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.
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.
And, if in the same Chapter Paul permitteth not the man and wife to refrain from carnal company for prayers fake, and for a time, except it be with consent: How should be permit the wife to remain separated from her husband against his will, without any cause of just divorcement. In deed if it had lien in S. Pauls power to stay & refrain the wife from remaining so: no doubt he neither would, nor might have permitted it. which himself sufficiently showed in
if notwithstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave her husband upon some lighter cause; or perhaps weightier, though not weighty enough for a just divorcement: then Paul in duty ought and might (I hope) with reason require and exhort her to remain unmarried, and not to join her self in wedlock with another, a thing that
Corinthians were) used to do. as (to make it plainer by the like examples (S. Paul neither might neither would have allowed a man to be rashly angry with his brother: for
not to let the sun go down upon his angry wrath. neither might he thereupon be justly charged with permitting wrath until the sun set, against Christs commandment.
And, if in the same Chapter Paul permitteth not the man and wife to refrayne from carnall company for prayers fake, and for a tyme, except it bee with consent: How should bee permitt the wife to remayne seperated from her husband agaynst his will, without any cause of iust divorcement. In deede if it had lyen in S. Pauls power to stay & refraine the wife from remayning so: no doubt hee neither would, nor might have permitted it. which himself sufficiently shewed inc forbidding her to depart at all, much more to continue parted from her husband. Butd if notwithstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave her husband vpon some lighter cause; or perhaps weightyer, though not weighty enough for a iust divorcement: then Paul in duty ought and might (I hope) with reason requier and exhorte her to remayne vnmarried, and not to ioyne her selfe in wedlocke with another, a thing thate Greekes andf Romayns (whose of-spring theg Corinthians were) vsed to doe. as (to make it playner by the like examples (S. Paul neither might neither would have allowed a man to bee rashly angry with his brother: forh Christ forbiddeth it. But if one were suddenly surprised with rashe anger S. Paul would advise himi not to let the sunne goe downe vpon his angry wrath. neither might hee therevpon bee iustly charged with permitting wrath vntill the sunne sett, agaynst Christs commandement.
c•, 1. Corn. vers. • & 10,
dvers. •.
eDi•dor, Sicul. lib. 12.
fJuvenal. Satyr 6. Sic fiunt octo mariti. Quinque per autumnor.Iuvenal. Satyr 6. Sic fiunt octo mariti. Quinque per autumnor.
No more might he with granting liberty to lust, because hek willeth men not to fulfil the lusts of the flesh: whereasl Christ commandeth them not to lust at all. For S. Paul alsom condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sin. But seeing thatn the flesh will lust against the Spirit, as long as we are in this mortality: he stirreth up the faithful that theyo let not sin reign in their mortal bodies, nor do fulfil the lust of the flesh. In the same sort therefore he giveth charge with Christ that the wife depart not from her husband. Yet in consideration of human infirmity he addeth, ⟨p. 40⟩But if she depart too, let her be unmarried. And to meet with a doubt which hereupon might rise, sith in the next words before he had affirmed that they who have not the gift of continence should marry, and what if she have it not? he adjoineth farther.p or let her be reconciled unto her husband. So that although the words may seem to be uttered in the same sort, as if they did imply and import a permission, yet are they not permissive, but imperative in truth, and an express precept, that the wife having forsaken her husband & therein done evil1 forbear to marry another, for that were far worse, yea though she can not contain: in respect where of or of any thing else, if she mislike to live unmarried, she may not use the liberty that single folk may, who rather ought to marry then burn, but she2 must reconcile her self unto her husband, whose wife she is by duty still. And I may say likewise doubtless unto Bellarmin that he and his pamphleteer should not have maintained their error in writing: but sith they have done it, let them write no more in defence of it, or let them acknowledge that in this point they were deceived. For whereasq they gather of the disjunctive particle Let hor remain unmarried, or be reconciled, that S. Paul hath put it in the woman's choice & left her at liberty, either to live separated still from her husband, or to be reconciled unto him: they might as well ground upon Christs words to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans rI would thou werest cold or 3hot that he hath put it in our choice and left us at liberty either to be cold in faith and love, as flesh is, or to be fervent in the spirit. Yet Christ had no such meaning.
