Letter of Resolution to Six Queries, Query 3

Letter of Resolution to Six Queries · Query 3

p. 83The third Quaere.

CHAP. I. Concerning Polygamy and Divorces.

OF this subject I haveaaPract Ca…. l. 2. Sect. 7. formerly spoken as farre as seemed necessary for the informing of vulgar understandings: But to satisfie the Objections of some, which have appeared in publick, and out of a foresight of possible, if not approaching, Evils; and because there is more hope of obstructing their entrance, then of removing them after admission: It may be both charitable and seasonable to take a larger view of this matter, and to vindicate it from the prejudices under which it hath faln, and to which the pride and lusts of men have subjected it in these licentious dayes.

p. 84§. 1 And first it will not be amiss to imitate Christs method, The Law of the Creation in this.Mat. 19. who in answer to this same Quaere proposed by the Pharisees, recalleth and remitteth them from the dispensation which had been made, and the corrupt practises which had crept in among the Jews, to the first institution of God in the creation, v. 4, 5. That institution is expressed in these words in Genesis, A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh, Gen. 2.24.

§. 2 And from Christs interpretation of it, which is most certainly authentick, Conclusions from Christs interpretation of that.1. That the [they] is [they twain] and 2. That those that are thus united by this institution of Gods, are not separable by any act of man, Mat. 19.6. And 3. that there was in Gods institution but one only case reserved, wherein, according to his Will, there should be place for Divorces, [viz. that case of fornication in the wife, so contrary to the ends and vow of marriage] the result is immediate and evident, that by the law of his creation, a man was to marry but one wife, and being marryed, he was obliged (unless in that one case allowed of by God) so to cleave to her, as never to separate or depart from her.

§. 3 Of this institution thus set down, there are visibly two branches,Two parts of that law. one for the interdicting of Polygamy, or having at p. 85once more wives then one, the other for prohibiting of Divorces in all but that one case.

The words [foreign, they §. 4 two shall be one flesh] (which Plato appears to have learned as he did other things, out of Moses, First an interdict of Polygamy.when in his dialogue foreign, he saith, that anciently male and fema…e were put together into one body) are an evident interdict of Polygamy, being an affirmation that the husband and wife, being originally but one, though divided into two bodies, are now by Gods institution, in stead of the first natural oneness, morally become one person, i. e. in reputation of divine law, and by vertue of their vow, have but one will in those things, wherein that union is to consist, i. e. in conjugal matters, and consequently that the one hath not power or liberty to dispose of himself, without the consent of the other, the thing which S. Paul affirms as that which is known in marriage, 1 Cor. 7.4.

And so it appears by Christs reasoning, §. 5 when from that union he concludes the perpetual unlawfulness of putting away, Polygamy adulterous.v. 6. which could not be unlawful from the beginning, if that no power over himself were not the meaning of that union, which was then instituted. So again when Christ not onelyonly forbids Divorces (save in that one case) but also saith, that p. 86if they marry again, they are adulterous, this is an evidence that Polygamy is adulterous also.

§. 6 For though the putting away a wife (save onelyonly in case of fornication) be an offence against the conjugal vow, and contrary to that union forementioned, the man having not power over his own body, without the consent of the other part of him, his wife; yet without his marrying again, he doth not himself actually commit adultery (onelyonly gives her temptat…on to commit adultery, The adulterousness of Divorces consists in the second marriage.Mat. 5.32.) By which 'tis evident, that the marrying that second wife, while the former lives, is that in which that mans adultery formally consists, and consequently that the having two wives together must necessarily be adultery also (according to that first institution and law of Gods) when the former is not divorced.

§. 7 To which purpose it may be remembred what was incidentally shewn in theaa§. 16. The interdict of Polygamy, Lev. 18.18.Lev 18:18 former discourse, that though Polygamy was dispensed with, and so permitted the Jews in order to the multiplying that people, (in which respect many other things are observable in the Jewish writings, as peculiar to them: as when the Talmudists resolve, That every Jew was bound to marry, that he was a murtherer that did not, Gemara Babyl: tit. Jabim. c. 6. And so Josephus, that the characteristick p. 87propriety of the Iews, wherein they differed from other people, was foreign, getting of children) yet under the style of taking one wife to another, it was formally prohibited them, Lev. 18.18. in the close of the interdicted marriages (all which by the Positive Law of God, A recital of the law of the Creation.had been, from the beginning, forbidden, and are all comprehended under the title of disclosing of nakedness, the fourth of those precepts to the sons of Adam) Thou shalt not take one wife to another to vex her, (to provoke her jealousie, to deprive her of any part of that which was due to her) in her life time. And it will anon appear, that the most unlawful divorce (that which was founded no otherwise then in some dislike of the first wife, or of stronger inclinations to some other) is by God himself preferred before this taking in another, to vex her, Mal. 2.

And accordingly it is the determination §. 8 of some Iews, I say not how truly,The opinion of some Jews of Polygamy. that the Mosaical permission of Divorces, is the onelyonly account, upon which Polygamy can become reconcileable even with Moses's Law. So Rabbi Ami in Gemar. Babyl. tit. Iabimoth, c. 6. Every one that marries a wife to a wife, must put away the first, and endow her.

And though in the case of Hagar, and §. 9 the handmaids of Iacobs wives, Concubinacy with consent of the wife.the consent of the wives, and their giving them p. 88to their husbands, that they might bear children in their stead, (Gen. 16.2. and 30.9.) do make a visible difference from all other Co…cubinacies or second marriages, Without it.wherei the former wife doth not consent, yet had this most moderate sort of Polygamy, or rather Concubinacy, (which is but a species of Polygamy, differing from it onelyonly in some formalities, and in respect of the manner of endowing the woman, and the law of the childrens not succeeding to the inheritance with the children of the wife, to which the Apostle refers,Both unlawful till dispensed with. Gal. 4.30.) been absolutely unlawful, as contrary to the institution of marriage in the first creation, had not God, for the increasing of Abrahams seed, been pleased to dispense with it.

§. 10 This dispensation we finde not in the Law, when it was given, but see it supposed in the case of the maid-servant, Exod. 21.10. If he take him another wife, &c. and Deut. 21.15. If a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated, (both certainly at the same time) and the assigning a portion in the inheritance to the son of the superinduced, supposeth him to be a legitimate issue. And the example of David, a man after Gods own heart, so great a Prophet, and type of Christ, and yet so great a Polygamist, and that mentioned as the gift of God, and a blessing upon him, 2 Sant. 12.8. are farther p. 89evidences of it. Yet this, I suppose, given to that people, not infinitely, but with some temper, if the Polygamist treated the first, as he ought, and rendred her the duty of marriage. So in that of Exod. 21.10. in case of the servant taken to wife, which failed of some privileges, which the free-woman had, yet If he take him another wife, her food and her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. The last of which the Septuagint renders foreign, and S. Paul seems to paraphrase by foreign. And if this were not done, if the first wife were hated in comparison of the second, i. e. partially and injuriously dealt with, then was this the sin mentioned Mal. 2.14. and there charged on the Iews by the Prophet, the dealing treacherously with the wife of his youth, when God had been a witness between them, and she was the wife of his Covenant. And if any did then so multiply wives, not for propagation, but for lust, or to satisfie a wandring appetite, (a symptome of which it was, if the superinduced were more kindely treated, to the grieving of the first) without question that was then treachery, and falseness, and adultery in that Iew, and is so called from God, Mal. 2.16. and pronounced by him utterly unlawfull.

Accordingly, As among the Iewes §. 11 p. 90themselves, which took their liberty in the greatest latitude, Prohibitiōs of Polygamy among Jews and Gentiles.it was not allowed the high priest to have more then one (He must not have two together, saith Maimonides Halach Isuri bia c. 17. and Gemara Babyl. collects it from Lev. 21.13. for it is there written, say they, foreign one wife, and not two) so from the reliques of that law of the first creation, this was among the heathens so farre resented as unlawful, that though the Persians and Indians, by barbarous customes having worn out the remains of the law, are confessed to have practised it, yet the civiller of the nations did religiously abstain from it. The Germans, saith Tacitus, in his time, contented themselves with one wife apiece. Among the Athenians, Cecrops revived the practise, foreign, and joyned, or yoked, one woman to one man, saith Athenaeus. And of the Romans 'tis known, they never used that liberty of taking more. And even among the Aegyptians, their Priests (which were most knowing, and most observant of duty) solemnly abstained from it, saith A. Gellius, l. 15. c. 22.

§. 12 And ever since Christs coming to reform the world (and that in no one thing,All forbidden under Christ. more then in restraining unbridled lusts in the fountain, Mat. 5.8, 28, 29, 30, 32.) 'tis evident by his words opposed to p. 91the Mosaicall indulgence, and by the strictness that is by him superadded to the Iewish doctrines concerning Divorces, that it is in universum prohibited to all Christians; and being pronounced adultery, either simply, Mar. 10.11. and Luk. 16.18. or in case of any but one kind of Divorce, Mat. 19.19. (when yet the former wife, by being sent out of the house, is more moderately ill treated, and so comparatively a gainer by it, being freed from the vexation of the foreign or rival) it must needs be acknowledged so, when that is not the case.

In this I foresee not any farther considerable difficulty, and therefore I proceed to the second branch, that concerning Divorces.

p. 92CHAP. II. Of Divorces.

§. 1 IN this matter of Divorces also, if Christ may be beleived,The first Institution. the interdict was positive and clear in the first Institution (at the creation of man and woman) that the man should so cleave to the wife, as to be inseparable from her, and that without any reserve or exception, save in that onelyonly case of falseness to the marriage-bed, or fornication.

§. 2 This, though it were not named by Moses in that place,The case of Fornication in the wife, reserved in the first Institution. where that strict union is expressed, Gen. 2.24. was yet, it seems, folded up in that first law (for to that onelyonly Christ in his reformation of this part of the Iewish oeconomy refers the matter.) In like manner, I suppose, as liberty to works of mercy and necessity, and the service of the Temple, was reserved in the law of the Iewish Sabbath, so that there needed no intervention of new law or dispensation to make it lawful to divorce and separate in that one case, any more then to heal, or draw the oxe out of the ditch on the Sabbath day, but in the very Institution p. 93it self it was alwayes lawfull.

Thus certainly it stood by the law of §. 3 the creation: and for any other liberty, foreign, from the beginning it was not instituted so. So saith S. Jerome, l. 1. advers. Jovinian. Ab exordio conditionis humanae nec carnibus vescebamur, nec dabamus repudium, From the beginning of mans creation we did neither eat flesh nor use divorces.

But then, as of Positive Laws it was §. 4 formerly cleared, that they may,The Jews dispensation herein. when God pleases, be dispensed with, to those with whom he pleases, so it must be acknowledged, That among the Jews, such dispensation was given, to divorce in other cases, beside that singular reserved one of Fornication. And though from the words of Christ it must be concluded, that the reason of that dispensation was not the same with that other of Polygamy, nor so justifiable and clear from blame, (the hardness of their hearts, The occasion of it.to which it is affixt, fastening an ill character upon it, as that which, in a manner, extorted from God the mitigation of the severity of the Law, in respect of the punishment, rather then perswaded the taking off the obligation of it) yet this is but an account of the different reasons of Gods actions, no way concluding against his liberty of permitting that to some, by dispensing with a Positive law, which p. 94otherwise had alwayes stood more universally prohibited.

§. 5 This dispensation to the Jews is set down first Deut. 24.1.Deut. 24.1.Deut 24:1 and referred to Mal. 2.16. In Deuteronomy the words are, When a man hath taken a wife and marryed her, and it come to pass that she finde no favor in his eyes, because he hath found foreign, which we render some uncleanness, or matter of nakedness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house, and when she is departed, she may go and be another mans wife, v. 2. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, or if he dye, the former husband may not take her again to be his wife, v. 3, 4.

§. 6 In this place, wherein the Jewish Charter of beloved Liberty is contained,The Jews interpretation of it. great contention there hath alwayes been among their Doctors, how largely it might be extended, some interpreting it (by the former clause [her not finding favor in his eyes] and the mention of hating, v. 3.) to such a width, that whosoever disliked his wife, might thus speedily quit himself of her, and that foreign, whatsover the cause of dislike were. Others have been content that this immense latitude should be limited by the latter clause to matters of turpitude or p. 95nakedness, whatsoever that signifie, it being by all resolved, that it signifies not the sin of adultery onelyonly.

