Gal.

T. p. 213. Himfelf. However as yet they were as under a Schoolmaster shut up unto 3. 23, 24 the Faith, under Types and Figures, and Mysterious Ceremonies. Thus God had at funary times, and in divers places and manners, spoke unto all Mankind; and by various Degrees and Methods, had prepared both Jews and Gentiles for the Reception of that Supreme and most perfect Light, which by their own meer Powers and Faculties they could not conceive, nor on a fudden were able to bear; and when the fulness of time was come, he fent forth his only Son, fully to reveal his will unto all Mankind, by that Glorious and tranfcendent Light of the Gofpel. Now all thefe degrees of Light were from the fame God, and why Marriage, which is confeffedly the fame under all of them, fhould be Intrinsical only to Chriftians, but Extrinsical to all others, I must confefs I am not able to understand; feveral Gentiles (as I have hinted before) are Celebrated for many noble and virtuous Deeds, both by acting and fuffering; and I cannot queftion but that they had fome competent affiftance from above, to enable them to perform fuch Things, as by meer common Human Nature they could by no means have done. And as for the Jews, who can doubt of the wonderfull Prefence and fingular Help and Protection of God amongst them, when he perufes their Hiftory, which is of divine Authority with us as well as themselves? Or if he but only read that little fhort extract given us by the Author to the Hebrews; They faw the fame promifed Mas afar off, which we have received; and fhall one day with us partake of thofe better Things which God, in Him, forefaw for us.

T. p. 214.

C. II.

verf. 13. 40.

P. 210. Bell.

p. 508. G.

Ut fupr. p. 17.
A.B.

But we are told (as above is noted) that though Marriages as to the mutual Confent of the Parties are all equal, and as to the Rites and outward Ceremonies are all true Marriages, yet Chrift, evexit ad Sacramenti Dignitatem, advanced or railed, them, which were before meer human and civil contracts to the Dignity of Sacraments. It is granted that Chriftians are under the greateft Light of all, and have the largest Promifes and fulleft Dif penfations of God's Grace, and Spiritual Affiftance; but is their any particular addition or prerogative of Grace given to the Married Couple, as being Married, more then what they have by being Chriftians in common? By Baptifm they fully enter into a new Covenant with God; Do they enter into another diftinct Covenant with him by Marriage? So as to make their Baptifm one Sacrament, and their Marriage another? Calvin offer'd the true Notion of a real Sacrament, to wit, that it is a mutual obligation between God and Man; as Man is bound for Obedience to God, fo God obliges himself by Promife for his gracious Protection and Affiftance to Man. Bellarmine explodes this Notion as applied to Marriage; and yet if Marriage be as proper and real a Sacrament as Baptifm is, there must be fuch a diftinct plain mutual obligation in it, which all the Schoolmens wit can never fhew.

But why muft the Marriages of Chriftians be advanced to Sacraments, more then the mutual Confent and Union of Prince and People, Mafter and Servant, (or Slave) being Chriftians? Which (as I have fhewn) are made in Scripture. Significations or Reprefentations of the Union between Chrift and his Myftical Body, as well as Marriage is? And fuppofe two Married Gentiles, turn Jews and are made Profelites of Justice; and from the lowest degree of Light, now enter into the firft Covenant with the true God, why is not their Marriage now advanced to a Sacrament by that higher Light, as well as it would be if they afterwards turn Chriftians? The Jews always counted their Profelites Seid. Ux. heb. Regenerate or as new born Babes, as well as Chriftians are counted by Baptifm; And the Union of two fuch Gentiles, after they are made Profelites, would as fully fignify and reprefent the Union of God and the Jewish Church, as it would afterwards reprefent Chrift and his Church if they turn'd Chriftians. And if after two Married Gentiles, or two Married Jews tura Chriftians, their Marriage is thereby advanced from a meer civil contract to a Sacrament, how muft it be in the Cafe which St. Paul mentions if only one of them is made a Chriftian, and yet both ftill continue Man and Wife and live toge

1. 2. 18.

1 Cor. 7. 13,

14.

1.

7. C. 2.

1. 2. c. 18.