No more might hee with graunting liberty to lust, because hek willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh: whereasl Christ commandeth them not to lust at all. For S. Paul alsom condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sinne. But seing thatn the flesh will lust agaynst the Spirit, as long as wee are in this mortality: he sturreth vp the faythfull that theyo let not sinne raigne in their mortall bodyes, nor doe fulfill the lust of the flesh. In the same sort therefore hee giveth charge with Christ that the wife departe not from her husbād. Yet in consideratiō of humaine infirmity he addeth, ⟨p. 40⟩But if shee departe too, let her bee vnmarried. And to meete with a doubt which herevpon might rise, sith in the next words before hee had affirmed that they who haue not the gift of continence should marry, and what if shee have it not? hee adioyneth farther.p or let her be reconciled vnto her husband. So that although the words may seeme to bee vttered in the same sorte, as if they did imply and import a permission, yet are they not permissive, but imperative in truth, and an expresse precept, that the wife having forsaken her husband & therein done evill1 forbeare to marry another, for that were farre worse, yea though shee can not containe: in respect where of or of any thing els, if shee mislike to live vnmarried, shee may not vse the libertye that single folke may, who rather ought to marrie then burne, but shee2 must reconcile her self vnto her husband, whose wife shee is by duty still. And I may say likewise doubtles vnto Bellarmin that hee and his pamphletter should not have mayntained their error in writing: but sith they have done it, let thē write no more in defence of it, or let them acknowledg that in this poynt they were deceived. For whereasq they gather of the disjunctive particle Let hor remayne vnmarried, or bee reconciled, that S. Paul hath put it in the womans choyse & left her at liberty, either to live seperated still from her husband, or to be reconciled vnto him: they might as well ground vpon Christs words to the angell of the church of the Laodiceans
qWhich Bollocmin doth not only in this question cap. 16 but also in the next before, cap. 14Which Bollocmin doth not onelie in this quaestion cap. 16 but also in the next before, cap. 14
For he commandeth us to be4 fervent and that very angel he saith to every faith full men5 Be hot & Zealous. But because the party was luke warm, a worldlings who had received the seed of the word but bare not fruit, whot knew his masters will, but did it not & there by sinned most grievously: Christ wisheth that he were cold and sinned less; sith he did sin; or that he were hot and free from both these faults, the later wish made simply the former in comparison. After the which manner seeing Paul might well, & did by all likelihood of circumstances of the text, wish simply and chiefly that the wife estranged were reconciled to her husband, next that she continued rather parted from him, then ⟨p. 41⟩married to another as a less evil in comparison: the uttering of his sentence with a disjunctive particle Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled, doth not prove he put it in the woman's choice and left her at liberty to do whether she listed. And thus it appeareth how certain and undoubted that principle is, which6 upon this proof Bellarmin avoucheth to be most certain & undoubted: that S. Pauls words touching the wife If she depart, are meant of her only which parteth from her husband upon a just cause of divorcement. Howbeit if they had been meant of her only: yet must they have touched such wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause, & not for whoredom, An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin, that in exemplifying the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should be restrained, he nameth whoredom first, as principally comprised in S. Pauls precept; whereas S. Paul meant that it and it alone, should be excluded and excepted.
For he commaundeth vs to bee4 servent and that verie angell hee saith to everie faith full men5 Be hot & Zealous. But because the partie was luke warme, a wordlings who had receyved the seede of the word but bare not fruite, whot knew his maisters will, but did it not & there by sinned most grievously: Christ wisheth that he were colde and sinned lesse; sith hee did sinne; or that hee were hot and free from both these faults, the later wishe made simply the former in comparison. After the which manner seing Paul might well, & did by all likelyhood of circumstāces of the text, wishe simply and chiefly that the wife estranged were reconciled to her husband, next that shee continued rather parted from him, then ⟨p. 41⟩married to another as a lesse evill in comparison: the vttering of his sentēce with a disjunctive particle Let her remayne vnmarried, or bee reconciled, doth not prove hee put it in the womans choyse and left her at liberty to doe whether shee listed. And thus it appeareth how certaine and vndoubted that principle is, which6 vpon this proofe Bellarmin avoucheth to bee most certaine & vndoubted: that S. Pauls words touching the wife If shee depart, are ment of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divorcement. Howbeit if they had bene meant of her onely: yet must they have touched such wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause, & not for whoredom, An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin, that in exemplising the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should bee restrayned, hee nameth whoredom first, as prncipally comprised in S. Pauls precept; whereas S. Paule meant that it and it alone, should bee excluded and excepted.
For these are his words. vTo 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; and let not the husband put away his wife.
For these are his words. vTo them who are married, it is not I that geve commandement but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband; but if shee departe too, let her remaine vnmarried, or bee reconciled vnto her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.
Where in the last branch Let not the husband put away his wife, must needs be understood except it be for whoredom because S. Paul saith it is the Lords commandment, andx the Lord gave it with that express exception. This Bellarmyn doth grant. Well. Then as the last branch so the first too, Let not the wife depart from her husband. For the analogy is all one: and each having interest in the others body, she may as lawfully departy from an adulterer, as he from an adulteress. And this doth Bellarmin grant also. But the middle branch is to be understood of the same departing, and likewise qualified as the first. Therefore. If she depart too, is meant, except it be for whoredom. Nay, not so, quoth Bellarmin: for the same departing is not meant in both, but a far different, in the first an unjust departing, in the next a just; and this must be the sense of the Apostles words. Not I, but the Lord give commandment, let not the wife depart from her husband, to wit without a just cause: but if she go away, to wit having a just cause, let her remain unmarried, & so forth. In the refutation of which wrong & violence done unto the sacred text, what ⟨p. 42⟩should I stand? when the only reason, whereby out of scripture he assayeth to prove it, is the disjunctive particle, which as I have showed already, hath no joint or sinew of proof to that effect. Andz the only father, whose testimony, he citeth, for it, doth ground it on that disjunctive particle of Scripture: So that his reason being overthrown, his credit and authority, bya his ownb approved rule may bear no sway. And on the contrary part,c many other fathers do expound the second branch as having reference to the same departing that is forbidden in the first. And (which is the chief point) the natural drift and meaning of S. Pauls words doth enforce the same. For the terms;7 But, if, too, import that doing also of that which in the sentence before he had affirmed ought not to be done: Asd the like examples in the same discourse (to go no further) show, yea some having one8 particle less then this hath to press it thereunto. It is good for the unmarried and widows, if they abide even as I do: 9But if they do not contain, let them marry. The woman which hath an unbelieving husband, and he consenteth to dwell with her, let her not put him away:
Where in the last braunch Let not the husband put away his wife, must needes bee vnderstood except it bee for whoredom because S. Paule saith it is the Lords commandement, andx the Lord gave it with that expresse exception. This Bellarmyn doth graunt. Well. Then as the last braunche so the first too, Let not the wife depart from her husband. For the analogie is all one: and yeche having interest in the others bodie, shee may as lawfully departy from an adulterer, as hee from an adulteresse. And this doth Bellarmin graunt also. But the middle braunche is to be vnderstood of the same departing, and likewise qualified as the first. Therefore. If shee depart too, is meant, except it be for whoredome. Nay, not so, quoth Bellarmin: for the same departing is not meant in both, but a farre different, in the first an uniust departing, in the next a just; and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes. Not I, but the Lord geve commandement, let not the wife depart from her husbād, to weet without a just cause: but if shee goe away, to weet having a just cause, let her remaine vnmarried, & so forth. In the refutation of which wrong & violence done vnto the sacred text, what ⟨p. 42⟩should I stand? whē the onely reason, whereby out of scripture hee assayeth to prove it, is the disiunctive particle, which as I have shewed alreadie, hath no ioynt or sinew of proofe to that effect. Andz the onely father, whose testimony, hee citeth, for it, doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture: So that his reason being overthrow•n, his •reditt and authoritie, bya his owneb approved rule may beare no sway. And on the contrarie parte,c many other fathers doe expound the second braunche as having referēce to the same departing that is forbidden in the first. And (which is the chief point) the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same. For the tearmes;7 But, if, too, importe that doing also of that which in the sentence before he had affirmed ought not to be done: As
1but if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife: 2But thou marry also, thou sinnest not, This I speak for your profit, that you may do that which is comely? 3But if any man think it uncomely for his virgin if she pass the time of Marriage, let him do what he will. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: 4but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty and so forth. In all the which sentences sith the clauses brought in with those conjunctions have manifest relation to the things spoken of before, and tou•h them in the same sense, the branch that is in question having like dependence, must in all reason be conserved of the same departing that the former. Thus it being proved that S. Paul commanding the wife to remain unmarried if she departed from her husband, did mean. Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faulty even in this also that he nameth whoredom among the just causes of the wives departing here meant by S. Paul. Now in his conclusion inferring hereupon that even a just cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage, he is as deceitful▪ as he was false in his proposition. For the word Divorcement, being understood, as it is ⟨p. 43⟩by him, for any separation and parting of the man and wife, though from bed only, & for a certain time: There may be sundry causes why, such a separation should be allowed or tolerated, when as the band of marriage shall nevertheless endure still. And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmin had concluded a truth & to purpose. But the point where with he should have knit up his dispute, and whi•h he would have men conceive & bear away as if these words implied it, is that no just cause at all of any divorcement doth loose the band of marriage, and therefore neither whoredom. The falsehood whereof would have been as clear as the sun shine at noonday, the proposition being so evidently false whereon it is inferred. And this is the argument that Bellarmin set his rest on5 the insoluble argument, even altogether insoluble, the ground whereof he termeth 6a demonstration a most invincible demonstration:
