Defense of Divorce and Remarriage

The Preface to the Reader.

G Ood Reader, my love & reverēce to the author living, and to his memory being dead: & my desire to serve the church of God by other men's works, who am not able to do it by mine own: have moved me to publish this learned treatise, which Doctor Rainolds left (as many other exquisite travels of his) shut up in the closett of some private friends as in a fair prison.

Because my testimony (or any man's I know) is of much less weight then the only name of the author to commend the work, I will say nothing more in praise of it, then that it is an vndoupted work of that worthy & holy man, whose learning, diligence, abilleties, meekness, wisdō, & piety made him eminent to us, & may perhaps yield him more admirable to posteretie, which without envy of his person shall view the marks of thies graces in his writings, or take them by story.

Touching the argument I will only say, that it seemeth the more worthy such a man's resolution, by how much it hath been formerly, or presently is controverted amongst the learned. And if any man be contrary minded to this, which is the common judgment of the reformed churches, he (above others) shall be my debttor, for helping him to so good a means of reforming himself: In matters of opinion (chiefly divine) he that conquer eth & he that is is conquered devide both honor & profit.

If any man take good by it, let him give praise to God, if he take none, let him blāe none but himself: The next page will show the contents, & order of the book,

The book it self will show thee how good it is. fare-well.

THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS.

The first Chapter.

The state of the question between the church of Rome, & the reformed churches being first declared, the truth is proved by scripture: That a man having put away his wife for her adultery may lawfully marry another.

The second Chapter.

The places of scripture alleged by our adversaries to disprove the lawful liberty of marriage after divorcemēt for adultery, are proposed, exāined, & proved not to make against it.

The third Chapter.

The consent of Fathers, the second pretended proof for the Papists doctrine in this point, is prtēded falsely: & if all be weighed in an even balance, the Fathers check it rather.

The fourth Chapter.

The conceits of reasons urged last against us are oversights proceeding from darkness, not from light: & reason itself, dispelling the mist of Popish probabilties, giveth clear testimony with the truth of Christ.

An admonition to the reader.

ALthough the Printer hath been careful, & supplied sometimes the defects of his copy, yet hath he sometimes failed, not only in mispoyntinge, or not pointing, or transposing, omitting, or adding, sometimes a letter (which the readers judgment, & diligence must help) but in omission, or alteration of words, obscuring, or perverting the sense; which the reader shall do well to corect, before he read the book, as they stand herevnder.

It is like enough there may be more faults, especially in the quotations chiefly in the Greek words written in a lattin letter, concerning which I only desire that the author whose skill, and diligence were admirable, might take no damage by other mens faults.

The faults are omissive, or coruptions of words. The words omitted are in the corrections following writ̄ in another letter,

OF THE LAWFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAWFVL DIVORCE.

The first Chapter.

T He duty of man and woman joined in marriage, requireth that they two should be as one person, and cleave ech to other with mutual love and liking in society of life, until it please God, who hath coupled them together in this bond, to set them free from it, and to dissociate and sever thē by death, But the inordinate fancies & desires of our corupt nature have soe inveighled Adams seed in many places, that men have accustomed to put away their wives upon every trifling mislike & discontentment: yea, the Jews supposed thenselves to be warrāted by God's law to do it, so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorce ment. This perverse opiniō & error of theirs our Savior Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for any cause save whoredom only. For whosoever (saith he) shall put away his wife except it be for whoredom and shall marry another doth commit adultery and who so marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery. Now about the meaning of these words of Christ expressed morefully by on of the Evangelists, by others more sparingly, there hath a doubt arisen: and diverse men evē from the primative churches time have bē of diverse minds.

For many of the fathers have gathered thereupon, that if a man's wife committed whoredom & fornicatiō, he might not only put her away, but marry another. Some others, and among them namely S. Augustine, have thought that the man might put away his wife but marry another he might not.

The Schooledivines of latter years, & the Canonists, as for the most parte they were adicted commonly to S. Austin's iudgmēnt, did likewise follow him herein & the Popes maintaining their doctrine for Catholic, have possessed the church of Rome with this opinion. But since in our days the light of good learning both for arts & tongues hath shined more brightly by God's most gracious goodness then in the former ages, and the holy scriptures by the help thereof have been the better understood: the Pastors and Doctors of the reformed Churches have percieved & shown, that if a man's wife defile herself with fornication, he may not only put her away by Christ's Doctrine but also marry another. Wherein that they teach agreeably to the truth, and not erroneously, as Jesuits & Papists do falsely and unjustly charge them. I will make manifest and prove (through God's assistance) by express words of Christ, the truth itself. And because our adversaries do ween that the contrary hereof is strongly proved by sundry arguments and obiecttions, which two of their newest writers Bellarmine the Jesuit & a nameless 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 down all their objections in order, first out of the scriptures then of fathers, last of reasons, and answer everyone of them particularly. So shall it appear to such as are not blinded with a fore-conceived opinion and prejudice, that whatsoever show of probabilities ate brought to the contrary, yet the truth delivered by our Savior Christ alloweth him whose wife committeth fornication to put her away and marry another.

The proof hier of is evident if Christ's words be weighed in the niententh Chapter of S. Matthews gospel. For when the Pharisees asking him a question, whether it were lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, received answer that it was not, and thereupon said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way: Our Savior said unto them; Moses suffered you because of the hardness of your heart to put away your wifes: But from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, that, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for whoredom, and shall marry another, doth commit adultery: and who so marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery.

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

But he must needs commit it in doing so unless the band of marrirge be loosed and disolved. For who so marrieth another as long as he is bound to the former, is an adulterer. The band then of marriage is loosed & dissolved between that man and wife who are put asunder and divorced for whoredom.

And if the band beloosed, the man may marry another: seeing it is written Art thou loosed from a wife? If thou marry thou sinnest not. Therefore it is lawful for him who hath put away his wife for whoredom to marry another.

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

The first they deny to weete that the clause of ex • eption in Christ's speech [ except it be for whoedome ] doth argue that the mā committeth not adultery, who, having put away his wife for whoredom, marrieth another. And to overthrow this proposition, they do bring soudry answers and evasions. The best of all which as Bellarmine avoucheth, is, that those words [ except it be for whoredom ] are not an exception. For Christ (saith he) meant those words [except for whoredom] not as an exception, but as a negation. So that the sense is whosoever shall put away his wife. except for whoredom; that is to say without the cause of whoredom, & shall marry another doth commit adulteric. Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put away his wife without the cause of whoredoe, marrieth another: but nothing is said touching him who marrieth another, having put away his former wife for whore dome. In deed this evasion might have some color for it, if these words of Christ [except it be for whoredom ] were not an exception. But neither hath Bellarmine ought that may suffice for the proof hereof and the very text of the • cripture it self is soe clear against him, that he must of necessity give over his hold. For the principal pillar wherewith he under proppeth it, is S. Austin's judgment, who hath so expounded it in his first book touching adulterous marriages: Now of that treatise S. Austin saith himself in his retractations I have written two books touching adulterous marriages, as near as I could according to the scriptures 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 perceive that I have not done it perfectly, and thoroughly, although I have opened many creeckes thereof, as whosoever readeth with judgment may discern. S. Augustine then acknowledgeth that there are some wants & imperfections in that work which they may see who read with judgment. And whether this that Bellarmine doth allege out of it, deserve not to fall within the cōpass of that censure I appeal to their judgment who have eyes to see: For S. Augustine thought that the word in the orignial of S. Matthews gospel, had, by the Proper significatiō of it, imported a negation rather then an exception. As he showeth by saying that where the common Latin translation hath [ except for whoredom] in the Greek text it is rather read without the cause of whoredom. Supposing belike (whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight) that the same words, which were used before in the fifth Chapter of S. Matthews Gospel to the same purpose, were used also in this place: whereas here they differ, and are well expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so well. Howbeit, if thy had been the same with the former: yet neither so might Bellarmine allow his opinion: considering that the common latin translation (which Papists by there Council of Trent are bound to stand to under pain of ourse) expresseth those likewise as a plain exception.

Which in deed agreeth to the right and natural meaning of the particle, as the like writers use it in like construction: even then to, whē it hath as it were a link less to tie it unto that meaning. Wherefore S, Austin's mistaking of the word and significatiō thereof is no sufficient warrant for Bellarmine • to ground on, that they must be taken so. As for that he addeth, that, albeit both these particles be taken exceptively often times, yet may they also be taken otherwise, since • one of thē is used in the Revelation as an adversative, not an exceptive: this maketh much le •• e for proof of his assertion. For what if it be used there as an adversative where the matter treated of, and the tenor of the sentence do manifestly argue that it must be taken so? Must it therefore be taken so in this place, whereof our questionn is? or doth Bellarmine, prove by any circumstance of the text, that here it may be taken so? No. Neither saith he a word to this purpose. Why men • ioneth he then that it may-be takē otherwise, and is in the Revelation, for an adversative particle? Truly I know not: unless it be to show that he can wrangle, and play the cavilling sophister in seeming to gainsay and disprove his adversary, when in truth he doth not. Or perhaps, though he durst not say for the particular, that it is taken here as an adversative, which he could not but most absurdly: Yet he thought it policy to breed a surmise thereof for the general, that shallower conceits might imagine another sense therein, they knew not what; and they whose brazen faces should serve them thereto, might impudently brable, that our sense is not certain, because another is Possible, evē as if a Jew being pressed by a Christian with the place of Isaiah, Behoulde a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a Son should answer that the Hebrew word translated Virgin, may be taken otherwise since that in the Proverbs it signifieth a married woman: at least one that is not a Virgin in deed, though she would seem to be, But as the Jew cannot conclude hereof with any reasō, that the word signifieth a married woman in Isaiah; because the thing spoken of is a strange sign & it is not strange for a married womā to conceive and bring forth a Son: so neither can the Jesuit conclude of the former, that the particle in Matthew is meant adversatively; because the words then do breed no sense at all; in which sort to thinkethat any wise man spake, were folly; that Christ the word and wisdom of God were impiety. Nay if some of Bellarmins scholars should say that words must be supplied to make it percit sense, rather than their master be cast of as a wrāgler: they would be quickly forced to pluck in this horn, or else they might chance to leap (which is worse) out of the frying pan into the fire. For adversative particles import an opposition and contrariety unto that sentence against which they are brought in Now, the sentence is, that who so put teth away his wife and marrieth another, doth commit adultery.

Wherefore, he by consequent, committeth not adultery who doth so for whoredom: If the particle be adversative, and must have words accordingly supplied, & understood to make the sense percttt. Thus the shift and cavil which Bellarmine hath drawn out of the double meaning of the Greek word, is either idle and beateth the air; or if it strike any, it striketh himself, & giveth his cause a deadly wound. Yea that which he principally sought to confute, he hath confirmed thereby.

For since the word hath only two significations exceptive, and adverstive, neither durst he say that it is used here as an adversative. it followeth he must grant it to be as an exceptive: & soe the place rightly translated in our English (agreeable to the other in the 5. of Matthew) except it be for whoredoe, which as in their authēticall latin text also doth out of controversy betokē an exception.

Having all passages therefore shut against him for scaping this way, he sleeth to another starting hole: to weete, that if the word be taken exceptively, yet may it be an exception negative.

And this ( he saith ) sufficeth for the maintenance of S. Austin's answer. For when it is said, whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of whoredom, and shall marry another doth commit adultery: the cause of woredome may be excepted, either because in that case it is not edul • erie to marry another; and this is an exception affirmative: or because nothing is pres • tly determined touching that cause, whether it be sufficient to excuse adultery or no; and this is an exceptiō negative, which in that S. Austin embraced he did well. I would to God Bellarmine had S. Austin's modesty. Then would he be ashamed to charge such a man with embracing such whorish silth of his own 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, and by avouching that to be negative, which is not: as if he had made a covenant with his lips to lie, treadinge in the steps of those wicked wretches of whom it is written woe unto them who say that good is evil, and evil good. For the proof whereof it is to be noted that an excepton is a particular proposition contradictory to a general: So that if the general proposition be affirmative, the exception is negative, and if the proposition be negative contrariwise, the exception is affirmative.

As for exsamples sake He that sacrificeth to any God's save to the Lord only, shall be destroyed saith Moses in the law. The proposition is affirmative, He that sacrificeth to my God's shall be destroyed.

The exception negative. He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed. There is none good, but one, even God. saith Christ in the Gospel. The proposition is negative There is none good. The exception affirmative. One is good, even God. I would to God that all ( layth Paul to Agrippa) which hear me this day, were altogether such as I am, except these bonds. The proposition affirmative. I wish that all which hear me were such as I am altogether. The exceptiō negative. I wish not in bonds they were such as I am No Church did communicate with me in the account of giving & receiving • saving you only saith the same Paul to the Philippians. The Proposition negative No church did communicate with me in the account of giving and receiving. The exceptiō affirmative You of Philippi did.

Likewise in all the rest of excep • tions adjoined to general propositions, though the marks and tokens, as of generality sometimes lie hidden in the proposition, soe of denying or affirming do in the exception: Yet it is plain and certain, that the proposition and exception matched with it, are still of contrary quallitie, the one afirmative if the other negative, and negative, if the other affirmative. Which thing being soe: see now the Jesuits dealing, how falsely and absurdly he speaketh against truth & reasō. For since in Christ's speech, touching Divorcement for whoredom; the proposition is affirmative Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, doth commit adultery: it followeth that the exception which denieth him to commit adultery, who putting away his wife for whoredom, marrieth another, is an exception negative, But Bellarmine saith that this were an exception affirmative. Yea which is more strange in a man learned & knowing rules of logique (But what can arts help when men are given over by God's just judgment to their own lusts and errors?) he ētiteleth it an exceptiō affirmative, even then and in the same place, when & where himself having set it down in the words going immediarly next before, had given it the mark onf a negative, thus, It is not adultery to marry another. And as no absurdity 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 adultery or no. So first to deny with him was to affirm: and next, to say nothing, now is to deny. Yet there is a rule in Law that he who saith nothing, denieth not. Belike, as they coined us new Divinity at Rome: so they will new Law and new Lodgique too. Howbeit, if these principles be allowed therein by the Jesuits authority, that negative is affirmative & to say naught is negative: I see not but all heretics & ungodly persons, may as well as Jesuits, maintain what they list, & impudently face it out with like distinctions. For if an adversary of the H. Ghost should be controlled by that we read to the Corinthians The things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God: His answer (after Bellarmins pattern) were ready, that this proveth not the spirit of God to know those things, because it might be a negative exception. importing that S. Paul would determine nothing presently thereof. If one who dispaired of the mercy of God through conscience of his sines, & trespasses should be put in mind of Christ's speech to sinners Ye shall all perish except ye repent: He might reply thereto that the exceptiō is negative; and this, though not in the former point, yet here were true; but to make it serve his humor. he must expound it with Bellarmine, that Christ doth not determine what shall become of the repentant. If a usurer should be told that he is forbidden to Give forth upon Usury, or to take increase: & a thief that he is commanded To labor & work, & so to eat his own bread; they might (if they had learned to imitate Bellarmine ) defend their trades both, the one by affirming, that to forbid a thing is to say nothing of it, the other, that to command be tokeneth to forbid. In a word, whatsoever opinion were reproved as false, or action as wicked, out of the scriptures, denouncing death eternal and pains of hell thereto: the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of, by glossing thus upon them, that false is true and wicked holy: life meant by death, and heaven by hell. Or if the papists them-selves would condemn this kind of distinguishing and expounding places, as senseless and shameless: then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negative is afirmative, and to say nothing is to deny. Whi • h whether they do, or no, I will, with the consent & liking (I do • bt not) of all indifferent judges, and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention, conclude, that these lying glosses of the Jesuits do 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 meant, he could have done with fit words, as wise men are wont) but a flat denying of that in on case, which the proposition affirmeth in all others: it remaineth that Christ having excepted out of his general speech them who for whore dome put away their wives, denieth that in them, which in all others he affirmeth; and thereby teacheth us that the man who putting away his wife for that cause, marrieth another, doth not commit adultery.

The next trick of Sophistry, whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them, is that the exception ought to be restrained to the former branche of putting away the wife only. 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 lawful except it be for whoredom) and marrieth another, doth commit adultery. This devise doth Bellarmine allow of as probable, though not like the foresaid two of negation and negative exception. But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all. And surely if it were lawful to foist in these words which is not lawful: the Pamphletter might seem to have shown greater skill herein then Bellarmine. But men of understanding and judgment do know that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of wax and leaden rule (as Pighuis doth blasphemously term it) if everyone may add not what the circumstances & matter of the text showeth to be wanting, but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof as pleaseth his conceit and fancy. The sundry interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may (to go no further) sufficiently discover the fault and incōvenience of that kind of dealing.

For the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wife, except it be for whoredom, though he marry not another, committeth adultery, and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sort, if he marry another, doth commit adultery. Freier Alphōsus checketh and controlleth this interpretation, partly as too violent, for thrusting in so many words; partly as untrue, for the former branch of it: since he who putteth away his wife, not for whoredom, although he cause her to commit adultery, yet doth not himself commit it, unless he marry another. Wherevpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather. Whose putteth away his wife, not for other cause but for whoredom, and marrieth another, doth commit adultery. 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 natural 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 no cause but for whoredom yet committeth adultery, if he marry another; much more if hēe marry having put away his wise for any other cause. And so is Christ's speech made in effect clean contrary to that which his own words do geve: he saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for whoredom: and the frier forcing him to say Whosoever shall put away his wife although it be for whoredom, and shall marry another, doth commit adultery. Nicolas • f Lira being, as in time more ancient then the frier, soe more sincere and single in handling the scripture, saith that other words must be interposed to the supplying of it thus. whoso putteth away his wife except it be for whoredom, sinneth, and doth against the law of marriage; and whoso marrieth another doth commit adultery. Wherein though he deal less vyolently with the text, then do the frier and the Bishop: yet he offendeth also in their licētious humor of adding to the scripture, where nothing was wanting, and making it thereby to speak that which he thinketh, whereas he should have learned to think that which it speaketh. yea Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth that they all were overseen herein, albeeit censuring them with gentler words, as he is wont his favorites and friends. For the explicationsl (saith he) 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 denied unworthy the rehearsal, and that of his own, though adding in the like sort, which is not lawful, 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 else where for the most parte, though he brag not thereof: the reasons then which Bellarmine doth press out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous scholars that this interpositō is probable and likely, are pressed indeed according to the proverb; The wringing of the nose causeth blood to come out. For he saith that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shall marry another, but straight after those whosoever shall put away and likewise when he added, and whoso marrieeth her that is put away committeth adultery he did not join thereto; Except it be for whoredom: to the intent that he might show that the cause of whoredom doth only make the putting away to be lawful, & not the celebrating of a new 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 he proveth it not; it is but his conjecture, like a sick man's dream. Unless this go for a proof, that Christ did not so place it before without cause, nor omit it afterward without cause. Which if he meant it should, it was for want of a better. For Christ did not these things without cause I grant Therefore he did thē for this cause; it followeth not. S. Paul, having occasion to cite a place of scripture doth set it down thus. Come ye out from among thē, & separate your selves saith the Lord, and touche no unclean thing. Herein he hath placed the words saith the Lord, not after touch no unclean thing but after, separate yourselves. This did he not without cause, What? for this cause therefore that he might restrain the words, saith the Lord, to the former branch as not pertaining to the later also? No for it appeareth by the Ptophet Isaiah that they belong to both. It is to be thought then, that the spirit of 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 understand the rather that both the words going before, and coming after were qualified with saith the Lord. which is to be likewise thought of the exception placed by our Savior between the two branches of his speech. And that with soe much greater reason, in my judgment because if he had placed it after the later And shall marry another, the words▪ Except for whoredom might have seemed to signify that it were lawful for a man having put away his wife for any cause, to marry another, if he could not contain; as it is written because of whoredom, let every man have his wife: where now, the exception being set before (the pharisees whose question Christ therein did answer) could gather no such poison out of his words: to feed their error: but they must needs acknowledge this to be his doctrine, that a man may not put away his wife for every cause, and marry another, but for whoredom only. As for Christ's omitting of the exception afterward, Bellarmine himself will quickly see there might be another cause thereof, if he consider how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omit the exception, which nevertheless must needs be supplied and understood. For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons, the Lord gave commaudement; Let not the wife depart from her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife; without adding to either parte, except it be for whoredom, which the Lord did add? Bellarmi • s greatest Doctor saith that he omitted it because it • was very well known, most notorious. If then S, Paul had reason to omit it wholly because it was so well known: How much more justly might Christ in parte omit it for the same cause, having mentioned it immediately before, & made it known thereby? Chiefly s • ing that as he framed his speech to men's understanding, so did he follow the common use of men therein. And if I should say upon 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 think I meant that the exception set down in the former sentence touching manquellers pertaineth to the later of there abbetters also, and uttered once must serve for both? yea, even in the former too, who would not think that my meaning were the exceptiō should reach, unto both the branuches of drawing the sword, & killing a man; not to be abridged & tied up unto the first, as if I had said, whosoever draweth his sword (which none may do except he be a magistrate) & killeth a man, committeth murder? yet one who were disposed to play the Jesuits parte, might thus expound my speech, and say I taught thereby that Peter in deed was justly reproved for drawing his sword though, he killed not: But magistrates are authorized to draw it, and no more, not to put men, to death, & to take vengeance on him that doth evil. Neithet should he do me greater wrong▪ there in by making me to speak contrary to scripture, then Bellarmine doth Christ by the like depraving of the like sentence. But if all these reasons will not persuade his scholars, that in Christ's speech the exceptiō of whoredom is to be extēded to both the points jointly of putting away & marrying: & that Bellarmine adding these words, which is not lawful, did unlawfully sow a patch of human rags to the whole garment of God's most precious word: behold their own doctrine allowed & established by the Council of Trent, shall force them, will they, nill they to see it & acknowledge it. For if the exceptiō be so tied only to the former point: Then a man may not putt away his wife for any cause save for whoredom, no not from bed and board, as they term it, that is, from mutual company & society of life, although he marry not another. But the Council of Trent pronounceth and defineth, that there are many causes, for the which a man may put away his wife from bed and board, wherefore the Papists (no remedy) must grant that the exceptiō cannot so be tied unto the former point only. And therefore whereas Bellarmine saith further that he thīketh it is S. Thomas of Aquines opiniō that Christ's words should be expounded so: & Jerome seemeth some what to be of the same mind: the Papists peradventure will be fain to say that Bellarmine was deceived herein. For else not only Jerome of whom they reckon less but Thomas of Aquine the saint of Saints & chiefest light of the Church of Rome shall be conviuced of error, even by the Council of Trents verdict.

And these consideracions do likewise stop the passage of another shift, which this coosin german to the last entreated of, and Bellarmine praiseth it alike. To weete that the words committeth adultery, must be supplied and understood in the former parte of Christ's sentence thus: Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whoredom, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth another committeth adultery. Solomon did wisely judge that she was not the mother of the child who would have it divided; but she who desired it might be saved entier. Surely the Jesuit hath not those bowels of kind and loving affection towards Christ's sent • ce that a Christiā should, who can find in his heart to have it divided; & of one living body, nāely, Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whordōe and, marrieth another, committeth adultery, made as it were two pieces of a dead carkas, the first, Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whoredom, committeth adultery, the second, whoso marrieth another cōmiteth adultrie. Which dealing, beside the incōveniēce of making the scripture a nose of wax & lead̄e rule, if men may add what pleaseth thē, spetialy if they may also mangle sentences, & chop thē in sundry parts: but beside this mischief here it hath a greater, that Christ most true and holy, is made thereby to speak an untruth. For a man may put away his wife for other cause, then for whoredom, & yet not commit adultery himself. Yes, he committeth it (saith Bellarmine) in his wives adultery, whereof he was the cause by putting her unjustly 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 he was minded to note these several faults, did it with several words expressinge them accordinglye. Moreover, understanding the term, to put away, not as the force thereof doth yield, & Christ took it for loosing of the bād of marriage, but for a sepe ration from bed, and board only, as Bellarmine understandeth it: He cannot allow the sentence which he fathereth one Christ, though soe expounded, without either condemning of the Trent Council, or being himself condemned by it.

For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him, but for whoredom, doth commit adultery in causing her to commit it: Then is it a sin to separate her for any cause save for whoredom. If it be a sin: The Church of Rome erreth in holding and decreeing that she may be separated for sundry other causes. But whosoever saith that the Church erreth herein, is accursed by the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent therefore doth consequently curse Bellarmine, if he say that Christ spake his wordesin that sense, in which he cōstrueth them. And doth it notcurse Austin also, & Theophilact, whō Bellarmine allegeth as saying the same? at least it declareth that in the Councils judgment, the fathers missexpoūd the Scrip tures sometimes, even those very 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 plain, as I have shown, that he who having put a way his wife for whoredōe marrieth another, committeth not adultery. For soe much importeth the exception negative of the cause of whoredōe, opposed to the general affirmative propositiō, wherewith our Savior answered the question of the Pharisees touchcing divorcemēts used by the Jews, who putting away there wives for any cause did marry others.

The only reason of adversaries remaining to be answered, stood upon, and urged by them as moste effectual, and for cible to the contrary, is an example of like sentences: from which, since the like conclusion (say they) cannot be inferred, as we infer of this, the inferrence or this is faultye. And faulty (I grant) they might esteem it justly if the like conclusions could not be drawn from the like sentences.

But lett the examples, which they bring for proof here of be thoroughly sifted: And it will appear that either the sentences are unlike, or the like conclusitons may be inferred of them. For of three sentences proposed to this end, the the first is out of Scripture in S. James Epistle To him that knoweth how to do well, and doth it not, to him there is sin. A sentence though in show unlike to that of Christ's, for the proposition and exception both: yet having in deed the force of the like, if it be thus resolved. To him that doth not well, except he know not how to do well there is sin. And why may it not be concluded hereof, that there is no sin to him, who knoweth not how to do well, & doth it not? because there are sins of ignorance (saith Bellarmine ) & he who knoweth not how to do well, and doth it not, sinneth, though less then he that offendeth wittingly. I know not whether this be a snine of ignorauns in Bellarmine, or no, that when he should say (if he will check the conclusion) there is sin to ignorant he saith (as if that were all one) the ignorant sinneth. Betwene which two things there is a great difference in S. James his meaning. For S. James in these words, there is sin to him, doth speak emphatically, & noteth in that man the same that our savior did in the Pharisees, when (because they boasted of their sight & knowledge) he told thē that they • had sin: meaning by this Phrase, as himself expoundeth it, that their sin remained, that is to say, continued and stoodt firm & settled. The custom of the Greek tongue wherein S. James wrote, doth geve this Phrase that sense, as also the Syriaque (the language used by Christ ) translating Christ's words after the same manner: & the matter treated of doth argue that he meant not generally of sin, but of sin being & cleaving to a man in spetiall & peculiar sort. For as the servant that knew his Masters will, and did not according to it, shall be beaten with many stripes: but he that knew it not, and yet did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few. Likewise in transgression whereto the punishment auswereth he that knoweth how to do well, & doth it not, sin is to him, he hath it, he offendeth not ably: But he that knoweth not how to do well, & doth evil, hath not sin sticking to him, his sin remaineth not, he sinneth not so greatly & grievously. Wherefore when Bellarmine draweth out of that sentence such a conclusiō as if S. James in saying there is sin to him, had simply meant, he sinneth; Bellarmine mistaketh the meaning of the sentence; which if the text itself cannot inform him, his doctors well considered may. But take the right meaning & the conclusion will be sound. Whosoever doth not good and honest things, except it he of ignorance, he sinneth desperatelie & mainly. Therefore whoso of ignorance omitteth to do them, he sinneth not desperately. And thus our conclusion drawn frō Christ's sentence is rather confirmed thē prejudiced by this example. Yea let even. S. Austin, whose authority Bellarmine doth ground on herein, be diligently marked: And himself in matching these sent̄nces together bewrayeth an oversight, which being corrected will help the truth with light & strength. For to make the one of thē like the other, he is fain to fashion Christ's speech in this fort: To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredom & marrieth another, to him there is the crime of committing adultery. Now Christ hath not these words of emphatical property, and strong signification, whereby he might teach, as S. Augustine gathereth, that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause, save for whoredom, and marrieth another, comitteth adultery in an high degree: and soe imply by consequence, that who soe marrieth another, though having put away his former wife for whoredom, yet committeth adultery too, a less adultery.

But that which Christ saith is simple, flatt, absolute; he committeth adultery. And therefore as it may be inferred out of S. James, that he who omitteth the doing of good through ignorance, sinneth not with a lofty hand in resolute stifnes of an hardened heart: Soe conclude we rightly out of Christ's words that he who having put away his wife for whoredom, marrieth another, committeth not adultery in any degree at all.

The first sentence then alleged by S. Austin and after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scriptures, is soe far from disprooving, that it proveth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences. The seconde and third are out of their own brains: The one of Bellarmins forging, the other of the Pamphletters: Bellarmins, He that stealeth, except it be for need, sinneth. The Pamphlctrers: He that maketh a lie • except it be for a Vauntagoe doth willfully sin. Whereof they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence That he sinneth not, who stealeth for need: and he who lieth for a Vauntage, sinneth not willfully. A badd inferrence indeed. But the fault thereof is, in that these sentences are not like to Christ's. For Christ's is from Heaven, full of truth and wisdom: These of men, fond, and imply untruth. They might have disputed as fitly to their purpose, and proved it as forcibly, if they had used this example: All four-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 be concluded justly that Asses are not beasts, and Apes are not devoyd of reason. No. But this perhaps might be concluded, justly, that he had not mu • h reason, nor was far from a beast that would make such sentences. Considering that all men who write or speak with reason, mean that to be denied in the particular which they do except from a general affirmed. And therefore since he sinneth who stealeth though for need, as the wise man showeth, and he that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sin, yea the more willfully sometimes, because for a vauntage, as when the s • ribs b • lied Christ: It were a very fond and witless speech to say, that Whosoever stealeth, except it be for need, sinneth: And whosoever lieth except it be for a vauntage doth willfully sin. Wherefore these sentences are no more like to Christ's, thē copper is to gold, or wormwood to the bread of Heaven.

Neither shall they ever find any sentence like to his indeed, of which the like conclusiō may not be inferred, as we infer of that. And soe the main ground of my principal reason proposed in the beginning, remaineth sure & clearly proved: that he by Christ's sentence committeth not adultery, who having put a way his wife for whoredom marrieth another. Whereof seeing it followeth necessarely, that he who hath put away his wife for whordōe, may lawfully marry another, as I there declared: it followeth by the like necessity, of cōsequēce, that the popish doctrine maintained by our adversaries denying the same, is contrary to the scripture & doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Son of God.

THE SECOND CHAPTER.

S Ainct Austin in his learned books of Christian Doctrine, wherein he geves rules how to find the right and true sense of Scriptures, doth well advise the faithful, First to search and mark those things which are set down in the Scriptures plainly, and then to go in hand with sifting and dis • ussing of the dark places: that the darker speeches may be made evident by Patterns and examples of the more plain & manifest, and the records of certain & undoubted setences may take away doubt of the ūcertain.

This wholesome and judicious Counsaile of S, Augustine if our adversaries had been as careful to follow, as they are willing to show they follow him in these things which he hath written less advisedly: they would not have alleged and urged the places of Scripture, which they do against the point of doctrine hith • rto proved out of the niententh chapter of S. Matthew. For Christ in that place doth open the matter and decide the question most plainly and fully: of purpose answering the Pharisees. In others, either it is not handled of purpose, incidently touch • d; or in gen • rallity set down more briefly, and soe more darkly and obs • urely. Wherefore if any of the other places had seemed unto them to raise up a scruple, and show of some repugnancy: they should have taken pains to explayne and level it by that in S. Matthew the darker by the clearer, the brieffer by the large • r, the uncertain and ambiguous by the undoubted and certain. But seeing they have chosen to follow S. Austin's oversights rather thē his best advises in like sort as Furius, an orator of Rome did imitate Fimbria whose force of speech and arguments he attained not to, but pronoun • ed broadly and set his mouth awry like him: we must say of thē as Christ of the Pharisees Let them alone, they are blind leaders of the blind: and ourselves endeavor to follow S. Augustine in that he followed Christ, who cleared the darker place of Moses by the plainer word and ordinance of God. The which if we do, we shall (by God's grace) easily perceive, that none af all the places alleged by our adversaries, doth make against the doctrine already proved and concluded.

For the first of them is in the fifth of Matthew Whosoever shall putt away his wife, except it for whoredom, doth cause her to commit adultery, And whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery, These words (saith Bellarmine; and look what Bellarmine saith the pamphletter saith with him, so that one of their names may serve for both and reason Bellarmine have the honor) These words. And whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery, must be either generally taken without exception, or with the exception. Except it be for whoredom. If generally, Then he who marrieth her that is put away, even for whoredom too, doth commit adultery. The band then of Marriage is not d • solved and loosed by her putting away: but company debarred only. For he that marrieth her should not commit adultery unless she were bound yet to her former husband. And thus far Bellarmine saith well; but superfluously. For the words may not be generally taken, since 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 be that he who marrieth her which is so put away doth commit adultery. Neither could Bellarmine be ignorant hereof, or doubt with any likely hoode, but that this is our judgment, and would be our answer. Wherefore his two forked dispute about the words, was a flourish only to make us a frayde: as if he fought with a two hand sword, which would kill all that came in his way. But now he goeth forward upon his enemies pike, & layeth about him on the other side. If the words must be taken with the exception: then he that marrieth a whore put away from her husband, committeth not adultery. And consequently the whore is in better case then the innocent and chaste. For the whore is free and may be married, whereas the innocent that is unjustly put away, can neither have her former husband, nor marry another. But this most absurd, that the law of Christ being most just, would have her to be in better case and state, that is justly put away, then her that is unjustly. For answer unto which reason of Bellarmine, I would spur him a question, whether by the Popes law, which forbiddeth a man that hath been twice married, or hath married a widow, to take H. orders & admitteth on thereto that hath kept or happily keepeth many concubines, a whormonger be in better case then an honest man: and if a whoremonger be so by the Popes law, whether we ought to judge that this is most absurd or no. Here if he should answer me that the Popes law is not most just and therefore no marvel if it have some such things as were most absurd to be imagined by Christ's law: I must acknowledge he spake reason. Well, I would spurr him then another questiō, whether he think that I am in better case then any Jesuit, yea, then the best of them all. Phy he will answer, there is no comparison. 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 vow. Belike this Vow-Doctrine was not established by the law of Christ, which is most just, but by the Popes law rather. Or it is most absurd that a poor Christian should be in better case, then the proudest Jesuit. But here peradventure the man will say rather that we are Heretics, and they Catholics, and the meanest Catholic is in better case, even for his faiths sake, then any Heretic whatsoever: which if he do as it is likely, neither can he say ought with probability but to this effect, then hath he confuted and overthrowen his own argument. For by this answer he cannot choose but grant that the simplest woman being put away unjustly from her husband is in better case for her chastities sake, though she may not marry, then whatsoever whore that may. And I hope he will not say that the stews 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 be joined to others: whereas the curtizans are free to marry whom they will, if any will marry them, who are soe free. Howbeit, lest any place of cavilling be left him, and of pretending a difference between those, who having had the use of marriage lose the benefit of it, and those who lose it not, having never had it: I will set before him a plain demonstration thereof in married persons. Seianus (as the Romaine History recordeth) did putt away his wife Apicata unjustly: thereby to win the rather the favor of Livia, which was the wife of Drusus. Livia being carried away with the wicked enticements of Seianus was not only naught of her body with him, but consented also to make away her husband Drusus with poison, Now let Bellarmine tell us whether of these two were in better case Apicata or Livia; Livia the adulteress & murderesse of hir husband, being free to marry, or chaste Apicata, being bound to live solitary. If he say Livia should have been put to death by the Romaine law because of her murder and then had she not been in better case then Apicata for liberty to marry: I reply that likewise by the law of Moses the woman whom Christ speaketh of, should have been 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 time of Livia: let Bellarmine answer to the point, not as of Livia only, but of any whore that hath wrought her husbands death, and for want of proof, or through the Magistrates fault is suffered to live, whether she be in better case then an honest, chaste, religious matron, that is put away from her husband unjustly. Which if he dare not say, considering on the one side the plagues that in this life, and in the life to come are laid up for such mis • reants, on the other, the blessed promises of them both assur • d to the Godly: then he hath no refuge, but he must needs confess that his argument was fond. For the murdering whore is not an adulteress by the law of Christ, though she take another man, her husband being dead: and yet the chaste matron were an adulteress if she married while her husband liveth, who hath unjustly putt her away. Wherein this notwithstanding is to be weighed, that a chaste woman's case is not so hard in comparison of the whores.

No. Not for marriage neither, as Bellarmine by cunning of speech would make it seem, to • ounten • unce therewith his reasō. For he frameth his 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 who is free to marry, whereas the truth is, that by Christ's law she not only may, but ought to have her former husband.

And why should not she be as likely to recover her husbands goodwill, to whom she hadd been faithful: as a faythlesse whore and infamous strumpett to get a new husband?

Chiefly seeing that it is to be presumed they loved ech other wh • n they married: and experience showeth that Falling out of Lovers is a renewing of love. But if through the frowardness of men on the one side, & foolishness on the other, the chaste wife could hardly reconcile her husband, the whore get easily a match: it suffic • th that the law of Christ cannot be justly charged with absurdity, though it do enlarg the unchaste and lewd in some outward thing, in which it enlargeth not the chaste. No more then the providence of God may be controlled and noted of iniquity though the evil & wicked enjoy certain earthly blessings in this life, which are not granted to the upright & godly. Wherefore the first place of Scripture out of S. Matthew enforcrd by Bellarmine, with his horned argument (as the Logitions term it) doth serve him as much to annoy our cause: a • the Iron horns made in Ahab's favor by Zedekiah the falce prophet did stand him instead to push and consume the host of the Aramites

The second place is written in the tenth of Mark. Who so putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery against her: and if a woman put away her husband, and be married to another she committeth adultery. The like whereof is also in the sixteenth of Luke 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 (saith Bellarmine) do teach generally, that marriage cōtracted & perfected between the faithful, is never so dissolved that they may lawfully join in other wedlock. And whereas we answer that these general sentences are to be expounded with a saving of the exception mentioned in Matthew, because one Evangelist doth add oftentimes that another omitteth; & Matthew else where contrary unto Mark and Luke, which (since they all wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit of truth) is impossible: Bellarmine replieth that the Evangelists in deed omit or add somewhat now and than, which other EEvangelists have not omitted or added; but they do never omit in such sort that the sentence is made false. A strange kind of speech As if all general sentences were false from the which some spetialtie, though not expressed in the same place, yet by conf • rēce with others, is understood to be expressed. Sure the Civil Law which in learned men's opinions hath much truth, will then be stained foully with untruths and lies. For how many sentences and rules are set down in it with full and general terms, whereof notwithstanding there is none lightly but suffereth an exception. The Canon law also (whose creditt and authority Bellarmine must tender, howsoever he do the Civil) hath store of such axioms, and teacheth accordingly That a particular doth derogate from the general. But what speak I of men's laws? In the Scripture itself Job saith that The hypocrite shall perish forever, like the dung: and David, that the wicked shall turn into hell, all nations that forgett God. & Solomon that Everie provd-hearted man is an abomination to the Lord; though hand join in hand he shall not be unpunished. These sentences of Job & David and Solomon, are true in the belief of Christians; yet forasmuch as they must be understood with an exception, according to the Doctrine of Christ and his servants, saying unto sinners Except Ye repent Ye shall all perish: in the Jesuits judgment they are made false. And Jonah semblablie, when he preached to the Ninivits, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthowen, abvsed thē with an untruth: though learned men do find a truth in his speech, as being to be thus taken that Nineveh should be over thrown except it repented. Or if Bellarmine also acknowledge the same, which he may not choose, unless of a Jesuit he will become a Julian, and quite renounce the Christian faith: then acknowledgeth he that he playeth the parte of a guileful Sophister or a malicious Rhetoriciā, in signifying that the sentence of Christ is made false, if it be expounded and understood with an exception otherwhere expressed. And withal by consequence he acknowledgeth farther, that it is an idle & braynsick amplification whi • h herevppon he • lavisheth out Jesuit like and vaynely mispendeth pains and times about it, by saying, that else ( if the sentence forsooth were false) the Evangelists had deceived men to whom they delivered their Gospel's making no mention of other Evangelists and that when Mark wrote his gospel at Rome received by the preaching of Peter, he did not send the Romaeines back to Matthews gospel, as to a commentary: Nay if Matthews gospel hadd been then at Rome in the hands of the faithful, it may be well thought that Mark would not have written, and that Mark wrote not to add ought to Matthew, as John did afterward, but only that the Romaines might the better remember that which Peter taught: For Irenaee Eusebius and Jerome geve this cause; and that Luke wrote his Gospel for those nations to whom Paul had preached, and unto whō the book of Matthew and Mark were not yet come, but certain false writings of False Evangelists only: as himself showeth briefly, and it is more clearly gathered out of Ambrose, Eusebius and Jerome.

And in conclusiō, that the things th • refore which Mark and Luke say, must be absolutely true, & not depend of Matthews words, unless our meaning be that they were deceived, who did read Mark or Luke without Matthew. For by this reason of Bellarmine the words of Job, David, Solomon and Jonah, must be absolutely true, and not depend of Christ's words in Luke or by Isaiah: unless our meanig be, that they were deceived, who read the Psalms of David or Solomon's proverbs, or heard Job or Jonah speak without Christ: which likewise might receive a gay show by saying that else (if these sentences were false) these holy men had deceived them to whom they spake or wrote, making no mention of other holy teachers: and that when Job. and David, and Solomon, and Jonah did either write or speak, they did not put mē over unto Luke or Isaiah as to a comentarie; Nay Job's words were uttered, before either of them, or any of Christ's pen-men of the whole Scripture wrote, as sundry of the Fathers do probably teach: & Jonah did look that Nineveh should be over throw̄ according to his absolute speech, so far was he of from sending the Ninevites to such as specify the exception, besides that, had he sent them, whither should they have gone, who neither knew the Scriptures, and lived before the time of Luke and Isaiah both? David too, and Solomon, were their ancients far and ech did set forth the one his Psalms, the other his Proverbs (even those which they did writ) not all at once but by partes; and partly their own titles, and other Sciptures argue, partly Athanasius, Theodoret, and Bede signify: neither did Luke or Isaiah write to add ought to the Psalms or Proverbs, or to the words of Job or Jonah, as Ezra did to the book of Kings; But Isaiah to publish only his own Prophecy, and the story touching it, Luke the Gospel of Christ, and Acts of the Apostles. Here were a trim tale, which might be very forcible with a man forlorn, like Judas Iscariot, to persuade him, that the sentences of Job, of David, of Solomon, of Jonah concerning the destruction of hypocrites and all the wicked, are not to be expounded out of Luke or Isaiah, with an exception of Repentance. Yea, this should of reason have greater force and weight then Bellarmins of the same spinning. For he saith that Mark did not write his Gospel to add ought to Matthew. Which thing being granted, yet Mark notwithstanding might be expounded by Matthew, and soe much the rather, Matthew having specified an exception, that Mark omitteth: as the Lawiers teach that their General rules were not written to add ought unto the former, yet must be expounded with the exceptions touched in the former Laws. But in the spider-webb that I have woven after Bellarmins pattern, it is contrariewise; that Isaiah and Luke did not write to add ought to the Psalms or Proverbs, or to the words of Job or Jonah; which hath greater color to prove that their sayings should not be absolutely true, and not depend of exceptions mentioned so long after, neither mean to be joined to them: Chiefly for alianes from the Common-wealth of Israel, such as they that heard Job and Jonah were, who lived not to read the Doctrine of Christ in his Prophets and Apostles. Wherefore seeing Bellarmine is forced to acknowledge it were a lewd parte to reason and conclude this on general sentences of Job, David, Solomon, that an hypocrite, a wicked, a proud-hearted man, shall not be forgiven & saved though he repent: much more must he acknowledge a fault, in his disputing and gathering out of Mark & Luke that a man having put away his wife may not marry another, though he have put her away for whoredom. And hereby we may see what honor they both, himself and the pamphlet ter, who in this whole discourse goeth with him soote by foot, save that by enterlacing more fond unsavory words, h • e over-runneth him sometimes: a cover well beseeming and worthy such a cup, only somewhat broader; but hereby we may see what honor they have done S. Austin in knitting up their tale with his words, Who are we, that we should say, Some putting away their wives, and marrying other, commit adultery: and some doing soe commit it not, whereas the Gospel saith, that everyone committeth adultery, who doth so? Even as much honor as themselves should gain, if in the forlorn man's case, which I spake of they were his ghostly Fathers, and put him in this comfort Who are we that we should say, some wickedmen shall go to hell, (namely the unrepentant) some (the repentant) shall not go, whereas the Scripture saith that every wicked man shall go to Hell. Lett this kind of dealling in refuting matters be once allowed for currant: and every priest and Jesuit as well as the Pope will have more Royal power, even over Princes: what should I say over common Christians? For whereas it is written in the Epistle to the Collosians Children obey your Parents in all things: & Prophets were honored with the name of Fathers, not only by their scholars, the children of the Prophets, but also by the Kings of Israel: the title of Father gevē to all priests though not in such degree as to the Pope, yet to all priests and to Jesuits especially, insomuch that a great person of Rome doth term them not Fathers only with the people, but the Reverend Fathers, the Catholic Fathers, the good Fathers of the society of the holy name of Jesus: this title then applied and geven to them all will quickly win their scholars to think that the obedience commanded towards them is obedience in all things. Now we protestants teach that nevertheless supposing they were in deed Fathers not caterpillars of the Church, yet if Priest or Jesuit or the Pope himself should command a man to commit murder or whoredom, or theft, he might not be obeyed, because it is written in the Epistle to the Ephesiaus Children obey your Parents in the Lord, whence that to the Collosians ought to be expounded, that Parents must be so far forth obeyed, in all things as standeth with the dewty which children owe to God, and in piety they may. But if some Catholic Father should deny this, and say (like Father Robert) that S. Paul in deed ommitteth or addeth somewhat in one Epistle, which he hath not omitted or added in another, but he doth never omit in such sort that the sentence is made faulse: for else S. Paul hadd deceived the Collossians to whom he sent that Epistle, making no mention of that other to the Ephesians: And surely when he 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 been in their hands, it may be well thought, that he would not have written to them. Eor he did not write the Epistle to the Collossians thereby to add ought to that which he had writ̄ unto the Ephessians, as he did the later to the Corinthians, or Thessalonians, after the former, but only to reclayme the Collossians from their error, that man is reconciled, and hath access to God by Angels, and to corect their Jewish and Heathenish observations; for Chrysostō Theophylact, and Oecumenius geve this cause. That which Paul therefore saith to the Collossians must be absolutely true, and not depend of that he saith to the Ephesians, unless our meaning be that they were deceived, who read the Epistle to the Collossians without the other. If some Catholic Father (I say) should speak thus, against our interpreting of Scripture by Scripture, would not his children (trow ye) think it strongly & invincibly proved, that they must obey him absolutely in all things? Chiefly, if as Father Robert bringeth Austin, soe he brought Cassianus S. Chrisostoms scholar in, who praiseth one Mutius (a novice of an Abbey in Egypt) as a most worthy pattern of obedience to his Abbot or, Father, as you would say, for that he was ready to cast his own natural son a little child, into the River at his commandment & soe as much as lay in him did murder his son, but that some by the Abbats appoyntement did receive him being caste out of his Fathers hands towards the River, and saved him from drowning. For he who extolleth this Novices faith and devotion to Heavē, affirming that the Abbot was by revelation straightway advertised, that Mutius hadd performed Abraham the Patriarchs work by the obedience, as if there were no difference between the Lord's commandment and an Abbats might have formed a sent • n • e like Austin's in defense thereof: Who are we that we should say, Children in some things must obey their Parents, and in some they must not, whereas the Scripture saith. Children obey your Parents in all things. By the which construction whatsoever a man's mother should command him, must be obeyed too, she being comprehended in the name of Parents: and what soever a man's Master should command, he being also a Father, and whatsoever any Governor should command, or friend that hath done good, or an old Gray-headed mā they being Fathers all, though not by nature, yet by office, benefit, or age. And then had King Asa done evil in putting down his mother Maachah from her state, because she hadd made an Idole in a grove; & in breaking down her Idol; and stamping it, & burning it. And Doeg the Edomite had deserved greater praise then Saul's servants: since they Would not move their hands to fall vpom the Lord's Priests, when their Master bidd them: which Doeg did and ex • cuted his wrath to the uttermost. And the Apostles hadd overseen themselves, when they disobeyed the high Priest, and rulers and Elders of Israel; and gave this reason of it We ought rather to obey God then men. Yea that wrecthed impious & execrable fryer, who did more then barbarously murder his Sovereign Lord's the French King the annointed of the HIGHEST, may then be excused, excused! nay commended and praised by trayt • rous papists, as having done that which he ought: seeing it is likely that either Pope or Priest, or Jesuit or Abbot, or some of his superiors commanded him to do it. Such absurd consequents of Bellarmins affirming that Markes and Luke's words must be absolutely true, and not depend of Matthew, do show what great reason he had soe to speak. For it is written of the City of Jerusalem, compared with the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites Such mother, Such daughter: in like sort may it be said of this constructiō of the holy Scripture compared with Bellarmins. Such consequence, such antecedent. And thus far of his second place.

The third is in the Epistle to the Romaines the sevēth chap. Knowe ye not brethren (for I speak to thē that know the law) that the law hath Dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman, which is in subjection to a man, is bound by the law to the man while he liveth: but if the man be dead, she is delivered from the law of the man. So then if while the man liveth, she take another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the may be dead she is free from the law, soe that she is not an adulteress, though she take another man. Out of which place and the like in the seventh of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, We gather (saith Bellarmine) that the band of marriage is never loosed but by death: and that seeing it is not loosed, it remaineth after divorcement too, for whatsoever cause the divorce be made. This doth Bellarmine gather: but gathering soe, he reapeth that which the holy Ghost sowed not. For S. Paul's meaning in those words to the Romans and Corinthians was, that the band of marriage is not loosed commonly 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 own examples) he saith Who goeth to Warrfare any time at his own cost? Now some have servd at their own charges without pay sometimes. For soe did the Romā stock of the Fabij against the Vientians and Clinias an Athenian Citizen against the Persians. But men for the most parte are waged publicly thereunto. And that is the point which S. Paul respected. Again Who planteth a Vineyard, & eateth not of the fruit thereof? • He on whō they father the first occasion of that proverb Many things do happen between the cup and the lipp; is said not to have drunk of the fruit of the Vineyard which himself had planted, nor to have eaten thereof belike. At least seeing old men plant trees for their posterity, neither might the Jews eat of their fruit in certain years: It is more then likely that many of them did not. Some did not questionless: they namely, who sustained the curse which God denounced unto them by Moses. Thou shelt plant a Vineyard, and shalt not use the fruit thereof. Yet S. Paul said well, because such as plant Vines do enjoy them commonly. Agayne who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? They eat not of the milk, who do not milk their sheep at all: and there be who do not, for fear of impairing thereby the lambs or woole. But it is sufficient for S. Paul's purpose, & the truth of his speech, that men in most cuntreis are wont to have thē milked: & they who undertake the pains of feeding flocks, are accustomed to eat of the milkes of the flocks. Again No man ever hated his own flesh but nourisheth & cherisheth it▪ Cato the younger, who slew himself at Vtica, was so far from nourishing and cherishing his body, that when his bowels being gushed out thereof, he was not yet dead, he tore them in pieces with his own hands as Rasias also did. Neither would S. Paul have denied this: who knew that many hadd killed themselves, and taken away all joys of life frō their flesh. Only he meant that no man hath ever lightly hated it, but every one doth nourish and cherish it rather. Noah man that warreth entangleth himself with the affaiers of life, because he would please him that hath chosen him to be a Soldier. What? is this false, because the rich Crassus being chosen by the Romans to be their General in Syria, did without all care of pleasing them, who chose him, play the merchant man and occupied himself in councils & money matters? Or because a band of Campanian souldyers, who served the king of Sicily gave themselves to citizens trades and occupations, having by treachery seized on Messana, dispossessed the townesmen, divided 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 to behave himself as a good & honest sold yer of Christ, was not to learn that there are some dishonest sold yers & reckless of their duty. But his meaning was, that soldyers usually do employ thenselves on warrlike exercises, not on civil affayers, or domestical business, whē they are chosen once to serve, & in the same sense did he likewise say, that a married womā is bound by the law unto her husband while he liveth: because the band of marriage is not usually and ordinarily loosed, but by death, though it may be loosed, and is sometimes otherwise, on rare vnwontted causes. Which is apparent to have been his meanning by that he teacheth that if an unbelieving man, who hath a Christian wife, do forsake her, then she is not in bondage. For if she be not in bondage, she is free to marry: as the words of Scripture imply by the contrary, and the Pope declareth. If she be free to marry the band of the former marriage is loosed, else were she bound and not free. Wherefore since the popes authentical record doth prove out of S. Paul, that a wife in some case is free to marry another while her husband liveth, the Papists must acknowledge that S. Paul meant, the band is not commonly loosed but by death, not that it is never at all loosed otherwise absolutely and simply. Bellarmine to frustrate and avoid this answer, saith that it may be proved by four reasons: which he bringeth forth poor, unarmed, weak ones of his own mustering, and with a strong hand putteth them to flight: that soe men imagining these are all that can be alleged on our side for the proof thereof, might think that our whole force is quite discomfited and Bellarmine hath won the feilde. I have heard say that there is cunning in daubing. Surely there is cunning in this kind of dealing. Neither is it for nothing that one of their Glorious Champions doth vaunte that the common sort of Catholics are able to say more for us, thē we can for ourselves. In deed they would bear the cōmō sort in hand, that their learned men in handling of questions and controversies of religion do set down all objections that can be made of our parte. And I grant, they set down more then often times themselves can soundly answer. Yet they use discretion therein by their leave: and many a strong reason which would trouble them foully if it came in place, they are content to wink at and say nothing of it, whereto they join this policy now and thē also, that they take upon them to be as it were our proctours and at turneys, in showing what may be said for us. Under which pretence they bring in such things as having a ready solution with the objection, and proving unsound, may turn to out causes discredit and to ours. So the Jesuit here his argument being grounded upon two places, the one to the Romans, the other to the Corinthyans, we countermyning the whole with one answer: he saith that our answer may be proved by four reasons, which he gathereth out of circumstances of the former place, all such as the later hath neither any kindred with, and discoverceth them to be of no value. But of the reasons, which I have brought to prove our answer fitting both the places, and partly confirming that S. Paul might well mean the same in these, which in the like he meant; partly demonstrating that certainly he did soe, because it were not true else that he teacheth of the liberty of Christians forsaken by the unbelievers; these reasons Bellarmine doth, not touch. No marvel: for they are too hot. And it is likely that he studied not what might be most strongly said in our defense, but rather what most weakly: that so he might seem to join battle with us, and yet might be sure to do himself no harm, Letting pass therefore the help which he offereth in like sort to us as the Sa •• ritanes did unto the Jews: I come unto the unjust and false accusation, wherewith they sought to hinder the building of the Temple, I mean to the reasons which he untruly saith, do witness our answer and exposition to be faulse. Those he draweth to three heads, whereof the first hath two branches: one that S. Paul's words are plain; the other that they are oft repeated. For what is more plain (saith he) then thet if while the man liveth, the woman take another man, she shall be called an adulteress? and that the woman is bound by the law as longe as her hus • and liveth? Playne I deny not. But this proof how pithy & strong soever he thought it to set it his fore-front, is already shown to be no proof at all: since there are as plain words in like sentences, which nevertheless must be expounded, as these are by us. For what more plain then that Who goeth a warfare any time at his own Cost? and that, Who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth net of the fruit thereof? and that Whofeadeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? and that, No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it? & that No War-faring man entangleth himself with the affairs of life? & many other such, that might be alleged, if in a thing so clear it were not superfluous? Nay in these sentences the words are more plain, then in those we speak of, because those have no such mark of generality expressed as these have. Wherefore if soe great playnnesse of words signed with general tokens as it were importing that they are true in all yet convinceth not that they are meant of all without any exception, fully and universally: how can a lesser playnnesse wanting such efficacy, convince the same of those in question? Or if it should elsewhere by reason of some difference which might supply, by other weight that this wanteth: Yet here it cannot possibly, because S. Paul himself as I have declared showeth that in one case the sayings could not so be true Moreover the Papists hold that if a married man become a monk before he know his wife carnally, she may lawfully take another husband, while he liveth. Perhaps further, also that the Pope for any very weighty cause, may upon the same circumstance dispense, and loose the band of Marriage. At least them-selves tell us that sundry Popes have done so: and their great Doctors hold we may. Yet is the woman his wife who hath wedded her, or espoused her only, though she hath not entered into his bed-chamber. For she that is betrothed, is accounted a wife by the law of God: and consent, not carnal company maketh Marriage as the civil Lawiers, Fathers, & Popes do teach. The Papists then of all men may worst enforce the playnesse of S. Paul's words against our exposition thē selves condescending in cases more then we do, that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth, and be no adulteress. Whereby again appeareth how wisely & discreetly the Jesuit Triumpheth with. S. Austin's words, These words of the Apostle so oftentimes repeated, so oftentimes inculcated, are true, are quick, are sound, are plain. The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, unless she have ceased to be of the former, and she shall cease to be of the former, if her husband die, not if he play the whoremonger. The wife then is lawfully putt away for whoredom, but the band of the former lasteth; in so much that he becometh guilty of adultery, who marrieth her that is put away even for whoredom.

For if these words of Austin be quick and sound against us, then touch they Popery at the quick: since it may be said by the same reason: The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, unless she have ceased to be of the former: and she shall cease to be of the former if her husband die, not if he wax a Monk.

Admitt then that the wife be put away for monkery, yet the band of the former lasteth: insomuch that he becometh guilty of adultery, who marrieth her that is put away even for monkery. And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were, for which so many Popes have loosed the bande of Marriage, they are all controlled by the same censure The woman beginneth not to be be the wife of any later husband unless she have ceased to be of the former; and she shall cease to be of the former if her husband die, not if a better match be offered, or some mislyke be conceived, or the Pope dispense and be well freed from it. Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the cōpass of Austin's reproof, by construing his words so without exception, because they are true, and quick, and sound, and plain. For against his doctrine touching a Susters liberty to marry, if she be forsaken of her unbelieving husband, the force of S. Austin's consequence would infer in like sort: The woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, unless she have ceased to be of the former: and she shall cease to be of the former, if her husband die, not if he forsake her. The Jesuit, who useth so often to repeat, so often to inculcate the testimonies of the Fathers, should deal peradventure more considerately, more charitably out of doubt, if, before he cite them, he weighed their words better, whether they may stand with the truth of Scripture, & with his own doctrine. For else as Cham discovered the nakedness of Noah, so doth he their blemishes: he, who aleageth them; not we, whom he enforceth to show why we dissent from them: least our Savior's sentence be pronounced against us He that loveth Father or Mother more then mce is not worthy of me. But the Jesuits meaning (you will say) was not to discredit them by laying a necessity on us to refute them, what? was his meaning then by their credit to discredit the Scriptures, with the truth whereof their sayings do not stand? For (I trust) he meant not to overthrow the points of his own doctrine, which their sayings cross, unless he be of that mind which Tully condemneth as barbarous and savage expressed in an heathenish verse LET OUR FRIENDS FALL, SOE THAT OUR FOES DIE WITHALL. Howsoever it be, it is plain that the plains of S, Paul's words neither doth prove the sense thereof to be simply & absolutely general, the Scripture noting an exception, neither cann be said by Papists to prove it whose doctrine both alloweth that exception of Scripture. & addeth more thereto. Thus one branch of Bellarmins first and principal reason being cut of: the other, and the rest of his reasons also are cut of with the same labor and instrument. For whereas he saith Certes it were marvel that the Apostle should never ad the exception of whoredom, if it were to be added, seeing he repeated and inculcated these things so often. Certes we may say as well of those exceptions which himself approveth that it Were marvel the Apostle should never add them, if they were to be added. Though what marvel is it, if S. Paul omitted the exception of whoredom in all those two places, which he Hath repeated and inculcated these things so often, as Bellarmine so often telleth us: when the thing is mentioned in the former of them by way of a similytude, wherein it had been fond and beside the purpose to speak of any exception: and, for the later S. Paul hath omitted the same exception twice, where the Scripture showeth and Bellarmine. confesseth, it should have been added▪ or (to speak more properly) where although it needed not to be added, yet must it needs be understood. Now to that Bellarmine doth next allege the Fathers Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Primasius, Anselmus and others over and besides Austin, Origen, and Jerome, all as bearing witness that we expound the places falsely: I could reply that some of these whatsoever they witness, have small credit with Bellarmine, as Ambrose specially: some, namely Chrysostō, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Primasius do not witness that no more then Paul himself doth: Nay they all save one are contrary minded rather, as shall appear in due place: But that which I have said already touching Austin, may serve for answer to the rest: chiefly since the Papists in whose behalf they are alleged, will rather yield that all the Fathers might err, thē any of their Popes, who yet must have erred in more, thē one Canon, if this were true which Bellarmine fathereth on the Fathers. Finally, concerning that for the vpshoote he urgeth Paul's similytude as if the drift of it did absolutely require that the man and wife cannot be made free from the band of Marriage by any seperatiō but by death only, because while the law had life as it were and stood in force till Christ the Jews could never shake off the Yoke thereof from them, although they endeavored to separate them-selves from it by committing whoredom with sundry laws of salfe God's: the rest of S. Paul's similytudes which I mentioned, do bewray the lameness and halting of this inference: seeing that the drift of thē requireth absolutely by the same reason that no man went to warfare at his own cost, or planted Vynes, or fedd sheep, without relief thereby, because all they Who preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel. And likewise that no man did ever hurt his own body, because Every husband ought to love his own wife as Christ loved the Church: and likewise that no soldier hath ever entangled him-self with the assayres of life because Tymothee should be still about those actions, whereto the Lord who choose him to he a soldier, did call him. Nay to go no farther then the drift itself of the samilytude, which Bellarmine doth urge, if it require absolutely that the band of Marriage may be no way loosed but only by the husbands or the wives death: then neither is it loosed, if the vnbeleever do for sake the Christian: neither if the husband become a Monk or the wife a Nun; neither if the Pope see cause to dispence with either of them. And will not this fancy 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 Jews were bound to become Christians after the death of the Law? or of the other side, that the Jews are not bound under pain of damnation to become Christians, because no widow is bound under pain of death to take another husband? or (if these absurdities be not great enough) that dead men ought to marry, because The Jews by duty should be unto Christ, when they were dead to the Law? or that the men of Rome to whom S. Paul wrote, should rather not believe in Christ, because he wished widows rather not to marry? Of the which consequences if some be esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed only, but are so in deed, the most have impious folly joined with untruth: Let Bellarmine acknowledge that similitudes must not be set upon the rack, nor the drift thereof be stretched and pressed in such sort, as if they ought just in length breadth and depth to match and fit-that whereto they are resembled. It sufficeth if in a general analogy and proportion of the principal point wherein things are matched, and compared together, they be eche like to other, and both agree in one quality. Which here is observed in S. Paul's comparisō of the state of Marriage, with the state of man before and after regeneration: because as a wife her husband being dead doth lawfully take another, and is not an adulteress in having his company to bring forth fruit of her body, to him: soe regenerate persons, their natural corruption (provoked by the law to sin) and flesh being mortified, are joined to the Spirit (the force of Christ working in them) as it were to a second husband, that they should bring forth fruit (the fruits of the Spirit) unto God. And thus seeing neither the drift of the similytude, nor the judgment of the Fathers, nor the playnnesse of the words so oftentimes repeated, do disprove our answer and exposition of the place: our answer proved by Scripture standeth firm and sure and therefore the third place urged by our adversaries, is suitable to the former.

