Iesuits dealing how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth reasoÌ„ For sith in Christs speach touching Divorcement for whoredome the proposition is affirmative Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrie another doth commit adulterie it foloweth that the exception which denieth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whoredome marrieth another is an exception negative But Bellarmin sayth that this were an exception affirmative Yea which is more straunge in a man learned knowing rules of logique But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgment to their owne lusts and errors he eÌ„titeleth it an exceptioÌ„ affirmative even then and in the same place when where himselfe having set it downe in the words going immediarly next before had given it the marke oÌ„f a negative thus It is not adulterie to marrie another And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone he addeth fault to fault saying that this is an exceptioÌ„ negative When no thing is presently determined touching the cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or no. So first to denie with him was to affirme and next to say nothing now is to deny Yet there is a rule in Law that he who saith nothing denieth not Belike as they coyned vs new Divinity at Rome so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too Howbeit if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie that negative is affirmative to say nought is negative I see not but al heretickes vngodly persons may as well as Iesuits mainteyne what they list impudently face it out with like distinctions For if an adversarie of the H. Ghost should be controuled by that we reade to the CorinthiaÌ„s The things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God His answer after Bellarmins patterne were readie that this proveth not the spirit of God to know those things because it might be a negative exception importing that S. Paul woulde determine nothing presently thereof If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through conscience of his sines trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinners Yee shall all perish except yee repent He might replie thereto that the exceptioÌ„ is negative and this though not in the former poynt yet here were true but to make it serve his humour he must expounde it with Bellarmin that Christ doth not determin what shall become of the repentant If a vsurer should be tolde that he is forbidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie or to take encrease a theefe that he is commanded To labour woorke so to eate his owne breade they might if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin defend their trades both the one by affirming that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it the other that to commande be tokeneth to forbid In a worde whatsoever opinion were reproved as false or action as wicked out of the scriptures denouncing death eternall and paynes of hell thereto the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of by glosing thus vpon them that false is true and wicked holy life ment by death and heaven by hell Or if the papists them-selves would condemne this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places as senselesse and shamelesse then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negative is afirmative and to say nothing is to denie Whiâ—h whether they doe or no I will with the coÌ„sent liking I doâ—bt not of all indifferent iudges and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention conclude that these lying gloses of the Iesuits doe not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a prâ—terition or passing over a thing in silence which if Christ had ment hee could have done with fitt words as wise men are wont but a flat denying of that in on case which the proposition affirmeth in all others it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech them who for whore dome put away their wives denieth that in them which in all others he affirmeth and thereby teacheth vs that the man who putting away his wife for that cause marrieth another doth not commit adulterie The next trick of Sophistrie whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them is that the exception ought to be restreined to the former branche of putting away the wife onely To the which intent they say that there are some words wanting in the text which must be supplied and perfected thus Whosoever shall put away his wife which is not lawfull except it be for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie This devise doth Bellarmin allowe of as probable though not like the foresayd two of negation and negative exception But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all And surely if it were lawfull to foist in these words which is not lawfull the Pamphletter might seeme to have shewed greater skill herein then Bellarmin But men of vnderstanding and iudgmeÌ„t doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circuÌ„stances matter of the text sheweth to bee wanting but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof 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 and incoÌ„venience of that kinde of dealing For the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wife 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 Freier AlphoÌ„sus checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braunch 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 Whose 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 and 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 but for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if he marrie another much more if heÌ„e marrie having put away his wise for any other cause And so is Christs speech made in effect cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe geve hee saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and the frier forcing him to saie Whosoever shall put
not generally of sinne but of sinne being cleaving to a man in spetiall peculiar sort For as the servant that knew his Maisters will and did not according to it shal be beaten with many stripes but he that knew it not and yet did committ things worthy of stripes shal bee beaten with fewe Likewise in traÌ„sgression whereto the punishment auswereth he that knoweth how to doe well doth it not sinne is to him hee hath it he offendeth not ably But he that knoweth not how to doe well doth evill hath not sinne sticking to him his sinne remaineth not hee sinneth not so greatly greivously Wherefore when Bellarmin draweth out of that sentence such a conclusioÌ„ as if S. Iames in saying there is sinne to him had simply meant hee sinneth Bellarmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence which if the text it self cannot informe him his doctors well considered may But take the right meaning the conclusion wil be sound Whosoever doth not good and honest things except it he of ignoraunce he sinneth desperatelie mainely Therefore whoso of ignorance omitteth to doe them he sinneth not desperately And thus our conclusion drawen froÌ„ Christs sentence is rather confirmed theÌ„ preiudiced by this example Yea let even S. Austin whose authoritie Bellarmin doth ground on herein be diligently marked And himself in matching these senteÌ„nces together bewrayeth an oversight which being corrected will helpe the truth with light streÌ„gth For to make the one of theÌ„ like the other hee is faine to fashion Christs speech in this fort To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another to him there is the cryme of committing adulterie Now Christ hath not these words of emphaticall propertie and strong signification whereby he might teach as S. Angustin gathereth that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause save for whoredome and marrieth another comitteth adulterie in an high degree and soe imply by consequence that who soe marrieth another though having put away his former wife for whoredome yet committeth adulterie too a lesse adulterie But that which Christ saith is simple flatt absolute he committeth adulterie And therefore as it may be inferred out of S. Iames that he who omitteth the doing of good through ignoraunce sinneth not with a loftie hand in resolute stifnes of an hardned heart Soe conclude wee rightly out of Christs wordes that hee who having put away his wife for whoredome marrieth another committeth not adulterie in any degree at all The first sentence then alleaged by S. Austin and after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scripturs is soe farr from disprooving that it prooveth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences The seconde and thirde are out of theire owne braynes The one of Bellarmins forging the other of the Pamphletters Bellarmins Hee that stealeth except it bee for neede sinneth The Pamphlctrers Hee that maketh a lyeâ— except it bee for a Vauntagoe doth wilfully sinn Whereof they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence That hee sinneth not who stealeth for neede and hee who lyeth for a Vauntage sinneth not wilfully A badd inferrence indeed But the fault therof is in that these sentences are not like to Christs For Christs is from Heaven full of truth and wisdome These of men fond and imply vntruth They might have disputed as fitly to their purpose and prooved it as forcibly if they had vsed this example All foure-footed beasts except Apes and Monkâ—is are devoyd of reason or this All long-eared Creatures except asses are beasts For hereof it could not bee concluded iustly that Asses are not beasts and Apes are not devoyd of reason No. But this perhaps might bee concluded iustly that he had not muâ—h reason nor was farre from a beast that would make such sentences Considering that all men who write or speake with reason meane that to be denied in the perticular which they doe except from a generall affirmed And therefore sith hee sinneth who stealeth though for neede as the wise man sheweth and hee that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sinne yea the more wilfully somtymes because for a vauntage as when the sâ—ribs bâ—lyed Christ It were a verie fond and witlesse speech to say that Whosoever stealeth except it bee for neede sinneth And whosoever lyeth except it bee for a vauntage doth wilfully sinne Wherefore these senteÌ„ces are no more like to Christs theÌ„ copper is to gould or wormewood to the bread of Heaven Neither shall they ever finde any sentence like to his indeede of which the like conclusioÌ„ may not be inferred as we inferre of that And soe the maine ground of my principall reason proposed in the beginning remayneth sure clearly prooved that he by Christs sentence coÌ„mitteth not adulterie who having put a way his wife for whoredome marrieth another Whereof seeing it followeth necessarely that he who hath put away his wife for whordoÌ„e may lawfully marrie another as I there declared it followeth by the like necessity of coÌ„sequeÌ„ce that the popish doctrine mainteined by our adversaries denying the same is contrarie to the scripture doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Sonne of God THE SECOND CHAPTER The places of Scripture alleaged by the adversaries to disproove the Lawfull liberty of Marriage after Divorcement for Adulterie are Proposed Examined and Prooved not to make agaynst it SAinct Austin in his learned bookes of Christian Doctrine wherein hee geves rules how to finde the right and true sence of Scriptures doth well aduise the faithful First to search and marke those things which are set downe in the Scripturs plainly and then to goe in hande with sifting and disâ—ussing of the darke places that the darker speeches may be made evident by Patterns and examples of the more playne manifest and the records of certayne vndoubted setences may take away doubt of the uÌ„certayne This wholsome and iudicious Counsaile of S Augustin if our adversaries had bene as carefull to follow as they are willing to shew they follow him in these things which he hath written lesse advisedly they would not have alleaged and vrged the places of Scripture which they doe agaynst the poynt of doctrine hithâ—rto prooved out of the niententh chapter of S. Mathew For Christ in that place doth open the matter and decide the question most plainly and fully of purpose answering the Pharises In others either it is not handled of purpose incidently touchâ—d or in genâ—rallity sett downe more briefly and soe more darkly and obsâ—urely Wherefore if any of the other places had seemed vnto them to rayse vp a scruple and shew of some repugnancie they should have taken paynes to explayne and levell it by that in S. Mathew the darker by the clearer the brieffer by the largâ—r the vncertaine and ambiguous by the vndoubted and certayne But seeing they have chosen to follow S. Austins oversights rather theÌ„ his best advises
Clugia finallie the teachers of the reformed churches in EnglaÌ„d ScotlaÌ„t Germanie France other countris for why should not I name these of our professioÌ„ faith amoÌ„g the Fathers as well as Bellarmin nameth the Popish councell of TreÌ„t on the coÌ„trarie side But the Papists will some maÌ„ peradventure say doe not graunt that all whom you have rehearsed were of this opinioÌ„ But the Papists I aunswer doe graunt that sundrie of them were and such as they graunt not the light of truth reason will either make them graunt or shame them for denying it As Sixtus Senensis namely doth deny that Hilarie and Chromantius allowe a man to marrie another wife after divorcement or teach that hee is loosed from the band of matrimonie while his former wife though an adulteresse liveth Now weigh their owne wordes it will appeare that Sixtus iniurieth them therein For Chromatius saith that they who having putt away their wives for any cause save for whorâ—dom presume to marrie others doe against the will of God and are condemned Wherein with what sense could hee except whoredom vnlesse he thought them guiltlesse who having put away their wives for it doe marrie others And Hilarie affirming Christ to have prescribed no other cause of ceasing from matrimony but that she weth that the band of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmeÌ„t Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the vse thereof for other causes the occasion and tenour of the speech doe argue that he meant of such a seperation as yeeldeth libertie of newe marriage In like sorte or rather more plainely and expressely did Pollentius holde and maintaine the same As Austin whom in this point hee dissented from doth reporte and testifie Yet Bellarmin a strange thing in a case so cleare but nothing strange to Iesuits saith that Pollentius did not gainsaie Austin but asked his iudgment of the matter and for proofe hereof referreth vs to the beginnings of both the bookes of Austin Even to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured to prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another Pollentius wrote vnto him as it were by way of asking his iudgment and shewed hee thought the contrarie yet shewed it in such sorte that Austin setting downe both their opinions doth specifie then as flatly crossing one the other You are of this mynde I of that and saith of Pollentius againe and againe that hee was of this mynde which Bellarmin denieth hee was of Wherein the Iesuits dealing is more shamefull for that beside the evidence of the thing it self so often repeated in the verie same places that hee citeth Sixtus Senenses a man as vnwilling as Bellarmin to weaken anie of their Trent points with graunting more then hee must needes confesseth that Pollentius thought hereof as we doe Belike because Sixtus Senensis honoreth him with the praise and title of a most godlie man Bellarmin thought it better to lie then to graunt that they have such an adversarie Hee would faine avoid too another auncient father bearing the name of Ambrose Ambrose might his name be though hee were not famous Ambrose Byshop of Milan But whether hee were named so or otherwise which perhaps is truer vnto his testimonie pronouncing it lawfull by S. Paules doctrine for a man iustly divorced to marrie againe though not for a woman as hee by missetaking S Paul through errour though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere First Gratian saith hee and Peter Lombard doe affirme that those wordes were thrust into this authours Commentarie by some corrupters of writings Indeede the one of them affirmeth it is said so the other it is thought so But if it be sufficient to affirme barely without anie ground of proofe or probabilitie that it is said or thought so what errour so absurd that may not be defended by perverse wranglers what cause so vniust that vnrighteous iudges may not geve sentence with For whatsoever wordes be enforced against them out of the law of God or man out of anie evideÌ„ce or record of writers witnesses worthie credit they may with Peter Lombard and Gratian replie that the place alleaged is said or thought to have bene thrust into those monumeÌ„ts by some corrupters of writiÌ„gs