A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully…A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie…
A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully not only put away his wife for her adultery, but also marry another. / Wherein both Robert Bellarmin the Jesuits Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a nameless author maintaining the contrary are co[n]futed by John Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Church with error..A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie, but also marrie another. / Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are co[n]futed by Iohn Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Churche with errour..
John Rainolds 1549–1607Dordrecht: printed by George Walters, 1609
[6], 80, 80-94, [1] p. · 40k words · STC 20607 · ESTC S115561
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The 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 as
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 of
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
Although ⟨p. 50⟩it be true vhe saith (as Bellarmin citeth him) that certain bishops did permit a woman to marry while her former husband lived, & addeth, they did it against the scripture. For he seemeth to speak of a woman divorced from her husband, not for adultery, but for some other cause, such as the Jews used to put away their wives for, by giving them a bill of divorcement. The matter that he handleth, and cause that he giveth thereof do lead us to this meaning; Approved by the opinion of certain learned men too. For after he had said (according tox the words of Christ which he expoundeth) that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcement did yield unto the weakness of them to whom the law was given; he saith that, the Christian bishops who permitted a woman to marry while her former husband lived, did it perhaps for such weakness. Wherefore sith in saving that, this which they did, they did perhaps for such weakness, he hath relation unto that of Moses, & Moses (as he addeth) did not grant the bill of divorcement for adultery, for that was punished by death it followeth that the Bishops whom Origen chargeth, with doing against the scripture did permit the woman, to marry upon divorcement for some other cause, not for adultery & so his reproving of them doth not touch us, who grant it for adultery only. Thus dothy Erasmus think that Origen meant: concluding it farther, as clear, by the similitude whichz he had used before of Christ, who put away the Synagogue (his former wife as it were) because of her adultery, & married the church. Yeaa Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovā, & of better credit with Papists than Eros•nus saith that the divorcement permitted by those Bishops, whom Origen controleth was a Jewish divorcement. Wherein though he aimed at another mark, to prove an untruth; yet unawares he hi• a truth more than he thought of, & strengthened that by Origen, which he thought to overthrow. Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter can persuade by other likelihoods out of Origen (as he is somewhat dark, & I know not whether irresolute in the point) that the thing reproved by him in those Bishops was the permitting of one to marry again after divorcement for adultery: our cause shall be more advantaged by those sundry Bishops who approved it, than disadvantaged by one Origen, who reproved them for it.
Although ⟨p. 50⟩it be true vhee saith (as Bellarmin citeth him) that certaeine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived, & addeth, they did it agaynst the scripture. For he seemeth to speake of a woman divorced from her husband, not for adulterie, but for some other cause, such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for, bygiving thē a bill of divorcemēt. The matter that he handleth, and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to this meaning; Approved by the opinion of certaine learned men too. For after he had said (according tox the words of Christ which he expoundeth) that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemēt did yeeld vnto the weakenes of thē to whom the law was gevē; he saith that, the Christian byshops who permitted a womā to marrie while her former husbād lived, did it perhaps for such weaknes. Wherefore sith in saving that, this which they did, they did perhaps for such weaknes, he hath relatiō vnto that of Moses, & Moses (as he addeth) did not graūt the bill of divorcemēt for adulterie, for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshops whō Origen chargeth, with doing against the scripture did permitt the womā, to marrie vpon divorcemēt for some other cause, not for adulterie & so his reproving of thē doth not touche vs, who graūt it for adulterie only. Thus dothy Erasmus thinke that Origen meant: concluding it farther, as cleare, by the similitude whichz he had vsed before of Christ, who put away the Synagogue (his former wife as it were) because of her adulterie, & married the churche. Yeaa Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovā, & of better credit with Papists thē Eros•nus saith that the divorcemēt permitted by those Byshops, whō Origen cōtrouleth was a Iewish divorcemēt. Wherein though he aymed at another marke, to prove an vntruth; yet vnwares he hi• a truth more thē hee thought of, & strengthened that by Origen, which he thought to overthrowe. Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bellarmins Interpreter cā persuade by other likelyhoods out of Origen (as he is somewhat darke, & I know not whether irresolute in the point) that the thing reproved by him in those Byshops was the permitting of one to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie: our cause shalbe more advātaged by those sundrie Byshops who approved it, thē disadvātaged by one Origē, who reproved thē for it.
