Obrazy na stronie

T. p. 214.

c. 11.

p. Bell.

T; p. 213. Himself. However as yet they were as under a Schoolmaster Shut up unto Gal. 3. 23, 24 the Faith, under Types and figures, and Mysterious Ceremonics. Thus God

had at sunary times, and in divers places and manners, fpoke 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 sudden were able to bear; and when the fulness of time was come, he sent forth his only Son, fully to reveal his will unto all Mankind, by that Glorious and transcendent Light of the Gospel. Now all these degrees of Light were from the same God, and why Marriage, which is confessedly the same under all of them, should be Intrinsical only to Christians, but Extrinsical to all others, I must confess I am not able to understand; several Gentiles (as I have hinted before) are Celebrated for many noble and virtuous Deeds, both by acting and suffering; and I cannot question but that they had some competent assistance from above, to enable them to perform such Things, as by meer common Hitman Nature they could by no means have done. And as for the Jews, who can doubt of the wonderfull Presence and singular Help and Protection of God amongst them, when he peruses their History, which is of divine Authority with us as well as themselves? Or if he but only read that little short extract given us by the Author to the Hebrews; They saw the same promised Mfias

afar off, which we have received; and shall one day with us partake of those verf. 13. 40. better Things which God, in Him, foresaw for us.

But we are rold (as above is noted) that though Marriages as to the muP. 508. G. tual Consent of the Parties are all equal, and as to the Rites and outward

Ceremonies are all true Marriages, yet Christ, evexit ad Sacramenti Dignitatem, advanced or raised, them, which were before meer human and civil contracts to the Dignity of Sacraments. It is granted that Christians are under the greatest Light of all, and have the largest Promises and fullest Difpensations of God's Grace, and Spiritual Asistance; 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 Christians in common? By Baptism they fully enter into a new Covenant with God; Do they enter into another distinct Covenant with him by Marriage? So as to make their Baptism 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, so God obliges himself by Promise for Ut fupr. p. 17.

his gracious Protection and Assistance to Man. Bellarmine explodes this Notion as applied to Marriage; and yet if Marriage be as proper and real a Sa. crament as Baptifm is, there must be such a distinct plain mutual obligation in it, which all the Schoolmens wit can never shew.

But why must the Marriages of Christians be advanced to Sacraments, more then the mutual Confent and Union of Prince and People, Master and Servant, (or Slave) being Christians ? Which (as I have thewn) are made in Scriprure Significations or Representations of the Union between Christ and his Mystical Body, as well as Marriage is ? And suppose two Married Gentiles, turn Jews and are made Proselites of Justice; and from the lowest degree of Light, now enter into the first 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 Christians ? The Jews always counted their Profelices Seid. Ux. heb. Regenerate or as new born Babes, as well as Christians are counted by Bap

tilm; And the Union of two such Gentiles, after they are made Proselires, would as fully signify and represent the Vnion of God and the Jewish Church, as it would afterwards represent Christ and his Church if they turn'd Christians. · And if after two Married Gentiles, or two Married Jeurs turn Christians, their Marriage is thereby advanced from a meer civil contract to a Sacrament, how mult it be in the Cale which St. Paul mentions if only one of them is made a Christian, and yet both still continue M20 and Wife and live


1. 2. 18.

1 Cor. 7. 13, 14.


c. 18.

501. G.

together? Must 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 case, as (according to the Cardinal) it would be if both were converted alike? The like questions may be moved, concerning Princes and their People, Masters and their Servants or Slaves, when one relative is 'Proselitedor 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