To state and decide this Controversie §. 7 betwixt the two pretensions of their Doctors, will not be worth our pains and stay, neither of those liberties being originally their due, much less the Christians portion. Yet of the Text it self two things may briefly be observed, 1.The ground of the Jewish divorces. That the immediate ground of the mans divorcing the wife, is specified to be her finding no favor in his eyes, v. 1. his hating her, v. 2. i. e. disliking her either absolutely, or comparatively with some other, whom he preferred before her, and that the foreign matter of uncleanness or nakedness, The occasion of that ground.is but the motive or occasion of that dislike or disfavor. 2. That when he thus thought fit to gratifie his lust or fancy with variety, the obligations lay on him, 1. To write a bill of divorce, The Restrictions in the dispensation.and give it in her hand, as an act of manumission, and sealing her liberty to her: and 2. to send her out of his house, which, I suppose, signifies the furnishing her for her journey, endowing her, making provision for her, for so foreign,foreign. to send out, signifies in the New Testament, to provide a viaticum, 1 Cor. 16.6, 11. Act. 15.3. Tit. 3.13. where 'tis explain'd by foreign, that they have no want of any thing: and accordingly in p. 96Rabbi Ami before cited, the endowing the wife, is annexed to the putting her away.

§. 8 Both which are in favor of the wife, privileges that accrew to her,The advantages to the wife in divorce. to make the injury supportable. And the effect of them is, That she may go and be another mans wife, v. 2. be marryed to some other that will like her, and treat her better; and by way of mulct to the husband, that if he shall after be willing to rescind his unkinde divorce, and receive her back again after the decease (or divorce again) of the second husband, he is not permitted to do it. To which it is added in Shulcan Aruch, c. 10. §. 1. that if she that is thus divorced be afterwards defiled, the husband is then bound to take her again, which, if it be true, will render it no very valuable liberty, or advantage to the husband, that he might thus put her away.

§. 9 This makes it less necessary to inquire what the foreign there signifies,The unjustifiableness of the husband. which is rendred as the cause of his dislike: for if, the dislike being supposed, the law of Divorce were designed more for the wives, then the husbands advantage, to free her from the pain and vexation of his unkindeness, and the greater danger of anothers being taken in, and preferred before her; It matters little what the husbands cause of dislike was, it p. 97being very far, whatever it were, from being justified, or made blameless by this Law.

From the place therefore in Deuteronomy, §. 10 I proceed to that other in Malachi, The place for Divorces Mal. 2.Mal 2which is fully agreeable to what hath been concluded from hence, though it be somewhat darkened in the prophetical style, especially by our vulgar misrendring of it, which having not formerly been adverted by me, may have betrayed the Reader of the Practical Catechism (p. 130.) to some mistake, for which, being obliged to make him satisfaction, this literal interpretation, A Paraphrase of it.and brief Paraphrase of a few verses, will help to do it.

This people are frequently §. 11 guilty of breach of their vows of wedlock, Ver. 14. The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,Or, whom thou hast forsaken, foreign, or despised. against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.taking in to their Lawfull Jewish wives, heathen women that are unlawful, and preferring these latter, to the great injury and vexation of the former, not considering the obligation of kindeness, as to those which have long been married to them, nor of justice, as to those, to whom, by their vow of marriage, they are strictly bound never to take in any others, to the wronging p. 98and vexing of them; nor of piety, as to those, who by being of the same Religion with them, are much fitter for their friendship and company, and to whom withall they are joyned by a most sacred tye, to which God was called as a witness. By all which it appears what a false, what an impious dealing this is.

§. 12 Ver. 15. Did that one (or, the first) do so? of whose spirit we are the residue. And what did that One? (or, First?) he was seeking a seed of God (or, a godly seed:) therefore restrain your spirit, and do not despise the wife of your youth.In this matter it would do well, that you, that boast your selves to be the children of Abraham, and expect great priviledges from thence, would think fit to imitate that first Father of yours, the Rock whence ye are hewn, Isa. 51.1, 2. (called therefore One foreign, as One, (for want of degrees of comparison in Hebrew) is equivalent with First, as foreign Mat. 28.1. the one, i. e. the first of the week; and as the first denotes the Father, or first of that Nation) whose actions are to be copyed out by you, that ye may be the children of his piety, as well as of his body. Now of Abraham it it is eminently known, That although his wife Sarah p. 99were barren, and so able to bring him no childe, yet he would by no means take in to her any Idolatrous heathen wife; he intended and designed this one thing, the having children that should worship God, and so would not be tempted by her barrenness to take in an heathen wife, which might betray them to the contrary: whereas you, without that temptation, take in heathen wives to the Jewish, which you have long enjoyed, yea and preferre those mothers which will bring up your children to heathenisme. Let this example of his restrain your wrath or displeasure (called foreign spirit, Job 15.13. where turning the spirit against God, is, being angry with him; and Zech. 6.8. where quieting Gods Spirit, is appeasing his wrath) and do not you use your wives thus unkindely, which have lived so long, and so friendly with you. §. 13

For by the law of God, Ver. 16. For the Lord God of Israel saith, foreign a If thou hatest, put away, which Jarchi interprets, foreign If any of you hate a wife, let him put her away. So Gemara Babyl. ad tit. Gitt…n, c. 9. Rabbi Jahuda said, foreign If thou hat…st her, put her away. If thou hatest her, put her away, for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of Hosts; therefore restrain your spirit, that you deal not treacherously.Deut. 24.1. thou art obliged, in case of such dislike and hating of thy wife, rather then thus to vex p. 100and grieve her, by taking in and preferring another, to the despising and rejecting her, to dismiss her by bill of divorce, that so she may marry some other that wil be more kinde to her, at least be removed from that vexation. And thy keeping her thus in thy house to see her self wronged and hated, is but a sad disguise or salve for thy injustice toward her, that which will yield her no more relief, then the hiding one, whilest I do him injury, casting a garment over him (by which marriage is wont to be described) whilest I use him most contumeliously. Wherefore, I say again, restrain your wrath and displeasure against your wives, and be not thus perjuriously false to them any longer.

§. 14 Thus in both these places thus explained, but especially in the latter, where there is no mention of turpitude, or any other accusation laid against her, the divorcing of the hated wife meerly on the husbands dislikes, and aversations, without any real, or even pretended Crime, appears to have been permitted among the Jews; Divorces, foreign.which sort of dislikes of his being multiplied according to his will, it follows, that it was, as the Pharisees say, Mat. 12.3. foreign, upon every p. 101cause, foreign, for any kinde of accusations, saith Josephus, Ant. l. 4. c. 8. foreign, upon any occasion, saith Philo de Special. leg. ad praec. 7. and as Josephus in his own life saith of himself, foreign, upon dislike to her manners, certainly upon many others beside that one of fornication.

OnelyOnly the occasion of this permission §. 15 must be taken notice of,The permission of them but comparative. which is both by Moses and Malachi so assigned, as to render it rather a comparative, then an absolute permission, rather to put away the hated wife, then by taking in another, to be false and voxatious to her; and so, when it was permitted, as an act of mercy and pity to the wife, And in pity to the w f….(and accordingly the bill of Divorce is in Syriack styled foreign The bill of Propriety, Mat. 5.31. whereby she is set at liberty from that unhappy yoke, and foreign, saith Josephus, By this means she hath power to marry another, Ant. l. 4. c. 8.) rather then of indulgence to the husband.

And that notion of that permission §. 16 Christ may seem to have had,And for hardness of their hearts when he saith, that for the hardness of their hearts Moses suffered them to put away their wives, Mat. 19.8. For although those words may possibly signifie no more then a general mark of the obstinacy of this p. 102prevailing humor, that (among them, when that permission was given) was not to be suppressed by laws, as a Chronical disease resists Physick, and as Tacitus saith of adulta vitia, grown vices, that it is better to pass them over in silence, then by unseasonable prohibitions to let men know, quibus flagitiis impares sumus, that some vices are too hard for us; Yet the force of the words may very well be extended to this also, that they were such a stiff-necked people, and particularly so implacable to their loathed wives, that unless they had liberty to remove them and make new choyces, they would do that which would be much more ingrateful to those wives; and that therefore not onelyonly those practises were tenderly handled, and punishments suspended, but a permission explicitely allowed them for the avoiding of somewhat worse.

§. 17 But this, all this while, if we will beleive our Saviour, And contrary to the first institution.diametrally contrary to that which had been from the beginning, Mat. 19.8. i. e. (as, I conceive, the context inforceth) to the first Institution of God or the law of the Creation.

§. 18 For although the learnedaaDe Jure Belli, i. II. c, 5. sect. …. Hugo Grotius be inclinable to interpret it onelyonly of the quid Optimum, Deo{que} Gratissimum, &c. that which was best, and most acceptable to God, yet sure our Saviours words are p. 103clear, v. 5. from Gen. 2.24. that A man shall, i. e. is obliged to leave father and mother, and to cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh, and that this was a conjunction of Gods making, v. 6. All which being in form of Precept [A man shall] and [they two shall] and that founded in the taking the first woman out of the mans side (which was a signal embleme of the designed unity) and the words in Gen. 2.24. [Therefore shall a man cleave to his wife] being not part of Adams speech precedent, but either a conclusion, and deduction made by the writer of the Book, and so referring to some known law to that purpose; or, as by Christs citation of it, Mat. 19.5. it is evident, the Command of God himself, a law then enacted by him, He that made them, v. 4. said, For this cause shall a man leave father, &c. And indeed the law of disclosing of Nakednesses, or of Fornication, Act. 15 (i. e. the prohibition of all conjunctions, but that of the one husband and one wife) being one of the Precepts vulgarly known among them by that title of the Precepts of the sons of Adam, to w^ch Moses there, and Christ here might most properly refer, I cannot discern any reason or place of doubting,All Divorces but one unlawful by the first institution. but that this great conjugal Law, was the Law (though not of Nature, yet) of the first Creation, wherein all mankinde was concerned, p. 104and so that by it all those Divorces were prohibited.

§. 19 To which I may adde, That it is one of the sentences of Ben Syra a Jew, The Jews …onfession.foreign Gnaw the bone which hath faln to thy lot; which the Comment set out by Paulus Fagius applies peculiarly to this matter, and concludes that he dothill, if he put her away, though she be ill, i. e. that every fault of the wife doth not subject her to this severity or excision: Which, though it be no evidence of the practise of the Jews, which 'tis known was contrary; yet it is an argument, that the sober and wise men, even among them, to whom this dispensation was given, had no honorable opinion of it.

§. 20 The case standing thus among the Jews, and some dispensation of the Primogenial law being allowed them, or rather, by the temper of the people, and the obstinacy of the disease, and for the relief of the oppressed hated wife, extorted from the Law-giver, Christs dealing in this matter.Christ comes from heaven to the review and reformation of this, among other laws, and in direct opposition to what had been said among the Jews in this matter, Mat. 5.31. i. e. to the liberty allowed them, he pronounceth for the future to them and all other Christians, that whosoever makes use of that indulgence, puts away his wife, save for (that p. 105one crime of) fornication, he causeth her to commit adultery, i. e. gives her the strongest temptation imaginable, betrayes her to the utmost hazard of doing it, and, as S. Luke addes in his reciting of that passage, Luk. 16.18. If he marryeth another (as in all probability he designs to do, when he thus puts away the first upon such dislikes) he committeth adultery; and whoso marryeth her that is divorced, A threefold adultery in it.committeth adultery. A threefold complicated adultery the effect of such an unlawful Divorce, and second marriage attending it.

And so again, Mat. 19.9. and Mar. §. 21 10.6. the same words are, on another occasion, again repeated. Two places of such clearness and perspicuity (one cause of divorce allowed the Christians, that great breach of the conjugal Vow, and whosoever divorces and marries again, save in that one case punctually named, committeth adultery) that as no Paraphrase can make them more intell gible: so there is but one question that can reasonably be started in them, viz. The onelyonly question, Whether after Divorce for fornication it be lawful to marry again.Whether he that puts away his wife on this one authentick cause, be so perfectly freed from the conjugal Vow and bands, that he may lawfully, by the same laws both of God to the sons of Adam, and of Christ to his followers, marry some other woman, and some other man marry p. 106that divorced adulterous wife.

§. 22 The occasion of this doubt the variety of the words,The occasion of this question. wherein this speech of Christs is expressed in the Gospels. For as Mat. 19.9. the words are, that Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery: which are favorable to the affirmative, That it is lawful for him in that one excepted case, to marry again: so Mar. 10.11. and Luk. 16.18. the exception is left out, and the words are the same in both, absolutely delivered, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marryeth another, committeth adultery.

§. 23 That these places, that in Matthew, on one side, and in the other two Evangelists, at least in S. Mark, on the other side, are a report of the same passage of story, and of the same part of Christs speech, appealing from the Mosaical permission, to the first Institution of marriage, there is no ground of making any Question. And therefore it follows, that one must be interpreted by the other, either S. Matthew by the other two, or the other two by S. Matthew.

§. 24 That Matthew should be interpreted by the other,Mark and Luke expound…d by Matthew. the more explicite and large by the shorter and less explicite, seems not reasonable. And besides, it p. 107were not easily imaginable, what should become of those words in Matthew, both there and Mat. 5. [except for fornication] if the full sense were expressed by Mark and Luke, without them: for though it be easie to conceive such words to be meant, when they are not expressed, yet it is not easie to conceive them not to be meant, when they are expressed.

Whereas on the other side, that Mark §. 25 should be interpreted by S. Matthew, this reasonable account may be given from the Context, 1. Because it being apparent by S. Matthew, both c. 5. and c. 19. that Christ did allow divorces in case of the wives committing fornication, S. Mark, in this whole passage, not mentioning any such thing, must yet necessarily be presumed and interpreted to imply it: and then those words [save for fornication] must be understood, or supposed as spoken and meant, though not expressed, v. 11. and if so, it will then be all one with S. Matthews reciting of it.

And the purposed brevity of S. Mark §. 26 (whose Gospel was written after Matthews) will be a second reason to incline us to beleive this; and accordingly 'tis manifest, that when the Pharisees form of question was, Whether it were lawful to put away the wife foreign for every cause? S. Mark (and S. Luke p. 108also) leaves out that clause, and proposes the question thus, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Where, as it is certain that the Pharisee speaking according to the then present doctrine of the Jews, and asking whether the Jewish divorces were not lawful, must consequently ask whether divorces for every cause, or many other besides fornication, were not lawful, though Mark, for brevity sake, rather intimate that (by saying that it was the Pharisees that asked, and asked tempting, v. 2. then) express it: so in Christs answer given more privately to the same matter, v. 10. the same must be implyed again, viz. that whosoever shall put away his wife for every cause, i. e. for any other cause beside fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery, and so in like manner he that marryeth her, i. e. her that is put away for any other such cause, (which is not, according to the first Institution, a just reason of dissolving the bond) committeth adultery also.

§. 27 That this is the meaning of Christs words, may 3. be farther proved by the nature of Divorce, which is the rescinding of the Conjugal Bands, and by one supposition common to Jews, and Christians, and Romans, and all, viz. that they which were duly divorced, might marry again: so of the Jewish divorced wife, Deut. 24.2. 'tis expresly said, she p. 109may marry another; and of the man, it is known that this was his onelyonly end of putting away his wife in that place, that he might marry another, whom he liked better: and accordingly this is the form of Divorce in Misna, tit. Gittin, Behold thou art foreign free, or, at liberty for any man, and this is the Bill of Divorce between me and thee, so that it is free for thee to marry foreign to any man thou wilt. And so every where in their writings on this subject. And among the Romans there is no question of it. And this being thus known of the Jews, and presumed by Christ, yet all that he chargeth with Adultery in the Jewish Ceremony, is their putting away for causes not allowed in the institution of marriage. And in opposition to that onelyonly, he proposeth his reformation, defining what is the due foreign or cause of Divorce, upon which a man may (as upon any other he may not) freely divorce, still presuming that he that divorceth, may also without Adultery marry again.

If this be the meaning of the words in the §. 28 Evangelists, as these circumstances make it probable to be, then the question is answered, that in such a divorce, allowed both in the first ins…itution, and by Christ himself, there lyes no interdict, or hindrance against that mans marrying aga…n, though in all other cases there doth.

p. 110§. 29 And yet on the other side it may be argued, Arguments on the other side.that although, in the Mosaical Law, Divorce was the rescinding the Conjugal bands, to which it was consequent, as long as the Jewish policy lasted, that they that were duly divorced (as in the one case of fornication it is acknowledged) might freely marry again: yet in the acceptation of our Christian Courts, Divorce appears not to be any more, then the solemn, Judicial separation from conjugal society: For that Adultery which is a sufficient cause of Divorce, is yet (though a breach of the conjugal vow) no actual dissolution or voiding of the conjugal bands, among us Christians, may seem probable by these two Evidences, 1. Because Adultery committed by the husband, dissolves not marriage, which yet it equally should, if that fault committed, and not the sentence of Divorce, rescinded the conjugal band. For though the superiority of the husband over the wife, makes some difference, in respect of which it is acknowledged, That she cannot put away her husband; yet would that be of no force in this matter, supposing that Adultery were a dissolution of the bands, for then she ceasing to be bound, as a wife, would also cease to be inferior or subject to him. And in this a difference is observable between the Jews and us; for in case of Fornication, p. 111the Jew expected no sentence of the Consistory, but the man might put her away, give her from himself a Bill of Divorce, which hath never been allowed among Christians. 2. Because if this were so, if Adultery in the wife dissolved the bands, then the husband, that after the wives Adultery continued to live with her conjugally, must be concluded to commit fornication with her, the validity of those bands being it (and nothing else) which makes conjugal society lawful, and honorable, and acceptable in the sight of God.

And agreeable to this arguing, it may be §. 30 considered,The opinion of the Church. what hath been defined in the Church of former ages, foreign, &c. Can. Apost. 48. If any La…ck put away his wife, and marry another, or marry a woman which hath been put away by another, let him be excommunicate. So in the Councel of Arles, An. Ch. 314. De his qui con…uges suas in adulterio deprehendunt, & iidem sunt adolescentes fideles, & prohibentur nubere, placuit ut in quantum possit, consilium iis detur ne viventibus uxoribus suis, licet adulteris, alias accipiant, Can. 10. They that deprehend their wives in adultery, and are beleiv…s, and yong men, and are forbid to marry, 'tis decreed that counsel be given them, that as far as may be they p. 112marry not others, whilest their wives, though they be adulteresses, live: Where, both counsel is given them not to marry, and a reference made to some former Canons, where such marriage was forbidden. So in the Milevitan Councel, where S. Augustine was present, An. Ch. 402. It is decreed, ut secundum Evangelicam & Apostolicam doctrinam ne{que} dimissus ab uxore, ne{que} dimissa à marito, alteri conjungantur, sed ita maneant, aut sibimet reconcilientur, That according to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine, neither the man that is dismist from his wife, nor the woman that is dismist from her husband marry any body else, but either remain unmarried, or be reconciled to one another. So in the Codex Can. Eccl. African. Can. 102. foreign. That they that are divorced f…om husbands or wives, should remain unmarried. What hath thus been defined by these Canons, is evidently received into the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of this Church, which therefore decrees, that when Divorces are pronounced, monitio & prohibitio fiat, ut à partibus ab invicem seg…egatis castè vivatur, nec ad alias nuptias alterutrâ vivente convoletur: admontion and prohibition be given, That they that are thus parted live chastly, that neither marry whilest the other lives. constit. Eccl. An. Dom. 1597.

p. 113In this difficulty thus argued on both §. 31 sides, the Resolution,The Resolution. I suppose, will be made by these propositions, 1. That by the force of Christs words in all the Evangelists, he that marries again after any kinde of divorce, but that one for fornication, doth commit an unchristian sin; and that at least of a double Adultery, one in taking a new wife, whilest the former l…veth (which is formally adulterous) the other in deserting (and denying the duty of marriage to) the rejected wife of his youth, which may be causally adultery in her, and in the mean while is an injustice joyn'd with wandring lust. Secondly, That by the force of the arguments first produced for the interpreting Mark and Luke, by Mat. 19.5. it may be probably concluded, That in that one case of divorce for fornication, the marriage of the innocent party shall not be adulterous. Thirdly, That although this be granted, yet the words of Mark and Luke, and especially the words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.39. do give such prejudices against marriages after divorce indefinitely, that the Ancient Canons of the Church of God, and the constitutions of our English Reformation, have thought fit not to permit such liberty in any kinde.

And this may appear, if we now review, §. 32 and consider the temper observed p. 114in the recited Canons: First, it is with an [in quantum possint, consilium iis detur, as far as they can, let them be counselled.] And [monitio & prohibitio fiat, admonition and prohibition joyned together.] And our Constitution addes, Deni{que} quò illud firmiùs observetur, sententia separationis non antea pronunciabitur, quàm qui eam postulaverint, cautionem fidejussoriam sufficientem interposuerint se contra monitionem & prohibitionem nihil commissuros, That this may be more firmly observed, the Decree of Separation shall not be pronounced, till they that demand it, shall put in sufficient band that they will do nothing against the admonition and prohibition. And if this be not observed by the Judge, he is to be punished, and the sentence of Divorce for such defect, declared void, Constit. Eccl. An. D. 1597. Which manner of proceeding prescribed by the Canon, 1. By way of monition and counsel, which differs from divine Precept: 2. By requiring a bond for the observing the monition (which useth not to be required, when the divine Law distinctly commands obedience) do seem to infer that this marriage after a Christian divorce, is not looked upon by the Church as an adulterous Commission, but rather as a matter of dangerous consequence, if it should be permitted.

p. 115'Tis true, some of the Ancients speaking §. 33 of this matter, seem to say, that these second marriages are against Scripture, contra Scripturam quidem fecerunt, saith Origen. Those Bishops which, extra Scripturam, without authority of Scripture permitted a woman to marry, while the former husband lived, have indeed done contrary to Scripture. And Athenagoras in his foreign. The Christians are commanded either to remain single, foreign, or to be content with one marriage, affirming the second to be foreign, a handsomer better sort of adultery; and this on force of Christs words, that he that putteth away his wife and marryeth another, committeth adultery. And Innocent the first Bishop of Rome, Qui interveniente repudio, alii se matrimonio copularunt, in utra{que} parte adulteros esse manifestum est, &c. They that after divorce joyn themselves to some other marriage, it is manifest they are adulterers on both sides, according to that which we reade in the Gospel, He that putteth away his wife and marryeth another, committeth adultery, and he that marryeth her that is put away, committeth adultery. But of these and the like testimonies it may be observed, that most of them belong not to those Divorces, which are in case of fornication, but (proportionably to Christs words in S. Mark) to those which according p. 116to the Jewish or Imperial laws, were allowed, in other cases, then what either Christ or the Primogenial Institution of marriage had allowed of. Of these we have reason to interpret many passages of the Ancients, sometimes in reference to the Imperial, sometime to the Mosaical practise of greater liberty. Of the former sort are those words of the first Laodicean Canon, foreign, they that are freely and lawfully joyned in second marriages, i. e. after such Divorces as are legal by the Roman practise and laws, but not by the law of Christ. And so in the Nicene, and Ancyrane, and Neo-caesarean Councels. Of the latter are the forecited words of S. Hierome, l. 1. advers. Jovinian. From the beginning of the world we used not Divorces; where it is evident by the precedent words [eloquium Salvatoris, our Saviours command] that he was to be understood in opposition to the Mosaical indulgence of greater liberty, not to the Christian in that one case. And of these it is evident, and confessed by all Christians, that the marriages after such divorces are adulterous, but not so of those other marriages of the innocent parties after those other divorces in that one case of adultery. Nay even some Canons have been made with this temperament p. 117expresly [Except in the case of fornication,] So in the second Canon of the Councel of Vannes, Eos qui relictis uxoribus suis, sicut in Evangelio dicitur, exceptâ causâ fornicationis, sine adulterii probatione alias duxerint, statuimus, &c. They that have left their own wives, as it is said in the Gospel, except for cause of fornication, and without proof of adultery, shall have married others, we judge them, &c.

Having thus said thus much for the §. 34 satisfying this difficulty: One advantage, I suppose, may be made of it, before we proceed any farther toward the explaining the meaning of S. Pauls Canon, or direction to Timothy, 1 Tim. 3. and 5. for the choyce of Bishops and Widows, S. Pau…s Canon of the Bishop and Widow.that the Bishop be the husband of one wife, and the Widow be the wife of one husband, viz. that in both places it be taken in the same sense, in a notion of second marriages (differing both from the ordinary Bigamy and Digamy) of those that having put away thei… wives, or being separated from their husbands, on any cause whatsoever, whether Jewish, Roman, or Christian, have married again.

To this purpose it must be observed, §. 35 that the having or living with more wives at once, Th…ee sorts of second marriages.cannot be the thing there meant, because the interdict lying equally p. 118to the Bishop and to the Widow, Having two at once.this sense is not appliable to her, because it was never permitted by any law either of Jews or Romans (nor is it since by the Mahomedan…s themselves) that a woman should have and live with two husbands at once. As for the Barbarians, among whom there is mention of foreign, a people where the women had many husbands, and so the Medes that dwelt in the mountains, among whom 'tis said a woman had five husbands at once, these are too extravagant to be referred to by the Apostle, in that interdict.

§. 36 And for the ordinary Digamy, the marrying a second after the decease of the former,A second after the decease of the first. that that should be so reproachful or blameable in any, as to render one uncapable of holy Orders (which they are capable of, which have been guilty of some faults) this is not imaginable neither; It being ordinary for the wife to dye soon after marriage, and without bearing of children, and in that case the second marriage tending as much to the ends of the Institution, as the former can be supposeable to do. And accordingly this Prohibition is not to be found in the laws of any Nation, and the Apostle is elswhere clear, that when the husband is dead, the woman is free to marry another man, Rom. 7.3. And accordingly p. 119Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. l. 4. speaking of the great reward of those that do foreign, marry no more after the death of the first wife, doth yet acknowledge, that if he marries again foreign he doth not sin against the covenant, foreign, for there is no prohibition of this by law, onelyonly, saith he, he doth not attain to that foreign highest perfection of the Evangelical course, the very same which would be affirmed of never marrying at all, which is not commanded any, but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection.

Whereas this third notion will be very §. 37 agreeable to the places,Marrying after an unlawful Divorce. meaning this marriage after a divorce, This he that had been guilty of, by humane Laws, either of Jews or Romans, was under no censure, but by the Apostles direction is not thought fit to be received into holy Orders. As the High-Priest among the Jews might not be a Polygamist, might not divorce and marry again, nor marry one that was divorced, though other men were permitted to do all these. And of this the women, and so the widows, were capable, as well as the men: Women leaving their husbands.Salome the sister of Herod the son of Antipater, gave a bill of Divorce to Custabarus the Praefect of Idumaea and Gaza, p. 120but this foreign, contrary to the Jewish laws, saith Josephus, l. 15. c. 11. And so Herodias, Philips wife, as may be gathered out of Josephus, Ant. l. 18. c. 7. And of the marrying of those that were put away by their husbands, the Canons make frequent mention.

§. 39 Of this sex, saith Seneca de Benefic. l. 3. c. 16. Numquid jam ulla repudio erubescit? Is any woman now ashamed of leaving her husband? And, Nobiles foeminae non consulum numero, sed maritorum annos suos computant, they married and departed, and married again every year. So Plutarch in his foreign mentions the marrying of women, whose husbands were living; and the same appears by Justinian, Novel. 117. And among the Graecians foreign is the word for it.

§. 40 Among Christians (though by Christs law the wife might not put away the man, Divorces practised among Christians.nor, except in one case, the man the woman: yet some examples of the practise of it, by the consent of parties, are to be met with; as appears by Marculfus his formula, l. 2. c. 30. directly to this purpose, Dum inter illum & illam non charitas secundum Deum, sed discordia regnat. —placuit &c. Seeing between him and her the charity according to God doth not reign, but discord, so that they p. 121cannot live peaceably together, it is agreed by the consent of both, that they separate from one another, and accordingly they have done. A formula used among Christians, as there is another, Leg. Rom. c. 19. and Novel. Institut. 117.

And being thus practised, theaaCan 116. in Zonaras's account. Councel §. 41 of Carthage thought fit to make a Canon to reform it, and therefore appointed that the Emperor should be desired to enact an Imperial Law against it; and so doth the Milevitan Councel, Can. 17. And accordingly one of the Presbyters that were brought to witness against Marcellinus being found to have married after a divorce, placuit reprobari, saith Aerodius, bbPandect. re…. judicat. l. 6. tit. 1. c. 18.he was rejected.

To this sense, I conceive, the like directions §. 42 given both by the Author of the Constitutions, and in the Apostolical Canons do belong. In the Constitutions, they are thus enlarged, foreign, Such an one ought the Bishop to be, one that hath been the husband of one wife, and that wife the wife of one husband, i. e. that he that is thought fit to be chosen Bishop, shall be one that hath never married another wife whil'st his former liveth; and in like manner, that he shall not marry any woman, that hath parted with a former husband: so as foreign shall be all one with foreign p. 122foreign in the 48. Apostolical Canon, she that hath not been put away.

§. 43 In the Apostolical Canon the words are more perspicuous, foreign, He that is joyned in two marriages after Baptism, or hath a concubine, cannot be a Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or of any sacred Order. Where the second marriage being proportionable to having a concubine, must in reason be the having two wives living at a time, onelyonly one of them put away from him. Of this matter the Reader may see Zonaras on the 116 Canon of the Councel of Carthage, Radolphus Fornerius Rerum quotidian. l. 6. c. 23. Burchard. l. 9. c. 72. and Christ. Justellus from the Notes of Jacobus Leschasserius, on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae. But this by the way.

§. 44 Having gone thus far, I should soon be at an end of my gesses, were there not some pretensions of other men, who like not to have their liberties retrench'd, though by Christ himself, which may deserve to be a while considered. And the considering of them will be the most ingrateful part of this task; yet that which must be undergone, lest, having offered their reasons and exceptions against p. 123the Doctrine of the Church, and expresly of Christ himself, they be permitted to that dangerous temptation, of thinking themselves successful in the attempt, and so that prove to some men a more perswasive reason to beleive their wishes, then any yet hath been produced.

The first open attempt that I remember §. 45 that way,A Plea for Divorces. was made in a Discourse purposely on that subject, and presented to the Parliament, at the beginning of these licentious times; and the special artifice made use of, was that, of bringing back Christ unto Moses, of interpreting the restraint laid on this matter in the New Testament, by analogie with the Judaical permission in the Old. After the same manner, as when the municipal Laws of a Kingdome are thought fit to be reduced to (and interpreted) by the fundamental; which is, by interpretation, as when the whole pile or fabrick being taken down, and not one stone left upon another, the appeal is made by resort to the first foundations, which lying under the ground, and in the dark, will be more easily perswaded either to be or to appear, whatsoever we wish they should.

How rational a procedure this is in other §. 46 matters,The Answers to it. I have no temptation to inquire. OnelyOnly to the business of divorces it must be observed, how much more unreasonably it is pretended, then p. 124in the parallel, of Humane Laws.

§. 47 For first, the Law of Moses to the Jews was not the fundamental law of all mankinde, or that wherein all, or indeed any but they, were concerned. And 2. this particular of divorces being not a preceptive law, but a permissive, a law of special dispensation affixt to a former obligatory law, was, if we beleive Christ, directly contrary to that, by which, those Jews, with all men had formerly been regulated. And then 3. Christs superadditions in this matter are so far from being interpretable by, or reducible to that supposed foundation, that, as was said, they are directly and purposely opposed to it. It is impossible that words should be more explicite and distinct, Mat. 5.31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say unto you, that, whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, &c. And c. 19.9. And I say unto you, VVhosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for the cause of fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery.

§. 48 Is it possible this artifice could have been more providently foreseen and prevented by Christ? Christs doctrine against Divorces.Under Moses they might put away upon dislikes, founded in p. 125the matter of Nakedness: Under Christ they must not, save in the one case of Fornication: Under Moses, the man that had given a bill of divorce, might marry another; but under Christ, if he do so, he committeth adultery: Under Moses the woman that had the Bill might go, and marry any man else, except that former husband, v. 4. and the High-Priest, Lev. 21.7. but under Christ, if she do, she commits adultery, and he that marries her commits adultery; and though she do not marry, yet he that puls her away, being unable to give her liberty of marrying another, doth, as much as in him lyes, cause her to commit adultery. And then sure, 'tis but seasonable to invert our Saviours speech, What man shall dare joyn, what God hath, thus widely, put asunder?

The onelyonly colour of ground for this §. 49 pretension [viz. that Christ in the Sermon on the mount makes no addition to the Mosaical Law, The opinion of Christs adding nothing to Moses.and therefore that here he doth not in this of divorces] hath inaaNote on Pract. Cat. l. 2. §. 3. p. 106, 107, 108. other papers been evidenced from all Antiquity to be a false ground. And yet (to see the luck of it) if it should be acknowledged a true one, it would presently destroy the whole pretension: For then it must follow, that there was as much interdicted in Moses, as is now forbidden by Christ; and thence again, that p. 126the obscure words of Moses did really contain, what the plain words of Christ do certainly express, and then that the matter of nakedness there, must be interpreted by foreign or fornication here. And then the result will be, that even among the Jews under Moses's permission, those divorces for any other inferior causes were not permitted, which is the direct contradictory to that, which is pretended to be deduced from this way of probation.

§. 50 For, of the opinion of those that think Christ added nothing to the law of Moses, this is observable; That, to give it some colour of truth or probability, they have been forced to affirm that Christs whole design in that Sermon on the mount, was to vindicate and rescue the law of Moses from the Pharisees glosses, and onelyonly to restore it to the primitive perfection and lustre, that it had before it was so maimed and clouded by those Doctors: which if it be true, then must that of permitting divorces, in other cases beside that of fornication, be onelyonly a gloss of the Pharisees, and not the truth of the Mosaical Law; which, as long as it is granted, is the utter undoing of that plea for this liberty founded in, and deduced from the Mosaical Law.

§. 51 To conclude, It is necessary by all laws of discourse, that Christ being to vindicate p. 127the law of Moses from false interpretations, that vindication of Christs should be received as the interpretation of the law of Moses, that was so misinterpreted, and not the law of Moses be the interpreter of Christs vindication; It being an axiome knowne to all, that the latter, and more perspicuous, must be the interpreter of the former, more obscure, and not the former, and the darker be set blindly to interpret the latter and more perspicuous, The authentick paraphrase being the comment on the text, and not the obscurer text on the paraphrase.

Another course of avoiding the force, §. 52 and perspicuity of our Saviours words,Mr. Seldens attempt in this matter. hath been taken by Mr. Selden in his Uxor Hebraica l. 3. 23. which it will not be amiss to survey a while, as distinctly, as my designed brevity will permit.

The first part of the attempt is to dispose §. 53 the reader,His preparations to if. and bring him to make some doubt or question, what is the meaning of those plain words of Christ, [foreign, Saving for the cause of fornication] and [foreign, except for fornication] And that is endevoured by these wayes, First, by mentioning it as an aaDifficultas maxima quâ cruciari solent heie Scriptores. p. 479.huge difficulty, which is wont to torment writers on this subject. Secondly, by rendring two notions of the word Fornication among Christian writers, frequently in use, one belonging p. 128to the unmarried, the other to the marryed, and then (because in the former of these notions it cannot be taken, unlesse it denote some act committed before marriage) enquiring whether among any Authors, either more antient, or contemporary with the Evangelists, foreign do manifestò & palam, manifestly and openly signify adultery, as that is signanter, Simply and Specifically the violation of marriage. In this inquiry first he finds the word used in Demosthenes for that which is not to be named, in Philo for prostitution; but he supposes no man to think this applicable to this matter. Secondly, then he finds in Hesychius & the Etymologist foreign, and so, (that which was designed not to be found) fornication for adultery. aaHorum uter{que} recentio…es sunt nec veterum ante, seu sub Christi tempora usum omnino probaent, aliter at{que} patres Christiani Christi in …erris tempore saeculis aliquot recentiores, quibus pro adulterio admittitur, usurpatur{que}. p. 481.But these, saith he, are recentiores, later writers, and do not prove the use of the word among the ancients before or about Christs time, any more then the fathers of the Christian Church, which are also later then Christs being here on earth, who use it and understand it for adultery. To this, thirdly, he addes, that it is strange that Matthew should in both places use foreign fornication, and not foreign adultery, which yet in both places Christ uses immediately after these words; and there being a third place in p. 129Matthew wherein both these words are used together, Mat. 15.19. He observes fourthly, that the Syriack reades foreign adultery onelyonly. Fifthly, he supposes it acknowledged by all, that the same words are wont to be diversely used in respect of the diversity of matters. Sixthly, he addes, that among the severall opinions that were at that time abroad, there was no one of this sort, that there was no place for divorces, save in case of adultery; The severall opinions being reducible to three heads, first that of Hillel, that the husband might divorce for any cause, yet not meaning his own bare will: secondly, that of Sammai, for somewhat of turpitude onelyonly: thirdly, that of Aquiba, that he might doe it on his owne will for whatsoever he pleased. Nay seventhly, that adultery was to be punished by death, and so not by divorce. Eighthly, that the Pharisees consulted Christ temptingly and treacherously, and yet, that as soon as Christ had thus answered them, they were so satisfied, that they opposed not a word, which 'tis scarce credible they should doe, if his answer had been so new and unheard of, distant from all the three opinions knowne among them; Nay that the disciples seem not so to understand his answer as if it were any such new doctrine, but such as; though rejected by the most, was yet defended by others the p. 130Scholars of Sammai and his followers. Ninthly, That it is not evident enough by Christs expresse words, whether the cause of fornication do not belong to the husband also, and not onelyonly to the wife, that if he were guilty, orforeign propensi…s fieret reus. in danger of being guilty of fornication through her contumacies or molestations, this were sufficient for a divorce. Upon these praemises having sufficiently prepared the Readers inclinations, he then proceeds to a through examination of the matter by reducing all to three Quaeres.

§. 54 But before I proceed to them, I shall reflect a while upon this foreign or preparative velitation which I have thus largely and punctually set downe, that it may appear what solidity there is like to be in that pretension, which was thus to be usherd in.

§. 55 And first it is visible to all, that this which he makes a question of, and calls it a greatest difficulty, which writers on this Subject have been tormented with, is indeed no such matter, but that all the Christian writers of any note from Christs time to this, have uniformly resolved that Christs words of divorce doe belong to that one case of fornication in the wife. None ever doubting but that foreign doth there signifie Sinnes of uncleanenesse; OnelyOnly some extending it, farther then adultery, to unnatural and p. 131incestuous commissions, which, it is certain,foreign not Adultery onelyonly. are called foreign also, and being of so high a nature, may well be thought fit to be comprehended in Christs words, and not adultery onelyonly.

This will anon appeare on occasion of §. 56 some testimonies produced out of Bede and others, by Mr. Se…den, to which we shall**§. 81. then joyn that passage of St. Augustine in his Retractations, by whom indeed it is said to be latebrosissima quaestio & scrupulosissima disputatio, a very obscure and scrupulous quaestion, not, whether for other causes except that one, a Christian might divorce, but, whether that one contain not other acts of fornication besides adultery.

Secondly, then for the use of this §. 57 word foreign Signanter, Simply and Specifically for adultery, i. e. I suppose, so as to exclude all other sorts of uncleannesse, there is no need to produce any testimonies, of such antient writers; If it be more largely extended, in like manner, as it is Acts 15. in the Apostles Canon, to incests and unnatural Sinnes &c. this is not it, wherein the controversie consists. And therefore for the notions of it in Demosthenes for paederastia or unnatural filthinesse, and the like also, but somewhat more indefinitely, in Philo, if they be here taken in, it will no way advantage Mr. Seldens praetensions, which are for p. 132some softer notion of foreign, then the Christian Writers bestow on it, and that from Demosthenes and Philo. cannot be pretended.

§. 58 Mean-while it is not obvious to conjecture, why, when it is by him acknowledged, that among theaaApud Christianos v…t res, p. 4…0. l. 8. ancient Christians foreign is used for adultery, and so in thebbOneirocriticis-Graecè sed à Christiano aevi inferioris redditis, aliis{que} ejusmodi. Ib. l. 12. Christian Translator of Achmet, and others the like, and indefinitely in theccPatres Christiani. p 481. lin. ult. Christian fathers, none excepted, this should not be thought a competent means of judging what the Evangelist meant by foreign, but that it should be sought out of Demosthenes and Philo, rather then found in the universal undoubted use of Christian Writers. This cannot but be lookt on as a symptome of some significancy, that what was to be maintained by those means, is of such a nature, as, if the whole Christian Church might be heeded, could never be owned or beleived by us.

§. 59 And therefore when Hesychius (and also the Etymologist) have affirmed distinctly that foreign doth signifie foreign, an adulterer, what an injustice is it, first causlesly to despise, and without any account or contrary affirmation of any other, simply to cast off the authority of that most excellent Grammarian, which is of all other Glossaries acknowledged by learned men, to have a peculiar propriety p. 233to the explicating of the sacred dialect, and then to reject in the same period all the Christian Fathers also, by saying that Hesychius and the Etymologist do no more prove the use of the word before or under Christ, then the Christian Fathers (no one, it seems, fit to be excepted) are able to do? This again visibly sets this pretension in competition, and contention with the whole Christian world beside, and that is no very excellent character of the meekness, nor presage of the truth of it.

This being thus premised, it is now far §. 60 from strange, that S. Matthews Greek should make use of foreign fornication, and not of foreign, adultery, the reason being visible, because foreign was wider, and comprehended those other sins of Incest, &c. which as well as simple adultery, were just causes of divorce, and that foreign adultery was not fit to do. And if Mat. 15. in stead of fornication and adultery, the Syriack hath used foreign onelyonly, this can signifie nothing to me, but that either they have omitted a word, which they should have expressed, or used a comprehensive word to signifie both; or by naming adultery, by parity of reason, or à fortiori, left the other to be understood also.

And when 'tis added, that by the difference §. 61 of the matter, words receive their p. 134different significations: as I acknowledge the truth of that, so I think it very competent to infer, that foreign being used of a marryed couple, must in reason signifie adultery, as that notes an offence against the marriage-bed and vow, and not any inferior crime or infirmity, which is not such.

§. 62 As for the next branch of his discourse, which would render it improbable that foreign should signifie adultery, (because, there being three opinions of divorces among the Jews of that time, this of the unlawfulness to divorce, save onelyonly for fornication, was none of these three) I suppose, the answer will be unquestionable, that Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, setting his commands in opposition to what had been formerly said among the Jews, did either adde new precepts and interdicts to those that were before in force among them, or else vindicated the old Commandments, from the false opinions and glosses of men. And then it will be very unreasonable to oblige Christ to follow the known opinion of any sort of Rabbines among them, at that time when he opposes his doctrine to all that had been formerly said by them. And why may not Christ reasonably reject the interpretations and indulgences of men, of whatever Jewish School they were, as well as retrench the indulgence p. 135given by Moses from God (as in this matter it is apparent he doth, Mat. 19.8. Moses permitted— but from the beginning it was not so: and, But I say unto you, v. 9.) or pronounce of the Sanhedrin universally, that they made void the Commandments of God by their Traditions, Mar. 7.13.

That Adultery was among the Jews, §. 63 by their law, to be punished with death, is willingly granted; but that concession is far from inferring, That it was not reasonable in Christ to disallow all other divorces for lesser or lower causes. For 1. At this time wherein the Pharisees speak to him, the capital punishments were taken from the Jews, and the Sanhedrin confess it is not lawful for them to put any man to death, Joh. 18.31. In regard whereof they brought the adulteress to Christ, Joh. 8.3. as thinking to have ensnared him by that also. 2. It was not necessary when the Mosaical polity was abolished, that all Christians to whom Christs words indifferently belonged, should enact the same Judicial Laws, that were in force among the Jews, nor consequently, that adultery should every where be death, though in Judaea it were. 3. Christs affirming that there was no cause competent for divorce but one, doth no way prejudge the punishing that one with heavier punishment then divorce. p. 136And 4. there is no reason imaginable, why Christ that thought adultery so much a greater offence against the marital vow, then other faults or causes were, for which the Jews ordinarily divorced, should, by omitting to specifie that, leave us to conclude that there was no crime at all, for which it was lawful to divorce. For supposing any to be such, certainly adultery, which was so great a contrariety to the conjugal vow, and injury to the husband, as to be punished with death, (that highest degree of divorce, Excision irreversible, not from his flesh onelyonly, but from the …arth) might deserve to be deemed such.

§. 64 Next: for the Pharisees being so satisfied with his answer, that they opposed not a word, It is far from inferring that his answer agreed with some one of the three doctrines of their Rabbies. For 1. if it be but remembred, what is by the objecter truly suggested, that they came insidiously to question him, then, as their intention to ensnare him by this question, is an evidence, that they beleived his doctrine in this matter (delivered in the Sermon on the Mount) to be contrary to the liberty which they had by Moses, (for else how could this be a tempting, i. e. an ensnaring question?) so the more contrary his answer was to their received doctrine; yea, and to the doctrine which p. 137they were taught from Moses, the greater matter of satisfaction that would be to their design of treachery. The more lyable he were supposed to have rendred himself to their Laws and Censures, the less need was there of questioning him any farther. As at another time, Mat. 12. where it is said expresly, that they asked him a question that they might accuse him, v. 10. upon his answer they return not a word to him (and yet sure were not satisfied with him any otherwise, then as having now matter of an accusation against him: for it follows v. 14. that they went out and took counsel against him that they might put him to death.) So again Mat. 26. the High-Priest that insidiously examined him, upon his affirming that he was the Christ, v. 64. answers, not by opposing, or questioning him any farther, but by addressing his speech to the Sanhedrin, What need we any farther witnesses? behold, ye have now heard his blasphemy. Which yet is far from concluding that speech of Christ, that he was the Messias, to contain no more in it, then some Sect of their Rabbines affirmed concerning him.

Nay 2. the reason and evidence, with §. 65 which Christ spake, might be, and certainly was such, that the most contrary-minded had nothing to oppose. As it is elswhere said, that they could not resist p. 138the power with which he spake. And then certainly it will be a weak argument to infer, that some sort of devils taught that God onelyonly was to be worshipped (or that the speech of Christ, Mat. 4.11. was agreeable to the doctrine of some of those learneder Rabbies) because upon that answer of Christ, the devil had nothing to oppose, but immediately departed from him.

§. 66 Nay 3. it may most reasonably be resolved by way of retortion of this argument, that there being three opinions of the Jews at that time, one from Hillel, the most received, the second from Sammai, that had fewer followers, the third of Aquiba: if Christ had taken part with that number of men, which were then less favored by all, and particularly by the Pharisees that questioned him, his authority could not have prevailed so far, as to perswade them presently to deposite their opinion, and in stead of treacherous enemies, to become obedient Converts to his Doctrine; and yet (after all this being thus prodigiously satisfied) never to give any word of acknowledgement that they were so.

§. 67 As for the disciples, that they do not seem to understand his answer so, as if it were any new doctrine, but as that, which was rejected by some, but defended by others: It is affirmed without any shew p. 139of reason. For 1. in the Sermon on the Mount, if it were new, yet it was agreeable with other precedent parts of that Sermon, which were new also, and they which were disciples of Christ, and beleived him to be sent from God, could beleive what he said, without having the assistance of Sammai, or other Jew to countenance it. And besides, that coming in the body of his Sermon (of all which they were silent auditors) how new soever they thought it, we cannot expect from them any expression of it. And for that Mat. 19. to which I suppose Mr. Selden refers, it is pretty evident, 1. That they had heard it before from him on the Mount, and so that it was not now perfectly new to them: and 2. That their objection against it doth not argue that they took it for an old doctrine, for say they, If this be the case of an husband with his wife, it is profitable not to marry, v. 10. which (by the way) would have been very causlesly objected by them, if as Sammai had taught, so Christs speech had been understood to extend no farther; That turpitude in the greatest latitude and comprehension of the word, was of a competent width, and by being allowed a just cause of divorce, would not have concluded the conditions of that band of marriage very strict, or unsupportable.

p. 140§. 68 Lastly, it is a causless exception against the words, or style of Christ or the Evangelist, to pretend it not evident enough by Christs express words, whose fornication it is (the mans or the womans) which is there specified: for certainly it is most evident, and never before doubted of by any, but that as the foreign, the every cause or accusation preceding, was somewhat disliked or accused in the woman, and not in the husband himself, who would not probably be his own accuser, so the fornication was to be conceived in the woman also, and if it be not expresly said [for her fornication] that pronoun is certainly spared, because no ordinary Reader could make doubt of understanding it thus, and so that expressness or punctuality was unnecessary.

§. 69 Having now done with the apparatus, or lighter, I shall proceed to the weightier part of his impression, and (because he is pleased to advise others to enquire, and examine the truth of his pretensions) it will not be unseasonable to follow his steps,Mr. Seldens farther pretensions examined. and observe what matter of conviction there is in all which is proposed by him.

§. 70 His first attempt is (supposing Matthew to have written, and Christ to have spoken either in Syriack or Hebrew) to examine the use both of the Syriack and Hebrew word, and from thence to collect p. 141a greater latitude of signification, then that it should be confined to fornication or adultery. If it were in Syriack, then, saith he, foreign was the word; if in Hebrew, foreign turpitude. For the first, the Syriack foreign is, saith he, agreeable to the Heb…ew foreign, and therefore must have the same lat…tude with the Hebrew; and that, saith he, signifies either primarily and strictly all lying together, which is not in lawful marriage; and that again either all kinde of unlawful conjunctions, as in the stories of Dinah and Thamar; or else some particular sorts of that kinde, of which adultery is but one of many: Or secundarily and more largely, all things that are called filthy, as that is opposed to honest, and on these he insists at large.

For the former of them we need not §. 71 to contend, not onelyonly because, howsoever Christ spake, yet 'tis certain S. Matthew wrote not Syriack (and we have no way to guess of Christs words, or meaning, but by the expressions which the Evangelists have given us of them) but also because of Mr. Seldens concessions. For if that Syriack be agreeable to the Hebrew, and that primarily denote all manner of conjunctions but that in lawful marriage, it will be no way inconvenient for us to acknowledge, that p. 142Christ used that word in that sense, but plainly consequent thereto, that no divorce is now lawful, but that for fornication, as that signifies adultery or other such foul sin of uncleanness. The onelyonly testimony here, of which he desires to make advantage, is that of Lev. 21.7. where the Priest is forbidden to take a wife which is a whore. There, saith he, the Hebrew foreign is by the ancient Jews defined to be any that is not an Israelitess, or which being an Israelitess, hath been joyned in any interdicted marriage, or hath lyen with any Profane person, whose marriage with her was not unlawful.

§. 72 To this affirmation out of the ancient Jews, I answer, That whosoever those ancient Jews were, I cannot think there is any truth in that, which is thus cited from them, that foreign which we render whore, should denote one that were onelyonly not an Israelitess. For in the same verse, where he is forbidden to marry the foreign, he is also forbidden to marry the profane, and that sure is more probable then foreign to signifie her, that is not an Israelitess. And of this I am sure, that the most excellent Paulus Fagius, and others most conversant in the Jewish Writers, interpret foreign an adulteress, or whore, in that place, and even the word profane may well belong to the p. 143same matter also, the whore being said to profane her self and her father, v. 9. and there foreign is the word for playing the whore.

However this, if granted, will be impertinent §. 73 to Christs interdict of Divorces, unless we beleive that he made it lawful to put away a wife for not being an Israelitess, (and then every English woman must be put away) or for not being born of parents of the same true Religion. And then, as we know, the daughter may be of the true Religion, though the mother were not, (and so 'tis sure many children of heathens became Proselytes of the Iews) so even of those wives that are not of the true Religion, but unbeleivers, or heathens, S. Paul is express, that if they will live with their husbands, they are not to put them away, 1 Cor. 7.12.

Now for the secundary notion of the §. 74 word foreign, that it signifies any deviation (at least heavier transgression) into any sins or turpitudes whatsoever, that he indevours to prove from the frequent use of it for idolatry, fornicating after other gods, Exod. 34.15. and following of wizards, which is going a whoring after them, Lev. 20.6. and so the sins of the Iews, and Sodomites, and Samaritans, Ezek. 16.51. are called often fornica…ion in that Chapter; and many the like. So p. 144Num. 14.33. Your children shall bear your whoredomes, is, saith he out of Onkelos, shall bear your iniquities. So Philo calls a vitious minde foreign a fornicating soul. So Wisd. 14.12. when 'tis said of the devising of Idols, that it is foreign, the beginning of fornication, on which saith Holkot, that the Scriptures use to call by the name of fornication, omnem illicitam corruptionem, all unlawful corruption, such is Idolatry, and Avaritia, Covetousness. So, saith he, S. Paul must be understood, when he calleth the foulest incest, Fornication, 1 Cor. 5.1. And so the Whore in the Revelation is one guilty of all kinde of impiety. p. 494.From all which he concludes, that if Christ spake Syriack, then the word expressed by foreign, fornication, may denote all kinde of filthiness, seu quicquid foreign seu vitii nomine venerit, whatever comes under the name of naughtiness or vice, and then the conclusion is direct, for any such vice, Christ allows divorce, and not onelyonly in case of fornication. And accordingly that foreign harlots, are joyned with publicans, Mat. 21.32. as foreign sinners, Mat. 9.11. Mar. 2.16. Lu. 5.30.

§. 75 Now to all this endevour the answer will be brief and evident, by observing but two things, which quite take away all force of these testimonies. First, that p. 145the people of the Iews, as since the Church of Christ, are figuratively and mystically said in Scripture to be espoused by God, marryed to himself, and consequently every degree of Idolatry or Apostasie from him is, by the same figure, expressed by fornicating, or going a whoring, i. e. breaking that Covenant which they had made with God, resembled by God to a Marriage-Covenant. And there is nothing more ordinary then such figures as this in all manner of sacred and profane writings, which yet no way prejudge or hinder the use of the same word in the proper sense without any figure in it, but contrariwise suppose this acception of it for the violation of the marriage-bed, or else there could be no place for such metaphors.

From hence therefore that which will §. 76 be deducible is this, that where there is no place for the literall interpretation, there such figurative notions are to be admitted: as when Philo mentions the fornicating soul, or the Scripture, whoring after other Gods, there it must be taken in the figurative sense, because corporeal fornication is not incident to souls, or fastened to Gods or Idols. But when there is place for the proper or first sense, then what reason can there be to prefer, or substitute the figurative? And so it is visibly in Christs words, where the p. 146man puts away the wife for fornication. By this means five of the former testimonies are evidenced to be of no force, to infer the desired conclusion; that of Exod. 34. Lev. 20. Ezek. 16. Num. 14. of Philo, and perhaps a sixth, that out of the Revelation, if it be taken to signifie any eminent Idolater or Apostate.

§. 77 But the second observation will conclude this matter, It is this, that in the Idol-feasts, and Sacrifices, and Worships, there was a great deal of uncleanness and unnatural filthiness committed, and consequently that filthiness is sometimes called Idol-worship it self, sometimes it is set as an effect of it, and this literally and properly without any figure. So when foreign (which is ordinarily rendred covetousness, but doth also signifie any inordinate lust, Eph. 5.3. and is oft in the New Testament used in that sense) is said to be Idolatry, Col. 3.5. and Eph. 5.5. that is clearly the meaning of it, that those inordinate lusts were the way of their worshipping their false Gods. And thus in the forecited place of Wisd. 14.12. it is evidently to be understood, that foreign, the devising of Idols, is foreign, the beginning of fornication, or that which hath brought a great deal of abominable filthiness into the world; and accordingly it follows, foreign, the invention of Idols p. 147was the corrupting of life, in that notion wherein [corrupting] is used for all such villany, Deut. 4.16. and 2 Pet. 1.4. and 2.12, 19. and as in Philo, foreign, and foreign are joyned together as breaches of the seventh Commandment.

And so that place of Holkot, taken out §. 78 of Papias, is to be interpreted also, that fornication signifies foreign, all abominable villany or corruption, (a cleanly expression of that which is not to be named) sicut est idololatria, such as is Idolatry, and avaritia, in the notion of foreign (not covetousness, as that sounds with us a love of money, but) inordinate lust, which is Idolatry.

If there be any question of this interpretation §. 79 of the words of Papias, or Holkot out of him, I suppose a plain place in the fragments of Polycarp's Epistle (who lived in the same age with Papias) will make it clear, where speaking of Valens, Elder of Philippi, and his having committed somewhat utterly unworthy of that Calling, by his example he admonishes others to abstain ab avaritiâ (that sure was in Greek foreign from unnatural lusts) & sint casti, and that they be chaste; adding, that whosoever did not so abstain, ab idololatria coinquinabitur, & tanquam inter Gentes judicabitur, would be defiled by Idolatry, and judged as among the Gentiles, i. e. fall into that p. 148sort of sins for which the Gentiles are condemned, and of which the Apostle saith, foreign, Fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

§. 80 And by this may be understood also to how little purpose a like place is byaap 556. Mr. Selden produced out of Bede on the words in S. Matthew, Non hîc intelligigitur tantùm fornicatio in stupro, quod in alienis viris aut foeminis commi…titur, sed omnis concupiscentia, vel avaritia, vel idololatria, quae hominem facit à lege Dei aberrare. Here is to be understood not onelyonly that fornication in adultery, which is committed with others husbands or wives, but all concupiscence (not covetousness, but) inordinate lust (the note being taken out of some Greek Scholiast, which had foreign) or Idolatry, which makes a man erre from the law of God. Where the [all concupiscence] in the front is explained by the two latter, inordinate desire, and Idolatry, both denoting those filthinesses so ordinary among Idolaters. And accordingly it follows in Bede, Si uxor hujusmodi aliquid hominem cogat, If a wife bring her husband to such courses as these, seduce him into the heathen mysteries, qui talem dimittit, causâ fornicatio…is dimittit, he that puts her away, doth it for fornication, Illius, quia fornicatur, suae, ne fornicet, for her fornication already committed, and for his p. 149own, that he may not commit it. All which clearly belongs to the unclean commissions among the heathen worshippers, not to any other distant sin, contained under that title.

Which indeed signifies it to be the §. 81 sense of Bede, and of that Scholiast, that fornication in Christs words is to be extended (beyond that of adultery) to all unnatural filthiness, but not that it contains all other vices under it, as far distant from this, as love of money is from the lusts of the flesh, coveting the house, from defiling the bed, the worshipping the Idol-false-Gods, from the violation of the vow of wedlock, Impiety, from incontinence or impurity. Of the last and highest of which Idolatry or heathenism) as the Apostles opinion is given, 1 Cor. 7.12. that it is not a sufficient matter for divorce, so the text of [foreign] which (by our rendring it, Be not unequally yok…d with unbelievers) may be thought to sound toward it, cannot without great impertinency be applied to that subject, for besides that it would rather hold against marrying such, then for Divorces after Marriage, it appears by the context to be spoken to the Corinthians in relation to their false teachers, the Gnosticks (elswhere called foreign unbelievers) not to heathen idolatrous women: and the p. 150aaforeign, is trutina alterijugis, a ballance weighing down one way, opposed to foreign, aequilibratedforeign signifies onelyonly too strongbbSo in Clements Epistle to those Corinthians, foreign, inclining the other way, not to, but from the Apostles and Orthodox Christians. inclinations of kindeness which they had to such seducers, above the proportion which they allowed the Apostles, which converted them.

§. 81 What hath thus been cleared to be the sense of the words in Holkot and Bede, will, I suppose, be appliable to the place in S. Augustines Retractations, l. 1. c. 19. Cum velit Dominus intelligi fornicationem, proper quam liceat dimittere uxorem, utrum eam quae damnatur in stupris, an illam, de quâ dicitur, Perdidisti omnem qui fornicatur abs te, in quâ uti{que} & illa est (ne{que} enim non fornicatur à Domino, qui tollens membra Christi facit ea membra meretricis) etiam at{que} etiam cogitandum est, at{que} requirendum. When Christ affirms fornication to be the onelyonly thing for which it is lawful to dismiss the wife, it must be considered and enquired diligently, whether he mean that fornication which is condemned in adultery; or whether that, of which it is said, thou hast destroyed every one that committeth fornication from thee, under which that of adultery is contained, for sure he doth fornicate from the Lord, that takes the members of Christ, and p. 151makes them members of an harlot. Here the question proposed by S. Augustine (for the resolving of which, he desires that his own judgement may not be taken alone, aaLegat & alia sive nostra quae postea scripta sunt, sive aliorum melius considerata, at{que} tractata, &c.but other mens thoughts compared with it) is onelyonly this, not whether all other sins may come under the word foreign, used by Christ (for he presently addes a caution for that, non quia omne peccatum Fornicatio est, all sin is not meant by it) but whether it be not taken in that latitude, wherein the Psalmist useth it, Ps. 72.27. And it being by him expresly affirmed, that that notion contains adultery under it, it seems to me most reasonable to interpret S. Augustine to that sense, which from those other more ancient and later Writers, hath now been mentioned, so as fornication may contain all those sins of uncleanness, which the Nations, that departed from God, fell into, and for which they were destroyed expresly, Lev. 18. and 20. Of which as adultery is one, so it is but one. And so fornication, that comprehends all unlawful lusts, will still be that onelyonly head of sins, for which divorces are imaginable to be allowed by Christ. And whether for all the sorts of that, is it, which by that Father is still called latebrosissima quaestio, a most obscure question, and such as he is not willing to define in it.

p. 152As for the place 1 Cor. 5.1. It is most manifest, that fornication there signifies in the same extent, that it doth in the Precept to the sons of Adam and Noah, and denotes all kinde of prohibited lust, and so comprehends incest under it, and cannot in any reason be farther extended to sins of any other classis, or be rendred, as Mr. Selden would have it, flagitium, crimen, & deviantis animae turpitudo, as if any sort of great fault, or turpitude, murther or sacrilege, &c. could be so called. The word and notion of fornication may certainly be allowed to be retained there, and acknowledged to express fully, what the Apostle there meant by foreign.

§. 84 And for Christs joyning foreign harlots with Publicans, as elswhere sinners are joyned, that will prove no more, but that either foreign, as whores, were sinners, and a gross kinde of sinners, as they are acknowledged to be: or 2. that the word [sinners] being set to denote Gentiles, (or, as 'tis elswhere expresly, sinners of the Gentiles) fornication is noted, as a Gentile sin, very ordinary, as was said, among the heathen: or else 3. that foreign sinners, may peculiarly denote that kinde of sin, as the foreign the sinner woman, Luk. 7.37. is generally resolved to have been an harlot, and so in many languages 'tis ordinary. And so p. 153still this instance was fit to attend the former, having as little force or p…opriety as any, to conclude, That all other sins, of what sort soever, are called by, or comprehended under that title of fornication, or that all other sinners may be called harlots, because harlots are sometimes styled sinners.

After the view of the Syriack word, §. 85 which Christ is supposed to have used, Mr. Selden proceeds to the Hebrew, or Ralbinical, wherein it is also imagined Christ might speak (although that at the same time he spake both lang…ages it is impossible, and very possible that, speaking but one, neither of these should be the true word) And then the word that is pitched on, is foreign, the same that signifies turpitude, Deut. 24.1.

Of this I shall premise three things: §. 86 1. That there being other words ordinarily rendred by the Septuagint to this sense, foreign, with its conjugates, forty times rendred foreign, it must follow, that the con…ecture that foreign was the very word, which Christ used, is very fallible, and unable to support what is built upon it: Or if it be said, that foreign, which is so often rendred foreign adultery, is yet never rendred foreign fornication, then as I acknowledge that, so I reply that foreign, is never rendred foreign neither, but foreign, p. 154foreign, &c. which signifies neither fornication nor adultery. 2. That although that word were imagined to be used in that place of Mat. 19. where in opposition to foreign, every cause, Christ might possibly be conceived to determine the cause of divorces to that to which in Moses it had been determined, yet it being also certain, that Christ had spoken formerly of this matter, Mat. 5. it is most certain, that the word used in Deuteronomy, could not in that sense, that there belonged to it, be there used by him, and consequently Mat. 19. where his speech is by Matthew set down in the same manner, as c. 5. it had been, can it not with any reason be imagined to have been used by him.

§. 87 In that place of Mat. 5. foreign in the notion of Deut. 24.1. cannot be supposed to have been the word. For there Christ beginning his speech with a reference to that which had been indulged by Moses in that place of Deuteronomy, It hath been said, that if a man put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce; he presently subjoyns, But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, &c. The latter part of this speech of Christ is a direct opposition to that which he had cited in the former. The [foreign, But I p. 155say unto you] is a demonstrative evidence of that: But this it could not be, if fornication were no more then the turpitude in Deuteronomy, for then, as there a man might for turpitude, put away, so here for turpitude a man still might, which is not an opposition, but identity.

Thirdly, that whatsoever language §. 88 Christ spake, or Matthew first wrote in, it is acknowledged, that this Gospel was rendred into Greek by some Apostle, either James, or John, or Matthew himself, who must be supposed to know what that Hebrew word was, (which we can but guess at very imperfectly) and have chosen thus to express it; and consequently, that no farther advantage can be made of this, then if it had been first written in Greek by him, but that the word foreign must in all reason be understood in the same sense, that either in all, or at least in some places of the New Testament, or in the dialect of the Hellenists, and Translators of the Old Testament, it had been taken, and by that measure foreign (in the notion of the word, Deut. 24.) cannot be deemed the word which Christ used, being, as I said, never rendred by foreign.

For to this matter it must be observed, §. 89 that the uncovering the nakedness, or foreign Lev. 18. is a very distant thing from p. 156the foreign finding any matter or accusation of nakedness in her, Deut. 24. The uncovering, or disclosing, in Leviticus, contains all the incestuous, prohibited marriages, and other breaches of the seventh Commandment; but the finding foreign in Deuteronomy, supposes not t…e committing of any turpitude, but the discerning that in the wife, which is made matter of some accusation or dislike.

§. 90 Of either of these affirmations, I suppose, there neither is, nor can be any doubt; and Mr. Selden hath acknowledged l. 3. c. 21. that the word foreign, as it is used in this matter of divorces, and diversely interpreted by the School of Hillel and Sammai, Multum discrepat ab câ turpitudinis notione, quâ incestus &c. in Levitico designatur, differs very much from that notion of turpitude, by which incest and adultery, and other unlawful copulations, are expressed in Leviticus.

§. 91 Which (although it be not exactly true, for Incest is not there called foreign or turpitude, but the disclos…ng of foreign the uncleanness, or nakedness, or shame of one that is near unto him, yet) being by Mr. Selden thus granted, and it being otherwise evident, that it is the notion in Leviticus, and not of the word nakedness, but the phrase, disclosing nakedness, p. 157which is expressed in Greek by foreign, 1 Cor. 5.1. and Act. 15. and elsewhere, There is little reason to doubt, but that, if foreign were here used, and in like manner rendred by foreign fornication, it were in the sense of Leviticus, and then t…is whole Controversie is at an end. But yet to prevent all possible mistakes, I shall farther deduce this matter.

The word foreign signifies unclean or §. 92 uncomely, and is applyed sometimes to vices, as Deut. 23.14. any foreign or unclean thing, i. e. any s…n, such as God dislikes to see, as any pure eyes must do, to behold anothers shame, but most frequently the uncomely parts of the body. See Habak. 2.15. where, looking on their nakedness, (the same that was Chams sin against his father) is evidently in this sense; and is answered, v. 16. with a like phrase, and let thy foreskin be uncovered. And thus 'tis generally used, when there is mention of disclosing or uncovering foreign, which we ordinarily render nakedness, meaning that part which ought to be covered. In this second, and most ordinary notion of the word, it is certain, that the phrase Lev. 18. is to be explained, so as to uncover nakedness, is to take to wife, or use as such, and agreeably, if the woman be such as it is not lawful for him to marry; then, and not else, the [uncovering her nakedness] is foreign, p. 158to commit fornication with her.

§. 93 And so 'tis plain that foreign nakedness is very distant from the word foreign, fornication, and that the uncovering of nakedness is it, which is equivalent to fornication; and accordingly the title of the Precept to the sons of Adam, which is rendred by [foreign, of fornication] is foreign of the revealing, or disclosing of nakedness, and not foreign of nakedness, onelyonly. And it is not impossible, but this may be the notion of the word in this place of Deuteronomy also, and so foreign signifying foreign thing or matter; and again, foreign, quarrel, or accusation, foreign matter of nakednesses, will be a civil phrase to denote any thing between man and wife; of that sort, which is not plainly to be named, and the finding of that in the [wife] shall be the discerning of somewhat of that kinde, after his coming near unto her, for which she hath no favor in his eyes, and for which he dislikes and hates her.

§. 94 And accordingly the former part of the verse is rendred by the Greek, If any man shall take a wife, foreign, and cohabit with her, and the Targum to the same purpose, noting this dislike to be a consequent of that.

§. 95 Against this understanding of the words, no inconvenience or difficulty can lye, whether we suppose foreign to signifie p. 159foreign, and foreign an accusation, (as it oft doth signifie) or whether it be rendred matter onelyonly. For then foreign will be negotium nuditatis, or, as Tertullian renders it, impudicum negotium, some conjugal secret, somewhat, I suppose, which appears odious to the husband, and may appear otherwise to another, to whom she may accordingly be marryed. And as this is on all hands resolved not to be fornication, so being not there rendred by foreign, or any word of that nature, but onelyonly by foreign, some unclean matter, or matter of nakedness, there can be no reason to beleive, that that should be the word used by Christ, which Matthew renders to foreign.

This will farther appear, if it be again §. 96 remembred, that our Saviours words are set opposite Mat. 5. to the foreign, that which was said under Moses, i. e. to the place of Deuteronomy, and all the interpretations of it, which is not possible, if foreign there, were all one with foreign here, for then the same indulgence should be allowed, and not any stricter restraint, in stead of it.

But then the inconveniences which §. 97 would be ready to attend this, if it were admitted, are of an high nature, and may yet farther deserve to be considered: For it is confessed by Mr. Selden, That among the Jews it was most generally received, p. 160that for light causes, dislike of beauty, age, and other such things, wives might be put away. And he addes, id{que} ex sacrae legis mente, and this according to the sense of the sacred law (l. 3. c. 18.) i. e. surely according to the sense of the words in Deuteronomy. And of the three opinions in this matter, set down fr…m the Misna, of Sammai, that restrained it to turpitude, of Hillel, that extended it to over-boiling his meat, or any such light cause, and of Aquiba, that if he found any handsomer, or more agreeable to him, be might put her away, It is apparent, and affirmed by the Misna, that all of them grounded their opinions on these words of that Text, foreign, diversly interpreted.

§. 98 By which it is evident, what absolute unlimited liberty is introduced, and consequently how little the bond and vow of marriage shall signifie, if it be once resolved, that foreign in Christs speech, is the same with foreign in Moses.

§. 99 For then, as Josephus saith, about Christs time, that aaaAntiq. 4. c. 8. man might separate from his wife for any causes whatsoever; adding, foreign, and many such causes there are which befal men; and confessing ofbbin vitâ. himself, that he put away his wife after he had three children by her, foreign, because he disliked her manners: so must it be expected again, p. 161there being nothing imaginable to restrain Christians from following the Jews, if Christs words were resolved to be the same with those, which the learned among them so generally interpreted to all this liberty.

Having premised thus much, 'twill now §. 100 be easie to discern the no force of all the proofs which Ms. Selden addes to make it probable, that the foreign in Deuteronomy should be the word here used by Christ. As first, because, saith he, this was the form used by the School of Sammai, that divorce was not to be admitted, but for the foreign causam aut rationem turpitudinis, cause or reason of turpitude. To this I answer, That Christ was no disciple of the School of Sammai, but came with Commission from God to reform both Hillel, and Sammai, and Sanhedrin, and Moses himself, and to give stricter precepts and interdicts in this matter, then had ever been given by any of these, and so is not to be imagined to have used Sammai's form of speech, any more then to have taken his doctrine from him, but appears clearly (in his Sermon on the Mount, Mat. 5.) to have opposed his new doctrine [But I say to you] to the [foreign, It hath been said] by Moses and others (none excepted of any later date) that were before him.

His second proof, because the word §. 101 p. 162signifies foreign and foreign, (I shall suppose it a slip of the Printer, for foreign and foreign, for, though there be foreign from another Original, sure there are no such words) shame, and shameful thing, concludes as little. For we know, that the former of those in Greek denotes the hidden parts, and the second any uncomely thing, and neither of those will be fitly rendred foreign, fornication. And though it be true, that Deut. 23.14. it signifie an unclean thing, i. e. a sin, yet that concludes as little, there being many sins besides foreign, whatever notion be assigned it. And indeed every iniquity is unclean and filthy in the sight of Gods pure eyes, as nakedness is in the sight of men, and so may fitly be expressed by that phrase. The short is, that the word foreign is rendred foreign, all words to denote nakedness, or shame, and foreign, naughtiness, Ezek. 16.36. where we rightly render nakedness, but never foreign fornication, or adultery, or any word of that importance.

§. 102 And when he farther pretends that the word in Leviticus signifies another mans wife, and all that are forbidden to be taken in marriage, First, that is not true, as hath been largely shewed: and Secondly, if it were true, it were far from proving, that it signifies foreign, the person and p. 163the act being not the same. And so again, when by the Karaeans 'tis defined, Every thing that is uncovered, which ought to be kept close; that still infers, that it signifies the womans shame, but not foreign, whatsoever that signifies.

As for his third proof out of the Prophets, §. 103 it infers nothing less, then what he would prove from it. For, first, that of Ezek. 16.37. I will uncover foreign thy nakedness, and they shall see all thy nakedness, is directly in the notion of Leviticus for the secrets parts, the discovering of which is a figurative expression, for the bringing one to shame, foreign, punishing openly, and there is no pretence that it should signifie there malitiam, flagitium, vitium, malice, sin, vice, or if it did, it must do it but by a metaphor, as a mans sinne is called his shame.

So secondly, that of Nahum 3.4. I will §. 104 shew the nations foreign verenda tua, thy shame, 'tis evidently in the former notion; and if it refer to latrocinia &c. thefts, lyes, murthers, with which Niniveh abounded, it is but by a figure again, as the [shewing their shame to the Gentiles] is the punishing their sins in their sight, as in the place even now cited out of Habakkuk did appear.

As for Onkelos's rendring foreign §. 105 p. 164in Deuteronomy, by transgressionem aliquam, some transgression, that still proves not that that transgression was fornication, for it might be somewhat else, and it is clear by Christ, who opposes his doctrine to that in Deuteronomy, that it was.

§. 106 As for the concurrence of the opinions of learned men, Arias Montanus, Scultetus, Grotius, that the passage in the Gospel referred or pertained to the Controversie of the Schools of Hillel, and Sammai, First, it is evidently contrary to the Text, (and cannot receive aid from any opinion of three learned men) where the Pharisees question, Mat. 19.7. [foreign, Why then did Moses?] is a proof, that they understood Christs answer to be contradictory to Moses, and Christs reply is a concession of it: and so evidently in the other places. Secondly, if it be granted, that Mat. 19. the Pharisees question was according to Hillels doctrine, whether divorces were lawful foreign, for every cause, or quarrel, or dislike, yet that is no proof, that Christ took part with Sammai against him, and commanded no more strictness, then Sammai maintained. And as that is the onelyonly thing to be proved, so I beleive there is none of those Authors have affirmed that; or if Scultetus have, his name will adde little to Mr. Selden.

p. 165This he again endevours to prove from §. 107 the words of Origen upon Matthew. It is a long passage, and I cannot think fit to set it down at length; when, by that which Mr. Selden hath cited, 'tis clear,p. 497. that all that Origen doth, is to recite an ob ection of a Jew against Ch…ists words, viz. that the cause allowed for divorces in Deuteronomy, was onelyonly that of fornication; and consequently that Christ, allowing that one cause, did the Jewes wrong, in saying it was for the hardness of their hearts that that libe…ty was indulged them. To which I shall onelyonly say, That if that Jew were not in the right, there is nothing to be gained from him; and if he were, then, first, was Christ in the wrong against whom he objects: and secondly, Mr. Seldens whole cause is fallen to the ground unexpectedly, for if the divorces in Deuteronomy were allowed in no cause, but that of foreign fornication, and if res turpis, uncleanness, there signified that, then questionless there is no pretence to be had from thence (or from any other Topick of probation) that we Christians may divorce for any other causes but adultery. For that Origen there by [foreign] understands adultery, is presentlyaaNec foreign ibi significare vult a…iud Origenes at{que} adul…c…ium. confest by Mr. Selden: onelyonly he addes, that Origen makes that but an example of other sins, for which divorces were admitted, which though it no way appear p. 166by the words cited by him, yet if it were true, it no way follows, that that example must infinitely be extended, or farther then to other sins of uncleanness, incest, unnatural villany, &c. to which the word may, and by some others hath been extended.

§. 108 And as it will easily be granted, that those are all contained under the word foreign in the Gospel; so there is no temptation from thence to beleive, that other distant sins, of what quality soever, should be contained under it, much less all the causes of divorce allowed either by Hillel or Sammai, which are not all affirmed to be sins.

§. 109 This is all that is in that Chapter proposed by Mr. Selden, in favour of this greater liberty, and it was but necessary to adde, That what was here proposed, was but by way of disquisition, Disquisivimus heic tantum nos, p. 4…7.for it is farre from proving any thing. I wish this may be of force to satisfie the inquiry, that what hath so diligently been sought, is not to be found any where.

§. 110 But this is not all: For, c. 28. another attempt is made to obtain a greater indulgence and liberty in this matter, by surveying the practise and usage of men, first, from Christs time to Constantine, then from Constantine forward, by these two intervals to learn, how the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles was understood.

p. 167But to this I answer, First, that the practises §. 111 of men, even of Christians, are a very infirm proof of the doctrine of the Church in any point, because that which is most resolved to be unlawful, is yet many times practised: and secondly, that this method of inquiry, whether into doctrines or practises, by way of historicall dissertation, if it be partially managed, (by setting down what is most favourable to the desired Conclusion, and omitting what is not so) is a ready art of infusing and imposing any thing on the incautious Reader, without rendring the Author lyable to answer for the unconcludingness of the Mediums, when they come to be examined. And accordingly it is here made use of: For, in that whole first interval or period of 300. years; two Examples onelyonly Mr. Selden brings of Christian women, who gave Bills of Divorce to their husbands, (one, of her in Justin, Apol. 1. who when her husband, being an unbeleiver, and a very wicked person, had departed from her, foreign, she gave him such a Bill of Divorce as the Romans use, and was separated: and this about the year of our Lord 150. The other, of Saint Thecla, the Sponsa, or espoused of Thamyris in Iconium, and S. Pauls disciple, who, saith he, would not marry him, but p. 168renounced her espousals.) And having named those two, he then concludes, First, That the Customes and usage of this interval, are not so expresly to be found in this matter: and, Secondly, that the way of conjecturing what their practise was; is by the Laws and Sanctions of Princes and Emperors in the second interval, after that Christianity was received into the Roman Empire, there being but a small handful of writers that preceded, and few of them touching the matter of Divorces. By which means he presently takes liberty to spend the rest of the Chapter in setting down several Imperiall Lawes in that matter.

§. 112 To this part of his discourse I answer briefly by these degrees: First, That if two examples of divorces for other causes beside fornication, were to be met with among Christians in the space of 300. years after Christs interdict, this would be no very new or strange thing, nor argument that it was not deemed to have been prohibited by Christ, but on the contrary, it were much more difficult to pitch on any other interdict of Christs, which could not appear to be many times more eminently violated, in the hundredth part of that space.

§. 113 Secondly, That neither of these examples are at all to the present purpose, these being of women giving bills of divorce p. 169to their husbands, for which there is no pretence of liberty from Christ, no nor under Moses among the Jews, and not of husbands putting away their wives.

And thirdly, that even of these two examples, §. 114 the first being in case not onelyonly of a most flagitious, as well as infidel husband, but also of one qui abscesserat, which had departed from her, her giving the bill of divorce, and being separated from him, is no argument or example of any great liberty, but agreeable to S. Pauls determination, If the unbeleiver will depart, let him depart; a beleiver foreign is not inslaved in such a case, 1 Cor. 7.15. And for the second, that of Thecla, besides that Mr. Selden givesaaHujus historiolae fides penes autores sit. p. 558. no great heed to the story, it was (saith Basil of Seleucia that relates it) before marriage, and so onelyonly a renouncing the sponsalia, and refusing to marry a person, that most bitterly detested Christianity: and so Mr. Selden appeareth to acknowledge, when he first calls her sponsa, espoused onelyonly, not married, and addes, nuptias noluit, she would not marry, and sponsalibus renuntiavit, she renounced the espousals, which supposeth it to have proceeded no farther.

But then fourthly, that the practise of §. 115 those times of the first interval should best be judged of by the Rescripts of the Emperors of the second interval, this is most p. 170unreasonable. 'Tis evident, that those Rescripts are laws to binde for the future, and not Records to testifie for the time past; and if, being delivered by Christian Emperors, they did (as Mr. Selden saith) restrain the liberty formerly used, yet sure that liberty was such as was used in time of Paganism by Infidels, or else by carnal Christians, not such as was owned and taught by the Governors of the Church of Christ, which are known to have used a greater strictness. And so there is little pretence or colour to be had from hence, that Christs words were in the Primitive times interpreted to a greater liberty. For if the small handfull, as it is styled, of Christian writers of those first 300. years, be compared with the Rescripts of the Emperors, which are made use of after, First, the handful will not appear very small, or contemptible in that comparison: and Secondly, it might have been as reasonable to have enlarged it by taking in the volumes of the Christian Fathers afterward, as to insist on those Rescripts of the Emperors which were afterward. The onelyonly difference is, that by observing this course, the result would certainly have been this, the thing pretended to, would not have been had: All these writers, that speak of it, asserting positively this one onelyonly cause of divorce, that of fornication.

p. 171Lastly, for the Constitution of Constantine, §. 116 it is observable, First, that it doth not define what shall be deemed lawful in divorces, but onelyonly in what case the woman should be allowed a dowry, in what not, and in what cases the man should be allowed to marry again; and such indeed useth to be the matter of Civil Sanctions, even of Christian Lawgivers, which extend only to the outer man, inflicting of punishments according as the temper of the people requires or permits, and not in defining what is before commanded or forbidden by Christ. Secondly, the cases wherein Divorces are by Constantine (I cannot say allowed, but) mentioned and foreseen, as possible, do not imply any very great liberty to have been used in those times (though also those liberties that are most used among wicked men, are sufficiently acknowledged to be unlawful:) For they are but three on the womans side, Si moecha, si medicamentaria, si conciliatrix, if she be a whore, or a witch, or a bawd, and the first and the last fall directly under the case reserved by Christ, the bawd being presumed a whore, and somewhat more. And for that of witchcraft, or practising on the life of the husband by poysons, &c. (for those may be comprehended under the foreign or medicamenta) although the case be somewhat changed, 'tis yet but little mollified by that. p. 172However, 'tis acknowledged in some of the Rescripts of Christian Emperors, the restraints are not made strictly according to Christs model, and therefore there is nothing strange in that of Constantines.

§. 117 And the reason is plain, because the Imperial Laws were to comprehend all sorts of men that were in the Empire; and though the Emperor were Christian, and many of his subjects also, yet 'tis sufficiently known that all were not, and accordingly to his mixt dominions, the strict Christian Law would not conveniently be adapted. The writings of the Fathers of the Church and Canons of their Councels, which are supposed to be written peculiarly to Christians, are therefore the onelyonly Records by which we may judge what was deemed the law of Christ, and those, I am sure, count many things unlawful in this kinde, which they acknowledge foreign legal by the Imperial Constitutions.

§. 118 Of this we have had evidences enough already, andaap. 555. Mr. Selden confessing Tertullian, Chrysostome, alios{que} non paucos, and not a few more, to be of the opinion, which the Church hath maintained, will save me that pains, especially when he is not able to name any one to the contrary, which I conclude, because he hath not done it. I shall but mention two Testimonies; one, which the Edict of Anastasius the Emperor, p. 570.produced by Mr. Selden, in p. 173favour of divorces for some other causes, put me in minde of, out of the Epistles of Avitus Alcimus, Ep. 49.which were written about that very time, Persuasum in Galliâ fuisse, solum adulterium legitimam causam esse divortii, That the French were perswaded that adultery was the onelyonly lawful cause of divorce; and accordingly pronouncing of fornication, that it is the sin, p. 110.propter quod solum Deus separari virum permittit à conjuge, for which onelyonly God permits the husband to be separated from his wife. The other, is that of Gregory, l. 9. Ep. 39. Si dicunt religionis causa conjugia debere dissolvi, sciendum est, quia etsi hoc lex humana concessit▪ lex divina tamen prohibuit. Per se enim veritas dicit, Quos Deus conjunxit, homo non separet: Quae etiam ait, Non licet dimittere uxorem exceptâ causâ fornicationis. Quis ergo huic coelesti egislatori contradicat? If they say that for Religion marriages ought to be dissolved, they must know, that although the law of man hath granted this, yet t…e law of God hath prohibited it. For the truth saith, Whom God hath joyned, let no man sever: and again, It is not lawful to put away a wife, except for fornication. Who then can contradict this heavenly Law-giver?