So is the fourth & last; taken out of the first▪ to the Corithians the seventh Chapter _a To them who are Married, it is not I that give commandment, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart from her husband: but if she depart too, let her remain unmarried. or be reconciled unto her husband. Wherein (as Bellarmine reasoneth) the words of S. Paul, If, she depart, and so forth are meant of a woman, which parteth from her husband upon a cause of just divocement, as namely for whoredom, heresy, 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 saith most plainly she may not marry another. Therefore even a cause of just divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawful for married folckes to marry others, although they beesevered and put asunder by just divorcemēt.

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

For the foremost parte thereof, his proposition a vouching that the words If she depart, and so forth, are meant of her only which parteth from her husband upon a just cause of divocement, as namely for whoredom heresy, and such like, is faulty sundry ways: seeing they are neither meant of her only which parteth for a just cause; and though▪ they be also meant of her which parteth for any other just cause, yet not of her which for whoredom.

Moreover the conclusion knitting up his argument with Therefore even a just cause of divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage, is guilfully set down: being uttered in the form of a particular, and true so, taking divorcement as he doth; but intended to carry the force of a general, so by fraud and faulshood to bear away the point in questiō. Of both the which to treat in order, his proposition he presumeth of as most certain, because in (his judgment) Paul would not have said of her who departed without some such cause, Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband; but he would have said, Let her remain unmarried till she be reconciled unto her husband, & let her come again unto her husband in any case. And why doth Bellarmine think so? His reasons follow. For Paul could not permit an unjust divorcemnt against the express commandment of the Lord.

And, if in the same Chapter Paul permitteth not the man and wife to refrain from carnal company for prayers fake, and for a time, except it be with consent: How should be permit the wife to remain separated from her husband against his will, without any cause of just divorcement. In deed if it had lain in S. Paul's power to stay & refrain the wife from remaining so: no doubt he neither would, nor might have permitted it. which himself sufficiently shown in forbidding her to depart at all, much more to continue parted from her husband. But if notwithstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave her husband upon some lighter cause; or perhaps weightyer, though not weighty enough for a just divorcement: then Paul in duty ought and might (I hope) with reason require and exhort her to remain unmarried, and not to join her self in wedlock with another, a thing that Greeks and Romayns (whose of-spring the Corinthians were) used to do. as (to make it plainer by the like examples (S. Paul neither might neither would have allowed a man to be rashly angry with his brother: for Christ forbiddeth it. But if one were suddenly surprised with rash anger S. Paul would advise him not to let the sun go down upon his angry wrath. neither might he thereupon be justly charged with permitting wrath until the sun set, against Christ's commandment.

No more might he with granting liberty to lust, because he willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh: whereas Christ commandeth them not to lust at all. For S. Paul also condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sin. But seeing that the flesh will lust against the Spirit, as long as we are in this mortality: he sturreth up the faithful that they let not sin reign in their mortal bodies, nor do fulfill the lust of the flesh. In the same sort therefore he giveth charge with Christ that the wife depart not from her husband. Yet in consideratiō of human infirmity he addeth, But if she depart too, let her be unmarried. And to meet with a doubt which hereupon might rise, since in the next words before he had affirmed that they who have not the gift of continence should marry, and what if she have it not? he adjoineth farther. or let her be reconciled unto her husband. So that although the words may seem to be uttered in the same sort, as if they did imply and import a permission, yet are they not permissive, but imperative in truth, and an express precept, that the wife having forsaken her husband & therein done evil forbear to marry another, for that were far worse, yea though she can not contain: in respect where of or of anything else, if she mislike to live unmarried, she may not use the liberty that single folk may, who rather ought to marry then burn, but she must reconcile herself unto her husband, whose wife she is by duty still. And I may say likewise doubtless unto Bellarmine that he and his pamphletter should not have maintained their error in writing: but since they have done it, let thē write no more in defense of it, or let them acknowledge that in this point they were deceived. For whereas they gather of the disjunctive particle Let hor remain unmarried, or be reconciled, that S. Paul hath put it in the woman's choice & left her at liberty, either to live separated still from her husband, or to be reconciled unto him: they might as well ground upon Christ's words to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans I would thou werest cold or hot that he hath put it in our choice and left us at liberty either to be cold in faith and love, as flesh is, or to be fervent in the spirit. Yet Christ had no such meaning. For he commandeth us to be servant and that very angel he saith to every faith full men Be hot & Zealous. But because the party was luke warm, a worldling who had received the seed of the word but bare not fruit, who knew his masters will, but did it not & there by sinned most grievously: Christ wisheth that he were cold and sinned less; since he did sin; or that he were hot and free from both these faults, the later wish made simply the former in comparison. After the which manner seeing Paul might well, & did by all likelihood of circumstances of the text, wish simply and chiefly that the wife estranged were reconciled to her husband, next that she continued rather parted from him, then married to another as a less evil in comparison: the uttering of his sentence with a disjunctive particle Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled, doth not prove he put it in the woman's choice and left her at liberty to do whether she listed. And thus it appeareth how certain and undoubted that principle is, which upon this proof Bellarmine avoucheth to be most certain & undoubted: that S. Paul's words touching the wife If she depart, are meant of her only which parteth from her husband upon a just cause of divorcement. Howbeit if they had been meant of her only: 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 Bellarmine, that in exemplising the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should be restrained, he nameth whoredom first, as prncipally comprised in S. Paul's precept; whereas S. Paul meant that it and it alone, should be excluded and excepted.

For these are his words. To them who are married, it is not I that geve commandment but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband; but if she depart too, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.

Where in the last branch Let not the husband put away his wife, must needs be understood except it be for whoredom because S. Paul saith it is the Lord's commandment, and the Lord gave it with that express exception. This Bellarmyn doth grant. Well. Then as the last branch so the first too, Let not the wife depart from her husband. For the analogy is all one: and yeche having interest in the others body, she may as lawfully depart from an adulterer, as he from an adulteress. And this doth Bellarmine grant also. But the middle branch is to be understood of the same departing, and likewise qualified as the first. Therefore. If she depart too, is meant, except it be for whoredom. Nay, not so, quoth Bellarmine: for the same departing is not meant in both, but a far different, in the first an unjust departing, in the next a just; and this must be the sense of the Apostles words. Not I, but the Lord geve commandment, let not the wife depart from her husband, to weet without a just cause: but if she go away, to weet having a just cause, let her remain unmarried, & so forth. In the refutation of which wrong & violence done unto the sacred text, what should I stand? whē the only reason, whereby out of scripture he assayeth to prove it, is the disiunctive particle, which as I have shown already, hath no joint or sinew of proof to that effect. And the only father, whose testimony, he citeth, for it, doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture: So that his reason being overthrow • n, his • reditt and authority, by his own approved rule may bear no sway. And on the contrary parte, many other fathers do expound the second branch as having referēce to the same departing that is forbidden in the first. And (which is the chief point) the natural drift and meaning of S. Paul's words doth enforce the same. For the terms; But, if, too, import that doing also of that which in the sentence before he had affirmed ought not to be done: As the like examples in the same discourse (to go no farther) show, yea some having one particle less then this hath to press • it thereunto. It is good for the unmarried and widows, if they abide even as I do: But if they do not contain, let them marry. The woman which hath an unbelieving husband, and he consenteth to dwell with her, let her not put him away: but if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife: But thou marry also, thou sinnest not, This I speak for your profit, that you may do that which is comely? But if any man think it uncomely for his virgin if she pass the time of Marriage, let him do what he will. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty and so forth. In all the which sentences since the clauses brought in with those conjunctions have manifest relation to the things spoken of before, and tou • h thē in the same sense, the branch that is in questiō having like dependence, 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 unmarried if she departed from her husband, did mean. Except it were for whoredom it followeth that Bellarmins proposition is faulty even in this also that he nameth whoredom among the just causes of the wives departing here meant by S. Paul. Now in his conclusion inferring hereupon that even a just cause of divorcement looseth not the band of marriage, he is as deceitful▪ as he was false in his proposition. For the word Divorcement, being understood, as it is by him, for any separation and parting of the man and wife, though from bedd only, & for a certain time: There may be sundry causes why, such a separation should be allowed or tolerated, whē as the band of marriage shall nevertheless endure still. And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmine had concluded a truth & to purpose. But the point where with he should have knitt up his dispute, and whi • h he would have men conceyve & bear away as if these words implied it, is that no just cause at all of any divorcement doth loose the band of marriage, and therefore neither whoredo. The falsehood whereof would have been as clear as the sun shine at nooneday, the proposition being so evidently false whereon it is inferred. And this is the argument that Bellarmine set his rest on the insoluble argument, evē altogether insoluble, the ground whereof he termeth a demonstratiō a most invincible demonstratiō: against the which nothing (he saith) can be objected, but an insufficiēt reply, made by, Er • smus, to weet, that Paul speaketh of ā adulterous wife, who therefore being cast out by her husband is charged to stay unmarried, the innocent party not so charged. Which speeches of the Jesuit come frō the like vein of a vaunting spirit as those did of his complices, who boasted that the Spaniards Armadoes & navy should find but weak & seely resistance in England; and called their army sent to conquer us, an invincible army. For as they diminished by untrue reports the forces prepared: To meet & encoūter with the Spanish power: so Bellarmine by saying that naught can be objected beside that he specifieth; yea farther by belying and falsifying of Erasmus, who contrariwise replieth that Paul doth seem to speak of lighter displeasures for which divorcements then were usual, not of such crimes as adultery. Moreover by the substance & weight of my reply 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 army of the Spaniards was by God's providence shown to be vincible without great encountering; the carkeises & spoils of their shipps & mē up onthe English, Scottish, & Irish coasts did witness it. ^f So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord, and let them who love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his strength.

THE THIRD CHAPTER.

A Fter the foresaid testimonies of scripture urged by our adversaries in the first place for the commending of their error: Secondly, the same truth (saith the Jesuit) may be proved by tradition. By which his own speech, if we should take advauntage of it, he granteth all that I have said against his arguments drawn out of the scripture, and so far forth agreeth with us. For what understandeth, he by the word Tradition? A doctrine not written, as him-self professeth in his first controversy. Where having noted that all though the word tradition be general & signifieth any doctrine written or unwritten, which one imparteth to another, yet divines, & almost all the ancient fathers, apply it to signify unwritten doctrine only: And soe will we hereafter use this word saith he. If the point in question thē may be proved (as Bellarmine affirmeth it may) by tradition: We might conclude it is not written in the scriptures, by his own verdict, and therefore all the scriptures alleged by him for it are alleged falsely. But he seemeth to use the name of traditiō in like sort as Vincentius Lirmensis doth, calling the doctrine delivered by the church the Churches tradition. This to be his meaning I gather by the reason that he addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it. The Pāphletter in other words, but more perēptorily to avouch the proof thereof by the opinion and censure of all ages, affirmeth, he will show that it was never thought lawful since Christ, for Christians divorced for fornication to marry any other while both man and wife lived. That it was never thought lawful since Christ, is a boulder speech them Bellarmine doth use: though to hit the mark as it were with his shaft, he must and doth imply as much in that he saith it may be proved by tradition. For traditiō hath not force enough to prove a thing to be true, not in the Papists own judgment, unless it have been always approved & agreed on by the general consent of Fathers, (as we term them) Pastors and Doctors of the Church. Which I affirm not upon the general rule of Vincentius only so greatly, and so often praised by them as golden: But upon the Canon of the Trent council and pillars of the Popīsh church subscribing to it. For the council of Trent commanding that no man shall expound the scripture against the sense that the Church holdeth or against the Fathers consenting all in one, doth covertly grant, that if the Fathers consent not all in one, their opinion may be false, and • onsequently, no sure proof of a point in question. Andradius doth open and avouche the same in his defense of the Council: a work very highly commonded by Oseruis. And Cano setteth it down for a conclusion, that many of them consenting in one can yield no firm proof, if the rest though fewer in number do dissent. Yea Bellarmine himself saith that there can no certainty be gathered out of their sayings, when they agree not among themselves. It is a thing granted thē by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove ought unless they all consent in one. But the fathers do not all consent in one about the point we treat of, as it shall be shown, Our adversaries therefore must grant that the opiniō which they hold in this point, cannot be proved by Fathers. Nay they are in danger of being enforced to grant a farther matter, and more importing them by the consequent hereof. For through a decree of Pope Pius the fourth, the professors of all faculties, & all that take degrees in any poopish school are bound by solemn oth that they shall never expound and take the scripture but according to the Fathers cōsēting all in one. Wherefore how will Bellarmine, perhaps the Pamphletter also if he have been amongst them and taken any degree, but what shift will Bellarmine, and his puefellowes find to save themselves from perjury, when it shall be shown that many of the Fathers gain say that opinion, which him-self and his expound the scripture for? And what if it appear, that the greater number of Fathers do so? nor the greater only, but the better also, and those whose grounds are surer? Then all the probability, which Fathers can yield will turn against the Papists: and that which our adversaries would prove by tradition, and the consent of all ages will rather be disproved thereby. But howsoever men be diversely, persuaded touching the number & quality of Fathers enclyning this or that way, by means of sundry circumstances which may breed doubt both particularly, of certain, and of the whole sum in general: the main and principal point remaining to be shown, namely that the Fathers consent not all in one for the Papists doctrine, is most clear and evident out of all controversy. In so much that many even of them also whom Bellarmine allegeth, and the Pamphletter after him, as making for it, make in deed against it: and those of the chiefest and foremost ranks spetially, in the first, the second, the third, the fourth hundred years after Christ. All the which agree and teach with one consent that the man forsaking his wife for her adultery, is free to marry again: save such of them only, as in this very point of doctrine touching, marriage are tainted with, error by the judgment and censure of Papists themselves. A token of the vanetie and folly of our adversaries Bellarmine and the Pamphletter: who by naming one at least in every age, would needs make a show of having the consent of all ages with them, whereas it will be seen hereby, that in many we have the most and best; and they, either none at all, or none sound. For in the first hundred years after Christ all that Bellarmine saith they have, is the testimony of Clemens in the Canons of the Apostles where the mā is willed without any exception to be excommunicated, who having put away his wife doth marry another. Now beside that Clemens upon whom Bellarmine fathereth, those canons, is injured therein. As for the later parte of them himself showeth, his friend for the former, neither are they of Apostolic antiquity and authority notwithstanding their title, as many Fathers testify, and Papists will acknowledge when they are touched by them: The author of the Canon had respect therein (by all probability) to the Apostolic doctrine received from Christ, & therefore though he made not an express exceptiō of divorce for whoredom, might as well impply it, as I have declared that some of the Evangelists, and S. Paul did. Which the interpreters also of those Canons Zonaras and Balsamon, thought to be so likely and more then a conjecture, that they expound it so without any scruple. Balsamon in saying that he who putteth away his wife without cause may not marry another; and Zonaras that he who marrieth a woman put away without cause by her husband doth commit adultery. Or if these writers mistook the authors meaning, & in his opinion no mā, howsoever his wife were put away, without or with cause, might lawfully marry another: th • n take this with all, that he skarse allowed any second marriage, but controlled the third as a sign of intemperance, & condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom. Which although a Jesuit go about to cover and salve with gentle glosses like the false prophets. Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with vnsavorie plaster: yet since that counterfeit Clements work did flowe out of the fountains of the Gretians, as a great historian of Rome hath truly noted, and among the Gretians many, held that error, as it is likewise shown by a great Sorbonist; the likelihood of the matter, and spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the natural and proper signification of the words, will not permit their blackness to take any other hewe, nor suffer that profane speech of I know not what Clement, to be cleared from plain contradiction to the word of God. Wherefore the only witness that Bellarmine produceth out of the first hundred years, doth not help him. Out of the second hundred he produceth three; Justinus, Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus. The first of whom Justinus praising the compendious briefnes of Christ's speeches rehearseth this amongst them: Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, doth commit adultery. Meaning not as Bellarmine, but as Christ did: who excepting whoredom in the former branch of that sentence, understood it likewise in this, as I have shown. And how may we know that Justinus meant so? By his own words, in that he commendeth a godly Christian woman, who gave to her adulterous husband a bill of dirorcement such as did loose that band of matrimony, and saith concerning him that he was not her husband afterward. The next Athenagoras, affirmeth (I grant) that if any man being parted from his former wife do marry another he is an adulterer. But Bellarmine must grant with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it untruly: considering that he speaketh of parting even by death too, as well as by divorcement, & tea • heth with the Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is unlawful. Wherevpon a famons Parisian Divine Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmine citeth, that it favoreth rather of a Philosopher then a Christian: and may well be thought to have been inserted into his work by Eucratites. A censure, for the ground thereof, very true, that the said opinion is a Philosophical fancy, yea an heresy: Though the words seem rather to be Athenagonas his own, as sundry fathers speak dangerously, that way, then thrust in by Encratites, who generally rejected all marriage, not se • ond marriage only. Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Jesuits cause. As much doth the last of his witnesses Clemens Alexandrinus. For both in this point about second marriage he matcheth Aethenagoras and otherwise his writings are tainted with vnsoundenes, and stained with spotts of error. Which judgment not only Protestants of German have in our remembrance lately, geven of him, though a Jesuitical spirit do traduce thē insolently, for it: But an ancient Pope of Rome with seavētie bishops assembled in a Council above a thousand years since, and a Bishop of Spain a man of no small reputation with Papists for skill both in divinity and in the Canon law Didacus Covarruvias doth approve the same. Now in the third hundred years (to go forward) Tertullian and Origen are brought forth to aver Bellarmins opinion, of whom one questionless controlleth, perhaps both. For Tertullian disputing against the heretic Marcion, who falsely objected that Christ is contrary to Moses, because Moses granted divorcemēt, Christ forbiddeth it, answereth that Christ saying, whosoever shall put away his wife & marry another, committeth adultery, meaneth undoubtedly of putting away for that cause, for which it is not lawful for a man to putt away his wife that he may marry another. And likewise for the wife, that he is an adulterer, who marrieth her being put away, if she be put away unlawfully: considering that the marriage, which is not rightly broken off, continueth; and while the marriage doth continue, it is adultery to marry. Which words of Tertullian manyfestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully, for the cause excepted by Christ, may marry another, Bellarmine doth very cunningly & finely, cut of with an et caetera, and saith that there he teacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement, if there be a just cause, but, did forbid to marry again after divorcement. So directly agaisnt the most evident light of the words & tenor of the whole discourse: that learned men of his own side, though holding his opinion yet could not for shame but grant that Tertullian maketh against them in it. For bishop Covarruvias mentioning the fathers who maintain that men may lawfully marry again after divorcemēt for adultery, nameth Tertullian (quoting this place) among them. And Sixtus Senensis a man not inferior in learning to Bellarmine, in sincere dealing for this point superior, confesseth on the same place, & on those same words (but recited wholly, not clipped with an etcetera ) that Tertullian maketh a certain & undoubted assertion thereof. Pamelius in deed through a desire of propping up his churches doctrine with Tertulliās credit, saith that though he seem here to allow divorcement for adultery in such sort, as that the husband may marry another wife: yet he openeth himself, & holdeth it to be unlawful in his book of single marriage. Wh • rein he saith some what, but little to his advauntage. For Tertullian wrote this book of single marriage whē he was fall̄ away from the Catholic faith unto the heresy of Montanus: & so doth hold therein agreeably to that heresy, that is unlawful to marry a second wife howsoever a man be parted from the former by divorcement or by death. But in that thee wrote, while he was a Catholic, against the heretic Marcion, he teacheth cōtrarywise the same that we do, as Sixtus Senensis and Covarruvias truly grant. Yea Pamelius himself if he look better to his own notes, doth grant as much. For he saith that Tertullian useth the word divorcement in his proper signification, for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife, & marrieth another. But Tertulliā saith that Christ doth avouche the righteousness of divorcement. Christ therefore avoucheth that for adultery a man may put away his wife and marry another by Tertullian's judgment. Which also may be probably thought concerning Origen: Although it be true he saith (as Bellarmine citeth him) that certaeine bishops did permit a woman to marry while her former husband lived, & addeth, they did it against the scripture. For he seemeth to speak of a woman divorced from her husband, not for adultery, but for some other cause, such as the Jews used to put away their wives for, bygiving thē a bill of divorcemēt. The matter that he handleth, and cause that he geveth thereof do lead us to this meaning; Approved by the opinion of certain learned men too. For after he had said (according to the words of Christ which he expoundeth) that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcemēt did yield unto the weakness of thē to whom the law was gevē; he saith that, the Christian bishops who permitted a womā to marry while her former husband lived, did it perhaps for such weakness. Wherefore since in saving that, this which they did, they did perhaps for such weakness, he hath relatiō unto that of Moses, & Moses (as he addeth) did not grant the bill of divorcemēt for adultery, for that was punished by death it followeth that the Bishops whō Origen chargeth, with doing against the scripture did permit the womā, to marry upon divorcemēt for some other cause, not for adultery & so his reproving of thē doth not touche us, who grant it for adultery only. Thus doth Erasmus think that Origen meant: concluding it farther, as clear, by the similitude which he had used before of Christ, who put away the Synagogue (his former wife as it were) because of her adultery, & married the church. Yea Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovā, & of better credit with Papists thē Eros • nus saith that the divorcemēt permitted by those Bishops, whō Origen cōtrouleth was a Jewish divorcemēt. Wherein though he aimed at another mark, to prove an untruth; yet unawares he hi • a truth more thē he thought of, & strengthened that by Origen, which he thought to overthrow. Howbeit if Bellarmine or Bellarmins Interpreter cā persuade by other likelyhoods out of Origen (as he is somewhat dark, & I know not whether irresolute in the point) that the thing reproved by him in those Bishops was the permitting of one to marry again after divorcement for adultery: our cause shall be more advātaged by those sundry Bishops who approved it, thē disadvātaged by one Origē, who reproved thē for it. Chiefly seeing Origē impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith, for whi • h a general Council with Bellarmins allowāce count 〈◊〉 a damned heretic: & in this matter by excluding all such as are twice married out of the Kingdō of heavē, which divines of Paris observe & check him for. Whereas those Bishops of whō he maketh mentiō, were neither stained otherwise, for ought that may be gathered, nor herein did they more then the right believing & Catholic Church all that time thought lawful to be done, as appeareth by Tertulliā & Justin the Martyr. In the which respect Peter Soto (a freir of great account in the Trent Council) 〈◊〉 said that it is plain by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtful in the ancient church all • eageth this for proof thereof out of Origen, that many bishops 〈◊〉 married mē to marry again after divorcement. This if the two of • thers whō Bellarmine allegeth out of the third hundred years as making for him, do not make against him, which perhaps they do both: yet one of thē doth not out of all controversy, & bishops, more in number, in credit greater thē the other, agree with him therein. Out of the fowrth hundred, the 〈◊〉 which Bellarmine maketh, is a great deal fairer thē out of the third: & a number of Fathers, the council of Eliberis S. Am 〈◊〉 S. lerō, a Romā Bishop, & S. Chrysostom are affirmed thē • e to join themselves with him. But they are affirmed in the like manner 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 clearly showing it, & such as show not so much, yet showing their own weakness, & that in this matter their opiniō & judgment is of small value. For the foremost of them the Council of Eliberis, ordained that a womā which forsook her husband because of his adultery & would marry another, should be forbidden to marry, & if she married, she should not receive the communion till he were dead whō she forsook, unless necessity of sickness constrained to geve it her. Wherein it is to be noted, first that the Council saith not. If anieman, so to comprehend & touche generally all both men & women: but they speak peculiaritie of the woman alone, & so do not forbid the mā to leave his adulterous wife & marry another. Secondly, that the womā is excommunicated, if when she is forbidden by the church to marry, she marry nevertheless, not if before she be forbidden: As it were to punish her disobedience rather then the fact itself. Thirdly, that sh • e is not d • barred all her life time from the communion, but for a season only, and in time of need, in dangerous sickness doth receive it: yea, even while the party, whō she forsook liveth. Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the Councils oversight who made the woman's case herein worse then the man's, both being free alike by God's law: yet for the mā it showeth that they allowed him to marry again after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which we maintain. The next yieldeth likeliehood that the Council did forbid the woman this not for that they thought it unlawful, but vnseemelie perhaps or vnexpedient, as another Council is read to have forbid̄ the celebrating & solemnizing of marriages at certain times. But the last putteth the matter out of doubt, that they were persuaded of the woman also marrying in such sort, that her fact was warrātable by the word of God. Forels had they, not judged her marriage with this latter mā to be lawful, they must needs have judged her to live with him in perpetual adultery. Which if they had thought, it is most improbable they would have admitted her to the communiō in case of dangerous sickness: seeing at the point of death they deny it to womē so continuing, yea to men offending less heinously then so. With such extremity of rigor therein that Baronius noteth their decrees as savouring of the Novatian heresy: & Bellarmine layeth it almost as deeply to their charge. So far from all likeliehood is it that they would admit her in necessity of sickness to the communiō had they been persuaded she lived in adultery still. Therefore it was not without cause that Bellarmine did suppress this circumstance together with the former, in citing the decree of the Elibernie Council: least his false illatiō, to weete that they accounted such marriage unlawful even for the innocent party, & in the cause of adultery, 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 do marry another, & he calleth that marriage adultery in sundry places: neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmine saith. But what if Bellarmine here be like himself too? Certainly S. Ambrose speaketh of such wives as lived without crime & whom their husbands were (as he addeth) forbidden by the law of God to put away. So that he reproving men for marrying others after they had put away their chaste wives, doth evidently show he meant not of marriage after divorcemēt for whordō. And if it be • ufficiēt proof that he supposed they, might not marry again after they had put away a whorish wife because he never excepteth whoredō in that whole discourse of marrying again: then by as sufficient a reason he supposed that they, might not put away their wives at all, no not for whoredom, because he never excepteth it in that whole discourse of putting away the wife. But tha • Papists will grant that a man may lawfully put away his wife, if she commit whoredom. As Bellarmine then will construe S, Ambrose in this branch, so let him in the former. And if he say, that S. Ambrose thinking vpō Luke alone whō he expounded, or trusting his memory forgot the exception added by Christ in Matthew, for putting away the wife: the same slipp of memory might loose the same exception for marrying another. If he think that Ambrose did not forget himself, but understood the exception in the former point, as the Apostle did, though neither mentiō it expressly: what reason why, it might not as well be understood in the later also? As for S. Jerome no marvel if he wrote against second marriage after divorcemēt for whoredom who wrote against all second marriages in such sort, that Espēceus asketh what could have been said more grievously against them by the impure Catharists, then is said by him? And Vives pronounceth, that he did not only detest second marriages, but also had small liking of the first, nor did much favor matrimony; Beside that himself too, as far as he exceeded the bounds of Godly modesty & truth herein, even by these men's judgments whō Papists do repute learned & Catholic allayeth & corecteth in one of the places, which Bellarmine allegeth, his peremptory censure gevē in the other. For whereas he saith in his Epistle to Amandus, that the wife who divorced herself from her husband because of his adultery & marri • d another was an adulteress for so marrying, and her new 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) he saith, that she lamented & bewailed it so, as if she had committed adultery. By which kind of speech & others suitable to it, as that he te •• meth her state after divorcement frō her first husband Widdowhood; & addeth, that she lost the honor of having had but one husband by marrying the second; & saith, she thought it better to undergo a certain, shadow of pitiful wedlock, then to play the whore, because it is better (saith Paul ) to marry then to burn: S. Ieron declareth that although it were a fault in his opinion to do as she did: yet not such a fault, a crime, a public crime, as Bellarmins doctrine maketh it. No more may it be justly thought in the opiniō of that Romā Bishop, of whō, because he put Fabiola to public penance after her second husband death, Bellarmine concludeth that it was accounted a public crime in the Catholic Church at that time, if any man whilst his wife yet lived, married another yea, albeit for whordō. For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholic Church, for marrying again after their first wives death, as Bellarmine observeth out of the Catholic • Councils: adding therewith all, that although they knew second marriage to be lawful, yet because it is a token of incontinēcie they chastised it with some penance. Wherefore since it might easily be that they who laid some penance upon no fault, would lay public 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 second marriage doth not prove sufficiently that it was accounted thē a public crime in the Catholic church. Howbeit if the term of public crime be used in a gētler sense thē commonly it is, or the Bishop of Rome did never put any but grievous offenders & sinners to public penance: yet perhaps even so too will Bellarmine come short of his conclusiō still. For thereby (saith he) we do not understand that • if any mā while his wife yet lived, married another, yea albeit for whordo; it was accounted a public crime in the Catholic church at that time, if any mā did it. As who say the Bishop of Rome must needs hold that, if women were not licensed to marry after divorcement for whoredom, men could not be neither. Whereas he might be of the same opiniō, that an ancient Council s • emeth (as I shown) to have been before him; and an ancient Father (living & writing as some think, in Rome about the same time) was; I mean, that this liberty & freedom should be granted to men but not to women. Moreover the delay of Faebiolas penance, in that she was not put thereto until after her second husbands death, yieldeth very strong & probable conjecture, that it had not been before thē accounted any crime at all in the Catholic church, not for a woman neither to put away her husband because of his adultery, & to marry another. For that which Fabiola did, she did openly. Her self was religious, godly, well instructed; & thought it to be lawful. Her husband by all likelihood of like mind & judgment: the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question; The Bishop did not execute any Church censure on them. Nay, since she was very young, when they married, and never heard of any fault therein committed as long as her husband lived: it may be Rome had many Bishops in the mean time, none of whō saw cause why they should blame her for it. The example of Fabiola therefore, & the Roman Bishops dealing in it, maketh more a great deal with us then against us, if it be thoroughly weighed. Now S. Chrysostom maketh absolutely with us: Howsoever Bellarmine affirmeth that he teacheth the same with S. Jerome yea, with S. Jerome simply condemning all such marriage. For what doth S. Chrysostom teach in the sermon that Bellarmine quoteth upon Matthew? Forsooth, that by Moses law it was permitted, that whosoever hated his wife for any cause, might put her away, and marry another in her room: But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredom. What? and doth it follow hereof that Chrysostom, meant that the husband putting her away for whoredom, might not marry another? Rather the clean contrary: Seeing that he speaketh of such a putting away, as Moses did permit, and maketh this the difference between Christ's ordinance, and the law of Moses, that Moses did permit it for any cause, Christ but for one. Which to be his meaning he showeth more plainly upon the first to the Corinthians, saying that the marriage is dissolved by whoredom, neither is the husband a husband any longer. For hence it appeareth that he thought the bād of marriage to be loosed. whē they, are severed for whoredom: & therefore consequently the parties free to marry according to the Apostles rule. And other where also, though somewhat more obscurely yet conference with this place will show him to have taught. But what should I stand on farther proof thereof, it being so undoubted, that Bishop Covarrisvias an earnest adversary of marriage after divorcement, and bringing all the Fathers that he can against it, confesseth S. Chrysoctom to stand on the other side against him for it. And this in four hundred years after Christ, Bellarmine cannot find one of the Fathers, that he may justly say is his: excepting them which make as much for the Encratites, Montanists, and Catharists, as they do for Papists. In the ages following he findeth better store: now one, now moe in eche hundred. Yet among them also, look how many he nameth of the Eastern Bishops, whether expressedly, or implyedly: he playeth the Jesuit with him. For the first of them Theophylact he allegeth with the same faith & truth, that he did Chrysostom, whose scholar Theophylact being (after Bellarmins own note) did follow his master. And this the two places thenselves that Bellarmine quoteth, do insinuate clearly: the former by opening how Christ permitteth not that putting away which Moses did, without just cause, nor alloweth any cause as just but whoredom the later by omitting mention of whordō, in spesifying the causes, for which if a womā depart frō her husband she must remain unmarried. Whereto (if Bellarmine need more light to see it by) we may add a third place: in which Theophylact saying that Luke rehersing Christ's words against men putting away their wives & marrying other must be understood with the exception out of Matthew, Unless it be for whoredom, doth show howfarre he differeth herein from Bellarmine, who denieth flatly that Christ's words in Luke must be supplied with that exception. The rest of the Eastern Fathers whose testimony is alleged by Bellarmine though their names not mentioned: are such as were assembled in the Council of Florence. For there came thither to confer with the Pope & the western bishops, albeit many of these holding a general Council at Basil the same time, refused to change the place for the Popes pleasure, who sought his own advantage therein, not the Churches, and undermined the actions of the Council of Basil which condemned him of heresy, and deposed him; but there came thither the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, either themselves in person, or by their deputies, with many Metropolitans and Bishops of Greece of Asia, of Iberia, and other countries of the East. Whose creditt and consent how untruly Bellarmine pretēdeath, for the proof of his false assertion, it is plain by that he saith the Council of Florence did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians. A chapter which is fathered in deed vpō the Council by the schisimaticall Pope Eugenius the fovorth, the deviser of it: but fathered unjustly and calmuniously as the time argueth, wherein it was begot̄. For it is recorded in the same decree, that it was made the two and twentieth of November, in the year of Christ a thousand four hundred, thirty & nine. Now the Council ended in July the same year four months before: As both itself witnesseth, & Popish stories not • . Wherefore the Council could not be the father of that decree and chapter: no more then a man can be of that child whi • h is borne fouretē months after his death. And the Pope, whose bastard in truth the brat is, by the acknowlegment and record of Papists themselves in the Tomes of Councils, was so much the more to blame to father it upon the Council of Florence the great & general council, and date it in a public solemn session thereof; Because neither was it debated in the Council whether marriage after divorcement for adultery were lawful or no; and the Eastern bishops maintained it to be lawful, when the Pope after the end of the Council did reprove them for it: neither is it likely the contrary was decreed by all there present of the west. Chiefly seeing that more thē half of them were gone when both partes the East & West, subscribed to the decrees of the Council in the letters of agreement: as appeareth by conferring their number with their names & the note thereof. Yea the Council being ended the sixth of July, had their subscriptions added unto it the one & twentieth. Then if of sevē score or perhaps upward, scarce threescore were remaining at Florence, fourteen days after the Council ended: What may we think there were above four months after? But how many soever were present of the West, as the Pope can quickly muster an hundred Bishops or more, if need be out of Italy alone, to carry away things in Council by multitude of voices, such policy hath he used for that; but how many soever Italians he banded to countenance his decree, the Bishops of the East agreed not thereto, neither was it the Councils act. Thus all the Fathers of the Eastern churches, whom Bellarmine allegeth, and may urge with creditt their doctrine touching marriage, do not only not say with him, but gainsay him. Wherein their have so many others follow them from age to age till our time, that it is apparent they allow with greater consent a mans marriage after divorcement for adultery then Fathers of the western churches disallow it. For Eusebius treating of Justin the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that he had done, the story of the Christian woman, who divorced herself frō her adulterous husband. And S. Basils canons approved by general Councils, do not only authorize the mā to marry another, whose wife is an adulteress, but also check the custom which yielded not like favor in like case to the woman. And Epiphanius saith (his words are read corruptly, but the sense th • reof is plain of our side, as Covarruvias granteth, Epiphanius therefore saith that Seperatiō being made for whoredo, a mā may take a second wife, or a woman a second husband. And the same avoucheth Theodoret in effect, affirming that Christ hath set down one cause: whereby the band of Marriage should be dissolved, and wholly rent a sunder, in that he did except whoredom. And a general Council, wherein there were above two hundred and twenty bishops of the East gathered together, doth imply as much; in saying that He, who his wife 2 having kept the law of wedlock, and being faithful to him, yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christ's sentence guilty of adultery. So doth Oecumenius in applying the precept of abiding unmarried to such as should not have departed, and in abridging Chrysostōs words after his manner, whose scholar Bellarmine therefore termeth him. So doth Euthymius Chrysostom's scholar too, in • harging that mā with adultery, who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whordō from her husband. So doth Nicephoras, in copying & commending that out of Eusebius, which he had out of Justin the Martyr. To be short, the Grecians, which nam compriseth many nations of the East, all whō the Florentine Council calleth the Eastern Church do put the same doctrine received from their ancestors in practice even at this day, allowing married folk not only, to sperate & divorce thenselves in case of adultery but also to marry others, as Bellarmine confesseth. Wherefore his opiniō hath not the consent of the Eastern bishops: neither hath had it any age since Christ. Much less can he show the consent of the South the Ethiopians, & Abessines, or of the Muscovites & Russes in the North: both which as they received their faith frō the East, so use they like freedom & liberty for this matter. No, not in the west itself, though he have many thence agreeing with him, yet hath he the general consent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half, if an exact count might be taken of them. For besides Tertullian, the Council of Eliberis and to let pass Ambrose ) one Bishop of Rome, or more already shown to have thought that a man being divorced from his wife for her adultery, is free to marry again: there are of the same mind Lactantius, Chromatius, Hilaric, Pollentius, the author of the Comentaries in Ambrose his name upon S. Paul's epistles, the first Council of Arles, the council of Vānes, they who either were at or agreed to the sixth general council the second time assembled Pope Gregory the third Pope Zechariah, the council of Wormes of Trybur, of Mascon, a council alleged by Gratian without name, & other learned men alleged likewise by him, Pope Alexander the third, Celestin the 3, Zechariah and Paul bishops, the one of Chrysopolis, the other of Burgos, Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan: Archbyshop Catharinus, Naclantus bishop of Clugia, finally the teachers of the reformed churches in England, Scotlāt, Germany, France & other countris, for why should not I name these of our professiō & faith among the Fathers as well as Bellarmine nameth the Popish council of Trent on the contrary side? But the Papists (will some mā peradventure say, do not grant that all, whom you have rehearsed, were of this opiniō. But the Papists (I answer) do grant that sundry of them were? and such as they grant not, the light of truth & reason will either make them grant, or shame them for denying it. As Sixtus Senensis, namely doth deny that Hilary and Chromantius allow a man to marry another wife after divorcement: or teach that he is loosed from the band of matrimony, while his former wife though an adulteress liveth. Now weigh their own words, & it will appear that Sixtus iniurieth them therein. For Chromatius saith that they who having putt away their wives for any cause save for whor • dom, presume to marry others, do against the will of God, and are condemned. Wherein, with what sense could he except whoredom, unless he thought them guiltless, who having put away their wives for it do marry others? And Hilary affirming Christ to have prescribed no other cause of ceasing from matrimony, but that; she weth that the band of matrimony is loosed thereby in his judgment. Chiefly since he knew that they might cease from the use thereof, for other causes: & the occasion and tenor of the speech do argue that he meant of such a separation as yieldeth liberty of new marriage. In like sort, or rather more plainly and expressly did Pollentius hold and maintain the same: As Austin (whom in this point he dissented from) doth report and testify. Yet Bellarmine (a strange thing in a case so clear, but nothing strange to Jesuits) saith that Pollentius did not gainsaie Austin, but asked his judgment of the matter: and for proof hereof referreth us to the beginnings of both the books of Austin. Even to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having labored to prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another, Pollentius wrote unto him as it were by way of asking his judgment, and shown he thought the contrary: yet shown it in such sort, that Austin setting down both their opinions, doth specify then as flatly crossing one the other: You are of this mind, I of that: and saith of Pollentius again and again that he was of this mind, which Bellarmine denieth he was of. Wherein the Jesuits dealing is more shameful, for that beside the evidence of the thing itself so often repeated in the very same places that he citeth Sixtus Senenses a man as unwilling as Bellarmine to weaken any of their Trent points with granting more then he must needs confesseth that Pollentius thought hereof as we do. Belike because Sixtus Senensis honoreth him with the praise and title of a most godly man: Bellarmine thought it better to lie, then to grant that they have such an adversary. He would fain avoid too another ancient father bearing the name of Ambrose; & Ambrose might his name be, though he were not famous Ambrose Bishop of Milan. But whether he were named so, or otherwise (which perhaps is truer) unto his testimony pronouncing it lawful by S. Paul's doctrine for a man justly divorced to marry again (though not for a woman, as he, by missetaking S; Paul, through error, though Bellarmine replieth with a threefold answer. First Gratian (saith he) and Peter Lombard do affirm that those words were thrust into this authors Commentary, by some corrupters of writings. Indeed the one of them affirmeth: it is said so; the other, it is thought so. But if it be sufficient to affirm barely, without any ground of proof or probability, that it is said or thought so: what error so absurd that may not be defended by perverse wranglers? what cause so unjust, that unrighteous judges may not geve sentence with? For whatsoever words be enforced against them out of the law of God or man, out of any evidence or record of writers & witnesses worthy credit: they may with Peter Lombard and Gratian reply that the place alleged is said or thought to have been thrust into those monuments by some corrupters of writīgs. And in replying thus they should speak truly, though it were said or thought by none beside themselves: but how reasonably they should speak therein, let men of sense & reason judge. Surelie though Peter Lombard rest vpō that answer; 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 lawfully marry another wife after the death of the adulteress, but not while she liveth, which answer is more absurd then the former. In so much that Covarruvias speaking of the former only as uncertain, saith that this repugneth manifestly to Ambrose. A very true verdict, as a • ie man not blind may see by Ambrose words: And Bellarmine confesseth the same in effect, by passing it over insilence as ashamed of it. But others (saith he secondly) do answer that this author speaketh of the Civil law, the law of Emperors: To weete, that by the Emperors Laws it is lawful for men, but not for women, having put away their mate, to marry another: and that Paul therefore least he should offend the Emperor would not say expressly. If a man put away his wife, let him abide so or be reconciled to his wife. Now Gratians second answer was no less worthy to have been mentioned, then this of William Lindan, patched up by Bellarmine. For the civil 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 away, as it alloweth men to take others wives. So that it is a fond and unlearned conceit to imagine that Paul would not say of husbands as he did of wives, least he should offend the Emperor by speaking expresselie against that which his law allowed. For he did expressly control the Empero • rs law in saying of the wife. If she depart from her husband, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And the authors words do show that he meant to speak, not of human laws, but of divine: of the sacred scripture wherevpō he wrote, and what was thereby lawful. Which seemed so evident unto, Peter Soto, and • Sixtus Senesis, and the Roman Censors, who oversaw Pope Gregory the thirtenths new edition of the Cannon law, that they confess that Ambrose (meaning this author) doth aprove plainly, certainly, vndoubtely, men's liberty of marrying again after divorcement. Bellarmine therefore coming in with his third answer. Yet saith he if these be not so well liked, it may be answered easily: that the author of those Commentaries is not Ambrose, nor any of the renowned Fathers, as learned men know. Thus at length this author, if men will not believe that his words are corrupted, or that he spake of the Civil law, shall be granted us with Bellarmins good leave: But then we shall be told that he is not Ambrose, nor any of the renowned Fathers as learned men know. And why could not Bellarmine answer this at first? Why was he so loath to grant that such an author, base, obscure of sclender credit, maketh with us? Herein there lieth a mystery. There is in this authors Commentaries a place, a piece of a sentence, which seemeth to speak for the Popes Supremacy: Though perhaps never written by this author, or not with that meaning, as I have shown elsewhere. Bellarmine had cited that place for that in S. Ambrose his name: and ma • ie make a feast thereof, as being sure S. Ambroses. Now if he should say, that the author of those Cōmentaries was neither Ambrose nor Saint: he should gainsaie himself. And since he was learned, when he did cite it so, and therefore knew (by his own words) that it was not Ambrose nor any of the renowned fathers who writ it: men would see thereby, that he had for the Popes sake against his own knowledge, fathered on S, Ambrose that which is not his. No marvel then if Bellarmine came to this answer as a bear to the stake. At the which though he seem to cast us o • , by saying that the author was no renowned Father, and erred in mistaking S. Paul, as having geven more liberty to men then womē, where • of in due place afterward: yet in the mean season he is forced to grant that this ancient Father took it to be lawful for men to marry again after divorcement for adultery. The sundry evasions and shifts whereby the Papists have labored to wrest the credit of this one • ather out of our hands, do geve me occasion to suspect that they will wrangle much more to withdraw from us the first Council of Arles being more ancient in time, in credit greater, and (as one of themselves doth probably conjecture) confirmed by the Pope also. Herevnto the Councils wishing of certain persons not to marry in the case we treat of might serve them for a color in as much as it saith concerning them whose wives are taken in adultery, that if they be young men and forbidden to marry, 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 council judged a man no adulterer, if he took another wife. Els would they have given not advise and counsel, but charge and commandment to refrain from it; and (as it is likely) restrained men's transgression therein with sharp discipline, spetially considering they punish lesser faults with excommunication. Neither it is nothing that they temper also this counsel and advise to be geven such, with as much as may be. And a farther circumstance yet of more importance, they make not this restraint for all men, but for young men: nor for all young mē, but such as are forbidden to marry: meaning (as it seemeth) those who being under 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 Council, why should they have restrained such young men & not other? Nay, why only young men, not rather men, not aged men, or them also? Since in Scripture elder women are chosen to be widows, and younger willed to marry. Our adversaries therefore must yield that the Council of Arles is of our side for the point in question. Whereto they shall have greater reason to induce them, if they note with all that the Council of Vannes in the same country, the age following made this canon. We appoint and ordain, that they who having l • ft their wives, except for whoredom (as it is said in the Gospel) or upon proof made of adultery, marry others, shall be excommunicated; Least sins being suffered by our too much gentleness do provoke other men to looseness of transgressing. And this decree I find not any of the Papists that goeth about to shift of▪ Neither can I see how they may possibly: The Council expounding so plainly Christ's words of marriage forbidden after divorcement unless it be for whoredom, and accounting marriage after such divorcement not a lesser sin, but no sin at all, as the reason added for strength of their decree showeth, Now for the next, the general Council assembled in the Emperors palace of Con •• antinople which made the like decree and taught the same doctrine, as I have declared: Bellarmine would persuade us (upon other occasions touching Popery nearer the quick, then this doth) that the western Bishops neither gave countenaun • e thereto with their presence, nor approved the Canons thereof with their consent. To this end he denieth that the said Council was a general Council, & striveth in his third controversy to answer some of our reasons which confirm it. But he easeth us of pains to fifth his answers by means that himself in the fourth controversy, discoursing of general councils purposely, doth reck̄ it amongst thē. For as in mens laws whē they are repugnant one unto another, the later derogateth frō the former: so (I trow) when Bellarmine doth contradict himself, his last word must hold. And the more reasō it should so in this, because both Pope Adrian the first of ancient time did call it the sixth Council, declaring thereby he took it to be one of the General Councils whereof he termed it the sixth, and in the seventh general Council sundry Fathers alleged it by the name of the sixth General, & avouched it to be justly called so. Which sentence of theirs being not controled by any of that Council, and the Council itself afterward approving the decrees and Canons of the six general Councils: it is very probable that the western churches yielding their consent to the seavēth Coūcel, and taking it for sound, accounted (as the Eastern still have done & do) that which they entitled the sixth to be General. Specially seeing that in the West, men of great credit Ivo and Gratian and Pope Innocentius the third and their disciples, the whole school of Cannonists have on those authorityes of the seventh Council made like reckoning of it. And although our younger papists for the most parte and some of the elder, perceyving what advantage may be taken thence against many grounds of popery, do cross their predecessors herein with seely reasons, such as where of the b • st would infer more forceablie that their Council of Trent was no General Council: yet among thē also there are who allow the ancient opinyon, as Caranza namely, and ^f Genebrard and Surius, with whose preface tēding to the proof thereof it is recommended & published by papists in the two 5 perfitst and last editions of the Councils. Wherefore whether any of the West were present in person, or by deputyes, and subscribed to it which 9 Balsamon and Nile, learned Greek Fathers avouch by old records; or whether it were celebrated by Eastern bishops only, as the second General Council also was in the same City of Constantinople the consent of the west approving it for General averreth my sayings by a cloud of witnesses of the western Churches. Pope Gregory the third followeth, He granteth that if a woman by reason of sickness wherewith she were taken could not perform the duty of a wise to her husband, her husband might put her away and marry another. More then by the doctrine of Christ he had learned to grant for any sickness: but so much the likelyer that he thought it should be granted for whoredom expressly mentioned by Christ. Wherevpon Ioverius a Sorbonist in a work approved by Sorbonists, matcheth his Canon with the like of Councils, who gave the Innocent party leave to marry again after divorcement, while the other lived. Neither doth Bellarmine deny the illation, but the proposition, which the point inferred is grounded upon. For the Doctors (saith he meāing the Canonists) expound the Canon of such sickness as maketh a woman vnfitt for Marriage: and so is an impediment disolving matrymonye contracted, by showing it was no true matrimonye. But the Doctor of Doctors Gratian himself understood it otherwise; of sicknsse befalling to her, who was an able wife. And those his gloss writers use most that exposition which Bellarmine would have us receive for authentic as the fittest salve; yet rest they not upon it. And Antonius a great Canonist: Archbyshop of Florence correcting ^p Gratians slipp of memory for the persons, concludeth with him for the matter. And the flower of Lovan Tapper, the Chancelor of their viniversity, approveth this of Antonius. And the learned men who were over-seers of the last edition of the Councils do witness by cōtrolling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not' that Gregory meant of sickness happ • ning unto lawful wives in their judgment And the Pope himself (as Bellarmine noteh else where) declareth that he took it to be true matrymonie, by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of aid, that is, ought to maintain, & find her as his wife still. Wherefore if no Catholic bishop would imagine that a man may lawfully put away his sick wife, and marry another, unless he thought the same much more to be lawful in an adulterous wife, as we are to presume: then must the Papists by consequent acknowledge that the point in Question is proved and allowed by Gregory the third. A plainer and directer allowance thereof, appeareth in a Canon of his successor ^t Zechariah, who whē a certain man had defiled himself incestiously with his wives sister, granted that his wife should be divorced from him: and (unless she were privy to that wicked act by counsayling or procuring it) might marry in the Lord if she could not contain. This so clear a testimony of an ancient Pope authorizing the divorced woman to marry, Bellarmine would elude, by saying that he meant she might marry another, after the former husbands death. As who say, the Pope enjoining the man and the whore for a punishment to stay and abide without hope of marriage, were likely to meāe by liberty of marriyng granted the guyltlesse for a benefit, that while the guilty lived, who might overlive her, she should not marry no more then he. Or as though there had been need for the Pope then to grant it with exception, If she will not contain Let her marry in the Lord. Whereby it seemeth that he rather wished her to refrain from marriage, if she might be induced thereto, which he had no cause to wish on this occasion after the man's death, she being ^v then simply free, and willed to marry such might her age be. But what do I reason out of the circumstances in a thing so certain and clear of itself, that although the great masters whom Bellarmine alleged before & followed here, have assayed to darken the light thereof by this mist: yet Sixtus Senensis confesseth that Pope Zacharias decreed that the women if she would not contain, should marry another husband while the former lived. It is true that Sixtus seeketh to help the matter another way somewhat, by yoking the Pope with provincial Councils: who (he saith) allowed & decreed it, not by a general and perpetual ordinance, but for a time, & to certain nations; & that in such heinous crimes as incest only, But will the Papists stand to this doctrine, that the Popes decrees bind not all nations generally, nor are perpetually to last? Thē must they acknowledge (which would touch the Papacie & Popery verry nearly) that the Popes supremacy is falsely pretended, he hath his certain limits as Metropolitans have: and some will reason also that the laws of Popes were to last for a time until Luther rose, but for a time only, there date is out now. As for the crime of incest, whereupon the Pope allowed the innocent party to put away her husband and to marry another: that confirmeth rather the point in Question then disproveth it. For he had no warrant to allow this by, but our Savior's doctrine forbidding such divorcement, except it were for whoredom: so that he might not have granted it for incest, unless he had thought it lawful for adultery; Neither did he consider the crime but as comprised under adultery too: Whereof (in a general sense meant by the law) incest is a kind. And therefore in speaking of her with whom the detestable act was committed, he termed her the Adulteress not the incestious person. Thus it is apparent, that in this matter Pope Zechariah was no papist. No more was the Council of ^c Wormes which shown their judgment to the like effect to weet, that a man who could prove his wife to have been of counsel with such as sought his death, might put her away and marry another if he would. Presuming that belike, which they might iustely, as examples teach us, that she was naught of her body with some of the conspiracy. For else had the Council expressly authorized the same that Christ condemneth, if for any other cause then for adultery they had allowed the man to marry. Therefore Covaruvias reckoneth up this Council among thē who held that a man having lawfully put away his wife for her whoredom, might take another while she lived. Yet a certain Spanish Frier named Raymund, one of Pope Gregory the nynthes special State-men, the compiler of his Decretals, would avoid it also after Gratians manner, by false exposition as if the Council had meant, a man might take another wife after the death of the former. To the more effectual persuading whereof, that questionless they meant so: he useth a special trick of popish cunning. For, making show of registering the Councils own decr • e, in steed of those words He may put away his wife and marry another, if he will: the Frier setteth down these He may after his wives death marry annother, if he will. And whereas the Council had said, as we think, which words had been absurdely put in, if they hadd meant after his wives death he might marry another, a thing agreed on and undoubted: The Frier (as thieves are wont to deface and suppress the marks of things which they have stolen, least they be taken thereby) leaveth that clear out. But by the mouth of two witnesses Burchardus Bishop of worms, and Gratian or Palea, both elder then the Frier, and from whom of likelyhod he received this Canon of the Council of Wormes his false and irreligious dealing is bewrwayed. Whereto may the confession of the third be added, though in years younger, yet greater in credit for things against Papists, himself a popish Doctor and burning light of Paris, ⁱ Ioverius I mean: who saith of that Council, that it allowed the innocent partye to marry again after divorcemēt, the other being yet alive. And the Council itself maketh farther proof that they are not vniustely charged by Ioveruis and Covariuvias with this judgment.

For if any man had committed wickedness with his daughter in law, the daughter of his wife by her former husband: they agreed that he should keep neither of thē: but his wife might marry another if she would, if she could not contain and if she had not carnal company with him, after that she knew of his adultery with her daughter. The last clause whereof showeth that they meant of liberty granted her to take another husband while the former lived: since it cannot be thought with reason, but they judged she might take another the former b • ing d • ad: though she had continnued with him as his wife, after she knew of his adultery. The Council of Tribur did maintain the same: ordaining that if any committed vilany with his mother in law, her husband may take another wife if he will, if he cannot contain: and the like order is to be observed, if with his daughter in law or his wives sister. Bellarmine like the paynter, who being good at purtraing of a Cypress tree, when one gave him money to draw and represent a shipwreck in a table asked if he would have a Cypress in, despairing to do ought worth perhaps, unless that helped: saith that all such Canons (all not only this of the Triburian Council) are understood of marriage granted 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 Cypress tree is for a shipwreck, as those of Pope Zacharias & the Council of worms the former whereof he garnisheth also with this Cypress tree, do argue. For the same reasons which proved Zacharias' Can on to be meant of the woman's marriage while the man lived, prove the Council of Triburs to be likewise meant of of the man's in the woman's life-time. The punishment inflicted therein on the offenders do equally enlarge the benefit to the Innocent. The exception added to the enlargemēt, is stronger: implying they would have him stay unmarried rather, if he can contain. The testimony of ⁿ Sixtus is all one for both: neither doth the quality of the crime of incest more infringe the argument here then it did there. And this extenuation that the Council beeng a provincial Council ordained it for men of their own province, and for that time only, increaseth the authority thereof, if the precious be severed from the vile, the truth from the falsehood. For why affirmeth he that they did ordain it for that time only? The form of their decree touching all generally that should offend so, not some particular person, who presently had; they speaking of the thing as lawful in itself, and to be observed alike in like cases; their making of other Canons to that effect: yea another Council also peradventure, & no limitatiō of time in any of them; do persuade the contrary. Now, whereas they ordained it for men of their own province, their modesty was the greater: who did not take upon them as Popes to make laws for men of all nations, but looked as Bishops to their own diosaes. And the greater modesty, the liker to Christ, and the better to be liked of Christians, the more reverence to be heard with, and their judgment had in greater estimation. Beside that, this self-same decree of theirs was establyshed also by the Council of Wormes.

And at that time Pipinus (King of France, and of a great parte of Germany) was present. Who as he did keep a general assembly of his people there: so by all likelihood called Bishops thither out of his whole realm, to make decrees for the whole. A province of such largeness, that Councils consisting of Bishops assembled, out of no greater, have been termed General: and woorthely (as Bellarmine confesseth) in comparison of Provincial Councils commonly so called, wherein there were not Bishops of a whole Nation or Realm. Thus Sixtus by striving to lessen & diminish the credit of the canō of the council of Tribur, hath givē us occasiō to make the more of it: considering on the one side the modesty of the Bishops 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 Italy cannot match it, though they were linked in one. Had it not been better for him, with out this Retorique to say directly and flattly as Ioverius doth, that the Council of Tribur made the like decree to the Council of worms, which now the Church (he meaneth the Popish Church) receyveth not? whether any Papist will take excptiō against the Council of Mascon, which allowed likewise a certain man, whose wife had been deflowered by his brother before he wedded her to put her away and marry another it may be we shall know hereafter. But unto a Council that made another such decree, as Gratian showeth alleging it without name, Bellarmine taketh two exceptions: one, that it is lost; the other of the Cypress tree. Touching the former, not as much as the name thereof (saith he) is extant: therefore it might be easily contemned & set at naught. Why? Is it therefore worse then all that have names, because it is nameless? Then have many Cardinals with other learned reverent men been much to blame, for writing so of Rome as if it had a number of wicked lewd profane in-habitants. For by there report the Romans having everye one a name or two, should be worse for the most parte, then were the Atlantes, a people of Afric, whom Diodorus Siculus commendeth very heighly for Godliness and Humanity, yet non of thē had any name, Herodotus saith. Or if this be a fable, as Pliny seemeth rather to think, and well it may be; yet is it most certain that • Plutarch recordeth as grave and wise sayings of Lacedemonyans without names, as of any whose names are known. And Bellarmine (I trust) will grant that in the scriptures there is no less account to be made of the book of Joshua, then of Nehemiah's, of Job, thē of the Proverbs: though their names who wrote the one be not set down, as theirs who wrote the other. But he will say perhaps that of this Council not only the name is unknown, but also the work it self lost. And what if it be? were not those of Varroes works, which we have not, as learned as the work of Floccus which we have? Of Tully, of Polybius, of Livy, Dio, Tacitus, of infinite writers more, are there not as good books lost, as there are extant. The same hath fallen out in Eclesiasticall authors specially in Councils: whereof a great many are not to be found: as they who by occasion of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals, have diligently searched through the chiefest liberaaies of Europe, do note. And a certain famous and ancient Council of Ments being commended and praised above the other, by Tretenius and Surius, who wisheth he might have gotten it to be published, showeth that some extant, are not to be compared with some that are lost, wherefore Bellarmins former exception to the Council that it is not extant, no nor the name of it, was not worth the naming. The latter that the Councils Canon was meant of Marriage after the former wives death: is like to prove as false as the proof thereof is frivolous and fond. For these are the words of the Canon: A certain woman lay with her husbands brother: it is decreed the adulterers shall never be Married: but lawful Marriage shall be granted unto him, whose wife the vilenie was wrought with. Which words are well expounded (saith Bellarmine ) by the Doctors, and their meaning gathered out of the like Canon following a little after: wherein it is ordained, that When the adulterous wife is deceassed, her man may marry whom he will; but her self the adulteress may not marry at all, no not her husband being dead. Gratian in deed, and the Gloss -writers on him (the Doctors meant by Bellarmine ) doth them wrong in saying they expound it rightly. For this Canō following, out of which they gather that to be the meaning, being a Canon of I know not what Gregory, at least Fathered on him, doth no more prove it then the above alleged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent partye while the other lived, doth infer the contrary. And the Councils words mentioning expressly the Innocēt parties freedom and liberty to marry, which had been superfluous if they meant of marriage after the others death: make it most probable that the Council uttered them with the same meaning, wherewith others uttered the like, as hath been shown. Herevnto the judgment of Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight, since he albeit striving to weaken the strength and cut the sinews of it, acknowledgeth notwithstanding that it was of one mind with the council of Tribur. So was Pope Alexander the third too some time, though Bellarmine allege him as of another mind. But let Bellarmine say whether he had two minds and erred in on of them: seeing it is certain he was of this mind once, unless he wrote against his mind. For where as a man that had wedded a wife, did, before he entered the marriage-bed with her, enter her mothers bed: Pope Alexander said, that he doing some penance might be dispensed with to marry another wife. Here the Popes favor towards the offender; doth favor of that which hath been missliked in Papal dispensations. But he that granted thus much to the incestuous husband, would (I trust) have granted it to the guiltless wife: as he did also to her that had this injury. The only evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Masters example have recourse, is that the Canonists expound the Popes words not of a wife but of a spouse, & her espoused also by words of the time to come, not of the time present.

