The Portraiture of the Image of God in Man, Part 2 · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX. Of Adams conjunct life, or his marriage.
THe ſecond royall prerogative beſtowed upon Adam in Paradiſe, was, that he had his marriage immediately celebrated by God.
God made the woman of the man. Hee made not paires of males and females in mankinde, as hee did of the reſt of living creatures; but he made the one of the other, firſt to ſhew them the neere conjunction which is betwixt them; ſecondly, hee made the woman of the man, that he might be her heed, and the fountaine of all man-kinde, which chiefly belonged to his dignity: thirdly, ſhe was made of him, that ſhe might obey and honour him; Chriſt ſaith, Mark. 2.27. the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore as man was made Lord over the Sabbath, ſo hee was made Lord over the woman.
This ſubjection of the woman to the man, was ſhewed by the veile which was put upon the womans head when ſhe was married, Gen. 24.65. In the fift of Numbers when the husband accuſed the wife of adultery ſhe was commanded to ſtand bareheaded before the Prieſt, as not being now under her husbands ſubjection, untill ſhe was cleared of this blot.
Secondly, this ſubjection is notably ſet out in that heavenly order, 1 Cor. 11.3. God is Chriſts head, and Chriſt is the mans head, and the man is the womans head.
Thirdly, this ſubjection is likewiſe ſhewed by that dreame of Ioſeph, Gen. 37. Where the father is compared to the Sunne, the wife to the Moone, and the children to the ſtarres.
Fourthly, the Perſians had this ſoveraignty over their wives, they had a proverbiall kind of ſpeech which was, and they ſhall ſpeake the language of their owne people; that is, they ſhall live after the manner of their owne country, and have commandement over their wives, Eſth. 1.20. vejit tenu jecar, they put her in the maſculine gender, to ſignifie their ready obedience; for when the Hebrewes will commend a thing in women as well done, they put them in the maſculine gender: and againe, when they will diſcommend men, they put them in the feminine gender; becauſe now they have committed abomination with idols.
Since the fall, A collation betwixt the innocent, and old Adam.this heavenly order is mightily inverted, when the woman claymes ſoveraignty over the man, and will not bee ſubject to him: as ſhe ſeekes ſuperiority over her husband; ſo if ſhe could, ſhe would pull Chriſt out of his place, and God the Father out of his.
This inverting of natures order, hath ever a curſe joyned with it, when ſuch effect ſuperiority. Plutarch hath a very good apologue for this: the members of the body of the Serpent (ſaith hee) fell at variance among themſelves; the taile complained that the head had alwayes the governement, and deſired that it might rule the body; the ſimple head was content, but what became of it when the tayle tooke the guiding of the head and the reſt of the body? it pulled the head and the body, through the brambles and briars, and had almoſt ſpoyled the whole body. So let us remember that apologue of the bramble, Iudg. 9. When it got the ruling of the trees of the field, what became of them, a fire came out from it and burnt them.
In ſome caſe the Lord hath granted as great power to the woman over the man, as he hath granted to the man over the woman, as in the mutuall uſe of their bodies: and in this caſe he is as well ſubject to his wife, as he is her Lord: but in other things the man hath theſuperioritie over the woman.
Queſt. Seeing the woman hath as great right over the body of the man, as the man hath over her body, how is it that Rachel with her mandrakes perſwaded her husband to lye with her? Gen. 30.15. It might ſeeme ſhee had not ſuch a right to claime this of her huſband?
Anſw. In this polygamie, there was ſome cauſe of exception, becauſe a man had two wives at once, and that of Chriſt may be fitly applied here, One man cannot ſerve two maſters, Mat. 6.24.
God made the woman of the rib of Adam.
She was not made of the eye as the Hebrewes ſay, Prop. that ſhe ſhould not be wandring and unſtable like Dinah, Illuſt. Gen. 34.1. Neither was ſhe made of the eare, that ſhe ſhould not be auſcultatrix a hearkener like Sarah, Gen. 18.10.14. he made her not of the foot, that ſhee ſhould not be troden upon like the Serpent: But hee made her of the rib, that ſhe might be his collaterall, to eate of his morſels, drinke of his cup, and ſleepe in his boſome, 2 Samuel, 12.3.
Queſt. When God tooke this rib out of Adams ſide, whether had Adam a rib moe than enough; or when it was taken out whether wanted he a rib? To ſay that he wanted a rib, would imply an imperfection; to ſay that he had a rib moe than enough, would imply ſuperfluitie in Adam; which in the eſtate of innocencie cannot be granted.Nonut individuum ſed ut ſpecies.
Anſw. Adam muſt not bee conſidered as other men, but as he who repreſented whole mankind; and therefor he having a rib moe then other men have, who are but ſingular men, yet he had not a rib moe than enough. The ſeed which is in the body of man, is no ſuperfluitie in man, becauſe it ſerveth for the continuation of his kinde; So this rib was no ſuperfluous thing in Adam, although he had a rib more than the reſt of mankinde. We count it now a ſuperfluous thing, when a man hath moe fingers than ten, ſo to have moe ribs than twenty-foure.
Againe, if we ſay it was one of his ordinary ribs, it will not follow, that there was any defect, when this rib was taken out: for wee may ſafely hold, that God put in a new rib in place of it: for when Moſes ſaith, that God ſhut up the fleſh in place of it, it will not follow that he cloſed it up onelyonly with fleſh, but alſo with a rib, as Adam himſelfe afterward ſhewed, Gen. 2, 23. ſhe is fleſh of my fleſh, and bone of my bones.
Queſt. But how could ſo little a matter as a bone, become the whole body of a woman, was this the extending or rarifying of the bone, as wee ſee yee rarified into water: or was it by adding new matter to the bone?
Thomas anſwers, Secunda ſecundae an. 3.that this could not be by rarification of the bone, for then the body of Evah ſhould not have beene ſolid enough, but it was as he holds, by addition of new matter. As the five loaves which fed ſo many thouſands in the wilderneſſe. Mat. 14.17. was not by rarifying and extending them, but onelyonly by adding to them.
Queſt. Whethere was the matter which was added to the rib, firſt turned into a rib, and then made a woman, or was ſhe immediately made a woman of this rib, and the matter added to the rib?
Anſw. It ſeemeth more probable, that the womans body was made of this matter and the rib, without any new converſion of this matter into a rib; neither need wee to grant two converſions or changes. Therefore the ſchoolemen ſay well, non ſunt multiplicanda miracula: it is not probable, that all this matter was changed into a rib, and then it grew up into a body.
Queſt. Why is ſhe then rather ſayd to be made of the rib, then of the matter added to the rib?
Anſw. Becauſe principally and chiefly, God choſe that rib, to make the woman of it, and then hee added the reſt of the matter: although there was much more added to the fiue loaves (which fed the people in the wilderneſſe) than the ſubſtance of the five loaves; yet they are ſayd to bee filled with the five loaves, becauſe God tooke them firſt & chiefely for this miracle, by adding the reſt of the ſubſtance miraculouſly for feeding of the people.
But wee muſt marke here a difference, betwixt that which was added to the five loaves, and this which was added to the rib of the man; for in that which was miraculouſly added to the loaves, there was not a third thing made up of them: but of this rib and the matter added to it, Prop. the woman was made.
God made them two, one fleſh.
Firſt, Illuſt. Adam is created one; ſecondly, two are made out of one; Adam prlmò factus eſt unus, deinde duo; tertiò vnus, quarto duò.thirdly, two are made one againe, by conſent and conjunction: theſe three are the workes of God: but when they are diſſolved againe and made two by adultery, this is the worke of the divell.
There are three things betwixt the man and the wife; Illuſt. 2 firſt, Trialigamenta inter maritum & vxorem, unio, communio, & communicatio.vnien: ſecondly, communion: thirdly, communicating.
By vnion they are made one fleſh.
By communion, the man is not his owne, but his wives, the wife is not her owne, but her husbands.
Communicating, is of their goods: Plato willed that in his common-wealth, meum et tuum, ſhould not be heard betwixt the man and the wife: but all ſhould be called the husbands: for as wine mixed with water, although there be much water, and little wine, yet it is called wine: So although the wife bring much ſubſtance to the houſe, and the husband but little; Meum et tuum, meam mihi, tuum tibi, meotuum, tuo-meum.yet all ſhould be called the husbands. So that which is the husbands, muſt not bee reſerved for himſelfe alone, but make it meo-tuum, common with the wife. The wife participates of his ſubſtance, ſhe is bone of his bone and fleſh of his fleſh: ſo his name, he is iſh and ſhe is iſha. So among the Romanes, it was a proverbe, When thou art called Cajus, I ſhall be called Caia: therefore ſhee ſhould be partaker of his goods.
Queſt. How is the man and the wife one?
Anſw. They are not one, hypostatically: as Chriſt God and man: they are not one, myſtically: as Chriſt and his Church are one: they are not one, phyſically; as the foure Elements make up the body: Vnitas vel bypoſtatica, phyſica, artificialis, ſeu naturalis, et divina.they are not one artificially, as the ſtones and Timber make up a houſe: but this unity or conjunction is partly naturall, partly morall, and partly divine: the naturall part is, that they two are made one fleſh: the morall part is, that they ſhould bee alike in manners and condition; and the divine part is the conformitie in religion.
Queſt. How is it that the Apoſtle applyeth theſe words, (1 Corinth. 6.16. And they two ſhall bee one fleſh,) to the Whore and the Harlot, which is ſpoken of mariage here?
Anſw. There are two things in marriage, Duae ſunt partes matrimonij: materialis, & formalis.the materiall part, and the formall: the materiall part is the conjunction of the bodies, the formall part is the conjunction of the hearts, and the bleſſing of God upon them. The Whore and the Harlot are one fleſh, materially, but not formally, and thus is the Apoſtle to be underſtood.
And they two ſhall be one fleſh, Mat. 19.
This takes away digamie: That digamie is unlawfull.There are two ſorts of digamy, direct and indirect. He is called digamus properly, who hath two wives at one time, for this is direct digamie. Indirect digamy againe, is, when one wife being put away unjuſtly, Duplex digamia, directa, & indirecta.he marries another, and of this ſort of digamie, the Apoſtle ſpeakes, 1 Timothy 5.9. She muſt be the wife of one husband: by the Law of God, ſhe might not divorce from her firſt husband; but it was permitted amongſt the Iewes, & commanded amongſt the Gentiles. She was but the wife of the ſecond husband jure humano, Duplex jus; divinum, & humanum.by humane law: but ſhe was the wife of the firſt husband ſtill, jure divino, by the Law of God, and ſhee might not marry another ſo long as hee lived: if ſhe caſt him off, and married another then ſhe was the wife of two husbands.
The Church of Rome makes them Digamos, What the Church of Rome holds concerning Digamy.who marry one wife after another, although the firſt be dead or lawfully repudiate; and ſuch they debarre to be Prieſts quia imperfecte repraeſentant perſonam Chriſti, becauſe they repreſent Chriſts perſon imperfectly; for they ſay, Chriſt in virginitie, married his Church a Virgin: therefore a Prieſt being once married, and marrying againe the ſecond time, marries not in virginity, neither can he a type of Chriſt, and his Church. They hold moreover, that a man once being marryed, if his Wife dye, him they ſeclude not from the Prieſthood: but if a man marry a woman that hath beene marryed before, him they ſeclude from the Prieſthood. So if hee have marryed a divorced woman him they count digamos.
But all theſe grounds they have drawne from the ceremoniall Law: for the high Prieſt vnderunder the Law, might not marry a widow, a whore; nor a divorced woman: he might not marry a widow, becauſe he got not her firſt love: he might not marry a divorced woman, becauſe hee got not her juſt love, Levit 21.7.14. Hee might not marry a whore, becauſe hee got not her onelyonly love. So Chriſt will have of his Church, her firſt love, her juſt love, and onelyonly louelove: That which was typicall to the high Prieſt vnderunder the Law, is it lawfull for them to make a rule of it under the Goſpell?
So from the ceremoniall Law they have ordained, that none who hath any blemiſh in his body may be a Prieſt; ſuch they make irregular, and not capable of the Prieſthood.
So they make defectus natalitium an irregularity, that no baſtard can be a Prieſt, all borrowed from the ceremoniall law.
And they two ſhall be one fleſh, Mat. 19.
This condemnes polygamy as well as digamy, Conſeq. 2 for after marriage the man hath no more power over his body, but his wife, neither hath the wife power over her own body, but her husband: but it was never lawfull for the wife to have moe husbands at once: therefore it was never lawfull for the man to have more wives at once. A concubine among the Hebrewes is called foreign à foreign dividere virum, becauſe when hee is marryed to more, he is divided among them. Hence the Greeke word foreign, and the Latine pellex which we call a concubine, or halfe wife.
To prove that Polygamie is unlawfull, wee will confirme it by two places of Scripture: That Polygamy is unlawfull.the firſt is out of Levit. 18.18. Yee ſhall not take a woman to her ſiſter: that is, yee ſhall not take moe at once. That this verſe is meant of monogamie is proved by analogie with the 16. verſe, where it is ſaid, thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſſe of thy ſiſter in Law. Againe, the text would be too farre ſtrained if it were other wiſe interpreted, for the Scripture calls ſecond wives in polygamie, vexers or enviers as here: and the Greeke foreign, as Penninah is called the adverſary of Anna, the other wife of Elkanah, 1 Sam. 1.6. So Adah and Zillah, the wives of Lamech. Gen. 4.23. Thirdly, becauſe digamie and polygamy ſhould no wayes be diſcharged in all the Scriptures if not here except to the King, Deut. 17.16. which were contrary to the Scriptures: and this Chriſt maketh manifeſt, Mat. 19.5. and Paul, 1 Cor. 6.16.
The Karram among the Iewes, called by the Greekes foreign (theſe followed the literall ſenſe of the Scriptures, and therefore were called Domini verſuum:) they followed this interpretation. But the Phariſees (in Chriſts time) interpreted the words thus, Yee ſhall not take a wife and her ſiſter, ſo long as ſhe liveth: but after ſhee is dead ye may marry her ſiſter, for (ſay they) as two brethren may marry one wife, Deuteronomie 25.5. ſo may one man marry two ſiſters, one ſucceſſively after another.
But this was onelyonly a phariſaicall gloſſe contrary to the command of God: for when the Lord commanded one brother to raiſe up ſeed to another, that was onelyonly to his eldeſt brother, and therefore that place of Deuteronomy, If brethren dwel together, and one of them want ſeed: foreign Vnus is to be underſtood, Primus or primogenitus, for none of the brethren had this priviledge but the eldeſt brother, he was a type of Chriſt, that was the firſt borne among many brethren, Rom. 8.29. If ſeed had beene raiſed up to any of the reſt of the brethren, it had bin inceſt, Lev. 18.
The ſecond place to prove that polygamy is unlawfull, is out of Deuteronomie 17.17. The King ſhall not multiply wives.
The Phariſees who gave way to the ſinnes of the people, interpreted the Law thus: The King ſhall not multiply wives; that is, he ſhall not have too many wives; for they ſay David had eight wives, and yet this was no polygamy in him; they adde further, that it was lawfull for the King to have eighteene wives, as witneſſeth R. Salomon and Lyra. But they ſay Salomon trangreſſed this commandement, in multyplying wives.
In this ſame place of Deuteronomie, it is ſaid: the King ſhall not multiply gold and ſilver. Now ſay they, as the King might exceed other men in riches: why then was it ſimply diſcharged him to have many wives?
To this wee anſwere, that when the Lord makes his covenant, it binds him equally, Who ſits upon the Throne, and him who drawes the water, or hewes the wood, Deuteronomy 29.11. The King hath greater priviledges, in honours and dignities then other men have: but hee hath not greater power to ſinne, for hee is forbidden to multiply gold and ſilver: and that is, to ſeeke for more than may ſerve for his dignity and place: but hee might never multiply wives more then others: for the Law ſtands immoveable, Gen. 2, And they two ſhall be one fleſh.
Obiect. But the Lord ſaid to David, I have given thy maſters wives into thy boſome, 2 Sam. 12.8. Therefore a man might marry moe wives.
Anſw. God gives things two manner of wayes. Sometimes he gives them by a genrall diſpenſation and gift: and by this gift a man hath not a right to the thing, unleſſe hee get it confirmed by another right: and the things which God permits in this ſenſe, Dona a Deo dupliciter dantur. 1. generaliter, & permiſsivè. 2. exbene placito.may bee ſayd to bee. his gifts. As hee gave Nebuchadnezzar power over the Nations: but by this gift Nebuchadnezzar had no right, for God onelyonly permitted him to tyrannize over them. But when God confirmes this firſt gift to a man: then he gives it ex bene placito according to his good pleaſure, as he gave Eva to Adam, at the beginning.
God gave Sauls wives to David by the firſt gift, onelyonly by permiſſion: but he had never this gift confirmed, therefore no polygamie is lawfull.
Queſt. But what ſhall wee thinke of this polygamie of the fathers?
Anſw. Adulterium propriè et largè ſumptum.Wee cannot hold it to bee adultery, taking adultery properly: for if it had beene adultery in the proper ſignification: God who reproved David for his adultery ſo often, would not have ſuffered this ſin unreproved: but our Divines make it a ſinne leſſe than adultery, and more than fornication.
Yet taking adultery largely, it may be called adultery, Hoſea. 9.16. They ſhall commit adultery and ſhall, not increaſe: this ſeemes to be ſpoken of the polygamiſts, and not of the adulterers: for it were no puniſhment for. the adulterer to want children: but the Polygamiſts did chuſe many wives of ſet purpoſe, that they might multiply children. So that polygamy in the largeſt ſenſe, may be called adultery. Inceſt is ſometimes called fornication, 1 Corinth. 5. The leſſe ſinne is there put for the greater ſinne: ſo when polygamie is called adultery in the Scriptures, the more ſin is put for the leſſe, yet it is not properly adultery, becauſe God permitted it for the time, that his Church might increaſe.
Queſt. But how came it that the Prophets did not reprove this ſinne?
Anſw. There is in a Countrey a fourfold ſin: the firſt is called vitium perſonae, Quadruplex vitium; perſonae, gentis; vocationis, & ſaeculi.the ſinne of the perſon, that they reprooved, which was the ſin of a particular man.
Secondly, vitium gentis, the ſinne of a whole nation that ſin they reprooved: as the Prophets reproved the Iewes for their ſtiffeneckedneſſe and hypocriſie.
Thirdly, ther is vitium vocationis, the ſin of a mans calling, as Rahab is called a Taverner by Ioſ. 2.1. But Iames calls her a Harlot, Iames 2.25. This ſin they reproved.
Fourthly, there is vitium ſaeculi, when the ſinne overſpreds all, & is univerſally received as polygamy among the Iewes: and this ye ſhall find the prophets ſeldome to have reproved.
Queſt. Whether had the Iewes any diſpenſation of God in this their polygamie?
Anſw. Some hold that God gave them a diſpenſation: and to prove this, firſt they ſay that ſome Lawes are ſtable, as the ordinances of the Church, Lex ſancta, vel eſt ſlabilis, immobilis, velincommutobilis,which every man may not alter. Secondly, ſome lawes are immoveable, as the Lawes given by God himſelfe in his ſecond Table, cannot be diſpenſed with, but by God himſelfe who gave them. Thirdly, ſome Lawes are incommutable, which cannot be changed by God himſelf, without a ſtaine of his holineſſe.
They ſay, that theſe lawes of the ſecond table which God had made, flow not neceſſarily from him, as his juſtice and holineſſe doe, but freely: for theſe he wills, or not wills, without any ſtaine of his holineſſe. As for example: God is to be loved, therefore a man may not marry his brothers wife, this doth not follow neceſſarily in the ſtricteſt ſignification: but the precepts of the firſt table cannot bee diſpenſed with by God, without a ſtaine of his holineſſe. As for example God is to be beloved, therfore, he cannot diſpence that one ſhould hate him: ſine intrinſeca repugnantia.
They ſay, that God diſpenſed with the fathers in polygamy, becauſe God is aboue the Law, which is given betwixt creature and creature, which in that reſpect is immoveable, although God himſelfe may change it. But hee is not aboue the eternall law: becauſe hee is not above himſelfe; therefore hee cannot diſpence with that law which is repugnant to his eternity and glory; and theſe are the precepts of the firſt table. But ſeeing polygamy is in the ſecond table, God might diſpence with it, without any ſtaine of his holineſſe.
Againe, when it is demanded of theſe men, what ſcripture they can bring for this diſpenſation: They anſwer that God himſelfe ſaith to Abraham, Gen. 21. Hearken vntounto Sarah, in whatſoever ſhe ſaith to thee: by this admonition, Abraham was mooved to caſt out Hagar and her ſonne: although this might have ſeemed contrary to the law of nature, therefore the Text ſaith, this ſeemed hard to Abraham. So when God ſaith to Abraham, Hearken vntounto Sarah, in whatſoever ſhee ſaith to thee: and Sarah bade him take his owne hand-maide, Gen. 16.1. then Sarah was Gods mouth to him in that point alſo.
Anſw. Theſe words, Hearken unto Sarah in all that ſhe ſaith; are not to bee vnderſtood in whatſoever ſhee ſaith; but in all that ſhee ſaith concerning Hagar and her ſonne, in that he was to hearken to her. Againe, Abraham tooke Hagar before he got this direction for to hearken to Sarah: ſo that this place can be no warrant for a diſpenſation to the Patriarchs in their polygamy. it was onelyonly a permiſſion which God yeelded unto for the time, as hee granted them a bill of divorce for the hardneſſe of their hearts! but God cannot diſpence with any of his lawes, neither in the firſt nor ſecond Tables, they are ſo neere joyned together, that thoſe which breake the one, doe breake the other alſo.
Queſt. Why did not God puniſh this ſinne in the fathers?
Anſw. God doth three things concerning ſin. Firſt he pardons ſinne: ſecondly, he puniſheth ſinne, thirdly, he paſſeth by ſinne, Triafacit Deus peccatoribus, remittit peccatum, punit peccatum, & praeterit peccatum.Rom. 3.23. By the forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, that paſſed by.
A ſinne actually forgiven, and a ſinne paſſed by, differ. A ſinne is actually pardoned in the elect comming to knowledge, when they have remorſe for their ſinne; and finde the benefit of the pardon of the ſinne in particular. But God paſſeth by a ſinne, when the ſinner in particular knoweth not this ſinne to bee a ſinne which hee commits; and yet the remiſſion of this ſinne is concluded within the remiſſion of the reſt of their ſinnes. The fathers when they got a remiſſion of the reſt of their ſinnes in the bloud of Chriſt, they got alſo the remiſſion of the ſinne of polygamie, which was their ſinne of ignorance; and therefore they were to offer a ſacrifice for the ſinnes of ignorance, Levit. 4.15.17. and among the reſt for this polygamie.
Queſt. How differed concubines then from other wives? Firſt, they were not ſolemnly married as the other wives, neither was there any ſolemne contract betwixt them as betwixt the man and the wife; they had not dowrie; their ſonnes did not inherit; yet when they were married, the Scripture cals them wives; Iudg. 19.1, 2, after that Abſolon knew Davids concubines, 2 Samuel 16. David ſhut them up, and hee knew them no more, but he cloſed them up to the day of their death, and they lived in widowhood; whence Lyra gathereth well, that theſe concubines were wives.
Againe, to prove that polygamie is ſinne, and unlawfull, it is confirmed by Chriſts words; when hee reduced marriage to the firſt inſtitution againe, Math. 19. Whoſoever puts away his wife, and marrieth another, commits whoredome, much more he who keepes his wife, and takes another to her, commits whoredome. The Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7. gives the like authority to the wife over the husband, as he giveth to the man over the wife: as it was never lawfull for the wife to have moe huſbands at once, therefore it was not lawfull for a man from the beginning, to have moe wives at once.
This neere conjunction betwixt man and the wife, Prop. is called cleaving to her. Gen. 2.
Chriſt when he expoundes theſe words, Illuſt. hee ſaith, foreign agglutinatur uxori, hee is glewed to his wife: for as glew joynes two things together, and makes them one: ſo ſhould love be a glewing of their hearts together: amor coniugalis debet eſſe reciprocus, the glew muſt take hold on both ſides, Triplex eſt conjunctio, naturalis, politica, & ſpiritualis,or elſe the conjunction will not laſt long. There is a threefold conjunction; firſt, naturall: ſecondly, polytike, and thirdly, ſpirituall, the firſt is common to us with the beaſts, the ſecond with the heathen and the third proper onelyonly to the Chriſtian: this third muſt be the chiefe ingredient, this is that which they ſay, Nuptiae inchoantur in coelis, perficiuntur in terris, Marriages are begun in heaven, and perfected upon the earth: then thalamus erit pro templo, & thorus pro altari, that is, the wedding chamber ſhall be for the Church, and the marriage bed for the Altar.
The woman was made a helper to the man.
This helpe ſtands in three things. Prop. Firſt, in religion, 1 Pet. Illuſt. 3.7. Take heed that yee jarre not, leaſt Satan hinder your prayers, Tria adiumenta confert vxor viro ſuo. 1. in religiòne.he is ſpeaking to the man & the wife here: ſuch a helper was Priſcilla to Aquilla, Acts 18, Iobs. wife was not a helper to him in his religion, who bade him curſe God and dye: Iob 2. nor Michol to David, when ſhe ſcorned him as hee was dancing before the Arke, 2 Samuel 6. ſhe was a hinderance to him in his religion. So Salomons wives, when they drew him to Idolatry, 1 King. 11. were not helpers to him in his religion.
Paul notes three ſorts of conjunction, Triplex conjunctio; carnalis, ſpiritualis, & ſpiritus, & carnis.1 Corinth. 6.16. the firſt is in the fleſh onelyonly, as betwixt a man and a whore, or a harlot: the ſecond in the ſpirit onelyonly, as betwixt Chriſt and his members; the third, in the fleſh and the ſpirit, when two faithfull are maried together: ſuch will helpe one another in religion.
Secondly, ſhe muſt helpe him in his labours, 2. in laboribus.a waſting woman is compared to the ivie, it ſeemes to uphold the tree, and in the meane time ſuckes out the juyce of it. A fooliſh woman overthrowes her houſe Proverbes 14.1. but a vertuous woman is compared to a fruitfull Vine, Pſalme 128.
Thirdly, now after the fall, 3. in doloribus.ſhee muſt helpe in his griefes. Ezek. 24.16. ſhe is called, the delight of his eyes, ſo Proverbes 5.19. ſhee is called his hinde or Roe: ſhee muſt not bee like a drop of raine, or as a ſmoake in the houſe, continually to moleſt and trouble it, Prov. 19.13.
She was made a helper like to himſelfe? Prop.
The ſimilitude betwixt the man and the wife, Illuſt. conſiſts in three things. Firſt; they muſt be like in piety, Triplex ſimilitudo vxoriad virum. 1 in pietate. 2 gradibus dignitatis.for this, ſee before in the former propoſition.
Secondly, they muſt be alike in degrees, there would not be too great inequalitie betwixt the perſons who marry: but ſome make the inequalitie in their owne eſtimation, where theee is none at all.
That apologue in the 2 King 14.9. ſheweth this well. The Thiſtle of Lebanon ſent to the Cedar of Lebanon to make a mariage with it, but the beaſts of the field treade downe the Thiſtle But there was not ſo great oddes betwixt the ten tribes and the two tribes as betwixt the baſe Thiſtle, and the tall Cedar of Lebanon: this came onelyonly from the high conceit which they had of themſelves.
The Iewes have another apologue, very fit for this purpoſe. They ſay that the Moon upon a time ſought to marry with the Sunne, the Sun ſaid that the Moon could be no match to him; for he ruled the day and the yeare, hee nouriſhed all things with his heate, hee ruled the heart of man, the moſt excellent part of the body, and by his heate hee breedes the gold, the moſt excellent of the metals. But the Moone replied, that there was not ſo great oddes; for if the Sunne ruled the day, She ruled the night; if the Sunne ruled the yeare, ſhe ruled the moneths: if hee nouriſhed things with his heate, yet hee ſcorched and burned many of them: and if it were not for the moyſture which they receive of her in the night, they would quickly periſh; if he ruled the heart of man, ſhe rules the braine of man; if he breed the gold, ſhee breedes the ſilver: therefore there is not ſo great oddes betwixt the Sunne and the Moone, but they may marry together.
Thirdly, 3. In aetate.the man and the woman muſt bee like in age. The mother of Dionyſius the tyrant, being very old, deſired her ſonne to cauſe a young man to marry her: he anſwered; I can doe any thing, but I cannot inforce nature: Naomi ſaid, Ruth 1. I am too old to marry againe.
Among the Spartanes, there was a ſet time for their marriage: and they had poenam foreign upon theſe who had deferred their marriage too long: their puniſhment was, that they were never ſuffered to marry. Where theſe three reſpects before mentioned (to wit, religion, degrees, and age) are not obſerved in marriage; oftentimes the conjunction of them, is like the coupling of Sampſons foxe-tayles, Iudg. 15. which had a fire-brand bound betwixt every of them; ſo theſe that are unequally yoaked, the firebrand of Gods wrath falls betwixt them ſometimes.
Before the fall, Prop. it was not good for man to bee alone, Gen. 2.
It is good for man not to be alone, Illuſt. for the propagation of mankinde: but it is good for man to be alone, in reſpect of that, quod bonum utile vocamus, that is, when hee hath the gift of God to abſtaine, for the kingdome of God, Matth. 19. that hee may the more exerciſe himſelfe in theſe holy duties of prayer, and other religious exerciſes.
Here we muſt marke, that there is a twofold good; Duplex bonum; expedientiae, & morale.to wit, the good of expediencie, and morall good. Morall good is oppoſite to ſinne, but not expedient good. When Paul ſaith, it is not good to marry, his meaning is, that it is not expedient good at that time to marry, not that hee would make it a ſinne; for he ſaith alſo, if he marry, he ſinnes not.
In reſpect of circumſtances, at that time it was better not to marry, this is onelyonly bonum ſecundum quid, reſpectively good in reſpect of the perſecutions that were that time riſen in the Church under the perſecuting Emperours.
Virginity is not a vertue of it ſelfe, Prop. and no more acceptable before God, than marriage is.That Virginity is not a vertue, and therefore not to be vowed.
This is proved by two reaſons: the firſt is, that all vertues by repentance may bee reſtored to man. Reaſon 1 But virginity cannot be reſtored by repentance, therefore virginity is not a vertue.
All vertues in time and place are commanded, Reaſon 2 but virginity is left free, and onelyonly Paul gives his adviſe in it, 1 Cor. 7. Therefore it is not a vertue.
Gerſon uſeth a third reaſon thus, Reaſon 3 All vertues are connexae, coupled together; and he who hath one of them is capable of them all; but married folkes who have other vertues, are not capable of irginity; therefore virginity is not a vertue.
But this reaſon holds not, Virtutes; vel ſunt perfectae, vel imperfectae.becauſe all vertues are coupled together that are perfect vertues: but theſe that are imperfect vertues, are not alwayes coupled together. The perfect vertues are prudency, temperancy, fortitude and juſtice, he that hath one of theſe hath all the reſt, but a man may have one of the inferiour vertues, and not have the reſt, as the Church of Epheſus had patience, and ſuffered many things for Chriſt, yet ſhe fell from her firſt love, Revel. 2.
Object. But the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Corinth. 7. The unmarried pleaſeth the Lord, therefore Virginitie is a vertue.
Anſw. Dupliciter placemus Deo; in Chriſto, & in officio: ſeu cauſaliter & conſequenter.We pleaſe God two wayes; firſt, onelyonly by his Sonne Chriſt as the cauſe; ſecondly, we pleaſe God in that calling, that God hath called us to; if wee have the gift of continency, then we pleaſe him in the unmarried life; if we have not the gift, then we pleaſe him in marriage, 1 Tim. 2.15. Women ſhall be ſaved through hearing of children; that is, they pleaſe God, when they are called to that eſtate, to live in wedlocke, and to bring up their children in his feare; then they teſtifie that they are in Chriſt; ſo that we pleaſe God as well in the one eſtate as in the other.
Queſt. But ſeeing Virginity is not a vertue, what will yee make it then?
Anſw. Duplex bonum, per ſe, & ad aliquid.There is a twofold good; Firſt, that which is good in it ſelfe; Secondly, that which is good for another end; faſting is not a thing that is good in it ſelfe; for a man is not accepted before God that he faſts; it is but good for another end, that is, when he faſts that he may be the more religiouſly diſpoſed. So virginitie is not a thing that is good in it ſelfe, but good for another end, that is, when a man lives a ſingle life, having the gift of Chaſtitie, that hee may be the more fit to ſerve God.
Virginity is no more acceptable before God than marriage; therefore the Church of Rome preferring virginitie ſo farre above marriage, is ſtrangely deluded: for they gloſſing that parable of the ſower, Mat. 13. ſay that Virginitie bringeth out a hudred fold; Widowhood ſixtie fold; and mariage, but thirty fold.
Againe they ſay, quod conjugium pertinet ad veniam; Sanct. Mart-apud Sulpitium, lib. 3.virginitas ad gloriam; & fornicatio ad poenam, that is, marriage hath need of pardon; virginity deſerves glorie, and fornication puniſhment.
Thirdly, they ſay, that there are three crownes; Pontificij tres coronas ſtatuunt, martyrum, virginum, & doctorum: cui tres oponuntur inimici, caro, mundus, Diabolus.one for martyrs; a ſecond for virgins; and the third for Doctors. To theſe (ſay they) there are three enemies oppoſite: the fleſh, the world, and the Divell; the virgines overcome the fleſh; the martyres overcome the world; and the Doctors overcome the Divell, by teaching the people, and drawing them out of his tyranny; but they ordaine no crowne for the married eſtate; and thus they make the ordinances of God preſcribed in his Word, and eſtabliſhed by himſelfe, to bee of none effect.
Soli Deo gloria.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Weemes, The Portraiture of the Image of God in Man (1636)