scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as g Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circuâ—stances and matter of the text sheweth to bee waÌ„ting but what himself listeth to frame such sense ther of as pleaseth his conceit and fansie The sundrie interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may to go noe further sufficiently discover the fault inconvenience of that kinde of dealing For h the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wifs except it bee for whordome though he marrie not another committeth adulterie and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sorte if he marrie another doth commit adulterie Freiâ—r Alphonsus i checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braun hâ—of it sith hee who putteth away his wife not for whoredome although he cause her to commit adulterie yet doth not himselfe commit it vnlesse hee marrie another Wherevpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather Whoso putteth away his wife not for other cause but for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie But this though it have not soe many words added as the Bishop of Auilas yet in truth it is more violently forced against the naturall meaning drift of the text For by adding these words Not for other cause his purpose is to say that whoso putteth away his wife for noe cause buâ— for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if hee marrie another much more if hee marrie having put away his wife for any other cause And so is Christs speach in effect made cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe give he saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it befor whoredom and the Frier â—orceing him to say Whosoe ver shall put a away his wife although it be for whoredom and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie k Nicolas of Lira beeing as in time more auncient then the frier soe more sincere and single in handeling the scripture saith that other words must be interposed to the supplying of it thus Whosever putteth away his wife except it be forâ—whordom sinneth and doth agaiast the lawe of marriage and whoso marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherein though he deale lesse vyolently with the text then doe the frier and the Bishop yet he offendeth also in their licentious humour of adding to the scripture where nothing was wanting making it ther by to speake that which he thinketh wheras he should have learned to thinke that which it speaketh Yea Bell himselfe acknowledgeth that they all were overseene herein albeeit censuring them with gentler words as he is wont his favorits and freinds For the explications saith he which the Bishop of Auila Alphonsus a Castro and others have devised are not so probable But why should these be noted by him as improbable yea denyed unworthy the rehersal and that of his owne though adding in the like sorte which is not lawful be allowed as probable yea magnified as most true by the pamphletter The reason which they both or rather which Bell for the pamphletter doth no more here but Englishe him as neither els where for the most parte though he bragg not thereof the reasons then which Bell. doth presse out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous schollars that this interposition is probable likely are pressed indeed according to the proverb The wringing of the nose causeth bloode to com out For he saith that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shal marry another but streight after those whosoever shall put away and likewise when he added l and whosâ— marrieth her that is put away committeth aâ—â—lterie he did not ioyne thereto Except it be for whoredom to the intent that be might shewe that the cause of whoredom doth onely make the putting away to be lawfull not the celebrating of a newe marriage too And how doth he prove that Christ did so place the exception in the former clause to this intent or to this intent did omit it in the latter Nay he proveth it not it is but his coÌ„iecture like a sicke mans dreame Vnlesse this goe for a proofe that Christ did not so place it before without cause nor omit it afterwarde without cause Which if he meant it should it was for want of a better For Christ did not these things without cause I graunt Therefore he did them for this cause it foloweth not S. Paule having occasion to cite a place of scriptuere doth set it downe thus Com yee out from among theÌ„ m seperate your selves saith the Lorde and touch no unclean thing Herein he hath placed the wordes saith the Lord not after touch noe unclean thing but after seperate your selves This did he not without cause What for this cause therefore that he might restraine the words saith the Lord to the former braunch as not pertaining to the latter also No for it appeareth by the n prophet Esay that they belong to both It is to be thought then that the spirit of God who doth nothing without cause did move Paule for some cause to place them soe Perhaps for perspicuitye comodiousnesse of giving other men therby to understaude the rather that both the wordes goeing before coÌ„ming after were quallified with saith the Lord which is to be likewise thought of the exceptioÌ„ placed by our Saviour betweeÌ„ the two braunches of his speech And that with so much greater reason in my iudgment because if he had placed it after the later And shall marry another the words 3 except for whoredom might have seemed to signifiie that it were lawful for a man having put away his wife for any cause to marrie another â— if hee could not conteine as it is writteÌ„ 4 Because of whoredom let everie man have his wife where now the exception being set before the pharises whose question Christ therein did answer could gather no such poysoÌ„ out of his words to feed their error but they must needs accknowledg this to be his doctrine that a man may not put away his wife for every cause marrie another but for whoredom onely As for Christs omitting of the exceptioÌ„ afterwrd Bell himselfe wil quickly see there might be another cause thereof if he considder how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omitt the exception which neverthelesse must needs be supplyed understoode For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons O the Lordâ— gave coÌ„mandement Let not the wife departe from her husband let not the husband put awaie his wife without adding to either parte except it be for woredom which the Lord did add Bell. greatest p Doctor saith hee omitted it Because it was very well knowen most notorius If then Paul had reason to
omitt it wholly because it was so wel knoweÌ„ Hoe much more iustly might Christ in parte omitt it for the same cause having mencioned it imediatly before made it knoweÌ„ thereby Cheefly seeing that as he framed his speech to mens undestaÌ„ding so did he follow the coÌ„men use of men therein And if I should say upon the like occasioÌ„whosoever draweth his sword except he be a magistrate killeth a man commiteteth murder and whosoever abbetth him that killeth a man committeth murder what man offence and reason would not thinke I ment the exception set downe in the former sentence touching maÌ„qellers perteineth to the later of there abbetters also and uttered once must serve for both yea even in the former too who would not thinke that my meaning were the exceptioÌ„ should reach unto both the braunches of drawing the sword killing a man not to be abridged tyed up unto the first as if I had said whosoever draweth his sword Which none may doe except he be a magistrate and killeth a man comitteth murder yet one who were disposed to play the Iesuits parte q might thus expound my speech and say I taught thereby that Peter in deede was iustly reproved for drawing his sword though he killed not But magistrates are authorized to draw it and noe more not to put men to death and r to take vengeannce on him that doth evill Neither should he doe mee greater wrong there in by making mee to speake coÌ„trarie to scripture then Bellarmin doth Christ by the like depraving of the like sentence But if all these reasons will not persuade his scholars that in Christs speach the exception of whoredome is to bee extended to both the points iointly of putting away marrying and that Bell. adding these words which is not lawfull did vnlawfully sow a patch of humaine raggs to the whole garment of Gods most precioÌ„s word behold their owne doctrine allowed and established by the Councel of Trent shall force them will they nill they to see it acknowledg it For if the exception bee so tyed onely to the former point Then a man may not putt away his wife for any cause save for whoredome no not from bed and boord as they tearme it that is from mutuall companie society of life s although he marry not another But the Councel of Trent pronounceth defineth that there are many causes for the which a man may put away his wife from bed and board wherefore the Papists no remedie must graunt that the exception cannot so bee tyed vnto the former point onely And therefore whereas Bell. sayeth further that he thinketh it is t S. Thomas of Aquines opinion that Christs words should bee expounded so and v Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde the Papists peradventure wil bee faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse but x Thomas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts chiefest light of the Church of Rome shal be convinced of errour even by the Councell of Trents verdict And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of another shift which is coosin german to the last intreated of Bell. prayseth it alike To weete that the words committeth adulterie must be supplied understood in the former parte of Christs sentence thus Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whoredome