Chiefly seeing Origen impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith, for whi•h ab general Council withc Bellarmins allowance count […] a damned heretic: ⟨p. 51⟩& in this matter byd excluding all such as are twice married out of the Kingdom of heaven, whiche divines of Paris observe & check him for. Whereas those Bishops of whom he maketh mention, were neither stained otherwise, for ought that may be gathered, nor herein did they more then the right believing & Catholic Church all that time thought lawful to be done, as appeareth by Tertullian & Justine the Martyr. In the which respect fPeter Soto (a friar of great account in the Trent Council) […] said that it is plain by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtful in the ancient church allegeth this for proof thereof out of Origen, that many bishops […] married men to marry again after divorcement. This if the two of •thers whom Bellarmin allegeth out of the third hundred years as making for him, do not make against him, which perhaps they do both: yet one of them doth not out of all controversy, & bishops, more in number, in credit greater than the other, agree with him therein. Out of the fourth hundred, the […] which Bellarmin maketh, is a great deal fairer than out of the third: & a number of Fathers, the council of Eliberis S. Am […] S. lerō, a Roman Bishop, & S. Chrysostom are affirmed them •e to join themselves with him. But they are affirmed in the like manner as the former were: skarse on of them avouching the same that he doth, the rest in part seeming to be of other opinion, in part most clearly showing it, & such as show not so much, yet showing their own weakness, & that in this matter their opinion & judgment is of small value. For the foremost of themg the Council of Eliberis, ordained that a woman which forsook her husband because of his adultery & would marry another, should be forbidden to marry, & if she married, she should not receive the communion till he were dead whom she forsook, unless necessity of sickness constrained to give it her. Wherein it is to be noted, first that the Council saith not.8 If any man, so to comprehend & touch generally all both men & women: but they speak peculiarity of the woman alone, & so do not forbid the man to leave his adulterous wife & marry another.
Chiefly seing Origē impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith, for whi•h ab generall Councell withc Bellarmins allowāce count 〈…〉 a damned heretique: ⟨p. 51⟩& in this matter byd excluding all such as are twise married out of the Kingdō of heavē, whiche divines of Paris observe & check him for. Whereas those Byshops of whō he maketh mentiō, were neither stayned otherwise, for ought that may be gathered, nor herein did they more then the right believing & Catholique Churche all that time thought lawfull to be done, as appeareth by Tertulliā & Iustine the Martyr. In the which respect fPeter Soto (a freir of great account in the Trent Councell) 〈…〉 said that it is plaine by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtfull in the auncient church al•eageth this for proofe thereof out of Origen, that many byshops 〈…〉 married mē to marrie againe after divorcement. This if the two of •thers whō Bellarmin alleageth out of the third hundred years as making for him, doe not make against him, which perhaps they doe both: yet one of thē doth not out of all controversie, & byshops, more in number, in credit greater thē the other, agree with him therein. Out of the fowrth hundred, the 〈…〉 which Bellarmin maketh, is a great deale fayrer thē out of the third: & a number of Fathers, the councell of Eliberis S. Am 〈…〉 S. lerō, a Romā Byshop, & S. Chrysostome are affirmed thē •e to ioyne themselves with him. But they are affirmed in the like māner as the former were: skarse on of thē avouching the same that he doth, the rest in part seeming to be of other opinion, in part most clearely shewing it, & such as shewe not so much, yet shewing their owne weakenes, & that in this matter their opiniō & iudgmēt is of small value. For the formost of them
bSynod 5 Con stan […] collat 8 cap ••. Nicephor lib. 17 cap •8.Synod 5 Cō stan 〈…〉 collat 8 cap ••. Nicephor lib. 17 cap •8.
cTom. 1 con •. 6 lib. c. cap. 1Tom. 1 cō •. 6 lib. c. cap. 1
dHom▪ 17 in Lucam.
eGenebrad. annot marg▪ in eum locū. Espenceus de continent. lib▪ 3 cap 9.Genebrad. annot marg▪ in eum locū. Espenceus de continent. lib▪ 3 cap 9.
fTractat de in•••cut Sacerd c. de matrimon. lect. ••
gCanon. 9.
8Slquis L. […] D. de ve• ber […].Slquis L. 〈…〉 D. de ve• ber 〈…〉.
Secondly, that the woman is excommunicated, if when she is forbidden by the church to marry, she marry nevertheless, not if before she be forbidden: As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self. Thirdly, that sh•e is not debarred all her life time from the ⟨p. 52⟩communion, but for a season only, and in time of need, in dangerous sickness doth receive it: yea, even while the party, whom she forsook liveth. Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councells oversight who made the woman's case herein worse then the mans, both being free alike by Gods law: yet for the man it showeth that they allowed him to marry again after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which we maintain. The next yieldeth likelihood that the Council did forbid the woman this not for that they thought it unlawful, but unseemly perhaps or unexpedient, ash another Council is read to have forbidden the celebrating & solemnizing of marriages at certain times. But the last putteth the matter out of doubt, that they were persuaded of the woman also marrying in such sort, that her fact was warrantable by the word of God. Forels had they, not judged her marriage with this latter man to be lawful, they must needs have judged her to live with him in perpetual adultery. Which if they had thought, it is most improbable they would have admitted her to the communion in case of dangerous sickness: seeing at the point of deathi they deny it to women so continuing, yeak to men offending less heinously then so. With such extremity of rigour therein thatl Baronius noteth their decrees as savouring of the Novatian heresy: &m Bellarmin layeth it almost as deeply to their charge. So far from all likelihood is it that they would admit her in necessity of sickness to the communion had they been persuaded she lived in adultery still. Therefore it was not without cause that Bellarmin did suppress this circū stance together with the former, in citing the decree of the Elibernie Council: least his false illation, to wit that they accounted such marriage unlawful even for the innocent party, & in the cause of adultery, should be discovered & controlled thereby.
Secondly, that the womā is excommunicated, if when shee is forbidden by the church to marrie, shee marrie neverthelesse, not if before shee be forbidden: As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self. Thirdlie, that sh•e is not d•barred all her life time from the ⟨p. 52⟩communion, but for a season onely, and in time of neede, in daungerous sicknes doth receive it: yea, even while the partie, whō shee forsooke liveth. Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councells oversight who made the womans case herein worse then the mans, both being free alike by Gods lawe: yet for the mā it sheweth that they allowed him to marrie againe after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which wee maintaine. The next yeildeth likeliehood that the Councell did forbid the woman this not for that they thought it vnlawfull, but vnseemelie perhaps or vnexpedient, ash another Councell is read to have forbiddē the celebrating & solemnizing of marriages at certaine times. But the last putteth the matter out of doubt, that they were persuaded of the woman also marrying in such sort, that her fact was warrātable by the word of God. Forels had they, not iudged her marriage with this latter mā to be lawfull, they must needes have iudged her to live with him in perpetuall adulterie. Which if they had thought, it is most improbable they would have admitted her to the communiō in case of daungerous sicknes: seeing at the point of deathi they denie it to womē so continuing, yeak to men offending lesse heynously then so. With such extremitie of rigour therein thatl Baronius noteth their decrees as savouring of the Novatian heresie: &m Bellarmin layeth it almost as deepely to their charge. So farre from all likeliehood is it that they would admitt her in necessitie of sicknes to the communiō had they bene persuaded shee lived in adulterie still. Therefore it was not without cause that Bellarmin did suppresse this circū stance together with the former, in citing the decree of the Elibernie Councell: least his false illatiō, to weete that they accounted such marriage vnlawfull even for the innocent partie, & in the cause of adulterie, should be discovered & controlled thereby.
hConcil. I•e•d. c Non oportet a leptu •gesima. •3 q, 4.
ican. 64.
kCan. 3. 7. 17 18. 47 65 70. 73, & 75.
lAnnal. Eccles •om. 1 ad anū Christ. 57.Annal. Eccles •om. 1 ad anū Christ. 57.