1but if the vnbeleeving depart, let him depart. Art thou loosed from a wife? seeke not a wife: 2But thou marrie also, thou sinnest not, This I speake for your profitt, that you may doe that which is comely? 3But if anie man thinke it vncomely for his virgin if shee passe the time of Marriage, let him doe what he will. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: 4but if her husband be dead, she is at libertie and so forth. In all the which sentences sith the clauses brought in with those coniunctiōs have manifest relation to the things spoken of before, and tou•h thē in the same sense, the braunche that is in questiō having like dependance, must in all reason be conserved of the same departing that the former. Thus it being proved that S. Paul commanding the wife to remanie vnmarried if shee departed from her husbād, did meane. Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faultie even in this also that he nameth whoredom among the iust causes of the wives departing here meant by S. Paul. Now in his conclusion inferring herevpon that even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage, hee is as deceitfull▪ as he was false in his proposition. For the word Divorcement, being vnderstoode, as it is ⟨p. 43⟩by him, for anie seperation and parting of the man and wife, though from bedd onely, & for a certaine time: There may be sundry causes why, such a seperation should be allowed or tollerated, whē as the band of marriage shall neverthelesse endure still. And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmin had cōcluded a truth & to purpose. But the point where with he should have knitt vp his dispute, and whi•h he would have men conceyve & beare away as if these words implyed it, is that no iust cause at all of any divorcement doth loose the band of marriage, and therefore neither whoredo. The falsehood whereof would have bene as cleare as the sunne shine at nooneday, the proposition being so evidently false whereon it is inferred. And this is the argument that Bellarmin set his rest on5 the insoluble argumēt, evē altogether insoluble, the ground whereof hee tearmeth
against the which nothing (he saith) can be objected, but an insufficient reply, made by, Erasmus, to wit, that Paul speaketh of an 7adulterous wife, who therefore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay unmarried, the innocent party not so charged. Which speeches of the Jesuit come from the like vein of a vaunting spirit as those did of his complices, who boasted that8 the Spaniards Armadoes & navy should find but weak & silly resistance in England; and called their army sent to conquer us, an invincible army. For as they diminished by untrue reports the forces prepared: To meet & encounter with the Spanish power: so Bellarmin by saying that nought can be objected beside that he specifieth; yea further by belying and falsifying of Erasmus, ewho contrariwise replieth that Paul doth seem to speak9 of lighter displeasures for which divorcements then were usual, not of such crimes as adultery. Moreover by the substance & weight of my reply to his insoluble argument, the godly wise indifferent eye will see (I trust) that the knots & strings thereof are loosed and broken: even as the invincible army of the Spaniards was by Gods providence showed to be vincible without great encountering; the carcasses & spoils of their ships & men up on the English, Scottish, & Irish coasts did witness it.f So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord, and let them who love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his strength.
against the which nothing (he saith) can be obiected, but an insufficiēt reply, made by, Er•smus, to weet, that Paul speaketh of ā 7adulterous wife, who therefore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay vnmarried, the innocent partie not so charged. Which speeches of the Iesuite come frō the like veine of a vaunting spirit as those did of his complices, who boasted that8 the Spanyards Armadoes & navy should finde but weake & seely resistance in England; and called their army sent to conquere vs, an invincible army. For as they diminished by vntrue reportes the forces prepared: To meete & encoūter with the Spanish power: so Bellarmin by saying that nought can be obiected beside that hee specifieth; yea farder by belying and falsifying of Erasmus, ewho contrariwise replieth that Paul doth seeme to speake9 of lighter displeasures for which divorcements then were vsuall, not of such crimes as adulterie. Moreover by the substance & weight of my replie to his insoluble argument, the godly wise indifferent eye will see (I trust) that the knots & strings thereof are loosed and broken: even as the invincible armie of the Spanyards was by Gods providence shewed to be vincible without great encountring; the carkeises & spoiles of their shipps & mē vp ōthe English, Scottish, & Irish coasts did witnesse it.f So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord, and let them who love him be as the sunne when he goeth forth in his strength.
7Unum et tā tum quodobijci pusset.Vnum et tā tum quodobijci pusset.
8In the year of Christ 1588In the yeare of Christ 1588
The consent of Fathers, the second pretended proof for the Papists doctrine in this point, is pretended falsely: and if all be weighted in an even balance, the Fathers check it rather.
The consent of Fathers, the seconde pretended proofe for the Papists doctrine in this point, is pretended falsly: and if all be weighted in an even ballance, the Fathers check it rather.
After the foresaid testimonies of scripture urged by our adversaries in the first place for the commending of their error: Secondly, the same truth (saith the Jesuit) may be proved by tradition. By which his own speech, if we should take advantage of it, he granteth all that I have said against his arguments drawn out of the scripture, and so far forth agreeth with us. For what understandeth, he by the word Tradition? A doctrine not written, asa him-self professeth in his first controversy. Where having noted that all though the word tradition be general & signifieth any doctrine written or unwritten, which one imparteth to another, yet divines, & almost all the ancient fathers, apply it to signify unwritten doctrine only: And soe will we hereafter use this word saith he. If the point in question then may be proved (as Bellarmin affirmeth it may) by tradition: We might conclude it is not written in the scriptures, by his own verdict, and therefore all the scriptures alleged by him for it are alleged falsely. But he seemeth to use the name of tradition in like sort asb Vincentius Lirmensis doth, calling the doctrine delivered by the church the Churches tradition. This to be his meaning I gather by the reason that he addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it. The Pamphleteer in other words, but more peremptorily to avouch the proof thereof by the opinion and censure of all ages, affirmeth, he will show that it was never thought lawful since Christ, for Christians divorced for fornication to marry any other while both man and wife lived. That it was never thought lawful since Christ, is a boulder speech them Bellarmin doth use: though to hit the mark as it were with his shaft, he must and doth imply as much in that ⟨p. 45⟩he saith it may be proved by tradition. For tradition hath not force enough to prove a thing to be true, not in the Papists own judgment, unless it have been always approved & agreed on by the general consent of Fathers, (as we term them) Pastors and Doctors of the Church. Which I affirm not upon the general rule ofc Vincentius only so greatly, and so often praised by them as golden: But upon the Canon of the Trent council and pillars of the Popish church subscribing to it.
