he seems to tolerate Divorce upon Adultery because the Adulterous Person has first violated that Union which God ordained to have been perpetual Upon these things turns the whole Stress of Christ's Answer to the Jews And from this Account which he has here given it manifestly appears that this Original Institution did not only ordain that the Union of Man and Wife shou'd be perpetual but moreover that this Union shou'd be made between them two only exclusive of all others whatsoever And this God sufficiently signified by making but one Man and one Woman which without all question was designed to Illustrate and give Authority to this as the true Purpose of the Law 3. And if this be the true meaning of that Divine Institution and Law as I think I have shewn that it is from hence it will be easie to prove 4. Lastly That Fornication is a manifest Transgression of the Law and by consequence an Heinous Sin For that Union which is founded in the Partnership of the Bed and is thereupon declared to be Perpetual and Inseparable and Exclusive of all others is as inconsistent with the rambling Amours of Fornicators as Light with Darkness For at the same time that God ordains that all Persons who are so made one shou'd preserve that Union Perpetually and Inviolably In so doing he to all sufficient Intents and Purposes decrees that no Persons shou'd so come together but upon a Sincere Purpose and Solemn Contract of Perpetual Union and Cohabitation between them two only and exclusive of all others What then can be more directly contrary to such a Law than the Roving Loves of Fornicators Who never intend much less enter into a Solemn Contract and Covenant of that Perpetual Cohabitation which God ordain'd And who instead of such mutual Constancy between them two only exclusive of all others only contrive to satiate their Lusts like Brutes without any Restraint or any Regard to such an Ordinance What is more evident than that all such Practices are absolutely forbidden by this Law of God and therefore offensive to him The Purpose and Design of God in this Law I say was not only to decree that the Union between Man and Wife shou'd be perpetual But also to ordain that no Man or Woman whatsoever shou'd so come together but upon a Solemn Contract of that Perpetual and Inseparable Union first made And that I may not seem to assert any thing of this Nature without good Authority I must here observe to you that St. Paul says the same thing and urges this same Consideration to this very purpose and to dissuade Men from this very Sin 1 Cor. vi 15 16. Shall I take the Members of Christ and make them the Members of an Harlot God forbid For know you not that he that is join'd to an Harlot is one Body For two saith he shall be one flesh In which Words it is evident and plain that he alludes to this Original Institution of Marriage mentioned Gen. 2. 24. And that he makes the Union to consist in the Partnership of the Bed He that is join'd to an Harlot is one body i.e. is one flesh with her as Man and Wife are one and by that Union which God ordained to be the Foundation of perpetual and inseparable Cohabitation And by this Consequence he declares that they who thus come together without such a solemn Contract of Perpetual Union and Cohabitation are certainly guilty of a Great Sin and do what God has forbid and what does not at all become Christians and Members of Christ's Mystical Body Shall I take the Members of Christ and make them the Members of an Harlot God ' forbid This is unlawful this is contrary to God's Original Institution and Command And if this be so I think this is as clear a Proof of the Sinfulness of Whoredom as if it had been expresly said in Genesis thou shalt not commit Fornication And now let us reflect how this one Argument alone discovers both the Sinfulness and the Danger of this Practice Suppose that we were in the dark as to the Evidences of Reason against this Sin yet why shou'd not the Will and Institution of God influence and determine Mens Consciences What better Proof can we have of any thing 's being a Sin than that it is a certain Violation of God's Express Commands and Laws Or what Shadow of Reason can any Man produce why the Decree of God at our first Creation confirmed by a new Sanction of Christ shou'd not bind him to the Observance of it as firmly as any the clearest Law of mere Nature only Or why shou'd not the Danger of transgressing it be as great To imagin that God will not exact Obedience to his Laws is to charge him with Folly in enacting them And if he will punish Transgressions and Sin how will Leud Men deliver themselves out of his Hand So that if Fornication be such a Violation of God's Institution and Law as I think it already appears to be This so plainly discovers the Sin and Danger of it that I cannot see what Rational Hope these Men can entertain but upon Repentance of escaping his Vengeance for so vile a Transgression But 5. Lastly I proposed to consider the Objections that are commonly made against all this The Sum of what they object against this Inviolable Union is that David celebrated for a Man after God's own Heart not only committed Adultery with Bathsheba and murder'd her Husband but also had many Wives at once and might divorce them at his Pleasure and consequently did not Live up to this Rule That Solomon also who is fam'd in the Old Testament for an inspired Gift of Wisdom from God And Abraham the Father of the Faithful and in short all or most of the Ancient Patriarchs are recorded to have had many Wives or Concubines And why say they may not we think our selves innocent and safe in the nonobservance of such an Institution If the same was done by those very Persons who are honour'd with the Titles of Patriarchs and celebrated for their extraordinary Share in God's Favour And as for keeping Constant to those Wives or Concubines they chose it is nothing so Divorce was allowed not only by the Heathens but even by God's Laws given to the Jews and that upon Small Dislike And why say they shou'd we imagin any Sinfulness in that which God himself allowed And as for Fornication they plead it has been held Lawful both by Heathens Jews and some Christians The Heathens say they every where allow it nor do we find the Jewish Law directly to forbid it Why then shou'd we be frighted from so dear a Pleasure by the Cavils of a Tribe of Men whose Trade and Livelyhood it is to preach against us This is the Sum of what they plead and I think I have set down the Objections with all the Fairness and Advantage to their Cause which they themselves can in Justice claim Now if it
shall appear that there is nothing in all this however plausible and promising it may look that will either prove Fornication Harmless and Innocent or exempt those who live in it either from great Guilt or severe Punishment This Objection will do them no good at all And that this is the Truth of the Case I doubt not will be very Evident The full Force of the Objection is drawn 1. From the Practice of such Men as the Scripture celebrates for Holy Men. 2. From the Laws of Jews and other Nations not strictly and severely forbidding this Vice and binding Men up to the Strictness of this Law But 1. As for that Part of the Objection which is built upon their Remarks on the Actions of Good and Holy Men I have often wonder'd that the Debauches of our Age shou'd ever mention David's Miscarriage with Bathsheba as they do to excuse and countenance them For is it not as good an Instance to prove the Lawfulness of Murder and Treachery as of Adultery Or is there any thing in that whole History that proves the Innocence of either Is there not a plain Declaration both of God's heavy Displeasure for this Sin of David's and also of his Signal Repentance 'T is true David is called a Man after God's own Heart But not for any such Action as this For it is said expresly 2. Sam. xi 27. The thing that David had done displeased the Lord. And God's Anger is at large declared against him in the xii Chapter All then that these Men can infer from hence is that the best of Men by the common Frailty of Human Nature and for want of due Vigilance and Circumspection over themselves may sometimes fall into very great Transgressions The Consideration of which shou'd never be alleged for our Justification but shou'd rather teach us to be the more Watchful and the less Censorious and whenever Men do fall it shou'd engage them to return to God by Repentance as David did Without this he had not been the Man after God's own Heart but instead of that had found the dire Effects of God's Displeasure and heavy Vengeance against this Sin And I wou'd earnestly recommend it to all those who have been guilty of David's Transgression to follow his Example in his Repentance and Contrition and Devout and Exemplary Humiliation As for the other Instances they mention of Abraham and Jacob and Solomon and Jephtha that had Concubines and yet are Characterized in Scripture for Good Men and highly favour'd of God I must observe one thing by the way viz. That what the Scripture calls Concubines were not Women that prostituted themselves but such as they took upon a Solemn Contract and Covenant as Wives And sometimes they are expresly so call'd As particularly Gen. xvi 1. Sarah had an Hand-maid an Egyptian whose Name was Hagar and she gave her to her Husband Abraham to be his Wife And again Gen. xxv 1. Abraham took a Wife and her Name was Keturah And yet in Verse the 6th she is called a Concubine and also 1 Chron. 1. 32. To the better understanding of which it is remarkable what a Jewish Doctor has said upon this Place as a Reverend Father of our own Church has cited him out of Mr. Selden She was his Concubine because of her Servile Condition but his Wife because married with Covenants to provide for her and her Children So Grotius tells us that they were such Servants or others of a low Rank whom they married upon Contract giving them a Dowry and tho' their Children did not inherit they had Portions allotted them out of their Father's Inheritance and were inferior to other Wives only in their Dignity i. e. because they once were Servants Agreeably to this we read Gen. xxv 5. Abraham gave all that he had i. e. the Sum of his Inheritance to Isaac but unto the Sons of the Concubines he had he gave Gifts and sent them away All therefore that can from hence be concluded is that Polygamy or the having many Wives was then practised and allow'd But this will make nothing at all for Fornication there being a vast Difference between such a Married Concubine and a Common Prositute The most that can possibly from hence be drawn to their Advantage is that these good Men and highly favour'd of God did not observe the Law we mention in any such Sense as we now put upon it For a farther Answer therefore to this whole Objection I wou'd offer these three things to be seriously consider'd 1. That tho' it shou'd be granted that Polygamy Divorce and even Fornication it self was tolerated by the Laws of the Heathens Jews or by the Customs of Ancient Times it does by no means from hence follow that any of these were in themselves Innocent and without Offence to Almighty God 2. That Fornication especially was never so tolerated by any of them as thereby to be absolutely Approved nor ever had so much Countenance but that we may find clear Evidence of its being accounted an Hateful and Detestable Vice 3. That whatever Connivance Indulgence or Exemption from Punishment God was pleased to grant upon the Transgression of this Law in Ancient Times he has now absolutely Revoked and made void all such and brought us to this his Original Institution We are under a more Perfect Law and a better Dispensation and therefore we are justly tied up to stricter Rules as the indispensable Condition of Salvation If these things can be clearly made out as I hope they may no Just Countenance or Excuse for this Wicked Practice can there be drawn from such Examples 1. That tho' it shou'd be granted that Polygamy Divorce and even Fornication it self was tolerated by the Laws of Heathens Jews or by the Customs of Ancient Times It does by no means from hence follow that any of these were of themselves innocent and without Offence to Almighty God And that because none of these were perfect Rules for the Government of Life in all things exactly according to God's Will 1. As to the Heathens if we speak of their General Manners and exempt the particular Virtues of some few Men we know very well that they had deviated from the Ways of Truth and Virtue and were fal'n into very great and abominable Corruptions They scarce retained any Knowledg of the True God and are therefore said to live as with out God in the World Eph. 2. 12. They had Gods many but their Notions of them were so monstrously Vile and Gross that instead of Restraining they rather Tempted and Invited them to the most Flagitious Immoralities If therefore such Men as these tolerated Whoredom and Adultery and all Uncleanness is their Conversation fit to be drawn into a President How cou'd it be otherwise with them unless their own Natural Modesty restrained them They had the Examples of their very Gods to countenance them and such Abominable Practices made up a chief Part of those Religious Rites
extenuate the Guilt of his own Ill-Manners And this I think is his Case He would excuse his Adultery under the soft Name of Concubinage and endeavours to prove such Concubinage Innocent from Heb. xiii 4. Marriage is honourable in all and the Bed undefiled but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judge From which words the Argument is formed thus The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Particle Copulative and therefore the Words so joined ought to be of a different and distinct Signification This Bed undefiled according to plain Gramatical Construction must be aptly Significant of some certain Bed distinct from the Marriage Bed and that he says must be Concubinage or the Words must start a Riddle hard to be Vnderstood In this is the force of his Argument if it has any but indeed it has none 'T is mere fallacy and sham I will not dispute with him whether the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be Copulative or Exegetical Let that pass The Determination of this Debate does not turn on so nice a Point I will suppose then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marriage and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bed to have distinct Significations But why must this needs mean his Concubinage What will he say if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here the Marriage Contract and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Consummation of it What Riddle is started by this Meaning Or what Hardship in it to be Understood And this I think is very evidently the Apostles Sense and this Interpretation agreable to Scripture-Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Marriage or Wedding Matth. xxii 2 3. Jo. ii 1. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bed in the Sense I now alledge Rom. ix 10. which our Translators have modestly Translated thus When Rebecca also had conceived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one even our Father Isaac And that I may not stand alone in this let Dr. Hammond be consulted on that Place and Grotius on this of Heb. xiii 4. who shews what his Opinion was by that notion of the Essens which he cites as agreable to the Apostles meaning They he says abstained from Marriage attamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they neither disallowed Marriage nor the Procreation of Children The purport of the Text then as I take it is this Marriage is honourable and the Consummation of it without Vncleanness The rest of all that fulsom Pamphlet may easily be answered from the foregoing Discourse The next thing therefore to be consider'd is the Concubinage of unmarried Persons that is when a Man and a Woman consociate on promise of Fidelity and Constancy to each other But do not solemnly Marry according to the Laws of their Country In which if it be pleaded that they fulfil the design of God's Institution altho they do not make any solemn Matrimonial Contract as the Laws of the Land require I would offer these things to be seriously consider'd 1. Whether in this pretended Fidelity and Constancy to each other they be truly and conscienciously Sincere i. e. Whether they are so firmly resolved to be thus Constant as to esteem their Seperation to be a Sin and all Consociation with any other to be Adultery This we have seen the Original Institution of Marriage most certainly requires And if Men would examine themselves carefully in this Matter I doubt it would come close to all Persons that live in such a Practice For I doubt it is a thirst for Liberty and an unwillingness to be under so strict a Confinement and Restraint that is the chief Inducement to such Practices For if Men resolve and think themselves bound in Conscience to observe such inseperable Union and Cohabitation as God's Law requires What should hinder them from confirming this Obligation by Legal Solemnities If they do not think themselves thus bound it is certain they are guilty of Fornication But 2. There is a Conscientious Obedience due to all the Civil Constitutions and Laws of the Country where we live This is one of the chief Acts of Subjection which we owe to the Supreme Magistrates and Powers And as God has commanded us to be Obedient to them So to despise their Good Laws is to Sin against God And this is the more Considerable because in a great many Cases the Good or Evil of Humane Actions is to be determined wholly by Municipal Laws As for Example the Laws of Religion oblige us to be Just to all Men and to do no wrong But the Laws of our Country are in a great many Cases the only Standard whereby to discover what is Just and Right and what is not So also in the Case before us The Design of the Gospel as I take it is to condemn all Consociation of Man and Woman as Fornication but in the State of Marriage But then it must be the Laws of our Country that must determine what is Marriage and what is not Which consideration will yet have more Force if we add 3. That Marriage must suppose a Communion of Estates and Fortunes For it cannot be that Persons so united as to be accounted but One Flesh should have divided Interests and separate Estates They are the nearest Relations to each other which the World affords Our Parents from whom we derive our Being and whose Flesh and Blood we are must yet according to God's Command yield to this closer Bond of Unity Man and Wife should be united in Heart and Life and Properties This is agreable to the common Reason of Mankind and therefore the Roman Law declared Marriage to imply a perpetual Consortship of Life with a Communication of all Divine and Humane Rights Nuptiae sunt conjunctio maris feminae consortium omnis vitae divini humani juris communicatio In order to this perpetual Consortship of Life their Law required that the Man should take the Woman to his own House and this was necessary to constitute a Marriage For thus it was enacted Mulierem absenti per litter as ejus vel per nuntium posse nubere placet si in domum ejus deduceretur A Woman might be married to a Man that was absent either by his Letters or by a Messenger provided that she was brought into his House Public Cohabitation was always required And the Communication of their Rights and Interests is by all Nations esteem'd so Natural and Necessary that the Wife whether she brought any Dowry or no has a Right to Maintenance out of the Husbands Estate tho' there preceded no Deed of Settlement And the Husband by Marriage becomes Proprietor of all that Fortune and Estate that before could properly he call'd her own To which end our Liturgy has properly inserted into the Form of Marriage with all my worldly Goods I thee endow For this reason a Public Solemnizing of Marriage according to the Laws of the Land becomes as Necessary to make their Cohabitation Lawful and Innocent as it is to
A DISCOURSE ON FORNICATION SHEWING THE Greatness of that SIN AND Examining the Excuses pleaded for it from the Examples of Antient Times To which is added an Appendix concerning Concubinage As also A Remark on Mr. Butler's Explication of Hebr. xiii 4. in his Late Book on that Subject By J. Turner M. A. Lecturer of Christ-Church London Printed at the Request of some Gentlemen of that Parish O Proceres Censore opus est an Aruspice nobis Juv. Sat. 2 LONDON Printed for John Wyat at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCVIII THE CONTENTS THE Introduction page 1. I. Fornication contrary to God's Original Institution of Marriage p. 3. In what Sense that Institution is a Positive Law p. 4. Several such Laws given to Man from the beginning p. 5. The Original Institution of Marriage explain'd p. 8. How Fornication a Violation of it p. 11. Objections considered p. 13. David's Adultery with Bathsheba impertinently alleged p. 14. Abraham's Concubines were Married to him p. 15. The Laws of former Times no good objection against this Law p. 16. The Heathens corrupt in their Manners p. 17. The Jewish-Law imperfect p. 18. Divorce then allow'd but not approv'd p. 19. Polygamy was always unlawful p. 20. Abraham's Example not Universally to be imitated p. 22. Things tolerated not always approv'd the difference between Licita and Honesta p. 23. The Heathens did detest this Vice p. 24. The Jews absolutely forbid it p. 25. The Patriarchs before the Law abhor'd it p. 26. Whatever prevail'd in former Times we are now brought to the Original Institution p. 27. II. Fornication expresly forbidden by the Gospel p. 29. Reasons urged by St. Paul to disswade Men from it p. 34. 'T is inconsistent with Christian Purity and Holiness p. 38. III. Fornication a Brutish Vice and dishonourable to Humane Nature p. 41. Mischievous to the Children born of such Parents p. 42. To the Offenders themselves both in Credit Fortune and Health p. 45. It debauches Men's Spirits and makes them Enemies to Religion p. 47. The Commonness of this Sin one great occasion of Infidelity Blasphemy and Profaneness p. 49. Appendix concerning Concubinage p. 55. A Remark on Heb. xiii 4. against Mr. Butler p. 56. All Concubinage of unmarried Persons is Fornication p. 57. ERRATA PAge 1. line 7. r. has p. 2. l. 3. r. that p. 3. l 5. r. up to p. 4. l. 2. dele had p. 11. l. 5. r. this Law p. 13. l. 21. r. Title p. 16. l. 31. r. then p. 17. l. 17. r. Precedent p. 21. l. 20. r. alone l. 32. r. they p. 22. l. 15. r. him p. 37. l. 17. r. and destroy p. 40. l. 31. r. defects p. 45. l. 33. dele the p. 48. l. 15. r. Bodily p. 52. l. 1. r. their p. 53. l. 18. r. Men p. 56. l. 28. r. Contract or Marriage State p. 59. l. 22. r. their p. 60. l. 14. r. the l. 33. r. what is Scandalous and Offensive A DISCOURSE ON FORNICATION Shewing the Greatness of that Sin and examining the Excuses pleaded for it from the Examples of Ancient Times WHile all good Men lament the Wickedness and Debauchery of this Age and Nation and justly dread the heavy Judgments of God for the notorious Iniquities every Day committed among other Circumstances that increase their Grief and enhanse their Fears They have this Discomfort that the Looseness of Mens Manners had corrupted their Judgments and defaced their Sense of Good and Evil. So that instead of Humiliation before God some Men justifie themselves and are so far from abandoning their Vices that they plead Innocence and upon the Perpetration of the vilest Crimes cry out with Solomon's Harlot that they have done nothing amiss This is in no Sin more practised than in those of Adultery and Fornication Adultery may possibly be allowed to have somewhat of Ill in it especially on the Womans Side where there is a manifest Injury to a whole Family and yet it is an Argument that this makes no great Impression on some Peoples Consciences because it is so openly and publicly practised But Fornication by the leud Persons of this Age is avowed to be innocent and harmless And yet there must be a great share both of Confidence and Impiety in that Christian who disputes the Unlawfulness of a Vice which in the whole New Testament is frequently and expresly declared to shut Men out of the Kingdom of God If the Authority of the Gospel was but submitted to by these Men and suffered to guide their Consciences as it ought no more would be needful to convince and restrain them than any one of these Texts wherein it is said that no Whoremonger or unclean Person has any Inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God But this alone will not now prevail They appeal from the Gospel to the Law and tell you how as they imagin was the Practice of ancient Times They expostulate with you how it comes to pass that what was anciently tolerated and allowed comes now to be reckoned such a dreadful and enormous Crime so that they make it a matter of Debate and Controversy and must have their Objections and Scruples answered before the Gospel shall be heard or they can become sensible of their Wickedness and give any Hope of their being reclaimed The Preachers may say what they will in their Pulpits about the Justice and Severity of God and the Vengeance which he threatens against Sinners This is never like to move Men while they conceit their Actions justifiable and perswade themselves that they do not come within the Verge of those Menaces At a time therefore when the Piety and Wisdom of our Governors seem resolved to check and restrain the intolerable Growth of Impiety It may not be unseasonable to treat with these Men and lay open the Heinousness and certain Immorality of one of the most predominant Sins of this Age and if I mistake not one of the great Occasions and Promoters of a Spirit of Atheism Profaneness and Irreligion I hope what I shall say on this Subject may be serviceable to those whose Consciences are not feared and who are not wholly given unto vile Affections and a reprobate Mind But they who resolve to do any thing that gratifies their Lusts though never so expresly forbidden may believe any thing that favours those Pleasures tho' never so evidently false and absurd If I do not say all that might be said to the Advantage of so considerable a Subject I hope at least that it may either invite or provoke better Judges to take so good a Cause in hand The certain Immorality of this Practice and the Greatness of this Sin I shall endeavour to make appear by these Arguments I. That Fornication is a Violation of God's positive Law in the original Institution of Marriage II. That it is expresly forbidden in the Gospel and absolutely inconsistent with that pure and holy Life which the Christian Religion requires from us III. Lastly