1. 7. C. 2. them make these what they will, these must 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. Suppose then two Heathens, or two Jews are Married; the Perfons, (according to them) are the matter, and the Words expressing their mutual consent are the Form. When either of these Couples are made Christi- T. •p 215. aps, 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 same so long as the parties keep together; for it never was known that two Heathens turning Jews, or two Heathens or Jews turning Selden. uz.heba Christians were Married again upon that Account. And though Bellarmino truly owns that Christ bath not exprefs'd the Matter and Form of this Sa- P. 508. G: crament, because he hath not Instituted any new Symbol to it; Yet, faith he, he hath given to the civil contract, a new Signification and a Promise of Grace; to that these, by him, are made the two Formal or Esential Causes of the Sacrament. As for the new fignification I have proved the same as plainly given in Scripture, . to Christian Governors and Subjects, Masters and Servants, Fathers and Children, and other Relative Duties, more frequently then to Marriage. And if Marriage be now amongst Christians made a Sign, Christ and the Church according to him are the only Things fignified, how then is Grace the Thing signified, 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 signify Christ and the Church? And as for the Promise of Grace, I can find none, but what is equally and generally given to all these Relations alike at their Baptism; And a Heathen Couple turning Jews, may as truly be said to have then a new signification of a sacred Thing (as I have faid) and a Promise of Grace too by entring into that first Covenant; and though these in them are not in fo high a degree as in Christianity, yet they must make Marriage to the Jews as true a Sacrament, as to the Christians, in the same

proportion as Circumcifion did bear to Baptifin. At last the Cardinal considering the fruitless jangle and subtilties of the Schools about the Matter and Form of this pretended Sacrament, thus cleverly shuffles up the whole Dispute; As to Un fupra. the belief and administration of the Sacraments, it is enough to know how mang Sacraments there are, and bow they are to be celebrated; but as to their Matter and Form, a good Catholick may safely dispute about them, and even be utterly ignorant of them. This is exactly conformable to their old Maxim, (thac fingular Opiate for troublelome Consciences,) 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 Indissoluble, therefore it is a Sacrament and not a so1. H. civil Rite. And, Matrimony is a Sacrament, therefore no civil Rite, and by consequence is Indissoluble ; and he faith, it is Indisoluble, for whom God hath joined together, no Man can feparate. Where there is a hearty and mutual consent, and a Promise, by words in the present Time, of both Parties, without doubt God puts them together, that is, as we say, they are Man and Wife before God.

If he means that such a Marriage as this, is a Sacrament, all Marriages of Jews and Gentiles as well as of Christians, thus made, are Sa

Е е


1. 35.
1 Cor. 7. 50

T. p. 215. craments and Indissoluble alike. But then as only mutual conferit, (before God)

at first makes that Contract and Obligation; so the fame, mutual Confent, (thac is, before God Nill,) may upon many occasions again dissolve it, as well as any

other Contract or Bargain ; and I can see no realon at all for making Matrimoff. de reg. jun. ny ap Exception to that general Rule of the Law. As consent makes, jo

confent disolves a Contract. And the Apostle by Parity of reason feems to me to allow it ; If they may abstain from one another, or part, by consent for a time, why not as we say, for good and all, if there may be as good and as justifiable an occasion, as that which the Apostle mentions? Of all

which I shall say more by and by. T p. 216.

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

If he means, whom God, that is, the Church with its Forms and Ceremonies, hath put together, he makes Matrimony only an Institution of the Church, that is, meerly human, and not a Sacrament of Christ himself; and Heathen and Jewish Marriages had their Forms, and Priests, and solemn Ceremonies, as well as ours. And thousands of such Marriages, I fear, are made amongst us, where their is no loward harty Love or Confent, but either Compulsion of Parents and Friends, or meer design or prospect of Portion, Estate, Preferment or some outward advantage couple them; commonly on one side or the other, (and sometimes on both sides,) the Fortune is Married and not the Person ; so that as marters 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 specious name of Modern Polegamy; The Map 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 Harlor, and Me a Mignon (or as they call him a Gallant) at the same time, which they love entirely and secretly eo

joy; these are the true Husband and Wife in Conscience, and are most pro1 Cor. 6. 16.perly said to be one Flesh. Where in Marriage there is a mutual Consent and

a true Love and Promise, exprels’d by words of the present time, the Ceremoру of the Church adds nothing to the Obligation, but terves only to witness it, and solemnly publish it; and I see no realon but that by such a mutual Confent, upon many occasions, with some publick Ceremonies of the Church, the fame Obligation may be dissolved by a folemn Divorce.

And this now brings me to the Consideration of the Greek Church, which, (if indisolubility of Marriage is the certain or the only note which declares it to be a Sacrament, as the Latins say, ) is far enough from making it a Sacrament, notwithstanding all that the most Reverend Dofitheus and his Jerusalem Synod lay to the contrary; for it is most notoriously known that the present Greek Church very frequently allows Divorce, and we have no reason to

doubt but that upon many occasions it always was so amongst them. Divorce A.Gel.1.4.c.3.

was very early began by the old Romans, and the Practice continued down to

the Christian Emperors, when it was carly ratified by their publick Laws, as Cod. de repud. under Theodosius Junior and Valentinian Anno Christ. 449. and Man and Wife,

infausto at necessario auxilio, had this unhappy but necesary remedy of Divorce allow'd them against one another. “ It was a sufficient ground on either side,

“causis apertiùs designatis, for one plainly to prove against the other, Adultery, T. p. 216. Homicide, Witchcraft or Sorcery, Treason, Coufenage, robbing of Graves,

Sacrilege, Theft, receiving or encouraging Thieves, Plagiary, or Kidnapping, conspiring or contriving one anothers Death, beating one the other. • And agaiost the Man particularly, stealing of Cattle, accompanying lewd

& l. 17. c. 21.

1. 8.

IV omer

inter v. ux. lo 32. S. 10.

c. 15.

Women especially before his Wife; and against the Woman particularly, T. p. 2171 Goloping or Feasting, lying abroad at nights against her Husbands will or

knowledge, delighting to go see publick Shews or Plays or sports, without « his leave, or when he forbids her. Any of these things clearly proved was a Novel. 22.C.15 fufficient Caule of Divorce, and Man and Wife being thus feparated mighe either of s. 1, 2. them Marry again to other Persons. Eight and forty years after Anastasius allow'd c. ut fupr.l. 8. Man and Wife to part by Divorce with common Consent, without naming any Eod. tit. 1. g. Cause. And one way of parting thus by mutual Consent, was long before call. Anno 497. ed bonå Gratiá, by bone Grace, or good Will, that is, fine ira sua animi & ff. de donat. offensa, without any Anger, or Peevishness of Mind, or without the least offence or discontent; as the first Divorce amongst the Romans was; Spurius A. Gei, ut fupr. Carrilius Ruga loved his Wife most dearly, but having no Children by her, he thought fitting ( as the Easterlings do to this day) to try what might be done by his taking another Woman and the another Man.

And Justinian also Nov. 18. c. 4. allow'd this parting by Consent, and that not only, if it was done bonå Gratia, by good will or without any unkindness between the Parties, but also whether there was any reasonable Cause or no, if they both agreed upon Terms and Condicions relámeg å énetega do Etxe, as it seem'd good to either Party. And all the other Causes above mention'd on either side were continued down to the sixth Year of his Reign, when they were by him expressly revived and reinforced, and he added three more for which the Man might Divorce his c. 16. Go 1: Wife. If she makes her self miscarry that she might not have any Children by him ; If she is so lewd as to Bathe with other Men; If she talk with other Men desigoing to cast him off and Marry another. About nine years after this he re

Nov. 117.c.8. viewd the reasons of Divorce, and made only these Causes sufficient for it. c. 9. Io either Party, Treason, Adultery, contriving one anothers Death; For the Man particularly against the Woman, Gossoping 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 so base as to Pimp to some other Man to make his Wife a Whore; if he accufes ber of Adultery and cannot prove it; If he keeps a Harlot at home or abroad. Parting by consent was absolutely forbidden by him now, unless it Ead. Ci to: 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 still made a just Cause; and any Husband C. de repud. I. 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 Nov: 119. 12: made the only Causes of Divorce, so that a Woman could not now Divorce her 14. Husband, though (without any of the Causes above mention'd,) he whipt her or cudgeld Her. About 25 Years after Justin, his immediate successor in the

Nov. 140. Prof. first Year of his reign, confirmed all which Justinian had established before & c. i. him, excepting his Law against parting by Confent; which he repeated, and established the old custom again, of disolving Marriages by common joint Will and consent of both parties.

