Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 3
Verſ. 7. They ſay unto him, why did Moſes then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Verſ. 8. He ſaith unto them, Moſes becauſe of the hardneſſe of your hearts ſuffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not ſo.
[Moſes becauſe of the hardneſſe of your hearts ſuffered you.] Henee the divinity now current argues that this judiciall Moſes is aboliſht. But ſuppoſe it were ſo, though it hath bin prov'd otherwiſe, the firmeneſſe of ſuch right to divorce as here pleads, is fetcht from the prime inſtitution, does not ſtand or fall with the judiciall Jew, but is as morall as what is moraleſt. Yet as I have ſhewn poſitively that this law cannot bee abrogated, both by the words of our Saviour pronouncing the contrary, and by that unaboliſhable equity which it convaies to us, ſo I ſhall now bring to view thoſe appearances of ſtrength which are levied from this text to maintaine the moſt groſſe and maſſy paradox that ever did violence to reaſon and religion, bred onelyonly under the ſhadow of theſe words, to all other piety or philoſophy ſtrange and inſolent, that God by act of law drew out a line of adultery almoſt two thouſand yeares long: although to detect the prodigy of this ſurmiſe, the former booke ſet forth on this argument hath already beene copious. I ſhall not repeate much though I might borrow of mine own, but ſhall endeavour to adde ſomething either yet untoucht, or not largely anough explain'd Firſt it ſhal be manifeſt that the common expoſition cannot poſſibly conſiſt with chriſtian doctrine: next a truer meaning of this our Saviours reply ſhall be left in the roome. The receiv'd expoſition is, that God though not approving did enact a law to permit adultery by divorcement ſimply unlawfull. And this conceit they feede with fond ſuppoſals that have not the leaſt footing in Scripture. As that the Jews learnt this cuſtome of divorce in Egypt, and therefore God would not unteach it them till Chriſt came, but let it ſtick as a notorious botch of deformity in the midſt of his moſt perfect and ſevere law. And yet he ſaith, Levit. the 18th after the doings of Egypt ye ſhall not do. Another while they invent a ſlander (as what thing more bold then teaching Ignorance when he ſhifts to hide his nakednes) that the Jews were naturally to their wives the cruelleſt men in the world; would poiſon, braine, and doe I know not what, if they might not divorce. Certain, if it were a fault heavily puniſht, to bring an evill report upon the land which God gave, what is it to raiſe a groundles calumny againſt the people which God made choiſe of? But that this bold interpretament, how commonly ſo ever ſided with, cannot ſtand a minute with any competent reverence to God or his law, or his people, nor with any other maxim of religion, or good manners, might bee prov'd through all the heads and Topics of argumentation: but I ſhall willingly bee as conciſe as poſſible. Firſt the law, not onelyonly the moral, but the judicial given by Moſes is juſt and pure; for ſuch is God who gave it. Harken O Iſrael, ſaith Moſes, Dent. 4. unto the statutes and the judgements which I teach you, to doe them, that ye may live, &c. ye ſhall not adde unto the word which J command you, neither ſhall ye diminiſh ought from it, that ye may keepe the commandements of the Lord your God which I command you. And onward in the chapter, Behold I have taught you ſtatutes and judgements, even as the Lord my God commanded me. Keepe therefore and doe them, for this is your wiſedome and your underſtanding. For what nation hath God ſo nigh unto them, and what-nation hath ſtatutes and judgements ſo righteous as all this law which I ſet before ye this day. Is it imaginable there ſhould bee among theſe a law which God allow'd not, a law giving permiſſions laxative to unmarry a wife and marry a luſt, a law to ſuffer a kind of tribunall adultery? Many other ſcriptures might be brought to aſſert the purity of this judicial law, and many I have alleg'd before; this law therefore is pure and juſt. But if it permit, if it teach, if it defend that which is both unjuſt and impure, as by the common doctrine it doth, what thinke we? The three generall doctrines of Juſtinians law, are To live in honeſty, To hurt no man, To give every one his due. Shall the Roman civil law obſerve theſe three things, as the onelyonly end of law, and ſhall a ſtatute be found in the civil law of God, enacted ſimply and totally againſt all theſe three precepts of nature and morality?
Secondly, the gifts of God are all perfet, and certainely the law is of all his other gifts one of the perfeteſt. But if it give that outwardly which it takes away really, & give that ſeemingly, which, if a man take it, wraps him into ſinne and damns him, what gift of an enemy can be more dangerous and deſtroying then this.
Thirdly, Moſes every where commends his lawes, preferrs them before all of other nations, and warrants them to be the way of life and ſafety to all that walke therein, Levit. 18. But if they containe ſtatutes which God approves not, and traine men unweeting to committ injuſtice and adultery, under the ſhelter of law, if thoſe things bee ſin, and death ſins wages, what is this law but the ſnare of death?
Fourthly, the ſtatutes and judgements of the Lord, which without exception are often told us to be ſuch, as doing wee may live by them, are doubtles to be counted the rule of knowledge and of conſcience. For I had not known luſt, ſaith the Apoſtle, but by the law. But if the law come downe from the ſtate of her incorruptible majeſty to grant luſt his boon, palpably it darkns and confounds both knowledge and conſcience; it goes againſt the common office of all goodnes and freindlineſſe, wich is at leſt to counſel and admoniſh; it ſubverts the rules of all ſober education; and is it ſelfe a moſt negligent and debauſhing tutor.
Fiftly, if the law permit a thing unlawfull, it permitts that which elſe where it hath forbid; ſo that hereby it contradicts it ſelfe, and tranſgreſſes it ſelfe. But if the law become a tranſgreſſor, it ſtands guilty to it ſelfe, and how then ſhall it ſave another; it makes a confederacy with ſin, how then can it juſtly condemne a ſinner? and thus reducing it ſelfe to the ſtateof neither ſaving nor condemning, it will not faile to expire ſolemnely ridiculous.
Sixtly, the Prophets in Scripture declare ſeverely againſt the decreeing of that which is unjuſt, Pſal. 94. 20. Iſaiah the 10th. But it was done, they ſay, for heardneſſe of heart; To which objection the Apoſtles rule, not to doe evill that good may come thereby, gives an invincible repuls; and here eſpecially, where it cannot be ſhewn how any good came by doing this evil, how rather more evil did not hereon abound; for the giving way to hardneſſe of heart hard'ns the more, and adds more to the number. God to an evil and adulterous generation would not grant a ſigne; much leſſe would he for their hardneſſe of heatt pollute his law with an adulterous permiſſion. Yea but to permitt evil is not to doe evil. Yes, it is in a moſt eminent manner to doe evil: where elſe are all our grave and faithfull ſayings, that he whoſe office is to forbid and forbids not, bids, exhorts, encourages. Why hath God denounc'd his anger againſt parents, maiſters, freinds, magiſtrates neglectfull of forbidding what they ought, if law the common father, maiſter, friend, and perpetuall magiſtrate ſhall not onelyonly not forbidd, but enact, exhibit, and uphold with countnance and protection a deede every way diſhoneſt, what ever the pretence be. If it were of thoſe inward vices, which the law cannot by outward conſtraint remedy, but leaves to conſcience and perſwaſion, it had bin guiltleſſe in being ſilent: but to write a decree of that which can be no way lawfull, and might with eaſe be hinder'd, makes law by the doome of law it ſelfe acceſſory in the higheſt degree.
Seventhly, it makes God the direct author of ſin, For although he bee not made the authour of what he ſilently permitts in his providence, yet in his law, the image of his will, when in plaine expreſſion he conſtitutes and ordaines a fact utterly unlawfull, what wants hee to authorize it, and what wants that to be the author?
