Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ART.

Ephes. v.

32.

The fourth Sacrament here rejected is Marriage; which XXV. is reckoned the last by the Roman account. In the point of argument there is less to say here than in any of the other; but there seems to be a very express warrant for calling it a Sacrament, from the translation of a passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, in which he makes an allusion, while he treats of Marriage, to the mutual relation that is between Christ and his Church, from that state of life, and says, There is a great mystery here; the Vulgar has translated the word Mystery by Sacrament. So though the words immediately following seem to turn the matter another way, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church; yet from the promiscuous use of those two words, and because Sacraments were called the Mysteries of the Christian religion, the Translator, it seems, thought that all mysteries might be called Sacraments. But it is so very hard here to find matter, form, a minister, and a sacramental effect, that though Pope Eugenius, in that famous decree of his, is very punctual in assigning these, when he explains the other Sacraments; yet he wisely passed them all over when he came to this, and only makes a true consent necessary to the making the Sacrament.

We do not deny marriage to be an ordinance of God; but we think that as it was at first made in the state of innocence, so it is still founded on the law of nature; and though the Gospel gives rules concerning the duties belonging to this state of life, as it does concerning the duties of parents and children, which is another relation founded on the same law of nature, yet we cannot call it a Sacrament; for we find neither matter, form, institution, nor federal acts, nor effects assigned to it in the Gospel, to make us esteem it a Sacrament.

The matter assigned by the Roman doctors is the inward consent, by which both parties do mutually give themselves to one another: the form they make to be the words or signs, by which this is expressed. Nowa it seems a strange thing to make the secret thoughts of men the matter, and their words the form of a Sacrament; all mutual compacts being as much Sacraments as this, there being no visible material things applied to the parties who

[ocr errors]

Upon the whole doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning the Sacraments, as it is explained by the Schoolmen, I have followed the account given by Honoratus Fabri, in his Summa Theologica, who is dead within these ten years. I knew him at Rome, anno 1685. He was a true philosopher, beyond the liberties allowed by his order, and studied to reduce their school-divinity to as clear ideas as it was capable of. So that in following him I have given the best, and not the worst face of their doctrine. His book was printed at Lyons, anno 1669.

if

receive them; which is necessary to the being of a Sacrament. It is also a very absurd opinion, which may have very fatal consequences, and raise very afflicting scruples, any should imagine that the inward consent is the matter of this Sacrament; here is a foundation laid down for voiding every marriage. The parties may and often do marry against their wills; and though they profess an outward consent, they do inwardly repine against what they are doing. If after this they grow to like their marriage, scruples must arise, since they know they have not the Sacrament; because it is a doctrine in that Church, that as intention is necessary in every Sacrament, so here that goes further, the intention being the only matter of this Sacrament; so that without it there is no marriage, and yet since they cannot be married again to complete, or rather to make the marriage, such persons do live only in a state of concubinage.

On the other hand, here is a foundation laid down for breaking marriages as often as the parties, or either of them, will solemnly swear that they gave no inward consent, which is often practised at Rome. All contracts are sacred things; but of them all, marriage is the most sacred, since so much depends upon it. Men's words, confirmed by oaths and other solemn acts, must either be binding according to the plain and acknowledged sense of them, or all the security and confidence of mankind is destroyed. No man can be safe if this principle is once admitted; that a man is not bound by his promises and oaths, unless his inward consent went along with them: and if such a fraudulent thing may be applied to marriages, in which so many persons are concerned, and upon which the order of the world does so much depend, it may be very justly applied to all other contracts whatsoever, so that they may be voided at pleasure. A man's words and oaths bind him by the eternal laws of fidelity and truth'; and it is a just prejudice against any religion whatsoever, if it should teach a doctrine in which, by the secret reserves of not giving an inward consent, the faith which is solemnly given may be broken. Here such a door is opened to perfidy and treachery, that the world can be no longer safe while it is allowed; hereby lewd and vicious persons may entangle others, and in the mean while order their own thoughts so, that they shall be all the while free.

Next to matter and form, we must see for the institution of this Sacrament. The Church of Rome think that is strong here, though they feel it to be hardly defensible in

ART.

XXV.

ART.
XXV.

the other points that relate to it. They think that though marriage, as it is a mutual contract, subsists upon the law of nature, yet a divine virtue is put in it by the Gospel, expressed in these words, This is a great Mystery, or Sacrament; so the explaining these words determines this controversy. The chief point in dispute at that time was, whether the Gentiles were to be received to equal privileges with the Jews, in the dispensation of the Messias. The Jews do not to this day deny, but that the Gentiles may be admitted to it; but still they think that they are to be considered as a distinct body, and in a lower order, the chief dignity being to be reserved to the seed of Abraham. Now St. Paul had in that Epistle, as well as in his other Epistles, asserted, that all were equal in Christ; that he had taken away the middle wall of partition; that he had abolished the ground of the enmity, which was Eph. ii. 15, the Mosaical Law, called the Law of Commandments con16, 20, 21. tained in ordinances; that he might make both Jew and Gentile one new man; one entire body of a Church; he being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building was fitly framed together and so became a holy habitation to God. Thus he made use of the figure of a body, and of a temple to illustrate this matter; and to shew how all Christians were to make up but one body, and one Church. So when he came to speak of the rules belonging to the several states of human life, he takes occasion to explain the duties of the married state, by comparing that to the relation that the Church has to Christ: and when he had said that the married couple make but one body and one flesh; which declares that, according to the first institution, every man was to have but one wife; he adds upon that, this is a great Mystery: that is, from hence another mystical argument might be brought, to shew that Jew and Gentile must make one body; for since the Church was the spouse of Christ, he must, according to that figure, have but one wife; and by consequence the Church must be one otherwise the figure will not be answered; unless we suppose Christ to be in a state answering a polygamy, rather than a single marriage. Thus a clear account of these words is given, which does fully agree to them, and to what follows, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

This, which is all the foundation of making marriage a Sacrament, being thus cleared, there remains nothing to be said on this head, but to examine one consequence, that has been drawn from the making it a Sacrament, which is, that the bond is indissoluble; and that even

XXV.

Matth. xix..

18.

adultery does not void it. The law of nature or of nations ART. seems very clear, that adultery, at least on the wife's part, should dissolve it: for the end of marriage being the ascertaining of the issue, and the contract itself being a mutual transferring the right to one another's person, in order to that end; the breaking this contract and destroying the end of marriage does very naturally infer the dissolution of the bond: and in this both the Attic and Roman laws were so severe, that a man was infamous who did not divorce upon adultery. Our Saviour, when he blamed the Jews for their frequent divorces, established this rule, that whosoever puts away his wife, except it be for forni- Matth. v. cation, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. Which 32. seems to be a plain and full determination, that in the 9. case of fornication, he may put her away and marry another. It is true, St. Mark and St. Luke repeat these Mark x. 11. words, without mentioning this exception; so some have Luke xvi. thought that we ought to bring St. Matthew to them, and not them to St. Matthew. But it is an universal rule of expounding Scriptures, that when a place is fully set down by one inspired writer, and less fully by another, that the place which is less full is always to be expounded by that which is more full. So though St. Mark and St. Luke report our Saviour's words generally, without the exception, which is twice mentioned by St. Matthew, the other two are to be understood to suppose it; for a general proposition is true when it holds generally; and exceptions may be understood to belong to it, though they are not named. The Evangelist that does name them must be considered to have reported the matter more particularly, than the others that do it not. Since then our Saviour has made the exception, and since that exception is founded upon a natural equity, that the innocent party has against the guilty, there can be no reason why an exception so justly grounded, and so clearly made, should not take place.

iv. cont.

Both Tertullian, Basil, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, Tertull. lib. allow of a divorce in case of adultery; and in those days Marcion. they had no other notion of a divorce, but that it was the c. 34. dissolution of the bond; the late notion of a separation, Basil.Ep.ad the tie continuing, not being known till the Canonists Amphil. brought it in. Such a divorce was allowed by the Coun- Chrysos. cil of Elliberis. The Council of Arles did indeed recom- hom. 17, in Matth.

c. 9.

res. .59.

mend it to the husband, whose wife was guilty of adultery, Epiph. Hænot to marry; which did plainly acknowledge that he might do it. It was, and still is the constant practice of Cath. Conc. the Greek Church; and as both Pope Gregory and Pope

Ellib. c. 65.

XXV.

Conc. Arel.

c. 10.

Conc.

ART. Zachary allowed the innocent person to marry, so in a Synod held at Rome in the tenth century, it was still allowed. When the Greeks were reconciled to the Latins in the Council of Florence, this matter was passed over, and the care of it was only recommended by the Pope to the Emperor. It is true, Eugenius put it in his instruction to the 32. Armenians; but though that passes generally for a part of the Council of Florence, yet the Council was over and up before that was given out.

Afric. c. 102.

9.7.

In decr.

Eug. in.

Conc. Flor.

Erasm. in 1 Ep. ad Cor. vii.

c. 9.

Cathar. in

This doctrine of the indissolubleness of marriage, even for adultery, was never settled in any Council before that of Trent. The Canonists and Schoolmen had indeed geneCajetan. in rally gone into that opinion; but not only Erasmus, but Matth. xix. both Cajetan and Catherinus declared themselves for the lawfulness of it: Cajetan indeed used a salvo, in case the 1 Ep. ad Church had otherwise defined, which did not then appear Cor.vii.1.5. to him. So that this is a doctrine very lately settled in the Church of Rome. Our Reformers here had prepared a title in the new body of the Canon Law, which they had digested, allowing marriage to the innocent party; and upon a great occasion then in debate, they declared it to be lawful by the law of God: and if the opinion, that marriage is a Sacrament, falls, the conceit of the absolute indissolubleness of marriage will fall with it.

Annot.

Mark vi. 13.

The last Sacrament which is rejected by this Article, that is, the fifth, as they are reckoned up in the Church of Rome, is Extreme Unction. In the commission that Christ gave his Apostles, among the other powers that were given them to confirm it, one was to cure diseases and heal the sick; pursuant to which St. Mark tells, that they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. The Prophets used some symbolical actions when they wrought miracles; so Moses used his rod often; Elisha used Elijah's mantle; our Saviour put his finger into the deaf man's ear, and made clay for the blind man ; and oil being upon almost all occasions used in the Eastern parts, the Apostles made use of it: but no hint is given that this was a sacramental action. It was plainly a miraculous virtue that healed the sick, in which oil was made use of as a symbol accompanying it. It was not prescribed by our Saviour, for any thing that appears, as it was not blamed by him neither. It was no wonder, if, upon such a precedent, those who had that extraordinary gift, did apply it with the use of oil; not as if oil was the sacramental conveyance; it was only used with it. The end of it was miraculous; it was in order to the recovery of the sick, and had no relation to their souls, though with the cure

« ZurückWeiter »