it was not abrogated, being in force in our Sayjan's time. 3. st. Paui rapt,verb the incestuous young man who had his father's wife, (1 C, or. v, 1,) and excommunicated him on this account; but this is forbiddeu' nowhere except in the hw of Moses: therefore, that law, concerninw degrees of kindred con?nues still in force. It is unlawful for the Church of Rome to restrain other degrees than those restrained in Scripture; such also, u to forbid marriage arising from spiritual kindred, of godfathers and godmothers, aiF2nity of cap,u- his, d?c. But to forbid more degrees in marriage than are either di- rectly or by necessary consequence prohibited in the law is presump- tion, as the Lord knew best what persons were fit for marriage, and how far the line of marriage was extended. The invention of spiritual kindred seems to be a mere expedient to get money for Wftuting dis* permalon,, for according to this reason, no Christians ought to marry together, because they are all of one spiritual family in Christ. The new zffinity that cometh from espousals is of mere human invention, and ought not to be imposed on Christians. They say the vow of chastity and entering into orders louse the bonds of marriage. To this end they quote, "Having damnation be- cause they have form,ken their first faith," 1 Tim. v, 12. The first faith, they say, was the vow of continency, which was a sufficient im- pediment of matrimony. But that this is a forced and wrong interpret- ation we prove by these reasons: By their first faith is to be under- stood their faith when they first believed on Christ, which these wanton widows have forsaken. The ape,tie afterward gives .these w?dowa license to marry. Therefore this text makes nothing for them, seeing it was not any vow of chastity which they violated, but the faith of the g� taking orders cannot dissolve marriage we are certain, because our Saviour gives this perpetual rule, that no man should dismiss his wife except for fornication; but orders is no fornication, therefore a wife is not to be dismissed in ordeF that the husband might receive orders. I�. Of fA,, ?,,,lidity or im,,diairy ?f ?,. ' 1. The following distinctions are usually made by Roman Catholic divines, when treating on the subject of matrimony. We choose to present them in the words of Balli F, who say's, "Matrimony may be considered in a threefold manner, either as a natural contract, or an office of nature, or as a civil contract; or as a sacrament of the new law. As a natural contract, or an office of nature, it is ordained for the propagation and preservation of. the human species. As a civil or political contract, it consults the perpetuity and good of the republic; thus considered, it is regulated by political laws. As a sacrament of the new law, it secures grace for the married persons, it enriches the church with a pious offspring, and tempers the ardour OF concupiscence."* There is a great propriety in some parts of the foregoing distinctions ?' but when matrimony i8 made into a sacrament, and various ecclesiasti- cat regulations are connected with it, so that marriage as a natural contract, instituted by the Creator, is perverted, and these ecclesinti, cal laws come in constant conflict with wholesome political matrimo- nial regulations, and suspend or annul them; then sueha ucramen?
- Mtttrimouium triplici made s dte.--Df Mffr., c. 1, tom. ti, p.S.
I oigitize? by(?OO?l�
�
