THe dutye of man and woman ioyned in marriage, requireth thatGenes, [...]. 24, Math, 19. 5. 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 GodsDeut, 24. 1. Math, 5. 31. 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 theMath, 10. 9. Evangelists, byMar 10. 11. Luk. 6. 18. others [Page 2] 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 & fornicatiō, he might not onely put her away, but marrie another. Some others, and a­monge them namely S. Augustine, have thought that the man might put away his wife but marrie another he might not.

The Schooledivines of latter years, & the Canōists, as for the most parte they were adicted comonly to S. Austins iudgmēnt, did likewise follow him herein & the Popes mainteining their doctrine for Catholique, have possessed the church of Rome with this opinion. But since in our dayes the light of good learning both for artes & tongues hath shined more brightly by Gods most gracious goodnes then in the former ages, and the holy scriptures by the help thereof have bene the better vn­derstoode: the Pastors and Doctors of the reformed Churches have percieved & shewed, that if a mans wife defile her self with fornication, he may not onely put her away by Christs Doctrine but also marrie another. Wherein that they teach agreeably to the truth, and not erroneously, as Iesuits & Papists doe falsly and vniustly charge them. I will make manifest and prove (through Gods assistance) by expresse words of Christ, the truth it self. And because our adversaries doe weene that the cōtrarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguments and obiect­tions, which two of their newest writers Bellarmin the Iesuit & a namelesse author of an English pamphlet, have dilligētly laid together: For the farther clearing therefore of the matter, and taking away of doubts & scruples I will set downe all their ob­iections in order, first out of the scriptures then of fathers, last of reasons, and answer everie one of them particularly. So shall it appeare to such as are not blinded with a fore-conceived opinion and prejudice, that whatsoever shewe of probabilities ate brought to the contrarie, yet the truth delivered by our Sa­viour Christ alloweth him whose wife committeth fornication to put her away and marrie another.

The proofe hier of is evident if Christs wordes be weighed in the niententh Chapter of S. Mathews gospell. ForMath. 19. 3. when the Pharises asking him a question, whether it were lawfull for a [Page 3] man to put away his wife for everie cause, received answer that it was not, and therevpon saide vnto him, Why did Moses then commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way: Our Sa­viour sayde vnto them; Moses suffered you because of the hardnes of your harte to put awaye your wifes: But from the beginning it was not so. And I say vnto you, that, whosoever shall put away his wife, ex­cept it be for whoredome, and shall marrie another, doth commit adulterie: and who so marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adulterie.

Now in this sentence, the clause of exception [except it bee for whoredome] doth argue that he commiteth not adulterie, who, having put away his wife for whoredome marrieth another.

But he must needes commit it in doing so vnles the band of marrirge be loosed and disolved. For who so marrieth another as long as he isRom. 7▪ vers 2 boūde to the former,vers, 3. is an adulterer. The band then of marriage is loosed & dissolved betwene that man and wife who are put assunder and divorced for whoredome.

And if the band beloosed, the man may marry another: se­ing it is written1, Cor, [...]. vers. 27. Art thou loosed from a wife? If thou marrie thou sinnest not. vers. [...]8. Therefore it is lawfull for him who hath put away his wife for whoredome to marrie another.

This argument doth firmly and necessarily cōclude the point in question, if the first parte & proposition of it be proved to be true. For there is no controversie of any of the rest: beinge all grounded on such vndoubted principles of scripture & rea­son, that our adversaries themselves admit and graunt them all.

The firstBessa [...]min Tom, 2 contr 4 libr. de ma­trimonij sacr. cap. 5 16. et 7 The Pamphlet ter in his refu­tation of the discourse tou­ching the law fulnesse of marriadge af­ter divorceior whoredome. they denie to weete that the clause of ex [...]eption in Christs speech [except it be for whoedome] doth argue that the mā committeth not adulterie, who, having put awaie his wife for whoredome, marrieth another. And to overthrowe this pro­position, they doe bring soudry answers and evasions. The best of all which as Bellarmin avoucheth, is, that those words [except it bee for whoredome] are not an exception. For Christ (saith he) ment those words Nisi ob for nicationem. [except for whoredome] not as an exception, but as a negation. So that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife. except for whoredome; that is to saie Extra cousā fornicatio­nis. without the cause of whore­dome, & shall marrie another doth commit adulteric. Whereby it is af­firmed that he is an adulterer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredoe, marrieth another: but nothing is sayde touching [Page 4] him who marrieth another, having put away his former wife for whore dome. In deede this evasion might have some collour for it, if these words of Christ [except it be for whoredome] were not an ex­ception. But neither hath Bellarmin ought that maye suffice for the proofe hereof and the verie text of the [...]cripture it selfe is soe cleare against him, that he must of necessitie give over his houlde. For the principal pillar wherewith he vnder proppeth it, is S.De adulte­ [...] in conjug: lib [...]cap. 9. Austins iudgmēt, who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marriages: Now of that treatise S. Retractat. lib. 2. cap. 57. Austin saith himselfe in his retractations I have written two bookes touching adulterous marriages, as neere as I could according to the scripturs being desirous to open and loose the knotts of a most difficult question. Which whether I have done so that no knott is left therein, I know not: nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly, and throughly, although I have opened many creeckes thereof, as whosoever readeth with iudgment may discerne. S. Augustin then acknow­ledgeth that there are some wants & imperfectiōs 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 cōpasse of that cēsure I appeale to their iudgmēt who have eies to see: For S. Augustin thought that the word in the orignial of S. Mathews gospel, had, by the Proper significatiō of it, imported a negation rather then an exception. AsDe adulter. con [...]ug lib. 1. cap. 11. he sheweth by saying that where the common Latin translation hath Ni [...]i ob For­nicationem [except for whoredome] in the Greeke text it is rather read Piaeter cau­sam Fornica­tionis without the cause of whoredome. Supposing belike (whether by slipp of me­mory or rather oversight)P [...]ctós Lò­gou porneias. that the same words, which were v­sed before in the fift Chapter of S. Mathews Gospel to the same purpose, were vsed also in this place: whereas here theyei [...]my epi porneia differ, and are well expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so well. Howbeit, if thy had bene the same with the former: yet neither so might Bellarmin allowe his opinion: considering that the comon latin trāslation (which Papists by there Councel of Trent are bound to stande to vnder paine of ourse) expressethExcepta causa fornica­tionis those likewise as a plaine exception.

Which in deede agreeth to the right and naturall meaning of theParectòs. particle, asAct 26. 29. Parectoè ton desmou so patex in the Septuagint Sam. 21 9. 1 Reg. 3. 18. the like writers vse it in like construction: even1. Cor. 15. 27 then to, whē it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it vnto that mea­ning. [Page 5] Wherefore S,Ektos tou hy­po taxanto [...]. Austins mistaking of the worde and sig­nificatiō thereof is noe sufficiēt warrāt for Bellarmin [...] to ground on, that they must be taken so. As for that he addeth, that, albeitParectòs [...] & ei mi [...]. ei mi▪ Apo [...] 9. 4. [...], 27. both these particles be taken exceptively often times, yet may they also be taken otherwise, sith [...] one of thē is vsed in the Revelation as an adversative, not an exceptive: this maketh much le [...]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 questiōn 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 men [...]ioneth he then that it may-be takē 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, evē as if a Iew beeing pres­sed by a Christian with the place ofEsay. 7. 14. 2. Gnalma. 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 theProv. to. 19. 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 cānot conclude hereof with any reasō, 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 womā 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 [Page 6] supplied to make it percit sence, rather than their maister bee cast of as a wrāgler: 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, cōmitteth 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 authēticall latin text also doth out of controversie betokē 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 edul [...]erie to marrie another; and this is an exception af­firmative: or because nothing is pres [...]tly determined touching that cause, whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe; and this is an exceptiō 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 l [...]wdly and porversly, by calling that affirmative, which in deed [...] is ne­gative, [Page 7] 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 Esay, 5. 20 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 Exod. 22. 20 He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lorde onely, shalbe destroyed saieth Moses in the lawe. The propo­sition is affirmative, He that sacrificeth to my Gods shalbe destroyed.

The exception negative. He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed.Mar. 10. 18. 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.Act. 26. [...]. 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 ex­ceptiō negative. I wish not in bonds they were such as I amPhil. 4. 10. No Church did communicate with me in the account of giving & receiving [...]saving you onely sayth the same Paul to the Phillippians. The Pro­position negative No church did cōmunicate with me in the account of giving and receiving. The exceptiō affirmative You of Philippi did.

Likewise in all the rest of excep [...]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 Iesuits dealing, how falsly and absurdly he speaketh a­gainst truth & reasō. 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 [Page 8] 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 ētiteleth it an exceptiō 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 ōf 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 exceptiō 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 L. Qui ra­cet D. de regulis juris. 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 Corinthiās 1. Cor. 2. 11. 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 sinnersLuk. 13. 3. Yee shall all perish except yee repent: He might replie thereto that the exceptiō 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 heLovit. 2 [...]. 37 is forbidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie, Ezek. 18, 13. or to take encrease: & a theefe that he isEphes. [...]. 28 commanded To labour & woorke, & 2. Thess. 3 12 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 [Page 9] 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. Whi [...]h whether they doe, or no, I will, with the cōsent & liking (I do [...]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 pr [...]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 iudgmēt doe knowe that this were a rea­dy way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule (as Hierar. lib. 3 Cap. 3. Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it) if every one may adde not what the circūstances & matter of the text sheweth to bee wanting, but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof as [Page 10] 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 incōvenience of that kinde of dealing.

ForQuaest 76. in Math. 19. 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 Alphō ­sus Alphons a Castro advers hae [...] lib 1 [...]. tit Nuptiae. 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 hēe 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 awaye his wife al­though it bee for whoredome, and shall marrie another, doth commit ad­ulterie. In Matt, 19 Nicolas [...]f Lira beeing, as in time more auncient then the frier, soe more sincere and single in handling the scripture, saith that other words must bee interposed to the supplying of it thus. whoso putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome, sin­neth, and doth agaynst the lawe of marriage; and whoso marrieth ano­ther doth commit adulterie. Wherein though hee deale lesse vyo­lently with the text, then doe the frier and the Bishop: yet hee offendeth also in their licētious humour of adding to the scrip­ture, where nothing was wanting, and making it thereby to speake that which hee thinketh, whereas he should have learn­ed to thinke that which it speaketh. yea Bellarmin him self ac­knowledgeth [Page 11] that they all were overseene herein, albeeit censuring them with gentler words, as he is wont his favorites and freinds. For the explicationsl (sayth hee) which the Bishop of A­uila, Alphonsus a Castro, and others have devised, are not soe probable.

But why should these be noted by him as improbable, yea denyed vnworthy the rehersall, and that of his owne, though adding in the like sorte, which is not lawfull, be allowed as proba­ble, yea magnyfied as most true by the pamphletter? The rea­sons which they both, or rather which Ballarmin, for the pamphletter doth no more here but English him, as neither els where for the most parte, though hee bragg not thereof: the reasōs then which Bellarmin doth presse out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous schollers that this interpositō is pro­bable and likely, are pressed indeed according to the proverb; The wringing of the nose causeth bloode to come out. For hee sayth that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shall marrie another, but straight after those whosoever shall put awaie Prov 30. [...]. and likewise when hee added, and whoso marrieeth her that is put away committeth adulterie hee did not ioyne thereto; Except it bee for whore­dome: to the intent that hee might shewe that the cause of whoredome doth onely make the putting away to be lawful, & not the celebrating of a newe marriage too. And how doth he prove that Christ did soe place the exception in the former clause to this intent? or to this intent did omit it in the latter? Nay hee proveth it not; it is but his coniecture, like a sick 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 hee meant it should, it was for want of a better. For Christ did not these things without cause I graunt Therefore he did thē for this cause; it foloweth not. S. Paule, having occasion to cite a place of scripture doth set it downe thus.2 Cor, 6. [...] Come yee out from among thē, & seperate your selves saith the Lorde, and touche noe vncleane thing. Herein hee hath placed the words sayth the Lord, not after touch noe vncleane thing but after, seperate your selves. This did he not without cause, What? for this cause therefore that he might restraine the words, sayth the Lord, to the former branch as not pertayning to the later also? No for it appeareth by theEsay 52, 1 [...] Ptophet Esay that they belong to both. It is to be thought then, that the spirit of [Page 12] God who doth nothing without cause, did move Paul for some cause to place thē soe. [...] perhaps for perspicuity & commodious­nesse of geving other men thereby to vnderstand the rather that both the words going before, and cōming after were qualified with sayth the Lord. which is to be likewise thought of the exception placed by our Saviour betweene the two branches of his speech. And that with soe much greater reason, in my iudgment because if hee had placed it after the later And shall mar­rie another, the words▪ Epi porneia. Except for whoredome might have seemed to signifie that it were lawfull for a man having put away his wife for any cause,Dia tis por­neia, to marrie another, if hee could not conteine; as it is written [...]1. Cor, 7, 2 because of whoredome, let every man have his wife: where now, the exception being set before (the pharisies whose question Christ therein did answer) could gather noe such poy­son out of his words: to feede their error: but they must need­es acknowledge this to be his doctrine, that a man may not put away his wife for everie cause, and marry another, but for whoredome onely. As for Christs omitting of the exception afterward, Bellarmin himself will quickly see there might bee another cause thereof, if hee consider how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omitt the exception, which neverthelesse must needes bee supplyed and vnderstoode. For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons, 1, Cor. 7. 10. the Lorde gave com­maudement; Let not the wife departe from her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife; without adding to either parte, except it bee for whoredome, which the Lord did add? Bellarmi [...]s greatest Tho, Aquin in 1 Cor 7. [...]ect. 2. Doctor saith that hee omitted it because it [...]was very well knowne, most notorious. If then S, Paul had reason to omitt it wholy because it was so well knowne: How much more iustly might Christ in parte omitt it for the same cause, having menti­oned it immediatly before, & made it knowne thereby? Chiefly s [...]ing that as hee framed his speech to mens vnderstanding, so did he folow the common vse of men therein. And if I should say vpon the like occasion whosoever draweth his sword, except he be a magistrate, and killeth a man committeth murder; and whosoever ab­betteth him that killeth a man committeth murder: what man of sense and reason would not thinke I meant that the exception set downe in the former sentence touching māquellers pertaineth [Page 13] to the later of there abbetters also, and vttered once must serve for both? yea, even in the former too, who would not thinke that my meaning were the exceptiō should reach, vnto both the branuches of drawing the sword, & killing a man; not to bee ab­ridged & tyed vp vnto the first, as if I had said, whosoever draweth his sword (which none may doe except he bee a magistrate) & killeth a man, committeth murder? yet one who were disposed to play the Iesuites parte, might thus expound my speech, and say I taught thereby that Peter in deede was iustly reproved for drawing his sword though,Mat 26. 12. he killed not: But magistrates are authorized to draw it, and noe more, not to put men, to death, &Rom. 13. 4 to take ven­geaunce on him that doth evill. Neithet should he doe mee greater wrong▪ there in by making mee to speake contrarie 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 exceptiō of whordome is to be extēded to both the points iointly of putting away & marrying: & that Bellarmin adding these words, which is not lawfull, did vnlaw­fully sow a patch of humaine raggs to the whole garment of Gods most precious word: behold their owne doctrine allowed & established by the Councel of Trēt, shall force them, will they, nill they to see it & acknowledg it. For if the exceptiō 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 cōpanie & society of life, although he marry not another. But the Councel of Trēt pronounceth and defineth,Ses [...] 24. cā. 8 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 exceptiō can­not so bee tyed vnto the former point onely. And therefore whereas Bellarmin sayeth further that he thīketh it isGh 4. dist 35. quaest an [...]ct. S. Thomas of Aquines opiniō that Christs words should bee expounded so: & adult. Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde: the Papists peradventure wilbe faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein. For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse butIn Mat. 19. Thomas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts & chiefest light of the Church of Rome shalbe conviuced of errour, even by the Councell of Trents verdict.

And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of [Page 14] 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. King [...] 18 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 sen­te [...]ce that a Christiā should, who can finde in his heart to have it devided; & of one living body, nāely, Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whordōe and, marrieth another, cōmitteth 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 secōd, whoso marrieth another cōmiteth adultrie. Which dealing, beside the incōveniēce of making the scripture a nose of waxe & lead̄e rule, if men may add what pleaseth thē, spetialy if they may also māgle sentēces, & chop thē 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 cōmit 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 cōmitt it, another to commit it himself. And ^y Christ when hee was minded to note these severall faults, did it withPoiei autin moichastai & molcha [...]ai. severall words expressinge them accordinglye. Moreover, vnderstandinge the tearme, to put away, not asApolue in Lelusai. 1 cor. [...]27, the force thereof doth yeeld, & Christ tooke it for loosing of the bād 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: TheExtra tit. de divortij [...] Church of Rome erreth in houlding and decreeing that shee may bee seperated [Page 15] for sundrie other causes. But whosoever sayth that the Churche erreth herein, is accursed by theSess [...] 4, can. 28, Councell of Trent. The Coun­cell of Trent therefore doth cōsequently curse Bellarmin, if hee say that Christ spake his wordesin that sense, in which he cōstrueth them. And doth it notcurseLib. contra Adimant, cap 3. Austin also, &in Matt, 19. Theophilact, whō Bellarmin alleageth as saying the same? at least it declareth that in the Coūcels iudgment, the fathers missexpoūd the Scrip tures sometymes, even those verie places on which the Papists cite thē 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 whoredōe marrieth another, cōmitteth not adulterie. For soe much importeth the exception negative of the cause of whoredōe, opposed to the generall affirmative propositiō, wherewith our Saviour answered the question of the Pharisies touchcing divorcemēts 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 EpistleIame [...], 4. 17 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 [Page 16] 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. Ama [...]tia auto estiu. 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)Ioh 9, 41. Eicheteamar­ti [...]n. he told thē that they [...] 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 not generally of sinne, but of sinne being & cleaving to a man in spetiall & peculiar sort. For asLuk. 12, 47 the servant that knew his Maisters will, and did not according to it, shalbe beaten with many stripes: but he that knew it not, and yet did com­mitt things worthy of stripes, shalbee beaten with fewe. Likewise in trās­gression 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 conclusiō 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,Tho Aquin Hugo Card et Guilliand. in Iacob. 4 his doctors well considered may. But take the right meaning & the conclusion wilbe 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 frō Christs sentence is rather con­firmed thē preiudiced by this example. Yea let even. S. De adult. conjug. lib. 1. cap. 9. Austin, whose authoritie Bellarmin doth ground on herein, be diligently marked: And himself in matching these sentēnces together be­wrayeth an oversight, which being corrected will helpe the truth with light & strēgth. For to make the one of thē 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, [Page 17] Moechat [...]o est illi to him there is the cryme of committing adulterie. Now Christ hath notMoicheia au to esti [...] 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;Moichatai. 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 lye [...] 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 Monk [...]is are devoyd of reason. or this All long­eared 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 mu [...]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 [Page 18] therefore sith hee sinneth who stealethProv 30, 9. 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 s [...]ribs b [...]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 sentēces are no more like to Christs, thē 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 conclusiō 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 cōmitteth 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 whordōe, may lawfully marrie another, as I there declared: it followeth by the like necessity, of cōsequēce, 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.

SAinct Austin in his learned bookes of Christian Doctrine, wherein hee geves rules how to finde the right and true sence of Scriptures, doth wellDe doct [...], Christ lib. 2 [...]. cap. 9. 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 dis [...]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 ūcertayne.

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 hith [...]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 touch [...]d; or in gen [...]rallity sett downe more briefly, and soe more darkly and obs [...]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 larg [...]r, the vncertaine and ambiguous by the vndoubted and certayne. But seeing they have chosen to foll­ow S. Austins oversights rather thē his best advises in like sorte asCicero lib. 2. de o [...]at. Furius, an orator of Rome did imitate Fimbria whose force of speech and arguments hee attained not to, but pronoun [...]ed [Page 20] broadly and set his mouth awry like him: wee must say of thē as Christ of the PharisiesMatt 15. 14. Let them alone, they are blynd leaders of the blynd: and ourselves endevour to follow S. Augustin in that he followed Christ, who clearedMatt 19, vers [...] the darker place of Moses byvers 4. et 8. the playner word and ordinance of God. The which if wee doe, wee shall (by Gods grace) easily perceive, that none af all the places alleaged by our adversaries, doth make agaynst the doc­trine already prooved and concluded.

For the first of them is in the fifth of Mathew Matt 5, 32 Whosoever shall putt away his wife, except it for whordome, doth cause her to commit adulterie, And whoso marrieth her that is put away doth committ ad­ulterie, These words (sayth Bellarmin; and looke what Bellarmin sayth the pamphletter sayth with him, so that one of their na­mes may serve for both and reason Bellarmin have the honour) These words. And whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adulterie, must be either generally taken without exception, or with the exception. Except it bee for whoredome. If generally, Then he who marrieth her that is put away, even for whoredome too, doth committ adulterie. The band then of Marriage is not d [...]solved and loosed by her putting away: but company debarred onely. For hee that marrieth her should not commit adulterie vnlesse shee were bound yet to her former husband. And thus farr Bellarmin sayth well; but superfluou­sly. For the words may not bee generally taken, sith they have relation to the former sentence, whereto they are coupled; and that sentence speaketh of her which is put away except for whore dome. Their meaning then must n [...]edes bee that hee who marrieth her which is so put away doth commit adulterie. Neither could Bellarmin bee ignoraunt hereof, or doubt with any likely hoode, but that this is our iudgment, and would bee our ans­wer. Wherefore his two forked dispute about the words, was a flourish onely to make vs a frayde: as if hee fought with a two hand sword, which would kill all that came in his way. But now hee goeth forward vpon his enemies pike, & layeth about him on the other side. If the words must bee taken with the excep­tion: then hee that marrieth a whore put away from her husband, committeth not adulterie. And consequently the whore is in better case then the innocent and chaste. For the whore is free and may be married, wheras the innocent that is vniustly put away, can neither have [Page 21] her former husband, nor marrie another. But this most absurd, that the law of Christ beeing most iust, would have her to bee in better case and state, that is iustly put away, then her that is vniustly. For an­swer vnto which reason of Bellarmin, I would spurr him a question, whether by the Popes law, which forbiddeth a man that Extra de bi­gamis cap. Super eo. hath bene twise maried, orc de big a­mis. hath maried a widow, to take H. or­ders & admitteth on thereto that hath kept or happely keepeth many concubines, a whormonger bee in better case then an honest man: and if a whoremonger bee so by the Popes law,c, Quia circa whe­ther wee ought to iudge that this is most absurd or noe. Here if hee should answer mee that the Popes law is not most iust and therefore noe marvell if it have some such things as were most absurd to bee imagined by Christs law: I must acknowledge hee spake reason. Well, I would spurre him then another questiō, whether hee thinke that I am in better case then any Iesuit, yea, then the best of them all. Phy hee will answer, there is noe cō ­parison. The best? nay the worst of them is in better case then I am: Yet I may marry if I list: and none of them may because of their vowe. Belike this Vow-Doctrine was not established by the law of Christ, which is most iust, but byExtra. c. me minimus. Quiclerici velvoventes. the Popes lawe rather. Or it is most absurd that a poore Christian should bee in better case, then the proudest Iesuit. But heere peradventure the man will say rather that wee are Heretiques, and they Catholiques, and the meanest Catholique is in better case, even for his faiths sake, then any Heretique whatsoever: 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 own argu­ment. For by this answere hee cannot chuse but graunt that the simplest woman being put away vnjustly from her husband is in better case for her chastities sake, though shee may not mar­rie, then whatsoever whore that may. And I hope hee wil not say that the stewes and curtizans at Rome are in better case then honest matrons there, divorced from their husbands. Yet may none of these, while their husbands live bee ioyned to others: whereas the curtizans are free to marrie whom they will, if any will marrie them, who are soe free. Howbeit, lest any place of cavelling bee left him, and of pretending a difference betweene those, who having had the vse of marriage lose the benefit of it, [Page 22] and those who lose it not, having never had it: I will sett before him a playne demonstration therof in married persons. Seianus (as theCorn. Taci­tus Annal. lib 4 Di [...]. lib. 7. Romaine Historie recordeth) did putt away his wife Apicata vnjustly: thereby to winne the rather the favour of Livia, which was the wife of Drusus. Livia being carried away with the wicked entisements of Seianus was not onely nought of her body with him, but consented also to make away her husband Drusus with poyson, Now let Bellarmin tell vs whether of these two were in better case Apicata or Livia; Livia the adulteresse & murderesse of hir husband, being free to marry, or chast Api­cata, being bound to live solitary. If hee say Livia should have bene put to death by theLege Pom­peia de Parri­cidis Romaine law because of her murder and then had shee not bene in better case then Apicata for liberty to marrie: I reply that likewise by the law ofLevit 20. 10 Moses the woman whom Christ speaketh of, should have bene put to death, because of her adultery, and soe the doubt here ceased too. But the law of Moses being left vnexe [...]ut [...]d on the adulterous wo­man, as the Romain was for the tyme of Livia: let Bellarmin āswer to the poynt, not as of Livia onely, but of any whore that hath wrought her husbands death, and for want of proofe, or through the Magistrats fault is suffered to live, whether shee be in better case then an honest, chast, religious matron, that is put away from her husband vnjustly. Which if hee dare not say, considering on the one side the plagues thatDeut 28 15. in this life, andRevel, 21. 8 in the life to come are layd vp for such mis [...]reants, on the other, the blessed1, Tim, 4, 8 promises of them both assur [...]d to the Godly: then hee hath noe refuge, but hee must needs confesse that his argu­ment was fond. For the murdering whore is not an adulteresse by the law of Christ, though shee take another man, her husband being deade: and yet the chast matron were an adulteresse if shee married while her husband liveth, who hath vnjustly putt her away. Wherein this notwithstāding is to be weighed, that a chast womans case is not so hard in comparison of the whores.

No. Not for marriage neither, as Bellarmin by cunning of speech would make it seeme, to [...]ounten [...]unce therewith his reasō. For he frameth hisNam F [...]r­mearia libera est er nubere potest: inno­cens autem in iustè dimissa, nec Priorem virum habere potest, nec al­ [...] nubere. words so, as if the [...]hast had no possibility of remedy at all, neither by having her former husband, nor by marrying another: & therefore were in worse case thē the whore [Page 23] who is free to marrie, whereas the truth is, that by Christs lawe shee not1. Cor 7. ver 11. onely may, butvers, [...] ought to have her former husband.

And why should not shee bee as likely to recover her hus­bands goodwill, to whom shee hadd bene faithfull: as a fayth­lesse whore and infamous strumpett to get a newe husband?

Chiefly seing that it is to bee presumed they loved ech other wh [...]n they married: and experience sheweth thatTerenc. Andr. Falling out of Lovers is a renewing of love. But if through the frowardnes of men on the one side, & foolishnes on the other, the chaste wife could hardly recōcile her husbād, the whore get easily a match: it suffic [...]th that the law of Christ cannot bee justly charged with absurdity, though it doe enlarg the vnchast and lewd in some outward thing, in which it enlargeth not the chast. No more thenIer 17. 1. the providence of God may bee controlled and noted of iniquity thoughpsal 73. 5. the evill & wicked enioy certaine earthly bles­sings in this life, which are not graunted to the vpright & god­ly. Wherefore the first place of Scripture out of S. Mathew enforcrd by Bellarmin, with hisDilemma Cornutus Syl logismus. horned argument (as the Lo­gitions tearme it) doth serve him as much to annoy our cause: a [...] the Iron hornes made in Achabs favour by Zedechiah the falce prophet did stand him in stead to push and consume the hoste of the Aramites

The second place is written in the tenth of Marke. Mark 10. 1 [...] Who so putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adulterie a­gaynst her: and if a woman put away her husband, and be married to another shee committeth adulterie. The like whereof is also in the sixteenth of Luke Luk 16. 1 [...] whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth an­other, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. These words (sayth Bellar­min) doe teach generally, that marriage cōtracted & perfected betweene the faithfull, is never so dissolved that they may lawfully ioyne in other wedlocke. And whereas wee answer that these general sentences are to be expounded with a saving of the exception mentioned inMat 19, 9. Mathew, because one Evangelist doth add oftentymes that another omitteth; & Mathew els where contrary vnto Marke and Luke, which (sith they all wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit of truth) is impossible: Bellarmin replieth that the E­vangelists in deed omitt or add somewhat now and than, which other EEvangelists [Page 24] have not omitted or added; but they doe never omitt in such sorte that the sentence is made false. A straunge kinde of speeche As if all generall sentences were false from the which some spe­tialtie, though not expressed in the same place, yet by conf [...]rēce with others, is vnderstood to bee expressed. Sure the Civill Lawe which in learned mens opinions hath much truth, will then bee stayned foully with vntruthes and lyes. For how many sentences and rules are set downe in it with full and generall tearmes, whereof notwithstāding there is noneL [...]mmis definitio D. de regul. jur [...]s lightly but suffereth an exception. The Canon law also (whose creditt and authority Bellarmin must tender, howsoever he doe the Civill) hath store of such axiomes, andEod▪ tit in Sex [...] c Generi per Speciem derogatur E Dig: l [...]in toto jure. teacheth accordingly That a particular doth derogate from the generall. But what speake I of mens lawes? In the Scripture it self Iob sayth thatIob 20, 7 The hipocrite shall perish for ever, like the dung: and David, that the Psal 9, 17 wicked shall turne into hell, all nations that forgett God. & Salomon that Prov 16, 5 Everie provd-harted man is an abomination to the Lord; though hand ioyne in hand hee shall not bee vnpunished. These sentences of Iob & David and Salomon, are true in the belief of Christians; yet forasmuch as they must bee vnderstood with an exception, according to the Doctrine ofLuk. 13, 3 Christ andEsay, 16, et 55. 7 Luk, 3, 8. Act 2, 8. his servants, saying vnto sinners Except Yee repent Yee shall all perish: in the Iesuits iudgement they are made false. And Ionas semblablie, when hee preached to the Ninivits, Ionas 3, 4 Yet forty days, and Niniveh shalbe overthowen, abvsed thē with an vntruth: thoughAben Ezra on [...]er 18, 7 Nic Lyranus. 10. Ferus. Trein [...] et Iun. in [...]onam. learned men doe finde a trueth in his speech, as being to be thus taken that Niniveh should bee over throwen except it repented. Or if Bellarmin also acknowledg the same, which hee may not choose, vnlesse of a Iesuit hee will be­come a Iulian, and quite renounce the Christian fayth: then ac­knowledgeth hee that hee playeth the parte of a guilefull So­phister or a malitious Rhetoriciā, in signifying that the sentēce of Christ is made false, if it bee expounded and vnderstoode with an exception otherwhere expressed. And withall by con­sequence hee acknowledgeth farther, that it is an idle & brayn­sick amplification whi [...]h herevppon he [...] lavisheth out Iesuit like and vaynely mispendeth paynes and tymes about it, by saying, that els (if the sentence forsooth were false) the Evangelists had decei­ved men to whom they delivered their Gospells making noe mention of [Page 25] other Evangelists and that when Marke wrote his gospel at Rome received by the preaching of Peter, hee did not send the Romaeines backe to Mathews gospel, as to a commentary: Nay if Mathews gospel hadd bene then at Rome in the hands of the faythfull, it may be wel thought that Marke would 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 lib 3 cap [...] Ire­naeelib 2. hist. cap. 15 Eusebius and lib de viris illustrib us in Marco. Ierom geve this cause; and that Luke wrote his Gospel for those nations to whom Paul had preached, and vnto whō the booke of Mathew and Marke were not yet come, but certayne false writings of False Evangelists onely: as Luk. 1. 1. himself sheweth briefly, and it is more clearly gathered out of Commen in Luc cap 1. Ambrose,lib 3. hist. cap 24. Eusebius and l [...]b de viris illustribus in Luca. Ierom.

And in conclusiō, that the things th [...]refore which Marke and Luke say, must be absolutely true, & not depend of Mathews words, vnlesse our meaning bee that they were deceived, who did read Marke or Luke without Mathew. For by this reason of Bellarmin the words of Iob, David, Salomon and Ionas, must bee absolutely true, and not depend of Christs words in Luke or by Esay: vnles our meanig be, 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 whom 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 mē over vnto Luke or Esay as to a comentarie; Nay Iobs words were vttered, before either of them, or any of Christs pen-men of the whole Scripture wrote, asOrigen in Iob lib 5. Athanas in synops. sacr. script August de civitat. Dei lib 18. cap. 4 [...]. Theodore [...] in Ier Q [...]ae [...] 92 Chrysost poly chron sundry of the Fathers doe probably teach: &Iona [...] 4. 5. Ionas did looke that Niniveh should be over throwē according to his absolute speech, so farre was he of from sēding the Ninivites to such as specifie the exception, besides that, had hee sent them, whither should they have gone, who neither knewe the Scriptures, and2. King 14. 25 lived before the tyme of Luke and Esay both? David too, and Salomon, were their auncients farre and ech did sett forth the one his Psalmes, the other his Pro­verbs (even those which they did writ) not all at once but by partes; and partlypsal 9 8. 30 5 et [...]o. Prov [...]o et. 25. [...] et. 3 [...] their owne titles, and2 Chron 16 [...] 1 King. 4. [...]1. other Sciptures ar­gue, partlySynops. Sacr Script, Athanasius, Argum in Psalm. David [...] Theodoret, andcomment. in psalm. praesat. Bede signifie: neither [Page 26] did Luke or Esay write to add ought to the Psalmes or Proverbs, or to the words of Iob or Ionas, asIn the boo­kes of Ghro­nicles. 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 Iscariot, 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 have 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 notwithstanding might be expounded by Mathew, and soe much the rather, Mathew having specified an exception, that Marke omitteth: asL. Regula est. D. de reg. [...]uris, the Lawiers teach that their 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 spider-webb that I have woven after Bellarmins patterne, it is contrariewise; that Esay and Luke did not write to add ought to the Psalmes or Proverbs, or to the words of Iob or Ionas; which hath greater colour to prove that their sayinges should not bee absolutely true, and not depend 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 Bellarmin 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, a proud-harted man, shall not bee forgiven & saved though hee repent: much more must hee acknowledg a fault, in his disputing and gathering out of Marke & Luke that a man having put awaye his wife maye not marrye another, though hee have put her away for whoredome. And hereby wee may see what honour they both, himself and the pamphlet ter, who in this whole discourse goeth with him soote by foote, save that by enterlacing more fond vnsavory words, h [...]e over-runneth him sometymes: a cover well beseeming and worthy [Page 27] such a cuppe, onely somewhat broader; but hereby wee may see what honour they have doneDe adulterin conjug. li. 1. cap. 9. 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 wickedmen 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 CollosiansCol 3. 20 Children obey your Parents in all things: & Prophets were honoured with the name of Fathers, not onely by their2 King 2. 12 schollers, the children of the Prophets, but also by the 2 Kin. 6. 21. et 13, 1 [...]. Kings of Israel: theBell. tom [...] cont 3, lib, 2. cap, 31. title of Father gevē to all priests though not in such degree as toPapa pater patrum. [...]0: Andr in Cle­mentinar, procem. the Pope, yet to all priests and to Ie­suits especialy, insomuch that aAllen in his Apologie of the English seminaries chap, 6, great person of Rome doth terme them not Fathers onely with the people, but the Reverend Fathers, the Catholique Fathers, the good Fathers of the society of the holy name of Iesus: this title then applied and geven to them all will quickly winne their schollers to thinke that theHeb 13. 17 Allen Apolo­gie chap 4. obedience commaunded towards them is obedience in all things. Now we protestants teach that neverthelesse supposing they were in deed Fathers not caterpillers of the Churche, yet if Priest or Iesuit or the Pope himself should commaund a man to commit murder or whoredome, or theft, hee might not bee obeyed, because it is written in the Epistle to the EphesiausEphes, 6. [...] Children obey your Pa­rents in the Lord, whence that to the Collosians ought to bee ex­pounded, that Parents must bee so farre forth obeyed, in all things as standeth with the dewty which children owe to God, and in pietie they may. But if some Catholique Father should denie this, and say (like Father Robert) that S. Paule in deed om­mitteth or addeth somewhat in one Epistle, which hee hath not omitted or added in another, but hee doth never omit in such sorte that the sen­tence [Page 28] is made faulse: for els S. Paule hadd deceived the Collossians to whom hee sent that Epistle, making no mention of that other to the E­phesians: And surely when hee wrote to the Collosians from Rome, he did not send them back to his Ephesian Epistle as to a commentary; nay if that Epistle had bene in their hands, it may bee well thought, that hee would not have written to them. Eor hee did not write the Epistle to the Collossians thereby to add ought to that which he had writtē vnto the E­phessians, as hee did the later to the Corinthians, or Thessalonians, after the former, but onely to reclayme the Collossians from their errour, that man is reconciled, and hath accesse to God by Angels, and to corect their Iewish and Heathenish observations; for H [...]m. [...] in epist ad colloss. Chrysostō Argument, epist, Theophylact, and Argum. 2 e Theodore [...]. Oecumenius geve this cause. That which Paule therefore sayth to the Collossians must bee absolutly true, and not depend of that he sayth to the Ephesians, vnlesse our meaning bee that they were deceived, who read the Epistle to the Collossians without the other. If some Catho­lique Father (I say) should speake thus, agaynst our interpreting of Scripture by Scripture, would not his children (trow yee) thinke it strongly & invincibly proved, that they must obey him absolutely in all things? Chiefly, if as Father Robert bringeth Austin, soe he broughtMonast. in stitut lib. 4. cap. 27. [...] F [...]r so the Syriaque word Abba (whence Ab­bat cometh) doth signifie Rom 8. [...]5. Cassianus S. Chrisostoms scholar in, who prayseth one Mutius (a novice of an Abbey in Egypt) as a most worthy paterne of obedience to his Abbat or, Father, as you would say, for that he was ready to cast his owne natural sonne a litle child, into the River at his commandemēt & soe as much as lay in him did murder his son, but that some by the Abbats appoyntement did receive him beinge caste out of his Fathers hands towards the River, and saved him from drowning. For heecassian li 4 cap 2 [...]. who extolleth this Novices fayth and devotion to Heavē, affirming that the Abbat was by revelation straightway adver­tised, that Mutius hadd performedGenes [...]. 10 Abraham the Patriarks worke by the obedience, as if there were noe difference between theGenes. 22. 2 Lords commandement and an Abbats might have for­med a sent [...]n [...]e like Austins in defence thereof: Who are wee that wee should say, Children in some things must obey their Parents, and in some they must not, whereas the Scripture sayth. Children obey your Parents in all things. By the which construction whatsoever a mans mother should command him, must bee obeyed too, shee being comprehended in the name of Parents: and what [Page 29] soever a mans2. King [...]. 1 Maister should command, hee beeing also a Fa­ther, and whatsoevergen 45. 8. Iob. 29. 16. [...], Tim 5. 1. Act. 7. 2 et. 22. 1. any Governour should cōmand, or frend that hath done good, or an olde Gray-headed mā they being Fathers all, though not by nature, yet by office, benefit, or age. And then had King2 chron. 15. [...]6. Asa done evill in putting downe his mother Maachah from her state, because shee hadd made an Idole in a grove; & in breaking downe her Idoll; and stamping it, & bur­ning it. And1. Sam. 22. 17. Doeg the Edomite had deserved greater prayse then Sauls servants: sith they Would not move their hands to fal vp­om the Lords Priests, when their Maister bidd them: which Doeg did and ex [...]cuted his wrath to the vttermost. And theAct. 4. 5. et. [...] 29. Apos­tles hadd overseene themselves, when they disobeyed the high Priest, and rulers and Elders of Israel; and gave this reason of it Wee ought rather to obey God then men. Yea that wrecthed impi­ous & execrable fryer, who did more then barbarously murder his Soveraigne Lords theHENRIE the third 1589. August 2. French King the annoynted of the HIGHEST, may then bee excused, excused! nay commen­ded and praysed by trayt [...]rous papists, as having done that which hee ought: seing it is likely that either Pope or Priest, or Iesuit or Abbat, or some of his superiours commanded him to doe it. Such absurd consequents of Bellarmins affirming that Markes and Lukes words must bee absolutely true, and not depend of Mathew, doe shew what great reason hee had soe to speake. For it is written of the Cittie of Ierusalem, compared with the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites [...]zek. 6. 44. Such mother, Such daughter: in like sort may it be sayd of this constructiō of the holy Scripture compared with Bellarmins. Such consequēce, such antecedent. And thus farre of his second place.

The third is in the Epistle to the Romaines the sevēth chap. Rom. 7. 1. Knowe yee not bretheren (for I speake to thē that knowe the law) that the law hath Dominion over a man as long as hee liveth? For the wo­man, which is in subiection to a man, is bound by the law to the man while hee liveth: but if the man bee dead, shee is delivered from the law of the man. So then if while the man liveth, shee take another man, shee shalbe called an adulteresse: but if the may be dead shee is free from the law, soe that shee is not an adulteresse, though shee take another man. Out of which place and 1. cor. 7. 39 the like in the seaventh of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Wee gather (saith Bellarmin) that the band of marriage [Page 30] is never loosed but by death: and that seing it is not loosed, it remayneth after divorcement too, for whatsoever cause the divorce bee made. This doth Bellarmin gather: but gathering soe, hee reapeth that which the holy Ghost sowed not. For S. Pauls meaning in those words to the Romains and Corinthians was, that the band of marriage is not loosed comonly and ordinarily while both the parties live; not that absolutely, it is never loosed till one of thē die. As in the like case (to open the matter by his owne exam­ples) hee1 Cor 9. 7 sayth Who goeth to Warrfare any tyme at his owne cost? Now some have servd at their owne charges without pay some­tymes. For soe did theDionys, Halycarn ant Roman li. 9. Romā stocke of the Fabij agaynst the Vi­entians andHerod li. 8 Clinias an Athenian Citizen agaynst the Persians. But men for the most parte are waged publiquely therevnto. And that is the poynt which S. Paule respected. Againe1. Cor 9, 7 4. Aneaeus or Agape [...]or, Isac Tzerz in Lycopht. Who planteth a Vineyard, & eateth not of the fruite thereof? [...] Hee on whō they father the first occasion of that proverb Many things doe happen between the cupp and the lipp; is sayd not to have drunke of the fruite of the Vineyard which himselfe had planted, nor to have eaten thereof belyke. At least seingCic. de se­nectu [...]e. old men plant trees for their posterity, neither mightLevit 19. 23. the Iewes eate of their fruite in certayne yeares: It is more then likely that many of them did not. Some did not questionlesse: they namely, who sustained the curse which God denounced vnto them by Moses. Deut 28. 30 Thou shelt plant a Vineyard, and shalt not vse the fruite thereof. Yet S. Paule sayd wel, because such as plant Vines doe enioy them commonly. Agayne 1. Cor. 9. 7 who feedeth a flocke and eateth not of the milke of the flocke? They eat not of the milke, who doe not milke their sheepe at all: andVarr lib. 2. c. 2 de re Rust Columell. l. 7. c. 4. there bee who doe not, for feare of impayring thereby the lambs or woole. But it is sufficient for S. Pauls purpose, & the truth of his speech, that men in mostDeut 3 [...]. 14 Hom odyss. li 9. Arist. de hist a [...]alium lib. 3. Cato de re rust. cap 13. virgil. Elag. 3. cuntreis are wont to have thē milked: & they who vndertake the paines of feeding flockes, are accustomed to eate of the milkes of the flockes. AgaineEphes 5, 29 No man ever hated his owne flesh but nourisheth & cherisheth it▪ Cato the yonger, who slewe himself at Vtica, Plutarc Cato was so farr from nourishing and cherishing his body, that when his bo­wels being gushed out thereof, hee was not yet dead, hee tore them in pieces with his owne hands as2 Machab. 14. 46. Rasias also did. Neither would S. Paule have denied this: who knewe that1, Sam 31, 4 2. Sam▪ 7. 23. Mat 27. 5. many hadd [Page 31] killed themselves, and taken away all ioyes of life frō their flesh. Onely he meant that noe man hath ever lightly hated it, but e­very one doth nourish and cherish it rather. 2. Tim [...]. 4. Noe man that warreth entangleth himself with the affaiers of life, because he would please him that hath chosen him to be a Souldier. What? is this false, because Plutare. Crassus. the rich Crassus being chosen by the Romains to bee their Ge­nerall in Syria, did without all care of pleasing them, who chose him, plaie the marchant man and occupied himself in councels & money matters? Or because aPoly. lib [...]. band of Campanian souldyers, who served the king of Sicilie gave themselves to citizens trades and occupations, having by treachery seazed on Messana, dis­possessed the townesmen, devided their wives, goods and lands among thē, & a bād of Romans did the like in Rhegiū, to the discōtentmēt of such as chose thē to be soldiers, No. for the Apostle who exhorted Timothy 2 Tim ca. 2. [...] to behave himself as a good & honest sould yer of Christ, was not to learn that there are some vnhonest sould yers & retchlesse of their duty. But his meaning was, that sold­yers vsually do employ thēselves on warrlike exercises, not on civill affayers, or domesticall busines, whē they are chosen once to serve, & in the same sence did he likewise say, that a married womā is bound by the law vnto her husbād while he liveth: because the band of marriage is not vsually and ordinarily loosed, but by death, though it may bee loosed, and is sometymes otherwise, on rare vnwontted causes. Which is apparant to have bene his meanning by that hee teacheth1 Cor 7, 15 that if an vnbeleeuing man, who hath a Christian wife, doe forsake her, then Lu ded [...]culo tas Eleutera estin. shee is not in bondage. For if she be not in bondage, shee isinnocent. ta. [...], c. quant [...] extra de di­vortijs, free to marrie: as the words of Scrip­ture imply by the contrary, and thevers. 39. Pope declareth. If shee bee free to marrie the band of the former marriage is loosed, els were shee bound and not free. Wherefore sith the popes au­thenticall record doth prove out of S. Paule, that a wife in some case is free to marrie another while her husbād liveth, the Papists must acknowledg that S. Paul meant, the band is not comonly loosed but by death, not that it is never at all loosed otherwise absolutely and simply. Bellarmin to frustrate and avoyde this answere, sayth that it may bee proved by foure reasons: which hee bringeth forth poore, vnarmed, weake ones of his owne mustering, and with a strong hand putteth them to flight: [Page 32] that soe men imagining these are all that can be alleaged on our side for the proofe thereof, might thinke that our whole force is quite discomfited and Bellarmin hath wone the feilde. I have heard say that there is cunning in daubing. Surely there is cunning in this kinde of dealing. Neither is it for nothing that Birstow, Motive. 31. one of their Glorious Champions doth vaunte that the cōmon sorte of Catholiques are able to say more for vs, thē wee can for our sel­ves. In deede they would beare the cōmō sorte in hand, that their learned men in handling of questions and controversies of reli­gion doe set downe all obiectiōs that can be made of our parte. And I graunt, they set downe more then ofte tymes themselves can soundly answere. Yet they vse discretion therein by their leave: and many a strong reason which would trouble them fowly if it came in place, they are content to winck at and say nothing of it, whereto they joyne this policy now and thē also, that they take vpon them to bee as it were our proctours and at turneys, in shewing what may bee sayd for vs. Vnder which pretence they bring in such things as having a ready solution with the obiection, and proving vnsound, may turne to out causes discredit and to ours. So the Iesuit here his argument being grounded vppon two places, the one to the Romans, the other to the Corinthyans, wee countermyning the whole with one answere: hee sayth that our answere may bee proved by foure reasons, which hee gathereth out of circumstances of the former place, all such as the later hath neither any kinred with, and discoverceth them to be of no valew. But of the reasons, which I have brought to prove our answere fitting both the places, and partly confirming that S. Paule might well meane the same in these, which in the like hee meant; partly demonstrating that certaynly hee did soe, because it were not true els that hee teacheth of the libertie of Christians forsaken by the vnbe­leevers; these reasons Bellarmin doth, not touch. No marveil: for they are too hot. And it is likely that he studied not what might be most stronglie said in our defence, but rather what most weakely: that so he might seeme to ioyne battaile with vs, and yet might bee sure to doe himself no harme, Letting passe therefore the help which he offreth in like sorte to vs as theEzra 4. [...]. Sa [...]ritanes did vnto the Iewes: I come vnto the vniust and false ac­cusation, [Page 33] wherewithEzr [...]. [...]. 9. they sought to hinder the buylding of the Temple, I meane to the reasons which hee vntruely sayth, doe witnesse our answer and exposition to bee faulse. Those hee draweth to three heads, whereof the first hath two braunches: one that S. Pauls words are playne; the other that they are oft repeated. For what is more playne (sayth hee) then thet Rom 7. [...]. if while the man liveth, the woman take another man, shee shall be called an adulteresse? and that 1, [...]. 7. [...]9. the woman is bound by the lawe as longe as her hus [...]and liveth? Playne I denie not. But this proofe how pithy & strong soever hee thought it to set it his fore-front, is already shewed to bee no proofe at all: sith there are as playne words in like sentences, which neverthelesse must bee expounded, as these are by vs. For what more playne then that1 cor, 9, 7. Who go­eth a warrefare any tyme at his owne Cost? and that, Who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth net of the fruite thereof? and that Whofeadeth a flocke and eateth not of the milke of the flocke? and that,Ephes. 5. 29. No man e­ver hated his owne flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it? & that2. Tim. 2. 4. No Warre-faring man entangleth himselfe with the affayres of life? &Mark. 2. 22. Luk. 4. 24. Iohn. 2. 10. Gal. 3. 15. ma­ny other such, that might bee aleaged, if in a thing so cleare it were not superfluous? Nay in these sentēces the words are more playne, then in those wee speake of, because those have noe such marke of generality expressed as these have. Wherefore if soe great playnnesse of words signed with generall tokēs as it were importing that they are true in all yet convinceth not that they are meant of all without any exception, fully and vniversally: how can a lesser playnnesse wanting such efficacie, convince the same of those in question? Or if it should elswhere by reason of some difference which might supplie, by other weight that this wanteth: Yet here it cannot possibly, because S.1. cor. 7. 15. Paule himself as I have declared sheweth that in one case the sayings could not so bee true Moreover thecap. verum. Extra. de con [...]vers. conjug c. commissum. despō [...]a [...] [...] bus. Cōcil. Tridēt. Sess. 24 can. 6. Bell. tom. 1. cont. 5 lib. [...]. cap. 3 [...]. Papists hold that if a married man become a monke before he know his wife carnally, shee may lawfully take another husbād, while he liveth. Perhaps further, also that the Pope for any very weighty cause, maye vpon the same circumstance dispense, and loose the band of Marriage. At least Covarru. epet in 4. decre tal. par 2. cap. 7. 9. 4. Catha­rin. de [...] mo [...] quart. utrum matri­mō. ante cop. sit Sacramen­tum et alibi quae in arch [...] ­typo. them-selves tell vs that sundry Popes have done so: andHosticus. Panormita [...]. et ali [...] [...]. in. c. expubli­code convers. co njugator. Card. Cajet. opusculo de mattim Mec. Medium. de Sacror hom. contin. lib. 5. Mar [...]in Navar. Consilior lib [...] 3. [...] convers. infid. cons. 1. their great Doctors hould wee may. Yet is the woman his wife who hath wedded her, or espoused her onely, though shee hath not [Page 34] entred into his bed-chamber. For shee that is betrothed, is accounted a wife by the lawDeut 22. 24. Matt 1. 20 of God: and consent, not carnall company maketh Marriage as the civillL. cuifuerit D de condits et domōstrat. L Nuptiarum D. de reg sa [...]. Lawiers,Ambros in­stitut virg cap▪ 6 Aug. de nupt et▪ con­cup. lib. 1. cap. II. Chrysostō, Isodor Gre­got. c omnis, [...] conjugo c qui desponsa­tam. 27. 4. 2. Fathers, &si inter Ex­tra desponsa­lib. c licet, c. tuas dudum. despons. du­otum. Popes doe teach. The Papists then of all men may worst en­force the playnesse of S. Pauls words agaynst our exposition thē selves condescending in cases more then wee doe, that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth, and bee noe adulteresse. Whereby agayne appeareth how wisely & discreetly the Iesuit Triumpheth with.De adulter. [...]njug. lib. 2. cap. 4. S. Austins words, These words of the Apostle so oftentymes repeated, so oftentymes inculcated, are true, are quick, are sound, are playne. The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former, and shee shall cease to bee of the former, if her husband die, not if he playe the whoremonger. The wife then is lawfully putt away for whordom, but the band of the former lasteth; in somuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie, who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom.

For if these words of Austin bee quick and sound against vs, then touch they Poperie at the quick: sith it may be sayd by the same reason: The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any la­ter husband, vnlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former: and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die, not if hee waxe a Monke.

Admitt then that the wife bee put away for monkery, yet the band of the former lasteth: insomuch that hee becometh guilty of adulterie, who marrieth her that is put away even for monkery. And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were, for which soMartin thee 5 Eugenius▪ the 4. Alexan­der the 6 Iu­lius the third. Paul the 4. & Pius the 4. as Covarru. Catharin. Cajetan, and Navat doe [...]. many Po­pes have loosed the bande of Marriage, they are all controlled by the same censure The woman beginneth not to be bee the wife of any later husband unlesse shee have ceased to bee of the former; and shee shall cease to bee of the former if her husband die, not if a better match be offered, or some mislyke bee conceived, or the Pope dispense and bee well freed from it. Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the cō ­passe of Austins reprofe, by construing his words so without exception, because they are true, and quick, and sound, and playne. For against his doctrine towching a Susters liberty to marry, if shee be forsaken of her vnbeleeving husband, the force of S. Austins consequence would inferre in like sorte: The woman beginneth not to bee the wife of any later husband, vnlesse shee have cea­sed to be of the former: and shee shall cease to bee of the former, if her hus­band [Page 35] die, not if hee forsake her. The Iesuit, who vseth so often to re­peat, so often to inculcate the testimonies of the Fathers, should deale peradventure more considerately, more charitably out of doubt, if, before hee cite them, hee weighed their words bet­ter, whether they may stand with the truth of Scripture, & with his owne doctrine. For els asGen. 9. 22. Cham discovered the nakednes of Noah, so doth hee their blemishes: hee, who aleageth them; not wee, whom hee enforceth to shewe why wee dissent from them: least our Saviours sentence bee pronounced agaynst vsMath. 10. 37 Hee that loueth Father or Mother more then mce is not worthy of mee. But the Iesuites meaning (you wil say) was not to dis­credit them by laying a necessitie on vs to refute them, what? was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scripturs, with the truth whereof their sayings doe not stand? For (I trust) hee meant not to overthrowe the poynts of his owne doctrine, which their sayings crosse, vnlesse hee bee of that mynde whichP [...]o. Dejo [...] 10. Tullie condemneth as barbarous and savage expressed in an heathnish verse LET OVR FRIENDS FALL, SOE THAT OVR FOES DIE WITHALL. Howsoever it be, it is plain that the plaines of S, Pauls words neither doth prove the sence thereof to be simply & absolutely general, the Scrip­ture noting an exception, neither cann bee sayde by Papists to prove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture. & addeth more thereto. Thus one braunch of Bellarmins first and principall reason being cutt of: the other, and the rest of his reasons also are cutt of with the same labour and instru­ment. For whereas hee sayth Certes it were marvell that the Apostle should never ad the exception of whoredom, if it were to be added, se­ing hee repeated and inculcated these things so often. Certes wee may say as well of those exceptions which himself approveth that it Were marvell the Apostle should never add them, if they were to bee added. Though what marvell is it, if S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredom in all those two places, which hee Hath repeated and inculcated these things so often, as Bellarmin so often tel­leth vs: when the thing is mentioned in theRom. 7. vers. 2, former of them by way of avers 4. similytude, wherein it had bene fond and beside the purpose to speake of any exception: and, for the1 cor. 7. vers 39. later S. Paul hath omitted the same exceptionvers. 10. et. [...] twise, where theMath 5. 32. et. 19. 9. Scripture [Page 36] sheweth and Bellarmin. confesseth, it should have bene added▪ or (to speake more properly) where although it needed not to bee added, yet must it needs bee vnderstoode. Now to that Bellarmin doth next alledg the FathersIn utrum que locum Pauli. Ambrose, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Primasius, Anselmus and others over and besidesLoco citato Austin, In math 19. Origen, andIn epist. ad Amand. Ierom, all as bearing witnesse that wee expound the places falsly: I could re­ply that some of these whatsoever they witnesse, have small cre­dit with Bellarmin, as Ambrose specially: some, namely Chrysostō, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Primasius doe not wit­nesse that no more then Paul himself doth: Nay they all save one are contrary minded rather, as shall appeare inin the third Chapter. due place: But that which I have sayde already touching Austin, may serve for answer to the rest: chiefly sith the Papists in whose behalf they are aleaged, will rather yeald that all the Fathers might erre, thē any of their Popes,Alexander [...] third Pius the fourth &c. in the canōs above cited out of the de­cretals & the councell of Tren [...]. who yet must have erred in more, thē one Canon, if this were true which Bellarmin fathereth on the Fa­thers. Finally, concerning that for the vpshoote hee vrgeth Pauls similytude as if theRom. 74 drift of it did absolutely require that the man and wife can not bee made free from the band of Mariage by any seperatiō but by death onely, because while the law had life as it were and stoode in force till Christ the Iewes could never shake off the Yoke thereof from them, although they endevored to seperate them-selves from it by committing whoredom with sundry lawes of salfe Gods: the rest of S. Pauls similytudes which I men­cioned, doe bewray the lamenesse and halting of this inference: seing that the drift of thē requireth absolutely by the same rea­son that noe man went to warfare at his owne cost, or planted Vynes, or fedd sheepe, without relief thereby, because1 Cor 9. vers 6. all they vers. 14 Who preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel. And likewise that no man did ever hurt his owne body, becauseEphes 5. 3 [...]. Every husband ought to loue his owne wife Ephe [...]. 5. 25. as Christ loved the Church: and likewise that no souldier hath ever entangled him-self with the assayres of life because Tymothee should bee2 Tim. 4. 2. still about those actions, whereto the Lord2. Tim. 2. 3. who choose him to hee a souldier, did call him. Nay to goe no farther then the drift it self of the samilytude, which Bellarmin doth vrge, if it requier absolutely that the band of Marriage may bee no way loosed but onely by the husbands or the [Page 37] wives death: then neither is it loosed, if the vnbeleever doe for sake the Christian: neither if the husbād become a Monke or the wife a Nunne; neither if the Pope see cause to dispence with ei­ther of them. And will not this fansie of his about that drift drive him into greater inconvenience yet: to weet, that every woman, whose husband is dead, ought to marry another, be­cause the Iewes were bound to become Christiās after the death of the Lawe? or of the other side, that the Iewes are not bound vnder payne of damnation to become Christians, because no widowe is bound vnder payne of death to take another hus­band? or (if these absurdities bee not great enough) that dead men ought to marry, becauseRom 7. 4. The Iewes by duty should bee vnto Christ, when they were dead to the Lawe? or that the men of Ro­me to whom S. Paul wrote, should rather not beleeve in Christ, because1, Cor. 7. 8. he wished widowes rather not to marry? Of the which consequences if some bee esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed onely, but are so in deede, the most have impious folly ioyned with vntruth: Let Bellarmin acknowledg that similitudes must not bee sett vpon the racke, nor the drift thereof bee stretched and pressed in such sorte, as if they ought iust in length bredth and depth to match and fitt-that whereto they are resembled. It sufficeth if in a generall analogy and propor­tion of the principall poynt wherein things are matched, and compared together, they bee eche like to other, and both agree in one qualitie. Which here is observed in S. Pauls comparisō of the state of Marriage, with the state of man before and after regeneration: becauseRom. [...]. vers. 2. 3. as a wife her husband being dead doth lawfully take another, and is not an adulteresse in having his company to bring forth fruite of her body, to him: soevers. [...]. regenerate persons, their naturall corruption (provoked by the law to sinne) and flesh being mortified, are ioyned to the Spirit (the force of Christ working in them) as it were to a second husband, that they should bring forth fruite (the fruites of the Spirit) vnto God. And thus seing neither the drift of the similytude, nor the iudgment of the Fathers, nor the playnnesse of the wordes so oftentymes repeated, doe disprove our answer and exposition of the place: our answer proved by Scripture standeth firme and sure and therefore the third place vrged by our adversaries, [Page 38] is sutable to the former.

So is the fourth & last; taken out of the first▪ to the Corithians the seaventh Chaptera To them who are Married, it is not I that give commandement, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart from her husband: but if shee depart too, let her remayne vnmarried. or bee reconciled vnto her husband. Wherein (as Bellarmin reasoneth) the words of S. Paul, If, shee depart, and so forth are meant of a woman, which parteth from her husband vpon a cause of iust divocement, as namely for whordom, haeresie, and the rest whatsoever they be, & not of her which parteth without any such cause. But concerning her of whom the words are meant, S. Paul sayth most playnely shee may not marrie another. Therefore even a cause of iust divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawfull for married folckes to marry others, although they beesevered and put asunder by iust divorcemēt.

And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insoluble. In saying whereof hee seemeth to confesse that none of the former arguments were so, but might bee answered and confuted. His confession touching them hath reason with it: I must needs approve it. But his vaunt of this is like that of1 King. 20. 10▪ Ben hadads that the dust of▪ Samaria would not bee enough to all the people that followed him for every man an handfull. To whom the King of Israel sayde, Let not him that girdeth his harnies, boast him­self as hee that putteth it off. Bellarmin hath skarcly girt his harneis yet, & that which hee hath girt, is vnservisable bad harneis too.

For the formost parte thereof, his proposition a vouching that the words If shee depart, and so forth, are meant of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divocement, as namely for whordom heresie, and such like, is faulty sundry wayes: seing they are neither meant of her onely which parteth for a iust cause; and though▪ they bee also meant of her which parteth for any other iust cause, yet not of her which for whoredom.

Moreover the conclusion knitting vpp his argument with Therefore even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage, is guilfully sett downe: being vttered in the forme of a particular, and true so, taking divorcement as hee doth; but inten­ded to carry the force of a generall, so by fraude and faulshood to beare away the poynt in questiō. Of both the which to treat in ordre, his proposition hee presumeth of as most certayne, be­cause [Page 39] in (his iudgment) Paule would not have sayde of her who de­parted without some such cause, Let her remayne vnmarried, or bee re­conciled vnto her husband; but hee would have sayde, Let her remayne vnmarried till shee bee reconciled vnto her husband, & let her come a­gayne vnto her husband in any case. And why doth Bellarmin thynke so? His reasons follow. For Paul could not permitt an vniust divorcemnt agaynst the expresse commandement of the Lord.

And, if in the same Chapter Paul permitteth not the man and wife to refrayne from carnall company for prayers fake, and for a tyme, except it bee with consent: How should bee permitt the wife to remayne sepera­ted from her husband agaynst his will, without any cause of iust divorcement. In deede if it had lyen in S. Pauls power to stay & refraine the wife from remayning so: no doubt hee neither would, nor might have permitted it. which himself sufficiently shewed in [...], 1. Corn. vers. [...] & 10, forbidding her to depart at all, much more to continue parted from her husband. Butvers. [...]. if notwithstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave her husband vpon some lighter cause; or perhaps weightyer, though not weighty enough for a iust divorcement: then Paul in duty ought and might (I hope) with reason requier and exhorte her to remayne vnmarried, and not to ioyne her selfe in wedlocke with another, a thing thatDi [...]dor, Sicul. lib. 12. Gree­kes andIuvenal. Satyr 6. Sic fiunt octo mariti. Quinque per autum­nor. Romayns (whose of-spring theStrabe Geo­graph lib. 8. Pausanias Corinth. Corinthians were) vsed to doe. as (to make it playner by the like examples (S. Paul neither might neither would have allowed a man to bee rashly angry with his brother: forMath. 5. 22. Christ forbiddeth it. But if one were suddenly surprised with rashe anger S. Paul would advise himEphes. 4, 26. 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 heCalat 7. 16 willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh: whereasMath, 5 28 Christ commandeth them not to lust at all. For S. Paul alsoRom. 7. 8. condem­neth all lusting of the flesh as sinne. But seing thatGal 5. 17. the flesh will lust agaynst the Spirit, as long as wee are in this mortality: he sturreth vp the faythfull that theyRom. 6. 12. let not sinne raigne in their mor­tall bodyes, nor doe fulfill the lust of the flesh. In the same sort there­fore hee giveth charge with Christ that the wife departe not from her husbād. Yet in consideratiō of humaine infirmity he addeth, [Page 40] But if shee departe too, let her bee vnmarried. And to meete with a doubt which herevpon might rise, sith in the next words before hee had affirmed that they who haue not the gift of continence should marry, and what if shee have it not? hee adioyneth far­ther.1. Cor. 7. 9 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 evillMoneto agamos. 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 thē write no more in defence of it, or let them acknowledg that in this poynt they were deceived. For whereasWhich Bol­locmin doth not onelie in this quaestion cap. 16 but al­so in the next before, cap. 14 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 Revel. 3. 15. I would thou werest colde or Zestos, 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 beeZeontes. Rom 12. 11. servent and that verie angell hee saith to everie faith full menZeloson. Rev. 3. 19. Be hot & Zealous. But because the partie was luke warme, a wordlingMath. 13. 22. who had receyved the seede of the word but bare not fruite, whoLuk. 12. 47. knew his maisters will, but did it not & there by sinned most grievously: Christ wisheth that he were colde and sinned lesse; sith hee did sinne; or that hee were hot and free from both these faults, the later wishe made simply the former in comparison. After the which manner seing Paul might well, & did by all likelyhood of circumstāces of the text, wishe simply and chiefly that the wife estranged were reconciled to her hus­band, next that shee continued rather parted from him, then [Page 41] married to another as a lesse evill in comparison: the vttering of his sentēce with a disjunctive particle Let her remayne vnmarried, or bee reconciled, doth not prove hee put it in the womans choyse and left her at liberty to doe whether shee listed. And thus it appeareth how certaine and vndoubted that principle is, whichL [...]quitu [...] ergo sine vil [...] dubio &c. 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. 1. [...]or. 7. 10. 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, andMat. 5. 32. & [...]9. 9. 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 depart1. cor. 7. 4. from an adulterer, as hee from an adulteresse. And this doth Bellarmin graunt also. But the middle braunche is to be vnderstood of the same departing, and likewise qualified as the first. Therefore. If shee depart too, is meant, except it be for whore­dome. Nay, not so, quoth Bellarmin: for the same departing is not meant in both, but a farre different, in the first an uniust departing, in the next a just; and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes. Not I, but the Lord geve commandement, let not the wife depart from her husbād, to weet without a just cause: but if shee goe away, to weet having a just cause, let her remaine vnmarried, & so forth. In the refutation of which wrong & violence done vnto the sacred text, what [Page 42] should I stand? whē the onely reason, whereby out of scripture hee assayeth to prove it, is the disiunctive particle, which as I have shewed alreadie, hath no ioynt or sinew of proofe to that effect. AndAugust [...] de a [...]ult con j [...]g cap, 1. 2, 3 et 4. the onely father, whose testimony, hee citeth, for it, doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture: So that his reason being overthrow [...]n, his [...]reditt and authoritie, byAugust epi. [...] Hecion his owneDict. [...] c. Eg [...] s [...]lis. approved rule may beare no sway. And on the contrarie parte, [...] many other fathers doe expound the second braunche as having referēce to the same departing that is for­bidden in the first. And (which is the chief point) the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same. For the tearmes; [...]an de [...]ai But, if, too, importe that doing also of that which in the sentence before he had affirmed ought not to be done: AsCor 7 ver. 9. [...] 3 [...] et 39 the like examples in the same discourse (to go no farder) shewe, yea some having oneNamely. Kai. particle lesse then this hath to press [...] it therevnto. It is good for the vnmarried and widowes, if they abide even as I doe: Eide. 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: Eide, but if the vnbeleeving de­part, let him depart. Art thou loosed from a wife? seeke not a wife: Ean de kai. But thou marrie also, thou sinnest not, This I speake for your profitt, that you may doe that which is comely? Eide. But if anie man thinke it vncomely for his virgin if shee passe the time of Marriage, let him doe what he will. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: Ean de. but if her husband be dead, she is at libertie and so forth. In all the which sen­tences sith the clauses brought in with those coniunctiōs have manifest relation to the things spoken of before, and tou [...]h thē in the same sense, the braunche that is in questiō having like de­pendance, must in all reason be conserved of the same depar­ting that the former. Thus it being proved that S. Paul com­manding the wife to remanie vnmarried if shee departed from her husbād, did meane. Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faultie even in this also that he nameth whoredom among the iust causes of the wives depar­ting here meant by S. Paul. Now in his conclusion inferring herevpon that even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage, hee is as deceitfull▪ as he was false in his pro­position. For the word Divorcement, being vnderstoode, as it is [Page 43] by him, for anie seperation and parting of the man and wife, though from bedd onely, & for a certaine time: There may be sundry causes why, such a seperation should be allowed or tol­lerated, whē as the band of marriage shall neverthelesse endure still. And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bel­larmin had cōcluded a truth & to purpose. But the point where with he should have knitt vp his dispute, and whi [...]h he would have men conceyve & beare away as if these words implyed it, is that no iust cause at all of any divorcement doth loose the band of mar­riage, and therefore neither whoredo. The falsehood whereof would have bene as cleare as the sunne shine at nooneday, the proposition being so evidently false whereon it is inferred. And this is the argument that Bellarmin set his rest onArgumentū plané insolu­bile. the insoluble ar­gumēt, evē altogether insoluble, the ground whereof hee tear­meth Invictissima demonstratio a demonstratiō a most invincible demonstratiō: against the which nothing (he saith) can be obiected, but an insufficiēt reply, made by, Er [...]smus, to weet, that Paul speaketh of ā Vnum et tā ­tum quodo­bijci pusset. adulterous wife, who therefore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay vn­married, the innocent partie not so charged. Which speeches of the Iesuite come frō the like veine of a vaunting spirit as those did of his complices, who boasted thatIn the yeare of Christ 1588 the Spanyards Armadoes & navy should finde but weake & seely resistance in England; and called their army sent to conquere vs, an invincible army. For as they diminished by vntrue reportes the forces prepared: To meete & encoūter with the Spanish power: so Bellarmin by saying that nought can be obiected beside that hee specifieth; yea far­der by belying and falsifying of Erasmus, Annot. in 1. Cor 7. who contrariwise re­plieth that Paul doth seeme to speakeDe levioti­bus offensis non de gravi­bus Flagit. [...]s. of lighter displeasures for which divorcements then were vsuall, not of such crimes as adulterie. Moreover by the substance & weight of my replie to his insoluble argument, the godly wise indifferent eye will see (I trust) that the knots & strings thereof are loosed and broken: even as the invincible armie of the Spanyards was by Gods pro­vidence shewed to be vincible without great encountring; the carkeises & spoiles of their shipps & mē vp ōthe English, Scottish, & Irish coasts did witnesse it.^f So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord, and let them who love him be as the sunne when he goeth forth in his strength.