And in replying thus they should speake truelie though it were said or thought by none beside themselves but how reasonably they should speake therein let men of sense reason iudge Surelie though Peter Lombard rest vpoÌ„ that aunswer for want of a better yet Gratian whether fearing the sicklie state thereof doth leave it seeketh himself a new patron saying that Ambrose words are thus meant that a man may lawfullie marrie another wife after the death of the adulteresse but not while shee liveth which aunswer is more absurd then the former In so much that Covarruvias speaking of the former onelie as vncertaine saith that this repugneth manifestlie to Ambrose A verie true verdict as aâ—ie man not blind may see by Ambrose wordes And Bellarmin confesseth the same in effect by passing it over insilence as ashamed of it But others sayth hee secondlie doe aunswer that this authour speaketh of the Civil law the law of Emperours To weete that by the Emperours Lawes it is lawfull for men but not for women having put away their mate to marrie another and that Paul therefore least he should offend the Emperour would not say expressely If a man put away his wife let him abide so or be reconciled to his wife Now Gratians second aunswer was no lesse worthy to have bene mentioned then this of William Lindan patched vp by Bellarmin For the civill law pronounceth the band of marriage to be loosed as well by divorcement as by death and alloweth women to take other husbands their former being put awaie as it alloweth men to take others wives So that it is a fond and vnlearned conceit to imagin that Paul would not say of husbands as hee did of wives least hee should offend the Emperour by speaking expresselie against that which his law allowed For hee did expressely controll the Emperoâ—rs law in saying of the wife If shee depart from her husband let her remaine vnmarried or be reconciled to her husband And the authours wordes doe shewe that hee meant to speake not of humaine lawes but of divine of the sacred scripture wherevpoÌ„ he wrote and what was thereby lawfull Which seemed so evident vnto Peter Soto andâ— Sixtus Senesis and the Roman Censors who oversaw Pope Gregorie the thirtenths new edition of the Cannon law that they confesse that Ambrose meaning this authour doth aprove plainely certainly vndoubtely mens liberty of marrying againe after divorcement Bellarmin therefore comyng in with his third aunswer Yet saith hee if
A DEFENCE OF THE IVDGMENT 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 cōfuted by Iohn Raynolds A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of Religion how he depraveth Scriptures misalleag the fathers and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God and poisoning of his Churche with errour Printed ANNO 1609. The Preface to the Reader GOod Reader my love reverēce to the author living and to his memorie being dead my desire to serve the church of God by other mens woorks who am not able to doe it by myne owne have moved me to publishe this learned treatise which Doctor Rainolds left as many other exquisit travels of his shutt vp in the closett of some private frends as in a fayre prison Because my testimonie or any mans I know is of much lesse waight then the onely name of the author to cōmend the woorke I will say nothing more in praise of it then that it is an vndoupted woorke of that worthie holy man whose learning dilligence abilleties meeknes wisdō pietie made him eminent to vs may perhaps yeeld him more admirable to posteretie which without envie of his person shal view the marks of thies graces in his writings or take them by storie Touching the argument I will onely say that it seemeth the more woorthy such a mans resolution by how much it hath bene formerly or presētly is controverted amongst the learned And if anie man be cōtrarie minded to this which is the common iudgement of the reformed churches he above others shal be my debttor for helping him to so good a meanes of reforming himselfe In matters of opinion chiefly divine he that conquer eth he that is is cōquered devide both honor proffit If any man take good by it let him give praise to God if he take none let him blāe none but himselfe The next page will shew the contents order of the booke The booke it selfe wil shew thee how good it is fare-well THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS The first Chapter The state of the question betwene the church of Rome the reformed churches being first declared the truth is proved by scripture That a man having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another The second Chapter The places of scripture alleaged by our adversaries to disprove the lawful liberty of marriage after divorcemēt for adulterie are proposed exāined proved not to make against it The third Chapter The cōsent of Fathers the second pretēded proofe for the Papistes doctrine in this point is prtēded falsly if all be weighed in an even ballance the Fathers checke it rather The fourth Chapter The conceits of reasōs urged last against vs are oversights proceeding from darknesse not from light reason it self dispelling the mist of Popish probabilties giveth cleare testimonie with the truth of Christe An admonition to the reader ALthough the Printer hath beene carefull supplied sometimes the defects of his coppie yet hath he somtimes fayled not only in mispoyntinge or not poynting or transposing omitting or adding sometimes a letter which the readers iudgment diligence must helpe but in omission or alteration of woords obscuring or perverting the sence which the reader shal doe wel to corect before he reade the booke as they stand herevnder It is like enough there may bee more faults especially in the quotations chiefly in the greeke woords written in a lattin letter concerning which I onely desire that the author whose skill and dilligence were admirable might take no damage by other mēs faults The faults are omissive or coruptions of words The woordes omitted are in the corrections following writtē in another letter Faults escaped in the Printinge Pag. 12. l. 1. reade some other cause Pag. 19. l. 29 reade but incidētly touched Pag. 21. l. 28. reade owne argumēt 39. Marg. 1. Cor 17. 10. 34. Marg. in the end Iudg 5. 31. Pag. 59. l. 11. read yet hath he not the generall cōsent Pag. 74. l. 32. read submitteth him selfe expresly Pag. 80. l. 6. reade If notwithstanding The corruptions of woords correct thus Pag. 2. l. 18. reade Canonists for Canoists Pag. 7. l. 24. reade exceptions for excepsitions 16. Marg. in the quotation out of Ioh ' 9. reade verse 41. for 21. Pag. 31. l. 8. reade Coumpts in stead of Counsells of money Pag. 53. l. 10. reade the for that papistes Pag. 57. l. 10. read Calumniously for Calmuniously 59. Marg. at the letter C. reade not extra but tittulo so at the letter D. for those places are not in the extravagants but in the 4. booke of the decretals vnder those titles pag. 60. l. 27. reade yea for yet setteth downe Pag. 60. l. 28. reade specifie them for then Pag. 61. l. 8. reade through error thought for though mende there the poynting Pag. 73. l. 22. read of all for by all the rest Pag. 75. l. 2. reade any Bishop ror my Bishop Pag. 77. l. 19. reade one of theirs for out of theirs Pag. 78. l. 28. reade convicted in stead of corrupted by the texte Pag. 90. l. 13. reade the weaknes for of weaknes The woords corrupted are written in another letter OF THE LAVVFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVVFVL DIVORCE The first Chapter The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by scripture that a mā having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another THe dutye of man and woman ioyned in marriage requireth that they two should bee as one person and cleave ech to other with mutuall love and liking in societie of life vntill it please God who hath coupled them together in this bonde to sett them free from it and to dissociate and sever thē by death But the inordinate fansies desires of our corupt nature have soe inveighled Adams seede in many places that men have accustomed to put awaye their wiues vppon everie trifling mislike discontentment yea the Iewes supposed thēselves to be warrāted by Gods lawe to doe it so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorce mēt This perverse opiniō errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for anie cause save whoredome onely For whosoever saith he shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adulterie Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed morefully by on of the Evangelists by others more sparingly there hath a doubt arisen and diverse men evē from the primative churches time have beē of diverse minds For many of the fathers have gathered therevpon that if a mans wife committed whoredome
it in like construction even then to wheÌ„ it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it vnto that meaning Wherefore S Austins mistaking of the worde and significatioÌ„ thereof is noe sufficieÌ„t warraÌ„t for Bellarminâ— to ground on that they must be taken so As for that he addeth that albeit both these particles be taken exceptively often times yet may they also be taken otherwise sithâ— one of theÌ„ is vsed in the Revelation as an adversative not an exceptive this maketh much leâ—â—e for proofe of his assertion For what if it be vsed there as an adversative where the matter treated of and the tenour of the sentence doe manifestly argue that it must be taken so Must it therefore be taken so in this place whereof our questioÌ„n is or doth Bellarmin proove by any circumstance of the text that here it may be taken so No. Neither saith he a worde to this purpose Why menâ—ioneth he then that it may-be takeÌ„ otherwise and is in the Revelation for an adversative particle Truely I know not vnlesse it be to shewe that he can wrangle and play the cavelling sophister in seeming to gainsay and disprove his adversarie when in trueth he doth not Or perhaps though he durst not say for the particular that it is taken here as an adversative which he coulde not but most absurdly Yet he thought it policie to breede a surmise thereof for the generall that shallower conceits might imagin another sence therein they knew not what and they whose brasen faces should serve them thereto might impudently brable that our sence is not certaine because another is Possible eveÌ„ as if a Iew beeing pressed by a Christian with the place of Esay Behoulde a virgin shall conceave and bring forth a Sonne should answer that the Hebrue worde translated Virgin may be taken otherwise sith that in the Proverbs it signifieth a married woman at least one that is not a Virgin in deede though shee woulde seeme to be But as the Iew caÌ„not conclude hereof with any reasoÌ„ that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay because the thinge spoken of is a straunge signe it is not straunge for a married womaÌ„ to conceave and bring forth a Sonne so neither can the Iesuite conclude of the former that the particle in Mathew is ment adversatively because the words then doe breede noe sence at all in which sorte to thinkethat any wise man spake were solly that Christ the worde and wisdome of God were impietie Nay if some of Bellarmins schollers shoulde say that words must bee supplied to make it percit sence rather than their maister bee cast of as a wraÌ„gler they would be quickely forced to pluck in this horne