Next is Ambrose brought in, who upon the 16 chapter of Luke, writeth much against them that putting away their wife do marry another, & he calleth that marriage adultery in sundry places: neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith. But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too? Certainly S. Ambrose speaketh9 of such wives as lived without crime &1 whom their husbands were (as he addeth) ⟨p. 53⟩forbidden by the law of God to put away. So that he reproving men for marrying others after they had put away their chaste wives, doth evidently show he meant not of marriage after divorcement for whoredom. And if it be sufficient proof that he supposed they, might not marry again after they had put away a whorish wife because he never excepteth whoredom in that whole discourse of marrying again: then by as sufficient a reason he supposed that2 they, might not put away their wives at all, no not for whoredom, because he never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife. But tha• Papists will grant that a man may lawfully put away his wife, if she commit whoredom. As Bellarmin then will construe S, Ambrose in this branch, so let him in the former. And if he say, that S. Ambrose thinking upon Luke alone whom he expounded, or trusting his memory forgot the exception added by Christ in Matthew, forn putting away the wife: the same slip of memory might loose the same exception foro marrying another. If he think that Ambrose did not forget himself, but understood the exception in the former point, as thep Apostle did, though neither mention it expressly: what reason why, it might not as well be understood in the later also? As for S. Jerome no marvel if he wrote against second marriage after divorcement for whoredomq who wrote against all second marriages in such sort, thatr Espenceus asketh what could have been said more grievously against them by the impure3 Catharists, then is said by him? Ands Vives pronounceth, that he did not only detest second marriages, but also had small liking of the first, nor did much favour matrimony;
Next is Ambrose brought in, who vpō the 16 chapter of Luke, writeth much against thē that putting away their wife doe marrie another, & he calleth that marriage adulterie in sundrie places: neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith. But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too? Certainely S. Ambrose speaketh9 of such wives as lived without crime &1 whom their husbands were (as hee addeth) ⟨p. 53⟩forbidden by the lawe of God to put away. So that hee reproving men for marrying others after they had put away their chaste wives, doth evidently shewe he meant not of marriage after divorcemēt for whordō. And if it be •ufficiēt proofe that hee supposed they, might not marrie againe after they had put away a whorish wife because hee never excepteth whoredō in that whole discourse of marrying againe: then by as sufficiēt a reason hee supposed that2 they, might not put away their wives at all, no not for whordom, because hee never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife. But tha• Papists will graunt that a man may lawfully put away his wife, if shee committ whordom. As Bellarmin then will construe S, Ambrose in this braunch, so let him in the former. And if he say, that S. Ambrose thinking vpō Luke alone whō hee expounded, or trusting his memorie forgot the exception added by Christ in Mathew, forn putting away the wife: the same slipp of memorie might loose the same exception foro marrying another. If he thinke that Ambrose did not forget himself, but vnderstoode the exception in the former point, as thep Apostle did, though neither mentiō it expressely: what reason why, it might not as well be vnderstoode in the later also? As for S. Ierom no marveil if hee wrote against second marriage after divorcemēt for whordomq who wrote against all second marriages in such sort, thatr
9Dimletis •uxorem qua•i jura sin• crimine
1Putas id •ibi l•cere quia •ex humana ••on pr•hibet sed divina pro •ib. •. •.
2Noli crgo uxorem dimit tere. Qui dimittit uxorē facit eam m•e cham.Noli crgo vxorem dimit tere. Qui dimittit uxorē facit eam m•e cham.
Beside that himself too, as far as he exceeded the bounds of Godly modesty & truth herein, even by these mens judgments whom Papists do repute learned & Catholic allayeth & correcteth in one of the places, which Bellarmin allegeth, his peremptory censure given in the other. For whereas he saith in his Epistle to Amandus, that the wife who divorced herself from her husband because of his adultery & married another4 was an adulteress for so marrying, and5 her new husband an adulterer: In his epitaph of Fabiola (a noble godly gentlewoman of Rome, who did the like & was penitent for it after her second husbands death) he saith, that she ⟨p. 54⟩lamented & bewailed it so, as if she had committed adultery. By which kind of speech & others suitable to it, as that he te••meth her state after divorcement from her first husband Widowhood; & addeth, that she lost3 the honour of having had but one husband by marrying the second; 4& saith, she thought it better to undergo a certain, shadow of pitiful wedlock,5 then to play the whore, because it is better (saith Paul) to marry then to burn: S. Jeron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to do as she did: yet not such a fault, a crime, a public crime, as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it. No more may it be justly thought in the opinion of that Roman Bishop, of whom, because he put Fabiola to public penance after her second husband death, Bellarmin concludeth that it was accounted a public crime in the Catholic Church at that time, if any man whilst his wife yet lived, married another yea, albeit for whoredom. For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholic Church, for marrying again after their first wives death, as Bellarmin observeth out of the Catholique•Councels: adding therewith all, that although they knew second marriage to be lawful, yet because it is a token of incontinence they chastised it with some penance. Wherefore sith it might easily be that they who laid some penance upon no fault, would lay public penance upon a small fault, specially in women, to whom in such cases they were more severe & rigorous than to men: the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her second marriage doth not prove sufficiently that it was accounted then a public crime in the Catholic church.