AFter the foresaid testimonies of scripture vrged by our adversaries in the first place for the commending of their errour: Se­condly, the same truth (saith the Iesuit) may be proved by tradition. By which his owne speeche, if we should take ad­vauntage of it, he graunteth all that I have said agaynst his arguments drawen out of the scripture, and so farre forth agreeth with vs. For what vnderstandeth, hee by the word Tradition? A doctrine not written, asTom. [...]eont 1. lib. 4. cap. 2 him-self professeth in his first controversie. Where having noted that al though the word tradition be generall & signifieth any doctrine written or vnwritten, which one impar­teth to another, yet divines, & almost all the auncient fathers, applie it to signifie vnwritten doctrine onely: And soe will wee hereafter vse this word saith hee. If the point in question thē may be proved (as Bellarmin affirmeth it may) by tradition: We might conclude it is not written in the scriptures, by his owne verdict, and therefore all the scriptures alleaged by him for it are alleaged falsly. But hee seemeth to vse the name of traditiō in like sort ascont heres. cap. 1. et 41 Vincentius Lirmensis doth, calling the doctrine delivered by the church the Churches tradition. This to be his meaning I gather by the reason that hee addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it. The Pāphlet­ter in other words, but more perēptorily to avouch the proofe thereof by the opinion and censure of all ages, affirmeth, he will shewe that it was never thought lawfull since Christ, for Christians di­vorced for fornication to marry anie other while both man and wife li­ved. That it was never thought lawfull since Christ, is a boulder speeche them Bellarmin doth vse: though to hitt the marke as it were with his shaft, hee must and doth imply as much in that [Page 45] hee saith it may be proved by tradition. For traditiō hath not force enough to prove a thing to be true, not in the Papists owne iudgment, vnles it have bene alwaies approved & agreed on by the generall consent of Fathers, (as we tearme them) Pas­tors and Doctors of the Church. Which I affirme not vpon the generall rule ofcap. 3 et 40. Vincentius onelie so greatly, and so often praised by them as golden: But vpon the Canon of the Trent councell and pillars of the Popīsh churche subscribing to it. For theSession 4. councell of Trent commanding that no man shall ex­pound the scripture against the sense that the Churche holdeth or against the Fathers cōsenting all in one, doth covertly graūt, that if the Fathers consent not all in one, their opinion may be false, and [...]onsequently, no sure proofe of a point in question. Defen Fide Tridēt lib 2. Andradius doth open and avouche the same in his defense of the Councell: a worke verie highly commēded byEpist. ad vni versam Chri­stianam rēpu. prefixa A [...]dr. Oseruis. And Loco [...]. The­olog. lib. 7. ea. 3. Canus setteth it downe for a conclusion, that many of them consenting in one can yeild no firme proofe, if the rest though fewer in number do dissent. YeaTom. 2. con 3. lib. 4. cap. [...]0 Bellarmin himself saith that there can no certaintie be gathered out of their sayings, when they agree not among themselves. It is a thing graunted thē by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove ought vnlesse they all consent in one. But the fathers do not all consent in one about the point wee treat of, as it shalbe shewed, Our adversaries therefore must graunt that the opiniō which they holde in this point, cannot be proved by Fathers. Nay they are in danger of being enforced to graunt a farther matter, and more importing them by the consequent hereof. For through a decree ofSeptimi de­cretalium lib 3. tit 5. cap. 2. Pope Pius the fourth, the professors of all faculties, & all that take degrees in any poopish schoole are bound by solemne oth that they shall never expound and take the scriptureNis [...] juxta vnamimem consensum pa [...]um, but according to the Fathers cōsēting all in one. Wherefore how will Bellarmin, perhaps the Pamphletter also if he have bene amongst them and taken any degree, but what shift will Bellarmin, and hisAs Parsons by name: Epi tom con. part 2. con. 5. quest 4. & canilius catechism. de matrimon. sacram quest. 3▪ & Navarrus in cap divort▪ de peint dist. 1 & their se­minarieschol­lars. puefellowes finde to save them­selves from periurie, when it shal be shewed that many of the Fathers gaine say that opinion, which him-self and his expound the scripture for? And what if it appeare, that the greater num­ber of Fathers doe so? nor the greater onely, but the better al­so, [Page 46] and those whose grounds are surer? Then all the probabili­ty, which Fathers can yeild will turne against the Papists: and that which our adversaries would prove by tradition, and the consent of all ages will rather be disproved thereby. But how­soever men be diversly, persuaded touching the number & quality of Fathers enclyning this or that way, by meanes of sundrie circumstances which may breed doubt both particularly, of certaine, and of the whole summe in generall: the maine and principall point remayning to be shewed, namely that the Fa­thers consent not all in one for the Papists doctrine, is most cleare and evident out of all controversie. In so much that many even of them also whom Bellarmin alleageth, and the Pamphletter af­ter him, as making for it, make in deed against it: and those of the chiefest and formost rankes spetially, in the first, the second, the third, the fourth hundred yeares after Christ. All the which agree and teach with one consent that the man forsaking his wife for her adulterie, is free to marrie againe: save such of them onely, as in this very point of doctrine touching, marriage are tainted with, error by the iudgement and censure of Papists themselves. A token of the vanetie and folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the Pamphletter: who by naming one at least in everie age, would needes make a shewe of having the con­sent of all ages with them, whereas it wilbe seene hereby, that in many we have the most and best; and they, either none at all, or none sound. For in the first hundred yeares after Christ all that Bellarmin sayth they have, is the testimony of Clemens in the Canōs of the ApostlesCanon. 48. where the mā is willed without a­ny exception to be excommunicated, who having put away his wife doth marrie another. Now beside that Clemens vpon whom Bel­larmin fathereth, those canons, is iniured therein. As for the later parte of themTom, 1. L. conti [...]. ca. 2 [...] himself sheweth,Fr. Torren­sis (otherwise called Turriā) a [...]esuit lib de 6. 7. et 8. Sy­nod. his friend for the for­mer, neither are they of Apostolique antiquitie and authoritie notwithstanding their title, asPope Ge [...]a­sius the first, with 70. by shops assem­bled in a coū ­cell c Scta Romana dist. 3. many Fathers testifie, and Pa­pists will acknowledg when they are touched by them:G [...]sar Baronius Annalus Eccle. tom. 1. ad [...]nnum Christi [...]8. The author of the Canon had respect therein (by all probabilitie) to the Apostolique doctrine receyved from Christ, & therefore though he made not an expresse exceptiō of divorce for whor­dom, might as well impply it, as I have declared that some of [Page 47] the Euangelists, and S. Paule did. Which the interpreters also of those CanonsCommēti [...] Canon. Apost Zonaras and Balsamon, thought to be so likely and more then a coniecture, that they expound it so without any scruple. Balsamon in saying that he who putteth away his wife without cause may not marrie another; and Zonaras that hee who marrieth a woman put away without cause by her husband doth committ adulterie. Or if these writers mistooke the authours meaning, & in his opinion no mā, howsoever his wife were put away, without or with cause, might lawfully marrie another: th [...]n take this with all, thatApost const lib. 3 cap, 2 hee skarse allowed any second marriage, but controuled the third as a signe of intemperance, & condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom. Which althoughFt. Turrian, an [...]ct. in Apoconst Clemēt a Iesuit goe about to cover and salve with gentle gloses likeEz [...]k. 13. 10. the false prophets. Who when one had built up a mud­den wall did parged it with vnsavorie plaister: yet sith that counter­fait Clements worke did flowe out of the fountaines of the Gre­tians, as aBaronius Annal eccle. tom 5 ad an­nū Chris [...] 57 great historian of Rome hath truelie noted, and a­mōg the Gretians many, held that errour, as it is likewise shewed by aEspencae [...] li. [...]. de conti­nēt ca 9. [...]t 16 great Sorbonist; the likelyhood of the matter, and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the naturall and proper signification of the words, will not permitt their black­nes to take any other hewe, nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement, to be cleared from plaine contradicti­on to1. Cor. 7. 9 the word of God. Wherefore the onely witnesse that Bellarmin produceth out of the first hundred yeares, doth not helpe him.Apolog▪ ad Anto impera Out of the second hundred he produceth three; Iustinus, Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus. The first of whom Iustinus praising the compendious briefnes of Christes speeches rehearseth this amongst them: Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, doth commit adulterie. Meaning not as Bellarmin, but as Christ did: who excepting whoredome in the math. 5. 32. et [...]9. 9 former braunche of that sentence, vnderstoode it likewise in this, as I have shewed. And how may wee know that Iustinus meant so? By his owne wordes, in thatApolog▪ ad senatū Romā ro le gomenō par kumi [...] repodi [...]n. hee commendeth a godly Christian woman, who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of dirorcementL. dirimite [...] I divorti [...]. D. de divortijset repudijs. such as did loose that band of matri­mony, and saith concerning him that [...]to de ta [...]tes pote aner. Eu seb eccl hist. lib. 4 cap 17 hee was not her husband afterward. The nextApolog. pro Christianis. Athenagoras, affirmeth (I graunt) that if [Page 48] any man being parted from his former wife doe marrie another he is an adulterer. But Bellarmin must graunt with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it vntruly: considering that hee speaketh of parting even by death too, as well as by divorcement, & tea [...]heth with theTertull. de Monegam. Epipha▪ haere. 4 [...]. August de haeres cap. 26. Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is vnlaw­full. Wherevpon a famons Parisian DivineDe continēt lib. 3 cap. 17 Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth, that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian: and may well be thought to have bene inserted into his worke by Eu­cratites. A censure, for the ground thereof, very true, that the said opinion is a Philosophicall fansie, yea an heresie: Though the wordes seeme rather to be Athenagonas his owne, asNoted in part by Espen caeus himself ibid. ca. 9 10. sun­drie fathers speake dangerously, that way, then thrust in by En­cratites, Epipha. here 46 et 17. Au­gust de heres. c [...]p 26. who generally reiected all marriage, not se [...]ond mar­riage onelie. Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Iesuits cause. As much doth the last of his witnessesStrom li 2. Cle­mens Alexandrinus. For both in this point about second mar­riage Strom. lib. 3. hee matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes, and stained with spotts of er­rour. Which iudgmēt not onelyHist Eccle. Magdeburg ce [...]. 2 cap [...] Protestants of Germaine have in our remembrance lately, geven of him, though aEdm. Cam­p [...]an [...]at [...]. Iesuitical spirit doe traduce thē insolently, for it: Butcap Sancta Romana dist 15. an auncient Pope of Rome with seavētie byshops assembled in a Councell above a thowsand yeares since, and a Byshop of Spaine a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinitie and in the Canon lawVariar [...]eso. lib, 9 cap, 17 Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same. Now in the third hundred yeares (to goe forward) Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to averre Bellarmins opinion, of whom one questionlesse controlleth, perhaps both. ForAdvers Mar cion. lib [...] Ter­tullian disputing against the heretique Marcion, who falsely o­biected that Christ is contrarie to Moses, because Moses graunted divorcemēt, Christ forbiddeth it, answereth that Christ saying, whosoever shall put away his wife & marrie another, committeth adulterie, meaneth ex eadem v­tique causa qua non [...]cet dimitti. ut [...]li aducatur vndoubtedly of putting away for that cause, for which it is not lawfull for a man to putt away his wife that hee may marrie another. And likewise for the wife, that he is an adulterer, who marrieth her being put away, [...] di­miss [...]m. Ma­ne [...]e [...] mat [...]i­moni quod non [...] d [...]ē ­pt▪ um est. if shee be put away vnlawfully: conside­ring that the marriage, which is not rightly broken off, continueth; and [Page 49] while the marriage doth continue, it is adulterie to marrie. Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully, for the cause excepted by Christ, may marrie another, Bellarmin doth very cunningly & finely, cut of with an et caetera, and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement, if there be a iust cause, but, did forbid to marrie againe after divorcement. So directly agaisnt the most evidēt light of the wordes & tenour of the whole discourse: that learned men of his owne side, though houlding his opinion yet could not for shame but graunt that Tertullian maketh against them in it. ForEpit in 4. lib. decretal. part 2. cap. 7. D. 6. byshop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintaine that men may lawfully marrie againe after divorce­mēt for adulterie, nameth Tertullian (quoting this place) amōg them. AndBibleoth. scā [...]ae lib. 6. Annot. 81. Sixtus Senensis a man not inferiour in learning to Bellarmin, in sincere dealing for this point superiour, cōfesseth on the same place, & on those same words (but recited wholy, not clipped with an etcetera) that Tertullian maketh a certaine & vndoubted assertion thereof.Annot in lib advers Marcion cap. 34. et paradox Tertul 30. Pamelius in deede through a de­sire of propping vp his churches doctrine with Tertulliās credit, saith that though hee seeme here to allowe divorcement for adulterie in such sort, as that the husbād may marrie another wife: yet hee openeth himself, & holdeth it to be vnlawfull in his booke de Monoga­mia. of single marriage. Wh [...]rein he saith some what, but litle to his advauntage. For Tertullian wrote this booke of single marriage Hieron in catalogo script. eccles. et in epist ad Tit cap. 1 Pa­mel. argum. lib de Mono­gam et anno­tat. cap 9. whē hee was fallē away from the Catholique faith vnto the heresie of Montanus: & so doth holde therein agreably to that heresie, that is vnlaw­full to marrie a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death. But in that thee wrote, while hee was a Catholique, against the heretique Marcion, hee teacheth cōtra­rywise the same that wee doe, as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truely graunt. Yea Pamelius himself if hee looke better to his owne notes, doth graunt as much. ForAnnotat in lib. 4. advers. Marcion cap. 34. he saith that Tertullian vseth the worde divorcement in his proper signification, for such a divor­cement by which one putteth away his wife, & marrieth another. But Tertulliā saithHabet Christum asserto­rem justitiae divortij. that Christ doth avouche the righteousnes of divorce­ment. Christ therefore avoucheth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marrie another by Tertullians iudgment. Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen: Al­though [Page 50] it be true Tract. 7 [...] Math cap. 19. hee saith (as Bellarmin citeth him) that certaeine byshops did permitt a woman to marrie while her former husband lived, & addeth, they did it agaynst the scripture. For he seemeth to speake of a woman divorced from her husband, not for adulterie, but for some other cause, such as the Iewes vsed to put away their wives for, bygiving thē a bill of divorcemēt. The matter that he handleth, and cause that he geveth thereof doe lead vs to this meaning; Approved by the opinion of certaine learned men too. For after he had said (according toMath. 19. 8. the words of Christ which he expoundeth) that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemēt did yeeld vnto the weakenes of thē to whom the law was gevē; he saith that, the Christian byshops who permitted a womā to marrie while her former husbād lived, did it perhaps for such weaknes. Wherefore sith in saving that, this which they did, they did perhaps for such weaknes, he hath relatiō vnto that of Moses, & Moses (as he addeth) did not graūt the bill of divorcemēt for adulterie, for that was punished by death it followeth that the Byshops whō Origen chargeth, with doing against the scripture did permitt the womā, to marrie vpon di­vorcemēt for some other cause, not for adulterie & so his repro­ving of thē doth not touche vs, who graūt it for adulterie only. Thus dothAnnot. in [...]. Cor [...]. Erasmus thinke that Origen meant: concluding it farther, as cleare, by the similitude whichOrigē tract. 7 in math. he had vsed before of Christ, who put away the Synagogue (his former wife as it were) be­cause of her adulterie, & married the churche. YeaExplicat [...] ­ticulor. Lov [...]n a [...]t. 19. Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovā, & of better credit with Papists thē Eros [...]nus saith that the divorcemēt permitted by those Byshops, whō Ori­gen cōtrouleth was a Iewish divorcemēt. Wherein though he aymed at another marke, to prove an vntruth; yet vnwares he hi [...] a truth more thē hee thought of, & strengthened that by Origen, which he thought to overthrowe. Howbeit if Bellarmin or Bel­larmins Interpreter cā persuade by other likelyhoods out of O­rigen (as he is somewhat darke, & I know not whether irresolute in the point) that the thing reproved by him in those Byshops was the permitting of one to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie: our cause shalbe more advātaged by those sundrie Byshops who approved it, thē disadvātaged by one Origē, who reproved thē for it. Chiefly seing Origē impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith, for whi [...]h aSynod 5 Cō stan [...] col­lat 8 cap [...]. Nicephor lib. 17 cap [...]8. generall Councell withTom. 1 cō [...]. 6 lib. c. cap. 1 Bellarmins allowāce count [...] a damned here­tique: [Page 51] & in this matter byHom▪ 17 in Lucam. excluding all such as are twise mar­ried out of the Kingdō of heavē, whichGenebrad. annot marg▪ in eum locū. Espenceus de continent. lib▪ 3 cap 9. divines of Paris obser­ve & check him for. Whereas those Byshops of whō he maketh mentiō, were neither stayned otherwise, for ought that may be gathered, nor herein did they more then the right believing & Catholique Churche all that time thought lawfull to be done, as appeareth by Tertulliā & Iustine the Martyr. In the which re­spect Tractat de in [...]cut Sa­cerd c. de ma­trimon. lect. [...] Peter Soto (a freir of great account in the Trent Councell) [...] said that it is plaine by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtfull in the auncient church al [...]ea­geth this for proofe thereof out of Origen, that many byshops [...] married mē to marrie againe after divorcement. This if the two of [...]thers whō Bellarmin alleageth out of the third hundred years as making for him, doe not make against him, which perhaps they doe both: yet one of thē doth not out of all contro­versie, & byshops, more in number, in credit greater thē the o­ther, agree with him therein. Out of the fowrth hundred, the [...] which Bellarmin maketh, is a great deale fayrer thē out of the third: & a number of Fathers, the councell of Eliberis S. Am [...] S. lerō, a Romā Byshop, & S. Chrysostome are affirmed thē [...]e to ioyne themselves with him. But they are affirmed in the like māner as the former were: skarse on of thē avouching the same that he doth, the rest in part seeming to be of other opinion, in part most clearely shewing it, & such as shewe not so much, yet shewing their owne weakenes, & that in this matter their opi­niō & iudgmēt is of small value. For the formost of themCanon. 9. the Councel of Eliberis, ordained that a womā which forsooke her hus­band because of his adulterie & would marrie another, should be forbid­den to marrie, & if shee married, shee should not receave the communion till hee were dead whō shee forsooke, vnlesse necessitie of sicknes cōstrayned to geve it her. Wherein it is to be noted, first that the Councell saith not.Slquis L. [...] D. de ve [...] ber [...]. If anieman, so to comprehend & touche generallie all both men & women: but they speake peculiaritie of the wo­man alone, & so doe not forbid the mā to leave his adulterous wife & marrie another. Secondly, that the womā is excommu­nicated, if when shee is forbidden by the church to marrie, shee marrie neverthelesse, not if before shee be forbidden: As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact it self. Thirdlie, that sh [...]e is not d [...]barred all her life time from the [Page 52] communion, but for a season onely, and in time of neede, in daungerous sicknes doth receive it: yea, even while the partie, whō shee forsooke liveth. Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councells oversight who made the womans case herein worse then the mans, both being free alike by Gods lawe: yet for the mā it sheweth that they allowed him to marrie againe after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which wee maintaine. The next yeildeth likeliehood that the Councell did forbid the woman this not for that they thought it vnlawfull, but vnseemelie perhaps or vnexpedient, asConcil. I­ [...]e [...]d. c Non o­portet a leptu [...]gesima. [...]3 q, 4. another Councell is read to have forbiddē the celebrating & solemnizing of marriages at certaine times. But the last put­teth the matter out of doubt, that they were persuaded of the woman also marrying in such sort, that her fact was warrātable by the word of God. Forels had they, not iudged her marriage with this latter mā to be lawfull, they must needes have iudged her to live with him in perpetuall adulterie. Which if they had thought, it is most improbable they would have admitted her to the communiō in case of daungerous sicknes: seeing at the point of deathcan. 64. they denie it to womē so continuing, yeaCan. 3. 7. 17 18. 47 65 70. 73, & 75. to men offending lesse heynously then so. With such extremitie of rigour therein thatAnnal. Eccles [...]om. 1 ad anū Christ. 57. Baronius noteth their decrees as savouring of the Novatian heresie: &Tom. 1. [...]ontr. 7. lib, [...]. cap. 9. Bellarmin layeth it almost as deepe­ly to their charge. So farre from all likeliehood is it that they would admitt her in necessitie of sicknes to the communiō had they bene persuaded shee lived in adulterie still. Therefore it was not without cause that Bellarmin did suppresse this circū ­stance together with the former, in citing the decree of the Eli­bernie Councell: least his false illatiō, to weete that they accounted such marriage vnlawfull even for the innocent partie, & in the cause of adulterie, should be discovered & controlled thereby. Next is Ambrose brought in, who vpō the 16 chapter of Luke, writeth much against thē that putting away their wife doe marrie ano­ther, & he calleth that marriage adulterie in sundrie places: neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith. But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too? Certainely S. Ambrose speakethDimletis [...]uxorem qua­ [...]i jura sin [...] crimine of such wives as lived without crime &Putas id [...]i­bi l [...]cere quia [...]ex humana [...]on pr [...]hibet sed divina pro [...]ib. [...]. [...]. whom their husbands were (as hee ad­deth) [Page 53] forbidden by the lawe of God to put away. So that hee reproving men for marrying others after they had put away their chaste wives, doth evidently shewe he meant not of marri­age after divorcemēt for whordō. And if it be [...]ufficiēt proofe that hee supposed they, might not marrie againe after they had put away a whorish wife because hee never excepteth whoredō in that whole discourse of marrying againe: then by as sufficiēt a reason hee supposed thatNoli crgo vxorem dimit tere. Qui di­mittit uxorē facit eam m [...]e cham. they, might not put away their wives at all, no not for whordom, because hee never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife. But tha [...] Papists will graunt that a man may lawfully put away his wife, if shee committ whordom. As Bellarmin then will construe S, Ambrose in this braunch, so let him in the former. And if he say, that S. Ambrose thinking vpō Luke alone whō hee expounded, or trusting his memorie forgot the exception added by Christ in Mathew, forMath. 5. 32. putting away the wife: the same slipp of me­morie might loose the same exception forMath. 19. 9. marrying another. If he thinke that Ambrose did not forget himself, but vnder­stoode the exception in the former point, as the1. Cor. 7. [...]1. Apostle did, though neither mentiō it expressely: what reason why, it might not as well be vnderstoode in the later also? As for S. Ierom no marveil if hee wrote against second marriage after divorcemēt for whordomEpist 9 ad Salvinam. et n ad Age [...]u­ch [...]ā et adver­sus Iovinian. who wrote against all second marriages in such sort, thatDe continēt lib. 3. cap. 10. Espēceus asketh what could have bene said more grei­vously against them by the impureWho cōdemned second marrig [...]s Epi­phan. [...]aerel. 59 [...]ugust [...]e hae resib cap. 38. Catharists, then is said by him? AndIn August de civit. dei lib. 16. cap 34. The divines of Lovan in in their ed [...]tiō of Austen, printed at Antwerp and Pa­ris have lest this sentence out beyond the prescript of index ex­purgatorius. Vives pronounceth, that hee did not onely detest second marriages, but also had small liking of the first, nor did much favor matrimonie; Beside that himself too, as farre as hee exceeded the boundes of Godly modestie & truth herein, even by these mens iudgments whō Papists doe repute learned & Catholique allayeth & corecteth in one of the places, which Bellarmin alleageth, his peremptorie censure gevē in the other. For whereas hee saith in his Epistle to Amandus, that the wife who divorced herself from her husband because of his adulterie & marri [...]d anotherSi non vult adultera repu­ta [...]i. was an adulteresse for so marrying, andNon Apella­t [...]r vir sed a­dulter. her newe husbānd an adulterer: In his epitaph of Fabiola (a noble godly gentlewoman of Rome, who did the like & was poeni­tent for it after her second husbands death) hee saith, that shee [Page 54] lamented & bewayled it so, as if shee had cōmitted adulterie. By which kinde of speech & others sutable to it, as that he te [...]meth her state after divorcement frō her first husband Widdowhood; & ad­deth, that shee lostVidutiatem [...] non poterat. the honor of having had but one husbād by mar­rying the second; [...] Sub gloria [...] & saith, shee thought it better to vndergoe a cer­taine, shadow of pitifull wedlocke, [...] po [...] mortē secundi viti [...] Opera exer­ce [...]e [...]. then to plaie the whore, be­cause it is better (saith Paul) to marrie then to burne: S. Ieron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to doe as shee did: yet not such a fault, a crime, a publique crime, as Bel­larmins doctrine maketh it. No more may it be iustly thought in the opiniō of that Romā Byshop, of whō, because he put Fabiola to publique penance after her second husband death, Bel­larmin cōcludeth that it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique Church at that time, if any man whilst his wife yet lived, married another yea, albeit for whordō. For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholique Church, for marrying againe after their first wives death, as Bellarmin obser­veth out of the Catholique [...]Councels: adding therewith al, that although they knewe secōd marriage to be lawfull, yet because it is a token of incontinēcie they chastised it with some penāce. Wherefore sith it might easilie bee that they who laid some pe­nance vpon no fault, would lay publique penance vpō a small fault, spetially in women, to whō in such cases they were more severe & rigorous thē to mē: the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her secōd marriage doth not prove sufficiētly that it was accounted thē a publique crime in the Catholique church. Howbeit if the tearme of publique crime be vsed in a gētler sense thē [...] cōmonly it is, or the Byshop of Rome did ne­ver put any but grievous offenders & finners to publique pe­nance: yet perhaps even so too will Bellarmin come short of his conclusiō still. For thereby (saith hee) we doe not vnderstād that [...] if any mā while his wife yet lived, married another, yea albeit for whordo; it was accounted a publique crime in the Catholique church at that time, if any mā did it. As who say the Byshop of Rome must needs hould that, if women were not licensed to marrie after divorcement for whordom, men could not be neither. Whereas he might be of the same opiniō, that an aunciēt Concil, [...]. 9. Councell s [...]emeth (as I shewed) to have bene before him; and [Page 55] an auncientAmbros [...]a. [...] p. 7 Father (living & writing asCe [...] Theologorum Lovan in [...]. gust lib [...] et nor te­stam To [...]— some thinke, in Rome about the same time) was; I meane, that this libertie & freedom should be graunted to men but not to women. Moreover the delay of Faebiolas penance, in that she was not put thereto vntill Hieron epist. 30. ad Ocean. after her second husbands death, yeildeth very strong & probable coniecture, that it had not bene before thē accoūted any crime at all in the Catholique church, not for a woman neither to put away her husbād because of his adulterie, & to marrie another. For that which Fabiola did, shee didMelius [...] openly. Her self was reli­gious, godly, well instructed; & thought it to be lawfull. Her husbād by all likelyhood of like minde & iudgmēt: the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question; The Byshop did not execute any Church censure on them. Nay, sith shee was [...] very yong, when they married, and never heard of anie fault therein committed as long as her husband lived: it may be Rome had many Byshops in the meane time, none of whō saw cause why they should blame her for it. The example of Fabiola therefore, & the Roman Byshops dealing in it, maketh more a great deale with vs then against vs, if it be throughly weighed. Now S. Chrysostom maketh absolutely with vs: Howsoever Bellarmin affirmeth that hee teacheth the same with S. Ierom yea, withEpist. [...] S. Ierom simplie condemning all such marriage. For what doth S. Chrysostom teach in the [...] Math. cap [...]. sermon that Bellarmin quoteth vpon Mathew? Forsooth, that by Mo­ses lawe it was permitted, that whosoever hated his wife for any cause, might put her away, and marry another in her roome: But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whore­dome. What? and doth it follow hereof that Chrysostom, meant that the husband putting her away for whoredome, might not marrie another? Rather the cleane contrary: Seing that he speaketh of such a putting away, as Moses did permitt, and maketh this the difference betwene Christs ordinance, and the law of Moses, that Moses did permitt it for anie cause, Christ but for one. Which to be his mea­ning hee sheweth more plainelyHo [...] [...] Cor. [...]. vpon the first to the Co­rinthians, saying that the marriage is dissolved by whoredom, nei­ther is the husband a husband anie longer. For hence it appeareth that hee thought the bād of marriage to bee loosed. whē they, [Page 56] are severed for whoredom: & therefore consequently the par­ties free to marrie according to the1. Cor 7. 28 Apostles rule. AndHomil de libell repudij other where also, though somewhat more obscurely yet conference with this place will shewe him to have taught. But what should I stand on farther proofe thereof, it being so vndoubted, thatEpitom in 4. lib decretal. part. [...]. cap. 7. D. 6. Byshop Covarrisvias an earnest adversarie of marriage after di­vorcement, and bringing all the Fathers that hee can against it, confesseth S. Chrysoctom to stand on the other side against him for it. And this in foure hundred yeares after Christ, Bellarmin cannot finde one of the Fathers, that hee may iustly say is his: excepting them which make as much for the Encratites, Mon­tanists, and Catharists, as they doe for Papists. In the ages follow­ing hee findeth better store: now one, now moe in eche hun­dred. Yet among them also, looke how manie hee nameth of the Easterne Byshops, whether expressedly, or implyedly: hee playeth the Iesuit with him. For the first of them Theophylact hee alleageth with the same faith & truth, that he did Chryso­stom, whose schollar Theophylact being (afterTom. 7. Contr. 7▪ lib. 1. cap. 4. Bellarmins owne note) did follow his maister. And this the two places thēselves that Bellarmin quoteth, doe insinuate clearely:Theophylact in Math. cap. 1 [...]. the former by opening how Christ permitteth not that putting away which Moses did, without iust cause, nor alloweth any cause as iust but whordom [...]n. 1. Cor. 7. the later by omitting mention of whordō, in spesifying the causes, for which if a womā depart frō her husbād shee must remaine vnmarri­ed. Whereto (if Bellarmin neede more light to see it by) we may adde a third place: in whichIn Luc. cap. 16. Theophylact saying that Luke reher­sing Christes words against men putting away their wives & marrying other must be vnderstood with the exception out of Matthew, Parectos lo­gou porneias delade. obscured by the Latin trā ­slator omit­ting delade. Vnless it be for whoredom, doth shew howfarre he differeth herein from Bellarmin, who denyeth flatly that Christes wordes in Luke must be supplyed with that exception. The rest of the Easterne Fa­thers whose testimony is alleaged by Bellarmin though their names not mētioned: are such as were assembled in the Coun­cell of Florence. For there came thither to conferre with the Pope & the westerne byshops, albeit many of these houlding a generall Councell at Basil the same time, refused to chaunge the place for the Popes pleasure, who sought his owne advan­tage therein, not the Churches, and vndermined the actions [Page 57] of the Councell of Basil Concil Ba­siliens [...]ess 3 [...]. et [...]4 Enias Sylviu [...]de gest. concil. Basil, lib 1. which condemned him of heresie, and de­posed him; but there came thitherSynodus Fl [...] rentine procē. et subscript in literis vn [...]onis the Patriarches of Constan­tinople, Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem, either themselves in person, or by their deputies, with many Metropolitanes and Byshops of Greece of Asia, of Iberia, and other countries of the East. Whose creditt and consent how vntruely Bellarmin pretē ­deth, for the proofe of his false assertion, it is plaine by that hee saith the Councell of Florēce did decree the same in the instruc­tion of the Armenians. A chapter which is fathered in deed vpō the Councell by the schisimaticall Pope Eugenius the fovorth, the deviser of it: but fathered vniustly and calmuniously as the time argueth, wherein it was begottē. For it is recorded in the same decree, that it was made theDecimo ca­lendus Dece [...]bris. two and twentieth of No­vember, in the yeare of Christ a thousand foure hundred, thirtie & nine. Now the Councell ended in Iuly the same yeare foure moneths before: As bothSynod Flo­rent. sess. ult. it self witnesseth, &Ounphr. in pontif. max. et card Gene­brad. Chro­nograph. lib 4 Popish stories not [...]. Wherefore the Councell could not be the father of that decree and chapter: no more then a man can be of that childe whi [...]h is borne fouretē moneths after his death. And the Pope, whose bastard in truth the brat is, by the acknowlegment and record of Papists themselves in theDecretum Eugenij papoe quarti. Tomes of Councells, was so much the more to blame to father it vpon the Councell of Flo­rence Praesens, sanc at atque magna et vnivers [...] lis Synodus. the great & generall councell, andFlorentiaei [...] publica sessio­ne Synodali solennitercele brata. date it in a publique solemne session thereof; Because neither was it debated in the Councell whether marriage after divorcement for adulterie were lawfull or no; and theSynod Flo­rent sess. ult. Easterne byshops mainteyned it to be lawfull, when the Pope after the end of the Councell did re­prove them for it: neither is it likely the contrarie was decreed by all there present of the west. Chiefly seing that more thē half of them were gone when both partes the East & West, subscri­bed to the decrees of the Councell in the letters of agreement: as appeareth by conferringIn proamio their number withSess. ult. their names & the note thereof. Yea the Councell being ended the sixth of Iulie, had their subscriptions added vnto it the one & twentith. Then if of sevē score or perhaps vpward, scarse threescore were remayning at Florence, foureteene dayes after the Councell ended: What may we thinke there were above foure moneths after? But how many soever were present of the West, as the [Page 58] There are about o [...] by shops seas in Italie, Leand. Al [...]ert in de­script, Italie. Pope can quickly muster an hundred Byshops or more, if neede be out of Italie alone,Eneas Sylv [...] us de ge [...]s Basiliensis con­cil. lib. Clā ­dius Esp [...]ceus in epist ad Ti­tam cap 1. to carry away things in Coun­cell by multitude of voices, such pollicie hath he vsed for that; but how many soever Italians he banded to countenance his decree, the Byshops of the East agreed not thereto, neither was it the Councells act. Thus all the Fathers of the Eastern churches, whom Bellarmin alleadgeth, and may vrge with cre­ditt their doctrine touching marriage, doe not onely not say with him, but gainsay him. Wherein their have so many others followe them from age to age till our time, that it is appa­rant they allowe with greater consent a mās marriage after di­vorcement for adulterie then Fathers of the western churches disallow it. ForHist. eccl lib. 4 cap. 17. Eusebius treating of Iustine the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that hee had done, the storie of the Christian woman, who divorced her self frō her adulterous hus­band. And S. Can 9. et 21. Basils canons approved bySynod sext. in Trull can. 2 c Quoniam [...] Synod, sept can. 1. generall Councels, doe not onely authorize the mā to marrie another, whose wife is an adulteresse, but also check the custome which yeelded not like favour in like case to the woman. AndHeres. [...]9. Epiphanius saith (his words are read corruptly, but the sense th [...]reof is plaine of our side, asEpis in 4 lib decreta p [...]rt. cap. 7. 6. Covarruvias graunteth, Epiphanius therefore saith that Seperatiō being made for whoredo, a mā may take a secōd wife, or a woman a second husband. And the same avouchethDecur graec affect lib [...] Theodoret in effect, affirming that Christ hath sett downe one cause: whereby the band of Marriage should be dissolved, and wholy rent a sunder, in that hee did except whordom. And aSext Synod. Constant. no in Trull cā. 8 [...] Nomon synap theisan translated o­therwise by some but mēt thus by the councell as men [...]oi with the antithelis going before it sheweth, & their vse o [...] the word Synap testes Can. 13. d [...]t. [...] c Q [...]o [...]niam generall Councell, wherein there were above two hundred and twentie byshops of the East ga­thered together, doth imply as much; in saying that Hee, who his wife 2 having kept the lawe of wedlocke, and being faithfull to him, yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christs sentence guiltie of adulterie. So doth [...]n prior ad cor. can 7 Oecumenius in applying the precept of abi­ding vnmarried to such as should not have departed, and in a­bridging Chrysostōs words after his manner, whose scholar [...]om cont 7 cap lib. Bel­larmin therefore tearmeth him. So dothIn math ca. 5 Euthymius Chrysostoms schollar too, in [...]harging that mā with adulterie, who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordō from her husbād. So doth Nicephoras, in copying & cōmending that out of Euse­bius, which he had out of Iustin the Martyr. To be short, the Gre­cians, Decretum Eugenij [...]pae which namHist eccl. lib 3 cap. 53. compriseth many nations of the East, all whō theIn p [...]oaem. Florentine Councell calleth the Eastern Church doe [Page 59] put the same doctrine receyved from their auncestours in practise even at this day, allowing married folke not onely, to spe­rate & divorce thēselves in case of adulterie but also to marrie others, as Bellarmin confesseth. Wherefore his opiniō hath not the consent of the Eastern byshops: neither hath had it any age since Christ. Much lesse can he shewe the consent of the SouthFaulus Iovi­us hist fur t [...]p. lib. 18 Fran. [...] Alvar descript Ethi [...]p. ao [...]1 the Aethiopians, & Abessines, or of theAlexan Guaguin in de­script. Sarmat. Europ. Ant. Pessov cap. quib Gr et Rut. a latin. dissent Moscovites & Russes in the North: both which as they receyved their faith frō the East, so vse they like freedome & libertie for this matter. No, not in the west it self, though he have many thēce agreeing with him, yet hath hee the generall cōsent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half, if an exact count might be taken of them. For besides Tertullian, the Councell of Eliberis and to let passe Ambrose) one Byshop of Rome, or more alreadie shewed to have thought that a man being divorced from his wife for her adulterie, is free to marrie a­gaine: there are of the same mindeDivin instit. lib. 6 cap 23 et epis cap 6 Lactantius, In mat. ca. 5. Chromatius, Can on. 4. in math. Hilaric, Augustin de adulier cōjug. ad Pollent. lib. 2 cap 1 et lib 2. cap. [...] Pollentius, In Ep [...]st 1, ad cor cap 7. the author of the Comentaries in Ambrose his name vpon S. Pauls epistles,can [...]0. the first Councell of Arles, cau. [...] the coūcell of Vānes, they who either were at or agreed to theCō [...]antinop in Trullo can. 8 [...]. gr 8 [...] lat. sixth generall coūcell the secōd time assēbledEpist 4 ad Bo [...]sacium Pope Gregorie the third 32. q 7 c. cō ­cubuisti. Pope Zacharie, the councell ofcap. 3. et 10. Bu [...]chard. de­cretor l6. c. 4 [...] et l. 17. cap. 17. et 10. Wormes of32. q. 7. c. Si quis cum no­verca Burchar. lib. 17. c. 17. et 18. Trybur, ofca. 5 Burchar lib. 17. c. 15. Mascon, a councell alleaged by32. [...] 7. c quae dam Gratian without name, & other learned men alleaged likewise bySed illudead caus et quest. him, [...] Vemens 1. extt. de eo qui cogu consang vxoris suae. Pope Alexander the third, [...] Quanto. extra. de divo. tljs Ce­lestin the 3,de cōcord Euang. cap. 100. Zacharie andAddit 2. ad Lyran in mat. 19. Paul byshops, the one of Chrysopolis, the other of Burgos, Christ matrimon instit. et annot. in [...]. cor cap. 7. Erasmus, In mat. cap. 9. Cardinal Cajetan: Tract, de matri quest an proptor crim. adult conj. lib a vinculo. Archbyshop Catharinus, Enartatim epist ad Ro c. 7 Naclantus byshop of Clugia, finallie the teachers of the reformed churches inTindal. on mat 5 Bucer. de regno Christ lib 2. ca 43. P Martyr in 1. cor. 7 Bea [...]on et? Englād, In the confession of their faith pref. Scotlāt, Luther inarrat. in mat. 5 et cor 7 conf Saxon in Harmō conf. sect. 18. art de conj. conf. wirtēb ibid hist. Mag deburg. cent. [...] li. 1 ca. [...], Kēnic exam, conc Trident part▪ Germanie, calvin Instit. Christiāli▪ 4, ca. 19, ult. eccl. gall, in Harmou conf. France &Eccl. Belg. in Harm. cōf. Muscul in mat. 5. Bullin, decad. 2. serm, 10. Saeged in la­corcom de divor [...] other countris, for why should not I name these of our professiō & faith amōg the Fathers as well as Bellarmin nameth the Popish councell of Trēt on the cōtrarie side? But the Papists (will some mā peradventure say, doe not graunt that all, whom you have rehearsed, were of this opiniō. 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 [Page 60] 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. ForIn math. cap 5. Chromatius saith that they who having putt away their wivesAbsq. forni­cationis causa for any cause save for whor [...]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? AndCan. 4. in Math. Hi­larie affirming Christ to have prescribed no other causeDesinendi [...]a conjugio. of cea­sing from matrimony, but that; she weth that the band of ma­trimony is loosed thereby in his iudgmēt. 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 Non contra dixit Augusti­no sed eum consuluit. 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. EvenDe adult cō ­jug ad Pollēt. lib 1. cap. [...]. et lib. 2. cap 2. 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 himTanquam consulende saith Austin. In steedew e [...]of, Bellarmin saith cōsulēdo & drowneth [...]anquam. 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 thatId enim sen tis & videtur tibi et existi­mas, & putas, et eft stoones, tibi videtur et existimas. 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 citethBiblioth, sen tae lib. 2. verb. Repudij hu­mani libellus 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 aPollentium. religiosissi­mum vi [...]um. most godlie man: Bellarmin thought it better to lie, then [Page 61] to graunt that they have such an adversarie. Hee would faine avoid too another auncient father bearing the name of Am­brose; &In epist. [...] cap. [...]. Ambrose might his name be, though hee were not fa­mous Ambrose Byshop of Milan. But whether hee were named so, or otherwise (whichAs it is probably gathered. out of Austin cont, duas epistolas Pelagian lib. 4. cap 4 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,In epist. [...] cap. [...]. though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answere. First [...] 9. 7. d sed illud. Gratian (saith hee) and Peter lib. 4. sent. dist. 35. Lombard doe affirme that those wordes were thrust into this authours Commentarie, by some corrupters of writings. Indeede the one of them affirmeth:dicitur, it is said so; the other,creditur. 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 evidēce 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 monumēts by some corrupters of writīgs. 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 vpō 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 thatEpis▪ in 4 lib decretal par 2 cap. y. 5. 6 Covarruvias speaking of the former onelie as vncertaine, saith that this repugneth manifest­lie to Ambrose. A verie true verdict, as a [...]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, [Page 62] having put away their mate, to marrie another: and that Paul therefore least he should offend the Emperour 1. cor. 7. 1. 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 ofPanopl, E­vang lib. 3. [...] 95. William Lindan, patched vp by Bellarmin. For thes [...]. D. de di­vort et. repud, [...] si ex lege ad legē sul de a­dul [...] l Cōsen­su [...] si constan [...]e c. de repu­dijs. 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. For1. cor. 7. 11. hee did expressely controll the Empero [...]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 wherevpō he wrote, and what was thereby lawfull. Which seemed so evident vnto, Instit sacerd ca de Matrim Lect. 3. Peter Soto, Biblioth sare lib. 6. annot 8 and [...] Sixtus Senesis, andAnnot. in cap. v [...]ot. a v­ro. 32. 97. 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 these be not so well liked, it may be aunswered easilie: that the author of those Commentaries is not Ambrose, nor any of the renowned Fa­thers, Quod er [...]di­ [...]i non igno­rant. 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 be graunted vs with Bellar­mins good leave: But then wee shall be tolde 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 so loath to graunt that such an authour, base, obscure of sclender credit, maketh with vs? Herein there lieth a mysterie. There isIn epist. 1. ad Tim cap. 3. in this authours Commen­taries a place, aCujushodie [...]actor est Da­ [...]. peece of a sentence, which seemeth to speake for the Popes Supremacie: Though perhaps never writen by this authour, or not with that meaning, as I have shewed elswhere. [Page 63] To. 2. conte. [...] lib. 1 cap 6. Bellarmin had cited that place for that inBeatus Am­brosius where by he meneth famous Am­brose, byshop of M [...]ā as the quotatiōs fol­lowing shew. S. Ambrose his name: andThe English college of Rheimes. Annot. on 1. tim. 3. 15 ma [...]ie make a feast thereof, as being sure S. Ambroses. Now if hee should saie, that the authour of those Cō ­mentaries was neither Ambrose nor Saint: hee should gainsaie himself. And sith hee was learned, when hee did cite it so, and therefore knewe (by his owne words) that it was not Ambrose nor anie of the renowned fathers who writt it: men would see thereby, that hee had for the Popes sake against his owne knowledg, fathered on S, Ambrose that which is not his. No marveil then if Bellarmin came to this aunswere as a beare to the stake. At the which though hee seeme to cast vs o [...], by saying that the authour was no renowned Father, and erred in mista­king S. Paul, as having geven more libertie to men then womē, wher [...]of in due place afterward: yet in the meane season hee is forced to graunt that this auncient Father tooke it to be law­full for men to marrie againe after divorcement for adulterie. The sundrie evasions and shifts whereby the Papists have la­boured to wrest the credit of this one [...]ather out of our hādes, doe geve mee occasion to suspect that they will wrangle much more to withdraw from vs the first Councell of Arles Held in Con­stantins time about the year [...] of Christ. 3 [...]0 being more auncient in time, in credit greater, and (asBart caran [...] in somma cō ­ciliorum. one of them­selves doth probably coniecture) confirmed by the Pope also. Herevnto the Councels wishing of certaine persons not to marrie in the case wee treat of might serve them for a colour in as much asCan. 10. it saith concerning them whose wives are ta­ken in adulterie, that if they be yong men and forbidden to marrie,Confiliu [...] eis detut. advise should be given them, as much as may be not to take other wives while the former live, though adulteresses. But this giving of advise is in truth an argument that the coun­cell iudged a man no adulterer, 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, spetially consideringcan. 3. 4. 57. [...] 1. 12. et 14. they punish lesser faults with excommunica­tion. Neither it is nothing that they temper also this counsail and advise to be geven such, withIn quantum potest. as much as may be. And a farder circumstance yet of more importance, they make not this restraint for all men, but forAdolescenses exprohibentes. nubere. yong men: [Page 64] nor for all yong mē, but such as are forbidden to marrie: mea­ning (as it seemeth) those who being vnder the care of their parents were by them forbidden, & could not honestlie diso­bey. For had not this respect or the like moved the Fathers of the Councell, why should they have restrained such yong men & not other? Nay, why onelie yong men, not rather men, not aged men, or them also? Sith in1. Tim. 5. 9 Scripture elder women are chosen to be widowes, and yonger willed to marrie. Our ad­versaries therefore must yeeld that the Councell of Arles is of our side for the point in question. Whereto they shall have greater reason to induce them, if they note with al that the Concil, Va­natle, in Gallia [...]und. 2. Councell of Vannes in the same countrie,About the yeare of Christ 460. the age following made this canon. Wee appoint and ordeine, that they who having l [...]ft their wives, except for whoredom (as it is said in the Gospel) or vpon proofe made of adulterie, marrie others, shalbe excommunicated; Least [...]. sinnes being suffered by our too much gentlenes doe provoke other men to loosenes of transgressing. And this decree I finde not anie of the Papists that goeth about to shift of▪ Neither can I see how they may possiblie: The Councell expounding so plainely Christes wordes of marriage forbidden after divorcement vnlesse it be for whoredome, and accompting marriage after such divorce­ment not a lesser sinne, but no sinne at all, as the reason added for strength of their decree sheweth, Now for the next, the ge­nerall Councell assembled in the Emperours palace of Con­ [...]antinople which made the like decree and taught the same doctrine, as I have declared: Bellarmin would persuade vs (v­pon other occasions touching Poperie nearer the quick, then this doth) that the western Byshops neither gave countenaun [...]e thereto with their presence, nor approved the Canons thereof with their consent. To this end hee denieth that the said Coun­cell was a generall Councell, & striveth in hisDe Ro. pont, lib. 2. cap. 27 third contro­versie to aunswer some of our reasons which confirme it. But hee easeth vs of paines to fift his aunsweres by meanes that himself in theDe eccles mi lit. lib. 1. cap 7 fourth cōtroversie, discoursing of generall councels purposelie, doth reckē it amongst thē. For as inl. fin, D. de constitut princip [...]m. mēs lawes whē they are repugnāt one vnto another, the later derogateth frō the former: so (I trow) when Bellarmin doth contradict him­self, his last word must hold. And the more reasō it should so in [Page 65] this, because bothlib. 1 d [...] imaginib. ad Carol Magn c [...]p. 35 post N [...]caen synod 2. et ejus synod [...] act 2. Pope Adrian the first of auncient tyme did call it the sixth Councell, declaring thereby hee tooke it to be one of the Gēeral Coūcels whereof he tearmed it the sixth, and inNicaen sy­nod. 2. act. 4. et 6. the seaventh generall Councell sūdry Fathers alleaged it by the name of the sixth Generall, & avouched it to bee iustly called so. Which sentence of theirs being not controled by any of that Councell, and theNicaen. sy­nod. a. can. 1. Councell it self afterwarde ap­proving the decrees and Canons of the sixe generall Councels: it is verie probable that the western churches yeelding their cō ­sent to the seavēth Coūcel, and taking it for sound, accounted (asZonaras et Balsamon prae fat. in synod 6 Nilus et Batla am de pr [...]ma­tu Papae C [...]su­ra orientatis eccels. c. ult. the Eastern still have done & doe) that which they entit­led the sixth to bee Generall. Specially seeing that in the West, men of great creditDecreti part 4. c. 121. et se­quent Ivo andDist 16. c. Habeo libr [...] ̄. Gratian andc A multis extra de aetat. et qualit et. ord. prae [...]ici­end. Pope Innocentius the third and their disciples, the whole schoole of Cannonists have on those authorityes of the seaventh Councell made like reckoning of it. And although our yonger papists for the most parte and some of the elder, perceyving what advantage may be taken thence agaynst many grounds of popery, doe crosse their predecessours herein withVrged by Bellarmin of Canus etc. lib. 2. de Rom pont cap. [...]7. seely reasons, such as where of the b [...]st would inferre more forceablie that their Councell of Trent was no Generall Councel: yet amōg thē also there are who allowe the auncient opinyon, asIn sūma cōci­liorū, chrōo­graph. lib. 3. cōciliorū cō ­stātinopolita­num finitur sub Iustinian. Rhinotmeto colectis 227, episcopis in eius palatio. The one of coolen in tō [...] the other at Venice in 5. Caranza namely, and^f Genebrard and Surius, with whose preface tēding to the proofe therof it is re­commended & published by papists in the two 5 perfitst and last editions of the Councels. Wherefore whether anye of the West were present in person, or by deputyes,prefat. syn 6 ad [...]ustinian. and subscribed to it which 9 Balsamon andde prim [...] [...] Nilus, learned Greeke Fathers a­vouch by olde records; or whether it were celebrated by East­ern byshops onely, as theThod, Hist, eccles lib. 5 c. 7, 9, second Generall Councell also was in the same City of Constantinople the consent of the west ap­proving it for Generall averreth my sayings by a cloude of wit­nesses of the western Churches. Pope Gregory the third follo­weth, epist 4. ad [...]onif, 32. q 7, equod propo [...]u [...]. Hee graunteth that if a woman by reason of sicknesse wherewith shee were taken could not performe the duty of a wise to her husband, her husband might put her away and mar­rie another. More then by the doctrine of Christ hee had lear­ned to graunt for any sicknes: but so much the likelyer that he [Page 66] thought it should bee graunted for whoredom expressely men­tioned by Christ. Wherevpon [...] eccles [...]l [...]. 2 sect, 2. Ioverius a Sorbonist in a worke approved by Sorbonists, matcheth his Canon with the like of Councels, who gave the Innocent partie leave to marrie againe after divorcement, while the other lived. Neither doth Bellarmin denye the illation, but the proposition, which the poynt inferred is grounded vpon. For the Doctors (sayth hee meā ­ing the Canonists) expound the Canon of such sicknesse as maketh a woman vnfitt for Marriage: and so is an impediment disolving ma­trymonye contracted, by shewing it was no true matrimonye. But the Doctor of Doctorssed illud. Quāvis 3., q7 nubat, Gratian himself vnderstood it otherwise; of sicknsse befalling to her, who was an able wife. And those his glosse writers vse most that exposition which Bellarmin would have vs recieve for authentick as the fittest salve; yet rest vel intellige vel dic. In c quod propo­suisti verbo they not vpon it. AndHist, part 2, tit. [...] Ca [...]. 1, quamvis. where he nameth Englshmē in sted of Germanes, & Gre­gorye the 1. insteed of Gregorie the 3 or 2, as Antonins tooke it. Antonius a great Canonist: Arch­byshop of Florēce correcting^p Gratians slipp of memorie for the persons, concludeth with him for the matter. And the flow­er of LovanExplicat articul. Lovan. art. 19. Tapper, the Chauncelour of their viniversity, ap­proveth this of Antonius. AndCōcilior, Tō. 3. annotat mar. ad liūc locum, the learned men who were over-seers of the last edition of the Councels doe witnesse by cōtrolling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not'Istuc he die ecclesiae non servat. that Gregory meant of sickenesse happ [...]ning vnto lawfull wives in their iudgement And the Pope himselfe (asTom 1 cont 3 lib. 4 Cap 12. 3. q [...]. c. con­cubuisti. Bellarmin noteh els where) declareth that hee tooke it to bee true matry­monie, by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of ayde, that is, ought to maynteyne, & finde her as his wife still. Wher­fore if no Catholique byshop would imagin that a man may lawfully put away his sick wife, and marrie another, vnlesse hee thought the same much more to bee lawfull in an adulterous wife, as wee are to presume: then must the Papists by conse­quent acknowledg that the poynt in Question is prooved and allowed by Gregory the third. A playner and directer allow­ance thereof, appeareth in a Canon of his successor ^t Zacharie, who whē a certayne man had defiled himself incestiously with his wives sister, graunted that his wife should be divorced from him: and (vnlesse shee were privie to that wicked act by coun­sayling or procuring it) might marry in the Lord if shee could not conteine. This so cleare a testimony of anAbout the yeare of Christ 740 auncient Pope [Page 67] authorizing the divorced woman to marrie, Bellarmin would elude, by saying that hee meant shee might marrie another, af­ter the former husbands death. As who say, the Pope inioy­ning theSinespe cō ­jugij permane atis. man and the whore for a punishment to stay and a­byde without hope of mariage, were likly to meāe by liberty of marriyng graunted the guyltlesse for a benefite, that while the guilty lived, who might overlive her, shee should not marrye no more then hee. Or as though there had bene neede for the Pope then to graunt it with exception,Si se cont­inere nō vult. If she will not conteine Let her marrie in the Lord. Whereby it seemeth that hee rather wished her to refrayne from marriage, if shee might be induced thereto, which hee had no cause to wish on this occasion after the mans death, she being ^v then simply free,1. Cor. 7 39 and willed to mar­rie 1. Tim. 5. 14 such might her age be. But what doe I reason out of the circumstances in a thing so certayne and cleare of it self, that al­though thePeter Lom­a [...]nd Gratian. great maisters whom Bellarmin alleaged before & followed here, have assayed to darken the light thereof by this mist:Biblioth fāct [...]b. 6. Anno­tat. 8. yet Sixtus Senensis confesseth that Pope Zachary decreed that the women if shee would not conteine, should marry ano­ther husband while the former lived. It is true that Sixtus see­keth to helpe the matter another way somwhat, by yoking the Pope with provinciall Councels: who (hee sayth) allowed & decreed it, not by a generall and perpetuall ordinance, but for a tyme, & to certaine nations; & that in such heynous crymes as incest onely, But will the Papists stand to this doctrine, that the Popes decrees bynde not al nations generally, nor are perpetually to last? Thē must they acknowledg (which would touch the Papacie & Popery verry neerely) that the Popes suprema­cie is falsly pretended, hee hath his certeyn limits as Metropo­litanes have: and some will reason also that the lawes of Popes were to last for a tyme vntil Luther rose, but for a tyme onely, there date is out now. As for the cryme of incest, wherevpon the Pope allowed the innocent partie to put away her husband and to marrie another: that confirmeth rather the poynt in Question then disproveth it. For hee had no warrant to allow this by, but ourMatth. 9 [...] Saviours doctrine forbidding such divorce­ment, except it were for whoredom: so that he might not have graunted it for incest, vnlesse hee had thought it lawfull for ad­ulterie; [Page 68] Exod 20. 14 Math. 5. 28. Neither did hee consider the cryme but as comprised vnder adulterie too: Whereof (in a generall sense meant by the adultera. law) incest is a kinde. And therefore in speaking of her with whom the detestable act was committed, hee tearmed her [...] cap. [...] B [...]rch [...]rd decretor. [...]ib. c. cap 41. the Adulteresse not the incestious person. Thus it is apparant, that in this matter Pope Zacharie was no papist. No more was the Councel of ^c Wormes which shewed their iudgment to the like effect to weet, that a man who could prove his wife to have been of counsail with such as sought his death, might put her away and marry another if hee would. Presuming that belike, which they might iustely, asof Livia Drusi in Cor­nelius Tacitus M [...]es A [...]den Mres Sanders in our English Chroniclas. examples teach vs, that shee was nought of her body with some of the conspiracie. For els had the Councell expressely authorized the same thatMath 19 9 Christ condē neth, if for any other cause then for adulterie they had allowed the man to marrie. ThereforeEpit in 4. lib. decretal. part 2. cap. 7. D. 6. Covaruvias reckonethElibertnu­om hee cal­le thit through an errour of [...]ouie dit [...] ō of Gratian. vp this Councell among thē who held that a man having lawfully put away his wife for her whoredom, might take another while shee lived. Yet a certaine Spanish Frier named Raymund, one of Pope Gregory the nynthes speciall State-men, the compiler of his De­cretals, cap. Si qua mu. ser extra de divortijs, would avoyd it also after Gratians manner, by false exposition as if the Councell had meant, a man might take another wife after the death of the former. To the more effectuall per­swading whereof, that questionlesse they meant so: hee vseth a speciall trick of popish cunning. For, making shewe of registering the Councels owne decr [...]e, in steed of those wordesPotest ipsā uxorem di [...]it tere e., si vo­suerit al [...]m ducare [...] Hee may put away his wife and marry another, if he will: the Frier setteth downe thesePotest ipse potest axoris li voluer [...]t a­lid ducere Hee may after his wives death marrie annother, if hee will. And whereas the Councell had sayd,Vt vobis videtur. as we thinke, which wordes had bene absurdely put in, if they hadd meant after his wives death hee might marrie another, a thing agreed on and vndoubted: The Frier (as theeves are wont to deface and sup­presse the markes of things which they have stolen, least they be taken thereby) leaveth that cleare out. But by the mouth of two witnessesDere [...]or. lib 6. cap. 41. Burchardus Byshop of wormes, and [...]i, ua mul [...]e [...] 3. q. 1. Gratian or [...] it were a Cardinal or other author soe named: as they who wrote the notes on Gratian of Gregorie the 13 edi­tiō al [...]ag out of sūdry law­iers that it was praesoliū lect sacer ec [...]l­essiast. class. sect [...] praemō it. de Can. Conc apud Vermer. Palea, both elder then the Frier, and from whom of likely­hod hee receaved this Canon of the Councell of Wormes his false and irreligious dealing is bewrwayed. Whereto may the confession of the third bee added, though in years yonger, yet [Page 69] greater in credit for things agaynst Papists, himself a popish Doctor and burning light of Paris, ⁱ Ioverius I meane: who sayth of that Councell, that it allowed the innocent partye to marrie agayne after divorcemēt, the other being yet alive. And the Councell it self maketh farder proofe that they are not vn­iustely charged by Ioveruis and Covariuvias with this iudgemēt.

