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
lawfully marrie another as I there declared it followeth by the like necessity of coÌ„sequence that the popish doctrine mainteined by our adversaries denying the same iâ— contrarie to the schriptuere and doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Sonne of God THE SCCOND CHAPTER The places of Scripture aleadged by our adversaries to disproove the Lawfull liberty of Marriage after Divorcement for Adulterie are Proposed Examined and prooved not to make against it SAinct Austin in his learned bookes of Christian Doctrine wherin he geves rules how to finde the right true sence of Scriptures doth wel a advise the faithful First to search marke those things which are set downe in the Scriptures plainely and then to goe in hande with sifting discussing of the darke places that the darker speaches may beâ— made evident by Patterns examples of the more plaine manifest the records of certaine undoubted sentences may take away doubt of the uncertaine This wholesome iudicious Counsaile of S Austin if our adversaries had bin as careful to follow as they are willing to shew the follow him in these things which he hath written lesse advisedly they would not have alleadged urged the places of Scripture which they doe against the poynt of doctrine hitherto prooved out of the 19. of S. Mathew For Christ in that place doth open the matter decide the question most plainely fully of purpose answering the Pharises In others either it is not handled of of purpose but incidetly touched or in generallity set downe more briefly soe more darkely obscurely Wherefore if any of the other places had seemed unto theÌ„ to raise a scruple and shewe of some repugnacie they should have taken paines to explaine level it by that in S. Math. the darker by the clearer the brieffer by the larger the uncertein ambigguous by the undoubted certeine But seeing they have chosen to follow S. Austins oversights rather then his best advises in like sorte as Furrius an orator of Rome did imitate Fimbria whose force of speech and arguements he attained not to but pronounced broadlye set his mouth awry like him wee must say of them as Christ of the Phareses â—Let them alone thy are blind leaders of the blind and our selves endevour to follow S. Austin in that he followed Christ who cleared the b darker place of Moses by c the plainer word ordinance of God d The which if we doe we shall by Gods grace easily percieve e that none of al the places aleadged by our adversaris doth make against the doctrine alredy proved coÌ„cluded For the first of them is in the 5. of Math. Whosoever shal put away his wife except it he for whoredome doth cause her to commit adultery And whoso marrieth her that input away doth commit adultery These words saith Bell. and looke what Bell. saith the the pamphletter saith with him so that one of their names may serve for both and reason Bellarmin have the honour These words And whose marrieth her that is put away doth commit adtltery must be either generally taken without exception or with the exception Except it be for whoredom If generally then he who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom too doth commit adultery The hand then marriage is not dissolved and loosed by her putting away but company debarred onely For he that marrieth her should not commit adulterie vnlesse shee were bound yet to her former husbaÌ„d And thus farr Bellarmin sayth well but superfluously For the words may not be generaly taken sith they have relation to the former sentenâ—e whereto they are coupelld and that sentence speaketh of her which is pnt away except for whordom Their meaniug then must needs be that he who marrieth her which is so put away doth commit adulterie Neither could Bell. be ignorant hereof or doubt with any likelyhoode but that this is our iudgmeÌ„t would be our answâ—r Wherefore his two forked dispute about the words was aflourish onely to make us afrayde as if hee fought with a two hande sword which would kill al that came in his way But now he goeth fore warde upon his enemies pike an saieth about him on the other side If the words must be taken with the exception then he that marrieth a whore put away from her husband coÌ„mitteth not adulterie consequently the whore is in better case then the innocent chast For the whore is free may be married whereas the innocent that is uniustly put away can neither have her former husband nor marrie another But this most absurd that the lawe of Christ being most iust would have her to be in better case state that is iustly put away then her that is uniustly For answer unto which reason of Bell. I would spurr him a question whether by the Popes law which forbiddeth a man that g hath been twise married or h hath married a widow to take holly orders admitteth on thereto that hath kept or happely keepeth many concubines a whormoÌ„ger be in better case theÌ„ an honest man and if a whoremoger be so by the Popes lawe whether we ought to i iugde that this is most absurd or noe Here if he should answer that the Popes lawe is not most iust therefor noe marvel if it have some such things as were moste absurd to be imagined by Christs law I must ackowledge he spake reason Wel I would spurr him theÌ„ another question whether he thinke that I ame in better case theÌ„ any Iesuit yea then the best of them all Phy he will answer there is noe comparison The best nay the worst of them is in better case then I am k Yet I may marrie if I list and none of them may because of their vowe Belike this Vow-Doctrine was not establishede by the lawe of Christ Which is moste iuste but by the popes lawe rather Or it is most absurde that a poore Christiane shoulde hee in better case l then the provdest Iesuit But heere peradventure the man will say rather that wee are Hâ—retiquâ—s and they Catholiques and the meanest Catholique is in better case even for his faiths sake then any Heretique watsoever which if he doe as it is likely neither can hee say ought with probability but to this effect then hath hee confuted and overthrowen his argument For by this answere hee cannot chuse but graunt that the simplest woman being put away vniustly from her husband is in better case for her chastities sake though shee may not marrie theu watsoever whore that may And I hope hee will not say that the stewes and cuttizans at Rome are in better case then honest matrons there divorced from their husbands Yet may none of these while their husbans live bee ioyned to others whereas the curtizaus are free to marrie whom they will if any will marrie them who are soe free
so what errour soe absurd that may not be defended by perverse wranglers what cause soe oniust that vnrighteous iudges may not geve senteÌ„ce with For whatsoever words be enforced against them out of the law of God or man our of anie evidence or record of writers witnesses worthie credit they may with Peter LoÌ„bard Gratian replie that the place alleged is said or thought to have bene thrust into those monuments by some corrupters of writings And in replying thus they should speake trueli though it were said or thought by nome beside themselves but how reasonably they should speake therein let men of sense reason iudge Surelie though Peter LoÌ„bard rest vpoÌ„ that aunswer for waÌ„t of a better yet Gratian whether â—â—aring the siâ—klie state thereof doth leave it and seeketh himself a new patron saying that Ambroses words are thus meant that a man may lawfullie marrie another wife after the death of the adulteresse but not while she liveth which aunswer is mote absurd theÌ„ the former In so much that a Covarruvias speaking of th former onely as verdict as anie said that this repugneth manifestlie to Ambrose A verie true verdict as anie maÌ„ not blind may see by Ambrose wordes And Bellarmin coufâ—ssâ—th the same in effect by passing it over in silâ—nee as ashamed of it But others sayth hee secondlie doe aunswer that this author speaketh of the Civil law the law of Emperous To weet 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 b would not say expressely If a man put away his wife let him a bide so or bereconciled to his wife Now Gratians second answer was no lesse worthy to have bene mentioned then this of c William Lindam patched vp by Bell. For the d civill law prononceth the band of marriage to be loosed as wel by divorcement as death and alloweth women to take other hushands their former being put awaie as it alloweth men to take others wives So that 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 e hee did expressely controll the Emperours law in saying of the wife If shee dedart from her husband let her remaine vnmarried or bee 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 where vpon he wrote and what was thereby lawfull Which seemed soe evident vnto f Peter Soto g Sixtus Senesis and h the Roman Censors who oversaw Pope Gregorie the thirtenths tenths new edition of the Cannon law that they confesse that Ambrose meaning this authour doth a prove plainly certainly vndoubtely mens libertye of marrying againe after divorcement Bellarmin therfore comyng in with his third aunswer Yet saith hee if these bee not so well liked it may be aunswered easilie that the author of those Commentaries is not Ambrose nor any of the renowned Fathers 4 as learned men know Thus at length this authour if men will not beleeve that his wordes are corrupted or that hee spake of the Civill law shall bee graunted vs with Bellarmins good leave But then wee shall bee told that hee is not Ambrose nor anie of the renowned Fathers as learned men know And why could not Bellarmin aunswere this at first Why was hee soe loath to graunt that such an authour base obscure of sclendâ—r crâ—ditt maketh with vs Hâ—rein thâ—re 〈◊〉 a mysterie There is i in this authours Commentaries a place a 5 peece of a sentenâ—e whiâ—h seemeth to speake for he Popes Supremacie Though perhaps never written by this authour or not with that meaning as I have he wed els where j Bellarmin had cited that place for that in 6 S. Ambrose his name and m manie make a feast thereof as being fare S. Ambroses Now if he should saie that the author of those Commentaries was neither Ambrose nor Saint hee should gainsaie himself And sith hee was learned when he did cite it soe and therefore knewe by his owne words that it was not Ambrose not anie of the renowned fathers who writt it men would see thereby that he had for the Popâ—s sake against his owne knowledg fathered on S. Ambrose that which is not his No marveil then if Bellarmin came to his aunswere as a beare to the stake At the which though hee seeme to cast vs of by saying that the authour was no renowed Father and erred in mistaking S. Paul as having geven more libertie to men then women whereof in due place afterward yet in the meane season hee is forced to graunt that this auncient Father tooke it to bee lawfull for men to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie The sundrie evasions shifts whereby the Papists have laboured to wrest the credit of this one Father out of our handes doe geve mee occasion to suspect that they will wrangel much more to withdraw from vs the first Councell of Arles ' being more auncient in time in credit greater and as n one of themselves doth probably coniecture confirmed by the Pope also Herevente the Councele wishing of certaine persons not to marrie in the case wee treat of might serve them for a colour in as muâ—h as o it saith concerning them whose wives are taken in adulterie that if they bee yong men and forbidden to marrie 8 advise should bee given the as much as may bee not to take other wiâ—es while the former live though adulteresses But this giving of advise is in truth an argument that the councell iudged a man no adulteter if hee tooke another wife Els would they have given not advise and counsail but charge and commandement to refraine from it and as it is likely restrained mens transgression therein with sharpe discipline specially coÌ„sidering p they punish lesser faults with excommunication Neither is it nothing that they temper also this counsail and advise to be geven such with 9 as much as may bee And a farder circumstance yet of more importance they make not this restraint for all men but for â—young men nor â—or all yong men but such as are forbidden to marrie meaning as it seemeth thoose who being vnder the care of their parents were by them forbidden and could not honestilie disobey For had not this respect or the like moved the Fathers of the Councel why should they have restrained such yong men and not otâ—er Nay why onelie yong men not rather men not aged men or theÌ„ also Sith in p q S. hripture elder women are chosen to be widowes and yonger willed to marrie Our adversaries therefore must yeeld that the couÌ„cell of Arles is of our side for the point
Austin saith himselfe in his retractatioÌ„s I have writteÌ„ two bookes touching adulterous mariages as neere as I could according to the scriptuers being desirous to open loose the knotts of a most difficult quests on Which whether I have done soe that no knott is left therein I know not nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly and throughly al though I have opened many creeckes thereof as whosoever readeth with iudgment may discerne S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that there are some wants and imperfections in that worke which they may see who reade with iudgment And whether this that Bellarmin doth alleage out of it deserve not to fal within the compasse of that censure I appeale to their iudgment who have eies to see For S. Augustin thought that the worde in th original of S. Math gospel had by the proper signification of it imported a negation rather then an exception And n he sheweth by saying that where the Latin translation hath 3 except for whoredom in the Grieke text it is rather read 4 without the cause of whoredoÌ„ Supposing belike whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight 5 that the same words which were used before in the fift Chapter of S. Math. Gospel to the same purpose were used also in this place wher as here they 6 differ and are wel expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so wel Houbeit if they had been the same with the former yet neither so might Bell. allowe his opinion considering that the coÌ„mon latin translation which Papists by their Councel of Trent are bound to stand to under payne of curse expresseth 7 those likewise as a plaine exception Which in deâ—de agreeth to the right and natural meaning of the 8 particle as O the like writers use it in like construction even then to wheÌ„ it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it unto that meaning Wherefore S. Austins mistaking of the worde signification thereof is noe sufficient warrant for Bell. to ground on that they must betaken so As for that he addeth that albeit 9 both these particles be taken excâ—ptively ofteâ— times yet may they also be taken otherwise sith on of them is used in the RevelatioÌ„as an adversative not an exceptiveâ— this maketh much lesse for proofe of his asâ—ertion For what if it be used there as an adversative where the matter treated of 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 question is or doth Bellar. prove by any circumstance of the text that here it may be taken so No Neither saith he a worde to this purpose Why men ioneth he then that it may be taken otherwise and is in the Revelaton for an adversative particle Truly I know not unlesse it be to shew that he can wranglâ— and plaie the cavelling sophister in seeming to gainsay disprove his adversarie when in truth he doth not Or perhaps though he durst not say for the particular that it is takeÌ„ here as an adversative which he could not but most absurdly Yet he thouâ—ht it policie to breed a surmise there of 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 a Iew being pressed by a ChristiaÌ„ with the place of q Esay Behoulde a vâ—gin shall conceive and bring forth a Sonne should answer that the Hâ—brue worde translated Virgin may be taken othrwise sith that in the Proverbs it signifieth a married womaÌ„ at least one that is not a Virgin in deede though she would seeme to be But as the Iew cannot conclude hereof with any reason that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay because the thing spoken of is a straunge signe and it is not straunge for a married wommen to coceave and bring forth a Sonne so neither can the Iesuite conclude of the former that the particle in Math. is meaÌ„t adversatively because the words then doe beare noe sence at all in which sorte to thinke that any wiseman spake were folly that Christ the word and wisdome of God were impietie Nay if some of Bell. schollars should say that words must be supplied to make it perfect sence rather than their Maiester bee cast of as a wrangeler they would be quickely inforced to pluck in this horn or els they might chance to leape which is worse out of the frying pan into the fire For adversative particles import an opposition contrariety unto the sentence against which they are brought in Now the sentence is that who so putteth away his wife marrieth another doth commit adulterie Wherefore he by consequent committeth not adulterie who doth so for whorâ—dome If the particle be adversative and must have words accordingly supplied understood to make the sence perfect Thus the shift cavil which Bell. hath drawen out ef the double meaning of the Greike worde is either ydle beateth the aier or if it strike any it striketh himselfe and giueth his cause a deadly wound Yea that which he sought to confute he hath confirmed thereby For sith the worde hath onely two significations exceptive adversative neither durst he say that it is vsed here as an adversative it followeth he must grauÌ„te it to be an exceptive so the place rightly translated in our Enhelish agree able to the other in the 5. of Math. exoept it be for whoredom which as in their authenticall latin text also doth out of conitoversie betoken an exception Having all passages therefore shutt against him for scaping this way he fleeth to annother starting hole to weet that if the worde betaken exceptively yet may it be an exception negative And this he saith sufficeth for the maintnance of S. Aust. answer For when it is sayd whosoever shal put away his wife excepting the cause of whoredoÌ„ and shall marry another doth commit adulterie the cause of whoredom may be excepted either because in that case it is not adulterie to marrie another this is an exception affirmative or because nothing is presently determined touching that cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe and this is an exception negative which in that S. Aust. imbraced he did wel I would toe God Bell. had S. Aust. modesty Then would he be ashamed to chargs such a man wiith imbracing such whorish filth of his owne facsing ar in distinction of negative and affirmrtive exception he doth Foâ— hâ—e handeleth it soe lewdely and pervâ—rsely by calling that affirmative which in deede is negative by aâ—ouching that to bee negative which is not as if he had made a covenaÌ„t with his lips to lye treading in the steps of those
if the like coÌ„clusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences But lett the examples which they bring for poofe here of be throughly sifted it will appeare that either the sentences are vnlike or the like conclusions may bee inferred of them For of three sentences proposed to this end the first is out of Scripture in S Iames Epistle d 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 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 here of 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 doth it not sinneth though lesse then hee that offendeth wittingly I kouw not whether this be a sinne of ignoraunce in Bellarmin or not that when he should say if he will check the coÌ„clusion 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 meauing For S. Iames in the se words 7 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 e he tould theÌ„ that they 8 had sinne meaning by this Pharse 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 lauguage vsed by Christ traÌ„slating Christs words after the same manner the matter treated of doth argue that he meant not generally of sinue but of sinne being cleaving to a man in speciall pecular sort For as f the servant that knew his Maisters will and did not according to it shal be beaten with many strips but he that knewe it not yet did coÌ„mit things worthy of strips shal be beaten with fewe Likewise in transgressioÌ„ whereuÌ„to the punishment answereth hee that knoweth how to doe wel doth it not sinne is to him he hath it he offendeth notably But he that knoweth not how to doe wel doth evil hath not sinne sticking to him his sinne remaineth not he sinneth not so gretly greevously Wherfore wheÌ„Bell draweth out of that sentence such a coÌ„clusioÌ„ as if S Iames in saying there is sinne to him had simply meant he sinneth Bellarmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence which if the text it self cannot in forme him g his doctors well considered may But take the right meaning the conclusion wil be sound Whoesoever doth not good honest things except it be of ignoraunce he sinneth desperatelie mainely Therefore whoso of ignorance ommitteth to doe them he sinneth not desperately And thus our conclusion drawen from Christs sentence is rather confirmed theÌ„ preiudiced by this example Yea let eveÌ„ S. h Austin whose authoritie Bellarmin doth ground on here in be diligently marked himself in matching these sentences together bewrayeth an oversight which being corrected will helpe the truth with light strength For to make the one of theÌ„ like the other hee is faine to fashion Christs speech in this sort To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredome marrieth another 1 to him there is the cry me of committing adulterie Now Christ hath not 2 these words of emphaticall propertie and strong signification whereby he might teach as S Augustin gathereth that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause save for whoredome and marrieth another committeth adulterie in an high degree and so imply by consequence 3 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 ommitteth 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 after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scripturs is soe farr from disprooving that it prooueth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences The seconde and thirde are out of theire owne braynes The one of Bell. forging the other of the Pamphletters Bellarmins Hee that stealeth except it bee for neede siuneth The Phampletters Hee that maketh a lye except it be for a Vauntage doth wilfully sinn Where of they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence That hee sinneth not who stealeth for neede and hee whâ— lyeth for a Vauntage sinneth not wilfully A badd inferrence indeed But the fault there of 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 Monkeis are dâ—voyd of reason or this All longeared Creatures except asses are beasts For hereof it could not be concluded iustly that Asses are not beasts Apes are not devoyd of reasoÌ„ No But this perhaps might bee concluded iustly that hee had not much 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 general affirmed And therefore sith he sinneth who stealeth i though for neede as the wise man sheweth and hee that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sinne yea the more willfully somtymes because for a vauntage as when the scribs belyed 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 sentences are no more like to Christs them copper is to gould or wormewood to the bread of Heaven Neither shall they ever finde any senteÌ„ce like to his indeede of which the like conclusion may not be inferred as we inferre of that And soe the maine ground of my principall reaso proposed in the beginning remayneth sure clearly prooved that he by Christs sentence committeth not adulterie who having put away his wife for whoredoÌ„e marrieth another Whereof seeiÌ„g it followeth necessarely that he who hath put away his wife for whoredome may
excepted For these are his words v To them who are married it is not I that give commaâ—dement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee departe too let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husbaÌ„d 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 x 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 x etche having interest in the others bodie shee may as lawfully depart from an adulterer as hee from an adulteresse And this doth Beelarmin graunt also But the middle braunche is to bee vnderstood of the same deparâ—ing 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 departinge in the next a iuste and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes Not I but the Lord gâ—ve commandement let not the wife depart from her husband to weeâ— without a â—ist cause but if shee goe away to weet having a iust cause let her remayne vnmarried so forth In the refutation of which wrong violence done vnto the sacred text what should I stand when the onely reason whereby out of sâ—ripture 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 z the onely father whose testimony hee citeth for it doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture So that his reason being overthrowen his creditt and authoritie by a his owne b approved rule may beare no sway And on the contrarie parte c many other fathers doe expound the second braunches as having reference to the same departing that is for bidden in the first And which is the chief point the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same For the tearmes 7 But if too importe that doing alsoe of that which in the sentence before hee had affirmed ought not to bee done As d the like examples in the same discourse to go no farder shewe yea some having one 8 parâ—icle lesse then this hath to presse it therevnto It is good for the vnmarried widowes if they abide even as I doe 9 But if they doe not conteine let them marry The woman which hath an vnbeleeving husband and hee consenteth to dwell with her let her not put him away 1 but if the vnbeleeving depart let him depart Art thou â—oused from a wife seeke not a wife 2 Bot then marrie also thou sinnest not This I speake for your profitt that you may doe that which is comely But if aâ—ie man thinke it vncomely for his virgin if shee passe the time of Marriage let him doe what hee will The wiâ—e is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth 4 but if her husband bee dead shee is at libertie and soe forth In all the which sentences sith the clauses brought in with those coniunctions have manifest relation to the things spoken of before touch them in the same sense the braunche that is inquestion having like dependance must in all reason be conserved of same the departing that the former Thus it being proved that S. Paul commanding the wife to remayne vnmarried if shee be parted from her husband did meane Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faultie even in this also that hee nameth whoredome among the iust causes of the wives departing here meant by S. Paul Now in this conâ—lusion inferring herevpon that even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage he is deceitfull as he was false in his proposition For the word Divorcement being vnderstood as it is by him for anie seperation and parting of the man and wife though from bâ—dd onely and for a certayne time There may be sundry causes why such a seperation should be allowed or tollâ—rated when as the band of marriage shall neverthelesse endure still And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmin had concluded a truth to purpose But the poynt where with he should have knit vp his dispute and which hee would have men conceyve and beare away as if these words implyed it is that no iust cause at al of any divâ—rcemeÌ„t doth loose the baÌ„d of marriage therefore neither whoredom The falshood whereoeâ— woulde have bee as cleare as the sunne-shine at noone-day the prpositioÌ„ being so evidently false wheron it is in ferred And this is the arguement that Bell. set his rest on 5 the insoluble argument even altogether insoluble the ground wherof he termeth 6 a demonstration a most invincible demonstration against the which nothing saith he can be obiected but an insufficient reply made by Erasmns to weet that Paule speaketh of an adulterous wifâ— who therfore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay unmarried the innocent party not so charged Which speaches of the Iesuit come from the like veine of a vauntinge spirit as those did of his coÌ„plices who boasted that 8 the Spainyards Armadoes navy should finde but weake silly resistans in England and callede their armay sent to conquer us an invicible armey For as they diminished by untruâ— reports the forâ—es prepared To meete en countere with the spanish power so Bell. by saying that nought can be obiected beside that he specifieth yea fardâ—r by belying and falsefing of Erasmus who contrariewise replieth that Paul doth seeme to speake 9 of lighter displeasiurs for which divorcement then were usual not of such cryms as adultery Moreover by the substance weight of my replye to his insoluble argeument the Godlye wise indifferent eye wil see I trust that the knotts strings therof are loosed brokeÌ„ even as the inviâ—cible armey of the Spainyards was by Gods providence shewed to bee Vinâ—ible without great enâ—ouÌ„tering the carkeses and spoyles of their ships men upon the English Scottish Irish coasts did wittnesse it So let allthyn enemies perish O Lord and let them who love him be as the sunne when he goeth forth in his strength The third Chapter The consent of Fathers the second pretended proofe for the Paaists doctrine in this poynt is pretended falsly if all be weighed in an even ballance the Fathers check it rather AFter the forsayd testemonies of Scriptur urged by our adversaries in the first place for the coÌ„mending of their errour Secondly the same truth saith the Iesuite may be