committeth adulterie whoso marrieth another committeth adulterie x Salomon did wisely iudg that shee was not the mother of the childe who would have it devided but shee who desired it might bee saved entier Surely the Iesuite hath not those bowels of kinde and loving affection to wards Christs sentence that a Christian should who can finde in his heart to have it devided of one living body namely Whoesoever putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome and marrieth another commiteth adulterie made as it were two peeces of a dead carkas the first whosoever putteth away his wife except it bee for woredome commiteth adulterie the secoÌ„d whoso maraieth another coÌ„miteth adulterie Which dealing beside the incoÌ„venience of making the sâ—rpitn ere a nose of waxe leaden rule if men may add what pleaseth them specially if they may mangle senteces chop them in sundry parts but beside this mischief here it hath a greater that Christ most true and holly is made thereby to speake an untrueth For a man may put away his wife for other cause then for whoredom and yet not commit adulerie himselfe Yes he committeth it saith Bell in his wifes adulterie whereof he was the cause by putting her uniustly away But I replie that it is one thing to cause his wife to coÌ„mit it another to coÌ„mit it him selfe And Christ when he was mynded to note these several faults did it with several words s expressing them accordingly Moreover undrstanding the tearme to put away not as 6 the force thereof doth yeeld Christ tooke it for the loosing of the band of marriage but for a seperation from bed and boord onely as Bell. understandeth it He cannot allowe the senteÌ„ce which he fathereth on Christ though so expounded without either condemning of the Trent Councel er beeing himselfe condemned by it For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him but for whoredome doth commit adulterie in causing her to commit it Then is it a sinne to seperate her for any cause save for whoredome z If it be a sinne the Church of Rome erreth in houlding decreeing that shee may bee seperated for sundry other causes But whosoever saith that the Church erreth herein is accursed by the Councel of a Trent The Councel of Trent therefore doth consequently curse Bellarm. if he say that Christ spake his words in that sence in which he construeth them And doth it not curse b Austin also c Theophilact whom Bell. alleageth as saying the same at least it declareth that in the Councels iudgment the fathers missexpounded the Scriptures sometimes even those verrye places on which the Papists cite them as sounde interpreters of the Scripture Now the speech of Christ being cleared saved entier from all cauils the meaning thereof is plaine as I have shewed that he who having put away his wife for whoredoÌ„ marrieth anothetr coÌ„mitteth not adulterie For so much importeth the exceptoÌ„ negative of the cause of whoredoÌ„ opposed to the general affirmative propositioÌ„ wherwith our Saviour answered the questioÌ„ of the pharisies touching divocremeÌ„ts used by the Iewes who putting awaye there wives for any cause did marrie others The onely reasoÌ„ of adversaries remayning to bee answered stood vppon vrged by them as moste effectuall forcible to the contrarie is an example of like sentences from which sith the like conclusioÌ„ say they cannot be inferred as wee in ferre of this the inferrence of this is faultye And faultie I graunt they might esteeme it iustly
quite renounce the Christian faith hen acknowledgeth he that he plaieth the parte of a guiâ—ful Sophister or a malicious Rethorician in signifinge that the sentence of Christ is made false if it be expounded and understoode with an exceptioÌ„ other where expressed And with all by consequence he acknowledgeth farther that it is an idle and brainsick amplification which hereuppoÌ„ he lavisheth out Iesuit like and vainely mispendeth paines times about it by saying that els if the sentence forsooth were false the Evangelists had deceâ—ved men to whom they delivered their Gospells making no mentnon of other Evangelists and that when Marke wrote his Gospel at Rome receved by the preaching of Peter hee did not send the Romaines backe to Mathews gospel as to a commentary Nay if Mathews gospel hadd bene then at Rome in the hand of the faytfuull it may be wel thought that Marke whould not have written and that Marke wrote not to add ought to Mathew as Iohn did afterward but onely that the Romaines might the better remember that which Peter taught For l Irenaee m Eusebius and n Ierom geve this cause and that Luke wrote his Gospel for those nations to whom Paul had preached and vnto whom the booke of Mathew and Marke were not yet come but certayue false writtings of False Euangelists onely as o himself sheweth briefly and it is more clearly gathered out of p Ambrose q Eusebius and r Ierom. And in conclusion that the things therefore which