Defense of Divorce and Remarriage, Chapter 1
OF THE LAVVFVLNES OF MARIAGE VPPON A LAVVFVL DIVORCE.
The first Chapter.
The state of the Question beeing first declared the truth is proved by scripture: that a mā having put away his wife for her adulterie may lawfully marrie another▪
THe dutye of man and woman ioyned in marriage, requireth thataGenes, …. 24, Math, 19. 5. they two should bee as one person, and cleave ech to other with mutuall love and liking in societie of life, vntill it please God, who hath coupled them together in this bonde, to sett them free from it, and to dissociate and sever thē by death, But the inordinate fansies & desires of our corupt nature have soe inveighled Adams seede in many places, that men have accustomed to put awaye their wiues vppon everie trifling mislike & discontentment: yea, the Iewes supposed thēselves to be warrāted by GodsbDeut, 24. 1. Math, 5. 31. lawe to doe it, so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorce mēt. This perverse opiniō & errour of theirs our Saviour Christ reproved teaching that divorcements may not be made for anie cause save whoredome onelyonly. For whosoever (saith he) shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie and who so marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adulterie. Now about the meaning of these wordes of Christ expressed morefully by on of thecMath, 10. 9. Evangelists, bydMar 10. 11. Luk. 6. 18. others more sparingly, there hath a doubt arisen: and diverse men evē from the primative churches time have beē of diverse minds.
For many of the fathers have gathered therevpon, that if a mans wife committed whoredome & fornicatiō, he might not onelyonly put her away, but marrie another. Some others, and amonge them namely S. Augustine, have thought that the man might put away his wife but marrie another he might not.
The Schooledivines of latter years, & the Canōists, as for the most parte they were adicted comonly to S. Austins iudgmēnt, did likewise follow him herein & the Popes mainteining their doctrine for Catholique, have possessed the church of Rome with this opinion. But since in our dayes the light of good learning both for artes & tongues hath shined more brightly by Gods most gracious goodnes then in the former ages, and the holy scriptures by the help thereof have bene the better vnderstoode: the Pastors and Doctors of the reformed Churches have percieved & shewed, that if a mans wife defile her self with fornication, he may not onelyonly put her away by Christs Doctrine but also marrie another. Wherein that they teach agreeably to the truth, and not erroneously, as Iesuits & Papists doe falsly and vniustly charge them. I will make manifest and prove (through Gods assistance) by expresse words of Christ, the truth it self. And because our adversaries doe weene that the cōtrarie hereof is strongly proved by sundrie arguments and obiecttions, which two of their newest writers Bellarmin the Iesuit & a namelesse author of an English pamphlet, have dilligētly laid together: For the farther clearing therefore of the matter, and taking away of doubts & scruples I will set downe all their obiections in order, first out of the scriptures then of fathers, last of reasons, and answer everie one of them particularly. So shall it appeare to such as are not blinded with a fore-conceived opinion and prejudice, that whatsoever shewe of probabilities ate brought to the contrarie, yet the truth delivered by our Saviour Christ alloweth him whose wife committeth fornication to put her away and marrie another.
The proofe hier of is evident if Christs wordes be weighed in the niententh Chapter of S. Mathews gospell. ForeMath. 19. 3. when the Pharises asking him a question, whether it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for everie cause, received answer that it was not, and therevpon saide vntounto him, Why did Moses then commande to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way: Our Saviour sayde vntounto them; Moses suffered you because of the hardnes of your harte to put awaye your wifes: But from the beginning it was not so. And I say vntounto you, that, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for whoredome, and shall marrie another, doth commit adulterie: and who so marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adulterie.
Now in this sentence, the clause of exception [except it bee for whoredome] doth argue that he commiteth not adulterie, who, having put away his wife for whoredome marrieth another.
But he must needes commit it in doing so vnles the band of marrirge be loosed and disolved. For who so marrieth another as long as he isfRom. 7▪ vers 2 boūde to the former,gvers, 3. is an adulterer. The band then of marriage is loosed & dissolved betwene that man and wife who are put assunder and divorced for whoredome.
And if the band beloosed, the man may marry another: seing it is writtenh1, Cor, …. vers. 27. Art thou loosed from a wife? If thou marrie thou sinnest not. ivers. …8.Therefore it is lawfull for him who hath put away his wife for whoredome to marrie another.
This argument doth firmly and necessarily cōclude the point in question, if the first parte & proposition of it be proved to be true. For there is no controversie of any of the rest: beinge all grounded on such vndoubted principles of scripture & reason, that our adversaries themselves admit and graunt them all.
