John Howson, Remarriage Be Not Permitted After Adultery / Uxore dimissa propter fornicationem aliam non licet superinducere (1602) During the 16th century, the question of divorce was a hot topic: when are the spouses permitted to separate, and what does it mean? Some theologians said that the marital bond is broken, while others argued that it remains. And what are those reasons which permit spousal separation? The Roman Catholics permitted divorce for over a dozen reasons, such as an ordination to the celibate priesthood; the famed Erasmus even wrote several Tracts on the the moral necessity of divorce, within several kinds of miserable marriages. The question stood with similarly acuteness among the Reformers; in the paradigm of aligning all doctrine to Scripture, divorce and remarriage were analyzed through the texts of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the lengthy Patristic commentary on the topic. While the early Reformation had a much stricter control on divorce than the Roman church, by the end of the 1500s the situation had reversed. The Roman church had changed some of its medieval theology in order to erase many of the grounds for divorce which it previously allowed. On the other hand, the Reformed (and Lutheran) churches had interpreted Scripture as permitting divorce in certain circumstances; all of the top Reformed theologians such as Bullinger, Beza, Perkins, and Rainolds, wrote ardent defenses of divorce within various circumstances. This debate became entangled with the polemics of the Reformation itself, where to teach the indissolubility of marriage became interpreted as a Roman standpoint (despite the medieval evidence to the contrary). Some Protestants even eventually came to argue that since marriage was only made a sacrament in the 13th century and thus not really properly a sacrament, that it therefore was more a social than a sacred institution; which led to it being seen as mostly secular contract. In this context the Anglican Divines remarkably distinguished themselves, as they did in many other areas; insistent on solidly establishing matrimony as both sacred and unbreakable, they were forced to reject the errant theology from either of the two camps. On the one hand, it was hard to argue with the historical question of how late marriage had become a sacrament. The Church Fathers abundantly demonstrated just how much they differed from the theology of sacraments developed in the medieval Roman church. Saint Augustine’s definition of what a sacrament is, has also been incredibly influential; if a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace, then marriage would seem to be precluded by definition. And yet — the Anglican Divines were acutely aware of the incredible danger which lurked in seeing marriage as a secular institution. Had they known the future marital developments within Western civilization, they would have felt doubly vindicated that no energy could be left unspent in correcting the secularist tendencies. If Marriage had to be defended as indissoluble, immense amount of scholarship had to be spent on re-appropriating Scripture toward that viewpoint; the defenses of marriage produced by the Divines evince an insistent isolation from the continental Protestant interpretations. But neither could the Roman theologians be cited, since they grounded marital indissolubility on its status as a sacrament. Thus the Anglican Divines were left entirely alone: without classifying Marriage as sacrament, they had to defend its Sacredness and Indissolubility entirely from Scripture and the early Church, without any reference to modern Protestant or Roman schools of thought. We have already republished one of the texts in this series: Edmund Bunnius, Of Divorce for Adultery, and Marrying again: that there is no sufficient warrant so to do (1595). Throughout the text is an evident tension between the author and the Reformed and Lutheran theologians who had made divorce accessible. Here we present another text in the series: John Howson, Uxore dimissa propter fornicationem aliam non licet superinducere (1602), translated into English roughly as “Remarriage Be Not Permitted After Adultery.” Written in Latin and thus manifestly intended for both a domestic English and a whole European audience, Howson’s text continues the tradition of incredible scholarship and acumen that came to characterize an Anglican theologian. Citing a wide variety of sources, he does not shy away from criticizing the sacramentalizing (Roman) and the secularizing (Reformed) tendencies of his time. Just as Edmund Bunnius before him, Howson defends the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage, without having to make it a sacrament and thereby confuse the theology of sacraments. We lament that precious texts like this have not yet been translated into English, and urge enterprising spirits out there to reacquaint ourselves with the depths and riches of Anglican thought. Those of you who know Latin — enjoy the text! John Howson, Remarriage Be Not Permitted After Adultery / Uxore dimissa propter fornicationem aliam non licet superinducere (1602)
Fascinating. Mary and I have been together 48 years. We are both divorced, after short marriages. I'm new here and I'm trying to understand what goes on here. If transcribing these documents some kind of academic exercise? I apologize for my ignorance.
Do we not think our Lord might have been trying to make a point? No one can be saved but through grace.
We have made it our ministry to republish Anglican classics on a variety of topics; such as here on this topic. This helps those with questions of doctrine grasp the historical Anglican positions on things.
This being a discussion board, I am curious if anyone has further thoughts to back up Mr. Howson? ( I do not want to storm in here being the rude heretic noob, apologies if I come off that way.. all due respect for your diligence here on this forum Jonah ... DOES IT DO YOU GOOD TO BE ANGRY - best book in the OT )
This is one book written by one scholar, (possibly Anglican). Should that irrefutably make it "the historical Anglican positions on things"? At most I suspect it adds a certain perspective derived from the century that it was written in but probably does not actually define a specifically Anglican position on Divorce and Remariage. It may however provide some interesting insights into a scriptural view of the seriousness of the vows made and possibly later broken when two are "Joined Together" in the sight of God, from a foundational Anglican author's point of view. .
There are still people who teach like Howson. I ran afoul of one 3 or 4 years ago. He was a retiring priest and we were in talks for me to take over his parish. As soon as he found out I have been divorced he ended talks. This topic has some importance to the author(s) of the Shepherd of Hermas as well. So it's been something Christians have been discussing since the beginning.
It does seem that east and west were pretty much in agreement on this issue up at least until the year 800 that remarriage and divorce was permissible after penance and in some cases. There was even a synod in Rome during the 800's that a Pope presided over that said certain remarriage and divorces were ok. The East codified it in a council in the 600's I believe. They adopted St. Basil rule of penance and bishop approval of a second marriage. De his, qui adhibitam sibi uxorem reliquerunt et aliam sociaverunt. Nulli liceat, excepta causa fornicationis, adhibitam uxorem relinquere et deinde aliam copulare; alioquin transgressorem priori convenit sociari coniugio. Sin autem vir et uxor divertere pro sola religiosa inter se consenserint vita, nullatenus sine conscientia episocopi fiat, ut ab eo singulariter proviso constituantur loco. Nam uxore nolente aut altero eorum etiam pro tali re matrimonium non solvatur. Forma minor: Nullus excepta causa fornicationis uxorem suam dimittat. Si vero vir et uxor pro religion dividi voluerint, cum consensus episcopi hic faciant. Nam si unus voluerit et alius noluerit, etiam pro tali re matrimonium non solvatur. Concerning those men, who have divorced [their] married wives and marry another. Let no one, except for the cause of fornication, divorce their married wife and then marry another. Otherwise, it is suitable for the transgressor to be married to the former spouse. If however a man and wife consent to divorce between themselves for the sake of a monastic life, in no way shall it be so without the joint knowledge of the bishop, so that they may be stationed by him in a single prepared location. For [if] due to an unwilling wife or her husband, let it not be dissolved for the sake of the marriage. Smaller form: Let no one divorce his wife except for the cause of fornication. Truly if a man and a wife wish to separate for [pursuing] a religious life, let them do so with the consent of the bishop here. For if one wishes and another does not wish, let the marriage not be dissolved. Synod of Rome 826 Penitential of pseudo-Theodore of Canterbury (820/2 – 847 AD) First things first, the authorship and dating of this penitential has undergone significant debate over the past 150 years. The scholarly consensus is now that this penitential is not the work of Theodore of Canterbury (otherwise known as Theodore of Tarsus), although it does make use of the real penitential of Theodore. Furthermore, it is not of Anglo-Saxon origin. Rather, this penitential is most certainly of Frankish origin, dating from 820/2 to 847 AD. For the detailed arguments about this matter, see the introduction to the following modern critical edition of the text: pseudo-Theodore, Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori, edited by Carine van Rhijn, CCSL 156B (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009) Now, let us look at some of the canons of pseudo-Theodore. I’ve listed the chapter and canon numbers for the CCSL edition first and in parentheses I have provided the canon numbers for Wasserschleben’s edition, which is available on Google Books: XIII.7 (6): Qui dimiserit uxorem propriam alienamque in coniugio duxerit, non tamen uxorem alterius sed vacantem quempiam vel virginem, vii annos peniteat. XIII.13 (12): Si quis legitimam uxorem habens dimiserit et aliam duxerit, vii annos peniteat. Illa vero quam duxit non est illius, ideo non manducet, neque bibat, neque omnino in sermone sit cum illa quam male accepit, neque cum parentibus illius. Ipsi tamen, si consenserint, sint excommunicati. Illa vero excommunicatio talis fiat, ut neque manducent neque bibant cum aliis christianis, neque in sacra oblatione participes existant et a mensa Domini separentur quousque fructum penitentie dignum per confessionem et lacrimas ostendant. XIII.19 (18): Mulier si adulterata est et vir eius non vult habitare cum ea, dimittere eam potest iuxta sententiam Domini, et aliam ducere. Illa vero, si vult in monasterio intrare, quartam partem suae hereditatis obtineat. Si non vult, nihil habeat. XIII.24 (23): Si mulier discesserit a vira suo, dispiciens eum, nolens revertere et reconciliari viro, post v annos cum consensu episcopi aliam accipiat uxorem si continens esse non poterit et iii annos peniteat quia iuxta sententiam Domini moechus comprobatur. XIII.25 (24): Si cuius uxor in captivitatem per vim ducta fuerit et eam redimi non potuerit, post annum potest alteram accipere. Item si in captivitate ducta fuerit et sperans quod debet revertere vir eius, v annos expectet. Similiter autem et mulier si viro talia contingerint. Si igitur vir interim alteram duxit uxorem et prior iterum mulier de captivitate reversa fuerit, eam accipiat posterioremque dimittat. Similiter autem et illa, sicut superius diximus, si viro talia contingerint, faciat. 13.7 (6): He who would dismiss his wife and marry another in union, [that is to say] not the wife of another, but any single maiden, let him make penance for seven years. 13.13 (12): If any living man having a legal wife divorces her and marries another, let him make penance for seven years. But that [first] woman whom he has married is no longer his, therefore let her not eat, drink, nor be anywhere within speaking distance with that [second] woman whom he has married wrongly nor with his parents. But those parents, if they consent [to be with the ex-wife], let them be excommunicated. But that excommunication shall be so great, that they shall not eat nor drink with any other Christians, nor be participants in holy oblation and be separated from the table of the Lord until they show worthy fruit with penance through confession and tears. 13.19 (18): A woman, if she is an adulteress, and her husband does not wish to live with her, he is able to divorce her in accordance with the prescription of the Lord, and marry another. That woman, however, if she wishes to enter into a monastery, let her retain a fourth of her dowry. If she does not wish [to do so], let her have none of it. 13.24 (23): If a woman has divorced her husband, despising him, not wishing to return and be reconciled to the husband, after five years with the consent of the bishop, he may marry another wife if he is unable to be continent. And let him make three years penance because in accordance with the prescription of the Lord, he is known as an adulterer. 13.25 (24): If a man’s wife has been led into captivity through force and he has been unable to redeem her, after one year he is able to marry another. Again, if a woman is led into captivity and her husband hopes that she ought to return, then he should wait for five years. And similarly for a woman if they have seized her husband. If therefore a man has married another wife and the first wife has returned from captivity, let him receive her and divorce the second. And similarly, just as we have said above, in the case of if her husband is seized and he returns, let her do likewise.