Popery anatomized, or, A learned, pious, and elaborat treatise wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of controversie, between us and papists, are handled, and the truth of our doctrine clearly proved : and the falshood of their religion and doctrine anatomized, and laid open, and most evidently convicted and confuted by Scripture, fathers, and also by some of their own popes, doctors, cardinals, and of their own writers : in answer to M. Gilbert Brown, priest / by that learned, singularly pious, and eminently faithful servant of Jesus Christ M. John Welsch ...

SECTION XVI. Concerning Matrimony, and whither it be a Sacrament?

Master Gilbert Brown.

EIghtly, our doctrine is, that Matrimony is a bond undissolu∣ble, because our Savior saith, That which God hath joyned to∣gether, let no man separat, Matth 19.6. And such like he saith, That whosoever demits his wife and marries another▪ commits adultery upon her, Mark 10.11.12. And in S. Luke 16.18. we have the same. And S. Matthew 5.35. & 19.9. is of the same opinion (albeit one may put away his wife by him for fornication) this is the doctrine also of the Apostles of Jesus Christ: for it is written in S. Paul, That a woman that is under a husband, her husband living, is bound to the law; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore her husband living, she shal be called an

adulteress, if she be with another man, and so forth. And in another place, he saith, Rom 7.2.3 1. Cor. 7.39. and 7.10.11. To them that be joyned in matrimony, I give not command, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: and if she depart, to remain un∣married, or to be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. Now this is our Religion of matrimony, and plain repugnant to the doctrine of the Ministers of Scotland, that will licence a man to put away his wife, and marry another. And they call the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, the Popes cruelty against the innocent divorced, in their negative faith.

Master John Welsch his Reply.

As for your 8. and 9 points of doctrine concerning Marriage: the first, that it is undissoluble for no cause: the other, that it is a Sacrament. As to the first, I would scarcely have understood this point of your doctrine. if your Council of Trent, and others of your Clergy who write of it had not been more plain then ye. And I think, that there are few that knows not this point of your do∣ctrine otherwise, who can take it up by this your writing. I wonder why ye are so dark in setting down your own doctrine. But wherefore should I wonder: for darkness may not bide to see the light? Your doctrine then is this. First, you make many causes of separation and divorce∣ment, besides adultery, Concil. Trid sess. 24. Can. 8. Bel∣larm. lib. 1. de matrim cap. 14. (express against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, He that shal demit his wife, except for fornica∣tion, &c.) he makes her to commit adultery. As 1. for the vow of continency to enter in a Monastery, or Nunry. 2. For heresie. 3. And for peril of offending of God. Next, your doctrine is, That suppose there be many causes of separation betwixt the man and the wife, from bed and boord (as we speak) yet the bond of marriage contracted and perfected betwixt the faithful, can no ways be broken, as long as they both live together, no not for adultery. So that the party innocent divorced, may not lawfully

marry another, during the life of the guilty party: And if they marry▪ they call it adultery; and they will have the ground of this to be, because it is a Sacrament, Bellar. lib. 1. c. 12. So one error follows and leans upon another. For if marriage be not a Sacrament, then the bond may be loosed, by their own doctrine. But marriage is not a Sacrament, as shal be proved hereafter: therefore the bond is soluble. Our do∣ctrine is, that the bond of marriage contracted and per∣fected between two Christians, is broken by the adultery of either of the parties; so that the innocent divorced may lawfully marry another. As for our doctrine, it is plain in the Scripture, in the 19. and 5. of Matthew: where there the Lord in plain termes excepts the cause of fornication, saying, Whosoever demits his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. So then by the con∣trary, he that demits his wife for fornication (which is adultery there) and marries another, commits not adul∣tery. And seeing the Apostle commands, 1. Cor 7.2. That every man have his own wife, and every wife her own husband, and that for the avoiding of fornication: and it is better to marry then to burn. Therefore the first marriage being dissolved by divorcement justly according to Gods Word, it is law∣ful to the party innocent at least to use the remedy of mar∣riage for the avoiding of fornication. Otherwise if he might not use it, divorcement were not a benefit, but ra∣ther a punishment, and the innocent should be punished without a fault.

Now, as to the Scriptures which ye quote, Matth. 19.6. and 5.31 they have that exception of fornication, expresly mentioned. And as for the places of Mark 10.11.12. and Luke 16.18. and Romans 7.2.3. and 1. Cor. 7 39. they are all to be understood with that exception of fornication, that our Savior expresly sets down in the former two pla∣ces, otherwise Scripture should be contrary to Scripture,

