[The] Judgment of the reformed churches that a man may lawfully not only put away his vvife for her adultery, but also marry another.

OF THE LAWFVL∣NES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVV∣FVL DIVORCE.

THE FIRST CHAPTER.

The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by schriptuere: that a man having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another.

THe dutie of man and woman ioyned in marriage, requireth thata they two should be as one person, & cleave each to other with mutuall love & liking in society of life, until it please God, who hath cou¦peled them tog••ther in this bond, to set th••m free from it, and to dissociate & sever them by death. But the inordinat fansies & desires of our corrupt nature have so inveigeled Adams seede in manie places, that men have accostomed to put awaie their wives vppon every trifling mislike & discontentement: yea Ieuwes supposed thēselves to be warranted by Godsb lawe to doe it, so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorcement. This perverse opinion & errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for any cause save whoredome onely. For whosoever (saith he) shall put away his wife except it be for whoredom and shall marry another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her wich is put away, doth cōmit ad¦ulterie. Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed more fully by by on of thec Euāgelists, byd others more sparingly, there hath a doubt arisen: and diverse men even from the primative church¦es time have been of diverse mindes.

For many of the Fathers have gathered thereupon, that if a mans wife cōmitted whoredom & fornication, he might not onely put her a way, but marrie another. Some others, and among them namely S. Austine, have thought that the man might put away his wife but mar¦rie another he might not,

••he Scholedevins of later years, & the Canonists, as for most parte they were al adicted to S. Austins iudgment, did likewise follow him herein & the Popes mainteining their doctrine for Catholique, have possessed the Church of Rome with this opinion. But since in our daies the light of good learning both for artes and tongues hath shy∣ned more brightly by Gods most gratious goodnes then in the form∣er ages, and the holly scriptures by the helpe thereof have been the bet∣ter understood: the Pastors & Doctors of the reformed churches have percieved & shewed, that if a mans wife defile her selfe with fornicatiō, he may nor onely put her away by Christs doctrine but also marrie an∣other. Wherein that they teach agreeably to the truth, and not erro¦neously, as Iesuits & Papists do falsly charge them. I will make ma∣nifest & prove (through Gods assistance) by expresse words of Christ, the truth it selfe. And because our adversaries doe weene that the cō¦trarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguements & obiections, which two of their newest writers Bell. the Iesuit & a namelesse author of an English panphlet, have dilligenely laied together; For the farther clearing therefore of the matter, & taking awaie of doubts & scruples, I will set downe al there obiectiōs in order, first out of the scriptures, then of fathers, last of reasons and answer everie one of them particu¦larly. So shall it appeaae to suh as are not blinded with a fore conceived opinion & preiudice, that whatsoever shew of prbabilities are brought to the contrarie, yet the truth deliverd by our Saviour Christ allowetls him whose wife committeth sornication, to put her away, and to mar¦rie another

The proofe hoereof is evidnnt if the words of Christ be waied in the nienteuth Chapter af S, Mat. gospel For when the Pharises asking him a question, whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every catse, received answer that it was not, and thereupon saide un¦to him, Why did Moses commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way: Our Saviouer sayde unto them; Moses suffered you because of the hard¦nes of your harte to put awayee your wifes: But from the beginning it was not so. And I say vnto you, that, whosoever, shal put away his wife, except it bee for whoredom, and shall marrie another, doth comit adultery: and who so marri∣eth her that is put awaie, doth cōmit adultery.

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

But hee must needs commit it in doeing so unlesse the bande of mar¦riage bee loosed and dissolved. For who so marrieth another as long as he isf bound to the formerg is an adulterer. The band then of mar∣riage

is loosed & dissolved betwene that man & wife who are put assun∣der and divorced for whoredome.

And if the band beloosed, the man may marry another: seing it is writtenh Art thou loosed from a wife? If thou marrie thou sinnest not. The∣refore it is lawfull for him who hath put away his wife for whoredome to marrie another,i

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

The firstk they denie to weete that the clause of exception in Christs speech [except it befor whordome] doth argue that the mā commiteth not adulterie, who, having put awaie his wife for whoredome, marrieth an∣other, And to overthrowe this proposition, they doe bring soudry an∣swers and evasions, The best of all which as Bellarmin avoucheth, is, that those words [except it be for whoredome] are not an exception, For Christ (saith he) ment those words1 [except for whoredome] not as an exception, but as a negation. Soo that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife, except for whoredome, that is to saie2 without the cause of whoredome, & shall marrie another doth cōmit adulterie. Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulte¦rer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredome, marrieth an∣other: but nothing is sayde touching him who marrieth another, having put away his former wife for whoredome. In deede this evasion might have some collour for it if these words of Christ [except it be for Whoredome] were not an exception. But neither hath Bellarmin ought that may suffice for the proofe here of and the verie text of the scripture it selfe is soe cleare against him, that he must of necessitie give over his houlde. For the principal pillar wherewith he vnderproppeth it, isl S. Austins iudgemēt who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marri¦ages: Now of that treatise S.m Austin saith himselfe in his retractatiōs I have writtē two bookes touching adulterous mariages, as neere as I could according to the scriptuers being desirous to open & loose the knotts of a most difficult quests on. Which whether I have done soe that no knott is left therein, I know not; nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly; and throughly, al though I have opened many creeckes thereof, as whosoever readeth with iudg∣ment may discerne. S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that the∣re are some wants and imperfections in that worke which they may see who reade with iudgment. And whether this that Bellarmin doth al∣leage out of it, deserve not to fal within the compasse of that censure I appeale to their iudgment who have eies to see: For S. Augustin thought

that the worde in th original of S. Math gospel, had, by the proper sig∣nification of it, imported a negation rather then an exception. Andn he sheweth by saying that where the Latin translation hath3 [except for whoredom] in the Grieke text it is rather read4 without the cause of whoredō:

Supposing belike (whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight) 5that the same words, which were used before in the fift Chapter of S. Math. Gospel to the same purpose, were used also in this place: wher as here they6 differ, and are wel expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so wel. Houbeit, if they had been the same with the former: yet neither so might Bell. allowe his opini∣on; considering that the cōmon latin translation (which Papists by their Councel of Trent are bound to stand to under payne of curse, ex∣presseth 7those likewise as a plaine exception.

Which in de••de agreeth to the right and natural meaning of the8 par¦ticle, asO the like writers use it in like construction: even then to, whē it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it unto that meaning. Wherefore S. Austins mistaking of the worde & signification thereof is noe suffici¦ent warrant for Bell. to ground on, that they must betaken so. As for that he addeth, that, albeit9 both these particles be taken exc••ptively ofte•• times, yet may they also be taken otherwise, sith on of them is u∣sed in the Revelatiō as an adversative not an exceptive•• this maketh much lesse for proofe of his as••ertion. For what if it be used there as an ad∣versative where the matter treated of, & the tenour of the sentence doe manifestly argue that it must be taken so? Must it therefore be taken so in this place, whereof our question is? or doth Bellar. prove by any circumstance of the text, that here it may be taken so? No, Neither saith he a worde to this purpose. Why, men ioneth he then that it may be taken otherwise, and is in the Revelaton, for an adversative parti∣cle? Truly I know not unlesse it be to shew that he can wrangl••, and plaie the cavelling sophister in seeming to gainsay & disprove his adver¦sarie, when in truth he doth not. Or perhaps, though he durst not say for the particular, that it is takē here as an adversative, which he could not but most absurdly. Yet he thou••ht it policie to breed a surmise the¦re of for the generall, that shallower conceits might imagin another sence therein, they knew not what, and they whose brasen faces should serve them, thereto, might impudently brable, that our sence is not cer¦taine because another is possible, evē as a Iew being pressed by a Christiā with the place ofq Esay, Behoulde a v••gin shall conceive, and bring forth a Sonne should answer that the H••brue worde translated Virgin, may be taken othrwise sith that in the Proverbs it signifieth a married womā: at least one that is not a Virgin in deede though she would seeme to be

But as the Iew cannot conclude hereof with any reason, that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay; because the thing spoken of is a straunge signe and it is not straunge for a married wommen to coceave and bring forth a Sonne: so neither can the Iesuite conclude of the for¦mer, that the particle in Math. is meāt adversatively; because the words then doe beare noe sence at all; in which sorte to thinke that any wise∣man spake, were folly; that Christ the word and wisdome of God were impietie. Nay if some of Bell. schollars should say that words must be supplied to make it perfect sence, rather than their Maiester bee cast of as a wrangeler: they would be quickely inforced to pluck in this horn, or els they might chance to leape (which is worse out of the frying pan into the fire. For adversative particles import an opposition & con∣trariety unto the sentence against which they are brought in. Now, the sentence is, that who so putteth away his wife & marrieth another, doth commit adulterie.

Wherefore he by consequent, committeth not adulterie who doth so for whor••dome: If the particle be adversative, and must have words accordingly supplied; & understood to make the sence perfect. Thus the shift & cavil which Bell. hath drawen out ef the double meaning of the Greike worde, is either ydle & beateth the aier; or if it strike any, it striketh himselfe, and giueth his cause a deadly wound. Yea that which he sought to confute, he hath confirmed thereby. For sith the worde hath onely two significations exceptive, & adversative, neither durst he say that it is vsed here as an adversative, it followeth he must graūte it to be an exceptive: so the place rightly translated in our Enhelish (agree able to the other in the 5. of Math.) exoept it be for whoredom, which as in their authenticall latin text also doth out of conitoversie betoken an exception. Having all passages therefore shutt against him for scap∣ing this way, he fleeth to annother starting hole: to weet, that if the worde betaken exceptively yet may it be an exception negative.

And this (he saith) sufficeth for the maintnance of S. Aust. answer. For when it is sayd, whosoever shal put away his wife excepting the cause of whoredō and shall marry another doth commit adulterie: the cause of whoredom may be excepted, either because in that case it is not adulterie to marrie another; & this is an exception affirmative: or because nothing is presently determined touch∣ing that cause, whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe; and this is an exception negative, which in that S. Aust. imbraced he did wel. I would toe God Bell. had S. Aust. modesty. Then would he be ashamed to chargs such a man wiith imbracing such whorish filth of his owne facsing, ar in distinction of negative and affirmrtive exception he doth. Fo•• h••e handeleth it soe lewdely and perv••rsely, by calling that affirma∣tive

which in deede is negative, & by a••ouching that to bee negative, which is not: as if he had made a covenāt with his lips to lye, treading in the steps of those wicked wretches of whom it is writtens woe unto them▪ that say that good is evil, and evil good. For the proofe where of it is to be noted that an exception is a particular proposition cōtradicto¦rie to a geneaall: So that if the general proposition be affirmative, the exception is negative, and if the proposition be negative contrariewise the exception is affirmative.

As for exsamples saket He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lorde shall be destroyed saith Moses in the lawe. The proposition is affirmative, He that sacrificeth to any Gods shalbe destroyed. The exception negative.

He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyedu There is none good, but one, even God saith Christ in the Gospell. The proposition is ngative, There is none good. The exception affirmative. One is good even Godx I would to God that all (saith Paul to Agrippa) which heare me this daye, were altogether such as I am, except these bonds. The proposition affirmative. I with that all that heare me were such as I am altogether. The exception ne¦gatiue. I wish not in bonds they were such as I am.y No Church did cōmunicate with me in the account of giving & receiving, saving you onely sayth the same paule to the Phillippians. The Proposition negative, No Church did cōmunicate with me in the account of giving & receiving. The exception affirmative You of Phillipp•• did.

Likewise al the rest of expositions adioyned to general propositions, though the markes and tokens of generallity sometimes lie hiddē in the Proposition, soe of denying or affirming doe in the exception: Yet it is plaine & certain that in the propositiō & exceptiō matched with it, are still of contrarie quallity, the one affirmative, if the other negative, & ne¦gative if the other affirmative. Which being so: see now the Iesuits dealing, how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth and reason.

For sith in Christs speach to••hing Diuorcement for whoredome; the proposition is affirmative•• Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marrie an other, doth commit adulterie: it followeth that the exception which deny¦eth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whordome, ma∣rieth another, is an exception negative, but Bellarmin saith that this were an exception affirmative. Yea which is more straunge in a man learn¦ed and knowing rules of logique (But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgemnt to their owne lusts and errors?) he entiteleth it an exception affirmative, even then and in the same place when and where himselfe having set it downe in the wordes goe∣ing immediatlye next before, had given it the marke of a negative, thus, It is not Adulterie to marrie annother. And as no absur∣ditie

doth lightly come alone, he addeth fault to fault, saying that this is an exception negative, When no thing is presently determined touching the cause, whether it be sufficent to excuse adulterie or no. So first to denie with him was to affirme: and next, to say nothing, now is to deny, Yet there is a rule inz Law that he who faith nothing, dieneth not, Belike, as they coyned vs neuw Diviniti at Rome: so they will new Lawe and new Lod¦gique too. Houbeit, if these principles bee allowed therein by the Ie¦suits authoritie, that negative is affirmative & to say nought is negati∣ve: I see not but al heretikes & vngodly persons, may as wel as Iesuits, mainteyne what they list, & impudently face it out with like distincti∣ons. For if an adversarie of the H. Ghost should be controuled by that wy reade to the Corinthiansa The things of God knoweth no man, but the spi∣rit of God: His answer (after Bellarmins patterne) were readie, that this proveth not the spirit of God to knouw those things, because it might be a negative exception•• importing that S. Paul wolude determine no∣thing presently thereof. If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through concience of his sine, & trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinnersb Yee shall all perish except yee repent: He migt re∣plie thereto that the exception is negative; a••d this though not in the former poynt, yet here were true; but to make it serve his humour. He must expounde it with Bellarmin, that Christ doth not determin what shall become of the repentat. If a vsurer should be toulde that hec is for bidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie,d or to take encrease: & a theefe that he is ecommanded To labour & woorke, &f so to eate his owne breade; they might (if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin) de••end their trades both, the one by affirming, that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it, the o∣ther, that to commande betokeneth to forbid. In a worde, Whatsoever opiniō were reproved as false, or action as wicked, out of the scriptures denouncing death eternall and paynes of hell thereto▪ the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of, by glosing thus vpon them, that false is true & wicked holy: life ment by death, & heaven, by hell. Or if the Papists them-selves would condemned this kinde of distin∣guishing and expounding places, as sencelesse and shamelesse: then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that neg••tive is afirma∣tive, and to say nothing is to denie; Which whether they doe, or not I wil, with the consēt and liking (I doubt not) of all indifferent iudges, and Godly minded m••n who love the truth and not contencion, con∣clude, that these lying gloses of the ••esuits doe not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a preteriti∣on or passing over a thing in silence (which if Christ had ment, hee could have done with fitt words, as wise men are wont) but a flat

denying of that in on case, which the propositiō affirmeth in all others it remayn••th that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech thē who for whoredome put away their wives, denieth that in them, which in all others he affirmeth; and thereby teacheth vs that the man who putting away his wife for that cause, marrieth another, doth not com∣mit adulterie.

The next trick of Sophistrie, whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them, is that the exception ought to be restreined to the former branche of putting away the wife onely. To the which intent, they say that there are some words wanting in the text which must be supplied and perfected thus; Whosoever shall put away his wife (which is not lawfull except it bee for whoredome) and marrieth another, doth commit adulterie. This devise doth Bell. allowe of as probable, though not like the foresayd two of negation and negative exception. But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all. And surely if it were lawfull to foist in these words which is not lawfull: the Pamphletter might seeme to have shewed greater skill herein then Bellarmin. But men of vnderstanding & iudg∣mēt doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule (asg Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it) if every one may adde not what the circu••stances and matter of the text sheweth to bee wāting, but what himself listeth to frame such sense ther of as pleaseth his conceit and fansie. The sundrie interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may (to go noe further) sufficiently discover the fault & inconvenience of that kinde of dealing.

Forh the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth a∣way his wifs, except it bee for whordome, though he marrie not another, commit∣teth adulterie, and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sorte▪ if he marrie an∣other, doth commit adulterie. Frei••r Alphonsusi checketh and control∣leth this interpretation, partly as too violent, for thrusting in so many words; partly as vntrue, for the former braun, h••of it: sith hee who put∣teth away his wife, not for whoredome, although he cause her to commit adulterie, yet doth not himselfe commit it, vnlesse hee marrie another. Where∣vpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather. Whoso putteth away his wife, not for other cause but for whoredome, and marrieth another, doth commit adulterie. But this though it have not soe many words added, as the Bishop of Auilas, yet in truth it is more violently forced against the na∣turall meaning & drift of the text. For by adding these words Not for other cause, his purpose is to say, that whoso putteth away his wife for noe cause bu•• for whoredome yet committeth adulterie, if hee marrie an∣other; much more if hee marrie having put away his wife for any other

cause. And so is Christs speach in effect made cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe give: he saying Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it befor whoredom: and the Frier ••orceing him to say Whosoe ver shall put a away his wife although it be for whoredom, and shall marrie ano∣ther, doth commit adulterie.k Nicolas of Lira beeing as in time more aun∣cient then the frier, soe more sincere and single in handeling the scrip∣ture, saith that other words must be interposed to the supplying of it thus. Whosever putteth away his wife except it be for••whordom, sinneth, and doth agaiast the lawe of marriage; and whoso marrieth another doth commit ad∣ulterie. Wherein though he deale lesse vyolently with the text, then doe the frier and the Bishop: yet he offendeth also in their licentious humour of adding to the scripture, where nothing was wanting, & ma¦king it ther by to speake that which he thinketh, wheras he should have learned to thinke that which it speaketh. Yea Bell, himselfe acknowledg¦eth that they all were overseene herein, albeeit censuring them with gen¦tler words, as he is wont his favorits and freinds For the explications (saith he) which the Bishop of Auila, Alphonsus a Castro and others have de∣vised, are not so probable.

But why should these be noted by him as improbable, yea denyed unworthy the rehersal, and that of his owne, though adding in the like sorte, which is not lawful, be allowed as probable, yea magnified as most true by the pamphletter? The reason which they both, or rather which Bell.. for the pamphletter doth no more here but Englishe him, as neither els where for the most parte, though he bragg not thereof: the reasons then which Bell. doth presse out of the text to breed a per∣suasion in his credulous schollars that this interposition is probable & likely, are pressed indeed according to the proverb The wringing of the nose causeth bloode to com out. For he saith that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shal marry another, but streight af∣ter those whosoever shall put away and likewise when he added,l and whos•• marrieth her that is put away committeth a••••lterie he did not ioyne thereto, Except it be for whoredom: to the intent that be might shewe that the cause of whoredom doth onely make the putting away to be lawfull, & not the celebrating of a newe marriage too. And how doth he prove that Christ did so place the exception in the former clause to this intent? or to this intent did omit it in the latter? Nay he proveth it not; it is but his cōiecture, like a sicke mans dreame. Vnlesse this goe for a proofe, that Christ did not so place it before without cause, nor omit it afterwarde without cause. Which if he meant it should, it was for want of a better. For Christ did not these things without cause I graunt Therefore he did them for this cause; it foloweth not. S. Paule, having occasion to cite a place of scriptuere

doth set it downe thus Com yee out from among thē,m & seperate your selves saith the Lorde, and touch no unclean thing. Herein he hath placed the wor¦des saith the Lord, not after touch noe unclean thing, but after seperate your selves. This did he not without cause, What? for this cause therefore that he might restraine the words, saith the Lord, to the former braunch as not pertaining to the latter also? No for it appeareth by then pro∣phet Esay that they belong to both. It is to be thought then, that the spirit of God who doth nothing without cause, did move Paule for some cause to place them soe. Perhaps for perspicuitye & comodious∣nesse of giving other men therby to understaude the rather that both the wordes goeing before, & cōming after were quallified with saith the Lord▪ which is to be likewise thought of the exceptiō placed by our Sa∣viour betweē the two braunches of his speech. And that with so much greater reason in my iudgment because if he had placed it after the la∣ter And shall marry another, the words3 except for whoredom might have seemed to signifiie that it were lawful for a man having put away his wife for any cause to marrie another •• if hee could not conteine; as it is writtē4 Because of whoredom let everie man have his wife where now, the exception being set before (the pharises whose question Christ therein did answer) could gather no such poysō out of his words: to feed their error: but they must needs accknowledg this to be his doctrine, that a man may not put away his wife for every cause, & marrie another, but for whoredom onely. As for Christs omitting of the exceptiō afterwrd Bell, himselfe wil quickly see there might be another cause thereof, if he considder how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly o¦mitt the exception, which neverthelesse must needs be supplyed & un∣derstoode. For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons,O the Lord•• gave cōmandement; Let not the wife departe from her husband, & let not the husband put awaie his wife, without adding to either parte, except it be for woredom which the Lord did add? Bell. greatestp Doctor saith hee o∣mitted it Because it was very well knowen most notorius. If then Paul had reason to omitt it wholly because it was so wel knowē: Hoe much more iustly might Christ in parte omitt it for the same cause, having mencioned it imediatly before, & made it knowē thereby? Cheefly see∣ing that as he framed his speech to mens undestāding, so did he follow the cōmen use of men therein. And if I should say upon the like occasiō whosoever draweth his sword, except he be a magistrate, & killeth a man com∣miteteth murder; and whosoever abbetth him that killeth a man committeth murder: what man offence and reason would not thinke I ment the ex¦ception set downe in the former sentence touching māqellers pertein∣eth to the later of there abbetters also, and uttered once must serve for

both? yea even in the former too, who would not thinke that my mea¦ning were the exceptiō should reach, unto both the braunches of draw¦ing the sword, & killing a man; not to be abridged & tyed up unto the first, as if I had said, whosoever draweth his sword (Which none may doe except he be a magistrate) and killeth a man, comitteth murder? yet one who were disposed to play the Iesuits parte,q might thus expound my speech, and say I taught thereby that Peter in deede was iustly repro∣ved for drawing his sword though, he killed not: But magistrates are authorized to draw it, and noe more, not to put men, to death, andr to take vengeannce on him that doth evill. Neither should he doe mee greater wrong▪ there in by making mee to speake cōtrarie to scripture, then Bellarmin doth Christ by the like depraving of the like sentence. But if all these reasons will not persuade his scholars, that in Christs speach the exception of whoredome is to bee extended to both the points iointly of putting away & marrying: and that Bell. adding these words, which is not lawfull, did vnlawfully sow a patch of humaine raggs to the whole garment of Gods most preciōs word: behold their owne doctrine allowed and established by the Councel of Trent, shall force them, will they, nill they to see it & acknowledg it. For if the ex∣ception bee so tyed onely to the former point: Then a man may not putt away his wife for any cause save for whoredome, no not from bed and boord, as they tearme it, that is, from mutuall companie & society of life,s although he marry not another. But the Councel of Trent pro∣nounceth & defineth, that there are many causes, for the which a man may put away his wife from bed and board, wherefore the Papists (no remedie) must graunt that the exception cannot so bee tyed vnto the former point onely. And therefore whereas Bell. sayeth further that he thinketh it ist S. Thomas of Aquines opinion that Christs words should bee expounded so: andv Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde: the Papists peradventure wil bee faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein. For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse butx Tho∣mas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts & chiefest light of the Church of Rome shalbe convinced of errour, even by the Councell of Trents verdict.

And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of another shift, which is coosin german to the last intreated of, & Bell. prayseth it alike. To weete that the words committeth adulterie, must be supplied & un∣derstood in the former parte of Christs sentence thus: Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whoredome, committeth adulterie, & whoso marrieth another committeth adulterie.x Salomon did wisely iudg that shee was not the mo∣ther of the childe who would have it devided; but shee who desired it might bee saved entier.

Surely the Iesuite hath not those bowels of kinde and loving affection to wards Christs sentence that a Christian should. who can finde in his heart to have it devided; & of one living body, namely, Whoesoever put∣teth away his wife, except it bee for whoredome and, marrieth another, commiteth adulterie, made as it were two peeces of a dead carkas, the first, whosoever putteth away his wife except it bee for woredome, commiteth adulterie, the secōd whoso maraieth another cōmiteth adulterie. Which dealing, beside the incōve¦nience of making the s••rpitn ere a nose of waxe & leaden rule, if men may add what pleaseth them, specially if they may mangle senteces, & chop them in sundry parts: but beside this mischief here it hath a grea¦ter, that Christ most true and holly, is made thereby to speake an un∣trueth. For a man may put away his wife for other cause, then for whoredom, and yet not commit adulerie himselfe. Yes he committ∣eth it (saith Bell in his wifes adulterie, whereof he was the cause by putting her uniustly away. But I replie that it is one thing to cause his wife to cō¦mit it, another to cōmit it him selfe. And Christ when he was mynded to note these several faults, did it with several wordss expressing them accordingly. Moreover, undrstanding the tearme, to put away, not as6 the force thereof doth yeeld, & Christ tooke it for the loosing of the band of marriage, but for a seperation from bed and boord onely, as Bell. understandeth it: He cannot allowe the sentēce which he fathe¦reth on Christ, though so expounded, without either condemning of the Trent Councel, er beeing himselfe condemned by it.

For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him, but for whoredome, doth commit adulterie in causing her to commit it: Then is it a sinne to seperate her for any cause save for whoredome.z If it be a sinne the Church of Rome erreth in houlding & decreeing that shee may bee se¦perated for sundry other causes. But whosoever saith that the Church er¦reth herein, is accursed by the Councel ofa Trent. The Councel of Trent therefore doth consequently curse Bellarm. if he say that Christ spake his words in that sence, in which he construeth them. And doth it not curseb Austin also & ^c Theophilact, whom Bell. alleageth as saying the same? at least it declareth that in the Councels iudgment, the fa∣thers missexpounded the Scriptures sometimes, even those verrye pla∣ces on which the Papists cite them as sounde interpreters of the Scrip¦ture. Now the speech of Christ being cleared & saved entier from all cauils, the meaning thereof is plaine, as I have shewed; that he who ha∣ving put away his wife for whoredō marrieth anothetr cōmitteth not adulterie. For so much importeth the exceptō negative of the cause of whoredō, opposed to the general affirmative propositiō, wherwith our Saviour answered the questiō of the pharisies touching divocremēts u∣sed

by the Iewes, who putting awaye there wives for any cause did mar¦rie others.

The onely reasō of adversaries remayning to bee answered, stood vp¦pon, & vrged by them as moste effectuall, & forcible to the contrarie, is an example of like sentences: from which, sith the like conclusiō (say they) cannot be inferred, as wee in ferre of this, the inferrence of this is faultye. And faultie (I graunt) they might esteeme it iustly if the like cō¦clusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences.

But lett the examples, which they bring for poofe here of be trough¦ly sifted▪ & it will appeare that either the sentences are vnlike, or the like conclusions may bee inferred of them. For of three sentences propo∣sed to this end, the first is out of Scripture in S, Iames Epistled To him that knoweth how to doe well, and doth it not, to him there is sinn. A sentence though in shewe vnlike to that of Christs, for the proposition & exception both▪ yet having in deede the force of the like, if it be thus resolved, To him that doth not well, except hee know not how to doe well there is sinn. And why may it not be concluded here of, that there is no sinn to him, who knoweth not how to doe well, & doth it not? because there are sinns of ignoraunce (saith Bellarmin) & he who knoweth not how to doe well, & doth it not, sinneth, though lesse then hee that offendeth wittingly. I kouw not whe¦ther this be a sinne of ignoraunce in Bellarmin, or not, that when he should say (if he will check the cōclusion) there is sinne to ignorant he saith (as if that were all one) the ignoraunt sinneth, Betwene which two things there is a great difference in S. Iames his meauing. For S. Iames in the se words7 there is sinne to him, doth speake emphatically, & noteth in that man the same that our saviour did in the Pharisies, when (because they boasted of their sight & knowledg)e he tould thē that they 8 had sinne: meaning by this Pharse, as himself expoundeth it, that their sin∣ne remained, that is to say, continued and stoodt firme & setled. The cu¦stome of the Greeke tougue wherein S. Iames wrote doth geve this Phra¦se that sense, as also the Syriaque (the lauguage vsed by Christ) trāslating Christs words after the same manner: & the matter treated of doth ar∣gue that he meant not generally of sinue, but of sinne being & cleaving to a man in speciall & pecular sort. For as ^f the servant that knew his Maisters will, and did not according to it, shalbe beaten with many strips: but he that knewe it not, & yet did cōmit things worthy of strips, shal be beaten with fewe. Likewise in transgressiō whereūto the punishment answereth, hee that knoweth how to doe wel, & doth it not, sinne is to him, he hath it, he offend∣eth notably: But he that knoweth not how to doe wel, & doth evil hath not sinne sticking to him, his sinne remaineth not, he sinneth not so gretly & greevously.

Wherfore whē Bell draweth out of that sentence such a cōclusiō as if

S, Iames in saying there is sinne to him, had simply meant, he sinneth; Bel¦larmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence; which if the text it self cannot in forme him,g his doctors well considered may. But take the right meaning & the conclusion wil be sound. Whoesoever doth not good & honest things, except it be of ignoraunce, he sinneth desperatelie & mainely. Therefore whoso of ignorance ommitteth to doe them, he sinneth not desperately. And thus our conclusion drawen from Christs sentence is rather confir¦med thē preiudiced by this example, Yea let evē S.h Austin, whose autho¦ritie Bellarmin doth ground on here in, be diligently marked: & him∣self in matching these sentences together bewrayeth an oversight, which being corrected will helpe the truth with light & strength, For to make the one of thē like the other, hee is faine to fashion Christs speech in this sort: To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredo∣me & marrieth another1 to him there is the cry me of committing adulterie.

Now Christ hath not2 these words of emphaticall propertie, and strong signification, whereby he might teach, as S, Augustin, gathereth, that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause, save for whoredome, and marrieth another, committeth adulterie in an high degree: and so imply by consequence,3 that who soe marrieth another, though having put away his former wife for whoredome, yet committeth adulterie too, a lesse adulterie.

But that which Christ saith is simple flatt, absolute; he committeth ad∣ulterie. And therefore as it may be inferred out of S. Iames, that he who ommitteth the doing of good through ignoraunce, sinneth not with a loftie hand in resolute stifnes of an hardned heart: Soe conclude wee rightly out of Christs wordes that hee who having put away his wife for whoredome, marrieth another, committeth not adulterie in any degree at all.

The first sentence then alleaged by S. Austin & after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scripturs, is soe farr from disprooving, that it prooueth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences. The se∣conde and thirde are out of theire owne braynes: The one of Bell. for∣ging, the other of the Pamphletters; Bellarmins, Hee that stealeth, except it bee for neede, siuneth. The Phampletters. Hee that maketh a lye, except it be for a Vauntage d••th wilfully sinn. Where of they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence, That hee sinneth not, who stealeth for neede: and hee wh•• lyeth for a Vauntage, sinneth not wilfully. A badd inferrence indeed. But the fault there of is, in that these sentences are not like to Christs, For Christs is from Heaven, full of truth and wisdome: These ofmen, fond, and imply vntruth, They might have disputed as fitly to their purpose, and prooved it as forcibly, if they had vsed this example: All

foure-footed beasts except Apes & Monkeis are d••voyd of reason. or this All longeared Creatures except asses are beasts. For hereof it could not be conclu¦ded iustly that Asses are not beasts, & Apes are not devoyd of reasō. No▪ But this perhaps might bee concluded iustly, that hee had not much re¦ason, nor was farre from a beast that would make such sentences. Con∣sidering that all men who write or speake with reason, meane that to be denied in the perticular which they doe except from a general affirmed And therefore sith he sinneth who stealethi though for neede, as the wi¦se man sheweth, and hee that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sinne, yea the more willfully somtymes, because for a vauntage, as when the scribs belyed Christ: It were a verie fond and witlesse speech to say, that Whosoever stealeth, except it bee for neede, sinneth: And whosoever lyeth except it bee for a vauntage doth wilfully sinne. Wherefore these sentences are no more like to Christs, them copper is to gould, or wormewood to the bread of Heaven.

Neither shall they ever finde any sentēce like to his indeede, of which the like conclusion may not be inferred, as we inferre of that. And soe the maine ground of my principall reaso proposed in the beginning, remayneth sure & clearly prooved; that he by Christs sentence commit¦teth not adulterie, who having put away his wife for whoredōe mar∣rieth another. Whereof seeīg it followeth necessarely, that he who hath put away his wife for whoredome, may lawfully marrie another, as I there declared: it followeth by the like necessity, of cōsequence, that the popish doctrine mainteined by our adversaries denying the same, i•• contrarie to the schriptuere and doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Sonne of God.

Notes

• a

  Gene. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Mat. 19. 5.
• b

  Deu 24. 1 Mat. 5. 31.
• c

  M••th. 10. 9
• d

  M•••••• 1. Luk. 6. 18.
• e

  Mat. 19. 1.
• f

  Rom. 7. 2
• g

  vers. 3.
• h

  〈…〉〈…〉
• i

  vers. 28.
• k

  Bel••armin Tom 2 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4 lib••. de ma∣••r••mon 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ cap 15. 〈…〉〈…〉. The Pamp••••et¦ter in his tef••••tation of the discourse to••∣ening the law∣fulnesse of marriadgge af∣ter divorc•• for whoredone.
• 1

  Ni fiob 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cattonem.
• 2

  Extra co•••• ••ornicatinis.
• l

  De adulteri•• conj••g lib. 1 cap 9.
• m

  Retractat lib. ••. cap. 57.
• n

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 adulter. co••••ng. lib. 1. cap 11.
• 3

  Nisi ob Forni¦cationem.
• 4

  Praeter causa Fornicationis
• 5

  Parectós Lò∣gon por neias.
• 6

  ei•• my epi potneia.
• 7

  Except•• causa fornice∣tionis.
• 8

  Parectós.
• O

  〈…〉〈…〉 in the Septuagint Sam. 21. 9 •• Regum. 3. 18
• Co•• ••5. 27. 〈…〉〈…〉
• 9

  〈…〉〈…〉 ••ei mi. Apoc. 9. 4. et. 21. 27.
• q

  ••sa ••. 4. 2. Gualma.
• Prov. 30. 19
• s

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. 20.
• t

  Exod. 22. 20.
• u

  Mat. 10. 18.
• x

  〈◊〉〈◊〉, 2••. 29.
• y

  Phil. 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• z

  L. Qui't 〈◊〉〈◊〉 D. de regul•••• juris.
• a

  Cor. 2. 11.
• b

  Luc. 1••. 3.
• c

  Levi••. ••4. 37.
• d

  ••ze. 18. 13.
• e

  Epes. 28.
• f

  The. ••, 12.
• g

  Hierat. lib. 3. Cap. 3.
• h

  Quaest 76. •• Mat. 19.
• i

  Alphonsia Castro advers h••r lib 11. tit Nuptiae.
• k

  In Matt. 19.
• l

  p••o. 30. 3
• m

  2 cor. 6. 17.
• n

  Esay. 52. 13
• 3

  Ep••••ornela
• 4

  Diatis porne 〈…〉〈…〉 7. 2
• O

  1 Co••. 7. 10
• p

  Tho Aquin •• ••eo••. 7. Lect. 2.
• q

  Matt. 26. 12.
• r

  Rom. 13. 4.
• s

  self. 24. ••. ••
• t

  ••n •• dist. 35. quaest an act 5 adult.
• v

  in Mat. 19.
• x

  Kin. 3. 18
• x

  Kin. 3. 18.
• s

  Poiei autin moichastai & moicharai.
• 6

  Apolve in Lelusai. 1 cor. 7 27.
• z

  Extra tit. de divoti••s.
• a

  Sess. 24. can. 28.
• b

  Lib. c••ntra Adimant••, ca. 3 in Mat. 19. ••
• d

  Iames. 4. 7
• 7

  A marrie au to estin.
• e

  Ioh. 9. 21 Ei••hete a m••••∣tiau.
• Luc 12. 4••
• g

  T••o Aquin Hugh Card et. Guillia••d in Iacob. 4.
• h

  De adult. coujug lib. 1. cap. 9.
• 1

  Moehat••o est i••li
• 2

  Moi•• he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a•• to 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• 3

  〈…〉〈…〉
• i

  pro. 〈◊〉〈◊〉