Beside that himself too, as farre as hee exceeded the boundes of Godly modestie & truth herein, even by these mens iudgments whō Papists doe repute learned & Catholique allayeth & corecteth in one of the places, which Bellarmin alleageth, his peremptorie censure gevē in the other. For whereas hee saith in his Epistle to Amandus, that the wife who divorced herself from her husband because of his adulterie & marri•d another4 was an adulteresse for so marrying, and5 her newe husbānd an adulterer: In his epitaph of Fabiola (a noble godly gentlewoman of Rome, who did the like & was poenitent for it after her second husbands death) hee saith, that shee ⟨p. 54⟩lamented & bewayled it so, as if shee had cōmitted adulterie. By which kinde of speech & others sutable to it, as that he te••meth her state after divorcement frō her first husband Widdowhood; & addeth, that shee lost3 the honor of having had but one husbād by marrying the second; 4& saith, shee thought it better to vndergoe a certaine, shadow of pitifull wedlocke,5 then to plaie the whore, because it is better (saith Paul) to marrie then to burne: S. Ieron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to doe as shee did: yet not such a fault, a crime, a publique crime, as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it. No more may it be iustly thought in the opiniō of that Romā Byshop, of whō, because he put Fabiola to publique penance after her second husband death, Bellarmin cōcludeth that it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique Church at that time, if any man whilst his wife yet lived, married another yea, albeit for whordō. For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholique Church, for marrying againe after their first wives death, as Bellarmin observeth out of the Catholique•Councels: adding therewith al, that although they knewe secōd marriage to be lawfull, yet because it is a token of incontinēcie they chastised it with some penāce. Wherefore sith it might easilie bee that they who laid some penance vpon no fault, would lay publique penance vpō a small fault, spetially in women, to whō in such cases they were more severe & rigorous thē to mē: the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her secōd marriage doth not prove sufficiētly that it was accounted thē a publique crime in the Catholique church.
4Si non vult adultera reputa•i.
5Non Apellat•r vir sed adulter.
3Vidutiatem […] non poterat.Vidutiatem 〈…〉 non poterat.
4• Sub gloria […]• Sub gloria 〈…〉
5• po• mortē secundi viti • Opera exercised […].• po• mortē secundi viti • Opera exerce•e 〈…〉.
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
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:
the Councel of Eliberis, ordained that a womā which forsooke her husband because of his adulterie & would marrie another, should be forbidden to marrie, & if shee married, shee should not receave the communion till hee were dead whō shee forsooke, vnlesse necessitie of sicknes cōstrayned to geve it her. Wherein it is to be noted, first that the Councell saith not.
If anieman, so to comprehend & touche generallie all both men & women: but they speake peculiaritie of the woman alone, & so doe not forbid the mā to leave his adulterous wife & marrie another.
Espēceus asketh what could have bene said more greivously against them by the impure
Vives pronounceth, that hee did not onely detest second marriages, but also had small liking of the first, nor did much favor matrimonie;
Who cōdemned second marrig•s Epiphan. •aerel. 59 •ugust •e hae resib cap. 38.
sIn August de civit. dei lib. 16. cap 34. The divines of Lovan in in their edition of Austen, printed at Antwerp and Paris have lest this sentence out beyond the prescript of index expurgatorius.In August de civit. dei lib. 16. cap 34. The divines of Lovan in in their ed•tiō of Austen, printed at Antwerp and Paris have lest this sentence out beyond the prescript of index expurgatorius.