AFter the foresaid testimonies of scripture vrged by our adversaries in the first place for the commending of their errour: Secondly, the same truth (saith the Iesuit) may be proved by tradition. By which his owne speeche, if we should take advauntage of it, he graunteth all that I have said agaynst his arguments drawen out of the scripture, and so farre forth agreeth with vs. For what vnderstandeth, hee by the word Tradition? A doctrine not written, asa him-self professeth in his first controversie. Where having noted that al though the word tradition be generall & signifieth any doctrine written or vnwritten, which one imparteth to another, yet divines, & almost all the auncient fathers, applie it to signifie vnwritten doctrine onely: And soe will wee hereafter vse this word saith hee. If the point in question thē may be proved (as Bellarmin affirmeth it may) by tradition: We might conclude it is not written in the scriptures, by his owne verdict, and therefore all the scriptures alleaged by him for it are alleaged falsly. But hee seemeth to vse the name of traditiō in like sort asb Vincentius Lirmensis doth, calling the doctrine delivered by the church the Churches tradition. This to be his meaning I gather by the reason that hee addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it. The Pāphletter in other words, but more perēptorily to avouch the proofe thereof by the opinion and censure of all ages, affirmeth, he will shewe that it was never thought lawfull since Christ, for Christians divorced for fornication to marry anie other while both man and wife lived. That it was never thought lawfull since Christ, is a boulder speeche them Bellarmin doth vse: though to hitt the marke as it were with his shaft, hee must and doth imply as much in that ⟨p. 45⟩hee saith it may be proved by tradition. For traditiō hath not force enough to prove a thing to be true, not in the Papists owne iudgment, vnles it have bene alwaies approved & agreed on by the generall consent of Fathers, (as we tearme them) Pastors and Doctors of the Church. Which I affirme not vpon the generall rule ofc Vincentius onelie so greatly, and so often praised by them as golden: But vpon the Canon of the Trent councell and pillars of the Popīsh churche subscribing to it.
For thed council of Trent commanding that no man shall expound the scripture against the sense that the Church holdeth or against the Fathers consenting all in one, doth covertly grant, that if the Fathers consent not all in one, their opinion may be false, and consequently, no sure proof of a point in question. eAndradius doth open and avouch the same in his defence of the Council: a work very highly commended byf Oseruis. And gCanus setteth it down for a conclusion, that many of them consenting in one can yield no firm proof, if the rest though fewer in number do dissent. Yeah Bellarmin himself saith that there can no certainty be gathered out of their sayings, when they agree not among themselves. It is a thing granted then by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove ought unless they all consent in one. But the fathers do not all consent in one about the point we treat of, as it shall be showed, Our adversaries therefore must grant that the opinion which they hold in this point, cannot be proved by Fathers. Nay they are in danger of being enforced to grant a farther matter, and more importing them by the consequent hereof. For through a decree ofi Pope Pius the fourth, the professors of all faculties, & all that take degrees in any popish school are bound by solemn oath that they shall never expound and take the scripture1 but according to the Fathers consenting all in one. Wherefore how will Bellarmin, perhaps the Pamphleteer also if he have been amongst them and taken any degree, but what shift will Bellarmin, and his2 puefellowes find to save themselves from perjury, when it shall be showed that many of the Fathers gain say that opinion, which him-self and his expound the scripture for? And what if it appear, that the greater number of Fathers do so? nor the greater only, but the better also, ⟨p. 46⟩and those whose grounds are surer? Then all the probability, which Fathers can yield will turn against the Papists: and that which our adversaries would prove by tradition, and the consent of all ages will rather be disproved thereby. But howsoever men be diversly, persuaded touching the number & quality of Fathers inclining this or that way, by means of sundry circumstances which may breed doubt both particularly, of certain, and of the whole sum in general:
For thed councell of Trent commanding that no man shall expound the scripture against the sense that the Churche holdeth or against the Fathers cōsenting all in one, doth covertly graūt, that if the Fathers consent not all in one, their opinion may be false, and •onsequently, no sure proofe of a point in question. eAndradius doth open and avouche the same in his defense of the Councell: a worke verie highly commēded byf Oseruis. And gCanus setteth it downe for a conclusion, that many of them consenting in one can yeild no firme proofe, if the rest though fewer in number do dissent. Yeah Bellarmin himself saith that there can no certaintie be gathered out of their sayings, when they agree not among themselves. It is a thing graunted thē by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove ought vnlesse they all consent in one. But the fathers do not all consent in one about the point wee treat of, as it shalbe shewed, Our adversaries therefore must graunt that the opiniō which they holde in this point, cannot be proved by Fathers. Nay they are in danger of being enforced to graunt a farther matter, and more importing them by the consequent hereof. For through a decree ofi Pope Pius the fourth, the professors of all faculties, & all that take degrees in any poopish schoole are bound by solemne oth that they shall never expound and take the scripture1 but according to the Fathers cōsēting all in one. Wherefore how will Bellarmin, perhaps the Pamphletter also if he have bene amongst them and taken any degree, but what shift will Bellarmin, and his2 puefellowes finde to save themselves from periurie, when it shal be shewed that many of the Fathers gaine say that opinion, which him-self and his expound the scripture for? And what if it appeare, that the greater number of Fathers doe so? nor the greater onely, but the better also, ⟨p. 46⟩
2As Parsons by name: Epi tom con. part 2. con. 5. quest 4. & canilius catechism. de matrimon. sacram quest. 3▪ & Navarrus in cap divort▪ de peint dist. 1 & their seminarieschollars.
the main and principal point remaining to be showed, namely that the Fathers consent not all in one for the Papists doctrine, is most clear and evident out of all controversy. In so much that many even of them also whom Bellarmin allegeth, and the Pamphleteer after him, as making for it, make in deed against it: and those of the chiefest and foremost ranks specially, in the first, the second, the third, the fourth hundred years after Christ. All the which agree and teach with one consent that the man forsaking his wife for her adultery, is free to marry again: save such of them only, as in this very point of doctrine touching, marriage are tainted with, error by the judgement and censure of Papists themselves. A token of the vanity and folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphleteer: who by naming one at least in every age, would needs make a show of having the consent of all ages with them, whereas it will be seen hereby, that in many we have the most and best; and they, either none at all, or none sound. For in the first hundred years after Christ all that Bellarmin saith they have, is the testimony of Clemens in the Canons of the Apostlesk where the man is willed without any exception to be excommunicated, who having put away his wife doth marry another. Now beside that Clemens upon whom Bellarmin fathereth, those canons, is injured therein. As for the later part of theml himself showeth,m his friend for the former, neither are they of Apostolic antiquity and authority notwithstanding their title, asn many Fathers testify, and Papists will acknowledge when they are touched by them:o The author of the Canon had respect therein (by all probability) to the Apostolic doctrine received from Christ, & therefore though he made not an express exception of divorce for whoredom, might as well imply it, as I have declared that some of ⟨p. 47⟩the Evangelists, and S. Paul did. Which the interpreters also of those Canonsp Zonaras and Balsamon, thought to be so likely and more then a conjecture, that they expound it so without any scruple. Balsamon in saying that he who putteth away his wife without cause may not marry another; and Zonaras that he who marrieth a woman put away without cause by her husband doth commit adultery.
the maine and principall point remayning to be shewed, namely that the Fathers consent not all in one for the Papists doctrine, is most cleare and evident out of all controversie. In so much that many even of them also whom Bellarmin alleageth, and the Pamphletter after him, as making for it, make in deed against it: and those of the chiefest and formost rankes spetially, in the first, the second, the third, the fourth hundred yeares after Christ. All the which agree and teach with one consent that the man forsaking his wife for her adulterie, is free to marrie againe: save such of them onely, as in this very point of doctrine touching, marriage are tainted with, error by the iudgement and censure of Papists themselves. A token of the vanetie and folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphletter: who by naming one at least in everie age, would needes make a shewe of having the consent of all ages with them, whereas it wilbe seene hereby, that in many we have the most and best; and they, either none at all, or none sound. For in the first hundred yeares after Christ all that Bellarmin sayth they have, is the testimony of Clemens in the Canōs of the Apostlesk where the mā is willed without any exception to be excommunicated, who having put away his wife doth marrie another. Now beside that Clemens vpon whom Bellarmin fathereth, those canons, is iniured therein. As for the later parte of theml himself sheweth,m his friend for the former, neither are they of Apostolique antiquitie and authoritie notwithstanding their title, asn many Fathers testifie, and Papists will acknowledg when they are touched by them:o The author of the Canon had respect therein (by all probabilitie) to the Apostolique doctrine receyved from Christ, & therefore though he made not an expresse exceptiō of divorce for whordom, might as well impply it, as I have declared that some of ⟨p. 47⟩the Euangelists, and S. Paule did. Which the interpreters also of those Canonsp Zonaras and Balsamon, thought to be so likely and more then a coniecture, that they expound it so without any scruple. Balsamon in saying that he who putteth away his wife without cause may not marrie another; and Zonaras that hee who marrieth a woman put away without cause by her husband doth committ adulterie.
kCanon. 48.
lTom, 1. L. conti •. ca. 2•
mFr. Torrensis (otherwise called Turriā) a •esuit lib de 6. 7. et 8. Synod.Fr. Torrensis (otherwise called Turriā) a •esuit lib de 6. 7. et 8. Synod.
nPope Ge•asius the first, with 70. by shops assembled in a coū cell c Scta Romana dist. 3.Pope Ge•asius the first, with 70. by shops assembled in a coū cell c Scta Romana dist. 3.
oG•sar Baronius Annalus Eccle. tom. 1. ad •nnum Christi •8.
Or if these writers mistook the authors meaning, & in his opinion no man, howsoever his wife were put away, without or with cause, might lawfully marry another: th•n take this with all, thatq he skarse allowed any second marriage, but controlled the third as a sign of intemperance, & condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom. Which althoughr a Jesuit go about to cover and salve with gentle glosses likes the false prophets. Who when one had built up a mud wall did parged it with unsavoury plaster: yet sith that counterfeit Clements work did flow out of the fountains of the Grecians, as at great historian of Rome hath truly noted, and among the Grecians many, held that error, as it is likewise showed by av great Sorbonist; the likelihood of the matter, and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the natural and proper signification of the words, will not permit their blackness to take any other hue, nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement, to be cleared from plain contradiction tox the word of God. Wherefore the only witness that Bellarmin produceth out of the first hundred years, doth not help him.y Out of the second hundred he produceth three; Justinus, Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus. The first of whom Justinus praising the compendious briefness of Christs speeches rehearseth this amongst them: Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, doth commit adultery. Meaning not as Bellarmin, but as Christ did: who excepting whoredom in the zformer branch of that sentence, understood it likewise in this, as I have showed. And how may we know that Justinus meant so? By his own words, in thata he commendeth a godly Christian woman, who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of divorcementb such as did loose that band of matrimony, and saith concerning him that4 he was not her husband afterward. The nextc Athenagoras, affirmeth (I grant) that if ⟨p. 48⟩any man being parted from his former wife do marry another he is an adulterer. But Bellarmin must grant with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it untruly: considering that he speaketh of parting even by death too, as well as by divorcement, & teacheth with thed Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is unlawful.
Or if these writers mistooke the authours meaning, & in his opinion no mā, howsoever his wife were put away, without or with cause, might lawfully marrie another: th•n take this with all, thatq hee skarse allowed any second marriage, but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance, & condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom. Which althoughr a Iesuit goe about to cover and salve with gentle gloses likes the false prophets. Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavorie plaister: yet sith that counterfait Clements worke did flowe out of the fountaines of the Gretians, as at great historian of Rome hath truelie noted, and amōg the Gretians many, held that errour, as it is likewise shewed by av great Sorbonist; the likelyhood of the matter, and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall and proper signification of the words, will not permitt their blacknes to take any other hewe, nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement, to be cleared from plaine contradiction tox the word of God. Wherefore the onely witnesse that Bellarmin produceth out of the first hundred yeares, doth not helpe him.y Out of the second hundred he produceth three; Iustinus, Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus. The first of whom Iustinus praising the compendious briefnes of Christes speeches rehearseth this amongst them: Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, doth commit adulterie. Meaning not as Bellarmin, but as Christ did: who excepting whoredome in the zformer braunche of that sentence, vnderstoode it likewise in this, as I have shewed. And how may wee know that Iustinus meant so? By his owne wordes, in thata hee commendeth a godly Christian woman, who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of dirorcementb
qApost const lib. 3 cap, 2
rFt. Turrian, an•ct. in Apoconst ClementFt. Turrian, an•ct. in Apoconst Clemēt
Whereupon a famous Parisian Divinee Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth, that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian: and may well be thought to have been inserted into his work by Eucratites. A censure, for the ground thereof, very true, that the said opinion is a Philosophical fancy, yea an heresy: Though the words seem rather to be Athenagonas his own, asf sundry fathers speak dangerously, that way, then thrust in by Encratites, gwho generally rejected all marriage, not second marriage only. Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Jesuits cause. As much doth the last of his witnessesh Clemens Alexandrinus. For both in this point about second marriage ihe matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with unsoundness, and stained with spots of error. Which judgment not onlyk Protestants of German have in our remembrance lately, given of him, though al Jesuitical spirit do traduce them insolently, for it: Butm an ancient Pope of Rome with seventy bishops assembled in a Council above a thousand years since, and a Bishop of Spain a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinity and in the Canon lawn Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same. Now in the third hundred years (to go forward) Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to aver Bellarmins opinion, of whom one questionless controlleth, perhaps both. Foro Tertullian disputing against the heretic Marcion, who falsely objected that Christ is contrary to Moses, because Moses granted divorcement, Christ forbiddeth it, answereth that Christ saying, whosoever shall put away his wife & marry another, committeth adultery, meaneth 5undoubtedly of putting away for that cause, for which it is not lawful for a man to putt away his wife that he may marry another. And likewise for the wife, that he is an adulterer, who marrieth her being put away, 6if she be put away unlawfully: considering that the marriage, which is not rightly broken off, continueth; and ⟨p. 49⟩while the marriage doth continue, it is adultery to marry.
Wherevpon a famons Parisian Divinee Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth, that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian: and may well be thought to have bene inserted into his worke by Eucratites. A censure, for the ground thereof, very true, that the said opinion is a Philosophicall fansie, yea an heresie: Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagonas his owne, asf sundrie fathers speake dangerously, that way, then thrust in by Encratites, gwho generally reiected all marriage, not se•ond marriage onelie. Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause. As much doth the last of his witnessesh Clemens Alexandrinus. For both in this point about second marriage ihee matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes, and stained with spotts of errour. Which iudgmēt not onelyk Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately, geven of him, though al Iesuitical spirit doe traduce thē insolently, for it: Butm an auncient Pope of Rome with seavētie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since, and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinitie and in the Canon lawn Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same. Now in the third hundred yeares (to goe forward) Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion, of whom one questionlesse controlleth, perhaps both. Foro Tertullian disputing against the heretique Marcion, who falsely obiected that Christ is contrarie to Moses, because Moses graunted divorcemēt, Christ forbiddeth it, answereth that Christ saying, whosoever shall put away his wife & marrie another, committeth adulterie, meaneth
Which words of Tertullian manifestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully, for the cause excepted by Christ, may marry another, Bellarmin doth very cunningly & finely, cut of with an et caetera, and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement, if there be a just cause, but, did forbid to marry again after divorcement. So directly against the most evident light of the words & tenor of the whole discourse: that learned men of his own side, though holding his opinion yet could not for shame but grant that Tertullian maketh against them in it. Forp bishop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintain that men may lawfully marry again after divorcement for adultery, nameth Tertullian (quoting this place) among them. Andq Sixtus Senensis a man not inferior in learning to Bellarmin, in sincere dealing for this point superior, confesseth on the same place, & on those same words (but recited wholly, not clipped with an etcetera) that Tertullian maketh a certain & undoubted assertion thereof.r Pamelius in deed through a desire of propping up his churches doctrine with Tertullians credit, saith that though he seem here to allow divorcement for adultery in such sort, as that the husband may marry another wife: yet he openeth himself, & holdeth it to be unlawful in his book †of single marriage. Wherein he saith some what, but little to his advantage. For Tertullian wrote this book of single marriage swhen he was fallen away from the Catholic faith unto the heresy of Montanus: & so doth hold therein agreeably to that heresy, that is unlawful to marry a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death. But in that thee wrote, while he was a Catholic, against the heretic Marcion, he teacheth contrariwise the same that we do, as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truly grant. Yea Pamelius himself if he look better to his own notes, doth grant as much. Fort he saith that Tertullian useth the word divorcement in his proper signification, for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife, & marrieth another. But Tertullian saith7 that Christ doth avouch the righteousness of divorcement. Christ therefore avoucheth that for adultery a man may put away his wife and marry another by Tertullians judgment. Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen:
Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully, for the cause excepted by Christ, may marrie another, Bellarmin doth very cunningly & finely, cut of with an et caetera, and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement, if there be a iust cause, but, did forbid to marrie againe after divorcement. So directly agaisnt the most evidēt light of the wordes & tenour of the whole discourse: that learned men of his owne side, though houlding his opinion yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it. Forp byshop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintaine that men may lawfully marrie againe after divorcemēt for adulterie, nameth Tertullian (quoting this place) amōg them. Andq Sixtus Senensis a man not inferiour in learning to Bellarmin, in sincere dealing for this point superiour, cōfesseth on the same place, & on those same words (but recited wholy, not clipped with an etcetera) that Tertullian maketh a certaine & vndoubted assertion thereof.r Pamelius in deede through a desire of propping vp his churches doctrine with Tertulliās credit, saith that though hee seeme here to allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort, as that the husbād may marrie another wife: yet hee openeth himself, & holdeth it to be vnlawfull in his booke †of single marriage. Wh•rein he saith some what, but litle to his advauntage. For Tertullian wrote this booke of single marriage swhē hee was fallē away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus: & so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie, that is vnlawfull to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death. But in that thee wrote, while hee was a Catholique, against the heretique Marcion, hee teacheth cōtrarywise the same that wee doe, as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truely graunt. Yea Pamelius himself if hee looke better to his owne notes, doth graunt as much. Fort he saith that Tertullian vseth the worde divorcement in his proper signification, for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife, & marrieth another. But Tertulliā saith7
hot that hee hath put it in our choise and left vs at libertie either to bee colde in faith and love, as flesh is, or to bee fervent in the spirit. Yet Christ had no such meaning.
But if they doe not conteine, let them marry. The woman which hath an vnbeleeving husband, and hee consenteth to dwell with her, let her not put him away:
and those whose grounds are surer? Then all the probability, which Fathers can yeild will turne against the Papists: and that which our adversaries would prove by tradition, and the consent of all ages will rather be disproved thereby. But howsoever men be diversly, persuaded touching the number & quality of Fathers enclyning this or that way, by meanes of sundrie circumstances which may breed doubt both particularly, of certaine, and of the whole summe in generall:
such as did loose that band of matrimony, and saith concerning him that
any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie another he is an adulterer. But Bellarmin must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly: considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too, as well as by divorcement, & tea•heth with the
vndoubtedly of putting away for that cause, for which it is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another. And likewise for the wife, that he is an adulterer, who marrieth her being put away,
if shee be put away vnlawfully: considering that the marriage, which is not rightly broken off, continueth; and
⟨p. 49⟩
while the marriage doth continue, it is adulterie to marrie.
〈…〉 dimiss•m. Mane•e• mat•imoni quod non 〈…〉 d•ē pt▪ um est.
that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorcement. Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marrie another by Tertullians iudgment. Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen:
