Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.

THE FIFTEENTH GENE∣RALL CONTROVERSIE, OF MATRIMONIE.

THe seuerall questions belonging to this Controuersie are these.

First, whether Matrimonie bee a sacrament properly so called.

2 Of the causes of diuorce, and whether it bee lawfull to marry after diuorce.

3 Of the degrees in mariage: First, the maner of supputation or accoun∣ting of degrees. Secondly, whether the degrees forbidden, Leuit. 18. may bee dispensed with. Thirdly, whether any other degrees may bee by humane law prohibited.

4 Of the impediments of mariage, of two sortes. First, of those that may hinder the contract of mariage onely. Secondly, of such impediments, as may both dissolue the contract and the mariage also consummate.

5 The comparison of mariage and virginitie, whether either bee pre∣ferred

before the other before God.

Of these now in their order.

6 Of the times of mariage prohibited.

7 Of the ceremonies and rites of mariage.

THE FIRST QVESTION, WHETHER Matrimonie be a sacrament.

The Papists.

[error 28] THat it is properly and rightly a sacrament instituted of God, and not deui∣sed of men, Concil. Trid. sess. 24. can. 1.

Argum. 1. Ephes. 5.32. This is a great sacrament: Matrimonie is here a signe of an holy thing, representing the coniunction of Christ, and his Church. Ergo, a sacrament.

Answ. 1. The wordes are thus to be read rather, This is a great mystery. Or if we reade sacrament, they haue no great aduantage, seeing they are not ignorant, that the originall word, Mysterie, which they translate sacrament, is attributed to other things then sacraments: as 1. Timoth. 3.16. Mysterie of god∣linesse: Apocal. 17.5. A mysterie great Babylon. Neither doe they themselues much vrge this argument. 2. The Apostle sayth not, that Matrimonie is a my∣sterie, but I speake of Christ and his Church, vers. 32.3. Matrimonie we con∣fesse to be instituted of God, and to be a signe of a holie thing: yet no sacra∣ment: for so was the Sabboth ordayned of GOD, and signified the rest in Christ, Hebr. 4.8. yet was it no sacrament. Wherfore al significatiue and mysti∣call signes are not sacraments.

Argum. 2. Matrimonie giueth grace of sanctification to the parties maried. They shalbe saued in bearing of children, if they continue in faith and loue, 1. Timoth. 2.15. These are the graces giuen by matrimonie. Ergo, a sacrament.

Answ. 1. We denie that any sacraments giue or conferre grace, they are instruments only of grace. 2. We also grant that by matrimonie God giueth to the faithfull this speciall grace to liue in holines & purenes, from the filthy pol∣lution of the flesh: but the sacraments are seales of spirituall graces, and serue for the increase of fayth: it is not sufficient to bee a meanes of any common gift, but of the spirituall and iustifiyng grace to make a sacrament. 3. Where∣fore if by fayth and loue here, they vnderstand only the fidelity and duety of wedlocke, they are not those spirituall graces, whereof sacraments are seales: if wee take them for the true faith and loue, which are the common graces of the faythfull, as the very meaning is, they are as well to be had out of wedlock, as in it.

The Protestants.

THat matrimonie is no sacrament of the Gospell, speaking now properly, and

vnderstanding a sacrament, for the seale of the grace of God in the remission of our sinnes by Christ, it is thus proued:

Argum. 1. Matrimony was instituted by GOD, before sinne, in Paradise, therefore it can be no sacrament of the Gospell.

Argum. 2. Our aduersaries are contrary to themselues: for they call ma∣trimonie a prophanation of Orders, Martin▪ sect. 15. cap. 11. And they say it is more tolerable for a Priest to keepe many concubines then to marrie, Pighius ex Tileman. Hesbus. loc. 21. Err. 2. Doe these fellowes meane in good sooth, that matrimonie is a sacrament, which they make so vile, polluted and vncleane a thing?

3 In euery sacrament there ought to be an external sensible element, as the matter, and a sanctifiyng word, as the forme: But in matrimony there is neither. Ergo, it is no sacrament.

Bellarm. The forme, are the wordes pronounced by the parties themselues, when they contract matrimonie: I doe take thee, &c. They also themselues are the matter: yea and the Ministers of the sacrament too: For the Iesuite holdeth, that it is a sacrament in the very contract and giuing of mutuall consent, before it be solemnized in the Church, De matrim. cap. 6.

Ans. 1. The sacrament is one thing, and the receiuers another: therefore the maried parties cannot be the sacramental matter, being the receiuers. 2. It is not euery word that sanctifieth, but the word of God, 1. Tim. 4.5. but these words, I take thee, are no parte of the word: Ergo, they want also the forme of a sacra∣ment. 3. The ministers of Christ & preachers of the word are only the dispēsers of the mysteries and sacraments of the Church, 1. Cor. 4.1. Wherefore the par∣ties themselues could not be ministers of matrimonie, if it were a sacrament.

Augustine thus writeth,

Ne quis istam magnitudinem sacramenti in singulis quibusque hominib. vxores habētib. intelligeret, ego autē dico, inquit, &c. Lest any man should think, when the Apostle had said, This is a great sacrament, that this great Sacrament is to be vnderstood of all maried persons, the Apostle addeth, but I speake of Christ and his Church.

But if so be matrimony were a sacrament, why is it not to be found in al maried folke?

THE SECOND QVESTION, OF THE CAVSES of diuorse in mariage, and whether it be lawfull to marrie after diuorse.

THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THERE MAY BE more causes of diuorse, then fornication onely.

The Papists.

DIuorse, as Bellarm. defineth it, is either from the dueties of mariage, as from [error 29] bed and boord, as we say, which is properly called diuortium, or it is a dissol∣uing of the knot and bond of mariage, which is called repudium.

First then, they affirme, that the very bond and knot may bee dissolued in the mariage of Infidels, if one of them after mariage become a Christian: his reason is, because mariage contracted in infidelitie is no sacrament, and there∣fore may be dissolued, Bellarmin. cap. 12.

Argum. Saint Paul sayth, If the Infidell partie will departe, let him de∣part, a brother or sister is not in subiection in such a case, 1. Corinth. 7.15.

Answ. Saint Paul giueth not liberty to the one partie at their pleasure vt∣terly to renounce the other, as though they were no longer man and wife: for Saint Paul had sayd before, that if the Infidell partie bee content to dwell with the other, he or she is not to be put away. But his meaning is, that if one partie wilfully depart, the other is no longer bound, nor in subiection for the perfor∣mance of the mutuall dueties of mariage.

The Papists.

[error 30] SEcondly, separation from bed and boorde may be admitted, they say, for di∣uers causes, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 8. Bellarmine nameth three: Forni∣cation, according to Christs rule, Math. 5. Heresie, Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded. Thirdly, when one is a continuall offence to another & a prouocati∣on to sinne: If thine eye offend thee, pull it out, Math. 5.29. Bellarmin. cap. 14.

Answ. Fornication we admit is a iust cause of separation and diuorce, but not heresie: for Saint Paul would not haue a woman to forsake an Infidell, 1. Corinth. 7.13. therefore not an heretike. Wee must auoyd such, that is, take heede of their poysoned opinions, and shun their company also, where we are not otherwise bound: Neither is the eye to be cut off, where there is any hope: but who knoweth whether the offensiue partie may returne to grace? And this place proueth as well a finall ••utting off of mariage, as a separation or disiun∣ction.

The Protestants.

FIrst, that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce, but onely adulterie and fornication: it is plaine by our Sauiour Christes wordes, Math. 5.32. & 19.9. where neither infidelitie nor any cause beside is excepted, but onely fornication.

Secondly, Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion, that the wife might be dismissed for infidelitie: but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion, Lib. retract. 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus: A viro non fornican∣te non licere omnino discedere: that it is not lawfull for a woman at all to leaue her husband, if he committe not fornication, De adulter. coniug. 1.7.

And yet further, to make this matter more playne, we acknowledge no o∣ther cause of lawful diuorse in mariage but that only, which is prescribed in the Gospell, namely, for adultery or fornication, Math. 5.32. & 19.9. There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the mariage knot may bee dissolued,

though not for fornication: as when one of the parties doth wilfullie renounce, leaue and forsake the other vpon no iust cause, but either of lightnes or for di∣uers religion, as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian, a Papist a Protestant, an heretick a true professor, or vpon any other vnlawfull or vniust cause: for the Apostle sayth playnely, A brother or sister is not in subiection in such things, 1. Corinth. 7.15. that is, is freed from the yoke or bond of mariage.

First, it is plaine that the Apostle is so to be vnderstoode in this place: for the word, which he vseth is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is no longer a seruant, or in subiecti∣on: which is to be taken in the same sense, as if he should say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he or she is no longer bound or tyed: which word the Apostle vseth, vers. 39. And a∣gayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse, where hee sayth the wife, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath no power of her own bodie, & the husband likewise: But now, saith he, the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the innocent partie is no longer in subiection, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath now power o∣uer his owne body: and is now become 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, free, exempt from the mariage knot or bond, in which sense the Apostle vseth the word, verse 39.

Secondly we must know what kinde of desertion it is, that causeth a dissolu∣tion of mariage, and in what manner. First, it must be malitiosa desertio, a ma∣licious departure without any iust cause: But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affayres, as the Merchant beyond the seas: or is em∣ployed in some waightie busines, as in warfare, in ambassage, or such like: or is violētly deteined in prison or captiuity, amongst the Turks or elswhere: In these & the like cases the wife is bound to waite & expect the returne of her husband, vnles she be otherwise aduertised of his death. Secōdly, the innocēt partie must vse all meanes to reconcile, reclaime, and bring home agayne the wilfull and obstinate partie so departing, if it be possible. Thirdly, if he continue in his ob∣stinacie, and departe, hauing no purpose to returne, the matter must be brought before the iudge or Magistrate in such cases: who after publike citation of the obstinate partie, and certaine knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appeare being cited, and is not otherwise letted to come, may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent partie free and at libertie to marrie, according to Saint Pauls rule, A brother, or sister is not bound in such things.

Thirdly, neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Sauiour Christ, who alloweth no diuorce but onely for fornication: for that is a diuers case from this, where∣of Saint Paul treateth: And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse, and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion: for there the innocent partie first clay∣meth the priuiledge of separation: here the guiltie partie first separateth him∣selfe: there diuorse is sued, and required: here the innocent partie seeketh no diuorse, but seeketh all meanes of reconciliation: So that properly the setting free the innocent partie in this case, cannot be called a diuorse. Christ there∣fore speaketh of lawfull diuorce, not of euery dissolution of mariage: for then mention should haue beene made in that place of naturall death and departure, which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of mariage.

Thus haue I shewed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thi•• poynt: Herein further as in all the rest referring my selfe to the determination of our Church, and the iudgement of our learned brethren, Beza. 1. Corinth. 7. vers. 15. Amand. Polan. Hemingius. T••leman. Heshus.

THE SECOND PART, WHETHER IT BE LAW∣full to marrie after diuorsement for adulterie.

The Papists.

FOr adulterie one may dismisse another, but neither partie can marrie again [error 31] for any cause during life, Rhemist. Math. 19. sect. 4. no not the innocent partie may marrie againe: for the mariage knotte is not dissolued because of ad∣ulterie, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 7.

Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2. The woman is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liueth: nothing but death dissolueth the bond betweene man and wife: therefore not lawfull to marry againe after diuorse, Rhemist. ibid.

Ans. Saint Paul must be expounded by our Sauiour Christ, who maketh exception of fornication, Math. 5. Neither doth Saint Paul denie, that mari∣age may be dissolued, while they liue, without breaking of wedlock: but that, although the knot holde during their life, yet by death it is dissolued. Againe, Saint Paul hauing no occasion to intreat of diuorse, speaketh of mariage as it standeth whole and sound by the ordinance of God, that if a woman ioyne her selfe to another man, her former wedlock being not lawfully dissolued, she is a wedlock breaker.

Arg. 2. 1. Corinth. 7.11. If she depart, let her remayne vnmaried, or be recon∣ciled: Ergo, the parties separated for fornication may not marry again, Rhemist.

Ans. Saint Paul speaketh of other separations, which are caused by dissen∣tions in mariage, and not of diuorse for adulterie: for he sayth, If she depart: not If she be put away: neither was it so vsual a thing for reconciliation to be sought after solemne diuorse. Againe, he sayth, Let not the woman depart, as being in her choyce, whether she would depart or not: but in the case of fornication, she was to depart, or rather be put away, whether she would or not.

The Protestants.

FOr no other cause in the world, but only for fornication may there be either a finall separation, or cleane dissolution of mariage, by way of diuorse: But for that cause our Sauiour hath graunted libertie, both to dissolue matrimonie, and to marrie againe.

Argum.

Math. 5.32. Whosoeuer putteth away his wife (except it bee for fornication) committeth adulterie:

Ergo, for fornication it is lawfull for a man to dismisse his wife. Likewise Math. 19.9. Whosoeuer shal put away his wife,

except it be for whoredome, and marrie another, committeth adulterie: Ergo, for adulterie it is lawful for the man both to put away and renounce his wife, and the wife likewise her husband (for there is the like reason for both) and for them to marrie agayne. This libertie graunted by our Sauiour Christ, by no hu∣mane law can be restrayned, or cut off.

Argum. 2. Saint Paul sayth, Let euery man haue his wife, and euery wo∣man her husband, for auoyding of fornication, and it is better to marrie, then to burne. Wherefore it is lawfull, the first mariage according to the word of God being broken, both for men and women to vse the remedie agaynst incontinen∣cie, and to be maried agayne: for he speaketh generally of all.

Augustine sayth, that he which putteth away his wife for adulterie and marieth another,

Non est aequandus ei, is not in the same case with with him, which for any other cause putteth away and marieth agayne.

But if it bee as lawfull for other causes to be diuorsed, as for heresie & infidelitie, as the Iesuite telleth vs, there should be no difference made betweene the second mariage of the one and the other. Augustine in the same place, though he bee elsewhere resolute against mariage after diuorse, yet graunteth that it is not playne out of scripture, whether he be an adulterer, that marieth againe after diuorse for ad∣ulterie:

Sed quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallitur, but as I thinke, we are euery one of vs herein deceiued.

I end this poynt, better allowing Pollentius iudgement for this matter, then Augustines, betweene whom there is much discoursed of both sides:

Si mulier à viro non fornicante discesserit, non ei licere alteri nubere propter praeceptum▪ si au∣tem à fornicante, non ei expedire propter opprobrium: If a woman departe from her husband being no adulterer, it is not lawfull to marrie another because of the commaundement: but if he be an adulterer, it is lawful to marrie, but not expedient alwayes, because of the shame and reproch, Ad Pollent. lib. 1. cap. 6.

THE THIRD QVESTION, OF THE degrees in mariage prohibited.

FIrst of the supputation of degrees. Secondly, whether the degrees forbidden, Leuit. 18. may be dispensed with. Thirdly, whether any other degrees may by humane law be prohibited beside those.

THE FIRST PART, OF THE SVPPV∣tation and account of degrees.

THe degrees are either of consanguinitie, which is of diuers persons com∣ming of the same stock and blood: or of affinitie, which ariseth of mariage, as when the kinsmen of either partie that is maried, are by mariage allied to the other, though not of his blood, as Laban the brother of Rebecca was allied by mariage, as also by blood vnto Isaac, though not so neerely.

In both these kindes of kindred there is a right line both vpward and ascen∣ding: as in consanguinitie, the Father or Mother, Grandfather, Grandmother, and so forth: in affinitie, the Father in law, and mother in law, the stepfather, or stepmother: as also descending, as the sonne, the sonnes sonne, the sonne in law, or daughter in law, and their sonnes and daughters. There is also a col∣laterall line in consanguinitie, as brother and sister, brother and sisters chil∣dren, vncle or aunt: in affinitie, the brothers wife, sisters husband, the vncles wife, or aunts husband. Now our aduersaries set downe these rules to know the degrees by.

The Papists.

[error 32] 1 IN the right line there are so many degrees as persons,

Abraham.

• Isaac. 1.
• Iacob. 2.

except the first, from the which wee beginne the ac∣count: as in this example Iacob is in the second degree from Abraham.

Answer. We see no reason, why the first should be left out: for looke how many generations, so many degrees: But euery person is a generation: And this is the manner of account in scripture: as Math. 1. there are 14. generati∣ons reckoned from Abraham, whereof Abraham maketh one, Iudg. 14. Enoch the seuenth from Adam, Adam being the first himselfe in that number: Thus the scripture numbreth inclusiue, not exclusiue, inclusiuely comprehending also the number, from whom the account beginneth: And thus Abraham must be counted the first degree, and Iacob, not in the second but the third from him.

The Papists.

[error 33] 2 IN the collaterall line, if the parties bee equally distant from the roote or stock of the generation, looke how many degrees distant they are from the stock, so is the distance betwene themselues:

Bathuel.

• ...Rebecca.
• ...Iacob.
• ...Laban.
• ...Rachel.

Iacob and Rachel are in the second degree, be∣cause each of them is remoued from Bathuel, in the second degree, Bellarm. cap. 26.

The Protestants.

Answ. NEither doe we allow this rule: but rather follow the account of the ciuill law, which in the collaterall line maketh so many degrees as persons, excepting the stock, which is not to bee counted in collaterall de∣grees, because we begin not to number there. Wherefore according to the rule afore sayd, how many generations, so many degrees. According then to the ac∣count of the ciuill law, which we here follow, Iacob and Rachel are not in the se∣cond, but the fourth degree each from other: Rachel, 1. Laban, 2. Rebecca, 3. Iacob, 4. For in collateral degrees, we count not the distance from the roote or stocke, but the mutuall distance from themselues.

And by this reason, if Cosin germanes be but in the second degree, there should be no degree beyond the second forbidden, Leuit. 18. for there is no de∣gree forbidden beyond this: neither is this by name and directly forbidden.

The Papists.

3. THeir third rule is this: In collaterall degrees vne∣quall,

Thare.

• ...Abraham.
• ...Aram.
• ...Sara.

[error 34] that is, when both are not alike distant from the stocke, they shall differ in that degree, in the which the further of them is remoued from the stocke: as in this example, Sara is di∣stant two degrees from the stocke, and as many from Abraham, Bellarm. ibid.

The Protestants.

Ans. NEither is this rule perfect: for by this reason, he that is indeed a degree further off, shall be in the same degree: for if the vncle and the nephew be remoued but the second degree, and Cosin germanes are but distant in the second degree, as they say, the vncles sonne shall be in the same degree with his cosin, as his father is, which is not to be admitted.

Wherefore in collaterals we preferre the Ciuill account of degrees: that is, so many persons, the stocke of the kinred excepted, so many degrees. These then are the rules of marriage.

1. In the right line ascending and descending, all degrees are forbidden.

2. In collateral consanguinitie the prohibition reacheth to the third degree: as it is not lawfull to marrie the vncle, or the Aunt, who are in the third degree from their nephew.

3. In collateral affinitie the prohibition is extended to the fourth degree: for affinitie is alwaies a degree beyond that consanguinitie, by the which it com∣meth in: as it is vnlawfull to marrie the vncles wife, Leuit. 18.14. which is in the fourth degree from her nephew, being one degree beyond her husband, who is the vncle in the third degree. And this is to be obserued, that there is no affinitie in the first or second degree, but the neerest is in the third: as the wiues or hus∣bands father, brother, or daughter, which are all in the third degree: the hus∣band is in the first, the wife the second, and they in the third.

THE SECOND PART, WHETHER ANY OF THE degrees prohibited in the law may be dispensed withall.

The Papists.

THey say not that the Pope may dispense with all, but with some of them, Concil. Trid. sess. 24. can. 3. As they tooke vpon them to dispense with King [error 35] Henry the 8. marriage with his brothers wife: their reason is, because some of those prohibitions were only iudicial and positiue constitutions, not groun∣ded vpon the law of nature.

Argum. 1. If it be the lawe of nature not to marrie within those degrees, it should haue been in force before the law was made: but so was it not: for A∣braham married his brothers daughter, and Iacob two sisters, Bellarm. cap. 27.

Ans. 1. As Augustine sayth of the marriage and copulation of Adams chil∣dren, brothers and sisters together: Factum est compellente necessitate, It was for necessitie sake, because there were then no more women: so also may it be in some sort true of those Patriarkes, that hauing a necessitie to marrie amongst their owne kinred, and not with the Gentiles, there was no choise to be had of women of their owne kinred further off in degree.

2. Although this example of theirs both in marrying many wiues and so neere of kinne, cannot be altogether excused or iustified in them: yet because the law of nature was not yet so cleerely knowne, as afterward by the giuing of the law, which is nothing els but an exposition of the law of nature; the offence was not so great in them, but might better be tolerated: because as Augustine sayth, it was neither Contra morem illorum temporum, nec contra praeceptum▪ Nei∣ther against the custome of those times, nor against any flat precept. And to conclude, although those holy men had their imperfections, yet we must not iudge them in these things according to the euil and corrupt disposition of men in these daies, which might vse this great libertie in marriage, better then many vse lawfull marriage now: as Augustine sayth, Castiùs habebant plures, quàm nūc multi vnam: They vsed many wiues more chastely, then many now liue with one, De bon. coniug. cap. 10.

The Protestants.

WE affirme that it is vtterly vnlawfull for any Christian to marrie within the degrees prohibited: neither can any humane power dispense with such marriages: but the equitie of that lawe being grounded vpon nature, is in force for euer. Wherefore the Pope of Rome sheweth himselfe plainly to be An∣tichrist in dispensing against the law of God.

Argum. 1. Leuit. 18.24. The reason of that law is giuen concerning the for∣bidden degrees: They should not defile themselues in any one of those things, because the Gentiles defiled themselues thereby, and were cast out before them for it. Wherefore it is a naturall and perpetuall law, otherwise the Gentiles had not been bound vnto it.

Argum. 2. Mark. 6.18. Iohn sayth to Herode, It is not lawfull for thee to haue thy brothers wife: Ergo, the law was not abrogate, being in force in our Sauiour Christs time. Neither are they to alleadge, that Herodes brother was yet liuing, or that he had a child by Herodias, and therefore it was not lawfull for him to marrie her: for all this being graunted, which cannot be proued, yet it is plaine out of the text, that Iohn reproueth him in no other name, but because he mar∣ried his brothers wife.

Augustine is against them, who speaking of the marriage of Consobrines or

Cosin germanes, which had been sometime in vse, Quia id nec diuina prohibuit, & nondum prohibuerat lex humana: It was as yet thought lawfull, because nei∣ther the diuine law forbad it, neither was it yet prohibited by mans law. If that then be thought lawfull, which Gods law manifestly forbiddeth not, that sure is vnlawful which it plainly forbiddeth. Wherfore to marrie within any of the de∣grees directly forbidden, Leuit. 18. is vtterly vnlawfull.

THE THIRD PART, WHETHER ANY OTHER DE∣grees may be by humane law prohibited, beside those directly forbidden in the law.

The Papists.

1. THey affirme, that by the law of Moses, those degrees onely are vnlawfull to marrie in, which are directly and by name set downe: & therefore it is [error 36] not vnlawfull, by Moses law, for the vncle or Aunts husband to marrie his niece, because it is not by name prohibited: as Abraham married his brother Arams daughter: for Sara was his niece. The marriage also of Cosin germanes was lawfull by Moses law, and practized, Numb. 36. The daughters of Zelophehad married their vncles sonnes. Therefore by Moses law no degrees are forbidden, which are not directly named, Bellarm. cap. 27.

The Protestants.

1. COncerning Abrahams marriage what is to be thought, we haue shewed before: but it is a plaine case, that the vncle is no more to marrie his niece, then the nephew his Aunt: and this being by name prohibited, Leuit. 18, 14.20.2. the other also is necessarily included: for the same rules for degrees of kinred doe proportionably hold both in men and women: wherefore such mar∣riage is vnlawfull, neither to be contracted, and if it be, to be dissolued.

2. Concerning the marriage of brothers and sisters children, there is a grea∣ter question. First, it cannot be proued that Zelophehads fiue daughters married their vncles sonnes, that is, their Cosin germanes: for the Hebrewes call the ne∣phewes, sonnes: as Iethros daughters are called the daughters of Raguel their grandfather, Exod. 2.17. So it is very like that their husbands were their vncles sonnes sonnes, as in the 12. verse it may be gathered, where the text sayth, They were married into the families of the sonnes of Manasses: therfore not into one familie. But as touching the question in hand, the marriage of Cosin ger∣manes seemeth also by some analogie to be forbidden by Moses law: for if the degrees of affinitie be limited to the fourth degree: as it is not lawfull for a man to marrie his wiues daughters daughter, Leuiticus 18.17. why should not the line of consanguinitie hold to the fourth degree likewise? And so neither the sonne to marrie his fathers brothers daughter, or the daugh∣ter the sonne: for heere are also foure degrees: the sonne, one: the

father two, the fathers brother three, the brothers sonne foure. Yet this we grant, that this analogie or proportion is not so strong, nor doth conclude so necessari∣ly as the other. Wherefore we thus determine of this matter, that it is well that the marriages of Cosin germanes are restrained by humane lawe, and so they ought to be: which kind of marriages may lawfully be hindered, and the con∣tract loosed: but the marriage being consummate and finished, it is not for this cause to be dissolued.

Augustine also writeth very well of this matter, Quis dubitet, honestiùs hoc tempore consobrinarum prohibita esse coniugia, etiamsi id diuina lex non prohibeat: cuius enim debet causa propinquitatis verecundum honorem, ab ea contineat quam∣uis generatricem libidinem? Who doubteth, but that the marriage of Cosin ger∣manes is honestly forbidden, though the diuine lawe doe not prohibite it? for to whom a man oweth a shamefast reuerence for kinred sake, he ought to re∣fraine his lust.

The Papists.

[error 37] 2. IT is lawful for the Church to restraine other degrees of affinitie and consan∣guinitie, besides those prescribed by Moses, and that the decrees of the Church in such cases doe bind in conscience, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 3. As to prohibite marriage vnto the seuenth degree in naturall kinred. Also their Ca∣nons doe make a spirituall kinred, that commeth in by Baptisme & Confirma∣tion: and suffer not the godfather to marrie the godchild, or the godfather the godmother. Likewise they haue found out an affinitie that commeth in by e∣spousals onely of Matrimonie, which bindeth (say they) in the first degree by the Canon law, which is the first and second by the Ciuill law: as that it is not law∣full for the brother to marrie her which was espoused to his brother. Also ano∣ther kinred and affinitie, by fornication & vnlawfull fleshly knowledge, which bindeth in the 2. degree Canonicall, which is the 3. and 4. Ciuil: as it is not law∣full for the sonne to marrie his fathers bastard, Bellarm. cap. 24. cap. 30.

The Protestants.

1. TO forbid more degrees in marriage, then are either directly or by necessa∣rie consequence prohibited in the law, is a meere Antichristian yoke layd vpon the people of God: for the Lord (the author of that lawe) best did knowe, both what persons were fit for marriage, and how farre the line of marriage was to extend.

2. The inuention of spirituall kinred is but a popish tricke, to get the more monie for their dispensations: for by this reason no Christians ought to marrie together, because they are all of one spirituall kinred in Christ.

3. The new affinitie that commeth by espousals, is also but an humane in∣uention: for the law speaketh onely of the kinred of the flesh, which ariseth of carnall knowledge and copulation, not an intent or purpose onely of marriage, Leuit. 18.6.

4. The last we admit, for the sonne of the father begotten out of marriage, is

of his fleshly kinred, though not lawfully: and therefore in marriage matters there is respect also to be had euen of this kinred of the flesh: as Ruben is cursed of his father because he lay with his concubine, Genes. 49.4. which notwithstan∣ding was not his fathers wife.

THE FOVRTH QVESTION, OF OTHER impediments of marriage.

THere are some impediments which may hinder and dissolue the contract of marriage, before it be consummate, but not after: some, which both may [error 38] hinder the contract, and dissolue the matrimonie euen after carnall knowledge.

The Papists.

1. BEllarmine reckoneth vp diuers impediments of both kinds, which may disanull the contract of marriage, and dissolue the matrimonie it selfe: but he maketh no mention of the consent of the parents. And indeed it is their opi∣nion, that it is not a necessarie thing to be respected in marriage: neither that children are bound to require the consent of their parents, Cap. 19.

The Protestants.

FIrst, we doe not say, that the want of the parents consent may dissolue mar∣riage consummate after mutuall coniunction: but that it may breake off the contract and espousals. Secondly, neither haue the parents power to bestow their children in marriage without their consent, Genes. 24.57. Thirdly, neither must the parents exercise a tyrannicall power ouer their children in forbidding them marriage, but must alway haue respect vnto their neede. And thus doing their consent is necessarie, and without it the contract hath no validitie, 1. Corin. 7.37.38. The parent hath power to giue in marriage or not to giue.

There are also other causes which may dissolue contracts and espousals made: as if the honest and lawfull condition propounded in the contract be not kept: or if there be an error in the person, he heareth afterward of her dishonestie, whom he tooke for an honest woman: both these may make voyd the con∣tract, [error 39] but not the marriage, if they be once ioyned together.

The Papists.

2. THey set downe many impediments, which may make a nullitie of mar∣riage it selfe, after it be consummate: some of them we acknowledge, as afterward it shall appeare: but these following we doe renounce.

First, the vow of chastitie and entring into Orders doe loose the bond of marriage. Secondly, if one marrie with an Infidel, the marriage is not onely vn∣lawfull, but actually voyd, Bellarm. cap. 23. Thirdly, he that marrieth her with whom he committed adulterie before, is loose, euen after marriage, and the ma∣trimonie voyd, Bellarm. cap. 22.

The Protestants.

1. COncerning the inualiditie of vowes to disanull marriage, we haue de∣clared the truth before, Controu. 6. de Monachis. For marriage lawfully contracted and consummate, is onely made voyd in the case of adulterie, as we haue before proued.

2. Neither doth the infidelitie of the one partie make a nullitie of marriage: for S. Paul sayth, that the woman in that case is not to forsake her husband, 1. Co∣rinth. 7.13. Of this matter see more, quaest. 2. part. 2. of this controuersie.

3. Neither is the fault committed before the marriage, sufficient to disable the marriage once done: for thē question might haue been made of the strength of Dauids marriage with Bathsheba. And Augustine doubteth not thus to con∣clude, Posse sanè fieri nuptias ex male coniunctis, honesto postea placito consequen∣te: That marriage may very well stand betweene those, that once had vnlawfull carnall copulation, but afterward an honest purpose of marriage followed.

But there are certaine cases, wherein matrimonie vnlawfully contracted, yea consummate, may be dissolued: as first, if the consent of either partie be wan∣ting, as when by tyrannicall coaction and compulsion they come together, and the consent is still withholden. Secondly, if the consent of both be wan∣ting, as in the marriage of children, that are not able to giue consent. Thirdly, if there be an error of the person, as if one be thrust vpon a man in stead of ano∣ther, as Lea was vpon Iacob: or an error in the condition of the partie, as if he or she be an Hermaphrodite, an Eunuch, or such like. Fourthly, if they marrie with∣in the degrees forbidden by Moses law. In all these cases, Matrimonie thus vn∣lawfully begun and ratified, may be dissolued. But lawfull matrimonie cannot be abrogate but either by naturall death, or lawfull diuorce for fornication. In the case of desertion also and long absence of either partie, after the expecting of his returne some terme of yeeres, with probable intelligence of the parties death, or if he be wilfully absent, of his lewd and dishonest life, the innocent partie, by the wise and deliberate sentence of the Magistrate, may be pronoun∣ced free.

THE FIFT QVESTION, OF THE COMPARISON betweene Virginitie and Marriage.

The Papists.

[error 40] VIrginitie is preferred before marriage, not onely for that it is a more quiet state of life, and freer from troubles in this world, but that it is more conue∣nient for the seruice of God, and that it hath a gratefull puritie and sanctitie, both of bodie and soule, which marriage hath not, Rhemist.

Argum. 1. Corinth. 7.32. The vnmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how she may please God: Ergo, virginitie is a fitter state of life to serue & please God in, Rhemist. ibid.

The Protestants.

FIrst we graunt, according to the Apostles saying in this place, that virginitie is also a fitter state of life for the seruice of God, yet not simplie, but for those onely that haue the gift of continencie: for they which cannot abstaine, may and doe serue God with a more quiet mind being married, then many popish virgines which burne in the lust of concupiscence. Secondly, yet it followeth not, that virginitie is a more holy and cleane thing in it selfe, and more merito∣rious before God, then marriage is: for this were to make marriage vnholy & vn∣cleane: whereas it is not the act of marriage, but the abusing thereof, that bring∣eth vncleannes with it: before God in themselues, neither is more holy then other.

Argum. It is faith which maketh vs accepted of God, not the merite of any worke: and therefore of all faithfull beleeuers it is sayd, Apocal. 14.4. These are they which were not defiled with women, for they are virgines. And he vnder∣standeth all that are redeemed by Christ, from amongst men, and are the first fruites of the Lambe, vers. 4. And not onely those, which properly in common vse of speech we call virgines. True godlines therefore & a sincere faith, where∣by we are diuorced from the world, and ioyned to God, is the true virginitie.

Augustine, Sicut non est impar meritum patientiae in Petro, qui passus est, & in Iohanne, qui passus non est: sic non est impar meritum cōtinentiae in Iohanne, qui nul∣las est expertus nuptias, & in Abraham, qui filios generauit: As there was no grea∣ter merit of patience in Peter that suffered, then in Iohn, who suffered not: so there was no greater merit of continencie in Iohn that was neuer married, then in Abraham that begat children. See then, by his iudgement, there is the same merit of married and vnmarried persons.

THE SIXT QVESTION, OF THE TIMES OF marriage prohibited.

The Papists.

THere are certaine seasons in the yeere, wherein for the holines of the festiuall times, they hold it vnlawfull to haue marriage solemnized: as from the Ad∣uent [error 41] to the Epiphanie: from Septuagesima Sunday (as it is called) to the octaues of Easter: from 3. daies afore the Ascension, to the octaues of Pentecost, Ruard Tapper. artic. 20. pag. 526. But the Councel of Trent hath somewhat moderated this time, and cut it shorter, thinking it vnreasonable that marriage should be prohibited the third part of the yeere (for so much the time interdicted ariseth to, if account be taken of the weekes.) The time of Pentecost therefore they haue dispensed with: and the time prohibited at Easter they would haue begun not from Septuagesima, but from Ashwednesday, Sess. 24. cap. 10. Vpon these times they hold it vnlawfull publiquely to haue marriage solemnized, both for the holines of so great feasts, and because of receiuing the Sacraments, Bellarm. de matrim. cap. 31.

Argum. God commanded the people to abstaine from their wiues, when he was to appeare vnto them in Mount Sinai, Exod. 19.15. And Sam. 21.4. Be∣fore the high priest would deliuer the shewbread to Dauid and his companie, he asked if the young men had kept themselues from women: Ergo, marriage is not lawfull at all times, Bellarm. ibid.

Ans. First, these places alleadged doe rather proue, that men in those interdi∣cted times ought not at all to come at their wiues, thē that the solemnization of marriage should be restrained: but I thinke they would be ashamed to forbid men their wiues companie so long together, as fiue or sixe weekes at the Nati∣uitie, and eight or nine weekes at Easter: why then should not the one bee as lawfull as the other? Secondly, the abstinence from their wiues was comman∣ded then, as a legall and ceremonial kind of sanctification, as was also the wash∣ing of their clothes, Exod. 19.10. And the companie of women was at some times counted as a legall pollution, not as a sinfull or vncleane act of it selfe: as the women after childbirth were commanded to purifie themselues, Leuit. 12. from a legall pollution onely, not from any sinfull or vncleane act: for then it had been a manifest iniurie to that holy birth, that Mary purified her selfe ac∣cording to the lawe, Luk. 2.22. Wherefore seeing it was a legall kind of sancti∣fication, it is not to be intruded & imposed vpon Christians now. Thirdly, nei∣ther can they proue that this kind of abstinence is necessarie alwaies before the receiuing of the Sacrament, though sometimes we denie not but it is conue∣nient: for it was not alwaies required, no not of the priests in the lawe, when they were to offer incense or sacrifice. For whereas the high priest, which was alwaies but one, was bound morning and euening to offer incense vnto the Lord, Exod. 30.8. He could not obserue this rule, vnlesse he had been inioyned perpetuall abstinence, which we see by the law was not imposed vpon thē. This doubt somewhat troubled Augustine: for first he sayth, That it must needes followe, seeing the high priest was married, and did sometime goe in vnto his wife, that the offering of incense should some dayes be intermitted: but in his retractations he misliketh his former solution, and thus determineth, That the high priest first offered the morning incense, and afterward went in to his wife, and so was vncleane, vsque ad vesperam, but vntill the euening, not after the euentide, and then he offered the euening incense. To take this answer for this time, though it be insufficient: for the Hebrew word, which is translated the euen, or euentide 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth the twilight, when the Sunne is set, when light and darknes are mixed together: but the incense was renewed before the Sunne set: yet I say, admitting Augustines solution, the high priest did not abstaine one whole day before he offered: much lesse many dayes, much lesse many weekes, much lesse some moneths: as the popish Church prescribeth by inter∣dicting so many daies.

The Protestants.

THat not onely the publique solemnitie of marriage at some times may haue intermission, but all matrimoniall actes ought to cease, as when men either priuately doe giue themselues to fasting and praier, 1. Corin. 7.5. or when pub∣lique or generall fastes are by the spirituall gouernours thought meet, & by the Christian Magistrate proclaimed: we doe not denie, but in our iudgement al∣low it, and by our practise approue it: but that matrimonie at such set times as an vnholy and vncleane thing is to be forbidden and restrained, we take it to be popish superstition, and an Antichristian yoke.

Argum. 1. It disgraceth the holy institution of marriage, which the Apo∣stle calleth honourable, Heb. 13.4. and S. Paul counteth the fruits of marriage, which are the children of the faithfull, holy, 1. Corin. 7.14. How is it then, that there can be any time so holy, the which holy matrimony is not beseeming? Againe, in thus doing they make difference of daies, esteeming some in them∣selues more holy then others, contrary to the Apostles rule, Galath. 4.10. Co∣lossians 2.16.

Argu. 2. The Tridentine Chapter maketh but two holy times in the yeere, the Natiuitie and Ester: during which times, they would not haue matrimonie solemnized: and I pray you, why is Pentecost left out, is it not as festiual a time as the other?

Could there be a more holy place, then Paradise? or a more holy time, then while man was in his innocency? yet euen then and there Matrimonie was instituted.

Lastly, Is not the Sabboth or Lords day an holy festiuall time? and as ho∣ly as any is? what if I said more holie, for this onely immediately was instituted of God: but marriage may notwithstanding be fitly solemnized vpon that day, the abuses and disorders, which commonly fall out in such assemblies, be∣ing cut off: for Augustine is of opinion, that the marriage in Cana of Galile, was die Dominico, vpon the Lords day: And it is most fit that matrimony should be solemnized in the face of the congregation, which is vsually assembled vpon that day: Ergo, it may as fitly and conueniently at any time be kept and solem∣nized, excepting the respects aforesaid.

THE SEVENTH QVESTION, OF THE ceremonies and rites of Matrimonie.

The Papists.

THe Iesuite reckoneth vp seuen. First, they which are to be ioyned in matri∣mony, [error 42] are blessed of the Priest. Secondly, oblation is made for them in the

sacrifice of the Masse. Thirdly, they are couered with a vaile. Fourthly, they are coupled together vitta purpurea & cādida, with a scarfe or riband, partly white, partly purple. Fiftly, the bride giueth to the bridegroome a ring, first hallowed and blessed of the Priest. Sixtly, he commendeth them to God in his praiers. Seuenthly, he exhorteth and admonisheth them of their mutuall dutie, Bellarm. cap. 33. de Matrimon.

The Protestants.

SOme of those rites we altogether allow and vse them our selues, as the 6. and 7. for both praiers are made vnto God for them, and they are by the Minister put in minde of their duety: and all is done with vs in the vulgare tōgue, much more to the edifying of the people, and comfort of the parties themselues: wher∣as their idolatrous Priest chattereth all in an vnknowen tongue: A goodly ex∣hortation sure, when the parties exhorted vnderstand not one word thereof.

Some other of these rites we vtterly reiect, as the 2.3.4. for oblation or sacri∣fice, in their meaning, we acknowledge none: for the married parties to receiue the Communion, if there be a sufficient number, we neither hold it necessary as being of the essence of marriage, nor yet think it vnmeete.

But as for that coloured and painted attire of blew and white, we take it fitter for a May-game, then to be shewed in a solemne assemblie of Christians.

The rest we in part allow, as the ring, so it be vsed onely as a ciuill ornament, and token of mutuall loue: but that popish blessing either of the ring, or of the married couple with the fingers acrosse, and muttering of some fewe enchan∣ting words, as though by the very acte of popish blessing there were a secret vertue and qualitie of holines infused into the things so blessed or enchanted; we condemne it as a superstitious toy. So we conclude, all such rites in matri∣monie, as haue a comely and profitable vse, tending to edifying, we refuse not: the rest we reiect, and send them backe to Rome, from whence they came.

Notes

• Tract. in Iohan. 8.
• De fide & ••per. cap. 19
• De ciuitat. dei lib. 15. cap. 16.
• De ciuitat. dei lib. 15. cap. 16.
• De bono coniug. cap. 15.
• De bono coniugal. cap. 21.
• Ex Tilem. Heshus. loc. 20. err. 14.
• Quaest. sup. Leuitic. 15.
• Retract. lib. 2. cap. 85.
• Serm. de temp. 159.