Judgement OF THE Reformed Churches, That a man may lawfully not only put away his Wife for her Adultery, but also marry another.  
LONDON, Printed for Andrew Crook at the Green Dragon in Paul's Churchyard. 1652.   

OF THE lawfulness OF marriage upon A lawful DIVORCE.  
THE FIRST CHAPTER.  
The state of the Question being first declared the truth is proved by schriptuere: that a man having put away his wife for her adultery may lawfully marry another.  
THe duty of man and woman joined in marriage, requireth that 
a Gene. 2. 〈◊〉. Mat. 19 5.  they two should be as one person, & cleave each to other with mutual love & liking in society of life, until it please God, who hath coupled them tog●ther in this bond, to set th●m free from it, and to dissociate & sever them by death. But the inordinat fancies & desires of our corrupt nature have so inveigeled Adam's seed in many places, that men have accostomed to put away their wives upon every trifling mislike & discontentement: yea jeuwes supposed themselves to be warranted by God's 
b deum 24. 1 Mat. 5. 31.  law to do it, so that whosoever put away his wife gave her a bill of divorcement. This perverse opinion & error of theirs our Saviour 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 more fully by by on of the 
c M●th. 10. 9  evangelists, by 
d M●●● 1. Luk. 6. 18.  others more sparingly, there hath a doubt arisen: and diverse men even from the primitive church's time have been of diverse minds.  
For many of the Fathers have gathered thereupon, that if a man's wife committed whoredom & fornication, he might not only put her a way, but marry another. Some others, and among them namely S. Austin, have thought that the man might put away his wife but marry another he might not,  
the Scholedevins of later years, & the Canonists, as for most part they were all addicted to S. Austin's judgement, 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 and tongues hath shined more brightly by God's most gracious goodness then in the former ages, and the holly scriptures by the help thereof have been the better understood: the Pastors & Doctors of the reformed churches have percieved & showed, that if a man's wife defile herself with fornication, he may nor 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 charge them. I will make manifest & prove (through God's assistance) by express words of Christ, the truth itself. And because our adversaries do ween that the contrarie hereof is strongly proved by sundry arguements & objections, which two of their newest writers Bell. the Jesuit & a nameless author of an English panphlet, have dilligenely laid together; For the farther clearing therefore of the matter, & taking away of doubts & scruples, I will set down all there objections in order, first out of the scriptures, then of fathers, last of reasons and answer every one of them particularly. So shall it Appeaaes to suh as are not blinded with a fore conceived opinion & prejudice, that whatsoever show of probabilities are brought to the contrary, yet the truth delivered by our Saviour Christ allowetls him whose wife committeth sornication, to put her away, and to marry another  
The proof hoereof is evidnnt if the words of Christ be weighed in the nienteuth Chapter of S, Mat. gospel For when the Pharises asking him a question, whether it were lawful for a man to put away his wife for every catses, received answer that it was not, and thereupon said unto him, Why did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and to put her a way: Our saviover said unto them; Moses suffered you because of the hardness of your heart to put away 
e Mat. 19 1.  your wives: 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 this in sentence, the clause of exception [except it be for whoredom] doth argue that he committeh 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 marriage be loosed and dissolved. For who so marrieth another as long as he is 
f Rom. 7. 2  bound to the former 
g vers. 3.  is an adulterer. The band then of marriage is loosed & dissolved between that man & wife who are put asunder and divorced for whoredom.  
And if the band beloosed, the man may marry another: seeing it is written 
h 〈…〉  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, 
i vers. 28.   
This argument doth firmly and necessarily conclude the point in question, if the first part and 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 and reason, that our adversaries themselves admit and grant them all.  
The first 
k Bel●armin Tom 2 〈◊〉 4 lib●. de ma●r●mon 〈◊〉▪ cap 15. 〈…〉. The Pamp●●etter in his tef●●tation of the discourse to●ening the lawfulness of marriadgge after divorc● for whoredone.  they deny to weet that the clause of exception in Christ's speech [except it before whoredom] doth argue that the man 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 Bellarmin avoucheth, is, that those words [except it be for whoredom] are not an exception, For Christ (saith he) meant those words 
1 Ni fiob 〈◊〉 cattonem.  [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 
2 Extra co●●●ornicatinis.  without the cause of whoredom, & shall marry another doth commit adultery. Whereby it is affirmed that he is an adulterer who having put away his wife without the cause of whoredom, marrieth another: but nothing is said touching him who marrieth another, having put away his former wife for whoredom. In deed this evasion might have some colour for it if these words of Christ [except it be for whoredom] were not an exception. But neither hath Bellarmin ought that may suffice for the proof here of and the very text of the scripture itself is so clear against him, that he must of necessity give over his hold. For the principal pillar wherewith he underproppeth it, is 
l De adulteri● conj●g lib. 1 cap 9  S. Austin's iudgement who hath so expounded it in his first book touching adulterous marriages: Now of that treatise S. 
m Retractat lib. ●. cap. 57  Austin saith himself in his retractations I have written two books touching adulterous marriages, as near as I could according to the scriptuers being desirous to open & lose the knots of a most difficult quests on. Which whether I have done so that no knot is left therein, I know not; nay rather I perceive that I have not done it perfectly; and throughly, all though I have opened many creeckes thereof, as whosoever readeth with judgement may discern. S. Augustin then acknowledgeth that there are some wants and imperfections in that work which they may see who read with judgement. And whether this that Bellarmin doth allege out of it, deserve not to fall within the compass of that censure I appeal to their judgement who have eyes to see: For S. Augustin thought that the word in th' original of S. Math gospel, had, by the proper signification of it, imported a negation rather than an exception. And 
n 〈◊〉 adulter. co●●ng. lib. 1. cap 11.  he showeth by saying that where the Latin translation hath 
3 Nisi ob Fornicationem.  [except for whoredom] in the Grieke text it is rather read 
4 Praeter causa Fornicationis  without the cause of whoredom:  
Supposing belike (whether by slip of memory or rather oversight) 
5 Parectós Lògon por neias.  that the same words, which were used before in the fift Chapter of S. Math. Gospel to the same purpose, were used also in this place: where as here they 
6 ei● my epi potneia.  differ, and are well expressed by that in the latin by which S. Austin thought they were not so well. Houbeit, if they had been the same with the former: yet neither so might Bell. allow his opinion; considering that the common latin translation (which Papists by their council of Trent are bound to stand to under pain of curse, expresseth 
7 Except● causa fornicetionis.  those likewise as a plain exception.  
Which in de●de agreeth to the right and natural meaning of the 
8 Parectós.  particle, as 
O 〈…〉 in the Septuagint Sam. 21. 9 ● Regum. 3. 18  the like writers use it in like construction: 
Co●●5. 27. 〈…〉  even then to, when it hath as it were a link less to tie it unto that meaning. Wherefore S. Austin's mistaking of the word & signification thereof is no sufficient warrant for Bell. to ground on, that they must betaken so. As for that he addeth, that, albeit 
9 〈…〉 ●ei mi. Apoc. 9 4. et. 21. 27.  both these particles be taken exc●ptively ofte● times, yet may they also be taken otherwise, sith on of them is used in the revelationas an adversative not an exceptive● this maketh much less for proof of his as●ertion. For what if it be used there as an adversative where the matter treated of, & 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 question is? or doth Bellar. 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 taken otherwise, and is in the Revelaton, for an adversative particle? Truly I know not unless it be to show that he can wrangl●, and play the cavilling sophister in seeming to gainsay & 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 thou●ht it policy to breed a surmise there of 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 brabble, that our sense is not certain because another is possible, even as a Jew being pressed by a Christian with the place of 
q ●sa ●. 4. 2. Gualma.  Esay, behold a v●gin shall conceive, and bring forth a son should answer that the H●brue word translated Virgin, 
Prov. 30. 19  may be taken othrwise sith 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 reason, that the word signifieth a married woman in Esay; because the thing spoken of is a strange sign and it is not strange for a married wommen to coceave and bring forth a son: so neither can the Jesuite conclude of the former, that the particle in Math. is meant adversatively; because the words than do bear no sense at all; in which sort to think that any wiseman spoke, were folly; that Christ the word and wisdom of God were impiety. Nay if some of Bell. scholars should say that words must be supplied to make it perfect sense, rather than their Maiester be cast of as a wrangeler: they would be quickly enforced 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 & contrariety unto the sentence against which they are brought in. Now, the sentence is, that who so putteth away his wife & marrieth another, doth commit adultery.  
Wherefore he by consequent, committeth not adultery who doth so for whor●dome: If the particle be adversative, and must have words accordingly supplied; & understood to make the sense perfect. Thus the shift & cavil which Bell. hath drawn out of the double meaning of the Greike word, is either idle & beateth the air; or if it strike any, it striketh himself, and giveth his cause a deadly wound. Yea that which he sought to confute, he hath confirmed thereby. For sith the word hath only two significations exceptive, & adversative, neither durst he say that it is used here as an adversative, it followeth he must grant 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 authentical latin text also doth out of v betoken an exception. Having all passages therefore shut against him for scaping this way, he fleeth to another starting hole: to weet, that if the word 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 said, whosoever shall put away his wife excepting the cause of whoredom and shall marry another doth commit adultery: the cause of whoredom may be excepted, either because in that case it is not adultery to marry another; & this is an exception affirmative: or because nothing is presently determined touching that cause, whether it be sufficient to excuse adultery or Noah; and this is an exception negative, which in that S. Aust. embraced he did well. I would toe God Bell. had S. Aust. modesty. Then would he be ashamed to chargs such a man with embracing such whorish filth of his own facsing, are in distinction of negative and affirmrtive exception he doth. Fo● h●e handleth it so lewdly and perv●rsely, by calling that affirmative which in deed is negative, & by a●ouching that to be negative, which is not: as if he had made a covenant with his lips to lie, treading in the steps of those wicked wretches of whom it is written 
s 〈◊〉. 5. 20.  woe unto them▪ that say that good is evil, and evil good. For the proof where of it is to be noted that an exception is a particular proposition contradictory to a geneaall: 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 examples sake 
t Exod. 22. 20.  He that sacrificeth to any Gods save to the Lord shall be destroyed saith Moses in the law. The proposition is affirmative, He that sacrificeth to any Gods shall be destroyed. The exception negative.  
He that sacrificeth to the Lord shall not be destroyed 
u Mat. 10. 18.  There is none good, but one, even God saith Christ in the gospel. The proposition is ngative, There is none good. The exception affirmative. One is good even God 
x 〈◊〉, 2●. 29.  I would to God that all (saith Paul to Agrippa) which hear me this day, were altogether such as I am, except these bonds. The proposition affirmative. I with that all that hear me were such as I am altogether. The exception negative. I wish not in bonds they were such as I am. 
y Phil. 4. 〈◊〉  No Church did communicate with me in the account of giving & receiving, saving you only saith the same Paul to the Phillippians. The Proposition negative, No Church did communicate with me in the account of giving & receiving. The exception affirmative You of Phillipp● did.  
Likewise all the rest of expositions adjoined to general propositions, though the marks and tokens of generality sometimes lie hidden in the Proposition, so of denying or affirming do in the exception: Yet it is plain & certain that in the proposition & exception matched with it, are still of contrary quality, the one affirmative, if the other negative, & negative if the other affirmative. Which being so: see now the Jesuits dealing, how falsely and absurdly he speaketh against truth and reason.  
For sith in Christ's speech to●hing divorcement for whoredom; the proposition is affirmative●Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry an other, doth commit adultery: it followeth that the exception which denyeth him to commit adultery who putting away his wife for whoredom, marrieth another, is an exception negative, but Bellarmin saith that this were an exception affirmative. Yea which is more strange in a man learned and knowing rules of logic (But what can arts help when men are given over by God's just iudgemnt to their own lusts and errors?) he entiteleth it an exception affirmative, even then and in the same place when and where himself having set it down in the words going immediately next before, had given it the mark of 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 exception 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 
z L. quied 〈◊〉 D. de regul●● juris.  Law that he who faith nothing, dieneth not, Belike, as they coined us neuw Diviniti at Rome: so they will new law and new Lodgique too. Houbeit, if these principles be allowed therein by the Jesuits authority, that negative is affirmative & to say nought 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 wy read to the Corinthians 
a Cor. 2. 11.  The things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God: His answer (after Bellarmine's 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 wolude determine nothing presently thereof. If one who dispaired of the mercy of God through conscience of his sine, & trespasses should be put in mind of Christ's speech to sinners 
b Luc. 1●. 3.  ye shall all perish except ye repent: He Might reply thereto that the exception is negative; and this though not in the former point, yet here were true; but to make it serve his humour. He must expound it with Bellarmin, that Christ doth not determine what shall become of the repentat. If a usurer should be told that he 
c Levi●. ●4. 37.  is for bidden to Give forth upon usury, 
d ●ze. 18. 13.  or to take increase: & a thief that he is 
e Epes. 28.  commanded To labour & work, & 
f The. ●, 12.  so to eat his own bread; they might (if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin) de●end their trades both, the one by affirming, that to forbid a thing is to say nothing of it, the other, that to command betokeneth 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 glozing thus upon them, that false is true & wicked holy: life meant by death, & heaven, by hell. Or if the Papists themselves would condemned this kind of distinguishing and expounding places, as senseless and shameless: then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmine's that neg●tive is afirmative, and to say nothing is to deny; Which whether they do, or not I will, with the consent and liking (I doubt not) of all indifferent judges, and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention, conclude, that these lying gloss of the ●esuits do not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a preterition 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 whoredom 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 branch 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 device doth Bell. allow of as probable, though not like the foresaid two of negation and negative exception. But our English pamphleter preferreth it before all. And surely if it were lawful to foist in these words which is not lawful: the pamphleter might seem to have showed greater skill herein then Bellarmin. But men of understanding & iudgment do know that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of wax and leaden rule (as 
g Hierat. lib. 3. Cap. 3.  Pighuis doth blasphemously term it) if every one may add not what the circu●stances and matter of the text showeth to be wanting, but what himself listeth to frame such sense there of 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 & inconvenience of that kind of dealing.  
For 
h Quaest 76. ● Mat. 19  the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wifs, 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. Frei●r Alphonsus 
i Alphonsia Castro advers h●r lib 11. tit Nuptiae.  checketh and controlleth this interpretation, partly as too violent, for thrusting in so many words; partly as untrue, for the former braun, h●of it: sith 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. whereupon the friar would have it thus supplied rather. Whoso putteth away his wife, not for other cause but for whoredom, and marrieth another, doth commit adultery. But this though it have not so many words added, as the Bishop of Auilas, yet in truth it is more violently forced against the natural 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 no cause bu● for whoredom yet committeth adultery, if he marry another; much more if he marry having put away his wife for any other cause. And so is Christ's speech in effect made clean contrary to that which his own words do give: he saying Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it before whoredom: and the friar ●orceing him to say Whosoe ver shall put a away his wife although it be for whoredom, and shall marry another, doth commit adultery. 
k In Matt. 19  Nicolas of Lira being as in time more ancient than the friar, so more sincere and single in handling the scripture, saith that other words must be interposed to the supplying of it thus. whos'ever putteth away his wife except it be for●whordom, sinneth, and doth agaiast the law of marriage; and whoso marrieth another doth commit adultery. Wherein though he deal less violently with the text, then do the friar and the Bishop: yet he offendeth also in their licentious humour of adding to the scripture, where nothing was wanting, & making it there by to speak that which he thinketh, whereas he should have learned to think that which it speaketh. Yea Bell, himself acknowledgeth that they all were overseen herein, albeit censuring them with gentler words, as he is wont his favourites and friends For the explications (saith he) which the Bishop of Auila, Alphonsus a Castro and others have devised, are not so probable.  
But why should these be noted by him as improbable, yea denied unworthy the rehearsal, and that of his own, though adding in the like sort, which is not lawful, be allowed as probable, yea magnified as most true by the pamphleter? The reason which they both, or rather which Bell.. for the pamphleter doth no more here but English him, as neither else where for the most part, though he brag not thereof: the reasons than which Bell. doth press out of the text to breed a persuasion in his credulous scholars that this interposition is probable & likely, are pressed indeed according to the proverb The wring 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, 
l p●o. 30. 3  and whos● marrieth her that is put away committeth a●●lterie he did not join thereto, Except it be for whoredom: to the intent that be 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 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 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 afterwards 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 them for this cause; it followeth not. S. Paul, having occasion to cite a place of scriptuere doth set it down thus come ye out from among them, 
m 2 cor. 6. 17.  & separate yourselves saith the Lord, and touch 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 latter also? No for it appeareth by the 
n Esay. 52. 13  prophet Esay that they belong to both. It is to be thought then, that the spirit of God who doth nothing without cause, did move Paul for some cause to place them so. Perhaps for perspicuitye & commodiousness of giving other men thereby to understaude the rather that both the words going before, & coming after were qualified with saith the Lord▪ which is to be likewise thought of the exception placed by our Saviour between the two branches of his speech. And that with so much greater reason in my judgement because if he had placed it after the later And shall marry another, the words 
3 Ep●●ornela  except for whoredom might have seemed to signifiie 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 
4 Diatis porne 〈…〉 7. 2  Because of whoredom let every man have his wife where now, the exception being set before (the pharises whose question Christ therein did answer) could gather no such poison 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, & marry another, but for whoredom only. As for Christ's omitting of the exception afterward Bell, himself will quickly see there might be another cause thereof, if he considder how S. Paul repeating this doctrine of Christ doth wholly omit the exception, which nevertheless must needs be supplied & understood. For why doth S. Paul say that to married persons, 
O 1 Co●. 7. 10  the Lord● gave commandement; Let not the wife depart from her husband, & let not the husband put away his wife, without adding to either part, except it be for woredom which the Lord did add? Bell. greatest 
p Tho Aquin ●●eo●. 7. Lect. 2.  Doctor saith he omitted it Because it was very well known most notorious. If then Paul had reason to omit it wholly because it was so well known: Hoe much more justly might Christ in part omit it for the same cause, having mentioned it immediately before, & made it known thereby? Chiefly seeing that as he framed his speech to men's understanding, so did he follow the come use of men therein. And if I should say upon the like occasionwhosoever draweth his sword, except he be a magistrate, & killeth a man commiteteth murder; and whosoever abbetth him that killeth a man committeth murder: what man offence and reason would not think I meant the exception set down in the former sentence touching manqellers pertaineth to the later of there abetters also, and uttered once must serve for both? yea even in the former too, who would not think that my meaning were the exception should reach, unto both the branches 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) and killeth a man, committeth murder? yet one who were disposed to play the Jesuits part, 
q Matt. 26. 12.  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, and 
r Rom. 13. 4.  to take vengeannce on him that doth evil. Neither should he do me greater wrong▪ there in by making me to speak contrarie to scripture, than Bellarmin 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 exception of whoredom is to be extended to both the points jointly of putting away & marrying: and that Bell. adding these words, which is not lawful, did unlawfully sow a patch of human rags to the whole garment of God's most pretions word: behold their own doctrine allowed and established by the council of Trent, shall force them, will they, nill they to see it & acknowledge it. For if the exception be so tied only to the former point: Then a man may not put 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, 
s self. 24. ●. ●  although he marry not another. But the council of Trent pronounceth & 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 exception cannot so be tied unto the former point only. And therefore whereas Bell. sayeth further that he thinketh it is 
t ●n ● dist. 35. quaest an act 5 adult.  S. Thomas of Aquines' opinion that Christ's words should be expounded so: and 
v in Mat. 19  Jerom seemeth some what to be of the same mind: the Papists peradventure will be fain to say that Bellarmin was deceived herein. For else not only Jerom of whom they reckon less but 
x Kin. 3. 18  Thomas of Aquine the saint of saints & chiefest light of the Church of Rome shall be convinced of error, even by the council of Trent's verdict.  
And these considerations do likewise stop the passage of another shift, which is cousin german to the last entreated of, & Bell. praiseth it alike. To weet that the words committeth adultery, must be supplied & understood in the former part of Christ's sentence thus: Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whoredom, committeth adultery, & whoso marrieth another committeth adultery. 
x Kin. 3. 18.  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 entire.  
Surely the Jesuite hath not those bowels of kind and loving affection to wards Christ's sentence that a Christian should. who can find in his heart to have it divided; & of one living body, namely, Whoesoever putteth away his wife, except it be for whoredom and, marrieth another, committeth adultery, made as it were two pieces of a dead carcase, the first, whosoever putteth away his wife except it be for woredome, committeth adultery, the second whoso maraieth another committeth adultery. Which dealing, beside the inconvenience of making the s●rpitn ere a nose of wax & 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 greater, that Christ most true and holly, is made thereby to speak an untruth. For a man may put away his wife for other cause, then for whoredom, and yet not commit adultery himself. Yes he committeth it (saith Bell in his wife's adultery, whereof he was the cause by putting her unjustly away. But I reply that it is one thing to cause his wife to commit it, another to commit it himself. And Christ when he was minded to note these several faults, did it with several words 
s Poiei autin moichastai & moicharai.  expressing them accordingly. Moreover, undrstanding the term, to put away, not as 
6 Apolve in Lelusai. 1 cor. 7 27.  the force thereof doth yield, & Christ took it for the losing of the band of marriage, but for a separation from bed and board only, as Bell. understandeth it: He cannot allow the sentence which he fathereth on Christ, though so expounded, without either condemning of the Trent council, ere 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. 
z Extra tit. de divoti●s.  If it be a sin the Church of Rome erreth in holding & decreeing that she may be separated for sundry other causes. But whosoever saith that the Church erreth herein, is accursed by the council of 
a Sess. 24. can. 28.  Trent. The council of Trent therefore doth consequently curse Bellarm. if he say that Christ spoke his words in that sense, in which he construeth them. And doth it not curse 
b Lib. c●ntra Adimant●, ca. 3 in Mat. 19 ●  Austin also & Theophilact, whom Bell. allegeth as saying the same? at least it declareth that in the counsels judgement, the fathers missexpounded the Scriptures sometimes, even those very places on which the Papists cite them as sound interpreters of the Scripture. Now the speech of Christ being cleared & saved entire from all cavils, the meaning thereof is plain, as I have showed; that he who having put away his wife for whoredom marrieth anothetr committeth not adultery. For so much importeth the excepton negative of the cause of whoredom, opposed to the general affirmative proposition, wherewith our Saviour answered the question of the Pharisees touching divocrements 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, & urged by them as most effectual, & forcible to the contrary, is an example of like sentences: from which, sith the like conclusion (say they) cannot be inferred, as we in far of this, the inference of this is faulty. And faulty (I grant) they might esteem it justly if the like conclusions could not be drawn from the like sentences.  
But let the examples, which they bring for poofe here of be throughly sifted▪ & it will appear that either the sentences are unlike, or the like conclusions may be inferred of them. For of three sentences proposed to this end, the first is out of Scripture in S, James Epistle 
d James. 4. 7  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 & 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 here of, that there is no sin to him, who knoweth not how to do well, & doth it not? because there are sins of ignorance (saith Bellarmin) & he who knoweth not how to do well, & doth it not, sinneth, though less than he that offendeth wittingly. I kouw not whether this be a sin of ignorance in Bellarmin, or not, 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, between which two things there is a great difference in S. James his meaving. For S. James in the se words 
7 A marry au to estin.  there is sin to him, doth speak emphatically, & noteth in that man the same that our saviour did in the Pharisees, when (because they boasted of their sight & knowledge) 
e Ioh. 9 21 Ei●hete a m●●tiau.  he told them that they 8 had sin: meaning by this Pharse, as himself expoundeth it, that their sin remained, that is to say, continued and stood firm & settled. The custom of the Greek tongue wherein S. James wrote doth give this Phrase that sense, as also the Syriaque (the lauguage used by Christ) translating Christ's words after the same manner: & the matter treated of doth argue that he meant not generally of sinew, 
Luc 12. 4●  but of sin being & cleaving to a man in special & pecular sort. For as the servant that knew his Master's will, and did not according to it, shall be beaten with many strips: but he that knew it not, & yet did commit things worthy of strips, shall be beaten with few. Likewise in transgression whereunto the punishment answereth, he that knoweth how to do well, & doth it not, sin is to him, he hath it, he offendeth notably: 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 & greevously.  
Wherefore Whenbell draweth out of that sentence such a conclusion as if S, James in saying there is sin to him, had simply meant, he sinneth; Bellarmin mistaketh the meaning of the sentence; which if the text itself cannot in form him, 
g T●o Aquin Hugh Card et. Guillia●d in Jacob. 4.  his doctors well considered may. But take the right meaning & the conclusion will be sound. Whoesoever doth not good & honest things, except it be of ignorance, he sinneth desperately & mainly. Therefore whoso of ignorance ommitteth to do them, he sinneth not desperately. And thus our conclusion drawn from Christ's sentence is rather confirmed then prejudiced by this example, Yea let even S. 
h De adult. coujug lib. 1. cap. 9  Austin, whose authority Bellarmin doth ground on here in, be diligently marked: & himself in matching these sentences together bewrayeth an oversight, which being corrected will help the truth with light & strength, For to make the one of them like the other, he is fain to fashion Christ's speech in this sort: To him who putteth away his wife without the cause of whoredom & marrieth another 
1 Moehat●o est i●li  to him there is the cry me of committing adultery.  
Now Christ hath not 
2 Moi● he 〈◊〉 a● to 〈◊〉.  these words of emphatical property, and strong signification, whereby he might teach, as S, Augustin, gathereth, that whosoever putteth away his wife for any cause, save for whoredom, and marrieth another, committeth adultery in an high degree: and so imply by consequence, 
3 〈…〉  that who so 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 flat, absolute; he committeth adultery. And therefore as it may be inferred out of S. James, that he who ommitteth the doing of good through ignorance, sinneth not with a lofty hand in resolute stiffness of an hardened heart: so 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 & after him pressed by our adversaries out of the scriptures, is so far from disprooving, that it prooveth rather the like conclusions from the like sentences. The second and thirde are out of their own brains: The one of Bell. forging, the other of the pamphleteers; Bellarmine's, he that stealeth, except it be for need, siuneth. The Phampletters. he that maketh a lie, except it be for a vantage doth wilfully sin. Where of they say it were a wrong and bad inference, That he sinneth not, who stealeth for need: and he wh● lieth for a vantage, sinneth not wilfully. A bad inference indeed. But the fault there of 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 fourfooted beasts except Apes & monkeys are d●voyd of reason. or this All longeared Creatures except asses are beasts. For hereof it could not be concluded justly that Asses are not beasts, & Apes are not devoid of reason. No▪ But this perhaps might be concluded justly, that he had not much 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 sith he sinneth who stealeth 
i pro. 〈◊〉  though for need, as the wise man showeth, and he that lieth for a vantage doth wilfully sin, yea the more wilfully sometimes, because for a vantage, as when the scribs belied 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 vantage doth wilfully sin. Wherefore these sentences are no more like to Christ's, them 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 conclusion may not be inferred, as we infer of that. And so the main ground of my principal reaso proposed in the beginning, remaineth sure & clearly proved; that he by Christ's sentence committeth not adultery, who having put away his wife for whoredone marrieth another. Whereof seeing it followeth necessarily, that he who hath put away his wife for whoredom, may lawfully marry another, as I there declared: it followeth by the like necessity, of consequence, that the popish doctrine maintained by our adversaries denying the same, i● contrary to the schriptuere and doth gainsay the truth delivered by the son of God.   

THE SCCOND CHAPTER.  
The places of Scripture aleadged by our adversaries to disproove the lawful liberty of Marriage after Divorcement for adultery, are Proposed, Examined, and proved not to make against it.  
saint Austin in his learned books of Christian Doctrine, wherein he gives rules how to find the right & true sense of Scriptures, doth well 
a De doctr. Christ li●b. 2. cap. 9  advise the faithful, First to search & mark those things which are set down in the Scriptures plainly, and then to go in hand with sifting & discussing of the dark places: that the darker speeches may be● made evident by Patterns & examples of the more plain & manifest, & the records of certain & undoubted sentences may take away doubt of the uncertain.  
This wholesome & judicious counsel of S, Austin if our adversaries had been as careful to follow, as they are willing to show the follow him in these things which he hath written less advisedly: they would not have alleged & urged the places of Scripture, which they do against the point of doctrine hitherto proved out of the 19 of S. Matthew. For Christ in that place doth open the matter & decide the question most plainly & fully: of purpose answering the Pharises. In others, either it is not handled of of purpose, but incidetly touched, or in generality set down more briefly, & so more darkly & obscurely.  
Wherefore if any of the other places had seemed unto them to raise a scruple, and show of some supremacy: they should have taken pains to explain & level it by that in S. Math. the darker by the clearer, the brieffer by the larger, the uncertein & ambigguous by the undoubted & certain. But seeing they have chosen to follow S. Austin's oversights rather then his best advices in like sort as Furrius, an orator of Rome did imitate Fimbria whose force of speech and arguements he attained not to, but pronounced broadlye & set his mouth awry like him: we must say of them as Christ of the Pharese ●Let them alone, thy are blind leaders of the blind: and ourselves endeavour to follow S. Austin in that he followed Christ, who cleared the 
b Cicero lib. 2 deorat.  darker place of Moses by 
c mat 15. 14.  the plainer word & ordinance of God, 
d Matt 19 7  The which if we do, we shall (by God's grace) easily perceive, 
e vers. 4. et 8.  that none of all the places aleadged by our adversaris, doth make against the doctrine already proved & concluded.  
For the first of them is in the 5. of Math. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it he for whoredom, doth cause her to commit adultery, And whoso marrieth her that input away doth commit adultery, These words (saith Bell. and look what Bell. saith the, the pamphleter saith with him, so that one of their names may serve for both (and reason Bellarmin have the honour) These words. And whose marrieth her that is put away doth commit adtltery, must be either generally taken without exception, or with the exception, Except it be for whoredom. If generally, than he who marrieth her that is put away, even for whoredom too doth commit adultery, The hand then marriage is not dissolved and loosed by her putting away: but company debarred only, For he that marrieth her should not commit adultery unless she were bound yet to her former husband. And thus far Bellarmin saith well: but superfluously. For the words may not be generaly taken, sith they have relation to the former senten●e, whereto they are coupelld; and that sentence speaketh of her which is pnt away except for whoredom, Their meaniug then must needs be that he who marrieth her which is so put away doth commit adultery. Neither could Bell. be ignorant hereof, or doubt with any likelihood, but that this is our iudgment, & would be our answ●r. Wherefore his two forked dispute about the words, was aflourish only to make us afraid: as if he fought with a two hand sword, which would kill all that came in his way But now he goeth fore ward upon his enemy's pike, an sayeth 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, & consequently the whore is in better case than the innocent & chaste, For the whore is free & 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 & state, that is justly put away, than her that is unjustly. For answer unto which reason of Bell. I would spurr him a question, whether by the Pope's law, which forbiddeth a man that 
g Extra de bigan●s cap. 〈…〉.  hath been twice married, or 
h ● de big●u●is.  hath married a widow, to take holly 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 whoremoger be so by the Pope's law, whether we ought to 
i c Qui●●irc●●  iugde that this is most absurd or Noah. Here if he should answer that the Pope's law is not most just & therefore no marvel if it have some such things as were most absurd to be imagined by Christ's law: I must acknowledge he spoke reason. Well, I would spurr him then another question, whether he think that I am in better case then any Jesuit, yea, than the best of them all. Fie he will answer, there is no comparison. The best? nay the worst of them is in better case than I am: 
k Ext●● c. 〈◊〉 in imu●, Qui cler●ci vel. vo●en●e●  Yet I may marry if I list: and none of them may because of their vow (Belike this Vow-Doctrine was not establishede by the law of Christ, Which is most just, but by the Pope's law rather. Or it is most absurd that a poor Christiane should he in better case, 
l Corn Taci●us Annal lip 4 Dio. ib. 7  than the proudest Jesuit. But here peradventure the man will say rather that we are H●retiqu●s, and they Catholics, and the meanest Catholic is in better case, even for his faith's sake, than any heretic watsoever: which if he do as it is likely, neither can he say aught with probability but to this effect, than hath he confuted and overthrown his 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 chastity's sake. though she may not marry, then watsoever whore that may. And I hope he will not say that the stews and cuttizans at Rome are in better case then honest matrons there divorced from their husbands. Yet may none of these, while their husbans live be joined to others, whereas the curtizaus are free to marry whom they will, if any will marry them who are so free. Howbeit, lest any place of cavilling be left him, and of pretending a different 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 demonstratipn thereof in married persons. Sianus (as the Roman history recordeth) did put away his wife Aipicata viustly: thereby to win the rather the favour of Livia, which was the wife of Drusus. Livia being carried a way with the wicked enticements of Sianus was not only nought of her body with him, but consented also to make away her husband Drusus with poison. Now let Bell. tell us whether of these two were in bettir case Apicata or Livia; Lovia the adulteress and murderess of her husband, being free to marry, or chafed Apicata being bound to live solitary. If he say Livia should have been put to death by the 
m Lege Pompeia de par●icidis  Roman law because of her murdnr & then had she not been in better case thenapecata 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, & so the doubt here ceased 
n Iev●● 20. 10.  too. But the law of Moses being left vnexe●uted on the adulterous woman, as the Roman was for the time of Livia; let Bellarmin 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 than an honest chaste, religious matron, that is put away from her husband unjustly.  
Which if he dare not say, 
o Dent. 28. 15  considderinge one the one siden the plagues that in this life, and 
p Revel, 21. 8  in the life to come are laid up for such miscreants, on the other the blessed 
q ● Tim. 4. 8  promises of them both assured 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, 
●Nam Per, mearia libeia ester nube●e Potest innocens autem in inste ●●missa, ne● p●i ●●mvirium habere Potest, hec alteri ●●●ubere  who hath unjustly put her away. Wherein this notwithstanding is to be weighed that a chaste woman's case is not so hard in comparson of the whores.  
No, Not for marriage neither, as Bellarmin by cunning of speech would make it seem to countenance therewith his reason, For he srameth his words so, as if the chaste had no possibility of remedy at all, neither by having her former husband, nor by marrying another: & therefore were in worse case then the whore who is free to marry, whereas the truth is, that by Christ's law she not 
r Cor. ●. ver 11  only may but 
s vers, 4  aught to have her former husband.  
And why should not she be as likely to recover her husband's good will, to whom she had been faithful: as a faithless whore and infamous strumpett to get a new husband?  
Chiefly seeing that it is to be presumed they loved each other when they married: 
t Teren●. Andt.  and experience showeth that Failing out of Lovers is a renewing of love. But if trough the forwardness of men on the one side, and foolishness on the other, the chaste wife could hardly reconcile her husdand, the whore get easily a match it fuffi●eth that the law of Christ cannot be justly char●d with absurdity, though it do enlarg the unchaste and lewd in some outward thing, in which it enlargeth not the chaste, 
v Ier. 1● 1.  No more than the providence of God may be controlled and noted of iniquity though 
x psal 73 5.  the evil & wi●ked enjoy certain earthly blessings in this life, which are not granted the upright & godly. Wherefore the first place of Scripture out of S. Matthew and forced by Bell. with his 
2 Di●emmal 〈…〉 logismus.  horned argument (as the Logitions term it) doth serve him as much to annoy our cause; as the Iron horns made in A●habs favour by Zedechiah the false prophet did stand him in stead to push & consume the host of the Aramiters.  
The second place is written in the tenth of mark. 
y Mark 10. 1●.  Who so putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery against her: and if a woman put away her husband, & be married to another she committeth adultery. The like whereof is also in the sixtenth of Luke 
z Luk 16. 18  whosoever putte●th away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery: & whoesoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. These words (Saith Bellarmin) do teach generally that marriage contracted & perfected between the faithful, is never so dissolved that they May lawfully joinin 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 Evanghelist doth add oftentimes that another ommitteth; 
a Mat. 19 9  and Matthew else where contrary unto Mark & Luke, which (sith they all wrote as they were moved by the holy-spirit of truth) is impossibel: Bell: replieth that the Evangelists in deed omit or add somewhat now and then, which other Evangelists 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 speciality, though not expressed in the same place, yet by conference with others, is understood to be expressed. Sure the civil law which in learned men's opinions hath much truth, will then bestained fowlly with untruths & lies. For how many sentences & rules set down in it with full & general terms, whereof not withstanding there is none 
b Lomm●t definitio D. de regul juris  lightly but suffereth an exception. The Canon law also (whose credit & authority. Bellarmin must tender, hewsoever he do the civil▪ hath store of such axioms, and 
c Eodtitin Sext ● General pe● Speciem derogatur ● Dig ● in tot● jure.  teacheth accordingly That a perticulaer doth derogate from the general. But what speak I of mens laws? In the scripture itself Job saith that 
d Iob. 20 7.  the hypocrite shall perish for ever, like the dung and David, that the 
e psal. 9 17  wicked shall turn into hell, all nations that forget God, & Solomon that 
f Prov. 1●. 5  every proud hearted man is an abomination to the Lord, though hand join in hand he shall not be unpunished. 
g Luk. 13. 3.  These sentences of Job & David & Solomon, 
h Esay. 1 et 55. 7. Luk. 3, 8 Act. ●, 18.  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 judgement they are made false. And Jonas semblably, when he preached to the Ninivits 
i Jonas. 3. 4  yet forty days, and Ninive shall be overthrown, acused them with an untruth: though learned men do find a truth in his speech, as to be thus taken that Niniveh should be overthrown except it repented. 
k Aben Ezra●● Ier. 1●. 7 Mic Ly●anus. 10. Ferus. ●tem, et ●n. ●●onam.  Or if Bellarmin also acknowledge the same, which he may not choose, unless of a Jesuit he will become a Julian, and quite renounce the Christian faith: hen acknowledgeth he that he playeth the part of a gui●ful Sophister or a malicious rhetorician, in signifinge that the sentence of Christ is made false, if it be expounded and understood with an exception other where expressed. And with all by consequence he acknowledgeth farther, that it is an idle and brainsick amplification which hereuppon he lavisheth out Jesuit like and vainly mispendeth pains & times about it, by saying that else (if the sentence forsooth were false) the Evangelists had dece●ved men to whom they delivered their gospels making no mentnon of other Evangelists and that when Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome receved by the preaching of Peter, he did not send the Romans' back to Matthew's gospel, as to a commentary: Nay if Matthew's gospel had been then at Rome: in the hand of the faytfuull, it may be well thought that mark whould not have written, and that Mark wrote not to add aught to Matthew, as John did afterward, but only that the Romans' might the better remember that which Peter taught: For 
l lib. cap●  Irenaee 
m lib. 2. hist. cap. 15.  Eusebius and 
n ●lib, de viris● justribus in Marco.  Jerom give this cause; and that Luke wrote his Gospel for those nations to whom Paul had preached, and unto whom the book of Matthew and Mark were not yet come, but certayve false writings of False evangelists only: as 
o Luc. 1. 1  himself showeth briefly, and it is more clearly gathered out of 
p comen in Luc cap. 1.  Ambrose, 
q lib●. hist cap. 24.  Eusebius and 
r lib. de viri● illustribus i● Luca.  Ierom.  
And in conclusion, that the things therefore which Mark and Luke say, must be ahsolutely true, & not depend of Matthew's words, unless our meaning be that they were deceived, who did read Mark or Luk without Matthew For by this reason of Bellarmin the words of Job, David, Solomon and Jonas, must be absolutely true, & not depend of Christ's words in Luke or by Esay: unless our meaning be, that they were deceived, who read the psalms of David or Salomon's proverbs, or heard Job or Jonas 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 who they spoke or wrote, making no mention of other holy teachers: and that when Job, and David, and Solomon, and Jonas did either write or speak, they did not put men over unto Luke or Esay as to a comentary; Nay jobs words were uttered, before either of them, or any of Christ's p●n-mē of the whole Scripture wrote, as 
s Origen in Job lib 5. Athanas in ●y nops sacr. script. August. de civitat. Dei lib 18 cap, 47, Theodorer in Ier. Quaest. 92 Chrysost polychron.  sundry of the Fathers do probably teach: and 
t Jonas. 4. 5.  Jonas did look that Niniveh should be overthrown according to his absolute speech, so far was he of from sending the Ninivites to such as specify the exception, besides that, had he sent them, whither should they have gone, who neither knew the Scriptures, and 
v 2 King 14. 25  lived before the time of Luke and Esay both? David too, & Solomon, were their ancients far and each did fett forth the one his psalms, the other his Proverbs (even those which they did writ) not all at once but by parts; and partly 
x Psa. 9 18. 30. 51. et. Prov. 10 1. et. 2●. ●et. 31 1.  their own titles, and 
y 2 Chron. ●6. 17. 1 K●n 4. 31  other Scriptures argue, partly 
z Synops. Sacr Script.  Athanasius 
a Argum in psalm David  Theodoret, and 
b comment, in psalm praefat  Bede signify: neither did Luke or Esay write to add aught to the psalms or Proverbs, or to the words of Job or Jonas, as 
c In the books of Chronicles.  Ezra did to the book of Kings; But Esay 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 Isoariot, to persuade him, that the sentences of Job of David, of Solomon, of Jonas concerning the destruction of hypocrites and all the wicked, are not to be expounded out of Luke or Esay, with an exception of Repentance. Yea, this should of reason have greater force and weight than Bellarmine's of the same spinning. For he saith that Mark did not write his gospel to add aught to Matthew. Which thing being granted, yet mark not withstanding might be expounded by Matthew, and so much the rather, Matthew having specified an exception, that mark omitteth: as 
d ●. Regula est D. be reg. ●●rip. ●  the lawyers teach that the it general rules were not written to add aught unto the former, yet must be expounded with the exceptions touched in the former laws. But in the spiederwebb that I have woven after Bellarmine's pattern, it is contrary wise; that Esay and Luke did not write to add aught to the psalms or Proverbs; or to the words of Ioh or Jonas; which hath greater colour to prove that their sayings should not be absolutely true, & not depend of exceptions mentioned so long after, neither mean to be joined to them: Chiefly for alianes from the commonwealth of Israel, such as they that heard Job and Jonas were, who lived not to read the Doctrine of Christ in his Prophets and Apostles. Wherefore seeing Bellarm. is forced to acknowledge it were a lewd part to reason and conclude this on general sentences of Job, David, Solomon, that an hypocrite, a wicked, & proud-hearted man, shall not be forgiven and saved though he repent: much more must he acknowledge a fault, in his disputing gathering out of Mark and 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 honour they both, himself and the pamphleter, who in this whole discourse goeth with him soot, by foot, save that by interlacing more fond unsavoury words, he overrunneth him sometimes: a cover we'll beseeming and worthy such a cup, only somewhat broader; but hereby we may see what honour they have done 
e De abulteria conj●g. li, 1. cad 9  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 so commit it not, whereas the Gospel saith, that every one committeth adultery, who doth so? Even as much honour as themselves should gain, if in the forlorn man's case, which I spoke of they were his ghostly Fathers, and put him in this comfort Who are we that we should say, some wicked men 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. let this kind of dealing 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 
f Col. 3. 20,  Children obey your Parents in all things: and Prophets were honoured with the name of Fathers, not only by their 
g 2 Ring. 2. 12  scholars, the children of the Prophets, but also by the 
h 2 R in. 6. 21, et ● 1.  Kings of Israel: the 
i 9 Bell ●om 1. cont 3 lib, 2 cad. 31.  title of Father given to all priests though not in such degree as to 
k pape pa●et datrum to. And● in ●le mentinar, Pro cem.  the Pope, yet to all priests & to Jesuits especially, in somuch that a 
l Allen in ●s apology of the Englishi seminaries. chap, 6.  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 snciety of the holy name of Jesus: this title then applied & given to them all will quickly win their scholars to think that the 
m Heb. 15. 17, Al●en apology chap 4.  obedience commanded to wards 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 Ephesians 
n Ephes. 6. 1.  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 duty 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 some what 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 had deceived the Colossians to whom he sent these Epistle, making no mention of that other to the Ephesians: And surely when he wrote to the Collosians from Rome, he did not sent them back to his Ephesian Epistle as to a commentury; nay if that Epistle had been in their hands, it may be well thought, that he would not have w●itten to them. For he did not write the Epistle to the Collossians thereby to add aught to that which he had written unto the Ephessians, as he did the later to the Corinthians, or Thessalonians, after the former, but only to reclaim the Collosians from their error, that man is reconciled, & hath access to God by Angels, & to correct their Jewish and Heathenish observations; for 
o Hom. 1 in epist ad co●oss  Chrysostom 
p Argument. epist,  Theophylact, and 
q Argum. 2 〈◊〉 Theodoreco.  Oecumenius give this cause. That which Paul therefore saith to the Collossians must be absolutely true, & not depend of that he saith to the Ephesiaus, vnl●sse 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, so he brought 
r Monast in st●ut lib. 4. cap 27. For so the Syrique word Abba●● hence Ab● (a● cometh) doth signify Ko●. 1. 15  Cassianus S. Chrisostom's scholar in, who praiseth one Mutius (a novice of an Abbey in Egypt) as a most worthy pattern of obedience to his abbot 〈◊〉 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 & so as much as lay in him did murder his son, but that some by the abbots appointment did r●caive him being cast out of his father's hands towards the River, & saved him from drowning. For he 
s cassian 〈◊〉 cap. 28.  who extolleth this Novices faith & devotion to Heaven, affirming that the abbot was by revelation straightway advertised, that Mutius had performed 
t Gen es. 2. 10.  Abraham the patriarchs wotke by the obedience, as if there were no difference between the 
v Gen es. 22. 2.  Lord's commandment, and ●n abbots might have formed a sentence like Austin's in defence thereof: Who are we that we should say, Children in some things must obey their Parents, & 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 
x 2 ki● 5. 13.  Master should command, he being also a Father, and whatsoever 
y gen. 45. 8. Iob. 29. 16. 1 Tim. 5. 1. Act. 7. 2. et 22. 1.  any governor should command, or friend that hath done good, or an old Gray-headed man they being Fathers all, though not by nature, yet by office, benefit, or age. And then had King 
z 2. chro● 15. 16.  Asa done evil in putting down his mother Maachah from her state because she had made an idol in a grove; & in breaking down her idol; and stamping it, & buruing it. And 
a 1, Sam. 22. 17  Doeg the Edomite had deserved greater praise than Saul's servants, sith they Would not move their hands to fall upon the Lord's Priests, when their Master bid them; which Doeg did and executed his wrath to the utter most. And the 
b Act, 4. 5 et. 5. 29.  Apostles had 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 than men. Yea that wretched impious & execrable friar, who did more than barbarously murder his sovereign Lord the 
* Henry the third. 1589 Augu. 2.  French King the anointed of the HIGHEST, may then be excused, excused! nay commended and praised by traitorous 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 Bellarmine's affirming that marks and Luke's words must be absolutely true, and not depend of Matthew, do show what great reason he had so to speak. For it is written of the city of Jerusalem, compared with the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites 
c Ezek. 16. 44  Such mother, Such daughter: in like sort may it be said of this construction of the holy Scripture compared with Bellar. Such consequence, such antecedent. And this far of his second place.  
The third is in the Epistle to the Romans' the seventh chap. 
d Rom. 7. 1  know ye not brethren (for I speak to them 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 than if while the man liveth, she take another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the man be dead she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress: though she take another man. Out of which place and 
e 1. cor. 7. 39  the like in the seventh of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, we gather (saith Bellarmin) 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 Bellarmin gather: but gathering so, 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 them die. As in the like case (to open the matter by his own examples) he 
f 1 cor. 9 7  saith Who goes to Warrfare any time at his own cost? Now some have served at their own charges without pay sometimes. For so did the 
g Dionys, Halycaru ant Roman l● 9  Roman stock of the Fabiuses against the Vientians and 
h Hered li. 8  Clinias an Athenian Citizen against the Persians. But men for the most part are waged publicly thereunto. And that is the point which S. Paul respected. Again 
i, 1 cor 9, 7  Who planteth a Vineyard, & eateth not of the fruit thereof? 
Ancaeus or Aga Penc●, L●uc Tzetz in Lycophr.  he on whom they father the first occasion of that proverb Many things do happen between the cup and the lip; is said not to have drunk of the fruit of the Vineyard which himself had planted, not to have eaten thereof belike. At least seeing 
k cic. de senectute.  old men plant trees for their posterity, neither might 
l Levit 19 23  the Jews eat of their fruit in certain years: It is more than likely that many of them did not. Some did not questionless: they namely, who sustanied the curse which God denounced unto them by Moses. 
Deur 28. ●0  Thou shalt plant a Vineyard, and shalt not use the finite thereof. Yet S. Paul said well, because such as plant vines do eni●ye them commonly. again who 
n 1. cor 9 7  feedeth a flock & eateth not of the milk of the flock? They eat not of the milk, who do not milk there sheep at all: & there be who do not for, fear of impairing thereby the lambs and wool. But it is sufficient for S. Paul's purpose, & the truth of his speech, that men in most 
o Varr lib ●. c. 2 de re kissed colume●l l, 7. c 4.  countries are wont to have them milked: 
p Deut 32 14 Hom odys● li §. Arist dehist animalium lid. cato be ●etuil. cap 13. virg. l. Elag. 3.  & they who under take the pains of feeding flocks, are accostomed to eat of the milks of their flocks. again 
q Ephes 5. 9 ● plutar● coro  No man ever hated bis own flesh, but nourisheth & cherisheth it. Cato the younger, who slew himself at Utica, was so far from nourishing & 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 
s machab, 14. 16.  Rasias also did. Neither would S. Paul have denied this: who knew that many 
t l, Sam. 31. 4 2 Sam●. 13. mat 27, 5.  had killed themselves, and taken away all joys of life from their flesh. Only he meant that no man hath ever lightly hated it, but every one doth nourish and cherish it rather. 
2 Tim. 2. 4  no man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of life, because he would please him that hath chosen him to be a soldier.  
What? is this false, because 
x dlutare.  rich Crassus being chosen by the Romans to be their general in Sirria, did without all care of pleasing them, who had chosen him, play the marchand man and occupiede himself in counsels and money matters? 
Cra●●.  Or because a band of Campanian soldiers, 
polyb lib 1  who served the King of Sicily gave themselves to citizens trades and occupations, having by treachery seized on Mesana, dispossessed the townsmen, divided their wives, goods & lands among them, and a band of Romans' did the like at Rhegium, to the discontentment of such as chose them to be soldiers, No. for the APostle who exhorted Tymothy to behave himself as good & honest soldier of Christ, 
Tim c● 2. 3  was not to learn that there are some unhonest soldiers & reach less of their duty. But his meaning was, that soldiers usually do employ themselves on warlike exercises, not on civil affairs, or domestical business, when they are chosen once to serve, and in the same sense did he likewise say, that a married woman is bound by the law unto her husband while he liveth: because the band of marriage is not usuallye & ordinarily loosed but by death though it may be loosed, 
1 Cor. 7, 15 6 Lu dedoule tas Eleutera estia 6, ver 3.  & is sometimes otherwise, on rare onwonted cause. Which is apparent to have been his meaning by that he teacheth that if an unbelieving man, who hath a Christian wife, do forsake her than 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 
b innocent, ra●t, c quanto extra de div●t. is  Pope declareth. If the be free to marry the band of the former marriage is loosed, else were she bound & not free. Where fore sith the Pope's 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 nor commonly loosed but by death, not that it is never at all loosed otherwise absolutely and simply. Bell. 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, & with a strong hand putteth them to flight that so men imagining that these are all that can be alleged on our side for the proof thereof, might think that out whole force is quite discomfited and Bell. hath won the field. I have hard say that there is cunning in daubing. Surely there is cunning in this kind of dealing. Neither is it for nothing that one 
c Birstow. M●tive. 3.  of our Glorious Champions doth vaunt that the coommon sort of Catholics are able to say more for us, than we can for ourselves. In deed they would bear the common 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 part. And I grant, they set down more them oftentimes themselves can soundly answer. Yet they use discretion therein by their leave ●& may a strong reason whi●h would trouble them fowlly if it came in place, they are content to wink at & say nothing of it whereto thei● join this policy now & then also, that they take upon them to be as it were our proctors▪ and attorneys, in showing what may be said for us. under which pretence they bring in such things as having already solution with the objection, and proving unsound, may turn to our causes discredit and to ours. So the Jesuit here his arguement being groundede on two places, the one to the Romans, the other to the Corinthians, 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 discovereth them to be of no vallw. 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 so, becase it were not true else that he teacheth of the liberty of Christians forsaken of the unbelevers: 
Ezra 4. 2.  these reasons Bellarmin, doth not touch.  
No marvel for they are to hot. And it is likely that he studied not what might be most strongly said in our defence, but rather what most weakly: 
Ezra. 4. 9  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 Samaritans did unto the Jews: I come unto the injust & false accusation, wherewith they sought to hinder the buildings of the Temple, I mean the reasons which he untruly saith, do witness our answer and exposition to be false. 
Rom. ●. 3  Those he draweth to there 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 that if while the man liveth, the woman take another man, she is called an adulteress? and that 
g 1 cor. 7. 39  the Woman is bowed by the law as long as her husband liveth plain I deny not. 
1 cor. 9 7   
But this proof how pithy & strong soever he thought to set it in his forefront; 
Ephes 5. 29.  is already showed to be no proof at all: 
● Tim 2. ●.  sith there are plain words in like sentences, 
mark●. 2●, luck. 3. 24 Johu 2. 10 Gall ●. 15.  which nevertheless must be expounded as these are by us. For what more plain than that Who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? and that Who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? and that No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth & cherisheth it? and that no Warfarring man entangleth himself with the affairs of life? and many other such, that might be alleged if in a thing so clear it wear not superfluous? Nay in these sentences the words are more plain, then in those we speak of, because those have no shuche mark of generality expressed in them, as these have. Wherefore if so great plainness of words signede with general tokens as it were importing that they are true in all yet convinceth nor that they are meant of all without any exception, fully and universally: how can a lesser plainness 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. 
m 1. cor 7. 15  Paul himself as I have declared showeth that in one case the sayings could not so be true Mor●over the 
n cap vetum. Extra. de con. vers conjugon comm●ssum de sponsalibus. Concil. ● umbent Sess 24 can 6. Bell. too●●. 1. cont: lib. 8. cap. 38.  Papists hold that if a married man become a monk before he know his wife carnally, she may lawfully take anot her husband, while he liveth. Perhaps further, also that the Pope for any very weighty cause, May upon the same circumstance dispense, and lose the band of Marriage. At least 
o covartu. eper in 4, decree tall Parz cap. 7. 9 4. catharin. de matrimon quart, utrum matrimon ante cob fit Sacramentum et al●●quz in architypo  themselves tell us that sundry Popes have done so: and 
p Hesticus. panormi●a et alij canonnst in. c expublico de co●vers. con●ugator. cardeaie●. opusculo de mattim Mac. Madium de Sacro● hom. contin lib. ●. Martin Navarre, confilict lib. 3. de convers. infid. cous 1.  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 wise by the law 
q Deut. 22. 24. Matt 1. 20.  of God: & consent, not carnal company maketh Marriage as the civil 
r L cuifucait D de conduits 〈◊〉 domōstra●. L NuPriarum. D de reg far▪  lawyers, 
s Ambrosin, stitur. virg cab ●Augde nupt et con cud lib. 1. cap. 1●●hr●souō. Isobeo Cregor comnuis e consuge ●c. qui desponfatam. ●7. 14 〈◊〉 si inteo Exlta despensa●  Fathers, &, Popes do reach. The Papists then of all man may worst on force the plainness of S. Panls' words against our exposition thenselves condescending in cases more than we do, that a woman may take another man while her husband liveth, and be no adulteress. Where by again appeareth how wisely and discreetly the Jesuit Triumpheth with 
t beliere, c. ua● du●um despons. duorum  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 than is lawfully put away for whoredom, but the band of the former lasteth: in somuch 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: sith 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.  
admit then that the wife be put away for monkery, 
De adulee●. coning lib. 2. cap. 4.  yet the band of the former lasteth: in sommuch that he becometh guilty of adultery, who marrieth her thatis put away even for monkery, And likewise whatsoever those weighty causes were, for which so 
x matrin the ●. Eugenius the 4. Alexander the 6 Jullus the third paul the 4. & p●us the 4. as covattu. catharin● caje●an, an● Navarre do testify.  many Popes have loosed the band of Marriage, thy are all controlled by the saw censure, The woman beg●nneth not to be the wife of any later husband unless she have ceased th' 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 mislike be conceived, or the Pope dispense and be well freed from it. Nay S. Paul himself must fall within the compass of Aestins reproof, by construinng his words so without exception, because they are true, & quick, & found, and plain. For against his doctrine touching a Susters liberty to marry if she h● 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, if her husband die, not if he forsake her▪ The Ie●uit, who useth so often to repeat, so often to in culcate the testimonies of the Fathers, should dealeper adventure 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 
y Gen. 9 22.  Cham discovered the nakedness of Noah, so doth he their blemishes: he who allegeth them; not we, whom he enforceth to show why w●ee dissent tun them▪ lest our Savious sentence be expounded against us 
z math. 10. 37  He that leveth Father or Mother better than me, 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 & savage, expressed in an heathenish verse LET our FRIENDS FALL, so our FOES DIE withal. 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, 
Pro. Deiora tro  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 Bell, firste & principal reason being cut off: the other and the rest of his reasons also are cut off with the same labour and instrument. For whereas he saith Certes it were maavell that the Apostel should never add the exceptin of wheredom, if it Were to be added, 
Rom. 7. vers. 2.  seeing he repeated & inculcated these things so often. Certes we May say as well of those exceptions which himself approveth that it were marvel the Apostel should never add them, 
vers, ●.  if they were to be added. 
co●, 7. veas. 39  Though what marvel is it, S. Paul. omitted the exception of whoredom in all those two places, which he Hath repated & inculcated these things so often, as Bellarmin so often telleth us: when the thing is mentioned in the former of them by way of a similitude, wherein it hath been found & beside the purpose to speak of any exception: and, for the later S. Paul hath omitted the same exception 
c vers, 10 et.  twice, where the Scripture showeth plainly and Bell. confesseth, it should have been added, 
math 5. 23. e● 19 9  or (tospeake more properly) where all though it needed not to be added, yet must it needs be understood; Now to that Bellarmin doth next allege the Fathers 
g In uteu● que jocum pauli . Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Primasius; Anselmus and others over and besides 
h Loco ●itat●  Austin, 
i In math 19  Origen, and 
k In epist ed Ama●d.  Jerom, all as bearing witness that we expound the places falsely: I could reply that some of these whatsoever they witness have small credit with Bellarmin as Ambrose, specially: some, namely Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Primasius do not witness that no more than Paul himself doth: Nay they all save one are contrary minded rather as shall appear in 
l In the third Chapter.  due place: But that which I have said already touching Austin, may serve for answer to the rest: chiefly sith the Papists in whose behalf they are alleged, will rather yield that all the Fathers might err then any of their Popes. 
m Alexander the third Pius the fourth & ●in the canons above cited out of the de cre●als & the council of Trent  who yet must have erred in more, than one Canon, if this were true which Bell, fathereth on the Fathers; Finally, concerning that for the upshoote he urgeth Paul's similitude as if it he 
1 Rom. 74  drift of it did absoiutely require that the man and wife can not be made free from the band of Marriage by any separation 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 endeavoured to separate themselves from it by committing whoredom with sundry laws of self Gods: the rest of S. Paul's similytudes which I mentioned; do bewary the lameness and halting of this inference: seeing that the drift of them requireth absolutely by the same reason that no man went to warfare at his own cost, or planted vines, or fed sheep without relief thereby, because 
o 1. Cor. 9 vers 6.  all they 
p vers 14  Who preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel. And likewise that no man did ever hurt his own body, because 
q Ephes 5. 33.  Every husband ought to love his own wife 
r Ephes. 5, 25  as Christ loved the Church and likewise that no soldier hath ever entangled himself with the affairs of life because Timothee should be still about those actions, 
s 2 Tim. 4●.  whereto the Lord 
t ●2. Tim. 2. 3.  who choose him to be a soldier, did call him, Nay to go no farther than the drift itself or the similitude, which Bellarmin doth urge, if it require absolutely that the band of Marriage may be no way loosed but only by the husbands or the wife's death: then neither is it loosed if the unbele ever do for sake the Christian: neither if the husband become a monk or the wife a nun: neither if the Pope see cause to dispense with either of them. And will not this fancy of his about that drift drive him in to greater inconvenieence yet: to weet, that every woman, whose husband is dead aught 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 
Rom. 7. 4  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 
x 1. Cor. 7. 8.  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 unttuth: Let Bellarmin acknowledge that similitndes 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 & fit that where to they are resembled. It sufficeth if in a general analogy and proportion of the principal point wherein things matched, and compared together; they be each like to other, and both agree in one quality. Which here is observed in S. Paul's comparison of the state of Marriage, with the state of man before and after regeneration: because 
y Rom. 7. vers. 2. 3  as a wife her husband and being dead doth lawfully take another, and is not an adulteress in having his company to bring forth fruit of her body, to him: so 
vers. 4. & 5.  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 similitude, nor the judgement of the Fathers, nor the plainness of the words so oftentimes repeated, do disprove our answer and exposition of the place: our answer proved by Scripture standeth firm and sure & therefore the third place by our adversaries, is suitable to the former,  
So is the fourth & last; taken out of the first to the Corinthians the seventh Chapter a To them who are Married, it is not I that givs commandment, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart from her husband: but if she depart too, let her remain unmarried, or be recconciled unto her husband. Who rain (as Bellarmin reasoneth) the words of S. Paul, If she depart, & so forth are meant of a woman which parteth from her husband upon a cause of just divorcement, 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 word are meant, S. Paul. saith most plain lie she may not marry another, Therefore even a cause of just divorcement loseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawful for married folks to marry others, all though they be severed & put a sunder by just divorcement.  
And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insolnble. 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 
b 1. King. 20 10.  ●enhadads 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 harms, boast himself as be that putteth it off. Bellamin hath skar●ly girt his harness yet, & that which he hath girt, is unservisable ●ad harness too.  
For the foremost part there of, 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 divorcement, ● 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 loaseth 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 ●orce of a general, so by fraud and falsehood to bear away the point in question. Of both the which to treat in ordre, his proposition he presumeth of as most certain, because in (his judgement) Paul would not have said of her who departed without some such cause, Let her ramayne 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 Bellarmin think so? His reasons follow. For Paul could not permit an unjust divorcement 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 sake, and for a time, except it be with consent: How should he permit the wife to remain separated from her husband against his will, 
1 C●r. 1. vers. ●. & ●0.  without any case of just divorcement, In deed if it had ●yen in S. Paul's power to stay & refrain the wife from remaining so: no doubt he n●ither would not might have permitted, which himself sufficiently showed in forbidding her to depart at all, much more to continue parted from her husband. But 
d vers. 11.  if not withstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave h●r husband upon some lighter cause; or perhaps weightyer though 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 herself in wedlock with another, a thing that 
e Dicdor. Siculilib. 12.  greeks and 
f Iuvena●l. satire. 6. Sic 〈◊〉 octo mariti Quinque per au●um. nor  romans (whose offspring the 
g Strabe Geograph●●. 8. pausenas corinth.  Corinthians were) used to do. As (to make it plain by the like examples (S. Pau neither might neither would have allowed a man to be rashly angry with his brother: for 
h Ma●h. 5. 2●  Christ forbiddeth it. But if one were suddenly surprised with rash anger S. Paul would advise him 
i 〈…〉  not to let the sun go down upon his angry wrath: neithe 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 
k 〈◊〉 7. 15  willeth men not to fulfil the lusts of the flesh; whereas 
l Ma●●. 5. 18  Christ commandeth them not to lust at al●, For S. Paul 
m ● Rom. ●8.  condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sin. 
Cal. 6. 17.  But seeing that the flesh will lust against the Spirit, as long as we are in this mortality: he stirreth up the faithful that they 
o R●m. 6. 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 not sin reign in their mortal bodies, nor do fulfil 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 consideration of human infirmity he addeth But if she depart too, let her be unmarried, And to meet with a doubt which hereupon might rise sith in the next words before he had affirmed that they who have not the gift of coutinence should marry and what if she have it not? he adjoineth farther. 
p 1. Cor. 7. 9  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 and there in down evil forbear to marry another, 
Mon●● agamo●  for that were far worse yea though she can not contain; in respect whereof or of any thing else if she mislike to liv●● 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 Bellarmin that he & his pamphleter should not have maynt●yned their error in writing: but sith they have done it let them write no more in defence of it, or let them a●knowledg that in this point they were deceived. For whereas 
q which ●ollarml● doth not only in this quae●ion cap 〈◊〉 bu● also in the ne●. before c. P. 14.  they gather of the disjuctive particle Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled, that S. Paul hath put it in the woman's choice & l●ft her at lib●aty, either to live separated still from her husband, or to be reconcil●d unto him; they might as well ground uponchrists words to the angel of the church of the La●diās I would thou werest cold or ●hat that he hath put it in our choice & left us at liberty either to be cold in faith and love, 
Rev▪ el. 3. 15.  as flesh is, 
Zestos.  or to be fervent in the spirit. 
4 Zeontes. Rom. 2. 11. 〈◊〉 ●ev. 3 〈◊〉.  Yet Christ had no such meaning. For he commandeth us to be fervent & in that very angel he saith to everi faithful man, Be hot &, Zealons. 
Mat●. ●3. 2●.  But because the party was luke warm, a wordling who had recyved the 〈◊〉 of the word but bare not fruit, who 
t Luk 12. 〈◊〉.  knew his Master's will, but did it not and there by sinned most grievously; Christ wisheth that he were cold and sinned less; sith 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, and did by all likelihood of circumstances of the text, wi●hee 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 s●ntence 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 weather she listed. And thus it appeareth how certain and undoubted that principle is, which 
Loquitur er. 〈◊〉 ullo dubio &c.  upon this proof Bellarmin avoucheth to be most certain and undoubted that S. Paul's words touching the wise If she depart, are meant of her only which parteth from her husband upon a just cause of divorcement. How be it if they had been meant of her only: yet must they have touched su●h wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause, and not for whoredom, An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin, that in exemplifing the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should be restrained, he nameth whoredom first, as principally comprised in S. Paul's precept; where as S. Paul meant that it and it alone, should be excluded and excepted.  
For these are his words. 
v ●. Cor. 7. 10  To them who are married, it is not I that give comma●dement 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 & 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 
x Mat. 5. 32. & 19 9  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; 
1. Cor. 7. 4.  For the analogy is all one: and 
x Mat. 5. 32. & 19 9  etche having interest in the others body, she may as lawfully depart from an adulterer, as he from an adulteress. And this doth Beelarmin grant also. But the middle branch is to be understood of the same depar●ing, and likewise qualified as the first, Therefore, If she depart too, is meant, except it be for whoredom. Nay, not so quoth Bellarmin: 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 g●ve commandment let not the wife depart from her husband, to wee● without a ●ist 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? when the only reason, whereby out of s●ripture he assayeth to prove it, is the disiunctive particle, which as I have showed already, hath no joint or sinew of proof to that effect. And 
z August. l●● de 〈◊〉 conjug cap 1. 2. 3 et 〈◊〉.  the only father, whose testimony, he citeth, for it, doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture: So that his reason being overthrown, his credit and authority, by 
a August ●pi.  his own 
b 〈…〉  approved rule may bear no sway. And on the contrary part, 
c chry●ostom Amb●ose primas us Theod●ter Throphylact and O●cumenius  many other fathers do expound the second branches as having reference to the same departing that is for bidden 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 
d ● cor 7 ve● 9 〈…〉  the like examples in the same discourse (to go no farther) show; yea some having one 
8 Namely. K●●  par●icle less than this hath to press it thereunto. It is good for the unmarried & widows, if they abide even as I do: 
9 Eide  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: 
1 Eide.  but if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. Art thou ●oused from a wife? seek not a wife: 
2 Ean de kai.  Bot then marry also, thou sinnest not. This I speak for your profit, that you may do that which is comely? But if a●ie man think it uncomely for his virgin if she pass the time of Marriage, 
Eide.  let him do what he will. The wi●e is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: 
4 Ean de  but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty and so forth. In all the which sentences sith the clauses brought in with those conjunctions have manifest relation to the things spoken of before, & touch them in the same sense, the branch that is inquestion having like dependence, must in all reason be conserved of same the departing that the former. Thus it being proved that S. Paul commanding the wife to remain unmarried if she be parted from her husband, did mean, Except it were for whoredom; it followeth that Bellarmine's 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 this con●lusion inferring hereupon that even a just cause of divorcement loseth not the band of marriage, he is 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 b●dd only, and for a certain time: There may be sundry causes why, such a separation should be allowed or toll●rated, when as the band of marriage shall nevertheless endure still, And so the simple reader were likely to imagine that Bellarmin had concluded a truth & to purpose.  
But the point where with he should have knit up his dispute, and which he would have men conceyve and bear away as if these words employed it, is that no just cause at all of any div●rcemēt doth lose the band of marriage, & therefore neither whoredom. The falsehood whereoe● would have be as clear as the sunshine at noonday, the prposition being so evidently false whereon it is inferred. And this is the arguement that Bell. set his rest on 
5 Argume●tū plané insolub●le  the insoluble argument, even altogether insoluble, the ground whereof he termeth 
6 Invictissima de monstrat●●  a demonstration a most invincible demonstration: against the which nothing (saith he) can be objected, but an insufficient reply, made by Erasmns to weet, that Paul speaketh of an adulterous wif●, 
unum et tantum quodo●i●et posset.  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 from the like vein of a vauntinge spirit as those did of his complices, who boasted that 
8 In the year of Christ. 58.  the Spainyards Armadoes & navy should find but weak & silly resistans in England; and called their armay sent to conquer us, an invincible armey, For as they diminished by untru● reports the for●es prepared: To meet & en countere with the spanish power: so Bell. by saying that nought can be objected beside that he specifieth; yea fard●r by belying and falsefing of Erasmus, 
A●uot in 1 Cor. ●  who contrariwise replieth that Paul doth seem to speak 
9 De levio●lbus offensis. non deg●avi●us 〈◊〉  of lighter displeasiurs for which divorcement then were usual, not of such cryms as adultery. Moreover by the substance & weight of my reply to his insoluble argeument, the godly wise indifferent eye will see (I trust) that the knots & strings thereof are loosed & broken: even as the invi●cible armey of the Spainyards was by God's providence showed to be Vin●ible without great en●oūtering; the carcasses and spoils of their ships & men upon the English, Scottish, & Irish coasts did witness it. So let allthyn enemies perish, O Lord, and let them who love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his strength.   

The third Chapter.  
The consent of Fathers, the second pretended proof for the Paaists doctrine in this point, is pretended falsely: & if all be weighed in an even balance, the Fathers check it rather.  
AFter 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 Jesuite) may be proved by tradition. By which his own speech, if we should take advantage of it, he granteth all that I have said ●gainste his arguments drawen-out of the Scripture, and so far forth agreeth with us. For what understandeth he by the word tradition●? ● Doctrine not written, as 
〈…〉 4 cap 2  himself professeth in his first controversy. Where having noted that all though the word tradition be general & signifieth any doctrine written or unwritten, which one imparreth to another, yet divines, and almost all the ancient fathers, apply it to signify unwritten doctrine only. And so will we hereafter use this word saith he. If the point in quistion then may be proved (as Bellarmin affirmeth it may) by tradition: We might con●lude it is not written in the scriptures by his own verdict, & therefore all the scriptures alleged by him for, it are alleged falsely. But he seemeth to use the name of tradition in like sort, as 
b cont hero●f: cap. l et 4●.  Vincentius Lirmensis doth, calling the doctrine delivered by the church the church's tradition. This to be his meaning I gath●r by the reason that he addeth saying for there are extant the testimonies of the fathers in all ages for it. The Pamphle●ter in other words, but more peremptorily to avouch the proof thereof by the opi●ion & censure of all ages, affirmeth, he will show that it was never thought lawful since Christ, for Christiaas divorced for ●ornication to mrrry any other while both man & wife lived. That it was never thought lawful since Christ, is a bolder speech them Bellarmin 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 traditio●. For tradition hath not for●e enough to prove a thing to be true, not in the Papists own judgement, unless it have been always approved and agreed on by the general consent of Fathers, (as we term them) Pastors and Doctors of the Church. Which I affirne not upon the general rule of 
c cap. ● et 4●  Vincentius only so greatly, and so often praised by them as golden: But upon the Canon of the Trent Cou●cel and pillars of the popish Church subscribing to it. For 
Session. 3  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 consequently, no sure proof of a pyont inquestion. Andradius 
e Desen ●ide Tride● lib 2.  doth open & avouch the same in his defence of the council: a work very highly commended by 
f Epist ad vn● versam Christianam 〈◊〉 profixa Andr.  Oserius, And Canus s●tteth down for a conclusion, that many of them consenting in on can yield no firm proof, 
Loco● Theolog l●b. 7. ca 3.  if the rest though fewer in numbered do dissent, Yea 
h Tim ● con 3 lib. 4. cap. 0  Bellarmin himself saith that there can no certainty be gathered out of their sayings, when they agrie not among themselves. It is a thing granted them by our adversaries that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove aught unless they all consent in one. But the Fathers do not censent in one about the point we treat of, as it shall be showed, Our adversaries therefore must grant that the opinion which they hold in this point, cannot be proovede by Fathars. Nay they are in danger of being enforcede to grant a farther matter, 
Septimi de c●etalium lib ●tit 5 c● p ●● Nilo juxta v●amimem consensum Patrum.  and more importing them by the conseqent hereof. For through a decree of Pope Pius the fourth, the professors of all faculties, & all that take degrees in any popish school are bound by solemn oath that they shall never expound & take the Scripture but according to the Fathers cousenting all in on. Wherefore how will Bell. perhaps the pamphleter also if he have been amongst them and taken any degree, 
As Patsont by name Edi tom con pa●t 〈◊〉, con ●. quest 4 & can●sius cat●chism de matrimon. sactam quest. 3 & Navartus In eap divort de pe in't dist. 18 theirseminatio sehollais.  but what shift will Bell. and his Puefellows find to save themselves from perjury, when it shall be showed that many of the Fathers gaiusay that opinion, which himself and his expound the Scriptue for? And what if it appear, that the greater number of Fathers do so? not the greater only: but the better also, and those whose grounds are sure Then all the probability, which Fathers can yielded 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 & qualety of the Fathers inclining this: or that way, by means of sundry circumstance which may bread doup● both particularly; of certain, and of the whole sum in general: the main and principal● point remaining to be showed, namelly that the Fathers consent not allin one for the papists doctrine, is most clear and evident out of all controversy. In so much that many even of them also whom Bell. allegeth, and the pamphleter after him, as making for it, make indeed against it: and those of the chiefest and formast ranks especially, in the first, the second the third, the fourth hundred years after Cheist. All the which agree & 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 judgement and censure of Papists themselves. A token of the vanity & folly of our adversaries Bellarmin and the pamphleter: who by naming one at least in every age, would needs make a show of having the cousent 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 Bellarmin saith they have, is the testimony of Clemens in the Canons of the Apostles 
k Canon 48  where the man is willed without any exception to be excommunicated, who having put away his wife doth marry another. now beside that Clemens upon whom Bellarmin fathrreth, those canons, is inriured therein. As for the later part of them 
l 〈…〉 cont ● 7. ca 20  himself showeth 
m 〈◊〉 Lo●●en ●is) otherwise called Turrian a lo●uit li● de 〈…〉 Synod.  his friend for the former, neither are they of Apostelique antiquity and authority notwithstanding their title, as 
n Po●e Gelasius the first. sh●ds assembled in accoūe●ll● Scra Romans dict. 15.  many Fathers estifie, 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 receyved from Christ, and therefore though he made not an express exception of divorce for whoredom, might as well imply it, 
Caeser Baronius Annalus Eecle tom. 1. ad annur● Christi 58.  as I have declared that some of the evangelists, and S. Paul did. Which the interpreters also of those Canons 
p Commé● in Conou. Adost.  Zonarus and Balsamon, thought to be so likely and more than a conjecture, that they expound it so without any s●mple. 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 writters mistook the authors meaning, and in his opinion no man, howsoever his wife were put away, with out or with cause, might lawfully marry another: then take this with all, that 
q Apost const lib. 3. cap. 2  he scarce allowed any second marriage, but controlled the third as a sign of intemperance, and condemned flatly the fourth as manifest whoredom. Which although 
r Fr. Turrsan. onner in Apo const. Clement  a Jesuit go about to cover & salve with gentle glosses like 
s Exck 13. 10.  the false prophets, Who when one had built up a mudden wall did parged it with unsavoru pla●ster: yet sith that counter●●it Clemens work did flow out of the fountanies of the Grecians, as a 
t Barenius Annal ecele. tom. 〈…〉 annum Christi 57  great historian of Rome hath truly noted, and among the Grecians many, held that error, as it is likewise showed by a 
Espencaeus li. ● dec●nti nentla 9 ct 16.  great Sorbonist; the likelihood of the matter, & spring whence it proceedeth agreeing so fitly with the natural & proper signification of the words, will not per mitt their blackness to take any other hue, 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 Bellermin produceth out of the first hundred years, doth not help him. Out of the second hundred he produceth three; Justinus, Athenagoras and Clemens Alexandrinus. 
x 1. 〈◊〉. 7. 9  The first of whom Justinus praising the compendious briefness of Christ's speeches rehearseth this amongst them: 
Apo●og ad Anto impera  Whoso marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, doth commit adultery. Meaning not as Bellar, but as Christ did: who excepting whoredom in the 
z math. 5. 32. et 10. 0  former branch of that sentence, understood it likewise in this, as I have showed. And how may we know that Justinus meant so? By his own words, in thet 
a Apolog●d sen●●● R●mā●o leg. menon parkumin tempodion  he commendeth a godly Christian woman, who gave to her adulterous husband 
L● di●timitu● devout●● D. de divottijs et repudijs.  a bill of divor 
b ●● de tautes p●●eaner Euseb Eccls hist lib 4. cap 17  such as did lose that band of matrimony, and saith concerning him that, he was not her husband afterward. The next 
c Apolog. pro christia●is.  Athenagoras, affirmeth (I grant) that if any man being parted from his former wife do marry a●other he is an adulterer. But Bellarm●n must grant with all that Athenagoras affirmeth it untruly: considering that he speaketh of parting even by death too, as well as by divorcement, & teacheth with the 
d Tertuli de monegam Ep. Pha. haere 48. August de haerescap 26  Montanists that whatsoever second marriage is unlawful, whereupon a famous Parisian Divine 
e De continent lib 3 cap. 17●  Claudius Espenseus saith of this same sentence of his which Bellarmin citeth; that it favoureth rather of a Philosopher than a Christian: & 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 Athenagoras his own, as 
Noted in part by Espencaeus himself ibid ca 9 0  sundry farhers speak dangerously, that way them thrust in by Encratites, 
g Eplpha. here 46 et 47. August de heres cap. 6.  who generally riected all marriage, not second marriage only. Athenagoras therefore worketh small credit to the Jesuits cause, As much doth the last of his witnesses 
h Strom li 2  Clemens Alexandrinus For both in this point about second marriage he marcheth Athenagoras & otherwise his writings are tainted with unsoundness, 
i Strom. lib. 3  and stained with spot of error. Which judgement not only 
k Hist Eccle. ●●n agdeburg eent. 2 cap 10  Protestants of German have in our remembrance lately, given of him, though a 
l Egm came Piam rar.  jesuitical spirit do tradn●e them insolently, for it: But 
m cap Sancta Romans dist 15.  an ancient Pope of Rome with seventy 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 
n Vat●at 〈◊〉 Ib, 9 cap. 17  Didacus Covarr●vias doth approve the same, Now in the third hundred years (to go forward) Tertullian & Oregen are brought forth to aver Bellarmine's opinion, of whom one question less controlleth, perhaps both. For 
o Advers martion lip 4.  Tertullian disputing against the heretic Martion, who falfely objected that Christ is contrary to Moses, because Moses granted divorcement, Christ forbiddeth it, answereth that Christ saying, whoesoever sholl put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery, meaneth 
5 ex eadem utique causa qua non licet dimitti ut all aducatur.  undoubtedly of pu●●ing away for that cause, for which is not lawful for a man to put away his wife that he may marry another. And likewise for the wife, that he is an adulterer, who marrieth her being put away, 
6 Illiate dimissain mane●●ri matrimoni quod non ●ite diren, ptium est.  if she be put away unlawfully: considering that the marriage, which is not rightly broken off, continueth; end while the marriage doth continue, it is adultery to marry. Which words of Tertullian's manifestly declaring that a man divorced from his wife lawfully, for the cause excepted by Christ, may marry another, Bellarmin doth very cunningly and finely, cut of with an et cetera, and saith that there he reacheth that Christ did not forbid divorcement, if there be aiust cause, but forb●d to marrya gnine after divorcement. So directly against the most evident light of the words & tenor of the whole discourse: that learned men of their own side, though holding his opinion yet could not for shame but grant that Tertullian maketh against them in it. For 
p Epit in 4 lib decretal Part. ● cap 7. D. 6.  bishop Covarruvias mentioning the Fathers who maintain that men may lawfully marry again after divorcement for adultery, nameth Tertullian. (quoting this place) among them. 
q Bibleath. 〈…〉 l. b. 6. 〈◊〉 8.  Siictus Senensis a man not in f●riour in learning to Bellarmin in sencere dealing for this point superior, confesseth on the same place, a●d on those same words but recited wholly, not clipped with an et cetera) that Tertullian maketh a certain & undoubted assertion thereof. 
r Anu●ris Ib advers m●tclon cap. 3. et P●rad 〈◊〉 Tertul. ●  Pamelius indeed through a desire of propping up his chruches' doctrine with Tertullian's credit, saith that though h●e seem hereto allow divorcement for adultery in such sort, as that the husband may marry another wife; yet he openeth himself, & holdeth it to unlawful in his book 
* de Mouc●●mia  of single marriage, Wherein he saith some what, but little to his advantage. For Tertullian wrote this book of single marriage when he was fallen away from the Catholic, faith unto the heresy of Montanus: and so doth hold therein agreably 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 he wrote, while he was a Catholic against the heretic Martion, he teacheth contrariwise the same that we do, as Sixtus Senensis and Cova●ruvias truly grant, Yea Pamelius himself if he look better to his own notes, doth grant as much. For 
t Hierom in ca●● l●go script eccles 〈…〉 lib de mono●am et. cap. 9  he saith that Tertullian useth the word divorcement in his proper signification, 
Aunotat in lib. 4. 〈…〉 martion cap. 34.  for such a divorcement by which one putteth away his wife & marrieth another, But Tertullian saith: that Christ doth avouch the righteousness of divorcement. 
7 Habet Christem 〈…〉  Christ therefore avoucheth that for adultery a man may put away his wife & marry another by Tertullian's judgement. Which also may be probably thought concerning Orige: Although it be true 
Tract 〈…〉 m●th cap 9  he saith (as Bellermin. citeth him) that certain Bishops did permit a woman to marry while her former husband lived, and addeth, they did it against the scriptu●re. For he seemeth to speak of a woman divor●ed from her husband, not for adultery, but for some other cause, such as the Jews used to put away their wives for, by giving them a bill of divorcement, The matter that he handleth, and cause that he giveth thereof do lead us to his meaning. Approved by the opinion of certain learned men to. For after he had said (according to 
x math. 19 8.  the words of Christ which he expoundeth) that Moses in permitting a bill of divorcement did yield unto the wakenes of them to whom the law was geven; he saith that, the Christian Bishops who permitteth a woman to marry while her former husband liveth, did it perhaps for such weakness. wherefore sith in saying that, this which they did, they did perhaps for such weakness, he hath relation unto that of Moses, & Moses, as he addeth) didnot grant the bill of divorcement for adultery, for that was punished by death it followeth that the Bishop whom Origen chargeth, with doing against the scriptuere did permit the woman, to marry vpon divorcement for some other cause, not for adultery & so his reproving of them doth not touch us, who grant for adultery only: Thus doth 
y Annot in 1 Go●●  Erasmus think that Origen meant: concluding it farther, as clear, by similitude which 
z Origen tract Zin ma●k.  he had used before of Christ who put away the Synagoge (his former wife as it were, because of her adultery & married the church. Yea 
a Expsicar at tic●l●r Lovan art. 1.  Tapper likewise a great divine of Lovan, & of better credit with Papists then erasmus saith that the divorcement permitted by those Bishops, whom Origen controlleth was a Jewish divorcement. Wherein though he aimed at another mark, to prove an untruth: yet unwares he hit a truth more them he thought of, & strengthened that by Origen which he thought to overthrow. Howbeit if Bell, or Bell Inther preter can persuade by other likelihoods out of Origen (as he is somewhat dark, and 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 advantaged by those sundry Bishops who approved it, then disadvantaged by on Origen, who reproved for it. Chiefly seeing Origen impaired much his credit both by other heresies in diverse points of faith, for which a 
b Synod. 5 cō●intinob. col. let.. 8. cap II. Nicephot lib. 1● cap. 38.  general council with 
c Tim 1 Count 6. lib, 2 cad 8.  Bell. allowance Count him damned heretic a & in this matter by 
d Hom 17 in Lucam.  excluding all such as are twice married out of the Kingdom of heaven, which 
e Cenebrad. annot marg. in cum loca. Espenceus de continent lib 3 ●●d 9  divines of Paris observe & check him for. Whereas those Bishops of whom he maketh mention, were neither stained otherwise for aught that may begathred, nor herein did they more them the right believing & Catholic church all that time thought lawful to be done, as appeareth by Tertullian & Justine the Martyr. In the which respect 
f Tractat de insti●us Sa cerde. de ma ●●imon. lect 13  Peter Soto (a friar of great account in the Trent council) having said that it is plain by many arguments that the case which we treat of was doubtful in the ancient church allegeth this for proof thereof out of Origen, that many Bishops permitteth married men to marr● again after divorcement. Thus if the two fathers whom Bellar. out of the third hundred years as making for him do not make against him, which perhaps they do both: yet one of them doth not out of all controversy, & Bishops, more in number, in credit greater than the other agree with him therein. Out of the fourth hundred, the show which Bell, maketh, is a great deal fairer then out of the third; & a number of Fathers, the council of Eliberis●● Am, S. Jeron, a Roman Bishop, & S. Chriso are affirmed thē●e to join themselves with him. But they are affirmed in the like manner as the former were: scarce one of them avouching the same that he doth, the rest in part seeming to be of other opinion, in part most clearly showing it, and such as show not so much, yet showing their own weakness, & that in this matter their opinion & judgement is of small value.  
For the foremost of them 
g conon. 9  the council of Eliberis, ordained that a woman which forsook her husband because of his adultery and would mary another, should beforbidden to marry, & if she married, she should not receive the communion till he were dead whom she forsook, unless necessity of sickness constryned to g●ve it her. Wheerein it is to be noted, first that the coucell saith not. 
8 Si quis L. ver 〈…〉 de ver 〈…〉  If any man, so to comprehend & touch generally all both men & women: but they speak peculiarly of the woman alone, & so do not forbid the man te leave his adulterous wife & marry another. Secondly, that the woman is excommunicated, if when she is forbidden by the church to marry, she marry nevertheless, not if before she be ●orbiddē: As it were to punish her disobedience rather than the fact itself. Thirdly, that she is not debarred all her life time from the communion, but for a season only, & in time of need, in dangerous sickness doth receive it: yea, even while the party, whom she forsook liveth, Of the which circumstances the first though it might argue the counsels oversight who made the woman's case herein worse than the man's, both being free alike by God's law: yet for the man it showeth that they allowed him to marry again after divorcement according to the doctrine of Christ which we maintain. The next yieldeth likelihood that the council did forbid the woman this not for that they thought it unlawful, but unseemly perhaps or unexpedient, as 
h co●ncil. 1 lerd. c Non● porter a se●tu agesima 33 q. 4.  another council is read to have forbidden the celebrating & solemnising 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 warrantable by the word of God. For else had they, not judged her marriage with this latter man 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 communion in case of dangerous sickness: seeing at the point of death 
i can. 64.  they deny it to women so continuing, yea 
k ●ah. 3. 7 17 18 47. 65. ●o 〈◊〉 & ●5.  to men offend●ng less heynoufly than so. With such extremity of rigour therein that 
l Annal Eccles tom. ● adanun christ 5●.  Bar●nius noteth their decrees as favouring of the Novation heresy; & 
m Tim. 1. contr. 7 lib 1 cad 6.  Bell. layeth it almost as deeply to their charge. So far from all likelihood is it that they would admit her in necessity of sickness to the communion had they been persuaded she lived in adultery still. Therefore it was not without cause that Bell, did suppress this circumstance together with the former, in citing the decree of the Elibernie council: lest his false illation, to weet that they accounted such marriage unlawful even for the innocent party, & in the cause of adultery, should be descovered and controlled thereby. Next is Ambrose brought in whom upon the 16 chap. of Luke, writeth much against them that putting away their wife do marry another, and he calleth that marriage adultery in sundry places: neither doth he ever except the cause of whoredom in that whole discourse as Bellarmin saith. But what if Bellarmin here be like himself too? Certainly S. Ambrose speaketh 
9 Dimi●t 〈◊〉 ●xocem qua●●lu●a sin● crimine  of such wivens as lived without crime, & 
1 Putas id ti b● licere quia lex h●mana non prohibet sed div●na prohib.. l. 1.  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 divorcement for whoerdom, And if it be sufficient proof that he supposed they, 
Noli ergo uxotem 〈◊〉 tere. Quidi mittit uxoten facit eam more cham.  might not marry again after they had put away a whorish wife because he never excepteth who● dom in that wholediscourse of marrying again, then by as sufficient a reason he supposed that ●2 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 that Papists will gr●unt that a man may lawfully put away his wife, if she commit whoredom. As Bellar. then will construe S. Ambrose in this branch, so let him in the former. And if he say, that S. Ambrose thinking upon Luke alone whom he expounded, or trusting his memory forgot the exception added by Christ● Matthew, for 
n Math. c. 32.  putting away the wife▪ the same slip of memory might lose the same exception for 
o math. 19 9  marrying another. If he think that Ambrose did not forget himself, but understood the exception in the former point, as the 
p 1 cor. ●, 11  Apostle did, though neither mention it expressly: what reason why, it might not as well be understood in the later also? As for S. Jerom no marve●l if he wrote against second marriage after divorcement for whoredom 
q Epist ● ad Salvinam et n, ad Age●u Chian et adversus ●ovinian.  who wrote against all second marriages in such sort, that 
r De continent lib 3● ap. ●  Espenceus asketh what could have been said more grievously against them by the impure 
3 Who condemn of con marriges Epiph●●s. haeres 59 August de hae 〈◊〉 ib cap, 8  Catharists, them is said by him? And 
s In August de civit, de lib 〈…〉 The divines of Lo●anin in their edition of Au●en. printed at Ant 〈…〉 sentence out beyond the prescript of index expurgatorius  Vives pronounceth, that he did not only detest second marriages, but also had small liking of the first, nor did much favour matrimony; Beside that himself to, as far as 〈◊〉 exceeded the bounds of Godly modesty & truth her in, even by thes●mens judgements whom Papists do repute learned & Catholic allayeth & correct●th in one of the places, which Bell▪ allegeth, his peromptorie censure given 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 & married another 
4 ●it on vult adui●ers redu●ari  was an adulteress for so marrying, & 
Non A Peila ●ur vir fed a dul●et  her new husband an adulterer: In his epitaph of 〈◊〉 (a noble godly●g gentlewoman of Rome, who did the like & was penitent for it after her second husbands death he saith, that she lamented & bewaryled if so, as if she had committed adultery. By which kind of speech & others suitable to it, as that he termeth her state after divorcement from her first husband. widowhood, & addeth, that she lost 
8 Vidu●latem suam servare non pote●at 8 Sub, glo●●a uni ver  the honour of having h●●d but on husband, 
Post 〈◊〉 see nodi viri ● Opera exercete 〈…〉  by mar●ying the second, & saith, she though●●● 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. Jeron 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 Bell. doctrine maketh it. No more may it be justly thought in the opinion of that Roman Bishop, of whom, because he put Fabiola to public penance after her second husband's death, Bell, 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 whoredom. For men at that time were put to some penance in the Catholic Church, for marrying again after their first wife's death, as Bell. observeth out of the Catholic 
t Nec eaesas can. 7 et lao dicen cap. 1 proved 〈◊〉 have tha. meaning by Espeu ceu● lib, 2. de continent cap I aS Zonaras too and Ba salmon interpret them b●th, hongth the glossoon Graaian 〈◊〉 one of them otherwise cap de his 〈…〉 D Qu●d. 〈◊〉 D' de xdili●. edict l non emnia D, de publici iudi●.  counsels: adding therewith all, that all though they knew second marriage to be lawful, yet because it is a token of incontinency they chastised it with somepenance. Wherefor sith it might easily be that they who laid some penan●e upon no fault, would lay public penance upon a small fault, specially in women, to whom in such cases they were more severe & rigorous them to men: the penance which the Bishop did put Fabiola to for her second marriage doth not prove sufficiently that it was accounted then a public crime in the Catholic church. Howbeit if the t●arm of public crime be used in a gentler sens then commonly it is, or the Bishop of Rome did never put any but grivous offenders & sinners to public penance: yet perhaps even so to will Bellarmin come short of this conclusion 〈◊〉▪ For thereby (saith he) we do not understand that 
●i q●i vivente conjuge  if any man while his wife yet lived, marry another, yea albeit for whoredom, it was accounted a public crime in the Catholic church at that time, if any man did it. As who say the Bishop of Rome must need should that, if women were not lisenced to marry after divorcement for whoredom, men could not be neither, Whereas he might be of the same opinion, that an auncien, 
x ●onc l. Ell ber● cap. 9  council seemeth (as I showed) to have been before him; & an ancient 
y Ambros. in. 1. ad c. ● cap. 7  Father (living & writing as 
z censuratheol gerum lova● in August lib quaest veret nov restain Tom. 4.  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 Faviolas penance, in that she was not put thereto until 
a Hi●rom epist. o ad 〈◊〉.  after her second husband's death, yeledeth very strong & probable comecture, that it had not been before them 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. 
Melius arbitra●ae 〈◊〉.  For that which Fabiola did, she did openly. Herself was religious, godly, well instructed; & thought it to be lawful. Her husband by all likelihood of like mind & judgement: the church of Rome called not their marriage in to question. The Bishop did not execute any Church censure on them, Nay, sith she was 
4 Adolescentu●●ten.  yet young, when they married, and never hard of any fault therein committed as long as her husband lived: it may be Rome had many bishops in that time, none of whom saw cause why they should blame her for it. The example of Fabiola therefore, & the romambs. dealing in it, maketh more a great deal with us then against us, if it be throughly weighed. Now S. Chrisostom maketh absolutely with us: howsoeoer Bell, affirmeth that he teacheth the same with S. Jerom yea with 
b Epist. 145  S. Jerom▪ simply comending all such marriage. 
Amanqum●  For what doth S. Chrisostom teach in the sermon that Bell, quotetth upon Math? 
Hom. 17. in Math. cadt.  Forsooth; that by Moses law it was permitted, that whosoever hated his wife for any cause might put her away & marry another in her room: But Christ left the husband one cause alone to put away his wife for namely whoredom. What? & doth it follow hereof that Chrisost. meant that the husband putting her away for whoredom, might not marry another? Rather the clean contrary. Seeing he speaketh of such a putting away, as Moses did permit & 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, 
Hom. 19 in't 1. eor. 7.  neither is the husband, a husband any longer. For hence it appeareth that he thought the band of marriage to be loosed when they are severed for woredom: and therefore consequently the parties are free to marry according to the Apostles rule. 
1. cor 7. 28   
And other where also, 
Homil de ●●bell requdii  though somewhat more obscurely, yet conferrence with this place will show him to have taught. But what should I stand on farther proof thereof, it being so undoubted, 
g epitome in 4. lib dectetal part. 2. cap. 7 D. 6.  that Bishop Covaruvias an earnest adversary of marriage after divorcement, & bringing all the Fathers that he can against it, confesseth S. Chrisost. to stand on the other side against him for it. And this in four hundred years after Christ, Bell. cannot find on 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 followi●g he findeth better store: now one now moe in the hundred. Yet among them also, look how many he nameth of the Eastern bishops, whether expressedly, or implyedly: he playeth the Ies●it with him. For the firste of them Theophylact he allegeth with the same faith & truth, that he did Chrisost, 
h Tom. 7. contr. 7. lib. 1 cap. 4.  whose scholar Theophylact being (after Bellarmine's own note) did follow his Master.  
And this the two places themselves that Bellarmin quoteth; do insinuate clearly: 
i Theophy ●uct iae Math. cap. 19  The former by oppening how Christ permitteth not the putting away which Moses did, without just cause, nor alloweth any cause as just but whoredom 
k In. 1. Cor. 7  the 〈◊〉 by omitting mention of whoredom, in spesifying the causes for which if a woman depart from her husband she must remain unmarried. Whereto (if Bell. need more light to see it by) we may add a third place: in which 
l In. Luc. cap. 16.  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, 
3 Patectos' logou porneias delade. obseured by the Latin translator omitting delade.  unless it be for whoredom, doth show howfarre he differeth herein from Bell. who denyeth flatly that Christ's words in Luke must be supplied with that exception. The rest of the Eastern Fathers whose testimony is alleged by Bellarmin though their names not mentioned: are such as were assembled in the council of Florence. For there came thither to confer with the Pope and the Western by shops, albeit many of these holding a general council at Basil the same time, refused to change the place for the Pope's pleasure, who sought his own advantage therein, not the Churches, and undermined the actions of the council of Basil 
m council Bas●lien●sese 33. et 34 Enias Syl●iusde ge●l. concil.  which condemned him of heresy, and deposed him; but there came thither 
n Synodus Floaentine, procé et subscript in ilterlavuioni●  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 credit and consent how vutruely Bellar. pretendeth, for the proof of his false assertion, it is plain by that he saith the Coun●al of florence did decree the same in the instruction of the Armenians. A chapter which is fathered indeed upon the Councell by the schismatical pope Eugenius the fourth, the deviser of it: but fathered unjustly and calumniously as the time agreeth, wherein it was begotten. For it is accorded in the same decree, that it was made the 
6 Decimo calendas D●ce● b●tis  two and twentith of November in theyeare of Christ a thousand four hundred, thirty & nine. Now the council ended in July the same year four months before: As both 
o Synod Fl●●ent. sess. ult.  itself witness●th, & 
p O●npht. in Pontil. max ●t card Cene card. Chronog●adh. lib 4  Popish stories note. Wherefore the council could not be the farther of that decree and chapter: no more than a man can be of that child which is borne foureten months after his death. And the pope whose bastard in truth the brat is, by the acknowledgement and record of Papists themselves in the 
q Decretum Eugeui● paper quat●i  Tomes of Concells, was so much the more to blame to father it upon the council of Florence 
Psaesens. ●ane at atque magna et Vulversa li● Synodus  the great & general council, and 
8 Florentiaeia Publica seffio ne Synoda●i 〈◊〉 brata.  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; & the 
r Synod Flo ●eur 〈◊〉. ult.  Eastern Bishops maintained it to be lawful, when the pope after the end of the council did reprove them fore its neither is it likely the contrary was decreed by all there present of the west, Chiefly seeing that more thenhalf of them were, gone when both parts the East & West, 
s In proamio  subscribed to the decrees of the council in the letters of agreement: as appeareth by conferring their number with 
t Sess. ult.  their names, & the note thereof, 
There are about ●o by shops seas in Italy. Leaned Albett in descript. talie I Aeneas Silvius degestis Basillensi● council lib 1. clandius espence us in epist ad ritum cap l.  Yea the council being ended the sixth of July, had their superscriptious added unto it the one & twentith. Then if of 7, score & perhaps upward, scarce 3. score were remaining at Florence. 14. days after the Councel ended: What may we think there were above 4. moniths after? But how many soever were present of the West, as the Pope can quickly must●r up an 100; bishops or more, if need be out of Italy alone, to carry awy things in Co. 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 counsels act. Thus all the Fathers of the Eastern churches, whom Bell allegeth, & may urge with credit their doctrine towards marriage, do not only not say with him, but gainsay him. Wherein there have so many others followede them from age to age till our time, that it is apparent they allow with greater consent a man's marriage after divorcement for adultery the●▪ Fathers of the Western churches disallow it, For Eusebius treatinge of Justin the Martyr setteth forth with the same praise that he had done the story of the Christian woman, who divorced herself from her adulterous husband. And S. 
x Hist Eccls sib 4 cap● 17  Basil's cannons approved by 
y Synod sext. in Trull can. 2 ● Quoniam 〈◊〉 6 Synod. sept can. 1.  general counsels; do not only authorieze the man to marry another, whose wif● is an adulteress, but also check the custom which yielded not like favour in like case to the woman. And Epipha●ius 
z Heres. 59  saith (his words are read corruptly, but the sense thereof is plain of our side, as 
a Epis●a 4 lib docreta part. 2 cap. 7. 6.  covarieus as granteth, Epiphanius saith therefore that Sepration being made for whoredom a man may take a second wife, or a woman a second husband and the same in effect avoucheth 
b De eur gr●● affect lib. ●  Theodoret affirming that Christ hath set down one cause: whereby the hand of Marriage should be dissolved, & only rent asunder, in that he did except whoredom. And a general 
c Sext Sxnod Constautmot jin T●u●● cannot Nomon syna● thisan translated otherwise by some but mē● thus by the council as mentoi with the antithesis going before it shaweth & thi● use of the word Synap testas can 13 dist 3 e Quon●am  Councel, wherein there were above 220. bishops of the East gathered together, doth imply as much in saying that. He, who his ● wife having kept the law of wedlock & being faithful to him, yet forsaketh her and marrieth another is by Christ's sentene guilty of adultery. So doth 
d ●n prior ad cor cap. 7  Oecumenius in applying the precept of abiding unmarried to 〈◊〉 has should not have departed, & in abridging Chrisostom's words after his manner, whose scholar 
e Tom 1 cont 7 cap l●b  Bell. therefore termeth him. So doth 
f In math. ca 5  Euthymimius Choysostoms'. scholar too, in charging the man with adultery, 
g Hist ecel lib 3 cap. ●3  who marrieth a woman divorced for any cause but whoredom from her husband. So doth Nicephoras, in copyinge & commeding that out of Eusebius, which he had out of Justin the Martyr. To be short, the Grecians, 
3 Decretum. Eugenli pupae  which name compriseth many nations the East all whom the Florentine council calleth the Eastern Church do put the same doctrine receyved from their ancestors in practice even at this day, allowing married folk not only, to sper●te and divorce themselves in case of adultery but also to marry others, as Bellarman confesseth. Wherefore his opinion 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 
i paulus lovint 〈…〉 lib. 〈◊〉 Francis Alvat descript 〈◊〉 cap. 21  the Aethiopians, an Abessines, or of the 
k A●ex. 〈…〉  Moscovites & Russes in the North: both which as they receyved their faith from the East, so use they like freedom & liberty for this matter. No, not in the west itself, though he have many then agreeing with him, yet hath he the general consent of all the Fathers perhaps not of half, if an exact count might betaken of them, ●or besides Tertullian, the council of Eliberis &c. to let pass Ambrose on▪ Bishop of Rome, or more already showed to have thought that ● a man being divorced from his wife for her adultery, is free to marry again: th●re are of the same mind 
l 〈…〉  Lactantius, 
m In mat ca 5  Chromatius, 
n 〈…〉  Hilary, 
o Augustin de aduliet conjug, ad pollent lib. 2 cap. ● et lib cap. ●.  pollentius, 
p ●u Epist 〈…〉 cap 7.  the author of the commentaries in Ambrose his name upon S. Paul's epistles, 
q can. 10.  the first council of Arles, 
r can. 2.  the council of Vannes, they who either were at or agreed to the 
s Constantinop in Trullo cap. 88 gr. 87 ●at  sixth general council the second time assembled 
t Epist 4 ad 〈…〉  Pope Gregory the third ●Pope Zacharie, the council of 
x cap 3. et 10 Burchard. de cre●or I c. 4 et l. 1● cap. 17● et●●  worms of 
y ●2 〈…〉 cum nova●ca Burchar. iib. 17. c. 17. et 18  Tribur, of 
z ca. 5 Burchar ● b. 17. c. 5.  Mascon, a council alleged by, 
a 52 q. ● quaedam  Gratian without name, and other learned men alleged likewise by 
b Sed illud ead caus. et quest ●e Vemeus 〈◊〉 da eo qui a●gn con sang uxoris suae.  him 
c Qua●to. extra. de divorties  Pope Alexander the third, 
d Qua●to. extra. de divorties  Celestin the 3, 
e de concord Euang cap 〈◊〉  Zacharie & 
f Addit. 2. ad Lyran in mat. 19  Paul Bishop, the one of Chrisopolis, the other of Burgose 
g Christ marrimon instit et au not. in ●cor. cap ●  Erasmus, 
h Tract de mat●● quest an propror c●im edult couj. l. b. a vinculo  Cardinal Cajetan: Archbishop Catharinus 
k Enar ratim epist. ad 〈◊〉  Naclantus Bishop of Clugia, finalli the teachers of the reformed churches in 
l Tindal ou mat, 5 Bucer. de regno ch●ist lib. 2. ca. 43 pmarry● in ● cor ● Bea● 〈…〉 the confession of their faith pie● in Luther ●uacrat in mat 5. et. cor. ●con ● Saxon in Harmon con●. sect. 18. art de come w●itē ibid hist. magdeburch, 〈…〉 l. ca. Kennic. exam, 〈◊〉. Trident part  Eng. m Scot., n Ger. 
o calvin lust● 〈◊〉 lib 4. 19 ult gal. in Ha●mon conf. Be●g in Harm. con muscul in mat. 5. bul. decad. 2. se●m. 10. ● zege  France and 
p i● Jacorcom, de div●r, tub. l.  other countries, for why should not I name these of our profession & faith among the Fathers as well as Bell. nameth the popish council of Trent on the contrary side? But the Papists (will some man peradventure say do not grant that all whom you have rehearsed, were of this opinion. But the Papists I answer) do grant that sundry of them were? & such as they grant not, the light of truth & reason will either make them grant, or ●hame them for denying it. As 
q Biblioth Sanct  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 
r ●n math. cap 5.  Chromatius saith that they who having put away their wives for any cause save for whoredom, 
4 A●sq fornicationis causa  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 
s can 4. in Math ●D. sinendla con●ugio.  Hilary affirming Christ to have prescribed no other cause● of ceasing from matrimony, but that; showeth that the bawd of matrimony is loosed thereby in his iudgment. Chiefly sith he knew that they might cease from the use thereof, for other causes: & the occasion & tenor of the speech do argue that he meant such a separation as yeel death liberty of new marriage, In like sort, or rather more plainly & expressly did Pollentius hold & maintain the same: As Austin (whom in this point he dissented from) doth repote and testify. Yet Bellarmin (a strange●thing in a case so clear, but nothing strange to Jesuits) saith that Pollentius 
o Non ●contra dix●t. Angu●ti. no sed eum consuluit.  did not gainsay Austin, but asked his judgement of the matter: and for proof here of referreth us to the beginnings of both the books of Austin. Even 
t Dead 〈◊〉 coniug ad pollent, lib 1 cap 1.  to those beginnings in which it is declared how Austin having laboured too prove that a woman parted from her husband for his fornication might not marry another, 
Tanquam consulende sh●th Austin In steedewherof, Bellarmin ●a h cōsu● endo & drowneth. sanqnam.  Pollentius wrote unto him as it were by way of asking his iudgment and showed he thought the contrary: yet showed 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 8 he was of this mind, which Bellarmin 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 
u Id enim sen tis & videtut ●ibset existi mas & putas. et ef●s●o nes tibivibet ut ●t existimas▪  Sixtus Senenses a man as unwilling as Bellarmin to weaken any of their Trent points with granting more than he must needs confesseth that Poeleutius thought hereof as we do. 
v Biblior● sac ●ae lib. 2. verb Bepud●j humanilibellus  Belike because Sixtus sevensis honoureth: him with the praise & title of a 
9 polia●sium religiosish mum virum.  most godie man, Bell. thought it better to lie, then to grant that they have such an adversary. He would fain avoid too another a●ncient father bearing the name of Ambrose, & 
x I● epi t. l ad ct ● cap 7  Ambrose might his name be, though he were not famous Ambrose Bishop of Milan. But whether he were named so, or otherwise (which 
As it is probably gathered out of Au●●in cont duase of t●las pelagian lib ●, cap.  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 thro●gh error 
y 20 〈◊〉 seb ●llnd  though Bellarmin replieth with a threefold answer. First Gratian (saith he) and Peter 
z lib▪ sent. dist 35.  Lambard do affirm that those word ●swere thrust into this author's commentary by some corrupters of writings. In deed the one of them affirmeth: 
2 dicitur.  it is said so the other, 
3 credituo.  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 oniust, that unrighteous judges may not give sentence with? For whatsoever words be enforced against them out of the law of God or man, our of any evidence or record of writers & witnesses worthy credit: they may with Peter Lombard & Gratian reply that the place alleged is said or thought to have been thrust into those monuments by some corrupters of writings. And in replying thus they should speak trueli, though it were said or thought by nome beside themselves: but how reasonably they should speak therein, let men of sense & reason judge. Surely though Peter Lombard rest vpon that answer, for want of a better, yet Gratian (whether ●●aring the si●klie state thereof, doth leave it, and seeketh himself a new patron saying that Ambrose's, 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 mote absurd then the former. In so much that 
a Epis in 4. lib decreta ● pat 2 caP. 7. 5. ●  Covarruvias speaking of th'. former only as verdict, as any, said that this repugneth manifestly to Ambrose. A very true verdict, as any man not blind may see by Ambrose words: And Bellarmin couf●ss●th the same in effect, by passing it over in sil●nee as ashamed of it, But others (Saith he secondly) do answer that this author speaketh of the Civil law, the law of Emperors: To weet, that by the Emperor's laws it is lawful for men, but not for women, having put away their mate, to marry another: and that Paul therefore lest he should offend the Emperor 
b 1. cor. 7. 1  would not say expressly. If a man put away his wife, let him a bide so or bereconciled to his wife. Now Gratian'ss second answer was no less worthy to have been mentioned, than this of 
c panop▪ Evang lib. 3. cad, ●. 5.  William Lindam, patched up by Bell. For the 
d li. D de divo ●et ●epud, 〈◊〉 lege ad le, ●e lubdeadu ●t ● connfensu list constan ●ee de●epu di●s.  civil law prononceth the band of marriage to be loosed as well by divorcement as death: and alloweth women to take other hushands, their former being put away, as it alloweth men to take others wives, So that is a fond and unlearned conceit to imagine that Paul would not say of husbands as he did of wives, lest he should offend the Emperor by speaking expressly against that which his law allowed, For 
e l. cor. 7. 11.  he did expressly control the Emperor's law in saying of the wife. If she dedart 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 where upon he wrote, and what was thereby lawful, Which seemed so evident unto, 
f Instit sacerd ca de Matr●m Lect 13.  Peter Soto, 
g gstiblioth sa●e lib. 9 annor. ●  & Sixtus Senesis, and 
h Annot in cap v●or avi▪ 10. 32. 97.  the Roman Censors, who oversaw Pope Gregory the thirtenths tenths new edition of the Cannon law, that they confess that Ambrose (meaning this author) doth a prove plainly, certainly, undoubtely, men's liberty of marrying again after divorcement. Bellarmin 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, 
4 Qu●q erud●●● 〈◊〉 ignorant.  as learned men know. Thus at length this author, if men will not believe that his words are corrupted, or that he spoke of the civil law, shall be granted us with Bellarmine's good leave; But than we shall be told▪ that he is not Ambrose, nor any of the renowned Fathers as learned men know. And why could not Bellarmin answer this at first? Why was he so loath to grant that such an author, base, obscure of sclend●r cr●ditt, maketh with us? H●rein th●re 〈◊〉 a mystery. There is 
i in epist 1 ad ●im cap. 2.  in this authors Commentaries a place, a 
5 cujus h●die Iactov est Damaus.  piece of a senten●e, whi●h seemeth to speak for he Pope's supremacy: Though perhaps never written by this author, or not with that meaning, as I have he wed else where. 
j To. 2. e ntr● 3 lib cap 6  Bellarmin had cited that place for that in 
6 Beatus Am where by he meaneth simons Am. b●●se. Bishop of Mila as the quotations so● lowing she●  S. Ambrose. his name: and 
m The English college of Rheimes, Annot. On ● tim 3. 15  many make a feast thereof, as being fare S. Ambrose's. Now if he should say, that the author of those Commentaries was neither Ambrose nor Saint: he should gainsay himself. And sith he was learned, when he did cite it so, and therefore knew (by his own words) that it was not Ambrose not any of the renowned fathers who writ it: men would see thereby, that he had for the Pop●s sake against his own knowledge, fathered on S. Ambrose that which is not his. No marvel then if Bellarmin came to his answer as a bear to the stake. At the which though he seem to cast us of, by saying that the author was no renowned Father, and erred in mistaking S. Paul, as having given more liberty to men than women, whereof 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 & shifts whereby the Papists have laboured to wrest the credit of this one Father out of our hands, do give me occasion to suspect that they will wrangel much more to withdraw from us the first council of Arles' being more ancient in time, in credit greater, and (as 
Heldin constan●ins time about they ●at ol christ 〈◊〉  
n ●art caranza in summon ● eonciliocum.  one of themselves doth probably conjecture) confirmed by the Pope also. Herevente the counsel wishing of certain persons not to marry in the case we treat of might serve them for a colour in as mu●h as 
o can. ●o  it saith concerning them whose wives are taken in adultery, that if they be young men and forbidden to marry, 
8 ●●ns llum. eis deur,  advice should be given the, as much as may be not to take other wi●es while the former live, though adulteresses. But this giving of advice is in truth an argument that the council judged a man no adulteter, if he took another wife. Else 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, specially considering 
p ●an 3. 4. 5. 7. 11. 12. et 14 e In quantum pciest Adolescens●s exprohibē●es nub●●e.  they punish lesser faults with excommunication. Neither is it nothing that they temper also this counsel and advise to be given 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 ●or all young men, but such as are forbidden to marry: meaning (as it seemeth) thoose who being under the care of their parents were by them forbidden, and could not honestly disobey. For had not this respect or the like moved the Fathers of the council, why should they have restrained such young men and not ot●er? Nay, why only young men, not rather men, not aged men, or them also? Sith in p 
q Tim. 5. 9  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 Va nary in Gallia cund 2.  council of Vames in the same country, 
Ab●ut the year of christ 400.  a the age following made this canon. 
3 pecca●a  we appoint and ordain, that they who having left their wives, except for whoredom (as it is said in the Gospel) or upon proof mad of adultery, marry others, shall be excommunicated: lest, fins being suffered by o●r 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 concell 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 Emperor's palace of Constantinople which made the like decree and taught the same doctrine, as I have declared: Bellarmin would persuade us (Upon other occasions touching popery nearer the quick, then this doth) that the western Bishops neither gave countenance thereto with their presence, nor approved the Canons there of with their consent. To this end he denieth that the said council was a general council, & striveth in his 
s De Ro pont lib. 2. cap 27  third controversy to answer some of our reasons which confirm it. But he easeth us of pains to fist his answers by means that himself in the 
t Dr ecc'es' m● te lib 1 cap 7 vi s●8 D, de con●ititu● pri● eip●m.  fourth controversy, discoursing of general counsels purposely, doth reckon it amongst them. For as in v mens laws when they are repugnant on unto another, the later derogateth from the former: 
x lib led magini●ad eao 35 Post Nicaen synod 2. ●cius synodi e●ct ●. a Nicae u●sy. 6.  so (I trow) when Bellarmin doth contradict himself, his last word must hold. And the more reason 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 of the general counsels whereof he termed it the sixth, and in the seventh General council sundry Fathers alleged it by the name of the sixth general, and avouched it to be justly called so. Which sentence of theirs being uncontrolled by any of that council, 
z Nicaen-sy  and the council itself afterward approving the decrees and canons of the six general counsels, 
a Zonara's et o orientatis a orienta is ec●ls. c. ult.  it is very probable that the Western church's yielding their consent to the seventh council, and taking it for found accounted (as the Eastern have done & do) that which they entiteled the sixth to be general, Specially seeing that in the West, men of great credit Ivo & Gratian and Pope jonoceutius the third and their disciples the whole school of canonists have on those autorities of the seaveth council made like reckoving of it. 
b Decretie pari 4. c 12. et ●equ nt  And although our younger Papists for the most part and some of the elder, perceiving what advantage may be taken thence against many grounds of popery, 
c Oist 16 c. Hobe● librū●c A mustis  do cross th●er predecessors herein with silly reasons, such as whereof the best would infer more forcibly that their council of Trent was no general council: yet among them also there are who allow the ancient opinion as Caranza namely, and Genebrard and Surrius, with whose preface tending to the proof thereof it is recommended & published by papists in the two perfectest and last editions of the counsels. 
Virged by of Canus etc. lib. 2. de Rom pont cap. 27.  Wherefore whether avy of the West were present in person, orby deputies, & subscribed to it which Belsamon and Nilus, learned Greek Fathers avouch by old records; or whether it were celebrated by Estern 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 saiings by a cloud of witnesses of the Western Churches, 
f sum ma conciiotum, chtono gra Ph. lib 3. stantino lolitanum sinit it sub● ustinian● Rhimotmet oeolctis. 237  pope Gregory the thirde followeth, He granteth that if a woman by reason of sickness wherewith she were taken could not perform the duty of a wife to her husdand, her h●sband might put her away and marry another. More than by the doctrine of Christ he had learned to grant for sickness, but so much the likelier that he thought it should be granted for whoredom expressly mentioned by Christ. Whereupon Joverius a sorbonist in a work approved by Sorbonists, 
g Pres●t sy●n 6  matcheth this Cannon with the like of counsels, who gave the innocent party leave to Mary again after divorcement, while the other lived. 
an●t eccles clsi. 2. sect. 2.  Neither doth Bellarmin deny the illation but the proposition, which the point inferrede is grounded upon. For the Doctores (Saith he meaning the Canonists) expound the Canon of such sickness as maketh a woman unfit for Marriage: and foe is an impediment disolving matrimony contracted, by showing it was no true matrimony, But the Doctor of Doctors 
m sed illud. Quanvis 3. ●7  Gratian himself understood it otherwise; of sickness befalling to her, who was an able wife. And those his gloss writers use most that exposition which Bellarmin would have us receive for authentic as the fittest salve; yet rest 
n nba●. u vel intellige ve dic In c squo● P●opo ulsti verbo  they not upon it. And 
o Hist part 2. tit. 4 capl. quamvis. where he nameth Englishmen in sied of Gerinanes & Gergotye the ● susteed of Gregory the 3 〈…〉 tooeke it.  antovius a great Canonist: Archbishop of Florence correcting 
p Explicat arti cull. lovan. art. 19  Gratian'ss slip of memory for the persons, concludeth with him for the matter. And the slower of Lovan q Tapper, the chancellor of their viniversity, approveth this of Antonius. And 
r concilior tun 3 annotat mat ad hunc loenm.  the learned men who were overseers of the last edition of the counsels do witness● by controlling it as a thing which now the Church observeth not 
6 Istuc hodie ecclofix non ●ervat.  that Gregory meant of sickness happening unto lawful wives in their iudgement. And the Pope himself (as 
s Tom 1 cont 3 lib. 4. cap. 2 32 〈◊〉 concubuisti.  Bellarmin noteth elsewhere) declareth that he took it to be true matrimony, by saying that the man ought not to bereave the former wife of aid, that is, aught 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 ●Zacharie, who when a certain man had d●fi●ed himself incestiously with his wife's sister, granted that his wife should be divorced from him: and unless she were privy to that wicked act by cousayling or pro●uting it▪ might marry in the Lord if she could not contain. This so clear a testimony of an 
7 About the year of christ 740  ancient Pope authorising the divorced woman to marry, Bellarmin would elude, by saying that he meant she might marry another, after the form●r husband's death. As who say, the Pope enjoining the 
8 Since spe con jugii Ierma●● atis.  man and the whore for a punishment to stay and abide without hope of marriage, were likely to mean by liberty of marrying granted the guiltless for a benefit, that while the guilty lived, who might overlive her, she should not marry no more than he. Or as though there had been need for the Pope then to grant it with ex●eptiō, 
9 Si se continere non vul●.  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 too wish on this occasion after the man's death, she being 
v ● cor. 7. 39  then simply free, & willed to marry 
x 〈…〉 5. 4  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 Bell. alleged before & solloed here, have assayed to darken the light thereof by this mist: yet Sixtus Senefis confesseth that Pope Zachary decreed that the woman if she would not contain, 
y peter Lomand Gracian.  should marry another husband while the formrr lived. It is true that Sixtus seeketh to help the matter another way somewhat, by yoking the Pope with provincial counsels: 
z Biblioth fact lib. 6 Anno ●at. 8.  who (saith he) allowed and decreed it, not by a general & pereptual ordinance, but for a time and to certain nations, and that in such heinous cryms as incest only, But will the Papists stand to this doctrine, that the popes decres bind not all nations generally, nor are perpetual to last? Then must they acknowledge (which would touch papacy & popery very nearly) that the Pope's 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 untl Luther rose, but for a time only, there date is out now. As for the time of incest, whereupon the Pope allowed the innocent party to put away her husband & to marry another, that confirmeth rather the point in question then disproveth it.  
For he had no warrant to allow this by, but our saviour's doctrine forbidding such divorcement, 
a Matth. 9  except it were for whoredom: so that h●e might not have granted for incest, 
Exod. 20. 14 Math. 5. 28  unless he had thought it lawful for adultery, Neither did he consider the crime but as comprised under adultery too: 
adul●tera.  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, 
e cap. 3. Bntch a●d decte●or. lib. 9 cap 41.  he termed her the adulteress nor the incestuous person. Thus it is apparent, that in this manner Pope Zachary was no papist, No more was the council of worms which showed their judgement to the like effect to weet, 
of liula Drusiin cornelius Tacitus N●res Aiden mres Sanders In our Eagl●sh chroniclaes  that a man who could prove his wife to have been of counsel with such as sought his death, might put her away & marry another if he would. Presuning that belike, which they might justly, as examples teach us▪ that she was vought of her body with some of the conspiracy. 
d math. 19 9  Forels had the council expess●ly authorized the same which Christ condemneth, 
e Epit in 4. lib. decrtial, part 2 cap. 6. D. 6.  if for any other cause then for adultery they had allowed the man to marry, Therefore Covau●vias reckoneth up this council among them who held that a man having lawfully put away his wife for her whoredom might take another while she lived. 
Eilbetrnuomh●e call thit trough an ertoucot lony dit ●ō of Cratian.  Yet a certain spanish friar named Raymund, one of Pope Gregory the ninths special State-men, the compiller of his Decretals 
f ca● Si quamuliet extra de div●rtijs.  would avoid it also after Gratanus 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 effectu II devswad●ng whereof, that questionless they meant so: he useth a special trick of Popish cunning. For, making show of registering the counsels own decree, in steed of those words 
4 pote● 〈◊〉  he may put away his wife and marry another, if he will, the friar setteth down theses He may after his wife's death marry another, if he will. And where as the Councel had said, 
f 〈◊〉 ipse porell 〈…〉  as we think; which words had beve absurdely pnt in, if they had meant after his wife's death he might marry another, a thing agreed on and undoubted: The friar (as thieves are wont to deface and suppress the marks of things which they have stolen, lest they betaken thereby) leaveth that clear out. But by the mouth of two witnesses 
g Detetor. lib ● cap. 41.  Burchardus Bishop of worms, & 
h li q●a muliet 31. d, 1 of sundry lawyers that it was prae●olium  Gratian or Palea, both elder them the friar, and from whom of likelihood he received this Canon of the council of Whormes his false and irreligious dealing is bewrayed. 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, ●Ioverius I mean: who saith of that council, that it allowed the innocent party to marry again after divorcement, the other being yet alive. And the council itself maketh farther proof that they are not on justly charged by Joverius and Covariuvias with this judgement.  
For if any man had committed wickedness with his dangter in law, the daughter of his wife by her former husband, they agreed that he should keep neither of them: but his wife might marry an other 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: sith it cannot be thought with reason, but they judged she might take another the former being dead: though she had continued with him as his wife, after she knew of his adultery. The council of Tribur did maintain the same: ordaining that if any committed villainy 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 ●ives sister. 
〈…〉 Potest ingium pervenite  Bellarmin like the 
m Horat do art. Poet,  painter, who being good at purtraof 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, dispaiting to do aught 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 than a cypress tree is for a shipwrackin those of Pope Zacharie and the council of worms the former whereof he granisheth also with this cypress tree do argue. For the same reasons which proved▪ Zachries cannon to be meant of the woman's marriage while the man lived, prove the council of Tribur to be likewise meant 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 enlargement, 
fi●fo●n●teyne e●non potest  is stronger: implying they would have him stay unmarried rather, if he can contain, The testimoney of Sixtus is all one for both: neither doth the quality of the crime of incest more inferring the argument here then it did there. And this extenuation that the council being a provincial council ordainede it for men of their of their own province, and for that time only, increaseth the autothorety 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 o●ly? The form of their decree touching all generaly that should offend so, not some p●rticular person, who presently had; they speaking of the thing as lawful in itself, 
P●oncil. Tribur can. 4.  & to be observed alike in all cases, their making of other connons to that effect: yea another council alsono peradventure, and no limitation of time in any of them; do pesuade 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 lawrs for men of all nations, but looked as bishops to their own Diocaes. And the greater modesty the liker to Christ, and the batter to be l●ked of Christians, the more reverence to be haerd with, and their judgement to be had in greater estimation. Beside that this selfsame decree of theirs was established also by the council of worms.  
And at that time Pipinus King of (France, & of a great part of Germamy) was present. Who as he did keep a general assembly of his people there: 
〈◊〉 Wo●mati● civitare Aimein de 〈◊〉 Francor. lib. 4 cap. 66.  so by all likelihood called Bishops thither out of his whole realm to make decrees for the whole. A province of such largnes, that counsels consisti●g of pishops assembled, out of no greater, have been termed general: & worthily as (Bell. confesseth) in compatison of provincial counsels 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 camnon of the council o● Tribur, hath given us occasion to make the more of it ●ōsidering on the on side the modesty of the Bs. who were assembled there, & made decres for their provin●e; on the other the province for which that decree was made for, so large that all the prov. of Italy cannot match●it, though they were linked in one.  
Had it not been better for him, 
Sanction ●cle. clasi. 2.  without this retori●ue to say directly & flatly as jover. doth that the Co. of Trib. made the like decree to the C. cell of worms, which now the Church (he meaneth the Popish church receyveth not: werher any papist will take exception against the council of Mason, 
〈◊〉. Bur●●nad. lib, 17.  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 here after. But unto a council that made another such decree, as 
Queda●.  Gratian showeth alle aging it without name, Bellarmin taketh two exceptions: one, that it is lost: the other of the Cypress tree. Touchching the former, not as much as the name thereof (Saith he) is extant: therefore it might be easily contemned & set at nought. Why? Is it therefore worse than all that have names, because it is nameless? Then have 
c Cardinal P●le Sadose●con●taren er cons● delect card.  many Cardinals with other learned reverent men been much to blame, for writing so of Rome as if it had a nnmber of wicked lewd propane inhabitants. For by there report the Romans having every one a name or two, should be worse for the most part, then were the Atlantes, a people of Africa, whom Diodorus Seculus commendeth very heighly for godliness and humavity, yet non of them had any name, Horodotus saith. Or if this be a fable as Pliny s●emeth rather to think, & well it may be; yet is it most certain that Plutarch recordeth as grave & wise sayings of lacedaemonians without names, as of any whoses names are known. And Bellarmin (I trust) will grant that in the scriptures there is no less account to be made of the book of Joshua, then of Nehemias, of Job, then of the Proverbs: though their name 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, 
●dom iniett●  but also the work itself lost; And what if it be? were not 
F●●ccus Flor● tinus ●set ●ore● under the name of L Fēeste●●a.  those of Varroes' works, whi●h we have not as learned as the work ● 
The writers of the Notes on Gregory's edition.  of Floccus which we have? Of Tully, of Polybius, of Livy, Deo, Tacitus▪ of infinite writers more, are there not as good books lost, as there are extrant The same hath fallen out in Eclesiastical authors specially in counsels whereof a great meany are not to befound: as they who by occasion of Canons cited thence in the Decrees and Decretals, have diligently searched through the chiefest liberaries of Europe, do note. And a certain famous and ancient council of Ments being commended & praised above the other, by Tretenius & Surius, who wisheth he might have gotten it to be published; showeth that some extant, are not too be compared with some that are lost, wherefore Bellarmine's 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 counsels▪ Canons meant of Marriage after the former wife's death: is like too prove as false as the proof thereof is frivolous and fond. For 
m quedam. 32  these are the wotds of the Canon: A certain woman lay with her husband's brother: it is decreed the adulterers shall never be Married: but lawful Marriage shall be granted unto him, whose wife the villainy was wrought with. Which words are wenll expounded (saith Bellarmin) by the Doctors, and their meaning gathered 
n 〈…〉 ●adem quaect  out of the like Canon ●ollowing a little after: wherein it is ordained, that When the adulterous wife is deceased, her man may marry whom he will; but herself the adulteress may not marry at all, no not her husband being dead. Gratian in deed, and the gloss-writers on him (the Doctores meant by Bellarmin) doth them wrong in saying they expound it rightly. For this Canon 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 
o quod proposuisti, cap. ●  the above alleged Canon of Gregory the third permitting marriage to the innocent party while the other lived, doth infer the contrarie. And the counsels words mentioning expressly the Innocent party's freedom & 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 showed. Hereunto the judgement of 
p Bebl, Sanct lib. ● a●not 81 under the name of syvadns  Sixtus Senensis doth add no small weight, sith he albeit striving to weaken the strength & cut the sinews of it, acknowledgeth not withstanding that it was of one mind with the council of Tribur. So was Pope Alexander the third too some time, though Bell. allege 
p ●ebl, sanct lib. 6 auno● 8● under the●n●●e of syu●d●s  him as of another mind. 
Ex●arte extra de spōse● matrim.  But let Bellarmin say whether he had two minds & erred in on of them: seeing it is certain he 
●e Venie●● de eo qui  was of this mind once, unless he wrote against his mind. For whereas a man that had wedded a wife, did, before he entered the marriagebed with her, enter her mother's bed: Pope Alexander said, that he doing some penance might be dispensed with to marry another wife. Here the Pope's favour towards the offender; doth savour of that which 
●ran●. Victoria relect ●●e● lib. 1. et. 2  hath been misliked in papal dispensations. But he that granted thus much to the incestuous husband; would (I trust) have granted it to the guiltless wife: as 
Epist Alex and tor● addict. else Append. 〈◊〉. lateram  he did also to her that had this injury. The only evasion whereto a Bellarminian might by his Master's example have recourse, is that the Canonists expound the Pope's words not of a wife but of a spouse, and her espoused also by words of the time to come, not of the time present.  
Which exposition may seem the more probable, because the Pope's words set down in the D●cretalls give her the name of spouse without sinification that the man had wedded her. But hereof friar Raymund who compiled & clipped the Dec●lls must 〈◊〉 the blame, as 
v Annor 8 de vari●s decretal et in diaesat Grego t●j u●nl.  Antonius Contiu● a learned lawyer of their own hath well observed. For the Pope's Epistle which is extant whole in the 
x append Come  Tomes▪ of counsels, declareth that the woman was the man's wedded wife, though he did forbear her company a while. No remedy therefore but it must be granted, that in this matter pope Alexander the third subscribed to the former counsels. Now by all the rest whom I alleged there is none excepted against by a ●nye Papist, for aught that I know, or as I think will be. For 
y Diomor. institu● lib 6. cap ●3.  Lactantius first avoucheth, so the lawfulness of putting away a man's wife for adultery even with intent to marry another that both 
z Epit in lib 4 Decretal. part 2. cap. 7 D 6.  Covaruvias & 
a In 4 sent. 〈◊〉 ●6 ac● 6  Dominicus Soto grant him to be clear from it. Next 
b ci Quadam sen●e●tiam ●2 9 ● Sed ● lud.  toyching the authors mentioned by Grat●an as holding the same for one kind of adultery: who doubted but there were ceertaine so persuaded, when such an adversary con●●sseth it, Then for Pope Celestin the thirde, sith 
c ●un●centi  a Pope saith he thought that a man or wife might lawfully forsake their partners in wedlock for heresy▪ and marry others: I see not how the Papists may deny● h●e thought it lawful for adultery, more than I showed they might of Gregory the third. And albeit 
De cōcord evang cad 102.  Zacharie Bishop of Chrysopolis, may seem to sh●w rather what other m●ns opinion was then what his own; yet it is apparent by this manner of handling that he joined with 
in epist. ad 〈◊〉 cap. 7.  Ambrose therein, whos● words he eiteth, and fenceth them against autorities, that might be opposed, As for the Bishop of Burgos, Paul commended heighly by 
f Aust S●ene. ●ec●gn● ver Teb● in Gen 3●●ixt sene● l●b. 4.  learned men for learning, 
g Addit. 2 ad lyt in Ma 19  he saith that it is manifest by Christ's doctrine, that whoesoever putteth away his wife for whoredom, committeth not adultery 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. Too conclude Bellarmin confesseth that Erasmus, 
En●tar in epist 〈◊〉 cap. 7.  Caietan, Catharinus, Lnther. Melancton, Bucer Calvin, Br●utius, Kemnitius, Peter Martyr, and in a word all Lutherans & Calv●nists (as it pleaseth this Roman Tertullus to name us poor 
i ●●cti 24. 5  Nazarens) agree that our Saviour doth allow marriage after divorcement for adultery. Howbeit fearing much what a deadly wounnde he might give his cause by granting that Erasmus, 
Te●ton Na●ora●en air seus Prote●●●tis▪  Caut●m, Catharinus three so learned man, and two of them such pillars of the Romish Church a Carpinall and an Arch Bishop agree in this point with Lutherens & Caliunic●: 
8 ● reliquo 〈…〉  he addeth that those three differ much from these heretics (Meaning By heretics the Nazare●s I speak of, 7. whose ringleader was Prul) in as much as they submit themselves expressly to the church's judgement▪ 
9 ●bldue test 〈…〉  And because the church (saith he) hath now opened her mind most evidently, as appeareth by the council of Trent the 24 session the 7 Canon, where all who think the band of marriage May be loosed for any cause are a cursed: therefore it seemeth that those three also, & chiefly the two later, must be thought no other wise minded in this matter, then8 all the rest of the Catho. Divines are & have been with great agreemet & consent, which dispute of Bell. if it have sufficien ground & strength of Reasoneras. must be counted a Catholic in all things For ● in al● his writing he submitteth himself to the church's iudgement. Then why doth Bell. call him all demie Christian, & enroll his name among sectaries & heretics? what are the Fathers of the Councel of Trent Demie-christians, 
●biden in. 1. or. ad hunc Ipsum locum emper inquit illabefacto eccle.. catholic●●iditio.  s●ctaries, heretics; they are (by Bell. logic) of one mind with Erasmus. Moreover S. Austin the ciefest man of Bell. side in this question must be counted ours by the same logic. For m he taught expressly that himself; yea any Bishop even S. Cyprian, yea provincial Coūc. to, should yield to the authority of a general Coun. & the 6 general Coun. granted liberty of marriage after divorcement, as hath been declared: wherefore if Caietan must be thought no other wise minded then Papists are, because that church who●e iudgment he did submit himself to, defi●ed so at Trent a good while after his death: S. Astin must be thought no otherwise minded them we are, because our assertion was confirmed likewise by a General Counc. whereto he would haye yielded. Chiefly sith of liklyhood he would have more easily ye●lded thereunto, Thencaietan to his churches because 
u Cou●cil milevit cum ●7. carthag. sent. Prefat. 7.  Caietan showeth he was stiff in holding fast his own opinion, ● whenfor fear of churchmen he durst not say all that he thought; & in this very point, though ● submitting himself to the See of Rōe as well as to the church, p he eludeth decrees of q popes that make against him, so resolute he was in it, S. Austin contrariwise used very modestly & willingly to retract things that he had written, even when he lighted on aught in an heretic that seemed better & truer, & this point he thought t so dark in the scriptures, & hard to be discerned, that his opinion was not hard to be removed; if he had seen stronger reason brought against it, or greater authority. Now if S Austin come over to our side by that quirk of Bell. a band of Bellar. witnesses is like to come with him namely the council of Melevis & Africa, ● which he was present at, & swayed much with: perhaps Primasius also (were he Austin's f●hōlar) & Bede with a number of Canonists, & s●hool men, who followed most S. Austin. But Bella. will never resign all these unto us, to gain the other three from us. For (as our beehive saith) Men live not by losses. He must suffer therefore Erasmus, & Caietan, & Catharinus specially, who (beside the 
z Annot in comment cajetan. lib. 5.  place that Bellarmin hath quoted) doth avouch the matter in a treatise written purposely there of, more throughly & exactly then Erasmus or Caietan; Bellarmin I say must suffer them to be counted of that mind which they were of, while themselves 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 reason that whreas they were deceased above x. years' yet the Cou. of Trent made that new canon, we ought to count them alive all that while, because they did submit themselves to physicians & would have lieved perhaps till then, had art been able to cure diseases. How much more agreeably to si●gelnes & truth do Sixtus, Covarruvias, & Domeni●us Soto acknowledge (the two former touching Catharinus the last for Erasmus, all con●erning Caiet an) that in this question of marriage: again after divorc●m●ur for adultery, 
E●itaph. Fabi. er. Adman.  their doctrine is the same with those ancient Fathers whom our younger teachers of the reformed churches follow. And thus if I should enter into the comparison of Divines on both sides: first, or the number it is more then likely, that we prevay●e much, For all whom Bellarmin and the pamphleter after him do muster out of the west, I mea●e whom they claim justly, not who either say against them as Tertulli●n, or not with them as Scotus, all therefore whom they master foe o●t of the West, are Jerom the councels of Melvis and A●frique In●ocentius the firste Austin, Paimasius, Isiodore, Bede, the Co●ncell of Friouli and Nantes, Auselmus, Pope Alexander & Innocentius the third, Thomas Bonaventure, Durand; and other S●holemen, Pope Eugenius with his florentines & the council of Trnt  
Which though Gratian, Lombard and whomsoever he might bill, were added to them yet ours out of the West alone perhaps would match them? What if the North, the South, whence Bellar. hath none? what if the East, when●e he hath two or three at the most for hund●reds of ours be joined thereto? 
●ean ga●demus de divortijs.  Then for quality came the word of God out from you? saith Paul to Corinthiaus, or Came to you only? Meaning that they ought to reverence the judgement of other christian Churches being more then they were: but of those cheeflly & first (as he placeth them) from whom the Gospel came firste. Now the Go●pel came first out of the East: whose consent we have in a manner generally, 
Sent. lib. 4. d●t. 35.  and as we have the first in country so in time the ancientest and eldest: our two firste counsels in Spain, and in France elder an hundr●d years th●n their two in Africa, our next far elder yet than their next; and so unto the laste: yet, for several Fathers, ancient on both sides, there are more with us in the four or five or six foremost ages than th●re are with them.  
Of soundness in Doctrine, of learning, of virtue, of constancy, of cōse●t, it is hard to speak by way of comparison whether excelleth other. 
c 1. Tim 3. 3 Tim. 2. 24   
Saving that for gentleness and meekness, a special ornament of bishops, weigh both parties together, 
6. wga●●●ut Saviour also who saith it  and ours surpass our adversaries.  
Amongst whom the council of Trent accurseth all such as say that they do err in this point, into which outrage none of ours hath broken against the cotrary minded. As for other graces of the holy Ghost, though Bellarmin have noted sundry spots and blemishes whereby some of ours are touched in credit, 
Bel. tom cont 3. lib. 4 Cap. 12.  and their authority is impeached let him cast his eyes upon his own witnesses without pertirlity, 
e l●id. Ca 14 〈◊〉 the Place.  and he shall find that we have a Rowland for his Oliver. For where he telleth us that Ambrose did err in yielding greater freedom to men then to women; Luther & Bucer in granting second marriage after divorcement for more causes than whoredom, 
g ●u Marc. C. 10.  pope Gregory the same for sicknes●Celestine the same for heresy: 
h Did. cov●t  we tell him again that Clemens Alexandrinus Athenagoras, Origen (if he be out of theirs) Jerom and Bede did errelikwise in speaking against all second marriages, & Clemens with Origen in sundry wighty points of faith. Where he telleth us that Lactantius fell into a number of errors, as being more skilful in Tully then in the scriptures, we tell him again that some of the schoolmen were, though not more skilful in Tully, then in the scriptures yet as unfkilfull in the scriptures, as in Tully; & their graund● 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 Melancton agreeth not with him, 
& lib. 6. An●not. 11●.  nor K●mnitius with either of them, because Luther allawed divorement for more causes afterward then at the firste, & Melancton thinketh that both the divorced parties are free to marry Kemnitius that the innocent only, 
Sixt senens cad, v●t.  we tell him again that niether doth Pope Innocentius the thirde agree with Pope Alexander, nor Alexander with himself nor neither of them with Athenagoras, 
Tom ●cont●  seeinge Athenagoras condemneth second marriage which the Popes allow, 
Meleh ca●us  though Alexander punished one that blessed it; 
m Articuli● in quibus  Innocentius checketh a decree of Alex. 
cum sec●●d u●capella●ū extca de  that deprived the Innocent party of his right because the offendor had sinned thus, or thus: Alex. whether in this deree 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 Bellarmin & for us do testify. 
Closs in d●●  So Bellarmine's objections of human infirmetyes and wants notwithstanding, they which are of our fide excel in estimation those which are of his, 
Tertul chro●●t Hilax p●●lem cone Ven 〈◊〉 etc  for diverse circumstances & respects.  
And (the most important respect of all others) the ground whereupon ours do build- their Doctrine, is the plain evidence and express testemonye of our Savioure Christ, 
〈◊〉. 19 7  excepting whoredom namely out of the cruses for which he denieth a man may put away his wi●e & marry another. Contrary wise 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 where of is seen in three the most peremptory men for his matter, & best accounted of among them, Innocentius the first. the 3. & Thom. of Aquin. Thom. in that he answereth that Christ's exception pertaineth to the putting away of the wife, & not to the marring of another, also Inuoc. the first, in that he omitt●th the exception quite, & citeth Christ's words thus whoso putteth away his wise for whoredom, & marrieth another doth commit adultery Innoc. 
● Que●̄que dimisserit us o●●● suam obsorni cationem.  the third, in that he depraveth & altereth the exception, affirming that C●rist saith whoso●ver putteth away his wife for whoredom, & marrieth another, doth commit adultery: whosoever putteth away his wif● for whoredom. A notable corruption by s●raping out of the sentence 
8 Nisi el m● or me.  the exceptive particle having the force of a negative, to change for this point into an affirmative: & so ea●ily to be corrupted by the text of the Scripture itself, that I doubted whether it were not the printers or bookewriters error, untyll I perceived that all the printed copies, which I could get the sight of, did agree there in; even the new one to Gre. the thirtenth conferred with all the written copies in the Pope's liberarie, beside many other, & corected by them. But of such buildings such must be the ground wrokes; or equal unto such in force; An untruth will never cleav unto the truth by other kind of mortar▪ in probability therefore it is to be presumed that not only the greater part of the fathers but the better also, & they whose grounds are surer do maintain our doctrine. So the weapon which Bell. draweth out of their sheath against us, doth bent back & turn the point against himself: and the wound it may give, it can not pierce so deep as that which is sharper than any two edged sword, but the wound it may give, it giveth 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 yieldeth, yet no man will (I trust) sure no man of modesty & sense can deny, but the main & principal point I had to show, namely that the Fathers consent not all in one for the Papists doctrine, is showed to their shane, whose face & conscience served them to avouch the contrary. Wherefore sith our adversaries do grant that the Fathers have not strength enough to prove a point in qustion unless they all consent about it: Bell. with his pamphleter must consequently grant, that their cursing Trent assertion in this point cannot be proved by Fathers & so the second staff which they have framed themselves to lea●e upon, is like to that broken staff of reed, Egypt, whereupon (saith the Scripture) if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it.   

The Fourth Chapter.  
The Conceits of reason, urged last against us, are oversights pr●oceeding from darkness not from light, and Reason itself, dispelling the Mist of Popish probabilities, giveth clear Testimony with the truth of Christ,  
The third and last objection, whereupon the Jesuit & his scholar stand, is conceit of reason: divided into five branches as it were, or Rivers issuing from on spring. The water whereof how unlike it is to the water of Siloah, and savouring of that puddle of which the Roman deputy Gallo did draw when having undertaken to do according to reason he spoke profanely of Religion, and suffered one to be wrongfully vexed for regarding it, as if to do justice in that case were agai●ste reason, 
1. Argumentum agatione p●●●m.  I leave it to be judged & considered by them who say that our reason is naturally dark, and leadeth her wisemen into sottish follies, neither can discern the things which are of God till it be lightened with his spirit. For although the Papists have some glimpse of light and see more than the heathens, as the phare●ies did whose words (I am afride) they will use likewise: are we also blind? yet as the phare●ies were over seen foully in may 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 to Bell. ceasterns in this point the benames of reason lightened from above shall open and descry; let such as love not darkness more thin light be judges. For he reasoneth first thus: The Marriage of the faithful is a sign of Christ's coniuncttion with the Church, as S. Paul teacheth. But that conjunction is indissolluble, and cannot be loosed, The band of Marriage is therefore indissoluble too.  
As if a rebel should say, The joining of the head with the body in man resembleth the conjunction of Christ with the C●urch as S. Paul teachth. But Christ and the Church can never be parted; therefore the head may never be cut from the body. A happy conclu●ion for traitors; if it were true. But if it be false where then is Bellarmin reason? which will take the greater overthrow by this because look how Cbrist is the head of the Church, semblably the husband is the wife's head. So that notwithstanding the similtud of Christ's headship, the joint whereby a traitor's head is knit to 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 the like reason, notwithstanding marriage is a sign of Christ's conjunction with the Church. And if this fuffice not to make him acknowledge the looseness and fondness of his sophistical syllogism, let him observe farther that the separation which themselves allow in case of adultery is condemned by it. 
Bellar de ma●ium ser. ●acre Cap. 14. eiur  For Christ doth continue with his church always, & cherisheth her ●or ever with his spirit of comfort, & is so far from dispoylinge her o● her own, wealth, if she had any, that of his gifts & graces still he leaveth with h●r. Now the papists teach that a man may lawu●uly with draw himself from ever dwelling with his wi●e, and ●rom yielding husband-like love & duty to her, yea may still wit●ould her own dowry from her if she be an adulteress. Which doctrine how could Bell. cleanse from stain of error, i● some whore of Rome should touch it with this reason. The marriage of the faithful is asigne ●f Christ's conjunction with the Church, 
C. ●rmatrin, ●ac ram. ca. 4●  as Paul teacheth but Christ doth still assist relive, & enrich the Church with his graces: thrrefore must the husband dwell still with his wife & find her maintenance & wealth. would he say the council of Trent accus●th all who make such jesuitical syllogism & sophisms against their sa●red camnon. Certainly the harlot's reason must be good unless the Jesuits be nought. But he goeth onwaard and addeth that albeit some parts of the church, te weet the faithful folk do commit spiritual whoredom now and then and make a divorcement yet is not lawful for them to change their God. What a speech is this? As who would say▪ our Saviour could deserv● at our hands that we should forsake him, and get ourselves a new bridgrom. Neither doth God cast them so away (saith Bellarmin) that he will not be reco●ciled, nay he doth exhort to reconcilement still still? To whom then swore he, they should not enter into his rest? What were they whose carkeises sell in the wilderness? whence c●me the man of God who wil●d them that cōn●it Idolatrey to be slain? wh●re lived the prophet who says Thou destroy●s●al them that go a-whoring from thee: The Israelites whom God did shut out of the promisede laude, of whom he took many thousands away by sundry plagues, to whom the law speak has being under the law, did they not profess that faith & use those Sacraments which all that do are faithful folk & parts of the Church in Bell. phrase & meaning? I grant that God offereth to be reconciled some times to such offenders, & waiteth in mercy long for their amendment. Whi●h i● it be a pattern for us to follow herein, I say, if it be, for God gave time of repentance to Joab a wil●ul murderer, who the magistrate should have put to death presently: God gave time of repentā●e to Idolatrous wives of the Jews, whom their husbands ought not to have spared so: if therefore God's action herein be set down for our imitation, the man that can contain, & be without a wife, as God without our servi●e, may like wise in m●rcie wait for her repentance & when he perceiveth it to be be unfeigned, take her again to be his wife. But h● who can not or will not render such kindness for such unkindness and wickedness, may in justice also put her so away that no place or hope of reconcilement be left her, as Bellarmin own reason in this similitude teacheth. For God is not bound to give unto profane despisers of his grace & breakers of his covenant place of repentance & reconciliation: Nay he may in justice absolutely deny it them, & oftentyms doth as the examples of Cain of Esau, of Corah, Dathau and Abiram, of Zimri, of Acan, of Auanias & Saphira, of infinite other, that have either presently died in their sins, or had sentence of death pronounced irrevocably against them▪ do argue. wherefore Whenbell. concludeth this reason with sayin that S. Austin urgeth it greatly in his book of the Good of marriage; 
De bone conjug cap. 7 15  ●e dealeth as Cooks do in larding lean meat to give that a relish which of itself will be unsavoury, Though even for the lard to perhaps it agreeth not half so well herwith, as this italiam cook would have us think it doth, 
De adulter. cō●g. ad Pollenium.  For why did not S. Austin urge the same likewise in his books of adulterous marriages written afterward & purposely maintaining this Point against Pol●tius who gainfaied him in it? 
Retractat. ib 2. cap. 22.  was it because he saw that he had urged it more than it would bear well? or that he perceived it would not hold against an adversarye: though without an adversary it were a pretty allusion? At lest whatsoever men deem of the lard, the meat is nought questionless: & such that 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 th' white of an egg hath. For himself saith that marriage betokeneth & signifieth Christ's conjunction with the faithful soul, as Thomas & the Pope reach. But Christ's conjunction with the faithful soul is not ind●ssoluble, 
● Innocentiv● the third c. debitum extra de digam is. 4 Injuri● affice 〈◊〉 Prolee. ●  as him self also saith: the band of marriage therefore (by his own consequence) may be dissolved & loosed. And thus far of his first sophism.  
The next is that if other marriage were lawful, the offspring should be injuried: for the children borne already (saith he) should ●e evilll provided for, who should begin to have a stepfather in steed of a father, a stepmother in steed of a mother. where hence the conclusion secretly inferred, to weet that other marriage therefore is not lawful, would very well follow if his foremost ground & proposition werr true, that the children 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 injuried? his reason ensueth▪ for they should be evil provided for, what? therefore? Is God unjust them, who by taking men out of this present life, doth leave their wife's widows; & their children fatherless: both often destitute of help? God forbid (saith the Apostle) else how shall God judge the world? But the children should be endamaged thereby, & that perhaps will Bell, say was his meaning, well, they should be endamaged & evil provided for. Why? Because they shol● have a step father instead of a father or stepmother in steed of a mother. Then belike the braūhe● cut of the oliutre which was wild by nature & graffed contrari to nature in aright olive tree; are evil provided for & endanaged by it, For as when a gardenar asked why the herbs which he set or sowed do grow & shoot up so slowly, where weeds which the earth brought forth of her own accord increased a pace, Aesop said that it was because the earth is the weeds mother, and the herbs steep-mother: so the wild Olive tree was the mother that brought forth such brauches: the right Olive tree whereinto they were graffed, is their stestmother. S, Paul, who thought it better for us of the gentiles to be graffed so, then to continue as we were the children of wrath by nature: declareth that a Christian whose wife being an infidel, an nnbelever, forsaketh him, is free to marry anoth●r. Which considering that he had an eye to the holly seed, their offspring also) what letteth him to have done with this persuasion, that the children should receive more good & benefit by a believing stepmother then by an umbeleeving mother. Doubtless his care of having them brought up in godliness, a thing that godly mothers do further very much, and ungodely hinder, is argueat agnement that he was of this mind▪ And the son of Catelyne, whom that adulterous wretch his father murdered to compass the more easily the liking of a woman whom he lusted after, hath left snfficient proofs that some having fathers are no better looked to for things of this life neither, then they should of liklyhood, if in steed thereof they had stepfathers. Wherefore sith experience varifieth the same in men which in women, that when they have made shipwreck of their chastity, they will not stick at any wickedness: the argument that children should be endamaged & evil provided for, because in steed of adulterers' 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 children should be endamaged how followeth the conclusion? The children should be endamaged by marriage another eitherefore the marriage is not lawful? ●or by this reason a believing husband forsaken by his wife being an unbelever, may not take another if he had children by the former. Nay no wife or husband having any children may lawfully ever marry again either of them after the others death. 
6 Adulte●●tū virgo de servi domum Sen Agamemnon  And in deed by a law that Charondas made for his Thurian citizens, the men who did so were punished. And Mar. Antonius, an Emperor of Rome, because he was loath to wed a stepmother to his children his wife being dead, kept a concubine. And S. Jerom speaking as the Catharists did, against second marriage, doth by detestation of a stepfarther d●ssuad a widow from it. But the Papists hold agreeably to Scripture that the man is at liberty to marry in the Lord after the woman's death, the woman after the man's: yea in life time also, if either of them being an infidel & unbeliever forsake the other being a Christiam, And Bell. acknowledgeth that they hold both these points, & aught to hold them Bell. shall therefore do well to acknowledge that his step-reas●n, which oppugneth both these points of sound doctrine, savoureth of heresy, neither maketh more for him against us, then ●or the Catharists against the Catholic Fathers. Wherewith he may confess to that he hath abused Ambrose in affirming this to be his reason: & avouching him to say, that the Father ought to pardon the mother's fault for the children's sake. For S, Amb. blaming the man, 
7 Dim 'tis uxorem quasi ju●esine crimi●e.  who putteth away his wife without crime, and marrieth another, an adulteress by so marrying; misliketh 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. Ambr wisheth the children to be under their father, not under such a stepfather, And if the Fath●r casting out his wife so, cast out his children with her: S. Amb. saith the children should rather purchase pardom for their mother's fault at their father's hands, then be cast out for her sake. Wherein he doth no more say that the father ought to pardon the mother's adultery for the children's sake; then Abraham said that God ought to forgive the Sodomites abomination for Lot's sake, when he said that the wicked should rather be spared for the righteous, them the righteous should be destroyed with the wicked. But here peradventure the pamphleter will reply that although Bell. author & argument (as himself observed, who there upon cut Bell. shorter) prove not his intent to weet that another marriage is unlawful: yet they prove such marriage to be inconvenieur in respect of the children, to whom there riseth hurt & discomodity by it, For answer whereunto & to the like reasons drawn by him & Bell. from other inconveniences, 7 things are to be noted: all such as our adversaries themselves must n●eds yield to, 
● De Ma●ri●m. Sacram lid 14 ● gandem●s. ext●● de co●●ers co●iugat  & yielding thereunto shall set on fire their own chaff. The first that the man whose wife is an adulteress: may put her absolutely away, for all his liftyme: nor is ever bound to let her dwelwith him again, no not though sh● repent. Which point being plainly implied in our saviours answer to the Pharises, Bel. avoucheth and maintaineth thence: agreably to the doctrine of his chiefest guides the Pop●s & Thom. of Aquine. The second that if the woman continue in her wickedness, without repentance & amendment, the man is by duty bound to put her away. S. Mat. 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, Joseph being a just man, & not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. Of which words impotting that justice mov●d 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 weet an adulteress, cannot be kept without sin, whether she repent or no. And Cornelius Jansenius 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 repent she may be kept with out sin: acknowledging that she may not in the new Test▪ neither unless she repent. Whereunto the Canonists and schoolmen do accord; 
Innocen● 〈◊〉 lib ● de contempt.  expounding a sentence cited by many Fathers our of the Prov. of Salo. He that keepeth an adulteress, is a f●nle & a wicked man; a sentence sound in the Greek text of the Prov. albeit not expressed out of the Hebrew fountain, but add●d by the seventy Interpreters, or other, perhaps to show that Salo. commending a wife, did mean a chaste wife in their judgement, but added in the Greek, & thence translated also into the commo Latin edition called, S. Jerome's. so that it goet for Scripture with Papists by their Trent Canon; this sentence I say, & the Canons of the Fathers that urge it undi Sinctly against whosoever keepeth an adulteress, whether repentant or unrepentant, in like sort as the civil Law condemned all such, the Canonists & schoolmen distinguish & expound of such as keep adulteresses, which do nor repent & amend their lives. Now granting that a man may keep an adulteress 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 lest impunity increase inequity. And this is agreed on by the same pillars of the Church of Rome, the Canonists & schoolmen. Hermes out of whom the Master of the sentences allegeth & 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, 
9 in libre S. 〈…〉  unless Stapleton lie, who saith their Catholic Church at this present may add to the Catalogue of canonical Scriptures that book of Hermes, written in the Apostles time by S. Paul's scholar, not only cited much but commended to by many & most ancient Fathers, Clemens, Ireneus, Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius, & Ierom. At least the chiefest part of the Canon Law compiled by the direction 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: 
● L●be● q●li appe●etur Pa●●bris, 〈◊〉 p●us d●st. 15  the Papists though they will not (I trow) be of Stapleton's mind for Hermes book, yet may think it likely that the Councel & Pope approved his meaning in this point. Chiefly sith Panormitan, the flour of the Canontsts having noted on it that one offending often must not be pardoned, because sins unpunished do becon examples, citeth an excellent proof & light thereof a law of worthy Emperors, Valentinianus, Theodosius, & Arcadius: who granting a general pardon for smalller trespasses extended it to non committed oftener then once; accounting such unworthy of their Princilie favour, 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 deserpardon oftener than loesses faults with them, or whether they think it sufficient to pardon on so great a crime, which the Emperor's except-by name out of their pardon, 
Authens u●ll●cat m●tret ●vl● Qu●a ve●o plur●m coll●t, ●  & willed it to be punished even the first time: The papists do agree that a husband must not forgeve it to his wife often. The fourth thing to be noted is, that a woman being put a way so, doth lose her dowry too by law. Which punishment as God hath threatened by his law to men that go awhoring from him, though they have not any dowry of their own neither, but of his gift: so the Civil law hath inflicted it on adulterous wives, & the camnon law in looser times also. The fifth, that many persons mistake the help prepared of God, and marry or do worse: considering that some cannot contain, as Pope Gregory noteth touching men S, Ambrose touching women, the scripture touching both; some, though they could perhaps, yet sho●ld h●ut their bodies with sickues, & if they did, as physic & philosophy teach; some though neither chastity nor health enforce them to marry, yet need it for their state of living, as Dominicus Soto doth prove by certain poor husbandmen & labourers. The sixth, that if a man die & have no sonne; his inheratance ought to come to his daughter by the law of Moses & if he have no daughter, it ought to come to his brothers, & so fourth to the next kinsman of his family. Unto which ordinance: the laws of all well ordered states & common weals are though in certain circumstances defferent, yet in supstance suitable. The seventh, that it is sundry ways incommodius for a child to be unlawfuly be gotten (as we term it) base-born because both the ignoneny thereof is a blemish & that blemish breedeth basnes of courge; & bastards are not brought up so well by their Parents as lawful children use to be: neither are they priveleged alike; 
Chrisosto. in epi ad Hebre. Rom. 29▪  & peferred to place of public government, or benefit of inheritance by laws divine or human. And these things being weighed well show that Bll. reason corected by the pamphletter needeth a new core●ctiō: & if inconveniences might decide our question which they cannot do for many things are lawful that are not expedient but if they mihht decid it, they would sway with us rather then against us. For in case the man, burning with jealousy & rage which is unlawefull in this kind of injury or the woman being (as adulteresses commonly are) wicked, impius, once nanght & always nought, he will not or may not keep or take her again, the children missing her, are destitute of a mother to look to their education. 
L. Ceneral●ter Spatios D. de● D●entionibus   
And then it were better for them that their Father took a second wife to breng them up, as Plato thought, wherein another man might have the like success that Poris (a gentleman of Macedonia) had whose former wi●es children were brought up as carfuly by their stepmother own children were. But if it fall not out with many as with him, & the children find more sharp and hard usage at their stepmother's hands, who knoweth whether it may not turn to their more good. Chiefly ●ith the tender indulgencen of Parents doth nourish wanton wickedness, in the sons of Eli, ambition in Adonia, transgressions in whom not? and moderate severytle 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 restraing hemselves from tricks of unthrifts did show by their examples. Here is a farther help to for the children's benefit, that their father having their mother's whole dowry beside whatsoever the second wife bringeth is able to do more for them whereas contrariwise: if by means he cannot live single and unmarried he be constrained to keep the adulteress still or after separation too receive her again: 
〈…〉  she is likely to give her own & her husband's gods to her lover, as messalliva did to Silvis or though she take gifts and rewards of him, to wast all in riot, as the whores of Cattilinis conf●dracie did. Moreover a woman that can have no sons, but daunghters only by her husband, may have sons by another man, as Hippocrates showeth, Which if the adulteress have by her lover the daughters to whom the in heritance should come are defrauded of it, And if she have but daughters or younger sons by him the bastards; presuned to be lawful children, defraud the lawful children of so much as them selves get. The 〈◊〉 hatcheth her eggs in other birds nests, & the eggs she findeth of theirs, she devowreth, as Arist. writeth: or, as Pline saith the birds that sitteth abroad upon her own eggs & the cuckoos when both their young are bred up, liketh the cuckoos bird better than their own, and suffereth them to be devoured of him in her own sight. A term in reproach drawn in many languages from the cuckoos name to note their calamity, or (if they suffer it willingly) dishovesty who receive other men into their beds & foster up their children, 
Vestigia ●iralien i Collatine in lecto sunt 〈◊〉 Liv lib. 2  may be a sufficient leson for a father what comfort & benefit his children are to look for by having such a mother to feed & oversee them. Beside to omit suspicion 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 dublique penance, & be shut out all that while from the communion, yea want the consort thereof even at his death too, (by another Co.) if he be of the C●●argi●, And how can he choose but live still in fear & anguish of mind, lest he add drunkenness to thirst, & murder to adultery: I mean lest she serve him as Clytem●estra did Agamemnon, as Li●●ia did Drusus as Mr. Arden did her hushand? or if to avoid these griefs of shame & daunnger he put her quite away and resolve never too come again in house with her ●he may incur as great danger or shame, or both nay greater, on the other side, by lack of anecessary help for his living, or by state of body subject to certain sicknesses or by incontinenci, weather consuming burnig him without remedy, or forcing him to dannable remedies of whores or worse, Further more his wife, the adulterous mother, may be the boulder to sin, & to return as the dog to his vomit, & the sow washed to wallowing in the mire, if she know her husband cannot want a wife, & must have her or none, which pethaps moved that Gentle woman of Rome to be the more licentious, 
Quam●e nunquam repuhiaru●um ante iu●eva  whom her husband found playing the incestuous whore with their son in law: after that she had her husband bound by oath that he would never separate & divorce her from him, for to be free to marry another, And why may not she live too in pertual heaviness & fear, lest her husband being chained with such necessity should seek to get himself libetty of marrying by making her away: There was a certain Spā●jard, whose wife driven out by him for her adultery & estsons reconciled, was when she offended again, divorced from him by an Ecclesiastical judge, at his suit, & shut into a monastery. The husband saying after ward that he loved her, & that he a greed for fear to the divorcement, desired that he might be reconciled to her, & she restored to him, according to the civil Law Navarus (as famous a man forskil in canon law, among the Papists, as Bell. for Divinity (being asked his indgment what should be done herein made answer, 
Ex a more cotra●endi cum a●● Postlius mortem.  that the wife divorced in such sort, is not bound to return again unto her husband, & that the husbands speech of his affection must not be easily believed, because he may fayne it to theintent to allure her thereby to dwell with him, that he may slay or poison her, through desire of marrying another wife, after her death. Of which thing (saith Navarus) there may suspicion & conicture rise of the circumstances of her offence; & his suit: chiefly in a man of the Spanish nation, which is more inclined to bear small love to their wius yea being chaste then to be reconciled to then 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 them (himself a Spanjard) witnesseth? yet an Italian Marquis who put to death his wife taken in adultery & married another declareth that not only Spanjards will adventure to make their wives away, if finding then unchaste, they must have some & would have better. Finally if the wife not able to have any children 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 lose his inheritance: & that which they ought to enjoy by right the adulterous feed will intercept & purloin, I let pass the public harms and discommoditis which by such iniquities of private persons were likely to a crrew to the common weal.  
These that I have touched suffice to overweigh our adversary's reason drawn from inconveniences. For if I should stand on the cildrens alone, even those already borne whom Bell. expressly mentioneth & nameth: the hardness of a stepfather or stepmother lighting on them by the second marriage, cannot counterpoise the loss in education, wealth, inheritance, honour, which an adulterous parent bringeth, Beside that the children to be borne afterward (as Bell. by naming those already borne seemeth to confess) should be evil provided for: whose baseness of birth and discommodities following it Proceeded from restraint of maring again after divorcement for adultery. Wherefore if we put with all in our balance the detriments & harms, that grow to the father, the mother, the brethren and kinsmen of the father I might say to the common weal too: the balance of our adversaries will be tilted up so high by the weight of ours, as if it were lighter than vanity itself.  
And thus by the way of weakness of Bell. third & fourth reasons is des●ryed & daunted. The third that if the marriage we treat of were lawful, a gap would be opened to infinite divorcements, yea wrongful & vi●●st. The fourth that if the i●nocent party may marry, the nocent also may, who then should gain by his sin, 
i platin a de v●●x pont i● cum, in P●o. 2.  & many would sin of purpose that they might marry others. For as one of the wisest, and best learned Popes Pius the ● said, that marriage was taken away from Priests for great cause, but aught to be restored to them for greater: so may a judicious & discrete Papist supposing these reasons of Bell. to be sound, say that marriage after divorcement 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 all though his reasons be confuted sufficiently with this supposal, let them be tried also by the rules of reason, & it will appear they are a great deal sounder in show then in decde. For the divorcement of an adulteress from her husband is punishment of her sin: as hanging with us is a punishment of thieves, of cutpurses, & burning through the ear of rogues. So that Bell. reason concluding the marriage in question to be unlawful, beca●se a gap would be opened to infinite divorcements, is likeas if a libertine or vagabond should say, that it is unlawful for judges to do justice on rogues, thieves, & cutpurses, 
k Innocent quart in c. si se d●xerit. exrta de adule Hostiens sum de adult. 5.  because there would be opened a gap to infinity hangings, & burnings through theeares, But some me● (Saith Bell.) would sow debates, pick quarrels, devise faulse accusations against their wives being innocent: & so a gap would be opened to wrongful divorcements, not to divorcements only. What? must no offendor, no traitor, no blasphemer then be put to death because many thousands of innocent persons, yea innocence itself, have been accused falsely, & put to death wrongfully? Or if Bellar. grant, that all though some sitting to judge according to the law, do manifest wrong to guiltless men against law, yet must wicked miscreants be exequted by the Magistrate who beareth not the sword in vain: he granteth it is cavilling captiousness & sophistry to conclude that men divorced lawfulle may not marry because some would therefore de divorced unlawfully: the greater was his fault to say that this reason is touched by, S. Jerom: whose oversight he should have done better to acknowledge & friendly to excuse it by his haste in writing; for haste is unadvised & blind (as on said well) then by his name to cowtenance so weak a reason in itself, so dangerous in consequence, which overtroveth all administering of juctice & iudgment. And sith himself teacheth against S. Jerome's judgement that a man whose wise enticeth him to heresy, or to wicked deeds, may be divorced from her, because although the wemans' 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 indifferency & equity of an unpartial eye have seen that the church should by the same reason allow the innoeent to marry: at least that S. Jerome's credit cannot prejudice us more in the one point then him in the other. True is that (I cannot deny) which he addeth true, most true & certain, that the8 offenders should gain by their sin, if they might also marry, as well as the innocent. 
Commodum ex peeca●osuo adulter reportaret dan 4. 16  They should gain in deed. But as Dan. said unto Nabuch. the dream be to them that hate the & the iuterpretation thereof to thine enemies: In like sort may I say, this gain be to the enemies of God & of his Church. For adulterers & aldulteresses do gain, first, dishonesty, defiling their bodies & souls with an heinous & detestable crime. Then hardly scape they, but they gain beggary to the man if he be a whormonger, wasting all commonly as the prodigal child did; the woman losing her dowry. Beside they gain infamy; a gain of greater value them beggarry by much: for a good name is to be chosen above great riches. Last of all they gain the heavi● wrath of God, & his just vengenance: they lose the inhertance of the kingdom of Heaven, & purchase to themselves the chains of darkness for ever Lucretia a matron of Rome in time of paganism, having suffered violence of Sixeus Tarqvinius, when her husband being sent for to come unto her 9 did ask her Is all well? No quoth the; for what is well with awaman, her chastity being lost? yet she if better iudgement 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 instructor of the youth of Rome and of the Romanists through all Christendom, 
● Lucret●a no 〈…〉.  doth maintain in print that Lucretia, not she I spoke of but such a Lucretia as the Pope's daughter was having lost not only chastity but also wealth, good name God's favour▪ 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 Tarquinuus, & match a graceless whore witha a shameless beast.  
As for the last of Bell. points of inconvenience that many would commit adultery of purpose to the intent of being set free from their former wives, they might mary others: it may be some would, & I have read of a woman 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 beaten her at length he killed her The man who of purpose to get anew wife would cowmit adultery, should dessire more strips then that woman meant, & die a death infinitely more grevous than she did. 
Sigis mund commeutar rerum, Mus●● covitat.  But if 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 Romaius had an ancient law that whosoever did a man injury, should by way of punishment pay about shilling. There was a lewd losel, a yonthly harebrined Ruffian, who having wealth enough at will & taking a desire in giving honest men boxes on the ears, would walk up & down with a purse full of shillings, which his slave attending an him did carry & giving on a box would bid his slave give him a shilling, another box & a shilling, What was in this case to be done for remedy? If Bell. had lived there & been of the counsel to the state, we see the advice he would give: namely that the amerciment should be taken away because some would do men injury of purpose to fulfil their lusts with paying of a shilling or two. But the Roman governor stoke contrary order, to increase the amercement, according to the discretion & arbitrement of judges: that evel disposed persons might be deterred from trespassing by sharpness of the punishment to be inflicted on them for it, Whose wisdom therein it is to be wished that Princes & 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: 
● Apolog●t cap 6● welerive, Max lib. 2.  And then should Bell. mouth be the sooner stopped for his fourth reason. Which yet in the mean while doth no better prove that fafthfull husbands separated from adulterous wives may not marry again, than usurers & extorcionars 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 Heathen too, where good orders flourished, no divorces were made. For no bill of divorcement was written at Rome, for the space almost of six hundred years after the City was built: but afterward, good orders being overthrown, divorces also were brought in with other vices. And this reason Bellarmim doth lard after his manner with Tertullian's name, to season it thereby & 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 Rōe, was of a chaste wife put away by her husband because she was barin, & did not bear him children. 
〈…〉 sisieprehendisses ●heiudicio raimme ne●a 119.  Now to separate husbands & wives for such causes (we grant) it is unlawful: our saviour allowing it for whoredom only; The example therefore of the well ordared Romans is in vain alleged out of Tertul. against us. But neither was there any divorce for adultery made above 500 years among them, will Bell. perhaps say, I grant. And I will help with a stronger argument: that among the Cains (a state well ordered too) 700 years did pass before any divorcement was made for adultery. For (as Plutarch writeth) there was no adultery committed by the space of so many years among them. But among the ronans (Will Bell. perhaps reply) it is likely that some was committed within 500 years. True. But the husband than might put his wife to death (being convicted first of adultery) without all public iudgment, 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 overthrown, she was divorced only. But whether she were put away by death or by divorcement, the man might marry again. Wherfoore the example of the heathen Romans, both well & evil ordered, fight against the popish Romans, & 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 so much affirm on mine own knowledge (though for aught that I have read & remember it is true (as on Bell. 
● God desecui dis, nupties de repudy. 1. Cen. 43 20.  secret confefsion & silence a man of greater reading & 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 is free to marry again. Bellarmine's speech therefore touching well ordered heathens came in evil season, to raise both them & others' yea Christians too, against him. So his last reason, nay his reasons all are grown to worse plight, than were the seven later cows in Pharaoh's dream, the seven poor, evil favoured & lean fleshede cows, that devowred the the seven former fat well favoured & thereby saved their life. For the thin carkeiss dreamed of by Bellarmin have no● 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 disproveth our assertion I conclude that the point demonstrated at first by the word of truth the doctrine of Christ, That a man having put away his wife for her adultery may lawfully marry another.