Eightly, to eſtabliſh by law a thing wholy unlawfull and diſhoneſt, is an affirmation was never heard of before in any law, reaſon, philoſophy, or religion, till it was rais'd by inconſideratgloſſiſts from the miſtake of this text. And though the Civilians have bin contented to chew this opinion, after the canon had ſubdu'd them, yet they never could bring example or authority either from divine writt, or human learning, or human practice in any nation, or well-form'd republick, but only from the cuſtomary abuſe of this text. Uſually they allege the Epiſtle of Cicero to Atticus; wherein Cato is blam'd for giving ſentence to the ſcumme of Romulus, as if he were in Plato's common wealth. Cato would have call'd ſome great one into judgemēt for bribery, Cicero as the time ſtood, advis'd againſt it. Cato, not to endammage the public treaſury, would not grant to the Roman Knights, that the Aſian taxes might bee farm'd them at a leſſe rate. Cicero wiſht it granted. Nothing in all this will bee like the eſtabliſhing of a law to ſinne: here are no lawes made, here onelyonly the execution of law is crav'd might be ſuſpended: between which and our queſtion is a broad difference. And what if human law givers have confeſt they could not frame their lawes to that perfection which they deſir'd, we heare of no ſuch confeſſion from Moſes concerning the lawes of God, but rather all praiſe and high teſtimony of perfection given them. And although mans nature cannot beare exacteſt lawes, yet ſtill within the confines of good it may and muſt; ſo long as leſſe good is far anough from altogether evil. As for what they inſtance of uſury, let them firſt prove uſury to be wholly unlawfull, as the law allowes it; which learned men as numerous on the other ſide will deny them. Or if it be altogether unlawfull, why is it tolerated more then divorce? he who ſaid divorſe not, ſaid alſo lend hoping for nothing againe, Luk. 6. 35. But then they put in, that trade could not ſtand. And ſo to ſerve the commodity of inſatiable trading, uſury ſhall be permitted, but divorce, the onelyonly meanes oft times to right the innocent, & outrageouſly wrong'd, ſhall be utterly forbid. This is egregious doctrine, and for which one day charity will much thanke them. Beza not finding how to ſalve this perplexity, and Cameron ſince him, would ſecure us; although the latter confeſſes that to permit a wicked thing by law, is a wickedneſſe from which God abhorrs; yet to limit ſin, and preſcribe it a certaine meaſure, is good. Firſt this evaſion will not helpe heere; for this law bounded no man; he might put away whatever found not favour in his eyes. And how could it forbid to divorce, whom it could not forbidd to diſlike, or command to love. If theſe be the limits of law to reſtraine ſinne, who ſo lame a ſinner but may hoppe over them more eaſily then over thoſe Romulean circumſcriptions, not as Remus did with hard ſucces, but with all indemnity. Such a limiting as this were not worth the miſcheif that accompanies it. This law therefore not bounding the ſuppoſed ſinne, by permitting enlarges it, gives it enfranchiſement. And never greater confuſion, then when law and ſin move their land markes, mixe their territories, and correſpond, have intercourſe and traffic together. When law contracts a kindred and hoſpitality with tranſgreſſion, becomes the godfather of ſinne and names it Lawfull; when ſin revels and goſſips within the arcenal of law, plaies, and dandles the artillery of juſtice that ſhould be bent againſt her, this is a faire limitation indeede. Beſides it is an abſurdity to ſay that law can meaſure ſin, or moderate ſin; ſin is not in a predicament to be meaſur'd and modify'd, but is alwaies an exceſſe. The leaſt ſinne that is, exceeds the meaſure of the largeſt law that can bee good; and is as boundleſſe as that vacuity beyond the world. If once it ſquare to the meaſure of Law, it ceaſes to be an exceſſe, and conſequently ceaſes to be a ſinne; or elſe law conforming it ſelfe to the obliquity of ſin, betraies it ſelfe to be not ſtrait, but crooked, and ſo immediatly no law. And the improper conceit of moderating ſin by law will appeare, if wee can imagin any lawgiver ſo ſenſeleſſe as to decree that ſo farre a man may ſteale, and thus farre bee drunk, that moderately he may cozen, and moderatly committ adultery. To the ſame extent it would be as pithily abſurd to publiſh that a man may moderately divorce, if to doe that be intirely naught. But to end this moot, the law of Moſes is manifeſt to fixe no limit therein at all, or ſuch at leſt as impeaches the fraudulent abuſer no more then if it were not ſet; only requires the diſmiſſive writing without other caution, leaves that to the inner man, and the barre of conſcience. But it ſtopt other ſins. This is as vaine as the reſt, and dangerouſly uncertain: the contrary to be fear'd rather, that one ſin admitted courteouſly by law, open'd the gate to another. However evil muſt not be don for good. And it were a fall to be lamented, an indignity unſpeakable, if law ſhould becom tributary to ſin her ſlave, and forc't to yeild up into his hands her awfull miniſter Puniſhment, ſhould buy out her peace with ſinne for ſinne, paying as it were her ſo many Philiſtian foreskins to the proud demand of Trangreſſion. But ſuppoſe it any way poſſible to limit ſinne, to put a girdle about that Chaos, ſuppoſe it alſo good; yet if to permitt ſin by Law bee an abomination in the eyes of God, as Cameron acknowledges, the evil of permitting will eate out the good of limiting. For though ſin be not limited, there can but evil come out of evil; but if it be permitted & decreed lawfull by divine law, of force then ſin muſt proceed from the infinit Good, which is a dreadfull thought. But if the reſtraining of ſinne by this permiſſion beeing good, as this author teſtifies, be more good then the permiſſion of more ſin by the reſtraint of divorce, and that God waighing both theſe like two ingots in the perfet ſcales of his juſtice and providence found them ſo, and others coming without authority from God, ſhall change this counter poiſe, and judge it better to let fin multiply by ſetting a judicial reſtraint upon divorce, which Chriſt never ſet, then to limit ſin by this permiſſion, as God himſelfe thought beſt to permitt it, it will behoove them to conſult betimes whether theſe their ballances be not fals and abominable; and this their limiting that which God looſen'd, and their looſning the ſinnes that he limited, which they confeſſe was good to doe: and were it poſſible to doe by law, doubtleſſe it would be moſt morally good; and they ſo beleeving, as we heare they doe, and yet aboliſhing a law ſo good and moral, the limiter of ſin, what are they elſe but contrary to themſelves? for they can never bring us to that time wherein it will not be good to limit ſinne, and they can never limit it better then ſo as God preſcrib'd in his law.
Others conceav it a more defenſible retirement to ſay this permiſſion to divorce ſinfully for hardneſſe of heart was a diſpenſation. But ſurely they either know not, or attend not what a diſpenſation meanes. A diſpenſation is for no long time, is particular to ſom perſons rather then generall to a whole people; alwaies hath charity the end, is granted to neceſſities and infirmities, not to obſtinat luſt. This permiſſion is another creatnre, hath all thoſe evils and abſurdities following the name of a diſpenſation, as when it was nam'd a law; and is the very antarctic pole againſt charity, nothing more advers, enſnaring and ruining thoſe that truſt in it, or uſe it; ſo leud and criminous as never durſt enter into the head of any Politician, Jew, or Proſelyte, till they became the apt Schollers of this canoniſtic expoſition. Ought in it, that can allude in the leſt manner to charity, or goodnes, belongs with more full right to the chrian under grace and liberty, then to the Jew under law and bondage. To Jewiſh ignorance it could not be diſpenc'd, without a horrid imputation laid upon the law, to diſpence fouly, in ſtead of teaching fairly; like that diſpenſation that firſt polluted Chriſtendom with idolatry, permitting to lay men images in ſtead of bookes and preaching. Sloth or malice in the law would they have this calld? But what ignorance can be pretended for the Jewes, who had all the ſame precepts about mariage, that we now: for Chriſt referrs all to the inſtitution. It was as reaſonable for them to know then as for us now, and concern'd them alike: for wherein hath the goſpel alter'd the nature of matrimony: All theſe conſiderations, or many of them have bin furder amplify'd in the doctrine of divorce. And what Rivetus and Paraeus hath objected, or giv'n over as paſt cure hath bin there diſcuſst. Whereby it may be plain anough to men of eyes, that the vulgar expoſition of a permittance by law to an entire fin, what ever the colour may be, is an opinion both ungodly, unpolitic, unvertuous, and void of all honeſty & civil ſenſe. It appertaines therefore to every zealous Chriſtian both for the honour of Gods law & the vindication of our Saviours words, that ſuch an irreligious depravement no longer may be ſooth'd and flatter'd through cuſtome, but with all diligence and ſpeed ſolidly refuted, and in the room a better explanation giv'n; which is now our next endeavour.
[Moſes ſuffer'd you to put away, &c.] Not commanded you, ſaies the common obſerver, and therefore car'd not how ſoon it were aboliſht, being but ſuffer'd; heerin declaring his annotation to be ſlight & nothing law prudent. For in this place commanded and ſuffer'd are interehangeably us'd in the ſame ſenſe both by our Saviour and the Phariſes. Our Saviour who heer ſaith, Moſes ſuffer'd you, in the 10th of Marke ſaith, Moſes wrote you this command. And the Phariſees who heer ſay, Moſes commanded, and would mainly have it a command, in that place of Marke ſay Moſes ſuffer'd, which had made againſt them in their owne mouthes, if the word of ſuffering had weakn'd the command. So that ſuffer'd and commanded is heer taken for the ſame thing on both ſides of the controverſy: as Cameron alſo and others on this place acknowledge. And Lawyers know that all the precepts of law are devided into obligatorie and permiſſive, containing either what we muſt doe, or what wee may doe; and of this latter ſort are as many precepts, as of the former, and all as lawfull. Tutelage, an ordainment then which nothing more juſt, being for the defence of Orfanes, the Juſtitutes of Juſtinian, ſay is given and permitted by the civil law: and to parents it is permitted to chooſe and appoint by will the guardians of their children. What more equall, and yet the civil law calls this permiſſion. So likewiſe to manumiſe, to adopt, to make a will, and to be made an heire is call'd permiſſion by law. Marriage it ſelfe, and this which is already granted, to divorce for adultery, obliges no man, is but a permiſſion by law, is but ſuffer'd. By this we may ſee how weakly it hath bin thought that all divorce is utterly unlawfull, becauſe the law is ſaid to ſuffer it: whenas to ſuffer is but the legall phraſe denoting what by law a man may doe or not doe.
[Becauſe of the hardneſſe of your hearts] Hence they argue that therefore he allowd it not; and therefore it muſt be aboliſht. But the contrary to this will ſooner follow, that becauſe he ſuffer'd it for a cauſe, therefore in relation to that cauſe he allow'd it. Next, if he in his wiſedome, and in the midſt of his ſeverity allow'd it for hardneſſe of heart, it can be nothing better then arrogance and preſumption to take ſtricter courſes againſt hardnes of heart then God ever ſet an example and that under the Goſpel which warrants them to no judicial act of compulſion in this matter, much leſſe to be more ſevere againſt hardnes of extremity, then God thought good to bee againſt hardnes of heart. He ſuffer'd it, rather then worſe inconveniences; theſe men wiſer as they make themſelves, will ſuffer the worſt and hainouſeſt inconveniences to follow, rather then they will ſuffer what God ſuffer'd. Although they can know when they pleaſe, that Chriſt ſpake only to the conſcience, did not judge on the civil bench, but alwaies diſavow'd it. What can be more contrary to the waies of God then theſe their doings. If they bee ſuch enemies to hardnes of heart, although this groundleſſe rigor proclaims it to be in themſelves, they may yet learne, or conſider that hardneſſe of heart hath a twofould acception in the Goſpel. One, when it is in a good man taken for infirmity, and imperfection, which was in all the Apoſtles, whoſe weakneſſe only, not utter want of beleef is call'd hardnes of heart, Marke 16. partly for this hardneſſe of heart, the imperfection and decay of man from original righteouſneſſe, it was that God ſuffer'd not divorce onelyonly, but all that which by Civilians is term'd the ſecondary law of nature and of nations. He ſuffer'd his owne people to waſt and ſpoyle and ſlay by warre, to lead captives, to be ſom maiſters, ſom ſervants, ſom to be princes, others to be ſubjects, hee ſuffer'd propriety to divide all things by ſeverall poſſeſſion trade and commerce, not with out uſury; in his comon wealth ſome to bee undeſervedly rich, others to bee undeſervingly poore. All which till hardneſſe of heart came in, was moſt unjuſt; whenas prime Nature made us all equall, made us equall coheirs by common right and dominion over all creatures. In the ſame manner, and for the ſame cauſe hee ſuffer'd divorce as well as mariage, our imperfet and degenerat condition of neceſſity requiring this law among the reſt, as a remedy againſt intolerable wrong and ſervitude above the patience of man to beare. Nor was it giv'n only becauſe our infirmity, or if it muſt be ſo call'd, hardneſſe of heart could not endure all things, but becauſe the hardnes of anothers heart might not inflict all things upon an innocent perſon, whom far other ends brought into a league of love and not of bondage and indignity. If therefore we aboliſh divorce as only ſuffer'd for hardnes of heart, we may as well aboliſh the whole law of nations, as only ſufferd for the ſame cauſe; it being ſhewn us by Saint Paul 1 Cor. 6. that the very ſeeking of a mans right by law, and at the hands of a worldly magiſtrat, is not without the hardneſſe of our hearts. For why doe ye not rather take wrong, ſaith he, why ſuffer ye not rather your ſelves to be defrauded? If nothing now muſt be ſuffer'd for hardnes of heart, I ſay the very proſecution of our right by way of civil juſtice can no more bee ſuffer'd among Chriſtians, for the hardnes of heart wherwith moſt men perſue it. And that would next remove all our judiciall lawes, and this reſtraint of divorce alſo in the number; which would more then halfe end the controversy. But if it be plaine that the whole juridical law and civil power is only ſuffer'd under the Goſpel, for the hardnes of our hearts, then wherefore ſhould not that which Moſes ſuffer'd, be ſuffer'd ſtill by the ſame reaſon?
In a ſecond ſignification hardnes of heart is tak'n for a ſtubborne reſolution to doe evil. And that God ever makes any law purpoſely to ſuch, I deny; for he voutſafes not to enter gov'nant with them, but as they fortune to be mixt with good men, and paſſe undiſcover'd; much leſſe that he ſhould decree an unlawfull thing only to ſerve their licentiouſnes. But that God ſuffers this reprobate hardnes of heart I affirm, not only in this law of divorce, but throughout all his beſt and pureſt commandements. He commands all to worſhip in ſinglenes of heart according to all his Ordinances; and yet ſuffers the wicked man to performe all the rites of religion hypocritically and in the hardnes of his heart. He gives us generall ſtatutes & privileges in all civil matters, juſt & good of themſelves, yet ſuffers unworthieſt men, to uſe them & by themt, o proſecute their own right, or any colour of right, though for the moſt part maliciouſly, covetouſly, nigorouſly, revengefully. He allow'd by law the diſcreet father and husband to forbidd, if he thought fit, the religious vows of his wife or daughter: Num. 30. and in the ſame law ſuffer'd the hard heartednes of impious and covetous fathers or husbands abuſing this law to forbidd their wives or daughters in their offrings and devotions of greateſt zeal. If then God ſuffer hardnes of heart equally in the beſt laws as in this of divorce, there can be no reaſon that for this cauſe this law ſhould be aboliſht. But other lawes, they object, may be well us'd, this never. How often ſhall I anſwer both from the inſtitution of mariage, and from other general rules in Scripture, that this law of divorce hath many wiſe and charitable ends beſides the being ſuffer'd for hardnes of heart; which is indeed no end, but an accident happning through the whole law; which gives to good men right, and to bad men who abuſe right under falſe pretences, gives only ſufferance. Now although Chriſt expreſſ no other reaſons here, but only what was ſuffer'd, it nothing followes that this law had no other reaſon to be permitted but for hardnes of heart. The Scripture ſeldome, or never in one place ſets down all the reaſons of what it grants or commands, eſpecially when it talks to enemies and tempters. St Paul permitting mariage, 1 Cor. 7, ſeems to permit even that alſo for hardnes of heart only, leſt we ſhould run into fornication; yet no intelligent man thence concludes mariage allow'd in the Goſpel only to avoid an evill, becauſe no other end is there expreſt. Thus Moſes of neceſſity ſuffer'd many to put away their wives for hardneſſe of heart; but enacted the law of divorce doubtles for other good cauſes, not for this only ſufferance. He permitted not divorce by law as an evil, for that was impoſſible to divine law, but permitted by accident the evil of them who divorc't againſt the lawes intention undiſcoverably This alſo may be thought not improbably, that Chriſt ſtirr'd up in his ſpirit againſt theſe tempting Phariſes, anſwer'd them in a certain forme of indignation uſual among good authors; wherby the queſtion, or the truth is not directly anſwer'd, but ſom thing which is fitter for them, who aske, to heare. So in the eccleſiaſtical ſtories one demanding how God imploy'd himſelf before the world was made, had āſwer; that he was making hel for curious queſtioners. Another (and Libanius the Sophiſt as I remember) asking in deriſion ſom Chriſtian, what the Carpenter, meaning our Saviour, was doing, now that Julian ſo prevail'd, had it return'd him, that the Carpenter was making a coffin for the Apoſtat. So Chriſt being demanded maliciouſly why Moſes made the law of divorce, anſwers them in a vehement ſcheme, not telling them the cauſe why he made it, but what was fitteſt to be told them, that for the hardnes of their hearts he ſuffer'd them to abuſe it. And all beit Mark ſay not he ſuffer'd you, but to you he wrote this precept; Mark may be warrantably expounded by Mathew the larger. And whether he ſuffer'd, or gave precept, being all one as was heard, it changes not the trope of indignation, fitteſt account for ſuch askers. Next for the hardnes of your hearts to you he wrote this precept, inferrs not therfore for this cauſe only he wrote it, as was parallell'd by other Scriptures. Laſtly, It may be worththe obſerving, that Chriſt ſpeaking to the Phariſes does not ſay in general that for hardnes of heart he gave this precept, but you he ſuffer'd, & to you he gave this precept for your hardnes of heart. It cannot be eaſily thought that Chriſt heer included all the children of Iſrael under the perſon of theſe tempting Phariſes but that he conceals wherefore he gave the better ſort of them this law, and expreſſes by ſaying emphatically To you how he gave it to the worſer, ſuch as the Phariſes beſt repreſented, that is to ſay for the hardnes of your hearts: as indeed to wicked men and hardn'd hearts he gives the whole law and the Goſpel alſo, to hard'n them the more. Thus many waies it may orthod oxally be underſtood how God or Moſes ſuffer'd ſuch as the demanders were, to divorce for hardnes of heart. Whereas the vulgar expoſiter beſet with contradictions and abſurdities round, and reſolving at any peril to make an expoſition of it, as there is nothing more violent and boiſtrous then a reverend ignorance in fear to be convicted, ruſhes brutely and impetuouſly againſt all the principles both of nature, piety, and moral goodnes; and in the ſury of his literal expounding overturns them all.
[But from the the beginning it was not ſo.] Not how from the beginning doe they ſuppoſe, that men might not divorce at all, not neceſſarily, not deliberatly except for adultery, but that ſom law, like canon law preſently attacht them both before and after the flood, till ſtricter Moſes came, and with law brought licence into the world? that were a fancy indeed to ſmile at. Undoubtedly as to point of judiciall law, divorce was more permiſſive from the beginning before Moſes then under Moſes. But from the beginning, that is to ſay, by the inſtitution in Paradice it was not intended that matrimony ſhould diſſolve for every trivial cauſe as you Phariſes accuſtome. But that it was not thus ſuffer'd from the beginning ever ſince the race of men corrupted, & laws were made, he who will affirme, muſt have found out other antiquities then are yer known. Beſides we muſt conſider now, what can be ſo as from the beginning, not only what ſhould be ſo. In the beginning, had men continu'd perfet, it had bin juſt that all things ſhould have remain'd, as they began to Adam & Eve. But after that the ſons of men grew violent & injurious, it alter'd the lore of juſtice, and put the goverment of things into a new frame. While man and woman were both perfet each to other, there needed no divorce; but when they both degenerated to imperfection, & oft times grew to be an intolerable evil each to other, then law more juſtly did permitt the alienating of that evil which miſtake made proper, then it did the appropriating of that good which Nature at firſt made common. For if the abſence of outward good be not ſo bad as the preſence of a cloſe evil, & that propriety, whether by cov'nant or poſſeſſion, be but the attainment of ſome outward good, it is more natural & righteous that the law ſhould ſever us from an intimat evil, then appropriate any outward good to us from the community of nature. The Goſpel indeed tending ever to that which is perfeteſt, aim'dat the reſtorement of all things, as they were in the beginning. And therefore all things were in common to thoſe primitive Chriſtians in the Acts, which Ananias & Sapphira dearly felt. That cuſtome alſo continu'd more or leſſ till the time of Juſtin Martyr, as may be read in his 2d Apology, which might be writt after that act of communion perhaps ſome. 40. yeares above a hunder'd. But who will be the man ſhall introduce this kind of common wealth, as chriſtianity now goes? If then mariage muſt be as in the beginning, the perſons that marry muſt be ſuch as then were, the inſtitution muſt make good, in ſom tolerable ſort, what it promiſes toeeither party. If not, it is but madnes to drag this one ordinance back to the beginning, and draw down all other to the preſent neceſſity, and condition farre from the beginning even to the tolerating of extortions and opp reſſions. Chriſt only told us that from the beginning it was not ſo; that is to ſay, not ſo as the Phariſes manu…'d the buſines; did not command us that it ſhould be forcibly ſo again in all points, as at the beginning; or ſo at leaſt in our intentions and deſires, but ſo in execution, as reaſon, and preſent nature can bear. Although we are not to ſeek, that the inſtitution it ſelfe from the firſt beginning was never but conditional, as all cov'nants are: becauſe thus and thus, therefore ſo and ſo; if not thus, then not ſo. Then moreover was perfeteſt to fulfill each law in it ſelfe; now is perfeteſt in this eſtate of things, to ask of charity how much law may be fulfill'd: els the fulfilling, oft times is the greateſt breaking. If any therefore demand, which is now moſt perfection, to eaſe an extremity by divorce, or to enrage and feſter it by the greevous obſervance of a miſerable wedloc, I am not deſtitute to ſay which is moſt perfection (although ſom who beleev they thinke favourably of divorce, eſteem it only venial to infirmity) Him I hold more in the way to perfection who forgoes an unfit ungodly & diſcordant wedloc, to live according to peace & love, & Gods inſtitution in a fitter chois, then he who debarrs himſelf the happy experience of all godly, which is peaceful converſatiō in his family, to live a contentious, and unchritian life not to be avoided, in temptations not to be liv'd in, only for the fals keeping of a moſt unreal nullity, a mariage that hath no affinity with Gods intention, a daring phantaſm, a meer toy of terror awing weak ſenſes, to the lamentable ſuperſtition of ruining themſelves, the remedy wherof God in his law voutſafes us. Which not to dare uſe, he warranting, is not our perfection, is our infirmity, our little faith, our timorous and low conceit of charity: and in them who force us, it is their masking pride and vanity, to ſeem holier & more circumſpect then God. So far is it that we need impute to him infirmity, who thus divorces: ſince the rule of perfection is not ſo much that which was don in the beginning, as that which now is neareſt to the rule of charity. This is the greateſt, the perfeteſt, the higheſt commandment.