might think that our whole force is quite discomfited and Bellarmin hath won the field. I have heard say that there is cunning in daubing. Surely there is cunning in this kind of dealing. Neither is it for nothing that cone of their Glorious Champions doth vaunt that the common sort of Catholics are able to say more for us, than we can for our selves. In deed they would bear the common sort in hand, that their learned men in handling of questions and controversies of religion do set down all objections that can be made of our part. And I grant, they set down more then oft times themselves can soundly answer. Yet they use discretion therein by their leave: and many a strong reason which would trouble them foully if it came in place, they are content to wink at and say nothing of it, whereto they join this policy now and then also, that they take upon them to be as it were our proctors and at turneys, in showing what may be said for us. Under which pretence they bring in such things as having a ready solution with the objection, and proving unsound, may turn to out causes discredit and to ours. So the Jesuit here his argument being grounded upon two places, the one to the Romans, the other to the Corinthians, we countermining the whole with one answer:
Which is apparant to have bene his meanning by that hee teachetha that if an vnbeleeuing man, who hath a Christian wife, doe forsake her, then 5shee is not in bondage. For if she be not in bondage, shee isb free to marrie: as the words of Scripture imply by the contrary, and the6 Pope declareth. If shee bee free to marrie the band of the former marriage is loosed, els were shee bound and not free. Wherefore sith the popes authenticall record doth prove out of S. Paule, that a wife in some case is free to marrie another while her husbād liveth, the Papists must acknowledg that S. Paul meant, the band is not comonly loosed but by death, not that it is never at all loosed otherwise absolutely and simply. Bellarmin to frustrate and avoyde this answere, sayth that it may bee proved by foure reasons: which hee bringeth forth poore, vnarmed, weake ones of his owne mustering, and with a strong hand putteth them to flight: ⟨p. 32⟩that soe men imagining these are all that can be alleaged on our side for the proofe thereof, might thinke that our whole force is quite discomfited and Bellarmin hath wone the feilde. I have heard say that there is cunning in daubing. Surely there is cunning in this kinde of dealing. Neither is it for nothing that cone of their Glorious Champions doth vaunte that the cōmon sorte of Catholiques are able to say more for vs, thē wee can for our selves. In deede they would beare the cōmō sorte in hand, that their learned men in handling of questions and controversies of religion doe set downe all obiectiōs that can be made of our parte. And I graunt, they set downe more then ofte tymes themselves can soundly answere. Yet they vse discretion therein by their leave: and many a strong reason which would trouble them fowly if it came in place, they are content to winck at and say nothing of it, whereto they joyne this policy now and thē also, that they take vpon them to bee as it were our proctours and at turneys, in shewing what may bee sayd for vs. Vnder which pretence they bring in such things as having a ready solution with the obiection, and proving vnsound, may turne to out causes discredit and to ours. So the Iesuit here his argument being grounded vppon two places, the one to the Romans, the other to the Corinthyans, wee countermyning the whole with one answere:
he saith that our answer may be proved by four reasons, which he gathereth out of circumstances of the former place, all such as the later hath neither any kindred with, and discoverceth them to be of no value. But of the reasons, which I have brought to prove our answer fitting both the places, and partly confirming that S. Paul might well mean the same in these, which in the like he meant; partly demonstrating that certainly he did soe, because it were not true else that he teacheth of the liberty of Christians forsaken by the unbelievers; these reasons Bellarmin doth, not touch. No marvel: for they are too hot. And it is likely that he studied not what might be most strongly said in our defence, but rather what most weakly: that so he might seem to join battle with us, and yet might be sure to do himself no harm, Letting pass therefore the help which he offereth in like sort to us as thed Sa ••ritanes did unto the Jews: I come unto the unjust and false accusation, ⟨p. 33⟩wherewithe they sought to hinder the building of the Temple, I mean to the reasons which he untruly saith, do witness our answer and exposition to be false. Those he draweth to three heads, whereof the first hath two branches: one that S. Pauls words are plain; the other that they are oft repeated. For what is more plain (saith he) then that fif while the man liveth, the woman take another man, she shall be called an adulteress? and that gthe woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth? Plain I deny not. But this proof how pithy & strong soever he thought it to set it his fore-front, is already showed to be no proof at all: sith there are as plain words in like sentences, which nevertheless must be expounded, as these are by us. For what more plain then thath Who goeth a warfare any time at his own Cost? and that, Who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth net of the fruit thereof? and that Who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? and that,i No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it? & thatk No War-faring man entangleth himself with the affairs of life? &l many other such, that might be alleged, if in a thing so clear it were not superfluous? Nay in these sentences the words are more plain, then in those we speak of, because those have no such mark of generality expressed as these have.
hee sayth that our answere may bee proved by foure reasons, which hee gathereth out of circumstances of the former place, all such as the later hath neither any kinred with, and discoverceth them to be of no valew. But of the reasons, which I have brought to prove our answere fitting both the places, and partly confirming that S. Paule might well meane the same in these, which in the like hee meant; partly demonstrating that certaynly hee did soe, because it were not true els that hee teacheth of the libertie of Christians forsaken by the vnbeleevers; these reasons Bellarmin doth, not touch. No marveil: for they are too hot. And it is likely that he studied not what might be most stronglie said in our defence, but rather what most weakely: that so he might seeme to ioyne battaile with vs, and yet might bee sure to doe himself no harme, Letting passe therefore the help which he offreth in like sorte to vs as thed Sa ••ritanes did vnto the Iewes: I come vnto the vniust and false accusation, ⟨p. 33⟩wherewithe they sought to hinder the buylding of the Temple, I meane to the reasons which hee vntruely sayth, doe witnesse our answer and exposition to bee faulse. Those hee draweth to three heads, whereof the first hath two braunches: one that S. Pauls words are playne; the other that they are oft repeated. For what is more playne (sayth hee) then thet fif while the man liveth, the woman take another man, shee shall be called an adulteresse? and that gthe woman is bound by the lawe as longe as her hus•and liveth? Playne I denie not. But this proofe how pithy & strong soever hee thought it to set it his fore-front, is already shewed to bee no proofe at all: sith there are as playne words in like sentences, which neverthelesse must bee expounded, as these are by vs. For what more playne then thath Who goeth a warrefare any tyme at his owne Cost? and that, Who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth net of the fruite thereof? and that Whofeadeth a flocke and eateth not of the milke of the flocke? and that,i No man ever hated his owne flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it? & that
Wherefore if soe great plainness of words signed with general tokens as it were importing that they are true in all yet convinceth not that they are meant of all without any exception, fully and universally: how can a lesser plainness wanting such efficacy, convince the same of those in question? Or if it should elsewhere by reason of some difference which might supply, by other weight that this wanteth: Yet here it cannot possibly, because S.m Paul himself as I have declared showeth that in one case the sayings could not so be true Moreover then Papists hold that if a married man become a monk before he know his wife carnally, she may lawfully take another husband, while he liveth. Perhaps further, also that the Pope for any very weighty cause, may upon the same circumstance dispense, and loose the band of Marriage. At least othem-selves tell us that sundry Popes have done so: andp their great Doctors hold we may. Yet is the woman his wife who hath wedded her, or espoused her only, though she hath not ⟨p. 34⟩entered into his bed-chamber. For she that is betrothed, is accounted a wife by the lawq of God: and consent, not carnal company maketh Marriage as the civillr Lawyers,s Fathers, &t Popes do teach. The Papists then of all men may worst enforce the plainness of S. Pauls words against our exposition them selves condescending in cases more then we do, that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth, and be no adulteress. Whereby again appeareth how wisely & discreetly the Jesuit Triumpheth with.9 S. Austins words, These words of the Apostle so oftentimes repeated, so oftentimes inculcated, are true, are quick, are sound, are plain. The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, unless she have ceased to be of the former, and she shall cease to be of the former, if her husband die, not if he play the whoremonger. The wife then is lawfully putt away for whoredom, but the band of the former lasteth; insomuch that he becometh guilty of adultery, who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom.
Wherefore if soe great playnnesse of words signed with generall tokēs as it were importing that they are true in all yet convinceth not that they are meant of all without any exception, fully and vniversally: how can a lesser playnnesse wanting such efficacie, convince the same of those in question? Or if it should elswhere by reason of some difference which might supplie, by other weight that this wanteth: Yet here it cannot possibly, because S.m Paule himself as I have declared sheweth that in one case the sayings could not so bee true Moreover then Papists hold that if a married man become a monke before he know his wife carnally, shee may lawfully take another husbād, while he liveth. Perhaps further, also that the Pope for any very weighty cause, maye vpon the same circumstance dispense, and loose the band of Marriage. At least othem-selves tell vs that sundry Popes have done so: andp their great Doctors hould wee may. Yet is the woman his wife who hath wedded her, or espoused her onely, though shee hath not ⟨p. 34⟩entred into his bed-chamber. For shee that is betrothed, is accounted a wife by the lawq of God: and consent, not carnall company maketh Marriage as the civillr Lawiers,s Fathers, &t Popes doe teach. The Papists then of all men may worst enforce the playnesse of S. Pauls words agaynst our exposition thē selves condescending in cases more then wee doe, that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth, and bee noe adulteresse. Whereby agayne appeareth how wisely & discreetly the Iesuit Triumpheth with.9 S. Austins words, These words of the Apostle so oftentymes repeated, so oftentymes inculcated, are true, are quick, are sound, are playne. The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former, and shee shall cease to bee of the former, if her husband die, not if he playe the whoremonger. The wife then is lawfully putt away for whordom, but the band of the former lasteth; in somuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie, who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom.
oCovarru. epet in 4. decree tal. par 2. cap. 7. 9. 4. Catharin. de […] mo• quart. utrum matrimō. ante cop. sit Sacramentum et alibi quae in arch• typo.Covarru. epet in 4. decre tal. par 2. cap. 7. 9. 4. Catharin. de 〈…〉 mo• quart. utrum matrimō. ante cop. sit Sacramentum et alibi quae in arch• typo.
pHosticus. Panormita•. et ali• […]. in. c. expublicode convers. co njugator. Card. Cajet. opusculo de mattim Mec. Medium. de Sacror hom. contin. lib. 5. Mar•in Navarre. Consilior lib 3. […] convers. infid. cons. 1.Hosticus. Panormita•. et ali•〈…〉. in. c. expublicode convers. co njugator. Card. Cajet. opusculo de mattim Mec. Medium. de Sacror hom. contin. lib. 5. Mar•in Navar. Consilior lib• 3. convers. infid. cons. 1.
For if these words of Austin be quick and sound against us, then touch they Popery at the quick: sith it may be said by the same reason: The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, unless she have ceased to be of the former: and she shall cease to be of the former if her husband die, not if he wax a Monk.
For if these words of Austin bee quick and sound against vs, then touch they Poperie at the quick: sith it may be sayd by the same reason: The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband, vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former: and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die, not if hee waxe a Monke.
Admit then that the wife be put away for monkery, yet the band of the former lasteth: insomuch that he becometh guilty of adultery, who marrieth her that is put away even for monkery. And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were, for which sox many Popes have loosed the band of Marriage, they are all controlled by the same censure The woman beginneth not to be be the wife of any later husband unless she have ceased to be of the former; and she shall cease to be of the former if her husband die, not if a better match be offered, or some mislike be conceived, or the Pope dispense and be well freed from it. Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the con pass of Austins reproof, by construing his words so without exception, because they are true, and quick, and sound, and plain. For against his doctrine touching a Sister's liberty to marry, if she be forsaken of her unbelieving husband, the force of S. Austins consequence would infer in like sort: The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, unless she have ceased to be of the former: and she shall cease to be of the former, if her husband ⟨p. 35⟩die, not if he forsake her. The Jesuit, who useth so often to repeat, so often to inculcate the testimonies of the Fathers, should deal peradventure more considerately, more charitably out of doubt, if, before he cite them, he weighed their words better, whether they may stand with the truth of Scripture, & with his own doctrine. For else asy Ham discovered the nakedness of Noah, so doth he their blemishes: he, who allegeth them; not we, whom he enforceth to show why we dissent from them: least our Saviours sentence be pronounced against usz He that loveth Father or Mother more then me is not worthy of me. But the Jesuits meaning (you will say) was not to discredit them by laying a necessity on us to refute them, what? was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scriptures, with the truth whereof their sayings do not stand? For (I trust) he meant not to overthrow the points of his own doctrine, which their sayings cross, unless he be of that mind whicha Tully condemneth as barbarous and savage expressed in an heathnish verse LET OUR FRIENDS FALL, SOE THAT OUR FOES DIE WITHAL.
Admitt then that the wife bee put away for monkery, yet the band of the former lasteth: insomuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie, who marrieth her that is put away even for monkery. And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were, for which sox many Popes have loosed the bande of Marriage, they are all controlled by the same censure The woman beginneth not to be bee the wife of any later husband unlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former; and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die, not if a better match be offered, or some mislyke bee conceived, or the Pope dispense and bee well freed from it. Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the cō passe of Austins reprofe, by construing his words so without exception, because they are true, and quick, and sound, and playne. For against his doctrine towching a Susters liberty to marry, if shee be forsaken of her vnbeleeving husband, the force of S. Austins consequence would inferre in like sorte: The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband, vnlesse shee have ceased to be of the former: and shee shall cease to bee of the former, if her husband ⟨p. 35⟩die, not if hee forsake her. The Iesuit, who vseth so often to repeat, so often to inculcate the testimonies of the Fathers, should deale peradventure more considerately, more charitably out of doubt, if, before hee cite them, hee weighed their words better, whether they may stand with the truth of Scripture, & with his owne doctrine. For els asy Cham discovered the nakednes of Noah, so doth hee their blemishes: hee, who aleageth them; not wee, whom hee enforceth to shewe why wee dissent from them: least our Saviours sentence bee pronounced agaynst vsz Hee that loueth Father or Mother more then mce is not worthy of mee. But the Iesuites meaning (you wil say) was not to discredit them by laying a necessitie on vs to refute them, what? was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scripturs, with the truth whereof their sayings doe not stand? For (I trust) hee meant not to overthrowe the poynts of his owne doctrine, which their sayings crosse, vnlesse hee bee of that mynde whicha Tullie condemneth as barbarous and savage expressed in an heathnish verse LET OVR FRIENDS FALL, SOE THAT OVR FOES DIE WITHALL.
xMartin thee 5 Eugenius▪ the 4. Alexander the 6 Julius the third. Paul the 4. & Pius the 4. as Covarru. Catharin. Cajetan, and Navat do […].Martin thee 5 Eugenius▪ the 4. Alexander the 6 Iulius the third. Paul the 4. & Pius the 4. as Covarru. Catharin. Cajetan, and Navat doe 〈…〉.
