Of Divorce for Adultery, Title page – Preface
OF DIVORCE FOR ADVLTERIE, AND Marrying againe: that there is no sufficient warrant so to do. VVITH A NOTE IN THE END, that R. P. many yeeres since was answered. By EDM. BVNNY Bachelour of Divinitie.
Printed at Oxford by Joseph Barnes. Ann. Dom. 1610.
TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER in God RICHARD, by the grace of God Archbishop of Canterbury, one of his Maiesties most Honorable Privie Councell, Chancellor of the Vniversitie of Oxford, Primate of all England, and Metropolitane.
MAY it please your Grace to vnderstand, that although, being so little knowne to your Grace as I am, it may seem that I make over bold, so to present this Treatise ensuing: yet, as my selfe am persuaded, divers good reasons there be, that doe occasion me, so farre this once to presume on your Graces goodnes therein; both in respect of a former interest, and of the present matter besides.
The former interest that now I speake of, is, that by the place that then he was in, your Graces immediate Predecessor, had this Treatise in his hands a good while together, many yeeres since; and to be his, if so it should stand with his Graces pleasure: and afterward, when hee saw his time, approued of the publishing of it, and so to doe at mine owne discretion. Which notwithstanding (by occasion) I thought not so good, thē presently to doe, as to awaite a farther opportunity which then began to offer it selfe vntounto mee. In the meane season it hath pleased God▪ to take him of from his labours and travells here, and thus otherwise to furnish the roome that he had. In which alteration, besides that no way I hauehave any cause to varie: I may not deny, but that now I finde iuster cause so to proceed, then I had in the other before.
In the present matter besides, it is very plaine, that there is some question of it: & then are such Treatise as are thereof, in bounden duty to awaite the censure of such other approued iudgments, as to whome in such case it doth appertaine. Wherein it having hitherto orderly proceeded to that wherevnto it is come already, it was meetest so to finish the course likewise: & so actually to acknowledge, that arising here, & hence proceeding, it was most to submit it selfe vntounto, and to await your Graces censure.
It may be also, that even in godly pollicie (by our Superiors) it will be thought meete, to take some farther order to prevēt the evill, that so free a passage of that other course may seem to threaten: & thē, the better opportunity that God hath givē your G. to such purpose, the lesse could I in any duty or reasō hauehave turn'd aside to any other.
God long preserue your Grace among vsus, to the glorie of God, to the good of his Church, & to your owne comfort withall in him.
Oxford Iuly 3. 1610. Your Graces most humble in the Lord, EDM. BVNNY.
VNTOUNTO ALL THOSE THAT EITHER are entered already, or hereafter are to enter into the holy estate of wedlocke, E. B. wisheth as all other Christian graces whatsoever (such as are needfull to every one in his owne proper Calling) so now especially rightly to know, of what force that bond should be among vsus, and, how fast we ought to hold it.
IF yet it be doubtful to any, what is the corruption of our nature, and how often it cō meth to passe thereby, that in many things we are hardly able to conceiue or to finde out, that which is sound and right indeede: though there be divers other things besides, wherein wee might see it plainely enough, yet we neede go no farther, but only to that which at this present wee hauehave in hande: namely, how few of all sorts there are, that are able to see, how strict & insoluble the bond of wedlocke is, after that once it be rightly ioined togither▪
2 The Fathers of old, before that yet the law was given,Gen. 2.21.14. had among them the truth of that holy ordinance, how it pleased God at the first to ordaine the same: of mā and wife to make but one; and that he ordeined but onlie two, to make vp the vnitie that then he spake of. And yet the storie doth plainely shew,Abraham, & Sarai Gen. 16, … 4. Iacob & Laban. Lea & Rachel Gen 29.27.30. and 30, 3, 4▪9.10. that not only the common sort of them, but even the better also, did not account that bond so straight, but that they did, (for divers of thē) take others besides: though yet notwithstanding it must needs be true withall, that they knew wel enough, & coulde not be ignorant, but that therein they swarved cleane, frō that patterne that God had given them, & from the Rule that therein he left them.
3 When afterward the law was given to those that followed, though nowe that matter were made a great deale more plaine vntounto them, than it was before: yet they also did as little finde what they had to doe therein; as did the others that had not the light that was given vntounto thē. They were Hebrews themselves, & the Law was given in their own mother-tongue: the Text it selfe must needs be very plain unto them, & some (we may hope) were diligēt in the study of it, & that with vnfained desire to know it, and in the feare of God withal; and yet, it appeareth, they did not see this that we speake of Curious they were (for diverse of them) in many things else of lesse importance, which without any breach of the law of God they might hauehave omitted; but their diligence & watchfull heeding of all those Books, words, syllables, letters, & characters also (or the maner of writing thereof) & even in the number of many words how oft they were vsed, did never yet (for ought that we find in any of thē) attaine vntounto this.Deut. 24.1.4. In one place it is cleere (we speake now but of the Original, that is, of the Hebrew Text it selfe; & not of the Translations that since hauehave beene in vse among vsus) that Moses did no more but only make mention of an vsage that they had among them, of putting away their wiues on dislike, and marrying againe, he doth (I say) but only speake of it, and doeth nothing at all approue it vntounto them, nor alloweth them so to do: and yet a sort of the learned of them in the time of Christ (and so belike of old likewise) did plainelie shew, that they did take it, that Moses had allowed them, or given thē their liberty so to doe.Mat 19 7. Mat. 10.4. Howbeit there is faire ods, betwixt a bare mentioning of an vsage among them (though then also he go not against it) & to approue the same vntounto them: & in many other things, there is no question (at the least, as they might be chosen) but themselues would soone hauehave perceiued a lesser and a daintier difference then this. And herein they hauehave the Text it selfe in plaine tearmes to giuegive thē over, in that which they would build vponupon it; even the very words themselues chasing thē from that persuasion of theirs.
Lev. 18.18.4 In another place indeed the words are for them, so far forth that they may seeme, to hauehave the sense with them also: namely, that there they are not forbidden, to take vntounto them any more but one wife at once. For the words are but only of taking a sister to the wife that a mā already hath: insomuch that it only may seeme to be forbidden; that is, a man to take vntounto him a couple of sisters to hauehave them both in marriage together. But if the place had beene better considered, and conferred with other Scriptures, besides, then might they hauehave found, that the more likely sense of that place had beene to hauehave forbidden them, when any man had one wife already then to take another vntounto her. For first, that thereby wee should be forbidden to take in marriage two naturall sisters, may seeme to be no part of the meaning: partly, because of somewhat that goeth a little before; and partly in respect of some other considerations that here wee hauehave in this place it selfe. That which goeth a little before, is, for that in the next verse but one before, it is forbidden to marry the brothers wife:Lev. 1….…6. which in equitie may serue for this also, to forbid vntounto vsus our wiues sister. Those considerations that we hauehave in this place it selfe, are the reasons that here are given: and the limitation that is vsed therewith. The reasons are two: to afflict her withall; and to vncover her shame vponupon her. Which of all others doe least agree to naturall sisters, for that, if a woman could brooke any other to be ioined with h…r, she could best away with her owne sister in those respects: the one, of that greater louelove that by course of nature is betwixt those that are so neere; the other, for that such are (for the most part in all such matters) most familiarly acquainted also. The limitation, so long as shee liveth, hath no place (without some harder construction of it) but only in this sense that now we speake of, for that by that former law of the brothers wife which is set downe without any such limitation, we are forbidden to match so neere, after death likewise. But then, that this other should seeme to bee the sense of it, is much more likely, both for that it doth so fitly agree to the institution of marriage it selfe at the first: and for that it is not, in the law, elsewhere forbidden generaly, to hauehave at once more wiues than one. VntoUnto kings it is;Deut. 17.17. but not generally vntounto al: and of it might they hauehave reasoned, that if it were forbidden vntounto kings (who, in divers respects, might most of all hauehave it allowed vntounto thē) then were it much more forbiddē to al others besides. If the maner of speech might be thought, iustly to hinder them from cō ceiuing such a sense thereon, because the text nameth but a sister, though that kinde of speech may bee somewhat strange vntounto vsus, to carry such a meaning with it; yet was it not so vntounto them, for that in their speech it was often vsed: as, of aGen. 26.31.one swearing to another, of bExod. 26.3.5.curtaines that are fellowes, of a cEzec 19 23 &. 3.13.paire of wings, and of dlocl. 2.8,souldiers that march together in their aray. In all which (and in divers places besides, as Arias Montanus, and Tremellius, and Iunius hauehave noted) the Hebrew word is, brother or sister (according as the gēder therein doth require) for that which we say one another, or some such like, in things especially that goe by paiers, couples, or fellowes. So that in this also it is a wonder to see, that they never found their Polygamie to be forbidden, when as yet notwithstanding the institution of wedlock at the first, and the proprietie of their own tongue did lead them vntounto it: and an advised consideration of the place it selfe did so strongly hold thē of, and chace them away from that sense that they would giuegive it.
5 Since which time, there is greater light bestowed on vsus: evē on vsus al generally, for al matters of learning; & on many of vsus, the knowledge of the Gospel also, in plentiful I measure. And yet in this that now I speake of, we are almost as blinde as they. We doe not see but that it was allowed vntounto thē, to put away their wiues (in divers cases) and to marry againe: and make no question, but that in one case, Christ himselfe doth allow it likewise. And wee leane so much vntounto this, that many of vsus are almost persuaded, that the other also is no where forbidden vntounto vsus. At least in this place, we never finde it, notwithstanding the help that now we hauehave in the knowledge of the tong it selfe, & whatsoever diligence we hauehave in weighing the Text, and in conferring one place with another: no, not when by other occasion (as whē the question is, whether two sisters may be taken in wedlocke, one after another) we are specially vrged to looke into it. In so much that when as for that sense we are something crossed by those reasons and limitation that are ioined withall: yet doth that also helpe vsus but little to find out the sense that now we speake of. Which for my part, I cannot see, wherevnto we may rather ascribe, then to our own corruption of nature: being so much giuen (as we are) to that kind of revenge; and, our selues to hauehave change likewise. And the lesse marvel, when we hauehave such beames in our eies already, if we cā so hardly see, that the bond of mariage should be of any such force vntounto vsus, as it is indeed.
6 Herevpon, when time was, and the present occasion did so require, in a Sermon I breefly noted, that the libertie, that in these our daies many doe take, of divorcing their wiues for adulterie and marying of others, had not such warrant in the worde of God as they thought that it had: and afterward, when that was hardly taken, I did more fully deliver the same in two other Sermons, only of it. Which then also being hardly taken by some, and not so fully allowed by others, as the truth of the doctrine might well hauehave expected: gathering thereby, that such were like to be the iudgement of others in that point also, and hauing good cause therein to extend that warning further, I thought good since, to write a little more fully of it, and so to let it goe forth vntounto all. Whether therefore thou be married already, or art hereafter to enter into it, keepe vnitie now, and make thy choice so well as thou canst: and I, for my part, would never wish thee to conceiue any hope at all, that whē once that knot is rightly knit, thou canst afterward hauehave any vndoubted or certaine warrant, that for the adultery of thy wife (if it should fall out, that thy case should bee so hard) thou maist be at liberty to marry againe. For the farther opening of which matter, I now refer thee to the Treatise it selfe. And so in the Lord I hartily bid thee well to fare.
Bolton-Perey. Decemb. 13. 1595.