or els they might chance to leape which is worse out of the frying pan into the fire For adversative particles import an opposition and contrariety vnto that sentence agaynste which they are brought in Now the sentence is that who so put teth away his wife and marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherefore hee by consequent coÌ„mitteth not adulterie who doth so for whoredome If the particle bee adversative and must have words accordingly supplied vnderstood to make the sence percttt Thus the shift and cavill which Bellarmin hath drawen out of the double meaning of the Greeke worde is either idle and beateth the aire or if it strike any it striketh himselfe giveth his cause a deadly wound Yea that which he principally sought to confute hee hath confirmed thereby For sith the worde hath onely two significations exceptive and adverstive neither durst he say that it is vsed here as an adversative it foloweth he must graunt it to be as an exceptive soe the place rightly translated in our English agreeable to the other in the 5. of Mathew except it be for whoredoe which as in their autheÌ„ticall latin text also doth out of controversie betokeÌ„ an exception Having al passages therefore shutt againste him for scaping this way he sleeth to another starting hole to weete that if the worde be taken exceptively yet may it be an exception negative And this he saieth sufficeth for the maintenance of S. Austins answer For when it is said whosoever shall put away his wife excepting the cause of whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie the cause of woredome may be excepted either because in that case it is not edulâ—erie to marrie another and this is an exception affirmative or because nothing is presâ—tly determined touching that cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe and this is an exceptioÌ„ negative which in that S. Austin imbraced he did well I would to God Bellarmin had S. Austins modestie Then would hee be ashamed to charge such a man with imbracing such whorish silth of his owne fansing as in this distinction of negative and affirmative exception he doth For he handleth it soe lâ—wdly and porversly by calling that affirmative which in deedâ— is negative and by avouching that to be negative which is not as if he had made a covenant with his lipps to lye treadinge in the stepps of those wicked wretches of whom it is written woe vnto them who say that good is evill and evill good For the proofe whereof it is to be noted that an excepton is a particular proposition contradictorie to a generall So that if the generall proposition be affirmative the exception is negative and if the proposition be negative contrarywise the exception is affirmative As for exsamples sake He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lorde onely shal be destroyed saieth Moses in the lawe The proposition is affirmative He that sacrificeth to my Gods shal be destroyed The exception negative He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed There is none good but one even God saith Christ in the Gospell The proposition is negative There is none good The exception affirmative One is good even God I would to God that all layth Paul to Agrippa which heare me this daye were alltogether such as I am except these bonds The proposition affirmative I wish that all which heare me were such as I am altogether The exceptioÌ„ negative I wish not in bonds they were such as I am No Church did communicate with me in the account of giving receiving â—saving you onely sayth the same Paul to the Phillippians The Proposition negative No church did coÌ„municate with me in the account of giving and receiving The exceptioÌ„ affirmative You of Philippi did Likewise in all the rest of excepâ—tions adioyned to generall propositions though the markes and tokens as of generalitie sometymes lye hidden in the proposition soe of denying or affirming doe in the exception Yet it is plaine and certaine that the proposition and exception matched with it are still of contrarie quallitie the one afirmative if the other negative and negative if the other affirmative Which thing beeing soe see now the
their owne doctrine allowed established by the Councel of TreÌ„t shall force them will they nill they to see it acknowledg it For if the exceptioÌ„ be 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 coÌ„panie society of life although he marry not another But the Councel of TreÌ„t pronounceth and 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 exceptioÌ„ cannot so bee tyed vnto the former point onely And therefore whereas Bellarmin sayeth further that he thiÌ„keth it is S. Thomas of Aquines opinioÌ„ that Christs words should bee expounded so Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde the Papists peradventure wil be faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse but Thomas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts chiefest light of the Church of Rome shal be conviuced of errour even by the Councell of Trents verdict And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of another shift which this coosin german to the last intreated of and Bellarmin prayseth it alike To weete that the words committeth adulterie must be supplied and understood in the former parte of Christs sentence thus Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whoredome committeth adulterie and whoso marrieth another committeth adulterie 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 towards Christs senteâ—ce that a ChristiaÌ„ should who can finde in his heart to have it devided of one living body naÌ„ely Whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for whordoÌ„e and marrieth another coÌ„mitteth adulterie made as it were two peeces of a dead carkas the first Whosoever putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome committeth adulterie the secoÌ„d whoso marrieth another coÌ„miteth adultrie Which dealing beside the incoÌ„venieÌ„ce of making the scripture a nose of waxe leadÌ„e rule if men may add what pleaseth theÌ„ spetialy if they may also maÌ„gle senteÌ„ces chop theÌ„ in sundry parts but beside this mischief here it hath a greater that Christ most true and holy is made thereby to speake an vntruth For a man may put away his wife for other cause then for whoredome yet not coÌ„mit adulterie himselfe Yes hee committeth it sayth Bellarmin in his wives adultery whereof hee was the cause by putting her vniustly away But I reply that it is one thing to cause his wife to coÌ„mitt it another to commit it himself And y Christ when hee was minded to note these severall faults did it with severall words expressinge them accordinglye Moreover vnderstandinge the tearme to put away not as the force thereof doth yeeld Christ tooke it for loosing of the baÌ„d of marriage but for a sepe ration from bed and boord onely as Bellarmin vnderstandeth it He cannot allowe the sentence which hee fathereth one Christ though soe expounded without either condemning of the Trent Councel or beeing himself condemned by it For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him but for whoredome doth committ adulterie in causing her to committ it Then is it a sinne to seperate her for any cause save for whoredome If it bee a sinne The Church of Rome erreth in houlding and decreeing that shee may bee seperated for sundrie other causes But whosoever sayth that the Churche erreth herein is accursed by the Councell of Trent The Councell of Trent therefore doth coÌ„sequently curse Bellarmin if hee say that Christ spake his wordesin that sense in which he coÌ„strueth them And doth it notcurse Austin also Theophilact whoÌ„ Bellarmin alleageth as saying the same at least it declareth that in the CouÌ„cels iudgment the fathers missexpouÌ„d the Scrip tures sometymes even those verie places on which the Papists cite theÌ„ assounde interpreters of the scripture Now the speech of Christ being cleared saved entier from all cavils the meaning thereof is playne as I have shewed that he who having put a way his wife for whoredoÌ„e marrieth another coÌ„mitteth not adulterie For soe much importeth the exception negative of the cause of whoredoÌ„e opposed to the generall affirmative propositioÌ„ wherewith our Saviour answered the question of the Pharisies touchcing divorcemeÌ„ts vsed by the Iewes who putting awaye there wives for any cause did marrie others The onely reason of adversaries remayning to bee answered stood vppon and vrged by them as moste effectuall and for cible to the contrarye is an example of like sentences from which sith the like conclusion say they cannot bee inferred as wee inferre of this the inferrence or this is faultye And faultie I graunt they might esteeme it iustly if the like conclusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences But lett the examples which they bring for proofe here of be throughly sifted And it will appeare that either the sentences are vnlike or the like conclusitons may bee inferred of them For of three sentences proposed to this end the the firste is out of Scripture in S. Iames Epistle To him that knoweth how to doe well and doth it not to him there is sinn A sentence though in shewe vnlike to that of Christs for the proposition and exception both yet having in deede the force of the like if it be thus resolved To him that doth not well except hee know not how to doe well there is sinn And why may it not be concluded hereof that there is no sinn to him who knoweth not how to doe well doth it not because there are sinns of ignoraunce saith Bellarmin he who knoweth not how to doe well and doth it not sinneth though lesse then hee that offendeth wittingly I knowe not whether this be a snine of ignorauns in Bellarmin or no that when he should say if he will check the conclusion there is sinne to ignorant he saith as if that were all one the ignoraunt sinneth Betwene which two things there is a great difference in S. Iames his meaning For S. Iames in these words there is sinne to him doth speake emphatically noteth in that man the same that our saviour did in the Pharisies when because they boasted of their sight knowledg he told theÌ„ that they â— had sinne meaning by this Phrase as himself expoundeth it that their sinne remained that is to say continued and stoodt firme setled The custome of the Greeke tongue wherein S. Iames wrote doth geve this Phrase that sense as also the Syriaque the language vsed by Christ translating Christs words after the same manner the matter treated of doth argue that he meant
might neither would have allowed a man to bee rashly angry with his brother for Christ forbiddeth it But if one were suddenly surprised with rashe anger S. Paul would advise him not to let the sunne goe downe vpon his angry wrath neither might hee therevpon bee iustly charged with permitting wrath vntill the sunne sett agaynst Christs commandement No more might hee with graunting liberty to lust because he willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh whereas Christ commandeth them not to lust at all For S. Paul also condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sinne But seing that the flesh will lust agaynst the Spirit as long as wee are in this mortality he sturreth vp the faythfull that they let not sinne raigne in their mortall bodyes nor doe fulfill the lust of the flesh In the same sort therefore hee giveth charge with Christ that the wife departe not from her husbaÌ„d Yet in consideratioÌ„ of humaine infirmity he addeth But if shee departe too let her bee vnmarried And to meete with a doubt which herevpon might rise sith in the next words before hee had affirmed that they who haue not the gift of continence should marry and what if shee have it not hee adioyneth farther or let her be reconciled vnto her husband So that although the words may seeme to bee vttered in the same sorte as if they did imply and import a permission yet are they not permissive but imperative in truth and an expresse precept that the wife having forsaken her husband therein done evill forbeare to marry another for that were farre worse yea though shee can not containe in respect where of or of any thing els if shee mislike to live vnmarried shee may not vse the libertye that single folke may who rather ought to marrie then burne but shee must reconcile her self vnto her husband whose wife shee is by duty still And I may say likewise doubtles vnto Bellarmin that hee and his pamphletter should not have mayntained their error in writing but sith they have done it let theÌ„ write no more in defence of it or let them acknowledg that in this poynt they were deceived For whereas they gather of the disjunctive particle Let hor remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled that S. Paul hath put it in the womans choyse left her at liberty either to live seperated still from her husband or to be reconciled vnto him they might as well ground vpon Christs words to the angell of the church of the Laodiceans I would thou werest colde or hot that hee hath put it in our choise and left vs at libertie either to bee colde in faith and love as flesh is or to bee fervent in the spirit Yet Christ had no such meaning For he commaundeth vs to bee servent and that verie angell hee saith to everie faith full men Be hot Zealous But because the partie was luke warme a wordling who had receyved the seede of the word but bare not fruite who knew his maisters will but did it not there by sinned most grievously Christ wisheth that he were colde and sinned lesse sith hee did sinne or that hee were hot and free from both these faults the later wishe made simply the former in comparison After the which manner seing Paul might well did by all likelyhood of circumstaÌ„ces of the text wishe simply and chiefly that the wife estranged were reconciled to her husband next that shee continued rather parted from him then married to another as a lesse evill in comparison the vttering of his senteÌ„ce with a disjunctive particle Let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled doth not prove hee put it in the womans choyse and left her at liberty to doe whether shee listed And thus it appeareth how certaine and vndoubted that principle is which vpon this proofe Bellarmin avoucheth to bee most certaine vndoubted that S. Pauls words touching the wife If shee depart are ment of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divorcement Howbeit if they had bene meant of her onely yet must they have touched such wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause not for whoredom An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin that in exemplising the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should bee restrayned hee nameth whoredom first as prncipally comprised in S. Pauls precept whereas S. Paule meant that it and it alone should bee excluded and excepted For these are his words To them who are married it is not I that geve commandement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee departe too let her remaine vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husband and let not the husband put away his wife Where in the last braunch Let not the husband put away his wife must needes bee vnderstood except it bee for whoredom because S. Paule saith it is the Lords commandement and the Lord gave it with that expresse exception This Bellarmyn doth graunt Well Then as the last braunche so the first too Let not the wife depart from her husband For the analogie is all one and yeche having interest in the others bodie shee may as lawfully depart from an adulterer as hee from an adulteresse And this doth Bellarmin graunt also But the middle braunche is to be vnderstood of the same departing and likewise qualified as the first Therefore If shee depart too is meant except it be for whoredome Nay not so quoth Bellarmin for the same departing is not meant in both but a farre different in the first an uniust departing in the next a just and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes Not I but the Lord geve commandement let not the wife depart from her husbaÌ„d to weet without a just cause but if shee goe away to weet having a just cause let her remaine vnmarried so forth In the refutation of which wrong violence done vnto the sacred text what should I stand wheÌ„ the onely reason whereby out of scripture hee assayeth to prove it is the disiunctive particle which as I have shewed alreadie hath no ioynt or sinew of proofe to that effect And the onely father whose testimony hee citeth for it doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture So that his reason being overthrowâ—n his â—reditt and authoritie by his owne approved rule may beare no sway And on the contrarie parte many other fathers doe expound the second braunche as having refereÌ„ce to the same departing that is forbidden in the first And which is the chief point the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same For the tearmes But if too importe that doing also of that which in the sentence before he had affirmed ought not to be done As the like examples in the same discourse to