A General View of Papistry, Book 3 · Controversy 15
THE FIFTEENTH GENERALL 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 accounting 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 onelyonly. 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 preferred 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 deuised 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 hauehave 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 godlinesse: Apocal. 17.5. A mysterie great Babylon. Neither doe they themselues much vrge this argument. 2. The Apostle sayth not, that Matrimonie is a mysterie, but I speake of Christ and his Church, vers. 32.3. Matrimonie we confesse to be instituted of God, and to be a signe of a holie thing: yet no sacrament: 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 mysticall 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 louelove, 1. Timoth. 2.15. These are the graces giuen by matrimonie. Ergo, a sacrament.
Answ. 1. We denie that any sacraments giuegive 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 pollution 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. Wherefore if by fayth and louelove 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 louelove, 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 matrimonie 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 eueryevery 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 eueryevery 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 sacrament. 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 parties 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. Tract. in Iohan. 8.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 onelyonly.
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 dissoluing 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 therefore may be dissolued, Bellarmin. cap. 12.
Argum. Saint Paul sayth, If the Infidell partie will departe, let him depart, 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 vtterly 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 performance of the mutuall dueties of mariage.
The Papists.
error 30 SEcondly, separation from bed and boorde may be admitted, they say, for diuers causes, Concil. Trident. sess. 24. can. 8. Bellarmine nameth three: Fornication, according to Christs rule, Math. 5. Heresie, Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded. Thirdly, when one is a continuall offence to another & a prouocation 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 hauehave 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 disiunction.
The Protestants.
FIrst, that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce, but onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 fornicante 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 other 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 vponupon no iust cause, but either of lightnes or for diuers religion, as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian, a Papist a Protestant, an heretick a true professor, or vponupon 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, foreign, is no longer a seruant, or in subiection: which is to be taken in the same sense, as if he should say, foreign, he or she is no longer bound or tyed: which word the Apostle vseth, vers. 39. And agayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse, where hee sayth the wife, foreign, hath no power of her own bodie, & the husband likewise: But now, saith he, the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself, foreign, the innocent partie is no longer in subiection, that is, foreign, hath now power ouer his owne body: and is now become foreign, 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 dissolution of mariage, and in what manner. First, it must be malitiosa desertio, a malicious 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 employed 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 obstinacie, 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 onelyonly for fornication: for that is a diuers case from this, whereof Saint Paul treateth: And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse, and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion: for there the innocent partie first claymeth the priuiledge of separation: here the guiltie partie first separateth himselfe: 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 therefore speaketh of lawfull diuorce, not of eueryevery dissolution of mariage: for then mention should hauehave 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 hauehave 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 LAWfull 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 adulterie, 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 mariage 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 reconciled: Ergo, the parties separated for fornication may not marry again, Rhemist.
Ans. Saint Paul speaketh of other separations, which are caused by dissentions 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 humane law can be restrayned, or cut off.
Argum. 2. Saint Paul sayth, Let eueryevery man hauehave his wife, and eueryevery woman 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 incontinencie, 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,De fide & …per. cap. 19 as the Iesuite telleth vsus, 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 adulterie: Sed quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallitur, but as I thinke, we are eueryevery one of vsus 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 autem 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 SVPPVtation and account of degrees.
THe degrees are either of consanguinitie, which is of diuers persons comming 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 vntounto Isaac, though not so neerely.
In both these kindes of kindred there is a right line both vpward and ascending: 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 collaterall line in consanguinitie, as brother and sister, brother and sisters children, 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 account: 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 eueryevery person is a generation: And this is the manner of account in scripture: as Math. 1. there are 14. generations 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, because 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 degrees, because we begin not to number there. Wherefore according to the rule afore sayd, how many generations, so many degrees. According then to the account of the ciuill law, which we here follow, Iacob and Rachel are not in the second, 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 degree forbidden beyond this: neither is this by name and directly forbidden.
The Papists.
3. THeir third rule is this: In collaterall degrees vnequall,
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 distant 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 commeth 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 husbands father, brother, or daughter, which are all in the third degree: the husband 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 vponupon 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 grounded vponupon the law of nature.
Argum. 1. If it be the lawe of nature not to marrie within those degrees, it should hauehave been in force before the law was made: but so was it not: for Abraham married his brothers daughter, and Iacob two sisters, Bellarm. cap. 27.
Ans. 1. As Augustine sayth of the marriage and copulation of Adams children, 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▪ Neither 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 vponupon nature, is in force for euer. Wherefore the Pope of Rome sheweth himselfe plainly to be Antichrist in dispensing against the law of God.
Argum. 1. Leuit. 18.24. The reason of that law is giuen concerning the forbidden 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 vntounto it.
Argum. 2. Mark. 6.18. Iohn sayth to Herode, It is not lawfull for thee to hauehave 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 married 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, De ciuitat. dei lib. 15. cap. 16.& nondum prohibuerat lex humana: It was as yet thought lawfull, because neither 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 degrees directly forbidden, Leuit. 18. is vtterly vnlawfull.
THE THIRD PART, WHETHER ANY OTHER DEgrees 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 marriage 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 greater question. First, it cannot be proued that Zelophehads fiue daughters married their vncles sonnes, that is, their Cosin germanes: for the Hebrewes call the nephewes, 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 germanes 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 daughter 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 necessarily 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 contract loosed: but the marriage being consummate and finished, it is not for this cause to be dissolued.
De ciuitat. dei lib. 15. cap. 16.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 quamuis generatricem libidinem? Who doubteth, but that the marriage of Cosin germanes 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 refraine his lust.