Marke and Luke say must bee ahsolutely true not depend of Mathews words vnlesse our meaning be that they were deceived who did read Marke or Luk without Mathew For by this reason of Bellarmin the words of Iob David Salomon and Ionas must bee absolutely true not depend of Christs words in Luke or by Esay vnles our meaning bee that they were deceived who read the Psalmes of David or Salomons proverbs or heard Iob or Ionas speake without Christ which likewise might receive a gay shewe by saying that els if these sentences were false these holy men had deceived them to who they spake or wrote making noe mention of other holy teachers and that when Iob and David and Salomon and Ionas did either write or speake they did not put men ouer vnto Luke or Esay as to a comentarie Nay Iobs words were vttered before either of them or any of Christs pâ—n-meÌ„ of the whole Scripture wrote as s sundry of the Fathers doe probably teach and t Ionas did looke that Niniveh should be overthrowen according to his absolute speech so farre was he of from sending the Ninivites to such as specifie the exception besides that had he sent them whither should they have gone who neither knewe the Scriptures and v lived before the tyme of Luke and Esay both David too Salomon were their auncients farre and ech did fett forth the one his Psalmes the other his Proverbs even those which they did writ not all at once but by partes and partly x their owne titles and y other Scriptures argue partly z Athanasius a Theodoret and b Bede signifie neither did Luke or Esay write to ad ought to the Psalmes or Proverbs or to the words of Iob or Ionas as c Ezra did to the booke of Kings But Esay to publish onely his owne Prophecie and the storie touching it Luke the Gospel of Christ and Acts of the Apostles Here were a trimme tale which might be very forcible with a man forlorne like Iudas Isoariot to perswade him that the sentences of Iob of David of Salomon of Ionas concerning the distruction of hypocrits and all the wicked are not to bee expounded out of Luke or Esay with an exception of Repentance Yea this should of reason heve greater force and weight then Bellarmins of the same spinning For he sayth that Marke did not write his Gospell to add ought to Mathew Which thing beeing graunted yet Marke not withstanding might be expounded by Mathew and soe much the rather Mathew having specified an exception that Marke omitteth as d the Lawiers teach that the it Generall rules were not written to add ought vnto the former yet must bee expounded with the exceptions touched in the former Lawes But in the spiederwebb that I have woven after Bellarmins patterne it is contrarie wise that Esay and Luke did not write to add ought to the Psalmes or Proverbs or to the words of Ioh or Ionas which hath greater colour to prove that their sayinges should not bee absolutely true not depeÌ„d of exceptions mentioned so long after neither meane to bee ioyned to them Chiefly for alianes from the Common-wealth of Israell such as they that heard Iob and Ionas were who lived not to read the Doctrine of Christ in his Prophets and Apostles Wherefore seeing Bellarm. is forced to acknowledg it were a lewd parte to reason and conclude this on generall sentences of Iob David Salomon that an hypocrite a wicked proud-harted man shall not bee forgiven and saved though hee repent much more must hee acknowledg a fault in his disputinge gathering out of Marke and Luke that a man having put awaye his wife maye not marrye another though he have put her away for whoredome And hereby wee may see what honour they both himself and the pamphletter who in this whole discourse goeth with him soote by foote save that by enterlacing more fond vnsavory words hee overrunneth him sometymes a cover wee l beseeming and worthy such a cuppe onely somewhat broader but hereby wee may see what honour they have done e S. Austin in knitting vpp their tale with his words Who are wee that wee should say Some putting away their wives and marrying other commit adulterie and some doeing soe commit it not whereas the Gospel sayth that every one committeth adultery who doth so Even as much honour as themselves should gayne if in the forlorne mans case which I spake of they were his ghostly Fathers and put him in this comforte Who are wee that wee should say some wicked men shall goe to hell namely the vnrepentant some the repentant shall not goe whereas the Scripture sayth that everie wicked man shall goe to Hell Lett this kinde of dealling in refuting matters bee once allowed for currant and every Priest and Iesuit as well as the Pope will have more Royall power even over Princes what should I say over common Christians For whereas it is written in the Epistle to the Collosians f Children obey your Parents in all things and Prophets were honoured with the name of Fathers not onely by their g schollers the childreÌ„ of the Prophets bnt also by the h Kings of Israel the i title of Father geven to all priests though not in such degree as to k the Pope yet to all priests to Iesuits especialy in somuch that a l great person of Rome doth
prooved by tradition By which his owne speech if we should take advantage of it he graunteth all that I have saide â—gainste his argumentes drawen-out of the Scripture and so farre forth agreeth with us For what understandeth he by the word traditionâ— â— Doctrine not written as him selfe professeth in his first controversie Where having noted that al though the word tradition bee generall signifieth any doctrine written or vnwritten which one imparreth to another yet divines and 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 quistion then may be proved as Bellarmin affirmeth it may by tradition We might conâ—lude it is not written in the scriptures by his owne verdict therefore all the scriptures alleaged by him for it are alleaged falsly But hee semeth to vse the name of tradition in like sort as b Vincentius Lirmensis doth calling the doctrine de livered by the church the Churches tradition This to bee his meaning I gathâ—r by the reason that hee addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it The Pamphleâ—ter in other words but more peremptorily to avouch the proofe thereof by the opiâ—ion censure of all ages affirmeth he will shewe that it was never thought lawfull since Christ for Christiaas divorced for â—ornication to mrrry anie other while both man 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 hee saith it may be proved by traditioâ— For tradition hath not forâ—e enough to prove a thing to be true not in the Papists owne iudgment vnles it have bene alwaies approved and agreed on by the generall consent of Fathers as we tearme them Pastors and Doctors of the Church Which I affirne not vpon the generall rule of c Vincentius onelie so greatly and so often praised by them as golden But upon the Canon of the Trent Couâ—cel and pillars of the popish Church subscribing to it For the Councel of Trent commanding that noe man shal expound the Scripture against the sence that the Church houldeth or against the Fathers consenting al in one doth covertly grannt that if the Fathers consent not all in one their opinion may bee false and coÌ„sequently no sure proofe of a pyont inquestion Andradius e doth open avouch the same in his defence of the Councel a worke verye highly commended by f Oserius And Canus sâ—tteth downe for a conclusion that many of them consenting in on can yeld noe firme proofe if the rest though fewer in numbre doe dissent Yea h Bellarmin himselfe saith that there can no certainty be gathered out of their sayings when they agrie not amonge themselves It is a thing graunted theÌ„ by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to proue ought unlesse they al consent in one But the Fathers doe not censent in one about the poynt we treat of as it shal be shewed Our adversaries therfor must graunt that the opinion which they hould in this poynt cannot be proovede by Fathars Nay they are in daunger of beeinge enforcede to graunt a farther matter and more importing them by the conseqeÌ„t hereof For through a decree of Pope Pius the fourth the professors of all faculties all that take degrees in any popish schole are bound by solemne oth that they shall never expound take the Scripture but according to the Fathers cousenting all in on Wherfore how will Bell. perhaps the pamphletter also if he have been amongst them and taken any degree but what shift will Bell. and his Puefellows finde to save theÌ„selves from periury when it shall be shewed that many of the Fathers gaiusay that opinioÌ„ which himselfe and his expound the Scriptue for And what if it appear that the greater number of Fathers doe so not the greater onely but the better also and those whose grounds are sure Then all the probability which Fathers can yealde will turne againste the papists and that which our adversaries would proove by Tradition and the consent of all ages wil rather be disproved thereby But howsoever men be diversly persuaded touching the number qualety of the Fathers enclining this or that way by meanes of sundry circuÌ„stance which may breade doupâ— both perticularly of certaine and of the whole summe in generall the maine and principalâ— poynt remaining to be shewed namelly that the Fathers consent not allin one for the papists doctrine is most cleare and evident out of all controversie In soe much that many even of them also whom Bell. aleageth and the pamphletter after him as making for it make indeed against it and those of the chiefest and formast ranckes especially in the first the second the third the fourth hundred yeares after Cheist All the which agree teach with one conseÌ„t that the man forsaking his wife for her adultery is free to marry again save such of them onely as in this verry poynt of doctrine touching marriage are tainted with error by the iudgement and censure of Papists themselves A token of the vanetie folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphletter who by naming one at least in everie age would needs make a shewe of having the cousent of all ages with them whereas it wil be 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 Canons of the Apostles k where the man is willed without any exception to bee excommunicated who having put away his wife doth marrie another Nou beside that Clemens vpon whom Bellarmin fathrreth those canons is inriured therein As for the later parte of them l himself sheweth m his friend for the former neither are they of Apostelique antiquitie and authoritie notwithstanding theyr title as n many Fathers estifie and Papists will acknowledge when they are touched by them The author of the Canon had respect therein by all probabilitie to the Apostolique doctrine receyved from Christ and therefore though he made not an expresse exception of divorce for whoredome might as well imply it as I have declared that some of the Euangelists and S. Paule did Which the interpreters also of those Canons p Zonarus and Balsamon thought to bee so likely and more then a coniecture that they expound it so without any sâ—mple Balsamon in saying that hee 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 commit adulterie Or if these writters mistooke the aâ—thours meaning and in his opinion no man howsoever his
savoureth of haeresie neither maketh more for him against vs then â—or the Catharists against the Catholique Fathers Wherewith he may confesse to that he hath abused Ambrose in affirming this to be his reason avouching him to say that the Father ought to pardoÌ„ the Mothers fault for the childrens sake For S Amb. blaming the man who puteth away his wife without cryme and marrieth another an adulteresse by so marrying mislyketh that the childreÌ„ should have such a stepmother having such a mother vnder whoÌ„ they might be And if the mother being put away so took another husbaÌ„d who in this case were an adulterer S. Ambr wisheth the children to be vnder their father not vnder such a step-father And if the Fathâ—r casting out his wife so cast out his childreÌ„ with her S. Amb. saith the children should rather purchase pardom for their mothers fault at their fathers hands then bee cast out for her sake Wherin hee doth no more saye that the father ought to pardoÌ„ the mothers adultery for the childrens sake then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abhomination for Lots sake when he said that the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous them the righteous should bee destroied with the wicked But here peradventure the Pamphletter will reply that although Bell. author argumeÌ„t as himself observed who there vpon cut Bell. shorter prove not his intent to weete that another marriage is vnlawful yet they prove such marriage to be inconvenieur in respect of the childeren to whom there riseth hurt discomodity by it For answer whervnto to the like reasoÌ„s drawen by him Bell. from other inconveniences 7 things are to be noted al such as our adversaries themselves must nâ—eds yeeld to yeelding therevnto shal set on fire their owne chaffe The first that the man whose wife is an adulteresse may put her absolutly away for al his liftyme nor is ever bouÌ„d to let her dwelwith him again no not though shâ— repent Which point being plainly implied in our saviours answer to the Pharises Bel. avoucheth and maintaineth thence agreably to the doctrin of his chiefest guids the Popâ—s Thom. of Aquine The second that if the woman coÌ„tinue in her wickednes without repentance amendement the man is by duty bound to put her away S. Mat. reporteth of the blessed virgin that when she was found to be with child of the holy Ghost before her husband Ioseph she came together Ioseph being a iust man not willing to make her a publicke example was minded to put her away secretly Of which words impotting that iustice movâ—d him to put her away goodwill to doe it secretly it seemeth to follow that such a woman as Ioseph misdeemed her to be to weet an adulteresse caÌ„not be kept without sinne whether she repent or no And Cornelius Iansenius a learned bushop of the Papists graunteth herevpoÌ„ that it was so in the old Testament But in the new Testament he saith if she repent she may bee kept with out sinne acknowledging that she may not in the new Test neither vnless she repeÌ„t Whervnto the Canonists and Schoolemen doe accord expounding a sentence cited by many Fathers our of the Prov. of Salo. He that keepeth an adulteresse is a fâ—nle a wicked maÌ„ a sentence â—ound in the Greeke text of the Prov. albeit not expressed out of the Hebrue Fountaine but addâ—d by the Seventie Interpreters or other perhaps to shew that Salo. commending a wife did meane a chast wife in their Iudgment but added in the Greeke thence translated also into the commo Latin edition called S. Ieroms soe that it goet for Scripture with Papists by their Trent Canon this sentence I say the Canons of the Fathers that vrge it vndi Sinctly against whosoever kepeth an adulteresse whether repentant or vnrepentant in like sorte as the Civill Law condemned all such the Canonists SchoolmeÌ„ distinguish expound of such as kepe adulteresses which doe nor repent amend their lives Now graunting that a man may kepe an adulteresse in matrimony if shee repent or being divorced from her may take her again yet which is the third point he may not doe it often least impunitie encrease inequitie And this is agred on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome the CanoÌ„ists Schoolemen Hermes out of whom the Maister of the sentences aleageth avoucheth it meant as his reason brought to prove it argueth that the man may take her so againe but once Which doctrine the Papists caÌ„ make Canonicall if they list vnlesse Stapleton lie who saith their Catholique Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Canonicall Scriptures that book of Hermes writteÌ„ in the Apostles tyme by S. Pauls schollar not only cited much but commended to by many most auncient Fathers Clemens Ireneus Origen Athanasius Eusebius Ierom. At least the chiefest part of the Canon Law compiled by the direction and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth setting downe the verie same out of a Councel that Peter Lombard out of Hermes the Papists though they will not I trow be of Stapletons minde for Hermes booke yet may think it likly that the CouÌ„cel Pope approved his meaning in this point Chiefly sith Panormitan the flouer of the Canontsts having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned because sinnes vnpunished doe becoÌ„ examples citeth an exceleÌ„t proof light therof a lawe of worthy Emperors Valentinianus Theodosius Arcadius who grauÌ„ting a generall pardon for smaler trespasses extended it to noÌ„ coÌ„mitted oftner theÌ„ once accouÌ„tiÌ„g such vnworthy of their Princilie favour as grew by their former forgivenesse to a custom of sinning rather theÌ„ to amendemeÌ„t But whether the Papists will iudge those Christian Emperours to have bene to strickt saie that adulterie deserpardon oftener then lesses faults with them or whether they thinke it sufficient to pardon on so great a crime which the Emperours except-by name out of their pardon willed it to be punished euen the first time The papists doe agree that a husband must not forgeve it to his wife often The fourth thing to be noted is that a woman being put a waye so doth loose her dowry too by lawe Which punishmeÌ„t as God hath threatned by his law to men that goe awhoreing froÌ„ him thogh they have not any dowry of their owne neither but of his gift so the Civil law hath inflicted it on adulterous wives the CaÌ„non law in looser times also The fifth that many persons mistake the help prepared of God and marry or doe worse coÌ„sidering that some caÌ„ot coÌ„teine as Pope Gregory noteth touching men S Ambrose touching woemen the scripture touching both some though they could perhaps yet shoâ—ld hâ—ut their bodies with sickues if they did as phisique phylosophie teach some though neither chastity nor health enforce
Lucretia not she I spake of but such a Lucretia as the popes daughter was having lost not onely chastety but also wealth good name Gods favour the promise both of this life the life to come yet if being put away from her husband she may take another hath gained by her losses because she may be married to her Tarquinuus match a gracelesse whore witha a shamlesse beast As for the last of Bell. points of inconvenience that many would coÌ„mit adulterie of purpose to the intent of being set free froÌ„ their former wives they might marie others it may be some would I have read of a woman that had a desire to be beaten of her husband which she found means also as she was wittie to obtein in so much that shee put it oft in practise til having cruely beateÌ„ her at length he killed her The man who of purpose to get anew wife would cowmit adulterie should dessire more strips then that woman meant die a death infinitely more grevous then she did But if as wise almost as she was should long after scourges must they who deserv by lawe to be whipped be denied it because a foole desired it without desert The Romaius had an auncient law that whosoever did a man injury should by way of punishmeÌ„t paie about shilling There was a lewd losel a yoÌ„thly harebrined Ruffian who having wealth enough at wil taking a desire in giving honest men boxes on the eares would walke up down with a purse full of shillings which his slave atteÌ„ding an him did carry giving on a boxe would bid his slave geve him a shillinge another boxe a shilling What was in this case to be done for remedy If Bell. had lived there bene of the counsaile to the state wee see the advise he would geve namly that the amercimeÌ„t shold be takeÌ„ away because some would doe men iniurie of purpose to fulfil their lusts with paing of a shilling or two But the Romaine governour stoke coÌ„trary order to encrease the amercement according to the discretion arbitrement of Iudges that evel desposed persons might be deterred from trespassing by sharpnes of the punishment to be inflicted on them for it Whose wisdome therein it is to be wished that Princes Rulers remeÌ„bering them selves to be ordained as David betymes to destroy all the wicked of the Lande would follow by encreasing the punishment of adulterie And then should Bell. mouth be the sooner stopped for his fourth reason Which yet in the mean while doth no better prove that fafthfull husbands seperated from adulterous wives may not marry again then userers extorcionars procuring wealth by wicked ungodly means doe prove that honest men may not enioy the goods which by lawfull trades vertuous industrie they get The fifth last is that even among the Heathen too where good orders flourished no divorces were made For no bill of divorcement was written at Rome for the space almost of six hundred yeares after the City was buylt but afterward good orders beeing overthrowen divorces alsoe were brought in with other vices And this reason Bellarmim doth lard after his manner with Tertullians name to season it thereby give it some verdure But it is such caraine that the lard is lost all the cookery cast away For the first divorce which was made at RoÌ„e was of a chast wife put away by her husbaÌ„d because she was barin did not bear him childreÌ„ Now to seperate husbaÌ„ds wives for such causes we grauÌ„t it is uÌ„lawful our Savior allowing it for whordoÌ„ only The example therefore of the wel ordared RomaÌ„s is in vain aleaged out of Tertul. against us But neither was there any divorce for adultery made above 500 years among theÌ„ wil Bell. perhaps say I grauÌ„t And I wil help with a stroÌ„ger argumeÌ„t that among the Cains a state wel ordered too 700 years did passe befor any divorcemeÌ„t was made for adultery For as Plutarch writeth there was no adultry coÌ„mited by the space of soe many yeares among theÌ„ But among the RoÌ„ans wil Bell. perhaps reply it is likely that some was coÌ„mitted within 500 years True But the husband then might put his wife to death being convicted first of adultery without al publique iudgmeÌ„t So that if Bell. words have any force this is theire effect Among the heathen RomaÌ„s while good orders florished the womaÌ„ that coÌ„mitted adultery suffered death afterward good orders being overthroweÌ„ she was divorced onely But whether shee were put away by death or by divorcemeÌ„t the man might marry again Wherfoore the exaÌ„ple of the heatheÌ„ RomaÌ„s both wel evel ordered fight against the popish RomaÌ„s their ChaÌ„pion Hereto the example of all other heathens whose orders were but so good that they allowed second marriage may be adioyned Which I do not so much affirme on myne owne knowledge though for ought that I have read remeÌ„ber it is true as on Bell. secret coÌ„fefsioÌ„ silence a maÌ„ of greater reading having used many mens pains in search of these things Beside when christiaÌ„ faith came among the heathens the Emperours did punish adultery first by death afterward Iustinian mittigating that lawe did puÌ„ish it by divorcement But in both these cases the man being severed from his adulterous wife is free to marry againe Bellarmins speech therfore touching wel ordered heathens came in evil season to raise both them others yea ChristiaÌ„s too against him So his last reason nay his reasons all are growen to worse plight then were the seaven later kyne in Pharaos dream the seauen poore evil favored lean fleshede kyne that devowred the the seaveÌ„ former fatt well favoured therby saved their life For the thin carkeiss dreamed of by Bellarmin have noâ— strength enough to overmaister eat up the sounde bodies of reasons standing ther against but gasping after them in vaine they dye with famin And thus having proved that neither light of reson nor consent of Fathers nor authority of Scripture disproveth our assertioÌ„ I coÌ„clude that the point demoÌ„strated at first by the word of truth the doctrine of Christ That a man having put away his wife for her adultery may lawfully marry another a Gene. 2. 〈◊〉 Mat. 19. 5. b Deu 24. 1 Mat. 5. 31. c Mâ—th. 10. 9 d Mâ—â—â— 1. Luk. 6. 18. e Mat. 19. 1. f Rom. 7. 2 g vers. 3. h 〈…〉 i vers. 28. k Belâ—armin Tom 2 〈◊〉 4 libâ— de maâ—râ—mon 〈◊〉 cap 15. 〈…〉 The Pampâ—â—etter in his tefâ—â—tation of the discourse toâ—ening the lawfulnesse of marriadgge after divorcâ— for whoredone 1 Ni fiob 〈◊〉 cattonem 2 Extra coâ—â—â—ornicatinis l De adulteriâ— conjâ—g lib. 1 cap 9. m Retractat lib. â— cap. 57. n 〈◊〉 adulter coâ—â—ng lib. 1. cap 11. 3 Nisi ob Fornicationem 4 Praeter causa Fornicationis 5 Parectós Lògon por neias 6 eiâ— my epi potneia