For if any man had committed wickednesse with his daughter in lawe, the daughter of his wife by her former husband:cap 10. But­chard. lib. 17. cap. 10. they agreed that hee should keepe neither of thē: but his wife might marrie another if shee would, if shee could not conteyne and if shee had not carnall company with him, after that she knew of his adulterie with her daughter. The last clause whereof sheweth that they ment of liberty graunted her to take another husband while the former lived: sith it cannot be thought with reason, but they iudged shee might take another the former b [...]ing d [...]ad: though shee had continnued with him as his wife, after shee knew of his adulterie. The32. p. 7. c. fi Quis cum No verca. Councell of Tribur did maynteyne the same: ordeyning that if any committed vila­ny with his mother in law, her husband may take another wife if hee will, if hee cannot conteine: and the like order is to bee observed, if with his daughter in law or his wives sister. Bellar­min like theHorat de arte Poet. paynter, who being good at purtraing of a Cy­presse tree, when one gave him money to draw and represent a shipwrack in a table asked if hee would have a Cypresse in, dispairing to doe ought worth perhaps, vnlesse that helped: saith that all such Canons (all not onely this of the Triburian Coun­cell) are vnderstood of marriage graunted to the innocent party after the death of the former wife or husband. An answer no fitter for this and all such Canons, then a Cypresse tree is for a shipwrack, as those of Pope Zachary & the Councell of wormes the former whereof hee garnisheth also with this Cypresse tree, doe argue. For the same reasons which proved Zacharies Can on to bee meant of the womans marriage while the man lived, prove the Councel of Triburs to bee likewise meant of of the mans in the womans life-tyme. The punishment inflicted therein Neuter ad cōjugiū potest pervenire on the offēders doe equally enlarge the benifit to the Inno­cent. Thesi se cōtine­re non potest exception added to the enlargemēt, is stronger: implying they would have him staye vnmarried rather, if he can conteyne. The testimonye of ⁿ Sixtus is all one for both: nei­ther [Page 70] doth the quallity of the cryme of incest more infringe the argument heere then it did there. And this extenuation that the Councell beeng a provinciall Councell ordeined it for men of their owne province, and for that tyme onely, encreaseth the authority thereof, if the precious bee severed from the vile, the truth from the falshood. For why affirmeth hee that they did ordeyn it for that tyme onely? The forme of their decree touch­ing Si quis dormie [...] it all generally that should offend so, not some particular person, who presently had; they speaking of the thinge asPotest for id [...]ossumus qu [...]d [...]urepos­ssu [...]us lawfull in it self, andSim literob se [...]andū est. to bee observed alike in like cases; their makinge ofcap 1. et 1. Burchard lib 7. cap 7. et 18. other Canons to that effect: yeaConcil. Tri­bur, can. 4 [...]. another Councel also peradventure, & no limitatiō of tyme in any of them; doe persuade the contrarie. Now, whereas they ordeyned it for men of their owne province, their modesty was the greater: who did not take vpon them as Popes to make lawes for men of all nations, but looked as Byshops to their owne diosaes. And the greater modesty, the liker toMath 11 29 Christ, and the better to be liked ofCollo [...] 3 12 Christians, the more reverence to beAnachor. a­pud B [...]dam lib [...]ccles, hist. gēt Anglo [...] cap [...]. heard with, and their iudgmēt had in greater estimation. Beside that, this self-same decree of theirs was establyshed also bycap 1 Butehard 7. cap 1. the Councell of Wormes.

And [...]9. 42. c. Si quis in genuus at that tyme Pipinus (King of Fraunce, and of a great parte of Germany) was present. Who as hee did keep a generall assembly of his peopleIn worma­tia civita [...]e Al­mein de gestis Francor. lib. 4. cap 66. there: so by all likelyhoode called Byshops thither out of his whole realme, to make decrees for the whole. A province of such largenesse, thatConcil Cart­hag 4. et Mile­vet in [...] conc. African. Epist. ad Celestin Cōc Tolet 3. cap. 18 Councells cō ­sisting of Byshops assembled, out of no greater, have bene tearmed Generall: and woorthely (asTom. contr, 4, lib [...] cap. 4 Bellarmin confesseth) in comparison of Provinciall Councells commonly so called, wherin there were not Byshops of a whole Nation or Realme. Thus Sixtus by striving to lessen & diminish the credit of the canō of the coūcel of Tribur, hath givē vs occasiō to make the more of it: cōsidering on the one side the modestie of the Byshops who were assembled there, and made decrees for their province; on the other the Province which that decree was made for, so large that all the Provinces of Italie cannot match it, though they were lincked in one. Had it not bene better for him, with out this Retorique to say directly and flattly asSanction. ecce [...]s, clasi 2. sect 2. ad Cōe ve [...]in. Ioverius doth, that the Councell of Tribur made the like decre to the Coun­cell [Page 71] of wormes, which now the Church (hee meaneth the Pop­ish Church) receyveth not? whether any Papist wil take excptiō agaynst the Councell of Mascon,cap. [...] Bur [...]hard lib. [...] cap. 15. which allowed likewise a cer­tain man, whose wife had bene defloured by his brother bee­fore hee wedded her to put her away and marry another it may bee wee shall know hereafter. But vnto a Councell that made another such decree, as32 q 7 c. Quaedam Gratian sheweth alleaging it without name, Bellarmin taketh two exceptions: one, that it is lost; the other of the Cypresse tree. Touching the former, not as much as the name thereof (sayth hee) is extant: therefore it might be easily contemned & sett at nought. Why? Is it therefore worse then all that have names, because it is namelesse? Then haveCardinal Pole Sadoset contaren er consdele [...] card. conc. lior Tō. ult. Baptist Mantuan Syl. lib. 1. ed. ult Erasm adag. Qui probet Atne niensis. manye Cardinals with other learned reverent men bene much to blame, for writing so of Rome as if it had a num­ber of wicked lewd prophane in-habitants. For by there re­port the Romans having everye one a name or two, should bee worse for the most parte, then were the Atlantes, a people of Af­ricke, whomBiblioth, hist. lib [...] Diodorus Siculus commendeth verie heighly for Godlynes and Humanity, yet non of thē had anie name,In Melp [...]m He­rodotus saith. Or if this bee a fable, asHist. natura. lib 5. Cap 8. Apoe [...]egm La­con. & [...]aconar Plinie seemeth rather to thinke, and well it may be; yet is it most certayne that [...] Plutarch recordeth as grave and wise sayings of Lacedemonyans without names, as of any whose names are known. And Bellarmin (I trust) will graunt that in the scriptures there is no lesse account to be made of the booke of Ioshua, then of Nehemias, of Iob, thē of the Proverbs: though their names who wrote the one bee not sett downe, as theirs who wrote the other. But hee will say perhaps that of this Councell not onely the name is vnkno­wen, but also the worke it selfe lost. And what if it be? were notde civit, Del lib 9, cap 2 those of Varroes workes, which wee have not, as learned as the workeDominicus Floceus Floren tinus ser forth vnder the nam of L [...] & sacerd tis Romainis of Floccus which wee have? Of Tullie, of Poly­bius, of Livie, Dio, Tacitus, of infinite writers more, are there not as good bookes lost, as there are extant.The writers of the Notes on Gregories ed [...]tion-xtra de & qui c [...]gn consangu ux­oris suae, [...]si quis verbo Metiam. The same hath fal­len out in Eclesiasticall authors specially in Councels: whereof a great many are not to be found: as they who by occasion of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals, have dilli­gently searched through the chiefest liberaaies of Europe, doe note. And a certaine famous and aunciēt Councel of Ments [Page 72] beeing commended and praised above the other, bychro mōast. hirsan [...]g. Tretenius and Surius, [...] cōcilior. rom 3 post syuod. Mogūt sub Rubano. who wisheth hee might have gotten it to be publy­shed, sheweth that some extant, are not to bee compared with some that are lost, wherefore Bellarmins former exception to the Councell that it is not extant, no nor the name of it, was not worth the nameing. The latter that the Councels Canon was meant of Marriage after the former wives death: is lyke to prove as false as the profe thereof is frivolous and fond. For quedam 32 [...] 7, these are the words of the Canon: A certaine woman laye with her husbands brother: it is decreed the adulterers shall never bee Married: but lawfull Marriage shalbe graunted vnto him, whose wife the vilenie was wrought with. Which words are well expounded (saith Bellarmin) by the Doctors, and their meaning ga­thered c, Hist vero eadem quaect. out of the like Canon following a litle after: wherein it is ordeined, that When the adulterous wife is deceassed, her man may marrie whom hee will; but her selfe the adulteresse may not marrie at all, no not her husband being dead. Gratian in deed, and the Glosse-writers on him (the Doctores meant by Bellarmin) doth them wrong in saying they expound it rightly. For this Canō following, out of which they gather that to bee the meaning, being a Canon of I know not what Gregory, at least Fathered on him, doth noe more prove it thenquod prop [...] suisti, ead. q the above alleaged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent partye while the other lived, doth inferre the cōtrarie. And the Coun­cells words mentioning expressely the Innocēt parties freedom and liberty to marry, which had bene superfluous if they meant of marriage after the others death: make it most probable that the Councell vttered them with the same meaning, wherewith others vttered the like, as hath bene shewed. Herevnto the iudgement ofBibl, Sanct lib, [...] an not [...] vnder the nāe of Synodus [...] libe [...]ima the authour t [...]es thought of this Canon Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight, sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength and cutt the sinewes of it, acknowledgeth notwithstanding that it was of one minde with the councell of Tribur. [...] e Veniens. 1. de eo qui cog cōsang. [...] [...]xoris suae So was Pope Alexander the third too some tyme, though Bellarmin alleageEx parte ex­tra de spōs et matrim. him as of another mynde. But let Bellarmin say whether hee had two myndes and erred in on of them: seing it is certaine hee was of this minde once, vnlesse hee wrote against his minde. For where as a man that had wedded a wife, did, before hee entred the [Page 73] marriage-bed with her, enter her mothers bed: Pope Alex­ander sayde, that hee doing some pennance might bee dispen­sed with to marrie another wife. Here the Popes favour to­wards the offender; doth favour of that whichFran [...] Vic­toria relect 4 omne [...] qui petunt afferunt dispēsationes. In petunt Lee cōpriseth pen­dunt, Cie in ver lib. [...] et. [...]. hath bene missliked in Papall dispensations. But he that graunted thus much to the incestuous husband, would (I trust) have graunted it to the guiltlesse wife: asEpist Alex­and. [...]. ad pict. episc Append Conc, Lateran. hee did also to her that had this iniu­rie. The onely evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Maisters example have recourse, is that the Canonists expoūd the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse, & her espoused also by wordes of the tyme to come, not of the tyme present.

Which exposition may seeme the more probable, because the Popes wordes sett downe in the Decretalls geve her the name of spouse without signification that the man had wedded her. But hereof Frier Raymund who compiled & clipped the Decretalls must beare the blame, asAnnot [...]t. de varijs de­cretal. Epist. cōpilat e [...]in praesat Gregorij noni. Antonius Contius a learn­ed Lawier of their owne hath well observed. For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in theAppēd Cōc Later sub A­lexand. tert. part 12. cap. 4. Tomes of Councels, de­clareth that the woman was the mans wedded wife, though he did forbeare her companie a while. No remedīe there-fore but it must be graunted, that in this matter Pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former Councels. Now by all the rest whom I aleaged there is none excepted against by anye Pa­pist, for ought that I know, or as I thinke will bee. ForDiomar In­stitut lib 6. cap. 23. Lactantius first avoucheth, so the lawfulnes of putting away [...] mās wife for adulterie even with intent to marry another that both Epit. [...] lib. 4. Decretal. part. 2, cap. 7. D. 6. Covaruvias andIn 4. sent. dist. 36. art. 6. Dominicus Soto graunt him to be cleare from it. Nextc. Quedam sententiam Ambrosij ser­vare cupiētes 32. q 7. Sed il­lud. touching the authours mentioned by Gratian as holding the same for one kinde of adulterie: who doubted but there were certaine so persuaded, when such an adversarie confesseth it. Then for Pope Celestin the thirde, sithInnocent, the third cap. Quan [...]o extra de divortiis. a Pope saith hee thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their parteners in wedlocke for haerisie, and marry others: I see not how the Papist may denye hee thought it lawful for adul­terie, more then I shewed they might of Gregory the third. And albeitDe cōcord. Evāg cap. 109. Zacharie byshop of Chrysopolis, may seeme to shew ra­ther what other mens opinion was, then what his owne, yet it is apparant by his manner of handeling that hee ioyned with [Page 74] In epist. ad cor cap. 7. Ambrose therein, whose words hee citeth, and fenseth them against authorities, that might bee opposed. As for the By­shop of Burgos, Paul commended heighly byAust Steuc. recogn vet. Test ad ver Hebr. in Gen 37 Sixt seuēs bibl. Sanct. lib. 4. learned men for learning,Addit. 2. ad ly [...] in M [...] [...]9 hee sayth that it is manifest by Christs doctrine, that whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom, commiteth not adulterye though hee marry another.Enarat in epist ad Rom cap. 7. Naclantus, who was present at the Councel of Trent, a Byshop of princi­pall name and price among them, affirmeth as directly, that a wife being losed from her husband by death or by divorce­ment, is not an adulteresse if shee marrie another. To con­clude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus, Caietan, Catharinus, Luther, Melancton, Bucer Calvin, Brentius, Kemnitius, Peter Martyr, and in aworde all Lutherans and Calvinists, (as it pleas­eth this Roman Tertullus to name vs pooreAct [...] 24. 5. Nazarens) agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adulterie, Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wounde hee might geve his cause by graunting that Erasmus, Caietan, Ca­tharinus three so learned men, and two of thē such pillars of the Romish Church a Cardinall & an Arch byshop agree in this poynt with Lutherans & Caluinicts: he addeth that those three differ much frō these hertiques (meāing By heretiques the Nazarens I spake of,Te [...] ton Na­zora [...]en [...] protesta­tia whose ring-leader was Paul) in as much as they submitt thēselves expressely to the churches iudgement. And because the church (saith he) hath now opened her minde most evidently, as appeareth by the Coūcel of Trēt the 24. sessiō the 7 Canō, where all who thinke the band of marriage maye be loosed for any cause are acursed: therefore it seemeth that those three also, & chiefly the two later, must be thought no o­therwise minded in this matter, thē reliquo­rū omiū The o [...]og or catholicorū cōmu­nissima sentē all the rest of the Catho-Divines are & have bene with great agreemēt & cōsent. which dispute of Bellar. if it have sufficiēt groūd & strength of reasō Erasmus must be coūted a catholique in al things ForVbiqne test atū esse volumus nos nus­quam a iudi­cio ecclae catholicae velun­gué aut digit um latū velle descedere. Quod si quid usquam ejus modideprehēdatur id jam nūc pro­ [...]ecantat volumus haberi, In capitū Arg umēt, cōtt. moros [...]s quosdam et indoctos pre­fix nov Test. excus cū Au­not. edict 4. et 5 Ibidē in 1. cor. 7. ad hūc ipsū locū semper inquit il­labefacto. eccl catholicae uidicio in al his writings he submitteth himself to the churches iudgemēt. Thē why dothTō, [...]. cōt, [...], lib. l. c. [...]. Bell. cal him a demie Christiā,ex semichristiā. l. Tō. 2. Iud. sectar. & haeret. & enrol his nāe a­mōg sectaries & hertiques? what are the Fathers of the Coūcel of Trēt Demie-christiās, sectaries, heretiques; thy are (by Bellar. logique) of one minde with Erasmus. Moreover S. Austin the ciefeft mā of Bellar. side in this questiō must be coūted ours by [Page 75] the same logique. Forde Bapt cōt. Dōa. lib 2, c [...]. he taught expressely that himself; yea any byshop evē S, Cipriā, yea provincial Coūc. too, should yeeld to the authority of a general Coū. And the 6 general Coū. graū ­ted liberty of mariage after divorcmēt, as hath bene declared: wherfore if Caietā must be thought no otherwise mynded then Papists are, because that church whose iudgmēt he did submitt himself to, defined so at TrētIn the yeare 1563. caj [...]tan being dead a 30 years before Sixtus se [...]ēst [...] bib sact. lib. 4. a good while after his death: S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded thē we are, be­cause our assertiō was cōfirmed likewise by a General Coūcell, whereto hee would have yeelded. Chiefly sith of liklyhood hee would have more easily yeelded therūto, thē Caietan to his churches becauseIn Mat. 16. Caietā sheweth hee was stiffe in holding fast his owne opiniō,Quon am nō audeoop­ponerem [...] cōtra tortē ē doctroū & [...]u d [...]ticrū ecclsi­asticorū, idio [...] dixi &c' whē for feare of Church-mē he durst not say all that he thought; & in this very point, thoughprefat cō [...]ntarior. in Eva. ad clement 7 submitt̄ig hīself to the See of Rome as wel as to the church,In Math. 19 he eludeth decrees ofex parte ex­tra de spons, et matrim. [...]ga [...] deam [...], de di vortiis. popes that make against him,Epist 7 ad Marcellin. & prolog retract so resolute he was in it. Sr. Austin cōtrariwise vsed very modestly & willingly to retract things that he had writtē, evē whē Retract lib. 2 cap, 18. he lighted on ought in an heretike that seemed better & truer, & this point he thoughtDe fide et o­p [...]tib. cap. 19. so darke in the Scripturs, & hard to be discerned, that his opiniō was not hard to be removed; if he had seē strōger reason broght against it, or greater authority. Now if S. Anstin come over to our side by that quirck of Bellar. [...] a band of Bellar. wittnesses is like to come with him: namly the coūcel of Melevis & Affrique,Coūcil mi­levit. cum. 27. carthag. sent. prefat. 7. which he was presēt at, & swaied much with: perhaps Primasius also (Tritē catalo. scriptor eccl. were he Austins scholar) & Bede with a nūber of Canōists, and schoolemē, who folowed most S. Austin. But Bellarmin will never resigne all these vnto vs, to gaine the other three frō vs. For (The English translatour of the Beehive. lib. 6. chap. 4. as our Bee-hive saith) Men live not by losses. He must suffer therefore Erasmus, & Caietan, & Catharinus specially, who (beside theAnnot in eo mēt cajctan. lib. 5. place that Bellar. hath quoted) doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely thereof, more throughly & exact­ly then Erasmus or Caietan; Bellarmin I say must suffer them to be counted of that minde which they were of, while thēselves lived; not cavill as if they were of that which peradventure they would have benecatharinus, died in the yeare 552. Sixtus. senēs. lib. 4. Erasm. in the yeare. 1 [...]36, [...]lēd. l. [...]. had they not died before the Councell of Trēt taught so. Vnlesse he thinke (which he may by as good reasō that whereas they were deceased above x. yeares yer the C. [Page 76] Trent made that new canon, wee ought to count them alive all that while, because they did submitt them-selves to Physitiās and would have lived perhaps till then, had arte bene able to cure disseases. How much more agreablye to singelnes & truth doeBibl. Sanct lib. 6 Annot 81. Sixtus, Epit in 4. lib decretal part, 2. cap. 7. 6 Covarruvias, andIn 4. Sen­tent dist. 36. art 5. Domenicus Soto acknowledge (the two former touching Catharinus the last for Erasmus, all concerning Caietan) that in this question of marriage agayne after divorcement for adulterie, their doctrine is the same with those auncient Fathers whom our yonger teachers of the re­formed Churches follow. And thus if I should ēter into the comparison of Divines on both sides: first, for the number it is more then likely, that wee prevayle much. For all whom Bellarmim and the Pamphletter after him doe muster out of the west, I meane whō they claime iustly, not who either say against them asAdvers. Ma [...]tion lib 4. Tertullian, or not with them asin 4. sent dist 35. Scotus, all therefore whom they muster so out of the West, areEpitaph Fa­bibl. et epist ad Amand. Ierom the Coū cels ofcan. 17. Milevis andcan. 69. AfriqueEpist 3. ad Exuper. can. 6 Innocentius the firstDe adult conjug et de bono conjug. Austin, In epist 1. ad Cor. cap 7. Primasius, De divin offic lib. 2. cap 19. Isiodore, In Mar. cap 10 Bede, the Councel ofCan. 10. Friouli andCan 12. Nantes,In Math cap. 5. [...]. 1 [...]. Anselme, [...]. ex part des pons. et, ma­trim. Pope Alexander the thirdcan gaude­mus de divor tijs. Innocentius the third,in 4 sentent dist. 35. Thomas, Bonaventure. Durand; and other Schole-men,In instruct Armeniotū. Pope Eugenius with his Florentines &sess. 24. can. 7 the Councel of Trent. which though [...]2 q. 7. sed illud 2. Sent. lib. 4. dist 35. Gratian, Lombard and whomsoever he might bill, were added to them yet ours out of the west alone pehaps would match them. What if the North, the South, whence Bellarmin hath none? what if the East, whence hee hath two or three at the most for hunderds of ours bee ioyned therevn­to? Then for Qualitiecor. 14. 36 Came the worde of God out from you? saith Paule to the Corinthians; or Came it to you onely? Meaning that they ought to reverence the iudgemēt of other Christian Churches being more then they were: but of those chief­ly and first (as hee placeth them) from whō the Gospell came first. NowEsai 2. 3. lue. [...]4. 47. act. 1. 8. and the whole storie. the Gospell came first out of the East: whose cō ­sent wee have in a manner generally. and as wee have the first in Countrie, so in tyme the auncientest & eldest: our two firste Councels inAt Eliberis the firme Citye. [...]at now is called Granade, or near there vnto Spayne, and in Fraunce elder an hundred yeares then their two in Africque, our next farre elder yet then their next; and so vnto the last: yea, for several Fathers, aunciēt on both sides, ther are more with vs in the foure or five or sixe for-formost [Page 77] ages then there are with them. Of soundnes in docttrine, of learning, of vertue, of constancie, of consent, it is hard to speake by way of comparison whether excelleth other. Saving that for [...]' Tim. 3. 3. Tim. 2. 14. gentelnes and meekenes. a speciall ornamēt of Byshops, weigh both partes together, and ours surpasse our adversaries. Amongst whom the Councell of Trent accursethwhat? our Saviour also [...] who sayth it [...] by his worde Math. 19. 9. all such as say that that they doe erre in this poynt, into which outrage none of ours hath broken against the contrarie minded. As for other graces of the holy Ghost, though Bellarmin have noted sundrie spotts and blemishes wherby some of ours are touched in credit, and their authority is impeached: let him cast his eies vpon his owne witnesse's without partiallitie, and hee shall finde that wee have a Rowland for his Oliver. For where hee telleth vs that Ambrose did erre in yeelding greater freedō to men then to women; Luther and Bucer in graunting second marriage after divorcement for moe causes then whoredome; PopeBel. tom. 1. cont. 3. lib. 4 Cap. 12. Gregory the same for sicknes:Ibid, Ca. 14. Cellestin the same for he­resie: wee tell him againe thatIn the place abo ve quoted Clemens Alexandrinus [...] Athenagoras, Origen (if hee bee out of theirs) Ierom andIn Marc. C. 10. Bede, did likewise erre in speaking against all second marriages, andDid. Covat variatū reso­lut. lib. 4. Ca. 7 [...]. Sixt senēs. bibl. sanct lib [...]. Annot. 77. & lib. 6. An­not. 119. Cle­mens withSixt. senēs. lib. 5, & 6 Ge­brad. collect. de Origē vita Cap, vit. Origen insundrie weightie poynts of fayth. WhereTom [...]eō [...]. lib. 1 cap 5. hee telleth vs that Lactantius fell into a number of errours, as being more skilfull in Tullie then in the scriptures, wee tell him againe that some of the Scholemen were, though not more skil­full in Tullie, then in the scriptures, yet as vnskilfull in the scriptures,Melch C [...] ­us locorum, Theolog. lib. 8. Cap. 1. as in Tullie; and there graund-maisterArticulis in quibus Magister non tenetur the Maister of the sentences is charged by themselves with above a score of errours. Where hee telleth vs that Luther varieth from himselfe Melancton agreeth not with him, nor Kemnitius with either of them, because Luther alowed divorcement for moe causes afterward then at the first, and Melancton thinketh that both the divorced parties are free to marrie, Kēnitius that the Inoc̄et onely; wee tell him againe that neither doth Pope Innocentius the third agree with Pope Alexander, nor Alexander with himself nor neither of them with Athenagoras, seing Athenagoras cō ­demneth second marriage which thecum secūd um. Capella­nū: extra de secūd [...]s nupt­ijs. Popes allowe, though [...] Alexander punished one who blessed it;^o Innocentius checketh a decree of Alexander that deprived the Innocent partie of his [Page 78] right, because the offendour had sinned thus, or thus: & Alexander, whether in this decree I knowe not (for it is razed out of theGloss in die tum c [...]discret­ionem & in sed illud 32 q7 Decretals) but in other extant overthwarteth himself, as his words aleaged on both parties, for Bellarmin & for vs, doe testefie. So Bellarmins obiections of humaine infirmities and wants notwithstanding, they which are of our side excel in estimation those which are of his, for diverse circumstaunces and respects. And (the most important respect of all others) the ground wherevponTertul chro mat. Hilar. pol lent conc. Ven et. &c. ours doe buyld their doctrine, is the plaine evidence & expresse testimony of our SaviourMath. 19. 7. Christ, excepting whoredō namely out of the causes for which he denieth a man may put away his wife & marrie another. Contrariewise the ground that our adversaries buyld on is their owne cōceit, not able to stand without violent wresting, suppressing, or corrupting of Christs exception the proofe whereof is seene in three the most peremtorie men for this matter, and best accounted of among them, Innocentius the first, the third, & Thomas of Aquin. In 4. sent. dist. 3. quaest. 1. Art. 5. Thomas in that he answereth that Christs exception pertaineth to the putting away of the wife, & not to the marring of ano­ther, also Innocentius the first, in that he omitteth the exception quite,Epist. 3. ad Exuper can. 6, & citeth Christs words thus: whoso putteth away his wife for whoredom, & marrith another doth commit adulterie c. gaudem­ [...]s extra de Divorti [...]s. Innocentius the third, in that he depraveth & altereth the exception, affirming that Christ saithQuicsique dimisserit vx. orem suam ob [...]ornicatio nem. whosoever putteth away his wife for whordom, & marrieth another, doth commit adulterie: whosoever putieth awaye his wife for whoredom. A notable corruption by scraping out of the sentenceNifi ei m [...] or me. as some reade it. the exceptive particle having the force of a negative, to change for this point into an affirmative: & so easily to be corrupted by the text of the Scripture it self, that I doubted whether it were not the Printers or bookewriters errour, vntyll I perceived that all the printed copies, which I could gett the sight of, did agree therein; even the newe one too of Gregorye the thirtenth conferred with all the written copies in the Popes liberarie, beside many other, & corrected by them. But of such buyldings such must be the groundworkes, or equall vnto such in force; An vntruth will never cleave vnto the truth by other kinde of morter. in probabillity therefore it is to bee presum­ed that not onely the greater parte of the fathers but the better [Page 79] also, and they whose groundes are surer doe maintayne our doctrine. So the weapon which Bellarmin draweth out of their sheath against vs, doth bend backe and turne the poynt against himself: and the wound it may geve, it can not pearce so deepe asHeb 4. 12. that which is sharper then a [...]y two edged sworde, but the wound it may geve, it geveth to his owne cause, Howbeit if any shall conceive otherwise hereof for the number & quality of the witnesses, as some peradventure will & may by reason of broken coniectures, which the variety of circumstances yeel deth, yet no man will (I trust) sure no man of modestye and sense can denie, but the mayne and principall poynt I hadd to shewe, namely that the Fathers consent not [...]ll in one for the Papists doctrine, is shewed to their shāe, whose face & cōsciēce served thē to avouch the cōtrary. Wherfore sith our adversaries doe graūt that the Fathers have not strēgth enough to prove a point in questiō vnlesse they all cōsent about it: Bellar. with his Pā ­phletter must cōsequētly graūt, that their cursing Trēt assertiō in this point cannot be proved by Fathers And so the secōd staffe which they have framed thēselves to leane vpō, is like to that brokē staff of reed, Esay. 36. 9 [...]. [...]. 2. Egipt, wher­vpō (saith the scripture) if a man leane, it wil goe into his hand & pearce it.