501. G.

together? Muft the formal Marriage be advanced to half a Sacrament to the T. p. 214. Believer only, or to a particular kind of a medly Sacrament to them both? Or is it as true and perfect a Sacrament in that cafe, as (according to the Cardinal) it would be if both were converted alike? The like queftions may be moved, concerning Princes and their People, Masters and their Servants or Slaves, when one relative is Profelited or Converted, and the Correlative remains as before. The Schoolmen, as well as the Cardinal and his Ape Arcudius, labour hard Deconcor. Eccl. to find out a Matter and a Form, for this Matrimonial Sacrament. But let them make these what they will, these muft both needs be different, as they make the Marriage and as they make the Sacrament; for as much as Chrifti. an Marriages only are Sacraments with them, all other being but meer civil contracts. Suppofe then two Heathens, or two Jews are Married; the Perfons, (according to them) are the matter, and the Words expreffing their mutual confent are the Form. When either of thefe Couples are made Chrifti- T. p 215. ans, there must be at least a new Form, if not a new Matter, to advance their Marriage to a Sacrament; For the Marriage in it self stands always good, and is ever one and the fame fo long as the parties keep together; for it never was known that two Heathens turning Jews, or two Heathens or Jews turning Selden. ux. heb. Christians were Married again upon that Account. And though Bellarmine truly owns that Chrift hath not exprefs'd the Matter and Form of this Sa- P. 508. G. crament, because he hath not Inftituted any new Symbol to it; Tet, faith he, he hath given to the civil contract, a new Signification and a Promife of Grace; to that thefe, by him, are made the two Formal or Effential Caufes of the Sacrament. As for the new fignification I have proved the fame as plainly given in Scripture, to Chriftian Governors and Subjects, Mafters and Servants, Fathers and Children, and other Relative Duties, more frequently then to Marriage. And if Marriage be now amongft Chriftians made a Sign, Christ and the Church according to him are the only Things fignified, how then is Grace the Thing fignified, and what is that Grace in particular? Again when Husband and Wife live at variance, (as it often happens,) or when they mortally hate one another, and live the life of Hell upon Earth; how can this Marriage fignify Chrift and the Church? And as for the Promife of Grace, I can find none, but what is equally and generally given to all these Relations alike at their Baptifm; And a Heathen Couple turning Jews, may as truly be said to have then a new fignification of a facred Thing (as I have faid) and a Promife of Grace too by entring into that firft Covenant; and though these in them are not in fo high a degree as in Chriftianity, yet they must make Marriage to the Jews as true a Sacrament, as to the Chriftians, in the fame proportion as Circumcifion did bear to Baptifin. At laft the Cardinal confidering the fruitless jangle and fubtilties of the Schools about the Matter and Form of this pretended Sacrament, thus cleverly fhuffles up the whole Difpute; As to U fupra. the belief and adminiftration of the Sacraments, it is enough to know how many Sacraments there are, and how they are to be celebrated; but as to their Matter and Form, a good Catholick may fafely difpute about them, and even be utterly ignorant of them. This is exactly conformable to their old Maxim, (that fingular Opiate for troublefome Confciences,) believe as the Church believe, and never trouble your head to understand how or what it is, or whether it be nicely right or wrong.

But we meet in Bellarmine with yet another reciprocal, or rather circular p. 499 H. Argument. Matrimony is Indiffoluble, therefore it is a Sacrament and not a 501. H. civil Rite. And, Matrimony is a Sacrament, therefore no civil Rite, and by confequence is Indissoluble; and he faith, it is Indiffoluble, for whom God hath joined together, no Man can feparate. Where there is a hearty and mutual confent, and a Promife, by words in the prefent Time, of both Parties, without doubt God puts them together, that is, as we fay, they are Man and Wife before God. If he means that fuch a Marriage as this, is a Sacrament, all Marriages of Jews and Gentiles as well as of Christians, thus made, are Sa

T. p. 215. craments and Indiffoluble alike. But then as only mutual confent, (before God) at first makes that Contract and Obligation; fo the fame, mutual Confent, (that is, before God ftill,) may upon many occafions again diffolve it, as well as any other Contract or Bargain; and I can fee no realon at all for making Matrimoff. de reg. jun. ny an Exception to that general Rule of the Law. As confent makes, fo confent diffolves a Contract. And the Apostle by Parity of reafon feems to me to allow it; If they may abstain from one another, or part, by confent for a time, why not as we fay, for good and all, if there may be as good and as justifiable an occafion, as that which the Apoftle mentions? Of all which I fhall fay more by and by.

1. 35.
1 Cor. 7. 5°

T p. 216.

Again, if we own that mutual Love and Confent, is the only true Vinculum or Bond which first joins them, and by confequence must still keep them together; what bond or tie can there be which fhall keep them Infeparable, when they fall out and hate one the other Irreconcileably? The outward human Law may force them indeed to be ftill Man and Wife, but the true Bond of Love and Charity is quite vanish'd away, and the real Union is utterly

diffolved.

If he means, whom God, that is, the Church with its Forms and Ceremonies, hath put together, he makes Matrimony only an Inftitution of the Church, that is, meerly human, and not a Sacrament of Chrift himself; and Heathen and Jewish Marriages had their Forms, and Priests, and folemn Ceremonies, as well as ours. And thousands of such Marriages, I fear, are made amongst us, where their is no Inward harty Love or Confent, but either Compulfion of Parents and Friends, or meer defign or profpect of Portion, Eftate, Preferment or fome outward advantage couple them; commonly on one fide or the other, (and fometimes on both fides,) the Fortune is Married and not the Perfon; fo that as matters are now managed, one would think, that God, that is, true Heavenly Love, join not many this way. It is to be feared that there are too many in our days, who take up and follow that wicked and abominable Principle of Palliating the foulest Adulteries with the fpecious name of Modern Polegamy; The Man and the Woman, say they, who are join'd by the Church, are indeed the Husband and Wife in Law; but if he hath a Harlot, and the a Mignon (or as they call him a Gallant) at the fame time, which they love entirely and fecretly enjoy; these are the true Husband and Wife in Confcience, and are most pro1 Cor. 6. 16.perly faid to be one Flesh. Where in Marriage there is a mutual Confent and a true Love and Promife, exprefs'd by words of the prefent time, the Ceremony of the Church adds nothing to the Obligation, but ferves only to witness it, and folemnly publish it; and I fee no reafon but that by fuch a mutual Confent, upon many occafions, with fome publick Ceremonies of the Church, the fame Obligation may be diffolved by a folemn Divorce.

A.Gel.1.4.c.3.

And this now brings me to the Confideration of the Greek Church, which, (if indiffolubility of Marriage is the certain or the only note which declares it to be a Sacrament, as the Latins fay,) is far enough from making it a Sacrament, notwithstanding all that the most Reverend Doftheus and his Jerufalem Synod fay to the contrary; for it is most notoriously known that the prefent Greek Church very frequently allows Divorce, and we have no reason to doubt but that upon many occafions it always was fo amongst them. Divorce was very early began by the old Romans, and the Practice continued down to the Christian Emperors, when it was early ratified by their publick Laws, as Cod. de repud. under Theodofius Junior and Valentinian Anno Christ. 449. and Man and Wife, infaufto at neceffario auxilio, had this unhappy but necesary remedy of Divorce allow'd them against one another. "It was a fufficient ground on either fide, caufis apertiùs defignatis, for one plainly to prove against the other, Adultery, Homicide, Witchcraft or Sorcery, Treafon, Coufenage, robbing of Graves, Sacrilege, Theft, receiving or encouraging Thieves, Plagiary, or Kidnapping, confpiring or contriving one anothers Death, beating one the other. And against the Man particularly, ftealing of Cattle, accompanying lewd

& l. 17. c. 21.

1. 8.

T.

P. 216.

68

66

Women

66

Novel. 22. C.15.

C.

§. 4, 5.

32. §. 10.

9.

Nov. 22. c. 4.

"Women efpecially before his Wife; and against the Woman particularly, T. p. 2177 Goffoping or Feafting, lying abroad at nights against her Husbands will or knowledge, delighting to go fee publick Shews or Plays or sports, without "his leave, or when he forbids her. Any of these things clearly proved was a fufficient Caufe of Divorce, and Man and Wife being thus feparated might either of s. 1, 2. them Marry again to other Perfons. Eight and forty Years after Anaftafius allow'd ut fupr.1. 8. Man and Wife to part by Divorce with common Confent, without naming any Eod. tit. 1. Cause. And one way of parting thus by mutual Confent, was long before call- Anno 497ed bona Gratia, by bone Grace, or good Will, that is, fine ira fua animi & ff. de donat. offenfa, without any Anger, or Peevithness of Mind, or without the least of- inter v. ux. l. fence or difcontent; as the firft Divorce amongst the Romans was; Spurius A.Gel. ut fupr. Carrilius Ruga loved his Wife most dearly, but having no Children by her, he thought fitting (as the Eafterlings do to this day) to try what might be done by his taking another Woman and she another Man. And Juftinian alfo allow'd this parting by Consent, and that not only, if it was done bonâ Gratia, by good will or without any unkindness between the Parties, but also whether there was any reasonable Caufe or no, if they both agreed upon Terms and Conditions atáig av exaτégw docue, as it seem'd good to either Party. And all the other Caufes above mention'd on either fide were continued down c. 15. to the fixth Year of his Reign, when they were by him expreffly revived and reinforced, and he added three more for which the Man might Divorce his c. 16. §. 1. Wife. If the makes her felf mifcarry that he might not have any Children by him; If he is fo lewd as to Bathe with other Men; If he talk with other Men defigning to caft him off and Marry another. About nine years after this he review'd the reasons of Divorce, and made only these Caufes fufficient for it. c. 9. In either Party, Treafon, Adultery, contriving one anothers Death; For the Man particularly against the Woman, Goffoping or Junketing abroad, Bathing with other Men; Lying out at Nights; Seeing of Plays, Shews, or Sights. For the Woman in particular against the Man, If he is fo base as to Pimp to fome other Man to make his Wife a Whore; If he accuses ber of Adultery and cannot prove it; If he keeps a Harlot at home or abroad. Parting by confent was abfolutely forbidden by him now, unless it Ead. c. 10. was only for either Party not to Marry again but to live Chaftly. Impotency c. 12. in the Man (as it was of old) was ftill made a juft Caufe; and any Husband c. de repud. 1. might turn Monk, and any Wife might be made a Nun; and Captivity (as former- 10. Nov. 22. ly) after a certain time left them at liberty to Marry again. And these were now made the only Causes of Divorce, fo that a Woman could not now Divorce her 14. Husband, though (without any of the Causes above mention'd,) he whipt her or cudgel'd Her. About 25 Years after Juftin, his immediate fucceffor in the Nov. 140.Pref first Year of his reign, confirmed all which Juftinian had established before & c. 1. him, excepting his Law against parting by Confent; which he repeated, and eftablished the old custom again, of diffolving Marriages by common joint Will and confent of both Parties.

By all these several Laws about Marriages and Divorces, and their being sỏ often changed, repeated, and again reinforced, it seems to me most evident, that Marriage was all along counted by the Greeks and Eastern Christians no more than a meer civil Contract or Sanction, which was on feveral confiderations kept or broken, ratified or nulled, and in many Conditions often altered, by the fole Authority of the Emperor or civil Magiftrate; The Church was no more Concern'd in it, then to prescribe Forms and Rites, and by them to folemnize the outward Publication of it; and it was no more counted by Chriftians of old as a Sacrament or Mystery, properly fo called, then it was by all other Nations Jewish or Gentile, when it was always likewise Published with Pomp and Ceremony.

Nov. 117.c.8.

c. 6.

Nov. 117. 12:

T. P.

218.

And Divorce upon these Causes last mention'd hath been conftantly Practifed, amongst the Greeks, ever fince Juftin's time even unto this prefent day. Where- Not. in Can. fore I wonder at what Mr. Juftel faith, Planum eft divortiorum caufas, &c. It Eccl. Univers

E e 2

iss. p. 84. 3.

T. p. 218. is plain that all the causes of Divorces, except Adultery, which were formerly received by the civil Laws and were invented by the Emperors, were never admitted by the Church; and therefore those who parted according to thofe Laws and Married again, were counted by the Judgment of the Church guilty of Bigamy, and therefore they were defervedly Cenfured and Punished as fuch? Mr. Juftel knew very well that all thele Cautes of Tit. 13. c. 4. Divorce were taken into Photius his Nomocanon, and allow'd in common Practice amongst the Greeks; can any Man imagine that Divorces would be thus permitted by the Emperors as lawful, if at the fame time the Church condemn'd them as Sinful, and cenfur'd them as fuch, by inflicting fpiritual Punishment or Penance, upon them? I am fure they are now ufed upon the Occafions above named, and their prefent Nomocanon, which I have in vulgar Greek at large in a Manuscript by me, fet down exactly the fame Caufes, and add feveral others to them. Give me Leave to mention two or three of them. If a Man eSpoufeth a Woman taking her for a pure Virgin, and upon tryal plainly find her not fo, he may put her away and take another; but if he ufeth her a fecond time, this argues him to be content, and he cannot then part with her for that first fault.

Can. S. P. 346.

c. ęte. p. 348. Leo. conft. 31.

c. go. P. 349.

c. e. P. 355. c. §πα. p. 356.

c. z6. p. 356.

P. 357.
Leon. conftit.

1

If a Woman beats her Husband, or being with Child cause her felf to mifcarry on purpose to vex him, he can put her away.

Either Man or Woman, that is a Thief, a Robber of Graves, Sacriligi ous, a Pyrate; upon proof feparated, by the innocent Party.

A Man who abufeth his Wife backwards, or any way unnaturally.
Hereticks, if either perfift in their Herefy.

Saumon Coμero, Perfons poffeft with the Devil; or perfectly Mad, the Woman, if after three Years he is no better, is feparated. The Man, 111.112. Balf. after five Years coutinuance, is Separated; and the found Perfon may in Tim. Alexan. Marry again.

Bevereg. T. 2.

169.

When one turns Monk or Nun, the other free to Marry. And the Man Com. gen. p. made a Monk, may afterwards be made a Bishop, though his Wife be alive and Married to another Man.

348.

T. p. 219. Can, god. p. 352.

Awoo, Leprous Perfons feparated; the found Marry again; the Man maintain his Leprous Wife during life.

Therefore Mr. Juftel's diftinction between the Imperial Laws and the Canons of the Church in this cafe is very frivolous; the Nomocanon being made in Photius his time, (from both thefe fanctions,) the flanding Rule of Practice; and it is much more obligatory now, the Greeks being under the civil Govern. ment of the Turks, they embrace this Nomocanon now univerfally as the entire and only Prefcription for all Ecclefiaftical Matters, and civil likewife, that 1 Cor. 6. 6. are not Capital; obferving the Apoftle's rule, Brother goes not to Law with Brother before the unbelieving Turks; but all Matters of Meum and Tuum, Right and Wrong, and Matters of Immorality or Behaviour, are tried and judged before the refpective Bishops, Metropolites, or Patriarchs, in whofe deftricts the cafe happens; to their Courts all delinquents are cited, and the utmost Punishment of all Offences, to the difobedient and Impenitent, is Excommunication, (the Sword being in other Hands,) and this amongst them all (notwithstanding the general decay of true Devotion and Religion amongst them) is, as it ought to be, more dreaded then any Coporal Punishment whatever; it is this terror only which keep them in perfect Obedience to their Pastors.

1.955.

In Divorces therefore the Cafe is heard in the Bishop's Confistory, and if there be a just occafion, according to the above mention'd Rules, the dayor, or rgáμpa Xweeσrws, the Bill of Divorce, is framed and figned by the Prelate, who is judge, and enter'd in his publick Registry; I have feveral Forms of it by me in my Manufcript. Thus it is not permitted to either Man or Woman to part, either Bonâ Gratiâ by good Will or otherwife, without his Cognisance and Approbation.