Howsoever it be, it is plain that the plains of S, Pauls words neither doth prove the sense thereof to be simply & absolutely general, the Scripture noting an exception, neither can be said by Papists to prove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture. & addeth more thereto. Thus one branch of Bellarmins first and principal reason being cut of: the other, and the rest of his reasons also are cut of with the same labour and instrument. For whereas he saith Certes it were marvel that the Apostle should never ad the exception of whoredom, if it were to be added, seeing he repeated and inculcated these things so often. Certes we may say as well of those exceptions which himself approveth that it Were marvel the Apostle should never add them, if they were to be added. Though what marvel is it, if S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredom in all those two places, which he Hath repeated and inculcated these things so often, as Bellarmin so often telleth us: when the thing is mentioned in theb former of them by way of ac similitude, wherein it had been fond and beside the purpose to speak of any exception: and, for thed later S. Paul hath omitted the same exceptione twice, where thef Scripture ⟨p. 36⟩showeth and Bellarmin. confesseth, it should have been added▪ or (to speak more properly) where although it needed not to be added, yet must it needs be understood. Now to that Bellarmin doth next allege the Fathersg Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Primasius, Anselmus and others over and besidesh Austin, iOrigen, andk Jerome, all as bearing witness that we expound the places falsely: I could reply that some of these whatsoever they witness, have small credit with Bellarmin, as Ambrose specially: some, namely Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Primasius do not witness that no more then Paul himself doth: Nay they all save one are contrary minded rather, as shall appear inl due place: But that which I have said already touching Austin, may serve for answer to the rest: chiefly sith the Papists in whose behalf they are alleged, will rather yield that all the Fathers might err, than any of their Popes,m who yet must have erred in more, than one Canon, if this were true which Bellarmin fathereth on the Fathers.
Howsoever it be, it is plain that the plaines of S, Pauls words neither doth prove the sence thereof to be simply & absolutely general, the Scripture noting an exception, neither cann bee sayde by Papists to prove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture. & addeth more thereto. Thus one braunch of Bellarmins first and principall reason being cutt of: the other, and the rest of his reasons also are cutt of with the same labour and instrument. For whereas hee sayth Certes it were marvell that the Apostle should never ad the exception of whoredom, if it were to be added, seing hee repeated and inculcated these things so often. Certes wee may say as well of those exceptions which himself approveth that it Were marvell the Apostle should never add them, if they were to bee added. Though what marvell is it, if S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredom in all those two places, which hee Hath repeated and inculcated these things so often, as Bellarmin so often telleth vs: when the thing is mentioned in theb former of them by way of ac similytude, wherein it had bene fond and beside the purpose to speake of any exception: and, for thed later S. Paul hath omitted the same exceptione twise, where thef Scripture ⟨p. 36⟩sheweth and Bellarmin. confesseth, it should have bene added▪ or (to speake more properly) where although it needed not to bee added, yet must it needs bee vnderstoode. Now to that Bellarmin doth next alledg the Fathersg Ambrose, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Primasius, Anselmus and others over and besidesh Austin, iOrigen, andk Ierom, all as bearing witnesse that wee expound the places falsly: I could reply that some of these whatsoever they witnesse, have small credit with Bellarmin, as Ambrose specially: some, namely Chrysostō, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Primasius doe not witnesse that no more then Paul himself doth: Nay they all save one are contrary minded rather, as shall appeare in
mAlexander […] third Pius the fourth &c. in the canons above cited out of the decretals & the councell of Tren•.Alexander 〈…〉 third Pius the fourth &c. in the canōs above cited out of the decretals & the councell of Tren•.
Finally, concerning that for the upshot he urgeth Pauls similitude as if then drift of it did absolutely require that the man and wife can not be made free from the band of Marriage by any separation but by death only, because while the law had life as it were and stood in force till Christ the Jews could never shake off the Yoke thereof from them, although they endeavoured to separate them-selves from it by committing whoredom with sundry laws of safe Gods: the rest of S. Pauls similitudes which I mentioned, do bewray the lameness and halting of this inference: seeing that the drift of them requireth absolutely by the same reason that no man went to warfare at his own cost, or planted Vines, or fed sheep, without relief thereby, becauseo all they pWho preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel. And likewise that no man did ever hurt his own body, becauseq Every husband ought to love his own wife ras Christ loved the Church: and likewise that no soldier hath ever entangled him-self with the affairs of life because Timothy should bes still about those actions, whereto the Lordt who choose him to he a soldier, did call him. Nay to go no farther then the drift it self of the similitude, which Bellarmin doth urge, if it require absolutely that the band of Marriage may be no way loosed but only by the husbands or the ⟨p. 37⟩wives death: then neither is it loosed, if the unbeliever do for sake the Christian: neither if the husband become a Monk or the wife a Nun; neither if the Pope see cause to dispense with either of them. And will not this fancy of his about that drift drive him into greater inconvenience yet: to wit, that every woman, whose husband is dead, ought to marry another, because the Jews were bound to become Christians after the death of the Law? or of the other side, that the Jews are not bound under pain of damnation to become Christians, because no widow is bound under pain of death to take another husband? or (if these absurdities be not great enough) that dead men ought to marry, becausev The Jews by duty should be unto Christ, when they were dead to the Law? or that the men of Rome to whom S. Paul wrote, should rather not believe in Christ, becausex he wished widows rather not to marry?
Finally, concerning that for the vpshoote hee vrgeth Pauls similytude as if then drift of it did absolutely require that the man and wife can not bee made free from the band of Mariage by any seperatiō but by death onely, because while the law had life as it were and stoode in force till Christ the Iewes could never shake off the Yoke thereof from them, although they endevored to seperate them-selves from it by committing whoredom with sundry lawes of salfe Gods: the rest of S. Pauls similytudes which I mencioned, doe bewray the lamenesse and halting of this inference: seing that the drift of thē requireth absolutely by the same reason that noe man went to warfare at his owne cost, or planted Vynes, or fedd sheepe, without relief thereby, becauseo all they pWho preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel. And likewise that no man did ever hurt his owne body, becauseq Every husband ought to loue his owne wife ras Christ loved the Church: and likewise that no souldier hath ever entangled him-self with the assayres of life because Tymothee should bees still about those actions, whereto the Lordt who choose him to hee a souldier, did call him. Nay to goe no farther then the drift it self of the samilytude, which Bellarmin doth vrge, if it requier absolutely that the band of Marriage may bee no way loosed but onely by the husbands or the ⟨p. 37⟩wives death: then neither is it loosed, if the vnbeleever doe for sake the Christian: neither if the husbād become a Monke or the wife a Nunne; neither if the Pope see cause to dispence with either of them. And will not this fansie of his about that drift drive him into greater inconvenience yet: to weet, that every woman, whose husband is dead, ought to marry another, because the Iewes were bound to become Christiās after the death of the Lawe? or of the other side, that the Iewes are not bound vnder payne of damnation to become Christians, because no widowe is bound vnder payne of death to take another husband? or (if these absurdities bee not great enough) that dead men ought to marry, because
Of the which consequences if some be esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed only, but are so in deed, the most have impious folly joined with untruth: Let Bellarmin acknowledge that similitudes must not be set upon the rack, nor the drift thereof be stretched and pressed in such sort, as if they ought just in length breadth and depth to match and fit-that whereto they are resembled. It sufficeth if in a general analogy and proportion of the principal point wherein things are matched, and compared together, they be each like to other, and both agree in one quality. Which here is observed in S. Pauls comparison of the state of Marriage, with the state of man before and after regeneration: becausey as a wife her husband being dead doth lawfully take another, and is not an adulteress in having his company to bring forth fruit of her body, to him: soez regenerate persons, their natural corruption (provoked by the law to sin) and flesh being mortified, are joined to the Spirit (the force of Christ working in them) as it were to a second husband, that they should bring forth fruit (the fruits of the Spirit) unto God. And thus seeing neither the drift of the similitude, nor the judgment of the Fathers, nor the plainness of the words so oftentimes repeated, do disprove our answer and exposition of the place: our answer proved by Scripture standeth firm and sure and therefore the third place urged by our adversaries, ⟨p. 38⟩is suitable to the former.
Of the which consequences if some bee esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed onely, but are so in deede, the most have impious folly ioyned with vntruth: Let Bellarmin acknowledg that similitudes must not bee sett vpon the racke, nor the drift thereof bee stretched and pressed in such sorte, as if they ought iust in length bredth and depth to match and fitt-that whereto they are resembled. It sufficeth if in a generall analogy and proportion of the principall poynt wherein things are matched, and compared together, they bee eche like to other, and both agree in one qualitie. Which here is observed in S. Pauls comparisō of the state of Marriage, with the state of man before and after regeneration: becausey as a wife her husband being dead doth lawfully take another, and is not an adulteresse in having his company to bring forth fruite of her body, to him: soez regenerate persons, their naturall corruption (provoked by the law to sinne) and flesh being mortified, are ioyned to the Spirit (the force of Christ working in them) as it were to a second husband, that they should bring forth fruite (the fruites of the Spirit) vnto God. And thus seing neither the drift of the similytude, nor the iudgment of the Fathers, nor the playnnesse of the wordes so oftentymes repeated, doe disprove our answer and exposition of the place: our answer proved by Scripture standeth firme and sure and therefore the third place vrged by our adversaries, ⟨p. 38⟩is sutable to the former.
So is the fourth & last; taken out of the first▪ to the Corinthians the seventh Chapter To them who are Married, it is not I that give commandment, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart from her husband: but if she depart too, let her remain unmarried. or be reconciled unto her husband. Wherein (as Bellarmin reasoneth) the words of S. Paul, If, she depart, and so forth are meant of a woman, which parteth from her husband upon a cause of just divorcement, as namely for whoredom, heresy, and the rest whatsoever they be, & not of her which parteth without any such cause. But concerning her of whom the words are meant, S. Paul saith most plainly she may not marry another. Therefore even a cause of just divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawful for married folks to marry others, although they be severed and put asunder by just divorcement.
So is the fourth & last; taken out of the first▪ to the Corithians the seaventh Chaptera To them who are Married, it is not I that give commandement, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart from her husband: but if shee depart too, let her remayne vnmarried. or bee reconciled vnto her husband. Wherein (as Bellarmin reasoneth) the words of S. Paul, If, shee depart, and so forth are meant of a woman, which parteth from her husband vpon a cause of iust divocement, as namely for whordom, haeresie, and the rest whatsoever they be, & not of her which parteth without any such cause. But concerning her of whom the words are meant, S. Paul sayth most playnely shee may not marrie another. Therefore even a cause of iust divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawfull for married folckes to marry others, although they beesevered and put asunder by iust divorcemēt.
And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insoluble. In saying whereof he seemeth to confess that none of the former arguments were so, but might be answered and confuted. His confession touching them hath reason with it: I must needs approve it. But his vaunt of this is like that ofb Ben Hadad's that the dust of▪ Samaria would not be enough to all the people that followed him for every man an handful. To whom the King of Israel said, Let not him that girdeth his harness, boast himself as he that putteth it off. Bellarmin hath scarcely girt his harness yet, & that which he hath girt, is unserviceable bad harness too.
And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insoluble. In saying whereof hee seemeth to confesse that none of the former arguments were so, but might bee answered and confuted. His confession touching them hath reason with it: I must needs approve it. But his vaunt of this is like that ofb Ben hadads that the dust of▪ Samaria would not bee enough to all the people that followed him for every man an handfull. To whom the King of Israel sayde, Let not him that girdeth his harnies, boast himself as hee that putteth it off. Bellarmin hath skarcly girt his harneis yet, & that which hee hath girt, is vnservisable bad harneis too.
For the foremost part thereof, his proposition a vouching that the words If she depart, and so forth, are meant of her only which parteth from her husband upon a just cause of divorcement, as namely for whoredom heresy, and such like, is faulty sundry ways: seeing they are neither meant of her only which parteth for a just cause; and though▪ they be also meant of her which parteth for any other just cause, yet not of her which for whoredom.
For the formost parte thereof, his proposition a vouching that the words If shee depart, and so forth, are meant of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divocement, as namely for whordom heresie, and such like, is faulty sundry wayes: seing they are neither meant of her onely which parteth for a iust cause; and though▪ they bee also meant of her which parteth for any other iust cause, yet not of her which for whoredom.
Moreover the conclusion knitting up his argument with Therefore even a just cause of divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage, is guilefully set down: being uttered in the form of a particular, and true so, taking divorcement as he doth; but intended to carry the force of a general, so by fraud and falsehood to bear away the point in question. Of both the which to treat in order, his proposition he presumeth of as most certain, because ⟨p. 39⟩in (his judgment) Paul would not have said of her who departed without some such cause, Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband; but he would have said, Let her remain unmarried till she be reconciled unto her husband, & let her come again unto her husband in any case. And why doth Bellarmin think so? His reasons follow. For Paul could not permit an unjust divorcement against the express commandment of the Lord.
Moreover the conclusion knitting vpp his argument with Therefore even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage, is guilfully sett downe: being vttered in the forme of a particular, and true so, taking divorcement as hee doth; but intended to carry the force of a generall, so by fraude and faulshood to beare away the poynt in questiō. Of both the which to treat in ordre, his proposition hee presumeth of as most certayne, because ⟨p. 39⟩in (his iudgment) Paule would not have sayde of her who departed without some such cause, Let her remayne vnmarried, or bee reconciled vnto her husband; but hee would have sayde, Let her remayne vnmarried till shee bee reconciled vnto her husband, & let her come agayne vnto her husband in any case. And why doth Bellarmin thynke so? His reasons follow. For Paul could not permitt an vniust divorcemnt agaynst the expresse commandement of the Lord.
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
the Iewes eate of their fruite in certayne yeares: It is more then likely that many of them did not. Some did not questionlesse: they namely, who sustained the curse which God denounced vnto them by Moses.
who feedeth a flocke and eateth not of the milke of the flocke?
to behave himself as a good & honest sould yer of Christ, was not to learn that there are some vnhonest sould yers & retchlesse of their duty. But his meaning was, that soldyers vsually do employ thēselves on warrlike exercises, not on civill affayers, or domesticall busines, whē they are chosen once to serve, & in the same sence did he likewise say, that a married womā is bound by the law vnto her husbād while he liveth: because the band of marriage is not vsually and ordinarily loosed, but by death, though it may bee loosed, and is sometymes otherwise, on rare vnwontted causes.
many other such, that might bee aleaged, if in a thing so cleare it were not superfluous? Nay in these sentēces the words are more playne, then in those wee speake of, because those have noe such marke of generality expressed as these have.
rL. cuifuerit D de condits et domonstrat. L Nuptiarum D. de reg sa•.L. cuifuerit D de condits et domōstrat. L Nuptiarum D. de reg sa•.
sAmbros institut virg cap▪ 6 Aug. de nupt et▪ concup. lib. 1. cap. II. Chrysostom, Isodor Gregot. c omnis, • conjugo c qui desponsatam. 27. 4. 2.Ambros institut virg cap▪ 6 Aug. de nupt et▪ concup. lib. 1. cap. II. Chrysostō, Isodor Gregot. c omnis, • conjugo c qui desponsatam. 27. 4. 2.
tsi inter Extra desponsalib. c licet, c. tuas dudum. despons. duotum.
due place: But that which I have sayde already touching Austin, may serve for answer to the rest: chiefly sith the Papists in whose behalf they are aleaged, will rather yeald that all the Fathers might erre, thē any of their Popes,
The Iewes by duty should bee vnto Christ, when they were dead to the Lawe? or that the men of Rome to whom S. Paul wrote, should rather not beleeve in Christ, because