THe third and last obiection, wherevppon the I [...]suit and his schollar stand, isArgumen­tum a ratione petitum. conceit of reason: devided into five braunches as it were, or Riverets issuing frō one spring. The water whereof how vnlike it is toEsay. 8. 6. Ioh. 9. 7. coll. [...]. 16. the water of Siloah, & savoring of that puddle of which the Romā Deputie Gallo did draw when having vndertaken to doeAct. 18 vers 14. accord­ing to reasonvers 15. he spake prophanely of Religion, &vers. 17. suffered one to bee wrōgfully vexed for regarding it, as if to doe Iustice in that case were against reason, I leave it to bee iudged and considered by them who saye thatIoh. 1. 5. our reas­on is naturally darke, andRom. [...]. 21 leadeth her wise men into sottish follies, neither can discerne the things which are of God till it bee lightened by his spirit.1 cor. 2. 14. For although the Papists have some glimse of light & see more then theIoh. 1. 9. Heathēs, asIoh. 9. vers, 39. the Pharises didvers. 40. whose wordes (I am afraied) they will vse likewise: are wee also blinde? yet asIoh. 3. 4. et. y 4 [...]. et. 11. 48. the Pharises were overseene fowlly in many of their argumēts grounded vpon reason, so the Papists may bee. And that they not onely may be overseene, but are in the reasons which their puddle-water hath yelded vnto Bellarmins cisternes in this poynt: the beāes of reasō lightēed frō above shall opē & descrie; let such as love not darknes more then light bee iudges. For hee reasoneth first thus: The Marriage of the faithfull is a singe of Christs coniunction with the Church, as St. Iphe. 5. 32 Paule teacheth. But that Coniunction is indissoluble, and cannot bee loosed, The band of Marriage is threfore indissoluble too. As if a rebell should say. The ioyning of the Head with the Body in man resembleth the Coniūction of Christ with the Church as St; Ephes. 4. 15 Paul teacheth. [Page 80] But Christ & the Church can never bee parted, there fore the head maye never bee cut from the bodye. A happye cōclusion for Traytors, if it were true. But if it bee faulse where then is Bellarmyns reason? which will take the greater overthrow by this because lookeEphes. [...]. 2. how Christ is the head of the Church, semblably the husband is the wives head. So that notwithstanding the similytude of Christs head-ship, the ioynt whereby a traytorous head is knit vnto his bodye may feele the axe of Iustice, as Bell. will graūt: the marri­age band that coupleth a man to an adulterous wife may be loosed by [...]he like reasō, notwithstāding marriage is a signe of Christs cōiunctiō with the Church. And if this suffice not to make him acknowledg the loosnes & fondnes of his sophistical syllogisme, let him observe farder that the seperatiō which thēselves allowe in case of adultery is condēned by it. For Christ dot cōtinue with his ChurchMat, 28. 20 alway, & cherisheth herIoh. 4. 16. for ever with his spirit of cōfort, & he is so farre frō dispoyling her of her owne wealth, if shee had any, that ofIer. 32. 39. Heb 8 9 Ion. 13. 1 Ephes. 4. 8, 1. Ioh. 2, [...]7. & [...]. 9. & 413. & 5. [...]0. his gifts & graces still he leaveth with her. Now theBellar de ma trim'sac [...] Cap. 14. e jure can et Conc. Trident. papists teach that a man may lawfully withdraw himself frō ever dwelling with his wife, & frō yeelding husband-like love & duty to her, yea [...] pler [...] ̄que extr [...]de doat. inter [...]xo [...]ē & virum may stil with-hould her owne dowry frō her, if shee be an adulteresse. Which doctrine how could Bell. cleanse frō stayn of errour, if some whore of Rome should touch it with this reasō. The marriage of the faithful is a signe of Christs cōiū ­ction with the Church, as PavlEphes. 5. 32. teacheth? but Christ doth stil assist relieve, & enrich the Church with his graces: therefore must the husbād dwel stil with his wife & finde her maintenāce & wealth. WouldDe mat [...]m. sacrā. Cap 4. heSeff. 24 C. [...] say the C. of Trent accurseth al who make such Iesuitical syllogismes & sophymes against their sacred canō. Certainly the hare­lots reasō must be good vnlesse the Iesuits be naught. But he goeth onward, & addeth that albeit some partes of the Church, to weete, some faithful folke doe comit spiritual whordō now & then, & make a divorcemēt yet it is not lawfull for them to chāge their God. What a spech is this? As who say, our Saviour could deserve at our hands that we should forsake him, & g [...]t ourselves a newe bridgrō. Neither doth God cast thē so away (saith Bell) that he wil not be recōciled, nay he doth exhort to recōcilemēt semper. still; Still? To whom thenHeb. 4. 13. sware he, they should not enter into his rest? whatNub. 26. 65 were they whose carkeises fell in the wildernes? whence came the man of GodDeu [...]. 13. 13 who willed thē [Page 81] that cōmit idolatry to be slayne? where lived thePsal. 7 [...]. 2 [...]. Prophet who saies Thou distroyest all thē that goe a whoring frō thee: The Israelites whō God did shut out of the promised land, of whō he tooke many thousāds away by sūdry plagues, to whō Rom 3. 19. the lawe speaketh as being vnder the law, did they not professe that faith & vse those Sacram. which al that doe are faithful folk & partes of the church inTom. 1. cōt. [...]. lib. 3. cap. 2. [...] 10. Bell. phrase & meaning? I graūt thatHosea. 2. 2. Rev 2. 21. God offereth to be recō ciled somtymes to such offenders, & waiteth in mercie long for their amēdement. which if it be a pattern for vs to follow herein, I say, if it be, for God gave tyme of repētance to2. Sam. 3. 27, [...]. 20. 10. Ioab a will-full murderer, whō theGen 9. 6. Exo. 21. 14. 1. King. 2. 31. magistrate should have put to deathEccles. 8. 11. presēt­ly: God gave tyme of repentāce toIer. 44. vers. 15 et. 19. idolatrous wives of the Ie­wes, whomDeut. 13. 6. their husbands ought not to have spared so: if there­fore Gods actiō herin be set downe for our imitatiō, the mā that can conteyne, & be without a wife, as God without our service, maye likewise in mercie waite for her repentance, & when he per­ceyveth it to be vnfayned, take her againe to be his wife. But he who can not, or will not render such kindnes for such vnkindnes & wickednes, may in iustice also put her so away that no place or hope of reconcilemēt be left her, as Bell. owne reason in this simi­litude teacheth. For God is not bound to give vnto prophane dispisers of his grace & breakers of his covenāt place of repentāce & reconciliatiō: Nay he may in iustice absolutely denye it them, & oftentymes doth as the examples ofGene. 4. 11 Cain, ofHeb. 12, 17. Esau, ofNum. 16. 27 Co­rah, Dathan & Abiram, ofNum. 25. 6. Zimri. ofIos. 7. 25. Acan, ofAct 5. 6. Ananias & Saphira, of sinfinit other, that haue either presētly dyed in their Exod. 32. 28. Num. [...]1. 1. et. 14. 29 et. 17. [...]. 14. et. 21. 6. et. 25 [...]. innes, or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against thē, doe argue. wherefore when Bell. cōcludeth this reasō with say­ing that S.De bone cō ­jug cap. 7. 15. 18. et. 24. Austin vrgeth it greatly in his booke of the Good of marriage: he dealeth as Cookes do in larding leane-meate to give that a relish, which of it self would be vnsavoury. Though even for the lard too perhaps it agreeth not half so wel herewith, as this Italiā cook would have vs thinke it doth. For why did not S. Austin vrge the same likewise in hisDe adulter. conjug ad Pollentium. bookes of adulterous marria­ges writtē Retractar, lib. 2 cap. 2 [...]. et. 57. afterward & purposely maintaining this Point against Polēti [...]s who gainsaied him in it? was it because he saw that he had vrged it more thē it would beare wel? or that he perceived it would not hould against an adversarie: though without an adversairye it were a pretie allusion? At least whatsoever men d [...]eme of the [Page 82] lard, the meat is naught questi [...]les: & such that though the cook be contēt to eate the driest morsel of it, yet must he nedes graunt that it hath not tast, not as much asIob. 6. 6. the white of an egg hath. ForTom 1. cōt. 5. lib. 2. cap. 3 [...] himself saith that marriage betokeneth & signifieth Christs coniūction with the faithful soule, as In 4. sent. dis. 27 [...]. 1. artic. 3 c 2. Thomas &Innocētiue. the third [...]. debitum. ex­tra de diga­mis. the Pope teach. But Chricts coniunctiō with the faithful soule is not indissoluble, as him self also saith: the bād of marriage therfore (by his owne cōsequē ce) may be dissolved & loosed. And thus farr of his first sophisme.

The next is that if other marriage were lawful, Injuria a [...] ­ceretur pro­les. the of-spring should be iniuried: for the childrē borne already (saith he) should be evill provided for, who should begin to have a stepfather in steed of a father, a stepmother in steed of a mother. where hence the conclusiō secretly inferred, to weere that [...] other marriage therfore is not lawful, would very wel folow if his formost groūd & propositiō were true, that the childrē should be iniuried therby. For it is not lawful to deale iniuriously with any he Col. 3. 25. that doth wrong shal receive for it. But how proveth Bel. that they should be iniuri [...]d? His reason ensueth. for they should be evill provi­ded for. what? therefore iniured? Is God vniust then, who by taking men out of this present life, doth leave their wives widowes; & their children fatherlesse; both often destitute of help? God forbid (saithRom. 3. 6. the Apostle) els how shall God iudg the world? But the child­rē shold be endamaged therby; & that perhaps will Bell. say was his [...]. well. They should be endamaged & evil provided for. Why? Because they should have a stepfather in steed of a father or stepmother in steed of a mother. Then belikeRom. 11. 24 the braūches cut of the Olivtree which was wild by nature & graffed cōtrary to nature in aright Olive­tree, are evill provided for & endamaged by it. For as when a gar­diner asked why the hearbs which he set or sowed doe grow and shoot vp slowly, where weeds which the earth brought forth of her owne accord encreased apace,Max Pla. nud. in Aesopi vita. Aesop said that it was because the earth is the weeds mother, & the herbs step-mother: so the wild Olive tree was the mother that brought forth those braūches: the right Olive tree whereinto they were graffed, is their step mother. S. Paul, Rom. 11. 17 who thought it better for vs of the Gentiles to be graffed so, thē to continue as we wereEphes. 2. 3. the children of wrath by nature: declareth that1. Cor. 7. vers. 15. a Christiā whose wife being an infidel, an vnbeleelever, forsaketh him, is free to marrie another. Which (cōsi­dering that he had an ey tovers. 14. the holy seede, their ofspring also) what [Page 83] letteth him to have done with this persuasion, that the children, should receive more good & benefit by a beleeuing step-mother, then by an vnbeleeving mother. DoubtlesseEphes. 6. 4. his care of having them brought vp in godlynes, a thing thatProv. 31. 1. 2, Tim [...]. [...]. godly mothers doe furder very much, & [...]. king, 8, [...]6, 2 Cor. [...]2. vngodly hinder, is a great argumēt he was of this minde. And the sonne of Catiline, whom thatCie cōtr, Ant et Cat [...]l [...]n toga cand. adulterous wretchCic. in Cat [...]l [...]rat [...], Sa tust. [...]ōju [...] cat [...]l. his father murdered to compasse the more easily the lik­ing of a woman whom he lusted after, hath left sufficient proofes that some havīg fathers are no better looked to for things of this life neither, then they should of likelyhood, if in steed therof they had stepfathers. Wherfore sith experiēce verifieth the same in mē whichNeque femi [...]a am [...]ssa pu­ [...]icitia al [...]a ab [...]uerl [...] Corn­ [...]ac [...]tus anual [...]. quarto in woemen, that whē they have made shipwracke of their chastity, they will not sticke at any wickednes: the argumēt that childrē should be endmaged & evil provided for, because in steed of adulterous fathers or mothers, they should have stepfathers, stepmothers, chast, & honest, isAdulterorū irgo de serui omn̄ Sen. is [...]gamemnon, worse provided for by Bell. then he thought. But suppose it were good, & proved that the childrē should be endamaged how followeth the conclusion? The childrē should be endamaged by āother marriage: Diodor Sic [...]er 12. Iul. Capitol [...] M. Anton. [...]ilos. therfore the marriage is not lawful? for by this reason a beleeving husbād forsaken by his wife being an vnbelever, may not take āother if he had childrē by the former. Nay no wife or husbād having any childrē may lawfully ever marry againe eithEpist, 10, ad [...]uriam de vi [...]it servand. of thē after the others death. And in deede by a law that q Charondas made for his Thurian Cityzens, the men who did so were punished. And Marcus Antoninus, an Emper­our of Rome, because he was loath to wedd a step-mother to his children his wife being dead, kept a concubine. And S. [...]ccum secūd [...] extra de [...]cūdis nupt. 1 cor. 7. 9. Ierom speaking as the Catharists did, against second mariage, doth by detestatiō of a stepfather dissuad a widowe from it. ButSent. lib. 4. [...]it, 39. e, the Papists hold agreeably to [...]anto extra [...] divortis, scripture that the man is at liberty to mar­ry in the Lord after the womās death, the womā after the mans: yeaThe later [...]ap 12, [...]e former [...]ap. 16, lib. [...], sa [...]am. in life tyme also, if either of them being an infidel & vnbeleever forsake the other being a Chistiā. And Bell. acknowledgeth that they hold both these poynts, & ought to hold them. Bellar. shall therfore doe well to acknowledg that his step-reason, which oppugneth both these poynts of sound doctrine, savoureth of heresie, neither maketh more for him against vs, then for the Ca­tharists against the Catholique fathers. Wherewith he may confesse [Page 84] too that he hath abused Ambrose in affirming this to be his reasō: & avouching him to say, that the Father ought to pardō the Mothers fault for the childrens sake. For S.In caput [...]6. Lucae. Ambrose blaming the man, whoDimitis [...] r1 quafi jure fiue crimine puteth away his wife without cryme, & marrieth another, an adulteresse by so marrying; mislyketh that the children should have such a stepmother having such a mother vnder whom they might be. And if the mother, being put away so, tooke another husbād, who in this case were an adulterer: S. Ambrose wisheth the childrē to be vnder their father, not vnder such a step-father. And if the Father casting out his wife so, cast out his childrē with her: S. Ambrose saith the children should ratherpurchase pardō forculpam which he seē ­eth also to distinguish frō crime, neither to meane ad­ultery therby but lighter of fences: such as honest wives sometims doe cōmitt throu­gh oversight of shrewish­nes noted by S. Ambrose be­fore in these wordes, u [...]ori os debes toller are et emenda re mores and by antquity in the Pro­verb Qui nō litigat caeleb. est. their mothers fault at their fathers hands, then bee cast out for her sake. Wherin he doth no more saye that the father ought to pardon the mothers adultery for the childrens sake; then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abhominatiō forGen. 19. 29. 2. Pet. 2. 7. Lots sake, when he said thatGen 18. vers. 24. the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous, thē thevers. 23 [...]. 25. righteous should be destroied with the wicked. But here peradvēture the Pāphletter wil reply that although Bell. author & argument (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 incon­venient in respect of the children, to whom there riseth hurt and discomodity by it. For answer whervnto & to the like reasōs drawen by him & Bell. from other inconveniences, seven things are to be noted: al such as our adversaries themselves must needes yeeld to, & yeelding therevnto shall set on fire their owne chaffe. The first that the man whose wife is an adulteresse: may putt her absolutly away, for al his liftyme: nor is ever boūd to let her dwel with him againe, noe not though she repent. Which point being plainly implied in ourMatt 19. 9. saviours answer to the Pharises,De Matrim. Sacram. lib. 14. Bel. avoucheth & maintaineth thēce: agreably to the doctrin of his chief­est guids the [...] de Bene­dicto. 32. q 1. c. gaudemus, extra de con­vers conjugat; c. Significasts, de divor [...]i [...], Popes &Im 4 Seut. dist 35 art. 6. Thomas of Aquine. The second that if the woman continue in her wickednes, without repentance & amē ­dement, the man is by duty bound to put her away. S. Mathew 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, Matt. [...]. 1 [...]. Isoseph being a iust man, & not willing to make her a publicke exaample, was minded to put her away secretly. Of which words importing that [Page 85] iustice moved 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 weete an adulteresse, cānot be kept without sinne, whether she repent or no. AndComment. in p [...]roverb. cap 18. Cornelius Iansenius a learned byshop of the Papists graunteth herevpon, that it was so in the old Testament. But in the new Testamēt, he saith, if she repēt she may be kept with out sinne: acknowledging that she may not in the new Test. neither vnlesse she repent. Whervnto the Canonists & Schoolemen doe accord; expounding a sentence cited by manyHiéron. in Matt. cap. 19. Basil and Amphiloe. can. 9. et [...]1. Sent. synod. in Trull. can. [...]8 Innocent. ter [...]. lib. 1. de contempt. mundi. cap. 18 Fathers out of the Proverbs of Salomon, Proverb. 18. 22. He that keepeth an adulteresse, is a foole and a wicked man; a sentence found in the Greeke text of the Proverbs albeit not expressed out of the Hebrue Fountaine, but added by the Seventie Interpreters, or other, perhaps to shew that Salomon cōmending a wife, did meane a chast wife in their Iudgment, but added in the Greeke, & thence translated also into the common Latin edition called S. Ieroms, so that it goeth for Scripture with Papists by theirConcil. Trident, sess. 4 Trent Canon; this sentence I say, &C. sieut crudelis. c. Dixit. Domi­nus 32. q. 1. the Can­ons of the Fathers that vrge it vndistinctly against whosoever kepeth an adulteresse, whether repentāt or vnrepentāt, in like sorte as theL. 2 Leno­cinij De ad Legem Iulia­ni de adult. l crimen leno cinij, c, eo. Civill Law cōdēned all such,In subaudi tur. quod si 32 q. 1. the Canonists &In 4. sent. dist 35. School-mē distinguish & expoūd of such as kepe adulteresses, which doe not repent & amend their lives. Now graunting that a man may keepe an adultereffe in matrimony if shee repent, or being divorced from her, may take her again: yet (which is the third point) hee may not doe it often least impunitie encrease inequitie. And this is agred on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome, theIn c sivir sciens extra de adulter. Ca­nō ists &In 4. sent. dist. 35. Schoole-mē.Pastoris. lib. 2, mond, 4, 9 Sed non sae peservis enim Dei poeniren tia una est, Hermes out of whō the Maister of the sē tences 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 can make Canonicall if they list, vn­lesse princip, fid, doctrinal, lib, 9 Cap ult. Stapleton lie, who saith their Catholique Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Cāonicall Scriptures that bool [...] of Hermes, written in the Apostles tyme by S. Pauls schollar, not onely cited much but cōmended too by many & most aūcient Fathers, Clemens, Ireneus, Origen, Athanasius,, Eusebius, & Ierom. At least the chiefest part of the Canon LawPrefat, Grec 9. in libro S quinque De­cretalium, cōpiled by the directiō and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth, setting downe the verie same out of aThe Coūcel of Arles as most copies reade: or of Orleans as o­tner. Councel that Peter Lombard out [Page 86] of Hermes: the Papists though they will not (I trow) be of Staple­tons minde forLiber qu [...] appellatur Pa­storis, Apo­cryphus dist. 15 c. Sancta Romana B [...]l, Tom. [...] cont. 1 lib, 1. cap. ult. Hermes booke, yet may think it likely that the Coū cel & Pope approved his meaning in this point. Chiefly sithIn c. si vir sciens de adult. Panormitan, the flouer of the Canonists having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned, because sinnes vnpūished doe becom examples, citeth an excelent proofe & light therof a lawe of worthy Emperors, Valētinianus, Theodosius, & Arcadius. L 3. c. de episcop audiēt who graū ting a generall pardon for smaler trespasses extended it to noneRemissionē ­veniae crimi­na nisi simel commissa non habeant. cōmitted oftner thē once; accoūting such vnworthy of their Princilie favour, as grew by their former forgivenesse to a custome of sinning rather then to amendement. But whether the Papists will iudge those Christian Emperours to have bene to strickt, & saie that adulterie deserveth pardon oftener thē lesser faults with thē, or whether they thinke it sufficient to pardon once so great a crime, which the Emperours excepted by name out of their pardon, & willed it to be punished even the first tyme: the Papists doe a­gre that a husbād must not forgive it to his wife oftē. The fourth thing to be noted is, that the womā being putt away so, doth lose her dowry too by law. Which pūishmēt asHos. 2, 9. God hath threatned by his law to men that goe a whoring frō him, though they have not any dowrie of their owne neither, but of his gift: so theAuthens. utliceat ma [...] et aviae Quia veto plutim, collat 8. Civil Law hath īsticted it on adultrous wives, &c pierunq extra de do­nat. inter. vir­um et uxorē, the Canō Law ī looser tymes also. The fifth, that many persons mistake theGen. 2. 18. help prepared of God, & marry or doe worse: cōsidering that some cannot conteine, as Popec. Quod pro­posuitti. 32. q. 7. Goegory noteth touching men S.in. 16 cap. Lucae Necessi­tas illius tuū. crimen est. Cor. 7. 37. Ambrose touching wemen, theMat. 19. 11. 1 Cor. 7. 7. Scripture touching both; some, though they could perhaps, yet should hurt their bodies by sicknesse, if they did, asHippoer de morb popu­lar lib. o Sect. 5. Galen. lib. 6. de locis af­fect. cap. 5. Paul Aegenet, lib. 1. cap. 35. physique &Plato de le­gib. lib. 11. A­ristot Problē, sect, 1. quaest. 51. sect. 4. quaest. 17. 30. et. 31. Phylosophie teach; some though neither chastity nor health enforce thē to marry, yet need it for their state of living, asIn. 4. Sent. dist. 35. art. 2. Dominicus Soto doth prove by certain poore husbād-men & labourers. The sixth, that if a man die & have no sonne, his inheritāce ought to come to his daughter by theNura 27. g. Law of Moses and if he have no daughter, it ought to come to his bretherē; and if he have no brethereē, to his Fathers bretherē, and so forth to the next kinsman of his familie. Vnto which ordināce: the lawes of al wel Of the Gr [...]tians, of the Romans, of our owne countrie and the rest. ordred states & cōmon weaks are, though in certaine circū staunces different, yet in substance sutable. The seavēth, that it is sundry wayes incōmodious for a child to be vnlawfully begottē, [Page 87] and (as we tearme it) base borne because both theEsay [...]7. 3. Chrysost in e [...] ist. ad Rom. hom. 24. ignomenie thereof is a blemish, &Plutarch de liberor eō [...]at that blemish bredeth basenes of courage; &Heb 12. [...]. Ch [...]ysostom in epist ad Hebr. Rom. 29 c si gens Anglot. dist 36. bastards are not brought vp so well by their parents as law­full children vse to be: neither are they priviledged a like; & prea­ferred toDeut. 12. 2. Conc. Pict, c. 1. extra. de filijs presbyt Cōcil. Lateran. sub. Alexandro Tertio cap 3. L generaliter. Sparios D. de Dceurionibus place of publique government, orIudg. 11. 2. L. 3 D. de lib et past L ult c. de naturalib. lib. 1. l. ex cō ­plexu. c. de in­cestis nuprijs Benefit of inheri­tance, by Lawes divine or humane. And these things being weig­hed well shew that Bellarmins reason corrected by the Pamphleter needeth a new correction: & if inconveniences might decide our question which they cannot doe forCor. 6. 12. manie things are lawfull that are not expedient but if they might decide it, they would swaie with vs rather then against vs. For in case the man, burning with iea­lousie & rageProv. 6. 34. Lysie apolog pro Erastest­hems caede. which is vsuall in this kinde of iniurie or the wo­man beeing (asProverb. 6. [...]4. et. 7. 11. et 30. 20 c Se. mel malus. de regul is Juris. in Sexto. adulteresses commonlye are) wicked, impu­dent, once naught & alwaies naught, hee will not, or maie not keepe or take her againe, the childrē missing her, are destitute of a mother to looke to their education. And then it were better for thē that their father tooke a second wife to bring thē vp, asDelegibus. lib. 11. Plato thought. Wherein another man might have the like successe that Poris (a gentlemā of Macedōia) had,Liv. lib. 40. whose former wives childrē were brought vp as wel and carefully by their stepmother as her owne children were. But if it fall not out with many as with him, and the childrenfind more sharp & hard vsage at their stepmo­thers hands, who knoweth whether it may not turne to their more good. Chiefly fith the tender indulgēce of Parēts doth1 Sam. 2. 29. nour­ish wanton wickednesse, in the sonnes of Eli, 1. King. 1. 6. ambition in Adonia, Prov [...]. 18. et, [...]3. 3. trāsgressions in whō not? andEphes 6. 4. moderat severitye would restrayne the same? asvirg eclog. 3 one who sayde he had a cruel stepmother & a father,Theociīt. Idyll 8. another who foūd like fault with his father & mother, both for feare restraīng thēselves from tricks of ūthrifts did shew by their examples. Here is a farder help too for the childrens be­nefite, that their father having their mothers whole dowry, beside whatsoever the second wife bringeth is able to doe more for thē. Wheras contrarywise; if by means he cānot live single & ūmarri­ed, he be constrained to keepe the adulteresse still, or after sepera­tion to receive her againe: she is likely toEzek. 6 33. geve her owne & her husbāds goods to her lover, asCornel Ta­cit anual. lib. 11. Messallina did to Siluis; or though she take gifts & rewards of him, toProverb 7. vers. [...]. 14, 26. et 17. wast all in riot, as theSalust. co [...] ­jur, catil. whores of Cattilines cōfederacie did. Moreover a woman that can have [Page 88] no sonnes, but daughters onely by her husband, may have sonnes by another man, asde genit. Hippocrates sheweth. Which if the adulteresse have by her lover, the daughters to whō the inheritance should come are defrauded of it, And if she have but daughters or yōger sōnes by him, the bastards; presūed to be lawful childrē, defraude the lawful children of so much as them selves gett. The Cuckow hatcheth her eggs in other birds nests, & the eggs she findeth of theirs, she devowreth, asde hist, āial lib 6. cap. 7. Aristotle writeth: or, asNatur. hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. Plinie sayth, the birds that sitteh abroade vpō her owne eggs & the Cuckows, when both their yong are bred vp, liketh the Cuckows bird bet­ter then her owne, & suffereth them to be devoured of him in her owne sight. A tearme in reproch drawne in many languages frō the Cuckows name to note theirVestigia [...] alieni, Colla­tine in locto sunt tuo. Li [...]. lib. 2. calamity, or (if they suffer it wil lingly) dishonesty, who receive other men into their bedds & foster vp their childrē, may be a sufficiēt lesō for a father what cōfort & benefit his childrē are to looke for by having such a mother to feede & oversee them. Beside to omitt suspiciō of bastardy, where by his children also may be discouraged & stained) himselfeL. crimen Lenocinij. c. ad leg. Iul. de adult. 32. q, 1. D Quodsi. shal be coūted a bawd vnto his wife, & must (by a Canon of thec 12. C. of Nantes) doe seaven yeres publique penance, & be shut out al that while from the cōmunion, yea want the cōfort therof even at his death too, (by anotherConcil. Eli­ber. can. [...]5. Co.) if he be of the Cleargie. And how can he choose but live still in feare & anguish of minde, least shee addDeut. 29. 19 drūckēnesse to thirst, & murder to adultery: I meane least she serve him asSenec Aga­memnon. Clytemnestra did Agamemnon, asCorn. Tacit. Annal. lib, 4. Livia did Drusus asHoll [...]she d [...] Chron in K. Edward the sixth. Mr^s. Arden did her husband? or if to avoyd these griefes of shame & daūger he put her quite away & resolve never to come againe in house with her: he may incurre as great daūger or shāe, or both, nay greater, on the other side, by lack of a necessary help for his living, or by state of body subiect to certain sicknesses or by incōtinecie, whether cōsūing1. Cor. 7. 9. & burning him without remedy, or forcing himProv. 5. 20. et. [...], 32. et. 7. 27. to dānable remedies of whorsLevit. 20. 13 or worse. Further more his wife, the adulterous mother, may be the boulder to sin­ne, & to returne2. Pet 2. 22. as the dog to his vomitt, & the sow washed to wallowing in the myer, if she know her husband canot want a wife, & must have her or none, which perhaps moved that Gētlewomā of Rome to be the more lic̄etious,Sueton Ti­ber cap. [...]5. whom her husbād foūd plaing the incestuous whore with their sonne in law:Quamse [...]uquam re­pudiaturum ante jureva­rat. after that she had her [Page 89] husband boūd by oth that he would never seperate & divorce her frō him, so to be free to marry another, And why may not she live too in perpetual heavinesse & feare, least her husbād being chayned with such necessity, should seeke to get himself libery of marrying by making her away? There was a certaine Spanjard, whose wife drivē out by him for her adultery & eftsoons recōciled, was, when she offended againe, divorced frō him by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge, at his suite, & shutt into a monastery. The husbād saying afterward that he loved her, & that he agreed for feare to the divor­cemēt, desired that he might be recōciled to her, & she restored to him, according to theAuthent. Sed hodie c. ad leg [...]ul. de adult. Civill LawConsilior. lib 3. de regu­ [...]ib cons. 8. Navarus (as famous a man for skil in canō law, amōg the Papists, as Bell. for Divinity) being ask­ed his iudgmēt what should be doneheriu, made answer,Iuxtragloss. cap Agathosa 27. q. [...]. that the wife divorced in such sort, is not boūd to returne againe ūto her husbād, & that the husbands speech of his affectiō must not be easily beleeved, because he may faine it to the intēt to allure her therby to dwell with him, that he may slea or poysen her,Ex amore con [...]tahendi cum al [...]a post e [...]us [...]or [...]ē [...] A Marques through desire of marrying another wife, after her death. Of which thing (saith Navarus) there may suspiciō & cōiecture rise out of the circūstances of her offence; & his suite: cheifly in a man of the Span­ish natiō, which is more inclined to beare smal love to their wives yea being chast, then to be reconciled to thē being adulteresses, specially after the first tyme. Now though Spanjards chiefly be prone to worke such feats of slaying or poysoning, as this man who knew thē (himself a Spanjard) witnesseth: yet an Italiā Ferrara. Laon. Chaco­ [...]end derebus Tu [...]e lib. 6. Marques, who put to death his wife taken in adulttry & married ano­ther, declareth thatE. mounol phileous a [...]ox ous meropon anthropon Atreidas [...] omer lliad [...]. L. si. uxor D. ad leg. [...]ul. de adulter. not only Spanjards wil adventure to make their wives away, if finding thē vnchast, they must have some and would have better.Pollaki ka i [...]umpasa p [...] ­ [...]is kahou a [...] ­dros e paurel. Hefiod. ope­ [...]ib et d [...]eb. Finally if the wife, not able to have any childrē by her husband, have some by an adultererHippocras de gē [...]is. (for this may come to passe also) the brethren, [...] pollaki Ka i [...]m pasa po­ [...]is Kahou an­ [...]dros e paurel. Hesiod ope­ [...]ib et dieb. or the next of kinne to the husband, shal loose his inheritance: & that which they ought to enioy by right the adulterous seede will intercept & putloine. I let passe the publike harmes & discōmoditis which bylos. [...]. 11. [...]udg. 19. 25. et 20. 3 [...]. Hos. 4. [...]. such iniquities of private persons were likely to accrew to the comō weale. These that I have touched suffice to overweigh our adversaries reason drawen frō incōveniēces. For if I should stand on the childrē alone, evē those alreadie borne whomEilij s jam [...] Bell. expressely mētioneth & nameth: the [Page 90] hardnes of a stepfather or stepmother lighting on them by the second marriage, can̄ot cōuterpeise the losse in educatiō, wealth, inheritance, honour, which an adulterous parent bringeth. Beside that the children to be borne afteward (as Bell. by naming those already borne seemeth to confesse) should be evil provided for: whose basenes of birth & discōmodities following it Proceeded frō restraint of maring again after divorcemēt for adultery. Wherfore if we put withall in our ballāce the detrimēts & harmes, that grow to the father, the mother, the brethrē & kinsmē of the father I might say to the cōmon weale too: the balāce of out adversaries wilbe tilted vp so high by the weight of ours, as if it were lighter then vanity it selfe.

And thus by the way, of weaknes of Bell. third & fourth reasōs is descryed & daūted. The third that if the marriage wee treat of were lawful, a gapp would be opēed to infinit divorcemēts, yea urōgful & vniust. The fourth, that if the innocēt party may marry, the nocent also may, who thē should gaine by his sinne, & many would sinne of purpose that thy might marry others. For as one of the wisest, & best learned PopesPlatina de vitis p [...]ntifi­cum. in Pio. [...] Pius the 2 said, that marriage was taken away frō Priests for great cause, but ought to be restored to them for greater: so may a iudicious & discrete Papist supposing these reasos of Bell. to be soūd, say that marriage after devorcemēt for adulterie was taken away from men vppon many & good cōsideratiōs: but ought to be restored vnto them again vpon more & better. Howbeit I must add thervnto that although his reasons be cōfuted sufficiētly with this supposali, lett them be tried also by the rules of reason, & it wil appeare they are a great deale soūder in shew then in deede. ForIn nocen [...] quart in. c. si se duxerit. extra de adult Hostièns sum de adult. 7. the divorcemēt of an adulteresse from her husbād is pūishmēt of her sinn: as hāging with vs is a pūishmēt of theeves, of cutpurses, & burning through the eare of rogues. So that Bell. reasō cōcluding the marriage in question to be vnlawful, because a gap would be opened to in­finite divorcemēts, is like as if a libertine or vagabond should say, that it is vnlawful for Iudges to do iustice on rogues, theeves, & cutputses, because there would be opened a gap to infinite hang­ings, & burnings through the eares. But some men (sayth Bell.) would sowe debates, pick quarels, devise faulse accusatiōs against their wives being innocent: & so a gap would be opened to wrōgfull divorcemēts, not to divorcemēts onely. What? must no offen [Page 91] no traytour, no blasphemer then be put to death because many thousands of1. King 2. 13. Act. 6. 13. et. 7 58. The magtirs spo­ken of in the bookes of Machabees, Eusebius, Vic­tor Mr. Fox. and others. innocent persons, yeaMatt. 26, 66. et. 27, 24. innocēcie it self, have bene accused falsely, & putt to death wrōgfullie? Or if Bell. graunt, that although someAct. 23. 3. sitting to iudge according to the law, doe mani­fest wrong to guiltlesse men against law, yet must wicked miscre­ants be exeqūted by the Magistrate Rom. 13. 4 who beareth not the sworde in vaine: he graunteth it is cavilling captiousnes & sophistrie to conclude that mē divorced lawfulie may not marry because some would therefore be divorced vnlawfully. The greater was his fault to say that this reason is touched by, S. In 19. ca­put. Matthel. Ierom: whose oversight he should have done better to acknowledg & friendly to excuse it by his haste in writing; for haste is unadvised & blinde (asLivij lib. 12 one said well) thē by his name to countenance so weake a reason in it self, so daungerous in cōsequence, which overtroveth all administring of Iuctice & iudgmēt. And sithDe matrim. Sacram. cap. 14. himself teacheth against S.In eundem locum Matt. Ieroms iudgmēt that a man whose wife entiseth him to heresie, or to wicked deedes, may be divorced from her because although the wo­mans chastitie should come thereby into hazard, yet lesse is the perill & hurt of her adulterie then of his wickednes or heresie, & the churche provideth rather for the innocent partie, then for the no­cent: hee might with a litle indifferēcie & equitie of an vnpartial eye, have seene that the Church should by the same reason allowe the innocent to marrie: at least that S. Ieroms creditt cannot pre­iudice vs more in the one point thē him in the other. True is that (I cannot denie) which hee addeth true, most true & certaine, that theCommodū ex peccato suo adulter repor ta [...]et. offendours should gaine by their sinne, if they might also marrie, as well as the innocent. They should gaine in deede. But asDan. 4, 16. Daniel said vnto Nabuchodonosor; the dreame be to thē that hate thee & the interpretatiō therof to thine enemies: In like sort may I say, this gaine be to the enemies of God & of his Church. For adulterers & adulteresses doe gaine. first, dishonesty,1, Cor. 6. 1 [...]. defiling their bodies & soules with an heynous & detestable crime. ThenProv. 6. 26. hardely scape they, but they gaine beggary too: the man if he be a whormōger, wasting all cōmonly as theLuk. 15. vers. 13. et. 30. prodigal child did; the womā losing her dowry. BesideProv. 6. 33. they gaine infamy; a gaine of greater value thē beggary by much: forProv. 22. 1. a good name is to be chosen above great riches. Last of al theyProv. 6. 29. [...]. Cor. 69. Heb. 13. 4. gaine the heavie wrath of God, & his iust vēgeāce: they lose the inherttāce of the kingdō of Heaven, & purchase to [Page 92] to thēselves the chaines of darknes for ever Lueretia a matrone of Rome in tyme of pagāisme, having suffered violence of Sextus Tarquinius, when her husband being sent for to come vnto herQuae [...]enti vito Satin Salvae mine­mé inquit. quid enim salvi est mu­ [...]eri amissa pud. citia? Liv. lib. 1. did aske her Is all well? No quoth she; for what is well with a woman, her chastity being lost? yet she if better iudgemēt might have prevailed with her, had not lost her chastity: her body being onely de­filed by force, her mind vndefiled. But now a Christian man, if yet a Christian; sure a Iesuit, the chiefest instructer of the youth of Rome & of the Komanists through al Christendō, doth mainteyn in print that Lucretia, not she I spake of but suchLucretia [...] mine sed re Thais Alex­andri filia sponsa nuru [...] Sanazor in epigram [...]. a Lucretia as the Pope Alexander the Sixth of whō the Epigrā goeth. Sextus Tarqu [...] n, Sextus Ne to Sextaset fu [...] est Sempere [...] a Sextu. diru­ta Roma face Popes daughter was having lost not onely chastety but also wea­lth, good name, Gods favour,1. Tim. 4. 8. the promise both of this life & the life to come, yet if being put away from her husbād she may take another, hath gained by her losses, because she may be married to her Tarquinius, & match a gracelesse whore with a shamlesse beast.

As for the last of Bell. poynts of inconvēce that many would cō mitt adultery of purpose to the intent of being set free from their former wives, they might marry others: it may be some would. And I have readSigismund commentar, rerum Mus­co vitar. of a womā that had a desire to be beaten of her husbād: which she foūd means also (as she was witty) to obtein, in so much that she put it oft in practise, till having cruelly beatē her at length he killed her. The man who of purpose to get a newe wife would cōmitt adultery, should desireLuk. 12, 47. more strips then that wo­man meant &Rev. 21. 8. die a death infinitly more greivous then shee did. But if some as wise almost as shee was should long after scourges: must they who deserve by law to be whipped be denyed it, becau­se a foole desyred it without desert? The Romans had an aūcientleg duodec [...] tabular. law that whosoever did a man iniurie, should by way of punishmēt pay himViginti quin que [...] paen [...] sun [...] for the vigin­ti quinque asses. which some thinke to bee a third parte more, then so many half pence: some alitle lesse vpō a difference of weights, not materiall to this poynt. about a shilling. ThereA Gell. Nect Actic. 1. 20. [...] was a lewd losell, a youthly, harebraynd Ruffian, who having wealth at will & taking a delight in geving honest mē boxes on the eares, would walke vp & down with a pursefull of shillings, which his slave attending on him did carrie & geving one a boxe would bidd his slave geve him a shel­ling, another a boxe & ashilling. What was in this case to bee done for remedie? If Bellarmin had lived there & bene of Coun­fail to the state, wee see the advise hee would have geven: namely that the amerciement should be taken away because some would doe men iniurie of purpose to fulfill their lusts with paying of a [Page 93] shilling or two. But the Roman governours tooke contrarie order, to encrease the amerciement, according to the discretion & arbit remēt of Iudges: that evill disposed persons might be deterred frō trespassing by sharpnes of the punishment to be inflicted on them for it, Whose wisdome therein it is to be wished that Princes and rulers remembring themselves to be ordained as David betimes to destroy all the wicked of the Land, would follow by increasing the punishment of adultery: And then should Bell. mouth be the sooner stopped for his fourth reason. Which yet in the mean while doth no better prove that faithful husbands seperated from adulterous wives may not marry againe, thē vserers & extortiōers procuring wealth by wicked & vngodly means doe prove that honest-men may not enioy the goods which by lawful trades & vertuous in­dustrie they gett.

The fifth & last is, that even among the Heathē too, where good orders flourished, no divorces were made. For no bill of divorcement was written as Rome, for the space almost of six himdred yeares after the City was buylt: but afterward, good orders beeing overthrowen, divorces also were brought in with other vices. And this reason Bellar. doth lard after his maner withApologet. cap. 6. Tertulliās name, to season it there, by & give it some verdure. But it is such caraine that the lard is lost, & all the cookery cast away.Valerius. Max lib. 2. cap. [...]. Au [...] [...]. lib 4, c. 3 e. severus Sulpirius, Plutareh in Romulo. who (both there and in N [...]ma) misreckoneth the yeares vn­les it were the [...] or booke writers fault which is mo [...]kely. For the first divorce which was made at Rome, was of a chast wife put away by her husband be­cause she was barrein, & did not beare him children. Now to seperate husbands & wives for such causes (we graunt) it is vnlawful:Matt. 9. 9 our Saviour allowing it for whoredō onely. The example there­fore of the well ordred Romans is in vaine alleaged out of Tertu­lian against vs. But neither was there any divorce for adultery made above five hundred yeares among them, will Bell. perhaps say. I graunt. And I will help with a stronger argument: that a­mong the Cians (a state well ordered too) seaven hundred years did passe before any divorcemet was made for adultery. For (asDe [...] mulieru [...]. Plutarch writeth) there was no adulterye cōmitted by the space of so many hundred yeares among them. But among the Romās (will Bell, perhaps reply) it is likely that some was cōmitted with­in five hūdred yeares. True. ButD [...]onys. Halycarn Annal. Roman. lib 2 [...] Tranquil Tiber. Cap. 4. the husband then might put his wife to death (being convicted first of adultery)In adulter­i [...] vxorē tuā si deprehēd isses fine judicio minime neca ris. Cic Orat de [...]. A Cell. lib. 10 Ca. 23. without al publique iudgement. So that if Bell words have any force, this is their [Page 94] effect, Among the Heathen Romanes while good orders flourished, the woman that cōmitted adultery suffered death: afterward good orders being overthrowen, she was divorcend onely. But whether she were put away by death or by divorcement, the man might marry again. Wherefore the example of the Heathen Ro­mans, both well and evill ordered, fighteth against the Popish Ro­mans, and their Champion. Hereto the example ofThe Greei­ans Aegiptiaus Perstans and the rest. all other Heathens, whose orders were but so good that they allowed second marriage, may be adioyned, Which I doe not affirme so much on myne owne knowledg (though for ought I have read & remem­ber it is true) as on Bellarmins secret confession and silence a man of greater reading, and having vsed manie mens paines in search of these thinges. Beside, when Christian faith came among the Heathens theInstitut de public. judic. Itē lex Iuha de. adult for lex Iulia spokē of the­re, is not the law as it was made first by Augustus. but as it was corrected af­terward by Constantine or by some o­ther Christian Emperour Emperours did punish adulterie first by death: after­ward Iustinian mitigating that law did punish it by divorcement. But inCod. de secūdis, nuptijs de repudijs. both these cases the man being severed from his adulte­rous wife was free to marrie againe. Bellarmins speech therefore towching well ordered Heathens came in evill seasō, to raise both them & others yea Christians too, against him. So his last reason, nay his reasons all are growne to be in worse plight, then were the seaven later kyne in Pharaos dreame, the seaven poore, evil favoured & leane fleshed kyne,Gen. 43. 2 [...]. that devoured the seaven for­mer fatt well favoured, & there by saved their life. For the thinne carkeises dreamed of by Bellarmin have not strength enough to overmaister & eate vp the sound bodies of reasons standing ther against, but gasping after them in vaine they die with famin. And thus having proved that neither light of reason, nor consent of Fathers, nor authority of scripture dispro [...]eth our assertion. I con­clude that point demonstrated at first by the worde of truth, the doctrine of Chrict, That a man having putt away his wife for her adul­terye may lawfullie marrie another.

[...].