The Papists.
error 37 2. IT is lawful for the Church to restraine other degrees of affinitie and consanguinitie, 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 vntounto the seuenth degree in naturall kinred. Also their Canons doe make a spirituall kinred, that commeth in by Baptisme & Confirmation: and suffer not the godfather to marrie the godchild, or the godfather the godmother. Likewise they hauehave found out an affinitie that commeth in by espousals onelyonly 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 lawfull for the brother to marrie her which was espoused to his brother. Also another 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 lawfull 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 necessarie consequence prohibited in the law, is a meere Antichristian yoke layd vponupon 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 inuention: for the law speaketh onelyonly of the kinred of the flesh, which ariseth of carnall knowledge and copulation, not an intent or purpose onelyonly 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 notwithstanding 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 opinion, 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 marriage consummate after mutuall coniunction: but that it may breake off the contract and espousals. Secondly, neither hauehave 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 hauehave respect vntounto 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 giuegive in marriage or not to giuegive.
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 contract, 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 marriage 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 onelyonly vnlawfull, but actually voyd, Bellarm. cap. 23. Thirdly, he that marrieth her with whom he committed adulterie before, is loose, euen after marriage, and the matrimonie voyd, Bellarm. cap. 22.
The Protestants.
1. COncerning the inualiditie of vowes to disanull marriage, we hauehave declared the truth before, Controu. 6. de Monachis. For marriage lawfully contracted and consummate, is onelyonly made voyd in the case of adulterie, as we hauehave 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. Corinth. 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 hauehave been made of the strength of Dauids marriage with Bathsheba. And Augustine doubteth not thus to conclude,De bono coniug. cap. 15. Posse sanè fieri nuptias ex male coniunctis, honesto postea placito consequente: 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 wanting, as when by tyrannicall coaction and compulsion they come together, and the consent is still withholden. Secondly, if the consent of both be wanting, as in the marriage of children, that are not able to giuegive consent. Thirdly, if there be an error of the person, as if one be thrust vponupon a man in stead of another, as Lea was vponupon 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 within the degrees forbidden by Moses law. In all these cases, Matrimonie thus vnlawfully 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 pronounced free.
THE FIFT QVESTION, OF THE COMPARISON betweene Virginitie and Marriage.
The Papists.
error 40 VIrginitie is preferred before marriage, not onelyonly for that it is a more quiet state of life, and freer from troubles in this world, but that it is more conuenient 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 onelyonly that hauehave 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 meritorious before God, then marriage is: for this were to make marriage vnholy & vncleane: whereas it is not the act of marriage, but the abusing thereof, that bringeth vncleannes with it: before God in themselues, neither is more holy then other.
Argum. It is faith which maketh vsus 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 vnderstandeth all that are redeemed by Christ, from amongst men, and are the first fruites of the Lambe, vers. 4. And not onelyonly those, which properly in common vse of speech we call virgines. True godlines therefore & a sincere faith, whereby 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, De bono coniugal. cap. 21.& in Iohanne, qui passus non est: sic non est impar meritum cōtinentiae in Iohanne, qui nullas est expertus nuptias, & in Abraham, qui filios generauit: As there was no greater 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 hauehave marriage solemnized: as from the Aduent 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,Ex Tilem. Heshus. loc. 20. err. 14. 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 hauehave dispensed with: and the time prohibited at Easter they would hauehave begun not from Septuagesima, but from Ashwednesday, Sess. 24. cap. 10. VponUpon these times they hold it vnlawfull publiquely to hauehave 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 vntounto them in Mount Sinai, Exod. 19.15. And Sam. 21.4. Before 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 interdicted 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 Natiuitie, 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 commanded then, as a legall and ceremonial kind of sanctification, as was also the washing 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 onelyonly, not from any sinfull or vncleane act: for then it had been a manifest iniurie to that holy birth, that Mary purified her selfe according to the lawe, Luk. 2.22. Wherefore seeing it was a legall kind of sanctification, it is not to be intruded & imposed vponupon Christians now. Thirdly, neither 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 conuenient: 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 vntounto 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 vponupon thē. This doubt somewhat troubled Augustine: Quaest. sup. Leuitic. 15.for first he sayth, That it must needes followe, seeing the high priest was married, and did sometime goe in vntounto 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,Retract. lib. 2. cap. 85. 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 foreign, 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 interdicting so many daies.
The Protestants.
THat not onelyonly the publique solemnitie of marriage at some times may hauehave intermission, but all matrimoniall actes ought to cease, as when men either priuately doe giuegive themselues to fasting and praier, 1. Corin. 7.5. or when publique or generall fastes are by the spirituall gouernours thought meet, & by the Christian Magistrate proclaimed: we doe not denie, but in our iudgement allow 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 Apostle 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 themselues more holy then others, contrary to the Apostles rule, Galath. 4.10. Colossians 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 hauehave 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 holy as any is? what if I said more holie, for this onelyonly immediately was instituted of God: but marriage may notwithstanding be fitly solemnized vponupon that day, the abuses and disorders, which commonly fall out in such assemblies, being cut off: for Augustine is of opinion, that the marriage in Cana of Galile, was die Dominico, vponupon the Lords day:Serm. de temp. 159. And it is most fit that matrimony should be solemnized in the face of the congregation, which is vsually assembled vponupon that day: Ergo, it may as fitly and conueniently at any time be kept and solemnized, 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 matrimony, 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 vntounto God for them, and they are by the Minister put in minde of their duety: and all is done with vsus in the vulgare tōgue, much more to the edifying of the people, and comfort of the parties themselues: wheras their idolatrous Priest chattereth all in an vnknowen tongue: A goodly exhortation 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 sacrifice, 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 onelyonly as a ciuill ornament, and token of mutuall louelove: but that popish blessing either of the ring, or of the married couple with the fingers acrosse, and muttering of some fewe enchanting 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 matrimonie, as hauehave 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.