By all these several Laws about Marriages and Divorces, and their being so 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 several considerations kept or broken, ratified or nulled, and in many Conditions often altered, by the sole Authority of the Emperor or civil Magistrate; The Church was no more Concern'd in it, then to prescribe Forms and Rites, and by them to solemoize the outward Publication of it; and it was no more counted by Christians of old as a Sacrament or Mystery, properly so called, then it was by all other Nations Jewish or Gentile, when it was always likewise Published with Pomp and Ceremony.

And Divorce upon these Causes last mention'd hath been constantly Practised, amongst the Greeks, ever since Justin's time even unto this present day. Where- Not. in Can. fore I wonder at what Mr. Justel faith, Planum est divortiorum caufás, &c. It Eccl. Universo

E e 2

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

is ss. p. 84. a.

to them.


[ocr errors]

C.F. p. 355

P: 357

T. p. 218. is plain that all the causes of Divorces, except Adultery, which were for

merly received by the civil Laws and were invented by the Emperors, were never admitted by the Church; and therefore those who parted ac cording to those Laws and Married again, were counted by the Judgment of the Church guilty of Bigamy, and therefore they were defervedly Cenfur

ed and Punished as such? Mr. Justel knew very well that all these Cauics of Tit. 13. 6. 4. Divorce were taken into Photius his Nomocanon, and allow'd in common Pra.

ctice amongst the Greeks; can any Man imagine chat Divorces would be thus permitted by the Emperors as lawful, if at the same time the Church condemn'd them as Sinful, and centur'd them as such, by inflicting fpiritual Punishment or Penance upon them? I am sure they are now used upon the Occasions above named, and their present Nomocanon, which I have in vulgar Greck at large in a Manuscript by me, fet down exactly the same Causes, and add several others

Give me Leave to mention two or three of thein. If a Man eCan. 85. p.

Spouseth a Woman taking her for a pure Virgin, and upon tryal plainly find her not so, he may put her away and take another ; but if he useth her a second time, this argues him to be content, and he cannot then part with

her for that firs? fault. C. eže. P. 348. If a Woman beats her Husband, or being with Child cause her self to Leo. conf. 34. miscarry on purpose to vex him, he can put her away.

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

A Man who abufeth his Wife backwards, or any way unnaturally. c.gta. p. 356.

Hereticks, if either persist in their Heresy. c. 6.p.356. Adiponigówerol, Persons porest with the Devil; or perfectly Mad, the

Woman, "if after three Years she is no better, is separated. The Man, icon.cz. Pas after five Tears coutinuance, is separated; and the found Person may in Tim. Alexan. Marry again. Bevereg. T. 2.

When one turns Monk or Nun, the other free to Marry. And the Man 169. Com. çžr. p. made a Monk, may afterwards be made a Bishop, though his Wife be alive

and Married to another Man. Can..god. p.

Awoor, Leprous Perfons separated; the found Marry again; the Man maintain his Leprous Wife during life.

Therefore Mr. Justel's distinction between the Imperial: Laws and the Canons of the Church in this case is very frivolous; the Nomocanon being made in Photius his time, (from both these fanctions, the standing Rule of Practice; and it is much more obligatory now, the Greeks being under the civil Govero. ment of the Turks, they embrace this Nomocanon now universally as the en

tire and only Prescription for all Ecclesiastical Matters, and civil likewise, that 1 Cor.6.6. are not Capital; obferving the Apostle'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 reipective Bishops, Metropolites, or Patriarchs, in whose destricts the case happens; to their Courts all delinquents are cited, and the ucmost Punishment of all Offences, to the disobedient 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.

In Divorces therefore the Case is heard in the Bishop's Consistory, and if there be a just occasion, according to the above mention'd Rules, the dialúziou, or ygépia xwgéows, the Bill of Divorce, is framed and signed by the Prelate,

who is judge, and enter'd in his publick Registry ; I have several Forms of it D955

by me in my Manuscript. Thus it is not permitted to either Man or Woman to part, either Bonâ Gratiâ by good Will or otherwise, without his Cognisance and Approbation.

T. P. 219.


[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »