Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.a In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce,b and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.c
a. Mat 1:18-20. • b. Mat 5:31-32. • c. Mat 19:9; Rom 7:2-3.
The proof texts refer to betrothal. However, I thought that Jewish betrothal made a couple man and wife before God (they even were called husband and wife) with the only thing left being cohabitation and consummation; whereas, it seems by the First Book of Discipline of Scotland (and William Ames whom I quote below) that the betrothal at the time of the Confession was more like an engagement (the First Book of Discipline says the betrothed couple lose the right of marriage for committing "fornication;" why (a) called "fornication" if they are already married and (b) why lose the right of marriage if already married?; so it seems this betrothal is more like an engagement).
William Ames in the Cases of Conscience states.
"Chap, XXXVI.
Of the Solemnities of Matrimony
Question 1. What right is there in Contracts?
1. A. 1. Contracts (as they are distinguished from perfect Matrimony,) are lawful and mutual promise of future matrimony expressed by some sensible sign. They are often distinguished from matrimony (in respect of the external Court) by that difference of time which the words pronounced do ordinarily signify to those that rightly understand them. For if the words import a consent of present contract, they constitute matrimony, but if only of future matrimony, they make a bare betrothing.
2. A. 2. Although such kinds of contracts, are not absolutely necessary, (because all contracts, which may be lawfully promised for the future, may be at the same present time, wholly perfitted,) yet ordinarily, they make for the fairness of the marriage. First, Because so there is a fair proceeding by just degrees from the beginning to the ends, (as in so weighty a business is fit,) Secondly, Because so the whole act is rendered more free from suspicion of rashness and appeareth the more grave and deliberate. Thirdly, Because by this means the minds of the betrothed, are prepared and disposed to those affections, which in matrimony are requisite.
3. A. 3. Although lawfull contracts thus far agree with matrimony, that any unjust violation of them, is all one as a violation of matrimony, Deut. 22. 23.24. Nevertheless, for many causes contracts may be broken, for which matrimony may not.
As first, if there be some honest condition joined to the contract, which is not performed,
Secondly, If there be any certain time appointed for marriage, and then one party is wanting, the other seemes to be absolved of the promise, in respect, the condition was not performed.
Thirdly, If any thing fall out after the contract which Would have hindred the contract, if it had fallen out before, and doth reasonably alter the mind of one party.
Fourthly, If either party free the other of the promise made."
We see here again a proof text in reference to betrothal being used to support something that does not appear to be the Jewish betrothal: the "Contract" is a promise of marriage in the future and does not constitute the state of matrimony.
It may be a leap trying to connect these things together, but they certainly seem to hang together well.
Anyway, my question is: How are these proof texts being used to support the proposition that unfaithfulness can break the Contract, when it seems the proof texts refer to a system of betrothal that makes the betrothed in a state of being man and wife (without cohabitation or consummation; so an "incomplete" or "imperfect" state of marriage/matrimony)?
And if the Contract was viewed in the same way as the Jewish betrothal (which seems to only have been breakable upon the same conditions that marriage is breakable; the WCF just says "dissolve that contract" while using "divorce" for after marriage)--or maybe I misunderstood the Jewish betrothal and it is the same as the Contract--how can William Ames possibly support his view that the Contract can be broken for other reasons (or how can the First Book of Discipline say what it says about fornication between the betrothed allowing for the breaking of the Contract)?
First Book of Discipline.
"And first publick inhibition must be made, that no person under the power or obedience of others; such as sonns and daughters, and those that be under curators, neither men nor women contract marriage privately, and without knowledge of their parents, tutors or curators, under whose power they are for the time: Which if they doe, the censure and discipline of the Kirk to proceed against them. If the son or daughter, or other, have their heart touched with the desire of mariage, they are bound to give honour to their parents, that they open unto them their affection, asking their counsell and assistance, how that motion, which they judge to be of God, may be performed. If the father, friend or maister, gainestand their request, and haue no other cause then the common sort of men have; to wit, lacke of goods, and because they are not so high borne, as they require, yet must not the parties whose hearts are touched, make any covenant till further declaration {63} be made unto the Kirk of God, and therfore after that they have opened their mindes to their parents, or such others as have charge over them, they must declare it to the Minister also, or to the Civill Magistrate, requiring them to travell with their parents for their consent, which to doe they are bound. And if they, to wit, the Minister or Magistrate, find no cause, that is just, why the mariage required, may not be fulfilled, then after sufficient admonicion, to the father, friend, master, or superiour, that none of them resist the work of God, the Minister or Magistrate may enter in the place of parents, and be consenting to their just requests, may admit them to mariage; For the worke of God ought not to be hindred, by the corrupt affections of worldly men. The work of God we call, when two hearts, without filthinesse before committed, are so joyned, and both require and are content to live together in that holy band of Matrimony.
If any commit fornication with that woman he requires in Mariage, they doe both loose this foresaid benefit as well of the Kirk, as of the Magistrate; For neither of both ought to be intercessors or advocats for filthy fornicators. But the father, or neerest friend, whose daughter being a virgine is defloured, hath power by the law of God to compell the man that did that injurie, to marry his daughter: and if the father wil not accept him by reason of his offence, then may he require the dowrie of his daughter, which if the offender be not able to pay, then ought the civill magistrate to punish his body by some other punishment. And because whoredome, fornication, adulterie, are sinnes most common in this realme; we require of your Honors in the name of the eternall God, that severe punishment, according as God hath commanded, bee executed against such wicked contemners. For we doubt not, but such enormities and crimes openly committed, provoke the wrath of God, as the Apostle speaketh, not onely upon the offenders, but upon such places, where without punishment they are committed. [Rom. 1.32; 1 Cor. 5.]"
a. Mat 1:18-20. • b. Mat 5:31-32. • c. Mat 19:9; Rom 7:2-3.
The proof texts refer to betrothal. However, I thought that Jewish betrothal made a couple man and wife before God (they even were called husband and wife) with the only thing left being cohabitation and consummation; whereas, it seems by the First Book of Discipline of Scotland (and William Ames whom I quote below) that the betrothal at the time of the Confession was more like an engagement (the First Book of Discipline says the betrothed couple lose the right of marriage for committing "fornication;" why (a) called "fornication" if they are already married and (b) why lose the right of marriage if already married?; so it seems this betrothal is more like an engagement).
William Ames in the Cases of Conscience states.
"Chap, XXXVI.
Of the Solemnities of Matrimony
Question 1. What right is there in Contracts?
1. A. 1. Contracts (as they are distinguished from perfect Matrimony,) are lawful and mutual promise of future matrimony expressed by some sensible sign. They are often distinguished from matrimony (in respect of the external Court) by that difference of time which the words pronounced do ordinarily signify to those that rightly understand them. For if the words import a consent of present contract, they constitute matrimony, but if only of future matrimony, they make a bare betrothing.
2. A. 2. Although such kinds of contracts, are not absolutely necessary, (because all contracts, which may be lawfully promised for the future, may be at the same present time, wholly perfitted,) yet ordinarily, they make for the fairness of the marriage. First, Because so there is a fair proceeding by just degrees from the beginning to the ends, (as in so weighty a business is fit,) Secondly, Because so the whole act is rendered more free from suspicion of rashness and appeareth the more grave and deliberate. Thirdly, Because by this means the minds of the betrothed, are prepared and disposed to those affections, which in matrimony are requisite.
3. A. 3. Although lawfull contracts thus far agree with matrimony, that any unjust violation of them, is all one as a violation of matrimony, Deut. 22. 23.24. Nevertheless, for many causes contracts may be broken, for which matrimony may not.
As first, if there be some honest condition joined to the contract, which is not performed,
Secondly, If there be any certain time appointed for marriage, and then one party is wanting, the other seemes to be absolved of the promise, in respect, the condition was not performed.
Thirdly, If any thing fall out after the contract which Would have hindred the contract, if it had fallen out before, and doth reasonably alter the mind of one party.
Fourthly, If either party free the other of the promise made."
We see here again a proof text in reference to betrothal being used to support something that does not appear to be the Jewish betrothal: the "Contract" is a promise of marriage in the future and does not constitute the state of matrimony.
It may be a leap trying to connect these things together, but they certainly seem to hang together well.
Anyway, my question is: How are these proof texts being used to support the proposition that unfaithfulness can break the Contract, when it seems the proof texts refer to a system of betrothal that makes the betrothed in a state of being man and wife (without cohabitation or consummation; so an "incomplete" or "imperfect" state of marriage/matrimony)?
And if the Contract was viewed in the same way as the Jewish betrothal (which seems to only have been breakable upon the same conditions that marriage is breakable; the WCF just says "dissolve that contract" while using "divorce" for after marriage)--or maybe I misunderstood the Jewish betrothal and it is the same as the Contract--how can William Ames possibly support his view that the Contract can be broken for other reasons (or how can the First Book of Discipline say what it says about fornication between the betrothed allowing for the breaking of the Contract)?
First Book of Discipline.
"And first publick inhibition must be made, that no person under the power or obedience of others; such as sonns and daughters, and those that be under curators, neither men nor women contract marriage privately, and without knowledge of their parents, tutors or curators, under whose power they are for the time: Which if they doe, the censure and discipline of the Kirk to proceed against them. If the son or daughter, or other, have their heart touched with the desire of mariage, they are bound to give honour to their parents, that they open unto them their affection, asking their counsell and assistance, how that motion, which they judge to be of God, may be performed. If the father, friend or maister, gainestand their request, and haue no other cause then the common sort of men have; to wit, lacke of goods, and because they are not so high borne, as they require, yet must not the parties whose hearts are touched, make any covenant till further declaration {63} be made unto the Kirk of God, and therfore after that they have opened their mindes to their parents, or such others as have charge over them, they must declare it to the Minister also, or to the Civill Magistrate, requiring them to travell with their parents for their consent, which to doe they are bound. And if they, to wit, the Minister or Magistrate, find no cause, that is just, why the mariage required, may not be fulfilled, then after sufficient admonicion, to the father, friend, master, or superiour, that none of them resist the work of God, the Minister or Magistrate may enter in the place of parents, and be consenting to their just requests, may admit them to mariage; For the worke of God ought not to be hindred, by the corrupt affections of worldly men. The work of God we call, when two hearts, without filthinesse before committed, are so joyned, and both require and are content to live together in that holy band of Matrimony.
If any commit fornication with that woman he requires in Mariage, they doe both loose this foresaid benefit as well of the Kirk, as of the Magistrate; For neither of both ought to be intercessors or advocats for filthy fornicators. But the father, or neerest friend, whose daughter being a virgine is defloured, hath power by the law of God to compell the man that did that injurie, to marry his daughter: and if the father wil not accept him by reason of his offence, then may he require the dowrie of his daughter, which if the offender be not able to pay, then ought the civill magistrate to punish his body by some other punishment. And because whoredome, fornication, adulterie, are sinnes most common in this realme; we require of your Honors in the name of the eternall God, that severe punishment, according as God hath commanded, bee executed against such wicked contemners. For we doubt not, but such enormities and crimes openly committed, provoke the wrath of God, as the Apostle speaketh, not onely upon the offenders, but upon such places, where without punishment they are committed. [Rom. 1.32; 1 Cor. 5.]"
Last edited: