Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Section 20
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
Eph. 5.239 With Saint Paule, we make it a Sacrament, as ſundrie of the learned Proteſtants doe, as (a)Lib. de vera & falſa r… cap. de matrimonioZuinglius, b)In l…cis …ditis, 1558. & 1558Melancthon, and chieflie young Marchinſtoun, in his 22 Propoſition of his diſcourſe vponupon the Reuelation, whoſe words are theſe. Thirdly, bodily marriage is by Saint Paule, called a ſymbole and a Sacrament of the vnion of Chriſt and his Kirk. And yet our new confeſſion deteſts the ſame, and will hauehave it but a baſtard. Sik concord is betwixt Chriſt, his Apoſtles, and our new preachers of the Goſpell: and alſo amongſt themſelues.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.
Lib, 1. de matri… cap. …The 9. point of your doctrine is: you will hauehave Marriage a Sacrament of the newe Teſtament, and that properlie, and that according to the inſtitution of God, vntounto the whilk the promiſe of the grace of iuſtification is annexed: ſo Bellarmine and the councell of Trent ſaies. But marke (Chriſtian reader) their ground of this their doctrine. They ſay, the bond of marriage amongſt infidels may be broken: but ſay they the bond of marriage amongſt the faithfull 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 amongſt Chriſtians is a Sacrament: therefore ſay they, it cannot be broken. But what is their principal ground now, wherby they proue marriage to be a Sacrament? becauſe (ſay they) the marriage of Chriſtians is a bond indiſſoluble; therefore it is a Sacrament whilk hes the grace of Iuſtification ioyned with it. So mutuallie, one error vpholds another. VponUpon the whilk I reaſon: If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it cannot be a Sacrament: (this your Kirk graunts, becauſe they make that the ground of this) but the bonde of marriage may be broken for adulterie, as hath bene proued before, both by the Scriptures, & alſo by your owne canons, councels, Doctors, and Popes: therefore marriage is not a Sacrament.
Secondlie, in the ſacraments of the new Teſtament, there are earthlie elements: as the water in Baptiſme: the bread and wine in the ſupper: and an expreſſe forme of words preſcriued in the newe Teſtament: as in Baptiſme, I bapitze thee, &c. and in the Supper, This is my bodie &c. Matth. 26. They hauehave their expreſſe inſtitution by Chriſt in the ſame, and hes the promiſes of remiſsion of ſinnes and iuſtification annexed to them. But none of theſe things are to be had in marriage. Firſt, no earthlie element: next, no forme preſcriued in the word of God: thirdlie, no expreſſe inſtitution of it as of a ſacrament: fourthlie, no promiſe of the remiſsion of ſinnes and ſaluation annexed vntounto it. Therefore it cannot be a ſacrament of the new Teſtament properlie.
Thirdly, if marriage were a ſacrament, and ſik a ſacrament that ſignified and gaue the grace of iuſtification with it, Bellarm. lib. 1, de matrim, cap. 5 pag. 67that is, remiſsion of ſinnes: then wherefore ſhould your Kirk forbid all your Cleargie from the ſame? and wherefore ſhoulde ye abſtaine from that ſacrament, whilk is inſtituted of God, to giuegive remiſsion of ſinnes to you, and to make you acceptable to God, as your doctrine ſayes. Why ſhoulde yee depriue your ſelf of that thing whilk may place you in Gods fauour, and purchaſe to you remiſsion of ſinnes, (as ye ſay mariage may doe) it is a token that either ye beleeue not your owne doctrine, or elſe preferres whoredome and adulterie, whilk is condemned of God, to marriage whilk is Gods ordinance and honorable amongſt all men.
Fourthlie, I ſay, if the marriage of Adam and Eua in Paradiſe, and the marriage of all the Patriarckes, & Prophets, and Prieſts, and people in the olde Teſtament, was not a ſacrament, neither is the marriage of Chriſtians in the new teſtament a ſacrament. For they were ſymboles that repreſented our ſpirituall coniunction with Chriſt, aſwell as the marriage of Chriſtians in the new teſtament does: the whilk you will not deny. And Pope Leo ſayes, Epiſt. 92. ad ….That marriage was inſtituted from the beginning, that they might hauehave in themſelues a Sacrament of Chriſt, and his Kirk: but the firſte you graunt your ſelues was not a Sacrament? therefore neither is the ſecond a ſacrament.
Fifthlie, that whilk is filthineſſe and pollution cannot be a ſacrament to giuegive forgiueneſſe of ſinnes: Diſt. 82. cap, Propoſu…ſti, & c, Plur…mosbut Pope Syricius calles marriage pollution and vncleanneſſe: therefore it can not be a ſacrament if he ſpeake true.
Sextly, if marriage be ſik a ſacrament as ye ſay, to giuegive remiſsion of ſinnes, then it ſhould be more excellent then virginitie, becauſe virginitie hes not this promiſe: but this ye will not graunt, therefore it is not a ſacrament.
Vt Capreolus reſ… … 4. diſt. 26 …ueſt. Vnica …uc. 3.Laſt of all, Durandus a great Doctor of your Kirk ſayes, that marriage is not properlie a ſacrament.
As for that place in the 5. of the Epheſians whilk ye quote, where the Apoſtle ſayes, This is a great myſtery, ſpeaking of the mutuall duties of man and wife. I anſwere: firſt, he calles not Mariage this great myſterie, but that band of our coniunction with Chriſt, as he expones himſelfe: This is (ſayes he) a great myſterie, and then he ſubioynes, I ſpeak of Chriſt and his Kirk. Secondlie, ſuppoſe the olde interpreter doeth tranſlate this word myſterie a ſacrament, yet you know (if you know the Greek language) that foreign is called a ſecreat. Thirdlie, wil you hauehave all theſe to be ſacraments properlie, whilk are called myſteries in the newe Teſtament, & whilk the olde interpreter and your Rhemiſts tranſlates ſacraments? then fall you not onelie make marriage a Sacrament, 1. Tim. 3.16 Col. 1. Epheſ 3 & 1. 2. Theſ 27 Reue. 1.20 & 17 5but alſo the chief articles of our ſaith, and the Goſpell, and the 7. ſtarres in the Reuelation, and the whore of Babel, and the iniquitie of the Antichriſt, all ſacramentes. For they are all called foreign in the Greeke, and ſome of them are tranſlated ſacraments by the olde interpreter, and your Rhemiſts, as mariage is. I wonder that ye quote Melanchton, as though hee were of your opinion, ſeing Bellarmine acknowledges plainlie (that he denyes it to be a Sacrament properlie as Baptiſme and the Lords Supperis: Lib. 1 de matrim cap 1, & cap. 5.) but onelie graunts that it is a Sacrament in ſome reſpects. But you regarde not what ye write, ſo being it may carrie anie ſhewe againſt vsus. The ſame we anſwer to you of Zuinglius and Marchiſtoun. They call it a Sacrament but not in that ſenſe that Baptiſme and the Lords Supper are called ſacraments, taking the worde improperlie and more amplie, ac Bellarmine confeſſes of Melancthon. So heere is no diſcorde, Maiſter Gilbert, neither betwixt vsus and Chriſt, neither amongſt our ſelues. But in very deede, you are they who are at diſcorde both with Chriſt, & amongſt your ſelus. For beſid this that Bellarmine and Innocentius calles the marriage of the Gentiles Sacraments, becauſe you may anſwere that they call them Sacraments improperlie as Melancthon, Zuinglius, and Marchiſtoun calles marriage a ſacrament improperlie. So if they be at variance with vsus for calling marriage a ſacrament, ſo is a)Bellar. lib. 1 de ſacram. matrim. c. 3Bellarmine & Pope b)Inno. c. gaude. de diuortis.Innocent at variance with your Kirk, for calling the marriage of infidels a ſacrament. For as we denie marriage to be a ſacrament at all properlie, ſo does your Kirk denie the marriage of infidels to be a ſacrament properlie. But to let this paſſe I ſay becauſe I will not deceiue the reader as ye doe with apperances of contradictions through the ambiguitie of the words a)Lib. con. here. verbo. nupti… hereſ. 3.Alphonſus de Caſtro b)Lectio. 2. de matrimonio.Petrus a Soto two of your doctors and ſundry others ſayes that mariage is not a proper ſacrament of the newe Teſtament: and yet the councell of Florence and Trent and ſundrie others of your Kirk ſayes the contrarie. 2. c)In 4. diſt. 26. queſt. 3.Durandus a great doctor of your Kirk ſayes that mareage is not a ſacrament properlye. 3. Some of our Kirk holds that carnall copulation in marriage is a part of the ſacrament, d)lib. 1 de ſacra. matrim. c. 5. pag. 88.ſome the contrarie that it is neither a ſacrament nor a part of the ſacrament, ſo Bellarmine teſtifies. 4. Durandus and your canoniſtes houldes that the ſacrament of marriage doth not confer grace vntounto them that receiues it, and yet our common doctrine is contrarie this as e)ibidem.Bellarmine grauntes. Laſt of all Canus a learned Papiſt affirmes that euerie marriage lawfully contracted among chriſtians is not a ſacrament: but onlie that whilk is made by the Miniſter in a certaine forme of words, the whilk Bellarmine and ſundrie others denies. And you are of great diuerſitie concerning the matter of that ſacrament amongſt your ſelues. Theſe are not now ſhewes of diſorders & contradictions, de ſacra. matrim lib. 1.but they are ſo true and manifeſt that Bellarmine your chiefe campion hes confeſſed them. Iudge thou now (chriſtian reader) whither is it wee or they that is at variance amongſt our ſelues. And this for the 9. poynt of your doctrine.
As for the tenth poynt: I hauehave anſwered to it, in the other parte of my treatiſe concerning the Maſſe. Therefore, I omit it now, and I come to the 11. poynt of your doctrine.