Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.

CHAP. XVIII. (Book 18)

Of Divorce. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Preacher.

1. THe Doctors last Novelty is, the Church of Romes allowing Liberty of Divorce betwixt man and wife,* 1.1 for many more causes then the cause of fornication, contrary, sayes he, to the Will of our blessed Saviour, revealed to us without a Parabl••, as if they meant nothing more then the opening a way to rebel against him. A heavy charge: But for the Legality of it, he alledges in the Margin an express Canon of the Council of Trent, which, whether he reads à toto, or à toro, says nothing at all to his pur∣pose, proper Divorce being therein not so

much as thought of. And he himself saw and proved, it made nothing to his purpose, yet serv'd his turn, because Chemnitius, a malici∣ous Lutheran, said falsely and ridiculously▪ That the Papal separation from Bed and Board 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in many ways a dissolution of the Conjugal Tie. He would ••ain have Maldonate thought to speak on his side too, but it is apparently o∣therwise.

2. Truly this is a Quarrel so properly al' Alamand, that one would think the Doctor took only an occasion thereby to let the Court see his critical diligence in observing the false and true Impressions of the Canons of the Coun∣cil of Trent, in some of which he has read [•• toto] which makes no sence: and in others [a to••o] which only could be the Councils ••x∣pression. But we hope an undiligent Prin••ter (who for all that may be good Roman Catho∣lic) shall not make the Roman Church it self causally Schismatical, and thereby excuse the Preachers separation.

3. It is pitty to lose time about such a trifle, which, I think, never before this Sermon, was by any English Protestant reckon'd a∣mong the pretended Criminal Novelties of the Roman Church. (Yet I may be mistaken, for there are a world of Sermons and Treatis••••, like his, in intrinsic value, which never had the fortune to be made so current.) Howe're, left he should be angry if so materlal a part of his Sermon be neglected, a little pains shall not break squares between us.

4. He may therefore take notice, that in

the businesse of Marriage there are, among Ca∣tholic Writers, distinguish'd four sorts of Se∣parations: 1. A Iewish Divorce, which in La∣tin we seldom call Divortium, but Repudium. 2. A Christian Divorce, properly so called. 3. A Separation a toro. 4. A Separation both a toro & cohabitatiore.

5. Touching the first, if we have regard to the direct intention of God and his Servant Moses, it was no other, nor ought to have been put in practice upon other grounds then the Christian Divorce, allow'd by our Saviour, that is, for Fornication only. But by the permission in the Old Law,* 1.2 there might follow that Divorce, a second Mariage by either of the parties, whether innocent or guilty: Yet not upon every cause a•• the Iews practis••d it, but besides Adultery only propter turpitudinem, for some notorious uncleannesse extreamly distastful. Now, not∣withstanding such permission, which was meer∣ly for the hardness of Iewish hearts, their Divorce ••or any other cause, and especially their second Marriage after it, was not excused from sin, but only from a legal punishment: And the prin∣cipal motive was, left worse effects, as poyson∣ing, or any other way of murdering, &c. should be practised by the discontented party, in case a total separation might not be permitted. This Supremest Degree of Jewish Separation (or Repudium) does not intirely dissolve the Matrimonial Contract, which being consummate of its own nature i•• indissoluble; for the parties, being by Matrimony become One flesh; and one Principle of a new stock, cannot by

any following act or accident, but only Death, become two again, so as to be in the same ca∣pacity as they were before they were married▪ And for this reason the Iews, though permit∣ted to marry afterward, yet sinned in so doing against the primary Precept of God. Those whom God hath joyned, let no man separate.

6. Much lesse does the second species of Sepa∣ration, or the proper Christian Divorce dissolve this tye. The only lawful cause of which Se∣paration is by our Savior allow'd, and by the Catholic Church acknowledged to be Fornicati∣on, (that is indeed, Adultery:) under which are likewise comprehended, as our most learned Doctors say, other more grievous sins of unn••∣tural Lusts. And the reason why only such sins may (not must) cause such a perpetual se∣paration is, because they alone are directly contrary to Conjugal Faith▪ By this separati∣on, whensoever it is caused by the crime of the one party,) neither of them, (not the inno∣cent party) are permitted to betake themselves to a second Marriage: for then they could no be reconciled but by a new Marriage: And here the Preacher may do well to consider what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Patron he has betaken himself to, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chemnitius, who, against our Saviours Law (as all Antiquity, and the practice of the Eng∣lis•• Reform'd Church interpret it) contends for the lawful Marriage of the innocent party, so teaching formal Adultery. This separation for such a legal cause is perpetual, that is, the innocent persons may deprive the others of the right they have over their bodies, and are

in a free condition even after the faulty persons repentance, whether or no to receive them a∣gain into their former condition: Neither can it be imputed to the innocent person, if the criminal should by such a separation fall into the sin of adultery.

7. The other two Separations (not Divorces) one whereof is only [a toro] from the Bed, the other from Cohabitation also, may be made for other causes, besides fornication. As for s••m ve∣ry infectious diseases; for almost irreconcileable quarrels, for attempts of killing or wounding one another, &c. Such Separations are not so perpetual as Divorces, each of the parties being bound; assoon as these impediments of conju∣gal conversation are removed, to return, as be∣fore, to a Matrimonial Amity and Correspon∣dence; And till then, I would ask the Doctor, whether he have the courage to admit into his Bed, or even his house, a Serpent not only full of venom, but ready and attempting to kill him with it? Or if he have not this courage, whe∣ther he will acknowledg such a separation so necessary, even to the preservation of life, to be a Divorce damnable, because not for fornication? What he will answer, I know not; But what he must, if he go about to maintain his Assertion, I am certain will be very irrational.

8. Let him reflect on the practise of his own Church, where he cannot but have heard of the common distinction of Divorces A Vinculo Matrimonii, & à mensa & toro: these two are both allow'd in England: now I ask the Do∣ctor, of which does our Saviour speak? If he

say of the first, then clearly the Husband of an Adultresse may marry again; which is contrary to the Law: if he say of the second, still ••e contradicts his own Law, which every day al∣lows a separation for other Causes, besides that of Fornication. Can we believe the Doctor ne∣ver read the ordinary Cases wherein Di••orses are granted, as Pre-contract, Fear, Frigidity, Con∣sanguinity? &c. all which dissolve the very Marriage it self, and yet in all these the Mar∣riage was valid, till actual divorce, and the children shall bear the Fathers name, and inhe∣rit his lands, if there never happen an actual divorce; this the wise men of our Nation do, and never think they open a way to rebel against Christ.* 1.3 Something like this, for the second branch of the distinction,* 1.4 St. Paul himself does, and sure he cannot be opposite to the will of our Saviour; If, says he, the Vnbeliever depart, let him depart, a Brother or Sister is not subject in such cases, that is, the Innocent may remain separate: and why may not the laws of a Nation regulate that liberty, which the Apostle allows to every private Person? or why may not a Ge∣neral Council determin such points as well as the laws of a particular Nation? Thus I con∣ceive it clear'd, that You and We are in this particular either Both innocent, or Both guilty.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Serm. pag. 19.
• * 1.2

  Deut. 24••
• * 1.3

  Pag. 29.
• * 1.4

  1 Cor. 7.