« PreviousContinue »
one flefb) let not man put afunder.-But was this rule to be understood in fo abfolute a fenfe as to admit of no relaxation or exception whatsoever? No: We read of one, which was allowed to be a diffolution of the marriage-bond, and that was the woman's uniting herself to another man than her husband; this is the true fcriptural idea of adultery. The moment this happened, the husband was totally releafed from all
Dr. Ayliffe, as cited in Burn's Ecclef. Law, Tit. Marriage, fays-that" a divorce a vinculo matrimonii cannot be for adultery, for that the offence is after a "just and lawful marriage ;" and cites 1. Inft. 88.
This was the doctrine of Father Soto at the council of Trent, adopted by that Synod, and decreed, with an anathema, against all who fhould fay that the church had erred in fo determining.
This doctrine of the "contract not being diffolved by "the adultery of the wife, fo as that the hufband might "marry again," was vehemently oppofed by the Lutherans, who did maintain, that "adultery was a caufe. "of divorce a vinculo matrimonii." Bucer, in the book which he wrote for the use of Ed. VI. Ann. 1550, recommends, that "a fecond marriage might be lawful, "after a divorce for adultery." Burnet, Hift. Ref. vol. ii. p. 156. However, this kingdom has adopted the doctrine of the Papists-wherefore the Ecclefiaftical Courts can go no farther than a divorce a menfa et toro, in cafes of adultery; nor can the injured husband get rid of the adulterefs, fo as to marry again, without a special Act of Parliament, which now takes place of the Pope's difpenfation for that purpose ;-a mode of remedy this, instituted of man, not of GOD-profitable to those who are to receive their fees-expensive to those who are to pay them ;-fo expenfive, as to be totally out of the reach of the generality, who are, by these means, deprived of that relief which they are ipfo facto entitled to by nature,
her, or union with her; and, as appears alfo from the mind of GOD, afterwards declared in the farther promulgation, and more explicit revelation of His law, might not only
reafon, and feripture.-Compare Matt. v. 31, 32. with Jer. iii. 8. and confider well to cut off; and moλverv -to fet loofe, or release.
These words are of much ftronger import than doinue -to fend away, or difmifs from cohabitation-which we are to understand to be the meaning of St. Paul, 1 Cor. vii. II. γυναῖκα μη ἀφιέναι —and ver. 12. μὴ ἀφιέζω any; this certainly answers to the idea of a difmiffion from cohabitation, or a divorce a menfa & toro-but DD libellum excidii, or bill of cutting off, must be meant of the bond itself, and fo is it always to be underftood in the Hebrew fcripture. This was in the hufband's own power, without the interference of any, unlefs of the witnesses before whom perhaps it might be figned, though certainly lawful in GoD's fight, in no cafe, where the marriage itself had been just and lawful - παρεκ ο λόγs πορνείας, as the infallible interpreter of the divine law fpeaks, Matt. v. 32.-except for the caufe of fornication:-there the idea of divorce is expreffed by ἀπολύως ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὑτε, &c. Now drove fignifies to loofe-fet loose-or release as from a bond, and fo to divorce a wife by loofing the bond of marriage, which, that it might be done on account of fornication before, or adultery afterwards, is furely as clear as the fun; for faying that a thing may not be done, except for one reafon only, is faying that for that reafon it may be done, or language muft lofe its meaning. thers at Trent were hard put to it to make a decree upon the subject, for they had the fcripture, the opinions of St. Ambrofe, many of the Greek fathers, and the practice of the eastern church, against them; fo they splitted the hair-not by condemning those who say that "ma"trimony may be diffolved by adultery, and another con"tracted"-which Ambrofe, &c. maintained ;-but, by condemning those who fay "the church may err in teach"ing otherwife." The truth of the matter was, that
only put her away, but, if he chose to bring her to a public trial, have her, and the man who defiled her, put to death. This, as appears from the whole tenor of the law as de
by declaring adultery to be no caufe of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, they referved the lucrative business of difpenfation in the hands of the Pope; who, arrogating to himself a power of trampling on all the laws of heaven and earth, readily enough granted divorces, with or without cause, to such as were able to pay for them, either in money, or by adding to the power, wealth, and ter、 ritory of the church.
In 1548, the Marquis of Northampton was divorced from his wife, whom he convicted of adultery; but the divorce being only a menfa & taro, the queftion was, whether he could marry another wife? And in the beginning of king Edward's reign, a commiffion was granted to Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, the BiThops of Durham, Rochefter, to Dr. Ridley, and fix more, to examine and try the queftion; but before it could be determined, the Marquis married folemnly Elizabeth, daughter to Brooke Lord Cobham; for this he was put to anfwer before the council: He there faid, " he thought,
that, by the word of GOD, he was discharged of his "tie to his former wife; that the making marriages in"diffoluble, was but a part of the Popish law, by which "it was reckoned a facrament; and yet the Popes, "knowing that the world would not eafily come under "fuch a yoke, had, by the help of the Canonifts, in"vented fuch diftinctions, that it was no uneafy thing 66 to make a marriage void among them: that the con"dition of this church was very hard, if, upon adulteries, "the innocent muft either live with the guilty, or be ex"posed to temptations to the like fins, if a feparation "only was allowed, but the bond of the marriage con"tinued undiffolved."
However, as things had proceeded fo far before the delegates, it was ordered that he and his new wife fhould be parted, till the matter fhould be determined. conclufion, the whole queftion was divided into eight queries,
livered by GoD to Mofes, and by him delivered and explained to the people, was the only legal caufe of divorce, where the marriage was at firft juft and lawful. This certainly was, as well where the woman's act of incontinency was committed before marriage, and found out afterwards, as where it was committed afterwards.
The word Toveia, which the Evangelift makes use of Matt. v. 32. and not μoxed, which more particularly anfwers to the Hebrew-adultery, has occafioned fome to think, that it relates to an act done by the woman before marriage, but found out afterwards, for which he might put her away, and not only that, but might have her ftoned to death, if he chofe to make her a public example, as appears Deut. xxii. 21. However this fuppofition may be true, yet it cannot be the whole truth, for the word must equally relate to an act done after marriage or efpoufals, as appears from Jofeph's
queries, which were put to fome learned men (who, does not appear); who returned their anfwer in fupport of the fecond marriage.-In fine, the whole was determined in favour of the Marquis, and he allowed to cohabit with his fecond wife.-See this whole matter in Burnet's Hift, Ref. fecond part, p. 56, 57, 58. and Coll. to Part 2, B. i. No 20. Sce alfo vol. ii. p. 192, 256.
Burnet, Art. Ch. of Eng. p. 289, 3d edit. obferves, that the notion of a feparation for adultery, and yet "the bond of marriage continuing, was never known "till the Canonifts brought it in; but the indiffoluble"nefs of the marriage, even for adultery, was never settled in any council till that of Trent."
intention with regard to his efpoufed wife Mary*-He being a just and holy man, and therefore not willing to marry † a woman whom he thought to be an adulterefs, yet unwilling to expose her to public fhame, or to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Matt. i. 19. I take Topvela, which we render fornication, to be like the word anatapoia-uncleanness, a general term inclufive of all illicit commerce between the fexes, of which adultery is a fpecies; therefore ufed by our LORD to include every fpecies of criminality in the wife, which is mentioned in the Old Testament: as-First -her having had commerce with another man before any betrothment, efpoufals, or marriage with her prefent husband.
Deut. xxii. 13-21. Secondly-after being betrothed, ver. 23, 24. Thirdly-after marriage, ver. 22. Πορνεία has evidently this fense, I Cor. v. 1. As CHRIST most probably fpake in Hebrew, it is to be fuppofed, by the Evangelift's delivering to us the word TOPVEIα, that CHRIST expreffed Himself by
* Under the law of Mofes, a virgin betrothed was reckoned the wife of him to whom the was efpoufed, and was to be ftoned to death if the wilfully lay with another Deut. xxii. 23, 24.
The text fays-piv n ouverte dules-before they came together he was found with child, &c. Eurender is-to have matrimonial commerce. congredi coire which confummates marriage, and makes the parties one flesh. Matt. i. 18. 1 Cor. vii. 5. See Parkh. Gr. & Eng. Lex. and Leigh's Crit. Sacr. fub. voc. Suvepouzi.