Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Section 19
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
8. Our doctrine is, that matrimonie is an bond vndiſſoluble, becauſe our Sauiour ſaies, that which God hath ioyned together, let no man ſeparate. Matth 19 6 Marc. 10.11 12. Luc. 16.18. Matth. 5 33 Matth. 19.9And ſik like he ſayes: that whoſoeuer dimits his wife and marries another, commits adultrie vponupon her. And in Saint Luke we hauehave the ſame And Saint Mathew 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 Ieſus Chriſt. For it is written in Saint Paule, that an woman that is vnderunder a huſband, her huſband liuing is bound to the law, Rom. 7.2.3. 1. Corinth. 7.…9 1. Cor. 7.10.11but if her huſband be dead ſhe is looſed from the law of her huſband Therefore her huſband liuing ſhe ſhal be called an adulteres if ſhe be with another man, and ſo forth. And in another place he ſaies, to them that be ioyned in matrimonie, I giuegive not commande but our Lord: that the wife depart not from her huſband and if ſhe departs to remaine vnmaried, or to be reconciled to her huſband. And let not the huſband put away his wife. Now this is our religion of matrimonie, and plaine repugnant to the doctrine of the Miniſters of Scotland that will licence a man to put away his wife and marie another. And they call the doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles the Popes crueltie againſt the innocent diuorced in their negatiue faith.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.
As for your 8. and 9. points of doctrine concerning marriage, the firſt that it is vndiſſoluble for no cauſe: the other that it is a ſacrament. As to the firſt, I woulde ſcarſelie hauehave vnderſtoode this poynte of your doctrine, and your councel of Trent and others of your Clergie who writes of it, had not bene more plaine then ye. And I thinke, that there are few that knowes not this point of your doctrine otherwiſe, who can take it vp by this your writing. I wonder why yee are ſo darke in ſetting down your owne doctrine. But wherfore ſhould I wonder, for darknes may not byde to ſe the light. Your doctrine then is this. Concil. Trid. ſeſ. 24 canon 8 Bellarm. lib. 1. de matrim. cap. 14Firſt you make manie cauſes of ſeparation & diuorcement, beſide adultrie (expres againſt the doctrine of Ieſus Chriſt, he that ſhall dimit his wife except for fornication &c.) he makes her to commit adulterie. As 1. for the vowe of continencie to enter in a Monaſterie or Nunnerie: 2. for hereſie: 3. and for perrill 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 wee ſpeake) yet the bonde of Mariage contracted and perfited, betwixt the faithfull, can no wayes be broken, as long as they both liue together, no not for adulterie. So that the partie innocent diuorced, Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 12.maye not lawfullie marrie another, during the life of the guiltie partie: And if they marry, they cal it adulterie, and they wil hauehave the grounde of this to bee, becauſe it is a Sacrament. So one errour followes and leanes vponupon another. For if Marriage be not a Sacrament, then the bonde may be lowſed by their owne doctrine. But marriage is not a Sacrament, as ſhall be proued heereafter: Therefore the bonde is ſoluble. Our doctrine is, that the bonde of marriage contracted and perfited betweene two Chriſtians, is broken by the adulterie of either of the parties: ſo that the innocent diuorced, maye lawfully marry another. As for our doctrine. It is plaine in the Scripture, in the 19. and 5. of Matthew: where there the Lord in plaine tearmes excepts the cauſe of fornication, ſaying: Whoſoeuer dimits his wife except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adulterie. So then by the contrarie: hee that dimits his wife for fornicatiō (whilk is adulterie there) & marries another, commits not adulterie. And ſeeing the Apoſtle commands, 1. Cor. 7.2.That euerie man hauehave his owne wife, and euerie wife her owne husband, and that for the auoyding of fornication: and it is better to marrie nor to burne. Therfore, the firſt marriage being diſſolued by diuorcement iuſtly, according to gods worde; It is leaſome to the partie innocent at leaſt, to vſe the remedie of marriage for the auoyding of fornication. Other-wiſe, if hee might not vſe it, diuorcement were not a benefite, but rather a puniſhment, and the innocent ſhoulde be puniſhed without a fault.
Now, as to the Scriptures whilk ye quote, Matth. 19.6. and 5.31. they hauehave that exception of fornication expreſlie mentioned. And as for the places of Mark. 10.11.12. and Luke 16.18. and Romanes 7.2.3. and 1. Corinth, 7.39. they are all to be vnderſtood with that exception of fornication, that our Sauiour expreſlie ſets downe in the former two places, otherwaies Scripture ſhould be contrary to Scripture, whilk is blaſphemie to thinke, and our Sauiour is the beſt exponer of himſelfe. And as for the 1. Corinth. 7.10.11. the Apoſtle ſpeakes not of that ſeparation for adulterie, but of a ſeparation for a ſeaſon, for other cauſes or variances, in the whilk eaſe the parties ſeparated, are to remaine vnmaried, or to be reconciled together. And becauſe ye will not credite vsus nor the ſonne of God ſo expreſlie ſpeaking in his Scripture, yet I thinke ye will giuegive ſome credite to your owne Doctours, councels, canons and Popes, whome if ye be a right Catholicke, ye thinke that they cannot erre. a)In comment Matth. 19Caietanus a Cardinall, b)lib. 5. annot in comment. … C…ctaui.Ambroſius Catharinus Papiſts, holds this doctrine with vsus againſt the religion of your Kirk, that Adultery breakes the bond of marriage, and that the innocent diuorced may marrie another. Pope c)Decret. cauſa 32. queſt 7 cap. Concubu…ſtiZachary, and the councell c)Decret. cauſa 32. queſt 7 cap. Concubu…ſtiTriburienſe, & another e)Ibid cap. Qu… damcanon ſayes, d)Ibidem cep. Si quisThat inceſtuous adultery breakes the bond of marriage, ſo that the partie innocent, may marrie another. And Pope Gregory the 3. ſuppoſe in a f)Ibid. cap. Hive…ocanon he will not hauehave adulterie to breake the bonde of marriage, ſo that the pairty innocent may marrie another, contrarie to the doctrine of Chriſt our Sauiour, yet he g)Ibid. cap. Quid propuſu…ſti.permits a man to marrie another, if his former wife being taken with ſome diſeaſe, be not able to rander dew beneuolence vntounto her huſband. So ſuppoſe this Pope will not admitte that true cauſe whilk our Sauiour ſets downe, of adultery: yet he ſets downe cauſes himſelfe, whilk wants the warrand of the word. And Pope Celeſtine the 3. ſet foorth a decree, that when of maried perſons one falleth into hereſie, the partye Catholick is free to marrie againe: cap. Laudabilem de converſ. infidelium, confeſſed by Alphonſus a Papiſt, lib. 1. cap. 4. aduerſus haereſes. So then either your Doctors, Canons, Councels, & three Popes erres, or elſe the bond of marriage may be broken, and the innocent partie diuorced may marrie another. Your religion of Matrimonie therefore is not onelyonly repugnant to ours and Ieſus Chriſts, but alſo to your owne canons Councels, Doctors, & Popes. Let them therefore condemne your cruell iudgement againſt the innocent diuorced. And therefore Bellarmine confeſſes, Bellarm. de mat. lib. 1. cap. 15that in this point they hauehave many againſt them, not onelie vsus whome he calles heretickes: but alſo Latines, Greekes, and Catholickes.