9. Of Divorce For Adultery, And Marrying Again: That There Is No Sufficient Warrant So To Do by Edmund Bunnius

I meant to put this book further up in the listing. Probably after Luck’s book. But I forgot to do it because I didn’t have a hard copy and just forgot about it. So, it shouldn’t be #9, but here it is anyway.

This is a treatise written by an English Calvinist priest in 1595 to Richard Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Whoever runs Anglican.net recently translated it. They also plan to translate several other works from the Anglican tradition on this issue. And for that I’m glad. I’m always interested in finding reformational sources on divorce and remarriage. Generally the Reformation introduced the false teaching that divorce and remarriage is permissible on a wide scale. It had existed prior to the reformation, but I think it is generally agreed that it was a minority position in the West. Philip Schaff said in the Principle of Protestantism, “Wherever God builds a church, the devil builds a chapel.” This happened in the Reformation. The English tradition, which successfully moderated its reformation, resisted more extreme changes, and so never fully adopted the doctrinal innovations regarding marriage and divorce that other reformational churches did. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that between the time of the Reformation and the early 1900’s there were 300 divorces granted by parliament. That’s less than one divorce granted a year. So, I have always appreciated the Anglican tradition for not introducing this novelty wholesale. However, they never resolutely refuted the error of other reformed traditions, and in reading other Anglican resources, they never fully got this doctrine right in it’s entirety. For example, the Rev. Canon Andrew Cornes is a contemporary Anglican priest who has written on divorce and remarriage who rightly argues that all remarriages are adultery, but then wrongly doesn’t call those adulterous remarriages to repentance by separating. Gordon Wenham, a contemporary English reformed scholar, argues similarly. I’ve seen other Anglican clergy talk about the church not giving a blessing to a remarriage that was done in civil courts, but then not discipling those who they admit have gone against the dominical teachings. So, the Anglican tradition is muddled on this, which is actually kind of a hallmark of Anglicanism in other doctrines as well.

Edmund Bunnius is in this same category. He basically argues that remarriage is not permitted in the event that a divorce occurs because of adultery. He argues for the right conclusion. But the way he gets there is bizarre, frankly. I almost don’t even know how to summarize what he’s saying when he eventually deals with Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. He says something along the lines of Jesus was just easing people into the difficult teaching which fully prohibits remarriage. It’s very poorly argued. It’s also very long and tedious. He then goes on to admit that remarriage is permissible if a non-believer deserts a believing spouse. So, ultimately this is not a good treatise. It does more harm than good, in my opinion. He’s swinging in the right direction. He gets half way there. But because his arguments at points are really not good, I wouldn’t recommend it. But he has flashes of truth and really nails it at other parts. Here are few of his stronger moments:

“After this time of the Hebrew fathers, a greater light of understanding had been bestowed among all peoples in various fields of learning, and among some in the knowledge of the Gospel.  And yet in questions of Matrimony, we today have been almost as blind as they.  We proclaim quite freely that it were allowed unto the men in the Scriptures to put away their wives, and marry again ;  and leave no doubt but that Christ himself in one case also allows it.  And we lean so much unto the acceptance of divorce, that many of us are almost persuaded that re-marriage is also nowhere forbidden unto us.  Wherever such men may gather these beliefs, they yet will never find them in the Scriptures, notwithstanding the help which our age provides in the knowledge of the original Hebrew and Greek itself, and the diligent scholarship of weighing the Text, and conferring the verses, one with another ;  where the controverted passages  ( such as, of taking sisters in wedlock )  especially urge us to look into it.  These new scholars are so carried away with their conviction in this belief, as to become quite furious when presented with arguments and limitations such as what provided above ;  it is of little help to them to inquire into the actual meaning of the Scriptures.  For my part, I cannot see what may sufficiently explain this, other than the corruption of our nature, being so committed  ( as we are )  to this level of obstinacy, and detesting being made to change our opinions.  Therefore, since we already have such a beam in our eyes, I am less surprised that we fail to clearly perceive the true force possessed by the bond of marriage, which it truly does.”

Incredible description of the time 400 years ago. Almost identical to our time now.

“The masses of people clamour for marital liberty merely from an addiction to fleshly indulgence, but the writings of theologians serve for them as a scholarly cover.  Therefore  ( to free the people from this confusion, )  it shall be necessary not to hide any weakness we discover in those theologians, even those of some prominence.  The truth ought to be much dearer unto us.  It is Satan’s frequent tactic to use the chiefest men to hatch & rear up his errors, and therefore the dearer the truth is unto us, the more we should take heed not to bear with the error of anyone ;  and the bolder may we be to examine their conclusions, not sparing the small discredit incurred by them thereby. Let us now briefly go through the Scripture verses typically cited, and see how little warrant they have for marital liberty, notwithstanding all the help which its advocates try to marshal in its favor.”

Absolutely on point here. We have the same problem today. People addicted to fleshly indulgence, and fawning over prominent teachers who provide a cover for their sin. Bunnius is strongest in this work when he engages the prominent reformers that were either contemporary with him or preceded him. He interacts with Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, and Peter Martyr Vermigli.

He makes sport of Theodore Beza for copying Erasmus. I think this happened frequently in the reformation and it happens in our time, too. Prominent teachers often just appropriate arguments from others without challenging them, especially on this issue of remarriage. Without excusing men for this, I think this might be God’s way keeping us vigilant in immersing ourselves in the Scriptures.

“But then Mr Beza did not rest long on his interpretation of Christ’s words  ( since he found them obvious enough ) , and instead hastened to answer such Objections as he found to be made against it.  Let us see what answers he will find himself to be content with.  He himself acknowledges that the word of God  ( and other sources )  contains numerous Objections to his doctrine.  And those Objections, lo and behold, are exactly those that were listed by Erasmus :  the verses are the same ;  and their sequence and order ;  and his defence against them ;  and  ( excepting the first )  even his very words and punctuation.  As we work through them, it will become apparent that he found no new help from the word of God than when Erasmus had a go at it.”

He commends these other teachers from time to time where they were speaking truth.

“Mr Calvin himself did set down a very good rule :  The bond of Marriage is a more sacred thing than what can be dissolved simply wishing, or when pressed upon by lust.  His reason is, Although the man and wife join themselves together by mutual consent :  yet God ties them together with such a knot that does not come loose, and they may never thereafter make themselves separate again.  That being said  ( says he )  there is added an exception, &c.: meaning this what we now speak of, and therefore making little use of the benefit of his good observation.”

I take the view that the exception Jesus lays down is that divorce or separation is lawful in the case of sexual immorality. And I take sexual immorality to be unrepentant sexual immorality. And that while divorce is permissible, remarriage is not. Because even when a divorce occurs, the covenant bond of marriage is not put asunder. And elsewhere in Scripture we are instructed to forgive the penitent and to be reconciled with one another, especially in marriage. We forgive because we are forgiven. This is roughly the early church view. There are other explanations of the exception clause that I view as plausible explanations, which likewise forbid remarriage. Bunnius does not make use of any of these arguments, and so I was rather disappointed with his work here.

8. The Didache

The Didache is one of, if not the earliest, non-canonical documents we have from the early church. It’s pretty short. It deals with Christian living, the sacraments, and church government. Didache means teaching. You can hear the word didactic in there. It’s longer title is THE LORD’S TEACHING THROUGH THE TWELVE APOSTLES TO THE NATIONS. So, when you see the cover of the Didache in a book or something, you’ll often see the twelve Apostles depicted.

The Didache talks about how to receive prophets and apostles. How to judge prophets. I always find that language interesting in the early church as it can present a kink in the cessationist narrative. It talks about Christians who come to a church, but don’t work. That idle men are to be avoided. “Watch that you keep aloof from such.” So, we have this excommunication or non-association carried on here, which is prominent in the New Testament, and basically altogether ignored in churches today.

He instructs his readers to give support to prophets and teachers. But he says that prophets who ask for money are false prophets. I’m not sure that’s exactly the sign of a false prophet, but perhaps it was an accurate indicator at the time. It also connects the tithe given to priests in the old testament to giving a tithe to prophets and teachers in the Messianic age.

“But every true prophet that wills to abide among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Matthew 10: 10; cf. Luke 10: 7 Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests.”

He uses the term first-fruit, and Scripture connects tithes and first-fruits together. Though it may be debated they are separate. Either way, the point is that ministers in the new covenant are given support from the people. This, I would argue, is commanded by Christ himself and reiterated by Paul. Also of note, is that from the beginning, we have the comparison made of teachers and prophets to priests, and that they should receive support from the people. The term high priest is used, and I would object to that. Jesus is our high priest. But I don’t have a problem with the role of elders, prophets, and teachers, being similar to that of the Levites. Paul makes the same comparison. He exhorts the Corinthians to support those who labor as ministers of the gospel, just as the Israelites supported those who labored in the Temple, the Levites. As for function, ministers of the gospel are a new covenant form of the Levites.

Then we have this great passage which throws a wrench into the Apostolic succession narrative. He tells his readers to appoint for themselves bishops and deacons. It’s a congregational appointment. A bottom up appointment. Not a top down.

“Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3: 4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18: 15– 17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents.”

Top down appointments are permissible and we see this in Paul’s appointment of Timothy and Titus. And in the case of Titus, Titus turns around and appoints elders. But here we have a congregational appointment. I believe either form is valid. Notice, too, that the concern here is for holiness of life – truthful and proven. The emphasis in Roman and Eastern circles is less on holiness of life and more on Apostolic tactile ordination.

We also have him saying that the bishops and deacons render to the people the service of prophets and teachers. And I think this is true, too. That elders function as teachers of the word. And prophets of the word, whether we take that in the Puritan conception of preaching, or we take it in the charismatic conception, I think both are valid. Prophets are lawyers of the law. They point the people back to the covenantal obligations. Prophets can also be instructed by the Spirit by means of visions, dreams, etc. These are in concert with Scripture. If they are not, then they are a false prophet.

Here we also have another exhortation to excommunicate those who act amiss. Those who are unrepentant are not to be spoken to until they repent. Notice, too, he’s speaking to a congregation that doesn’t even have elders yet, and he tells them to reprove one another and instructs them to exercise disassociation with the unrepentant. He makes it individual. He puts the responsibility on the people. “Let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents.” Strong disassociation language. A casting out of the camp. A removal of the leaven from the lump. This is clearly given to us in canonical writings, and it is reaffirmed here. I bring it up because of how little attention we pay to this in the modern church.

Instructions on baptism are given.

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28: 19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”

He affirms the Trinitarian formula for baptism which I would likewise affirm. He prioritizes baptizing in living water, which means baptism in a river. I don’t think this is necessary, but certainly lawful. Also, of note, baptism in a river doesn’t entail full immersion either. The earliest paintings we have of John the Baptist baptizing Jesus in the Jordan are not of full immersion, but of Jesus standing in the water, with John pouring water over his head. The Didache then says if you’re not able to baptize in a river, then you can use other water, perhaps he means a pond or a lake. He prefers cold to warm, which is interesting. And then he recommends pouring water three times on the head, which is how I prefer to do it, and have done it. There’s instructions to fast beforehand. We see that in the early church, fasting was practiced a lot, especially before baptism and before the eucharist. I don’t think these things can be made necessary, as we have no clear commands to do these things, but we see that certain churches try to carry on these traditions to this day, which is fine as long as it isn’t mandatory.

“Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7: 6

A few things to note here. The prayers of thanksgiving are not the same as the prayers we see in Roman Catholic and other so-called Apostolic churches. So, here is one of many liturgical variance that the early church has with traditions like Rome.

We also have this prayer for the gathering of the church from the ends of the earth into God’s kingdom. A vision of the kingdom’s expansion on earth.

We also see that the Eucharist is not be given to those who have not been baptized. Baptism is entrance into the church. Baptism is the formal remission of our sins. We are united to Christ in baptism. We made new covenant members of Israel through it. The Eucharist is the new covenant Passover meal, and in the old covenant, one had to be circumcised in order to eat of the Passover meal. So, this and many other reasons are sufficient enough to deny communion to those who are not formally recognized as being the people of God. Or as it is put here in the Didache, dogs.

There’s this great prayer after communion.

“But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name’s sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.”

These prayers entail much thanksgiving, which is what Eucharist means. We also see the individual, heart salvation affirmed here. That this isn’t evangelical innovation. “We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts.”

We also see the affirmation of creation. The early fathers are often criticized for being too acetic, and perhaps this is true in some cases. But I have found that the early fathers often affirm the goodness of creation and the goodness of enjoyment of creation. Here, in this prayer, we have precisely that. “You, Mastery almighty, created all things for Your name’s sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You.”

He then goes on to say that God then gives us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Christ.

He is giving scripted prayers here. But then he says permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire. I take this to mean that the prophets were better at extemporaneous prayer, and here he permits extemporaneous thanksgiving prayer after the Eucharist. More freedom here than we would find in modern higher liturgical services.

Christian assembly on the Lord’s Day.

“But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

We have here the gathering of Christians on the Lord’s day, which is Sunday. The breaking of bread, which is generally considered the Eucharist. We see the confession of sins, and it’s connection to a pure sacrifice. This close language of eucharist and sacrifice is everywhere in the early fathers. And also the connection to Malachi’s prophecy, which I think is alluded to here, but not an exact quotation. Malachi 1:11 says, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” This pure offering is Christ, our incorporation into him, through repentance, the remission of sins, showed forth in the Lord’s supper as a pure sacrifice of thanksgiving. Lutherans for example generally don’t like the language of sacrifice to God in the service of the Church. But I think we can rightly understand that our worship is a sacrifice to God, and one that is only acceptable through the once and for all sacrifice of Christ. We don’t re-sacrifice Christ in our worship, but we do offer ourselves who are the body of Christ to God in our worship, and we do show forth the Lord’s death in the communion of bread and wine until the Lord comes again.

We also see that men who are variance with each other need to be reconciled, or their sacrifice will be profaned. We see the early fathers taking the teaching from Christ in Matthew 5. “leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” The importance of being at peace with our fellow brothers and sisters is prioritized before giving our sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. And so even in modern liturgical practices, this is still seen in the passing of peace before communion. While the passing of peace is largely symbolic now, it’s rooted in the practice of being reconciled to one another because we have been reconciled to God.

In another portion he says not to fast as the hypocrites, which means the Jews. He says they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but Christians should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. So, we see fasting as part of regular Christian practice, or at least it being instructed in this letter. We also see the Christians adopting practices that distinguish them from the Jews who have rejected Christ. Another such practice would be putting some Trinitarian doxology at the end of the Psalms, as a statement that the Psalms belong to the Church and not to the apostate Jews. He instructs to pray the Lord’s prayer and to pray it three times in a day, which I think is excessive. I pray the Lord’s prayer once a day. But we see that praying the Scriptures is encouraged here.

There are more interesting and good things in this short work. One must read these kinds of things with wisdom and discernment and prioritization of the Scriptures. But I think we can benefit tremendously from being familiar with these kinds of writings.