Which exposition may seem the more probable, because the Popes words set down in the Decretals geve her the name of spouse without signification that the man had wedded her. But hereof Frier Raymund who compiled & clipped the Decretals must bear the blame, as Antonius Contius a learned Lawyer of their own hath well observed. For the Popes Epistle which is extant whole in the Tomes of Councils, declareth that the woman was the man's wedded wife, though he did forbear her company a while. No remedīe there-fore but it must be granted, that in this matter Pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former Councils. Now by all the rest whom I alleged there is none excepted against by any Papist, for ought that I know, or as I think will be. For Lactantius first avoucheth, so the lawfulness of putting away • mans wife for adultery even with intent to marry another that both Covaruvias and Dominicus Soto grant him to be clear from it. Next touching the authors mentioned by Gratian as holding the same for one kind of adultery: who doubted but there were certain so persuaded, when such an adversary confesseth it. Then for Pope Celestin the third, since a Pope saith he thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their parteners in wedlock for haerisie, and marry others: I see not how the Papist may deny he thought it lawful for adultery, more then I shown they might of Gregory the third. And albeit Zechariah bishop of Chrysopolis, may seem to show rather what other men's opinion was, then what his own, yet it is apparent by his manner of handeling that he joined with Ambrose therein, whose words he citeth, and fenseth them against authorities, that might be opposed. As for the Bishop of Burgos, Paul commended heighly by learned men for learning, he saith that it is manifest by Christ's doctrine, that whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom, commiteth not adulterye though he marry another. Naclantus, who was present at the Council of Trent, a Bishop of principal name and price among them, affirmeth as directly, that a wife being loosed from her husband by death or by divorcement, is not an adulteress if she marry another. To conclude Bellarmine confesseth that Erasmus, Cajetan, Catharinus, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer Calvin, Brenz, Kemnitius, Peter Martyr, and in aworde all Lutherans and Calvinists, (as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name us poor Nazarens ) agree that our Savior doth allow marriage after divorcement for adultery, Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wound he might geve his cause by granting that Erasmus, Cajetan, Catharinus three so learned men, and two of thē such pillars of the Romish Church a Cardinal & an Arch bishop agree in this point with Lutherans & Caluinicts: he addeth that those three differ much frō these hertiques (meāing By heretics the Nazarens I spake of, whose ring-leader was Paul ) in as much as they submit thenselves expressly to the churches judgment. And because the church (saith he) hath now opened her mind most evidently, as appeareth by the Coūcel of Trent the 24. sessiō the 7 Canō, where all who think the band of marriage may 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 all the rest of the Catho-Divines are & have been with great agreement & consent. which dispute of Bellar. if it have sufficient ground & strength of reasō Erasmus must be counted a catholic in all things For in all his writings he submitteth himself to the churches judgment. Thē why doth Bell. cal him a demie Christiā, & enrol his name among sectaries & hertiques? what are the Fathers of the Coūcel of Trent Demie-Christians, sectaries, heretics; thy are (by Bellar. logique) of one mind with Erasmus. Moreover S. Austin the ciefeft mā of Bellar. side in this questiō must be counted ours by the same logique. For he taught expressly that himself; yea any bishop evē S, Cipriā, yea provincial Coūc. too, should yield to the authority of a general Coū. And the 6 general Coū. granted liberty of marriage after divorcmēt, as hath been declared: wherefor if Caietā must be thought no otherwise minded then Papists are, because that church whose judgment he did submit himself to, defined so at Trent a good while after his death: S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded thē we are, because our assertiō was confirmed likewise by a General Council, whereto he would have yielded. Chiefly since of liklyhood he would have more easily yielded therūto, thē Cajetan to his churches because Caietā showeth he was stiff in holding fast his own opiniō, whē for fear of Church-mē he durst not say all that he thought; & in this very point, though submit̄ig himself to the See of Rome as well as to the church, he eludeth decrees of popes that make against him, so resolute he was in it. Sr. Austin contrariwise used very modestly & willingly to retract things that he had writ̄, evē whē he lighted on ought in an heretic that seemed better & truer, & this point he thought so dark in the Scriptures, & hard to be discerned, that his opiniō was not hard to be removed; if he had seē stronger reason brought against it, or greater authority. Now if S. Anstin come over to our side by that quirck of Bellar. • a band of Bellar. witnesses is like to come with him: namely the council of Melevis & Affrique, which he was present at, & swaied much with: perhaps Primasius also ( were he Austin's scholar) & Bede with a mumber of Canonists, and schoolemē, who followed most S. Austin. But Bellarmine will never resign all these unto us, to gain the other three frō us. For ( as our Be-hive saith) Men live not by losses. He must suffer therefore Erasmus, & Cajetan, & Catharinus specially, who (beside the place that Bellar. hath quoted) doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely thereof, more thoroughly & exactly then Erasmus or Cajetan; Bellarmine I say must suffer them to be counted of that mind which they were of, while thenselves lived; not cavil as if they were of that which peradventure they would have been had they not died before the Council of Trent taught so. Unless he think (which he may by as good reasō that whereas they were deceased above x. years yer the C. Trent made that new canon, we ought to count them alive all that while, because they did submit them-selves to Physitiās and would have lived perhaps till then, had art been able to cure disseases. How much more agreablye to singelnes & truth do Sixtus, Covarruvias, and Domenicus Soto acknowledge (the two former touching Catharinus the last for Erasmus, all concerning Cajetan ) that in this question of marriage again after divorcement for adultery, their doctrine is the same with those ancient Fathers whom our younger 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 we prevail much. For all whom Bellarmim and the Pamphletter after him do muster out of the west, I mean whō they claim justly, not who either say against them as Tertullian, or not with them as Scotus, all therefore whom they muster so out of the West, are Jerome the Councils of Milevis and Afrique Innocentius the first Austin, Primasius, Isiodore, Bede, the Council of Friouli and Nantes, Anselm, Pope Alexander the third Innocentius the third, Thomas, Bonaventure. Durand; and other Schole-men, Pope Eugenius with his Florentines & the Council of Trent. which though 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 Bellarmine hath none? what if the East, whence he hath two or three at the most for hunderds of ours be joined thereunto? Then for Quality Came the word of God out from you? saith Paul to the Corinthians; or Came it to you only? Meaning that they ought to reverence the judgment of other Christian Churches being more then they were: but of those chiefly and first (as he placeth them) from whō the Gospel came first. Now the Gospel came first out of the East: whose consent we have in a manner generally. and as we have the first in Country, so in time the auncientest & eldest: our two first Councils in Spain, and in France elder an hundred years then their two in Africque, our next far elder yet then their next; and so unto the last: yea, for several Fathers, ancient on both sides, there are more with us in the four or five or six for-foremost ages then there are with them. Of soundness in docttrine, of learning, of virtue, of constancy, of consent, it is hard to speak by way of comparison whether excelleth other. Saving that for gentelnes and meekness. a special ornament of Bishops, weigh both partes together, and ours surpass our adversaries. Amongst whom the Council of Trent accurseth all such as say that that they do err in this point, into which outrage none of ours hath broken against the contrary minded. As for other graces of the holy Ghost, though Bellarmine have noted sundry spotts and blemishes whereby some of ours are touched in credit, and their authority is impeached: let him cast his eyes upon his own witness's without partiallitie, and he shall find that we have a Rowland for his Oliver. For where he telleth us that Ambrose did err in yielding greater freedō to men then to women; Luther and Bucer in granting second marriage after divorcement for moe causes then whoredom; Pope Gregory the same for sickness: Cellestin the same for heresy: we tell him again that Clemens Alexandrinus • Athenagoras, Origen (if he be out of theirs) Jerome and Bede, did likewise err in speaking against all second marriages, and Clemens with Origen insundrie weighty points of faith. Where he telleth us that Lactantius fell into a number of errors, as being more skillful in Tully then in the scriptures, we tell him again that some of the Schoolmen were, though not more skillful in Tully, then in the scriptures, yet as unskillful in the scriptures, as in Tully; and there grand-master the Master of the sentences is charged by themselves with above a score of errors. Where he telleth us that Luther varieth from himself Melanchthon agreeth not with him, nor Kemnitius with either of them, because Luther allowed divorcement for moe causes afterward then at the first, and Melanchthon thinketh that both the divorced parties are free to marry, Kēnitius that the Inoc̄et only; we tell him again that neither doth Pope Innocentius the third agree with Pope Alexander, nor Alexander with himself nor neither of them with Athenagoras, seeing Athenagoras condemneth second marriage which the Popes allow, though • Alexander punished one who blessed it; ^o Innocentius checketh a decree of Alexander that deprived the Innocent party of his right, because the offender had sinned thus, or thus: & Alexander, whether in this decree I know not (for it is razed out of the Decretals) but in other extant overthwarteth himself, as his words alleged on both parties, for Bellarmine & for us, do testefie. So Bellarmins objections of human infirmities and wants notwithstanding, they which are of our side excel in estimation those which are of his, for diverse circumstances and respects. And (the most important respect of all others) the ground whereupon ours do build their doctrine, is the plain evidence & express testimony of our Savior Christ, excepting whoredō namely out of the causes for which he denieth a man may put away his wife & marry another. Contrariewise the ground that our adversaries build on is their own conceit, not able to stand without violent wresting, suppressing, or corrupting of Christ's exception the proof whereof is seen in three the most peremtorie men for this matter, and best accounted of among them, Innocentius the first, the third, & Thomas of Aquin. Thomas in that he answereth that Christ's 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, & citeth Christ's words thus: whoso putteth away his wife for whoredom, & marrith another doth commit adultery Innocentius the third, in that he depraveth & altereth the exception, affirming that Christ saith whosoever putteth away his wife for whoredom, & marrieth another, doth commit adultery: whosoever putieth away his wife for whoredom. A notable corruption by scraping out of the sentence 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 itself, that I doubted whether it were not the Printers or bookewriters error, until I perceived that all the printed copies, which I could get the sight of, did agree therein; even the new one too of Gregory 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 equal unto such in force; An untruth will never cleave unto the truth by other kind of mortar. in probabillity therefore it is to be presumed that not only the greater parte of the fathers but the better also, and they whose grounds are surer do maintain our doctrine. So the weapon which Bellarmine draweth out of their sheath against us, doth bend back and turn the point against himself: and the wound it may geve, it cannot pierce so deep as that which is sharper then a • y two edged sword, but the wound it may geve, it geveth to his own cause, Howbeit if any shall conceive otherwise hereof for the number & quality of the witnesses, as some peradventure will & may by reason of broken conjectures, which the variety of circumstances yeel death, yet no man will (I trust) sure no man of modestye and sense can deny, but the main and principal point I hadd to show, namely that the Fathers consent not • ll in one for the Papists doctrine, is shown to their shāe, whose face & conscience served thē to avouch the contrary. Wherefore since our adversaries do grant that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove a point in questiō unless they all consent about it: Bellar. with his Pāphletter must consequently grant, that their cursing Trent assertiō in this point cannot be proved by Fathers And so the second staff which they have framed thenselves to lean vpō, is like to that brokē staff of reed, Egypt, whervpō (saith the scripture) if a man lean, it will go into his hand & pierce it.

THE FOURTH CHAPTER.

T He third and last objection, whereupon the I • suit and his scholar stand, is conceit of reason: divided into five branches as it were, or Riverets issuing frō one spring. The water whereof how unlike it is to the water of Siloah, & savoring of that puddle of which the Romā Deputy Gallo did draw when having undertaken to do according to reason he spake profanely of Religion, & suffered one to be wrongfully vexed for regarding it, as if to do Justice in that case were against reason, I leave it to be judged and considered by them who say that our reason is naturally dark, and leadeth her wise men into sottish follies, neither can discern the things which are of God till it be lightened by his spirit. For although the Papists have some glimpse of light & see more then the Heathēs, as the Pharisees did whose words (I am afraid) they will use likewise: are we also blind? yet as the Pharisees were overseen fowlly in many of their arguments grounded upon reason, so the Papists may be. And that they not only may be overseen, but are in the reasons which their puddle-water hath yielded unto Bellarmins cisterns in this point: the beāes of reasō light̄ed frō above shall opē & descry; let such as love not darkness more then light be judges. For he reasoneth first thus: The Marriage of the faithful is a singe of Christ's conjunction with the Church, as St. Paul teacheth. But that Coniunction is indissoluble, and cannot be loosed, The band of Marriage is threfore indissoluble too. As if a rebel should say. The joining of the Head with the Body in man resembleth the Coniūction of Christ with the Church as St; Paul teacheth. But Christ & the Church can never be parted, there fore the head may never be cut from the body. A happy conclusion for Traitors, if it were true. But if it be faulse where then is Bellarmyns reason? which will take the greater overthrow by this because look how Christ is the head of the Church, semblably the husband is the wives head. So that notwithstanding the similytude of Christ's head-ship, the joint whereby a traytorous head is knit unto his body may feel the axe of Justice, as Bell. will grant: the marriage band that coupleth a man to an adulterous wife may be loosed by • he like reasō, notwithstanding marriage is a sign of Christ's cōiunctiō with the Church. And if this suffice not to make him acknowledge the loosnes & fondness of his sophistical syllogism, let him observe farther that the seperatiō which thenselves allow in case of adultery is condemned by it. For Christ dot continue with his Church always, & cherisheth her forever with his spirit of comfort, & he is so far frō dispoyling her of her own wealth, if she had any, that of his gifts & graces still he leaveth with her. Now the papists teach that a man may lawfully withdraw himself frō ever dwelling with his wife, & frō yielding husband-like love & duty to her, yea may still with-hold her own dowry frō her, if she be an adulteress. Which doctrine how could Bell. cleanse frō stayn of error, if some whore of Rome should touch it with this reasō. The marriage of the faithful is a sign of Christ's cōiūction with the Church, as Pavl teacheth? but Christ doth still assist relieve, & enrich the Church with his graces: therefore must the husband dwell still with his wife & find her maintenance & wealth. Would he say the C. of Trent accurseth all who make such Jesuitical syllogisms & sophymes against their sacred canō. Certainly the harelots reasō must be good unless the Jesuits be naught. But he goeth onward, & addeth that albeit some partes of the Church, to weete, some faithful folk do comit spiritual whordō now & then, & make a divorcemēt yet it is not lawful for them to change their God. What a speech is this? As who say, our Savior could deserve at our hands that we should forsake him, & g • t ourselves a new bridgrō. Neither doth God cast thē so away (saith Bell) that he will not be reconciled, nay he doth exhort to recōcilemēt still; Still? To whom then sware he, they should not enter into his rest? what were they whose carkeises fell in the wilderness? whence came the man of God who willed thē that commit idolatry to be slain? where lived the Prophet who says Thou distroyest all thē that go a whoring frō thee: The Israelites whō God did shut out of the promised land, of whō he took many thousands away by sundry plagues, to whō the law speaketh as being under the law, did they not profess that faith & use those Sacram. which all that do are faithful folk & partes of the church in Bell. phrase & meaning? I grant that God offereth to be reconciled sometimes to such offenders, & waiteth in mercy long for their amēdement. which if it be a pattern for us to follow herein, I say, if it be, for God gave time of reap̄tance to Joab a will-full murderer, whō the magistrate should have put to death presently: God gave time of repentance to idolatrous wives of the Jews, whom their husbands ought not to have spared so: if therefore God's actiō herein be set down for our imitatiō, the mā that can contain, & be without a wife, as God without our service, may likewise in mercy wait for her repentance, & when he perceyveth it to be unfeigned, take her again to be his wife. But he who cannot, or will not render such kindness for such unkindness & wickedness, may in justice also put her so away that no place or hope of reconcilemēt be left her, as Bell. own reason in this similitude teacheth. For God is not bound to give unto profane dispisers of his grace & breakers of his covenant place of repentance & reconciliatiō: Nay he may in justice absolutely deny it them, & oftentimes doth as the examples of Cain, of Esau, of Corah, Dathan & Abiram, of Zimri. of Acan, of Ananias & Sapphira, of sinfinit other, that have either presently died in their inns, or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against thē, do argue. wherefore when Bell. concludeth this reasō with saying that S. Austin urgeth it greatly in his book of the Good of marriage: he dealeth as Cooks do in larding lean-meat to give that a relish, which of itself would be unsavory. Though even for the lard too perhaps it agreeth not half so well herewith, as this Italiā cook would have us think it doth. For why did not S. Austin urge the same likewise in his books of adulterous marriages writ̄ afterward & purposely maintaining this Point against Polēti •• s who gainsaied him in it? was it because he saw that he had urged it more thē it would bear well? or that he perceived it would not hold against an adversary: though without an adversairye it were a pretty allusion? At least whatsoever men d • eme of the lard, the meat is naught questi • les: & such that though the cook be content to eat the driest morsel of it, yet must he needs grant that it hath not taste, not as much as the white of an egg hath. For himself saith that marriage betokeneth & signifieth Christ's coniūction with the faithful soul, as Thomas & the Pope teach. But Chricts coniunctiō with the faithful soul is not indissoluble, as him self also saith: the bād of marriage therefore (by his own cōsequēce) may be dissolved & loosed. And thus far of his first sophism.

The next is that if other marriage were lawful, the of-spring should be injured: for the childrē borne already (saith he) should be evil 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 therefore is not lawful, would very well follow if his foremost ground & propositiō were true, that the childrē should be injured thereby. For it is not lawful to deal injuriously with any he that doth wrong shall receive for it. But how proveth Bel. that they should be iniuri • d? His reason ensueth. for they should be evil provided for. what? therefore injured? Is God unjust then, who by taking men out of this present life, doth leave their wives widows; & their children fatherless; both often destitute of help? God forbid (saith the Apostle) else how shall God judge the world? But the childrē should be endamaged thereby; & 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 belike the branches cut of the Olivtree which was wild by nature & graffed contrary to nature in aright Olivetree, are evil provided for & endamaged by it. For as when a gardener asked why the herbs which he set or sowed do grow and shoot up slowly, where weeds which the earth brought forth of her own accord increased apace, 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 branches: the right Olive tree whereinto they were graffed, is their step mother. S. Paul, who thought it better for us of the Gentiles to be graffed so, thē to continue as we were the children of wrath by nature: declareth that a Christiā whose wife being an infidel, an vnbeleelever, forsaketh him, is free to marry another. Which (considering that he had an ey to the holy seed, their offspring also) what letteth him to have done with this persuasion, that the children, should receive more good & benefit by a believing step-mother, then by an unbelieving mother. Doubtless his care of having them brought up in godliness, a thing that godly mothers do further very much, & ungodly hinder, is a great argument he was of this mind. And the son of Catiline, whom that adulterous wretch his father murdered to compass the more easily the liking of a woman whom he lusted after, hath left sufficient proofs that some havīg fathers are no better looked to for things of this life neither, then they should of likelihood, if in steed thereof they had stepfathers. Wherefore since experience verifieth the same in mē which in women, that whē they have made shipwreck of their chastity, they will not stick at any wickedness: the argument that childrē should be endmaged & evil provided for, because in steed of adulterous fathers or mothers, they should have stepfathers, stepmothers, chaste, & honest, is 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 another marriage: therefore the marriage is not lawful? for by this reason a believing husband forsaken by his wife being an vnbelever, may not take another if he had childrē by the former. Nay no wife or husband having any childrē may lawfully ever marry again eith of thē after the others death. And in deed by a law that q Charondas made for his Thurian Cityzens, the men who did so were punished. And Marcus Antoninus, an Emperor of Rome, because he was loath to wed a step-mother to his children his wife being dead, kept a concubine. And S. Jerome speaking as the Catharists did, against second marriage, doth by detestatiō of a stepfather dissuad a widow from it. But the Papists hold agreeably to scripture that the man is at liberty to marry in the Lord after the womans death, the womā after the man's: yea in life time also, if either of them being an infidel & vnbeleever forsake the other being a Chistiā. And Bell. acknowledgeth that they hold both these points, & ought to hold them. Bellar. shall therefore do well to acknowledge that his step-reason, which oppugneth both these points of sound doctrine, savoreth of heresy, neither maketh more for him against us, then for the Catharists against the Catholic fathers. Wherewith he may confess 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 children's sake. For S. Ambrose blaming the man, who puteth away his wife without crime, & marrieth another, an adulteress by so marrying; mislyketh that the children should have such a stepmother having such a mother under whom they might be. And if the mother, being put away so, took another husband, who in this case were an adulterer: S. Ambrose wisheth the childrē to be under their father, not under 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 for their mothers fault at their fathers hands, then be cast out for her sake. Wherein he doth no more say that the father ought to pardon the mothers adultery for the children's sake; then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abhominatiō for Lots sake, when he said that the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous, thē the righteous should be destroyed with the wicked. But here peradvēture the Pāphletter will reply that although Bell. author & argument (as himself observed, who there upon cut Bell. shorter) prove not his intent, to weete that another marriage is unlawful: yet they prove such marriage to be inconvenient in respect of the children, to whom there riseth hurt and discomodity by it. For answer whereunto & to the like reasons drawn by him & Bell. from other inconveniences, seven things are to be noted: all such as our adversaries themselves must needs yield to, & yielding thereunto shall set on fire their own chaff. The first that the man whose wife is an adulteress: may putt her absolutely away, for all his liftyme: nor is ever bound to let her dwell with him again, no not though she repent. Which point being plainly implied in our saviors answer to the Pharisees, Bel. avoucheth & maintaineth thence: agreeably to the doctrine of his chiefest guides the Popes & Thomas of Aquine. The second that if the woman continue in her wickedness, without repentance & amēdement, the man is by duty bound to put her away. S. Matthew reporteth, of the blessed virgin, that when she was found to be with child of the holy Ghost, before her husband Joseph & she came together, Isoseph being a just man, & not willing to make her a public exaample, was minded to put her away secretly. Of which words importing that justice moved him to put her away, goodwill to do it secretly, it seemeth to follow, that such a woman as Joseph misdeemed her to be, to weete an adulteress, cannot be kept without sin, whether she repent or no. And Cornelius Jansen a learned bishop of the Papists granteth hereupon, that it was so in the Old Testament. But in the new Testament, he saith, if she reap̄t she may be kept with out sin: acknowledging that she may not in the new Test. neither unless she repent. Whervnto the Canonists & Schoolmen do accord; expounding a sentence cited by many Fathers out of the Proverbs of Solomon, He that keepeth an adulteress, is a fool and a wicked man; a sentence found in the Greek text of the Proverbs albeit not expressed out of the Hebrew Fountain, but added by the Seventie Interpreters, or other, perhaps to show that Solomon commending a wife, did mean a chaste wife in their Judgment, but added in the Greek, & thence translated also into the common Latin edition called S. Jerome's, so that it goeth for Scripture with Papists by their Trent Canon; this sentence I say, & the Canons of the Fathers that urge it vndistinctly against whosoever keepeth an adulteress, whether repentāt or vnrepentāt, in like sort as the Civil Law condemned all such, the Canonists & School-mē distinguish & expound of such as keep adulteresses, which do not repent & amend their lives. Now granting that a man may keep an adultereffe in matrimony if she repent, or being divorced from her, may take her again: yet (which is the third point) he may not do it often least impunity increase inequitie. And this is agred on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome, the Canō ists & School-mē. Hermes out of whō the Master of the sētences aleageth & avoucheth it, meant (as his reason brought to prove it argueth) that the man may take her so again but once. Which doctrine the Papists can make Canonical if they list, unless Stapleton lie, who saith their Catholic Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of Cāonicall Scriptures that bool • of Hermes, written in the Apostles time by S. Paul's scholar, not only cited much but commended too by many & most ancient Fathers, Clemens, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius,, Eusebius, & Jerome. At least the chiefest part of the Canon Law cōpiled by the directiō and ratified by the authority of Pope Gregory the ninth, setting down the very same out of a Council that Peter Lombard out of Hermes: the Papists though they will not (I trow) be of Stapletons mind for Hermes book, yet may think it likely that the Coūcel & Pope approved his meaning in this point. Chiefly since Panormitan, the flouer of the Canonists having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned, because sins vnpūished do become examples, citeth an excellent proof & light thereof a law of worthy Emperors, Valētinianus, Theodosius, & Arcadius. who graūting a general pardon for smaler trespasses extended it to none committed oftener thē once; accoūting such unworthy of their Princilie favor, as grew by their former forgiveness to a custom of sinning rather then to amendment. But whether the Papists will judge those Christian Emperors to have been to strict, & say that adultery deserveth pardon oftener thē lesser faults with thē, or whether they think it sufficient to pardon once so great a crime, which the Emperors excepted by name out of their pardon, & willed it to be punished even the first time: the Papists do agre that a husband must not forgive it to his wife often̄. The fourth thing to be noted is, that the womā being putt away so, doth lose her dowry too by law. Which pūishmēt as God hath threatened by his law to men that go a whoring frō him, though they have not any dowry of their own neither, but of his gift: so the Civil Law hath insticted it on adultrous wives, & the Canō Law ī looser times also. The fifth, that many persons mistake the help prepared of God, & marry or do worse: considering that some cannot contain, as Pope Goegory noteth touching men S. Ambrose touching women, the Scripture touching both; some, though they could perhaps, yet should hurt their bodies by sickness, if they did, as physique & Philosophy teach; some though neither chastity nor health enforce thē to marry, yet need it for their state of living, as Dominicus Soto doth prove by certain poor husband-men & laborers. The sixth, that if a man die & have no son, his inheritance ought to come to his daughter by the 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 family. Unto which ordinance: the laws of all well ordered states & common weaks are, though in certain circūstaunces different, yet in substance suitable. The seavēth, that it is sundry ways incōmodious for a child to be unlawfully begot̄, and (as we term it) base borne because both the ignomenie thereof is a blemish, & that blemish bredeth baseness of courage; & bastards are not brought up so well by their parents as lawful children use to be: neither are they privileged a like; & preaferred to place of public government, or Benefit of inheritance, by Laws divine or human. And these things being weighed well show that Bellarmins reason corrected by the Pamphleter needeth a new correction: & if inconveniences might decide our question which they cannot do for many things are lawful that are not expedient but if they might decide it, they would swaie with us rather then against us. For in case the man, burning with jealousy & rage which is usual in this kind of injury or the woman being (as adulteresses commonly are) wicked, impudent, once naught & always naught, he will not, or may not keep or take her again, the childrē missing her, are destitute of a mother to look to their education. And then it were better for thē that their father took a second wife to bring thē up, as Plato thought. Wherein another man might have the like success that Poris (a gentlemā of Macedōia) had, whose former wives childrē were brought up as well and carefully by their stepmother as her own children were. But if it fall not out with many as with him, and the childrenfind more sharp & hard usage at their stepmothers hands, who knoweth whether it may not turn to their more good. Chiefly since the tender indulgēce of Parēts doth nourish wanton wickedness, in the sons of Eli, ambition in Adonia, trāsgressions in whō not? and moderate severitye would restrain the same? as one who said he had a cruel stepmother & a father, another who found like fault with his father & mother, both for fear restraīng thenselves from tricks of ūthrifts did show by their examples. Here is a farther help too for the children's benefit, that their father having their mothers whole dowry, beside whatsoever the second wife bringeth is able to do more for thē. Whereas contrariwise; if by means he cannot live single & ūmarried, he be constrained to keep the adulteress still, or after separation to receive her again: she is likely to geve her own & her husbands goods to her lover, as Messallina did to Siluis; or though she take gifts & rewards of him, to wast all in riot, as the whores of Cattilines cōfederacie did. Moreover a woman that can have no sons, but daughters only by her husband, may have sons by another man, as Hippocrates showeth. Which if the adulteress have by her lover, the daughters to whō the inheritance should come are defrauded of it, And if she have but daughters or yōger sonnes by him, the bastards; presūed to be lawful childrē, defraud the lawful children of so much as them selves get. The Cuckow hatcheth her eggs in other birds nests, & the eggs she findeth of theirs, she devowreth, as Aristotle writeth: or, as Pliny saith, the birds that sitteh abroad vpō her own eggs & the Cuckows, when both their young are bred up, liketh the Cuckows bird better then her own, & suffereth them to be devoured of him in her own sight. A term in reproach drawn in many languages frō the Cuckows name to note their calamity, or (if they suffer it will lingly) dishonesty, who receive other men into their bedds & foster up their childrē, may be a sufficient lesō for a father what comfort & benefit his childrē are to look for by having such a mother to feed & oversee them. Beside to omit suspiciō of bastardy, where by his children also may be discouraged & stained) himself shall be counted a bawd unto his wife, & must (by a Canon of the C. of Nantes) do seven years public penance, & be shut out all that while from the communion, yea want the comfort thereof even at his death too, (by another Co.) if he be of the Clergy. And how can he choose but live still in fear & anguish of mind, least she add drūckēnesse to thirst, & murder to adultery: I mean least she serve him as Clytemnestra did Agamemnon, as Livia did Drusus as Mr ^s . Arden did her husband? or if to avoid these griefs of shame & danger he put her quite away & resolve never to come again in house with her: he may incur as great danger or shāe, or both, nay greater, on the other side, by lack of a necessary help for his living, or by state of body subject to certain sicknesses or by incōtinecie, whether cōsūing & burning him without remedy, or forcing him to damnable remedies of whors or worse. Further more his wife, the adulterous mother, may be the boulder to sin, & to return as the dog to his vomitt, & the sow washed to wallowing in the myer, if she know her husband cannot want a wife, & must have her or none, which perhaps moved that Gentlewomā of Rome to be the more lic̄etious, whom her husband found plaing the incestuous whore with their son in law: after that she had her husband bound by oth that he would never separate & divorce her frō him, so to be free to marry another, And why may not she live too in perpetual heaviness & fear, least her husband being chayned with such necessity, should seek to get himself libery of marrying by making her away? There was a certain Spanjard, whose wife drivē out by him for her adultery & eftsoons reconciled, was, when she offended again, divorced frō him by an Ecclesiastical Judge, at his suite, & shut into a monastery. The husband saying afterward that he loved her, & that he agreed for fear to the divorcemēt, desired that he might be reconciled to her, & she restored to him, according to the Civil Law Navarus (as famous a man for skil in canō law, among the Papists, as Bell. for Divinity) being asked his judgment what should be doneheriu, made answer, that the wife divorced in such sort, is not bound to return again unto her husband, & that the husbands speech of his affectiō must not be easily believed, because he may fain it to the intent to allure her thereby to dwell with him, that he may slay or poysen her, through desire of marrying another wife, after her death. Of which thing (saith Navarus ) there may suspiciō & conjecture rise out of the circumstances of her offense; & his suite: chiefly in a man of the Spanish natiō, which is more inclined to bear small love to their wives yea being chaste, then to be reconciled to thē being adulteresses, specially after the first time. Now though Spanjards chiefly be prone to work such feats of slaying or poisoning, as this man who knew thē (himself a Spanjard) witnesseth: yet an Italiā Marques, who put to death his wife taken in adulttry & married another, declareth that not only Spanjards will adventure to make their wives away, if finding thē unchaste, they must have some and would have better. Finally if the wife, not able to have any childrē by her husband, have some by an adulterer (for this may come to pass also) the brethren, or the next of kin to the husband, shall loose his inheritance: & that which they ought to enjoy by right the adulterous seed will intercept & putloine. I let pass the public harms & discōmoditis which by such iniquities of private persons were likely to accrue to the comō weal. These that I have touched suffice to overweigh our adversaries reason drawn frō incōveniēces. For if I should stand on the childrē alone, evē those already borne whom Bell. expressly mentioneth & nameth: the hardness of a stepfather or stepmother lighting on them by the second marriage, can̄ot cōuterpeise the loss in educatiō, wealth, inheritance, honor, which an adulterous parent bringeth. Beside that the children to be borne afteward (as Bell. by naming those already borne seemeth to confess) should be evil provided for: whose baseness of birth & discōmodities following it Proceeded frō restraint of maring again after divorcemēt for adultery. Wherefore if we put withal in our ballāce the detrimēts & harms, that grow to the father, the mother, the brethrē & kinsmē of the father I might say to the common weal too: the balāce of out adversaries will be tilted up so high by the weight of ours, as if it were lighter then vanity it self.

And thus by the way, of weakness of Bell. third & fourth reasons is descried & daūted. The third that if the marriage we treat of were lawful, a gapp would be opened to infinite divorcemēts, yea urōgful & unjust. The fourth, that if the innocent party may marry, the nocent also may, who thē should gain by his sin, & many would sin of purpose that thy might marry others. For as one of the wisest, & best learned Popes 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 judicious & discrete Papist supposing these reasos of Bell. to be sound, say that marriage after devorcemēt for adultery was taken away from men upon many & good considerations: but ought to be restored unto them again upon more & better. Howbeit I must add thereunto that although his reasons be confuted sufficiently with this supposali, lett them be tried also by the rules of reason, & it will appear they are a great deal soūder in show then in deed. For the divorcemēt of an adulteress from her husband is pūishmēt of her sin: as hanging with us is a pūishmēt of thieves, of cutpurses, & burning through the ear of rogues. So that Bell. reasō concluding the marriage in question to be unlawful, because a gap would be opened to infinite divorcemēts, is like as if a libertine or vagabond should say, that it is unlawful for Judges to do justice on rogues, thieves, & cutputses, because there would be opened a gap to infinite hangings, & burnings through the ears. But some men (saith Bell. ) would sow debates, pick quarrels, devise faulse accusations against their wives being innocent: & so a gap would be opened to wrōgfull divorcemēts, not to divorcemēts only. What? must no offen no traitor, no blasphemer then be put to death because many thousands of innocent persons, yea innocency itself, have been accused falsely, & putt to death wrōgfullie? Or if Bell. grant, that although some sitting to judge according to the law, do manifest wrong to guiltless men against law, yet must wicked miscreants be exeqūted by the Magistrate who beareth not the sword in vain: he granteth it is cavilling captiousnes & sophistry to conclude that mē divorced lawfulie may not marry because some would therefore be divorced unlawfully. The greater was his fault to say that this reason is touched by, S. Jerome: whose oversight he should have done better to acknowledge & friendly to excuse it by his haste in writing; for haste is unadvised & blind (as one said well) thē by his name to countenance so weak a reason in itself, so dangerous in consequence, which overtroveth all administering of Iuctice & judgment. And since himself teacheth against S. Jerome's judgment that a man whose wife entiseth him to heresy, or to wicked deeds, may be divorced from her because although the woman's chastity should come thereby into hazard, yet less is the peril & hurt of her adultery then of his wickedness or heresy, & the church provideth rather for the innocent party, then for the nocent: he might with a little indifferēcie & equity of an vnpartial eye, have seen that the Church should by the same reason allow the innocent to marry: at least that S. Jerome's creditt cannot prejudice us more in the one point thē him in the other. True is that (I cannot deny) which he addeth true, most true & certain, that the offenders should gain by their sin, if they might also marry, as well as the innocent. They should gain in deed. But as Daniel said unto Nebuchadnezzar; the dream be to thē that hate thee & the interpretatiō thereof to thine enemies: In like sort may I say, this gain be to the enemies of God & of his Church. For adulterers & adulteresses do gain. first, dishonesty, defiling their bodies & souls with an heinous & detestable crime. Then hardly scape they, but they gain beggary too: the man if he be a whormōger, wasting all commonly as the prodigal child did; the womā losing her dowry. Beside they gain infamy; a gain of greater value thē beggary by much: for a good name is to be chosen above great riches. Last of all they gain the heavy wrath of God, & his just vēgeāce: they lose the inherttāce of the kingdō of Heaven, & purchase to to thenselves the chains of darkness forever Lueretia a matron of Rome in time of pagāisme, having suffered violence of Sextus Tarquinius, when her husband being sent for to come unto her did ask her Is all well? No quoth she; for what is well with a woman, her chastity being lost? yet she if better judgment might have prevailed with her, had not lost her chastity: her body being only defiled by force, her mind undefiled. But now a Christian man, if yet a Christian; sure a Jesuit, the chiefest instructer of the youth of Rome & of the Komanists through all Christendō, doth maintain in print that Lucretia, not she I spake of but such a Lucretia as the Popes daughter was having lost not only chastety but also wealth, good name, God's favor, the promise both of this life & the life to come, yet if being put away from her husband she may take another, hath gained by her losses, because she may be married to her Tarquinius, & match a graceless whore with a shamlesse beast.

As for the last of Bell. points of inconvēce that many would cōmitt 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 read of a womā that had a desire to be beaten of her husband: which she found means also (as she was witty) to obtain, in so much that she put it oft in practice, till having cruelly beat̄ her at length he killed her. The man who of purpose to get a new wife would cōmitt adultery, should desire more strips then that woman meant & die a death infinitely more grievous then she did. But if some as wise almost as she was should long after scourges: must they who deserve by law to be whipped be denied it, because a fool desired it without desert? The Romans had an ancient law that whosoever did a man injury, should by way of punishment pay him about a shilling. There was a lewd losell, a youthly, harebraynd Ruffian, who having wealth at will & taking a delight in geving honest mē boxes on the ears, would walk up & down with a pursefull of shillings, which his slave attending on him did carry & geving one a box would bidd his slave geve him a shelling, another a box & ashilling. What was in this case to be done for remedy? If Bellarmine had lived there & been of Counfail to the state, we see the advise he would have geven: namely that the amerciement should be taken away because some would do men injury of purpose to fulfill their lusts with paying of a shilling or two. But the Roman governors took contrary order, to increase the amerciement, according to the discretion & arbit remēt of Judges: that evil disposed persons might be deterred frō trespassing by sharpness of the punishment to be inflicted on them for it, Whose wisdom therein it is to be wished that Princes and rulers remembering 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 separated from adulterous wives may not marry again, thē vserers & extortiōers procuring wealth by wicked & ungodly means do prove that honest-men may not enjoy the goods which by lawful trades & virtuous industry they get.

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 years after the City was built: but afterward, good orders being overthrowen, divorces also were brought in with other vices. And this reason Bellar. doth lard after his manner with 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. For the first divorce which was made at Rome, was of a chaste wife put away by her husband because she was barrein, & did not bear him children. Now to separate husbands & wives for such causes (we grant) it is unlawful: our Savior allowing it for whoredō only. The example therefore of the well ordered Romans is in vain alleged out of Tertullian against us. But neither was there any divorce for adultery made above five hundred years among them, will Bell. perhaps say. I grant. And I will help with a stronger argument: that among the Cians (a state well ordered too) seven hundred years did pass before any divorcemet was made for adultery. For (as Plutarch writeth) there was no adulterye committed by the space of so many hundred years among them. But among the Romans (will Bell, perhaps reply) it is likely that some was committed within five hundred years. True. But the husband then might put his wife to death (being convicted first of adultery) without all public judgment. So that if Bell words have any force, this is their effect, Among the Heathen Romans while good orders flourished, the woman that committed adultery suffered death: afterward good orders being overthrowen, she was divorcend only. 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 evil ordered, fighteth against the Popish Romans, and their Champion. Hereto the example of all other Heathens, whose orders were but so good that they allowed second marriage, may be adjoined, Which I do not affirm so much on mine own knowledge (though for ought I have read & remember it is true) as on Bellarmins secret confession and silence a man of greater reading, and having used many men's pains in search of these things. Beside, when Christian faith came among the Heathens the Emperors did punish adultery first by death: afterward Justinian mitigating that law did punish it by divorcement. But in both these cases the man being severed from his adulterous wife was free to marry again. Bellarmins speech therefore touching well ordered Heathens came in evil seasō, to raise both them & others yea Christians too, against him. So his last reason, nay his reasons all are grown to be in worse plight, then were the seven later kyne in Pharaoh's dream, the seven poor, evil favored & lean fleshed kyne, that devoured the seven former fat well favored, & there by saved their life. For the thin carkeises dreamed of by Bellarmine have not strength enough to overmaister & eat up the sound bodies of reasons standing there against, but gasping after them in vain they die with famine. 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 word of truth, the doctrine of Christ, That a man having putt away his wife for her adulterye may lawfully marry another.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .