Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 6

Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage · Treatise · Part 2 · Section 6

p. 711 COR. 7. 10, &c.

10. And unto the maried I command, &c.

11. And let not the husband put away his wife.

THis intimates but what our Saviour taught before, that divorce is no raſhly to be made, but reconcilement to be perſuaded and endevo'rd, as oft as the cauſe can have to doe with reconcilement, & is not under the dominion of blameles nature; which may have reaſon to depart though ſeldomeſt and laſt from charitable love, yet ſomtimes from friendly, and familiar, and ſomthing oftner from conjugal love, which requires not only moral, but natural cauſes to the making and maintayning; and may be warrantably excus'd to retire from the deception of what it juſtly ſeeks, and the ill requitals which unjuſtly it finds. For Nature hath her Zodiac alſo, keepes her great annual circuit over human things as truly as the Sun and Planers in the firmament; hath her anomalies, hath her obliquities in aſcenſions and declinations, acceſſes and receſſes, as blameleſly as they in heaven. And ſitting in her planetary Orb with two rains in each hand, one ſtrait, the other loos, tempers the cours of minds as well as bodies to ſeveral conjunctions and oppoſitions, freindly, or unfriendly aſpects, conſenting ofteſt with reaſon, but never contrary. This in the effect no man of meaneſt reach but daily ſees; and though to every one it appeare not in the cauſe, yet to a cleare capacity, well nurtur'd with good reading and obſervation, it cannot but be plaine and viſible. Other expoſition therefore then hath bin given to former places that give light to theſe two ſummary verſes, will not be needfull: ſave onelyonly that theſe precepts are meant to thoſe maried who differ not in religion.

[But to the reſt ſpeake I, not the Lord; if any brother hath a wife that beleeveth not, and ſhe be pleaſed to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Now followes what is to be done, if the perſons wedded be of a different faith. The common beleef is, that a chriſtian is heer commanded not to divorce, if the infidel pleaſe to ſtay, though it be but to vexe, or to deride, or to ſeduce the chriſtian. This doctrin will be the eaſie worke of a refutation. The other opinion is, that a chriſtian is heer conditionally p. 72permitted to hold wedloc with a misbeleever only upon hopes limited by chriſtian prudence, which without much difficulty ſhall be defended. That this heer ſpoken by Paul, not by the Lord cannot be a command, theſe reaſ avouch. Firſt the law of Moſes, Exod. 34. 16. Dent. 7. 3. 6. interpreted by Ezra, and Nehemiah two infallible authors, commands to divorce an infidel not for the feare onelyonly of a ceremonious defilement, but of an irreligious ſeducem ent, fear'd both in reſpect of the beleever himſelfe, and of his children in danger to bee perverted by the misbeleeving parent. Nehem. 13. 24. 26 and Peter Martyr thought this a convincing reaſon. If therefore the legal pollution vaniſhing have abrogated the ceremony of this law, ſo that a chriſtian may be permitted to retaine an infidel without uncleannes, yet the moral reaſon of divorcing ſtands to eternity, which neither Apoſtle nor Angel from heaven can countermand. All that they reply to this, is their human warrant, that God will preſerve us in our obedience to this command againſt the danger of ſeducement. And ſo undoubtedly he will, if we underſtand his commands aright; if we turn not this evangelic permiſſion into a legal, and yet illegal command: If we turne not hope into bondage, the charitable and free hope of gaining another, into the forc't and ſervil temptation of looſing our ſelves; but more of this beneath. Thus theſe words of Paul by common doctrin made a command, are made a contradiction to the morall law.

Secondly, not the law only, but the Goſpel from the law, and from it ſelfe requires even in the ſame chapter, where divorce between them of one religion is ſo narrowly forbidd, rather then our chriſtian love ſhould come into danger of backſliding, to forſake all relations how neer ſo ever, and the wife expreſly, with promiſe of a high reward, Mat. 19. And he who hates not father or mother, wife, or children hindring his chriſtian cours, much more, if they deſpiſe or aſſault it, cannot be a Diſciple, Luke 14. How can the Apoſtle then command us, to love and continue in that matrimony, which our Saviour bids us hate, and forſake? They can as ſoon teach our faculty of reſpiration to contract and to dilate it ſelfe at once, to breath and to fetch breath in the ſame inſtant, as teach our minds how to doe ſuch contrary acts as theſe, towards the ſame object, and as they muſt he done in the ſame moment. For either the hatred of her religion, & her hatred to our religion will work powerfully againſt the love of her ſociety, or the love of that will by degrees flatter out all our zealous hatred and forſaking and ſoone enſnare us to unchriſtianly compliances.

Thirdly, In mariage there ought not only to be a civil love, but ſuch a p. 73love as Chriſt loves his Church; but where the religion is contrary without hope of converſion, there can be no love, no faith, no peacefull ſociety, (they of the other opinion confeſs it) nay there ought not to be, furder then in expectation of gaining a ſoul; when that ceaſes, we know God hath put enmity between the ſeed of the woman, and the ſeed of the Serpent. Neither ſhould we love them that hate the Lord, as the Prophet told Jehoſaphat. 2 Chron. 19. And this Apoſtle himſelfe in another place, warns us that we be not unequally yokt with Infidels 2 Cor. 6. for that there can be no fellowſhip, no communion, no concord between ſuch. Outward commerce and civil intercours cannot perhaps be avoided; but true friendſhip and familiarity there can be none. How vainly therefore, not to ſay how impiouſly would the moſt inward and dear alliance of mariage or continuance in mariage be commanded, where true friendſhip is confeſt impoſſible. For ſay they, wee are forbidd heer to marry with an infidel, not bid to divorce. But to rob the words thus of their full ſenſe will not be allow'd them: it is not ſaid, enter not into yoke, but be not unequally yokt; which plainly forbids the thing in preſent act, as well as in purpoſe; and his maniteſt conclu…ion is, not only that we ſhould not touch, but that having toucht, we ſhould come out from among them, and be ſeparat; with the promiſe of a bleſſing thereupon that God will receave us, will be our father, and we his ſons and daughters. v. 17. 18. Why we ſhould ſtay with an Infidel after the expence of all our hopes, can be but for a civil relation; but why we ſhould depart from a ſeducer, ſetting afide the miſconſtruction of this place, is from a religious neceſſity of departing. The wors cauſe therefore of ſtaying (if it be any cauſe at all, for civil government forces it not) muſt not overtop the religious cauſe of ſeparating, executed with ſuch an urgent zeal, & ſuch a proſtrate humiliation by Ezra and Nehemiah. What God hates to joyn, certainly he cannot love ſhould continue joyn'd: it being all one in matter of ill conſequence, to marry, or to continue maried with an Infidel, ſave only ſo long as we wait willingly, and with a ſafe hope. St. Paul therefore citing heer a command of the Lord Almighty, for ſo he terms it, that we ſhould ſeparate, cannot have bound us with that which he calls his own whether command or counſel that we ſhould not ſeparate.

Which is the fourth reaſon, for he himſelfe takes care leaſt we ſhould miſtake him, [But to the reſt ſpeak If not the Lord.] If the Lord ſpake not, then man ſpake it and man hath no Lordſhip to command the conſcience: yet modern interpreters will have it a command maugre St. p. 74Paul himſelfe, they will make him a Prophet like Caiaphas to ſpeak the word of the Lord not thinking, nay denying to think; though he diſavow to have receav'd it from the Lord, his word ſhall not be tak'n, though an Apoſtle, he ſhall be born down in his own Epiſtle, by a race of expoſiters who preſume to know from whom he ſpake, better then he himſelfe. Paul depoſes that the Lord ſpeaks not this, they, that the Lord ſpeaks it: can this be leſs then to brave him with a full fac't contradiction? Certainly to ſuch a violence as this, for I cannot call it an expounding, what a man ſhould anſwer I know not, unleſs that if it be their pleaſure next to put a gag into the Apoſtles mouth, they are already ſurniſht with a commodious audacity toward the attempt. Beza would ſeem to ſhun the contradictory by telling us that the Lord ſpake it not in perſon, as he did the former precept. But how many other doctrines doth St. Paul deliver which the Lord ſpake not in perſon, and yet never uſes this preamble but in things indifferent? So long as we receave him for a meſſenger of God, for him to ſtand ſorting ſentences what the Lord ſpake in perſon, and what he, not the Lord in perſon, would be but a chill trifling, and his readers might catch an ague the while. But if we ſhall ſupply the grammatical Ellipſis regularly, and as we muſt in the ſam tenſe, all will be then cleer, for we cannot ſupply it thus, to the reſt I ſpeake, the Lord ſpake not, but I ſpeake, the Lord ſpeaks not. If then the Lord neither ſpake in perſon nor ſpeakes it now, the Apoſtle teſtifying both, it follows duely, that this can be no command. Forſooth the fear is, leaſt this not being a command, would prove an evangelic counſel, & ſo make way for ſupererogations. As if the Apoſtle could not ſpeak his mind in things indifferent, as he doth in fowr or five ſeveral places of this chapter with the like preface of not commanding, but that the doubted inconvenience of ſupererogating muſt needs ruſh in. And how adds it to the word of the Lord, (for this alſo they object) when as the Apoſtle by his chriſtian prudence guids us in the liberty which God hath left us to, without command? could not the ſpirit of God inſtruct us by him what was free, as well as what was not? But what need I more, when Cameron an ingenuous writer, and in high eſteem, ſolidly confutes the ſurmiſe of a command heer, and among other words hath theſe. That when Paul ſpeaks as an Apoſtle, he uſes this forme, The Lord ſaith, not I v 10. but as a privat man he ſaith, I ſpeak, not the Lord. And thus alſo all the prime fathers Auſtin, Jerom, and the reſt underſtood this place.

Fiftly, The very ſtating of the queſtion declares this to be no command; p. 75If any brother hath an unbeleeuing wife, and ſhe be pleaſed to dwell with him, let him not put her away. For the Greek word foreign does not imply only her being pleas'd to ſtay, but his being pleas'd to let her ſtay; it muſt be a conſent of them both. Nor can the force of this word be render'd leſs, without either much negligence or iniquity of him that otherwiſe tranſlates it. And thus the Greek Church alſo and their Synods underſtood it, who beſt knew what their own language meant, as appeares by Matthaeus Monachus an author ſet forth by Leunclauius and of antiquity perhaps not inferior to Balſamon who writes upon the canons of the Apoſtles; this Author in his chap. that mariage is not to be made with heretics, thus recites the ſecond canon of the 6. Synod, As to the Corinthians Paul determins, If the beleeving wife choos to live with the unbeleeving husband, or the beleeving husband with the unbeleeving wife. Mark ſaith he, how the Apoſtle heer condeſcends, if the beleever pleaſe to dwell with the unbeleever; ſo that if he pleaſe not, out of doubt the mariage is diſſolv'd. And I am perſwaded it was ſo in the beginning, and thus preach't. And thereupon gives an example of one, who though not deſerted, yet by the decree of Theodotus the Patriarch divorc't an unbeleeving wife. What therefore depends in the plain ſtate of this queſtion on the conſent and well liking of them both, muſt not be a command. Lay next the latter end of the 11. v, to the twelf (for wherefore els is Logic taught us) in a diſcrete axiom, as it can be no other by the phraſe, The Lord ſaith, let not the husband put away his wife, But I ſay let him not put away a misbeleeving wife; this ſounds as if by the judgement of Paul, a man might put away any wife but the misbeleeving; or els the parts are not diſcrete, or diſſentanie, for both conclude not putting away, and conſequently in ſuch a form the propoſition is ridiculous. Of neceſſity therfore the former part of this ſentence muſt be conceav'd, as underſtood, and ſilently granted, that although the Lord command to divorce an infidel, yet I, not the Lord command you? No, but give my judgement, that for ſom evangelic reaſons a chriſtian may be permitted not to divorce her. Thus while we reduce the brevity of St. Paul to a plainer ſenſe, by the needfull ſupply of that which was granted between him and the Corinthians, the very logic of his ſpeech extracts him confeſſing that the Lords command lay in a ſeeming contrariety to this his counſel: and that he meant not to thruſt out a command of the Lord by a new one of his own, as one nail drives another, but to releaſe us from the rigor of it, by the right of the Goſpel, ſo farre forth as a charitable cauſe leads us on in the p. 76hope of winning another ſoule without the peril of looſing our own. For this is the glory of the Goſpel to teach us that the end of the commandment is charity, 1 Tim. 1. not the drudging out a poore and worthleſſe duty forc't from us by the taxe, and taile of ſo many letters. This doctrine therefore can bee no command, but it muſt contradict the moral law, the Goſpel, and the Apoſtle himſelfe both elſe where, and heere alſo eevn in the act of ſpeaking.

If then it be no command, it muſt remain to be a permiſſion, and that not abſolute, for ſo it would be ſtill contrary to the law, but with ſuch a caution as breaks not the law, but as the manner of the Goſpel is, fulfills it through charity. The law had two reaſons, the one was ceremonial, the pollution that all Gentiles were to the Jewes; this the viſion of Peter had aboliſht, Acts 10. and clens'd all creatures to the uſe of a Chriſtian. The Corinthians underſtood not this, but fear'd leſt dwelling in matrimony with an unbeleever, they were defil'd. The Apoſtle diſcuſſes that ſcruple with an Evangelic reaſon, ſhewing them that although God heretofore under the law, not intending the converſion of the Gentiles, except ſome ſpecial ones, held them as polluted things to the Jew, yet now purpoſing to call them in, he hath purify'd them from that legal uncleanneſſe wherein they ſtood, to uſe and to be us'd in a pure manner.

For ſaith he, The unbeleeving husband is ſanctifi'd by the wife, and the unbeleeving wife, is ſanctifi'd by the husband, elſe were your children uncleane; but now they are holy. That is, they are ſanctify'd to you, from that legal impurity which you ſo feare; and are brought into a neer capacity to be holy, if they beleeve, and to have free acceſſe to holy things. In the mean time, as being Gods creatures, a chriſtian hath power to uſe them according to their proper uſe; in as much as now, all things to the pure are become pure. In this legal reſpect therefore ye need not doubt to continue in mariage with an unbeleever. Thus others alſo expound this place and Cameron eſpecially. This reaſon warrants us onelyonly what wee may doe without feare of pollution, does not binde us that we muſt. But the other reaſon of the law to divorce an infidel was moral, the avoiding of enticement from the true faith. This cannot ſhrink; but remains in as full force as ever, to ſave the actuall chriſtian from the ſnare of a misbeleever. Yet if a Chriſtian full of grace and ſpirituall gifts finding the misbeleever not frowardly affected, feares not a ſeducing, but hopes rather a gaining, who ſees not that this morall reaſon is not violated by not divorcing, which the law commanded to doe, but better fulfill'd p. 77by the excellence of the Goſpel working through charity. For neither the faithfull is ſeduc't, and the unfaithfull is either ſav'd, or with all diſcharge of love, and evangelic duty ſought to be ſav'd. But contrarywiſe if the infirme Chriſtian ſhall bee commanded here againſt his minde, againſt his hope, and againſt his ſtrength, to dwell with all the ſcandals, the houſhold perſecutions, or alluring temptations of an infidel, how is not the Goſpel by this made harſher then the law, and more yoaking? Therefore the Apoſtle ere he deliver this other reaſon why wee need not in all haſt put away an infidel, his mind miſgiving him leaſt he ſhould ſeem to be the impoſer of a new command, ſtaies not for method, but with an abrupt ſpeed inſerts the declaration of their liberty in this matter.

But if the unbeleeving depart, let him depart; a brother or a ſiſter is not under bondage in ſuch caſes: but God hath called us to peace.

[But if the unbeleeving depart.] This cannot be reſtrain'd to locall departure only; for who knows not that an offencive ſociety is worſe then a forſaking. If his purpoſe of cohabitation be to endanger the life, or the conſcience, Beza himſelfe is halfe perſwaded, that this may purchaſe to the faithfull perſon the ſame freedome that a deſertion may; and ſo Gerard and others whom he cites. If therefore he depart in affection, if hee depart from giving hope of his converſion, if he diſturb, or ſcoffe at religion, ſeduce, or tempt, if he rage, doubtleſſe not the weake only, but the ſtrong may leave him, if not for feare, yet for the dignities ſake of religion, which cannot be liable to all baſe affronts, meerely for the worſhiping of a civil mariage. I take therefore departing to bee as large as the negative of being well pleas'd: that is, if he be not pleas'd for the preſent to live lovingly, quietly, inoffenſively, ſo as may give good hope; which appeares well by that which followes.

[A brother or a ſiſter is not under bondage in ſuch caſes.] If Saint Paul provide ſeriouſly againſt the bondage of a chriſtian, it is not the only bondage to live unmaried for a deſerting infidel, but to endure his preſence intolerably, to beare indignities againſt his religion in words or deedes, to be wearied with ſeducements, to have idolatries and ſuperſtitions ever before his eyes, to be tormented with impure and prophane converſation, this muſt needs be bondage to a chriſtian; is this left all unprovided for, without remedy, or freedom granted? undoubtedly no, for, the Apoſtle leavs it furder to be conſider'd with prudence, what bondage a brother or ſiſter is not under, not onelyonly in this caſe, but as hee ſpeaks himſelfe plurally, in ſuch caſes.

p. 78[But God hath called us to peace.] To peace, not to bondage, not to brabbles and contentions with him who is not pleas'd to live peaceably, as mariage and chriſtianity requires. And where ſtriſe ariſes from a cauſe hopeleſſe to be allayd, what better way to peace then by ſeparating that which is ill joyn'd. It is not divorce, that firſt breaks the peace of family, as ſom fondly comment on this place, but it is peace already brok'n, which, when other cures fail can only be reſtor'd to the faultles perſon by a neceſſary divorce. And Saint Paul heer warrants us to ſeeke peace, rather then to remain in bondage. If God hath call'd us to peace, why ſhould we not follow him, why ſhould we miſerably ſtay in perpetual diſcord under a ſervitude not requir'd?

[For what knoweſt thou O wife, whether thou ſhalt ſave thy husband, &c.] St. Paul having thus clear'd himſelfe, not to goe about the mining of our chriſtian liberty, not to caſt a ſnare upon us, which to doe hee ſo much hated, returnes now to the ſecond reaſon of that law to put away an infidel, for feare of ſeducement, which hee does not heer contradict with a command now to venture that; but if neither the infirmity of the Chriſtian, nor the ſtrength of the unbeleever be fear'd, but hopes appearing that he may be won, he judges it no breaking of that law, though the beleever be permitted to forbeare divorce, and can abide, without the peril of ſeducement, to offer the charity of a ſalvation to wife or husband, which is the fulfilling, not the tranſgreſſing of that law; and well worth the undertaking with much hazard and patience. For what knoweſt thou whether thou ſhalt ſave thy wife, that is, till all meanes convenient and poſſible with diſcretion and probability, as human things are, have bin us'd. For Chriſt himſelfe ſends not our hope on pilgrimage to the worlds end; but ſets it bounds beyond which we need not wait on a brother, much leſſe on an infidell. If after ſuch a time we may count a profeſſing Chriſtian no better then a heathen, after leſs time perhaps wee may ceaſe to hope of a heathen, that hee will turne chriſtian. Otherwiſe, to binde us harder then the law, and tell us wee are not under bondage, is meere mockery. If till the unbeleever pleaſe to part, we may not ſtirre from the houſe of our bondage, then certain this our liberty is not grounded in the purchas of Chriſt, but in the pleaſure of a miſcreant. What knowes the loyal husband whether he may not ſave the adultereſſe, he is not therfore bound to receive her. What knowes the wife but ſhee may reclaim her husband who hath deſerted her? yet the reformed Churches doe not enjoyn her to wait longer then after the contempt of an Eccleſiaſtical p. 79Summons. Beza himſelfe heer befriends us with a remarkable ſpeech, what could be firmly conſtituted in human matters if under pretence of expecting grace from aboue, it ſhould be never lawfull for us to ſeeke our right. And yet in other caſes not leſſe reaſonable to obtain a moſt juſt and needfull remedy by divorce he turnes the innocent party to a taske of prayers beyond the multitude of beads and roſaries, to beg the gift of chaſtity in recompence of an injurious mariage. But the Apoſtle is evident anough, we are not under bondage, truſting that he writes to thoſe who are not ignorant what bondage is, to let ſupercilious determiners cheat them of their freedome. God hath call'd us to peace, and ſo doubtleſſe hath left in our hands how to obtaine it ſeaſonably; if it be not our own choiſe to ſit ever like novices wretchedly ſervile.

Thus much the Apoſtle on this queſtion between Chriſtian and Pagan, to us now of little uſe; yet ſuppoſing it written for our inſtruction as it may be rightly apply'd, I doubt not but that the difference between a true beleever and a heretic, or any one truely religious either deſerted or ſeeking divorce from any one grosſly erroneous or profane may be referr'd hither. For St. Paul ſeaves us heer the ſolution not of this caſe only, which little concernes us, but of ſuch like caſes, which may occurr to us. For where the reaſons directly ſquare, who can forbid why the verdit ſhould not be the ſame? But this the common writers allow us not. And yet from this text which in plaine words gives liberty to none unleſſe deſerted by an infidel, they collect the ſame freedom though the deſertion bee not for religion, which, as I conceive, they neede not doe; but may without ſtraining reduce it to the cauſe of fornication. For firſt they confeſſe that deſertion is ſeldome without a juſt ſuſpition of adultery: next it is a breach of mariage in the ſame kind, and in ſome ſort worſe: for adultery though it give to another, yet it bereaves not al; but the deſerter wholly denies all right, and makes one fleſh twain, which is counted the abſoluteſt breach of matrimony, and cauſes the other, as much as in him lies, to commit ſin, by being ſo left. Nevertheleſſe thoſe reaſons which they bring of eſtabliſhing by this place the like liberty from any deſertion, are faire and ſolid: and if the thing be lawfull, and can be prov'd ſo, more waies then one, ſo much the ſafer. Their arguments I ſhall heer recite, and that they may not com idle, ſhall uſe them to make good the like freedome to divorce for other cauſes; and that we are no more under bondage to any hainous default againſt the main ends of matrimony, then to a deſertion: Firſt they allege that to Tim. 1. 5. 8. If any provide not for p. 80thoſe of his own houſe, hee hath deny'd the faith, and is worſe then an Infidel. But a deſerter, ſay they, can have no care of them who are most his owne, therefore the deſerted party is not leſſe to bee righted againſt ſuch a one then againſt an infidel. With the ſame evidence I argue, that man or wife who hates in wedloc, is perpetually unſociable, unpeacefull, or unduteous, either not being able, or not willing to performe what the maine ends of mariage demand in helpe and ſolace, cannot bee ſaid to care for who ſhou'd bee deareſt in the houſe; therefore is worſe then an infidel in both regards, either in undertaking a duty which he cannot performe, to the undeſerved and unſpeakable injury of the other party ſo defrauded and betrai'd, or not performing what he hath undertaken, whenas he may or might have, to the perjury of himſelfe more irreligious then heatheniſme. The blameleſſe perſon therefore hath as good a plea to ſue out his delivery from this bondage, as from the deſertion of an infidel. Since moſt writers cannot but grant that deſertion is not only a local abſence, but an intolerable ſociety; or if they grant it not, the reaſons of Saint Paul grant it, with all as much leave as they grant to enlarge a particular freedom from paganiſme, into a general freedom from any deſertion. Secondly, they reafon from the likenes of either fact, the ſame loſſe redounds to the deſerted by a chriſtian, as by an infidel, the ſame peril of temptation. And I in like manner affirme that if honeſt and free perſons may be allow'd to know what is moſt to their owne loſſe, the ſame loſſe and diſcontent, but worſe diſquiet with continuall miſery and temptation reſides in the company, or better call'd the perſecution of an unfit, or an unpeaceable conſort, then by his deſertion. For then the deſerted may enjoy himſelfe at leaſt. And he who deſerts is more favourable to the party whom his preſence afflicts, then that importunat thing which is and will be ever converſant before the eyes a loyal and individual vexation. As for thoſe who ſtill rudely urge it no loſs to mariage, no deſertion, ſo long as the fleſh is preſent and offers a benevolence that hates, or is juſtly hated, I am not of that vulgar and low perſwaſion, to thinke ſuch forc'd embracements as theſe worth the honour, or the humanity of mariage, but farre beneath the ſoul of a rational and freeborne man. Thirdly they ſay, it is not the infidelity of the deſerter, but the deſertion of the infidel from which the Apoſtle gives this freedom; and I joyne that the Apoſtle could as little require our ſubjection to an unfit and injurious bondage preſent, as to an infidel abſent. To free us from that which is an evil by being diſtant, and not from that which is an inmate, and in the boſome p. 81evil, argues an improvident and careles deliverer. And thus all occaſions, which way ſo ever they turn, are not unofficious to adminiſter ſomthing which may conduce to explain, or to defend the aſſertion of this book touching divorce. I complain of nothing, but that it is indeed too copious to be the matter of a diſpute, or a defence, rather to be yeelded, as in the beſt ages, a thing of common reaſon, not of controverſie. What have I left to ſay? I fear to be more elaborat in ſuch a perſpicuity as this; leſt I ſhould ſeem not to teach, but to upbraid the dulnes of an age; not to commun with reaſon in men, but to deplore the loſs of reaſon from among men: this only, and not the want of more to ſay, is the limit of my diſcours.

Who among the ſathers have interpreted the words of Chriſt concerning divorce, as is heer interpreted; and what the civil law of Chriſtian Emperors in the primitive Church determi'nd.

Although teſtimony be in Logic an argument rightly call'd inartificial, & doth not ſolidly fetch the truth by multiplicity of Authors, nor argue a thing falſe by the few that hold ſo, yet ſeeing moſt men from their youth ſo accuſtom, as not to ſcanne reaſon, nor cleerly to apprehend it, but to truſt for that the names and numbers of ſuch, as have got, and many times undeſervedly, the reputation among them to know much, and becauſe there is a vulgar alſo of teachers, who are as blindly by whom they fancy led, as they lead the people, it will not be amiſs for them who had rather liſt themſelves under this weaker ſort, and follow authorities, to take notice that this opinion which I bring, hath bin favour'd, and by ſom of thoſe affirm'd, who in their time were able to carry what they taught, had they urg'd it, through all Chriſtendom; or to have left it ſuch a credit with all good men, as they who could not bouldly uſe the opinion, would have fear'd to cenſure it. But ſince by his appointment on whom the times and ſeaſons wait, every point of doctrin is not fatall to be throughly ſifted out in every age, it will be anough for me to find, that the thoughts of wiſeſt heads heertofore, and hearts no leſs reverenc't for devotion have tended this way, and contributed their lot in ſome good meaſure towards this which hath bin heer attain'd. Others of them and modern eſpecially, have bin as full in the aſſertion, though not ſo full in the reaſon; ſo that either in this regard, or in the former, I ſhall be manifeſt in a middle fortune to meet the praiſe or diſpraiſe of beeing p. 82ſomthing firſt. But I deferr not what I undertooke to ſhew, that in the Church both primitive and reformed, the words of Chriſt have bin underſtood to grant divorce for other cauſes then adultery; and that the word fornication in mariage hath a larger ſenſe then that commonly ſuppos'd.

Iuſtin Martyr in his firſt Apology writt'n within 50. yeares after St. Iohn dy'd, relates a ſtory which Euſebius tranſcribes, that a certain matron of Rome, the wife of a vitious husband, her ſelfe alſo formerly vitious, but converted to the faith, and perſuading the ſame to her husband, at leſt the amendment of his wicked life, upon his not yeilding to her daily entreaties and perſuaſions in this behalf, procur'd by law to be divorc't from him. This was neither for adultery, nor deſertion, but as the relation ſaies, Eſteeming it an ungodly thing to be the conſort of bed with him, who againſt the law of nature and of right ſought out voluptuous waies. Suppoſe he endeavour'd ſom unnaturall abuſe, as the Greek admitts that meaning, it cannot yet be call'd adultery; it therefore could be thought worthy of divorce no otherwiſe then as equivalent, or wors; and other vices will appear in other reſpects as much divorſive. Next tis ſaid her freinds advis'd her to ſtay a while; and what reaſon gave they? not becauſe they held unlawfull what ſhe purpos'd, but becauſe they thought ſhe might longer yet hope his repentance. She obey'd, till the man going to Alexandria, and from thence reported to grow ſtill more impenitent, not for any adultery or deſertion, wherof neither can be gather'd, but, ſaith the Martyr, and ſpeaks it like one approving, leſt ſhe ſhould be partaker of his unrighteous and ungodly deeds, remaining in wedloc, the communion of bed and board with ſuch a perſon, ſhe left him by a lawfull divorce. This cannot but give us the judgement of the Church in thoſe pure and next to Apoſtolic times. For how els could the woman have bin permitted, or heer not reprehended; and if a wife might then doe this without reprooff, a husband certainly might no leſs, if not more.

Tertullian in the ſame age writing his 4. book againſt Marcion witneſſes that Chriſt by his anſwer to the Phariſes protected the conſtitution of Moſes as his own, and directed the inſtitution of the creator, for I alter not his Carthaginian phraſe; he excus'd rather then deſtroi'd the conſtitution of Moſes; I ſay he forbidd conditionally, if any one therefore put away that he may marry another: ſo that if he prohibited conditionally, then not wholly; and what he forbadd not wholly, he permitted otherwiſe, where the cauſe ceaſes for which he prohibited: that is when a man makes it not the cauſe of p. 83his putting away, meerly that he may marry again. Chriſt teaches not contrary to Moſes, the juſtice of divorce hath Chriſt the aſſerter: he would not have mariage ſeparat, nor kept with ignominy, permitting then a divorce, and gueſſes that this vehemence of our Saviours ſentence was cheifly bent againſt Herod, as was cited before. Which leavs it evident how Tertullian interpreted this prohibition of our Saviour; for wheras the text is, Whoſoever putteth away and marieth another, wherfore ſhould Tertullian explain it, Whoſoever putteth away that he may marry another, but to ſignify his opinion that our Saviour did not forbidd divorce from an unworthy yoke, but forbidd the malice or the luſt of a needles change and cheifly thoſe plotted divorces then in uſe.

Origen in the next century teſtifies to have known certain who had the government of Churches in his time, who permitted ſom to marry, while yet their former husbands liv'd, and excuſes the deed, as don not without cauſe, though without Scripture, which confirms that cauſe not to be adultery; for how then was it againſt Scripture that they maried again. And a little beneath, for I cite his 7. homily on Matthew, ſaith he, To endure faults wors then adultery and fornication, ſeems a thing unreaſonable, and diſputes therfore that Chriſt did not ſpeak by way of precept, but as it were expounding. By which and the like ſpeeches Origen declares his mind farre from thinking that our Saviour confin'd all the cauſes of divorce to actual adultery.

Lactantius of the age that ſucceeded ſpeaking of this matter in the 6. of his inſtitutions, hath theſe words. But leſt any think he may circumſcribe divine precepts, let this be added, that all miſinterpreting, and occaſion of fraud, or death may be remov'd, he commits adultery who marries the divorc't wife, and, beſides the crime of adultery, divorces a wife that he may marry another. To divorce and marry another, and to divorce that he may marry another, are two different things; and imply that Lactantius thought not this place the forbidding of all neceſſary divorce, but ſuch only as proceeded from the wanton deſire of a future chois, not from the burden of a preſent affliction.

About this time the Councel of Eliberis in Spain decreed the husband excommunicat, If he kept his wife being an adultreſs; but if he left her, he might after ten yeares be receav'd into communion, if he retain'd her any while in his houſe after the adultery known. The councel of Neocaeſarea in the year 314. decreed, that if the wife of any Laic were convicted of adultery, that man could not be admitted into the miniſtery: if after ordination it p. 84were committed, he was to divorce her; if not, he could not hold his miniſtery. The councel of Nantes condemn'd in 7. yeares penance the husband that would reconcile with an adultreſs. But how proves this that other cauſes may divorce? it proves thus; there can be but two cauſes why theſe councels enjoyn'd ſo ſtrictly the divorſing of an adultreſs, either as an offender againſt God, or againſt the husband; in the latter reſpect they could not impoſe on him to divorce; for every man is the maiſter of his own forgivenes; who ſhal hinder him to pardon the injuries don againſt himſelf? It follows therfore that the divorce of an adultreſs was commanded by theſe three councels, as it was a ſin againſt God; and by all conſequence they could not but beleeve that other ſins as hainous might with equal juſtice be the ground of a divorce.

Baſil in his 73. rule, as Chamier numbers it, thus determins, that divorce ought not to be, unleſſe for adultery, or the hindrance to a godly life. What doth this but proclaime aloud more cauſes of divorce then adultery, if by other ſins beſides this, in wife or husband, the godlines of the better perſon may be certainly hinder'd, and endanger'd.

Epiphanius no leſs ancient, writing againſt Heretics, & therefore ſhould himſelf be orthodoxal above others, acquaints us in his ſecond book Tom. 1, not that his private perſuaſion was, but that the whole Church in his time generally thought other cauſes of divorce lawful beſides adultery, as comprehended under that name; If, ſaith he, a divorce happ'n for any cauſe either fornication, or adultery, or any hainous fault, the word of God blames not either the man or wife marrying again, nor cutts them off from the congregation, or from life, but beares with the infirmity; not that he may keep both wives, but that leaving the former he may be lawfully joyn'd to the latter, the holy word, and the holy Church of God commiſerates this man, eſpecially, if he be otherwiſe of good converſation, and live according to Gods law. This place is cleerer then expoſition, and needs no comment.

Ambroſe on the 16. of Luke, teaches that all wedloc is not Gods joyning and to the 19. of Pro. That a wife is prepard of the Lord, as the old latin tranſlates it, he anſwers that the ſeptuagint renders it, a wife is fitted by the Lord, and temper'd to a kind of harmony; and where that harmony is there God joyns; where it is not, there diſſention reigns, which is not from God, for God is love. This he brings to prove the marrying of Chriſtian with Gentile to be no mariage, and conſequently divorc't without ſin: but he who ſees not this argument how plainly it ſerves to divorce any untunable, or unattonable matrimony, ſees little. On the 1 to the Cor, 7, he grants a woman p. 85may leave her husband not for only fornication, but for Apoſtacy, and inverting nature, though not marry again; but the man may: heer are cauſes of divorce aſſign'd other then adultery. And going on he affirms, that the cauſe of God is greater then the cauſe of matrimony; that the reverence of wedloc is not due to him who hates the author thereof; that no matrimony is firm without devotion to God; that diſhonour don to God acquitts the other being deſerted from the bond of matrimony; that the faith of mariage is not to be kept with ſuch. If theſe contorted ſentences be ought worth, it is not the deſertion that breaks what is broken, but the impiety; and who then may not for that cauſe better divorce, then tarry to be deſerted? or theſe grave ſayings of St. Ambroſe are but knacks.

Jerom on the 19. of Matthew explains, that for the cauſe of fornication, or the ſuſpicion thereof a man may freely divorce. What can breed that ſuſpicion, but ſundry faults leading that way? by Jeroms conſent therfore divorce is free not only for actuall adultery, but for any cauſe that may encline a wiſe man to the juſt ſuſpicion therof.

Auſtin alſo muſt be remember'd among thoſe who hold that this inſtance offornication gives equal inference to other faults equally hateful, for which to divorce: & therfore in his books to Pollentius he diſputes that infidelity, as being a greater ſin then adultery, ought ſo much the rather cauſe a divorce. And on the Sermon in the Mount, under the name of fornication will have idolatry, or any harmfull ſuperſtition contain'd, which are not thought to diſturb matrimony ſo directly as ſom other obſtinacies and diſſaffections, more againſt the daily duties of that cov'nant, & in the eaſtern tongues not unfrequently call'd fornication, as hath bin ſhew'n. Hence is underſtood, faith he, that not only for bodily fornication, but for that which draws the mind from Gods law, and fouly corrupts it, a man may without fault put away his wife, and a wife her husband, becauſe the Lord excepts the cauſe of fornication, which fornication we are conſtrain'd to interpret in a general ſenſe. And in the firſt book of his retractations chap. 16. he retracts not this his opinion, but commends it to ſerious conſideration; and explains that he counted not there all ſin to be fornication, but the more deteſtable ſort of ſins. The cauſe of fornication therefore is not in this diſcours newly interpreted to ſignify other faults infringing the duties of wedloc, beſides adultery.

Laſtly the councel of Agatba in the year 506. can. 25. decreed, that if lay men who divorc't without ſome great fault, or giving no probable cauſe, therfore divorc't, that they might marry ſom unlawfull perſon, or ſom other p. 86mans, if before the provinciall Biſhops were made acquainted, or judgement paſt; they preſum'd this, excommunication was the penalty. Whence it followes, that if the cauſe of divorce were ſom great offence, or that they gave probable cauſes for what they did, and did not therefore divorce that they might preſume with ſom unlawfull perſon, or what was another mans, the cenſure of Church in thoſe daies did not touch them.

Thus having alleg'd anough to ſhew after what manner the primitive Church for above 500. yeares underſtood our Saviours words touching divorce, I ſhall now with a labour leſs diſperſt, and ſooner diſpatcht, bring under view what the civil law of thoſe times conſtituted about this matter: I ſay the civil law, which is the honour of every true Civilian to ſtand for, rather then to count that for law, which the pontificiall Canon hath enthrall'd them to, and in ſtead of interpreting a generous and elegant law, made them the drudges of a blockiſh Rubric.

Theodoſius and Valentinian, pious Emperors both, ordain'd that as by conſent lawfull mariages were made, ſo by conſent, but not without the bill of divorce, they might be diſſolv'd; and to diſſolve was the more difficult, onelyonly in favour of the children. We ſee the wiſedome and piety of that age one of the pureſt and learnedeſt ſince Chriſt, conceav'd no hindrance in the words of our Saviour, but that a divorce mutually conſented, might bee ſuffer'd by the law, eſpecially if there were no children, or if there were, carefull proviſion was made. And further ſaith that law (ſuppoſing there wanted the conſent of either) wee deſigne the cauſes of divorce by this moſt wholſom law; for as we forbid the diſſolving of mariage without juſt cauſe, ſo we deſire that a husband or a wife diſtreſt by ſom advers neceſſity, ſhould be freed, though by an unhappy, yet a neceſſary releefe. What dramm of wiſedome, or religion (for charity is trueſt religion) could there be in that knowing age, which is not virtually ſumm'd up in this moſt juſt law? As for thoſe other Chriſtian Emperours, from Conſtantine the firſt of them, finding thé Roman law in this point ſo anſwerable to the Moſaic, it might bee the likelieſt cauſe why they alter'd nothing to reſtraint, but if ought, rather to liberty, for the helpe, and conſideration of the weaker ſexe, according as the Goſpel ſeems to make the wife more equal to her husband in theſe conjugal reſpects then the law of Moſes doth. Therefore if a man were abſent from his wife foure yeares, and in that ſpace not heard of, though gon to warre in the ſervice of the Empire, ſhe might divorce, and mary another by the edict of Conſtantine to Dalmatius. Co. l. 5. tit. 17. And this was an age of the Church both antient, and cry'd up ſtill for the moſt flouriſhing p. 87in knowledge and pious government ſince the Apoſtles. But to returne to this law of Theodoſius, with this obſervation by the way, that ſtill as the Church corrupted, as the Clergie grew more ignorant, and yet more uſurping on the Magiſtrate, who alſo now declin'd, ſo ſtill divorce grew more reſtrain'd; though certainly if better times permitted the thing that worſe times reſtrain'd, it would not weakly argue that the permiſſion was better, and the reſtraint worſe. This law therefore of Theodoſius wiſer in this then the moſt of his ſucceſſors though not wiſer then God and Moſes, reduc't the cauſes of divorce to a certain number which by the judiciall law of God, and all recorded humanitie were left before to the breſt of each husband, provided that the diſmiſſe was not without reaſonable conditions to the wife. But this was a reſtraint not yet come to extreames. For beſides adultery and that not only actual, but ſuſpected by many ſignes there ſet down, any fault equally puniſhable with adultery, or equally infamous might bee the cauſe of a divorce. Which informes us how the wiſeſt of thoſe ages underſtood that place in the Goſpel, whereby, not the pilfering of a benevolence was conſider'd as the main and only breach of wedloc, as is now thought, but the breach of love and peace, a more holy union then that of the fleſh; and the dignity of an honeſt perſon was regarded, not to bee held in bondage with one whoſe ignominy was infectious. To this purpoſe was conſtituted Cod. l. 5. tit. 17. and Authent. collat. 4. tit. 1. Novell. 22. where Juſtinian added three cauſes more. In the 117. Novell. moſt of the ſame cauſes are allow'd, but the liberty of divorcing by conſent is repeal'd: but by whom? by Juſtinian, not a wiſer, not a more religious emperor then either of the former, but noted by judicious writers for his fickle head in making and unmaking lawes; and how Procopius a good hiſtorian, and a counſelor of ſtate then living deciphers him in his other actions, I willingly omitt. Nor was the Church then in better caſe, but had the corruption of a 100. declining yeare ſwept on it, when the ſtatute of conſent was call'd in; which as I ſaid, gives us every way more reaſon to ſuſpect this reſtraint, more then that liberty: which therfore in the reign of Justin the ſucceeding Emperor was recall'd, Novel. 140. & eſtabliſht with a preface more wiſe & chriſtianly then for thoſe times, declaring the neceſſity to reſtore that Theodoſian law, if no other meanes of reconcilement could be found. And by whom this law was abrogated, or how long after, I doe not finde; but that thoſe other cauſes remain'd in force, as long as the Greek empire ſubſiſted, and were aſſented by that Church, is to bee read p. 88in the Canons and edicts compar'd by Photius the Patriarch, with the avertiments of Balſamon, and Matthaeus Monachus thereon.

But long before thoſe dayes Leo the ſon of Baſilius, Macedo reigning about the yeare 886. and for his excellent wiſdome ſurnam'd the Philoſopher, conſtituted that in caſe of madneſſe the husband might divorce after three yeares, the wife after 5. Conſtitut. Leon. 111. 112. this declares how hee expounded our Saviour, and deriv'd his reaſons from the inſtitution, which in his preface with great eloquence are ſet downe; whereof a paſſage or two may give ſom proofe, though better not divided from the reſt. There is not, ſaith he, a thing more neceſſary to preſerve mankind, then the helpe giv'n him from his own rib; both God and nature ſo teaching us: which being ſo, it was requiſite that the providence of law, or if any other care be to the good of man, ſhould teach and ordaine thoſe things which are to the helpe and comfort of maried perſons, and confirme the end of mariage purpos'd in the beginning, not thoſe things which afflict and bring perpetuall miſery to them. Then anſwers the objection that they are one fleſh; if Matrimony had held ſo as God ordain'd it, he were wicked that would diſſolve it. But if we reſpect this in matrimony, that it be contracted to the good of both, how ſhall he, who for ſome great evil feard, perſwades not to marry though contracted, not perſwade to unmarry, if after marriage a calamity befall? ſhould we bid beware least any fall into an evil, and leave him helpleſſe who by humane error is fall'n therein? This were as if we ſhould uſe remedies to prevent a diſeaſe, but let the ſick die without remedy. The reſt will be worth reading in the author.

And thus we have the judgement firſt of primitive fathers; next of the imperial law not diſallow'd by the univerſal Church in ages of her beſt authority; and laſtly of the whole Greeke Church and civil ſtate, incorporating their Canons and edicts together, that divorce was lawfull for other cauſes equivalent to adultery, contain'd under the word fornication. So that the expoſition of our ſaviours ſentence heer alleg'd hath all theſe ancient and great aſſerters, is therefore neither new nor licentious, as ſome now would perſwade the commonalty; although it be neerer truth that nothing is more new then thoſe teachers themſelves, & nothing more licentious then ſome known to be, whoſe hypocriſie yet ſhames not to take offence at this doctrine for licence; when as indeed they feare it would remove licence, and leave them but few companions.

p. 89That the Popes Canon law incroaching upon civil Magiſtracy aboliſht all divorce eevn for adultery. What the reformed Divines have recover'd; and that the famouſeſt of them have taught according to the aſſertion of this booke.

But in theſe weſtern parts of the empire it will appeare almoſt unqueſtionable that the cited law of Theodoſius and Valentinian ſtood in force untill the blindeſt and corrupteſt times of Popedom diſplac't it. For that the volumes of Juſtinian never came into Italy, or beyond Illiricum, is the opinion of good Antiquaries. And that only manuſcript thereof found in Apulia by Lotharius the Saxon, and giv'n to the ſtate of Piſa for their aid at ſea againſt the Normans of Sicily, was receav'd as a rarity not to bee matcht. And although the Gothes, and after them the Lombards and Franks who over-run the moſt of Europ except this Iſland (unleſſe wee make our Saxons and Normans a limm of them) brought in their owne cuſtomes, yet that they follow'd the Roman laws in their contracts and mariages, Agathias the hiſtorian is alleg'd. And other teſtimonies relate that Alaricus & Theodoric their Kings writ their ſtatutes out of this Theodoſian Code which hath the recited law of Divorce. Nevertheleſſe while the Monarchs of Chriſtendome were yet barbarous, and but halfe Chriſtian, the Popes tooke this advantage of their weake ſuperſtition, to raiſe a corpulent law out of the canons and decretals of audacious preiſts; and preſum'd alſo to ſet this in the front; That the conſtitutions of princes are not above the conſtitutions of clergy, but beneath them. Uſing this very inſtance of divorce as the firſt prop of their tyranny; by a falſe conſequence drawn from a paſſage of Ambroſe upon Luke where hee ſaith, though Mans law grant it, yet Gods law probibits it, Whence Gregory the Pope writing to Theoctiſta inferrs that Eccleſiaſticall Courts cannot be diſſolv'd by the Magiſtrate. A faire concluſion from a double error. Firſt in ſaying that the divine law prohibited divorce, for what will hee make of Moſes; next ſuppoſing that it did, how will it follow, that what ever Chriſt for bids in his Evangelic precepts, ſhould be hal'd into a judicial conſtraint againſt the patterne of a divine law: Certainely the Goſpel came not to enact ſuch compulſions. In the meane while wee may note heere that the reſtraint of divorce was one of the firſt faire ſeeming pleas which the Pope had, to ſtep into ſecular authority, and with his Antichriſtian rigor to aboliſh the permiſſive law of Chriſtian princes conforming to a ſacred lawgiver. Which if we conſider, this papal and unjuſt p. 90reſtriction of divorce need not be ſo deere to us, ſince the plauſible reſtraining of that, was in a manner the firſt looſning of Antichriſt; and as it were the ſubſtance of his eldeſt horn. Nor doe we leſs remarkably ow the firſt meanes of his fall heer in England to the contemning of that reſtraint by Henry 8. whoſe divorce he oppos'd. Yet was not that rigour executed anciently in ſpiritual Courts untill Alexander the third, who trod upon the neck of Frederic Barbaroſſa the Emperor, and ſummond our Henry 2. into Normandy about the death of Becket. He it was, that the worthy author may be known, who firſt actually repeal'd the imperial law of divorce, and decreed this tyranous decree, that matrimony for no cauſe ſhould be diſolv'd, though for many cauſes it might ſeparate; as may be ſeen decret, Gregor. l. 4. tit. 19. and in other places of the Canonicall Tomes. The main good of which invention, wherein it conſiſts who can tell? but that it hath one vertue incomparable, to fill all chriſtendom with whordomes, and adulteries beyond the art of Balaams or of divells. Yet neither can theſe, though ſo perverſe, but acknowledge that the words of Chriſt under the name of fornication allow putting away for other cauſes then adultery both from bed and bord, but not from the bond; their only reaſon is, becauſe mariage they beleeve to bee a Sacrament. But our Divines who would ſeem long ſince to have renounc'd that reaſon, have ſo forgot them ſelves, as yet to hold the abſurdity, which but for that reaſon, unleſſe there be ſome myſtery of Satan in it, perhaps the Papiſt would not hold. Tis true, we grant divorce for actual & prov'd adultery, and not for leſſe then many tedious and unreparable yeares of deſertion, wherein a man ſhall looſe all his hope of poſterity, which great and holy men have bewail'd, ere he can be righted; and then perhaps on the confines of his old age, when all is not worth the while. But grant this were ſeaſonably don; what are theſe two caſes to many other, which afflict the ſtate of mariage as bad, and yet find no redreſſe? What hath the ſoule of man deſerv'd, if it be in the way of ſalvation, that it ſhould be morgag'd thus, and may not redeem it ſelfe according to conſcience out of the hands of ſuch ignorant and ſlothfull teachers as theſe, who are neither able nor mindful to give due tendance to that pretious cure which they raſhly vndertake; nor have in them the noble goodneſſe to conſider theſe diſtreſſes and accidents of mans life; but are bent rather to fill their mouthes with Tithe and oblation. Yet if they can learne to follow, as well as they can ſeeke to be follow'd, I ſhall direct them to a faire number of renowned men, worthy to be their leaders, who will commend to them a doctrin in this point wiſer then their own, and if they bee not-impatient, p. 91it will be the ſame doctrin which this treatis hath defended.

Wicklef that Engliſhman honor'd of God to be the firſt preacher of a general reformation to all Europe, was not in this thing better taught of God, then to teach among his cheifeſt recoveries of truth, that divorce is lawfull to the chriſtian for many other cauſes equall to adultery. This book indeed through the poverty of our Libraries I am forc't to cite from Arniſaeus of Halberſtad on the right of mariage, who cites it from Coraſius of Tolouſe c. 4. Cent. Sct. and he from Wicklef. l. 4. Dial. c. 21. So much the ſorrier, for that I never lookt into author cited by his adverſary upon this occaſion, but found him more conducible to the queſtion, then his quotation render'd him.

Next Luther, how great a ſervant of God, in his book of conjugal life quoted by Gerard out of the Dutch, allowes divorce for the obſtinate denial of conjugal duty; and that a man may ſend away a proud Vasthi, and marry an Eſther in her ſtead. It ſeemes if this example ſhall not be impertinent, that Luther meant not onelyonly the refuſall of benevolence, but a ſtubborn denial of any main conjugal duty; or if he did not, it will be evinc't from what he allowes. For out of queſtion, with men that are not barbarous, love and peace, and fitneſſe will be yeelded as eſſential to mariage, as corporal benevolence. Though I give my body to be burnt, ſaith Saint Paul, and have not charity, it profits me nothing. So though the body proſtitute it ſelfe to whom the mind affords no other love or peace, but conſtant malice and vexation, can this bodily benevolence deſerv to be call'd a mariage between Chriſtians and rationall creatures.

Melanchton, the third great luminary of reformation in his book concerning marriage grants divorce for cruell uſage, and danger of life, urging the authority of that Theodoſian law, which he eſteemes written with the grave deliberation of godly men; and that they who reject this law, and thinke it diſagreeing from the Goſpel, underſtand not the difference of law and Goſpel; that the Magiſtrat ought not only to defend life, but to ſuccour the weake conſcience, lest broke with greif and indignation it relinquiſh praier, and turn to ſom unlawful thing What if this heavy plight of deſpaire ariſe from other diſcontents in wedloc which may goe to the ſoule of a good man more then the danger of his life, or cruel uſing, which a man cannot bee liable to, ſuppoſe it be ingratefull uſage, ſuppoſe it be perpetuall ſpight and diſobedience, ſuppoſe a hatred, ſhall not the Magiſtrat free him from this diſquiet which interrupts his prayers, and diſturbs the cours of his ſervice to God and his Country all as much, and brings him ſuch a miſery, p. 92as that he more deſires to leave his life then feares to looſe it: Shall not this equally concerne the office of civil protection, and much more the charity of a true Church to remedy?

Eraſmus who for learning was the wonder of his age, both in his notes on Matthew, and on the firſt to the Corinthians in a large and eloquent diſcourſe, and in his anſwer to Phimoſtonus a Papiſt, maintaines (and no proteſtant then living contradicted him) that the words of Chriſt comprehend many other cauſes of divorce under the name of fornication.

Bucer, whom our famous D^r Rainolds was wont to preferr before Calvin, in his comment on Matthew, and in his ſecond booke of the Kingdome of Chriſt, treats of divorce at large to the ſame effect, as is written in the doctrine and diſcipline of divorce lately publiſht, and the tranſlation is extant: whom leſt I ſhould be thought to have wreſted to mine own purpoſe, take ſomthing more out of his 49. Chap. which I then for brevity omitted. It will be the duty of pious princes, and all who govern Church, or common wealth, if any, whether husband or wife, ſhall affirme their want of ſuch who either will, or can tolerably performe the neceſſary duties of maried life, to grant that they may ſeeke them ſuch, and marry them; if they make it appeare that ſuch they have not. This book he wrote heer in England, where he liv'd the greateſt admir'd man, and this hee dedicated to Edward the ſixth.

Fagius rankt among the famous divines of Germany, whom Frederic at that time the Palatine ſent for to be the reformer of his Dominion, and whom afterwards England ſought to, and obtain'd of him to come and teach her, differs not in this opinion from Bucer, as his notes on the Chaldey paraphraſt well teſtify.

The whole Church of Strasburgh in her moſt flouriſhing time, when Zellius, Hedio, Capito, and other great Divines taught there, and thoſe two renouned magiſtrates Farrerus and Sturmius govern'd that common wealth and Academy to the admiration of all Germany, hath thus in the 21. Article. We teach that if according to the word of God, yea or against it, divorces happen, to doe according to Gods word, Devt. 24. 1. Mat. 19. 1 Cor. 7. and the obſervation of the primitive Church, and the Chriſtian conſtitution of pious Caeſars.

Peter Martyr ſeems in word our eaſy adverſary, but is in deed for us: toward which though it be ſomthing when he ſaith of this opinion, that it is not wicked, and can hardly be refuted, this which followes is much more, I ſpeake not heer ſaith he, Of natural impediments which may ſo happ'n, that p. 93the matrimony can no longer hold: but adding, that he often wonder'd, how the antient and moſt chriſtian Emperors eſtabliſht thoſe lawes of divorce, and neither Ambroſe, who had ſuch influence upon the lawes of Theodoſius, nor any of thoſe holy fathers found fault, nor any of the Churches, why the Magiſtrats of this day ſhould be ſo loth to conſtitute the ſame. Perhaps, they feare an inundation of divorces, which is not likely, whenas we reade not either among the Ebrews, Greeks, or Romans that they were much frequent where they were moſt permitted. If they judge chriſtian men worſe then Jewes or Pagans. they both injure that name, and by this reaſon will bee conſtrain'd to grant divorces the rather; becauſe it was permitted as a remedy of evil, for who would remove the medcin, while the diſeaſe is yet ſo rife? This being read both in his common places, & on the firſt to the Corinthians, with what we ſhall relate more of him yet ere the end, ſets him abſolutely on this ſide. Not to inſiſt that in both theſe, & other places of his commentaries hee grants divorce not onelyonly for deſertion, but for the ſeducement and ſcandalous demeanour of a heretical conſort.

Muſculus a divine of no obſcure fame diſtinguiſhes betweene the religious and the civil determination of divorce; and leaving the civil wholly to the lawyers, pronounces a conſcionable divorce for importence not only natural, but accidental, if it be durable. His equity it ſeems, can enlarge the words of Chriſt to one cauſe more then adultery; why may not the reaſon of another man as wiſe, enlarge them to another cauſe.

Gualter of Zuric a well known judicious commentator in his Homilies on Matthew, allows divorce for Leproſie, or any other cauſe which renders unfit for wedloc, and calls this rather a nullity of mariage then a divorce, and who, that is not himſelfe a meer body, can reſtrain all the unfitnes of mariage only to a corporal defect.

Hemingius an Author highly eſteem'd, and his works printed at Geneva, writing of divorce, confeſſes that lerned men vary in this queſtion, ſome granting three cauſes thereof, ſome five, others many more; he himſelfe gives us ſixe, adultery, deſertion, inability, error, evill uſage, and impiety, uſing argument that Chriſt under one ſpecial containes the whole kind, & under the name & example of fornication he includes other cauſes equipollent. This diſcours he wrote at the p. 94requeſt of many who had the judging of theſe cauſes in Denmark and Norway, who by all likely hood follow'd his advice.

Hunnius a Doctor of Wittenberg, well known both in Divinity & other arts, on the 19. of Matt. affirmes that the exception of fornicationexpreſt by our Saviour excludes not other cauſes equalling adultery, or deſtructive to the ſubſtantials of matrimony; but was oppos'd to the cuſtom of the Jewes who made divorce for every light cauſe.

Felix Bidenbachius an eminent Divine in the Dutchy of Wirtemberg affirmes that the obſtinat refuſal of conjugal due is a lawful cauſe of divorce, and gives an inſtance that the conſiſtory of that ſtate ſojudg'd.

Gerard cites Harbardus an author not unknown, and Arniſaeus cites Wigandus, both yeelding divorce in caſe of cruel uſage; and another author who teſtifies to have ſeen in a dukedom of Germany mariages disjoynd for ſome implacable enmities ariſing.

Beza one of the ſtricteſt againſt divorce, denies it not for danger of life from a Heretic, or importunat ſolicitation to doe ought againſt religion: and counts it all one whether the heretic deſert, or would ſtay upon intolerable conditions. But this deciſion well examin'd will be found of no ſolidity. For Beza would be askt why, if God ſo ſtrictly exact our ſtay in any kind of wedloc, wee had not better ſtay and hazard a murdering for Religion at the hand of a wife, or husband, as he and others enjoyn us to ſtay and venture it for all other cauſes but that? and why a mans life is not as well and warrantably ſav'd by divorcing from an orthodox murderer, as a heretical? Againe, if deſertion be confeſt by him to conſiſt not only in the forſaking, but in the unſufferable conditions of ſtaying, a man may as well deduce the lawfulneſſe of divorcing from any intolerable conditions (if his grant bee good that wee may divorce thereupon from a heretic) as he can deduce it lawfull to divorce from any deſerter, by finding it lawful to divorce from a deſerting infidel. For this is plaine, if Saint Pauls permiſſion to divorce an infidel deſerter, inferre it lawfull for any malicious deſertion, then doth Beza's definition of a deſerter transferr it ſelfe with like facility from the cauſe of religion to the cauſe of malice, and proves it as good to divorce from him who intolerably ſtayes as from him who purpoſely departs; and leaves it as lawfull to depart from him who urgently requires a p. 95wicked thing, though profeſſing the ſame religion, as from him who urges a heatheniſh or ſuperſtitious compliance in a different faith. For if there be ſuch neceſſity of our abiding, wee ought rather to abide the utmoſt for religion then for any other cauſe; ſeeing both the cauſe of our ſtay is pretended our religion to mariage, and the cauſe of our ſuffering is ſuppos'd our conſtant mariage to religion. Beza therfore by his owne definition of a deſerter juſtifies a divorce from any wicked or intolerable conditions rather in the ſame religion then in a different.

Aretius a famous Divine of Bern approves many cauſes of divorce in his Problemes, and adds that the lawes and conſiſtories of Swizzerland approve them alſo. As firſt, adultery, and that not actual only, but intentional, all eging Matthew the fifth, Whoſoever looketh to luſt, hath committed adultery already in his heart. Wher by ſaith he, our Saviour ſhewes that the breach of matrimony may be not only by outward act, but by the heart and deſire; when that hath once poſſeſt, it renders the converſation intolerable, and commonly the fact followes. Other cauſes to the number of 9. or 10. conſenting in moſt with the imperial lawes, may bee read in the author himſelfe, who averrs them to be grave and weighty. All theſe are men of name in Divinity, and to theſe if need were, might be added more. Nor have the Civilians bin all ſo blinded by the Canon, as not to avouch the juſtice of thoſe old permiſſions touching divorce.

Alciat of Millain, a man of extraordinary wiſedome and learning, in the ſixt book of his Parerga defends thoſe imperial lawes, not repugnant to the Goſpel, as the Church then interpreted. For ſaith hee, the antients underſtood him ſeparat by man, whom paſſions and corrupt affections divorc't, not, if the provincial Biſhops firſt heard the matter, and judg'd, as the councel of Agatha declares; and on ſome part of the Code hee names Iſidorus Hiſpalenſis the firſt computer of Canons, to be in the ſame minde. And in the former place gives his opinion that diuorce might be more lawfully permitted then uſury.

Coraſius recorded by Helvicus among the famous Lawyers hath been already cited of the ſame judgement.

Weſembechius a much nam'd Civilian in his comment on this law defends it, and afficms that our Sauiour excluded not other faults p. 96equall to adultery; and that the word fornication ſignifies larger among the Hebrewes then with us, comprehending every fault which alienates from him to whom obedience is due, and that the primitive Church interpreted ſo.

Grotius yet living, and of prime note among learned men retires plainly from the Canon to the antient civility, yea to the Moſaic law, as being moſt juſt and undecevable. On the fifth of Matt. he ſaith, that Chriſt made no civil lawes, but taught us how to uſe law: that the law ſent not a husband to the Judge about this matter of divorce, but left him to his owne conſcience; that Chriſt therfore cannot be thought to ſend him; that adultery may be judg'd by a vehement ſuſpition; that the exception of adultery ſeems an example of other like offences; proves it from the manner of ſpeech, the maxims of law, the reaſon of charity, and common equity.

Theſe authorities without long ſearch I had to produce, all excellent men, ſom of them ſuch as many ages had brought forth none greater: almoſt the meaneſt of them might deſerve to obtain credit in a ſingularity; what might not then all of them joyn'd in an opinion ſo conſonant to reaſon? For although ſom ſpeak of this cauſe, others of that, why divorce may be, yet all agreeing in the neceſſary enlargement of that textual ſtraitnes, leave the matter to equity, not to literal bondage, and ſo the opinion cloſes. Nor could I have wanted more teſtimonies, had the cauſe needed a more ſollicitous enquiry. But herein the ſatisfaction of others hath bin ſtudied, not the gaining of more aſſurance to mine own perſwaſion: although authorities contributing reaſon withall, bee a good confirmation and a welcom. But God, I ſolemnly atteſt him, with held from my knowledge the conſenting judgement of theſe men ſo late, untill they could not bee my inſtructers, but only my unexpected witneſſes to partial men, that in this work I had not given the worſt experiment of an induſtry joyn'd with integrity and the free utterance though of an unpopular truth. Which yet to the people of England may, if God ſo pleaſe, prove a memorable informing; certainly a benefit which was intended them long ſince by men of higheſt repute for wiſedome & piety Bucer & Eraſmus. Only this one autority more, whether in place or out of place, I am not to omitt; which if any can think a ſmall one, I muſt bee patitient p. 97it is no ſmaller then the whole aſſembl'd autority of England both Church and State; and in thoſe times which are on record for the pureſt and ſincereſt that ever ſhon yet on the reformation of this Iland, the time of Edward the 6^th. That worthy Prince having utterly aboliſht the Canon Law out of his Dominions, as his Father did before him, appointed by full vote of Parlament, a Committy of two and thirty choſen men, Divines and Lawyers, of whom Cranmer the Archbiſhop, Peter Martyr, and Walter Haddon, (not without the aſſiſtance of Sir John Cheeke the Kings Tutor a man at that time counted the learnedeſt of Engliſhmen, & for piety not inferior) were the cheif, to frame anew ſom Eccleſiaſtical Laws, that might be in ſtead of what was abrogated. The work with great diligence was finiſht, and with as great approbation of that reforming age was receav'd; and had bin doubtleſſe, as the learned Preface thereof teſtifies, eſtabliſht by Act of Parlament, had not the good Kings death ſo ſoon enſuing, arreſted the furder growth of Religion alſo, from that ſeaſon to this. Thoſe laws, thus founded on the memorable wiſedome and piety of that religious Parlament and Synod, allow divorce and ſecond mariage not only for adultery or deſertion, but for any capital cnmity or plot laid againſt the others life, and likewiſe for evil and fierce uſage? nay the 12. Chap. of that title by plaine conſequence declares, that leſſer contentions, if they be perpetual, may obtaine divorce: which is all one really with the poſition by me held in the former treatiſe publiſht on this argument, herein only differing that there the cauſe of perpetual ſtrife was put for example in the unchangeable diſcord of ſom natures; but in theſe lawes intended us by the beſt of our anceſtors, the effect of continual ſtrife is determin'd no unjuſt plea of divorce, whether the cauſe be naturall or wilfull. Wherby the warineſſe and deliberation from which that diſcourſe proceeded, will appeare, & that God hath aided us to make no bad concluſion of this point; ſeeing the opinion which of late hath undergon ill cenſures among the vulgar, hath now prov'd to have don no violence to Scripture, unleſſe all theſe famous Authors alleg'd have done the like; nor hath affirm'd ought more then what indeed the moſt nominated Fathers of the Church both ancient and modern are unexpectedly found affirming, the lawes of Gods peculiar p. 98people, & of primitive Chriſtendom found to have practis'd, reformed Churches and ſtates to have imitated, and eſpecially the moſt pious Church-times of this Kingdom to have fram'd and publiſht, and, but for ſad hindrances in the ſudden change of religion, had enacted by Parlament. Hence forth let them who condemn the aſſertion of this book for new and licentious, be ſorry; leſt, while they think to be of the graver ſort, and take on them to be teachers, they expoſe themſelves rather to be pledg'd up and down by men who intimatly know them, to the diſcovery and contempt of their ignorance and preſumption.

The End.

Errata.

Pag. 57. lin. 16. and by them to proſecute, no comma between.

Pag. 88. lin. 3. Baſilius Macedo, no comma between.

End of the text · John Milton, Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage (1645)