which is blasphemie to think, and our Savior is the best exponer of himself. And as for the 1. Corinth. 7.10.11. the Apostle speaks not of that separation for adultery, but of a separation for a season, for other causes or variances, in the which case the parties separated, are to remain un∣married, or to be reconciled together. And because ye will not credit us, nor the Son of God so expresly spea∣king in his Scripture, yet I think ye will give some credit to your own Doctors, Councils, Canons, and Popes, whom if ye be a right Catholick, ye think that they cannot err. Cajetanus a Cardinal, in comment. Matth. 19. Am∣brosius Catarinus, lib. 5. annot. in comment. Cajetani, Pa∣pists, hold this doctrine with us against the Religion of your Church, That adultery breaks the bond of marriage, and that the innocent divorced may marry another. Pope Zacha∣ry, Decret. causa 32. quaest. 7. cap. Concubuisti. And the Concil Triburiense, ibidem cap. Si quis, and another Canon saith, That incestuous adultery breaks the bond of marriage, so that the party innocent may marrie another, Ibid. cap. quae∣dam. And Pope Gregory the third, suppose in a Canon he will not have adultery to break the bond of marriage, Ibid. cap. Hi vero. so that the party innocent may marry another, contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Savior, yet he per∣mits a man to marrie another, if his former wife being taken with some disease, be not able to render due benevolence unto her husband, Ibid. cap. Quid proposuisti. So suppose this Pope will not admit that true cause which our Savior sets down of adultery, yet he sets down causes himself, which wants the warrant of the Word. And Pope Celestin the third, set forth a decree, that when of married persons one falleth into heresie, the party Catholick is free to marry again, cap. laudabilē de convers. infidelium, confessed by Alphonsus a Papist, lib. 1 c. 4. advers. haeres. So then either your Doctors, Canons, Councils, & three Popes err, or else the bond of

marriage may be broken, and the innocent partie divorced may marrie another. Your Religion of Matrimonie there∣fore is not only repugnant to ours and Jesus Christs, but al∣so to your own Canons, Councils, Doctors, and Popes. Let them therefore condemn your cruel ju••gement against the innocent divorced. And therefore Bellarmin con∣fesses, Bellarm. de mat. lib. 1. cap. 15. That in this point they have many against them, not only us whom he calls hereticks: but also Latins, Greeks, and Catholicks.

Master Gilbert Brown.

Ninthly, with S. Paul, Eph. 5.23. we make it a Sacrament, as sundrie of the learned Protestants do, as Zuinglius, lib. de vera & falsa rel. cap. de matrimonio. Melancthon, in locis aedi∣tis 1552. & 1558. and chiefly young Merchiston, in his 22. Proposition of his discourse upon the Revelation, whose words are these. Thirdly, bodily marriage is by S. Paul, called a symbol and a Sacrament of the union of Christ and his Church. And yet our new Confession detests the same, and will have it but a bastard. Such concord is betwixt Christ, his Apostles, and our new prea∣chers of the Gospel, and also among themselves.

M. John Welsch his Reply.

The ninth point of your doctrine is: you will have Marriage a Sacrament of the New Testament, and that proper∣ly, and that according to the institution of God, unto the which the promise of the grace of justification is annexed: so Bellar∣min, lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 2. and the Council of Trent saith. But mark, Christian Reader, their ground of this their do∣ctrine. They say, the bond of marriage among infidels may be broken: but say they, the bond of marriage among the faithful cannot be broken. And they make the cause of this difference to be this, because the marriage of Christians is a Sacrament. So they reason. Marriage

among Christians is a Sacrament; therefore say they, it cannot be broken. But what is their principal ground now, whereby they prove marriage to be a Sacrament? Because (say they) the marriage of Christians is a bond in∣dissoluble; therefore it is a Sacrament which hath the grace of Justification joyned with it. So mutually one er∣ror upholds another. Upon the which, I reason: If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it can∣not be a Sacrament: this your Church grants▪ because they make that the ground of this: but the bond of mar∣riage may be broken for adultery, as hath been proved before, both by the Scriptures, and also by your own Ca∣nons, Councils, Doctors, and Popes: therefore marri∣age is not a Sacrament.

Secondlie, in the Sacraments of the New Testament, there are earthly elements: as the water in Baptism, the bread and wine in the Supper, and an express form of words prescribed in the New Testament: as in Baptism, I baptize thee, &c. and in the Supper, This is my body, &c. Matth. 26. They have their express institution by Christ in the same, and have the promises of remission of sins, and justification annexed to them. But none of these things are to be had in marriage. First, no earthly ele∣ment: next, no form prescribed in the Word of God: thirdly, no express institution of it as of a Sacrament: fourthly, no promise of the remission of sins, and salva∣tion annexed unto it. Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament of the New Testament properly.

Thirdly, if marriage were a Sacrament, and such a Sacrament that signified and gave the grace of justifica∣tion with it, that is, remission of sins, then wherefore should your Church forbid all your Clergie from the same? And wherefore should ye abstain from that Sacrament, which is instituted of God, to give remission of sins to you,

and to make you acceptable to God? as your doctrine saith, Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 5. pag. 67. Why should ye deprive your self of that thing which may place you in Gods favor, and purchase to you remission of sins? (as ye say marriage may do) it is a token that either ye believe not your own doctrine, or else prefers whore∣dom and adultery, which is condemned of God, to mar∣riage which is Gods ordinance, and honorable among all men.

Fourthly, I say, if the marriage of Adam and Eva in Paradise, and the marriage of all the Patriarchs, and Pro∣phets, and Priests, and people in the Old Testament, was not a Sacrament, neither is the marriage of Christians in the New Testament a Sacrament. For they were symbols that represented our spiritual conjunction with Christ, as well as the marriage of Christians in the New Testament doth: the which you will not deny. And Pope Leo saith, Epist. 92. That marriage was instituted from the beginnning, that they might have in themselves a Sacrament of Christ, and his Church: but the first you grant your selves was not a Sa∣crament, therefore neither is the second a Sacrament.

Fifthly, that which is filthiness and pollution, cannot be a Sacrament to give forgiveness of sins: but Pope Sy∣ricius calls marriage pollution and uncleanness, Dist. 82. cap. Proposuisti, &c. Plurim. 8. Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament, if he speak true.

Sixthly, if marriage be such a Sacrament, as ye say, to give remission of sins, then it should be more excellent then virginity, because virginity hath not this promise: but this ye will not grant, therefore it is not a Sacrament.

Last of all, Durandus a great Doctor of your Church, saith, Ut Capreolus refert in 4. dist. 26. quaest. unica, artic. 3. That marriage is not properly a Sacrament.

As for that place in the fifth of the Ephesians which ye

quote, where the Apostle saith, This is a great mystery, speaking of the mutual du••ies of man and wife. I answer: first, he calls not marriage this great mystery, but that band of our conjunction with Christ, as he expones himself: This is (saith he) a great mystery: and then he subjoyns, I speak of Christ and his Church. Secondly, suppose the old Interpreter doth translate this word mystery, a Sacrament; yet you know (if you know the Greek language) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is called a secret. Thirdly, will you have all these to be Sacraments properly, which are called myste∣ries in the New Testament, and which the old Interpre∣ter and your Rhemists, translats Sacraments? then shal you not only make marriage a Sacrament, but also the chief articles of our faith, 1. Tim. 3.16 and the Gospel, Col. 1. Eph. 3 & 1. 2. Thess 27 and the seven stars in the Revelation, chap. 1.20 and the whore o Babel, and the iniquity of the Anti∣christ. Rev. 17 5 all Sacraments. For they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, and some of them are translated Sacraments by the old Interpreter, and your Rhemists, as marriage is. I wonder that ye quote Melancthon, as though he were of your opinion, seeing Bellarmin acknowledges plainly, lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 1. & 5. (that he denyes it to be a Sacrament properly, as Baptism and the Lords Supper is:) but only grants that it is a Sacrament in some respect. But you regard not what ye write, so being it may carry any show against us The same we answer to you of Zuinglius and Merchiston. They call it a Sacrament, but not in that sense that Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments, taking the word improperlie, and more amply, as Bellarmin confesses of Melancthon. So here is no discord neither betwixt us and Christ, neither among our selves But in very deed, you are they who are at dis∣cord both with Christ, and among your selves. For be∣side this that Bellarmin and Innocentius, calls the marriage of

the Gentils Sacraments, because you may answer that they call them Sacraments improperly as Melancthon, Zuinglius, and Merchiston calls marriage a Sacrament improperly. So if they be at variance with us for calling marriage a Sacra∣ment, so is Bellarmin lib. 1. de sacram. matrim. c. 3 and Pope Innocent cap. gaud. de divort. at variance with your Church, for calling the marriage of infidels a Sacrament. For as we deny marriage to be a Sacrament at all properly, so doth your Church deny the marriage of infidels to be a Sacra∣ment properly. But to let this pass, I say, because I will not deceive the Reader, as ye do, with appearances of contradictions through the ambiguity of the words, Al∣phonsus de Castro, lib. contra haeres. verbo nuptiae. haeres 3. Pe∣trus a Soto lectio 2. de matrimonio. two of your Doctors, and sundry others say, That marriage is not a proper Sacrament of the New Testament: And yet the Council of Florence and Trent, and sundry others of your Church, say the contrary. 2. Durandus a great Doctor of your Church, saith, in 4. dist. 26. quaest. 3. That marriage is not a Sacrament properly. 3. Some of your Church held, that carnal copulation in mar∣riage is a part of the Sacrament: some the contrary, that it is neither a Sacrament, nor a part of the Sacrament: so Bellar∣min testifies, lib. 1. de sacram. matrim. c. 5. pag. 88. 4. Du∣randus and your Canonists hold, That the Sacrament of mar∣riage doth not confer grace unto them that receive it. And yet our common doctrine is contrary this, as Bellarmin grants, ibidem. Last of all, Canus a learned Papist, affirms, That every marriage lawfully contracted among Christians, is not a Sacrament; but only that which is made by the Minister in a cer∣tain form of words: the which Bellarmin, and sundry others deny. And you are of great diversity concerning the mat∣ter of that Sacrament among your selves. These are not now shows of disorders and contradictions, but they are so true and manifest, that Bellarmin your chief campion, hath

confessed them, de sacram. matrim. lib. 1. Judge thou now, Christian Reader, whither is it we or they that is at va∣riance among our selves. And this for the ninth point of your doctrine.