The firstkBessa…min Tom, 2 contr 4 libr. de matrimonij sacr. cap. 5 16. et 7 The Pamphlet ter in his refutation of the discourse touching the law fulnesse of marriadge after divorceior whoredome. they denie to weete that the clause of ex…eption in Christs speech [except it be for whoedome] doth argue that the mā committeth not adulterie, who, having put awaie his wife for whoredome, marrieth another. And to overthrowe this proposition, they doe bring soudry answers and evasions. The best of all which as Bellarmin avoucheth, is, that those words [except it bee for whoredome] are not an exception. For Christ (saith he) ment those words 1Nisi ob for nicationem.[except for whoredome] not as an exception, but as a negation. So that the sence is whosoever shall put awaie his wife. except for whoredome; that is to saie 2Extra cousā fornicationis.without the cause of whoredome, & shall marrie another doth commit adulteric. Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put awaie his wife without the cause of whoredoe, marrieth another: but nothing is sayde touching him who marrieth another, having put away his former wife for whore dome. In deede this evasion might have some collour for it, if these words of Christ [except it be for whoredome] were not an exception. But neither hath Bellarmin ought that maye suffice for the proofe hereof and the verie text of the …cripture it selfe is soe cleare against him, that he must of necessitie give over his houlde. For the principal pillar wherewith he vnderunder proppeth it, is S.lDe adulte… in conjug: lib …cap. 9. Austins iudgmēt, who hath so expounded it in his first booke touching adulterous marriages: Now of that treatise S. mRetractat. lib. 2. cap. 57.Austin saith himselfe in his retractations I have written two bookes touching adulterous marriages, as neere as I could according to the scripturs being desirous to open and loose the knotts of a most difficult question. Which whether I have done so that no knott is left therein, I know not: nay rather I perceave that I have not done it perfectly, and throughly, although I have opened many creeckes thereof, as whosoever readeth with iudgment may discerne. S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that there are some wants & imperfectiōs in that worke which they may see who reade with iudgment. And whether this that Bellarmin doth alleage out of it, deserve not to fal within the cōpasse of that cēsure I appeale to their iudgmēt who have eies to see: For S. Augustin thought that the word in the orignial of S. Mathews gospel, had, by the Proper significatiō of it, imported a negation rather then an exception. AsnDe adulter. con…ug lib. 1. cap. 11. he sheweth by saying that where the common Latin translation hath 3Ni…i ob Fornicationem[except for whoredome] in the Greeke text it is rather read 4Piaeter causam Fornicationiswithout the cause of whoredome. Supposing belike (whether by slipp of memory or rather oversight)5P…ctós Lògou porneias. that the same words, which were vsed before in the fift Chapter of S. Mathews Gospel to the same purpose, were vsed also in this place: whereas here they6ei…my epi porneia differ, and are well expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so well. Howbeit, if thy had bene the same with the former: yet neither so might Bellarmin allowe his opinion: considering that the comon latin trāslation (which Papists by there Councel of Trent are bound to stande to vnderunder paine of ourse) expresseth7Excepta causa fornicationis those likewise as a plaine exception.
Which in deede agreeth to the right and naturall meaning of the8Parectòs. particle, asoAct 26. 29. Parectoè ton desmou so patex in the Septuagint Sam. 21 9. 1 Reg. 3. 18. the like writers vse it in like construction: evenp1. Cor. 15. 27 then to, whē it hath as it were a link lesse to tie it vntounto that meaning. Wherefore S,Ektos tou hypo taxanto…. Austins mistaking of the worde and significatiō thereof is noe sufficiēt warrāt for Bellarmin … to ground on, that they must be taken so. As for that he addeth, that, albeit9Parectòs … & ei mi …. ei mi▪ Apo… 9. 4. …, 27. both these particles be taken exceptively often times, yet may they also be taken otherwise, sith… one of thē is vsed in the Revelation as an adversative, not an exceptive: this maketh much le…e for proofe of his assertion. For what if it be vsed there as an adversative where the matter treated of, and the tenour of the sentence doe manifestly argue that it must be taken so? Must it therefore be taken so in this place, whereof our questiōn is? or doth Bellarmin, proove by any circumstance of the text, that here it may be taken so? No. Neither saith he a worde to this purpose. Why men…ioneth he then that it may-be takē otherwise, and is in the Revelation, for an adversative particle? Truely I know not: vnlesse it be to shewe that he can wrangle, and play the cavelling sophister in seeming to gainsay and disprove his adversarie, when in trueth he doth not. Or perhaps, though he durst not say for the particular, that it is taken here as an adversative, which he coulde not but most absurdly: Yet he thought it policie to breede a surmise thereof for the generall, that shallower conceits might imagin another sence therein, they knew not what; and they whose brasen faces should serve them thereto, might impudently brable, that our sence is not certaine, because another is Possible, evē as if a Iew beeing pressed by a Christian with the place ofqEsay. 7. 14. 2. Gnalma. Esay, Behoulde a virgin shall conceave, and bring forth a Sonne should answer that the Hebrue worde translated Virgin, may be taken otherwise sith that in therProv. to. 19. Proverbs it signifieth a married woman: at least one that is not a Virgin in deede, though shee woulde seeme to be, But as the Iew cānot conclude hereof with any reasō, that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay; because the thinge spoken of is a straunge signe & it is not straunge for a married womā to conceave and bring forth a Sonne: so neither can the Iesuite conclude of the former, that the particle in Mathew is ment adversatively; because the words then doe breede noe sence at all; in which sorte to thinkethat any wise man spake, were solly; that Christ the worde and wisdome of God were impietie. Nay if some of Bellarmins schollers shoulde say that words must bee supplied to make it percit sence, rather than their maister bee cast of as a wrāgler: they would be quickely forced to pluck in this horne, or els they might chance to leape (which is worse) out of the frying pan into the fire. For adversative particles import an opposition and contrariety vntounto that sentence agaynste which they are brought in Now, the sentence is, that who so put teth away his wife and marrieth another, doth commit adulterie.
Wherefore, hee by consequent, cōmitteth not adulterie who doth so for whoredome: If the particle bee adversative, and must have words accordingly supplied, & vnderstood to make the sence percttt. Thus the shift and cavill which Bellarmin hath drawen out of the double meaning of the Greeke worde, is either idle and beateth the aire; or if it strike any, it striketh himselfe, & giveth his cause a deadly wound. Yea that which he principally sought to confute, hee hath confirmed thereby.
For sith the worde hath onelyonly two significations exceptive, and adverstive, neither durst he say that it is vsed here as an adversative. it foloweth he must graunt it to be as an exceptive: & soe the place rightly translated in our English (agreeable to the other in the 5. of Mathew) except it be for whoredoe, which as in their authēticall latin text also doth out of controversie betokē an exception.
Having al passages therefore shutt againste him for scaping this way, he sleeth to another starting hole: to weete, that if the worde be taken exceptively, yet may it be an exception negative.
And this (he saieth) sufficeth for the maintenance of S. Austins answer. For when it is said, whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of whoredome, and shall marrie another doth commit adulterie: the cause of woredome may be excepted, either because in that case it is not edul…erie to marrie another; and this is an exception affirmative: or because nothing is pres…tly determined touching that cause, whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or noe; and this is an exceptiō negative, which in that S. Austin imbraced he did well. I would to God Bellarmin had S. Austins modestie. Then would hee be ashamed to charge such a man with imbracing such whorish silth of his owne fansing, as in this distinction of negative and affirmative exception he doth. For he handleth it soe l…wdly and porversly, by calling that affirmative, which in deed… is negative, and by avouching that to be negative, which is not: as if he had made a covenant with his lipps to lye, treadinge in the stepps of those wicked wretches of whom it is written sEsay, 5. 20woe vntounto them who say that good is evill, and evill good. For the proofe whereof it is to be noted that an excepton is a particular proposition contradictorie to a generall: So that if the generall proposition be affirmative, the exception is negative, and if the proposition be negative contrarywise, the exception is affirmative.
As for exsamples sake tExod. 22. 20He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lorde onelyonly, shalbe destroyed saieth Moses in the lawe. The proposition is affirmative, He that sacrificeth to my Gods shalbe destroyed.
The exception negative. He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed.uMar. 10. 18. There is none good, but one, even God. saith Christ in the Gospell. The proposition is negative There is none good. The exception affirmative. One is good, even God.xAct. 26. …. I would to God that all (layth Paul to Agrippa) which heare me this daye, were alltogether such as I am, except these bonds. The proposition affirmative. I wish that all which heare me were such as I am altogether. The exceptiō negative. I wish not in bonds they were such as I amyPhil. 4. 10. No Church did communicate with me in the account of giving & receiving …saving you onelyonly sayth the same Paul to the Phillippians. The Proposition negative No church did cōmunicate with me in the account of giving and receiving. The exceptiō affirmative You of Philippi did.
Likewise in all the rest of excep…tions adioyned to generall propositions, though the markes and tokens, as of generalitie sometymes lye hidden in the proposition, soe of denying or affirming doe in the exception: Yet it is plaine and certaine, that the proposition and exception matched with it, are still of contrarie quallitie, the one afirmative if the other negative, and negative, if the other affirmative. Which thing beeing soe: see now the Iesuits dealing, how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth & reasō. For sith in Christs speach, touching Divorcement for whoredome; the proposition is affirmative Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marrie another, doth commit adulterie: it foloweth that the exception which denieth him to commit adulterie, who putting away his wife for whoredome, marrieth another, is an exception negative, But Bellarmin sayth that this were an exception affirmative. Yea which is more straunge in a man learned & knowing rules of logique (But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgment to their owne lusts and errors?) he ētiteleth it an exceptiō affirmative, even then and in the same place, when & where himselfe having set it downe in the words going immediarly next before, had given it the marke ōf a negative, thus, It is not adulterie to marrie another. And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone, he addeth fault to fault, saying that this is an exceptiō negative, When no thing is presently determined touching the cause, whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or no. So first to denie with him was to affirme: and next, to say nothing, now is to deny. Yet there is a rule in zL. Qui racet D. de regulis juris.Law that he who saith nothing, denieth not. Belike, as they coyned vsus new Divinity at Rome: so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too. Howbeit, if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie, that negative is affirmative & to say nought is negative: I see not but al heretickes & vngodly persons, may as well as Iesuits, mainteyne what they list, & impudently face it out with like distinctions. For if an adversarie of the H. Ghost should be controuled by that we reade to the Corinthiās a1. Cor. 2. 11.The things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God: His answer (after Bellarmins patterne) were readie, that this proveth not the spirit of God to know those things, because it might be a negative exception. importing that S. Paul woulde determine nothing presently thereof. If one who dispaired of the merciemercy of God through conscience of his sines, & trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinnersbLuk. 13. 3. Yee shall all perish except yee repent: He might replie thereto that the exceptiō is negative; and this, though not in the former poynt, yet here were true; but to make it serve his humour. he must expounde it with Bellarmin, that Christ doth not determin what shall become of the repentant. If a vsurer should be tolde that hecLovit. 2…. 37 is forbidden to Give forth vponupon Vsurie, dEzek. 18, 13.or to take encrease: & a theefe that he iseEphes. …. 28 commanded To labour & woorke, & f2. Thess. 3 12so to eate his owne breade; they might (if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin) defend their trades both, the one by affirming, that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it, the other, that to commande be tokeneth to forbid. In a worde, whatsoever opinion were reproved as false, or action as wicked, out of the scriptures, denouncing death eternall and paynes of hell thereto: the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of, by glosing thus vponupon them, that false is true and wicked holy: life ment by death, and heaven by hell. Or if the papists them-selves would condemne this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places, as senselesse and shamelesse: then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negative is afirmative, and to say nothing is to denie. Whi…h whether they doe, or no, I will, with the cōsent & liking (I do…bt not) of all indifferent iudges, and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention, conclude, that these lying gloses of the Iesuits doe not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a pr…terition or passing over a thing in silence (which if Christ had ment, hee could have done with fitt words, as wise men are wont) but a flat denying of that in on case, which the proposition affirmeth in all others: it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech them who for whore dome put away their wives, denieth that in them, which in all others he affirmeth; and thereby teacheth vsus that the man who putting away his wife for that cause, marrieth another, doth not commit adulterie.
The next trick of Sophistrie, whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them, is that the exception ought to be restreined to the former branche of putting away the wife onelyonly. To the which intent, they say that there are some words wanting in the text which must be supplied and perfected thus; Whosoever shall put away his wife (which is not lawfull except it be for whoredome) and marrieth another, doth commit adulterie. This devise doth Bellarmin allowe of as probable, though not like the foresayd two of negation and negative exception. But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all. And surely if it were lawfull to foist in these words which is not lawfull: the Pamphletter might seeme to have shewed greater skill herein then Bellarmin. But men of vnderstanding and iudgmēt doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule (as gHierar. lib. 3 Cap. 3.Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it) if every one may adde not what the circūstances & matter of the text sheweth to bee wanting, but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof as pleaseth his conceit and fansie. The sundrie interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may (to go noe further) sufficiently discover the fault and incōvenience of that kinde of dealing.
ForhQuaest 76. in Math. 19. the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wife, except it bee for whordome, though he marrie not another, committeth adulterie, and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sorte, if he marrie another, doth commit adulterie. Freier Alphō sus iAlphons a Castro advers hae… lib 1 …. tit Nuptiae.checketh and controlleth this interpretation, partly as too violent, for thrusting in so many words; partly as vntrue, for the former braunch of it: sith hee who putteth away his wife, not for whoredome, although he cause her to commit adulterie, yet doth not himselfe commit it, vnlesse hee marrie another. Wherevpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather. Whose putteth away his wife, not for other cause but for whoredome, and marrieth another, doth commit adulterie. But this though it have not soe many words added, as the Bishop of Auilas, yet in truth it is more violently forced against the naturall meaning and drift of the text. For by adding these words Not for other cause, his purpose is to say, that whoso putteth away his wife for noe cause but for whoredome yet committeth adulterie, if he marrie another; much more if hēe marrie having put away his wise for any other cause. And so is Christs speech made in effect cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe geve: hee saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome: and the frier forcing him to saie Whosoever shall put awaye his wife although it bee for whoredome, and shall marrie another, doth commit adulterie. kIn Matt, 19Nicolas …f Lira beeing, as in time more auncient then the frier, soe more sincere and single in handling the scripture, saith that other words must bee interposed to the supplying of it thus. whoso putteth away his wife except it bee for whoredome, sinneth, and doth agaynst the lawe of marriage; and whoso marrieth another doth commit adulterie. Wherein though hee deale lesse vyolently with the text, then doe the frier and the Bishop: yet hee offendeth also in their licētious humour of adding to the scripture, where nothing was wanting, and making it thereby to speake that which hee thinketh, whereas he should have learned to thinke that which it speaketh. yea Bellarmin him self acknowledgeth that they all were overseene herein, albeeit censuring them with gentler words, as he is wont his favorites and freinds. For the explicationsl (sayth hee) which the Bishop of Auila, Alphonsus a Castro, and others have devised, are not soe probable.
But why should these be noted by him as improbable, yea denyed vnworthy the rehersall, and that of his owne, though adding in the like sorte, which is not lawfull, be allowed as probable, yea magnyfied as most true by the pamphletter? The reasons which they both, or rather which Ballarmin, for the pamphletter doth no more here but English him, as neither els where for the most parte, though hee bragg not thereof: the reasōs then which Bellarmin doth presse out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous schollers that this interpositō is probable and likely, are pressed indeed according to the proverb; The wringing of the nose causeth bloode to come out. For hee sayth that Christ did not place the exception after those words And shall marrie another, but straight after those whosoever shall put awaie lProv 30. ….and likewise when hee added, and whoso marrieeth her that is put away committeth adulterie hee did not ioyne thereto; Except it bee for whoredome: to the intent that hee might shewe that the cause of whoredome doth onelyonly make the putting away to be lawful, & not the celebrating of a newe marriage too. And how doth he prove that Christ did soe place the exception in the former clause to this intent? or to this intent did omit it in the latter? Nay hee proveth it not; it is but his coniecture, like a sick mans dreame. Vnlesse this goe for a proofe, that Christ did not so place it before without cause, nor omit it afterwarde without cause. Which if hee meant it should, it was for want of a better. For Christ did not these things without cause I graunt Therefore he did thē for this cause; it foloweth not. S. Paule, having occasion to cite a place of scripture doth set it downe thus.m2 Cor, 6. … Come yee out from among thē, & seperate your selves saith the Lorde, and touche noe vncleane thing. Herein hee hath placed the words sayth the Lord, not after touch noe vncleane thing but after, seperate your selves. This did he not without cause, What? for this cause therefore that he might restraine the words, sayth the Lord, to the former branch as not pertayning to the later also? No for it appeareth by thenEsay 52, 1… Ptophet Esay 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 vnderstand the rather that both the words going before, and cōming after were qualified with sayth the Lord. which is to be likewise thought of the exception placed by our Saviour betweene the two branches of his speech. And that with soe much greater reason, in my iudgment because if hee had placed it after the later And shall marrie another, the words▪ Epi porneia.Except for whoredome might have seemed to signifie that it were lawfull for a man having put away his wife for any cause,Dia tis porneia, to marrie another, if hee could not conteine; as it is written4…1. Cor, 7, 2 because of whoredome, let every man have his wife: where now, the exception being set before (the pharisies whose question Christ therein did answer) could gather noe such poyson out of his words: to feede their error: but they must needes acknowledge this to be his doctrine, that a man may not put away his wife for everie cause, and marry another, but for whoredome onelyonly. As for Christs omitting of the exception afterward, Bellarmin himself will quickly see there might bee another cause thereof, if hee consider how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omitt the exception, which neverthelesse must needes bee supplyed and vnderstoode. For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons, o1, Cor. 7. 10.the Lorde gave commaudement; Let not the wife departe from her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife; without adding to either parte, except it bee for whoredome, which the Lord did add? Bellarmi…s greatest pTho, Aquin in 1 Cor 7. …ect. 2.Doctor saith that hee omitted it because it…was very well knowne, most notorious. If then S, Paul had reason to omitt it wholy because it was so well knowne: How much more iustly might Christ in parte omitt it for the same cause, having mentioned it immediatly before, & made it knowne thereby? Chiefly s…ing that as hee framed his speech to mens vnderstanding, so did he folow the common vse of men therein. And if I should say vponupon the like occasion whosoever draweth his sword, except he be a magistrate, and killeth a man committeth murder; and whosoever abbetteth him that killeth a man committeth murder: what man of sense and reason would not thinke I meant that the exception set downe in the former sentence touching māquellers pertaineth to the later of there abbetters also, and vttered once must serve for both? yea, even in the former too, who would not thinke that my meaning were the exceptiō should reach, vntounto both the branuches of drawing the sword, & killing a man; not to bee abridged & tyed vp vntounto the first, as if I had said, whosoever draweth his sword (which none may doe except he bee a magistrate) & killeth a man, committeth murder? yet one who were disposed to play the Iesuites parte, might thus expound my speech, and say I taught thereby that Peter in deede was iustly reproved for drawing his sword though,qMat 26. 12. he killed not: But magistrates are authorized to draw it, and noe more, not to put men, to death, &rRom. 13. 4 to take vengeaunce on him that doth evill. Neithet should he doe mee greater wrong▪ there in by making mee to speake contrarie to scripture, then Bellarmin doth Christ by the like depraving of the like sentence. But if all these reasons will not persuade his scholars, that in Christs speach the exceptiō of whordome is to be extēded to both the points iointly of putting away & marrying: & that Bellarmin adding these words, which is not lawfull, did vnlawfully sow a patch of humaine raggs to the whole garment of Gods most precious word: behold their owne doctrine allowed & established by the Councel of Trēt, shall force them, will they, nill they to see it & acknowledg it. For if the exceptiō be so tyed onelyonly to the former point: Then a man may not putt away his wife for any cause save for whoredome, no not from bed and boord, as they tearme it, that is, from mutuall cōpanie & society of life, although he marry not another. But the Councel of Trēt pronounceth and defineth,sSes… 24. cā. 8 that there are many causes, for the which a man may put away his wife from bed and board, wherefore the Papists (no remedie) must graunt that the exceptiō cannot so bee tyed vntounto the former point onelyonly. And therefore whereas Bellarmin sayeth further that he thīketh it istGh 4. dist 35. quaest an …ct. S. Thomas of Aquines opiniō that Christs words should bee expounded so: & uadult.Ierom seemeth some what to bee of the same minde: the Papists peradventure wilbe faine to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein. For els not onelie Ierom of whom they reckon lesse butxIn Mat. 19. Thomas of Aquine the sainct of Saincts & chiefest light of the Church of Rome shalbe conviuced of errour, even by the Councell of Trents verdict.
And these consideracions doe likewise stopp the passage of another shift, which this coosin german to the last intreated of, and Bellarmin prayseth it alike. To weete that the words committeth adulterie, must be supplied and understood in the former parte of Christs sentence thus: Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whoredome, committeth adulterie, and whoso marrieth another committeth adulterie. xKing … 18Salomon did wisely iudg that shee was not the mother of the childe who would have it devided; but shee who desired it might bee saved entier. Surely the Iesuite hath not those bowels of kinde and loving affection towards Christs sente…ce that a Christiā should, who can finde in his heart to have it devided; & of one living body, nāely, Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whordōe and, marrieth another, cōmitteth adulterie, made as it were two peeces of a dead carkas, the first, Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it bee for whoredome, committeth adulterie, the secōd, whoso marrieth another cōmiteth adultrie. Which dealing, beside the incōveniēce of making the scripture a nose of waxe & lead̄e rule, if men may add what pleaseth thē, spetialy if they may also māgle sentēces, & chop thē in sundry parts: but beside this mischief here it hath a greater, that Christ most true and holy, is made thereby to speake an vntruth. For a man may put away his wife for other cause, then for whoredome, & yet not cōmit adulterie himselfe. Yes, hee committeth it (sayth Bellarmin) in his wives adultery, whereof hee was the cause by putting her vniustly away. But I reply that it is one thing to cause his wife to cōmitt it, another to commit it himself. And y Christ when hee was minded to note these severall faults, did it with5Poiei autin moichastai & molcha…ai. severall words expressinge them accordinglye. Moreover, vnderstandinge the tearme, to put away, not as6Apolue in Lelusai. 1 cor. …27, the force thereof doth yeeld, & Christ tooke it for loosing of the bād of marriage, but for a sepe ration from bed, and boord onelyonly, as Bellarmin vnderstandeth it: He cannot allowe the sentence which hee fathereth one Christ, though soe expounded, without either condemning of the Trent Councel, or beeing himself condemned by it.
For if whosoever seperateth his wife from him, but for whoredome, doth committ adulterie in causing her to committ it: Then is it a sinne to seperate her for any cause save for whoredome. If it bee a sinne: ThezExtra tit. de divortij… Church of Rome erreth in houlding and decreeing that shee may bee seperated for sundrie other causes. But whosoever sayth that the Churche erreth herein, is accursed by theaSess… 4, can. 28, Councell of Trent. The Councell of Trent therefore doth cōsequently curse Bellarmin, if hee say that Christ spake his wordesin that sense, in which he cōstrueth them. And doth it notcursebLib. contra Adimant, cap 3. Austin also, &cin Matt, 19. Theophilact, whō Bellarmin alleageth as saying the same? at least it declareth that in the Coūcels iudgment, the fathers missexpoūd the Scrip tures sometymes, even those verie places on which the Papists cite thē assounde interpreters of the scripture. Now the speech of Christ being cleared & saved entier from all cavils, the meaning thereof is playne, as I have shewed, that he who having put a way his wife for whoredōe marrieth another, cōmitteth not adulterie. For soe much importeth the exception negative of the cause of whoredōe, opposed to the generall affirmative propositiō, wherewith our Saviour answered the question of the Pharisies touchcing divorcemēts vsed by the Iewes, who putting awaye there wives for any cause did marrie others.
The onelyonly reason of adversaries remayning to bee answered, stood vppon, and vrged by them as moste effectuall, and for cible to the contrarye, is an example of like sentences: from which, sith the like conclusion (say they) cannot bee inferred, as wee inferre of this, the inferrence or this is faultye. And faultie (I graunt) they might esteeme it iustly if the like conclusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences.
But lett the examples, which they bring for proofe here of be throughly sifted: And it will appeare that either the sentences are vnlike, or the like conclusitons may bee inferred of them. For of three sentences proposed to this end, the the firste is out of Scripture in S. Iames EpistledIame…, 4. 17 To him that knoweth how to doe well, and doth it not, to him there is sinn. A sentence though in shewe vnlike to that of Christs, for the proposition and exception both: yet having in deede the force of the like, if it be thus resolved. To him that doth not well, except hee know not how to doe well there is sinn. And why may it not be concluded hereof, that there is no sinn to him, who knoweth not how to doe well, & doth it not? because there are sinns of ignoraunce (saith Bellarmin) & he who knoweth not how to doe well, and doth it not, sinneth, though lesse then hee that offendeth wittingly. I knowe not whether this be a snine of ignorauns in Bellarmin, or no, that when he should say (if he will check the conclusion) there is sinne to ignorant he saith (as if that were all one) the ignoraunt sinneth. Ama…tia auto estiu.Betwene which two things there is a great difference in S. Iames his meaning. For S. Iames in these words, there is sinne to him, doth speake emphatically, & noteth in that man the same that our saviour did in the Pharisies, when (because they boasted of their sight & knowledg)eIoh 9, 41. Eicheteamarti…n. he told thē that they … had sinne: meaning by this Phrase, as himself expoundeth it, that their sinne remained, that is to say, continued and stoodt firme & setled. The custome of the Greeke tongue wherein S. Iames wrote, doth geve this Phrase that sense, as also the Syriaque (the language vsed by Christ) translating Christs words after the same manner: & the matter treated of doth argue that he meant not generally of sinne, but of sinne being & cleaving to a man in spetiall & peculiar sort. For asfLuk. 12, 47 the servant that knew his Maisters will, and did not according to it, shalbe beaten with many stripes: but he that knew it not, and yet did committ things worthy of stripes, shalbee beaten with fewe. Likewise in trāsgression whereto the punishment auswereth he that knoweth how to doe well, & doth it not, sinne is to him, hee hath it, he offendeth not ably: But he that knoweth not how to doe well, & doth evill, hath not sinne sticking to him, his sinne remaineth not, hee sinneth not so greatly & greivously. Wherefore when Bellarmin draweth out of that sentence such a conclusiō as if S. Iames in saying there is sinne to him, had simply meant, hee sinneth; Bellarmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence; which if the text it self cannot informe him,gTho Aquin Hugo Card et Guilliand. in Iacob. 4 his doctors well considered may. But take the right meaning & the conclusion wilbe sound. Whosoever doth not good and honest things, except it he of ignoraunce, he sinneth desperatelie & mainely. Therefore whoso of ignorance omitteth to doe them, he sinneth not desperately. And thus our conclusion drawen frō Christs sentence is rather confirmed thē preiudiced by this example. Yea let even. S. hDe adult. conjug. lib. 1. cap. 9.Austin, whose authoritie Bellarmin doth ground on herein, be diligently marked: And himself in matching these sentēnces together bewrayeth an oversight, which being corrected will helpe the truth with light & strēgth. For to make the one of thē like the other, hee is faine to fashion Christs speech in this fort: To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredome & marrieth another, 1Moechat…o est illito him there is the cryme of committing adulterie. Now Christ hath not2Moicheia au to esti… these words of emphaticall propertie, and strong signification, whereby he might teach, as S. Angustin gathereth, that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause, save for whoredome, and marrieth another, comitteth adulterie in an high degree: and soe imply by consequence, that who soe marrieth another, though having put away his former wife for whoredome, yet committeth adulterie too, a lesse adulterie.
But that which Christ saith is simple, flatt, absolute;3Moichatai. he committeth adulterie. And therefore as it may be inferred out of S. Iames, that he who omitteth the doing of good through ignoraunce, sinneth not with a loftie hand in resolute stifnes of an hardned heart: Soe conclude wee rightly out of Christs wordes that hee who having put away his wife for whoredome, marrieth another, committeth not adulterie in any degree at all.
The first sentence then alleaged by S. Austin and after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scripturs, is soe farr from disprooving, that it prooveth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences. The seconde and thirde are out of theire owne braynes: The one of Bellarmins forging, the other of the Pamphletters: Bellarmins, Hee that stealeth, except it bee for neede, sinneth. The Pamphlctrers: Hee that maketh a lye… except it bee for a Vauntagoe doth wilfully sinn. Whereof they say it were a wrong and badd inferrence That hee sinneth not, who stealeth for neede: and hee who lyeth for a Vauntage, sinneth not wilfully. A badd inferrence indeed. But the fault therof is, in that these sentences are not like to Christs. For Christs is from Heaven, full of truth and wisdome: These of men, fond, and imply vntruth. They might have disputed as fitly to their purpose, and prooved it as forcibly, if they had vsed this example: All foure-footed beasts except Apes and Monk…is are devoyd of reason. or this All longeared Creatures except asses are beasts. For hereof it could not bee concluded iustly that Asses are not beasts, and Apes are not devoyd of reason. No. But this perhaps might bee concluded, iustly, that he had not mu…h reason, nor was farre from a beast that would make such sentences. Considering that all men who write or speake with reason, meane that to be denied in the perticular which they doe except from a generall affirmed. And therefore sith hee sinneth who stealethiProv 30, 9. though for neede, as the wise man sheweth, and hee that lieth for a vauntage doth willfully sinne, yea the more wilfully somtymes, because for a vauntage, as when the s…ribs b…lyed Christ: It were a verie fond and witlesse speech to say, that Whosoever stealeth, except it bee for neede, sinneth: And whosoever lyeth except it bee for a vauntage doth wilfully sinne. Wherefore these sentēces are no more like to Christs, thē copper is to gould, or wormewood to the bread of Heaven.
Neither shall they ever finde any sentence like to his indeede, of which the like conclusiō may not be inferred, as we inferre of that. And soe the maine ground of my principall reason proposed in the beginning, remayneth sure & clearly prooved: that he by Christs sentence cōmitteth not adulterie, who having put a way his wife for whoredome marrieth another. Whereof seeing it followeth necessarely, that he who hath put away his wife for whordōe, may lawfully marrie another, as I there declared: it followeth by the like necessity, of cōsequēce, that the popish doctrine mainteined by our adversaries denying the same, is contrarie to the scripture & doth gainsay the truth delivered by the Sonne of God.